ix. 6 with Job xii. 15; and on this, see Häv. p. 353, and Schlottmann, p. 109.

(10) Ps. cii., civ., cvii., and cxlvii. contain reminiscences from Job. On the contrary, use has been made of Ps. xxxix. 14 in Job ix. 27, x. 20; of Ps. lviii. 9 in Job iii. 16; of Ps. lxix. 33 in Job xxii. 19; of Ps. ciii. 15 f. in Job vii. 10 and xiv. 2. Comp. Häv. p. 356. (11) The affinity of Job and Proverbs had been already remarked by Calmet, dissertt. sur l'écrit. s. ii. p. 168; Michaelis, Einl. pp. 92-3; Rosenmüller, Schol. p. 35 sqq.; and Gesenius, ut supra: but a sufficiently critical estimate had not been made. There are many peculiar words and concepts common to the two Prov. vii. 18, Job xx. 18, xxxix. 13; niban, Job i. 5, xi. 14, and often; n, Job v. 2, Prov. xx. 19; Prov. xvi. 26 [in the former a noun, in xii. 5 and often, Prov. xxiv. 22;

books, such as oby, xxxvii. 12, Prov.

2, Job xxxiii. 7, the latter a verb]; T, Job 2, Job v. 4, Prov. xxii. 22;

แ "to drink up iniquity like water," Job xv. 16, xxxiv. 7 [drink scorning], Prov. xxvi. 6 [drink violence]; also

, Job xxvi. 6 and an, Job v. 12, vi.

often, Prov. xv. 11, xxvii. 20 (Ps. lxxxviii. 12); 13, and often, Prov. ii. 7, iii. 21, viii. 14, xviii. 1 (elsewhere only Mic. vi. 9, Isa. xxviii. 29). To this class also belong especially the passages Job xv. 7, Prov. viii. 25; Job xxi. 17, and Prov. xiii. 9, xx. 20, xxiv. 20; Job xxviii. 18 and Prov. iii. 15, and others. Comp. Häv. pp. 354-5.

(12) Such are the mention of remarkable animals, the hippopotamus, the crocodile, the ostrich (xxx. 29, xxxix. 13 ff.); of costly merchandise (xxviii. 15, 17 ff.), gold of Ophir (xxii. 24, xxviii. 16), pearls or corals (xxviii. 18; comp. Prov. iii. 15, viii. 11, xx. 15, xxxi. 10). Comp. Häv. pp. 357-8.

The author was neither a foreigner (13), nor a Hebrew living in Idumea or Egypt (14). He was a member of the theocracy, whose home was in Judah, perhaps born in the mountainous country of southern Judea, familiar with the traditions of early times, and well acquainted with the modes of life and the intercourse of the nations, with the nature of his own country, and (perhaps by travelling) with Egypt also and its wonders. But it is impossible to determine anything more precise as to its personality (15).

(13) The opinions that our book is a translation from an Aramaic or Arabic original (as the addition to the Septuagint says, oros ἑρμηνεύεται ἐκ τῆς Συριακῆς βίβλος [upon which Bleek, p. 658,

remarks, that most probably our Hebrew copy is intended by an inexact expression, otherwise it must be regarded as decidedly false]; Aben Ezra on Job ii. 11, and others: comp. Spanheim, histor. Jobi, cap. 13 sqq., and Carpzov, p. 52 sqq.), or that the author was an Idumean (Herder, Ilgen [see the extract from Bleek inserted in Note 1]) or a Nahorite (Niemeyer, Characteristik der Bibel, ii. p. 480, and already some older writers in Heidegger's Enchiridion, p. 242 sq.), rest upon a total misunderstanding of the subject-matter as well as of the form of the book.

(14) Eichhorn (Einl. v. 153-4) held that the author was a Hebrew, who lived in Idumea before the time of Moses, erroneously confounding the home of Job with the poet's fatherland, and misunderstanding the theocratic aim and spirit of the poem. Hitzig, again (Jesai. p. 285), and Hirzel (Hiob, p. 12), think that he lived in Egypt, on account of the acquaintance with Egyptian objects and relations which he displays; and Ewald, p. 322, would have it that at least ch. xl. 15-xli. 26 were composed there. Against this, comp. Stickel, p. 263 ff.; Häv. p. 333 ff.; and Schlottmann, p. 111 ff. [Bleek, pp. 660-1, also rejects this notion, and Bunsen's conjecture that the individual exile who wrote it was Baruch. He observes that the very astonishment with which behemoth and leviathan are described, is a hint that the writer did not know them so early and so long as a dweller in the land would have done.]

T:

(15) In favour of southern Judea as the home of the author, Stickel, p. 276, lays stress especially on the agreement in dialectic peculiarities with those of the prophet Amos, who belonged to Tekoa (namely, with for y, vi. 8; pp with D for v, vi. 10; Dia with for D, v. 11; P with for y, vii. 16); the peculiar character and situation of this border-land, in which the tracks of the caravans of Tema and Sheba crossed one another, and other similar matters, with reference to which Schlottmann, p. 112 ff., has attempted more precisely to determine the circumstances of the author's life. [Bleek, p. 660, leans to the same opinion, and thinks the absence of any reference to Jerusalem furnishes a presumption that he lived at a distance from the centre of public worship. Delitzsch, in his article on Job in Herzog, as well as in his more recent Commentary, dwells upon the resemblances in circumstance and in language between the book of Job and Ps. lxxxviii., on account of which he is disposed tɔ assign them to the same author.j

§ 123. Genuineness and Integrity of the Book.

Although the book of Job gives such a strong impression of a well-arranged whole, thoroughly rounded off and complete, still misunderstandings of various kinds have led men to mistake about its internal unity and its integrity. This has led them to reject as spurious interpolations, not only the prologue and the epilogue (i., ii«, xlii. 7–17), but also various parts of the poem (xxvii. 7-xxviii. 28, xl. 15-xli. 26), but especially the discourses of Elihu (xxxii.-xxxvii.) (1).

(1) This arbitrary kind of criticism is pushed to the uttermost by Magnus, p. 8, who not only adds ch. xxviii. to those passages now named as being utterly spurious, but has besides discovered transpositions in twenty-two places, according to his own account.

I. The genuineness of the prologue and the epilogue was assailed on account of their prose form, in which respect they deviate from the principal mass of the book; on account of the use of the name Jehovah, instead of those names which prevail in the poem, Elôah, Shaddai, and El [Bleek, p. 654, rejects all notion of this proving a difference of authorship, though he thinks the occurrence of Jehovah in xii. 9 and xxviii. 28 may argue a certain inexactness in the writer's representation]; and on account of certain differences alleged to exist between the prologue and the epilogue on the one hand, and the poem on the other (2). But the prologue and the epilogue are narratives; and prose is the only possible and adequate form in which the subject-matter can be presented. And the distinction in the use of the divine names is to be explained by the intention of the author in the dialogues to select names suitable to the patriarchal times, or usual among those who were not Israelites: whereas, when he is speaking in his own person, he selects the genuine theocratic name Jehovah, not only in the prologue and epilogue, but also in the historical notices interspersed among the discourses, xxxviii. 1, xl. 1, 3, 6, xlii. 1; nay, even once in a discourse of Job's, xii. 9, where there is an allusion to Genesis (3). Then the contradictions which are alleged to exist between the poem and the prologue and epilogue rest upon mere misunderstandings: and the same is to be said of the assertions, that in the poem Job is represented as falling into sin, whereas in the epilogue God acquits him ;

that in the poem the mere external doctrine of retribution is combated, whereas it is again treated as valid in the epilogue; and that in the prologue Job's children perish, whereas they appear in the poem to be still alive (4). And the latter part of the assertion, that in the prologue the reason of Job's temptation is set forth as a transaction between God and Satan, whereas in the poem itself it appears to be an insoluble riddle, is unfounded: for the resolution in the court of heaven is hidden only from Job and his opponents, while it is the poet's very intention by means of the prologue to give the reader a glimpse into the complication of matters as occurring in the higher world (5). Without the prologue and the epilogue, the whole poem would become an unintelligible riddle (6).

(2) The view of R. Simon (hist. crit. Vet. Test. p. 28) and Schultens, followed by Hasse, Magazin f. d. bibl. orient. Literatur, i. p. 162 ff.; Stuhlmann, p. 23 ff.; Bernstein; Knobel, l.c. p. 31 sqq. [Bleek, p. 654, adds, in the theol. Studien u. Krit. 1842, 2, pp. 485495. He says that the opinion of Carpzov was that Job himself wrote the speeches, before the time of Moses; and that the prologue and epilogue were written later, by Samuel]; Magnus, and others.

(3) See other explanations of this distinction in Här. pp. 344–5. (4) Comp. Häv. p. 362 ff.; Schlottmann, p. 37 ff. As regards Job's children, the text ch. xix. 17 is not adopted to prove their continuance in life, because there is a controversy as to its interpretation (comp. Schröring in the theol. Studien u. Krit. 1843, p. 995 ff., and see the various meanings attached to it in Hahn's Comm.); also because viii. 4 unmistakeably intimates the loss of Job's sons: ch. xxxi. 8 needs to be understood of children just as little as xxix. 5.

(5) The offence taken by critics like Bernstein at the miraculous circumstances in the prologue, or in general at the mention of Satan, belong to those dogmatic prejudices which ought not to be taken into account in critical questions. [Bleek, p. 655, mentions the opinion of Heiligstedt only to reject it, that i. 6-12 and ii. 1-7 are not genuine.] Nor is there any foundation for the opinion of Herder, Eichhorn, Stuhlmann, Bertholdt, and Ewald, that the Satan of the prologue is different from the Satan of the later books. Against it, see Schlottmann, p. 38 ff.

"Opus ex

(6) [In this opinion Bleek coincides, pp. 654-5.] parte imperfectum habes, meros sermones, quorum causam, rationem, et finem ignoras, exordium et clausulam si demas" (Rosenmüller, Schol. p. 46).

II. The suspicion that ch. xxvii. and xxviii. have been misplaced, or that they are spurious, has arisen from a want of insight into the internal arrangement of the poem (7). It has not been understood that what Job says in ch. xxvii. of the judgment impending over the wicked, is only the limitation of what he had said before in delineating the good fortune of the wicked, when in opposition to his friends he had brought forward this side of the subject and given emphasis to it alone, and that thus it meets their misapprehension that he meant to deny a judgment of any kind. At the same time, his delineation in ch. xxviii. of the hidden wisdom of God, shows that the distribution of good and ill fortune among men remained to him an unsolved riddle (8).

(7) Following Kennicott, dissert. gener. in Vet. Test. ed. Bruns, p. 539 sq., Eichhorn, in the allg. Bibliothek d. bibl. Liter. ii. p. 613, Bertholdt (Einl. p. 2163), and Stuhlmann (exeg. krit. Bemerkk. p. 76 ff.) had attributed ch. xxvii. 13-23 to Zophar (Stuhlmann indeed beginning at ver. 11, and also giving ch. xxviii. to Bildad); and Bernstein, p. 133 ff., had declared the whole section xxvii. 7-xxviii. 28 to be spurious,—an opinion which Knobel, l.c. p. 27 sq., restricts to ch. xxviii. ; whereas De Wette, § 288, lays the burden of indistinctness at least, perhaps also of inconsequential statements, upon the poet. (8) Comp. Bouillier, p. 255 sq.; Häv. pp. 365-6; Schlottmann,

p. 52.

III. The descriptions of the hippopotamus and crocodile (xl. 15-xli. 26) have been suspected and even pronounced to be later interpolations, as if they were in conflict with the meaning of the second discourse of God, as wanting in connection, and as far removed by their prolixity from the rapidity, delicacy, and easiness of the older descriptions of the animals (9). But this is erroneous. The basis of the two first objections is the error that the first discourse of Jehovah (xxxviii. and xxxix.) is intended to delineate only the divine omnipotence, and the second discourse (xl.) only the divine righteousness; whereas this separation of the divine attributes is foreign to the writer. For, in the first discourse, the intention in delineating God's power is to remonstrate with Job on his folly in striving with God; and then the second discourse aims at displaying to him the audacity of his presumptuous undertaking, to which the question in