difference betv this and other parts of the book in tone of thought, in doctrinal views, and, more positively, in language and general style. Much stress also is laid upon the facts that Elihu is not mentioned in the introduction nor at the end, and that his speech is unanswered by Job, and unnoticed in the final address of the Almighty. These points were observed by very early writers, and were accounted for in various ways. On the one hand, Elihu was regarded as a specially inspired person (Schlott- mann, p. 53). • In the Seder Olam (a rabbinical system of chronology) he is reckoned among the prophets who declared the will of God to the Gentiles before the prom- ulgation of the law. S. Bar-Nachman (I'ith century)
of the nation, who were there trained in predatory hab- notes his connection with the family of Abraham as a its, and accustomed, long before their appearance in ! sign that he was the fittest person to expound the waj's
of God. The Greek fathers generally follow Chrysos- toni in attributing to him a superior intellect, while many of the best critics of the last two centuries con- sider that the true dialectic solution of the great prob- lems discussed in the book is to be found in his dis- course. On the other hand, Jerome, who is followed by Gregory, and many ancient as well as modem writers of the Western Church, speak of his character and argu-
history, to make excursions into the neighboring des- erts, a view quite in harmony with the part assigned to them in this book.
2. Strong objections are made to the passage chap, xxvii, from ver. 7 to the end of the chapter. Here Job describes the idtimate fate of the godless hypocrite in terms which some critics hold to be in direct contradic- tion with the whole tenor of his arguments in other dis-
courses. Dr. Kennicott, whose opinion is adopted by ments with singular contempt. Later critics, chiefly Eichhorn, Fronde, and others, held that, owing to some rationalists, see in him but an empty babbler, introduced confusion or omission in the MS., the missing speech of only to heighten by contrast the effect of the last solemn Zophar has been put into the mouth of Job. The fact and dignified discourse of Job. The alternative of re- of the contradiction is denied by able writers, who have jecting his speech as an interpolation was scarcely less shown that it rests upon a misapprehension of the pa- objectionable, and has been preferred by Stuhlinan,Bern- triarch's character and fundamental principles. He had stein, Ewald, Renan, and other writers of similar opin- been provoked under circumstances of peculiar aggrava- ions in other countries. A caiu'.id and searching exam- tion into statements which at the close of the discussion ination, however, leads to a different conclusion. It is he would be anxious to guard or recall : he was bound, \ proved (see Schlottman, Einl. p. 55) that there is a close having spoken so harshly, to recognise, what, beyond 1 internal connection between this and other parts of the doubt, he never intended to deny, the general justice of i book. There are references to numerous passages in the divine dispensations even in this world. Jloreover, he i discourses of Job and his friends, so covert as only to be intimates a belief or presentiment of a future retribu- ! discovered by close inquirj', yet, when pointed out, so tion, of which there are no indications in any other j striking and natural as to leave no room for doubt.
speaker (see ver. 8). The whole chapter is thoroughly coherent: the first part is admitted by all to belong to Job; nor can the rest be disjoined from it without inju- ry to the sense. Ewald says, •' Only a grievous misun- derstanding of the whole book could have misled the modern critics who hold that this passage is interpolated or misplaced." Other critics have abundantly vindi- cated the authenticity of the passage (Hahn, Schlott- mann, etc.). As for the style, E. Renan, a most com-
Elihu supplies exactly what Job repeatedly demands — a confutaticin of liis opinions, not merely produced by an ovenvhelmiiig di^^play of divine power, but by rational and human argunuiits, and proceeding from one not, like his other opponents, liigoted and hypocritical, but upright, candid, and truthful (comp. xxxiii, 3, with vi, 24, 25). The reasonings of Elihu are moreover such as are needed for the development of the doctrines incul- cated in the book, while they are necessarily cast in a
petent authority in a matter of taste, declares that it is j fonn which could not without irreverence be assigned one of the finest developments of the poem. It certain- ly differs exceedingly in its breadth, loftiness, and de- vout spirit from the speeches of Zophar, for whose si- lence satisfactory reasons have already been assigned (see the analysis). This last argument, however, ap- plies rather to chap, xxviii, which may, without any impeachment of the integrity of the poem, be regarded
to the Almighty. As to the objection that the doc- trinal system of Elihu is in some points more advanced than that of Job or his friends, it may be answered, first, that there are no traces in this discourse of certain doc- trines which were luidoubtedly known at the earliest date to which those critics would assign the inteqiola- tion, whereas it is evident that if known thev would