Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

drawn by the finger of God; and in the next, we may rest satisfied that Job and his friends err only in the principal matter upon which they dispute, and only on the points for which God has reproved them; but that whatever is said exclusive of this is founded on divine truth; such is the mention of the angels by Eliphaz, and the assertion of Job, that there is none pure among mortals. Finally, we are by these means enabled both to determine what are the sentiments which immediately meet with the approbation of God, and what are the errors which are intended to be exposed. An able writer in dialogue never fails to discover his own sentiments: as from the books of Cicero on the Nature of the Gods, we may collect with ease what the author thought, or rather doubted upon the subject, which would have been impossible, if he had only reported the actual words of the philosophers who are supposed to have conversed on that subject.

I will now proceed freely to explain what at first I undertook to prove concerning the book in question. It is surely more becoming to consider the exordium, in which Satan appears as the accuser of Job, rather in the light of a fable than of a true narrative. It is surely incredible, that such a conversation ever took place between the Almighty and Satan, who is supposed to return with news from the terrestrial regions. Indeed, the commentators who have undertaken to vindicate this part of the book, have done it with so much asperity, that they seem conscious of the difficulty under which it labours.

Nor will it suffice to answer, as some temperate and rational commentator, like our author, probably will, and indeed as he himself hints that the great outline of the fact only is true; and that the exordium is set off with some poetical ornaments, among which is to be accounted the conversation between God and Satan. For on this very conversation the whole plot is founded, and the whole story and catastrophe depends. One of the best of men is thrown into so many unexpected and undeserved evils, that neither he nor his adversaries are able to conceive how it can be consistent with a benevolent being, to plunge a good man into so great afflictions: nor has God condescended to explain the motives of it to them, but reproves them all for investigating matters beyond their reach. But the author of the book undoes the knot which is left unresolved in these conversations, and gives the reader to understand how indifferently those reason concerning the Divine Providence, and the

happiness or misery of mankind, who are only partially informed of causes and events. The Almighty acts for the honour of Job, of human nature, and of piety itself; he permits Job to be unhappy for a time, and refutes the accusations of Satan even by the very means which he himself pointed out. Suppose, therefore, that what is thus related of Satan be fictitious, and all the rest true, instead of the difficulty being done away, the consequence will be, that the whole plot remains without any solution whatever. What our author has added concerning one of the historical books of Scripture, in which a similar passage occurs, 1 Kings xxii. 19–22, appears not at all to the purpose. It is not a history related by the author, nor does the author speak in his own person, but a prophet explains a vision which he has had. But those who suppose the book of Job to be founded upon fact, allow that the historian speaks in the first and second chapters, who, if he did invent, would certainly, one would think, take that liberty only in matters which did not affect the great scope of the history, and not in a matter which, if it be supposed fictitious, reduces the whole book to nothing.

Moreover, the style of the whole book being poetical, and so sublime, that I defy any man to imitate it in any extempore effusion, is an irrefragable proof in favour of my opinion. Our author indeed pleads a very specious excuse: he thinks that the conversation and speeches of the different characters have been poetically ornamented. And this argument I do not wish to confute. There are however others who defend the historical truth of the poem in a manner not quite so modest. Among the rest, the famous SCHULTENS alleges it not to be incredible, that these are the actual words of the disputants, if we consider the amazing faculty which the Arabians possess of making extempore verses. In answer to this, I must confess, that all he can urge on this subject will never persuade me, that the poetry, which is confessedly superior to all that human genius has been able to produce, is nothing more than an extempore effusion. Indeed nothing can be more ridiculous, than to suppose men in circumstances of so great distress, in the midst of difficulties and afflictions, capable of amusing themselves with making extempore

verses.

These objections which I have just stated, are well known to the commentators but there are others not quite so common, which induce me to suppose the subject of this poem not historical, but fabulous. So many round numbers and multiplications of them occur in

Ten

the life of Job, as to be quite incompatible with mere chance. children perish, seven sons (which though it be not a round number, is yet held sacred and mysterious by the Orientals) and three daughters: 7000 sheep, 3000 camels, 1000 oxen, and exactly half the number of asses. In lieu of these there are restored to him, 14,000 sheep, 6000 camels, 2000 oxen, and 1000 asses, exactly the duplicate of the former numbers; together with exactly the same number of children as he had lost, seven sons and three daughters, and these from one wife. The same principle is found to extend to the years of Job's prosperity, which is a multiplication of the number 70. These circumstances betray art and fiction in the narrator, who has introduced these round numbers, which we know are the first to present themselves to the mind: it bears no appearance of chance or casualty, which, when it predominates in a series of events, produces a wonderful variety, but very little of regularity or equality. The name of Joв too, which in the Arabic means returning to God, and loving him, and hating whatever is contrary to him, is so adapted to the character of his latter years, that we can never suppose it a name given to him by his parents, but invented by the author of the story.

A fourth argument is, that the scene is laid in Arabia, yet the poem abounds so much in imagery borrowed from Egypt, that it is plain that country must have been extremely well known to the author, and indeed predominant in his mind, as I have endeavoured to prove in a Dissertation recited before the R. S. of Gottingen.

But the most powerful of all proofs is, that some things appear in the book of Job which could not possibly have place in a true history. At a period when the longevity of the patriarchs was reduced within the limit of two hundred years, Job is said to have lived 140 years after his malady, and therefore could not be very ancient when he fell into this malady; nevertheless he upbraids his friends with their youth (who by the way could not be very young, since Elihu in xxxii. 6, 7, 9, reverences their hoary age) and adds, that "he would have disdained to set their fathers with the dogs of his flock," xxx. 1. But what is more extraordinary, these same men boast of their own age, and seem to exact a degree of reverence from Job as their junior: thus Eliphaz, chap. xx. 10, "With us are both the grey-headed and the very aged men much older than thy father." These passages, therefore, so directly contradict each other, that they cannot be connected with true history. The opprobrium which he casts upon the birth of his friends seems also an inconsistency,

xxx. 1-6, as it is incredible that so noble and rich a man should ever have chosen his friends from the meanest of the people.

It remains only to remove one objection, with which those who contend for the historical truth of the book of Job, may press us. Job is quoted by Ezekiel along with Noah and Daniel, whom we know to have been real persons, and they are proposed by James as an example of patience, Ezek. xiv. 14, 20. JAMES v. 11; as if it were improper or indecent to recommend the virtues of fictitious characters to our imitation, or as if this were not in fact the end of delineating such characters. Neither is there the least impropriety in instancing the same virtues in real and fictitious characters. Suppose a father to recommend to his daughters the examples of Lucretia and Pamela, as models of chastity and virtue; who would esteem such a discourse reprehensible, or think that it either took from the truth of the history, or gave a reality to the fiction?

To return to the point from which we set out this poem seems to treat of the afflictions which may sometimes happen to good men, at the same time that the author seems to wish to accommodate the consolation to the people of God, and to represent their oppression under the character of Job. To this opinion it is objected by our author, that there appears nothing in the book like an allusion to the manners, rites, or affairs of the Israelites. As to the manners, they are what I call Abrahamic, or such as were at that period common to all the seed of Abraham at that time, Israelites, Ishmaelites, and Idumæans. But perhaps it may be thought necessary to instance those customs which were peculiar to the Israelites, and by which they were distinguished from the Arabians: this, however, would not display much judgement in the author of a poem, the scene of which lies in Arabia; besides that most of the peculiar customs of the Israelites, those I mean which distinguished them from the other descendants of Abraham, were either derived from the Egyptians, or were taught them by Moses: and who would require, that such things as the paschal lamb, and the Mosaic feasts and priesthood, should be introduced into such a poem? The frequent allusions however to the country and the productions of Egypt abundantly answer this objection. Insomuch, that though the scene is laid in Arabia, one would imagine the actors had been Egyptians. Nor are there wanting allusions to the circumstances of the Israelites. These like Job lost their children and possessions by the tyranny of Pharaoh : and, if I am not mistaken, the disease is the same which affected

Job, with that which prevailed among the Egyptians by the command of Moses.

From these circumstances I am much inclined to the opinion which attributes this book to Moses. For is it to be imagined, that a native of Idumæa should crowd his poem with images and figures borrowed from Egypt? Or what native of Arabia (for it must be allowed that the book of Job has some allusions peculiar to Arabia) was so likely to intermingle the imagery of both countries as Moses? To these may be added the allusions to the isles of the blessed, which are common to the book of Job and the Mosaic writings. I am well aware that there is more of the tragic, more of strong poetic feeling in this book, than in the other relics of Mosaic poetry, which has induced our author to remark the discrepancy of style. But how different are the language and sentiments of a man raging in the heights of despair, from those which are to be sung in the temple of God! We must also remember, that the poetic style of an author in the flower of his youth is very different from that of his latter days. If Moses were really the author of this poem, he composed it about the age of forty years; but the rest of his poems were written between the 85th and 120th year of his age; at which period I am often surprised to meet with so much vigour of language and sentiment and no other difference of style have I been able to discover.

MICHAELIS.

NOTE ON LECTURE XXXIII.

[A. p. 281.] The book of Job not a perfect drama.

Considering the strong sense and accurate judgement of Dr. Lowth, especially taking into view his very just remarks on the Hebrew writers, Lect. XXIV. p. 205; it is not a little surprising to see him gravely discussing the question, whether the Song of Solomon and the book of Job be perfect dramas? What possible concern have the old Hebrew writers, (who had all the simplicity of children in their modes of thought and feeling), with the refined and artificial rules of composition, which were not invented till ages after their death? What have Job or Solomon to do with Aristotle and the Greeks? They were totally diverse in every circumstance of their climate, character, habits, and intellectual developements; they sought different objects, they followed different models; and there is scarcely a single point of resemblance in their respective composi

« ForrigeFortsett »