diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'old/65866-0.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/65866-0.txt | 13608 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 13608 deletions
diff --git a/old/65866-0.txt b/old/65866-0.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 144f4be..0000000 --- a/old/65866-0.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,13608 +0,0 @@ -The Project Gutenberg eBook of Job and Solomon: Or, The Wisdom of the Old -Testament, by Thomas Kelly Cheyne - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and -most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions -whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms -of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at -www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you -will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before -using this eBook. - -Title: Job and Solomon: Or, The Wisdom of the Old Testament - -Author: Thomas Kelly Cheyne - -Release Date: July 18, 2021 [eBook #65866] - -Language: English - -Character set encoding: UTF-8 - -Produced by: Bryan Ness, David King, and the Online Distributed - Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net. (This book was - produced from images made available by the HathiTrust Digital - Library.) - -*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK JOB AND SOLOMON: OR, THE WISDOM OF -THE OLD TESTAMENT *** - - - - - THE WISDOM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT - - - - - JOB AND SOLOMON - - OR - - THE WISDOM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT - - BY THE - - REV. T. K. CHEYNE, M.A., D.D. - - ORIEL PROFESSOR OF INTERPRETATION AT OXFORD - CANON OF ROCHESTER - - NEW YORK - THOMAS WHITTAKER - 2 & 3 BIBLE HOUSE - 1887 - - - - - THE VERY REVEREND - - GEORGE GRANVILLE BRADLEY, D.D. - - DEAN OF WESTMINSTER - - IN HIGH APPRECIATION OF HIS LONG-PROVED INTEREST IN EXEGESIS - - AND OF HIS HAPPILY CONCEIVED LECTURES ON ECCLESIASTES - - - - - PREFACE. - - -The present work is a fragmentary realisation of a plan which has been -maturing in my mind for many years. Exegesis and criticism are equally -necessary for the full enjoyment of the treasures of the Old Testament, -and just as no commentary is complete which does not explain the actual -position of critical controversies, so no introduction to the criticism -of a book is trustworthy which does not repose, and show the reader that -it reposes, on the basis of a thorough exegesis. In this volume I do not -pretend to have approached the ideal of such students’ manuals as I have -described; I have not been sufficiently sure of my public to treat the -subject on the scale which I should have liked, and such personal -drawbacks as repeated changes of residence, frequent absence from large -libraries, and within the last two years a serious eye-trouble, have -hindered me in the prosecution of my work. Other tasks now claim my -restored strength, and I can no longer withhold my volume from those -lovers of the sacred literature who in some degree share the point of -view from which I have written. - -The Books of Job and Ecclesiastes are treated somewhat more in detail -than those of Proverbs and Ecclesiasticus. The latter have a special -interest of their own, but to bring this into full view, more excursions -into pure philology would have been necessary than I judged it expedient -to allow myself. I had intended to make up for this omission so far as -Proverbs is concerned at the end of the volume, but have been -interrupted in doing so. Perhaps, however, even in the Appendix such -detailed treatment of special points might have repelled some readers, -and I hope that the Appendix is on the whole not unreadable. The -enlarged notes on Proverbs in the forthcoming new edition of Messrs. -Eyre and Spottiswoode’s Variorum Bible may enable the student to do for -himself what I have not done. As for Ecclesiasticus, the light which -Prof. Bickell’s and Dr. Edersheim’s researches are sure to throw on the -text may enable me some day to recast the section on this book; at -present, I only offer this as an illustrative sequel to the section on -Proverbs. It should be added that the canonicity of Ecclesiasticus is -handled in conjunction with that of Ecclesiastes at the close of the -part on the latter book. - -The interest of Job and Ecclesiastes is of a far deeper and more varied -kind. Even from a critical point of view, the study of these books is -most refreshing after the incessant and exciting battles of -Pentateuch-criticism. But as monuments of the spiritual struggles of a -past which is not wholly dead, they have been to me, as doubtless to -many others, sources of pure delight. If I appreciate Job more highly -than Ecclesiastes, it is not from any want of living sympathy with the -philosophic doubter, but because the enjoyment even of Scriptures is -dependent on moods and impulses. De Sanctis has pointed out (_Storia -della letteratura italiana_, i. 80) how the story of Job became the -favourite theme of the early Italian moralists, and everyone knows how -the great Latin doctors (Gregory the Great, Bede, Aquinas, Albertus -Magnus) delighted to comment on this wonderful book. In our own day, -from perfectly intelligible causes, Ecclesiastes has too much drawn off -the attention of the educated world, but there are signs that the -character-drama of Job will soon reassert its old fascinating power. - -In conclusion, will earnest students, whether academical or not, grant -me two requests? The first is, that they will meet me with confidence, -and gather any grains of truth they can, even where they cannot yield -full assent. The problems of Hebrew literature are complex; herein -partly lies their fascination; herein also is a call for mutual -tolerance on the part of all who approach them. There is nothing to -regret in this complexity; in searching for the solution of these -problems, we gain an ever fresh insight into facts and ideas which will -never lose their significance. My second request is, that the Appendix, -which, short as it is, contains something for different classes of -readers, may not be neglected as _only an Appendix_. - -I would add that the ‘much-desired aid’ in the critical use of the -Septuagint referred to on p. 114 has already to a large extent been -given by Gustav Bickell’s essay (see p. 296), which I have now been able -to examine. His early treatise (1862) is at length happily supplemented -and corrected. We shall know still more when P. Ciasca has completed the -publication of the fragments of the Sahidic version. It is clear however -that each omission in the pre-Hexaplar Septuagint text (represented by -this version) must be judged upon its own merits, nor can I estimate the -value of the text of the Septuagint quite as highly as some critics. - -It is hoped that the present work may be followed by a volume on the -Psalms, the Lamentations, and the Song of Songs. - - - - - CONTENTS. - - -INTRODUCTION 1 - - -_THE BOOK OF JOB._ - -I. JOB’S CALAMITY; THE OPENING OF THE DIALOGUES (Chaps. i.-xiv.) 11 - -II. THE SECOND CYCLE OF SPEECHES (Chaps. xv.-xxi.) 30 - -III. THE THIRD CYCLE OF SPEECHES (Chaps. xxii.-xxxi.) 37 - -IV. THE SPEECHES OF ELIHU (Chaps. xxxii.-xxxvii.) 42 - -V. THE SPEECHES OF JEHOVAH (Chaps. xxxviii.-xlii. 6) 48 - -VI. THE EPILOGUE AND ITS MEANING 58 - -VII. THE TRADITIONAL BASIS AND THE PURPOSE OF JOB 60 - -VIII. DATE AND PLACE OF COMPOSITION 71 - -IX. ARGUMENT FROM THE USE OF MYTHOLOGY 76 - -X. ARGUMENT FROM THE DOCTRINE OF ANGELS 79 - -XI. ARGUMENT FROM PARALLEL PASSAGES 83 - -XII. ON THE DISPUTED PASSAGES IN THE DIALOGUE PORTION, ESPECIALLY THE -SPEECHES OF ELIHU 90 - -XIII. IS JOB A HEBRÆO-ARABIC POEM? 96 - -XIV. THE BOOK FROM A RELIGIOUS POINT OF VIEW 102 - -XV. THE BOOK FROM A GENERAL AND WESTERN POINT OF VIEW 106 - -_Note_ on Job and the Modern Poets 112 - -_Note_ on the Text of Job 112 - -_Aids to the Student_ 115 - - -_THE BOOK OF PROVERBS._ - -I. HEBREW WISDOM, ITS NATURE, SCOPE, AND IMPORTANCE 117 - -II. THE FORM AND ORIGIN OF THE PROVERBS 125 - -III. THE FIRST COLLECTION AND ITS APPENDICES 130 - -IV. THE SECOND COLLECTION AND ITS APPENDICES 142 - -V. THE PRAISE OF WISDOM 156 - -VI. SUPPLEMENTARY ON QUESTIONS OF DATE AND ORIGIN 165 - -VII. THE TEXT OF PROVERBS 173 - -_Note_ on Prov. xxx. 31 175 - -VIII. THE RELIGIOUS VALUE OF THE BOOK OF PROVERBS 176 - -_Aids to the Student_ 178 - - -_THE WISDOM OF JESUS THE SON OF SIRACH._ - -I. THE WISE MAN TURNED SCRIBE. SIRACH’S MORAL TEACHING 179 - -II. SIRACH’S TEACHING (_continued_). HIS PLACE IN THE MOVEMENT OF -THOUGHT 188 - -_Aids to the Student_ (see also _Appendix_) 198 - - -_THE BOOK OF KOHELETH; OR, ECCLESIASTES._ - -I. THE WISE MAN TURNED AUTHOR AND PHILOSOPHER 199 - -II. ‘TRUTH AND FICTION’ IN AN AUTOBIOGRAPHY 207 - -III. MORE MORALISING, INTERRUPTED BY PROVERBIAL MAXIMS 213 - -IV. FACTS OF CONTEMPORARY LIFE 218 - -V. THE WISE MAN’S PARTING COUNSELS 222 - -VI. KOHELETH’S ‘PORTRAIT OF OLD AGE;’ THE EPILOGUE, ITS NATURE AND -ORIGIN 229 - -VII. ECCLESIASTES AND ITS CRITICS (FROM A PHILOLOGICAL POINT OF VIEW) -236 - -VIII. ECCLESIASTES AND ITS CRITICS (FROM A LITERARY AND PSYCHOLOGICAL -POINT OF VIEW) 242 - -IX. ECCLESIASTES FROM A MORAL AND RELIGIOUS POINT OF VIEW 248 - -X. DATE AND PLACE OF COMPOSITION 255 - -XI. DOES KOHELETH CONTAIN GREEK WORDS OR IDEAS? 260 - -XII. TEXTUAL PROBLEMS OF KOHELETH 273 - -XIII. THE CANONICITY OF ECCLESIASTES AND ECCLESIASTICUS 279 - -_Aids to the Student_ 285 - - -APPENDIX (_see_ Special Table of Contents) 287 - -INDEX 303 - - - - - INTRODUCTION. - HOW IS OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM RELATED TO CHRISTIANITY? - - -The point of view represented in this volume is still so little -recognised and represented in England and America that the author -ventures to prefix a short paper delivered as an address at the Church -Congress held at Reading in October 1883. It is proverbially more -difficult to write a thin book than a thick one, and the labour involved -in preparing this twenty minutes’ paper, with its large outlook and -sedulously under-stated claims, was such as he would not willingly -undertake again for a like purpose. The subject was not an ephemeral one -and the attitude of the Churches towards it has not materially altered -within the last three years. The present volume is pervaded by the -spirit which breathes, as the author trusts, in every line of this -paper. It relates, indeed, only to a small section of the Old Testament, -but no part of that ‘library’ (as mediæval writers so well named it) can -be studied in complete severance from the rest. And if a high aim is -held forward in one of the opening sentences to the Church of which the -writer is a son, those who are connected with the other historic -communions will easily understand the bitter-sweet feeling of hope -against hope with which those lines were penned. - - * * * * * - -‘My own conviction,’ said the late Dr. Pusey, ‘has long been that the -hope of the Church of England is in mutual tolerance.’[1] That truly -great man was not thinking of the new school of Old Testament critics, -and yet if the Anglican Church is ever to renovate her theology and to -become in any real sense undeniably the Church of the future, she cannot -afford to be careless or intolerant of attempts to modernise our methods -of criticism and exegesis. It would no doubt be simpler to content -ourselves with that criticism and exegesis, and consequently with that -theology, which have been fairly adequate to the wants of the past; but -are we sure that Jesus Christ would not now lead us a few steps further -on towards ‘all the truth,’ and that one of His preparatory disciplines -may not be a method of Biblical criticism which is less tender to the -traditions of the scribes, and more in harmony with the renovating -process which is going on in all other regions of thought? Why, indeed, -should there not be a providence even in the phases of Old Testament -criticism, so that where some can see merely the shiftings of arbitrary -opinion more enlightened eyes may discern a veritable progress, leading -at once to fresh views of history, and to necessary reforms in our -theology, making this theology simpler and stronger, deeper and more -truly Catholic, by making it more Biblical? - -Some one, however, may ask, Does not modern criticism actually claim to -have refuted the fundamental facts of Bible history? But which _are_ -these fundamental facts? Bishop Thirlwall, twenty years ago, told his -clergy ‘that a great part of the events related in the Old Testament has -no more apparent connection with our religion than those of Greek and -Roman history.’ Put these events for a moment on one side, and how much -more conspicuous does that great elementary fact become which stands up -as a rock in Israel’s history—namely, that a holy God, for the good of -the world, chose out this people, isolating it more and more completely -for educational purposes from its heathen neighbours, and interposing at -various times to teach, to chastise, and to deliver it! It is not -necessary to prove that all such recorded interpositions are in the -strictest sense historical; it is enough if the tradition or the record -of some that are so did survive the great literary as well as political -catastrophe of the Babylonian captivity. And I have yet to learn that -the Exodus, the destruction of Sennacherib’s army, the restoration of -the Jews to their own land, and the unique phenomenon of spiritual -prophecy, are called in question even by the most advanced school of -Biblical criticism. One fact, indeed, there is, regarded by some of us -as fundamental, which these advanced critics do maintain to be -disproved, and that is the giving of the Levitical Law by Moses, or if -not by Moses, by persons in the pre-Exile period who had prophetic -sanction for giving it. Supposing the theory of Kuenen and Wellhausen to -be correct, it will no doubt appear to some minds (1) that the -inspiration of the Levitical Law is at any rate weakened in quality -thereby, (2) that a glaring inconsistency is introduced into the Divine -teaching of Israel, which becomes anti-sacrificial at one time, and -sacrificial at another, and (3) that room is given for the supposition -that the Levitical system itself was an injurious though politic -condescension to popular tastes, and consequently (as Lagarde ventures -to hold) that St. Paul, by his doctrine of the Atonement, ruined, so far -as he could, the simple Gospel of Jesus Christ. - -But I only mention these possible inferences in order to point out how -unfair they are. (1) The inspiration (to retain an often misused but -indispensable term) of the Levitical Law is only weakened in any bad -sense if it be maintained that the law, whenever the main part of it was -promulgated, failed to receive the sanction of God’s prophetic -interpreters, and that it was not, in the time of Ezra, the only -effectual instrument for preserving the deposit of spiritual religion. -(2) With regard to the inconsistency (assuming the new hypothesis) -between the two periods of the Divine teaching of Israel, the feeling of -a devout, though advanced critic would be that he was not a fit judge of -the providential plan. Inconsistent conclusions on one great subject -(that of forgiveness of sins) might in fact be drawn from the language -of our Lord Himself at different periods of His ministry, though the -parallel may not be altogether complete, since our Lord never used -directly anti-sacrificial language. And it might be urged on the side of -Kuenen, that neither would the early prophets have used such language—at -any rate in the literary version of their discourses if they had -foreseen the canonical character which this would assume, and the -immense importance of a sacrificial system in the post-Exile period. (3) -The theory that the law involves an injurious condescension is by no -means compulsory upon advocates of the new hypothesis. Concessions to -popular taste have, indeed, as we know but too well, often almost -extinguished the native spirit of a religion; but the fact that some at -least of the most spiritual psalms are acknowledged to be post-Exile -ought to make us all, critics and non-critics alike, slow to draw too -sharp a distinction between the legal and the evangelical. That the law -was misused by some, and in course of time became spiritually almost -obsolete, would not justify us in depreciating it, even if we thought -that the lesser and not the greater Moses, the scribe and not the -prophet, was mainly responsible for its promulgation. Finally, the rash -statement of Lagarde has been virtually answered by the reference of -another radical critic (Keim) to the well-attested words of Christ at -the institution of the Eucharist (Matt. xxvi. 28). - -I have spoken thus much on the assumption that the hypothesis of Kuenen -and Wellhausen may be true. That it will ever become universally -prevalent is improbable—the truth may turn out to lie between the two -extremes—but that it will go on for some time gaining ground among the -younger generation of scholars is, I think, almost certain. No one who -has once studied this or any other Old Testament controversy from the -inside and with a full view of the evidence can doubt that the -traditional accounts of many of the disputed books rest on a very weak -basis, and those who crave for definite solutions, and cannot bear to -live in twilight, will naturally hail such clear-cut hypotheses as those -of Kuenen and Wellhausen, and credit them with an undue finality. Let us -be patient with these too sanguine critics, and not think them bad -Churchmen, as long as they abstain from drawing those dangerous and -unnecessary inferences of which I have spoken. It is the want of an -equally intelligent interest which makes the Old Testament a dead letter -to so many highly orthodox theologians. If the advanced critics succeed -in awakening such an interest more generally, it will be no slight -compensation for that ‘unsettlement of views’ which is so often the -temporary consequence of reading their books. - -One large part, however, of Kuenen and Wellhausen’s critical system is -not peculiar to them, but accepted by the great majority of professed -Old Testament critics. It is this part which has perhaps a still -stronger claim to be considered in its relation to Christian truth, -because there is every appearance that it will, in course of time, -become traditional among those who have given up the still current -traditions of the synagogue. I refer (1) to the analysis of the -Pentateuch and the Book of Joshua into several documents, (2) to the -view that many of the laws contained in the Pentateuch arose gradually, -according to the needs of the people, and that Ezra, or at least -contemporaries of Ezra, took a leading part in the revision and -completion of the law book, and (3) to the dating of the original -documents or compilations at various periods, mostly long subsequent to -the time of Moses. Time forbids me to enter into the grounds for the -confident assertion that if either exegesis or the Church’s -representation of religious truth is to make any decided progress, the -results of the literary analysis of the Pentateuch must be accepted as -facts, and that theologians must in future recognise at least three -different sections, and as many different conceptions of Israel’s -religious development, within the Pentateuch, just as they have long -recognised at least three different types of teaching in the Old -Testament as a whole. On the question as to the date of these sections, -and as to the Mosaic origin of any considerable part of them, the -opinions of special scholars within the Church will, for a long time -yet, be more or less divided. There is, I know, a belief growing up -among us, that Assyrian and Egyptian discoveries are altogether -favourable to the ordinary English view of the dates of the historical -books, including the Pentateuch. May I be pardoned for expressing the -slowly formed conviction that apologists in England (and be it observed -that I do not quarrel with the conception of apologetic theology) -frequently indulge in general statements as to the bearings of recent -discoveries, which are only half true? The opponents of whom they are -thinking are long since dead; it is wasting time to fight with the -delusions of a past age. No one now thinks the Bible an invention of -priestcraft; that which historical critics doubt is the admissibility of -any unqualified assertion of the strict historicalness of all the -details of all its component parts. This doubt is not removed by recent -archæological discoveries, the critical bearings of which are sometimes -what neither of the critical schools desired or expected. I refer -especially to the bearings of Assyrian discoveries on the date of what -are commonly called the Jehovistic narratives in the first nine chapters -of Genesis. I will not pursue this subject further, and merely add that -we must not too hastily assume that the supplement hypothesis is -altogether antiquated. - -The results of the anticipated revolution in our way of looking at the -Pentateuch strike me as fourfold. (1) Historically. The low religious -position of most of the pre-Exile Israelites will be seen to be not the -result of a deliberate rebellion against the law of Jehovah, the -Levitical laws being at any rate virtually non-existent. By this I mean, -that even if any large part of those laws go back to the age of Moses -they were never thoroughly put in force, and soon passed out of sight. -Otherwise how can we account for this, among other facts, that -Deuteronomy, or the main part of it, is known in the reign of Josiah as -‘_the_ law of Moses’? We shall also, perhaps, get a deeper insight into -the Divine purpose in raising up that colossal personage who, though -‘slow of speech,’ was so mighty in deed: I mean Moses—and shall realise -those words of a writer specially sanctioned by my own university: -‘Should we have an accurate idea of the purpose of God in raising up -Moses, if we said, He did it that He might communicate a revelation? -Would not this be completely to misunderstand the principal end of the -mission of Moses, which was the establishment of the theocracy, and in -so far as God revealed through him the revelation was but as means to -this higher end?’[2] - -(2) We shall, perhaps, discriminate more between the parts of the Old -Testament, some of which will be chiefly valuable to us as bringing into -view the gradualness of Israel’s education, and as giving that fulness -to our conceptions of Biblical truths which can only be got by knowing -the history of their outward forms; others will have only that interest -which attaches even to the minutest and obscurest details of the history -of much-honoured friends or relatives; others, lastly, will rise, in -virtue of their intrinsic majesty, to a position scarcely inferior to -that of the finest parts of the New Testament itself. - -(3) As a result of what has thus been gained, our idea of inspiration -will become broader, deeper, and more true to facts. - -(4) We shall have to consider our future attitude towards that -Kenotic[3] view of the person of Christ which has been accepted in some -form by such great exegetical theologians as Hofmann, Oehler, and -Delitzsch. Although the Logos, by the very nature of the conception, -must be omniscient, the incarnate Logos, we are told, pointed His -disciples to a future time, in which they should do greater works than -He Himself, and should open the doors to fresh departments of truth. The -critical problems of the Old Testament did not then require to be -settled by Him, because they had not yet come into existence. Had they -emerged into view in our Lord’s time, they would have given as great a -shock to devout Jews as they have done to devout Christians; and our -Master would, no doubt, have given them a solution fully adequate to the -wants of believers. In that case, a reference to some direction of the -law as of Mosaic origin would, in the mouth of Christ, have been -decisive; and the Church would, no doubt, have been guided to make some -distinct definition of her doctrine on the subject. - -Thus in the very midst of the driest critical researches we can feel -that, if we have duly fostered the sense of Divine things, we are on the -road to further disclosures of religious as well as historical truth. -The day of negative criticism is past, and the day of a cheap ridicule -of all critical analysis of ancient texts is, we may hope, nearly past -also. In faith and love the critics whose lot I would fain share are at -one with many of those who suspect and perhaps ridicule them: in the -aspirations of hope their aim is higher. Gladly would I now pass on to a -survey of the religious bearings of the critical study of the poetical -and prophetical books, which, through differences of race, age, and -above all spiritual atmosphere, we find, upon the whole, so much more -attractive and congenial than the Levitical legislation. Let me, at -least, throw out a few hints. Great as is the division of opinion on -points of detail, so much appears to be generally accepted that the -number of prophets whose works have partly come down to us is larger -than used to be supposed. The analysis of the texts may not be as nearly -perfect as that of the Pentateuch, but there is no doubt among those of -the younger critics whose voices count (and with the pupils of Delitzsch -the case is the same as with those of Ewald) that several of the -prophetical books are made up of the works of different writers, and I -even notice a tendency among highly orthodox critics to go beyond Ewald -himself and analyse the Book of Daniel into portions of different dates. -The result is important, and not for literary history alone. It gives us -a much firmer hold on the great principle that a prophet’s horizon is -that of his own time; that he prophesied, as has been well said, into -the future, but not directly to the future. This will, I believe, in no -wise affect essential Christian truth, but will obviously modify our -exegesis of certain Scripture proofs of Christian doctrine, and is -perhaps not without a bearing on the two grave theological subjects -referred to already. - -Bear with me if, once again in conclusion, I appeal to the Church at -large on behalf of those who would fain modernise our criticism and -exegesis with a view to a not less distinctively Christian but more -progressive Church theology. The age of œcumenical councils may have -passed; but if criticism, exegesis, and philosophy are only cultivated -in a fearless and reverent spirit, and if the Church at large troubles -itself a little more to understand the workers and their work, an -approximation to agreement on great religious questions may hereafter be -attained. What the informal decisions of the general Christian -consciousness will be, it would be impertinent to conjecture. It is St. -John’s ‘all truth’ after which we aspire—‘all the truth’ concerning God, -the individual soul, and human society, into which the labours of -generations, encouraged by the guiding star, shall by degrees introduce -us. But one thing is too clear to be mistaken—viz. that exegesis must -decide first of all what essential Christian truth is before a devout -philosophy can interpret, expand, and apply it, and Old Testament -exegesis, at any rate, cannot be long separated from its natural ally, -the higher criticism. A provisional separation may no doubt be -necessary, but the ultimate aim of successive generations of students -must be a faithful exegesis, enlightened by a seven-times tested -criticism. - -Footnote 1: - - ‘Toleranz sollte eigentlich nur eine vorübergehende Gesinnung sein; - sie muss zur Anerkennung führen.’—_Goethe._ - -Footnote 2: - - See essay on ‘Miracles’ in _Christian Remembrancer_ (list of works - recommended to theological honour-students in Oxford). - -Footnote 3: - - The self-humiliation of Christ is described (need I remark?) by St. - Paul as a κένωσις (Phil. ii. 7). How far this κένωσις extended is a - theological problem which in the sixteenth century, and again in our - own, has exercised devout thinkers. For the modern form of the Kenotic - view or doctrine the English reader will naturally go to Dorner’s - _History of the Doctrine of the Person of Christ_, vol. iii., in - Clark’s _Library_. Dorner’s opposition to this view is a weighty but - not, of course, a decisive fact. We must be loyal to the facts of - Christ’s humanity reported in the Gospels. The question as to the - extent of the κένωσις is an open one. - - - - - THE BOOK OF JOB. - - - CHAPTER I. - JOB’S CALAMITY; THE OPENING OF THE DIALOGUES. - (CHAPS. I.-XIV.) - - -The Book of Job is not the earliest monument of Hebrew ‘wisdom,’ but for -various reasons will be treated first in order. The perusal of some of -the pages introductory to Proverbs will enable the student to fill out -what is here given. The Hebrew ‘wisdom’ is a product as peculiar as the -dialectic of Plato, and not less worthy of admiration; and the author of -_Job_ is its greatest master. To him are due those great thoughts on a -perennial problem, which may be supplemented but can never be -superseded, and which, as M. Renan truly says, cause so profound an -emotion in their first naïve expression. His wisdom is that of intuition -rather than of strict reasoning, but it is as truly based upon the facts -of experience as any of our Western philosophies. He did not indeed -reach his high position unaided by predecessors. The author of the noble -‘Praise of Wisdom’ in Prov. i.-ix. taught him much and kindled his -ambition. Nor was he in all probability without the stimulus of -fellow-thinkers and fellow-poets. The student ought from the outset to -be aware of the existence of discussions as to the unity of the -book—discussions which have led to one assured and to several probable -results—though he ought not to adopt any critical results before he has -thoroughly studied the poem itself. The student should also know that -the supposed authors of the (as I must believe) inserted passages belong -to the same circle as the writer of the main part of the book, and are -therefore not to be accused of having made ‘interpolations.’ I need not -here distinguish between passages added by the author himself as -afterthoughts (or perhaps _paralipomena_ inserted by disciples from his -literary remains) and compositions of later poets added to give the poem -greater didactic completeness. A passage which does not fall into the -plan of the poem is to all intents and purposes the work of another -poet. The philosophic Goethe of the second part of _Faust_ is not the -passion-tossed Goethe of the first. - -All the writers who may be concerned in the production of our book are, -however, well worthy of reverent study; they were not only inspired by -the Spirit of Israel’s holy religion, but in their various styles true -poets. In some degree we may apply to _Job_ the lines of Schiller on the -_Iliad_ with its different fathers but one only mother—Nature. In fact, -Nature, in aspects chiefly familiar, but not therefore less interesting, -was an open book to these poets, and ‘Look in thine heart and write’ was -their secret as well as Spenser’s for vigorous and effective expression. - -I now proceed to give in plain prose the pith and substance of this -great poem, which more than any other Old Testament book needs to be -brought near to the mind of a Western student. I would entitle it THE -BOOK OF THE TRIAL OF THE RIGHTEOUS MAN, AND OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF GOD. - -In its present form the Book of Job consists of five parts— - -1. The Prologue, written in prose (ch. i.-ii.), the body of the work in -the Hebrew being written in at any rate an approach to metre;[4] - -2. The Colloquies between Job and his three friends (ch. iii.-xxxi.); - -3. The Discourses of Elihu (ch. xxxii.-xxxvii.); - -4. Jehovah’s Reply to Job (ch. xxxviii.-xlii. 6); - -5. The Epilogue, in prose (ch. xlii. 7-17). - -There are some differences in the arrangement which will presently be -followed, but these will justify themselves in the course of our study. -Let us first of all examine the Prologue, which will bear to be viewed -by itself as a striking specimen of Hebrew narrative. The idyllic -manners of a patriarchal age are delineated with sympathy—no difficult -task to one who knew the early Hebrew traditions—and still more -admirable are the very testing scenes from the supernatural world. - -It may perhaps seem strange that this should be only a prose poem, but -the truth is that narrative poetry was entirely alien to the Hebrew -genius, which refused to tolerate the bonds of protracted and continuous -versification. Like that other great hero of parallelistic verse Balaam, -Job is a non-Israelite; and in this the unknown author shows a fine -tact, for he is thus absolved from the embarrassing necessity of -referring to the Law, and so complicating the moral problem under -consideration. Job, however, though an Arabian sheich[5] (as one may -loosely call him), was a worshipper of Jehovah, who declares before the -assembled ‘sons of the Elohim’ that ‘there is none like Job in the -earth,’ &c. (i. 8). Job’s virtue is rewarded by an outward prosperity -like that of the patriarchs in Genesis: he was a great Eastern Emeer, -and had not only a large family but great possessions. His scrupulous -piety, which takes precautions even against heart-sins, is exemplified -to us by the atoning sacrifice which he offers as head of his family at -some annual feast (i. 4, 5). Then in ver. 6 the scene is abruptly -changed from earth to heaven. The spirit of the narrative is not devoid -of a delightful humour. In the midst of the ‘sons of the -Elohim’—supernatural, Titanic beings, who had once been at strife with -Jehovah (if we may illustrate by xxi. 22, xxv. 2), but who now at stated -times paid Him their enforced homage—stood one who had not quite lost -his original pleasure in working evil, and who was now employed by his -Master as a kind of moral and religious censor of the human race. This -malicious spirit—‘the Satan’ or adversary, as he is called—had just -returned from a tour of inspection in the world, and Jehovah, who is -represented under the disguise of an earthly monarch, boldly and -imprudently draws his attention to the meritorious Job. The Satan -refuses to give human nature credit for pure goodness, and sarcastically -remarks, ‘Does Job serve God for nothing?’ (i. 9.) Jehovah therefore -allows His minister to put Job’s piety to as severe a test as possible -short of taking his life. One after another Job’s flocks, his servants, -and his children are destroyed. His wife, however, by a touch of quiet -humour, is spared; she seems to be recognised by the Satan as an -unconscious ally (ii. 9). The piety of Job stands the trial; he is -deeply moved, but maintains his self-control, and the scene closes with -a devout ascription of blessing to Jehovah alike for giving and for -recalling His gifts. - -Before passing on the reader should notice that, according to the poet, -the ultimate reason why these sufferings of Job were permitted by the -Most High was that Job might set an example of a piety independent of -favouring outward circumstances. The poet reveals this to us in the -Prologue, that we may not ourselves be staggered in our faith, nor cast -down by sympathy with such an unique sufferer; for after the eulogy -passed upon Job in the celestial court we cannot doubt that he will -stand the test, even if disturbed for a time. - -A second time the same high court is held. The first experiment of the -Adversary has failed, and this magnified earthly monarch, the Jehovah of -the story, begins to suspect that he has allowed a good man to be -plagued with no sufficient motive. Admiringly he exclaims, pointing to -Job, ‘And still he holds fast his integrity, so that thou didst incite -me against him to annihilate him without cause’ (ii. 3). Another -sarcastic word from the Adversary (‘Touch his bone and his flesh, and -then see....’), and once more he receives permission to try Job. The -affliction this time is elephantiasis, the most loathsome and dangerous -form of leprosy. But Job’s piety stands fast. He sits down on the heap -of burnt dung and ashes at the entrance of the village, such as those -where lepers are still wont to congregate, and meets the despairing -counsel of his wife (comp. Tobit’s wife, Tob. ii. 14) to renounce a God -from whom nothing more is to be hoped but death with a calm and pious -rebuke. So baseless was the malicious suggestion of the Satan! Meantime -many months pass away (vii. 3), and no friend appears to condole with -him. Travelling is slow in the East, and Job’s three friends[6] were -Emeers like himself (the Sept. makes them kings), and their residences -would be at some distance from each other. At last they come, but they -cannot recognise Job’s features, distorted by disease (as Isa. lii. 14). -Overpowered with surprise and grief, they sit down with him for seven -days and seven nights (comp. Ezek. iii. 15). Up to this point no fault -can be found with his friends. - - I never yet did hear - That the bruised heart was pierced through the ear. - - (_Othello_, act i, scene 3.) - -It was their deep, unspoken sympathy which encouraged him to vent his -sorrow in a flood of unpurified emotion (chap. iii.) The very next thing -recorded of Job is that he ‘opened his mouth and cursed his day’ (i.e. -his birthday; see ver. 3). This may at least be the poet’s meaning, -though it is also possible that the prologue and the body of the poem -are not homogeneous. Not to mention other reasons at present, the tone -of Job’s speech in chap. iii. (the chapter read by Swift on his -birthday) is entirely different from the stedfast resignation of his -reply to his wife, which, as Prof. Davidson has said, ‘reveals still -greater deeps in Job’s reverent piety’ than the benediction at the end -of chap. i., the latter being called forth not by the infliction of -positive evil, but merely by the withdrawal of unguaranteed favours. - -How strangely vivid were the sensations of the race to which the author -of Job belonged! How great to him must have been the pleasures of -existence, and how great the pains! Nothing to him was merely -subjectively true: his feelings were infallible, and that which seemed -to be was. Time, for instance, had an objective reality: the days of the -year had a kind of life of their own (comp. Ps. xix. 2) and paid -annually recurring visits to mankind. Hence Job, like Jeremiah (Jer. xx. -14-18), in the violence of his passion[7] can wish to retaliate on the -instrument of his misery by ‘cursing his day.’ - - Perish the day wherein I was born, - and the night which said, A man has been conceived. - - (iii. 3; comp. 6); - -i.e. let my birthday become a blank in the calendar. Or, if this be too -much and the anniversary, so sad to me, must come round, then let -magicians cast their spell[8] upon it and make it an unlucky day (such -as the Babylonians had in abundance). - - Let them curse it that curse days, - that are skilful to rouse the leviathan (iii. 8); - -i.e. the cloud dragon (vii. 12, xxvi. 13, Isaiah li. 9, Jer. li. 34), -the enemy of the sun (an allusion to a widely spread solar myth). So -fare it with the day which might, by hindering Job’s birth, have ‘hid -sorrow from his eyes!’ Even if he must be born, why could he not have -died at once and escaped his ill fortune in the quiet phantom world -(iii. 13-19)? Alas! this melancholy dream does but aggravate Job’s -mental agony. He broods on the horror of his situation, and even makes a -shy allusion to God as the author of his woe— - - Wherefore gives he light to the miserable, - and life to the bitter in soul? (iii. 20.) - -And now Job’s friends are shaken out of their composure. They have been -meditating on Job’s calamity, which is so difficult to reconcile with -their previous high opinion of him; for they are the representatives of -orthodoxy, of the orthodoxy which received the high sanction of the -Deuteronomic _Tōra_, and which connected obedience and prosperity, -disobedience and adversity. Still it is not a stiff, extreme orthodoxy -which the three friends maintain: calamity, as Eliphaz represents their -opinion (v. 17; comp. 27), is not always a punishment, but sometimes a -discipline. The question therefore has forced itself upon them, Has the -calamity which has befallen our friend a judicial or a disciplinary, -educational purpose? At first they may have leaned to the latter -alternative; but Job’s violent outburst, so unbecoming in a devout man, -too clearly pointed in the other direction, and already they are -beginning to lose their first hopeful view of his case. One after -another they debate the question with Job (Eliphaz as the depositary of -a revelation, Bildad as the advocate of tradition, Zophar as the man of -common sense)—the question of the cause and meaning of his sufferings, -which means further, since Job is not merely an individual but a -type,[9] the question of the vast mass of evil in the world. This main -part of the work falls into three cycles of dialogue (ch. iv.-xiv., ch. -xv.-xxi., ch. xxii.-xxxi.) In each there are three pairs of speeches, -belonging respectively to Eliphaz and Job, Bildad and Job, Zophar and -Job. Eliphaz opens the debate as being the oldest (xv. 10) and the most -experienced of Job’s friends. There is much to admire in his speech; if -he could only have adopted the tone of a sympathising friend and not of -a lecturer— - - Behold, this have we searched out; so it is; - hear thou it, and know it for thyself (v. 27)— - -he might have been useful to the sufferer. At the very beginning he -strikes a wrong key-note, expressing surprise at his friend’s utter loss -of self-control (_vattibbāhēl_, ver. 4), and couching it in such a form -that one would really suppose Job to have broken down at the first taste -of trouble. The view of the speaker seems to be that, since Job is -really a pious man (for Eliphaz does not as yet presume to doubt this), -he ought to feel sure that his trouble would not proceed beyond a -certain point. ‘Bethink thee now,’ says Eliphaz, ‘who ever _perished_, -being innocent?’ (iv. 7.) Some amount of trouble even a good man may -fairly expect; though far from ‘ploughing iniquity,’ he is too weak not -to fall into sins of error, and all sin involves suffering; or, as -Eliphaz puts it concisely— - - Man is born to trouble, - as the sparks fly upward (v. 7). - -Assuming without any reason that Job would question this, Eliphaz -enforces the moral imperfection of human nature by an appeal to -revelation—not, of course, to Moses and the prophets, but to a vision -like those of the patriarchs in Genesis. Of the circumstances of the -revelation a most graphic account is given. - - And to myself came an oracle stealthily, - and mine ear received the whisper thereof, - in the play of thought from nightly visions, - when deep sleep falls upon men, - a shudder came upon me and a trembling, - and made all my bones to shudder, - when (see!) a wind sweeps before me, - the hairs of my body bristle up: - it stands, but I cannot discern it, - I gaze, but there is no form, - before mine eyes (is) ... - and I hear a murmuring voice.[10] - ‘Can human kind be righteous before God? - can man be pure before his Maker? - Behold, he trusts not his own servants, - and imputes error to his angels[11]’. (iv. 12-18). - -There is no such weird passage in the rest of the Old Testament. It did -not escape the attention of Milton, whose description of death alludes -to it. - - If shape it could be called that shape had none, - Distinguishable in member, joint, or limb; - Or substance might be called that shadow seemed. - - (_Par. Lost_, ii. 266.) - -A single phrase (‘a murmuring voice,’ ver. 16) is borrowed from the -theophany of Elijah (1 Kings xix. 12), but the strokes which paint the -scene, and which Milton and Blake between them have more than -reproduced, are all his own. The supernatural terror, the wind -betokening a spiritual visitor, the straining eyes which can discern no -form, the whispering voice always associated with oracles[12]—each of -these awful experiences we seem to share. Eliphaz himself recalls his -impressions so vividly that he involuntarily uses the present tense in -describing them. - -But why should Eliphaz imagine that because Job had not had a revelation -of this kind he is therefore ignorant of the truth? He actually -confounds the complaints wrung from Job by his unparalleled mental and -bodily sufferings with the ‘impatience’ of the ‘foolish man’ and the -‘passion’ of the ‘silly’ one, and warns him against the fate which -within his own experience befell one such rebellious murmurer against -God—an irrelevant remark, unless he has already begun to suspect Job of -impiety. Then, as if he feels that he has gone too far, he addresses Job -in a more hopeful spirit, and tells him what he would do in his place, -viz. turn trustfully to God, whose operations are so unsearchable, but -so benevolent. Let Job regard his present affliction as a chastening and -he may look forward to even more abundant blessings than he has yet -enjoyed. - -In these concluding verses Eliphaz certainly does his best to be -sympathetic, but the result shows how utterly he has failed. He has -neither convinced Job’s reason nor calmed the violence of his emotion. -It is now Job’s turn to reply. He is not, indeed, in a mood to answer -Eliphaz point by point. Passing over the ungenerous reference to the -fate of the rebellious, which he can hardly believe to be seriously -meant, Job first of all justifies the despair which has so astonished -Eliphaz.[13] Since the latter is so cool and so critical, let him weigh -Job’s calamity as well as his words, and see if the extravagance of the -latter is not excusable. Are these arrow wounds the fruit of -chastisement? Does the Divine love disguise itself as terror? The good -man is never allowed to perish, you say; but how much longer can a body -of flesh hold out? Why should I not even desire death? God may be my -enemy, but I have given Him no cause. And now, if He would be my friend, -the only favour I crave is that He would shorten my agony. - - Then should (this) still be my comfort - (I would leap amidst unsparing pain), - that I have not denied the words of the Holy One (vi. 10). - -Job’s demeanour is thus fully accounted for; it is that of his friends -which is unnatural and disappointing. - - My brethren have been treacherous as a winter stream, - as the bed of winter streams which pass away: - (once) they were turbid with ice, - and the snow, as it fell, hid itself in them; - but now that they feel the glow they vanish, - when it is hot they disappear from their place. - Caravans bend their course; - they go up into the desert and perish. - The caravans of Tema looked; - the companies of Sheba hoped for them;[14] - they were abashed because they had been confident; - when they came thither they were ashamed (vi. 15-20). - -And was it a hard thing that Job asked of his friends? No; merely -sympathy. And not only have they withheld this; Eliphaz has even -insinuated that Job was an open sinner. Surely neither honesty nor -wisdom is shown in such captious criticism of Job’s expressions. - - How forcible is honest language, - and how cogent is the censure of a wise man! - Think ye to censure words, - and the passionate speech of one who is desperate? (vi. 25, 26.) - -With an assertion of his innocence, and a renewed challenge to disprove -it, this, the easiest part of Job’s first reply, concludes. - -And now, having secured his right to complain, Job freely avails himself -of his melancholy privilege. A ‘desperate’ man cares not to choose his -words, though the reverence which never ceased to exist deep down in -Job’s nature prompts him to excuse his delirious words by a reference to -his bitter anguish (vii. 11). Another excuse which he might have given -lies on the very surface of the poem, which is coloured throughout by -the poet’s deep sympathy with human misery in general. Job in fact is -not merely an individual, but a representative of mankind; and when he -asks himself at the beginning of chap. vii.— - - Has not frail man a warfare [hard service] upon earth, - and are not his days like the days of a hireling?— - -it is not merely one of the countless thoughts which are like foam -bubbles, but the expression of a serious interest, which raises Job far, -very far above the patriarchal prince of the legend in the Prologue. It -is the very exaggeration of this interest which alone explains why the -thought of his fellow-sufferers not only brings no comfort[15] to Job, -but fails even to calm his excitement. - - Am I the sea (he says) or the sea monster, - that thou settest a watch over me? (vii. 12.) - -It is an allusion to a myth, based on the continual ‘war in heaven’ -between light and darkness, which we have in these lines. Job asks if he -is the leviathan (iii. 8) of that upper ocean above which dwells the -invisible God (ix. 8, Ps. civ. 3). He describes Jehovah as being jealous -(comp. Gen. iii. 4, 5, 22) and thinking it of importance to subdue Job’s -wild nature, lest he should thwart the Divine purposes. But here, again, -Job rises above himself; the sorrows of all innocent sufferers are as -present to him as his own; nay, more, he bears them as a part of his -own; he represents mankind with God. In a bitter parody of Ps. viii. 5 -he exclaims— - - What is frail man that Thou treatest him as a great one - and settest Thy mind upon him; - that Thou scrutinisest him every morning, - and art every moment testing him? (vii. 17, 18.) - -It is only now and then that Job expresses this feeling of sympathetic -union with the human race. Generally his secret thought (or that of his -poet) translates itself into a self-consciousness which seems morbidly -extravagant on any other view of the poem. The descriptions of his -physical pains, however, are true to the facts of the disease called -elephantiasis, from which he may be supposed to have suffered. His cry -for death is justified by his condition—‘death rather than (these) my -pains’[16] (vii. 15). He has no respite from his agony; ‘nights of -misery,’ he says, ‘have been allotted to me’ (vii. 3), probably because -his pains were more severe in the night (xxx. 17). How can it be worth -while, he asks, thus to persecute him? Even if Eliphaz be right, and Job -has been a sinner, yet how can this affect the Most High? - - (Even) if I have sinned, what do I unto thee, - O thou watcher of men? (vii. 20.) - -What bitter irony again! He admits a vigilance in God, but only the -vigilance of ‘espionage’ (xiii. 27, xiv. 16), not that of friendly -guardianship; God only aims at procuring a long catalogue of punishable -sins. Why not forgive those sins and relieve Himself from a troublesome -task? Soon it will be too late: a pathetic touch revealing a latent -belief in God’s mercy which no calamity could destroy. - -Thus to the blurred vision of the agonised sufferer the moral God whom -he used to worship has been transformed into an unreasoning, unpitying -Force. Bildad is shocked at this. ‘Can God pervert judgment’? (viii. 3.) -In his short speech he reaffirms the doctrine of proportionate -retribution, and exhorts Job to ‘seek earnestly unto God’ (viii. 5), -thus clearly implying that Job is being punished for his sins.[17] -Instead of basing his doctrine on revelation, Bildad supports the side -of it relative to the wicked by an appeal to the common consent of -mankind previously to the present generation (viii. 8, 9). This common -consent, this traditional wisdom, is embodied in proverbial ‘dark -sayings,’ as, for instance— - - Can the papyrus grow up without marsh? - can the Nile reed shoot up without water? - While yet in its verdure, uncut, - it withers before any grass. - So fares it with all that forget God, - and the hope of the impious shall perish (viii. 11-13). - -It is interesting to see at how early a date the argument in favour of -Theism was rested to some extent on tradition. ‘We are of yesterday, and -know nothing,’ says Bildad, ‘because our days on earth are a shadow’ -(viii. 9), whereas the wisdom of the past is centuries old, and has a -stability to which Job’s novelties (or, for this is the poet’s meaning, -those of the new sceptical school of the Exile) cannot pretend. But Job -at least is better than his theories, so Eliphaz and Bildad are still -charitable enough to believe, and the closing words of the speech of -Bildad clear up any possible doubt with regard to his opinion of erring -but still whole-hearted[18] (‘perfect’) Job. - - Those that hate thee shalt be clothed with shame, - and the tent of the wicked shall be no more (viii. 22). - -But Job has much to say in reply. He ironically admits the truth of the -saying, ‘How can man be righteous with God?’ but the sense in which he -applies the words is very different from that given to them by his -friends. Of course God is righteous (‘righteousness’ in Semitic -languages sometimes means ‘victory’), because He is so mighty that no -one, however innocent, could plead successfully before Him. This thought -suggests a noble description of the stupendous displays of God’s might -in nature (ix. 5-10). The verse with which it closes is adopted from -Eliphaz, in whose first speech to Job it forms the text of a quiet -picture of God’s everyday miracles of benevolence to man (v. 9). Where -Eliphaz sees power, wisdom, and love, Job can see only a force which is -terrible in proportion to its wisdom. The predominant quality in this -idol of Job’s imagination is not love, but anger—capricious, inexorable -anger, which long ago ‘the helpers of Rahab’ (another name for the storm -dragon, which fought against the sun) experienced to their cost (ix. 13; -comp. xxvi. 12). Job himself is in collision with this force; and how -should he venture to defend himself? The tortures he endured would force -from him an avowal of untruths (ix. 20). If only God were a man, or if -there were an umpire whose authority would be recognised on both sides, -how gladly would Job submit his case to adjudication! But, alas! God -stands over against him with His rod (ix. 32-34). Bildad had said, ‘God -will not cast away a perfect man’ (viii. 20). But Job’s experience is, -‘He destroys the perfect and the wicked’ (ix. 22). Thus Job has many -fellow-sufferers, and one good effect of his trial is that it has opened -his eyes to the religious bearings of facts which he had long known but -not before now seriously pondered. - -At last a milder spirit comes upon the sufferer. He has been in the -habit of communion with God, and cannot bear to be condemned without -knowing the cause (x. 2). How, he enquires, can God have the heart to -torture that which has cost Him so much thought (comp. Isa. lxv. 8, 9)? -A man is not a common potter’s vessel, but framed with elaborate skill. - - Thy hands fashioned and prepared me; - afterwards dost thou turn[19] and destroy me? - Remember now that as clay thou didst prepare me, - and dost thou turn me into dust again? - Life and favour dost thou grant me, - and thine oversight guarded my spirit (x. 8, 9, 12). - -God appeared to be kind then; but, since God sees the end from the -beginning, it is too clear that He must have done all this simply in -order to mature a perfect human sacrifice to His own cruel self-will. -Job’s milder spirit has evidently fled. He repeats his wish that he had -never lived (x. 18, 19), and only craves a few brighter moments before -he departs to the land of darkness (x. 20-22). - -It was not likely that Zophar would be more capable of rightly advising -Job than his elders. Having had no experience to soften him, he pours -out a flood of crude dogmatic commonplaces, and in the complaints wrung -from a troubled spirit can see nothing but ‘a multitude of words’ (xi. -2). Yet he only just misses making an important contribution to the -settlement of the problem. He has caught a glimpse of a supernatural -wisdom, to which the secrets of all hearts are open:— - - But oh that God [Eloah] would speak, - and open his lips against thee. - and show thee the secrets of wisdom, - for wondrous are they in perfection![20] - Canst thou find the depths of God [Eloah]? - canst thou reach to the end of Shaddai? - Heights of heaven! what canst thou do? - deeper than Sheól! what canst thou know? (xi. 5-8.) - -If Zophar had worked out this idea impartially, he might have given to -the discussion a fresh and more profitable turn. He is so taken up with -the traditional orthodoxy, however, that he has no room for a deeper -view of the problem. His inference is that, in virtue of His perfect -knowledge, God can detect sin where man sees none, though that cruellest -touch of all with which the Massoretic text[21] burdens the reputation -of Zophar is not supported by the more accurate text of the Septuagint, -and we should read xi. 6 thus: - - and thou shouldest know that God [Eloah] gives unto thee - thy deserts[22] for thine iniquity. - -But indeed a special revelation ought not to be necessary for Job. His -trouble, proceeding as it does from one no less wise than irresistible -(xi. 10, 11), ought to dispel his dream of innocence; as Zophar -generalises, when God’s judgments are abroad— - - (Even) an empty head wins understanding, - and a wild ass’s colt is new-born as a man (xi. 12). - -We may pass over the brilliant description of prosperity consequent on a -true repentance with which the chapter concludes. It fell quite unheeded -on the ears of Job, who was more stung by the irritating speech of -Zophar than by those of Eliphaz and Bildad. - -The taunt conveyed indirectly by Zophar in xi. 12 is exposed in all its -futility in the reply of Job. Zophar himself, however, he disdains to -argue with; there is the same intolerable assumption of superiority in -the speeches of all the three, and this he assails with potent sarcasm. - - No doubt ye are mankind, - and with you shall wisdom die. - I too have understanding like you, - and who knows not the like of this? (xii. 2, 3.) - -In what respect, pray, is he inferior to his friends? Has Eliphaz -enjoyed a specially unique revelation? Job has had a still better -opportunity of learning spiritual truth in communion of the heart with -God (xii. 4). Is Bildad an unwearied collector of the wisdom of -antiquity? Job too admits the value of tradition, though he will not -receive it unproved (xii. 11, 12). In declamation, too, Job can vie with -the arrogant Zophar; Job’s description of the omnipotence of God forms -the counterpart of Zophar’s description of His omniscience. But of what -account are generalities in face of such a problem as Job’s? The -question of questions is not, Has God all power and all wisdom, but, -Does He use them for moral ends? The three friends refuse to look facts -in the face; the _righteous_ God (we must understand the words, _if -there be one_) will surely chastise them for insincerity and -partisanship (xiii. 10). - -And now Job refuses to waste any more words on his opponents. - - But as for me, to Shaddai would I speak, - I crave to reason with God; - But ye—are plasterers of lies, - patchers of that which is worthless. - Your commonplaces are proverbs of ashes; - your bulwarks are bulwarks of clay (xiii. 3, 4, 12). - -He forms a new project, but shudders as he does so, for he feels sure of -provoking God thereby to deadly anger. Be it so; a man who has borne -till he can bear no longer can even welcome death. - - Behold, let him slay me; I can wait [be patient] no longer;[23] - still I will defend my ways to his face (xiii. 15). - -It is the sublimest of all affirmations of the rights of conscience. Job -is confident of the success of his plea: ‘This also (guarantees) victory -to me, that an impious man cannot come before him’ (xiii. 16) with such -a good conscience. Thus virtue has an intrinsic value for Job, superior -to that of prosperity or even life: moral victory would more than -compensate for physical failure. He indulges the thought that God may -personally take part in the argument (xiii. 20-22), and in anticipation -of this he sums up the chief points of his intended speech (xiii. -23-xiv. 22), such as, ‘How many[24] are my sins,’ and ‘Why chase dry -stubble?’ (xiii. 23, 25). Sad complaints of the melancholy lot of -mankind follow, reminding us again that Job, like Dante in his -pilgrimage, is not only an individual but a representative. - - Man that is born of woman, - short-lived and full of unrest, - comes up as a flower and fades, - flies as a shadow and continues not. - And upon such an one keepest thou thine eye open, - and me dost thou bring into judgment with thee! (xiv. 1-3.) - -Hard enough is the natural fate of man; why make it harder by -exceptional severity? An early reader misunderstood this, and thought to -strengthen Job’s appeal by a reference (in ver. 4) to one of the -commonplaces of Eliphaz (iv. 17-21). But ver. 5 shows that the idea -which fills the mind of Job is the shortness of human life.[25] A tree, -when cut down according to the rules still current in Syria,[26] -displays a marvellous vitality; but man is only like the falling leaves -of a tree (xiii. 25), or (the figure preferred here) like the canals of -Egypt when the dykes and reservoirs are not properly kept up (xiv. 11; -comp. Isaiah xix. 5, 6). If it were God’s will to ‘hide’ Job in dark -Sheól for a time, and then to recall him to the light, how gladly would -he ‘wait’ there, like a soldier on guard (comp. vii. 1), till his -‘relief’ came (xiv. 14)!—a fascinating thought, on which, baseless -though he considers it, Job cannot forbear to dwell. And the beauty of -the passage is that the happiness of restoration to conscious life -consists for Job in the renewal of loving communion between himself and -his God (xiv. 15). Alas! the dim light of Sheól darkens the glorious -vision and sends Job back into despair. - -Footnote 4: - - Jerome already saw this. He represents the Book of Job as composed - mainly in hexameters with a dactylic and spondaic movement (_Præf. in - Job_). Does he mean double trimeters? - -Footnote 5: - - Where is the ‘Uz’ spoken of in Job i. 1? The ‘land of _Uzza_’ seems to - have been not far from the Orontes (Shalmaneser’s Obelisk; see Friedr. - Delitzsch’s _Paradies_, p. 259). Tradition places the home of Job in - the fertile volcanic region called the Haurân (see the very full - excursus in Delitzsch’s _Job_). But the ‘land of Uz’ _might_ be - farther south, nearer to Edom, in connection with which it is - mentioned, Lam. iv. 21, Gen. xxxvi. 28 (comp. ver. 21). This is - supported by the curious note appended to the Book of Job in the - Septuagint. It is true that Uz is called a son of Aram (Gen. x. 23), - but ‘Uz’ may have had several branches, or the use of Aramaic may have - extended far beyond the limits of Aram proper. - -Footnote 6: - - Of the three friends Eliphaz comes from the Edomitish district of - Teman, so famous for its wisdom; Bildad from the land of Shuah (‘Suhu’ - lay, according to the inscriptions, between the mouths of the Belich - and the Khabur, confluents of the Euphrates); Zophar from Naamah, some - unknown district east of the Jordan. How well these notes of place - agree with the Aramaic colouring of the book! - -Footnote 7: - - Bishop Lowth (_Prælect._ xxxiii.) admires the dramatic tact with which - the poet makes Job err at first merely by the exaggeration of his - complaints, thus inviting censure, which in turn leads to bold - misstatements on Job’s part. - -Footnote 8: - - For a late Egyptian incantation of this class see Ancessi, _Job et le - Rédempteur_, pp. 240-1; for the dragon myth itself see Cheyne’s note - in the _Prophecies of Isaiah_ (on Isa. xxvii. 1) and in the _Pulpit - Comm. on Jeremiah_ (on Jer. li. 34). - -Footnote 9: - - See Chap. VII. (end of Section 2). - -Footnote 10: - - The translation follows Bickell’s text. The correction in line 2 of - ver. 16 is from the Septuagint; the transposition in line 4 is - suggested by 1 Kings xix. 12. - -Footnote 11: - - So xv. 15. M. Lenormant compares Gen. vi. 1-4 (an incomplete - fragment). See above on the ‘sons of the Elohim’ of the prologue, and - comp. Chap. X. - -Footnote 12: - - Compare the Hebrew _ne’ūm_ in a common prophetic formula. - -Footnote 13: - - The following lines develope what Job may be supposed to have had in - his mind. - -Footnote 14: - - Thomson has finely but inaccurately paraphrased this, changing the - localities:— - - ‘In Cairo’s crowded streets - The impatient merchant, wondering, waits in vain, - And Mecca saddens at the long delay.’ - - (_Summer_, 980-2; of the caravan which perished in the storm.) - -Footnote 15: - - Contrast the touchingly natural expressions of an Arabian poet, - translated by Rückert (_Hamâsa_, ii. 315):— - - ‘Gieng es nicht wie mir vil andern, - Würd’ ich’s nicht ertragen; - Doch wo ich nur will, gibt Antwort - Klage meinen Klagen.’ - - The same sentiment is expressed more than once again; comp. Buddha’s - apologue of the mustard seed. - -Footnote 16: - - So Merx and Bickell. Text, ‘my bones.’ - -Footnote 17: - - Bildad more than implies that the fate which overtook Job’s children - was the punishment of iniquity (viii. 4). Wonderful harshness! - -Footnote 18: - - See viii. 20. Bildad agrees with the statement in the prologue (i. 1). - -Footnote 19: - - Following Sept., with Merx and Bickell. - -Footnote 20: - - Comp. Isa. xxviii. 29 (Heb.) By a slight error of the ear the copyist - whom our Hebrew Bibles follow put a Yōd for an Alef. Hence the - Massoretic critics pronounce _kiflayim_ ‘twofold,’ instead of - _kif’lāim_ ‘like wonders:’ following this text, Davidson renders, - ‘that it is double in (true) understanding.’ - -Footnote 21: - - Literally ‘... that God brings into forgetfulness for thee some of thy - guilt.’ - -Footnote 22: - - Following Sept., with Bickell. Comp. the Hebrew of Job xxxiii. 27. - -Footnote 23: - - This rendering is based on the reading of the Hebrew margin. The - Hebrew text has, ‘Behold, should he slay me, for him would I wait,’ - implying an expectation of a Divine interposition in Job’s favour - after his death. But this idea is against the connection; besides - which the restrictive particle ‘only’ (nearly = still) agrees better - with the other reading and rendering. ‘Wait’ means ‘wait for a change - for the better,’ as in vi. 11, which occurs in a similar context. - -Footnote 24: - - He admits that he is not without sins (comp. ver. 26). - -Footnote 25: - - Comp. the well-known lamentation of Moschus (iii. 106-111). - -Footnote 26: - - See the notices from Wetzstein in Delitzsch. - - - - - CHAPTER II. - THE SECOND CYCLE OF SPEECHES. - (CHAPS. XV.-XXI.) - - -The three narrow-minded but well-meaning friends have exhausted their -arsenal of arguments. Each with his own favourite receipt has tried to -cure Job of his miserable illusion, and failed. Now begins a new cycle -of speeches, in which our sympathy is still more with Job than before. -His replies to the three friends ought to have shown them the -incompleteness of their argument and the necessity of discovering some -way of reconciling the elements of truth on both sides. _They_ can teach -him nothing, but the facts of spiritual experience which _he_ has -expounded ought to have taught them much. But all that they have learned -is the impossibility of bringing Job to self-humiliation by dwelling -upon the Divine attributes. No doubt their excuse lies in the -irreverence of their friend’s manner and expressions. It is a part of -the tragedy of Job that the advice which was meant for practical -sympathy only resulted in separating Job for a time both from God and -from his friends. The narrow views of the latter drove Job to -irreverence, and his irreverence deprived him of the lingering respect -of his friends and seemed to himself at times to cut off the slender -chance of a reconciliation with God. From this point onwards the friends -cease to offer their supposed ‘Divine consolations’ (xv. 11)—such as the -gracious purpose of God’s ways and the corrective object of affliction -(v. 8-27)—and content themselves with frightening Job by lurid pictures -of the wicked man’s fate, leading up, in the third cycle of speeches, to -a direct accusation of Job as a wicked man himself. And yet, strange to -say, as the tone of the friends becomes harsher and more cutting, Job -meets their vituperation with growing calmness and dignity. Disappointed -in his friends, he clings with convulsive energy to that never quite -surrendered postulate of his consciousness a God who owns the moral -claims of a creature on the Creator. Remarkable indeed is the first -distinct expression of this faith of the heart, of which an antiquated -orthodoxy sought to deprive him. He has just listened to the -personalities, the cruel assumptions, and the shallow commonplaces of -Eliphaz (who treats Job as an arrogant pretender and a self-convicted -blaspheming sinner), and with a few words of utter contempt he turns his -back on his ‘tormenting[27] comforters’ (xvi. 2). (Soon, however, he -will appeal to them for sympathy; so strong is human nature! See xix. -21.) Left to his own melancholy thoughts, he repeats the sad details of -his misery and of God’s hostility (and again we feel that the poet -thinks of suffering humanity in general[28]), and reasserts his -innocence in language afterwards used of the suffering Servant of -Jehovah (xvi. 17; comp. Isaiah liii. 9). Then in the highest excitement -he demands vengeance for his blood. But who is the avenger of blood but -God (xix. 25; comp. Ps. ix. 12)—the very Foe who is bringing him to -death? And hence the strange but welcome thought that behind the God of -pitiless force and undiscriminating severity there must be a God who -recognises and returns the love of His servants, or, in the fine words -of the Korán, ‘that there is no refuge from God but unto Him.’[29] ‘Even -now,’ as he lies on the rubbish-heap— - - Even now, behold, my Witness is in heaven, - and he that vouches for me is on high. - My friends (have become) my scorners; - mine eye sheds tears unto God— - that he would right a man against God, - and a son of man against his friend (xvi. 20, 21). - -It is a turning-point in the mental struggles of Job. He cannot indeed -account for his sufferings, but he ceases to regard God as an unfeeling -tyrant. He has a germ of faith in God’s goodwill towards him—only a -germ, but we are sure, even without the close of the story, that it will -grow up and bear the fruit of peace. And now, perhaps, we may qualify -the reproach addressed above to Job’s friends. It is true that they have -driven Job to irreverent speeches respecting God, but they have also -made it possible for him to reach the intuition (which the prophetic -Eliphaz has missed) of an affinity between the Divine nature and the -human. In an earlier speech (ix. 32-35) he has already expressed a -longing for an arbiter between himself and God. That longing is now -beginning to be gratified by the certitude that, though the God in the -world may be against him, the God in heaven is on his side. Not that -even God can undo the past; Job requests no interference with the -processes of nature. (Did the writer think that Job lived outside the -sphere of the age of miracles?) All that he asks is a pledge from God, -his Witness, to see his innocence recognised by God, his Persecutor -(xvii. 3). So far we are listening to Job the individual. But -immediately after we find the speaker exhibiting himself as the type of -a class—the class or representative category of innocent sufferers. Job, -then, has a dual aspect, like his God. - - And he hath set me for a byword of peoples, - and I am one in whose face men spit. - At this the upright are appalled, - and the innocent stirs himself up against the impious; - but the righteous holds on his way, - and he who has clean hands waxes stronger and stronger - (xvii. 6, 7, 9). - -Here it is difficult not to see that the circumstances of the poet’s age -are reflected in his words. The whole Jewish nation became ‘a byword of -peoples’ during the exile,[30] and the mutual sympathy of its members -was continually taxed. It was a paradox which never lost its strangeness -that a ‘Servant of Jehovah’ should be trampled upon by unbelievers, and -the persecutor was rewarded by the silent indignation of all good Jews. -That this is the right view is shown by the depression into which Job -falls in vv. 11-16, in spite of the elevating passage quoted above. - -Bildad’s speech, with its barbed allusions to Job’s sad history, had a -twofold effect. First of all it raised the anguish of Job to its highest -point, and, secondly, it threw the sufferer back on that great -intuition, already reached by him, of a Divine Witness to his integrity -in the heavens. It is a misfortune which can scarcely be appraised too -highly that the text of the famous declaration in xix. 25-27 is so -uncertain. ‘The embarrassment of the English translators,’ remarks Prof. -Green, of Princeton,[31] ‘is shown by the unusual number of italic -words, and these of no small importance to the meaning, which are heaped -together in these verses.’ It is scarcely greater, however, than that of -the ancient versions, and we can hardly doubt that the text used by the -Septuagint translator was already at least as corrupt as that which has -descended to us from the Massoretic critics.[32] This would the more -easily be the case since, as Prof. Green says again, ‘Job is speaking -under strong excitement and in the language of lofty poetry; he uses no -superfluous words; he simply indicates his meaning in the most concise -manner.’ Without now entering on a philological discussion, we have, I -think, to choose between these alternatives, one of which involves -emending the text, the other does not. Does Job simply repeat what he -has said in xvi. 18, 19 (viz. that God will avenge his blood and make -reparation, as it were, for his death by testifying to his innocence), -without referring to any consequent pleasure of his own, or does he -combine with this the delightful thought expressed in xiv. 13-15 of a -conscious renewal of communion with God after death?[33] The context, it -seems to me, is best satisfied by the former alternative. Job’s mind is -at present occupied with the cruelty, not of God (as when he said, ‘O -that thou wouldst appoint me a term and then remember me,’ xiv. 13), but -of his friends. His starting-point is, ‘How long will ye (my friends) -pain my soul?’ &c. (xix. 2.) We may admit that the best solution of -Job’s problem would be ‘the beatific vision’ in some early and not -clearly defined form of that deep idea; but if Job can say that he not -merely dreams but _knows_ this (‘I _know_ that ... I shall see God,’ -xix. 25, 26), the remainder of the colloquies ought surely to pursue a -very different course; as a matter of fact, neither Job nor his friends, -nor yet Jehovah Himself, refers to this supposed newly-won truth, and -the only part of ‘Job’s deepest saying’ which the next speaker fastens -upon (xx. 3) is the threatening conclusion (xix. 29). Ewald himself has -drawn attention to this, without remarking its adverse bearing on his -own interpretation.[34] - -Here, side by side, are Dr. A. B. Davidson’s and Dr. W. H. Green’s -translations of the received text of vv. 25-27, and Dr. Bickell’s -version of his own emended text. - - But I know that my redeemer liveth, - and in after time he shall stand upon the dust[35] - and after this my skin is destroyed - and without my flesh I shall see God: - whom I shall see for myself, - and mine eyes shall behold, and not another— - my reins consume within me! - -And I know my redeemer liveth, and last on earth shall he arise; and -after my skin, which has been destroyed thus, and out of my flesh [i.e. -when my vital spirit shall be separated from my flesh] shall I see -God.... - - Ich weiss, es lebt mein Retter, - Wird noch auf meinem Staub stehn; - Zuletzt wird Gott mein Zeuge, - Lässt meine Unschuld schauen, - Die ich allein jetzt schaun kann, - Mein Auge und kein andres. - -Most critics are now agreed that the immediately preceding words (vv. -23, 24) are not an introduction, as if vv. 25-27 composed the rock -inscription. Job first of all wishes what he knows to be impossible, and -then announces a far better thing of which he is sure. His wish runs -thus: - - Would then that they were written down— - my words—in a book, and engraved - with a pen of iron, and with lead - cut out for a witness in the rock.[36] - -But whatever view we take of the prospect which gladdened the mind of -Job, his remaining speeches contain no further reference to it. -Henceforth his thoughts appear to dwell less on his own condition, and -more on the general question of God’s moral government, and even when -the former is spoken of it is without the old bitterness. In his next -speech, stirred up by the gross violence of Zophar, Job for the first -time meets the assertions of the three friends in this cycle of -argument, viz. that the wicked, at any rate, always get their deserts, -and, according to Zophar, suddenly and overwhelmingly. He meets them by -a direct negative, though in doing so he is as much perturbed as when he -proclaimed his own innocence to God’s face. He is familiar now with the -thought that the righteous are not always recompensed, but it fills him -with horror to think that the Governor of the world even leaves the -wicked in undeserved prosperity, as if, in the language of Eliphaz, He -could not ‘judge through the thick clouds’ (xxii. 16). - - Why do the wicked live on, - become old, yea, are mighty in power? - Their houses are safe, without fear, - neither is Eloah’s rod upon them. - They wear away their days in happiness, - and go down to Sheól in a moment (xxi. 7, 9, 13). - -Footnote 27: - - Miss E. Smith’s rendering, ‘irksome,’ Renan’s ‘insupportable,’ are not - definite enough. Job means that his would-be comforters do but - aggravate his unease. - -Footnote 28: - - Notice the expressions in xvi. 10, and comp. Ps. xxii. 7, 12, 13. (Ps. - xxii., like the Book of Job, has some features which belong to an - individual and some to a collection of sufferers.) Job would never - have spoken of his friends in the terms used in xvi. 10, 11. - -Footnote 29: - - Sur. ix. 119. - -Footnote 30: - - Comp. Ps. xxii. 6, Isa. xlix. 7, Joel ii. 17 (where we should render - ‘make a byword upon them’). - -Footnote 31: - - _The Argument of the Book of Job_ (1881), p. 200. - -Footnote 32: - - Dr. Hermann Schultz is an unexceptionable witness, because his tastes - lead him more to Biblical and dogmatic theology than to minute textual - studies. He is convinced, he says, after each fresh examination, of - ‘the baffling intricacy and obscurity and the probable corruption of - the text’ (_Alttestamentliche Theologie_, ed. 2 [1878], pp. 661-2). - -Footnote 33: - - I agree with Dr. W. H. Green that the third view, which ‘conceives Job - to be here looking forward, not to a future state, but to the - restoration of God’s favour and his own deliverance out of all his - troubles in the present life,’ is to be rejected. I do not follow him - in all his reasons, but these two are decisive. 1. Everywhere else Job - ‘regards himself as on the verge of the grave.... Every earthly hope - is annulled; every temporal prospect has vanished. He invariably - repels the idea, whenever his friends present it to him, of any - improvement of his condition in this world as plainly impossible.’ 2. - ‘If he here utters his expectation that God will interfere to reward - his piety in the present life, he completely abandons his own position - and adopts [that of the friends].’ (_The Argument of Job_, pp. 204-5). - -Footnote 34: - - Job’s vindication, thinks Ewald, would be incomplete if at least the - spirit of the dead man did not witness it. - -Footnote 35: - - The dust beneath which Job lies: comp. ‘ye that dwell in dust’ (Isa. - xxvi. 19). - -Footnote 36: - - On the text see Bickell, Merx, Hitzig; on the use of metal for public - notices see Chabas, quoted by Cook in _Speaker’s Comm._, _ad loc._ - - - - - CHAPTER III. - THE THIRD CYCLE OF SPEECHES. - (CHAPS. XXII.-XXXI.) - - -It is not wonderful that the gulf between Job and his friends should -only be widened by such a direct contradiction of the orthodox tenet. -The friends, indeed, cannot but feel the force of Job’s appeal to -experience, as they show by the violence of their invective. But they -are neither candid nor, above all, courageous enough to confess the -truth; they speak, as the philosopher Kant observes, as if they knew -their powerful Client was listening in the background. And so a third -cycle of speeches begins (chaps. xxii.-xxxi.), in which the friends -grasp the only weapon left them and charge Job directly with being a -great sinner. True to his character, however, Eliphaz even here seeks to -soften the effect of his accusations by a string of most enticing -promises, partly worldly and partly other-worldly in their character, -and which in a different context Job would have heartily appreciated -(xxii. 21-30). - -But Job cares not to reply to those charges of Eliphaz; his mind is -still too much absorbed in the painful mystery of his own lot and that -of all other righteous sufferers. He longs for God to set up his -tribunal, so that Job and his fellows might plead their cause (xxiii. -3-7, xxiv. 1). What most of all disturbs him is that he cannot see -God—that is cannot detect the operation of that moral God in whom his -heart cannot help believing. ‘I may go forward, but he is not there; and -backward, but I cannot perceive him’ (xxiii. 8). With the ardour of a -pessimist he depicts this failure of justice in the darkest colours -(chap. xxiv.), and is as powerless as ever to reconcile his deep sense -of what God ought to be and must be and the sad realities of life. Upon -this Bildad tries to frighten Job into submission by a picture of God’s -irresistible power, as exhibited not only in heaven and earth, but even -beneath the ocean depths in the realm of the shades (xxv., xxvi. 5-14). -Not a very comforting speech, but fine in its way (if Bildad may really -be credited with all of it), and the speaker frankly allows its -inadequacy. - - Lo! these are the outskirts of his ways, - and how faintly spoken is that which we hear! - but the thunder of his power who can understand? (xxvi. 14.) - -In a speech, the first which is described as a _mashal_,[37] Job -demolishes his unoriginal and rhetorical opponent, and with dignity -reasserts his innocence (xxvi. 1-4, xxvii. 1-7). He may have said more; -if so, it has been lost. But, in fact, all that was argumentative in -Bildad’s speech was borrowed from Eliphaz, and though Job had the power -(see chaps. ix., xii.), he had not the will to compete with his friends -in rhetoric. The only speaker who is left is Zophar, and, as it is -unlikely that the poet left one of his triads of speeches imperfect, we -may conjecture that xxvii. 8-10, 10-23 belongs to the third speech of -Zophar.[38] Certainly they are most inappropriate in the mouth of Job, -being in direct contradiction to all that he has yet said. If so it -seems very probable that besides the introductory formula a few opening -verses have dropped out of the text. The verses which now stand at the -head of the speech transport us to the disputes of those rival schools -of which Job and his friends were only the representatives. Hence the -use of the plural in ver. 12, of which an earlier instance occurs in the -second speech of Bildad (xviii. 2). What Zophar says is in effect this: -Job’s condition is desperate, for he is an ‘impious’ or ‘godless’ man. -It is too late for any one to attempt to pray when overtaken by a fatal -calamity. For how can he feel that ‘deep delight’ in God which enables a -man to pray, with the confidence of being heard, ‘in every season’ of -life, whether prosperous or the reverse? The rest of the speech is -substantially a repetition of Zophar’s former description of the -retribution of the wicked. It was not to be expected that Job should -reply to this, and accordingly we find that in continuing his _mashal_ -(xxix. 1) he utterly ignores his opponents. But unhappily he is almost -as far as ever from a solution of his difficulty. His friends, we may -suppose, have left him, and he is at liberty to revive those melancholy -memories which are all that remain to him of his prosperity. - -In chap. xxix. (a fine specimen of flowing, descriptive Hebrew poetry) -Job recalls the honour in which he used to be held, and the beneficent -acts which he was enabled to perform. Modesty were out of place, for he -is already in the state of ‘one turned adrift among the dead’ (Ps. -lxxxviii. 5). The details remind us of many Arabic elegies in the -_Hamâsa_ (e.g. No. 351 in Rückert’s adaptation, vol. i., or 97 in -Freytag). In chaps. xxx., xxxi. he laments, with the same pathetic -self-contemplation, his ruined credit and the terrible progress of his -disease. Then, by a somewhat abrupt transition,[39] he enters upon an -elaborate profession of his innocence, which has been compared to the -solemn repudiation of the forty-two deadly sins by the departed souls of -the good in the Egyptian ‘Book of the Dead.’ The resemblance, however, -must not be pressed too far. Job’s morality, even if predominantly -‘legal,’ has a true ‘evangelical’ tinge. Not merely the act of adultery, -but the glance of lust; not merely unjust gain, but the confidence -reposed in it by the heart; not merely outward conformity to -idol-worship, but the inclination of the heart to false gods, are in his -catalogue of sins. His last words are a reiteration of his deeply -cherished desire for an investigation of his case by Shaddai. With what -proud self-possession he imagines himself approaching the Divine Judge! -In his hands are the accusations of his friends and his own reply. -Holding them forth, he exclaims— - - Here is my signature—let Shaddai answer me— - and the indictment which mine adversary has written. - Surely upon my shoulder will I carry it, - and bind it as chaplets about me. - The number of my steps will I declare unto him; - as a prince will I come near unto him (xxxi. 35-37).[40] - -We must here turn back to a passage which forms one of the most admired -portions of the Book of Job as it stands—the _mashal_ on Divine Wisdom -in chap. xxviii. The first eleven verses are at first sight most -inappropriate in this connection. The poet seems to take a delight in -working into them all that he knows of the adventurous operations of the -miners of his day—probably those carried on for gold in Upper Egypt, and -for copper and turquoises in the Sinaitic peninsula (both skilfully -introduced by Ebers into his stories of ancient Egypt). How vividly the -superiority of reason to instinct is brought out to vary the technical -description of the miners’ work in vv. 7, 8. - - A path the eagle knows not, - nor has the eye of the vulture scanned it; - the sons of pride have not trodden it, - nor hath the lion passed over it. - -No earthly treasures lie too deep for human industry; but—here we see -the use of the great literary feat (Prov. i.-ix.) which has gone -before—‘where can wisdom be found, and where is the place of -understanding?’ And then follows that fine passage in which language is -strained to the uttermost (with another of those pictorial inventories -in which poets delight, vv. 15-19) to convey at once the preciousness -and the unattainableness of the higher wisdom. The moral of the whole, -however, is not revealed till the last verse. - - And unto man he said, - ‘Behold, the fear of the Lord is wisdom, - and to turn aside from evil is understanding’ (xxviii. 28). - -Thus there is no allusion whatever to Job’s problem, and it is only the -present position of the _mashal_ in the Book of Job which suggests a -possible relation for it to that problem. - -And now, looking at the passage by itself, is it conceivable that it was -originally written to stand where it now does? Is it natural that the -solemn contents of chap. xxvii. (even if we allow the first seven verses -only to be Job’s) should leave Job in a mood for an elaborate poetical -study of mining operations, or that after agonising so long over the -painful riddles of Divine Providence he should suddenly acquiesce in the -narrow limits of human knowledge, soon, however, to relapse into his old -inquisitiveness? Is it not, on the other hand, very conceivable (notice -the opening word ‘For’) that it was transferred to its present position -from some other work? In a didactic poem on Wisdom (i.e. the plan of the -universe), similar to Prov. i.-ix., it would be as much in place as the -hymn on Wisdom in Prov. viii. To this great work indeed it presents more -than one analogy, both in its subject and its recommendation of -religious morality (or moral religion) as the branch of wisdom suitable -to man. The only difference is that the writer of Job xxviii. expressly -says that this is the only wisdom within human ken, whereas the writer -of Prov. viii. does not touch on this point. But, whether an extract -from a larger work or written as a supplement to the poem of Job, the -passage in its present position is evidently intended to have a -reference to Job’s problem. The author, or the extractor, regarded the -foregoing debates much as Milton regarded those of the fallen angels, -who ‘found no end, in wandering mazes lost;’ in short, he could only -solve the problem by pronouncing it insoluble.[41] Verses 11 and 12 of -chap. xxvii. have very much the appearance of an artificial bridge -inserted by the new author or the extractor. - -Footnote 37: - - On this characteristic word for parallelistic poetry, see on Proverbs. - -Footnote 38: - - Note that xxvii. 13 is repeated from an earlier speech of Zophar (xx. - 29). There it concludes a sketch of the ‘impious’ man’s fate; here it - begins a similar description. Verses 11 and 12 of the same chapter - would stand more properly (Bickell and virtually Hirzel) immediately - before chap. xxviii. Mr. B. Wright is very near doing the same; - following Eichhorn, he takes vv. 13-23 as a specimen quoted by Job of - the friends’ ‘inconsequential’ style of argument (a less natural - hypothesis than that adopted here). - -Footnote 39: - - It seems clear that chap. xxii. was not written as the sequel of chap. - xxx. Since, however, it bears such a strong impress of originality, - one can only suppose that the author placed it here by an - afterthought, and omitted to construct a connecting link with the - preceding chapter. - -Footnote 40: - - These verses have been misplaced in the Massoretic text (as Isa. - xxxviii. 21, 22). They clearly ought to stand at the end of the - chapter. So Kennicott, Eichhorn, Merx, Delitzsch. - -Footnote 41: - - But for this tendency of the poem one might follow Delitzsch (art. - ‘Hiob’ in _Herzog-Plitt_, vi. 133) and regard chap. xxviii. as - inserted by the author of _Job_ from his ‘portfolio.’ - - - - - CHAPTER IV. - THE SPEECHES OF ELIHU. - (CHAPS. XXXII.-XXXVII.) - - -At a (perhaps) considerably later period than the original work -(including chap. xxviii.)—symbolised by the youthfulness of Elihu as -compared with the four older friends—the problem of the sufferings of -the innocent still beset the minds of the wise men, the attempt of the -three friends to ‘justify the ways of God’ to the intellect having -proved, as the wise men thought, a too manifest failure (xxxii. 2, 3). -One of their number therefore invented a fourth friend, Elihu (or is -this the name of the author himself?[42]), who is described as having -been a listener during the preceding debates, and who reduces Job to -silence. It is noteworthy that the sudden introduction of Elihu required -the insertion of a fresh narrative passage (xxxii. 1-6) as a supplement -to the original prologue. - -I assume, as the reader will observe, the one assured result of the -criticism of Job. To those who follow me in this, the speeches of Elihu -will, I think, gain greatly in interest. They mark out a time when, -partly through the teaching of history, partly through a deeper inward -experience, and partly through the reading of the poem of _Job_, the old -difficulties of faith were no longer so acutely felt. Two courses were -open to the Epigoni of that age—either to force Job to say what, as it -seemed, he ought to have said (this, however, was not so easy as in the -case of Ecclesiastes), or to insert fresh speeches in the style of the -original, separating the corn from the chaff in the pleadings of the -three friends, and adding whatever a more advanced religious thought -suggested to the writer. In forms of expression, however, it must be -admitted that Elihu does not shine. (True, he does not profess to -comfort Job.) For offensiveness the two following verses are not easily -matched: - - Where is there a man like Job, - who drinks[43] scoffing like water? (xxxiv. 7.) - Would that Job might be tried to the uttermost - because of his answers in the manner of wicked men (xxxiv. 36). - -A ‘vulgar braggart’ he may not be from an Oriental point of view, nor is -he ‘the prototype of the Bachelor in _Faust_;’ but that he is too -positive and dogmatic, and much overrates his own powers, is certain. He -represents the dogmatism of a purified orthodoxy, which thinks too much -of its minute advances (‘one perfect in knowledge is with thee,’ xxxvi. -4). - -Elihu distributes his matter (of which he says that he is ‘full,’ xxxii. -18-20) over four speeches. His themes in the first three are: 1, the -ground and object of suffering (chaps. xxxii., xxxiii.); 2, the -righteousness of God (chap. xxxiv.); and 3, the use of religion (chap. -xxxv.), all of which are treated in relation to the questionable or -erroneous utterances of Job. Then, in his last and longest effort, Elihu -unrolls before Job a picture of the government of God, in its -beneficence and righteousness as well as its omnipotence, in the hope of -moving Job to self-humiliation (chaps. xxxvi., xxxvii.) Let us remember -again that Elihu represents the debates of the ‘wise men’ of the -post-regal period, who were conscious of being in some sense ‘inspired’ -like their prophetic predecessors (xxxii. 8, xxxvi. 4; Ecclus. xxiv. -32-34, l. 28, 29), so that we cannot believe that the _bizarre_ -impression made by Elihu on some Western critics was intended by the -original author. That his portrait suggests certain grave infirmities, -may be granted; but these are the failings of the circle to which the -author belongs: the self-commendation of Elihu in his exordium is hardly -excessive from an Oriental point of view, or would at any rate be -justifiable in a more original thinker. Indeed, he only commends himself -in order to excuse the unusual step of criticising the proceedings of -men so much older than himself. After what he thinks sufficient excuse -has been offered, Elihu takes up Job’s fundamental error, -self-righteousness, but prepares the way by examining Job’s assertion -(xix. 7, xxx. 20) that God took no heed of his complaints. - - Wherefore hast thou contended with Him - because ‘He answers none of my words’?[44] (xxxiii. 13.) - -To this Elihu replies that it is a man’s own fault if he cannot hear the -Divine voice. For God is constantly speaking to man, if man would only -regard it (‘revelation,’ then, is not confined to a class or a -succession). Two means of communication are specially mentioned—nightly -dreams and visions, and severe sickness. The object of both is to divert -men from courses of action which can only lead to destruction. At this -point a remarkable intimation is given. In order to produce conversion, -and so to ‘redeem a man from going down to the pit,’ a special angelic -agency is necessary—that of a ‘mediator’ or ‘interpreter’ (Targ. -_p’raqlītā_; comp. παράκλητος, John xiv. 16, 26), whose office it is to -‘show unto man his rightness’ (i.e. how to conform his life to the right -standard, xxxiii. 23). - -We must pause here, however, to consider the bearings of this. It seems -to show us, first, that inspired minds (see above) were already -beginning to refine and elevate the popular notions of the spiritual -world. That there were two classes of spirits, the one favourable, the -other adverse to man, had long been the belief of the Israelites and -their neighbours.[45] The author of the speeches of Elihu now introduces -one of them among the symbols of a higher stage of religion. In -antithesis to the ‘destroyers’[46] (ver. 22) he implies that God has -thousands of angels (the ‘mediator’ is ‘one among a thousand’), whose -business it is to save sinners from destruction by leading them to -repentance. Such is the φιλανθρωπία, the friendliness to man, of the -angelic world, without which indeed, according to Elihu, the purpose of -sickness would be unobserved and a fatal issue inevitable. To students -of Christianity, however, it has a deeper interest, if the concluding -words, ‘I have found a ransom,’ be a part of the Old Testament -foundation of the doctrine of redemption through Christ. This, however, -is questionable, and even its possibility is not recognised by the -latest orthodox commentator.[47] In his second speech Elihu returns to -the main question of Job’s attitude towards God. He begins by imputing -to Job language which he had never used, and which from its extreme -irreverence Job would certainly have disowned (xxxiv. 5, 9), and -maintains that God never acts unjustly, but rewards every man according -to his deeds. There is nothing in his treatment of this theme which -requires comment except its vagueness and generality, to which, were the -speech an integral part of the poem, Job would certainly have taken -exception. - -The subject of the third speech is handled with more originality. Job -had really complained that afflicted persons such as himself appealed to -God in vain (xxiv. 12, xxx. 20). Elihu replies to this (xxxv. 9-13) that -such persons merely cried from physical pain, and did not really pray. -The fourth and last speech, in which he dismisses controversy and -expresses his own sublime ideas of the Creator, has the most poetical -interest. At the very outset the solemnity of his language prepares the -reader to expect something great, and the expectation is not altogether -disappointed. ‘God,’ he says, ‘is mighty, but despiseth not any’ (xxxvi. -5); He has given proof of this by the trials with which He visits His -servants when they have fallen into sin. Might and mercy are the -principal attributes of God. The verses in which Elihu applies this -doctrine to Job’s case are ambiguous and perhaps corrupt, but it appears -as if Elihu regarded Job as in danger of missing the disciplinary object -of his sufferings. It is in the second part of his speech (xxxvi. -26-xxxvii. 24) that Elihu displays his greatest rhetorical power, and -though by no means equal to the speeches of Jehovah, which it appears to -imitate, the vividness of its descriptions has obtained the admiration -of no less competent a judge than Alexander von Humboldt. The moral is -intended to be that, instead of criticising God, Job should humble -himself in devout awe at the combined splendour and mystery of the -creation. - -It is tempting to regard the sketch of the storm in xxxvi. 29-xxxvii. 5 -and the appeals which Elihu makes to Job as preparatory to the -appearance of Jehovah in xxxviii. 1. ‘While Elihu is speaking,’ says Mr. -Turner, ‘the clouds gather, a storm darkens the heavens and sweeps -across the landscape, and the thunder utters its voice ... out of the -whirlwind that passes by Jehovah speaks.’[48] So too Dr. Cox thinks that -Job’s invisible Opponent ‘opens His mouth and answers him out of the -tempest which Elihu has so graphically described.’[49] In fact in -xxxviii. 1 we may equally well render ‘_the_ tempest’ (i.e. that lately -mentioned) and ‘_a_ tempest.’ The objection is (1) that the storm does -not come into the close of Elihu’s speech, as it ought to do, and (2) -that in His very first words Jehovah distinctly implies that the last -speaker was one who ‘darkened counsel by words without knowledge’ -(xxxviii. 3). - -Such are the contributions of Elihu, which gain considerably when -considered as a little treatise in themselves. It is, indeed, a strange -freak of fancy to regard Elihu as representing the poet himself.[50] -Neither æsthetically nor theologically do they reach the same high mark -as the remainder of the book. ‘The style of Elihu,’ as M. Renan remarks, -‘is cold, heavy, pretentious. The author loses himself in long -descriptions without vivacity.... His language is obscure and presents -peculiar difficulties. In the other parts of the poem the obscurity -comes from our ignorance and our scanty means of comprehending these -ancient documents; here the obscurity comes from the style itself, from -its _bizarrerie_ and affectation.’[51] Theologically it is difficult to -discover any important point (but see Chap. XII., below, on Elihu) in -which, in spite of his sharp censure of the friends, he distinctly -passes beyond them. His arguments have been so largely anticipated by -the three friends that, on the whole, we may perhaps best regard chaps. -xxxii.-xxxix. as a first theological criticism on the contents of the -original work. From this point of view it is interesting that the idea -of affliction as correction, which had already occurred to Eliphaz, -acquired in the course of years a much deeper hold on thinking minds -(see xxxiii. 19-30, xxxvi. 8-10). There is one feature of the earlier -speeches which is not imitated by Elihu, and that is the long and -terrifying descriptions in each of the three original colloquies of the -fate of the impious man, and one of the most considerate of Elihu’s -Western critics[52] thinks it possible that Elihu, who says in one -place— - - And the impious in heart cherish wrath, - and supplicate not when he hath bound them (xxxvi. 13)— - -considered no calamity whatever as penal in the first instance. - -Footnote 42: - - So M. Derenbourg, who points out that none of the other speakers have - a genealogy, and identifies Buz with Boaz, and Ram with an ancestor of - David (Ruth iv. 19). The author of chaps. xxxii.-xxxvii. might thus be - a descendant of Elihu the brother of David (1 Chr. xxvii. 18). - -Footnote 43: - - On ‘drinks’ see Thomson, _The Land and the Book_, p. 319. - -Footnote 44: - - The _text_ (which has ‘_His_ words’) is generally rendered ‘because He - gives not account of any of His matters,’ i.e. of the details of His - government. This is very strained; the Sept. has ‘my words,’ the - Vulgate ‘thy words,’ either of which readings gives a natural sense. - -Footnote 45: - - See 2 Sam. xxiv. 16, and comp. 1 Chr. xxi. 15, Ps. xxviii. 49, Prov. - xvi. 14, Ezek. ix. 1, x. 7; also Jost, _Gesch. des Judenthums_, i. - 304. For Assyria see _Records of the Past_, i. 131-5: iv. 53-60 (the - sinner was thought to be given up in displeasure by his God into the - hands of the evil spirits). For Arabia see Korán, lxxix. 1, 2— - - ‘By those (angels) who tear out (souls) with violence, - And by those who joyously release them:’ - - for the early Christian, Justin M. _Dial. e. Tryph._ 105, τὰ αὐτὰ - αἰτῶμεν τὸν θεὸν, τὸν δυνάμενον ἀποστρέψαι πάντα ἀναιδῆ πονηρὸν - ἄγγελον μὴ λαβέσθαι ἡμῶν τῆς ψυχῆς: and for the medieval, Dante, - _Inferno_, xxvii. 112-123: _Purgatorio_, v. 103-108. Comp. below, - Chap. X. - -Footnote 46: - - Blake seems to have felt Elihu’s strong faith in the angels. The - border of his 12th illustration is filled with a stream of delicate - angel forms. - -Footnote 47: - - Davidson. Ewald explains the ‘ransom’ partly of the intercession of - the angel, partly of the prayer of repentance. - -Footnote 48: - - Turner, _Studies Biblical and Oriental_, p. 146. - -Footnote 49: - - Cox, _Commentary on the Book of Job_, p. 489. - -Footnote 50: - - So Lightfoot (see Lowth, _Prælect._ xxxii.). - -Footnote 51: - - _Le livre de Job_, p. liv. - -Footnote 52: - - Davidson, _The Book of Job_, p. xlv. - - - - - CHAPTER V. - THE SPEECHES OF JEHOVAH. - (CHAPS. XXXVIII.-XLII. 6.) - - -‘The words of Job are ended’ (xxxi. 40_b_), remarks the ancient editor, -and amongst the last of these words is an aspiration after a meeting -with God. That Job expected such a favour in this life is in the highest -degree improbable, whatever view be taken of xix. 25-27. It is true, he -sometimes did almost regard a theophany as possible, though he feared it -might be granted under conditions which would make it the reverse of a -boon (ix. 3, 15, 33-35; xiii. 21, 22). He wished for a fair -investigation of his character, and he craved that God would not appear -in too awful a form. It seems at first sight as if Jehovah, casting hard -questions at Job out of the tempest, and ignoring both the friends’ -indictment and Job’s defence (xxxi. 35-37), were realising Job’s worst -fears and acting as his enemy. The friends had already sought to humble -Job by pointing him to the power and wisdom and goodness of God, and Job -had proved conclusively that he was no stranger to these high thoughts. -Is the poet consistent with himself, first, in introducing Jehovah at -all, and, secondly, in making Him overpower Job by a series of sharp, -ironical questions? Several answers may be given if we wish to defend -the unity of the poem. Job himself (it may be said) has not continued at -the same high level of faith as in xix. 25-27 (assuming Prof. Davidson’s -view of the passage); he needs the appearance of Jehovah more than he -did then. As to the course attributed in xxxviii. 1 to Jehovah, this too -(the poet may have felt in adding these speeches) was really the best -for Job. Jehovah might no doubt have declared Job to be in the right as -against his friends. He might next have soothed the sufferer’s mind by -revealing the reason why his trials were permitted (_we_ know this from -the Prologue). But this would not have been for Job’s spiritual welfare: -there was one lesson he needed to learn or to relearn, one grace of -character he needed to gain or to regain—namely, devout and trustful -humility towards God. In the heat of debate and under the pressure of -pain Job’s old religious habit of mind had certainly been weakened—not -destroyed, but weakened—and a strong remedy was necessary if he was not -to carry his distracted feelings to the grave. And so, as a first joyful -surprise, came the theophany: to ‘see’ God before death _must_ have been -a joyful surprise; and if the questioning cast him down, yet it was only -to raise him up in the strength of self-distrust. The object of these -orations of Jehovah is not to communicate intellectual light, but to -give a stronger tone to Job’s whole nature. He had long known God to be -strong and wise and good, but more as a lesson learned than as personal -experience (xlii. 5). And the means first adopted to convey this -life-giving ‘sight’ is not without a touch of that humour which we -noticed in the Prologue. Job, who was so full of questions, now has the -tables turned upon him. He is put through a catechism which admits of -but one very humbling answer, each question being attached to a -wonderfully vivid description of some animal or phenomenon. For -descriptive power the first speech of Jehovah, at any rate, is without a -parallel. The author, as Prof. Davidson remarks, ‘knew the great law -that sublimity is necessarily also simplicity.’ It is true he does but -give us isolated features of the natural world: no single scene is -represented in its totality. But this is in accordance with the Hebrew -genius, to which nature appears, not in her own simple beauty, but -bathed in an atmosphere of emotion. The emotion which here animates the -poet is mainly a religious one; it is the love of God, and of God’s -works for the sake of their Maker. He wishes to cure the murmuring -spirits of his own day by giving them wider views of external nature and -its mysteries, so wondrously varied and so full of Divine wisdom and -goodness. He has this great advantage in doing so, that they, like -himself (and Job), are theists; they are not of those who say in their -heart, ‘There is no God,’ but of the ‘Zion’ who complains, ‘Jehovah has -forsaken me, and my Lord has forgotten me’ (Isaiah xlix. 14). And the -remedy which he applies is the same as that of the Babylonian-Jewish -prophet, a wider study of the ways of God. Job had said, ‘I would tell -Him the number of my steps;’ Jehovah replies by showing him, in a series -of questions, not irritating but persuasive, the footprints of His own -larger self-manifestation. - -The Divine Speaker is introduced by the poet thus: - - And Jehovah answered Job out of a tempest, and said. - -A storm was the usual accompaniment of a Divine appearance: there was no -intention of crushing Job with terror. In Blake’s thirteenth drawing Job -(and his wife!) are represented kneeling and listening, with -countenances expressive of thankfulness; in his fourteenth, Job and his -four friends kneel rapt and ecstatic, while the ‘sons of God,’ sweet, -vital, heavenly forms, are shouting for joy. In fact, the speeches of -Jehovah contain, not accusations (except in xxxviii. 2), but -remonstrances, and, though the form of these is chilling to Job’s -self-love, yet the glorious visions which they evoke are healing to -every sorrow of the mind. The text of the speeches is unfortunately not -in perfect order. For instance, there are four verses which have, no one -can tell how, been deposited in the description of behemoth (xli. 9-12, -A. V.) but which most probably at one time or another opened the first -speech of Jehovah. Perhaps the author himself removed them, feeling them -to be too depressing for Job to hear; or perhaps it was purely by -accident that they were transferred, and Merx and Bickell have done well -to replace them in their corrected editions of _Job_ between xxxi. 37 -and xxxviii. 1. As corrected by the former they run thus:— - - Behold, his hope is belied: - will he fight against mine appearing? - He is not so bold as to stir me up; - who indeed could stand before me? - Who ever attacks me in safety? - all beneath the whole heaven is mine. - I will not take his babbling in silence, - his mighty speech and its comely arrangement. - -We must regard this as a soliloquy, after which, directly addressing -Job, Jehovah upbraids the ‘mighty speaker’ with having shut himself out -by his ‘blind clamour’ from a view of the Divine plan of his life. - - Who is this that darkens counsel - by words without knowledge? (xxxviii. 2.) - -To gain that ‘knowledge’ which will ‘make darkness light before him,’ -Job must enrich his conception of God. Those striking pictures already -referred to have no lower aim than to display the great All-wise God, -and the irony of the catechising is only designed to bring home the more -forcibly to Job human littleness and ignorance. Modern readers, however, -cannot help turning aside to admire the genius of the poet and his -sympathetic interest in nature. His scientific ideas may be crude; but -he observes as a poet, and not as a naturalist. Earth, sea, and sky -successively enchain him, and we can hardly doubt that the natural -philosophy of the Chaldæans was superficially at least known to him.[53] -In his childlike curiosity and willingness to tell us everything he -reminds us of the poet of the _Commedia_. - - Has the rain a father?[54] - or who has begotten the dew-drops? - from whose womb came forth the ice, - and the hoar frost of heaven—who engendered it, - (that) the waters close together like a stone, - and the face of the deep hides itself? - Dost thou bind the knots of the Pleiades,[55] - or loose the fetters of Orion?[56] - Dost thou bring forth the moon’s watches at their season, - and the Bear and her offspring—dost thou guide them? - Knowest thou the laws of heaven? - dost thou determine its influence upon the earth? - (xxxviii. 28-33.) - -‘The laws of heaven!’ Can we refuse to observe the first beginnings of a -conception of the cosmos, remembering other passages of the Wisdom -Literature in which the great world plan is distinctly referred to? -Without denying a pre-Exile, native Hebrew tendency (comp. Job xxxviii. -33 with Jer. xxxi. 35, 36) may we not suppose that the physical theology -of Babylonia had a large part in determining the form of this -conception? Notice the reference to the influence of the sky upon the -earth, and especially the Hebraised Babylonian phrase Mazzaroth (i.e. -_mazarati_,[57] plural of _mazarta_, a watch), the watches or stations -of the moon which marked the progress of the month. But it is not so -much the intellectual curiosity manifest in these verses which we would -dwell upon now as the poetic vigour of the gallery of zoology, and, we -must add, the faith which pervades it, reminding us of a Bedouin prayer -quoted by Major Palmer, ‘O Thou who providest for the blind hyæna, -provide for me!’ Ten (or nine) specimens of animal life are given—the -lion and (perhaps) the raven,[58] the wild goat and the hind, the wild -ass, the wild ox,[59] the ostrich, the war horse, the hawk and the -eagle. It is to this portion that the student must turn who would fain -know the highest attainments of the Hebrew genius in pure poetry, such -as Milton would have recognised as poetry. The delighted wonder with -which the writer enters into the habits of the animals, and the light -and graceful movement of the verse, make the ten descriptions referred -to an ever-attractive theme, I will not say for the translator, but for -the interpreter. They are ideal, as the Greek sculptures are ideal, and -need the pen of that poet-student, faint hints of whose coming have been -given us in Herder and Rückert. The finest of them, of course, is that -of one of the animals most nearly related in Arabia to man (in Arabia, -but not in Judæa), the horse. - - Dost thou give might to the horse? - Dost thou clothe his neck with waving mane? - Dost thou make him bound as a locust? - The peal of his snort is terrible! - He paws in the valley and rejoices in his strength; - he goes forth to meet the weapons; - he laughs at fear, and is not dismayed, - and recoils not from the sword: - the quiver clangs upon him, - the flashing lance and the javelin: - bounding furiously he swallows the ground, - and cannot stand still at the blast of the trumpet; - at every blast he says, ‘Aha!’ - and smells the battle from afar, - the captain’s thunder and the cry of battle (xxxix. 19-25). - -The terrible element in animal instincts seems indeed to fascinate the -mind of our poet; he closes his gallery with a sketch of the cruel -instincts of the glorious eagle. We are reminded, perhaps, of the lines -of a poet painter inspired by Job— - - Tiger, tiger, burning bright - In the forests of the night, - What immortal hand or eye - Could frame thy fearful symmetry?[60] - -And now we might almost think that the object of the theophany has been -attained. Never more will Job presume to litigate with Shaddai, or -measure the doings of God by his puny intellect. He has learned the -lesson expressed in Dante’s line— - - State contenti, umana gente, al quia,[61] - -but also that higher lesson, so boldly expressed by the same poet, that -in all God’s works, without exception, three attributes are seen united— - - Fecemi la divina potestate, - La somma sapienza, e ’l primo amore.[62] - -He is silenced, indeed, but only as with the poet of Paradise— - - All’ alta fantasia qui mancò possa.[63] - -The silence with which both these ‘vessels of election’ meet the Divine -revelation is the silence of satisfaction, even though this be mingled -with awe. Job has learned to forget himself in the wondrous creation of -which he forms a part, just as Dante when he saw - - La forma universal di questo nodo.[64] - -Job cannot, indeed, as yet express his feelings; awe preponderates over -satisfaction in the words assigned to him in xl. 4, 5. In fact, he has -fallen below his better knowledge, and must be humbled for this. He has -known that he is but a part of humanity—a representative of the larger -whole, and might, but for his frailty, have comforted himself in that -thought. God’s power and wisdom and goodness are so wondrously blended -in the great human organism that he might have rested amidst his -personal woes in the certainty of at least an indirect connection with -the gentler manifestations of the ‘Watcher of mankind’ (vii. 20). This -thought has proved ineffectual, and so the Divine Instructor tries -another order of considerations. And, true enough, nature effects what -‘the still, sad music of humanity’ has failed to teach. Job, however, -needs more than teaching; he needs humiliation for his misjudgment of -God’s dealings with him personally. Hence in His second short but -weighty speech ‘out of the tempest’ Jehovah begins with the question -(xl. 8)— - - Wilt thou make void my justice? - wilt thou condemn me, that thou mayest be righteous? - -This gives the point of view from which Jehovah ironically invites Job, -if he thinks (see chap. xxiv.) that he can govern the world—the human as -well as the extra-human world—better than the Creator, to make the bold -attempt. He bids him array himself with the Divine majesty and carry out -that retribution in which Jehovah, according to him, has so completely -failed (xl. 11-13). If Job will prove his competence for the office -which he claims, then Jehovah Himself will recognise his independence -and extol his inherent strength. Did the poet mean to finish the second -speech of Jehovah here? It is probable; the subject of the interrogatory -hardly admitted of being developed further in poetry. A later writer -(or, as Merx thinks, the poet of _Job_ himself) seems to have found the -speech too short, and therefore appended the two fancy sketches of -animals which follow. But in the original draft of the poem xl. 14 must -have been followed immediately by Job’s retractation, closing with those -striking words (see above, p. 49) which so well supplement the less -articulate confession of xl. 4, 5— - - I had heard of thee by the hearing of the ear, - but now mine eye sees thee:[65] - therefore I retract and repent - in dust and ashes (xlii. 5, 6). - -How complete a reversal of the ‘princely’ anticipations of Job in xxxi. -37! To us, indeed, it may seem somewhat ungracious to Job to give this -as the last scene of his pathetic drama. But the poet leaves it open to -us to animate Job’s repentance with love as well as awe and compunction. -With fine feeling Blake in his seventeenth illustration almost fills the -margin with passages from the Johannine writings. - -The long description of the two Egyptian monsters (xl. 15, xli. 26) is, -as we have hinted above, out of place in the second speech of Jehovah. -It has indeed been suggested that the writer may have intended it as a -development of xl. 14— - - Then will I in return confess unto thee - that thy right hand can help thee— - -which implies that Job has no power to help himself in the government of -the world. According to this view, the opening words of the behemoth -section will mean, ‘Consider, pray, that thou hast fellow-creatures -which are far stronger than thou; and how canst thou undertake the -management of the universe?’ It must, however, be admitted that the -emphasis thus laid on the omnipotence of God, apart from His -righteousness, introduces an obscurity into the argument which almost -compels us to assume that the sketches of behemoth and leviathan are -later insertions. At any rate, even if we regard them as the work of the -principal writer of Job, we must at least ascribe them to one of those -after-thoughts by which poets not unfrequently spoil their best -productions. The style of the description, too, is less chastened than -that of chaps. xxxviii. xxxix. (so that Bickell can hardly be right in -placing xl. 15, &c., immediately after xxxix. 30), and if it relates to -the hippopotamus and the crocodile is less true to nature than the other -‘animal pieces.’ - -The truth is that neither behemoth nor leviathan corresponds strictly to -any known animal. The tail of a hippopotamus would surely not have been -compared to a cedar by a truthful though poetic observer like the author -of chaps. xxxviii. xxxix. Moreover that animal was habitually hunted by -the Egyptians with lance and harpoon, and was therefore no fit symbol of -indomitable pride. The crocodile too was attacked and killed by the -Egyptians, though in xli. 26-29 leviathan is said to laugh at his -assailants. Seneca in his description of Egypt describes the crocodile -as ‘fugax animal audaci, audacissimum timido’ (_Quæst. Nat._, iv. 2). -Comp. Ezek. xxix. 4, xxxii. 3; Herod. ii. 70. - -To me, indeed, as well as to M. Chabas, the behemoth and the leviathan -seem to claim a kinship with the dragons and other imaginary monsters of -the Swiss topographies of the sixteenth century. A still more striking -because a nearer parallel is adduced by M. Chabas from the Egyptian -monuments, where, side by side with the most accurate pictures from -nature, we often find delineations of animals which cannot have existed -out of wonderland.[66] - -It is remarkable that the elephant should not have been selected as a -type of strange and wondrous animal life; apparently it was not yet -known to the Hebrew writers, though of course it might be urged that the -poet was accidentally prevented from writing more. Merx has pointed out -that the description of behemoth is evidently incomplete. He also thinks -that the poet has not yet brought the form of these passages to final -perfection: a struggle with the difficulties of expression is -observable. He therefore relegates xl. 15-xli. 26 to an appendix with -the suggestive title (comp. Goethe’s _Faust_) Paralipomena to Job. He -thinks that a reader or admirer of the original poem sought to preserve -these unfinished sketches by placing them where they now stand. This is -probably the most conservative theory (i.e. the nearest to the -traditional view) critically admissible. - -Footnote 53: - - See Sayce on ‘Babylonian Astronomy’ (_Translations of Soc. of Bibl. - Archæology_, 1874); Lenormant, _La magic chez les Chaldéens_, and his - _Syllabaires cunéiformes_ (1876), p. 48. - -Footnote 54: - - This is not mere ‘patriarchal simplicity’ (Renan, p. lvi.), but a - contradiction of the mythic view that a nature god like Baal is the - ‘father’ or producer of the rain and the crops (see Cheyne, _Isaiah_, - ed. 3, i. 28, 294, ii. 295). Elihu no doubt goes further in his - explanations; see xxxvi. 27, 28. - -Footnote 55: - - Heb. _kima_; comp. Ass. _kimtu_, ‘a family.’ The word occurs again in - ix. 9, Am. v. 8 (but are not this verse and the closely related one in - iv. 13 additions by a later editor of Amos in the Exile period?) - -Footnote 56: - - Heb. _k’sīl_, the name of the foolhardy giant who strove with Jehovah. - The Chaldeo-Assyrian astrology gave the name _kisiluv_ to the ninth - month, connecting it with the zodiacal sign Sagittarius. But there are - valid reasons for attaching the Hebrew popular myth to Orion. - -Footnote 57: - - ‘He did not watch the stars of heaven, nor the _mazarati_.’ So Fox - Talbot quotes from a cuneiform tablet (_Transactions of Soc. of Bibl. - Archæology_, 1872, p. 341). The above explanation, however, which is - that of Delitzsch on _Job_, differs from that of Fox Talbot. - -Footnote 58: - - Mr. Bateson Wright’s pointing, _lá’ereb_ for _la’ōrēbh_, is plausible. - The raven is an insignificant companion to the lion, and the birds of - prey are mentioned at the end of Job’s picture gallery. Render ‘who - provides in the evening his food,’ &c.; but in this case should not - _lābhī_ in ver. 39 be rendered ‘lion’ rather than ‘lioness’ (note - ‘_his_ young ones’)? The root idea is probably voracity. That _lābhī_ - in iv. 11 is the feminine is no objection. Comp. Ps. lvii. 5, and - perhaps Hos. xiii. 8. Possibly, however, the ‘raven’ was inserted here - to make up the number ten, by a reminiscence of Ps. cxlvii. 9. - -Footnote 59: - - The ‘unicorn’ of A. V. comes from the Sept. and Vulg.; but in Deut. - xxxiii. 17 the _re’ēm_ is said to have ‘horns.’ Schlottmann and - Delitzsch identify it with the oryx or antelope, but the oryx was - tamable (Wilkinson, _Egyptians_, i. 227), whereas our poet asks, ‘Will - the _re’ēm_ be willing to serve thee?’ See Cheyne on Isa. xxxiv. 7. - -Footnote 60: - - Blake, _Songs of Experience_. - -Footnote 61: - - _Purg._, iii. 37. - -Footnote 62: - - _Inf._, iii. 5, 6. - -Footnote 63: - - _Parad._, xxxiii. 142. - -Footnote 64: - - _Parad._, xxxiii. 91. - -Footnote 65: - - [All his thinkings seemed like hearsay. This, then, was the real God.] - So an anonymous writer well expresses it (_Mark Rutherford’s - Deliverance_, p. 196). - -Footnote 66: - - _Etudes sur l’antiquité historique_, prem. éd., pp. 391-393. - - - - - CHAPTER VI. - THE EPILOGUE AND ITS MEANING. - - -We now come to the _dénoûment_ of the story (xlii. 7-17), against which, -from the point of view of internal criticism, much were possible to be -said. We shall not, however, here dwell upon the inconsistencies between -the epilogue on the one hand and the prologue and the speeches on the -other. The main point for us to emphasise is the disappointingness of -the events of the epilogue regarded as the final outcome of Job’s -spiritual discipline. Surely the high thoughts which have now and then -visited Job’s mind, and which, combined with the personal -self-revelation of the Creator, must have brought back the sufferer to a -state of childlike resignation, stand in inappropriate companionship -with a tame and commonplace renewal of mere earthly prosperity. Would it -not have been fitter for the hero on whom so much moral training had -been lavished to pass with humble but courageous demeanour through the -dark valley, at the issue of which he would ‘see God’? It is hardly a -sufficient answer that a concession was necessary to the prejudices of -the unspiritual multitude; for what was the object of the poem, if not -to subvert the dominion of a one-sided retribution theory? The solution -probably is that Job in the epilogue is a type of suffering, believing, -and glorified Israel. Not only the individual believer, not only all the -elect spirits of suffering humanity, but the beloved nation of the -poet.—Israel, the ‘Servant of Jehovah’—must receive a special message of -comfort from the great poem. In Isa. lxi. 7 we read that glorified -Israel is to ‘have double (compensation) instead of its shame;’ comp. -Zech. ix. 12, Jer. xvi. 14-18. The people of Israel, according to the -limited view of the prophets, was bound indissolubly to the Holy Land. -The only promise, therefore, which would be consolatory for suffering -Israel, the only possible sign of God’s restored favour, was a material -one including fresh ‘children’ and many flocks and herds (Isa. liv. 1, -lx. 7). Observe in this connection the phrase, xlii. 10, ‘Jehovah turned -the fortunes of Job’ (others, as A. V., ‘turned the captivity of -Job’)—the phrase so well known in passages relating to Israel (e.g. Ps. -xiv. 7, Joel iii. 1). - -The explanation is perhaps adequate. Some, however, will be haunted by a -doubt whether the author of the prologue would not have thrown more -energy and enthusiasm into the closing narrative. An early reader, -probably of Pharisaic leanings, felt the poverty of the epilogue,[67] -and sought to remedy it by the following addition in the Septuagint: -‘And Job died, old and full of days; and it is written that he will rise -again with those whom the Lord raiseth.’[68] The remainder of the -Septuagint appendix testifies only to the love of the later Jews for -amplifying Biblical notices (see Chap. VII.) Our own poet painter has -also amplified the details of the epilogue, but in how different a way! -(Gilchrist’s _Life of Blake_, i. 332-3). - -Footnote 67: - - Other readers, however, found no difficulty in the close of the story; - to such St. James addresses himself in the words, ‘Ye have heard of - the endurance of Job, and have seen the end of the Lord’ (James v. - 11), i.e. the blessed end vouchsafed by the Lord to Job. It was also, - no doubt, such a reader who composed the beautiful romance of Tobit, - to show that, however tried, the righteous man is at last delivered by - his God. - -Footnote 68: - - Those rabbis who in later times held this view appear to have assumed - that Job was of the Israelitish race (Frankl in Grätz’s - _Monatsschrift_, 1872, p. 311). - - - - - CHAPTER VII. - THE TRADITIONAL BASIS AND THE PURPOSE OF JOB. - - - I. - _Did Job really live?_ - - -This is widely different, remarks Umbreit,[69] from the question whether -Job actually said and did all that is related of him in our book. It is -scarcely necessary, he adds, in the present day to disprove the latter, -but we have no reason to doubt the former (the theory as to the -historical existence of a sort of Arabian king Priam, named Job). In -truth, we have no positive evidence either for affirming or denying it, -unless the ‘holy places,’ each reputed to be Job’s grave, may be -mentioned in this connection. The allusion in Ezek. xiv. 14 to ‘Noah, -Daniel, and Job,’ proves no more than that a tradition of some sort -existed respecting the _righteous_ Job during the Babylonian Exile: we -cannot tell how much Ezekiel knew besides Job’s righteousness. In later -times, Jewish students do appear to have believed that ‘Job existed;’ -but the force of the argument is weakened by the uncritical character of -the times, and the extreme form in which this belief was held by them. -How early doubts arose, we know not. The authors of _Tobit_ and -_Susanna_ may very likely have been only half-believers, since they -evidently imitate the story of Job in their romantic compositions. At -any rate, the often-quoted saying of Rabbi Resh Lakish, איוב לא היה ולא -נברא אלא משל היה, ‘Job existed not, and was not created, but he is -(only) a parable,’[70] shows that even before the Talmud great freedom -of speech prevailed among the Rabbis on such points. In Hai Gaon’s time -(d. 1037), the saying quoted must have given offence to some, for this -Rabbi not only appeals for the historical character of Job to the -passage in Ezekiel, but wishes (on traditional authority) to alter the -reading of Resh Lakish’s words, so as to read איוב לא היה ולא נברא אלא -למשל, ‘Job existed not, and was not created, except to be a -parable.’[71] (See note 7, Appendix.) - -The prevailing opinion among the Jews doubtless continued to be that the -Book of Job was strictly historical, and Christian scholars (with the -exception of Theodore—see Chap. XV.) found no reason to question this -till Luther arose, with his genial, though unscientific, insistence on -the right of questioning tradition. In his _Tischreden_ Luther says, -‘Ich halte das Buch Hiob für eine wahre Historia; dass aber alles so -sollte geschehen und gehandelt sein, glaube ich nicht, sondern ich -halte, dass ein feiner, frommer, gelehrter Mann habe es in solche -Ordnung bracht.’[72] Poetically treated history—that is Luther’s idea, -as it was that of Grotius after him, and in our own country of that -morning-star of Biblical criticism, Bishop Lowth.[73] It is acquiesced -in by Schlottmann, Delitzsch, and Davidson, and with justice, provided -it be clearly understood that no positive opinion can reasonably be held -as to the historical origin of the tradition (_Sage_, Ewald) used by the -author. I have said nothing of Spinoza and Albert Schultens. The -former[74] pronounces most unfavourably on the religious and poetical -value of the book which he regards as a heathenish fiction, reminding us -somewhat (see elsewhere) of the hasty and ill-advised Theodore of -Mopsuestia. The latter[75] actually defends the historical character -both of the narratives and of the colloquies of Job in the strictest -sense. Hengstenberg, alone perhaps among orthodox theologians, takes a -precisely opposite view. Like Reuss and Merx, he regards the poem as -entirely a work of imagination. We may be thankful for his protest -against applying a prosaic standard to the poetical books of the Hebrew -Canon. Those who do so, he remarks,[76] ‘fail to observe that the book -stands, not among historical, but among poetical books, and that it -would betray a very low grade of culture, were one to depreciate -imaginative as compared with historical writing, and declare it to be -unsuitable for sacred Scripture.’ - -I entirely agree with the eminent scholar, whose unprogressive theology -could not entirely extinguish his literary and philological sense. But I -see no sufficient reason for adopting what in itself, I admit, would add -a fresh laurel to the poet’s crown. Merx indeed assures us[77] that the -meaning of the name ‘Job’ is so redolent of allegory that it must be the -poet’s own invention, especially as the name occurs nowhere else in the -Old Testament. He adds that the story of Job is so closely connected -with the didactic part of the book that it would be lost labour to -separate the legendary from the new material. All was wanted; therefore -all is fictitious. This is not, however, the usual course of procedure -with poets whether of the East or of the West, whose parsimony in the -invention of plots is well known. As for the name Job (_Iyyób_) it may -no doubt be explained (from the Arabic) ‘he who turns to God,’[78] and -in other ways, but there is no evidence that the author thought of any -meaning for it. When he does coin names (see Epilogue), there is no room -for doubting their significance. Ewald may, certainly, have gone too far -in trying to recover the traditional element: how difficult it would be -to do so with _Paradise Lost_, if we had not Genesis to help us! But the -probability of the existence of a legend akin to the narrative in the -Prologue, is shown by the parallels to it which survive, e.g. the -touching Indian story of Harischandra,[79] given by Dr. Muir in vol. 1. -of his _Sanskrit Texts_. The resemblance may be slight and superficial, -but the sudden ruin of a good man’s fortunes is common to both stories. -Had we more knowledge of Arabic antiquity, we should doubtless find a -more valuable parallels.[80] - -The story of Job had a special attraction for Mohammed, who enriched it -(following the precedent of the Jewish Haggada) with a fresh detail -(Korán, xxxviii. 40). To him, as well as to St. James, Job was an -example of ‘endurance.’ The dialogue between Allah and Eblis in Korán, -xv. 32-42, may perhaps have been suggested by the Prologue of our poem. - -‘Did then, Job really live?’ That for which we most care comes not from -‘Tradition, Time’s suspected register,’[81] but from an unnamed poet, -who embellished tradition partly from imagination, partly (see next -section) from the rich and varied stores of his own experience. - - - 2. - _The Autobiographical Element in its Bearing on the Purpose of the - Poem._ - - -A German critic (Dillmann), in speaking of _Job_, has well reminded us -that ‘the idea of a work of art must reveal itself in the development of -the piece: it is not to be condensed into a dry formula.’ Least of all, -surely, is such formulation possible when the work of art is an -idealised portraiture of the author himself, and such, I think, to a -considerable extent is the Book of Job. Those words of a psalmist, - - Come and hear, all ye that fear God, - and I will declare what he hath done for my soul - (Ps. lxvi. 16, R. V.) - -might be taken as the motto of _Job_. In short, the author is thoroughly -‘subjective,’ like all the great Hebrew and especially the Arabian -poets. ‘In the rhythmic swell of Job’s passionate complaints, there is -an echo of the heart-beats of a great poet and a great sufferer. The cry -“Perish the day in which I was born” (iii. 3) is a true expression of -the first effects of some unrecorded sorrow. In the life-like -description beginning “Oh that I were as in months of old” (xxix. 2), -the writer is thinking probably of his own happier days, before -misfortune overtook him. Like Job (xxix. 7, 21-25) he had sat in the -“broad place” by the gate and solved the doubts of perplexed clients. -Like Job, he had maintained his position triumphantly against other wise -men. He had a fellow-feeling with Job in the distressful passage through -doubt to faith. Like Job (xxi. 16) he had resisted the suggestion of -practical atheism, and with the confession of his error (xlii. 2-6) had -recovered spiritual peace.’ - -The man who speaks to us under the mask of Job is not indeed a perfect -character; but he does not pretend to be so. How pathetic are his -appeals to his friends to remember the weight of his calamity—‘therefore -have my words been wild’ (vi. 3)—and not to ‘be captious about words -when the speeches of the desperate are but for the wind’ (vi. 26). He -was no Stoic, and had not practised himself in deadening his sensibility -to pain. Strong in his sense of justice, he lacked those higher -intuitions which could alone soothe his irritation. But he was -throughout loyal to the God whom his conscience revered, and, even in -the midst of his wild words, he let God mould him. First of all, he -renounced the hope of being understood by men; he ceased to complain of -his rather ignorant than unfeeling friends. He exemplified that Arabic -proverb which says, ‘Perfect patience allows no complaint to be heard -against (human creatures).’ Then he came by degrees to trust God. There -is a kernel of truth in that passage of the Jerusalem Talmud -(_Berakhoth_, cix. 5) where, among the seven types of Pharisees, the -sixth is described as ‘he who is pious from fear, like Job,’ and the -seventh, as ‘he who is pious from love, like Abraham.’ Job’s religion -was at first not entirely but still too much marked by fear; it ended by -becoming a religion of trust, justifying the title borne by Job among -the Syrians, as if in contradiction to the Talmud, of ‘the lover of the -Lord.’[82] - -So far as the author of _Job_ has any direct purpose beyond that of -giving a helpful picture of his own troubles, it is no doubt principally -a polemical one. He has suffered so deeply from the inveterate error -(once indeed a relative truth) so tenaciously maintained by the wisest -men that he would fain crush the source of so much heart-breaking -misery. But that for which we love the book is its φιλανθρωπία, its -brotherly love to all mankind. No doubt the author thinks first of -Israel, then (as I suppose) suffering exile; but the care with which the -poem is divested of Israelitish peculiarities, seems to show that he -looks beyond his own people, just as in his view of God he has broken -the bonds of a narrow ‘particularism.’ ‘I can see no other explanation -of those apparently hyperbolical complaints, that strange invasion of -self-consciousness, and that no less strange ‘enthusiasm of -humanity’[83] ... than the view expressed or implied by Chateaubriand, -that Job is a ‘type of righteous men in affliction—not merely in the -land of Uz, nor among the Jews in Babylonia, nor yet, on Warburton’s -theory of the poem, in the Judæa of the time of Nehemiah, but wherever -on the wide earth tears are shed and hearts are broken.’ This is the -truth in the too often exaggerated allegorical view[84] of the poem of -_Job_. According to his wont, the author lets us read his meaning by -occasional bold inconsistencies. No individual can use such phraseology -as we find in xvii. 1, xviii. 2, 3, xix. 11, and perhaps I may add xvi. -10, xxvii. 11, 12. And yet the fact that Job often speaks as the ‘type -of suffering humanity’ no more destroys his claim to be an individual -‘than the typical character of Dante in his pilgrimage and of Faust in -Goethe’s great poem annuls the historical element in those two great -poetical figures.’[85] - - - 3. - _The Purpose of Job as illustrated by Criticism._ - - -More precise definitions of the purpose of Job depend on the acceptance -of a critical analysis of the book. Some suggestions on this subject -have been already given to facilitate the due comprehension of the poem. -I must now offer the reader a connected sketch of the possible or -probable stages of its growth. This, if it bears being tested, will -perhaps reveal the special purpose of the several parts, and above all -of that most precious portion—the Colloquies of Job and his friends. -(Compare below, Chap. XII.) - -I. The narrative which forms the Prologue is based upon a traditional -story which represented Job as hurled from the height of happiness into -an abyss of misery, but preserving a devout serenity in the midst of -trouble. It is impossible to feel sure that this Prologue is by the same -author as the following Colloquies. It stands in no very close -connection with them; ‘the Satan’ in particular (an omission which -struck William Blake[86]), is not heard of again in the book; and there -is abundant evidence of the liking of the pre-Exile writers for a -tasteful narrative style. It is not a wild conjecture that the first two -chapters originally formed the principal part of a prose book of Job, -comparable to the ‘books’ once current of Elijah, and perhaps one may -add of Balaam and of Daniel—a book free from any speculations of the -‘wise men’ and in no sense a _māshāl_ or gnomic poem, but supplying in -its own way a high and adequate solution of the great problem of the -suffering of the righteous. The writer of this Prologue, whether he also -wrote the Colloquies or not, firmly believed that the calamities which -sometimes fell on the innocent were both for the glory of God and of -human nature. It was possible, he said, to continue in one’s integrity, -though no earthly advantage accrued from it. If the Prologue once formed -part of a distinct prose ‘book’ of Job, one can hardly suppose that the -same author wrote the Epilogue; for while the Colloquies _do_ contain -hints of Job’s typical character (as to some extent a representative of -humanity), the Prologue does not, and it is only the typical or -allegorical interpretation which makes the Epilogue tolerable. In fact, -the Epilogue must, as it seems to me, have been written, if not by the -author of the Colloquies, yet by some one who had this work before him. -The prose ‘book’ of Job, if it existed, and if it originated in Judah, -cannot have been written before the Chaldæan period. This period and no -other explains the moral purpose of the ‘book,’ precisely as the age of -the despotic Louis XIV. is the only one which suits the debate on the -disinterested love of God with which the name of Fénelon is inseparably -connected. The Chaldæan period, however, we must remember, did not begin -with the Captivity, but with the appearance of the Babylonian power on -the horizon of Palestine. We must not therefore _too hastily_ assume -that the Book of Job is a monument of the Babylonian Captivity, true as -I myself believe this hypothesis to be. - -We are, however, of course not confined to this hypothesis of a prose -‘book’ of Job. The author of the Colloquies may have been equally fitted -to be a writer of narrative, and may have felt that the solution -mentioned above, although the highest, was not the only one admissible. -We may therefore conceive of him as following up the solution offered in -the Prologue by a ventilation of the great moral problem before himself -and his fellow ‘wise men.’ He throws the subject open as it were to -general discussion, and invests all the worthiest speculations of his -time in the same flowing poetical dress, that no fragment of truth -contained in them may be lost. He himself is far from absolutely -rejecting any of them; he only seems to deny that the ideas of the three -representative sages can be applied at once, as they apply them, to the -case of one like Job. - -[Böttcher, however, regards Job as the work of one principal and several -subordinate writers. It was occasioned, he thinks, by a conversation on -the sufferings of innocent men, at that time so frequent (i.e. in the -reign of Manasseh). See his _Achrenlese_, p. 68.] - -II. The completion or publication of the colloquies revealed (or seemed -to reveal) sundry imperfections in the original mode of treating the -subject. Some other ‘wise men,’ therefore (or possibly, except in the -case of III., the author himself), inserted passages in the poem with -the view of qualifying or supplementing its statements. These were -merely laid in, without being welded with the rest of the book. The -first in order of these additions is chap. xxviii., which cannot be -brought into a logical connection with the chapters among which it is -placed, in spite of the causal particle ‘for’ prefixed to it (‘_For_ -there is a vein’). It is possible, indeed, that it has been extracted -from some other work. The hypothesis of insertion (or, if used without -implying illicit tampering with the text, ‘interpolation’) is confirmed -by the occurrence of ‘Adonai’ in ver. 28, which is contrary to the -custom of the author of Job, and by its highly rhetorical character. If -the passage was written with a view to the Book of Job, we must suppose -the author to have been dissatisfied with the original argument, and to -have sought a solution for the problem in the inscrutableness of the -divine wisdom. Zophar, it is true, had originally alluded to this -attribute, but with a more confined object. According to him, God, being -all-wise, can detect sins invisible to mortal eyes (xi. 6):—it is -needless to draw out the wide difference between this slender inference -and the large theory which appears to be suggested in chap. xxviii. - -III. One of the less progressive ‘wise men’ was scandalised at the -irreverent statements of Job and dissatisfied with the three friends’ -mode of dealing with them (xxxii. 2, 3). Hence the speeches of Elihu, -the most generally recognised of all the inserted portions (chaps. -xxxii.-xxxvii.) The author partly imitates the speeches of Jehovah. - -IV. In another inserted passage (ch. xxxviii.-xl. 14, xlii. 1-6), the -Almighty is represented as chastising the presumption of Job, and -showing forth the supreme wisdom by contrast with Job’s unwisdom. It is -clear that the copy in which it was inserted was without the speeches of -Elihu, for the opening words of Jehovah (xxxviii. 2) clearly have -reference to the last discourse of Job, which they must have been -intended to follow. The effect of this fine passage is much impaired by -the interposition of the speeches of Elihu. - -V. The description of the behémoth and the leviathan (xl. 15-24, xli.) -seems also to be a later insertion, and somewhat more recent than the -speeches of Jehovah. It is a ‘purple patch,’ and the appendix last -mentioned gains by its removal. - -VI. An editor appended the epilogue. He must have had the prologue -before him, but took no pains to bring his own work into harmony with -it, except in the one point which he could not help adopting, namely the -vast riches of his hero. He agreed with Job’s friends on the grand -question of retribution, though he would not sanction their line of -argument. Job’s doubts, according to him, contained more faith than -their uncharitable dogmatism. - -Can we feel grateful to this writer? He has at any rate relieved the -strain upon the imagination of the reader, and possibly, if we assume -him to be distinct from the author of the Prologue, carried out an -unfulfilled intention of that author (note the words in i. 12, ‘only -upon himself put not forth thy hand’). But he did so in a prosaic -spirit, and made a sad concession to a low view of providential -dealings. He has also, I think, caused much misunderstanding of the -object of the book. Thus we find Dr. Ginsburg saying,[87] - - The Book of Job ... only confirms the old opinion that the righteous - are visibly rewarded here, inasmuch as it represents their - calamities as transitory, and Job himself as restored to double his - original wealth and happiness in this life. - -Against which I enter a respectful protest. - -The view here adopted of the gradual growth of the book seems important -for its right comprehension. In its present form, it seems like a very -confused theodicy, designed to justify God against the charge of -bringing misfortune upon innocent persons. But when the disturbing -elements are removed, we see that the book is simply an expression of -the conflicting thoughts of an earnest, warm-hearted man on the great -question of suffering. He protests, it is true, against the rigour and -uncharitableness of the traditional orthodox belief, but is far more -aspiring to solve the problem theoretically. This is one chief point in -which he differs from his interpolators (if the word may be used), who -mostly appear to have had some favourite theory (or partial view of -truth) to advocate. - -Footnote 69: - - _Book of Job_ (1836), E. T. i. 7. - -Footnote 70: - - _Baba Bathra_ § 15, 1. Comp. Frankl in Grätz’s _Monatsschrift_, 1872, - pp. 309-310. - -Footnote 71: - - Ewald and Dukes, _Beitrage zur Gesch. der ültesten Auslegung_, ii. - 166. - -Footnote 72: - - _Werke_ (Walch), xxii. 2093. - -Footnote 73: - - _De sacrâ poesi_ (1753), Prælect. xxxii. - -Footnote 74: - - _Tractatus theologico-politicus_, c. x. - -Footnote 75: - - _Liber Jobi_ (1737), vol. i., _in fine Praf._ - -Footnote 76: - - _Das Buch Hiob_ (1870-75), i. 35. - -Footnote 77: - - _Das Buch Hiob_, Vorbemerkungen, p. xxxv. - -Footnote 78: - - In Korán, xxxviii. 16, 29, 44, David, Solomon, and Job are all called, - one after another, _awwāb_, i.e. not ‘penitent,’ but ‘ever turning to - God.’ Hitzig remarks that Iyyób (Arabic Ayyàb) will thus be equivalent - to the mythic prophet Saleh (= ‘pious’) in the Korán (_Das Buch Hiob_, - Einl., S. x.), on whom see Palmer, _Desert of the Exodus_, p. 50, - where he is identified with Moses. This is bold, and, in any case, - must not such a name be comparatively modern? - -Footnote 79: - - This was perhaps first pointed out by Schlottmann, in chap. 1. of the - Introduction to his Commentary. - -Footnote 80: - - Nothing can be built upon the occurrence of the name Ayyûb in - pre-Islamic times, for Jews and Arabs were in frequent intercourse - before Mohammed. - -Footnote 81: - - Davenant. - -Footnote 82: - - Hottinger, referred to by Delitzsch, Iob, p. 7. In the Peshitto, Heb. - xii. 3-11 has for a sub-title, ‘In commemoration of Job the - righteous.’ The choice of the section shows in what sense Job’s - ‘righteousness’ is affirmed—not the Talmudic. - -Footnote 83: - - See especially Job vi. 2, 3, vii. 1-3, xiv. 1-3. - -Footnote 84: - - This view goes back to the last century (Warburton, Michaelis, &c.) It - has been remodelled by Seinecke and Hoekstra, who regard Job, not as - the people of Israel in general, but the idealised Israel or ‘Servant - of Jehovah.’ See especially Hoekstra’s essay, _Theologisch - Tijdschrift_, 1871, p. 1 &c., and Kuenen’s reply, _Th. Ti._, 1873, p. - 492 &c. - -Footnote 85: - - Quoted from Essay ix. in vol. ii. of _The Prophecies of Isaiah_. - -Footnote 86: - - Blake’s 16th design is devoted to the defeat of Satan. Beneath the - enthroned Jehovah and his angels, ‘the Evil One falls with tremendous - plummet-force. Hell naked before his face, and Destruction without a - covering.’ Another point in which Blake corrects his author is the - introduction of Job’s wife into the illustrations of the Colloquies. - -Footnote 87: - - Art. ‘Ecclesiastes,’ _Ency. Brit._, 9th ed. - - - - - CHAPTER VIII. - DATE AND PLACE OF COMPOSITION. - - -We have seen (Chap. VII.) that the unity of authorship of the Book of -Job is not beyond dispute, but we shall not at present assume the -results of analysis. Let us endeavour to treat of the date and place of -composition on the hypothesis that the book is a whole as it stands (on -the Elihu-portion however, comp. Chap. XII.) It is at any rate probable -that the greater part of it at least proceeds from the same period. Can -that period be the patriarchal? The author has sometimes received credit -for his faithful picture of this early age. This is at any rate -plausible. For instance, he avoids the use of the sacred name Jehovah, -revealed to Moses according to Ex. vi. 3. Then, too, the great age -ascribed to Job in the Epilogue (xlii. 16) agrees with the notices of -the patriarchs. The uncoined piece of silver (Heb. _kesita_) which each -kinsman of Job gave him after his recovery (xlii. II), is only mentioned -again in Gen. xxxiii. 19 (Josh. xxiv. 32). The musical instruments -referred to in xxi. 12, xxx. 31, are also mentioned in Gen. iv. 21, -xxxi. 27. There is no protest against idolatry either in the Book of -Job[88] or in Genesis. Job himself offers sacrifices to the one true -God, like the patriarchs, and the kind of sacrifice offered is the -burnt-offering (i. 5, xlii. 8), there is no mention of guilt-or -sin-offerings. The settled life of Job, too, as described in the -Prologue is not inconsistent with the story of Jacob’s life in the vale -of Shechem,[89] though in reality the author probably described it from -his observation of settled life in Arabia. But none of these allusions -required any special gift of historical imagination. The tone of the few -descriptive passages in the Colloquies, and of the reflections -throughout, is that of an age long subsequent to the patriarchal. The -very idea of wise men meeting together to discuss deep problems (as in -the later Arabic _maqāmāt_, compared by Bertholdt and others) is an -anachronism in a ‘patriarchal’ narrative, and (like the religious -position of the speeches in general) irresistibly suggests the -post-Solomonic period. The Job of the Colloquies is a travelled citizen -of the world at an advanced period of history; indeed, he now and then -seems expressly to admit this (xxiv. 12, xxix. 7). It is therefore -needless to discuss the theory which assigns the book to the Mosaic or -pre-Mosaic age,—a theory which is a relic of the cold, literal, -unsympathetic method of the critics of the last two centuries. A few -scholars of eminence, feeling this, placed the poem in the Solomonic -period, a view which is in itself plausible, if we consider the -pronounced secular turn of the great king, and his recorded taste for -eastern parabolistic ‘wisdom,’ but which falls with the cognate theory -of the authorship of Proverbs. A more advanced stage of society than -that of the period referred to, and a greater maturity of the national -intellect, are presupposed on every page of the poem. The tone of the -book—I refer especially to the Colloquies—suggests a time when the -nationalism of the older periods had, in general, ceased to satisfy -reflecting minds. The doubters, whom Job and his friends represent, have -been so staggered in their belief in Israel’s loving God, that they -decline to use His revealed name:—[90] once or twice only does it slip -in (xii. 9; cf. xxviii. 28), as if to show that the poet himself has -fought his way to a reconciling faith. As is clear from the cognate -psalms xxxvii., xlix., lxxiii., the patriarchal theory of prosperity and -adversity had been found wanting. Doubts had arisen, most painful in -their intensity, from observing the disproportion between character and -fortune—doubts which might indeed insinuate themselves at any time, but -acquire an abnormal force in a declining community (ix. 24, xii. 4-6, -23, and especially chap. xxi.) Some had even ventured on positive -doctrinal heresy. In opposition to these, Eliphaz professes his adhesion -to the tradition of the fathers, in whose time religion was untainted by -alien influence (xv. 17-19). It is merely an incidental remark of -Eliphaz, but it points to a date subsequent to the appearance of Assyria -on the horizon of Palestine. For it was the growing influence of that -power, which, for good and for evil, modified the character of -Israelitish religion both in its higher and in its lower forms. - -Precise historical allusions are almost entirely wanting. We may, -however, infer with certainty that the book was written subsequently to -the ‘deportation’ of Israel, or of Judah, or at the very least of some -neighbouring people (xii. 17-19; comp. xv. 19[91]). For the uprooting of -whole peoples from their original homes was peculiar to the Assyrian -policy.[92] But which of these forced expatriations is intended?—We are -not _compelled_ to think of the Babylonian Exile by the reference to the -Chaldæans in the Prologue. The Chaldæans might have been known to a -well-informed Hebrew writer ever since the ninth century B.C., at which -time they became predominant in the southern provinces on the lower -Euphrates: we find Isaiah, speaking of the ‘land of Chaldæa’ (Isa. -xxiii. 13) in the eighth century. Still I own that the description of -the Chaldæans as _robbers_ does appear to me most easily explained by -supposing a covert allusion to the invasions of Nebuchadnezzar.[93] The -Assyrians are indeed once called ‘treacherous dealers’ by Isaiah -(xxxiii. 1), but the Babylonians impressed the Hebrew writers by their -rapacity far more than the Assyrians. The ‘unrighteous’ of the Psalms -are, when foreigners are spoken of, not the Assyrians, but either the -Babylonians or still later oppressors (e.g. Ps. cxxv. 3); and the -description of the Babylonians in the first chapter of Habakkuk strongly -reminds us of those complaints of Job, ‘The earth is given over into the -hand of the unrighteous’ (ix. 24), and ‘The robbers’ tents are in peace, -and they that provoke God are secure, they who carry (their) god in -their hand’ (xii. 6; comp. Hab. i. 11, 16). - -The view here propounded might be supported by an argument from -linguistic data (see Chap. XIII.) which would lead us into details out -of place here. It is that of Umbreit, Knobel, Grätz, and (though he does -not exclude the possibility of a later date) the sober and thorough -Gesenius. Long after the present writer’s results were first committed -to paper, he had the rare satisfaction of finding them advocated, so far -as the date is concerned, in a commentary by a scholar of our own who -has the best right to speak (A. B. Davidson, Introduction to _The Book -of Job_, 1884). On the other hand, Stickel, Ewald, Magnus, Bleek, Renan -(1860), Kuenen (1865), Hitzig, Reuss, Dillmann, Merx, prefer to place -our poem in the period between Isaiah and Jeremiah, and this seems to me -the earliest date from which the composition and significance of the -book can be at all rightly understood. Reasons enough for this statement -of opinion will suggest themselves to those who have followed me -hitherto; let me now only add that the pure monotheism of the Book makes -an earlier date, on historical principles, hardly conceivable.[94] A -later date than the Exile-period is not, I admit, inconceivable (see -Vatke, _Die biblische Theologie_, i. 563 &c.), and is now supported by -Kuenen.[95] If there were an allusion to the doctrine of the -Resurrection, in xix. 26, or if the portraiture of Job were (as Kuenen -thinks it is) partly modelled on the Second Isaiah’s description of the -Servant of Jehovah, I should in fact be driven to accept this view. I -have stated above that I cannot find the Resurrection in _Job_, and in -_Isaiah_, ii. 267 that the priority of _Job_ seems to me to be made out. -I need not combat Clericus and Warburton, who ascribe the authorship of -_Job_ to Ezra. For Jeremiah (Bateson Wright) or the author of -Lamentations (i.e. Baruch, according to Bunsen) something might perhaps -be said, but—Ezra! - -As to the place of composition. Hitzig and Hirzel think of Egypt on -account of the numerous allusions to Egypt in the book; and so Ewald -with regard to xl. 15-xli. 34. ‘Die ganze Umgebung ist egyptisch,’ says -Hitzig with some exaggeration.[96] More might be said in favour of the -theory which places the author in a region where Arabic and Aramaic -might both be heard. Stickel, holding the pre-Exile origin of the book, -supposed it to have come from the far south-east of Palestine. Nowhere -better than in the hill-country of the South could the poet study simple -domestic relations, and also make excursions into N. Arabia. He thus -accounts[97] for the points of contact between the Book of Job and the -prophecy of Amos of Tekoa (see below, Chap. XI.), which include even -some phonetic peculiarities (the softening of the gutturals and the -interchange of sibilants). To me, the whole question seems well-nigh an -idle one. The author (or, if you will, the authors) had travelled much -in various lands, and the book is the result. The place where is of far -less importance than the time when it was composed. - -Footnote 88: - - The absence of such a protest is characteristic of the - Wisdom-literature in general. The reference to star-worship in Job - xxxi. 26 suggests a date subsequent to the origination of the title - ‘Jehovah (God) of Hosts.’ See appendix to Isa. i. in my commentary. - -Footnote 89: - - Mr. Tomkins compares Job’s mode of life with that of Abram before his - departure from Kharran (_Studies on the Times of Abraham_, 1878, p. - 61). - -Footnote 90: - - I cannot go quite so far as Lagarde, who argues from the use of - ‘Eloah’ (instead of ‘Elohim’ and ‘Jehovah’) that the doubters have - cast off belief in all the supposed various manifestations of divinity - in the world, and merely retain a comfortless belief in τὸ θεῖον. - ‘Numen quoddam esse non negant, sed’ &c. _Psalterium Hieronymi_, pp. - 155-6 (‘Corollarium’). - -Footnote 91: - - Job xv. 19 certainly implies the siege and capture of Jerusalem by - some foreign foe. Comp. Joel iii. (Heb. iv.) 17. - -Footnote 92: - - Dr. Barth quotes Am. i. 6, ii. 1-3, ix. 11, 15 in proof that - ‘deportation’ also took place in the ‘pre-Assyrian’ time. But, in - fact, Amos is not ‘pre-Assyrian.’ - -Footnote 93: - - It is no sufficient objection that the ravages of the Chaldæans in Job - are on a small scale, nor yet that side by side with them are - mentioned the Sabeans, surely not those of S. Arabia (Noldeke), but - those of N. Arabia (Delitzsch), detachments of whom might have - encamped on the borders of Edom. Comp. Wetzstein in Delitzsch’s _Iob_, - ed. 2, p. 596 &c. - -Footnote 94: - - I write this with deference to the contrary opinion of Delitzsch, who - is, however, too prejudiced against late dates, and biassed by his - belief in the authenticity of the Song of Hezekiah. If the Book of Job - be pre-Hezekian, it is of course natural to throw it back to the age - of Solomon. - -Footnote 95: - - _Theologisch Tijdschrift_, 1873, p. 538. - -Footnote 96: - - _Das Buch Hiob_ (1874), p. xlix. - -Footnote 97: - - _Das Buch Hiob_ (1842), p. 276. - - - - - CHAPTER IX. - ARGUMENT FROM THE USE OF MYTHOLOGY. - - -One of the peculiarities of our poet (which I have elsewhere compared -with a similar characteristic in Dante) is his willingness to -appropriate mythic forms of expression from heathendom. This willingness -was certainly not due to a feeble grasp of his own religion; it was -rather due partly to the poet’s craving for imaginative ornament, partly -to his sympathy with his less developed readers, and a sense that some -of these forms were admirably adapted to give reality to the conception -of the ‘living God.’ Several of these points of contact with heathendom -have been indicated in my analysis of the poem. I need not again refer -to these, but the semi-mythological allusions to supernatural beings who -had once been in conflict with Jehovah (xxi. 22, xxv. 2), and the -cognate references to the dangerous cloud-dragon (see below) ought not -to be overlooked. Both in Egypt and in Assyria and Babylonia, we find -these very myths in a fully developed form. The ‘leviathan’ of iii. 8, -the dragon probably of vii. 12 (_tannīn_) and certainly of xxvi. 13 -(_nākhāsh_), and the ‘rahab’ of ix. 13, xxvi. 12, remind us of the evil -serpent Apap, whose struggle with the sun-god Ra is described in chap. -xxxix. of the Book of the Dead and elsewhere. ‘A battle took place,’ -says M. Maspero, ‘between the gods of light and fertility and the “sons -of rebellion,” the enemies of light and life. The former were -victorious, but the monsters were not destroyed. They constantly menace -the order of nature, and, in order to resist their destructive action, -God must, so to speak, create the world anew every day.’[98] An equally -close parallel is furnished by the fourth tablet of the Babylonian -creation-story, which describes the struggle between the god Marduk -(Merodach) and the dragon Tiamat or Tiamtu (a fem. corresponding to the -Heb. masc. form _t’hom_ ‘the deep’), for which see Delitzsch’s -_Assyrische Lesestücke_, 3rd edition, Smith and Sayce’s _Chaldæan -Genesis_, p. 107 &c., and Budge in _Proceedings of the Society of -Biblical Archæology_, Nov. 6, 1883. - -Nor must I forget the ‘fool-hardy’ giant (K’sīl = Orion) in ix. 9, -xxxviii. 31, nor the dim allusion to the sky-reaching mountain of the -north, rich in gold (comp. Isa. xiv. 13, and Sayce, _Academy_, Jan. 28, -1882, p. 64), and the myth-derived synonyms for Sheól—Death, Abaddon, -and ‘the shadow of death’ (or, deep gloom), xxvi. 6, xxviii. 22, -xxxviii. 17, also the ‘king of terrors’ (xviii. 14), who like Pluto or -Yama rules in the Hebrew Underworld. Observe too the instances in which -a primitive myth has died down into a metaphor, e.g. ‘the eyelids of the -Dawn’ (iii. 9, xli. 18), and especially that beautiful passage, - - Hast thou ever in thy life given charge to the Morning, - and shown its place to the Dawn, - that it may take hold of the skirts of the earth, - so that the wicked are shaken out of it, - and the earth changes as clay under a seal, - and (all things) stand forth as in a garment, - and light is withheld from the wicked, - and the arm lifted up is broken? (xxxviii. 12-15). - -How very vivid! The personified Dawn seizes the coverlet under which the -earth has slept at its four ends and shakes the evil-doers out of it -like flies; upon which form and colour return to the earth, as clay (a -Babylonian image) receives a definite form from the seal, and as the -sad-coloured night-wrapper is exchanged for the bright, embroidered -holiday-robe. Could we only transfer the poet to an earlier stage of -mythic consciousness, we should find him expressing the same ideas—that -morning-light creates all fair things anew, and discomfits the -evil-doer—very much in the style of the Vedic hymns to Ushas (the Dawn), -from which I quote the following in Grassmann’s translation (Rig Veda, -I. 123, 4, 5),— - - Die tageshelle kommt zu jedem Hause - und jedem Tage gibt sie ihren Namen; - zu spenden willig, strablend naht sie immer - und theilet aus der Güter allerbestes. - Als Bhaga’s Schwester, Varuna’s Verwandte, - komm her zuerst, o schöne Morgenröthe; - Wer frevel übt, der soll dahinter bleiben, - von uns besiegt sein mit der Uschas Wagen. - -(There is also an Egyptian parallel in a hymn to the Sun-god, _Records -of the Past_, viii. 131, ‘He fells the wicked in his season.’) How far -the poet of Job believed in the myths which he has preserved, e.g. in -the existence of potentates or potencies corresponding to the ‘dragon’ -of which he speaks, we cannot certainly tell. Mr. Budge has suggested -that Tiamat, the sky-dragon of the Babylonians, conveyed a distinct -symbolic meaning. However this may have been, the ‘leviathan’ of Job was -probably to the poet a ‘survival’ from a superstition of his childhood, -and little if anything more than the emblem of all evil and disorder. - -And now for the bearing of the above on criticism. It is a remarkable -fact that there are mythological allusions, very similar to some of -those in Job, in the later portions of the Book of Isaiah (Isa. xxiv. -21, xxvii. 1, ii. 9). This evidently suggests a date for the Book of Job -not earlier than the Exile. It is not necessary to assume that the -authors of these books borrowed either from Egypt or from Babylonia. -They drew from the unexhausted store of Jewish popular beliefs. They -wrote for a larger public than the older poets and prophets could -command, and adapted themselves more completely to the average culture -of their people. - -Footnote 98: - - Maspero, _Histoire ancienne de l’Orient_, ed. 1, p. 30. Comp. Chabas’ - translation from the Harris papyrus, _Records of the Past_, x. - 142-146. - - - - - CHAPTER X. - ARGUMENT FROM THE DOCTRINE OF ANGELS. - - -The facts on which our argument is based are mainly the passages in -_Job_ which refer to ‘sons of Elohim’ (or better, as Davidson, ‘of the -Elohim’), to ‘the Satan,’ and to the _mal’akim_. The first of these -three phrases means probably _inferior_ members of the class of beings -called Elohim (i.e. ‘superhuman powers’); the second, ‘the adversary (or -opposer);’ the third, ‘envoys or messengers’ (ἄγγελοι). We may at once -draw an inference from the expression ‘the Satan,’ the full importance -of which will be seen later on. ‘The Satan’ being an appellative, the -book in which it occurs was probably written before Chronicles, where we -find ‘Satan’ without the article, almost[99] as if a proper name; and -being applied to a minister and not an opponent of Jehovah, the Book of -Job is probably earlier than the prophecies of Zechariah and the Books -of Chronicles; see Zech. iii. 1, 2 (where observe that Jehovah’s only -true representative gives a severe reproof to ‘the Satan’), 1 Chron. -xxi. 1 (where ‘Satan,’ uncommissioned, ‘entices’ David to an act -displeasing to Jehovah[100]). The difference between the notices of the -Satan (or Satan) may not seem great to an unpractised student, but no -one who has followed the development of any single doctrine will -undervalue such traces of a growing refinement in the conceptions of -good and evil. Whether or no the ideas of the Chronicler and his age had -been modified by hearing of the Persian Ahriman, may be questioned; but -a similar supposition cannot be allowed in the case of the author of -_Job_. The Satan of the Prologue is, in theory at least, simply -Jehovah’s agent, though he certainly betrays a malicious pleasure in his -invidious function of trying or sifting the righteous. It is not -impossible that the author of the Prologue was the first to use the term -Satan in this sense. At any rate, it is a pure Hebrew term, unlike the -Ashmedai or Asmodæus of the Book of Tobit. [Ashmedai, in later Judaism, -is the head of the Shedim—demons who were never angels of God, just as -Sammael is the ‘head of all Satans,’ i.e. the prince of the fallen -angels. Weber, _System der altsynagog. Palästin. Theologie_, pp. 243-5.] - -Next, turning to the _mal’akim_, observe that the word occurs very -rarely in _Job_, viz. once in the original Colloquies (iv. 18), and once -(virtually) in the first speech of Elihu (xxxiii. 23). We find, however, -a kindred phrase ‘the _q’doshim_,’ or ‘holy ones,’ i.e. superhuman, -heavenly beings, separate from the world of the senses[101] (v. 1, xv. -15), and comparing v. 1 with iv. 18 we cannot doubt that the same class -of beings is intended. We nowhere meet with the _Mal’ak Yahvè_, so -familiar to us in certain Old Testament narratives; Elihu’s _mal’ak -mēlīç_ (xxxiii. 23) is not synonymous with the older expression (see -account of Elihu). In fact, the thousands of _mal’akim_ known at the -period of the writers of Job have made the one great _mal’ak_ -unnecessary, just as, but for the influence of Persian ideas, the -multitudinous ‘hurtful angels’ (Ps. lxxviii. 49) might sooner or later -have entirely supplanted the single Satan. And yet even an ordinary -_mal’ak_, when he appears, is more awful than the great _mal’ak Yahvè_; -the angel who appears to Eliphaz (Job iv. 15, 16) is as unrecognisable -as the ‘face’ of Jehovah himself. This is an indication, though but a -slight one, of a somewhat advanced age, when the gulf between God and -man was more acutely felt, and religious thought was more specially -directed to filling it up. - -The title ‘holy ones’ (v. 1) enables us to identify the ‘angels’ with -the ‘sons of the Elohim.’ Separateness from human weakness, though not -mediatorial ability[102] is equally, predicated of both. But neither the -poet of _Job_, nor any of the psalmists, identifies the phrases in -express terms;[103] a virtual identification (see above, and Ps. lxxxix. -7, 8) is all that they venture upon. There was a good reason for -this—viz. their recollection of the physical and mythological origin of -the phrase, ‘the sons of the Elohim.’ ‘Angels’ and ‘sons of the Elohim’ -are indeed alike ‘holy’ and ‘servants’ of the supreme God, but not -always so, according to Hebrew tradition, were the ‘sons of the Elohim.’ -In support of this, we may refer, not only to Gen. vi. 4 (which the -author of _Job_ need not have known), but to the allusions in his poem -(see above) to a war among the inhabitants of heaven. This war, I think, -stands in connection not merely with the physical phenomena of light and -darkness, but also with speculations of pious Jehovists, or worshippers -of Jehovah, as to the basis and value of ‘heathen’ religions. According -to Deut. xxxii. 8,[104] each of the nations of the world was allotted by -the Most High (_Elyōn_)[105] to some one of the ‘sons of El’ (the -simplest name for God); of course we are to suppose that these ‘sons of -El’ and their worshippers were meant to recognise the supremacy of the -‘God of Gods’—Jehovah. But (so we may suppose the train of thought of -the Jehovists to have run) the nations and their deities formed the vain -dream of independence. The result of the struggle between Jehovah and -the inferior Elohim is referred to in _Job_: the Elohim renounced their -dream of independent sovereignty and were admitted into Jehovah’s -service. Henceforth they were no longer _shīdīm_, i.e. ‘lords’ (?), -Deut. xxxii. 17, but _mal’akīm_ ‘messengers.’ But the ‘heathen’ nations -go on worshipping the Elohim, ignorant that their divinities have been -dispossessed of their misused lordship.[106] Instead of Him who alone -henceforth is ‘enthroned in the heavens’ (Ps. ii. 4), they honour ‘that -which is not God’ (Deut. xxxii. 21), phantom-divinities whom they -localise, like Jehovah, in the sky. Thus, except as to the region of the -divine habitation, they differ radically from Jehovists like the author -of _Job_. In that one point he agrees with them: the stars and the ‘sons -of Elohim’ he still pictures to himself as closely conjoined (xxxviii. -6). Thus, the old and the new are fermenting in his brain, and on the -ground of their angelology we can safely date the authors of _Job_ -somewhere in the great literary period which opens with the ‘Captivity.’ - -Footnote 99: - - It is not likely that Satan was ever used entirely as a proper name; - but being frequently in men’s mouths, it naturally lost the article. - At last the name Sammael was invented for the arch-Satan (see above). - -Footnote 100: - - In 2 Sam. xxiv. 1, the temptation is ascribed to Jehovah; the - Chronicler is at any rate on the road to James i. 13. Contrast the - stationariness of Mohammed (‘God misleadeth whom He will,’ Korán, - xxxv. 9). - -Footnote 101: - - So rightly Baudissin, _Studien_, ii. 125. - -Footnote 102: - - Eliphaz apparently assumes that the ‘holy ones’ might plead for Job - with Eloah (comp. xxxiii. 23). There is an analogy for this in Arabian - religion. The Koreish (Qurais) tribe were willing to join Mohammed, if - he would only admit their three idol-gods to be mediators with the - supreme God, and for a time he consented. See Palmer’s Korán, Introd., - p. xxvii. This was equivalent to recognising these heathen deities as - _b’ur Elohim_ and also (Eliphaz would say) as _Q’dōskīm_ or ‘holy - ones.’ - -Footnote 103: - - The Elohistic narrator in Gen. xxviii. 12, 17, xxxii. 2, 3 even - appears to identify the terms ‘angels of Elohim’ (= God) and ‘Elohim’ - (= divine powers). _Beth ’elōhīm_ and _makhani’ ’elōhīm_ are more - naturally rendered ‘place, host, of divine powers’ than ‘place, host - of God.’ - -Footnote 104: - - The ‘Song of Moses’ is placed by Ewald and Kamphausen in the Assyrian - period of Israel’s history. Ver. 8 runs, in a corrected version. - -Footnote 105: - - ‘When Elyōn gave the nations as inheritances, when he parted out the - sons of men, he set the bounds of the peoples according to the number - of the sons of El:’ comp. ver. 9. ‘For Jehovah is the portion of his - people, Jacob is the lot of his inheritance.’ (With many recent - critics, I follow the reading of the Septuagint. A scribe, offended by - the no longer intelligible statement in ver. 8, inserted an Ι before - ΗΛ, and so formed the usual abbreviation of Ἰσραήλ.) This passage - explains Sirach xvii. 17. - -Footnote 106: - - There is a singular reference to a still future deposition of the - patron spirits of the nations in Isa. xxiv. 21 (post-Exile), with - which comp. Ps. lviii., lxxxii. In lxxxii. 6 the title _’elōhim_ is - interchanged with _b’nē ’elyōn_ ‘sons of the Most High.’ - - - - - CHAPTER XI. - ARGUMENT FROM PARALLEL PASSAGES. - - -The new phase into which the controversy as to the early Christian work -on the _Teaching of the Apostles_ has passed excuses me from justifying -the importance (in spite of its difficulty) of the study of parallel -passages. A great point has been gained in one’s critical and exegetical -training when one has learned so to compare parallel passages as to -distinguish true from apparent resemblances, and to estimate the degree -of probability of imitation. In Essay viii. of vol. ii. of _The -Prophecies of Isaiah_, I endeavoured to help the student to do this for -himself within the field of the Book of Isaiah. I shall not attempt this -with the same thoroughness for the Book of Job. It is a sign of the -consummate skill of the writer that he is an artist even in his -imitations. As Luther says, ‘Die Rede dieses Buches ist so reisig und -prächtig als freilich keines Buches in der ganzen Schrift.’ The author -retains the parallelistic distich, but is no longer content with a bare -synonymous or antithetic bifurcation of his material, and dwells on the -decoration of an idea with a freedom which sometimes obscures his -meaning; hence too the germinal phrase or word suggested by an earlier -book may easily escape notice. I shall confine my attention to the most -defensible points of contact, referring for the rest, without pledging -myself to agreement, to Dr. J. Barth’s _Beiträge zur Erklärung des -Buches Job_ (Leipzig, _s.a._), pp. 1-17. - -The influence of _Job_ on the works which all admit to be of post-Exile -origin need not detain us here. There is but one undoubted reference to -Job in Ecclesiastes (v. 14; comp. Job i. 21)—we should perhaps have -expected more. But Sirach with a true instinct detected an affinity -between his own ideas and Job xxviii. (comp. this chapter with Ecclus. -i. 3, 5, &c.), though he neglects the rest, and does not include our -poet among the ‘famous men’ and the ‘fathers that begot us.’ Passing -upwards, we shall, if historical criticism be our guide, make our first -pause at the undeniably later psalms and at the later portions of -Isaiah. In the former compare (as specimens). - - Ps. ciii. 16 with Job vii. 12 - — cvii. 40 — — xii. 21, 24 - — — 41 — — xxi. 11 - — — 42 — — xxii. 19, v. 16 - — cxix. 28 — — xvi. 20 - — — 50 — — vi. 10 - — — 69 — — xiii. 4 - — — 103 — — vi. 25. - -There is, I think, no question that these psalm-passages were inspired -by the parallels in Job. In Isa. xl.-lxvi. there are, as I have pointed -out (_Isaiah_, ed. 3, ii. 250), at least twenty-one parallels to -passages in our poem. I do not, however, think that we can venture to -describe either set of passages _en bloc_ as imitations. But there are -at least two clear cases of imitation, and here the original is not the -prophet but the poet (comp. Isa. li. 9_b_, 10_a_, with Job xxvi. 12, 13, -and Isa. liii. 9 with Job xvi. 17). With regard to the book (II. Isaiah) -as a whole, or at least the greater part of it, we may say that there is -a parallelism of idea running through it and the Book of job, which may -to a large extent account for parallelisms of expression. This does not, -however, apply everywhere, least of all to the great prophetic dirge on -the ‘despised and rejected’ one, which presents stylistic phenomena so -unlike that of its context that we seem bound to assign the substratum -of Isa. lii. 13-liii. to a time of persecution previous to the -Exile.[107] How the poet of Job became acquainted with this striking -passage, we know not. Did it form part of some prophetic anthology -similar to the poetic Golden Treasury called ‘The Book of the -Righteous’? or shall we follow those bolder critics who suppose the -author of Job to have lived in the post-Exile times, when he may easily -have had access to both parts of our Book of Isaiah? These are questions -not to be evaded on account of their difficulty, but not to be decided -here. - -Our next halt may be made at the Book of Proverbs, the three concluding -sections of which composite work belong at the earliest to the last -century of the Jewish state. Among the clearest literary allusions in -_Job_ are those to this book, and some of these are especially important -with regard to the disputed question of the relation between our poem -and the introduction to the Book of Proverbs (Prov. i.-ix.) That the -latter work is the earlier seems to me clear from a comparison of the -general positions indicated by the following passages from Prov. i.-ix. -and the Book of Job. Compare— - - Prov. i. 7 with Job xxviii. 28 - — iii. 11 — — v. 17 - — iii. 14, 15} — — xxviii. 15-19 - — viii. 10, 11} - — iii. 19, 20 — — xxviii. 26, 27 - — viii. 22, 25 — — xv. 7, 8 - — viii. 29 — — xxxviii. 10. - -It will be seen by any one who will compare these passages that the case -here is different from that of the parallelisms in _Job_ and the second -part of Isaiah. The latter do not perhaps allow us to determine with -confidence which of the two books is the earlier. But, as Prof. Davidson -has amply shown,[108] the stage of intellectual development represented -by _Job_ is more advanced than that in the ‘Praise of Wisdom.’ The -general subjects may be the same, but in Job they have entered upon a -new phase.—We now pass to the earliest of the proverbial anthologies -(Prov. x.-xxii. 16). Here of course the relation is reversed: the -proverbs are the originals to which the author of Job alludes. Compare— - - Prov. xiii. 19 } with Job xviii. 5, 6, xxi. 17 - — xxiv. 20 } - — xv. 11 — — xxvi. 6 - — xvi. 15 — — xxix. 23, 24. - -We may infer from this group of parallels that the author of _Job_ not -only studied venerated ‘Solomonic’ models, but even ventured directly to -controvert their leading doctrine; see especially Job xxi. 17. In our -next comparison the relation seems reversed. The author of Prov. xxx. -1-4 not improbably alludes sarcastically to the theophany in Job -xxxviii.-xlii. 6. Note in passing the occurrence of Eloah for ‘God’ in -Prov. xxx. 5 (comp. the speeches in _Job_). - -There are several parallels in the Book of Lamentations; I restrict -myself to those in the third elegy, which differs in several points from -the others, especially in its poetic feebleness. It is easier to believe -that the author of the elegy was dependent on _Job_ than to take the -reverse view. A poem, the hero of which was obviously the typical -righteous man, naturally suggested features in the description of the -representative Israelite. Compare, then, Lam. iii. 7, 9 with Job xix. 8; -iii. 8 with Job xxx. 20; iii. 10 with Job. x. 16; iii. 12, 13 with Job -vii. 20, xvi. 12, 13; iii. 14, 63 with Job xxx. 9. - -Parallels to _Job_ also occur in Jeremiah. It is often, indeed, not easy -to say on which side is the originality. But in one of the most -important instances we may pronounce decidedly in favour of _Job_ (comp. -Jer. xx. 14-18 with Job iii. 3-10). The despairing utterance referred to -is an exaggeration in the mouth of Job, but suitable enough in -Jeremiah’s. In Job, l.c., we seem to recognise the slightly artificial -turn which the author loves to give to the ideas and phrases of his -predecessors; while the cutting irony of the words ‘making him very -glad’ (Jer. xx. 15) as clearly betokens the hand of the original writer. -Compare also Job vi. 15 with Jer. xv. 18; ix. 19 with Jer. xlix. 19; x. -18-22 with Jer. xx. 14-18; xii. 4, xix. 7 with Jer. xx. 7, 8; xii. 6, -xxi. 7 with Jer. xii. 1; xix. 24 with Jer. xvii. 1; xxxviii. 33 with -Jer. xxxi. 35, 36. - -There are two plausible points of contact in _Job_ with Deuteronomy -(comp. Job xxiv. 2, Deut. xix. 14 [removing landmarks]; Job xxxi. 9, 11, -Deut. xxii. 22), but only one worth mentioning with Genesis (xxii. 16; -comp Gen. vi. &c.), and here observe that the word for A.V.’s ‘flood’ -(Job, l.c.) is not _mabbūl_ but _nāhār_.[109] Hitzig and Delitzsch find -another in xxxi. 33. But _ādām_ in Job always means ‘men:’ in xv. 7, 8, -where the first man is referred to, he is not named. The reference in -xxxi. 33 is not to hiding sins from God, but from man. I think, however, -that the Prologue implies a general acquaintance with some current -descriptions of the patriarchal period—the ‘golden age’ to men of a more -advanced civilisation. - -It is remarkable, what interesting parallels are afforded by the -prophets of the Assyrian period. Isaiah, as might be expected, contains -the largest number (see _The Prophecies of Isaiah_, ed. 3, ii. 243); but -Hosea follows close after. Compare especially— - - Isa. xix. 5, certainly the Job xiv. 11, ‘the waters fail - original of Job, l.c., where from the sea,’ i.e. any inland - the special reference to the body of water - sea-like Nile is dropped - - - Isa. xxviii. 29 Job xi. 6 (God’s wisdom - marvellous; see Merx, and - _Isaiah_, ii. 154) - - - Hos. x. 13, combined with Job iv. 8 (‘ploughing - Prov. xxii. 8 iniquity,’ &c.) - - - Hos. vi. 1 (or Deut. xxxii. Job v. 18 (‘he maketh sore and - 39) bindeth up,’ &c.) - - - Hos. v. 14, xiii. 7, 8 Job x. 16 (God compared to a - lion) - - - Hos. xiii. 12 (or Deut. xxxii. Job xiv. 17 (‘transgression - 34) sealed up,’ &c.) - - - Am. iv. 13, v. 8 (the Job ix. 8, 9 (‘that treadeth - comparison suggests that v. 8, upon the heights of the sea; - 9 stood immediately after iv. that maketh the Bear, Orion, - 13 when Job was written, and and the Pleiades’) - that ‘the sea,’ i.e. the upper - ocean, stood for ‘the earth’) - -Comp. also Am. v. 8, ix. 6 with Job xii. 15; Am. ii. 9 with Job xviii. -16. - -I say nothing here of the parallels in the Song of Hezekiah (Isa. -xxxviii. 10-20). I have shown reason in _Isaiah_, i. 228, for believing -that the Song is a highly imitative work, and largely based on Job, such -a work in fact as can only be accounted for in the Exile or post-Exile -period. - -There still remains the great body of psalms of disputed date. The -parallelisms in Ps. xxxvii.[110] are too general to be mentioned here, -striking as they are; but we may venture to compare Ps. viii. 5 with Job -vii. 17; Ps. xxxix. 12_b_ with Job iv. 19_b_; ib. 14_a_ with Job vii. -19_a_, x. 20; ib. 14_b_ with Job x. 21, 22; Ps. lxxii. 12 with Job xxix. -12; ib. 16 with Job v. 25_b_; Ps. lxxxviii. 16_b_ with Job xx. 25 (the -rare word _’ēmīm_); ib. 17 with Job vi. 4 (_bi’ūthīm_); ib. 19 (lxix. 9) -with Job xix. 14; and note throughout this psalm the same correspondence -of extreme inward and outward suffering which we find in Job. Then, -turning to the psalms of different tenor, comp. lxxii. 12 with Job xxix. -12; ib. 16 with Job v. 25_b_. I have selected these instances precisely -because they allow us to draw an inference as to priority. Ps. lxxxviii. -is clearly imitative, and no doubt there is more imitation of the great -poem in other psalms. Psalms viii., xxxix., and (probably) lxxii. were -however known to and imitated by the authors of _Job_. The parallel in -Ps. viii. is specially important. That this psalm is not earlier than -the Exile is disputed, but extremely probable; the bitter ‘parody’ in -Job vii. 17 must in this case be of the same or a later period. - -And now to sum up the results of our comparisons. The Colloquies in -_Job_ are of later origin than Deuteronomy, Jeremiah, Lamentations, and -most of Proverbs, but possibly nearly contemporaneous with much in the -second part of Isaiah, except that Isa. liii. not improbably lay before -the author of _Job_; also that Ps. viii., a work of the Exile period, -was well known to him. We are thus insensibly led on to date the Book of -Job (the speeches, at any rate) during the Exile. This will account for -the large amount of imitation to which the book gave rise. Men felt -respecting the author that he was the first and greatest exponent of the -ideas and feelings, not of a long-past age, but of their own; that he -‘sat chief, and dwelt as a king in the army, as one that comforteth the -mourners’ (Job xxix. 25). - -Footnote 107: - - See Cheyne, _The Prophecies of Isaiah_, ed. 3, ii. 30; art. ‘Isaiah,’ - _Encyclopædia Britannica_, xi. 380. - -Footnote 108: - - _The Book of Job_ (1884), pp. lx.-lxii. - -Footnote 109: - - According to Ewald, the reference is to Sodom and Gomorrah, the story - of which, we know, was familiar as early as Hosea’s time (Hos. xi. 8). - -Footnote 110: - - See Bateson Wright’s _The Book of Job_, Appendix. The author concludes - that the poet of _Job_ ‘selects the main threads from the complete - treatise of Ps. xxxvii. and interweaves them into the highly poetical - discourse of Eliphaz.’ - - - - - CHAPTER XII. - ON THE DISPUTED PASSAGES IN THE DIALOGUE-PORTION, ESPECIALLY THE - SPEECHES OF ELIHU. - - -A detailed exegetical study would alone enable the reader to do justice -to the controversies here referred to. But I may at least ask that, even -upon the ground of the slender analysis which I have given, he should -recognise the difficulties at the root of these controversies. In -comparison with his possession of a ‘seeing eye,’ it is of little moment -to me whether he adopts my explanations or not. Poets, like painters, -have different periods. It is therefore conceivable that the author of -_Job_ changed in course of time, and criticised his own work, these -afterthoughts of his being embodied in the ‘disputed passages.’ It is -indeed also conceivable that the phenomena which puzzle us are to be -explained by the plurality of authorship. In the remarks which follow I -wish to supplement the sketch of the possible or probable growth of the -Book offered in section 3 of Chap. VII., chiefly with regard to the -speeches of Elihu. - -Keil has spoken of ‘the persistently repeated assaults upon the -genuineness’ of these discourses. I must however protest against the use -of the word ‘genuineness’ in this connection. Even if not by the author -of the poem of _Job_, the speeches of Elihu are as ‘genuine’ a monument -of Israel’s religious ‘wisdom’ as the work of the earlier writer. No -critic worthy of the name thinks of ‘assaulting’ them, though divines no -less orthodox than Gregory the Great and the Venerable Bede have -uncritically enough set the example. The speeches of Elihu only seem -poor by comparison with the original work; they are not without true and -beautiful passages, which, with all their faults of expression, would in -any other book have commanded universal admiration. The grounds on which -chaps. xxxii.-xxxvii. are denied to the original writer may be summed up -thus. - -(1) Elihu puts forward a theory of the sufferings of the righteous which -does not essentially differ from that of the three friends (see -especially xxxiii. 25-28; xxxiv. 9, 11, 12, 36, 37; xxxv. 9-16; xxxvi. -5-7, 21-25; xxxvii. 23, 24). No doubt he improves the theory, by laying -more stress upon the chastening character of the righteous man’s -afflictions (xxxiii. 14-30; xxxvi. 8-12, 15, 16, and comp. Eliphaz in v. -18, 19), and to many disciples of the New Covenant his form of the -theory may recommend itself as true. But, even apart from the appendix -or epilogue (see xlii. 7-9), it is clear from the whole plan of the -poem, particularly if the discourses of Jehovah be taken in, that this -was not, in the writer’s mind, an adequate solution of the problem, -especially in the case of the God-fearing and innocent Job. - -(2) These speeches interrupt the connection between the ‘words of Job’ -and those of Jehovah, and seem to render the latter superfluous. Whether -the ‘words of Job’ (to borrow the phrase of some editor of the book) -should end at xxxvii. 37 or at ver. 40, it is difficult not to believe -that xxxviii. 1, 2, ‘And Jehovah answered Job out of the storm, and -said, Who then is darkening counsel by words without knowledge?’ was -meant to follow immediately upon them. The force of this seems to some -to be weakened by taking Elihu’s description of the storm (xxxvii. 2-5) -as preparatory to the appearance of Jehovah in chap. xxxviii. But, -evidently, to make this an argument, the storm ought to be at the end of -the speech. - -(3) There is no mention of Elihu in the Prologue, nor is any divine -judgment passed upon him in the Epilogue. It is not enough to reply with -Stickel that Jehovah himself is not mentioned in the Prologue as the -umpire in the great controversy; why should he be?—and that the absence -of any condemnation of Elihu on the part of Jehovah, and the harmony (?) -between Elihu’s and Jehovah’s discourses, sufficiently indicate the good -opinion of the Divine Judge. - -(4) Elihu’s style is prolix and laboured; his phrases often very -obscure, even where the words separately are familiar. As Davidson -remarks, there are not only unknown words (these we meet with elsewhere -in the book), but an unknown use of known words. There is also a deeper -colouring of Aramaic (see Appendix), which F. C. Cook, following -Stickel, explains by the supposed Aramæan origin of the speaker; in this -case, it would be a refinement of art which adds a fresh laurel to the -crown of the poet. But the statement in xxxii. 2 is that Elihu was ‘the -son of Barakel the Buzite, of the kindred of Ram.’ That Ram = Aram is -unproved; while Buz, as Jer. xxv. 23 shows, is the name of a genuine -Arabian people. It would be better to explain the increased Aramaism by -the lapse of a long interval in the writer’s life. This explanation is, -to me, equivalent to assigning these speeches to a different writer (as -I have remarked elsewhere, comparing Goethe’s _Faust_). Those who will -may adopt it; but my own respect for the poet of _Job_ will not allow me -to believe that his taste had so much declined as to insert this -inferior poem into his masterpiece. - -(5) Elihu’s allusions to passages in the rest of the book (comp. xxxiii. -15 with iv. 13; xxxiv. 3 with xii. 11; xxxv. 5 with xxii. 12; xxxv. 8 -with xxii. 2; xxxvii. 8 with xxxviii. 40) and his minute reproductions -of sayings of Job (see xxxiii. 8, 9; xxxiv. 5, 6; xxxv. 2, 3) point to -an author who had the book before him, so far as then known, as a whole. - -(6) Elihu’s somewhat scrupulous piety, or shall I call it his advance in -reverential, contrite devoutness? compared with the three friends, -suggests that the poet of Elihu was the child of a later and more sombre -generation which found the original book in some respects disappointing. - -Putting all this together, if the main part of the Book of Job belongs -to the Exile, the Elihu-portion may well belong to the post-Exile -period. - -To this view, it is no objection that, on the one hand, Elihu not merely -(to express oneself shortly) criticises the position of the three -friends, but, by ignoring it, criticises the view of Job’s afflictions -taken in the Prologue, and, on the other, has much in common with the -rest of the book in orthographic, grammatical, and lexical respects. The -idea that God permits affliction simply to try the disinterestedness of -a good man, is one which might easily shock the feelings of one only too -conscious that he was not good; and the linguistic points which ‘Elihu’ -and the rest of the book have in common are such as we should expect to -find in works proceeding from the same class of writers. If Jeremiah -wrote all the pieces which contain Jeremian phraseology, or Isaiah all -the prophecies which remind one at all of the great prophet, or the same -‘wise man’ wrote Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, then we may perhaps believe -that the author of _Job_ also wrote the speeches of Elihu and perhaps -one or two of the didactic psalms. - -Professor Briggs, the author of that excellent work _Biblical Study_, -takes up a different position, which, though not new, acquires some -authority from his respected name. He does not see any literary or -theological merit in Elihu’s speeches, and yet regards them as ‘an -important part of the original work.’ The author designed to portray -Elihu as a young and inexperienced man, and uses these ambitious -failures ‘as a literary foil ... to prepare the way for the divine -interposition, to quiet and soothe by their tediousness the agitated -spirits of Job and his friends.’[111] To me, this view of the intention -of the speeches lowers the character of the original writer. So reverent -and devout a speaker as Elihu is ill rewarded by being treated as a -literary and theological foil. Artistically, the value of this part may -be _comparatively_ slight, but theologically it enriches the Old -Testament with a monument of a truly Christian consciousness of sin. Had -the original writer equalled him in this, we should perhaps have missed -a splendid anticipation of the life of Christ, who ‘did no sin, neither -was guile found in his mouth.’ But the Elihu-section expresses in Old -Testament language the great truth announced by St. Paul in 1 Cor. xi. -32.[112] - -On the other ‘disputed passages’ I have little to add. - -(_a_) To me, the picture of the behémoth and the leviathan (xl. 15-xli.) -seems but little less probably a later insertion than the speeches of -Elihu; this view of the case has the authority of Ewald. That cautious -critic, Dr. Davidson, remarks that this passage has a very different -kind of movement from that of the tight and graceful sketches in chaps. -xxxviii., xxxix., and that the poetic inventory which it contains -reminds us more of an Arab poet’s description of his camel or his horse -(_Job_, p. liv.) - -(_b_) I cannot speak so positively as to the speeches of Jehovah. From a -purely æsthetic point of view, I am often as unwilling as any one to -believe that they were ‘inserted.’ At other times I ask myself, Can the -inconsistencies of this portion as compared with the Colloquies be -explained as mere oversights? The appearance of the Almighty upon the -scene is in itself strange. Job had no doubt expressed a wish for this, -but did not suppose that it could be realised,[113] at any rate in his -own lifetime. It is still stranger that the Almighty should appear, not -in the gentle manner which Job had desired (ix. 34, 35), not with the -object of a judicial investigation of the case, but in the whirlwind, -and with a foregone conclusion on Job’s deserts. For in fact that -splendid series of ironical questions which occupies chaps. xxxviii., -xxxix., and which Job had by anticipation deprecated (ix. 3), is nothing -less than a long drawn-out condemnation of Job. The indictment and the -defendant’s reply, to which Job has referred with such proud -self-confidence (xxxi. 35, 36), are wholly ignored; and the result is -that which Job has unconsciously predicted in the words,— - - To whom, though innocent, I would not reply, - but would make supplication unto my Judge (ix. 15). - -(_c_) Great difficulties have been found in xxvii. 8 (or 11)-23, xxviii. -First of all, Is there an inner connection between these passages? Dr. -Green seeks to establish one. ‘While continuing,’ he says, ‘to insist -upon his own integrity, notwithstanding the afflictions sent upon him, -he freely admits, and this in language as emphatic as their own, the -reality of God’s providential government, and that punishment does -overtake the ungodly. Nevertheless there is a mystery enveloping the -divine administration, which is quite impenetrable to the human -understanding’ (_The Book of Job_, p. 233). This is very unnatural.[114] -How can Job suddenly adopt the language of the friends without conceding -that he has himself hitherto been completely in error? And what right -have we to force such a subtle connection between chaps. xxvii. and -xxviii? Looking at the latter by itself, one cannot help suspecting that -it once formed part of a didactic treatise similar to the Introduction -to the Book of Proverbs (see end of Chap. III). For a careful exegetical -study of chaps. xxvii., xxviii., see Giesebrecht (see ‘Aids to the -Student,’ after Chap. XV.), with whom Dr. Green seems to accord, but who -fails to convince me. See also Budde in his _Beiträge_, and Grätz, ‘Die -Integrität der Kap. 27 und 28 im Hiob,’ _Monatsschrift_, 1872, p. 241 -&c. - -Footnote 111: - - _Presbyterian Review_, 1885, p. 353. - -Footnote 112: - - Delitzsch, art. ‘Hiob,’ Herzog-Plitt’s _Realencyklopädie_, vi. 132. - -Footnote 113: - - Since this wish cannot be realised, Job pleads his cause against an - invisible God with the same earnestness as if he stood before His - face. - -Footnote 114: - - It is a pleasure to quote the forcible summing-up of Mr. Froude. ‘A - difficulty,’ he remarks, ‘now arises which, at first sight, appears - insurmountable. As the chapters are at present printed, the entire of - the 27th is assigned to Job, and the paragraph from the 11th to the - 23rd verses is in direct contradiction to all which he has maintained - before—is, in fact, a concession of having been wrong from the - beginning. Ewald, who, as we said above, himself refuses to allow the - truth of Job’s last and highest position, supposes that he is here - receding from it, and confessing what an over-precipitate passion had - betrayed him into denying. For many reasons, principally because we - are satisfied that Job said then no more than the real fact, we cannot - think Ewald right; and the concessions are too large and too - inconsistent to be reconciled even with his own general theory of the - poem’ (_Short Studies_, vol. i.) He then proceeds to mention with - cautious approbation the theory of Kennicott (see note on Text at end - of Chap. XV.) - - - - - CHAPTER XIII. - IS JOB A HEBRÆO-ARABIC POEM? - - -That the Book of Job is not as deeply penetrated with the spirit of -revelation, nor even as distinctly Israelitish a production, as most of -the Old Testament writings, requires no argument. May we venture to go -further, and infer from various phenomena that, not merely the artistic -form of the _māshāl_, but the thoughts and even the language of _Job_ -came in a greater or less degree from a foreign source? The question has -been answered in the affirmative (as in the case of the words of Agur in -Prov. xxx., and those of Lemuel in chap. xxxi.) by some early as well as -some more modern writers. This view has been supposed to be implied in -the Greek postscript to the Septuagint version[115] (strongly redolent -of Jewish Midrash), which contains the statement, οὗτος ἑρμηνεύεται ἐκ -τῆς Συριακῆς βίβλου, but though Origen appears so to have -understood,[116] it is more probable that οὗτος merely refers to the -postscript (Zunz; Frankl). Ibn Ezra, however, on independent grounds -does express the opinion (commenting on Job ii. 11) that the Book of Job -is a translation; he ascribes to the translator the words in xxxviii. 1 -containing the sacred name Jehovah. The increased study of Arabic in the -17th century led several theologians of eminence to the same conclusion. -Spanheim, for instance, thought that Job and his friends wrote down the -history and the colloquies in Arabic, after the happy turn in the -fortunes of the sufferer, and that some inspired Israelitish writer, in -the age of Solomon, gave this work a Hebrew dress. Albert Schultens, in -the preface to his _Liber Jobi_ (1737), is at the pains to discuss this -theory, which he rejects on two main grounds, (1) the disparagement to -our magnificent Book of Job involved in calling it a translation, and -(2) that in those primitive and, according to him, pre-Mosaic times, the -Hebrew and Arabic languages cannot have been so different (!) as -Spanheim from his point of view imagines. Elsewhere he expresses his own -opinion shortly thus,[117] ‘Linguam quâ liber Jobi conscriptus est, -genuinum illius temporis Arabismum esse.’ He actually imagines that Job -and his friends extemporised the Colloquies we have before us, referring -to the amazing faculty of improvisation still possessed by the Arabs—a -view scarcely worthier than that of Spanheim, for, as Martineau remarks -in another connection, Who ever improvised a great poem or a great -sermon? Both these great scholars have fallen into the error of -confounding the poet with his hero and the use of poetic and didactic -fiction with deliberate fraud. One cannot be severe upon this error, for -it has survived among ourselves in Prof. S. Lee’s great work (1837), -where our Book of Job is actually traced back through Jethro to Job -himself. The only form however in which a critic of our day could -discuss the question mentioned above would be this, Is it in some degree -probable that the author of _Job_ was a Hebrew who had passed some time -with the Arabic- and Aramaic-speaking peoples bordering on the land of -Israel? - -On grounds independent of Eichhorn and Dean Plumptre, the former of whom -combines his theory with that of a pre-Mosaic, and the latter with that -of a Solomonic date of _Job_, I think that we may venture to reply in -the affirmative. These grounds have reference (1) to the ideas of _Job_, -(2) to its vocabulary. - -(1) I am well aware that the argument from the ideas of _Job_ cannot -claim a strong degree of cogency. It is possible to account for the -conceptions of the author from the natural progress of the -(divinely-guided) moral and religious history of Israel, and those who -believe (I do not myself) that Psalms xvii., xxxvii., xlix., lxxiii., -are Palestinian works of earlier date than _Job_ will have a ready -argument in favour of a purely native origin of the latter book. Still -it seems to me that we can still better account for the author’s point -of view by supposing that he was in sympathy with an intellectual -movement going on outside Israel. The doctrine of retribution in the -present life, which he finds inadequate, is common to the friends and to -the religion which has in all ages been that of the genuine Arab—the -so-called _dīn Ibrāhīm_ (or ‘religion of Abraham’). The Eloah and the -Shaddai of Job are the irresponsible Allah who has all power in heaven -and on earth, and before whom, when mysteries occur in human life which -the retribution-doctrine cannot solve, the Arab and every true Moslem -bows his head with settled, sad resignation. The morality alike of the -_dīn Ibrāhīm_, and of the religion of Mohammed (who professed to restore -it in its purity), is faulty precisely as the religion of the three -friends (and originally of Job himself) is faulty. The same conflict -which arose in the heart of Job arose in the midst of the Moslem world. -I refer to the dispute between the claimants of orthodoxy and the sect -of the Mo’tazilites (8th and 9th centuries); the latter, who were -worsted in the strife, viewed God as the absolutely Good, the former as -a despotic and revengeful tyrant.[118] May not this conflict have been -foreshadowed at an earlier time? Is not the difficulty which led to it a -constantly recurring one, so soon as reflection acquires a certain -degree of maturity? It may well have been felt among the Jews, -especially in the decline of the state, but it must also have been felt -among their neighbours, and freedom of speech has always, in historical -times, been an Arab characteristic. Putting aside the anachronism of -placing Job in the patriarchal age, does not the poet himself appear to -hint that it was so felt by the names and tribal origins of the speakers -in the great religious discussion? - -(2) As to the Arabisms and Aramaisms of the language of _Job_ (see -Appendix). Jerome already says that his own translation follows none of -the ancients, but reproduces, now the words, now the sense, and now -both, ‘ex ipso hebraico arabicoque sermone et interdum syro.’ In the -17th and 18th centuries, De Dieu, Bochart, and above all Schultens made -it a first principle in the study of _Job_ to illustrate it from Aramaic -and especially Arabic. Schultens even describes the language as not so -much Hebrew, as Hebræo-Arabic, and says that it breathes the true and -unmixed genius of Arabia. This is every way an exaggeration, and yet, -after all reasonable deductions, our poem will stand out from the Old -Testament volume by its foreign linguistic affinities. It is not enough -to say that the Arabisms and Aramaisms have from the first formed part -of the Hebrew vocabulary, and were previously employed only because the -subjects of the other books did not call for their use. Unless a more -thorough study of Assyrian should prove that the Arabism (for of these I -am chiefly thinking) belonged to northern as well as to southern -Semitic, it will surely be more natural to suppose that the author of -_Job_ replenished his vocabulary from Arabic sources. There is not a -little in the phraseology of _Job_ which is still as obscure as in the -days of Ibn Ezra, but which receives, or may yet receive, illustration -from the stores of written and spoken Arabic.[119] - -May we not, in short, conjecture that the poem of Job is a grand attempt -to renovate and enrich the Hebrew language?[120] If so, the experiment -can hardly have been made before the great subversion of Hebrew -traditions at the Babylonian captivity. Residence in a foreign land -produces a marked effect on one’s language. Recollect too that our -author was a literary man. Internal evidence converges to show that Job -belonged to that great literary movement among the wise men, -philosophers, or humanists, to which we shall have to refer Prov. i-ix., -the Wisdom of Sirach, and the Book of Ecclesiastes. - -Before leaving this subject, let us notice the parallels to descriptions -in the speeches of Jehovah in the Arabian poets, who show the same -attention to the striking phenomena of earth and sky as the author of -these speeches. The Arabian tone and colouring of the descriptions of -animals in _Job_ has been already remarked upon by Alfred von Kremer in -vol. ii. of his _Culturgeschichte des Orients_. Is it possible to -conceive that those sketches of the wild goat, the wild ass, and the -horse, were not written by one who was familiar with the sight? Or that -the author had not observed the habits of the ostrich, when he penned -his lines on the ostrich’s neglect of her eggs? Or that his interest in -astronomy was not deepened by the spectacle of a night-sky in Arabia? Or -that personal experience of caravan life did not inspire the touching -figure in vi. 15-20? And observation of the mines in the Sinaitic -peninsula[121] the fine description of xxviii. 1-10? It is possible that -some of these passages may be due to other travelled ‘wise men;’ but -this only increases the probability that the Hebrew movement was -strengthened by contact with similar movements abroad. The ‘wise men’ -had certainly travelled far and wide among Arabic-speaking populations, -though nowhere perhaps were they so much at home as in Idumæa and its -neighbourhood. As M. Derenbourg remarks, ‘Les riantes oasis, au milieu -des contrées désolées, environnant la mer Morte, étaient la demeure des -sages et des rêveurs. Bien des siècles après l’auteur de Job, les -Esséniens et les Thérapeutes se plongeaient là dans la vie -contemplative, ou bien ils se livraient à une vie simple, active et -dégagée de tout souci mondain. Encore un peu plus tard cette contrée -devint probablement le berceau de la kabbale ou du mysticisme juif.’ - -Footnote 115: - - There is a doubt whether the Septuagint postscript or the statement of - the Egyptian Jew (?) Aristeas (as given by Eusebius from Alexander - Polyhistor in _Præf. Evang._ l. ix.) be the earlier. The ordinary view - is that Aristeas had the Septuagint _Job_ before him; Freudenthal, - however, infers from the strange description of Eliphaz, Bildad, and - Zophar in Sept. Job ii. 11 (taken verbally from Aristeas) that the - reverse was the case, and that the fragment of Aristeas is only a - condensed extract from the prologue and epilogue of the Book of Job - (Freudenthal, _Hellenistische Studien_, 139, 140; Grätz, - _Monatsschrift_, 1877, p. 91). This inference in turn suggests Grätz’ - hypothesis that the Septuagint Job is a work of the first century A.D. - (see note at end of Chap. XV.) - -Footnote 116: - - _Opera_, Delarue, ii. 851, _ap._ Delitzsch, _Iob_, p. 603. - -Footnote 117: - - _Opera minora_ (Lugd. Bat. 1769), p. 497. - -Footnote 118: - - Kremer, _Herrschende Ideen des Islams_, p. 27 &c.; Kuenen, _Hibbert - Lectures_, p. 48 &c. - -Footnote 119: - - Prof. Socin once observed to me how useful spoken Arabic would be - found for this purpose. - -Footnote 120: - - Arabic literary history presents an example of literary experimenting - which will at once occur to the mind—the ‘Maqamas’ or Sessions of - Hariri. - -Footnote 121: - - On the mining passage see further p. 40. Stickel, however, though - inclining to the above view, thinks that it is still not quite - impossible that Palestinian mines are meant, comparing Edrisi’s - statements on the iron-mines of Phœnicia and the words of the - Deuteronomist in Deut. viii. 9. _Das Buch Hiob_, pp. 265-6. - - - - - CHAPTER XIV. - THE BOOK FROM A RELIGIOUS POINT OF VIEW. - - - Motto: ‘Jedem nämlich wollte ich dienen, der hinlänglich Sinn hat in - die grosse Frage tiefer einzugehen, welche das ernste Leben einmal - gewiss an Jeden heranbringt, nach der Gerechtigkeit der göttlichen - Waltung in den menschlichen Geschicken.’—STICKEL (_Das Buch Hiob_, - Einl. S. vi.) - - -There was a period, not so long since, when a Biblical writing was -valued according to its supposed services to orthodox theology. From -this point of view, the Book of Job was regarded partly as a typical -description of the sufferings of our Saviour,[122] partly as a -repository of text-proofs of Christian doctrines, which though few in -number acquired special importance from the immense antiquity assigned -to the poem. We must not, in our reaction from the exclusively -theological estimate of the Old Testament, shut our eyes to the -significance of each of its parts in the history of the higher religion. -The Book of Job _is_ theological, though the theology of its writer, -being that of a poet, is less logical than that of an apostle, less -definite even than that of a prophet, in so far as the prophet obtained -(or seemed to obtain) his convictions by a message or revelation from -without. Being a poet, moreover, the writer of _Job_ can even less than -a prophet have had clear conceptions of the historical Messiah and His -period. Moral and spiritual truths—these were his appointed province, -not the secret counsels of God, nor those exceptional facts or truths -which orthodoxy still perhaps regards as among the postulates of the -faith of the Hebrew prophets. Nor can the hero of the poem be considered -a strict and proper type of the Christ, for this reason among others, -that Job is to all intents and purposes a creation of the fancy, whether -of the unconsciously working fancy of the people, or of the rich and -potent imagination of a poet. In what sense, then, may the Book of Job -still claim a theological significance, and be allowed to fill a not -unimportant place in the _Vorgeschichte_ of Christianity? - -I. The hero of the poem (I exclude from consideration the speeches of -Elihu[123]) is, not indeed a type, but in some sense prophetic of the -Christ, inasmuch as the very conception of a righteous man enduring vast -calamities, not so much for his own sake as for the world’s, is a bold -hypothesis which could only in the Christ be made good. The poet does -more than merely personify the invisible Church of righteous and -believing sufferers; he idealises this Church in doing so, and this -idealising is a venture of faith. Job is an altogether exceptional -figure: he is imperfect, no doubt, if viewed as a symbol of the Christ, -but this does not diminish the reality and the grandeur of the -presentiment which he embodies. To a religious mind, this remarkable -creation will always appear stamped by the hand of Providence. Job is -not indeed a Saviour, but the imagination of such a figure prepares the -way for a Saviour. In the words of Dr. Mozley, ‘If the Jew was to accept -a Messiah who was to lead a life of sorrow and abasement, and to be -crucified between thieves, it was necessary that it should be somewhere -or other distinctly taught that virtue was not always rewarded here, and -that therefore no argument could be drawn from affliction and ignominy -against the person who suffered it.’[124] - -II. This then is the grandest of the elements in the Book of Job which -helped to prepare the noblest minds among the Jews for the reception of -primitive Christianity—viz. the idea of a righteous man suffering simply -because (as was said of One parallel in many respects to Job) ‘it -pleased Jehovah (for a wise purpose) to bruise him.’ The second element -is the idea of a supra-mundane justice, which will one day manifest -itself in favour of the righteous sufferer, not only in this world (xvi. -18, 19, xix. 25, xlii.), so that all men may recognise their innocence, -but also beyond the grave, the sufferers themselves being in some -undefined manner brought back to life in the conscious enjoyment of -God’s favour (xiv. 13-15, xix. 26, 27?) There may be only suggestions of -these ideas, but suggestions were enough when interpreted by sympathetic -readers. Let me add that by ‘sympathetic,’ I mean in sympathy with the -conception of God formed by the author of _Job_. Nothing is more out of -sympathy with this conception than the saying of the Jewish scholar, S. -D. Luzzatto, ‘The God of Job is not the God of Israel, the Gracious One; -He is the Almighty and the Righteous, but not the Kind and Faithful -One.’ No; the God of Job would be less than infinitely righteous if He -were not also kind (comp. Ps. lxii. 12). And of this enlarged conception -of God, faith in the continuance of the human spirit is a consequence. -Justice to those with whom God is in covenant requires that He should -not after a few years hurl them back into non-existence (comp. Job x. -8-13). But I can only skirt the fringe of the great religious problems -opened by this wonderful book. - -In conclusion, and in the spirit of my motto, let me invite the reader’s -attention (even if he be no theologian) to the spectacle of a powerful -mind dashing itself against perennial problems too mighty for it to -solve. The author of our poem missed the only adequate and possible -solution, and hence he has been erroneously regarded by several moderns -as the representative of a mental attitude akin to their own. Heine, for -instance, can term this book ‘the Song of Songs of scepticism.’ No doubt -those who are at sea on religious matters can find sayings in _Job_ -which may seem as if spoken by themselves; but in truth these only -enhance the significance of the counteracting elements in the poem. It -is the logical incompleteness of _Job_ which at once exposes the book to -misjudgment, and gives it an eternal fascination. As Quinet has said, -‘Ce qui fait la grandeur de ce livre, c’est qu’en dépassant la mesure de -l’Ancien Testament il appelle, il provoque nécessairement des cieux -nouveaux.... Le christianisme vit au fond de ce blasphème.’ We need a -second part of _Job_, or at least a third speech of Jehovah, which could -however only be given by some Hebrew poet who had drunk at the fountains -of the Fourth Gospel. Failing these, the reader must supply what is -necessary for himself,—a better compensation to Job for his agony than -the Epilogue provides, and a more touching and not less divine theophany -(comp. Job ix. 32, 33). This Christianity will enable him to do. -Intellectually, the problem of Job’s life may remain, but to the -Christian heart the cloud is luminous. - - The Infinite remains unknown, - Too vast for man to understand: - In Him, the ‘Woman’s Seed,’ alone - We trace God’s footprint in the sand.[125] - -Footnote 122: - - ‘The Church in all ages has regarded the one as a type of the other,’ - Turner, _Studies Biblical and Oriental_, p. 150. But Del. has already - dissuaded from insisting too much on the historic character of the - story of Job. ‘The endurance of Job’ (James v. 11) is equally - instructive whether the story be real (_wirklich_) or only ideally - true (_wahr_); and if by the phrase ‘the end of the Lord’ St. James - refers to the Passion of Jesus (to me, however, this appears - doubtful), he can be claimed with as much reason for the view of Job - here adopted as for the older theory advocated by Turner. - -Footnote 123: - - On the Elihu-section, see Chap. XII. - -Footnote 124: - - Mozley, _Essays_, ii. 227; comp. Turner, _Studies_, p. 149. - -Footnote 125: - - Aubrey De Vere. Need I guard myself on the subject of Gen. iii. 15, - referred to in a recent memorable debate in the _Nineteenth Century_? - A strict Messianic interpretation is, since Calvin’s time, impossible - to the exegete, but the application of the words to Jesus Christ is - dear to the Christian heart, and perfectly consistent with a sincere - exegesis. M. Réville would, I think, concede this to Mr. Gladstone. - - - - - CHAPTER XV. - THE BOOK OF JOB FROM A GENERAL AND WESTERN POINT OF VIEW. - - -The Book of Job is even less translatable than the Psalter. And why? -Because there is more nature in it. ‘He would be a poet,’ says Thoreau, -‘who could impress the winds and streams into his service to speak for -him.’ They do speak for the poet of _Job_; the ‘still sad music of -humanity’ is continually relieved by snatches from the grand symphonies -of external nature. And hence the words of _Job_ are ‘so true and -natural that they would appear to expand like the buds at the approach -of spring.’ It is only a feeble light which the Authorised Version sheds -upon this poem; and even the best prose translation must for several -reasons be inadequate. Perhaps, though English has no longer its early -strength, a true poet might yet achieve some worthy result. Rarely has -the attempt been made. George Sandys was said by Richard Baxter to have -‘restored Job to his original glory,’ but he lived before the great era -of Semitic studies. The poetical translator of _Job_ must not disdain to -consult critical interpreters, and yet by his own unassisted skill could -he bring this Eastern masterpiece home to the Western reader? I doubt -it. Even more than most imaginative poems the Book of Job needs the help -of the painter. It is not surprising therefore that a scholar of Giotto -should have detected the pictorial beauties of the story of Job. Though -only two of the six Job-frescoes remain entire, the Campo Santo of Pisa -will be impoverished when time and the sea-air effect the destruction of -these. I know not whether any modern painter besides William Blake has -illustrated Job. He, a ‘seer’ born out of due time, understood this -wonderful book as no modern before him had done. The student will get -more help of a certain kind from the illustrations thus reproduced in -the second volume of Gilchrist’s _Life of William Blake_, compared with -the sympathetic descriptions by Blake’s biographer (vol. i. pp. -330-333), than from any of the commentaries old or new. - -In every respect the poem of _Job_ stands in a class by itself. More -than any other book in the Hebrew canon it needs bringing near to the -modern reader, untrained as he is in Oriental and especially in Semitic -modes of thought and imagination. Such a reader’s first question will -probably relate to the poetic form of the book. Is it, for instance, a -drama? Theodore of Mopsuestia (died 428) answered in the affirmative, -though he was censured for this by the Council of Constantinople. The -author of Job, he says, wronged the grand and illustrious story by -imitating the manner of the pagan tragedians. ‘Inde et illas -plasmationes fecit, in quibus certamen ad Deum fecit diabolus, et voces -sicut voluit circumposuit, alias quidem justo, alias vero amicis.’[126] - -Bishop Lowth devotes two lectures of his _Sacred Poetry_ to the same -question. He replies in the negative, after comparing Job with the two -Œdipi of Sophocles (dramas with kindred subjects), on the ground that -action is of the essence of a drama and the Book of Job contains not -even the simplest action. Afterwards indeed he admits that Job has at -least one point in common with a regular drama, viz. the vivid -presentation of several distinct characters in a tragic situation. The -view that it is an epic, held in recent times by Dr. Mason Good and M. -Godet, found favour with one no less than John Milton, who speaks, as he -who knows, of ‘that epic form, whereof the two poems of Homer and those -other two of Virgil and Tasso are a diffuse, and the Book of Job a brief -model.’[127] Something is to be said for this opinion if _Paradise -Regained_ be a true epic. Dialogue with the addition of a certain amount -of narrative is, roughly speaking, the literary form of the Book of Job -as well as of the unequally great English poem, and Coleridge is -probably right in representing Milton as indebted to the former for his -plan. It is however open to us to doubt not only whether _Paradise -Regained_ is a true epic poem, but whether any section of the Book of -Job except the Prologue partakes of the nature of an epic. The Prologue -certainly does; it is more than a mere introduction to the subsequent -speeches; it is an independent poetical narrative,[128] if not a -narrative poem; nor is there wanting a strong infusion of that -supernatural element which tradition regards as essential to the epic. -True, it is a torso, but this does not interfere with its genuinely -poetic character: it is, as Milton says, a ‘brief model’ or miniature of -an epic poem. The Colloquies on the other hand are as undoubtedly a -germinal character-drama, as the Song of Songs is a germinal -stage-drama. The work belongs to the same class as Goethe’s _Iphigenie_ -and _Tasso_; only there is much more passion in it than in these great -but distinctively modern poems. Some one has said that ‘there is no -action and reaction between the speakers’ [in the Colloquies]. This is -an over-statement. Not only is each speaker consistent with his type of -character, but the passionate excitement of Job, and his able though -fragmentary confutation of his opponents, do produce an effect upon the -latter, do force them to take up a new position, though not indeed to -recall their original thesis.[129] - -But in order to bring the Book of Job nearer to the modern Western mind, -we must not only study it from the point of view of form, but also -compare its scope and range with those of the loftiest modern Western -poems of similar import; only then shall we discover the points in which -it is distinctively ancient, Oriental, Semitic.—The greatest English -work of kindred moral and religious import is _Paradise Lost_. Like -_Job_, it is a theodicy, though of a more complex character, and aims - - ... (to) assert eternal Providence, - And justify the ways of God to man. - -And the author of _Paradise Lost_, though not to be equalled with the -founders of Biblical religion, is still distinguished from all modern -poets (except Dante and Bunyan) by his singularly intense faith in the -operations of the Divine Spirit. That prayer of his, beginning ‘And -chiefly Thou, O Spirit,’ and a well-known parallel passage in his -_Reason of Church Government_, prove conclusively that he held no -contracted views as to the limits of Inspiration. This, in addition to -his natural gifts, explains the overpowering impression of reality -produced by the visions of Milton, and perhaps in a still greater degree -by those of our Puritan prose-poet, John Bunyan. A similar faith in the -divine Spirit, but more original and less affected by logical theories, -was one great characteristic of the author of _Job_. He felt, like all -the religious ‘wise men’ (of whom more presently), that true wisdom was -beyond mortal ken, and could only be obtained by an influence from -above. In the strength of this confidence he ventured, like Milton, on -untrodden paths, and presumed to chronicle, in symbolic form, -transactions of the spiritual world. Whether or not he believed in the -Satan of the Prologue, as a Sunday School child might, we need not -decide; that he used popular beliefs in a wide, symbolic sense, has been -pointed out elsewhere. Probably both Milton and he, if questioned on the -subject, would have replied in the spirit of those words of our Lord, -‘If ye will receive it,’ and ‘All men cannot receive this saying.’ It is -not to be forgotten that the author of _Job_ distinctly places the Satan -in a somewhat humorous light, and though Milton is far from doing the -same, yet we know from _Comus_ that the conception of a symbol was as -familiar to him as to Lord Bacon. Notice, in conclusion, that Milton’s -Satan, though unlike the Satan of his predecessor in some points,[130] -resembles him in this striking particular, that he is not yet (in spite -of Milton’s attempt to represent him as such) the absolutely evil being. - -_Faust_ has in some respects a better right to be compared with _Job_ -than _Paradise Lost_. Not so much indeed in the Prologue, though Goethe -deserves credit for detecting the humorous element in the Hebrew poet’s -Satan, an element which he has transferred, though with much -exaggeration, to his own Mephistopheles. Neither the Satan nor -Mephistopheles (a remote descendant of the Hebrew[131] _mastema_, from -the root _satam=satan_) is the Origin of Evil in a personal form,[132] -but the Hebrew poet would never have accepted the description in _Faust_ -of the peculiar work of the ‘denying spirit.’ But in the body of the -poem there is this marked similarity to the Book of Job—that the problem -treated of is a purely moral and spiritual one; the hero first loses and -then recovers his peace of mind; it is the counterpart in pantheistic -humanism of what St. Paul terms working out one’s own salvation. Still -there are great and most instructive divergences between the two -writers. Observe, first, the complete want of sympathy with positive -religion—with the religion from which Faust wanders—on the part of the -modern poet. Next, a striking difference in the characteristics of Job -and Faust respectively. Faust succumbs to his boundless love of -knowledge, alternating with an unbridled sensual lust; Job is on the -verge of spiritual ruin through his demand for such an absolute -correspondence of circumstances to character as can only be realised in -another world. The greatness of Faust lies in his intellect; that of Job -(who in chap. xxviii. directly discourages speculation) in his virtue. -Hence, finally, Faust requires (even from a pantheistic point of view) -to be pardoned, while Job stands so high in the divine favour that -others are pardoned on his account. - -A third great poem which deserves to be compared with _Job_ is the -_Divina Commedia_. Dante has the same purpose of edification as the -author of _Job_ and even of _Faust_, though he has not been able to fuse -the didactic and narrative elements with such complete success as -Goethe. Nor is he so intensely autobiographical as either Goethe or the -author of _Job_; his own story is almost inextricably interlaced with -the fictions which he frames as the representative of the human race. He -allows us to see that he has had doubts (_Parad._ iv. 129), and that -they have yielded to the convincing power of Christianity (_Purgat._ -iii. 34-39), but it was not a part of his plan to disclose, like the -author of _Job_, the vicissitudes of his mental history. In two points, -however—the width of his religious sympathies (which even permits him to -borrow from the rich legendary material of heathendom[133]) and the -morning freshness of his descriptions of nature—he comes nearer to the -author of _Job_ than either Goethe or Milton, while in the absoluteness -and fervour of his faith Milton is in modern times his only rival. - -The preceding comparison will, it is hoped, leave the reader with a -sense of our great literary as well as religious debt to the author of -_Job_. His gifts were varied, but in one department his originality is -nothing less than Homeric; his Colloquies are the fountain-head from -which the great river of philosophic poetry took its origin. He is the -first of those poet-theologians from whom we English have learned so -much, and who are all the more impressive as teachers because the truths -which they teach are steeped in emotion, and have for their background a -comprehensive view of the complex and many-coloured universe. - -Footnote 126: - - Migne, _Synes. et Theod._, col. 698. Comp. Kihn, _Theodor von - Mopsuestia_, p. 68 &c. - -Footnote 127: - - _The Reason of Church Government_, Book II. - -Footnote 128: - - Comp. Bateson Wright, _The Book of Job_, pp. 29-31. - -Footnote 129: - - Bunsen observes, not badly, ‘Hiob ist ein semitisches Drama aus der - Zeit der Gefangenschaft. Das Dramatische windet sich aber erst aus dem - Epos heraus, ohne eine selbstständige Gestalt zu gewinnen.’ _Gott in - der Geschichte_, i. 291. - -Footnote 130: - - Compare Satan after his overthrow with Tasso’s Soldan (_Gerus. Lib._, - c. ix., st. 98.) - -Footnote 131: - - Mr. Sutherland Edwards (_Fortnightly Review_, Nov. 1885, p. 687) - states that Hebrew etymologies have proved failures. But the steps of - the change from _mastema_ to Mephistopheles are all proved, beginning - with the name Mastiphat, for the prince of the demons, in the - chronographers Syncellus and Georg. Cedrenus (comp. Μαστιφαάτ = - Mastema in the Book of Jubilees). Comp. Diez, _Roman. Wörterbuch_, i. - pp. xxv., xxvi. - -Footnote 132: - - Turner and Morshead, _Faust_ (1882), pp. 307-8. - -Footnote 133: - - On the parallel phenomena in Job, see Chap. IX. - - - - - NOTE ON JOB AND THE MODERN POETS. - - -Job, like Spenser, should be the poet of poets; but though Goethe has -imitated him in royal fashion, and here and there other poets such as -Dante may offer allusions, yet Milton is the only poet who seems to have -absorbed Job. _Paradise Regained_ is in both form and contents a free -imitation of the Book of Job, the story of which is described in i. -368-370, 424-6, iii. 64-67. The following are the principal allusions in -_Paradise Lost_:—i. 63, comp. Job x. 22; ii. 266, comp. Job iv. 16; ii. -603, comp. Job xxiv. 19 Vulg.; iv. 999, comp. Job xxviii. 25; vii. 253-4 -(Hymn on the Nativity, st. 12), comp. Job xxxviii. 4-7; vii. 373-5, -comp. Job xxxviii. 31; vii. 102, comp. Job xxxviii. 5. Shelley, too, is -said to have delighted in Job; I must leave others to trace this in his -works. I conclude with Thomas Carlyle. The words—‘Was Man with his -Experience present at the Creation, then, to see how it all went on? -System of Nature! To the wisest man, wide as is his vision, Nature -remains of quite _infinite_ depth, of quite infinite expansion’[134]—are -at once a paraphrase of the questions of Eliphaz, ‘Art thou the first -man that was born?... Didst thou hearken in the council of Eloah?’ (xv. -7, 8), and a suggestive statement of the problem of _Job_ as a challenge -to limited human ‘experience’ to prove its capacity for criticising -God’s ways. - -Footnote 134: - - _Sartor Resartus_ (‘Natural Supernaturalism’). - - - - - NOTE ON THE TEXT OF JOB. - - -That the received text of our Hebrew Bible has a long history behind it, -is generally recognised; and few will deny that its worst corruptions -arose in the pre-Massoretic and pre-Talmudic periods (comp. _The -Prophecies of Isaiah_, vol. ii., Essay vii.) The popularity of the Book -of Job may not have been equal to that of many other books, but we have -seen reason to suppose that within the circles of the ‘wise men’ it was -eagerly studied and imitated. In those early times such popularity was a -source of danger to the text, and hasty copyists left their mark on many -a corrupt passage. Is there any remedy for this? - -Dr. Merx’s book, _Das Gedicht von Hiob_ (1871), has the merits and -defects of pioneering works, but his introduction should by all means be -studied. Two points in it have to be examined, (1) the relative position -given by Merx to the chief ancient versions, and (2) the use which he -makes of his own strophic arrangement for detecting interpolations or -gaps in the text. More, I think, is to be gained from his discussion of -the use of the versions than from his strophic arrangement; and yet -before quite so much importance is attached to the text of the -Septuagint, ought we not to be surer than we are of the antiquity and of -the critical value of the Septuagint _Job_? That version may not be of -as recent origin[135] as Grätz would have it, but can hardly be much -earlier than the second century B.C. Before this date the text of _Job_ -had time to suffer much from the usual causes of corruption. Besides -this, there are special reasons for distrusting the literal accuracy of -the translator. He seems to have been in his own way an artist, and to -have sought to reproduce poetry in poetical language. In this respect -his vocabulary differs from that of all the other Septuagint -translators; he thinks more of his Greek readers than of his Hebrew -original. Had he been more mechanical in his method, the critical value -of his work would have been greater. I agree therefore with H. Schultz -that even where the Septuagint and the Peshitto are united against the -Massoretic reading, the decisive arguments for the reading of the former -will be, not the external one of testimony, but the internal one (if so -be it exists) of suitableness. - -Mr. Bateson Wright goes almost farther than Dr. Merx in his opinion of -the corruptness of the received text. His work on _Job_ (1883), however -unripe, shows remarkable independence, and contains, among many rash, a -few striking emendations. That he does not restrict himself to -corrections suggested by the versions, is not in the least a defect; the -single drawback to his work is that he has not pondered long enough -before writing. Purely conjectural emendation was doubtless often -resorted to by the old translators themselves; it was and still is -perfectly justified, though to succeed in its use requires a singular -combination of caution and boldness which even older critics have not -always attained. Special attention is devoted by Mr. Wright to the -poetical features of the speeches in _Job_. Dr. Merx had already -observed that most of the στίχοι contain eight syllables, to read which, -however, it is often needful to dispense with Metheg and with the -Chateph vowels, and contract the dual terminations. Mr. Wright, building -upon Dr. Merx’s foundation, offers a more elaborate scheme, which cannot -be discussed here. It was a misfortune for him that he had not before -him the ambitious metrical transliteration of _Job_ by G. Bickell, in -his _Carmina Vet. Test. metrice_, of which I would rather say nothing -here than too little. - -Subsequent editors of the text of _Job_ will have one advantage, which -will affect their critical use of the Septuagint. It is well known that -the Alexandrine version was largely interpolated from that of -Theodotion. The early Septuagint text itself can however now be -reconstructed, through a manuscript of the Sahidic or Thebaic version -from Upper Egypt. (Comp. Lagarde, _Mittheilungen_, pp. 203-5; Agapios -Bsciai, art. in _Moniteur de Rome_, Oct. 26, 1883.) Dr. Merx was well -aware of the necessity of expurgating the Septuagint, and would have -hailed this much-desired aid in the work (see p. lxxi. of his -introduction). - -So much must suffice in my present limits on the subject of metre and -textual emendation. I need not thus qualify the list which follows of -gaps and misplacements of text in our Book of Job. Observe (1) that -Bildad’s third speech (chap. xxv.) is too short. Probably, as Mr. Elzas -has suggested,[136] the continuation of it has been wrongly placed as -xxvi. 5-14; the affinity of this passage to chap. xxv. is obvious. -Probably the close of Bildad’s speech is wanting. If so (2), something -must have dropped out of Job’s reply, since xxvi. 4 has no connection -with xxvii. 2. (3) Zophar’s third speech appears to be wanting, but may -really be contained in chap. xxvii. (ver. 8 to end). The student should -not fail to observe that xxvii. 13 is a repetition of xx. 29. As the -text stands, Job is made to recant his statements in chaps. xxi., xxiv., -and to assert that there is (not merely ought to be) a just and exact -retribution. The tone, moreover, of xxvii. 9, 10 is not in accordance -with Job’s previous speeches. If this view be correct, an introductory -formula (‘And Zophar answered and said’) must have fallen out at the -beginning of ver. 7, and probably one or more introductory verses.[137] -(4) The verses which originally introduced chap. xxviii. must (on -account of the causal particle ‘for’ in ver. 1) either have dropped out, -or else have been neglected by the person who inserted the chapter in -the Book of Job. (5) The passage xxxi. 38-40 has at any rate been -misplaced (Delitzsch), and probably, as Merx has pointed out, should be -inserted between ver. 32 and ver. 33. Thus verses 35-37 will furnish an -appropriate and impressive close to the chapter. (6) xxxvi. 31 should -probably go after ver. 28 (not ver. 29, as Dillmann misstates the -conjecture); verses 30, 32 have a natural connection (Olshausen). (7) -The passage xli. 9-12 destroys the connection, and should probably be -placed immediately before chap. xxxviii. 1, as an introductory speech of -Jehovah. In that case, we must, with Merx, supply the words, ‘And -Jehovah said,’ before ver. 9. - -Footnote 135: - - ‘A child of the first Christian century,’ Grätz’s _Monatsschrift_, p. - 91. Nöldeke dates this version about 150 B.C. (_Gott. gel. Anzeigen_, - 1865, p. 575). - -Footnote 136: - - Elzas, _The Book of Job_ (1872), p. 83; Grätz inclines to a similar - view. - -Footnote 137: - - A similar view has been propounded by Kennicott, and also more - recently by Grätz (_Monatsschrift_, 1872, p. 247). But Kennicott - regarded chap. xxviii. as Job’s reply to Zophar, while Grätz would - include it in the speech of Zophar. - - - - - AIDS TO THE STUDENT. - - -There are many books and articles of importance besides the -commentaries. Among these are Hupfeld, _Commentatio in quosdam Jobeïdos -locos_ (1855); Bickell, _De indole ac ratione versionis Alexandrinæ in -interpretando libro Iobi_ (1862); G. Baur, ‘Das Buch Hiob und Dante’s -Göttliche Comödie,’ _Theol. Studien und Kritiken_ (1856), p. 583 &c. -(with which may be grouped Quinet’s splendid chapter, in his early work -on religions, entitled Comparaison du scepticisme oriental et du -scepticisme occidental’); Seinecke, _Der Grundgedanke des Buches Hiob_ -(1863); Froude, ‘The Book of Job,’ _Short Studies_, Series 1 (1867), p. -266 &c.; Reuss, _Das Buch Hiob_ (1869); Plumptre, ‘The Authorship of the -Book of Job,’ _Biblical Studies_ (1870), p. 173 &c.; C. Taylor, ‘A -Theory of Job xix. 25-27,’ _Journal of Philology_ (1871), pp. 128-152; -Godet, ‘Le livre de Job,’ _Etudes bibliques_, prem. partie (1873), p. -185 &c.; Turner, ‘The History of Job, and its Place in the Scheme of -Redemption,’ _Studies Biblical and Oriental_ (1876), p. 133 &c.; Grätz, -chapter on Job in _Geschichte der Juden_, Bd. iii.; Studer, ‘Ueber die -Integrität des Buches Hiob,’ _Jahrbücher für protestant. Theologie_ -(1875), p. 688 &c., comp. 1877, p. 540 &c.; Budde, _Beiträge zur Kritik -des Buches Hiob_ (1876), reviewed by Smend in _Studien u. Kritiken_ -(1878), pp. 153-173; Giesebrecht, _Der Wendepunkt des Buches Hiob_ -(1879); Derenbourg, ‘Réflexions détachées sur le livre de Job,’ _Revue -des études juives_ (1880), pp. 1-8; Claussen, ‘Das Verhältniss der Lehre -des Elihu zu derjenigen der drei Freunde,’ _Zeitschr. f. kirchl. -Wissenschaft und Leben_ (1884), pp. 393 &c., 449 &c., 505 &c.; W. H. -Green, _The Argument of the Book of Job Unfolded_ (1881); Cheyne, ‘Job -and the Second Part of Isaiah,’ _Isaiah_, ii. 259 &c., with which -compare the very full essay of Kuenen, Job en de lijdende knecht van -Jahveh,’ _Theologisch Tijdschrift_ (1873), p. 492 &c.; Delitzsch, art. -‘Hiob,’ Herzog-Plitt’s _Realencyclopadie_, bd. vi. (1880). - - - - - THE BOOK OF PROVERBS. - - - CHAPTER I. - HEBREW WISDOM, ITS NATURE, SCOPE, AND IMPORTANCE. - - -We have studied the masterpiece of Hebrew wisdom before examining the -nature of the intellectual product which the Israelites themselves -graced with this title. The Book of Job is in fact much more than a -didactic treatise like Ecclesiastes or a collection of pointed moral -sayings like the Books of Proverbs and Ecclesiasticus. Its authors were -more than thinkers, they were poets, ‘makers,’ great imaginative -artists. But we must not be unjust to those who were primarily thinkers, -and only in the second degree poets. The phase of Hebrew thought called -‘wisdom’ (_khokma_) can be studied even better in Proverbs and -Ecclesiastes than in the poetry of Job. Let us then enquire at this -point, What is this Hebrew wisdom? First of all, it is the link between -the more exceptional revelations of Old Testament prophecy and the best -moral and intellectual attainments of other nations than the Jews. -‘Wisdom’ claims inspiration (as we have seen already), but never -identifies itself with the contents of oracular communications.[138] Nor -yet does it pretend to be confined to a chosen race. Job himself was a -non-Israelite (the Rabbis were even uncertain as to his part in the -world to come); and the wisdom of the ‘wise king’ is declared to have -been different in degree alone from that of the neighbouring -peoples[139] (1 Kings iv. 30, 31; comp. Jer. xlix. 7, Obad. 8). It is to -be observed next, that the range of enquiry of this ‘wisdom’ is equally -wide, according to the Biblical use of the term.[140] ‘Wisdom,’ as -Sirach tells us, ‘rains forth skill’ of every kind; ‘the first man knew -her not perfectly: no more shall the last trace her out’ (Ecclus. i. 19, -xxiv. 28). Nothing is too high, nothing too low for Wisdom ‘fitly’ to -‘order’ (Wisd. viii. I). Law and government (Prov. viii. 15, 16), and -even the precepts of husbandry (Isa. xxviii. 23-29) are equally her -productions with those moral observations which constitute in the main -the three books of the Hebrew _Khokma_. The fact that the subject of -practical ethics ultimately appropriated the technical name of ‘wisdom’ -ought not to blind us to the larger connotation of the same word, which -throws so much light on the deeply religious view of life prevalent -among the Israelites. For religious this view of wisdom is, though it -may seem to be so thoroughly secular. The versatility of the mind of man -is but an image of the versatility of its archetype. ‘The spirit of man -is a lamp of Jehovah,’ says one of the ‘wise men’ (Prov. xx. 27), by an -anticipation of John i. 9. ‘Surely it is the spirit in man,’ says -another (Job xxxii. 8), ‘and the breath of Shaddai which gives them -understanding.’ Isaiah, too, says that the ‘spirit of wisdom’ is one of -the three chief manifestations of the ‘Spirit of Jehovah’ (Isa. xi. 2), -and the introductory treatise, which gives the editor’s view of the -original Book of Proverbs, expressly declares that the ‘wise men’ are -but the messengers of divine Wisdom (ix. 3). - -The sages, whose collected wisdom we are about to study, are very -different from those antique sages who like Balaam could be hired to -curse a hostile people. A new kind of wisdom grew up both in Israel and -in the neighbouring countries, as unlike its spurious counterpart as the -spiritual lyric poetry both of Israel and of Babylonia is unlike the -incantations which in Babylonia coexisted with it. Israel, never slow to -adopt, received the higher wisdom, and assimilated it. The earthly -elements can still be traced in it; the ‘wise men’ are not prophets but -philosophers; indeed, the Seven Wise Men of Greece arose at precisely -the same stage of culture as the Hebrew sages. It is true, the latter -never (in pre-Talmudic times) attempted logic and metaphysics; they -contentedly remained within the sphere of practical ethics. If a modern -equivalent must be found, it would be best to call them the humanists, -to indicate their freedom from national prejudice (the word ‘Israel’ -does not occur once, the word _ādām_ ‘man’ thirty-three times in the -Book of Proverbs), and their tendency to base a sound morality on its -adaptation to human nature. We might also venture to call them realists -in contradistinction to the idealists of the prophethood; they held out -no prospect of a Messianic age, and ‘meddled not with them that were -given to change.’[141] The sages whose ‘wisdom’ is handed down to us -were not however opposed to the spiritual prophets. It is only ‘the -fool’ (or, to employ a synonym from the proverbs, the ‘scorner’ or -‘mocker’) who ‘saith in his heart, There is no God.’ A mocking poet of a -late period may demand the Creator’s name (Prov. xxx. 4), but the writer -who (if I may anticipate) has perpetuated this strange poem indicates -his own very different mental attitude; and though religious proverbs -are less abundant than secular in the early anthologies, such as we do -find are pure and elevated in tone. For instance, - - (1) Who can say, I have made my heart clean, - I am pure from my sin? (xx. 9.) - (2) The eyes of Jehovah are in every place, - observing the evil and the good (xv. 3). - (3) Sheól and Abaddon[142] are before Jehovah, - how much more then the hearts of the sons of men! - (xv. 11.) - (4) The hearing ear and the seeing eye, - Jehovah has made them both (xx. 12). - (5) A man’s steps are from Jehovah, - and man—how can he understand his way? (xx. 24.) - -One point in which the wise men agreed with Amos and Isaiah was the -inferiority of a ceremonial system[143] to prayer and faithful obedience -(xv. 8, xxi. 3, 27, xvi. 6), and the importance which one of the -proverb-writers attached to prophecy is strikingly expressed (if only -the text be sound) in the saying, - - When there is no prophecy (lit., vision) people become disorderly, - but he that observes precept, happy is he (xxix. 18). - -The prophets seem to have returned the friendly feeling of the sages. In -tone and phraseology they are sometimes evidently influenced by their -fellow-teachers (see e.g. Isa. xxviii. 23-29, xxix. 24, xxxiii. 11), and -if they do not often refer to the wise men,[144] yet they do not -denounce them, as they denounce the priests and the lower prophets. It -may perhaps be inferred from this that there was in the early times no -opposition-party of sceptical wise men, such as Ewald supposes,[145] and -such as not improbably did exist in later times (see below on xxx. 1-4); -and I notice that Ewald himself does not attempt to strengthen his view -by appealing to the phrase ‘men of scorn’ in Isa. xxviii. 14, which -some, following Rashi and Aben Ezra, explain of wise men who misused -their talent by making mischievous proverbs.[146] The inference -mentioned just now commends itself to me as sound; but I admit that the -saying on prophecy in Prov. xxix. 18 (already quoted) is isolated, and -that the tone of the religious proverbs falls far short of enthusiasm. -This is probably all that M. Renan means in a too French sentence of his -work on Ecclesiastes. Religion, according to the wise men, was a -necessary element in a worthy character, was even (I should say) the -principal element, but the religion of these practical moralists has -nothing of that delighted _abandon_ which we find in the more distinctly -religious Scriptures. ‘Happy the man who dreadeth continually,’ says one -characteristic proverb (xxviii. 14; contrast the ‘not caring’ of the -‘fool’ in xiv. 16). Later on, a more devout moralist writes that ‘the -fear of Jehovah is the beginning of wisdom’ (i. 7), and though ‘fear’ -need not exclude ‘love’ yet there is nothing here to suggest their -combination. The proverb of the Egyptian prince Ptahhotep,[147] ‘To obey -is to love God; not to obey is to hate God,’ has no parallel, at any -rate in the early anthologies; much less does the great saying in Ps. -lxxiii. 25 strike a note congenial to any of the Hebrew sages. And yet -it remains true that the wise men happily supplemented the more -spiritual teaching of psalmists and prophets. - -There is still another important point on which both prophets and ‘wise -men’ were agreed. Whatever their inward religion may have been, they -(like the Egyptian moralists) were outwardly utilitarians; i.e., they -invite men to practise righteousness, not because righteousness is the -secret of blessedness, but because of its outward rewards both for the -man himself and for his posterity (Prov. xi. 21, xx. 7; comp. Jer. -xxxii. 18). The form in which the doctrine of proportionate retribution -is expressed in xi. 4 would have been completely acceptable to the -prophets, whose conception of the ‘day of Jehovah’ (i.e., not the last -great _dies ira_ but any providential crisis in the world’s history) is -adopted in it,— - - Wealth is of no profit in the day of wrath, - but righteousness delivers from death. - -Proverbs expressing this idea in various forms abound in the first -anthology. Not a hint is given that retribution loiters on the road; at -most a warning not to envy the (temporary) prosperity of the wicked -(xxiii. 17, xxiv. 1, 19; with regard to xxiii. 18 see above). - -This was the ‘certitude of the golden age,’ to use Mr. Matthew Arnold’s -expression; it is just what we might expect in a simple and stationary -condition of society. The strange thing is that it should have lasted on -when oppression within or hostile attacks from without had brought -manifold causes of sorrow upon both good and bad.[148] That the teachers -of the people should have held up the doctrine of earthly retribution— - - Behold, the righteous hath a reward upon earth; - much more the ungodly and the sinner (xi. 31)— - -as long as it could reasonably be defended, was natural. But that -shortly before the Maccabean rising a ‘wise man’[149] should still be -found to write— - - The gift of the Lord remains with the godly, - and his favour brings prosperity for ever (Ecclus. xi. 17), - -seems to contradict the usual correspondence between the received moral -theory and the outward circumstances of society. All that we can say is -that such inconsistencies are found to exist; old forms of doctrine do -not, as a rule, ‘melt like frosty rime.’ There must have been circles of -Jewish moralists averse to speculation, who would continue to repeat the -older view of the providential government even at a time when the social -state had completely exposed its shallowness. - -Dean Plumptre, indeed, following Ewald, credits the ‘wise men’ of -pre-Exile times with deeper views. According to him, certain proverbs, -e.g. x. 25, xi. 4, xiv. 32, xxiii. 18 (Ewald adds xii. 28) imply the -hope of immortality. None of these passages however can be held -conclusive. x. 25, xi. 4 simply say that the righteous shall be unhurt -in a day of judgment; in xiv. 32 the antithesis is between the ruin -which follows upon wickedness and the safe refuge of integrity (read -_b’thummō_ with the Sept.); in xxiii. 18, ‘there is a future,’ the -reference is perfectly vague—it is natural to explain by comparing Job -xlii. 12, xii. 28, no doubt, on Ewald’s view of the passage, seems -conclusive, - - In the way of righteousness is life, - and the way of its path is immortality. - -But this great word ‘immortality’ is unparalleled before the Book of -Wisdom, and cannot fairly be extracted from the Hebrew.[150] The -Septuagint has a different view of the pronunciation of the text, and -renders ὁδοὶ δὲ μνησικάκων εἰς θάνατον. The easiest plan is to correct -_n’thībhāh_ into _nith’ābh_, with Levy, and render, - - but an abominable way (comp. xv. 9) leads unto death. - -I do not deny that the idea of eternal life may have been conceived at -the time of these proverbs. This may plausibly be inferred from the -occurrence of the phrase ‘a tree of life’ in iii. 18, xi. 30, xiii. 12, -xv. 4, and ‘a fountain of life’ in x. 11, xiii. 14, xiv. 27, xvi. -22,—phrases certainly borrowed from some traditional story of Paradise -analogous to that in Gen. ii.[151] It is a singular fact however that in -all these passages (even, I think, in iii. 18) these expressions are -simply figurative synonyms for ‘refreshment,’ which suggests that the -proverb-writers shrank from using them in their literal sense of the -individual righteous man. - -The importance of the ‘wise men’ as a class is too seldom recognised. To -the hasty reader they are overshadowed by the prophets, between whom and -the rude masses they seem to have occupied a middle position. Their -popular style and genial manners attracted probably a large number of -disciples; at any rate, in the time of Jeremiah the ‘counsel’ of the -‘wise men’ was valued as highly as the ‘direction’ (_tōra_) of the -priests and the ‘word’ of the prophets (Jer. xviii. 18). By constantly -working on suitable individuals, they produced a moral sympathy with the -prophets, without which those heroic men would have laboured in vain. -Thus that friendly relation must have sprung up between the prophets and -the ‘wise men,’ of which I have spoken already, and which reminds us of -the sanction said to have been given to the Seven Sages of Greece by the -oracle of Delphi.[152] - -It is a misfortune that our sources for the history of Israelitish -‘philosophy’ are so scanty. Were there ‘wise men’ in N. Israel? and if -so, have any of their proverbs come down to us, besides the _mashal_ or -fable of Jotham? Did they confine their activity to the capital city or -cities, or did they also, like the ‘scribes,’ settle or itinerate in the -provinces? (Matt. ix. 3, Targ. of Judg. v. 9.) Did their public -instructions assume anything like the form of the proverbs of our -anthologies? Did they teach without fee or reward?[153] At any rate, a -post-Exile proverb-writer tells us with retrospective glance where the -‘wise men’ awaited their disciples—not in the quietude of the chamber, -but either within the massive city-gates, or in the adjacent squares or -‘broad places’ on which the streets converged (i. 20, 21; comp. Job -xxix. 7). No doubt they had a large stock of sayings in their memory, -such as had been tested by the experience of past generations. Sometimes -they would modify old proverbs, sometimes they would frame new ones, so -that when their disciples gathered round them, they would ‘bring out of -their treasure things new and old.’ From time to time they would commit -their ‘wisdom’ to writing in a more perfect form, and such records must -have formed the basis of the proverbial collections in the Old -Testament. - -Footnote 138: - - The heading ‘the oracle’ &c. in xxx. I is exceptional; so also is the - oracle of Eliphaz (Job iv. 12-21). - -Footnote 139: - - The author of _Baruch_ (iii. 22, 23), however, expressly denies that - the ordinary Semitic ‘wisdom’ was akin to that of Israel. This - represents the Judaism of the Maccabean period. - -Footnote 140: - - Observe that ‘wisdom’ is called _khokmōth_ (plural form) in Prov. i. - 20, ix. 11, all the forms of wisdom being viewed as one in their - origin. So too Wisdom adorns her house with seven pillars (Prov. ix. - 1). - -Footnote 141: - - xxiv. 21 A.V. - -Footnote 142: - - I.e. Perdition; a synonym for Sheól. - -Footnote 143: - - The author of the Introduction however writes, ‘Honour Jehovah with - thy substance,’ i.e. by dedicating a part of it to the sanctuary (iii. - 9), which the Septuagint translator carefully limits to substance - lawfully gained (Deut. xxiii. 19). - -Footnote 144: - - As perhaps they do in Am. v. 10, Isa. xxix. 21 (‘him that rebuketh in - the gate’). Observe again in this connection that the endowments of - the Messiah include the spirit of wisdom as well as that of might - (Isa. xi. 2), and that the wisdom of Jehovah is emphasised in Isa. - xxxi. 2, comp. xxviii. 29. - -Footnote 145: - - _Die dichter des alten bundes_, ii. 12. Ewald refers to xiii. 1, xiv. - 6, and other passages in which ‘scorners’ are referred to. But it is - not clear that ‘a powerful school’ of wise men is here intended; the - title may be given to those who opposed or despised the counsels of - the wise men, and broke through the restraints of law and religion; - comp. Prov. xv. 12, xxi. 24.’ (_The Prophecies of Isaiah_, ed. 3, i. - 165). Among such persons were the politicians of Isaiah’s day, so far - as they opposed the warnings of the prophet; they were popularly - considered ‘wise men’ (xxix. 14; comp. Jer. viii. 9), but not in the - technical sense with which our present enquiries are concerned. - -Footnote 146: - - Luzzatto renders, ‘o voi uomini insipienti, _poeti_ di questo popolo,’ - taking _mōshēlīm_ in the same sense as in Num. xxi. 27 (similarly - Barth, in his tract on Isaiah, p. 23, following Rashi and Aben Ezra), - a view which receives some support from the parable offered by Isaiah - in xxviii. 23-29 as if in opposition to the false parables of unsound - teachers. But in Isa. xxix. 20 ‘scorner’ is clearly used, not as a - class-name for certain wise men, but in a moral sense. - -Footnote 147: - - Brugsch, _Religion und Mythologie der alten Aegypter_, p. 91. - -Footnote 148: - - Yet in Prov. iii. 11, 12 there is distinct evidence of deepened - experience and progress of moral thought. - -Footnote 149: - - On the orthodoxy of Ecclesiasticus, see later on. - -Footnote 150: - - The Vulg. has, _iter autem devium ducit ad mortem_ (but this pregnant - sense of _iter devium_, is too bold). - -Footnote 151: - - Analogous only, because apparently it had both a tree and a fountain - of life, like a New Zealand myth mentioned by Schirren. - -Footnote 152: - - Curtius, _History of Greece_, ii. 52. - -Footnote 153: - - Ewald infers from xvii. 16 that even in early times it was customary - to fee the ‘wise men’ for their advice (comp. Saul and Samuel). At a - later time Sirach says, ‘Buy (instruction) for yourselves without - money’ (Ecclus. li. 25, but comp. 28). The Rabbis were not allowed to - receive fees from their pupils. R. Zadok said, ‘Make not (the Tora) a - crown to glory in, nor an axe to live by’ (_Pirke Aboth_, iv. 9). So - the Moslem teachers at the great Cairo ‘university’ (el Azhar). - - - - - CHAPTER II. - THE FORM AND ORIGIN OF THE PROVERBS. - - -In one of the opening verses of the Book of Proverbs (i. 6) three -technical names for varieties of proverbs are put together:—(1) -_māshāl_, a short, pointed saying with reference to some striking -feature in the life of an individual, or in human life generally, often -clothed in figurative language (whence, according to many, the name -_māshāl_, as if ‘similitude;’ comp. παραβολή), (2) _m’lîça_, perhaps a -‘bent’, ‘oblique’ or (as Sept.) ‘dark’ saying, (3) _khîda_, a ‘knotty’ -or intricate saying, especially a riddle. Each of these words has a -variety of applications; for instance (1) is used in Num. xxiii., xxiv., -for a parallelistic poem, (1) and (2) sometimes mean a ‘taunting speech’ -(see below, and comp. Hab. ii. 6, Isa. xiv. 4, Mic. ii. 4), and (3) can -be used, not merely of true riddles with a moral meaning, such as we -find here and there in Prov. xxx., but also of didactic statements upon -subjects as difficult as riddles (see Ps. xlix. 5, A.V. 4, lxxviii. 2). -We have no collection of popular proverbs, such as exists in Arabic; the -proverbs in the canonical collection show great technical elaboration, -though some may be based on the naive ‘wisdom’ of the people. A very few -specimens of the popular proverb have indeed been preserved in the -canonical literature.[154] ‘Is Saul also among the prophets?’ (1 Sam. x. -12, xix. 24) preserves the memory of a humorous fact in the story of -that king. ‘Wickedness proceeds from the wicked’ (1 Sam. xxiv. 13) is, -unlike the former, a generalisation, and means that a man’s character is -shown by his actions (comp. Isa. xxxii. 6). ‘As is the mother, so is the -daughter’ (Ezek. xvi. 44) is also an induction from common experience. -‘The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on -edge’ (Jer. xxii. 29, Ezek. xviii. 2), words applied no doubt, as Lowth -says, profanely, but not originally meant so, is a figurative way of -saying that the sins of the fathers are visited upon the children. We -have one specimen of the riddle (strictly so called)—that well-known one -of Samson’s, - - From the eater came forth food, - and from the strong one came forth sweetness (Judges xiv. 14). - -The parable, too, was doubtless called _mashal_, and of this we have -three Old Testament examples, which will at once occur to the reader (2 -Sam, xii. 1-6, xiv. 4-9, 1 Kings xx. 39, 40); but it is more important -to draw the reader’s attention to the rare specimens of the fable. Some -may think it bold to refer in this connection to a portion of a -narrative which seems at first sight to be historical (Num. xxi. 22-35). -The strange episode of the speaking ass is, however, most difficult to -understand, except as a sportive quasi-historical version of a popular -_mashal_ or fable (compare the four Babylonian animal-fables discovered -among the fragments of King Assurbanipal’s library).[155] The passage -being evidently distinct from the rest of the story of Balaam, in -passing this judgment upon it, we are not committed as a matter of -course to a denial of all historical character to the rest of the -narrative. The fables of Jotham (Judg. ix. 8-15) and Joash (2 Kings xiv. -9), in which the trees are introduced speaking, have also their -parallels in Babylonian literature. One of them indeed has a claim to be -called a _mashal_ on a second account; the tree-fable of Joash is a -taunt of the keenest edge, and one of the secondary meanings of _mashal_ -is ‘taunting speech’ (see Isa. xiv. 4, A.V.). It is true the ‘taunting -speeches’ expressly called _mashals_—not only those in the prophetic -writings (see above), but the verses ascribed to ‘those that speak in -_mashals_’ in Num. xxi. 27-30—are poetical in form, but this is because -the Hebrew writers never conceived the idea of a narrative poem; even -the prologue of the Book of Job is in prose. - -These are the principal specimens of the _mashal_ apart from those in -the three Books of Old Testament Wisdom. They are but the ‘two or three -berries’ left after the beating of the tree (Isa. xvii. 6), and excite a -longing for more which cannot be gratified. We may be sure that in -Israel’s prime the telling of proverbs was almost as popular as the -recital of stories, and became a test of ability. For— - - The legs of a lame man hang loose, - so is a proverb in the mouth of fools (xxvi. 7); - -and though Sirach says of the labouring class, ‘They shall not be found -where parables are spoken’ (Ecclus. xxxviii. 33), it is reasonable to -account for this by the aristocratic pride of the students of Scripture -in the later Jewish community. At any rate, as I have said already, some -at least of the early literary proverbs are very possibly based on -popular sayings; these would naturally embody a plain, bourgeois -experience such as marks not a few of the proverbs in our book. Dr. Oort -conjectures[156] that _some of our proverbs were originally current -among the people as riddles_, such for instance as, ‘What is sweet as -honey?—Pleasant discourse, for it is sweet to the soul and a medicine to -the bones’ (xvi. 24); ‘What is worse than meeting a bear?—Meeting a fool -in a fit of folly’ (xvii. 12); ‘What is sweet at first, and then like -sand in the mouth?—Stolen food’ (xx. 17). Certainly the introduction to -the ‘proverbs of Solomon’ may seem to imply (i. 6) that the collection -which follows contains specimens of the riddle, but probably all the -writer means is that the ‘words of the wise’ are often ‘knotty’ because -epigrammatic. We may indeed reasonably hold that, like their prototype -Solomon,[157] the ‘wise men’ were accustomed to sharpen their intellects -upon enigmas (such as lie at the root of the so-called ‘numerical -proverbs’ in xxx. 15, 18, 21, 24, 29; comp. vi. 16); but a still more -important discipline than the battle of wits was the habit of keen -observation. We cannot reduce all the proverbs involving comparison to -the form of riddles, any more than we can do this with the following -Buddhist sayings, equal to the more refined specimens of the Hebrew -proverb:?—[158] - - As rain breaks through an ill-thatched house, so passion will break - through an unreflecting mind. - - Like a beautiful flower, full of colour, but without scent, are the - fine but fruitless words of him who does not act accordingly. - - A tamed elephant they lead to battle; the king mounts a tamed - elephant; the tamed is the best among men, he who silently endures - abuse. - - Well-makers lead the water; fletchers bend the arrow; carpenters - bend a log of wood; wise people fashion themselves. - -Another plausible hypothesis similar to that of Dr. Oort is that some of -our proverbs are based on popular fables, as is the case according to -Dr. Back with many of the proverbs in the Talmud and Midrash.[159] The -Jewish scholar referred to applies this key to Prov. vi. 6-11 (comp. the -Aramaic fable of the ant and the grasshopper—see Delitzsch’s note), to -the numerical proverbs in chap. xxx. (‘skeletons of fables’ he calls -them), and to Eccles. ix. 4 and x. 11. Both proverbs and fables indeed -are common in later Jewish literature. Fables, especially animal fables, -were not perhaps appropriate vehicles of moral instruction according to -the O.T. writers. But the later Jewish teachers do not seem to have felt -this objection. Rabbi Meir (2nd cent. A.D.) was the writer of animal -fables _par excellence_; Rabbi Hillel (B.C. 30), however, so noted for -his versatility, was also a copious fabulist.[160] - -This popular origin of some at least of the proverbs sufficiently -accounts for their comparatively trite and commonplace character. They -were not trite and commonplace to those who first used them, and -successive generations loved them because of their antiquity (Job viii. -8-10). Even to us they are not so commonplace as the far less popular -and piquant Egyptian proverbs,[161] though I confess that they will -hardly compare with the relics of Indian gnomology,[162] still less with -the singularly rich and pointed proverbs of the Chinese.[163] The -practice of writing antithetic sentences on paper or silk to suspend in -houses (contrast Deut. vi. 9) gave an edge to the shrewd earthly wisdom -of the countrymen of Confucius. The Jewish intellect developed but -slowly into the acuteness of the later periods which produced fables, -proverbs, and riddles which can safely challenge comparison.[164] - -Footnote 154: - - In the Midrash-literature, proverbs are often quoted with an express - statement that they are from the lips of the people. - -Footnote 155: - - See Smith and Sayce’s _Chaldæan Genesis_, pp. 140-154. For the - Egyptian animal-fables, which may be the originals of those of Æsop, - see Mahaffy, _Prolegomena to Anc. Hist._, p. 390; for the Indian, see - the apologues of the Panchatantra by Benfey or Lancereau, and the - Buddhist Birth-Stories—‘the oldest, most complete, and most important - collection of folk-lore extant’—translated by Rhys Davids, vol. i. - -Footnote 156: - - _The Bible for Young People_, E. T., iii. 105-6. - -Footnote 157: - - 1 Kings x. 1; comp. Menander’s account in Josephus, _Antiq._ viii. 5, - 3. - -Footnote 158: - - From Max Müller’s translation of the Dhammapada, or ‘Path of Virtue’ - (1870). - -Footnote 159: - - Dr. Back gives a list of these in Grätz’s _Monatsschrift_, 1854, pp. - 265-7. - -Footnote 160: - - In the Talmudic treatise _Soferim_ xvi. 9, a list of Hillel’s - acquirements is given, including the conversations of the mountains, - the trees, the animals, the demons, &c. On the Jewish fable - literature, the wealth of which seems unparalleled, see Back, _Die - Fabel in Talmud und Midrash_, in Gratz’s _Monatsschrift_, 1875-1884. - Curiously enough the two oldest Jewish fables are similar in character - to those of the Old Test. - -Footnote 161: - - Comp. Renouf, _Hibbert Lectures_, pp. 75, 76, 100-103; Mahaffy, - _Prolegomena to Ancient History_, pp. 273-291; Brugsch, _Religion und - Mythologie der alten Aegypter_, p. 91; _Records of the Past_, viii. - 157-160. - -Footnote 162: - - Comp. Weber, _Indische Literaturgeschichte_, p. 227. - -Footnote 163: - - See Scarborough, _Collection of Chinese Proverbs_ (1875). The Chinese - proverbs have no known authors. - -Footnote 164: - - On the riddles referred to, see Wünsche, _Die Räthselweisheit bei den - Hebräern_ (1883). Comp. them with the later Arabic proverbs (see - Hariri, and comp. Freytag, _Proverbia arabica_). - - - - - CHAPTER III. - THE FIRST COLLECTION AND ITS APPENDICES. - - -Upon entering what Dante in the _De Monarchiâ_ so well calls ‘the -forest’ of the canonical proverbs, we are soon struck by differences of -age and growth. The central portion of the book, and in some respects -the most interesting, is comprised in x. 1-xxii. 16. To this, which is -indeed the original Book of Proverbs, the first nine chapters were -intended to serve as the introduction. It is the oldest Hebrew -proverbial anthology extant. Probably from its compiler it received the -name ‘Proverbs of Solomon,’ and from this title has sprung the tradition -accepted by so many subsequent ages and indeed by the editor of the -whole book (Prov. i. 1) of Solomon’s authorship of the Proverbs. The -title however cannot be historically correct. Those maxims in this -anthology which refer to the true God under the name Jehovah (_Yahvè_) -are too monotheistic and inculcate too pure a morality to be the work of -the Solomon of the Book of Kings. That great despot’s ‘wisdom,’ so far -as we can judge both from his character and from the traditional -notices, cannot have had a distinctively religious character. Listen to -these proverbs,— - - Better a little with the fear of Jehovah - than great treasure and turmoil therewith (xv. 16). - The horse is prepared against the day of battle, - but victory is Jehovah’s (xxi. 31). - The mouth of strange women is a deep pit; - he with whom Jehovah is wroth falleth therein (xxii. 14). - A wise son (loveth) his father’s correction, - but a scorner heareth not rebuke (xiii. 1),— - -and for a commentary read 1 Kings iv. 26, xi. 1, 4, 14-40, xii. 14, 15. -Nor is the moral tone of the ‘Solomonic’ proverbs in its plain bourgeois -simplicity any more suitable to the name they bear than the religious. -Unless Solomon was like Haroun al-Rashid, and made himself privately -acquainted with the ways and thoughts of the citizens, it is difficult -to see how he can have written so completely as one of them would have -done. - -The truth is that both David and Solomon were idealised by later -generations. The heroes of a grander if not better age, they towered far -above the petty figures of their successors. Favoured by the -contemporary depression of Egypt and Assyria, they had been enabled to -rear and to retain a powerful empire, comparable to those which -afflicted and oppressed the divided people of the later Israelites. -Solomon in particular is represented in tradition as not only the most -fortunate but the wisest of kings, not in the sense in which it is said -that religion is the best part of wisdom (Prov. i. 7), but in that in -which the ‘children of the east’ were accustomed to use the word. This -is clear from the language of the Hebrew narrator:— - - ‘And God gave Solomon wisdom and understanding exceeding much, and - largeness of heart even as the sand on the sea-shore. And Solomon’s - wisdom excelled the wisdom of all the children of the east country, - and all the wisdom of Egypt. For he was wiser than all men; than - Ethan the Ezrahite [read, perhaps, ‘the native,’ i.e. the - Israelite], and Heman, and Calcol, and Darda, the sons of Mahol - [probably a foreigner]: and his fame was in all the nations round - about. And he spoke three thousand proverbs [or, similitudes], and - his songs were a thousand and five. And he spoke of trees, from the - cedar in Lebanon unto the hyssop that springeth out of the wall: he - spoke also of beasts, and of birds, and of creeping things, and of - fishes. And there came of all peoples to hear the wisdom of Solomon, - from all kings of the earth, who had heard of his wisdom.’ (1 Kings - iv. 29-34.) - -I see no reason for not accepting the substance of this tradition. The -principal point in it is the ascription to Solomon of a power of -apophthegmatic composition which the author, as a devout theist, could -not but trace to a divine gift, just as the author of Ex. xxxvi. -ascribes the skill of the artisans of the tabernacle to the direct -operation of Jehovah. But we are also informed that the talents of -Solomon were neither peculiar to him, nor exercised on different -subjects from those of foreign sages. The precise meaning of the Hebrew -_m’shālīm_ in 1 Kings iv. 32 is suggested by ver. 33. The word seems to -mean moralising similitudes[165] derived partly from the animal, partly -from the vegetable kingdom (for Lord Bacon’s view,[166] hinted in the -_New Atlantis_, is more plausible than sound). Was I not right in saying -that the traditional notices of Solomon’s wisdom do not agree with the -title of our anthology? I wish that it were otherwise. How gladly one -would see a few of Solomon’s genuine utterances (whether proverbs, or -similitudes, or fables) incorporated into one or another of the Hebrew -Scriptures! - -I think however that it is unfair both to the compiler and to the editor -who repeats his statement (i. 1) to take the ascription of these -proverbs to Solomon literally. Accuracy in the details of literary -history was not a qualification which would seem important to an -Israelite. The name of Solomon was attached (for dogmatism here seems -permissible) to these choice specimens of Hebrew proverbiology simply -from a very characteristic hero-worship. Solomon had in fact become the -symbol of plain ethical ‘wisdom’ just as David had become the -representative of religious lyric poetry. We may see this from the -alternative title of the Book of Proverbs in both Jewish and Christian -writings—‘Book of Wisdom;’[167] still more from the fiction of Solomon’s -authorship of Ecclesiastes, and from the Targumic paraphrase of Jer. ix. -23, ‘Let not _Solomon the son of David_, the wise man, glory in his -wisdom.’ Of course, the real names of the authors of the proverbs had -been as irrecoverably lost as those of our early ballad-writers. - -But though we must deny the Solomonic authorship a far-off influence of -the Solomonic age may perhaps be admitted; at least, there are grounds -for the opinion that some of the proverbs are as old as the ninth -century. (1) The second collection of so-called Solomonic proverbs was -compiled according to a credible tradition (xxv. 1) in the reign of -Hezekiah; this of itself throws the earlier collection a considerable -way back into the eighth century. (2) Upon examining the first anthology -we find that some of the proverbs already have a history. For instance, -(_a_) the solemn generalisation in xiv. 12 occurs in exactly the same -form in xvi. 25, (_b_) eight other proverbs are repeated with slight -changes in expression (x. 1 = xv. 20, x. 2 = xi. 4, xiii. 14 = xiv. 27, -xiv. 20 = xix. 4, xvi. 2 = xxi. 2, xix, 5 = xix. 9, xx. 10 = xx. 23, -xxi. 9 = xxi. 19), but except in the case of xi. 4, xiv. 27 no change in -thought, (_c_) ten are repeated, at least so far as one line goes, -either exactly or with but slight differences (x. 15 = xviii. 11, x. -6[168] = x. 11, x. 8 = x. 10,[169] xv. 33 = xviii. 12, xi. 13 = xx. 19, -xi, 21 = xvi. 5, xii. 14 = xiii. 2, xiv. 31 = xvii. 5, xvi. 18 = xviii. -12, xix. 12 = xx. 2). It is probable that some time would elapse before -a proverb attained such notoriety as to be circulated in varying forms. -(3) The originality of the diction (_a_) and the careful observance of -technical rules of composition (_b_) favour an early date. (_a_) For -instance, ‘steersmanship’[170] (xi. 14, xii. 5, xx. 18), as a term for -practical wisdom or counsels, evidently springs from a fresh enthusiasm -for commerce; a long list of striking expressions might be added from -any chapter of the collection. (_b_) Nor is technical precision at all -less conspicuous in this early anthology. Each proverb is a distich, -i.e. consists of two lines, as a rule three-toned, and in most cases -antithetically parallel. It is true, xix. 7 in its present form is a -tristich, i.e. consists of three members, but this proverb undoubtedly -arose out of two, the second of which is mutilated in the Hebrew text, -but is found in a complete though not entirely correct form in the -Septuagint. The incomprehensible third line of xix. 7 given in versions -based upon the Hebrew now becomes the distich, - - He that does much evil perfects mischief; - he that provokes[171] with words shall not escape. - -According to Ewald, the collection is divided into five parts by the -recurrence at intervals of a proverb exhorting the young to receive -instruction; see x. 1, xiii. 1, xv. 20, xvii. 25, xix. 20. If this -division is intentional it may be compared with the equally mechanical -triple division found by some in Isa. xl. lxvi. Of arrangement by -subject there is but little trace; here and there two or more verses -come in succession dealing with the same theme. Observe too the -recurrence of ‘Jehovah,’ xv. 33, xvi. 1-9, 11, and of the word ‘king’ in -xvi. 10, 12-15, which shows that one principle of arrangement was simply -the recurrence of certain catchwords. Bickell thinks that another -principle was the occurrence of the same initial letter (see xi. 9-12, -xx. 7-9, xx. 24-26, xxii. 2-4). - -Altogether, it is abundantly clear that we have before us works of art, -and not the simple maxims handed down in Israel from father to son. -There may sometimes be a traditional basis, but no more. The anthology -contrasts, therefore, as Ewald remarks, with the collections of Arabic -proverbs due to Abu-Obaida, Maidani[172] and others. But whether we may -go on to assert with the same great critic that we have here the wise -men’s applications of the truths of religion to the infinite cases and -contingencies of the secular life, seems doubtful. It is not clear to me -that these wise men were preoccupied by religion. There are indeed not a -few fine religious proverbs, but it cannot be shown that those who wrote -the secular proverbs also wrote the religious. It is possible and even -probable that some of the religious proverbs are the work of the author -of the introductory chapters; without dogmatising, I may refer to xiv. -34 (comp. viii. 15, 16), xv. 33, xvi. 1-7, and perhaps to xix. 27, which -is quite in the parental tone of chaps. i.-ix. The tone of the secular -proverbs is not, from a Christian point of view (of which more later -on), an elevated one. The ethical principle is prudential. Virtue or -‘wisdom’ is rewarded, and vice or ‘folly’ punished in this life. It is -indeed nowhere expressly said that every trouble is a punishment; but -there is nothing like xxiv. 16 in this anthology to prevent the reader -from inferring it. At any rate, the writers are clearly not in the van -of religious thought: no ‘obstinate questionings’ have yet disturbed -their tranquillity. - -We need not pause here to demonstrate what no one probably will dispute, -that the origin of this first anthology is impersonal. The fact that it -is so may well give us the more confidence in the accuracy of the social -picture which it contains. This is certainly a pleasing one, and points -to a comparatively early period in the history of Judah. Commerce and -its attendant luxury have not made such progress as at the time when the -introduction was written; poverty is only too well known, but there -seems to be a middle class with a sound moral sense, to which the -writers of proverbs can appeal. It is true, says one of these, that in -daily life ‘rich and poor meet together,’ but for all that ‘Jehovah is -the maker of them all’ (xxii. 2), and ‘he that oppresses the poor -reproaches his maker’ (xiv. 31). And if it is true on the one hand that -‘the poor is hated even of his neighbour’ (xiv. 20), and that ‘the -destruction of the wretched is their poverty’ (x. 15), it is equally so -on the other that ‘he that trusts in his riches shall fall’ (xi. 28), -and that - - Better is the poor man who walks in his blamelessness, - than he who is perverse in his ways and is rich[173] (xix. 1). - -The strength of the land still consists in the number of small -proprietors tilling their own ground. Two proverbs express an interest -in these, e.g. - - The poor man’s newly ploughed field gives food in abundance, - but there is that is cut off by injustice (xiii. 23). - Better is a mean man that tills for himself[174] - than he that glorifies himself and has no bread (xii. 9). - -All the farmers however were not so diligent as those indicated in these -passages. One of the numerous proverbs against laziness (then as now a -prevalent vice in this part of the East[175]) brings before us a -land-owner who is too lazy to give the order for ploughing at the right -time, and so when he looks for the harvest, there is none. - - When autumn comes the sluggard ploughs not; - so if he asks at harvest-time, there is nothing (xx. 4). - -The right use of the gift of speech is another very favourite subject in -this anthology. The charm of suitable words is best described in a -Hezekian proverb (xxv. 11), but it is well said in xv. 4 that ‘a gentle -tongue is a tree of life,’ and elsewhere that - - There is that babbles like the thrusts of a sword, - but the tongue of the wise is gentleness (xii. 18). - -The wonderful power of language could hardly at that age have been -better expressed than by the saying, - - The words of a man’s mouth are deep waters, - a gushing torrent, a wellspring of wisdom (xviii. 4). - -The standard of family morals is high; a good wife is described as God’s -best gift (xii. 4, xviii. 22, xix. 14), and the restraints of home are -commended to the young (xix. 18, xxii. 6, 15), as in the Egyptian -proverbs. Monogamy is throughout presupposed, and a want of respect for -_either_ parent is condemned (xiii. 1, xv. 5, xix. 26). The king too is -repeatedly held up to reverence (xiv. 35, xvi. 10, 12-15, xix. 12, xx. -2, 8, 26, 28, xxii. 11); it is not so in the Hezekian collection. The -king however is not identified with the Deity, as in Egypt; we are told -that the will of the monarch is pliable in the hand of Jehovah (xxi. 1), -and the true glory of a nation is, not in the prowess of its king, but -in righteousness (xiv. 34). And even if we must confess that the spirit -of the more secular proverbs is utilitarian, the utilitarianism is -sometimes a very refined one, as for instance where the refreshing -character of a quiet, contented mind is contrasted with the dull -reaction which follows on an outburst of passion (xiv. 30). In -conclusion, I will quote a few proverbs interesting chiefly as -characteristic of their age, and then a few more of the gems of the -collection. - - (_a_) The poor is hated even by his neighbour, - but the rich has many friends (xiv. 20). - Whoso withholds corn, him the people curse, - but blessing is on the head of him who sells it (xi. 26). - The beginning of strife is as when one lets out water, - so leave off quarrelling before the teeth be shown (xvii. 14). - The gift of a man makes a free space for him, - and brings him before the great (xviii. 16). - ‘Bad, bad,’ says the purchaser, - but when he goes away, he boasts (xx. 14). - (_b_) The righteous regards the life of his cattle,[176] - but the heart of the wicked is cruel (xii. 10). - The heart knows its own bitterness, - and a stranger cannot intermeddle with its joy (xiv. 10). - He that covers transgression helps forward love, - but he that repeats a matter separates best friends (xvii. 9). - There are friends (good enough) acting their part,[177] - and there is a loving friend who sticks closer than a brother - (xviii. 24; comp, xvii. 17). - Who can say, I have made my heart clean, - I am pure from my sin? (xx. 9.) - Say not, I will recompense evil; - wait for Jehovah, and he will deliver thee (xx. 22). - -The first appendix to the original Book (appended possibly _before_ the -composition of the Introduction) is a small collection of proverbial -sayings called ‘words of the wise’ (xxii. 17-xxiv. 22). Virtually the -same phrase occurs again in xxiv. 23 at the head of a still shorter -work, compiled or composed evidently about the same time by another -‘wise man’ (perhaps the whole work has not come down to us). In the -introductory verses the compiler’s object in writing down these proverbs -is said to have been that his disciple might learn virtue and religion, -and might become qualified to teach others. There is one very difficult -passage in it, but this has been corrected in a masterly way by -Bickell:—[178] - - That thy confidence may be in Jehovah, - to make known unto thee thy ways. - Now, yea before now, have I written unto thee, - long before, with counsels and knowledge, - That thou mayest know the rightness of true words, - that thou mayest answer in true words to those that ask thee - (xxii. 19-21). - -The construction of ver. 20_b_ and ver. 21 in the Hebrew thus becomes -more idiomatic (comp. χθές τε καὶ πρώην), though not free from -ambiguity. The words may mean either that the compiler took long over -his work, or that this was not the first occasion of his writing. On the -latter explanation the passage may imply that the compiler of this -anthology also wrote chaps. i.-ix. (comp. i. 6_b_). His hortatory style -and predilection for grouping verses may seem to plead for this view. -There are however no important points of contact in phraseology between -the work before us and Prov. i.-ix.,[179] and certainly the appendix -falls far below the standard of the Introduction. At any rate, it is -undoubted that these ‘words of the wise’ appeared long after the -‘Solomonic’ proverbs. The peculiarities of style referred to show this, -and also the imitation of some of the ‘Solomonic’ proverbs in the ‘words -of the wise;’ (comp. xi. 14 with xxiv. 5, 6; xiii. 9 with xxiv. 19, 20; -xxii. 14_a_ with xxiii. 27). - -There is no occasion to suppose that all these proverbs come from one -period; but the hand of a compiler is more conspicuous here than in the -first anthology. He has not indeed removed repetitions (see xxii. 28_a_, -xxiii. 10_a_; xxiii. 17_a_, xxiv. 1_a_; xxiii. 18, xxiv. 14), but the -personal element preponderates so much that he might fairly have -prefixed his own name as the author. Artistically, he may perhaps be -found wanting. He has left one tristich (i.e. a proverb of three lines), -viz. xxii. 29; two pentastichs (i.e. proverbs of five lines), viz. -xxiii. 4, 5. xxiv. 13, 14; and one heptastich (i.e. a proverb of seven -lines), viz. xxiii. 6-8. Unsymmetrical as these may be, it seems -hazardous, unless there be any specially doubtful passage, to restore -symmetry (i.e. to convert tristichs into tetrastichs, and so on) by -inserting words conjecturally. There are a few distichs (xxii. 28, -xxiii. 9, xxiv. 7, 8, 9, 10), thus affording a slight point of contact -with the first anthology; more tetrastichs (xxii. 22, 23; 24, 25; 26, -27; xxiii. 10, 11; 15, 16; 17, 18; xxiv. 1, 2; 3, 4; 5, 6; 15, 16; 17, -18; 19, 20; 21, 22), and hexastichs (xxiii. 1-3; 12-14; 19-21; 26-28; -xxiv. 11, 12). One octastich occurs (xxiii. 22-25), and one long poem, -in the main a group of distichs, referred to again below (xxiii. 29-35). - -Beautiful in form, the proverbs of this collection certainly are not; -one cannot apply to the author the saying in xxiv. 26, ‘He kisses the -lips who answers in suitable words.’ The contents however are not -without points of interest. In xxiii. 1-3 we have a picture of a man of -the middle class admitted to the table of a governor. Being unused to -‘dainties,’ he is tempted to excess; as a restraint, the ‘wise man’ bids -him consider the capriciousness of princely favour (comp. Ecclus. ix. -13). The abuse of luxuries such as wine and meat was in fact a sore evil -in the eyes of this writer (see the caution in xxiii. 20, 21 in the -Septuagint version, which reminds one of vii. 14). He has even left us a -poem on the evils of drunkenness (xxiii. 29-35) which contains several -striking details from its satirical opening, ‘Who hath _oi_, who hath -_aboi_?’ (interjections expressing pain), to the picturesque comparison -of the drunkard to a man ‘that lieth upon the top of a mast,’[180] which -shows incidentally that sea-life was by this time a familiar experience. -Another interesting passage, though marred by its obscurity, is that in -xxiv. 11, 12. The innocent victims of a miscarriage of justice are about -to be dragged away to execution; the pupil of the wise is exhorted to -‘deliver’ them, by intervening with resistless energy, like the St. Ives -of a favourite Breton legend, and testifying to the innocence of the -sufferers (see xxxi. 8). He may of course refuse, thinking to pretend -afterwards that he had not heard of the case; but God knows all, and -will requite falsehood, not perhaps at once, but at a future time, when -‘the lamp of the wicked shall be put out’ (xxiv. 20). The wise men, as -we have seen, clung firmly to the doctrine of retribution in some one of -its various forms. We are not therefore surprised that a book of -proverbs should conclude with a dissuasion from consorting with lawless -persons, and an earnest advice to ‘fear Jehovah and the king’ (xxiv. -21). - -Much need not be said of the second appendix (xxiv. 23-34). ‘These also -are by wise men,’ writes the collector, implying that he is to be -distinguished from the editor of the preceding collection. The proverbs -are all[181] either in two, four, or six lines, except ver. 27, where -however it is possible that some words have dropped out.[182] At the end -comes a parable or apologue professedly drawn from the writer’s -experience (reminding us in this of vii. 6-23, but still more of Job v. -3-5). The scene is laid in a vineyard which has run to waste and become -a wilderness from the carelessness of its owner (comp. xx. 4). The -_mashal_ (xxiv. 30-32) has been lengthened by the addition of two verses -from vi. 9, 10, originally no doubt a marginal note. It was needless; -the story (if story it can be called) is more vivid in its brevity, and -forms a fitting close to this section of proverbial wisdom. - -Footnote 165: - - Dr. Grätz is of opinion that Solomon was a fabulist like Jotham; in - the text I have followed Josephus (_Ant._ vii. 2, 5). Legend related - how the wise king, like the early men in African folk-lore (Max - Müller, _Hibbert Lectures_, p. 116), talked _with_ (not merely _of_) - beasts, birds, and fishes, but delighted most in the birds. - -Footnote 166: - - This was also the opinion of Ewald (_History_, iii. 281). It might now - be urged in its favour that Assurbanipal’s library contained bilingual - lists of animals, vegetables, and minerals. But remember that the - Assyrians were incomparably more civilised than the Israelites, and - had both a lexicographical and a scientific interest in making these - lists, and above all that Solomon is not stated to have written, but - only to have _spoken_. - -Footnote 167: - - See the _Tosefoth_ to the Talmudic treatise _Baba bathra_, 14_b_, - where the name is given both to Proverbs and to Ecclesiastes. It is - however more commonly found in Christian than in Jewish literature, - often under the fuller form ἡ πανάρετος σοφία (see especially - Eusebius, _H. E._, iv. 22). - -Footnote 168: - - The second line however seems to have intruded from ver. 11, and thus - to have supplanted the original. - -Footnote 169: - - Here again the second line is evidently an intruder (from ver. 8). We - should doubtless read with Sept., ‘but he that reproves produces - welfare.’ - -Footnote 170: - - This word (_takhbūlōth_) also occurs in xxiv. 6, i. 5, Job xxxvii. 12. - -Footnote 171: - - For _m’raddēf_ read _m’gaddēf_. - -Footnote 172: - - Landberg denies that Maidani’s proverbs were ever really popular, but - A. Müller judges that this view is extravagant (_Zeitschrift für - Völkerpsychologie_, xii. 441). - -Footnote 173: - - The text has ‘than he who is perverse in his lips and is a fool.’ With - Grätz, I follow the Peshitto and (partly) the Vulgate. - -Footnote 174: - - Pointing _ōbhēd_, with Hitzig, Ewald, and Bickell; comp. ver, 11. - Dijserinck ingeniously emends _çōbhēr_ ‘heaps up’ (i.e. saves). - -Footnote 175: - - Comp. Thomson, _The Land and the Book_, pp. 336-8. - -Footnote 176: - - The word is _behēma_ (Seneca’s ‘muta animalia’). Schopenhauer, - thinking perhaps of the Levitical sacrifices, accuses the Old - Testament of cruelty to animals. But see, besides this passage, Gen. - i. 27-29, Num. xxii. 28, Jon. iv. 11. - -Footnote 177: - - With Hitzig and others, taking _’îsh_ as a softened form _yēsh_ (comp. - 2 Sam. xiv. 19, Mic. vi. 10); the _yōd_ is kept as in Aramaic. So - Targ., Pesh. - -Footnote 178: - - At the end of ver. 19 Bickell nearly follows Sept. Cod. Vat., τὴν ὁδόν - σου (A.C.S. αὐτοῦ). But as this takes the place of _hayyōm_, it would - seem that Bickell ought to begin ver. 20 with _af ethmōl_. This - however would not suit his metrical theory. - -Footnote 179: - - The phraseological resemblance of xxiii. 19_b_ to iv. 14_b_ is - incomplete. As for _khokmōth_ in xxiv. 7, it means simply ‘wisdom’ (as - in xiv. 1, where _khakmōth_ is wrong); the parallelism with i. 20, ix. - 1 is not of critical importance. Any real points of contact (such as - xxiii. 23_a_; comp. iv. 5, 7) can be accounted for by imitation, and - one could easily bring together points of difference. - -Footnote 180: - - The word for ‘mast’ is a ἅπ. λεγ. The Septuagint and Peshitto have ‘as - a steersman (or seaman) in great breakers.’ - -Footnote 181: - - xxiv. 23_b_ is no exception; it is merely the first line of a - hexastich. - -Footnote 182: - - For ‘and afterwards’ the Hebrew has ‘afterwards and thou shalt build.’ - ‘And’ may mean ‘then,’ marking out the perfect as consecutive, but it - may also have been intended to join two parts of a sentence. - - - - - CHAPTER IV. - THE SECOND COLLECTION AND ITS APPENDICES. - - -The next proverbial anthology (xxv.-xxix.) like its chief predecessor is -described in the heading as ‘Proverbs of Solomon.’[183] The social state -however presupposed in many of them is so different from that of the -Solomonic age that we may at once reject the theory of the wise king’s -authorship. Another name with which in xxv. 1 the work is connected is -that of Hezekiah, who has been suggestively called ‘the Pisistratus of -Judah.’ The comparison halts, no doubt; for Pisistratus and his -‘companions’ meant to collect the whole of the Homeric poems, whereas -completeness can hardly have been the object of those ‘friends (or -counsellors) of Hezekiah’ who ‘collected’[184] the ‘Proverbs of Solomon’ -in xxv. 2-xxix. 27; at least, we know that there was much proverbial -wisdom in circulation which had as good or as bad a claim to be called -‘Solomonic’ as the sayings which they have admitted into their -anthology. It may indeed well be doubted whether the compilers had any -thought of collecting the relics (now already more than 200 years old) -of the wise king. The style of these proverbs makes such a hypothesis -even more improbable than in the case of x. 1-xxii. 16. The words with -which the heading begins are of course not decisive, especially as the -whole verse appears to be due, not to the royal officials who are spoken -of, but to the author of the heading in xxiv. 23a (both headings begin -with ‘these also’). That Hezekiah was the instigator of the compilation, -need not however be disputed. Even if not himself an author,[185] he may -well have shared his friend Isaiah’s interest in literature; and -besides, it was at that time one of the glories of a great king to be -the founder of a library.[186] The word used in describing the activity -of his commissioners means literally ‘transferred’ (from one place to -another), and will equally well apply to the noting down of oral -traditions and to the making extracts from existing collections. Among -the latter, the ‘Proverbs of Solomon’ in x. 1-xxii. 16 are of course to -be included, though it is not quite certain whether the compilers of the -later anthology had the book before them. It is true that nine proverbs -are the same in the two books either absolutely (xxv. 24 = xxi. 9, xxvi. -22 = xviii. 8, xxvii. 12 = xxii. 3, xxvii. 13 = xx. 16) or virtually -(xxvi. 13 = xxii. 13, xxvi. 15 = xix. 24, xxviii. 6 = xix. 1, xxviii. 19 -= xii. 11, xxix. 13 = xxii. 2), besides two which agree in one line -(xxvii. 21 = xvii. 3, xxix. 22 = xv. 18; comp. also xxvii. 15, xix. 13). -But there still remains the question, Why the collectors took so little -and left so much of manifest antiquity, and to this question we cannot -expect to find an answer. All that we can say is that their compilation -has striking characteristics of its own. In technicalities they admit a -greater variety than those of the first anthology. They allow not only -distichs but tristichs (xxv. 8, 13, 20, xxvii. 10, 22, xxviii. 10), -tetrastichs (xxv. 4, 5, xxv. 9, 10, xxv. 21, 22, xxvi. 18, 19, xxvi. 24, -25, xxvii. 15, 16), and in one case a pentastich[187] (xxv. 6, 7), -agreeing in this respect with the two appendices of the first anthology. -There is also a long _mashal_, analogous to some we have had already, -which can only with some laxity be called a proverb, and which extends -over ten distichs (xxvii. 23-27). With regard to parallelism, the -antithetic kind, which predominates in the first ‘Solomonic’ anthology, -is rare in this collection, except in chaps. xxviii., xxix.; sometimes -indeed there is no parallelism at all (see xxv. 8, 9, 10, 21, 22, xxvi. -18, 19, xxvii. 1, xxix. 12). As a compensation, similitudes abound in -the three first chapters of the collection. Sometimes the comparison is -expressed, e.g. - - As the cold of snow in the heat[188] of harvest - is a faithful messenger to those that send him: - he refreshes the soul of his master (xxv. 13); - -at other times it is implied by the juxtaposition of the two objects, -e.g. - - Apples of gold in chased work of silver, - a word smoothly spoken[189] (xxv. 11). - -Let us pause on this favourite proverb of Goethe’s. The Hebrew ‘wise -men’ would not have agreed to a later sage’s depreciation of -speech.[190] ‘A word in due season, how good is it’ (xv. 23); but when -not only seasonable but set off by charms of style, how much better is -it! The ‘apples of gold’ in xxv. 11 are probably oranges; the ‘chased -work of silver’ means either baskets of silver filagree, or, as I should -like to think with Mr. Neil, the brilliant white blossoms among which -the golden fruit is seen peeping out. If the ‘gold’ is figurative, why -not also the ‘silver’? We are reminded of Andrew Marvell’s lines in the -‘Emigrants’ Song,’ - - He hangs in shades the orange bright, - Like golden lamps in a green night, - -though Marvell forgot what Addison (_Spectator_, No. 455) well knew, -that flowers as well as fruit and leaves continue on the orange-tree for -the best part of the year. - -But to return to our anthology. It would almost seem as if two editors -with different tastes had been concerned in it, the one responsible for -chaps. xxv.-xxvii., and the other for chaps. xxviii, xxix. According to -Ewald, the proverbs in the latter section are mostly somewhat older than -those in the former. This is perhaps an impression rather than a -judgment; and few will deny that some at least of the parabolic proverbs -in the first section may be as old as those of the same class in x. -1-xxii. 16. - -It is difficult to suppose that many of the proverbs in either part of -the book go back to a remote date. The cheerfulness of Israel’s ‘golden -prime’ is gone; society seems to have changed, not altogether for the -better, even since the first great anthology was made. The king is still -looked up to with awe; the book begins with a group of four sentences on -the true glory of a monarch, followed by two on the right behaviour for -a subject (xxv. 2-7). The king is described (surely with a touch of -idealism) as inquisitive in the best sense; his ‘heart,’ or -understanding, is unsearchable. But this happy view of monarchy passes -away. There are several proverbs complaining of the wickedness of kings, -which are almost without a parallel in the earlier collection. Ungodly -rulers have made the people ‘sigh’ (xxix. 2); they have been like -‘roaring lions and ravenous bears’ to the ‘poor folk’ (xxviii. 15, 16), -and have completely destroyed the freedom of social intercourse (xxviii. -12, 28). Sometimes, as in the northern kingdom after the death of -Jeroboam II.,[191] the crown has become the object of competition to a -crowd of pretenders (xxviii. 2). The misery of the people has been -heightened by the greed of petty tyrants, according to the forcible -saying,— - - A man who is rich[192] and oppresses the poor - (is) a rain which sweeps away and gives no bread (xxviii. 3). - -What kind of oppression is meant we may learn from Micah (ii. 3),— - - And they covet lands and take them by violence; - houses, and take them away; - and they oppress the owner and his house, - a man and his inheritance. - -It is in short the same unscrupulous accumulation of landed property to -which Isaiah devotes one of his solemn ‘woes’ in his earliest prophecy, -and which is one of the causes of the threatened captivity (Isa. v. 8-10 -13). Exile has indeed become a familiar idea to those who admitted -xxvii. 8 into the anthology, if, as most think, in the pathetic words of -xxvii. 8 we may hear an echo of the march of Assyrian armies, ‘to -wander’ being an euphemism for going into banishment. - - As a bird that wanders from her nest, - so is a man that wanders[193] from his home (xxvii. 8). - -As a rule, however, the proverbs relate to ordinary bourgeois life. -Religious proverbs occur but rarely.[194] ‘Folly’ too is not so often -mentioned as in the first collection, and the censure which it has to -bear is mostly indirect and more or less satirical; see e.g. the -proverb— - - Though thou shouldest beat a fool in a mortar - in the midst of bruised corn with a pestle, - his folly would not depart from him (xxvii. 22), - -and especially the paradoxical exhibition of the two sides of a truth— - - Answer not the stupid man according to his folly, - lest thou thyself also become like unto him: - Answer the stupid man according to his folly, - lest he regard himself as wise (xxvi. 4, 5), - -where the first distich dissuades from retaliating on a fool by a word -or an action on his own low moral plane, while the second recommends -giving his folly the exposure or the sharp answer which it so richly -deserves.[195] The wide meaning of ‘folly’ in this pair of proverbs may -be illustrated by xvii. 12, where it evidently means a paroxysm of -passion. Next to this noisy passionate ‘folly,’ if we may judge from the -arrangement of chap. xxvi., comes the vice of idleness (xxvi. 13-16). -How dangerous this was felt to be we have seen already, and the -exhortation to agricultural industry in xxvii. 23-27 forms a counterpart -to the meditation on the ‘field of the slothful’ in xxiv. 30-32. If the -motives urged for this and other duties are not lofty, the standard is -at least an easily attainable one. - -Sometimes, indeed, the eye sharpened by a regard to prudence discerns -moral points of some refinement.[196] This proverb, for instance, -strikes one as delicate, in spite of the prudential motive attached to -it in the next verse,— - - Conduct thy quarrel with thy neighbour, - but expose not the secret of another (xxv. 9); - -and the well-known precept on showing kindness to one’s enemies, though -partly supported by the prospect of a reward (comp. xxiv. 17, 18), is so -nobly expressed that an apostle can adopt it without change (Rom. xii. -20),— - - If one that hates thee hunger, give him bread to eat, - and if he thirst, give him water to drink, - for thou heapest coals of fire thereby - upon his head, and Jehovah shall recompense thee (xxv. 21, 22). - -Let us pause a moment on this proverb, which contrasts so strongly with -the advice on the treatment of enemies given by Sirach. ‘Coals of fire -on the head’ is probably here a metaphorical expression for what St. -Augustine calls ‘urentes conscientiæ gemitus’ (_De doctr. Christ._, l. -iii., c. 16). The appositeness of the phrase will be heightened if we -suppose the enemy spoken of to be one who has never heard of the wise -man’s rule—a man of rude, uncultured nature, and perhaps of alien race. -To such a one, the being fed by the very man whom he ‘hated’ would give -first of all a shock of surprise, and then a pang of intolerable remorse -for his own unworthiness.[197] I wish one could be sure that this pang -was referred to as purifying as well as painful to the sufferer. A -parallel passage would be a great boon. Of course we can _apply_ the -passage in the same sense as St. Paul when he followed his quotation -with the words, ‘Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.’ - -But we should wrong our ‘wise men’ by treating them as pure -utilitarians; they are often sympathetic observers of character and -circumstance. For instance,— - - Vinegar falling upon a wound,[198] - and he who sings songs to a heavy heart (xxv. 20). - Silver dross spread over an earthen vessel— - fervent lips[199] and a bad heart (xxvi. 23). - Let another man praise thee, and not thine own mouth: - a stranger, and not thine own lips (xxvii. 2). - Faithful are the wounds of one who loves, - but the kisses of a hater are profuse[200] (xxvii. 6). - Thine own friend, and thy father’s friend, forsake not; - and go not to thy brother’s house in the day of thy calamity: - better is a near neighbour than a far off brother[201] (xxvii. 10). - He who blesses his friend with a loud voice, rising early in the - morning, - it is reckoned to him for a curse[202] (xxvii. 14). - Iron is sharpened by iron, - and a man sharpens the face (or edge) of his friend (xxvii. 17). - -The three appendices to the Hezekian collection (xxx., xxxi. 1-9, xxxi. -10-31) are, to take the most conservative position possible, obviously -not earlier than the closing century of the Jewish state. The art of -proverb-writing has declined ever since the compilation of the previous -anthology. The marks of simplicity and naturalness are wanting; the -enigmatical and artificial seem to be sought for. Each part of these two -chapters has moreover something of its own pointing in the direction of -a late origin. The two first appendices are very possibly even later -than the return of the Jews from Babylon. - -The first appendix begins—‘The words of Agur the son of Jakeh, the -prophecy’ (or, divine utterance)[203] (comp. xxxi, 1). The heading is -enigmatical; in what sense are the ‘words’ ‘a prophecy,’ and who are the -persons spoken of? The latter question we have no means of answering. -The names are not found elsewhere, and have been thought to be -pseudonyms (Agur might mean ‘collector’ and Jakeh ‘obedient,’ i.e. -‘religious’).[204] As to the title ‘the prophecy,’ it must be admitted -that it is not by any means an appropriate one. It is too bold to accuse -the proverb-writer of claiming prophetic inspiration. (And why should -the article be prefixed?) The only alternative to this is to read, with -Prof. Grätz, (for _hammassā_ ‘the prophecy’) _hammōshēl_ ‘the -proverb-writer.’ After the heading comes a group of four verses complete -in itself. - - The oracle of the man ‘I have wearied[205] myself about God’ (?), - I have wearied myself about God and have not prevailed.[206] - For I am too stupid for a man, - and am without human reason; - I have not learned wisdom, - nor have I knowledge of the All-holy.[207] - Who has gone up to heaven and come down? - who has gathered the wind in his fists? - who has bound up the waters in a garment? - who has established all the ends of the earth? - what is his name, and what is his son’s name, if thou knowest? - -It is not easy to interpret this little passage. Evidently the speaker -is a ‘wise man,’ who, according to some critics, inculcates a reverent -humility by reporting the fruitlessness of his own theological -speculations. After long brooding over the problems of the divine nature -(so they explain), the Hebrew sage was compelled to desist with the -feeling of his utter incapacity. Like Israel the patriarch he strove -with God, but unlike Israel he did not prevail. He knows indeed what God -has done and is continually doing; He is the Omnipresent One, the Lord -of wind and flood, the Author of the boundaries of the earth. But what -is this great Being’s name, and (to know Him intimately) what is His -son’s name? On this view of its meaning, the passage reminds one of the -words of Goethe’s Faust, ‘Who can name Him, or who confess, I believe -Him? Who can feel, and can be bold to say, I believe Him not?’ Or -perhaps we may still better compare Max Letteris’ masterly Hebrew -translation or adaptation, in which the medieval doctor has been -transformed into Ben Abuyah (or Acher אַחֵר), the famous apostate from -Judaism in the second century of our era. The passage with which we are -concerned as illustrative of the passage before us is on page 164, and -begins מִי יַזָכַּירֵהוּ וּמִי יְבַנֵּהוּ. Notice the delicate tact in -the choice of the second verb, ‘Who can give Him an honourable surname?’ -(comp. Isa, xliv. 5, xiv. 4.) Later on, after other names suggested by -the German original, the modern Hebrew poet continues, אוֹׂ בְּיָהּ -שְׁמוׂ כִי נִשְׂגָּב הַזְכּירוּ, and in a note refers to a parallel -passage in a Hebrew poem by Ibn Gabirol. - -I must make bold to doubt the correctness of this explanation. (1) -Because it does not sufficiently account for the language of ver. 2. (2) -Because upon this view of the questions of ver. 4, an Israelite’s answer -would simply be, Jehovah (comp. Job xxxviii. 5, Isa. xl. 12). (3) -Because it is so difficult to see why the poet should have asked -further, What is His son’s name? Is not the passage rather a philosophic -fragment from a school of ‘wise men,’ not so much unbelieving as -critical? The speaker declares, soberly enough, that he has tried in -vain by thinking to find out God. Then comes in a piece of irony. No -doubt it is his own stupidity; grand theologians, such as the writer of -Isa. xl. 12 &c., Job xxxviii., Prov. viii. 22 &c., may well look down -upon the dullard, who has not passed through their school! ‘But who is -it that is ever and anon coming down[208] to earth, and that performed -all these creative works of which you delight to speak? I have never -seen him; tell me his name and his son’s name since you are so learned.’ -The latter phrase may be an allusion, either (anticipating Philo, who -calls Wisdom God’s Son) to the ‘I was brought forth’ in viii. 24, or -more probably[209] the primeval man (who might be called a ‘son of God’ -in the sense of Luke iii. 38) spoken of in Job xv. 7, who was the -embodiment of all wisdom and sat in the council of Elohim.[210] The -satirical turn of this secularistic ‘wise man’ is even perhaps traceable -in the heading of his poem. He calls his work an ‘oracle,’ taking up a -favourite word of the disciples of the prophets, and flinging it back to -them with a laugh. Obviously too the name of the writer, if genuine, is -best explained as an assumed name. [But the emphatic _haggebher_ is very -difficult. I cannot believe, with Ewald, that _haggebher_ is said -ironically, as if ‘the mighty one in his own conceit;’ comp. Isa. xxii. -17 (?), Ps. lii. 3. The analogy of Num. xxiv. 3, 15, 2 Sam. xxiii. 1, -suggests that there is a corruption in the text, and that _haggebher_, -‘the man,’ was originally followed by words descriptive of the person -referred to. Grätz boldly corrects (_haggebher_) _lō-khayil_ ‘the man -without strength.] - -Are we surprised at this? But a strikingly parallel confession of honest -scepticism is found in the Rig Veda (x. 129), though I would not of -course identify the opinions of the Sanskrit and the Hebrew poet, - - Who knows, who here can declare, whence has sprung—whence, this - creation?... From what this creation arose; and whether [any one] - made it, or not,—he who in the highest heaven is its ruler, he - verily knows, or [even] he does not know.[211] - -The poet who ‘takes up his parable’ after Laithi-el calmly and -uncontroversially indicates his own very different religious position. -He earnestly prays that he may not ‘become a liar and ask, Who is -Jehovah?’ (xxx. 9); for him the divine revelations (the outward form of -which is already sacred) are amply sufficient. ‘Every utterance of God -[_Eloah_, the sing. form, as in Job] is free from alloy’ (xxx. 5; see -the commentators on Ps. xviii. 31); the divine ‘name’ declared in Ex. -xxxiv. 6, should satisfy the wisest of men. Thus, like the editors of -Ecclesiastes, this later writer neutralises the doubtful expressions of -the poem which he has saved from perishing. - -Can we avoid the impression that both these poets lived in an age of -advanced religious reflection and of Scripture-study? The one is more of -a philosopher, the other of a Biblical theologian; both would be at home -only in the Exile or in the post-Exile period, when doubt and even -scepticism lifted their heads side by side with Biblical study. Our -second more believing poet seems to be thinking of Ps. xviii. 30; but -the portion of that verse which he adopts assumes another colour through -the warning which follows, derived from Deut. iv. 1, xiii. 1. It is no -longer the ‘promise of God’ which is ‘tried’ or ‘pure,’ but the -revelation of which the Jewish Church is gradually finding itself the -possessor. - -The poet’s prayer for himself (vv. 7-9) is followed by eight groups of -proverbs, each of which describes some quality or character which is -either commended or warned against, and (with the exception of the -first) contains a similitude. In most of these the number four is -conspicuous generally as the climax after ‘three’ (vv. 15, 18, 21, 29). -The fact that similar ‘numerical proverbs’ were popular in the early -Rabbinical period,[212] gives a certain support to the view that this -collection is of late origin. The groups referred to are— - - The four marks of an evil generation vv. 11-14 - The four insatiable things — 15, 16 - The fate of the disobedient son — 17 - The four incomprehensible things — 18-20 - — — intolerable things — 21-23 - — — wise animals — 24-28 - — — comely in going (see p. 175) — 29-31 - A warning against strife — 32, 33. - -One of these (vv. 15, 16) has probably suffered a slight mutilation, -which has been thus remedied by Bickell,— - - The leech has two [three [213]] daughters, - they say continually, ‘Give, give:’ - there are three things which are never satisfied, - four which never say, ‘Abundance.’ - Sheól is never satisfied with dead, - and the closing of the womb is never satisfied with men, - the earth is never satisfied with water, - and fire never says, ‘Abundance.’[214] - -‘Daughters of the leech’ is a quasi-mythical expression, which no one -could misunderstand (comp. ‘upon a hill the son of oil,’ Isa. v. 1). We -find a similar group of four insatiables in the Sanskrit -Hitopadesa.[215] - - Fire is never satisfied with fuel; nor the ocean with rivers; nor - death with all creatures; nor bright-eyed women with men. - -The verses are of course older than the trumpery story of the cowherd’s -wife which they serve to illustrate. The coincidence with the Hebrew, -being obviously accidental, is worth remembering in other connections. -The two parallels, present in the Hebrew but not in this Sanskrit -quaternion, are given in a quatrain of a Vedic hymn to Varuna— - - The path of ships across the sea, - The soaring eagle’s flight he knows.[216] - -The second appendix (xxxi. 1-9) consists of a single group of sayings, -described as ‘the words of Lemuel, a king, the prophecy [better the -proverb, reading _māshāl_] with which his mother instructed him.’ -Possibly, as Ewald suggests, Lemuel (or rather, Lemoel, as the word is -pointed in ver. 4) is an imaginary name, descriptive of the character of -an ideal monarch (‘God’s own;’ comp. Lael, Num. iii. 24). It is not -necessary to suppose that the poet himself lived under a native king; he -may, like the author of Koheleth, have thrown himself back in -imagination to Israel’s golden prime. His own period was late, judging -from the unclassical Hebrew (notice the Aramaisms in vv. 2, 3, and the -strange expressions in vv. 5, 8). The form of the heading suggests that -these ‘words of Lemuel’ formed part of the same collection as the ‘words -of Agur;’ and there is at least nothing in the contents to forbid this -view. The warnings of this queen-mother[217] (whose relation to Lemuel -reminds us of that of Bathsheba to Solomon) are very homely and -practical; one is against sensuality, another against drunkenness; upon -which follows an admonition to defend the cause of the poor. Even if -there were no native king at the time, the advice would be appropriate -for all members of the upper class of society. - -The third appendix (xxxi. 10-31) contains the praise of the virtuous -woman. In style it is quite unlike the two preceding sections; it must -come therefore from another source. It is an alphabetic poem; each -distich begins with a letter of the Hebrew alphabet. This, combined with -the position of the work at the close of the various collections of -proverbs, of itself suggests a date not far removed on the one side or -the other from the Exile period, when Hebrew literature became -undoubtedly more artificial and technical. From xxxi. 23 (‘the elders of -the land’) we may perhaps infer that it was written in Palestine. It is -very interesting to see the ideal of womanhood formed by a late Hebrew -poet. Activity appears to him the one great feminine virtue—not however -the activity which is entirely devoted to trifling details, for the -ideal woman ‘is like the ships of the merchant; from far she brings her -food’ (ver. 14). Nor is she a stranger to sympathetic impulses; ‘she -holds out her hand (with something in it) to the afflicted, and -stretches forth her hands to the needy [to bring them in],’ ver. 20. Nor -must we forget ‘one of the most beautiful features in the portrait’ -(Delitzsch): ‘she opens her mouth with wisdom, and a law of kindness is -on her tongue’ (ver. 26). But for this verse, indeed, it would read -almost like satire that ‘far above pearls is her value’ (ver. 10), since -no higher estimate than this has been offered for God’s choicest -blessing, ‘Wisdom.’[218] - -The poet does not say that he has found such a woman (comp. Eccles. vii. -28). The picture is perhaps too brightly coloured to be drawn from -reality, unless with Hitzig we bring down the composition of the poem as -late as the Greek period. Most probably, it is idealistic. - -Footnote 183: - - ‘These _also_’ suggests that what follows is a last gleaning of - Solomonic proverbs. And in fact xxv. 24, xxvi. 13, 15, 22, xxvii. 12, - 13, 21a, seem to be taken from _the_ ‘Solomonic’ collection. Hitzig - however rejects this view. Why did not the collectors combine all the - Solomonic proverbs they could find in one work? So he supposes this - new collection to have been made ‘aus dem Volksmunde,’ and remarks - that a commission would be specially appropriate for this task. To me - this seems an anachronism. The proverbs of the Hezekian collection are - moreover as artistic as those of the first ‘Solomonic.’ - -Footnote 184: - - So virtually the Septuagint (ἑξεγράψαντο), followed by the Peshitto - and the Targum: Aquila, μετῆραν. The Greek, curiously enough, inserts - an epithet for the proverbs, viz. αἱ ἀδιάκριτοι, i.e. either - impossible to distinguish, miscellaneous (so Sophocles, _Lexicon_), or - better, difficult to interpret. Symmachus has ἀδιάκριτος for _bōhū_, - Gen. i. 2. The Peshitto and Targum render the Greek of our passage by - ‘deep proverbs,’ i.e. enigmatical ones (so too Aquila and Theodotion - in the Syro-hexapla). - -Footnote 185: - - Cheyne, _The Prophecies of Isaiah_, i. 228-9 (on Isa. xxxviii. 9). - -Footnote 186: - - Sayce’s ed. of Smith’s _Chaldean Genesis_, pp. 15, 26, 27. - -Footnote 187: - - Sept., Symm., Pesh., Vulg., however, attach the lost line of ver. 7 to - ver. 8 (‘Quæ viderunt oculi tui, ne proferas in jurgio cito’), which - makes ver. 7 a distich and ver. 8 a tetrastich. - -Footnote 188: - - Reading _b’khōm_ for _b’yōm_ with Sept. - -Footnote 189: - - Literally, ‘a word spoken (or, perhaps, driven, or sent home) on its - wheels,’ i.e. smoothly and elegantly (‘ore rotundo’). So Schultens, - who sees a reference to the tropes and figures of elegant Oriental - style. Comp. Neil, _Palestine Explored_, p. 197. The interpretation is - an attractive one, though uncertain. Ewald has a slightly different - view (see History, ii. p. 14, n. 6). - -Footnote 190: - - Carlyle however borrows an Arabic proverb (Freytag, _Prov. Ar._, iii. - 92). - -Footnote 191: - - It is of course possible that xxviii. 2 may be of northern origin, but - why should not a wise man in Judah have watched with sympathy the - course of events in Israel? - -Footnote 192: - - Reading, with Grätz, _’āshīr_ for _rāsh_ ‘poor,’ which makes no sense. - -Footnote 193: - - Sept. well ἀποξενωθεῇ. - -Footnote 194: - - Notice however the remarkable saying, already quoted, in xxix. - -Footnote 195: - - The proverbs xxvi. 1, 3-12, form a string of satirical attacks on the - ‘fool’ or stupid man. - -Footnote 196: - - One of these points however is noticed in the earliest part of the - Law. The love of one’s enemy is taught in Ex. xxiii. 4, 5. - -Footnote 197: - - See however Mr. Yonge in _The Expositor_, Aug. 1885, pp. 158-9. - -Footnote 198: - - The received text has ‘vinegar upon nitre;’ but this would be rather - an emblem for anger. The correction is Bickell’s, and is partly - founded on Sept. (ὥσπερ ὄξος ἕλκει ἀσύμφορον). The opening words of - the verse in rec. text arise from the repetition in a corrupt form of - the four last words of the preceding verse (Lagarde and Bickell). - -Footnote 199: - - The Septuagint has ‘smooth lips.’ - -Footnote 200: - - To have added ‘but perfidious,’ would have made the line too long. - -Footnote 201: - - This seems a combination of two distinct proverbs. The one says that a - friend can give more sympathy than a relative; the other, that a - neighbour, being on the spot, can give more help than a relative at a - distance. - -Footnote 202: - - A humorous picture! Such ostentatious and inopportune salutations are - execrable flattery. - -Footnote 203: - - On the conjectural reading, ‘the man of Massa’ (‘Massa,’ instead of - ‘the prophecy’), see Chap. VI. - -Footnote 204: - - This was the view of St. Jerome, derived of course from his Jewish - teacher. - -Footnote 205: - - Pointing _lāīthī_. - -Footnote 206: - - Reading with Bickell _v’lō ūkāl_. Another correction of the text is, - _v’ēkel_ ‘and have pined away.’ - -Footnote 207: - - _Q’dōshīm_, a word formed on the analogy of _elōhīm_; comp. ix. 10, - Hos. xii. 1. - -Footnote 208: - - It may be objected that ‘hath gone up and come down’ does not suit - this explanation, and that, to refer to God, it should run ‘hath come - down and gone up.’ But we have ‘angels of Elohim ascending and - descending’ in Gen. xxviii. 12; usage, in Hebrew as in English, - forbids the phrase ‘to go down and up.’ - -Footnote 209: - - ‘More probably;’ because the name of the speaker in viii. 24 has been - told. - -Footnote 210: - - Comp. Ewald, _Die Lehre der Bibel von Gott_, iii. 2, pp. 81, 82. - -Footnote 211: - - Muir, _Original Sanskrit Texts_, v. 356; comp. Max Müller, _Hibbert - Lectures_, p. 316. - -Footnote 212: - - See above, p. 128, and comp. Wünsche, _Midrasch Kohelet_, p. xiii. - -Footnote 213: - - Sept., followed by Pesh., reads ‘three’ for ‘two.’ Accepting this - reading, the second half of the verse becomes an explanation of the - first. - -Footnote 214: - - Bickell’s reconstruction of the text makes the proverbs symmetrical - with the rest. In lines 5, 6 he makes an ingenious parallelism with - _mēthīm_ ‘dead’ and _m’thīm_ ‘men’ (i.e. children). - -Footnote 215: - - F. Johnson’s translation (1848), chap. ii., fable 7; comp. Fritze’s - metrical version (Leipz. 1884). - -Footnote 216: - - Muir, _Metrical Translations_ (1879), p. 160. - -Footnote 217: - - On the early importance of the queen-mother, see Cheyne’s _Isaiah_, i. - 47, note 1 (on Isa. vii. 13). - -Footnote 218: - - This hardly recommends the view of Costelli, that this poem is - properly the conclusion of the introductory treatise (i.-ix.) - - - - - CHAPTER V. - THE PRAISE OF WISDOM. - - -‘Thou hast kept the good wine until now,’ for ‘good wine’ well describes -the glorious little treatise at the head of our Book of Proverbs (i. -7-ix. 18). I do not think it is right to infer from the heading in i. 1 -that its unknown author assumed the mask of Solomon. In itself such a -hypothesis would not be incredible. We have the analogy of the Egyptian -scribe who represents Amenemhat I. ‘rising up like a god’ and addressing -to his son some instructions on the royal art of governing.[219] But it -is more natural to explain the heading as a repetition of the formula in -x. 1, for the ‘Praise of Wisdom’ (to coin another title) is in fact the -introduction to the following anthology,[220] together with which and -its appendices it forms the ‘older book of Proverbs.’ If we ask why an -introduction was prefixed, the answer must be that the writer wished to -recommend his own inspiring view of practical ethics as a branch of -divine wisdom; in other words, to counteract the sometimes commonplace -morality of the earlier proverbs by enveloping the reader in a purer and -more ethereal atmosphere. The key-note of the anthology is nothing but -Experience; that of the introductory treatise is Divine Teaching. It is -a sign of moral progress that the editor of an anthology of Experience -should have thought his work only half-done till he had prefixed the -‘Praise of Wisdom.’ As a wise teacher of our own time[221] has observed, -‘It would not be untrue to say that in all essential points Experience -is the teacher only of fools, of those who have gone astray through -turning a deaf ear to the voice of a prior and more legitimate teacher.’ -The nature of the wisdom so earnestly commended by this self-forgetting -writer, we will consider presently; and our study will probably convince -us that such a writer can only have arisen at an advanced period of -Israel’s history. The class or circle to which he belonged, and its -characteristics, can easily be determined; but the precise period only -with some degree of hesitation. Without anticipating the discussion -which will be given at another point, I think it may safely be laid down -that each of those kindred poems—the ‘Praise of Wisdom’ and ‘Job’—must -have arisen at one of three periods, marked respectively by the -composition of Deuteronomy, by the Captivity, and by the Restoration. -The progress of the higher Israelitish wisdom was so gradual that it -does not perhaps, to the exegete as distinguished from the historian, -greatly matter which of these periods we select. For my own part, -however, I incline to connect at any rate the former of these works with -the age of Deuteronomy. Apart from the details to be mentioned -elsewhere, it is clear (I speak now of Prov. i.-ix.) that the tone of -the exhortations, and the view of religion as ‘having the promise of the -life that now is,’ correspond to similar characteristics of the Book of -Deuteronomy. And if we turn from the contents to the form of this choice -little book, the same hypothesis seems equally suitable. The prophets -had long since seen the necessity of increasing their influence by -committing the main points of their discourses to writing; some -rhetorical passages indeed were evidently composed to be read and not to -be heard. It was natural that the moralists should follow this example, -not only (as in the anthologies) by remodelling their wise sayings for -publication, but also by venturing on long and animated quasi-oratorical -recommendations of great moral truths. - -Such a recommendation, addressed especially to the young and -impressionable (i. 4), lies before us in chaps. i.-ix. In grave but -harmonious accents the opening verses (which refer chiefly to i. 7-ix. -18, but not without a secondary reference to the anthology which -follows) describe its object and character. Then follows a motto, the -first line of which occurs again near the close of the book in ix. 10 -(Job xxviii. 28, Ps. cxi. 10), and which stamps the author as belonging -to a new and more religious class of ‘wise men’ (see p. 121),— - - The fear of Jehovah is the beginning of wisdom, - -i.e. the foundation of true wisdom (its ‘root,’ Ecclus. i. 20) is -reverence. The disciple is to begin by taking this upon trust, but when -further advanced he will see that it is the shortest way to his goal, -true wisdom having an objective existence in the unseen world. At -present he is simply to follow the ‘direction’ of those wiser than -himself:—our moralist is as zealous for a _tōra_ as the author of -Deuteronomy. But though serious and authoritative, he is never stern; -indeed, to enforce his appeal he breaks through a Hebrew writer’s usual -veil of reticence and describes his own home-life (iv. 3, 4). He can -enter into the feelings of the young, for he too has ‘borne the yoke in -his youth’ (Lam. iii. 27), and learned to prefer it to ‘unchartered -freedom.’ The whole of chap. iv. is devoted to a summary of the wise -doctrine which he received from his father; indeed, throughout the book -he shows a wonderful appreciation of the parental and the filial -relations, and, according to Ewald’s arrangement (see below), begins -each section with an exhortation to listen to parental instruction. He -himself feels like a father to his young disciples (iv. 1). - -The errors to which his hearers are specially tempted are highway -robbery (i. 11-18, iv. 16, 17) and unchastity (ii. 16, v. 3-20, vi. -24-35, vii. 5-27, ix. 13-18). From the time that the simplicity of the -ancient life began to give way to the inroads of luxury, we meet in the -Biblical writings with complaints of acts of violence leading to murder -(see, for instance, in the prophecies, Isa. i. 15, v. 7, xxxiii. 15, -Mic. iii. 10, Jer. ii. 34, xxii. 17, Isa. lix. 3, 7, and in a collection -of proverbs contemporary with our book, Prov. xxiv. 15, 16). ‘At no -time,’ as Dean Plumptre well remarks, ‘has Palestine ever risen to the -security of a well-ordered police-system;’ even down to the fall of -Jerusalem, bands of robbers defied the authority of the central -government. The remarkable thing is that young men in the higher circles -of society (for such our moralist appears to address) should be thought -capable of joining the banditti, at a time when ‘bandit’ could not be -synonymous with ‘patriot.’ Our moralist contents himself with dissuading -his disciple from doing so, on the ground of the retribution which will -follow (i. 18, 19). The exhortation to industry, with its slow but sure -profits, comes later, and in a less appropriate place (vi. 6-8). But the -other besetting sin of youth is still more earnestly denounced as the -most glaring specimen of ‘folly.’ Once indeed the ‘strange, or alien, -woman,’ i.e. the adulteress, is introduced dramatically as ‘Madam Folly’ -(ix. 13). The picture is remarkable, and forms a designed contrast to -that at the beginning of the chapter. She sits at the door of her house, -counterfeiting her great rival Wisdom (comp. ver. 14 with ver. 3, and -ver. 16 with ver. 4), like Dante’s Siren; but the disciple of the ‘wise -man’ knows - - ... that phantoms are there, - and that her guests are in the depths of Sheól - (ix. 18; comp. ii. 18, xxi. 16). - -‘Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his way?’ is the problem for our -moralist to solve. He does so by insisting on an education conducted in -reliance on divine Wisdom. The reward of diligent attention to the -earlier lessons (for each chapter is a lesson, and its repetitions have -a pedagogic justification) is the famous portrait of Wisdom in viii. -22-31. She (for Wisdom, _khokma_, is a feminine word) has indeed been -mentioned before (i. 20, iii. 13-20, iv. 5-9), but from viii. 1 to ix. 6 -the poet is absorbed in his grand personification. Wisdom is now -presented to us, in the familiar dialect of poetry, as the firstborn -Child of the Creator. There is but one Wisdom; though her forms are -many, in her origin she is one. The Wisdom who presided over the ‘birth’ -of nature is the same who by her messengers (the ‘wise men’) calls -mankind to turn aside from evil (ix. 3). There can therefore be no real -disharmony between nature and morality; the picture leaves no room for -an Ahriman, in this and other respects resembling the Cosmogony in Gen. -i. and portions of the striking descriptions in Job xxvi., xxviii., -xxxviii. There is also no time when we can say that ‘Wisdom was not.’ -Faith declares that even in that primitive Chaos of which our reason has -a horror divine Wisdom reigned supreme. The heavenly ocean, the ancient -hills, the combination of countless delicate atoms to form the ground, -the fixing of the vault of heaven on the world-encircling ocean, the -separation of sea and dry land[222]—all these were later works of God -than the Architect through whom He made them. And how did the Architect -work? By a ‘divine improvisation’ which allowed no sense of effort or -fatigue, and which still continues with unabated freshness. But though -her sportive path[223] can still be traced in the processes of nature, -her highest delight is in the regeneration of the moral life of -humanity. The passage runs thus— - - Jehovah produced[224] me as the beginning of his way, - as the first of his works, long since. - From of old I received my place, - from the beginning, from the first times of the earth. - When there were no floods, I was brought forth, - when there were no fountains rich in water. - Before the mountains were settled, - before the hills was I brought forth; - While as yet he had not made the earth with (its) fields, - and the atoms of dust which form the ground. - When he established the heaven, I was there, - when he marked a circle upon the face of the flood,[225] - - When he made firm the sky above, - when he strengthened the fountains of the flood, - When he appointed to the sea his bound, - that the waters should not transgress his command, - when he fixed the foundations of the earth, - Then was I beside him as architect, - and was daily full of delight, - sporting[226] before him at all times, - I who (still) have sport with his fruitful earth, - and have my delight with the sons of men. - -The bold originality of this passage requires no proof. It cuts away at -a blow the old mythical conception of the world as the work of God’s -hands, and of an arbitrary omnipotence. ‘God,’ as Hooker says, ‘is a law -both to himself and to all things beside;’ ‘his wisdom hath stinted the -effects of his power.’ ‘Nor is the freedom of the will of God any whit -abated, let, or hindered, by means of this; because the imposition of -this law upon himself is his own free and voluntary act’ (‘Jehovah -produced me’). The idea, then, of the world as a Cosmos was not adopted -by the Jews from the Greeks; it arose of itself as soon as religious men -pondered over the phenomena of nature. The author of _Job_ took up the -idea, and reexpressed it worthily in xxviii. 12-28, the chief difference -between him and his predecessor being that he denies the attainableness -for man of wisdom in the larger sense, while the author of the ‘Praise -of Wisdom’ does not raise the question whether the higher department of -wisdom is open to human enquiry. - -At the subsequent history of the conception of Wisdom we can barely -glance.[227] The cosmogonist in Gen. i., a sublime thinker, but -addressing untutored minds, preferred to convey truth in forms borrowed -from mythology. The moralists however saw the poetical and religious -importance of the personification of Wisdom, and repeatedly introduced -it into their didactic works (see Ecclus. i., xxiv., Wisd. vi.-ix.,[228] -and comp. Bar. iii. 29-37). Sirach even takes a step in advance of his -original, and at least for a moment identifies Wisdom with the Law of -Moses.[229] It became indeed a tradition of Jewish exegesis (see _Pirke -Aboth_, vi. 10) to interpret the absolute Khokma of the Tora, either in -opposition to Hellenistic views of the higher wisdom, or from a -practical instinct such as Wordsworth followed when in praise of Duty he -employed figures which had occurred long before in the ‘Praise of -Wisdom,’ or (a closer parallel) Richard Hooker, when he described the -Scripture as one embodiment of that divine Law which he so splendidly -eulogises at the close of his first book. That Jewish legalism -degenerated into a mechanical formalism, should not blind us to the -practical instinct in which it originated. - -The title ‘The Praise of Wisdom’ has now, I hope, been justified. The -passage quoted above forms the high-water mark of this elevated poetry, -and points the way to the grand things in the poem of Job. Regularity of -structure is not a merit of our treatise, but the repetitions are not -feeble, and are perhaps deliberately made. The author is a _didactic_ -poet, and only after he can presume that his lessons have been -assimilated will he venture on his highest flights. Does Ewald bear this -in mind when he divides the book into three sections, I. a general -exhortation to wisdom, in which the whole of the truth is touched upon, -but no part is completely unfolded (i. 8-iii. 35); II. an exhaustive -treatment of a few details (iv. 1-vi. 19); III. a gradual rise to the -highest and most universal truth, closing in almost lyric enthusiasm -(vi. 20-ix. 18)? Or Hitzig, when, to suit an artificial arrangement, he -omits as later additions iii. 22-26, vi. 1-19, viii. 4-12, 14-16, ix. -7-10? These are the two extremes of critical theory; their failure may -be taken as a proof that the only possible division is one like that of -Delitzsch into fifteen poems, rather loosely connected together, but -presenting the same peculiarities of style and diction. _Mashals_ we can -only term them in a wide sense of the word; not condensation but -expansion is the characteristic of this book; the discourse flows on -till the subject has been exhausted, and then, after a brief pause, it -gushes forth anew. One of the chapters (ii.) actually forms a single -carefully elaborated sentence. Now and then the matter is more broken -up; we meet with some small groups of detached sentences (e.g. iii. -27-35, vi. 1-11, 12-19), which introduce some variety into the style, -and suggest that the author revised his work with the view of making it -an ethical manual, as well as an introduction to the anthology. In one -of these groups we find the interesting similitude of the ant, which the -Septuagint has supplemented by one of purely Greek origin (see Hitzig -and Lagarde) on the bee. - -The author has the pen of a ready writer, and his work shows that he has -studied the literature of his time. He was familiar[230] with the -phraseology of the ‘Solomonic’ proverbs, though he struck out a style of -his own, in harmony with the altered conditions of the teaching office. -He addresses those who have time to listen, and taste to appreciate his -flowing rhetoric. He implies throughout that his audience belongs to the -wealthier class, and his favourite images are drawn from the life of the -merchant.[231] Clearly too he has a strong hold upon the doctrine that -prosperity and adversity are indicative of moral character. Thus, -speaking of ethical Wisdom, he says, - - Length of days is in her (Wisdom’s) right hand, - in her left riches and honour (iii. 16).[232] - -And yet there is evidence, even in Prov. i.-ix., of a nascent scepticism -on this point, originating probably in some recent event, such as the -captivity of the Ten Tribes. In words which remind us of Psalms xxxvii. -and lxxiii. the writer exclaims— - - Envy thou not the man of violence, - and have thou pleasure in none of his ways.... - The curse of Jehovah is in the house of the ungodly, - but the habitation of the righteous he blesses (iii. 31, 33); - -and to furnish his disciples with an answer to the sceptic— - - Truly, whom Jehovah loves, he corrects, - and as a father the son in whom he delights - (iii. 12; comp. Job v. 17). - -With this sweet saying I take leave for the present of this beautiful -work. How true it is that the doubts of a believer are the -stepping-stones to higher attainments of faith! - -Footnote 219: - - (Maspero) _Records of the Past_, ii. 9-16. - -Footnote 220: - - Its close relation to the first of the two great anthologies is shown - by the linguistic points of contact between the two works (see Chap. - VI.) - -Footnote 221: - - Rev. J. H. Thorn. - -Footnote 222: - - The poet, we can see, has not arranged the creative works as carefully - as the cosmogonist in Genesis. - -Footnote 223: - - Pleaseth him, the Eternal Child, - To play his sweet will, glad and wild.—Emerson, _Wood Notes_. - -Footnote 224: - - ‘Produced’ seems the best rendering (Sept., ἔκτισε), in the sense of - ‘creating,’ not (as Del.) of ‘revealing,’ for which there is no - authority. The secondary meaning ‘possessed’ (Aquila &c. ἐκτήσατο, - Vulg. _possedit_; comp. Eccles. xxiv. 6) is less agreeable to the - context (see Hitzig’s note). There is the same diversity of rendering - in Gen. xiv. 19-22. On the patristic expositions of this passage, see - Dean Goode, _The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice_, ed. 1, i. 299. - The ante-Nicene Fathers mostly apply it to the divine generation of - the Son, the post-Nicene to the generation of the human nature of - Christ. Basil and Epiphanius are exceptions. The former applies the - passage to ‘that wisdom which the apostle mentions’ (in 1 Cor. i. 21): - the latter expresses a strong opinion that ‘it does not at all speak - concerning the Son of God.’ - -Footnote 225: - - Comp. Milton’s noble conception of the Creator’s golden compasses - (_Par. Lost_, vii. 225, 6). - -Footnote 226: - - Comp. Delitzsch, _System der christlichen Apologetik_, § 16, where the - history of this conception in Jewish literature is traced in - connection with that of the Logos-idea; also Ewald, _Die Lehre der - Bibel von Gott_, iii. 74-77. - -Footnote 227: - - In Wisd. vii. 22 &c. the language appears to some to rise above - poetical personification, and to imply a conscious hypostatising of - Wisdom. Dante, a good judge on this point, certainly thought otherwise - (_Convito_, iii. 15); he evidently holds that the Sophia of the Book - of Wisdom is precisely analogous to his own very strong - personification of divine Philosophy. Still such language may have - partly prepared the way for the well-known Gnostic myth of Achamoth or - Sophia (comp. Baur, _Three First Centuries_, E. T., i. 207). It was - well, as Plumptre remarks, that Philo adopted Logos rather than Sophia - as the name of the creative energy. A system in which Sophia had been - the dominant word might have led to an earlier development of - Mariolatry (Introduction to Proverbs in the _Speaker’s Commentary_). - -Footnote 228: - - Ecclus. xxiv. 23. (Comp. a sublime passage of E. Irving, identifying - the contents of the ‘sacred volume’ with ‘the primeval divinity of - revealed Wisdom,’ _Miscellanies_, p. 380 &c.) According to late Jewish - theology, the Law is one of the seven things produced before the - creation of the world. The alphabet-fables in Talmud and Midrash, in - which letters of the alphabet converse with God, presuppose the same - view (comp. the Mohammedan view of the Koran). - -Footnote 229: - - So Milton (a Hebraist), _Paradise Lost_, vii. 10 (‘didst play’), and - again in _Tetrachordon_ (‘God himself conceals not his own - recreations,’ &c.) - -Footnote 230: - - The proof of this cannot be given here. - -Footnote 231: - - See ii. 4, iii. 13-15, iv. 7, vii. 16, 17, 19, 20 (especially), viii. - 10, 18-21. - -Footnote 232: - - Comp. i. 32, 33, ii. 21, 22, iii. 1-10, ix. 11, 12, 18. - - - - - CHAPTER VI. - SUPPLEMENTARY ON QUESTIONS OF DATE AND ORIGIN. - - -There are two extreme views on the date of the Book of Proverbs, between -which are the theories of the mass of moderate critics. The one is that -represented by Keil in his Introduction and Bishop Ellicott’s -Commentary, that the whole book except chaps. xxx., xxxi., and perhaps -the heading i. 1-6, is in substance of Solomonic origin;[233] the other -is that of Vatke and Reuss (the precursors of Kuenen and Wellhausen) -that our proverbs as a collection come from the post-Exile period. Much -need not be said on the first of these extreme views. It has been -pointed out already that the ethical and religious character even of the -earliest proverbial collection stands far removed from that of the -historical Solomon. It is indeed a pure hypothesis that any Solomonic -element survives in the Book of Proverbs. I doubt not that many bright -and witty _sayings_ of Solomon came into circulation, and some of them -might conceivably have been gathered up and included in the anthologies. -But have we any adequate means of deciding which these are? It would -appear from 1 Kings iv. 33 that the wisdom of the historical Solomon -expressed itself in _spoken_ fables or moralisations about animals and -trees. A few, a very few, of the proverbs in our book may perhaps -satisfy the test thus obtained, and be plausibly represented as a -Solomonic element. But why Solomon should be singled out as the author, -it would tax one’s ingenuity to say, and the judgment of Hitzig (in such -matters a conservative critic) must be maintained that the survival of -Solomonic proverbs is no more than a possibility.[234] - -The other extreme view requires some little explanation. Vatke does not -deny that Solomon composed proverbs, but only that his proverbs can have -resembled those in the canonical book. Putting aside some sayings of -earlier date Vatke holds that the stamp of the post-Exile period (and -more particularly of the fifth century) is as marked in the Book of -Proverbs as it is, according to him, in that of Job; in short, that both -works imply, equally with the still later Ecclesiastes, a long and -earnest struggle between the principles represented respectively by the -higher prophets and by the priests. The result of this struggle has -become to the authors of these books an objective truth which it is -henceforth their business to realise as true subjectively.[235] The -existence of a free-minded school of thought in the post-Exile period is -very plausibly defended both by Vatke and by Kuenen,[236] and if our -only choice lay between the extreme alternatives mentioned above, we -should be shut up to the acceptance of the latter. - -I shall not however discuss here the post-Exile origin of the Book of -Proverbs as a whole, but only that part of the hypothesis which relates -to the very interesting section designated by Ewald the ‘Praise of -Wisdom.’ If this portion is not of Exile or post-Exile origin, I do not -see how it can be maintained that any other part of the book is so, -except indeed the sayings of Agur and Lemuel (xxx. 1-xxii. 9). - -The following are some of the leading arguments for the late origin of -Prov. i.-ix. I. These chapters are said to contain a few parallels to -passages in works belonging probably to the Exile or post-Exile period -(II. Isaiah,[237] Job). I lay no stress on the occurrence of Prov. i. 16 -(with the addition of ‘innocent’) in Isa. lix. 7_a_, because this verse -is not in the rhythm of the rest of Prov. i.-ix., and is not found in -the Septuagint. There may however be a parallelism between Prov. ii. 15 -and Isa. lix. 8; the prophet is, at any rate, influenced by some -proverbial work similar to Prov. i.-ix. There may also be one between -Prov, i. 24, 26, 27 and Isa. lxv. 12, lxvi. 4. More striking are the -affinities already pointed out between Prov. i.-ix. and the Book of Job, -which may be taken to prove that these works proceeded from the same -circle of ‘wise men,’ but not necessarily that they are of the same -period (see above, p. 85). - -II. As to the religious ideas of these chapters, (_a_) The Theism -expressed is both pure and broad. Polytheism is not even worthy to be -the subject of controversy; the tone is throughout positive. Jehovah’s -vast creative activity fills the writer’s mind, and begins to stimulate -speculative curiosity; from this point of view comp. Prov. viii. 22-31 -with Job xv. 7, 8,[238] xxxviii. 4-11, and Gen. i. (The affinities with -the cosmogony are only general,[239] but perhaps gain in importance when -taken together with the possible allusion to Gen. ii. in Prov. iii. 18, -‘She is a tree of life’ &c.) (_b_) It is no objection to the Exile or -post-Exile date that the doctrine of invariable retribution is -presupposed in this treatise. We find this doctrine both in the speeches -of Elihu (Job. xxxii.-xxxvii., a separate work in its origin) and in the -Wisdom of Sirach. There is some weight in these arguments. But it can, I -think, be shown that the age of Jeremiah contained the germs of various -mental products which only matured in the later periods, and Reuss seems -to me singularly wilful in assuming that the personification of Wisdom -of itself proves the late date of Prov. i.-ix. - -III. The luxurious living implied in Prov i.-ix. would suit the Exile -and post-Exile period. As soon as the Jews had the chance of -participating in the world’s good things, they eagerly availed -themselves of it. The prominence of the retribution doctrine in these -nine chapters might possibly be accounted for by the prosperity of many -of the dispersed Jews. To me however the expression ‘peace-offerings’ -(vii. 14) points away from Babylon, just as the expression ‘yarn of -Egypt’ in vii. 16 points away from Egypt. - -IV. The phraseology of these chapters (as well as of the rest of the -book) is said by Hartmann[240] to be late. His instances of late and -Aramaising words and forms require testing; an argument of this sort -(except in more extreme cases) is not conclusive as to date. Reuss -appears to base his linguistic argument rather on the clearness of the -style, which ‘betrays this section to be the latest part of the -book.’[241] Nöldeke however more soberly infers, from the ‘flowingness -and facility of the language,’ that the author lived subsequently to -Isaiah.[242] - -On the whole, I am compelled to reject the hypothesis of either the -Exile or the post-Exile origin of Prov. i.-ix. The Exile-date seems to -be excluded by Prov. vii. 14, which implies the sacrificial system; the -post-Exile by the want of any sufficient reason for descending so late -in the course of history. The fifth century in particular, to which -Vatke refers the whole Book of Proverbs, seems to me out of the question -for this section of the book. Before the time of Sirach, I cannot find a -period in the post-Exile history in which the life of Jerusalem can have -much resembled the picture given of it in Prov. i.-ix. But Sirach’s -evident imitation of the ‘Praise of Wisdom’ (we shall come back to this -in studying Ecclesiasticus) seems of itself to suggest that Prov. i.-ix. -is the monument of an earlier age, and this is confirmed by Sirach’s -different attitude towards ceremonial religion. - -There remains the hypothesis that the treatise, Prov. i.-ix., was -written towards the close of the kingdom of Judah. There seems to me no -sufficient argument against this view, which agrees with the result -above attained on the relation of Prov. i.-ix. to the Book of Job (p. -85). The collapse of the state was sudden, and for some time after the -composition or at least promulgation of the Deuteronomic _Tōra_ the Jews -appeared to be in the enjoyment of national prosperity. Now the author -of Prov. i.-ix. depicts a state of outward prosperity and is evidently -familiar with the exhortations of Deuteronomy. Who, as Delitzsch -remarks, can fail to hear in Prov. i. 7-ix. an echo of the _Shemà_ -(‘hear’), Deut. vi. 4-9 (comp. xi. 18-21)? This is quite consistent with -the opinion that Prov. i.-ix. is later than the proverbs in the two -principal collections of our book, an opinion which commends itself to -most[243] especially on account of the higher moral standard of Prov. -i.-ix., and its advance in the treatment of literary form. - -I have said ‘the composition or at least promulgation’ of Deuteronomy. -If Deuteronomy was written (which is at least possible) as early as the -reign of Hezekiah,[244] we may perhaps follow Ewald, who places the -‘Praise of Wisdom’ in the period of relative prosperity which, he -thinks, closed the reign of Manasseh.[245] It is noteworthy that Mic. -vi., which Ewald plausibly assigns to the period of Manasseh’s -persecution, also presents some points of contact with Deuteronomy.[246] -And yet it seems to me safer to date the book in the reign of Josiah, -when, as we know from history and prophecy, the discourses of -Deuteronomy first became generally known. - - * * * * * - -Next, as to the body of the work. That the collection in x. 1-xxii. 16 -is the earliest part of the book is admitted by most critics. The fact -that chaps. i.-ix. present linguistic points of contact with it, does -not prove the two parts to be of the same date, for the opening chapters -also display peculiarities quite unlike those of the ‘Solomonic’ -anthology.[247] I have already set forth my own view on this and on -other critical points, and will now only register the results of Ewald -and of Delitzsch. Both are agreed that the older Book of Proverbs -extends from i. 1 to xxiv. 22, i. 1-6 (or 7) being the descriptive -heading of the work, and i. 7 (or 8)-ix. 18 a hortatory treatise, by the -author, more or less introductory to the sayings which follow. The date -of the collection of the latter Ewald places at the beginning of the -eighth century; that of the heading and introduction in the middle of -the seventh. Towards the end of the seventh century the three appendices -(xxii. 17-xxiv. 22, xxiv. 23-35, xxv. 1-xxix. 27) were added; the -contents of the two former were derived from two popular proverbial -collections, while the latter was a great and officially sanctioned -anthology dating from the end of the eighth century. The remaining parts -of the book (xxx. 1-xxxi. 9, and xxxi. 10-31) Ewald assigns to the -seventh century. Delitzsch (whose view is perhaps the most conservative -one still tenable) dates the publication of the first Book of Proverbs -as early as the reign of Jehoshaphat (referring to 2 Chr. xvii. 7-9). To -its editor he ascribes not only the authorship of i. 1-ix. 18 but the -conclusion of the ‘older book’ by the words of the wise, xxii. 17-xxiv. -22, while a later editor is responsible both for the supplementary -sayings of the wise, xxiv. 22-34, and for the great Hezekian collection, -of which he thus ensured the preservation. The same person probably -appended the obscure sayings of Agur (xxx.) and of Lemuel (xxxi. 1-9), -possibly too the closing alphabetic poem (xxxi. 10-31), which is -assigned by Delitzsch to the pre-Hezekian period. Both Ewald and -Delitzsch are substantially agreed as to the existence of a genuine -Solomonic element in both the great anthologies (especially in the -first), but upon very conjectural grounds. - -One point only remains to be considered, however briefly. The Book of -Job has already furnished an example of the poetical fiction of the -non-Israelitish authorship of a Hebrew poem. It is possible enough that -this and the similar instance of the Balaam-oracles were not alone in -Hebrew literature. Nor are they so, if a view of the first words of the -headings in Prov. xxx. 1, xxxi. 1, which has found many friends, be -correct, and we may render in the one case, ‘The words of Agur the son -of Jakeh, of (the country of) Massa,’ reading either _mimmassā_ (or, as -Delitzsch proposes, _mimmēshā_ or _hammassā’ī_[248]); and in the other, -‘The words of Lemuel the king of Massa.’ Mühlau in his monograph on -‘Agur’ and ‘Lemuel’ thinks that both the contents and the language of -the sayings of Agur ‘almost necessarily point to a region bordering on -the Syro-Arabian wastes,’ but his theory of an Israelitish colony in a -certain Massa in the Hauran (comp. 1 Chr. v. 10), like a somewhat -similar theory of Hitzig’s (he places ‘Massa’ in N. Arabia, comparing 1 -Chr. iv. 42, 43, where the Simeonites are said to have settled in _Mount -Seir_, and Isa. xxi. 11, 12[249]), is too conjectural to be readily -accepted. There is however much force in a part of the arguments of -Mühlau, especially in his first and second (referring to xxxi. 1), ‘The -word _melek_ in apposition to Lemuel cannot go without the -article,’[250] and _’Massā_ “utterance” is never used elsewhere except -of (prophetic) oracles.’ If any one therefore likes to adopt the above -renderings, taking Massa as the name of a country (comp. Gen. xxv. 14, 1 -Chr. i. 30), I have no strong objection. Ziegler’s view cited by -Mühlau,[251] that Lemuel was an Emeer of an Arabian tribe in the east of -Jordan, and that an Israelitish wise man translated the Emeer’s sayings -into Hebrew, is perhaps not as untenable as Mühlau thinks, provided that -‘translation’ be taken to include recasting in accordance with the -spirit of the Old Testament religion. For my own part, however, I prefer -the simpler explanation given already in considering chaps. xxx., xxii. -1-9. I account for the Aramaisms, Arabisms, and other peculiarities of -these sections by their post-Exile origin, with which the character of -the contents of the most striking portion, xxx. 1-6, appears to me to -harmonise (notice e.g. the strong faith in the words of revelation in -xxx. 5). But I am not writing a commentary, and can only draw the -reader’s attention to some of the most important exegetical phenomena. -Let me refer in conclusion to a critical note on p. 175, which has a -bearing on the question raised by some whether Job and this part of -Proverbs may fitly be called Hebræo-Arabic works. It is strange that -Hitzig should have renounced the support for his theory (see p. 171) to -be obtained from Prov. xxx. 31. - -Footnote 233: - - Keil qualifies this however by admitting that Solomon may have - incorporated many sayings of other wise men. - -Footnote 234: - - _Die Sprüche Salomo’s_, v. xvii. - -Footnote 235: - - _Die biblische Theologie_, i. 563. - -Footnote 236: - - _The Religion of Israel_, ii. 242. - -Footnote 237: - - The passages in II. Isaiah referred to in this paragraph belong to - sections most probably of post-Exile origin. (See art. ‘Isaiah’ in - _Encyclopædia Britannica_, new ed.) - -Footnote 238: - - We should perhaps read here _v’thigga’_ for _v’thigra’_, following - Sept.’s εἰς δε σε ἀφίκετο σοφία; so Merx and Bickell. - -Footnote 239: - - Were the affinities with Gen. i. more definite, critics of - Wellhausen’s school would naturally derive from them an argument for - the post-Exile origin of Prov. i.-ix. I do not myself attach much - weight to these slight parallelisms. - -Footnote 240: - - _Die enge Verbindung des A. T. mit dem Neuen_, pp. 148-9. - -Footnote 241: - - _Geschichte der heiligen Schriften Alten Testaments_, p. 494. - -Footnote 242: - - _Die alttestamentliche Literatur_ (1868), p. 159. - -Footnote 243: - - Hitzig, however, almost alone among recent critics, regards the - opening chapters as the oldest part of the book. - -Footnote 244: - - This seems to me the earliest probable date, but does not exclude the - possibility that early traditional material has been worked into the - book. - -Footnote 245: - - _History of Israel_, iv. 219. It should be mentioned however that - Ewald places Job (except the Elihu-portion), Prov. i.-ix., and, last - in order, Deuteronomy _all in the reign of Manasseh_. He fails to - recognise the influence of Deuteronomy on the ‘Praise of Wisdom.’ - -Footnote 246: - - See _Micah_ in the Cambridge School and College Bible. - -Footnote 247: - - Delitzsch, _Proverbs_, i. 33; Kuenen, _Onderzock_, iii. 75. - -Footnote 248: - - In the version known as the _Græcus Venetus_ (14th or 15th cent.) xxx. - 1_a_ runs thus, Λόγοι ἀγούρου υἱέως ἰακώως τοῦ μασάου (Jakeh the - Massaite). Delitzsch’s view, given above, is taken from his art. on - ‘Proverbs’ in Herzog-Plitt’s Encyclopædia; he refers to Friedrich - Delitzsch’s _Paradies_, p. 303; comp. 243. - -Footnote 249: - - On Isa. xxi. 11, 12, see _The Prophecies of Isaiah_, i. 129, ii. 152. - Hitzig’s theory, originally stated in Zeller’s _Theol. Jahrbücher_, - 1844, pp. 269-305, will be found in the well-known short commentary - (_Kurzgefasstes exeg. Handbuch_, 1847) by Bertheau, who substantially - accepts it. - -Footnote 250: - - This is a little too strong. We should certainly have expected _melek - Lemuel_ (or _Lemoel_) rather than _Lemuel melek_, on the analogy of - _melek Yārēb_, Hos. v. 13, x. 6. As it stands in the text, _melek_ - (after _Lemuel_, and without the article) can only be a definition of - class. The Lemuel spoken of was quite unknown to the reader, and - therefore the editor appends the descriptive title ‘king.’ Comp. Ex. - xxxii. 11, where Joshua, son of Nun, being introduced for the first - time, is described as _na’ar_ ‘a squire.’ - -Footnote 251: - - Referring to _Neue Uebersetzung der Denksprüche Salomo’s_, 1791, p. - 29. - - - - - CHAPTER VII. - THE TEXT OF PROVERBS. - - -The sense of proverbs is naturally most difficult to catch when there -has been no attempt to group them by subjects. Hence the textual -difficulties of so large a part of the earliest anthology. Grätz has -made some valuable among many too arbitrary corrections; but a -systematic use of the ancient versions is still a desideratum. Lagarde, -Oort, Bickell, and others have led the way; but much yet remains to be -done. My space only allows me to give some preliminary hints, which may -at least stimulate further inquiry, on the relation of the Hebrew text -to the versions, especially the Septuagint version (if I should not -rather speak of ‘versions’). How comes it, we may ask first of all, that -the Septuagint contains so many passages not found in the Hebrew? One -answer is that in a foreign land, with a new language and a new circle -of ideas, explanation was as necessary to the Hellenistic Jews as -translation. Hence the tendency of the Septuagint translators to -introduce glosses. But the form of the Book of Proverbs specially -favoured interpolations. Sometimes only a few words were inserted to -make the text more distinct (e.g. i. 22, xii. 25, xxiv. 23); at other -times explanatory or suggested remarks were added, at first perhaps in -the margin. Of course, it is perfectly conceivable that the received -Hebrew text itself may contain similar additions; the analogy of other -books, in which such interpolations occur, even favours this idea. One -such insertion is patent; there can be no doubt that i. 16 was added in -the Hebrew, to the detriment of the connection, from Isa. lix. 7. As -this passage is wanting in the best MSS. of the Septuagint, we might be -tempted to use this version as a means of detecting other interpolations -in the Hebrew. This however would lead us into researches of too much -complexity. - -Some of the Septuagint additions are also found in the Vulgate, some -again also in the Peshitto; and where a Septuagint addition is not found -in the Vulgate we may, at least in some cases, assume that the -Septuagint text did not in St. Jerome’s time contain the additional -matter. Among the most interesting passages from a text-critical point -of view peculiar to the Septuagint are those found at iii. 15, iv. 27, -vi. 8, 11, vii. 2, ix. 12,[252], 18, xi. 16, xii. 13, xv. 18, xvi. 5, -xix. 7, xxvi. 11, xxvii. 20, 21, xxviii. 10. Most of these can be -rendered back into Hebrew, though this is difficult with vi. 11_b_ as it -stands, and impossible with vi. 8 (‘the bee’). In any case the Hebrew -origin of a proverb does not prove that it was inserted by the original -collector or collectors. With regard to the Targum and its deviations -from the Hebrew text, it is to be observed that this version has the -same relation to the Peshitto as the Vulgate to the old Latin version on -which it is based. The Peshitto translates from a Hebrew text -substantially the same as our own; though the translator has consulted -the Septuagint (according to Hitzig) in the portion of the book -beginning at vii. 23. - -There are also some remarkable transpositions in the Septuagint -Proverbs, reminding us of those in the Septuagint Jeremiah. The three -appendices to the Hezekian collection are given in a very different -order from that of the Hebrew. The first fourteen verses of chap. xxx. -are inserted between ver. 22 and ver. 23 of chap. xxiv., and all the -remainder, together with xxxi. 1-9, is placed before chap. xxv. The -treatment of the headings in the Septuagint is also remarkable, and -seems arbitrary; e.g. it looks as if the translator had expunged all -those peculiarities in the superscriptions which suggested a variety of -authorship. The proper names in chaps. xxx., xxxi. have been explained -away, and the heading in x. 1, which limits the Solomonic authorship too -much for the translator, has been actually omitted. - -On the Septuagint additions to Proverbs, comp. Deane in _Expositor_, -1884, pp. 297-301; on the larger subject of the Greek and the Hebrew -text, see introduction to Hitzig’s commentary, Lagarde’s _Anmerkungen -&c._, and a series of papers, thorough but less masterly than Hitzig’s -or Lagarde’s work, by Heidenheim (title in ‘Aids to the Student,’ -below). - - - - - NOTE ON PROVERBS XXX. 31. - - -Some assume here a corruption of the text, but the margin of the Revised -Version gives an appropriate sense. It implies indeed the admission of a -downright Arabism, but there are parallels for this in vv. 15, 16, 17, -and _alqūm_ for the Arabic _al-qaum_ is (see Gesenius) like _elgābhīsh_ -(Ezek. xiii. 11, 13, xxxviii. 22) and _almōdād_ (Gen. x. 26). ‘The king -when his army is with him’ may very fitly be adduced as a specimen of -the ‘comely in going.’ M. Halévy indeed has suggested that _qūm_ in -_alqūm_ may be the _Qāvam_ or _Qājam_ often mentioned in the Sinaitic -inscriptions (_Bulletin_ No. 28 of the Société de Linguistique; see -_Academy_, March 27, 1886). But the former view is still the more -plausible one. Why should a king with whom is ‘God Qavam’ be described -as specially ‘comely in going’? Wetzstein too has stated that _alqaum_ -is still pronounced _al-qōm_ by the Bedawins. Comp. Blau, _Zeitschr. d. -deutschen morg. Ges._, xxv. 539. - -Footnote 252: - - The addition here is very poetical, and may, as Ewald says, have been - extracted from an ancient anthology. But it disturbs the connection. - - - - - CHAPTER VIII. - THE RELIGIOUS VALUE OF THE BOOK OF PROVERBS. - - -It is only in modern times that the Book of Proverbs has been -disparaged; the early Christian Fathers considered it to be of much -ethico-religious value. Hence the sounding title, first used by Clement -of Rome (_Cor._, c. 57), ἡ πανάρετος σοφία. From our point of view, -indeed, the value of the book is different in its several parts, but no -part is without its use. Can any Christian help seeing the poetic -foregleams of Christ in the great monologue of Wisdom in chap. viii.? -Dorner may be right in maintaining that the idea of the Incarnation -cannot have been evolved from Hebraism or Judaism, and yet the -description of Wisdom, ‘sporting with Jehovah’s world’ and ‘having her -delights with the sons of men’ (viii. 31), cannot but remind us of the -sympathetic, divine-human Teacher, who ‘took the form of a servant.’ How -deeply this great section has affected the theology of the past, I need -not here relate. Will it ever lose its value as a symbolic picture of -the combined transcendence and immanence of the Divine Being? - -Turning to the other parts of the book, do they not furnish abundant -justification of that type of Christianity which accepts but does not -dwell on forms, so bent is it upon moral applications of the religious -principle? Do they not show that the ‘fear of the Lord’ is quite -compatible with a deep interest in average human life and human nature? -The Book of Proverbs, taken as a whole, seems to supply the necessary -counterweight to the psalms and the prophecies. The psalmists love God -more than aught else; but must every one say, ‘Possessing this, I have -pleasure in nothing upon earth’ (Ps. lxxiii. 26)? Would it be good to be -always in this mood? Is there not something more satisfactory in the -Pauline saying, ‘All things are yours, and ye are Christ’s’? And as for -the prophets—do they not (we may conjecture and perhaps partly prove -this) depreciate too much the morality and religion of their neighbours? -The Book of Proverbs gives us only average morality and religion; yet, -if we judge it fairly, how pleasing on the whole is the picture! Taking -it as equally authoritative with the psalms and prophecies, shall we not -rise to a more comprehensive religion than a mere pupil of psalmists or -prophets knew—to one that charges us, not to love God less, but our -neighbour more? It would no doubt be easy to criticise the Book from a -New Testament point of view. But the New Testament itself has absorbed -much that is best in it, and quotations from it occur not unfrequently, -especially in the Epistles. Nor can any teacher of the people afford to -neglect its stores of happily expressed practical wisdom. We must not -even despise its ‘utilitarianism.’ The awful declarations of ‘Wisdom’ in -Prov. i. 24-32 are simply the voice of the personified laws of God[253] -warning men that the consequences of their acts, even if they may be -overruled for good, yet cannot by any cunning be escaped. Does the New -Testament quite supersede this form of teaching? And does not the Hebrew -sage once at least give a suggestion of that very overruling love of God -which is among the characteristic ideas of Christian lore (see Prov. -iii. 11)? - -Footnote 253: - - So we may venture to paraphrase ‘Wisdom’ in this connection. - - - - - AIDS TO THE STUDENT. - - -The ‘aids’ here mentioned are such as might otherwise escape notice. - -W. Nowack, _Die Sprüche Salomo’s u.s.w._ (a recast of Bertheau’s -commentary in the _Kurzgefasstes Exeg. Handbuch_), 1883; H. Deutsch, -_Die Sprüche Salomo’s nach der Auffassung im Talmud und Midrasch -dargestellt und kritisch untersucht_ (erster Theil, 1885); Bickell, -‘Exegetisch-kritische Nachlese: Proverbien und Job,’ in _Zeitschr. fur -kathol. Theologie_, 1886, pp. 205-208; Aben Ezra’s commentary on -Proverbs, edited by Chaim M. Horowitz, 1884; Loewenstein, _Die -Proverbien Salomo’s, mit Benutzung älterer und neuerer Manuskripte_, -1837 (text and commentary in Hebrew, with German metrical version; -contains valuable contributions to a more critical Massoretic text from -the papers of W. Heidenheim); M. Heidenheim, ‘Zur Textkritik der -Proverbien,’ in his _Vierteljahresschrift_ for 1865 and 1866; Lagarde, -_Anmerkungen sur griechischen Uebersetzung der Proverbien_, 1863; Grätz, -‘Exegetische Studien zu den Salomonischen Sprüchen,’ in his -_Monatsschrift_, 1884; Dijserinck, ‘Kritische Scholien,’ in _Theologisch -Tijdschrift_, 1883, p. 577 &c.; Oort, ‘Spreuken I.-IX.,’ in same -periodical, 1885, p. 379 &c.; Böttcher, _Aehrenlese_, part iii., 1865 -(contains 39 pages on Proverbs); Mühlau, _De proverbiorum Agur et Lemuel -origine_, 1869; Bruch, _Weisheitslehre der Hebräer_, 1851; Hooykaas, -_Gesch. van de beoefening der Weisheid onder de Hebreen_, 1862; Dukes, -_Rabbinische Blumenlese_, 1844 (includes Talmudic proverbs; comp. the -older works of Drusius, 1590-1, and Brüll’s supplement in his -_Jahrbücher_, 1885); Delitzsch, art. ‘Sprüche Salomo’s,’ in -Herzog-Plitt’s _Real-Encyklopädie_, ed. 2, vol. xiv.; and the works of -Oehler and Schultz on Old Testament Theology (the former in Clark’s -Library). - - - - - THE WISDOM OF JESUS THE SON OF SIRACH. - - - CHAPTER I. - THE WISE MAN TURNED SCRIBE. SIRACH’S MORAL TEACHING. - - -The inclusion of Sirach within our range of study, as an appendix and -counterpart to the canonical Book of Proverbs, requires no long -justification. The so-called ‘Wisdom of Solomon’ is in form and -colouring almost as much Greek as Hebrew, and has no place in a survey -of the wisdom of Palestine. But the ‘Wisdom’ more modestly ascribed to -the son of Sirach is a truly Israelitish production, though as yet none -but the masters of our subject have recognised its intrinsic importance. -Whence comes this prevalent neglect of a work still known as -‘Ecclesiasticus’ or a ‘church-book’? Doubtless it has fallen in -estimation from being combined with books more difficult to appraise -fairly and consequently regarded with suspicion. The objection which -some Jewish doctors entertained to recommending parts of the Hagiographa -has been felt by many moderns with regard to the Apocrypha. The -objection is too strong and general not to have some foundation, but it -implies an unhistorical habit of mind. Granted that the Apocryphal -writings of the Old Testament belong in the main to a period of outer -and inner decadence (though the noble Maccabean days may qualify this); -yet periods of decadence are often also periods of transition to some -new and better thing, which cannot be understood or appreciated without -them. Ewald has suggested the title of ‘intermediate writings’ -(_Zwischenschriften_[254]) as a substitute for Apocrypha, to indicate -that transitional character which gives these books so high a value for -the student of both Testaments. - -The book now before us—the largest and most comprehensive in the -Wisdom-literature—is one of these ‘intermediate writings,’ but in what -sense beyond the most superficial one remains to be seen. It is -mentioned here first of all because of the proof which it gives of the -great literary force of the canonical Book of Proverbs. But no product -of literature could maintain itself as Sirach has done if it were a mere -imitation; Sirach, not less than the Wisdom-books of the Old Testament -proper, is at least a partial reflection of the life of the times. Its -date indeed has been disputed. Suffice it to say here that the author -was, beyond reasonable doubt,[255] a contemporary of ‘Simon the high -priest, the son of Onias.’ Now there were five high priests who bore the -name of Simon or Simeon, two of whom, Simon I. (B.C. 310-290) and Simon -II. (B.C. 219-199), have by different critics been thought of. The -weight of argument is in favour of the second of the name, who was -certainly the more important of the two, and who is referred to in the -Talmud under the name of Simeon the Righteous.[256] This is in -accordance with the Greek translator’s statement in his preface that he -was the grandson of the author, and we may conjecturally fix the -composition of the book at about 180 B.C. The translator himself came -into Egypt, as he tells us, in the 38th year of king Euergetes[257] -(comp. Luke xxii. 25). Now Euergetes II. Physkon, who must be here -intended, began to reign jointly with his brother Philometor B.C. 170; -his brother died B.C. 145, and he reigned alone for twenty-five years -longer (till B.C. 116). Hence the translator’s arrival in Egypt and -possibly the translation itself fall within the year 132. The object of -his work, we gather from the preface, was to correct the inequalities of -moral and religious culture (παιδεία) among the Jews of Egypt, by -setting before them a standard and a lesson-book of true religious -wisdom. - -Let us pause a little over these dates. It has been well observed by -Mommsen that the foundation of Alexandria was as great an event in the -history of the people of Israel as the conquest of Jerusalem. It must -indeed have seemed to many Israelites more fraught with danger than with -hope. Never before had Paganism presented itself to their nation in so -attractive a guise. Would their religion exhibit sufficient power of -resistance on a foreign soil? The fears, however, were groundless; at -any rate, for a considerable time. The forms of Egyptian-Jewish -literature might be foreign, but its themes were wholly national. Even -in that highly original synthesis of Jewish, Platonic, and Stoic -elements—the Book of Wisdom—the Jewish spirit is manifestly predominant. -In Palestine there was also a Hellenic movement, though less vigorous -and all-absorbing than in Egypt. Without a spontaneous manifestation of -Jewish sympathy, Antiochus Epiphanes would never have made his abortive -attempt to Hellenise Judæa. Girt round by a Greek population, the -Palestinian Jews, in spite of Ezra’s admirable organisation, could not -entirely resist the assaults of Hellenism. It is probable that not -merely Greek language, but Greek philosophy, exerted a charm on some of -the clearest Jewish intellects. But we are within the bounds of -acknowledged fact in asserting that the ardour of Judæan piety, at least -in the highest class, greatly cooled in the age subsequent to Ezra’s, -and in ascribing this to Greek influences. The high priest Simeon -II.,[258] surnamed the Righteous (i.e. the strict observer of the Law), -of whom so glowing an account is given by Sirach (chap. i.), is the -chief exception to this degeneracy; yet he was powerless to stem the -revolutionary current even within his own family. His cousin Joseph was -the notorious farmer of the taxes of Palestine, who by his public and -private immorality[259] sapped the very foundations of Jewish life, -while two of Simeon’s sons, Jason and Menelaus, became the traitorous -high priests who promoted the paganising movement under Antiochus. It is -well known that many critics refer the Book of Ecclesiastes to the -period immediately preceding this great movement. The deep and almost -philosophical character of the unknown author’s meditations seems to be -in harmony with this date. On the other hand, there is the -well-ascertained fact that the Book of Sirach shows no trace of really -philosophical thought; it is little more than a new version of the -ordinary proverbial morality. It is to this book, the ‘Doppelgänger des -kanonischen Spruchbuchs,’ as Schürer calls it, the work, as a Greek -writer puts it, of an attendant (ὀπαδός) of Solomon, that these pages -are devoted. Nothing is more remarkable (and it ought to make us very -deliberate in determining dates upon internal evidence) than the -appearance of such a book at such a time. - -The name of the author in full is Joshua (Jesus) ben Sira (Sirach),[260] -but he may be called Sirach for shortness, this being the form of his -family-name in the Greek translation. He tells us himself that he was of -Jerusalem; that from his youth up his desire was for wisdom; that he -laboured earnestly in searching for her; and that the Lord gave him a -tongue for his reward (l. 27; li.) Sirach, in fact, is one of those -‘wise men’ to whom was entrusted so large a part of the religious -education of the Jewish people. The remarkable fact that ‘wise men’ -exist so long after the time of their prototype Solomon, proves that -their activity was an integral part of the Jewish national life. The -better class of ‘wise men’ gave an independent support to the nobler -class of prophets. With their peremptory style, the prophets would never -have succeeded in implanting a really vigorous religion, had not the -‘wise men,’ with their more conciliatory and individualising manner of -teaching, supplemented their endeavours. The Babylonian Exile introduced -a change into the habits of the ‘wise men,’ who, though some of them -used the pen before the overthrow of the state, became thenceforward -predominantly, if not entirely, writers on practical moral philosophy. -Such was Sirach. He is not indeed a strictly original writer, nor does -he lay claim to this. This is how he describes the nature of his work -(xxxiii. 16)— - - I too, as the last, bestowed zeal, - and as one who gleans after the vintage; - By the blessing of the Lord I was the foremost, - and as a grape-gatherer did I fill the winepress. - -Sirach, then, was first of all a collector of proverbs, and he found -that most of the current wise sayings had been already gathered. It is -not likely that up to xxxvi. 22 he merely combined two older books of -proverbs (as Ewald supposed[261]), though it is more than probable that -older proverbs do really lie imbedded in his work. But whether old -proverbs or new, Sirach has this special characteristic, that he loves -to arrange his material by subjects. This was already noticed by the -early scribes,[262] and is well brought out by Holtzmann in Bunsen’s -_Bibelwerk_, and I will merely refer to chap. xxii. 1-6, ‘On good and -bad children;’ 7-18, ‘The character of the fool;’ 19-26, ‘On -friendship;’ 27-xxiii. 6, ‘Prayer and warning against sins of the tongue -and lusts of the flesh;’ 7-15, ‘The discipline of the mouth;’ 16-27, ‘On -adultery;’ xxix. 1-20, ‘On suretyship;’ 21-28, ‘An independent mode of -life.’[263] The plan of grouping his material is not indeed thoroughly -carried out, but even the attempt marks a progress in the literary art. -This is one of the points in which Sirach differs from his canonical -predecessors. - -In other respects his indebtedness is manifest. Night and day he must -have studied his revered models to have attained such insight into the -secrets of style. But, so far from affecting originality, he delights in -allusions to the older proverbialists. Many parallelisms occur in the -sayings on Wisdom (comp. Sir. i. 4, Prov. viii. 22; Sir. i. 14, Prov, i. -4, ix. 10; Sir. iv. 12, 13, Prov. iv. 7, 8; Sir. xxiv. 1, 2, Prov. viii. -1, 2; Sir. xxiv. 3, Prov. ii. 6; Sir. xxiv. 5, Prov. viii. 27). This we -might expect; for Wisdom in a large sense is more persistently the -object of Sirach than it was at any rate of the earlier writers in -Proverbs. But, besides this, points of contact abound in very ordinary -sayings. Thus compare, among many others which might be given, - - (_a_) Better a mean man that tills for himself - than he that glorifies himself and has no bread - (Prov. xii. 9, Sept. &c.) - Better he that labours and abounds in all things - than he that glorifies himself and has no bread - (Sir. x. 27, Fritzsche). - (_b_) A merry heart makes a cheerful face, - but with sorrow of heart is a crushed spirit (Prov. xv. 13). - The heart of a man alters his face, - as well for good cheer as for bad; - A merry face betokens a heart in good case (Sir. xiii. 25, - 26a). - (_c_) A passionate man stirs up strife, - and one that is slow to anger allays contention (Prov. xv. - 18). - Abstain from strife, and thou shalt diminish thy sins, - for a passionate man will kindle strife (Sir. xxviii. 8). - (_d_) An intelligent servant rules over the son that causes shame - (Prov. xviii. - 2). - Unto the wise servant shall free men do service (Sir. x. 25). - (_e_) Death and life are in the power of the tongue (Prov. xviii. - 21). - Good and evil, life and death; - and the tongue rules over them continually (Sir. xxxvii. 18). - (_f_) Golden apples in silver salvers; - a word smoothly spoken (Prov. xxv. 11). - Golden pillars upon a silver pediment; - fair feet upon firm soles (Sir. xxvi. 18, Fritzsche). - (_g_) He who digs a pit shall fall therein, - and he who rolls a stone, upon himself it shall return - (Prov. xxvi. 27). - He who casts a stone on high, casts it on his own head; - He who digs a pit shall fall therein (Sir. xxvii. 25_a_, - 26_a_). - (_h_) The crucible for silver, and the furnace for gold, - and a man is tried by his praise (Prov. xxvii. 21). - The furnace proves the potter’s vessels, - the trial of a man is in his discourse (Sir. xxviii. 5). - -It will be seen from these examples that, though Sirach adapted and -imitated, he did so with much originality. His style has colour, -variety, and vivacity, and though Hengstenberg accuses the author of too -uniform a mode of treatment, yet a fairer judgment will recognise the -skill with which the style is proportioned to the subject; now -dithyrambic in his soaring flight, now modestly skimming the ground, the -author of the πανάρετος σοφία (for so Sirach, no less than Proverbs, was -called[264]) is never feeble and rarely trivial. ‘Its general tone,’ -says Stanley, ‘is worthy of that first contact between the two great -civilisations of the ancient world.’ ‘Nothing is too high, nor too -mean,’ says Schürer, ‘to be drawn within the circle of Sirach’s -reflections and admonitions.’ I have elsewhere spoken of his -comprehensiveness. This quality he partly owes to his being so steeped -in the Scriptures. One result of this is that he is more historical than -his predecessors, and connects his wisdom with those narratives of early -times, which were either but little known to or valued by the -proverb-writers of antiquity. The earlier psalmists and prophets indeed -show the same neglect of the traditions of the past: they lived before -the editing and gradual completion of any roll of ‘Scriptures.’ Sirach -on the other hand (see his preface) had ‘the Law and the Prophets, and -the rest of the books,’ the latter collection being a kind of appendix, -still open to additions. He was a true ‘scribe,’ and gloried in the name -(xxxviii. 24), not in the New Testament sense, but in one not unworthy -of a religious philosopher; he gave his mind to the wisdom both of the -Scriptures and of ‘all renowned men,’ and travelled through strange -countries, trying the good and evil among men. If parts at least of the -Book of Job probably contain an autobiographical element, it is still -more certain that the chapter (xxxix.) which closes the book before us -expresses the ideal of the author’s life. And if he _does_ sometimes -take delight in his own attainments, yet why is this to be censured as -mere ‘böse Selbstgefälligkeit?[265] A deep consciousness of moral -imperfection is not equally to be expected in the Old Testament and in -the New, nor should the philosophic writings in the former be appealed -to for striking anticipations of fundamental Gospel ideas. Sirach does -no doubt in some sense claim inspiration (xxiv. 32-34, l. 28, 29), and -place his own work in a line with the prophecies (xxiv. 33), but why -should this be set down to arrogant inflation? Lowth, with more charity, -quotes similar language of Elihu (Job xxxii. 8, xxxvi. 4) in proof of -the speaker’s _modesty_ (_Prælect._ xxxiv.) It was probably a -characteristic of the later ‘wise men’ so to account for their wisdom -(see above, p. 43), and surely in that wide sense recognised by the -Anglican Prayerbook he _was_ ‘inspired,’ he _was_ a ‘son of the -prophets.’ I am only sorry that he forgot the lesson of Ex. xxxi. 2 when -he wrote so disparagingly of trades (xxxviii. 25 &c.), and agree with -Dr. Edersheim[266] that the Jewish teachers of the time of Christ and -afterwards were more advanced on this point than the son of Sirach. - -It is true enough that there are sayings in this book which offend the -Christian sentiment, and which serve to show how great was the spiritual -distress which the Gospel alone could relieve. For instance, - - (_a_) He who honours his father shall make atonement for sins (iii. - 3). - Water will quench a flaming fire, - and alms make atonement for sin (iii. 30). - Brethren and help are against time of trouble; - but alms deliver more than both (xl. 24). - -Here is one of those ‘false beacon lights’ of which Prof. Bissell speaks -(_Apocrypha_, p. 282). But in arrest of judgment remember that long -discipline in the duties spoken of has produced some of the finest -qualities in the Jewish character. - - (_b_) Happy the man who has not offended in his speech, - and is not pricked with grief for sins (xiv. 1). - (_c_) Gain credit with thy neighbour in his poverty, - that thou mayest rejoice in his prosperity; - abide stedfast unto him in the time of his affliction, - that thou mayest be heir with him in his heritage (xxii. 23). - (_d_) Nine things I in my heart pronounce happy, ... - and he that lives to see the fall of enemies - (xxiv. 7; comp. also xii. 10-12, xxx. - 6). - (_e_) Who will praise the Most High in Hades, - instead of those who live and give praise? (xvii. 27.) - For man cannot do everything, - because the son of man is not immortal (xvii. 30). - -With the latter saying, contrast Wisd. of Sol. ii. 23, ‘For God created -man for immortality.’ - - (_f_) (Give me) any plague but the plague of the heart, - and any wickedness but the wickedness of a woman &c. - (xxv. 13-26). - -This opening verse might perhaps be otherwise rendered, - - Any wound but a wound in the heart, - and any evil but evil in a wife. - -The misfortune of having a bad wife is often touched upon in the Talmud. -Ewald’s sentence is however just, that Sirach’s ‘estimate of women, and -sharp summary counsel concerning divorce (see ver. 26), place [him] far -below the height of the Hebrew Bible.’[267] - -I admit the imperfection of these moral statements; but can they not -several of them be paralleled from the Psalms, Proverbs, and -Ecclesiastes? And can we not find as many more anticipations of the -moral teaching of the Synoptic Gospels and St. James (e.g. iv. 10, vii. -11, 14, xi. 18, 19, xv. 14, xvii. 15, xxiii. 4, 11, 18)? Do not let us -undervalue any foregleams of the coming dawn. - -Footnote 254: - - _Revelation_, p. 365; _Die Lehre der Bibel von Gott_, i. 378. - -Footnote 255: - - Note the phrase in i. 1, ‘who _in his life_ repaired the house,’ - implying ‘now indeed he is dead.’ Grätz in fact is the only scholar - who doubts the author’s contemporaneousness with Simon - (_Monatsschrift_, 1872, p. 114). - -Footnote 256: - - See, besides the well-known passage in _Pirke Aboth_ (i. 2), the - legendary extracts from (_Bab._) _Yoma_, 39_b_, translated by Wünsche, - _Der bab. Talmud_, i. 1, pp. 368-9; and comp. Derenbourg, _Hist. de la - Palestine_, i. 44 &c. - -Footnote 257: - - So we must paraphrase ἐν τῷ ὀγδόῳ καὶ τριακοστῷ ἔτει ἐπὶ τοῦ Εὐεργέτου - Βασίλεως. See Stanley’s note in _Jewish Church_, iii. 235, and Abbot’s - note in the American edition of Smith’s _Bible Dict._ (I am indebted - to Bissell for the latter reference). Comp. Wright, _The Book of - Koheleth_, p. 34 n. - -Footnote 258: - - The Mishna (_Pirke Aboth_, i. 2) ascribes this saying to Simeon the - Righteous: ‘On three things the world stands—revelation (_tōra_), - worship, and the bestowal of kindnesses.’ - -Footnote 259: - - See Jos., _Ant._, xii. 4. - -Footnote 260: - - On the identity of the Ben Sira of the Talmud and our Sirach, see - Horowitz in Frankel’s _Monatsschrift_, 1865, p. 181 &c. The _ch_ in - the form Sirach may be due to an old error in the Greek text. - -Footnote 261: - - _Hist. of Israel_, v. 263-4. Ewald includes xxxix. 12-35 in the - portion belonging to the second (supposed) collection. - -Footnote 262: - - See the headings at certain points of the Greek version. - -Footnote 263: - - With vv. 21, 23 comp. St. Paul, Phil. iv. 11, 12. - -Footnote 264: - - See St. Jerome, _Præf. ad Libros Salomonis_, and comp. Lightfoot’s - _Clement of Rome_, p. 164 &c. - -Footnote 265: - - Keerl, _Die Apokryphenfrage_ (1855), p. 214. - -Footnote 266: - - _Sketches of Jewish Social Life_, p. 189. - -Footnote 267: - - Ewald, _Revelation_, p. 364 n. - - - - - CHAPTER II. - SIRACH’S TEACHING (_continued_). HIS PLACE IN THE MOVEMENT OF THOUGHT. - - -Passing now from Sirach’s moral statements to those which are concerned -with doctrine, an honest critic must admit that the author is here even -less progressive. The Messianic hope, in the strict sense of the word, -has faded away.[268] In xlv. 25 (comp. xlviii. 15) the ‘covenant with -David’ is described as being ‘that the inheritance of the king should be -only from father to son;’ similarly in xlvii. 22 the ‘root of David’ -denotes Rehoboam and his descendants. But this want of a definite -Messianic hope is characteristic of the age; it is no special defect of -Sirach. But what shall we say of another charge brought against our -author, viz. that he has unbiblical conceptions of the Divine nature? -One of these (xi. 16; see A.V.) may be dismissed at once, the passage -having insufficient critical authority. Another— - - We may speak much and not attain; - indeed to sum up, He is all (xliii. 27)— - -has been misapprehended. The _Bereshith Rabba_ says (c. 68), ‘Why is the -Holy One also called _Mākōm_ (place)? Because He is the place of the -world; His world is not His place.’ This is all that Sirach means, and -Philo, too, who uses similar words, accused by Keerl of heresy, and -adds, ἅτε εἶς καὶ τὸ πᾶν αὐτὸς ὤν. - -The doctrines of the Satan and the Resurrection, which Sirach probably -regarded somewhat as we regard the ‘developments’ of the Papal Church, -he appears studiously to ignore[269]—more especially the latter—and he -thereby puts himself into direct opposition to the newer popular -orthodoxy. For though not the invention (as M. Renan regards it) of the -Maccabean period, there can be no doubt that the doctrine of the -Resurrection became then for the first time an article of the popular -creed. Instead of the ‘awakening to everlasting life’ (Dan. xii. 2), it -is the peaceful but hopeless life of the spirits in Sheól to which he -resignedly looks forward. - - Weep for the dead, for he hath lost the light, - and weep for the fool, for he wanteth understanding: - make little weeping for the dead, for he is at rest, - but the life of the fool is worse than death.[270] - -This, however orthodox (as former generations had counted orthodoxy), -was rank Sadduceanism, and hence (for how otherwise to interpret the -glosses of the Greek and Syriac versions of xlviii. 11_b_[271] it is -difficult to see) very early readers of Sirach, especially perhaps -well-meaning but unscrupulous Christian readers, effected an entrance -for their cherished beliefs by violence. - -Another point on which Sirach is equally—shall we say orthodox, or -reactionary?—is the connection between piety and temporal prosperity. He -really seems to be no more troubled by doubts on this ancient doctrine -than the author of the beautiful, but in this respect naïvely simple, -introduction to the Book of Proverbs. This perhaps was strange under -Sirach’s circumstances. How striking and even painful is the contrast -between Josephus’ vivid and truthful comparison of Judæa at this period -to ‘a ship in a storm, tossed by the waves on both sides,’[272] and that -proverb of Sirach, worthy, considering the times, of the ‘miserable -comforters’ of Job— - - The gift of the Lord remains with the godly, - and his favour brings prosperity for ever.[273] - -In short, Sirach represents the reconciliation between the practical -ethics of the inspired ‘wise men’ of old and the all-embracing demands -of the Law. Himself only in a comparatively low sense inspired—for we -should not hastily reject his claim to a ‘tongue’ from above—he did -nothing, on the ethical side, but repeat the old truths in their old -forms, though one gladly admits that he shows a genuine and unassumed -interest in the varieties of human character. But on the religious side -he is really in a certain sense original, in so far as he combines the -traditional ‘wisdom’ with a heartfelt regard for the established forms -of religion, such as the older ‘wise men’ scarcely possessed. On the -latter point he would sympathise with the author of Ps. cxix. Unlike the -older proverb-writers, he recommends the punctual observance of rites -and ceremonies. These however are to be penetrated by a moral spirit; -hence he says, - - Do not [seek to] corrupt [the Lord] with gifts, for he receives them - not; - and trust not to unrighteous sacrifices. - He who serves acceptably shall be received, - and his prayer shall reach unto the clouds (xxxv. 12, 16). - -By Greek philosophy Sirach, as far as we can see, was wholly -uninfluenced. - -And yet Sirach cannot have been entirely unacquainted with Greek -culture, in the more general sense of the word. One striking proof of -this is his attitude towards medical science,[274] which is exactly the -opposite of the Chronicler’s (2 Chr. xvi. 12). It seems as if the older -generation were offended by human interference with the course of -nature, appealing perhaps to Ex. xv. 26; a curious Talmudic tradition -ascribes a similar view to Hezekiah and his wise men. Sirach, however, -appealing to the passage preceding that referred to above (see Ex. xv. -23-25), seeks to reconcile the opposing parties (xxxviii. 1-15). No -doubt he had learned this at Alexandria: he tells us himself that he had -travelled and learned many things (xxxiv. 9-11), and from xxxix. 4 we -may even infer that he had appeared at court, where probably his life -was endangered by calumnious accusations (li. 6). There, perhaps, he -acquired his taste for the Greek style of banquet, with its airy talk -and accompaniment of music, a taste which seems to have inspired a -piquant piece of advice to the kill-joys of his time, who insisted on -talking business out of season (xxxii. 3-5)— - - Speak, O elder, with accurate knowledge, for it beseemeth thee, - but be not a hindrance to music.[275] - When playing is going on, do not pour out talk; - and show not thyself inopportunely wise. - A seal-ring of carbuncle set in gold, - [such is] a concert at a banquet of wine. - -In a similar mood he writes (xiv. 14)— - - Defraud not thyself of a joyous day, - and let not a share of a lawful pleasure escape thee. - -But his tone is commonly more serious. Though no ascetic, he cautions -his readers against the unrestrained manners which had invaded Judæa, -especially against consorting with the singing and dancing girls (μετὰ -ψαλλούσης, ix. 4, includes both; Vulg. _cum saltatrice_), and draws a -picture of the daughters of Israel (xlii. 9, 10) which forms a -melancholy contrast with the Old Testament ideal. His prayer to be -guarded from the infection of lust (xxiii. 4, 5) finds its commentary in -the story already mentioned of Joseph the tax-farmer. He notes with -observant eye the strife of classes. What bitter sighs must have -prompted a saying like this (xiii. 2, 3)— - - A burden that is too heavy for thee take not up, - and have no fellowship with one that is stronger and richer than - thyself: - For what fellowship hath the kettle with the earthen pot? - this will smite, and that will be broken. - The rich man doth wrong, and _he_ snorteth with anger, - the poor man is wronged, and _he_ entreateth withal. - -And again (xiii. 18)— - - What peace hath the hyæna with the dog? - and what peace hath the rich man with the poor? - -He is painfully conscious of the deserved humiliation of his country, -and the only reason which he can urge why God should interpose is the -assured prophetic word (xxxvi. 15, 16 = 20, 21). Elsewhere he ascribes -all the evil of his time to the neglect of the Law (xli. 8), which, by a -strong hyperbole, he almost identifies with personified Divine Wisdom -(xxiv. 23; see above on Prov. viii.) Not however without a noble -introduction leading up to and justifying this identification. In the -true _māshāl_-style he describes how Wisdom wandered through the world -seeking a resting-place,— - - Then the Creator of all gave me a commandment, - and he that made me caused my tent to rest, - and said, Let thy dwelling be in Jacob, - and thine inheritance in Israel (xxiv. 8). - -And after a series of wondrous images, all glorifying the Wisdom -enthroned in Jerusalem, he declares— - - All this [is made good in] the book of the covenant of the Most High - God, - the Law which Moses commanded us - as a heritage unto the congregations of Jacob (xxiv. 23). - -This remarkable chapter deserves to be studied by itself; it is most -carefully composed in 72 στίχοι. Lowth and Wessely[276] have with -unequal success retranslated it into Hebrew. I have already spoken (on -Proverbs) of its interest for the student of doctrine; it has indeed -been thought to show clear traces of Alexandrinism, but this is -improbable and unproved. - -It remains to notice the author’s interest in nature and history. -The hymn of praise for the works of creation (xlii. 15-xliii. 32) is -only poor if compared with parts of the Book of Job. But perhaps -more interesting is the panegyric of ‘famous men’ (xliv.-l.), from -Enoch the patriarch to Simeon the Righteous, whose imposing -appearance and beneficent rule are described with the enthusiasm of -a contemporary.[277] It is worth the student’s while to examine the -contents of this roll of honour. A few corrections of the text may -be noticed as a preliminary. At xlviii. 11_b_, the Greek has ‘for we -shall surely live (again).’ But the Latin has, ‘nam nos vitâ vivimus -tantum, post mortem autem non erit tale nomen nostrum.’ There is -good reason in this instance, as we shall see presently, to prefer -the reading of the Latin to that of the Greek. At l. 1, after ‘son -of Onias,’ it is well to remove the abruptness of the transition by -inserting from the Syriac, ‘was the greatest of his brethren and the -crown of his people.’ At l. 26 (27), for ‘Samaria’ we should -probably read ‘Seir’ (else how will there be three nations?), and -for ‘foolish,’ ‘Amoritish’ (with the Ethiopic version and Ewald, -comp. Ezek. xvi. 3). Turning to the names of the heroes -commemorated, it is startling to find no mention made of Ezra, the -second founder of Jewish religion. Aaron, on the other hand, is -celebrated in no fewer than seventeen verses. This cannot be a mere -accident, for the veneration of the later Jews for Ezra was hardly -less than that which they entertained for Moses. Notice, however, -that Moses himself is only praised in five verses. It seems as if -Aaron better than Moses symbolised those ritual observances in which -Sirach perhaps took a special delight. The name of Ezra, too, may -have had its symbolic meaning to the author. He may have had -deficient sympathy with those elaborators of minute legal precepts, -who took Ezra as their pattern. Not that he disbelieved in the -continuity of inspiration—for in some sense he claims it for himself -(e.g. xxiv. 33), but that he did not fully recognise the workings of -the spirit in the ‘fence about the Law.’ Other names which he passes -over in silence are Daniel and Mordecai. Does this mean that he was -unacquainted with the Books of Daniel and Esther? Whatever be the -date of these books, so much as this is at least a probable -inference. - -The panegyric seems to have originally closed with the ancient -liturgical formula in verses 22-24. But the writer could not resist the -temptation of giving a side-blow to the hated Samaritans (those -‘half-Jews,’ as Josephus the historian calls them), called forth perhaps -by the dispute respecting the rival temples held at Alexandria before -Ptolemy Philometor.[278] The last chapter of all (chap. li.) contains -the aged author’s final leave-taking. It is a prayer of touching -sincerity and much biographical interest. The immediateness of the -religious sentiment is certainly greater in this late ‘gatherer’ than in -many of the earlier proverb-writers. - -Enough has been said of the contents of the book to give a general idea -of its moral and religious position. Let us now consider its outward -form. The work, as we have seen, was originally written in Hebrew. This -indeed was to have been expected. For although the influence of the -Seleucidæ had greatly strengthened the hold of Aramaic on the Jewish -population of Palestine, Hebrew was still, and for a long time -afterwards remained, the language of scholars and _littérateurs_. The -author of the ‘Wisdom of Sirach’ was both. He was thoroughly penetrated -with the spirit and style of the Scriptures, especially of those of the -_Khokma_, and he would have thought it as much a descent to lavish his -great powers on Aramaic as Dante did at first to write in Italian. Is -this Hebrew original still extant? Alas! no; Hebrew literature, so -scantily represented for this period, has to mourn this great loss. A -page of fragments, gathered from the Talmud and the Midrāshīm,[279] is -all that we can, with some occasional hesitation, plausibly regard as -genuine. There is indeed a small work, called the Alphabet of Ben Sira, -consisting of two series of proverbs, one in Aramaic, and one in Hebrew. -But no significance can be attached to this. The genuineness of many of -the Hebrew proverbs is guaranteed by their occurrence in the Talmud, but -the form in which the alphabetist quotes them is often evidently less -authentic than that in the Talmud. The original work must have been lost -since the time of Jerome, if we may trust his assurance[280] that he had -found it in Hebrew, and that it bore the name ‘Parables’ (_m’shālīm_). -Of the ancient versions, the Syriac and the Old Latin are (after the -Greek) the most important; the former is from the Hebrew, the latter -from a very early form of the Greek text. Neither of them is always in -accordance with the Greek as we have it, but such differences are often -of use in restoring the original text. All the versions appear to -contain alterations of the text, dictated by a too anxious orthodoxy, -and in these the one may be a check upon the other. Bickell indeed goes -further than this, and states that an accurate text of Sirach can only -be had by combining the data of the Greek and the Syriac. Lowth, in his -24th Lecture, strongly urges the retranslation of Sirach into Hebrew. -Such an undertaking would be premature, if Bickell’s judgment be correct -that the book consists of seven-syllabled verses or στίχοι, grouped in -distichs,[281] except in the alphabetic poem on wisdom (li. 13-20). The -latter, consisting of 22 στίχοι, he has translated into German from his -own corrected text, dividing it into four-lined strophes, as also the -preceding, ‘alphabetising’ poem, consisting of 22 distichs (li. 1-12), -in the _Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie_, 1882, pp. 326-332. - -We must reserve our opinion on Bickell’s theory till the appearance of a -complete edition from his pen. Meantime three passages (xxiv. 27, xxv. -15, xlvi. 18) may be referred to as giving striking proof of the Hebrew -original of the work. In xxiv. 27 the translator seems to have found in -his Hebrew copy כאר, i.e. properly כַּיְאׂר ‘as the Nile’ (the weak -letter י being elided in pronunciation as in כאר, Am. viii. 8), but as -he supposed כָּאוׂר ‘as the light.’ In xxv. 15, he found ראשׁ, which in -the context can only mean ‘poison,’ but which he inappropriately -rendered ‘head.’ In xlvi. 18, the Hebrew had צרים, i.e. צָרִים -‘enemies,’ but, according to the translator, צֹרִים ‘Tyrians.’ Compare -also in this connection the allusions to the meanings of Hebrew words in -vi. 22 (‘wisdom’) and xliii. 8 (‘the month’). There are still questions -to be decided which can only be adverted to briefly here. Did the -translator make use of the Septuagint, and more particularly of the -portion containing the prophets? He certainly refers to a translation of -the Scriptures in his preface, but Frankel thinks that a Targum may be -meant, and even doubts the genuineness of the passage; he explains the -points of contact with the Septuagint which are sometimes so -interesting[282] in the Greek version of Sirach by _Ueberarbeitung_, -i.e. the ‘working over’ of the version by later hands.[283] This seems -to me a forced view. It is more probable that a Greek version is meant, -or perhaps we may say Greek _versions_; no special honour is given to -any one translation. Next, as to the position accorded to the Wisdom of -Sirach. It is often cited in the Talmud with formulæ which belong -elsewhere to the Scriptures, and was therefore certainly regarded by -many as worthy to be canonical (see Appendix). In strict theory, this -was wrong. According to the _Tosephta Yadayim_, c. 2, the book of Ben -Sira, though much esteemed, stood on the border between the canonical -and extraneous or non-canonical books. Such books might be read -cursorily, but were not to be studied too much.[284] Sirach neither -claimed the authorship of a hero of antiquity, nor was it, according to -the rising Pharisaic school, orthodox; thus perhaps we may best account -for the fact that a work, regarded in itself in no way inferior to the -Book of Proverbs, was left outside the sacred canon. - -No certain allusions to our book are traceable in the New Testament; the -nearest approach to a quotation is James i. 19; comp. Ecclus. v. 13. -Clement of Alexandria is the first Christian writer who quotes directly -from Sirach. From its large use in the services of the Church the book -received the name Ecclesiasticus, to distinguish it perhaps from the -canonical book which was also often called ‘Wisdom.’ In later times, it -half attracted, but—owing to the corrupt state of the text—half -repelled, the great Hellenist Camerarius, the friend of Melancthon, who -published a separate edition of Sirach (the first) at Basle in 1551. It -appears from his preface that it was highly valued by the reformers from -an educational point of view. Bullinger proposes it as a less dangerous -text book of moral philosophy than the works of Plato and Aristotle, and -Luther admits it to be a good household book, admired however too much -by the world, which ‘sleepily passes by the great majestic word of -Christ concerning the victory over death, sin, and hell.’ - -No impartial critic will place the Wisdom of Jesus the son of Sirach on -the same literary eminence with the so-called Wisdom of Solomon. It is -only from its greater fidelity to the Old Testament standard, or at -least to a portion of this standard, that it can claim a qualified -superiority. A few noble passages of continuous rhetoric it no doubt -contains, especially the noble Hymn of Praise on the works of creation -(xxxix. 16-xliii. 33); and a few small but exquisite gems especially the -sayings on friendship (counterbalanced, I admit by those on the -treatment of one’s enemies, xii. 10-12, xxv. 7, xxx. 6), e.g.— - - Forsake not an old friend, - for the new is not comparable to him. - A new friend is as new wine, - when it is old, thou wilt drink it with pleasure (ix. 10), - -with which we may bracket the noble passage on the treatment of a -friend’s trespass (xix. 13-17). One of the fine religious passages has -been quoted already (xliii. 27; comp. Job xxvi. 14); we may couple -this[285] with it— - - As a drop from the sea, and a grain of sand, - so are a few years in the day of eternity (xviii. 9). - -Still the chief value of the book is, historically, to fill out the -picture of a little known period, and doctrinally, to show the -inadequacy of the old forms of religious belief, and the moral distress -from which the Christ was a deliverer. - -Footnote 268: - - Ewald (_History_, v. 263, n. 3) refers to iv. 15, x. 13-17, xi. 5 sq., - xxxii. 17-19, xxxiii. 1-12, xxxvi. 11-17, xxxvii. 25, xxxix. 23, - xlviii. 10 sq., but only for a vague Messianism (in the last passage - the Greek seems to be interpolated). I would add xxxv. 17-19, xxxvi. - 1-10. - -Footnote 269: - - True, the Greek version of Sirach has, at xxi. 27, the words, ‘When - the ungodly curseth the Satan, he curseth his own soul;’ but ‘the - Satan’ may here be synonymous with the depraved will, the _yéçer rā_ - (this seems to have Talmudic authority; see Weber, _System der - altsynag. pal. Theol._, pp. 228-9). In _Baba bathra_, 15_a_, Satan is - not distinguished from the _yéçer rā_. - -Footnote 270: - - Chap. xxii. 11. Comp. xiv. 11-19 (correcting by the help of the - Syriac), xvii. 27, 28, 30. Contrast the glowing language of the - ‘Wisdom of Solomon,’ iii. 1-4. - -Footnote 271: - - The Syriac has, ‘Nevertheless he dieth not, but liveth indeed.’ The - Greek version I have quoted farther on. Also the Latin, which probably - corresponds most to the original. See Geiger, _Zeitschr. d. d. morg. - Ges._, xii. 536. The false reading κεκοιμημένοι, adopted by A.V., for - κεκοσμημένοι, in xlviii. 11a, is due to the same theological motive. - -Footnote 272: - - _Antiquities_, xii. 3, 3. - -Footnote 273: - - Ch. xi. 17; comp. ii. 7 &c.; xvi. 6 &c.; xl. 13, 14. There are, - however, passages in which Sirach betrays some little feeling of the - practical difficulties of the older form of the doctrine of - retribution: see xxxv. 18 [xxxii. 18]. - -Footnote 274: - - See Dukes, _Rabbinische Blumenlese_, pp. 29, 30; Grätz, _Schir - ha-schirim_, p. 86. Grotius even supposed the author to be a - physician. - -Footnote 275: - - καὶ μὴ ἐμποδίσῃς μουσικά. So xlix. 1. ὡς μουσικὰ ἐν συμποσίῳ οἴνου; - comp. Ex. xxxii. 18 Sept. That Greek music was known in Palestine - _very shortly afterwards_ may be inferred from the Greek names of - musical instruments in the Book of Daniel. - -Footnote 276: - - Wessely was one of the most eminent fellow-workers of the great Moses - Mendelssohn. See Wogue, _Histoire de la Bible et de l’exégèse - biblique_ (1881), pp. 334-337. - -Footnote 277: - - The Mussaph prayer in the liturgy of the Day of Atonement (German - ritual) contains a striking imitation of Sirach’s eloquent description - of the high priest (see Delitzsch, _Gesch. der jüd. Poesie_, p. 21), - every verse of which closes with the refrain _mar’eh kōhēn_ ‘the - appearance of the priest;’ Meshullam bar-Kleonymos is known to be the - author. - -Footnote 278: - - Jos., _Ant._, xiii. 3, 4. - -Footnote 279: - - See Zunz, _Gottesdienstliche Vorträge_, p. 102; Delitzsch, _Zur Gesch. - der jüdischen Poesie_, p. 204 (comp. p. 20, note 5); Dukes, - _Rabbinische Blumenlese_, p. 67 &c. It should be noticed that among - these Talmudic _m’shālīm_ there are some, and even long ones, which do - not occur in the Greek Sirach. - -Footnote 280: - - _Præf. in libr. Sal._ ‘Fertur et πανάρετος Jesu filii Sirach liber et - alius ψευδεπίγραφος liber .... Quorum priorem Hebraicum reperi, non - Ecclesiasticum, ut apud Latinos, sed _parabolas_ prænotatum, cui - juncti erant Ecclesiastes et Canticum canticorum.’ Nowhere since has - Sirach been found in this position, nor with this title. - -Footnote 281: - - But is not a strophic division sometimes visible, e.g. ii. 7-17? See - Seligmann, _Das Buch der Weisheit des J. S._, &c., p. 34. - -Footnote 282: - - See especially xlvi. 19, with which comp. the Septuagint of 1 Sam. - xii. 3. - -Footnote 283: - - _Vorstudien zu der Septuaginta_ (1841), p. 21, note _w_. - -Footnote 284: - - Wright, _Koheleth_, p. 48 n.; Strack, art. ‘Kanon des A. T.’ in - Herzog-Plitt, _Realencyclopädie_, vii. 430, 431; Gratz, _Kohelet_, p. - 48. - -Footnote 285: - - Bishop Butler, who is fond of Sirach, quotes this saying in his 4th - sermon. - - - - - AIDS TO THE STUDENT. - - -Besides the commentaries of Bretschneider (1806), Fritzsche (1859), and -Bissell (in the American edition of Lange), see Gfrörer, _Philo_, ii. -(1831), pp. 18-52; Dähne, _Geschichtliche Darstellung der -jüdischalexandrin. Religionsphilosophie_, ii. (1834), pp. 126-150; Zunz, -_Die gottesdienstl. Vorträge der Juden_ (1832), pp. 100-105; Ewald, -_Jahrbücher der bibl. Wissenschaft_, iii. (1851), pp. 125-140; _History -of Israel_, v. 262 &c.; Jost, _Gesch. des Judenthums_, i. (1857), p. 310 -&c.; Herzfeld, _Gesch. des Volkes Jisrael_, iii. (1863), see Index; -Horowitz, _Das Buch Jesus Sirach_ (1865); Dyserinck, _De Spreuken van -Jesus den zoon van Sirach vertaald_ (1870); Grätz, _Monatsschrift_ for -1872, pp. 49 &c., 97 &c.; Seligmann, _Das Buch der Weisheit des Jesus -Sirach_ (1883); Fritzsche, art. in Schenkel’s _Bibellexikon_, iii. 252 -&c.; Stanley, _Jewish Church_, vol. iii. (see Index); Westcott, art. -‘Ecclesiasticus’ in Smith’s _Bible Dictionary_; Deane, ‘The Book of -Ecclesiasticus: its Contents and Character,’ _The Expositor_, Nov. 1883; -Wright, _The Book of Koheleth_, 1883, chap. ii. (decides, perhaps, too -hastily that Sirach in many passages imitates Koheleth). - - - - - THE BOOK OF KOHELETH; OR, ECCLESIASTES. - - - CHAPTER I. - THE WISE MAN TURNED AUTHOR AND PHILOSOPHER. - - - ... Il mondo invecchia, - E invecchiando intristisce.—TASSO, _Aminta_. - - -In passing from the book of Ecclesiasticus to that of Ecclesiastes, we -are conscious of breathing an entirely different intellectual -atmosphere. ‘Seek not out the things that are too hard for thee,’ said -Sirach, ‘for thou hast no need of the secret things’ (iii. 21, 22), but -the book now before us is the record of a thinker, disappointed it is -true, but too much in earnest to give up thinking. Of meditative minds -there was no lack in this period of Israel’s history. The writers of the -119th and several other Psalms, as well as Jesus the son of Sirach, had -pondered over the ideal life, but our author (the only remaining -representative of a school of writers[286]) was meditative in a -different sense from any of these. He could not have said with the -latter, ‘I prayed for wisdom before the temple’ (Ecclus. li. 14), nor -with the former, ‘Thy commandment is exceeding broad’ (Ps. cxix. 96). -The idea of the religious primacy of Israel awakened in his mind no -responsive enthusiasm. We cannot exactly say that he conceals the place -of his residence,[287] but he has certainly no overpowering interest in -the scene of his life’s troublesome drama. In this feature he resembles -to a considerable extent the humanists of an earlier date (see p. 119), -but in others, and those the most characteristic, he differs as widely -from them as the old man from the child. They believed that virtue was -crowned by prosperity; even the writer of _Job_, as some think, had not -wholly cast off the consecrated dogma; but the austere and lonely -thinker who has left us Ecclesiastes finds himself utterly unable to -harmonise such a theory with facts (viii. 14). To him, living during one -of the dreariest parts of the post-Exile period, it seemed as if the -past aspirations of Israel had turned out a gigantic mistake. That -home-sickness which impelled, if not the Second Isaiah himself, yet many -who were stirred by his eloquence, to exchange a life of ease and luxury -for one of struggle and privation—in what had it issued? In ‘vanity and -pursuit of wind’ (comp. Isa. xxvi. 18). To quote a great Persian poet, -who in some of his moods resembles Koheleth (see end of Chap. IX.), - - The Revelations of Devout and Learn’d, - Who rose before us and as Prophets burn’d, - Are all but Stories, which, arose from Sleep, - They told their fellows, and to Sleep return’d. - -Such thoughts as these made the history of Israel an aid to scepticism -rather than to faith; added to which it is probable that society in -Koheleth’s[288] time seemed to him too corrupt to admit of an idealistic -theory of life. For an individual to seek to put in practice such a -theory would expose him to hopeless failure and misery. Therefore, ‘be -not righteous overmuch,[289] neither pretend to be exceedingly wise; why -wilt thou ruin (lit. desolate) thyself?’ (vii. 16). Some, no doubt, as -the Soferim or Scripturists, had tried it, but they had only succeeded -in making their lives ‘desolate,’ without any compensating advantage. -Nor can we say that Ecclesiastes had given up theistic religion. He does -not indeed believe in immortality and a future judgment, and is thus -partly an exception to the rule of Lucretius, - - ... nam si certam finem esse viderent - Aerumnarum homines, aliqua ratione valerent - Religionibus atque mineis obsistere vatum. - (_De rerum naturâ_, i. 108-110.) - -He mentions God twenty-seven times, but under the name Elohim, which -belonged to Him as the Creator, not under that of Yahveh, which an -Israelite was privileged to use; and his one-sided supernaturalism -obscured the sense of personal communion with God. He accepts only the -first part of the great proclamation concerning the dwelling place of -God in Isa. lxvii. 15 (see Eccles. v. 2). It is no doubt God who -‘worketh all’ (xi. 5), but there are nearer and almost more formidable -potentates, an oppressive hierarchy of officials ranging from the -taxgatherer to the king, ‘a high one watching above the high, and high -ones over both’ (v. 8). True, our author seems to admit—at least if the -text be sound (iii. 17; comp. viii. 12, 13)—that ‘God will judge the -righteous and the wicked’ (i.e. in this life, for he does not believe in -another), but the comfort of this thought is dashed with bitterness by -an unspoken but distinctly implied complaint, which may perhaps be well -expressed in the language of Job (xxiv. 1), ‘Why are judgments laid up -(so long) by the Almighty,[290] and (why) do they that know him not see -his days?’ or in other words, Why is divine retribution so tardy? It is, -in fact, this extreme tardiness of God’s judicial interpositions which -our author considers one of the chief causes of the prevalence of -wickedness;— - - ‘Because sentence against the work of wickedness is not speedily - executed, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in - them to do evil’ (viii. 11). - -On the whole, we may say that the older humanists were sincere -optimists, while Koheleth, though theoretically perhaps an optimist -(iii. 11), constantly relapses into a more congenial ‘malism.’ I use -this word designedly. Koheleth can only be called a pessimist loosely. -Bad as things are, he does not believe that the world is getting worse -and worse and hasting to its ruin. He believes in revolutions, some for -evil, some for good, some for ‘rending’ or ‘breaking down,’ others for -‘sewing’ or ‘building up.’ He believes, in other words, that God brings -about recurrent changes in human circumstances. But (like another wise -man, Prov. xxv. 21) he does not trust revolutions of human origin (‘evil -matters’ he calls them, viii. 3); he is no _carbonaro_ (x. 20). And so -for the present he is a ‘malist,’ and having no imaginative faculty he -cannot sympathise with the ‘Utopian’ prospects for the future contained -in the prophetic visions. - -Yet, in spite of appearances, Koheleth builds upon a true Israelitish -foundation. It is already something that he cannot bear to plunge into -open infidelity, that he is still (as we have seen) a theist, though his -theism gives him but little light and no comforting warmth. Now and then -he alludes to the religious system of his people (see v. 1-5, 17, viii. -10). A stronger proof of his Israelitish sympathies is his choice of -Solomon as the representative of humanity; I say, of humanity, because -the author evidently declines to place himself upon the pedestal of -Israelitish privilege. (Perhaps, too, as Herzfeld thinks,[291] he would -console his people by showing them that they have companions in -misfortune everywhere ‘under the sun;’ and we have already seen Job -snatch a brief alleviation of pain from the thought of suffering -humanity.) Koheleth is not only a Jew, but a man of culture. He cannot -perhaps entirely defend himself from the subtle influence of the Greek -view of life, and is even willing to associate from time to time with -the ministers of alien sovereigns. True, he has noted with bitter irony -the absurd and capricious changes in the government of Palestine (x. -5-7), but he has no spark of the spirit of the Maccabees, unless indeed -in viii. 2-5, x. 4, 20, beneath the garb of servile prudence we may -(with Dr. Plumptre) detect the irony of indignation. To the -simple-minded reader at any rate he appears to counsel passive -obedience, and a cautious crouching attitude towards those in power. I -suspect myself that either the advice is but provisional, or else -Koheleth still feels the power of the prophetic Utopia: _ce peuple rêve -toujours quelque chose d’international_.[292] Nay; shall we not carry -our generosity even farther? That ‘last word,’ which he would have -spoken had he lived longer, may possibly not have been that which the -Soferim have forced upon him. Not a future judgment, but a return of -prosperity to a wiser though sadder Israel, may have been his silent -hope, and in this prosperity we may be sure that a wider and more -philosophic culture would form a principal ingredient. This is by no -means an absurd fancy. Koheleth firmly believed in recurrent historical -cycles, and if there was ‘a time to break down,’ there was also ‘a time -to build up’ (iii. 3). Sirach knows no future life and no Messiah; but -he believes in the eternity of Israel; why, on the ground of his -fragmentary remains, deny the same consolation to Koheleth? Much as I -should prefer to imagine a far more satisfactory close for his troubled -life (see Chap. IX.), I think we ought to admit the possibility of this -hypothesis. - -As an author, the characteristics of Koheleth are in the main Hebraic, -though not without vague affinities to the Greek philosophic spirit. His -work is without a model, but the dramatic element in it reminds us -somewhat of the Book of Job. Just as the writer of that great poem -delineates his own spiritual struggles—not of course without poetic -amplification—under the assumed name of Job, so our author, with a -similar poetical license, ascribes his difficulties to the imaginary -personage Koheleth (or Ecclesiastes). There are also passages in which, -like Job, he adopts the tone, style and rhythm[293] of gnomic poetry, -though far from reaching the literary perfection of Job or of the -proverbial collections. The attempt of Köster and Vaihinger to make him -out an artist in the management of strophes is a sport of fancy. Unity -and consistency in literary form were beyond the reach, if not of his -powers, yet certainly of his opportunities; even his phraseology, as a -rule, is in the highest degree rough and unpolished. This is the more -striking by contrast with the elegant workmanship of Sirach. But the -unknown author has very strong excuses. Thus, first, the negative tone -of his mind must have destroyed the cheerful composure necessary to the -artist. ‘The burden of the mystery’ pressed too heavily for him to think -much of form and beauty. His harp, if he ever had one, he had long since -hung up upon the willows. Next, it is highly probable that he was -interrupted in the midst of his literary preparations. Nöldeke has -remarked[294] that his object was not to produce ‘ein literarisches -Schaustück.’ That is perfectly true; his primary object was ‘to scatter -the doubts of his own mind.’ But he did not despise the literary craft; -he was well aware that even ‘the literature of power’ may increase its -influence by some attention to form. It seems to me that the ‘labour of -the file’ has brought the first two chapters to a considerable degree of -perfection; but the rest of the book, upon the whole, is so rough and so -disjointed, that I can only suppose it to be based on certain loose -notes or _adversaria_, written solely with the object of dispersing his -doubts and mitigating his pains by giving them expression. The thread of -thought seems to break every few verses, and attempts to restore it fail -to carry conviction to the unbiassed mind. The feelings and opinions -embodied in the book are often mutually inconsistent; in Ibn Ezra’s -time, and long before that, the Jewish students of the book were puzzled -by this phenomenon, so strange in a canonical Scripture. Not a few -scattered remarks have absolutely no connection with the subject. The -style, too, is rarely easy and natural, and sometimes (especially in -viii. 16, 17) we meet with a sentence which would certainly not have -passed an author’s final revision. The most obvious hypothesis surely is -that from chap. iii. onwards we have before us the imperfectly worked-up -meditations of an otherwise unknown writer, found after his death in -proximity to a highly finished fragment which apparently professed to be -the work of king Solomon. The meditations and the fragment were -circulated in combination (for which there was much excuse, especially -as some parts of the notes seemed to be in the narrative and even -autobiographic style), and were received with much favour by the -students of ‘wisdom,’ more, I should think, owing to the intrinsic -interest of the book than to the literary fiction of Solomonic -authorship. If this hypothesis be correct, we need not be surprised -either at the author’s inconsistencies in opinion, or at the general -roughness of his style. The book may not even be all one man’s work. -Luther has already brought Ecclesiastes into connection with the -Talmud.[295] Now the proverbial sayings which interrupt our thinker’s -self-questionings on ‘vanity of vanities’ are like the Haggadic passages -which gush forth like fountains in the weary waste of hair-splitting -Talmudic dialectics. No one has ever maintained the unity of the Talmud, -and no one should be thought unreasonable for doubting the absolute -freedom of Ecclesiastes from interpolations.[296] - -The third and last excuse which I have to offer is that the meditations -of Koheleth partake of the nature of an experiment. He may indeed (as I -have remarked) be a member of a school of writers, but his strikingly -original manner compels us to regard him as a master rather than a -disciple. No such purely reflective work had, so far as we know, as yet -been produced in Hebrew literature. Similar moral difficulties to those -which preoccupied our author had no doubt occurred to some of the -prophets and poets, but they had not been sounded to their depths. Even -in the Book of Job the reflective spirit has very imperfect scope. The -speeches soon pass into a lyric strain, and Jehovah Himself closes the -discussion by imposing silence. But the author of Ecclesiastes was a -thinker, not a lyrist, and was compelled to form his own vehicle of -thought. He ‘sought,’ indeed, ‘to find out pleasant words’ (xii. 10), -but had to strain the powers of an unpliant language to the uttermost, -to coin (presumably) new words, and apply old ones in fresh senses, till -he might well have complained (to apply Lucretius) ‘propter egestatem -linguae et rerum novitatem.’[297] He deserves great praise for his -measure of success; Luzzatto in his early work failed to do him justice. -He is not ambitious; as a rule, he abstains from fine writing. Once -indeed he attempts it, but, as I venture to think, with but ill -success—I refer to the closing description of old age (xii. 4-9), which -has a touch of the extravagant euphuism of late Arabic literature.[298] -From a poetical point of view, the prelude (i. 4-8) is alone worthy to -be mentioned, though not included either by Renan or by Bickell among -the passages poetical in form (for a list of which see below[299]). Let -us mark this fine passage, that we may return to it again in another -connection. - -Footnote 286: - - The ‘many books’ spoken of in xii. 12 were probably less orthodox than - Ecclesiastes, but in so far as Ecclesiastes, especially in its - uncorrected state, is sceptical, it may be grouped with them. - -Footnote 287: - - In common with most interpreters, I regard Ecclesiastes as a Judæan - work. - -Footnote 288: - - Following the precedent of the Epilogue (xii. 9), I designate the - author by the name which he has invented for his hero. - -Footnote 289: - - There is a touch of humour in the expression, which can perhaps best - be reproduced in our northern Doric, ‘Be not unco’ guid.’ - -Footnote 290: - - I follow Sept. and Dr. Merx. The received reading is very harsh. - -Footnote 291: - - _Geschichte des Volkes Jisrael_, iii. 30. - -Footnote 292: - - Renan, _L’Antéchrist_, p. 228. - -Footnote 293: - - On the rhythm, comp. Bickell, _Der Prediger_ (1884), pp. 27, 46-53. - -Footnote 294: - - _Die alttestamentliche Literatur_, p. 173. - -Footnote 295: - - ‘Dazu so ist’s wie ein Talmud aus vielen Büchern zusammengezogen.’ - Luther’s _Tischreden_, quoted in Ginsburg, p. 113. - -Footnote 296: - - See Supplementary Chapter. - -Footnote 297: - - _De rerum naturâ_, i. 140 (appositely quoted by Mr. Tyler). - -Footnote 298: - - See the passage quoted from Chenery’s translation of Hariri by Dr. - Taylor (_Dirge of Coheleth_, p. 55); comp. Rückert’s rhyming - translation (_Hariri_, i. 104-5). - -Footnote 299: - - Renan’s list is i. 15, 18; ii. 2, 14; iii. 2-8, iv. 5, 14; v. 2; vii. - 1-6; 7, 8; 9_b_; 13_b_; 24; viii. 1, 4; ix. 16, 17; x. 2, 12, 18; xi. - 4, 7; xii. 3-5; 10; 11, 12. Bickell’s, i. 7, 8; 15; 18; ii. 2; v. 9; - vi. 7; iv. 5; ii. 14; viii. 8; ix. 16-x. 1; vii. 1-6, vi. 9, vii. 7-9; - vii. 11, 12; vii. 20; v. 2; x. 16-20; xi. 6; xi. 4; viii. 1-4, x. 2, - 3; x. 6, 7; x. 10-15; ix. 7; xi. 9, 10, xii. 1_a_; xii. 1_b_-5; 6. - (The order of these passages arises out of Bickell’s critical theory; - on which see Chap. XII.) - - - - - CHAPTER II. - ‘TRUTH AND FICTION’ IN AN AUTOBIOGRAPHY. - - -Let us now take a general survey of this strange book, regarding it as a -record of the conflicting moods and experiences of a thoughtful man of -the world. The author is too modest to appear in his own person (at -least in i. 1-ii. 12), but, like Cicero in his dialogues, selects a -mouthpiece from the heroic past. His choice could not be doubtful. Who -so fit as the wisest of his age, the founder and patron of gnomic -poetry, king Solomon (1 Kings iv. 30-32)? After the preluding verses, -from which a quotation has been given above, Ecclesiastes continues -thus:— - - I Koheleth have been[300] king over Israel in Jerusalem; and I gave - my mind to making search and exploration, by wisdom, concerning all - that is done under heaven; that is a sore trouble which God hath - given to the sons of men to trouble themselves therewith! I saw all - the works which are done under the sun; and behold, all is vanity - and pursuit of wind. - - That which is crooked cannot be straightened, - and a deficiency cannot be reckoned (i. 12-15). - -The name or title ‘Koheleth’ is obscure. According to the Epilogue -‘Koheleth was a wise man’ (xii. 9)—a statement which confirms the -explanation of the name as meaning ‘one who calls an assembly.’[301] The -‘wise men’ of Israel gathered their disciples together, and such an able -teacher as Koheleth would fain gather all who have ears to hear around -his seat. But Koheleth is also Solomon (though only for a short time—the -author did not, I suppose, live long enough thoroughly to fuse the -conceptions of king and philosopher[302]). The wise king is to be -imagined standing on the brink of the grave, and casting the -clear-sighted glance of a dying man on past life, somewhat as Moses in -parts of Deuteronomy or David in 2 Sam. xxii., xxiii. 1-7. A subtle and -poetic view of Solomon’s career is thus opened before us. He is not here -represented in his political relation, but as a specimen of the highest -type of human being, with a boundless appetite for pleasure and every -means of gratifying it. But even such a man’s deliberate verdict on all -forms of pleasure is that they are utterly unsubstantial, mere vanity -(lit. a vapour—Aquila, ἀτμίς; comp. James iv. 14). Neither pure -speculation (i. 13-18), nor riotous mirth (ii. 1, 2), nor even the -refined voluptuousness consistent with the free play of the -intellect[303] (ii. 3), could satisfy his longing, or enable him, with -Goethe’s Faust, to say to the flying moment, ‘Ah! linger yet, thou art -so fair.’ It is true that wisdom is after all better than folly; Solomon -from his ‘specular mount’ could ‘see’ this to be a truth (ii. 13); but -in the end he found it as resultless as ‘the walking in darkness’ of the -fool. - - ‘And I myself perceived that one fate befalleth them all. And I said - in my heart, As the fate of the fool will be the fate which shall - befall me, even me; and why have I then been exceeding wise? and I - said in my heart that this also is vanity’ (ii. 14_b_, 15), i.e. - that this undiscriminating fate is a fresh proof of the delusiveness - of all things. - -And in this strain Koheleth runs on to nearly the end of the chapter, -with an added touch of bitterness at the thought of the doubtful -character of his successor (ii. 18, 19). Then occurs one of those abrupt -transitions which so often puzzle the student of Ecclesiastes. In ii. -1-11 Koheleth has rejected the life of sensuous pleasure, even when -wisely regulated, as ‘vanity.’ He now returns to the subject, and -declares this to be, not of course the ideally highest good, but the -highest good open to man, if it were only in his power to secure it. But -he has seen that both sensuous enjoyment and the wisdom which regulates -it come from God, who grants these blessings to the man who is good in -his sight, while profitless trouble is the portion of the sinner. He -repeats therefore that even wisdom and knowledge and joy, the highest -attainable goods, are, by reason of their uncertainty, ‘vanity and -pursuit of wind’ (ii. 26). - -At the end of this long speech of Koheleth, we naturally ask how far it -can be regarded as autobiographical. Only, I think, in a qualified -sense. Its psychological depth points to similar experiences on the part -of the author, but to experiences which have been deepened in their -imaginative reproduction. It is truth mingled with fiction—_Wahrheit und -Dichtung_—which we meet with in the first two chapters. A more strictly -biographical narrative appears to begin in chap. iii., from which point -the allusions to Solomon cease, and are replaced by scattered references -to contemporary history. The confidences of the author are introduced by -a passage (iii. 1-8) in the gnomic style, containing a catalogue of the -various actions, emotions, and states of feeling which make up human -life. Each of these, we are told, has its own allotted season in the -fixed order of nature, but as this is beyond the ken and influence of -man, the question arises, ‘What profit hath he that worketh in that -wherewith he wearieth himself?’ (iii. 9.) Thus, the ‘wearisome trouble’ -of the ‘sons of men’ has no permanent result. All that you can do is to -accustom yourself to acquiesce in destiny: you will then see that every -act and every state in your ever-shifting life is truly beautiful or -seemly (iii. 11), even if not profitable to the individual (iii. 9). -More than this, man has been endowed with the faculty of understanding -this kaleidoscopic world, with the drawback that he cannot possibly -embrace it all in one view:—[304] - - Also he hath put the world into their heart (i.e. mind), except that - man cannot find out from beginning to end the work which God hath - made (iii. 11). - -In fact, to quote Lord Bacon’s words in the _Advancement of Learning_, -‘God has framed the mind like a glass, capable of the image of the -universe, and desirous to receive it, as the eye to receive the light.’ -But here a dark mood interrupts the course of our author’s meditations; -or perhaps it is the record of a later period which is but awkwardly -attached to the previous passages. ‘To rejoice and to fare well’—sensual -(or, let us say, sensuous) pleasure, in short—is now represented as the -only good for man, and even that is not to be too absolutely reckoned -upon, for ‘it is the gift of God’ (iii. 12, 13, 22; comp. ii. 24). -Certainly our author at any rate did not succeed in drowning care in the -wine-cup: he is no vulgar sensualist. His merriment is spoiled by the -thought of the misery of others, and he can find nothing ‘under the sun’ -(a passionate generalisation from life in Palestine) but violence and -oppression. In utter despair he pronounces the dead happier than the -living (iv. 1, 2). In fact, he says, neither in life nor in death has -man any superiority over the other animals, which are under no -providential order, and have no principle of continuance. Such is the -cynical theory which tempts Koheleth; and yet he seems to have hesitated -before accepting it, unless we may venture with Bickell to strike out -iii. 17, as the work of a later editor who believed in retributions -hereafter (like xi. 9_b_ xii. 7, 13, 14). I confess that consistency -seems to me to require this step; the verse is in fact well fitted to be -an antidote to the following verse, which seems to have suggested the -opening phrase. This is how the text runs at present:— - - I said in my heart, The righteous and the wicked shall God judge; - for there is a time for every purpose and for every work _there_ - (emphatically for ‘in the other world;’ or read, hath he appointed). - I said in my heart, (It happens) on account of the sons of men, that - God may test them, and that they may see that they are but beasts. - For the sons of men are a chance (comp. Herod. i. 32), and beasts - are a chance; yea, all have one chance: as the one dies, so dies the - other; yea, they all have one spirit; and advantage of the one over - the other there is none, for all is vanity. All go unto one place; - all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again. Who knows whether - the spirit of man goes upward, and whether the spirit of the beast - goes downward to the earth?[305] (iii. 17-21.) - -Our author’s abiding conviction is that ‘the spirit does but mean the -breath’ (_In Memoriam_, lvi.), so that man and the lower animals have -‘one spirit’ and alike end in dust. ‘_Pulvis et umbra sumus._’ It is -true, some of his contemporaries hold the new doctrine of Immortality, -but Koheleth, in his cool scepticism, hesitates to accept it. Which -indeed of its enthusiastic advocates can claim to ‘know’ that which he -asserts; or can prove to Koheleth’s satisfaction that God (as a psalmist -in Ps. xlix. 15 puts it) will ‘receive’ the spirit of man, in spite of -the fact that the vital principle of beasts loses itself in the dust of -death? It is no doubt an awkward construction which Koheleth adopts: he -_seems_ to express an uncertainty as to the fate of the lower animals. -To convey the meaning which I have given, the construction ought to have -been disjunctive, as in this line from a noble modern poem, - - Friend, who knows if death indeed have life, or life have death for - goal?[306] - -But there is, or rather there ought to be, no doubt as to Koheleth’s -meaning. Dean Plumptre frankly admits that ‘it is not till nearly the -close of the book, with all its many wanderings of thought, that the -seeker rests in that measure of the hope of immortality which we find’ -[but this is open to considerable doubt] ‘in xii. 7.’ - -Footnote 300: - - See the fantastic legend to account for the past tense in _Midrash - Koheleth_ (transl. Wünsche), or Ginsburg (p. 268; comp. p. 38). - -Footnote 301: - - Dean Plumptre thinks Koheleth (like ἐκκλησιαστής), which is rendered - by him ‘the Debater,’ means rather a member of an assembly, than a - teacher or preacher, and compares Ecclus. xxxviii. 33, where the son - of Sirach says of labourers and artisans that they ‘shall not sit high - in the congregation,’ i.e. in the _ecclesia_ or academy of sages. But - judging from the parallel line the ‘congregation’ is rather that of - the people in general (comp. Ecclus. xv. 5). The Dean’s view that the - book embodies the inward debates of a Jewish philosopher may be to a - great extent true, but for all that Koheleth is throughout represented - as speaking alone and with authority. On the philological explanation - of the word, see Appendix. - -Footnote 302: - - This seems a reasonable view. Bickell boldly maintains that i. 1, 12, - 16, ii. 7, 8, 9 [12] are interpolations (made presumably to facilitate - the recognition of the book as canonical). Observe however that the - (fictitious) author is nowhere declared to be Solomon, but only - ben-David (i. 1). He claims attention merely as a private person, as - an interpreter of the complaints of humanity. Though he does once - expressly refer to his royal state (i. 12), it is only to suggest to - his readers what ample opportunities he has enjoyed of learning the - vanity of earthly grandeur. So, very plausibly, Bloch (_Ursprung des - Kohelet_, p. 17). - -Footnote 303: - - The passage indeed is obscure and possibly corrupt (so Bickell), but - the above words probably do justice to the mood described. - -Footnote 304: - - Among the many other interpretations of this difficult passage, two - may be mentioned here. (1) ‘He has also set worldliness in their - heart, without which man cannot understand the work that God does, - from beginning to end.’ So Kalisch (_Path and Goal_, frequently). This - is an improvement upon the translation of Gesenius and others, who - render, not ‘without which’ &c., but ‘so that man may not’ &c. The - objection to the latter rendering is that it gives ‘worldliness’ a New - Testament sense (comp. 1 John ii. 15). Kalisch, however, in full - accord with the spirit of Judaism, makes Koheleth frankly accept - ‘worldliness’ as a good, understanding by ‘worldliness’ a sense of - worldly duties and enjoyments. Had this however been Koheleth’s - meaning, would he not have coined another of his favourite abstract - terms (comp. the Peshitto’s _’olmoyuthō_ = αἰὼν in Eph. ii. 2)? (2) - ‘Also he has put eternity into their heart, but so that man cannot’ - &c. So Ginsburg and Delitzsch (_desiderium æternitatis_, taking - ‘eternity’ in a metaphysical sense = ‘that which is beyond time’); so - also Nowack (taking it in the popular sense of years following upon - years without apparent limit). Ginsburg’s view is against the context, - in which the continuance of the human spirit is doubted; but Nowack’s - explanation is not unacceptable. Man has been enabled to form the idea - of Time (for the popular view of ‘eternity’ comes practically to - this), and has divided this long space into longer and shorter - periods; what happens in one period or season, he can compare with - what happens in another, thus finding all well-adapted and - ‘beautiful.’ But he cannot grasp the whole of Time in one view. But I - still prefer the explanation given in the text, as being simpler, in - spite of the fact that _’ōlām_ nowhere else occurs in the sense of - ‘world’ (or the present order of things), so common in later Hebrew. - -Footnote 305: - - This is the rendering of the four principal versions and of all the - best critics, including Mercier, Ewald, Ginsburg, Grätz and Delitzsch; - it agrees with the general tendency of Koheleth, and in particular - with vii. 5, where the grave is called man’s ‘eternal home’ (see - below). It is no doubt opposed by the vowel-points, which are followed - in King James’s Bible. But it is more than probable (considering other - parallel phenomena) that the authors of the points were directed by a - theological and therefore uncritical motive, that, namely, of effacing - as far as possible a trace of Koheleth’s opposition to the doctrine, - by that time recognised as orthodox, of the immortality of the soul. - -Footnote 306: - - Swinburne, _On the Verge_. - - - - - CHAPTER III. - MORE MORALISING, INTERRUPTED BY PROVERBIAL MAXIMS. - - -Let us now resume the thread of Koheleth’s moralising. Violence and -oppression were two of the chief evils which struck an attentive -observer of Palestinian life. But there were two others equally worthy -of a place in the sad picture—the evils of rivalry and isolation. First, -with regard to rivalry (iv. 4-6). What is ‘skilful work,’ or art, but an -‘envious surpassing of the one by the other’? This also is ‘pursuit of -wind;’ it gives no permanent satisfaction. True, indolence is -self-destruction: but on the other hand a little true rest is better -than the labour of windy effort, urged on by rivalry yielding no rest -(Delitzsch). Such at least is the most probable connection, supposing -that vv. 5 and 6 are not rather interpolated or misplaced. If however it -be objected (here Koheleth passes to a second great evil—that of -isolation) that a man may labour for his child or his brother, yet who, -pray, is benefited by the money-getting toils of one who has no near -relative, and stands alone in the world? A pitiable sight is such -unprofitable toil! The fourth chapter closes with maxims on the -blessings of companionship (iv. 9-12), followed by a vivid description -of the sudden fall of an old and foolish king (iv. 13-16), who had not -cared to appropriate one of the chief of these blessings, viz. good -advice. There is much that is enigmatical in the last four verses. We -should expect the writer to be alluding to some fact in contemporary -history, but no plausible parallel has yet been indicated.[307] Ver. 16 -is certainly either corrupt or mutilated. Bickell thinks that it must -originally have run somewhat as follows:— - - There was no end of all the people, even of all those who [applauded - him and cast reproaches on the old king. For because he had despised - the counsel of the prudent, to rule foolishly and to oppress the - people, therefore they hated him, even as those had hated him] who - were before them; they also that came afterwards did not rejoice in - him. - -At this point the ideal autobiography of Koheleth is interrupted. From -v. 1 (= iv. 17 in the Hebrew) to vii. 14 we are presented with a mixture -of proverbial sayings (such perhaps as Koheleth was continually framing -and depositing in his note-books) and records of the wise man’s personal -experience. Notice especially the reappearance of the old Israelitish -instinctive sympathy with husbandmen (or, shall I say, with yeomen) in -ver. 9. Both proverbs and personal records are the offspring of -different moods, and therefore not always consistent. Thus at one time -our author repeats his preference of sensuous enjoyment to any other -mode of passing one’s life. - - For (then) he will not think much on the (few) days of his life, - because God responds to the joy of his heart (v. 20). - -But the writer is too pessimistic to rest long in this thought. It is a -‘common evil among men’ to have riches without the full enjoyment of -them: ‘better an untimely birth,’ he cries, than to be in such a case -(vi. 3). Note here in passing the fondness of our author for using a -comparison in expressing an emphatic judgment (comp. iv. 9-16, vii. -1-8). Better, he continues, is a momentary experience of real happiness -than to let the desire wander after unattainable ends. ‘There are many -things that increase vanity;’ with the reserve of good taste, he -understates his meaning, for what human object, according to Koheleth, -is not futile? That gift which to the Christian is so wondrously -fair—the gift of life—to him becomes ‘the numbered days of his life of -vanity;’ and ‘who knows what is good for man in life, which he spends as -a shadow? For who can tell a man what shall be after him under the sun?’ -(vi. 12.) Koheleth, we see, has no faith in his nation, nor in humanity. - -I do not feel sure that we may say with Dean Bradley that ‘out of this -very gloom and sadness come forth in the next chapter thoughts that have -gone, some of them, the round of the world.’ No doubt there is more than -a mere tinge of the same midnight gloom in some of these proverbial -sayings. But surely there is a complete break in the thread of thought -of vi. 12, and a fresh collection of looser notes has found a place at -the head of chap. vii. At any rate, these sayings supply a convincing -proof that Koheleth was not a mere hedonist or Epicurean. He recalls in -vii. 2 his former commendation of feasting, and declares, - - It is better to go into the house of mourning than to go into the - house of feasting, inasmuch as that is the end of all men, and the - living can lay it to his heart (vii. 2). - -I said that Koheleth was too pessimistic to remain long under the -influence of hedonism. I might have said that he was too thoughtful; a -rational man could not, without the anticipations of faith, close his -mind to the suggestions of pessimism in the circumstances of Koheleth’s -age. Better thoughtful misery than thoughtless mirth, is the keynote of -the triad of maxims (vii. 2-6) on the compensations of misery which -follows the dreary sentence praising death, in vii. 1.[308] Resignation -is the secret of inward peace; ‘with a sad face the heart may be -cheerful.’ Not only in view of the great problem of existence, but in -your everyday concerns, restrain your natural impulses whether to -towering passion or to brooding vexation at the wrongness or the -slowness of the course of human affairs (vii. 8, 9). Above all, do not -give way to an ignorant idealism. It is unwise to ask ‘How is it that -the former days were better than these?’ (vii. 10.) The former time, so -bright and happy, and the present, with its predominant gloom, were -alike ordained by God (vii. 13 should follow vii. 10); and as a last -consolation for cool and rational thinkers, be sure that there is nought -to fear after death; there are no torments of Gehenna. This in fact is -the reason why God ordains evil; there being no second life, man must -learn whatever he can from calamity in this life. - - On a good day be of good cheer, and on an evil day consider (this): - God hath also made this (viz. good) equally with that (evil), on the - ground that man is to experience nothing at all hereafter[309] (vii. - 14; comp. ix. 10). - -Thus, not only ‘be not righteous over much’ (vii. 16), but ‘do not -believe over much’ is the teaching of our rationalist-thinker. There is -neither good nor evil after death. But is there no _present_ judgment? -Yes; but this is not a thought of life and hope. It is a true ‘religion’ -to him; it binds him in his words as well as his actions. But although -Hooker so admired the saying in v. 2 (‘God is in heaven, and thou upon -earth, therefore let thy words be few’) as to quote it in one of his -finest passages,[310] yet the context of v. 2 sufficiently shows how -different was the quality of the reverence of the two writers. Be -careful to pay thy vows, says Koheleth, lest when thou invokest God’s -name, His angel should appear, and call thee to account. - - Suffer not thy mouth to bring punishment upon thy body; and say not - before the angel, It was an oversight;[311] wherefore should God be - angry at thy voice, and destroy the work of thy hands?’ (v. 6.) - -To Koheleth the mention of the divine name is a possible source of -danger; to Hooker God is One ‘whom to know is life, and joy to make -mention of his name.’ Koheleth has only fear for God’s holy name—a fear -which is not indeed ineffectual but very pale and cheerless; Hooker, a -‘perpetual fear and love,’ and the love gives a new quality and a new -efficacy to the fear. - -Footnote 307: - - Hitzig in his commentary refers to the history of the high priest - Onias and his nephew Joseph. Afterwards he recalled this opinion; but - we may be thankful to him for directing attention to this curious and - instructive historical episode. - -Footnote 308: - - The mechanical juxtaposition of the two halves of ver. 1 is obvious. - The proverb gains considerably, if read with Bickell’s very plausible - supplements, - - ‘Better is a good name than precious ointment, - [but wisdom is still better than fame; - better is not-being than being] - and the day of death than the day of one’s birth.’ - - The ‘wisdom’ meant will be that of resignation and renunciation. - -Footnote 309: - - ‘Hereafter’ is, literally, ‘after him’ (for the meaning of which see - iii. 22, vi. 12); ‘experience,’ literally ‘find’ (comp. Prov. vi. 33). - For other views, see Wright, who objects to the above explanation that - it ‘is opposed to the teaching of Koheleth respecting a future - judgment.’ But the question is, Did Koheleth believe in a future - judgment? - -Footnote 310: - - _Eccles. Polity_, i, 2, § 3. - -Footnote 311: - - There is a touch of humour here; comp. the wretch in the fable who - called Death to his aid, but refused him when he came. Klostermann has - done well in reviving this interpretation, which, in Germany at least, - had been generally abandoned. (Delitzsch thinks the ‘angel’ is the - priest whom the man who has vowed approaches with a request to be - released from his vow. This is supported by Mal. ii. 7, where the - priest is called ‘the messenger of Jehovah Sabáoth;’ but see the notes - of Ginsburg and Kingsbury. Renan renders, _à l’envoyé des prêtres_.) - The angel is the destroying angel, whose action is discerned by faith - in the judicial calamities which, sometimes at least, overtake the - wrong-doer. (So the Targum, but postponing the appearance of the angel - to the _future_ judgment.) - - - - - CHAPTER IV. - FACTS OF CONTEMPORARY LIFE. - - -At vii. 15 a new section begins, consisting almost entirely of the -author’s personal experiences, very loosely connected; it continues as -far as ix. 12. A curious passage at the outset appears to describe -virtue as residing in the mean between two extremes (vii. 15-18). The -appearance however is deceptive: it is as much out of place to quote -Aristotle’s famous definition of virtue (μεσότης δύο κακιῶν), as -Buddha’s counsel to him who would attain perfection to ‘exercise himself -in the medium course of discipline.’ Koheleth merely offers practical -advice how to steer one’s ship between the rocks. Do not, he says, make -your life a burden by excessive legalism. But on the other hand, do not -earn the reputation of caring nothing for the precepts of the law. That -were folly, and would bring you to an early death.[312] Koheleth -expresses this sharply and enigmatically; do not be too ‘righteous,’ and -do not be too ‘wicked.’ ‘Righteous’ and ‘wicked’ are both to be taken in -the common acceptation of those terms in the religious world: the words -are used ironically. Our author’s only theory of virtue is that no -theory is possible. The ‘wisdom’ which both gives ‘defence’ and -‘preserves life’ (vii. 12) is the practical wisdom of resignation and -moderation. Of essential wisdom (or philosophy as we should call -it[313]) he says, alluding to Job xxviii. 12-23, that it is ‘far off, -and exceeding deep; who can find it out?’ (vii. 24.) The old theory, -which claimed to give the secret of history, and which even afterwards -satisfied some wise men (e.g. Sirach)—the theory that the good are -rewarded and the bad punished in this world—is not borne out by -Koheleth’s experience,— - - There is (many) a righteous man who perishes in spite of his - righteousness, and there is (many) an ungodly man who lives long in - spite of his wickedness (vii. 15; contrast the interpolated passage - viii. 12, 13). - -But though Koheleth, like Job, despairs of essential wisdom, he ‘turns’ -with hope to the wide field of wisdom—or, as he calls it, ‘wisdom and -reasoning,’ i.e. moral inquiries pursued on the inductive method. And -what is the result of his inquiry? He gives it with much deliberateness, -stating that he (viz. ‘_the_ Koheleth,’ see on xii. 8) has put one fact -to another in order to form a conclusion (ver. 27) and it is that -women-tempters are more pernicious than Death (man’s great enemy -personified, as so often). Or, putting it in other words, which I am -forced to paraphrase to bring out their meaning—words to which the -well-known poem of Simonides is chivalry itself—‘A few rare specimens of -uncorrupted human nature I have found, so rare that one may reckon them -as one among a thousand; but not one of these truly human creatures was -a woman.’[314] The latter statement is the stronger, and shows that our -author agrees with Ecclus. xxv. 19, that ‘all wickedness is but little -to the wickedness of a woman.’ And so much in earnest is he, that he -even tries a third mode of expressing his conclusion. Carefully limiting -himself he says, ‘Lo! this only have I found; that God made mankind -upright, but they have sought out many contrivances’ (ver. 29); that is, -men and women are both born good, but are too soon sophisticated by -civilisation (and the leaders in this downward process, we may infer -from the context, are the women). Koheleth scarcely means to imply that -civilisation is bad in itself; if he does, the few good men he has met -must apparently have been hermits! But though not essentially immoral, -the inventive or contriving faculty (so wonderful to Sophocles) seems to -Koheleth the chief source of moral danger. - -But are these the only results of Koheleth’s wide induction from the -facts of contemporary life? Yes; a time such as this ‘when man rules -over man to his hurt’ (viii. 9) suggests, not only prudential maxims, -but this sad conclusion, already (vii. 15) mentioned by anticipation, -that the fate proper to the wicked falls upon the righteous, and that -proper to the righteous on the wicked (viii. 14), or to express this in -the concrete, - - And in accordance with this I have seen ungodly men honoured, and - that too in the holy place (i.e. the temple; comp. Isa. xviii. 7); - but those who had acted rightly had to depart and were forgotten in - the city. This too is vanity[315] (viii. 10). - -No wonder that wickedness is rampant! It requires singular courage to do -right when Nemesis delays her visit; or, as Koheleth puts it, in -language which sorely displeased a later editor, - - Because sentence against a wicked work is not executed speedily, - therefore men have abundant courage to do evil. For I know that it - even happens that a sinner does evil for a long time, and yet lives - long, whilst he who fears before God is short-lived as a shadow - (viii. 12, 13). - -Koheleth does not, of course, include himself among the reckless -evil-doers. He acquiesces in the painful inconsistencies of the world, -and seems to comfort himself with the relatively best good—‘to eat and -drink and be merry’ (viii. 15). Charity may perhaps suggest that this is -not said without bitter irony. - -Then follows a clumsy but affecting passage (viii. 16, 17) on the -uselessness of brooding (as the author had so long done) over the -mysteries of human life, which introduces the concluding part of the -section (ix. 1-12). These twelve verses are full of a restrained -passion. Such being the unfree condition of man that he cannot even -govern his sympathies and antipathies, and so regardless of moral -distinctions the course of destiny, and there being no hereafter,[316] -what remains but to take such pleasure as life—especially wedded -life—can offer, and to carry out one’s plans with energy? Yet, alas! it -is only too true that neither success nor freedom of action can be -reckoned upon, for ‘the race is not to the swift,’ and men are ‘snared’ -like the fishes and the birds. - -The section which begins at ix. 13 is of still more varied contents. It -begins with a striking little story about the ‘poor wise man,’ a -Themistocles in common life, ‘who by his wisdom delivered the city, and -no one remembered that poor man’ (ix. 14, 15). Surely here (as in iv. -13, 14, viii. 10) we catch the echo of contemporary history. It is not a -generalisation (comp. Prov. xxi. 22), but a fact which the author gives -us, and it may plausibly be conjectured that he was the ‘poor wise man’ -himself. The rest of the section (down to x. 15) contains proverbs on -wisdom and folly, and some bitterly ironical remarks on the exaltation -of servants and burden-bearers[317] above the rich and the princely. - -Footnote 312: - - As Plumptre well remarks, the vices thought of and the end to which - they lead are those of sensual license (comp. Prov. vii. 25-27). - -Footnote 313: - - In Koheleth’s phrase, ‘that which is;’ comp. Wisd. vii. 17-21, where - ‘the infallible knowledge of the things that are’ is equivalent to a - perfect natural science. Here a similar phrase means rather - philosophy. - -Footnote 314: - - So Klostermann. The ordinary interpretation is, ‘One man among a - thousand (men) I have found, but a woman among all these I have not - found;’ i.e. I have tested a thousand men and a thousand women; I have - found one true man, but not one true woman. The objection is that - _’ādām_ elsewhere (e.g. ver. 29) means human beings without - distinction of sex. - -Footnote 315: - - Following Bickell. In viii. 10 it is the linguistic form, and in viii. - 12, 13 the contents of the Massoretic text which excite suspicion. The - former verse is thus rendered by Delitzsch, ‘And then I have seen the - wicked buried, and they entered into (their ‘perpetual house,’ the - grave): but they that had done right had to depart (into exile) from - the holy place (Jerusalem; cf. II. Isa. xlviii. 2), and were forgotten - out of the city: this too is vanity.’ - -Footnote 316: - - The view expressed in ix. 10 is, I hope, very far from being the - private belief of the many preachers who are accustomed to quote it. - See the chapter on Ecclesiastes from a religious point of view. - -Footnote 317: - - Correcting the text in x. 6 with A. Krochmal. - - - - - CHAPTER V. - THE WISE MAN’S PARTING COUNSELS. - - -A new section begins at x. 16—no ingenuity avails to establish a -connection with the preceding verses. We are approaching our goal, and -breathe a freer air. From the very first the ideas and images presented -to us are in a healthier and more objective tone. The condemnation -expressed in ver. 16 does credit to the public spirit of the writer, -and, I need hardly say, is not really inconsistent (as Hitzig supposed) -with the advice in ver. 20. In the words— - - Even among thine acquaintance[318] curse not the king, and in thy - bedchambers curse not the rich; for the birds of the heaven may - carry the voice [comp. the cranes of Ibycus] and that which hath - wings may report the word— - -Dean Plumptre perhaps rightly sees ‘the irony of indignation’ which -‘veils itself in the garb of a servile prudence.’ There is no necessity -to reduce Koheleth to the moral level of Epicurus, who is said to have -deliberately preferred despotism and approved courting the monarch. - -It is a still freer spirit which breathes in the remainder of the book. -Let courtiers waste their time in luxury (x. 18), but throw thou thyself -unhesitatingly into the swift stream of life. Be not ever forecasting, -for there are some contingencies which can no more be guarded against -than the falling of rain or of a tree (xi. 3, 4). Act boldly, then, like -the corn-merchants, who speculate on such a grand scale,— - - Send forth thy bread upon the wide waters [lit. upon the face of the - waters], for thou mayst find it [i.e. obtain a good return for it] - after many days (xi. 1). - -But since fortune is capricious, do not risk thine all on a single -venture. ‘Ships are but boards, sailors but men’ &c., as Shylock says. -Divide thy merchandise, and so, if one vessel is wrecked or plundered, -much may still be saved; or—another possible interpretation—store thy -property in various hiding-places, so that, in case of some political -revolution, thine all may not be taken from thee,— - - Make seven portions, and also eight; for thou knowest not what evil - shall be upon the earth (or, the land) (xi. 2). - -This is not, of course, the usual explanation of these two verses, which -are enigmas fairly admitting of more than one solution. Most -commentators understand them as recommending beneficence, which ver. 2 -requires to be of extensive range, and which ver. 1 compares to cakes of -bread thrown upon the water, and gathered up no one knows by whom. So -perhaps (besides Rashi, Aben Ezra, Ginsburg &c.) Goethe in the -_Westöstliche Divan_— - - Was willst du untersuchen - Wohin die Milde fliesst! - Ins Wasser wirf dein Kuchen— - Wer weiss wer sie geniesst![319] - -I do not think that this suits the context, which suggests activity and -caution as the two good qualities recommended by Koheleth. But it is -very possible that the proverb was a popular one which the author took -up, giving it a fresh application. - -Such is the author’s parting advice to the elder part of his -readers,—not very elevated, but not without a breath of courageous faith -(xi. 5). Not that he has given up his advocacy of pleasure. Side by side -with work, a man should cherish, even to the very last, all those -sources of joy which God Himself has provided, remembering the long dark -days which await him in Sheól. Then, at ver. 9, he addresses the young, -and in measured distichs intreats them to enjoy life while they may. - - Rejoice, O young man, in thy youth, - and let thy heart gladden thee in the flower of thine age; - and walk in the ways of thy heart - and according to the sight of thine eyes; - And banish discontent from thy heart, - and put away evil from thy flesh:— - for youth and the prime of life are vanity. - -Between lines 4 and 5 we find the received text burdened with a prosaic -insertion, which is probably not due to an after-thought on the part of -the writer, but to the anxiety of later students to rescue the orthodoxy -of the book. The insertion consists of the words, Rabbinic in expression -as well as in thought, ‘But know that for all this God will bring thee -into the judgment.’[320] It was the wisdom of true charity to insert -them; but it is our wisdom as literary students to ‘banish discontent’ -with the discord which they introduce by restoring the passage to its -original form. - -At this point Koheleth turns away from the young to those (presumably) -of his own age. Again there are traces at least of a series of distichs -which must once have stood here, but either the author or one of his -editors, or both, have so far worked over them that the series is no -longer perfect. The first suspected instance of this ‘overworking’ -occurs at the very outset. ‘Remember thy Creator in the flower of thine -age,’ are the opening words of Koheleth’s second address. They are -usually explained as taking up the idea of the last judgment expressed -at the close of xi. 9. ‘Since God,’ to quote Dr. Ginsburg’s paraphrase, -‘will one day hold us accountable for all the works done in the body, we -are to set the Lord always before our eyes.’ The importance of this -passage, when thus interpreted, is manifest. It suggests that Koheleth -had struggled through his many difficulties to an assured doctrinal and -practical position, and that it is not mere rejoicing, but ‘rejoicing in -the Lord,’ that Koheleth recommends in xii. 1—an edifying view of the -old man’s final result which every one must desire to be true if only it -be consistent with the rest of the book. I fear that this is not the -case. Elsewhere in the book sensuous pleasure in moderation is praised -without any reference to God, and in the immediate neighbourhood of this -verse the motive given for rejoicing is not the thought of God, but that -of the many days of darkness (i.e. of Sheól) which are coming. Besides, -the exhortation ‘Remember thy Creator’ does not perfectly suit the close -of the verse, or indeed of the section. What is the natural inference -from the fact that at an advanced age life becomes physically a burden? -Surely this—that man should enjoy life while his powers are fresh. -Cannot an _old man_ ‘remember’ his Creator? (To ‘remember’ is to think -upon; it is not a synonym for conversion.) The text therefore is almost -certainly incorrect. - -Has an editor, then, tampered with the text of the opening words of the -exhortation? May we, for instance, follow Grätz and read, for _bōr’éka_ -‘thy Creator,’ _bōr’ka_ ‘thy fountain’ (lit. thy cistern), taking this -as a metaphorical expression for ‘thy wife’ or ‘thy wedlock’ (as in -Prov. v. 15-18)? The objection certain to be raised is that the text -when thus corrected brings the book to a lame and impotent conclusion. -It may be true, as Bishop Temple has said, that chastity and monotheism -are the chief legacies which the Jewish Church has bequeathed to -mankind.[321] There is nothing in an exhortation to prize a pure married -life unworthy of a high-minded Jewish teacher. But in this connection it -is certainly to a Western reader strange, and one is sorely tempted to -suppose a displacement of the words, and, following Bickell, to make the -distich— - - And remember thy fountain - in the flower of thine age— - -the conclusion of the stanzas beginning at xi. 9. This, it is true, -involves (1) the excision of the words ‘for youth and the prime of life -are vanity,’ and (2) an alteration of the construction of xii. 1, 2 -(reading ‘and evil days shall come’ &c.). This violent change is no -doubt justified by Bickell on metrical grounds, but as I cannot -unreservedly adopt his metrical theory, I have not sufficient excuse for -accepting his rearrangement of the text. - -I wish some better remedy than that of Grätz could be devised. I would -gladly close these Meditations with admiration as well as sympathy. But -at the risk of being called unimaginative, I must venture to criticise -the entire conclusion of the original Book of Koheleth (xii. 1-7). Most -English critics admire the poem on the evils of old age which follows on -the earnest ‘Remember,’ and naturally think that it requires some -specially sublime saying to introduce it. I do not join them in their -admiration, and consequently find it easier to adopt what seems to some -the ‘low view’ of Dr. Grätz. Observe that we have already met with an -eulogy of wedded bliss side by side with a gloomy picture of death in an -earlier section (ix. 9, 10). - -This is the poem (if we may call it so) with which the second -exhortation of Koheleth is interwoven— - - Ere the evil days come, and the years approach - of which thou shalt say, I have no pleasure in them: - - Ere the sun be darkened, and the light, and the moon, and the stars, - and the clouds keep returning after heavy rains [_the winter rains_, - i.e. old age]: - In the day when the keepers of the house [_the hands and arms_] - tremble, - and the strong men [_the feet and legs_] bow themselves, - and the grinding-maids [_the teeth_] cease because they are few, - and the (ladies) who look out at the lattice [_the eyes_] are - darkened: - And the doors [_the lips_] are shut towards the street, - while the sound of the grinding is low, - And the voice riseth into a sparrow’s [‘_childish treble_’] - and all the daughters of song [_words_] are faint. - They are afraid too of a steep place, - and terror besets every way; - and the almond-tree is in bloom [_white hair_[322]], - and the locust drags itself along, - and the caper-berry fails [_to excite the appetite_], - For the man is on the way to his eternal home, - and the mourners go about in the street. - - Ere the silver string [_the tongue_] be tied, - and the golden bowl [_the head_] break, - and the pitcher [_the heart_] be shivered at the fountain, - and the windlass [_the breathing apparatus_] break into the pit. - -With a little determination the traces of development in the Biblical -literature can be more or less effaced. The pious but unphilological -editors of Koheleth were not deficient in this quality. After altering -the introduction of the poem on old age they proceeded to furnish it -with a _finale_. Not only the opening words of ver. i., but the -comfortless expression ‘his eternal house’[323] in ver. 5 gave them -serious offence. One remedy would have been to transpose (with the -Syriac translator) two of the letters of the Hebrew, and thus change -‘home of his eternity’ into ‘home of his travail’ (i.e. the place where -‘the weary are at rest’). They preferred, however, to add two lines— - - and the dust return to the earth as it was, - and the spirit return unto God who gave it. - -This no doubt is a direct contradiction of iii. 21. But the ancients -probably got over this, as most moderns still do, by supposing that the -earlier passage did but express a sceptical suggestion which skimmed the -surface of Koheleth’s mind. - -The excision of these words would of course not be justified in a -translation intended for popular use; but for the purposes of historical -study seems almost inevitable. It hangs together with the view adopted -as to the origin of xi. 9_b_, and implies the assumption that the Targum -rightly paraphrases, ‘and thy spirit (lit. thy breath, _nishm’thāk_) -will return to stand in judgment before the Lord who gave it thee.’ It -ought to be mentioned, however, that some critics (accepting the clause -as genuine) see in that return to God nothing more than the absorption -of the human spirit into the divine (whether in a naïve popular or in a -developed philosophical sense).[324] This will seem plausible at first -to many readers. As a Lutheran writer says, ‘Si spes, quam nos fovemus -lætissimam, Ecclesiastæ adfulsisset, non obiter ipse tetigisset et -verbis ambiguis notasset rem maximi momenti’ (Winzer, ap. Hengstenberg). -But if the Hebrew _rūakh_ means, as I think it does, the personal, -conscious, spiritual side of man in iii. 21,[325] I fail to see why it -should not bear that meaning here. - -Footnote 318: - - Altering the points with Klostermann. - -Footnote 319: - - But Goethe may have thought of the Turkish proverb, ‘Do good, throw - the loaf into the water; if the fish knows it not, the Creator does,’ - or the story from the life of the Caliph Mutewekyil [Mutawakkil?] - quoted, with this proverb, from H. F. v. Diez by Dukes, _Rabbinische - Blumenlese_, pp. 73-74. Comp. also the stories in the Midrash Koheleth - on our passage. - -Footnote 320: - - What judgment? Present or future (i.e. after death)? The latter gives - a more forcible meaning (comp. iii. 17, xii. 14). - -Footnote 321: - - _Essays and Reviews_ (1869), pp. 15-17. - -Footnote 322: - - Does the eastern sun blanch the ‘crimson broidery’ of the - almond-blossom? From the language of travellers like Thomson and - Bodenstedt it would seem so. - -Footnote 323: - - The Hebrew _’ōlām_ here expresses perpetuity (comp. Jer. li. 39, Ps. - cxliii. 51, Ezek. xxvi. 20), not (as some moderns, after Aben Ezra) - long continuance. It is true, that in the Targum of Isa. xlii. 11 an - exit from the ‘eternal house’ is spoken of; but no one doubts that the - belief in the Resurrection was general in the fourth century A.D. - -Footnote 324: - - Mr. Tyler interprets it in a Stoic sense of absorption in the - World-Soul. - -Footnote 325: - - Nowack denies this meaning of _rūakh_ altogether, but this seems a - _Gewaltstreich_. - - - - - CHAPTER VI. - KOHELETH’S ‘PORTRAIT OF OLD AGE;’ THE EPILOGUE, ITS NATURE AND ORIGIN. - - -We have now arrived at the conclusion of the meditations of our -much-tried thinker. It is strongly poetic in colouring; but when we -compare it with the grandly simple overture of the book (i. 4-8), can we -help confessing to a certain degree of disappointment? It is the -allegory which spoils it for modern readers, and so completely spoils -it, that attempts have been sometimes made to expel the allegorical -element altogether. That the first two verses are free from allegory, is -admitted, and it is barely possible that the sixth verse may be so -too—may be, that is, figurative rather than allegorical. Poets have -delighted in these figures; how fitly does one of them adorn the lament -in Woolner’s _My Beautiful Lady_,— - - Broken the golden bowl - Which held her hallowed soul! - -The most doubtful part, then, is the description in vv. 3-5. I am not -writing a commentary, and will venture to express an opinion in favour -of the allegorists (it is not fair to call them satirically the -anatomists).[326] It is true that there is much variety of opinion among -them; this only shows that the allegory is sometimes far-fetched, not -that it is a vain imagination. Can there be anything more obscure than -the _canzoni_ in Dante’s _Convito_, which we have the poet’s own -authority for regarding as allegorical? And if we compare the rival -theories with that which they attempt to displace, can it be said that -Taylor’s dirge-theory,[327] or Umbreit’s storm-theory,[328] or that -adopted by Wright from Wetzstein[329] is more suitable to the poem than -the allegorical theory? Certainly the latter is a very old, if not the -oldest theory, and on a point of this sort the ancients have some claim -to be deferred to. They seem to have felt instinctively that the -intellectual atmosphere of Koheleth (as well as of the Chronicler) was -that of the later Judaism. The following story is related in a Talmudic -treatise.[330] ‘The Emperor asked R. Joshua ben Hananyah, “How is it -that you do not go to the house of Abidan (a place of learned -discussions)?” He said to him, “The mountain is snow (my head is white); -the hoar frosts surround me (my whiskers and my beard are also hoary); -its dogs do not bark (I have lost my wonted power of voice); its millers -do not grind (I have no teeth); the scholars ask me whether I am looking -for something I have not lost (referring probably to the old man feeling -here and there).”’ - -Once more (see i. 2) the mournful motto, ‘Vanity of vanities! saith the -Koheleth; all is vanity’ (xii. 8), and the book in its original form -closes.[331] Did the author himself attach this motto? Surely not, if -the preceding words on the return of the spirit to its God (see above, -on iii. 21) are genuine, for then ‘Vanity of vanities’ would be a patent -misrepresentation. All is _not_ ‘vanity,’ if there is in human nature a -point connecting a man with that world, most distant and yet most near, -where in the highest sense God is. If Koheleth wrote xii. 7_b_, he -cannot have written xii. 8, any more than the author of the _Imitation_ -could have written _Vanitas vanitatum_ both on his first page and on his -last. Yet who but Koheleth can be responsible for it? For the later -editors of whom I have spoken, would be far from approving such a -reversal of the great charter of man’s dignity in the eighth Psalm. To -me, the motto simply says that all Koheleth’s wanderings had but brought -him back to the point from which he started. ‘Grandissima vanità,’ as -Castelli, in his dignified Italian, puts it, ‘tutto è vanità.’ All that -I can assign to the editors in this verse are the parenthetic words -‘saith the Koheleth.’ Everywhere else we find ‘Koheleth;’ here alone, -and perhaps vii. 17 (corrected text), ‘the Koheleth.’[332] - -Let us now consider the Epilogue itself. - - And moreover (it should be said) that Koheleth was a wise man; - further, he taught the people wisdom, and weighed and made search, - (yea) composed many proverbs. Koheleth sought to find out pleasant - words, and he wrote down[333] plainly words of truth. The words of - the wise are like goads, and like nails well driven in; the members - of the assemblies[334] have [in the case of Ecclesiastes] given them - forth from another shepherd.[335] And as for all beyond them, my - son, be warned; of making many books there is no end, and much study - is a weariness of the flesh.—That which the word ‘all is vanity’ - comes to:[336] it is understood (thus), Fear God, and keep His - commandments. For this (concerns) every man. For every work shall - God bring into the judgment (which shall be) upon all that is - concealed and all that is manifest, whether it be good or whether it - be evil. - -This translation has not been reached without some emendations of the -text. It seems to me that everything in this Epilogue ought to be clear. -There is but one verse which contains figurative expressions; the rest -is simple prose. It is only fair, however, to give one of the current -renderings of those verses in which an emendation has been attempted -above. - - Koheleth sought to find out pleasant words and that which was - written down frankly, words of truth. Words of wise men are like - goads, and like nails driven in are those which form collections - [or, the well-compacted sayings, Ewald; or, the well-stored ones, - Kamphausen]—they have been given by one shepherd.... Final result, - all having been heard:—Fear God and keep His commandments, for this - (concerns) every man.[337] - -The first scholar to declare against the genuineness of the Epilogue was -Döderlein (_Scholia in libros V. T. poeticos_, 1779), who was followed -by Bertholdt (_Einleitung_, p. 2250 &c.), Umbreit, Knobel, and De -Jong.[338] It was however a Jewish scholar, Nachman Krochmal,[339] who -first developed an elaborate theory to account for the Epilogue. -According to him, it was added at the final settlement of the Canon at -the Synod of Jamnia, A.D. 90, and was intended as a conclusion not -merely for Ecclesiastes, but for the entire body of Hagiographa. He -thinks (but without any historical ground) that Ecclesiastes was added -at that time to close the Canon. The correctness of this view depends -partly on its author’s interpretation of vv. 11, 12, partly on his -definition of the object of the Synod of Jamnia (see Appendix.) The two -former verses are condensed thus, - - The words of the wise are like ox-goads, and the members of the - Sanhedrin are like firm nails, not to be moved. As for more than - these, beware, my son; of making many books there is no end. - -The ‘wise’ spoken of, thinks Krochmal, are the authors of the several -books of the Hagiographa, and the warning in ver. 12 is directed against -the reception of any other books into the Canon. Whether the Song of -Solomon and Ecclesiastes were to be admitted, was, according to him, a -subject of debate at the Synod referred to. - -But there is no necessity whatever for this interpretation of vv. 11, -12. The phrase, ‘the words of the wise,’ is not a fit description of all -the books of the Hagiographa (of Psalms, Daniel, and Chronicles for -instance), and the warning in ver. 12 more probably has relation to the -proverbial literature in general, such as Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and -the Wisdom of Sirach, or at least to the Book of Proverbs, to which -Kleinert conjectures that Ecclesiastes once formed an appendix. There is -nothing in the Epilogue to suggest a reference to the Canon. The ‘many -books’ spoken of are probably such as did not proceed from thoroughly -orthodox sources. We have absolutely no information as to Jewish -literature outside the Canon. That there was a heterodox literature, has -been inferred by Ewald from Jer. viii. 8, Prov. xxx. 1-4; it is also -clear from several passages in the Book of Enoch. Tyler and Plumptre may -possibly be right in seeing here an allusion to the incipient influence -of Greek literature upon the Jews. This is at any rate more justifiable -than to assume an arrangement of the Hagiographa with Ecclesiastes for -the closing book for which there is no ancient testimony. - -Krochmal’s ingenious theory has, however, been adopted by Jost, Grätz -and Renan,[340] though Renan is willing to admit that vv. 9, 10 may be -from the pen of the author himself. ‘Cet épilogue complète bien la -fiction qui fait la base du livre. Quel motif d’ailleurs eût amené à -faire postérieurement une telle addition?’[341] I do not myself hold -with Krochmal, but vv. 9-12 seem to me to hang together, and I do not -think that the author himself would be at the pains to destroy his own -fiction, whereas a later editor would naturally append the corrective -statement that the real Koheleth was not a king, but a wise man. -(Observe too that ‘Koheleth’ in ver. 8 has the article, but in vv. 9, 10 -is without it, suggesting a change of writer.) I agree however with -Renan that vv. 13, 14, which differ in tone and in form from the -preceding verses, appear to be a later addition than the rest of the -Epilogue. Renan, it is true, distrusts this appearance; he fears a too -complicated hypothesis. But we must at least hold that vv. 13, 14 were -added (whether by the Epilogist or by another) by an after-thought. The -Epilogue should therefore be divided into two parts, vv. 9-12, and vv. -13, 14. In the first part, the real is distinguished from the fictitious -author; his qualifications are described; the editors of his posthumous -work are indicated; and a warning is given to the disciple of the -Epilogist (to apply the words of M. Aurelius) ‘to cast away the thirst -for books.’[342] In the second part, a contradiction is given to what -seemed an unworthy interpretation of a characteristic expression of -Koheleth’s, and the higher view of its meaning is justified—justified, -that is, to those who approach the work from the practical point of view -of those who have as yet no better moral ‘Enchiridion.’[343] - -At what period was the Epilogue added? The consideration of its style -may help us at least to a negative result. The Hebrew approaches that of -the Mishna, but is yet sufficiently distinct from it to be the subject -of expository paraphrase in the Talmuds.[344] It is therefore improbable -that it was added long after the period of the author himself. Books -like Sirach and Koheleth soon became popular, and attracted the -attention of the religious authorities. Interpolation or insertion -seemed the only way to counteract the spiritual danger to unsuspicious -readers. - -Footnote 326: - - The title only belongs to pre-critical writers like Dr. John Smith, - who, in his _Portrait of Old Age_ (1666), sought to show that Solomon - was thoroughly acquainted with recent anatomical discoveries. In - revising my sheets, I observe that even such a fairminded student as - Dean Bradley speaks of ‘the long-drawn anatomical explanations of men - who would replace with a dissector’s report a painter’s touch, a - poet’s melody.’ But the Dean only refers to ver. 6; I understand his - language, though I think him biassed by poetic associations. - -Footnote 327: - - Namely, that vv. 3-5 are cited from an authorised book of dirges - (comp. 2 Chr. xxxv. 25). There seems, however, no assignable reason - for separating these verses from the context. And how can the supposed - mourners have sung the latter part of ver. 5? - -Footnote 328: - - This supposes the approach of death to be described under the imagery - of a gathering storm. - -Footnote 329: - - Namely, that the evil days of the close of life are described by - figures drawn from the ‘seven days of death,’ as the modern Syrians - designate the closing days of their winter. In a native Arabic rhyme, - February says to March, ‘O March, O my cousin, the old women mock at - me: three (days) of thine and four of mine—and we will bring the old - woman to singing (another tune).’ Wright, _Ecclesiastes_, p. 271; - Delitzsch, _Hoheslied und Kohelet_, p. 447. - -Footnote 330: - - _Shabbath_, 151_b_, 152_b_ (Wright, _Ecclesiastes_, p. 262). The - anecdote is given in connection with an allegoric interpretation of - our poem. - -Footnote 331: - - Dean Plumptre and Dr. Wright, however, make this the opening verse of - the Epilogue. But between ver. 8 and that which follows there is no - inner connection. - -Footnote 332: - - The object of the article is perhaps to suggest that Koheleth is not - really a proper name. In vii. 27 we should correct _ām’rāh qōheleth_ - to _āmar haqqōheleth_. Probably these words are an interpolation from - the margin. They are nowhere else used in support of Koheleth’s - opinions. The author of the interpolation may have wished to indicate - his disagreement with Koheleth’s low opinion of women. - -Footnote 333: - - So Aquila, Pesh., Vulg., Grätz, Renan, Klostermann (_v’kāthab_). - -Footnote 334: - - I.e. the assemblies of ‘wise men’ or perhaps of Soferim. Surely - _ba’alē_ must refer to persons. The meaning ‘assemblies’ is justified - by Talmudic passages quoted by Grätz, Delitzsch, and Wright. - -Footnote 335: - - So Klostermann. ‘Shepherd’ must, I think, mean teacher (comp. Jer. ii. - 8, iii. 15 &c.); the expression is suggested by the ‘goads.’ ‘One - shepherd’ (the text-reading) might mean Solomon; and we might go on to - suppose the Solomonic origin of Proverbs as well as Ecclesiastes to be - asserted in this verse. But the author of the Epilogue apparently - considers Koheleth to be merely fictitiously Solomon, but really a - wise man like any other. If so, he cannot have grouped it with - Proverbs as a strictly Solomonic work. - -Footnote 336: - - So Klostermann, regarding this verse down to ‘commandments’ as an - additional note on this difficult saying of Koheleth’s, which was - liable to give offence to orthodox readers. The word ‘(is) vanity’ is - supposed to have dropped out of the text. The object of the note is to - show under what limitations it can be admitted that ‘all is vanity.’ - Then the writer continues, ‘For this (concerns) every man; for every - work’ &c., to show that the limiting precept is not less universally - applicable than Koheleth’s melancholy formula. - -Footnote 337: - - Thus Delitzsch, who takes the ‘words of the wise’ and the - ‘collections’ in ver. 11 to refer at least in part, the former to the - detached sayings, and the latter to the continuous passages, which - together make up Ecclesiastes. The ‘one shepherd’ is held to be God, - so that the clause involves a claim of divine inspiration. - -Footnote 338: - - De Jong’s discussion of the Epilogue deserves special attention (_De - Prediker_, p. 142 &c.); comp. however Kuenen’s reply, _Onderzoek_, - iii. 196 &c. - -Footnote 339: - - Krochmal died in 1840, but his view on the Epilogue first saw the - light in 1851 in vol. xi. of the Hebrew journal _Morè nebūkē hazzemān_ - (see Grätz, _Kohelet_, p. 47). His life is to be found in Zunz, - _Gesammelte Schriften_, ii. 150 &c. - -Footnote 340: - - See Jost (_Gesch. des Judenthums_, i. 42, n. 2). Derenbourg too seems - to tend in this direction (_Revue des études juives_, i. 179, note). - Reuss, Bickell, and Kleinert too agree in denying that ‘Koheleth’ - composed the Epilogue. So also apparently Geiger (_Jüd. Zeitschr._, - iv. 10, Anm.) - -Footnote 341: - - _L’Ecclésiaste_, p. 73. - -Footnote 342: - - _Meditations_, ii. 3. - -Footnote 343: - - I designedly refer to the great work of Epictetus, as its adaptation - by Christian hands to the use of Christian believers to some extent - furnishes a parallel for the editorial adaptation of Ecclesiastes. - -Footnote 344: - - Delitzsch, _Hoheslied u. Koheleth_, p. 215. - - - - - CHAPTER VII. - ECCLESIASTES AND ITS CRITICS (FROM A PHILOLOGICAL POINT OF VIEW). - - -By comparison with Ecclesiastes, the books which we have hitherto been -studying may be called easy; at any rate, they have not given rise to -equally strange diversities of critical opinion. A chapter with the -above heading seems therefore at this point specially necessary. Dr. -Ginsburg’s masterly sketch of the principal theories of the critics down -to 1860 dispenses me, it is true, from attempting an exhaustive -survey.[345] It is not the duty of every teacher of Old Testament -criticism to traverse the history of his subject afresh, any more than -it is that of the commentator as such to begin with a catena of the -opinions of previous writers. Suffice it to call attention to two of the -Jewish and two of the Christian expositors mentioned by Dr. Ginsburg, -viz. Mendelssohn and Luzzatto, and Ewald and Vaihinger. MENDELSSOHN -seems important not so much by his results as by his historical -position. His life marks an era in Biblical study, most of all of course -among the Jews, but to some extent among Christians also. His Hebrew -commentary on Koheleth deserves specially to be remembered, because with -it in 1770 he broke ground anew in grammatical exegesis. To him, as also -to VAIHINGER, the object of Koheleth is to propound the great -consolatory truth of the immortality of the soul, while EWALD, more in -accordance with facts, describes it as being rather to combine all that -is true, however sad, and profitable, and agreeable to the will of God -in a practical handbook adapted to those troublesome times. Ewald and -Vaihinger both divide the book into four sections,—(1) i. 2-ii. 26, (2) -iii. 1-vi. 9, (3) vi. 10-viii. 15, (4) viii. 16-xii. 8, with the -Epilogue xii. 9-14. The latter, whose view is more developed than -Ewald’s, and whom I refer to as closing and summing up a period, -maintains that each section consists of three parts which are again -subdivided—for Koheleth, though you would not think it, is a literary -artist—into strophes and half-strophes, and that the theme of each -section is thrown out, seemingly by chance, but really with consummate -art, in the preceding one. Thus the four sections interlace, and the -unity of the book is established. The Epilogue, too, according to -Vaihinger, can thus be proved to be the work of the author of Koheleth; -for it does but ratify and develope what has already been indicated in -xi. 9, and without it the connection of ideas would be incomplete.[346] -I think that our experience of some interpreters of the Book of Job may -predispose us to be sceptical of such ingenious subtleties, and I notice -that more recent critics show a tendency to insist less on the logical -distribution of the contents and to regard the book, not indeed as a -mere collection of rules of conduct, but at any rate as a record of a -practical and not a scholastic philosopher. This tendency is not indeed -of recent origin, though it has increased in favour of late years. Prior -the poet had already said that Ecclesiastes ‘is not a regular and -perfect treatise, but that in it great treasures are “heaped up together -in a confused magnificence;”’[347] Bishop Lowth, that ‘the connection of -the arguments is involved in much obscurity;’[348] while Herder, in his -letters to a theological student, had penned this wise though too -enthusiastic sentence, which cuts at the root of all attempts at logical -analysis, - - Kein Buch ist mir aus dem Alterthum bekannt, welches die Summe des - menschlichen Lebens, seine Abwechselungen und Nichtigkeiten in - Geschäften, Entwürfen, Speculationen und Vergnügen, zugleich mit dem - was einzig in ihm wahr, daurend, fortgehend, wechselnd, lohnend ist, - reicher, eindringlicher, kürzer beschriebe, als dieses.[349] - -But I must retrace my steps. One of my four critics has yet to be -briefly characterised—S. D. LUZZATTO of Padua, best known as the author -of a Hebrew commentary on Isaiah, but also a master in later Hebrew and -Aramaic scholarship. As a youth of twenty-four he wrote a deeply felt -and somewhat eccentrically ingenious treatise on Koheleth, which he kept -by him till 1860, when it appeared in one of the annual volumes of -essays and reviews called Ozar Nechmad. In it he maintains, with -profound indignation at the unworthy post-Exile writer, that the Book of -Ecclesiastes denies the immortality of the soul, and recommends a life -of sensuous pleasure. The writer’s name, however, was, he thinks, -Koheleth, and his fraud in assuming the name of Solomon was detected by -the wise men of his time, who struck out the assumed name and -substituted Koheleth (leaving however the words ‘son of David, king in -Jerusalem,’ as a record of the imposture). Later students, however, were -unsuspicious enough to accept the work as Solomon’s, and being unable to -exclude a Solomonic writing from the Canon, they inserted three -qualifying half-verses of an orthodox character, viz. ‘and know that for -all this God will bring thee into judgment’ (xi. 6_b_); ‘and remember -thy Creator in the days of thy youth’ (xii. 1_a_); ‘and the spirit shall -return to God who gave it’ (xii. 8_b_). This latter view, which has the -doubtful support of a Talmudic passage,[350] appears to me, though from -the nature of the case uncertain, and susceptible, as I think, of -modification, yet in itself probable as restoring harmony to the book, -and in accordance with the treatment of other Biblical texts by the -Soferim (or students and editors of Scripture). Geiger may have fallen -into infinite extravagances, but he has at any rate shown that the early -Soferim modified many passages in the interests of orthodoxy and -edification.[351] If so, they did but carry on the process already begun -by the authors of the sacred books themselves; it may be enough to -remind my readers of the gradual supplementing of the original Book of -Job by later writers. To the three passages of Koheleth mentioned above, -must be added, as Geiger saw,[352] the two postscripts which form the -Epilogue. From the close of the last century a series of writers have -felt the difficulties of this section so strongly that they have -assigned it to one or more later writers, and in truth, although these -difficulties may be partly removed, enough remains to justify the -obelising of the passage. - -There is no evidence that Luzzatto ever retracted the critical view -mentioned above. To the character of the author, it is true, he became -more charitable in his later years. I do not think the worse of him for -his original antipathy. An earnest believer himself and of fiery -temperament, he could not understand the cool and cautious reflective -spirit of the much-tried philosopher;[353] and as a lover of the rich, -and, as the result of development, comparatively flexible Hebrew tongue, -he took a dislike to a writer so wanting in facility and grace as -Koheleth.[354] It was an error, but a noble one, and it shows that -Luzzatto found in the study of criticism a school of moral culture as -well as of literary insight. - -The adoption of Luzzatto’s view,[355] combined with Döderlein’s as to -the epilogue, removes the temptation to interpret Koheleth as the -apology of any particular philosophical or theological doctrine. The -author now appears, not indeed thoroughly consistent, but at least in -his true light as a thinker tossed about on the sea of speculation, and -without any fixed theoretic conclusions. Without agreeing to more than -the relative lateness of the epilogue, DE JONG,[356] a Dutch scholar, -recognises the true position of Koheleth, and in the psychological -interest of the book sees a full compensation for the want of logical -arrangement. De Jong indeed was not acquainted with the theory of -Nachman Krochmal, which if sound throws such great light on the reason -of the addition of the epilogue (see end of Chap. VI.) This has been -accepted by Grätz and Renan, but, as I have ventured to think, upon -insufficient grounds. The brevity of my reference to these two eminent -exegetes must be excused by my inability to follow either of them in his -main conclusions. The glossary of peculiar words and the excursus on the -Greek translation given by the former (1871) possess a permanent value, -and there is much of historical interest in his introduction. But I -agree with Kuenen that the student who selects Grätz as his guide will -have much to unlearn afterwards.[357] In order to show that Ecclesiastes -is a politico-religious satire levelled against king Herod, with the -special object of correcting certain evil tendencies among the Jews of -that age, Grätz is compelled to have recourse to much perverse exegesis -which I have no inclination to criticise.[358] Renan’s present view -differs widely from that given in his great unfinished history of the -Semitic languages. But I shall have occasion to refer to his -determination of the date of our book later. - -Among recent English students, no one will refuse the palm of acuteness -and originality to TYLER (1874). His strength lies not in translation -and exegesis, but in the consistency with which he has applied his -single key, viz. the comparison of the book with Stoic and Epicurean -teaching. He is fully aware that the book has no logical divisions. -Antithesis and contradiction is the fundamental characteristic of the -book. Not that the author contradicts himself (comp. the quotation from -Ibn Ezra in Ginsburg’s _Coheleth_, p. 57), but that a faithful index of -the contradictions of the two great philosophical schools gives a -greater point to his concluding warning against philosophy. It is the -‘sacrificio dell’ intelletto’ which the author counsels. But Mr. Tyler’s -theory or at least his point of view demands a separate consideration. -It may however be fairly said here that by general consent Mr. Tyler has -done something to make the influence of Greek philosophical ideas upon -Ecclesiastes a more plausible opinion. - -To a subsequent chapter I must also beg to refer the reader for a notice -of Gustav BICKELL’S hypothesis (1884) relative to the fortunes (or -misfortunes) of the text of Koheleth. This critic is not one of those -who grant that the book had from the first no logical division, and his -hypothesis is one of the boldest and most plausible in the history of -criticism. Its boldness is in itself no defect, but I confess I -desiderate that caution which is the second indispensable requisite in a -great critic. The due admixture of these two qualities nature has not -yet granted. Meantime the greatest successes are perhaps attained by -those who are least self-confident, least ambitious of personal -distinction. Upon the whole, from the point of view of the student -proper, are there more thankworthy contributions to criticism not less -than to exegesis than the books of PLUMPTRE (1881), NOWACK (1883), and -above all the accomplished _altmeister_ Franz DELITZSCH (1875)? Whatever -has been said before profitably and well, may be known by him who will -consult these three accomplished though not faultless expositors. I -would not be supposed to detract from other writers,[359] but I believe -that the young student will not repent limiting himself, not indeed to -one, but to three commentaries. - -Footnote 345: - - For the Jewish traditions and theories, see further Schiffer, _Das - Buch Kohelet nach der Auffassung der Weisen des Talmud und Midrasch - und der jüdischen Erklärer des Mittelalters_, Theil 1, Leipzig, 1885; - and to complete Dr. Ginsburg’s survey of the literature, see Zöckler’s - list in Lange’s Commentary and the additions to this in the American - edition; also the preface to Wright’s treatise on Ecclesiastes. - -Footnote 346: - - See Vaihinger’s article in Herzog’s _Realencyclopädie_, xii. 92-106. I - have not seen his book on Ecclesiastes (1858). - -Footnote 347: - - Ginsburg, _Coheleth_, p. 168. - -Footnote 348: - - Ibid., p. 178. - -Footnote 349: - - _Werke_ (Suphan), x. 134. - -Footnote 350: - - _Shabbath_, 97_a_ (see Ginsburg, p. 98). - -Footnote 351: - - See his _Urschrift und Uebersetzungen der Bibel_ (1857). - -Footnote 352: - - _Jüdische Zeitschrift_, iv. 9 &c. - -Footnote 353: - - David Castelli, a cool and cautious scholar but not original, is - naturally better fitted to appreciate Koheleth (see _Il libro del - Kohelet_, Pisa, 1866). - -Footnote 354: - - ‘Die harte, ungefügige, tiefgesunkene Sprache des Buches entzog ihm in - Luzzatto’s Auge den verklärenden Lichtglanz; er blickte mit einer - gewissen Missachtung auf den Schriftsteller, der sowenig Meister der - edlen ihn erfüllenden Sprache war’ (Geiger). - -Footnote 355: - - Not only Geiger, but the learned and fairminded Kalisch, has made this - view his own (_Bible Studies_, i. 65); among Christian scholars it has - been adopted by Nöldeke and Bickell (the latter includes iii. 17 among - the inserted passages, and I incline to follow him). - -Footnote 356: - - _De Prediker vertaald en verklaart_ door P. de Jong (Leiden, 1861). - -Footnote 357: - - _Theologisch Tijdschrift_, 1883, p. 114. - -Footnote 358: - - See however Kuenen’s condensed criticism in _Theol. Tijdschrift_, p. - 127 &c. - -Footnote 359: - - Hitzig, for instance, has been passed over in spite of Nöldeke’s - judgment that no modern scholar has done so much for the detailed - explanation of the text. This may be true, or at least be but a small - exaggeration. No critic has so good a right to the name as Hitzig, - who, though weak in his treatment of ideas, has the keenest perception - of what is possible and impossible in interpretation. But for the - larger critical questions Hitzig has not done much; the editor of the - second edition of his commentary (Nowack) has therefore been obliged - to rewrite the greater part of the introduction. The historical - background of the book cannot be that supposed by Hitzig, nor has he - hit the mark in his description of Koheleth as ‘eine planmässig - fortschreitende Untersuchung.’ Wright fails, I venture to think, from - different causes. He is slightly too timid, and deficient in literary - art; and yet his scholarly work does honour to the Protestant clergy - of Ireland. - - - - - CHAPTER VIII. -ECCLESIASTES AND ITS CRITICS (FROM A LITERARY AND PSYCHOLOGICAL POINT OF - VIEW). - - -It is not every critic of Ecclesiastes who helps the reader to enjoy the -book which is criticised. Too much criticism and too little taste have -before now spoiled many excellent books on the Old Testament. -Ecclesiastes needs a certain preparation of the mind and character, a -certain ‘elective affinity,’ in order to be appreciated as it deserves. -To enjoy it, we must find our own difficulties and our own moods -anticipated in it. We must be able to sympathise with its author either -in his world-weariness and scepticism or in his victorious struggle (if -so be it was victorious) through darkness into light. We must at any -rate have a taste for the development of character, and an ear for the -fragments of truth which a much-tried pilgrim gathered up in his -twilight wanderings. Never so much as in our own time have this taste -and this ear been so largely possessed, as a recent commentary has shown -in delightful detail, and I can only add to the names furnished by the -writer that of one who perhaps least of all should be omitted, Miss -Christina Rossetti.[360] But to prove the point in my own way, let me -again select four leading critics, as representatives not so much of -philology as of that subtle and variable thing—the modern spirit, viz. -RENAN, GRÄTZ, STANLEY, and PLUMPTRE. The first truly is a modern of the -moderns, though it is not every modern who will subscribe to his -description of Ecclesiastes as ‘livre charmant, le seul livre aimable -qui ait été composé par un Juif’[361] One might excuse it perhaps if in -some degree dictated by a bitter grief at the misfortunes of his -country; pessimism might be natural in 1872. But alas! ten years later -the same view is repeated and deliberately justified, nor can the author -of Koheleth be congratulated. He is now described[362] as ‘le charmant -écrivain qui nous a laissé cette délicieuse fantaisie philosophique, -aimant la vie, tout en en voyant la vanité,’ or, as a French reviewer -condenses the delicate phrases of his author, ‘homme du monde et de la -bonne société, qui n’est, à proprement parler, ni blasé ni fatigué, mais -qui sait en toutes choses garder la mesure, sans enthousiasme, sans -indignation, et sans exaltation d’aucune espèce.’ A speaking portrait of -a Parisian _philosophe_, but does it fit the author of Ecclesiastes? No; -Koheleth has had too hard a battle with his own tongue to be a ‘charming -writer,’ and even if not exactly _blasé_ (see however ii. 1-11), he is -‘fatigued’ enough with the oppressive burdens of Jewish life in the -second century B.C. That he has no enthusiasm, and none of those visions -which are the ‘creators and feeders of the soul,’[363] is cause for -pity, not for admiration; but that he has had no visitings of _sæva -indignatio_, is an unjust inference from his acquired calmness of -demeanour. He is an amiable egoïst, says M. Renan; but would Koheleth -have troubled himself to write as he does, if egoïsm were the ripened -fruit of his life’s experience? Why does this critic give such generous -sympathy to the Ecclesiastes of the Slav race,[364] and such doubtful -praise to his great original? It is true, Koheleth _seems_ to despair of -the future, but only perhaps of the immediate future (iii. 21), and -Turgenieff does this too. ‘Will the right men come?’ asks one of the -personages of Turgenieff’s _Helen_, and his friend, as the only reply, -directs a questioning look into the distance. That is the Russian -philosopher’s last word; Koheleth has not told us his. His literary -executors, no doubt, have forced a last word upon him; but we have an -equal right to imagine one for ourselves. M. Renan ‘likes to dream of a -Paul become sceptical and disenchanted;’[365] his Koheleth is an only -less unworthy dream. M. Renan praises Koheleth for the moderation of his -philosophising; he repeatedly admits that there was an element of truth -in the Utopianism of the prophets; why not ‘dream’ that Koheleth felt, -though he either ventured not or had no time left to express it, some -degree of belief in the destiny of his country? - -M. Renan, in fact, seems to me at once to admire Koheleth too much, and -to justify his admiration on questionable grounds. It might have been -hoped that the unlikeness of this book to the other books of the Canon -would have been the occasion of a worthy and a satisfying estimate from -this accomplished master. A critic of narrower experience represents -Koheleth partly as a cynical Hebrew Pasquin, who satirises the hated -foreigner, Herod the Great, and the minions of his court, partly as an -earnest opponent of a dangerous and growing school of ascetics. I refer -to this theory here, not to criticise it, but to call attention to its -worthier conception of Koheleth’s character. The tendency of -Ecclesiastes Dr. Grätz considers to be opposed to the moral and -religious principles of Judaism and Christianity, but to the man as -distinguished from his book he does full justice. It is a mistake when -this writer’s theory is represented by Dean Plumptre as making Koheleth -teach ‘a license like that of a St. Simonian rehabilitation of the -flesh.’[366] Koheleth’s choice of language is not indeed in good taste, -but it was only a crude way of emphasising his opposition to a dangerous -spirit of asceticism. Such at least is Dr. Grätz’s view. ‘Koheleth is -not the slave of an egoïstic eudemonism, but merely seeks to counteract -pietistic self-mortification.’[367] Dr. Grätz thinks, too, and rightly, -that he can detect an old-fashioned Judaism in the supposed sceptical -philosopher: Koheleth controverts the new tenet of immortality, but not -that of the resurrection. I am anticipating again, but do so in order to -contrast the sympathetic treatment of the Breslau professor with the -unsympathetic or at least unsuitable portraiture of Koheleth given by -the Parisian critic. - -Of all writers known to me, however, none is so sympathetic to Koheleth -as Dr. Plumptre, in whose pleasing article in Smith’s Dictionary we have -the germ of the most interesting commentary in the language. A still -wider popularity was given to the Herder-Plumptre theory by Dr. Stanley, -who eloquently describes Ecclesiastes as ‘an interchange of voices, -higher and lower, within a single human soul.’ ‘It is like,’ he -continues, ‘the perpetual strophe and antistrophe of Pascal’s _Pensées_. -But it is more complicated, more entangled, than any of these, in -proportion as the circumstances from which it grows are more perplexing, -as the character which it represents is vaster, and grander, and more -distracted.’[368] In his later work, Dr. Plumptre aptly compares the -‘Two Voices’ of our own poet (strictly, he remarks, there are three -voices in Ecclesiastes), in which, as in Koheleth, though more -decidedly, the voice of faith at last prevails over that of -pessimism.[369] I fear, however, that Dr. Plumptre’s generous impulse -carries him farther than sober criticism can justify. The aim of writing -an ‘ideal biography’ closing with the ‘victory of faith’ seems to me to -have robbed his pen of that point which, though sometimes dangerous, is -yet indispensable to the critic. The theory of the ‘alternate voices,’ -of which Dr. Plumptre is, not the first,[370] but the most eloquent -advocate, seems to me to be an offspring of the modern spirit. It is so -very like their own case—the dual nature[371] which a series of refined -critics has attributed to Koheleth, that they involuntarily invest -Koheleth with the peculiar qualities of modern seekers after truth. To -them, in a different sense from M. Renan’s, Ecclesiastes is ‘un livre -aimable,’ just as Marcus Aurelius and Omar Khayyâm are the favourite -companions of those who prefer more consistent thinking. - -Certainly the author of Ecclesiastes might well be satisfied with the -interest so widely felt in his very touching confidences. It is the -contents, of course, which attract so many of our contemporaries—not the -form: only a student of Hebrew can appreciate the toilsome pleasure of -solving philosophical enigmas. And yet M. Renan has made it possible -even for an _exigeant_ Parisian to enjoy, not indeed the process, but -the results, of philological inquiry, in so far as they reveal the -literary characteristics of this unique work; he has, indeed, in his -function of artistic translator, done Koheleth even more than justice. -In particular, his translations of the rhythmic passages of Koheleth -which relieve the surrounding prose are real _tours de force_. These -passages M. Renan, following M. Derenbourg,[372] regards as quotations -from lost poetical works, reminding us that such poetical quotations are -common in Arabic literature. To represent in his translation the -character of the Hebrew rhythm, which is ‘dancing, light, and -pretentiously elegant,’ M. Renan adopts the metres of Old French poetry. -‘Il s’agissait de calquer en français des sentences conçues dans le ton -dégagé, goguenard et pru-d’homme à la fois de Pibrac, de Marculfe ou de -Chatonnet, de produire un saveur analogue à celle de nos quatrains de -moralités ou de nos vieux proverbes en bouts-rimés.’ Of the poem on old -age he says that it is ‘une sorte de joujou funèbre qu’on dirait ciselé -par Banville ou par Théophile Gautier et que je trouve supérieur même -aux quatrains de Khayyâm.’[373] I should have thought the comparison -very unjust to the Persian poet. To me, I confess, the prelude or -overture (i. 4-8), though not in rhythmic Hebrew, is the gem of the -book. Questionable though its tendency may seem, if we look at the -context, its poetry is of elemental force, and appeals to the modern -reader in some of his moods more than almost anything else in the Old -Testament outside the Book of Job. I cannot help alluding to Carlyle’s -fine application of its imagery in _Sartor Resartus_, ‘Generations are -as the Days of toilsome Mankind: Death and Birth are the vesper and the -matin bells, that summon mankind to sleep, and to rise refreshed for new -advancement.’ How differently Koheleth,— - - One generation goeth, another cometh; - but the earth abideth for ever: - And the sun ariseth, and the sun goeth down, - and panteth unto his place where he ariseth: - It goeth to the south, and whirleth about unto the north, - the wind whirleth about continually; - and upon his circuits the wind returneth. - All streams run into the sea, and the sea is not full; - unto the place whither the streams go, thither they go again. - All things are full of weariness; no man can utter it; - the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with - hearing. - -Compare with this the words, so Greek in tone, of xi. 7, as well as the -constantly recurring formula ‘under the sun’ (e.g. i. 3, iv. 3). We can -see that even Koheleth was affected by nature, but without any -lightening of his load of trial. The wide-open eye of day seemed to mock -him by its unfeeling serenity. He lacked that susceptibility for the -whispered lessons of nature which the poet of _Job_ so pre-eminently -possessed; he lacked too the great modern conception of progress, -embodied in that fine passage from Carlyle. He was prosaic and -unimaginative, and it is partly because there is so little poetry in -Ecclesiastes that there is so little Christianity. But I am already -passing to another order of considerations, without which indeed we -cannot estimate this singular autobiography aright. We have next to -consider Koheleth from a directly religious and moral point of view. - -Footnote 360: - - See especially her early sonnet ‘Vanity of Vanities,’ and her striking - poem ‘A Testimony.’ - -Footnote 361: - - _L’Antéchrist_, p. 101. - -Footnote 362: - - _L’Ecclésiaste_, pp. 24, 90. - -Footnote 363: - - Mordecai in _Daniel Deronda_. - -Footnote 364: - - See his funeral _éloge_, reprinted in _Academy_, Oct. 13, 1883, p. - 248. - -Footnote 365: - - _L’Antéchrist_, p. 200. - -Footnote 366: - - _Ecclesiastes_, p. 8. - -Footnote 367: - - Grätz, _Kohelet_, p. 33. - -Footnote 368: - - _Jewish Church_, ii. 256. - -Footnote 369: - - _Ecclesiastes_, pp. 53, 259. - -Footnote 370: - - See the passage from Herder quoted in Appendix (end). - -Footnote 371: - - Comp. Jacobi’s confession (imitated by Coleridge?) that he was with - the head a heathen, and with the heart a Christian. - -Footnote 372: - - _Revue des études juives_, i. 165-185. I do not myself see why - Koheleth, who sought ‘pleasant words,’ should not have written poetry - as well as prose. - -Footnote 373: - - _L’Ecclésiaste_, pp. 83, 84. - - - - - CHAPTER IX. - ECCLESIASTES FROM A MORAL AND RELIGIOUS POINT OF VIEW. - - -We have seen how large a Christian element penetrates and glorifies the -bold questionings of the Book of Job. Whatever be our view on obscure -problems of criticism, the character-drama which the book in its present -form presents is one which it almost requires a Christian to appreciate -adequately. It is different with the Book of Ecclesiastes. ‘He who will -allow that book to speak for itself, and does not read other meanings -into almost every verse, must feel at every step that he is breathing a -different atmosphere from that of the teaching of the Gospels.’[374] -Still more is this the case if we claim the right of free criticism, and -deny that the hints of a growing tendency to believe are due to the -morbidly sceptical author of the book (if it may be called a book). -Certainly the religious use of Koheleth is more directly affected by -modern criticism and exegesis than that of any other Old Testament -writing. The early theologians could dispense with criticism, because -they so frequently allegorised or unconsciously gave a gentle twist to -the literal meaning. But we, if for a religious purpose we use the book -uncritically, must be well aware that we often misrepresent both the -author of Koheleth himself and Christian faith. Let me only mention -three texts in the use of which this misrepresentation very commonly -takes place. The fixity of the spiritual state in which a man is at -death may or may not be an essential Christian doctrine, but we have no -right to quote either Koheleth’s despairing description of the inert -life of the shades (ix. 10), or the proverbial saying on the -unalterableness of the laws of nature (xi. 3), in support of this; nor -is it well to adopt a phrase (descriptive of Sheól) from xii. 5, which -favours the false idea expressed in the too common ‘Here lieth’ of the -churchyard. Anticipations of really fundamental Christian doctrines are, -I admit, rarely sought for in Ecclesiastes. It is well that this should -be so. How completely the evangelical elements in Jewish religion had -been obscured later on in this period, we have seen from the Wisdom of -Sirach. It seemed in fact as if the only alternatives then for a -thoughtful Jew were a more or less strict legal orthodoxy and a resigned -acquiescence in things as they were, brightened only by gleams, eagerly -hailed, of intellectual or sensuous pleasure. Sirach chose the former of -these, Koheleth the latter. Koheleth’s was not in itself the better -choice. But the worse alternative needed perhaps to be stated as -forcibly as possible, that men might see the rock and avoid shipwreck. -Ecclesiastes, like the first part of Goethe’s _Faust_, may, with the -fullest justice, be called an apology for Christianity, not as -containing anticipations of Christian truth—the error of -Hengstenberg;[375] but inasmuch as it shows that neither wisdom, nor any -other human good or human pleasure, brings permanent satisfaction to -man’s natural longings. It is at any rate a contribution towards the -negative criticism with which such an apology must begin, just as the -Book of Job is a contribution, or a series of contributions, towards a -more perfect and evangelical theodicy. - -There is at least one point, then, which the moral and religious critic -of Ecclesiastes can adopt out of all the strangely distorted views of -patristic writers, so ably summed up by Dr. Ginsburg in his -Introduction, viz. that the gloomy sentence, _Vanitas vanitatum_, is -perfectly accurate when applied to the life of Koheleth, but only to a -life like his. Thomas à Kempis could prelude with two verses from -Koheleth (i. 2, 8), but he could only prelude. A life of true -service—one whose centre is outside self or family or even nation—is not -vanity nor vexation of spirit: Koheleth might have added this as the -burden of a second part of his book. But did he not actually append it -as his epilogue? Did he not ‘faintly trust’ the hope of immortality -(xii. 7)? Did he not work his way back to a living faith, like ‘Asaph’ -in Ps. lxxiii.? There is no question that the book was admitted into the -Canon on the assumption that he did. As a great Jewish preacher says, -the book [in its present form] opens with Nothingness, but closes with -the fear of God.[376] It is parallel in this respect to many Jewish -lives, like that of Heine, which may be described as the prodigal son’s -quest of his long-lost father. Accepting this view, we may join with -another Jewish writer in his admiration of the influences of Jewish -theism, which were then at least so strong that a consistent Jewish -sceptic was an impossibility. ‘It is this,’ he remarks, ‘that gives the -peculiar charm to this little book.’[377] It is impossible to give a -conclusive refutation of this view, which I should like to believe true, -but which seems to me to labour under exegetical difficulties. To me, -Koheleth is not a theist in any vital sense in his philosophic -meditations, and his so-called ‘last word’ seems forced upon him by -later scribes, just as Sirach’s orthodoxy was at any rate heightened in -colour by subsequent editors. To me, Derenbourg’s view is a dream, -though an edifying one. It may be that the author did return to the -simple faith of his childhood. He certainly never lost his theism, -though pale and cheerless it was indeed, and utterly unable to stand -against the assaults of doubt and despondency. It may be that history, -neglected history, taught him at last to believe in the divine guidance -of the fortunes of Israel. I would fain imagine this retracing of the -weary pilgrim’s steps; but other and less pleasing dreams to a Christian -are equally possible and I do not venture to accept the return of the -prodigal as a well-authenticated fact. - -We must remember too that the troubled wanderer had not really so many -steps to retrace. Much that both Christians and Jews now regard as -essential to faith was not, in the time of Koheleth, commonly so -regarded. I am well aware of the great intuitions of some of the -psalmists at certain sublime moments, and admit that they seem to us to -lead naturally on to our own orthodoxy. But these intuitions could not -and did not possess the force of dogmas. The great doctrines of the -Resurrection and of Immortality had long to wait for a moderate degree -of acceptance (they were not held, for instance, by Sirach), and longer -still before they coalesced in a new and greater doctrine of the future -life. Koheleth’s dissatisfaction with the doctrine of present -retribution (the central point both of his heterodoxy and of Job’s) -might have helped him to accept the former of these. His acquaintance -with non-Jewish philosophical literature, if we may venture to assume -this as a fact, might have led him, as it led the author of the Wisdom -of Solomon, to embrace the hope of immortality. But though there -probably is an allusion to this hope as well-founded in xii. 7_b_, we -have seen reason to doubt whether the words came from Koheleth himself; -at any rate, they are isolated, and many do not admit the allusion. -Either of these doctrines would have saved Koheleth from despondency had -he accepted it. From our present point of view, we must blame him for -not accepting one refuge or the other, or even that simpler belief in -the imperishableness of the Jewish race which Sirach had, and which has -preserved so many Israelitish hearts in trials as severe as Koheleth’s. -There must have been a strange weakness in his moral fibre; how else can -we account either for his want of Jewish feeling or, I would now add, -using the word in its looser sense, for his pessimism? As Huber has well -observed,[378] none of the ancient peoples was naturally less inclined -to pessimism than the Jews, so that a work like Ecclesiastes is a -portent in the Old Testament, and alien to the spirit of true Judaism. I -cannot wonder that both Jews and Christians have now and again been -repelled by this strange book[379] and denied its title to canonicity, -partly for its pessimism, partly for its supposed Epicureanism, or that -the author of the Book of Wisdom before them should have given Koheleth -the most scathing of condemnations by putting almost its very language -into the mouth of the ungodly.[380] The true student may no doubt be -equally severe upon Koheleth for his despair of wisdom and depreciation -of its delights (i. 17, 18, ii. 15, 16), which are hardly redeemed by -the utilitarian sayings in vii. 11, 12. - -I cannot justify Koheleth, but I can plead for a mitigation of these -censures, and altogether defend the admission of the Book (not, of -course, as Solomonic) into the sacred Canon. Whether Jewish or not, the -pessimistic theory of life has a sound kernel. ‘Our sadness,’ as Thoreau -says, ‘is not sad, but our cheap joys. Let us be sad about all we see -and are, for so we demand and pray for better. It is the constant prayer -[of the good] and whole Christian religion.’[381] This too is the burden -of E. von Hartmann’s criticism of a crudely optimistic Christianity; and -need we reject the truth for the extravagances of the teacher? Next, as -to the preference of sensuous enjoyment to philosophic pursuits in -Koheleth. I would not seek to weaken passages like ii. 24, viii. 15, by -putting them down to the irony of a _sæva indignatio_. But as for the -depreciation of intellectual pleasure, may it not be excused by the -author’s want of a sure prospect of the ‘age to come’ such as we find in -those lines of Davenant,[382] - - Before by death you nearer knowledge gain - (For to increase your knowledge you must die), - Tell me if all that knowledge be not vain, - On which we proudly in this life rely. - -And as to the commendations of sensuous pleasure, have they not a -relative justification?[383] The legalism of the ‘righteous overmuch’ -threatened already perhaps to make life an intolerable burden. And -though Koheleth erred in the form of his teaching, yet he did well to -teach the ‘duty of delight’ (Ruskin) and to oppose an orthodoxy which -sought, not merely to transform, but to kill nature. It is to his credit -that he touches on the relations of the sexes with such studious -reserve.[384] As a rule, the enjoyments which he recommends are those of -the table, which in Sirach’s time (Ecclus. xxxii. 3-5) and perhaps also -in Koheleth’s included music and singing,—in short, festive but refined -society. His praise of festive mirth is at any rate more excusable -morally than Omar Khayyâm’s impassioned commendations of the -wine-cup.[385] As Jeremy Taylor says, ‘It was the best thing that was -then commonly known that they should seize upon the present with a -temperate use of permitted pleasures.’[386] Lastly, the admission of the -book into the Canon is (perhaps we may say) not less providential than -that of the Song of Songs. The latter shows us human nature in simple -and healthy relations of life; the former, a human nature in a morbid -state and in depressed and artificial circumstances. How to return at -least to inward simplicity and health, the latter part (not the -Epilogue) of the Book of Job beautifully shows us. - -Our great idealist poet Shelley, who so admired Job, disliked -Ecclesiastes for the same reason as the ancient heretics already -mentioned. One greater than he, our ‘sage and serious’ Milton, justifies -the sacred Scripture for the variety of its contents on the same ground -that he advocates ‘unlicensed printing.’ Both are ‘for the trial of -virtue and the exercise of truth.’ We need not, then, he says, be -surprised if the Bible ‘brings in holiest men passionately murmuring -against Providence through all the arguments of Epicurus.’[387] The -Bible, according to Milton, is perfect not in spite but because of its -variety; it is like the rugged ‘mountains of God,’ not like the -symmetrical works of human art. But Milton has also reminded us that a -fool may misuse even sacred Scripture. - -Footnote 374: - - Dean Bradley, _Lectures on Ecclesiastes_ (1885), p. 7. - -Footnote 375: - - See _Der Prediger Salomo_ (1859). Hengstenberg misses, it is true, any - direct reference to the Christian hope, but finds the idea of - chastisement as a proof of divine love in iii. 18, vii. 2-4, an - emphatic affirmation of eternal life in iii. 21, and the resignation - of a faith like Job’s in iii. 11, vii. 24, viii. 17, xi. 5. Koheleth’s - questionings are therefore according to him ‘eine heilige - Philosophie.’ - -Footnote 376: - - Preface to vol. iii. of S. Holdheim’s _Predigten_. - -Footnote 377: - - J. Derenbourg, _Revue des études juives_, No. 2, Oct. 1880. - -Footnote 378: - - _Der Pessimismus_, 1876, p. 8. Schopenhauer too calls the Jews the - most optimistic race in history. - -Footnote 379: - - See Appendix. - -Footnote 380: - - Wisd. ii. 6; comp. Plumptre, _Ecclesiastes_, p. 71 &c., Wright, - _Koheleth_, pp. 69, 70. - -Footnote 381: - - _Letters to Various Persons_, p. 25. - -Footnote 382: - - See the extracts in Trench’s _Household Book of English Poetry_, p. - 405. - -Footnote 383: - - I do not of course assent to the form in which Grätz puts this, to - serve his hypothesis as to the age of Koheleth. See Appendix. - -Footnote 384: - - Once Koheleth appears as a sharp critic of the female sex (vii. - 26-29). - -Footnote 385: - - Lagarde describes Omar as ‘ein schlemmer, der die angst des irdischen - daseins und die öde langeweile seiner noch in den anfängen stehenden - wissenschaft hinwegzuschwelgen suchte’ (_Symmicta_, 1877, p. 9). Too - hard a judgment perhaps on this changeful and impressionable nature. - See Bodenstedt’s version as well as Fitzgerald’s. - -Footnote 386: - - _The Rule and Exercises of Holy Dying_, chap. i., sect. 3. Parts of - this chapter remind us strongly of Koheleth, and are strange indeed in - a book of Christian devotion. - -Footnote 387: - - _Prose Works_, ed. Bohn, ii. 69. - - - - - CHAPTER X. - DATE AND PLACE OF COMPOSITION. - - -Jewish tradition, while admitting a Hezekian or post-Hezekian redaction -of the book, assigns the original authorship of Ecclesiastes to Solomon. -The Song of Songs it regards as the monument of this king’s early -manhood, the Book of Proverbs of his middle age, and the -semi-philosophical meditations before us as the work of his old age. The -tradition was connected by the Aggada with the favourite legend[388] of -the discrowned Solomon, but is based upon the book itself, the passages -due to the literary fiction of Solomon’s authorship (which Bickell -indeed attributes to an interpolator) having been misunderstood. Would -that the author of the _Lectures on the Jewish Church_ had given the -weight of his name to the true explanation of these passages! The -reticence of the lines devoted in the second volume of the _Lectures_ to -Ecclesiastes has led some critics to imagine that according to Dean -Stanley, this book, like much of Proverbs, might possibly be the work of -the ‘wisest’ of Israel’s kings. Little had the author profited by Ewald -if he really allowed such an absolute legend the smallest -standing-ground among reasonable hypotheses! Whichever way we look, -whether to the social picture, or to the language, or to the ideas of -the book, its recent origin forces itself upon us. The social picture -and the ideas need not detain us here. Either Solomon was transported in -prophetic ecstasy to far distant times (the Targum on Koheleth -frequently describes him as a prophet), or the writer is a child of the -dawning modern age of Judaism. The former alternative is plainly -impossible. Political servitude, and a generally depressed state of -society (exceptional cases of prosperity notwithstanding), mark the book -as the work of a dark post-Exile period. The absence of any national -feeling equally distinguishes it from the monuments of the earlier -humanistic movement (even from Job). The germs of philosophic thought, -which cannot be explained away, supply, if this be possible, a still -more convincing argument. We shall return to these later on: at present, -let us confine ourselves to the linguistic evidence, which has been set -forth with such accuracy and completeness by Delitzsch[389] and after -him by Dr. Wright of Dublin. - -The Hebrew language has no history if Ecclesiastes belongs to the -classical period; indeed, the Hebrew name of the book may seem of itself -to stamp it as of post-Exile origin (see note on Koheleth in Appendix). -The student would do well, however, to examine all the peculiar words or -forms in Delitzsch’s glossary, and to classify them for himself, under -two principal heads, (1) those which occur elsewhere but in -distinctively late-Hebrew books, (2) those only found in Koheleth, with -four subdivisions, viz., (_a_) words which can be explained from -Biblical Hebrew usage, (_b_) those which belong to the vocabulary of the -Mishna, (_c_) those of Aramaic origin and affinities, (_d_) those -borrowed from non-Semitic languages. The student should also notice the -striking grammatical peculiarities of Koheleth, especially the fact that -the ordinary historic tense (the imperfect with Waw consecutive) is -hardly ever used. The scholar’s instinct but three times reveals itself -in the adoption of this old literary idiom (i. 17, iv. 1, 7), but -elsewhere the usage of the Mishna is already law. Almost equally -important is the fact that the Hebrew mood-distinctions are so little -used in Koheleth (on which point see Delitzsch’s introduction); indeed, -we may say upon the whole that that which gives a characteristic flavour -to the old Hebrew style is ‘ready to vanish away.’ The Mishnic -peculiarities of the book are especially interesting, as confirming our -view of its origin. The author is very different in his opinions from -the doctors of the Mishna, but he resembles them in his questioning and -reflective spirit, and helped to form the linguistic instrument which -they required. Less important, but not to be ignored, are the Aramaic -elements. Even Dr. Adam Clarke, untrained scholar as he was, pronounced -that the attempts which had as yet been made to overthrow the evidence, -were ‘often trifling and generally ineffectual.’[390] The Aramaisms of -Koheleth are irreconcileable with a pre-Exile date; they can only be -paralleled and explained from the Aramaic portions of the books of Ezra -and Daniel. That they are comparatively few, only proves that the force -of the Aramaising movement has abated, and that the Hebrew language, at -any rate in the hands of some of its chief cultivators, is passing into -a new phase (the Mishnic). The judgment of Ewald, as already expressed -in 1837, appears to me on the whole satisfactory: ‘One might easily -imagine Koheleth to be the very latest book in the Old Testament. A -premature conclusion, since Aramaic influence extended very gradually -and secretly, so that one writer might easily be more Aramaic in the -colouring of his style than another. But though not [even if not] the -latest, it cannot have been written till long after Aramaic had begun -powerfully to influence Hebrew, and therefore _not before_ the last -century of the Persian rule.’[391] - -For the sake of my argument, it is hardly necessary to refer to the -words of non-Semitic origin, which are (as most critics rightly hold) -but two in number; 1 פַּרְדֵּם (ii. 5, plur.) undoubtedly a Hebraised -Persian word, on which I lay no stress here, because it occurs, not only -in Neh. ii. 8, but also in Cant. iv. 13, where many critics deny that it -militates against a pre-Exile date, and 2 פִתְגָם (viii. 11), which -occurs in the Aramaic parts of Ezra and Daniel, and also in Esth. i. 20, -and while used in the Targums and in Syriac, did not become naturalised -in Talmudic. This word, too, is commonly regarded as Hebraised Persian, -but, following Zirkel, the eminent Jewish scholar Heinrich Grätz -declares it to be the Hebraised form of a Greek word. Is this possible -or probable? Are there any genuine Græcisms of language, and -consequently also of thought, in the Book of Koheleth? An important -question, to which we will return. - -The date suggested by Ewald, and accepted by Knobel, Herzfeld, -Vaihinger, Delitzsch, and Ginsburg, suits the political circumstances -implied in Koheleth. The Jews had long since lost the feelings of trust -and gratitude with which in ‘better days’ (vii. 10) they regarded the -court of Persia; the desecration of the temple by Bagoses or Bagoes -(Jos. _Ant._ xi. 7) is but one of the calamities which betel Judæa in -the last century of the Persian rule. It is a conjecture of Delitzsch -that iv. 3 contains a reminiscence of Artaxerxes II. Mnemon (died about -360), who was ninety-four years old, and according to Justin (x. 1), had -115 sons, and of his murdered successor Artaxerxes III. Ochus. Probably, -if we knew more of this period, we should be able to produce other -plausible illustrations. Certainly the state of society suits the date -proposed. As Delitzsch remarks, ‘The unrighteous judgment, iii. 16; the -despotic depression, iv. 1, viii. 9, v. 8; the riotous court-life, x. -16-19; the raising of mean men to the highest dignities, x. 5-7; the -inexorable severity of the law of military service, viii. 8; the -prudence required by the organised system of espionage,—all these things -were characteristic of this period.’ Probably an advocate of a different -theory would interpret these passages otherwise; but as yet no -conclusive argument has been offered for supposing allusions to -circumstances of the Greek period. - -Let me frankly admit, in conclusion, that the evidence of the Hebrew -favours a later date than that proposed by Ewald—favours, but does not -actually require it. It seems, however, that if the book be of the Greek -period, we have a right to expect some definite traces of Greek -influence. This will supply the subject of the next chapter. - -At any rate, the author addresses himself to Palestinian readers. He -lives, not (I should suppose) in the country, as Ewald thought, but near -the temple, or at least has opportunities of frequenting it (v. 1,[392] -viii. 10). Some recent scholars place him in Alexandria; but the -reference to the corn trade in xi. 1 does not prove this to be correct; -indeed, the very same section contains a reference to _rain_ (so xii. -2). Sharpe[393] is alone in preferring Antioch, the capital of the Greek -kingdom of Syria. Kleinert’s remark that ‘king in Jerusalem’ (i. 12) -implies a foreign abode is met by the remark that Jerusalem was in the -writer’s time no longer a royal city. The author may have travelled, and -like Sirach have had personal acquaintance with the dangers of -court-life (either at Susa or at Alexandria). The references to the king -do not perhaps compel this supposition; ‘are not my princes altogether -kings?’ (Isa. x. 8) could be said of Persian satraps. - -Footnote 388: - - See the _Midrasch Kohelet_ (ed. Wünsche, 1880), or Ginsburg, p. 38. - -Footnote 389: - - Comp. the glossary at the end of Grätz’s commentary. - -Footnote 390: - - Quoted by Ginsburg, _Coheleth_, p. 197. - -Footnote 391: - - _Die poetischen Bücher des Alten Bundes_, Theil iv. - -Footnote 392: - - The ‘house of God’ must, I think, mean the temple of Jerusalem. That - of Onias IV. was not built till 160 B.C. The synagogues would not be - called ‘houses of God’ (on Ps. lxxiv. 8, see Hitzig). - -Footnote 393: - - _History of Hebrew Nation and its Literature_ (ed. 2), p. 344. - - - - - CHAPTER XI. - DOES KOHELETH CONTAIN GREEK WORDS OR IDEAS? - - -We now begin the consideration of the question, Are there any -well-ascertained Græcisms in the language and in the thought of this -obviously exceptional book? That there are many Greek loan-words in -Targumic and Talmudic, is undeniable, though Levy in his lexicon has no -doubt exaggerated their number. G. Zirkel, a Roman Catholic scholar, was -the first who answered in the affirmative, confining himself to the -linguistic side of the argument. His principal work,[394] -_Untersuchungen über den Prediger_ (Würzburg, 1792), is not in the -Bodleian Library, but Eichhorn’s review in his _Allgemeine Bibliothek_, -vol. iv. (1792), contains a summary of Zirkel’s evidence from which I -select the following. - - (_a_) יָפֶה, in sense of καλός ‘becoming’ (iii. 11, v. 17). This is - one of the Græcisms which commend themselves the most to Grätz and - Kleinert. The former points especially to v. 17, where he takes טוב - אשר יפה together as representing καλὸν κἀγαθόν (comp. Plumptre on v. - 18). The construction, however, is mistaken (see Delitzsch). The - second אשר indicates that יפה is a synonym of וטב ‘excellent.’ The - notion of the beautiful can be developed in various ways. The sense - ‘becoming,’ characteristic of later Hebrew, is more distinctly - required in iii. 11. - - (_b_) ‘In the clause לָמָּה חָכַמְתִּי אֲנִי אָז יֹתֵר (ii. 15) the - words אָז יֹתֵר must signify ἔτι μᾶλλον: quid mihi prodest majorem - adhuc sapientiæ operam dare?’ But the demonstrative particle אז - means, not ἔτι, but ‘in these circumstances’ (Jer. xxii. 15). Its - position and connection with יתר are for emphasis. The fact of - experience mentioned makes any special care for wisdom unreasonable. - - (_c_) ‘עֳשׂׂות טוֹב (iii. 12) is a literal translation of εὖ - πράττειν.’ This is accepted by Kleinert and also by Tyler. The very - next verse seems to explain this phrase by ראה טוב (comp. v. 17); - certainly the ethical meaning is against the analogy of ii. 24, iii. - 22, and similar passages. But should we not, with Grätz and Nowack, - correct רְאוֹת טוב in iii. 12? - - (_d_) ‘כִּי הָאֱלֹהִים וגו (v. 19) must mean, God gives him joy of - heart. ענה “respondere” seems to have borrowed the meaning - “remunerari” from ἀμείβεσθαι, which has both senses. The ancient - writer of the book thought thus in Greek, ὅτι θεὸς ἀμείβεται (αὐτὸν) - εὐφροσύνῃ τῆς καρδίας.’ Zirkel forgets Ps. lxv. 6. See however - Delitzsch. - - (_e_) הֲלָךּ־נֶפֶשׁ (vi. 9) = ὁρμὴ τῆς ψυχῆς [M. Aurelius iii. 15]. - But the phrase is idiomatic Hebrew for ‘roving of the desire.’ - - (_f_) יֵצֵא אֶת־כֻּלָּם (vii. 18). ‘The Hebrew writer found no other - equivalent for μέσην βαδίζειν.’ But unless he borrowed the idea - (that of cultivating the mean in moral practice), why should he have - tried to express the technical term? - - (_g_) כִּי־זֶה כָּל־הָאָדָם (xii. 13). ‘A pure Græcism, τοῦτο παντὸς - ἀνθρὼπου.’ But how otherwise could the idea of the universal - obligation to fear God have been expressed? Comp. the opening words - of iii. 19. - - To these may be added (h) ביום טובה (vii. 14) = εὐημερία (see - however xii. 1); (i) the ‘technical term’ טור (i. 13, ii. 3, vii. - 25) = σκέπτεσθαι [but good Hebrew for ‘to explore’]; (k) פתגם (viii. - 11) = φθέγμα; (l) פרדם (ii. 15) = παράδεισος (see above). - -No one in our day would dream of accepting these ‘Græcisms’ in a mass. - -Zirkel tried to prove too much, as Grätz himself truly observes. Any -peculiar word or construction he set down as un-Hebraic and hurried to -explain it by some Greek parallel, ignoring the capacity of development -inherent in the Hebrew language. His attempt failed in his own -generation. Three recent scholars however (Grätz, Kleinert, and Tyler), -have been more or less captivated by his idea, and have proposed some -new and some old ‘Græcisms’ for the acceptance of scholars. To me it -seems that, their three or four very disputable words and phrases are -not enough. If the author of Koheleth really thought half in Greek, the -Greek colouring of the language would surely not have been confined to -such a few expressions. If מה־שהיה (vii. 24) were really derived from τὸ -τί ἐστιν, as Kleinert supposes, should we not meet with it oftener? But -the phrase most naturally means, not ‘the essence of things,’ but ‘that -which hath come into existence;’ phenomena are not easily understood in -their ultimate causes, is the simple meaning of the sentence. I have -said nothing as yet of the supposed Græcism in the epilogue—the last -place where we should have expected one (considering ver. 12). But Mr. -Tyler’s proposal to explain הַכֹּל (xii, 13) by τὸ καθόλου or τὸ ὅλον (a -formula introducing a general conclusion), falls to the ground, when the -true explanation of the passage has been stated (see p. 232). - -There are therefore no Græcisms in the language of the book. Of course -_ideas_ may have been derived from a Greek source notwithstanding. The -book, as we have seen already, is conspicuous by its want of a native -Jewish background, nor does it show any affinity to Babylonian or -Persian theology. It obviously stands at the close of the great Jewish -humanistic movement, and gives an entirely new colour to the traditional -humanism by its sceptical tone and its commendations of sensuous -pleasure. It is not surprising that St. Jerome should remark on ix. 7-9, -that the author appears to be reproducing the low ideas of some Greek -philosophers, though, as this Father supposes, only to refute them. - - ‘Et hæc inquit, aliquis loquatur Epicurus, et Aristippus et - Cyrenaici et cæteræ pecudes Philosophorum. Ego autem, mecum - diligenter retractans, invenio’[395] &c. - -Few besides Prof. Salmon would accept the view that Eccles. ix. 7-9 and -similar passages are the utterances of an infidel objector (see Bishop -Ellicott’s Commentary); but it is perfectly possible to hold that there -are distinctively Epicurean doctrines in the Koheleth. The later history -of Jewish thought may well seem to render this opinion probable. How -dangerously fascinating Epicureanism must have been when the word -‘Epicuros’ became a synonym in Rabbinic Hebrew for infidel or even -atheist.[396] It is indeed no mere fancy that just as Pharisaism had -affinities with Stoicism, so Sadducæism had with Epicureanism. As -Harnack well says, ‘No intellectual movement could withdraw itself from -the influences which proceeded from the victory of the Greeks over the -Eastern world.’[397] Mr. Tyler,[398] however, and his ally Dean -Plumptre, have scarcely made the best of their case, the Epicurean -affinities which they discover in Koheleth being by no means striking. -Much use is made of the _De Rerum Naturâ_ of Lucretius—a somewhat late -authority! But if points of contact with Lucretius are to be hunted for, -ought we not also to mention the discrepancies between the ‘wise man’ -and the poet? If Lucr. i. 113-116 may be used to illustrate Eccles. iii. -21, must we not equally emphasise the difference between the festive -mirth recommended by Koheleth (ix. 7, 8 &c.) and the simple pleasures so -beautifully sung by Lucretius (ii. 20-33), and which remind us rather of -the charming naturalness of the Hebrew Song of Songs?[399] The number of -vague analogies between Koheleth and Epicureanism might perhaps have -been even increased, but I can find no passage in the former which -distinctly expresses any scholastic doctrine of Epicureanism. For -instance the doctrine of Atomism assumed for illustration by Dean -Plumptre,[400] cannot be found there by even the keenest exegesis; the -plurality of worlds is not even distantly alluded to, and the denial of -the spirit, if implied in iii, 21 (see p. 212), is only implied in the -primitive Hebrew sense, familiar to us from Job and the Psalter. The -recommendation of ἀταραξία (to use the Epicurean term), coupled with -sensuous pleasure (v. 18-20), requires no philosophic basis, and is -simply the expression of a _pococurante_ mood, only too natural in one -debarred from a career of fruitful activity. Lastly, there is nothing in -the phraseology either of the Hebrew or of the Septuagint to suggest an -acquaintance with Epicureanism. - -A stronger case can be made for the influence of Stoicism. The undoubted -Oriental affinities of this system and its moral and theological spirit -would, as Mr. Tyler observes, naturally commend it to a Jewish writer. -We know that, at a somewhat later day, Stoicism exercised a strong -fascination on some of the noblest Jewish minds. Philo,[401] the Book of -Wisdom, and the so-called Fourth Book of Maccabees, have undeniable -allusions to it; and more or less probable vestiges of Stoicism have -been found in the oldest Jewish Sibyl[402] (about B.C. 140) and in the -Targum of Onkelos.[403] But how does the case stand with Koheleth? First -of all, are there any traces of Stoic terminology? That terminology -varied no doubt within certain limits, and could not be accurately -reproduced in Hebrew. Still even under the contorted forms of expression -to which a Hebrew-writing Stoic or semi-Stoic might be driven we could -hardly fail to recognise the familiar Stoic expressions, εἱμαρμένη, -πρόνοια, φαντασία, φύσις, φρόνησις, ἀρετή. The Septuagint version ought -to help us here. But among the twenty words almost or entirely peculiar -to the Greek of Ecclesiastes, the only two technical philosophic terms -are σοφία and γνῶσις. - -Next, can we detect references to distinctive Stoic doctrines? Mr. Tyler -lays great stress in his reply on the Catalogue of Times and Seasons -(iii. 1-8), which he regards as an expansion of the Stoic ὁμολογουμένως -ζῆν But the idea that there is an appointed order of things, and that -every action has its place in it, is much more a corollary of the -doctrine of Destiny than of the doctrine of Duty. The essence of the -latter doctrine is that men were meant to conform and ought to conform -to the Universal Order, acquiescing in that which is inevitable, shaping -in the best way that which is possible to be moulded. Upon this the -practical ethics of Stoicism depend. But this is the very point which is -absent in Ecclesiastes. The Catalogue of Times and Seasons ends not with -the Stoic exhortation ἐκπληροῦ τὴν χώραν, ‘Fulfil thy appointed part,’ -but with the despondent reflection of the Fatalist, ‘What profit hath he -that worketh in that wherein he toileth?’ (iii. 9.) A second argument is -that the idea ‘There is no new thing under the sun’ (i. 9) is a phase of -the Stoic doctrine of cyclical revolutions. But all that which gave form -and colour to the Stoic doctrine is entirely absent—especially, as Mr. -Tyler himself admits, the idea of ἐκπύρωσις. The idea, as it is found in -Ecclesiastes, has nothing Stoic or even philosophical about it. It is -simply an old man’s observation that human actions, like natural -phenomena, tend to repeat themselves in successive generations.[404] - -That there are analogies between Stoicism and the ideas of Koheleth need -not be denied; Dr. Kalisch has collected some of them in his very -interesting philosophico-religious dialogue.[405] Prominent among these -is the peculiar use of the terms ‘madness’ and ‘folly.’ ‘From the -followers of Zeno,’ remarks Dean Plumptre,[406] ‘he learned also to look -upon virtue and vice in their intellectual aspects. The common -weaknesses and follies of mankind were to him, as to them, only so many -different forms and degrees of absolute insanity (i. 17, ii. 12, vii. -25, ix. 3).’ But this division of mankind into wise men and fools is -common to the Stoa with the ancient Hebrew sages who ‘sat in the gate.’ -When the great populariser of Stoicism says, ‘Sapientia perfectum bonum -est mentis humanæ,’[407] he almost translates more than one of the -proverbs which we have studied already. Another point of contact with -Stoicism is undoubtedly the Determinism of the book, which, as Prof. -Kleinert observes, leaves no room for freedom of the will, and fuses the -conceptions of εἱμαρμένη and πρόνοια (see especially chap. iii.). But -such Determinism need not have been learned in the school of Zeno. It is -genuinely Semitic (did not Zeno come from the Semitic Citium?) What is -the religion of Islam but a grandiose system of Determinism? Indeed, -where is virtual Determinism more forcibly expressed than in the Old -Testament itself (e.g., Isa. lxiii. 17)? - -Those who adopt the view which I am controverting are apt to appeal to -somewhat late philosophic authorities. I cannot here discuss the -parallelisms which have been found in the Meditations or Self-communings -(Τὰ εἰς ἑαυτόν) of the great Stoic emperor. Some, for instance, consider -the ῥύσεις καὶ ἀλλοιώσεις which ‘renew the world continually’ (_M. A._ -vi. 15) and the περιοδικὴ παλιγγενεσία τῶν ὅλων (_M. A._ xi. 1) to be -alluded to in Eccles. i. 5-9. More genuine are some at least of the -other parallelisms, e.g. Eccles. i. 9, _M. A._ vi. 37, vii. 1, x. 27, -xii. 26; Eccles. ii. 25, _M. A._ ii. 3 (_ad init._); Eccles. iii. 11, -_M. A._ iv. 23 (ad init.); Eccles. vi. 9, _M. A._ iv. 26; Eccles, xi. 5, -_M. A._ x. 26. I admit that there is a certain vague affinity between -the two thinkers; both are earnest, both despair of reforming society, -both have left but a fragmentary record of their meditations. But the -‘humanest of the Roman race’[408] stands out, upon the whole, far above -the less cultured and more severely tried Israelite. Alike in -intellectual powers and in moral elevation the soul of the Roman is of a -truly imperial order. He is not, like Koheleth, a ‘malist’ (see pp. -201-202); he boldly denies evil, and his strong faith in Providence -cannot be disturbed by apparent irregularities in the order of things. -It is true that this does but make the sadness of his golden and almost -Christian book the more depressing. But the book _is_ ‘golden.’[409] -Koheleth and M. Aurelius alike call forth our pity and admiration, but -in what different proportions! - -If, then, there are points of agreement between Koheleth and M. -Aurelius, there must also of necessity be points of disagreement. Every -page of their writings would, I think, supply them. Suffice it to put -side by side the saying of Koheleth, ‘God is in heaven, and thou upon -earth’ (v. 2), and M. Aurelius’ invocation of the world as the ‘city of -God’ (iv. 23). The comparison suggests one of the greatest discrepancies -between Koheleth and the Stoics—the doctrine of God. Such faith as the -former still retains is faith in a transcendent and not an immanent -Deity. The germs of a doctrine of Immanence which the older -Wisdom-literature contains (Kleinert quotes Ps. civ. 30, Job xxvi. 13), -have found no lodgment in the mind of our author, who is more affected -by the legal and extreme supernaturalistic[410] point of view than he is -perhaps aware. - -Mr. Tyler’s introduction to his _Ecclesiastes_ is a work of great -acuteness and originality, and seeks to provide against all reasonable -objections; I cannot do justice to it here. One part of his theory, -however, is too remarkable to be passed over (see above, pp. 240, 241). -He supposes that Stoic and Epicurean doctrines were deliberately set -over against each other by the wise man who wrote our book, in order by -the clash of opposites to deter the reader from dangerous and -unsatisfying investigations. The goal of the author’s philosophising -thus becomes the negation of all philosophy, and this ‘sacrificio dell’ -intelletto’ he insinuatingly commends by the subtlest use of artifice. -Such a theory may have occurred to one or another early writer (see -Ginsburg), but seems out of harmony with the character of the author as -revealed in his book. He is not such a weak-kneed wrestler for truth. -You may fancy him sometimes a Stoic, sometimes an Epicurean; but he -always speaks like a man in earnest, however his opinions may change -through the fluctuations of his moods. Mr. Tyler’s theory confounds -Koheleth’s point of view with that of a far inferior thinker, the author -of Ecclesiasticus (see above, p. 199). - -I cannot, therefore, be persuaded to explain this enigmatical book by a -supposed contact with Greek philosophy such as we do really find in the -Book of Wisdom. I have no prejudice against the supposition in itself. -It would help me to understand the Hellenising movement at a later day -if Stoic and (still more) Epicurean ideas had already filtered into the -minds of the Jewish aristocracy. The denunciations in the Book of Enoch -(xciv. 5, xcviii. 15, civ. 10) not impossibly refer to a heretical -philosophical literature (see p. 233); the only question is, To a native -or to a half foreign literature? I see no sufficient reason at present -for adopting the latter alternative. Koheleth is really a native Hebrew -philosopher, the first Jew who, however awkwardly and ineffectually, -‘gave his mind to seek and explore by wisdom concerning all things that -are done under heaven’ (i. 13). Very touching in this light are the -memoranda which he has left us. They are incomplete enough; Koheleth is -but the forerunner of more systematic philosophisers. His ideas are -nothing less than scholastic; how could we expect anything different, -his first object being in all probability to soothe the pain of an -inward struggle by giving it literary expression? If, however, I was -compelled to suggest a secondary reference to any foreign system, I -could most easily suppose one to the pessimistic teaching of Hegesias -Peisithanatos, who, after Ptolemy Soter and Philadelphus had made -Alexandria the seat of the world’s commerce and the centre of Greek -literature and culture, was seized with the thought of the vanity of all -things, of the preponderance of evil, and of the impossibility of -happiness.[411] Koheleth’s teaching would be a safeguard to any Jew who -might be tempted by this too popular philosopher. He admits ματαιότης -ματαιοτήτων, but insists that, granting all drawbacks, ‘the light is -sweet’ (xi. 7), the living are better off than the dead (ix. 4-6), and -sensuous pleasure, used in moderation, is at least a relative good (ii. -24); also that it is futile to inquire ‘why the former days (of the -earlier Ptolemies?) were better than these’ (vii. 10), and, if a later -view of his meaning may be trusted, he sought to displace the many -dangerous books which were current by words which were at once -pleasantly written and objectively true (xii. 10, 12). - -Koheleth is a native Hebrew philosopher. The philosophy of an eastern -sage is not to be tied up in the rigid formulæ of the West. Easterns may -indeed take kindly to Western doctrines; but where they think -independently, they eschew system. Koheleth’s seeming Stoicism is, as we -have seen, of primitive Hebrew affinities; his seeming Epicureanism, if -it be not sufficiently explained as a mental reaction against the gloom -of the times, may perhaps be connected more or less closely, not with -the schools of Greek philosophers, but with the banquet-halls of Egypt. -The Hebrew writer’s invitations to enjoy life remind us of the call to -‘drink and be happy,’ which accompanied the grim symbolic ‘coffin,’ or -mummy, at Egyptian feasts (probably they were funeral-feasts), according -to Herodotus (ii. 78), and of the festal dirges translated by Goodwin -and Stern.[412] A stanza in one of the latter may be given here. It is -from the song supposed to be sung by the harper at an anniversary -funeral feast in honour of Neferhotep, a royal scribe, and still to be -seen cut in the stone at Abd-el-Gurna, in the Theban necropolis. As -Ebers has remarked,[413] the song ‘shows how a certain fresh delight in -life mingled with the feelings about death that were prevalent among the -ancient Egyptians, who celebrated their festivals more boisterously than -most other peoples.’ By a poetic fiction, the dead man is supposed to be -present, and to listen to the song. - - Make a good day, O holy father! - Let odours and oils stand before thy nostril. - Wreaths of lotus are on the arms and the bosom of thy sister, - Dwelling in thy heart, sitting beside thee. - Let song and music be before thy face, - And leave behind thee all evil cares! - Mind thee of joy, till cometh the day of pilgrimage, - When we draw near the land which loveth silence. - -We have seen that the Wisdom of Sirach betrays a taste for Egyptian -festivity (p. 191). May we not suppose that Koheleth too had travelled -to Alexandria? This view commends itself to Kleinert, and I have no -objection to it with due limitations. Koheleth may have envied and -sought to copy the light-hearted gaiety of the valley of the Nile. But -we ought not to conceal the fact that the lines quoted above are -followed by others which have no parallel in Koheleth. - - Good for thee then will have been (an honest life), - Therefore be just and hate transgressions, - For he who loveth justice (will be blest). - (They in the shades) are sitting on the bank of the river, - Thy soul is among them, drinking its sacred water. - ... (woe to the bad one!) - He shall sit miserable in the heat of infernal fires. - -There is a wide difference between a people who believed in a happy -Amenti where Osiris himself dwelt and the Jew who doubted much but -believed firmly in Sheól. I admit then the probability that the latter -had travelled, and was not unaffected by the brightness of Egyptian -society, but I see no reason to suppose that he knew and was influenced -by the expressions of Egyptian songs. The resemblances adduced are to me -as fortuitous as those between the love-poems of the Nile valley and the -Hebrew Song of Songs, or (we may add) as that striking one between -Eccles. i. 4 and some of the opening lines of the ‘Song of the Harper,’— - - Men pass away since the time of Ra [the sun of day] - And the youths come in their stead. - Like as Ra reappears every morning, - And Tum [the sun of night] sets in the horizon, - Men are begetting, - And women are conceiving.[414] - -I make no excuse for the length of this inquiry. If we could trace Greek -influences, linguistic or philosophical, in the strange book before us, -its date would be decided. Taking into account the circumstances of the -writer, we might assign it to the reign of Ptolemy IV. Philopator, when -the Egyptian rule began to be calamitous for Judæa. Kleinert would place -it rather in one of the early, fortunate reigns (_Herzog-Plitt_, xii. -173); but he forms perhaps too favourable a view of the social picture -in Koheleth. Hitzig, who gives a very restricted range to Greek -philosophical influence upon our book, and accepts none of Zirkel’s -Græcisms, fixes the date in the first year of Ptolemy V. Epiphanes. -Geiger, Nöldeke, Kuenen, Tyler, and Plumptre, on various grounds, think -this the most probable period,[415] and the view is endorsed by Zeller, -the historian of Greek philosophy. - -A Maccabæan and still more a Herodian date seem to me absolutely -excluded, though Zirkel and Renan have advocated the one, and Heinrich -Grätz (see p. 240) the other. The book is certainly pre-Maccabæan, not -merely because of a Talmudic anecdote,[416] but because of its want of -religious fervour (comp. Esther) and its cosmopolitanism. The germs of -the Jewish parties may be there, but only the germs. To me Hitzig’s is -the latest possible date; but if we _must_ admit a vague and indirect -Greek influence, should we not place the book a little earlier as -suggested above? But I do not see that we _must_ admit even a vague -Greek influence. The inquiring spirit was present in the class of ‘wise -men’ even before the Exile, and the circumstances of the later Jews -were, from the Exile onwards, well fitted to exercise and develope it. -Hellenic teaching was in no way necessary to an ardent but unsystematic -thinker like Koheleth. _The date proposed by Ewald and Delitzsch is on -this and other grounds probable, and on linguistic grounds not -impossible._ - -There are two recent treatises on the philosophical affinities of -Koheleth which may be mentioned here, though only the first is known to -me. Paul Kleinert, who has long made a special study of Koheleth (see -his _Prediger Salomo_, 1864), contributed to the _Theolog. Studien und -Kritiken_, 1883, p. 761, &c., a striking paper called ‘Sind im Buche -Koheleth ausserhebräische Einflüsse anzuerkennen,’ and August Palm in -1885 published a _programme_ entitled ‘_Qohelet und die -nacharistotelische Philosophie_’ (Mannheim). - -Footnote 394: - - He also published _Der Prediger Salomon; ein Lesebuch für den jungen - Weltbürger; übersetzt und erklärt_ (1792). The very title bears the - mark of the century. - -Footnote 395: - - _Opera_, ii. (1699), 765 (_Comm. in Ecclesiasten_). Comp. the use made - of Koheleth’s phraseology by the author of Wisdom (ii. 6-10). - -Footnote 396: - - See _Sanhedrin_, x. 1:—אלו שאין להם חלק לעולם הבא האומר אין תחית המתים - מן התורה ואין תורה מן שמים ואפיקורום.—Comp. _Aboth_, ii. 14 (10 - Taylor), and _Genesis Rabbah_, 19 (‘the serpent was Epicuros’). - -Footnote 397: - - _Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte_, p. 46. - -Footnote 398: - - See his _Ecclesiastes, a Contribution to its Interpretation_, &c. - (1874). The main results of this work were accepted by Prof. - Siegfried, who reviewed it in the _Zeitschrift f. wissenschaftl. - Theologie_, 1875, pp. 284-291. - -Footnote 399: - - This discrepancy I had noted down before observing that Dean Plumptre - had quoted the very same passage of Lucretius as a parallel to Eccles. - ii. 24. For my own view of Koheleth’s recommendations, see p. 253. - Lucretius seems to me, in this strain, to soar higher than Koheleth; - Omar Khayyâm to fall below him. - -Footnote 400: - - _Ecclesiastes_, p. 47. - -Footnote 401: - - Philo alludes, e.g., to the Stoic doctrine of revolutions (which some - have found in Koheleth) and remarks that the Stoics think of God as of - a boy who builds up sandhills, and then throws them down again. - -Footnote 402: - - Hilgenfeld, _Jüdische Apokalyptik_, p. 51, &c. - -Footnote 403: - - See Deut. viii. 18, and especially Gen. ii. 7 (Neubürger in Grätz’s - _Monatsschrift_, 1873, p. 566). - -Footnote 404: - - For this criticism upon Mr. Tyler’s view of iii. 1-8, I am indebted to - Dr. Hatch. - -Footnote 405: - - _Path and Goal_, p. 116. But see p. 92. - -Footnote 406: - - _Ecclesiastes_, p. 45. - -Footnote 407: - - Seneca, Ep. 89, quoted by Bruch, _Weisheitslehre der Hebräer_, p. - 253, with reference to the teaching of Proverbs. - -Footnote 408: - - R. H. Stoddard, _The Morals of M. Aurelius_. - -Footnote 409: - - Comp. Niebuhr, _Lectures on the History of Rome_, iii. 247. - -Footnote 410: - - The phrase is objectionably modern, but in this connection could not - be avoided. - -Footnote 411: - - Zeller, _Philosophie der Griechen_, ii. 1, p. 278. - -Footnote 412: - - _Records of the Past_, iv. 115-118; vi. 127-130. - -Footnote 413: - - ‘Cairo, the Old in the New,’ _Contemp. Rev._, xliii. 852. - -Footnote 414: - - _Records of the Past_, vi. 127. - -Footnote 415: - - Geiger, _Urschrift_, pp. 60, 61; Nöldeke, _Die alttestamentliche - Literatur._, p. 175; Kuenen, _Hist.-krit. Onderzoek._, iii. 188. - _Theologisch. Tijdschrift_, 1883, p. 143. - -Footnote 416: - - See reference, p. 280. - - - - - CHAPTER XII. - TEXTUAL PROBLEMS OF KOHELETH. - - - I. - - -According to Delitzsch, the Song of Solomon is the most difficult book -in the Old Testament. If so, Ecclesiastes comes next in order. None of -the attempts to discover a logical plan having been successful, Gustav -Bickell’s new hypothesis (1884) deserves a respectful hearing, since it -endeavours to solve the enigma in a most original way, connecting it -with the problem of the text. This critic starts from the observation -that continuous passages of some extent are suddenly closed by an abrupt -transition, and that such passages are pretty equal in length. His -explanation of this is a purely mechanical one. The troubles of the -commentators have arisen principally from an accident which happened to -a standard MS., called by Bickell, ‘die Unfallshandschrift’ (the -Accident-manuscript). This MS. seems to have consisted of 21 or 22 -leaves, with an average of 518 to 535 letters to a leaf. To speak more -precisely, it was composed of fasciculi of four double leaves each; the -book began on the sixth leaf of the first fasciculus, and ended on the -second, or more probably on the third leaf of the fourth. Through a -loosening of the two middle fasciculi, a dislocation took place, and an -almost entirely new order arose, though with one exception the leaves -which had been placed in pairs remained together. But the story of the -fortunes of Ecclesiastes has not yet been told. Three hands, besides the -original writer, have worked on this ill-fated book. One of these is -considered to have been a downright ‘enemy’ who tampered with the text -before the dislocation had taken place. From him proceed ‘the protests -against Koheleth’s principles on the obedience due to the king in viii. -1, 5_a_ as well as the offensive expressions in xi. 5, xii. 4, 5, by -which he sought to make the book ridiculous and contemptible.’ -Subsequently to him, and after the leaves had been thrown into -confusion, another writer made ‘well-meaning additions,’ and so brought -the book into nearly its present form; among these additions was the -Epilogue. His aim was ‘to brighten Koheleth’s gloomy view of the world, -partly by emphasising the doctrine of a present retribution, but still -more by pointing to a future judgment in which inequalities should be -rectified.’ The third hand is that of the so-called pseudo-Solomonic -interpolator. He must have gone to work after the Epilogist, for the -latter simply knows Koheleth as a wise man skilled in proverbial -composition. Bickell also claims to make transpositions on a small -scale, and offers many emendations sometimes based on the Septuagint. -‘Habent sua fata libelli.’ - -I have said that Bickell’s explanation of the want of order in -Ecclesiastes is a purely mechanical one. It is not on that account to be -rejected. A German reviewer[417] has mentioned a case within his own -experience in which the double leaves of one of the fasciculi of an -Oriental MS. had been disarranged in the binding, a circumstance which -had led to various additions and alterations. It may indeed be urged as -an objection that the Septuagint text differs in no very material -respect from the Massoretic. But a work like Ecclesiastes had at first -in all probability but a very slight circulation, so that an accident to -a single MS. would naturally involve unusually serious consequences. -Still from the possibility to the actuality of the ‘accident’ is a long -step. Apart from other difficulties in the theory, the number and -arbitrariness of the transpositions, additions, and alterations are -reason enough to make one hesitate to accept it; and when we pass from -the very plausible arrangement of the contents (Bickell, pp. 53, 54) to -the translation of the text, it is often only possible to make them -tally by a violent and imaginative exegesis. - -Among the transpositions (to which I have no theoretic objection[418]) -are the following: - - v. 9-16 placed after ii. 11, - viii. 9-14 “ ” iii. 8, - vi. 8-12 “ ” x. 1, - iv. 9-16 “ ” vii. 20, - x. 16-xi. 6 “ ” v. 8, - xi. 6 “ ” xi. 3. - -Bickell’s theory that the passages which assert or suggest Solomonic -authorship in i. 1, 12, 16, ii. 7, 8, 9, [12], are due to an -interpolator,[419] is plausible; it throws a new light on the statement -of the Epilogue (xii. 9) that ‘Koheleth was a wise man,’ and a motive -for the interpolation can be readily imagined—the desire to obtain -ecclesiastical sanction for the book. It is, however, incapable of -proof. - - - II. - - -There are in fact few books on Ecclesiastes so stimulating as Bickell’s, -though it needs to be read with discrimination[420] (comp. p. 241). -Putting aside the author’s peculiar theory, it must be owned that he has -enabled us to realise the inherent difficulties of the text as it -stands, and contributed some very happy corrections. All critics will -admit the need of such emendations. The text of Koheleth is even more -faulty than that of Job, Psalms, or Proverbs. We cannot wonder at this. -Meditations often so fragmentary on such a difficult subject were -foredoomed to suffer greatly at the hands of copyists. A minute study of -the various readings and of the corrections which have been proposed -would lead us too far, interesting as it would be (compare Renan’s -remarks, _L’Ecclésiaste_, p. 53). Cappellus (Louis Cappel) has done most -for the text among the earlier critics (see his _Critica Sacra_, Par. -1650); Grätz has also made useful suggestions based upon the versions. -Renan, and (as we have seen) Bickell, have corrected the text on a -larger scale; occasional emendations of great value are due to Hitzig, -Delitzsch, Klostermann, and Krochmal. The notes in the expected new -edition of Eyre and Spottiswoode’s _Variorum Bible_ will indicate the -most important various readings and corrections; to these I would refer -the reader. The corrections of Bickell are those least known to most -students. In considering them, we must distinguish between those which -arise out of his peculiar critical theory and those which are simply the -outcome of his singular and brilliant insight. Of the latter, I will -here only mention two. One occurs in iii. 11, where for אֶת־הָעֹלָם (or -אֶת־הָעוֹלָם the Oriental or Babylonian reading), he gives (see below, -p. 299) לְבַקֵּשׁ אֶת־כָּל־הֶעָלֻם, remarking that כָּל־ survived in the -text translated in the Septuagint. The fact is, however, that though -Cod. Vat. does read σύμπαντα τὸν αἰῶνα, Cod. Alex., Cod. Sin., and the -Complutensian ed. all read σὺν τὸν αἰῶνα, and as the verse begins Τὰ -σύμπαντα (v. l. Σύμπαντα) it is probable enough that σύμπαντα was -written the second time in Cod. Vat. by mistake. At any rate, copyists -both of the Greek and of the Hebrew were sometimes inclined to insert or -omit ‘all’ at haphazard; thus, in iv. 2, Cod. Vat. inserts ‘all,’ which -is omitted in Cod. Alex. and Cod. Sin. - -Another, adopted above at p. 220, is in viii. 10. Read וְּבָמקוֹם -קָדוֹשׁ ויהַלְּכוּ (or נִקְבָּדִים) כְּבֵדִים. ובאו is a fragment of the -correct reading ובמקום which stood side by side with the alternative -reading וממקום. - -On the question of interpolations, enough has been said already. -Probably Cornill’s book on Ezekiel will dispose many critics to look -more favourably on attempts to purify Biblical texts from glosses and -other interpolations. Grätz’s conclusion certainly cannot be maintained, -‘Sämmtliche Sentenzen gehören streng zu ihrer nachbarlichen -Gedankengruppe, führen den Gedanken weiter oder spitzen ihn zu.’ - -I have still to speak of the Septuagint version. Its importance for -textual criticism is great; indeed, we may say with Klostermann that the -Massoretic text and this translation are virtually two copies of one and -the same archetype. It is distinguished from the Septuagint versions of -the Books of Job, Proverbs, and even Psalms by its fidelity. Those -versions approximate more or less closely to the elegant manner of -Symmachus, but the Greek style of the Septuagint Koheleth is most -peculiar, admitting such words as ἀντίῤῥησις, ἔγκοπος, ἐκκλησιαστής, -ἐντρύφημα, ἐπικοσμειν, παραφορά, περιουσιασμός, περιφέρεια, περισπασμός, -προαίρεσις (in special sense, ii. 17) ἐξουσιάζειν (not less than eleven -times), and such abnormal phrases as ὑπὸ τὸν ἥλιον (i. 3 and often), and -especially σὺν, as an equivalent of את when distinctive of the -accusative (ii. 17, iii. 10, iv. 3, vii. 15, and nine other passages; -elsewhere σύμπαντα or the like). The last-named peculiarity reminds us -strongly of Aquila[421] (comp. [God created] σὺν τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ σὺν τὴν -γην, Aquila’s rendering of Gen. i. 1); but it must be also mentioned -that in more than half the passages in which את of the accusative occurs -in the original, this characteristic rendering of Aquila is not found. -This fact militates against the theory of Grätz,[422] that the -Septuagint version of Ecclesiastes is really the second improved edition -of Aquila, and against that of Salzberger,[423] who argues that the -fragments given as from Aquila in Origen’s Hexapla are not really -Aquila’s at all, the one and only true edition of Aquila’s Ecclesiastes -being that now extant in the Septuagint (comp. the case of Theodotion’s -Daniel). It seems clear that the Septuagint version, as it stands, is a -composite one, but it is possible, as Montfaucon long ago pointed -out,[424] that an early version once existed, independent of Aquila. The -question of the origin of this version is of some critical importance, -for if the work of Aquila, the Septuagint Ecclesiastes cannot be earlier -than 130 A.D. Supposing this to be the first Greek version of the book, -we obtain an argument in favour of the Herodian date of Ecclesiastes -advocated by Grätz. Upon the whole, however, there seems no sufficient -reason for doubting that there was a Septuagint version of the book -distinct from Aquila’s, as indeed Origen’s Hexapla and St. Jerome in the -preface to his commentary attest, and that this version in its original -form goes back, like the versions of Job and Proverbs, to one of the -last centuries before Christ. - -On the Peshitto version of Koheleth and Ruth there is a monograph by G. -Janichs, _Animadversiones criticæ_ &c. (Breslau, 1871), with which -compare Nöldeke’s review, _Lit. Centralblatt_, 1871, No. 49. For the -text of the _Græcus Venetus_, see Gebhardt’s edition (Leipz. 1874). -Ginsburg’s well-known work (1861) contains sections on the versions. - -Footnote 417: - - In the _Theologisches Literaturblatt_, Sept. 19, 1884. - -Footnote 418: - - Van der Palm first conjectured that passages had been misplaced, and - Grätz has adopted the idea (_Kohélet_, pp. 40-43). - -Footnote 419: - - Comp. Rashbam’s interpolation theory (Ginsburg, _Coheleth_, p. 42). - -Footnote 420: - - See Budde’s review of Bickell’s work in the _Theologische - Literaturzeitung_, Feb. 7, 1885. - -Footnote 421: - - On Aquila and his theory of interpretation, comp. Renan, - _L’Ecclésiaste_, p. 54; and on his artificial vocabulary, Field’s - remarks, _Hexapla_, Prolegomena, p. xxii. - -Footnote 422: - - _Kohélet_, Anhang. Before Grätz, Frankel was already inclined to think - that the Septuagint version might be really Aquila’s (_Vorstudien_, p. - 238, note _w_). So more positively Freudenthal. Renan inclines to - agree with Grätz. - -Footnote 423: - - Grätz’s _Monatsschrift_, 1873, pp. 168-174. - -Footnote 424: - - _Hexapla_ (1713), i., Præliminaria, p. 42. Montfaucon indicates vii. - 23_a_ as manifestly made up of a genuine version, and one interpolated - from Aquila. Comp. Clericus’ note on Eccles iv. 1. - - - - - CHAPTER XIII. - THE CANONICITY OF ECCLESIASTES AND ECCLESIASTICUS. - - - I. - - -It is not surprising that these strange Meditations should have had -great difficulty in penetrating into the Canon. There is sufficient -evidence (see the works of Plumptre and Wright)[425] that the so-called -Wisdom of Solomon is in part a deliberate contradiction of sentiments -expressed in our book. The most striking instance of this antagonism is -in Wisd. ii. 6-10 (cf. Eccles. ix. 7-9), where the words of Koheleth are -actually put into the mouth of the ungodly libertines of Alexandria. The -date of Wisdom is disputed, but cannot be earlier than the reign of -Ptolemy VII. Physcon (B.C. 145-117). The attitude of the writer towards -Koheleth may perhaps be compared with that of the Palestinian teachers -who relegated the book among the apocrypha on this among other grounds, -that it contained heretical statements, e.g. ‘Rejoice, O young man, in -thy youth’ &c. (xi. 9). Nothing is more certain than that the Book of -Koheleth was an Antilegomenon in Palestine in the first century before -Christ. And yet it certainly had its friends and supporters both then -and later. Simeon ben Shetach and his brother-in-law, King Alexander -Jannæus (B.C. 105-79), were as familiar with Koheleth as the young men -of Alexandria, and Simeon, according to the Talmudic story[426] -(_Bereshith Rabba_, c. 91), quoted Eccles. vii. 12_a_ with a prefix -(דכתיב ‘as it is written’) proper to a Biblical quotation. From another -Talmudic narrative (_Baba bathra_, 4_a_) it would seem that Koheleth was -cited in the time of Herod the Great as of equal authority with the -Pentateuch, and from a third (_Shabbath_, 30_b_) that St. Paul’s -teacher, Gamaliel, permitted quotations from our book equally with those -from canonical Scriptures. Like the Song of Songs, however, it called -forth a lively opposition from severe judges. The schools of Hillel and -Shammai were divided on the merits of these books. At first the -Shammaites, who were adverse to them, carried a majority of the votes of -the Jewish doctors. But when, after the destruction of Jerusalem, Jewish -learning reorganised itself at Jamnia (4-½ leagues south of Jaffa), the -opposite view (viz. that the Song and Koheleth ‘defile the hands’—i.e. -are holy Scriptures) was again brought forward in a synod held about -A.D. 90, and finally sanctioned in a second synod held A.D. 118. The -arguments urged on both sides were such as belong to an uncritical age. -No attempt was made to penetrate into the spirit and object of Koheleth, -but test passages were singled out. The heretically sounding words in -xi. 9_a_ were at first held by some to be decisive against the claim of -canonicity, but—we are told—when the ‘wise men’ took the close of the -verse into consideration (‘but know that for all this God will bring -thee into the judgment’), they exclaimed יפה אמר שלמה, ‘Solomon has -spoken appropriately.’[427] - -This first synod or sanhedrin of Jamnia has played an important part in -recent arguments. According to Krochmal, Grätz, and Renan, one object of -the Jewish doctors was to decide whether the Song and Koheleth ought to -be admitted into the Canon. It seems, however, to have been -satisfactorily shown[428] that their uncertainty was not as to whether -these books ought to be admitted, but whether they had been rightly -admitted. It is true that there was, even as late as A.D. 90, a chance -for any struggling book (e.g. Sirach) to find its way into the Canon. -But in the case of the Song and Koheleth a preliminary canonisation had -taken place; it only remained to set at rest all lingering doubts in the -minds of those who disputed the earlier decision. Another matter was -also considered, according to Krochmal, at the synod of A.D. 90, viz. -how to indicate that with the admission of Ecclesiastes the Canon of the -Hagiographa was closed. I have already referred to this scholar’s view -of the Epilogue (p. 232 &c.), and need only add that, if we may trust -the statement of the Talmud, the canonicity of Koheleth was finally -carried in deference to an argument which presupposes that xii. 13, 14 -was already an integral part of Koheleth. The Talmudic passage is well -known; it runs thus— - -‘The wise men’ [i.e. the school of Shammai] ‘sought to “hide” the Book -of Koheleth because of its contradictory sayings. And why did they not -“hide” it? Because the beginning and the close of it consist of words of -Tōra’ [i.e. are in harmony with revealed truth][429]. By the ‘beginning’ -the Jewish doctors meant Koheleth’s assertion that ‘all a man’s toil -which he toileth _under the sun_’ (i.e. all earthly, unspiritual toil) -is unprofitable (i. 3), and by the ‘close’ the emphatic injunction and -dogmatic declaration of the epilogist in xii. 13, 14. The Talmudic -statement agrees, as is well known, with the note of St. Jerome on these -verses. ‘Aiunt Hebræi quum inter cætera scripta Salomonis quæ antiquata -sunt, nec in memoriâ duraverunt, et hic liber obliterandus videretur, eo -quòd vanas Dei assereret creaturas, et totum putaret esse pro nihilo, et -cibum, et potum, et delitias transeuntes præferret omnibus; ex hoc uno -capitulo meruisse auctoritatem, ut in divinorum voluminum numero -poneretur, quòd totam disputationem suam, et omnem catalogum hâc quasi -ἀνακεφαλαιώσει coarctaverit, et dixerit finem sermonum auditu esse -promtissimum, nec aliquid in se habere difficile: ut scilicet Deum -timeamus, et ejus præcepta faciamus’ (_Opera_, ii. 787). - -The canonicity of Ecclesiastes was rarely disputed in the ancient -Church. The fifth œcumenical council at Constantinople pronounced -decisively in its favour. On the Christian heretics in the fourth -century who rejected it, see Ginsburg, _Coheleth_, p. 103. - -Let me refer again, in conclusion, to the story in which that remarkable -man—‘the restorer of the Law’—Simeon ben Shetach plays a chief part. It -not only shows that Koheleth was a religious authority at the end of the -second or beginning of the first century B.C., but implies that at this -period the book was already comparatively old, and, one may fairly say, -pre-Maccabæan. I presume too that the addition of the Epilogue (see pp. -234-5) with the all-important 13th and 14th verses had been made before -Simeon’s time. - - - II. - - -It was remarked above that as late as A.D. 90 there was a chance for any -struggling book to gain admission into the Canon. Now for at least 180 -years the Wisdom of Ben Sira had been struggling for recognition as -canonical. In spite of the fact that it did not claim the authorship of -any ancient sage, and that, like Koheleth, it contained some -questionable passages, it was certainly in high favour both in -Alexandria and in Palestine. As Delitzsch points out, ‘the oldest -Palestinian authorities (Simeon ben Shetach, the brother of Queen -Salome, about B.C. 90, seems to be the earliest) quote it as canonical, -and the censures of Babylonian teachers only refer to the Aramaic -Targum, not to the original work. The latter was driven out of the field -by the Aramaic version, which, though very much interpolated, was more -accessible to the people.’[430] Simeon ben Shetach was counted among the -Jewish ‘fathers,’ and a saying of his is given in _Pirke Aboth_, i. 10. -It is remarkable that the very same passage of _Bereshith Rabba_ (c. 91) -which contains this wise man’s quotations from Koheleth (see above) also -contains one from Sirach introduced with the formula בספרא דבן סירא -כתיב, ‘in the book of Ben Sira it is written.’ The quotation is, ‘Exalt -her, and she shall set thee between princes’—apparently a genuine saying -of Ben Sira (Sirach), though not found in our Ecclesiasticus. The first -word (‘Exalt her’) comes, it is true, from Prov. iv. 8, but, as Dr. -Wright remarks,[431] Ben Sira ‘was fond of tacking on new endings to old -proverbs.’ At a much later period, a quotation from Ben Sira (Sir. vii. -10?) is made by Rab (about 165-247 A.D.) introduced with the formula -משום שנאמר, ‘because it is said,’ _Erubin_, c. 65_a_. Strack indeed -supposes that Rab meant to quote from canonical Scripture, but by a slip -quoted from Ben Sira instead; but this is too bold a conjecture. Lastly, -Rabba (about 270-330 A.D.) quotes a saying of our book (Sir. xiii. 15; -xxvii. 9) as ‘repeated a third time in the Kethubhim (the -Hagiographa)’—משולש בכתובים, _Baba Kamma_, c. 92_b_. - -It is quite true that, according to the Talmudic passage referred to on -p. 196, the Book of Ben Sira stands on the border-line between the -canonical and the non-canonical literature: the words are, ‘The Books of -Ben Sira, and all books which were written thenceforward, do not defile -the hands.’ But taking this in connection with the vehement declaration -of Rabbi Akiba that the man who reads Ben Sira and other ‘extraneous’ -books has no portion in the world to come,[432] we may safely assume -that the Book of Ben Sira had a position of exceptional authority with -not a few Jewish readers. It is equally certain, as the above quotations -show, that even down to the beginning of the fourth century A.D. sayings -of Sirach were invested with the authority of Scripture. Whatever, then, -may have been the theory (and no one pretends that the Synods of Jamnia -placed Sirach on a level with Koheleth), the practice of some Jewish -teachers was to treat Sirach as virtually canonical, which reminds us of -the similar practice of some Christian Fathers. St. Augustine says (but -he retracted it afterwards) of the two books of Wisdom, ‘qui quoniam in -auctoritatem recipi meruerunt, inter propheticos numerandi sunt’ (_De -doctr. Christianâ_, ii. 8), and both Origen and Cyprian quote Sirach as -sacred scripture. Probably, as Fritzsche remarks, Sirach first became -known to Christian teachers at Alexandria at the end of the second -century. - -Footnote 425: - - Plumptre, _Ecclesiastes_, pp. 71-74; Wright, _Koheleth_, pp. 67-70. It - is plainly impossible in the light of the history of dogma to place - Wisdom before Ecclesiastes. Yet Hitzig has done this. Nachtigal took a - sounder view in 1799 when he published a book on Wisdom regarded _als - Gegenstück des Koheleth_. It forms vol. ii. of a singular work called - _Die Versammlung der Weisen_, of which Koheleth forms vol. i. - -Footnote 426: - - See Schiffer, _Das Buch Kohelet nach der Auffassung der Weisen_, part - i., pp. 100-102. - -Footnote 427: - - _Midrasch Koheleth_, § 1, 3; comp. _Pesikta of R. Kahana_, § 8 - (Schiffer, pp. 6, 7). - -Footnote 428: - - By Delitzsch; see Wright’s _Koheleth_, p. 471, and comp. Strack, art. - ‘Kanon des A. T.’ in _Herzog-Plitt_, vol. vii. - -Footnote 429: - - I quote the characteristic closing words, תחילתו דברי תורה וסופו דברי - תורה (_Shabbath_, c. 30b). - -Footnote 430: - - _Gesch. der jüdischen Poesie_, p. 20. - -Footnote 431: - - _Koheleth_, p. 46. - -Footnote 432: - - See the passage from _Sanhedrin_ (Jer. Talm.), x. 28_a_, quoted at - length in Wright’s _Koheleth_, pp. 467-468. - - - - - AIDS TO THE STUDENT - - -The literature upon Koheleth is unusually large. Some of the most -important books and articles have been referred to already, and the -student will naturally have at hand Dr. Wright’s list in _The Book of -Koheleth_ (1883), Introd., pp. xiv.-xvii. It may suffice to add among -the less known books, J. G. Herder, _Briefe das Studium der Theologie -betreffend_, erster Theil (xi.), Werke, ed. Suphan, Bd. x.; Theodore -Preston, _Ecclesiastes, Hebrew Text and a Latin Version, with original -notes, and a translation of the Comm. of Mendelssohn_ (1845); E. Böhl, -_Dissertationes de aramaismis libri Koheleth_ (Erlangen, 1860); Bernh. -Schäfer, _Neue Untersuchungen über das Buch Koheleth_ (Freiburg in -Breisgau, 1870); J. S. Bloch, _Ursprung and Entstehungszeit des Buches -Kohelet_ (Bamberg, 1872); _Studien zur Gesch. der Sammlung der althebr. -Literatur_ (Breslau, 1876); C. Taylor, _The Dirge of Coheleth in Eccl._ -xii., _discussed and literally translated_ (1874); J. J. S. Perowne, -articles on Ecclesiastes in _Expositor_, begun 1879; M. M. Kalisch, -_Path and Goal_ (contains translation of our book and much illustrative -matter), 1880; A. Kuenen, _Religion of Israel_ (1875), iii. 153 &c., -also _Onderzoek_ (1873), vol. iii., and article in _Theologisch -Tijdschrift_, 1883, p. 113, &c.; S. Schiffer, _Das Buch Kohelet nach der -Auffassung der Weisen des Talmud und Midrasch und der jüd. Erklärer des -Mittelalters_, Theil i. (Leipz. 1885); Engelhardt, ‘Ueber den Epilog des -Koheleth’ in _Studien und Kritiken_, 1875; Klostermann, article on -Wright’s _Koheleth_, in same periodical, 1885. See also Pusey’s Daniel -the Prophet, ed. 2, pp. 327-8, and the introduction to Prof. Salmon’s -commentary in Ellicott. [Prof A. Palm’s bibliographical monograph, _Die -Qohelet-Literatur, ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Exegese des Alten -Testaments_, 1886, appeared too late to be of use.] - - - - - APPENDIX - IN WHICH VARIOUS POINTS IN THE BOOK ARE ILLUSTRATED OR MORE FULLY - TREATED. - - - 1. Pfleiderer on St. Paul (p. 3). - 2. The word Kenotic; Phil. ii. 7 (p. 7). - 3. Kleinert on Job vi. 25 (p. 21). - 4. On Job xix. 25-27 (pp. 33-35). - 5. Job’s repudiation of sins (p. 39). - 6. On Job xxxviii. 31, 32 (p. 52). - 7. Source of story of Job (pp. 60-63). - 8. Corrected text of Deut. xxxii. 8, 9 (p. 81). - 9. The style of Elihu (p. 92). - 10. The Aramaisms and Arabisms of Job (p. 99). - 11. Herder on Job (pp. 106-111). - 12. Septuagint of Job (pp. 113, 114). - 13. Harūn ar-Rashid and Solomon (p. 131). - 14. On Prov. xxvii. 6 (p. 148). - 15. Eternity of Korán (p. 192). - 16. Text of Proverbs (p. 173). - 17. Religious value of Proverbs (p. 176, 177). - 18. Aids to the Student (p. 178). - 19. Date of Jesus son of Sirach (p. 180). - 20. On Sirach xxi. 27 (p. 189). - 21. Sirach’s Hymn of Praise (p. 193). - 22. Ancient versions of Sirach (p. 195). - 23. Aids to the Student (p. 198). - 24. On the Title Koheleth (p. 207). - 25. On Eccles. iii. 11 (p. 210). - 26. On Eccles. vii. 28 (p. 219). - 27. On Eccles. xi. 9-xii. 7 (pp. 223-227). - 28. On Eccles. xii, 9 &c. (p. 232). - 29. Grätz on Koheleth’s opposition to asceticism (p. 244). - 30. Herder on the alternate voices in Koheleth (p. 245). - - -1. _Page 3._—Pfleiderer, in the spirit of Lagarde, accounts for the -Pauline view of the atonement by the ‘stereotyped legal Jewish’ doctrine -of the atoning merit of the death of holy men (_Hibbert Lectures_, pp. -60-62). But was not this idea familiar and in some sense presumably real -to Jesus? And why speak of a ‘stereotyped’ formula? Examples of a -self-devotion designed to ‘merit’ good for the community, or even for an -individual, abound in Judaism. - - -2. _Page 7, note 2._—The word Kenotic is conveniently descriptive of a -theory, and does not bind one who uses it to any particular expositon of -the difficult Greek of Phil. ii. 7. I need not decide, therefore, -whether we should render ἐν μορφῃ Θεοῦ בדמות חאלהים with Delitzsch, or -בדמות אלהים with Salkinson. To the names of eminent exegetes mentioned -on page 7, add that of Godet. - - -3. _Page 21_ (on Job vi. 25).—Kleinert (_Theol. Studien u. Kritiken_, -1886, pp. 285-86) improves the parallelism by translating ‘Wie so gar -nicht verletzend sind Worte der Rechtschaffenheit, aber wie so gar -nichts rügt die Rechtsrüge von euch.’ He thinks that מה here, as -occasionally elsewhere, and _mā_ often in Arabic, has the sense of ‘not’ -(see Ewald, _Lehrbuch_, § 325_b_); comp. ix. 2, xvi. 6, xxxi. 1, and the -characteristic בַּמָּה ‘how seldom,’ xxi. 19. Without entering into his -doubtful justification of ‘verletzend,’ it is possible to render ‘How -far from grievous are straightforward speeches, but how little is proved -by the reproof from you!’ - - -4. _Pages 33-35_ (Job xix. 25-27).—First, as to the sense of Goel (A.V. -and R.V. ‘redeemer’). The sense seems determined by xvi, 18 (see above, -p. 31). It is vengeance for his blood that Job demands, and hence in -xix. 29 he warns his false friends to beware of the _sword_ of divine -justice. The ‘friends’ have identified themselves with that unjust Deity -against whom Job appeals to the ‘witness in heaven’ (xvi. 20)—the moral -God of whom he has a dim but growing intuition. The whole plan of the -book, as Kleinert remarks, calls for a definite legal meaning. But as no -direct reference to Job’s blood occurs in xix. 25-27, ‘my vindicator’ -will be a sufficiently exact rendering (as in Isa. xliv. 6). I cannot -however follow Kleinert in his recognition of the hope of immortality in -this passage. - -Next as to the text. Bickell’s recension of it, when pointed in the -ordinary manner, is as follows:— - - וַאֲנִי יָדַעְתִּי גֹּאֲלִי חָי 25 - יְאַחֲרוֹן עָל־עָפָר יָקוּם ׃ - וְאַחַר עֵרִִי נִקְּפָּה זֹאת 26 - וּמִשּׁדַּי אֶחֱזֶה אֵלֶּה ׃ - אֲשֶׁר אֲנִי אֶחֱזֶה־לִּי 27 - וְעֵינַי רָאוּ וִלאׁ־זָר - כָּלוּ כִלְיֹתַי בְּחֵקִי ׃ - -Bickell does not attempt to make easy Hebrew; the passage _ought -not_ in such a connection to be too easy. He renders ver. 26_a_, -‘Et postea, his præsentibus absolutis, veniet testis meus’ (God, -his witness, as xvi. 19), comparing for the sense of נקפה Isa. -xxix. 1. Certainly we seem to require in ver. 26 some further -development of the idea suggested by the appearance of the Goel on -the dust of Job’s burial-place, and such a development is not -supplied by the received text. We must not look at any corrupt -passage by itself, but take it with the context. Those who defend -the text of ver. 26 as it stands have on their side the -parallelism of עוֹרִי and בְּשָׂרִי (comp. ver. 20); but this -parallelism is counterbalanced by the want of correspondence -between נִקְּפוּ־זאׁת and אחֱזֶה אֱלוֹהַּ. Dr. C. Taylor suggests -an aposiopesis, and gives the sense intended by the writer thus, -‘When they have penetrated my skin, and of my flesh have had their -fill’ (comp. ver. 22_b_). Is it not more likely that וּמִבְּשָׂרִי -came into the text _through a reminiscence_ of ver. 22_b_? ‘I -shall see these things from Shaddai’ will be, on Bickell’s view, -equivalent to ‘I shall see these things _attested_ by Shaddai.’ As -yet, the sufferer exclaims, I can recognise this, viz. my -innocence, for myself alone; mine eyes have seen it, but not -another’s (Prov. xxvii 2). The connexion is in every way improved. -Job first of all desired an inscribed testimony to his innocence, -but now he aspires to something better. - -Bickell’s is the most natural reconstruction of the passage as yet -proposed; so far as ver. 26_b_ is concerned, it is supported in the main -by the Septuagint. More violent corrections are offered by Dr. A. -Neubauer, _Athenæum_, June 27, 1885—As a rendering of _the text as it -stands_, I think R.V. is justified in giving ‘from my flesh’ (with -marg., ‘_Or_, without’); ‘mine eyes shall see’ (= ‘will have seen’) -certainly suggests that Job will be clothed with some body when he sees -God (Dillmann’s reply is not adequate). ‘Without my flesh’ (so Amer. -Revisers) is in itself justifiable (see especially xi. 15); in the use -of the privative ז became more and more frequent in the later periods -(comp. the Talmudic מֵאוֹר עֵינַיִם = ‘blind’). - - -5. _Page 39._ Job’s catalogue of the sins which he repudiates. The -parallel suggested between Job and an Egyptian formulary may be -illustrated by a passage in the life of the great Stoic Emperor. A -learned Bishop, popular in his day, reminds us of ‘that golden Table of -Ptolomy (_sic_) Arsacides, which the Emperour Marcus Aurelius found at -Thebes, which for the worthiness thereof that worthy Emperour caused -every night to be laid at his bed’s head, and at his death gave it as a -singular treasure to his sonne Commodus. The Table was written in Greek -characters, and contained in it these protestations: “I never exalted -the proud rich man, neither hated the poor just man: I never denied -justice to the poor for his poverty neither pardoned the wealthy for his -riches.... I alwaies favoured the poor that was able to do little, and -God, who was able to do much, alwaies favoured me.”’ (_The Practice of -Quietnesse_, by George Webbe, D.D., 1699?) - - -6. _Page 52_ (On Job xxxviii. 31, 32, ix. 9).—(1) I admit that the -identification of כִּימָה and the Pleiades is uncertain. Still it is -plausible, especially when we compare Ar. _kumat_ ‘heap.’ And even if it -should be shown that _kimtu_ was not the Babylonian name for the -Pleiades, this would not be decisive against the identification -proposed. The Babylonians did not give the name _kisiluv_ to Orion, yet -Stern’s argument (_Jüdische Zeitschrift_, 1865, Heft 4: comp. Nöldeke, -Schenkel’s _Bibel-Lexikon_, iv. 369, 370) in favour of equating _k’sîl_ -and Orion remains valid. (2) As to מֵעֲדַנּוֹת ‘sweet influences’ is -fortunate enough to exist by sufferance in the margin of R.V. It is -sometimes defended by comparing 1 Sam. xv. 32. But the only possible -renderings there are ‘in bonds’ or ‘trembling’ (see _Variorum Bible ad -loc._). Dr. Driver has shown that ‘sweet influences’ is a legacy from -Sebastian Münster (1535). (3) מִזָּרוֹת is probably not to be identified -with מַזָּלוֹת (2 Kings xxiii. 5), in spite of the authority of the -Sept. and the Targum (see Dillmann’s note). In this I agree with G. -Hoffmann, whose adventurous interpretations of the astronomical names in -Amos and Job do not however as yet seem to me acceptable. According to -him, kîma = Sirius, _k’sîl_ = Orion, Mazzaroth = the Hyades and -Aldebaran, ‘Ayish’ = the Pleiades (Stade’s _Zeitschrift_, 1883, Heft 1). -Mazzaroth = Ass. _mazarati_; Mazzaloth (i.e. the zodiacal signs) seems -to be the plural of _mazzāla_ = Ass. _manzaltu_ station. - - -7. _Pages 60-63._—That the story of Job is an embellished folk-tale is -probable, though still unproved. The delightful humour which in the -Prologue (see pp. 14, 110), as in the myths of Plato, stands side by -side with the most impressive solemnity of itself points to this view. -No one has expressed this better than Wellhausen, in a review of -Dillmann’s _Hiob, Jahrbücher für deutsche Theologie_, xvi. 552 &c.: ‘Den -launigen und doch mürrischen Ton, den der nonchalante Satan Gott -gegenüber anschlägt, so ganz auf Du und Du, würde schwerlich der Dichter -des Hiob gewagt haben; schwerlich auch würde es ihm gelungen sein, mit -so merkwürdig einfachen Mitteln so wunderbar plastische Figuren zu -entwerfen.’ He also points out the inconsistencies of the story, -precisely such as we might expect in a folk-tale, and concludes (a -little hastily) that the Prologue is _altogether_ a folk-story and had -no didactic object. Eichhorn, too, in a review of Michaelis on Job -(_Allgemeine Bibliothek_, i. 430 &c.), well points out that the illusion -of the poem is much impaired by not admitting an element in the plot -derived from tradition. Of course this view of _Job_ as based on a -folk-tale is quite reconcileable with the view that the hero is a -personification. The latter is much older than the last century; it -explains the Jewish saying (p. 60) that ‘Job was a parable,’ and the -fascination which the book possessed for the age preceding the final -dispersion of the Jews.[433] - -Footnote 433: - - See Rosenthal, _Vier apokryphische Bücher ans der Zeit und Schule - Akiba’s_ (1885), pp. 6-12. - - -8. _Page 81_ (further correction of text of Deut. xxxii. 8, 9).—The -passage becomes more rhythmical if with Bickell we reproduce the -Septuagint Hebrew text at the close of ver. 8 as בני אלהים and continue -(ver. 9), - - וחלק יהוה יעקב [or עמו] - חבל נחלתו ישראל ׃ - -The correction of the last couplet is important as a supplement of the -explanation of ver. 8 given in the text. To other nations God gave -protective angels, but He reserved Israel for Himself. (See Bickell, -_Zeitschrift f. kathol. Theologie_, 1885, pp. 718-19, and comp. his -_Carmina V. T. metricè_, 1882, p. 192, where he adheres in both verses -to the received text.) - - -9. _Page 92._—No student of the Hebrew of _Job_ will overlook the -admirable ‘studies’ on the style of Elihu by J. G. Stickel (_Das Buch -Hiob_, 1842, pp. 248-262) and Carl Budde (_Beiträge sur Kritik des -Buches Hiob_, 1876, pp. 65-160). The former succeeded in obtaining the -admission of such an eminent critical analyst as Kuenen, that style by -itself would be scarcely sufficient to prove the later origin of the -Elihu speeches. It also, no doubt, assisted Delitzsch to recognise in -Elihu the same ‘Hebræoarabic’ impress as in the rest of the book. In -spite of this effective ‘study,’ Dillmann’s brief treatment of the same -subject in 1869 made it clear that the subject had not yet by any means -been threshed out, and perhaps no more powerful argument against chaps. -xxxii.-xxxvii. has been produced than that contained in a single -closely-printed page (289) of his commentary. There was therefore a good -chance for a _Privatdocent_ to win himself a name by a renewed attempt -to state the linguistic facts more thoroughly and impartially than -before. This indeed fairly expresses Budde’s object, which is not at all -to offer a direct proof that the disputed chapters belong to the -original poem, but merely to show that the opposite view cannot be -demonstrated on stylistic grounds. His method is to collect, first of -all, points of resemblance and then points of difference between ‘Elihu’ -and the rest of the book. Last among the latter appear the Aramaisms and -Arabisms. Budde rejects the view, adopted from Stickel (see p. 92) by -Canon F. C. Cook, that the deeper colouring of Aramaic is only the -poet’s way of indicating the Aramæan origin of Elihu. He denies that -there is any such greater amount of Aramaism as can form a real -distinction between ‘Elihu’ and the undisputed chapters. I will not -inquire whether the subjectivity of a writer may impress itself on his -statistics, and willingly grant that the Aramaic colouring in ‘Elihu’ -may perhaps affect the reader more owing to the faults of style to which -Budde himself alludes on p. 157, and which, to me, indicate an age or at -least a writer of less taste and talent than the original author. The -Aramaisms may be thrown into stronger relief by these infirmities, and -so the colouring may seem deeper than it is. I am not however sure that -there is an illusion in the matter. Among the counter-instances of -Aramaism given by Budde from the speeches of Eliphaz, there are at least -two which have no right to figure there, viz. מַנְלָם, xv. 29, and אֻיִ -for אַיִן, xxii. 30, both which forms are probably corrupt readings. -Until Dillmann has published his second edition I venture to retain the -statement on p. 92. There is a stronger Aramaising element in Elihu, -which, with other marks of a peculiar and _inferior_[434] style, -warrants us in assigning the section to a later writer. This is, of -course, not precluded by the numerous Hebraistic _points of contact_ -with the main part of the book, which Carl Budde has so abundantly -collected (_Beiträge_, pp. 92-123). No one can doubt that the original -poem very early became an absorbing study in the circles of ‘wise men.’ - -As to the words and phrases (of pure Hebrew origin) in which Elihu -_differs_ from the body of the work, I may remark that it is sometimes -difficult to realise their full significance from Budde’s catalogue. -Kleinert has thrown much light on some of them in a recent essay. He -has, for instance,[435] shown the bearings of the fact that the disputed -chapters persistently avoid the juristic sense of צָדַק (Kal), except in -a quotation from speeches of Job (xxxiv. 5), Elihu himself only using -the word of correctness in statement (xxxiii. 12), or of moral -righteousness (xxxv. 7), and that הִרְשִׁיעַ has the sense of ‘acting -wickedly’ only in a passage of Elihu (xxxiv. 12). The use of צֶרֶק, -צַרִּיק, and צְרָקָה in xxxii, 1, xxxiii. 26, xxxv. 8, xxxvi. 3, is also -dwelt upon in this connexion. It is true that Budde does not conceal -these points; he tabulates them correctly, but does not indicate the -point of view from which they can be understood. Kleinert supplies this -omission. The body of the poem, he remarks, is juristic in spirit; the -speeches of Elihu ethical and hortatory. This brings with it a different -mode of regarding the problem of Job’s sufferings. ‘Die Reden Elihu’s -haben zu dem gerichtlichen Aufriss der Buchanlage nur das -alleräusserlichste Verhältniss. Sie verlassen die scharfgezogenen -Grundlinien der rechtlichen Auseinandersetzung, um in eine -ethisch-paränetische, rein chokmatisch-didaktische Erörterung der Frage -überzulenken.’ Kleinert also notes one peculiar word of Elihu’s which I -have not met with in Budde, but which, from Kleinert’s point of view, is -important—כֹּפֶר, ‘a ransom’ (xxxiii. 24, xxxvi. 18). Why did not the -juristic theologians of the Colloquies use it? Evidently the speeches of -Elihu are later compositions. - -Footnote 434: - - ‘Ist’s denkbar, dass ein solcher Dichter demjenigen Redner, dem et die - Hauptrolle zugedacht, die Charakteristik jenes _inferioren_ Redetypus - zugewiesen haben könnte?’ Kleinert. - -Footnote 435: - - Das spezifisch-hebräische im Buch Hiob, _Theol. Studien und Kritiken_, - 1886, pp. 299-300. - - -10. _Page 99._—The critic, no less than the prophet, is still with too -many a favourite subject of ironical remark; ‘they say of him, Doth he -not speak in riddles’?[436] The origin of Job, upon the linguistic as -well as the theological side, may be a riddle, but the interest of the -book is such that we cannot give up the riddle. We may not all agree -upon the solution; the riddle may be one that admits of different -answers. All that this proves is the injudiciousness of dogmatism, which -specially needs emphasising with respect to the bearings of the -linguistic data. To say, with Nöldeke,[437] ‘We have no ground for -regarding the language of _Job_ as anything but a very pure Hebrew’ -seems to me as extreme as to assert with G. H. Bernstein (the well-known -Syriac scholar) that the amount of Aramaic colouring would of itself -bring the book into the post-Exile period. Bernstein carried to a -dangerous extreme a tendency already combated by Michaelis and -Eichhorn;[438] but his research is thorough-going and systematic. Those -who, like the present writer, have no access to it, may be referred to -L. Bertholdt’s _Historisch-kritische Einleitung_[439] (Erlangen, -1812-1819), where it is carefully examined, and its arguments, as it -would seem, reduced to something like their just proportions. Bertholdt -does not scruple to admit that distinctively Aramaising constructions -are wanting in _Job_, and that words with Aramaic affinities may have -existed in Hebrew before the Exile. Still he decides that though part of -the argument fails to pieces, yet for most there is a real foundation. -This too, is substantially the judgment of Carl Budde. ‘Despite all -deductions from Bernstein’s list it remains true that just the Book of -Job is specially rich in words which principally belong to the Aramaic -dialects.’[440] Dillmann, too, who takes pains to emphasise the -comparative scarcity of Aramaisms in the strictest sense of the word, -yet finds in the body of the work (excluding the Elihu portion) -Aramaising and Arabising words enough to suggest that the author lived -hard by Aramaic- and Arabic-speaking peoples.[441] By taking this view, -Dillmann (whose philological caution and accuracy give weight to his -opinion) separates himself from those who, like Eichhorn and more -recently the Jewish scholar Kaempf,[442] confidently maintain that the -peculiar words in _Job_ are genuine Hebrew ‘Sprachgut.’ To make this -probable, we ought to be able to show that they have more affinities -with northern than with southern Semitic (see p. 99), a task as yet -unaccomplished. Dillmann, too, would certainly dissent from Canon Cook’s -opinion that the Aramaisms of Job are only ‘such as characterise the -antique and highly poetic style.’ According to him, they are equally -unfavourable to a very early and to a very late date. - -Various lists of Aramaising words have been given since Bernstein’s. I -give here that of Dr. Lee in his _Book of the Patriarch Job_ (p. 50), -which has the merit of having been constructed from his own reading of -_Job_. It refers to the whole book:— - -נהרה (iii. 4); מנהו (iv. 12); לאויל (v. 2); אדרש (ib. 8), occur in the -Aramaic, not the Hebrew sense; תמלל (viii. 2); ישׂגה (ib. 7); מנהם (xi. -20); עמם (xii. 2); מלין (ib. 11); משׂגיא (ib. 23); מלתי ואחותי (xiii. -17); אחוך (xv. 17); וזה for ואשר (ib.); שׁלהבת (ib. 31); גלדי (xvi. 15); -חמרמרה (ib. 16); קנצי (xviii. 2); יגעל ... עבר (xxi. 10); בחיין (xxiv. -22); בחבי (xxxi. 33); אחוה (xxxii. 10, 18); פרע (xxxiii. 24); אאלפך (ib. -33); כתר (xxxvi. 2); בחרת (ib. 21); גבר (xxxviii. 3); נחיר (xli. 12). I -will not criticise this list, which no doubt contains some questionable -items. We might, however, insert other words in exchange, e.g. טושׂ (ix. -26); רׂהד (xvi. 19); כפים (xxx. 6); and כפן (v. 22, xxx. 3); and perhaps -רקב (xiii. 28), which Geiger plausibly compares with Syr. _rakbo_ -‘wineskin’ (so the tradition represented by the Septuagint, the -Peshitto, and Barhebræus). Some supposed Arabisms may also in all -probability be transferred to the list of Aramaisms; but the Arabisms -which remain will abundantly justify what has been stated in the section -on _Job_. I have not attempted to decide precisely where the poet heard -both Arabic and Aramaic. Dillmann accepts the view mentioned on p. 75. -But Gilead, too, was at all times inhabited by Arab tribes, both nomad -and settled,[443] and the region itself was called Arabia.[444] - -Footnote 436: - - Ezek. xx. 49. - -Footnote 437: - - _Die alttestamentliche Literatur_, p. 192. - -Footnote 438: - - See Eichhorn’s notice of Michaelis in vol. i. of his _Allgemeine - Bibliothek der biblischen Literatur_. - -Footnote 439: - - Pp. 2076, 2077. Bernstein’s title is, _Ueber das Alter, den Inhalt, - den Zweck und die gegenwärtige Gestalt des Buches Hiob_ (in Keil and - Tzschirner’s _Analekten_, 1813, pp. 1-137). - -Footnote 440: - - _Beiträge sur Kritik des Buches Hiob_ (1876), p. 140. - -Footnote 441: - - _Hiob_ (1869), Einleitung, pp. xxvii. xxix. - -Footnote 442: - - _Die Grabschrift Escamunazar’s_ (1874), p. 8. - -Footnote 443: - - Blau, _Zeitschr. der deutsch. morgenl. Ges._, xxv. 540. - -Footnote 444: - - Wetzstein in Delitzsch’s _Iob_, p. 528. - - -11. _Pages 106-111._—Herder (to whom I gladly refer the student) is -perhaps the best representative of the modern literary point of view. -Whatever he says on the Hebrew Scriptures is worth reading, even when -his remarks need correction. No one felt the poetry of _Job_ more deeply -than Herder; to the religious ideas of the poem his eyes were not -equally open. Indeed, it must have been hard to discern and appreciate -these adequately in the eighteenth century; the newly-discovered sacred -books of the East, with their deep though obscure metaphysical -conceptions, for a time almost overshadowed the far more sobre Hebrew -Scriptures. Like Carlyle (who is to some extent his echo) Herder -underrates the specifically Hebrew element in the book, which is of -course not very visible on a hasty perusal. One point, however, that he -sees very dearly, though he does not use the expression, is that _Job_ -is a character-drama. He denies that the speeches are monotonous. - -‘So eintönig für uns alle Reden klingen, so sind sie mit Licht und -Schatten angelegt und der Faden, oder vielmehr die Verwirrung der -Materie, nimmt zu von Rede zu Rede, bis Hiob sich selbst fasset und -seine Behauptungen lindert. Wer diesen Faden nicht verfolgt und -insonderheit nicht bemerkt, wie Hiob seinem Gegner immer den eigenen -Pfeil aus der Hand windet; entweder das besser sagt, was jener sagte, -oder die Gründe jenes eben für sich braucht—der hat das Lebendige, -Wachsende, kurz die Seele des Buchs verfehlet’ (_Hiob als Composition -betrachtet, Werke_, Suphan, ii. 318). - -He has also clearly perceived the poet’s keen sympathy with mythology, -and this, combined with the (supposed) few imitations of _Job_ in the -Old Testament, confirmed him in the erroneous view that the original -writer of _Job_ was an Edomitish Emeer. On the limited influence of -_Job_ he has some vigorous sentences, the edge of which, however, is -turned by more recent criticism. It is of the prophets he is chiefly -thinking, when he finds so few traces of acquaintance with Job in the -Scriptures, and of the pre-Exile prophets. ‘Wie drängen und drücken sich -die Propheten! wie borgen sie von einander Bilder in einem ziemlich -engen Kreise und führen sie nur, jeder nach seiner Art, aus! Diese alte -ehrwürdige Pyramide steht im Ganzen unnachgeahmt da und ist vielleicht -unnachahmbar.’ This passage occurs in the fifth conversation in his -_Geist der Ebräischenn Poesie_ (_Werke_, ed. Suphan, xi. 310). The -student of _Job_ will not neglect this and also the two preceding very -attractive chapters. The description of Elihu is not the least -interesting passage. Herder does his best to account for the presence of -this unexpected fifth speaker, but really shows how unaccountable it is -except on the theory of later addition. Prof. Briggs’s theory (p. 93) -that the poor speeches of Elihu are intended ‘as a literary foil’ was -suggested by Herder. ‘Bemerken Sie aber, dass er nur als Schatte -dasteht, dies Gottes-Orakel zu erheben’ (_Werke_, xi. 284). - - -12. _Pages 113, 114._—The latest study on the original Septuagint text -of the Book of Job is by Bickell in the _Zeitschrift für katholische -Theologie_, 1886, pp. 557-564. As to the date of the Alexandrine -version, Hody’s remark, _De Bibliorum Textibus_, p. 196, deserves -attention, viz. that Philo already quotes from it,—Τίς γὰρ, ὡς ὁ Ἰώβ -φησι, καθαρὸς ἀπὸ ῥύπου, καὶ ἂν μία ἡμέρα ἐοτίν ἡ ζωή (Sept. of Job xiv. -4 ὁ βίος); _De Mutatione Nominum_, § 6 (i. 585). - - -13. _Page 131._—The character of Harūn ar-Rashid, in fact, became almost -as distorted by legend as that of Solomon. Neither of them were models -of civil justice (Weil, _Geschichte der Chalifen_, ii. 127). - - -14. _Page 148_ (Prov. xxvii. 6).—Consult, however, the Septuagint, which -seems to have read מ at the beginning of the second line (‘More faithful -... than’ &c.). See Cornill on Ezek. xxxv. 13. - - -15. _Page 162, note 1._—The Mo’tazilites (‘the Protestants of Islam’) -denied the eternity of the Korán because it implied the existence of two -eternal beings (Weil, _Gesch. der Chalifen_, ii. 262). - - -16. _Page 173._—Text of Proverbs. Among the minor additions in Sept., -note the μὴ in Prov. v. 16 (so Vatican and, originally, Sinaitic MS.), -if we may follow Lagarde and Field. The Alexandrine MS., however, and -the Complutensian edition, omit μὴ, which is also wanting in Aquila. -Comp. Field’s _Hexapla ad loc._ - - -17. _Pages 176, 177_ (Religious Value of Proverbs).—To appreciate the -religious spirit of this fine book, we require some imaginative sympathy -with past ages. The ‘staid, quiet, “douce,” orderly burgher of the Book -of Proverbs, who is regular in his attendance at the Temple, diligent in -his business, prosperous in his affairs, of repute among the elders, -with daughters doing virtuously, and a wife that has his house decked -with coverings of tapestry, while her own clothing is silk and purple’ -(Mr. Binney’s words in _Is it possible to make the best of both -worlds?_), is not the noblest type of man, and therefore not the model -Christian even of our own day. - - -18. _Page 178 (Aids to the Student)._—Add, _Les sentences et proverbes -du Talmud et du Midrasch_. Par Moïse Schuhl. Par. 1878. - - -19. _Page 180._—On the date of Jesus son of Sirach, comp. Hody, _De -Bibliorum Textibus Originalibus_ (Oxon., 1705), pp. 192-194. - - -20. _Page 189, note 1_ (Sirach xxi. 27).—Fritzsche weakens the proverb -by taking ‘Satan’ as equivalent to ‘accuser’ (Ps. cix. 6, Zech. iii. 1). -The wise man says that it is no use for the ungodly man to disclaim -responsibility for his sin. ‘The Satan’ either means the depraved will -(comp. Dukes, _Rabbin. Blumenlese_, p. 108) or the great evil spirit. In -the latter case the wise man says that for all practical purposes the -tempter called Satan may be identified with the inborn tempter of the -heart. Comp. Ps. xxxvi. 2, ‘The ungodly man hath an oracle of -transgression within his heart.’ - - -21. _Page 193_ (The Hymn of Praise).—Frankel suspected xliv. 16 to be an -interpolation, on the ground that the view of Enoch as an example of -μετάνοια is Philonian (_Palästinische Exegese_, p. 44). Against this see -Fritzsche, who explains the passage as a characteristically uncritical -inference from Gen. v. 22. Enoch was a pattern of μετάνοια because he -walked with God after begetting Methuselah. - - -22. _Page 195_ (Ancient Versions of Sirach).—The Peshitto version -deviates, one may venture to assume, in many points from the original -Sirach. Geiger has pointed out some remarkable instances of this -(_Zeitschr. der deutschen morgenl. Ges._ xii. 536 &c.), and if the Greek -version is to be regarded as absolutely authoritative, the number of -deviations must be extremely great. Fritzsche goes so far as to say that -in the latter part of the Syriac Sirach (from about chap. xxx.) the -original is only hazily traceable (‘durchschimmert’). He describes this -version as really no version, but ‘eine ziemlich leichtfertig -hingeschriebene Paraphrase’ (‘a rather careless paraphrase’). This, as -fairer judges of the Syriac are agreed, is not an accurate statement of -the case. It can be readily disproved by referring to some of the -passages in which the Greek translator has manifestly misrendered the -original (e.g. xxiv. 27; see above, p. 196). Dr. Edersheim, who is -working upon both versions, agrees with Bickell that the Syriac often -enables us to restore the Hebrew, where the Greek text is wrong. This is -not placing the Syriac in a superior position to the Greek, but giving -it the subsidiary importance which it deserves. Doubtless, the Hebrew -text which the Syriac translator employed was in many places corrupt. -The best edition of the Peshitto, I may add, is in Lagarde’s _Libri Vet. -Test. Apocryphi Syriaci_ (1861). It is from Walton’s Polyglot, but -‘codicum nitriensium ope et coniecturis meis hic illic emendatiorem’ -[one sixth-century MS. of Ecclesiasticus is used]. - -The Old Latin has many peculiarities; its inaccuracies are no proof of -arbitrariness; the translator means to be faithful to his _Greek_ -original. Many verses are transposed; others misplaced. For instances of -the former, Fritzsche refers to iii. 27, iv. 31, 32, vi. 9, 10, ix. 14, -16, xii. 5, 7; for the latter, to xvi. 24, 25, xix. 5, 6, xlix. 17. -Sometimes a double text is translated, e.g. xix. 3, xx. 24. It is to be -used with great caution, but its age makes it valuable for determining -the Greek text. For the text of Ecclesiasticus in the Codex Amiatinus, -see Lagarde’s _Mittheilungen_. - - -23. _Page 198 (Aids to the Student)._—To the works mentioned add Bruch, -_Weisheitslehre_ (1851), p. 283 &c., and especially Jehuda ben Seeb’s -little known work _The Wisdom of Joshua ben Sira rendered into Hebrew -and German, and paraphrased in Syriac with the Biur_, Breslau, 1798 -(translated title), and Geiger, ‘Warum gehört das Buch Sirach zu den -Apocryphen?’ in _Zeitschr. d deutschen morgenl. Gesellschaft_, xii. 536 -&c. - - -24. _Page 207, note 2._—The name is undoubtedly an enigma, and M. Renan -thinks that ordinary philological methods are inadequate to its -solution. Even Aquila leaves it untranslated (κωλέθ). Without stopping -here to criticise M. Renan’s theory that QHLTH were the initials of -words (comp. Rambam, Rashi) in some way descriptive of Solomon,[445] let -me frankly admit that none of the older explanations is absolutely -certain, because neither _Qōhēl_ nor _Qohéleth_ occurs elsewhere in the -Old Testament literature. Two views however are specially prevalent, and -I will first mention that which seems to me (with Gesenius, Delitzsch, -Nowack &c.) to deserve the preference. In one respect indeed it -harmonises with the rival explanation, viz. in supposing Qal to have -adopted the signification of Hifil (the Hifil of Q H L _is_ found in the -Old Testament), so that _Qōhēl_ will mean ‘one who calls together an -assembly.’ The adoption thus supposed is found especially in proper -names (e.g. רחביה). But how to explain the feminine form _Qohéleth_? By -a tendency of later Hebrew to use fem. participles with a masc. -sense.[446] In Talmudic Hebrew, e.g., we find לְקוּחוֹת, ‘buyers,’ -נְקוּרוֹת, ‘stone-masons,’ לְעוּזוֹת, ‘foreigners’ (passive participles -in this stage of the language tend to adopt an active sense). But even -earlier we find the same tendency among _proper names_. Take for -instance Sophereth (_hassofereth_ in Ezra ii. 55; _sofereth_ in Neh. -vii. 57), Pokereth (Ezra ii. 57). Why should not the name Qoheleth have -been given to the great Teacher of the book before us, just as the name -Sophereth was given apparently to a scribe? Delitzsch[447] reminds us -that in Arabic the fem. termination serves sometimes to intensify the -meaning, or, as Ewald puts it, ‘ut abstracto is innuatur in quo tota hæc -virtus vel alia proprietas consummatissima sit, ut ejus exemplum haberi -queat.’[448] Thus Qoheleth might mean ‘the ideal teacher,’ and this no -doubt would be a title which would well describe the later view of -Solomon. It is simpler, however, to take the fem. termination as -expressing action or office; thus in Arabic _khalifa_ means 1, -succession or the dignity of the successor, 2, the successor or -representative himself, the ‘caliph,’ and in Hebrew and Assyrian -_pekhāh_, _pakhatu_ ‘viceroy.’ Comp. ἡ ἐξουσία, ‘die Obrigkeit.’ - -The alternative is, with Ewald, Hitzig, Ginsburg, Kuenen, Kleinert, to -explain Qoheleth as in apposition to חָכְמָה, Wisdom being represented -in Prov. i. 20, 21, viii. 1-4, as addressing men in the places of -concourse (Klostermann eccentrically explains ἡ συλλογίζουσα or -συλλογιστική). Solomon, according to this view, is regarded by the -author as the impersonation of Wisdom (as Protagoras was called Σοφία). -It is most unlikely, however, that Solomon should have been thus -regarded, considering the strange discipline which the author describes -Qoheleth as having passed through, and how different is the language of -Wisdom when, as in Prov. i.-ix., she is represented as addressing an -assembly! A reference to vii. 27, where Qoheleth seems to be spoken of -in the fem., is invalid, as we should undoubtedly correct _haqqohéleth_ -in accordance with xii. 8[449] (comp. _hassofereth_, Ezra ii. 55). - -The Sept. rendering ἐκκλησιαστής, whence the ‘concionator’ of Vulg., is -therefore to be preferred to the singular Greek rend. ἡ ἐκκλησιάστρια of -Græcus Venetus. - -Footnote 445: - - On this, see Wright, _Ecclesiastes_ &c. p. 127. - -Footnote 446: - - Strack, _Lehrbuch der neuhebr. Sprache_, p. 54. - -Footnote 447: - - _Hoheslied und Koheleth_, pp. 212-3. - -Footnote 448: - - _Grammatica arabica_, § 284 (i. 167). Comp. Wright, _Arabic Grammar_, - i. 157 (§ 233). - -Footnote 449: - - The mistake was caused by the rarity of קהלת with the article. - - -25. _Page 210._—Eccles. iii. 11. Might we render, ‘Also he hath put (the -knowledge of) that which is secret into their mind, except that,’ &c., -i.e. ‘though God has enabled man to find out many secrets, yet human -science is of very limited extent’? This implies Bickell’s pointing עָלֻם. - - -26. _Page 219._—Eccles. vii. 28. The misogyny of the writer was -doubtless produced by some sad personal experience. Its evil effect upon -himself was mitigated by his discovery of another Jonathan with a love -passing the love of women.’ This reminds us of the author of the -celebrated mediæval ‘Romance of the Rose.’[450] ‘What is Love?’ asks the -lover, and Reason answers, ‘It is a mere sickness of the thought, a -sport of the fancy. If thou scape at last from Love’s snares, I hold it -but a grace. Many a one has lost body and soul in his service’ (comp. -Eccles, vii. 26). And then he continues, ‘There is a kind of love which -lawful is and good, as noble as it is rare,—the friendship of men.’ To -quote Chaucer’s translation, - - And certeyn he is wel bigone - Among a thousand that findeth oon. - For ther may be no richesse - Ageyns frendshippe of worthynesse. - -The allusion to Eccles. vii. 29 is obvious. Thus the same varieties of -character recur in all ages. This point of view is very different from -that of the Agadic writers who borrow from Eccles. vii. 26 a weapon -against ‘heresy’ (_mīnūth_), a term which includes the Jewish Christian -faith. All are agreed that the ‘bitter woman’ is heresy, and one of them -declares that the closing words of the verse refer to ‘the men of -Capernaum’ (see Matt. ix. 8). Delitzsch, _Ein Tag in Kapernaum_, 1886, -p. 48; comp. Wünsche, _Midraseh Koheleth_, p. 110. - -Footnote 450: - - Comp. _British Quarterly Review_, Oct. 1871. - - -27. _Pages 223-227._—Eccles. xi. 9-xii. 7. The key to the whole passage -is xi. 8. ‘For, if a man lives many years, let him rejoice in them all, -and let him remember the days of darkness, that they shall be many.’ I -cannot accept the ingenious conjecture of Dr. C. Taylor, which might -(see Chap. X.) have been supported by a reference to Egypt, that xii. -3-5 are cited from an authorised book of dirges. Not only these verses -but xii. 1_b_-6 form a poem on the evils of old age, the whole effect of -which is lost without some prefix, such as ‘Rejoice in thy youth.’ -Döderlein supplies this prefix in xii. 6; but this is not enough. If we -hesitate, with Luzzatto, Geiger, and Nöldeke to cancel xii. 1_a_ as a -later addition for purposes of edification, we must, with Gritz and -Bickell, read either אֶת־בּוֹרְךָ or אֶת־בְּאִֹרְךָ. These two readings -seem to have existed side by side, and to an ingenious moralist this -fact apparently suggested a new and edifying reading אֶת־בּוֹרְאֶּךָ. -Hence Akabia ben Mahalallel,[451] one of the earliest of the Jewish -‘fathers,’ and probably a contemporary of Gamaliel I., advises -considering these three points as a safeguard against sin, ‘Whence thou -comest, whither thou goest, and before whom thou wilt have to give an -account.’ ‘Whence thou comest,’ implying בְּאֵרְךָ ‘thy fountain;’ -‘whither thou goest,’ בּוֹרְךָ, ‘thy pit, or grave;’ ‘before whom thou -wilt stand,’ בּוֹאֶךָ, ‘thy creator.’ - -Footnote 451: - - _Aboth_, iii, 1 (ed. Strack); comp, Schiffer, _Das Buch Kohelet nach - der Auffassung der Weisen_, part i., p. 49. - - -28. _Page 232._—Döderlein (in a popular work on Ecclesiastes, p. 119) -describes xii. 9 &c. as the epilogue, ‘perhaps, of a larger collection -of writings and of the earlier Hebrew canon.’ Herder, too, thinks that -the close of the book suggests a collection of sayings of several wise -men (_Werke_, ed. Suphan, x, 134). - - -29. _Page 244._—According to Grätz, Koheleth is not to be taken in -earnest when he writes as if in a sombre and pessimistic mood. Such -passages Grätz tries to explain away. Koheleth, he thinks, is the enemy -of those who cultivate such a mood, and who, like the school of Shammai, -combine with it an extravagant and unnatural asceticism (comp. vii. 16, -17). The present, Koheleth knows, is far from ideal, but he would fain -reconcile young men to inevitable evils by pointing them to the relative -goods still open to them. This attitude of the author enables Grätz to -account for Koheleth’s denial of the doctrine of Immortality. This -doctrine, he remarks, was not of native Jewish origin, but imported from -Alexandria, and was the source of the ascetic gloom opposed by Koheleth. -Koheleth’s denial of the Immortality of the Soul does not, according to -Grätz, involve the denial of the Resurrection of the Body, the -Resurrection being regarded in early Judaism as a new creative act.[452] -It is not clear to me, however, that Koheleth accepts the Resurrection -doctrine, even if he does not expressly controvert it. - -Footnote 452: - - _Kohelet_, p. 29. Certainly this is not the view of Talmudic Judaism, - at least not in the sense described by Dr. Grätz. See Weber, - _Altsynagogale Theologie_, p. 323. - - -30. _Page 245, note 3._—Herder says with insight, though with some -exaggeration, that most of Koheleth consists of isolated observations on -the course of the world and the experience of the writer. No artistic -connection need be sought for. But if we must seek for one (_so that -Herder is not convinced of the soundness of the theory_), it is strange -that no one has observed the twofold voice in the book, ‘da ein Grübler -Wahrheit sucht, und in dem Ton seines Ichs meistens damit, “dass alles -eitel sey,” endet; eine andre Stimme aber, im Ton des Du, ihn oft -unterbricht, ihm das Verwegne seiner Untersuchungen vorhält und meistens -damit endet, “was zuletzt das Resultat des ganzen Lebens bleibe?” Es ist -nicht völlig Frag’ und Antwort, Zweifel und Auflösung, aber doch aus -Einem und demselben Munde etwas, das beyden gleicht, und sich durch -Abbrüche und Fortsetzungen unterscheidet.’ _Brief das Studium der -Theologie betreftend_, erster Theil (_Werke_, Suphan, x. 135-136). - - - - - INDEX. - - - Aaron, celebrated by Sirach, 193 - - Achamoth, Gnostic myth of, 161 _n._ - - Adam, occurrence of the word in ‘Proverbs,’ 119 - - Addison, 145 - - Age, ascribed to Job, 71; - description of, 229 _sq._ - - Agur, 154, 170 _sq._ - - Ahriman, 80 - - Akabia ben Mahalallel, 300 - - Akiba, Rabbi, 283 - - Alexandria, importance of, to Jews, 181 - - Allegorical view of ‘Job,’ 65; - of Koheleth’s portrait of old age, 229 _sq._ - - Alphabet of Ben Sira, 195 _sq._ - - Amenemhat I., 156 - - Amos, parallels to ‘Job’ in, 87 - - Amos iv. 13, v. 8, perhaps interpolations, 52, _n._ - - Angels, doctrine of, 44 _sq._ _See also_ Spirits - - Apap, the serpent, 76 - - Apocrypha, value of the, 179 - - Aquila, versions of, 277 - - Arabian theory of angels, 44 _n._ - - Arabic Literature, euphuism in, 206 - - Arabic Poets, subjectivity, 64; - parallels to ‘Job’ in, 100 - - Arabic Proverbs compared with Hebrew, 134; - one quoted, 64 - - Arabisms, in ‘Job,’ 99, 291 _sq._; - in Proverbs, 172 - - Aramaisms, in ‘Job,’ 15 _n._, 92, 97, 99, 291 _sq._, 294; - in ‘Proverbs,’ 154, 168, 172; - in Koheleth, 257 - - Aristeas, the fragment of, 96 - - Aristotle, definition of Virtue, 28 - - Arnold, Matthew, 122 - - Artaxerxes II. and III., 258 - - Ashmedai, 80 - - Assyrian, Discoveries, 5 _sq._; - Policy of uprooting nations, 73; - Theory of Angels, 44 _n._ - - Atomism, doctrine of, 263 - - Atonement, doctrine of the, 3, 287, 45 - - Augustine, Saint, quoted, 147, 284 - - Aurelius, Marcus, mentioned, 289; - quoted, 234; - compared with Koheleth, 245, 266 _sq._ - - - Babylonian, animal fables, 126; - physical theology, 52 - - Bacon, Lord, the _New Atlantis_, 132; - _Adv. of Learning_, 210 - - Bagoses, 258 - - Bede, the Ven., on ‘Job,’ 90 - - Bedouin prayer, 52 - - Behemoth, 56 - - Ben Abuyah, 150 - - Bereshith Rabba, quoted, 188 - - Bernstein, on ‘Job,’ 293 - - Bertholdt, on ‘Job,’ 293 - - Bible, Milton’s view of the, 253 - - Biblical criticism, 1 _sq._ - - Bickell, as a critic, 241; - on Job (xix. 25-27), 35, 288; - on Prov. (xxii. 19-21), 138; - on Sirach, 195; - on Koheleth (iv. 13-16), 213, (iii. 11) 276, (viii. 10) 220, 276; - list of poetical passages in Koheleth, 206; - on the text of Koheleth, 273; - and _passim_ - - Bildad, his home, 15; - the advocate of tradition, 17, 23 - - Binney, Mr., 296 - - Birthday, Job’s curse of his, 16 - - Blake, William, quoted, 54; - his illustrations to ‘Job,’ 19, 45 _n._, 50, 56, 59, 65, 106 _sq._ - - Book of the Dead, parallels with ‘Job,’ 39, 76 - - Böttcher, on ‘Job,’ 68 - - Bradley, Dean, 215, 229 _n._, 248 - - Breton legend of St. Ives, 140 - - Briggs, Prof., on Elihu’s speeches, 93, 296 - - Budde, on Aramaisms in ‘Job,’ 291 _sqq._ - - Buddha, 218 - - Buddhist sayings, 128 - - Budge, Mr., on Tiamat, 78 - - Bullinger, on Sirach, 197 - - Bunsen, quoted, 108 _n._ - - Bunyan, 109 - - - Camerarius, edition of Sirach, 197 - - Canon, the, final settlement, 233, 281 - - Carlyle, quoted, 112, 144 _n._, 246 - - Ceremonial system, value of, 119 _sq._; - approved by Sirach, 190 - - Chabas, M., quoted, 57 - - Chaldæans, 73; - their philosophy known to Job, 51 - - Chateaubriand, quoted, 65 - - Chinese proverbs, 129 - - Christ, never used directly anti-sacrificial language, 3 _sq._; - Kenotic view of His person, 7; - whether Job a type of, 102 _sq._; - foregleams of, in Prov. viii., 176 - - Christian doctrine in Koheleth, 248 _sq._ - - Church of England, attitude to Biblical criticism, 1 _sq._ - - Cicero, dialogues, 207 - - Clement, of Rome, 176 - - Coleridge, quoted, 108 - - Constantinople, Councils at, 107, 282 - - Cosmos, conception of the world as, 52, 161 - - Cox, Dr., quoted, 46 - - - Daniel, plural authorship of the Book of, 8 - - Dante, allusions to, 28, 51, 66, 76, 159, 194, 230; - quotations from, 45, 54, 130; - comparison of the _Divina Commedia_ to ‘Job,’ 111 - - Davenant, quoted, 252 - - David, idealisation of, 131 _sqq._ - - Davidson, on Job (xix. 25-27), 34 - - Dawn, personified, 77 - - De Jong, on Koheleth, 240 - - Delitzsch, on the Praise of Wisdom, 163; - on the date of Proverbs, 170; - on the period of Koheleth, 258; - his Hebrew New Testament, 288; - and _passim_ - - Derenbourg, quoted, 100 - - De Sanctis, quoted, viii. - - Determinism, in Koheleth, 265 _sqq._ - - Deuteronomy, in the reign of Josiah, 6; - points of contact with Job, 86; - influence on the Praise of Wisdom, 168 _sq._; - (xxxii. 8) explained, 81 _n._, 291 - - De Vere, Aubrey, quoted, 105 - - Dillmann, on style of Job, 294 - - _Dīn Ibrahim_, morality of the, 98 - - Dragon Myth, 16, 24, 76 - - Dramatic character of ‘Job,’ 107 - - Drunkenness, 140, 156 - - - Ebers, Prof., 40, 269 - - - =Ecclesiastes, the Book of=— - (_a_) Canonicity, 279 _sqq._; - title, 207 _n._, 298; - date and place of composition, 255 _sqq._, 271, 278; - break in its composition, 204; - language, 256; - style, 203, 207, 246; - how far autobiographical, 209; - comparison with Job, 203; - with Sirach, 279; - its standpoint, 200 _sqq._; - its pessimism, 215, 251 _sq._, 301; - its relation to Epicureanism, 215, 222, 252, 262 _sq._; - to Stoicism, 264 - (_b_) _Passages explained or emended_: - (iii. 11, 12), 210, 260, 276, 299; - (iii. 17-21), 211; - (iv. 13-16), 213; - (v. 17), 260; - (v. 19), 261; - (vi. 9), 261; - (vii. 1), 215; - (vii. 18), 261; - (vii. 27), 219; - (viii. 10), 220, 276; - (viii. 12), 220; - (x. 20), 222; - (xi. 9-xii. 7), 300; - (xii. 1-7), 226; - (xii. 8-14), 229 _sqq._, 261, 301 - Transpositions, 273 _sq._; - Interpolations, 275, and 211, 213, 224 _sq._, 226, 229 _sq._ - - Ecclesiasticus, _see_ Sirach - - Edwards, Sutherland, on Mephistopheles, 110 - - Egypt, theory that ‘Job’ was composed in, 75 - - Egyptian, animal fables, 126 _n._; - discoveries, 5; - incantations, 16; - proverbs, 129; - influence on Koheleth, 269 _sq._ - - Egyptian-Jewish literature, 181 - - Elephantiasis, Job’s disease, 22 - - Elephants, 57 - - Elihu, genealogy, 42 _n._; - speeches of, 68, 90 _sqq._; - their date, 42, 92; - their style, 47, 92, 291 - - Eliphaz, his home, 15; - the ‘depositary of a revelation,’ 17 - - Elohim, the sons of the, 14, 79, 81, 82, 151 - - Emerson, quoted, 160 - - Enoch, 297; - Book of, 268 - - Epictetus, 234 _n._ - - Epicureanism, in Koheleth, 240 _sq._, 252, 262 _sq._ - - Epicurus, 222 - - Ethics, practical, relation to Hebrew Wisdom, 118 _sq._; - of the Proverbs, 135 _sq._ - - Euergetes II. Physkon, 180 - - Ewald, his division of the Book of Proverbs, 134; - of the Praise of Wisdom, 162; - on the date of Proverbs, 190; - on Koheleth, 236 _sqq._; - and _passim_ - - Ezekiel (xiv. 14), 60 - - Ezra, why not mentioned in Sirach, 193 _sq._ - - - Family life, in Proverbs, 136 - - Farmers, Israelitish goodwill to, 136, 214 - - Faust, the Hebrew, 150 - - Fees, whether paid to the ‘Wise Men,’ 124 _n._ - - Fénelon, 67 - - Friends, Job’s, Emeers, 15; - representatives of orthodoxy, 17; - their narrowness, 30 - - Froude, J. A., quoted on Job xxvii., 95 _n._ - - - Gamaliel, 280 - - Geiger, on Koheleth, 238 _sq._ - - Genesis, no protest against Idolatry in, 71; - opening chapters of, 6; - (xiv. 19-22), 160 - - Gilchrist, Life of Blake, 107 - - Ginsburg, Dr., on ‘proportionate retribution’ in Job, 69; - on Koheleth, 236; - on Eccles. (iii. 12), 210 _n._; - and _passim_ - - Gnostic myth of Achamoth, 161 - - God, name of, in Koheleth, 201, 217 - - Godet, 288 - - Grätz, on Koheleth, 244, 301 - - Grave, Job’s, 60 - - Greek influence on Koheleth, 202, 241, 260 _sqq._ - - Green, Prof., of Princeton, on Job, (xix. 25-27), 33, 34 _n._; - (xxvii.-xxviii.), 94 - - Gregory the Great, on ‘Job,’ 90 - - - Hai Gaon, Rabbi, on ‘Job,’ 61 - - Harischandra compared to Job, 63 - - Harnack, quoted, 263 - - Harūn ar-Rashid, 131, 296 - - Hegesias Peisithanatos, 268 - - Heine, on ‘Job,’ 104 - - Hellenic movement in Palestine, 181 - - Hengstenberg, on ‘Job,’ 61; - on Koheleth, 249 _n._ - - Herder, on ‘Job,’ 295; - on Koheleth, 301 - - Hezekiah, the Song of, 88; - his supposed authorship of Proverbs xxv.-xxix., 142 _sq._; - his views on medical science, 191 - - Hillel, Rabbi, a copious fabulist, 128; - the School of, on Koheleth, 280 - - Hitopadesa, quoted, 153 - - Hitzig, as a critic, 241 _n._; - on the arrangement of the Praise of Wisdom, 163; - and _passim_ - - Hooker, 161, 162, 216 _sq._ - - Hosea, parallels to ‘Job’ in, 87 - - Humboldt, A. von, 46 - - Humour, touches of, in ‘Job,’ 13, 14, 49, 109, 290; - in Proverbs, 148 _n._; - in Koheleth, 200, 216 - - Husbandmen, Israelite goodwill to, 136, 214 - - - Ibn Ezra, opinion that ‘Job’ was a translation, 96 - - Ibycus, the cranes of, 222 - - Idealism, of the Prophets, 119 - - Immortality, the hope of, in Proverbs, 122 _sq._; - attitude of Koheleth to, 216, 251, 301 - - Inconsistencies in the Canonical Scriptures, 204 - - Indian, animal fables, 126 _n._; - proverbs, 129 - - Inspiration, view of, broadened by literary criticism, 7 - - Irving, Edward, 162 - - Isaiah, mythological allusions in, 78; - parallels to ‘Job’ in, 84, 87; - xxviii., 14, 120 _n._ - - Israel, Job a type of, 58; - the word not in Proverbs, 119; - Koheleth indifferent to its religious primacy, 199 - - Israelites, low religious position before the Exile, 6; - their sympathy with husbandmen, 136, 214 - - Italian moralists, their use of ‘Job,’ viii. - - Ives, Saint, Breton legend of, 140 - - - Jamnia, Synod of, 233, 280 - - Jehovah, the name, 71, 72 _n._; - consistency of the speeches of, in ‘Job,’ 48, 94 - - Jeremiah, parallels to ‘Job’ in, 86 - - Jerome, Saint, on metrical character of ‘Job,’ 12 _n._; - on Epicureanism in Koheleth, 262, 281 - - Jewish nation, like Job, a byword, 32 - - =Job, the Book of=— - (_a_) Proposed title for, 12; - divisions of, 12 _sq._; - perhaps a translation, 96 _sq._; - probable stages of the growth of, 66 _sqq._; - date of, 67 _sqq._, 88, 157; - place of composition, 75; - effect of removing the interpolations in, 70; - Aramaic colouring of, 15 _n._, 92; - whether historical, 60 _sq._, 183, 290; - whether autobiographical, 63; - whether a drama, 107; - polemical aim of, 65; - religious teaching of, 102 _sqq._; - feeling for nature in, 51; - humour in, 13 _sq._, 49, 109, 290; - influence of, on other writers, viii. 83 _sq._ - (_b_) =Author=, the greatest master of Hebrew Wisdom, 11; - circumstances of his age reflected in xvii. 6-9, 32; - a traveller, 75, 97; - looks beyond Israel, 65; - place of writing, 75 - (_c_) =Hero=, his name, 62; - title given him by the Syrians, 65; - his nationality, 13, 59, 117, 170; - whether historical, 60 _sqq._, 103; - great age ascribed to him, 71; - his grave, 60; - dual aspect of, 32; - a type, 17, 21, 22, 28, 31, 32, 58, 65 - (_d_) =Text.= (i.) _Passages explained or emended_: - (vi. 25), 288; - (xi. 6), 26; - (xiii. 15), 28; - (xv. 7), 167; - (xvi. 2), 31; - (xix. 25-27), 33 _sqq._, 288 _sq._; - (xxxiii. 13), 44; - (xxxviii. 41), 52 _n._; - (xxxix. 10), 53 _n._ - (ii.), _Passages misplaced_, list of, 114; - also 38, 39 _n._, 40 _n._, 41, 50, 68, 94, 115 - (iii.) _Passages interpolated_, 55 _sq._, 68 _sq._, 94, &c. - - Joel ii. 17 explained, 32 - - Joseph, the tax farmer, 182, 191, 213 - - Josephus, quoted, 190 - - Joshua ben Hananyah, Rabbi, 230 - - - Kalisch, Dr., on Eccles. iii. 12, 210 _n._; - his _Path and Goal_, 265 - - Kant, on Job’s friends, 37 - - Kenotic view of Christ’s person, 7, 287 - - _Khîda_, a riddle, 125 - - Kings, First Book of, (iv. 32) 132, (xix. 12) 19 - - Kleinert, on Job (vi. 25), 288; - on the style of Elihu, 293 - - Klostermann, translation of Eccles. vii., 21, 219 - - Koheleth, the name, 207, 231; - his personality partly fused with Solomon, 208; - his originality, 205, 268 _sq._ - _See also_ Ecclesiastes - - Koheleth, the Book of, _see_ Ecclesiastes - - Koran, quoted, &c., 31, 62 _n._, 63, 79 _n._ - - Krochmal, N., on Epilogue to Koheleth, 232 _sq._ - - K’sil, = Orion, 77 - - Kuenen, on the Levitical Law, 3 - - - Lagarde, on the use of ‘Eloah,’ 72 _n._ - - Lamentations, parallels to ‘Job’ in, 86 - - Landed property, accumulation of, 146 - - - Law, the Levitical, authorship of, 3 _sqq._; - not enforced in pre-Exile period, 6; - identification of, with personified wisdom, 162, 192; - Koheleth’s attitude to, 218 - - Lee, Prof. S., on ‘Job,’ 97, 294 - - Lemuel, 154, 170 _sq._ - - Letteris, Max, 150 - - Leviathan, 56 - - Love for one’s enemies, 147 - - Lowth, Bp., 16, 61, 107, 186, 237 - - Lucretius, quoted, 201, 205; - compared with Koheleth, 263 - - Luther, on Job, 61; - on Sirach, 197; - on Koheleth, 205 - - Luzzatto, on the ‘God of Job,’ 104; - on Koheleth, 238 _sq._ - - - Mal’ak Yahvè, 80 - - Mal’akim, 79, 80, 82 - - Marduk, the god, 77 - - Mariolatry, 162 _n._ - - Marvell, Andrew, quoted, 144 - - _Māshāl_, 125 _sq._, 132, 163 - - Maspero, quoted, 76 - - Massa, in the Hauran, Israelite colony at, 171 - - Medical Science, attitudes of Sirach and Hezekiah to, 190 _sq._ - - Meir, Rabbi, the writer of animal fables, 128 - - Mendelssohn, on Koheleth, 236 - - Mephistopheles, 110 _n._ - - Merodach, the god, 77 - - Merx, view of Job, 62, 113 - - Messianic hope, 119, 188 - - Midrash, proverbs in, 128 - - Milton, allusions to, 53, 62, 107, 108, 112, 162, 253; - quotations from, 19, 41, 107, 160, 162 - - Mishnic peculiarities in Koheleth, 256 - - _M’lîça_, a dark saying, 125 - - Mohammed, delight of, in Job, 63; - religion of, 98 - - Mommsen, quoted, 181 - - Monarchy, view of, in Proverbs, 145; - in Koheleth, 222 - - Monogamy, in Proverbs, 136 - - Monotheism, of Job, 74; - in Proverbs, 130 - - Morality, of the Proverbs, 135 _sq._, 177 - - Moses, authorship of the Law, 3; - nature of his work, 6 - - Mo’tazilites, 98, 162 _n._, 296 - - Mozley, quoted, 103 - - Mussaph prayer, 193 - - Mythology, in ‘Job,’ 76 - - - Narrative poetry, alien to Hebrew genius, 13 - - Nature, feeling for, in ‘Job,’ 51; - in Sirach, 193 - - Nebuchadnezzar, 73 - - Neferhotep, stanzas in honour of, 269 - - Neubauer, Dr. A., 289 - - New Testament, attitude to Proverbs, 177 - - Nowack, on Eccles. (iii. 12), 210 _n._ - - Numerical Proverbs, 153 - - - Old Testament, general remarks on the criticism of, 1 _sqq._; - need to distinguish between the parts of, 7; - critical problems of, not prominent in Christ’s time, 7 - - Omar Khayyam, 200, 245, 246, 253, 263 - - Onias, the High Priest, 213 - - Onkelus, Targum of, 264 - - Oort, Dr., on proverbs, 127 - - Orion, 77 - - - Palmer, Major, 52 - - Parables, in the Old Testament, 126 - - Paradise, tradition of, 123 - - Patriarchal Age, whether delineated in Job, 13, 71 _sqq._ - - Paul, Saint, doctrine of the Atonement, 3, 287 - - Pentateuch, the literary analysis of it, 5 _sq._ - - Peshitto translation of Proverbs, 174 - - Philo, 151, 161 _n._, 264 - - Pisa, Job frescoes at, 106 - - Pleiades, 52, 290 - - Plumptre, Dean, 122, 158, 207 _n._, 212, 245, 263, 265; - and _passim_ - - Prior, the poet, on Koheleth, 237 - - Prophetical books, plural authorship in, 8 - - Prophets, their antisacrificial language, 4; - their horizon that of their own times, 8; - their relations to the ‘Wise Men,’ 119 _sqq._, 182 _sq._ - - Proverbs, different names for, 125; - no collection of popular, 125; - some originally current as riddles, 127 - - =Proverbs, the Book of=— - (_a_) The division of, 134; - repetitions in, 133, 143; - no subject arrangement, 134; - the tone of the different parts of, 135, 146, 167, 177; - their dates, 130, 133, 145, 149, 152, 165 _sqq._; - their authorship, 130 _sqq._, 142, 135, 165 _sq._; - their form and style, 133, 139, 143. 149, 154, 168; - interpolations in, 173 _sqq._; - transpositions in, 174 - (_b_) _Passages explained or emended_: - (v. 16), 296; - (viii. 22), 160; - (xiv. 32), 122; - (xviii. 24), 137; - (xix. 1), 135 _n._; - (xix. 7), 134; - (xxii. 19-21), 138; - (xxiii. 18), 123; - (xxvii. 6), 148, 296; - (xxx. 1-5), 149 _sq._, 170; - (xxx. 15-16), 153; - (xxx. 31), 175; - (xxii. 1), 170 - - Psalms, relations of, to ‘Job,’ 84, 88; - Psalm viii. 5 parodied in ‘Job’ (vii. 17, 18), 22 - - Ptahhotep, Proverbs of, 121 - - Ptolemy Arsacides, Golden Table, 289 - - Puscy, Dr. quoted, 1 - - - Q’dōshīm, 80, 149 _n._ - - Quinet quoted, 105 - - - Ra, the sun god, 76 - - Rahab, the helpers of, 24, 76 - - Raven (in Job xxxviii. 41), 52 _n._ - - Realism of the ‘Wise Men,’ 119 - - Renan, on the style of Elihu, 47; - on Koheleth, 206, 234, 242 _sq._, 246, 298; - and _passim_ - - Resh Lakish, Rabbi, quoted, 60 - - Resurrection, hope of, 34, 75, 188 _sq._, 251, 301 - - Retribution, proportionate, 23, 35, 58, 73, 98, 121, 140, 167, 189, 190 - _n._, 200, 219, 251 - - Riddles, proverbs originally current as, 127 - - - Rig Veda, quoted, 78, 152 - - Romans, vii. 20 adopted from Proverbs (xxiv. 17, 18), 147 - - Romaunt of the Rose, quoted, 300 - - Rossetti, Miss C., 242 - - - Sacrificial system, importance of, in post-Exile period, 4; - relations of Job to, 71. - _See also_ Law - - Salmon, Prof., on Eccles. (ix. 7-9), 262 - - Samaritans, 194 - - Sammael, 80 - - Sandys’, George, translation of ‘Job,’ 106 - - Satan, the, 14, 79, 80, 109, 188 _sq._, 297 - - Schiller, 12 - - Schultens, Albert, quoted, 61, 97, 99 - - Sea Life, familiar, 140; - cf. 133 - - Seneca, quoted, 57, 265 - - Septuagint version, of ‘Job,’ 113, 114, 296; - of Proverbs, 173; - of Koheleth, 277 - - Seven Wise Men, of Greece, 119, 124 - - Shammaites, on Koheleth, 280 _sq._ - - Shedim, 80 - - Shelley, delight in Job, 112, 253; - dislike of Koheleth, 253 - - Sibyl, the oldest Jewish, 264 - - Simeon ben Shetach, 282 _sq._ - - Simon II., 180, 181 _sq._ - - - Sirach, parentage, 180; - early life, 182; - a true ‘scribe,’ 185; - unacquainted with Greek philosophy, 190; - interested in nature and history, 193 - - =Sirach, the Book of=— - (_a_) Canonicity, 279 _sq._, 282 _sq._; - the name Ecclesiasticus, 197; - written in Hebrew, 194, 196; - ancient versions of, 297; - its date, 180 _sqq._; - subject arrangement, 183; - style, 185; - whether autobiographical, 186; - parallelisms in, to Proverbs, 184; - no philosophical thought in, 182; - imperfect moral teaching in, 187; - conception of the divine nature, 188 - (_b_) _Passages emended or explained_; - (xi. 16), 188; - (xxi. 27), 189 _n._; - (xxiv. 27), 196; - (xxv. 15), 196; - (xlvi. 18), 196; - (xlviii. 11), 189, 193; - (l. 1), 193; - (l. 26), 193 - - Soferim, 238. _See also_ ‘Wise Men’ - - Solar Myths, 16, 22, 24, 76, 77 - - Solomon, secular turn of, 72; - reputed authorship of Proverbs, 130 _sqq._, 165, 170; - Koheleth’s representative of humanity, 202, 207; - reputed authorship of Koheleth, 255, 275 - - Sophia, Gnostic myth of, 161 _n._ - - Sophocles, 107, 220 - - Spanheim, quoted, 97 - - Spenser, the poet, 12 - - Spinoza, on Job, 61 - - - Spirits, classes of, 44 _sq._ - - Stanley, Dean, on Koheleth, 245, 255 - - Star worship, 71, 82 - - Steersmanship, the term, 133 - - Stickel, quoted, 102 - - Stoicism, in Koheleth, 240 _sq._, 264 - - Swift, 15 - - Swinburne, quoted, 212 - - Syrian title for Job, 65 - - - Talmud, on Job, 64; - proverbs in the, 128; - Sirach cited in, 196; - comparison of Koheleth with, 205; - on Koheleth, 281 - - Tasso, 109 _n._ - - Taylor, C., on Job (xix. 26), 289 - - Taylor, Jeremy, 253 - - Temple, Bishop, 225 - - Tennyson, quoted, 212 - - Theism, argument for, early based on tradition, 23; - of the Praise of Wisdom, 167 - - Theodore of Mopsuestia, 107 - - Thirlwall, Bishop, quoted, 2 - - Thomas à Kempis, 231, 249 - - Thomson, the poet, quoted, 21 - - Thoreau, quoted, 106, 252 - - Tiamat, 77 - - Trades, disparaged in Sirach, 186 - - Turgenieff, 243 - - Turner, Studies Biblical and Oriental, quoted, 46 - - Tyler, on Koheleth, 240, 263 _sq._ - - - Unicorn, in Job (xxxix. 10), 53 _n._ - - Utilitarianism of the Wise Men, 121, 137 - - Uz, locality of, 13 _n._ - - - Vaihinger, on Koheleth, 236 _sq._ - - Varuna, Vedic hymn to, 154 - - Vatke, on date of Proverbs, 1 - - Vedic hymns, 77, 154. _See also_ Rig Veda - - Virtue, Koheleth’s ‘theory of,’ 218 - - - Webbe, George, quoted, 113 - - Wellhausen, on Levitical Law, 3 _sqq._; - on Job, 290 - - Wisdom, the Hebrew, nature of, 117 _sq._; - personification of, 162, 192 - - - Wise Men, the, 118, 123, 148, 182 _sqq._ - - Women, in Proverbs, 135, 154; - in Sirach, 187; - in Koheleth, 219, 299 - - Woolner, quoted, 229 - - Wordsworth, 162 - - Wright, Bateson, on Job, 113 - - - Zeno, 265 _sq._ - - Zirkel, on Græcisms in Job, 260 _sq._ - - Zophar, home of, 15; - the ‘man of common sense,’ 17 - - _Zwischenschriften_, 180 - - - - - ● Transcriber’s Notes: - ○ Inconsistent spelling and hyphenation were made consistent only - when a predominant form was found in this book. - ○ Text that was in italics is enclosed by underscores (_italics_). - Text that was in bold face is enclosed by equals signs (=bold=). - ○ Footnotes have been moved to follow the chapters in which they are - referenced. - -*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK JOB AND SOLOMON: OR, THE WISDOM OF -THE OLD TESTAMENT *** - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will -be renamed. - -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the -United States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following -the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use -of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for -copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very -easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation -of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project -Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away--you may -do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected -by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark -license, especially commercial redistribution. - -START: FULL LICENSE - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the -person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph -1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the -Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when -you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country other than the United States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work -on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: - - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and - most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no - restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it - under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this - eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the - United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where - you are located before using this eBook. - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format -other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm website -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain -Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -provided that: - -* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation." - -* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm - works. - -* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - -* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of -the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the Foundation as set -forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at -www.gutenberg.org - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, -Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up -to date contact information can be found at the Foundation's website -and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without -widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular -state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. - -Most people start at our website which has the main PG search -facility: www.gutenberg.org - -This website includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. |