Job

JOB

A patriarch distinguished for his integrity and piety, his wealth, honors, and domestic happiness, whom God permitted, for the trial of his faith, to be deprived of friends, property, and health, and at once plunged into deep affliction. He lived in the land of Uz, lying, it is generally thought, in Eastern Edom, probably not far from Bozrah.THE BOOK OF JOB, has originated much criticism, and on many points a considerable diversity of opinion still exists. Sceptics have denied its inspiration, and called it a mere philosophical romance; but no one who respects revelation can entertain this notion, or doubt that Job was a real person. Inspired writers testify to both. See Eze 14:14 Jam 5:11, and compare 1Co 3:19 with Job 5:13 . The book itself specifies persons, places, and circumstances in the manner of true history. Moreover, the name and history of Job are spread throughout the East; Arabian writers mention him, and many Mohammedan families perpetuate his name. Five different places claim the possession of his tomb.The precise period of his life cannot be ascertained, yet no doubt can exist as to its patriarchal antiquity. The book seems to allude to the flood, Job 22:15-17, but not to the destruction of Sodom, to the exodus from Egypt, or the giving of the Law. No reference is made to any order of priesthood, Job himself being the priest of his household, like Noah and Abraham. There is allusion to the most ancient form of idolatry, star-worship, and to the earliest mode of writing, Job 19:24 . The longevity of Job also places him among the patriarchs. He survived his trial one hundred and forty years, and was an old man before his trial began, for his children were established each at the head of his own household, Job 1:4 42:16. The period of long lives had not wholly passed away, Job 15:10 . Hales places the trial of Job before the birth of Abraham, and Usher, about thirty years before the exodus, B. C. 1521.As to the authorship of the book, many opinions have been held. It has all the freedom of an original composition, bearing no marks of its being a translation; and if so, it would appear that its author must have been a Hebrew, since it is written in the purest Hebrew. It exhibits, moreover, the most intimate acquaintance with both Egyptian and Arabian scenery, and is in the loftiest style of oriental poetry. All these circumstances are consistent with the views of those who regard Moses as its probable author. It has, however, been ascribed to various other persons. IT presents a beautiful exhibition of patriarchal religion. It teaches the being and perfections of God, his creation of all things, and his universal providence; the apostasy and guilt of evil spirits and of mankind; the mercy of God, on the basis of a sacrifice, and on condition of repentance and faith, Job 33:27-30 42:6,8; the immortality of the soul, and the resurrection of the body, Job 14:7-15 19:25-27.The main problem discussed in Job is the justice of God in suffering the righteous to be afflicted, while the wicked prosper. It is settled, by showing that, while the hand of a just God is manifest in his providential government of human affairs, it is his sovereign right to choose his own time and mode of retribution both to the evil and the good, and to subject the graces of his people to whatever trials he deems best.The conference of Job and his friends may be divided into three parts. In the first, Eliphaz addresses Job, and Job replies; then Bildad and Job, and Zophar and Job speak, in turn. In the second part, the same order is observed and in the third also, except that after Job’s reply to Bildad, the three friends have no more to urge, and instead of Zophar, a fourth friend named Elihu takes up the word; and the whole is concluded by the decision of Jehovah himself. The friends of Job argue that his remarkable afflictions must have been sent in punishment of highly aggravated transgressions, and urge him to confession and repentance. The pious patriarch, conscious of his own integrity and love to God cast down and bewildered by his sore chastisements, and pained by the suspicions of his friends, warmly vindicates his innocence, and shows that the best of men are sometimes the most afflicted; but forgets that his inward sins merit far heavier punishment, and though he still maintains faith in God, yet he charges Him foolishly. Afterwards he humbly confesses his wrong, and is cheered by the returning smile of God, while his uncharitable friends are reproved. The whole book is written in the highest style of Hebrew poetry, except the two introductory chapters and part of the last, which are prose. As a poem, it is full of sublime sentiments and bold and striking images.The DISEASE of Job is generally supposed to have been the elephantiasis, or black leprosy. The word rendered “boils” does not necessarily mean abscesses, but burning and inflammation; and no known disease better answers to the description given, Job 2:7,8 7:5,13,13 19:17 30:17, than the leprosy referred to above. See LEPER.

Fuente: American Tract Society Bible Dictionary

Job

()

Job is named by Ezekiel (Eze 14:14; Eze 14:20)-in the 6th cent. b.c., probably about two centuries before the writing of the Book of Job-along with Noah and Daniel as a proverbially righteous man. After the publication of the great drama, it was natural that he should be regarded rather as a model of patience in affliction ( , Jam 5:10-11). While the profound speculations of the book regarding the problems of pain and destiny, as well as the theological doctrine which the poet intended to teach, might be beyond the grasp of the ordinary reader, the moral appeal of the simple opening story came home to all suffering humanity. Ye have heard of the patience ( ) of Job (Job 5:11). Similarly the conclusion of the tale, which revealed Gods final purpose in regard to His servant ( ), proving Him to be full of pity and merciful ( ), presented a situation which all readers might be asked to observe. The imperative , which is as well supported as , calls their attention to a surprising fact, which they might well mark, learn, and inwardly digest. The Qurn repeats the admonition and the lesson. And remember Job; when he cried unto the Lord, saying, Verily evil hath afflicted me: but thou art the most merciful of all those who show mercy. Wherefore we [God] heard him and relieved him from the evil which was upon him, and we restored unto him his family, etc. (sra 21). Verily we found him a patient person: how excellent a servant was he (sra 38).

James Strahan.

Fuente: Dictionary of the Apostolic Church

Job

A dweller in Hus, east of Palestine; not an Israelite, but an upright man who is suddenly the victim of weighty affiictions, losing his goods, and his children and becoming a prey to leprosy. For a time he is patience exemplified. Three of his friends come to comfort him, but their conduct and utterances are so maladroit that his patience gives way and he bemoans his lot and longs for death. The comforters, “Job’s comforters,” to use the expression they occasioned, insist that he must have provoked God’s punishment by his sins. Job protests his innocence. After eight dialogues between them and Job another appears as arbiter, insisting that no one is sinless in the sight of God, that suffering is not necessarily a visitation on account of sin, that it is permitted by God to preserve man from pride and its consequent sins. God Himself intervenes to warn Job that he has not appreciated God’s providence in ruling men in His own way, and to rebuke the would-be consolers for their lack of judgment and their harshness. The Book, in 42 chapters, is a revelation of the mystery of suffering. Job is a type of all the faithful, and also of the Redeemer. Many of his utterances have become proverbial. His testimony to immortality as the mainstay of his patience is the climax of the prayers of the Church in the services over the departed.

Fuente: New Catholic Dictionary

Job

One of the books of the Old Testament, and the chief personage in it. In this article it is primarily the book which is treated. As opportunity, however, occurs, and so far as is permissible, Job himself will be considered. The subject will be discussed under the following heads: I. Position of the Book in the Canon; II. Authority; III. The Characters of the Poem; IV. Contents; V. Arrangement of the Main, Poetic Portion of the Book; VI. Design of the Book; VII. Teaching as to the Future Life; VIII. Integrity of the Book; IX. Condition of the Text; X. Technical Skill of the Author and the Metre; XI. Time of its Composition.

I. POSITION OF THE BOOK IN THE CANON

In the Hebrew Bible Psalms, Proverbs, and Job are always placed together, the Psalms coming first, while Job is put between the other two or, at times, comes last. The three books form a part of the Hagiographa (Kethubim), having sometimes the first place among the Hagiographa, while again they may be preceded by Ruth, or Paralipomenon, or Paralipomen with, Ruth (cf. lists in Ginsburg, “Introduction to Heb. Bible”, London, 1897, 7). In the Greek Bible and the Vulgate Job now stands before Psalms and follows directly after the historical books. The old Greek and the Latin MSS., however, assign it the most varied positions; see, for exemple, the list of Melito of Sardis, and that of Origen as given by Eusebius, “Hist. Eccle.”, IV, iv, 26, and vi, 25 (in P.G., XX., 398, 582). In the Syriac Bible Job is placed directly after the Pentateuch and before Josue (cf. the lists in Hodius, “De Bibliorum textibus”, Oxford, 1705, 644 sqq.; Samuel Berger, “Hist. de la Vulgate”, Paris, 1893, 331-39).

II. AUTHORITY

(1) Historical Accuracy

Many look upon the entire contents of the book as a freely invented parable which is neither historical nor intended to be considered historical; no such man as Job ever lived. Catholic commentators, however, almost without exception, hold Job to have actually existed and his personality to have been preserved by popular tradition. Nothing in the text makes it necessary to doubt his historical existence. The Scriptures seem repeatedly to take this for granted (cf. Ezekiel 14:14; James 5:11; Tobit 2:12-15, according to the Vulgate — in the Greek text of Tobias there is no mention of Job). All the Fathers considered Job an historical person; some of their testimonies may be found in Knabenbauer, “Zu Job” (Paris, 1886), 12-13. The Martyrology of the Latin Church mentions Job on 10 May, that of the Greek Church on 6 May (cf. Acta SS.’ II, May, 494). The Book of Job, therefore, has a kernel of fact, with which have been united many imaginative additions that are not strictly historical. What is related by the poet in the prose prologue and epilogue is in the main historical: the persons of the hero and his friends; the region where be lived; his good fortune and virtues; the great misfortune that overwhelmed him and the patience with which lie bore it; the restoration of his Prosperity. It is also to be accepted that Job and his friends discussed the origin of his sufferings, and that in so doing views were expressed similar to those the poet puts into the mouths of his characters. The details of the execution, the poetic form, and the art shown in the arrangement of the arguments in the dispute are, however, the free creation of the author. The figures expressive of the wealth of Job both before and after his trial are imaginatively rounded. Also in the narrative of the misfortunes it is impossible not to recognize a poetic conception which need not be considered as strictly historical. The scene in heaven (i, 6; ii, 1) is plainly an allegory which shows that the Providence of God guides the destiny of man (cf. St. Thomas, “In Job”). The manifestation of God (xxxviii, 1) generally receives a literal interpretation from commentators. St. Thomas, however, remarks that it may also be taken metaphorically as an inner revelation accorded to Job.

(2) Divine Authority of the Book

The Church teaches that the book was inspired by the Holy Spirit. Thus all that its author gives as historical fact or otherwise guarantees possesses unfailing Divine truth. The question, however, arises, what does the book guarantee? (a) Everything in prologue or epilogue that is the comment of the author is Divine truth; nevertheless, what is perhaps poetic ornament must not be confounded with historical verity or objective dogmatic precepts. The same authority is possessed by the utterances assigned by the poet to God. The like is true of the speeches of Eliu. Some think the speeches of Eliu are to be judged just as are those of Job and his friends. (b) The speeches of Job and his three friends have in themselves no Divine authority, but only such human importance as Job and his three friends are Personally entitled to. They have, however, Divine authority when, and in as far as, they are approved by the author expressly or tacitly. In general, such tacit approbation is to be understood for all points concerning which the disputants agree, unless the author, or God, or Eliu, shows disapproval. Thus the words of Job have in large degree Divine authority, because the view be maintains against the three friends is plainly characterized by the author as the one relatively correct. Yet much that the three friends say is of equal importance, because it is at least tacitly approved. St. Paul argues (1 Corinthians 3:19) from a speech of Eliphaz (Job 5:13) as from an inspired writing. (c) In particular places, especially where descriptions of nature are given or other secular matters are referred to, the caution prescribed by the rules of hermeneutics should be observed.

III. THE CHARACTERS OF THE POEM

Apart from the prologue and epilogue, the Book of Job consists of a succession of speeches assigned to distinct persons. There are six speakers: Yahweh, Eliu, Job, and Job’s three friends, Eliphaz, Baldad, and Sophar.

(1) Job

The chief personage is Job.

(a) Name

He is called the “persecuted one”, that is, the one tempted by (personified) suffering, the one hard beset, the patient sufferer. It is no longer possible to decide whether the name was originally different and was later changed into the expressive form in folklore on account of Job’s fate. Many commentators do not accept this explanation of the name.

(b) Age in which Job lived

According to the usual and well-founded assumption, Job lived long before Moses. This is shown by the great age he attained. He was no longer young when overtaken by his great misfortune (xii, 12; xxx, 1); after his restoration he lived one hundred and forty years longer (xlii, 16). His wealth like that of the Patriarchs, consisted largely in flocks and herds (i, 3; xlii, 12). The kesitah or piece of money mentioned in xlii, 11, belongs to patriarchal times; the only other places in which the expression occurs are Gen., xxxiii, 19, and Jos., xxiv, 32. The musical instruments referred to (xxi, 12; xxx, 31) are only those mentioned in Genesis (Gen. iv, 21; xxxi, 27): organ, harp, and timbrel. Job himself offers sacrifice as the father of the family (i, 5), as was also the custom of the Patriarchs. An actual offering for sin in the Mosaic sense he was not acquainted with; the holocaust took its place (i, 5; xlii, 8).

(c) Religion of Job

Job evidently did not belong to the chosen people. He lived, indeed, outside of Palestine. He and the other characters betray no knowledge of the specifically Israelitic institutions. Even the name of God peculiar to the chosen people, Yahweh, is carefully avoided by the speakers in the poetic part of the book, and is only found, as if accidentally, in xii, 9, and according to some MSS. in xxviii, 28. The sacrifice in xlii, 8, recalls the sacrifice of Balaam (Numbers 23:1), consequently a custom outside of Israel. For the solution of the problem of suffering the revelations made to the Patriarchs or even Moses are never referred to. Nevertheless Job and his friends venerated the one true God. They also knew of the Flood (xxii, 16), and the first man (15:7, and Hebrews 31:33).

(d) Country in which Job lived

Job belonged to the “people of the East” (i, 3). Under this name were included the Arabian (Genesis 25:6) and Aramaean (Numbers 33:7) tribes which lived east of the Jordan basin and in the region of the Euphrates (Genesis 29:1). Job seems to have been an Aramaean, for he lived in the land of Hus (i, I; Ausitis). Hus, a man’s name in Genesis, is always used there in close connection with Aram and the Aramaean (Genesis 10:23; 22:21; 36:28). His home was certainly not far from Edom where Eliphaz lived, and it must be sought in Eastern Palestine, not too far north, although in the region inhabited by the Aramaeans. It was located on the border of the Syro-Arabian desert, for it was exposed to the attacks of the marauding bands which wandered through this desert: the Chaldeans (i, 17) of the lower Euphrates and the Sabeans (i, 15), or Arabs. Many. following an old tradition, place the home of Job in the Hauran, in the district of Naiwa (or Neve), which is situated about 36° East of Greenwich and in almost the same latitude as the northern end of Lake Genesareth. The location is possible, but positive proof is lacking. Some seek the home of Job in Idumea, others in the land of the Ausitai, who, according to Ptolemy (Geogr., V, xix, par. 18, 2), lived in Northern Arabia near the Babylon. The land of Hus is also mentioned in Jer., xxv, 20, and Lam., iv, 21. In the first reference it is used in a general sense for the whole East; in the latter it is said that the Edomites live there.

(e) The Standing of Job

Job was one of the most important men of the land (i, 3; xxix, 25) and had many bondsmen (xxxi, 39). The same is true of the friends who visited him; in the Book of Tobias these are called “kings” (Tob., ii, 15, in Vulgate). In the Book of Job also Job seems to be described as a king with many vassals under him (xxix). That he had brothers and relations is seen in xix and in the epilogue.

(f) Job and Jobab

An appendix to the Book of Job in the Septuagint identifies Job with King Jobab of Edom (Gen. xxxvi, 33). Nothing in the book shows that Job was ruler of Edom; in Hebrew the two names have nothing in common.

(2) Eliphaz, Baldad and Sophar

The most important of Job’s three friends was Eliphaz of Theman. The name shows him to be an Edomite (Genesis 36:11, 15). The Themanites of Edom were famous for their wisdom (Jeremiah 49:7; Obadiah 5; Baruch 3:22 sq.). Eliphaz was one of these sages (xv, 9). He was far advanced in years (xv, 10), and much older than the already elderly Job (xxx, 1). The second of Job’s friends was Baidad the Suhite, who seems to have belonged to Northern Arabia, for Sue was a son of Abraham by Cetura (Genesis 25:2, 6). He may have been of the same age as Job. The third friend, Sophar, was probably also an Arabian. The Hebrew text calls him a Naamathite. Naama was a small town in the territory belonging to Juda (Joshua 15:41), but Sophar hardly lived there. Perhaps the preferable reading is that of the Septuagint which calls Sophar always a Minaean; the Minaeans were an Arabian tribe. Sophar was far younger than Job (cf. Job’s reply to Sophar, 12:11-12; 13:1-2).

(3) Eliu

Like Job, Eliu the Buzite was an Aramean; at least this is indicated by his native country, Buz, for Buz is closely connected (Genesis 22:21) with Hus. Eliu was much younger than Sophar (xxxii, 6).

(4) Besides the speakers a large number of listeners were present at the discussion (xxxiv, 2, 34); some maintained a neutral position, as did Eliu at first.

IV. CONTENTS

The Book of Job consists of (1) a prologue in prose (i-ii), (2) a poetic, main division (iii-xlii, 6), and (3) an epilogue also in prose (xlii, 7-17).

(1) The prologue narrates how, with the permission of God, a holy man Job is tried by Satan with severe afflictions, in order to test his virtue. In succession Job bears six great temptations with heroic patience, and without the slightest murmuring against God or wavering in loyalty to him. Then Job’s three friends, Eliphaz, Baldad, and Sophar, come to console him. Their visit is to become the seventh and greatest trial.

(2) The poetical, main division of the book presents in a succession of speeches the course of this temptation. The three friends are fully convinced that trouble is always a result of wrongdoing. They consider Job, therefore, a great sinner and stigmatize his assertions of innocence as hypocrisy. Job is hurt by the suspicion of his friends. He protests that he is no evil-doer, that God punishes him against his deserts. In the course of his speech he fails in reverence towards God, Who appears to him not unrighteous, but more as a severe, hard, and somewhat inconsiderate ruler than as a kind Father. Taking into consideration that the language is poetic, it is true that his expressions cannot be pushed too far, but the sharp reproofs of Eliu (xxxiv, 1-9, 36-37; xxxv, 16) and of Yahweh (Xxxviii, 2; xl, 3-9) leave no doubt of his sin. In answering his friends Job emphasizes that God indeed is accustomed to reward virtue and to punish wickedness (xxvii, 7-23; xxxi). He even threatens his friends with the judgment of God on account of their unfriendly suspicion (vi, 14; xiii, 7-12; xvii, 4; xix, 29). He rightly proves, however violently, that in this world the rule has many exceptions. Almost universally, he says, the wicked triumph and the innocent suffer (ix, 22-24, xxi, xxiv). Yet for all this Job, like his friends, regards all suffering as a punishment for personal sins, although he does not, as his friends, consider it a punishment of gross sin. Job looks upon the sufferings of the righteous as an almost unjust severity of God, which he inflicts for the slightest mistakes, and which the most virtuous man cannot escape (vii, 21; ix 30-21; X, 6, 13-14). The expressions of depression and irreverence uttered by Job are, besides, only venial sins, which human beings can never fully avoid. Job himself says that his words are not to be taken too exactly, they are almost the involuntary expression of his pain (vi, 2-10, 26-27). Many of his utterances the character of temptations in thought which force themselves out almost against the will, rather than of voluntary irreverence towards God, although Job’s error was greater than he was willing to acknowledge. Thus Job bore all the tests triumphantly, even those caused by his friends. No matter how terrible the persecutions of God might be, Job held fast to Him (vi, 8-10) and drew ever closer to Him (xvii, 9). In the midst of his sufferings he lauds God’s power (xxvi, 5-14) and wisdom (xxviii). Satan, who had boasted that he could lead Job into sin against God (i, 11; ii, 5), is discredited. The epilogue testifies expressly to Job’s faithfulness (xlii, 7-9). After much discourse (iii-xxii) Job finally succeeds in silencing the three friends, although he is not able to convince them of his innocence. In a series of monologues (xxiii-xxxi), interrupted only by a short speech by Baldad (xxv), he once more renews his cornplaints (xxiii-xxiv), extols the greatness of God (xxvi-xxviii), and closes with a forcible appeal to the Almighty to, examine his case and to recognize his innocence (xxix-xxxi). At this juncture Eliu, a youth who was one of the company of listeners, is filled by God with the spirit of prophecy (xxxii, 18-22; xxxvi, 2-4). In a long discourse he solves the problem of suffering, which Job and his friends had failed to explain. He says that suffering, whether severe or light, is not always a result of sin; it is a means by which God tries and promotes virtue (xxxvi, 1-21), and is thus a proof of God’s love for his friends. The sufferings of Job are also such a testing (xxxvi, 16-21). At the same time Eliu emphasizes the fact that the dispensations of God remain inexplicable and mysterious (xxxvi, 22; xxxvii, 24). Yahweh speaks at the end (xxxviii-xlii, 6). He confirms the statements of Eliu, carrying further Eliu’s last thought of the inexplicability of the Divine decrees and works by a reference to the wonder of animate and inanimate nature. Job is severely rebuked on account of his irreverence; he confesses briefly his guilt and promises amendment in the future.

(3) In the epilogue Yahweh bears witness in a striking manner to the innocence of His servant, that is to Job’s freedom from gross transgression. The three friends are commanded to obtain Job’s intercession, otherwise they will be severely punished for their uncharitable complaints against the pious sufferer. Yahweh forgives the three at the entreaty of Job, who is restored to double his former prosperity.

In his lectures on “Babel und Bibel” Delitzsch says that the Book of Job expresses doubt, in language that borders on blasphemy, of even the existence of a just the God. These attacks arise from an extreme view of expressions of despondency. Further, the assertions often heard of late that the book contains many mythological ideas prove to be mere imagination.

V. ARRANGEMENT OF THE MAIN, POETIC PORTION OF THE BOOK

(1)The poetic portion of the book may be divided into two sections: chs. iii-xxii and xxiii-xlii, 6. The first section consists of colloquies: the three friends in turn express their views, while to each speech Job makes a rejoinder. In the second section the three friends are silent, for Baldad’s interposition (xxv) is as little a formal discourse as Job’s brief comments (xxxix, 34-35 and xlii, 2-6). Job, Eliu, and Yahweh speak successively, and each utters a series of monologues. The length of the two sections is exactly, or almost exactly, the same, namely 510 lines each (cf. Hontheim “Das Buch Job”, Freiburg im Br., 1904, 44). The second division begins with the words: “Now also my words are in bitterness” (xxiii, 2; A.V.: “Even to-day is my complaint bitter”). This shows not only that with these words a new section opens, but also that the monologues were not uttered on the same day as the colloquies. The first monologue is evidently the opening of a new section, not a rejoinder to the previous speech of Eliphaz (xxii).

(2) The colloquies are divided into two series: chs. iii-xiv and xv-xxii. In each series Eliphaz, Baldad, and Sophar speak in turn in the order given (iv-v, viii, xi, and xv, xviii, xx), while Job replies to each of their discourses (vi-vii, ix-x, xii-xiv, xvi-xvii, xix, xxi). The first series, furthermore, is opened by a lament from Job (iii), and the second closes with a speech by Eliphaz in which he weakly reproaches Job (xxii — it is generally held that this chapter begins a new series), who rightly leaves this address unanswered. Each series contains seven speeches. In the first the friends try to convince Job of his guilt and of the necessity and good results of amendment. Eliphaz appeals to Revelation (iv, 12-21), Baldad to the authority of the Fathers 8-10), Sophar to understanding or philosophy (xi, 5-12). Eliphaz lays weight on the goodness of God (v, 9-27), Baldad on His justice (viii, 2-7), Sophar on His all-seeing power and wisdom, to which Job’s most secret sins were plain, even those which Job himself had almost forgotten (xi, 5-12). In the second series of speeches the friends try to terrify Job: one after the other, and in much the same form of address, they point out the terrible punishment which overtakes hidden sin. During the first series of speeches Job’s despondency continually increases, even the thought of the future bringing him no comfort (xiv, 7-22); in the second series the change to improvement has begun, and Job once more feels joy and hope in the thought of God and the future life (xvi, 18-22; xix, 23-28).

(3) The monologues may also be divided into two series. The first includes the monologues of Job, seven in number. First Job repeats is complaint to God (xxiii-xxiv), asserts, however, in three speeches his unchangeable devotion to God by lauding in brilliant discourse the power (xxvi), justice (xxvii), and wisdom (xxviii) of the Almighty. Finally in three further speeches be lays his case before God, imploring investigation and recognition of his innocence: How happy was I once (xxix), how unhappy am I now (xxx), and I am not to blame for this change (xxxi). The second series contains the discourses of Eliu and Yahweh, also seven in number. In three speeches Eliu explains the sufferings which befall men. Trouble is often a Divine instruction, a warning to the godless to reform (xxxii-xxxiii, 30), thus revealing the goodness of God; it is often simply a punishment of the wicked who are perhaps in no way bettered by it (xxxiii, 31-xxxv), thus revealing the justice of God.

(4) Finally, troubles can also overtake the just as a trial which purifies and increases their virtue (xxxvi-xxxvii), thus revealing God’s unfathomable wisdom. The following four utterances of Yahweh illustrate the inscrutableness, already touched upon by Eliu, of the Divine wisdom by dwelling upon the wonders of inanimate nature (xxxviii, 1-38), of the animal world (xxxviii, 39-xxxix), and especially by referring to the great monsters of the animal world, the hippopotamus and the crocodile (xl, 10-xli). He then closes with a rebuke to Job for expressing himself too despondently and irreverently concerning his sufferings, upon which Job confesses his guilt and promises amendment (xxxix, 31-xl, 9 and xlii, 1-6); it appears that xxxix, 31-xl, 9, should be inserted after xli.

VI. DESIGN OF THE BOOK

The Book of Job is intended to give instruction. What it lays special stress on is that God’s wisdom and Providence guide all the events of this world (cf. xxviii, xxxviii-xii). The main subject of investigation is the problem of evil and its relation to the Providence of God; particularly considered is the suffering of the upright in its bearing on the ends intended in the government of the world. The Book of Job is further intended for edification, for Job is to us an example of patience. It is, finally, a book of consolation for all sufferers. They learn from it that misfortune is not a sign of hatred, but often a proof of special Divine love. For the mystical explanation of the book, especially of Job as a type of Christ, cf. Knabenbauer, “In Job”, 28-32.

VII. TEACHING AS TO THE FUTURE LIFE

In his sufferings Job abandoned all hope for the restoration of health and good fortune in this world (xvii, 11-16; xxi). If he were to continue to hold to the hope of reward here Satan would not be defeated. In the complete failure of all his earthly hopes, Job fastens his gaze upon the future. In the argument of the first series of speeches Job in his depression regards the future world only as the end of the present existence. The soul indeed lives on, but all ties with the present world so dear to us are forever broken. Death is not only the end of all earthly suffering (ii, 13-19), but also of all earthly life (vii, 6-10), and all earthly joys (x, 21-22), with no hope of a return to this world (xiv, 7-22). It is not until the second series that Job’s thoughts on the future life grow more hopeful. However, he expects as little as in the first discussion a renewal of the life here, but hopes for a higher life in the next world. As early as chapter xvi (19-22) his hope in the recognition of his virtue in the next world is strengthened. It is, however, in xix (23-28) that Job’s inspired hope rises to its greatest height and he utters his famous declaration of the resurrection of the body. Notwithstanding this joyous glimpse into the future, the difficult problem of the present life still remained: “Even for this life how can the wisdom and goodness of God be so hard towards His servants?” Of this the complete solution, so far as such was possible and was included in the plan of the book, does not appear until the discourses of Eliu and Yahweh are given. Great efforts have been made by critics to alter the interpretation of ch. xix, and to remove from it the resurrection of the body; the natural meaning of the words, the argument of the book, and the opinion of all early commentators make this attempt of no avail (cf. commentaries, as those of Knabenbauer, Hontheim, etc.; also the article “Eine neue Uebersetzung von Job xix, 25-27” in the “Zeitschrift für kath. Theologie”, 1907, 376 sqq.). See the commentaries for the doctrines of the Divine wisdom (xxviii), etc.

VIII. INTEGRITY OF THE BOOK

Prologue and epilogue (i-ii; xlii, 7 sqq.) are regarded by many as not parts of the original work. The prologue, though, is absolutely essential. Without it the colloquies would be unintelligible, nor would the reader know the end whether to believe the assertion of Job as to his innocence or not. Upon hearing the rebukes of Eliu and Yahweh, he might be exposed to the danger of siding against Job. Without the epilogue the close of the work would be insatisfactory, an evident humiliation of the righteous. For detailed treatment of this and kindred questions see Hontheim, op. cit.

(2) Many also regard ch. xxvii, 7-23, as a later addition; in this passage Job maintains that the wicked suffer in this world, while elsewhere he has declared the contrary. The answer is: Job teaches that God is accustomed even in this world to reward the good in some measure and to punish the wicked. In other passages he does not deny this rule, but merely says it has many exceptions. Consequently there is no contradiction. [See above, IV (2).] Besides it may be conceded that Job is not always logical. At the beginning, when his depression is extreme, he lays too much emphasis on the prosperity of the godless; gradually he becomes more composed and corrects earlier extreme statements. Not everything that Job says is the doctrine of the book. [See above, II (2).]

(3) Many regard ch. xxviii as doubtful, because it has no connection with what goes before or follows and is in no way related to the subject-matter of the book. The answer to this is that the poet has to show how the suffering of Job does not separate him from God, but, against the intent of Satan, drives him into closer dependence on God. Consequently he represents Job, after his complaints (xxiii-xxv), as glorifying God again at once, as in xxvi-xxvii, in which Job lauds God’s power and righteousness. The praise of God is brought to a climax in xxviii, where Job extols God’s power and righteousness. After Job has thus surrendered himself to God, he can with full confidence, in xxix-xxxi, lay his sorrowful condition before God for investigation. Consequently xxviii is in its proper place, connects perfectly with what precedes and follows, and harmonizes with the subject-matter of the book.

(4) Many regard the description of hippopotamus and crocodile (xl, 10-xli) as later additions, because they lack connection with xxxix, 31-xl, 9, belonging rather to the description of animals in xxxix. In reply it may be said that this objection is not without force. Who ever agrees with the present writer in this opinion need only hold that xxxix, 31-xl, 9, originally followed xli. The difficulty is then settled, and there is no further reason for considering the splendid description of the two animals as a later insertion.

(5) There is much disagreement as to the speeches of Eliu (xxxii-xxxvii). With the exception of Budde, nearly all Protestant commentators regard them as a later insertion, while the great majority of Catholic investigators rightly defend them as belonging to the original work. The details of this discussion cannot be entered upon here, and the reader is referred to the commentaries of Budde and Hontheim. The latter sums up his long investigation in these words: “The section containing the speeches of Eliu has been carefully prepared by the poet and is closely and with artistic correctness connected with the previous and following portions. It is united with the rest of the book by countless allusions and relations. It is dominated by the same ideas as the rest of the poem. It makes use also of the same language and the same method of presentation both in general and in detail. All the peculiarities exhibited by the author of the argumentative speeches are reproduced in the addresses of Eliu. The content of this portion is the saving of the honour of Job and is essential as the solution of the subject of discussion. Consequently there is no reason whatever for assuming that it is an interpolation; everything is clearly against this” (Hontheim, op. cit., 20-39. Cf. also Budde, “Beiträge zur Kritik des Buches Hiob”, 1876; Knabenbauer, “In Job”). Anyone who desires to consider the speeches of Eliu as a later addition must hold, by the teaching of the Church, that they are inspired.

(6) There is in general no reason whatever for considering any important part of the book either large or small as not belonging to the original text. Equally baseless is the supposition that important portions of the original composition are lost.

IX. CONDITION OF THE TEXT

The most important means for judging the Massoretic Text are the old translations made directly from the Hebrew: the Targum, Peshito, Vulgate, Septuagint, and the other Greek translations used by Origen to supplement the Septuagint. with the exception of the Septuagint, the original of all these translations was essentially identical with the Massoretic Text; only unimportant differences can be proved. On the other hand, the Septuagint in the form it had before Origen, was about four hundred lines, that is one-fifth shorter than the Massoretic Text. Origen supplied what was lacking in the Septuagint from the Greek translations and marked the additions by asterisks. Copyists generally omitted these critical signs, and only a remnant of them, mixed with many errors, has been reserved in a few manuscripts. Consequently knowledge of the old form of the Septuagint is very imperfect. The best means now of restoring it is the Copto-Sahidic translation which followed the Septuagint and does not contain Origen’s additions. This translation was published by Ciasca, “Sacrorum Bibliorum fragments Copto-Sahidica” (2 vols., Rome, 1889), and by Amelineau in “Transactions of the Society of Biblical Archeology”, IX (1893), 409-75. Hatch and Bickell claim that the shorter text of the Septuagint is in general the earlier one, consequently that the present Massoretic Text is an expansion of a shorter original. Nearly all other investigators hold the opposite, that the Septuagint was produced by cutting down an original which varied but little from the Massoretic Text. This was also Bickell’s view in earlier years, and is the real state of the case. To avoid repetition and discursive statements, the translators of the Septuagint omitted much, especially where the reading seemed doubtful, translation difficult, the content anthropomorphic, unworthy of Job, or otherwise objectionable. In doing this the translation frequently disregards the fundamental principle of Hebrew poetry, the parallelism of the lines. In brief the critical value of the Septuagint is not great; in almost all instances the Massoretic Text is to be preferred. Taken altogether, the Massoretic has preserved the original form of the consonantal text fairly well, and needs but a moderate amount of critical emendation. The punctuation (vowel signs and accents), it is true, frequently requires correction, for the punctuators did not always lightly understand the often difficult text; at times also words are not properly divided.

X. TECHNICAL SKILL OF THE AUTHOR AND THE METRE

Chapters iii-xlii, 6, are poetical in form. This part of the book consists of about 102O lines. The verses, which do not always correspond with the Massoretic verses of our editions, are generally divided into two clauses or lines which are parallel in content. There are also a number of verses, about sixty, of three clauses each, the so-called triplets. It is an unjustifiable violence to the text when a critic by removing one clause changes these triplets into couplets. The verses form the twenty-eight speeches of the book which, as already stated, make four series of seven speeches each. The speeches are divided, not directly into lines, but into strophes. It is most probable that the speeches formed from strophes often, perhaps always follow the law of “choral structure” discovered by Father Zenner. That is, the speeches often or always consist of pairs of strophes, divided by intermediate strophes not in pairs. The two strophes forming a pair are parallel in content and have each the same number of lines. For a further discussion of this subject see Hontheim, op. cit. Investigators are not agreed as to the construction of the line. Some count the syllables, others only the stresses, others again the accented words. It would seem that the last view is the one to be preferred. There are about 2100 lines in the Book of Job, containing generally three, at times two or four, accented words. Besides the commentaries, cf. Gietmann, “Parzival, Faust, Job” (Freiburg im Br., 1887); Baumgartner, “Gesch. d. Weltliteratur”, I (Freiburg im Br., 1901), 24 sqq. One peculiarity of the author of Job is his taste for play upon words; for example, ch. xxi contains a continuous double meaning.

XI. TIME OF COMPOSITION

The author of the book is unknown, neither can the period in which it was written be exactly determined. Many considered the book the work of Job himself or Moses. It is now universally and correctly held that the book is not earlier than the reign of Solomon. On the other hand it is earlier than Ezechiel (Ezekiel 14:1-20). For it is the natural supposition that the latter gained his knowledge of Job from the Book of Job, and not from other, vanished, sources. It is claimed that allusions to Job have also been found in Isaias, Amos, Lamentations, some of the Psalms, and especially Jeremias. Many Catholic investigators even at the present time assign the book to the reign of Solomon; the masterly poetic form points to this brilliant period of Hebrew poetry. The proofs, however, are not very convincing. Others, especially Protestant investigators, assign the work to the period after Solomon. They support this position largely upon religious historical considerations which do not appear to have much force.

———————————–

Full bibliographies are to be found in CORNELY, Introductio in U. T. libros sacros, II (2nd ed., 1897), ii, 71 sqq., and in the commentaries of DILLMANN and BUDDE, cf. also the various Introductions to the Scripture, as GIGOT (1906); TROCHON (1886); KAULEN (4th ed., 1899); CORNELY (2nd ed., Paris, 1897); further the articles on Job in the theological and Biblical encyclopedias. Of the large number of commentaries on Job the following may be mentioned. Catholic: WELTE (1849); KNABENBAUER (Paris, 1886), HONTHEIM (1904). Non-Catholic: DELITZSCH (2nd ed., 1876); DILLMANN (4th ed., 1891); DAVIDSON in Cambridge Bible (1895); BUDDE (1896); DUHM (1897); WIGHT AND HIRSCH, A Commentary on the Book of Job from a Hebrew Manuscript in the University Library, Cambridge (1905). Among special works mention may be made of: BICKELL, De indole ac ratione versionis Alexandrinae in interpretando libro Jobi (1862); IDEM, Carmina Vet. Test. metrice (18S2); GIETMANN, De re Metrica Hebraeorum (1880); VETTER, Die Metrik des Buches Job (1897); BEER, Text des Buches Hiob untersucht (1897); ROGER, Eschatologie des Buches Job (1901); POSSELT, Der Verfasser der Eliureden (1909).

JOSEPH HONTHEIM Transcribed by F. Gilles Beaudet, f.s.c.

The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VIIICopyright © 1910 by Robert Appleton CompanyOnline Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. KnightNihil Obstat, October 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., CensorImprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York

Fuente: Catholic Encyclopedia

Job

the name of two persons, of different form in the original.

1. (, Iyob’, persecuted; Sept. and N.T. 1.) An Arabian patriarch and hero of the book that bears his name; mentioned elsewhere only in Eze 14:14; Eze 14:20; James 5, 11. The various theological, moral, and philosophical questions connected with his history are involved in the discussion of the poem itself, and we therefore treat them in considerable detail in that connection, aside from their critical bearings.

I. Analysis of Contents.

1. The Introduction (Job 1:1-2; Job 1:10) supplies all the facts on which the argument is based. Job, a chieftain in the land of Uz (apparently a district of Northern Arabia see Uz), of immense wealth and high rank, is represented to us as a man of perfect integrity, and blameless in all the relations of life. The highest goodness and the most perfect temporal happiness are combined in his person; under the protection of God, surrounded by a numerous family, he enjoys in advanced life (from Job 42:16 it has been inferred that he was about seventy years old at this time), an almost paradisiacal state, exemplifying the normal results of human obedience to the will of a righteous God.

One question, however, could be raised by envy: May not the goodness which secures such direct and tangible rewards be a refined form of selfishness? In the world of spirits, where all the mysteries of existence are brought to light, Satan, the accusing angel, suggests this doubt, and boldly asserts that if those external blessings were withdrawn Job would cast off his allegiance. The question thus distinctly propounded is obviously of infinite importance, and could only be answered by inflicting upon a man, in whom, while prosperous, malice itself could detect no evil, the calamities which are the due, and were then believed to be invariably the results, even in this life, of wickedness. The accuser receives permission to make the trial. He destroys Job’s property, then his children; and afterwards, to leave no possible opening for a cavil, is allowed to inflict upon him the most terrible disease known in the East. SEE JOBS DISEASE.

Each of these calamities assumes a form which produces an impression that it must be a visitation from God, precisely such as was to be expected, supposing that the patriarch had been a successful hypocrite, reserved for the day of wrath. Job’s wife breaks down entirely under the trial in the very words which Satan had anticipated that the patriarch himself would at last utter in his despair, she counsels him to curse God and die. (The Sept. has a remarkable addition to her speech at Job 2:9, severely reproaching him as the cause of her bereavements.) Job remains steadfast. The destruction of his property draws not from him a word of complaint; the death of his children elicits the sublimest words of resignation which ever fell from the lips of a mourner the disease which made him an object of loathing to man, and seemed to designate him as a visible example of divine wrath, is borne without a murmur; he repels his wife’s suggestion with the simple words, What! shall we receive good at the hand of the Lord, and shall we not receive evil? In all this Job did not sin with his lips.

2. The Controversy (Job 2:11-13). Still it is clear that, had the poem ended here, many points of deep interest would have been left in obscurity. Entire as was the submission of Job, he must have been inwardly perplexed by events to which he had no clue, which were quite unaccountable on any hypothesis hitherto entertained, and seemed repugnant to the ideas of justice engraven on man’s heart. It was also most desirable that the impressions made upon the generality of men by sudden and unaccountable calamities should be thoroughly discussed, and that a broader and firmer basis than heretofore should be found for speculations concerning the providential government of the world. An opportunity for such discussion is afforded in the most natural manner by the introduction of three men representing the wisdom and experience of the age, who came to condole with Job on hearing of his misfortunes. Some time appears to have elapsed in the interim, during which the disease had made formidable progress, and Job had thoroughly realized the extent of his misery. The meeting is described with singular beauty. At a distance they greet him with the wild demonstrations of sympathizing grief usual in the East; coming near, they are overpowered by the sight of his wretchedness, and sit seven days and seven nights without uttering a word (Job 2:11-13). This awful silence, whether Job felt it as a proof of real sympathy, or as an indication of inward suspicion on their part, drew out all his anguish. In an agony of desperation he curses the day of his birth, and sees and hopes for no end of his misery but death (ch. 3).

This causes a discussion between him and his friends (ch. 4-31), which is divided into three main parts, each with subdivisions, embracing alternately the speeches of the three friends of Job and his answers: the last part, however, consists of only two subdivisions, the third friend, Zophar, having nothing to rejoin; a silence by which the author of the book generally designates the defeat of Job’s friends, who are defending a common cause. (It has, however, been argued with much force by Wemyss, that some derangement has occurred in the order of the composition; for Job 27:13-23, appears to contain Zophar’s third address to Job, while ch. 28 seems to be the conclusion of the whole book, containing the moral, added perhaps by some later hand.) But see below, 5.

(a.) The results of the first discussion (chap. Job 3-14) may be thus summed up. We have on the part of Job’s friends a theory of the divine government resting upon an exact and uniform correlation between sin and punishment (Job 4:6; Job 4:11, and throughout). Afflictions are always penal, issuing in the destruction of those who are radically opposed to God, or who do not submit to his chastisements. They lead, of course, to correction and amendment of life when the sufferer repents, confesses his sins, puts them away, and turns to God. In that case restoration to peace, and even increased prosperity, may be expected (Job 5:17-27). Still the fact of the suffering always proves the commission of some special sin, while the demeanor of the sufferer indicates the true internal relation between him and God.

These principles are applied by them to the case of Job. They are, in the first place, scandalized by the vehemence of his complaints, and when they find that he maintains his freedom from willful or conscious sin, they are driven to the conclusion that his faith is radically unsound; his protestations appear to them almost blasphemous; they become convinced that he has been secretly guilty of some unpardonable sin, and their tone, at first courteous, though warning (compare ch. Job 4 with ch. Job 15), becomes stern, and even harsh and menacing. It is clear that, unless they are driven from their partial and exclusive theory, they must be led on to an unqualified condemnation of Job.

In this part of the dialogue the character of the three friends is clearly developed. Eliphaz represents the true patriarchal chieftain, grave and dignified, and erring only from an exclusive adherence to tenets hitherto unquestioned, and influenced in the first place by genuine regard for Job and sympathy with his affliction. Bildad, without much originality or independence of character, reposes partly on the wise saws of antiquity, partly on the authority of his older friend. Zophar differs from both: he seems to be a young man; his language is violent, and at times even coarse and offensive (see, especially, his second speech, ch. Job 20). He represents the prejudiced and narrow-minded bigots of his age.

In order to do justice to the position and arguments of Job, it must be borne in mind that the direct object of the trial was to ascertain whether he would deny or forsake God, and that his real integrity is asserted by God himself. His answers throughout correspond with these data. He knows with a sure inward conviction that he is not an offender in the sense of his opponents: he is therefore confident that, whatever may be the object of the afflictions for which he cannot account, God knows that he is innocent. This consciousness, which from the nature of things cannot be tested by others, enables him to examine fearlessly their position. He denies the assertion that punishment follows surely on guilt, or proves its commission. Appealing boldly to experience, he declares that, in point of fact, prosperity and misfortune are not always or generally commensurate; both are often irrespective of man’s deserts; the tabernacles of robbers prosper, and they that provoke God are secure (Job 12:6). In the government of Providence he can see but one point clearly, viz. that all events and results are absolutely in God’s hand (Job 12:9-25), but as for the principles which underlie those events he knows nothing. In fact, he is sure that his friends are equally uninformed, and are sophists defending their position, out of mere prejudice, by arguments and statements false in themselves and doubly offensive to God, being hypocritically advanced in his defense (Job 13:1-13). Still he doubts not that God is just, and although he cannot see how or when that justice can be manifested, he feels confident that his innocence must be recognized. Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him; he also will be my salvation (Job 13:14; Job 13:16). There remains, then, but one course open to him, and that he takes. He turns to supplication, implores God to give him a fair and open trial (Job 13:18-28). Admitting his liability to such sins as are common to man, being unclean by birth (Job 13:26; Job 14:4), he yet protests his substantial innocence, and in the bitter struggle with his misery he first meets the thought which is afterwards developed with remarkable distinctness. Believing that with death all hope connected with this world ceases, he prays that he may be hidden in the grave (Job 14:13), and there reserved for the day when God will try his cause and manifest himself in love (Job 14:15). This prayer represents but a dim, yet a profound and true presentiment, drawn forth, then evidently for the first time, as the possible solution of the dark problem. As for a renewal of life here, he dreams not of it (Job 14:14), nor will he allow that the possible restoration or prosperity of his descendants at all meets the exigencies of his case (Job 14:21-22).

(b.) In the second discussion (ch. 15-21) there is a more resolute, elaborate attempt on the part of Job’s friends to vindicate their theory of retributive justice. This requires an entire overthrow of the position taken by Job. They cannot admit his innocence. The fact that his calamities are unparalleled proves to them that there must be something quite unique in his guilt. Eliphaz (ch. 15), who, as usual, lays down the basis of the argument, does not now hesitate to impute to Job the worst crimes of which man could be guilty. His defense is blasphemous, and proves that he is quite godless; that he disregards the wisdom of age and experience, denies the fundamental truths of religion (Job 15:3-16), and by his rebellious struggles (Job 15:25-27) against God deserves every calamity which can befall him (Job 15:28-30). Bildad (ch. 18) takes up this suggestion of ungodliness, and, after enlarging upon the inevitable results of all iniquity, concludes that the special evils which had come upon Job, such as agony of heart, ruin of home, destruction of family, are peculiarly the penalties due to one who is without God. Zophar (ch. 20) draws the further inference that a sinner’s sufferings must needs be proportioned to his former enjoyments (Job 20:5-14), and his losses to his former gains (Job 20:15-19), and thus not only accounts for Job’s present calamities, but menaces him with still greater evils (Job 20:20-22).

In answer, Job recognizes the hand of God in his afflictions (Job 16:7-16, and Job 19:6-20), but rejects the charge of ungodliness; he has never forsaken his Maker, and never ceased to pray. This, being a matter of inward consciousness, cannot of course be proved. He appeals therefore directly to earth and heaven: My witness is in heaven, and my record is on high (Job 16:19). The train of thought thus suggested carries him much further in the way towards the great truth that since in this life the righteous certainly are not saved from evil, it follows that their ways are watched and their sufferings recorded, with a view to a future and perfect manifestation of the divine justice. This view becomes gradually brighter and more definite as the controversy proceeds (Job 16:18-19; Job 17:8-9, and perhaps 13-16), and at last finds expression in a strong and clear declaration of his conviction that at the latter day (evidently that day which Job had expressed a longing to see, Job 14:12-14) God will personally manifest himself as his nearest kinsman or avenger SEE GOEL, and that he, Job, although in a disembodied state (, without my flesh). should survive in spirit to witness this posthumous vindication, a pledge of which had already often been given him ( ) he, notwithstanding the destruction of his skin, i.e. the outward man, retaining or recovering his personal identity (Job 19:25-27). There can be no doubt that Job here virtually anticipates the final answer to all difficulties supplied by the Christian revelation.

On the other hand, stung by the harsh and narrow minded bigotry of his opponents, Job draws out (chap. 21) with terrible force the undeniable fact that, from the beginning to the end of their lives, ungodly men, avowed atheists (Job 19:14-15), persons, in fact, guilty of the very crimes imputed, out of mere conjecture, to himself, frequently enjoy great and unbroken prosperity. From this he draws the inference, which he states in a very unguarded manner, and in a tone calculated to give just offense, that an impenetrable veil hangs over the temporal dispensations of God.

(c.) In the third dialogue (chap. 22-31) no real progress is made by Job’s opponents. They will not give up and cannot defend their position. Eliphaz (ch. 22) makes a last effort, and raises one new point which he states with some ingenuity. The station in which Job was formerly placed presented temptations to certain crimes; the punishments which he undergoes are precisely such as might be expected had those crimes been committed; hence he infers they actually were committed. The tone of this discourse thoroughly harmonizes with the character of Eliphaz. He could scarcely come to a different conclusion without surrendering his fundamental principles; and he urges with much dignity and impressiveness the exhortations and warnings which in his opinion were needed. Bildad has nothing to add but a few solemn words on the incomprehensible majesty of God and the nothingness of man. Zophar, the most violent and least rational of the three, is put to silence, and retires from the contest (unless we adopt the above suggestion of a transposition of the text).

In his last two discourses Job does not alter his position, nor, properly speaking, adduce any new argument, but he states with incomparable force and eloquence the chief points which he regards as established (ch. 26). All creation is confounded by the majesty and might of God; man catches but a faint echo of God’s word, and is baffled in the attempt to comprehend his ways. He then (ch. 27) describes even more completely than his opponents had done the destruction which, as a rule, ultimately falls upon the hypocrite, and which he certainly would deserve if he were hypocritically to disguise the truth concerning himself, and deny his own integrity. He thus recognizes what was true in his opponents’ arguments, and corrects his own hasty and unguarded statements. Then follows (chap. 28) the grand description of Wisdom, and the declaration that human wisdom does not consist in exploring the hidden and inscrutable ways of God, but in the fear of the Lord, and in turning away from evil. The remainder of this discourse (ch. 29-31) contains a singularly beautiful description of his former life, contrasted with his actual misery, together with a full vindication of his character from all the charges made or insinuated by his opponents. Taking a general view of the argument thus far, Job’s three friends may be considered as asserting the following positions:

(1.) No man being free from sin, we need not wonder that we are liable to calamities, for which we must account by a reference, not to God, but to ourselves. From the misery of the distressed, others are enabled to infer their guilt; and they must take this view in order to vindicate divine justice,

(2.) The distress of a man proves not only that he has sinned, but shows also the degree and measure of his sin; and thus, from the extent of calamity sustained, may be inferred the extent of sins committed, and from this the measure of impending misfortune.

(3.) A distressed man may recover his former happiness, and even attain to greater fortune than he ever enjoyed before, if he takes a warning from his afflictions, repents of his sins, reforms his life, and raises himself to a higher degree of moral rectitude. Impatience and irreverent expostulation with God serve but to prolong and increase punishment; for, by accusing God of injustice, a fresh sin is added to former transgressions.

(4.) Though the wicked man is capable of prosperity, still it is never lasting. The most awful retribution soon overtakes him; and his transient felicity must itself be considered as punishment, since it renders him heedless, and makes him feel misfortune more keenly.

In opposition to them, Job maintains:

(1.) The most upright man may be highly unfortunate more so than the inevitable faults and shortcomings of human nature would seem to imply. There is a savage cruelty, deserving the severities of the divine resentment, in inferring the guilt of a man from his distresses. In distributing good and evil, God regards neither merit nor guilt, but acts according to his sovereign pleasure. His omnipotence is apparent in every part of the creation, but his justice cannot be seen in the government of the world; the afflictions of the righteous, as well as the prosperity of the wicked, are evidence against it. There are innumerable cases, and Job considers his own to be one of them, in which a sufferer has a right to justify himself before God, and to appeal to some other explanation of his decrees. Of this right Job freely avails himself, and maintains it against his friends.

(2.) In a state of composure and calmer reflection, Job qualifies, chiefly in his concluding speech, some of his former rather extravagant assertions, and says that, although God generally afflicts the wicked, and blesses the righteous, still there are exceptions to this rule, single cases in which the pious undergo severe trials; the inference, therefore, of a man’s guilt from his misfortunes is by no means warranted. For the exceptions established by experience prove that God does not always distribute prosperity and adversity after this rule, but that he sometimes acts on a different principle, or as an absolute lord, according to his mere will and pleasure.

(3.) Humbly to adore God is our duty, even when we are subject to calamities not at all deserved; but we should abstain from harshly judging of those who, when distressed, seem to send forth complaints against God.

3. Thus ends the discussion, in which it is evident both parties had partially failed. Job has been betrayed into very hazardous statements, while his friends had been on the one hand disingenuous, on the other bigoted, harsh, and pitiless. The points which had been omitted, or imperfectly developed, are now taken up by a new interlocutor (ch. 32-37), who argues the justice of the divine administration both from the nature of the dispensations allotted to man, and from the essential character of God himself. Elihu, a young man, descended from a collateral branch of the family of Abraham, has listened in indignant silence to the arguments of his elders (Job 32:7), and, impelled by an inward inspiration, he now addresses himself to both parties in the discussion, and specially to Job. He shows, first, that they had accused Job upon false or insufficient grounds, and failed to convict him, or to vindicate God’s justice. Job, again, had assumed his entire innocence, and had arraigned that justice (Job 33:9-11). These errors he traces to their both overlooking one main object of all suffering. God speaks to man by chastisement (Job 33:14; Job 33:19-22) warns him, teaches him self-knowledge and humility (Job 33:16-17) and prepares him (Job 33:23) by the mediation of a spiritual interpreter (the angel Jehovah of Genesis) to implore and to obtain pardon (Job 33:24), renewal of life (Job 33:25), perfect access and restoration (Job 33:26). This statement does not involve any charge of special guilt, such as the friends had alleged and Job had repudiated. Since the warning and suffering are preventive as well as remedial, the visitation anticipates the commission of sin; it saves man from pride, and other temptations of wealth and power, and it effects the real object of all divine interpositions, the entire submission to God’s will. Again, Elihu argues (Job 34:10-17) that any charge of injustice, direct or implicit, against God involves a contradiction in terms. God is the only source of justice; the very idea of justice is derived from his governance of the universe, the principle of which is love. In his absolute knowledge God sees all secrets, and by his absolute power he controls all events, and that for the one end of bringing righteousness to light (Job 34:21-30). Man has, of course, no claim upon God; what he receives is purely a matter of grace (Job 35:6-9). The occasional appearance of unanswered prayer (Job 35:9), when evil seems to get the upper hand, is owing merely to the fact that man prays in a proud and insolent spirit (Job 35:12-13). Job may look to his heart, and he will see if that is true of himself.

Job is silent, and Elihu proceeds (ch. 36) to show that the almightiness of God is not, as Job seems to assert, associated with any contempt or neglect of his creatures. Job, by ignoring this truth, has been led into grave error, and terrible danger (Job 35:12; comp. 18), but God is still drawing him, and if he yields and follows he will yet be delivered. The rest of the discourse brings out forcibly the lessons taught by the manifestations of goodness as well as greatness in creation. Indeed, the great object of all natural phenomena is to teach menWho teacheth like him? This part differs from Job’s magnificent description of the mystery and majesty of God’s works, inasmuch as it indicates a clearer recognition of a loving purpose and from the address of the Lord which follows, by its discursive and argumentative tone. The last words are evidently spoken while a violent storm is coming on, in which Elihu views the signs of a Theophany, such as cannot fail to produce an intense realization of the nothingness of man before God.

4. The Almighty’s Response. From the preceding analysis it is obvious that many weighty truths have been developed in the course of the discussion nearly every theory of the objects and uses of suffering has been reviewed while a great advance has been made towards the apprehension of doctrines hereafter to be revealed, such as were known only to God. But the mystery is not as yet really cleared up. The position of the three original opponents is shown to be untenable the views of Job himself to be but imperfect while even Elihu gives not the least intimation that he recognizes one special object of calamity. In the case of Job, as we are expressly told, that object was to try his sincerity, and to demonstrate that goodness, integrity in all relations, and devout faith in God can exist independent of external circumstances. This object never occurs to the mind of any one of the interlocutors, nor could it be proved without a revelation. On the other hand, the exact amount of censure due to Job for the excesses into which he had been betrayed, and to his three opponents for their harshness and want of candor, could only be awarded by an omniscient Judge.

Accordingly, from the midst of the storm, Jehovah, whom Job had several times vehemently challenged by appeal to decide the contest, now speaks. In language of incomparable grandeur he reproves and silences the murmurs of Job. God does not condescend, strictly speaking, to argue with his creatures. The speculative questions discussed in the colloquy are unnoticed, but the declaration of God’s absolute power is illustrated by a marvelously beautiful and comprehensive survey of the glory of creation, and his all-embracing providence by reference to the phenomena of the animal kingdom. He who would argue with the Lord must understand at least the objects for which instincts so strange and manifold are given to the beings far below man in gifts and powers. This declaration suffices to bring Job to a right mind: he confesses his inability to comprehend; and therefore to answer his Maker (Job 40:3-4). A second address completes the work. It proves that a charge of injustice against God involves the consequence that the accuser is more competent than he to rule the universe. He should then be able to control, to punish, to reduce all creatures to order but he cannot even subdue the monsters of the irrational creation. Baffled by leviathan and behemoth, how can he hold the reins of government, how contend with him who made and rules them all?

5. Job’s unreserved submission terminates the trial (ch. 38-12. There is probably another transposition at Job 40:1-14, which belongs after Job 42:1-6). He expresses deep contrition, not, of course, for sins falsely imputed to him, but for the bitterness and arrogance which had characterized some portion of his complaints. In the rebuke then addressed to Job’s opponents the integrity of his character is distinctly recognized, while they are condemned for untruth, which, inasmuch as it was not willful, but proceeded from a real but narrow minded conviction of the divine justice, is pardoned on the intercession of Job. The restoration of his external prosperity, which is an inevitable result of God’s personal manifestation, symbolizes the ultimate compensation of the righteous for all sufferings undergone upon earth.

II. Design of the Book.

1. From this analysis it may seem clear that certain views concerning the general object of the book are partial or erroneous.

a. It cannot be the object of the writer to prove that there is no connection between guilt and sorrow, or that the old orthodox doctrine of retribution was radically unsound. Job himself recognizes the general truth of the doctrine, which is, in fact, confirmed by his ultimate restoration to happiness.

b. Nor is the development of the great doctrine of a future state the primary object. It would not, in that case, have been passed over in Job’s last discourse, in the speech of Elihu, or in the address of the Lord God. In fact; critics who hold that view admit that the doctrine is rather suggested than developed, and amounts to scarcely more than a hope, a presentiment, at the most a subjective conviction of a truth first fully revealed by him who brought life and immortality to light. (See Pareau, De Immortalitatis notis in libro Jobi, Devent. 1807.) The cardinal truth of the immortality of the soul is, indeed, clearly implied throughout Job’s reasoning, as it is elsewhere assumed in the O.T. (comp. Mat 22:32); and this thought, in fact, constitutes the afflicted patriarch’s ground of consolation and trust, especially in that sublime passage (Mat 19:25-27) where he expresses his confidence in his posthumous vindication, which could be of no satisfaction unless his spirit should survive to witness it. Yet this belief is nowhere carried out at length, as would have been the case had this been the main theme of the epopee. Much less is the later doctrine of the resurrection of the body contained in the poem. SEE RESURRECTION.

c. On the doctrine of future retribution, see below. SEE FUTURE LIFE; SEE IMMORTALITY.

2. It may be granted that the primary design of the poem is that which is distinctly intimated in the introduction, and confirmed in the conclusion, namely, to show the effects of calamity in its worst and most awful form upon a truly religious spirit. Job is no Stoic, no Titan (Ewald, p. 26), struggling rebelliously against God; no Prometheus victim of a jealous and unrelenting Deity: he is a suffering man, acutely sensitive to all impressions inward and outward, grieved by the loss of wealth, position, domestic happiness, the respect of his countrymen, dependents, and followers, tortured by a loathsome, incurable, and all but unendurable disease, and stung to an agony of grief and passion by the insinuations of conscious guilt and hypocrisy. Under such provocation, being wholly without a clue to the cause of his misery, and hopeless of restoration to happiness on earth, he is shaken to the utmost, and driven almost to desperation. Still in the center of his being he remains firm and unmoved with an intense consciousness of his own integrity without a doubt as to the power, wisdom, truth, or absolute justice of God, and therefore awaiting with longing expectation the final judgment which he is assured must come and bring him deliverance. The representation of such a character, involving the discomfiture of man’s great enemy, and the development of the manifold problems which such a spectacle suggests to men of imperfect knowledge, but of thoughtful and inquiring mind, is the more direct object of the writer, who, like all great spirits of the ancient world, dealt less with abstract propositions than with the objective realities of existence. Such is the impression naturally made by the book, and which is recognized more distinctly in proportion as the reader grasps the tenor of the arguments, and realizes the characters and events.

3. Still, beyond and beneath this outward and occasional design there evidently lies a grander problem, which has exercised the reflection of all pious and considerate minds, and which we know was vividly pressed upon the contemplation even of the Oriental saint of early times (Psalms 37). Hence the nearly unanimous voice of critics and readers has decided that the ultimate object of the book is the consideration of the question how the afflictions of the righteous and the prosperity of the wicked can be consistent with God’s justice. But it should be observed that the direct problem exclusively refers to the first point, the second being only incidentally discussed on occasion of the leading theme. If this is overlooked, the author would appear to have solved only one half of his problem: the case from which the whole discussion proceeds has reference merely to the leading problem.

There is another fundamental error which has led nearly all modern interpreters to a mistaken idea of the design of this book. They assume that the problem could be satisfactorily solved only when the doctrine of retribution in another life had been first established, which had not been done by the author of the book of Job: a perfect solution of the question was therefore not to be expected from him. Some assert that his solution is erroneous, since retribution, to be expected in a future world, is transferred by him to this life; others say that he cut the knot which he could not unloose, and has been satisfied to ask for implicit submission and devotedness, showing at the same time that every attempt at a solution must lead to dangerous positions: blind resignation, therefore, was the short meaning of the lengthened discussion. Upon the doctrine of retribution after death our author does not enter; but that he knew it may be inferred from several passages with great probability; as, for instance, 14:14, If a man die, shall he live again? All the days of my appointed time will I wait, till my change come. The if here shows that the writer had been before engaged in considering the subject of life after death; and when such is the case, a pious mind will necessarily indulge the hope, or will, at least, have an obscure presentiment of immortality. The truth also of God’s undoubted grace, on which the doctrine of immortality is based, will be found clearly laid down in chap. 19. Still the author does not recur to this hope for the purpose of solving his problem; he did not intend in his discussion to exceed the limits of what God had clearly revealed, and this was in his time confined to the vague notion of life continued after death. but not connected with rewards and punishments. From these considerations it appears that those interpreters who, with Bernstein, De Wette, and Umbreit, assume that the book of Job was of a skeptical nature, and intended to dispute the doctrine of retribution as laid down in the other books of the Old Testament, have entirely misunderstood it.

On nearer examination, however, it appears that the doctrine of retribution after death is not of itself alone calculated to lead to a solution of the problem. The belief in a final judgment is firm and rational only when it rests in the belief in God’s continued providential government of the world, and in his acting as sovereign Lord in all the events of human life. Temporary injustice is still injustice, and destroys the idea of a holy and just God. A God who has something to redress is no God at all. Even the ancient heathen perceived that future awards would not vindicate incongruities in divine providence here (see Barth, Notes to Claudian, 1078 sq.). God’s just retribution in this world is extolled throughout the Old Testament. The New Testament holds out to the righteous promises of a future life, as well as of the present; and our Savior himself, in setting forth the rewards of those who, for his sake, forsook everything, begins with this life (Mat 19:29). A nearer examination of the benedictions contained in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5) shows that none of them exclusively refer to future blessings; the judgment of the wicked is in his view proceeding without interruption, and therefore his examples of the distribution of divine justice in this world are mingled with those of requital in a future order of things. The Galilaeans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their own sacrifices (Luk 13:1), were in Christ’s opinion not accidentally killed; and he threatens those who would not repent that they should in like manner perish. That sickness is to be considered as a punishment for sin we are clearly taught (Joh 5:14; Luk 5:20; Luk 5:24): in the former passage it is threatened as a punishment for sins committed; in the latter it is healed in consequence of punishment remitted. The passage in Joh 9:2-3, which is often appealed to in proof that our Lord did not consider sickness as a punishment for, does not prove this, but only opposes the Jewish positionfounded on the mistaken doctrine of retributionthat all severe sicknesses and infirmities were consequences of crimes. The solution of the problem regarding the sufferings of the righteous rests on two positions:

(1.) Their Necessity. Even the comparatively righteous are not without sin, which can be eradicated only by afflictions, and he who patiently endures them will attain a clearer insight into the otherwise obscure ways of God. The trials of the pious issue at once from God’s justice and love. To him who entertains a proper sense of the sinfulness of man, no calamity appears so great as not to be deserved as a punishment, or useful as a corrective.

(2.) The Compensations attending them. Calamity, as the veiled grace of God, is with the pious never experienced alone, but manifest proofs of divine favor accompany or follow it. Though sunk in misery, they still are happier than the wicked, and when it has attained its object it is terminated by the Lord. The consolations offered in the Old Testament are, agreeably to the weaker judgment of its professors, derived chiefly from external circumstances, while in the New Testament they are mainly spiritual, the eye being, moreover, directed beyond the limits of this world.

It is this purely correct solution of the problem which occurs in the book of Job. It is not set forth, however, in any one set of speeches, but is rather to be gathered from the concurrent drift of the entire discussion. For,

[1.] The solution cannot be looked for in Job’s speeches, for God proves himself gracious towards him only after he has been corrected and humbled himself. Although the author of the book does not say (Job 1:22; Job 2:10; comp. Job 42:7) that Job had charged God foolishly, and sinned with his lips, yet the sentiment calling for correction in his speeches is clearly pointed out to be that he was righteous in his own eyes, and justified himself rather than God (Job 32:1-2). The entire purity of his character did not prevent his falling into misconceptions and even contradictions on this important topic, which the discussion only tended the more to perplex. Job continues to be embarrassed for the solution, and he is only certain of this, that the explanation of his friends cannot be satisfactory. Job erred chiefly in not acknowledging his need of chastisement; notwithstanding his integrity and sincere piety, this prevented him from apprehending the object of the calamity inflicted on him, led him to consider God’s dispensations as arbitrary, and made him despair of the return of better days. The greatness of his sufferings was in some measure the cause of his misconception, by exciting his feelings, and preventing him from calmly considering his case. He was in the state of a man tempted, and deserving God’s indulgence. He had received considerable provocation from his friends, and often endeavored to soften his harsh assertions, which, particularly in ch. 27 leads him into such contradictions as must have occurred in the life of the tempted; he is loud in acknowledging the wisdom of God (ch. 28), and raises himself at times to cheering hopes (comp. ch. 19). But this can only excuse, not justify him, and therefore it is in the highest degree honorable to him that he remains silent when, in Elihu’s speeches, the correct solution of the question is suggested, and that he ultimately acknowledges his fundamental error of doing justice to himself only.

[2.] The solution of the question mooted cannot be contained in the speeches of Job’s friends. Their demeanor is reproved by God, and represented as a real sin, so much so, indeed, that to obtain pardon for them Job was directed to offer a propitiatory sacrifice. Their error proceeded from a crude notion of sin in its external appearance; and, inferring its existence from calamity, they were thus led to condemn the afflicted Job as guilty of heinous crimes (ch. 32). The moral use of sufferings was unknown to them, which evidently proved that they themselves were not yet purged and cleared from guilt. If they had been sensible of the nature of man, if they had understood themselves, they would on seeing the misery of Job, have exclaimed, God be merciful to us sinners! There is, indeed, an important correct principle in their speeches, whose center it forms, so much so that they mostly err only in the application of the general truth. It consists in the perception of the invariable connection between sin and misery, which is indelibly engrafted on the heart of man, and to which many ancient authors allude. The problem of the book is then solved by properly uniting the correct positions of the speeches both of Job and his friends, by maintaining his innocence as to any moral obliquity (although cherishing a view which must have resulted in spiritual pride, had not the Lord thus mercifully exposed its character before it ripened into guilt), and at the same time avoiding the idea that misfortune is necessarily a punitive infliction (being only a curse when it follows the violation of the physical laws of the Creator, and even then capable of being overruled for the welfare of his saints), thus tracing the errors of both parties to a common source, the want of a sound insight into the nature of sin. Job considers himself righteous, and not deserving of such inflictions, because he was not conscious of having committed any crime; and his friends fancy they must assume that he was highly criminal, in order to justify his misery.

[3.] The solution of the question at issue is not exclusively given in the addresses of God, which contain only the basis of the solution, not the solution itself. In setting forth his majesty, and in showing that imputing to him injustice is repugnant to a correct conception of his nature, these addresses establish that there must be a solution which does not impair divine justice. This is not, indeed, the solution itself, but everything is thus prepared for the solution. We apprehend that God must be just, but it remains further to be shown how he can be just, and still the righteous be miserable.

[4.] Nor yet can we justly regard the speech of Elihu as affording altogether a correct solution of this main question; for, as the preceding analysis has shown, it falls short of the purpose, and the text itself (Job 38:2) expressly states its bewilderment and incompetency. Nevertheless, the position of this in the poem, and the general agreement of its doctrines with the final result, indicate that it contains, in germ at least, the correct solution, as far as human sagacity can go. The leading principle in Elihu’s statement is, that calamity in the shape of trial was inflicted even on the comparatively best men, but that God allowed a favorable turn to take place as soon as it had attained its object. Now this is the key to the events of Job’s life. Though a pious and righteous man, he is tried by severe afflictions. He knows not for what purpose he is smitten, and his calamity continues; but when he learns it from the addresses of Elihu and God, and humbles himself, he is relieved from the burden which oppresses him, and ample prosperity atones for the afflictions he has sustained (the last vestige of injustice on the part of the Almighty in thus afflicting a good man at the instance of Satan, and for the sake of the example to future ages, disappearing with the consideration that the subject of it himself required the severe lesson for his own spiritual profit). Add to this that the remaining portion of Elihu’s speeches, in which he points to God’s infinite majesty as including his justice, is continued in the addresses of God; that Elihu foretells God’s appearance; that he is not punished by God as are the friends of Job; in fine, that Job, by his very silence, acknowledges the problem to have been solved by Elihu; and his silence is the more significant, because Elihu had urged him to defend himself (Job 33:32), and because Job had repeatedly declared he would hold his peace if it was shown to him wherein he had erred (Job 6:24-25; Job 19:4). This view of the book of Job has among modern authors been supported chiefly by Studlin (Beitrge zur Religions und Sittenlehre, 2, 133) and Stickel (Das Buch Hiob, Lpzg. 1842), though in both it is mixed up with much erroneous matter; and it is further confirmed by the whole Old Testament giving the same answer to the question mooted which the speeches of Elihu offer: in its concentrated form it is presented in Psalms 37, 44, 73.

At the same time, it must be conceded that the reprehension of Elihu’s speech by Jehovah himself, as savoring of presumption, intimates, as the tenor of the whole succeeding portion of the poem also implies, that there are mysteries in divine providence, the full solution of which, in this life at least, God does not deign nor think best to make to his creatures who are the subjects of them. The inscrutability of God’s ways by human judgment is a necessary inference from his infinity, and the character of this life as a probation requires the withholding of many of his plans in order to their proper disciplinary effects. Especially is the saint required to wall by faith and not by sight, and the growth and fullest exercise of this faith can only occur under such circumstances as those in which Job was placed. While it is preeminently the doctrine of both the Old and the New Testament that afflictions are the earthly lot of the righteous, it is equally a maxim under both dispensations that the most ennobling motive for their patient endurance is the simple fact that they are dispensed by our heavenly Father, who alone fully knows why they are best for us. Could the subject of them at the time perceive clearly their necessity and advantage, half their value would be destroyed; for an assurance of this he must trust the known kindness and wisdom of the Hand that smites him (Heb 12:1). It was this sublime position, finally attained by the tried patriarch (Job 23:10), which gilds his character with its most sacred hue. The above is substantially the view of the moral design of the book entertained by the latest expositors (e.g. Conant, Delitzsch, etc.), although they do not bring out these ethical considerations with sufficient distinctness. It remains to consider the view taken by Ewald respecting the design of the book of Job. He justly rejects the common, superficial view of its design, which has recently been revived and defended by Hirzel (see his Commentar, Lpzg. 1839), and which represents the author as intending to show that man cannot apprehend the plans of God, and does best to submit in ignorance, without repining at afflictions. Nowhere in the whole book is simple resignation crudely enjoined, and nowhere does Job say that he submits to such an injunction. The prologue represents his sufferings as trials, and the epilogue declares that the end had proved this consequently the author was competent to give a theodicy with reference to the calamity of Job and if such is the case he cannot have intended simply to recommend resignation.

The Biblical writers, when engaged on this problem, know how to justify God with reference to the afflictions of the righteous, and have no intention of evading the difficulty when they recommend resignation (see the Psalms quoted above, and, in the New Testament, the Epistle to the Hebrews, chap. 12). The view of the book of Job alluded to would isolate it, and take it out of its natural connection. Thus far, then, we agree with Ewald, but we cannot approve of his own view of the design of the book of Job. According to his system, calamity is never a punishment for sins committed, but always a mere phantom, an imaginary show, above which we must raise ourselves by the consciousness of the eternal nature of the human mind, to which, by external prosperity, nothing can be added, and from which, by external misfortune, nothing can be taken away. It was (says Ewald) the merit of the book of Job to have prepared these sounder views of worldly evil and of the immortality of mind, transmitting them as fruitful buds to posterity. But such a system as this must be abortive to console under any considerable affliction, and is equally opposed to the whole tenor of Scripture, which, while recognizing the reality and naturalness of sorrow, and even allowing its exhibition, yet knows how effectually to cure its wounds by the most substantial considerations. Nor is it in accordance with the book itself, which nowhere impugns or mitigates the extent of Job’s calamities, but, from the high vantage ground of the prologue and epilogue, impresses us with a more solemn insight into their significance than even Job was enabled to take, and throughout the discussion (both on the part of the three friends whose argument is based upon their tangibility as evidence of the divine displeasure, and especially in the key furnished by Elihu which exalts them to the most interesting degree of importance in the moral discipline of the people of God), admits and therefore seeks to justify their pungency. Their design is as far from stoicism as from insensibility. Viewed in the light of the foregoing purpose, this book becomes one of the most precious legacies to the Church to which tribulation in this world has been left as a heritage; and a sublime exposition of some of the most interesting problems of religious experience in its most highly developed phase.

III. Historical Character of the Work. On this subject there are three opinions.

(1.) Some contend that the book contains an entirely true history.

(2.) Others assert that it contains a narrative entirely imaginary, and constructed by the author to teach a great moral truth.

(3.) The third opinion is that the book is founded on a true history, which has been recast, modified, and enlarged by the author.

1. The first view, taken by numerous ancient interpreters, is now abandoned by nearly all expositors. Until a comparatively late time, the general opinion was not only that the persons and events which it describes are real, but that the very words of the speakers were actually recorded. It was supposed either that Job himself employed the latter years of his life in writing it (A. Schultens), or that at a very early age some inspired Hebrew collected the facts and sayings, faithfully preserved by oral tradition, and presented them to his countrymen in their own tongue. Some such view seems to have been adopted by Josephus, for he places Job in the list of the historical books, and it was prevalent with all the fathers of the Church. In its support several reasons are adduced, of which only the first and second have any real force; and even these are outweighed by other considerations, which render it impossible to consider the book of Job as an entirely true history, but which may be used in defense of the third view alluded to. It is said.

(1.) That Job is (Eze 14:14-20) mentioned as a public character, together with Noah and Daniel, and represented as an example of piety.

(2.) In the Epistle of James (Jam 5:11), patience in sufferings is recommended by a reference to Job.

(3.) In the Greek translation of the Sept. a notice is appended to the book of Job, evidently referring to Gen 36:33, and stating that Job was the king Jobab of Edom. It is as follows: And it is written that he will rise again with those whom the Lord will raise up. This is translated out of a Syrian book. He dwelt indeed in the land of Ausitis, on the confines of Idumaea and Arabia. His first name was Jobab; and having married an Arabian woman, he had by her a son whose name was Ennon. He was himself a son of Zare, one of the sons of Esau, and his mother’s name was Bosorra; so that he was the fifth in descent from Abraham. And these were the kings who reigned in Edort, over which country he also bore rule. The first was Balak, the son of Beor, and the name of his city was Dennaba. And after Balak, Jobab, who is called Job; and after him Asom, who was governor from the region of Thaimanitis; and after him Adad, son of Barad, who smote Madian in the plain of Moab; and the name of his city was Gethaim. And the friends who came to him were Eliphaz of the sons of Esau, the king of the Thaimanites; Baldad, the sovereign of the Sauchaeans; and Sophar, the king of the Minaians. An account is given at the close of the Arabic version so similar that the one has every appearance of having been copied from the other, or of their having had a common origin. Aristaeus, Philo, and Polyhistor acknowledged the account to be true, as did the Greek and Latin fathers. It is not unlikely that the tradition is derived from the Jews. This statement is too late to be relied on, and originates in an etymological combination, SEE JOBAB; and that it must be erroneous is to a certain extent evident from the contents of the book, in which Job is not represented as a king.

(4.) In the East numerous traditions (see D’Herbelot, s.v. Ayoub) about the patriarch and his family show the deep impression made by his character and calamities: these traditions may possibly have been derived from the book itself, but it is at least equally probable that they had an independent origin. Indeed, Job’s tomb continues to be shown to Oriental tourists. Now the factor a Job having lived somewhere would not of itself prove that the hero of our narrative was that person, and that this book contained a purely historical account. Moreover, his tomb is shown not in one place, but in six, and, along with it, the dunghill on which Job is reported to have sat! (See Carpzov, Introd. 2, 33; Jahn, Einleit. 1, 1, 761; Michaelis, Einleit. 1, 1; Bertholdt, 5, 2040).

(5.) Dr. Hales and others have even gone so far as to fix his exact year, by a calculation of the constellation alluded to in 9:9; 38:31; but the uncertainty of such a process is too evident to need consideration, as the very names of the planets alluded to are doubtful. Against this view it must be remarked generally, that the whole work is arranged on a well-considered plan, proving the author’s power of independent invention; that the speeches are, in their general structure and in their details, so elaborate that they could not have been brought out in the ordinary course of a conversation or disputation; that it would be unnatural to suppose Job in his distressed state to have delivered such speeches, finished with the utmost care; and that they exhibit uniformity in their design, fullness, propriety, and coloring, though the author, with considerable skill, represents each speaker whom he introduces arguing according to his character. Moreover, in the prologue and epilogue, as well as in the arrangement of the speeches, the figures 3 and 7 constantly occur, with the decimal number formed by their addition. The transactions between God and Satan in the prologue absolutely require that we should distinguish between the subject matter forming the foundation of the work and its enlargement, which can be only done when a poetical principle is acknowledged in its composition. God’s speaking out of the clouds would. be a miracle, without an object corresponding to its magnitude, and having a merely personal reference, while all the other miracles of the Old Testament are in connection with the theocratical government, and occur in the midst and for the benefit of the people of God.

2. Impelled by the force of these arguments, many critics have adopted the opinion either that the whole work is a moral or religious apologue, or that, upon a substratum of a few rudimental facts preserved by tradition, the genius of an original thinker has raised this, the most remarkable monument of the Shemitic mind. The first indications of this opinion are found in the Talmud (Baba Bathra, 15:1). In a discussion upon the age of this book, while the Rabbins in general maintain its historical character, Samuel Bar- Nachman declares his conviction Job did not exist, and was not a created man, but the work is a parable. Hai Gaon (Ewald and Duke’s Beitrge, 3, 165), A.D. 1000, who is followed by Jarchi, altered this passage to Job existed, and was created to become a parable. They had evidently no critical ground for the change, but bore witness to the prevalent tradition of the Hebrews. Maimonides (Moreh Nebochim, 3, 22), with his characteristic freedom of mind, considers it an open question of little or no moment to the real value of the inspired book. Ralbag, i.e. R. Levi Ben-Gershom, treats it as a philosophic work. A late Hebrew commentator, Simcha Arieh (Schlottmann, p. 4), denies the historical truth of the narrative on the ground that it is incredible that the patriarchs of the chosen race should be surpassed in goodness by a child of Edom. This is worth noting in corroboration of the argument that such a fact was not likely to have been invented by an Israelite of any age.

In opposition to this view, the following arguments may be adduced:

(1.) It has always seemed to pious writers incompatible with any idea of inspiration to assume that a narrative, certainly not allegorical, should be a mere fiction, and irreverent to suppose that the Almighty would be introduced as a speaker in an imaginary colloquy.

(2.) We are led to the same conclusion by the soundest principles of criticism. Ewald says (Einl. p. 15) most truly, The invention of a history without foundation in facts the creation of a person, represented as having a real historical existence, out of the mere head of the poet is a notion so entirely alien to the spirit of all antiquity, that it only began to develop itself gradually in the latest epoch of the literature of any ancient people, and in its complete form belongs only to the most modern times. In the canonical books there is not a trace of any such invention. Of all people, the Hebrews were the least likely to mingle the mere creations of imagination with the sacred records reverenced as the peculiar glory of their race.

It is true that the arguments advanced by Ewald to show the historical character of the chief features of the book are not entirely conclusive, especially the literature of the name Job, which may have reference to the character he sustains in the narrative (from , to hate, q.d. the assailed, i.e. tempted; see Gesenius, Thes. Heb. p. 81); still they must be allowed to have some weight, and, taken in connection with the general usage of Scripture in its poetical and rhetorical amplifications, and especially with the considerations presently to be adduced in relation to the author of this. book, justify the presumption of a historical foundation, not only for the facts and personages represented in the book, but also, to a certain extent, for the speeches.

(3.) To this it must be added that there is a singular air of reality in the whole narrative, such as must either proceed naturally from a faithful adherence to objective truth, or be the result of the most consummate art. The effect is produced partly by the thorough consistency of all the characters, especially that of Job, not merely as drawn in broad, strong outlines, but as developed under a variety of most trying circumstances; partly also by the minute and accurate account of incidents which in a fiction would probably have been noted by an ancient, writer in a vague and general manner. Thus we remark the mode in which the supernatural trial is carried into execution by natural agencies by Chaldean and Sabaean robbers by whirlwinds common in and peculiar to the desert by fire and, lastly, by the elephantiasis (see Schlottmann, p. 15; Ewald, l. c.; and Hengstenberg), the most formidable disease known in the East. The disease was indeed one which the Indians and most Orientals then probably believed to be peculiarly indicative of divine wrath, and would therefore be naturally selected by the writer (see the analysis above). But the symptoms are described so faithfully as to leave no doubt that the writer must either have introduced them with a view to giving an air of truthfulness to his work, or have recorded what he himself witnessed or received from an exact tradition. The former supposition is confuted by the fact that the peculiar symptoms are not described in any one single passage so as to attract the reader’s attention, but are made out by a critical and scientific examination of words occurring here and there at intervals in the complaints of the sufferer. The most refined art fails in producing such a result; it is rarely attempted in the most artificial ages, was never dreamed of by ancient writers, and must here be regarded as a strong instance of the undesigned coincidences which the soundest criticism regards as the best evidence of genuineness and authenticity in any work.

3. Luther first suggested the theory which, in some form or other, is most generally received. In his introduction to the first edition of his translation of the Bible he speaks of the author as having so treated the historical facts as to demonstrate the truth that God alone is righteous; and in the Tischreden (ed. Walch, 22, 2093) he says: I look upon the book of Job as a true history, yet I do not believe that all took place just as it is written, but that an ingenious, pious, and learned man brought it into its present form. This position was strongly attacked by Bellarmine and other Roman theologians, and was afterwards repudiated by most Lutherans. The fact that Spinoza, Clericus, Du Pin, and Father Simon held nearly the same opinion, the first denying, and the others notoriously holding low views of the inspiration of Scripture, had of course a tendency to bring it into disrepute. J.D. Michaelis first revived the old theory of Bar-Nachman, not upon critical, but dogmatic grounds. In a mere history the opinions or doctrines enounced by Job and his friends could have no dogmatic authority; whereas, if the whole book were a pure inspiration, the strongest arguments could be deduced Room them on behalf of the great truths of the resurrection and a future judgment, which, though implied in ether early books, are nowhere so distinctly inculcated. The arbitrary character of such reasoning is obvious. At present no critic doubts that the narrative rests on facts, although the prevalent opinion among Continental scholars is certainly that in its form and general features, in its reasonings and representations of character, the book is a work of creative genius.

Taking this view, we must still abstain from undertaking to determine what the poet derived from tradition, and what he added himself, since we know not how far tradition had already embellished the original fact. Thus much only will it be safe to conclude: that the individual really existed, possibly in the region indicated; that he literally underwent a trial substantially like that represented, and that a discussion grew out of it, held, perhaps, between him and a party of his friends after its first severity was passed, covering the essential principles developed in the book, but briefly and simply expressed.

IV. Descent. Country, and Age of the Author.

1. Opinions differed in ancient times as to the nation to which the author belonged, some considering him to have been an Arab, others an Israelite. Various indications favor the latter supposition:

(1st), We find in our book many ideas of genuine Israelitish growth: the creation of the world is described, in accordance with the prevailing notions of the Israelites, as the immediate effect of divine omnipotence; man is formed of clay; the spirit of man is God’s breath; God employs the angels for the performance of his orders; Satan, the great enemy of the children of God, is his instrument for tempting them; men are weak and sinful; nobody is pure in the sight of God, moral corruption is propagated. There is promulgated to men the law of God, which they must not infringe, and the transgressions of which are visited on offenders with punishments. Moreover, the nether world, or Sheol, is depicted in hues entirely Hebrew. To these particulars might, without much trouble, be added many more, but the deep searching inquirer will particularly weigh,

(2dly), the fact that the book displays a strength and fervor of religious faith such as could only be expected within the domain of revelation. Monotheism, if the assertions of ancient Arabian authors may be trusted. prevailed, indeed, for a long period among the Arabs, and it held its ground at least among a portion of the nation till the age of Mohammed, who obtained for it a complete triumph over polytheism, which was spreading from Syria. Still the god of the Arabs was, is those of the heathens generally were, a retired god, dwelling far apart, while the people of the Old Covenant enjoyed the privilege of a vital communion with God; and the warmth with which our author enters into this view incontrovertibly proves that he was an Israelite.

(3dly), As regards the language of our book, several ancient writers asserted that it was originally written in the Aramaean or Arabic tongue, and afterwards translated into Hebrew by Moses, David, Solomon, or some unknown writer. Of this opinion was the author of the Appendix in the Septuagint, and the compiler of the tract on Job added to the works of Origen and Jerome; in modern times it has been chiefly defended by Spanheim, in his Historia Jobi. But for a translation there is too much propriety and precision in the use of words and phrases; the sentences are too compact, and free from redundant expressions and members; and too much care is bestowed on their harmony and easy flow. The parallelism also is too accurate and perfect for a translation, and the whole breathes a freshness that could be expected from an original work only.

Sensible of the weight of this argument, others, as Eichhorn, took a medium course, and assumed that the author was a Hebrew, though he did not live among his countrymen, but in Arabia. The earlier Hebrew history, they say, is unknown to the author, who is ignorant of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. In portraying nature, also he proves himself always familiar with Arabia, while he is silent respecting the characteristics of Palestine. With Egypt he must have been well acquainted, which can be accounted for better by supposing him to have lived in Arabia than in Palestine. Hitzig and Hirzel accordingly, among the latest writers, hold that the writer was an Egyptian. Wetzstein and Delitzsch say that he was a native of the Hauran. The occasional use of the name Jehovah however, appears to imply a later date than the Exode, and the absence of allusion to the events of Jewish history, it has been thought, may be accounted for by the peculiar line of argument (from natural religion) pursued in the book, as in Ecclesiastes. It has further been suggested that the author, without directly mentioning the Pentateuch, frequently alludes to portions of it, as in Job 3:4, to Gen 1:3; in Job 4:19, and Job 33:6, to Moses’ account of the creation of man in Job 5:14, to Deu 32:32; in Job 24:1, to Deu 25:4. Moreover, history says nothing of the Israelites having permanently taken up their residence in the land of Arabia, so as to allow the supposition of the above origin of the book of Job by a Hebrew thus isolated from Palestine; nor will most of the arguments adduced to prove the acquaintance (and therefore neighborhood) of the author with Egypt bear a close examination. Thus it is a mistake to suppose that the description of the working of mines in ch. 28 must necessarily have reference to Egypt; Phoenicia, Arabia, and Edom afforded much better materials. That the author must have known the Egyptian mausolea rests on an erroneous interpretation of Job 3:14, which may also be said of the assertion that Job 29:18, refers to the Egyptian mythus of the phoenix. Casting aside these arbitrarily assumed Egyptian references, we have only the following: Our author knows the Egyptian vessels of bulrushes, Job 9:26; the Nile grass, Job 8:12, the Nile horse (Behemoth) and the crocodile (Leviathan), Job 11:15; Job 41:1. Now, as these things belong to the more prominent peculiarities of a neighboring country, they must .have been known to every educated Israelite: the vessels of bulrushes are mentioned also in Isa 18:2. Neither are we disposed to adopt the compromising view of Stickel, who assumes that the author wrote his book in the Israelitish territory indeed, but close to the frontier, in the far southeast of Palestine. That the author had there the materials for his descriptions, comparisons, and imagery set better before his eyes than anywhere else, is true, for there he had an opportunity of observing mines, caravans, drying up of brooks, etc. But this is not sufficient proof of the author having lived permanently in that remote part of Palestine, and of having there written his book: he was not a mere copyist of nature, but a poet of considerable eminence, endowed with the power of vividly representing things absent from him.

2. As to the age of the author of this book, we meet with three opinions:

(a.) That he lived before Moses. or was, at least. his contemporary.

(b.) That he lived in the time of Solomon, or in the centuries next following the opinion of Hahn, Schlottmann (Berl. 1857). and Delitzsch.

(c.) That he lived shortly before, or during, or even after the Babylonian exile. Against this last view (adopted by Le Clerc among earlier interpreters, and among modern expositors by Bernstein, Gesenius, Umbreit, and De Wette) it is conclusively objected,

(1.) That the book is referred to in the Old Testament itself (Eze 14:14-20) as well known before the Chaldaean exile. Others, with less plausibility, urge what they deem imitations of various sentiments and even passages of Job in the ante-exilian prophets, e.g. Jer 20:14, comp. with Job 3 (see Kper, Jeremias librorum sacrorum interpres atque vindex, p. 164 sq.); Lam 2:16, comp. Job 16:13; Lam 3:7; Lam 3:9, comp. Job 19:8; Isa 40:2, comp. Job 1 (and Job 10:17; Job 14:14); Isa 51:9, comp. Job 26:13. Isa 19:5, comp. Job 14:11; Psa 107:42, comp. Job 5:16.

(2.) The absence of those Chaldaisms in Job which occur in books written about the time of the captivity.

(3.) The poetical character of the book, which is wholly different from the declining style of the later period.

The most complete statement of the reasons in support of the opinion that the book of Job was written between the age of Moses and the Exile may be found in Richter’s essay, De AEtate Jobi definienda, reprinted in Rosenmller’s edition of Lowth’s Pralectiones de Poesi Sacra Hebroeorum, in which he maintains that it was written in the age of Solomon. Most of these reasons, indeed, are either not conclusive at all, or not quite cogent. Thus it is an arbitrary assumption, proved by modern researches to be erroneous, that the art of writing was unknown previous to the age of Moses. The assertion, too, that the marks of cultivation and refinement observable in our book belonged to a later age rests on no historical ground. Further, it cannot be said that for such an early time the language is too smooth and neat, since in no Shemitic dialect is it possible to trace a progressive improvement. The evident correspondence also between our book and the Proverbs and Psalms is not a point proving with resistless force that they were all written at the same time. Nor is it altogether of such a kind that the authors of the Proverbs and Psalms (comp. especially Psa 39:13, with Job 7:19; Job 14:6; Job 10:20-21; Job 7:8; Job 7:21, in the Hebrew Bible), can be exactly said to have copied our book; but it may be accounted for by their all belonging to the same class of writings, by the very great uniformity and accordance of religious conceptions and sentiments expressed in the Old Testament, and by the stability of its religious character. The striking coincidence, in particular, observable between the eulogy of wisdom contained in Job 28 and the numerous similar didactic strains found in the writings of Solomon (comp. especially Pro 3:4), may be accounted for by the above supposition that this chapter was added by a later hand than the author of the rest of the book, or at least as a sequel to the traditional part of the poem.

The traditionary view of the authorship of the book of Job ascribes it to Moses; the arguments in favor of this view have been collected by Spanheim, and may be seen with replies in Wemyss (Life and Times of Job, p. 82 sq.). The following leading points are deserving of consideration:

(1.) There is in the book of Job no direct reference to the Mosaic legislation; and its descriptions and other statements are suited to the period of the patriarchs; as, for instance, the great authority held by old men, the high age of Job, and fathers offering sacrifices for their families which leads to the supposition that when our book was written no sacerdotal order yet existed. Nor is this ignoring of all the most interesting objects and associations of Judaism fully explainable on the ground of the author’s desire to base the question at issue wholly on religious consciousness and experience; for many of the incidents of Jewish and even patriarchal history were too apposite to his topic to be passed over (e.g. the overthrow of Pharaoh and the destruction of the cities of the plain), unless we suppose a degree of studied impersonation at variance with the naturalness and practical aims of Scripture.

(2.) The language of the book of Job seems strongly to support the opinion of its having been written as early as the time of Moses. It has often been said that no writing of the Old Testament may be more frequently illustrated from the Arabic than this book. Jerome observes (Proefat. in Dan.), Jobum cum Arabica lingua plurimam habere societatem; and Schultens proved this so incontrovertibly that Gesenius was rather too late in denying the fact (see his Geschichte der Hebrischen Sprache, p. 33). Now, from this character of its language we might be induced to infer that the work was written in the remotest times, when the separation of the dialects had only begun, but had not yet been completed. It is true that this peculiarity of idiom is not such as to be of itself conclusive as to the date; and it might even have been to some extent assumed in order to correspond with the foreign garb of the poem. It also contains some Aramaisms and other signs of degeneracy, but these (unless attributable to copyists) may easily be accounted for by the supposition of a later editorship merely.

(3.) The Jewish tradition of the authorship of Moses (see Otho, Lex. Rabbin. p. 323; comp. Tobit 2, 12; Euseb. Proep. Ev. 9, 25), although not entirely uniform, seems to have been firmly established at an early period; and, lightly as it has been treated by some (see Dr. Davidson, in the new ed. of Home’s Introd. 2, 727), still affords the only writer of sufficient note to whom the work has ever been definitely ascribed. The facilities enjoyed by Moses during his quiet sojourn in Midian were greater perhaps than those of any other Hebrew author for such a production; and the contemplations of his active and well stored mind may have furnished as ample a motive for the task as can be found at any other period, or in the case of any other writer to whom the book has been assigned, even if no special outward occasion can be shown to have led to the literary effort at that time. This date, moreover, is precisely such as to admit the incorporation of Jewish theology without its history, and affords a locality where all the elements of the poem were at hand.

(4.) The period in which Job himself lived is a distinct question from that of the age in which the book was written, it being only necessary (on the supposition of the reality of the narrative) to locate the author subsequently to the times of his hero, and under such circumstances as to suggest the topic. The ante-Mosaic date of Job’s life is evident from his longevity (probably two centuries and a half, 43:16, 17 where the Sept. expressly gives his total age as 240 years, assigning, however, 170 of these as preceding his affliction), which seems to mark him as contemporary with Peleg, Reu, or Serug (B.C. 2414-2122), as well as from the primitive character of his social relations, which are similar to those of Abraham (B.C. 2163-1988). His country could not have been far from the Sinaitic peninsula. SEE UZ.

There is thus found to be a reasonable presumption in favor of the Mosaic authorship of this book, so far as time and place are concerned, while there is no internal evidence decidedly opposed to the tradition in its favor. Our conclusion, as being the most probable combination. of all the facts in the case, is that, as a recitative poem in a rudimentary form, it was originally framed, in Job’s age (by that romance style of composition spontaneous with Orientals), and that, in its Arabic dress, it was gathered by Moses from the lips of the Midianitish bards during his residence among them; that it was first composed by him in the Hebrew language, but not reduced to its present complete form till considerably later, perhaps by Solomon. This progressive kind of authorship is vindicated by the fact that other epics have come down to us through similar stages of heroic legend, oral preservation, collection, formal composition, and editorship, and is even illustrated in the origin of other less obscurely traceable books of the Bible. SEE GENESIS.

(5.) In defense of the theory that the book was written during the Assyrian invasion, B.C. cir. 700, see the introduction to Merx’s Buch Job (Jena, 1870).

V. Integrity of the Book. It is satisfactory to find that the arguments employed by those who impugn the authenticity of considerable portions of this book are, for the most part, mutually destructive, and that the most minute and searching investigations bring out the most convincing proofs of the unity of its composition, and the coherence of its constituent parts. One point of great importance is noted by the latest and one of the most ingenious writers (M.E. Rnan, Le Livre de Job, Par. 1859) on this subject. After some strong remarks upon the inequality of the style, and appearance of interpolation, M.E. Rnan observes (p. 44): The Hebrews, and Orientals in general, differed widely from us in their views about composition. Their works never have that perfectly defined outline to which we are accustomed, and we should be careful not to assume interpolations or alterations (retouches) when we meet with defects of sequence which surprise us. He then shows that in parts of the work, acknowledged by all critics to be by one hand, there are very strong instances of what Europeans might regard as repetition, or suspect of interpolation: thus Elihu recommences his argument four times; while discourses of Job, which have distinct portions, such as to modern critics might seem unconnected and even misplaced, are impressed with such a character of sublimity and force as to leave no doubt that they are the product of a single inspiration. To this just and true observation it must be added that the assumed want of coherence and of logical consistency is, for the most part, only apparent, and results from a radical difference in the mode of thinking and enunciating thought between the old Eastern and modern European.

1. Objections have been made to the introductory and concluding chapters

(1.) on account of the style. Of course there is an obvious and natural difference between the prose of the narrative and the highly poetical language of the colloquy. Yet the best critics now acknowledge that the style of these portions is quite as antique in its simple and severe grandeur as that of the Pentateuch itself (to which it bears a striking resemblance: see above, and comp. Lee, Job, p. 49), or as any other part of the book, while it is as strikingly unlike the narrative style of all the later productions of the Hebrews. Ewald says with perfect truth, These prosaic words harmonize thoroughly with the old poem in subject matter and thoughts, in coloring and in art; also in language, so far as prose can be like poetry.

(2.) It is said, again, that the doctrinal views are not in harmony with those of Job. This is wholly unfounded. The fundamental principles of the patriarch, as developed in the most solemn of his discourses, are identical with those maintained throughout the book. The form of worship belongs essentially to the early patriarchal type; with little of ceremonial ritual, without a separate priesthood, thoroughly domestic in form and spirit. The representation of the angels, and their appellation, sons of God, peculiar to this book and to Genesis, accord entirely with the intimations in the earliest documents of the Shemitic race.

(3.) It is, moreover, alleged that there are discrepancies between the facts related in the introduction, and statements or allusions in the dialogue. But the apparent contradiction between 19:17 and the statement that all Job’s children had perished rests upon a misinterpretation of the words , children of my womb, i.e. of the womb that bare me my brethren, not my children (compare 3:10) indeed, the destruction of the patriarch’s whole family is repeatedly assumed in the dialogue (e.g. 8:4; 29:5). Again, the omission of all reference to the defeat of Satan in the last chapter is quite in accordance with the grand simplicity of the poem (Schlottmann, p. 39, 40). It was too obvious a result to need special notice, and it had, in fact, been accomplished by the steadfast faith of the patriarch even before the discussions commenced. No allusion to the agency of that spirit was to be expected in the colloquy, since Job and his friends are represented as wholly ignorant of the transactions in heaven. At present, indeed, it is generally acknowledged that the entire work would be unintelligible without these portions.

(4.) The single objection (Rnan, p. 40) which presents any difficulty on the ground of anachronism is the mention of the Chaldeans in the introductory chapter. It is certain that they first appear in Hebrew history about the year B.C. 770. But the name of Chesed, the ancestor of the race, is found in the genealogical table in Genesis (22:22), a fact quite sufficient to prove the early existence of the people as a separate tribe. It is highly probable that an ancient race bearing that name in Kurdistan (see Xenoph. Cyr. 2, 1, 34; Anab. 4, 3, 4; 5, 5, 17) was the original source of the nation, who were there trained in predatory habits, and accustomed, long before their appearance in history, to make excursions into the neighboring deserts, a view quite in harmony with the part assigned to them in this book.

2. Strong objections are made to the passage chap. 27, from Tobit 2, 12:7 to the end of the chapter. Here Job describes the ultimate fate of the godless hypocrite in terms which some critics hold to be in direct contradiction with the whole tenor of his arguments in other discourses. Dr. Kennicott, whose opinion is adopted by Eichhorn, Froude, and others, held that, owing to some confusion or omission in the MS., the missing speech of Zophar has been put into the mouth of Job. The fact of the contradiction is denied by able writers, who have shown that it rests upon a misapprehension of the patriarch’s character and fundamental principles. He had been provoked under circumstances of peculiar aggravation into statements which at the close of the discussion he would be anxious to guard or recall: he was bound, having spoken so harshly, to recognize, what, beyond doubt, he never intended to deny, the general justice of divine dispensations even in this world. Moreover, he intimates a belief or presentiment of a future retribution, of which there are no indications in any other speaker (see Tobit 2, 12:8). The whole chapter is thoroughly coherent: the first part is admitted by all to belong to Job; nor can the rest be disjoined from it without injury to the sense. Ewald says, Only a grievous misunderstanding of the whole book could have misled the modern critics who hold that this passage is interpolated or misplaced. Other critics have abundantly vindicated the authenticity of the passage (Hahn, Schlottmann, etc.). As for the style, E. Rnan, a most competent authority in a matter of taste, declares that it is one of the finest developments of the poem. It certainly differs exceedingly in its breadth, loftiness, and devout spirit from the speeches of Zophar, for whose silence satisfactory reasons have already been assigned (see the analysis). This last argument, however, applies rather to chap. 28, which may, without any impeachment of the integrity of the poem, be regarded as an embellishment representing the times and sentiments of the final editor (i.e. Solomon).

3. The last two chapters of the address of the Almighty have been rejected as interpolations by many, of course rationalistic, writers (Stuhlman, Bernstein, Eichhold, Ewald, Meier), partly because of an alleged inferiority of style, partly as not having any bearing upon the argument; but the connection of reasoning, involved, though, as was to be expected, not drawn out, in this discourse, has been shown in the preceding analysis; 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. Rnan, whose suggestion, that it may have been written by the same author at a later date, is far from weakening the force of his observation as to the identity of the style.

4. The speech of Elihu presents greater difficulties, and has been rejected by several rationalists, whose opinion, however, is controverted not only by orthodox writers, but by some of the most skeptical commentators. The former support their decision on the apparent, and, to a certain extent, the real difference between this and other parts of the book in tone of thought, in doctrinal views, and, more positively, in language and general style. Much stress also is laid upon the facts that Elihu is not mentioned in the introduction nor at the end, and that his speech is unanswered by Job, and unnoticed in the final address of the Almighty. These points were observed by very early writers, and were accounted for in various ways. On the one hand, Elihu was regarded as a specially inspired person (Schlottmann, p. 53). In the Seder Olam (a rabbinical system of chronology) he is reckoned among the prophets who declared the will of God to the Gentiles before the promulgation of the law. S. Bar-Nachman (12th century) notes his connection with the family of Abraham as a sign that he was the fittest person to expound the ways of God. The Greek fathers generally follow Chrysostom in attributing to him a superior intellect, while many of the best critics of the last two centuries consider that the true dialectic solution of the great problems discussed in the book is to be found in his discourse.

On the other hand, Jerome, who is followed by Gregory, and many ancient as well as modern writers of the Western Church, speak of his character and arguments with singular contempt. Later critics, chiefly rationalists, see in him but an empty babbler, introduced only to heighten by contrast the effect of the last solemn and dignified discourse of Job. The alternative of rejecting his speech as an interpolation was scarcely less objectionable, and has been preferred by Stuhlman, Bernstein, Ewald, Rnan, and other writers of similar opinions in other countries. A candid and searching examination, however, leads to a different conclusion. It is proved (see Schlottmann, Einl. p. 55) that there is a close internal connection between this and other parts of the book. There are references to numerous passages in the discourses of Job and his friends; so covert as only to be discovered by close inquiry, yet, when pointed out, so striking and natural as to leave no room for doubt. Elihu supplies exactly what Job repeatedly demands a confutation of his opinions, not merely produced by an overwhelming display of divine power, but by rational and human arguments, and proceeding from one not, like his other opponents, bigoted and hypocritical, but upright, candid, and truthful (comp. 33:3, with 6:24, 25). The reasonings of Elihu are moreover such as are needed for the development of the doctrines inculcated in the book, while they are necessarily cast in a form which could not without irreverence be assigned to the Almighty. As to the objection that the doctrinal system of Elihu is in some points more advanced than that of Job or his friends, it may be answered, first, that there are no traces in this discourse of certain doctrines which were undoubtedly known at the earliest date to which those critics would assign the interpolation, whereas it is evident that if known they would have been adduced as the very strongest arguments for a warning and consolation.

No reader of the Psalms and of the Prophets could have failed to urge such topics as the resurrection, the future judgment, and the personal advent of Messiah. Secondly, the doctrinal system of Elihu differs rather in degree than in kind from that which has been either developed or intimated in several passages of the work, and consists chiefly in a specific application of the mediatorial theory, not unknown to Job, and in a deeper appreciation of the love manifested 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 highest view as to the object of afflictions, and to the source to which men should apply for comfort and instruction, should be reserved for this, which, so far as regards the human reasoners, is the culminating point of the discussion. Little can be said for Lightfoot’s theory that the whole work was composed by Elihu, or for E. Rnan’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 fullest exponent of the truth. It is satisfactory to know that two of the most impartial and discerning critics (Ewald and Rnan); who unite in denying this to be an original and integral portion of the work, fully acknowledge its intrinsic excellence and beauty. There is no difficulty 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 brethren are named incidentally in one of his speeches, and his relatives are, for the first time, in the concluding chapter. Had Elihu been mentioned at first, we should of course have expected him to take part in the discussion, and the impression made by his startling address would have been lost. Job does not answer him, nor, indeed, could he deny the cogency of his arguments, while this silence brings out a curious point of coincidence with a previous declaration of the patriarch (6:24, 25). Again, the discourse, being substantially true, did not need correction, and is therefore left unnoticed in the final decision of the Almighty. Nothing, indeed, could be more in harmony with the ancient traditions 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 dialectic peculiarities. The most acute critics differ indeed in their estimate of both, and are often grossly deceived (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 which case the speech of a Syrian might be expected to bear traces of his dialect or that the Chaldaic forms and idioms, which are far from resembling later vulgarisms or corruptions of Hebrew, and occur only in highly poetic passages of the oldest writers, are such as peculiarly suit the style of the young and fiery speaker (see Schlottmann, Einl. p. 61). It has been observed, and with apparent truth, that the discourses of the other interlocutors have each a very distinct and characteristic coloring, shown not only in the general tone of thought, but in peculiarities of expression (Ewald and Schlottmann). The excessive obscurity of the style, which is universally admitted, may be accounted for in a similar manner. A young man speaking under strong excitement, embarrassed by the presence of his elders and by the peculiar responsibility of his position, might be expected to use language obscured by repetitions, and, though ingenious and true, yet somewhat intricate and imperfectly developed arguments, such as, in fact, present great difficulties in the exegesis of this portion of the book.

VI. Commentaries. The following is a list of the exegetical helps on the whole book exclusively, the most important being designated by an asterisk [*] prefixed: Origen. Selecta (in Opp. 2, 499); also Scholia (in Bibl. Patr. Gallandii, 14); Anon. Commentarius (in Origen’s Opp. 2, 850); Athanasius, Excerpta (in Opp. 1, 2, 1003); Jerome, Commentarius (in Opp. Suppos. 11, 566); Philippus, Expositio (in Jerome’s Opp. Spur. 3, 833; also in Bede’s Opp. 4; also Basil. 1527, fol.), Augustine, Annotationes (in Opp. 3, 823); Chrysostom, Homilioe. (in Opp. Spur. 6, 681); Ephrem Syrus, Scholia (in Syriac, in Opp. 3, 1-20); Gregory, Moralia (in Opp. 1, 1; also translation in English, Oxford, 1844-50, 4 vols. 8vo); Olympiodorus, etc., Catena (Lugdunum, 1586, 4to London. 1657, folio) ; Bruno Astensis, In Jobum (in Opp. 1); Rupert, In Jobum (in Opp. 1, 1034); Peter of Blois, Compendium (in Opp. 3, 19); Aquinas, Commentarii (in Opp. 1; also Ven. 1505, fol.; Rom. 1562, 4to), Banolas (i.e. Ralbag), (Ferrara, 1477, 4to; with various supercomments, Naples, 1486, 4to; and in Bomberg’s Rabbinic Bibles), Arama, (Salonica, 1517, folio; Riva da Trento, 1562, 4to; Ven. 1567, 4to); Bugenhagen, Adnotationes (Argent. et Basil. 1526, 8vo); Bucer, Commentaria (Argent. 1528, folio); OEcolampadius, Exegemata (Basil. 1531, fol., 1533, 1536, 4to; Genev. 1532, 1553, 1578, fol.; in French, (Genev. 1562, 4to); Borrhus, Commentarius (Argent. 1532, Basil. 1539, 1544, Genev. 1590, fol.); Cajetan, Commentarius (Rom. 1535, folio); Is. ben-Salomon (ha-Kohen), (Constantin. 1545, 4t6); Titelmann, Elucidatio (Paris, 1548, 1550, 8vo; 1553, 12mo; Lugd. 1554, Antw. 1566, 12mo); Ferus, Explicatio (Col. 1558, 1574, Lugdun. 1567, 8vo); Lutzius, Adnotationes (Basil. 1559, 1563, 8vo); Calvin, Sermons (in French. Genev. 1563, 1611, fol.; in Lat. ib. 1569, 1593, fol. [also in Opp. 3]; in Eugl., Lond. 1584, fol.; in Germ., Herb. 1587, 4 vols. 4to); Strigel, Scholia (Lipsiae, 1566, 1571, 1575, 8vo); Steuch, narrationes (Ven. 1567, 4to); Fobian (Mos. b.-El.), , etc. (modern Greek in Heb. characters, Constantinople, 1576, 4to), Ibn-Jaish (Bar. ben-Is.), [includ. Ecclesiastes] (Constant. 1576, fol.); Marloratus, Expositio (Genev. 1581, 4to); De Huerga, Commentaria [on ch. 1-18, includ. Cant.] (Complut. 1582, fol.) , Beza, Commentarius (Genev. 1583, 1589, 1599, 4to); Stunica, Commentaria (Tolet. 1584, Romae, 1591, 4to); Lavater, Conciones (Tigur. 1585, fol.) ; Rollock, Commentarius (Geneva, 1590, 8vo); Duran (Sim. ben-Zemach), (Venice, 1590,4to; also in Frankfurter’s Rabbinic Bible); Farissol (Abr.b.-Mard.), (in the Rabbinic Bibles); Mord. b.-Jacob (of Cracow), (Prague, 1597, 4to); *De Pineda [Roman Cath.], Commentarii (Madrit. 1597-1601, 2 vols. folio; Colon. 1600, 1605, 1685, Antwp. 1609, Venet. 1619, 1709, Ursel. 1627, Paris, 1631, Lugdun. 1701, fol.) Alschech, (Venice, 1603, 4to; Jesnitz, 1722, fol.); Feuardentius, Homilioe [on prose parts] (Par. 1606, fol.); Strack, Predigten (Cassel, 1607, 4to); Humfry, Dialogue (Lond. 1607, 4to); Joannes a Jesu Maria, Paraphrasis (Rom. 1611, 4to), Piscator, Commentarius (Herb. 1612, 8vo); De Pineda, Commentarius (Colon. 1613, 1701, fol.); Rhlich, Predigten (Wittenb. 1617, 3 vols. 4to) ; Janson, Enarrratio (Lovan. 1623, 1643, folio); Quarles, Meditations (London, 162-1, 4to); Sanctius, Commentarii (Lugd. 1625, folio; Lips. 1712, 4to); Olearius, Predigten (Lpzg. 1633, 1665, 1672, 4to); Drusius, Scholia (Amsterd. 1636, 4to; also in Crit. Sac.); Diodati, Explications [includ. Psalm, etc.] (in French, Genev. 1638, 4to); Vavassor, Metaphrasis (Par. 1638, 12mo, 1679, 8vo; Francf. 1654, 4to); Bolducius, Commentaria (Par. 1638, 2 vols. fol.); Abbott, Paraphrase (Lond. 1640, 4to); Cocceius, Diagrammata (Franec. 1644, fol.; also in Opp. 1) ; Corderius, Elucidatio (Antw. 1646, 1656, fol.) ; Schultetus, Analysis (Stet. 1647, Francf. 1684, fol.); Sennault. Paraphrase (London, 1648, 4to); Meiern, Commentari [including Prov., etc.] (L.B. 1651, fol.); Codureus, Scholia (Paris, 1651, 4to); Caryl, Exposition (London, 1651, 1664, 1694, 6 vols. 4to; 1666, 1677, 2 vols. fol.); Witzleben, Jobi gens (Sorae, 1656, 4to); Leigh, Adnotationes [including other poet. books] (Lond. 1657, fol.); Durham, Exposition (London, 1659, 8vo); Chemnitz, Persona Jobi (Jen. 1665, 4to, and since); Brenius, Notoe (transl. by Cuper, Amst. 1666, 4to); Zeller, Auslegung (Hamb. 1667, 4to); Spanheim, Historia (Genev. 1670, 4to; L. B. 1672, 8vo); Mercer, Commentarius (Genev. 1673, L. Bat. 1651. folio); Hack, Postill (Hamb. 1674, 4to); Hottinger, Analysis (Tigur. 1679, 8vo); *Seb. Schmidt, Commentarius (Argent. 1680, 1690, 1705, 4to); Fabricius, Predigten (Norimb. 1681, 4to); Patrick, Paraphrase (Lond. 1685, 8vo); Clark, Exercitations [poetical] (Edinb. 1685, fol.); Van Hoecke, Vytlegging (Leyd. 1697, 4to); Hutcheson, Lectures (London, 1699, fol.); Blackmore, Paraphrase (Lond. 1700, folio); Antonides, Verklaaring (Leyd. 1700, 4to; in Germ. F. a. M. 1702, 4to); Stisser, Predigten (Lpz. 1704, 4to); Isham, Notes [includ. Prov., etc.] (Lond. 1706, 8vo); Kortm, Anmerk. (Lipsiae, 1708, 4to); Daniel, Analysis (in French, Leyd. 1710, 12mo); Ob. ben-J. Sphorno, (in the Rabb. Bibles and in Duran’s Comment.; in Latin, Gotha, 1713-14, 3 vols. 4to); Egard, Erluterung (Halle, 1716, 4to); Michaelis, Notoe (Halle, 1720, 4to); Scheuchzer, Naturwissensch., etc. (Zur. 1721, 4to); Distel, De salute uxoris Jobi (Alt. 1722, 4to); Is. ben-Salomon Jabez, (in the Amst. Rabb. Bible, 1724); Von der Hardt, In Jobum (vol. 1, Helmst. 1728, fol. [vol. 2 never appeared, having been, it is said, consigned to the flames by the author himself as absurd]); Crinsoz, Notes (in French, Rotterd. 1729, 4to); Hardouin, Paraphrase (in French, Par. 1729, 12mo); Duguet, Explication [mystical] (Par. 1732, 4. vols. 12mo); Anon. Explication (in French, Par. 1732, 2 vols. 12mo); Fenton, Annotations [includ. Psalm] (London, 1732, 8vo); Hoffmann, Erklrung (Hamb. 1734, 4to); S. Wesley, Dissertationes (Lond. 1736, fol.); Vogel, Commentarius (Lugd. 1757, 2 vols. 4to; abridged, ibid. 1773, 8vo); *Schultens, Commentarius (L.B. 1737, 2 vols. 4to), also Animandversiones (Tr. ad Rh. 1708, 8vo), and Observationes (Amst. 1748, 8vo) ; abridged by Grey (Lond. 1741, 8vo) and by Vogel (Hal. 1773-4, 2 vols. 8vo); Baumgarten, Auslegung (pt. 1, Hal. 1740, 4to); Oetinger, Anmerkung. (F. a. M. 1743, 8vo); Koch, Anmerkung. (Lemg. 1743-7, 3 vols. 4to); Bahrdt, Erklrung (Lipsiae, 1744, 4to); Bellamy, Paraphrase (Lond. 1748, 4to); Reinhard, Erklr. (Lpz. 174950, 2 vols. 4to); Hodges, Scope, etc. (London, 1750, 4to, 1756, 8vo; Dubl. 1758, 8vo); Garnet Dissertation (Lond. 1751, 4to); Chappelow, Paraphrase (Camb. 1752, 2 vols. 4to); Heath, Essay (London, 1755, 4to; ib. 1756, 4to); Peters, Dissertation [against Warburton] (Lond. 2d ed. 1757, 8vo); Boullier, Observationes (Amst. 1758, 8vo); Stuss, De Epopoea Joboea (Gotha, 1758, 4to); Ceruti, Giobbo (Rome, 1764, 1773, 8vo), J. Uri-Scheraga, (F. a. O. 1765, fol.); Sticht, De colloquio Dei cum Satana (Altona, 1766, 4to); Grynaeus, Anmerkung. (Basel, 1767, 4to); Froriep, Ephraemiana in J. (Lipsiae, 1769, 8vo); Cube, Uebers. (Berl. 1769-71, 3 vols. 8vo); Meintel, Erklrung (Nrnb. 1771, 4to), also Metaphrasis (ibid. 1775, 4to); Scott, Remarks (London, 1771, 4to, 1773, 8vo); Anon. Hist. of Job (Lond. 1772, 8vo); Dresler, Erlut. [on parts] (Herb. 1773, 8vo); Eckermann Umschreibung (Lb. 1778, 4to); also Animadversiones (ibid. 1779, 8vo); Reiske, Conjecturoe [includ. Proverbs] (Lips. 1779, 8vo); Dessau, (Berl. 1779, 4to); Sander, Hiob (Lpz. 1780, 8vo); Moldenhauer, Uerbersetz. (Lpz. 1780-1, 2 vols. 8vo); Hufnagel, Anmerk. (Erlang. 1781, 8vo); Kessler, Anmerkung. (Tbingen, 1784, 8vo); Schnurrer, Animadversiones [on parts] (Tb. 1787 sq., 2 pts. 4to); Greve, Notoe [on last ch.] (Davent. 1788, 4to); Dathe, Notoe [includ. Prov., etc.] (Hal. 1789, 8vo); Ilgen, Natura Jobi (Lipsiae, 1789, 8vo); Heins, Anmerk. (in Danish, Kibenh. 1790, 8vo); Ab. Wolfssohn, (Prague, 1791, Vienna, 1806, 8vo); Bellermann, Num sit liber J. historia (Erf. 1792, 4to); also De Jobi indole (ib. 1793, 4to); also Ueber d. Plan Hiob (Berlin, 1813, 8vo); Muntinghe, Anmerk. (in Dutch, Amster. 1794, 8vo); in Germ., Lpz. 1797, 8vo); Jacobi, Annotationes [on parts] (Jen. 1795, 8vo); Garden, Notes (Lond. 1796, 8vo); Bergius, Exercitationes (Upsala, 1796, 8vo); Pape, Versuch (Gtting. 1797, 8vo); Wheelden, Delineation, etc. (Lond. 1799, 8vo); Block, Uebers. (Ratzeb. 1799, Hamb. 1804, 8vo); Riedel, Gesnge (Pressb. 1799, 8vo); Satanow, , etc. (Berlin, 1799, 8vo); Richter, De oetate Jobi (Lipsiae, 1799, 4to); Eichhorn, Uebers. (Lpz. 1800, 8vo; also in his Biblioth. 4, 10 sq.); Kern, Inhalt, etc. (in Bengel’s Archiv, 8, 352 sq.); also Observationes (Tb. 1826, 4to); Stuhlmann, Erlut. (Hamburg, 1804, 8vo); Stock, Notes (Bath, 1805. 8vo); Ottensosser, , etc. (Offenb. 1807 [?], 8vo); Pareau, De immortalitate, etc. (Davent. 1807, 8vo); Polozk (Pinch. ben-Jeh.), (Wilna, 1808, 4to); Gaab, Hiob (Tb. 1809, 8vo); Elizabeth Smith [ed. Randolph], Annotations (London, 1810. 8vo); *Good, Notes (Lond. 1812, 8vo); G.H. Bernstein, Zweck, etc. (in Keil’s Analekten, 1813, I, 3:1-137); Neumann, Charakteristik, etc. (Bresl. 1817, 4to); Middeldorpf. Syr.-hexapl. etc. (Vratisl. 1817, 4to); Bridel, Commentaire (in part only, Paris, 1818, 8vo); Schrer, Erlut. (Bern, 1818-20, 2 vols. 8vo); Jger, De integritate, etc. (Tb. 1820, 8vo); Autenrieth, Hiob (Tb. 1823, 8vo); Melsheimer, Anmerk. (Mannh. 1823, 8vo); *Umbreit, Ausleg. (Heidelb. 1824, 1832, 8vo; in Engl., Edinb. 1836-7, 2 vols. 12mo); *Rosenmller, Scholia (Lipsiae, 1824, 8vo); Hrubieszow, (Lemberg, 1824, 1834,Warsaw, 1838, 8vo); Hunt, Translation (Bath, 1825, 8vo); Levasseur, Traduction (Par. 1826, 8vo); Blumenfeld, Comment. (in Heb., Vienna, 1826, 8vo); Fry, Exposition (Lond. 1827, 8vo); Bcksel, Erlut. (Hamb. 1830, 8vo); Koster, Uebers. [includ. Eccles.] (Schleswig, 1831, 8vo); G. Lange, Uebers. (Halle, 1831, 8vo); Petri, Commentationes (Brunsw. 1833, 4to); Sachs, Charakt. etc. (in Stud. und Krit. 1834, p. 910 sq.); Jeitteles, , etc. (Vienna, 1834, 8vo); Knobel, De Jobi argumento (Vratisl. 1835, 8vo); Arnheim, Commentar (Glog. 1836, 8vo); *Ewald, Erklr. (Gtt. 1836, 8vo); Fockens, De Jobeide (Ztphen, 1836, 8vo); *Lee, Commentary (Lond. 1837, 8vo); Anon. Paraphrase [poetical, on last 10 ch.] (Lond. 1838, 8vo); Dessauer, , etc. (Pressb. 1838, 8vo); Holzhausen, Uebers. (Gott. 1839, 8vo); Hlscher, Uebers. (Osnab. 1839, 8vo); Laurens, Traduction [includ. Psalms] (Par. 1839, 8vo); *Wemyss, Job’s Times (Lond. 1839, 8vo); *Hirzel, Erklr. (Lpz. 1839, ed. Olshausen, 1852, ed. Dillmann, 1864, 8vo); Justi, Erluter. (Kassel, 1840, 8vo); Jenour, Translation (London, 1841, 8vo); *Vaihinger, Erluter. (Stuttg. 1842, 1856, 8vo); Stickel, Benzerk. (Lpzg. 1842, 8vo); J. Wolfson, Erlut. (Lpzg. 1843, 8vo); Gleiss, Beitrge (Hamb. 1845, 8vo); Polak, Ijjob (in Dutch, Amst. 1845, 8vo); Tattam, Tr. from Coptic (London, 1846, 8vo); Heiligstedt, Comment. (in new ed. of Maurer, Lips. et Berl. 1847, 8vo); Welte, Erklr. (Freib. 1849, 8vo); Hahn, Commentary (Berlin, 1849, 8vo); *Noyes, Notes (Bost. 1850, 1854, 1867, 12mo); Barnes, Notes (N.Y. and Lond. 1850, 1854, 2 vols. 12mo). *Schlottmann. Erlut. (Berlin, 1851, 8vo); Mercier, Commentarius [including Prov.] (Lugd. 1651, fol.); Froude, Job (in the Westminster Rev. 1853; reprinted in Short Studies, London, 1858); Kempe, Lectures (London, 1855, 12mo); Evans, Lectures (London, 1856, 8vo); Krahmer, Hiob (in the Theol. Literaturbl. 1856); *Hengstenberg, Hiob (Berl. 1856, 1870 sq., 8vo); Anonym. Illustrationes (Lond. 1856, 8vo); *Conant, Job (in public. of American Bible Union, N.Y. 1856, 4to and 12mo); Carey, Explanation (Lond. 1858, 8vo); *Ebrard, Erlut. (Land. 1858, 8vo); C.H. Bernstein, Bar-Hebroei Scholia (Vratislav, 1858, 8vo); Berkholz, Hiob (Riga, 1859, 8vo).; *Rnan, Livre de Job (Paris, 1859, 1860, 8vo); Crelier, Livre de Job [against Rnan] (Par. 1860, 8vo); Hupfeld, Bedeutung, etc. (in the Zeitschr. f. Christ. Wissensch. Aug. and Sept. 1860); Wagner, Sermons (Lond. 1860, 8vo); Simson, Kritik (Knigsberg, 1861, 4to); Leroux, Traduction (Par. 1861, 8vo); Davidson, Commentary (vol. 1, Lond. 1862, 8vo); Odiosus, Erlut. (Berlin, 1863, 8vo); Croly, Job (Lond. 1863, 8vo); Bernard, Job (vol. 1, Lond. 1864, 8vo); Rodwell, Translation (London, 1864, 8vo): *Delitzsch, Commentar (Lpz. 1864, 8vo; in English, Edinb. 1866, 2 vols. 8vo); Mourad, Oversalt. (Kjobenh. 1865, 8vo); Mathes, Verklaaring (Utrecht, 1866,2 vols. 8vo); Reuss, Vortrag (Strassb. 1869, 8vo); Anon. Notes (Lond. 1869, 4to); Volk, Summa, etc. (Dorpat, 1870, 4to). SEE POETRY.

Fuente: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature

Job (2)

(, Yob; if genuine, perh. returning, from = ; Sept. .Vulg. Job.) The third-named of the four sons of Issachar (Gen 46:13). elsewhere called JASHUB (Num 26:24; 1Ch 7:1), for which this is probably an erroneous transcription.

Fuente: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature

Job

persecuted, an Arabian patriarch who resided in the land of Uz (q.v.). While living in the midst of great prosperity, he was suddenly overwhelmed by a series of sore trials that fell upon him. Amid all his sufferings he maintained his integrity. Once more God visited him with the rich tokens of his goodness and even greater prosperity than he had enjoyed before. He survived the period of trial for one hundred and forty years, and died in a good old age, an example to succeeding generations of integrity (Ezek. 14:14, 20) and of submissive patience under the sorest calamities (James 5:11). His history, so far as it is known, is recorded in his book.

Fuente: Easton’s Bible Dictionary

Job

Age, and relation to the canon. The book has a unique position in the canon. It is unconnected with Israel, God’s covenant people, with whom all the other scriptures are associated. “The law” (towrah),the Magna Charta of the rest, occurs but once, and then not in its technical sense (Job 22:22). The Exodus is never alluded to, though the miraculous events connected with it in Egypt and the desert, with both of which Job shows his acquaintance, would have been appropriate to his and the friends’ argument. The destruction of the guilty by the flood (Job 22:15), and that of Sodom and Gomorrah (Job 18:15) possibly, are referred to; but no later facts. The inference seems natural that the book was of an age anterior to Israel. Job’s own life was of patriarchal length, 200 years. The only idolatry alluded to is the earliest, Sabeanism, the worship of the sun, moon, and seba or heavenly hosts (Job 31:26-28).

Job sacrifices as priest for his family according to patriarchal usage, and alludes to no exclusive priesthood, temple, or altar. Lastly, the language is Hebrew with an Arabic and Syriac infusion found in no other sacred book, answering to an age when Hebrew still retained many of the elements of the original common Semitic, from which in time branched off Hebrew, Syriac, and Arabic, carrying with them severally fragments of the common stock. The obscurity of several phrases, the obsolete words and forgotten traditions (e.g. that of the bushmen, Job 30:4-7), all mark a remote antiquity. The admission of the book into the Hebrew canon, notwithstanding the absence of reference to Israel, is accounted for if Let’s theory be adopted that Moses became acquainted with it during his stay in Arabia, near Horeb, and added the prologue and epilogue. To the afflicted Israelites Job’s patience and restoration were calculated to be a lesson of special utility.

The restriction of “Jehovah” (the divine name revealed to Moses in its bringing the fulfillment of the promise to God’s covenant people just at that time: Exo 6:3) mostly to the prologue and epilogue favors this view. The Holy Spirit directed him to canonize the oriental patriarch’s inspired book, just as he embodies in the Pentateuch the utterances of Balaam the prophet from the mountains of the East. The grand theme of the book is to reconcile the saint’s afflictions with God’s moral government in this present world. The doctrine of a future life in which the seeming anomalies of the present shall be cleared up would have given the main solution to the problem. But as yet this great truth was kept less prominent until “the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ who hath abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.” Job plainly refers to the resurrection, but not with that persistent prominence with which the New Testament saints rest on it as their continual hope; Job does not make it his main solution.

Even still we need something in addition, to clear off the clouds which hang over God’s present government of this fallen earth. The first consideration suggested in this sublime history and poem is, “an enemy hath done this.” The veil which hides the world of spirits is drawn aside, and Satan, the accuser of the brethren, appears as the mediate cause of Job’s afflictions. Satan must be let do his worst to show that his sneer is false that religion is but selfishness,” doth Job fear God for naught?” (Job 1:9). The patience and the final perseverance of the saints (Job 1:21; Job 2:10; Job 13:15), notwithstanding temporary distrust under Satan’s persecutions which entailed loss of family, friends, possessions, and bodily health, are illustrated in Job’s history.

God’s people serve Him for His own sake, not merely for the temporary reward His service generally brings; they serve Him even in overwhelming trial (Gen 15:1). Herein Job is a type though imperfectly of Him who alone, without once harbouring a distrustful thought, endured all this as well as death in its most agonizing, humiliating form, and, worse than all, the hiding of even God’s countenance from Him. Job’s chief agony was not so much his accumulated losses and sufferings, not even his being misunderstood by friends, but that God hid His face from him, as these calamities too truly seemed to prove (Job 23:9). Yet conscience told him he was no hypocrite, nay though God was slaying him he still trusted in God (Job 23:10-15; Job 13:15; compare Abraham, Genesis 22). Job’s three trials are progressive:

1. His sudden loss of all blessings external to himself, possessions, servants, and sons; he conquers this temptation: “naked came I out of my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return there; the Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away, blessed be the name of the Lord.”

2. His loss of bodily health by the most loathsome sickness; still he conquers: “shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil?”

3. His mental conflict brought on by the three friends’ suspicion of his insincerity, which he felt untrue, but which seemed justified by his trials from God; this was the poignant sting to his soul, for he accepted their premises, that great suffering proved great sin.

Here he failed; yet amidst his impatient groans he still clung desperately to his faith and followed hard after God, and felt sure God would yet vindicate him (Job 23:10; Job 19:25-27). His chief error was his undue self justification before God, which he at last utterly renounces (Job 30:25 to Job 31; Job 32:1; Job 33:9; Job 9:17; Job 10:7; Job 16:17; Job 27:5; Job 29:10-17; Job 40:4-5; Job 42:5-6). After fretfully demanding God’s interposition (23) to vindicate his innocence he had settled down into the sad conviction that God heeds not, and that His ways of providence are as a theory inexplicable to man while practical wisdom is the fear of the Lord (Job 28:31:35). Elihu gives a leading solution of the problem. God not only hereafter shall judge the world, but even now providentially and morally controls all its affairs.

Even the righteous have sin which needs correction. God speaks to them by chastisement; He is not really silent (Job 16:21; Job 23:3; Job 31:35), as Job had complained (Job 33:14, etc.); He teaches them humility, and prepares them for pardon and life through the mediating Angel of the covenant (of whom Elihu is the type: Job 33:6-7; Job 33:23-30). To Job’s charge against God of injustice Elihu answers that God’s omnipotence (Job 34:35-36), upholding man in life when He could destroy him, and His universal government, exclude the idea of injustice in Him. To Job’s charge that God’s providence is unsearchable, Elihu answers that suffering is to teach humility and adorntion of His greatness. Affliction to the saint is justice and mercy in disguise; he is thereby led to feel the heinousness of sin (via crucis via salutis), and not being permitted by God’s love to fall away for ever he repents of the impatience which suffering betrayed him into for a time.

Then, justifying God and condemning himself, he is finally delivered from temporal afflictions. Now already the godly are happier amidst afflictions than the ungodly (Mar 10:29-30). Even these considerations do not exhaust the subject; still difficulties remain. To answer these, God Himself (Job 38) appears on the scene, and resolves all that remains uncleared into the one resting thought of faith, the sovereignty of God. We must wait for His solution hereafter of what we know not now (Joh 13:7). Elihu is the preacher appealing to Job’s reason and conscience. God alone, in His appearing, brings home the truth experimentally to Job’s heart: “Judge not the Lord by feeble sense, But trust Him for His grace; Behind a frowning Providence He hides a smiling face. Blind unbelief is sure to err, And scan God’s work in vain; God is His own interpreter, And He will make it plain.”

CONSTRUCTION. The artificial construction of the poem appears in the oft recurring sacred numbers three and seven. Job had seven thousand sheep, seven sons, and three daughters, both before and after his trials. His three friends sit with him seven days and nights. “Job” in Arabic means repentance, the name given him in after life from his experiences. His personal reality appears from his being named with “Noah and Daniel,” real persons, in Eze 14:14; Eze 14:16-20. James (Jam 5:11) refers to Job as an example of patience, which he would hardly do were Job an imaginary person. Persons and places are specified as they would not be in an allegory. The exact doubling of his possessions after restoration is probably the nearest round number given, as is often the case in books undoubtedly historical. The arguments of the speeches were substantially those given, the studied number and poetic form were given by the sacred writer under the Holy Spirit.

Job lived 140 years after his trials; and nothing is more natural than that he should at leisure mould into form the arguments of the momentous debate for the edification of the church. The debate occupied several sittings with intervals of a day or more between them. The number of speeches assigned to each was arranged by preconcerted agreement, so that none spoke out of his turn. Uz means “a light sandy soil” (Gesenius). (See UZ.) It was probably N. of Arabia Deserta, between Palestine and the Euphrates; called Ausitai by Ptolemy (Geogr. 19). In Gen 22:21 Uz is son of Nahor, Abraham’s brother. Another Uz in Gen 10:23 was grandson of Shem and son of Aram; the latter is probably the source of the name, as the Aramaeaus dwelt between the Euphrates and Tigris. The sons of Shem dwelt in “a mount of the East” (Gen 10:30), answering to “men of the East” (Job 1:3).

Rawlinson says Uz is the prevailing name of the country at the Euphrates’ mouth, where the Chaldees mentioned in Job 1 resided. The Idumean quarter however, and Arabia, would agree better with Moses’ finding it during his exile in Midian. Moreover, Eliphaz is an Idumean name so is “Temanite” (Gen 36:4; Gen 36:15). “Shuhite” answers to Sycca in Arabia Deserta. Eusebius fixes Job’s time as being two ages before Moses. Besides the arguments for this above, others are the number of oxen and rams sacrificed seven, as in Balaam’s case; this agrees with a time before the law defined God’s will otherwise. Also the writing he speaks of is the most ancient, sculpture (Job 20:23-24); “printed” means engraven, “pen” a graver, Riches were then cattle. The Hebrew “piece of money” is rather a lamb.

THE WRITER. The thought, imagery, and manners accord with what we should expect from an Arab emir. Job in his speeches shows himself more competent to compose the book than Elihu, to whom Lightfoot attributes it. The style is distinct from that of Moses. Its inspiration is attested by Paul under the Spirit quoting it with the formula “it is written” (Job 5:13). Our Lord in Mat 24:28 refers to Job 29:30; compare also Jam 4:10; 1Pe 5:6, with Job 22:29; Rom 11:34-35 with Job 15:8; Jer 20:14-15, endorses Job 3:3; Isa 19:5; Job 14:11; Psalm 37; Psalm 73, discuss the same problem as Job. Proverbs 8 develops Job’s description of wisdom in Job 28. It stands among the hagiographa (ketuwbim, “sacred writings”) in the threefold division “the law, the prophets, and the psalms,” or hagiographa, of which the Psalms are a leading book (Luk 24:44).

DIVISIONS. To each of the three friends three speeches are assigned; Job is allowed a reply to each of the three. Eliphaz the oldest leads; Zophar at his third turn fails to speak, virtually owning himself defeated (Job 27). Therefore, Job continues his reply which forms three speeches: Job 26; Job 27; Job 28; Job 29-31. Elihu (Job 32-37) is allowed four speeches. Jehovah makes three addresses (Job 38-41). Thus throughout there is a tripartite division. The whole consists of three parts: the prologue, poem, and epilogue. The poem three: (1) Job’s dispute with his three friends; (2) Elihu’s address; (3) Jehovah’s. The epilogue has three parts: Job’ s justification, reconciliation with his friends, and restoration. The speakers regularly advance from less to greater vehemence. The explicitness (Job 14:14; Job 19:25) of Job’s anticipation of the resurrection, as contrasted with the obscurity on the subject in the early books of Old Testament, is due to Job’s enjoyment of the divine vision (Job 38:1; Job 42:5).

The revelations outside of Israel, being few, needed to be the more explicit. Balaam’s prophecy (Num 24:17) was clear enough to lead the wise men of the East by the star (Matthew 2). In the age before the written law God left not Himself without witnesses, e.g. Melchizedek, Job, Jethro. Job only dimly realized the Spirit-designed significancy of his own words (1Pe 1:11-12). Even Asaph, who had in David’s psalms (Psa 16:10; Psa 17:15) plain prophecies of a future retribution in the body to the righteous and to the wicked, still felt the difficulty as regards God’s government here in this present time (Psalm 73). “Prosperity is the blessing of Old Testament, adversity that of N. T. … Yet even in Old Testament the pencil of the Holy Spirit has laboured more in describing Job’s afflictions than Solomon’s felicities” (Bacon). Elihu showed how God can be just, and yet the righteous be afflicted; Jehovah’s address shows that He must be just, because He is God. God reprimands the three friends, but not Elihu. The simpler and less artificial forms of poetry prevail in Job, a mark of the early age. The Orientals used to preserve their sentiments in a terse, proverbial, poetic form, called mashal; to this form Job’s poetry is related. (See JOBAB.)

Fuente: Fausset’s Bible Dictionary

JOB

The Old Testament book of Job is among the group of writings known as the wisdom books. In ancient Israel people recognized wisdom writings as being different from other writings. Wisdom teachers were a category distinct from other religious guides and leaders.

Wisdom teachers did not teach the law as did the priests, nor bring revelations from God as did the prophets. Rather they looked at the practical affairs of life and, as those who feared God and knew his law, gave advice for living. Sometimes they gave common sense instruction based on their observations of the experiences of life in general. Other times they investigated the puzzles of life when the facts of experience seemed to contradict the generally accepted beliefs. The book of Proverbs gives an example of the former kind of teaching, the book of Job an example of the latter. (See also WISDOM LITERATURE.)

Understanding the book

There is no certainty concerning who wrote the book of Job or when it was written. The book takes its name from the chief person in the story.

Job was a wealthy, intelligent, God-fearing man who lived in Uz, somewhere in the region east of Palestine. When a series of disasters ruined his prosperity, destroyed his family and struck him down with a terrible disease, his friends argued that his troubles must have resulted from his secret sins. Job denied this, even though it was the commonly held traditional belief. Job knew he was not perfect, but he also knew that the traditional belief did not explain everything. The long and bitter argument that followed takes up most of the book.

The reader of the book, however, knows what neither Job nor his friends knew. Satan had made the accusation that people serve God only because of the benefits they can get from him. If, instead, they receive only hardship and suffering, they will curse him (Job 1:9-11; Job 2:4-5). God allowed disasters to fall upon Job to prove the genuineness of Jobs faith and at the same time enrich Jobs experience of God. Jobs sufferings were not a sign of Gods judgment on him, but proof of Gods confidence in him (Job 1:8; Job 2:3).

As the friends persisted with their unjust and cruel accusations, Job increasingly lost patience with them. Jobs frustration drove him to protest to God, whom he saw as his only hope. In making his protests, Job may have been guilty of rash language, but at least he took his protests to the right person (Job 7:11-21; Job 13:13-28; Job 14:13-17; Job 17:3-4). He was finally satisfied, not through having all his questions answered, but through meeting the God to whom he had cried. God is not answerable to Job or any other human being, and he gave Job no explanation of his sufferings. Yet Job was content. He realized now that the unseen God was in control of all events and his wisdom was perfect (Job 42:1-6).

God then declared that the friends, in accusing Job of great sin, were wrong (Job 42:7). He also showed the error of the commonly held belief that suffering was always the result of personal sin. In addition he proved Satan to be wrong in his accusation that people worship God because of what they can get from him. Job had remained true to God even though he had lost everything. God now blessed Job with greater blessings than he had ever had before (Job 42:10).

Outline of contents

The book opens with a narrative section that recounts Satans challenge to God and his attack on Job (1:1-2:13). The remainder of the book, except for the closing narrative, is in poetry. It starts with a complaint from Job (3:1-26) and this begins a long debate between Job and his three friends.

Eliphaz, the first of the friends to speak, states that Jobs suffering must be because of his sin. Therefore, if Job repents he will have good health and prosperity again (4:1-5:27). Job rejects Eliphazs accusations and complains to God about his unjust suffering (6:1-7:21). Bildad heartlessly reminds Job of his misfortunes, pointing out that they are a fitting punishment. He emphasizes that the traditional teaching is all-important (8:1-22). In his response, Job again complains to God about the injustice he suffers (9:1-10:22). Zophar, the shallowest thinker and most hot tempered of the three friends, then attacks Job (11:1-20), to which Job gives a lengthy and at times sarcastic reply (12:1-14:22).

The second round of argument follows the same sequence as the first. Eliphaz speaks and Job replies (15:1-17:16), Bildad speaks and Job replies (18:1-19:29), then Zophar speaks and Job replies (20:1-21:34). The third round begins in the same fashion, with Eliphaz speaking, followed by Job (22:1-24:25). Bildad speaks only briefly, followed by Job (25:1-26:14), but Zophar does not speak at all. Job therefore proceeds to give a summary of his position (27:1-31:40).

A young man named Elihu, having listened to the debate in silence, now decides to speak. Angry that the friends have not convinced Job of his wrongdoing, Elihu claims he will answer Job with different arguments. But he adds little to what the other three have said (32:1-37:24).

As a fierce storm breaks, God himself now speaks to Job. He reminds Job, through chapter after chapter, of his divine wisdom in controlling all things, and he challenges Job to take the place of the Almighty and govern the moral order of the universe (38:1-41:34). Job cannot accept God challenge; he realizes he has been conquered. At last he submits, and in doing so he finds peace (42:1-6). God then rebukes the friends and expresses his approval of Job (42:7-17).

Fuente: Bridgeway Bible Dictionary

Job

JOB

1. The man Job.Job is referred to in the OT in the book bearing his name, and in Eze 14:12-20, where he is mentioned as a conspicuous example of righteousness; in the Apocr [Note: pocr Apocrypha, Apocryphal.] in Sir 49:9 [Heb. after Smend and Ryssel], and the Vulg. [Note: Vulgate.] of Tob 2:12; and in the NT in Jam 5:11, the last two passages alluding to his patience. The reference in Ezk. shows that righteous Job was a familiar figure in some Jewish circles in the 6th cent. b.c. On the assumption that the Job of the book is sketched, as to the main outlines, after ancient tradition, probably the same in substance as that known to Ezk., we have to think of him as a Gentile living in patriarchal times either in the Hauran or on the confines of Iduma and Arabia (see Uz), and his friends also must be regarded as Gentiles.

This conclusion is supported by the names of God generally employed in the poem. The Tetragrammaton, which is used 31 times by the writer in the prose parts, occurs only once in the poetic portions (Job 12:9), and is ascribed to Job only in one verse in the Prologue (Job 1:21). Adonai is also met with once (Job 28:28). God is usually referred to by Job and his associates by names not distinctively Jewish: Et, 55 times; Etoah, 41 times out of 57 in the whole OT; and Shaddai, 31 times out of 48 in OT; Etohim is comparatively rare in the poem. The entire absence of distinct allusions to Israelitish history points to the same conclusion. The great word torah, law, is used only once (Job 22:22), and then in the general sense of instruction. According to a lost work, Concerning the Jews, by one Aristeas, cited by Euseb. (Ev. Praep. ix. 25), and the appendix in the LXX [Note: Septuagint.] , said to be taken from a Syriac book but standing in some relation to Aristeas, Job is to be identified with Jobab, king of Edom (Gen 36:33). This identification, which appears also in the Testament of Job, a work probably containing an ancient Jewish nucleus, although critically worthless, is not without interest and value, as possibly preserving a fragment of old tradition. The name Job, which probably belongs to the traditional story, is in Heb. Iyyb. The apparently similar name Job (AV [Note: Authorized Version.] ) of Gen 46:13, a son of Issachar, is differently spelt (in Heb. Yb), and is therefore given in the RV [Note: Revised Version.] as Iob. Jobab, which is met with in several connexions (Gen 10:29 Joktanite; Gen 36:33 Edomite; Jos 11:1 Canaanite; 1Ch 8:9 Benjamite), seems to be quite distinct, although Cheyne remarks (in EBi [Note: Encyclopdia Biblica.] ) that the possibility of a connexion must be admitted. The meaning of Iyyb is extremely uncertain. If explained from the Heb., it means either attacked or attacker (Siegfried in JE [Note: Jewish Encyclopedia.] ). If explained with the help of the Arabic ayyb, it means returning, penitent. In all probability it was a foreign name taken over with the story, which seems in the first instance to have been of foreign origin. The name Aiab, which was current in the north of Palestine c [Note: circa, about.] . b.c. 1400 (Tell el-Amarna Letters, No. 237 Winckler [118 Petrie]), may be a Canaanitish equivalent, but no stress can be laid on the similarity. It has also been noticed that aiabu in Bab. [Note: Babylonian.] meant enemy (ib. 50 Winckler [147 Petrie]), but this cannot be regarded at present as more than a coincidence.

2. The Book of Job

(1) Place in the Canon.Except in the Syriac Bible, which locates it between the Pentateuch and Joshua, on account of its supposed great antiquity, the book is always reckoned as one of the Kethubim or Hagiographa, and is often given the third place. It is usually grouped with Ps. and Prov., with which it is associated by the use of a special system of accentuation (except in the Prologue and Epilogue), but the order of the three books varies.

In a baraitha in the Bab. [Note: Babylonian.] Talm. (Baba bathra 14b), which probably gives the most ancient order (Ryle, Canon of OT, 232), it comes after Ruth and Ps.; in many Heb. MSS, especially Spanish, and in the Massorah, after Ch. and Ps.; in the German MSS, which have been followed in most printed editions, after Ps. and Proverbs. Of the LXX [Note: Septuagint.] MSS Codex B has the remarkable order: Ps., Pr., Ec., Ca., Job, Wis., Sir.; A has Ps., Job, Proverbs. In printed editions of the LXX [Note: Septuagint.] and Vulg. [Note: Vulgate.] Job usually comes first, and this order is generally adopted in European versions, owing no doubt to the influence of the Latin Bible.

(2) Text.The Heb. text of Job was long regarded as excellent, but has been much questioned in recent years, some critics resorting very largely to emendation with the help of the Versions and free conjecture. The reaction against the earlier view has probably led some scholars too far. When the difficulty of the theme, its bold treatment in many places, and the large number of words, forms, and uses not met with elsewhere (according to Friedrich Delitzsch, 259) are duly taken into account, the condition of the text is seen to be less corrupt than might have been expected. Much discussion has been occasioned by the peculiar character of the LXX [Note: Septuagint.] as restored to its original form by means of the Sahidic translation first published in 1889. This version differs in extent from the Massoretic text more widely in Job than in any other book. There are two interesting additions: the expansion of Job 2:8 and the appendix at the end of the book; but the chief characteristic is omission. A little less than one-fifth of the Heb. text is absentabout 400 lines out of, roundly speaking, 2200 for the whole book and 2075 for the poetic portions. A few have found in this shorter edition the original text of the book, but most ascribe the minus of the LXX [Note: Septuagint.] to defective understanding of the Hebrew, imperfect acquaintance with the structure of Heb. poetry, and the desire to conform to Hellenic standards, etc., rather than to variation of text. This version therefore, in the opinion of most competent judges, is of little use for the restoration of the text. Here and there it suggests a better reading, e.g. in Job 8:13 a latter end for paths, but in the main the Massoretic text is greatly to be preferred. It is not improbable, however, that the arrangement of the latter is wrong in a few passages: e.g. in ch. 31, where 8:3537 form a more fitting close than 8:3840.

(3) Analysis.The book, as we have it, is a poem framed in prose, with bits of prose interspersed. The prose portions are as follows: the introduction, often called the Prologue (ch. 1 f.), stating the problem, the undeserved suffering of a good man, giving a partial solution, and bringing on the scene the heros three friends; short headings (Job 3:1, Job 4:1 etc.); a supplementary note (Job 31:40 c.); a brief introduction to the speeches of Elihu (Job 32:1-6); and the sequel, often called the Epilogue (Job 42:7-17). The poem opens with a monologue in which Job curses the day of his birth (ch. 3). This is followed by a series of three dialogues extending over chs. 428: (i.) 414; (ii.) 1521; (iii.) 2228.

The three friends in succession, probably in order of seniority, reason with Job, all from the generally accepted standpoint that suffering is a sure indication of sin. As the discussion proceeds they become more and more bitter, until the most moderate and dignified of them, Eliphaz, actually taxes Job with flagrant iniquity (Job 22:5-9). In the third dialogue, as we have it, one of the speakers, Zophar, is silent. Job replies at length to each expostulation, sometimes sinking into depression on the verge of despair (Job 14:1-12 etc.), occasionally rising for a moment or two into confidence (Job 16:19, Job 19:25-27), but throughout maintaining his integrity, and, notwithstanding passionate utterances which seem near akin to blasphemy (Job 10:8-17, Job 16:7-17), never wholly losing his faith in God.

The dialogues are followed by a monologue spoken by Job (chs. 2931), consisting of a vivid retrospect of the happy past (ch. 29), a dismal picture of the wretched present (ch. 30), and what Marshall calls Jobs oath of self-vindicationan emphatic disavowal of definite forms of transgression, in a series of sentences most of which begin with if, sometimes followed by an imprecation (ch.31). The succeeding six chapters (3237) are ascribed to a new character, a young man, Elihu the Buzite, who is dissatisfied] with both Job and his friends. The distinctive note of his argument is the stress laid on the thought that God teaches by means of affliction; in other words, that the purpose, or at least one main purpose, of trial is discipline (Job 33:19-28, Job 36:10; Job 36:15). Elihu then drops out of the book, and the remainder of the poem (chs. 3842:6) is devoted to Jahwehs answer to Jobs complaint, calling attention to the Divine power, wisdom, and tenderness revealed in creation, in the control of natural forces and phenomena, in the life of birds and beasts, and in the working of Providence in human history, and suggesting that He who could do all this might surely he trusted to care for His servant; and Jobs penitent retraction of his presumptuous utterances.

(4) Integrity.On the question whether the book, as we have it, is a single whole or a combination of two or more parts, there is a general agreement among scholars in favour of the latter alternative. There are clear indications of at least two hands. The speeches of Elihu (chs. 3237) are ascribed by most (not by Budde, Cornill, Wildehoer, Briggs, and a few others) to a later writer, who desired to supplement, and to some extent correct, the work of his predecessor.

The chief reasons alleged for this conclusion are: (1) the silence about Elihu in the Epilogue. (2) The fact that the whole section can be removed without any break of continuity, Job 31:40 c. linking on naturally to Job 38:1. (3) The Aramaic character of the diction, and the occurrence of words and phrases not found elsewhere in the poem. (4) Literary inferiority. (5) Theological diversity, the conception of God differing from what is met with in the rest of the book (Marshall, Job and his Friends, p. 82ff.).

The third of these reasons has been shown to be inconclusive. The language of Elihu is not inconsistent with the view that these chapters were written by the author of the dialogues. The fourth reason is not without weight, but it must be allowed that there are some very fine things in these chapters, and it must be remembered that they have probably been handed down less carefully than some other parts of the book, on account of the disfavour with which some of the ancient Jews regarded Elihu (inspired by SatanTest. of Job, ch. 41). In any case, Friedrich Delitzsch has gone too far in describing the author as a fifth-rate poet. The remaining three reasons, however, seem to be nearly decisive.

The fine poem in ch. 28, which contrasts the success of man in finding precious ore with his utter failure to find wisdom, does not fit in with the context, and is therefore regarded by many as an addition. The striking, but rather turgid, descriptions of the hippopotamus and the crocodile in chs. 40, 41 are also held by many to be an interpolation. Some question the verses about the ostrich (Job 39:13-18). The Prologue and Epilogue are considered by some to be the relies of an earlier work in prose.

A few scholars go much further in critical analysis. Bickell, for instance, in his search after the original text, expunges not only the speeches of Elihu and the Prologue and Epilogue, but also the whole of the speeches of Jahweh, and many smaller portions. Cheyne (in EBi [Note: Encyclopdia Biblica.] ) seems to find four main elements in the book, as we have it, which has grown, not been made: (1) the Prologue and the Epilogue; (2) the dialogue; (3) the speeches of Jahweh; (4) the speeches of Elihu. Marshall (in Com.), on the ground that there are different strata of theological belief, also finds four elements, but only in part the same. (1) The dialogues up to Job 27:23, with the Epilogue, and part of the Prologue; (2) chs. 2831, and the speeches of Jahweh; (3) the speeches of Elihu; (4) the references to the heavenly council in chs. 1 and 2.

(5) Nature of the Book.The class of Heb. literature to which the Book of Job belongs is clearly the Chokhmah or Wisdom group, the other representatives of which are Pr., Ec., and Sir.the group which deals with questions of practical ethics, religious philosophy, and speculation. The book is mainlynot entirely, as one of the Rabbis thought (Baba bathra, 15a)a work of imagination, but, in the judgment of most, with a traditional nucleus, the extent of which, however, is uncertain, as there are features in both the Prologue and the Epilogue which suggest literary invention: e.g., the recurrence of the words I only am escaped alone to tell thee (Job 1:15-17; Job 1:19), the use of the Num 3:1-51 (Job 1:2; JOba 1:17, Job 2:11, Job 42:13) and 7 (Job 1:2 f., Job 42:8; Job 42:13), and the doubling of Jobs possessions (Job 42:12). The poem, as handed down to us, can hardly he described in modern terms. It contains lyrical elements, but could not appropriately he designated lyrical. It has more than one dramatic feature, but is not really a drama. It reminds one of the epos, but is not an epic. It is didactic, but, as Baudissin has observed, soars high above a mere didactic poem. It is emphatically sui generis. It stands absolutely alone, not merely in the literature of Israel, but in the literature of the world.

(6) Poetic Form.The Austrian scholar Bickell, who has been followed by Duhm, and in England by Dillon, has tried to show that the poem was written throughout in quatrains, but the textual havoc wrought in the attempt seems to prove clearly that he is, in part at least, on the wrong track. Very few critics accept the theory. The only thing that seems to be certain about the poetic method of the writer or writers is the use throughout of the parallelism of members, which has long been known as the leading feature of ancient Oriental poetry. A verse usually consists of two lines or members, but there are many instances where there are three (Job 3:4 ff., Job 3:9), and one at least where there is only one (Job 14:4). More than eight hundred out of about a thousand verses, according to Ley, consist of two lines, each of which has three independent words. But here again there are many exceptions, some no doubt due to textual corruption, but more in all probability to the poets mastery of the forms which he employed.

(7) Purpose and teaching.The chief object of the poet to whom we owe the dialogues, and probably the Prologue and the Epilogue, and the speeches of Jahweh, and we may add, of the compiler or editor of the whole book, is to give a better answer to the question, Why are exceptionally good men heavily afflicted? than that generally current in Jewish circles down to the time of Christ. A subsidiary object is the delineation of spiritual experience under the conditions supposed, of the sufferers changing moods, and yet indestructible longing for the God whom he cannot understand. The poets answer, as stated in the speeches of Jahweh, seems at the first reading no answer at all, but when closely examined is seen to be profoundly suggestive. There is no specific reply to Jobs bitter complaints and passionate outcries. Instead of reasoning with His servant, Jahweh reminds him of a few of the wonders of creation and providence, and leaves him to draw the inference. He draws it, and sees the God whom he seemed to have lost sight of for ever as he never saw Him before, even in the time of his prosperity; sees Him, indeed, in a very real sense for the first time (Job 42:5). The book also contains other partial solutions of the problem. The speeches of Elihu lay stress, as already observed, on the educational value of suffering. God is a peerless teacher (Job 36:22 b), who delivereth the afflicted by his affliction, and openeth (uncovereth) their ear by adversity (Job 36:15). The Prologue lifts the curtain of the unseen world, and reveals a mysterious personality who is Divinely permitted to inflict suffering on the righteous, which results in manifestation of the Divine glory. The intellectual range of the book is amazingly wide. Marshall observes that every solution which the mind of man has ever framed [of the problem of the adversity of the righteous, and the prosperity of the wicked] is to be found in the Book of Job. On the question of the hereafter the teaching of the book as a whole differs little from that of the OT in general. There is yearning for something better (Num 14:13-16), and perhaps a momentary conviction (Job 19:25-27), but the general conception of the life after death is that common to Hebrews, Assyrians, and Babylonians.

(8) The characters.The interest of the Book of Job is concentrated mainly on the central figure, the hero. Of the other five leading characters by far the most interesting is the Satan of the Prologue, half-angel half-demon, by no means identical with the devil as usually conceived, and yet with a distinctly diabolical tendency. The friends are not very sharply differentiated in the book as we have it, but it is probable that the parts are wrongly distributed in the third dialogue, which is incomplete, no part being assigned to Zophar. Some ascribe Job 27:7-10; Job 27:13-23 to Zophar, and add to Bildads speech (which in the present arrangement consists only of ch. 25) Job 27:5-14 of ch. 26. what is left of Jobs reply being found in Job 26:1-4, Job 27:2-6; Job 27:11 f. Marshall finds Zophars third speech in chs. 25 and Job 26:5-14, and Bildads in Job 24:18-21. There seems to be considerable confusion in chs. 2527, so that it is difficult to utilize them for the study of the characters of Bildad and Zophar. Eliphaz seems to be the oldest and most dignified of the three, with something of the seer or prophet about him (Job 4:12-21). Bildad is the traditionalist. Zophar, who is probably the youngest, is very differently estimated, one scholar designating him as a rough noisy fellow, another regarding him as a philosopher of the agnostic type. It must be allowed that the three characters are not as sharply distinguished as would be the case in a modern poem, the writer being concerned mainly with Job, and using the others to some extent as foils. Elihu, who has been shown to be almost certainly the creation of another writer, is not by any means a copy of one of the three. He is an ardent young man, not free from conceit, but with noble thoughts about God and insight into Gods ways not attained by them.

(9) Date.In the Heb. Sirach (Sir 49:8-10) Job is referred to after Ezekiel and before the Twelve. which may possibly suggest that the writer regarded the book as comparatively late. The oldest Rabbinic opinion (Baba bathra, 14b) ascribed the book to Moses. Two Rabbis placed Job in the period of the return from the Exile (ib.15a), one as late as the Persian period (ib. 15b). These opinions have no critical value, but the first has exercised considerable influence. Modern students are generally agreed on the following points:(1) The book in all its parts implies a degree of reflexion on the problems of life which fits in better with a comparatively late than with a very early age. (2) The dialogue, which is unquestionably one of the oldest portions, indicates familiarity with national catastrophes, such as the destruction of the kingdom of Samaria, the overthrow of Damascus, and the leading away of large bodies of captives, including priests and nobles, from Jerusalem to Babylon (Job 12:17-25), which again, on the assumption that the writer is an Israelite, points to an advanced stage of Israelitish history. Many take a further step. The prophet Jeremiah in his persecutions, Job who is called by Jahweh my servant Job (Job 42:7), and the suffering Servant of Jahweh in the exilic prophet are figures which seem to stand in the connexion of a definite period (Baudissin, Einleitung, 768), and so point at the earliest to the Exile and the decades immediately preceding it. These and other considerations have led most recent critics to date the main poem near, or during, or after the Exile.

Some earlier scholars (Luther, Franz Delitzsch, Cox, and Stanley) recommended the age of Solomon, others (Nldeke, Hitzig, and Reuss) the age of Isaiah, and others (Ewald, Riehm, and apparently Bleek) the period between Isaiah and Jeremiah. Marshall thinks that the dialogue may have been written as early as the time of Tiglath-pileser iii (b.c. 745726), but not earlier. Dillmann, Knig, Davison (in Hastings DB [Note: Dictionary of the Bible.] ), and Driver favour the period of the Exile; Cheyne (in EBi [Note: Encyclopdia Biblica.] ) puts the earliest part after b.c. 519; G. Hoffmann, c [Note: circa, about.] . b.c. 500; Duhm, from 500 to 450; Budde, E.Kautzsch, and Peake, c [Note: circa, about.] . 400; the school of Kuenen, the 4th or 3rd cent.; O. Holtzmann the age of the Ptolemys; and Siegfried (in the JE [Note: Jewish Encyclopedia.] ), the time of the Maccabees.

At present the period from c [Note: circa, about.] . b.c. 600 to c [Note: circa, about.] . 400 seems to command most approval. The later portions of the book, especially the speeches of Elihu, may have been written a century or more after the main poem. Marshall thinks that the latest element may be as late as the age of Malachi, and Duhm confidently assigns Elihu to the 2nd cent. b.c. A definite date is evidently unattainable either for the whole or for parts, but it seems to be tolerably certain that even the earlier portions are much later than used to be assumed.

(10) Authorship.Besides the Talmudic guess cited above, very few attempts have been made to fix on an author. Calmet suggested Solomon, Bunsen Baruch, and Royer (in 1901) Jeremiah. None of these views needs to be discussed. Whoever was the author of the main poem, he was undoubtedly an Israelite, for a Gentile would not have used the Tetragrammaton so freely. Of familiarity with the Law there are, indeed, very few traces, but that is doubtless owing to the poets wonderful skill, which has enabled him to maintain throughout a Gentile and patriarchal colouring. There is no reason for thinking that he wrote either in Babylonia or in Egypt. He must have lived in some region where he could study the life of the desert. It has been remarked that all the creatures he names (except the hippopotamus and the crocodile, which may have been introduced by a later hand) are desert creatures. He was intimately acquainted with the life of caravans (Job 6:15-20). He knew something of the astronomy of his time (Job 9:9, cf. Job 38:31 f.). He had some acquaintance with the myths and superstitions of Western Asia: cf. Job 9:13, Job 25:2, Job 26:12, where there may be allusions to the Babylonian myth about the struggle between the dragon of Chaos and Marduk, the god of light; Job 3:8, Job 26:13, where reference may be made to popular notions about eclipses and to the claims of magicians; and perhaps Job 29:18 b., where some find an allusion to the fabulous phnix. He was probably familiar with the Wisdom-lore of Israel, and possibly of Edom, and may safely be assumed to have known all that was worth knowing in other departments of Heb. literature (cf. Job 7:17 f. with Psa 8:4 f., and Job 3:3; Job 3:10 with Jer 20:14-18, although the order of dependence is by no means certain in the latter case). The poetic execution reveals the hand of a master. It seems most natural to look for his home in the south or southeast of the Holy Land, not far from Edom, where he would come in frequent contact with Gentile sages, and could glean much from travellers.

(11) Parallels to Job.Cheyne (in EBi [Note: Encyclopdia Biblica.] ) has endeavoured to connect the story of Job with the Babylonian legend of Eabani, but the similarity is too slight to need discussion. A far closer parallel is furnished by a partially preserved poem from the library of Ashurbanipal, which probably reproduces an ancient Babylonian text. It represents the musings of an old king, who has lived a blameless and devout life, but is nevertheless terribly afflicted in body and mindpursued all day, and without rest at nightand is apparently forsaken of the gods. He cannot understand the ways of Deity towards either himself or others. What seems good to a man is bad with his god. Who could understand the counsel of the gods in heaven? The poem ends with a song of praise for deliverance from sin and disease (Der Alte Orient, vii. No. 3, pp. 2730, and extra vol. ii. 134139; and M. Jastrow in JBL [Note: BL Journ. of Biblical Literature.] xxv [1906], p. 135 ff.).

The Jesuit missionary, Pre Bouchet, called attention in 1723 to the story of the ancient Indian king Arichandiren who, in consequence of a dispute in an assembly of gods and goddesses and holy men as to the existence of a perfect prince, was very severely tested by the leader of the sceptical party. He was deprived of his property, his kingdom, his only son, and his wife, but still trod the path of virtue, and received as rewards the restoration of wife and son, and other marks of Divine favour. These parallels, however, interesting as they are, do not in the least interfere with the originality and boldness of the Hebrew poem, which must ever be regarded as the boldest and grandest effort of the ancient world to justify the ways of God to men.

W. Taylor Smith.

Fuente: Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible

Job

The man of Uz. His name signifies, what he himself was, one that weePs His name is quoted with great honour by the Lord himself. (Eze 14:14) and his patience recommended very forcibly by an Apostle. (Jam 5:11)

Fuente: The Poor Mans Concordance and Dictionary to the Sacred Scriptures

Job

job (, ‘yobh, meaning of name doubtful; some conjecturing object of enmity, others he who turns, etc., to God; both uncertain guesses; , Iob): The titular hero of the Book of Job, represented as a wealthy and pious land-holder who lived in patriarchal times, or at least conditions, in the land of Uz, on the borders of Idumea. Outside of the Book of Job he is mentioned by Ezekiel (Eze 14:14, Eze 14:20) as one of 3 great personages whose representative righteousness would presumably avail, if that of any individuals could, to redeem the nation; the other two being Noah, an ancient patriarch, and Daniel, a contemporary of the prophet. It is difficult to determine whether Job was an actual personage or not. If known through legend, it must have been on account of some such experience as is narrated in the book, an experience unique enough to have become a potent household word; still, the power and influence of it is due to the masterly vigor and exposition of the story. It was the Job of literature, rather than the Job of legend, who lived in the hearts of men; a character so commanding that, albeit fictitious, it could be referred to as real, just as we refer to Hamlet or Othello. It is not the way of Hebrew writers, however, to evolve literary heroes from pure imagination; they crave an authentic basis of fact. It is probable that such a basis, in its essential outlines, existed under the story of Job. It is not necessary to suppose, however, that the legend or the name was known to Israel from ancient times. Job is introduced (Job 1:1) as if he had not been known before. The writer, who throughout the book shows a wide acquaintance with the world, doubtless found the legend somewhere, and drew its meanings together for an undying message to his and all times.

Fuente: International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

Job

1. The ‘perfect and upright man’ whose history is given in the book of Job.

2. Son of Issachar. Gen 46:13. See JASHUB.

Fuente: Concise Bible Dictionary

Job

H347

1. A man who dwelt in Uz

– General references

Job 1:1

– Righteousness of

Job 1:1; Job 1:5; Job 1:8; Job 2:3; Eze 14:14; Eze 14:20

– Riches of

Job 1:3

– Trial of, by affliction of Satan

Job 1:13-19; Job 2:7-10

– Fortitude of

Job 1:20-22; Job 2:10; Jas 5:11

– Visited by Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar as comforters

Job 2:11-13

– Complaints of, and replies by his three friends to

Job 3

– Replied to by God

Job 38

– Submission of, to God

Job 40:3-5; Job 42:1-6

– Later blessings and riches of

Job 42:10-16

– Death of

Job 42:16-17

2. See Jashub, 1

Jashub, 1

Fuente: Nave’s Topical Bible

Job

Job (jb). 1. The patriarch, from whom one of the poetical books of the Old Testament is named. He lived in the land of Uz and belonged to the Aramean race, which had settled in the lower part of Mesopotamia (probably to the south or south-east of Palestine, in Idumean Arabia), adjacent to the Sabeans and Chaldeans. The opinions of Job and his Mends are thus interesting as showing a phase of patriarchal religion outside of the family of Abraham, and not controlled by the legislation of Moses. The form of worship is similar to the early patriarchal type; with little of ceremonial ritual, without a separate priesthood. Job is represented as a chieftain of immense wealth and high rank, blameless in all the relations of life, subjected to special trials, which he endured with humility, and finally was rewarded by marked blessings and great prosperity. 2. Son of Issachar, called Jashub. Gen 46:13; 1Ch 7:1.

Fuente: People’s Dictionary of the Bible

Job

Job, Book of. This is an historical poem, as is shown by the narrative prologue and epilogue in prose. Some ascribe its authorship to Moses in Midian, others bring it down to the age of Solomon. It is written in pure Hebrew, and shows intimate acquaintance with both Egyptian and Arabian scenery and usages. Its theme is the problem of evil, why the righteous suffer and the wicked prosper in this world. After the outbreak of Job’s despair, chap. 3, there are three series of controversies, in which each of Job’s friends makes an address, to which Job repliessave that in the 32d series Zophar is silent. Chaps 4-26. Then Job makes a closing address to all three, 27, 28, followed by a striking soliloquy, 29-31. Elihu utters four discourses, 32-37, after which Jehovah speaks out of the whirlwind, 38-41, and Job is humbled and yet vindicated. The best critics of every age count this poetical book as one of the immortal master-pieces of genius. Carlyle said that “there is nothing written of equal literary merit.” But it is no less estimable for its religious and ethical worth, setting forth as it does the being and perfections of Jehovah, the apostasy and guilt of evil spirits and of mankind, the sovereignty of divine providence, the mercy of God on the basis of sacrifice and penitence, the disciplinary nature of his people’s sorrows, the wisdom of submission to his will, and the assurance, in view of his infinite power and wisdom, that all shall be well with his followers in the end. The Book of Job may be better understood by reading it in the Revised English Version.

Fuente: People’s Dictionary of the Bible

Job

Job. (persecuted).

1. The third son of Issachar, Gen 46:13, called, in another genealogy, Jashub. 1Ch 7:1.

2. Job, the patriarch, from whom one of the books of the Old Testament is named. His residence in the land of Uz, marks him as belonging to a branch of the Aramean race, which had settled in the lower part of Mesopatamia, (probably to the south or southeast of Palestine, in Idumean Arabia), adjacent to the Sabeans and Chaldeans.

The opinions of Job and his friends are, thus, peculiarly interesting as exhibiting an aspect of the patriarchal religion, outside of the family of Abraham, and as yet, uninfluenced by the legislation of Moses. The form of worship belongs essentially, to the early patriarchal type; with little of ceremonial ritual, without a separate priesthood, it is thoroughly domestic in form and spirit. Job is represented as a chieftain of immense wealth and high rank, blameless in all the relations of life. What we know of his history, is given in the book that bears his name.

Fuente: Smith’s Bible Dictionary

JOB

of the land of Uz

Job 1:1; Eze 14:14; Jam 5:11

–“The Patient Man”

Jam 5:11

Suffered loss of property

Job 1:13-17

Loss of children

Job 1:18; Job 1:19

Loss of health

Job 2:7-9

Lack of sympathy

Job 16:1-3

Loss of friends

Job 30:1-10

Faith strained but victorious

Job 19:1-27

Unselfish prayer leads to his deliverance

Job 42:10

Blessings restored

Job 42:11; Job 42:13

Fuente: Thompson Chain-Reference Bible

Job

a patriarch celebrated for his patience, and the constancy of his piety and virtue. That Job was a real, and not a fictitious, character, may be inferred from the manner in which he is mentioned in the Scriptures. Thus, the Prophet Ezekiel speaks of him: Though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness, saith the Lord God, Eze 14:14. Now since Noah and Daniel were unquestionably real characters, we must conclude the same of Job. Behold, says the Apostle James, we count them happy which endure: ye have heard of the patience of Job, and have seen the end of the Lord, that the Lord is very pitiful, and of tender mercy, Jam 5:11. It is scarcely to be believed that a divinely inspired Apostle would refer to an imaginary character as an example of patience, or in proof of the mercy of God. But, beside the authority of the inspired writers, we have the strongest internal evidence, from the book itself, that Job was a real person; for it expressly specifies the names of persons, places, facts, and other circumstances usually related in true histories. Thus, we have the name, country, piety, wealth, &c, of Job described, Job i; the names, number, and acts of his children are mentioned; the conduct of his wife is recorded as a fact, Job ii; his friends, their names, countries, and discourses with him in his afflictions are minutely delineated, Job 2:11, &c.

Farther: no reasonable doubt can be entertained respecting the real existence of Job, when we consider that it is proved by the concurrent testimony of all eastern tradition: he is mentioned by the author of the book of Tobit, who lived during the Assyrian captivity; he is also repeatedly mentioned by Arabian writers as a real character. The whole of his history, with many fabulous additions, was known among the Syrians and Chaldeans; and many of the noblest families among the Arabs are distinguished by his name, and boast of being descended from him.

Since, then, says Horne, the book of Job contains the history of a real character, the next point is the age in which he lived, a question concerning which there is as great a diversity of opinion, as upon any other subject connected with this venerable monument of sacred antiquity. One thing, however, is generally admitted with respect to the age of the book of Job, namely, its remote antiquity. Even those who contend for the later production of the book of Job are compelled to acquiesce in this particular. Grotius thinks the events of the history are such as cannot be placed later than the sojourning of the Israelites in the wilderness. Bishop Warburton, in like manner, admits them to bear the marks of high antiquity; and Michaelis confesses the manners to be perfectly Abrahamic, that is, such as were common to all the seed of Abraham, Israelites, Ishmaelites, and Idumeans. The following are the principal circumstances from which the age of Job may be collected and ascertained:

1. The Usserian or Bible chronology dates the trial of Job about the year 1520 before the Christian era, twenty-nine years before the departure of the Israelites from Egypt; and that the book was composed before that event, is evident from its total silence respecting the miracles which accompanied the exode; such as the passage of the Red Sea, the destruction of the Egyptians, the manna in the desert, &c; all of which happened in the vicinity of Job’s country, and were so apposite in the debate concerning the ways of Providence that some notice could not but have been taken of them, if they had been coeval with the poem of Job.

2. That it was composed before Abraham’s migration to Canaan, may also be inferred from its silence respecting the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, and the other cities of the plain, which were still nearer to Idumea, where the scene is laid.

3. The length of Job’s life places him in the patriarchal times. He survived his trial one hundred and forty years, Job 42:16, and was probably not younger at that time; for we read that his seven sons were all grown up, and had been settled in their own houses for a considerable time, Job 1:4-5. He speaks of the sins of his youth, Job 13:26, and of the prosperity of his youth; and yet Eliphaz addresses him as a novice: With us are both the gray-headed and very aged men, much elder than thy father, Job 15:10.

4. That he did not live at an earlier period, may be collected from an incidental observation of Bildad, who refers Job to their forefathers for instruction in wisdom:

Inquire, I pray thee, of the former age,

And prepare thyself to the search of their fathers:

assigning as a reason the comparative shortness of human life, and consequent ignorance of the present generation:

For we are but of yesterday, and know nothing; Because our days upon earth are a shadow.

Job 8:8-9.

But the fathers of the former age, or grandfathers of the present, were the contemporaries of Peleg and Joktan, in the fifth generation after the deluge; and they might easily have learned wisdom from the fountain head by conversing with Shem, or perhaps with Noah himself; whereas, in the seventh generation, the standard of human life was reduced to about two hundred years, which was a shadow compared with the longevity of Noah and his sons.

5. The general air of antiquity which pervades the manners recorded in the poem, is a farther evidence of its remote date. The manners and customs, indeed, critically correspond with that early period. Thus, Job speaks of the most ancient kinds of writing, by sculpture, Job 19:24; his riches also are reckoned by his cattle, Job 42:12. Farther: Job acted as high priest in his family, according to the patriarchal usage, Gen 8:20; for the institution of an established priesthood does not appear to have taken place any where until the time of Abraham. Melchizedec, king of Salem, was a priest of the primitive order, Gen 14:18; such also was Jethro, the father-in-law of Moses, in the vicinity of Idumea, Exo 18:12. The first regular priesthood was probably instituted in Egypt, where Joseph was married to the daughter of the priest of On, Gen 41:45.

6. The slavish homage of prostration to princes and great men, which prevailed in Egypt, Persia, and the east in general, and which still subsists there, was unknown in Arabia at that time. Though Job was one of the greatest men of all the east, we do not find any such adoration paid to him by his contemporaries, in the zenith of his prosperity, among the marks of respect so minutely described in the twenty-ninth chapter: When the young men saw him, they hid themselves, (rather, shrunk back, through respect or rustic bashfulness,) the aged arose and stood up in his presence, (more correctly, ranged themselves about him,) the princes refrained from talking, and laid their hand upon their mouth; the nobles held their peace, and were all attention while he spoke. All this was highly respectful, indeed, but still it was manly, and showed no cringing or servile adulation. With this description correspond the manners and conduct of the genuine Arabs of the present day, a majestic race, who were never conquered, and who have retained their primitive customs, features, and character, with scarcely any alteration.

7. The allusion made by Job to that species of idolatry alone, which by general consent is admitted to have been the most ancient, namely, Zabianism, or the worship of the sun and moon, and also to the exertion of the judicial authority against it, Job 31:26-28, is an additional and most complete proof of the high antiquity of the poem, as well as a decisive mark of the patriarchal age. 8. A farther evidence of the remote antiquity of this book is the language of Job and his friends; who, being all Idumeans, or at least Arabians of the adjacent country, yet conversed in Hebrew. This carries us up to an age so early as that in which all the posterity of Abraham, Israelites, Idumeans, and Arabians, yet continued to speak one common language, and had not branched into different dialects.

The country in which the scene of this poem is laid, is stated, Job 1:1, to be the land of Uz, which by some geographers has been placed in Sandy, and by others in Stony, Arabia. Bochart strenuously advocated the former opinion, in which he has been powerfully supported by Spanheim, Calmet, Carpzov, Heidegger, and some later writers; Michaelis and Ilgen place the scene in the valley of Damascus; but Bishops Lowth and Magee, Dr. Hales, Dr. Good, and some later critics and philologers, have shown that the scene is laid in Idumea. In effect, nothing is clearer than that the history of an inhabitant of Idumea is the subject of the poem which bears the name of Job, and that all the persons introduced into it were Idumeans, dwelling in Idumea, in other words, Edomite Arabs. These characters are, Job himself, of the land of Uz; Eliphaz, of Teman, a district of as much repute as Uz, and which, it appears from the joint testimony of Jeremiah. Ezekiel, Amos, and Obadiah, Jer 49:7; Jer 49:20; Eze 25:13; Amo 1:11-12; Oba 1:8-9, formed a principal part of Idumea; Bildad, of Shuah, who is always mentioned in conjunction with Sheba and Dedan, the first of whom was probably named after one of the brothers of Joktan or Kahtan, and the two last from two of his sons, all of them being uniformly placed in the vicinity of Idumea, Gen 25:2-3; Jer 49:8; Zophar of Naama, a city importing pleasantness, which is also stated by Joshua, Jos 15:21; Jos 15:41, to have been situate in Idumea, and to have lain in a southern direction toward its coast, on the shores of the Red Sea; and Elihu, of Buz, which, as the name of a place, occurs only once in Sacred Writ, Jer 25:23, but is there mentioned in conjunction with Temen and Dedan; and hence necessarily, like them, a border city upon Uz or Idumea. Allowing this chirography to be correct, (and such, upon a fair review of facts, we may conclude it to be,) there is no difficulty in conceiving that hordes of nomadic Chaldeans as well as Sabeans, a people addicted to rapine, and roving about at immense distances for the sake of plunder, should have occasionally infested the defenceless country of Idumea, and roved from the Euphrates even to Egypt.

The different parts of the book of Job are so closely connected together, that they cannot be detached from each other. The exordium prepares the reader for what follows, supplies us with the necessary notices concerning Job and his friends, unfolds the scope, and places the calamities full in our view as an object of attention. The epilogue, or conclusion, again, has reference to the exordium, and relates the happy termination of Job’s trials; the dialogues which intervene flow in regular order. Now, if any of these parts were to be taken away, the poem would be extremely defective. Without the prologue the reader would be utterly ignorant who Job was, who were his friends, and the cause of his being so grievously afflicted. Without the discourse of Elihu, Job 32-37, there would be a sudden and abrupt transition from the last words of Job to the address of God, for which Elihu’s discourse prepares the reader. And without the epilogue, or conclusion, we should remain in ignorance of the subsequent condition of Job. Hence it is evident, that the poem is the composition of a single author; but who that was, is a question concerning which the learned are very much divided in their sentiments. Elihu, Job, Moses, Solomon, Isaiah, an anonymous writer in the reign of Manasseh, Ezekiel, and Ezra, have all been contended for. The arguments already adduced respecting the age of Job, prove that it could not be either of the latter persons. Dr. Lightfoot, from an erroneous version of Job 32:16-17, has conjectured that it is the production of Elihu; but the correct rendering of that passage refutes this notion. Ilgen ascribes it probably to a descendant of Elihu. Another and more generally received opinion attributes this book to Moses; this conjecture is founded on some apparent striking coincidences of sentiment, as well as from some marks of later date which are supposed to be discoverable in it. But, independently of the characters of antiquity already referred to, and which place the book of Job very many centuries before the time of Moses, the total absence of even the slightest allusion to the manners, customs, ceremonies, or history of the Israelites, is a direct evidence that the great legislator of the Hebrews was not, and could not have been the author. To which may be added, that the style of Job, as Bishop Lowth has remarked, is materially different from the poetical style of Moses; for it is much more compact, concise, or condensed, more accurate in the poetical conformation of the sentences; as may be observed also in the prophecies of Balaam the Mesopotamian, a foreigner, indeed, with respect to the Israelites, but not unacquainted either with their language, or with the worship of the true God. Upon the whole, then, we have sufficient ground to conclude that this book was not the production of Moses, but of some earlier age. Bishop Lowth favours the opinion of Schultens, Peters, and others, which is adopted by Bishop Tomline and Dr. Hales, who suppose Job himself, or some contemporary, to have been the author of this poem; and there seems to be no good reason for supposing that it was not written by Job himself. It appears, indeed, highly probable that Job was the writer of his own story, of whose inspiration we have the clearest evidence in the forty-second chapter of this book, in which he thus addresses the Almighty: I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear, but now mine eye seeth thee. It is plain that in this passage some privilege is intended which he never had enjoyed before, and which he calls the sight of God.

The book of Job contains the history of Job, a man equally distinguished for purity and uprightness of character, and for honours, wealth and domestic felicity, whom God permitted, for the trial of his faith, to be suddenly deprived of all his numerous blessings, and to be at once plunged into the deepest affliction, and most accumulated distress. It gives an account of his eminent piety, patience, and resignation under the pressure of these severe calamities, and of his subsequent elevation to a degree of prosperity and happiness, still greater than that which he had before enjoyed. How long the sufferings of Job continued, we are not informed; but it is said, that after God turned his captivity, and blessed him a second time, he lived one hundred and forty years, Job 42:16. Its style is in many parts peculiarly sublime; and it is not only adorned with poetical embellishments, but most learned men consider it as written in metre. Through the whole work we discover religious instruction shining forth amidst the venerable simplicity of ancient manners. It every where abounds with the noblest sentiments of piety, uttered with the spirit of inspired conviction. It is a work unrivalled for the magnificence of its language and for the beautiful and sublime images which it presents. In the wonderful speech of the Deity, Job 38, 39, every line delineates his attributes, every sentence opens a picture of some grand object in creation, characterized by its most striking features. Add to this, that its prophetic parts reflect much light on the economy of God’s moral government; and every admirer of sacred antiquity, every inquirer after religious instruction, will seriously rejoice that the enraptured sentence of Job, Job 19:23, is realized to a more effectual and unforeseen accomplishment; that while the memorable records of antiquity have mouldered from the rock, the prophetic assurance and sentiments of Job are graven in Scriptures that no time shall alter, no changes shall efface.

Fuente: Biblical and Theological Dictionary

Job

Eze 14:14 (a) An example of one who can and did pray the prayer of faith which moved GOD to perform miracles. (See also Jam 5:11).

Fuente: Wilson’s Dictionary of Bible Types