NOTE S, CURITICAL, ILLUSTRATIVE, AND PRACTICAL, ON'TFE BOOK OF JOB: WITH A NEW TRANSLATION, i NTRODUCTORY DISSERTATION. ALBERT BARNES. VOL. 1. NEW IMPROVED EDITION. NEW-YORK: GEO R GE A. LEAVITT, (SUCCESSOR TO LEAVITT & CO.), NO. 12 VESEY- S T REET. 1852. Entered, accordiig to Act of Congress, in the year 1844, by. LPLBERT - Bo.ARNE S. in the Office of the Clerk prf?!,Je ilstrict Court of the Eastern District;of Pehnnsylvania. lN TR I O DUC I ION. IN reference to no part of the Scriptures have so many questions arisen as to the Book of Job. The time of its composition; the author; the country where the scene was laid; the question whether Job was a real person; the nature and design of the poem; bave been points on which a great variety of opinion has been entertained among expositors, and on which different views still prevail. It is important, in order to a correct understanding of the Book, that all the light should be thrown on these subjects which can be; and though amidst the variety of opinion which prevails among men of the highest distinction in learning absolute certainty cannot be hoped for, yet such advances have been made in the investigation that on some of these points we may arrive to a high degree of probability. ~ 1. Thle question 2wehether,Job was a realpe2rson. The first question which presents itself in the examination of the Book is, whether Job had a real existence. This has been doubted on such grounds as the following. (1.) The Book has been supposed by some to have every mark of an allegory. Allegories and parables, it is said, are not uncommon in the Scriptures where a case is supposed, and then the narrative proceeds as if it were real. Such an instance, it has been maintained, occurs here, in which the author of the poem designed to illustrate important truths, but instead of stating them in an abstract form, chose to present them in the more graphic and interesting form of a supposed case-in which we are led to sympathize with a sufferer; to see the ground of the difficulty in the question under discussion in a more affecting manner than could be presented in an abstract form; and where the argument has all to interest the mind which one has when occurring in real life. (2.) It has been maintained that some of the transactions in the Book must have been of this character, or are such as could not have actually occurred. Particularly it has been said that the account of the interview of Satan with JEHOVAH (ch. i iv INTRODUCTION. 6-12, ii. 1-7) must be regarded merely as a supposed case, it being in the highest degree improbable that such an interview would occur, and such a conversation be held. (3.) The same conclusion has been drawn from the artificial character of the statements about the possessions of Job, both before and after his trials-statements which appear as if the case were merely supposed, and which would not be likely to occur in reality. Thus we have only round numbers mentioned in enumerating his possessions-as seven thousand sheep, three thousand camels, five hundred yoke of oxen, and five hundred she-asses. So, also, there is somnething artificial in the manner in which the sacred numbers secOen and three are used. He had seven thousand sheep, seven sons -both before and after his trials; his three fiiends came and sat down seven days and seven nights without saying a word to condole with him (ch. xi. 13); and both before and after his trials he had three daughters. The same artificial and parabolical appearance, it is said, is seen in the fact that after his recovery his possessions were exactly doubled, and he had again in his old age exactly the same number of seven sons and three daughters which he had before his afflictions. (4.) That the whole narration is allegorical or parabolical has been further argued from the conduct of the friends of Job Their sitting down seven days and seven nights without saying any thing, when they had come expressly to condole with him, it is said, is a wholly improbable circumstance, and looks as if the whole were a supposed case. (5.) The same thing has been inferred from the manner in which the Book is written. It is of the highest order of poetry. The speeches are most elaborate; are filled with accurate and carefully prepared argument; are arranged with great care; are expressed in the most sententious manner; embody the results of long and carefuil observation, and are wholly unlike what would be uttered in unpremeditated and extemporary debate. No meni, it is said, talkc in this manner; nor can it be supposed that beautiful poetry and sublime argument, such as abound in this. book, ever fell in aniniated debate from the lips of men. See Eichhorn, Einleitung in das Alte Tes. V. land. 129-131. From considerations such as these, the historical character of the Book has been doubted, and the whole has been regarded as a supposedl case designed to illustrate the great question which the author of the poem proTposed to examine. It is itport'ant, therefore, to inquire what reasons there are for believing that such a person as Job lived, and how far the transactions referred to in the Book are to be regarded as historically true. (1.) The fact of his existence is expressly declared, and the narrative has all the appearance of being a siml)le record of an actual occurrence. The first two chapters of the Book, and a part INTRODUCTION. V of the last chapter, are simple historical records The remainder of the Book is indeed poetic, but these portions have none of the characteristics of poetry. There are not to be found in the Bible niore simple and plain historical statements than these; and there are none which, in themselves considered, rnight not be as properly set aside as allegorical. This fact should be regarded as decisive, unless there is some reason which does not appear on the face of the narrative for regarding it as allegorical. (%.) The account of the existence of such a man is regarded as historically true by the inspired writers of the Scriptures. Thus in Ezekiel xiv. 1.4, God says, "Though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job were in it [the land], they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness, saith the Lord God." Comnp. vs. 16, 20, of the same chapter. I-lere Job is referred to as a real character as distinctly as Noah and Daniel, and all the circumstances are just such as they would be on the supposition that lie had a real existence. They are alike spoken of as real' men;' as having souls-' they should deliver bat their own souls by their own righteousness;' as having sons and daughters —'they shall deliver neither sons nor daughters, they only shall be delivered' (ver. 16), and are in all respects mentioned alike as real characters. Of the historic fact that there were such men as Noah and Daniel there can be no doubt, and it is evident that Ezekiel as certainly regarded Job as a real character as he did either of the others. A parallel passage, which will illustrate this, occurs in Jeremiah xv. 1: " Then said the Lord unto me, Though Moses and Samuel stood before me, yet my mind could not be towards this people." Here Moses and Samuel are spoken of as real characters, and there is no doubt of their having existed. Yet they are mentioned ill the same manner as Job is in the passage in Ezekiel. In either case it is incredible that a reference should have been made to a fictitious character. The appeal is one that could have been -made only to a real character, and there can be no reasonable doubt that Ezekiel regarded Job as haviniig really existed; or rather,. since it is God who speaks and not Ezekiel, that he speaks of Job as having actually existed. The same thing is evident fi'om a reference to Job by the Apostle James: " Ye have heard of the patience of Job, and have seen the end of the Lord; that the Lord is very pitiful and of tender mercy " (ch. v. 11); that is, the happy issue to which the Lord brought all his trials, showing that he was pitiful to those in affliction, and of great mercy. There can be no doubt that there is reference here to the sufferings of a real man, as there is to the rceal compassion which the Lord shows to one in great trials. It is incredible that this sacred writer should have appealed in this instance to the case of one whom he regarded as VY INTRODUCTION. a fictitious character; and if the views of Ezekiel ant Janies are to be relied on, there carl be no doubt that Job had a real existence. Ezekiel mentions him just as he does Noah and Daniel, and James mentions him just as he does Elijah (ch. v. 17); and so far as this historical record goes there is the same evidence of the actual existence of the one as of the other. (8.) The specifications of places and names in the Book are not such as would occur in an allegory. }had it been merely a'sups posed case,' to illustrate sorme great truth, these specifications would have been unnecessary, and would not have occurred. In the acknowledged parables of the Scripture, there are seldom any very minute specifications of names and places. Thus, in the parable of the prodigal son, neither the name of the fahther, nor of the sons, nor of the place where the scene was laid, is mentioned. So of the nobleman who went to receive a kingdom; the unjust steward; the two virgins, and of numerous others. But here we have distinct specifications of a great number of things, which are in no way necessary to illustrate the main truth in the poem. Thus we have not only the name of the sufferer, but the place of his residence mentioned, as if it were well known. We have the names of his friends, and the places of their residence mentioned"Eliphaz the Ternanite," and " Bildad the Sthutite," and " Zophar the Vaccmzatltite," and Elihu "the son of Barachel the Buzite, of the kindred of Ram." Why are the places of residence of these persons mentioned unless it be meant to intimate that they were real persons, and not allegorical characters? In like manner we have express mention of the Sabeans and the Chaldeansspecifications wholly unnecessary if not improbable if the work is an tallegory. The single word' robbers' would have answered all the purpose, and would have been such as an inspired writer would have used unless the transaction were real, for an inspired writer would not have charged this offence on any class of' men, thus holding them up to lasting reproach, unless an event of this kind had actually occurred. When the Saviour, in the parable of the good Samaritan, mentions a robbery that occurred between Jerul saleni and Jericho, the word'thieves,' or more properly robbers, is.,le only word used. No names are mentioned, nor is any class of men referred to, who would by such a mention of the name be held up to infamy. Thus also we have the particular statement respecting the feasting of the sons and daughters of Job; his sending for and admonishing them; his offering up special sacrifices on their Dehalf; the account of the destruction of the oxen, the sheep, the camels, and the house where the sons and daughters of Job wereall statements of circumstances which would not be likely to occur in an allegory. They are such particular statements as we expect to INTRODUCTIO.N. V1l find i especting the real transactions, and they bear on the face of them the simple impression of truth. This is not the kind of information which we look for in a parable. In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, almost the only one spoken by the Saviour where a nanme is mentioned, we have not that of the rich man; and though the name Lazarus is mentioned, yet that is all. We have no account of his family, of his place of residence, of his genealogy, of the time when he lived; and the name itself is so common that it would be impossible even to suspect whom the Saviour had in his eye, if he had any real individual at all. Far different is this in the account of Job. It is true that in a romance, or in an extended allegory like the Pilgrim's Progress, we expect a detailed statement of names and places ~ but there is no evidence that there is any such extended fictitious narrative in the Bible, and unless the Book of Job be one there is no such extended allegory. (4.) The objections urged against this view are not such as to destroy the positive proof of the reality of the existence of Job. The objections which have been urged against the historical truth of the narrative, and which have already been in part alluded to, are principally the following. The first is, the account of the interview between God and Satan in chs. 1 and 2. It is alleged that this is so improbable a transaction as to throw an air of fiction over all the historical statements of the book. In reply to this, it may be observed, first, that even if this were not to be regarded as a literal transaction, it does not prove that no such man as Job lived, and that the transactions in regard to him were not real. ~ Ie might have had an existence, and been stripped of his possessions, and subjected to these long and painful trials of his fidelity, even if this wzere a poetic ornament, or merely a figurative representation. But, secondly, it is impossible to prove that no such transaction occurred. The existence of such a being as Satan is everywhere recognized in the Scriptures; the account which is here given of his character accords entirely with the uniform representation of him; he exerts no power over Job which is not expressly conceded to him; and it is impossible to prove that he does not even now perform the same things in the trial of good men, which it is said that he did in the case of Job. And even if it be admitted that there is somewhat of poetic statement in the form in which he is introduced, still this does not render the main account improbable and absurd. The Bible, from the necessity of the case, abounds with representations of this sort; and when it is said that God' speaks' to men, that he conversed with Adam, that he spake to the serpent (Gen. iii.), we are not necessarily to suppose that all this is strictly literal, nor does VMal INTRODUCTION, the fact that it is not strictly literal invalidate the main facts. T'here were results, or there was a series of FACTS tbllowing, as iJ this had been literally true. See Notes on ch. i. 6-12. A second objection to the historical truth of the transactions recorded in the book is, the poetic character of the work, and the strong improbability that addresses of this kind should ever have been made in the manner here represented. See Eichhorn, Ein reit. v. 123, 124. They are of the highest order of poetry; they partake not at all of the nature of extemporaneous effusions; they indicate profound and close thinking, and are such as must have required much time to have prepared them. Especially it is said that it is in the highest degree improbable that Job, in the anguish of his body and mind, should have been capable of giving utterance to poetry and argument of this highly finished character. In regard to this objection, it may be observed, (1,) that even if this were so, and it were to be supposed that the arguments of the various speakers have a poetic character, and were in reality never uttered in the form in which we now have them, still this would not invalidate the evidence which exists of the historic truth of the facts stated about the existence and trials of Job. It might be true that he lived and suffered in this manner, and that a discussion of this character actually occurred, and that substantially these arguments were advanced, though they were afterwards wrought by Job himself or by some other hand into the poetic form in which we now have them. Job himself lived after his trials one hundred and forty years, and, in itself considered, there is no improbability in the supposition, that when restored to the vigorous use of his powers, and in the leisure which he enjoyed, he should have thought it worthy to present the argument which he once held on this great subject in a more perfect form, and to give to it a more poetic cast. In this case, the main historic truth would be retained, and the real argument would in fact be statedthough in a form more worthy of preservation than could be expected to fall extemporaneously from the lips of the speakers. But (2,) all the difficulty may be removed by a supposition which is entirely in accordance with the character of the book and the nature of the case. It is, that the several speeches succeeded each other at such intervals as gave full time for reflection, and for carefully framing the argument. There is no evidence that the whole argument was gone through with at one sitting; there are no proofs that one speech followed immediately on another, or that a sufficient interval of time may not have elapsed to give opportunity for preparation to meet the views which had been suggested by the previous speaker. Every thing in the book bears the marks of the most careful deliberation, and is;s free as possible fiom the hurry INTRODUCTION. 1x and bustle of an extemporaneous debate. The sufferings of Job were evidently of a protracted nature. His friends sat down "seven days and seven nights" in silence before they said any thing to him. The whole subject of the debate seems to be arranged Ewith most systematic care and regularity. The speakers succeed each other in regular order in a series of argun-ents-in each of these series following the saine method, and no one of them out of his place. No one is ever interrupted while speaking; and no matter how keen and sarcastic his invectives, how torturingO his reproaches, how bold or blasphemous what he said wias thought to be, he is patiently heard till hec has said all that he designed to say; and then all that he said iis carefully weighed and considered in the reply. All this looks as if there nighat have been ample time to arrange the reply before it was uttered, and this supposition, of course, would relieve all the force of this objection. If this be so, then there is no more ground of objection against the supposition that these things were spoken, as it is said they were, than there is about the genuineness of the poems of the Grecian Rhapsodists, composed with a view to public recitation, or to the Iliad of Homer or the History of Ierodotus, both of whiclh, after they were composed, were recited publicly by their authors at Athens. No one can prove certainly that the several persons named in the book —Job, Eliphaz, Bildad, Zophar, and Elihu —were incompetent to compose the speeches which are severally assigned to them, or that all the time necessary for such a colnposition was not taken by them. Unless this can be done, the objection of its improbability, so confidently urged by Eich. horn (Einleit. v. 123, seq.), and defended by Noyes (Intro. pp. xx. xxi.), where he says that " the supposition that so beautifiel and harmonious a whole, every part of which bears the stamp of the highest genius, was the casual production of a man brought to the gates of the grave by a loathsome disease, of three or four friends who had come to comfort him in his affliction, all of them expressing their thoughts in poetical and measured language; that the Deity was actually heard to speak half an hour in the midst of a violent storm; and that the consultations in the heavenly world were actual occurrences, is too extravagant to need refutation," is an objection really of little force. A third objection has been derived from the round and doubica numbers which occur in the book, and the artificial character which the whole narrative seems to assume on that account. It is alleged that this is wholly an unusual and improbable occurrence; anc( that the whole statement appears as if it wiere a fictitious narrative. Thus Job's possessions of oxen and camels and sheep are expressed in round numbers; one part of these is X INTRODUCTION, exactly the double of' another; and what is more remarkable still.. all these are exactly doubled on his restoration to health. He had the same number of sons and the same number of daughters after his trial which he had before, and the number of each was what was esteemed among the Hebrews as a sacred number.-In regard to this objection, we may observe, ( 1) That as to the round numbers, this is no more than what constantly occurs in historical statements. Nothing is more common in the enumeration of armies, of the people of a country, or of herds and flocks, than such statements. (2.) In regard to the fact that the possessions of Job are said to have been exactly " doubled " after his recovery from his calamities, it is not necessary to suppose that this was in all respects literally true. Nothing forbids us to suppose that, from the gifts of friends and other causes, the possessions of Job came so near to being just twice what they were before his trials, as to justify this general statement. In the statement itself, there is nothing improbable. Job lived an hundred and forty years after his trials. If he had then the same measure of prosperity which lhe had before, and with the assistance of his fiiends to enable him to begin life again, there is no improbability in the supposition that these possessions would be doubled. These are substantially all the objections which have been urged against the historical character of the book, and if they are not well founded, then it follows that it should be regarded as his.. torically true that such a man actually lived, and that he passed through the trials which are here described. How far, if at all, the license of poetry has been employed in the composition of the book will be considered more particularly in another part of this Introduction, ~ 6. A more extended statement of these objections, and a refutation of them, may be found in the following works: —Warburton's Divine Legation of Moses, Vol. V. p. 29S, seq., ed. Svo. London, S11l, Prof. Lee on Job, Intro. 11-; and Magee on Atonement and Sacrifice, p. 212, seq., ed. New-York, 1813. It should be said, however, that not a few writers admit that such a man as Job lived, and that the book has an historical basis, while they regard the work itself as in the main poetic. In the view of such critics, the poet, in order to illustrate the great truth which he proposed to consider, made use of a tradition respecting the sufferings of a well known person of distinction_ and gave to the whole argument the high poetic cast which it has now. This supposition is in accordance with the methods frequently adopted by epic and tragic poets, and which is commonly followed by writers of romance. This is the opinion of Eichhorn, -Enleitung V. ~ 638. INTRODUCTION. Xi ~ 2. The question where Job lived. In chapter i. 1, it is said that Job dwelt " in the land of Uz.' The only question, then, to be settled in ascertaining where he lived, is, if possible, to determine where this place was. From the manner in which the record is made (" the landof Uz ") it would seem probable that this was a region of country of some considerable extent, and also that it derived its name from some man of that name who had settled there. The word Uz (:.r;), according to Gesenius, means a light, sandy soil; and if the name was given to the country with reference to this quality of the soil, it would be natural to fix on some region remarkable for its barrenness —a waste place, or a desert. Gesenius supposes that Uz was in thenorthern part of Arabia Deserta-a place lying between Palestine and the Euphrates, called by Ptolemy Aiorcat (Aisitai). This opinion is defended by Rosenmiller (Proleg.); and is adopted by Spanheim, Bochart, Lee, Umbreit, Noyes, and the authors of the Universal History. Dr. Good supposes that the Uz here referred to was in Arabia Petraa, on the south-western coast of the Dead Sea, and that Job and all his friends referred to in the poem were Idumeans. Introductory Dissertation, ~ 1, pp. viixii. Eichhorn also supposes that the scene is laid in Idumea, and that the author of the poem shows that he had a particular acquaintance with the history, customs, and productions of Egypt. Einleit ~ 638. Bochart (in Phaleg et Canaan), Michaelis (Spicileg. Geog. Hebrae.), and Ilgen (Jobi, Antiquis. carminis Heb. natura et indoles, p. 91), suppose that the place of his residence was the valley of Guta near Damascus, regarded as the most beautiful of the four Paradises of the Arabians. For a description of this valley, see Eichhorn, Einleit. V. s. 134. The word:;. ( Uz) occurs only in the following places in the Hebrew Bible:-Gen. x. 23, xxii. 21, xxxvi. 28, and 1 Chron. i. 17, 42, in each of which places it is the name of a man; and in Jer. xxv. 20, Lam. iv. 21, and in Job i. 1, where it is applied to a country. The only circumstances which furnish any probability in regard to the place where Job lived, are the following. (1.) Those which enable us to determine with some probability where the family of Uz was settled, who not improbably gave his name to the country-as Sheba, and Seba, and Tema, and Cush, and Misraim, and others, did to the countries where they settled. In Gen. x. 23, Uz (Yx.) is mentioned as a grandson of Shem. In. Gen. xxii. 21, an Uz (English Bible Huz) is mentioned as the son of Nahor, brother of Abraham, undoubtedly a different person from the one mentioned in Gen. x. 23. In Gen. xxxvi. 2S, an individual of this name is mentioned among the descendants of Esau. In I x1i INTRODUCTI ON. Chron. i. 17, the name occurs among the " sons of Shem;" and iln ver. 48, of the same chapter, the same name occurs among the descendants of Esau. So far, therefore, as the name is concerned, it may have been derived from one of the family of Shem, or from one who was a contemporary with Abraham, or from a somewhat remote descendant of Esau. It will be seen in the course of this Introduction, that there is strong improbability that the name was given to the country because it was settled by either of the two latter, as such a supposition would bring down the time when Job lived to a later period than the circumstances recorded in his history will allow, and it is therefore probable that the name was conferred in honor of the grandson of Shem. This fact, of itself; will do something to determine the place. Shem lived in Asia, and we shall find that the settlements of his descendants originally occupied the country somewhere in the vicinity of the Euphrates. Gen. x. 21-30. In Gen. x. 23, Uz is mentioned as one of the sons of Aram, who gave name to the country known as Aramca, or Syria, and from whom the Arameans descended. Their original residence, it is supposed, was near the river Kir, or Cyrus, whence they were brought, at some period now unknown, by a deliverance resemblino that of the children of Israel from Egypt, and placed in the regions of Syria. See Amos ix. 7. The inhabitants of Syria and Mesopotamia are always called by Moses Arameus; as they had their seat in and near Mesopotamia, it is proba. ble that Uz was located also not far from that region. We should, therefore, naturally be led to look for the country of Uz somewhere in that vicinity. In Gen. x. 30, it is further said of the sons of Shem, that " their dwelling was from Mesha, as thou goest unto Sephar, a mount of the East;" a statement which corresponds with what is said of Job himself, that he was " the greatest of all the men of the East " (ch. i. 3), manifestly implying that he was an inhabitant of the country so called. Various opinions have been entertained of the places where Mesha and Sephar were. The opinion of Michaelis is the most probable (Spicileg. pt. 11, p. 214), " that Mesha is the region around Passora, which the later Syrians called Maishon, and the Greeks lIesene. Under these names they included the country on the Euphrates and the Tigris, between Silencia and the Persian Gulf. Abulfeda menitions in this region two cities not far from Passora, called Iiiaisan, and iaushan. Here, then, was probably the north-eastern border of the district inhabited by the Joktanites. The name of the opposite limit, Sephar, signifies in the Chaldee shore or coast, and is probably the western part of Yemen, along the Arabian Gulf, now called by the Arabs Teh;amah. The range of high and mountainous country between these two borders, Moses calls " the Mount INTRODUCTION. xin of the East," or eastern mountains. It is also called by the Arabs Djebal, i. e. mountains, to the present day. See Rosenmitller's Alterthumskunde, iii. 163, 164. The supposition that some portion of this region is denoted by the country where Uz settled, and is the place whlere Job resided, is strengthened by the fact, that many of the persons and tribes mentioned in the book resided in this vicinity. Thus it is probable that Eliphaz the Temanite had his residence there. See Notes on ch. ii. 11. The Sabeans probably dwelt not very remote from that region (Notes on ch. i. 15); the Chaldeails we know had their residence there (Notes ch. i. 17), and this supposition will agree well with what is said of the tornado that came fi'om the'wilderness,' or desert. See Notes on ch. i. 19. The residence of Job was so Inear to the Chaldeans and the Sabeans that he could be reached in their usual predatory excursions; a fact that better accords with the supposition that his residence was in some part of Arabia Deserta, than that it was in Idumea. (2.) This country is referred to in two places by Jeremiah, which may serve to aid us in determining its location. Lam. iv. 21. "Rejoice and be glad, O daughter of Edom, "That dwellest in the land of Uz; " The cup shall pass through unto thee; " Thou shalt be drunken, and shalt make thy self naked.' At first view, perhaps, this passage would indicate that the land of Uz was a part of Edom, yet it more properly indicates that the land of Uz was not a part of that land, but that the 1Edomites or Idurneans had gained possession of a country which did not origiri nally belong to them. Thus the prophet speaks of the' daughter of Edom,' not as dwelling in her own country properly, but as dwelling'inthe land of Uz'-in a foreign country, of which she had someholw obtained possession. The country of Edom, pro, perly, was Mount Seir and the vicinity, south of the Dead Sea; but it is known that the Edomites subsequently extended their boundaries, and that at one period Bozrah, on the east of the Dead Sea, in the country of. Moab, was their capital. See the Analysis of ch. xxxiv. of Isaiah, and Notes on Isa. xxxiv. 6. It is highly probable that -Jeremiah refers to the period when the LIdumeans, having secured these conquests, and made this foreign city their capital, is represented as dwelling there. If so, according to this passage in Lamentations, we should naturally look for the land of Uz somewhere in the countries to which the conquests of the Edomites extended-and these conquests were chiefly to the east of their own land. A similar conclusion will be derived from the other place where. the name occurs in Jeremiah. It is in ch. xxv, Xi V INTRI'ODU-CTI ON't 29', seq. "And all the mingled people, and all the king's of the land of Uz, and all the kings of the land of the Philistines, and Askelon, and Azzah, and Ekron, and the remnant of Ashdod, and Edonm, and Moab, and the children of Ammon," &c. Two things are apparent here. One is, that the country of Uz was distinct firom the land of Edom, since they are mentioned as separate nations; the other is, that it was a country of some considerable extent, since it is mentioned as being under several "kings." There is, indeed, in this reference to it no allusion to its situation; but it is mentioned as being in the time of Jeremiah well known. (3.) The same thing is evident from the manner in which the residence of Job is spoken of in ch. i. 3. He is there said to have been the " greatest of all the men of the East." This implies that his residence was in the land which was known familiarly as the country of the East. It is true, indeed, that we have not yet determined where the poem was composed, and of course do not know precisely what the author would understand by this phrase; but the expression has a common signification in the Scriptures, as denoting the country east of Palestine. The land of Idumea, however, was directly south; and we are, therefore, naturally led to look to some other place as the land of Uz. Comp. Notes on ch. i. 3. The expression'the East,' as used in the Bible, would in no instance naturally lead us to look to Idumea. (4.) The LXX render the word Uz in ch. i.1. by'Alots, Asits — a word which seems to have been formed from the Hebrew.s~ Utz, or U_. Of course, their translation gives.no intimation of the place referred to. But Ptolemy (Geog. Lib. v.) speaks of a tribe or nation in the neighborhood of Babylon, whom. he calls A,'n,:dra:, Ansitee (or as it was perhaps written A'ioltr), the same word which is used by the LXX in rendering the word Uz. These people are placed by Ptolemy in the neighborhood of the Cauchebeni-iirb,t' o l lv KcL,,zcfcl',,q-and he speaks of them as separated from Chaldea by a ridge of mountains. See Rosenm. Proleg. p. 27. This location would place Job so near to the Chaldeans, that the account of their making an excursion into his country (ch. i. 17) would be entirely probable.-It may be added, also, that in the same neighborhood we find a town called Sabas ( ocgas) in Diodorus Sic. Lib. iii. ~ 46. Prof. Lee, p. 32. These circumstances render it probable that the residence of the Patriarch was west of Chaldea, and somewhere in the northern part of Arabia Deserta, between Palestine, Idumea, and the Euphrates. (5.) The monuments and memorials of Job still preserved or referred to in the East, may be adduced as some slight evidence of the fact that such a man as Job lived, and as an indication of the region in which he resided. It is true that they depend on mere INTRODUCTCTION XV tradition; but monuments are not erected to the memory of any who are not supposed to have had an existence, and traditions usually have some basis in reality. Arabian writers always make mention of Job as a real person, and his pretended grave is shown In the East to this day. It is shown indeed in six different places: but this is no evidence that all that is said of the existence of such a man is fabulous, any more than the fact that seven cities contended for. the honor of the birth of Homer is an evidence that there was no such man. The most celebrated tomb of this kind is that of the Trachonitis, towards the springs of' the Jordan. It is situated between the cities still bearing the names of Teman, Shuah, and Naama —(-Wemyss); though there is every reason to believe that these names have been given rather with reference to the fact that that was supposed to be his residence, than that they were the names of the places referred to in the book of Job. One of these tombs was shown to Niebuhr. He says (Reisebeschreib. i. 466), " Two or three hours east of Saada is a great mosque, in which, according to the opinion of the Arabs who reside there, the sufferer Job lies buried." "On the eastern limits of Arabia, they showed me the grave of Job, close to the Euphrates, and near the Helleh, one hour south from Babylon." It is of importance to remark here only that all of these tombs are without the limits of Idumea. Among the Arabians there are numerous traditions respecting Job, many of them indeed stories that are entirely ridiculous, but all showing the firm belief prevalent in Arabia that there was such a man. See Sale's Koran, vol. ii. pp. 174, 322; Magie on Atonement and Sacrifice, pp. 366, 367; and D'HIerbelot, Bibli. Orient. tom. i. pp. 75, 76, 432, 438, as quoted by Magie. (6.) The present belief of the Arabians may be referred to as corroborating the results to which we have approximated in this inquiry, that the residence of Job was not in Idumea, but was in some part of Arabia Deserta, lying between Palestine and the Euphrates. The Rev. Eli Smith stated to me (Nov. 1840) that there was still a place in the Houran called by the Arabians, Uz; and that there is a tradition among them that that was the residence of Job. It is north-east of Bozrah. Bozrah was once the capital of Idumea (Notes on Isai. xxxiv. 6), though it was situated without the limits of their natural territory. If this tradition is well founded, then Job was not probably an Idumean. There is nothing that renders the tradition improbable, and the course of the investigation conducts us, with a high degree of probability, to the conclus:on that this was the residence of Job. On the residence of Job and his friends, conIsult also Abrahami Peritsol Itinera Mundi, in U.o. lin, Thes. Sac. vii. pp. 163-106. sV1 INTRODUCTION4 ~ 3. Th'le time when Job lived, There has been quite as much uncertainty in regard to the time when Job lived, as there has been in regard to the place where. — It should be observed here, that this question is not necessarily con. nected with the inquiry when the book was composed, and will not be materially affected, whether we suppose it to have been cornposed by Job himself, by Moses, or by a later writer. Whenever the book was composed, if at a later period than that in which the patriarch lived, the author would naturally conceal the marks of his own time, by referring only to such customs and opinions as prevailed in the age when the events were supposed to have occurred. On this question, we cannot hope to arrive at absolute certainty. It is remarkable that neither the genealogical record of the family Of Job nor that of his three friends is given. The only record of the kind occurring in the book, is that of Elihu (ch. xxxii. 2), and this is so slight as to furnish but little assistance in determining when he lived. The only circumstances which occur in regard to this question, are the following; and they will serve to settle the question with sufficient probability, as it is a question on which no important results can depend. (1.) The age of Job. According to this, the time when he lived, would occur somewhere between the age of T'erah, the father of Abrahamn, and Jacob, or about one thousand eight hundred years before Christ, and about six hundred years after the deluge. For the reasons of this opinion, see the Notes on ch. xlii. 16. This estimate cannot pretend to entire accuracy, but it has a. high degree of probability. If this estimate be correct, he lived not far from four hundred years before the departure of the children of Israel from Egypt, and before the giving of the law on Mount Sinai.Comp. Notes on Acts vii. 6. (2.) As a slight confirmation of this opinion, we mnay refer to the traditions in reference to the time when he lived. The account which is appended to the Septuagint, that he was a son of Zare, one of the sons of Esau, and the fifth in descent from Abraham, may be seen in the Notes on ch. xlii. 16. A similar account is given at the close of the Arabic translation of Job, so similar that the one has every appearance of having been copied from the other, or of their having had a common origin. " Job dwelt in the land of Uz, between the borders of Edom and Arabia, and was before called Jobab. He married a foreign wife, whose name was Anun. Job vwas himself a son of Zare, one of the sons of Esaun; and his mother's name was Basra, and he was the sixth ini descent from Abraham. But of the kings who reigned in Edom, the first who reigned over the land was Balak, the son of Beor; and the name of his city INTRtODUCTIONo XVt1 was Danaba. And after him Jobab, who is called Job; and after him the name of him who was prince of the land of Teman; and after him his son Barak, he who slew and put to flight Madian in the plain of Moab, and the name of his city was Gjates. And of the friends of Job who came to meet him, was Elifaz, of the sons of Esau, the king of the Temanites." These traditions are worthless, except as they show the prevalent belief when these translations were made, that Job lived somewhere near the time of the three great Hebrew patriarchs. A nearly uniform tradition also has concurred in describing this as about the age in which he lived. The Hebrew writers generally concur in describing him as living in the days of Isaac and Jacob. W:emyss. Eusebius places him about two " ages " before Moses. The opinions of the Eastern nations generally concur in assigning this as the age in which he lived. (3.) From the representations in the boolk itself, it is clear that he lived before the departure from Egypt. This is evident from the fact that there is no direct allusion either to that remarkable event, or to the series of wonders whichl accompanied it, or to the journey to the land of Canaan. This silence is unaccountable on any other supposition than that he lived before it occurred, for two reasons. One is, that it would have furnished the most striking illustration occurring in history, of the interposition by God in delivering his friends and in destroying the wicked, and was such an illustration as Job and his friends could not have failed to refer to, in defence of their opinions, if it were known to them; and the other is, that this event was the great store-house of argument and illustration for all the sacred writers, after it occurred. The deliverance from Egyptian bondage, and the divine interposition in conducting the nation to the promised land, is constantly referred to by the sacred writers. They derive from those events their most magnificent descriptions of the power and majesty of Jehovah.They refer to them as illustrating his character and government. They appeal to them in proof that he was the friend and protector of his people, and that he would destroy his foes. They draw from them their mnost sublime and beautiful poetic images, and are never weary with calling the attention of the people to their obligation to serve God, on account of his merciful and wonderful interposition. The very point of the argument in this book is one that would be better illustrated by that deliverance, tlaan by any other event which ever occurred in history; and as thi3 must have been known to the inhabitants of the country where Job lived, it is inexplicable that there is no allusion to these transactions, if they had already occurred. It is clear, therefore, that even if the book was written at a later xvMSl INTRODUCTION. period than the exode from Egypt, the author of the poem meant to represent the patriarch as having lived before that event. He has described him as one who was ignorant of it, and in such circumstances, and with such opinions, that he could not have failed to refer to it, if he was believed to have lived after that event. It is equally pro-' bable that Job lived before the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. This event occurred in the vicinity of the country where he lived, and he could not have been ignorant of it. It was, moreover, a case not less in point in the argument than the deliverance from Egypt was; and it is not conceivable that a reference to so signal a punishment on the wicked by the direct judgment of the Almiohty, would have been omitted in an argument of the nature of that in this book. It was the very point maintained by the friends of Job, that God interposed by direct judgments to cut off the wicked; and the world never fiurnished a more appropriate illustration of this than had occurred in their own neighborhood, on the supposition that the calamities of Job occurred after that event. (4.) The same thing is apparent also from the absence of all allusion to the Jewish rites, manners, customs, religious ceremonies, priesthood, festivals, fasts, Sabbaths, &c. There will be occasion in another part of this Introduction (~ 4. iii.) to inquire how far there is in fatc such a want of allusion to these things. All that isnow meant is, that there is an obvious and striking want of such allusions as we should expect to find made by one who lived at a later period, and who was familiar with the customs and religious rites of' the Jews. The plan of the poem, it may be admitted, indeed, did not demand any firequent allusion to these customs and rites, and may be conceded to be adverse to such an allusion, even if they were lknown; but it is hardly conceivable that there should not have been some reference to them of more marked character than is now found. Even admitting that Job was a foreigner, and that the author meant to preserve this impression distinctly, yet his residence could not have been far from the confines of the Jewish people; and one who rnani. fested such decided principles of piety towards God as he did, could not but have had a strong sympathy with that people, and could not but have referred to their rites in an argument so intimately pertaining to the government of JEHOVAH. The representation of Job, anld the allusions in the book, are in all respects such as vwoluld occur on the supposition that he lived before the peculiar Jewish polity was instituted (5.) The same thing is manifest from another circumstance. The religion of Job is of the same kind which we find prevailing in the time of Abraham, and before the institution of the Jewish system. It is a religion of sacrifices, but without any officiating priest.Job himself presents the offering, as the head of the fami!ly, in be. INTRODUCTION. XIX half of his children and his friends. Ch. i. 5, xlii. 8. There is no priest appointed for this office; no temple, tabernacle, or sacred place of any kind; no consecrated altar. Now this is just the kind of religion which we find prevailing among the patriarchs, until the giving of the law on Mount Sinai; and hence it is natural to infer that Job lived anterior to that event. Thus we find Noah building an altar to the Lord, and offering sacrifices, Gen. viii. f2; Abraham offering a sacrifice himself in the same manner, Gen. xv 9-11, comp. Gen. xii. 1-13; and this was undoubtedly the earliest frm of religion. Sacrifices were offered to God, and the father of a family was the officiating priest. These circumstances combined leave little doubt as to the time when Job lived. They concur in fixing the period as not remote fiom the age of Abraham, and there is no other period of history in which they will be found to unite. No question of great importance, however, depends on settling this question; and these circumstances determine the time with sufficient accuracy for all that is necessary, in an exposition of the book. ~ 4. The Author of the Book. A question of more vital importance than those which have been already considered, relates to the authorship of the book. As the name of the author is nowhere mentioned, either in the book itself or elsewhere in the Bible, it is of course impossible to arrive at absolute certainty; and after all that has been written on it, it is still and must be a point of mere conjecture. Still the question, as it is commonly discussed, opens a wide range of inquiry, and claims an investigation. If the name of the author cannot be discovered with certainty, it may be possible at least to decide with some degree of probability at what period of the world it was committed to writing, and perhaps with a degree of probability that may be sufficiently satisfactory, by whom it was done. The first inquiry that meets us in the investigation of this point is, whether the whole book was composed by the same author, or whether the historical parts were added by a later hand. The slightest acquaintance with the book is sufficient to show, that there are in it two essentially different kinds of style-the poetic and prosaic. The body of the work, ch. iii.-xlii. 1-6, is poetry; the other portion, ch. i. ii. and xlii. 7-17 is prose. The genuineness of the latter has been denied by many eminent critics, and particularly by De Wette, who regard it as the addition of some later hand. Against the prologue and the epilogue De Wette urges, " that the perfection of the work requires their rejection, because they solve the problem which is the subject of the discussion, by the idea. of trial INT'RODUCTIOTN and compensation; where-as it was the design of the author to solve the question through the idea of entire submission on the part of man to the wisdom and power of God." See Noyes, Intro. pp. xxi. xxii. To this objection it may be replied, (1.) That we are to learn the view of the author only by all that he has presented to us. It may have been a part of his plan to exhibit just this view —not to present an abstract argument, but such an argument in connection with a real case, and to make it more vivid by showing an actual instance of calamity falling upon a pious man, and by a state of remarkable prosperity succeeding it. The presumption is, that the author of the poem designed to throw all the light possible on a very obscure and dark subject; and in order to that, a statement of the facts which preceded and followed the argument seems indispensable. (2.) Without the statement in the conclusion of the prosperity of Job after his trials, the argument of the book is incomplete. The main question is not solved. God is introduced in the latter chapters, not as solving by explicit statements the questions that had given so much perplexity, but as showing the duty of unqualified submission. But when this is followed by the historical statement of the return of Job to a state of prosperity, of the long life which he afterwards enjoyed, and of the wealth and happiness which attended him for nearly a century and a half, the objections of his friends and his own difficulties are abundantly met, and the conclusion of the whole shows that God is not regardless of his people, but that, though they pass through severe trials, still they are the objects of his tender care. (3.) Besides, the prologue is necessary in order to understand the character, the lanaguage, and the arguments of Job. In the harsh and irreverent speeches which he sometimes makes, in his fearful imprecations in ch. iii. on the day of his birth, and in the outbreaks of impa. tience which we meet with, it would be impossible for us to have the sympathy for the sufferer which the author evidently desired we should have, or to understand the depth- of his woes, unless we had a view of his previous prosperity, and of the causes of his trials, and unless we had the assurance that, he had been an eminently pious and upright man. As it is, we are prepared to sympathize with a sufferer of eminent rank, a man of previous wealth and prosperity, and one who had been brought into these circurm. stances for the very purpose of trial. We become at once interested to know how human nature will act in such circum. stances, nor does the interest ever flag. Under these sudden and accumulated trials, we admire, at first, the patience and resignatlon of the sufferer; then, under the protracted and intolerable pressure, we are not surprised to witness the outbreak of his feelings in ch. iii.; INTRODUCTION. XX] and then we watch with great interest and without weariness the manner in which he meets the ingenious arguments of his " friends' to prove that he had always been a hypoc.rite, and their cutting taunts and reproaches. It would be impossible to keep up this interest in the argument unless we were prepared for it by the historical statement in the introductory chapters. It should be added, that any supposition that these chapters are by a later hand, is entirely conjectural —no authority for any such belief being furnished by the ancient versions, MSS., or traditions. These remarks, however, do not forbid us to suppose, that, if the book were composed by Job himself, the last two verses in ch. xlii., containing an account of his age and death, were added by a later hand-as the account of the death of Moses (Deut. xxxiv.) must be supposed not to be the work of Moses himself, but of some later inspired writer. If there is, therefore, reason to believe that the whole work, substantially as we have it now, was committed to writing by the same hand, the question arises, whether there are any circumstances by which it can be determined with probability who the author was. On no question, almost, pertaining to sacred criticism, have there been so many contradictory opinions as on this. Lowth, Magee, Prof. Lee, and many others, regard it as the work of Job himself.,ichtfoot and others ascribe it to Elihu; some of the Rabbinical writers, as also Kennicott, Michaelis, Dathe, and Good, to Moses; Luther, Grotius, and Doederlin, to Solomon; Umbreit and Noyes to some writer who lived not far from the period of the Jewish captivity; Rosenmiiller, Spanheim, Reimar, Stauedlin, and C. F. Richter, suppose that it was composed by some Hebrew writer about the time of Solomon; Warburton regards it as the productioin of Ezra; H-erder (Heb. Poetry, i. 110) supposes that it was writteli by some ancient Idumean, probably Job himself, and was obtained by David in his conquests over ldumea. HTe supposes that in the later writings of David he finds traces of his having imitated the style of this ancient book. It would be uninteresting and profitless to go into an examiiia. tion of the reasons suggested by these respective authors for theil various opinions. Instead of this, I propose to state the leading considerations which have occurred in the examination of the book itself, and of the:reasons which have been suggested by these various authors, which may enable us to form a probable opinion. If the investigation shall result only in adding one more conjecture:o those already formed, still it will have the merit of stating about all thwat seems to be of importance in enabling us to form an opinion In the case. I. The first circumlstance that would occur to one in estimating Xxii INTRODUCTION. the question about the authorship of the book, is the foreign cast of the whole work —the fact that it differs firom the usual style of the Hebrew compositions. The customs, allusions, figures of speech, and modes of thought, to one who is famniliar with the writings of the Hebrews, have a foreign air, and are such as evidently show that the speakers lived in some other country than Judlea. There is, indeed, a cornmon Oriental cast diffused over the whole work, enough to distinguish it from all the modes of composition in the Occidental world; but there is, also, scarcely less to distinguish it firom the compositions which we know had their origin among the Hebrews. The style of thought, and the general cast of the book, is Arabian. The allusions; the metaphors; the illustrations; the reference to historical events and to prevailing customs, are not such as an Hebrew would make; certainly not, unless in the very earliest periods of history, and before the character of the nation became so formed as to distinguish it characteristically friom their brethren in the great family of the East. Arabian deserts; streams failing from drought; wadys filled in the winter and dry in the summer; moving hordes and caravans that come regularly to the same place for water; dwellings of' tents easily plucked up and removed; the dry and stinted shrubbery of the desert; the roaring of lions and other wild beasts; periodical rains; trees planted on the verge of running streams; robbers and plunderers that rise before day, and make their attack in the early morning; the rights, authority, and obligation of the Goet, or avenger of blood; the claims of hospit'ality; the formalities of' an Arabic court of justice, are the images which are kept constantly before the mnind. Here the respect due to an Emir; the courtesy of manners which prevails among the more elevated ranks in the Arabic tribes; the profoulnd attention which listens to the close while one is speaking, and which never interrupts hi m (Herder i. 81), so remarkable among well-bred Orientals at the present day, appeai everywhere. It is true, that many of these things may find a resemblance in the undoubted Hebrew writings-for some of them are the common characteristics of the Oriental people-but still, no one can doubt that they abound in this book more than in any other in the Bible, and that, as we shall see -more particularly soon, they are unmixed as they are elsewhere, with what is indubi. tably of Hebrew origin. In connection with this, it may be re. marked that there are in the book an unusual number of words, whose root is found now only in the Arabic, and which are used in a sense not common in the Hebrew, but usual in the Arabic. Of this all will be convinced who, in interpreting the book, avail themselves of the light which Gesenius has thrown on numerous weords from the Arabtic or who consult the Lexicon of Castell. or -who IN'TRODUCTI(ON. examine the Commentaries of Schultens and Lee. ['hat more irXn portance has been attached to this by many critics than facts will warrant, no one can deny; but as little can it be denied that more aid can be derived from the Arabic language in interpreting this book, than in the exposition of any other part of the Bible. On this point Gesenius makes the following remarks: "Altogether there is found in the book lmuch resemblance to the Arabic, or which can be illustrated from the Arabic; but this is either Hebrew, and pertains to the poetic diction, or it is at the same time Ararnaish, and was borrowed by the poet from the Aramaan language, and appears here not as Arama an but as Arabic, Yet there is not here proportionably more than in other poetic books and portions of books. It would be unjust to infer from this that the author of this book had any immediate connection with Arabia, or with Arabic literature." Geschichte der. hebr. Sprache und Schrift, S. 33. The fact of the Arabic cast of the work is conceded by Gesenius in the above extract; the inferences in regard to the connection of the book with Arabia and with Arabic literature which may be derived from this, is to be determined from other circumstances. Comp. Eichhorn, Einleitung, v. S. 163, fgg. II. A second consideration that may enable us to determine the question respecting the authorship of the book is, the fact that there are in it numerous undoubted allusions to events which occurred before the departure of the children of Israel from Egypt, the giving of the law on Mount Sinai, and the establishment of the Jewish institutions. The point of this remark is, that if we shall find such allusions, and also that there are no allusions to events occurring after that period, this is a circumstance which may throw some light on the authorship. It will at least enable us to fix, with some degree of accuracy, the time when the book was committed to writing. Now that there are manifest allusions to events occurring before that period, the following references will show. Job x. 9, "Remember, I beseech thee, that thou hast made me as the clay, and wilt thou bring me to dust again?" Here there is an allusion in almost so many words to the statements in Gen. ii. 7, iii. 19, respecting the manner in which man was formed, —showing that Job was familiar with the account of the creation of man Job xxvii. 3, "All the while my breath is in me, and the spirit of God is in my nostrils," Ch. xxxiii. 4, " The Spirit of' God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life." Ch. xxxii. S, " But there is a spirit in man, and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding." HI-ere there are undoubted allusions, also, to the manner in which man was forned —(comp. Gen. ii. 7)allusions which show that the fcct must have been made known to t.le speakers by tradition, since it is not such a fact as man would X I V lNTRODIUCTI[O'N.o readily arrive at by reasoning. The imbecility and weakness of man also, are described in terms which imply an acquaintance with the manner in which he was created. " How much less in them that dwell in houses of clay, whose foundation is in the dust, which are crushed before the moth;" ch. iv. 19. In ch. xxxi. 33, there is probably an allusion to the fact that Adam attempted to hide himself from God when he had eaten the forbidden fruit. "If I covered my transgressions as Adam." For the reasons for supposing that this refers to Adam, see Notes on the verse. In ch. xxii. 15, 16, there is a manifest reference to the deluge. "' Hast thou marked the old way wvhich wicked men have trodden? which were cut down out of time, whose foundation was overflown with a flood?" See the Notes on that passage. In connection with this we may refer also to the fact that the description of the anodes of worship, and the views of religion, found in this book, show an acquaintance with the form in which worship was offered to God before the Exode from Egypt. They are of precisely such a character as we find in the time of Abel, Noah, and Abraham. These events are not such as would occur to one who was not familiar with the historical facts recorded in the first part of the book of Genesis. They are not such as would result from a train of reasoning, but could only be derived from the knowledge of those events which would be spread over the East at that early period of the world. They demonstrate that the work was composed by one who had had an opportunity to become acquainted with what is now recorded as the Mosaic history of the creation, and of the early events of the world. II}. There are no such allusions to events occurring after the Exode from Egypt, and the establishment of the Jewish institutions. As this is a point of great importance in determining the question respecting the authorship of the book, and as it has been confidently asserted that there are such allusions, and as they have been made the basis of an argument to prove that the book had an origin as late as Solomon or even as Ezra, it is of importance to examine this point with attention. The point is, that there are no such allusions as a Hebrew would make after the Exode; or in other words, there is nothing in the book itself which would lead us to conclude that it was composed after the departure from Egypt. A few remarks will show the truth and the bearing of this observea tion. The Hebrew writers were remarkable above most others tor allusions to the events of their own history. The dealings of God with their nation had been so peculiar, and they were so much imbued with the conviction that the events of their own history fulrnished proofs of the divine favor towards their nation, that we INTR)ODIUCTI VN. XS X find in their writings a constant reference to what had happened to them as a people. Particularly the deliverance firom Egypt, the passage of the Red Sea, the giving of the law on Sinai, the journey in the wilderness, the conquest of the land of Canaan, and the destruction of their enemies, constituted an unfailing depository of argument and illustration for their writers in all ages. All their poetry written subsequent to these events, abounds with allusions to them. Their. prophets refer to them for topics of solemn appeal to the nation; and the reimembrance of these things warms the heart of piety, and animates the song of praise in the templeservice. Under the sufferings of the' captivity,' they are cheered by the fact that God delivered them once from much more galling oppression; and in the times of freedom, their liberty is made sweet by the memory of what their fathers suffered in the'house of bondage.' Now it is as undeniable as it is remartkable, that in the book of Job there are no such allusions to these events as a Hebrew would make. There is no allusion to Moses; no indisputable reference to their bondage in Egypt, to tihe oppressive acts of Pharaohl to the destruction of his army in the Red Sea, to the rescue (of the children of Israel, to the giving of the law on Mi.ount Sinai, to the perils of the wilderness, to their final settlement in the pomiised land. There is no reference to the tabernacle, to the ark, to the tables of the law, to the institution and the functions of the priesthood, to the cities of refuge, or to the peculiar religious rites of the IHebrew people. There is none to the theocracy, to the days of solemn convocation, to the great national festivals, or to the names of the Jewish tribes. There is none to the peculiar judicial laws of the H-ebrews, and none to the administration of justice but such as we should find in the early patriarchal times. These omissions are the more remarkable, as has been already observed, because many of these events would have furnished the most apposite illustrations of the points maintained by the different speakers of any which had ever occurred in history. Nothing could have been more in point, on numerous occasions in conducting the argument, than the destruction of Pharaoh, the deliverance and protection of the people of God, the care evinced for them in the wilderness, and the overthrow of their enemies in the promised land. So obvious do these considerations appear, that they seem to settle the question on one point in regard to the authorship of the book, and to show that it could not have been composed by a Hebrew after the Exode. For several additional arguments to prove that the book was written before the Exode, see Eichhorn, Einleit. ~ 641. As, however, notwithstanding these facts, it has been held by some respectable critics-as Rosenmtller, Umbreit, XXVi INTRODUCTION. Warburton, and others-that it was composed as late as the time of Solomon, or even the captivity, it is important to inquire in what way it is proposed to set this argument aside, and by what considerations they propose to defend its composition at a later date than the Exode. They are, briefly, the following. (1.) One is, that the very design of the poem, whenever it was composed, required that there should be no such allusion. The scene, it is said, is laid, not in Palestine, but in a foreign country; the time supposed is that of the patriarchs, and before the Exode; the characters are not Hebrew, but are Arabian or Idumean, and the very purpose of the author required that there should be no allusion to the peculiar history or customs of the Hebrews. The same thing, it is said, occurred which would in the composition of a poem or romance now in which the scene is laid in a foreign land, or in the time of the Crusades or the Caesars. We should expect that the characters. the costume, the habits of that fbreign country or those distant times, would be carefully observed. "As they [the characters and the author of the work] were Arabians who had nothing to do with the institutions of Moses, it is plain that a writer of genius would not have been guilty of the absurdity of putting the sentiments of a Jew into the mouth of an Arabian, at least so far as relates to such tangible matters as institutions, positive laws, ceremonies, and history. The author has manifested abundant evidence of genius and skill in the structure and execution of the work, to account for his not having given to Arabians the obvious peculiarities of Hebrews who lived under the institutions of Moses, at whatever period it may have been written. Even if the characters of the book had been Hebrews, the argument under consideration would not have been perfectly conclusive; for, from the nature of the subject, we might have expected as little in it that was Levitical or grossly Jewish, as in the Book of Proverbs or Ecclesiastes." Noyes, Intro. p. xxviii. This supposition assumes that the work was written in a later age than that of Moses. It furnishes no evidlence, however, that it was so written. It can only furnish evidence that the author had genius and skill so to throw himself back into a distant age and into a foreign land, as completely to conceal his own peculiarity of country or time, and to represent characters as living and actingc in the supposed country and period, without betraying his own. So far as the question about the author, and the time when the work was composed, is concerned, the fact here admitted, that there are no allusions to events after the Exode, is quite as strong certainly in favor of the supposition that it was composed before as after that event. There are still some difficulties on the supposition that it was written by a Hebrew of a later age. who designedly meant to give it an Arabic INTRODUCTION. xxvhi dress, and to make no allusion to any thing in the institutions and history of his own country that would betray its authorship. One is, the.intrinsic difficulty ofi' doing this. It requires rare genius for an author so to throw himself into past ages, as to leave nothing that shall betray his own times and country. We are never so betrayed as to imagine that Shakspeare lived in the time of Coriolanus or of Caesar; that Johnson lived in the time and the country of Rasselas; or that Scott lived in the times of the Crusaders. Instances have been found, it is admitted, where the concealment has been effectual, but they have been exceedingly rare. Another objection to this view is, that such a work would have been peculiarly impracticable for a Hebrew, who of all men would have been most likely to betray his time and country. The cast of the poem is highly philosophical. The argument is in many places exceedingly abstruse. The appeal is to close and long observation; to the recorded experience of their ancestors; to the observed effects of divine judgments on the world. A Ilebrew in such circumstances would have appealed to the authority of God; he would have referred to the terrible sanctions of the law rather than to cold and abstract reasoning; and he could hardly have refrained from sorne allusion to the events of his own history that bore so palpably on the case. It may be doubted, also, whether any Hebrew ever had such versatility of genius and character as to divest himself wholly of the proper costume of his country, and to appear throughout as an Arabic Emir, and so as never in a long argument to express any thing but such as became the assumed character of the rbreigner. It should be remembered, also, that the language which is used in this poem is different from that which prevailed in the time of Solomon and the captivity. It has an antique cast. It abounds in words which do not elsewhere occur, and whose roots are now to be found only in the Arabic. It has much of the peculiarities of a strongly marked dialect-and would require all the art necessary to keep up the spirit of an ancient dialect. Yet in the whole range of literature there are not probably half a dozen instances where such an expedient as this has been resorted tou here a writer has made use of a foreign or an antique dialect for the purpose of giving to the production of his pen an air of antiquity. Aristophanes and the tragedians, indeed, sometimes introduce persons speaking the dialects of parts of Greece different from that in which they had been brought up (Lee), and the same is occasionally true of Shakspeare; but except in the case of Chatterton, scarcely one has occurred where the device has been continued through a production of any considerable length. There is a moral certainty that a Hebrew would not attempt it. (2.) A second objection to the supposition that the work was X s Viii I NTtr IN OID)UCTION. composed before the Exode, or argument that it was composed by a Hecbrew who lived at a much later pericd of the world, is derived from the supposed allusions to the historical events connected with the Jewish people, and to the peculiar institutions of Moses. It is not maintained that there is any direct mention of those events or those institutions, but that the author has undesignedly' betrayed' himself by the use of certain words and phrases such as no one would employ but a Hebrew. This argument may be seen at length in Warburton's Divine Legation of Moses, vol. v. pp. 3tf6319, and a full examination of it may )be seen in Peter's Critical Dissertation on the Book of Job, pp. 2~2-26. All that can be done here is to make a very brief reference to the argument. Even the advocates for the opinion that the book was composed after the Exode, have generally admitted that the passages referred to contribute little to the support of the opinion. The passages referred to by Warburton are the following: (1.) The alltsion to the calanlities whichi the wliclccdness of p])arents bring.s u21on their childr'en. " He that speaketh flattery to his firiends, even the eyes of his children shall fail." Ch. xvii. 5. " God layethl up his iniquity for his children; he rewardeth him, and they shall lknow it." Ch. xxi. 19. Here it is supposed there is a reference to the principle laid down in the Hebrew Scriptures as a part of the divine administration, that the iniquities of the fathers should be visited upon their children. But it is not necessary to suppose that there was any par. ticular acquaintance with the laws of Moses, to understand this Observation of the actual course of events would have suggested all that is alleged in the book of Job on this point. The poverty, disease, and disgrace which the vicious entail on their off-pring in every land, would have furnished to a careful observer all the facts necessary to suggest this remark. The opinion that children suffer as a consequence of the sins of wicked parents was common all over the world. Thus in a verse of Theocritus, delivered as a sort of oracle from Jupiter, _idyll. 26: EbIco,'1q'o 7rcStlt.o'o',&.o)'.a, tmo'o/''l. of.'Good things happen to children of the pious, but not to those of the irreligious.' (2.) Allusion to the fact that iclolatry is anz offenie agcainst the state, and is to be punished by the civil magistrate. "This also [idolatry] were an iniquity to be punished by tlhe judge; for I should have denied the God that is above." Ch. xxxi. 28. This is supposed to be such a sentiment as a Hebrew only would have employed, as derived fiom his peculiar institutions, where idolatry was an offence against the state, and was made a capital crime. But there is not the least evidence that in the patriarchal times, and in the country where Job lived, idolatrous INT'RODUCTION. xXiX worship might no(t be regarded as a civil offlnce; and whether it were so or not, there is no reason for surprise that a man who had a profound veneration for God, and for the honor due to his name, such as Job had, should express the sentiment, that the worship of the sun and moon wvs a heinous offence, and that pure religion was of so much imrportance that a violation of its principles ought to be regarded as a crime against society. (3.) AlIusiolls to cc2rtai PITlRAsjs, sChi as ot.ly ta IleIbrcw wvoutld use, anZd which would be l-ioyd]rc only ( c/l t latcc' pe[riod of the worldl thtan the E.'od!e. Such phlrases are referred to as tile folloIvingo " He shall not see tile rivers, the floods, the brooks of thoney and butter." Ch. xx. 17. "leceive, I pray thee, the lavo from his mouth, allld lay up his words in thine heart."'Ch xxii. c22. "O that I were as I was in the days of my youth, wheri the secret of God was upon my tabernacle." Ch. xxix. 4-. It is mailntained that these are manifest allusions to facts referred to in the books of lMoses: that the first refers to the common description of the Holy Land; the second, to the givinor of the l:aw on Sinai; and the third, to the dwelling of the S/inciCtzh, or visihble symbol of God, on the tabernacle. To this we may reply, that the first is such commnon klanguage as was used in the East to denote plenty or abundance, and is manifestly a proverbial expression. It is used by Pinidar, hem. iE/. 7'; and is common in the Airabi; writers. The second is only such general languaue as any one would use who should exhort another to be attentive to the law of God, and has in it manifestly no particular allusion to the method in which the lavw was given on Sinai. And the third can be shown to have no special reference to the Shekinah or cloud of glory as resting on the tabernacle, nor is it such l m nguage as a IHebrew would employ in speakingo of it. That cloud is nowhere in the Scripture called' the secret of God,' and the fair meaninig of the phrase is, that Gild came into his dwelling as a friend and counsellor, and admitted him faimiliarly to conimmunion with him. See Notes on ch. xxix. 4. It w'xs one of the privileges, Job says, of his earlier life that he'could reg'ard himself as the fi iend of God, and that hle had clear',iews of his plans and purposes. Nvr, tlhose viewvs wvere withheld, and he wxvs left to d rlness and solitude. (5.),fpposccd allusions to the nairlazous Vhistory of tlhe Jv.is,?rople. " Which cornmandeth the sun, and it riseth not, and sealeth up the stars." Cha. ix. 7. Here it is supposed there is allusion to the mitracle performled by Joshua in com allnding the sun n'ld Inmo,)n to stand still. But assuredly there is no necessity fo;r supposiu:l tlh:t there is a reference to any thin:'n miracululls. The ide'. is, tlh-t Gold hs hl?-. er to catuse tile sun, the moon, and the stars to shine or no,1t, as he pleases. tie can obscure thema by clouds, or he can blot theim out altogether. Besides. in the account XXX INTRODUCTI ON, of the miracle performed at the commiand of Joshua, there is no allusion to the stars. " tie divideth the sea with his power, and by his understanding he smiteth through the proud." Ch. xxvi. 12. lhere it is supposed there is an allusion to the passage of the Isra, elites through the Red Sea. But the language does not necessarily demand this interpretation, nor will it admit of it. The word improperly rendered'divideth,' means to awe, to cause to cower, or tremble, and then to be calm or still, and is descriptive of the power which God has over a tempest. See Notes on the verse. There is not the slightest evidence that there is any allusion to the passage through the Red Sea. " He taketh away the heart of the chief of the people of the earth, and causeth them to wander in the wilderness where there is no way." Ch. xii. 24. " Who can doubt," says Warburton, " but that these words alluded to the wandering of the Israelites forty years in the wilderness, as a punishment for their cowardice and diffidence in God's promises?" But there is no necessary reference to this. Job is speaking of the control which God has over the nations. He has power to frustrate all their counsels, and to defeat all their plans. He can confound all the purposes of their princes, and throw their affairs into inextricable confusion. In the original, moreover, the word does not necessarily imply a' wilderness' or desert. The word is I1;, a word used in Gen. i. 2, to denote enmjptiness, oi chaos, and may here refer to the confusion of their counsels and plans; or if it refer to a desert, the allusion is of a general character, meaning that God had power to drive the people fiom their fixed habitations, and to make them wanderers on the face of the earth. "I will show thee; hear me; and what I have seen will I declare; which wise men have told from their fathers, and have not hid it." Ch.'xv. 17, 1S. "The very way," says Warburton, " in which Moses directs the Israelites to preserve the memory of the miraculous works of God." And the very way, also, it may be replied, in which all ancient history, and all the ancient wisdom from the beginning of the world, was transmitted to posterity. There was no other method of preserving the record of past transactions, but by transmitting the memory of them from father to son; and this was and is, in fact, the method of doing it all over the East. It was by no means confined to the Israelites. "Unto whom alone the earth was given, AND NO STRANGER PASSED AMONGST TIEM." Ch. xv. 19. " A circumstance," says Warburton," agreeing to no people whatever but to the Israelites settled in Canaan." But there is no necessary allusion here to the Israelites. Eliphaz is speaking of the golden age of his country; of the happy and pure times when his ancestors dwelt in the land without being corrupted by the intermingling of foreigners. He says that he will state the INTRODUCTION. XAmX! result of their wisdom and observation in those pure and happy days, before it could be pretended that their views were corrupted by any foreign admixture See the Notes on the passage. These passages are the strongest instances of what has been adduced to show that in the book of Job there are allusions to the customs and opinions of the Jews after the Exode from Egypt. It would be tedious and unprofitable to go into a particular examination of all those which are referred to by Bishop Warburton. The remark may be made of thern all, that they are of so general a character, and that they apply so much to the prevailing mlanners and customs of the East, that there is no reason for supposing that there is a special reference to the Hebrews. The remaining passages referred to, are ch. xxii. 6, xxiv. 7 9, 10, xxxiii. 17, seq., xxxiv. 20, xxxvi. 7-12, and xxxvii. 13. A full examination of these may be seen in Peter's Critical Dissertation, pp. 32-36. (3.) A third objection to the supposition that the book was composed before the time of the Exode, is derived fiom the use of the word JEHOVAH. This word occurs several times in the historical part of the book (ch. i. 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 21, ii. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, xlii. 1, 10, 12), and a few times in the body of the poem. The objection is founded on what Gcd says to Moses, Ex. vi. 3 " And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty; but by my name JEIIHOVAH was I not known to them." At the burning bush, when he appeared to Moses, he solemnly assumed this name, and directed him to announce him as'I anm that I am,' or as JEHOVAH. From this it is inferred that, as the name occurs in the book of Job, that book must have been composed subsequently to the time when God appeared to Moses. But this conclusion does not follow, for the following reasons (1.) It might be true that God was not known to' Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob' by this name, and still the name might have been used by others to designate him. (2.) The name JEHovAHn was actually used before this by God himself and by others. Gen. ii. 7, S, 9, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, iii. 9, et al. xii. 1, 4, 7, 8, 17, xiii. 10, 13, 14, xv. 6, 18, xvi. 9, 10, 13, 13 shape al. If the argument from this, therefore, be valid to prove that the book of Job was not composed before the Exode, it will demonstrate that the book of Genesis was also a subsequent production. (3.) But the whole argument is based on a misapprehension of Ex. vi. 3. The meaning of that passage, since the name JEHOVAH was known to the patriarchs, must be (a) that it was not by this name that he had promulgated his existence, or was publicly and solemnly known. It was a name used in common with other names by them, but which he had in no special way appropriated to himself, or to which he had affixed no special sacredness. The name which he had himself more commonly XXXii 1 TRODUCT oN. employed xv as another. Thus when he appeLared to Abrahain and made himself known, lie said, "I am the ALAIGciITY GOD; walk before me, and be thou perfect." Gen. xvii. 1. So he appeared to Jacob: "I am GOD ALMIGHITY; be fruitful and multiply." Gen. xxxv II.. omp. Gen. xxviii. 3, xliii. 14 (b) At the bush (Ex. iii. vi. 3), God publicly and solemnly assumed the name JEHOVA-H. lIe affixed to it a peculiar sacredness. He explained its meaning, Ex. iii. 14. H:e said it was the name by which he intended peculiarly to be known as the God of his people. He invested it with a solemn sacredness, as that by which he chose ever afterwards to be known among his people as their God. Other nations had their divinities with different names; the God of the children of Israel was to be known by the peculiar and sacred name JEHOVAII. But this solemn assumption of the name is by no means inconsistent with the supposition that he might have used it before, or that it might have been used before ill the composition of the book of Job. (4.) A fourth objection to the supposition that the book was composed before the time of the Exode, is, that the name Satan, which occurs in this bool, was not known to the Hebrews at so early a date, and that in fact it occurs as a proper name only at a late period of their history. See Warburton's Divine Legation, vol. v. 353, seq. In reply to this it may be observed, (1.) that the doctrine of the existence of an evil spirit of the character ascribed in this book to Satan, Nwas early 1known to the Hebrews. It was known in the time of Ahab, when, it is said, the Lord had put a lying spirit in the mouth of the prophets, ( Kings xxii. 22, 23,) and the belief of such an evil spirit must have been early prevalent to explain in any tolerable way the history of the fall. On the meaning of the word, see Notes on ch. i. 6. (2.) The word Skatan early occurs in history in the sense of an adversary or accuser, and it was natural to transfer this word to the great adversary. See N'um. xxxii. 22. In Zech. iii. 1, 2, it is used in the same sense as in Job, to denote the great adversary of God appearing before him. See Notes on ch. i. 6. Here Satan is introduced as a being whose name and character were well known. (3.) It is admitted by Warburton himself (p. 355), that the notion of " an evil Demon," or a " Fury," was a common opinion among the heathen, even in early ages, though he says it was not admitted among the HIebrews until a late period of their history. But if it prevailed among the heathen, it is possible that the samle sentiment might have been understood in Arabia, and that this might at a very early period have been incorporated into the book of Job. See this whole subject examined in Peters' Critical Dissertation, pp. 80-92. I confess, however, that the answers which Peters and Magee (pp. 322, 323) give to this objection. are net perfectly satisfactory; and thal I NTROD UCTION. XXXIil he objection here urged against the composition of the book bafore the LExc.de, is the nmost fircible of all those which I have seen. A more thorough investigation of the /istor' of the opinions respectlIg a presiding evil being than I have had access to, seems to be necessary to a full removal of the difficulty. The real difficulty is, not that no such being is elsewvhere referred to in the Scriptures; not that his existence is imnprolbable or absurd —for the existence of Satan is no ore(1e imiiprobable in itself than that of Nero, Tiberius, Richard III., Alexanlder VI., or Cmsar Borgia, than either of whom lie is not much worse; and not that there are no traces of hinm in the early account in the Bible;-but it is, that while in the Scriptures we have, up to the timre of the Exode, and indeed long after, only obscure intimlations cf his existence and character-without any particular designation of his attributes, and without any natme being given to him, in the book of Job he appears wit/h a name apparently in conmmon use; with a definitely formed character; in the full maturity of his plans-a. being evidently as well defined as the Satan in the latest periods of the Jewish history. I confess myself unable to account for this, but still do not perceive that there is any impossibility in supposing that this maturity of view in regard to the evil principle might have prevailed in the country of Job at this early period, though no occasion occurred for its statement in the corresponding part of the Jewish history. There i may have been such a prevalent belief amlong the patriarchs, though in the brief records of their opinions and lives no occasion occurred for a record of their belief. (5.) A fifth objection has been derived fiom the fact that in the book of Job there is a strong resemblance to many passages in tle Psalms, and in the book of Proverbs, fronl which it is inferred that it was coImposed subsequently to those books. Rosenmltiller, who has particularly urged this objection, appeals to the following instances of resemblance. Ps. cvii. 40, corn. with Job xii. 21, 24; Ps. cvii. 42, Job v. 16; Ps. xxii. 19, cxlvii. 8, Job v. 10; Ps. xxxvii. 6, cxlvii. 9, Job xxxviii. 41; Prov. viii. 11, Job xxviii. 12; Prov. i. 7, Job xxviii. 8; Prov. xv. 11, Job xxvi. 6; Prov. xxvi. 6, Job xv. 16, xxxiv. 7; Prov. viii. 28, 29, Job xxviii. 25; Prov. xviii. 28, Job xiii. 5; Prov. ii. IS, xxi. 16, Job xxvi. 5; Prov. xxviii. 8, Job xxvii. 16, 17; Prov. xvi. 18, xviii. 12, xxix. 23, Job xxii. 29; Prov. viii. 26-29, xxx. 4, Job xxxviii. 4-8; Prov. x. 7, Job xx. 7. It is unnecessary to go into an examination of these passages, or to attempt to disprove their similarity. There can be no doubt of their very strong resemblance, but still the question is fairly open, which of these books was first composed, and( which, if one has borrowed from another, was the original fountain. Warburton has llmself well remarked, that "if the sacred writers must needs have XXXiv INTRODUCTION. borrowed trite moral sentences from one another, it may be as fairly said that the authors of the Psalms borrowed from the boolk of Job, as that the author of Job borrowed firom the book of Psalms." Works. vol. v. 320. The supposition that the book of Job was first composed will meet the whole difficulty, so far as one was derived from the other. It should be added, also, that many ot these sentiments consist of the common maxims that must have prevailed among a people accustomed to close observation, and habituated to expressing their views in a proverbial form. I have now noticed at length all the objections which have been urged, which seem to me to have any force, against the supposition that the book of Job was composed before the Exode from Egypt, and have stated the arguments which lead to the supposition that it had so early an origin. The considerations suggested are such as seem to me to leave no rational doubt that the work was com~ posed before the departure from Egypt. The train of thought pursued, therefore, if conclusive, will remove the necessity of all further inquiry into the opinion of Luther, Grotius, and Doederlin,: that Solomon was the author; of Umbreit and Noyes, that it was composed by some unknown writer about the period of the captivity; of Warburton, that it was the production of Ezra and of Rosenminler, Spanheim, Reimer, Staeudlin, and Richter, that it was composed by some Hebrew writer about the time of Solomon. It remains then to inquire whether there are any circumstances which can lead us to determine with any degree of probability who was the author. This inquiry leads us, IV. In the fourth place, to remark that there are no sufficient indications that the work was composed by Elihu. The opinion that lie was the author was held, among others, by Lightfoot. But, independently of the want of any positive evidence which would lead to such a conclusion, there are objections to this opinion whic.h render it in the highest degree improbable. They are found in the argument of Elihu himself. He advances, indeed, with great modesty, but still with extraordinary pretensions to wisdom. Ile lays claim to direct inspiration, and professes to be able to throw such light on the whole of the perplexed subject as to end the debate. But in the course of his addresses, he introduces but one single idea on the point under discussion which had not been dwelt on at length by the speakers before. That idea is, that afflictions are designed, not to demonstrate that the sufferer was eminently guilty, as the friends of Job held, but that they might be intended for the benefit of the sufferer himself, and might, therefore, be consistent with true piety. This idea he places in a variety of attitudes; illustrates it with great beauty, and enforces it with great power on the attention of Job Comp. Notes on ch. xxxiii. 14-30; NTRODU CTION-. XXXV xxiv. 31, 32, xxxv. 10-15. xxxvi. 7-16. But in his speeches Elihu shows no such extraordinary ability as to lead us to suppose that he was the author of the work. He does not appear to have understood the design of the trials that came upon Job; he gives no satisfactory solution of the causes of affliction; he abounds in repetition; his observation of the course of events had been evidently much less profound than that of Eliphaz, and his knowledge of nature was much less extensive than that of Job and the other speakers; and lie was evidently as much in the dark in the great question which is discussed throughout the book as the other speakers were. Besides, as Prof. Lee has remarked (p. 44), the belief that Elihu wrote the book is inconsistent with the supposition that the first two chapters and the last chapter were written by the same author who composed the body of the work. He who wrote these chapters manifestly " saw through the whole affair," and understood the reasons why these trials came upon the patriarch. Those reasons would have been suggested by Elihu in his speech, if he had known them. V. The supposition that Job himself was the author of the book, though it may have been slightly modified by some one subsequently, will meet all the circumstances of the case. This will agree with its foreign cast and character; with the use of the Arabic words now unknown in Hebrew; with the allusions to the nomadic habits of the times, and to themodes of living, and to the illustrations drawn from sandy plains and deserts; with the statements about the simple modes of worship prevailing, and the notice of the sciences and the arts (see Intro. ~ 8), and with the absence of all allusion to the Exode, the giving of the law, and the peculiar customs and institutions of the Hebrews. In addition to these general considerations for supposing that Job was the author of the work, the following suggestions may serve to show that this opinion is attended with the highest degree of probability. (1.) Job lived after his calamities an hundred and forty years, affording ample leisure to make the record of his trials. (2.) The art of making books was known in his time, and by the patriarch himself, ch. xix. 23, 24, xxxi. 35. In whatever way it was done, whether by engraving on stone or lead, or by the use of more perishable materials, he was not ignorant of the art of making a record of thoughts to be preserved and transmitted to future times. Understanding this art, and having abundant leisure, it is scarcely to be conceived, that he would have failed to make a record of what had occurred during his own remarkable trials. (3.) The whole account was one that would furnish important lessons to mankind, and it is.hardly probable that a man who had passed through so unusual a scene would be willing that the recollection of it should be intrusted to XXxvi INTRODUCTION. uncertain tradition. Tlie strongest ariig:. 1nts which human ingenuity could invent, had been urged cnl beth sides of a great question pertaining to the divine administration; a case of a strongly marked character had happened, similar to what is constantly occurring in the world, in which similar perplexing and embarrassing questions would arise; God had come forth to inculcate the duty of man in this case, and had furnished instruction that would be invaluable in all similar instances; and the result of the whole trial had been such as to furnish the strongest proof that, however the righteous are afflicted, their sufferings are not proof that they are deceivers or hypocrites. (4.) Tilhe record of his own imperfections and failures is just such as we should expect from Job, on the supposition that he was the author of the book. Nothing is concealed. There is the most fair and full statement of his impatience, his murmuring, his irreverence, and of the rebuke which he received of the Almighty. Thus Moses, too, records his own failings, and, throughout the Scriptures, the sacred writers nevei attempt to conceal their own infirmities and faults. (5.) Job has shown in his own speeches that lie was abundantly able to compose the book. In every thing lie goes immeasurably beyond all the other speakers, except God; and he who was competent, in trials so severe as his were, to give utterance to the lofty eloquence, the argument, and the poetry now found in his speeches, was not incompetent to make a record of them in the long period of health irld prosperity which he subsequently enjoyed. Every circumstance, therefore, seems to me to render it probable that Job was tile compiler, or perhaps we should rather say, the Editor of this remarkable book, with the exception of the record which is made of his own age and death. The speeches wvere undoubtedly made substantially as they are recorded, and.the workl of the author was to collect and edit those speeches, to record his own and that of the Almighty, and to furnish to the whole the proper historical notices, that the argument might be properly understood. VI. But one other supposition seems necessary to meet all the questions which have been raised in regard to the origin of the work. It is, that Moses adopted it and published it among the Hebrews as a part of divine revelation, and intrusted it to them, with his own writings, to be transmitted to future times. Several circumstances contribute to render this probable. (1.) Moses spent forty years in various parts of Arabia, mostly in the neigh.. borhood of Horeb; and in a country where, if such a work had been in existence, it would be likely to be known. ( H.) His talents and previous training at the court of Pharaoh were such as would make him likely to look with interest on any literary document; on any work expressive of the customs, arts, sciences and religion ol INTRODUCTION. XX XVuI another land; and especially on any thing having the stamp of uncommon genius. (3.) The work was eminently adapted to be useful to his own countrymen, and could be employed to great advantage in the enterprise which lie undertook of delivering them from bondage. It contained an extended examination of the great question which could not but come before their minds-why the people of God were subjected to calamities; it inculcated the necessity of submission without murmuring, under the severest trials; and it showed that God was the friend of his people, though they were long afflicted, and would ultimately bestow upon them abundant prosperity. There is every probability, therefore, that if Moses found such a book in existence, he would have adopted it as an important auxiliary in accomplishing the great work to which he was called. It may be added (4.), that there is every reason to think that Moses was not himself the author of it. This opinion rests on such considerations as these: (a) The style is not that of Moses. It has more allusion to proverbs, and maxims, and prevailing views of science, than occur in his poetic writings. See Lowth, Praw. Hebr. xxxii, Michaelis, Nat. et Epim. p 1S6, as quoted by Magie, p. 328, and Herder, Heb. Poetry, vol. i. pp. 108, 109. (b) Moses in his poetry almost invariably used the word JxnoVAil as the name of God, rarely that of the Almighty ( S?, Shladdai); in Job, the word JEHOVAH rarely occurs in the body of the poem, some other name for the Deity being almost uniformly employed (c) In the book of Job there are numerous instances of words, the roots of which are now obsolete, or which are found only:n the Arabic or Chaldee. See Prof. Lee, Intro. p. 50. (d) The allusions to Arabic customs, opinions, and manners, are not such as would have been likely to be familiar to the mind of Moses. All that he could have learnt of them would have been what he acquired, when over forty years of age, in keeping the flocks of his father-in-law Jethro; and though it might be said with plausibility that the forty years which he spent with him might have made him familiar with the habits of Arabia, still, in a poem of this length, we should have expected that these would not have been the only allusions. The most vivid and permanent impressions on the mind are those made in youth; and on the mind of Moses, those impressions had been received in Egypt. If the work had been composed by him we should, therefore, have expected that there would have been frequent allusions that would have betrayed its Egyptian origin. But of these there are none, or if there are any which have such an origin, they are such as might have been readily learned from the common reports of travellers. But with all that pertained to the desert, to the keeping of flocks and herds, to the nomadic mode of life, to the poor and needy wanderers there, to the meth XXXVill INTCRI)DUCT'ION. ods of plunder and robbery, the author of the poem shows himself to be perfectly familiar. It seems to me, therefore, that by this train of remarks, we are conducted to a conclusion attended with as much certainty as can be hoped for in the nature of the case, that the work was composed by Job himself in the period of rest and prosperity which succeeded his trials, and came to the knowledge of Moses during his residence in Arabia, and was adopted by him to represent to the Hebrews, in their trials, the duty of submission to the will of God, and to furnish the assurance that he would yet appear to crown with abundant blessing's his own peo. ple, however much they might be aficted. ~ 5. The character and the design of the book. It has long been a question which has excited much interest among those who have written on this book, what is the nature of the poem? That the body of the work is poetic, admits of no doubt; and an attempt was early made to determine the department of poetry to which it belonged. With some, it has been regarded as a regular drama; with others, as an epic poem; and laborious efforts have been made to show, that in its form, spirit, and arrangement, it comes within the limits usually assigned to these kinds of composition. But it cannot be doubted that undue importance has been attached to this question; nor can it be any more doubted that it cannot fairly be classed with either. It stands by itself -a poem, framed without reference to the Grecian rules of art; composed and published long before the laws of composition were reduced to order, and having, in fact, the characteristics of neither the epic nor the drama. There is nothing that bears an exact resemblance to it in Grecian, in Roman, or in modern literature. As a composition, it has little that resembles the Iliad, the LEneid, the Jerusalem Delivered, or the Paradise Lost. The design of the author was not to excite interest in the fortunes of the principal person or hero of the poem, nor to exhibit characteristic traits in the other personages introduced, nor to conduct a regular action to a determined and important result-as in an epic poem. As little can it be regarded as a regular drama. In its dialogue, indeed, and in the tragic interest which encompasses the character of Job, it has some resemblance to the drama; but this resemblance is incidental to the purpose of the author, and not a part of his main design. "If the word" [drama], says Eichhorn, Einleit. ~ 640, "be taken in its most simple meaning, as denoting a dialogue, I would not contend with any one about the name. But if the word be taken according to the modern acceptation, the poem is not a drama. The drama, according to the modern con INTRO D UCTION. XXXiX,eptiols, was entirely unknown to the Orientals, and is so little in accordance with their views and customs, that the Arabians, after they become acquainted with the Grecian dramatic learning, would not introduce it among themselves. Casiri, Biblioth. Arab. Escur. 1T. 1, p. 85. All action is wanting in this poem; for the prologue and epilogue, where there is some action, do not pertain properly to the poem." On the question, whether it has the properties of an epic poem, the reader may consult also Eichhorn, Einleit. ~ 640, vol. v., pp. 139, fgg. Indeed, this whole controversy, to what particular department of poetry this work belongs, which has been waged for centuries almost, has all the characteristics of a logomachy, and, if determined, would do little in explanation of the book. Those who are disposed to prosecute the inquiry, may find a full discussion in Lowth's Lectures on Hebrew Poetry, Lect. xxxii-xxxiv; W arburte n's Divine Legation, B. VI. ~ 2; Herder's Heb. Poetry, Dial. IV. 5; and Dr. Good's Introduction. Instead of entering into the controversy respecting the nature of the poem, it will be more useful to state what seems to be the design of the book, and the form which the poem actually presents. Having this object before the mind distinctly, it will be easy for any one to give it such a classification in the various departments of poetry, as shall seem to him to be most accordant with truth. In order to understand this poem, it is important to have before the mind a clear conception of the peculiarities of the poetry of the Hebrews. I shall, therefore, enter here into a somewhat detailed explanation of a subject that is important to every student of the Scriptures. Much has been written on the subject of Hebrew poetry, and yet there is no department of Scriptural investigation which has been pursued with less encouraging success. Almost nothing has been done to throw light on it since the time of Lowth, and it must be admitted that he has left many questions almost entirely unsettled. It is still asked, what constitutes the peculiarity of Hebrew poetry? Is it to be found in rhythm? Are the various kinds of poetry, which occur in the writings of other nations, to be found in the compositions of the Hebrews? How does their poetry differ from the more elevated parts of their prose writings? And as the one sometimes seems to slide insensibly into the other, how shall it be known where the one ends and the other begins? In regard to these questions, it may be observed, (1.) That the poetry of the Hebrews is not constituted by rhyme. The same remark, it is obvious, might be made respecting the poetry of all other people. Rhyme, or the occurrence of similar sounds at the close of the lines, is an artifice of modern origir -nd of doubtful advantage. The reader need not be in xl INTRODUCTION. formed thit it does not occur in Homer or Hesiod; in Virgil or Ovid; in the Paradise Lost, or in the Task. The highest kind of poetry exists without rhyme, and it has been made a question whether its use might not have been dispensed with altogether. It is certain that rhyme does not constitute the peculiarity of Hebrew poetry; for in the few cases where it occurs in the Hebrew Scriptures, it seems to have been the result of accident rather than lesign. Something like rhyme can, indeed, be discovered in cases ike the following: Yehovaih, il bedppekh tholkihhni; VCal bahlamratheka theyassereni. Ps. vi 2.'..:'.* *':: T iMa ailosh ki thizkerennu, Ub6n a'drm ki thiphqedhennu. Ps, viii 5 T T...... Al tithkhiir bnimelmeim, Al t6kDnn6 baresh'im. Prov. xxiv. 19., Shialahh mel1k vaiyattirehu, Mishel hmmim vaiyephattehhlehu. Ps. cv. 20. In Isa. x. 6, the two subdivisions of the first clause of the verse rhyme together: Beg,y- hhmaneph ashdilldhhannuu Vedl am ibrathii htzhVvvDnnu. So in Isa. liii. 6: Kfiillnu khttzon- tinu Ish 16dhdrko pininu. 7o the two last clauses in Isa. i. 9, xliv.'3, and Ps. xlv. 8. The twvo 1 rincipal clauses of the verse rhyme in Prov. vi. 1, 2, Job vi. 9, nsa. i. 29. In one instance three rhymes are to be found in a sentence, as in Isa. i. 25 i NIi'iOD U C'11T N. idh' " ~; T T'r: IT * T *T: VaashlibQh yadlhi Alaik, VEEtzroph ktbbor siggiik, Veasirahl k6l b6dhilaik. Other instances of a similar kind may be found in the Disserta tion of Theodore Ebert on the rules of Hebrew measure and rhythm, in Ugolin's'ihes. Sac. Ant., tom. xxxi. pp. 20,. 21. The cases, however, which occur in the poetry of the Hebrews where rhyme at the end of verses is apparent, are too few to lead us to suppose that it was designed by the writers, and they are probably only such as would occur had an effort to write itP the form of rhyme never been known. (2.) The poetry of the Hebrews is not constitut.ed by rliythlu. Rhythmu has reference to the admeasurement of the Jives of pcetry by feet and nunmbers, and relates to the length and shortvess of the syllables, and; the regular succession of one after arnother. It is the rule in composition which aims to reduce its various aud iresi.sting elements to unity and harmony. De Wette, Einlei. pp. iol, 52. The rules in regard to this pertain to quantity, inflectionl accentuation, and the arrangement of the members and parts of a period. letre of some kind has been regarded as almost necessary to poetry, and the care of the ancient Greek and Latin poets in regard to it is well known. It has been made a question of mutch interest whether such laws prevail in the Hebrew poetry; and whether. if it ever existed, it is possible to trace it now. Carpzov, Ebert. and Lowth, maintained that such metre or rhythm m-ust have existed, though it is now lost to us. Lowth (Lectures on Hebrew Poetry, III.) maintains that " thle Hebrew writings are not only animated with the true poetic spirit, but are in some degree confined to num-, bers;" that properties altogether peculiar to metrical compositic.' are found; that the Hebrew poets use, like the Greeks, " glosses' or expressions taken from foreign languages, and adopt a pecullia fbrm in the termination of words, so as to form a poetical dialect but that as to the " quantity,'rhythm, or modulation," iit is hopeles, now to attempt to recover it, " the true pronunciation being nov lost." Similar views are expressed by Pfeiffer (Ueber d. Musik d alten Heb. p. xvi.); Bauer (Einleit. ins A. T. p. 358, sq.); Jahb (Bibl. Arch. Th. I. B. I.); and Meyer,. Hermen. des A. T ii. 82.9 Comp. De Wette, Einleit. p. 45. Josephus affirmed that in lJebrew poetry are to be found both hexameter and tetrameter verses. Ant B. II. ch. xvi. ~ 4; B. VII. ch. xii. ~ 3. " Philo, in several pas sages of his writings, maintains that Moses was acquainted with me xlii INTRODUCTIO()N. tre." Nordhelmer, Heb. Gram. vol. ii. p. 319. Goinarus, Hare, Greve, and several others of equal celebrity, have sought to ascertain the laws of metre in Hebrew poetry, but without success. If it ever existed, it is now hopeless to attempt to recover it. There is little evidence that we have the correct pronunciation of the language; the laws of metre are now unknown, and there is no way of ascertaining them. Indeed, the evidence is not satisfactory that any such laws ever existed. The assertions of Josephus and Philo can be easily accounted for. They were Jews, proud of their own language; and supposing, justly, that the poetry of their sacred bards was equal to any which could be produced in the writings of the Romans or the Greeks, they were anxious to show that it had all the properties of poetry existing among them. Yet in their time, it was a settled rule among the Greeks and Romans that poetry was known by its rhythm, by its accurate and careful admeasurement of numbers, and its harmonious and graceful flow of measure. Nothing was more natural, therefore, than that they should affirm that the same thing existed in the Hebrew poetry, and that portions of it could be adduced which for beauty and grace of measure would equal the boasted productions of Greece and Rome, That specimens might have been produced capable of being measured by feet, no one can disprove; and yet this may not have been at all a leading object in the poetry of the Hebrews. It should be remembered, that the Hebrew poetry is the oldest now extant; that it was composed long before the artificial rules knowL in Greece and Rome were in existence; that it was designed to express the sentiments of the earliest period of the world when all was fresh and new; and that we are to look for less attention to the rules of composition than in a more cultivated and artificial age. Indications of art there are indeed in the alphabetical poems, and in the carefully constructed parallelisms, but it is not the art of rhythm or metre. (3.) It is not a characteristic of Hebrew poetry, that it is formed according to the regular laws of composition which fetter the poets of more modern times. There are, indeed, lyric and elegiac poems of exquisite beauty and tenderness. But there is no regular epic poem, for although their early history furnished finer materials for such a poem than the occurrences celebrated in either the Iliad or the _Eneid, it seems never to have occurred to them to attempt to mould those materials into the form of a heroic poem. The Hebrews had no dramatic poetry. The stage was unknown among them, and indeed was unknown among the Greeks until long after the time when the most celebrated of the Hebrew poets lived. We are not to look, therefore, for the characteristics of Hebrew poetry in the stately modes-of composition which occur in other languages. INTRODUCTION. xlin If it be asked, then, what are the characteristics of Hebrew poetry; how does it differ from prose; how can its existence be determined, we may reply, (.) It consists in the nature of the subiects which are treated; in the ornate and elevated character of the style; in the sententious manner of expression; and in certain peculiarities in the structure of sentences and the choice of words which are found only in poetry, which will be noticed hereafter. (2.) It is the language of nature in the early periods of the world, expressing itself in the form of surprise, astonishment, exultation, triumph,-the outpouring of a mind raised by excitement above its ordinary tone of feeling. The prose writer.expresses himself in a calm and tranquil manner when free from the influence of strong excitement. His sedate emotions are reflected in the language which he uses. The poet is animated. HIis mind is excited. Every faculty of the soul is brought into exercise. His heart is full; his imagination glows; his associations are rapid; and the soul pours forth its emotions in language figurative, concise, abrupt. The boldest metaphors are sought; the terms expressing deepest intensity of feeling suggest themselves to the mind; or language most beautifuil, tender, and soothing, expresses the emotions of sorrow or of love. It is in the Hebrew poetry more strikingly than anywhere else, that we perceive the evidence of the intensity with which objects struck the. imagination in the early periods of the world; and nowhere do we find such examples of sublimity and power as there. (3.) The language of poetry is distinguished from prose by the efort which is made to express the ideas, and by the form which that effort gives. Sometimes we have merely a glimpse of the thought or the object, which it is left for the imagination to fill up. Sometimes the thought is repeated, thrown into a new form, modified, or merely echoed from the first attempt to express it. The mind, full of the conception, labors to give utterance to it, and in the effort there may be repetition, or a slight variation in the words, or an attempt to show its force by striking contrast. It is from this effort of the mind that there was originated the principal peculiarity of Hebrew poetry,' exhibited in the form of parallelThis general characteristic of poetry in all languages, manifests itself in some peculiar form in accordance with the character of a people, or with prevailing taste, or in imitation of some distinguished writer. Some artifcial rules are adopted, in accordance with which the poetic spirit is manifested. In one country or age this may be by rhyme; in another, by the rhythm of measured feet or numbers; at one time, it may be by simple' blank verse;' at another, by the smoothness and harmony of similar endings The elegy, the eclogue, the pastoral, the lyric, the tragic, the epic. mav all be xliv INT'l5RODUCT''1ON. employed, and in all the poetic spirit may reign. The Greeks and Romans employed rhythm, and reduced the laws of poetic feet and numbers to the severest rules; rhyme has been since invented for similar purposes, and occupies a large place.in modern poetry; while another form still may be found in the Hebrew, the Arabic, and the Persian poetry. In some countries and times the artificial rules may be few and little complicated; in others they may be numerous and wrought up with the highest skill of art. One mode may be adapted to the taste of one people, and another to that cf another and still the essential characteristics of poetry be foundl in all. Nay, one artificial mode of poetry that is now obsolete may be in itself as reasonable and valuable as another that is retained, and no reason can be given except that the tastes of men change by time, circumstances, and fashion. The parallelism of the Hebrew may be as poetic in its character, and as rational in itself, as the:hyme; perhaps it may be better adapted to express the conceptions of the highest kind of poetry. The apparently cumbrous versification of Spenser may have. as much poetic merit as the numbers of Pope, and the time may come when that stanza shall be restored to the honor which it once possessed as the medium of the poetic sentiment. We are not, therefore, to judge Hebrew poetry by our artificial forms. We are not to say, because it lacks the ornament of rhyme, or because it cannot now be reduced to the laws of poetic numbers which are applied to Homer or Virgil, that therefore it is destitute of the true spirit of poetry. We are to inquire whether it have the elevated conceptions, the sublime thoughts, the grandeur of inmagery, the tenderness and sweetness, the beauty of description, and the power to rouse the soul, which are every where recognized as the characteristics of poetry. We are then to inquire, what modes the ancient bards chose as the forms in which they should embody their conceptions;-perhaps as an incidental inquiry we are to ask whether those forms are not adapted to the age and land in dwhich they occur, as really as the forms now most admired may be to our own. This inquiry has never been pursued as it should have been, and this is not the place in which to prosecute it. The inquiry which is proper here is, only, in what artificial forms the spirit of poetry among the Hebrews was embodied and preserved. What rules had they according to which to record their poetic conceptions? Hebrew poetry appears, then, under the following artificial forms. 1. In an alphabetical arrangenment. We have something like this in the acrostic, where each line begins with a letter of a certain word. The Hebrew poets sometimes adopted a similar method, by commencing each line with one of the letters of the alphabet; ora INTItOODUCTION. xlv where every alternate verse began with a succeeding letter; or where a series of verses have the same initial letters. This artificial mode of composition appears with several modifications. (a.) Commonly each verse begins with one of the successive letters of the alphabet, and the number of the verses is, therefore, the sante as the number of Hebrew letters. This occurs in Prov. xxxi. 10-31, where the order of the letters is exactly observed, and Lam, i. This is the case, also, in Psalm xxv., except that two verses begin with N; and none with:; the i and p are wanting, and two verses begin with'; and at the close after the r a line beginning with r occurs. So in Lam.. ii. 4, except that m and' are exchanged in their places. In like manner in Psalm xxxiv., which is constructed on this plan, the I is wanting, and the Psalm concludes with a line beginning with Z. In Ps. cxlv. the order is exactiy observed, except that ~ is wanting. (b.) In Ps. xxxvii. there are evidences of a more artificial structure, though it is not wholly regular. The Psalm consists of forty verses, and it would'seem that it was the original conception that the letter: should precede each of the letters of the alphabet in the beginning of the verse. The order of letters is the followsing:,:,, C, C,';,,, =, n,, X, X, I, m, -J, =, A, The Psalm, it will at once be seen, is quite irregula.r, though the general order of the letters of the alphabet is observed. it is now impossible to explain the cause of the irregularity. (c.) Another form is found in Ps. cxi. cxii. In these Psalms the half-verses are alphabetically arranged, or every half-verse or member begins with a new letter of the alphabet. These Psalms are regular in their structure, and the series occurs in the exact order of the letters of the alphabet. (d.) In Lamentations iii. and Ps. cxix. another alphabetical form still more artificial appears. In Lamentations three verses in succession begin with one of the letters of the alphabet, followed by three more beginning with the succeeding letter, and so on through the alphabet; except that, as in chs. ii. and iv., Z and V change places. In Psalm cxix. the same arrangement extends through eight successive verses, dividing the whole Psalm into alphabetical strophes of that number of verses. What was the (design of this arrangement is now unknown. Michaelis supposes that it was at first a device employed in the funeral dirge to aid mourners; and De Wette, that it was owing to a vitiated taste. Lowth supposes that it was confined to those compositions which consisted of detached maxims, or sentiments without any express order or connection, and that the whole arrangement was to assist the memory. It seems to me that it must xlvi INTRODUCTION. be regarded as a mere matter of taste-and certainly of taste quite as elevated and rational as the rhyme or the acrostic are with moderns. That it was not adopted to aid the memory is apparent, because it is found in very few of the poetical compositions of the Hebrews; while if this were the object, we should expect to find it extended to all. For a similar reason it could not have been designed, as Michaelis supposes, to aid in funeral dirges; for it is found in no funeral dirges, unless the " Lamentations" be regarded as such. Nor can the supposition of Lowth be correct, for in Ps. xxv., xxxvii., cxi., cxii., cxlv. there is as close a connection of sentiment as occurs in any of the Psalms; and indeed some of them are quite remarkable for the continuity of thought and singleness of design. There are many artificial modes of poetry in all languages which can be accounted for on no other principle than that they are mere matters of taste; and they who censure this form of Hebrew poetry, should inquire whether the censure should be withheld from many forms of poetry existing in the best writings of modern times. II. An artificial form of poetry is observable in a few instances where a complex rhythmical period or strophe occurs. 2he peculiarity of this form is, that the same verse-or sentiment is repeated at somewhat distant intervals, or after the recurrence of about the same number of verses. Whether this intercalary verse (Germ. &Schaltvers) was designed to aid the memory, or to be sung by a part of a choir, or was regarded as a mere poetic ornament, cannot now be determined. An instance occurs in Ps. xlii., xliii. After the first four verses, the following occurs: " Why art thou cast down, 0 my soul? and why art thou disquieted within me? Hope thou in God; for I shall yet praise him for the help of his countenance." After five verses, the same verse occurs with a slight variation, and after four verses more it occurs again in the same manner, showing that it was intended to close a strophe, or large period. The same thing occurs in Ps. cvii., where the Psalm is divided into unequal portions by the recurrence of the same sentiment, "0 that men would praise the Lord for his goodness, and for his wonderful works to the children of men." This occurs after vs. 1-7; vs. 9-14; vs. 16-20; and vs. 22-30. Gesenius supposes that a part of Solomon's Song is composed in the same manner. One instance of this occurs in Isaiah. It is in ch. ix. 8-21, x. 1-4. After each strophe, consisting of four or five verses, the following sentiment is repeated: "For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still;" ch. ix. 12, 17, 21, x. 4. Amos i. 2-15, ii. 1-6, is constructed in the same artificial manner. III. A third artificial form of poetry occurs in the rhythm oJ INTRODUCTI ()N. xIvii gradation (De W;ette, Stufenrlythmus), and is found mainly in tile'Psalms of Degrees.' It consists in this, that the thought ox expression of the preceding verse is resumed and carried forward in the next. An instance of this occurs in Ps. cxxi.: 1. I lift up mine eyes unto the hills; From whence will my help come? 2..My help cometh from JEHOVAH, The Creator of heaven and earth. 3. He suffereth not thy foot to be moved; Thy keeper slumbereth not. 4. Lo! he siumbereth not, nor sleepeth The keeper of Israel. 5. JEHOVAH is thy keeper; JEHOVAH thy shade is at thy right hand ~ 6. The sun shall not smite thee by day, Nor the moon by night. 7. JEHOVAH preserveth thee from all evil, Preserveth thy soul. 8. JEHOVAH pxeserveth thy going out and thy coming in, From this time forth and for evermore. These'Songs of Degrees' are fifteen in number, extending from Ps. cxx. to cxxxiv. The same characteristics may he found in them all, and it is probable that they derived their name from this artificial structure, and not because they were sung as the tribes were going ulp to Jerusalem. The song of Deborah (Judges v.) is constructed on this principle, as the following specimens will show: 4. Lord, when thou wentest out of Seir, When thou marchedst out of the field of Edom, The earth trembled, And the heavens dropped, The clouds also dropped water. 5. The mountains melted before the Lord, Even that Sinai, fiom before the Lord God of fsrael. 7. The inhabitants of the villages ceased, They ceased in Israel. Until that I Deborah arose, That I arose a mother in Israel 20. They fought from heaven, The stars in their courses fought against Sisera 21. The river of Kishon swept them away, That ancient river, the river Kishon. 22. Then were the horse-hoofs broken by means of the prancings, The prancings of their mighty ones, etc. etc. An instance of this artificial arrangement occurs in Isa. xxvi. 5, C The lofty city he layeth it low, Hath laid it low to the ground, He hoth levelled it to the dust. The foot shall trample on it, Thefeet of the poor, the steps of the neerlv xlviii INTRODUCTION. IV. The grand peculiarity of the Hebrew poetry, however, is the parallelism. This form of composition, which seems to us to be artificial in a high degree, consists in the repetition of the main thought usually with some modification. It arose from such circumstances as the following. (1.) The Hebrew poetry, in the main, was composed at a very early period of the world, and at that point of intellectual cultivation when the mind is in a condition to seize only certain simple and general relations of things, and to express them strongly. (2.) The mind is supposed to be struck with wonder and to be highly excited. The object presented is new and strange, and fills the soul with elevated and glowing conceptions. (3.) In this state, the mind naturally expresses itself in short sentences, and is apt merely to repeat the idea. It is not in a condition to observe minute relations, but seeks to express the thought in the most impressive and forcible manner possible. The speaker struggles with language; the words are slow to adapt themselves to the thought; and the principal idea is expressed and dwelt upon with earnestness. The object is to express the glowing conception of the mind; and that object is effected by repetition, by the addition of'a slight circumstance, by comparison, or by contrast with some other subject. Sometimes in this effort to express the main thought, the secondary expression will be little more than the echo of the first attempt; soinetimes it will greatly excel it in force and brilliancy; sometimes some striking and beautiful conception will be appended; sometimes, to heighten the impression, the main idea will be expressed in contrast with some other. In all these cases the form of short sentences will be preserved; though the number and modes of the efforts made to give expression to the main thought may be greatly varied. These circumstances gave rise to the parallelism, which became the favorite form of poetry among the Hebrews, and which abounds so much in every part of the Old Testament. Various divisions have been made of the parallelism, and to a considerable extent those divisions must be arbitrary. Lowth (Prel. Diss. to Isaiah, and Lectures on Hebrew Poetry, xix.) reduces the parallelism to three kinds-synonymous, antithetic, and synthetic. This division has been adopted by Nordheimer (Gram. vol. ii. pp. 323, seq.), and by writers on Hebrew poetry in general. De Wette (Einleit. 56-63) has suggested four kinds of parallelism, as embracing the forms which exist in the Old Testament. They are (I.) when there is an equality of words; (II.) when the words are not equal: divided into (1) the simple unequal parallelism, and (2) the complex unequal parallelism, embracing (a) the synonomous, (b) the antithetic, and (c) the synthetic; (3) instances where the simple member is disproportionably small,'(4) cases where IN'TRODUCTION. xlix 0ire complex member is increased to three or four propositions; and (5) cases where there is a short clause or supplement, for the most part in the second member. III. Parallelism when both the members are complex; embracing also (a) the synonymous; (b) lie antithetic; and (c) the synthetic. IV. IRhythmical parallelism, when it consists not in the thought but in the form of the period. Under this last form of parallelism, De Wette supposes that the Lamentations of Jeremiah should be nearly all ranged. Without adopting precisely either of the arrangements above referred to, the following classification will probably include all the modes in which the parallelism occurs in the Scriptures, being substantially the same as that of Lowth. (1.) The synonymouss pCarallelism. In this, the second clause is a repetition of the first. This occurs under considerable variety in regard to the length of the inembers. (a) The repetition is nearly in the same words, or where a single word may be changed. Thus in Isa. xv. 1, where the subject alone is changed: Verily, by a nightly assault, Ar of Moab is laid waste and ruined' Verily, by a nightly assault, Kir of Moab is laid waste and ruined In Prov. vi. 2 the verb only is changed: Thou art snared with the words of thy mouth; Thou art taken with the words of thy mouth. Sometimes an idea is only partially expressed in the first clause; in the second this is repeated, and the sentence brought to a close, as in Ps. xciv. 1: God of vengeance-JI;HovAH! God of vengeance-shine forth. In Ps. xciii. 3 the entire sentence is again repeated in a varied Cform: The floods have lifted up, O JEHnoVA! The floods have lifted up their voice; The floods lift up their waves. (b)} n this parallelism there is often an equality in the words, at least in their number. Thus in the song of Lamech, Gen. iv. 23: Adah and Zillah, hear my voice i Wives of Lamecli, receive my speech! If I have slain a man to my wounding, A and a youngasman to my hurt; If Cain was avenged seven times, Then Lamech-seventy times seven. Thus also in Job vi. 5 Doth the wild ass bray over his grass? Doth- the ox low over his fodder? 3 1 INTRODUICTIONQ Such instances occur often in the Scriptures, and perhaps this may be considered the origainal form of the parallelism. (c.) In the synonymous parallelism, as in other forms also, there is often a great inequality in the number of the words. These instances seem to have occurred where it was desirable to give emphasis to the thought by the utmost brevity in one of the members, while, perhaps, in the other member, the thought is dwelt upon or repeated. Thus in Ps. lxviii. 33: Sing unto God, ye kingdoms of the earth; 0 sing praises unto JEHOVAH. So in Ps. xl. 9, where the simple member is disproportionately small, and the inequality, therefore, still more striking: I proclaim thy righteousness in the great congregation Lo! I refiain not my lips! 0 Lord, thou knowest! So in Job x. 1, where the principal emphatic thought is followed by a parallelism, stating what was proper in view of the fact of which he complained: I am weary of my life: T'herefore Nwill I give loose to my complaints; I will speak in the bitterness of my soul. (d) The idea is expressed in the form of a climax, where the thought rises and becomes more emphatic. This climax sometimes is found in the verbs used. Thus in Ps. xxii. 27: All the ends of the world shall renmemvber, and turnt to the Lord; And all the kindreds of the nations shall wonsSHIP before thee. For the sake of emphasis, the verb of the first clause is sometimes placed at the commencemient, and the corresponding one of the second at the termination. Isa. xxxv. 3: Strengthen the weak hands And the tottering knees makle firm. A climax in thought often occurs, as in this instance, Isa. liv. 4: Fear not, for thou shalt not be confounded; And blush not, for thou shalt not be put to shame: For thou shalt forget the shame of thy youth, And the reproach of thy widowhood shalt thou remember no more. (e.) We meet with double parallelisms, or cases where each clause of a verse corresponds with each clause-of the menmber precedinrg, as in Ps. xxxiii. 13, 14. From heaven the Lord looks down, He sees ill the sons of men; From his dwelling-place be looks Upon all the inlhabitants of the eartll. INTRODUCTION. hI So in Isa. i. I5 When ye spread forth your hands, I vwilt hide mine eyes from you; When ye multiply prayers, I will not hIearken. Sometimes the second parallelism contains the cause of whllat is stated in the preceding. Isa. lxi. 10: I will greatly rejoice in JET-IovAH; My soul shall exult in my God: For he hath clotlied me with the garments of salvation; He hath covered me with the mrnantle of righteousness. Or the first contains a comparison, and the second the thing compared. Isa. lxi. 11: For as the earth putteth forth her tender shoots, And as a garden causes its seed to germinate; So the Lord J:EIIVAA will cause righteousness to germinate, And praise before all the nations. (f) This form of parallelismn-tMe synonymous, admits of five lines, and often employs them with great elegance. Thuls in Isa. i. 15, quoted above, where the fifth line is given as a reason- for what is affirmed in the second and fourth: And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes fiomn you; And when ye multiply prayers, I will not hear: Your hands are full of blood! In the stanza of five lines the odd line may come in between the two distichs. Thus in Isa. xlvi. 7: They bear hIim upon the shoulder, and they carry him; They set him in his place, and there lie standeth; From his place shall he not remove — Yea, one cries unto hiln, and lie does not answer; Nor save him out of his trouble. So, also, in Isa. 1. 10: vVWho is there among you that feareth JEHOVAH, That obeyeth the voice of his servant, Who walketh in darkness and seeth no light? Let him trust in the name of JEHOVAH; Let him stay himself upon his God. It. A second form of the parallelism is the antithectic, in which the idea contained in the second clause is the converse of that in the first. This appears also with various modifications. (a.) It occurs in a simple form. Prov. x. 1 A wise son rejoiceth his fiather; But a foolish son is the grief of his mother iii INTRODUCTION. (b.) A form of antithesis occurs in which the second clause is the consequence of the first. Isa. i. 19, 20g If ye be willing and obedient, Ye shall e;at the good of the land, But if ye reftlse and rebel, Ye shall be devoulred with the sword. (c.) Occasionally we meet with a double synonym and a double antithesis. Isa. i. 3 Tlue ox knoweth his owner, And the ass the crib of his master; Israel knoweth not, My people understand not. (d.) Sometimes there is an alternate correspondence in the anti thesis. Ps. xliv. 2: Thou didst drive out the heathen with tiy hand, And plantedst those Didst destroy the nations, And enlargedst those. De flette's translation. (e.) A double antithetical form of the parallelism is not uncommon in the prophets. A very beautiful parallelism of this kind occurs in Habakkl;uk iii. 17T, IS Althougll tbe fig-tree shall not blossom, Neitiler sIlall firuit be in tile vines; The buds of the olive sliall fiil, And the fields slall yield no bread; The flock shall be cut off from the fold, And tlhere shall be no herd in the stall; Yet I will rejoice in the Lord, I will joy in the God of my salvation. Comnp. Isa. ix. 10: The bricks are fhllen down, But we will build with hewn stone; The sycanmores are cast down, But we will replace them with cedars. III. The third form of the parallelism is that which is denominated by Lowth, the synthetic. In this, the parallelism consists only in the similar form of construction; where there is " a correspondence and equality between different propositions in respect to the shape and turn of the whole sentence, such as noun answering to noun, verb to verb, member to member, negative to negative, interrogative to interrogative." Loztiv. The poet, instead of merely echoing the forier sentiment, or placing it in contrast, enforces his thought by accessory ideas and modifications. A general proposition is stated, and the sentiment is amplified or dwelt upon INTRODUCTION. liii in iet ail. Thus in sat i. 5-9 the description of the punishment broucrht upon the Hebrews is coiitinued through several verses, each heightening the effect of the preceding: Tile wliole -lead is sick, tile wlhole heart faint, Fi-oroi the sole of the foot even unto the head there is no soundness in it; It is wound, and bruise, and runn)ing sore They harive neither pressed it nor bouend it up, Neithler hatli it been softened waith ointiment. Your country is desolate; Your cities are burrit witli fire: Youlr land-straincers devour it in your presence, And it is desolation, like the overturiinrig p1roductl ed by enemies. So in Isa. lviii. 6, seq. Is not this thle fast tlhat I appiove: To loose the bands of wvickedness, To trundo the heavy burideiis, To firee the oppressed, And to break asminder every'oke? Is it not to cdeal tly breald to tlle h I1iigry, And to briing the poor tlhat 1are cast out, into thly lhouse Whllen ttlou seest tlhe Inake( tlhat tllou clolfie liini, And that thlou hide not thlyself fioni tlline own kindred? A beautiful specimen of this kind of atmplification occurs in tlle powerful passage in Job iii. 3-9, where lie curses the day of' hls birth, and whl-ere he amplifies the thought with which he con;mrences in the most impressive and solemn nlanner O that the day mriglht have perislled in whiclh I was born, And the nigllt w licch said, A male chlild is conceived." Let that daby be darkliness, - Let not God inquiile after it fiom on hnigh Yea, let not the light sline upon it! Let darkiness and thle s-hadow of deatlh stain it; Let a cloud dwell upon it, Let wliatever darkens the day terrify it Examples of this kind of partallelism occur in abundance in the Scriptures, and especially in the Prophets. Under this head niay be included also a species of altCernatde parallelisism, a foirm of poetic composition not uncommon. The following are specimens. Is'a. li. 19 These two things are come upon thee; Th1lio shall betr )an tliee? Desolation.id destrllh'tioon, Famine and the s word; How slla! I cormfort tiee? T'hat is, taken alternately, desolation by faG-m1ine, and destruction b3 the sword. Cant. i. 5: I am blaek, hlot yet hbeiuiflil, 0 dauglziers of Jeruisalemin Like the tents of Kecdar, like tile pavilions of Sololmon liv INTRODUCTION, Thart is, bllack -as the tents of Kedar; beautiful as tne pavilions of Solomon. Under this head, also, may be mentioned a form of parallelismn, of a highlly artificial kind, called the introverted parallelism, where the fourth meimber answers to the first, and the third to the second. An instance of this kind occurs in the New'restaimenrt Matth. vii. 6: Give not that whicil is holy unto the dogs, Neither cast ye your pearls before swine; Lest they tralnlp)le thell under their feet, And turn again and rend you. HIere it is the dors mentioned in the first member which in the fourth it is said would turn and rend themn; and the swine which it is said in the third member would trample under their feet the pearls mentioned in the second. It may be added here, that the Arabic has no parallelism of members, as the HIebrew has, though both the modern Arabic and Persian have rhyme. Pococke, however, regards the Arabic metre as a late invention, and probably every where rhyme was invented long after poetry lhad existence in other forims. In readingr the Bible, it is of imortance to understand the laws of poetic paraillelisin, for it often ifurnishes important facilities in interp)ret tiion. One ilmermber often expresses substantially the same senise as its p iallel, and difficult words and phrases are thus rendered susceptible of easy explanation. The subject of Hebrew poetry is confessedly one of the most diflicult pertaining to the study of the Bible, and all that is hoped- fiorn the above observations is to furnish some principles which may be applied in the study of the sacred Scriptures. Those who are desirous of pursuing the investigartion fuirther may consult the following works: Lowth's Introduction to Isaiah, and Lectures on H-lebrew Poetry, ptLrticularly Lee. xix. The Spirit of lebrew Poetry, by J. G. Herder, translated by James larsh, 2 vols. 12mo.; De Wette, Einleitung in die Psalmen (translated in the Biblical Repository, vol. iii. p. 445, seq.) Nordheimer's IHebrew Grammar, vol. ii. p. 32), seq.; Theod. Eberti Poeticaa Hebraica; Davidis Lyra, autore Francisco Gomaro; Augusti Pfeifferi Diatribe de Poesi Ileb.; and Fraicis H-lare on the Psalms, found in Ugolin's Thesau. Sac Ait., tom. xxxi. In reference to the poetry in the book of Job, the following chlaracteristics.re discern-ible. 1. The' leading feature of the Hebrew poetry-the parcllelzs,nmis; liserved wit.h great strictness and perfection. In no part of the Old Testnmeint are there miore perfect specimens of this mode of composition. The pIarallels are, inldeed, in general, of the more INTRODUCTION. lv simple forms —where the second member corresponds with the first with some slight modification of' the meaning; and the instances are very rare, if they occur at all, where the more labored and artificial forms of the parallelism occur. Indeed, it may be doubt. ed whether one instance of the introveirted parallelism occurs inr the book. This circumstance marks the early age of the poetry, and is an additional consideration to show that the book had an early origin. II. Besides the parallelism, the poem bears the marks of a regular design or plan in its composition, and is constructed with a rigid adherence to the purpose which was in the tnind of the author. I refer to the tripartite division of the book, and to the regularity observed in that division. The t)riclotomy appears not only in respect to the longer divisions of the book, but also in respect to most of its minuter subdivisions, Thus we have in the grand division of the book (1.) the prologue; (2.) the poem proper; and (3.) the epilogue, or the conclusion. Thepoem presents also three leading divisions, (lo) the dispute or controversy of Job and his three friends; (2.) the address of Elihu, who proffers himself as umpire; and (3.) the address of God, who decides the controversy. In the controversy between Job and his friends, we find the same artificial arrangement. There are three series in the controversy, each having the same order, and without any deviation, except that in the last of the series, Zophar, whose turn it was to speak, fails to respond. No poem in any language exhibits a more artificial structure than this, and as this is the most striking feature in it, it may be proper to exhibit it at one view. i. The first series of the argument, clh. iv.-xiv. (1.) WVith Eliplhaz, clh. iv.-vii. (a) Speech of Eliphaz, ch. iv., v. (b) Reply of Job, ch. vi., vii. (2.) With B3ildad, ch. viii.-x. (a) Speech of Bildad, clh. viii. (b) Reply of'Job, ch. ix., x. (3.) With Zophar, cl. xi.-xiv. (a) Speech of Zophar, cil. xi. (b) Reply of Job, ch. xii.-xiv. FI The second series of tlie argument, ch. xv.-xi. (1.) YWith Eliphaz, clh. xv.-xvii. (a) Speech of Eliphaz, ch.. xv. (b) Reply of Job, ch. xvi., xvii. (2.) With Bildad, ch. xviii., xix. (a) Speech of Bildad clh. xviii. (b) Reply of Job, ch. xix. (3.) With Zoplhar, ch. xx., xxi. (a) Speech of Zophar, ch. xx. (b) Repoly of Job, ch. xxi. vTi 3.N'1ROD U_ C1T ( JLN. IHI. The third sories of the argiument, eh. x:xii.-xxxi (1.) With Eliphaz, (ch. xxii.-xxiv. (a) Speech of Eliphlaz, cl. xxii. (b) Reply ofJo, hell. xxiii., xxi'. (2.) With Bildad, chll. xxv., xxvi. (a) Speech of lBildad, ch. xxv. (b) Reply of Job, ch. xxvi. (3.) With Zophar, ch. xxvii.-xxxi. (a).* (b) Continlation of thie,eply of Job, chl. xxvii.-xxxi. So also in the final address of Job (cll. xxvi.-xxxi.), there are thret speeches, (a) ch. xxvi.; (b) ch. xxvii. xxviii.; (c) ch. xxix.-xxi, In the speeches of Elihu, there is evidence of a design that a regull lar number of speeches should be made. T'he plan seems to have been, that to each of the speakers there should be assigned three speeches. But Zophar, one of the original disputants, had failed when hiis regular turn came, and four speeches are allowed to Eli, hu. (1.) ch. xxxii. xxxiii.; (2.) ch. xxxiv.; (3.) ch. xxxv.; and (4.) ch. xxxvi. xxxvii. In the controversy, the dispute appears to have been carried on through three days or sessions —perhaps with a considerable interval between them, and the most rigid order was observed during the debate. In'liie manner JEIIOvA is introduced as maling three addresses, (1.) ch. xxxviii. xxxix.; (2.) ch. xl. 1, 2; and (3.) ch. xl. 6-24, ch. xli.; and last of all the epilogue contains a similar subdivision. There is (1.) an account of Job's justification; (2.) his reconciliation with his friends; (3.) his restoration to prosperity, ch. xlii. "," says Prof. Stuart (Intro. to the Apocalypse), t' we withdraw our attention from these obvious and palpable trichotormies, in respect to the larger portions of the book, and direct it to the examination of the individual speeches which are exhibited, we shall find the like three-fold division in many of them. If we descend still lower, even down to strophes, we shall there find that a great number consist of three members." "Thus the economy of this book exhibits a regular and all-pervading series of trichotomnies, most of them so palpable that none can mistake them. This seems to settle two things that have been called in question, viz.: first, the highly artificial arrangement of the book; and secondly, that the prologue and the epilogue are essential parts of the work. The great contest about the genuineness of these, and also of the speech of Elihu, mi:ght have been settled long ago, had due attention been paid to the trichotomy of the book. It is proper to add, that notwithstanding the highly artificial arrangement of the poem, such is the skill of the writer in the combinations, that every thiiig appears to proceed in a way which is altogether easy and natural iNTTRODUCTI ON, lvi. Another circunmstanice evincing artificial arrangeement is noticed bv Eichhorn, Einleituno, ~ 649, vol. v. p)p 148-150. It is the r'e.gular adval ce in the a o rgument, or the iacr ca.se (das Wachsende) of zeal and ardor in the debaters. This is seen in the speeches of Job, "In the beginning lie will not trust hilnself to contend with God (ch. ix. II1); then he wisahes before his death to prove to him his innocence (ch. xiii. 3); then he sighs after a judicial hear1in1 befbre God (cih xvi. 18); then lie affirms thl-t it is certain th-at before his death God will appear to vindicate him (ch. xix. t25); and then at last he solemnly demands of him a judicial investigation." The same is true of the other speakers. " Eliphaz, who begins the controversy with Job, commences wvith mildness and gentleness; for the passion and heat with which he lid he ard Job speak, one gladly forgives to a sufferer. With Bildad, who speaks next, every thing is more severe and bitter; the heat of Job had made his friends too warm, and he could not speakli to Job with the gentleness and softness evinced by Eliphaz. And so also the manner of the individual speakers rises in warmth and interest. Eliphaz, the first time that he speaks, is mild and forbearing; the second time he is more ardent, and utters reproaches against Job, yet in a manner somewhat covered but in the third speech he hides nothing, but charges him openly with being a hypocrite. The same thing is observable in the speeches of Bilclad. In the beginning of his speeches he is more heated than Eliphaiz, yet he condemns him only coznditionally (bedingnlisswveis); in the second hlie condemns him openly; and in the third, with cool contempt lie tramples the sufferer unnder foot." The same artificial mode of composition prevails elsewhere in the poetry of the Hebrews. See it more fully illustrated -in the Intro. to Isaiah, ~ S. Thus we have seven Psalm-ns each verse of wvhich begins with a letter of the alphabet in succession; Ps. xxv., xxxiv., xxxvii., cxi., cxii., cxix., cxlv. In Ps. cxix. wve have this peculiarity, that each Iparagraph of it consists of eiohlt verses, and these eig'ht verses all begin with the same letter of the alphabet. In the book of Lanientations, fotur chapters out of the five are at)lhcabetic compositions, while ch. iii. exhibits three verses in succession each one of which begins with the same letter of the alphabet. This artificial mode of composition seems to have been ole of the earliest features of HIebrew poetry, and in no part of the Bible is it more perfect than in the book of Job. III. The true account of the bhook of Job, as a poem, is, that it is A PUrILIC DEBrATE, conducted in a pJoctic foirl, on a verdy imnpostazt question pertaining5 to the Cdivinee goveruentt. It is not an epic poem, where the hero is placed in a gareat variety of interestil-g and perilous situations, and where the main cl-ject is to create an Vil INTtRODUCTITtOI interest in his behalf; it is not a drama, with a regular plot to be gradually developed, and where the dialogue is adopted to inculcate somne mioral lesson, or to awaken a tragic interest It is a public dis= cussion, with a real case in view, where the question is one of great difficulty, and where there is all the interest of reality. The question is fiirly understood. Tile whole arrangement appears to have been made, or tacitly fallen into from a sense of propriety. Tile disculssiori is continued, evidently, on successive days, givincg a fill oppoirtunity to weigh the arguments which had been previously advanced, aild to firame a reply. The most respectful -attention is paid to what is advanced. There is no rude interruption; 110 impatience no disposition to correct the speaker; no outbreak of excited feeling even under the most proviking remarks. The poetEic J;)rin inl the argulnent is adopted manifestly because it would furniish the opp