as an ombelUshment representing the times and senti- have been adduced as the very strongest arguments for ments of the final editor (i. e. Solomon). I a warning and consolation. No reader of the Psalms and
3. The last two chapters of the address of the Al- 1 of the Prophets could have failed to urge such topics as mighty have been rejected as interpolations by many, I the resurrection, the future judgment, and the personal of course rationalistic, writers (Stuhlman, Bernstein, 1 advent of Messiah. Secondly, the doctrinal system of Eichhold, Ewald, jMeier), partly because of an alleged i Elihu differs rather in degree than in kind from that inferiority of style, partly as not having any bearing \ which has been either developed or intimated in several upon the argument ; but the connection of reasoning, j passages of the work, and consists chiefly in a specific involved, though, as was to be expected, not drawn out, j application of the mediatorial theory, not luiknown to in this discourse, has been shown in the preceding anal- Job, and in a deeper appreciation of the love manifested
ysis; and as for the style, few who have a true ear for the resonant grandeur of ancient Hebrew poetry will dissent from the judgment of E. Renan, whose sugges-
in all providential dispensations. It is quite consistent with the plan of the writer, and with the admirable skill shown in the arrangement of the whole work, that the
tion, that it may have been -written by the same author I highest view as to the object of afflictions, and to the
JOB
936
JOB
source to which men should apply for comfort, and in- I Rupert, TnJobum (in 0pp. i, 1034) ; Peter of Blois, Com-
pendium (in 0pp. iii, 19) ; Aquinas, Commentarii (in 0pp. i; also Ven. 1505, fol.; Eom. 1562, 4to) ■, Banolas (i. e. Kalbag), "CJ^IQ (Ferrara, 1477, 4to; with various super- comments, Naples, 1486, 4to; and in Bomberg's Rabbinic Bibles); Arama, "liXp (Salonica, 1517, folio; Eiva da Trento, 1562, 4to; Ven. 1567, 4to) ; Bugenhagen, Adno- tationes (Argent, et Basil. 1526, 8vo) ; Bucer, Commen- taria (Argent. 1528. folio); CEco\sim\>aA\ns, Exegemata (Basil 1531, fol.. 1 ::;:;. i:>:!i;. 4to; Genev. 1532, 1553, 1578, fol.; in French. <.<im\-. I.h'.J. 4to) ; Borrhiius, Cormmn- tarius (Argent. 15;j2, Basil. 1539, 1544, Genev. 1590, fol.) ; Cajetan, Comnientarius (Rom. 1535, folio); Is. ben-Salo- mon (ha-Kohen), d^lQ (Constantin. 1545, 4to) ; Titel- mann, Elucidatio (Paris, 1548, 1550, 8v"0; 1553, 12mo;
struction, should bo reserved for this, wliich, so far as re- gards the human reasoners, is the cidminating pomt of the discussion. Little can be said for Lightfoot's theory that the whole work was composed by Elihu, or for E. Kenan's conjecture that this discourse may have been composed by the author in his old age ; yet these views imply an unconscious impression that Elihu is the full- est exponent of the truth. It is satisfactory to know that two of the most impartial and discerning critics (Kwald and Kenan), who unite in denying this to be an original and integral portion o» the work, fiUly acknowl- edge its intrinsic excellence and beautj'.
Tliere is no dilflculty in accounting for the omission of Elihu's name in the introduction. No persons are named in the book until they appear as agents, or as otherwise concerned in the events. Thus .Job's breth- [ Lugd. 1554, Antw. 1566, 12rao) ; FeTus,£xplicatio (Col. ren are named incideittally in one of his speeches, and I 1558, 1574, Lugdun. 1567, 8vo) ; Lutzius, Adnotationes his relatives are, for the "first time, in the concluding j (Basil. 1559, 1563, 8vo) ; Calvin, Sermons (in French, chapter. Had Elihu been mentioned at lirst, we should j Genev. 1563, 1611, fol. ; in Lat. ib. 1569, 1593, fol. [ako of course have expected him to take part in the discus- i in Op}), iii] ; in Engl, Lond. 1584, fol.; iu Germ., Herb, sion, and the impression made by his startling address j 1587, 4 vols. 4to) ; Strigel, Scholia (Lipsias, 1566, 1571, would have been lost. Job does not answer him, nor, | 1575, 8vo) ; Steuch, Enarrationes (Ven. 1567, 4to) ; Fo- indeeil, coidd he deny the cogency of his arguments, j bian (Mos. b.-EL), D^S'lFl, etc. (moderji Greek in Heb. while this silence brings out a curious point of coinci- | characters, Constantinople, 1576, 4to) ; Ibn-Jaish (Bar. dence with a previous declaration of the patriarch (vi, ! b^n-Is.), r.na mp?: [includ. Eccles.] (Constant. 1576, 24, 2o). Agam, the discourse, bemg substantially true, i ., , ^^ ' \ ' ^ .,. ,„ ^ ^o, .^ ^ -,-. tt
did nut need correction, and is therefore left unnoticed I fol.) ! Marlorat.us, i^po..^*o_ (Genev. 1581, 4 o) ; De Hu- in the final decision of the .Umighty. Nothing, indeed, 1 ^^S^, Commmtarta [on ch. i-xviu, includ. Cant,] (Com- could be more in harmony with the ancient traditions P.'^„' "^ \' ^ ') ' of the East than that a youth, moved by a special and supernatural impulse to speak out God's truth in the presence of his elders, should retire into obscurity when he had done his work. More weight is to be attached to the objection resting upon diversity of style and dia- lectic peculiarities. The most acute critics differ in- deed in their estimate of both, and are often grossly de- oeived (see .Schlottmann, p. 61) ; still, there can be little doubt as to the fact. It may be accounted for either on the supposition that the author adhered strictly to the form in which tradition handed down the dialogue — in whicli case the speech of a Syrian might be expected to