tainly striking contradiction, which exists between the confession of Job which follows in vs. 23-23, and his earlier discourses, 12: 6. ch. xxi. 24: 22 ss. must be explained, and which has from an early period been an impediment in the way of interpreters. Renouncing the possibility of an explanation, Kennicott (Diss. Gen. in V. T. ed. Bruns. p. 539), Eichhorn (Conjec. on Passages in Job, Gen. Lib. of Bib. Lit. II. p. 613), have assigned this division to Zophar, who has not yet, as the other two friends, spoken three times, but only twice; so that he would now appear for the third time. Stallmann (on the Book of Job in Keil and Tzschirner's Analecta, I. pt. 3 p. 134.) makes the third speech of Zophar begin with v. 11. But, (1) vs. 11 and 12 cannot have been spoken by Zophar, since the discourse is not, according to the custom of the opponents, addressed to Job, but to several; (2) "Zophar cannot have appeared a third time, since, in that case, Job, by not replying, would, in some measure, have yielded him the field,” De Wette Hall. Encycl. II. vol. 8. p. 293. It is clear that the poet leaves him, when he does so, with the intention that he shall not speak again the way is prepared for the silence of this third opponent by the barrenness of Bildad's last reply, ch. xxv.; the embarrassment of this latter as regarded matter for the treatment of his subject was so great, that he had to borrow it from the earlier discourses of Eliphaz: so Zophar, at best the weakest of three, is entirely silent, because he knows nothing more which he can adduce. Later, Eichhorn (Job Trans. Gött. 1824, p. 97.) substituted the following for his former view, that vs. 13-23, belong indeed to Job; he does not, however, speak his opinion therein, but only repeats that of the opponents: this, say you, is the fate of the sinner, etc. So also Böckel. But this understanding of the passage is opposed to v. 11, which is certainly intended to introduce the description begun at v. 13.] (b) Chap. 28 cannot have proceeded from the author of the discourses of Elihu, since such an isolated insertion would have been altogether superfluous and without an object.

3. The refutation of the objections urged by Ewald against the description of the hippopotamus and the crocodile, see at the end of chap. xli. [Ewald (in the Theol. Stud. and Krit., 1829, p. 766 ss., Comm. on Job, p. 320 ss.) following De Wette, who (Introd. to the O. T. § 288) calls the description of these two animals, the hippopotamus and the crocodile, a dragging and bombastic piece, declares this entire division,

The portion of the text included in brackets is taken from the Commentary on 27: 1-10, to which reference is made at the place in the Introduction in which it has been introduced by us, for the sake of giving Hirzel's full answer to the objection he is considering. - TRANS.

40: 15-41: 26, not genuine, but composed by the author of Elihu's discourses, mainly on the following grounds: (1) On account of its position; because the second discourse of Jehovah, which is incorporated in this division, has as its object, to reply to Job's doubts concerning the justice of God. This description of the two animals, however, can only serve to describe Jehovah's power, which was the office of the first discourse; and, moreover, not even the loosest and finest internal bond of union connects this piece with 40: 6-14. (2) On account of the different character existing between these two and the earlier descriptions of animals, chap. xxxviii. and xxxix. (a) In object; in the earlier descriptions, to show Job, that man, and therefore he himself, cannot attain to the power and wisdom of God, appears to be, everywhere, the object; here, however, this object is wanting, the entire representation being nothing more than a description of the many wonderful peculiarities of the two animals, but nowhere is an inference from it and an application of it brought to bear upon Job. (b) in the plan, in poetic representation, and even the language; there the several descriptions are short and hasty, the particular wonder merely indicated, the representation powerful, original, the delineations almost entirely arrayed in questions; here the description is prolix, long-winded, stiff, the representation feeble, having the character of imitation, narrative, rather than interrogative; as a single peculiarity of language the lengthened query without the interrogative, 40: 25, is to be noticed, which calls 37: 18 to mind. These grounds, however, so far as they are of a historic kind, are untenable; so far as they are æsthetic, they are not decisive, because they rest upon merely a subjective judgment. For, as to what relates to the historic, (a) the beginning as well as the conclusion of the challenge to Job, 40: 9-14, shows that the poet does not intend the object of Jehovah's second discourse to be seized so sharply as Ewald has seized it. Verse 9 passes over from the reference in the speeches of Job which call in question the justice of God, immediately to the challenge to him, to show at once what he is able to perform, how great his power when compared with God's; and Jehovah declares himself ready, when the proof is adduced, to acknowledge, on his part, Job's power (not, as one might have expected, his justice). Proceeding on Ewald's supposition respecting the subject of this second speech of Jehovah's, we must necessarily declare this challenge, vs. 9-14, also not genuine, because it refers as little to the supposed object; so that only vs. 7 and 8 would be left as the discourse of Jehovah. (b) Moreover, 41: 28, where the poet stops in the midst of his description of the leviathan, and Jehovah draws Job's attention from the creature to the Creator and man's rela

tion to him, shows that even this description is not destitute of the higher, religious-didactic object; nay, a reference is made just here to the distinctive idea of the second discourse of Jehovah, cf. obs. at the place. (c) The adduced lengthened query without the interrogative, 40: 25, has its counterpart (even stronger, as in 37: 18.) in the description, 39: 1, 2. But, were it not so, how could a single linguistic peculiarity, and one so entirely unimportant, form the foundation of a critical decision? And how inconsistent, on the other hand, not to give any weight to unusual expressions and forms of words which this description has in common with the earlier portions of the book! cp., 41: 10, with 3: 9:7, 41: 26, with 28: 8; p, 41: 15, 16, with py, 11:15; the similar change in the second member of 41: 6, and 39: 20; the form, 41: 25, with 3, 15: 22. (d) That the descriptions of the two animals are connected with 40: 14, is indicated by the course of thought and by the remark at 40: 15, as well as the reason of the greater particularity of representation. Ewald's aesthetic grounds Umbreit has properly estimated in the Theol. Stud. and Krit. 1831, p. 833 ss.] On the alleged transposition of 31: 38-40, and 38: 36, see the explanation at the passages.

4. General Plan.

The whole book is divided into four principal parts, of which the first and the last are composed in prose, the two middle, as the proper didactic portion of the work, in poetry. (1) The Prologue, or the history of Job's misfortunes, chap. 1: 2. (2) The conversation respecting his misfortune, or the contest between Job and his friends, chap. iii.-xxxi., beginning (chap. iii.) and ending (chap. xxix.-xxxi.) with a monologue from Job. The poet allows the friends to appear as the defenders of the common doctrine of retribution, and to make a gradual application of it to Job, whence arise progress in the action, and the dialogue is distributed into three acts, chap. iv.-xiv. xv.-xxi. xxii. -xxviii. In the first, the friends admonish to resignation and repentance, since the sinner that reforms may expect with certainty a return of happiness, and only the perverse transgressor is lost without remedy; in the second, since their admonitions appear to be fruitless, they speak no more of a return of happiness, but they place before Job's eyes, as a warning, that fearful end of the transgressor which is grounded on the justice of God; in the third, they accuse him openly of the most odious sins, and declare, at the same time, that his misery is the punishment of his guilt. (3) The appearance of God

What is contained in brackets is introduced from the Commentary.

TRANS.

for Job's instruction, chap. xxxviii-xlii. (4) The Epilogue, or the history of the Divine decision of the dispute, and the deliverance of Job, 42: 6-17. Moderns have called the book the Hebrew Tragedy, to which name it seems to have a claim, as well on account of its dramatic form, as because the fundamental idea is that of the struggle of virtue with misfortune. Since, however, the object of the poet was purely instructive, the production of a religious-philosophic conviction, this appellation is suited only to a portion, and the book is more correctly called a didactic poem.

5. Subject of the Poem.

Whether the historic frame with which the author has encompassed his didactic poem, is his own invention, or borrowed from the traditional history of his people, has been a disputed question from an early to the present time; but it is of no importance to the understanding of the book. The question turns upon the existence of Job's person, since, if this be denied, all that is related of him appertains to a free poetic invention. The Talmud (Baba batra, chap. 1, sec. 15.) first advanced the assertion that Job is only a feigned, not a historic person; of the same opinion among moderns are Bernstein, Augusti, (Introd. to the O. T. 2. A.), De Wette (Encyc. of Ersch and Gruber, art. Job), who, therefore, treat as poetry all the history that forms the basis of the book. Now, it is true, the mention of Job by Ezekiel, 14: 14, 16, 20, Tobit, (Latin text) 2: 12, 15, James 5: 11, proves nothing in favor of his historic existence, since the books in question are all later than our book, and their knowledge of Job is more than probably obtained from it; still less, the spots pointed out in different places in the East as the grave of Job (v. Winer Bib. Real. 1. p. 581). But just as little can one, in order to prove that the relation is a fiction, refer to the appellative signification of the name Job,2 as containing in itself the

[From the mention of Job, along with Noah and Daniel, Ezek. 14: 14, 20, it would seem to follow that Job's history was as well known as that of the two others. Since these two are historical names, so that of Job would not have been added, if his memory rested on a groundless myth, and not on credible tradition. The mention of Job in Tobit 2: 11, and James 5: 11, show at least that the historical recognition of the person of Job as one who had undergone great sufferings, remained unimpaired. — Vaihinger.]

2.The derivation and signification of the name is not certain. Since the older explanations (v. J. H. Michaelis, Adnott. in Hagiogrr. Voll. II. pref. 3.) have been given up as inadmissible, the derivation wavers at present between 8, and used as the Heb. to return, tropically, to turn one's self, to be conVOL. VII. No. 25. 14

part assigned to him by the poet; since, with equal justice, the names

and many others might also be used to transform historic , שְׁלֹמֹה, שָׁאוּל

personages into feigned; such names were formed in the mouths of the people, possibly even by contemporaries, and supplanted the original personal names; for the memory of a man could be more easily preserved and handed down to posterity, by an appellation expressive of his character or destiny, than by his original personal name. Further reason, however, to cast doubt upon the existence of Job, does not exist. Since, however, the historic truth of all that is related of him is not involved in the historic truth of his personal existence, since, indeed, the free creative hand of the poet is plainly enough discernible in the prologue (cf. obs. at 1: 2, 3, and 1: 2, with 42: 13.) and epilogue, the correct answer to the question spoken of above is that which Luther has already generally indicated (Table Talk, p. 318): “I hold that the book of Job is a history, in a poetic form, of what happened to a person, but not in such words as those in which it is written.” The most of modern interpreters, however, have expressed themselves firm in the opinion, that the poet has freely elaborated an historical subject found in the popular traditions, and has inserted what thoughts he desired to utter, within a frame compounded of elements partly his own and partly received.

It may with great probability be inferred that Job's name and residence in particular were given to the poet by the tradition, since the former occurs nowhere else in the Old Testament, and the latter, the land of Uz, was too obscure to render it probable that the poet's choice would have fallen upon it in preference to other countries. The tradition, moreover, appears to have placed Job's existence in remote antiquity, which explains the endeavor of the poet to represent the life

verted, and, to persecute; consequently, i, either, who returns (to God) is converted, as Job did, after he had a long time contended against God, or, the persecuted (of God), hostilely persecuted, chap. 13: 24. 30: 21. The first explanation originated with Cromaier and J. D. Michaelis, and has been lately adopted by Ewald, after the modern interpreters and lexicographers had almost unanimously acceded to the latter, which was proposed by Augusti (Introd. to O. T.). The latter lies nearer, and has in its favor the analogy of, natus,, ebrius, whilst a corresponding noun-formation from a verb is not so natural in Hebrew. When Ewald remarks, in opposition, that “the persecuted would be an extremely indefinite, but little significant, appellation," it must, on the other hand, be remembered, that the name which Job received in the mouth of the people, surely connects itself far more readily with the unexampled misfortune which befel him, the guiltless, than with his "conversion after wicked despondency." Luther introduced the mode of writing Hiob, departing from the LXX. and the Vulgate ('lop, Job), as it seems, in order to distinguish from i, Gen. 46: 13, whose name he writes Job.