The traditionary view of the authorship of the book of Job ascribes it to Moses ; the arguments in favor of this view have been collected by Spanheim, and may be seen with replies in Wemyss {LiJ'e and Times of Job, p. 82 sq,). The following leading points are deserving of consideration : (1.) There is in the book of Job no direct rei'erence to the Mosaic legislation; and its descriptions and other statements are suited to the period of the pa- triarchs; as, for instance, the great authority held by old men, the high age of Job, and fathers offering sacri- fices for their families — which leads to the supposition that when our book was written no sacerdotal order yet existed. Nor is this ignoring of all the most interest- ing objects and associations of Judaism fiUly explainable oil the ground of the author s desire to base the question
JOB
934
JOB
at Issue wholly on religious consciousness and experi- ence: for many of the incidents of Jewish and even pa- triarchal history were too apposite to his topic to be passed over (e. g. the overtlirow of Pharaoh and the de- struction of the cities of the plain), unless we suppose a degree of studied impersonation at variance with the naUirahicss and practical aims of Scripture. (2.) The language of the book of Job seems strongly to support the^opiiiion of its having been -vvritten as early as the time of Moses. It has often been said that no writing of the Old Testament may be more frequently illustrated from the .Vrabic than this book. Jerome observes {Prce- fiil. in /AfH.), "Jobum cum Arabica lingua phu-imam "habere societatem ;" and Schidtens proved this so incoii- trovertibly that Gesenius was rather too late in denying the fact (see his Geschichte tier Hehrdischen Sjn-ache, p. 33). Now, from this character of its language we might be induced to infer that the work was written in the remotest times, when the separation of the dialects had only begun, but had not yet been completed. It is true that this peculiarity of idiom is not such as to be of it- self conclusive as to the date ; and it might even have been to some extent assumed in order to correspond with the foreign garb of the poem. It also contains some Aramaisms and other signs of degeneracy; but these (unless attributable to copyists) may easily be ac- counted for by the supposition of a later editorship merely. (3.) The Jewish tradition of the authorship of Moses (see Otho, Lex. Rabbin, p. 323 ; comp. Tobit ii, 1-2 ; Eiiseb. Prwp. Ev. ix, 25), although not entirely uniform, seems to have been firmly established at an early pe- riod ; and, lightly as it has been treated by some (see Dr. Davidson, in the new ed. of Home's Introd. ii, 727), still affords the only wTiter of sufficient note to whom the work has ever been definitely ascribed. The fa- cilities enjoyed Ijy Closes during his quiet sojourn in ilidian were greater perhaps than those of any other IIel)rew author for such a production ; and the contera- pl.itions of his ac:i>e and well-stored mind may have furnislied as ample a motive for the task as can be found at any otlier period, or in the case of any other writer to whom the book has been assigned, even if no special outward occasion can be shown to have led to the liter- ary effort at that time. This date, moreover, is pre- cisely such as to admit the incorporation of .Jewish the- ologv without its liistory, and affords a locality where all the elements of the poem were at hand, (-i.) The period in which Job liimself hved is a distinct question from that of the age in which the book was written, it being only necessary (on the supposition of the reality of the narrative) to locate the author subsequently to" the times of his hero, and under such circumstances as to suggest the topic. The ante-Mosaic date of Job's life is evident from his longevity (probably two centuries and a half, xUii, K!, 17— where the Sept. expressly gives his total age as 240 years, assigning, however, 170 of these as preceding his affliction), which seems to mark him as contemporary with I'eleg, Reu, or Serug (B.C. 2414-2122), as well as from the primirive character of his social relations, wliich are similar to those of Abra- ham (U.C. 2103-1988). His country coidd not have been far from the Sinaitic peninsiUa. See Uz. There is thus fi.und to be a reasonable presumption in favor of the Mosaic authorship of tliis book, so far as rime and place are concerned, while tliere is no internal evidence tiecidedly opposed to the tradition in its favor. Our conclusion, as being tlie most probable combination of all the facts in the case, is that, as a recitative poem in a rudimentary form, it was originally framed in Job's
age (by that romance style of
composition spontaneous
with Orientals), and that, in its Arabic dress, it was gathered by M„9es from the lips of the IMidianitish bards during his residence among them; that it was tirst composed by him in the Hebrew language, but not rcuiced to its present complete form tiU consi.lorably latcT. perhaps by Solomon. This progressive kind of authorslup IS vindicated by tlie fact that other epics