the behemoth to be beasts in general, has rendered it, “the beasts, which I have made, are with thee.” Alas! for the patient searches of geologists after petrified remains of the behemoth !

The leviathan is in this version supposed to be the whale; and a considerable space in the commentary is occupied in proving the objections, which seem to arise from our authorized text, to be mistranslations. A strong point in favour of it is found in the expression of drawing forth his tongue with a cord, it being generally known that the crocodile, which has been accepted as the leviathan, has not a tongue capable of such treatment. The inquiry, “ Canst thou place a reed (a species of short spear or arrow) in his nose ?" and the allusion to his cries, decidedly support the hypothesis. His sporting on the stormy waves, making the sea to boil as a pot, and his immense strength, evidently suggest to us that one of this genus must have been the leviathan. The bargaining of the trading caravans for his carcase, and the mode of attack practised upon him, are, as the Professor says, as unsuitable to the crocodile as they are suitable to the whale. These arguments and characteristics are substantiated further by extracts from Kaswini's Wonders of the Creation, and various other works on Natural History; the result of which is, that he is induced to believe that the common grampus may have been the particular species, although the

greatfinned cachalot, on account of his asserted invulnerability, except in certain places, presents strong claims to our attention. It certainly appears from chap. xli. 12, that the leviathan was a waterspouting animal, and as the description seems directly to have been transferred from the behemoth to one of the largest of marine animals, a merely aquatic animal, and one amphibious too, like the crocodile, could scarcely have been designed.

The book also affords to us another mark of its antiquity. Incidental reference is made to the Rephaim, who were among those whom our translators have named giants. They occupied a great extent of territory, and were found in the land of Moab, which was subsequently given to the children of Lot, in Ashteroth Karnaim, a part of Gilead, all Bashan, and Argob. The forces, which were encountered by Chedorlaomer and his allies, are supposed by the Professor to have belonged to this stock; and by a comparison of different passages he shows that the Zuzim in Ham, and the Emim in Shaveh Kiriathaim, were also branches of this numerous family. The inhabitants of the submerged cities of Sodom and Gomorrha were certainly such. In the time of Job they were for the most part destroyed; but a curious question was agitated some years ago_Why were the dead called Rephaim? As many of the Rephaim were Troglodytæ, Michaelis resolved it by the supposition, that it was on account of the subterranean habitations in which these resided, the dead being also

deposited frequently in caverns of rocks. But Faber, the author of the Archæology, advanced more boldly into the open field of German speculation, and sought the solution in the Gentile fable of the Titans and the Gods :-verily, this was piling in return Pelion and Ossa on the giants of those days.

Yet, it nowhere appears that their name ever was synonymous with the dead ; and it will not be difficult to retrace the idea to the question in Psa. lxxxvii. 11, “ Shall the Rephaim arise ?" which warrants no such a conclusion. But if the inhabitants of Sodom were Rephaim, as we may elicit from Job xxvi. 5, “ Can the Rephaim or their neighbours wound from beneath the waters ?” it is by no means surprising that so fearful an overthrow should have caused their name to have been metaphorically applied to several events, which commentators may have misunderstood.

We may likewise observe that Job probably lived before coins were in circulation : for, in his time, money passed by weight, where the barter consisted not of an interchange of commodities. The case was exactly so in the age when Abraham weighed out silver to Ephron the Hittite. The silver, however, which he weighed was called the shekel; which amounts to a proof, that before the coin so named the term was applied to a certain weight. In like manner, though mention expressly occurs of money so weighed in the days of Job, (xxviii. 15,) on his restitution to prosperity, each of his friends presented him with one kesita and one ear-ring of gold. The question is, what was the kesita ? Jacob gave a hundred kesitas for a piece of land; but this does not prove the kesita to have been a coin. That it was a certain weight of silver or precious metal may be thought evident by the Arabic word, which answers to the Hebrew, implying scales or something weighed : at all events, it does not prove that coinage of money was general, or even existed, at this period.

The offerings also, which are recorded in the last chapter, differ in number from those enjoined by the Levitical law, and favour the notion of the Patriarch's anteriority to Moses. They doubtless were in accordance with patriarchal usage. We have seen that Job must have resided near cities, such as Babylon, Nineveh, &c., in which civilisation and science had made considerable progress; but we observe equal traces of his acquaintance with the desert. His perfect knowledge of the phenomena witnessed in these arid tracts, of the habits of their occupants, and the animals which prowl in them, leaves this beyond dispute. The allusion which appears in one place, (xxxix. 22,) to a whole line of cavalry rushing undismayed on presented weapons, might equally be applied to the ferocious onset of the wandering tribes of these inhospitable wastes, or to the horsemen of cities in the field of battle, and is in complete harmony with the locality in which the Professor has fixed him. In fact,

we must either admit Professor Lee's opinion, or be contented to leave many parts of the book in inextricable confusion, and absolutely incapable of a rational explanation.

The theology of Job was simple, and corresponded to the revelations which were made in the primitive days, and to the institutions by which the early worshippers of God were governed. His doctrines were of an universal character, and free from the restrictions which we observe in those of the Theocracy. God is introduced with all his attributes-his omnipotence and omniscience, his purity and mercy, his justice and superintending care are prominently brought into the harangue. Man, too, is depicted in his lapsed state, his doom to the grave, and in his sure and certain hope of a resurrection to immortality. Vivid glances at the future dispensation, and God's final dealings with the just and the unjust, occur in different parts ; and here and there the prophetic spirit bursts forth in its full vigour.

Job's theology is such, that we must unavoidably admit the existence of a revelation in his times, and one substantially the same as that which we now have in the book of Genesis. Thus, we find the creation of man, the firmament, and the gathering together of the waters, the springing up of the grass on the earth, and an allusion to the flood, in terms which are counterparts to those in the Mosaic record. And it is very apparent, that the various migrations of these early tribes in quest of new settlements would have conveyed this revelation far and wide, to the districts in which they finally established themselves. That it was not derived from the Mosaic, the total absence of types completely certifies us; and of its priority its simplicity may perhaps be accounted a full demonstration; and there cannot reasonably be a doubt that it was the foundation of that system of religion which Moses introduced among the Israelites, which in all its complication and splendour was rendered necessary by that continual contemplation of idolatrous pomp, to which the Egyptian servitude had habituated them. The book of Job indeed fills up a chasm, the existence of which would have impeded our knowledge of the religious opinions of the patriarchs; had it not been written, or having been written, perished amidst the desolations of the nation, we could not have guessed the great extent to which the divine communications were carried in those ages, nor have obtained the warrant which we now possess, for our interpretations of many passages in the earlier books in their relation to our Saviour. The book of Job speaks distinctly, and removes us from doubt : the Shiloh of Jacob might have remained entangled in the cavils of the Jews, and obscured by their glosses, had not the Goël and Intercessor of Job, proved the expectation of a Redeemer to have been vivid in these days, and established the identity of the person bearing these several names.

Some have, however, imagined that Moses has made mention of Job, at which hypothesis they have arrived by confounding him with Jobab, the son of Zerah, of Bozrah. As it is evident that this notion has no other foundation than the partial similarity of name, it may scarcely be thought to require a comment; nevertheless, many of acute minds have adopted the idea. would urge, on the other hand, that if Job and Jobab had been the same person, the residence of the latter would rather have been at Uz than at Bozrah; and if Genesis be rightly ascribed to the pen of Moses, and if Moses furnished the supplementary chapters to the book of Job, we might have expected that, as in other instances, he would have made some parenthetical observation at the occurrence of Jobab's name, which would have certified us of this individuality, more especially if the book of Job had then been circulated among his people. But no such occurring, we may justly argue them to have been distinct persons; and we may notice, that it is on the fallacious assumption of their identity, that the eastern genealogies already cited have proceeded.

A great part of the Introduction is common both to Ilgen and Professor Lee. The former begins his inquiry with a hasty comparison of Job, Homer, and Ossian ; in which he has candidly marked the points of difference. His matter is erudite, yet not sufficiently removed from that of ordinary occurrence to delay our attention. After these researches, which are intended as an introduction to his translation, he comments on the various opinions concerning the date ; and as his investigations remain entirely unknown to the English reader, we will synoptically bring them before him. He notices the idea of those, who refer the date to a time previous to the exit of the Israelites from Egypt; of those, who imagine the work to have been composed during the most flourishing state of their affairs in Palestine ; of those, who have imagined it to have been written during the Babylonian captivity, for the purpose of raising the spirit of the exiles; and of those who have even dated it after that period. From the absolute silence which is observed respecting the Mosaic legislation, to which all subsequent writers manifestly alluded, Ilgen decides in favour of its anteMosaic origin; and his argument is corroborated by his analysis of the sentiments which it contains, contrasted with those which appear in the Levitical economy. His criticisms on the genius of the writer are remarkably fine. He imagines that whilst Moses tended Jethro's flocks in Midian, he was the author of several poems, which have been lost, with the exception of the few which the sacred page has preserved; and hints that if these had been all preserved we might have discovered in them parallels to many passages in Job. From the structure of the book he refers its composition to an Arab, rather than to an Israelite ; NO. IV. VOL. II.


and thinks that Hebrew poetry itself owed its rise to Idumæa. This, considering the circumstances of the Israelites, we deem exceedingly probable. Nor will the connexion between the nations seem surprising, when we reflect how many Arabs were enumerated among the descendants of Esau and Ishmael. We may, therefore, naturally suppose that the Mosaic writings may have been circulated among them; and that those, of which they may have been possessors,

were equally known to the legislator during his sojourn in Midian. This hypothesis, which most assuredly cannot be invalidated, because there is no proof to invalidate it, but every probability to substantiate it, forcibly supports the line of argument which Professor Lee has followed. Assuming, however, the Mosaic writings to have been known in Arabia, and we can scarcely conceive how they could have been totally unknown, the want of all reference to the Law in Job bespeaks the very antiquity which we vindicate. We see in the book of Job little or nothing peculiar to Egypt (though Ilgen would infer that the hippopotamus is mentioned under his Egyptian name behemoût, i. e. the water-ox, and others would argue, that there are many allusions to that country) notwithstanding the Ishmaelites had long before commercial transactions with it; that is, if we assume the date given by Professor Lee to be the correct one. But Coptic terms are said to occur in the book: if so, we wish them to be more accurately brought to light; for the examples already given are lamentably unsatisfactory;

Ilgen supposes the writer to have been a descendant of Nahor, and conjectures, that, admonished by Abraham's example, Nahor migrated to Arabia, but instead of referring the composition to Job himself, he assigns it to one of the Busite branch of the Nahoridæ ; for which he certainly cannot produce any the form of argument or authority. He presumes this writer to have lived in the third century of the Israelitish residence in Egypt, and Moses to have added the work to the Jewish collection, whom he imagines not only to have consulted all the Hebrew records, but those with which Arabia might have furnished him. After the death of Moses, Ilgen deems it very improbable, that the book of Job, as a foreign work, was placed with the Mosaic writings in the Tabernacle, and regarded with equal veneration, but very probable, that it passed into the hands of private individuals, like other books, such as those which Moses possessed in his lifetime, and very credible that it was one of those, to the study of which the colleges of prophets were devoted, and which after the Babylonian captivity Ezra and Nehemiah might have found in the possession of an individual, and perhaps excited by Ezekiel's commendation of the patriarch, have deposited in the new Temple. The notion, that David discovered it in his war with the Idumaans, is too absurd to require a discussion.

thing in

« ForrigeFortsett »