Mr. Good is wrong, even according to his own showing, for the same meaning which he attributes to Job xxvi. 8. he assigns to Proverbs xxx. 4. The reading of the former passage is ray; which he renders, 'He driveth together the waters into his thick clouds.' The words of the latter are now OM NI ID, which he translates- Who hath driven the waters together into a web :' understanding equally the vapours in the clouds in each instance. Notes, p. 291.

Passages may without difficulty be produced, in which the fluid in the sea is termed waters. We cite the following, in which Mr. Good will find the term waters used in both senses, of the fluid in the sea, and of the vapours in the clouds.

.6 .v .על הרים עמדו מים .Ps. civ. 3. Of the clouds .המקרה במים עליותיו

Of the fluid in the sea. See also the eighteenth Psalm, vs. 12, 16. From these coincidences no critic would think of proving an identity of authorship between the writer of the above-named Psalms, and the author of the book of Genesis; and they evidently afford no solid argument in support of Mr. Good's position. We are referred to Gen. i. 3. and Job xxxvii. 6. for another striking instance of the identity which he labours to establish. To show how slight is the coincidence on which he founds an important argument, it is only necessary to present

.Gen יאמר אלהים יהי אור ויהי אור-: these passages in the original .6 .Job xxxvii .כיל שלג יאמר הוא ארץ וגשם מטר וגשם מטרות עזו .3 .i

These are the principal instances of parallelism adduced to establish an identity of authorship between the writer of the book of Job, and the author of the Book of Genesis; but they are insufficient for the purpose. Mr. Good remarks, that the only plausible objection against the supposition that this poem was written by Moses, and that he composed it while in Midian, is, that it abounds with the word Jehovah. Now, the poem itself, exclusive of the narrative in the first and second chapters, and of the last eleven verses, does not abound with this word. It is in fact used only once in the poem, namely, ch. xii. 9: the other five instances are ch. xxxviii. 1.; xl. i. 1. 3. 6. ; and xlii. 1. ; being in the narrative where the author speaks in his own person. This peculiarity Mr. Good has not considered. He has not produced any satisfactory evidence to prove that Moses was the author of the book of Job: this opinion, which is the most general one, is scarcely any thing better than conjecture.

SECT. V. Creed, doctrines, and ritual. The Book of Job is represented as a depository of the patriarchal religion; and it is said to have been introduced into the Hebrew and the Christian canons, for the purpose of making them complete, by uniting an account of the dispensation of the patriarchs with the two dispensations by which it was succeeded. We cannot be of

this mind. To us it appears that the patriarchal religion is exhibited with equal correctness in the book of Genesis, which is as well adapted to form the first link in the chain of the Divine dispensations. The patriarchal doctrines are stated to be the following:

I. The creation of the world by one Supreme and Eternal Intelligence. Ch. xxxviii.-xli.

II. Its regulation by his perpetual and superintending providence. Passim.

III. The intentions of his providence carried into effect by the ministrations of a heavenly Hierarchy. Ch. 1, 6, 7. iii. 18, 19. v. 1.

IV. The heavenly hierarchy composed of various ranks and orders, possessing different names, dignities and offices. Ch. iv. 18. xxxiii. 22, 23. v. 2. xv. 15. V. An apostacy or defection in some rank or order of these powers; of which Satan seems to have been one, and perhaps chief. Ch. iv. 18. xv. 15. ch. i. 6—12. ii. 2-7.

VI. The good and evil powers or principles equally formed by the Creator, and hence equally denominated "Sons "of God;" both of them employed by him, in the administration of his providence; and both amenable to him at stated courts held for the purpose of receiving an account of their respective missions. Ch. i. 6, 7. ii. 1.

VII. A day of future resurrection, judgment, and retribution to all mankind. Ch. xiv. 13, 14, 15. xix. 25-29. xxi. 30. xxxi. 14.

VIII. The propitiation of the Creator, in the case of human transgression, by sacrifices, and the mediation and

intercession of a righteous person. Ch. i. 5. xlii. 8. 9. Such, according to Mr. Good, are the doctrines of the patriarchal religion, as developed in the book of Job. Our limits will not admit of extended discussion on the various particulars arranged under the above divisions; we shall just notice some objections which may very fairly be made against his statements. Is the title Sons of God' ever given in the Scriptures to evil powers and principles? Satan is indeed said to have presented himself among the sons of God, but that circumstance does not prove him to be a son of God by designation. That the doctrine of angels pervades the Bible we do not dispute; but when Mr. Good deduces, from the book of Job, the doctrine of a heavenly hierarchy, composed of various ranks and orders, possessing different names, dignities, and offices, such as obedim, servants; malacim, angels; melizim, intercessors; memiVOL. V.-N. S.

M

tim, destinies, or destroyers; alep, the chiliad or thousand; 'kedosim, (sancti,) the heavenly saints or hosts generally; we must inquire whether the passages (see under No. IV.) which he produces, are sufficient to support his deductions. We would then ask-Where, in the compass of that book, does the term, melizim, intercessors; or,alep, chiliad or thousand, a particular class or corps,' occur? We cannot perceive any evidence of such a doctrine in the verses to which we are referred. Mr. Good appears to consider ho, ho, and , in ch. xxxiii. 22, 23, as indicating three different persons or offices; they evidently, not to say certainly, are appellatives of one and the same being, whether heavenly or earthly, the latter most probably.

The doctrine of a future general resurrection is included in the preceding enumeration. While Mr. Good maintains that such a doctrine is delivered in the poem, he concedes that the only person among all the interlocutors, who distinctly alludes to the subject, either on one side or on the other, is Job himself; tliat none of his companions ever direct his attention to a future ' reward when reminding him of the advantages of true piety; that it is perhaps fair to conclude from this negative, that the doctrine of an after-state was not generally received in the last of the patriarchal ages; and that the friends of Job did not accede to it.

This statement must be allowed to have great weight, and unquestionably is presumptive against the early knowledge of the tenet asserted. But it is not conclusive. The speeches of Job may explicitly declare the doctrine, or may afford arguments sufficiently strong to support conclusions in its favour. Of the passages brought forward by Mr. Good, we cannot consider the first, ch. xiv. 10--15. demonstrative of the doctrine of a 'future state.' The argument which it supplies, appears to be precarious. The three preceding verses should have been încluded in Mr. Good's quotation, p. lxxxi. as they are necessary to develop the sense of the passage, and are an essential part of the paragraph. Nor do we perceive that the third series of verses, ch. xxi. 28-30. 'proves obviously' a future judgement. The other two selected paragraphs seem more to the purpose.

That the introductory dissertation contains valuable matter we do not mean to deny it might, however, have been composed of more valuable materials, and especially might it have reached a higher point of critical excellence. An examination of the language of the Book of Job, might have formed an important chapter in this discourse. We should have been glad had we perceived fewer indications, in many parts of it, of the prevalence of the Author's imagination over his judgement.

The suggestions of fancy but ill comport with the sober exercises of criticism. We now proceed to the translation itself.

We agree with those writers who view the first two chapters as introductory narrative, and reckon the commencement of the poem from the beginning of the third chapter. This arrangement is rejected by Mr. Good, whose argument in favour of the opposite disposition of the work, by which the poem is made to commence with the first chapter, from the repetition of the phrase And the day came,' in the first verse of the second chapter, does not possess such cogency as to induce us to discard our opinion that the first two chapters are prosaic.

The following passage is an instance of remarkable variation from the common version.

Ch. i. 5. For (said Job) peradventure my sons

May have sinned, nor blessed God in their hearts."

Good.

For Job said, it may be that my sons may have sinned, and cursed God in their hearts.' C. V.

On this passage a long note occurs, in which Mr. Good very justly animadverts on the impropriety of rendering the word by curse, and maintains that its uniform meaning is bless, in which judgement we entirely agree with him. Still, we cannot assent to his view of the passage, which he attempts to establish by the following observations.

The necessity urged for using 773 in a bad sense, or as expressive of cursing, in the passage now under review, is that the translators cannot otherwise give any meaning to the sentence for we are told, that if the Hebrew term be rendered in its usual signification, the passage must of course run,-"For (said Job) peradventure my sons may have sinned, and blessed God in their hearts,"-which would be nonsense.

I observe then that the meaning of the particle, here rendered and, has been as much mistaken as the verb 15, blessed. is either an affirmative or a negative particle, according to the nature of the proposition in which it occurs; and whenever it is employed negatively, it has the precise force of, and in its general range runs precisely parallel with, our own nor, and the Latin nec, or neve: and hence is only an imperfect or half negative, requiring a preceding negative, as nor and nec require, to make the negation complete.

Now I venture to lay it down as a philological canon, applicable to all languages whatever, that the imperfect negative may be employed alone in every sentence compounded of two opposite propositions, when it becomes the means of connecting the one with the other such propositions being in a state of reciprocal negation, and the former of course supplying the place of an antecedent negative to the subsequent and imperfect connecting particle.'-Notes, p. 6.

In support of this canon we have three examples in English, and one in Latin; but not a single instance of such usage is pro

duced from the Hebrew Scriptures in its confirmation. As the question directly relates to the meaning of Hebrew terms, should not Mr. Good have furnished examples from the Hebrew language? He indeed affirms, that the canon applies to all languages; but, till instances of its use are supplied from Hebrew writers, it ought not to be adopted in explanation of the text, Job, ch. i. v. 5.

The variety of straits to which preceding translators have been compelled, in order to extort a meaning out of the passage, with the particle regarded as an affirmative, is noticed by the present Author in his note.

"My sons have perhaps sinned, and bidden farewell to God in their hearts."-Scott, Stock, Lowth.

"For he said, Lest my sons should sin, and bless the gods in their hearts."-Miss Smith after Parkhurst.

We shall offer our own translation of the words in question, which appears to us unobjectionable, and which easily solves the

.כי אמר איוב אולי הטאו בני וברכו אלהים בלככם .lifficulty of this verse

"For Job said, it may be my sons have sinned, yet they "bless God in their hearts:" are pious persons, though there may be occasional improprieties in their conduct at such seasons of festivity. For their incidental failures in duty at such times Job offered sacrifices. There is nothing in the whole narrative, to impeach the character of his children. As there is nothing either unnatural or forced in this rendering, we shall not offer any remarks on its vindication.

Ch. i. 11. Will he then, indeed, bless thee to thy face? Good. Here the meaning of T is preserved, and a very good sense obtained.

Ch. ii. 9. Even yet dost thou hold fast thine integrity,

Blessing God, and dying?'

-adopted from Parkhurst, and previously introduced by Miss Smith, is a much better reading than that of the Common Version-" Curse God and die."

v. 13. For they saw that the affliction raged sorely.' Good. For they saw that his grief was very great.' C. V. We prefer reading with Miss Smith, "For they saw that the

טוב מאד very great ; like גדל מאד ".affliction was very great

very good, ND 35, very heavy.

Mr. Good translates the commencement of the poem in the following manner.

'CHAP. III.

'v. 1. At length Job opened his mouth and cursed his day :*

2. And Job exclaimed, and said,"