« السابقةمتابعة »
wi:h 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: 13? p'?897 '?, 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 grea:er 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 bave 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.-6: 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 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" (Hävernick, p. 374).*
* Hahn's assertion, that Elihu, so far from speaking on the side of God, simply repeats in subætance 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 bad 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 bow greatly the difficulty of defending the discourses of Elihu is increased by s 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 Haho, and formerly in Herder and Umbreit).
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 Darrow-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 Hvernick: "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 Deceseity 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 houor to be conferred on Elihu in fact rather than in words, the author shows an exquisite regard for propriety which I canlot help recognizing."
of sufferings which Elihu maintains is that of purifying chastisements, by wbich 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 y? instead of Ny? (chap. xxxii. 6, 10, 17; xxxvi. 3), 7?y, instead of 7 (ch. xxxiv. 10, 32; comp. chap. xxxvi. 23, where the more common form is found), wj instead of D'?y? (chap. xxxiii. 25; xxxvi. 14), and 79 (chap. xxxii. 21, 22).
C. Three hapaxlegomena : 'Ix, chap. xxxiv. 36; on, ch. xxxiii. 9; and 72x, 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 23, Rem. 1), there is clearly presented in Elihu the representative of another dialect. And that it is the poet's intention to invest him with this distinctive coloring, is particularly signified by the fact that the Aramaizing forms abound most of all at the beginning of the discourses (chap. xxxii. 6 seq.), and again at the beginning of the fourth principal section of the same (chap. xxxvi. 2), whereas elsewhere they are less prominent. Perhaps also those other peculiarities of expression which have been cited under b may be derived from this wish of the poet to cause this new speaker to express himself in a peculiar dialect. Comp. on ch. xxxii. 2. The same may be said of those qualities of the style with which de Wette, Dillmann, and others, have found fault, the traces of greater flatness, of less clearness of representation, of a defective command of language, all of which may be largely attributed to the effort of the speaker after a characteristic coloring of speech. But the charge that the rhythmic construction of the section is comparatively incomplete, that the structure of his verse “ sinks down to downright prose,” or even that “the strophe structure is wanting," has in it decided exaggerations. For in the remainder of the poem also a more lax rhythmic structure, and one that more nearly approximates prose, alternates with a more compact, full, and symmetrical strophe-structure. And to say that the latter is wholly wanting here, would seem, in view of strophical constructions so distinctly outlined and so consistently maintained, as we find exhibited particularly in the fourth speech of Elihu (e. g. chap. xxxvi. 22 seq. ; xxxvii. 1, 6, 11 seq.) to be in the last degree incorrect; comp. above 83.
In view of all that has been said there remains no decisive reason against the genuineness of this section, not even in the domain of language and style; for that our poet possessed in sufficient measure vivacity of intellect and versatility of invention to be able to individu. alize the characters of his poem by attributing to them dialectic variations of language is sufficiently apparent from the skill with which he had already succeeded in distinguishing the three friends from each other and from Job by the peculiar impress stamped upon their speech, and the skill with which he had bestowed on Jehovah's discourses at the close the characteristic coloring which they consistently retain throughout. The purpose however to endow Elihu especially, the immediate predecessor of Jehovah, and the precursor of the decision announced by Him with a style the coloring of which should be peculiarly marked, sprang with an internal necessity out of the scope and plan of the whole, the profound and correct perception of which would forbid the possible doubt whether these speeches belonged to the poem as a whole, and would even supersede the mildest form of this doubt to which Delitzsch inclines with his theory of a double “promulgation” (Herausgabe] of the book.the first time without, the second with Elihu's speeches.
11. PARTICULAR ANALYSIS OF THE CONTENTS OF THE BOOK. Not until we have established the unity of our book against the various assaults made upon it does it become possible to give an outline of its contents in detail, and thereby to set forth in their completeness the poet's plan, and its elaboration (comp. the preliminary sum. mary of the contents in % 1, together with the remarks made in 83, respecting the artistic plan of the poem). In the outline herewith presented we follow substantially Vaihinger (Das Buch Hiob, 2d Ed., p. 227 seq.), without however adhering in every particular to his divisions, wbich at times are somewhat arbitrary. This arbitrary feature consists chiefly in an exaggerated endeavor everywhere and down to the minutest detail to find Triads in the divisions of the poem. The undeniable predilection of the poet for the triadic arrangement in his speeches gives some foundation no doubt for this theory, although it does not justify our carrying such tri-partitions to a wanton excess. Several other modern expositors also furnish a thorough outline in detail of the contents of the poem, e. g. Ewald (p. 34 seq.), Schlottmann (p. 20 seq.), Davidson (Introduction, p. 174 seq.), but without giving sufficient prominence to that tripartite arrangement. [See also Carey, p. 37 seq.]
HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION (IN PROSE): CHAP. I. 1. 1. Job's character and course of life: chap. i. 1-5. 2. The Divine decree to try Job through suffering.
a. The milder form of trial by taking away his possessions : chap. i. 6-22.
a. The preparatory scene in heaven: vers. 6-12.
of Job: vers. 13-19.
a. The preparatory scene in heaven: vers. 1-6.
3. The visit of the friends, and their mute sympathy, as an immediate preparation for the
action of the poem: chap. ii. 11-13.
First Chief Division of the poem: The Entanglement, or the controversial discourses of Job
and his three friends : Chaps. III.-XXVIII.
the Colloquy: Chap. III. 1-26.
First Series of controversial discourses : The Entanglement in its beginning: Chaps. IV.-XIV.
I. Eliphaz and Job: Chaps. IV.-VII. A. The accusation of Eliphaz: Man must not speak against God, as Job is doing: Chaps. IV., V. 1. Introductory reproof of Job, on account of his unmanly complaint, by which he could
only incur God's wrath : chap. iv. 4-11. 2. Account of a heavenly revelation, which declared to him the wrongfulness and foolish
ness of weak sinful man's raving against God: chap. iv. 12-v. 7. 3. Admonition to repentance, as the only means by which Job can recover God's favor,
and his former happy estate: chap. v. 8-26.
B. Job's Reply: Instead of comfort the friends bring him only increased sorrow: Chaps.
VI., VII. 1. Justification of his complaint by pointing out the greatness and incomprehensibleness
of his suffering : chap. vi. 1-10. 2. Complaint on account of the bitter disappointment which he had experienced at the
hands of his friends : vers. 11-30. 3. Recurrence to his former complaint on account of his lot, and an accusation of God :
II. Bildad and Job: Chaps. VIII.-X. A. Bildad's rebuke: Man must not charge God with injustice, as Job has done, for God
never does wrong: Chap. VIII. 1. Censure of Job on account of his unjust accusation against God: vers. 2-7. 2. Reference to the wise teachings of the ancients, in respect to the merited end of those
who forget God: vers. 8-19. 3. A softened application of these teachings to the case of Job: vers. 20-22.