10. CONCLUSION-THE INTEGRITY OF THE POEM VINDICATED.

c. Against the assaults on the discourses of Elihu: Chap. xxxii—xxxvii.

It has been maintained that this entire episode is not an original constituent of the poem by Eichhorn (Einleitung, V., 8644 b), Stuhlmann, Bernstein, Knobel, D. v. Cölln (Bibl. Theol. I. 294), De Wette (Einl. & 287; in Schrader's Neubearbeit. 350), E. Meier (in Zeller's Theol. Jahrb. 1844, p. 366 seq.), Ewald, Heiligstedt, Hirzel, Dillmann, Bleek, Hupfeld, Seinecke (Der Grundgedanke des Buches Hiob, 1863), Davidson (Introd. II. p. 204 seq.), Renan, Fürst [Merx], and several others, while the majority of exegetes and critics maintain its genuineness, especially Jahn (Einl., etc., II. 776), Stäudlin (in his Beiträgen zur Philosophie und Geschichte der Religion und Sittenlehre, II. 133 seq.), Bertholdt, Gesenius (Geschichte der hebr. Sprache und Schrift, 1815, p. 34 seq.), Rosenmüller, Schärer, Umbreit, Arnheim, Gleiss, Friedländer, Steudel, ( Vorlesungen über die Theol. des Alten Test., 1840, Beil. III.), Stickel, Vaihinger, Herbst, Welte, Hävernick, Keil, Hahn, Schlottmann, Hengstenberg (Ev. Kchzig. 1856, No. 16 seq.) [Good, Lee, Noyes, Wordsworth, Cook, Green, Carey, Barnes, and the English commentators generally.] Delitzsch pronounces no definite decision either for or against the genuineness, although he inclines on the whole to the opinion that these chapters were written not by the author of the principal poem, but by another, although not much later than the former; and he maintains emphatically that this slightly later author ("the second, or possibly the first issuer of the book") was not materially inferior to the principal poet in theological importance and in poetic value and merit.* The other opponents of the genuineness bring down the interpolator into an age considerably later. Some, Bernstein in particular, seek to establish his identity with the unknown author of the section in chap. xxvii. 7-xxviii. 28, which is in like manner rejected.

The principal reasons urged against the genuineness are the following:

1. The connection between Job's last discourse (chap. xxix-xxxi.) and the discourse of Jehovah, chap. xxxviii. seq., is removed; the conclusion of that discourse of Job's exhibits a manifest breaking off, a sudden interruption by the appearance of Jehovah which now takes place in like manner chap. xxxviii. 1 seq. clearly presupposes, that Job, and not another, must have spoken immediately before Jehovah.

2. By anticipating the reference to God's infinite power and wisdom to which chapter xxxviii.-xli. give expression, the discourses of Elihu weaken the impression of the discourse of Jehovah; nay more they make it simply superfluous, in so far as they attempt to solve the problem under consideration in the way of knowledge, while Jehovah on the contrary requires unconditional submission beneath His omnipotence and secret wisdom.

3. We find neither in the prologue any preparation for the appearance of Elihu after the silencing of the friends-it does not mention him in a single syllable-nor in the Epilogue any reminder of his discourses. The latter fact would be all the more singular seeing that Elihu had, just as well as the three friends, assigned Job's guilt as the cause of his sufferings; we should therefore reasonably expect that the same censure would be visited on him as on them (see chap. xlii. 7), whereas in fact the divine sentence completely ignores him.

4. Moreover in view of the fact that Job himself makes no answer to Elihu the accusations of the latter acquire a position of peculiar isolation; after the incisive rejoinders which Job makes to the accusations of the three friends respectively, we necessarily expect that he will attend to Elihu's reproaches.

5. It is singular moreover that Elihu addresses Job several times by name (chap. xxxiii. 1, 31; xxxvii. 14), while neither the three friends nor Jehovah ever resort to such a mode of address.

6. There is a striking contrast between the diffuse and circumstantial way in which

*Commentary, Vol. II., p. 309: "There are neither linguistic, nor any other valid reasons in favor of assigning it to a much later period. He is the second issuer of the book, possibly the first, who brought to light the hitherto hidden tr-asure, enriched by his own insertion, which is inestimable in its relation to the history of the knowledge of the plan of redemption." Comp. also 29, Vol. I., p. 26, of the Introduction, and also the pamphlet: "Für und wider Kahnis," 1863, p. 14.

Elihu is introduced, and the plain short announcement that is given of the appearance of the three friends (chap. ii. 11).

7. The way in which Elihu himself introduces himself (chap. xxxii. 6-xxxiii. 7) is not altogether void of offense, in so far as may be discerned in it an unsuitable self-praise, and a boastful commendation of his own merits.

8. While the older poet, "in contrast with the false doctrine of retribution, entirely separates sin and punishment or chastisement in the affliction of Job, and by inculcating the doctrine that there is an affliction endured by the righteous which is designed simply to test and prove their innocence, treats essentially the theme which in New Testament phraseology may be designated "the mystery of the Cross," Elihu leaves sin and suffering together as inseparable, and in opposition to the vulgar doctrine of retribution sets forth the distinction between disciplinary chastisement and judicial retribution. There appears thus a profound difference in the conception of the fundamental doctrine of the book between the two-the poet and his later supplementer-the latter aiming to moderate the boldness with which the former would represent the judicial decision of Jehovah as directly following upon Job's discussion with the three friends, and to make suitable preparation for the rigid sentence to be pronounced by God on both the contending parties (so at least Delitzsch in his Commy., II., p. 308, and in Herzog's Real-Encycl., Art. "Hiob," p. 119).

9. There are several correspondences with the remainder of the book which "bear on them the impress of imitation; this is unmistakably the case with the entire section in chap. xxxvi. 26-xxxvii. 18, which has been prompted by the discourse of God in chap. xxxviii. seq.; and there are many such instances in thought and expression, such as chap. xxxiii. 7, 15; xxxiv. 3, 7, 21-24; xxxv. 5-8; xxxvi. 25; xxxvii. 4, 10, 11, 22," (so Hirzel and Dillmann).

10. The diction and the style of representation distinguish the author of Elihu's discourses most decisively from the author of the rest of the poem. "Not only has the language a strong Aramaic coloring, but Elihu uses regularly certain expressions, forms, and phrases, in place of which in the rest of the book other expressions are found just as regularly, and without distinction between the various speakers, which points not only to a difference in the roles, but also to a difference in the writers" (Hirzel). "Moreover the mode of representation on the one side shows greater breadth and wealth of words; on the other side it is more artificial and strained, often enough obscure, bombastic, and ambiguous. These peculiarities in the discourses of Elihu go far beyond the style of the poet elsewhere, when he distinguishes individual speakers by particular terms of expression, and favorite words and phrases. It is an inferior poet who discourses here, who is not to the same degree endowed with clearness of thought, poetic perception, and mastery of language. This is strikingly enough shown both in the structure of the verse, which often sinks down to mere prose, and in the plan of the discourses: the logical and the poetic divisions do not correspond; the strophe-structure fails" (Dillmann).

It is a powerful phalanx of charges and of reasons for doubt, external and interral, which we find arranged here. As respects their critical value however they are very unequal, and particularly are the first nine susceptible of easy refutation, which seek their support in the relation of the internal peculiarities of the section to the rest of the poem. We will examine them in their order.

1. It is not true to say that Elihu's discourse destroys the connection between Job's last discourse and that of Jehovah in chap. xxxviii. seq.: for the conclusion of that last discourse of Job's (chap. xxxi. 38-40) does not read as though it had been broken off, neither does the beginning of Jehovah's discourse (chap. xxxviii. 2) presuppose that Job had spoken immediately before, and had been interrupted. The exegesis of the passages referred to will exhibit both these points more in detail, and will at the same time prove that the close of Elihu's discourses by its solemn eulogy of the majesty of God furnishes a suitable preparation for His appearance; that probably also that storm in which God appears to Job (chap. xxxviii. 1; xl. 6) is intended by the poet to foreshadow and give occasion for the descriptions of nature which form the contents of these closing discourses (which are principally occupied

with the majestic phenomena that accompany a storm, which in several passages indeed point to Eloah as immediately present, or appearing as it were under the symbolic veil of clouds, thunder and lightning); and finally, that the absence of any recognition by Jehovah of that which has been spoken by Elihu is to be accounted for simply on the ground that Elihu's discussions served to prepare the way directly for the Divine decision, that it was not necessary therefore that Jehovah should define His position toward this speaker who stood on His side and pleaded His cause, but that He might recur at once to Job's last utterances.*

2. It is not at all the case that the impression of the discourses of Jehovah is weakened by the discourses of Elihu, which prepare the way for them, but do not for that reason anticipate them. For it is Elihu's aim to present subjectively Job's obligation to submit himself humbly to Jehovah, by contending against his false self-righteousness, comp. chap. xxxii. 1: ep, for he accounted himself righteous), and by showing the need of thorough self knowledge, out of which true humility ever springs. Jehovah on the contrary follows with an argument proving the same thing objectively, by pointing out the unsearchableness of His eternal nature and activity, and also the wonderful fulness of His power and wisdom-attributes which already Elihu had also set forth, although more incidentally (see from chap. xxxvi. 22 on). The predominantly theoretic solution of the whole problem touching the significance of human suffering, which Elihu presents, a solution derived from the realm of knowledge, neither excludes nor supersedes the more profound practical solution which Jehovah presents in the realm of fact. On the contrary the fact that first of all there comes before us in Elihu a representative of human wisdom, and that of the more profound and solid order, attempting a correct solution of the problem in question, and that after him God Himself first brings about the absolute and final solution-all this rests on a plan thoroughly conceived by the author, which also accounts for the greater weight and magnificence of the language in Jehovah's discourse, and especially for the incomparably greater sublimity of the description of the divine power and wisdom which it contains. This gradation which the author manifestly intends between the discourses of Elihu and those of Jehovah, this absolute superiority of the latter over the former, both as regards their points of view, and the material and formal value of their utterances, shows how perverse and erroneous are both the judgments pronounced against them by their opponents-whether we take the judgment which declares that Elihu " says more than God," thus anticipating and superseding what He says, or the other judgment which declares that in his discourses no thought appears which is entirely new, which has not already shown itself in the older book" (Ewald, p. 320-against which comp. Hävernick, III., 373, also what we have to say below against Dillmann in Doctrinal and Ethical Remarks on chaps. xxxvi., xxxvii.)

3. The silence of the prologue and the epilogue respecting Elihu proves nothing in behalf of the view that the speeches of the latter have been interpolated. For a: It is an unsuitable requirement that the author should announce beforehand in the prologue all the persons who are to be introduced into the poem. He would then have had to announce Jehovah also as one who was later to make His appearance in the circle of disputants. Together with the contending parties (to wit Job on the one side, and the three friends on the other), he must have mentioned beforehand the two adjudicators, the human and the divine, whom he intends to introduce at the close. He would thus have had to bring forward in the introduction all the actors in the piece, which in view of the peculiarity of the dramatic poetry of the Old Testament (comp. Canticles) could not have been required nor expected of him.-b: The fact that Elihu was not condemned in the epilogue is to be explained simply on the ground that he deserved no sentence of condemnation, because he had affirmed Job's guilt in quite another sense than Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar-a sense which far more nearly

*Hahn's assertion, that Elihu, so far from speaking on the side of God, simply repeats in substance the accusations of the three friends against Job; that he is accordingly intentionally ignored by Jehovah, and "thereby put in the position of one who had spoken as though he had not spoken" (p. 20), is refuted more specifically below in the Commy. Here we would simply call attention beforehand to the consideration how greatly the difficulty of defending the discourses of Elihu is increased by so exaggerating the inadequacy and defectiveness of the solution of the problem attempted by Elihu, and generally speaking, by so unfavorable a verdict on Elihu's stand-point and character (such as is found in Hahn, and formerly in Herder and Umbreit).

approximated the absolute truth, and because, generally speaking, he did not put himself forward as a one-sided partisan, but from the first as an umpire and a provisional mediator between the parties. "A censure of Elihu in the epilogue would have been equivalent to a declaration that Job was absolutely innocent; this, however, was so far from being the case, that Job on the contrary earnestly repents for having sinned against God, ch. xlii. 6" (Havernick, p. 374).*

4. Moreover the silence of Job towards Elihu has nothing at all strange about it, if we only keep properly in mind the distinction, or rather the contrast, just set forth between the three friends, as a party contending against Job, and Elihu, who is already lifted above this party-strife, and who anticipates the divine decision.

5. That Elihu sometimes addresses Job by name is also to be explained by his position as mediator between the parties. He has to deal not only with Job, but also, as ch. xxxii. 3, 6 seq. shows, just as much with the friends. There is accordingly in the fact that he, in contrast with them, expressly addresses Job a few times nothing more strange, nothing that is at all more conclusive against the genuineness of his speeches than in the fact that Jehovah in the epilogue mentions "His servant Job" not less than four times (ch. xlii. 7, 8).

6. The alleged prolixity and diffuseness with which Elihu is introduced in ch. xxxii. 2-6 exists only in the prejudice or taste of the critics. "Without these introductory words, which contain throughout nothing unnecessary, we should not know at all how to regard Elihu, whether as a disputant, or as a judge" (Hahn). An exact portrait of the personality of the new speaker was absolutely necessary, if his words as to their contents were to be correctly apprehended. Especially was there needed a preliminary intimation of the moral characteristics which above all qualified him to be an umpire between the contestants, and to be God's advocate-of his piety, which caused him to take offence at Job's self-righteousness (ver. 2); of his wisdom, which made him appear superior to the three friends, to their narrow-mindedness and short-sightedness (ver. 3); and of his modesty, which had hindered him from beginning to speak before the other speakers, as being older than himself. This introduction could certainly not be shorter, and convey all this; and there can be discovered in it no sufficient ground for suspecting its genuineness.

7. In like manner the opinion that Elihu's introduction of himself ch. xxxii. 6—xxxiii. 7 is not free from much that is objectionable, that in particular it exhibits vain self-conceit and boastfulness, resolves itself at bottom into a matter of subjective taste and critical prepossession. That the assurance of his humble and modest disposition with which he begins, is not empty boasting is evident from the fact that he has thus far persevered in keeping silent, and that too when so much has been said which might have provoked him much sooner to express his views. The reasons which he assigns for speaking now (ch. xxxii. 15-20), for his inability to keep still and to restrain himself any longer (comp. Matt. xii. 34), have in this connection certainly nothing objectionable or strange about them. They present themselves rather as a well-applied and necessary captatio benevolentiæ. Moreover what he says further on in respect to the rigid impartiality which he had laid down as a law for himself (ch. xxxii. 21, 22), as also that finally which he observes particularly against Job (ch. xxxiii. 1-7) contains nothing which can cause offence to an unprejudiced consideration of the case, or even to such a view respecting Elihu in an æsthetic or moral respect as might not be altogether favorable. And just here should be noted his unconditional submission to God's word and will, of which we have a beautiful exhibition, and one which distinguishes him as a truly humble representative of divine truth (see ch. xxxii. 22; xxxiii. 6).

8. The attempt of Delitzsch to show that Elihu's solution of the problem is radically different from that of the principal poet is one-sided, as may easily be seen. The conception

* Comp. also the words of Pareau in his Commy. here appropriately cited by Hävernick: "For since the author's own plan requires that we should look on Elihu as having come to Job, not that he might speak himself, but that being younger in years, he might hear others speak (ch. xxxii. 4–7), the author wisely and suitably resolved not to mention him before necessity required it. Neither was there any need for making any mention of him in the epilogue, seeing that in the whole argument and plan of his discourses there was nothing which merited rebuke. Nay more, they are as a whole honorably confirmed by the whole tenor of God's discourses; and in causing this honor to be conferred on Elihu in fact rather than in words, the author shows an exquisite regard for propriety which I cannot help recognizing."

of sufferings which Elihu maintains is that of purifying chastisements, by which even those who are apparently innocent are justly visited. According to the profound view of the purpose of the suffering inflicted on the innocent which is inculcated by Jehovah and by the author of the whole poem it serves to prove and test their innocence. Evidently the former view, so far from excluding the latter, logically precedes it as its necessary premise. So also does the individual heart-experience of all God's people who are brought through such trials actually illustrate, in the same way that the plastic development of our poem illustrates dramatically, this progress from what is as yet a semi-legal view of the suffering of the innocent, to that view which the New Testament presents, and which is illuminated by the mystery of the cross (comp. above, 4). In the sufferings of Him who was the Most Innocent of all innocent sufferers, we find these two uses of suffering combined: its purifying and sanctifying influence (not indeed on the sufferer himself, but on those for and instead of whom He suffered), and also its use in triumphantly attesting His holiness and purity before God and men. And indeed the most perfect and clear Old Testament type of this New Testament redemptive suffering, the Servant of God in Isaiah (ch. liii.), presents in intimate union these two aspects of the significance of His sufferings, their use in purifying and transforming, and their use in proving and attesting. The fact accordingly that in Job's case Elihu puts forward almost exclusively the tendency of suffering to chasten and to purify, whereas Jehovah sets forth more especially its probational tendency, furnishes no argument whatever against the unity of our poem. Comp. also below, Doctrinal and Ethical Remarks on chs. xxxvi., xxxvii., No. 2.

9. The several correspondences in thought and expression between this section and passages in the rest of the poem may just as satisfactorily be explained as repetitions, such as may naturally be looked for from the same author, rather than as imitations by a later interpolator. Indeed in order to prove that they are of the latter class, it would be necessary to "show that there is a weakness in the representation, that the borrowed words or thoughts exceed the requirements of the passage, that the matter thus inwoven is unsuitable " (Stickel). But this cannot be shown with regard to any of the correspondences between Elihu's speeches and the rest of the book, and least of all with regard to the passage on which the main stress is laid by Hirzel, Dillmann and others in chap. xxxvi. 26-xxxvii. 18,— a passage which certainly indicates close affinity with the following discourses of Jehovah, no such affinity however as may not be easily and satisfactorily explained by the relation which the passage in Elihu occupies as preparatory to the sublime descriptions in God's discourse.

10. The most weighty of all these arguments of the opposition is that derived from the peculiar style and diction of the section. Even this argument is not unanswerable, however, as is evident from what Stickel in particular has said in reply to it (p. 248 seq.). The list of real or apparent idiotisms in the section may be reduced to the following:

a. A considerable number of correspondences with the linguistic usage of the book of Proverbs, with which however the rest of the poem indicates no slight affinity (comp. 6, at the beginning).

b. Certain peculiarities of expression, which recur with considerable regularity, especially instead of y (chap. xxxii. 6, 10, 17; xxxvi. 3), instead of 7 (ch. xxxiv. 10, 32; comp. chap. xxxvi. 23, where the more common form is found), i instead of Dy (chap. xxxiii. 25; xxxvi. 14), and 3 (chap. xxxii. 21, 22).

c. Three hapaxlegomena: 7, chap. xxxiv. 36; л, ch. xxxiii. 9; and 3, ch. xxxiii. 7-a number which is not surprisingly large for a piece of poetry of the length of our section. We might place alongside of them about an equal number out of the following discourses of Jehovah.

d. A number of Aramaisms, comparatively somewhat larger than are found in the rest of the poem. This strong Aramaic coloring however can be explained without difficulty by supposing that the author desires to make prominent the Aramaic origin of Elihu as one belonging to the tribe of Buz (chap. xxxii. 2), and to represent him as belonging to quite another race than the three friends. For whereas there were only slight differences of diction distinguishing the speeches of the three friends both from each other and from Job (see 3,