the oppressed Hebrews in Egypt, of whom very many righteous men must have fallen victims to the calamities by which they were overwhelmed, while their oppressors enjoyed themselves to the end of life? It was therefore well known to him that the connexion of virtue and happiness and of vice and misery was not necessary. But it would not have comported with the design of the Pentateuch to touch this point; for there it was proper to give precepts and to urge the observance of them by suitable reasons, whereas to state that happiness did not always correspond with virtuous character, would have been to weaken the disposition and the efforts to obey. It is plain from history, that by virtue nations constantly struggle through difficulties and rise to distinction whereas vice enervates and depresses. This is the point which is urged by Moses in the Pentateuch, whereas in Job the discourse relates to individuals, not to communities.-3) The design of God in afflicting Job as it is explained in the first two chapters, was to manifest his sincerity and integrity; and not only do such tests of character occur in the histories of Abraham and Joseph, but in the subsequent books, Moses frequently warns the Hebrews to avoid certain things, because they were permitted by God to try them. See Ex. xv 25. xx. 20. Deut. vii. 19, viii. 2, 15, 16. xiii. 3, 4. xxix. 3. Job therefore does not disagree with the Pentateuch with respect to doctrine.

And if the character of the language breathes of Arabia, and the tropes allegories and comparisons are taken from that country, it is by no means to be concluded that Moses was not the author, since he was so long a resident among the Arabians. It is generally urged, that such an use of Arabian materials requires the author to have been educated in Arabia, since the character of a poet continues as it was formed in youth. But this can by no means be admitted, for the ardent genius and vivid imagination of the poet readily receives any impressions and changes with change of residence. Lastly, many things occur in Job which are plainly of Egyptian origin, verifying the observation,

Quo fuerit imbuta recens, servabit odorem.[a]

(a) Eichhorn lays great stress on this circumstance, that figures and illustrations taken from Arabia are constantly occurring as it were spontaneously, while those which the author draws from Egypt are less fre

quent; whence he concludes that Egypt could not have been his native country.But surely a long residence in Arabia, with the objects on which his figures were founded ever before his eyes, will sufficiently account for the poet's frequent reference to those objects. Eichhorn thinks that the book was written by some Hebrew who had not descended to Egypt with his brethren, (which, he says, must have been the case with many of that people, as the country of Goshen could not have supported all their cattle, comp. I Chron. vii. 21.), but had settled in some part of Arabia in the vicinity of Egypt, to which country, the principal residence of his nation, he supposes this master spirit to have travelled, as did Homer. See Einleit. 642, S. 171. Rosenmüller is in favour of a late date, and supposes the work to be a production of the period which elapsed between the times of Hezekiah and Zedekiah. Proleg. VII p. 41. Tr.]

§ 203. The design of Moses in writing the Book of Job.

If Moses is the author of the work, he wrote it while a fugitive from Egypt, during his residence in Arabia. This is confirmed by many circumstances in the book itself; such as, the omission of matters relating to the Hebrews, the use of words in meanings different from those which were afterwards attached to them by the law, the Arabic orthography, and the tropes and figures drawn from the country. It seems to have been the intention of Moses, to exhibit Job to the Hebrews, as an illustrious example of piety, integrity, and constancy in affliction, in order to induce them, while oppressed in Egypt, to persevere in the worship of the one true God. Accordingly, he represents the calamities of Job as probationary, serving as a test of his piety and virtue; and by the termination of Job's afflictions, he confirms their hope of deliverance. He proposes these instructions in an indirect way, and accommodates them not to the people as a body, but to individuals whose duty it was to bear their trials with patience and to persevere in the way of duty. Hence he explains in the first two chapters the design of the Almighty in afflicting Job, which any Hebrew might apply to himself. An allusion to the Hebrews seems to be evident in the discourses of Job and his friends; for it can scarcely be doubted that similar discussions took place among religious Hebrews, mindful of the divine promises, and their irreligious brethren, or Egyptians, and that many of the Hebrews were in this

way led to the worship of idols; a result which it was the object of Moses in this work to guard against and prevent.[a]

[a) In the German Introduction, p. 810-812, some objections of Michaelis are stated; viz., that in Job the controversy does not relate to the causes of the happiness or misery of nations, but of individuals; that the sufferings of Job contain no allusion however remote to the oppressions of the Hebrews; that Job never loses his independence, like them; and, that there is no reference to the promises which the Hebrews had inherited from their progenitor Abraham.

But, says the author, it is to be observed, that at the time of writing the work Moses was not at the head of the Hebrew nation, and had no idea that he was to become their leader. It would not therefore have been proper for him to address himself to them or to speak of them as a body; consequently he considers the Egyptian oppression in the light of an individual calamity, and selects a single person to serve as the example which he wished to exhibit. The important point was, to disclose the divine purpose in the afflictions of Job, and in the parallel case of the Hebrews. He chose to avoid all particular allusion to the oppressions of the latter, and all mention of their particular circumstances, and might well hope to make a strong impression, by representing the illustrious example of an unhappy pious Arabian, who, by his perseverance in piety, was restored to prosperity after great distresses.- -The opinion that Moses was the author of the book receives therefore an additional degree of probability; at least no other opinion agrees so accurately with the history of the time.

To this it may be added, that it was sufficient for the writer's purpose that a general degree of resemblance should exist; and, that any reference to the promises made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in a poem founded on facts which had transpired in Arabia or Idumea, and relating to a native of either of those countries, would have been irrelative and therefore objectionable.

The reasoning in this section, it may be observed, will be equally conclusive in favour of the opinion of Magee and others, that the book of Job was written before the time of Moses, but edited, with some additions and alterations, by him during his residence in Arabia, to subserve the divine purpose of shortly delivering the Hebrews from their bondage -provided that the other course of reasoning on which that opinion is founded, be deemed sufficient. MAGEE on Atonement, II. 82. ss. Tr.]

CHAPTER IV.

OF THE SONG OF SONGS, OR CANTICLES.

§ 204. Contents of the Canticles.

THE little work which bears the title of

12, Song of

Songs, or the most beautiful song, comprehends several amatory poems. Interpreters differ very much with respect to the separation of these poems; it appears to me that the distribution of the different songs should be as follows.

1) An innocent country maiden makes an undisguised profession of her attachment, and her lover, a shepherd, replies to it with equal protestation of affection, i. 2-ii. 7. Some prefer concluding this dialogue at i. 11., and making i. 12—ii. 7. a soliloquy, in which the maiden is supposed to repeat some compliments of her lover. But this is without sufficient reason.—2) A maiden sings of her lover, who is seeking her everywhere, and she also confesses her warm affection, ii. 8-iii. 5. Some suppose that ii. 8-14. is a dream, and that in v 15. the maiden awakes, who dreams again in iii. 1-5. But if these places are similar to dreams, it ought to be remembered that waking dreams are not uncommon with lovers. This the poet, true to nature, has here represented.- -3) A maiden, in a litter surrounded by Solomon's soldiers, is brought to the harem of the king. The lover prefers far before all the royal beauties his own beloved, in whose society he declares that he is happier than the king himself, iii. 6-v. 1. Some choose to make iv. 8-v. 1. a distinct poem, but they can hardly offer any sufficient reason for separating this portion from the other. Nevertheless, the distribution of the work into its

She

several parts must be left very much to the reader's own taste and feeling. 4) A maiden beloved sings of her lover. He had come to her door at night, and had fled away before she opened it. seeks him, is beaten by the watch, and stripped of her vail. She describes the beauty of her lover, who at length answers, celebrating her loveliness, with a contemptuous glance at the multitude of the king's wives, v. 2—vi. 9.—5) Shulamith recounts in few words the allurements of the courtiers whom she had met with unexpectedly in the garden, and her rejection of them, and celebrates her affection for her lover, vi. 10—viii. 3.—6) Protestations and praises of constant affection, viii. 4—7———7) A discourse between two brothers about guarding and giving away their sister in marriage, who replies with scorn, that she would be her own guardian, viii 8—12.-8) A fragment. A lover wishes to hear his beloved. She replies by persuading him to fly; perhaps because her parents or relations were near, who in the East never allow such meetings, viii. 13, 14.[a]

[a) Some of the preceding statements, especially the three last, are sufficiently fanciful. The reader must exercise his own judgment in receiving or rejecting them.—The opinion that the Song of Songs is made up of several distinct idyls, has been advanced by Bauer, Eichhorn, De Wette, Sir William Jones, and Good. See HORNE, Introd. IV. 127. S., EICHH. Einleit. § 649. S. 230. ff., and DE WETTE, Einleit, ¡ 276. anm. f) g) h). Tr.]

§ 205. Whether the different parts of the Canticles are connected, so as to form one poem.

*

Those writers who are of the opinion that these parts constitute one complete drama, under the guise of which subsists a real his tory,[a] are involved in great difficulties, and take too many things for granted to satisfy the minds of learned men." Besides, a real history is very seldom the ground work of amatory poems which are founded, for the most part, on circumstances of common occurrence. The reader, who does not anxiously hunt after a connexion, will

[See Salomo's verschmachte Liebe, Leipzig, 1790, [by AMMON,] or EICHHORN'S Bibliothek, Th. II. S. 1062. ff.-STAEUDLIN has in some degree simplified this hypothesis, see Memorabilia des PAULUS, St. II. S. 178.]