{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_65866/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_65866","id":"gutenberg_65866","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/65866","summary":null,"tags":["Bible. Old Testament -- Criticism, interpretation, etc.","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Gnomic poetry, Hebrew","Wisdom literature -- Criticism, interpretation, etc."],"text":"THE WISDOM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT\n\n\n\n\n                            JOB AND SOLOMON\n\n                                   OR\n\n                    THE WISDOM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT\n\n                                 BY THE\n\n                     REV. T. K. CHEYNE, M.A., D.D.\n\n              ORIEL PROFESSOR OF INTERPRETATION AT OXFORD\n                           CANON OF ROCHESTER\n\n                                NEW YORK\n                            THOMAS WHITTAKER\n                           2 & 3 BIBLE HOUSE\n                                  1887\n\n\n\n\n    THE VERY REVEREND\n\n    GEORGE GRANVILLE BRADLEY, D.D.\n\n    DEAN OF WESTMINSTER\n\n    IN HIGH APPRECIATION OF HIS LONG-PROVED INTEREST IN EXEGESIS\n\n    AND OF HIS HAPPILY CONCEIVED LECTURES ON ECCLESIASTES\n\n\n\n\n                                PREFACE.\n\n\nThe present work is a fragmentary realisation of a plan which has been\nmaturing in my mind for many years. Exegesis and criticism are equally\nnecessary for the full enjoyment of the treasures of the Old Testament,\nand just as no commentary is complete which does not explain the actual\nposition of critical controversies, so no introduction to the criticism\nof a book is trustworthy which does not repose, and show the reader that\nit reposes, on the basis of a thorough exegesis. In this volume I do not\npretend to have approached the ideal of such students\u2019 manuals as I have\ndescribed; I have not been sufficiently sure of my public to treat the\nsubject on the scale which I should have liked, and such personal\ndrawbacks as repeated changes of residence, frequent absence from large\nlibraries, and within the last two years a serious eye-trouble, have\nhindered me in the prosecution of my work. Other tasks now claim my\nrestored strength, and I can no longer withhold my volume from those\nlovers of the sacred literature who in some degree share the point of\nview from which I have written.\n\nThe Books of Job and Ecclesiastes are treated somewhat more in detail\nthan those of Proverbs and Ecclesiasticus. The latter have a special\ninterest of their own, but to bring this into full view, more excursions\ninto pure philology would have been necessary than I judged it expedient\nto allow myself. I had intended to make up for this omission so far as\nProverbs is concerned at the end of the volume, but have been\ninterrupted in doing so. Perhaps, however, even in the Appendix such\ndetailed treatment of special points might have repelled some readers,\nand I hope that the Appendix is on the whole not unreadable. The\nenlarged notes on Proverbs in the forthcoming new edition of Messrs.\nEyre and Spottiswoode\u2019s Variorum Bible may enable the student to do for\nhimself what I have not done. As for Ecclesiasticus, the light which\nProf. Bickell\u2019s and Dr. Edersheim\u2019s researches are sure to throw on the\ntext may enable me some day to recast the section on this book; at\npresent, I only offer this as an illustrative sequel to the section on\nProverbs. It should be added that the canonicity of Ecclesiasticus is\nhandled in conjunction with that of Ecclesiastes at the close of the\npart on the latter book.\n\nThe interest of Job and Ecclesiastes is of a far deeper and more varied\nkind. Even from a critical point of view, the study of these books is\nmost refreshing after the incessant and exciting battles of\nPentateuch-criticism. But as monuments of the spiritual struggles of a\npast which is not wholly dead, they have been to me, as doubtless to\nmany others, sources of pure delight. If I appreciate Job more highly\nthan Ecclesiastes, it is not from any want of living sympathy with the\nphilosophic doubter, but because the enjoyment even of Scriptures is\ndependent on moods and impulses. De Sanctis has pointed out (_Storia\ndella letteratura italiana_, i. 80) how the story of Job became the\nfavourite theme of the early Italian moralists, and everyone knows how\nthe great Latin doctors (Gregory the Great, Bede, Aquinas, Albertus\nMagnus) delighted to comment on this wonderful book. In our own day,\nfrom perfectly intelligible causes, Ecclesiastes has too much drawn off\nthe attention of the educated world, but there are signs that the\ncharacter-drama of Job will soon reassert its old fascinating power.\n\nIn conclusion, will earnest students, whether academical or not, grant\nme two requests? The first is, that they will meet me with confidence,\nand gather any grains of truth they can, even where they cannot yield\nfull assent. The problems of Hebrew literature are complex; herein\npartly lies their fascination; herein also is a call for mutual\ntolerance on the part of all who approach them. There is nothing to\nregret in this complexity; in searching for the solution of these\nproblems, we gain an ever fresh insight into facts and ideas which will\nnever lose their significance. My second request is, that the Appendix,\nwhich, short as it is, contains something for different classes of\nreaders, may not be neglected as _only an Appendix_.\n\nI would add that the \u2018much-desired aid\u2019 in the critical use of the\nSeptuagint referred to on p. 114 has already to a large extent been\ngiven by Gustav Bickell\u2019s essay (see p. 296), which I have now been able\nto examine. His early treatise (1862) is at length happily supplemented\nand corrected. We shall know still more when P. Ciasca has completed the\npublication of the fragments of the Sahidic version. It is clear however\nthat each omission in the pre-Hexaplar Septuagint text (represented by\nthis version) must be judged upon its own merits, nor can I estimate the\nvalue of the text of the Septuagint quite as highly as some critics.\n\nIt is hoped that the present work may be followed by a volume on the\nPsalms, the Lamentations, and the Song of Songs.\n\n\n\n\n                               CONTENTS.\n\n\nINTRODUCTION 1\n\n\n_THE BOOK OF JOB._\n\nI. JOB\u2019S CALAMITY; THE OPENING OF THE DIALOGUES (Chaps. i.-xiv.) 11\n\nII. THE SECOND CYCLE OF SPEECHES (Chaps. xv.-xxi.) 30\n\nIII. THE THIRD CYCLE OF SPEECHES (Chaps. xxii.-xxxi.) 37\n\nIV. THE SPEECHES OF ELIHU (Chaps. xxxii.-xxxvii.) 42\n\nV. THE SPEECHES OF JEHOVAH (Chaps. xxxviii.-xlii. 6) 48\n\nVI. THE EPILOGUE AND ITS MEANING 58\n\nVII. THE TRADITIONAL BASIS AND THE PURPOSE OF JOB 60\n\nVIII. DATE AND PLACE OF COMPOSITION 71\n\nIX. ARGUMENT FROM THE USE OF MYTHOLOGY 76\n\nX. ARGUMENT FROM THE DOCTRINE OF ANGELS 79\n\nXI. ARGUMENT FROM PARALLEL PASSAGES 83\n\nXII. ON THE DISPUTED PASSAGES IN THE DIALOGUE PORTION, ESPECIALLY THE\nSPEECHES OF ELIHU 90\n\nXIII. IS JOB A HEBR\u00c6O-ARABIC POEM? 96\n\nXIV. THE BOOK FROM A RELIGIOUS POINT OF VIEW 102\n\nXV. THE BOOK FROM A GENERAL AND WESTERN POINT OF VIEW 106\n\n_Note_ on Job and the Modern Poets 112\n\n_Note_ on the Text of Job 112\n\n_Aids to the Student_ 115\n\n\n_THE BOOK OF PROVERBS._\n\nI. HEBREW WISDOM, ITS NATURE, SCOPE, AND IMPORTANCE 117\n\nII. THE FORM AND ORIGIN OF THE PROVERBS 125\n\nIII. THE FIRST COLLECTION AND ITS APPENDICES 130\n\nIV. THE SECOND COLLECTION AND ITS APPENDICES 142\n\nV. THE PRAISE OF WISDOM 156\n\nVI. SUPPLEMENTARY ON QUESTIONS OF DATE AND ORIGIN 165\n\nVII. THE TEXT OF PROVERBS 173\n\n_Note_ on Prov. xxx. 31 175\n\nVIII. THE RELIGIOUS VALUE OF THE BOOK OF PROVERBS 176\n\n_Aids to the Student_ 178\n\n\n_THE WISDOM OF JESUS THE SON OF SIRACH._\n\nI. THE WISE MAN TURNED SCRIBE. SIRACH\u2019S MORAL TEACHING 179\n\nII. SIRACH\u2019S TEACHING (_continued_). HIS PLACE IN THE MOVEMENT OF\nTHOUGHT 188\n\n_Aids to the Student_ (see also _Appendix_) 198\n\n\n_THE BOOK OF KOHELETH; OR, ECCLESIASTES._\n\nI. THE WISE MAN TURNED AUTHOR AND PHILOSOPHER 199\n\nII. \u2018TRUTH AND FICTION\u2019 IN AN AUTOBIOGRAPHY 207\n\nIII. MORE MORALISING, INTERRUPTED BY PROVERBIAL MAXIMS 213\n\nIV. FACTS OF CONTEMPORARY LIFE 218\n\nV. THE WISE MAN\u2019S PARTING COUNSELS 222\n\nVI. KOHELETH\u2019S \u2018PORTRAIT OF OLD AGE;\u2019 THE EPILOGUE, ITS NATURE AND\nORIGIN 229\n\nVII. ECCLESIASTES AND ITS CRITICS (FROM A PHILOLOGICAL POINT OF VIEW)\n236\n\nVIII. ECCLESIASTES AND ITS CRITICS (FROM A LITERARY AND PSYCHOLOGICAL\nPOINT OF VIEW) 242\n\nIX. ECCLESIASTES FROM A MORAL AND RELIGIOUS POINT OF VIEW 248\n\nX. DATE AND PLACE OF COMPOSITION 255\n\nXI. DOES KOHELETH CONTAIN GREEK WORDS OR IDEAS? 260\n\nXII. TEXTUAL PROBLEMS OF KOHELETH 273\n\nXIII. THE CANONICITY OF ECCLESIASTES AND ECCLESIASTICUS 279\n\n_Aids to the Student_ 285\n\n\nAPPENDIX (_see_ Special Table of Contents) 287\n\nINDEX 303\n\n\n\n\n                             INTRODUCTION.\n        HOW IS OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM RELATED TO CHRISTIANITY?\n\n\nThe point of view represented in this volume is still so little\nrecognised and represented in England and America that the author\nventures to prefix a short paper delivered as an address at the Church\nCongress held at Reading in October 1883. It is proverbially more\ndifficult to write a thin book than a thick one, and the labour involved\nin preparing this twenty minutes\u2019 paper, with its large outlook and\nsedulously under-stated claims, was such as he would not willingly\nundertake again for a like purpose. The subject was not an ephemeral one\nand the attitude of the Churches towards it has not materially altered\nwithin the last three years. The present volume is pervaded by the\nspirit which breathes, as the author trusts, in every line of this\npaper. It relates, indeed, only to a small section of the Old Testament,\nbut no part of that \u2018library\u2019 (as medi\u00e6val writers so well named it) can\nbe studied in complete severance from the rest. And if a high aim is\nheld forward in one of the opening sentences to the Church of which the\nwriter is a son, those who are connected with the other historic\ncommunions will easily understand the bitter-sweet feeling of hope\nagainst hope with which those lines were penned.\n\n                  *       *       *       *       *\n\n\u2018My own conviction,\u2019 said the late Dr. Pusey, \u2018has long been that the\nhope of the Church of England is in mutual tolerance.\u2019[1] That truly\ngreat man was not thinking of the new school of Old Testament critics,\nand yet if the Anglican Church is ever to renovate her theology and to\nbecome in any real sense undeniably the Church of the future, she cannot\nafford to be careless or intolerant of attempts to modernise our methods\nof criticism and exegesis. It would no doubt be simpler to content\nourselves with that criticism and exegesis, and consequently with that\ntheology, which have been fairly adequate to the wants of the past; but\nare we sure that Jesus Christ would not now lead us a few steps further\non towards \u2018all the truth,\u2019 and that one of His preparatory disciplines\nmay not be a method of Biblical criticism which is less tender to the\ntraditions of the scribes, and more in harmony with the renovating\nprocess which is going on in all other regions of thought? Why, indeed,\nshould there not be a providence even in the phases of Old Testament\ncriticism, so that where some can see merely the shiftings of arbitrary\nopinion more enlightened eyes may discern a veritable progress, leading\nat once to fresh views of history, and to necessary reforms in our\ntheology, making this theology simpler and stronger, deeper and more\ntruly Catholic, by making it more Biblical?\n\nSome one, however, may ask, Does not modern criticism actually claim to\nhave refuted the fundamental facts of Bible history? But which _are_\nthese fundamental facts? Bishop Thirlwall, twenty years ago, told his\nclergy \u2018that a great part of the events related in the Old Testament has\nno more apparent connection with our religion than those of Greek and\nRoman history.\u2019 Put these events for a moment on one side, and how much\nmore conspicuous does that great elementary fact become which stands up\nas a rock in Israel\u2019s history\u2014namely, that a holy God, for the good of\nthe world, chose out this people, isolating it more and more completely\nfor educational purposes from its heathen neighbours, and interposing at\nvarious times to teach, to chastise, and to deliver it! It is not\nnecessary to prove that all such recorded interpositions are in the\nstrictest sense historical; it is enough if the tradition or the record\nof some that are so did survive the great literary as well as political\ncatastrophe of the Babylonian captivity. And I have yet to learn that\nthe Exodus, the destruction of Sennacherib\u2019s army, the restoration of\nthe Jews to their own land, and the unique phenomenon of spiritual\nprophecy, are called in question even by the most advanced school of\nBiblical criticism. One fact, indeed, there is, regarded by some of us\nas fundamental, which these advanced critics do maintain to be\ndisproved, and that is the giving of the Levitical Law by Moses, or if\nnot by Moses, by persons in the pre-Exile period who had prophetic\nsanction for giving it. Supposing the theory of Kuenen and Wellhausen to\nbe correct, it will no doubt appear to some minds (1) that the\ninspiration of the Levitical Law is at any rate weakened in quality\nthereby, (2) that a glaring inconsistency is introduced into the Divine\nteaching of Israel, which becomes anti-sacrificial at one time, and\nsacrificial at another, and (3) that room is given for the supposition\nthat the Levitical system itself was an injurious though politic\ncondescension to popular tastes, and consequently (as Lagarde ventures\nto hold) that St. Paul, by his doctrine of the Atonement, ruined, so far\nas he could, the simple Gospel of Jesus Christ.\n\nBut I only mention these possible inferences in order to point out how\nunfair they are. (1) The inspiration (to retain an often misused but\nindispensable term) of the Levitical Law is only weakened in any bad\nsense if it be maintained that the law, whenever the main part of it was\npromulgated, failed to receive the sanction of God\u2019s prophetic\ninterpreters, and that it was not, in the time of Ezra, the only\neffectual instrument for preserving the deposit of spiritual religion.\n(2) With regard to the inconsistency (assuming the new hypothesis)\nbetween the two periods of the Divine teaching of Israel, the feeling of\na devout, though advanced critic would be that he was not a fit judge of\nthe providential plan. Inconsistent conclusions on one great subject\n(that of forgiveness of sins) might in fact be drawn from the language\nof our Lord Himself at different periods of His ministry, though the\nparallel may not be altogether complete, since our Lord never used\ndirectly anti-sacrificial language. And it might be urged on the side of\nKuenen, that neither would the early prophets have used such language\u2014at\nany rate in the literary version of their discourses if they had\nforeseen the canonical character which this would assume, and the\nimmense importance of a sacrificial system in the post-Exile period. (3)\nThe theory that the law involves an injurious condescension is by no\nmeans compulsory upon advocates of the new hypothesis. Concessions to\npopular taste have, indeed, as we know but too well, often almost\nextinguished the native spirit of a religion; but the fact that some at\nleast of the most spiritual psalms are acknowledged to be post-Exile\nought to make us all, critics and non-critics alike, slow to draw too\nsharp a distinction between the legal and the evangelical. That the law\nwas misused by some, and in course of time became spiritually almost\nobsolete, would not justify us in depreciating it, even if we thought\nthat the lesser and not the greater Moses, the scribe and not the\nprophet, was mainly responsible for its promulgation. Finally, the rash\nstatement of Lagarde has been virtually answered by the reference of\nanother radical critic (Keim) to the well-attested words of Christ at\nthe institution of the Eucharist (Matt. xxvi. 28).\n\nI have spoken thus much on the assumption that the hypothesis of Kuenen\nand Wellhausen may be true. That it will ever become universally\nprevalent is improbable\u2014the truth may turn out to lie between the two\nextremes\u2014but that it will go on for some time gaining ground among the\nyounger generation of scholars is, I think, almost certain. No one who\nhas once studied this or any other Old Testament controversy from the\ninside and with a full view of the evidence can doubt that the\ntraditional accounts of many of the disputed books rest on a very weak\nbasis, and those who crave for definite solutions, and cannot bear to\nlive in twilight, will naturally hail such clear-cut hypotheses as those\nof Kuenen and Wellhausen, and credit them with an undue finality. Let us\nbe patient with these too sanguine critics, and not think them bad\nChurchmen, as long as they abstain from drawing those dangerous and\nunnecessary inferences of which I have spoken. It is the want of an\nequally intelligent interest which makes the Old Testament a dead letter\nto so many highly orthodox theologians. If the advanced critics succeed\nin awakening such an interest more generally, it will be no slight\ncompensation for that \u2018unsettlement of views\u2019 which is so often the\ntemporary consequence of reading their books.\n\nOne large part, however, of Kuenen and Wellhausen\u2019s critical system is\nnot peculiar to them, but accepted by the great majority of professed\nOld Testament critics. It is this part which has perhaps a still\nstronger claim to be considered in its relation to Christian truth,\nbecause there is every appearance that it will, in course of time,\nbecome traditional among those who have given up the still current\ntraditions of the synagogue. I refer (1) to the analysis of the\nPentateuch and the Book of Joshua into several documents, (2) to the\nview that many of the laws contained in the Pentateuch arose gradually,\naccording to the needs of the people, and that Ezra, or at least\ncontemporaries of Ezra, took a leading part in the revision and\ncompletion of the law book, and (3) to the dating of the original\ndocuments or compilations at various periods, mostly long subsequent to\nthe time of Moses. Time forbids me to enter into the grounds for the\nconfident assertion that if either exegesis or the Church\u2019s\nrepresentation of religious truth is to make any decided progress, the\nresults of the literary analysis of the Pentateuch must be accepted as\nfacts, and that theologians must in future recognise at least three\ndifferent sections, and as many different conceptions of Israel\u2019s\nreligious development, within the Pentateuch, just as they have long\nrecognised at least three different types of teaching in the Old\nTestament as a whole. On the question as to the date of these sections,\nand as to the Mosaic origin of any considerable part of them, the\nopinions of special scholars within the Church will, for a long time\nyet, be more or less divided. There is, I know, a belief growing up\namong us, that Assyrian and Egyptian discoveries are altogether\nfavourable to the ordinary English view of the dates of the historical\nbooks, including the Pentateuch. May I be pardoned for expressing the\nslowly formed conviction that apologists in England (and be it observed\nthat I do not quarrel with the conception of apologetic theology)\nfrequently indulge in general statements as to the bearings of recent\ndiscoveries, which are only half true? The opponents of whom they are\nthinking are long since dead; it is wasting time to fight with the\ndelusions of a past age. No one now thinks the Bible an invention of\npriestcraft; that which historical critics doubt is the admissibility of\nany unqualified assertion of the strict historicalness of all the\ndetails of all its component parts. This doubt is not removed by recent\narch\u00e6ological discoveries, the critical bearings of which are sometimes\nwhat neither of the critical schools desired or expected. I refer\nespecially to the bearings of Assyrian discoveries on the date of what\nare commonly called the Jehovistic narratives in the first nine chapters\nof Genesis. I will not pursue this subject further, and merely add that\nwe must not too hastily assume that the supplement hypothesis is\naltogether antiquated.\n\nThe results of the anticipated revolution in our way of looking at the\nPentateuch strike me as fourfold. (1) Historically. The low religious\nposition of most of the pre-Exile Israelites will be seen to be not the\nresult of a deliberate rebellion against the law of Jehovah, the\nLevitical laws being at any rate virtually non-existent. By this I mean,\nthat even if any large part of those laws go back to the age of Moses\nthey were never thoroughly put in force, and soon passed out of sight.\nOtherwise how can we account for this, among other facts, that\nDeuteronomy, or the main part of it, is known in the reign of Josiah as\n\u2018_the_ law of Moses\u2019? We shall also, perhaps, get a deeper insight into\nthe Divine purpose in raising up that colossal personage who, though\n\u2018slow of speech,\u2019 was so mighty in deed: I mean Moses\u2014and shall realise\nthose words of a writer specially sanctioned by my own university:\n\u2018Should we have an accurate idea of the purpose of God in raising up\nMoses, if we said, He did it that He might communicate a revelation?\nWould not this be completely to misunderstand the principal end of the\nmission of Moses, which was the establishment of the theocracy, and in\nso far as God revealed through him the revelation was but as means to\nthis higher end?\u2019[2]\n\n(2) We shall, perhaps, discriminate more between the parts of the Old\nTestament, some of which will be chiefly valuable to us as bringing into\nview the gradualness of Israel\u2019s education, and as giving that fulness\nto our conceptions of Biblical truths which can only be got by knowing\nthe history of their outward forms; others will have only that interest\nwhich attaches even to the minutest and obscurest details of the history\nof much-honoured friends or relatives; others, lastly, will rise, in\nvirtue of their intrinsic majesty, to a position scarcely inferior to\nthat of the finest parts of the New Testament itself.\n\n(3) As a result of what has thus been gained, our idea of inspiration\nwill become broader, deeper, and more true to facts.\n\n(4) We shall have to consider our future attitude towards that\nKenotic[3] view of the person of Christ which has been accepted in some\nform by such great exegetical theologians as Hofmann, Oehler, and\nDelitzsch. Although the Logos, by the very nature of the conception,\nmust be omniscient, the incarnate Logos, we are told, pointed His\ndisciples to a future time, in which they should do greater works than\nHe Himself, and should open the doors to fresh departments of truth. The\ncritical problems of the Old Testament did not then require to be\nsettled by Him, because they had not yet come into existence. Had they\nemerged into view in our Lord\u2019s time, they would have given as great a\nshock to devout Jews as they have done to devout Christians; and our\nMaster would, no doubt, have given them a solution fully adequate to the\nwants of believers. In that case, a reference to some direction of the\nlaw as of Mosaic origin would, in the mouth of Christ, have been\ndecisive; and the Church would, no doubt, have been guided to make some\ndistinct definition of her doctrine on the subject.\n\nThus in the very midst of the driest critical researches we can feel\nthat, if we have duly fostered the sense of Divine things, we are on the\nroad to further disclosures of religious as well as historical truth.\nThe day of negative criticism is past, and the day of a cheap ridicule\nof all critical analysis of ancient texts is, we may hope, nearly past\nalso. In faith and love the critics whose lot I would fain share are at\none with many of those who suspect and perhaps ridicule them: in the\naspirations of hope their aim is higher. Gladly would I now pass on to a\nsurvey of the religious bearings of the critical study of the poetical\nand prophetical books, which, through differences of race, age, and\nabove all spiritual atmosphere, we find, upon the whole, so much more\nattractive and congenial than the Levitical legislation. Let me, at\nleast, throw out a few hints. Great as is the division of opinion on\npoints of detail, so much appears to be generally accepted that the\nnumber of prophets whose works have partly come down to us is larger\nthan used to be supposed. The analysis of the texts may not be as nearly\nperfect as that of the Pentateuch, but there is no doubt among those of\nthe younger critics whose voices count (and with the pupils of Delitzsch\nthe case is the same as with those of Ewald) that several of the\nprophetical books are made up of the works of different writers, and I\neven notice a tendency among highly orthodox critics to go beyond Ewald\nhimself and analyse the Book of Daniel into portions of different dates.\nThe result is important, and not for literary history alone. It gives us\na much firmer hold on the great principle that a prophet\u2019s horizon is\nthat of his own time; that he prophesied, as has been well said, into\nthe future, but not directly to the future. This will, I believe, in no\nwise affect essential Christian truth, but will obviously modify our\nexegesis of certain Scripture proofs of Christian doctrine, and is\nperhaps not without a bearing on the two grave theological subjects\nreferred to already.\n\nBear with me if, once again in conclusion, I appeal to the Church at\nlarge on behalf of those who would fain modernise our criticism and\nexegesis with a view to a not less distinctively Christian but more\nprogressive Church theology. The age of \u0153cumenical councils may have\npassed; but if criticism, exegesis, and philosophy are only cultivated\nin a fearless and reverent spirit, and if the Church at large troubles\nitself a little more to understand the workers and their work, an\napproximation to agreement on great religious questions may hereafter be\nattained. What the informal decisions of the general Christian\nconsciousness will be, it would be impertinent to conjecture. It is St.\nJohn\u2019s \u2018all truth\u2019 after which we aspire\u2014\u2018all the truth\u2019 concerning God,\nthe individual soul, and human society, into which the labours of\ngenerations, encouraged by the guiding star, shall by degrees introduce\nus. But one thing is too clear to be mistaken\u2014viz. that exegesis must\ndecide first of all what essential Christian truth is before a devout\nphilosophy can interpret, expand, and apply it, and Old Testament\nexegesis, at any rate, cannot be long separated from its natural ally,\nthe higher criticism. A provisional separation may no doubt be\nnecessary, but the ultimate aim of successive generations of students\nmust be a faithful exegesis, enlightened by a seven-times tested\ncriticism.\n\nFootnote 1:\n\n  \u2018Toleranz sollte eigentlich nur eine vor\u00fcbergehende Gesinnung sein;\n  sie muss zur Anerkennung f\u00fchren.\u2019\u2014_Goethe._\n\nFootnote 2:\n\n  See essay on \u2018Miracles\u2019 in _Christian Remembrancer_ (list of works\n  recommended to theological honour-students in Oxford).\n\nFootnote 3:\n\n  The self-humiliation of Christ is described (need I remark?) by St.\n  Paul as a \u03ba\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 (Phil. ii. 7). How far this \u03ba\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 extended is a\n  theological problem which in the sixteenth century, and again in our\n  own, has exercised devout thinkers. For the modern form of the Kenotic\n  view or doctrine the English reader will naturally go to Dorner\u2019s\n  _History of the Doctrine of the Person of Christ_, vol. iii., in\n  Clark\u2019s _Library_. Dorner\u2019s opposition to this view is a weighty but\n  not, of course, a decisive fact. We must be loyal to the facts of\n  Christ\u2019s humanity reported in the Gospels. The question as to the\n  extent of the \u03ba\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 is an open one.\n\n\n\n\n                            THE BOOK OF JOB.\n\n\n                               CHAPTER I.\n             JOB\u2019S CALAMITY; THE OPENING OF THE DIALOGUES.\n                            (CHAPS. I.-XIV.)\n\n\nThe Book of Job is not the earliest monument of Hebrew \u2018wisdom,\u2019 but for\nvarious reasons will be treated first in order. The perusal of some of\nthe pages introductory to Proverbs will enable the student to fill out\nwhat is here given. The Hebrew \u2018wisdom\u2019 is a product as peculiar as the\ndialectic of Plato, and not less worthy of admiration; and the author of\n_Job_ is its greatest master. To him are due those great thoughts on a\nperennial problem, which may be supplemented but can never be\nsuperseded, and which, as M. Renan truly says, cause so profound an\nemotion in their first na\u00efve expression. His wisdom is that of intuition\nrather than of strict reasoning, but it is as truly based upon the facts\nof experience as any of our Western philosophies. He did not indeed\nreach his high position unaided by predecessors. The author of the noble\n\u2018Praise of Wisdom\u2019 in Prov. i.-ix. taught him much and kindled his\nambition. Nor was he in all probability without the stimulus of\nfellow-thinkers and fellow-poets. The student ought from the outset to\nbe aware of the existence of discussions as to the unity of the\nbook\u2014discussions which have led to one assured and to several probable\nresults\u2014though he ought not to adopt any critical results before he has\nthoroughly studied the poem itself. The student should also know that\nthe supposed authors of the (as I must believe) inserted passages belong\nto the same circle as the writer of the main part of the book, and are\ntherefore not to be accused of having made \u2018interpolations.\u2019 I need not\nhere distinguish between passages added by the author himself as\nafterthoughts (or perhaps _paralipomena_ inserted by disciples from his\nliterary remains) and compositions of later poets added to give the poem\ngreater didactic completeness. A passage which does not fall into the\nplan of the poem is to all intents and purposes the work of another\npoet. The philosophic Goethe of the second part of _Faust_ is not the\npassion-tossed Goethe of the first.\n\nAll the writers who may be concerned in the production of our book are,\nhowever, well worthy of reverent study; they were not only inspired by\nthe Spirit of Israel\u2019s holy religion, but in their various styles true\npoets. In some degree we may apply to _Job_ the lines of Schiller on the\n_Iliad_ with its different fathers but one only mother\u2014Nature. In fact,\nNature, in aspects chiefly familiar, but not therefore less interesting,\nwas an open book to these poets, and \u2018Look in thine heart and write\u2019 was\ntheir secret as well as Spenser\u2019s for vigorous and effective expression.\n\nI now proceed to give in plain prose the pith and substance of this\ngreat poem, which more than any other Old Testament book needs to be\nbrought near to the mind of a Western student. I would entitle it THE\nBOOK OF THE TRIAL OF THE RIGHTEOUS MAN, AND OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF GOD.\n\nIn its present form the Book of Job consists of five parts\u2014\n\n1. The Prologue, written in prose (ch. i.-ii.), the body of the work in\nthe Hebrew being written in at any rate an approach to metre;[4]\n\n2. The Colloquies between Job and his three friends (ch. iii.-xxxi.);\n\n3. The Discourses of Elihu (ch. xxxii.-xxxvii.);\n\n4. Jehovah\u2019s Reply to Job (ch. xxxviii.-xlii. 6);\n\n5. The Epilogue, in prose (ch. xlii. 7-17).\n\nThere are some differences in the arrangement which will presently be\nfollowed, but these will justify themselves in the course of our study.\nLet us first of all examine the Prologue, which will bear to be viewed\nby itself as a striking specimen of Hebrew narrative. The idyllic\nmanners of a patriarchal age are delineated with sympathy\u2014no difficult\ntask to one who knew the early Hebrew traditions\u2014and still more\nadmirable are the very testing scenes from the supernatural world.\n\nIt may perhaps seem strange that this should be only a prose poem, but\nthe truth is that narrative poetry was entirely alien to the Hebrew\ngenius, which refused to tolerate the bonds of protracted and continuous\nversification. Like that other great hero of parallelistic verse Balaam,\nJob is a non-Israelite; and in this the unknown author shows a fine\ntact, for he is thus absolved from the embarrassing necessity of\nreferring to the Law, and so complicating the moral problem under\nconsideration. Job, however, though an Arabian sheich[5] (as one may\nloosely call him), was a worshipper of Jehovah, who declares before the\nassembled \u2018sons of the Elohim\u2019 that \u2018there is none like Job in the\nearth,\u2019 &c. (i. 8). Job\u2019s virtue is rewarded by an outward prosperity\nlike that of the patriarchs in Genesis: he was a great Eastern Emeer,\nand had not only a large family but great possessions. His scrupulous\npiety, which takes precautions even against heart-sins, is exemplified\nto us by the atoning sacrifice which he offers as head of his family at\nsome annual feast (i. 4, 5). Then in ver. 6 the scene is abruptly\nchanged from earth to heaven. The spirit of the narrative is not devoid\nof a delightful humour. In the midst of the \u2018sons of the\nElohim\u2019\u2014supernatural, Titanic beings, who had once been at strife with\nJehovah (if we may illustrate by xxi. 22, xxv. 2), but who now at stated\ntimes paid Him their enforced homage\u2014stood one who had not quite lost\nhis original pleasure in working evil, and who was now employed by his\nMaster as a kind of moral and religious censor of the human race. This\nmalicious spirit\u2014\u2018the Satan\u2019 or adversary, as he is called\u2014had just\nreturned from a tour of inspection in the world, and Jehovah, who is\nrepresented under the disguise of an earthly monarch, boldly and\nimprudently draws his attention to the meritorious Job. The Satan\nrefuses to give human nature credit for pure goodness, and sarcastically\nremarks, \u2018Does Job serve God for nothing?\u2019 (i. 9.) Jehovah therefore\nallows His minister to put Job\u2019s piety to as severe a test as possible\nshort of taking his life. One after another Job\u2019s flocks, his servants,\nand his children are destroyed. His wife, however, by a touch of quiet\nhumour, is spared; she seems to be recognised by the Satan as an\nunconscious ally (ii. 9). The piety of Job stands the trial; he is\ndeeply moved, but maintains his self-control, and the scene closes with\na devout ascription of blessing to Jehovah alike for giving and for\nrecalling His gifts.\n\nBefore passing on the reader should notice that, according to the poet,\nthe ultimate reason why these sufferings of Job were permitted by the\nMost High was that Job might set an example of a piety independent of\nfavouring outward circumstances. The poet reveals this to us in the\nPrologue, that we may not ourselves be staggered in our faith, nor cast\ndown by sympathy with such an unique sufferer; for after the eulogy\npassed upon Job in the celestial court we cannot doubt that he will\nstand the test, even if disturbed for a time.\n\nA second time the same high court is held. The first experiment of the\nAdversary has failed, and this magnified earthly monarch, the Jehovah of\nthe story, begins to suspect that he has allowed a good man to be\nplagued with no sufficient motive. Admiringly he exclaims, pointing to\nJob, \u2018And still he holds fast his integrity, so that thou didst incite\nme against him to annihilate him without cause\u2019 (ii. 3). Another\nsarcastic word from the Adversary (\u2018Touch his bone and his flesh, and\nthen see....\u2019), and once more he receives permission to try Job. The\naffliction this time is elephantiasis, the most loathsome and dangerous\nform of leprosy. But Job\u2019s piety stands fast. He sits down on the heap\nof burnt dung and ashes at the entrance of the village, such as those\nwhere lepers are still wont to congregate, and meets the despairing\ncounsel of his wife (comp. Tobit\u2019s wife, Tob. ii. 14) to renounce a God\nfrom whom nothing more is to be hoped but death with a calm and pious\nrebuke. So baseless was the malicious suggestion of the Satan! Meantime\nmany months pass away (vii. 3), and no friend appears to condole with\nhim. Travelling is slow in the East, and Job\u2019s three friends[6] were\nEmeers like himself (the Sept. makes them kings), and their residences\nwould be at some distance from each other. At last they come, but they\ncannot recognise Job\u2019s features, distorted by disease (as Isa. lii. 14).\nOverpowered with surprise and grief, they sit down with him for seven\ndays and seven nights (comp. Ezek. iii. 15). Up to this point no fault\ncan be found with his friends.\n\n                              I never yet did hear\n            That the bruised heart was pierced through the ear.\n\n            (_Othello_, act i, scene 3.)\n\nIt was their deep, unspoken sympathy which encouraged him to vent his\nsorrow in a flood of unpurified emotion (chap. iii.) The very next thing\nrecorded of Job is that he \u2018opened his mouth and cursed his day\u2019 (i.e.\nhis birthday; see ver. 3). This may at least be the poet\u2019s meaning,\nthough it is also possible that the prologue and the body of the poem\nare not homogeneous. Not to mention other reasons at present, the tone\nof Job\u2019s speech in chap. iii. (the chapter read by Swift on his\nbirthday) is entirely different from the stedfast resignation of his\nreply to his wife, which, as Prof. Davidson has said, \u2018reveals still\ngreater deeps in Job\u2019s reverent piety\u2019 than the benediction at the end\nof chap. i., the latter being called forth not by the infliction of\npositive evil, but merely by the withdrawal of unguaranteed favours.\n\nHow strangely vivid were the sensations of the race to which the author\nof Job belonged! How great to him must have been the pleasures of\nexistence, and how great the pains! Nothing to him was merely\nsubjectively true: his feelings were infallible, and that which seemed\nto be was. Time, for instance, had an objective reality: the days of the\nyear had a kind of life of their own (comp. Ps. xix. 2) and paid\nannually recurring visits to mankind. Hence Job, like Jeremiah (Jer. xx.\n14-18), in the violence of his passion[7] can wish to retaliate on the\ninstrument of his misery by \u2018cursing his day.\u2019\n\n            Perish the day wherein I was born,\n            and the night which said, A man has been conceived.\n\n            (iii. 3; comp. 6);\n\ni.e. let my birthday become a blank in the calendar. Or, if this be too\nmuch and the anniversary, so sad to me, must come round, then let\nmagicians cast their spell[8] upon it and make it an unlucky day (such\nas the Babylonians had in abundance).\n\n             Let them curse it that curse days,\n             that are skilful to rouse the leviathan (iii. 8);\n\ni.e. the cloud dragon (vii. 12, xxvi. 13, Isaiah li. 9, Jer. li. 34),\nthe enemy of the sun (an allusion to a widely spread solar myth). So\nfare it with the day which might, by hindering Job\u2019s birth, have \u2018hid\nsorrow from his eyes!\u2019 Even if he must be born, why could he not have\ndied at once and escaped his ill fortune in the quiet phantom world\n(iii. 13-19)? Alas! this melancholy dream does but aggravate Job\u2019s\nmental agony. He broods on the horror of his situation, and even makes a\nshy allusion to God as the author of his woe\u2014\n\n                 Wherefore gives he light to the miserable,\n                 and life to the bitter in soul? (iii. 20.)\n\nAnd now Job\u2019s friends are shaken out of their composure. They have been\nmeditating on Job\u2019s calamity, which is so difficult to reconcile with\ntheir previous high opinion of him; for they are the representatives of\northodoxy, of the orthodoxy which received the high sanction of the\nDeuteronomic _T\u014dra_, and which connected obedience and prosperity,\ndisobedience and adversity. Still it is not a stiff, extreme orthodoxy\nwhich the three friends maintain: calamity, as Eliphaz represents their\nopinion (v. 17; comp. 27), is not always a punishment, but sometimes a\ndiscipline. The question therefore has forced itself upon them, Has the\ncalamity which has befallen our friend a judicial or a disciplinary,\neducational purpose? At first they may have leaned to the latter\nalternative; but Job\u2019s violent outburst, so unbecoming in a devout man,\ntoo clearly pointed in the other direction, and already they are\nbeginning to lose their first hopeful view of his case. One after\nanother they debate the question with Job (Eliphaz as the depositary of\na revelation, Bildad as the advocate of tradition, Zophar as the man of\ncommon sense)\u2014the question of the cause and meaning of his sufferings,\nwhich means further, since Job is not merely an individual but a\ntype,[9] the question of the vast mass of evil in the world. This main\npart of the work falls into three cycles of dialogue (ch. iv.-xiv., ch.\nxv.-xxi., ch. xxii.-xxxi.) In each there are three pairs of speeches,\nbelonging respectively to Eliphaz and Job, Bildad and Job, Zophar and\nJob. Eliphaz opens the debate as being the oldest (xv. 10) and the most\nexperienced of Job\u2019s friends. There is much to admire in his speech; if\nhe could only have adopted the tone of a sympathising friend and not of\na lecturer\u2014\n\n               Behold, this have we searched out; so it is;\n               hear thou it, and know it for thyself (v. 27)\u2014\n\nhe might have been useful to the sufferer. At the very beginning he\nstrikes a wrong key-note, expressing surprise at his friend\u2019s utter loss\nof self-control (_vattibb\u0101h\u0113l_, ver. 4), and couching it in such a form\nthat one would really suppose Job to have broken down at the first taste\nof trouble. The view of the speaker seems to be that, since Job is\nreally a pious man (for Eliphaz does not as yet presume to doubt this),\nhe ought to feel sure that his trouble would not proceed beyond a\ncertain point. \u2018Bethink thee now,\u2019 says Eliphaz, \u2018who ever _perished_,\nbeing innocent?\u2019 (iv. 7.) Some amount of trouble even a good man may\nfairly expect; though far from \u2018ploughing iniquity,\u2019 he is too weak not\nto fall into sins of error, and all sin involves suffering; or, as\nEliphaz puts it concisely\u2014\n\n                      Man is born to trouble,\n                      as the sparks fly upward (v. 7).\n\nAssuming without any reason that Job would question this, Eliphaz\nenforces the moral imperfection of human nature by an appeal to\nrevelation\u2014not, of course, to Moses and the prophets, but to a vision\nlike those of the patriarchs in Genesis. Of the circumstances of the\nrevelation a most graphic account is given.\n\n             And to myself came an oracle stealthily,\n             and mine ear received the whisper thereof,\n             in the play of thought from nightly visions,\n             when deep sleep falls upon men,\n             a shudder came upon me and a trembling,\n             and made all my bones to shudder,\n             when (see!) a wind sweeps before me,\n             the hairs of my body bristle up:\n             it stands, but I cannot discern it,\n             I gaze, but there is no form,\n             before mine eyes (is) ...\n             and I hear a murmuring voice.[10]\n             \u2018Can human kind be righteous before God?\n             can man be pure before his Maker?\n             Behold, he trusts not his own servants,\n             and imputes error to his angels[11]\u2019. (iv. 12-18).\n\nThere is no such weird passage in the rest of the Old Testament. It did\nnot escape the attention of Milton, whose description of death alludes\nto it.\n\n              If shape it could be called that shape had none,\n              Distinguishable in member, joint, or limb;\n              Or substance might be called that shadow seemed.\n\n              (_Par. Lost_, ii. 266.)\n\nA single phrase (\u2018a murmuring voice,\u2019 ver. 16) is borrowed from the\ntheophany of Elijah (1 Kings xix. 12), but the strokes which paint the\nscene, and which Milton and Blake between them have more than\nreproduced, are all his own. The supernatural terror, the wind\nbetokening a spiritual visitor, the straining eyes which can discern no\nform, the whispering voice always associated with oracles[12]\u2014each of\nthese awful experiences we seem to share. Eliphaz himself recalls his\nimpressions so vividly that he involuntarily uses the present tense in\ndescribing them.\n\nBut why should Eliphaz imagine that because Job had not had a revelation\nof this kind he is therefore ignorant of the truth? He actually\nconfounds the complaints wrung from Job by his unparalleled mental and\nbodily sufferings with the \u2018impatience\u2019 of the \u2018foolish man\u2019 and the\n\u2018passion\u2019 of the \u2018silly\u2019 one, and warns him against the fate which\nwithin his own experience befell one such rebellious murmurer against\nGod\u2014an irrelevant remark, unless he has already begun to suspect Job of\nimpiety. Then, as if he feels that he has gone too far, he addresses Job\nin a more hopeful spirit, and tells him what he would do in his place,\nviz. turn trustfully to God, whose operations are so unsearchable, but\nso benevolent. Let Job regard his present affliction as a chastening and\nhe may look forward to even more abundant blessings than he has yet\nenjoyed.\n\nIn these concluding verses Eliphaz certainly does his best to be\nsympathetic, but the result shows how utterly he has failed. He has\nneither convinced Job\u2019s reason nor calmed the violence of his emotion.\nIt is now Job\u2019s turn to reply. He is not, indeed, in a mood to answer\nEliphaz point by point. Passing over the ungenerous reference to the\nfate of the rebellious, which he can hardly believe to be seriously\nmeant, Job first of all justifies the despair which has so astonished\nEliphaz.[13] Since the latter is so cool and so critical, let him weigh\nJob\u2019s calamity as well as his words, and see if the extravagance of the\nlatter is not excusable. Are these arrow wounds the fruit of\nchastisement? Does the Divine love disguise itself as terror? The good\nman is never allowed to perish, you say; but how much longer can a body\nof flesh hold out? Why should I not even desire death? God may be my\nenemy, but I have given Him no cause. And now, if He would be my friend,\nthe only favour I crave is that He would shorten my agony.\n\n         Then should (this) still be my comfort\n         (I would leap amidst unsparing pain),\n         that I have not denied the words of the Holy One (vi. 10).\n\nJob\u2019s demeanour is thus fully accounted for; it is that of his friends\nwhich is unnatural and disappointing.\n\n           My brethren have been treacherous as a winter stream,\n           as the bed of winter streams which pass away:\n           (once) they were turbid with ice,\n           and the snow, as it fell, hid itself in them;\n           but now that they feel the glow they vanish,\n           when it is hot they disappear from their place.\n           Caravans bend their course;\n           they go up into the desert and perish.\n           The caravans of Tema looked;\n           the companies of Sheba hoped for them;[14]\n           they were abashed because they had been confident;\n           when they came thither they were ashamed (vi. 15-20).\n\nAnd was it a hard thing that Job asked of his friends? No; merely\nsympathy. And not only have they withheld this; Eliphaz has even\ninsinuated that Job was an open sinner. Surely neither honesty nor\nwisdom is shown in such captious criticism of Job\u2019s expressions.\n\n      How forcible is honest language,\n      and how cogent is the censure of a wise man!\n      Think ye to censure words,\n      and the passionate speech of one who is desperate? (vi. 25, 26.)\n\nWith an assertion of his innocence, and a renewed challenge to disprove\nit, this, the easiest part of Job\u2019s first reply, concludes.\n\nAnd now, having secured his right to complain, Job freely avails himself\nof his melancholy privilege. A \u2018desperate\u2019 man cares not to choose his\nwords, though the reverence which never ceased to exist deep down in\nJob\u2019s nature prompts him to excuse his delirious words by a reference to\nhis bitter anguish (vii. 11). Another excuse which he might have given\nlies on the very surface of the poem, which is coloured throughout by\nthe poet\u2019s deep sympathy with human misery in general. Job in fact is\nnot merely an individual, but a representative of mankind; and when he\nasks himself at the beginning of chap. vii.\u2014\n\n           Has not frail man a warfare [hard service] upon earth,\n           and are not his days like the days of a hireling?\u2014\n\nit is not merely one of the countless thoughts which are like foam\nbubbles, but the expression of a serious interest, which raises Job far,\nvery far above the patriarchal prince of the legend in the Prologue. It\nis the very exaggeration of this interest which alone explains why the\nthought of his fellow-sufferers not only brings no comfort[15] to Job,\nbut fails even to calm his excitement.\n\n               Am I the sea (he says) or the sea monster,\n               that thou settest a watch over me? (vii. 12.)\n\nIt is an allusion to a myth, based on the continual \u2018war in heaven\u2019\nbetween light and darkness, which we have in these lines. Job asks if he\nis the leviathan (iii. 8) of that upper ocean above which dwells the\ninvisible God (ix. 8, Ps. civ. 3). He describes Jehovah as being jealous\n(comp. Gen. iii. 4, 5, 22) and thinking it of importance to subdue Job\u2019s\nwild nature, lest he should thwart the Divine purposes. But here, again,\nJob rises above himself; the sorrows of all innocent sufferers are as\npresent to him as his own; nay, more, he bears them as a part of his\nown; he represents mankind with God. In a bitter parody of Ps. viii. 5\nhe exclaims\u2014\n\n          What is frail man that Thou treatest him as a great one\n          and settest Thy mind upon him;\n          that Thou scrutinisest him every morning,\n          and art every moment testing him? (vii. 17, 18.)\n\nIt is only now and then that Job expresses this feeling of sympathetic\nunion with the human race. Generally his secret thought (or that of his\npoet) translates itself into a self-consciousness which seems morbidly\nextravagant on any other view of the poem. The descriptions of his\nphysical pains, however, are true to the facts of the disease called\nelephantiasis, from which he may be supposed to have suffered. His cry\nfor death is justified by his condition\u2014\u2018death rather than (these) my\npains\u2019[16] (vii. 15). He has no respite from his agony; \u2018nights of\nmisery,\u2019 he says, \u2018have been allotted to me\u2019 (vii. 3), probably because\nhis pains were more severe in the night (xxx. 17). How can it be worth\nwhile, he asks, thus to persecute him? Even if Eliphaz be right, and Job\nhas been a sinner, yet how can this affect the Most High?\n\n               (Even) if I have sinned, what do I unto thee,\n               O thou watcher of men? (vii. 20.)\n\nWhat bitter irony again! He admits a vigilance in God, but only the\nvigilance of \u2018espionage\u2019 (xiii. 27, xiv. 16), not that of friendly\nguardianship; God only aims at procuring a long catalogue of punishable\nsins. Why not forgive those sins and relieve Himself from a troublesome\ntask? Soon it will be too late: a pathetic touch revealing a latent\nbelief in God\u2019s mercy which no calamity could destroy.\n\nThus to the blurred vision of the agonised sufferer the moral God whom\nhe used to worship has been transformed into an unreasoning, unpitying\nForce. Bildad is shocked at this. \u2018Can God pervert judgment\u2019? (viii. 3.)\nIn his short speech he reaffirms the doctrine of proportionate\nretribution, and exhorts Job to \u2018seek earnestly unto God\u2019 (viii. 5),\nthus clearly implying that Job is being punished for his sins.[17]\nInstead of basing his doctrine on revelation, Bildad supports the side\nof it relative to the wicked by an appeal to the common consent of\nmankind previously to the present generation (viii. 8, 9). This common\nconsent, this traditional wisdom, is embodied in proverbial \u2018dark\nsayings,\u2019 as, for instance\u2014\n\n          Can the papyrus grow up without marsh?\n          can the Nile reed shoot up without water?\n          While yet in its verdure, uncut,\n          it withers before any grass.\n          So fares it with all that forget God,\n          and the hope of the impious shall perish (viii. 11-13).\n\nIt is interesting to see at how early a date the argument in favour of\nTheism was rested to some extent on tradition. \u2018We are of yesterday, and\nknow nothing,\u2019 says Bildad, \u2018because our days on earth are a shadow\u2019\n(viii. 9), whereas the wisdom of the past is centuries old, and has a\nstability to which Job\u2019s novelties (or, for this is the poet\u2019s meaning,\nthose of the new sceptical school of the Exile) cannot pretend. But Job\nat least is better than his theories, so Eliphaz and Bildad are still\ncharitable enough to believe, and the closing words of the speech of\nBildad clear up any possible doubt with regard to his opinion of erring\nbut still whole-hearted[18] (\u2018perfect\u2019) Job.\n\n          Those that hate thee shalt be clothed with shame,\n          and the tent of the wicked shall be no more (viii. 22).\n\nBut Job has much to say in reply. He ironically admits the truth of the\nsaying, \u2018How can man be righteous with God?\u2019 but the sense in which he\napplies the words is very different from that given to them by his\nfriends. Of course God is righteous (\u2018righteousness\u2019 in Semitic\nlanguages sometimes means \u2018victory\u2019), because He is so mighty that no\none, however innocent, could plead successfully before Him. This thought\nsuggests a noble description of the stupendous displays of God\u2019s might\nin nature (ix. 5-10). The verse with which it closes is adopted from\nEliphaz, in whose first speech to Job it forms the text of a quiet\npicture of God\u2019s everyday miracles of benevolence to man (v. 9). Where\nEliphaz sees power, wisdom, and love, Job can see only a force which is\nterrible in proportion to its wisdom. The predominant quality in this\nidol of Job\u2019s imagination is not love, but anger\u2014capricious, inexorable\nanger, which long ago \u2018the helpers of Rahab\u2019 (another name for the storm\ndragon, which fought against the sun) experienced to their cost (ix. 13;\ncomp. xxvi. 12). Job himself is in collision with this force; and how\nshould he venture to defend himself? The tortures he endured would force\nfrom him an avowal of untruths (ix. 20). If only God were a man, or if\nthere were an umpire whose authority would be recognised on both sides,\nhow gladly would Job submit his case to adjudication! But, alas! God\nstands over against him with His rod (ix. 32-34). Bildad had said, \u2018God\nwill not cast away a perfect man\u2019 (viii. 20). But Job\u2019s experience is,\n\u2018He destroys the perfect and the wicked\u2019 (ix. 22). Thus Job has many\nfellow-sufferers, and one good effect of his trial is that it has opened\nhis eyes to the religious bearings of facts which he had long known but\nnot before now seriously pondered.\n\nAt last a milder spirit comes upon the sufferer. He has been in the\nhabit of communion with God, and cannot bear to be condemned without\nknowing the cause (x. 2). How, he enquires, can God have the heart to\ntorture that which has cost Him so much thought (comp. Isa. lxv. 8, 9)?\nA man is not a common potter\u2019s vessel, but framed with elaborate skill.\n\n            Thy hands fashioned and prepared me;\n            afterwards dost thou turn[19] and destroy me?\n            Remember now that as clay thou didst prepare me,\n            and dost thou turn me into dust again?\n            Life and favour dost thou grant me,\n            and thine oversight guarded my spirit (x. 8, 9, 12).\n\nGod appeared to be kind then; but, since God sees the end from the\nbeginning, it is too clear that He must have done all this simply in\norder to mature a perfect human sacrifice to His own cruel self-will.\nJob\u2019s milder spirit has evidently fled. He repeats his wish that he had\nnever lived (x. 18, 19), and only craves a few brighter moments before\nhe departs to the land of darkness (x. 20-22).\n\nIt was not likely that Zophar would be more capable of rightly advising\nJob than his elders. Having had no experience to soften him, he pours\nout a flood of crude dogmatic commonplaces, and in the complaints wrung\nfrom a troubled spirit can see nothing but \u2018a multitude of words\u2019 (xi.\n2). Yet he only just misses making an important contribution to the\nsettlement of the problem. He has caught a glimpse of a supernatural\nwisdom, to which the secrets of all hearts are open:\u2014\n\n            But oh that God [Eloah] would speak,\n            and open his lips against thee.\n            and show thee the secrets of wisdom,\n            for wondrous are they in perfection![20]\n            Canst thou find the depths of God [Eloah]?\n            canst thou reach to the end of Shaddai?\n            Heights of heaven! what canst thou do?\n            deeper than She\u00f3l! what canst thou know? (xi. 5-8.)\n\nIf Zophar had worked out this idea impartially, he might have given to\nthe discussion a fresh and more profitable turn. He is so taken up with\nthe traditional orthodoxy, however, that he has no room for a deeper\nview of the problem. His inference is that, in virtue of His perfect\nknowledge, God can detect sin where man sees none, though that cruellest\ntouch of all with which the Massoretic text[21] burdens the reputation\nof Zophar is not supported by the more accurate text of the Septuagint,\nand we should read xi. 6 thus:\n\n          and thou shouldest know that God [Eloah] gives unto thee\n          thy deserts[22] for thine iniquity.\n\nBut indeed a special revelation ought not to be necessary for Job. His\ntrouble, proceeding as it does from one no less wise than irresistible\n(xi. 10, 11), ought to dispel his dream of innocence; as Zophar\ngeneralises, when God\u2019s judgments are abroad\u2014\n\n            (Even) an empty head wins understanding,\n            and a wild ass\u2019s colt is new-born as a man (xi. 12).\n\nWe may pass over the brilliant description of prosperity consequent on a\ntrue repentance with which the chapter concludes. It fell quite unheeded\non the ears of Job, who was more stung by the irritating speech of\nZophar than by those of Eliphaz and Bildad.\n\nThe taunt conveyed indirectly by Zophar in xi. 12 is exposed in all its\nfutility in the reply of Job. Zophar himself, however, he disdains to\nargue with; there is the same intolerable assumption of superiority in\nthe speeches of all the three, and this he assails with potent sarcasm.\n\n              No doubt ye are mankind,\n              and with you shall wisdom die.\n              I too have understanding like you,\n              and who knows not the like of this? (xii. 2, 3.)\n\nIn what respect, pray, is he inferior to his friends? Has Eliphaz\nenjoyed a specially unique revelation? Job has had a still better\nopportunity of learning spiritual truth in communion of the heart with\nGod (xii. 4). Is Bildad an unwearied collector of the wisdom of\nantiquity? Job too admits the value of tradition, though he will not\nreceive it unproved (xii. 11, 12). In declamation, too, Job can vie with\nthe arrogant Zophar; Job\u2019s description of the omnipotence of God forms\nthe counterpart of Zophar\u2019s description of His omniscience. But of what\naccount are generalities in face of such a problem as Job\u2019s? The\nquestion of questions is not, Has God all power and all wisdom, but,\nDoes He use them for moral ends? The three friends refuse to look facts\nin the face; the _righteous_ God (we must understand the words, _if\nthere be one_) will surely chastise them for insincerity and\npartisanship (xiii. 10).\n\nAnd now Job refuses to waste any more words on his opponents.\n\n            But as for me, to Shaddai would I speak,\n            I crave to reason with God;\n            But ye\u2014are plasterers of lies,\n            patchers of that which is worthless.\n            Your commonplaces are proverbs of ashes;\n            your bulwarks are bulwarks of clay (xiii. 3, 4, 12).\n\nHe forms a new project, but shudders as he does so, for he feels sure of\nprovoking God thereby to deadly anger. Be it so; a man who has borne\ntill he can bear no longer can even welcome death.\n\n      Behold, let him slay me; I can wait [be patient] no longer;[23]\n      still I will defend my ways to his face (xiii. 15).\n\nIt is the sublimest of all affirmations of the rights of conscience. Job\nis confident of the success of his plea: \u2018This also (guarantees) victory\nto me, that an impious man cannot come before him\u2019 (xiii. 16) with such\na good conscience. Thus virtue has an intrinsic value for Job, superior\nto that of prosperity or even life: moral victory would more than\ncompensate for physical failure. He indulges the thought that God may\npersonally take part in the argument (xiii. 20-22), and in anticipation\nof this he sums up the chief points of his intended speech (xiii.\n23-xiv. 22), such as, \u2018How many[24] are my sins,\u2019 and \u2018Why chase dry\nstubble?\u2019 (xiii. 23, 25). Sad complaints of the melancholy lot of\nmankind follow, reminding us again that Job, like Dante in his\npilgrimage, is not only an individual but a representative.\n\n        Man that is born of woman,\n        short-lived and full of unrest,\n        comes up as a flower and fades,\n        flies as a shadow and continues not.\n        And upon such an one keepest thou thine eye open,\n        and me dost thou bring into judgment with thee! (xiv. 1-3.)\n\nHard enough is the natural fate of man; why make it harder by\nexceptional severity? An early reader misunderstood this, and thought to\nstrengthen Job\u2019s appeal by a reference (in ver. 4) to one of the\ncommonplaces of Eliphaz (iv. 17-21). But ver. 5 shows that the idea\nwhich fills the mind of Job is the shortness of human life.[25] A tree,\nwhen cut down according to the rules still current in Syria,[26]\ndisplays a marvellous vitality; but man is only like the falling leaves\nof a tree (xiii. 25), or (the figure preferred here) like the canals of\nEgypt when the dykes and reservoirs are not properly kept up (xiv. 11;\ncomp. Isaiah xix. 5, 6). If it were God\u2019s will to \u2018hide\u2019 Job in dark\nShe\u00f3l for a time, and then to recall him to the light, how gladly would\nhe \u2018wait\u2019 there, like a soldier on guard (comp. vii. 1), till his\n\u2018relief\u2019 came (xiv. 14)!\u2014a fascinating thought, on which, baseless\nthough he considers it, Job cannot forbear to dwell. And the beauty of\nthe passage is that the happiness of restoration to conscious life\nconsists for Job in the renewal of loving communion between himself and\nhis God (xiv. 15). Alas! the dim light of She\u00f3l darkens the glorious\nvision and sends Job back into despair.\n\nFootnote 4:\n\n  Jerome already saw this. He represents the Book of Job as composed\n  mainly in hexameters with a dactylic and spondaic movement (_Pr\u00e6f. in\n  Job_). Does he mean double trimeters?\n\nFootnote 5:\n\n  Where is the \u2018Uz\u2019 spoken of in Job i. 1? The \u2018land of _Uzza_\u2019 seems to\n  have been not far from the Orontes (Shalmaneser\u2019s Obelisk; see Friedr.\n  Delitzsch\u2019s _Paradies_, p. 259). Tradition places the home of Job in\n  the fertile volcanic region called the Haur\u00e2n (see the very full\n  excursus in Delitzsch\u2019s _Job_). But the \u2018land of Uz\u2019 _might_ be\n  farther south, nearer to Edom, in connection with which it is\n  mentioned, Lam. iv. 21, Gen. xxxvi. 28 (comp. ver. 21). This is\n  supported by the curious note appended to the Book of Job in the\n  Septuagint. It is true that Uz is called a son of Aram (Gen. x. 23),\n  but \u2018Uz\u2019 may have had several branches, or the use of Aramaic may have\n  extended far beyond the limits of Aram proper.\n\nFootnote 6:\n\n  Of the three friends Eliphaz comes from the Edomitish district of\n  Teman, so famous for its wisdom; Bildad from the land of Shuah (\u2018Suhu\u2019\n  lay, according to the inscriptions, between the mouths of the Belich\n  and the Khabur, confluents of the Euphrates); Zophar from Naamah, some\n  unknown district east of the Jordan. How well these notes of place\n  agree with the Aramaic colouring of the book!\n\nFootnote 7:\n\n  Bishop Lowth (_Pr\u00e6lect._ xxxiii.) admires the dramatic tact with which\n  the poet makes Job err at first merely by the exaggeration of his\n  complaints, thus inviting censure, which in turn leads to bold\n  misstatements on Job\u2019s part.\n\nFootnote 8:\n\n   For a late Egyptian incantation of this class see Ancessi, _Job et le\n  R\u00e9dempteur_, pp. 240-1; for the dragon myth itself see Cheyne\u2019s note\n  in the _Prophecies of Isaiah_ (on Isa. xxvii. 1) and in the _Pulpit\n  Comm. on Jeremiah_ (on Jer. li. 34).\n\nFootnote 9:\n\n  See Chap. VII. (end of Section 2).\n\nFootnote 10:\n\n  The translation follows Bickell\u2019s text. The correction in line 2 of\n  ver. 16 is from the Septuagint; the transposition in line 4 is\n  suggested by 1 Kings xix. 12.\n\nFootnote 11:\n\n  So xv. 15. M. Lenormant compares Gen. vi. 1-4 (an incomplete\n  fragment). See above on the \u2018sons of the Elohim\u2019 of the prologue, and\n  comp. Chap. X.\n\nFootnote 12:\n\n  Compare the Hebrew _ne\u2019\u016bm_ in a common prophetic formula.\n\nFootnote 13:\n\n  The following lines develope what Job may be supposed to have had in\n  his mind.\n\nFootnote 14:\n\n  Thomson has finely but inaccurately paraphrased this, changing the\n  localities:\u2014\n\n                              \u2018In Cairo\u2019s crowded streets\n        The impatient merchant, wondering, waits in vain,\n        And Mecca saddens at the long delay.\u2019\n\n        (_Summer_, 980-2; of the caravan which perished in the storm.)\n\nFootnote 15:\n\n  Contrast the touchingly natural expressions of an Arabian poet,\n  translated by R\u00fcckert (_Ham\u00e2sa_, ii. 315):\u2014\n\n                     \u2018Gieng es nicht wie mir vil andern,\n                     W\u00fcrd\u2019 ich\u2019s nicht ertragen;\n                     Doch wo ich nur will, gibt Antwort\n                     Klage meinen Klagen.\u2019\n\n  The same sentiment is expressed more than once again; comp. Buddha\u2019s\n  apologue of the mustard seed.\n\nFootnote 16:\n\n  So Merx and Bickell. Text, \u2018my bones.\u2019\n\nFootnote 17:\n\n  Bildad more than implies that the fate which overtook Job\u2019s children\n  was the punishment of iniquity (viii. 4). Wonderful harshness!\n\nFootnote 18:\n\n  See viii. 20. Bildad agrees with the statement in the prologue (i. 1).\n\nFootnote 19:\n\n  Following Sept., with Merx and Bickell.\n\nFootnote 20:\n\n  Comp. Isa. xxviii. 29 (Heb.) By a slight error of the ear the copyist\n  whom our Hebrew Bibles follow put a Y\u014dd for an Alef. Hence the\n  Massoretic critics pronounce _kiflayim_ \u2018twofold,\u2019 instead of\n  _kif\u2019l\u0101im_ \u2018like wonders:\u2019 following this text, Davidson renders,\n  \u2018that it is double in (true) understanding.\u2019\n\nFootnote 21:\n\n  Literally \u2018... that God brings into forgetfulness for thee some of thy\n  guilt.\u2019\n\nFootnote 22:\n\n  Following Sept., with Bickell. Comp. the Hebrew of Job xxxiii. 27.\n\nFootnote 23:\n\n  This rendering is based on the reading of the Hebrew margin. The\n  Hebrew text has, \u2018Behold, should he slay me, for him would I wait,\u2019\n  implying an expectation of a Divine interposition in Job\u2019s favour\n  after his death. But this idea is against the connection; besides\n  which the restrictive particle \u2018only\u2019 (nearly = still) agrees better\n  with the other reading and rendering. \u2018Wait\u2019 means \u2018wait for a change\n  for the better,\u2019 as in vi. 11, which occurs in a similar context.\n\nFootnote 24:\n\n  He admits that he is not without sins (comp. ver. 26).\n\nFootnote 25:\n\n  Comp. the well-known lamentation of Moschus (iii. 106-111).\n\nFootnote 26:\n\n  See the notices from Wetzstein in Delitzsch.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER II.\n                     THE SECOND CYCLE OF SPEECHES.\n                           (CHAPS. XV.-XXI.)\n\n\nThe three narrow-minded but well-meaning friends have exhausted their\narsenal of arguments. Each with his own favourite receipt has tried to\ncure Job of his miserable illusion, and failed. Now begins a new cycle\nof speeches, in which our sympathy is still more with Job than before.\nHis replies to the three friends ought to have shown them the\nincompleteness of their argument and the necessity of discovering some\nway of reconciling the elements of truth on both sides. _They_ can teach\nhim nothing, but the facts of spiritual experience which _he_ has\nexpounded ought to have taught them much. But all that they have learned\nis the impossibility of bringing Job to self-humiliation by dwelling\nupon the Divine attributes. No doubt their excuse lies in the\nirreverence of their friend\u2019s manner and expressions. It is a part of\nthe tragedy of Job that the advice which was meant for practical\nsympathy only resulted in separating Job for a time both from God and\nfrom his friends. The narrow views of the latter drove Job to\nirreverence, and his irreverence deprived him of the lingering respect\nof his friends and seemed to himself at times to cut off the slender\nchance of a reconciliation with God. From this point onwards the friends\ncease to offer their supposed \u2018Divine consolations\u2019 (xv. 11)\u2014such as the\ngracious purpose of God\u2019s ways and the corrective object of affliction\n(v. 8-27)\u2014and content themselves with frightening Job by lurid pictures\nof the wicked man\u2019s fate, leading up, in the third cycle of speeches, to\na direct accusation of Job as a wicked man himself. And yet, strange to\nsay, as the tone of the friends becomes harsher and more cutting, Job\nmeets their vituperation with growing calmness and dignity. Disappointed\nin his friends, he clings with convulsive energy to that never quite\nsurrendered postulate of his consciousness a God who owns the moral\nclaims of a creature on the Creator. Remarkable indeed is the first\ndistinct expression of this faith of the heart, of which an antiquated\northodoxy sought to deprive him. He has just listened to the\npersonalities, the cruel assumptions, and the shallow commonplaces of\nEliphaz (who treats Job as an arrogant pretender and a self-convicted\nblaspheming sinner), and with a few words of utter contempt he turns his\nback on his \u2018tormenting[27] comforters\u2019 (xvi. 2). (Soon, however, he\nwill appeal to them for sympathy; so strong is human nature! See xix.\n21.) Left to his own melancholy thoughts, he repeats the sad details of\nhis misery and of God\u2019s hostility (and again we feel that the poet\nthinks of suffering humanity in general[28]), and reasserts his\ninnocence in language afterwards used of the suffering Servant of\nJehovah (xvi. 17; comp. Isaiah liii. 9). Then in the highest excitement\nhe demands vengeance for his blood. But who is the avenger of blood but\nGod (xix. 25; comp. Ps. ix. 12)\u2014the very Foe who is bringing him to\ndeath? And hence the strange but welcome thought that behind the God of\npitiless force and undiscriminating severity there must be a God who\nrecognises and returns the love of His servants, or, in the fine words\nof the Kor\u00e1n, \u2018that there is no refuge from God but unto Him.\u2019[29] \u2018Even\nnow,\u2019 as he lies on the rubbish-heap\u2014\n\n             Even now, behold, my Witness is in heaven,\n             and he that vouches for me is on high.\n             My friends (have become) my scorners;\n             mine eye sheds tears unto God\u2014\n             that he would right a man against God,\n             and a son of man against his friend (xvi. 20, 21).\n\nIt is a turning-point in the mental struggles of Job. He cannot indeed\naccount for his sufferings, but he ceases to regard God as an unfeeling\ntyrant. He has a germ of faith in God\u2019s goodwill towards him\u2014only a\ngerm, but we are sure, even without the close of the story, that it will\ngrow up and bear the fruit of peace. And now, perhaps, we may qualify\nthe reproach addressed above to Job\u2019s friends. It is true that they have\ndriven Job to irreverent speeches respecting God, but they have also\nmade it possible for him to reach the intuition (which the prophetic\nEliphaz has missed) of an affinity between the Divine nature and the\nhuman. In an earlier speech (ix. 32-35) he has already expressed a\nlonging for an arbiter between himself and God. That longing is now\nbeginning to be gratified by the certitude that, though the God in the\nworld may be against him, the God in heaven is on his side. Not that\neven God can undo the past; Job requests no interference with the\nprocesses of nature. (Did the writer think that Job lived outside the\nsphere of the age of miracles?) All that he asks is a pledge from God,\nhis Witness, to see his innocence recognised by God, his Persecutor\n(xvii. 3). So far we are listening to Job the individual. But\nimmediately after we find the speaker exhibiting himself as the type of\na class\u2014the class or representative category of innocent sufferers. Job,\nthen, has a dual aspect, like his God.\n\n       And he hath set me for a byword of peoples,\n       and I am one in whose face men spit.\n       At this the upright are appalled,\n       and the innocent stirs himself up against the impious;\n       but the righteous holds on his way,\n       and he who has clean hands waxes stronger and stronger\n                                                     (xvii. 6, 7, 9).\n\nHere it is difficult not to see that the circumstances of the poet\u2019s age\nare reflected in his words. The whole Jewish nation became \u2018a byword of\npeoples\u2019 during the exile,[30] and the mutual sympathy of its members\nwas continually taxed. It was a paradox which never lost its strangeness\nthat a \u2018Servant of Jehovah\u2019 should be trampled upon by unbelievers, and\nthe persecutor was rewarded by the silent indignation of all good Jews.\nThat this is the right view is shown by the depression into which Job\nfalls in vv. 11-16, in spite of the elevating passage quoted above.\n\nBildad\u2019s speech, with its barbed allusions to Job\u2019s sad history, had a\ntwofold effect. First of all it raised the anguish of Job to its highest\npoint, and, secondly, it threw the sufferer back on that great\nintuition, already reached by him, of a Divine Witness to his integrity\nin the heavens. It is a misfortune which can scarcely be appraised too\nhighly that the text of the famous declaration in xix. 25-27 is so\nuncertain. \u2018The embarrassment of the English translators,\u2019 remarks Prof.\nGreen, of Princeton,[31] \u2018is shown by the unusual number of italic\nwords, and these of no small importance to the meaning, which are heaped\ntogether in these verses.\u2019 It is scarcely greater, however, than that of\nthe ancient versions, and we can hardly doubt that the text used by the\nSeptuagint translator was already at least as corrupt as that which has\ndescended to us from the Massoretic critics.[32] This would the more\neasily be the case since, as Prof. Green says again, \u2018Job is speaking\nunder strong excitement and in the language of lofty poetry; he uses no\nsuperfluous words; he simply indicates his meaning in the most concise\nmanner.\u2019 Without now entering on a philological discussion, we have, I\nthink, to choose between these alternatives, one of which involves\nemending the text, the other does not. Does Job simply repeat what he\nhas said in xvi. 18, 19 (viz. that God will avenge his blood and make\nreparation, as it were, for his death by testifying to his innocence),\nwithout referring to any consequent pleasure of his own, or does he\ncombine with this the delightful thought expressed in xiv. 13-15 of a\nconscious renewal of communion with God after death?[33] The context, it\nseems to me, is best satisfied by the former alternative. Job\u2019s mind is\nat present occupied with the cruelty, not of God (as when he said, \u2018O\nthat thou wouldst appoint me a term and then remember me,\u2019 xiv. 13), but\nof his friends. His starting-point is, \u2018How long will ye (my friends)\npain my soul?\u2019 &c. (xix. 2.) We may admit that the best solution of\nJob\u2019s problem would be \u2018the beatific vision\u2019 in some early and not\nclearly defined form of that deep idea; but if Job can say that he not\nmerely dreams but _knows_ this (\u2018I _know_ that ... I shall see God,\u2019\nxix. 25, 26), the remainder of the colloquies ought surely to pursue a\nvery different course; as a matter of fact, neither Job nor his friends,\nnor yet Jehovah Himself, refers to this supposed newly-won truth, and\nthe only part of \u2018Job\u2019s deepest saying\u2019 which the next speaker fastens\nupon (xx. 3) is the threatening conclusion (xix. 29). Ewald himself has\ndrawn attention to this, without remarking its adverse bearing on his\nown interpretation.[34]\n\nHere, side by side, are Dr. A. B. Davidson\u2019s and Dr. W. H. Green\u2019s\ntranslations of the received text of vv. 25-27, and Dr. Bickell\u2019s\nversion of his own emended text.\n\n             But I know that my redeemer liveth,\n             and in after time he shall stand upon the dust[35]\n             and after this my skin is destroyed\n             and without my flesh I shall see God:\n             whom I shall see for myself,\n             and mine eyes shall behold, and not another\u2014\n             my reins consume within me!\n\nAnd I know my redeemer liveth, and last on earth shall he arise; and\nafter my skin, which has been destroyed thus, and out of my flesh [i.e.\nwhen my vital spirit shall be separated from my flesh] shall I see\nGod....\n\n                      Ich weiss, es lebt mein Retter,\n                    Wird noch auf meinem Staub stehn;\n                      Zuletzt wird Gott mein Zeuge,\n                    L\u00e4sst meine Unschuld schauen,\n                      Die ich allein jetzt schaun kann,\n                    Mein Auge und kein andres.\n\nMost critics are now agreed that the immediately preceding words (vv.\n23, 24) are not an introduction, as if vv. 25-27 composed the rock\ninscription. Job first of all wishes what he knows to be impossible, and\nthen announces a far better thing of which he is sure. His wish runs\nthus:\n\n                  Would then that they were written down\u2014\n                  my words\u2014in a book, and engraved\n                  with a pen of iron, and with lead\n                  cut out for a witness in the rock.[36]\n\nBut whatever view we take of the prospect which gladdened the mind of\nJob, his remaining speeches contain no further reference to it.\nHenceforth his thoughts appear to dwell less on his own condition, and\nmore on the general question of God\u2019s moral government, and even when\nthe former is spoken of it is without the old bitterness. In his next\nspeech, stirred up by the gross violence of Zophar, Job for the first\ntime meets the assertions of the three friends in this cycle of\nargument, viz. that the wicked, at any rate, always get their deserts,\nand, according to Zophar, suddenly and overwhelmingly. He meets them by\na direct negative, though in doing so he is as much perturbed as when he\nproclaimed his own innocence to God\u2019s face. He is familiar now with the\nthought that the righteous are not always recompensed, but it fills him\nwith horror to think that the Governor of the world even leaves the\nwicked in undeserved prosperity, as if, in the language of Eliphaz, He\ncould not \u2018judge through the thick clouds\u2019 (xxii. 16).\n\n             Why do the wicked live on,\n             become old, yea, are mighty in power?\n             Their houses are safe, without fear,\n             neither is Eloah\u2019s rod upon them.\n             They wear away their days in happiness,\n             and go down to She\u00f3l in a moment (xxi. 7, 9, 13).\n\nFootnote 27:\n\n  Miss E. Smith\u2019s rendering, \u2018irksome,\u2019 Renan\u2019s \u2018insupportable,\u2019 are not\n  definite enough. Job means that his would-be comforters do but\n  aggravate his unease.\n\nFootnote 28:\n\n  Notice the expressions in xvi. 10, and comp. Ps. xxii. 7, 12, 13. (Ps.\n  xxii., like the Book of Job, has some features which belong to an\n  individual and some to a collection of sufferers.) Job would never\n  have spoken of his friends in the terms used in xvi. 10, 11.\n\nFootnote 29:\n\n  Sur. ix. 119.\n\nFootnote 30:\n\n  Comp. Ps. xxii. 6, Isa. xlix. 7, Joel ii. 17 (where we should render\n  \u2018make a byword upon them\u2019).\n\nFootnote 31:\n\n  _The Argument of the Book of Job_ (1881), p. 200.\n\nFootnote 32:\n\n  Dr. Hermann Schultz is an unexceptionable witness, because his tastes\n  lead him more to Biblical and dogmatic theology than to minute textual\n  studies. He is convinced, he says, after each fresh examination, of\n  \u2018the baffling intricacy and obscurity and the probable corruption of\n  the text\u2019 (_Alttestamentliche Theologie_, ed. 2 [1878], pp. 661-2).\n\nFootnote 33:\n\n  I agree with Dr. W. H. Green that the third view, which \u2018conceives Job\n  to be here looking forward, not to a future state, but to the\n  restoration of God\u2019s favour and his own deliverance out of all his\n  troubles in the present life,\u2019 is to be rejected. I do not follow him\n  in all his reasons, but these two are decisive. 1. Everywhere else Job\n  \u2018regards himself as on the verge of the grave.... Every earthly hope\n  is annulled; every temporal prospect has vanished. He invariably\n  repels the idea, whenever his friends present it to him, of any\n  improvement of his condition in this world as plainly impossible.\u2019 2.\n  \u2018If he here utters his expectation that God will interfere to reward\n  his piety in the present life, he completely abandons his own position\n  and adopts [that of the friends].\u2019 (_The Argument of Job_, pp. 204-5).\n\nFootnote 34:\n\n  Job\u2019s vindication, thinks Ewald, would be incomplete if at least the\n  spirit of the dead man did not witness it.\n\nFootnote 35:\n\n  The dust beneath which Job lies: comp. \u2018ye that dwell in dust\u2019 (Isa.\n  xxvi. 19).\n\nFootnote 36:\n\n  On the text see Bickell, Merx, Hitzig; on the use of metal for public\n  notices see Chabas, quoted by Cook in _Speaker\u2019s Comm._, _ad loc._\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER III.\n                      THE THIRD CYCLE OF SPEECHES.\n                          (CHAPS. XXII.-XXXI.)\n\n\nIt is not wonderful that the gulf between Job and his friends should\nonly be widened by such a direct contradiction of the orthodox tenet.\nThe friends, indeed, cannot but feel the force of Job\u2019s appeal to\nexperience, as they show by the violence of their invective. But they\nare neither candid nor, above all, courageous enough to confess the\ntruth; they speak, as the philosopher Kant observes, as if they knew\ntheir powerful Client was listening in the background. And so a third\ncycle of speeches begins (chaps. xxii.-xxxi.), in which the friends\ngrasp the only weapon left them and charge Job directly with being a\ngreat sinner. True to his character, however, Eliphaz even here seeks to\nsoften the effect of his accusations by a string of most enticing\npromises, partly worldly and partly other-worldly in their character,\nand which in a different context Job would have heartily appreciated\n(xxii. 21-30).\n\nBut Job cares not to reply to those charges of Eliphaz; his mind is\nstill too much absorbed in the painful mystery of his own lot and that\nof all other righteous sufferers. He longs for God to set up his\ntribunal, so that Job and his fellows might plead their cause (xxiii.\n3-7, xxiv. 1). What most of all disturbs him is that he cannot see\nGod\u2014that is cannot detect the operation of that moral God in whom his\nheart cannot help believing. \u2018I may go forward, but he is not there; and\nbackward, but I cannot perceive him\u2019 (xxiii. 8). With the ardour of a\npessimist he depicts this failure of justice in the darkest colours\n(chap. xxiv.), and is as powerless as ever to reconcile his deep sense\nof what God ought to be and must be and the sad realities of life. Upon\nthis Bildad tries to frighten Job into submission by a picture of God\u2019s\nirresistible power, as exhibited not only in heaven and earth, but even\nbeneath the ocean depths in the realm of the shades (xxv., xxvi. 5-14).\nNot a very comforting speech, but fine in its way (if Bildad may really\nbe credited with all of it), and the speaker frankly allows its\ninadequacy.\n\n        Lo! these are the outskirts of his ways,\n        and how faintly spoken is that which we hear!\n        but the thunder of his power who can understand? (xxvi. 14.)\n\nIn a speech, the first which is described as a _mashal_,[37] Job\ndemolishes his unoriginal and rhetorical opponent, and with dignity\nreasserts his innocence (xxvi. 1-4, xxvii. 1-7). He may have said more;\nif so, it has been lost. But, in fact, all that was argumentative in\nBildad\u2019s speech was borrowed from Eliphaz, and though Job had the power\n(see chaps. ix., xii.), he had not the will to compete with his friends\nin rhetoric. The only speaker who is left is Zophar, and, as it is\nunlikely that the poet left one of his triads of speeches imperfect, we\nmay conjecture that xxvii. 8-10, 10-23 belongs to the third speech of\nZophar.[38] Certainly they are most inappropriate in the mouth of Job,\nbeing in direct contradiction to all that he has yet said. If so it\nseems very probable that besides the introductory formula a few opening\nverses have dropped out of the text. The verses which now stand at the\nhead of the speech transport us to the disputes of those rival schools\nof which Job and his friends were only the representatives. Hence the\nuse of the plural in ver. 12, of which an earlier instance occurs in the\nsecond speech of Bildad (xviii. 2). What Zophar says is in effect this:\nJob\u2019s condition is desperate, for he is an \u2018impious\u2019 or \u2018godless\u2019 man.\nIt is too late for any one to attempt to pray when overtaken by a fatal\ncalamity. For how can he feel that \u2018deep delight\u2019 in God which enables a\nman to pray, with the confidence of being heard, \u2018in every season\u2019 of\nlife, whether prosperous or the reverse? The rest of the speech is\nsubstantially a repetition of Zophar\u2019s former description of the\nretribution of the wicked. It was not to be expected that Job should\nreply to this, and accordingly we find that in continuing his _mashal_\n(xxix. 1) he utterly ignores his opponents. But unhappily he is almost\nas far as ever from a solution of his difficulty. His friends, we may\nsuppose, have left him, and he is at liberty to revive those melancholy\nmemories which are all that remain to him of his prosperity.\n\nIn chap. xxix. (a fine specimen of flowing, descriptive Hebrew poetry)\nJob recalls the honour in which he used to be held, and the beneficent\nacts which he was enabled to perform. Modesty were out of place, for he\nis already in the state of \u2018one turned adrift among the dead\u2019 (Ps.\nlxxxviii. 5). The details remind us of many Arabic elegies in the\n_Ham\u00e2sa_ (e.g. No. 351 in R\u00fcckert\u2019s adaptation, vol. i., or 97 in\nFreytag). In chaps. xxx., xxxi. he laments, with the same pathetic\nself-contemplation, his ruined credit and the terrible progress of his\ndisease. Then, by a somewhat abrupt transition,[39] he enters upon an\nelaborate profession of his innocence, which has been compared to the\nsolemn repudiation of the forty-two deadly sins by the departed souls of\nthe good in the Egyptian \u2018Book of the Dead.\u2019 The resemblance, however,\nmust not be pressed too far. Job\u2019s morality, even if predominantly\n\u2018legal,\u2019 has a true \u2018evangelical\u2019 tinge. Not merely the act of adultery,\nbut the glance of lust; not merely unjust gain, but the confidence\nreposed in it by the heart; not merely outward conformity to\nidol-worship, but the inclination of the heart to false gods, are in his\ncatalogue of sins. His last words are a reiteration of his deeply\ncherished desire for an investigation of his case by Shaddai. With what\nproud self-possession he imagines himself approaching the Divine Judge!\nIn his hands are the accusations of his friends and his own reply.\nHolding them forth, he exclaims\u2014\n\n          Here is my signature\u2014let Shaddai answer me\u2014\n          and the indictment which mine adversary has written.\n          Surely upon my shoulder will I carry it,\n          and bind it as chaplets about me.\n          The number of my steps will I declare unto him;\n          as a prince will I come near unto him (xxxi. 35-37).[40]\n\nWe must here turn back to a passage which forms one of the most admired\nportions of the Book of Job as it stands\u2014the _mashal_ on Divine Wisdom\nin chap. xxviii. The first eleven verses are at first sight most\ninappropriate in this connection. The poet seems to take a delight in\nworking into them all that he knows of the adventurous operations of the\nminers of his day\u2014probably those carried on for gold in Upper Egypt, and\nfor copper and turquoises in the Sinaitic peninsula (both skilfully\nintroduced by Ebers into his stories of ancient Egypt). How vividly the\nsuperiority of reason to instinct is brought out to vary the technical\ndescription of the miners\u2019 work in vv. 7, 8.\n\n                 A path the eagle knows not,\n                 nor has the eye of the vulture scanned it;\n                 the sons of pride have not trodden it,\n                 nor hath the lion passed over it.\n\nNo earthly treasures lie too deep for human industry; but\u2014here we see\nthe use of the great literary feat (Prov. i.-ix.) which has gone\nbefore\u2014\u2018where can wisdom be found, and where is the place of\nunderstanding?\u2019 And then follows that fine passage in which language is\nstrained to the uttermost (with another of those pictorial inventories\nin which poets delight, vv. 15-19) to convey at once the preciousness\nand the unattainableness of the higher wisdom. The moral of the whole,\nhowever, is not revealed till the last verse.\n\n        And unto man he said,\n        \u2018Behold, the fear of the Lord is wisdom,\n        and to turn aside from evil is understanding\u2019 (xxviii. 28).\n\nThus there is no allusion whatever to Job\u2019s problem, and it is only the\npresent position of the _mashal_ in the Book of Job which suggests a\npossible relation for it to that problem.\n\nAnd now, looking at the passage by itself, is it conceivable that it was\noriginally written to stand where it now does? Is it natural that the\nsolemn contents of chap. xxvii. (even if we allow the first seven verses\nonly to be Job\u2019s) should leave Job in a mood for an elaborate poetical\nstudy of mining operations, or that after agonising so long over the\npainful riddles of Divine Providence he should suddenly acquiesce in the\nnarrow limits of human knowledge, soon, however, to relapse into his old\ninquisitiveness? Is it not, on the other hand, very conceivable (notice\nthe opening word \u2018For\u2019) that it was transferred to its present position\nfrom some other work? In a didactic poem on Wisdom (i.e. the plan of the\nuniverse), similar to Prov. i.-ix., it would be as much in place as the\nhymn on Wisdom in Prov. viii. To this great work indeed it presents more\nthan one analogy, both in its subject and its recommendation of\nreligious morality (or moral religion) as the branch of wisdom suitable\nto man. The only difference is that the writer of Job xxviii. expressly\nsays that this is the only wisdom within human ken, whereas the writer\nof Prov. viii. does not touch on this point. But, whether an extract\nfrom a larger work or written as a supplement to the poem of Job, the\npassage in its present position is evidently intended to have a\nreference to Job\u2019s problem. The author, or the extractor, regarded the\nforegoing debates much as Milton regarded those of the fallen angels,\nwho \u2018found no end, in wandering mazes lost;\u2019 in short, he could only\nsolve the problem by pronouncing it insoluble.[41] Verses 11 and 12 of\nchap. xxvii. have very much the appearance of an artificial bridge\ninserted by the new author or the extractor.\n\nFootnote 37:\n\n  On this characteristic word for parallelistic poetry, see on Proverbs.\n\nFootnote 38:\n\n  Note that xxvii. 13 is repeated from an earlier speech of Zophar (xx.\n  29). There it concludes a sketch of the \u2018impious\u2019 man\u2019s fate; here it\n  begins a similar description. Verses 11 and 12 of the same chapter\n  would stand more properly (Bickell and virtually Hirzel) immediately\n  before chap. xxviii. Mr. B. Wright is very near doing the same;\n  following Eichhorn, he takes vv. 13-23 as a specimen quoted by Job of\n  the friends\u2019 \u2018inconsequential\u2019 style of argument (a less natural\n  hypothesis than that adopted here).\n\nFootnote 39:\n\n  It seems clear that chap. xxii. was not written as the sequel of chap.\n  xxx. Since, however, it bears such a strong impress of originality,\n  one can only suppose that the author placed it here by an\n  afterthought, and omitted to construct a connecting link with the\n  preceding chapter.\n\nFootnote 40:\n\n  These verses have been misplaced in the Massoretic text (as Isa.\n  xxxviii. 21, 22). They clearly ought to stand at the end of the\n  chapter. So Kennicott, Eichhorn, Merx, Delitzsch.\n\nFootnote 41:\n\n  But for this tendency of the poem one might follow Delitzsch (art.\n  \u2018Hiob\u2019 in _Herzog-Plitt_, vi. 133) and regard chap. xxviii. as\n  inserted by the author of _Job_ from his \u2018portfolio.\u2019\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER IV.\n                         THE SPEECHES OF ELIHU.\n                        (CHAPS. XXXII.-XXXVII.)\n\n\nAt a (perhaps) considerably later period than the original work\n(including chap. xxviii.)\u2014symbolised by the youthfulness of Elihu as\ncompared with the four older friends\u2014the problem of the sufferings of\nthe innocent still beset the minds of the wise men, the attempt of the\nthree friends to \u2018justify the ways of God\u2019 to the intellect having\nproved, as the wise men thought, a too manifest failure (xxxii. 2, 3).\nOne of their number therefore invented a fourth friend, Elihu (or is\nthis the name of the author himself?[42]), who is described as having\nbeen a listener during the preceding debates, and who reduces Job to\nsilence. It is noteworthy that the sudden introduction of Elihu required\nthe insertion of a fresh narrative passage (xxxii. 1-6) as a supplement\nto the original prologue.\n\nI assume, as the reader will observe, the one assured result of the\ncriticism of Job. To those who follow me in this, the speeches of Elihu\nwill, I think, gain greatly in interest. They mark out a time when,\npartly through the teaching of history, partly through a deeper inward\nexperience, and partly through the reading of the poem of _Job_, the old\ndifficulties of faith were no longer so acutely felt. Two courses were\nopen to the Epigoni of that age\u2014either to force Job to say what, as it\nseemed, he ought to have said (this, however, was not so easy as in the\ncase of Ecclesiastes), or to insert fresh speeches in the style of the\noriginal, separating the corn from the chaff in the pleadings of the\nthree friends, and adding whatever a more advanced religious thought\nsuggested to the writer. In forms of expression, however, it must be\nadmitted that Elihu does not shine. (True, he does not profess to\ncomfort Job.) For offensiveness the two following verses are not easily\nmatched:\n\n      Where is there a man like Job,\n      who drinks[43] scoffing like water? (xxxiv. 7.)\n      Would that Job might be tried to the uttermost\n      because of his answers in the manner of wicked men (xxxiv. 36).\n\nA \u2018vulgar braggart\u2019 he may not be from an Oriental point of view, nor is\nhe \u2018the prototype of the Bachelor in _Faust_;\u2019 but that he is too\npositive and dogmatic, and much overrates his own powers, is certain. He\nrepresents the dogmatism of a purified orthodoxy, which thinks too much\nof its minute advances (\u2018one perfect in knowledge is with thee,\u2019 xxxvi.\n4).\n\nElihu distributes his matter (of which he says that he is \u2018full,\u2019 xxxii.\n18-20) over four speeches. His themes in the first three are: 1, the\nground and object of suffering (chaps. xxxii., xxxiii.); 2, the\nrighteousness of God (chap. xxxiv.); and 3, the use of religion (chap.\nxxxv.), all of which are treated in relation to the questionable or\nerroneous utterances of Job. Then, in his last and longest effort, Elihu\nunrolls before Job a picture of the government of God, in its\nbeneficence and righteousness as well as its omnipotence, in the hope of\nmoving Job to self-humiliation (chaps. xxxvi., xxxvii.) Let us remember\nagain that Elihu represents the debates of the \u2018wise men\u2019 of the\npost-regal period, who were conscious of being in some sense \u2018inspired\u2019\nlike their prophetic predecessors (xxxii. 8, xxxvi. 4; Ecclus. xxiv.\n32-34, l. 28, 29), so that we cannot believe that the _bizarre_\nimpression made by Elihu on some Western critics was intended by the\noriginal author. That his portrait suggests certain grave infirmities,\nmay be granted; but these are the failings of the circle to which the\nauthor belongs: the self-commendation of Elihu in his exordium is hardly\nexcessive from an Oriental point of view, or would at any rate be\njustifiable in a more original thinker. Indeed, he only commends himself\nin order to excuse the unusual step of criticising the proceedings of\nmen so much older than himself. After what he thinks sufficient excuse\nhas been offered, Elihu takes up Job\u2019s fundamental error,\nself-righteousness, but prepares the way by examining Job\u2019s assertion\n(xix. 7, xxx. 20) that God took no heed of his complaints.\n\n          Wherefore hast thou contended with Him\n          because \u2018He answers none of my words\u2019?[44] (xxxiii. 13.)\n\nTo this Elihu replies that it is a man\u2019s own fault if he cannot hear the\nDivine voice. For God is constantly speaking to man, if man would only\nregard it (\u2018revelation,\u2019 then, is not confined to a class or a\nsuccession). Two means of communication are specially mentioned\u2014nightly\ndreams and visions, and severe sickness. The object of both is to divert\nmen from courses of action which can only lead to destruction. At this\npoint a remarkable intimation is given. In order to produce conversion,\nand so to \u2018redeem a man from going down to the pit,\u2019 a special angelic\nagency is necessary\u2014that of a \u2018mediator\u2019 or \u2018interpreter\u2019 (Targ.\n_p\u2019raql\u012bt\u0101_; comp. \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, John xiv. 16, 26), whose office it is to\n\u2018show unto man his rightness\u2019 (i.e. how to conform his life to the right\nstandard, xxxiii. 23).\n\nWe must pause here, however, to consider the bearings of this. It seems\nto show us, first, that inspired minds (see above) were already\nbeginning to refine and elevate the popular notions of the spiritual\nworld. That there were two classes of spirits, the one favourable, the\nother adverse to man, had long been the belief of the Israelites and\ntheir neighbours.[45] The author of the speeches of Elihu now introduces\none of them among the symbols of a higher stage of religion. In\nantithesis to the \u2018destroyers\u2019[46] (ver. 22) he implies that God has\nthousands of angels (the \u2018mediator\u2019 is \u2018one among a thousand\u2019), whose\nbusiness it is to save sinners from destruction by leading them to\nrepentance. Such is the \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03af\u03b1, the friendliness to man, of the\nangelic world, without which indeed, according to Elihu, the purpose of\nsickness would be unobserved and a fatal issue inevitable. To students\nof Christianity, however, it has a deeper interest, if the concluding\nwords, \u2018I have found a ransom,\u2019 be a part of the Old Testament\nfoundation of the doctrine of redemption through Christ. This, however,\nis questionable, and even its possibility is not recognised by the\nlatest orthodox commentator.[47] In his second speech Elihu returns to\nthe main question of Job\u2019s attitude towards God. He begins by imputing\nto Job language which he had never used, and which from its extreme\nirreverence Job would certainly have disowned (xxxiv. 5, 9), and\nmaintains that God never acts unjustly, but rewards every man according\nto his deeds. There is nothing in his treatment of this theme which\nrequires comment except its vagueness and generality, to which, were the\nspeech an integral part of the poem, Job would certainly have taken\nexception.\n\nThe subject of the third speech is handled with more originality. Job\nhad really complained that afflicted persons such as himself appealed to\nGod in vain (xxiv. 12, xxx. 20). Elihu replies to this (xxxv. 9-13) that\nsuch persons merely cried from physical pain, and did not really pray.\nThe fourth and last speech, in which he dismisses controversy and\nexpresses his own sublime ideas of the Creator, has the most poetical\ninterest. At the very outset the solemnity of his language prepares the\nreader to expect something great, and the expectation is not altogether\ndisappointed. \u2018God,\u2019 he says, \u2018is mighty, but despiseth not any\u2019 (xxxvi.\n5); He has given proof of this by the trials with which He visits His\nservants when they have fallen into sin. Might and mercy are the\nprincipal attributes of God. The verses in which Elihu applies this\ndoctrine to Job\u2019s case are ambiguous and perhaps corrupt, but it appears\nas if Elihu regarded Job as in danger of missing the disciplinary object\nof his sufferings. It is in the second part of his speech (xxxvi.\n26-xxxvii. 24) that Elihu displays his greatest rhetorical power, and\nthough by no means equal to the speeches of Jehovah, which it appears to\nimitate, the vividness of its descriptions has obtained the admiration\nof no less competent a judge than Alexander von Humboldt. The moral is\nintended to be that, instead of criticising God, Job should humble\nhimself in devout awe at the combined splendour and mystery of the\ncreation.\n\nIt is tempting to regard the sketch of the storm in xxxvi. 29-xxxvii. 5\nand the appeals which Elihu makes to Job as preparatory to the\nappearance of Jehovah in xxxviii. 1. \u2018While Elihu is speaking,\u2019 says Mr.\nTurner, \u2018the clouds gather, a storm darkens the heavens and sweeps\nacross the landscape, and the thunder utters its voice ... out of the\nwhirlwind that passes by Jehovah speaks.\u2019[48] So too Dr. Cox thinks that\nJob\u2019s invisible Opponent \u2018opens His mouth and answers him out of the\ntempest which Elihu has so graphically described.\u2019[49] In fact in\nxxxviii. 1 we may equally well render \u2018_the_ tempest\u2019 (i.e. that lately\nmentioned) and \u2018_a_ tempest.\u2019 The objection is (1) that the storm does\nnot come into the close of Elihu\u2019s speech, as it ought to do, and (2)\nthat in His very first words Jehovah distinctly implies that the last\nspeaker was one who \u2018darkened counsel by words without knowledge\u2019\n(xxxviii. 3).\n\nSuch are the contributions of Elihu, which gain considerably when\nconsidered as a little treatise in themselves. It is, indeed, a strange\nfreak of fancy to regard Elihu as representing the poet himself.[50]\nNeither \u00e6sthetically nor theologically do they reach the same high mark\nas the remainder of the book. \u2018The style of Elihu,\u2019 as M. Renan remarks,\n\u2018is cold, heavy, pretentious. The author loses himself in long\ndescriptions without vivacity.... His language is obscure and presents\npeculiar difficulties. In the other parts of the poem the obscurity\ncomes from our ignorance and our scanty means of comprehending these\nancient documents; here the obscurity comes from the style itself, from\nits _bizarrerie_ and affectation.\u2019[51] Theologically it is difficult to\ndiscover any important point (but see Chap. XII., below, on Elihu) in\nwhich, in spite of his sharp censure of the friends, he distinctly\npasses beyond them. His arguments have been so largely anticipated by\nthe three friends that, on the whole, we may perhaps best regard chaps.\nxxxii.-xxxix. as a first theological criticism on the contents of the\noriginal work. From this point of view it is interesting that the idea\nof affliction as correction, which had already occurred to Eliphaz,\nacquired in the course of years a much deeper hold on thinking minds\n(see xxxiii. 19-30, xxxvi. 8-10). There is one feature of the earlier\nspeeches which is not imitated by Elihu, and that is the long and\nterrifying descriptions in each of the three original colloquies of the\nfate of the impious man, and one of the most considerate of Elihu\u2019s\nWestern critics[52] thinks it possible that Elihu, who says in one\nplace\u2014\n\n          And the impious in heart cherish wrath,\n          and supplicate not when he hath bound them (xxxvi. 13)\u2014\n\nconsidered no calamity whatever as penal in the first instance.\n\nFootnote 42:\n\n  So M. Derenbourg, who points out that none of the other speakers have\n  a genealogy, and identifies Buz with Boaz, and Ram with an ancestor of\n  David (Ruth iv. 19). The author of chaps. xxxii.-xxxvii. might thus be\n  a descendant of Elihu the brother of David (1 Chr. xxvii. 18).\n\nFootnote 43:\n\n  On \u2018drinks\u2019 see Thomson, _The Land and the Book_, p. 319.\n\nFootnote 44:\n\n  The _text_ (which has \u2018_His_ words\u2019) is generally rendered \u2018because He\n  gives not account of any of His matters,\u2019 i.e. of the details of His\n  government. This is very strained; the Sept. has \u2018my words,\u2019 the\n  Vulgate \u2018thy words,\u2019 either of which readings gives a natural sense.\n\nFootnote 45:\n\n  See 2 Sam. xxiv. 16, and comp. 1 Chr. xxi. 15, Ps. xxviii. 49, Prov.\n  xvi. 14, Ezek. ix. 1, x. 7; also Jost, _Gesch. des Judenthums_, i.\n  304. For Assyria see _Records of the Past_, i. 131-5: iv. 53-60 (the\n  sinner was thought to be given up in displeasure by his God into the\n  hands of the evil spirits). For Arabia see Kor\u00e1n, lxxix. 1, 2\u2014\n\n            \u2018By those (angels) who tear out (souls) with violence,\n            And by those who joyously release them:\u2019\n\n  for the early Christian, Justin M. _Dial. e. Tryph._ 105, \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f70\n  \u03b1\u1f30\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03bd, \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03ad\u03c8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u1fc6 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03b7\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd\n  \u1f04\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03bc\u1f74 \u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03ad\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f21\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u1fc6\u03c2: and for the medieval, Dante,\n  _Inferno_, xxvii. 112-123: _Purgatorio_, v. 103-108. Comp. below,\n  Chap. X.\n\nFootnote 46:\n\n  Blake seems to have felt Elihu\u2019s strong faith in the angels. The\n  border of his 12th illustration is filled with a stream of delicate\n  angel forms.\n\nFootnote 47:\n\n  Davidson. Ewald explains the \u2018ransom\u2019 partly of the intercession of\n  the angel, partly of the prayer of repentance.\n\nFootnote 48:\n\n  Turner, _Studies Biblical and Oriental_, p. 146.\n\nFootnote 49:\n\n  Cox, _Commentary on the Book of Job_, p. 489.\n\nFootnote 50:\n\n  So Lightfoot (see Lowth, _Pr\u00e6lect._ xxxii.).\n\nFootnote 51:\n\n  _Le livre de Job_, p. liv.\n\nFootnote 52:\n\n  Davidson, _The Book of Job_, p. xlv.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER V.\n                        THE SPEECHES OF JEHOVAH.\n                       (CHAPS. XXXVIII.-XLII. 6.)\n\n\n\u2018The words of Job are ended\u2019 (xxxi. 40_b_), remarks the ancient editor,\nand amongst the last of these words is an aspiration after a meeting\nwith God. That Job expected such a favour in this life is in the highest\ndegree improbable, whatever view be taken of xix. 25-27. It is true, he\nsometimes did almost regard a theophany as possible, though he feared it\nmight be granted under conditions which would make it the reverse of a\nboon (ix. 3, 15, 33-35; xiii. 21, 22). He wished for a fair\ninvestigation of his character, and he craved that God would not appear\nin too awful a form. It seems at first sight as if Jehovah, casting hard\nquestions at Job out of the tempest, and ignoring both the friends\u2019\nindictment and Job\u2019s defence (xxxi. 35-37), were realising Job\u2019s worst\nfears and acting as his enemy. The friends had already sought to humble\nJob by pointing him to the power and wisdom and goodness of God, and Job\nhad proved conclusively that he was no stranger to these high thoughts.\nIs the poet consistent with himself, first, in introducing Jehovah at\nall, and, secondly, in making Him overpower Job by a series of sharp,\nironical questions? Several answers may be given if we wish to defend\nthe unity of the poem. Job himself (it may be said) has not continued at\nthe same high level of faith as in xix. 25-27 (assuming Prof. Davidson\u2019s\nview of the passage); he needs the appearance of Jehovah more than he\ndid then. As to the course attributed in xxxviii. 1 to Jehovah, this too\n(the poet may have felt in adding these speeches) was really the best\nfor Job. Jehovah might no doubt have declared Job to be in the right as\nagainst his friends. He might next have soothed the sufferer\u2019s mind by\nrevealing the reason why his trials were permitted (_we_ know this from\nthe Prologue). But this would not have been for Job\u2019s spiritual welfare:\nthere was one lesson he needed to learn or to relearn, one grace of\ncharacter he needed to gain or to regain\u2014namely, devout and trustful\nhumility towards God. In the heat of debate and under the pressure of\npain Job\u2019s old religious habit of mind had certainly been weakened\u2014not\ndestroyed, but weakened\u2014and a strong remedy was necessary if he was not\nto carry his distracted feelings to the grave. And so, as a first joyful\nsurprise, came the theophany: to \u2018see\u2019 God before death _must_ have been\na joyful surprise; and if the questioning cast him down, yet it was only\nto raise him up in the strength of self-distrust. The object of these\norations of Jehovah is not to communicate intellectual light, but to\ngive a stronger tone to Job\u2019s whole nature. He had long known God to be\nstrong and wise and good, but more as a lesson learned than as personal\nexperience (xlii. 5). And the means first adopted to convey this\nlife-giving \u2018sight\u2019 is not without a touch of that humour which we\nnoticed in the Prologue. Job, who was so full of questions, now has the\ntables turned upon him. He is put through a catechism which admits of\nbut one very humbling answer, each question being attached to a\nwonderfully vivid description of some animal or phenomenon. For\ndescriptive power the first speech of Jehovah, at any rate, is without a\nparallel. The author, as Prof. Davidson remarks, \u2018knew the great law\nthat sublimity is necessarily also simplicity.\u2019 It is true he does but\ngive us isolated features of the natural world: no single scene is\nrepresented in its totality. But this is in accordance with the Hebrew\ngenius, to which nature appears, not in her own simple beauty, but\nbathed in an atmosphere of emotion. The emotion which here animates the\npoet is mainly a religious one; it is the love of God, and of God\u2019s\nworks for the sake of their Maker. He wishes to cure the murmuring\nspirits of his own day by giving them wider views of external nature and\nits mysteries, so wondrously varied and so full of Divine wisdom and\ngoodness. He has this great advantage in doing so, that they, like\nhimself (and Job), are theists; they are not of those who say in their\nheart, \u2018There is no God,\u2019 but of the \u2018Zion\u2019 who complains, \u2018Jehovah has\nforsaken me, and my Lord has forgotten me\u2019 (Isaiah xlix. 14). And the\nremedy which he applies is the same as that of the Babylonian-Jewish\nprophet, a wider study of the ways of God. Job had said, \u2018I would tell\nHim the number of my steps;\u2019 Jehovah replies by showing him, in a series\nof questions, not irritating but persuasive, the footprints of His own\nlarger self-manifestation.\n\nThe Divine Speaker is introduced by the poet thus:\n\n            And Jehovah answered Job out of a tempest, and said.\n\nA storm was the usual accompaniment of a Divine appearance: there was no\nintention of crushing Job with terror. In Blake\u2019s thirteenth drawing Job\n(and his wife!) are represented kneeling and listening, with\ncountenances expressive of thankfulness; in his fourteenth, Job and his\nfour friends kneel rapt and ecstatic, while the \u2018sons of God,\u2019 sweet,\nvital, heavenly forms, are shouting for joy. In fact, the speeches of\nJehovah contain, not accusations (except in xxxviii. 2), but\nremonstrances, and, though the form of these is chilling to Job\u2019s\nself-love, yet the glorious visions which they evoke are healing to\nevery sorrow of the mind. The text of the speeches is unfortunately not\nin perfect order. For instance, there are four verses which have, no one\ncan tell how, been deposited in the description of behemoth (xli. 9-12,\nA. V.) but which most probably at one time or another opened the first\nspeech of Jehovah. Perhaps the author himself removed them, feeling them\nto be too depressing for Job to hear; or perhaps it was purely by\naccident that they were transferred, and Merx and Bickell have done well\nto replace them in their corrected editions of _Job_ between xxxi. 37\nand xxxviii. 1. As corrected by the former they run thus:\u2014\n\n               Behold, his hope is belied:\n               will he fight against mine appearing?\n               He is not so bold as to stir me up;\n               who indeed could stand before me?\n               Who ever attacks me in safety?\n               all beneath the whole heaven is mine.\n               I will not take his babbling in silence,\n               his mighty speech and its comely arrangement.\n\nWe must regard this as a soliloquy, after which, directly addressing\nJob, Jehovah upbraids the \u2018mighty speaker\u2019 with having shut himself out\nby his \u2018blind clamour\u2019 from a view of the Divine plan of his life.\n\n                 Who is this that darkens counsel\n                 by words without knowledge? (xxxviii. 2.)\n\nTo gain that \u2018knowledge\u2019 which will \u2018make darkness light before him,\u2019\nJob must enrich his conception of God. Those striking pictures already\nreferred to have no lower aim than to display the great All-wise God,\nand the irony of the catechising is only designed to bring home the more\nforcibly to Job human littleness and ignorance. Modern readers, however,\ncannot help turning aside to admire the genius of the poet and his\nsympathetic interest in nature. His scientific ideas may be crude; but\nhe observes as a poet, and not as a naturalist. Earth, sea, and sky\nsuccessively enchain him, and we can hardly doubt that the natural\nphilosophy of the Chald\u00e6ans was superficially at least known to him.[53]\nIn his childlike curiosity and willingness to tell us everything he\nreminds us of the poet of the _Commedia_.\n\n       Has the rain a father?[54]\n       or who has begotten the dew-drops?\n       from whose womb came forth the ice,\n       and the hoar frost of heaven\u2014who engendered it,\n       (that) the waters close together like a stone,\n       and the face of the deep hides itself?\n       Dost thou bind the knots of the Pleiades,[55]\n       or loose the fetters of Orion?[56]\n       Dost thou bring forth the moon\u2019s watches at their season,\n       and the Bear and her offspring\u2014dost thou guide them?\n       Knowest thou the laws of heaven?\n       dost thou determine its influence upon the earth?\n                                                   (xxxviii. 28-33.)\n\n\u2018The laws of heaven!\u2019 Can we refuse to observe the first beginnings of a\nconception of the cosmos, remembering other passages of the Wisdom\nLiterature in which the great world plan is distinctly referred to?\nWithout denying a pre-Exile, native Hebrew tendency (comp. Job xxxviii.\n33 with Jer. xxxi. 35, 36) may we not suppose that the physical theology\nof Babylonia had a large part in determining the form of this\nconception? Notice the reference to the influence of the sky upon the\nearth, and especially the Hebraised Babylonian phrase Mazzaroth (i.e.\n_mazarati_,[57] plural of _mazarta_, a watch), the watches or stations\nof the moon which marked the progress of the month. But it is not so\nmuch the intellectual curiosity manifest in these verses which we would\ndwell upon now as the poetic vigour of the gallery of zoology, and, we\nmust add, the faith which pervades it, reminding us of a Bedouin prayer\nquoted by Major Palmer, \u2018O Thou who providest for the blind hy\u00e6na,\nprovide for me!\u2019 Ten (or nine) specimens of animal life are given\u2014the\nlion and (perhaps) the raven,[58] the wild goat and the hind, the wild\nass, the wild ox,[59] the ostrich, the war horse, the hawk and the\neagle. It is to this portion that the student must turn who would fain\nknow the highest attainments of the Hebrew genius in pure poetry, such\nas Milton would have recognised as poetry. The delighted wonder with\nwhich the writer enters into the habits of the animals, and the light\nand graceful movement of the verse, make the ten descriptions referred\nto an ever-attractive theme, I will not say for the translator, but for\nthe interpreter. They are ideal, as the Greek sculptures are ideal, and\nneed the pen of that poet-student, faint hints of whose coming have been\ngiven us in Herder and R\u00fcckert. The finest of them, of course, is that\nof one of the animals most nearly related in Arabia to man (in Arabia,\nbut not in Jud\u00e6a), the horse.\n\n        Dost thou give might to the horse?\n        Dost thou clothe his neck with waving mane?\n        Dost thou make him bound as a locust?\n        The peal of his snort is terrible!\n        He paws in the valley and rejoices in his strength;\n        he goes forth to meet the weapons;\n        he laughs at fear, and is not dismayed,\n        and recoils not from the sword:\n        the quiver clangs upon him,\n        the flashing lance and the javelin:\n        bounding furiously he swallows the ground,\n        and cannot stand still at the blast of the trumpet;\n        at every blast he says, \u2018Aha!\u2019\n        and smells the battle from afar,\n        the captain\u2019s thunder and the cry of battle (xxxix. 19-25).\n\nThe terrible element in animal instincts seems indeed to fascinate the\nmind of our poet; he closes his gallery with a sketch of the cruel\ninstincts of the glorious eagle. We are reminded, perhaps, of the lines\nof a poet painter inspired by Job\u2014\n\n                   Tiger, tiger, burning bright\n                   In the forests of the night,\n                   What immortal hand or eye\n                   Could frame thy fearful symmetry?[60]\n\nAnd now we might almost think that the object of the theophany has been\nattained. Never more will Job presume to litigate with Shaddai, or\nmeasure the doings of God by his puny intellect. He has learned the\nlesson expressed in Dante\u2019s line\u2014\n\n                 State contenti, umana gente, al quia,[61]\n\nbut also that higher lesson, so boldly expressed by the same poet, that\nin all God\u2019s works, without exception, three attributes are seen united\u2014\n\n                  Fecemi la divina potestate,\n                  La somma sapienza, e \u2019l primo amore.[62]\n\nHe is silenced, indeed, but only as with the poet of Paradise\u2014\n\n                  All\u2019 alta fantasia qui manc\u00f2 possa.[63]\n\nThe silence with which both these \u2018vessels of election\u2019 meet the Divine\nrevelation is the silence of satisfaction, even though this be mingled\nwith awe. Job has learned to forget himself in the wondrous creation of\nwhich he forms a part, just as Dante when he saw\n\n                   La forma universal di questo nodo.[64]\n\nJob cannot, indeed, as yet express his feelings; awe preponderates over\nsatisfaction in the words assigned to him in xl. 4, 5. In fact, he has\nfallen below his better knowledge, and must be humbled for this. He has\nknown that he is but a part of humanity\u2014a representative of the larger\nwhole, and might, but for his frailty, have comforted himself in that\nthought. God\u2019s power and wisdom and goodness are so wondrously blended\nin the great human organism that he might have rested amidst his\npersonal woes in the certainty of at least an indirect connection with\nthe gentler manifestations of the \u2018Watcher of mankind\u2019 (vii. 20). This\nthought has proved ineffectual, and so the Divine Instructor tries\nanother order of considerations. And, true enough, nature effects what\n\u2018the still, sad music of humanity\u2019 has failed to teach. Job, however,\nneeds more than teaching; he needs humiliation for his misjudgment of\nGod\u2019s dealings with him personally. Hence in His second short but\nweighty speech \u2018out of the tempest\u2019 Jehovah begins with the question\n(xl. 8)\u2014\n\n            Wilt thou make void my justice?\n            wilt thou condemn me, that thou mayest be righteous?\n\nThis gives the point of view from which Jehovah ironically invites Job,\nif he thinks (see chap. xxiv.) that he can govern the world\u2014the human as\nwell as the extra-human world\u2014better than the Creator, to make the bold\nattempt. He bids him array himself with the Divine majesty and carry out\nthat retribution in which Jehovah, according to him, has so completely\nfailed (xl. 11-13). If Job will prove his competence for the office\nwhich he claims, then Jehovah Himself will recognise his independence\nand extol his inherent strength. Did the poet mean to finish the second\nspeech of Jehovah here? It is probable; the subject of the interrogatory\nhardly admitted of being developed further in poetry. A later writer\n(or, as Merx thinks, the poet of _Job_ himself) seems to have found the\nspeech too short, and therefore appended the two fancy sketches of\nanimals which follow. But in the original draft of the poem xl. 14 must\nhave been followed immediately by Job\u2019s retractation, closing with those\nstriking words (see above, p. 49) which so well supplement the less\narticulate confession of xl. 4, 5\u2014\n\n               I had heard of thee by the hearing of the ear,\n               but now mine eye sees thee:[65]\n               therefore I retract and repent\n               in dust and ashes (xlii. 5, 6).\n\nHow complete a reversal of the \u2018princely\u2019 anticipations of Job in xxxi.\n37! To us, indeed, it may seem somewhat ungracious to Job to give this\nas the last scene of his pathetic drama. But the poet leaves it open to\nus to animate Job\u2019s repentance with love as well as awe and compunction.\nWith fine feeling Blake in his seventeenth illustration almost fills the\nmargin with passages from the Johannine writings.\n\nThe long description of the two Egyptian monsters (xl. 15, xli. 26) is,\nas we have hinted above, out of place in the second speech of Jehovah.\nIt has indeed been suggested that the writer may have intended it as a\ndevelopment of xl. 14\u2014\n\n                  Then will I in return confess unto thee\n                  that thy right hand can help thee\u2014\n\nwhich implies that Job has no power to help himself in the government of\nthe world. According to this view, the opening words of the behemoth\nsection will mean, \u2018Consider, pray, that thou hast fellow-creatures\nwhich are far stronger than thou; and how canst thou undertake the\nmanagement of the universe?\u2019 It must, however, be admitted that the\nemphasis thus laid on the omnipotence of God, apart from His\nrighteousness, introduces an obscurity into the argument which almost\ncompels us to assume that the sketches of behemoth and leviathan are\nlater insertions. At any rate, even if we regard them as the work of the\nprincipal writer of Job, we must at least ascribe them to one of those\nafter-thoughts by which poets not unfrequently spoil their best\nproductions. The style of the description, too, is less chastened than\nthat of chaps. xxxviii. xxxix. (so that Bickell can hardly be right in\nplacing xl. 15, &c., immediately after xxxix. 30), and if it relates to\nthe hippopotamus and the crocodile is less true to nature than the other\n\u2018animal pieces.\u2019\n\nThe truth is that neither behemoth nor leviathan corresponds strictly to\nany known animal. The tail of a hippopotamus would surely not have been\ncompared to a cedar by a truthful though poetic observer like the author\nof chaps. xxxviii. xxxix. Moreover that animal was habitually hunted by\nthe Egyptians with lance and harpoon, and was therefore no fit symbol of\nindomitable pride. The crocodile too was attacked and killed by the\nEgyptians, though in xli. 26-29 leviathan is said to laugh at his\nassailants. Seneca in his description of Egypt describes the crocodile\nas \u2018fugax animal audaci, audacissimum timido\u2019 (_Qu\u00e6st. Nat._, iv. 2).\nComp. Ezek. xxix. 4, xxxii. 3; Herod. ii. 70.\n\nTo me, indeed, as well as to M. Chabas, the behemoth and the leviathan\nseem to claim a kinship with the dragons and other imaginary monsters of\nthe Swiss topographies of the sixteenth century. A still more striking\nbecause a nearer parallel is adduced by M. Chabas from the Egyptian\nmonuments, where, side by side with the most accurate pictures from\nnature, we often find delineations of animals which cannot have existed\nout of wonderland.[66]\n\nIt is remarkable that the elephant should not have been selected as a\ntype of strange and wondrous animal life; apparently it was not yet\nknown to the Hebrew writers, though of course it might be urged that the\npoet was accidentally prevented from writing more. Merx has pointed out\nthat the description of behemoth is evidently incomplete. He also thinks\nthat the poet has not yet brought the form of these passages to final\nperfection: a struggle with the difficulties of expression is\nobservable. He therefore relegates xl. 15-xli. 26 to an appendix with\nthe suggestive title (comp. Goethe\u2019s _Faust_) Paralipomena to Job. He\nthinks that a reader or admirer of the original poem sought to preserve\nthese unfinished sketches by placing them where they now stand. This is\nprobably the most conservative theory (i.e. the nearest to the\ntraditional view) critically admissible.\n\nFootnote 53:\n\n  See Sayce on \u2018Babylonian Astronomy\u2019 (_Translations of Soc. of Bibl.\n  Arch\u00e6ology_, 1874); Lenormant, _La magic chez les Chald\u00e9ens_, and his\n  _Syllabaires cun\u00e9iformes_ (1876), p. 48.\n\nFootnote 54:\n\n  This is not mere \u2018patriarchal simplicity\u2019 (Renan, p. lvi.), but a\n  contradiction of the mythic view that a nature god like Baal is the\n  \u2018father\u2019 or producer of the rain and the crops (see Cheyne, _Isaiah_,\n  ed. 3, i. 28, 294, ii. 295). Elihu no doubt goes further in his\n  explanations; see xxxvi. 27, 28.\n\nFootnote 55:\n\n  Heb. _kima_; comp. Ass. _kimtu_, \u2018a family.\u2019 The word occurs again in\n  ix. 9, Am. v. 8 (but are not this verse and the closely related one in\n  iv. 13 additions by a later editor of Amos in the Exile period?)\n\nFootnote 56:\n\n  Heb. _k\u2019s\u012bl_, the name of the foolhardy giant who strove with Jehovah.\n  The Chaldeo-Assyrian astrology gave the name _kisiluv_ to the ninth\n  month, connecting it with the zodiacal sign Sagittarius. But there are\n  valid reasons for attaching the Hebrew popular myth to Orion.\n\nFootnote 57:\n\n  \u2018He did not watch the stars of heaven, nor the _mazarati_.\u2019 So Fox\n  Talbot quotes from a cuneiform tablet (_Transactions of Soc. of Bibl.\n  Arch\u00e6ology_, 1872, p. 341). The above explanation, however, which is\n  that of Delitzsch on _Job_, differs from that of Fox Talbot.\n\nFootnote 58:\n\n  Mr. Bateson Wright\u2019s pointing, _l\u00e1\u2019ereb_ for _la\u2019\u014dr\u0113bh_, is plausible.\n  The raven is an insignificant companion to the lion, and the birds of\n  prey are mentioned at the end of Job\u2019s picture gallery. Render \u2018who\n  provides in the evening his food,\u2019 &c.; but in this case should not\n  _l\u0101bh\u012b_ in ver. 39 be rendered \u2018lion\u2019 rather than \u2018lioness\u2019 (note\n  \u2018_his_ young ones\u2019)? The root idea is probably voracity. That _l\u0101bh\u012b_\n  in iv. 11 is the feminine is no objection. Comp. Ps. lvii. 5, and\n  perhaps Hos. xiii. 8. Possibly, however, the \u2018raven\u2019 was inserted here\n  to make up the number ten, by a reminiscence of Ps. cxlvii. 9.\n\nFootnote 59:\n\n  The \u2018unicorn\u2019 of A. V. comes from the Sept. and Vulg.; but in Deut.\n  xxxiii. 17 the _re\u2019\u0113m_ is said to have \u2018horns.\u2019 Schlottmann and\n  Delitzsch identify it with the oryx or antelope, but the oryx was\n  tamable (Wilkinson, _Egyptians_, i. 227), whereas our poet asks, \u2018Will\n  the _re\u2019\u0113m_ be willing to serve thee?\u2019 See Cheyne on Isa. xxxiv. 7.\n\nFootnote 60:\n\n  Blake, _Songs of Experience_.\n\nFootnote 61:\n\n  _Purg._, iii. 37.\n\nFootnote 62:\n\n  _Inf._, iii. 5, 6.\n\nFootnote 63:\n\n  _Parad._, xxxiii. 142.\n\nFootnote 64:\n\n  _Parad._, xxxiii. 91.\n\nFootnote 65:\n\n  [All his thinkings seemed like hearsay. This, then, was the real God.]\n  So an anonymous writer well expresses it (_Mark Rutherford\u2019s\n  Deliverance_, p. 196).\n\nFootnote 66:\n\n  _Etudes sur l\u2019antiquit\u00e9 historique_, prem. \u00e9d., pp. 391-393.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER VI.\n                     THE EPILOGUE AND ITS MEANING.\n\n\nWe now come to the _d\u00e9no\u00fbment_ of the story (xlii. 7-17), against which,\nfrom the point of view of internal criticism, much were possible to be\nsaid. We shall not, however, here dwell upon the inconsistencies between\nthe epilogue on the one hand and the prologue and the speeches on the\nother. The main point for us to emphasise is the disappointingness of\nthe events of the epilogue regarded as the final outcome of Job\u2019s\nspiritual discipline. Surely the high thoughts which have now and then\nvisited Job\u2019s mind, and which, combined with the personal\nself-revelation of the Creator, must have brought back the sufferer to a\nstate of childlike resignation, stand in inappropriate companionship\nwith a tame and commonplace renewal of mere earthly prosperity. Would it\nnot have been fitter for the hero on whom so much moral training had\nbeen lavished to pass with humble but courageous demeanour through the\ndark valley, at the issue of which he would \u2018see God\u2019? It is hardly a\nsufficient answer that a concession was necessary to the prejudices of\nthe unspiritual multitude; for what was the object of the poem, if not\nto subvert the dominion of a one-sided retribution theory? The solution\nprobably is that Job in the epilogue is a type of suffering, believing,\nand glorified Israel. Not only the individual believer, not only all the\nelect spirits of suffering humanity, but the beloved nation of the\npoet.\u2014Israel, the \u2018Servant of Jehovah\u2019\u2014must receive a special message of\ncomfort from the great poem. In Isa. lxi. 7 we read that glorified\nIsrael is to \u2018have double (compensation) instead of its shame;\u2019 comp.\nZech. ix. 12, Jer. xvi. 14-18. The people of Israel, according to the\nlimited view of the prophets, was bound indissolubly to the Holy Land.\nThe only promise, therefore, which would be consolatory for suffering\nIsrael, the only possible sign of God\u2019s restored favour, was a material\none including fresh \u2018children\u2019 and many flocks and herds (Isa. liv. 1,\nlx. 7). Observe in this connection the phrase, xlii. 10, \u2018Jehovah turned\nthe fortunes of Job\u2019 (others, as A. V., \u2018turned the captivity of\nJob\u2019)\u2014the phrase so well known in passages relating to Israel (e.g. Ps.\nxiv. 7, Joel iii. 1).\n\nThe explanation is perhaps adequate. Some, however, will be haunted by a\ndoubt whether the author of the prologue would not have thrown more\nenergy and enthusiasm into the closing narrative. An early reader,\nprobably of Pharisaic leanings, felt the poverty of the epilogue,[67]\nand sought to remedy it by the following addition in the Septuagint:\n\u2018And Job died, old and full of days; and it is written that he will rise\nagain with those whom the Lord raiseth.\u2019[68] The remainder of the\nSeptuagint appendix testifies only to the love of the later Jews for\namplifying Biblical notices (see Chap. VII.) Our own poet painter has\nalso amplified the details of the epilogue, but in how different a way!\n(Gilchrist\u2019s _Life of Blake_, i. 332-3).\n\nFootnote 67:\n\n  Other readers, however, found no difficulty in the close of the story;\n  to such St. James addresses himself in the words, \u2018Ye have heard of\n  the endurance of Job, and have seen the end of the Lord\u2019 (James v.\n  11), i.e. the blessed end vouchsafed by the Lord to Job. It was also,\n  no doubt, such a reader who composed the beautiful romance of Tobit,\n  to show that, however tried, the righteous man is at last delivered by\n  his God.\n\nFootnote 68:\n\n  Those rabbis who in later times held this view appear to have assumed\n  that Job was of the Israelitish race (Frankl in Gr\u00e4tz\u2019s\n  _Monatsschrift_, 1872, p. 311).\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER VII.\n             THE TRADITIONAL BASIS AND THE PURPOSE OF JOB.\n\n\n                                   I.\n                         _Did Job really live?_\n\n\nThis is widely different, remarks Umbreit,[69] from the question whether\nJob actually said and did all that is related of him in our book. It is\nscarcely necessary, he adds, in the present day to disprove the latter,\nbut we have no reason to doubt the former (the theory as to the\nhistorical existence of a sort of Arabian king Priam, named Job). In\ntruth, we have no positive evidence either for affirming or denying it,\nunless the \u2018holy places,\u2019 each reputed to be Job\u2019s grave, may be\nmentioned in this connection. The allusion in Ezek. xiv. 14 to \u2018Noah,\nDaniel, and Job,\u2019 proves no more than that a tradition of some sort\nexisted respecting the _righteous_ Job during the Babylonian Exile: we\ncannot tell how much Ezekiel knew besides Job\u2019s righteousness. In later\ntimes, Jewish students do appear to have believed that \u2018Job existed;\u2019\nbut the force of the argument is weakened by the uncritical character of\nthe times, and the extreme form in which this belief was held by them.\nHow early doubts arose, we know not. The authors of _Tobit_ and\n_Susanna_ may very likely have been only half-believers, since they\nevidently imitate the story of Job in their romantic compositions. At\nany rate, the often-quoted saying of Rabbi Resh Lakish, \u05d0\u05d9\u05d5\u05d1 \u05dc\u05d0 \u05d4\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0\n\u05e0\u05d1\u05e8\u05d0 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0 \u05de\u05e9\u05dc \u05d4\u05d9\u05d4, \u2018Job existed not, and was not created, but he is\n(only) a parable,\u2019[70] shows that even before the Talmud great freedom\nof speech prevailed among the Rabbis on such points. In Hai Gaon\u2019s time\n(d. 1037), the saying quoted must have given offence to some, for this\nRabbi not only appeals for the historical character of Job to the\npassage in Ezekiel, but wishes (on traditional authority) to alter the\nreading of Resh Lakish\u2019s words, so as to read \u05d0\u05d9\u05d5\u05d1 \u05dc\u05d0 \u05d4\u05d9\u05d4 \u05d5\u05dc\u05d0 \u05e0\u05d1\u05e8\u05d0 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d0\n\u05dc\u05de\u05e9\u05dc, \u2018Job existed not, and was not created, except to be a\nparable.\u2019[71] (See note 7, Appendix.)\n\nThe prevailing opinion among the Jews doubtless continued to be that the\nBook of Job was strictly historical, and Christian scholars (with the\nexception of Theodore\u2014see Chap. XV.) found no reason to question this\ntill Luther arose, with his genial, though unscientific, insistence on\nthe right of questioning tradition. In his _Tischreden_ Luther says,\n\u2018Ich halte das Buch Hiob f\u00fcr eine wahre Historia; dass aber alles so\nsollte geschehen und gehandelt sein, glaube ich nicht, sondern ich\nhalte, dass ein feiner, frommer, gelehrter Mann habe es in solche\nOrdnung bracht.\u2019[72] Poetically treated history\u2014that is Luther\u2019s idea,\nas it was that of Grotius after him, and in our own country of that\nmorning-star of Biblical criticism, Bishop Lowth.[73] It is acquiesced\nin by Schlottmann, Delitzsch, and Davidson, and with justice, provided\nit be clearly understood that no positive opinion can reasonably be held\nas to the historical origin of the tradition (_Sage_, Ewald) used by the\nauthor. I have said nothing of Spinoza and Albert Schultens. The\nformer[74] pronounces most unfavourably on the religious and poetical\nvalue of the book which he regards as a heathenish fiction, reminding us\nsomewhat (see elsewhere) of the hasty and ill-advised Theodore of\nMopsuestia. The latter[75] actually defends the historical character\nboth of the narratives and of the colloquies of Job in the strictest\nsense. Hengstenberg, alone perhaps among orthodox theologians, takes a\nprecisely opposite view. Like Reuss and Merx, he regards the poem as\nentirely a work of imagination. We may be thankful for his protest\nagainst applying a prosaic standard to the poetical books of the Hebrew\nCanon. Those who do so, he remarks,[76] \u2018fail to observe that the book\nstands, not among historical, but among poetical books, and that it\nwould betray a very low grade of culture, were one to depreciate\nimaginative as compared with historical writing, and declare it to be\nunsuitable for sacred Scripture.\u2019\n\nI entirely agree with the eminent scholar, whose unprogressive theology\ncould not entirely extinguish his literary and philological sense. But I\nsee no sufficient reason for adopting what in itself, I admit, would add\na fresh laurel to the poet\u2019s crown. Merx indeed assures us[77] that the\nmeaning of the name \u2018Job\u2019 is so redolent of allegory that it must be the\npoet\u2019s own invention, especially as the name occurs nowhere else in the\nOld Testament. He adds that the story of Job is so closely connected\nwith the didactic part of the book that it would be lost labour to\nseparate the legendary from the new material. All was wanted; therefore\nall is fictitious. This is not, however, the usual course of procedure\nwith poets whether of the East or of the West, whose parsimony in the\ninvention of plots is well known. As for the name Job (_Iyy\u00f3b_) it may\nno doubt be explained (from the Arabic) \u2018he who turns to God,\u2019[78] and\nin other ways, but there is no evidence that the author thought of any\nmeaning for it. When he does coin names (see Epilogue), there is no room\nfor doubting their significance. Ewald may, certainly, have gone too far\nin trying to recover the traditional element: how difficult it would be\nto do so with _Paradise Lost_, if we had not Genesis to help us! But the\nprobability of the existence of a legend akin to the narrative in the\nPrologue, is shown by the parallels to it which survive, e.g. the\ntouching Indian story of Harischandra,[79] given by Dr. Muir in vol. 1.\nof his _Sanskrit Texts_. The resemblance may be slight and superficial,\nbut the sudden ruin of a good man\u2019s fortunes is common to both stories.\nHad we more knowledge of Arabic antiquity, we should doubtless find a\nmore valuable parallels.[80]\n\nThe story of Job had a special attraction for Mohammed, who enriched it\n(following the precedent of the Jewish Haggada) with a fresh detail\n(Kor\u00e1n, xxxviii. 40). To him, as well as to St. James, Job was an\nexample of \u2018endurance.\u2019 The dialogue between Allah and Eblis in Kor\u00e1n,\nxv. 32-42, may perhaps have been suggested by the Prologue of our poem.\n\n\u2018Did then, Job really live?\u2019 That for which we most care comes not from\n\u2018Tradition, Time\u2019s suspected register,\u2019[81] but from an unnamed poet,\nwho embellished tradition partly from imagination, partly (see next\nsection) from the rich and varied stores of his own experience.\n\n\n                                   2.\n   _The Autobiographical Element in its Bearing on the Purpose of the\n                                 Poem._\n\n\nA German critic (Dillmann), in speaking of _Job_, has well reminded us\nthat \u2018the idea of a work of art must reveal itself in the development of\nthe piece: it is not to be condensed into a dry formula.\u2019 Least of all,\nsurely, is such formulation possible when the work of art is an\nidealised portraiture of the author himself, and such, I think, to a\nconsiderable extent is the Book of Job. Those words of a psalmist,\n\n         Come and hear, all ye that fear God,\n         and I will declare what he hath done for my soul\n                                             (Ps. lxvi. 16, R. V.)\n\nmight be taken as the motto of _Job_. In short, the author is thoroughly\n\u2018subjective,\u2019 like all the great Hebrew and especially the Arabian\npoets. \u2018In the rhythmic swell of Job\u2019s passionate complaints, there is\nan echo of the heart-beats of a great poet and a great sufferer. The cry\n\u201cPerish the day in which I was born\u201d (iii. 3) is a true expression of\nthe first effects of some unrecorded sorrow. In the life-like\ndescription beginning \u201cOh that I were as in months of old\u201d (xxix. 2),\nthe writer is thinking probably of his own happier days, before\nmisfortune overtook him. Like Job (xxix. 7, 21-25) he had sat in the\n\u201cbroad place\u201d by the gate and solved the doubts of perplexed clients.\nLike Job, he had maintained his position triumphantly against other wise\nmen. He had a fellow-feeling with Job in the distressful passage through\ndoubt to faith. Like Job (xxi. 16) he had resisted the suggestion of\npractical atheism, and with the confession of his error (xlii. 2-6) had\nrecovered spiritual peace.\u2019\n\nThe man who speaks to us under the mask of Job is not indeed a perfect\ncharacter; but he does not pretend to be so. How pathetic are his\nappeals to his friends to remember the weight of his calamity\u2014\u2018therefore\nhave my words been wild\u2019 (vi. 3)\u2014and not to \u2018be captious about words\nwhen the speeches of the desperate are but for the wind\u2019 (vi. 26). He\nwas no Stoic, and had not practised himself in deadening his sensibility\nto pain. Strong in his sense of justice, he lacked those higher\nintuitions which could alone soothe his irritation. But he was\nthroughout loyal to the God whom his conscience revered, and, even in\nthe midst of his wild words, he let God mould him. First of all, he\nrenounced the hope of being understood by men; he ceased to complain of\nhis rather ignorant than unfeeling friends. He exemplified that Arabic\nproverb which says, \u2018Perfect patience allows no complaint to be heard\nagainst (human creatures).\u2019 Then he came by degrees to trust God. There\nis a kernel of truth in that passage of the Jerusalem Talmud\n(_Berakhoth_, cix. 5) where, among the seven types of Pharisees, the\nsixth is described as \u2018he who is pious from fear, like Job,\u2019 and the\nseventh, as \u2018he who is pious from love, like Abraham.\u2019 Job\u2019s religion\nwas at first not entirely but still too much marked by fear; it ended by\nbecoming a religion of trust, justifying the title borne by Job among\nthe Syrians, as if in contradiction to the Talmud, of \u2018the lover of the\nLord.\u2019[82]\n\nSo far as the author of _Job_ has any direct purpose beyond that of\ngiving a helpful picture of his own troubles, it is no doubt principally\na polemical one. He has suffered so deeply from the inveterate error\n(once indeed a relative truth) so tenaciously maintained by the wisest\nmen that he would fain crush the source of so much heart-breaking\nmisery. But that for which we love the book is its \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03af\u03b1, its\nbrotherly love to all mankind. No doubt the author thinks first of\nIsrael, then (as I suppose) suffering exile; but the care with which the\npoem is divested of Israelitish peculiarities, seems to show that he\nlooks beyond his own people, just as in his view of God he has broken\nthe bonds of a narrow \u2018particularism.\u2019 \u2018I can see no other explanation\nof those apparently hyperbolical complaints, that strange invasion of\nself-consciousness, and that no less strange \u2018enthusiasm of\nhumanity\u2019[83] ... than the view expressed or implied by Chateaubriand,\nthat Job is a \u2018type of righteous men in affliction\u2014not merely in the\nland of Uz, nor among the Jews in Babylonia, nor yet, on Warburton\u2019s\ntheory of the poem, in the Jud\u00e6a of the time of Nehemiah, but wherever\non the wide earth tears are shed and hearts are broken.\u2019 This is the\ntruth in the too often exaggerated allegorical view[84] of the poem of\n_Job_. According to his wont, the author lets us read his meaning by\noccasional bold inconsistencies. No individual can use such phraseology\nas we find in xvii. 1, xviii. 2, 3, xix. 11, and perhaps I may add xvi.\n10, xxvii. 11, 12. And yet the fact that Job often speaks as the \u2018type\nof suffering humanity\u2019 no more destroys his claim to be an individual\n\u2018than the typical character of Dante in his pilgrimage and of Faust in\nGoethe\u2019s great poem annuls the historical element in those two great\npoetical figures.\u2019[85]\n\n\n                                   3.\n           _The Purpose of Job as illustrated by Criticism._\n\n\nMore precise definitions of the purpose of Job depend on the acceptance\nof a critical analysis of the book. Some suggestions on this subject\nhave been already given to facilitate the due comprehension of the poem.\nI must now offer the reader a connected sketch of the possible or\nprobable stages of its growth. This, if it bears being tested, will\nperhaps reveal the special purpose of the several parts, and above all\nof that most precious portion\u2014the Colloquies of Job and his friends.\n(Compare below, Chap. XII.)\n\nI. The narrative which forms the Prologue is based upon a traditional\nstory which represented Job as hurled from the height of happiness into\nan abyss of misery, but preserving a devout serenity in the midst of\ntrouble. It is impossible to feel sure that this Prologue is by the same\nauthor as the following Colloquies. It stands in no very close\nconnection with them; \u2018the Satan\u2019 in particular (an omission which\nstruck William Blake[86]), is not heard of again in the book; and there\nis abundant evidence of the liking of the pre-Exile writers for a\ntasteful narrative style. It is not a wild conjecture that the first two\nchapters originally formed the principal part of a prose book of Job,\ncomparable to the \u2018books\u2019 once current of Elijah, and perhaps one may\nadd of Balaam and of Daniel\u2014a book free from any speculations of the\n\u2018wise men\u2019 and in no sense a _m\u0101sh\u0101l_ or gnomic poem, but supplying in\nits own way a high and adequate solution of the great problem of the\nsuffering of the righteous. The writer of this Prologue, whether he also\nwrote the Colloquies or not, firmly believed that the calamities which\nsometimes fell on the innocent were both for the glory of God and of\nhuman nature. It was possible, he said, to continue in one\u2019s integrity,\nthough no earthly advantage accrued from it. If the Prologue once formed\npart of a distinct prose \u2018book\u2019 of Job, one can hardly suppose that the\nsame author wrote the Epilogue; for while the Colloquies _do_ contain\nhints of Job\u2019s typical character (as to some extent a representative of\nhumanity), the Prologue does not, and it is only the typical or\nallegorical interpretation which makes the Epilogue tolerable. In fact,\nthe Epilogue must, as it seems to me, have been written, if not by the\nauthor of the Colloquies, yet by some one who had this work before him.\nThe prose \u2018book\u2019 of Job, if it existed, and if it originated in Judah,\ncannot have been written before the Chald\u00e6an period. This period and no\nother explains the moral purpose of the \u2018book,\u2019 precisely as the age of\nthe despotic Louis XIV. is the only one which suits the debate on the\ndisinterested love of God with which the name of F\u00e9nelon is inseparably\nconnected. The Chald\u00e6an period, however, we must remember, did not begin\nwith the Captivity, but with the appearance of the Babylonian power on\nthe horizon of Palestine. We must not therefore _too hastily_ assume\nthat the Book of Job is a monument of the Babylonian Captivity, true as\nI myself believe this hypothesis to be.\n\nWe are, however, of course not confined to this hypothesis of a prose\n\u2018book\u2019 of Job. The author of the Colloquies may have been equally fitted\nto be a writer of narrative, and may have felt that the solution\nmentioned above, although the highest, was not the only one admissible.\nWe may therefore conceive of him as following up the solution offered in\nthe Prologue by a ventilation of the great moral problem before himself\nand his fellow \u2018wise men.\u2019 He throws the subject open as it were to\ngeneral discussion, and invests all the worthiest speculations of his\ntime in the same flowing poetical dress, that no fragment of truth\ncontained in them may be lost. He himself is far from absolutely\nrejecting any of them; he only seems to deny that the ideas of the three\nrepresentative sages can be applied at once, as they apply them, to the\ncase of one like Job.\n\n[B\u00f6ttcher, however, regards Job as the work of one principal and several\nsubordinate writers. It was occasioned, he thinks, by a conversation on\nthe sufferings of innocent men, at that time so frequent (i.e. in the\nreign of Manasseh). See his _Achrenlese_, p. 68.]\n\nII. The completion or publication of the colloquies revealed (or seemed\nto reveal) sundry imperfections in the original mode of treating the\nsubject. Some other \u2018wise men,\u2019 therefore (or possibly, except in the\ncase of III., the author himself), inserted passages in the poem with\nthe view of qualifying or supplementing its statements. These were\nmerely laid in, without being welded with the rest of the book. The\nfirst in order of these additions is chap. xxviii., which cannot be\nbrought into a logical connection with the chapters among which it is\nplaced, in spite of the causal particle \u2018for\u2019 prefixed to it (\u2018_For_\nthere is a vein\u2019). It is possible, indeed, that it has been extracted\nfrom some other work. The hypothesis of insertion (or, if used without\nimplying illicit tampering with the text, \u2018interpolation\u2019) is confirmed\nby the occurrence of \u2018Adonai\u2019 in ver. 28, which is contrary to the\ncustom of the author of Job, and by its highly rhetorical character. If\nthe passage was written with a view to the Book of Job, we must suppose\nthe author to have been dissatisfied with the original argument, and to\nhave sought a solution for the problem in the inscrutableness of the\ndivine wisdom. Zophar, it is true, had originally alluded to this\nattribute, but with a more confined object. According to him, God, being\nall-wise, can detect sins invisible to mortal eyes (xi. 6):\u2014it is\nneedless to draw out the wide difference between this slender inference\nand the large theory which appears to be suggested in chap. xxviii.\n\nIII. One of the less progressive \u2018wise men\u2019 was scandalised at the\nirreverent statements of Job and dissatisfied with the three friends\u2019\nmode of dealing with them (xxxii. 2, 3). Hence the speeches of Elihu,\nthe most generally recognised of all the inserted portions (chaps.\nxxxii.-xxxvii.) The author partly imitates the speeches of Jehovah.\n\nIV. In another inserted passage (ch. xxxviii.-xl. 14, xlii. 1-6), the\nAlmighty is represented as chastising the presumption of Job, and\nshowing forth the supreme wisdom by contrast with Job\u2019s unwisdom. It is\nclear that the copy in which it was inserted was without the speeches of\nElihu, for the opening words of Jehovah (xxxviii. 2) clearly have\nreference to the last discourse of Job, which they must have been\nintended to follow. The effect of this fine passage is much impaired by\nthe interposition of the speeches of Elihu.\n\nV. The description of the beh\u00e9moth and the leviathan (xl. 15-24, xli.)\nseems also to be a later insertion, and somewhat more recent than the\nspeeches of Jehovah. It is a \u2018purple patch,\u2019 and the appendix last\nmentioned gains by its removal.\n\nVI. An editor appended the epilogue. He must have had the prologue\nbefore him, but took no pains to bring his own work into harmony with\nit, except in the one point which he could not help adopting, namely the\nvast riches of his hero. He agreed with Job\u2019s friends on the grand\nquestion of retribution, though he would not sanction their line of\nargument. Job\u2019s doubts, according to him, contained more faith than\ntheir uncharitable dogmatism.\n\nCan we feel grateful to this writer? He has at any rate relieved the\nstrain upon the imagination of the reader, and possibly, if we assume\nhim to be distinct from the author of the Prologue, carried out an\nunfulfilled intention of that author (note the words in i. 12, \u2018only\nupon himself put not forth thy hand\u2019). But he did so in a prosaic\nspirit, and made a sad concession to a low view of providential\ndealings. He has also, I think, caused much misunderstanding of the\nobject of the book. Thus we find Dr. Ginsburg saying,[87]\n\n    The Book of Job ... only confirms the old opinion that the righteous\n    are visibly rewarded here, inasmuch as it represents their\n    calamities as transitory, and Job himself as restored to double his\n    original wealth and happiness in this life.\n\nAgainst which I enter a respectful protest.\n\nThe view here adopted of the gradual growth of the book seems important\nfor its right comprehension. In its present form, it seems like a very\nconfused theodicy, designed to justify God against the charge of\nbringing misfortune upon innocent persons. But when the disturbing\nelements are removed, we see that the book is simply an expression of\nthe conflicting thoughts of an earnest, warm-hearted man on the great\nquestion of suffering. He protests, it is true, against the rigour and\nuncharitableness of the traditional orthodox belief, but is far more\naspiring to solve the problem theoretically. This is one chief point in\nwhich he differs from his interpolators (if the word may be used), who\nmostly appear to have had some favourite theory (or partial view of\ntruth) to advocate.\n\nFootnote 69:\n\n  _Book of Job_ (1836), E. T. i. 7.\n\nFootnote 70:\n\n  _Baba Bathra_ \u00a7 15, 1. Comp. Frankl in Gr\u00e4tz\u2019s _Monatsschrift_, 1872,\n  pp. 309-310.\n\nFootnote 71:\n\n  Ewald and Dukes, _Beitrage zur Gesch. der \u00fcltesten Auslegung_, ii.\n  166.\n\nFootnote 72:\n\n  _Werke_ (Walch), xxii. 2093.\n\nFootnote 73:\n\n  _De sacr\u00e2 poesi_ (1753), Pr\u00e6lect. xxxii.\n\nFootnote 74:\n\n  _Tractatus theologico-politicus_, c. x.\n\nFootnote 75:\n\n  _Liber Jobi_ (1737), vol. i., _in fine Praf._\n\nFootnote 76:\n\n  _Das Buch Hiob_ (1870-75), i. 35.\n\nFootnote 77:\n\n  _Das Buch Hiob_, Vorbemerkungen, p. xxxv.\n\nFootnote 78:\n\n  In Kor\u00e1n, xxxviii. 16, 29, 44, David, Solomon, and Job are all called,\n  one after another, _aww\u0101b_, i.e. not \u2018penitent,\u2019 but \u2018ever turning to\n  God.\u2019 Hitzig remarks that Iyy\u00f3b (Arabic Ayy\u00e0b) will thus be equivalent\n  to the mythic prophet Saleh (= \u2018pious\u2019) in the Kor\u00e1n (_Das Buch Hiob_,\n  Einl., S. x.), on whom see Palmer, _Desert of the Exodus_, p. 50,\n  where he is identified with Moses. This is bold, and, in any case,\n  must not such a name be comparatively modern?\n\nFootnote 79:\n\n  This was perhaps first pointed out by Schlottmann, in chap. 1. of the\n  Introduction to his Commentary.\n\nFootnote 80:\n\n  Nothing can be built upon the occurrence of the name Ayy\u00fbb in\n  pre-Islamic times, for Jews and Arabs were in frequent intercourse\n  before Mohammed.\n\nFootnote 81:\n\n  Davenant.\n\nFootnote 82:\n\n  Hottinger, referred to by Delitzsch, Iob, p. 7. In the Peshitto, Heb.\n  xii. 3-11 has for a sub-title, \u2018In commemoration of Job the\n  righteous.\u2019 The choice of the section shows in what sense Job\u2019s\n  \u2018righteousness\u2019 is affirmed\u2014not the Talmudic.\n\nFootnote 83:\n\n  See especially Job vi. 2, 3, vii. 1-3, xiv. 1-3.\n\nFootnote 84:\n\n  This view goes back to the last century (Warburton, Michaelis, &c.) It\n  has been remodelled by Seinecke and Hoekstra, who regard Job, not as\n  the people of Israel in general, but the idealised Israel or \u2018Servant\n  of Jehovah.\u2019 See especially Hoekstra\u2019s essay, _Theologisch\n  Tijdschrift_, 1871, p. 1 &c., and Kuenen\u2019s reply, _Th. Ti._, 1873, p.\n  492 &c.\n\nFootnote 85:\n\n  Quoted from Essay ix. in vol. ii. of _The Prophecies of Isaiah_.\n\nFootnote 86:\n\n  Blake\u2019s 16th design is devoted to the defeat of Satan. Beneath the\n  enthroned Jehovah and his angels, \u2018the Evil One falls with tremendous\n  plummet-force. Hell naked before his face, and Destruction without a\n  covering.\u2019 Another point in which Blake corrects his author is the\n  introduction of Job\u2019s wife into the illustrations of the Colloquies.\n\nFootnote 87:\n\n  Art. \u2018Ecclesiastes,\u2019 _Ency. Brit._, 9th ed.\n\n\n\n\n                             CHAPTER VIII.\n                     DATE AND PLACE OF COMPOSITION.\n\n\nWe have seen (Chap. VII.) that the unity of authorship of the Book of\nJob is not beyond dispute, but we shall not at present assume the\nresults of analysis. Let us endeavour to treat of the date and place of\ncomposition on the hypothesis that the book is a whole as it stands (on\nthe Elihu-portion however, comp. Chap. XII.) It is at any rate probable\nthat the greater part of it at least proceeds from the same period. Can\nthat period be the patriarchal? The author has sometimes received credit\nfor his faithful picture of this early age. This is at any rate\nplausible. For instance, he avoids the use of the sacred name Jehovah,\nrevealed to Moses according to Ex. vi. 3. Then, too, the great age\nascribed to Job in the Epilogue (xlii. 16) agrees with the notices of\nthe patriarchs. The uncoined piece of silver (Heb. _kesita_) which each\nkinsman of Job gave him after his recovery (xlii. II), is only mentioned\nagain in Gen. xxxiii. 19 (Josh. xxiv. 32). The musical instruments\nreferred to in xxi. 12, xxx. 31, are also mentioned in Gen. iv. 21,\nxxxi. 27. There is no protest against idolatry either in the Book of\nJob[88] or in Genesis. Job himself offers sacrifices to the one true\nGod, like the patriarchs, and the kind of sacrifice offered is the\nburnt-offering (i. 5, xlii. 8), there is no mention of guilt-or\nsin-offerings. The settled life of Job, too, as described in the\nPrologue is not inconsistent with the story of Jacob\u2019s life in the vale\nof Shechem,[89] though in reality the author probably described it from\nhis observation of settled life in Arabia. But none of these allusions\nrequired any special gift of historical imagination. The tone of the few\ndescriptive passages in the Colloquies, and of the reflections\nthroughout, is that of an age long subsequent to the patriarchal. The\nvery idea of wise men meeting together to discuss deep problems (as in\nthe later Arabic _maq\u0101m\u0101t_, compared by Bertholdt and others) is an\nanachronism in a \u2018patriarchal\u2019 narrative, and (like the religious\nposition of the speeches in general) irresistibly suggests the\npost-Solomonic period. The Job of the Colloquies is a travelled citizen\nof the world at an advanced period of history; indeed, he now and then\nseems expressly to admit this (xxiv. 12, xxix. 7). It is therefore\nneedless to discuss the theory which assigns the book to the Mosaic or\npre-Mosaic age,\u2014a theory which is a relic of the cold, literal,\nunsympathetic method of the critics of the last two centuries. A few\nscholars of eminence, feeling this, placed the poem in the Solomonic\nperiod, a view which is in itself plausible, if we consider the\npronounced secular turn of the great king, and his recorded taste for\neastern parabolistic \u2018wisdom,\u2019 but which falls with the cognate theory\nof the authorship of Proverbs. A more advanced stage of society than\nthat of the period referred to, and a greater maturity of the national\nintellect, are presupposed on every page of the poem. The tone of the\nbook\u2014I refer especially to the Colloquies\u2014suggests a time when the\nnationalism of the older periods had, in general, ceased to satisfy\nreflecting minds. The doubters, whom Job and his friends represent, have\nbeen so staggered in their belief in Israel\u2019s loving God, that they\ndecline to use His revealed name:\u2014[90] once or twice only does it slip\nin (xii. 9; cf. xxviii. 28), as if to show that the poet himself has\nfought his way to a reconciling faith. As is clear from the cognate\npsalms xxxvii., xlix., lxxiii., the patriarchal theory of prosperity and\nadversity had been found wanting. Doubts had arisen, most painful in\ntheir intensity, from observing the disproportion between character and\nfortune\u2014doubts which might indeed insinuate themselves at any time, but\nacquire an abnormal force in a declining community (ix. 24, xii. 4-6,\n23, and especially chap. xxi.) Some had even ventured on positive\ndoctrinal heresy. In opposition to these, Eliphaz professes his adhesion\nto the tradition of the fathers, in whose time religion was untainted by\nalien influence (xv. 17-19). It is merely an incidental remark of\nEliphaz, but it points to a date subsequent to the appearance of Assyria\non the horizon of Palestine. For it was the growing influence of that\npower, which, for good and for evil, modified the character of\nIsraelitish religion both in its higher and in its lower forms.\n\nPrecise historical allusions are almost entirely wanting. We may,\nhowever, infer with certainty that the book was written subsequently to\nthe \u2018deportation\u2019 of Israel, or of Judah, or at the very least of some\nneighbouring people (xii. 17-19; comp. xv. 19[91]). For the uprooting of\nwhole peoples from their original homes was peculiar to the Assyrian\npolicy.[92] But which of these forced expatriations is intended?\u2014We are\nnot _compelled_ to think of the Babylonian Exile by the reference to the\nChald\u00e6ans in the Prologue. The Chald\u00e6ans might have been known to a\nwell-informed Hebrew writer ever since the ninth century B.C., at which\ntime they became predominant in the southern provinces on the lower\nEuphrates: we find Isaiah, speaking of the \u2018land of Chald\u00e6a\u2019 (Isa.\nxxiii. 13) in the eighth century. Still I own that the description of\nthe Chald\u00e6ans as _robbers_ does appear to me most easily explained by\nsupposing a covert allusion to the invasions of Nebuchadnezzar.[93] The\nAssyrians are indeed once called \u2018treacherous dealers\u2019 by Isaiah\n(xxxiii. 1), but the Babylonians impressed the Hebrew writers by their\nrapacity far more than the Assyrians. The \u2018unrighteous\u2019 of the Psalms\nare, when foreigners are spoken of, not the Assyrians, but either the\nBabylonians or still later oppressors (e.g. Ps. cxxv. 3); and the\ndescription of the Babylonians in the first chapter of Habakkuk strongly\nreminds us of those complaints of Job, \u2018The earth is given over into the\nhand of the unrighteous\u2019 (ix. 24), and \u2018The robbers\u2019 tents are in peace,\nand they that provoke God are secure, they who carry (their) god in\ntheir hand\u2019 (xii. 6; comp. Hab. i. 11, 16).\n\nThe view here propounded might be supported by an argument from\nlinguistic data (see Chap. XIII.) which would lead us into details out\nof place here. It is that of Umbreit, Knobel, Gr\u00e4tz, and (though he does\nnot exclude the possibility of a later date) the sober and thorough\nGesenius. Long after the present writer\u2019s results were first committed\nto paper, he had the rare satisfaction of finding them advocated, so far\nas the date is concerned, in a commentary by a scholar of our own who\nhas the best right to speak (A. B. Davidson, Introduction to _The Book\nof Job_, 1884). On the other hand, Stickel, Ewald, Magnus, Bleek, Renan\n(1860), Kuenen (1865), Hitzig, Reuss, Dillmann, Merx, prefer to place\nour poem in the period between Isaiah and Jeremiah, and this seems to me\nthe earliest date from which the composition and significance of the\nbook can be at all rightly understood. Reasons enough for this statement\nof opinion will suggest themselves to those who have followed me\nhitherto; let me now only add that the pure monotheism of the Book makes\nan earlier date, on historical principles, hardly conceivable.[94] A\nlater date than the Exile-period is not, I admit, inconceivable (see\nVatke, _Die biblische Theologie_, i. 563 &c.), and is now supported by\nKuenen.[95] If there were an allusion to the doctrine of the\nResurrection, in xix. 26, or if the portraiture of Job were (as Kuenen\nthinks it is) partly modelled on the Second Isaiah\u2019s description of the\nServant of Jehovah, I should in fact be driven to accept this view. I\nhave stated above that I cannot find the Resurrection in _Job_, and in\n_Isaiah_, ii. 267 that the priority of _Job_ seems to me to be made out.\nI need not combat Clericus and Warburton, who ascribe the authorship of\n_Job_ to Ezra. For Jeremiah (Bateson Wright) or the author of\nLamentations (i.e. Baruch, according to Bunsen) something might perhaps\nbe said, but\u2014Ezra!\n\nAs to the place of composition. Hitzig and Hirzel think of Egypt on\naccount of the numerous allusions to Egypt in the book; and so Ewald\nwith regard to xl. 15-xli. 34. \u2018Die ganze Umgebung ist egyptisch,\u2019 says\nHitzig with some exaggeration.[96] More might be said in favour of the\ntheory which places the author in a region where Arabic and Aramaic\nmight both be heard. Stickel, holding the pre-Exile origin of the book,\nsupposed it to have come from the far south-east of Palestine. Nowhere\nbetter than in the hill-country of the South could the poet study simple\ndomestic relations, and also make excursions into N. Arabia. He thus\naccounts[97] for the points of contact between the Book of Job and the\nprophecy of Amos of Tekoa (see below, Chap. XI.), which include even\nsome phonetic peculiarities (the softening of the gutturals and the\ninterchange of sibilants). To me, the whole question seems well-nigh an\nidle one. The author (or, if you will, the authors) had travelled much\nin various lands, and the book is the result. The place where is of far\nless importance than the time when it was composed.\n\nFootnote 88:\n\n  The absence of such a protest is characteristic of the\n  Wisdom-literature in general. The reference to star-worship in Job\n  xxxi. 26 suggests a date subsequent to the origination of the title\n  \u2018Jehovah (God) of Hosts.\u2019 See appendix to Isa. i. in my commentary.\n\nFootnote 89:\n\n  Mr. Tomkins compares Job\u2019s mode of life with that of Abram before his\n  departure from Kharran (_Studies on the Times of Abraham_, 1878, p.\n  61).\n\nFootnote 90:\n\n  I cannot go quite so far as Lagarde, who argues from the use of\n  \u2018Eloah\u2019 (instead of \u2018Elohim\u2019 and \u2018Jehovah\u2019) that the doubters have\n  cast off belief in all the supposed various manifestations of divinity\n  in the world, and merely retain a comfortless belief in \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd.\n  \u2018Numen quoddam esse non negant, sed\u2019 &c. _Psalterium Hieronymi_, pp.\n  155-6 (\u2018Corollarium\u2019).\n\nFootnote 91:\n\n  Job xv. 19 certainly implies the siege and capture of Jerusalem by\n  some foreign foe. Comp. Joel iii. (Heb. iv.) 17.\n\nFootnote 92:\n\n  Dr. Barth quotes Am. i. 6, ii. 1-3, ix. 11, 15 in proof that\n  \u2018deportation\u2019 also took place in the \u2018pre-Assyrian\u2019 time. But, in\n  fact, Amos is not \u2018pre-Assyrian.\u2019\n\nFootnote 93:\n\n  It is no sufficient objection that the ravages of the Chald\u00e6ans in Job\n  are on a small scale, nor yet that side by side with them are\n  mentioned the Sabeans, surely not those of S. Arabia (Noldeke), but\n  those of N. Arabia (Delitzsch), detachments of whom might have\n  encamped on the borders of Edom. Comp. Wetzstein in Delitzsch\u2019s _Iob_,\n  ed. 2, p. 596 &c.\n\nFootnote 94:\n\n  I write this with deference to the contrary opinion of Delitzsch, who\n  is, however, too prejudiced against late dates, and biassed by his\n  belief in the authenticity of the Song of Hezekiah. If the Book of Job\n  be pre-Hezekian, it is of course natural to throw it back to the age\n  of Solomon.\n\nFootnote 95:\n\n  _Theologisch Tijdschrift_, 1873, p. 538.\n\nFootnote 96:\n\n  _Das Buch Hiob_ (1874), p. xlix.\n\nFootnote 97:\n\n  _Das Buch Hiob_ (1842), p. 276.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER IX.\n                  ARGUMENT FROM THE USE OF MYTHOLOGY.\n\n\nOne of the peculiarities of our poet (which I have elsewhere compared\nwith a similar characteristic in Dante) is his willingness to\nappropriate mythic forms of expression from heathendom. This willingness\nwas certainly not due to a feeble grasp of his own religion; it was\nrather due partly to the poet\u2019s craving for imaginative ornament, partly\nto his sympathy with his less developed readers, and a sense that some\nof these forms were admirably adapted to give reality to the conception\nof the \u2018living God.\u2019 Several of these points of contact with heathendom\nhave been indicated in my analysis of the poem. I need not again refer\nto these, but the semi-mythological allusions to supernatural beings who\nhad once been in conflict with Jehovah (xxi. 22, xxv. 2), and the\ncognate references to the dangerous cloud-dragon (see below) ought not\nto be overlooked. Both in Egypt and in Assyria and Babylonia, we find\nthese very myths in a fully developed form. The \u2018leviathan\u2019 of iii. 8,\nthe dragon probably of vii. 12 (_tann\u012bn_) and certainly of xxvi. 13\n(_n\u0101kh\u0101sh_), and the \u2018rahab\u2019 of ix. 13, xxvi. 12, remind us of the evil\nserpent Apap, whose struggle with the sun-god Ra is described in chap.\nxxxix. of the Book of the Dead and elsewhere. \u2018A battle took place,\u2019\nsays M. Maspero, \u2018between the gods of light and fertility and the \u201csons\nof rebellion,\u201d the enemies of light and life. The former were\nvictorious, but the monsters were not destroyed. They constantly menace\nthe order of nature, and, in order to resist their destructive action,\nGod must, so to speak, create the world anew every day.\u2019[98] An equally\nclose parallel is furnished by the fourth tablet of the Babylonian\ncreation-story, which describes the struggle between the god Marduk\n(Merodach) and the dragon Tiamat or Tiamtu (a fem. corresponding to the\nHeb. masc. form _t\u2019hom_ \u2018the deep\u2019), for which see Delitzsch\u2019s\n_Assyrische Lesest\u00fccke_, 3rd edition, Smith and Sayce\u2019s _Chald\u00e6an\nGenesis_, p. 107 &c., and Budge in _Proceedings of the Society of\nBiblical Arch\u00e6ology_, Nov. 6, 1883.\n\nNor must I forget the \u2018fool-hardy\u2019 giant (K\u2019s\u012bl = Orion) in ix. 9,\nxxxviii. 31, nor the dim allusion to the sky-reaching mountain of the\nnorth, rich in gold (comp. Isa. xiv. 13, and Sayce, _Academy_, Jan. 28,\n1882, p. 64), and the myth-derived synonyms for She\u00f3l\u2014Death, Abaddon,\nand \u2018the shadow of death\u2019 (or, deep gloom), xxvi. 6, xxviii. 22,\nxxxviii. 17, also the \u2018king of terrors\u2019 (xviii. 14), who like Pluto or\nYama rules in the Hebrew Underworld. Observe too the instances in which\na primitive myth has died down into a metaphor, e.g. \u2018the eyelids of the\nDawn\u2019 (iii. 9, xli. 18), and especially that beautiful passage,\n\n          Hast thou ever in thy life given charge to the Morning,\n          and shown its place to the Dawn,\n          that it may take hold of the skirts of the earth,\n          so that the wicked are shaken out of it,\n          and the earth changes as clay under a seal,\n          and (all things) stand forth as in a garment,\n          and light is withheld from the wicked,\n          and the arm lifted up is broken? (xxxviii. 12-15).\n\nHow very vivid! The personified Dawn seizes the coverlet under which the\nearth has slept at its four ends and shakes the evil-doers out of it\nlike flies; upon which form and colour return to the earth, as clay (a\nBabylonian image) receives a definite form from the seal, and as the\nsad-coloured night-wrapper is exchanged for the bright, embroidered\nholiday-robe. Could we only transfer the poet to an earlier stage of\nmythic consciousness, we should find him expressing the same ideas\u2014that\nmorning-light creates all fair things anew, and discomfits the\nevil-doer\u2014very much in the style of the Vedic hymns to Ushas (the Dawn),\nfrom which I quote the following in Grassmann\u2019s translation (Rig Veda,\nI. 123, 4, 5),\u2014\n\n                Die tageshelle kommt zu jedem Hause\n                und jedem Tage gibt sie ihren Namen;\n                zu spenden willig, strablend naht sie immer\n                und theilet aus der G\u00fcter allerbestes.\n                Als Bhaga\u2019s Schwester, Varuna\u2019s Verwandte,\n                komm her zuerst, o sch\u00f6ne Morgenr\u00f6the;\n                Wer frevel \u00fcbt, der soll dahinter bleiben,\n                von uns besiegt sein mit der Uschas Wagen.\n\n(There is also an Egyptian parallel in a hymn to the Sun-god, _Records\nof the Past_, viii. 131, \u2018He fells the wicked in his season.\u2019) How far\nthe poet of Job believed in the myths which he has preserved, e.g. in\nthe existence of potentates or potencies corresponding to the \u2018dragon\u2019\nof which he speaks, we cannot certainly tell. Mr. Budge has suggested\nthat Tiamat, the sky-dragon of the Babylonians, conveyed a distinct\nsymbolic meaning. However this may have been, the \u2018leviathan\u2019 of Job was\nprobably to the poet a \u2018survival\u2019 from a superstition of his childhood,\nand little if anything more than the emblem of all evil and disorder.\n\nAnd now for the bearing of the above on criticism. It is a remarkable\nfact that there are mythological allusions, very similar to some of\nthose in Job, in the later portions of the Book of Isaiah (Isa. xxiv.\n21, xxvii. 1, ii. 9). This evidently suggests a date for the Book of Job\nnot earlier than the Exile. It is not necessary to assume that the\nauthors of these books borrowed either from Egypt or from Babylonia.\nThey drew from the unexhausted store of Jewish popular beliefs. They\nwrote for a larger public than the older poets and prophets could\ncommand, and adapted themselves more completely to the average culture\nof their people.\n\nFootnote 98:\n\n  Maspero, _Histoire ancienne de l\u2019Orient_, ed. 1, p. 30. Comp. Chabas\u2019\n  translation from the Harris papyrus, _Records of the Past_, x.\n  142-146.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER X.\n                 ARGUMENT FROM THE DOCTRINE OF ANGELS.\n\n\nThe facts on which our argument is based are mainly the passages in\n_Job_ which refer to \u2018sons of Elohim\u2019 (or better, as Davidson, \u2018of the\nElohim\u2019), to \u2018the Satan,\u2019 and to the _mal\u2019akim_. The first of these\nthree phrases means probably _inferior_ members of the class of beings\ncalled Elohim (i.e. \u2018superhuman powers\u2019); the second, \u2018the adversary (or\nopposer);\u2019 the third, \u2018envoys or messengers\u2019 (\u1f04\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9). We may at once\ndraw an inference from the expression \u2018the Satan,\u2019 the full importance\nof which will be seen later on. \u2018The Satan\u2019 being an appellative, the\nbook in which it occurs was probably written before Chronicles, where we\nfind \u2018Satan\u2019 without the article, almost[99] as if a proper name; and\nbeing applied to a minister and not an opponent of Jehovah, the Book of\nJob is probably earlier than the prophecies of Zechariah and the Books\nof Chronicles; see Zech. iii. 1, 2 (where observe that Jehovah\u2019s only\ntrue representative gives a severe reproof to \u2018the Satan\u2019), 1 Chron.\nxxi. 1 (where \u2018Satan,\u2019 uncommissioned, \u2018entices\u2019 David to an act\ndispleasing to Jehovah[100]). The difference between the notices of the\nSatan (or Satan) may not seem great to an unpractised student, but no\none who has followed the development of any single doctrine will\nundervalue such traces of a growing refinement in the conceptions of\ngood and evil. Whether or no the ideas of the Chronicler and his age had\nbeen modified by hearing of the Persian Ahriman, may be questioned; but\na similar supposition cannot be allowed in the case of the author of\n_Job_. The Satan of the Prologue is, in theory at least, simply\nJehovah\u2019s agent, though he certainly betrays a malicious pleasure in his\ninvidious function of trying or sifting the righteous. It is not\nimpossible that the author of the Prologue was the first to use the term\nSatan in this sense. At any rate, it is a pure Hebrew term, unlike the\nAshmedai or Asmod\u00e6us of the Book of Tobit. [Ashmedai, in later Judaism,\nis the head of the Shedim\u2014demons who were never angels of God, just as\nSammael is the \u2018head of all Satans,\u2019 i.e. the prince of the fallen\nangels. Weber, _System der altsynagog. Pal\u00e4stin. Theologie_, pp. 243-5.]\n\nNext, turning to the _mal\u2019akim_, observe that the word occurs very\nrarely in _Job_, viz. once in the original Colloquies (iv. 18), and once\n(virtually) in the first speech of Elihu (xxxiii. 23). We find, however,\na kindred phrase \u2018the _q\u2019doshim_,\u2019 or \u2018holy ones,\u2019 i.e. superhuman,\nheavenly beings, separate from the world of the senses[101] (v. 1, xv.\n15), and comparing v. 1 with iv. 18 we cannot doubt that the same class\nof beings is intended. We nowhere meet with the _Mal\u2019ak Yahv\u00e8_, so\nfamiliar to us in certain Old Testament narratives; Elihu\u2019s _mal\u2019ak\nm\u0113l\u012b\u00e7_ (xxxiii. 23) is not synonymous with the older expression (see\naccount of Elihu). In fact, the thousands of _mal\u2019akim_ known at the\nperiod of the writers of Job have made the one great _mal\u2019ak_\nunnecessary, just as, but for the influence of Persian ideas, the\nmultitudinous \u2018hurtful angels\u2019 (Ps. lxxviii. 49) might sooner or later\nhave entirely supplanted the single Satan. And yet even an ordinary\n_mal\u2019ak_, when he appears, is more awful than the great _mal\u2019ak Yahv\u00e8_;\nthe angel who appears to Eliphaz (Job iv. 15, 16) is as unrecognisable\nas the \u2018face\u2019 of Jehovah himself. This is an indication, though but a\nslight one, of a somewhat advanced age, when the gulf between God and\nman was more acutely felt, and religious thought was more specially\ndirected to filling it up.\n\nThe title \u2018holy ones\u2019 (v. 1) enables us to identify the \u2018angels\u2019 with\nthe \u2018sons of the Elohim.\u2019 Separateness from human weakness, though not\nmediatorial ability[102] is equally, predicated of both. But neither the\npoet of _Job_, nor any of the psalmists, identifies the phrases in\nexpress terms;[103] a virtual identification (see above, and Ps. lxxxix.\n7, 8) is all that they venture upon. There was a good reason for\nthis\u2014viz. their recollection of the physical and mythological origin of\nthe phrase, \u2018the sons of the Elohim.\u2019 \u2018Angels\u2019 and \u2018sons of the Elohim\u2019\nare indeed alike \u2018holy\u2019 and \u2018servants\u2019 of the supreme God, but not\nalways so, according to Hebrew tradition, were the \u2018sons of the Elohim.\u2019\nIn support of this, we may refer, not only to Gen. vi. 4 (which the\nauthor of _Job_ need not have known), but to the allusions in his poem\n(see above) to a war among the inhabitants of heaven. This war, I think,\nstands in connection not merely with the physical phenomena of light and\ndarkness, but also with speculations of pious Jehovists, or worshippers\nof Jehovah, as to the basis and value of \u2018heathen\u2019 religions. According\nto Deut. xxxii. 8,[104] each of the nations of the world was allotted by\nthe Most High (_Ely\u014dn_)[105] to some one of the \u2018sons of El\u2019 (the\nsimplest name for God); of course we are to suppose that these \u2018sons of\nEl\u2019 and their worshippers were meant to recognise the supremacy of the\n\u2018God of Gods\u2019\u2014Jehovah. But (so we may suppose the train of thought of\nthe Jehovists to have run) the nations and their deities formed the vain\ndream of independence. The result of the struggle between Jehovah and\nthe inferior Elohim is referred to in _Job_: the Elohim renounced their\ndream of independent sovereignty and were admitted into Jehovah\u2019s\nservice. Henceforth they were no longer _sh\u012bd\u012bm_, i.e. \u2018lords\u2019 (?),\nDeut. xxxii. 17, but _mal\u2019ak\u012bm_ \u2018messengers.\u2019 But the \u2018heathen\u2019 nations\ngo on worshipping the Elohim, ignorant that their divinities have been\ndispossessed of their misused lordship.[106] Instead of Him who alone\nhenceforth is \u2018enthroned in the heavens\u2019 (Ps. ii. 4), they honour \u2018that\nwhich is not God\u2019 (Deut. xxxii. 21), phantom-divinities whom they\nlocalise, like Jehovah, in the sky. Thus, except as to the region of the\ndivine habitation, they differ radically from Jehovists like the author\nof _Job_. In that one point he agrees with them: the stars and the \u2018sons\nof Elohim\u2019 he still pictures to himself as closely conjoined (xxxviii.\n6). Thus, the old and the new are fermenting in his brain, and on the\nground of their angelology we can safely date the authors of _Job_\nsomewhere in the great literary period which opens with the \u2018Captivity.\u2019\n\nFootnote 99:\n\n  It is not likely that Satan was ever used entirely as a proper name;\n  but being frequently in men\u2019s mouths, it naturally lost the article.\n  At last the name Sammael was invented for the arch-Satan (see above).\n\nFootnote 100:\n\n  In 2 Sam. xxiv. 1, the temptation is ascribed to Jehovah; the\n  Chronicler is at any rate on the road to James i. 13. Contrast the\n  stationariness of Mohammed (\u2018God misleadeth whom He will,\u2019 Kor\u00e1n,\n  xxxv. 9).\n\nFootnote 101:\n\n  So rightly Baudissin, _Studien_, ii. 125.\n\nFootnote 102:\n\n  Eliphaz apparently assumes that the \u2018holy ones\u2019 might plead for Job\n  with Eloah (comp. xxxiii. 23). There is an analogy for this in Arabian\n  religion. The Koreish (Qurais) tribe were willing to join Mohammed, if\n  he would only admit their three idol-gods to be mediators with the\n  supreme God, and for a time he consented. See Palmer\u2019s Kor\u00e1n, Introd.,\n  p. xxvii. This was equivalent to recognising these heathen deities as\n  _b\u2019ur Elohim_ and also (Eliphaz would say) as _Q\u2019d\u014dsk\u012bm_ or \u2018holy\n  ones.\u2019\n\nFootnote 103:\n\n  The Elohistic narrator in Gen. xxviii. 12, 17, xxxii. 2, 3 even\n  appears to identify the terms \u2018angels of Elohim\u2019 (= God) and \u2018Elohim\u2019\n  (= divine powers). _Beth \u2019el\u014dh\u012bm_ and _makhani\u2019 \u2019el\u014dh\u012bm_ are more\n  naturally rendered \u2018place, host, of divine powers\u2019 than \u2018place, host\n  of God.\u2019\n\nFootnote 104:\n\n  The \u2018Song of Moses\u2019 is placed by Ewald and Kamphausen in the Assyrian\n  period of Israel\u2019s history. Ver. 8 runs, in a corrected version.\n\nFootnote 105:\n\n  \u2018When Ely\u014dn gave the nations as inheritances, when he parted out the\n  sons of men, he set the bounds of the peoples according to the number\n  of the sons of El:\u2019 comp. ver. 9. \u2018For Jehovah is the portion of his\n  people, Jacob is the lot of his inheritance.\u2019 (With many recent\n  critics, I follow the reading of the Septuagint. A scribe, offended by\n  the no longer intelligible statement in ver. 8, inserted an \u0399 before\n  \u0397\u039b, and so formed the usual abbreviation of \u1f38\u03c3\u03c1\u03b1\u03ae\u03bb.) This passage\n  explains Sirach xvii. 17.\n\nFootnote 106:\n\n  There is a singular reference to a still future deposition of the\n  patron spirits of the nations in Isa. xxiv. 21 (post-Exile), with\n  which comp. Ps. lviii., lxxxii. In lxxxii. 6 the title _\u2019el\u014dhim_ is\n  interchanged with _b\u2019n\u0113 \u2019ely\u014dn_ \u2018sons of the Most High.\u2019\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER XI.\n                    ARGUMENT FROM PARALLEL PASSAGES.\n\n\nThe new phase into which the controversy as to the early Christian work\non the _Teaching of the Apostles_ has passed excuses me from justifying\nthe importance (in spite of its difficulty) of the study of parallel\npassages. A great point has been gained in one\u2019s critical and exegetical\ntraining when one has learned so to compare parallel passages as to\ndistinguish true from apparent resemblances, and to estimate the degree\nof probability of imitation. In Essay viii. of vol. ii. of _The\nProphecies of Isaiah_, I endeavoured to help the student to do this for\nhimself within the field of the Book of Isaiah. I shall not attempt this\nwith the same thoroughness for the Book of Job. It is a sign of the\nconsummate skill of the writer that he is an artist even in his\nimitations. As Luther says, \u2018Die Rede dieses Buches ist so reisig und\npr\u00e4chtig als freilich keines Buches in der ganzen Schrift.\u2019 The author\nretains the parallelistic distich, but is no longer content with a bare\nsynonymous or antithetic bifurcation of his material, and dwells on the\ndecoration of an idea with a freedom which sometimes obscures his\nmeaning; hence too the germinal phrase or word suggested by an earlier\nbook may easily escape notice. I shall confine my attention to the most\ndefensible points of contact, referring for the rest, without pledging\nmyself to agreement, to Dr. J. Barth\u2019s _Beitr\u00e4ge zur Erkl\u00e4rung des\nBuches Job_ (Leipzig, _s.a._), pp. 1-17.\n\nThe influence of _Job_ on the works which all admit to be of post-Exile\norigin need not detain us here. There is but one undoubted reference to\nJob in Ecclesiastes (v. 14; comp. Job i. 21)\u2014we should perhaps have\nexpected more. But Sirach with a true instinct detected an affinity\nbetween his own ideas and Job xxviii. (comp. this chapter with Ecclus.\ni. 3, 5, &c.), though he neglects the rest, and does not include our\npoet among the \u2018famous men\u2019 and the \u2018fathers that begot us.\u2019 Passing\nupwards, we shall, if historical criticism be our guide, make our first\npause at the undeniably later psalms and at the later portions of\nIsaiah. In the former compare (as specimens).\n\n                     Ps. ciii. 16 with Job vii. 12\n                     \u2014  cvii. 40  \u2014  \u2014  xii. 21, 24\n                     \u2014   \u2014   41  \u2014  \u2014  xxi. 11\n                     \u2014   \u2014   42  \u2014  \u2014  xxii. 19, v. 16\n                     \u2014  cxix. 28  \u2014  \u2014  xvi. 20\n                     \u2014   \u2014   50  \u2014  \u2014  vi. 10\n                     \u2014   \u2014   69  \u2014  \u2014  xiii. 4\n                     \u2014   \u2014  103  \u2014  \u2014  vi. 25.\n\nThere is, I think, no question that these psalm-passages were inspired\nby the parallels in Job. In Isa. xl.-lxvi. there are, as I have pointed\nout (_Isaiah_, ed. 3, ii. 250), at least twenty-one parallels to\npassages in our poem. I do not, however, think that we can venture to\ndescribe either set of passages _en bloc_ as imitations. But there are\nat least two clear cases of imitation, and here the original is not the\nprophet but the poet (comp. Isa. li. 9_b_, 10_a_, with Job xxvi. 12, 13,\nand Isa. liii. 9 with Job xvi. 17). With regard to the book (II. Isaiah)\nas a whole, or at least the greater part of it, we may say that there is\na parallelism of idea running through it and the Book of job, which may\nto a large extent account for parallelisms of expression. This does not,\nhowever, apply everywhere, least of all to the great prophetic dirge on\nthe \u2018despised and rejected\u2019 one, which presents stylistic phenomena so\nunlike that of its context that we seem bound to assign the substratum\nof Isa. lii. 13-liii. to a time of persecution previous to the\nExile.[107] How the poet of Job became acquainted with this striking\npassage, we know not. Did it form part of some prophetic anthology\nsimilar to the poetic Golden Treasury called \u2018The Book of the\nRighteous\u2019? or shall we follow those bolder critics who suppose the\nauthor of Job to have lived in the post-Exile times, when he may easily\nhave had access to both parts of our Book of Isaiah? These are questions\nnot to be evaded on account of their difficulty, but not to be decided\nhere.\n\nOur next halt may be made at the Book of Proverbs, the three concluding\nsections of which composite work belong at the earliest to the last\ncentury of the Jewish state. Among the clearest literary allusions in\n_Job_ are those to this book, and some of these are especially important\nwith regard to the disputed question of the relation between our poem\nand the introduction to the Book of Proverbs (Prov. i.-ix.) That the\nlatter work is the earlier seems to me clear from a comparison of the\ngeneral positions indicated by the following passages from Prov. i.-ix.\nand the Book of Job. Compare\u2014\n\n                   Prov. i.  7      with Job  xxviii. 28\n                   \u2014  iii. 11       \u2014  \u2014        v. 17\n                   \u2014  iii. 14, 15}  \u2014  \u2014   xxviii. 15-19\n                   \u2014 viii. 10, 11}\n                   \u2014  iii. 19, 20   \u2014  \u2014   xxviii. 26, 27\n                   \u2014 viii. 22, 25   \u2014  \u2014       xv. 7, 8\n                   \u2014 viii. 29       \u2014  \u2014  xxxviii. 10.\n\nIt will be seen by any one who will compare these passages that the case\nhere is different from that of the parallelisms in _Job_ and the second\npart of Isaiah. The latter do not perhaps allow us to determine with\nconfidence which of the two books is the earlier. But, as Prof. Davidson\nhas amply shown,[108] the stage of intellectual development represented\nby _Job_ is more advanced than that in the \u2018Praise of Wisdom.\u2019 The\ngeneral subjects may be the same, but in Job they have entered upon a\nnew phase.\u2014We now pass to the earliest of the proverbial anthologies\n(Prov. x.-xxii. 16). Here of course the relation is reversed: the\nproverbs are the originals to which the author of Job alludes. Compare\u2014\n\n               Prov. xiii. 19 } with Job xviii. 5, 6, xxi. 17\n               \u2014    xxiv. 20 }\n               \u2014      xv. 11    \u2014  \u2014   xxvi. 6\n               \u2014     xvi. 15    \u2014  \u2014   xxix. 23, 24.\n\nWe may infer from this group of parallels that the author of _Job_ not\nonly studied venerated \u2018Solomonic\u2019 models, but even ventured directly to\ncontrovert their leading doctrine; see especially Job xxi. 17. In our\nnext comparison the relation seems reversed. The author of Prov. xxx.\n1-4 not improbably alludes sarcastically to the theophany in Job\nxxxviii.-xlii. 6. Note in passing the occurrence of Eloah for \u2018God\u2019 in\nProv. xxx. 5 (comp. the speeches in _Job_).\n\nThere are several parallels in the Book of Lamentations; I restrict\nmyself to those in the third elegy, which differs in several points from\nthe others, especially in its poetic feebleness. It is easier to believe\nthat the author of the elegy was dependent on _Job_ than to take the\nreverse view. A poem, the hero of which was obviously the typical\nrighteous man, naturally suggested features in the description of the\nrepresentative Israelite. Compare, then, Lam. iii. 7, 9 with Job xix. 8;\niii. 8 with Job xxx. 20; iii. 10 with Job. x. 16; iii. 12, 13 with Job\nvii. 20, xvi. 12, 13; iii. 14, 63 with Job xxx. 9.\n\nParallels to _Job_ also occur in Jeremiah. It is often, indeed, not easy\nto say on which side is the originality. But in one of the most\nimportant instances we may pronounce decidedly in favour of _Job_ (comp.\nJer. xx. 14-18 with Job iii. 3-10). The despairing utterance referred to\nis an exaggeration in the mouth of Job, but suitable enough in\nJeremiah\u2019s. In Job, l.c., we seem to recognise the slightly artificial\nturn which the author loves to give to the ideas and phrases of his\npredecessors; while the cutting irony of the words \u2018making him very\nglad\u2019 (Jer. xx. 15) as clearly betokens the hand of the original writer.\nCompare also Job vi. 15 with Jer. xv. 18; ix. 19 with Jer. xlix. 19; x.\n18-22 with Jer. xx. 14-18; xii. 4, xix. 7 with Jer. xx. 7, 8; xii. 6,\nxxi. 7 with Jer. xii. 1; xix. 24 with Jer. xvii. 1; xxxviii. 33 with\nJer. xxxi. 35, 36.\n\nThere are two plausible points of contact in _Job_ with Deuteronomy\n(comp. Job xxiv. 2, Deut. xix. 14 [removing landmarks]; Job xxxi. 9, 11,\nDeut. xxii. 22), but only one worth mentioning with Genesis (xxii. 16;\ncomp Gen. vi. &c.), and here observe that the word for A.V.\u2019s \u2018flood\u2019\n(Job, l.c.) is not _mabb\u016bl_ but _n\u0101h\u0101r_.[109] Hitzig and Delitzsch find\nanother in xxxi. 33. But _\u0101d\u0101m_ in Job always means \u2018men:\u2019 in xv. 7, 8,\nwhere the first man is referred to, he is not named. The reference in\nxxxi. 33 is not to hiding sins from God, but from man. I think, however,\nthat the Prologue implies a general acquaintance with some current\ndescriptions of the patriarchal period\u2014the \u2018golden age\u2019 to men of a more\nadvanced civilisation.\n\nIt is remarkable, what interesting parallels are afforded by the\nprophets of the Assyrian period. Isaiah, as might be expected, contains\nthe largest number (see _The Prophecies of Isaiah_, ed. 3, ii. 243); but\nHosea follows close after. Compare especially\u2014\n\n     Isa. xix. 5, certainly the     Job xiv. 11, \u2018the waters fail\n     original of Job, l.c., where   from the sea,\u2019 i.e. any inland\n     the special reference to the   body of water\n     sea-like Nile is dropped\n\n\n     Isa. xxviii. 29                Job xi. 6 (God\u2019s wisdom\n                                    marvellous; see Merx, and\n                                    _Isaiah_, ii. 154)\n\n\n     Hos. x. 13, combined with      Job iv. 8 (\u2018ploughing\n     Prov. xxii. 8                  iniquity,\u2019 &c.)\n\n\n     Hos. vi. 1 (or Deut. xxxii.    Job v. 18 (\u2018he maketh sore and\n     39)                            bindeth up,\u2019 &c.)\n\n\n     Hos. v. 14, xiii. 7, 8         Job x. 16 (God compared to a\n                                    lion)\n\n\n     Hos. xiii. 12 (or Deut. xxxii. Job xiv. 17 (\u2018transgression\n     34)                            sealed up,\u2019 &c.)\n\n\n     Am. iv. 13, v. 8 (the          Job ix. 8, 9 (\u2018that treadeth\n     comparison suggests that v. 8, upon the heights of the sea;\n     9 stood immediately after iv.  that maketh the Bear, Orion,\n     13 when Job was written, and   and the Pleiades\u2019)\n     that \u2018the sea,\u2019 i.e. the upper\n     ocean, stood for \u2018the earth\u2019)\n\nComp. also Am. v. 8, ix. 6 with Job xii. 15; Am. ii. 9 with Job xviii.\n16.\n\nI say nothing here of the parallels in the Song of Hezekiah (Isa.\nxxxviii. 10-20). I have shown reason in _Isaiah_, i. 228, for believing\nthat the Song is a highly imitative work, and largely based on Job, such\na work in fact as can only be accounted for in the Exile or post-Exile\nperiod.\n\nThere still remains the great body of psalms of disputed date. The\nparallelisms in Ps. xxxvii.[110] are too general to be mentioned here,\nstriking as they are; but we may venture to compare Ps. viii. 5 with Job\nvii. 17; Ps. xxxix. 12_b_ with Job iv. 19_b_; ib. 14_a_ with Job vii.\n19_a_, x. 20; ib. 14_b_ with Job x. 21, 22; Ps. lxxii. 12 with Job xxix.\n12; ib. 16 with Job v. 25_b_; Ps. lxxxviii. 16_b_ with Job xx. 25 (the\nrare word _\u2019\u0113m\u012bm_); ib. 17 with Job vi. 4 (_bi\u2019\u016bth\u012bm_); ib. 19 (lxix. 9)\nwith Job xix. 14; and note throughout this psalm the same correspondence\nof extreme inward and outward suffering which we find in Job. Then,\nturning to the psalms of different tenor, comp. lxxii. 12 with Job xxix.\n12; ib. 16 with Job v. 25_b_. I have selected these instances precisely\nbecause they allow us to draw an inference as to priority. Ps. lxxxviii.\nis clearly imitative, and no doubt there is more imitation of the great\npoem in other psalms. Psalms viii., xxxix., and (probably) lxxii. were\nhowever known to and imitated by the authors of _Job_. The parallel in\nPs. viii. is specially important. That this psalm is not earlier than\nthe Exile is disputed, but extremely probable; the bitter \u2018parody\u2019 in\nJob vii. 17 must in this case be of the same or a later period.\n\nAnd now to sum up the results of our comparisons. The Colloquies in\n_Job_ are of later origin than Deuteronomy, Jeremiah, Lamentations, and\nmost of Proverbs, but possibly nearly contemporaneous with much in the\nsecond part of Isaiah, except that Isa. liii. not improbably lay before\nthe author of _Job_; also that Ps. viii., a work of the Exile period,\nwas well known to him. We are thus insensibly led on to date the Book of\nJob (the speeches, at any rate) during the Exile. This will account for\nthe large amount of imitation to which the book gave rise. Men felt\nrespecting the author that he was the first and greatest exponent of the\nideas and feelings, not of a long-past age, but of their own; that he\n\u2018sat chief, and dwelt as a king in the army, as one that comforteth the\nmourners\u2019 (Job xxix. 25).\n\nFootnote 107:\n\n  See Cheyne, _The Prophecies of Isaiah_, ed. 3, ii. 30; art. \u2018Isaiah,\u2019\n  _Encyclop\u00e6dia Britannica_, xi. 380.\n\nFootnote 108:\n\n  _The Book of Job_ (1884), pp. lx.-lxii.\n\nFootnote 109:\n\n  According to Ewald, the reference is to Sodom and Gomorrah, the story\n  of which, we know, was familiar as early as Hosea\u2019s time (Hos. xi. 8).\n\nFootnote 110:\n\n  See Bateson Wright\u2019s _The Book of Job_, Appendix. The author concludes\n  that the poet of _Job_ \u2018selects the main threads from the complete\n  treatise of Ps. xxxvii. and interweaves them into the highly poetical\n  discourse of Eliphaz.\u2019\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER XII.\n    ON THE DISPUTED PASSAGES IN THE DIALOGUE-PORTION, ESPECIALLY THE\n                           SPEECHES OF ELIHU.\n\n\nA detailed exegetical study would alone enable the reader to do justice\nto the controversies here referred to. But I may at least ask that, even\nupon the ground of the slender analysis which I have given, he should\nrecognise the difficulties at the root of these controversies. In\ncomparison with his possession of a \u2018seeing eye,\u2019 it is of little moment\nto me whether he adopts my explanations or not. Poets, like painters,\nhave different periods. It is therefore conceivable that the author of\n_Job_ changed in course of time, and criticised his own work, these\nafterthoughts of his being embodied in the \u2018disputed passages.\u2019 It is\nindeed also conceivable that the phenomena which puzzle us are to be\nexplained by the plurality of authorship. In the remarks which follow I\nwish to supplement the sketch of the possible or probable growth of the\nBook offered in section 3 of Chap. VII., chiefly with regard to the\nspeeches of Elihu.\n\nKeil has spoken of \u2018the persistently repeated assaults upon the\ngenuineness\u2019 of these discourses. I must however protest against the use\nof the word \u2018genuineness\u2019 in this connection. Even if not by the author\nof the poem of _Job_, the speeches of Elihu are as \u2018genuine\u2019 a monument\nof Israel\u2019s religious \u2018wisdom\u2019 as the work of the earlier writer. No\ncritic worthy of the name thinks of \u2018assaulting\u2019 them, though divines no\nless orthodox than Gregory the Great and the Venerable Bede have\nuncritically enough set the example. The speeches of Elihu only seem\npoor by comparison with the original work; they are not without true and\nbeautiful passages, which, with all their faults of expression, would in\nany other book have commanded universal admiration. The grounds on which\nchaps. xxxii.-xxxvii. are denied to the original writer may be summed up\nthus.\n\n(1) Elihu puts forward a theory of the sufferings of the righteous which\ndoes not essentially differ from that of the three friends (see\nespecially xxxiii. 25-28; xxxiv. 9, 11, 12, 36, 37; xxxv. 9-16; xxxvi.\n5-7, 21-25; xxxvii. 23, 24). No doubt he improves the theory, by laying\nmore stress upon the chastening character of the righteous man\u2019s\nafflictions (xxxiii. 14-30; xxxvi. 8-12, 15, 16, and comp. Eliphaz in v.\n18, 19), and to many disciples of the New Covenant his form of the\ntheory may recommend itself as true. But, even apart from the appendix\nor epilogue (see xlii. 7-9), it is clear from the whole plan of the\npoem, particularly if the discourses of Jehovah be taken in, that this\nwas not, in the writer\u2019s mind, an adequate solution of the problem,\nespecially in the case of the God-fearing and innocent Job.\n\n(2) These speeches interrupt the connection between the \u2018words of Job\u2019\nand those of Jehovah, and seem to render the latter superfluous. Whether\nthe \u2018words of Job\u2019 (to borrow the phrase of some editor of the book)\nshould end at xxxvii. 37 or at ver. 40, it is difficult not to believe\nthat xxxviii. 1, 2, \u2018And Jehovah answered Job out of the storm, and\nsaid, Who then is darkening counsel by words without knowledge?\u2019 was\nmeant to follow immediately upon them. The force of this seems to some\nto be weakened by taking Elihu\u2019s description of the storm (xxxvii. 2-5)\nas preparatory to the appearance of Jehovah in chap. xxxviii. But,\nevidently, to make this an argument, the storm ought to be at the end of\nthe speech.\n\n(3) There is no mention of Elihu in the Prologue, nor is any divine\njudgment passed upon him in the Epilogue. It is not enough to reply with\nStickel that Jehovah himself is not mentioned in the Prologue as the\numpire in the great controversy; why should he be?\u2014and that the absence\nof any condemnation of Elihu on the part of Jehovah, and the harmony (?)\nbetween Elihu\u2019s and Jehovah\u2019s discourses, sufficiently indicate the good\nopinion of the Divine Judge.\n\n(4) Elihu\u2019s style is prolix and laboured; his phrases often very\nobscure, even where the words separately are familiar. As Davidson\nremarks, there are not only unknown words (these we meet with elsewhere\nin the book), but an unknown use of known words. There is also a deeper\ncolouring of Aramaic (see Appendix), which F. C. Cook, following\nStickel, explains by the supposed Aram\u00e6an origin of the speaker; in this\ncase, it would be a refinement of art which adds a fresh laurel to the\ncrown of the poet. But the statement in xxxii. 2 is that Elihu was \u2018the\nson of Barakel the Buzite, of the kindred of Ram.\u2019 That Ram = Aram is\nunproved; while Buz, as Jer. xxv. 23 shows, is the name of a genuine\nArabian people. It would be better to explain the increased Aramaism by\nthe lapse of a long interval in the writer\u2019s life. This explanation is,\nto me, equivalent to assigning these speeches to a different writer (as\nI have remarked elsewhere, comparing Goethe\u2019s _Faust_). Those who will\nmay adopt it; but my own respect for the poet of _Job_ will not allow me\nto believe that his taste had so much declined as to insert this\ninferior poem into his masterpiece.\n\n(5) Elihu\u2019s allusions to passages in the rest of the book (comp. xxxiii.\n15 with iv. 13; xxxiv. 3 with xii. 11; xxxv. 5 with xxii. 12; xxxv. 8\nwith xxii. 2; xxxvii. 8 with xxxviii. 40) and his minute reproductions\nof sayings of Job (see xxxiii. 8, 9; xxxiv. 5, 6; xxxv. 2, 3) point to\nan author who had the book before him, so far as then known, as a whole.\n\n(6) Elihu\u2019s somewhat scrupulous piety, or shall I call it his advance in\nreverential, contrite devoutness? compared with the three friends,\nsuggests that the poet of Elihu was the child of a later and more sombre\ngeneration which found the original book in some respects disappointing.\n\nPutting all this together, if the main part of the Book of Job belongs\nto the Exile, the Elihu-portion may well belong to the post-Exile\nperiod.\n\nTo this view, it is no objection that, on the one hand, Elihu not merely\n(to express oneself shortly) criticises the position of the three\nfriends, but, by ignoring it, criticises the view of Job\u2019s afflictions\ntaken in the Prologue, and, on the other, has much in common with the\nrest of the book in orthographic, grammatical, and lexical respects. The\nidea that God permits affliction simply to try the disinterestedness of\na good man, is one which might easily shock the feelings of one only too\nconscious that he was not good; and the linguistic points which \u2018Elihu\u2019\nand the rest of the book have in common are such as we should expect to\nfind in works proceeding from the same class of writers. If Jeremiah\nwrote all the pieces which contain Jeremian phraseology, or Isaiah all\nthe prophecies which remind one at all of the great prophet, or the same\n\u2018wise man\u2019 wrote Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, then we may perhaps believe\nthat the author of _Job_ also wrote the speeches of Elihu and perhaps\none or two of the didactic psalms.\n\nProfessor Briggs, the author of that excellent work _Biblical Study_,\ntakes up a different position, which, though not new, acquires some\nauthority from his respected name. He does not see any literary or\ntheological merit in Elihu\u2019s speeches, and yet regards them as \u2018an\nimportant part of the original work.\u2019 The author designed to portray\nElihu as a young and inexperienced man, and uses these ambitious\nfailures \u2018as a literary foil ... to prepare the way for the divine\ninterposition, to quiet and soothe by their tediousness the agitated\nspirits of Job and his friends.\u2019[111] To me, this view of the intention\nof the speeches lowers the character of the original writer. So reverent\nand devout a speaker as Elihu is ill rewarded by being treated as a\nliterary and theological foil. Artistically, the value of this part may\nbe _comparatively_ slight, but theologically it enriches the Old\nTestament with a monument of a truly Christian consciousness of sin. Had\nthe original writer equalled him in this, we should perhaps have missed\na splendid anticipation of the life of Christ, who \u2018did no sin, neither\nwas guile found in his mouth.\u2019 But the Elihu-section expresses in Old\nTestament language the great truth announced by St. Paul in 1 Cor. xi.\n32.[112]\n\nOn the other \u2018disputed passages\u2019 I have little to add.\n\n(_a_) To me, the picture of the beh\u00e9moth and the leviathan (xl. 15-xli.)\nseems but little less probably a later insertion than the speeches of\nElihu; this view of the case has the authority of Ewald. That cautious\ncritic, Dr. Davidson, remarks that this passage has a very different\nkind of movement from that of the tight and graceful sketches in chaps.\nxxxviii., xxxix., and that the poetic inventory which it contains\nreminds us more of an Arab poet\u2019s description of his camel or his horse\n(_Job_, p. liv.)\n\n(_b_) I cannot speak so positively as to the speeches of Jehovah. From a\npurely \u00e6sthetic point of view, I am often as unwilling as any one to\nbelieve that they were \u2018inserted.\u2019 At other times I ask myself, Can the\ninconsistencies of this portion as compared with the Colloquies be\nexplained as mere oversights? The appearance of the Almighty upon the\nscene is in itself strange. Job had no doubt expressed a wish for this,\nbut did not suppose that it could be realised,[113] at any rate in his\nown lifetime. It is still stranger that the Almighty should appear, not\nin the gentle manner which Job had desired (ix. 34, 35), not with the\nobject of a judicial investigation of the case, but in the whirlwind,\nand with a foregone conclusion on Job\u2019s deserts. For in fact that\nsplendid series of ironical questions which occupies chaps. xxxviii.,\nxxxix., and which Job had by anticipation deprecated (ix. 3), is nothing\nless than a long drawn-out condemnation of Job. The indictment and the\ndefendant\u2019s reply, to which Job has referred with such proud\nself-confidence (xxxi. 35, 36), are wholly ignored; and the result is\nthat which Job has unconsciously predicted in the words,\u2014\n\n            To whom, though innocent, I would not reply,\n            but would make supplication unto my Judge (ix. 15).\n\n(_c_) Great difficulties have been found in xxvii. 8 (or 11)-23, xxviii.\nFirst of all, Is there an inner connection between these passages? Dr.\nGreen seeks to establish one. \u2018While continuing,\u2019 he says, \u2018to insist\nupon his own integrity, notwithstanding the afflictions sent upon him,\nhe freely admits, and this in language as emphatic as their own, the\nreality of God\u2019s providential government, and that punishment does\novertake the ungodly. Nevertheless there is a mystery enveloping the\ndivine administration, which is quite impenetrable to the human\nunderstanding\u2019 (_The Book of Job_, p. 233). This is very unnatural.[114]\nHow can Job suddenly adopt the language of the friends without conceding\nthat he has himself hitherto been completely in error? And what right\nhave we to force such a subtle connection between chaps. xxvii. and\nxxviii? Looking at the latter by itself, one cannot help suspecting that\nit once formed part of a didactic treatise similar to the Introduction\nto the Book of Proverbs (see end of Chap. III). For a careful exegetical\nstudy of chaps. xxvii., xxviii., see Giesebrecht (see \u2018Aids to the\nStudent,\u2019 after Chap. XV.), with whom Dr. Green seems to accord, but who\nfails to convince me. See also Budde in his _Beitr\u00e4ge_, and Gr\u00e4tz, \u2018Die\nIntegrit\u00e4t der Kap. 27 und 28 im Hiob,\u2019 _Monatsschrift_, 1872, p. 241\n&c.\n\nFootnote 111:\n\n  _Presbyterian Review_, 1885, p. 353.\n\nFootnote 112:\n\n  Delitzsch, art. \u2018Hiob,\u2019 Herzog-Plitt\u2019s _Realencyklop\u00e4die_, vi. 132.\n\nFootnote 113:\n\n  Since this wish cannot be realised, Job pleads his cause against an\n  invisible God with the same earnestness as if he stood before His\n  face.\n\nFootnote 114:\n\n  It is a pleasure to quote the forcible summing-up of Mr. Froude. \u2018A\n  difficulty,\u2019 he remarks, \u2018now arises which, at first sight, appears\n  insurmountable. As the chapters are at present printed, the entire of\n  the 27th is assigned to Job, and the paragraph from the 11th to the\n  23rd verses is in direct contradiction to all which he has maintained\n  before\u2014is, in fact, a concession of having been wrong from the\n  beginning. Ewald, who, as we said above, himself refuses to allow the\n  truth of Job\u2019s last and highest position, supposes that he is here\n  receding from it, and confessing what an over-precipitate passion had\n  betrayed him into denying. For many reasons, principally because we\n  are satisfied that Job said then no more than the real fact, we cannot\n  think Ewald right; and the concessions are too large and too\n  inconsistent to be reconciled even with his own general theory of the\n  poem\u2019 (_Short Studies_, vol. i.) He then proceeds to mention with\n  cautious approbation the theory of Kennicott (see note on Text at end\n  of Chap. XV.)\n\n\n\n\n                             CHAPTER XIII.\n                      IS JOB A HEBR\u00c6O-ARABIC POEM?\n\n\nThat the Book of Job is not as deeply penetrated with the spirit of\nrevelation, nor even as distinctly Israelitish a production, as most of\nthe Old Testament writings, requires no argument. May we venture to go\nfurther, and infer from various phenomena that, not merely the artistic\nform of the _m\u0101sh\u0101l_, but the thoughts and even the language of _Job_\ncame in a greater or less degree from a foreign source? The question has\nbeen answered in the affirmative (as in the case of the words of Agur in\nProv. xxx., and those of Lemuel in chap. xxxi.) by some early as well as\nsome more modern writers. This view has been supposed to be implied in\nthe Greek postscript to the Septuagint version[115] (strongly redolent\nof Jewish Midrash), which contains the statement, \u03bf\u1f57\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f11\u03c1\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f10\u03ba\n\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03a3\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b2\u03af\u03b2\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5, but though Origen appears so to have\nunderstood,[116] it is more probable that \u03bf\u1f57\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 merely refers to the\npostscript (Zunz; Frankl). Ibn Ezra, however, on independent grounds\ndoes express the opinion (commenting on Job ii. 11) that the Book of Job\nis a translation; he ascribes to the translator the words in xxxviii. 1\ncontaining the sacred name Jehovah. The increased study of Arabic in the\n17th century led several theologians of eminence to the same conclusion.\nSpanheim, for instance, thought that Job and his friends wrote down the\nhistory and the colloquies in Arabic, after the happy turn in the\nfortunes of the sufferer, and that some inspired Israelitish writer, in\nthe age of Solomon, gave this work a Hebrew dress. Albert Schultens, in\nthe preface to his _Liber Jobi_ (1737), is at the pains to discuss this\ntheory, which he rejects on two main grounds, (1) the disparagement to\nour magnificent Book of Job involved in calling it a translation, and\n(2) that in those primitive and, according to him, pre-Mosaic times, the\nHebrew and Arabic languages cannot have been so different (!) as\nSpanheim from his point of view imagines. Elsewhere he expresses his own\nopinion shortly thus,[117] \u2018Linguam qu\u00e2 liber Jobi conscriptus est,\ngenuinum illius temporis Arabismum esse.\u2019 He actually imagines that Job\nand his friends extemporised the Colloquies we have before us, referring\nto the amazing faculty of improvisation still possessed by the Arabs\u2014a\nview scarcely worthier than that of Spanheim, for, as Martineau remarks\nin another connection, Who ever improvised a great poem or a great\nsermon? Both these great scholars have fallen into the error of\nconfounding the poet with his hero and the use of poetic and didactic\nfiction with deliberate fraud. One cannot be severe upon this error, for\nit has survived among ourselves in Prof. S. Lee\u2019s great work (1837),\nwhere our Book of Job is actually traced back through Jethro to Job\nhimself. The only form however in which a critic of our day could\ndiscuss the question mentioned above would be this, Is it in some degree\nprobable that the author of _Job_ was a Hebrew who had passed some time\nwith the Arabic- and Aramaic-speaking peoples bordering on the land of\nIsrael?\n\nOn grounds independent of Eichhorn and Dean Plumptre, the former of whom\ncombines his theory with that of a pre-Mosaic, and the latter with that\nof a Solomonic date of _Job_, I think that we may venture to reply in\nthe affirmative. These grounds have reference (1) to the ideas of _Job_,\n(2) to its vocabulary.\n\n(1) I am well aware that the argument from the ideas of _Job_ cannot\nclaim a strong degree of cogency. It is possible to account for the\nconceptions of the author from the natural progress of the\n(divinely-guided) moral and religious history of Israel, and those who\nbelieve (I do not myself) that Psalms xvii., xxxvii., xlix., lxxiii.,\nare Palestinian works of earlier date than _Job_ will have a ready\nargument in favour of a purely native origin of the latter book. Still\nit seems to me that we can still better account for the author\u2019s point\nof view by supposing that he was in sympathy with an intellectual\nmovement going on outside Israel. The doctrine of retribution in the\npresent life, which he finds inadequate, is common to the friends and to\nthe religion which has in all ages been that of the genuine Arab\u2014the\nso-called _d\u012bn Ibr\u0101h\u012bm_ (or \u2018religion of Abraham\u2019). The Eloah and the\nShaddai of Job are the irresponsible Allah who has all power in heaven\nand on earth, and before whom, when mysteries occur in human life which\nthe retribution-doctrine cannot solve, the Arab and every true Moslem\nbows his head with settled, sad resignation. The morality alike of the\n_d\u012bn Ibr\u0101h\u012bm_, and of the religion of Mohammed (who professed to restore\nit in its purity), is faulty precisely as the religion of the three\nfriends (and originally of Job himself) is faulty. The same conflict\nwhich arose in the heart of Job arose in the midst of the Moslem world.\nI refer to the dispute between the claimants of orthodoxy and the sect\nof the Mo\u2019tazilites (8th and 9th centuries); the latter, who were\nworsted in the strife, viewed God as the absolutely Good, the former as\na despotic and revengeful tyrant.[118] May not this conflict have been\nforeshadowed at an earlier time? Is not the difficulty which led to it a\nconstantly recurring one, so soon as reflection acquires a certain\ndegree of maturity? It may well have been felt among the Jews,\nespecially in the decline of the state, but it must also have been felt\namong their neighbours, and freedom of speech has always, in historical\ntimes, been an Arab characteristic. Putting aside the anachronism of\nplacing Job in the patriarchal age, does not the poet himself appear to\nhint that it was so felt by the names and tribal origins of the speakers\nin the great religious discussion?\n\n(2) As to the Arabisms and Aramaisms of the language of _Job_ (see\nAppendix). Jerome already says that his own translation follows none of\nthe ancients, but reproduces, now the words, now the sense, and now\nboth, \u2018ex ipso hebraico arabicoque sermone et interdum syro.\u2019 In the\n17th and 18th centuries, De Dieu, Bochart, and above all Schultens made\nit a first principle in the study of _Job_ to illustrate it from Aramaic\nand especially Arabic. Schultens even describes the language as not so\nmuch Hebrew, as Hebr\u00e6o-Arabic, and says that it breathes the true and\nunmixed genius of Arabia. This is every way an exaggeration, and yet,\nafter all reasonable deductions, our poem will stand out from the Old\nTestament volume by its foreign linguistic affinities. It is not enough\nto say that the Arabisms and Aramaisms have from the first formed part\nof the Hebrew vocabulary, and were previously employed only because the\nsubjects of the other books did not call for their use. Unless a more\nthorough study of Assyrian should prove that the Arabism (for of these I\nam chiefly thinking) belonged to northern as well as to southern\nSemitic, it will surely be more natural to suppose that the author of\n_Job_ replenished his vocabulary from Arabic sources. There is not a\nlittle in the phraseology of _Job_ which is still as obscure as in the\ndays of Ibn Ezra, but which receives, or may yet receive, illustration\nfrom the stores of written and spoken Arabic.[119]\n\nMay we not, in short, conjecture that the poem of Job is a grand attempt\nto renovate and enrich the Hebrew language?[120] If so, the experiment\ncan hardly have been made before the great subversion of Hebrew\ntraditions at the Babylonian captivity. Residence in a foreign land\nproduces a marked effect on one\u2019s language. Recollect too that our\nauthor was a literary man. Internal evidence converges to show that Job\nbelonged to that great literary movement among the wise men,\nphilosophers, or humanists, to which we shall have to refer Prov. i-ix.,\nthe Wisdom of Sirach, and the Book of Ecclesiastes.\n\nBefore leaving this subject, let us notice the parallels to descriptions\nin the speeches of Jehovah in the Arabian poets, who show the same\nattention to the striking phenomena of earth and sky as the author of\nthese speeches. The Arabian tone and colouring of the descriptions of\nanimals in _Job_ has been already remarked upon by Alfred von Kremer in\nvol. ii. of his _Culturgeschichte des Orients_. Is it possible to\nconceive that those sketches of the wild goat, the wild ass, and the\nhorse, were not written by one who was familiar with the sight? Or that\nthe author had not observed the habits of the ostrich, when he penned\nhis lines on the ostrich\u2019s neglect of her eggs? Or that his interest in\nastronomy was not deepened by the spectacle of a night-sky in Arabia? Or\nthat personal experience of caravan life did not inspire the touching\nfigure in vi. 15-20? And observation of the mines in the Sinaitic\npeninsula[121] the fine description of xxviii. 1-10? It is possible that\nsome of these passages may be due to other travelled \u2018wise men;\u2019 but\nthis only increases the probability that the Hebrew movement was\nstrengthened by contact with similar movements abroad. The \u2018wise men\u2019\nhad certainly travelled far and wide among Arabic-speaking populations,\nthough nowhere perhaps were they so much at home as in Idum\u00e6a and its\nneighbourhood. As M. Derenbourg remarks, \u2018Les riantes oasis, au milieu\ndes contr\u00e9es d\u00e9sol\u00e9es, environnant la mer Morte, \u00e9taient la demeure des\nsages et des r\u00eaveurs. Bien des si\u00e8cles apr\u00e8s l\u2019auteur de Job, les\nEss\u00e9niens et les Th\u00e9rapeutes se plongeaient l\u00e0 dans la vie\ncontemplative, ou bien ils se livraient \u00e0 une vie simple, active et\nd\u00e9gag\u00e9e de tout souci mondain. Encore un peu plus tard cette contr\u00e9e\ndevint probablement le berceau de la kabbale ou du mysticisme juif.\u2019\n\nFootnote 115:\n\n  There is a doubt whether the Septuagint postscript or the statement of\n  the Egyptian Jew (?) Aristeas (as given by Eusebius from Alexander\n  Polyhistor in _Pr\u00e6f. Evang._ l. ix.) be the earlier. The ordinary view\n  is that Aristeas had the Septuagint _Job_ before him; Freudenthal,\n  however, infers from the strange description of Eliphaz, Bildad, and\n  Zophar in Sept. Job ii. 11 (taken verbally from Aristeas) that the\n  reverse was the case, and that the fragment of Aristeas is only a\n  condensed extract from the prologue and epilogue of the Book of Job\n  (Freudenthal, _Hellenistische Studien_, 139, 140; Gr\u00e4tz,\n  _Monatsschrift_, 1877, p. 91). This inference in turn suggests Gr\u00e4tz\u2019\n  hypothesis that the Septuagint Job is a work of the first century A.D.\n  (see note at end of Chap. XV.)\n\nFootnote 116:\n\n  _Opera_, Delarue, ii. 851, _ap._ Delitzsch, _Iob_, p. 603.\n\nFootnote 117:\n\n  _Opera minora_ (Lugd. Bat. 1769), p. 497.\n\nFootnote 118:\n\n  Kremer, _Herrschende Ideen des Islams_, p. 27 &c.; Kuenen, _Hibbert\n  Lectures_, p. 48 &c.\n\nFootnote 119:\n\n  Prof. Socin once observed to me how useful spoken Arabic would be\n  found for this purpose.\n\nFootnote 120:\n\n  Arabic literary history presents an example of literary experimenting\n  which will at once occur to the mind\u2014the \u2018Maqamas\u2019 or Sessions of\n  Hariri.\n\nFootnote 121:\n\n  On the mining passage see further p. 40. Stickel, however, though\n  inclining to the above view, thinks that it is still not quite\n  impossible that Palestinian mines are meant, comparing Edrisi\u2019s\n  statements on the iron-mines of Ph\u0153nicia and the words of the\n  Deuteronomist in Deut. viii. 9. _Das Buch Hiob_, pp. 265-6.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER XIV.\n                THE BOOK FROM A RELIGIOUS POINT OF VIEW.\n\n\n    Motto: \u2018Jedem n\u00e4mlich wollte ich dienen, der hinl\u00e4nglich Sinn hat in\n    die grosse Frage tiefer einzugehen, welche das ernste Leben einmal\n    gewiss an Jeden heranbringt, nach der Gerechtigkeit der g\u00f6ttlichen\n    Waltung in den menschlichen Geschicken.\u2019\u2014STICKEL (_Das Buch Hiob_,\n    Einl. S. vi.)\n\n\nThere was a period, not so long since, when a Biblical writing was\nvalued according to its supposed services to orthodox theology. From\nthis point of view, the Book of Job was regarded partly as a typical\ndescription of the sufferings of our Saviour,[122] partly as a\nrepository of text-proofs of Christian doctrines, which though few in\nnumber acquired special importance from the immense antiquity assigned\nto the poem. We must not, in our reaction from the exclusively\ntheological estimate of the Old Testament, shut our eyes to the\nsignificance of each of its parts in the history of the higher religion.\nThe Book of Job _is_ theological, though the theology of its writer,\nbeing that of a poet, is less logical than that of an apostle, less\ndefinite even than that of a prophet, in so far as the prophet obtained\n(or seemed to obtain) his convictions by a message or revelation from\nwithout. Being a poet, moreover, the writer of _Job_ can even less than\na prophet have had clear conceptions of the historical Messiah and His\nperiod. Moral and spiritual truths\u2014these were his appointed province,\nnot the secret counsels of God, nor those exceptional facts or truths\nwhich orthodoxy still perhaps regards as among the postulates of the\nfaith of the Hebrew prophets. Nor can the hero of the poem be considered\na strict and proper type of the Christ, for this reason among others,\nthat Job is to all intents and purposes a creation of the fancy, whether\nof the unconsciously working fancy of the people, or of the rich and\npotent imagination of a poet. In what sense, then, may the Book of Job\nstill claim a theological significance, and be allowed to fill a not\nunimportant place in the _Vorgeschichte_ of Christianity?\n\nI. The hero of the poem (I exclude from consideration the speeches of\nElihu[123]) is, not indeed a type, but in some sense prophetic of the\nChrist, inasmuch as the very conception of a righteous man enduring vast\ncalamities, not so much for his own sake as for the world\u2019s, is a bold\nhypothesis which could only in the Christ be made good. The poet does\nmore than merely personify the invisible Church of righteous and\nbelieving sufferers; he idealises this Church in doing so, and this\nidealising is a venture of faith. Job is an altogether exceptional\nfigure: he is imperfect, no doubt, if viewed as a symbol of the Christ,\nbut this does not diminish the reality and the grandeur of the\npresentiment which he embodies. To a religious mind, this remarkable\ncreation will always appear stamped by the hand of Providence. Job is\nnot indeed a Saviour, but the imagination of such a figure prepares the\nway for a Saviour. In the words of Dr. Mozley, \u2018If the Jew was to accept\na Messiah who was to lead a life of sorrow and abasement, and to be\ncrucified between thieves, it was necessary that it should be somewhere\nor other distinctly taught that virtue was not always rewarded here, and\nthat therefore no argument could be drawn from affliction and ignominy\nagainst the person who suffered it.\u2019[124]\n\nII. This then is the grandest of the elements in the Book of Job which\nhelped to prepare the noblest minds among the Jews for the reception of\nprimitive Christianity\u2014viz. the idea of a righteous man suffering simply\nbecause (as was said of One parallel in many respects to Job) \u2018it\npleased Jehovah (for a wise purpose) to bruise him.\u2019 The second element\nis the idea of a supra-mundane justice, which will one day manifest\nitself in favour of the righteous sufferer, not only in this world (xvi.\n18, 19, xix. 25, xlii.), so that all men may recognise their innocence,\nbut also beyond the grave, the sufferers themselves being in some\nundefined manner brought back to life in the conscious enjoyment of\nGod\u2019s favour (xiv. 13-15, xix. 26, 27?) There may be only suggestions of\nthese ideas, but suggestions were enough when interpreted by sympathetic\nreaders. Let me add that by \u2018sympathetic,\u2019 I mean in sympathy with the\nconception of God formed by the author of _Job_. Nothing is more out of\nsympathy with this conception than the saying of the Jewish scholar, S.\nD. Luzzatto, \u2018The God of Job is not the God of Israel, the Gracious One;\nHe is the Almighty and the Righteous, but not the Kind and Faithful\nOne.\u2019 No; the God of Job would be less than infinitely righteous if He\nwere not also kind (comp. Ps. lxii. 12). And of this enlarged conception\nof God, faith in the continuance of the human spirit is a consequence.\nJustice to those with whom God is in covenant requires that He should\nnot after a few years hurl them back into non-existence (comp. Job x.\n8-13). But I can only skirt the fringe of the great religious problems\nopened by this wonderful book.\n\nIn conclusion, and in the spirit of my motto, let me invite the reader\u2019s\nattention (even if he be no theologian) to the spectacle of a powerful\nmind dashing itself against perennial problems too mighty for it to\nsolve. The author of our poem missed the only adequate and possible\nsolution, and hence he has been erroneously regarded by several moderns\nas the representative of a mental attitude akin to their own. Heine, for\ninstance, can term this book \u2018the Song of Songs of scepticism.\u2019 No doubt\nthose who are at sea on religious matters can find sayings in _Job_\nwhich may seem as if spoken by themselves; but in truth these only\nenhance the significance of the counteracting elements in the poem. It\nis the logical incompleteness of _Job_ which at once exposes the book to\nmisjudgment, and gives it an eternal fascination. As Quinet has said,\n\u2018Ce qui fait la grandeur de ce livre, c\u2019est qu\u2019en d\u00e9passant la mesure de\nl\u2019Ancien Testament il appelle, il provoque n\u00e9cessairement des cieux\nnouveaux.... Le christianisme vit au fond de ce blasph\u00e8me.\u2019 We need a\nsecond part of _Job_, or at least a third speech of Jehovah, which could\nhowever only be given by some Hebrew poet who had drunk at the fountains\nof the Fourth Gospel. Failing these, the reader must supply what is\nnecessary for himself,\u2014a better compensation to Job for his agony than\nthe Epilogue provides, and a more touching and not less divine theophany\n(comp. Job ix. 32, 33). This Christianity will enable him to do.\nIntellectually, the problem of Job\u2019s life may remain, but to the\nChristian heart the cloud is luminous.\n\n                The Infinite remains unknown,\n                  Too vast for man to understand:\n                In Him, the \u2018Woman\u2019s Seed,\u2019 alone\n                  We trace God\u2019s footprint in the sand.[125]\n\nFootnote 122:\n\n  \u2018The Church in all ages has regarded the one as a type of the other,\u2019\n  Turner, _Studies Biblical and Oriental_, p. 150. But Del. has already\n  dissuaded from insisting too much on the historic character of the\n  story of Job. \u2018The endurance of Job\u2019 (James v. 11) is equally\n  instructive whether the story be real (_wirklich_) or only ideally\n  true (_wahr_); and if by the phrase \u2018the end of the Lord\u2019 St. James\n  refers to the Passion of Jesus (to me, however, this appears\n  doubtful), he can be claimed with as much reason for the view of Job\n  here adopted as for the older theory advocated by Turner.\n\nFootnote 123:\n\n  On the Elihu-section, see Chap. XII.\n\nFootnote 124:\n\n  Mozley, _Essays_, ii. 227; comp. Turner, _Studies_, p. 149.\n\nFootnote 125:\n\n  Aubrey De Vere. Need I guard myself on the subject of Gen. iii. 15,\n  referred to in a recent memorable debate in the _Nineteenth Century_?\n  A strict Messianic interpretation is, since Calvin\u2019s time, impossible\n  to the exegete, but the application of the words to Jesus Christ is\n  dear to the Christian heart, and perfectly consistent with a sincere\n  exegesis. M. R\u00e9ville would, I think, concede this to Mr. Gladstone.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER XV.\n       THE BOOK OF JOB FROM A GENERAL AND WESTERN POINT OF VIEW.\n\n\nThe Book of Job is even less translatable than the Psalter. And why?\nBecause there is more nature in it. \u2018He would be a poet,\u2019 says Thoreau,\n\u2018who could impress the winds and streams into his service to speak for\nhim.\u2019 They do speak for the poet of _Job_; the \u2018still sad music of\nhumanity\u2019 is continually relieved by snatches from the grand symphonies\nof external nature. And hence the words of _Job_ are \u2018so true and\nnatural that they would appear to expand like the buds at the approach\nof spring.\u2019 It is only a feeble light which the Authorised Version sheds\nupon this poem; and even the best prose translation must for several\nreasons be inadequate. Perhaps, though English has no longer its early\nstrength, a true poet might yet achieve some worthy result. Rarely has\nthe attempt been made. George Sandys was said by Richard Baxter to have\n\u2018restored Job to his original glory,\u2019 but he lived before the great era\nof Semitic studies. The poetical translator of _Job_ must not disdain to\nconsult critical interpreters, and yet by his own unassisted skill could\nhe bring this Eastern masterpiece home to the Western reader? I doubt\nit. Even more than most imaginative poems the Book of Job needs the help\nof the painter. It is not surprising therefore that a scholar of Giotto\nshould have detected the pictorial beauties of the story of Job. Though\nonly two of the six Job-frescoes remain entire, the Campo Santo of Pisa\nwill be impoverished when time and the sea-air effect the destruction of\nthese. I know not whether any modern painter besides William Blake has\nillustrated Job. He, a \u2018seer\u2019 born out of due time, understood this\nwonderful book as no modern before him had done. The student will get\nmore help of a certain kind from the illustrations thus reproduced in\nthe second volume of Gilchrist\u2019s _Life of William Blake_, compared with\nthe sympathetic descriptions by Blake\u2019s biographer (vol. i. pp.\n330-333), than from any of the commentaries old or new.\n\nIn every respect the poem of _Job_ stands in a class by itself. More\nthan any other book in the Hebrew canon it needs bringing near to the\nmodern reader, untrained as he is in Oriental and especially in Semitic\nmodes of thought and imagination. Such a reader\u2019s first question will\nprobably relate to the poetic form of the book. Is it, for instance, a\ndrama? Theodore of Mopsuestia (died 428) answered in the affirmative,\nthough he was censured for this by the Council of Constantinople. The\nauthor of Job, he says, wronged the grand and illustrious story by\nimitating the manner of the pagan tragedians. \u2018Inde et illas\nplasmationes fecit, in quibus certamen ad Deum fecit diabolus, et voces\nsicut voluit circumposuit, alias quidem justo, alias vero amicis.\u2019[126]\n\nBishop Lowth devotes two lectures of his _Sacred Poetry_ to the same\nquestion. He replies in the negative, after comparing Job with the two\n\u0152dipi of Sophocles (dramas with kindred subjects), on the ground that\naction is of the essence of a drama and the Book of Job contains not\neven the simplest action. Afterwards indeed he admits that Job has at\nleast one point in common with a regular drama, viz. the vivid\npresentation of several distinct characters in a tragic situation. The\nview that it is an epic, held in recent times by Dr. Mason Good and M.\nGodet, found favour with one no less than John Milton, who speaks, as he\nwho knows, of \u2018that epic form, whereof the two poems of Homer and those\nother two of Virgil and Tasso are a diffuse, and the Book of Job a brief\nmodel.\u2019[127] Something is to be said for this opinion if _Paradise\nRegained_ be a true epic. Dialogue with the addition of a certain amount\nof narrative is, roughly speaking, the literary form of the Book of Job\nas well as of the unequally great English poem, and Coleridge is\nprobably right in representing Milton as indebted to the former for his\nplan. It is however open to us to doubt not only whether _Paradise\nRegained_ is a true epic poem, but whether any section of the Book of\nJob except the Prologue partakes of the nature of an epic. The Prologue\ncertainly does; it is more than a mere introduction to the subsequent\nspeeches; it is an independent poetical narrative,[128] if not a\nnarrative poem; nor is there wanting a strong infusion of that\nsupernatural element which tradition regards as essential to the epic.\nTrue, it is a torso, but this does not interfere with its genuinely\npoetic character: it is, as Milton says, a \u2018brief model\u2019 or miniature of\nan epic poem. The Colloquies on the other hand are as undoubtedly a\ngerminal character-drama, as the Song of Songs is a germinal\nstage-drama. The work belongs to the same class as Goethe\u2019s _Iphigenie_\nand _Tasso_; only there is much more passion in it than in these great\nbut distinctively modern poems. Some one has said that \u2018there is no\naction and reaction between the speakers\u2019 [in the Colloquies]. This is\nan over-statement. Not only is each speaker consistent with his type of\ncharacter, but the passionate excitement of Job, and his able though\nfragmentary confutation of his opponents, do produce an effect upon the\nlatter, do force them to take up a new position, though not indeed to\nrecall their original thesis.[129]\n\nBut in order to bring the Book of Job nearer to the modern Western mind,\nwe must not only study it from the point of view of form, but also\ncompare its scope and range with those of the loftiest modern Western\npoems of similar import; only then shall we discover the points in which\nit is distinctively ancient, Oriental, Semitic.\u2014The greatest English\nwork of kindred moral and religious import is _Paradise Lost_. Like\n_Job_, it is a theodicy, though of a more complex character, and aims\n\n                    ... (to) assert eternal Providence,\n                    And justify the ways of God to man.\n\nAnd the author of _Paradise Lost_, though not to be equalled with the\nfounders of Biblical religion, is still distinguished from all modern\npoets (except Dante and Bunyan) by his singularly intense faith in the\noperations of the Divine Spirit. That prayer of his, beginning \u2018And\nchiefly Thou, O Spirit,\u2019 and a well-known parallel passage in his\n_Reason of Church Government_, prove conclusively that he held no\ncontracted views as to the limits of Inspiration. This, in addition to\nhis natural gifts, explains the overpowering impression of reality\nproduced by the visions of Milton, and perhaps in a still greater degree\nby those of our Puritan prose-poet, John Bunyan. A similar faith in the\ndivine Spirit, but more original and less affected by logical theories,\nwas one great characteristic of the author of _Job_. He felt, like all\nthe religious \u2018wise men\u2019 (of whom more presently), that true wisdom was\nbeyond mortal ken, and could only be obtained by an influence from\nabove. In the strength of this confidence he ventured, like Milton, on\nuntrodden paths, and presumed to chronicle, in symbolic form,\ntransactions of the spiritual world. Whether or not he believed in the\nSatan of the Prologue, as a Sunday School child might, we need not\ndecide; that he used popular beliefs in a wide, symbolic sense, has been\npointed out elsewhere. Probably both Milton and he, if questioned on the\nsubject, would have replied in the spirit of those words of our Lord,\n\u2018If ye will receive it,\u2019 and \u2018All men cannot receive this saying.\u2019 It is\nnot to be forgotten that the author of _Job_ distinctly places the Satan\nin a somewhat humorous light, and though Milton is far from doing the\nsame, yet we know from _Comus_ that the conception of a symbol was as\nfamiliar to him as to Lord Bacon. Notice, in conclusion, that Milton\u2019s\nSatan, though unlike the Satan of his predecessor in some points,[130]\nresembles him in this striking particular, that he is not yet (in spite\nof Milton\u2019s attempt to represent him as such) the absolutely evil being.\n\n_Faust_ has in some respects a better right to be compared with _Job_\nthan _Paradise Lost_. Not so much indeed in the Prologue, though Goethe\ndeserves credit for detecting the humorous element in the Hebrew poet\u2019s\nSatan, an element which he has transferred, though with much\nexaggeration, to his own Mephistopheles. Neither the Satan nor\nMephistopheles (a remote descendant of the Hebrew[131] _mastema_, from\nthe root _satam=satan_) is the Origin of Evil in a personal form,[132]\nbut the Hebrew poet would never have accepted the description in _Faust_\nof the peculiar work of the \u2018denying spirit.\u2019 But in the body of the\npoem there is this marked similarity to the Book of Job\u2014that the problem\ntreated of is a purely moral and spiritual one; the hero first loses and\nthen recovers his peace of mind; it is the counterpart in pantheistic\nhumanism of what St. Paul terms working out one\u2019s own salvation. Still\nthere are great and most instructive divergences between the two\nwriters. Observe, first, the complete want of sympathy with positive\nreligion\u2014with the religion from which Faust wanders\u2014on the part of the\nmodern poet. Next, a striking difference in the characteristics of Job\nand Faust respectively. Faust succumbs to his boundless love of\nknowledge, alternating with an unbridled sensual lust; Job is on the\nverge of spiritual ruin through his demand for such an absolute\ncorrespondence of circumstances to character as can only be realised in\nanother world. The greatness of Faust lies in his intellect; that of Job\n(who in chap. xxviii. directly discourages speculation) in his virtue.\nHence, finally, Faust requires (even from a pantheistic point of view)\nto be pardoned, while Job stands so high in the divine favour that\nothers are pardoned on his account.\n\nA third great poem which deserves to be compared with _Job_ is the\n_Divina Commedia_. Dante has the same purpose of edification as the\nauthor of _Job_ and even of _Faust_, though he has not been able to fuse\nthe didactic and narrative elements with such complete success as\nGoethe. Nor is he so intensely autobiographical as either Goethe or the\nauthor of _Job_; his own story is almost inextricably interlaced with\nthe fictions which he frames as the representative of the human race. He\nallows us to see that he has had doubts (_Parad._ iv. 129), and that\nthey have yielded to the convincing power of Christianity (_Purgat._\niii. 34-39), but it was not a part of his plan to disclose, like the\nauthor of _Job_, the vicissitudes of his mental history. In two points,\nhowever\u2014the width of his religious sympathies (which even permits him to\nborrow from the rich legendary material of heathendom[133]) and the\nmorning freshness of his descriptions of nature\u2014he comes nearer to the\nauthor of _Job_ than either Goethe or Milton, while in the absoluteness\nand fervour of his faith Milton is in modern times his only rival.\n\nThe preceding comparison will, it is hoped, leave the reader with a\nsense of our great literary as well as religious debt to the author of\n_Job_. His gifts were varied, but in one department his originality is\nnothing less than Homeric; his Colloquies are the fountain-head from\nwhich the great river of philosophic poetry took its origin. He is the\nfirst of those poet-theologians from whom we English have learned so\nmuch, and who are all the more impressive as teachers because the truths\nwhich they teach are steeped in emotion, and have for their background a\ncomprehensive view of the complex and many-coloured universe.\n\nFootnote 126:\n\n  Migne, _Synes. et Theod._, col. 698. Comp. Kihn, _Theodor von\n  Mopsuestia_, p. 68 &c.\n\nFootnote 127:\n\n  _The Reason of Church Government_, Book II.\n\nFootnote 128:\n\n  Comp. Bateson Wright, _The Book of Job_, pp. 29-31.\n\nFootnote 129:\n\n  Bunsen observes, not badly, \u2018Hiob ist ein semitisches Drama aus der\n  Zeit der Gefangenschaft. Das Dramatische windet sich aber erst aus dem\n  Epos heraus, ohne eine selbstst\u00e4ndige Gestalt zu gewinnen.\u2019 _Gott in\n  der Geschichte_, i. 291.\n\nFootnote 130:\n\n  Compare Satan after his overthrow with Tasso\u2019s Soldan (_Gerus. Lib._,\n  c. ix., st. 98.)\n\nFootnote 131:\n\n  Mr. Sutherland Edwards (_Fortnightly Review_, Nov. 1885, p. 687)\n  states that Hebrew etymologies have proved failures. But the steps of\n  the change from _mastema_ to Mephistopheles are all proved, beginning\n  with the name Mastiphat, for the prince of the demons, in the\n  chronographers Syncellus and Georg. Cedrenus (comp. \u039c\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03c6\u03b1\u03ac\u03c4 =\n  Mastema in the Book of Jubilees). Comp. Diez, _Roman. W\u00f6rterbuch_, i.\n  pp. xxv., xxvi.\n\nFootnote 132:\n\n  Turner and Morshead, _Faust_ (1882), pp. 307-8.\n\nFootnote 133:\n\n  On the parallel phenomena in Job, see Chap. IX.\n\n\n\n\n                   NOTE ON JOB AND THE MODERN POETS.\n\n\nJob, like Spenser, should be the poet of poets; but though Goethe has\nimitated him in royal fashion, and here and there other poets such as\nDante may offer allusions, yet Milton is the only poet who seems to have\nabsorbed Job. _Paradise Regained_ is in both form and contents a free\nimitation of the Book of Job, the story of which is described in i.\n368-370, 424-6, iii. 64-67. The following are the principal allusions in\n_Paradise Lost_:\u2014i. 63, comp. Job x. 22; ii. 266, comp. Job iv. 16; ii.\n603, comp. Job xxiv. 19 Vulg.; iv. 999, comp. Job xxviii. 25; vii. 253-4\n(Hymn on the Nativity, st. 12), comp. Job xxxviii. 4-7; vii. 373-5,\ncomp. Job xxxviii. 31; vii. 102, comp. Job xxxviii. 5. Shelley, too, is\nsaid to have delighted in Job; I must leave others to trace this in his\nworks. I conclude with Thomas Carlyle. The words\u2014\u2018Was Man with his\nExperience present at the Creation, then, to see how it all went on?\nSystem of Nature! To the wisest man, wide as is his vision, Nature\nremains of quite _infinite_ depth, of quite infinite expansion\u2019[134]\u2014are\nat once a paraphrase of the questions of Eliphaz, \u2018Art thou the first\nman that was born?... Didst thou hearken in the council of Eloah?\u2019 (xv.\n7, 8), and a suggestive statement of the problem of _Job_ as a challenge\nto limited human \u2018experience\u2019 to prove its capacity for criticising\nGod\u2019s ways.\n\nFootnote 134:\n\n  _Sartor Resartus_ (\u2018Natural Supernaturalism\u2019).\n\n\n\n\n                        NOTE ON THE TEXT OF JOB.\n\n\nThat the received text of our Hebrew Bible has a long history behind it,\nis generally recognised; and few will deny that its worst corruptions\narose in the pre-Massoretic and pre-Talmudic periods (comp. _The\nProphecies of Isaiah_, vol. ii., Essay vii.) The popularity of the Book\nof Job may not have been equal to that of many other books, but we have\nseen reason to suppose that within the circles of the \u2018wise men\u2019 it was\neagerly studied and imitated. In those early times such popularity was a\nsource of danger to the text, and hasty copyists left their mark on many\na corrupt passage. Is there any remedy for this?\n\nDr. Merx\u2019s book, _Das Gedicht von Hiob_ (1871), has the merits and\ndefects of pioneering works, but his introduction should by all means be\nstudied. Two points in it have to be examined, (1) the relative position\ngiven by Merx to the chief ancient versions, and (2) the use which he\nmakes of his own strophic arrangement for detecting interpolations or\ngaps in the text. More, I think, is to be gained from his discussion of\nthe use of the versions than from his strophic arrangement; and yet\nbefore quite so much importance is attached to the text of the\nSeptuagint, ought we not to be surer than we are of the antiquity and of\nthe critical value of the Septuagint _Job_? That version may not be of\nas recent origin[135] as Gr\u00e4tz would have it, but can hardly be much\nearlier than the second century B.C. Before this date the text of _Job_\nhad time to suffer much from the usual causes of corruption. Besides\nthis, there are special reasons for distrusting the literal accuracy of\nthe translator. He seems to have been in his own way an artist, and to\nhave sought to reproduce poetry in poetical language. In this respect\nhis vocabulary differs from that of all the other Septuagint\ntranslators; he thinks more of his Greek readers than of his Hebrew\noriginal. Had he been more mechanical in his method, the critical value\nof his work would have been greater. I agree therefore with H. Schultz\nthat even where the Septuagint and the Peshitto are united against the\nMassoretic reading, the decisive arguments for the reading of the former\nwill be, not the external one of testimony, but the internal one (if so\nbe it exists) of suitableness.\n\nMr. Bateson Wright goes almost farther than Dr. Merx in his opinion of\nthe corruptness of the received text. His work on _Job_ (1883), however\nunripe, shows remarkable independence, and contains, among many rash, a\nfew striking emendations. That he does not restrict himself to\ncorrections suggested by the versions, is not in the least a defect; the\nsingle drawback to his work is that he has not pondered long enough\nbefore writing. Purely conjectural emendation was doubtless often\nresorted to by the old translators themselves; it was and still is\nperfectly justified, though to succeed in its use requires a singular\ncombination of caution and boldness which even older critics have not\nalways attained. Special attention is devoted by Mr. Wright to the\npoetical features of the speeches in _Job_. Dr. Merx had already\nobserved that most of the \u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03c7\u03bf\u03b9 contain eight syllables, to read which,\nhowever, it is often needful to dispense with Metheg and with the\nChateph vowels, and contract the dual terminations. Mr. Wright, building\nupon Dr. Merx\u2019s foundation, offers a more elaborate scheme, which cannot\nbe discussed here. It was a misfortune for him that he had not before\nhim the ambitious metrical transliteration of _Job_ by G. Bickell, in\nhis _Carmina Vet. Test. metrice_, of which I would rather say nothing\nhere than too little.\n\nSubsequent editors of the text of _Job_ will have one advantage, which\nwill affect their critical use of the Septuagint. It is well known that\nthe Alexandrine version was largely interpolated from that of\nTheodotion. The early Septuagint text itself can however now be\nreconstructed, through a manuscript of the Sahidic or Thebaic version\nfrom Upper Egypt. (Comp. Lagarde, _Mittheilungen_, pp. 203-5; Agapios\nBsciai, art. in _Moniteur de Rome_, Oct. 26, 1883.) Dr. Merx was well\naware of the necessity of expurgating the Septuagint, and would have\nhailed this much-desired aid in the work (see p. lxxi. of his\nintroduction).\n\nSo much must suffice in my present limits on the subject of metre and\ntextual emendation. I need not thus qualify the list which follows of\ngaps and misplacements of text in our Book of Job. Observe (1) that\nBildad\u2019s third speech (chap. xxv.) is too short. Probably, as Mr. Elzas\nhas suggested,[136] the continuation of it has been wrongly placed as\nxxvi. 5-14; the affinity of this passage to chap. xxv. is obvious.\nProbably the close of Bildad\u2019s speech is wanting. If so (2), something\nmust have dropped out of Job\u2019s reply, since xxvi. 4 has no connection\nwith xxvii. 2. (3) Zophar\u2019s third speech appears to be wanting, but may\nreally be contained in chap. xxvii. (ver. 8 to end). The student should\nnot fail to observe that xxvii. 13 is a repetition of xx. 29. As the\ntext stands, Job is made to recant his statements in chaps. xxi., xxiv.,\nand to assert that there is (not merely ought to be) a just and exact\nretribution. The tone, moreover, of xxvii. 9, 10 is not in accordance\nwith Job\u2019s previous speeches. If this view be correct, an introductory\nformula (\u2018And Zophar answered and said\u2019) must have fallen out at the\nbeginning of ver. 7, and probably one or more introductory verses.[137]\n(4) The verses which originally introduced chap. xxviii. must (on\naccount of the causal particle \u2018for\u2019 in ver. 1) either have dropped out,\nor else have been neglected by the person who inserted the chapter in\nthe Book of Job. (5) The passage xxxi. 38-40 has at any rate been\nmisplaced (Delitzsch), and probably, as Merx has pointed out, should be\ninserted between ver. 32 and ver. 33. Thus verses 35-37 will furnish an\nappropriate and impressive close to the chapter. (6) xxxvi. 31 should\nprobably go after ver. 28 (not ver. 29, as Dillmann misstates the\nconjecture); verses 30, 32 have a natural connection (Olshausen). (7)\nThe passage xli. 9-12 destroys the connection, and should probably be\nplaced immediately before chap. xxxviii. 1, as an introductory speech of\nJehovah. In that case, we must, with Merx, supply the words, \u2018And\nJehovah said,\u2019 before ver. 9.\n\nFootnote 135:\n\n  \u2018A child of the first Christian century,\u2019 Gr\u00e4tz\u2019s _Monatsschrift_, p.\n  91. N\u00f6ldeke dates this version about 150 B.C. (_Gott. gel. Anzeigen_,\n  1865, p. 575).\n\nFootnote 136:\n\n  Elzas, _The Book of Job_ (1872), p. 83; Gr\u00e4tz inclines to a similar\n  view.\n\nFootnote 137:\n\n  A similar view has been propounded by Kennicott, and also more\n  recently by Gr\u00e4tz (_Monatsschrift_, 1872, p. 247). But Kennicott\n  regarded chap. xxviii. as Job\u2019s reply to Zophar, while Gr\u00e4tz would\n  include it in the speech of Zophar.\n\n\n\n\n                          AIDS TO THE STUDENT.\n\n\nThere are many books and articles of importance besides the\ncommentaries. Among these are Hupfeld, _Commentatio in quosdam Jobe\u00efdos\nlocos_ (1855); Bickell, _De indole ac ratione versionis Alexandrin\u00e6 in\ninterpretando libro Iobi_ (1862); G. Baur, \u2018Das Buch Hiob und Dante\u2019s\nG\u00f6ttliche Com\u00f6die,\u2019 _Theol. Studien und Kritiken_ (1856), p. 583 &c.\n(with which may be grouped Quinet\u2019s splendid chapter, in his early work\non religions, entitled Comparaison du scepticisme oriental et du\nscepticisme occidental\u2019); Seinecke, _Der Grundgedanke des Buches Hiob_\n(1863); Froude, \u2018The Book of Job,\u2019 _Short Studies_, Series 1 (1867), p.\n266 &c.; Reuss, _Das Buch Hiob_ (1869); Plumptre, \u2018The Authorship of the\nBook of Job,\u2019 _Biblical Studies_ (1870), p. 173 &c.; C. Taylor, \u2018A\nTheory of Job xix. 25-27,\u2019 _Journal of Philology_ (1871), pp. 128-152;\nGodet, \u2018Le livre de Job,\u2019 _Etudes bibliques_, prem. partie (1873), p.\n185 &c.; Turner, \u2018The History of Job, and its Place in the Scheme of\nRedemption,\u2019 _Studies Biblical and Oriental_ (1876), p. 133 &c.; Gr\u00e4tz,\nchapter on Job in _Geschichte der Juden_, Bd. iii.; Studer, \u2018Ueber die\nIntegrit\u00e4t des Buches Hiob,\u2019 _Jahrb\u00fccher f\u00fcr protestant. Theologie_\n(1875), p. 688 &c., comp. 1877, p. 540 &c.; Budde, _Beitr\u00e4ge zur Kritik\ndes Buches Hiob_ (1876), reviewed by Smend in _Studien u. Kritiken_\n(1878), pp. 153-173; Giesebrecht, _Der Wendepunkt des Buches Hiob_\n(1879); Derenbourg, \u2018R\u00e9flexions d\u00e9tach\u00e9es sur le livre de Job,\u2019 _Revue\ndes \u00e9tudes juives_ (1880), pp. 1-8; Claussen, \u2018Das Verh\u00e4ltniss der Lehre\ndes Elihu zu derjenigen der drei Freunde,\u2019 _Zeitschr. f. kirchl.\nWissenschaft und Leben_ (1884), pp. 393 &c., 449 &c., 505 &c.; W. H.\nGreen, _The Argument of the Book of Job Unfolded_ (1881); Cheyne, \u2018Job\nand the Second Part of Isaiah,\u2019 _Isaiah_, ii. 259 &c., with which\ncompare the very full essay of Kuenen, Job en de lijdende knecht van\nJahveh,\u2019 _Theologisch Tijdschrift_ (1873), p. 492 &c.; Delitzsch, art.\n\u2018Hiob,\u2019 Herzog-Plitt\u2019s _Realencyclopadie_, bd. vi. (1880).\n\n\n\n\n                         THE BOOK OF PROVERBS.\n\n\n                               CHAPTER I.\n           HEBREW WISDOM, ITS NATURE, SCOPE, AND IMPORTANCE.\n\n\nWe have studied the masterpiece of Hebrew wisdom before examining the\nnature of the intellectual product which the Israelites themselves\ngraced with this title. The Book of Job is in fact much more than a\ndidactic treatise like Ecclesiastes or a collection of pointed moral\nsayings like the Books of Proverbs and Ecclesiasticus. Its authors were\nmore than thinkers, they were poets, \u2018makers,\u2019 great imaginative\nartists. But we must not be unjust to those who were primarily thinkers,\nand only in the second degree poets. The phase of Hebrew thought called\n\u2018wisdom\u2019 (_khokma_) can be studied even better in Proverbs and\nEcclesiastes than in the poetry of Job. Let us then enquire at this\npoint, What is this Hebrew wisdom? First of all, it is the link between\nthe more exceptional revelations of Old Testament prophecy and the best\nmoral and intellectual attainments of other nations than the Jews.\n\u2018Wisdom\u2019 claims inspiration (as we have seen already), but never\nidentifies itself with the contents of oracular communications.[138] Nor\nyet does it pretend to be confined to a chosen race. Job himself was a\nnon-Israelite (the Rabbis were even uncertain as to his part in the\nworld to come); and the wisdom of the \u2018wise king\u2019 is declared to have\nbeen different in degree alone from that of the neighbouring\npeoples[139] (1 Kings iv. 30, 31; comp. Jer. xlix. 7, Obad. 8). It is to\nbe observed next, that the range of enquiry of this \u2018wisdom\u2019 is equally\nwide, according to the Biblical use of the term.[140] \u2018Wisdom,\u2019 as\nSirach tells us, \u2018rains forth skill\u2019 of every kind; \u2018the first man knew\nher not perfectly: no more shall the last trace her out\u2019 (Ecclus. i. 19,\nxxiv. 28). Nothing is too high, nothing too low for Wisdom \u2018fitly\u2019 to\n\u2018order\u2019 (Wisd. viii. I). Law and government (Prov. viii. 15, 16), and\neven the precepts of husbandry (Isa. xxviii. 23-29) are equally her\nproductions with those moral observations which constitute in the main\nthe three books of the Hebrew _Khokma_. The fact that the subject of\npractical ethics ultimately appropriated the technical name of \u2018wisdom\u2019\nought not to blind us to the larger connotation of the same word, which\nthrows so much light on the deeply religious view of life prevalent\namong the Israelites. For religious this view of wisdom is, though it\nmay seem to be so thoroughly secular. The versatility of the mind of man\nis but an image of the versatility of its archetype. \u2018The spirit of man\nis a lamp of Jehovah,\u2019 says one of the \u2018wise men\u2019 (Prov. xx. 27), by an\nanticipation of John i. 9. \u2018Surely it is the spirit in man,\u2019 says\nanother (Job xxxii. 8), \u2018and the breath of Shaddai which gives them\nunderstanding.\u2019 Isaiah, too, says that the \u2018spirit of wisdom\u2019 is one of\nthe three chief manifestations of the \u2018Spirit of Jehovah\u2019 (Isa. xi. 2),\nand the introductory treatise, which gives the editor\u2019s view of the\noriginal Book of Proverbs, expressly declares that the \u2018wise men\u2019 are\nbut the messengers of divine Wisdom (ix. 3).\n\nThe sages, whose collected wisdom we are about to study, are very\ndifferent from those antique sages who like Balaam could be hired to\ncurse a hostile people. A new kind of wisdom grew up both in Israel and\nin the neighbouring countries, as unlike its spurious counterpart as the\nspiritual lyric poetry both of Israel and of Babylonia is unlike the\nincantations which in Babylonia coexisted with it. Israel, never slow to\nadopt, received the higher wisdom, and assimilated it. The earthly\nelements can still be traced in it; the \u2018wise men\u2019 are not prophets but\nphilosophers; indeed, the Seven Wise Men of Greece arose at precisely\nthe same stage of culture as the Hebrew sages. It is true, the latter\nnever (in pre-Talmudic times) attempted logic and metaphysics; they\ncontentedly remained within the sphere of practical ethics. If a modern\nequivalent must be found, it would be best to call them the humanists,\nto indicate their freedom from national prejudice (the word \u2018Israel\u2019\ndoes not occur once, the word _\u0101d\u0101m_ \u2018man\u2019 thirty-three times in the\nBook of Proverbs), and their tendency to base a sound morality on its\nadaptation to human nature. We might also venture to call them realists\nin contradistinction to the idealists of the prophethood; they held out\nno prospect of a Messianic age, and \u2018meddled not with them that were\ngiven to change.\u2019[141] The sages whose \u2018wisdom\u2019 is handed down to us\nwere not however opposed to the spiritual prophets. It is only \u2018the\nfool\u2019 (or, to employ a synonym from the proverbs, the \u2018scorner\u2019 or\n\u2018mocker\u2019) who \u2018saith in his heart, There is no God.\u2019 A mocking poet of a\nlate period may demand the Creator\u2019s name (Prov. xxx. 4), but the writer\nwho (if I may anticipate) has perpetuated this strange poem indicates\nhis own very different mental attitude; and though religious proverbs\nare less abundant than secular in the early anthologies, such as we do\nfind are pure and elevated in tone. For instance,\n\n        (1) Who can say, I have made my heart clean,\n            I am pure from my sin? (xx. 9.)\n        (2) The eyes of Jehovah are in every place,\n            observing the evil and the good (xv. 3).\n        (3) She\u00f3l and Abaddon[142] are before Jehovah,\n            how much more then the hearts of the sons of men!\n                                                          (xv. 11.)\n        (4) The hearing ear and the seeing eye,\n            Jehovah has made them both (xx. 12).\n        (5) A man\u2019s steps are from Jehovah,\n            and man\u2014how can he understand his way? (xx. 24.)\n\nOne point in which the wise men agreed with Amos and Isaiah was the\ninferiority of a ceremonial system[143] to prayer and faithful obedience\n(xv. 8, xxi. 3, 27, xvi. 6), and the importance which one of the\nproverb-writers attached to prophecy is strikingly expressed (if only\nthe text be sound) in the saying,\n\n     When there is no prophecy (lit., vision) people become disorderly,\n     but he that observes precept, happy is he (xxix. 18).\n\nThe prophets seem to have returned the friendly feeling of the sages. In\ntone and phraseology they are sometimes evidently influenced by their\nfellow-teachers (see e.g. Isa. xxviii. 23-29, xxix. 24, xxxiii. 11), and\nif they do not often refer to the wise men,[144] yet they do not\ndenounce them, as they denounce the priests and the lower prophets. It\nmay perhaps be inferred from this that there was in the early times no\nopposition-party of sceptical wise men, such as Ewald supposes,[145] and\nsuch as not improbably did exist in later times (see below on xxx. 1-4);\nand I notice that Ewald himself does not attempt to strengthen his view\nby appealing to the phrase \u2018men of scorn\u2019 in Isa. xxviii. 14, which\nsome, following Rashi and Aben Ezra, explain of wise men who misused\ntheir talent by making mischievous proverbs.[146] The inference\nmentioned just now commends itself to me as sound; but I admit that the\nsaying on prophecy in Prov. xxix. 18 (already quoted) is isolated, and\nthat the tone of the religious proverbs falls far short of enthusiasm.\nThis is probably all that M. Renan means in a too French sentence of his\nwork on Ecclesiastes. Religion, according to the wise men, was a\nnecessary element in a worthy character, was even (I should say) the\nprincipal element, but the religion of these practical moralists has\nnothing of that delighted _abandon_ which we find in the more distinctly\nreligious Scriptures. \u2018Happy the man who dreadeth continually,\u2019 says one\ncharacteristic proverb (xxviii. 14; contrast the \u2018not caring\u2019 of the\n\u2018fool\u2019 in xiv. 16). Later on, a more devout moralist writes that \u2018the\nfear of Jehovah is the beginning of wisdom\u2019 (i. 7), and though \u2018fear\u2019\nneed not exclude \u2018love\u2019 yet there is nothing here to suggest their\ncombination. The proverb of the Egyptian prince Ptahhotep,[147] \u2018To obey\nis to love God; not to obey is to hate God,\u2019 has no parallel, at any\nrate in the early anthologies; much less does the great saying in Ps.\nlxxiii. 25 strike a note congenial to any of the Hebrew sages. And yet\nit remains true that the wise men happily supplemented the more\nspiritual teaching of psalmists and prophets.\n\nThere is still another important point on which both prophets and \u2018wise\nmen\u2019 were agreed. Whatever their inward religion may have been, they\n(like the Egyptian moralists) were outwardly utilitarians; i.e., they\ninvite men to practise righteousness, not because righteousness is the\nsecret of blessedness, but because of its outward rewards both for the\nman himself and for his posterity (Prov. xi. 21, xx. 7; comp. Jer.\nxxxii. 18). The form in which the doctrine of proportionate retribution\nis expressed in xi. 4 would have been completely acceptable to the\nprophets, whose conception of the \u2018day of Jehovah\u2019 (i.e., not the last\ngreat _dies ira_ but any providential crisis in the world\u2019s history) is\nadopted in it,\u2014\n\n                Wealth is of no profit in the day of wrath,\n                but righteousness delivers from death.\n\nProverbs expressing this idea in various forms abound in the first\nanthology. Not a hint is given that retribution loiters on the road; at\nmost a warning not to envy the (temporary) prosperity of the wicked\n(xxiii. 17, xxiv. 1, 19; with regard to xxiii. 18 see above).\n\nThis was the \u2018certitude of the golden age,\u2019 to use Mr. Matthew Arnold\u2019s\nexpression; it is just what we might expect in a simple and stationary\ncondition of society. The strange thing is that it should have lasted on\nwhen oppression within or hostile attacks from without had brought\nmanifold causes of sorrow upon both good and bad.[148] That the teachers\nof the people should have held up the doctrine of earthly retribution\u2014\n\n              Behold, the righteous hath a reward upon earth;\n              much more the ungodly and the sinner (xi. 31)\u2014\n\nas long as it could reasonably be defended, was natural. But that\nshortly before the Maccabean rising a \u2018wise man\u2019[149] should still be\nfound to write\u2014\n\n        The gift of the Lord remains with the godly,\n        and his favour brings prosperity for ever (Ecclus. xi. 17),\n\nseems to contradict the usual correspondence between the received moral\ntheory and the outward circumstances of society. All that we can say is\nthat such inconsistencies are found to exist; old forms of doctrine do\nnot, as a rule, \u2018melt like frosty rime.\u2019 There must have been circles of\nJewish moralists averse to speculation, who would continue to repeat the\nolder view of the providential government even at a time when the social\nstate had completely exposed its shallowness.\n\nDean Plumptre, indeed, following Ewald, credits the \u2018wise men\u2019 of\npre-Exile times with deeper views. According to him, certain proverbs,\ne.g. x. 25, xi. 4, xiv. 32, xxiii. 18 (Ewald adds xii. 28) imply the\nhope of immortality. None of these passages however can be held\nconclusive. x. 25, xi. 4 simply say that the righteous shall be unhurt\nin a day of judgment; in xiv. 32 the antithesis is between the ruin\nwhich follows upon wickedness and the safe refuge of integrity (read\n_b\u2019thumm\u014d_ with the Sept.); in xxiii. 18, \u2018there is a future,\u2019 the\nreference is perfectly vague\u2014it is natural to explain by comparing Job\nxlii. 12, xii. 28, no doubt, on Ewald\u2019s view of the passage, seems\nconclusive,\n\n                  In the way of righteousness is life,\n                  and the way of its path is immortality.\n\nBut this great word \u2018immortality\u2019 is unparalleled before the Book of\nWisdom, and cannot fairly be extracted from the Hebrew.[150] The\nSeptuagint has a different view of the pronunciation of the text, and\nrenders \u1f41\u03b4\u03bf\u1f76 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03ba\u03ac\u03ba\u03c9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03b8\u03ac\u03bd\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd. The easiest plan is to correct\n_n\u2019th\u012bbh\u0101h_ into _nith\u2019\u0101bh_, with Levy, and render,\n\n           but an abominable way (comp. xv. 9) leads unto death.\n\nI do not deny that the idea of eternal life may have been conceived at\nthe time of these proverbs. This may plausibly be inferred from the\noccurrence of the phrase \u2018a tree of life\u2019 in iii. 18, xi. 30, xiii. 12,\nxv. 4, and \u2018a fountain of life\u2019 in x. 11, xiii. 14, xiv. 27, xvi.\n22,\u2014phrases certainly borrowed from some traditional story of Paradise\nanalogous to that in Gen. ii.[151] It is a singular fact however that in\nall these passages (even, I think, in iii. 18) these expressions are\nsimply figurative synonyms for \u2018refreshment,\u2019 which suggests that the\nproverb-writers shrank from using them in their literal sense of the\nindividual righteous man.\n\nThe importance of the \u2018wise men\u2019 as a class is too seldom recognised. To\nthe hasty reader they are overshadowed by the prophets, between whom and\nthe rude masses they seem to have occupied a middle position. Their\npopular style and genial manners attracted probably a large number of\ndisciples; at any rate, in the time of Jeremiah the \u2018counsel\u2019 of the\n\u2018wise men\u2019 was valued as highly as the \u2018direction\u2019 (_t\u014dra_) of the\npriests and the \u2018word\u2019 of the prophets (Jer. xviii. 18). By constantly\nworking on suitable individuals, they produced a moral sympathy with the\nprophets, without which those heroic men would have laboured in vain.\nThus that friendly relation must have sprung up between the prophets and\nthe \u2018wise men,\u2019 of which I have spoken already, and which reminds us of\nthe sanction said to have been given to the Seven Sages of Greece by the\noracle of Delphi.[152]\n\nIt is a misfortune that our sources for the history of Israelitish\n\u2018philosophy\u2019 are so scanty. Were there \u2018wise men\u2019 in N. Israel? and if\nso, have any of their proverbs come down to us, besides the _mashal_ or\nfable of Jotham? Did they confine their activity to the capital city or\ncities, or did they also, like the \u2018scribes,\u2019 settle or itinerate in the\nprovinces? (Matt. ix. 3, Targ. of Judg. v. 9.) Did their public\ninstructions assume anything like the form of the proverbs of our\nanthologies? Did they teach without fee or reward?[153] At any rate, a\npost-Exile proverb-writer tells us with retrospective glance where the\n\u2018wise men\u2019 awaited their disciples\u2014not in the quietude of the chamber,\nbut either within the massive city-gates, or in the adjacent squares or\n\u2018broad places\u2019 on which the streets converged (i. 20, 21; comp. Job\nxxix. 7). No doubt they had a large stock of sayings in their memory,\nsuch as had been tested by the experience of past generations. Sometimes\nthey would modify old proverbs, sometimes they would frame new ones, so\nthat when their disciples gathered round them, they would \u2018bring out of\ntheir treasure things new and old.\u2019 From time to time they would commit\ntheir \u2018wisdom\u2019 to writing in a more perfect form, and such records must\nhave formed the basis of the proverbial collections in the Old\nTestament.\n\nFootnote 138:\n\n  The heading \u2018the oracle\u2019 &c. in xxx. I is exceptional; so also is the\n  oracle of Eliphaz (Job iv. 12-21).\n\nFootnote 139:\n\n  The author of _Baruch_ (iii. 22, 23), however, expressly denies that\n  the ordinary Semitic \u2018wisdom\u2019 was akin to that of Israel. This\n  represents the Judaism of the Maccabean period.\n\nFootnote 140:\n\n  Observe that \u2018wisdom\u2019 is called _khokm\u014dth_ (plural form) in Prov. i.\n  20, ix. 11, all the forms of wisdom being viewed as one in their\n  origin. So too Wisdom adorns her house with seven pillars (Prov. ix.\n  1).\n\nFootnote 141:\n\n  xxiv. 21 A.V.\n\nFootnote 142:\n\n  I.e. Perdition; a synonym for She\u00f3l.\n\nFootnote 143:\n\n  The author of the Introduction however writes, \u2018Honour Jehovah with\n  thy substance,\u2019 i.e. by dedicating a part of it to the sanctuary (iii.\n  9), which the Septuagint translator carefully limits to substance\n  lawfully gained (Deut. xxiii. 19).\n\nFootnote 144:\n\n  As perhaps they do in Am. v. 10, Isa. xxix. 21 (\u2018him that rebuketh in\n  the gate\u2019). Observe again in this connection that the endowments of\n  the Messiah include the spirit of wisdom as well as that of might\n  (Isa. xi. 2), and that the wisdom of Jehovah is emphasised in Isa.\n  xxxi. 2, comp. xxviii. 29.\n\nFootnote 145:\n\n  _Die dichter des alten bundes_, ii. 12. Ewald refers to xiii. 1, xiv.\n  6, and other passages in which \u2018scorners\u2019 are referred to. But it is\n  not clear that \u2018a powerful school\u2019 of wise men is here intended; the\n  title may be given to those who opposed or despised the counsels of\n  the wise men, and broke through the restraints of law and religion;\n  comp. Prov. xv. 12, xxi. 24.\u2019 (_The Prophecies of Isaiah_, ed. 3, i.\n  165). Among such persons were the politicians of Isaiah\u2019s day, so far\n  as they opposed the warnings of the prophet; they were popularly\n  considered \u2018wise men\u2019 (xxix. 14; comp. Jer. viii. 9), but not in the\n  technical sense with which our present enquiries are concerned.\n\nFootnote 146:\n\n  Luzzatto renders, \u2018o voi uomini insipienti, _poeti_ di questo popolo,\u2019\n  taking _m\u014dsh\u0113l\u012bm_ in the same sense as in Num. xxi. 27 (similarly\n  Barth, in his tract on Isaiah, p. 23, following Rashi and Aben Ezra),\n  a view which receives some support from the parable offered by Isaiah\n  in xxviii. 23-29 as if in opposition to the false parables of unsound\n  teachers. But in Isa. xxix. 20 \u2018scorner\u2019 is clearly used, not as a\n  class-name for certain wise men, but in a moral sense.\n\nFootnote 147:\n\n  Brugsch, _Religion und Mythologie der alten Aegypter_, p. 91.\n\nFootnote 148:\n\n  Yet in Prov. iii. 11, 12 there is distinct evidence of deepened\n  experience and progress of moral thought.\n\nFootnote 149:\n\n  On the orthodoxy of Ecclesiasticus, see later on.\n\nFootnote 150:\n\n  The Vulg. has, _iter autem devium ducit ad mortem_ (but this pregnant\n  sense of _iter devium_, is too bold).\n\nFootnote 151:\n\n  Analogous only, because apparently it had both a tree and a fountain\n  of life, like a New Zealand myth mentioned by Schirren.\n\nFootnote 152:\n\n  Curtius, _History of Greece_, ii. 52.\n\nFootnote 153:\n\n  Ewald infers from xvii. 16 that even in early times it was customary\n  to fee the \u2018wise men\u2019 for their advice (comp. Saul and Samuel). At a\n  later time Sirach says, \u2018Buy (instruction) for yourselves without\n  money\u2019 (Ecclus. li. 25, but comp. 28). The Rabbis were not allowed to\n  receive fees from their pupils. R. Zadok said, \u2018Make not (the Tora) a\n  crown to glory in, nor an axe to live by\u2019 (_Pirke Aboth_, iv. 9). So\n  the Moslem teachers at the great Cairo \u2018university\u2019 (el Azhar).\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER II.\n                  THE FORM AND ORIGIN OF THE PROVERBS.\n\n\nIn one of the opening verses of the Book of Proverbs (i. 6) three\ntechnical names for varieties of proverbs are put together:\u2014(1)\n_m\u0101sh\u0101l_, a short, pointed saying with reference to some striking\nfeature in the life of an individual, or in human life generally, often\nclothed in figurative language (whence, according to many, the name\n_m\u0101sh\u0101l_, as if \u2018similitude;\u2019 comp. \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u03ae), (2) _m\u2019l\u00ee\u00e7a_, perhaps a\n\u2018bent\u2019, \u2018oblique\u2019 or (as Sept.) \u2018dark\u2019 saying, (3) _kh\u00eeda_, a \u2018knotty\u2019\nor intricate saying, especially a riddle. Each of these words has a\nvariety of applications; for instance (1) is used in Num. xxiii., xxiv.,\nfor a parallelistic poem, (1) and (2) sometimes mean a \u2018taunting speech\u2019\n(see below, and comp. Hab. ii. 6, Isa. xiv. 4, Mic. ii. 4), and (3) can\nbe used, not merely of true riddles with a moral meaning, such as we\nfind here and there in Prov. xxx., but also of didactic statements upon\nsubjects as difficult as riddles (see Ps. xlix. 5, A.V. 4, lxxviii. 2).\nWe have no collection of popular proverbs, such as exists in Arabic; the\nproverbs in the canonical collection show great technical elaboration,\nthough some may be based on the naive \u2018wisdom\u2019 of the people. A very few\nspecimens of the popular proverb have indeed been preserved in the\ncanonical literature.[154] \u2018Is Saul also among the prophets?\u2019 (1 Sam. x.\n12, xix. 24) preserves the memory of a humorous fact in the story of\nthat king. \u2018Wickedness proceeds from the wicked\u2019 (1 Sam. xxiv. 13) is,\nunlike the former, a generalisation, and means that a man\u2019s character is\nshown by his actions (comp. Isa. xxxii. 6). \u2018As is the mother, so is the\ndaughter\u2019 (Ezek. xvi. 44) is also an induction from common experience.\n\u2018The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children\u2019s teeth are set on\nedge\u2019 (Jer. xxii. 29, Ezek. xviii. 2), words applied no doubt, as Lowth\nsays, profanely, but not originally meant so, is a figurative way of\nsaying that the sins of the fathers are visited upon the children. We\nhave one specimen of the riddle (strictly so called)\u2014that well-known one\nof Samson\u2019s,\n\n       From the eater came forth food,\n       and from the strong one came forth sweetness (Judges xiv. 14).\n\nThe parable, too, was doubtless called _mashal_, and of this we have\nthree Old Testament examples, which will at once occur to the reader (2\nSam, xii. 1-6, xiv. 4-9, 1 Kings xx. 39, 40); but it is more important\nto draw the reader\u2019s attention to the rare specimens of the fable. Some\nmay think it bold to refer in this connection to a portion of a\nnarrative which seems at first sight to be historical (Num. xxi. 22-35).\nThe strange episode of the speaking ass is, however, most difficult to\nunderstand, except as a sportive quasi-historical version of a popular\n_mashal_ or fable (compare the four Babylonian animal-fables discovered\namong the fragments of King Assurbanipal\u2019s library).[155] The passage\nbeing evidently distinct from the rest of the story of Balaam, in\npassing this judgment upon it, we are not committed as a matter of\ncourse to a denial of all historical character to the rest of the\nnarrative. The fables of Jotham (Judg. ix. 8-15) and Joash (2 Kings xiv.\n9), in which the trees are introduced speaking, have also their\nparallels in Babylonian literature. One of them indeed has a claim to be\ncalled a _mashal_ on a second account; the tree-fable of Joash is a\ntaunt of the keenest edge, and one of the secondary meanings of _mashal_\nis \u2018taunting speech\u2019 (see Isa. xiv. 4, A.V.). It is true the \u2018taunting\nspeeches\u2019 expressly called _mashals_\u2014not only those in the prophetic\nwritings (see above), but the verses ascribed to \u2018those that speak in\n_mashals_\u2019 in Num. xxi. 27-30\u2014are poetical in form, but this is because\nthe Hebrew writers never conceived the idea of a narrative poem; even\nthe prologue of the Book of Job is in prose.\n\nThese are the principal specimens of the _mashal_ apart from those in\nthe three Books of Old Testament Wisdom. They are but the \u2018two or three\nberries\u2019 left after the beating of the tree (Isa. xvii. 6), and excite a\nlonging for more which cannot be gratified. We may be sure that in\nIsrael\u2019s prime the telling of proverbs was almost as popular as the\nrecital of stories, and became a test of ability. For\u2014\n\n              The legs of a lame man hang loose,\n              so is a proverb in the mouth of fools (xxvi. 7);\n\nand though Sirach says of the labouring class, \u2018They shall not be found\nwhere parables are spoken\u2019 (Ecclus. xxxviii. 33), it is reasonable to\naccount for this by the aristocratic pride of the students of Scripture\nin the later Jewish community. At any rate, as I have said already, some\nat least of the early literary proverbs are very possibly based on\npopular sayings; these would naturally embody a plain, bourgeois\nexperience such as marks not a few of the proverbs in our book. Dr. Oort\nconjectures[156] that _some of our proverbs were originally current\namong the people as riddles_, such for instance as, \u2018What is sweet as\nhoney?\u2014Pleasant discourse, for it is sweet to the soul and a medicine to\nthe bones\u2019 (xvi. 24); \u2018What is worse than meeting a bear?\u2014Meeting a fool\nin a fit of folly\u2019 (xvii. 12); \u2018What is sweet at first, and then like\nsand in the mouth?\u2014Stolen food\u2019 (xx. 17). Certainly the introduction to\nthe \u2018proverbs of Solomon\u2019 may seem to imply (i. 6) that the collection\nwhich follows contains specimens of the riddle, but probably all the\nwriter means is that the \u2018words of the wise\u2019 are often \u2018knotty\u2019 because\nepigrammatic. We may indeed reasonably hold that, like their prototype\nSolomon,[157] the \u2018wise men\u2019 were accustomed to sharpen their intellects\nupon enigmas (such as lie at the root of the so-called \u2018numerical\nproverbs\u2019 in xxx. 15, 18, 21, 24, 29; comp. vi. 16); but a still more\nimportant discipline than the battle of wits was the habit of keen\nobservation. We cannot reduce all the proverbs involving comparison to\nthe form of riddles, any more than we can do this with the following\nBuddhist sayings, equal to the more refined specimens of the Hebrew\nproverb:?\u2014[158]\n\n    As rain breaks through an ill-thatched house, so passion will break\n    through an unreflecting mind.\n\n    Like a beautiful flower, full of colour, but without scent, are the\n    fine but fruitless words of him who does not act accordingly.\n\n    A tamed elephant they lead to battle; the king mounts a tamed\n    elephant; the tamed is the best among men, he who silently endures\n    abuse.\n\n    Well-makers lead the water; fletchers bend the arrow; carpenters\n    bend a log of wood; wise people fashion themselves.\n\nAnother plausible hypothesis similar to that of Dr. Oort is that some of\nour proverbs are based on popular fables, as is the case according to\nDr. Back with many of the proverbs in the Talmud and Midrash.[159] The\nJewish scholar referred to applies this key to Prov. vi. 6-11 (comp. the\nAramaic fable of the ant and the grasshopper\u2014see Delitzsch\u2019s note), to\nthe numerical proverbs in chap. xxx. (\u2018skeletons of fables\u2019 he calls\nthem), and to Eccles. ix. 4 and x. 11. Both proverbs and fables indeed\nare common in later Jewish literature. Fables, especially animal fables,\nwere not perhaps appropriate vehicles of moral instruction according to\nthe O.T. writers. But the later Jewish teachers do not seem to have felt\nthis objection. Rabbi Meir (2nd cent. A.D.) was the writer of animal\nfables _par excellence_; Rabbi Hillel (B.C. 30), however, so noted for\nhis versatility, was also a copious fabulist.[160]\n\nThis popular origin of some at least of the proverbs sufficiently\naccounts for their comparatively trite and commonplace character. They\nwere not trite and commonplace to those who first used them, and\nsuccessive generations loved them because of their antiquity (Job viii.\n8-10). Even to us they are not so commonplace as the far less popular\nand piquant Egyptian proverbs,[161] though I confess that they will\nhardly compare with the relics of Indian gnomology,[162] still less with\nthe singularly rich and pointed proverbs of the Chinese.[163] The\npractice of writing antithetic sentences on paper or silk to suspend in\nhouses (contrast Deut. vi. 9) gave an edge to the shrewd earthly wisdom\nof the countrymen of Confucius. The Jewish intellect developed but\nslowly into the acuteness of the later periods which produced fables,\nproverbs, and riddles which can safely challenge comparison.[164]\n\nFootnote 154:\n\n  In the Midrash-literature, proverbs are often quoted with an express\n  statement that they are from the lips of the people.\n\nFootnote 155:\n\n  See Smith and Sayce\u2019s _Chald\u00e6an Genesis_, pp. 140-154. For the\n  Egyptian animal-fables, which may be the originals of those of \u00c6sop,\n  see Mahaffy, _Prolegomena to Anc. Hist._, p. 390; for the Indian, see\n  the apologues of the Panchatantra by Benfey or Lancereau, and the\n  Buddhist Birth-Stories\u2014\u2018the oldest, most complete, and most important\n  collection of folk-lore extant\u2019\u2014translated by Rhys Davids, vol. i.\n\nFootnote 156:\n\n  _The Bible for Young People_, E. T., iii. 105-6.\n\nFootnote 157:\n\n  1 Kings x. 1; comp. Menander\u2019s account in Josephus, _Antiq._ viii. 5,\n  3.\n\nFootnote 158:\n\n  From Max M\u00fcller\u2019s translation of the Dhammapada, or \u2018Path of Virtue\u2019\n  (1870).\n\nFootnote 159:\n\n  Dr. Back gives a list of these in Gr\u00e4tz\u2019s _Monatsschrift_, 1854, pp.\n  265-7.\n\nFootnote 160:\n\n  In the Talmudic treatise _Soferim_ xvi. 9, a list of Hillel\u2019s\n  acquirements is given, including the conversations of the mountains,\n  the trees, the animals, the demons, &c. On the Jewish fable\n  literature, the wealth of which seems unparalleled, see Back, _Die\n  Fabel in Talmud und Midrash_, in Gratz\u2019s _Monatsschrift_, 1875-1884.\n  Curiously enough the two oldest Jewish fables are similar in character\n  to those of the Old Test.\n\nFootnote 161:\n\n  Comp. Renouf, _Hibbert Lectures_, pp. 75, 76, 100-103; Mahaffy,\n  _Prolegomena to Ancient History_, pp. 273-291; Brugsch, _Religion und\n  Mythologie der alten Aegypter_, p. 91; _Records of the Past_, viii.\n  157-160.\n\nFootnote 162:\n\n  Comp. Weber, _Indische Literaturgeschichte_, p. 227.\n\nFootnote 163:\n\n  See Scarborough, _Collection of Chinese Proverbs_ (1875). The Chinese\n  proverbs have no known authors.\n\nFootnote 164:\n\n  On the riddles referred to, see W\u00fcnsche, _Die R\u00e4thselweisheit bei den\n  Hebr\u00e4ern_ (1883). Comp. them with the later Arabic proverbs (see\n  Hariri, and comp. Freytag, _Proverbia arabica_).\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER III.\n                THE FIRST COLLECTION AND ITS APPENDICES.\n\n\nUpon entering what Dante in the _De Monarchi\u00e2_ so well calls \u2018the\nforest\u2019 of the canonical proverbs, we are soon struck by differences of\nage and growth. The central portion of the book, and in some respects\nthe most interesting, is comprised in x. 1-xxii. 16. To this, which is\nindeed the original Book of Proverbs, the first nine chapters were\nintended to serve as the introduction. It is the oldest Hebrew\nproverbial anthology extant. Probably from its compiler it received the\nname \u2018Proverbs of Solomon,\u2019 and from this title has sprung the tradition\naccepted by so many subsequent ages and indeed by the editor of the\nwhole book (Prov. i. 1) of Solomon\u2019s authorship of the Proverbs. The\ntitle however cannot be historically correct. Those maxims in this\nanthology which refer to the true God under the name Jehovah (_Yahv\u00e8_)\nare too monotheistic and inculcate too pure a morality to be the work of\nthe Solomon of the Book of Kings. That great despot\u2019s \u2018wisdom,\u2019 so far\nas we can judge both from his character and from the traditional\nnotices, cannot have had a distinctively religious character. Listen to\nthese proverbs,\u2014\n\n         Better a little with the fear of Jehovah\n         than great treasure and turmoil therewith (xv. 16).\n         The horse is prepared against the day of battle,\n         but victory is Jehovah\u2019s (xxi. 31).\n         The mouth of strange women is a deep pit;\n         he with whom Jehovah is wroth falleth therein (xxii. 14).\n         A wise son (loveth) his father\u2019s correction,\n         but a scorner heareth not rebuke (xiii. 1),\u2014\n\nand for a commentary read 1 Kings iv. 26, xi. 1, 4, 14-40, xii. 14, 15.\nNor is the moral tone of the \u2018Solomonic\u2019 proverbs in its plain bourgeois\nsimplicity any more suitable to the name they bear than the religious.\nUnless Solomon was like Haroun al-Rashid, and made himself privately\nacquainted with the ways and thoughts of the citizens, it is difficult\nto see how he can have written so completely as one of them would have\ndone.\n\nThe truth is that both David and Solomon were idealised by later\ngenerations. The heroes of a grander if not better age, they towered far\nabove the petty figures of their successors. Favoured by the\ncontemporary depression of Egypt and Assyria, they had been enabled to\nrear and to retain a powerful empire, comparable to those which\nafflicted and oppressed the divided people of the later Israelites.\nSolomon in particular is represented in tradition as not only the most\nfortunate but the wisest of kings, not in the sense in which it is said\nthat religion is the best part of wisdom (Prov. i. 7), but in that in\nwhich the \u2018children of the east\u2019 were accustomed to use the word. This\nis clear from the language of the Hebrew narrator:\u2014\n\n    \u2018And God gave Solomon wisdom and understanding exceeding much, and\n    largeness of heart even as the sand on the sea-shore. And Solomon\u2019s\n    wisdom excelled the wisdom of all the children of the east country,\n    and all the wisdom of Egypt. For he was wiser than all men; than\n    Ethan the Ezrahite [read, perhaps, \u2018the native,\u2019 i.e. the\n    Israelite], and Heman, and Calcol, and Darda, the sons of Mahol\n    [probably a foreigner]: and his fame was in all the nations round\n    about. And he spoke three thousand proverbs [or, similitudes], and\n    his songs were a thousand and five. And he spoke of trees, from the\n    cedar in Lebanon unto the hyssop that springeth out of the wall: he\n    spoke also of beasts, and of birds, and of creeping things, and of\n    fishes. And there came of all peoples to hear the wisdom of Solomon,\n    from all kings of the earth, who had heard of his wisdom.\u2019 (1 Kings\n    iv. 29-34.)\n\nI see no reason for not accepting the substance of this tradition. The\nprincipal point in it is the ascription to Solomon of a power of\napophthegmatic composition which the author, as a devout theist, could\nnot but trace to a divine gift, just as the author of Ex. xxxvi.\nascribes the skill of the artisans of the tabernacle to the direct\noperation of Jehovah. But we are also informed that the talents of\nSolomon were neither peculiar to him, nor exercised on different\nsubjects from those of foreign sages. The precise meaning of the Hebrew\n_m\u2019sh\u0101l\u012bm_ in 1 Kings iv. 32 is suggested by ver. 33. The word seems to\nmean moralising similitudes[165] derived partly from the animal, partly\nfrom the vegetable kingdom (for Lord Bacon\u2019s view,[166] hinted in the\n_New Atlantis_, is more plausible than sound). Was I not right in saying\nthat the traditional notices of Solomon\u2019s wisdom do not agree with the\ntitle of our anthology? I wish that it were otherwise. How gladly one\nwould see a few of Solomon\u2019s genuine utterances (whether proverbs, or\nsimilitudes, or fables) incorporated into one or another of the Hebrew\nScriptures!\n\nI think however that it is unfair both to the compiler and to the editor\nwho repeats his statement (i. 1) to take the ascription of these\nproverbs to Solomon literally. Accuracy in the details of literary\nhistory was not a qualification which would seem important to an\nIsraelite. The name of Solomon was attached (for dogmatism here seems\npermissible) to these choice specimens of Hebrew proverbiology simply\nfrom a very characteristic hero-worship. Solomon had in fact become the\nsymbol of plain ethical \u2018wisdom\u2019 just as David had become the\nrepresentative of religious lyric poetry. We may see this from the\nalternative title of the Book of Proverbs in both Jewish and Christian\nwritings\u2014\u2018Book of Wisdom;\u2019[167] still more from the fiction of Solomon\u2019s\nauthorship of Ecclesiastes, and from the Targumic paraphrase of Jer. ix.\n23, \u2018Let not _Solomon the son of David_, the wise man, glory in his\nwisdom.\u2019 Of course, the real names of the authors of the proverbs had\nbeen as irrecoverably lost as those of our early ballad-writers.\n\nBut though we must deny the Solomonic authorship a far-off influence of\nthe Solomonic age may perhaps be admitted; at least, there are grounds\nfor the opinion that some of the proverbs are as old as the ninth\ncentury. (1) The second collection of so-called Solomonic proverbs was\ncompiled according to a credible tradition (xxv. 1) in the reign of\nHezekiah; this of itself throws the earlier collection a considerable\nway back into the eighth century. (2) Upon examining the first anthology\nwe find that some of the proverbs already have a history. For instance,\n(_a_) the solemn generalisation in xiv. 12 occurs in exactly the same\nform in xvi. 25, (_b_) eight other proverbs are repeated with slight\nchanges in expression (x. 1 = xv. 20, x. 2 = xi. 4, xiii. 14 = xiv. 27,\nxiv. 20 = xix. 4, xvi. 2 = xxi. 2, xix, 5 = xix. 9, xx. 10 = xx. 23,\nxxi. 9 = xxi. 19), but except in the case of xi. 4, xiv. 27 no change in\nthought, (_c_) ten are repeated, at least so far as one line goes,\neither exactly or with but slight differences (x. 15 = xviii. 11, x.\n6[168] = x. 11, x. 8 = x. 10,[169] xv. 33 = xviii. 12, xi. 13 = xx. 19,\nxi, 21 = xvi. 5, xii. 14 = xiii. 2, xiv. 31 = xvii. 5, xvi. 18 = xviii.\n12, xix. 12 = xx. 2). It is probable that some time would elapse before\na proverb attained such notoriety as to be circulated in varying forms.\n(3) The originality of the diction (_a_) and the careful observance of\ntechnical rules of composition (_b_) favour an early date. (_a_) For\ninstance, \u2018steersmanship\u2019[170] (xi. 14, xii. 5, xx. 18), as a term for\npractical wisdom or counsels, evidently springs from a fresh enthusiasm\nfor commerce; a long list of striking expressions might be added from\nany chapter of the collection. (_b_) Nor is technical precision at all\nless conspicuous in this early anthology. Each proverb is a distich,\ni.e. consists of two lines, as a rule three-toned, and in most cases\nantithetically parallel. It is true, xix. 7 in its present form is a\ntristich, i.e. consists of three members, but this proverb undoubtedly\narose out of two, the second of which is mutilated in the Hebrew text,\nbut is found in a complete though not entirely correct form in the\nSeptuagint. The incomprehensible third line of xix. 7 given in versions\nbased upon the Hebrew now becomes the distich,\n\n             He that does much evil perfects mischief;\n             he that provokes[171] with words shall not escape.\n\nAccording to Ewald, the collection is divided into five parts by the\nrecurrence at intervals of a proverb exhorting the young to receive\ninstruction; see x. 1, xiii. 1, xv. 20, xvii. 25, xix. 20. If this\ndivision is intentional it may be compared with the equally mechanical\ntriple division found by some in Isa. xl. lxvi. Of arrangement by\nsubject there is but little trace; here and there two or more verses\ncome in succession dealing with the same theme. Observe too the\nrecurrence of \u2018Jehovah,\u2019 xv. 33, xvi. 1-9, 11, and of the word \u2018king\u2019 in\nxvi. 10, 12-15, which shows that one principle of arrangement was simply\nthe recurrence of certain catchwords. Bickell thinks that another\nprinciple was the occurrence of the same initial letter (see xi. 9-12,\nxx. 7-9, xx. 24-26, xxii. 2-4).\n\nAltogether, it is abundantly clear that we have before us works of art,\nand not the simple maxims handed down in Israel from father to son.\nThere may sometimes be a traditional basis, but no more. The anthology\ncontrasts, therefore, as Ewald remarks, with the collections of Arabic\nproverbs due to Abu-Obaida, Maidani[172] and others. But whether we may\ngo on to assert with the same great critic that we have here the wise\nmen\u2019s applications of the truths of religion to the infinite cases and\ncontingencies of the secular life, seems doubtful. It is not clear to me\nthat these wise men were preoccupied by religion. There are indeed not a\nfew fine religious proverbs, but it cannot be shown that those who wrote\nthe secular proverbs also wrote the religious. It is possible and even\nprobable that some of the religious proverbs are the work of the author\nof the introductory chapters; without dogmatising, I may refer to xiv.\n34 (comp. viii. 15, 16), xv. 33, xvi. 1-7, and perhaps to xix. 27, which\nis quite in the parental tone of chaps. i.-ix. The tone of the secular\nproverbs is not, from a Christian point of view (of which more later\non), an elevated one. The ethical principle is prudential. Virtue or\n\u2018wisdom\u2019 is rewarded, and vice or \u2018folly\u2019 punished in this life. It is\nindeed nowhere expressly said that every trouble is a punishment; but\nthere is nothing like xxiv. 16 in this anthology to prevent the reader\nfrom inferring it. At any rate, the writers are clearly not in the van\nof religious thought: no \u2018obstinate questionings\u2019 have yet disturbed\ntheir tranquillity.\n\nWe need not pause here to demonstrate what no one probably will dispute,\nthat the origin of this first anthology is impersonal. The fact that it\nis so may well give us the more confidence in the accuracy of the social\npicture which it contains. This is certainly a pleasing one, and points\nto a comparatively early period in the history of Judah. Commerce and\nits attendant luxury have not made such progress as at the time when the\nintroduction was written; poverty is only too well known, but there\nseems to be a middle class with a sound moral sense, to which the\nwriters of proverbs can appeal. It is true, says one of these, that in\ndaily life \u2018rich and poor meet together,\u2019 but for all that \u2018Jehovah is\nthe maker of them all\u2019 (xxii. 2), and \u2018he that oppresses the poor\nreproaches his maker\u2019 (xiv. 31). And if it is true on the one hand that\n\u2018the poor is hated even of his neighbour\u2019 (xiv. 20), and that \u2018the\ndestruction of the wretched is their poverty\u2019 (x. 15), it is equally so\non the other that \u2018he that trusts in his riches shall fall\u2019 (xi. 28),\nand that\n\n       Better is the poor man who walks in his blamelessness,\n       than he who is perverse in his ways and is rich[173] (xix. 1).\n\nThe strength of the land still consists in the number of small\nproprietors tilling their own ground. Two proverbs express an interest\nin these, e.g.\n\n        The poor man\u2019s newly ploughed field gives food in abundance,\n        but there is that is cut off by injustice (xiii. 23).\n        Better is a mean man that tills for himself[174]\n        than he that glorifies himself and has no bread (xii. 9).\n\nAll the farmers however were not so diligent as those indicated in these\npassages. One of the numerous proverbs against laziness (then as now a\nprevalent vice in this part of the East[175]) brings before us a\nland-owner who is too lazy to give the order for ploughing at the right\ntime, and so when he looks for the harvest, there is none.\n\n          When autumn comes the sluggard ploughs not;\n          so if he asks at harvest-time, there is nothing (xx. 4).\n\nThe right use of the gift of speech is another very favourite subject in\nthis anthology. The charm of suitable words is best described in a\nHezekian proverb (xxv. 11), but it is well said in xv. 4 that \u2018a gentle\ntongue is a tree of life,\u2019 and elsewhere that\n\n            There is that babbles like the thrusts of a sword,\n            but the tongue of the wise is gentleness (xii. 18).\n\nThe wonderful power of language could hardly at that age have been\nbetter expressed than by the saying,\n\n           The words of a man\u2019s mouth are deep waters,\n           a gushing torrent, a wellspring of wisdom (xviii. 4).\n\nThe standard of family morals is high; a good wife is described as God\u2019s\nbest gift (xii. 4, xviii. 22, xix. 14), and the restraints of home are\ncommended to the young (xix. 18, xxii. 6, 15), as in the Egyptian\nproverbs. Monogamy is throughout presupposed, and a want of respect for\n_either_ parent is condemned (xiii. 1, xv. 5, xix. 26). The king too is\nrepeatedly held up to reverence (xiv. 35, xvi. 10, 12-15, xix. 12, xx.\n2, 8, 26, 28, xxii. 11); it is not so in the Hezekian collection. The\nking however is not identified with the Deity, as in Egypt; we are told\nthat the will of the monarch is pliable in the hand of Jehovah (xxi. 1),\nand the true glory of a nation is, not in the prowess of its king, but\nin righteousness (xiv. 34). And even if we must confess that the spirit\nof the more secular proverbs is utilitarian, the utilitarianism is\nsometimes a very refined one, as for instance where the refreshing\ncharacter of a quiet, contented mind is contrasted with the dull\nreaction which follows on an outburst of passion (xiv. 30). In\nconclusion, I will quote a few proverbs interesting chiefly as\ncharacteristic of their age, and then a few more of the gems of the\ncollection.\n\n    (_a_) The poor is hated even by his neighbour,\n          but the rich has many friends (xiv. 20).\n          Whoso withholds corn, him the people curse,\n          but blessing is on the head of him who sells it (xi. 26).\n          The beginning of strife is as when one lets out water,\n          so leave off quarrelling before the teeth be shown (xvii. 14).\n          The gift of a man makes a free space for him,\n          and brings him before the great (xviii. 16).\n          \u2018Bad, bad,\u2019 says the purchaser,\n          but when he goes away, he boasts (xx. 14).\n    (_b_) The righteous regards the life of his cattle,[176]\n          but the heart of the wicked is cruel (xii. 10).\n          The heart knows its own bitterness,\n          and a stranger cannot intermeddle with its joy (xiv. 10).\n          He that covers transgression helps forward love,\n          but he that repeats a matter separates best friends (xvii. 9).\n          There are friends (good enough) acting their part,[177]\n          and there is a loving friend who sticks closer than a brother\n                                          (xviii. 24; comp, xvii. 17).\n          Who can say, I have made my heart clean,\n          I am pure from my sin? (xx. 9.)\n          Say not, I will recompense evil;\n          wait for Jehovah, and he will deliver thee (xx. 22).\n\nThe first appendix to the original Book (appended possibly _before_ the\ncomposition of the Introduction) is a small collection of proverbial\nsayings called \u2018words of the wise\u2019 (xxii. 17-xxiv. 22). Virtually the\nsame phrase occurs again in xxiv. 23 at the head of a still shorter\nwork, compiled or composed evidently about the same time by another\n\u2018wise man\u2019 (perhaps the whole work has not come down to us). In the\nintroductory verses the compiler\u2019s object in writing down these proverbs\nis said to have been that his disciple might learn virtue and religion,\nand might become qualified to teach others. There is one very difficult\npassage in it, but this has been corrected in a masterly way by\nBickell:\u2014[178]\n\n       That thy confidence may be in Jehovah,\n       to make known unto thee thy ways.\n       Now, yea before now, have I written unto thee,\n       long before, with counsels and knowledge,\n       That thou mayest know the rightness of true words,\n       that thou mayest answer in true words to those that ask thee\n                                                       (xxii. 19-21).\n\nThe construction of ver. 20_b_ and ver. 21 in the Hebrew thus becomes\nmore idiomatic (comp. \u03c7\u03b8\u03ad\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03b7\u03bd), though not free from\nambiguity. The words may mean either that the compiler took long over\nhis work, or that this was not the first occasion of his writing. On the\nlatter explanation the passage may imply that the compiler of this\nanthology also wrote chaps. i.-ix. (comp. i. 6_b_). His hortatory style\nand predilection for grouping verses may seem to plead for this view.\nThere are however no important points of contact in phraseology between\nthe work before us and Prov. i.-ix.,[179] and certainly the appendix\nfalls far below the standard of the Introduction. At any rate, it is\nundoubted that these \u2018words of the wise\u2019 appeared long after the\n\u2018Solomonic\u2019 proverbs. The peculiarities of style referred to show this,\nand also the imitation of some of the \u2018Solomonic\u2019 proverbs in the \u2018words\nof the wise;\u2019 (comp. xi. 14 with xxiv. 5, 6; xiii. 9 with xxiv. 19, 20;\nxxii. 14_a_ with xxiii. 27).\n\nThere is no occasion to suppose that all these proverbs come from one\nperiod; but the hand of a compiler is more conspicuous here than in the\nfirst anthology. He has not indeed removed repetitions (see xxii. 28_a_,\nxxiii. 10_a_; xxiii. 17_a_, xxiv. 1_a_; xxiii. 18, xxiv. 14), but the\npersonal element preponderates so much that he might fairly have\nprefixed his own name as the author. Artistically, he may perhaps be\nfound wanting. He has left one tristich (i.e. a proverb of three lines),\nviz. xxii. 29; two pentastichs (i.e. proverbs of five lines), viz.\nxxiii. 4, 5. xxiv. 13, 14; and one heptastich (i.e. a proverb of seven\nlines), viz. xxiii. 6-8. Unsymmetrical as these may be, it seems\nhazardous, unless there be any specially doubtful passage, to restore\nsymmetry (i.e. to convert tristichs into tetrastichs, and so on) by\ninserting words conjecturally. There are a few distichs (xxii. 28,\nxxiii. 9, xxiv. 7, 8, 9, 10), thus affording a slight point of contact\nwith the first anthology; more tetrastichs (xxii. 22, 23; 24, 25; 26,\n27; xxiii. 10, 11; 15, 16; 17, 18; xxiv. 1, 2; 3, 4; 5, 6; 15, 16; 17,\n18; 19, 20; 21, 22), and hexastichs (xxiii. 1-3; 12-14; 19-21; 26-28;\nxxiv. 11, 12). One octastich occurs (xxiii. 22-25), and one long poem,\nin the main a group of distichs, referred to again below (xxiii. 29-35).\n\nBeautiful in form, the proverbs of this collection certainly are not;\none cannot apply to the author the saying in xxiv. 26, \u2018He kisses the\nlips who answers in suitable words.\u2019 The contents however are not\nwithout points of interest. In xxiii. 1-3 we have a picture of a man of\nthe middle class admitted to the table of a governor. Being unused to\n\u2018dainties,\u2019 he is tempted to excess; as a restraint, the \u2018wise man\u2019 bids\nhim consider the capriciousness of princely favour (comp. Ecclus. ix.\n13). The abuse of luxuries such as wine and meat was in fact a sore evil\nin the eyes of this writer (see the caution in xxiii. 20, 21 in the\nSeptuagint version, which reminds one of vii. 14). He has even left us a\npoem on the evils of drunkenness (xxiii. 29-35) which contains several\nstriking details from its satirical opening, \u2018Who hath _oi_, who hath\n_aboi_?\u2019 (interjections expressing pain), to the picturesque comparison\nof the drunkard to a man \u2018that lieth upon the top of a mast,\u2019[180] which\nshows incidentally that sea-life was by this time a familiar experience.\nAnother interesting passage, though marred by its obscurity, is that in\nxxiv. 11, 12. The innocent victims of a miscarriage of justice are about\nto be dragged away to execution; the pupil of the wise is exhorted to\n\u2018deliver\u2019 them, by intervening with resistless energy, like the St. Ives\nof a favourite Breton legend, and testifying to the innocence of the\nsufferers (see xxxi. 8). He may of course refuse, thinking to pretend\nafterwards that he had not heard of the case; but God knows all, and\nwill requite falsehood, not perhaps at once, but at a future time, when\n\u2018the lamp of the wicked shall be put out\u2019 (xxiv. 20). The wise men, as\nwe have seen, clung firmly to the doctrine of retribution in some one of\nits various forms. We are not therefore surprised that a book of\nproverbs should conclude with a dissuasion from consorting with lawless\npersons, and an earnest advice to \u2018fear Jehovah and the king\u2019 (xxiv.\n21).\n\nMuch need not be said of the second appendix (xxiv. 23-34). \u2018These also\nare by wise men,\u2019 writes the collector, implying that he is to be\ndistinguished from the editor of the preceding collection. The proverbs\nare all[181] either in two, four, or six lines, except ver. 27, where\nhowever it is possible that some words have dropped out.[182] At the end\ncomes a parable or apologue professedly drawn from the writer\u2019s\nexperience (reminding us in this of vii. 6-23, but still more of Job v.\n3-5). The scene is laid in a vineyard which has run to waste and become\na wilderness from the carelessness of its owner (comp. xx. 4). The\n_mashal_ (xxiv. 30-32) has been lengthened by the addition of two verses\nfrom vi. 9, 10, originally no doubt a marginal note. It was needless;\nthe story (if story it can be called) is more vivid in its brevity, and\nforms a fitting close to this section of proverbial wisdom.\n\nFootnote 165:\n\n  Dr. Gr\u00e4tz is of opinion that Solomon was a fabulist like Jotham; in\n  the text I have followed Josephus (_Ant._ vii. 2, 5). Legend related\n  how the wise king, like the early men in African folk-lore (Max\n  M\u00fcller, _Hibbert Lectures_, p. 116), talked _with_ (not merely _of_)\n  beasts, birds, and fishes, but delighted most in the birds.\n\nFootnote 166:\n\n  This was also the opinion of Ewald (_History_, iii. 281). It might now\n  be urged in its favour that Assurbanipal\u2019s library contained bilingual\n  lists of animals, vegetables, and minerals. But remember that the\n  Assyrians were incomparably more civilised than the Israelites, and\n  had both a lexicographical and a scientific interest in making these\n  lists, and above all that Solomon is not stated to have written, but\n  only to have _spoken_.\n\nFootnote 167:\n\n  See the _Tosefoth_ to the Talmudic treatise _Baba bathra_, 14_b_,\n  where the name is given both to Proverbs and to Ecclesiastes. It is\n  however more commonly found in Christian than in Jewish literature,\n  often under the fuller form \u1f21 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03ac\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1 (see especially\n  Eusebius, _H. E._, iv. 22).\n\nFootnote 168:\n\n  The second line however seems to have intruded from ver. 11, and thus\n  to have supplanted the original.\n\nFootnote 169:\n\n  Here again the second line is evidently an intruder (from ver. 8). We\n  should doubtless read with Sept., \u2018but he that reproves produces\n  welfare.\u2019\n\nFootnote 170:\n\n  This word (_takhb\u016bl\u014dth_) also occurs in xxiv. 6, i. 5, Job xxxvii. 12.\n\nFootnote 171:\n\n  For _m\u2019radd\u0113f_ read _m\u2019gadd\u0113f_.\n\nFootnote 172:\n\n  Landberg denies that Maidani\u2019s proverbs were ever really popular, but\n  A. M\u00fcller judges that this view is extravagant (_Zeitschrift f\u00fcr\n  V\u00f6lkerpsychologie_, xii. 441).\n\nFootnote 173:\n\n  The text has \u2018than he who is perverse in his lips and is a fool.\u2019 With\n  Gr\u00e4tz, I follow the Peshitto and (partly) the Vulgate.\n\nFootnote 174:\n\n  Pointing _\u014dbh\u0113d_, with Hitzig, Ewald, and Bickell; comp. ver, 11.\n  Dijserinck ingeniously emends _\u00e7\u014dbh\u0113r_ \u2018heaps up\u2019 (i.e. saves).\n\nFootnote 175:\n\n  Comp. Thomson, _The Land and the Book_, pp. 336-8.\n\nFootnote 176:\n\n  The word is _beh\u0113ma_ (Seneca\u2019s \u2018muta animalia\u2019). Schopenhauer,\n  thinking perhaps of the Levitical sacrifices, accuses the Old\n  Testament of cruelty to animals. But see, besides this passage, Gen.\n  i. 27-29, Num. xxii. 28, Jon. iv. 11.\n\nFootnote 177:\n\n  With Hitzig and others, taking _\u2019\u00eesh_ as a softened form _y\u0113sh_ (comp.\n  2 Sam. xiv. 19, Mic. vi. 10); the _y\u014dd_ is kept as in Aramaic. So\n  Targ., Pesh.\n\nFootnote 178:\n\n  At the end of ver. 19 Bickell nearly follows Sept. Cod. Vat., \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f41\u03b4\u03cc\u03bd\n  \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 (A.C.S. \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6). But as this takes the place of _hayy\u014dm_, it would\n  seem that Bickell ought to begin ver. 20 with _af ethm\u014dl_. This\n  however would not suit his metrical theory.\n\nFootnote 179:\n\n  The phraseological resemblance of xxiii. 19_b_ to iv. 14_b_ is\n  incomplete. As for _khokm\u014dth_ in xxiv. 7, it means simply \u2018wisdom\u2019 (as\n  in xiv. 1, where _khakm\u014dth_ is wrong); the parallelism with i. 20, ix.\n  1 is not of critical importance. Any real points of contact (such as\n  xxiii. 23_a_; comp. iv. 5, 7) can be accounted for by imitation, and\n  one could easily bring together points of difference.\n\nFootnote 180:\n\n  The word for \u2018mast\u2019 is a \u1f05\u03c0. \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3. The Septuagint and Peshitto have \u2018as\n  a steersman (or seaman) in great breakers.\u2019\n\nFootnote 181:\n\n  xxiv. 23_b_ is no exception; it is merely the first line of a\n  hexastich.\n\nFootnote 182:\n\n  For \u2018and afterwards\u2019 the Hebrew has \u2018afterwards and thou shalt build.\u2019\n  \u2018And\u2019 may mean \u2018then,\u2019 marking out the perfect as consecutive, but it\n  may also have been intended to join two parts of a sentence.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER IV.\n               THE SECOND COLLECTION AND ITS APPENDICES.\n\n\nThe next proverbial anthology (xxv.-xxix.) like its chief predecessor is\ndescribed in the heading as \u2018Proverbs of Solomon.\u2019[183] The social state\nhowever presupposed in many of them is so different from that of the\nSolomonic age that we may at once reject the theory of the wise king\u2019s\nauthorship. Another name with which in xxv. 1 the work is connected is\nthat of Hezekiah, who has been suggestively called \u2018the Pisistratus of\nJudah.\u2019 The comparison halts, no doubt; for Pisistratus and his\n\u2018companions\u2019 meant to collect the whole of the Homeric poems, whereas\ncompleteness can hardly have been the object of those \u2018friends (or\ncounsellors) of Hezekiah\u2019 who \u2018collected\u2019[184] the \u2018Proverbs of Solomon\u2019\nin xxv. 2-xxix. 27; at least, we know that there was much proverbial\nwisdom in circulation which had as good or as bad a claim to be called\n\u2018Solomonic\u2019 as the sayings which they have admitted into their\nanthology. It may indeed well be doubted whether the compilers had any\nthought of collecting the relics (now already more than 200 years old)\nof the wise king. The style of these proverbs makes such a hypothesis\neven more improbable than in the case of x. 1-xxii. 16. The words with\nwhich the heading begins are of course not decisive, especially as the\nwhole verse appears to be due, not to the royal officials who are spoken\nof, but to the author of the heading in xxiv. 23a (both headings begin\nwith \u2018these also\u2019). That Hezekiah was the instigator of the compilation,\nneed not however be disputed. Even if not himself an author,[185] he may\nwell have shared his friend Isaiah\u2019s interest in literature; and\nbesides, it was at that time one of the glories of a great king to be\nthe founder of a library.[186] The word used in describing the activity\nof his commissioners means literally \u2018transferred\u2019 (from one place to\nanother), and will equally well apply to the noting down of oral\ntraditions and to the making extracts from existing collections. Among\nthe latter, the \u2018Proverbs of Solomon\u2019 in x. 1-xxii. 16 are of course to\nbe included, though it is not quite certain whether the compilers of the\nlater anthology had the book before them. It is true that nine proverbs\nare the same in the two books either absolutely (xxv. 24 = xxi. 9, xxvi.\n22 = xviii. 8, xxvii. 12 = xxii. 3, xxvii. 13 = xx. 16) or virtually\n(xxvi. 13 = xxii. 13, xxvi. 15 = xix. 24, xxviii. 6 = xix. 1, xxviii. 19\n= xii. 11, xxix. 13 = xxii. 2), besides two which agree in one line\n(xxvii. 21 = xvii. 3, xxix. 22 = xv. 18; comp. also xxvii. 15, xix. 13).\nBut there still remains the question, Why the collectors took so little\nand left so much of manifest antiquity, and to this question we cannot\nexpect to find an answer. All that we can say is that their compilation\nhas striking characteristics of its own. In technicalities they admit a\ngreater variety than those of the first anthology. They allow not only\ndistichs but tristichs (xxv. 8, 13, 20, xxvii. 10, 22, xxviii. 10),\ntetrastichs (xxv. 4, 5, xxv. 9, 10, xxv. 21, 22, xxvi. 18, 19, xxvi. 24,\n25, xxvii. 15, 16), and in one case a pentastich[187] (xxv. 6, 7),\nagreeing in this respect with the two appendices of the first anthology.\nThere is also a long _mashal_, analogous to some we have had already,\nwhich can only with some laxity be called a proverb, and which extends\nover ten distichs (xxvii. 23-27). With regard to parallelism, the\nantithetic kind, which predominates in the first \u2018Solomonic\u2019 anthology,\nis rare in this collection, except in chaps. xxviii., xxix.; sometimes\nindeed there is no parallelism at all (see xxv. 8, 9, 10, 21, 22, xxvi.\n18, 19, xxvii. 1, xxix. 12). As a compensation, similitudes abound in\nthe three first chapters of the collection. Sometimes the comparison is\nexpressed, e.g.\n\n              As the cold of snow in the heat[188] of harvest\n              is a faithful messenger to those that send him:\n              he refreshes the soul of his master (xxv. 13);\n\nat other times it is implied by the juxtaposition of the two objects,\ne.g.\n\n                  Apples of gold in chased work of silver,\n                  a word smoothly spoken[189] (xxv. 11).\n\nLet us pause on this favourite proverb of Goethe\u2019s. The Hebrew \u2018wise\nmen\u2019 would not have agreed to a later sage\u2019s depreciation of\nspeech.[190] \u2018A word in due season, how good is it\u2019 (xv. 23); but when\nnot only seasonable but set off by charms of style, how much better is\nit! The \u2018apples of gold\u2019 in xxv. 11 are probably oranges; the \u2018chased\nwork of silver\u2019 means either baskets of silver filagree, or, as I should\nlike to think with Mr. Neil, the brilliant white blossoms among which\nthe golden fruit is seen peeping out. If the \u2018gold\u2019 is figurative, why\nnot also the \u2018silver\u2019? We are reminded of Andrew Marvell\u2019s lines in the\n\u2018Emigrants\u2019 Song,\u2019\n\n                   He hangs in shades the orange bright,\n                   Like golden lamps in a green night,\n\nthough Marvell forgot what Addison (_Spectator_, No. 455) well knew,\nthat flowers as well as fruit and leaves continue on the orange-tree for\nthe best part of the year.\n\nBut to return to our anthology. It would almost seem as if two editors\nwith different tastes had been concerned in it, the one responsible for\nchaps. xxv.-xxvii., and the other for chaps. xxviii, xxix. According to\nEwald, the proverbs in the latter section are mostly somewhat older than\nthose in the former. This is perhaps an impression rather than a\njudgment; and few will deny that some at least of the parabolic proverbs\nin the first section may be as old as those of the same class in x.\n1-xxii. 16.\n\nIt is difficult to suppose that many of the proverbs in either part of\nthe book go back to a remote date. The cheerfulness of Israel\u2019s \u2018golden\nprime\u2019 is gone; society seems to have changed, not altogether for the\nbetter, even since the first great anthology was made. The king is still\nlooked up to with awe; the book begins with a group of four sentences on\nthe true glory of a monarch, followed by two on the right behaviour for\na subject (xxv. 2-7). The king is described (surely with a touch of\nidealism) as inquisitive in the best sense; his \u2018heart,\u2019 or\nunderstanding, is unsearchable. But this happy view of monarchy passes\naway. There are several proverbs complaining of the wickedness of kings,\nwhich are almost without a parallel in the earlier collection. Ungodly\nrulers have made the people \u2018sigh\u2019 (xxix. 2); they have been like\n\u2018roaring lions and ravenous bears\u2019 to the \u2018poor folk\u2019 (xxviii. 15, 16),\nand have completely destroyed the freedom of social intercourse (xxviii.\n12, 28). Sometimes, as in the northern kingdom after the death of\nJeroboam II.,[191] the crown has become the object of competition to a\ncrowd of pretenders (xxviii. 2). The misery of the people has been\nheightened by the greed of petty tyrants, according to the forcible\nsaying,\u2014\n\n       A man who is rich[192] and oppresses the poor\n       (is) a rain which sweeps away and gives no bread (xxviii. 3).\n\nWhat kind of oppression is meant we may learn from Micah (ii. 3),\u2014\n\n              And they covet lands and take them by violence;\n              houses, and take them away;\n              and they oppress the owner and his house,\n              a man and his inheritance.\n\nIt is in short the same unscrupulous accumulation of landed property to\nwhich Isaiah devotes one of his solemn \u2018woes\u2019 in his earliest prophecy,\nand which is one of the causes of the threatened captivity (Isa. v. 8-10\n13). Exile has indeed become a familiar idea to those who admitted\nxxvii. 8 into the anthology, if, as most think, in the pathetic words of\nxxvii. 8 we may hear an echo of the march of Assyrian armies, \u2018to\nwander\u2019 being an euphemism for going into banishment.\n\n          As a bird that wanders from her nest,\n          so is a man that wanders[193] from his home (xxvii. 8).\n\nAs a rule, however, the proverbs relate to ordinary bourgeois life.\nReligious proverbs occur but rarely.[194] \u2018Folly\u2019 too is not so often\nmentioned as in the first collection, and the censure which it has to\nbear is mostly indirect and more or less satirical; see e.g. the\nproverb\u2014\n\n              Though thou shouldest beat a fool in a mortar\n              in the midst of bruised corn with a pestle,\n              his folly would not depart from him (xxvii. 22),\n\nand especially the paradoxical exhibition of the two sides of a truth\u2014\n\n             Answer not the stupid man according to his folly,\n             lest thou thyself also become like unto him:\n             Answer the stupid man according to his folly,\n             lest he regard himself as wise (xxvi. 4, 5),\n\nwhere the first distich dissuades from retaliating on a fool by a word\nor an action on his own low moral plane, while the second recommends\ngiving his folly the exposure or the sharp answer which it so richly\ndeserves.[195] The wide meaning of \u2018folly\u2019 in this pair of proverbs may\nbe illustrated by xvii. 12, where it evidently means a paroxysm of\npassion. Next to this noisy passionate \u2018folly,\u2019 if we may judge from the\narrangement of chap. xxvi., comes the vice of idleness (xxvi. 13-16).\nHow dangerous this was felt to be we have seen already, and the\nexhortation to agricultural industry in xxvii. 23-27 forms a counterpart\nto the meditation on the \u2018field of the slothful\u2019 in xxiv. 30-32. If the\nmotives urged for this and other duties are not lofty, the standard is\nat least an easily attainable one.\n\nSometimes, indeed, the eye sharpened by a regard to prudence discerns\nmoral points of some refinement.[196] This proverb, for instance,\nstrikes one as delicate, in spite of the prudential motive attached to\nit in the next verse,\u2014\n\n               Conduct thy quarrel with thy neighbour,\n               but expose not the secret of another (xxv. 9);\n\nand the well-known precept on showing kindness to one\u2019s enemies, though\npartly supported by the prospect of a reward (comp. xxiv. 17, 18), is so\nnobly expressed that an apostle can adopt it without change (Rom. xii.\n20),\u2014\n\n      If one that hates thee hunger, give him bread to eat,\n      and if he thirst, give him water to drink,\n      for thou heapest coals of fire thereby\n      upon his head, and Jehovah shall recompense thee (xxv. 21, 22).\n\nLet us pause a moment on this proverb, which contrasts so strongly with\nthe advice on the treatment of enemies given by Sirach. \u2018Coals of fire\non the head\u2019 is probably here a metaphorical expression for what St.\nAugustine calls \u2018urentes conscienti\u00e6 gemitus\u2019 (_De doctr. Christ._, l.\niii., c. 16). The appositeness of the phrase will be heightened if we\nsuppose the enemy spoken of to be one who has never heard of the wise\nman\u2019s rule\u2014a man of rude, uncultured nature, and perhaps of alien race.\nTo such a one, the being fed by the very man whom he \u2018hated\u2019 would give\nfirst of all a shock of surprise, and then a pang of intolerable remorse\nfor his own unworthiness.[197] I wish one could be sure that this pang\nwas referred to as purifying as well as painful to the sufferer. A\nparallel passage would be a great boon. Of course we can _apply_ the\npassage in the same sense as St. Paul when he followed his quotation\nwith the words, \u2018Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.\u2019\n\nBut we should wrong our \u2018wise men\u2019 by treating them as pure\nutilitarians; they are often sympathetic observers of character and\ncircumstance. For instance,\u2014\n\n    Vinegar falling upon a wound,[198]\n    and he who sings songs to a heavy heart (xxv. 20).\n    Silver dross spread over an earthen vessel\u2014\n    fervent lips[199] and a bad heart (xxvi. 23).\n    Let another man praise thee, and not thine own mouth:\n    a stranger, and not thine own lips (xxvii. 2).\n    Faithful are the wounds of one who loves,\n    but the kisses of a hater are profuse[200] (xxvii. 6).\n    Thine own friend, and thy father\u2019s friend, forsake not;\n    and go not to thy brother\u2019s house in the day of thy calamity:\n    better is a near neighbour than a far off brother[201] (xxvii. 10).\n    He who blesses his friend with a loud voice, rising early in the\n       morning,\n    it is reckoned to him for a curse[202] (xxvii. 14).\n    Iron is sharpened by iron,\n    and a man sharpens the face (or edge) of his friend (xxvii. 17).\n\nThe three appendices to the Hezekian collection (xxx., xxxi. 1-9, xxxi.\n10-31) are, to take the most conservative position possible, obviously\nnot earlier than the closing century of the Jewish state. The art of\nproverb-writing has declined ever since the compilation of the previous\nanthology. The marks of simplicity and naturalness are wanting; the\nenigmatical and artificial seem to be sought for. Each part of these two\nchapters has moreover something of its own pointing in the direction of\na late origin. The two first appendices are very possibly even later\nthan the return of the Jews from Babylon.\n\nThe first appendix begins\u2014\u2018The words of Agur the son of Jakeh, the\nprophecy\u2019 (or, divine utterance)[203] (comp. xxxi, 1). The heading is\nenigmatical; in what sense are the \u2018words\u2019 \u2018a prophecy,\u2019 and who are the\npersons spoken of? The latter question we have no means of answering.\nThe names are not found elsewhere, and have been thought to be\npseudonyms (Agur might mean \u2018collector\u2019 and Jakeh \u2018obedient,\u2019 i.e.\n\u2018religious\u2019).[204] As to the title \u2018the prophecy,\u2019 it must be admitted\nthat it is not by any means an appropriate one. It is too bold to accuse\nthe proverb-writer of claiming prophetic inspiration. (And why should\nthe article be prefixed?) The only alternative to this is to read, with\nProf. Gr\u00e4tz, (for _hammass\u0101_ \u2018the prophecy\u2019) _hamm\u014dsh\u0113l_ \u2018the\nproverb-writer.\u2019 After the heading comes a group of four verses complete\nin itself.\n\n     The oracle of the man \u2018I have wearied[205] myself about God\u2019 (?),\n     I have wearied myself about God and have not prevailed.[206]\n     For I am too stupid for a man,\n     and am without human reason;\n     I have not learned wisdom,\n     nor have I knowledge of the All-holy.[207]\n     Who has gone up to heaven and come down?\n     who has gathered the wind in his fists?\n     who has bound up the waters in a garment?\n     who has established all the ends of the earth?\n     what is his name, and what is his son\u2019s name, if thou knowest?\n\nIt is not easy to interpret this little passage. Evidently the speaker\nis a \u2018wise man,\u2019 who, according to some critics, inculcates a reverent\nhumility by reporting the fruitlessness of his own theological\nspeculations. After long brooding over the problems of the divine nature\n(so they explain), the Hebrew sage was compelled to desist with the\nfeeling of his utter incapacity. Like Israel the patriarch he strove\nwith God, but unlike Israel he did not prevail. He knows indeed what God\nhas done and is continually doing; He is the Omnipresent One, the Lord\nof wind and flood, the Author of the boundaries of the earth. But what\nis this great Being\u2019s name, and (to know Him intimately) what is His\nson\u2019s name? On this view of its meaning, the passage reminds one of the\nwords of Goethe\u2019s Faust, \u2018Who can name Him, or who confess, I believe\nHim? Who can feel, and can be bold to say, I believe Him not?\u2019 Or\nperhaps we may still better compare Max Letteris\u2019 masterly Hebrew\ntranslation or adaptation, in which the medieval doctor has been\ntransformed into Ben Abuyah (or Acher \u05d0\u05b7\u05d7\u05b5\u05e8), the famous apostate from\nJudaism in the second century of our era. The passage with which we are\nconcerned as illustrative of the passage before us is on page 164, and\nbegins \u05de\u05b4\u05d9 \u05d9\u05b7\u05d6\u05b8\u05db\u05b7\u05bc\u05d9\u05e8\u05b5\u05d4\u05d5\u05bc \u05d5\u05bc\u05de\u05b4\u05d9 \u05d9\u05b0\u05d1\u05b7\u05e0\u05b5\u05bc\u05d4\u05d5\u05bc. Notice the delicate tact in\nthe choice of the second verb, \u2018Who can give Him an honourable surname?\u2019\n(comp. Isa, xliv. 5, xiv. 4.) Later on, after other names suggested by\nthe German original, the modern Hebrew poet continues, \u05d0\u05d5\u05b9\u05c2 \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05d9\u05b8\u05d4\u05bc\n\u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05de\u05d5\u05c2 \u05db\u05b4\u05d9 \u05e0\u05b4\u05e9\u05b0\u05c2\u05d2\u05b8\u05bc\u05d1 \u05d4\u05b7\u05d6\u05b0\u05db\u05bc\u05d9\u05e8\u05d5\u05bc, and in a note refers to a parallel\npassage in a Hebrew poem by Ibn Gabirol.\n\nI must make bold to doubt the correctness of this explanation. (1)\nBecause it does not sufficiently account for the language of ver. 2. (2)\nBecause upon this view of the questions of ver. 4, an Israelite\u2019s answer\nwould simply be, Jehovah (comp. Job xxxviii. 5, Isa. xl. 12). (3)\nBecause it is so difficult to see why the poet should have asked\nfurther, What is His son\u2019s name? Is not the passage rather a philosophic\nfragment from a school of \u2018wise men,\u2019 not so much unbelieving as\ncritical? The speaker declares, soberly enough, that he has tried in\nvain by thinking to find out God. Then comes in a piece of irony. No\ndoubt it is his own stupidity; grand theologians, such as the writer of\nIsa. xl. 12 &c., Job xxxviii., Prov. viii. 22 &c., may well look down\nupon the dullard, who has not passed through their school! \u2018But who is\nit that is ever and anon coming down[208] to earth, and that performed\nall these creative works of which you delight to speak? I have never\nseen him; tell me his name and his son\u2019s name since you are so learned.\u2019\nThe latter phrase may be an allusion, either (anticipating Philo, who\ncalls Wisdom God\u2019s Son) to the \u2018I was brought forth\u2019 in viii. 24, or\nmore probably[209] the primeval man (who might be called a \u2018son of God\u2019\nin the sense of Luke iii. 38) spoken of in Job xv. 7, who was the\nembodiment of all wisdom and sat in the council of Elohim.[210] The\nsatirical turn of this secularistic \u2018wise man\u2019 is even perhaps traceable\nin the heading of his poem. He calls his work an \u2018oracle,\u2019 taking up a\nfavourite word of the disciples of the prophets, and flinging it back to\nthem with a laugh. Obviously too the name of the writer, if genuine, is\nbest explained as an assumed name. [But the emphatic _haggebher_ is very\ndifficult. I cannot believe, with Ewald, that _haggebher_ is said\nironically, as if \u2018the mighty one in his own conceit;\u2019 comp. Isa. xxii.\n17 (?), Ps. lii. 3. The analogy of Num. xxiv. 3, 15, 2 Sam. xxiii. 1,\nsuggests that there is a corruption in the text, and that _haggebher_,\n\u2018the man,\u2019 was originally followed by words descriptive of the person\nreferred to. Gr\u00e4tz boldly corrects (_haggebher_) _l\u014d-khayil_ \u2018the man\nwithout strength.]\n\nAre we surprised at this? But a strikingly parallel confession of honest\nscepticism is found in the Rig Veda (x. 129), though I would not of\ncourse identify the opinions of the Sanskrit and the Hebrew poet,\n\n    Who knows, who here can declare, whence has sprung\u2014whence, this\n    creation?... From what this creation arose; and whether [any one]\n    made it, or not,\u2014he who in the highest heaven is its ruler, he\n    verily knows, or [even] he does not know.[211]\n\nThe poet who \u2018takes up his parable\u2019 after Laithi-el calmly and\nuncontroversially indicates his own very different religious position.\nHe earnestly prays that he may not \u2018become a liar and ask, Who is\nJehovah?\u2019 (xxx. 9); for him the divine revelations (the outward form of\nwhich is already sacred) are amply sufficient. \u2018Every utterance of God\n[_Eloah_, the sing. form, as in Job] is free from alloy\u2019 (xxx. 5; see\nthe commentators on Ps. xviii. 31); the divine \u2018name\u2019 declared in Ex.\nxxxiv. 6, should satisfy the wisest of men. Thus, like the editors of\nEcclesiastes, this later writer neutralises the doubtful expressions of\nthe poem which he has saved from perishing.\n\nCan we avoid the impression that both these poets lived in an age of\nadvanced religious reflection and of Scripture-study? The one is more of\na philosopher, the other of a Biblical theologian; both would be at home\nonly in the Exile or in the post-Exile period, when doubt and even\nscepticism lifted their heads side by side with Biblical study. Our\nsecond more believing poet seems to be thinking of Ps. xviii. 30; but\nthe portion of that verse which he adopts assumes another colour through\nthe warning which follows, derived from Deut. iv. 1, xiii. 1. It is no\nlonger the \u2018promise of God\u2019 which is \u2018tried\u2019 or \u2018pure,\u2019 but the\nrevelation of which the Jewish Church is gradually finding itself the\npossessor.\n\nThe poet\u2019s prayer for himself (vv. 7-9) is followed by eight groups of\nproverbs, each of which describes some quality or character which is\neither commended or warned against, and (with the exception of the\nfirst) contains a similitude. In most of these the number four is\nconspicuous generally as the climax after \u2018three\u2019 (vv. 15, 18, 21, 29).\nThe fact that similar \u2018numerical proverbs\u2019 were popular in the early\nRabbinical period,[212] gives a certain support to the view that this\ncollection is of late origin. The groups referred to are\u2014\n\n              The four marks of an evil generation  vv. 11-14\n              The four insatiable things            \u2014 15, 16\n              The fate of the disobedient son       \u2014 17\n              The four incomprehensible things      \u2014 18-20\n               \u2014  \u2014  intolerable things           \u2014 21-23\n               \u2014  \u2014  wise animals                 \u2014 24-28\n               \u2014  \u2014  comely in going (see p. 175) \u2014 29-31\n              A warning against strife              \u2014 32, 33.\n\nOne of these (vv. 15, 16) has probably suffered a slight mutilation,\nwhich has been thus remedied by Bickell,\u2014\n\n          The leech has two [three [213]] daughters,\n          they say continually, \u2018Give, give:\u2019\n          there are three things which are never satisfied,\n          four which never say, \u2018Abundance.\u2019\n          She\u00f3l is never satisfied with dead,\n          and the closing of the womb is never satisfied with men,\n          the earth is never satisfied with water,\n          and fire never says, \u2018Abundance.\u2019[214]\n\n\u2018Daughters of the leech\u2019 is a quasi-mythical expression, which no one\ncould misunderstand (comp. \u2018upon a hill the son of oil,\u2019 Isa. v. 1). We\nfind a similar group of four insatiables in the Sanskrit\nHitopadesa.[215]\n\n    Fire is never satisfied with fuel; nor the ocean with rivers; nor\n    death with all creatures; nor bright-eyed women with men.\n\nThe verses are of course older than the trumpery story of the cowherd\u2019s\nwife which they serve to illustrate. The coincidence with the Hebrew,\nbeing obviously accidental, is worth remembering in other connections.\nThe two parallels, present in the Hebrew but not in this Sanskrit\nquaternion, are given in a quatrain of a Vedic hymn to Varuna\u2014\n\n                 The path of ships across the sea,\n                 The soaring eagle\u2019s flight he knows.[216]\n\nThe second appendix (xxxi. 1-9) consists of a single group of sayings,\ndescribed as \u2018the words of Lemuel, a king, the prophecy [better the\nproverb, reading _m\u0101sh\u0101l_] with which his mother instructed him.\u2019\nPossibly, as Ewald suggests, Lemuel (or rather, Lemoel, as the word is\npointed in ver. 4) is an imaginary name, descriptive of the character of\nan ideal monarch (\u2018God\u2019s own;\u2019 comp. Lael, Num. iii. 24). It is not\nnecessary to suppose that the poet himself lived under a native king; he\nmay, like the author of Koheleth, have thrown himself back in\nimagination to Israel\u2019s golden prime. His own period was late, judging\nfrom the unclassical Hebrew (notice the Aramaisms in vv. 2, 3, and the\nstrange expressions in vv. 5, 8). The form of the heading suggests that\nthese \u2018words of Lemuel\u2019 formed part of the same collection as the \u2018words\nof Agur;\u2019 and there is at least nothing in the contents to forbid this\nview. The warnings of this queen-mother[217] (whose relation to Lemuel\nreminds us of that of Bathsheba to Solomon) are very homely and\npractical; one is against sensuality, another against drunkenness; upon\nwhich follows an admonition to defend the cause of the poor. Even if\nthere were no native king at the time, the advice would be appropriate\nfor all members of the upper class of society.\n\nThe third appendix (xxxi. 10-31) contains the praise of the virtuous\nwoman. In style it is quite unlike the two preceding sections; it must\ncome therefore from another source. It is an alphabetic poem; each\ndistich begins with a letter of the Hebrew alphabet. This, combined with\nthe position of the work at the close of the various collections of\nproverbs, of itself suggests a date not far removed on the one side or\nthe other from the Exile period, when Hebrew literature became\nundoubtedly more artificial and technical. From xxxi. 23 (\u2018the elders of\nthe land\u2019) we may perhaps infer that it was written in Palestine. It is\nvery interesting to see the ideal of womanhood formed by a late Hebrew\npoet. Activity appears to him the one great feminine virtue\u2014not however\nthe activity which is entirely devoted to trifling details, for the\nideal woman \u2018is like the ships of the merchant; from far she brings her\nfood\u2019 (ver. 14). Nor is she a stranger to sympathetic impulses; \u2018she\nholds out her hand (with something in it) to the afflicted, and\nstretches forth her hands to the needy [to bring them in],\u2019 ver. 20. Nor\nmust we forget \u2018one of the most beautiful features in the portrait\u2019\n(Delitzsch): \u2018she opens her mouth with wisdom, and a law of kindness is\non her tongue\u2019 (ver. 26). But for this verse, indeed, it would read\nalmost like satire that \u2018far above pearls is her value\u2019 (ver. 10), since\nno higher estimate than this has been offered for God\u2019s choicest\nblessing, \u2018Wisdom.\u2019[218]\n\nThe poet does not say that he has found such a woman (comp. Eccles. vii.\n28). The picture is perhaps too brightly coloured to be drawn from\nreality, unless with Hitzig we bring down the composition of the poem as\nlate as the Greek period. Most probably, it is idealistic.\n\nFootnote 183:\n\n  \u2018These _also_\u2019 suggests that what follows is a last gleaning of\n  Solomonic proverbs. And in fact xxv. 24, xxvi. 13, 15, 22, xxvii. 12,\n  13, 21a, seem to be taken from _the_ \u2018Solomonic\u2019 collection. Hitzig\n  however rejects this view. Why did not the collectors combine all the\n  Solomonic proverbs they could find in one work? So he supposes this\n  new collection to have been made \u2018aus dem Volksmunde,\u2019 and remarks\n  that a commission would be specially appropriate for this task. To me\n  this seems an anachronism. The proverbs of the Hezekian collection are\n  moreover as artistic as those of the first \u2018Solomonic.\u2019\n\nFootnote 184:\n\n  So virtually the Septuagint (\u1f11\u03be\u03b5\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c8\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf), followed by the Peshitto\n  and the Targum: Aquila, \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd. The Greek, curiously enough, inserts\n  an epithet for the proverbs, viz. \u03b1\u1f31 \u1f00\u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9, i.e. either\n  impossible to distinguish, miscellaneous (so Sophocles, _Lexicon_), or\n  better, difficult to interpret. Symmachus has \u1f00\u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 for _b\u014dh\u016b_,\n  Gen. i. 2. The Peshitto and Targum render the Greek of our passage by\n  \u2018deep proverbs,\u2019 i.e. enigmatical ones (so too Aquila and Theodotion\n  in the Syro-hexapla).\n\nFootnote 185:\n\n  Cheyne, _The Prophecies of Isaiah_, i. 228-9 (on Isa. xxxviii. 9).\n\nFootnote 186:\n\n  Sayce\u2019s ed. of Smith\u2019s _Chaldean Genesis_, pp. 15, 26, 27.\n\nFootnote 187:\n\n  Sept., Symm., Pesh., Vulg., however, attach the lost line of ver. 7 to\n  ver. 8 (\u2018Qu\u00e6 viderunt oculi tui, ne proferas in jurgio cito\u2019), which\n  makes ver. 7 a distich and ver. 8 a tetrastich.\n\nFootnote 188:\n\n  Reading _b\u2019kh\u014dm_ for _b\u2019y\u014dm_ with Sept.\n\nFootnote 189:\n\n  Literally, \u2018a word spoken (or, perhaps, driven, or sent home) on its\n  wheels,\u2019 i.e. smoothly and elegantly (\u2018ore rotundo\u2019). So Schultens,\n  who sees a reference to the tropes and figures of elegant Oriental\n  style. Comp. Neil, _Palestine Explored_, p. 197. The interpretation is\n  an attractive one, though uncertain. Ewald has a slightly different\n  view (see History, ii. p. 14, n. 6).\n\nFootnote 190:\n\n  Carlyle however borrows an Arabic proverb (Freytag, _Prov. Ar._, iii.\n  92).\n\nFootnote 191:\n\n  It is of course possible that xxviii. 2 may be of northern origin, but\n  why should not a wise man in Judah have watched with sympathy the\n  course of events in Israel?\n\nFootnote 192:\n\n  Reading, with Gr\u00e4tz, _\u2019\u0101sh\u012br_ for _r\u0101sh_ \u2018poor,\u2019 which makes no sense.\n\nFootnote 193:\n\n  Sept. well \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03be\u03b5\u03bd\u03c9\u03b8\u03b5\u1fc7.\n\nFootnote 194:\n\n  Notice however the remarkable saying, already quoted, in xxix.\n\nFootnote 195:\n\n  The proverbs xxvi. 1, 3-12, form a string of satirical attacks on the\n  \u2018fool\u2019 or stupid man.\n\nFootnote 196:\n\n  One of these points however is noticed in the earliest part of the\n  Law. The love of one\u2019s enemy is taught in Ex. xxiii. 4, 5.\n\nFootnote 197:\n\n  See however Mr. Yonge in _The Expositor_, Aug. 1885, pp. 158-9.\n\nFootnote 198:\n\n  The received text has \u2018vinegar upon nitre;\u2019 but this would be rather\n  an emblem for anger. The correction is Bickell\u2019s, and is partly\n  founded on Sept. (\u1f65\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u1f44\u03be\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f15\u03bb\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9 \u1f00\u03c3\u03cd\u03bc\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd). The opening words of\n  the verse in rec. text arise from the repetition in a corrupt form of\n  the four last words of the preceding verse (Lagarde and Bickell).\n\nFootnote 199:\n\n  The Septuagint has \u2018smooth lips.\u2019\n\nFootnote 200:\n\n  To have added \u2018but perfidious,\u2019 would have made the line too long.\n\nFootnote 201:\n\n  This seems a combination of two distinct proverbs. The one says that a\n  friend can give more sympathy than a relative; the other, that a\n  neighbour, being on the spot, can give more help than a relative at a\n  distance.\n\nFootnote 202:\n\n  A humorous picture! Such ostentatious and inopportune salutations are\n  execrable flattery.\n\nFootnote 203:\n\n  On the conjectural reading, \u2018the man of Massa\u2019 (\u2018Massa,\u2019 instead of\n  \u2018the prophecy\u2019), see Chap. VI.\n\nFootnote 204:\n\n  This was the view of St. Jerome, derived of course from his Jewish\n  teacher.\n\nFootnote 205:\n\n  Pointing _l\u0101\u012bth\u012b_.\n\nFootnote 206:\n\n  Reading with Bickell _v\u2019l\u014d \u016bk\u0101l_. Another correction of the text is,\n  _v\u2019\u0113kel_ \u2018and have pined away.\u2019\n\nFootnote 207:\n\n  _Q\u2019d\u014dsh\u012bm_, a word formed on the analogy of _el\u014dh\u012bm_; comp. ix. 10,\n  Hos. xii. 1.\n\nFootnote 208:\n\n  It may be objected that \u2018hath gone up and come down\u2019 does not suit\n  this explanation, and that, to refer to God, it should run \u2018hath come\n  down and gone up.\u2019 But we have \u2018angels of Elohim ascending and\n  descending\u2019 in Gen. xxviii. 12; usage, in Hebrew as in English,\n  forbids the phrase \u2018to go down and up.\u2019\n\nFootnote 209:\n\n  \u2018More probably;\u2019 because the name of the speaker in viii. 24 has been\n  told.\n\nFootnote 210:\n\n  Comp. Ewald, _Die Lehre der Bibel von Gott_, iii. 2, pp. 81, 82.\n\nFootnote 211:\n\n  Muir, _Original Sanskrit Texts_, v. 356; comp. Max M\u00fcller, _Hibbert\n  Lectures_, p. 316.\n\nFootnote 212:\n\n  See above, p. 128, and comp. W\u00fcnsche, _Midrasch Kohelet_, p. xiii.\n\nFootnote 213:\n\n  Sept., followed by Pesh., reads \u2018three\u2019 for \u2018two.\u2019 Accepting this\n  reading, the second half of the verse becomes an explanation of the\n  first.\n\nFootnote 214:\n\n  Bickell\u2019s reconstruction of the text makes the proverbs symmetrical\n  with the rest. In lines 5, 6 he makes an ingenious parallelism with\n  _m\u0113th\u012bm_ \u2018dead\u2019 and _m\u2019th\u012bm_ \u2018men\u2019 (i.e. children).\n\nFootnote 215:\n\n  F. Johnson\u2019s translation (1848), chap. ii., fable 7; comp. Fritze\u2019s\n  metrical version (Leipz. 1884).\n\nFootnote 216:\n\n  Muir, _Metrical Translations_ (1879), p. 160.\n\nFootnote 217:\n\n  On the early importance of the queen-mother, see Cheyne\u2019s _Isaiah_, i.\n  47, note 1 (on Isa. vii. 13).\n\nFootnote 218:\n\n  This hardly recommends the view of Costelli, that this poem is\n  properly the conclusion of the introductory treatise (i.-ix.)\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER V.\n                         THE PRAISE OF WISDOM.\n\n\n\u2018Thou hast kept the good wine until now,\u2019 for \u2018good wine\u2019 well describes\nthe glorious little treatise at the head of our Book of Proverbs (i.\n7-ix. 18). I do not think it is right to infer from the heading in i. 1\nthat its unknown author assumed the mask of Solomon. In itself such a\nhypothesis would not be incredible. We have the analogy of the Egyptian\nscribe who represents Amenemhat I. \u2018rising up like a god\u2019 and addressing\nto his son some instructions on the royal art of governing.[219] But it\nis more natural to explain the heading as a repetition of the formula in\nx. 1, for the \u2018Praise of Wisdom\u2019 (to coin another title) is in fact the\nintroduction to the following anthology,[220] together with which and\nits appendices it forms the \u2018older book of Proverbs.\u2019 If we ask why an\nintroduction was prefixed, the answer must be that the writer wished to\nrecommend his own inspiring view of practical ethics as a branch of\ndivine wisdom; in other words, to counteract the sometimes commonplace\nmorality of the earlier proverbs by enveloping the reader in a purer and\nmore ethereal atmosphere. The key-note of the anthology is nothing but\nExperience; that of the introductory treatise is Divine Teaching. It is\na sign of moral progress that the editor of an anthology of Experience\nshould have thought his work only half-done till he had prefixed the\n\u2018Praise of Wisdom.\u2019 As a wise teacher of our own time[221] has observed,\n\u2018It would not be untrue to say that in all essential points Experience\nis the teacher only of fools, of those who have gone astray through\nturning a deaf ear to the voice of a prior and more legitimate teacher.\u2019\nThe nature of the wisdom so earnestly commended by this self-forgetting\nwriter, we will consider presently; and our study will probably convince\nus that such a writer can only have arisen at an advanced period of\nIsrael\u2019s history. The class or circle to which he belonged, and its\ncharacteristics, can easily be determined; but the precise period only\nwith some degree of hesitation. Without anticipating the discussion\nwhich will be given at another point, I think it may safely be laid down\nthat each of those kindred poems\u2014the \u2018Praise of Wisdom\u2019 and \u2018Job\u2019\u2014must\nhave arisen at one of three periods, marked respectively by the\ncomposition of Deuteronomy, by the Captivity, and by the Restoration.\nThe progress of the higher Israelitish wisdom was so gradual that it\ndoes not perhaps, to the exegete as distinguished from the historian,\ngreatly matter which of these periods we select. For my own part,\nhowever, I incline to connect at any rate the former of these works with\nthe age of Deuteronomy. Apart from the details to be mentioned\nelsewhere, it is clear (I speak now of Prov. i.-ix.) that the tone of\nthe exhortations, and the view of religion as \u2018having the promise of the\nlife that now is,\u2019 correspond to similar characteristics of the Book of\nDeuteronomy. And if we turn from the contents to the form of this choice\nlittle book, the same hypothesis seems equally suitable. The prophets\nhad long since seen the necessity of increasing their influence by\ncommitting the main points of their discourses to writing; some\nrhetorical passages indeed were evidently composed to be read and not to\nbe heard. It was natural that the moralists should follow this example,\nnot only (as in the anthologies) by remodelling their wise sayings for\npublication, but also by venturing on long and animated quasi-oratorical\nrecommendations of great moral truths.\n\nSuch a recommendation, addressed especially to the young and\nimpressionable (i. 4), lies before us in chaps. i.-ix. In grave but\nharmonious accents the opening verses (which refer chiefly to i. 7-ix.\n18, but not without a secondary reference to the anthology which\nfollows) describe its object and character. Then follows a motto, the\nfirst line of which occurs again near the close of the book in ix. 10\n(Job xxviii. 28, Ps. cxi. 10), and which stamps the author as belonging\nto a new and more religious class of \u2018wise men\u2019 (see p. 121),\u2014\n\n              The fear of Jehovah is the beginning of wisdom,\n\ni.e. the foundation of true wisdom (its \u2018root,\u2019 Ecclus. i. 20) is\nreverence. The disciple is to begin by taking this upon trust, but when\nfurther advanced he will see that it is the shortest way to his goal,\ntrue wisdom having an objective existence in the unseen world. At\npresent he is simply to follow the \u2018direction\u2019 of those wiser than\nhimself:\u2014our moralist is as zealous for a _t\u014dra_ as the author of\nDeuteronomy. But though serious and authoritative, he is never stern;\nindeed, to enforce his appeal he breaks through a Hebrew writer\u2019s usual\nveil of reticence and describes his own home-life (iv. 3, 4). He can\nenter into the feelings of the young, for he too has \u2018borne the yoke in\nhis youth\u2019 (Lam. iii. 27), and learned to prefer it to \u2018unchartered\nfreedom.\u2019 The whole of chap. iv. is devoted to a summary of the wise\ndoctrine which he received from his father; indeed, throughout the book\nhe shows a wonderful appreciation of the parental and the filial\nrelations, and, according to Ewald\u2019s arrangement (see below), begins\neach section with an exhortation to listen to parental instruction. He\nhimself feels like a father to his young disciples (iv. 1).\n\nThe errors to which his hearers are specially tempted are highway\nrobbery (i. 11-18, iv. 16, 17) and unchastity (ii. 16, v. 3-20, vi.\n24-35, vii. 5-27, ix. 13-18). From the time that the simplicity of the\nancient life began to give way to the inroads of luxury, we meet in the\nBiblical writings with complaints of acts of violence leading to murder\n(see, for instance, in the prophecies, Isa. i. 15, v. 7, xxxiii. 15,\nMic. iii. 10, Jer. ii. 34, xxii. 17, Isa. lix. 3, 7, and in a collection\nof proverbs contemporary with our book, Prov. xxiv. 15, 16). \u2018At no\ntime,\u2019 as Dean Plumptre well remarks, \u2018has Palestine ever risen to the\nsecurity of a well-ordered police-system;\u2019 even down to the fall of\nJerusalem, bands of robbers defied the authority of the central\ngovernment. The remarkable thing is that young men in the higher circles\nof society (for such our moralist appears to address) should be thought\ncapable of joining the banditti, at a time when \u2018bandit\u2019 could not be\nsynonymous with \u2018patriot.\u2019 Our moralist contents himself with dissuading\nhis disciple from doing so, on the ground of the retribution which will\nfollow (i. 18, 19). The exhortation to industry, with its slow but sure\nprofits, comes later, and in a less appropriate place (vi. 6-8). But the\nother besetting sin of youth is still more earnestly denounced as the\nmost glaring specimen of \u2018folly.\u2019 Once indeed the \u2018strange, or alien,\nwoman,\u2019 i.e. the adulteress, is introduced dramatically as \u2018Madam Folly\u2019\n(ix. 13). The picture is remarkable, and forms a designed contrast to\nthat at the beginning of the chapter. She sits at the door of her house,\ncounterfeiting her great rival Wisdom (comp. ver. 14 with ver. 3, and\nver. 16 with ver. 4), like Dante\u2019s Siren; but the disciple of the \u2018wise\nman\u2019 knows\n\n         ... that phantoms are there,\n         and that her guests are in the depths of She\u00f3l\n                                  (ix. 18; comp. ii. 18, xxi. 16).\n\n\u2018Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his way?\u2019 is the problem for our\nmoralist to solve. He does so by insisting on an education conducted in\nreliance on divine Wisdom. The reward of diligent attention to the\nearlier lessons (for each chapter is a lesson, and its repetitions have\na pedagogic justification) is the famous portrait of Wisdom in viii.\n22-31. She (for Wisdom, _khokma_, is a feminine word) has indeed been\nmentioned before (i. 20, iii. 13-20, iv. 5-9), but from viii. 1 to ix. 6\nthe poet is absorbed in his grand personification. Wisdom is now\npresented to us, in the familiar dialect of poetry, as the firstborn\nChild of the Creator. There is but one Wisdom; though her forms are\nmany, in her origin she is one. The Wisdom who presided over the \u2018birth\u2019\nof nature is the same who by her messengers (the \u2018wise men\u2019) calls\nmankind to turn aside from evil (ix. 3). There can therefore be no real\ndisharmony between nature and morality; the picture leaves no room for\nan Ahriman, in this and other respects resembling the Cosmogony in Gen.\ni. and portions of the striking descriptions in Job xxvi., xxviii.,\nxxxviii. There is also no time when we can say that \u2018Wisdom was not.\u2019\nFaith declares that even in that primitive Chaos of which our reason has\na horror divine Wisdom reigned supreme. The heavenly ocean, the ancient\nhills, the combination of countless delicate atoms to form the ground,\nthe fixing of the vault of heaven on the world-encircling ocean, the\nseparation of sea and dry land[222]\u2014all these were later works of God\nthan the Architect through whom He made them. And how did the Architect\nwork? By a \u2018divine improvisation\u2019 which allowed no sense of effort or\nfatigue, and which still continues with unabated freshness. But though\nher sportive path[223] can still be traced in the processes of nature,\nher highest delight is in the regeneration of the moral life of\nhumanity. The passage runs thus\u2014\n\n         Jehovah produced[224] me as the beginning of his way,\n         as the first of his works, long since.\n         From of old I received my place,\n         from the beginning, from the first times of the earth.\n         When there were no floods, I was brought forth,\n         when there were no fountains rich in water.\n         Before the mountains were settled,\n         before the hills was I brought forth;\n         While as yet he had not made the earth with (its) fields,\n         and the atoms of dust which form the ground.\n         When he established the heaven, I was there,\n         when he marked a circle upon the face of the flood,[225]\n\n         When he made firm the sky above,\n         when he strengthened the fountains of the flood,\n         When he appointed to the sea his bound,\n         that the waters should not transgress his command,\n         when he fixed the foundations of the earth,\n         Then was I beside him as architect,\n         and was daily full of delight,\n         sporting[226] before him at all times,\n         I who (still) have sport with his fruitful earth,\n         and have my delight with the sons of men.\n\nThe bold originality of this passage requires no proof. It cuts away at\na blow the old mythical conception of the world as the work of God\u2019s\nhands, and of an arbitrary omnipotence. \u2018God,\u2019 as Hooker says, \u2018is a law\nboth to himself and to all things beside;\u2019 \u2018his wisdom hath stinted the\neffects of his power.\u2019 \u2018Nor is the freedom of the will of God any whit\nabated, let, or hindered, by means of this; because the imposition of\nthis law upon himself is his own free and voluntary act\u2019 (\u2018Jehovah\nproduced me\u2019). The idea, then, of the world as a Cosmos was not adopted\nby the Jews from the Greeks; it arose of itself as soon as religious men\npondered over the phenomena of nature. The author of _Job_ took up the\nidea, and reexpressed it worthily in xxviii. 12-28, the chief difference\nbetween him and his predecessor being that he denies the attainableness\nfor man of wisdom in the larger sense, while the author of the \u2018Praise\nof Wisdom\u2019 does not raise the question whether the higher department of\nwisdom is open to human enquiry.\n\nAt the subsequent history of the conception of Wisdom we can barely\nglance.[227] The cosmogonist in Gen. i., a sublime thinker, but\naddressing untutored minds, preferred to convey truth in forms borrowed\nfrom mythology. The moralists however saw the poetical and religious\nimportance of the personification of Wisdom, and repeatedly introduced\nit into their didactic works (see Ecclus. i., xxiv., Wisd. vi.-ix.,[228]\nand comp. Bar. iii. 29-37). Sirach even takes a step in advance of his\noriginal, and at least for a moment identifies Wisdom with the Law of\nMoses.[229] It became indeed a tradition of Jewish exegesis (see _Pirke\nAboth_, vi. 10) to interpret the absolute Khokma of the Tora, either in\nopposition to Hellenistic views of the higher wisdom, or from a\npractical instinct such as Wordsworth followed when in praise of Duty he\nemployed figures which had occurred long before in the \u2018Praise of\nWisdom,\u2019 or (a closer parallel) Richard Hooker, when he described the\nScripture as one embodiment of that divine Law which he so splendidly\neulogises at the close of his first book. That Jewish legalism\ndegenerated into a mechanical formalism, should not blind us to the\npractical instinct in which it originated.\n\nThe title \u2018The Praise of Wisdom\u2019 has now, I hope, been justified. The\npassage quoted above forms the high-water mark of this elevated poetry,\nand points the way to the grand things in the poem of Job. Regularity of\nstructure is not a merit of our treatise, but the repetitions are not\nfeeble, and are perhaps deliberately made. The author is a _didactic_\npoet, and only after he can presume that his lessons have been\nassimilated will he venture on his highest flights. Does Ewald bear this\nin mind when he divides the book into three sections, I. a general\nexhortation to wisdom, in which the whole of the truth is touched upon,\nbut no part is completely unfolded (i. 8-iii. 35); II. an exhaustive\ntreatment of a few details (iv. 1-vi. 19); III. a gradual rise to the\nhighest and most universal truth, closing in almost lyric enthusiasm\n(vi. 20-ix. 18)? Or Hitzig, when, to suit an artificial arrangement, he\nomits as later additions iii. 22-26, vi. 1-19, viii. 4-12, 14-16, ix.\n7-10? These are the two extremes of critical theory; their failure may\nbe taken as a proof that the only possible division is one like that of\nDelitzsch into fifteen poems, rather loosely connected together, but\npresenting the same peculiarities of style and diction. _Mashals_ we can\nonly term them in a wide sense of the word; not condensation but\nexpansion is the characteristic of this book; the discourse flows on\ntill the subject has been exhausted, and then, after a brief pause, it\ngushes forth anew. One of the chapters (ii.) actually forms a single\ncarefully elaborated sentence. Now and then the matter is more broken\nup; we meet with some small groups of detached sentences (e.g. iii.\n27-35, vi. 1-11, 12-19), which introduce some variety into the style,\nand suggest that the author revised his work with the view of making it\nan ethical manual, as well as an introduction to the anthology. In one\nof these groups we find the interesting similitude of the ant, which the\nSeptuagint has supplemented by one of purely Greek origin (see Hitzig\nand Lagarde) on the bee.\n\nThe author has the pen of a ready writer, and his work shows that he has\nstudied the literature of his time. He was familiar[230] with the\nphraseology of the \u2018Solomonic\u2019 proverbs, though he struck out a style of\nhis own, in harmony with the altered conditions of the teaching office.\nHe addresses those who have time to listen, and taste to appreciate his\nflowing rhetoric. He implies throughout that his audience belongs to the\nwealthier class, and his favourite images are drawn from the life of the\nmerchant.[231] Clearly too he has a strong hold upon the doctrine that\nprosperity and adversity are indicative of moral character. Thus,\nspeaking of ethical Wisdom, he says,\n\n              Length of days is in her (Wisdom\u2019s) right hand,\n              in her left riches and honour (iii. 16).[232]\n\nAnd yet there is evidence, even in Prov. i.-ix., of a nascent scepticism\non this point, originating probably in some recent event, such as the\ncaptivity of the Ten Tribes. In words which remind us of Psalms xxxvii.\nand lxxiii. the writer exclaims\u2014\n\n       Envy thou not the man of violence,\n       and have thou pleasure in none of his ways....\n       The curse of Jehovah is in the house of the ungodly,\n       but the habitation of the righteous he blesses (iii. 31, 33);\n\nand to furnish his disciples with an answer to the sceptic\u2014\n\n       Truly, whom Jehovah loves, he corrects,\n       and as a father the son in whom he delights\n                                         (iii. 12; comp. Job v. 17).\n\nWith this sweet saying I take leave for the present of this beautiful\nwork. How true it is that the doubts of a believer are the\nstepping-stones to higher attainments of faith!\n\nFootnote 219:\n\n  (Maspero) _Records of the Past_, ii. 9-16.\n\nFootnote 220:\n\n  Its close relation to the first of the two great anthologies is shown\n  by the linguistic points of contact between the two works (see Chap.\n  VI.)\n\nFootnote 221:\n\n  Rev. J. H. Thorn.\n\nFootnote 222:\n\n  The poet, we can see, has not arranged the creative works as carefully\n  as the cosmogonist in Genesis.\n\nFootnote 223:\n\n        Pleaseth him, the Eternal Child,\n        To play his sweet will, glad and wild.\u2014Emerson, _Wood Notes_.\n\nFootnote 224:\n\n  \u2018Produced\u2019 seems the best rendering (Sept., \u1f14\u03ba\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03b5), in the sense of\n  \u2018creating,\u2019 not (as Del.) of \u2018revealing,\u2019 for which there is no\n  authority. The secondary meaning \u2018possessed\u2019 (Aquila &c. \u1f10\u03ba\u03c4\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf,\n  Vulg. _possedit_; comp. Eccles. xxiv. 6) is less agreeable to the\n  context (see Hitzig\u2019s note). There is the same diversity of rendering\n  in Gen. xiv. 19-22. On the patristic expositions of this passage, see\n  Dean Goode, _The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice_, ed. 1, i. 299.\n  The ante-Nicene Fathers mostly apply it to the divine generation of\n  the Son, the post-Nicene to the generation of the human nature of\n  Christ. Basil and Epiphanius are exceptions. The former applies the\n  passage to \u2018that wisdom which the apostle mentions\u2019 (in 1 Cor. i. 21):\n  the latter expresses a strong opinion that \u2018it does not at all speak\n  concerning the Son of God.\u2019\n\nFootnote 225:\n\n  Comp. Milton\u2019s noble conception of the Creator\u2019s golden compasses\n  (_Par. Lost_, vii. 225, 6).\n\nFootnote 226:\n\n  Comp. Delitzsch, _System der christlichen Apologetik_, \u00a7 16, where the\n  history of this conception in Jewish literature is traced in\n  connection with that of the Logos-idea; also Ewald, _Die Lehre der\n  Bibel von Gott_, iii. 74-77.\n\nFootnote 227:\n\n  In Wisd. vii. 22 &c. the language appears to some to rise above\n  poetical personification, and to imply a conscious hypostatising of\n  Wisdom. Dante, a good judge on this point, certainly thought otherwise\n  (_Convito_, iii. 15); he evidently holds that the Sophia of the Book\n  of Wisdom is precisely analogous to his own very strong\n  personification of divine Philosophy. Still such language may have\n  partly prepared the way for the well-known Gnostic myth of Achamoth or\n  Sophia (comp. Baur, _Three First Centuries_, E. T., i. 207). It was\n  well, as Plumptre remarks, that Philo adopted Logos rather than Sophia\n  as the name of the creative energy. A system in which Sophia had been\n  the dominant word might have led to an earlier development of\n  Mariolatry (Introduction to Proverbs in the _Speaker\u2019s Commentary_).\n\nFootnote 228:\n\n  Ecclus. xxiv. 23. (Comp. a sublime passage of E. Irving, identifying\n  the contents of the \u2018sacred volume\u2019 with \u2018the primeval divinity of\n  revealed Wisdom,\u2019 _Miscellanies_, p. 380 &c.) According to late Jewish\n  theology, the Law is one of the seven things produced before the\n  creation of the world. The alphabet-fables in Talmud and Midrash, in\n  which letters of the alphabet converse with God, presuppose the same\n  view (comp. the Mohammedan view of the Koran).\n\nFootnote 229:\n\n  So Milton (a Hebraist), _Paradise Lost_, vii. 10 (\u2018didst play\u2019), and\n  again in _Tetrachordon_ (\u2018God himself conceals not his own\n  recreations,\u2019 &c.)\n\nFootnote 230:\n\n  The proof of this cannot be given here.\n\nFootnote 231:\n\n  See ii. 4, iii. 13-15, iv. 7, vii. 16, 17, 19, 20 (especially), viii.\n  10, 18-21.\n\nFootnote 232:\n\n  Comp. i. 32, 33, ii. 21, 22, iii. 1-10, ix. 11, 12, 18.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER VI.\n             SUPPLEMENTARY ON QUESTIONS OF DATE AND ORIGIN.\n\n\nThere are two extreme views on the date of the Book of Proverbs, between\nwhich are the theories of the mass of moderate critics. The one is that\nrepresented by Keil in his Introduction and Bishop Ellicott\u2019s\nCommentary, that the whole book except chaps. xxx., xxxi., and perhaps\nthe heading i. 1-6, is in substance of Solomonic origin;[233] the other\nis that of Vatke and Reuss (the precursors of Kuenen and Wellhausen)\nthat our proverbs as a collection come from the post-Exile period. Much\nneed not be said on the first of these extreme views. It has been\npointed out already that the ethical and religious character even of the\nearliest proverbial collection stands far removed from that of the\nhistorical Solomon. It is indeed a pure hypothesis that any Solomonic\nelement survives in the Book of Proverbs. I doubt not that many bright\nand witty _sayings_ of Solomon came into circulation, and some of them\nmight conceivably have been gathered up and included in the anthologies.\nBut have we any adequate means of deciding which these are? It would\nappear from 1 Kings iv. 33 that the wisdom of the historical Solomon\nexpressed itself in _spoken_ fables or moralisations about animals and\ntrees. A few, a very few, of the proverbs in our book may perhaps\nsatisfy the test thus obtained, and be plausibly represented as a\nSolomonic element. But why Solomon should be singled out as the author,\nit would tax one\u2019s ingenuity to say, and the judgment of Hitzig (in such\nmatters a conservative critic) must be maintained that the survival of\nSolomonic proverbs is no more than a possibility.[234]\n\nThe other extreme view requires some little explanation. Vatke does not\ndeny that Solomon composed proverbs, but only that his proverbs can have\nresembled those in the canonical book. Putting aside some sayings of\nearlier date Vatke holds that the stamp of the post-Exile period (and\nmore particularly of the fifth century) is as marked in the Book of\nProverbs as it is, according to him, in that of Job; in short, that both\nworks imply, equally with the still later Ecclesiastes, a long and\nearnest struggle between the principles represented respectively by the\nhigher prophets and by the priests. The result of this struggle has\nbecome to the authors of these books an objective truth which it is\nhenceforth their business to realise as true subjectively.[235] The\nexistence of a free-minded school of thought in the post-Exile period is\nvery plausibly defended both by Vatke and by Kuenen,[236] and if our\nonly choice lay between the extreme alternatives mentioned above, we\nshould be shut up to the acceptance of the latter.\n\nI shall not however discuss here the post-Exile origin of the Book of\nProverbs as a whole, but only that part of the hypothesis which relates\nto the very interesting section designated by Ewald the \u2018Praise of\nWisdom.\u2019 If this portion is not of Exile or post-Exile origin, I do not\nsee how it can be maintained that any other part of the book is so,\nexcept indeed the sayings of Agur and Lemuel (xxx. 1-xxii. 9).\n\nThe following are some of the leading arguments for the late origin of\nProv. i.-ix. I. These chapters are said to contain a few parallels to\npassages in works belonging probably to the Exile or post-Exile period\n(II. Isaiah,[237] Job). I lay no stress on the occurrence of Prov. i. 16\n(with the addition of \u2018innocent\u2019) in Isa. lix. 7_a_, because this verse\nis not in the rhythm of the rest of Prov. i.-ix., and is not found in\nthe Septuagint. There may however be a parallelism between Prov. ii. 15\nand Isa. lix. 8; the prophet is, at any rate, influenced by some\nproverbial work similar to Prov. i.-ix. There may also be one between\nProv, i. 24, 26, 27 and Isa. lxv. 12, lxvi. 4. More striking are the\naffinities already pointed out between Prov. i.-ix. and the Book of Job,\nwhich may be taken to prove that these works proceeded from the same\ncircle of \u2018wise men,\u2019 but not necessarily that they are of the same\nperiod (see above, p. 85).\n\nII. As to the religious ideas of these chapters, (_a_) The Theism\nexpressed is both pure and broad. Polytheism is not even worthy to be\nthe subject of controversy; the tone is throughout positive. Jehovah\u2019s\nvast creative activity fills the writer\u2019s mind, and begins to stimulate\nspeculative curiosity; from this point of view comp. Prov. viii. 22-31\nwith Job xv. 7, 8,[238] xxxviii. 4-11, and Gen. i. (The affinities with\nthe cosmogony are only general,[239] but perhaps gain in importance when\ntaken together with the possible allusion to Gen. ii. in Prov. iii. 18,\n\u2018She is a tree of life\u2019 &c.) (_b_) It is no objection to the Exile or\npost-Exile date that the doctrine of invariable retribution is\npresupposed in this treatise. We find this doctrine both in the speeches\nof Elihu (Job. xxxii.-xxxvii., a separate work in its origin) and in the\nWisdom of Sirach. There is some weight in these arguments. But it can, I\nthink, be shown that the age of Jeremiah contained the germs of various\nmental products which only matured in the later periods, and Reuss seems\nto me singularly wilful in assuming that the personification of Wisdom\nof itself proves the late date of Prov. i.-ix.\n\nIII. The luxurious living implied in Prov i.-ix. would suit the Exile\nand post-Exile period. As soon as the Jews had the chance of\nparticipating in the world\u2019s good things, they eagerly availed\nthemselves of it. The prominence of the retribution doctrine in these\nnine chapters might possibly be accounted for by the prosperity of many\nof the dispersed Jews. To me however the expression \u2018peace-offerings\u2019\n(vii. 14) points away from Babylon, just as the expression \u2018yarn of\nEgypt\u2019 in vii. 16 points away from Egypt.\n\nIV. The phraseology of these chapters (as well as of the rest of the\nbook) is said by Hartmann[240] to be late. His instances of late and\nAramaising words and forms require testing; an argument of this sort\n(except in more extreme cases) is not conclusive as to date. Reuss\nappears to base his linguistic argument rather on the clearness of the\nstyle, which \u2018betrays this section to be the latest part of the\nbook.\u2019[241] N\u00f6ldeke however more soberly infers, from the \u2018flowingness\nand facility of the language,\u2019 that the author lived subsequently to\nIsaiah.[242]\n\nOn the whole, I am compelled to reject the hypothesis of either the\nExile or the post-Exile origin of Prov. i.-ix. The Exile-date seems to\nbe excluded by Prov. vii. 14, which implies the sacrificial system; the\npost-Exile by the want of any sufficient reason for descending so late\nin the course of history. The fifth century in particular, to which\nVatke refers the whole Book of Proverbs, seems to me out of the question\nfor this section of the book. Before the time of Sirach, I cannot find a\nperiod in the post-Exile history in which the life of Jerusalem can have\nmuch resembled the picture given of it in Prov. i.-ix. But Sirach\u2019s\nevident imitation of the \u2018Praise of Wisdom\u2019 (we shall come back to this\nin studying Ecclesiasticus) seems of itself to suggest that Prov. i.-ix.\nis the monument of an earlier age, and this is confirmed by Sirach\u2019s\ndifferent attitude towards ceremonial religion.\n\nThere remains the hypothesis that the treatise, Prov. i.-ix., was\nwritten towards the close of the kingdom of Judah. There seems to me no\nsufficient argument against this view, which agrees with the result\nabove attained on the relation of Prov. i.-ix. to the Book of Job (p.\n85). The collapse of the state was sudden, and for some time after the\ncomposition or at least promulgation of the Deuteronomic _T\u014dra_ the Jews\nappeared to be in the enjoyment of national prosperity. Now the author\nof Prov. i.-ix. depicts a state of outward prosperity and is evidently\nfamiliar with the exhortations of Deuteronomy. Who, as Delitzsch\nremarks, can fail to hear in Prov. i. 7-ix. an echo of the _Shem\u00e0_\n(\u2018hear\u2019), Deut. vi. 4-9 (comp. xi. 18-21)? This is quite consistent with\nthe opinion that Prov. i.-ix. is later than the proverbs in the two\nprincipal collections of our book, an opinion which commends itself to\nmost[243] especially on account of the higher moral standard of Prov.\ni.-ix., and its advance in the treatment of literary form.\n\nI have said \u2018the composition or at least promulgation\u2019 of Deuteronomy.\nIf Deuteronomy was written (which is at least possible) as early as the\nreign of Hezekiah,[244] we may perhaps follow Ewald, who places the\n\u2018Praise of Wisdom\u2019 in the period of relative prosperity which, he\nthinks, closed the reign of Manasseh.[245] It is noteworthy that Mic.\nvi., which Ewald plausibly assigns to the period of Manasseh\u2019s\npersecution, also presents some points of contact with Deuteronomy.[246]\nAnd yet it seems to me safer to date the book in the reign of Josiah,\nwhen, as we know from history and prophecy, the discourses of\nDeuteronomy first became generally known.\n\n                  *       *       *       *       *\n\nNext, as to the body of the work. That the collection in x. 1-xxii. 16\nis the earliest part of the book is admitted by most critics. The fact\nthat chaps. i.-ix. present linguistic points of contact with it, does\nnot prove the two parts to be of the same date, for the opening chapters\nalso display peculiarities quite unlike those of the \u2018Solomonic\u2019\nanthology.[247] I have already set forth my own view on this and on\nother critical points, and will now only register the results of Ewald\nand of Delitzsch. Both are agreed that the older Book of Proverbs\nextends from i. 1 to xxiv. 22, i. 1-6 (or 7) being the descriptive\nheading of the work, and i. 7 (or 8)-ix. 18 a hortatory treatise, by the\nauthor, more or less introductory to the sayings which follow. The date\nof the collection of the latter Ewald places at the beginning of the\neighth century; that of the heading and introduction in the middle of\nthe seventh. Towards the end of the seventh century the three appendices\n(xxii. 17-xxiv. 22, xxiv. 23-35, xxv. 1-xxix. 27) were added; the\ncontents of the two former were derived from two popular proverbial\ncollections, while the latter was a great and officially sanctioned\nanthology dating from the end of the eighth century. The remaining parts\nof the book (xxx. 1-xxxi. 9, and xxxi. 10-31) Ewald assigns to the\nseventh century. Delitzsch (whose view is perhaps the most conservative\none still tenable) dates the publication of the first Book of Proverbs\nas early as the reign of Jehoshaphat (referring to 2 Chr. xvii. 7-9). To\nits editor he ascribes not only the authorship of i. 1-ix. 18 but the\nconclusion of the \u2018older book\u2019 by the words of the wise, xxii. 17-xxiv.\n22, while a later editor is responsible both for the supplementary\nsayings of the wise, xxiv. 22-34, and for the great Hezekian collection,\nof which he thus ensured the preservation. The same person probably\nappended the obscure sayings of Agur (xxx.) and of Lemuel (xxxi. 1-9),\npossibly too the closing alphabetic poem (xxxi. 10-31), which is\nassigned by Delitzsch to the pre-Hezekian period. Both Ewald and\nDelitzsch are substantially agreed as to the existence of a genuine\nSolomonic element in both the great anthologies (especially in the\nfirst), but upon very conjectural grounds.\n\nOne point only remains to be considered, however briefly. The Book of\nJob has already furnished an example of the poetical fiction of the\nnon-Israelitish authorship of a Hebrew poem. It is possible enough that\nthis and the similar instance of the Balaam-oracles were not alone in\nHebrew literature. Nor are they so, if a view of the first words of the\nheadings in Prov. xxx. 1, xxxi. 1, which has found many friends, be\ncorrect, and we may render in the one case, \u2018The words of Agur the son\nof Jakeh, of (the country of) Massa,\u2019 reading either _mimmass\u0101_ (or, as\nDelitzsch proposes, _mimm\u0113sh\u0101_ or _hammass\u0101\u2019\u012b_[248]); and in the other,\n\u2018The words of Lemuel the king of Massa.\u2019 M\u00fchlau in his monograph on\n\u2018Agur\u2019 and \u2018Lemuel\u2019 thinks that both the contents and the language of\nthe sayings of Agur \u2018almost necessarily point to a region bordering on\nthe Syro-Arabian wastes,\u2019 but his theory of an Israelitish colony in a\ncertain Massa in the Hauran (comp. 1 Chr. v. 10), like a somewhat\nsimilar theory of Hitzig\u2019s (he places \u2018Massa\u2019 in N. Arabia, comparing 1\nChr. iv. 42, 43, where the Simeonites are said to have settled in _Mount\nSeir_, and Isa. xxi. 11, 12[249]), is too conjectural to be readily\naccepted. There is however much force in a part of the arguments of\nM\u00fchlau, especially in his first and second (referring to xxxi. 1), \u2018The\nword _melek_ in apposition to Lemuel cannot go without the\narticle,\u2019[250] and _\u2019Mass\u0101_ \u201cutterance\u201d is never used elsewhere except\nof (prophetic) oracles.\u2019 If any one therefore likes to adopt the above\nrenderings, taking Massa as the name of a country (comp. Gen. xxv. 14, 1\nChr. i. 30), I have no strong objection. Ziegler\u2019s view cited by\nM\u00fchlau,[251] that Lemuel was an Emeer of an Arabian tribe in the east of\nJordan, and that an Israelitish wise man translated the Emeer\u2019s sayings\ninto Hebrew, is perhaps not as untenable as M\u00fchlau thinks, provided that\n\u2018translation\u2019 be taken to include recasting in accordance with the\nspirit of the Old Testament religion. For my own part, however, I prefer\nthe simpler explanation given already in considering chaps. xxx., xxii.\n1-9. I account for the Aramaisms, Arabisms, and other peculiarities of\nthese sections by their post-Exile origin, with which the character of\nthe contents of the most striking portion, xxx. 1-6, appears to me to\nharmonise (notice e.g. the strong faith in the words of revelation in\nxxx. 5). But I am not writing a commentary, and can only draw the\nreader\u2019s attention to some of the most important exegetical phenomena.\nLet me refer in conclusion to a critical note on p. 175, which has a\nbearing on the question raised by some whether Job and this part of\nProverbs may fitly be called Hebr\u00e6o-Arabic works. It is strange that\nHitzig should have renounced the support for his theory (see p. 171) to\nbe obtained from Prov. xxx. 31.\n\nFootnote 233:\n\n  Keil qualifies this however by admitting that Solomon may have\n  incorporated many sayings of other wise men.\n\nFootnote 234:\n\n  _Die Spr\u00fcche Salomo\u2019s_, v. xvii.\n\nFootnote 235:\n\n  _Die biblische Theologie_, i. 563.\n\nFootnote 236:\n\n  _The Religion of Israel_, ii. 242.\n\nFootnote 237:\n\n  The passages in II. Isaiah referred to in this paragraph belong to\n  sections most probably of post-Exile origin. (See art. \u2018Isaiah\u2019 in\n  _Encyclop\u00e6dia Britannica_, new ed.)\n\nFootnote 238:\n\n  We should perhaps read here _v\u2019thigga\u2019_ for _v\u2019thigra\u2019_, following\n  Sept.\u2019s \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b5 \u03c3\u03b5 \u1f00\u03c6\u03af\u03ba\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1; so Merx and Bickell.\n\nFootnote 239:\n\n  Were the affinities with Gen. i. more definite, critics of\n  Wellhausen\u2019s school would naturally derive from them an argument for\n  the post-Exile origin of Prov. i.-ix. I do not myself attach much\n  weight to these slight parallelisms.\n\nFootnote 240:\n\n  _Die enge Verbindung des A. T. mit dem Neuen_, pp. 148-9.\n\nFootnote 241:\n\n  _Geschichte der heiligen Schriften Alten Testaments_, p. 494.\n\nFootnote 242:\n\n  _Die alttestamentliche Literatur_ (1868), p. 159.\n\nFootnote 243:\n\n  Hitzig, however, almost alone among recent critics, regards the\n  opening chapters as the oldest part of the book.\n\nFootnote 244:\n\n  This seems to me the earliest probable date, but does not exclude the\n  possibility that early traditional material has been worked into the\n  book.\n\nFootnote 245:\n\n  _History of Israel_, iv. 219. It should be mentioned however that\n  Ewald places Job (except the Elihu-portion), Prov. i.-ix., and, last\n  in order, Deuteronomy _all in the reign of Manasseh_. He fails to\n  recognise the influence of Deuteronomy on the \u2018Praise of Wisdom.\u2019\n\nFootnote 246:\n\n  See _Micah_ in the Cambridge School and College Bible.\n\nFootnote 247:\n\n  Delitzsch, _Proverbs_, i. 33; Kuenen, _Onderzock_, iii. 75.\n\nFootnote 248:\n\n  In the version known as the _Gr\u00e6cus Venetus_ (14th or 15th cent.) xxx.\n  1_a_ runs thus, \u039b\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f00\u03b3\u03bf\u03cd\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c5\u1f31\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f30\u03b1\u03ba\u03ce\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03ac\u03bf\u03c5 (Jakeh the\n  Massaite). Delitzsch\u2019s view, given above, is taken from his art. on\n  \u2018Proverbs\u2019 in Herzog-Plitt\u2019s Encyclop\u00e6dia; he refers to Friedrich\n  Delitzsch\u2019s _Paradies_, p. 303; comp. 243.\n\nFootnote 249:\n\n  On Isa. xxi. 11, 12, see _The Prophecies of Isaiah_, i. 129, ii. 152.\n  Hitzig\u2019s theory, originally stated in Zeller\u2019s _Theol. Jahrb\u00fccher_,\n  1844, pp. 269-305, will be found in the well-known short commentary\n  (_Kurzgefasstes exeg. Handbuch_, 1847) by Bertheau, who substantially\n  accepts it.\n\nFootnote 250:\n\n  This is a little too strong. We should certainly have expected _melek\n  Lemuel_ (or _Lemoel_) rather than _Lemuel melek_, on the analogy of\n  _melek Y\u0101r\u0113b_, Hos. v. 13, x. 6. As it stands in the text, _melek_\n  (after _Lemuel_, and without the article) can only be a definition of\n  class. The Lemuel spoken of was quite unknown to the reader, and\n  therefore the editor appends the descriptive title \u2018king.\u2019 Comp. Ex.\n  xxxii. 11, where Joshua, son of Nun, being introduced for the first\n  time, is described as _na\u2019ar_ \u2018a squire.\u2019\n\nFootnote 251:\n\n  Referring to _Neue Uebersetzung der Denkspr\u00fcche Salomo\u2019s_, 1791, p.\n  29.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER VII.\n                         THE TEXT OF PROVERBS.\n\n\nThe sense of proverbs is naturally most difficult to catch when there\nhas been no attempt to group them by subjects. Hence the textual\ndifficulties of so large a part of the earliest anthology. Gr\u00e4tz has\nmade some valuable among many too arbitrary corrections; but a\nsystematic use of the ancient versions is still a desideratum. Lagarde,\nOort, Bickell, and others have led the way; but much yet remains to be\ndone. My space only allows me to give some preliminary hints, which may\nat least stimulate further inquiry, on the relation of the Hebrew text\nto the versions, especially the Septuagint version (if I should not\nrather speak of \u2018versions\u2019). How comes it, we may ask first of all, that\nthe Septuagint contains so many passages not found in the Hebrew? One\nanswer is that in a foreign land, with a new language and a new circle\nof ideas, explanation was as necessary to the Hellenistic Jews as\ntranslation. Hence the tendency of the Septuagint translators to\nintroduce glosses. But the form of the Book of Proverbs specially\nfavoured interpolations. Sometimes only a few words were inserted to\nmake the text more distinct (e.g. i. 22, xii. 25, xxiv. 23); at other\ntimes explanatory or suggested remarks were added, at first perhaps in\nthe margin. Of course, it is perfectly conceivable that the received\nHebrew text itself may contain similar additions; the analogy of other\nbooks, in which such interpolations occur, even favours this idea. One\nsuch insertion is patent; there can be no doubt that i. 16 was added in\nthe Hebrew, to the detriment of the connection, from Isa. lix. 7. As\nthis passage is wanting in the best MSS. of the Septuagint, we might be\ntempted to use this version as a means of detecting other interpolations\nin the Hebrew. This however would lead us into researches of too much\ncomplexity.\n\nSome of the Septuagint additions are also found in the Vulgate, some\nagain also in the Peshitto; and where a Septuagint addition is not found\nin the Vulgate we may, at least in some cases, assume that the\nSeptuagint text did not in St. Jerome\u2019s time contain the additional\nmatter. Among the most interesting passages from a text-critical point\nof view peculiar to the Septuagint are those found at iii. 15, iv. 27,\nvi. 8, 11, vii. 2, ix. 12,[252], 18, xi. 16, xii. 13, xv. 18, xvi. 5,\nxix. 7, xxvi. 11, xxvii. 20, 21, xxviii. 10. Most of these can be\nrendered back into Hebrew, though this is difficult with vi. 11_b_ as it\nstands, and impossible with vi. 8 (\u2018the bee\u2019). In any case the Hebrew\norigin of a proverb does not prove that it was inserted by the original\ncollector or collectors. With regard to the Targum and its deviations\nfrom the Hebrew text, it is to be observed that this version has the\nsame relation to the Peshitto as the Vulgate to the old Latin version on\nwhich it is based. The Peshitto translates from a Hebrew text\nsubstantially the same as our own; though the translator has consulted\nthe Septuagint (according to Hitzig) in the portion of the book\nbeginning at vii. 23.\n\nThere are also some remarkable transpositions in the Septuagint\nProverbs, reminding us of those in the Septuagint Jeremiah. The three\nappendices to the Hezekian collection are given in a very different\norder from that of the Hebrew. The first fourteen verses of chap. xxx.\nare inserted between ver. 22 and ver. 23 of chap. xxiv., and all the\nremainder, together with xxxi. 1-9, is placed before chap. xxv. The\ntreatment of the headings in the Septuagint is also remarkable, and\nseems arbitrary; e.g. it looks as if the translator had expunged all\nthose peculiarities in the superscriptions which suggested a variety of\nauthorship. The proper names in chaps. xxx., xxxi. have been explained\naway, and the heading in x. 1, which limits the Solomonic authorship too\nmuch for the translator, has been actually omitted.\n\nOn the Septuagint additions to Proverbs, comp. Deane in _Expositor_,\n1884, pp. 297-301; on the larger subject of the Greek and the Hebrew\ntext, see introduction to Hitzig\u2019s commentary, Lagarde\u2019s _Anmerkungen\n&c._, and a series of papers, thorough but less masterly than Hitzig\u2019s\nor Lagarde\u2019s work, by Heidenheim (title in \u2018Aids to the Student,\u2019\nbelow).\n\n\n\n\n                       NOTE ON PROVERBS XXX. 31.\n\n\nSome assume here a corruption of the text, but the margin of the Revised\nVersion gives an appropriate sense. It implies indeed the admission of a\ndownright Arabism, but there are parallels for this in vv. 15, 16, 17,\nand _alq\u016bm_ for the Arabic _al-qaum_ is (see Gesenius) like _elg\u0101bh\u012bsh_\n(Ezek. xiii. 11, 13, xxxviii. 22) and _alm\u014dd\u0101d_ (Gen. x. 26). \u2018The king\nwhen his army is with him\u2019 may very fitly be adduced as a specimen of\nthe \u2018comely in going.\u2019 M. Hal\u00e9vy indeed has suggested that _q\u016bm_ in\n_alq\u016bm_ may be the _Q\u0101vam_ or _Q\u0101jam_ often mentioned in the Sinaitic\ninscriptions (_Bulletin_ No. 28 of the Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 de Linguistique; see\n_Academy_, March 27, 1886). But the former view is still the more\nplausible one. Why should a king with whom is \u2018God Qavam\u2019 be described\nas specially \u2018comely in going\u2019? Wetzstein too has stated that _alqaum_\nis still pronounced _al-q\u014dm_ by the Bedawins. Comp. Blau, _Zeitschr. d.\ndeutschen morg. Ges._, xxv. 539.\n\nFootnote 252:\n\n  The addition here is very poetical, and may, as Ewald says, have been\n  extracted from an ancient anthology. But it disturbs the connection.\n\n\n\n\n                             CHAPTER VIII.\n              THE RELIGIOUS VALUE OF THE BOOK OF PROVERBS.\n\n\nIt is only in modern times that the Book of Proverbs has been\ndisparaged; the early Christian Fathers considered it to be of much\nethico-religious value. Hence the sounding title, first used by Clement\nof Rome (_Cor._, c. 57), \u1f21 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03ac\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1. From our point of view,\nindeed, the value of the book is different in its several parts, but no\npart is without its use. Can any Christian help seeing the poetic\nforegleams of Christ in the great monologue of Wisdom in chap. viii.?\nDorner may be right in maintaining that the idea of the Incarnation\ncannot have been evolved from Hebraism or Judaism, and yet the\ndescription of Wisdom, \u2018sporting with Jehovah\u2019s world\u2019 and \u2018having her\ndelights with the sons of men\u2019 (viii. 31), cannot but remind us of the\nsympathetic, divine-human Teacher, who \u2018took the form of a servant.\u2019 How\ndeeply this great section has affected the theology of the past, I need\nnot here relate. Will it ever lose its value as a symbolic picture of\nthe combined transcendence and immanence of the Divine Being?\n\nTurning to the other parts of the book, do they not furnish abundant\njustification of that type of Christianity which accepts but does not\ndwell on forms, so bent is it upon moral applications of the religious\nprinciple? Do they not show that the \u2018fear of the Lord\u2019 is quite\ncompatible with a deep interest in average human life and human nature?\nThe Book of Proverbs, taken as a whole, seems to supply the necessary\ncounterweight to the psalms and the prophecies. The psalmists love God\nmore than aught else; but must every one say, \u2018Possessing this, I have\npleasure in nothing upon earth\u2019 (Ps. lxxiii. 26)? Would it be good to be\nalways in this mood? Is there not something more satisfactory in the\nPauline saying, \u2018All things are yours, and ye are Christ\u2019s\u2019? And as for\nthe prophets\u2014do they not (we may conjecture and perhaps partly prove\nthis) depreciate too much the morality and religion of their neighbours?\nThe Book of Proverbs gives us only average morality and religion; yet,\nif we judge it fairly, how pleasing on the whole is the picture! Taking\nit as equally authoritative with the psalms and prophecies, shall we not\nrise to a more comprehensive religion than a mere pupil of psalmists or\nprophets knew\u2014to one that charges us, not to love God less, but our\nneighbour more? It would no doubt be easy to criticise the Book from a\nNew Testament point of view. But the New Testament itself has absorbed\nmuch that is best in it, and quotations from it occur not unfrequently,\nespecially in the Epistles. Nor can any teacher of the people afford to\nneglect its stores of happily expressed practical wisdom. We must not\neven despise its \u2018utilitarianism.\u2019 The awful declarations of \u2018Wisdom\u2019 in\nProv. i. 24-32 are simply the voice of the personified laws of God[253]\nwarning men that the consequences of their acts, even if they may be\noverruled for good, yet cannot by any cunning be escaped. Does the New\nTestament quite supersede this form of teaching? And does not the Hebrew\nsage once at least give a suggestion of that very overruling love of God\nwhich is among the characteristic ideas of Christian lore (see Prov.\niii. 11)?\n\nFootnote 253:\n\n  So we may venture to paraphrase \u2018Wisdom\u2019 in this connection.\n\n\n\n\n                          AIDS TO THE STUDENT.\n\n\nThe \u2018aids\u2019 here mentioned are such as might otherwise escape notice.\n\nW. Nowack, _Die Spr\u00fcche Salomo\u2019s u.s.w._ (a recast of Bertheau\u2019s\ncommentary in the _Kurzgefasstes Exeg. Handbuch_), 1883; H. Deutsch,\n_Die Spr\u00fcche Salomo\u2019s nach der Auffassung im Talmud und Midrasch\ndargestellt und kritisch untersucht_ (erster Theil, 1885); Bickell,\n\u2018Exegetisch-kritische Nachlese: Proverbien und Job,\u2019 in _Zeitschr. fur\nkathol. Theologie_, 1886, pp. 205-208; Aben Ezra\u2019s commentary on\nProverbs, edited by Chaim M. Horowitz, 1884; Loewenstein, _Die\nProverbien Salomo\u2019s, mit Benutzung \u00e4lterer und neuerer Manuskripte_,\n1837 (text and commentary in Hebrew, with German metrical version;\ncontains valuable contributions to a more critical Massoretic text from\nthe papers of W. Heidenheim); M. Heidenheim, \u2018Zur Textkritik der\nProverbien,\u2019 in his _Vierteljahresschrift_ for 1865 and 1866; Lagarde,\n_Anmerkungen sur griechischen Uebersetzung der Proverbien_, 1863; Gr\u00e4tz,\n\u2018Exegetische Studien zu den Salomonischen Spr\u00fcchen,\u2019 in his\n_Monatsschrift_, 1884; Dijserinck, \u2018Kritische Scholien,\u2019 in _Theologisch\nTijdschrift_, 1883, p. 577 &c.; Oort, \u2018Spreuken I.-IX.,\u2019 in same\nperiodical, 1885, p. 379 &c.; B\u00f6ttcher, _Aehrenlese_, part iii., 1865\n(contains 39 pages on Proverbs); M\u00fchlau, _De proverbiorum Agur et Lemuel\norigine_, 1869; Bruch, _Weisheitslehre der Hebr\u00e4er_, 1851; Hooykaas,\n_Gesch. van de beoefening der Weisheid onder de Hebreen_, 1862; Dukes,\n_Rabbinische Blumenlese_, 1844 (includes Talmudic proverbs; comp. the\nolder works of Drusius, 1590-1, and Br\u00fcll\u2019s supplement in his\n_Jahrb\u00fccher_, 1885); Delitzsch, art. \u2018Spr\u00fcche Salomo\u2019s,\u2019 in\nHerzog-Plitt\u2019s _Real-Encyklop\u00e4die_, ed. 2, vol. xiv.; and the works of\nOehler and Schultz on Old Testament Theology (the former in Clark\u2019s\nLibrary).\n\n\n\n\n                 THE WISDOM OF JESUS THE SON OF SIRACH.\n\n\n                               CHAPTER I.\n          THE WISE MAN TURNED SCRIBE. SIRACH\u2019S MORAL TEACHING.\n\n\nThe inclusion of Sirach within our range of study, as an appendix and\ncounterpart to the canonical Book of Proverbs, requires no long\njustification. The so-called \u2018Wisdom of Solomon\u2019 is in form and\ncolouring almost as much Greek as Hebrew, and has no place in a survey\nof the wisdom of Palestine. But the \u2018Wisdom\u2019 more modestly ascribed to\nthe son of Sirach is a truly Israelitish production, though as yet none\nbut the masters of our subject have recognised its intrinsic importance.\nWhence comes this prevalent neglect of a work still known as\n\u2018Ecclesiasticus\u2019 or a \u2018church-book\u2019? Doubtless it has fallen in\nestimation from being combined with books more difficult to appraise\nfairly and consequently regarded with suspicion. The objection which\nsome Jewish doctors entertained to recommending parts of the Hagiographa\nhas been felt by many moderns with regard to the Apocrypha. The\nobjection is too strong and general not to have some foundation, but it\nimplies an unhistorical habit of mind. Granted that the Apocryphal\nwritings of the Old Testament belong in the main to a period of outer\nand inner decadence (though the noble Maccabean days may qualify this);\nyet periods of decadence are often also periods of transition to some\nnew and better thing, which cannot be understood or appreciated without\nthem. Ewald has suggested the title of \u2018intermediate writings\u2019\n(_Zwischenschriften_[254]) as a substitute for Apocrypha, to indicate\nthat transitional character which gives these books so high a value for\nthe student of both Testaments.\n\nThe book now before us\u2014the largest and most comprehensive in the\nWisdom-literature\u2014is one of these \u2018intermediate writings,\u2019 but in what\nsense beyond the most superficial one remains to be seen. It is\nmentioned here first of all because of the proof which it gives of the\ngreat literary force of the canonical Book of Proverbs. But no product\nof literature could maintain itself as Sirach has done if it were a mere\nimitation; Sirach, not less than the Wisdom-books of the Old Testament\nproper, is at least a partial reflection of the life of the times. Its\ndate indeed has been disputed. Suffice it to say here that the author\nwas, beyond reasonable doubt,[255] a contemporary of \u2018Simon the high\npriest, the son of Onias.\u2019 Now there were five high priests who bore the\nname of Simon or Simeon, two of whom, Simon I. (B.C. 310-290) and Simon\nII. (B.C. 219-199), have by different critics been thought of. The\nweight of argument is in favour of the second of the name, who was\ncertainly the more important of the two, and who is referred to in the\nTalmud under the name of Simeon the Righteous.[256] This is in\naccordance with the Greek translator\u2019s statement in his preface that he\nwas the grandson of the author, and we may conjecturally fix the\ncomposition of the book at about 180 B.C. The translator himself came\ninto Egypt, as he tells us, in the 38th year of king Euergetes[257]\n(comp. Luke xxii. 25). Now Euergetes II. Physkon, who must be here\nintended, began to reign jointly with his brother Philometor B.C. 170;\nhis brother died B.C. 145, and he reigned alone for twenty-five years\nlonger (till B.C. 116). Hence the translator\u2019s arrival in Egypt and\npossibly the translation itself fall within the year 132. The object of\nhis work, we gather from the preface, was to correct the inequalities of\nmoral and religious culture (\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03b5\u03af\u03b1) among the Jews of Egypt, by\nsetting before them a standard and a lesson-book of true religious\nwisdom.\n\nLet us pause a little over these dates. It has been well observed by\nMommsen that the foundation of Alexandria was as great an event in the\nhistory of the people of Israel as the conquest of Jerusalem. It must\nindeed have seemed to many Israelites more fraught with danger than with\nhope. Never before had Paganism presented itself to their nation in so\nattractive a guise. Would their religion exhibit sufficient power of\nresistance on a foreign soil? The fears, however, were groundless; at\nany rate, for a considerable time. The forms of Egyptian-Jewish\nliterature might be foreign, but its themes were wholly national. Even\nin that highly original synthesis of Jewish, Platonic, and Stoic\nelements\u2014the Book of Wisdom\u2014the Jewish spirit is manifestly predominant.\nIn Palestine there was also a Hellenic movement, though less vigorous\nand all-absorbing than in Egypt. Without a spontaneous manifestation of\nJewish sympathy, Antiochus Epiphanes would never have made his abortive\nattempt to Hellenise Jud\u00e6a. Girt round by a Greek population, the\nPalestinian Jews, in spite of Ezra\u2019s admirable organisation, could not\nentirely resist the assaults of Hellenism. It is probable that not\nmerely Greek language, but Greek philosophy, exerted a charm on some of\nthe clearest Jewish intellects. But we are within the bounds of\nacknowledged fact in asserting that the ardour of Jud\u00e6an piety, at least\nin the highest class, greatly cooled in the age subsequent to Ezra\u2019s,\nand in ascribing this to Greek influences. The high priest Simeon\nII.,[258] surnamed the Righteous (i.e. the strict observer of the Law),\nof whom so glowing an account is given by Sirach (chap. i.), is the\nchief exception to this degeneracy; yet he was powerless to stem the\nrevolutionary current even within his own family. His cousin Joseph was\nthe notorious farmer of the taxes of Palestine, who by his public and\nprivate immorality[259] sapped the very foundations of Jewish life,\nwhile two of Simeon\u2019s sons, Jason and Menelaus, became the traitorous\nhigh priests who promoted the paganising movement under Antiochus. It is\nwell known that many critics refer the Book of Ecclesiastes to the\nperiod immediately preceding this great movement. The deep and almost\nphilosophical character of the unknown author\u2019s meditations seems to be\nin harmony with this date. On the other hand, there is the\nwell-ascertained fact that the Book of Sirach shows no trace of really\nphilosophical thought; it is little more than a new version of the\nordinary proverbial morality. It is to this book, the \u2018Doppelg\u00e4nger des\nkanonischen Spruchbuchs,\u2019 as Sch\u00fcrer calls it, the work, as a Greek\nwriter puts it, of an attendant (\u1f40\u03c0\u03b1\u03b4\u03cc\u03c2) of Solomon, that these pages\nare devoted. Nothing is more remarkable (and it ought to make us very\ndeliberate in determining dates upon internal evidence) than the\nappearance of such a book at such a time.\n\nThe name of the author in full is Joshua (Jesus) ben Sira (Sirach),[260]\nbut he may be called Sirach for shortness, this being the form of his\nfamily-name in the Greek translation. He tells us himself that he was of\nJerusalem; that from his youth up his desire was for wisdom; that he\nlaboured earnestly in searching for her; and that the Lord gave him a\ntongue for his reward (l. 27; li.) Sirach, in fact, is one of those\n\u2018wise men\u2019 to whom was entrusted so large a part of the religious\neducation of the Jewish people. The remarkable fact that \u2018wise men\u2019\nexist so long after the time of their prototype Solomon, proves that\ntheir activity was an integral part of the Jewish national life. The\nbetter class of \u2018wise men\u2019 gave an independent support to the nobler\nclass of prophets. With their peremptory style, the prophets would never\nhave succeeded in implanting a really vigorous religion, had not the\n\u2018wise men,\u2019 with their more conciliatory and individualising manner of\nteaching, supplemented their endeavours. The Babylonian Exile introduced\na change into the habits of the \u2018wise men,\u2019 who, though some of them\nused the pen before the overthrow of the state, became thenceforward\npredominantly, if not entirely, writers on practical moral philosophy.\nSuch was Sirach. He is not indeed a strictly original writer, nor does\nhe lay claim to this. This is how he describes the nature of his work\n(xxxiii. 16)\u2014\n\n             I too, as the last, bestowed zeal,\n             and as one who gleans after the vintage;\n             By the blessing of the Lord I was the foremost,\n             and as a grape-gatherer did I fill the winepress.\n\nSirach, then, was first of all a collector of proverbs, and he found\nthat most of the current wise sayings had been already gathered. It is\nnot likely that up to xxxvi. 22 he merely combined two older books of\nproverbs (as Ewald supposed[261]), though it is more than probable that\nolder proverbs do really lie imbedded in his work. But whether old\nproverbs or new, Sirach has this special characteristic, that he loves\nto arrange his material by subjects. This was already noticed by the\nearly scribes,[262] and is well brought out by Holtzmann in Bunsen\u2019s\n_Bibelwerk_, and I will merely refer to chap. xxii. 1-6, \u2018On good and\nbad children;\u2019 7-18, \u2018The character of the fool;\u2019 19-26, \u2018On\nfriendship;\u2019 27-xxiii. 6, \u2018Prayer and warning against sins of the tongue\nand lusts of the flesh;\u2019 7-15, \u2018The discipline of the mouth;\u2019 16-27, \u2018On\nadultery;\u2019 xxix. 1-20, \u2018On suretyship;\u2019 21-28, \u2018An independent mode of\nlife.\u2019[263] The plan of grouping his material is not indeed thoroughly\ncarried out, but even the attempt marks a progress in the literary art.\nThis is one of the points in which Sirach differs from his canonical\npredecessors.\n\nIn other respects his indebtedness is manifest. Night and day he must\nhave studied his revered models to have attained such insight into the\nsecrets of style. But, so far from affecting originality, he delights in\nallusions to the older proverbialists. Many parallelisms occur in the\nsayings on Wisdom (comp. Sir. i. 4, Prov. viii. 22; Sir. i. 14, Prov, i.\n4, ix. 10; Sir. iv. 12, 13, Prov. iv. 7, 8; Sir. xxiv. 1, 2, Prov. viii.\n1, 2; Sir. xxiv. 3, Prov. ii. 6; Sir. xxiv. 5, Prov. viii. 27). This we\nmight expect; for Wisdom in a large sense is more persistently the\nobject of Sirach than it was at any rate of the earlier writers in\nProverbs. But, besides this, points of contact abound in very ordinary\nsayings. Thus compare, among many others which might be given,\n\n    (_a_) Better a mean man that tills for himself\n          than he that glorifies himself and has no bread\n                                              (Prov. xii. 9, Sept. &c.)\n          Better he that labours and abounds in all things\n          than he that glorifies himself and has no bread\n                                                (Sir. x. 27, Fritzsche).\n    (_b_) A merry heart makes a cheerful face,\n          but with sorrow of heart is a crushed spirit (Prov. xv. 13).\n          The heart of a man alters his face,\n          as well for good cheer as for bad;\n          A merry face betokens a heart in good case (Sir. xiii. 25,\n             26a).\n    (_c_) A passionate man stirs up strife,\n          and one that is slow to anger allays contention (Prov. xv.\n             18).\n          Abstain from strife, and thou shalt diminish thy sins,\n          for a passionate man will kindle strife (Sir. xxviii. 8).\n    (_d_) An intelligent servant rules over the son that causes shame\n                                                        (Prov. xviii.\n                                                           2).\n          Unto the wise servant shall free men do service (Sir. x. 25).\n    (_e_) Death and life are in the power of the tongue (Prov. xviii.\n       21).\n          Good and evil, life and death;\n          and the tongue rules over them continually (Sir. xxxvii. 18).\n    (_f_) Golden apples in silver salvers;\n          a word smoothly spoken (Prov. xxv. 11).\n          Golden pillars upon a silver pediment;\n          fair feet upon firm soles (Sir. xxvi. 18, Fritzsche).\n    (_g_) He who digs a pit shall fall therein,\n          and he who rolls a stone, upon himself it shall return\n                                                  (Prov. xxvi. 27).\n          He who casts a stone on high, casts it on his own head;\n          He who digs a pit shall fall therein (Sir. xxvii. 25_a_,\n             26_a_).\n    (_h_) The crucible for silver, and the furnace for gold,\n          and a man is tried by his praise (Prov. xxvii. 21).\n          The furnace proves the potter\u2019s vessels,\n          the trial of a man is in his discourse (Sir. xxviii. 5).\n\nIt will be seen from these examples that, though Sirach adapted and\nimitated, he did so with much originality. His style has colour,\nvariety, and vivacity, and though Hengstenberg accuses the author of too\nuniform a mode of treatment, yet a fairer judgment will recognise the\nskill with which the style is proportioned to the subject; now\ndithyrambic in his soaring flight, now modestly skimming the ground, the\nauthor of the \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03ac\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1 (for so Sirach, no less than Proverbs, was\ncalled[264]) is never feeble and rarely trivial. \u2018Its general tone,\u2019\nsays Stanley, \u2018is worthy of that first contact between the two great\ncivilisations of the ancient world.\u2019 \u2018Nothing is too high, nor too\nmean,\u2019 says Sch\u00fcrer, \u2018to be drawn within the circle of Sirach\u2019s\nreflections and admonitions.\u2019 I have elsewhere spoken of his\ncomprehensiveness. This quality he partly owes to his being so steeped\nin the Scriptures. One result of this is that he is more historical than\nhis predecessors, and connects his wisdom with those narratives of early\ntimes, which were either but little known to or valued by the\nproverb-writers of antiquity. The earlier psalmists and prophets indeed\nshow the same neglect of the traditions of the past: they lived before\nthe editing and gradual completion of any roll of \u2018Scriptures.\u2019 Sirach\non the other hand (see his preface) had \u2018the Law and the Prophets, and\nthe rest of the books,\u2019 the latter collection being a kind of appendix,\nstill open to additions. He was a true \u2018scribe,\u2019 and gloried in the name\n(xxxviii. 24), not in the New Testament sense, but in one not unworthy\nof a religious philosopher; he gave his mind to the wisdom both of the\nScriptures and of \u2018all renowned men,\u2019 and travelled through strange\ncountries, trying the good and evil among men. If parts at least of the\nBook of Job probably contain an autobiographical element, it is still\nmore certain that the chapter (xxxix.) which closes the book before us\nexpresses the ideal of the author\u2019s life. And if he _does_ sometimes\ntake delight in his own attainments, yet why is this to be censured as\nmere \u2018b\u00f6se Selbstgef\u00e4lligkeit?[265] A deep consciousness of moral\nimperfection is not equally to be expected in the Old Testament and in\nthe New, nor should the philosophic writings in the former be appealed\nto for striking anticipations of fundamental Gospel ideas. Sirach does\nno doubt in some sense claim inspiration (xxiv. 32-34, l. 28, 29), and\nplace his own work in a line with the prophecies (xxiv. 33), but why\nshould this be set down to arrogant inflation? Lowth, with more charity,\nquotes similar language of Elihu (Job xxxii. 8, xxxvi. 4) in proof of\nthe speaker\u2019s _modesty_ (_Pr\u00e6lect._ xxxiv.) It was probably a\ncharacteristic of the later \u2018wise men\u2019 so to account for their wisdom\n(see above, p. 43), and surely in that wide sense recognised by the\nAnglican Prayerbook he _was_ \u2018inspired,\u2019 he _was_ a \u2018son of the\nprophets.\u2019 I am only sorry that he forgot the lesson of Ex. xxxi. 2 when\nhe wrote so disparagingly of trades (xxxviii. 25 &c.), and agree with\nDr. Edersheim[266] that the Jewish teachers of the time of Christ and\nafterwards were more advanced on this point than the son of Sirach.\n\nIt is true enough that there are sayings in this book which offend the\nChristian sentiment, and which serve to show how great was the spiritual\ndistress which the Gospel alone could relieve. For instance,\n\n    (_a_) He who honours his father shall make atonement for sins (iii.\n       3).\n          Water will quench a flaming fire,\n          and alms make atonement for sin (iii. 30).\n          Brethren and help are against time of trouble;\n          but alms deliver more than both (xl. 24).\n\nHere is one of those \u2018false beacon lights\u2019 of which Prof. Bissell speaks\n(_Apocrypha_, p. 282). But in arrest of judgment remember that long\ndiscipline in the duties spoken of has produced some of the finest\nqualities in the Jewish character.\n\n    (_b_) Happy the man who has not offended in his speech,\n          and is not pricked with grief for sins (xiv. 1).\n    (_c_) Gain credit with thy neighbour in his poverty,\n          that thou mayest rejoice in his prosperity;\n          abide stedfast unto him in the time of his affliction,\n          that thou mayest be heir with him in his heritage (xxii. 23).\n    (_d_) Nine things I in my heart pronounce happy, ...\n          and he that lives to see the fall of enemies\n                                  (xxiv. 7; comp. also xii. 10-12, xxx.\n                                     6).\n    (_e_) Who will praise the Most High in Hades,\n          instead of those who live and give praise? (xvii. 27.)\n          For man cannot do everything,\n          because the son of man is not immortal (xvii. 30).\n\nWith the latter saying, contrast Wisd. of Sol. ii. 23, \u2018For God created\nman for immortality.\u2019\n\n    (_f_) (Give me) any plague but the plague of the heart,\n          and any wickedness but the wickedness of a woman &c.\n                                                          (xxv. 13-26).\n\nThis opening verse might perhaps be otherwise rendered,\n\n                    Any wound but a wound in the heart,\n                    and any evil but evil in a wife.\n\nThe misfortune of having a bad wife is often touched upon in the Talmud.\nEwald\u2019s sentence is however just, that Sirach\u2019s \u2018estimate of women, and\nsharp summary counsel concerning divorce (see ver. 26), place [him] far\nbelow the height of the Hebrew Bible.\u2019[267]\n\nI admit the imperfection of these moral statements; but can they not\nseveral of them be paralleled from the Psalms, Proverbs, and\nEcclesiastes? And can we not find as many more anticipations of the\nmoral teaching of the Synoptic Gospels and St. James (e.g. iv. 10, vii.\n11, 14, xi. 18, 19, xv. 14, xvii. 15, xxiii. 4, 11, 18)? Do not let us\nundervalue any foregleams of the coming dawn.\n\nFootnote 254:\n\n  _Revelation_, p. 365; _Die Lehre der Bibel von Gott_, i. 378.\n\nFootnote 255:\n\n  Note the phrase in i. 1, \u2018who _in his life_ repaired the house,\u2019\n  implying \u2018now indeed he is dead.\u2019 Gr\u00e4tz in fact is the only scholar\n  who doubts the author\u2019s contemporaneousness with Simon\n  (_Monatsschrift_, 1872, p. 114).\n\nFootnote 256:\n\n  See, besides the well-known passage in _Pirke Aboth_ (i. 2), the\n  legendary extracts from (_Bab._) _Yoma_, 39_b_, translated by W\u00fcnsche,\n  _Der bab. Talmud_, i. 1, pp. 368-9; and comp. Derenbourg, _Hist. de la\n  Palestine_, i. 44 &c.\n\nFootnote 257:\n\n  So we must paraphrase \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f40\u03b3\u03b4\u03cc\u1ff3 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f14\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0395\u1f50\u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u03ad\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\n  \u0392\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03bb\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2. See Stanley\u2019s note in _Jewish Church_, iii. 235, and Abbot\u2019s\n  note in the American edition of Smith\u2019s _Bible Dict._ (I am indebted\n  to Bissell for the latter reference). Comp. Wright, _The Book of\n  Koheleth_, p. 34 n.\n\nFootnote 258:\n\n  The Mishna (_Pirke Aboth_, i. 2) ascribes this saying to Simeon the\n  Righteous: \u2018On three things the world stands\u2014revelation (_t\u014dra_),\n  worship, and the bestowal of kindnesses.\u2019\n\nFootnote 259:\n\n  See Jos., _Ant._, xii. 4.\n\nFootnote 260:\n\n  On the identity of the Ben Sira of the Talmud and our Sirach, see\n  Horowitz in Frankel\u2019s _Monatsschrift_, 1865, p. 181 &c. The _ch_ in\n  the form Sirach may be due to an old error in the Greek text.\n\nFootnote 261:\n\n  _Hist. of Israel_, v. 263-4. Ewald includes xxxix. 12-35 in the\n  portion belonging to the second (supposed) collection.\n\nFootnote 262:\n\n  See the headings at certain points of the Greek version.\n\nFootnote 263:\n\n  With vv. 21, 23 comp. St. Paul, Phil. iv. 11, 12.\n\nFootnote 264:\n\n  See St. Jerome, _Pr\u00e6f. ad Libros Salomonis_, and comp. Lightfoot\u2019s\n  _Clement of Rome_, p. 164 &c.\n\nFootnote 265:\n\n  Keerl, _Die Apokryphenfrage_ (1855), p. 214.\n\nFootnote 266:\n\n  _Sketches of Jewish Social Life_, p. 189.\n\nFootnote 267:\n\n  Ewald, _Revelation_, p. 364 n.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER II.\n SIRACH\u2019S TEACHING (_continued_). HIS PLACE IN THE MOVEMENT OF THOUGHT.\n\n\nPassing now from Sirach\u2019s moral statements to those which are concerned\nwith doctrine, an honest critic must admit that the author is here even\nless progressive. The Messianic hope, in the strict sense of the word,\nhas faded away.[268] In xlv. 25 (comp. xlviii. 15) the \u2018covenant with\nDavid\u2019 is described as being \u2018that the inheritance of the king should be\nonly from father to son;\u2019 similarly in xlvii. 22 the \u2018root of David\u2019\ndenotes Rehoboam and his descendants. But this want of a definite\nMessianic hope is characteristic of the age; it is no special defect of\nSirach. But what shall we say of another charge brought against our\nauthor, viz. that he has unbiblical conceptions of the Divine nature?\nOne of these (xi. 16; see A.V.) may be dismissed at once, the passage\nhaving insufficient critical authority. Another\u2014\n\n                  We may speak much and not attain;\n                  indeed to sum up, He is all (xliii. 27)\u2014\n\nhas been misapprehended. The _Bereshith Rabba_ says (c. 68), \u2018Why is the\nHoly One also called _M\u0101k\u014dm_ (place)? Because He is the place of the\nworld; His world is not His place.\u2019 This is all that Sirach means, and\nPhilo, too, who uses similar words, accused by Keerl of heresy, and\nadds, \u1f05\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b5\u1f36\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f64\u03bd.\n\nThe doctrines of the Satan and the Resurrection, which Sirach probably\nregarded somewhat as we regard the \u2018developments\u2019 of the Papal Church,\nhe appears studiously to ignore[269]\u2014more especially the latter\u2014and he\nthereby puts himself into direct opposition to the newer popular\northodoxy. For though not the invention (as M. Renan regards it) of the\nMaccabean period, there can be no doubt that the doctrine of the\nResurrection became then for the first time an article of the popular\ncreed. Instead of the \u2018awakening to everlasting life\u2019 (Dan. xii. 2), it\nis the peaceful but hopeless life of the spirits in She\u00f3l to which he\nresignedly looks forward.\n\n            Weep for the dead, for he hath lost the light,\n            and weep for the fool, for he wanteth understanding:\n            make little weeping for the dead, for he is at rest,\n            but the life of the fool is worse than death.[270]\n\nThis, however orthodox (as former generations had counted orthodoxy),\nwas rank Sadduceanism, and hence (for how otherwise to interpret the\nglosses of the Greek and Syriac versions of xlviii. 11_b_[271] it is\ndifficult to see) very early readers of Sirach, especially perhaps\nwell-meaning but unscrupulous Christian readers, effected an entrance\nfor their cherished beliefs by violence.\n\nAnother point on which Sirach is equally\u2014shall we say orthodox, or\nreactionary?\u2014is the connection between piety and temporal prosperity. He\nreally seems to be no more troubled by doubts on this ancient doctrine\nthan the author of the beautiful, but in this respect na\u00efvely simple,\nintroduction to the Book of Proverbs. This perhaps was strange under\nSirach\u2019s circumstances. How striking and even painful is the contrast\nbetween Josephus\u2019 vivid and truthful comparison of Jud\u00e6a at this period\nto \u2018a ship in a storm, tossed by the waves on both sides,\u2019[272] and that\nproverb of Sirach, worthy, considering the times, of the \u2018miserable\ncomforters\u2019 of Job\u2014\n\n              The gift of the Lord remains with the godly,\n              and his favour brings prosperity for ever.[273]\n\nIn short, Sirach represents the reconciliation between the practical\nethics of the inspired \u2018wise men\u2019 of old and the all-embracing demands\nof the Law. Himself only in a comparatively low sense inspired\u2014for we\nshould not hastily reject his claim to a \u2018tongue\u2019 from above\u2014he did\nnothing, on the ethical side, but repeat the old truths in their old\nforms, though one gladly admits that he shows a genuine and unassumed\ninterest in the varieties of human character. But on the religious side\nhe is really in a certain sense original, in so far as he combines the\ntraditional \u2018wisdom\u2019 with a heartfelt regard for the established forms\nof religion, such as the older \u2018wise men\u2019 scarcely possessed. On the\nlatter point he would sympathise with the author of Ps. cxix. Unlike the\nolder proverb-writers, he recommends the punctual observance of rites\nand ceremonies. These however are to be penetrated by a moral spirit;\nhence he says,\n\n    Do not [seek to] corrupt [the Lord] with gifts, for he receives them\n       not;\n    and trust not to unrighteous sacrifices.\n    He who serves acceptably shall be received,\n    and his prayer shall reach unto the clouds (xxxv. 12, 16).\n\nBy Greek philosophy Sirach, as far as we can see, was wholly\nuninfluenced.\n\nAnd yet Sirach cannot have been entirely unacquainted with Greek\nculture, in the more general sense of the word. One striking proof of\nthis is his attitude towards medical science,[274] which is exactly the\nopposite of the Chronicler\u2019s (2 Chr. xvi. 12). It seems as if the older\ngeneration were offended by human interference with the course of\nnature, appealing perhaps to Ex. xv. 26; a curious Talmudic tradition\nascribes a similar view to Hezekiah and his wise men. Sirach, however,\nappealing to the passage preceding that referred to above (see Ex. xv.\n23-25), seeks to reconcile the opposing parties (xxxviii. 1-15). No\ndoubt he had learned this at Alexandria: he tells us himself that he had\ntravelled and learned many things (xxxiv. 9-11), and from xxxix. 4 we\nmay even infer that he had appeared at court, where probably his life\nwas endangered by calumnious accusations (li. 6). There, perhaps, he\nacquired his taste for the Greek style of banquet, with its airy talk\nand accompaniment of music, a taste which seems to have inspired a\npiquant piece of advice to the kill-joys of his time, who insisted on\ntalking business out of season (xxxii. 3-5)\u2014\n\n      Speak, O elder, with accurate knowledge, for it beseemeth thee,\n      but be not a hindrance to music.[275]\n      When playing is going on, do not pour out talk;\n      and show not thyself inopportunely wise.\n      A seal-ring of carbuncle set in gold,\n      [such is] a concert at a banquet of wine.\n\nIn a similar mood he writes (xiv. 14)\u2014\n\n           Defraud not thyself of a joyous day,\n           and let not a share of a lawful pleasure escape thee.\n\nBut his tone is commonly more serious. Though no ascetic, he cautions\nhis readers against the unrestrained manners which had invaded Jud\u00e6a,\nespecially against consorting with the singing and dancing girls (\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70\n\u03c8\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2, ix. 4, includes both; Vulg. _cum saltatrice_), and draws a\npicture of the daughters of Israel (xlii. 9, 10) which forms a\nmelancholy contrast with the Old Testament ideal. His prayer to be\nguarded from the infection of lust (xxiii. 4, 5) finds its commentary in\nthe story already mentioned of Joseph the tax-farmer. He notes with\nobservant eye the strife of classes. What bitter sighs must have\nprompted a saying like this (xiii. 2, 3)\u2014\n\n    A burden that is too heavy for thee take not up,\n    and have no fellowship with one that is stronger and richer than\n       thyself:\n    For what fellowship hath the kettle with the earthen pot?\n    this will smite, and that will be broken.\n    The rich man doth wrong, and _he_ snorteth with anger,\n    the poor man is wronged, and _he_ entreateth withal.\n\nAnd again (xiii. 18)\u2014\n\n              What peace hath the hy\u00e6na with the dog?\n              and what peace hath the rich man with the poor?\n\nHe is painfully conscious of the deserved humiliation of his country,\nand the only reason which he can urge why God should interpose is the\nassured prophetic word (xxxvi. 15, 16 = 20, 21). Elsewhere he ascribes\nall the evil of his time to the neglect of the Law (xli. 8), which, by a\nstrong hyperbole, he almost identifies with personified Divine Wisdom\n(xxiv. 23; see above on Prov. viii.) Not however without a noble\nintroduction leading up to and justifying this identification. In the\ntrue _m\u0101sh\u0101l_-style he describes how Wisdom wandered through the world\nseeking a resting-place,\u2014\n\n               Then the Creator of all gave me a commandment,\n               and he that made me caused my tent to rest,\n               and said, Let thy dwelling be in Jacob,\n               and thine inheritance in Israel (xxiv. 8).\n\nAnd after a series of wondrous images, all glorifying the Wisdom\nenthroned in Jerusalem, he declares\u2014\n\n    All this [is made good in] the book of the covenant of the Most High\n       God,\n    the Law which Moses commanded us\n    as a heritage unto the congregations of Jacob (xxiv. 23).\n\nThis remarkable chapter deserves to be studied by itself; it is most\ncarefully composed in 72 \u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03c7\u03bf\u03b9. Lowth and Wessely[276] have with\nunequal success retranslated it into Hebrew. I have already spoken (on\nProverbs) of its interest for the student of doctrine; it has indeed\nbeen thought to show clear traces of Alexandrinism, but this is\nimprobable and unproved.\n\nIt remains to notice the author\u2019s interest in nature and history.\nThe hymn of praise for the works of creation (xlii. 15-xliii. 32) is\nonly poor if compared with parts of the Book of Job. But perhaps\nmore interesting is the panegyric of \u2018famous men\u2019 (xliv.-l.), from\nEnoch the patriarch to Simeon the Righteous, whose imposing\nappearance and beneficent rule are described with the enthusiasm of\na contemporary.[277] It is worth the student\u2019s while to examine the\ncontents of this roll of honour. A few corrections of the text may\nbe noticed as a preliminary. At xlviii. 11_b_, the Greek has \u2018for we\nshall surely live (again).\u2019 But the Latin has, \u2018nam nos vit\u00e2 vivimus\ntantum, post mortem autem non erit tale nomen nostrum.\u2019 There is\ngood reason in this instance, as we shall see presently, to prefer\nthe reading of the Latin to that of the Greek. At l. 1, after \u2018son\nof Onias,\u2019 it is well to remove the abruptness of the transition by\ninserting from the Syriac, \u2018was the greatest of his brethren and the\ncrown of his people.\u2019 At l. 26 (27), for \u2018Samaria\u2019 we should\nprobably read \u2018Seir\u2019 (else how will there be three nations?), and\nfor \u2018foolish,\u2019 \u2018Amoritish\u2019 (with the Ethiopic version and Ewald,\ncomp. Ezek. xvi. 3). Turning to the names of the heroes\ncommemorated, it is startling to find no mention made of Ezra, the\nsecond founder of Jewish religion. Aaron, on the other hand, is\ncelebrated in no fewer than seventeen verses. This cannot be a mere\naccident, for the veneration of the later Jews for Ezra was hardly\nless than that which they entertained for Moses. Notice, however,\nthat Moses himself is only praised in five verses. It seems as if\nAaron better than Moses symbolised those ritual observances in which\nSirach perhaps took a special delight. The name of Ezra, too, may\nhave had its symbolic meaning to the author. He may have had\ndeficient sympathy with those elaborators of minute legal precepts,\nwho took Ezra as their pattern. Not that he disbelieved in the\ncontinuity of inspiration\u2014for in some sense he claims it for himself\n(e.g. xxiv. 33), but that he did not fully recognise the workings of\nthe spirit in the \u2018fence about the Law.\u2019 Other names which he passes\nover in silence are Daniel and Mordecai. Does this mean that he was\nunacquainted with the Books of Daniel and Esther? Whatever be the\ndate of these books, so much as this is at least a probable\ninference.\n\nThe panegyric seems to have originally closed with the ancient\nliturgical formula in verses 22-24. But the writer could not resist the\ntemptation of giving a side-blow to the hated Samaritans (those\n\u2018half-Jews,\u2019 as Josephus the historian calls them), called forth perhaps\nby the dispute respecting the rival temples held at Alexandria before\nPtolemy Philometor.[278] The last chapter of all (chap. li.) contains\nthe aged author\u2019s final leave-taking. It is a prayer of touching\nsincerity and much biographical interest. The immediateness of the\nreligious sentiment is certainly greater in this late \u2018gatherer\u2019 than in\nmany of the earlier proverb-writers.\n\nEnough has been said of the contents of the book to give a general idea\nof its moral and religious position. Let us now consider its outward\nform. The work, as we have seen, was originally written in Hebrew. This\nindeed was to have been expected. For although the influence of the\nSeleucid\u00e6 had greatly strengthened the hold of Aramaic on the Jewish\npopulation of Palestine, Hebrew was still, and for a long time\nafterwards remained, the language of scholars and _litt\u00e9rateurs_. The\nauthor of the \u2018Wisdom of Sirach\u2019 was both. He was thoroughly penetrated\nwith the spirit and style of the Scriptures, especially of those of the\n_Khokma_, and he would have thought it as much a descent to lavish his\ngreat powers on Aramaic as Dante did at first to write in Italian. Is\nthis Hebrew original still extant? Alas! no; Hebrew literature, so\nscantily represented for this period, has to mourn this great loss. A\npage of fragments, gathered from the Talmud and the Midr\u0101sh\u012bm,[279] is\nall that we can, with some occasional hesitation, plausibly regard as\ngenuine. There is indeed a small work, called the Alphabet of Ben Sira,\nconsisting of two series of proverbs, one in Aramaic, and one in Hebrew.\nBut no significance can be attached to this. The genuineness of many of\nthe Hebrew proverbs is guaranteed by their occurrence in the Talmud, but\nthe form in which the alphabetist quotes them is often evidently less\nauthentic than that in the Talmud. The original work must have been lost\nsince the time of Jerome, if we may trust his assurance[280] that he had\nfound it in Hebrew, and that it bore the name \u2018Parables\u2019 (_m\u2019sh\u0101l\u012bm_).\nOf the ancient versions, the Syriac and the Old Latin are (after the\nGreek) the most important; the former is from the Hebrew, the latter\nfrom a very early form of the Greek text. Neither of them is always in\naccordance with the Greek as we have it, but such differences are often\nof use in restoring the original text. All the versions appear to\ncontain alterations of the text, dictated by a too anxious orthodoxy,\nand in these the one may be a check upon the other. Bickell indeed goes\nfurther than this, and states that an accurate text of Sirach can only\nbe had by combining the data of the Greek and the Syriac. Lowth, in his\n24th Lecture, strongly urges the retranslation of Sirach into Hebrew.\nSuch an undertaking would be premature, if Bickell\u2019s judgment be correct\nthat the book consists of seven-syllabled verses or \u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03c7\u03bf\u03b9, grouped in\ndistichs,[281] except in the alphabetic poem on wisdom (li. 13-20). The\nlatter, consisting of 22 \u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03c7\u03bf\u03b9, he has translated into German from his\nown corrected text, dividing it into four-lined strophes, as also the\npreceding, \u2018alphabetising\u2019 poem, consisting of 22 distichs (li. 1-12),\nin the _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr katholische Theologie_, 1882, pp. 326-332.\n\nWe must reserve our opinion on Bickell\u2019s theory till the appearance of a\ncomplete edition from his pen. Meantime three passages (xxiv. 27, xxv.\n15, xlvi. 18) may be referred to as giving striking proof of the Hebrew\noriginal of the work. In xxiv. 27 the translator seems to have found in\nhis Hebrew copy \u05db\u05d0\u05e8, i.e. properly \u05db\u05b7\u05bc\u05d9\u05b0\u05d0\u05c2\u05e8 \u2018as the Nile\u2019 (the weak\nletter \u05d9 being elided in pronunciation as in \u05db\u05d0\u05e8, Am. viii. 8), but as\nhe supposed \u05db\u05b8\u05bc\u05d0\u05d5\u05c2\u05e8 \u2018as the light.\u2019 In xxv. 15, he found \u05e8\u05d0\u05e9\u05c1, which in\nthe context can only mean \u2018poison,\u2019 but which he inappropriately\nrendered \u2018head.\u2019 In xlvi. 18, the Hebrew had \u05e6\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd, i.e. \u05e6\u05b8\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd\n\u2018enemies,\u2019 but, according to the translator, \u05e6\u05b9\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd \u2018Tyrians.\u2019 Compare\nalso in this connection the allusions to the meanings of Hebrew words in\nvi. 22 (\u2018wisdom\u2019) and xliii. 8 (\u2018the month\u2019). There are still questions\nto be decided which can only be adverted to briefly here. Did the\ntranslator make use of the Septuagint, and more particularly of the\nportion containing the prophets? He certainly refers to a translation of\nthe Scriptures in his preface, but Frankel thinks that a Targum may be\nmeant, and even doubts the genuineness of the passage; he explains the\npoints of contact with the Septuagint which are sometimes so\ninteresting[282] in the Greek version of Sirach by _Ueberarbeitung_,\ni.e. the \u2018working over\u2019 of the version by later hands.[283] This seems\nto me a forced view. It is more probable that a Greek version is meant,\nor perhaps we may say Greek _versions_; no special honour is given to\nany one translation. Next, as to the position accorded to the Wisdom of\nSirach. It is often cited in the Talmud with formul\u00e6 which belong\nelsewhere to the Scriptures, and was therefore certainly regarded by\nmany as worthy to be canonical (see Appendix). In strict theory, this\nwas wrong. According to the _Tosephta Yadayim_, c. 2, the book of Ben\nSira, though much esteemed, stood on the border between the canonical\nand extraneous or non-canonical books. Such books might be read\ncursorily, but were not to be studied too much.[284] Sirach neither\nclaimed the authorship of a hero of antiquity, nor was it, according to\nthe rising Pharisaic school, orthodox; thus perhaps we may best account\nfor the fact that a work, regarded in itself in no way inferior to the\nBook of Proverbs, was left outside the sacred canon.\n\nNo certain allusions to our book are traceable in the New Testament; the\nnearest approach to a quotation is James i. 19; comp. Ecclus. v. 13.\nClement of Alexandria is the first Christian writer who quotes directly\nfrom Sirach. From its large use in the services of the Church the book\nreceived the name Ecclesiasticus, to distinguish it perhaps from the\ncanonical book which was also often called \u2018Wisdom.\u2019 In later times, it\nhalf attracted, but\u2014owing to the corrupt state of the text\u2014half\nrepelled, the great Hellenist Camerarius, the friend of Melancthon, who\npublished a separate edition of Sirach (the first) at Basle in 1551. It\nappears from his preface that it was highly valued by the reformers from\nan educational point of view. Bullinger proposes it as a less dangerous\ntext book of moral philosophy than the works of Plato and Aristotle, and\nLuther admits it to be a good household book, admired however too much\nby the world, which \u2018sleepily passes by the great majestic word of\nChrist concerning the victory over death, sin, and hell.\u2019\n\nNo impartial critic will place the Wisdom of Jesus the son of Sirach on\nthe same literary eminence with the so-called Wisdom of Solomon. It is\nonly from its greater fidelity to the Old Testament standard, or at\nleast to a portion of this standard, that it can claim a qualified\nsuperiority. A few noble passages of continuous rhetoric it no doubt\ncontains, especially the noble Hymn of Praise on the works of creation\n(xxxix. 16-xliii. 33); and a few small but exquisite gems especially the\nsayings on friendship (counterbalanced, I admit by those on the\ntreatment of one\u2019s enemies, xii. 10-12, xxv. 7, xxx. 6), e.g.\u2014\n\n         Forsake not an old friend,\n         for the new is not comparable to him.\n         A new friend is as new wine,\n         when it is old, thou wilt drink it with pleasure (ix. 10),\n\nwith which we may bracket the noble passage on the treatment of a\nfriend\u2019s trespass (xix. 13-17). One of the fine religious passages has\nbeen quoted already (xliii. 27; comp. Job xxvi. 14); we may couple\nthis[285] with it\u2014\n\n           As a drop from the sea, and a grain of sand,\n           so are a few years in the day of eternity (xviii. 9).\n\nStill the chief value of the book is, historically, to fill out the\npicture of a little known period, and doctrinally, to show the\ninadequacy of the old forms of religious belief, and the moral distress\nfrom which the Christ was a deliverer.\n\nFootnote 268:\n\n  Ewald (_History_, v. 263, n. 3) refers to iv. 15, x. 13-17, xi. 5 sq.,\n  xxxii. 17-19, xxxiii. 1-12, xxxvi. 11-17, xxxvii. 25, xxxix. 23,\n  xlviii. 10 sq., but only for a vague Messianism (in the last passage\n  the Greek seems to be interpolated). I would add xxxv. 17-19, xxxvi.\n  1-10.\n\nFootnote 269:\n\n  True, the Greek version of Sirach has, at xxi. 27, the words, \u2018When\n  the ungodly curseth the Satan, he curseth his own soul;\u2019 but \u2018the\n  Satan\u2019 may here be synonymous with the depraved will, the _y\u00e9\u00e7er r\u0101_\n  (this seems to have Talmudic authority; see Weber, _System der\n  altsynag. pal. Theol._, pp. 228-9). In _Baba bathra_, 15_a_, Satan is\n  not distinguished from the _y\u00e9\u00e7er r\u0101_.\n\nFootnote 270:\n\n  Chap. xxii. 11. Comp. xiv. 11-19 (correcting by the help of the\n  Syriac), xvii. 27, 28, 30. Contrast the glowing language of the\n  \u2018Wisdom of Solomon,\u2019 iii. 1-4.\n\nFootnote 271:\n\n  The Syriac has, \u2018Nevertheless he dieth not, but liveth indeed.\u2019 The\n  Greek version I have quoted farther on. Also the Latin, which probably\n  corresponds most to the original. See Geiger, _Zeitschr. d. d. morg.\n  Ges._, xii. 536. The false reading \u03ba\u03b5\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bc\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9, adopted by A.V., for\n  \u03ba\u03b5\u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03bc\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9, in xlviii. 11a, is due to the same theological motive.\n\nFootnote 272:\n\n  _Antiquities_, xii. 3, 3.\n\nFootnote 273:\n\n  Ch. xi. 17; comp. ii. 7 &c.; xvi. 6 &c.; xl. 13, 14. There are,\n  however, passages in which Sirach betrays some little feeling of the\n  practical difficulties of the older form of the doctrine of\n  retribution: see xxxv. 18 [xxxii. 18].\n\nFootnote 274:\n\n  See Dukes, _Rabbinische Blumenlese_, pp. 29, 30; Gr\u00e4tz, _Schir\n  ha-schirim_, p. 86. Grotius even supposed the author to be a\n  physician.\n\nFootnote 275:\n\n  \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u1f74 \u1f10\u03bc\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03af\u03c3\u1fc3\u03c2 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03ba\u03ac. So xlix. 1. \u1f61\u03c2 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03ba\u1f70 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03af\u1ff3 \u03bf\u1f34\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5;\n  comp. Ex. xxxii. 18 Sept. That Greek music was known in Palestine\n  _very shortly afterwards_ may be inferred from the Greek names of\n  musical instruments in the Book of Daniel.\n\nFootnote 276:\n\n  Wessely was one of the most eminent fellow-workers of the great Moses\n  Mendelssohn. See Wogue, _Histoire de la Bible et de l\u2019ex\u00e9g\u00e8se\n  biblique_ (1881), pp. 334-337.\n\nFootnote 277:\n\n  The Mussaph prayer in the liturgy of the Day of Atonement (German\n  ritual) contains a striking imitation of Sirach\u2019s eloquent description\n  of the high priest (see Delitzsch, _Gesch. der j\u00fcd. Poesie_, p. 21),\n  every verse of which closes with the refrain _mar\u2019eh k\u014dh\u0113n_ \u2018the\n  appearance of the priest;\u2019 Meshullam bar-Kleonymos is known to be the\n  author.\n\nFootnote 278:\n\n  Jos., _Ant._, xiii. 3, 4.\n\nFootnote 279:\n\n  See Zunz, _Gottesdienstliche Vortr\u00e4ge_, p. 102; Delitzsch, _Zur Gesch.\n  der j\u00fcdischen Poesie_, p. 204 (comp. p. 20, note 5); Dukes,\n  _Rabbinische Blumenlese_, p. 67 &c. It should be noticed that among\n  these Talmudic _m\u2019sh\u0101l\u012bm_ there are some, and even long ones, which do\n  not occur in the Greek Sirach.\n\nFootnote 280:\n\n  _Pr\u00e6f. in libr. Sal._ \u2018Fertur et \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03ac\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 Jesu filii Sirach liber et\n  alius \u03c8\u03b5\u03c5\u03b4\u03b5\u03c0\u03af\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03bf\u03c2 liber .... Quorum priorem Hebraicum reperi, non\n  Ecclesiasticum, ut apud Latinos, sed _parabolas_ pr\u00e6notatum, cui\n  juncti erant Ecclesiastes et Canticum canticorum.\u2019 Nowhere since has\n  Sirach been found in this position, nor with this title.\n\nFootnote 281:\n\n  But is not a strophic division sometimes visible, e.g. ii. 7-17? See\n  Seligmann, _Das Buch der Weisheit des J. S._, &c., p. 34.\n\nFootnote 282:\n\n  See especially xlvi. 19, with which comp. the Septuagint of 1 Sam.\n  xii. 3.\n\nFootnote 283:\n\n  _Vorstudien zu der Septuaginta_ (1841), p. 21, note _w_.\n\nFootnote 284:\n\n  Wright, _Koheleth_, p. 48 n.; Strack, art. \u2018Kanon des A. T.\u2019 in\n  Herzog-Plitt, _Realencyclop\u00e4die_, vii. 430, 431; Gratz, _Kohelet_, p.\n  48.\n\nFootnote 285:\n\n  Bishop Butler, who is fond of Sirach, quotes this saying in his 4th\n  sermon.\n\n\n\n\n                          AIDS TO THE STUDENT.\n\n\nBesides the commentaries of Bretschneider (1806), Fritzsche (1859), and\nBissell (in the American edition of Lange), see Gfr\u00f6rer, _Philo_, ii.\n(1831), pp. 18-52; D\u00e4hne, _Geschichtliche Darstellung der\nj\u00fcdischalexandrin. Religionsphilosophie_, ii. (1834), pp. 126-150; Zunz,\n_Die gottesdienstl. Vortr\u00e4ge der Juden_ (1832), pp. 100-105; Ewald,\n_Jahrb\u00fccher der bibl. Wissenschaft_, iii. (1851), pp. 125-140; _History\nof Israel_, v. 262 &c.; Jost, _Gesch. des Judenthums_, i. (1857), p. 310\n&c.; Herzfeld, _Gesch. des Volkes Jisrael_, iii. (1863), see Index;\nHorowitz, _Das Buch Jesus Sirach_ (1865); Dyserinck, _De Spreuken van\nJesus den zoon van Sirach vertaald_ (1870); Gr\u00e4tz, _Monatsschrift_ for\n1872, pp. 49 &c., 97 &c.; Seligmann, _Das Buch der Weisheit des Jesus\nSirach_ (1883); Fritzsche, art. in Schenkel\u2019s _Bibellexikon_, iii. 252\n&c.; Stanley, _Jewish Church_, vol. iii. (see Index); Westcott, art.\n\u2018Ecclesiasticus\u2019 in Smith\u2019s _Bible Dictionary_; Deane, \u2018The Book of\nEcclesiasticus: its Contents and Character,\u2019 _The Expositor_, Nov. 1883;\nWright, _The Book of Koheleth_, 1883, chap. ii. (decides, perhaps, too\nhastily that Sirach in many passages imitates Koheleth).\n\n\n\n\n                THE BOOK OF KOHELETH; OR, ECCLESIASTES.\n\n\n                               CHAPTER I.\n              THE WISE MAN TURNED AUTHOR AND PHILOSOPHER.\n\n\n                ... Il mondo invecchia,\n                E invecchiando intristisce.\u2014TASSO, _Aminta_.\n\n\nIn passing from the book of Ecclesiasticus to that of Ecclesiastes, we\nare conscious of breathing an entirely different intellectual\natmosphere. \u2018Seek not out the things that are too hard for thee,\u2019 said\nSirach, \u2018for thou hast no need of the secret things\u2019 (iii. 21, 22), but\nthe book now before us is the record of a thinker, disappointed it is\ntrue, but too much in earnest to give up thinking. Of meditative minds\nthere was no lack in this period of Israel\u2019s history. The writers of the\n119th and several other Psalms, as well as Jesus the son of Sirach, had\npondered over the ideal life, but our author (the only remaining\nrepresentative of a school of writers[286]) was meditative in a\ndifferent sense from any of these. He could not have said with the\nlatter, \u2018I prayed for wisdom before the temple\u2019 (Ecclus. li. 14), nor\nwith the former, \u2018Thy commandment is exceeding broad\u2019 (Ps. cxix. 96).\nThe idea of the religious primacy of Israel awakened in his mind no\nresponsive enthusiasm. We cannot exactly say that he conceals the place\nof his residence,[287] but he has certainly no overpowering interest in\nthe scene of his life\u2019s troublesome drama. In this feature he resembles\nto a considerable extent the humanists of an earlier date (see p. 119),\nbut in others, and those the most characteristic, he differs as widely\nfrom them as the old man from the child. They believed that virtue was\ncrowned by prosperity; even the writer of _Job_, as some think, had not\nwholly cast off the consecrated dogma; but the austere and lonely\nthinker who has left us Ecclesiastes finds himself utterly unable to\nharmonise such a theory with facts (viii. 14). To him, living during one\nof the dreariest parts of the post-Exile period, it seemed as if the\npast aspirations of Israel had turned out a gigantic mistake. That\nhome-sickness which impelled, if not the Second Isaiah himself, yet many\nwho were stirred by his eloquence, to exchange a life of ease and luxury\nfor one of struggle and privation\u2014in what had it issued? In \u2018vanity and\npursuit of wind\u2019 (comp. Isa. xxvi. 18). To quote a great Persian poet,\nwho in some of his moods resembles Koheleth (see end of Chap. IX.),\n\n              The Revelations of Devout and Learn\u2019d,\n              Who rose before us and as Prophets burn\u2019d,\n                 Are all but Stories, which, arose from Sleep,\n              They told their fellows, and to Sleep return\u2019d.\n\nSuch thoughts as these made the history of Israel an aid to scepticism\nrather than to faith; added to which it is probable that society in\nKoheleth\u2019s[288] time seemed to him too corrupt to admit of an idealistic\ntheory of life. For an individual to seek to put in practice such a\ntheory would expose him to hopeless failure and misery. Therefore, \u2018be\nnot righteous overmuch,[289] neither pretend to be exceedingly wise; why\nwilt thou ruin (lit. desolate) thyself?\u2019 (vii. 16). Some, no doubt, as\nthe Soferim or Scripturists, had tried it, but they had only succeeded\nin making their lives \u2018desolate,\u2019 without any compensating advantage.\nNor can we say that Ecclesiastes had given up theistic religion. He does\nnot indeed believe in immortality and a future judgment, and is thus\npartly an exception to the rule of Lucretius,\n\n           ... nam si certam finem esse viderent\n           Aerumnarum homines, aliqua ratione valerent\n           Religionibus atque mineis obsistere vatum.\n                                 (_De rerum natur\u00e2_, i. 108-110.)\n\nHe mentions God twenty-seven times, but under the name Elohim, which\nbelonged to Him as the Creator, not under that of Yahveh, which an\nIsraelite was privileged to use; and his one-sided supernaturalism\nobscured the sense of personal communion with God. He accepts only the\nfirst part of the great proclamation concerning the dwelling place of\nGod in Isa. lxvii. 15 (see Eccles. v. 2). It is no doubt God who\n\u2018worketh all\u2019 (xi. 5), but there are nearer and almost more formidable\npotentates, an oppressive hierarchy of officials ranging from the\ntaxgatherer to the king, \u2018a high one watching above the high, and high\nones over both\u2019 (v. 8). True, our author seems to admit\u2014at least if the\ntext be sound (iii. 17; comp. viii. 12, 13)\u2014that \u2018God will judge the\nrighteous and the wicked\u2019 (i.e. in this life, for he does not believe in\nanother), but the comfort of this thought is dashed with bitterness by\nan unspoken but distinctly implied complaint, which may perhaps be well\nexpressed in the language of Job (xxiv. 1), \u2018Why are judgments laid up\n(so long) by the Almighty,[290] and (why) do they that know him not see\nhis days?\u2019 or in other words, Why is divine retribution so tardy? It is,\nin fact, this extreme tardiness of God\u2019s judicial interpositions which\nour author considers one of the chief causes of the prevalence of\nwickedness;\u2014\n\n    \u2018Because sentence against the work of wickedness is not speedily\n    executed, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in\n    them to do evil\u2019 (viii. 11).\n\nOn the whole, we may say that the older humanists were sincere\noptimists, while Koheleth, though theoretically perhaps an optimist\n(iii. 11), constantly relapses into a more congenial \u2018malism.\u2019 I use\nthis word designedly. Koheleth can only be called a pessimist loosely.\nBad as things are, he does not believe that the world is getting worse\nand worse and hasting to its ruin. He believes in revolutions, some for\nevil, some for good, some for \u2018rending\u2019 or \u2018breaking down,\u2019 others for\n\u2018sewing\u2019 or \u2018building up.\u2019 He believes, in other words, that God brings\nabout recurrent changes in human circumstances. But (like another wise\nman, Prov. xxv. 21) he does not trust revolutions of human origin (\u2018evil\nmatters\u2019 he calls them, viii. 3); he is no _carbonaro_ (x. 20). And so\nfor the present he is a \u2018malist,\u2019 and having no imaginative faculty he\ncannot sympathise with the \u2018Utopian\u2019 prospects for the future contained\nin the prophetic visions.\n\nYet, in spite of appearances, Koheleth builds upon a true Israelitish\nfoundation. It is already something that he cannot bear to plunge into\nopen infidelity, that he is still (as we have seen) a theist, though his\ntheism gives him but little light and no comforting warmth. Now and then\nhe alludes to the religious system of his people (see v. 1-5, 17, viii.\n10). A stronger proof of his Israelitish sympathies is his choice of\nSolomon as the representative of humanity; I say, of humanity, because\nthe author evidently declines to place himself upon the pedestal of\nIsraelitish privilege. (Perhaps, too, as Herzfeld thinks,[291] he would\nconsole his people by showing them that they have companions in\nmisfortune everywhere \u2018under the sun;\u2019 and we have already seen Job\nsnatch a brief alleviation of pain from the thought of suffering\nhumanity.) Koheleth is not only a Jew, but a man of culture. He cannot\nperhaps entirely defend himself from the subtle influence of the Greek\nview of life, and is even willing to associate from time to time with\nthe ministers of alien sovereigns. True, he has noted with bitter irony\nthe absurd and capricious changes in the government of Palestine (x.\n5-7), but he has no spark of the spirit of the Maccabees, unless indeed\nin viii. 2-5, x. 4, 20, beneath the garb of servile prudence we may\n(with Dr. Plumptre) detect the irony of indignation. To the\nsimple-minded reader at any rate he appears to counsel passive\nobedience, and a cautious crouching attitude towards those in power. I\nsuspect myself that either the advice is but provisional, or else\nKoheleth still feels the power of the prophetic Utopia: _ce peuple r\u00eave\ntoujours quelque chose d\u2019international_.[292] Nay; shall we not carry\nour generosity even farther? That \u2018last word,\u2019 which he would have\nspoken had he lived longer, may possibly not have been that which the\nSoferim have forced upon him. Not a future judgment, but a return of\nprosperity to a wiser though sadder Israel, may have been his silent\nhope, and in this prosperity we may be sure that a wider and more\nphilosophic culture would form a principal ingredient. This is by no\nmeans an absurd fancy. Koheleth firmly believed in recurrent historical\ncycles, and if there was \u2018a time to break down,\u2019 there was also \u2018a time\nto build up\u2019 (iii. 3). Sirach knows no future life and no Messiah; but\nhe believes in the eternity of Israel; why, on the ground of his\nfragmentary remains, deny the same consolation to Koheleth? Much as I\nshould prefer to imagine a far more satisfactory close for his troubled\nlife (see Chap. IX.), I think we ought to admit the possibility of this\nhypothesis.\n\nAs an author, the characteristics of Koheleth are in the main Hebraic,\nthough not without vague affinities to the Greek philosophic spirit. His\nwork is without a model, but the dramatic element in it reminds us\nsomewhat of the Book of Job. Just as the writer of that great poem\ndelineates his own spiritual struggles\u2014not of course without poetic\namplification\u2014under the assumed name of Job, so our author, with a\nsimilar poetical license, ascribes his difficulties to the imaginary\npersonage Koheleth (or Ecclesiastes). There are also passages in which,\nlike Job, he adopts the tone, style and rhythm[293] of gnomic poetry,\nthough far from reaching the literary perfection of Job or of the\nproverbial collections. The attempt of K\u00f6ster and Vaihinger to make him\nout an artist in the management of strophes is a sport of fancy. Unity\nand consistency in literary form were beyond the reach, if not of his\npowers, yet certainly of his opportunities; even his phraseology, as a\nrule, is in the highest degree rough and unpolished. This is the more\nstriking by contrast with the elegant workmanship of Sirach. But the\nunknown author has very strong excuses. Thus, first, the negative tone\nof his mind must have destroyed the cheerful composure necessary to the\nartist. \u2018The burden of the mystery\u2019 pressed too heavily for him to think\nmuch of form and beauty. His harp, if he ever had one, he had long since\nhung up upon the willows. Next, it is highly probable that he was\ninterrupted in the midst of his literary preparations. N\u00f6ldeke has\nremarked[294] that his object was not to produce \u2018ein literarisches\nSchaust\u00fcck.\u2019 That is perfectly true; his primary object was \u2018to scatter\nthe doubts of his own mind.\u2019 But he did not despise the literary craft;\nhe was well aware that even \u2018the literature of power\u2019 may increase its\ninfluence by some attention to form. It seems to me that the \u2018labour of\nthe file\u2019 has brought the first two chapters to a considerable degree of\nperfection; but the rest of the book, upon the whole, is so rough and so\ndisjointed, that I can only suppose it to be based on certain loose\nnotes or _adversaria_, written solely with the object of dispersing his\ndoubts and mitigating his pains by giving them expression. The thread of\nthought seems to break every few verses, and attempts to restore it fail\nto carry conviction to the unbiassed mind. The feelings and opinions\nembodied in the book are often mutually inconsistent; in Ibn Ezra\u2019s\ntime, and long before that, the Jewish students of the book were puzzled\nby this phenomenon, so strange in a canonical Scripture. Not a few\nscattered remarks have absolutely no connection with the subject. The\nstyle, too, is rarely easy and natural, and sometimes (especially in\nviii. 16, 17) we meet with a sentence which would certainly not have\npassed an author\u2019s final revision. The most obvious hypothesis surely is\nthat from chap. iii. onwards we have before us the imperfectly worked-up\nmeditations of an otherwise unknown writer, found after his death in\nproximity to a highly finished fragment which apparently professed to be\nthe work of king Solomon. The meditations and the fragment were\ncirculated in combination (for which there was much excuse, especially\nas some parts of the notes seemed to be in the narrative and even\nautobiographic style), and were received with much favour by the\nstudents of \u2018wisdom,\u2019 more, I should think, owing to the intrinsic\ninterest of the book than to the literary fiction of Solomonic\nauthorship. If this hypothesis be correct, we need not be surprised\neither at the author\u2019s inconsistencies in opinion, or at the general\nroughness of his style. The book may not even be all one man\u2019s work.\nLuther has already brought Ecclesiastes into connection with the\nTalmud.[295] Now the proverbial sayings which interrupt our thinker\u2019s\nself-questionings on \u2018vanity of vanities\u2019 are like the Haggadic passages\nwhich gush forth like fountains in the weary waste of hair-splitting\nTalmudic dialectics. No one has ever maintained the unity of the Talmud,\nand no one should be thought unreasonable for doubting the absolute\nfreedom of Ecclesiastes from interpolations.[296]\n\nThe third and last excuse which I have to offer is that the meditations\nof Koheleth partake of the nature of an experiment. He may indeed (as I\nhave remarked) be a member of a school of writers, but his strikingly\noriginal manner compels us to regard him as a master rather than a\ndisciple. No such purely reflective work had, so far as we know, as yet\nbeen produced in Hebrew literature. Similar moral difficulties to those\nwhich preoccupied our author had no doubt occurred to some of the\nprophets and poets, but they had not been sounded to their depths. Even\nin the Book of Job the reflective spirit has very imperfect scope. The\nspeeches soon pass into a lyric strain, and Jehovah Himself closes the\ndiscussion by imposing silence. But the author of Ecclesiastes was a\nthinker, not a lyrist, and was compelled to form his own vehicle of\nthought. He \u2018sought,\u2019 indeed, \u2018to find out pleasant words\u2019 (xii. 10),\nbut had to strain the powers of an unpliant language to the uttermost,\nto coin (presumably) new words, and apply old ones in fresh senses, till\nhe might well have complained (to apply Lucretius) \u2018propter egestatem\nlinguae et rerum novitatem.\u2019[297] He deserves great praise for his\nmeasure of success; Luzzatto in his early work failed to do him justice.\nHe is not ambitious; as a rule, he abstains from fine writing. Once\nindeed he attempts it, but, as I venture to think, with but ill\nsuccess\u2014I refer to the closing description of old age (xii. 4-9), which\nhas a touch of the extravagant euphuism of late Arabic literature.[298]\nFrom a poetical point of view, the prelude (i. 4-8) is alone worthy to\nbe mentioned, though not included either by Renan or by Bickell among\nthe passages poetical in form (for a list of which see below[299]). Let\nus mark this fine passage, that we may return to it again in another\nconnection.\n\nFootnote 286:\n\n  The \u2018many books\u2019 spoken of in xii. 12 were probably less orthodox than\n  Ecclesiastes, but in so far as Ecclesiastes, especially in its\n  uncorrected state, is sceptical, it may be grouped with them.\n\nFootnote 287:\n\n  In common with most interpreters, I regard Ecclesiastes as a Jud\u00e6an\n  work.\n\nFootnote 288:\n\n  Following the precedent of the Epilogue (xii. 9), I designate the\n  author by the name which he has invented for his hero.\n\nFootnote 289:\n\n  There is a touch of humour in the expression, which can perhaps best\n  be reproduced in our northern Doric, \u2018Be not unco\u2019 guid.\u2019\n\nFootnote 290:\n\n  I follow Sept. and Dr. Merx. The received reading is very harsh.\n\nFootnote 291:\n\n  _Geschichte des Volkes Jisrael_, iii. 30.\n\nFootnote 292:\n\n  Renan, _L\u2019Ant\u00e9christ_, p. 228.\n\nFootnote 293:\n\n  On the rhythm, comp. Bickell, _Der Prediger_ (1884), pp. 27, 46-53.\n\nFootnote 294:\n\n  _Die alttestamentliche Literatur_, p. 173.\n\nFootnote 295:\n\n  \u2018Dazu so ist\u2019s wie ein Talmud aus vielen B\u00fcchern zusammengezogen.\u2019\n  Luther\u2019s _Tischreden_, quoted in Ginsburg, p. 113.\n\nFootnote 296:\n\n  See Supplementary Chapter.\n\nFootnote 297:\n\n  _De rerum natur\u00e2_, i. 140 (appositely quoted by Mr. Tyler).\n\nFootnote 298:\n\n  See the passage quoted from Chenery\u2019s translation of Hariri by Dr.\n  Taylor (_Dirge of Coheleth_, p. 55); comp. R\u00fcckert\u2019s rhyming\n  translation (_Hariri_, i. 104-5).\n\nFootnote 299:\n\n  Renan\u2019s list is i. 15, 18; ii. 2, 14; iii. 2-8, iv. 5, 14; v. 2; vii.\n  1-6; 7, 8; 9_b_; 13_b_; 24; viii. 1, 4; ix. 16, 17; x. 2, 12, 18; xi.\n  4, 7; xii. 3-5; 10; 11, 12. Bickell\u2019s, i. 7, 8; 15; 18; ii. 2; v. 9;\n  vi. 7; iv. 5; ii. 14; viii. 8; ix. 16-x. 1; vii. 1-6, vi. 9, vii. 7-9;\n  vii. 11, 12; vii. 20; v. 2; x. 16-20; xi. 6; xi. 4; viii. 1-4, x. 2,\n  3; x. 6, 7; x. 10-15; ix. 7; xi. 9, 10, xii. 1_a_; xii. 1_b_-5; 6.\n  (The order of these passages arises out of Bickell\u2019s critical theory;\n  on which see Chap. XII.)\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER II.\n                \u2018TRUTH AND FICTION\u2019 IN AN AUTOBIOGRAPHY.\n\n\nLet us now take a general survey of this strange book, regarding it as a\nrecord of the conflicting moods and experiences of a thoughtful man of\nthe world. The author is too modest to appear in his own person (at\nleast in i. 1-ii. 12), but, like Cicero in his dialogues, selects a\nmouthpiece from the heroic past. His choice could not be doubtful. Who\nso fit as the wisest of his age, the founder and patron of gnomic\npoetry, king Solomon (1 Kings iv. 30-32)? After the preluding verses,\nfrom which a quotation has been given above, Ecclesiastes continues\nthus:\u2014\n\n    I Koheleth have been[300] king over Israel in Jerusalem; and I gave\n    my mind to making search and exploration, by wisdom, concerning all\n    that is done under heaven; that is a sore trouble which God hath\n    given to the sons of men to trouble themselves therewith! I saw all\n    the works which are done under the sun; and behold, all is vanity\n    and pursuit of wind.\n\n              That which is crooked cannot be straightened,\n              and a deficiency cannot be reckoned (i. 12-15).\n\nThe name or title \u2018Koheleth\u2019 is obscure. According to the Epilogue\n\u2018Koheleth was a wise man\u2019 (xii. 9)\u2014a statement which confirms the\nexplanation of the name as meaning \u2018one who calls an assembly.\u2019[301] The\n\u2018wise men\u2019 of Israel gathered their disciples together, and such an able\nteacher as Koheleth would fain gather all who have ears to hear around\nhis seat. But Koheleth is also Solomon (though only for a short time\u2014the\nauthor did not, I suppose, live long enough thoroughly to fuse the\nconceptions of king and philosopher[302]). The wise king is to be\nimagined standing on the brink of the grave, and casting the\nclear-sighted glance of a dying man on past life, somewhat as Moses in\nparts of Deuteronomy or David in 2 Sam. xxii., xxiii. 1-7. A subtle and\npoetic view of Solomon\u2019s career is thus opened before us. He is not here\nrepresented in his political relation, but as a specimen of the highest\ntype of human being, with a boundless appetite for pleasure and every\nmeans of gratifying it. But even such a man\u2019s deliberate verdict on all\nforms of pleasure is that they are utterly unsubstantial, mere vanity\n(lit. a vapour\u2014Aquila, \u1f00\u03c4\u03bc\u03af\u03c2; comp. James iv. 14). Neither pure\nspeculation (i. 13-18), nor riotous mirth (ii. 1, 2), nor even the\nrefined voluptuousness consistent with the free play of the\nintellect[303] (ii. 3), could satisfy his longing, or enable him, with\nGoethe\u2019s Faust, to say to the flying moment, \u2018Ah! linger yet, thou art\nso fair.\u2019 It is true that wisdom is after all better than folly; Solomon\nfrom his \u2018specular mount\u2019 could \u2018see\u2019 this to be a truth (ii. 13); but\nin the end he found it as resultless as \u2018the walking in darkness\u2019 of the\nfool.\n\n    \u2018And I myself perceived that one fate befalleth them all. And I said\n    in my heart, As the fate of the fool will be the fate which shall\n    befall me, even me; and why have I then been exceeding wise? and I\n    said in my heart that this also is vanity\u2019 (ii. 14_b_, 15), i.e.\n    that this undiscriminating fate is a fresh proof of the delusiveness\n    of all things.\n\nAnd in this strain Koheleth runs on to nearly the end of the chapter,\nwith an added touch of bitterness at the thought of the doubtful\ncharacter of his successor (ii. 18, 19). Then occurs one of those abrupt\ntransitions which so often puzzle the student of Ecclesiastes. In ii.\n1-11 Koheleth has rejected the life of sensuous pleasure, even when\nwisely regulated, as \u2018vanity.\u2019 He now returns to the subject, and\ndeclares this to be, not of course the ideally highest good, but the\nhighest good open to man, if it were only in his power to secure it. But\nhe has seen that both sensuous enjoyment and the wisdom which regulates\nit come from God, who grants these blessings to the man who is good in\nhis sight, while profitless trouble is the portion of the sinner. He\nrepeats therefore that even wisdom and knowledge and joy, the highest\nattainable goods, are, by reason of their uncertainty, \u2018vanity and\npursuit of wind\u2019 (ii. 26).\n\nAt the end of this long speech of Koheleth, we naturally ask how far it\ncan be regarded as autobiographical. Only, I think, in a qualified\nsense. Its psychological depth points to similar experiences on the part\nof the author, but to experiences which have been deepened in their\nimaginative reproduction. It is truth mingled with fiction\u2014_Wahrheit und\nDichtung_\u2014which we meet with in the first two chapters. A more strictly\nbiographical narrative appears to begin in chap. iii., from which point\nthe allusions to Solomon cease, and are replaced by scattered references\nto contemporary history. The confidences of the author are introduced by\na passage (iii. 1-8) in the gnomic style, containing a catalogue of the\nvarious actions, emotions, and states of feeling which make up human\nlife. Each of these, we are told, has its own allotted season in the\nfixed order of nature, but as this is beyond the ken and influence of\nman, the question arises, \u2018What profit hath he that worketh in that\nwherewith he wearieth himself?\u2019 (iii. 9.) Thus, the \u2018wearisome trouble\u2019\nof the \u2018sons of men\u2019 has no permanent result. All that you can do is to\naccustom yourself to acquiesce in destiny: you will then see that every\nact and every state in your ever-shifting life is truly beautiful or\nseemly (iii. 11), even if not profitable to the individual (iii. 9).\nMore than this, man has been endowed with the faculty of understanding\nthis kaleidoscopic world, with the drawback that he cannot possibly\nembrace it all in one view:\u2014[304]\n\n    Also he hath put the world into their heart (i.e. mind), except that\n    man cannot find out from beginning to end the work which God hath\n    made (iii. 11).\n\nIn fact, to quote Lord Bacon\u2019s words in the _Advancement of Learning_,\n\u2018God has framed the mind like a glass, capable of the image of the\nuniverse, and desirous to receive it, as the eye to receive the light.\u2019\nBut here a dark mood interrupts the course of our author\u2019s meditations;\nor perhaps it is the record of a later period which is but awkwardly\nattached to the previous passages. \u2018To rejoice and to fare well\u2019\u2014sensual\n(or, let us say, sensuous) pleasure, in short\u2014is now represented as the\nonly good for man, and even that is not to be too absolutely reckoned\nupon, for \u2018it is the gift of God\u2019 (iii. 12, 13, 22; comp. ii. 24).\nCertainly our author at any rate did not succeed in drowning care in the\nwine-cup: he is no vulgar sensualist. His merriment is spoiled by the\nthought of the misery of others, and he can find nothing \u2018under the sun\u2019\n(a passionate generalisation from life in Palestine) but violence and\noppression. In utter despair he pronounces the dead happier than the\nliving (iv. 1, 2). In fact, he says, neither in life nor in death has\nman any superiority over the other animals, which are under no\nprovidential order, and have no principle of continuance. Such is the\ncynical theory which tempts Koheleth; and yet he seems to have hesitated\nbefore accepting it, unless we may venture with Bickell to strike out\niii. 17, as the work of a later editor who believed in retributions\nhereafter (like xi. 9_b_ xii. 7, 13, 14). I confess that consistency\nseems to me to require this step; the verse is in fact well fitted to be\nan antidote to the following verse, which seems to have suggested the\nopening phrase. This is how the text runs at present:\u2014\n\n    I said in my heart, The righteous and the wicked shall God judge;\n    for there is a time for every purpose and for every work _there_\n    (emphatically for \u2018in the other world;\u2019 or read, hath he appointed).\n    I said in my heart, (It happens) on account of the sons of men, that\n    God may test them, and that they may see that they are but beasts.\n    For the sons of men are a chance (comp. Herod. i. 32), and beasts\n    are a chance; yea, all have one chance: as the one dies, so dies the\n    other; yea, they all have one spirit; and advantage of the one over\n    the other there is none, for all is vanity. All go unto one place;\n    all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again. Who knows whether\n    the spirit of man goes upward, and whether the spirit of the beast\n    goes downward to the earth?[305] (iii. 17-21.)\n\nOur author\u2019s abiding conviction is that \u2018the spirit does but mean the\nbreath\u2019 (_In Memoriam_, lvi.), so that man and the lower animals have\n\u2018one spirit\u2019 and alike end in dust. \u2018_Pulvis et umbra sumus._\u2019 It is\ntrue, some of his contemporaries hold the new doctrine of Immortality,\nbut Koheleth, in his cool scepticism, hesitates to accept it. Which\nindeed of its enthusiastic advocates can claim to \u2018know\u2019 that which he\nasserts; or can prove to Koheleth\u2019s satisfaction that God (as a psalmist\nin Ps. xlix. 15 puts it) will \u2018receive\u2019 the spirit of man, in spite of\nthe fact that the vital principle of beasts loses itself in the dust of\ndeath? It is no doubt an awkward construction which Koheleth adopts: he\n_seems_ to express an uncertainty as to the fate of the lower animals.\nTo convey the meaning which I have given, the construction ought to have\nbeen disjunctive, as in this line from a noble modern poem,\n\n    Friend, who knows if death indeed have life, or life have death for\n    goal?[306]\n\nBut there is, or rather there ought to be, no doubt as to Koheleth\u2019s\nmeaning. Dean Plumptre frankly admits that \u2018it is not till nearly the\nclose of the book, with all its many wanderings of thought, that the\nseeker rests in that measure of the hope of immortality which we find\u2019\n[but this is open to considerable doubt] \u2018in xii. 7.\u2019\n\nFootnote 300:\n\n  See the fantastic legend to account for the past tense in _Midrash\n  Koheleth_ (transl. W\u00fcnsche), or Ginsburg (p. 268; comp. p. 38).\n\nFootnote 301:\n\n  Dean Plumptre thinks Koheleth (like \u1f10\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c2), which is rendered\n  by him \u2018the Debater,\u2019 means rather a member of an assembly, than a\n  teacher or preacher, and compares Ecclus. xxxviii. 33, where the son\n  of Sirach says of labourers and artisans that they \u2018shall not sit high\n  in the congregation,\u2019 i.e. in the _ecclesia_ or academy of sages. But\n  judging from the parallel line the \u2018congregation\u2019 is rather that of\n  the people in general (comp. Ecclus. xv. 5). The Dean\u2019s view that the\n  book embodies the inward debates of a Jewish philosopher may be to a\n  great extent true, but for all that Koheleth is throughout represented\n  as speaking alone and with authority. On the philological explanation\n  of the word, see Appendix.\n\nFootnote 302:\n\n  This seems a reasonable view. Bickell boldly maintains that i. 1, 12,\n  16, ii. 7, 8, 9 [12] are interpolations (made presumably to facilitate\n  the recognition of the book as canonical). Observe however that the\n  (fictitious) author is nowhere declared to be Solomon, but only\n  ben-David (i. 1). He claims attention merely as a private person, as\n  an interpreter of the complaints of humanity. Though he does once\n  expressly refer to his royal state (i. 12), it is only to suggest to\n  his readers what ample opportunities he has enjoyed of learning the\n  vanity of earthly grandeur. So, very plausibly, Bloch (_Ursprung des\n  Kohelet_, p. 17).\n\nFootnote 303:\n\n  The passage indeed is obscure and possibly corrupt (so Bickell), but\n  the above words probably do justice to the mood described.\n\nFootnote 304:\n\n  Among the many other interpretations of this difficult passage, two\n  may be mentioned here. (1) \u2018He has also set worldliness in their\n  heart, without which man cannot understand the work that God does,\n  from beginning to end.\u2019 So Kalisch (_Path and Goal_, frequently). This\n  is an improvement upon the translation of Gesenius and others, who\n  render, not \u2018without which\u2019 &c., but \u2018so that man may not\u2019 &c. The\n  objection to the latter rendering is that it gives \u2018worldliness\u2019 a New\n  Testament sense (comp. 1 John ii. 15). Kalisch, however, in full\n  accord with the spirit of Judaism, makes Koheleth frankly accept\n  \u2018worldliness\u2019 as a good, understanding by \u2018worldliness\u2019 a sense of\n  worldly duties and enjoyments. Had this however been Koheleth\u2019s\n  meaning, would he not have coined another of his favourite abstract\n  terms (comp. the Peshitto\u2019s _\u2019olmoyuth\u014d_ = \u03b1\u1f30\u1f7c\u03bd in Eph. ii. 2)? (2)\n  \u2018Also he has put eternity into their heart, but so that man cannot\u2019\n  &c. So Ginsburg and Delitzsch (_desiderium \u00e6ternitatis_, taking\n  \u2018eternity\u2019 in a metaphysical sense = \u2018that which is beyond time\u2019); so\n  also Nowack (taking it in the popular sense of years following upon\n  years without apparent limit). Ginsburg\u2019s view is against the context,\n  in which the continuance of the human spirit is doubted; but Nowack\u2019s\n  explanation is not unacceptable. Man has been enabled to form the idea\n  of Time (for the popular view of \u2018eternity\u2019 comes practically to\n  this), and has divided this long space into longer and shorter\n  periods; what happens in one period or season, he can compare with\n  what happens in another, thus finding all well-adapted and\n  \u2018beautiful.\u2019 But he cannot grasp the whole of Time in one view. But I\n  still prefer the explanation given in the text, as being simpler, in\n  spite of the fact that _\u2019\u014dl\u0101m_ nowhere else occurs in the sense of\n  \u2018world\u2019 (or the present order of things), so common in later Hebrew.\n\nFootnote 305:\n\n  This is the rendering of the four principal versions and of all the\n  best critics, including Mercier, Ewald, Ginsburg, Gr\u00e4tz and Delitzsch;\n  it agrees with the general tendency of Koheleth, and in particular\n  with vii. 5, where the grave is called man\u2019s \u2018eternal home\u2019 (see\n  below). It is no doubt opposed by the vowel-points, which are followed\n  in King James\u2019s Bible. But it is more than probable (considering other\n  parallel phenomena) that the authors of the points were directed by a\n  theological and therefore uncritical motive, that, namely, of effacing\n  as far as possible a trace of Koheleth\u2019s opposition to the doctrine,\n  by that time recognised as orthodox, of the immortality of the soul.\n\nFootnote 306:\n\n  Swinburne, _On the Verge_.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER III.\n           MORE MORALISING, INTERRUPTED BY PROVERBIAL MAXIMS.\n\n\nLet us now resume the thread of Koheleth\u2019s moralising. Violence and\noppression were two of the chief evils which struck an attentive\nobserver of Palestinian life. But there were two others equally worthy\nof a place in the sad picture\u2014the evils of rivalry and isolation. First,\nwith regard to rivalry (iv. 4-6). What is \u2018skilful work,\u2019 or art, but an\n\u2018envious surpassing of the one by the other\u2019? This also is \u2018pursuit of\nwind;\u2019 it gives no permanent satisfaction. True, indolence is\nself-destruction: but on the other hand a little true rest is better\nthan the labour of windy effort, urged on by rivalry yielding no rest\n(Delitzsch). Such at least is the most probable connection, supposing\nthat vv. 5 and 6 are not rather interpolated or misplaced. If however it\nbe objected (here Koheleth passes to a second great evil\u2014that of\nisolation) that a man may labour for his child or his brother, yet who,\npray, is benefited by the money-getting toils of one who has no near\nrelative, and stands alone in the world? A pitiable sight is such\nunprofitable toil! The fourth chapter closes with maxims on the\nblessings of companionship (iv. 9-12), followed by a vivid description\nof the sudden fall of an old and foolish king (iv. 13-16), who had not\ncared to appropriate one of the chief of these blessings, viz. good\nadvice. There is much that is enigmatical in the last four verses. We\nshould expect the writer to be alluding to some fact in contemporary\nhistory, but no plausible parallel has yet been indicated.[307] Ver. 16\nis certainly either corrupt or mutilated. Bickell thinks that it must\noriginally have run somewhat as follows:\u2014\n\n    There was no end of all the people, even of all those who [applauded\n    him and cast reproaches on the old king. For because he had despised\n    the counsel of the prudent, to rule foolishly and to oppress the\n    people, therefore they hated him, even as those had hated him] who\n    were before them; they also that came afterwards did not rejoice in\n    him.\n\nAt this point the ideal autobiography of Koheleth is interrupted. From\nv. 1 (= iv. 17 in the Hebrew) to vii. 14 we are presented with a mixture\nof proverbial sayings (such perhaps as Koheleth was continually framing\nand depositing in his note-books) and records of the wise man\u2019s personal\nexperience. Notice especially the reappearance of the old Israelitish\ninstinctive sympathy with husbandmen (or, shall I say, with yeomen) in\nver. 9. Both proverbs and personal records are the offspring of\ndifferent moods, and therefore not always consistent. Thus at one time\nour author repeats his preference of sensuous enjoyment to any other\nmode of passing one\u2019s life.\n\n    For (then) he will not think much on the (few) days of his life,\n    because God responds to the joy of his heart (v. 20).\n\nBut the writer is too pessimistic to rest long in this thought. It is a\n\u2018common evil among men\u2019 to have riches without the full enjoyment of\nthem: \u2018better an untimely birth,\u2019 he cries, than to be in such a case\n(vi. 3). Note here in passing the fondness of our author for using a\ncomparison in expressing an emphatic judgment (comp. iv. 9-16, vii.\n1-8). Better, he continues, is a momentary experience of real happiness\nthan to let the desire wander after unattainable ends. \u2018There are many\nthings that increase vanity;\u2019 with the reserve of good taste, he\nunderstates his meaning, for what human object, according to Koheleth,\nis not futile? That gift which to the Christian is so wondrously\nfair\u2014the gift of life\u2014to him becomes \u2018the numbered days of his life of\nvanity;\u2019 and \u2018who knows what is good for man in life, which he spends as\na shadow? For who can tell a man what shall be after him under the sun?\u2019\n(vi. 12.) Koheleth, we see, has no faith in his nation, nor in humanity.\n\nI do not feel sure that we may say with Dean Bradley that \u2018out of this\nvery gloom and sadness come forth in the next chapter thoughts that have\ngone, some of them, the round of the world.\u2019 No doubt there is more than\na mere tinge of the same midnight gloom in some of these proverbial\nsayings. But surely there is a complete break in the thread of thought\nof vi. 12, and a fresh collection of looser notes has found a place at\nthe head of chap. vii. At any rate, these sayings supply a convincing\nproof that Koheleth was not a mere hedonist or Epicurean. He recalls in\nvii. 2 his former commendation of feasting, and declares,\n\n    It is better to go into the house of mourning than to go into the\n    house of feasting, inasmuch as that is the end of all men, and the\n    living can lay it to his heart (vii. 2).\n\nI said that Koheleth was too pessimistic to remain long under the\ninfluence of hedonism. I might have said that he was too thoughtful; a\nrational man could not, without the anticipations of faith, close his\nmind to the suggestions of pessimism in the circumstances of Koheleth\u2019s\nage. Better thoughtful misery than thoughtless mirth, is the keynote of\nthe triad of maxims (vii. 2-6) on the compensations of misery which\nfollows the dreary sentence praising death, in vii. 1.[308] Resignation\nis the secret of inward peace; \u2018with a sad face the heart may be\ncheerful.\u2019 Not only in view of the great problem of existence, but in\nyour everyday concerns, restrain your natural impulses whether to\ntowering passion or to brooding vexation at the wrongness or the\nslowness of the course of human affairs (vii. 8, 9). Above all, do not\ngive way to an ignorant idealism. It is unwise to ask \u2018How is it that\nthe former days were better than these?\u2019 (vii. 10.) The former time, so\nbright and happy, and the present, with its predominant gloom, were\nalike ordained by God (vii. 13 should follow vii. 10); and as a last\nconsolation for cool and rational thinkers, be sure that there is nought\nto fear after death; there are no torments of Gehenna. This in fact is\nthe reason why God ordains evil; there being no second life, man must\nlearn whatever he can from calamity in this life.\n\n    On a good day be of good cheer, and on an evil day consider (this):\n    God hath also made this (viz. good) equally with that (evil), on the\n    ground that man is to experience nothing at all hereafter[309] (vii.\n    14; comp. ix. 10).\n\nThus, not only \u2018be not righteous over much\u2019 (vii. 16), but \u2018do not\nbelieve over much\u2019 is the teaching of our rationalist-thinker. There is\nneither good nor evil after death. But is there no _present_ judgment?\nYes; but this is not a thought of life and hope. It is a true \u2018religion\u2019\nto him; it binds him in his words as well as his actions. But although\nHooker so admired the saying in v. 2 (\u2018God is in heaven, and thou upon\nearth, therefore let thy words be few\u2019) as to quote it in one of his\nfinest passages,[310] yet the context of v. 2 sufficiently shows how\ndifferent was the quality of the reverence of the two writers. Be\ncareful to pay thy vows, says Koheleth, lest when thou invokest God\u2019s\nname, His angel should appear, and call thee to account.\n\n    Suffer not thy mouth to bring punishment upon thy body; and say not\n    before the angel, It was an oversight;[311] wherefore should God be\n    angry at thy voice, and destroy the work of thy hands?\u2019 (v. 6.)\n\nTo Koheleth the mention of the divine name is a possible source of\ndanger; to Hooker God is One \u2018whom to know is life, and joy to make\nmention of his name.\u2019 Koheleth has only fear for God\u2019s holy name\u2014a fear\nwhich is not indeed ineffectual but very pale and cheerless; Hooker, a\n\u2018perpetual fear and love,\u2019 and the love gives a new quality and a new\nefficacy to the fear.\n\nFootnote 307:\n\n  Hitzig in his commentary refers to the history of the high priest\n  Onias and his nephew Joseph. Afterwards he recalled this opinion; but\n  we may be thankful to him for directing attention to this curious and\n  instructive historical episode.\n\nFootnote 308:\n\n  The mechanical juxtaposition of the two halves of ver. 1 is obvious.\n  The proverb gains considerably, if read with Bickell\u2019s very plausible\n  supplements,\n\n              \u2018Better is a good name than precious ointment,\n              [but wisdom is still better than fame;\n              better is not-being than being]\n              and the day of death than the day of one\u2019s birth.\u2019\n\n  The \u2018wisdom\u2019 meant will be that of resignation and renunciation.\n\nFootnote 309:\n\n  \u2018Hereafter\u2019 is, literally, \u2018after him\u2019 (for the meaning of which see\n  iii. 22, vi. 12); \u2018experience,\u2019 literally \u2018find\u2019 (comp. Prov. vi. 33).\n  For other views, see Wright, who objects to the above explanation that\n  it \u2018is opposed to the teaching of Koheleth respecting a future\n  judgment.\u2019 But the question is, Did Koheleth believe in a future\n  judgment?\n\nFootnote 310:\n\n  _Eccles. Polity_, i, 2, \u00a7 3.\n\nFootnote 311:\n\n  There is a touch of humour here; comp. the wretch in the fable who\n  called Death to his aid, but refused him when he came. Klostermann has\n  done well in reviving this interpretation, which, in Germany at least,\n  had been generally abandoned. (Delitzsch thinks the \u2018angel\u2019 is the\n  priest whom the man who has vowed approaches with a request to be\n  released from his vow. This is supported by Mal. ii. 7, where the\n  priest is called \u2018the messenger of Jehovah Sab\u00e1oth;\u2019 but see the notes\n  of Ginsburg and Kingsbury. Renan renders, _\u00e0 l\u2019envoy\u00e9 des pr\u00eatres_.)\n  The angel is the destroying angel, whose action is discerned by faith\n  in the judicial calamities which, sometimes at least, overtake the\n  wrong-doer. (So the Targum, but postponing the appearance of the angel\n  to the _future_ judgment.)\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER IV.\n                      FACTS OF CONTEMPORARY LIFE.\n\n\nAt vii. 15 a new section begins, consisting almost entirely of the\nauthor\u2019s personal experiences, very loosely connected; it continues as\nfar as ix. 12. A curious passage at the outset appears to describe\nvirtue as residing in the mean between two extremes (vii. 15-18). The\nappearance however is deceptive: it is as much out of place to quote\nAristotle\u2019s famous definition of virtue (\u03bc\u03b5\u03c3\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bf \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd), as\nBuddha\u2019s counsel to him who would attain perfection to \u2018exercise himself\nin the medium course of discipline.\u2019 Koheleth merely offers practical\nadvice how to steer one\u2019s ship between the rocks. Do not, he says, make\nyour life a burden by excessive legalism. But on the other hand, do not\nearn the reputation of caring nothing for the precepts of the law. That\nwere folly, and would bring you to an early death.[312] Koheleth\nexpresses this sharply and enigmatically; do not be too \u2018righteous,\u2019 and\ndo not be too \u2018wicked.\u2019 \u2018Righteous\u2019 and \u2018wicked\u2019 are both to be taken in\nthe common acceptation of those terms in the religious world: the words\nare used ironically. Our author\u2019s only theory of virtue is that no\ntheory is possible. The \u2018wisdom\u2019 which both gives \u2018defence\u2019 and\n\u2018preserves life\u2019 (vii. 12) is the practical wisdom of resignation and\nmoderation. Of essential wisdom (or philosophy as we should call\nit[313]) he says, alluding to Job xxviii. 12-23, that it is \u2018far off,\nand exceeding deep; who can find it out?\u2019 (vii. 24.) The old theory,\nwhich claimed to give the secret of history, and which even afterwards\nsatisfied some wise men (e.g. Sirach)\u2014the theory that the good are\nrewarded and the bad punished in this world\u2014is not borne out by\nKoheleth\u2019s experience,\u2014\n\n    There is (many) a righteous man who perishes in spite of his\n    righteousness, and there is (many) an ungodly man who lives long in\n    spite of his wickedness (vii. 15; contrast the interpolated passage\n    viii. 12, 13).\n\nBut though Koheleth, like Job, despairs of essential wisdom, he \u2018turns\u2019\nwith hope to the wide field of wisdom\u2014or, as he calls it, \u2018wisdom and\nreasoning,\u2019 i.e. moral inquiries pursued on the inductive method. And\nwhat is the result of his inquiry? He gives it with much deliberateness,\nstating that he (viz. \u2018_the_ Koheleth,\u2019 see on xii. 8) has put one fact\nto another in order to form a conclusion (ver. 27) and it is that\nwomen-tempters are more pernicious than Death (man\u2019s great enemy\npersonified, as so often). Or, putting it in other words, which I am\nforced to paraphrase to bring out their meaning\u2014words to which the\nwell-known poem of Simonides is chivalry itself\u2014\u2018A few rare specimens of\nuncorrupted human nature I have found, so rare that one may reckon them\nas one among a thousand; but not one of these truly human creatures was\na woman.\u2019[314] The latter statement is the stronger, and shows that our\nauthor agrees with Ecclus. xxv. 19, that \u2018all wickedness is but little\nto the wickedness of a woman.\u2019 And so much in earnest is he, that he\neven tries a third mode of expressing his conclusion. Carefully limiting\nhimself he says, \u2018Lo! this only have I found; that God made mankind\nupright, but they have sought out many contrivances\u2019 (ver. 29); that is,\nmen and women are both born good, but are too soon sophisticated by\ncivilisation (and the leaders in this downward process, we may infer\nfrom the context, are the women). Koheleth scarcely means to imply that\ncivilisation is bad in itself; if he does, the few good men he has met\nmust apparently have been hermits! But though not essentially immoral,\nthe inventive or contriving faculty (so wonderful to Sophocles) seems to\nKoheleth the chief source of moral danger.\n\nBut are these the only results of Koheleth\u2019s wide induction from the\nfacts of contemporary life? Yes; a time such as this \u2018when man rules\nover man to his hurt\u2019 (viii. 9) suggests, not only prudential maxims,\nbut this sad conclusion, already (vii. 15) mentioned by anticipation,\nthat the fate proper to the wicked falls upon the righteous, and that\nproper to the righteous on the wicked (viii. 14), or to express this in\nthe concrete,\n\n    And in accordance with this I have seen ungodly men honoured, and\n    that too in the holy place (i.e. the temple; comp. Isa. xviii. 7);\n    but those who had acted rightly had to depart and were forgotten in\n    the city. This too is vanity[315] (viii. 10).\n\nNo wonder that wickedness is rampant! It requires singular courage to do\nright when Nemesis delays her visit; or, as Koheleth puts it, in\nlanguage which sorely displeased a later editor,\n\n    Because sentence against a wicked work is not executed speedily,\n    therefore men have abundant courage to do evil. For I know that it\n    even happens that a sinner does evil for a long time, and yet lives\n    long, whilst he who fears before God is short-lived as a shadow\n    (viii. 12, 13).\n\nKoheleth does not, of course, include himself among the reckless\nevil-doers. He acquiesces in the painful inconsistencies of the world,\nand seems to comfort himself with the relatively best good\u2014\u2018to eat and\ndrink and be merry\u2019 (viii. 15). Charity may perhaps suggest that this is\nnot said without bitter irony.\n\nThen follows a clumsy but affecting passage (viii. 16, 17) on the\nuselessness of brooding (as the author had so long done) over the\nmysteries of human life, which introduces the concluding part of the\nsection (ix. 1-12). These twelve verses are full of a restrained\npassion. Such being the unfree condition of man that he cannot even\ngovern his sympathies and antipathies, and so regardless of moral\ndistinctions the course of destiny, and there being no hereafter,[316]\nwhat remains but to take such pleasure as life\u2014especially wedded\nlife\u2014can offer, and to carry out one\u2019s plans with energy? Yet, alas! it\nis only too true that neither success nor freedom of action can be\nreckoned upon, for \u2018the race is not to the swift,\u2019 and men are \u2018snared\u2019\nlike the fishes and the birds.\n\nThe section which begins at ix. 13 is of still more varied contents. It\nbegins with a striking little story about the \u2018poor wise man,\u2019 a\nThemistocles in common life, \u2018who by his wisdom delivered the city, and\nno one remembered that poor man\u2019 (ix. 14, 15). Surely here (as in iv.\n13, 14, viii. 10) we catch the echo of contemporary history. It is not a\ngeneralisation (comp. Prov. xxi. 22), but a fact which the author gives\nus, and it may plausibly be conjectured that he was the \u2018poor wise man\u2019\nhimself. The rest of the section (down to x. 15) contains proverbs on\nwisdom and folly, and some bitterly ironical remarks on the exaltation\nof servants and burden-bearers[317] above the rich and the princely.\n\nFootnote 312:\n\n  As Plumptre well remarks, the vices thought of and the end to which\n  they lead are those of sensual license (comp. Prov. vii. 25-27).\n\nFootnote 313:\n\n  In Koheleth\u2019s phrase, \u2018that which is;\u2019 comp. Wisd. vii. 17-21, where\n  \u2018the infallible knowledge of the things that are\u2019 is equivalent to a\n  perfect natural science. Here a similar phrase means rather\n  philosophy.\n\nFootnote 314:\n\n  So Klostermann. The ordinary interpretation is, \u2018One man among a\n  thousand (men) I have found, but a woman among all these I have not\n  found;\u2019 i.e. I have tested a thousand men and a thousand women; I have\n  found one true man, but not one true woman. The objection is that\n  _\u2019\u0101d\u0101m_ elsewhere (e.g. ver. 29) means human beings without\n  distinction of sex.\n\nFootnote 315:\n\n  Following Bickell. In viii. 10 it is the linguistic form, and in viii.\n  12, 13 the contents of the Massoretic text which excite suspicion. The\n  former verse is thus rendered by Delitzsch, \u2018And then I have seen the\n  wicked buried, and they entered into (their \u2018perpetual house,\u2019 the\n  grave): but they that had done right had to depart (into exile) from\n  the holy place (Jerusalem; cf. II. Isa. xlviii. 2), and were forgotten\n  out of the city: this too is vanity.\u2019\n\nFootnote 316:\n\n  The view expressed in ix. 10 is, I hope, very far from being the\n  private belief of the many preachers who are accustomed to quote it.\n  See the chapter on Ecclesiastes from a religious point of view.\n\nFootnote 317:\n\n  Correcting the text in x. 6 with A. Krochmal.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER V.\n                    THE WISE MAN\u2019S PARTING COUNSELS.\n\n\nA new section begins at x. 16\u2014no ingenuity avails to establish a\nconnection with the preceding verses. We are approaching our goal, and\nbreathe a freer air. From the very first the ideas and images presented\nto us are in a healthier and more objective tone. The condemnation\nexpressed in ver. 16 does credit to the public spirit of the writer,\nand, I need hardly say, is not really inconsistent (as Hitzig supposed)\nwith the advice in ver. 20. In the words\u2014\n\n    Even among thine acquaintance[318] curse not the king, and in thy\n    bedchambers curse not the rich; for the birds of the heaven may\n    carry the voice [comp. the cranes of Ibycus] and that which hath\n    wings may report the word\u2014\n\nDean Plumptre perhaps rightly sees \u2018the irony of indignation\u2019 which\n\u2018veils itself in the garb of a servile prudence.\u2019 There is no necessity\nto reduce Koheleth to the moral level of Epicurus, who is said to have\ndeliberately preferred despotism and approved courting the monarch.\n\nIt is a still freer spirit which breathes in the remainder of the book.\nLet courtiers waste their time in luxury (x. 18), but throw thou thyself\nunhesitatingly into the swift stream of life. Be not ever forecasting,\nfor there are some contingencies which can no more be guarded against\nthan the falling of rain or of a tree (xi. 3, 4). Act boldly, then, like\nthe corn-merchants, who speculate on such a grand scale,\u2014\n\n    Send forth thy bread upon the wide waters [lit. upon the face of the\n    waters], for thou mayst find it [i.e. obtain a good return for it]\n    after many days (xi. 1).\n\nBut since fortune is capricious, do not risk thine all on a single\nventure. \u2018Ships are but boards, sailors but men\u2019 &c., as Shylock says.\nDivide thy merchandise, and so, if one vessel is wrecked or plundered,\nmuch may still be saved; or\u2014another possible interpretation\u2014store thy\nproperty in various hiding-places, so that, in case of some political\nrevolution, thine all may not be taken from thee,\u2014\n\n    Make seven portions, and also eight; for thou knowest not what evil\n    shall be upon the earth (or, the land) (xi. 2).\n\nThis is not, of course, the usual explanation of these two verses, which\nare enigmas fairly admitting of more than one solution. Most\ncommentators understand them as recommending beneficence, which ver. 2\nrequires to be of extensive range, and which ver. 1 compares to cakes of\nbread thrown upon the water, and gathered up no one knows by whom. So\nperhaps (besides Rashi, Aben Ezra, Ginsburg &c.) Goethe in the\n_West\u00f6stliche Divan_\u2014\n\n                     Was willst du untersuchen\n                       Wohin die Milde fliesst!\n                     Ins Wasser wirf dein Kuchen\u2014\n                       Wer weiss wer sie geniesst![319]\n\nI do not think that this suits the context, which suggests activity and\ncaution as the two good qualities recommended by Koheleth. But it is\nvery possible that the proverb was a popular one which the author took\nup, giving it a fresh application.\n\nSuch is the author\u2019s parting advice to the elder part of his\nreaders,\u2014not very elevated, but not without a breath of courageous faith\n(xi. 5). Not that he has given up his advocacy of pleasure. Side by side\nwith work, a man should cherish, even to the very last, all those\nsources of joy which God Himself has provided, remembering the long dark\ndays which await him in She\u00f3l. Then, at ver. 9, he addresses the young,\nand in measured distichs intreats them to enjoy life while they may.\n\n         Rejoice, O young man, in thy youth,\n         and let thy heart gladden thee in the flower of thine age;\n         and walk in the ways of thy heart\n         and according to the sight of thine eyes;\n         And banish discontent from thy heart,\n         and put away evil from thy flesh:\u2014\n           for youth and the prime of life are vanity.\n\nBetween lines 4 and 5 we find the received text burdened with a prosaic\ninsertion, which is probably not due to an after-thought on the part of\nthe writer, but to the anxiety of later students to rescue the orthodoxy\nof the book. The insertion consists of the words, Rabbinic in expression\nas well as in thought, \u2018But know that for all this God will bring thee\ninto the judgment.\u2019[320] It was the wisdom of true charity to insert\nthem; but it is our wisdom as literary students to \u2018banish discontent\u2019\nwith the discord which they introduce by restoring the passage to its\noriginal form.\n\nAt this point Koheleth turns away from the young to those (presumably)\nof his own age. Again there are traces at least of a series of distichs\nwhich must once have stood here, but either the author or one of his\neditors, or both, have so far worked over them that the series is no\nlonger perfect. The first suspected instance of this \u2018overworking\u2019\noccurs at the very outset. \u2018Remember thy Creator in the flower of thine\nage,\u2019 are the opening words of Koheleth\u2019s second address. They are\nusually explained as taking up the idea of the last judgment expressed\nat the close of xi. 9. \u2018Since God,\u2019 to quote Dr. Ginsburg\u2019s paraphrase,\n\u2018will one day hold us accountable for all the works done in the body, we\nare to set the Lord always before our eyes.\u2019 The importance of this\npassage, when thus interpreted, is manifest. It suggests that Koheleth\nhad struggled through his many difficulties to an assured doctrinal and\npractical position, and that it is not mere rejoicing, but \u2018rejoicing in\nthe Lord,\u2019 that Koheleth recommends in xii. 1\u2014an edifying view of the\nold man\u2019s final result which every one must desire to be true if only it\nbe consistent with the rest of the book. I fear that this is not the\ncase. Elsewhere in the book sensuous pleasure in moderation is praised\nwithout any reference to God, and in the immediate neighbourhood of this\nverse the motive given for rejoicing is not the thought of God, but that\nof the many days of darkness (i.e. of She\u00f3l) which are coming. Besides,\nthe exhortation \u2018Remember thy Creator\u2019 does not perfectly suit the close\nof the verse, or indeed of the section. What is the natural inference\nfrom the fact that at an advanced age life becomes physically a burden?\nSurely this\u2014that man should enjoy life while his powers are fresh.\nCannot an _old man_ \u2018remember\u2019 his Creator? (To \u2018remember\u2019 is to think\nupon; it is not a synonym for conversion.) The text therefore is almost\ncertainly incorrect.\n\nHas an editor, then, tampered with the text of the opening words of the\nexhortation? May we, for instance, follow Gr\u00e4tz and read, for _b\u014dr\u2019\u00e9ka_\n\u2018thy Creator,\u2019 _b\u014dr\u2019ka_ \u2018thy fountain\u2019 (lit. thy cistern), taking this\nas a metaphorical expression for \u2018thy wife\u2019 or \u2018thy wedlock\u2019 (as in\nProv. v. 15-18)? The objection certain to be raised is that the text\nwhen thus corrected brings the book to a lame and impotent conclusion.\nIt may be true, as Bishop Temple has said, that chastity and monotheism\nare the chief legacies which the Jewish Church has bequeathed to\nmankind.[321] There is nothing in an exhortation to prize a pure married\nlife unworthy of a high-minded Jewish teacher. But in this connection it\nis certainly to a Western reader strange, and one is sorely tempted to\nsuppose a displacement of the words, and, following Bickell, to make the\ndistich\u2014\n\n                        And remember thy fountain\n                        in the flower of thine age\u2014\n\nthe conclusion of the stanzas beginning at xi. 9. This, it is true,\ninvolves (1) the excision of the words \u2018for youth and the prime of life\nare vanity,\u2019 and (2) an alteration of the construction of xii. 1, 2\n(reading \u2018and evil days shall come\u2019 &c.). This violent change is no\ndoubt justified by Bickell on metrical grounds, but as I cannot\nunreservedly adopt his metrical theory, I have not sufficient excuse for\naccepting his rearrangement of the text.\n\nI wish some better remedy than that of Gr\u00e4tz could be devised. I would\ngladly close these Meditations with admiration as well as sympathy. But\nat the risk of being called unimaginative, I must venture to criticise\nthe entire conclusion of the original Book of Koheleth (xii. 1-7). Most\nEnglish critics admire the poem on the evils of old age which follows on\nthe earnest \u2018Remember,\u2019 and naturally think that it requires some\nspecially sublime saying to introduce it. I do not join them in their\nadmiration, and consequently find it easier to adopt what seems to some\nthe \u2018low view\u2019 of Dr. Gr\u00e4tz. Observe that we have already met with an\neulogy of wedded bliss side by side with a gloomy picture of death in an\nearlier section (ix. 9, 10).\n\nThis is the poem (if we may call it so) with which the second\nexhortation of Koheleth is interwoven\u2014\n\n    Ere the evil days come, and the years approach\n    of which thou shalt say, I have no pleasure in them:\n\n    Ere the sun be darkened, and the light, and the moon, and the stars,\n    and the clouds keep returning after heavy rains [_the winter rains_,\n       i.e. old age]:\n    In the day when the keepers of the house [_the hands and arms_]\n       tremble,\n    and the strong men [_the feet and legs_] bow themselves,\n    and the grinding-maids [_the teeth_] cease because they are few,\n    and the (ladies) who look out at the lattice [_the eyes_] are\n       darkened:\n    And the doors [_the lips_] are shut towards the street,\n    while the sound of the grinding is low,\n    And the voice riseth into a sparrow\u2019s [\u2018_childish treble_\u2019]\n    and all the daughters of song [_words_] are faint.\n    They are afraid too of a steep place,\n    and terror besets every way;\n    and the almond-tree is in bloom [_white hair_[322]],\n    and the locust drags itself along,\n    and the caper-berry fails [_to excite the appetite_],\n    For the man is on the way to his eternal home,\n    and the mourners go about in the street.\n\n    Ere the silver string [_the tongue_] be tied,\n    and the golden bowl [_the head_] break,\n    and the pitcher [_the heart_] be shivered at the fountain,\n    and the windlass [_the breathing apparatus_] break into the pit.\n\nWith a little determination the traces of development in the Biblical\nliterature can be more or less effaced. The pious but unphilological\neditors of Koheleth were not deficient in this quality. After altering\nthe introduction of the poem on old age they proceeded to furnish it\nwith a _finale_. Not only the opening words of ver. i., but the\ncomfortless expression \u2018his eternal house\u2019[323] in ver. 5 gave them\nserious offence. One remedy would have been to transpose (with the\nSyriac translator) two of the letters of the Hebrew, and thus change\n\u2018home of his eternity\u2019 into \u2018home of his travail\u2019 (i.e. the place where\n\u2018the weary are at rest\u2019). They preferred, however, to add two lines\u2014\n\n                and the dust return to the earth as it was,\n                and the spirit return unto God who gave it.\n\nThis no doubt is a direct contradiction of iii. 21. But the ancients\nprobably got over this, as most moderns still do, by supposing that the\nearlier passage did but express a sceptical suggestion which skimmed the\nsurface of Koheleth\u2019s mind.\n\nThe excision of these words would of course not be justified in a\ntranslation intended for popular use; but for the purposes of historical\nstudy seems almost inevitable. It hangs together with the view adopted\nas to the origin of xi. 9_b_, and implies the assumption that the Targum\nrightly paraphrases, \u2018and thy spirit (lit. thy breath, _nishm\u2019th\u0101k_)\nwill return to stand in judgment before the Lord who gave it thee.\u2019 It\nought to be mentioned, however, that some critics (accepting the clause\nas genuine) see in that return to God nothing more than the absorption\nof the human spirit into the divine (whether in a na\u00efve popular or in a\ndeveloped philosophical sense).[324] This will seem plausible at first\nto many readers. As a Lutheran writer says, \u2018Si spes, quam nos fovemus\nl\u00e6tissimam, Ecclesiast\u00e6 adfulsisset, non obiter ipse tetigisset et\nverbis ambiguis notasset rem maximi momenti\u2019 (Winzer, ap. Hengstenberg).\nBut if the Hebrew _r\u016bakh_ means, as I think it does, the personal,\nconscious, spiritual side of man in iii. 21,[325] I fail to see why it\nshould not bear that meaning here.\n\nFootnote 318:\n\n  Altering the points with Klostermann.\n\nFootnote 319:\n\n  But Goethe may have thought of the Turkish proverb, \u2018Do good, throw\n  the loaf into the water; if the fish knows it not, the Creator does,\u2019\n  or the story from the life of the Caliph Mutewekyil [Mutawakkil?]\n  quoted, with this proverb, from H. F. v. Diez by Dukes, _Rabbinische\n  Blumenlese_, pp. 73-74. Comp. also the stories in the Midrash Koheleth\n  on our passage.\n\nFootnote 320:\n\n  What judgment? Present or future (i.e. after death)? The latter gives\n  a more forcible meaning (comp. iii. 17, xii. 14).\n\nFootnote 321:\n\n  _Essays and Reviews_ (1869), pp. 15-17.\n\nFootnote 322:\n\n  Does the eastern sun blanch the \u2018crimson broidery\u2019 of the\n  almond-blossom? From the language of travellers like Thomson and\n  Bodenstedt it would seem so.\n\nFootnote 323:\n\n  The Hebrew _\u2019\u014dl\u0101m_ here expresses perpetuity (comp. Jer. li. 39, Ps.\n  cxliii. 51, Ezek. xxvi. 20), not (as some moderns, after Aben Ezra)\n  long continuance. It is true, that in the Targum of Isa. xlii. 11 an\n  exit from the \u2018eternal house\u2019 is spoken of; but no one doubts that the\n  belief in the Resurrection was general in the fourth century A.D.\n\nFootnote 324:\n\n  Mr. Tyler interprets it in a Stoic sense of absorption in the\n  World-Soul.\n\nFootnote 325:\n\n  Nowack denies this meaning of _r\u016bakh_ altogether, but this seems a\n  _Gewaltstreich_.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER VI.\n KOHELETH\u2019S \u2018PORTRAIT OF OLD AGE;\u2019 THE EPILOGUE, ITS NATURE AND ORIGIN.\n\n\nWe have now arrived at the conclusion of the meditations of our\nmuch-tried thinker. It is strongly poetic in colouring; but when we\ncompare it with the grandly simple overture of the book (i. 4-8), can we\nhelp confessing to a certain degree of disappointment? It is the\nallegory which spoils it for modern readers, and so completely spoils\nit, that attempts have been sometimes made to expel the allegorical\nelement altogether. That the first two verses are free from allegory, is\nadmitted, and it is barely possible that the sixth verse may be so\ntoo\u2014may be, that is, figurative rather than allegorical. Poets have\ndelighted in these figures; how fitly does one of them adorn the lament\nin Woolner\u2019s _My Beautiful Lady_,\u2014\n\n                       Broken the golden bowl\n                       Which held her hallowed soul!\n\nThe most doubtful part, then, is the description in vv. 3-5. I am not\nwriting a commentary, and will venture to express an opinion in favour\nof the allegorists (it is not fair to call them satirically the\nanatomists).[326] It is true that there is much variety of opinion among\nthem; this only shows that the allegory is sometimes far-fetched, not\nthat it is a vain imagination. Can there be anything more obscure than\nthe _canzoni_ in Dante\u2019s _Convito_, which we have the poet\u2019s own\nauthority for regarding as allegorical? And if we compare the rival\ntheories with that which they attempt to displace, can it be said that\nTaylor\u2019s dirge-theory,[327] or Umbreit\u2019s storm-theory,[328] or that\nadopted by Wright from Wetzstein[329] is more suitable to the poem than\nthe allegorical theory? Certainly the latter is a very old, if not the\noldest theory, and on a point of this sort the ancients have some claim\nto be deferred to. They seem to have felt instinctively that the\nintellectual atmosphere of Koheleth (as well as of the Chronicler) was\nthat of the later Judaism. The following story is related in a Talmudic\ntreatise.[330] \u2018The Emperor asked R. Joshua ben Hananyah, \u201cHow is it\nthat you do not go to the house of Abidan (a place of learned\ndiscussions)?\u201d He said to him, \u201cThe mountain is snow (my head is white);\nthe hoar frosts surround me (my whiskers and my beard are also hoary);\nits dogs do not bark (I have lost my wonted power of voice); its millers\ndo not grind (I have no teeth); the scholars ask me whether I am looking\nfor something I have not lost (referring probably to the old man feeling\nhere and there).\u201d\u2019\n\nOnce more (see i. 2) the mournful motto, \u2018Vanity of vanities! saith the\nKoheleth; all is vanity\u2019 (xii. 8), and the book in its original form\ncloses.[331] Did the author himself attach this motto? Surely not, if\nthe preceding words on the return of the spirit to its God (see above,\non iii. 21) are genuine, for then \u2018Vanity of vanities\u2019 would be a patent\nmisrepresentation. All is _not_ \u2018vanity,\u2019 if there is in human nature a\npoint connecting a man with that world, most distant and yet most near,\nwhere in the highest sense God is. If Koheleth wrote xii. 7_b_, he\ncannot have written xii. 8, any more than the author of the _Imitation_\ncould have written _Vanitas vanitatum_ both on his first page and on his\nlast. Yet who but Koheleth can be responsible for it? For the later\neditors of whom I have spoken, would be far from approving such a\nreversal of the great charter of man\u2019s dignity in the eighth Psalm. To\nme, the motto simply says that all Koheleth\u2019s wanderings had but brought\nhim back to the point from which he started. \u2018Grandissima vanit\u00e0,\u2019 as\nCastelli, in his dignified Italian, puts it, \u2018tutto \u00e8 vanit\u00e0.\u2019 All that\nI can assign to the editors in this verse are the parenthetic words\n\u2018saith the Koheleth.\u2019 Everywhere else we find \u2018Koheleth;\u2019 here alone,\nand perhaps vii. 17 (corrected text), \u2018the Koheleth.\u2019[332]\n\nLet us now consider the Epilogue itself.\n\n    And moreover (it should be said) that Koheleth was a wise man;\n    further, he taught the people wisdom, and weighed and made search,\n    (yea) composed many proverbs. Koheleth sought to find out pleasant\n    words, and he wrote down[333] plainly words of truth. The words of\n    the wise are like goads, and like nails well driven in; the members\n    of the assemblies[334] have [in the case of Ecclesiastes] given them\n    forth from another shepherd.[335] And as for all beyond them, my\n    son, be warned; of making many books there is no end, and much study\n    is a weariness of the flesh.\u2014That which the word \u2018all is vanity\u2019\n    comes to:[336] it is understood (thus), Fear God, and keep His\n    commandments. For this (concerns) every man. For every work shall\n    God bring into the judgment (which shall be) upon all that is\n    concealed and all that is manifest, whether it be good or whether it\n    be evil.\n\nThis translation has not been reached without some emendations of the\ntext. It seems to me that everything in this Epilogue ought to be clear.\nThere is but one verse which contains figurative expressions; the rest\nis simple prose. It is only fair, however, to give one of the current\nrenderings of those verses in which an emendation has been attempted\nabove.\n\n    Koheleth sought to find out pleasant words and that which was\n    written down frankly, words of truth. Words of wise men are like\n    goads, and like nails driven in are those which form collections\n    [or, the well-compacted sayings, Ewald; or, the well-stored ones,\n    Kamphausen]\u2014they have been given by one shepherd.... Final result,\n    all having been heard:\u2014Fear God and keep His commandments, for this\n    (concerns) every man.[337]\n\nThe first scholar to declare against the genuineness of the Epilogue was\nD\u00f6derlein (_Scholia in libros V. T. poeticos_, 1779), who was followed\nby Bertholdt (_Einleitung_, p. 2250 &c.), Umbreit, Knobel, and De\nJong.[338] It was however a Jewish scholar, Nachman Krochmal,[339] who\nfirst developed an elaborate theory to account for the Epilogue.\nAccording to him, it was added at the final settlement of the Canon at\nthe Synod of Jamnia, A.D. 90, and was intended as a conclusion not\nmerely for Ecclesiastes, but for the entire body of Hagiographa. He\nthinks (but without any historical ground) that Ecclesiastes was added\nat that time to close the Canon. The correctness of this view depends\npartly on its author\u2019s interpretation of vv. 11, 12, partly on his\ndefinition of the object of the Synod of Jamnia (see Appendix.) The two\nformer verses are condensed thus,\n\n    The words of the wise are like ox-goads, and the members of the\n    Sanhedrin are like firm nails, not to be moved. As for more than\n    these, beware, my son; of making many books there is no end.\n\nThe \u2018wise\u2019 spoken of, thinks Krochmal, are the authors of the several\nbooks of the Hagiographa, and the warning in ver. 12 is directed against\nthe reception of any other books into the Canon. Whether the Song of\nSolomon and Ecclesiastes were to be admitted, was, according to him, a\nsubject of debate at the Synod referred to.\n\nBut there is no necessity whatever for this interpretation of vv. 11,\n12. The phrase, \u2018the words of the wise,\u2019 is not a fit description of all\nthe books of the Hagiographa (of Psalms, Daniel, and Chronicles for\ninstance), and the warning in ver. 12 more probably has relation to the\nproverbial literature in general, such as Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and\nthe Wisdom of Sirach, or at least to the Book of Proverbs, to which\nKleinert conjectures that Ecclesiastes once formed an appendix. There is\nnothing in the Epilogue to suggest a reference to the Canon. The \u2018many\nbooks\u2019 spoken of are probably such as did not proceed from thoroughly\northodox sources. We have absolutely no information as to Jewish\nliterature outside the Canon. That there was a heterodox literature, has\nbeen inferred by Ewald from Jer. viii. 8, Prov. xxx. 1-4; it is also\nclear from several passages in the Book of Enoch. Tyler and Plumptre may\npossibly be right in seeing here an allusion to the incipient influence\nof Greek literature upon the Jews. This is at any rate more justifiable\nthan to assume an arrangement of the Hagiographa with Ecclesiastes for\nthe closing book for which there is no ancient testimony.\n\nKrochmal\u2019s ingenious theory has, however, been adopted by Jost, Gr\u00e4tz\nand Renan,[340] though Renan is willing to admit that vv. 9, 10 may be\nfrom the pen of the author himself. \u2018Cet \u00e9pilogue compl\u00e8te bien la\nfiction qui fait la base du livre. Quel motif d\u2019ailleurs e\u00fbt amen\u00e9 \u00e0\nfaire post\u00e9rieurement une telle addition?\u2019[341] I do not myself hold\nwith Krochmal, but vv. 9-12 seem to me to hang together, and I do not\nthink that the author himself would be at the pains to destroy his own\nfiction, whereas a later editor would naturally append the corrective\nstatement that the real Koheleth was not a king, but a wise man.\n(Observe too that \u2018Koheleth\u2019 in ver. 8 has the article, but in vv. 9, 10\nis without it, suggesting a change of writer.) I agree however with\nRenan that vv. 13, 14, which differ in tone and in form from the\npreceding verses, appear to be a later addition than the rest of the\nEpilogue. Renan, it is true, distrusts this appearance; he fears a too\ncomplicated hypothesis. But we must at least hold that vv. 13, 14 were\nadded (whether by the Epilogist or by another) by an after-thought. The\nEpilogue should therefore be divided into two parts, vv. 9-12, and vv.\n13, 14. In the first part, the real is distinguished from the fictitious\nauthor; his qualifications are described; the editors of his posthumous\nwork are indicated; and a warning is given to the disciple of the\nEpilogist (to apply the words of M. Aurelius) \u2018to cast away the thirst\nfor books.\u2019[342] In the second part, a contradiction is given to what\nseemed an unworthy interpretation of a characteristic expression of\nKoheleth\u2019s, and the higher view of its meaning is justified\u2014justified,\nthat is, to those who approach the work from the practical point of view\nof those who have as yet no better moral \u2018Enchiridion.\u2019[343]\n\nAt what period was the Epilogue added? The consideration of its style\nmay help us at least to a negative result. The Hebrew approaches that of\nthe Mishna, but is yet sufficiently distinct from it to be the subject\nof expository paraphrase in the Talmuds.[344] It is therefore improbable\nthat it was added long after the period of the author himself. Books\nlike Sirach and Koheleth soon became popular, and attracted the\nattention of the religious authorities. Interpolation or insertion\nseemed the only way to counteract the spiritual danger to unsuspicious\nreaders.\n\nFootnote 326:\n\n  The title only belongs to pre-critical writers like Dr. John Smith,\n  who, in his _Portrait of Old Age_ (1666), sought to show that Solomon\n  was thoroughly acquainted with recent anatomical discoveries. In\n  revising my sheets, I observe that even such a fairminded student as\n  Dean Bradley speaks of \u2018the long-drawn anatomical explanations of men\n  who would replace with a dissector\u2019s report a painter\u2019s touch, a\n  poet\u2019s melody.\u2019 But the Dean only refers to ver. 6; I understand his\n  language, though I think him biassed by poetic associations.\n\nFootnote 327:\n\n  Namely, that vv. 3-5 are cited from an authorised book of dirges\n  (comp. 2 Chr. xxxv. 25). There seems, however, no assignable reason\n  for separating these verses from the context. And how can the supposed\n  mourners have sung the latter part of ver. 5?\n\nFootnote 328:\n\n  This supposes the approach of death to be described under the imagery\n  of a gathering storm.\n\nFootnote 329:\n\n  Namely, that the evil days of the close of life are described by\n  figures drawn from the \u2018seven days of death,\u2019 as the modern Syrians\n  designate the closing days of their winter. In a native Arabic rhyme,\n  February says to March, \u2018O March, O my cousin, the old women mock at\n  me: three (days) of thine and four of mine\u2014and we will bring the old\n  woman to singing (another tune).\u2019 Wright, _Ecclesiastes_, p. 271;\n  Delitzsch, _Hoheslied und Kohelet_, p. 447.\n\nFootnote 330:\n\n  _Shabbath_, 151_b_, 152_b_ (Wright, _Ecclesiastes_, p. 262). The\n  anecdote is given in connection with an allegoric interpretation of\n  our poem.\n\nFootnote 331:\n\n  Dean Plumptre and Dr. Wright, however, make this the opening verse of\n  the Epilogue. But between ver. 8 and that which follows there is no\n  inner connection.\n\nFootnote 332:\n\n  The object of the article is perhaps to suggest that Koheleth is not\n  really a proper name. In vii. 27 we should correct _\u0101m\u2019r\u0101h q\u014dheleth_\n  to _\u0101mar haqq\u014dheleth_. Probably these words are an interpolation from\n  the margin. They are nowhere else used in support of Koheleth\u2019s\n  opinions. The author of the interpolation may have wished to indicate\n  his disagreement with Koheleth\u2019s low opinion of women.\n\nFootnote 333:\n\n  So Aquila, Pesh., Vulg., Gr\u00e4tz, Renan, Klostermann (_v\u2019k\u0101thab_).\n\nFootnote 334:\n\n  I.e. the assemblies of \u2018wise men\u2019 or perhaps of Soferim. Surely\n  _ba\u2019al\u0113_ must refer to persons. The meaning \u2018assemblies\u2019 is justified\n  by Talmudic passages quoted by Gr\u00e4tz, Delitzsch, and Wright.\n\nFootnote 335:\n\n  So Klostermann. \u2018Shepherd\u2019 must, I think, mean teacher (comp. Jer. ii.\n  8, iii. 15 &c.); the expression is suggested by the \u2018goads.\u2019 \u2018One\n  shepherd\u2019 (the text-reading) might mean Solomon; and we might go on to\n  suppose the Solomonic origin of Proverbs as well as Ecclesiastes to be\n  asserted in this verse. But the author of the Epilogue apparently\n  considers Koheleth to be merely fictitiously Solomon, but really a\n  wise man like any other. If so, he cannot have grouped it with\n  Proverbs as a strictly Solomonic work.\n\nFootnote 336:\n\n  So Klostermann, regarding this verse down to \u2018commandments\u2019 as an\n  additional note on this difficult saying of Koheleth\u2019s, which was\n  liable to give offence to orthodox readers. The word \u2018(is) vanity\u2019 is\n  supposed to have dropped out of the text. The object of the note is to\n  show under what limitations it can be admitted that \u2018all is vanity.\u2019\n  Then the writer continues, \u2018For this (concerns) every man; for every\n  work\u2019 &c., to show that the limiting precept is not less universally\n  applicable than Koheleth\u2019s melancholy formula.\n\nFootnote 337:\n\n  Thus Delitzsch, who takes the \u2018words of the wise\u2019 and the\n  \u2018collections\u2019 in ver. 11 to refer at least in part, the former to the\n  detached sayings, and the latter to the continuous passages, which\n  together make up Ecclesiastes. The \u2018one shepherd\u2019 is held to be God,\n  so that the clause involves a claim of divine inspiration.\n\nFootnote 338:\n\n  De Jong\u2019s discussion of the Epilogue deserves special attention (_De\n  Prediker_, p. 142 &c.); comp. however Kuenen\u2019s reply, _Onderzoek_,\n  iii. 196 &c.\n\nFootnote 339:\n\n  Krochmal died in 1840, but his view on the Epilogue first saw the\n  light in 1851 in vol. xi. of the Hebrew journal _Mor\u00e8 neb\u016bk\u0113 hazzem\u0101n_\n  (see Gr\u00e4tz, _Kohelet_, p. 47). His life is to be found in Zunz,\n  _Gesammelte Schriften_, ii. 150 &c.\n\nFootnote 340:\n\n  See Jost (_Gesch. des Judenthums_, i. 42, n. 2). Derenbourg too seems\n  to tend in this direction (_Revue des \u00e9tudes juives_, i. 179, note).\n  Reuss, Bickell, and Kleinert too agree in denying that \u2018Koheleth\u2019\n  composed the Epilogue. So also apparently Geiger (_J\u00fcd. Zeitschr._,\n  iv. 10, Anm.)\n\nFootnote 341:\n\n  _L\u2019Eccl\u00e9siaste_, p. 73.\n\nFootnote 342:\n\n  _Meditations_, ii. 3.\n\nFootnote 343:\n\n  I designedly refer to the great work of Epictetus, as its adaptation\n  by Christian hands to the use of Christian believers to some extent\n  furnishes a parallel for the editorial adaptation of Ecclesiastes.\n\nFootnote 344:\n\n  Delitzsch, _Hoheslied u. Koheleth_, p. 215.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER VII.\n   ECCLESIASTES AND ITS CRITICS (FROM A PHILOLOGICAL POINT OF VIEW).\n\n\nBy comparison with Ecclesiastes, the books which we have hitherto been\nstudying may be called easy; at any rate, they have not given rise to\nequally strange diversities of critical opinion. A chapter with the\nabove heading seems therefore at this point specially necessary. Dr.\nGinsburg\u2019s masterly sketch of the principal theories of the critics down\nto 1860 dispenses me, it is true, from attempting an exhaustive\nsurvey.[345] It is not the duty of every teacher of Old Testament\ncriticism to traverse the history of his subject afresh, any more than\nit is that of the commentator as such to begin with a catena of the\nopinions of previous writers. Suffice it to call attention to two of the\nJewish and two of the Christian expositors mentioned by Dr. Ginsburg,\nviz. Mendelssohn and Luzzatto, and Ewald and Vaihinger. MENDELSSOHN\nseems important not so much by his results as by his historical\nposition. His life marks an era in Biblical study, most of all of course\namong the Jews, but to some extent among Christians also. His Hebrew\ncommentary on Koheleth deserves specially to be remembered, because with\nit in 1770 he broke ground anew in grammatical exegesis. To him, as also\nto VAIHINGER, the object of Koheleth is to propound the great\nconsolatory truth of the immortality of the soul, while EWALD, more in\naccordance with facts, describes it as being rather to combine all that\nis true, however sad, and profitable, and agreeable to the will of God\nin a practical handbook adapted to those troublesome times. Ewald and\nVaihinger both divide the book into four sections,\u2014(1) i. 2-ii. 26, (2)\niii. 1-vi. 9, (3) vi. 10-viii. 15, (4) viii. 16-xii. 8, with the\nEpilogue xii. 9-14. The latter, whose view is more developed than\nEwald\u2019s, and whom I refer to as closing and summing up a period,\nmaintains that each section consists of three parts which are again\nsubdivided\u2014for Koheleth, though you would not think it, is a literary\nartist\u2014into strophes and half-strophes, and that the theme of each\nsection is thrown out, seemingly by chance, but really with consummate\nart, in the preceding one. Thus the four sections interlace, and the\nunity of the book is established. The Epilogue, too, according to\nVaihinger, can thus be proved to be the work of the author of Koheleth;\nfor it does but ratify and develope what has already been indicated in\nxi. 9, and without it the connection of ideas would be incomplete.[346]\nI think that our experience of some interpreters of the Book of Job may\npredispose us to be sceptical of such ingenious subtleties, and I notice\nthat more recent critics show a tendency to insist less on the logical\ndistribution of the contents and to regard the book, not indeed as a\nmere collection of rules of conduct, but at any rate as a record of a\npractical and not a scholastic philosopher. This tendency is not indeed\nof recent origin, though it has increased in favour of late years. Prior\nthe poet had already said that Ecclesiastes \u2018is not a regular and\nperfect treatise, but that in it great treasures are \u201cheaped up together\nin a confused magnificence;\u201d\u2019[347] Bishop Lowth, that \u2018the connection of\nthe arguments is involved in much obscurity;\u2019[348] while Herder, in his\nletters to a theological student, had penned this wise though too\nenthusiastic sentence, which cuts at the root of all attempts at logical\nanalysis,\n\n    Kein Buch ist mir aus dem Alterthum bekannt, welches die Summe des\n    menschlichen Lebens, seine Abwechselungen und Nichtigkeiten in\n    Gesch\u00e4ften, Entw\u00fcrfen, Speculationen und Vergn\u00fcgen, zugleich mit dem\n    was einzig in ihm wahr, daurend, fortgehend, wechselnd, lohnend ist,\n    reicher, eindringlicher, k\u00fcrzer beschriebe, als dieses.[349]\n\nBut I must retrace my steps. One of my four critics has yet to be\nbriefly characterised\u2014S. D. LUZZATTO of Padua, best known as the author\nof a Hebrew commentary on Isaiah, but also a master in later Hebrew and\nAramaic scholarship. As a youth of twenty-four he wrote a deeply felt\nand somewhat eccentrically ingenious treatise on Koheleth, which he kept\nby him till 1860, when it appeared in one of the annual volumes of\nessays and reviews called Ozar Nechmad. In it he maintains, with\nprofound indignation at the unworthy post-Exile writer, that the Book of\nEcclesiastes denies the immortality of the soul, and recommends a life\nof sensuous pleasure. The writer\u2019s name, however, was, he thinks,\nKoheleth, and his fraud in assuming the name of Solomon was detected by\nthe wise men of his time, who struck out the assumed name and\nsubstituted Koheleth (leaving however the words \u2018son of David, king in\nJerusalem,\u2019 as a record of the imposture). Later students, however, were\nunsuspicious enough to accept the work as Solomon\u2019s, and being unable to\nexclude a Solomonic writing from the Canon, they inserted three\nqualifying half-verses of an orthodox character, viz. \u2018and know that for\nall this God will bring thee into judgment\u2019 (xi. 6_b_); \u2018and remember\nthy Creator in the days of thy youth\u2019 (xii. 1_a_); \u2018and the spirit shall\nreturn to God who gave it\u2019 (xii. 8_b_). This latter view, which has the\ndoubtful support of a Talmudic passage,[350] appears to me, though from\nthe nature of the case uncertain, and susceptible, as I think, of\nmodification, yet in itself probable as restoring harmony to the book,\nand in accordance with the treatment of other Biblical texts by the\nSoferim (or students and editors of Scripture). Geiger may have fallen\ninto infinite extravagances, but he has at any rate shown that the early\nSoferim modified many passages in the interests of orthodoxy and\nedification.[351] If so, they did but carry on the process already begun\nby the authors of the sacred books themselves; it may be enough to\nremind my readers of the gradual supplementing of the original Book of\nJob by later writers. To the three passages of Koheleth mentioned above,\nmust be added, as Geiger saw,[352] the two postscripts which form the\nEpilogue. From the close of the last century a series of writers have\nfelt the difficulties of this section so strongly that they have\nassigned it to one or more later writers, and in truth, although these\ndifficulties may be partly removed, enough remains to justify the\nobelising of the passage.\n\nThere is no evidence that Luzzatto ever retracted the critical view\nmentioned above. To the character of the author, it is true, he became\nmore charitable in his later years. I do not think the worse of him for\nhis original antipathy. An earnest believer himself and of fiery\ntemperament, he could not understand the cool and cautious reflective\nspirit of the much-tried philosopher;[353] and as a lover of the rich,\nand, as the result of development, comparatively flexible Hebrew tongue,\nhe took a dislike to a writer so wanting in facility and grace as\nKoheleth.[354] It was an error, but a noble one, and it shows that\nLuzzatto found in the study of criticism a school of moral culture as\nwell as of literary insight.\n\nThe adoption of Luzzatto\u2019s view,[355] combined with D\u00f6derlein\u2019s as to\nthe epilogue, removes the temptation to interpret Koheleth as the\napology of any particular philosophical or theological doctrine. The\nauthor now appears, not indeed thoroughly consistent, but at least in\nhis true light as a thinker tossed about on the sea of speculation, and\nwithout any fixed theoretic conclusions. Without agreeing to more than\nthe relative lateness of the epilogue, DE JONG,[356] a Dutch scholar,\nrecognises the true position of Koheleth, and in the psychological\ninterest of the book sees a full compensation for the want of logical\narrangement. De Jong indeed was not acquainted with the theory of\nNachman Krochmal, which if sound throws such great light on the reason\nof the addition of the epilogue (see end of Chap. VI.) This has been\naccepted by Gr\u00e4tz and Renan, but, as I have ventured to think, upon\ninsufficient grounds. The brevity of my reference to these two eminent\nexegetes must be excused by my inability to follow either of them in his\nmain conclusions. The glossary of peculiar words and the excursus on the\nGreek translation given by the former (1871) possess a permanent value,\nand there is much of historical interest in his introduction. But I\nagree with Kuenen that the student who selects Gr\u00e4tz as his guide will\nhave much to unlearn afterwards.[357] In order to show that Ecclesiastes\nis a politico-religious satire levelled against king Herod, with the\nspecial object of correcting certain evil tendencies among the Jews of\nthat age, Gr\u00e4tz is compelled to have recourse to much perverse exegesis\nwhich I have no inclination to criticise.[358] Renan\u2019s present view\ndiffers widely from that given in his great unfinished history of the\nSemitic languages. But I shall have occasion to refer to his\ndetermination of the date of our book later.\n\nAmong recent English students, no one will refuse the palm of acuteness\nand originality to TYLER (1874). His strength lies not in translation\nand exegesis, but in the consistency with which he has applied his\nsingle key, viz. the comparison of the book with Stoic and Epicurean\nteaching. He is fully aware that the book has no logical divisions.\nAntithesis and contradiction is the fundamental characteristic of the\nbook. Not that the author contradicts himself (comp. the quotation from\nIbn Ezra in Ginsburg\u2019s _Coheleth_, p. 57), but that a faithful index of\nthe contradictions of the two great philosophical schools gives a\ngreater point to his concluding warning against philosophy. It is the\n\u2018sacrificio dell\u2019 intelletto\u2019 which the author counsels. But Mr. Tyler\u2019s\ntheory or at least his point of view demands a separate consideration.\nIt may however be fairly said here that by general consent Mr. Tyler has\ndone something to make the influence of Greek philosophical ideas upon\nEcclesiastes a more plausible opinion.\n\nTo a subsequent chapter I must also beg to refer the reader for a notice\nof Gustav BICKELL\u2019S hypothesis (1884) relative to the fortunes (or\nmisfortunes) of the text of Koheleth. This critic is not one of those\nwho grant that the book had from the first no logical division, and his\nhypothesis is one of the boldest and most plausible in the history of\ncriticism. Its boldness is in itself no defect, but I confess I\ndesiderate that caution which is the second indispensable requisite in a\ngreat critic. The due admixture of these two qualities nature has not\nyet granted. Meantime the greatest successes are perhaps attained by\nthose who are least self-confident, least ambitious of personal\ndistinction. Upon the whole, from the point of view of the student\nproper, are there more thankworthy contributions to criticism not less\nthan to exegesis than the books of PLUMPTRE (1881), NOWACK (1883), and\nabove all the accomplished _altmeister_ Franz DELITZSCH (1875)? Whatever\nhas been said before profitably and well, may be known by him who will\nconsult these three accomplished though not faultless expositors. I\nwould not be supposed to detract from other writers,[359] but I believe\nthat the young student will not repent limiting himself, not indeed to\none, but to three commentaries.\n\nFootnote 345:\n\n  For the Jewish traditions and theories, see further Schiffer, _Das\n  Buch Kohelet nach der Auffassung der Weisen des Talmud und Midrasch\n  und der j\u00fcdischen Erkl\u00e4rer des Mittelalters_, Theil 1, Leipzig, 1885;\n  and to complete Dr. Ginsburg\u2019s survey of the literature, see Z\u00f6ckler\u2019s\n  list in Lange\u2019s Commentary and the additions to this in the American\n  edition; also the preface to Wright\u2019s treatise on Ecclesiastes.\n\nFootnote 346:\n\n  See Vaihinger\u2019s article in Herzog\u2019s _Realencyclop\u00e4die_, xii. 92-106. I\n  have not seen his book on Ecclesiastes (1858).\n\nFootnote 347:\n\n  Ginsburg, _Coheleth_, p. 168.\n\nFootnote 348:\n\n  Ibid., p. 178.\n\nFootnote 349:\n\n  _Werke_ (Suphan), x. 134.\n\nFootnote 350:\n\n  _Shabbath_, 97_a_ (see Ginsburg, p. 98).\n\nFootnote 351:\n\n  See his _Urschrift und Uebersetzungen der Bibel_ (1857).\n\nFootnote 352:\n\n  _J\u00fcdische Zeitschrift_, iv. 9 &c.\n\nFootnote 353:\n\n  David Castelli, a cool and cautious scholar but not original, is\n  naturally better fitted to appreciate Koheleth (see _Il libro del\n  Kohelet_, Pisa, 1866).\n\nFootnote 354:\n\n  \u2018Die harte, ungef\u00fcgige, tiefgesunkene Sprache des Buches entzog ihm in\n  Luzzatto\u2019s Auge den verkl\u00e4renden Lichtglanz; er blickte mit einer\n  gewissen Missachtung auf den Schriftsteller, der sowenig Meister der\n  edlen ihn erf\u00fcllenden Sprache war\u2019 (Geiger).\n\nFootnote 355:\n\n  Not only Geiger, but the learned and fairminded Kalisch, has made this\n  view his own (_Bible Studies_, i. 65); among Christian scholars it has\n  been adopted by N\u00f6ldeke and Bickell (the latter includes iii. 17 among\n  the inserted passages, and I incline to follow him).\n\nFootnote 356:\n\n  _De Prediker vertaald en verklaart_ door P. de Jong (Leiden, 1861).\n\nFootnote 357:\n\n  _Theologisch Tijdschrift_, 1883, p. 114.\n\nFootnote 358:\n\n  See however Kuenen\u2019s condensed criticism in _Theol. Tijdschrift_, p.\n  127 &c.\n\nFootnote 359:\n\n  Hitzig, for instance, has been passed over in spite of N\u00f6ldeke\u2019s\n  judgment that no modern scholar has done so much for the detailed\n  explanation of the text. This may be true, or at least be but a small\n  exaggeration. No critic has so good a right to the name as Hitzig,\n  who, though weak in his treatment of ideas, has the keenest perception\n  of what is possible and impossible in interpretation. But for the\n  larger critical questions Hitzig has not done much; the editor of the\n  second edition of his commentary (Nowack) has therefore been obliged\n  to rewrite the greater part of the introduction. The historical\n  background of the book cannot be that supposed by Hitzig, nor has he\n  hit the mark in his description of Koheleth as \u2018eine planm\u00e4ssig\n  fortschreitende Untersuchung.\u2019 Wright fails, I venture to think, from\n  different causes. He is slightly too timid, and deficient in literary\n  art; and yet his scholarly work does honour to the Protestant clergy\n  of Ireland.\n\n\n\n\n                             CHAPTER VIII.\nECCLESIASTES AND ITS CRITICS (FROM A LITERARY AND PSYCHOLOGICAL POINT OF\n                                 VIEW).\n\n\nIt is not every critic of Ecclesiastes who helps the reader to enjoy the\nbook which is criticised. Too much criticism and too little taste have\nbefore now spoiled many excellent books on the Old Testament.\nEcclesiastes needs a certain preparation of the mind and character, a\ncertain \u2018elective affinity,\u2019 in order to be appreciated as it deserves.\nTo enjoy it, we must find our own difficulties and our own moods\nanticipated in it. We must be able to sympathise with its author either\nin his world-weariness and scepticism or in his victorious struggle (if\nso be it was victorious) through darkness into light. We must at any\nrate have a taste for the development of character, and an ear for the\nfragments of truth which a much-tried pilgrim gathered up in his\ntwilight wanderings. Never so much as in our own time have this taste\nand this ear been so largely possessed, as a recent commentary has shown\nin delightful detail, and I can only add to the names furnished by the\nwriter that of one who perhaps least of all should be omitted, Miss\nChristina Rossetti.[360] But to prove the point in my own way, let me\nagain select four leading critics, as representatives not so much of\nphilology as of that subtle and variable thing\u2014the modern spirit, viz.\nRENAN, GR\u00c4TZ, STANLEY, and PLUMPTRE. The first truly is a modern of the\nmoderns, though it is not every modern who will subscribe to his\ndescription of Ecclesiastes as \u2018livre charmant, le seul livre aimable\nqui ait \u00e9t\u00e9 compos\u00e9 par un Juif\u2019[361] One might excuse it perhaps if in\nsome degree dictated by a bitter grief at the misfortunes of his\ncountry; pessimism might be natural in 1872. But alas! ten years later\nthe same view is repeated and deliberately justified, nor can the author\nof Koheleth be congratulated. He is now described[362] as \u2018le charmant\n\u00e9crivain qui nous a laiss\u00e9 cette d\u00e9licieuse fantaisie philosophique,\naimant la vie, tout en en voyant la vanit\u00e9,\u2019 or, as a French reviewer\ncondenses the delicate phrases of his author, \u2018homme du monde et de la\nbonne soci\u00e9t\u00e9, qui n\u2019est, \u00e0 proprement parler, ni blas\u00e9 ni fatigu\u00e9, mais\nqui sait en toutes choses garder la mesure, sans enthousiasme, sans\nindignation, et sans exaltation d\u2019aucune esp\u00e8ce.\u2019 A speaking portrait of\na Parisian _philosophe_, but does it fit the author of Ecclesiastes? No;\nKoheleth has had too hard a battle with his own tongue to be a \u2018charming\nwriter,\u2019 and even if not exactly _blas\u00e9_ (see however ii. 1-11), he is\n\u2018fatigued\u2019 enough with the oppressive burdens of Jewish life in the\nsecond century B.C. That he has no enthusiasm, and none of those visions\nwhich are the \u2018creators and feeders of the soul,\u2019[363] is cause for\npity, not for admiration; but that he has had no visitings of _s\u00e6va\nindignatio_, is an unjust inference from his acquired calmness of\ndemeanour. He is an amiable ego\u00efst, says M. Renan; but would Koheleth\nhave troubled himself to write as he does, if ego\u00efsm were the ripened\nfruit of his life\u2019s experience? Why does this critic give such generous\nsympathy to the Ecclesiastes of the Slav race,[364] and such doubtful\npraise to his great original? It is true, Koheleth _seems_ to despair of\nthe future, but only perhaps of the immediate future (iii. 21), and\nTurgenieff does this too. \u2018Will the right men come?\u2019 asks one of the\npersonages of Turgenieff\u2019s _Helen_, and his friend, as the only reply,\ndirects a questioning look into the distance. That is the Russian\nphilosopher\u2019s last word; Koheleth has not told us his. His literary\nexecutors, no doubt, have forced a last word upon him; but we have an\nequal right to imagine one for ourselves. M. Renan \u2018likes to dream of a\nPaul become sceptical and disenchanted;\u2019[365] his Koheleth is an only\nless unworthy dream. M. Renan praises Koheleth for the moderation of his\nphilosophising; he repeatedly admits that there was an element of truth\nin the Utopianism of the prophets; why not \u2018dream\u2019 that Koheleth felt,\nthough he either ventured not or had no time left to express it, some\ndegree of belief in the destiny of his country?\n\nM. Renan, in fact, seems to me at once to admire Koheleth too much, and\nto justify his admiration on questionable grounds. It might have been\nhoped that the unlikeness of this book to the other books of the Canon\nwould have been the occasion of a worthy and a satisfying estimate from\nthis accomplished master. A critic of narrower experience represents\nKoheleth partly as a cynical Hebrew Pasquin, who satirises the hated\nforeigner, Herod the Great, and the minions of his court, partly as an\nearnest opponent of a dangerous and growing school of ascetics. I refer\nto this theory here, not to criticise it, but to call attention to its\nworthier conception of Koheleth\u2019s character. The tendency of\nEcclesiastes Dr. Gr\u00e4tz considers to be opposed to the moral and\nreligious principles of Judaism and Christianity, but to the man as\ndistinguished from his book he does full justice. It is a mistake when\nthis writer\u2019s theory is represented by Dean Plumptre as making Koheleth\nteach \u2018a license like that of a St. Simonian rehabilitation of the\nflesh.\u2019[366] Koheleth\u2019s choice of language is not indeed in good taste,\nbut it was only a crude way of emphasising his opposition to a dangerous\nspirit of asceticism. Such at least is Dr. Gr\u00e4tz\u2019s view. \u2018Koheleth is\nnot the slave of an ego\u00efstic eudemonism, but merely seeks to counteract\npietistic self-mortification.\u2019[367] Dr. Gr\u00e4tz thinks, too, and rightly,\nthat he can detect an old-fashioned Judaism in the supposed sceptical\nphilosopher: Koheleth controverts the new tenet of immortality, but not\nthat of the resurrection. I am anticipating again, but do so in order to\ncontrast the sympathetic treatment of the Breslau professor with the\nunsympathetic or at least unsuitable portraiture of Koheleth given by\nthe Parisian critic.\n\nOf all writers known to me, however, none is so sympathetic to Koheleth\nas Dr. Plumptre, in whose pleasing article in Smith\u2019s Dictionary we have\nthe germ of the most interesting commentary in the language. A still\nwider popularity was given to the Herder-Plumptre theory by Dr. Stanley,\nwho eloquently describes Ecclesiastes as \u2018an interchange of voices,\nhigher and lower, within a single human soul.\u2019 \u2018It is like,\u2019 he\ncontinues, \u2018the perpetual strophe and antistrophe of Pascal\u2019s _Pens\u00e9es_.\nBut it is more complicated, more entangled, than any of these, in\nproportion as the circumstances from which it grows are more perplexing,\nas the character which it represents is vaster, and grander, and more\ndistracted.\u2019[368] In his later work, Dr. Plumptre aptly compares the\n\u2018Two Voices\u2019 of our own poet (strictly, he remarks, there are three\nvoices in Ecclesiastes), in which, as in Koheleth, though more\ndecidedly, the voice of faith at last prevails over that of\npessimism.[369] I fear, however, that Dr. Plumptre\u2019s generous impulse\ncarries him farther than sober criticism can justify. The aim of writing\nan \u2018ideal biography\u2019 closing with the \u2018victory of faith\u2019 seems to me to\nhave robbed his pen of that point which, though sometimes dangerous, is\nyet indispensable to the critic. The theory of the \u2018alternate voices,\u2019\nof which Dr. Plumptre is, not the first,[370] but the most eloquent\nadvocate, seems to me to be an offspring of the modern spirit. It is so\nvery like their own case\u2014the dual nature[371] which a series of refined\ncritics has attributed to Koheleth, that they involuntarily invest\nKoheleth with the peculiar qualities of modern seekers after truth. To\nthem, in a different sense from M. Renan\u2019s, Ecclesiastes is \u2018un livre\naimable,\u2019 just as Marcus Aurelius and Omar Khayy\u00e2m are the favourite\ncompanions of those who prefer more consistent thinking.\n\nCertainly the author of Ecclesiastes might well be satisfied with the\ninterest so widely felt in his very touching confidences. It is the\ncontents, of course, which attract so many of our contemporaries\u2014not the\nform: only a student of Hebrew can appreciate the toilsome pleasure of\nsolving philosophical enigmas. And yet M. Renan has made it possible\neven for an _exigeant_ Parisian to enjoy, not indeed the process, but\nthe results, of philological inquiry, in so far as they reveal the\nliterary characteristics of this unique work; he has, indeed, in his\nfunction of artistic translator, done Koheleth even more than justice.\nIn particular, his translations of the rhythmic passages of Koheleth\nwhich relieve the surrounding prose are real _tours de force_. These\npassages M. Renan, following M. Derenbourg,[372] regards as quotations\nfrom lost poetical works, reminding us that such poetical quotations are\ncommon in Arabic literature. To represent in his translation the\ncharacter of the Hebrew rhythm, which is \u2018dancing, light, and\npretentiously elegant,\u2019 M. Renan adopts the metres of Old French poetry.\n\u2018Il s\u2019agissait de calquer en fran\u00e7ais des sentences con\u00e7ues dans le ton\nd\u00e9gag\u00e9, goguenard et pru-d\u2019homme \u00e0 la fois de Pibrac, de Marculfe ou de\nChatonnet, de produire un saveur analogue \u00e0 celle de nos quatrains de\nmoralit\u00e9s ou de nos vieux proverbes en bouts-rim\u00e9s.\u2019 Of the poem on old\nage he says that it is \u2018une sorte de joujou fun\u00e8bre qu\u2019on dirait cisel\u00e9\npar Banville ou par Th\u00e9ophile Gautier et que je trouve sup\u00e9rieur m\u00eame\naux quatrains de Khayy\u00e2m.\u2019[373] I should have thought the comparison\nvery unjust to the Persian poet. To me, I confess, the prelude or\noverture (i. 4-8), though not in rhythmic Hebrew, is the gem of the\nbook. Questionable though its tendency may seem, if we look at the\ncontext, its poetry is of elemental force, and appeals to the modern\nreader in some of his moods more than almost anything else in the Old\nTestament outside the Book of Job. I cannot help alluding to Carlyle\u2019s\nfine application of its imagery in _Sartor Resartus_, \u2018Generations are\nas the Days of toilsome Mankind: Death and Birth are the vesper and the\nmatin bells, that summon mankind to sleep, and to rise refreshed for new\nadvancement.\u2019 How differently Koheleth,\u2014\n\n    One generation goeth, another cometh;\n    but the earth abideth for ever:\n    And the sun ariseth, and the sun goeth down,\n    and panteth unto his place where he ariseth:\n    It goeth to the south, and whirleth about unto the north,\n    the wind whirleth about continually;\n    and upon his circuits the wind returneth.\n    All streams run into the sea, and the sea is not full;\n    unto the place whither the streams go, thither they go again.\n    All things are full of weariness; no man can utter it;\n    the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with\n       hearing.\n\nCompare with this the words, so Greek in tone, of xi. 7, as well as the\nconstantly recurring formula \u2018under the sun\u2019 (e.g. i. 3, iv. 3). We can\nsee that even Koheleth was affected by nature, but without any\nlightening of his load of trial. The wide-open eye of day seemed to mock\nhim by its unfeeling serenity. He lacked that susceptibility for the\nwhispered lessons of nature which the poet of _Job_ so pre-eminently\npossessed; he lacked too the great modern conception of progress,\nembodied in that fine passage from Carlyle. He was prosaic and\nunimaginative, and it is partly because there is so little poetry in\nEcclesiastes that there is so little Christianity. But I am already\npassing to another order of considerations, without which indeed we\ncannot estimate this singular autobiography aright. We have next to\nconsider Koheleth from a directly religious and moral point of view.\n\nFootnote 360:\n\n  See especially her early sonnet \u2018Vanity of Vanities,\u2019 and her striking\n  poem \u2018A Testimony.\u2019\n\nFootnote 361:\n\n  _L\u2019Ant\u00e9christ_, p. 101.\n\nFootnote 362:\n\n  _L\u2019Eccl\u00e9siaste_, pp. 24, 90.\n\nFootnote 363:\n\n  Mordecai in _Daniel Deronda_.\n\nFootnote 364:\n\n  See his funeral _\u00e9loge_, reprinted in _Academy_, Oct. 13, 1883, p.\n  248.\n\nFootnote 365:\n\n  _L\u2019Ant\u00e9christ_, p. 200.\n\nFootnote 366:\n\n  _Ecclesiastes_, p. 8.\n\nFootnote 367:\n\n  Gr\u00e4tz, _Kohelet_, p. 33.\n\nFootnote 368:\n\n  _Jewish Church_, ii. 256.\n\nFootnote 369:\n\n  _Ecclesiastes_, pp. 53, 259.\n\nFootnote 370:\n\n  See the passage from Herder quoted in Appendix (end).\n\nFootnote 371:\n\n  Comp. Jacobi\u2019s confession (imitated by Coleridge?) that he was with\n  the head a heathen, and with the heart a Christian.\n\nFootnote 372:\n\n  _Revue des \u00e9tudes juives_, i. 165-185. I do not myself see why\n  Koheleth, who sought \u2018pleasant words,\u2019 should not have written poetry\n  as well as prose.\n\nFootnote 373:\n\n  _L\u2019Eccl\u00e9siaste_, pp. 83, 84.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER IX.\n         ECCLESIASTES FROM A MORAL AND RELIGIOUS POINT OF VIEW.\n\n\nWe have seen how large a Christian element penetrates and glorifies the\nbold questionings of the Book of Job. Whatever be our view on obscure\nproblems of criticism, the character-drama which the book in its present\nform presents is one which it almost requires a Christian to appreciate\nadequately. It is different with the Book of Ecclesiastes. \u2018He who will\nallow that book to speak for itself, and does not read other meanings\ninto almost every verse, must feel at every step that he is breathing a\ndifferent atmosphere from that of the teaching of the Gospels.\u2019[374]\nStill more is this the case if we claim the right of free criticism, and\ndeny that the hints of a growing tendency to believe are due to the\nmorbidly sceptical author of the book (if it may be called a book).\nCertainly the religious use of Koheleth is more directly affected by\nmodern criticism and exegesis than that of any other Old Testament\nwriting. The early theologians could dispense with criticism, because\nthey so frequently allegorised or unconsciously gave a gentle twist to\nthe literal meaning. But we, if for a religious purpose we use the book\nuncritically, must be well aware that we often misrepresent both the\nauthor of Koheleth himself and Christian faith. Let me only mention\nthree texts in the use of which this misrepresentation very commonly\ntakes place. The fixity of the spiritual state in which a man is at\ndeath may or may not be an essential Christian doctrine, but we have no\nright to quote either Koheleth\u2019s despairing description of the inert\nlife of the shades (ix. 10), or the proverbial saying on the\nunalterableness of the laws of nature (xi. 3), in support of this; nor\nis it well to adopt a phrase (descriptive of She\u00f3l) from xii. 5, which\nfavours the false idea expressed in the too common \u2018Here lieth\u2019 of the\nchurchyard. Anticipations of really fundamental Christian doctrines are,\nI admit, rarely sought for in Ecclesiastes. It is well that this should\nbe so. How completely the evangelical elements in Jewish religion had\nbeen obscured later on in this period, we have seen from the Wisdom of\nSirach. It seemed in fact as if the only alternatives then for a\nthoughtful Jew were a more or less strict legal orthodoxy and a resigned\nacquiescence in things as they were, brightened only by gleams, eagerly\nhailed, of intellectual or sensuous pleasure. Sirach chose the former of\nthese, Koheleth the latter. Koheleth\u2019s was not in itself the better\nchoice. But the worse alternative needed perhaps to be stated as\nforcibly as possible, that men might see the rock and avoid shipwreck.\nEcclesiastes, like the first part of Goethe\u2019s _Faust_, may, with the\nfullest justice, be called an apology for Christianity, not as\ncontaining anticipations of Christian truth\u2014the error of\nHengstenberg;[375] but inasmuch as it shows that neither wisdom, nor any\nother human good or human pleasure, brings permanent satisfaction to\nman\u2019s natural longings. It is at any rate a contribution towards the\nnegative criticism with which such an apology must begin, just as the\nBook of Job is a contribution, or a series of contributions, towards a\nmore perfect and evangelical theodicy.\n\nThere is at least one point, then, which the moral and religious critic\nof Ecclesiastes can adopt out of all the strangely distorted views of\npatristic writers, so ably summed up by Dr. Ginsburg in his\nIntroduction, viz. that the gloomy sentence, _Vanitas vanitatum_, is\nperfectly accurate when applied to the life of Koheleth, but only to a\nlife like his. Thomas \u00e0 Kempis could prelude with two verses from\nKoheleth (i. 2, 8), but he could only prelude. A life of true\nservice\u2014one whose centre is outside self or family or even nation\u2014is not\nvanity nor vexation of spirit: Koheleth might have added this as the\nburden of a second part of his book. But did he not actually append it\nas his epilogue? Did he not \u2018faintly trust\u2019 the hope of immortality\n(xii. 7)? Did he not work his way back to a living faith, like \u2018Asaph\u2019\nin Ps. lxxiii.? There is no question that the book was admitted into the\nCanon on the assumption that he did. As a great Jewish preacher says,\nthe book [in its present form] opens with Nothingness, but closes with\nthe fear of God.[376] It is parallel in this respect to many Jewish\nlives, like that of Heine, which may be described as the prodigal son\u2019s\nquest of his long-lost father. Accepting this view, we may join with\nanother Jewish writer in his admiration of the influences of Jewish\ntheism, which were then at least so strong that a consistent Jewish\nsceptic was an impossibility. \u2018It is this,\u2019 he remarks, \u2018that gives the\npeculiar charm to this little book.\u2019[377] It is impossible to give a\nconclusive refutation of this view, which I should like to believe true,\nbut which seems to me to labour under exegetical difficulties. To me,\nKoheleth is not a theist in any vital sense in his philosophic\nmeditations, and his so-called \u2018last word\u2019 seems forced upon him by\nlater scribes, just as Sirach\u2019s orthodoxy was at any rate heightened in\ncolour by subsequent editors. To me, Derenbourg\u2019s view is a dream,\nthough an edifying one. It may be that the author did return to the\nsimple faith of his childhood. He certainly never lost his theism,\nthough pale and cheerless it was indeed, and utterly unable to stand\nagainst the assaults of doubt and despondency. It may be that history,\nneglected history, taught him at last to believe in the divine guidance\nof the fortunes of Israel. I would fain imagine this retracing of the\nweary pilgrim\u2019s steps; but other and less pleasing dreams to a Christian\nare equally possible and I do not venture to accept the return of the\nprodigal as a well-authenticated fact.\n\nWe must remember too that the troubled wanderer had not really so many\nsteps to retrace. Much that both Christians and Jews now regard as\nessential to faith was not, in the time of Koheleth, commonly so\nregarded. I am well aware of the great intuitions of some of the\npsalmists at certain sublime moments, and admit that they seem to us to\nlead naturally on to our own orthodoxy. But these intuitions could not\nand did not possess the force of dogmas. The great doctrines of the\nResurrection and of Immortality had long to wait for a moderate degree\nof acceptance (they were not held, for instance, by Sirach), and longer\nstill before they coalesced in a new and greater doctrine of the future\nlife. Koheleth\u2019s dissatisfaction with the doctrine of present\nretribution (the central point both of his heterodoxy and of Job\u2019s)\nmight have helped him to accept the former of these. His acquaintance\nwith non-Jewish philosophical literature, if we may venture to assume\nthis as a fact, might have led him, as it led the author of the Wisdom\nof Solomon, to embrace the hope of immortality. But though there\nprobably is an allusion to this hope as well-founded in xii. 7_b_, we\nhave seen reason to doubt whether the words came from Koheleth himself;\nat any rate, they are isolated, and many do not admit the allusion.\nEither of these doctrines would have saved Koheleth from despondency had\nhe accepted it. From our present point of view, we must blame him for\nnot accepting one refuge or the other, or even that simpler belief in\nthe imperishableness of the Jewish race which Sirach had, and which has\npreserved so many Israelitish hearts in trials as severe as Koheleth\u2019s.\nThere must have been a strange weakness in his moral fibre; how else can\nwe account either for his want of Jewish feeling or, I would now add,\nusing the word in its looser sense, for his pessimism? As Huber has well\nobserved,[378] none of the ancient peoples was naturally less inclined\nto pessimism than the Jews, so that a work like Ecclesiastes is a\nportent in the Old Testament, and alien to the spirit of true Judaism. I\ncannot wonder that both Jews and Christians have now and again been\nrepelled by this strange book[379] and denied its title to canonicity,\npartly for its pessimism, partly for its supposed Epicureanism, or that\nthe author of the Book of Wisdom before them should have given Koheleth\nthe most scathing of condemnations by putting almost its very language\ninto the mouth of the ungodly.[380] The true student may no doubt be\nequally severe upon Koheleth for his despair of wisdom and depreciation\nof its delights (i. 17, 18, ii. 15, 16), which are hardly redeemed by\nthe utilitarian sayings in vii. 11, 12.\n\nI cannot justify Koheleth, but I can plead for a mitigation of these\ncensures, and altogether defend the admission of the Book (not, of\ncourse, as Solomonic) into the sacred Canon. Whether Jewish or not, the\npessimistic theory of life has a sound kernel. \u2018Our sadness,\u2019 as Thoreau\nsays, \u2018is not sad, but our cheap joys. Let us be sad about all we see\nand are, for so we demand and pray for better. It is the constant prayer\n[of the good] and whole Christian religion.\u2019[381] This too is the burden\nof E. von Hartmann\u2019s criticism of a crudely optimistic Christianity; and\nneed we reject the truth for the extravagances of the teacher? Next, as\nto the preference of sensuous enjoyment to philosophic pursuits in\nKoheleth. I would not seek to weaken passages like ii. 24, viii. 15, by\nputting them down to the irony of a _s\u00e6va indignatio_. But as for the\ndepreciation of intellectual pleasure, may it not be excused by the\nauthor\u2019s want of a sure prospect of the \u2018age to come\u2019 such as we find in\nthose lines of Davenant,[382]\n\n               Before by death you nearer knowledge gain\n               (For to increase your knowledge you must die),\n               Tell me if all that knowledge be not vain,\n               On which we proudly in this life rely.\n\nAnd as to the commendations of sensuous pleasure, have they not a\nrelative justification?[383] The legalism of the \u2018righteous overmuch\u2019\nthreatened already perhaps to make life an intolerable burden. And\nthough Koheleth erred in the form of his teaching, yet he did well to\nteach the \u2018duty of delight\u2019 (Ruskin) and to oppose an orthodoxy which\nsought, not merely to transform, but to kill nature. It is to his credit\nthat he touches on the relations of the sexes with such studious\nreserve.[384] As a rule, the enjoyments which he recommends are those of\nthe table, which in Sirach\u2019s time (Ecclus. xxxii. 3-5) and perhaps also\nin Koheleth\u2019s included music and singing,\u2014in short, festive but refined\nsociety. His praise of festive mirth is at any rate more excusable\nmorally than Omar Khayy\u00e2m\u2019s impassioned commendations of the\nwine-cup.[385] As Jeremy Taylor says, \u2018It was the best thing that was\nthen commonly known that they should seize upon the present with a\ntemperate use of permitted pleasures.\u2019[386] Lastly, the admission of the\nbook into the Canon is (perhaps we may say) not less providential than\nthat of the Song of Songs. The latter shows us human nature in simple\nand healthy relations of life; the former, a human nature in a morbid\nstate and in depressed and artificial circumstances. How to return at\nleast to inward simplicity and health, the latter part (not the\nEpilogue) of the Book of Job beautifully shows us.\n\nOur great idealist poet Shelley, who so admired Job, disliked\nEcclesiastes for the same reason as the ancient heretics already\nmentioned. One greater than he, our \u2018sage and serious\u2019 Milton, justifies\nthe sacred Scripture for the variety of its contents on the same ground\nthat he advocates \u2018unlicensed printing.\u2019 Both are \u2018for the trial of\nvirtue and the exercise of truth.\u2019 We need not, then, he says, be\nsurprised if the Bible \u2018brings in holiest men passionately murmuring\nagainst Providence through all the arguments of Epicurus.\u2019[387] The\nBible, according to Milton, is perfect not in spite but because of its\nvariety; it is like the rugged \u2018mountains of God,\u2019 not like the\nsymmetrical works of human art. But Milton has also reminded us that a\nfool may misuse even sacred Scripture.\n\nFootnote 374:\n\n  Dean Bradley, _Lectures on Ecclesiastes_ (1885), p. 7.\n\nFootnote 375:\n\n  See _Der Prediger Salomo_ (1859). Hengstenberg misses, it is true, any\n  direct reference to the Christian hope, but finds the idea of\n  chastisement as a proof of divine love in iii. 18, vii. 2-4, an\n  emphatic affirmation of eternal life in iii. 21, and the resignation\n  of a faith like Job\u2019s in iii. 11, vii. 24, viii. 17, xi. 5. Koheleth\u2019s\n  questionings are therefore according to him \u2018eine heilige\n  Philosophie.\u2019\n\nFootnote 376:\n\n  Preface to vol. iii. of S. Holdheim\u2019s _Predigten_.\n\nFootnote 377:\n\n  J. Derenbourg, _Revue des \u00e9tudes juives_, No. 2, Oct. 1880.\n\nFootnote 378:\n\n  _Der Pessimismus_, 1876, p. 8. Schopenhauer too calls the Jews the\n  most optimistic race in history.\n\nFootnote 379:\n\n  See Appendix.\n\nFootnote 380:\n\n  Wisd. ii. 6; comp. Plumptre, _Ecclesiastes_, p. 71 &c., Wright,\n  _Koheleth_, pp. 69, 70.\n\nFootnote 381:\n\n  _Letters to Various Persons_, p. 25.\n\nFootnote 382:\n\n  See the extracts in Trench\u2019s _Household Book of English Poetry_, p.\n  405.\n\nFootnote 383:\n\n  I do not of course assent to the form in which Gr\u00e4tz puts this, to\n  serve his hypothesis as to the age of Koheleth. See Appendix.\n\nFootnote 384:\n\n  Once Koheleth appears as a sharp critic of the female sex (vii.\n  26-29).\n\nFootnote 385:\n\n  Lagarde describes Omar as \u2018ein schlemmer, der die angst des irdischen\n  daseins und die \u00f6de langeweile seiner noch in den anf\u00e4ngen stehenden\n  wissenschaft hinwegzuschwelgen suchte\u2019 (_Symmicta_, 1877, p. 9). Too\n  hard a judgment perhaps on this changeful and impressionable nature.\n  See Bodenstedt\u2019s version as well as Fitzgerald\u2019s.\n\nFootnote 386:\n\n  _The Rule and Exercises of Holy Dying_, chap. i., sect. 3. Parts of\n  this chapter remind us strongly of Koheleth, and are strange indeed in\n  a book of Christian devotion.\n\nFootnote 387:\n\n  _Prose Works_, ed. Bohn, ii. 69.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER X.\n                     DATE AND PLACE OF COMPOSITION.\n\n\nJewish tradition, while admitting a Hezekian or post-Hezekian redaction\nof the book, assigns the original authorship of Ecclesiastes to Solomon.\nThe Song of Songs it regards as the monument of this king\u2019s early\nmanhood, the Book of Proverbs of his middle age, and the\nsemi-philosophical meditations before us as the work of his old age. The\ntradition was connected by the Aggada with the favourite legend[388] of\nthe discrowned Solomon, but is based upon the book itself, the passages\ndue to the literary fiction of Solomon\u2019s authorship (which Bickell\nindeed attributes to an interpolator) having been misunderstood. Would\nthat the author of the _Lectures on the Jewish Church_ had given the\nweight of his name to the true explanation of these passages! The\nreticence of the lines devoted in the second volume of the _Lectures_ to\nEcclesiastes has led some critics to imagine that according to Dean\nStanley, this book, like much of Proverbs, might possibly be the work of\nthe \u2018wisest\u2019 of Israel\u2019s kings. Little had the author profited by Ewald\nif he really allowed such an absolute legend the smallest\nstanding-ground among reasonable hypotheses! Whichever way we look,\nwhether to the social picture, or to the language, or to the ideas of\nthe book, its recent origin forces itself upon us. The social picture\nand the ideas need not detain us here. Either Solomon was transported in\nprophetic ecstasy to far distant times (the Targum on Koheleth\nfrequently describes him as a prophet), or the writer is a child of the\ndawning modern age of Judaism. The former alternative is plainly\nimpossible. Political servitude, and a generally depressed state of\nsociety (exceptional cases of prosperity notwithstanding), mark the book\nas the work of a dark post-Exile period. The absence of any national\nfeeling equally distinguishes it from the monuments of the earlier\nhumanistic movement (even from Job). The germs of philosophic thought,\nwhich cannot be explained away, supply, if this be possible, a still\nmore convincing argument. We shall return to these later on: at present,\nlet us confine ourselves to the linguistic evidence, which has been set\nforth with such accuracy and completeness by Delitzsch[389] and after\nhim by Dr. Wright of Dublin.\n\nThe Hebrew language has no history if Ecclesiastes belongs to the\nclassical period; indeed, the Hebrew name of the book may seem of itself\nto stamp it as of post-Exile origin (see note on Koheleth in Appendix).\nThe student would do well, however, to examine all the peculiar words or\nforms in Delitzsch\u2019s glossary, and to classify them for himself, under\ntwo principal heads, (1) those which occur elsewhere but in\ndistinctively late-Hebrew books, (2) those only found in Koheleth, with\nfour subdivisions, viz., (_a_) words which can be explained from\nBiblical Hebrew usage, (_b_) those which belong to the vocabulary of the\nMishna, (_c_) those of Aramaic origin and affinities, (_d_) those\nborrowed from non-Semitic languages. The student should also notice the\nstriking grammatical peculiarities of Koheleth, especially the fact that\nthe ordinary historic tense (the imperfect with Waw consecutive) is\nhardly ever used. The scholar\u2019s instinct but three times reveals itself\nin the adoption of this old literary idiom (i. 17, iv. 1, 7), but\nelsewhere the usage of the Mishna is already law. Almost equally\nimportant is the fact that the Hebrew mood-distinctions are so little\nused in Koheleth (on which point see Delitzsch\u2019s introduction); indeed,\nwe may say upon the whole that that which gives a characteristic flavour\nto the old Hebrew style is \u2018ready to vanish away.\u2019 The Mishnic\npeculiarities of the book are especially interesting, as confirming our\nview of its origin. The author is very different in his opinions from\nthe doctors of the Mishna, but he resembles them in his questioning and\nreflective spirit, and helped to form the linguistic instrument which\nthey required. Less important, but not to be ignored, are the Aramaic\nelements. Even Dr. Adam Clarke, untrained scholar as he was, pronounced\nthat the attempts which had as yet been made to overthrow the evidence,\nwere \u2018often trifling and generally ineffectual.\u2019[390] The Aramaisms of\nKoheleth are irreconcileable with a pre-Exile date; they can only be\nparalleled and explained from the Aramaic portions of the books of Ezra\nand Daniel. That they are comparatively few, only proves that the force\nof the Aramaising movement has abated, and that the Hebrew language, at\nany rate in the hands of some of its chief cultivators, is passing into\na new phase (the Mishnic). The judgment of Ewald, as already expressed\nin 1837, appears to me on the whole satisfactory: \u2018One might easily\nimagine Koheleth to be the very latest book in the Old Testament. A\npremature conclusion, since Aramaic influence extended very gradually\nand secretly, so that one writer might easily be more Aramaic in the\ncolouring of his style than another. But though not [even if not] the\nlatest, it cannot have been written till long after Aramaic had begun\npowerfully to influence Hebrew, and therefore _not before_ the last\ncentury of the Persian rule.\u2019[391]\n\nFor the sake of my argument, it is hardly necessary to refer to the\nwords of non-Semitic origin, which are (as most critics rightly hold)\nbut two in number; 1 \u05e4\u05b7\u05bc\u05e8\u05b0\u05d3\u05b5\u05bc\u05dd (ii. 5, plur.) undoubtedly a Hebraised\nPersian word, on which I lay no stress here, because it occurs, not only\nin Neh. ii. 8, but also in Cant. iv. 13, where many critics deny that it\nmilitates against a pre-Exile date, and 2 \u05e4\u05b4\u05ea\u05b0\u05d2\u05b8\u05dd (viii. 11), which\noccurs in the Aramaic parts of Ezra and Daniel, and also in Esth. i. 20,\nand while used in the Targums and in Syriac, did not become naturalised\nin Talmudic. This word, too, is commonly regarded as Hebraised Persian,\nbut, following Zirkel, the eminent Jewish scholar Heinrich Gr\u00e4tz\ndeclares it to be the Hebraised form of a Greek word. Is this possible\nor probable? Are there any genuine Gr\u00e6cisms of language, and\nconsequently also of thought, in the Book of Koheleth? An important\nquestion, to which we will return.\n\nThe date suggested by Ewald, and accepted by Knobel, Herzfeld,\nVaihinger, Delitzsch, and Ginsburg, suits the political circumstances\nimplied in Koheleth. The Jews had long since lost the feelings of trust\nand gratitude with which in \u2018better days\u2019 (vii. 10) they regarded the\ncourt of Persia; the desecration of the temple by Bagoses or Bagoes\n(Jos. _Ant._ xi. 7) is but one of the calamities which betel Jud\u00e6a in\nthe last century of the Persian rule. It is a conjecture of Delitzsch\nthat iv. 3 contains a reminiscence of Artaxerxes II. Mnemon (died about\n360), who was ninety-four years old, and according to Justin (x. 1), had\n115 sons, and of his murdered successor Artaxerxes III. Ochus. Probably,\nif we knew more of this period, we should be able to produce other\nplausible illustrations. Certainly the state of society suits the date\nproposed. As Delitzsch remarks, \u2018The unrighteous judgment, iii. 16; the\ndespotic depression, iv. 1, viii. 9, v. 8; the riotous court-life, x.\n16-19; the raising of mean men to the highest dignities, x. 5-7; the\ninexorable severity of the law of military service, viii. 8; the\nprudence required by the organised system of espionage,\u2014all these things\nwere characteristic of this period.\u2019 Probably an advocate of a different\ntheory would interpret these passages otherwise; but as yet no\nconclusive argument has been offered for supposing allusions to\ncircumstances of the Greek period.\n\nLet me frankly admit, in conclusion, that the evidence of the Hebrew\nfavours a later date than that proposed by Ewald\u2014favours, but does not\nactually require it. It seems, however, that if the book be of the Greek\nperiod, we have a right to expect some definite traces of Greek\ninfluence. This will supply the subject of the next chapter.\n\nAt any rate, the author addresses himself to Palestinian readers. He\nlives, not (I should suppose) in the country, as Ewald thought, but near\nthe temple, or at least has opportunities of frequenting it (v. 1,[392]\nviii. 10). Some recent scholars place him in Alexandria; but the\nreference to the corn trade in xi. 1 does not prove this to be correct;\nindeed, the very same section contains a reference to _rain_ (so xii.\n2). Sharpe[393] is alone in preferring Antioch, the capital of the Greek\nkingdom of Syria. Kleinert\u2019s remark that \u2018king in Jerusalem\u2019 (i. 12)\nimplies a foreign abode is met by the remark that Jerusalem was in the\nwriter\u2019s time no longer a royal city. The author may have travelled, and\nlike Sirach have had personal acquaintance with the dangers of\ncourt-life (either at Susa or at Alexandria). The references to the king\ndo not perhaps compel this supposition; \u2018are not my princes altogether\nkings?\u2019 (Isa. x. 8) could be said of Persian satraps.\n\nFootnote 388:\n\n  See the _Midrasch Kohelet_ (ed. W\u00fcnsche, 1880), or Ginsburg, p. 38.\n\nFootnote 389:\n\n  Comp. the glossary at the end of Gr\u00e4tz\u2019s commentary.\n\nFootnote 390:\n\n  Quoted by Ginsburg, _Coheleth_, p. 197.\n\nFootnote 391:\n\n  _Die poetischen B\u00fccher des Alten Bundes_, Theil iv.\n\nFootnote 392:\n\n  The \u2018house of God\u2019 must, I think, mean the temple of Jerusalem. That\n  of Onias IV. was not built till 160 B.C. The synagogues would not be\n  called \u2018houses of God\u2019 (on Ps. lxxiv. 8, see Hitzig).\n\nFootnote 393:\n\n  _History of Hebrew Nation and its Literature_ (ed. 2), p. 344.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER XI.\n              DOES KOHELETH CONTAIN GREEK WORDS OR IDEAS?\n\n\nWe now begin the consideration of the question, Are there any\nwell-ascertained Gr\u00e6cisms in the language and in the thought of this\nobviously exceptional book? That there are many Greek loan-words in\nTargumic and Talmudic, is undeniable, though Levy in his lexicon has no\ndoubt exaggerated their number. G. Zirkel, a Roman Catholic scholar, was\nthe first who answered in the affirmative, confining himself to the\nlinguistic side of the argument. His principal work,[394]\n_Untersuchungen \u00fcber den Prediger_ (W\u00fcrzburg, 1792), is not in the\nBodleian Library, but Eichhorn\u2019s review in his _Allgemeine Bibliothek_,\nvol. iv. (1792), contains a summary of Zirkel\u2019s evidence from which I\nselect the following.\n\n    (_a_) \u05d9\u05b8\u05e4\u05b6\u05d4, in sense of \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03cc\u03c2 \u2018becoming\u2019 (iii. 11, v. 17). This is\n    one of the Gr\u00e6cisms which commend themselves the most to Gr\u00e4tz and\n    Kleinert. The former points especially to v. 17, where he takes \u05d8\u05d5\u05d1\n    \u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 \u05d9\u05e4\u05d4 together as representing \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd (comp. Plumptre on v.\n    18). The construction, however, is mistaken (see Delitzsch). The\n    second \u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 indicates that \u05d9\u05e4\u05d4 is a synonym of \u05d5\u05d8\u05d1 \u2018excellent.\u2019 The\n    notion of the beautiful can be developed in various ways. The sense\n    \u2018becoming,\u2019 characteristic of later Hebrew, is more distinctly\n    required in iii. 11.\n\n    (_b_) \u2018In the clause \u05dc\u05b8\u05de\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4 \u05d7\u05b8\u05db\u05b7\u05de\u05b0\u05ea\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9 \u05d0\u05b2\u05e0\u05b4\u05d9 \u05d0\u05b8\u05d6 \u05d9\u05b9\u05ea\u05b5\u05e8 (ii. 15) the\n    words \u05d0\u05b8\u05d6 \u05d9\u05b9\u05ea\u05b5\u05e8 must signify \u1f14\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bc\u1fb6\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd: quid mihi prodest majorem\n    adhuc sapienti\u00e6 operam dare?\u2019 But the demonstrative particle \u05d0\u05d6\n    means, not \u1f14\u03c4\u03b9, but \u2018in these circumstances\u2019 (Jer. xxii. 15). Its\n    position and connection with \u05d9\u05ea\u05e8 are for emphasis. The fact of\n    experience mentioned makes any special care for wisdom unreasonable.\n\n    (_c_) \u2018\u05e2\u05b3\u05e9\u05c2\u05c2\u05d5\u05ea \u05d8\u05d5\u05b9\u05d1 (iii. 12) is a literal translation of \u03b5\u1f56\n    \u03c0\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd.\u2019 This is accepted by Kleinert and also by Tyler. The very\n    next verse seems to explain this phrase by \u05e8\u05d0\u05d4 \u05d8\u05d5\u05d1 (comp. v. 17);\n    certainly the ethical meaning is against the analogy of ii. 24, iii.\n    22, and similar passages. But should we not, with Gr\u00e4tz and Nowack,\n    correct \u05e8\u05b0\u05d0\u05d5\u05b9\u05ea \u05d8\u05d5\u05d1 in iii. 12?\n\n    (_d_) \u2018\u05db\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9 \u05d4\u05b8\u05d0\u05b1\u05dc\u05b9\u05d4\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05d2\u05d5 (v. 19) must mean, God gives him joy of\n    heart. \u05e2\u05e0\u05d4 \u201crespondere\u201d seems to have borrowed the meaning\n    \u201cremunerari\u201d from \u1f00\u03bc\u03b5\u03af\u03b2\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, which has both senses. The ancient\n    writer of the book thought thus in Greek, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bc\u03b5\u03af\u03b2\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 (\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd)\n    \u03b5\u1f50\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u1fc3 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b4\u03af\u03b1\u03c2.\u2019 Zirkel forgets Ps. lxv. 6. See however\n    Delitzsch.\n\n    (_e_) \u05d4\u05b2\u05dc\u05b8\u05da\u05bc\u05be\u05e0\u05b6\u05e4\u05b6\u05e9\u05c1 (vi. 9) = \u1f41\u03c1\u03bc\u1f74 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u1fc6\u03c2 [M. Aurelius iii. 15].\n    But the phrase is idiomatic Hebrew for \u2018roving of the desire.\u2019\n\n    (_f_) \u05d9\u05b5\u05e6\u05b5\u05d0 \u05d0\u05b6\u05ea\u05be\u05db\u05bb\u05bc\u05dc\u05b8\u05bc\u05dd (vii. 18). \u2018The Hebrew writer found no other\n    equivalent for \u03bc\u03ad\u03c3\u03b7\u03bd \u03b2\u03b1\u03b4\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd.\u2019 But unless he borrowed the idea\n    (that of cultivating the mean in moral practice), why should he have\n    tried to express the technical term?\n\n    (_g_) \u05db\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05be\u05d6\u05b6\u05d4 \u05db\u05b8\u05bc\u05dc\u05be\u05d4\u05b8\u05d0\u05b8\u05d3\u05b8\u05dd (xii. 13). \u2018A pure Gr\u00e6cism, \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2\n    \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u1f7c\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5.\u2019 But how otherwise could the idea of the universal\n    obligation to fear God have been expressed? Comp. the opening words\n    of iii. 19.\n\n    To these may be added (h) \u05d1\u05d9\u05d5\u05dd \u05d8\u05d5\u05d1\u05d4 (vii. 14) = \u03b5\u1f50\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03b1 (see\n    however xii. 1); (i) the \u2018technical term\u2019 \u05d8\u05d5\u05e8 (i. 13, ii. 3, vii.\n    25) = \u03c3\u03ba\u03ad\u03c0\u03c4\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 [but good Hebrew for \u2018to explore\u2019]; (k) \u05e4\u05ea\u05d2\u05dd (viii.\n    11) = \u03c6\u03b8\u03ad\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1; (l) \u05e4\u05e8\u05d3\u05dd (ii. 15) = \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03bf\u03c2 (see above).\n\nNo one in our day would dream of accepting these \u2018Gr\u00e6cisms\u2019 in a mass.\n\nZirkel tried to prove too much, as Gr\u00e4tz himself truly observes. Any\npeculiar word or construction he set down as un-Hebraic and hurried to\nexplain it by some Greek parallel, ignoring the capacity of development\ninherent in the Hebrew language. His attempt failed in his own\ngeneration. Three recent scholars however (Gr\u00e4tz, Kleinert, and Tyler),\nhave been more or less captivated by his idea, and have proposed some\nnew and some old \u2018Gr\u00e6cisms\u2019 for the acceptance of scholars. To me it\nseems that, their three or four very disputable words and phrases are\nnot enough. If the author of Koheleth really thought half in Greek, the\nGreek colouring of the language would surely not have been confined to\nsuch a few expressions. If \u05de\u05d4\u05be\u05e9\u05d4\u05d9\u05d4 (vii. 24) were really derived from \u03c4\u1f78\n\u03c4\u03af \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd, as Kleinert supposes, should we not meet with it oftener? But\nthe phrase most naturally means, not \u2018the essence of things,\u2019 but \u2018that\nwhich hath come into existence;\u2019 phenomena are not easily understood in\ntheir ultimate causes, is the simple meaning of the sentence. I have\nsaid nothing as yet of the supposed Gr\u00e6cism in the epilogue\u2014the last\nplace where we should have expected one (considering ver. 12). But Mr.\nTyler\u2019s proposal to explain \u05d4\u05b7\u05db\u05b9\u05bc\u05dc (xii, 13) by \u03c4\u1f78 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03cc\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 or \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f45\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd (a\nformula introducing a general conclusion), falls to the ground, when the\ntrue explanation of the passage has been stated (see p. 232).\n\nThere are therefore no Gr\u00e6cisms in the language of the book. Of course\n_ideas_ may have been derived from a Greek source notwithstanding. The\nbook, as we have seen already, is conspicuous by its want of a native\nJewish background, nor does it show any affinity to Babylonian or\nPersian theology. It obviously stands at the close of the great Jewish\nhumanistic movement, and gives an entirely new colour to the traditional\nhumanism by its sceptical tone and its commendations of sensuous\npleasure. It is not surprising that St. Jerome should remark on ix. 7-9,\nthat the author appears to be reproducing the low ideas of some Greek\nphilosophers, though, as this Father supposes, only to refute them.\n\n    \u2018Et h\u00e6c inquit, aliquis loquatur Epicurus, et Aristippus et\n    Cyrenaici et c\u00e6ter\u00e6 pecudes Philosophorum. Ego autem, mecum\n    diligenter retractans, invenio\u2019[395] &c.\n\nFew besides Prof. Salmon would accept the view that Eccles. ix. 7-9 and\nsimilar passages are the utterances of an infidel objector (see Bishop\nEllicott\u2019s Commentary); but it is perfectly possible to hold that there\nare distinctively Epicurean doctrines in the Koheleth. The later history\nof Jewish thought may well seem to render this opinion probable. How\ndangerously fascinating Epicureanism must have been when the word\n\u2018Epicuros\u2019 became a synonym in Rabbinic Hebrew for infidel or even\natheist.[396] It is indeed no mere fancy that just as Pharisaism had\naffinities with Stoicism, so Sadduc\u00e6ism had with Epicureanism. As\nHarnack well says, \u2018No intellectual movement could withdraw itself from\nthe influences which proceeded from the victory of the Greeks over the\nEastern world.\u2019[397] Mr. Tyler,[398] however, and his ally Dean\nPlumptre, have scarcely made the best of their case, the Epicurean\naffinities which they discover in Koheleth being by no means striking.\nMuch use is made of the _De Rerum Natur\u00e2_ of Lucretius\u2014a somewhat late\nauthority! But if points of contact with Lucretius are to be hunted for,\nought we not also to mention the discrepancies between the \u2018wise man\u2019\nand the poet? If Lucr. i. 113-116 may be used to illustrate Eccles. iii.\n21, must we not equally emphasise the difference between the festive\nmirth recommended by Koheleth (ix. 7, 8 &c.) and the simple pleasures so\nbeautifully sung by Lucretius (ii. 20-33), and which remind us rather of\nthe charming naturalness of the Hebrew Song of Songs?[399] The number of\nvague analogies between Koheleth and Epicureanism might perhaps have\nbeen even increased, but I can find no passage in the former which\ndistinctly expresses any scholastic doctrine of Epicureanism. For\ninstance the doctrine of Atomism assumed for illustration by Dean\nPlumptre,[400] cannot be found there by even the keenest exegesis; the\nplurality of worlds is not even distantly alluded to, and the denial of\nthe spirit, if implied in iii, 21 (see p. 212), is only implied in the\nprimitive Hebrew sense, familiar to us from Job and the Psalter. The\nrecommendation of \u1f00\u03c4\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03be\u03af\u03b1 (to use the Epicurean term), coupled with\nsensuous pleasure (v. 18-20), requires no philosophic basis, and is\nsimply the expression of a _pococurante_ mood, only too natural in one\ndebarred from a career of fruitful activity. Lastly, there is nothing in\nthe phraseology either of the Hebrew or of the Septuagint to suggest an\nacquaintance with Epicureanism.\n\nA stronger case can be made for the influence of Stoicism. The undoubted\nOriental affinities of this system and its moral and theological spirit\nwould, as Mr. Tyler observes, naturally commend it to a Jewish writer.\nWe know that, at a somewhat later day, Stoicism exercised a strong\nfascination on some of the noblest Jewish minds. Philo,[401] the Book of\nWisdom, and the so-called Fourth Book of Maccabees, have undeniable\nallusions to it; and more or less probable vestiges of Stoicism have\nbeen found in the oldest Jewish Sibyl[402] (about B.C. 140) and in the\nTargum of Onkelos.[403] But how does the case stand with Koheleth? First\nof all, are there any traces of Stoic terminology? That terminology\nvaried no doubt within certain limits, and could not be accurately\nreproduced in Hebrew. Still even under the contorted forms of expression\nto which a Hebrew-writing Stoic or semi-Stoic might be driven we could\nhardly fail to recognise the familiar Stoic expressions, \u03b5\u1f31\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7,\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1, \u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03b1, \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, \u03c6\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, \u1f00\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u03ae. The Septuagint version ought\nto help us here. But among the twenty words almost or entirely peculiar\nto the Greek of Ecclesiastes, the only two technical philosophic terms\nare \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1 and \u03b3\u03bd\u1ff6\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2.\n\nNext, can we detect references to distinctive Stoic doctrines? Mr. Tyler\nlays great stress in his reply on the Catalogue of Times and Seasons\n(iii. 1-8), which he regards as an expansion of the Stoic \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03c2\n\u03b6\u1fc6\u03bd But the idea that there is an appointed order of things, and that\nevery action has its place in it, is much more a corollary of the\ndoctrine of Destiny than of the doctrine of Duty. The essence of the\nlatter doctrine is that men were meant to conform and ought to conform\nto the Universal Order, acquiescing in that which is inevitable, shaping\nin the best way that which is possible to be moulded. Upon this the\npractical ethics of Stoicism depend. But this is the very point which is\nabsent in Ecclesiastes. The Catalogue of Times and Seasons ends not with\nthe Stoic exhortation \u1f10\u03ba\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c7\u03ce\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd, \u2018Fulfil thy appointed part,\u2019\nbut with the despondent reflection of the Fatalist, \u2018What profit hath he\nthat worketh in that wherein he toileth?\u2019 (iii. 9.) A second argument is\nthat the idea \u2018There is no new thing under the sun\u2019 (i. 9) is a phase of\nthe Stoic doctrine of cyclical revolutions. But all that which gave form\nand colour to the Stoic doctrine is entirely absent\u2014especially, as Mr.\nTyler himself admits, the idea of \u1f10\u03ba\u03c0\u03cd\u03c1\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2. The idea, as it is found in\nEcclesiastes, has nothing Stoic or even philosophical about it. It is\nsimply an old man\u2019s observation that human actions, like natural\nphenomena, tend to repeat themselves in successive generations.[404]\n\nThat there are analogies between Stoicism and the ideas of Koheleth need\nnot be denied; Dr. Kalisch has collected some of them in his very\ninteresting philosophico-religious dialogue.[405] Prominent among these\nis the peculiar use of the terms \u2018madness\u2019 and \u2018folly.\u2019 \u2018From the\nfollowers of Zeno,\u2019 remarks Dean Plumptre,[406] \u2018he learned also to look\nupon virtue and vice in their intellectual aspects. The common\nweaknesses and follies of mankind were to him, as to them, only so many\ndifferent forms and degrees of absolute insanity (i. 17, ii. 12, vii.\n25, ix. 3).\u2019 But this division of mankind into wise men and fools is\ncommon to the Stoa with the ancient Hebrew sages who \u2018sat in the gate.\u2019\nWhen the great populariser of Stoicism says, \u2018Sapientia perfectum bonum\nest mentis human\u00e6,\u2019[407] he almost translates more than one of the\nproverbs which we have studied already. Another point of contact with\nStoicism is undoubtedly the Determinism of the book, which, as Prof.\nKleinert observes, leaves no room for freedom of the will, and fuses the\nconceptions of \u03b5\u1f31\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7 and \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1 (see especially chap. iii.). But\nsuch Determinism need not have been learned in the school of Zeno. It is\ngenuinely Semitic (did not Zeno come from the Semitic Citium?) What is\nthe religion of Islam but a grandiose system of Determinism? Indeed,\nwhere is virtual Determinism more forcibly expressed than in the Old\nTestament itself (e.g., Isa. lxiii. 17)?\n\nThose who adopt the view which I am controverting are apt to appeal to\nsomewhat late philosophic authorities. I cannot here discuss the\nparallelisms which have been found in the Meditations or Self-communings\n(\u03a4\u1f70 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd) of the great Stoic emperor. Some, for instance, consider\nthe \u1fe5\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03ce\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 which \u2018renew the world continually\u2019 (_M. A._\nvi. 15) and the \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f74 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03b9\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f45\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd (_M. A._ xi. 1) to be\nalluded to in Eccles. i. 5-9. More genuine are some at least of the\nother parallelisms, e.g. Eccles. i. 9, _M. A._ vi. 37, vii. 1, x. 27,\nxii. 26; Eccles. ii. 25, _M. A._ ii. 3 (_ad init._); Eccles. iii. 11,\n_M. A._ iv. 23 (ad init.); Eccles. vi. 9, _M. A._ iv. 26; Eccles, xi. 5,\n_M. A._ x. 26. I admit that there is a certain vague affinity between\nthe two thinkers; both are earnest, both despair of reforming society,\nboth have left but a fragmentary record of their meditations. But the\n\u2018humanest of the Roman race\u2019[408] stands out, upon the whole, far above\nthe less cultured and more severely tried Israelite. Alike in\nintellectual powers and in moral elevation the soul of the Roman is of a\ntruly imperial order. He is not, like Koheleth, a \u2018malist\u2019 (see pp.\n201-202); he boldly denies evil, and his strong faith in Providence\ncannot be disturbed by apparent irregularities in the order of things.\nIt is true that this does but make the sadness of his golden and almost\nChristian book the more depressing. But the book _is_ \u2018golden.\u2019[409]\nKoheleth and M. Aurelius alike call forth our pity and admiration, but\nin what different proportions!\n\nIf, then, there are points of agreement between Koheleth and M.\nAurelius, there must also of necessity be points of disagreement. Every\npage of their writings would, I think, supply them. Suffice it to put\nside by side the saying of Koheleth, \u2018God is in heaven, and thou upon\nearth\u2019 (v. 2), and M. Aurelius\u2019 invocation of the world as the \u2018city of\nGod\u2019 (iv. 23). The comparison suggests one of the greatest discrepancies\nbetween Koheleth and the Stoics\u2014the doctrine of God. Such faith as the\nformer still retains is faith in a transcendent and not an immanent\nDeity. The germs of a doctrine of Immanence which the older\nWisdom-literature contains (Kleinert quotes Ps. civ. 30, Job xxvi. 13),\nhave found no lodgment in the mind of our author, who is more affected\nby the legal and extreme supernaturalistic[410] point of view than he is\nperhaps aware.\n\nMr. Tyler\u2019s introduction to his _Ecclesiastes_ is a work of great\nacuteness and originality, and seeks to provide against all reasonable\nobjections; I cannot do justice to it here. One part of his theory,\nhowever, is too remarkable to be passed over (see above, pp. 240, 241).\nHe supposes that Stoic and Epicurean doctrines were deliberately set\nover against each other by the wise man who wrote our book, in order by\nthe clash of opposites to deter the reader from dangerous and\nunsatisfying investigations. The goal of the author\u2019s philosophising\nthus becomes the negation of all philosophy, and this \u2018sacrificio dell\u2019\nintelletto\u2019 he insinuatingly commends by the subtlest use of artifice.\nSuch a theory may have occurred to one or another early writer (see\nGinsburg), but seems out of harmony with the character of the author as\nrevealed in his book. He is not such a weak-kneed wrestler for truth.\nYou may fancy him sometimes a Stoic, sometimes an Epicurean; but he\nalways speaks like a man in earnest, however his opinions may change\nthrough the fluctuations of his moods. Mr. Tyler\u2019s theory confounds\nKoheleth\u2019s point of view with that of a far inferior thinker, the author\nof Ecclesiasticus (see above, p. 199).\n\nI cannot, therefore, be persuaded to explain this enigmatical book by a\nsupposed contact with Greek philosophy such as we do really find in the\nBook of Wisdom. I have no prejudice against the supposition in itself.\nIt would help me to understand the Hellenising movement at a later day\nif Stoic and (still more) Epicurean ideas had already filtered into the\nminds of the Jewish aristocracy. The denunciations in the Book of Enoch\n(xciv. 5, xcviii. 15, civ. 10) not impossibly refer to a heretical\nphilosophical literature (see p. 233); the only question is, To a native\nor to a half foreign literature? I see no sufficient reason at present\nfor adopting the latter alternative. Koheleth is really a native Hebrew\nphilosopher, the first Jew who, however awkwardly and ineffectually,\n\u2018gave his mind to seek and explore by wisdom concerning all things that\nare done under heaven\u2019 (i. 13). Very touching in this light are the\nmemoranda which he has left us. They are incomplete enough; Koheleth is\nbut the forerunner of more systematic philosophisers. His ideas are\nnothing less than scholastic; how could we expect anything different,\nhis first object being in all probability to soothe the pain of an\ninward struggle by giving it literary expression? If, however, I was\ncompelled to suggest a secondary reference to any foreign system, I\ncould most easily suppose one to the pessimistic teaching of Hegesias\nPeisithanatos, who, after Ptolemy Soter and Philadelphus had made\nAlexandria the seat of the world\u2019s commerce and the centre of Greek\nliterature and culture, was seized with the thought of the vanity of all\nthings, of the preponderance of evil, and of the impossibility of\nhappiness.[411] Koheleth\u2019s teaching would be a safeguard to any Jew who\nmight be tempted by this too popular philosopher. He admits \u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2\n\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c4\u03ae\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, but insists that, granting all drawbacks, \u2018the light is\nsweet\u2019 (xi. 7), the living are better off than the dead (ix. 4-6), and\nsensuous pleasure, used in moderation, is at least a relative good (ii.\n24); also that it is futile to inquire \u2018why the former days (of the\nearlier Ptolemies?) were better than these\u2019 (vii. 10), and, if a later\nview of his meaning may be trusted, he sought to displace the many\ndangerous books which were current by words which were at once\npleasantly written and objectively true (xii. 10, 12).\n\nKoheleth is a native Hebrew philosopher. The philosophy of an eastern\nsage is not to be tied up in the rigid formul\u00e6 of the West. Easterns may\nindeed take kindly to Western doctrines; but where they think\nindependently, they eschew system. Koheleth\u2019s seeming Stoicism is, as we\nhave seen, of primitive Hebrew affinities; his seeming Epicureanism, if\nit be not sufficiently explained as a mental reaction against the gloom\nof the times, may perhaps be connected more or less closely, not with\nthe schools of Greek philosophers, but with the banquet-halls of Egypt.\nThe Hebrew writer\u2019s invitations to enjoy life remind us of the call to\n\u2018drink and be happy,\u2019 which accompanied the grim symbolic \u2018coffin,\u2019 or\nmummy, at Egyptian feasts (probably they were funeral-feasts), according\nto Herodotus (ii. 78), and of the festal dirges translated by Goodwin\nand Stern.[412] A stanza in one of the latter may be given here. It is\nfrom the song supposed to be sung by the harper at an anniversary\nfuneral feast in honour of Neferhotep, a royal scribe, and still to be\nseen cut in the stone at Abd-el-Gurna, in the Theban necropolis. As\nEbers has remarked,[413] the song \u2018shows how a certain fresh delight in\nlife mingled with the feelings about death that were prevalent among the\nancient Egyptians, who celebrated their festivals more boisterously than\nmost other peoples.\u2019 By a poetic fiction, the dead man is supposed to be\npresent, and to listen to the song.\n\n       Make a good day, O holy father!\n       Let odours and oils stand before thy nostril.\n       Wreaths of lotus are on the arms and the bosom of thy sister,\n       Dwelling in thy heart, sitting beside thee.\n       Let song and music be before thy face,\n       And leave behind thee all evil cares!\n       Mind thee of joy, till cometh the day of pilgrimage,\n       When we draw near the land which loveth silence.\n\nWe have seen that the Wisdom of Sirach betrays a taste for Egyptian\nfestivity (p. 191). May we not suppose that Koheleth too had travelled\nto Alexandria? This view commends itself to Kleinert, and I have no\nobjection to it with due limitations. Koheleth may have envied and\nsought to copy the light-hearted gaiety of the valley of the Nile. But\nwe ought not to conceal the fact that the lines quoted above are\nfollowed by others which have no parallel in Koheleth.\n\n         Good for thee then will have been (an honest life),\n         Therefore be just and hate transgressions,\n         For he who loveth justice (will be blest).\n         (They in the shades) are sitting on the bank of the river,\n         Thy soul is among them, drinking its sacred water.\n         ... (woe to the bad one!)\n         He shall sit miserable in the heat of infernal fires.\n\nThere is a wide difference between a people who believed in a happy\nAmenti where Osiris himself dwelt and the Jew who doubted much but\nbelieved firmly in She\u00f3l. I admit then the probability that the latter\nhad travelled, and was not unaffected by the brightness of Egyptian\nsociety, but I see no reason to suppose that he knew and was influenced\nby the expressions of Egyptian songs. The resemblances adduced are to me\nas fortuitous as those between the love-poems of the Nile valley and the\nHebrew Song of Songs, or (we may add) as that striking one between\nEccles. i. 4 and some of the opening lines of the \u2018Song of the Harper,\u2019\u2014\n\n            Men pass away since the time of Ra [the sun of day]\n            And the youths come in their stead.\n            Like as Ra reappears every morning,\n            And Tum [the sun of night] sets in the horizon,\n            Men are begetting,\n            And women are conceiving.[414]\n\nI make no excuse for the length of this inquiry. If we could trace Greek\ninfluences, linguistic or philosophical, in the strange book before us,\nits date would be decided. Taking into account the circumstances of the\nwriter, we might assign it to the reign of Ptolemy IV. Philopator, when\nthe Egyptian rule began to be calamitous for Jud\u00e6a. Kleinert would place\nit rather in one of the early, fortunate reigns (_Herzog-Plitt_, xii.\n173); but he forms perhaps too favourable a view of the social picture\nin Koheleth. Hitzig, who gives a very restricted range to Greek\nphilosophical influence upon our book, and accepts none of Zirkel\u2019s\nGr\u00e6cisms, fixes the date in the first year of Ptolemy V. Epiphanes.\nGeiger, N\u00f6ldeke, Kuenen, Tyler, and Plumptre, on various grounds, think\nthis the most probable period,[415] and the view is endorsed by Zeller,\nthe historian of Greek philosophy.\n\nA Maccab\u00e6an and still more a Herodian date seem to me absolutely\nexcluded, though Zirkel and Renan have advocated the one, and Heinrich\nGr\u00e4tz (see p. 240) the other. The book is certainly pre-Maccab\u00e6an, not\nmerely because of a Talmudic anecdote,[416] but because of its want of\nreligious fervour (comp. Esther) and its cosmopolitanism. The germs of\nthe Jewish parties may be there, but only the germs. To me Hitzig\u2019s is\nthe latest possible date; but if we _must_ admit a vague and indirect\nGreek influence, should we not place the book a little earlier as\nsuggested above? But I do not see that we _must_ admit even a vague\nGreek influence. The inquiring spirit was present in the class of \u2018wise\nmen\u2019 even before the Exile, and the circumstances of the later Jews\nwere, from the Exile onwards, well fitted to exercise and develope it.\nHellenic teaching was in no way necessary to an ardent but unsystematic\nthinker like Koheleth. _The date proposed by Ewald and Delitzsch is on\nthis and other grounds probable, and on linguistic grounds not\nimpossible._\n\nThere are two recent treatises on the philosophical affinities of\nKoheleth which may be mentioned here, though only the first is known to\nme. Paul Kleinert, who has long made a special study of Koheleth (see\nhis _Prediger Salomo_, 1864), contributed to the _Theolog. Studien und\nKritiken_, 1883, p. 761, &c., a striking paper called \u2018Sind im Buche\nKoheleth ausserhebr\u00e4ische Einfl\u00fcsse anzuerkennen,\u2019 and August Palm in\n1885 published a _programme_ entitled \u2018_Qohelet und die\nnacharistotelische Philosophie_\u2019 (Mannheim).\n\nFootnote 394:\n\n  He also published _Der Prediger Salomon; ein Lesebuch f\u00fcr den jungen\n  Weltb\u00fcrger; \u00fcbersetzt und erkl\u00e4rt_ (1792). The very title bears the\n  mark of the century.\n\nFootnote 395:\n\n  _Opera_, ii. (1699), 765 (_Comm. in Ecclesiasten_). Comp. the use made\n  of Koheleth\u2019s phraseology by the author of Wisdom (ii. 6-10).\n\nFootnote 396:\n\n  See _Sanhedrin_, x. 1:\u2014\u05d0\u05dc\u05d5 \u05e9\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05dc\u05d4\u05dd \u05d7\u05dc\u05e7 \u05dc\u05e2\u05d5\u05dc\u05dd \u05d4\u05d1\u05d0 \u05d4\u05d0\u05d5\u05de\u05e8 \u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05ea\u05d7\u05d9\u05ea \u05d4\u05de\u05ea\u05d9\u05dd\n  \u05de\u05df \u05d4\u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05d5\u05d0\u05d9\u05df \u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05de\u05df \u05e9\u05de\u05d9\u05dd \u05d5\u05d0\u05e4\u05d9\u05e7\u05d5\u05e8\u05d5\u05dd.\u2014Comp. _Aboth_, ii. 14 (10\n  Taylor), and _Genesis Rabbah_, 19 (\u2018the serpent was Epicuros\u2019).\n\nFootnote 397:\n\n  _Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte_, p. 46.\n\nFootnote 398:\n\n  See his _Ecclesiastes, a Contribution to its Interpretation_, &c.\n  (1874). The main results of this work were accepted by Prof.\n  Siegfried, who reviewed it in the _Zeitschrift f. wissenschaftl.\n  Theologie_, 1875, pp. 284-291.\n\nFootnote 399:\n\n  This discrepancy I had noted down before observing that Dean Plumptre\n  had quoted the very same passage of Lucretius as a parallel to Eccles.\n  ii. 24. For my own view of Koheleth\u2019s recommendations, see p. 253.\n  Lucretius seems to me, in this strain, to soar higher than Koheleth;\n  Omar Khayy\u00e2m to fall below him.\n\nFootnote 400:\n\n  _Ecclesiastes_, p. 47.\n\nFootnote 401:\n\n  Philo alludes, e.g., to the Stoic doctrine of revolutions (which some\n  have found in Koheleth) and remarks that the Stoics think of God as of\n  a boy who builds up sandhills, and then throws them down again.\n\nFootnote 402:\n\n  Hilgenfeld, _J\u00fcdische Apokalyptik_, p. 51, &c.\n\nFootnote 403:\n\n  See Deut. viii. 18, and especially Gen. ii. 7 (Neub\u00fcrger in Gr\u00e4tz\u2019s\n  _Monatsschrift_, 1873, p. 566).\n\nFootnote 404:\n\n  For this criticism upon Mr. Tyler\u2019s view of iii. 1-8, I am indebted to\n  Dr. Hatch.\n\nFootnote 405:\n\n  _Path and Goal_, p. 116. But see p. 92.\n\nFootnote 406:\n\n  _Ecclesiastes_, p. 45.\n\nFootnote 407:\n\n   Seneca, Ep. 89, quoted by Bruch, _Weisheitslehre der Hebr\u00e4er_, p.\n  253, with reference to the teaching of Proverbs.\n\nFootnote 408:\n\n  R. H. Stoddard, _The Morals of M. Aurelius_.\n\nFootnote 409:\n\n  Comp. Niebuhr, _Lectures on the History of Rome_, iii. 247.\n\nFootnote 410:\n\n  The phrase is objectionably modern, but in this connection could not\n  be avoided.\n\nFootnote 411:\n\n  Zeller, _Philosophie der Griechen_, ii. 1, p. 278.\n\nFootnote 412:\n\n  _Records of the Past_, iv. 115-118; vi. 127-130.\n\nFootnote 413:\n\n  \u2018Cairo, the Old in the New,\u2019 _Contemp. Rev._, xliii. 852.\n\nFootnote 414:\n\n  _Records of the Past_, vi. 127.\n\nFootnote 415:\n\n  Geiger, _Urschrift_, pp. 60, 61; N\u00f6ldeke, _Die alttestamentliche\n  Literatur._, p. 175; Kuenen, _Hist.-krit. Onderzoek._, iii. 188.\n  _Theologisch. Tijdschrift_, 1883, p. 143.\n\nFootnote 416:\n\n  See reference, p. 280.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER XII.\n                     TEXTUAL PROBLEMS OF KOHELETH.\n\n\n                                   I.\n\n\nAccording to Delitzsch, the Song of Solomon is the most difficult book\nin the Old Testament. If so, Ecclesiastes comes next in order. None of\nthe attempts to discover a logical plan having been successful, Gustav\nBickell\u2019s new hypothesis (1884) deserves a respectful hearing, since it\nendeavours to solve the enigma in a most original way, connecting it\nwith the problem of the text. This critic starts from the observation\nthat continuous passages of some extent are suddenly closed by an abrupt\ntransition, and that such passages are pretty equal in length. His\nexplanation of this is a purely mechanical one. The troubles of the\ncommentators have arisen principally from an accident which happened to\na standard MS., called by Bickell, \u2018die Unfallshandschrift\u2019 (the\nAccident-manuscript). This MS. seems to have consisted of 21 or 22\nleaves, with an average of 518 to 535 letters to a leaf. To speak more\nprecisely, it was composed of fasciculi of four double leaves each; the\nbook began on the sixth leaf of the first fasciculus, and ended on the\nsecond, or more probably on the third leaf of the fourth. Through a\nloosening of the two middle fasciculi, a dislocation took place, and an\nalmost entirely new order arose, though with one exception the leaves\nwhich had been placed in pairs remained together. But the story of the\nfortunes of Ecclesiastes has not yet been told. Three hands, besides the\noriginal writer, have worked on this ill-fated book. One of these is\nconsidered to have been a downright \u2018enemy\u2019 who tampered with the text\nbefore the dislocation had taken place. From him proceed \u2018the protests\nagainst Koheleth\u2019s principles on the obedience due to the king in viii.\n1, 5_a_ as well as the offensive expressions in xi. 5, xii. 4, 5, by\nwhich he sought to make the book ridiculous and contemptible.\u2019\nSubsequently to him, and after the leaves had been thrown into\nconfusion, another writer made \u2018well-meaning additions,\u2019 and so brought\nthe book into nearly its present form; among these additions was the\nEpilogue. His aim was \u2018to brighten Koheleth\u2019s gloomy view of the world,\npartly by emphasising the doctrine of a present retribution, but still\nmore by pointing to a future judgment in which inequalities should be\nrectified.\u2019 The third hand is that of the so-called pseudo-Solomonic\ninterpolator. He must have gone to work after the Epilogist, for the\nlatter simply knows Koheleth as a wise man skilled in proverbial\ncomposition. Bickell also claims to make transpositions on a small\nscale, and offers many emendations sometimes based on the Septuagint.\n\u2018Habent sua fata libelli.\u2019\n\nI have said that Bickell\u2019s explanation of the want of order in\nEcclesiastes is a purely mechanical one. It is not on that account to be\nrejected. A German reviewer[417] has mentioned a case within his own\nexperience in which the double leaves of one of the fasciculi of an\nOriental MS. had been disarranged in the binding, a circumstance which\nhad led to various additions and alterations. It may indeed be urged as\nan objection that the Septuagint text differs in no very material\nrespect from the Massoretic. But a work like Ecclesiastes had at first\nin all probability but a very slight circulation, so that an accident to\na single MS. would naturally involve unusually serious consequences.\nStill from the possibility to the actuality of the \u2018accident\u2019 is a long\nstep. Apart from other difficulties in the theory, the number and\narbitrariness of the transpositions, additions, and alterations are\nreason enough to make one hesitate to accept it; and when we pass from\nthe very plausible arrangement of the contents (Bickell, pp. 53, 54) to\nthe translation of the text, it is often only possible to make them\ntally by a violent and imaginative exegesis.\n\nAmong the transpositions (to which I have no theoretic objection[418])\nare the following:\n\n                         v. 9-16  placed after ii. 11,\n                      viii. 9-14      \u201c    \u201d  iii. 8,\n                        vi. 8-12      \u201c    \u201d    x. 1,\n                        iv. 9-16      \u201c    \u201d  vii. 20,\n                         x. 16-xi. 6  \u201c    \u201d    v. 8,\n                        xi. 6         \u201c    \u201d   xi. 3.\n\nBickell\u2019s theory that the passages which assert or suggest Solomonic\nauthorship in i. 1, 12, 16, ii. 7, 8, 9, [12], are due to an\ninterpolator,[419] is plausible; it throws a new light on the statement\nof the Epilogue (xii. 9) that \u2018Koheleth was a wise man,\u2019 and a motive\nfor the interpolation can be readily imagined\u2014the desire to obtain\necclesiastical sanction for the book. It is, however, incapable of\nproof.\n\n\n                                  II.\n\n\nThere are in fact few books on Ecclesiastes so stimulating as Bickell\u2019s,\nthough it needs to be read with discrimination[420] (comp. p. 241).\nPutting aside the author\u2019s peculiar theory, it must be owned that he has\nenabled us to realise the inherent difficulties of the text as it\nstands, and contributed some very happy corrections. All critics will\nadmit the need of such emendations. The text of Koheleth is even more\nfaulty than that of Job, Psalms, or Proverbs. We cannot wonder at this.\nMeditations often so fragmentary on such a difficult subject were\nforedoomed to suffer greatly at the hands of copyists. A minute study of\nthe various readings and of the corrections which have been proposed\nwould lead us too far, interesting as it would be (compare Renan\u2019s\nremarks, _L\u2019Eccl\u00e9siaste_, p. 53). Cappellus (Louis Cappel) has done most\nfor the text among the earlier critics (see his _Critica Sacra_, Par.\n1650); Gr\u00e4tz has also made useful suggestions based upon the versions.\nRenan, and (as we have seen) Bickell, have corrected the text on a\nlarger scale; occasional emendations of great value are due to Hitzig,\nDelitzsch, Klostermann, and Krochmal. The notes in the expected new\nedition of Eyre and Spottiswoode\u2019s _Variorum Bible_ will indicate the\nmost important various readings and corrections; to these I would refer\nthe reader. The corrections of Bickell are those least known to most\nstudents. In considering them, we must distinguish between those which\narise out of his peculiar critical theory and those which are simply the\noutcome of his singular and brilliant insight. Of the latter, I will\nhere only mention two. One occurs in iii. 11, where for \u05d0\u05b6\u05ea\u05be\u05d4\u05b8\u05e2\u05b9\u05dc\u05b8\u05dd (or\n\u05d0\u05b6\u05ea\u05be\u05d4\u05b8\u05e2\u05d5\u05b9\u05dc\u05b8\u05dd the Oriental or Babylonian reading), he gives (see below,\np. 299) \u05dc\u05b0\u05d1\u05b7\u05e7\u05b5\u05bc\u05e9\u05c1 \u05d0\u05b6\u05ea\u05be\u05db\u05b8\u05bc\u05dc\u05be\u05d4\u05b6\u05e2\u05b8\u05dc\u05bb\u05dd, remarking that \u05db\u05b8\u05bc\u05dc\u05be survived in the\ntext translated in the Septuagint. The fact is, however, that though\nCod. Vat. does read \u03c3\u03cd\u03bc\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b1\u1f30\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b1, Cod. Alex., Cod. Sin., and the\nComplutensian ed. all read \u03c3\u1f7a\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b1\u1f30\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b1, and as the verse begins \u03a4\u1f70\n\u03c3\u03cd\u03bc\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 (v. l. \u03a3\u03cd\u03bc\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1) it is probable enough that \u03c3\u03cd\u03bc\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 was\nwritten the second time in Cod. Vat. by mistake. At any rate, copyists\nboth of the Greek and of the Hebrew were sometimes inclined to insert or\nomit \u2018all\u2019 at haphazard; thus, in iv. 2, Cod. Vat. inserts \u2018all,\u2019 which\nis omitted in Cod. Alex. and Cod. Sin.\n\nAnother, adopted above at p. 220, is in viii. 10. Read \u05d5\u05b0\u05bc\u05d1\u05b8\u05de\u05e7\u05d5\u05b9\u05dd\n\u05e7\u05b8\u05d3\u05d5\u05b9\u05e9\u05c1 \u05d5\u05d9\u05d4\u05b7\u05dc\u05b0\u05bc\u05db\u05d5\u05bc (or \u05e0\u05b4\u05e7\u05b0\u05d1\u05b8\u05bc\u05d3\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd) \u05db\u05b0\u05bc\u05d1\u05b5\u05d3\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd. \u05d5\u05d1\u05d0\u05d5 is a fragment of the\ncorrect reading \u05d5\u05d1\u05de\u05e7\u05d5\u05dd which stood side by side with the alternative\nreading \u05d5\u05de\u05de\u05e7\u05d5\u05dd.\n\nOn the question of interpolations, enough has been said already.\nProbably Cornill\u2019s book on Ezekiel will dispose many critics to look\nmore favourably on attempts to purify Biblical texts from glosses and\nother interpolations. Gr\u00e4tz\u2019s conclusion certainly cannot be maintained,\n\u2018S\u00e4mmtliche Sentenzen geh\u00f6ren streng zu ihrer nachbarlichen\nGedankengruppe, f\u00fchren den Gedanken weiter oder spitzen ihn zu.\u2019\n\nI have still to speak of the Septuagint version. Its importance for\ntextual criticism is great; indeed, we may say with Klostermann that the\nMassoretic text and this translation are virtually two copies of one and\nthe same archetype. It is distinguished from the Septuagint versions of\nthe Books of Job, Proverbs, and even Psalms by its fidelity. Those\nversions approximate more or less closely to the elegant manner of\nSymmachus, but the Greek style of the Septuagint Koheleth is most\npeculiar, admitting such words as \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u1fe4\u1fe5\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, \u1f14\u03b3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f10\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c2,\n\u1f10\u03bd\u03c4\u03c1\u03cd\u03c6\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1, \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03bc\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03ac, \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2, \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1, \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2,\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 (in special sense, ii. 17) \u1f10\u03be\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03ac\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd (not less than eleven\ntimes), and such abnormal phrases as \u1f51\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f25\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd (i. 3 and often), and\nespecially \u03c3\u1f7a\u03bd, as an equivalent of \u05d0\u05ea when distinctive of the\naccusative (ii. 17, iii. 10, iv. 3, vii. 15, and nine other passages;\nelsewhere \u03c3\u03cd\u03bc\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 or the like). The last-named peculiarity reminds us\nstrongly of Aquila[421] (comp. [God created] \u03c3\u1f7a\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u1f7a\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd\n\u03b3\u03b7\u03bd, Aquila\u2019s rendering of Gen. i. 1); but it must be also mentioned\nthat in more than half the passages in which \u05d0\u05ea of the accusative occurs\nin the original, this characteristic rendering of Aquila is not found.\nThis fact militates against the theory of Gr\u00e4tz,[422] that the\nSeptuagint version of Ecclesiastes is really the second improved edition\nof Aquila, and against that of Salzberger,[423] who argues that the\nfragments given as from Aquila in Origen\u2019s Hexapla are not really\nAquila\u2019s at all, the one and only true edition of Aquila\u2019s Ecclesiastes\nbeing that now extant in the Septuagint (comp. the case of Theodotion\u2019s\nDaniel). It seems clear that the Septuagint version, as it stands, is a\ncomposite one, but it is possible, as Montfaucon long ago pointed\nout,[424] that an early version once existed, independent of Aquila. The\nquestion of the origin of this version is of some critical importance,\nfor if the work of Aquila, the Septuagint Ecclesiastes cannot be earlier\nthan 130 A.D. Supposing this to be the first Greek version of the book,\nwe obtain an argument in favour of the Herodian date of Ecclesiastes\nadvocated by Gr\u00e4tz. Upon the whole, however, there seems no sufficient\nreason for doubting that there was a Septuagint version of the book\ndistinct from Aquila\u2019s, as indeed Origen\u2019s Hexapla and St. Jerome in the\npreface to his commentary attest, and that this version in its original\nform goes back, like the versions of Job and Proverbs, to one of the\nlast centuries before Christ.\n\nOn the Peshitto version of Koheleth and Ruth there is a monograph by G.\nJanichs, _Animadversiones critic\u00e6_ &c. (Breslau, 1871), with which\ncompare N\u00f6ldeke\u2019s review, _Lit. Centralblatt_, 1871, No. 49. For the\ntext of the _Gr\u00e6cus Venetus_, see Gebhardt\u2019s edition (Leipz. 1874).\nGinsburg\u2019s well-known work (1861) contains sections on the versions.\n\nFootnote 417:\n\n  In the _Theologisches Literaturblatt_, Sept. 19, 1884.\n\nFootnote 418:\n\n  Van der Palm first conjectured that passages had been misplaced, and\n  Gr\u00e4tz has adopted the idea (_Koh\u00e9let_, pp. 40-43).\n\nFootnote 419:\n\n  Comp. Rashbam\u2019s interpolation theory (Ginsburg, _Coheleth_, p. 42).\n\nFootnote 420:\n\n  See Budde\u2019s review of Bickell\u2019s work in the _Theologische\n  Literaturzeitung_, Feb. 7, 1885.\n\nFootnote 421:\n\n  On Aquila and his theory of interpretation, comp. Renan,\n  _L\u2019Eccl\u00e9siaste_, p. 54; and on his artificial vocabulary, Field\u2019s\n  remarks, _Hexapla_, Prolegomena, p. xxii.\n\nFootnote 422:\n\n  _Koh\u00e9let_, Anhang. Before Gr\u00e4tz, Frankel was already inclined to think\n  that the Septuagint version might be really Aquila\u2019s (_Vorstudien_, p.\n  238, note _w_). So more positively Freudenthal. Renan inclines to\n  agree with Gr\u00e4tz.\n\nFootnote 423:\n\n  Gr\u00e4tz\u2019s _Monatsschrift_, 1873, pp. 168-174.\n\nFootnote 424:\n\n  _Hexapla_ (1713), i., Pr\u00e6liminaria, p. 42. Montfaucon indicates vii.\n  23_a_ as manifestly made up of a genuine version, and one interpolated\n  from Aquila. Comp. Clericus\u2019 note on Eccles iv. 1.\n\n\n\n\n                             CHAPTER XIII.\n           THE CANONICITY OF ECCLESIASTES AND ECCLESIASTICUS.\n\n\n                                   I.\n\n\nIt is not surprising that these strange Meditations should have had\ngreat difficulty in penetrating into the Canon. There is sufficient\nevidence (see the works of Plumptre and Wright)[425] that the so-called\nWisdom of Solomon is in part a deliberate contradiction of sentiments\nexpressed in our book. The most striking instance of this antagonism is\nin Wisd. ii. 6-10 (cf. Eccles. ix. 7-9), where the words of Koheleth are\nactually put into the mouth of the ungodly libertines of Alexandria. The\ndate of Wisdom is disputed, but cannot be earlier than the reign of\nPtolemy VII. Physcon (B.C. 145-117). The attitude of the writer towards\nKoheleth may perhaps be compared with that of the Palestinian teachers\nwho relegated the book among the apocrypha on this among other grounds,\nthat it contained heretical statements, e.g. \u2018Rejoice, O young man, in\nthy youth\u2019 &c. (xi. 9). Nothing is more certain than that the Book of\nKoheleth was an Antilegomenon in Palestine in the first century before\nChrist. And yet it certainly had its friends and supporters both then\nand later. Simeon ben Shetach and his brother-in-law, King Alexander\nJann\u00e6us (B.C. 105-79), were as familiar with Koheleth as the young men\nof Alexandria, and Simeon, according to the Talmudic story[426]\n(_Bereshith Rabba_, c. 91), quoted Eccles. vii. 12_a_ with a prefix\n(\u05d3\u05db\u05ea\u05d9\u05d1 \u2018as it is written\u2019) proper to a Biblical quotation. From another\nTalmudic narrative (_Baba bathra_, 4_a_) it would seem that Koheleth was\ncited in the time of Herod the Great as of equal authority with the\nPentateuch, and from a third (_Shabbath_, 30_b_) that St. Paul\u2019s\nteacher, Gamaliel, permitted quotations from our book equally with those\nfrom canonical Scriptures. Like the Song of Songs, however, it called\nforth a lively opposition from severe judges. The schools of Hillel and\nShammai were divided on the merits of these books. At first the\nShammaites, who were adverse to them, carried a majority of the votes of\nthe Jewish doctors. But when, after the destruction of Jerusalem, Jewish\nlearning reorganised itself at Jamnia (4-\u00bd leagues south of Jaffa), the\nopposite view (viz. that the Song and Koheleth \u2018defile the hands\u2019\u2014i.e.\nare holy Scriptures) was again brought forward in a synod held about\nA.D. 90, and finally sanctioned in a second synod held A.D. 118. The\narguments urged on both sides were such as belong to an uncritical age.\nNo attempt was made to penetrate into the spirit and object of Koheleth,\nbut test passages were singled out. The heretically sounding words in\nxi. 9_a_ were at first held by some to be decisive against the claim of\ncanonicity, but\u2014we are told\u2014when the \u2018wise men\u2019 took the close of the\nverse into consideration (\u2018but know that for all this God will bring\nthee into the judgment\u2019), they exclaimed \u05d9\u05e4\u05d4 \u05d0\u05de\u05e8 \u05e9\u05dc\u05de\u05d4, \u2018Solomon has\nspoken appropriately.\u2019[427]\n\nThis first synod or sanhedrin of Jamnia has played an important part in\nrecent arguments. According to Krochmal, Gr\u00e4tz, and Renan, one object of\nthe Jewish doctors was to decide whether the Song and Koheleth ought to\nbe admitted into the Canon. It seems, however, to have been\nsatisfactorily shown[428] that their uncertainty was not as to whether\nthese books ought to be admitted, but whether they had been rightly\nadmitted. It is true that there was, even as late as A.D. 90, a chance\nfor any struggling book (e.g. Sirach) to find its way into the Canon.\nBut in the case of the Song and Koheleth a preliminary canonisation had\ntaken place; it only remained to set at rest all lingering doubts in the\nminds of those who disputed the earlier decision. Another matter was\nalso considered, according to Krochmal, at the synod of A.D. 90, viz.\nhow to indicate that with the admission of Ecclesiastes the Canon of the\nHagiographa was closed. I have already referred to this scholar\u2019s view\nof the Epilogue (p. 232 &c.), and need only add that, if we may trust\nthe statement of the Talmud, the canonicity of Koheleth was finally\ncarried in deference to an argument which presupposes that xii. 13, 14\nwas already an integral part of Koheleth. The Talmudic passage is well\nknown; it runs thus\u2014\n\n\u2018The wise men\u2019 [i.e. the school of Shammai] \u2018sought to \u201chide\u201d the Book\nof Koheleth because of its contradictory sayings. And why did they not\n\u201chide\u201d it? Because the beginning and the close of it consist of words of\nT\u014dra\u2019 [i.e. are in harmony with revealed truth][429]. By the \u2018beginning\u2019\nthe Jewish doctors meant Koheleth\u2019s assertion that \u2018all a man\u2019s toil\nwhich he toileth _under the sun_\u2019 (i.e. all earthly, unspiritual toil)\nis unprofitable (i. 3), and by the \u2018close\u2019 the emphatic injunction and\ndogmatic declaration of the epilogist in xii. 13, 14. The Talmudic\nstatement agrees, as is well known, with the note of St. Jerome on these\nverses. \u2018Aiunt Hebr\u00e6i quum inter c\u00e6tera scripta Salomonis qu\u00e6 antiquata\nsunt, nec in memori\u00e2 duraverunt, et hic liber obliterandus videretur, eo\nqu\u00f2d vanas Dei assereret creaturas, et totum putaret esse pro nihilo, et\ncibum, et potum, et delitias transeuntes pr\u00e6ferret omnibus; ex hoc uno\ncapitulo meruisse auctoritatem, ut in divinorum voluminum numero\nponeretur, qu\u00f2d totam disputationem suam, et omnem catalogum h\u00e2c quasi\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03ce\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 coarctaverit, et dixerit finem sermonum auditu esse\npromtissimum, nec aliquid in se habere difficile: ut scilicet Deum\ntimeamus, et ejus pr\u00e6cepta faciamus\u2019 (_Opera_, ii. 787).\n\nThe canonicity of Ecclesiastes was rarely disputed in the ancient\nChurch. The fifth \u0153cumenical council at Constantinople pronounced\ndecisively in its favour. On the Christian heretics in the fourth\ncentury who rejected it, see Ginsburg, _Coheleth_, p. 103.\n\nLet me refer again, in conclusion, to the story in which that remarkable\nman\u2014\u2018the restorer of the Law\u2019\u2014Simeon ben Shetach plays a chief part. It\nnot only shows that Koheleth was a religious authority at the end of the\nsecond or beginning of the first century B.C., but implies that at this\nperiod the book was already comparatively old, and, one may fairly say,\npre-Maccab\u00e6an. I presume too that the addition of the Epilogue (see pp.\n234-5) with the all-important 13th and 14th verses had been made before\nSimeon\u2019s time.\n\n\n                                  II.\n\n\nIt was remarked above that as late as A.D. 90 there was a chance for any\nstruggling book to gain admission into the Canon. Now for at least 180\nyears the Wisdom of Ben Sira had been struggling for recognition as\ncanonical. In spite of the fact that it did not claim the authorship of\nany ancient sage, and that, like Koheleth, it contained some\nquestionable passages, it was certainly in high favour both in\nAlexandria and in Palestine. As Delitzsch points out, \u2018the oldest\nPalestinian authorities (Simeon ben Shetach, the brother of Queen\nSalome, about B.C. 90, seems to be the earliest) quote it as canonical,\nand the censures of Babylonian teachers only refer to the Aramaic\nTargum, not to the original work. The latter was driven out of the field\nby the Aramaic version, which, though very much interpolated, was more\naccessible to the people.\u2019[430] Simeon ben Shetach was counted among the\nJewish \u2018fathers,\u2019 and a saying of his is given in _Pirke Aboth_, i. 10.\nIt is remarkable that the very same passage of _Bereshith Rabba_ (c. 91)\nwhich contains this wise man\u2019s quotations from Koheleth (see above) also\ncontains one from Sirach introduced with the formula \u05d1\u05e1\u05e4\u05e8\u05d0 \u05d3\u05d1\u05df \u05e1\u05d9\u05e8\u05d0\n\u05db\u05ea\u05d9\u05d1, \u2018in the book of Ben Sira it is written.\u2019 The quotation is, \u2018Exalt\nher, and she shall set thee between princes\u2019\u2014apparently a genuine saying\nof Ben Sira (Sirach), though not found in our Ecclesiasticus. The first\nword (\u2018Exalt her\u2019) comes, it is true, from Prov. iv. 8, but, as Dr.\nWright remarks,[431] Ben Sira \u2018was fond of tacking on new endings to old\nproverbs.\u2019 At a much later period, a quotation from Ben Sira (Sir. vii.\n10?) is made by Rab (about 165-247 A.D.) introduced with the formula\n\u05de\u05e9\u05d5\u05dd \u05e9\u05e0\u05d0\u05de\u05e8, \u2018because it is said,\u2019 _Erubin_, c. 65_a_. Strack indeed\nsupposes that Rab meant to quote from canonical Scripture, but by a slip\nquoted from Ben Sira instead; but this is too bold a conjecture. Lastly,\nRabba (about 270-330 A.D.) quotes a saying of our book (Sir. xiii. 15;\nxxvii. 9) as \u2018repeated a third time in the Kethubhim (the\nHagiographa)\u2019\u2014\u05de\u05e9\u05d5\u05dc\u05e9 \u05d1\u05db\u05ea\u05d5\u05d1\u05d9\u05dd, _Baba Kamma_, c. 92_b_.\n\nIt is quite true that, according to the Talmudic passage referred to on\np. 196, the Book of Ben Sira stands on the border-line between the\ncanonical and the non-canonical literature: the words are, \u2018The Books of\nBen Sira, and all books which were written thenceforward, do not defile\nthe hands.\u2019 But taking this in connection with the vehement declaration\nof Rabbi Akiba that the man who reads Ben Sira and other \u2018extraneous\u2019\nbooks has no portion in the world to come,[432] we may safely assume\nthat the Book of Ben Sira had a position of exceptional authority with\nnot a few Jewish readers. It is equally certain, as the above quotations\nshow, that even down to the beginning of the fourth century A.D. sayings\nof Sirach were invested with the authority of Scripture. Whatever, then,\nmay have been the theory (and no one pretends that the Synods of Jamnia\nplaced Sirach on a level with Koheleth), the practice of some Jewish\nteachers was to treat Sirach as virtually canonical, which reminds us of\nthe similar practice of some Christian Fathers. St. Augustine says (but\nhe retracted it afterwards) of the two books of Wisdom, \u2018qui quoniam in\nauctoritatem recipi meruerunt, inter propheticos numerandi sunt\u2019 (_De\ndoctr. Christian\u00e2_, ii. 8), and both Origen and Cyprian quote Sirach as\nsacred scripture. Probably, as Fritzsche remarks, Sirach first became\nknown to Christian teachers at Alexandria at the end of the second\ncentury.\n\nFootnote 425:\n\n  Plumptre, _Ecclesiastes_, pp. 71-74; Wright, _Koheleth_, pp. 67-70. It\n  is plainly impossible in the light of the history of dogma to place\n  Wisdom before Ecclesiastes. Yet Hitzig has done this. Nachtigal took a\n  sounder view in 1799 when he published a book on Wisdom regarded _als\n  Gegenst\u00fcck des Koheleth_. It forms vol. ii. of a singular work called\n  _Die Versammlung der Weisen_, of which Koheleth forms vol. i.\n\nFootnote 426:\n\n  See Schiffer, _Das Buch Kohelet nach der Auffassung der Weisen_, part\n  i., pp. 100-102.\n\nFootnote 427:\n\n  _Midrasch Koheleth_, \u00a7 1, 3; comp. _Pesikta of R. Kahana_, \u00a7 8\n  (Schiffer, pp. 6, 7).\n\nFootnote 428:\n\n  By Delitzsch; see Wright\u2019s _Koheleth_, p. 471, and comp. Strack, art.\n  \u2018Kanon des A. T.\u2019 in _Herzog-Plitt_, vol. vii.\n\nFootnote 429:\n\n  I quote the characteristic closing words, \u05ea\u05d7\u05d9\u05dc\u05ea\u05d5 \u05d3\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9 \u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 \u05d5\u05e1\u05d5\u05e4\u05d5 \u05d3\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\n  \u05ea\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 (_Shabbath_, c. 30b).\n\nFootnote 430:\n\n  _Gesch. der j\u00fcdischen Poesie_, p. 20.\n\nFootnote 431:\n\n  _Koheleth_, p. 46.\n\nFootnote 432:\n\n  See the passage from _Sanhedrin_ (Jer. Talm.), x. 28_a_, quoted at\n  length in Wright\u2019s _Koheleth_, pp. 467-468.\n\n\n\n\n                          AIDS TO THE STUDENT\n\n\nThe literature upon Koheleth is unusually large. Some of the most\nimportant books and articles have been referred to already, and the\nstudent will naturally have at hand Dr. Wright\u2019s list in _The Book of\nKoheleth_ (1883), Introd., pp. xiv.-xvii. It may suffice to add among\nthe less known books, J. G. Herder, _Briefe das Studium der Theologie\nbetreffend_, erster Theil (xi.), Werke, ed. Suphan, Bd. x.; Theodore\nPreston, _Ecclesiastes, Hebrew Text and a Latin Version, with original\nnotes, and a translation of the Comm. of Mendelssohn_ (1845); E. B\u00f6hl,\n_Dissertationes de aramaismis libri Koheleth_ (Erlangen, 1860); Bernh.\nSch\u00e4fer, _Neue Untersuchungen \u00fcber das Buch Koheleth_ (Freiburg in\nBreisgau, 1870); J. S. Bloch, _Ursprung and Entstehungszeit des Buches\nKohelet_ (Bamberg, 1872); _Studien zur Gesch. der Sammlung der althebr.\nLiteratur_ (Breslau, 1876); C. Taylor, _The Dirge of Coheleth in Eccl._\nxii., _discussed and literally translated_ (1874); J. J. S. Perowne,\narticles on Ecclesiastes in _Expositor_, begun 1879; M. M. Kalisch,\n_Path and Goal_ (contains translation of our book and much illustrative\nmatter), 1880; A. Kuenen, _Religion of Israel_ (1875), iii. 153 &c.,\nalso _Onderzoek_ (1873), vol. iii., and article in _Theologisch\nTijdschrift_, 1883, p. 113, &c.; S. Schiffer, _Das Buch Kohelet nach der\nAuffassung der Weisen des Talmud und Midrasch und der j\u00fcd. Erkl\u00e4rer des\nMittelalters_, Theil i. (Leipz. 1885); Engelhardt, \u2018Ueber den Epilog des\nKoheleth\u2019 in _Studien und Kritiken_, 1875; Klostermann, article on\nWright\u2019s _Koheleth_, in same periodical, 1885. See also Pusey\u2019s Daniel\nthe Prophet, ed. 2, pp. 327-8, and the introduction to Prof. Salmon\u2019s\ncommentary in Ellicott. [Prof A. Palm\u2019s bibliographical monograph, _Die\nQohelet-Literatur, ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Exegese des Alten\nTestaments_, 1886, appeared too late to be of use.]\n\n\n\n\n                                APPENDIX\n   IN WHICH VARIOUS POINTS IN THE BOOK ARE ILLUSTRATED OR MORE FULLY\n                                TREATED.\n\n\n         1. Pfleiderer on St. Paul (p. 3).\n         2. The word Kenotic; Phil. ii. 7 (p. 7).\n         3. Kleinert on Job vi. 25 (p. 21).\n         4. On Job xix. 25-27 (pp. 33-35).\n         5. Job\u2019s repudiation of sins (p. 39).\n         6. On Job xxxviii. 31, 32 (p. 52).\n         7. Source of story of Job (pp. 60-63).\n         8. Corrected text of Deut. xxxii. 8, 9 (p. 81).\n         9. The style of Elihu (p. 92).\n         10. The Aramaisms and Arabisms of Job (p. 99).\n         11. Herder on Job (pp. 106-111).\n         12. Septuagint of Job (pp. 113, 114).\n         13. Har\u016bn ar-Rashid and Solomon (p. 131).\n         14. On Prov. xxvii. 6 (p. 148).\n         15. Eternity of Kor\u00e1n (p. 192).\n         16. Text of Proverbs (p. 173).\n         17. Religious value of Proverbs (p. 176, 177).\n         18. Aids to the Student (p. 178).\n         19. Date of Jesus son of Sirach (p. 180).\n         20. On Sirach xxi. 27 (p. 189).\n         21. Sirach\u2019s Hymn of Praise (p. 193).\n         22. Ancient versions of Sirach (p. 195).\n         23. Aids to the Student (p. 198).\n         24. On the Title Koheleth (p. 207).\n         25. On Eccles. iii. 11 (p. 210).\n         26. On Eccles. vii. 28 (p. 219).\n         27. On Eccles. xi. 9-xii. 7 (pp. 223-227).\n         28. On Eccles. xii, 9 &c. (p. 232).\n         29. Gr\u00e4tz on Koheleth\u2019s opposition to asceticism (p. 244).\n         30. Herder on the alternate voices in Koheleth (p. 245).\n\n\n1. _Page 3._\u2014Pfleiderer, in the spirit of Lagarde, accounts for the\nPauline view of the atonement by the \u2018stereotyped legal Jewish\u2019 doctrine\nof the atoning merit of the death of holy men (_Hibbert Lectures_, pp.\n60-62). But was not this idea familiar and in some sense presumably real\nto Jesus? And why speak of a \u2018stereotyped\u2019 formula? Examples of a\nself-devotion designed to \u2018merit\u2019 good for the community, or even for an\nindividual, abound in Judaism.\n\n\n2. _Page 7, note 2._\u2014The word Kenotic is conveniently descriptive of a\ntheory, and does not bind one who uses it to any particular expositon of\nthe difficult Greek of Phil. ii. 7. I need not decide, therefore,\nwhether we should render \u1f10\u03bd \u03bc\u03bf\u03c1\u03c6\u1fc3 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u05d1\u05d3\u05de\u05d5\u05ea \u05d7\u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd with Delitzsch, or\n\u05d1\u05d3\u05de\u05d5\u05ea \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd with Salkinson. To the names of eminent exegetes mentioned\non page 7, add that of Godet.\n\n\n3. _Page 21_ (on Job vi. 25).\u2014Kleinert (_Theol. Studien u. Kritiken_,\n1886, pp. 285-86) improves the parallelism by translating \u2018Wie so gar\nnicht verletzend sind Worte der Rechtschaffenheit, aber wie so gar\nnichts r\u00fcgt die Rechtsr\u00fcge von euch.\u2019 He thinks that \u05de\u05d4 here, as\noccasionally elsewhere, and _m\u0101_ often in Arabic, has the sense of \u2018not\u2019\n(see Ewald, _Lehrbuch_, \u00a7 325_b_); comp. ix. 2, xvi. 6, xxxi. 1, and the\ncharacteristic \u05d1\u05b7\u05bc\u05de\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4 \u2018how seldom,\u2019 xxi. 19. Without entering into his\ndoubtful justification of \u2018verletzend,\u2019 it is possible to render \u2018How\nfar from grievous are straightforward speeches, but how little is proved\nby the reproof from you!\u2019\n\n\n4. _Pages 33-35_ (Job xix. 25-27).\u2014First, as to the sense of Goel (A.V.\nand R.V. \u2018redeemer\u2019). The sense seems determined by xvi, 18 (see above,\np. 31). It is vengeance for his blood that Job demands, and hence in\nxix. 29 he warns his false friends to beware of the _sword_ of divine\njustice. The \u2018friends\u2019 have identified themselves with that unjust Deity\nagainst whom Job appeals to the \u2018witness in heaven\u2019 (xvi. 20)\u2014the moral\nGod of whom he has a dim but growing intuition. The whole plan of the\nbook, as Kleinert remarks, calls for a definite legal meaning. But as no\ndirect reference to Job\u2019s blood occurs in xix. 25-27, \u2018my vindicator\u2019\nwill be a sufficiently exact rendering (as in Isa. xliv. 6). I cannot\nhowever follow Kleinert in his recognition of the hope of immortality in\nthis passage.\n\nNext as to the text. Bickell\u2019s recension of it, when pointed in the\nordinary manner, is as follows:\u2014\n\n                           \u05d5\u05b7\u05d0\u05b2\u05e0\u05b4\u05d9 \u05d9\u05b8\u05d3\u05b7\u05e2\u05b0\u05ea\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9 \u05d2\u05b9\u05bc\u05d0\u05b2\u05dc\u05b4\u05d9 \u05d7\u05b8\u05d9 25\n                            \u05d9\u05b0\u05d0\u05b7\u05d7\u05b2\u05e8\u05d5\u05b9\u05df \u05e2\u05b8\u05dc\u05be\u05e2\u05b8\u05e4\u05b8\u05e8 \u05d9\u05b8\u05e7\u05d5\u05bc\u05dd \u05c3\n                           \u05d5\u05b0\u05d0\u05b7\u05d7\u05b7\u05e8 \u05e2\u05b5\u05e8\u05b4\u05b4\u05d9 \u05e0\u05b4\u05e7\u05b0\u05bc\u05e4\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4 \u05d6\u05b9\u05d0\u05ea  26\n                              \u05d5\u05bc\u05de\u05b4\u05e9\u05bc\u05c1\u05d3\u05b7\u05bc\u05d9 \u05d0\u05b6\u05d7\u05b1\u05d6\u05b6\u05d4 \u05d0\u05b5\u05dc\u05b6\u05bc\u05d4 \u05c3\n                            \u05d0\u05b2\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05e8 \u05d0\u05b2\u05e0\u05b4\u05d9 \u05d0\u05b6\u05d7\u05b1\u05d6\u05b6\u05d4\u05be\u05dc\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9   27\n                              \u05d5\u05b0\u05e2\u05b5\u05d9\u05e0\u05b7\u05d9 \u05e8\u05b8\u05d0\u05d5\u05bc \u05d5\u05b4\u05dc\u05d0\u05c1\u05be\u05d6\u05b8\u05e8\n                              \u05db\u05b8\u05bc\u05dc\u05d5\u05bc \u05db\u05b4\u05dc\u05b0\u05d9\u05b9\u05ea\u05b7\u05d9 \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05d7\u05b5\u05e7\u05b4\u05d9 \u05c3\n\nBickell does not attempt to make easy Hebrew; the passage _ought\nnot_ in such a connection to be too easy. He renders ver. 26_a_,\n\u2018Et postea, his pr\u00e6sentibus absolutis, veniet testis meus\u2019 (God,\nhis witness, as xvi. 19), comparing for the sense of \u05e0\u05e7\u05e4\u05d4 Isa.\nxxix. 1. Certainly we seem to require in ver. 26 some further\ndevelopment of the idea suggested by the appearance of the Goel on\nthe dust of Job\u2019s burial-place, and such a development is not\nsupplied by the received text. We must not look at any corrupt\npassage by itself, but take it with the context. Those who defend\nthe text of ver. 26 as it stands have on their side the\nparallelism of \u05e2\u05d5\u05b9\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9 and \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05e9\u05b8\u05c2\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9 (comp. ver. 20); but this\nparallelism is counterbalanced by the want of correspondence\nbetween \u05e0\u05b4\u05e7\u05b0\u05bc\u05e4\u05d5\u05bc\u05be\u05d6\u05d0\u05c1\u05ea and \u05d0\u05d7\u05b1\u05d6\u05b6\u05d4 \u05d0\u05b1\u05dc\u05d5\u05b9\u05d4\u05b7\u05bc. Dr. C. Taylor suggests\nan aposiopesis, and gives the sense intended by the writer thus,\n\u2018When they have penetrated my skin, and of my flesh have had their\nfill\u2019 (comp. ver. 22_b_). Is it not more likely that \u05d5\u05bc\u05de\u05b4\u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05e9\u05b8\u05c2\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\ncame into the text _through a reminiscence_ of ver. 22_b_? \u2018I\nshall see these things from Shaddai\u2019 will be, on Bickell\u2019s view,\nequivalent to \u2018I shall see these things _attested_ by Shaddai.\u2019 As\nyet, the sufferer exclaims, I can recognise this, viz. my\ninnocence, for myself alone; mine eyes have seen it, but not\nanother\u2019s (Prov. xxvii 2). The connexion is in every way improved.\nJob first of all desired an inscribed testimony to his innocence,\nbut now he aspires to something better.\n\nBickell\u2019s is the most natural reconstruction of the passage as yet\nproposed; so far as ver. 26_b_ is concerned, it is supported in the main\nby the Septuagint. More violent corrections are offered by Dr. A.\nNeubauer, _Athen\u00e6um_, June 27, 1885\u2014As a rendering of _the text as it\nstands_, I think R.V. is justified in giving \u2018from my flesh\u2019 (with\nmarg., \u2018_Or_, without\u2019); \u2018mine eyes shall see\u2019 (= \u2018will have seen\u2019)\ncertainly suggests that Job will be clothed with some body when he sees\nGod (Dillmann\u2019s reply is not adequate). \u2018Without my flesh\u2019 (so Amer.\nRevisers) is in itself justifiable (see especially xi. 15); in the use\nof the privative \u05d6 became more and more frequent in the later periods\n(comp. the Talmudic \u05de\u05b5\u05d0\u05d5\u05b9\u05e8 \u05e2\u05b5\u05d9\u05e0\u05b7\u05d9\u05b4\u05dd = \u2018blind\u2019).\n\n\n5. _Page 39._ Job\u2019s catalogue of the sins which he repudiates. The\nparallel suggested between Job and an Egyptian formulary may be\nillustrated by a passage in the life of the great Stoic Emperor. A\nlearned Bishop, popular in his day, reminds us of \u2018that golden Table of\nPtolomy (_sic_) Arsacides, which the Emperour Marcus Aurelius found at\nThebes, which for the worthiness thereof that worthy Emperour caused\nevery night to be laid at his bed\u2019s head, and at his death gave it as a\nsingular treasure to his sonne Commodus. The Table was written in Greek\ncharacters, and contained in it these protestations: \u201cI never exalted\nthe proud rich man, neither hated the poor just man: I never denied\njustice to the poor for his poverty neither pardoned the wealthy for his\nriches.... I alwaies favoured the poor that was able to do little, and\nGod, who was able to do much, alwaies favoured me.\u201d\u2019 (_The Practice of\nQuietnesse_, by George Webbe, D.D., 1699?)\n\n\n6. _Page 52_ (On Job xxxviii. 31, 32, ix. 9).\u2014(1) I admit that the\nidentification of \u05db\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05de\u05b8\u05d4 and the Pleiades is uncertain. Still it is\nplausible, especially when we compare Ar. _kumat_ \u2018heap.\u2019 And even if it\nshould be shown that _kimtu_ was not the Babylonian name for the\nPleiades, this would not be decisive against the identification\nproposed. The Babylonians did not give the name _kisiluv_ to Orion, yet\nStern\u2019s argument (_J\u00fcdische Zeitschrift_, 1865, Heft 4: comp. N\u00f6ldeke,\nSchenkel\u2019s _Bibel-Lexikon_, iv. 369, 370) in favour of equating _k\u2019s\u00eel_\nand Orion remains valid. (2) As to \u05de\u05b5\u05e2\u05b2\u05d3\u05b7\u05e0\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05ea \u2018sweet influences\u2019 is\nfortunate enough to exist by sufferance in the margin of R.V. It is\nsometimes defended by comparing 1 Sam. xv. 32. But the only possible\nrenderings there are \u2018in bonds\u2019 or \u2018trembling\u2019 (see _Variorum Bible ad\nloc._). Dr. Driver has shown that \u2018sweet influences\u2019 is a legacy from\nSebastian M\u00fcnster (1535). (3) \u05de\u05b4\u05d6\u05b8\u05bc\u05e8\u05d5\u05b9\u05ea is probably not to be identified\nwith \u05de\u05b7\u05d6\u05b8\u05bc\u05dc\u05d5\u05b9\u05ea (2 Kings xxiii. 5), in spite of the authority of the\nSept. and the Targum (see Dillmann\u2019s note). In this I agree with G.\nHoffmann, whose adventurous interpretations of the astronomical names in\nAmos and Job do not however as yet seem to me acceptable. According to\nhim, k\u00eema = Sirius, _k\u2019s\u00eel_ = Orion, Mazzaroth = the Hyades and\nAldebaran, \u2018Ayish\u2019 = the Pleiades (Stade\u2019s _Zeitschrift_, 1883, Heft 1).\nMazzaroth = Ass. _mazarati_; Mazzaloth (i.e. the zodiacal signs) seems\nto be the plural of _mazz\u0101la_ = Ass. _manzaltu_ station.\n\n\n7. _Pages 60-63._\u2014That the story of Job is an embellished folk-tale is\nprobable, though still unproved. The delightful humour which in the\nPrologue (see pp. 14, 110), as in the myths of Plato, stands side by\nside with the most impressive solemnity of itself points to this view.\nNo one has expressed this better than Wellhausen, in a review of\nDillmann\u2019s _Hiob, Jahrb\u00fccher f\u00fcr deutsche Theologie_, xvi. 552 &c.: \u2018Den\nlaunigen und doch m\u00fcrrischen Ton, den der nonchalante Satan Gott\ngegen\u00fcber anschl\u00e4gt, so ganz auf Du und Du, w\u00fcrde schwerlich der Dichter\ndes Hiob gewagt haben; schwerlich auch w\u00fcrde es ihm gelungen sein, mit\nso merkw\u00fcrdig einfachen Mitteln so wunderbar plastische Figuren zu\nentwerfen.\u2019 He also points out the inconsistencies of the story,\nprecisely such as we might expect in a folk-tale, and concludes (a\nlittle hastily) that the Prologue is _altogether_ a folk-story and had\nno didactic object. Eichhorn, too, in a review of Michaelis on Job\n(_Allgemeine Bibliothek_, i. 430 &c.), well points out that the illusion\nof the poem is much impaired by not admitting an element in the plot\nderived from tradition. Of course this view of _Job_ as based on a\nfolk-tale is quite reconcileable with the view that the hero is a\npersonification. The latter is much older than the last century; it\nexplains the Jewish saying (p. 60) that \u2018Job was a parable,\u2019 and the\nfascination which the book possessed for the age preceding the final\ndispersion of the Jews.[433]\n\nFootnote 433:\n\n  See Rosenthal, _Vier apokryphische B\u00fccher ans der Zeit und Schule\n  Akiba\u2019s_ (1885), pp. 6-12.\n\n\n8. _Page 81_ (further correction of text of Deut. xxxii. 8, 9).\u2014The\npassage becomes more rhythmical if with Bickell we reproduce the\nSeptuagint Hebrew text at the close of ver. 8 as \u05d1\u05e0\u05d9 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd and continue\n(ver. 9),\n\n                          \u05d5\u05d7\u05dc\u05e7 \u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4 \u05d9\u05e2\u05e7\u05d1 [or \u05e2\u05de\u05d5]\n                             \u05d7\u05d1\u05dc \u05e0\u05d7\u05dc\u05ea\u05d5 \u05d9\u05e9\u05e8\u05d0\u05dc \u05c3\n\nThe correction of the last couplet is important as a supplement of the\nexplanation of ver. 8 given in the text. To other nations God gave\nprotective angels, but He reserved Israel for Himself. (See Bickell,\n_Zeitschrift f. kathol. Theologie_, 1885, pp. 718-19, and comp. his\n_Carmina V. T. metric\u00e8_, 1882, p. 192, where he adheres in both verses\nto the received text.)\n\n\n9. _Page 92._\u2014No student of the Hebrew of _Job_ will overlook the\nadmirable \u2018studies\u2019 on the style of Elihu by J. G. Stickel (_Das Buch\nHiob_, 1842, pp. 248-262) and Carl Budde (_Beitr\u00e4ge sur Kritik des\nBuches Hiob_, 1876, pp. 65-160). The former succeeded in obtaining the\nadmission of such an eminent critical analyst as Kuenen, that style by\nitself would be scarcely sufficient to prove the later origin of the\nElihu speeches. It also, no doubt, assisted Delitzsch to recognise in\nElihu the same \u2018Hebr\u00e6oarabic\u2019 impress as in the rest of the book. In\nspite of this effective \u2018study,\u2019 Dillmann\u2019s brief treatment of the same\nsubject in 1869 made it clear that the subject had not yet by any means\nbeen threshed out, and perhaps no more powerful argument against chaps.\nxxxii.-xxxvii. has been produced than that contained in a single\nclosely-printed page (289) of his commentary. There was therefore a good\nchance for a _Privatdocent_ to win himself a name by a renewed attempt\nto state the linguistic facts more thoroughly and impartially than\nbefore. This indeed fairly expresses Budde\u2019s object, which is not at all\nto offer a direct proof that the disputed chapters belong to the\noriginal poem, but merely to show that the opposite view cannot be\ndemonstrated on stylistic grounds. His method is to collect, first of\nall, points of resemblance and then points of difference between \u2018Elihu\u2019\nand the rest of the book. Last among the latter appear the Aramaisms and\nArabisms. Budde rejects the view, adopted from Stickel (see p. 92) by\nCanon F. C. Cook, that the deeper colouring of Aramaic is only the\npoet\u2019s way of indicating the Aram\u00e6an origin of Elihu. He denies that\nthere is any such greater amount of Aramaism as can form a real\ndistinction between \u2018Elihu\u2019 and the undisputed chapters. I will not\ninquire whether the subjectivity of a writer may impress itself on his\nstatistics, and willingly grant that the Aramaic colouring in \u2018Elihu\u2019\nmay perhaps affect the reader more owing to the faults of style to which\nBudde himself alludes on p. 157, and which, to me, indicate an age or at\nleast a writer of less taste and talent than the original author. The\nAramaisms may be thrown into stronger relief by these infirmities, and\nso the colouring may seem deeper than it is. I am not however sure that\nthere is an illusion in the matter. Among the counter-instances of\nAramaism given by Budde from the speeches of Eliphaz, there are at least\ntwo which have no right to figure there, viz. \u05de\u05b7\u05e0\u05b0\u05dc\u05b8\u05dd, xv. 29, and \u05d0\u05bb\u05d9\u05b4\nfor \u05d0\u05b7\u05d9\u05b4\u05df, xxii. 30, both which forms are probably corrupt readings.\nUntil Dillmann has published his second edition I venture to retain the\nstatement on p. 92. There is a stronger Aramaising element in Elihu,\nwhich, with other marks of a peculiar and _inferior_[434] style,\nwarrants us in assigning the section to a later writer. This is, of\ncourse, not precluded by the numerous Hebraistic _points of contact_\nwith the main part of the book, which Carl Budde has so abundantly\ncollected (_Beitr\u00e4ge_, pp. 92-123). No one can doubt that the original\npoem very early became an absorbing study in the circles of \u2018wise men.\u2019\n\nAs to the words and phrases (of pure Hebrew origin) in which Elihu\n_differs_ from the body of the work, I may remark that it is sometimes\ndifficult to realise their full significance from Budde\u2019s catalogue.\nKleinert has thrown much light on some of them in a recent essay. He\nhas, for instance,[435] shown the bearings of the fact that the disputed\nchapters persistently avoid the juristic sense of \u05e6\u05b8\u05d3\u05b7\u05e7 (Kal), except in\na quotation from speeches of Job (xxxiv. 5), Elihu himself only using\nthe word of correctness in statement (xxxiii. 12), or of moral\nrighteousness (xxxv. 7), and that \u05d4\u05b4\u05e8\u05b0\u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05d9\u05e2\u05b7 has the sense of \u2018acting\nwickedly\u2019 only in a passage of Elihu (xxxiv. 12). The use of \u05e6\u05b6\u05e8\u05b6\u05e7,\n\u05e6\u05b7\u05e8\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05e7, and \u05e6\u05b0\u05e8\u05b8\u05e7\u05b8\u05d4 in xxxii, 1, xxxiii. 26, xxxv. 8, xxxvi. 3, is also\ndwelt upon in this connexion. It is true that Budde does not conceal\nthese points; he tabulates them correctly, but does not indicate the\npoint of view from which they can be understood. Kleinert supplies this\nomission. The body of the poem, he remarks, is juristic in spirit; the\nspeeches of Elihu ethical and hortatory. This brings with it a different\nmode of regarding the problem of Job\u2019s sufferings. \u2018Die Reden Elihu\u2019s\nhaben zu dem gerichtlichen Aufriss der Buchanlage nur das\naller\u00e4usserlichste Verh\u00e4ltniss. Sie verlassen die scharfgezogenen\nGrundlinien der rechtlichen Auseinandersetzung, um in eine\nethisch-par\u00e4netische, rein chokmatisch-didaktische Er\u00f6rterung der Frage\n\u00fcberzulenken.\u2019 Kleinert also notes one peculiar word of Elihu\u2019s which I\nhave not met with in Budde, but which, from Kleinert\u2019s point of view, is\nimportant\u2014\u05db\u05b9\u05bc\u05e4\u05b6\u05e8, \u2018a ransom\u2019 (xxxiii. 24, xxxvi. 18). Why did not the\njuristic theologians of the Colloquies use it? Evidently the speeches of\nElihu are later compositions.\n\nFootnote 434:\n\n  \u2018Ist\u2019s denkbar, dass ein solcher Dichter demjenigen Redner, dem et die\n  Hauptrolle zugedacht, die Charakteristik jenes _inferioren_ Redetypus\n  zugewiesen haben k\u00f6nnte?\u2019 Kleinert.\n\nFootnote 435:\n\n  Das spezifisch-hebr\u00e4ische im Buch Hiob, _Theol. Studien und Kritiken_,\n  1886, pp. 299-300.\n\n\n10. _Page 99._\u2014The critic, no less than the prophet, is still with too\nmany a favourite subject of ironical remark; \u2018they say of him, Doth he\nnot speak in riddles\u2019?[436] The origin of Job, upon the linguistic as\nwell as the theological side, may be a riddle, but the interest of the\nbook is such that we cannot give up the riddle. We may not all agree\nupon the solution; the riddle may be one that admits of different\nanswers. All that this proves is the injudiciousness of dogmatism, which\nspecially needs emphasising with respect to the bearings of the\nlinguistic data. To say, with N\u00f6ldeke,[437] \u2018We have no ground for\nregarding the language of _Job_ as anything but a very pure Hebrew\u2019\nseems to me as extreme as to assert with G. H. Bernstein (the well-known\nSyriac scholar) that the amount of Aramaic colouring would of itself\nbring the book into the post-Exile period. Bernstein carried to a\ndangerous extreme a tendency already combated by Michaelis and\nEichhorn;[438] but his research is thorough-going and systematic. Those\nwho, like the present writer, have no access to it, may be referred to\nL. Bertholdt\u2019s _Historisch-kritische Einleitung_[439] (Erlangen,\n1812-1819), where it is carefully examined, and its arguments, as it\nwould seem, reduced to something like their just proportions. Bertholdt\ndoes not scruple to admit that distinctively Aramaising constructions\nare wanting in _Job_, and that words with Aramaic affinities may have\nexisted in Hebrew before the Exile. Still he decides that though part of\nthe argument fails to pieces, yet for most there is a real foundation.\nThis too, is substantially the judgment of Carl Budde. \u2018Despite all\ndeductions from Bernstein\u2019s list it remains true that just the Book of\nJob is specially rich in words which principally belong to the Aramaic\ndialects.\u2019[440] Dillmann, too, who takes pains to emphasise the\ncomparative scarcity of Aramaisms in the strictest sense of the word,\nyet finds in the body of the work (excluding the Elihu portion)\nAramaising and Arabising words enough to suggest that the author lived\nhard by Aramaic- and Arabic-speaking peoples.[441] By taking this view,\nDillmann (whose philological caution and accuracy give weight to his\nopinion) separates himself from those who, like Eichhorn and more\nrecently the Jewish scholar Kaempf,[442] confidently maintain that the\npeculiar words in _Job_ are genuine Hebrew \u2018Sprachgut.\u2019 To make this\nprobable, we ought to be able to show that they have more affinities\nwith northern than with southern Semitic (see p. 99), a task as yet\nunaccomplished. Dillmann, too, would certainly dissent from Canon Cook\u2019s\nopinion that the Aramaisms of Job are only \u2018such as characterise the\nantique and highly poetic style.\u2019 According to him, they are equally\nunfavourable to a very early and to a very late date.\n\nVarious lists of Aramaising words have been given since Bernstein\u2019s. I\ngive here that of Dr. Lee in his _Book of the Patriarch Job_ (p. 50),\nwhich has the merit of having been constructed from his own reading of\n_Job_. It refers to the whole book:\u2014\n\n\u05e0\u05d4\u05e8\u05d4 (iii. 4); \u05de\u05e0\u05d4\u05d5 (iv. 12); \u05dc\u05d0\u05d5\u05d9\u05dc (v. 2); \u05d0\u05d3\u05e8\u05e9 (ib. 8), occur in the\nAramaic, not the Hebrew sense; \u05ea\u05de\u05dc\u05dc (viii. 2); \u05d9\u05e9\u05c2\u05d2\u05d4 (ib. 7); \u05de\u05e0\u05d4\u05dd (xi.\n20); \u05e2\u05de\u05dd (xii. 2); \u05de\u05dc\u05d9\u05df (ib. 11); \u05de\u05e9\u05c2\u05d2\u05d9\u05d0 (ib. 23); \u05de\u05dc\u05ea\u05d9 \u05d5\u05d0\u05d7\u05d5\u05ea\u05d9 (xiii.\n17); \u05d0\u05d7\u05d5\u05da (xv. 17); \u05d5\u05d6\u05d4 for \u05d5\u05d0\u05e9\u05e8 (ib.); \u05e9\u05c1\u05dc\u05d4\u05d1\u05ea (ib. 31); \u05d2\u05dc\u05d3\u05d9 (xvi. 15);\n\u05d7\u05de\u05e8\u05de\u05e8\u05d4 (ib. 16); \u05e7\u05e0\u05e6\u05d9 (xviii. 2); \u05d9\u05d2\u05e2\u05dc ... \u05e2\u05d1\u05e8 (xxi. 10); \u05d1\u05d7\u05d9\u05d9\u05df (xxiv.\n22); \u05d1\u05d7\u05d1\u05d9 (xxxi. 33); \u05d0\u05d7\u05d5\u05d4 (xxxii. 10, 18); \u05e4\u05e8\u05e2 (xxxiii. 24); \u05d0\u05d0\u05dc\u05e4\u05da (ib.\n33); \u05db\u05ea\u05e8 (xxxvi. 2); \u05d1\u05d7\u05e8\u05ea (ib. 21); \u05d2\u05d1\u05e8 (xxxviii. 3); \u05e0\u05d7\u05d9\u05e8 (xli. 12). I\nwill not criticise this list, which no doubt contains some questionable\nitems. We might, however, insert other words in exchange, e.g. \u05d8\u05d5\u05e9\u05c2 (ix.\n26); \u05e8\u05c2\u05d4\u05d3 (xvi. 19); \u05db\u05e4\u05d9\u05dd (xxx. 6); and \u05db\u05e4\u05df (v. 22, xxx. 3); and perhaps\n\u05e8\u05e7\u05d1 (xiii. 28), which Geiger plausibly compares with Syr. _rakbo_\n\u2018wineskin\u2019 (so the tradition represented by the Septuagint, the\nPeshitto, and Barhebr\u00e6us). Some supposed Arabisms may also in all\nprobability be transferred to the list of Aramaisms; but the Arabisms\nwhich remain will abundantly justify what has been stated in the section\non _Job_. I have not attempted to decide precisely where the poet heard\nboth Arabic and Aramaic. Dillmann accepts the view mentioned on p. 75.\nBut Gilead, too, was at all times inhabited by Arab tribes, both nomad\nand settled,[443] and the region itself was called Arabia.[444]\n\nFootnote 436:\n\n  Ezek. xx. 49.\n\nFootnote 437:\n\n  _Die alttestamentliche Literatur_, p. 192.\n\nFootnote 438:\n\n  See Eichhorn\u2019s notice of Michaelis in vol. i. of his _Allgemeine\n  Bibliothek der biblischen Literatur_.\n\nFootnote 439:\n\n  Pp. 2076, 2077. Bernstein\u2019s title is, _Ueber das Alter, den Inhalt,\n  den Zweck und die gegenw\u00e4rtige Gestalt des Buches Hiob_ (in Keil and\n  Tzschirner\u2019s _Analekten_, 1813, pp. 1-137).\n\nFootnote 440:\n\n  _Beitr\u00e4ge sur Kritik des Buches Hiob_ (1876), p. 140.\n\nFootnote 441:\n\n  _Hiob_ (1869), Einleitung, pp. xxvii. xxix.\n\nFootnote 442:\n\n  _Die Grabschrift Escamunazar\u2019s_ (1874), p. 8.\n\nFootnote 443:\n\n  Blau, _Zeitschr. der deutsch. morgenl. Ges._, xxv. 540.\n\nFootnote 444:\n\n  Wetzstein in Delitzsch\u2019s _Iob_, p. 528.\n\n\n11. _Pages 106-111._\u2014Herder (to whom I gladly refer the student) is\nperhaps the best representative of the modern literary point of view.\nWhatever he says on the Hebrew Scriptures is worth reading, even when\nhis remarks need correction. No one felt the poetry of _Job_ more deeply\nthan Herder; to the religious ideas of the poem his eyes were not\nequally open. Indeed, it must have been hard to discern and appreciate\nthese adequately in the eighteenth century; the newly-discovered sacred\nbooks of the East, with their deep though obscure metaphysical\nconceptions, for a time almost overshadowed the far more sobre Hebrew\nScriptures. Like Carlyle (who is to some extent his echo) Herder\nunderrates the specifically Hebrew element in the book, which is of\ncourse not very visible on a hasty perusal. One point, however, that he\nsees very dearly, though he does not use the expression, is that _Job_\nis a character-drama. He denies that the speeches are monotonous.\n\n\u2018So eint\u00f6nig f\u00fcr uns alle Reden klingen, so sind sie mit Licht und\nSchatten angelegt und der Faden, oder vielmehr die Verwirrung der\nMaterie, nimmt zu von Rede zu Rede, bis Hiob sich selbst fasset und\nseine Behauptungen lindert. Wer diesen Faden nicht verfolgt und\ninsonderheit nicht bemerkt, wie Hiob seinem Gegner immer den eigenen\nPfeil aus der Hand windet; entweder das besser sagt, was jener sagte,\noder die Gr\u00fcnde jenes eben f\u00fcr sich braucht\u2014der hat das Lebendige,\nWachsende, kurz die Seele des Buchs verfehlet\u2019 (_Hiob als Composition\nbetrachtet, Werke_, Suphan, ii. 318).\n\nHe has also clearly perceived the poet\u2019s keen sympathy with mythology,\nand this, combined with the (supposed) few imitations of _Job_ in the\nOld Testament, confirmed him in the erroneous view that the original\nwriter of _Job_ was an Edomitish Emeer. On the limited influence of\n_Job_ he has some vigorous sentences, the edge of which, however, is\nturned by more recent criticism. It is of the prophets he is chiefly\nthinking, when he finds so few traces of acquaintance with Job in the\nScriptures, and of the pre-Exile prophets. \u2018Wie dr\u00e4ngen und dr\u00fccken sich\ndie Propheten! wie borgen sie von einander Bilder in einem ziemlich\nengen Kreise und f\u00fchren sie nur, jeder nach seiner Art, aus! Diese alte\nehrw\u00fcrdige Pyramide steht im Ganzen unnachgeahmt da und ist vielleicht\nunnachahmbar.\u2019 This passage occurs in the fifth conversation in his\n_Geist der Ebr\u00e4ischenn Poesie_ (_Werke_, ed. Suphan, xi. 310). The\nstudent of _Job_ will not neglect this and also the two preceding very\nattractive chapters. The description of Elihu is not the least\ninteresting passage. Herder does his best to account for the presence of\nthis unexpected fifth speaker, but really shows how unaccountable it is\nexcept on the theory of later addition. Prof. Briggs\u2019s theory (p. 93)\nthat the poor speeches of Elihu are intended \u2018as a literary foil\u2019 was\nsuggested by Herder. \u2018Bemerken Sie aber, dass er nur als Schatte\ndasteht, dies Gottes-Orakel zu erheben\u2019 (_Werke_, xi. 284).\n\n\n12. _Pages 113, 114._\u2014The latest study on the original Septuagint text\nof the Book of Job is by Bickell in the _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr katholische\nTheologie_, 1886, pp. 557-564. As to the date of the Alexandrine\nversion, Hody\u2019s remark, _De Bibliorum Textibus_, p. 196, deserves\nattention, viz. that Philo already quotes from it,\u2014\u03a4\u03af\u03c2 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1, \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f41 \u1f38\u03ce\u03b2\n\u03c6\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u1fe5\u03cd\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f02\u03bd \u03bc\u03af\u03b1 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1 \u1f10\u03bf\u03c4\u03af\u03bd \u1f21 \u03b6\u03c9\u03ae (Sept. of Job xiv.\n4 \u1f41 \u03b2\u03af\u03bf\u03c2); _De Mutatione Nominum_, \u00a7 6 (i. 585).\n\n\n13. _Page 131._\u2014The character of Har\u016bn ar-Rashid, in fact, became almost\nas distorted by legend as that of Solomon. Neither of them were models\nof civil justice (Weil, _Geschichte der Chalifen_, ii. 127).\n\n\n14. _Page 148_ (Prov. xxvii. 6).\u2014Consult, however, the Septuagint, which\nseems to have read \u05de at the beginning of the second line (\u2018More faithful\n... than\u2019 &c.). See Cornill on Ezek. xxxv. 13.\n\n\n15. _Page 162, note 1._\u2014The Mo\u2019tazilites (\u2018the Protestants of Islam\u2019)\ndenied the eternity of the Kor\u00e1n because it implied the existence of two\neternal beings (Weil, _Gesch. der Chalifen_, ii. 262).\n\n\n16. _Page 173._\u2014Text of Proverbs. Among the minor additions in Sept.,\nnote the \u03bc\u1f74 in Prov. v. 16 (so Vatican and, originally, Sinaitic MS.),\nif we may follow Lagarde and Field. The Alexandrine MS., however, and\nthe Complutensian edition, omit \u03bc\u1f74, which is also wanting in Aquila.\nComp. Field\u2019s _Hexapla ad loc._\n\n\n17. _Pages 176, 177_ (Religious Value of Proverbs).\u2014To appreciate the\nreligious spirit of this fine book, we require some imaginative sympathy\nwith past ages. The \u2018staid, quiet, \u201cdouce,\u201d orderly burgher of the Book\nof Proverbs, who is regular in his attendance at the Temple, diligent in\nhis business, prosperous in his affairs, of repute among the elders,\nwith daughters doing virtuously, and a wife that has his house decked\nwith coverings of tapestry, while her own clothing is silk and purple\u2019\n(Mr. Binney\u2019s words in _Is it possible to make the best of both\nworlds?_), is not the noblest type of man, and therefore not the model\nChristian even of our own day.\n\n\n18. _Page 178 (Aids to the Student)._\u2014Add, _Les sentences et proverbes\ndu Talmud et du Midrasch_. Par Mo\u00efse Schuhl. Par. 1878.\n\n\n19. _Page 180._\u2014On the date of Jesus son of Sirach, comp. Hody, _De\nBibliorum Textibus Originalibus_ (Oxon., 1705), pp. 192-194.\n\n\n20. _Page 189, note 1_ (Sirach xxi. 27).\u2014Fritzsche weakens the proverb\nby taking \u2018Satan\u2019 as equivalent to \u2018accuser\u2019 (Ps. cix. 6, Zech. iii. 1).\nThe wise man says that it is no use for the ungodly man to disclaim\nresponsibility for his sin. \u2018The Satan\u2019 either means the depraved will\n(comp. Dukes, _Rabbin. Blumenlese_, p. 108) or the great evil spirit. In\nthe latter case the wise man says that for all practical purposes the\ntempter called Satan may be identified with the inborn tempter of the\nheart. Comp. Ps. xxxvi. 2, \u2018The ungodly man hath an oracle of\ntransgression within his heart.\u2019\n\n\n21. _Page 193_ (The Hymn of Praise).\u2014Frankel suspected xliv. 16 to be an\ninterpolation, on the ground that the view of Enoch as an example of\n\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03ac\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1 is Philonian (_Pal\u00e4stinische Exegese_, p. 44). Against this see\nFritzsche, who explains the passage as a characteristically uncritical\ninference from Gen. v. 22. Enoch was a pattern of \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03ac\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1 because he\nwalked with God after begetting Methuselah.\n\n\n22. _Page 195_ (Ancient Versions of Sirach).\u2014The Peshitto version\ndeviates, one may venture to assume, in many points from the original\nSirach. Geiger has pointed out some remarkable instances of this\n(_Zeitschr. der deutschen morgenl. Ges._ xii. 536 &c.), and if the Greek\nversion is to be regarded as absolutely authoritative, the number of\ndeviations must be extremely great. Fritzsche goes so far as to say that\nin the latter part of the Syriac Sirach (from about chap. xxx.) the\noriginal is only hazily traceable (\u2018durchschimmert\u2019). He describes this\nversion as really no version, but \u2018eine ziemlich leichtfertig\nhingeschriebene Paraphrase\u2019 (\u2018a rather careless paraphrase\u2019). This, as\nfairer judges of the Syriac are agreed, is not an accurate statement of\nthe case. It can be readily disproved by referring to some of the\npassages in which the Greek translator has manifestly misrendered the\noriginal (e.g. xxiv. 27; see above, p. 196). Dr. Edersheim, who is\nworking upon both versions, agrees with Bickell that the Syriac often\nenables us to restore the Hebrew, where the Greek text is wrong. This is\nnot placing the Syriac in a superior position to the Greek, but giving\nit the subsidiary importance which it deserves. Doubtless, the Hebrew\ntext which the Syriac translator employed was in many places corrupt.\nThe best edition of the Peshitto, I may add, is in Lagarde\u2019s _Libri Vet.\nTest. Apocryphi Syriaci_ (1861). It is from Walton\u2019s Polyglot, but\n\u2018codicum nitriensium ope et coniecturis meis hic illic emendatiorem\u2019\n[one sixth-century MS. of Ecclesiasticus is used].\n\nThe Old Latin has many peculiarities; its inaccuracies are no proof of\narbitrariness; the translator means to be faithful to his _Greek_\noriginal. Many verses are transposed; others misplaced. For instances of\nthe former, Fritzsche refers to iii. 27, iv. 31, 32, vi. 9, 10, ix. 14,\n16, xii. 5, 7; for the latter, to xvi. 24, 25, xix. 5, 6, xlix. 17.\nSometimes a double text is translated, e.g. xix. 3, xx. 24. It is to be\nused with great caution, but its age makes it valuable for determining\nthe Greek text. For the text of Ecclesiasticus in the Codex Amiatinus,\nsee Lagarde\u2019s _Mittheilungen_.\n\n\n23. _Page 198 (Aids to the Student)._\u2014To the works mentioned add Bruch,\n_Weisheitslehre_ (1851), p. 283 &c., and especially Jehuda ben Seeb\u2019s\nlittle known work _The Wisdom of Joshua ben Sira rendered into Hebrew\nand German, and paraphrased in Syriac with the Biur_, Breslau, 1798\n(translated title), and Geiger, \u2018Warum geh\u00f6rt das Buch Sirach zu den\nApocryphen?\u2019 in _Zeitschr. d deutschen morgenl. Gesellschaft_, xii. 536\n&c.\n\n\n24. _Page 207, note 2._\u2014The name is undoubtedly an enigma, and M. Renan\nthinks that ordinary philological methods are inadequate to its\nsolution. Even Aquila leaves it untranslated (\u03ba\u03c9\u03bb\u03ad\u03b8). Without stopping\nhere to criticise M. Renan\u2019s theory that QHLTH were the initials of\nwords (comp. Rambam, Rashi) in some way descriptive of Solomon,[445] let\nme frankly admit that none of the older explanations is absolutely\ncertain, because neither _Q\u014dh\u0113l_ nor _Qoh\u00e9leth_ occurs elsewhere in the\nOld Testament literature. Two views however are specially prevalent, and\nI will first mention that which seems to me (with Gesenius, Delitzsch,\nNowack &c.) to deserve the preference. In one respect indeed it\nharmonises with the rival explanation, viz. in supposing Qal to have\nadopted the signification of Hifil (the Hifil of Q H L _is_ found in the\nOld Testament), so that _Q\u014dh\u0113l_ will mean \u2018one who calls together an\nassembly.\u2019 The adoption thus supposed is found especially in proper\nnames (e.g. \u05e8\u05d7\u05d1\u05d9\u05d4). But how to explain the feminine form _Qoh\u00e9leth_? By\na tendency of later Hebrew to use fem. participles with a masc.\nsense.[446] In Talmudic Hebrew, e.g., we find \u05dc\u05b0\u05e7\u05d5\u05bc\u05d7\u05d5\u05b9\u05ea, \u2018buyers,\u2019\n\u05e0\u05b0\u05e7\u05d5\u05bc\u05e8\u05d5\u05b9\u05ea, \u2018stone-masons,\u2019 \u05dc\u05b0\u05e2\u05d5\u05bc\u05d6\u05d5\u05b9\u05ea, \u2018foreigners\u2019 (passive participles\nin this stage of the language tend to adopt an active sense). But even\nearlier we find the same tendency among _proper names_. Take for\ninstance Sophereth (_hassofereth_ in Ezra ii. 55; _sofereth_ in Neh.\nvii. 57), Pokereth (Ezra ii. 57). Why should not the name Qoheleth have\nbeen given to the great Teacher of the book before us, just as the name\nSophereth was given apparently to a scribe? Delitzsch[447] reminds us\nthat in Arabic the fem. termination serves sometimes to intensify the\nmeaning, or, as Ewald puts it, \u2018ut abstracto is innuatur in quo tota h\u00e6c\nvirtus vel alia proprietas consummatissima sit, ut ejus exemplum haberi\nqueat.\u2019[448] Thus Qoheleth might mean \u2018the ideal teacher,\u2019 and this no\ndoubt would be a title which would well describe the later view of\nSolomon. It is simpler, however, to take the fem. termination as\nexpressing action or office; thus in Arabic _khalifa_ means 1,\nsuccession or the dignity of the successor, 2, the successor or\nrepresentative himself, the \u2018caliph,\u2019 and in Hebrew and Assyrian\n_pekh\u0101h_, _pakhatu_ \u2018viceroy.\u2019 Comp. \u1f21 \u1f10\u03be\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1, \u2018die Obrigkeit.\u2019\n\nThe alternative is, with Ewald, Hitzig, Ginsburg, Kuenen, Kleinert, to\nexplain Qoheleth as in apposition to \u05d7\u05b8\u05db\u05b0\u05de\u05b8\u05d4, Wisdom being represented\nin Prov. i. 20, 21, viii. 1-4, as addressing men in the places of\nconcourse (Klostermann eccentrically explains \u1f21 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03af\u03b6\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1 or\n\u03c3\u03c5\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae). Solomon, according to this view, is regarded by the\nauthor as the impersonation of Wisdom (as Protagoras was called \u03a3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1).\nIt is most unlikely, however, that Solomon should have been thus\nregarded, considering the strange discipline which the author describes\nQoheleth as having passed through, and how different is the language of\nWisdom when, as in Prov. i.-ix., she is represented as addressing an\nassembly! A reference to vii. 27, where Qoheleth seems to be spoken of\nin the fem., is invalid, as we should undoubtedly correct _haqqoh\u00e9leth_\nin accordance with xii. 8[449] (comp. _hassofereth_, Ezra ii. 55).\n\nThe Sept. rendering \u1f10\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c2, whence the \u2018concionator\u2019 of Vulg., is\ntherefore to be preferred to the singular Greek rend. \u1f21 \u1f10\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03ac\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1 of\nGr\u00e6cus Venetus.\n\nFootnote 445:\n\n  On this, see Wright, _Ecclesiastes_ &c. p. 127.\n\nFootnote 446:\n\n  Strack, _Lehrbuch der neuhebr. Sprache_, p. 54.\n\nFootnote 447:\n\n  _Hoheslied und Koheleth_, pp. 212-3.\n\nFootnote 448:\n\n  _Grammatica arabica_, \u00a7 284 (i. 167). Comp. Wright, _Arabic Grammar_,\n  i. 157 (\u00a7 233).\n\nFootnote 449:\n\n  The mistake was caused by the rarity of \u05e7\u05d4\u05dc\u05ea with the article.\n\n\n25. _Page 210._\u2014Eccles. iii. 11. Might we render, \u2018Also he hath put (the\nknowledge of) that which is secret into their mind, except that,\u2019 &c.,\ni.e. \u2018though God has enabled man to find out many secrets, yet human\nscience is of very limited extent\u2019? This implies Bickell\u2019s pointing \u05e2\u05b8\u05dc\u05bb\u05dd.\n\n\n26. _Page 219._\u2014Eccles. vii. 28. The misogyny of the writer was\ndoubtless produced by some sad personal experience. Its evil effect upon\nhimself was mitigated by his discovery of another Jonathan with a love\npassing the love of women.\u2019 This reminds us of the author of the\ncelebrated medi\u00e6val \u2018Romance of the Rose.\u2019[450] \u2018What is Love?\u2019 asks the\nlover, and Reason answers, \u2018It is a mere sickness of the thought, a\nsport of the fancy. If thou scape at last from Love\u2019s snares, I hold it\nbut a grace. Many a one has lost body and soul in his service\u2019 (comp.\nEccles, vii. 26). And then he continues, \u2018There is a kind of love which\nlawful is and good, as noble as it is rare,\u2014the friendship of men.\u2019 To\nquote Chaucer\u2019s translation,\n\n                     And certeyn he is wel bigone\n                     Among a thousand that findeth oon.\n                     For ther may be no richesse\n                     Ageyns frendshippe of worthynesse.\n\nThe allusion to Eccles. vii. 29 is obvious. Thus the same varieties of\ncharacter recur in all ages. This point of view is very different from\nthat of the Agadic writers who borrow from Eccles. vii. 26 a weapon\nagainst \u2018heresy\u2019 (_m\u012bn\u016bth_), a term which includes the Jewish Christian\nfaith. All are agreed that the \u2018bitter woman\u2019 is heresy, and one of them\ndeclares that the closing words of the verse refer to \u2018the men of\nCapernaum\u2019 (see Matt. ix. 8). Delitzsch, _Ein Tag in Kapernaum_, 1886,\np. 48; comp. W\u00fcnsche, _Midraseh Koheleth_, p. 110.\n\nFootnote 450:\n\n  Comp. _British Quarterly Review_, Oct. 1871.\n\n\n27. _Pages 223-227._\u2014Eccles. xi. 9-xii. 7. The key to the whole passage\nis xi. 8. \u2018For, if a man lives many years, let him rejoice in them all,\nand let him remember the days of darkness, that they shall be many.\u2019 I\ncannot accept the ingenious conjecture of Dr. C. Taylor, which might\n(see Chap. X.) have been supported by a reference to Egypt, that xii.\n3-5 are cited from an authorised book of dirges. Not only these verses\nbut xii. 1_b_-6 form a poem on the evils of old age, the whole effect of\nwhich is lost without some prefix, such as \u2018Rejoice in thy youth.\u2019\nD\u00f6derlein supplies this prefix in xii. 6; but this is not enough. If we\nhesitate, with Luzzatto, Geiger, and N\u00f6ldeke to cancel xii. 1_a_ as a\nlater addition for purposes of edification, we must, with Gritz and\nBickell, read either \u05d0\u05b6\u05ea\u05be\u05d1\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05e8\u05b0\u05da\u05b8 or \u05d0\u05b6\u05ea\u05be\u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05d0\u05b4\u05b9\u05e8\u05b0\u05da\u05b8. These two readings\nseem to have existed side by side, and to an ingenious moralist this\nfact apparently suggested a new and edifying reading \u05d0\u05b6\u05ea\u05be\u05d1\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05e8\u05b0\u05d0\u05b6\u05bc\u05da\u05b8.\nHence Akabia ben Mahalallel,[451] one of the earliest of the Jewish\n\u2018fathers,\u2019 and probably a contemporary of Gamaliel I., advises\nconsidering these three points as a safeguard against sin, \u2018Whence thou\ncomest, whither thou goest, and before whom thou wilt have to give an\naccount.\u2019 \u2018Whence thou comest,\u2019 implying \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05d0\u05b5\u05e8\u05b0\u05da\u05b8 \u2018thy fountain;\u2019\n\u2018whither thou goest,\u2019 \u05d1\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05e8\u05b0\u05da\u05b8, \u2018thy pit, or grave;\u2019 \u2018before whom thou\nwilt stand,\u2019 \u05d1\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05d0\u05b6\u05da\u05b8, \u2018thy creator.\u2019\n\nFootnote 451:\n\n  _Aboth_, iii, 1 (ed. Strack); comp, Schiffer, _Das Buch Kohelet nach\n  der Auffassung der Weisen_, part i., p. 49.\n\n\n28. _Page 232._\u2014D\u00f6derlein (in a popular work on Ecclesiastes, p. 119)\ndescribes xii. 9 &c. as the epilogue, \u2018perhaps, of a larger collection\nof writings and of the earlier Hebrew canon.\u2019 Herder, too, thinks that\nthe close of the book suggests a collection of sayings of several wise\nmen (_Werke_, ed. Suphan, x, 134).\n\n\n29. _Page 244._\u2014According to Gr\u00e4tz, Koheleth is not to be taken in\nearnest when he writes as if in a sombre and pessimistic mood. Such\npassages Gr\u00e4tz tries to explain away. Koheleth, he thinks, is the enemy\nof those who cultivate such a mood, and who, like the school of Shammai,\ncombine with it an extravagant and unnatural asceticism (comp. vii. 16,\n17). The present, Koheleth knows, is far from ideal, but he would fain\nreconcile young men to inevitable evils by pointing them to the relative\ngoods still open to them. This attitude of the author enables Gr\u00e4tz to\naccount for Koheleth\u2019s denial of the doctrine of Immortality. This\ndoctrine, he remarks, was not of native Jewish origin, but imported from\nAlexandria, and was the source of the ascetic gloom opposed by Koheleth.\nKoheleth\u2019s denial of the Immortality of the Soul does not, according to\nGr\u00e4tz, involve the denial of the Resurrection of the Body, the\nResurrection being regarded in early Judaism as a new creative act.[452]\nIt is not clear to me, however, that Koheleth accepts the Resurrection\ndoctrine, even if he does not expressly controvert it.\n\nFootnote 452:\n\n  _Kohelet_, p. 29. Certainly this is not the view of Talmudic Judaism,\n  at least not in the sense described by Dr. Gr\u00e4tz. See Weber,\n  _Altsynagogale Theologie_, p. 323.\n\n\n30. _Page 245, note 3._\u2014Herder says with insight, though with some\nexaggeration, that most of Koheleth consists of isolated observations on\nthe course of the world and the experience of the writer. No artistic\nconnection need be sought for. But if we must seek for one (_so that\nHerder is not convinced of the soundness of the theory_), it is strange\nthat no one has observed the twofold voice in the book, \u2018da ein Gr\u00fcbler\nWahrheit sucht, und in dem Ton seines Ichs meistens damit, \u201cdass alles\neitel sey,\u201d endet; eine andre Stimme aber, im Ton des Du, ihn oft\nunterbricht, ihm das Verwegne seiner Untersuchungen vorh\u00e4lt und meistens\ndamit endet, \u201cwas zuletzt das Resultat des ganzen Lebens bleibe?\u201d Es ist\nnicht v\u00f6llig Frag\u2019 und Antwort, Zweifel und Aufl\u00f6sung, aber doch aus\nEinem und demselben Munde etwas, das beyden gleicht, und sich durch\nAbbr\u00fcche und Fortsetzungen unterscheidet.\u2019 _Brief das Studium der\nTheologie betreftend_, erster Theil (_Werke_, Suphan, x. 135-136).\n\n\n\n\n                                 INDEX.\n\n\n Aaron, celebrated by Sirach, 193\n\n Achamoth, Gnostic myth of, 161 _n._\n\n Adam, occurrence of the word in \u2018Proverbs,\u2019 119\n\n Addison, 145\n\n Age, ascribed to Job, 71;\n   description of, 229 _sq._\n\n Agur, 154, 170 _sq._\n\n Ahriman, 80\n\n Akabia ben Mahalallel, 300\n\n Akiba, Rabbi, 283\n\n Alexandria, importance of, to Jews, 181\n\n Allegorical view of \u2018Job,\u2019 65;\n   of Koheleth\u2019s portrait of old age, 229 _sq._\n\n Alphabet of Ben Sira, 195 _sq._\n\n Amenemhat I., 156\n\n Amos, parallels to \u2018Job\u2019 in, 87\n\n Amos iv. 13, v. 8, perhaps interpolations, 52, _n._\n\n Angels, doctrine of, 44 _sq._ _See also_ Spirits\n\n Apap, the serpent, 76\n\n Apocrypha, value of the, 179\n\n Aquila, versions of, 277\n\n Arabian theory of angels, 44 _n._\n\n Arabic Literature, euphuism in, 206\n\n Arabic Poets, subjectivity, 64;\n   parallels to \u2018Job\u2019 in, 100\n\n Arabic Proverbs compared with Hebrew, 134;\n   one quoted, 64\n\n Arabisms, in \u2018Job,\u2019 99, 291 _sq._;\n   in Proverbs, 172\n\n Aramaisms, in \u2018Job,\u2019 15 _n._, 92, 97, 99, 291 _sq._, 294;\n   in \u2018Proverbs,\u2019 154, 168, 172;\n   in Koheleth, 257\n\n Aristeas, the fragment of, 96\n\n Aristotle, definition of Virtue, 28\n\n Arnold, Matthew, 122\n\n Artaxerxes II. and III., 258\n\n Ashmedai, 80\n\n Assyrian, Discoveries, 5 _sq._;\n   Policy of uprooting nations, 73;\n   Theory of Angels, 44 _n._\n\n Atomism, doctrine of, 263\n\n Atonement, doctrine of the, 3, 287, 45\n\n Augustine, Saint, quoted, 147, 284\n\n Aurelius, Marcus, mentioned, 289;\n   quoted, 234;\n   compared with Koheleth, 245, 266 _sq._\n\n\n Babylonian, animal fables, 126;\n   physical theology, 52\n\n Bacon, Lord, the _New Atlantis_, 132;\n   _Adv. of Learning_, 210\n\n Bagoses, 258\n\n Bede, the Ven., on \u2018Job,\u2019 90\n\n Bedouin prayer, 52\n\n Behemoth, 56\n\n Ben Abuyah, 150\n\n Bereshith Rabba, quoted, 188\n\n Bernstein, on \u2018Job,\u2019 293\n\n Bertholdt, on \u2018Job,\u2019 293\n\n Bible, Milton\u2019s view of the, 253\n\n Biblical criticism, 1 _sq._\n\n Bickell, as a critic, 241;\n   on Job (xix. 25-27), 35, 288;\n   on Prov. (xxii. 19-21), 138;\n   on Sirach, 195;\n   on Koheleth (iv. 13-16), 213, (iii. 11) 276, (viii. 10) 220, 276;\n   list of poetical passages in Koheleth, 206;\n   on the text of Koheleth, 273;\n   and _passim_\n\n Bildad, his home, 15;\n   the advocate of tradition, 17, 23\n\n Binney, Mr., 296\n\n Birthday, Job\u2019s curse of his, 16\n\n Blake, William, quoted, 54;\n   his illustrations to \u2018Job,\u2019 19, 45 _n._, 50, 56, 59, 65, 106 _sq._\n\n Book of the Dead, parallels with \u2018Job,\u2019 39, 76\n\n B\u00f6ttcher, on \u2018Job,\u2019 68\n\n Bradley, Dean, 215, 229 _n._, 248\n\n Breton legend of St. Ives, 140\n\n Briggs, Prof., on Elihu\u2019s speeches, 93, 296\n\n Budde, on Aramaisms in \u2018Job,\u2019 291 _sqq._\n\n Buddha, 218\n\n Buddhist sayings, 128\n\n Budge, Mr., on Tiamat, 78\n\n Bullinger, on Sirach, 197\n\n Bunsen, quoted, 108 _n._\n\n Bunyan, 109\n\n\n Camerarius, edition of Sirach, 197\n\n Canon, the, final settlement, 233, 281\n\n Carlyle, quoted, 112, 144 _n._, 246\n\n Ceremonial system, value of, 119 _sq._;\n   approved by Sirach, 190\n\n Chabas, M., quoted, 57\n\n Chald\u00e6ans, 73;\n   their philosophy known to Job, 51\n\n Chateaubriand, quoted, 65\n\n Chinese proverbs, 129\n\n Christ, never used directly anti-sacrificial language, 3 _sq._;\n   Kenotic view of His person, 7;\n   whether Job a type of, 102 _sq._;\n   foregleams of, in Prov. viii., 176\n\n Christian doctrine in Koheleth, 248 _sq._\n\n Church of England, attitude to Biblical criticism, 1 _sq._\n\n Cicero, dialogues, 207\n\n Clement, of Rome, 176\n\n Coleridge, quoted, 108\n\n Constantinople, Councils at, 107, 282\n\n Cosmos, conception of the world as, 52, 161\n\n Cox, Dr., quoted, 46\n\n\n Daniel, plural authorship of the Book of, 8\n\n Dante, allusions to, 28, 51, 66, 76, 159, 194, 230;\n   quotations from, 45, 54, 130;\n   comparison of the _Divina Commedia_ to \u2018Job,\u2019 111\n\n Davenant, quoted, 252\n\n David, idealisation of, 131 _sqq._\n\n Davidson, on Job (xix. 25-27), 34\n\n Dawn, personified, 77\n\n De Jong, on Koheleth, 240\n\n Delitzsch, on the Praise of Wisdom, 163;\n   on the date of Proverbs, 170;\n   on the period of Koheleth, 258;\n   his Hebrew New Testament, 288;\n   and _passim_\n\n Derenbourg, quoted, 100\n\n De Sanctis, quoted, viii.\n\n Determinism, in Koheleth, 265 _sqq._\n\n Deuteronomy, in the reign of Josiah, 6;\n   points of contact with Job, 86;\n   influence on the Praise of Wisdom, 168 _sq._;\n   (xxxii. 8) explained, 81 _n._, 291\n\n De Vere, Aubrey, quoted, 105\n\n Dillmann, on style of Job, 294\n\n _D\u012bn Ibrahim_, morality of the, 98\n\n Dragon Myth, 16, 24, 76\n\n Dramatic character of \u2018Job,\u2019 107\n\n Drunkenness, 140, 156\n\n\n Ebers, Prof., 40, 269\n\n\n =Ecclesiastes, the Book of=\u2014\n   (_a_) Canonicity, 279 _sqq._;\n     title, 207 _n._, 298;\n     date and place of composition, 255 _sqq._, 271, 278;\n     break in its composition, 204;\n     language, 256;\n     style, 203, 207, 246;\n     how far autobiographical, 209;\n     comparison with Job, 203;\n     with Sirach, 279;\n     its standpoint, 200 _sqq._;\n     its pessimism, 215, 251 _sq._, 301;\n     its relation to Epicureanism, 215, 222, 252, 262 _sq._;\n     to Stoicism, 264\n   (_b_) _Passages explained or emended_:\n     (iii. 11, 12), 210, 260, 276, 299;\n     (iii. 17-21), 211;\n     (iv. 13-16), 213;\n     (v. 17), 260;\n     (v. 19), 261;\n     (vi. 9), 261;\n     (vii. 1), 215;\n     (vii. 18), 261;\n     (vii. 27), 219;\n     (viii. 10), 220, 276;\n     (viii. 12), 220;\n     (x. 20), 222;\n     (xi. 9-xii. 7), 300;\n     (xii. 1-7), 226;\n     (xii. 8-14), 229 _sqq._, 261, 301\n   Transpositions, 273 _sq._;\n   Interpolations, 275, and 211, 213, 224 _sq._, 226, 229 _sq._\n\n Ecclesiasticus, _see_ Sirach\n\n Edwards, Sutherland, on Mephistopheles, 110\n\n Egypt, theory that \u2018Job\u2019 was composed in, 75\n\n Egyptian, animal fables, 126 _n._;\n   discoveries, 5;\n   incantations, 16;\n   proverbs, 129;\n   influence on Koheleth, 269 _sq._\n\n Egyptian-Jewish literature, 181\n\n Elephantiasis, Job\u2019s disease, 22\n\n Elephants, 57\n\n Elihu, genealogy, 42 _n._;\n   speeches of, 68, 90 _sqq._;\n   their date, 42, 92;\n   their style, 47, 92, 291\n\n Eliphaz, his home, 15;\n   the \u2018depositary of a revelation,\u2019 17\n\n Elohim, the sons of the, 14, 79, 81, 82, 151\n\n Emerson, quoted, 160\n\n Enoch, 297;\n   Book of, 268\n\n Epictetus, 234 _n._\n\n Epicureanism, in Koheleth, 240 _sq._, 252, 262 _sq._\n\n Epicurus, 222\n\n Ethics, practical, relation to Hebrew Wisdom, 118 _sq._;\n   of the Proverbs, 135 _sq._\n\n Euergetes II. Physkon, 180\n\n Ewald, his division of the Book of Proverbs, 134;\n   of the Praise of Wisdom, 162;\n   on the date of Proverbs, 190;\n   on Koheleth, 236 _sqq._;\n   and _passim_\n\n Ezekiel (xiv. 14), 60\n\n Ezra, why not mentioned in Sirach, 193 _sq._\n\n\n Family life, in Proverbs, 136\n\n Farmers, Israelitish goodwill to, 136, 214\n\n Faust, the Hebrew, 150\n\n Fees, whether paid to the \u2018Wise Men,\u2019 124 _n._\n\n F\u00e9nelon, 67\n\n Friends, Job\u2019s, Emeers, 15;\n   representatives of orthodoxy, 17;\n   their narrowness, 30\n\n Froude, J. A., quoted on Job xxvii., 95 _n._\n\n\n Gamaliel, 280\n\n Geiger, on Koheleth, 238 _sq._\n\n Genesis, no protest against Idolatry in, 71;\n   opening chapters of, 6;\n   (xiv. 19-22), 160\n\n Gilchrist, Life of Blake, 107\n\n Ginsburg, Dr., on \u2018proportionate retribution\u2019 in Job, 69;\n   on Koheleth, 236;\n   on Eccles. (iii. 12), 210 _n._;\n   and _passim_\n\n Gnostic myth of Achamoth, 161\n\n God, name of, in Koheleth, 201, 217\n\n Godet, 288\n\n Gr\u00e4tz, on Koheleth, 244, 301\n\n Grave, Job\u2019s, 60\n\n Greek influence on Koheleth, 202, 241, 260 _sqq._\n\n Green, Prof., of Princeton, on Job, (xix. 25-27), 33, 34 _n._;\n   (xxvii.-xxviii.), 94\n\n Gregory the Great, on \u2018Job,\u2019 90\n\n\n Hai Gaon, Rabbi, on \u2018Job,\u2019 61\n\n Harischandra compared to Job, 63\n\n Harnack, quoted, 263\n\n Har\u016bn ar-Rashid, 131, 296\n\n Hegesias Peisithanatos, 268\n\n Heine, on \u2018Job,\u2019 104\n\n Hellenic movement in Palestine, 181\n\n Hengstenberg, on \u2018Job,\u2019 61;\n   on Koheleth, 249 _n._\n\n Herder, on \u2018Job,\u2019 295;\n   on Koheleth, 301\n\n Hezekiah, the Song of, 88;\n   his supposed authorship of Proverbs xxv.-xxix., 142 _sq._;\n   his views on medical science, 191\n\n Hillel, Rabbi, a copious fabulist, 128;\n   the School of, on Koheleth, 280\n\n Hitopadesa, quoted, 153\n\n Hitzig, as a critic, 241 _n._;\n   on the arrangement of the Praise of Wisdom, 163;\n   and _passim_\n\n Hooker, 161, 162, 216 _sq._\n\n Hosea, parallels to \u2018Job\u2019 in, 87\n\n Humboldt, A. von, 46\n\n Humour, touches of, in \u2018Job,\u2019 13, 14, 49, 109, 290;\n   in Proverbs, 148 _n._;\n   in Koheleth, 200, 216\n\n Husbandmen, Israelite goodwill to, 136, 214\n\n\n Ibn Ezra, opinion that \u2018Job\u2019 was a translation, 96\n\n Ibycus, the cranes of, 222\n\n Idealism, of the Prophets, 119\n\n Immortality, the hope of, in Proverbs, 122 _sq._;\n   attitude of Koheleth to, 216, 251, 301\n\n Inconsistencies in the Canonical Scriptures, 204\n\n Indian, animal fables, 126 _n._;\n   proverbs, 129\n\n Inspiration, view of, broadened by literary criticism, 7\n\n Irving, Edward, 162\n\n Isaiah, mythological allusions in, 78;\n   parallels to \u2018Job\u2019 in, 84, 87;\n   xxviii., 14, 120 _n._\n\n Israel, Job a type of, 58;\n   the word not in Proverbs, 119;\n   Koheleth indifferent to its religious primacy, 199\n\n Israelites, low religious position before the Exile, 6;\n   their sympathy with husbandmen, 136, 214\n\n Italian moralists, their use of \u2018Job,\u2019 viii.\n\n Ives, Saint, Breton legend of, 140\n\n\n Jamnia, Synod of, 233, 280\n\n Jehovah, the name, 71, 72 _n._;\n   consistency of the speeches of, in \u2018Job,\u2019 48, 94\n\n Jeremiah, parallels to \u2018Job\u2019 in, 86\n\n Jerome, Saint, on metrical character of \u2018Job,\u2019 12 _n._;\n   on Epicureanism in Koheleth, 262, 281\n\n Jewish nation, like Job, a byword, 32\n\n =Job, the Book of=\u2014\n   (_a_) Proposed title for, 12;\n     divisions of, 12 _sq._;\n     perhaps a translation, 96 _sq._;\n     probable stages of the growth of, 66 _sqq._;\n     date of, 67 _sqq._, 88, 157;\n     place of composition, 75;\n     effect of removing the interpolations in, 70;\n     Aramaic colouring of, 15 _n._, 92;\n     whether historical, 60 _sq._, 183, 290;\n     whether autobiographical, 63;\n     whether a drama, 107;\n     polemical aim of, 65;\n     religious teaching of, 102 _sqq._;\n     feeling for nature in, 51;\n     humour in, 13 _sq._, 49, 109, 290;\n     influence of, on other writers, viii. 83 _sq._\n   (_b_) =Author=, the greatest master of Hebrew Wisdom, 11;\n     circumstances of his age reflected in xvii. 6-9, 32;\n     a traveller, 75, 97;\n     looks beyond Israel, 65;\n     place of writing, 75\n   (_c_) =Hero=, his name, 62;\n     title given him by the Syrians, 65;\n     his nationality, 13, 59, 117, 170;\n     whether historical, 60 _sqq._, 103;\n     great age ascribed to him, 71;\n     his grave, 60;\n     dual aspect of, 32;\n     a type, 17, 21, 22, 28, 31, 32, 58, 65\n   (_d_) =Text.= (i.) _Passages explained or emended_:\n     (vi. 25), 288;\n     (xi. 6), 26;\n     (xiii. 15), 28;\n     (xv. 7), 167;\n     (xvi. 2), 31;\n     (xix. 25-27), 33 _sqq._, 288 _sq._;\n     (xxxiii. 13), 44;\n     (xxxviii. 41), 52 _n._;\n     (xxxix. 10), 53 _n._\n     (ii.), _Passages misplaced_, list of, 114;\n     also 38, 39 _n._, 40 _n._, 41, 50, 68, 94, 115\n     (iii.) _Passages interpolated_, 55 _sq._, 68 _sq._, 94, &c.\n\n Joel ii. 17 explained, 32\n\n Joseph, the tax farmer, 182, 191, 213\n\n Josephus, quoted, 190\n\n Joshua ben Hananyah, Rabbi, 230\n\n\n Kalisch, Dr., on Eccles. iii. 12, 210 _n._;\n   his _Path and Goal_, 265\n\n Kant, on Job\u2019s friends, 37\n\n Kenotic view of Christ\u2019s person, 7, 287\n\n _Kh\u00eeda_, a riddle, 125\n\n Kings, First Book of, (iv. 32) 132, (xix. 12) 19\n\n Kleinert, on Job (vi. 25), 288;\n   on the style of Elihu, 293\n\n Klostermann, translation of Eccles. vii., 21, 219\n\n Koheleth, the name, 207, 231;\n   his personality partly fused with Solomon, 208;\n   his originality, 205, 268 _sq._\n   _See also_ Ecclesiastes\n\n Koheleth, the Book of, _see_ Ecclesiastes\n\n Koran, quoted, &c., 31, 62 _n._, 63, 79 _n._\n\n Krochmal, N., on Epilogue to Koheleth, 232 _sq._\n\n K\u2019sil, = Orion, 77\n\n Kuenen, on the Levitical Law, 3\n\n\n Lagarde, on the use of \u2018Eloah,\u2019 72 _n._\n\n Lamentations, parallels to \u2018Job\u2019 in, 86\n\n Landed property, accumulation of, 146\n\n\n Law, the Levitical, authorship of, 3 _sqq._;\n   not enforced in pre-Exile period, 6;\n   identification of, with personified wisdom, 162, 192;\n   Koheleth\u2019s attitude to, 218\n\n Lee, Prof. S., on \u2018Job,\u2019 97, 294\n\n Lemuel, 154, 170 _sq._\n\n Letteris, Max, 150\n\n Leviathan, 56\n\n Love for one\u2019s enemies, 147\n\n Lowth, Bp., 16, 61, 107, 186, 237\n\n Lucretius, quoted, 201, 205;\n   compared with Koheleth, 263\n\n Luther, on Job, 61;\n   on Sirach, 197;\n   on Koheleth, 205\n\n Luzzatto, on the \u2018God of Job,\u2019 104;\n   on Koheleth, 238 _sq._\n\n\n Mal\u2019ak Yahv\u00e8, 80\n\n Mal\u2019akim, 79, 80, 82\n\n Marduk, the god, 77\n\n Mariolatry, 162 _n._\n\n Marvell, Andrew, quoted, 144\n\n _M\u0101sh\u0101l_, 125 _sq._, 132, 163\n\n Maspero, quoted, 76\n\n Massa, in the Hauran, Israelite colony at, 171\n\n Medical Science, attitudes of Sirach and Hezekiah to, 190 _sq._\n\n Meir, Rabbi, the writer of animal fables, 128\n\n Mendelssohn, on Koheleth, 236\n\n Mephistopheles, 110 _n._\n\n Merodach, the god, 77\n\n Merx, view of Job, 62, 113\n\n Messianic hope, 119, 188\n\n Midrash, proverbs in, 128\n\n Milton, allusions to, 53, 62, 107, 108, 112, 162, 253;\n   quotations from, 19, 41, 107, 160, 162\n\n Mishnic peculiarities in Koheleth, 256\n\n _M\u2019l\u00ee\u00e7a_, a dark saying, 125\n\n Mohammed, delight of, in Job, 63;\n   religion of, 98\n\n Mommsen, quoted, 181\n\n Monarchy, view of, in Proverbs, 145;\n   in Koheleth, 222\n\n Monogamy, in Proverbs, 136\n\n Monotheism, of Job, 74;\n   in Proverbs, 130\n\n Morality, of the Proverbs, 135 _sq._, 177\n\n Moses, authorship of the Law, 3;\n   nature of his work, 6\n\n Mo\u2019tazilites, 98, 162 _n._, 296\n\n Mozley, quoted, 103\n\n Mussaph prayer, 193\n\n Mythology, in \u2018Job,\u2019 76\n\n\n Narrative poetry, alien to Hebrew genius, 13\n\n Nature, feeling for, in \u2018Job,\u2019 51;\n   in Sirach, 193\n\n Nebuchadnezzar, 73\n\n Neferhotep, stanzas in honour of, 269\n\n Neubauer, Dr. A., 289\n\n New Testament, attitude to Proverbs, 177\n\n Nowack, on Eccles. (iii. 12), 210 _n._\n\n Numerical Proverbs, 153\n\n\n Old Testament, general remarks on the criticism of, 1 _sqq._;\n   need to distinguish between the parts of, 7;\n   critical problems of, not prominent in Christ\u2019s time, 7\n\n Omar Khayyam, 200, 245, 246, 253, 263\n\n Onias, the High Priest, 213\n\n Onkelus, Targum of, 264\n\n Oort, Dr., on proverbs, 127\n\n Orion, 77\n\n\n Palmer, Major, 52\n\n Parables, in the Old Testament, 126\n\n Paradise, tradition of, 123\n\n Patriarchal Age, whether delineated in Job, 13, 71 _sqq._\n\n Paul, Saint, doctrine of the Atonement, 3, 287\n\n Pentateuch, the literary analysis of it, 5 _sq._\n\n Peshitto translation of Proverbs, 174\n\n Philo, 151, 161 _n._, 264\n\n Pisa, Job frescoes at, 106\n\n Pleiades, 52, 290\n\n Plumptre, Dean, 122, 158, 207 _n._, 212, 245, 263, 265;\n   and _passim_\n\n Prior, the poet, on Koheleth, 237\n\n Prophetical books, plural authorship in, 8\n\n Prophets, their antisacrificial language, 4;\n   their horizon that of their own times, 8;\n   their relations to the \u2018Wise Men,\u2019 119 _sqq._, 182 _sq._\n\n Proverbs, different names for, 125;\n   no collection of popular, 125;\n   some originally current as riddles, 127\n\n =Proverbs, the Book of=\u2014\n   (_a_) The division of, 134;\n     repetitions in, 133, 143;\n     no subject arrangement, 134;\n     the tone of the different parts of, 135, 146, 167, 177;\n     their dates, 130, 133, 145, 149, 152, 165 _sqq._;\n     their authorship, 130 _sqq._, 142, 135, 165 _sq._;\n     their form and style, 133, 139, 143. 149, 154, 168;\n     interpolations in, 173 _sqq._;\n     transpositions in, 174\n   (_b_) _Passages explained or emended_:\n     (v. 16), 296;\n     (viii. 22), 160;\n     (xiv. 32), 122;\n     (xviii. 24), 137;\n     (xix. 1), 135 _n._;\n     (xix. 7), 134;\n     (xxii. 19-21), 138;\n     (xxiii. 18), 123;\n     (xxvii. 6), 148, 296;\n     (xxx. 1-5), 149 _sq._, 170;\n     (xxx. 15-16), 153;\n     (xxx. 31), 175;\n     (xxii. 1), 170\n\n Psalms, relations of, to \u2018Job,\u2019 84, 88;\n   Psalm viii. 5 parodied in \u2018Job\u2019 (vii. 17, 18), 22\n\n Ptahhotep, Proverbs of, 121\n\n Ptolemy Arsacides, Golden Table, 289\n\n Puscy, Dr. quoted, 1\n\n\n Q\u2019d\u014dsh\u012bm, 80, 149 _n._\n\n Quinet quoted, 105\n\n\n Ra, the sun god, 76\n\n Rahab, the helpers of, 24, 76\n\n Raven (in Job xxxviii. 41), 52 _n._\n\n Realism of the \u2018Wise Men,\u2019 119\n\n Renan, on the style of Elihu, 47;\n   on Koheleth, 206, 234, 242 _sq._, 246, 298;\n   and _passim_\n\n Resh Lakish, Rabbi, quoted, 60\n\n Resurrection, hope of, 34, 75, 188 _sq._, 251, 301\n\n Retribution, proportionate, 23, 35, 58, 73, 98, 121, 140, 167, 189, 190\n    _n._, 200, 219, 251\n\n Riddles, proverbs originally current as, 127\n\n\n Rig Veda, quoted, 78, 152\n\n Romans, vii. 20 adopted from Proverbs (xxiv. 17, 18), 147\n\n Romaunt of the Rose, quoted, 300\n\n Rossetti, Miss C., 242\n\n\n Sacrificial system, importance of, in post-Exile period, 4;\n   relations of Job to, 71.\n   _See also_ Law\n\n Salmon, Prof., on Eccles. (ix. 7-9), 262\n\n Samaritans, 194\n\n Sammael, 80\n\n Sandys\u2019, George, translation of \u2018Job,\u2019 106\n\n Satan, the, 14, 79, 80, 109, 188 _sq._, 297\n\n Schiller, 12\n\n Schultens, Albert, quoted, 61, 97, 99\n\n Sea Life, familiar, 140;\n   cf. 133\n\n Seneca, quoted, 57, 265\n\n Septuagint version, of \u2018Job,\u2019 113, 114, 296;\n   of Proverbs, 173;\n   of Koheleth, 277\n\n Seven Wise Men, of Greece, 119, 124\n\n Shammaites, on Koheleth, 280 _sq._\n\n Shedim, 80\n\n Shelley, delight in Job, 112, 253;\n   dislike of Koheleth, 253\n\n Sibyl, the oldest Jewish, 264\n\n Simeon ben Shetach, 282 _sq._\n\n Simon II., 180, 181 _sq._\n\n\n Sirach, parentage, 180;\n   early life, 182;\n   a true \u2018scribe,\u2019 185;\n   unacquainted with Greek philosophy, 190;\n   interested in nature and history, 193\n\n =Sirach, the Book of=\u2014\n   (_a_) Canonicity, 279 _sq._, 282 _sq._;\n     the name Ecclesiasticus, 197;\n     written in Hebrew, 194, 196;\n     ancient versions of, 297;\n     its date, 180 _sqq._;\n     subject arrangement, 183;\n     style, 185;\n     whether autobiographical, 186;\n     parallelisms in, to Proverbs, 184;\n     no philosophical thought in, 182;\n     imperfect moral teaching in, 187;\n     conception of the divine nature, 188\n   (_b_) _Passages emended or explained_;\n     (xi. 16), 188;\n     (xxi. 27), 189 _n._;\n     (xxiv. 27), 196;\n     (xxv. 15), 196;\n     (xlvi. 18), 196;\n     (xlviii. 11), 189, 193;\n     (l. 1), 193;\n     (l. 26), 193\n\n Soferim, 238. _See also_ \u2018Wise Men\u2019\n\n Solar Myths, 16, 22, 24, 76, 77\n\n Solomon, secular turn of, 72;\n   reputed authorship of Proverbs, 130 _sqq._, 165, 170;\n   Koheleth\u2019s representative of humanity, 202, 207;\n   reputed authorship of Koheleth, 255, 275\n\n Sophia, Gnostic myth of, 161 _n._\n\n Sophocles, 107, 220\n\n Spanheim, quoted, 97\n\n Spenser, the poet, 12\n\n Spinoza, on Job, 61\n\n\n Spirits, classes of, 44 _sq._\n\n Stanley, Dean, on Koheleth, 245, 255\n\n Star worship, 71, 82\n\n Steersmanship, the term, 133\n\n Stickel, quoted, 102\n\n Stoicism, in Koheleth, 240 _sq._, 264\n\n Swift, 15\n\n Swinburne, quoted, 212\n\n Syrian title for Job, 65\n\n\n Talmud, on Job, 64;\n   proverbs in the, 128;\n   Sirach cited in, 196;\n   comparison of Koheleth with, 205;\n   on Koheleth, 281\n\n Tasso, 109 _n._\n\n Taylor, C., on Job (xix. 26), 289\n\n Taylor, Jeremy, 253\n\n Temple, Bishop, 225\n\n Tennyson, quoted, 212\n\n Theism, argument for, early based on tradition, 23;\n   of the Praise of Wisdom, 167\n\n Theodore of Mopsuestia, 107\n\n Thirlwall, Bishop, quoted, 2\n\n Thomas \u00e0 Kempis, 231, 249\n\n Thomson, the poet, quoted, 21\n\n Thoreau, quoted, 106, 252\n\n Tiamat, 77\n\n Trades, disparaged in Sirach, 186\n\n Turgenieff, 243\n\n Turner, Studies Biblical and Oriental, quoted, 46\n\n Tyler, on Koheleth, 240, 263 _sq._\n\n\n Unicorn, in Job (xxxix. 10), 53 _n._\n\n Utilitarianism of the Wise Men, 121, 137\n\n Uz, locality of, 13 _n._\n\n\n Vaihinger, on Koheleth, 236 _sq._\n\n Varuna, Vedic hymn to, 154\n\n Vatke, on date of Proverbs, 1\n\n Vedic hymns, 77, 154. _See also_ Rig Veda\n\n Virtue, Koheleth\u2019s \u2018theory of,\u2019 218\n\n\n Webbe, George, quoted, 113\n\n Wellhausen, on Levitical Law, 3 _sqq._;\n   on Job, 290\n\n Wisdom, the Hebrew, nature of, 117 _sq._;\n   personification of, 162, 192\n\n\n Wise Men, the, 118, 123, 148, 182 _sqq._\n\n Women, in Proverbs, 135, 154;\n   in Sirach, 187;\n   in Koheleth, 219, 299\n\n Woolner, quoted, 229\n\n Wordsworth, 162\n\n Wright, Bateson, on Job, 113\n\n\n Zeno, 265 _sq._\n\n Zirkel, on Gr\u00e6cisms in Job, 260 _sq._\n\n Zophar, home of, 15;\n   the \u2018man of common sense,\u2019 17\n\n _Zwischenschriften_, 180\n\n\n\n\n \u25cf Transcriber\u2019s Notes:\n    \u25cb Inconsistent spelling and hyphenation were made consistent only\n      when a predominant form was found in this book.\n    \u25cb Text that was in italics is enclosed by underscores (_italics_).\n      Text that was in bold face is enclosed by equals signs (=bold=).\n    \u25cb Footnotes have been moved to follow the chapters in which they are\n      referenced.","title":"Job and Solomon: Or, The Wisdom of the Old Testament","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":110997}