THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
affixes which the earlier scribe used was treated with the greatest freedom and became a potent source of error. In such cases as xiv. 3, xix. 28 (cf. R. V. margin), ix. 19b, the third person is indicated by the parallelism, the logical sequence, and the versions. There are directions in rabbinical instructions which point the same way, as when in xii. 2b the instruction reads: say not tmwth, but twmth. Changes due to religious timidity are also in evidence. Thus in xxxii. 3c " Job " is substituted for a word which might through changes in the text have been read as " God." Similarly xxxii. lb, Septuagint, reads " in their eyes," and is justified by logic, since there is no adequate reason in Job's self- justification alone for the silence of the friends. Probably also to the same cause is due the identical expressions in xxxviii. 1, xl. 6, where " out of the whirlwind " is to be explained by the dropping of a word beginning with n after a word ending with the same, which would be represented by the expression " out of the roar of the storm." It is not impossible that by r\"\]}D in the passages just cited, differently from the mj?^ of ix. 17 (where the Targum reads " hair "), was understood not an atmospheric storm, but the theophanic hurricane like that in which Elijah was rapt away. But other causes have brought about changes in the text, such causes as are common in the transmission of all texts of antiquity. In reading the copyist has dropped out a letter or a syllable. Thus in xii. 2 the unintelligible word DJ7, " people," is doubtless to be explained as the remains of the word DJTPn, and the verse should read: " No doubt ye are the possessors of knowledge, and wisdom shall die with you " (cf. xxxiv. 2). Other mistakes are due to the confusion of letters that look alike, either in the old form or in the square writing, and still others to similarity in sound when the copy was made from dictation. Still another potent source of error are glosses, which have either lengthened the text or made it unintelligible.
From a view of all these cases it is possible to assert that the Hebrew consonantal text is the edition of a copy which goes back to an archetype, transmitted through we know not how many transcriptions, which was also the original to which the Hebrew text which the Greek translator used is to be traced. This archetype was already characterized by mistakes and corrections, by gaps in the text and by connate readings. In the course of transmission these changes have been so increased that, in spite of the close general resemblance, in particular passages copies seem altogether foreign to each other. In proportion as we are successful in reconstructing this archetype out of its descendants and in understanding it with its gaps, mis- 5. Early takes, and additions, we approach the Condition form which the poet gave to his work. of the ( There is a consensus among modern Text. critics to the effect that the original Job has been enlarged by the insertion of the four speeches of Elihu, chaps, xxxii.-xxxvii. But the circumstance that the surviving text refers neither in the preceding nor in the following parts to the entrance of Elihu (for which preparation |
could have been made in a few words), which is the chief ground for suspecting the originality of the section, is proof positive that the one who inserted the passage regarded with respect the text to which he made the addition. This is indeed a guaranty that in the earliest times Job was looked on as the inviolable possession of an inspired man for which he himself assumed the responsibility. When it became a book for the community, for which the leading authorities in that community assumed accountability, the liberty was taken of changing it where the interests of instruction of the community seemed to demand it.
III. Plan, Contents, and Purpose: Prior to consideration of the artistic form of the book it is necessary to take up the question of the originality of the Elihu section. The argument from linguistic considerations may be answered by the suggestion that it was prematurely given out and has been corrupted. The consideration that the section brings nothing new against the friends and anticipates what Yahweh is to say is explained by Elihu's different attitude toward Job and his sorrows. On the other hand, in ii. 11-13 only the three friends are mentioned and in xlii. 7-8 reference to them alone is found. Does Elihu belong to the party on whose side the truth is, though he charges Job with adding to his sin that of rebellion (xxxiv. 37), or to those of whom Yahweh demanded repentance? When Yahweh gives his testimony of i. The truth to his servant Job or ignores this Elihu judge of Job, nothing more can be Section meant than that the author of the a Later book and the readers have also ignored Addition. Elihu, since neither had in him any interest. In other words, this points to a time when the book of Job was read without the speeches of Elihu, when at the silence of the friends and the last speech of Job God entered to teach and instruct. ^Thisjsjswbs^antiated by the express testimony of ElihuTxxxii. 12-14. Since the friends have nowhere said that Job seemed to have so surpassed them and all men in cleverness that God alone could overcome his error, Elihu must speak under the impression that the intention of the author was to have deity take up the discourse that Job might recognize his folly. Mai. iii. 16 speaks of a book of remembrance caused by Yahweh to be written for discernment between righteous and wicked; and this recalls the fact that Job wished for such a book (xix. 23) and that Elihu (xxxvii. 20) raises the question whether a scribe is noting for Yahweh what he has to say. Elihu comes forward as a man filled with new knowledge. There can be no doubt that he does so on the ground of a newer insight into the instructive meaning of evil for the community gained from the teaching of the prophets and thus comes forward as a young man pushed out from his position of reserve to confront the older men who stand for the old wisdom. Whether the writer who introduced this section wished to identify himself with Elihu or to differentiate himself from him must be decided in favor of the latter supposition by consideration of the stilted vanity of Elihu's introduction of himself, in which he vaunts that he is bringing into view new,