§ 286.

THE CONTENTS, SUBJECT, AND UNITY, OF THE POEM.

It is pretty clear that the poet writes to disclose the weakness of the common doctrine of retribution. 1. In the prologue, (i. ii.,) he relates the history of Job's misfortunes, and the design of God to try him. 2. Then follows Job's discussion with his friends, (iii.-xxxi.,) beginning, (1.) with a monologue by Job, (iii.,) expressing his despair and weariness of life. This discussion is carried on throughout three acts of the dialogue, namely, (2.) in chap. iv.—xiv.; (3.) xv.—xxi.; and, (4.) xxii.-xxviii. In this controversy, Job's friends set forth and defend the common doctrine of retribution, making it more and more apparent thereby that Job is a transgressor, and deserves what he suffers. Job denies this doctrine, and defends his own innocence. In this way the problem is stated. (5.) Then follows the monologue of Job, (xxix.-xxxi.,) which closes the discussion, but without solving the problem. There is a confusion in this part of the poem, occasioned by Job's conceding to his adversary (xxvii. 13-22)" what he

cerus, Præf. in Job. But see Carpzov, p. 76, sq., and Lowth, Prælect. xxxiii., who says this poem is not a proper drama.

The comparison with an epic poem is altogether absurd. J. H. Stuss, De Epopœia Jobæa Comment. iii.; Goth. 1753, 4to. Lichtenstein, Num Lib. Job. cum Odyssea Homeri comparari possit; Helmst. 1773, 4to. Ilgen, Jobi antiquissimi Carminis Hebræorum Natura atque Virtus; Lips. 1789. Augusti, Einleit. § 106.

a

[Eichhorn gives a solution of the difficulty, Allg. Bib. vol. ii. p. 614. It is that of Kennicott, Diss. Gen. § 165, viz. that it is not Job, but Zophar, who speaks in this passage. Bildad and Eliphaz had each spoken three times, and it was therefore necessary, for the sake of symmetry, that Zophar also should speak a third time. He thus arranges the discourses: Bildad, chap. xxv.; Job's reply, xxvi. 1—xxvii. 10; Zophar, xxvii. 11—23; Job, xxviii.

had previously denied, (xii. 6, xxi. xxiv. 22, sqq.,) namely, that the transgressor receives his just recompense, and by his praising the unfathomable wisdom of God, (xxviii.,) and consequent hint at an answer of the question. 3. The progress of the poem is still more disturbed by the solution given in the third part, (the speech of Elihu, xxxii.-xxxvii.,) and the argument that suffering is an instrument, in the hand of the Allwise and Just, for the correction of the wicked. By this, violence is done to the true solution. 4. This is given in the fourth part, in the speeches of God, who makes his appearance, xxxviii.-xlii. 6. These describe the power and wisdom of God, and reduce Job to silence and submission. 5. The book concludes with an epilogue, (xlii. 7-17,) in which God approves Job, but

But it is in this 165, sq.) denies

1, sqq. But he passes over the most difficult verses, 7-10, and leaves them as the words of Job. Ewald says in his defence, "These chapters contain the chief theme of the book, the solution of the riddle." that the difficulty consists. Dr. Noyes (1. c. note in loc. p. the fact of inconsistency in Job's language. He does not concede his position that the innocent often suffer, and does not admit that human suffering implies guilt; but as the virtuous do suffer, there is some mysterious cause of it, besides the vices of men. This apparent inconsistency he takes for a necessary part of the plan of the book. But there seems to be an essential discrepancy between this and Job's former speeches. (Compare, in particular, xxi. 6-21, xxiv. 21-25.) But in xxvii. 7-23, the wicked universally, at least generally, meet with just punishment. But, to me, this and other inconsistencies of Job seem perfectly natural, and show the exquisite art with which the poem was written. What more natural than this, that a man deprived of all, reduced to the last stage of physical suffering, tempted by his wife, and tortured by his friends, should affirm what he just denied! At one time he seems to believe a sort of immortality of the soul, (iii. 13—19;) then, when exasperated still more, he positively denies it. (xiv. 10, 14, et al.)]

Kern (in Bengel's Archiv. vol. iv. pt. ii. p. 362) maintains that the poet wished to introduce a higher view, in the contested speeches of Job, and those of Elihu, for the purpose of mitigating the severity of Job's conclusions, and also to impede the progress of the poem !

disapproves of his friends. It relates, also, that a twofold restoration of all that was lost, was made to the sufferer. The first of these narrative passages (i. ii.) informs us, that Job's sufferings were designed for a trial of his character, and the second (xlii. 7—17) confirms the common belief in retribution. The two disturb the sublime idea of a trusting and humble submission under the ordinances of divine omnipotence and wisdom, which is given in the speeches of God."

§ 287.

SPURIOUSNESS OF ELIHU'S SPEECHES.

These speeches (xxxii.—xxxviii.) are a later interpolation. This fact is shown by the following considerations:

1. By the matter and the style, which is far-fetched, dull, tedious, and obscure; as appears in the language itself, and in its peculiar expressions."

2. Elihu's speeches weaken the force of those of Job, and of God, and obscure the antithetic relation between the two. They, in part, anticipate the remarks of God, and make them superfluous, for they give the solution of the difficulty in the way of knowledge, which, according to God's declaration, is only to be found out by sub

a See De Wette, art. Hiob, Allg. Encylop. vol. ii. sect. viii. p. 293.

b 77; xxxii. 6, 10, 17, xxxvi. 3. ; xxxii. 6, 10, 17, xxxvi. 2. ; xxxiii. 18, 20, 22, 28. (Comp. xxxviii. 39.) ; xxxiii. 25, xxxvi. 14. ♫; xxxiii. 18, xxxvi. 12.

23.)

; xxxiv. 26. ; xxxvi. 18. (Comp. xxvii.

; xxvi. 16, 18, et al. Reminiscences from former parts of the book; xxxiv. 3, 7. Comp. xii. 11, xv. 16; xxxiii. 4, 10, 22, comp. xl. 9, xxxviii. 29, 30, xxviii. 1, 12. A. B. vol. i. p. 113, sqq. Hirzel, Hiob, p. 190.

15, comp. iv. 13; xxxvii. See Michaelis, Einleit. in

mission. Stäudlin is right in saying that the controversy is decided in Elihu's speeches, while the succeeding discourses of God only confirm the decision, for Elihu says more than God.

3. The opinions of Job are misunderstood or perverted. He is made to say, "A man hath no advantage when he is in friendship with God." (xxxiv. 9.) "I am more righteous than God. ...... What advantage have I? What have I gained more than if I had sinned?" (xxxv. 2, 3.) This error could only be committed by a writer who was not the author of the rest of the book.'

4. Job makes no reply to Elihu.

5. Job is mentioned by name in Elihu's speeches, and not in those of the other speakers.

6. The prologue and epilogue do not mention Elihu. Stuhlmann, Bernstein, and Ewald, deny the authenticity; Bertholdt, Jahn, Umbreit, and others, defend it. Umbreit thinks the difference in the style arises from the poet's artistic skill, and denies the impropriety of these discourses. But in this matter every thing depends on

a

Comp. xxxvi. 22, xxxvii. 24, with xxxviii.-xl.; in special, xxxvi. 27— 32, and xxxvii. 6-8, with xxxviii. 12-30. Stäudlin, Beit. zur Gesch. Phil. und Rel. vol. ii. p. 137, sq. Kern (in Bengel, Archiv. vol. iv. pt. ii. p. 362) thinks the poet, aims to give the higher view in these speeches of Elihu. • See Eichhorn, § 644, b, p. 205, 206.

Stuhlmann, Ubers. p. 20. Bernstein, in Keil, and Tzschirner's Anal. vol. i. pt. iii. p. 150, sq. Ewald, in Stud. und Krit. for 1829, xv. p. 767, pt. iii.; A. T. p. 247, sq. Hirzel, p. 189. Bertholdt, (p. 2158,) Jahn, (xi. p. 776,) Umbreit, (p. 25, sqq.,) defend it. [Dr. Noyes contends against De Wette, and defends the genuineness of Elihu's speeches. 1. The difference in style was designed; the author did not wish to "give the most respectable appearance to a young man appearing on such an occasion." The "favorite expressions" and "reminiscences" are "circumstances of little importance." 2. The speech of Elihu sets off that of God by the contrast, and if the omission of Elihu's speech would render the poem more perfect, we are not, therefore, to reject it. "The author does give one view of the cause of human suffer

the critic's taste and judgment; yet I cannot understand how any one can contend that the beauty of the poem would be injured by the omission of Elihu's speeches, on the ground that there would not be then sufficient preparation for the appearance of God; and that it would be a Deus ex machina in that case, while it must be a Deus ex machina at any rate."

§ 288.

SUSPICIONS AGAINST XXVII. 11-XXVIII. 28.

It is certain that this passage is unsuitable and contradictory in the mouth of Job. This has long been felt. Kennicott and Eichhorn,' therefore, refer xxvii. 13—23, to Zophar; Stuhlmann allots verses 11-23 to him,

ing in this discourse, not distinctly stated elsewhere. (chap. xxxiii. 14—28.)” (What is it?) 3. Elihu does not pervert Job's speeches to any great extent, and a young man would naturally misunderstand and pervert his opponent in some measure. (?) (But to me the perversion seems great and unnatural.) 4. It was in accordance with Eastern feelings to give this youth no answer. (?) 5. The mention of Job's name is unimportant. (True, if this were the only objection; but combined with others, it has some force.) 6. Elihu is not mentioned in the prologue, because the author thought best to have but three speakers in the chief part of the poem; and if he did not judge so wisely as the German professors, still we should not alter his plan. (Here Dr. Noyes assumes that the "German professors" would alter, and not restore, the author's plan.) Elihu is not mentioned in the epilogue, "because nothing occurred to the author which was particularly appropriate to be said to him." But this judgment is somewhat arbitrary. On the whole, Dr. Noyes thinks there is a strong presumption against a Jew tampering with such a work. But to me there seems a presumption on the other side; for, as we have seen, they did tamper with the prophecies of Isaiah, and perhaps Zechariah, with the names of David and Solomon.]

a Besides, it may still be doubted whether the passage, (xxxviii. 1, sqq.,) alleged to be introductory, refers to the following appearance of God.

• See Kennicott, Remarks on select Passages in the O. T. p. 169. Diss. Gen. ed. Bruns, p. 539. Eichhorn, Allg. Bib. vol. ii. p. 613.