have come down to us through similar stages of heroic legend, oral preservation, collection, formal composition, and editorship, and is even illustrated in the origin of other less obscurely traceable books of the Bible. See Genesis. (5.) In defence of the theory that the book was written during the Assyrian invasion, B.C. cir. 700, see the introduction to Merx's Buck Job (Jena, 1870).
Y. Integrity of the Book. — It is satisfactory to find that the arguments employed by those who impugn the authenticity of considerable portions of this book are, for the most part, mutually destructive, and that tlie most minute and searching investigations bring out the most convincing proofs of the unity of its composition, and the coherence of its constituent parts. One point of great importance is noted by the latest and one of the most uigenious writers (M. E. Renan, Le Livre de Job, Par. 1859) on this subject. After some strong remarks upon the inequality of the style, and appearance of in- terpolation, jVI. E. Kenan observes (p. xliv) : " The He- brews, and Orientals in general, dift'ered widely from us in their views about composition. Their works never have that perfectly defined outline to which we are ac- customed, and we shoiUd be carefiU not to assume inter- polations or alterations {retouches) when we meet with defects of sequence which suri:)rise us." He then shows that in parts of the work, acknowledged by all critics to be by one hand, there are very strong instances of what Europeans might regard as repetition, or suspect of interpolation : thus EUhu recommences his argument four times; while discourses of Job, which have distinct portions, such as to modem critics might seem micon- nected and even misplaced, are impressed with such a character of sublimity and force as to leave no doubt that they are the product of a single inspiration. To this just and true observation it must be added that the assumed want of coherence and of logical consistency is, for the most part, only apparent, and results from a rad- ical difference in the mode of thinking and enunciating thought between the old Eastern and modern European.
1. Objections have been made to the introductorj' and concluding chapters (1.) on accomit of the style. Of course there is an obvious and natural difference be- tween the prose of the narrative and the highh- poetical language of the coUoquj'. Yet the best critics now ac- knowledge that the style of these portions is quite as antique in its simple and severe grandeur as that of the Pentateuch itself (to which it bears a striking resem- blance : see above, and comp. Lee, Job, p. 49), or as any other part of the book, while it is as strikingly unlike the narrarive style of all the later production's of the Hebrews. Ewald says with perfect truth, " These pro- saic words harmonize thoroughly with the old poem in subject-matter and thoughts, in coloring and in art; also in language, so far as prose can be like poetrj'." (2.) It is said, again, that the doctrinal views are not in harmony with those of Job. This is wholly unfounded. The fundamental principles of the patriarch, as developed in the most solemn of his discourses, are identical with those maintained throughout the book. The fomi of worship belongs essentially to the early patriarchal type; with little of ceremonial ritual, without a separate priest- hood, thoroughly domestic in form and spirit. The rep- resentation of the angels, and their appellation, "sons of God," peculiar to this book and to Genesis, accord entirely with the intimations in tlie earliest documents of the Shemitic race. (3.) It is, moreover, alleged that there are discrepancies between the facts related in tlie introduction, and statements or allusions in the dialogue. But the apparent contradiction between xix, 17 and the statement that all Job's children had perished rests upon a misinterpretation of the words "Oipa "^33, "chil- dren of my womb,""!, e. " of the womb that bare me" — I' my brethren," not " my children" (compare iii, 10) : indeed, the destruction of the patriarch's whole famUy is repeatedly assumed in the dialogue (e. g. viii. 4 ; xxix, 5). Again, the omission of all reference to the defeat
JOB
935
JOB
of Satan in the last chapter is quite in accordance with I at a later date, is far from weakening the force of his the grand simplicity of the poem (Schlottmann, p. 39, observation as to tlie identity of the style. 40). It was too obvious a result to need special notice, 4. The speech of Elihu presents greater difficulties, and it had, in fact, been accomplished by the steadfast I and has been rejected by several rationalists, whose faith of the patriarch even before the discussions com- opinion, however, is controverted not only by orthodox menced. No allusion to the agency of that spirit was writers, but by some of the most sceptical commenta- to be expected in the colloquy, since Job and his friends tors. The former su]5port their decision on the appar- are represented as wholly iarnorant of tlie transactions ent, and, to a certain extent, the real difference between
are represented as wholly ignorant in heaven. At present, indeed, it is generally acknowl- edged that the entire work would be unintelligible with- out these portions. (4.) The single objection (Renan, p. 40) which presents any difficulty on the ground of anachronism is the mention of the Chaldreans in the in- troductory chapter. It is certain that they first appear in Hebrew history about the year B.C. 770. But the name of Chesed, the ancestor of the race, is found in tlie genealogical table in Genesis (xxii, 22),a fact quite suf- ficient to prove the early existence of the people as a separate tribe. It is highly probable that an ancient race bearing that name in Kurdistan (see Xenoph. Cyr. iii, 1, 34 ; Anab. iv, 3, 4 ; v, 5, 17) was the original source