On the whole, the use of parallel passages in this instance seuiiis to mark out the fjcneral posi- tion of .lob in relation to other OT literature, rathor than to li.\ delinitel.y its date in relation to i)articnlar hooks. All the signs point to a period -subsequent to the 7th cent. D.C, though now much later, remains undecided. As Mar- poliouth has pointed out, the references to Ophir in 2'J-^ "^S'" give a terminus a nuo in the Solomonic period, and a comparison with 1 Ch 21', in which Satan is used a.s a proper name, shows that Job 1 and 2, etc., in which the article is used, must have been written earlier. This furnishes a ter- minus (III quern in the 4th cent. B.C. The alter- natives lie between the ' very late date somewhere in the Persian jieriod ' favoured by Margoliouth and Cheyne, and a date somewhat, tliough not much, earlier than the Bah. captivity, which appears to the writer the more probable. The range of a century earlier or later than the Exile would bo sullicieiit to include all but the most extreme of modern critics.
LiTKRATUKB. — The following may be mentioned amongst the writers who have contributed to the elucidation of the Bk. of Job during the Christian era, but chieHy during the last ccn- turv. Origen's contributions towards tiie study of the text, and Jerome's translation, have been already referred to. Not ■lonv of the early Christian writers cuniniented on Job, but the Scholia of Enhraem Syrus may be mentioned, and the bulkv commentary of Gregory tlie Great, Moralia in Jobum, in which exposition proper is overlaid by a discussion of an endless variety of doctrinal and ethical questions. Amongst the Jewish expositors of the Middle Ages. H. Sa'adya Gaon wrote brief notes in Arabic, and besides Ibn Ezra and Itoslii, the two most important conmientaries are those of It. Moses ben Nach- man and H. Levi ben Gerson, of the I3tli and 14th centd. respectively. At the time of the Uefonnation, Luther char- fcclcristtcAlly illustrated the new spirit of exegesis by the way In which he handled the Bk. of Job ; his remarks gave offence to raanv by their freedom. The Cuncmnes of Calvin exhibit the ■treiigth and lucidity characteristic of that prince of expositors.
Ii the IHth cent. Alb. Schult4-ns (1737) opened a new ejHK'h tc the stiiily of Job by his philological notes, illustrating the meaning of words largely — some have thought too largely — from the Arabic Iteiske (17710 ond Schnurrer (1781) followed in the same direction. In the i>resfnt century the number of commentaries on Job has multiplied very largely. The follow- ing list of selected literature during the last half century does not profess to be exhaustive o|r exactly chronological, the dates atlixed usually Indicating the publication of the first and lost editions.
Unihreit. Dot B. Iliob (I824-ls;i2); Ewald, Dichlrrdrt A. B. III. (I.'<;«l-18.'i4); -Stickel. IMu Ii. Uioli (1842); Schloltnmnn, Dpi B. Uiob 0861); Renan. U Livn dt Job (1869); Frz.
con-
Delitzsch, Dan B. Tlinb (1804-1878); Ilengstenberg, Dtu B Uiob erltiulei-t (1870-1876); Jlerx, Dan Gcdichl con Uiol (1871); Zockler in lunge's Bibetu-erk (1872); Ilitzig, I)a» B. Uiob (1874); liudde, Utitruije zur Krilik ./<■« D. Iliob (1878); //io6 (in Nowack's Uandkom. 1890, a suimnary of the elusions of which is given by Budde himself in Kipon. Ti Deo. 1890, p. Ill fl.); Reuss, La Sainte Libit, pt. « (1878-1888) Volck in Ku.rzge,f. A'omin. (1859); Dillmann in Kurzji/. Kjxg U'buch (1891) ; Duhm, Da» B. Uiob erklitrt (in Molirs Kvrzer Hand -Cam. 1897); also Beer, Text dct B. Uiob tml<rtucht (1895), Of these, Umbreit, Ewald, Renan, Delitzsch, and Zockler have been translated into English. Amongst recent English writers may be named Cook in Speaker's Com.' (1880); Cox, Commentary and yew Translation (1880); and llateson Wright, Traiulation, with Emaye, rhiejly Critical (1883). A. B. Davidson puljlished in 1802 a full couinientary based upon the Heb., but this included only chs. 1-14, and has not been completed. In 1884 his English commentary appeared ('"'a i/i^i- B. Jor SchooU). Cheyne, Job and .'<olotnon (1887) ; llradley, Li'ctureg on Job (1887) ; H. A. Watson in Kxj/o.fiior'g liihle ( 1892) ; also Hawlinson in Pulpit Cnmmentari/ (1891). The section on the lik. of Job found in each of the chief 'Introductions' to the OT should, of course, be consulted. The following may be mentioned as representative :— Bleek (0th edition bv WciUiausen, 1893), Riehm (ed. Brandt, 1889), Driver (6th ed. 1897), and Cornill (3i'd and 4tfi ed. 1896). Amongst separate articles some of the most nofeworthv are Riehm, /.citschr. /. LAitk. Theol. (18«(i); (ioclet, Etfides Iliblujtles (1874); Budde, iiei<r(i./e (1876), X ATW (las-iX 19;)- '247; Uiescbrccht, Wendepnnkl des 11. U. (1879) ; Kleinert, Das sprci/tsch Uebrditiche in B. U. in .Stud. u. A'rif. (18S0) ; C. H. Wright, Biil. iVsn^? (18S0); .Mozley in Bibl. and Theol. Essays (ls7s); Dillmann, Textkritixclies zum B. U. in Sitz. Bei. der K. Akait. d. Wis., Be-lin (1890); 03 well as the monographs of Grill and Laue mentioned above. The present writer has dealt with the subject in his Wisdom Litera- ture 0/ Old re»t. (1893). w. T. Davison.
JOBAB (3;v).— 1. Name of a son of Joktan, Gn 10-'9(lCh r^): identified byGlaser(57>-i>re,ii.314)and others with 3D'.t, a jdace mentioned in a S.-ibiean inscrijition (CIS iv. p. 55; Cilaser, .Mitl/iciluni/en, 3 11'.). The author of that inscription sjieaks of his ' fathers and uncles' as governors of YIIYI!!?, and fuitlier mentions a king of Saba, Karibail Wathar, whom there is reason to j)lace in the middle of tlie 8th cent. B.C. The name is .said to occur in another inscription also (Glaser, Skizzc, ii. 303) ; but in neither is there anything which lixes its locality, though its governors would appear to have been vassals of the kings of Saba. It is variously re'id Ynhaibub and Yiihaihib, and is compared by J. Derenbourgwith the Arab. yrtJdi,' a desert.' F.arlier commentators thought of the 'lu^apirai oi Ptolemy {vi. 7. 24), and indeed one recension of the LXX has the form 'lo^ip. This name seems to oorres|iond with the -Vrabic H'nbdr (so Sprenger), which denotes a con.siderable portion of Yemen ' all between Najran and I.Iadramaut, Mahrah and Shihr ' (Yakut). Neither of these identilicati«ms can be considered more than conjectural. 2. .A king of Kdom, Gn :!6=^'- = 1 Ch 1"'-, confused in L.\.\ of Job 42'"' with Job (see above, p. GGO"). 3. .\ king of Madon, Jos 11'. i. 5. Two nenjamitcs, 1 Ch !S-'- '». D. S. Margolioutii.