§ 196. The Hebrew text is not a version. [a]

That the disputants are Arabians, is no proof that the book was originally written in their language, and that the present Hebrew is a translation. Many passages do indeed occur, which must be explained from the Arabic; but it is not at all surprising that in a lofty poem we find many of the less common words and ideas, which the Hebrew, through the poverty of its literature, has lost, while they have been preserved by the Arabic, the richest of the sister dialects. The Arabic orthography frequently occurs, especially the omission of the Aleph, as for x, xv. 31. np for 'nap, xxxii. 18. But this is

no mark of a version, but merely a proof that the author had lived a considerable time among the Arabians. All doubt on this question is removed by the character of the style which is such as no version could exhibit.[b]

[a) Comp. EICHHORN, (Einleit. § 641. 1.) and particularly DE WETTE, Einleit. 291 anm. a), where there are numerous references given, in proof of the Hebrew origin of the book. Tr.]

[b) "The language," says EICHHORN, ubi supra, "is too strong and nervous; the sentences are too pointed; the style is too full and round, and harmoniously constructed. The remarkable parallelism, which is in no book so accurately kept up from beginning to end, would be unattainable in a translation. Tr.]

§ 197.

The Author of the Book of Job was a Hebrew.

As the book was written in Hebrew and not in Arabic, there can be no question that its author was a Hebrew, for none other could have used that language with so much flexibility. In no other ancient nation are to be found such views of the Deity and of morals as are displayed in Job; and the use of the name JEHOVAH in the introduction and conclusion, shows the author to have been a Hebrew. It is a mistake, therefore, to suppose that it is the work of some Edomite or Arab, from whom the Hebrews would not have received the book as a sacred composition. If frequent Arabisms occur, nothing more can be inferred from this than the author's long residence

in Arabia. He certainly did not live in Palestine, for he is totally silent on matters relating to this country, while he shows himself well acquainted with those which relate to Egypt and Arabia; which would be wholly unaccountable in a native, and resident of Palestine.

§ 198. Does the Book of Job belong to the period of the Babylonian Captivity.

The artificial construction of the book of Job, the elegance and sublimity of its style, the strongly marked traits of the respective characters which are maintained through the whole of the discussion, the increase of feeling with the progress of the debate, together with the purity of the language, abundantly prove, that it is not the production of an age, when the Hebrews, conquered cut off, and exiled, possessed neither inclination nor means for the cultivation of elegant literature. The question, moreover, which is discussed in the book, and had been treated in Ps. xxxvii. xxxix. and lxxiii. could not be agitated in the time of the Babylonian captivity, when the Hebrews, not innocent, like Job, but idolatrous and corrupted with all kinds of vice, were suffering the just punishment of their wickedness. The Satan or accuser who is introduced in this book is not the devil or the Ahriman of the Magians, but some one of the sons or ministers of God,[a] distinguished from the others simply by this, that assuming to himself more than ordinary sagacity in discovering hidden wicked ness, he was accustomed to seek out, and trace, and denounce some evil or other in every thing. Nor are the sons of God to be considered as modern notions of the Magians, for attendants of this kind are mentioned in Gen. xxviii. 12. xxxii. 1. Ex. xxxiii. 1-6. I Kings xxii. 19. and Isa. vi.; and indeed these sentiments of the Magians were by no means novel in the time of Zoroaster, who himself contends for their very great antiquity.The forms of words which have been called Chaldee, are also Arabic.

[a) See MAGEE on Atonement, Vol. II. p. 67. ss. Tr.]

199.

Does the Book of Job belong to the age of Solomon.

So much attention was paid to literature in the age of Solomon, and even in that of David, that the book of Job could have been written by some person of that period. But then he must have seen Arabia and Egypt, and that not during the short space of time afforded by a journey; he must have made those countries the places of long residence, must have rendered all their objects so familiar to him as to use them with readiness on all occasions. Perhaps also, (although this is not probable ) he might have forgotten all Hebrew objects, and have brought forward a scene altogether Arabian. But the question is not whether it were possible to write such a book in that age, but whether it be probable that the book of Job was then composed, when nothing similar is to be found among many writings of that time. -It is not mentioned among the works of Solomon in I Kings v. 12, 13. (iv. 32 33.)

The arguments which are advanced in favour of this opinion are of little weight. The most important is that many words occur which are used in the book of Proverbs. But this only proves that the book of Job, being more ancient, had been carefully read by the author, (or, if it be preferred the authors,) of the Proverbs, and its words transferred from sublime poetry to acute and sententious sayings.- -But on the other hand many expressions occur in the book of Job which are scarcely or never to be met with except in the Pentateuch, as 1 and 2 in Job xviii. 19. and Gen. xxi. 23, and else

-T

where only in Isa. xiv. 22.; or only in Job xvi. 11. and Num. xxii. 32.; † in Job xxxix. 26. and Lev. xi. 16. Deut. xiv. 15; nop in Job xlii. 11. Gen. xxxiii. 19. and Jos. xxiv. 32.; ha in Job xxxi. 11. Ex. xxi. 22. Deut. xxxii. 31.; ♬ in Job xxxiii. 10. and Num. xiv. 34. And further expressions which are not to be met with in the Pentateuch rarely or never occur in Job, as 2, which is used

twelve times in Proverbs, and in the other books more than fifty times, but in Job only once, xli. 15.; ", which in Job only occurs

in v. 17.; nixay in, the prefix v, and other words in common use.

::

Besides, some ancient words are observable, which are never found elsewhere. Comp. i. 22. xlii. 8, and o in i. 11. ii. 5. v. 8. xi. 5. xii. 7. xiii. 3 4. xiv. 18. xvii 10. xxxii. 1.- -Lastly, it is not probable, that the name of the author if he had lived in the time of David or of Solomon would not have been preserved to posterity.[a]

[a) In his German Introduction, p. 787-799, the author examines the arguments in defence of the opinion that the work belongs to the age of Solomon, which are advanced in STAUEDLIN'S Beitraege zur Philosophie und Geschichte der Religion und Sittenlehre, II Th. 1797, S. 235–255. The arguments for that opinion are also given by ROSENMUELLER, Prol. in Scholia, § vii. p. 36. ss. Tr.]

§ 200. Whether Job was written prior to the Exode.

In the book of Job we meet with nothing which could not have been written before the Exode. Now it is quite improbable that a writer posterior to this event should have possessed so much ingenuity and art, as to transfer himself entirely to such a remote antiquity, and, altogether unmindful of the events of his own age, to write as if he had lived antecedently to the Exode. Neither is it easy to conceive, that a Hebrew of Palestine should acquire such a profound knowledge of Egypt and Arabia, as the author of this book exhibits. Great art is indeed discoverable in the arrangement, in the elocution, and in the character of the persons introduced; but not so great as to be incompatible with that age, of which we have poems extant in Ex. xv. Deut. xxxii. Ps. xc. Num. xxi. 27–30. xxiii. 7-10, 18-24 xxiv. 3-9, 15-24. These, as well as the poems of Job xxvii. 1. xxix. 1. are called '; a term, by which Solomon does not designate sublime poetry, but sententious sayings.

§ 201. Of the Author of the book of Job.

It was the opinion of the Talmudists, and of many of the Greek and Syrian fathers, that this book was written by Moses. He was a man endowed with extraordinary mental qualities, as is attested by his actions, his books and his poems. A residence of 40 years in

Egypt and 40 in Arabia made him thoroughly acquainted with those countries. In the Pentateuch he displays also a vast knowledge of arts, and of natural history, and especially of that of the leprosy. He constantly and with seriousness inculcates the religion of the one true God which he had received from his ancestors, together with the strictest morality. All these characteristics occur in the book of Job, which also maintains a deep silence respecting Palestine and subjects connected with it, where Moses never was. The coincidence of this book with what we find in the writings of Moses renders it highly probable that he was the author.[a]

[a) See, however, MAGEE, ubi supra, p. 82. ss. or HORNE, Introd. IV. p. 74. who suppose the book to have been written before the time of Moses. In this opinion also, EICHHORN agrees, and supports it at length, 641, 642. So also STUHLMANN, and BERTHOLDT, as cited by DE WETTE. MICHAELIS, KENNICOTT, and many others, agree with Jahn.

Tr.]

§ 202. Objections to the opinion that Moses is the author of this Book.

"But in the books of Moses, uprightness is always connected with happiness, and wickedness with misery; and since the author of the book of Job denies that such affinity exists, he cannot be Moses.”

If the book of Job were indeed in this respect repugnant to the writings of Moses, the Hebrews would never have admitted it into the Canon. But so far are the two works from presenting any contrariety of sentiment on this point, that they are found, upon an accurate examination, entirely to correspond.—1) Job is at length restored, and becomes happier than before his affliction, which agrees exactly with the history that Moses has given of Joseph, xxxvii. 1— 1. 26.-2) Job delivers his opinion, in language heightened by feeling, that good men may be miserable and bad happy; but he never questions the advantages of virtue, and that ordinarily it leads to felicity, and that on the contrary, vice is injurious, and ordinarily leads to misery. The principle which he contends for is this, that this connexion is not perpetual and invariable, but liable to many exceptions, the reasons of which are beyond the reach of mortals. And was not Moses instructed in this very truth by the example of