Translated from the Hebrew<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Dissertation I<\/p>\n
the book of job a true history<\/p>\n
It may seem strange to many who revere God\u2019s Word, that it should be thought necessary to say anything in defence of what a book, universally admitted to be a portion of canonical Scripture, naturally assumes\u2014that the history which it professes to narrate is fact, and not fiction<\/em>. And yet, as exceptions of all sorts, and by all sorts of writers, have been taken against this position, and particularly so in the case of this book, more than of any other in the sacred volume; and as some of these exceptions, although little better than ingenious, have come to us stamped with the authority of men of high standing both in place and literature, it would ill become a commentator of the book to ignore the arguments that have been advanced for the purpose of attacking its truthfulness, and of giving support to favorite preconceived theories.<\/p>\n Happily for me the merits of the case have been gone into by others, and the question so far disposed of, that I shall feel under no obligation to do much more than state the objections that have been pressed into service, and bring forward the refutations with which they have been met, taking occasion, however, in some particulars, to add what is my own in the way of new argument.<\/p>\n The assailants of the position referred to\u2014that the narrative before us is a real history of persons and facts\u2014may be ranged in two classes:\u2014the first consisting of those who regard the book as a dramatic and allegorical composition, to some extent founded on fact; and the second of those who regard it as purely a fiction, wrought up in the form of a parable, for the purpose of instruction. Bishop Warburton enjoys the unenviable distinction of originating the ingenious device maintained by the first class of opponents, and Maimonides is the father of the second. The sum-total of their arguments may be ranged together, and I am persuaded that not one of them will appear formidable to any whose minds are not warped by some favorite hypothesis which must any how be supported, and least of all to those who, in godly simplicity, are wont to expect that in the Bible, which claims for itself a Divine inspiration, and which purports to convey much teaching that can be only matter of revelation, there should be found statements of facts exciting man\u2019s wonder, and perhaps passing his comprehension. These remarks will especially apply to what appears to be the greatest objection pressed into their service by these schools of divines against the supposition that the book before us is a real record of real persons and facts. It is thought by them incredible that conversations should be conducted in heaven between the Almighty and Satan, and on this ground they conclude that any such representation is necessarily fictitious. Again, the regularity of the numbers in the census recorded of Job\u2019s farm stock, both before and after his affliction, and the mystic character supposed to attach to the number of his sons and daughters, are thought by these gentlemen to betray an artificial structure detrimental to the notion of historical truthfulness. Let me translate Rosenmuller\u2019s words on this part of the subject:\u2014<\/p>\n \u201cIt is not possible to think that the concurrence of so many round and doubled numbers in the narrative of Job\u2019s life can be consistent with the case [supposed]. He loses ten children, seven<\/em> sons (wherein we must recognize the sacred number of the Orientals), and three<\/em> daughters, and similarly, seven<\/em> thousand sheep, and three<\/em> thousand camels; besides a thousand oxen, and then the exact half of this, five hundred she-asses. Then, in place of this, there are restored to him, in numbers exactly doubled, fourteen<\/em> thousand sheep, six<\/em> thousand camels, two<\/em> thousand oxen, and one<\/em> thousand she-asses, and the same number of children as before, seven<\/em> sons and three<\/em> daughters, and these born of a wife\u2014his only remaining trial, and she by no means a filly, having previously been the mother of ten full-grown children.\u201d<\/p>\n It is again supposed to be an unanswerable objection that the dialogues recorded are delivered in the sublimest poetry, and the more so as one of the speakers spoke under circumstances under which effusions in verse must, as is thought, be impossible. On this subject Rosenmuller asks\u2014\u201cWho can persuade himself that these conversations of Job and of his friends, which occupy by far the greatest portion of the work, really took place, and were faithfully committed to writing? Is it credible that a wretched man, worn out with grief, and already consumed and half dead under the pressure of disease, should, as though he were haranguing, make such speeches to his intimate acquaintances\u2014speeches so long and so distinctly prepared, so full and so figurative, and moreover restricted to metrical laws? Is it further credible that his replicants should have declaimed in the same strain? Are these the discourses of men sitting at the bed-side of a prostrate friend? A. Shultens (Comment. iii. 1), it is true, with the view of persuading that this is by no means incredible, extols the power of the Arabs in improvising verse. But even granting that that race are much given to poetry, and even to unpremeditated poetry, still no one could ever persuade himself that (a thing which examples from poets of highest standing show surpass the power of human ingenuity) verse so perfect as to exceed anything that the world has ever heard of in the way of sublimity or of mournfulness, should be the effusion of colloquial discourses.\u201d<\/p>\n Another objection to the historical character of this book has been drawn from one or two inconsistencies imagined to have been discovered in it. Such is that of Michaelis, and on which he relies as the mainstay of his cause. His argument is, that whilst Job, in 30:1<\/a>, speaks contemptuously of the youth of his friends, they, in 15:10<\/a>, claim for themselves a very decided seniority to him. Of like nature, also, is the objection of Bouillier, and which is advocated by Rosenmuller, that chapter 30<\/a> makes Job refer to events which could not possibly have happened between the commencement of his misfortunes and his discussion with his friends. It is argued that we must believe that Job\u2019s friends hastened to condole with him so soon as they heard of the troubles that had befallen him, and that consequently no time is allowed in the narrative for the continued insults and triumph over his misfortunes, of that abandoned crew of profligates, of whose conduct he so bitterly complains.<\/p>\n Amongst some of the smaller exceptions that have been taken up against the truthfulness of this book as a history, may be mentioned\u2014the presumed incredibility that so good a man as Job should have been so afflicted of God, or that his successive calamities should have fallen upon him with such marvellous rapidity; or that his seven thousand sheep should have been destroyed by lightning; or that precisely one servant should have escaped each calamity to be the bearer of the mournful tidings of it to his master; or that the conduct of his friends could have been so remarkable, as is stated, as that they should, at their first interview with him, have continued for seven days in silence; or that they should so unexpectedly have evinced hostility towards him; or that his name, signifying (as some critics pretend) repentance<\/em>, should be so prophetic of his after-history; or that his age at the time of his death should have been so considerable as it is represented in the narrative.<\/p>\n Let us now more particularly review these several exceptions, beginning with those of smaller moment.<\/p>\n If it be incredible that so good a man as Job should have been so afflicted of God, what becomes, I would ask, of all such statements of Scripture as declare that \u201cmany are the afflictions of the righteous\u201d? or what amount of confidence are we to place in the veracity of an apostle who, having been himself expressly set the task of learning \u201chow great things he must suffer for Christ\u2019s name\u2019s sake,\u201d has recorded how faithful men who lived before his day, and \u201cof whom the world was not worthy,\u201d \u201chad trial of cruel mockings and scourgings; yea, moreover, of bonds and imprisonment; were stoned, were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword; wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins, being destitute, afflicted, tormented; wandered in deserts, and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth;\u201d and also how himself and his fellow-apostles were set forth by God himself, \u201clast, as it were, appointed to death, and were made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men;\u201d and \u201cwere made as the filth of the earth and the off-scouring of all things\u201d? If Job must be a fictitious character, because it is incredible that he could have been so afflicted as the narrative would have us believe, then the suffering worthies whose cases are recorded by the Apostle must have been mere figments of his brain, and St. Paul and his fellow-apostles can themselves be regarded in no other light than as fictitious characters. Added to which, to assert the incredibility that is here assumed is to deny the fact that even the best of men have that much of sinfulness about them that they deserve to suffer. It is, moreover, a questioning of the right of God to do what he wills with his own; and so the question thus mooted involves the very question of his sovereignty, and then, too, it ignores the important fact\u2014a fact taught by the whole scope of the book, and by its position in the sacred canon\u2014that God had high purposes to fulfil in permitting the enemy to inflict upon a righteous man all that fiendish malice and ingenuity could effect\u2014purposes reflecting in heaven upon God\u2019s glory, and the power of his grace, and the victory or defeat of the enemy\u2014purposes of mercy and goodness towards the sorely-tried sufferer\u2014and purposes of strength and consolation towards all the afflicted righteous to the end of time.<\/p>\n In the circumstances that furnish material for the three next objections, I can certainly discover nothing of so extraordinary a character as to warrant the smallest suspicion that the book which relates them is not a genuine history. That calamities the most tremendous do fall in rapid succession upon an individual, though happily not a frequent, yet is, unquestionably, at least, an occasional occurrence; and the destruction of large American prairies, and of the thousands of animals they contain, by what at first was but a little fire, is evidence to us that a statement which mentions the destruction of seven thousand sheep in a fire originating from lightning (see notes on Ch. 1:16<\/span><\/a>), is not necessarily a fiction; nor, again, is there anything so extremely remarkable in the escape of only one person out of dangers in which the lives of many are sacrificed as to conclude that the account of such an occurrence must be fabulous; added to which, it must be observed that, in the account before us, although each individual messenger congratulates himself on being the only survivor of the calamity he reports, it by no means follows that what his fears alone may have pictured was accurately true, nor does the history anywhere endorse his statement. But after all, let me add in reply to the three objections just examined, that even supposing that the circumstances adverted to were of a decidedly marvellous character (a supposition which I do not admit), would that, let me ask, furnish any premises from which an inference might be drawn against the truthfulness of this book as a history? Does the Bible contain no true history in which miraculous occurrences are detailed? Or, in judging of any Bible record, are we to ignore either the possibility or the fact of superhuman agency?<\/p>\n I have already stated, in passing, that the conduct of Job\u2019s friends both in their seven days\u2019 silence and in the hostility which they unexpectedly evinced towards him, has been regarded as unnatural and therefore as unreal. But I have yet to learn that conduct, on the part of individuals, which may strike us as being strange, is therefore to be regarded as fictitious; and, after all, much of the apparent strangeness in the long silence of these friends may be more closely connected with the habits of ancient nations and times than we are aware of, and further, there is nothing in the narrative which prevents our supposing that the silence in question had reference merely to the particular subject which afterwards came under discussion and which is the leading topic of the book. And then, in estimating the conduct of the friends towards Job, we must be careful not to attribute to them more of hostile motive than their speeches actually warrant;\u2014they appear to have been betrayed only into that acrimony of spirit which unfortunately is too common in religious controversies, even when those controversies are conducted by friends. The question discussed was one which was considered by all the speakers to be of vast moment, and we can scarcely be surprised at finding that these friends lost their tempers, and, in their zeal for the doctrine which they stoutly maintained, forgot the moderation which they ought to have shown to their afflicted but superior antagonist.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n Equally weak with this last objection is that which is deduced from the meaning of his name, which, as it is said to signify repentance<\/em>, is<\/span> supposed to be too prophetic of his after life to admit of its being regarded in any other light than as fictitious. But in the first place it is by no means certain that the name bears this meaning that<\/span> has been attached to it; and secondly, if it was (as indeed it probably was) prophetic of circumstances occurring in Job\u2019s history, this would be far from being an unprecedented instance, in patriarchal times, of a name having been given that proved to have been significant of events that afterwards transpired.<\/span><\/p>\n Of all the objections that have been started, that which determines the fictitious<\/span> character of this book on the ground of Job\u2019s being represented as having lived to an age far exceeding man\u2019s ordinary term, is perhaps the most whimsical, because it is urged by those who in the first place presume to decide, without the shadow of an argument, that the book must <\/span>have been written during the Babylonish captivity, and then from this most fanciful and baseless hypothesis presume to argue that as the natural term of life at that period of man\u2019s history was limited to about seventy years, and as Job is said to have lived one hundred and forty years after his trials, therefore Job and his history is an undoubted fiction!<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n I have now noticed the smaller objections that have been raised against the position that the events and persons mentioned in this book are historical facts, <\/span>and will now proceed to the examination of those which are of greater apparent<\/em> magnitude.<\/p>\n The grandest of all the objections appears to be that which decides upon the incredibility of the Almighty\u2019s c<\/span>onversing with Satan in heaven, and listening to the \u201cnews<\/em>\u201d (so Michaelis) which he reports from earth. Of this ill-timed witticism nothing need be said, as it adds no force to the objection; nor need<\/span> we be compelled to have recourse, as an expedient, to Dathe\u2019s singular theory, admired and adopted by some, but now exploded,\u2014that the Satan here mentioned is by no means the devil, but a celestial ministering spirit whose special business it is to inspect men\u2019s characters so as to detect hypocrisy, and who, in the execution of this his of<\/span>fice, is necessarily somewhat suspicious of piety. One might have thought that so fanciful an invention was due to the desire of finding a solution of the difficulty supposed to exist in the objection now under consideration, but no, Dathe, himself the discoverer of this new being in the heavenly hierarchy, after all, regards the whole transaction as a fiction. Rosenmuller, who is second in power to none of the opponents of the view that the book of Job is a true historic record, though himself an opponent, acts wisely in altogether wai<\/span>ving the objection now before us, with the admission, in passing, that the supposition that the interview between God and Satan is figurative only, does not necessarily invalidate the truthfulness of the other events recorded in the book. This in itself is really a sufficient answer to the objection in question. The account here given of the appearance of Satan in heaven, and of the several dialogues between the Almighty and the arch-fiend, <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span>might<\/em> very well have been a sort of scenic representation communicated <\/span>in vision to the author of the book, and that, in such a way as to be accommodated to our limited faculties, for the purpose of unravelling the mystery of God\u2019s providence in his dealings with Job,\u2014an<\/span>d yet this would by no means have interfered with the supposition that Job and his friends were real persons, and that all that is recorded respecting them did actually take place. It is unnecessary, however, that we should have to fall back upon any such explanation of this transaction in order to maintain our position. We can challenge our opponents to sh<\/span>ow that the account given in the two first chapters of this book of Satan\u2019s presentation of himself in heaven and of his conduct there is in any way incredible; and whether, on the contrary, what is recorded there is not in many respects consonant with other statements of Scripture. He is, for instance, uniformly represented as being the enemy of mankind, and, in some instances, is spoken of as setting himself in opposition to God\u2019s people, and as being the accuser of the brethren (<\/span><\/span><\/span>Zech. 3:1<\/a>, and Rev. 12:10<\/a>); he evidently moved God to permit him to tempt David to number Israel (compare 1 Chron. 21:1<\/a> with 2 Sam. 24:1<\/a>), and he certainl<\/span>y asked God to be allowed to try Peter, and sift him as wheat (Luke 22:31<\/a>, 32<\/a>). And that he and other evil spirits have, or at least, have had, access to heaven, and even converse with the Almighty th<\/span>ere, is unquestionable from 1 Kings 22:19\u201323<\/a>; Zech. 2:13\u20133:2<\/a>, and Rev. 12:7\u201312<\/a>. Now, be it remembered, that the account of the transaction before us, even if entirely unsupported by any portion of Scr<\/span>ipture, would have a most solemn and righteous demand upon our credence in its veracity on the ground of its position in the sacred canon, and so of its being a portion of that \u201call Scripture\u201d which \u201cis given by inspiration of God.\u201d What shall we say then of the audacity which ventures, in the face of such Scriptures as <\/span>have been referred to, deliberately to pronounce the whole affair to be no more than a poetic fiction? Besides, a poetic fiction of such a scene as is here presented to us would surely have been clothed in very different language, and we should have had considerably more detail: the magnificence of heaven, the gorgeous pomp of the celestial hierarchy on their state occasions, the majesty of the Almighty and his emblazoned throne, and the person and appearance of the arch-fiend would all have been described with exact<\/span>est minuteness; whereas here, whatever may be left to the imagination, nothing is afforded to the gratification of our curiosity in any of these respects,\u2014we have a simple statement of certain facts, but no description of any kind whatever; and this very simplicity of itself stamps the entire statement with the broad seal of truth.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Again, the objection i<\/span>s thought to be insurmountable, that the round and doubled numbers, and the sacredness of some of them, betray an artificial structure. As to the exception made on the score of the roundness of the numbers, it probably was<\/span> not convenient to the gentlemen making the exception to remember that all historians invariably give enumerations of population, armies, and the like, in round numbers; and the probability is, that if the author of the book before us had thought proper to descend to such exact detail as to make use of units, these same gentlemen would have been the first to exclaim against such preciseness as unhistoric in style, and <\/span>a glaring proof of imposture. And further, if roundness of numbers is to determine that a book, apparently a history, is, in reality only a fable, then we must certainly account every historic book in the Bible to be fictitious, as they all notoriously abound in enumerations <\/span><\/span>of this kind. Those who are curious in the matter may, if they please, refer, am<\/span>ongst other passages, to 2 Chron. 35:7\u20139<\/a>; 1 Chron. 5:21<\/a>; and Numb. 31:32\u201334<\/a>, where enumerations of cattle are given in round numbers, and in numbers to the full as remarkable in their proportions as t<\/span>hose in the book before us. In these passages we have respectively 30,000 sheep and 3,000 bullocks; 5,000 sheep and 500 oxen; 50,000 camels, 250,000 sheep, and 2,000 asses; 675,000 sheep, 72,000 beeves, and 61,000 asses. In the first and second sets the number of beeves is exactly one-tenth the number of sheep; in the third<\/span> set there are precisely five times as many sheep as camels, and just twenty-five times as many camels as asses; and in the fourth set the relative proportions between the sheep, beeves, and asses, to some extent assimilates to the proportions between these same cattle in Job\u2019s property. And yet it is thought an insurmountable objection to the truthfulness of the enumeration of Job\u2019s farm stock, and so of the whole book, both that that enumeration should be given in round numbers, and that the number of asses should be <\/span>exactly one-half the number of oxen! The question which such objectors have seriously to meet is, whether or not the books of Numbers, and of the Chronicles, and other professedly historic books of the Bible, herein betray marks of artificial structure, and so in point of fact are mere fables written by good men for the purpose of instruction in piety. But then I shall be told that I have not yet fully met the entire objection presented. Job is said to have had <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span>seven<\/em> thousand sheep and seven<\/em> sons, and seven is a sacred number amongst the Orient<\/span>als. And is its sacredness, I would ask, to exclude its use in ordinary purposes? Is it a crime for a man to reckon either his family or his property by this mysterious number, or if a crime, is it not one that is so constantly perpetrated, as in no way <\/span>to subtract from the credibility of any history that may state it? If the mention of Job\u2019s 7,000 sheep is a fictitious contrivance, what shall we say about the 7,000 in Israel who did not bow the knee to Baal (<\/span>1 Kings 19:18<\/a>); or about the army of 7,000 of Israel who conquered the Syrians (1 Kings 20:15<\/a>); or about the 7,000 men of might who were<\/span> carried captive to Babylon (2 Kings 24:16<\/a>); or about the 7,000 Syrian men who fought in chariots, whom David slew (1 Chron. 19:18<\/a>); or about the 7,000 talents of silver which David prepared for the b<\/span>uilding of God\u2019s house (1 Chron. 29:4<\/a>)?<\/p>\n The number 3,000 (about which, again, in this place, exception is made) is also of very frequent occurrence in Scripture. For instance, we read of 3,000 men of <\/span>Judah going to Samson at the top of the rock Etam (Jud. 15:11<\/a>); of 3,000 men and women being on the roof of the house of Dagon when Samson made sport for the Philistines (Jud. 16:27<\/a>); of 3,000 men of <\/span>Israel whom Saul chose when he made war with the Philistines (1 Sam. 13:2<\/a>); of the same number when on two occasions he sought for David (1 Sam. 24:2<\/a>, and 26:2<\/a>); of 3,000 sheep which were possessed by<\/span> Nabal, a wealthy man in Maon (1 Sam. 25:2<\/a>); and of 3,000 proverbs which were spoken by Solomon. (1 Kings 4:32<\/a>.) But then I shall be told that I have not noticed the remarkable coincidence between the<\/span> seven<\/em> thousand sheep and the three<\/em> thousand camels on the one hand, and the seven<\/em> sons and the three<\/em> daughters on the other. And are there then no remarkable instances of coincidences in numbers in e<\/span>very-day life? Or, what ought to be considered more to the point, are there none such to be found in Scripture narrative? Are the writings of the Evangelists to be summarily pronounced fables because <\/span>they record that five<\/em> thousand persons were upon one occasion fed with five<\/em> barley loaves and two small fishes, and that on another occasion, when four thousand were fed with seven<\/em> loaves and a few li<\/span>ttle fishes, seven<\/em> baskets full of fragments were gathered up?*<\/a><\/p>\n As to the objection raised about the exact doubling of Job\u2019s property after his afflictions, it appears to me, in the first place, that <\/span>as Job was permitted to be tried very much for the purpose of confounding Satan, and of glorifying God, there was an antecedent probability that a just God would, at the close of his trial, make him ample compensation for his losses and his sufferings; and, in the second place, that double compensation seems, from other passages of Sc<\/span>ripture, to be the ordinary rule of God\u2019s dealing. Thus, in Isa.<\/span> 40:2<\/a>, we read\u2014\u201cShe hath received of the Lord\u2019s hand double for all her sins;\u201d in Isa. 61:7<\/a>, \u201cFor your shame ye shall have double;\u201d \u201cin their land they shall possess the double;\u201d and in Zech. 9:12<\/a>, \u201ce<\/span>ven to-day do I declare that I will render double unto thee.\u201d Michaelis tells us, as a further objection, that the same principle is found to extend to the years of Job\u2019s prosperity, which are multiplicat<\/span>ions of seventy. If the objection is to have the slightest weight, I presume that he means that on the principle of the doubling just referred to, Job\u2019s age at the period of his trial must have been seventy years, and that this was doubled to him afterwards. Now, if this be the meaning of M. Michaelis, it is evident that it is founded upon a mere assumption; but, after all, if this assumption be corre<\/span>ct (as perhaps it is), is there anything more remarkable in all this, than that the life of Moses should be divided, in its great eras, into three distinct periods of forty years each?<\/span><\/p>\n But it <\/span>is also thought extraordinary, as I have stated before, that Job should have the same number of children after as before his trial\u2014seven sons and three daughters, and \u201cthese (to quote Rosenmuller) born of a <\/span>wife, his only remaining trial, and she by no means a filly, having previously been the mother of ten full-grown children.\u201d That Job should have had precisely the same number of children, and these in the same proportion of sons and daughters, after as before his trial, is, it must be admitted, remarkable, and certainly much else in this book is so; but I am at a loss to understand why it should be incre<\/span>dible, for clearly it is not impossible, and in all apparent difficulties of this kind we must never lose sight of the intervention of an Almighty hand, and indeed, no doubt God does often act marvellously, just for the very purpose of arresting men\u2019s attention, and of making them, if possible, see and acknowledge his hand. As to the reference to Job\u2019s wife, but little need be said, as it is absolutely incumbent upon Dr. Rosenmuller\u2014before he pronounces the history before us to be fictitious, on the ground of the incredibility of Job\u2019s wife being the mother of so many children\u2014to prove that the histo<\/span>ry anywhere, either directly or indirectly, commits itself to the statement that the mother of Job\u2019s first family was also the mother of the second; and if indeed it were so, however extraordinary, like instances are upon record; and indeed, one is within my knowledge; or, supposing that this were a case without a parallel, is nothing to be conceded to the fact, that God himself is represented as acting a very conspicuous part throughout the whole history?<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n The objection next to be considered is derived from the supposed difficulty of men speaking in verse in a colloquial d<\/span>iscourse, and that especially, under circumstances the most unlikely for such a purpose. I have already stated the objection in full,*<\/a> and in the words of one of the objectors; it remains now only to <\/span>reply to it. As an argument in favour of the position that the book before us is a mere fable, it is of no conceivable value, for after the fullest allowance made to it, it could prove no more than that the several speakers did not use precisely the words here attri<\/span>buted to them; for it must be conceded that they may have actually uttered the sentiments which they are said to have uttered, and that these may afterwards have been dressed up in language more ornate and poetical than that in which they were originally spoken. Curiously enough, this is admitted by Michaelis, where he is vigorously contending for the fabulous character of the book, and where, almost in the same breath in which he tells us that he considers that<\/span> the poetical and sublime style of the book is \u201can irrefragable proof\u201d in favor of his opinion, he notices what he calls \u201cthe very specious excuse\u201d of Bishop Lowth\u2014that the conversation and speeches of the different characters have been poetically ornamented, and then immediately adds, \u201cand this argument I do not wish to confute!\u201d That is, he does not wish to confute an argument which, if correct, breaks in pieces his \u201cirrefragable proof,\u201d and at a blow annihilates the whole structure that he has been at such pains in building\u2014that the book of Job is only a fable!<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n But again, it seems to have escaped those who lay so much stress upon the objection under conside<\/span>ration, that there is nothing in the narrative which in the slightest degree favors the conclusion that the several speeches were delivered in rapid succession; and if not, then the speakers may have given that time and premeditation to their respective discourses which the importance of the subj<\/span>ect under discussion certainly demanded. Nor must we forget to repeat that argument of Shultens which Rosenmuller notices slightingly, but, as I think, fails to confute\u2014that the Arabs have a wonderful facility for extemporaneous effusions in verse. Added to which, Rosenmuller, in order to put his objection in the strongest possible point of view, assumes what has never yet been proved, and what rather seems contrary to fact so far as it is known, that Hebrew poetry is governed by metrical law<\/span>s (\u201cmetri legibus adstrictos\u201d). This, of course, would tend to render extemporaneous effusions more difficult, though certainly not impossible. But what if it be not true (as probably it is not) that Hebrew poetry is restricted to measured verse? Then it follows that such poetry is no more than the genuine utterance of nature under certain circumstances, and is by no means the difficult thing that has been supposed. Nothing would be more easy, for instance, than for even Europeans, if such was their habit, to speak constantly in Iambic measure; much more easy may we imagine it to be for an Oriental to deliver his sentiments (as indeed is his wont) in language which, though it be poetry of<\/span> the very highest and most primitive order, does not appear to be fettered by any of those laws which the poets of Greece and Rome, and of modern ages, have conventionally imposed upon themselves. I am certainly inclined to conclude that the speeches before us were delivered much as they are written. The speakers themselves, if, at least, the view I have taken as to the <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span>meaning of the word \u05de\u05b4\u05dc\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05df<\/span> (see note on ch. 4:2<\/span><\/a>) be correct, continually allude to the circumstance that they are speaking in poetry, o<\/span>r in what we might call verse. See ch. 4:2<\/a>:\u2014<\/p>\n \u201cIf one attempt a word with thee, wilt thou find it tiresome?<\/p>\n But who can put restraint upon verse?\u201d<\/p>\n Nor must we overlook the fact that, notwithstanding the irritability or the animus which provoked them to draw uncharitable conclusions respecting each other, still there may have been a certain amount of inspiration which guided them in the truths they uttered. Elihu certainly lays claim to this, for himself at least (32:8<\/a>); and St. Paul quotes a sentiment, uttered by another of the speakers, in such a way as though he regarded it as of inspired authority (1 Cor. 3:19<\/a>), \u201cfor it is written<\/em>, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.\u201d<\/p>\n After the exercise of the utmost research, two imaginary inconsistencies have been discovered, and of course paraded as so much internal evidence against the truthfulness of this book as a history. One of these, which is due to the ingenuity of Michaelis, is a supposed discrepancy between 30:1<\/a>, and 15:10<\/a>; Job speaking in the first instance, as is asserted, contemptuously of the youth of his friends; whilst they, in the second instance, claim for themselves a very decided seniority to him. A moment\u2019s consideration of the former of these passages and its context is sufficient to show that this piece of criticism rests solely upon a misinterpretation, as the persons of whom Job is there speaking as being younger than himself, obviously (see the notes<\/span><\/a>) are not his friends. And Archbishop Magee well remarks that, \u201cindeed an inconsistency so gross and obvious as this which is charged against the book of Job by the German Professor, cannot be other than seeming, and founded in some misapprehension of the meaning of the original. Even admitting the poem to be fabulous, he must have been a clumsy contriver who could in one place describe his characters as young, and in another as extremely aged, when urged to it by no necessity whatever, and at full liberty to frame his narrative as he pleased. And this want of comprehension should least of all have been objected by those critics who, in supposing the work to have been composed in an age and country different from those whose manners it professes to describe, are compelled, upon their own hypothesis, to, ascribe to the writer an uncommon portion of address and refinement.\u201d<\/p>\n The second supposed inconsistency requires but a passing notice. It is urged that, in ch. 30<\/a>, Job is made to refer to events for which no time is allowed between the commencement of his misfortunes and his discussion with his friends. In support of this it is argued that we must believe that Job\u2019s friends hastened to condole with him so soon as they heard of the troubles that had befallen him, and that consequently no time is allowed in the narrative for the continued insults and triumph over his misfortunes of that abandoned crew of profligates of whose conduct he so bitterly complains. Now, in the first place, we have here an argument resting upon a mere assumption; and, in the second place, even allowing all that is assumed about the haste displayed by the worthy triumvirate in their desire to condole with their afflicted friend, and not allowing for the fact, that before starting on their kindly errand they first communicated with each other on the subject, and finally arranged the time and place of their meeting, in order that they might journey together, all which must necessarily have occupied time, I do not see any impossibility, or even improbability, in the supposition that the events recorded in ch. 30<\/a> may have transpired within a few days. It certainly is no new thing, especially in the East, to see a potentate one day in the zenith of his glory, and surrounded by fawning courtiers, and the very next day exposed to the ribaldry and made the sport of the dregs of the people.<\/p>\n It now remains for me, on this part of the subject, to make a few remarks on Bishop Warburton\u2019s extravagant theory, that the book of Job is an allegorical drama founded on fact. Here I shall content myself by referring the reader to Professor Lee\u2019s full and able refutation of it, and also by giving in extenso Archbishop Magee\u2019s remarks on the subject:\u2014\u201cThis strange conceit\u201d (says that prelate) \u201cwas the invention of Warburton. He considers Job, his wife, and his three friends, as designed to personate the Jewish people on their return from the captivity, their idolatrous wives, and the three great enemies of the Jews at that period, Sanballat, Tobiah, and Geshem. This allegorical scheme has been followed by Garnet, with some variations, whereby the history of Job is ingeniously strained to a description of the Jewish sufferings during<\/em> the captivity. The whole of Warburton\u2019s system, \u2018the improbabilities of which,\u2019 as Peters observes, \u2018are by no means glossed over by the elaborate reasonings and extravagant assertions of the learned writer,\u2019 is fully examined and refuted by that ingenious author in the first eight sections of his Critical Disser<\/em>tation<\/em>.<\/p>\n \u201cThe arguments by which this extraordinary hypothesis has been supported are drawn from the highly poetic and figurative style of the work, whence it is inferred to be dramatic<\/em>; and from the unsuitableness of particular actions and expressions to the real characters, which at the same time correspond to the persons whom these characters are supposed to represent, whence it is inferred to be allegorical<\/em>. But from the first nothing more can be fairly deduced, than that the writer has not given the precise words of the speakers, but has dressed out the dialogue with the ornaments of poetry, in a manner which, as Dathe truly tells us, is agreeable to the customs of the country in which the scene is laid: it being usual to represent the conferences of their wise men on philosophic questions in the most elevated strain of poetic diction. (See Dath<\/em>. on Job, ch. 3). And as to the second, it cannot appear to a sober reader in any other light than that of a wild and arbitrary fancy. Bishop Lowth declares that he has not been able to discover a single vestige of an allegorical meaning throughout the entire poem. It requires but a sound understanding to be satisfied that it has no such aspect. And, at all events, this strange hypothesis rests altogether upon another\u2014namely, that the book was written in the age of those to whom it is supposed to bear this allegorical application. If then, as we shall hereafter see, there be no just ground for assigning to the work so late a date, the whole of this airy fabric vanishes at once.\u201d<\/p>\n So much for the objections that have been arrayed against the position that the Book of Job is a literal history of the trials of a real person bearing that name. It must, I think, appear that that position remains untouched by any one of the objections that have been advanced, and it will, I also think, be found that the book itself contains the strongest possible intrinsic evidence in support of that position; and that this is further strengthened both by the direct attestation of two inspired writers whose testimony is independent of each other, and also by the concurrent testimony of profane history and of local tradition.<\/p>\n As to intrinsic evidence, the circumstantial detail of the narrator entirely forbids the supposition that the work can be allegorical, and everywhere bespeaks the relation of a true history. Thus we have presented to us the name not merely of the principal character, but the names also of other persons taking prominent though subordinate parts,\u2014as Eliphaz, Bildad, Zophar, and Elihu. Nor is this all; the locality of one of them is specified, and the families, if not also the localities, of the others are mentioned. Thus one of them is stated to have lived in the land of Uz, and the others respectively are called the Temanite, the Shuhite, and the Naamathite, whilst another of them is designated as being of the kindred of Ram. We are moreover told the exact number of the sons and of the daughters of the man about whom the book professes to treat, and an enumeration of his flocks and herds is also supplied to us. His character is described in the outset, and there is nothing in his numerous discourses or in the result of his trials which is in any way inconsistent with the description. The account of his sons and daughters, and of his anxiety about them, is related as matter of fact, and is perfectly natural. The bands of robbers who destroyed his servants and marauded his cattle are also mentioned by name, and in connexion with the wilderness, all which accurate and circumstantial detail would be out of place in any but a true history.<\/p>\n But, above all, the reality of the person of Job is attested by the two inspired penmen, Ezekiel and St. James, who both refer to him as a real and not an imaginary person, and moreover make certain, and in both cases, different allusions to him, both as to his character and acts, which allusions could not have been made except on the supposition of their acquaintance with the book which bears his name, and which professes to treat of his history; so that although the book itself (as Bishop Warburton objects) is not mentioned by them, yet, manifestly, the reference they make is no less to the book, than to the person, of Job. In Ezekiel 14:14<\/a>, and 18<\/a>, we read\u2014\u201cThough these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it (the land), they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness, saith the Lord God.\u201d And,\u2014\u201cThough these three men were in it, as I live, saith the Lord God, they shall deliver neither sons nor daughters, but they only shall be delivered themselves.\u201d Now, I would ask whether it is in the smallest degree supposable, that if Job were a fictitious character, God himself would class him with two other persons, Noah and D<\/em>aniel<\/em>, who were unquestionably real characters, or whether God would mention him as one of \u201cthese three men<\/em>\u201d or whether God would speak of his having a soul<\/em>, and a righteousness<\/em>, and as being able to deliver<\/em> his soul by that righteousness, and as being capable of offering intercessory prayer for others<\/em>, and yet, as not prevailing<\/em> to deliver them because of their exceeding wickedness? Could any one thing of all this be ascribed to an imaginary being, and that by God himself?<\/p>\n Equally direct is the allusion in St. James, in ch. 5:10<\/a>, 11<\/a>, of his Epistle,\u2014\u201cTake, my brethren, the prophets, who have spoken in the name of the Lord, for an example of suffering affliction, and of patience. Behold, 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.\u201d Now I would ask again, is the supposition within the bounds of credibility, that the Apostle St. James, having directed his suffering brethren to the example of the suffering prophets of old in general, should instantly select as a particular case for their encouragement that of a fictitious person; or that he should hold up to view, as a virtue to be imitated, the patience not of a real, but of a supposed, man; or that he should speak of the Lord as having been very pitiful and of tender mercy towards a person who never had any real existence at all? Surely the notion is as absurd as the entertainment of it is unwarrantable: but the truth is, when men have purposes to serve, or some favorite hypothesis to support, nothing is thought too preposterous, or irrational, so long as it can give some shadow of countenance to their theory, or remove out of its way some formidable objection that threatened to overwhelm it. Certain it is that the inspired passages just referred to, taken in their plain, rational, and obvious sense, with one sweep, destroy the fond and whimsical conceit that no such person as Job ever lived.<\/p>\n Then, again, we may appeal to profane history, and to local tradition. On this part of the subject I shall, for the sake of conciseness, merely quote Mr. Horne\u2019s brief summary of this part of the argument. He says,\u2014\u201cFurther, 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 (Tobit 2:12<\/a>, in the vulgate version, which is supposed to have been executed from a more extended history of Tobit than the original of the Greek version); he is also repeatedly mentioned by Mohammed as a real character (Sale\u2019s Koran, pp. 271, 375, 4to. edit.; see also D\u2019Herbelot\u2019s \u2018Biblioth\u00e8que Orientale,\u2019 voce Ai\u00fab<\/span>, tom. I. pp. 146, 147). The whole of his history, with many fabulous additions, was known among the Syrians and Chald\u00e6ans; many of the noblest families among the Arabians are distinguished by his name, and boast of being descended from him. So late even as the end of the fourth century, we are told that there were many persons who went into Arabia to see Job\u2019s dunghill, which in the nature of things could not have subsisted through so many ages; but the fact of superstitious persons making pilgrimages to it sufficiently attests the reality of his existence, as also do the traditionary accounts concerning the place of Job\u2019s abode.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n <\/p>\n Dissertation II<\/p>\n the age in which job lived<\/p>\n Having established the reality of the existence of Job, the next inquiry of interest, if not of importance, is, to determine, as nearly as it is possible to do so, the age in which he lived<\/em>. The generality of writers agree in ascribing to him a very remote antiquity; and amongst these are even some who, whilst they contend for the late production of the book, yet assent to the antiquity of the age in which he lived. Almost universal consent places him in Patriarchal times; nor can Bernstein\u2019s and Rosenmuller\u2019s objections to this have any weight, as they are grounded on a mere assumption\u2014an assumption, moreover, which is completely disproved by modern discoveries in Egypt. The objections are\u2014that Job speaks of a city, and evidently sometimes lived in a city; that he alludes to written judicial documents, and other writings, to iron armour, and to a war horse, all which things, it is assumed, are incongruous with the patriarchal age; that, moreover, Job\u2019s statement that he was not unjustly occupying other men\u2019s fields does not agree with that pastoral life which the Patriarchs led; and that equally unsuitable to those times is the mention of kings building and restoring ruined cities, and possessing palaces crammed with gold, and the relation of men extracting the precious metals and stones of the earth by mining operations, and the fact that when Job lived wicked tyrants and oppressors were in existence. But does not, I would ask, the Bible speak of cities anterior to patriarchal times; and does Dr. Rosenmuller seriously suppose that the world had advanced upwards of two thousand years in its history without witnessing the violence and oppressions of tyrants? Was that the fabled golden age of poets? Or, again, does Dr. Rosenmuller seriously suppose that, because the Patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, for reasons sufficiently explained in their history, and commented upon in Hebrews 11<\/a>, led pastoral lives, having no possessions of fields in a land that was not theirs, except by promise, and dwelling in tabernacles, and avoiding cities, therefore all men who lived in their age did the like, and were all nomads? Surely he is confounding the patriarchal age<\/em> with the Patriarchs<\/em> themselves, and would have us believe that because Job did not live precisely as they (who were manifestly, by St. Paul\u2019s showing, exceptional cases) lived, therefore he could not have been their contemporary. And then, as to the assumption that the advance in arts and civilization alluded to in this book is altogether beyond that early period of man\u2019s history, the monuments of ancient Egypt, some of them dating as far back as four thousand years ago, incontestably prove, by their pictorial representations, that men even then were no novices in all those arts and sciences which constitute the highest degree of civilization.<\/p>\n The arguments which have been generally adduced in proof of the remoteness of the age in which Job lived are the following, and are sufficiently decisive on that point.<\/p>\n The circumstance of the total silence of the disputants on the subjects connected with the Exodus of the Israelites, such as the plagues inflicted upon Egypt, the destruction of Pharaoh, and the various miracles wrought during the forty years\u2019 journeying through the wilderness, and all which would have been exactly apposite to the subject discussed by Job and his friends, as tending to vindicate the ways of God with man, is certainly an indication that those remarkable events were unknown to the disputants, and that so, in point of fact, they had not yet transpired. If this inference is correct, it places Job in an age at least prior to those events.<\/p>\n \u201cThe length of Job\u2019s life places him in patriarchal times. He survived his trial one hundred and forty years (42:16<\/a>), and was probably not less 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. (1:4<\/a>, 5<\/a>.) He speaks of the \u2018sins of his youth\u2019 (13:26<\/a>), and of the prosperity of \u2018his youth;\u2019 and yet Eliphaz addresses him as a novice, \u2018With us<\/em> are both the very aged<\/em>, much elder than thy father<\/em>.\u2019 (15:10<\/a>.)<\/p>\n \u201cThe general air of antiquity which pervades the manners recorded in the poem is a further evidence of its remote date. The manners and customs, indeed, critically correspond with that early period. Thus Job speaks of the most ancient kind of writing by sculpture<\/em> (19:24<\/a>); his riches also are reckoned by his cattle, (42:12<\/a>.) Further, Job acted as high priest in his family, according to the patriarchal usage.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cThe allusion made by Job to that species of idolatry alone which, by general consent, is admitted to have been the most ancient\u2014namely, Zabianism, or the worship of the sun and moon\u2014and also to the exertion of the judicial authority against it (31:26\u201328<\/a>), is an additional and most complete proof of the high antiquity of the poem, as well as a decisive mark of the patriarchal age.<\/p>\n \u201cA further evidence of the remote antiquity of this book is the language of Job and his friends, who, being all Idum\u00e6ans, 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, Idum\u00e6ans, and Arabians, yet continued to speak one common language, and had not branched into different dialects.\u201d*<\/a><\/p>\n Another argument is drawn by Bishop Lowth from the nature of the sacrifice offered by Job. This argument is, as stated by Archbishop Magee:\u2014\u201cThe nature of the sacrifice offered by him in conformity to the Divine command, namely, seven<\/em> oxen, and seven<\/em> rams, similar to that of Balaam, and suitable to the respect entertained for the number seven in the earliest ages. This, though, as Mr. Henley observes, the ancient practice, might have been continued in Idum\u00e6a after the promulgation of the Mosaic law, is far from being, as he asserts, destitute of weight, inasmuch as the sacrifice was offered by the command of God<\/em>, who, although He might be supposed graciously to accommodate himself to the prevailing customs before<\/em> the promulgation of the law, yet cannot be imagined, after<\/em> He had prescribed a certain mode of sacrifice to the Israelites, to sanction by his express authority, in a country immediately adjoining, a mode entirely different, and one which the Mosaic code was intended to supersede.\u201d<\/p>\n An argument that has not, so far as I know, been hitherto advanced is, that the admission of the Book of Job into the Jewish canon of Scripture is unaccountable on any other grounds than that Job lived during an age anterior to the institution of the Mosaic dispensation. The professed exclusiveness of that dispensation entirely forbad the entertainment of the idea that any man or set of men could live under the favour of God altogether independently of its prescriptions. And so, it is in the highest degree incredible that that dispensation could have sanctioned the introduction into its sacred writings of a book treating of pious men, and of one in particular, who is stated by God himself to have been more perfect, upright, and godly than any other on the earth, all of them manifestly living independently of the Mosaic ritual, as may be inferred from the nature<\/em> of their sacrifices, and from the circumstance of one of them officiating as priest in his own family, and on one occasion on behalf of his friends, if these same pious men, and especially that supereminently godly man, had lived during any period after the establishment of that dispensation. Such a sanction would at once have been an admission that a Gentile not conforming to Jewish ordinances (the only religious ordinances which God countenanced during the existence of the Mosaic dispensation) could be in reality more holy than any contemporary Israelite\u2014an admission that must have been utterly subversive of the authority of that dispensation, not to say contradictory to the general tenor of its teaching. The supposition that the Book of Job, if he lived after<\/em> the promulgation of the law, could ever have been admitted into the Jewish canon of Scripture is to the full as incredible as would be the supposition that the Church of the apostolic age could ever have admitted into the New Testament canon the history of some pious Jew signally enjoying the favour of God, though unconverted to Christianity, and continuing to practise the rites of Judaism after the promulgation of the Gospel.<\/p>\n The arguments thus far advanced sufficiently prove that Job must have lived, at latest, before the giving of the law, and probably somewhere during the patriarchal age; reference to one of his contemporaries, Eliphaz the Temanite, will now show us that we cannot place him earlier than the times of Jacob\u2019s sons. We learn from Gen. 36:10<\/a>, 11<\/a>, that Esau\u2019s eldest son was named Eliphaz, and that he was the father of Teman. Now, it is just possible that this Eliphaz may, (as Cain did, Gen. 4:17<\/a>,) have built a city and called it by the name of his son, and so may have been the Eliphaz the Temanite mentioned in the Book of Job; and if so, this would certainly make Job contemporary with Jacob\u2019s sons\u2014that is, it would place him during about the era of Joseph, and of the commencement of the sojourning of the children of Israel in Egypt. But as we find from this book that the Sheba, evidently the descendants of Abraham\u2019s grandson of that name by Keturah (see the notes on 1:15<\/span><\/a>), were already a tribe sufficiently powerful to make distant predatory incursions on a considerable scale, and as we can scarcely suppose them to have become so numerous and strong during the times of Eliphaz the son of Esau\u2014that is, during the times of one of Abraham\u2019s great grandsons\u2014it is, perhaps, more reasonable to suppose that our Eliphaz the Temanite was either a son or some near descendant of Teman the son of Eliphaz and grandson of Esau. This, in connexion with all the previous arguments, would make the era in which Job lived range somewhere between the times of Joseph\u2019s grandchildren and the departure of Israel from Egypt, and I presume that this is as near an approximation to the date in history that is to be assigned to him as it is possible to reach.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n Dissertation III<\/p>\n The Place Where Job Resided<\/p>\n In close connexion with the inquiry respecting the age in which Job lived is the inquiry respecting the place of his residence<\/em>.<\/p>\n As he is said to have been <\/span>the greatest of all \u201cthe sons of the East,\u201d and as this implies that he was himself one of them, our first business will be to endeavour to collect from Scripture, as nearly as possible, the geographical position of the country<\/span> or countries inhabited by \u201cthe sons of the East.\u201d We learn from Gen. 25:1\u20136<\/a> that Abraham sent away the sons of his concubines eastward unto the East country, and amongst th<\/span>ese are mentioned Midian, Shuah, and Sheba. We learn further from Judges 6:3<\/a> that amongst the children of the East were numbered the Amalekites as well as the Midianites. Isaiah 11:14<\/a> shows us that \u201ct<\/span>hey of the East\u201d included also the people of Edom and of Moab and of Ammon; and then Jeremiah 49:28<\/a> adds Kedar to the list. From all this we gather, with some considerable amount of certainty, that th<\/span>e countries inhabited by \u201cthe sons of the East\u201d lay to the southward and eastward of Palestine, and, in fact, extended from Egypt to the Euphrates, embracing the whole of those two portions of the Arabian peninsula more recently called Arabia Petr\u00e6a and Arabia Deserta. So far, we are enabled to deter<\/span>mine, with some degree of correctness, that Job lived somewhere in that portion of the Arabian peninsula which lay between Egypt and the Euphrates, and south and east of Palestine.<\/span><\/p>\n We shall now be able to reduce our geographical limits, and fix upon Job\u2019s actual country with somewhat more exactness<\/span>, by examining particularly what position \u201cthe land of Uz\u201d (of which land Job was an inhabitant, ch. 1:1<\/a>) occupied amongst the lands peopled by \u201cthe sons of the East.\u201d The land of Uz appears to have b
\n
\n