« ForrigeFortsæt »
it over is so obvious, that no one can fail to see the didactic object he had in view.
The addition of the Seventy favors the opinion that Job was an historical person :-"
See others in Carpzov, vol. ii. p. 34. Michaelis, Einleit. p. 1, sqq. The hypothesis that the book is a fiction, is favored by the fact, that the ideal is mingled with the narrative, (i. 2, 3, xlii. 13, 14, 16,) and by the significant name of Job, 39=27, the persecuted. See Gesenius, Lexicon, and Hirzel, p. 8. On the other side, Ewald.
The following passages in Ezekiel are not certain proofs that the poet made use of traditionary materials: xiv. 16, 20; though Luther, (Tischreden, p. 318,) Eichhorn, Rosenmüller, and Hirzel, are of this opinion, as well as the addition of the Seventy: Ούτος ερμηνεύεται εκ της Συριακής βίβλου, εν μεν γή καιoικών τη Αυσίτιδα, επί τούς ορίοις της 'Ιδουμαίας και Αραβίας προϋπήρχε δε αυτώ όνομα 'Ιωβάβ. Λαβών δε γυναίκα 'Αράβισσαν, γεννα υιόν, ώ όνομα 'Εννών. Ην δε αυτός πατρός μέν Ζαρέ εκ των Ησαύ υιών υιός, μητρός δε Βοσόρρας, ώστε είναι αυτόν πέμπτον από 'Αβραάμ, και ούτοι οι βασιλείς οι βασιλεύσαντες εν 'Εδώμ, ής και αυτός ήρξε χώρας: πρώτος Βαλάκ και του Βεώρ. μετά δε Βαλάκ, Ιωβάβο καλούμενος Ιώβ. Μετά δε τούτον, 'Ασώμ ο υπάρχων ηγεμών εκ της Θαιμανίτιδος χώρας μετά δε τούτον, 'Αδάδ υιός Βαράδ..... Οι δε ελθόντες προς αυτόν φίλοι, Ελιφάς των Ησαύ υιών, Θαιμανών βασιλεύς, Βαλδάδ ο Σαυχαίων τύραννος, Σουφάρ ο Μιναίων βασιλεύς. (Comp. Jahn, $ 758, sqq. Carpτου, p. 36, εφφ.) [«The book of Job,” says Dr. Hodges (1. c.) «has suffered as much as Job himself, from critics. Mr. Horne (l. c. vol. iii. p. 63, sqq.) maintains the book is a real history. “There is every possible evidence that the book ... ... contains a literal history," &c. The arguments are, 1.“ Ezekiel and Daniel mention him.” So Christ mentions Lazarus : does this prove him an historical person? 2. The book of Job “ specifies the names of persons, places, and facts, usually related in other true historics.” So does every work of fiction, e. g. the Arabian Nights' Entertainment, and Paradise Lost. It were impossible to write an intelligible poem without “ persons, places, and facts.” 3. Job is mentioned in Eastern tradition, in the book of Tobit, by Mohammed. Noble Arabians boast of descent from him. And, at the “end of the fourth century (A. C.)...... many persons.
went into Arabia to see Job's dunghill ;” therefore, «The book of Job contains the history of a real character.” Dr. Hales (cited in Horne, p. 69) forces the stars to tell the very date of Job's trial; for, assuming that “ Chimah and Chesil, or Taurus and Scorpio, were the cardinal constellations of spring and autumn,” and knowing their present longitude, and the usual rate of the
“This is translated from the Syriac book, for he dwelt in Ausitis, on the borders of Idumea and Arabia. His first name was Jobab, and, marrying an Arabian woman, he had a son, whose name was Ennon. He himself was the son of Zare, of the children of Esau ; his mother was Bosorrah, so that he was the fifth from Abraham. Now these are the kings that reigned in Edom, which country he also governed: First, Balak, the son of Beor, and the name of his city was Dennaba ; and after Balak, Jobab, who is called Job; after him Asom, who was governor of the country of Thaimanites, [Teman ;] after him, Arad, the son of Barad, who cut off Madiam in the plain of Moab. The name of his city was Gethaim. The friends who came to Job were Eliphaz, of the children of Esau, king of the Thaimanites, [Temanites,] Baldad, the sovereign of the Sauchæans, (Shuhites,] and Zophar, the king of the Minæans, [Naamathites.]”
THE COUNTRY AND AGE IN WHICH IT WAS WRITTEN.
The prologue has led to several mistakes, in particular points. The book has been taken for a foreign production, though it is Hebrew throughout, both in form
precession of the equinoxes, we can, by the rule of three, determine the time when these constellations were the cardinals of spring and autumn, namely, 2130 years B. C. This, then, is the date of Job's trial; the confirmation of the book. Unfortunately there is reason to believe Orion and the Pleiades are the stars mentioned, and the whole theory falls to the ground, and we are driven from the sky to philology to determine the age of the work. See very different reasoning in Warburton, l. c.; Heath, l. c. p. viii., sqq., xi. xix., sqq., xxxv.; and Noyes, I. c. p. XX., sq.]
and substance. It has been referred to the most ancient times."
" Some think it is of foreign origin. Aben Ezra, Com. in Jobum, ii. 1.
1. That it is of Aramæan origin is maintained by the pseudo Origen, and the addition to the LXX. given above; but Stark, (Davidis Carmina, i. 198, sq.,) Eichhorn, (§ 645,) and Bertholdt, (p. 2045, note 4,) erroneously explain these words of the above addition oύτoς ερμηνεύεται εκ της συριακής ΒίBlov, as if they related only to the addition itself. See Carpzov, l. c. p. 52, and the pseudo Origen, Com. in Job.
2. The theory of an Arabian original is defended by Spanheim, (Hist. Jobi, c. xii sqq. p. 221,) J. Gerhard, (Exeges. lib. ii. de Script. s. § 137,) Calov, (Bibl. illustr. ad Job. Præf.) Kromayer, (Filia Matri obstetricans, i. e. De Usu Linguæ Arab. in addiscenda Ebræa, p. 72.) Jerome (Præf. in Dan.) says, “ Job has a strong resemblance to the Arabic language.” On the other hand, see Gesenius, Gesch. Heb. Sprach. p. 33, quoted above, vol. i. Appendix, D.
3. The theory of an Idumean origin is defended by Herder (Spirit of Hebrew Poetry, vol. i. p. 125, sqq.) and Ilgen, (Jobi antiq. Carm. Hebr. Virtus, p. 28.)
4. The theory of a Nahoritic author is advanced by Niemeyer, (Charakter. d. Bib. vol. ii. p. 480, sqq.) Eichhorn (5 642) adopts the modified opinion that it was written before the time of Moses, by a Hebrew, who resided in Idumea, and was familiar with the appearance and manners of Ægypt. But, on the other hand, see Richter, (Prog. de Ætate Libri Jobi definienda ; Lips. 1799, 4to. § 11, p. 23,) Rosenmüller, (Prol. in Job. p. 31, sq.,) Stäudlin, (1. c. p. 238, sqq.,) Bernstein, Bertholdt, and Umbreit.
The absence of geographical, historical, and theocratic notions in the poem, which conform to the opinions of the Hebrews, can be explained only on the supposition that the work is a fiction. (Comp. Michaelis, l. c. p. 47, sqq.) But see xxii. 15, 16, where the deluge seems to be referred to, and xl. 23, where the Jordan is put for a great river.
But, on the other hand, the book is not destitute of peculiar conceptions of another kind; for example, ix. 5—9, xii. 10, xv. 7, xxvi. 5, sqq., xxxviii. 4, sqq. ; iv. 19, x. 9, xxvii. 3; iv. 17, sqq., viii. 9, ix. 2, xiii. 26, xiv. 4, xv. 14, xxv. 4, and 6; iv. 18, v. 1, xv. 15, xxi. 22, xxxviii. 7; xxxi. 26, 27; vii. 7, sqq., X. 21, sq., xiv. 10, sqq., xvi. 22, xxx. 23, xxxviii. 17.
To this must be added the affinity between the book and the Proverbs and Psalms; e. g. xxviij. 18, “Wisdom is more precious than pearls ;” and Prov. viii. 11, “Wisdom is better than pearls:” xxviii. 28, “The fear of the Lord, that is wisdom;" and, Prov. i. 7, “ The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.” (Compare, also, xxvi. 6, with Prov. xv. 11; xv. 16, and xxxiv. 7, with Prov. xxvi. 6; xiii. 5, with Prov. xvii. 28; xxvi. 5, with Prov. ii. 18, and xxi. 16; xxvii. 16, 17, with Prov. xxviii. 8; xxii. 29, with
In respect to the language, to the contents and entire spirit, the book belongs not at all to the golden age, but to the later period of Hebrew literature.
Prov. xvi. 18, xviii. 12, and xxix. 23.) 77279; v. 12, vi. 13, xi. 6, xii. 16, xxvi. 3, xxx. 22. (Comp. Prov. ii. 7, iii. 21, viii. 14, xviii. 1.) 7777; vi. 2, xxx. 13. (Comp. Prov. xix. 13.) nizamn; xxxvii. 12 (Comp. Prov. i. 5, xi. 14, and elsewhere. Chap. xii. 21, 24, comp. with Ps. cvii. 40; v. 16, and xxii. 14, with Ps. cvii. 42.) (See others, in Michaelis, l. c. p. 93; Rosenmüller, l. c. p. 32; and Gesenius, l. c. p. 33.) The tendency of the whole book speaks still more strongly in favor of its Hebrew origin.
Carpzov, (p. 53, sqq.,) and several ancients adduced by him, suppose it was written before Moses. This is the opinion, also, of Eichhorn, ($ 641, sqq.,) Jahn, (p. 799, sqq.,) Stuhlmann, (p. 55,) and Bertholdt, (p. 2132, sqq.) But some of the arguments of the latter, though sought out with great pains, are refuted by the supposition that the work is a fiction, and others are themselves of no value, - such as this, that after Moses, there was no belief in the appearance of God, which is contradicted by Ps. xviii. l., and Hab. jii.; that a (xii. 19) does not mean priest, to support which he gives a wrong interpretation of Gen. xiv. 18; and that p7x is used differently in the books written after Moses. Baba Bathra and the rabbins considered Moses the author, (see Hottinger, Thes. Phil. p. 499; Wolf, Bib. Heb. ii. 102; Michaelis, \ 11–17;) and this is the opinion, also, of pseudo Origen, Ephraim the Syrian, Huetius, (Dem. Ev. Pr. iv. § 2,) and Michaelis, (p. 89,) while Eichhorn (5 643) and Stäudlin (p. 256) refer it to some other writer of great antiquity.
Gesenius, l. c. p. 33. Bernstein, p. 49, sqq. (But the latter puts here what belongs to the poetic style.) Besides its affinity with the usage of the Psalms and Proverbs, the language has a strong tendency to the later Chaldean He ew; e. g. 5-27?, angels. Thi; xvi. 19. Ep?; xiv. 20, xv. 14. Bap; ii. 10. 7, to determine ; xxii. 28. TTIR, to shut up; xxvi. 9. YEN; xxi. 21, xxii. 3. Fy?; vii. 3. ???, for "Y? ; xviii. 2. 1977, for 17; xli. 4. 3, (as not. accus. ;) v. 2, xxi. 22.
• Later Religious Notions. — i. 6, ii. 1, iv. 18, v. 1, xv. 15, xxi. 22, xxxiii. 33, 34, xxxviii. 7. Later Munners and Customs. xiii. 26, xix. 23, 24,
xxxi. 35; v. 4, xv. 28, xxiv. 12, xxix. 7, xxxix. 7; ii. 14, sq., xii. 18, sq., xv. 19, ix. 24, xii. 6. Bernstein, p. 79, sqq. A still stronger proof is furnished by its relation to the sufferings of the Hebrews, to their doctrine of final causes, and the advance in this kind of philosophy, in comparison with the kindred Psalms and Proverbs. (See Warburton, Div. Legat. vol. ii. p. 389; Lond. 1837.]
The following writers refer it to Solomon, or an author of his times: R. Nathan, in Talmud, l. c. Gregory, Naz. Orat. ix. Luther, Table-Talk. Harduin, Chronol. vol. i. p. 533. Reimurus, Einleit. zur Hoffmann, N. ErkVOL. II.
Since Ezekiel was acquainted with the character of Job, (xiv. 14, 16, 20,) and it is probable that Jeremiah had read the book,' we cannot place its date so low as the Chaldee period, but near it, in the time when the kingdom of Judah was sinking to ruin. Ewald places it at the beginning of the seventh century B. C., and Hirzel at the end of it. The latter critic conjectures that the author of Job was carried to Ægypt by Pharaoh Necho, with King Jehoahaz, 611 B. C., and in this way acquired that familiarity with Ægypt and its remarkable things, which strikes us in his descriptions.
lär. d. B. Hiob; 1734, 4to. Döderlein, Schol. in Lib. poet. vol. i. p. 2. Stäudlin, p. 260. Richter, l. c. Rosenmüller, p. 35.
Comp. Jer. xx. 14—18, with Job ii. 3—10, x. 18; xvii. 1, with Job xix. 24 ; xxxi. 29, 30, with Job xxi. 19; but comp. also Deut. xxiv. 16. But the resemblance is too slight to warrant the conclusion that one author had seen the work of the other. [There is, indeed, a very obvious affinity between Job iii. 3—10, x. 18, and Jer. xx. 14—18. But perhaps the thought was original with neither; and, besides, it is quite as probable that the author of Job borrowed from Jeremiah, as Jeremiah from Job. Ezekiel's reference to Job is easily explained on the hypothesis that there was a tradition, oral or written, respecting such a person. At the most, it could only prove there once lived a Job, remarkable for piety and virtue. not that the hero of this poem ever lived, still less that it is a grave narration of facts. The same may be said of the reference to Job, in James v. 11, and Tobit ii. 12 “Quis, quæso,” says Michaelis, (Epimetron de Lib. Jobi, p. 648,) “ægre feret, Lazari aut Samaritani exempli moneri ecclesiam, licet utrumque nuspiam fuisse credat?” and, alluding to the passage of Ezekiel,“ nec inauditum aut absurdum veras personas et fictas in proponendo exemplo conjungi. Fac patrem, Lucretiæ et Pamelæ castitatem commendare filiæ, quis tam rigidus censor sit, ut id reprehendat?")
• Bernstein, Gesenius, Umbreit, and the former editions of this Introduction, placed the date in the Chaldee period. Herman von der Hardt, Leclerc, Warburton, Thomas Heath, J. Garnet, Rabbi Johannan, (Baba Bath. fol. 15, c.2, Hier. Sota, fol. 20, c. 4,) and others, were of the same opinion.
· See Hitzig, Esaias, p. 285, sq.