In form as well as subject Job somewhat resembles a Greek tragedy. Many interpreters, both ancient and modern, have treated it as a drama. Others object that there is no action, yet "the varying attitude of Job's mind toward God exhibits dramatic action and tragic interest of the highest kind, though the move ment is internal." The fact that we find no other drama in an cient Semitic literature is not conclusive. Greek influence, though improbable at the time when Job was written, was not impos sible. All interpretations of the book as a drama include portions which modern critics do not accept as belonging to the original work; but if the book as a whole fitted naturally into the classical form of the drama, only the most compelling critical arguments could outweigh that fact. As a matter of fact, this is not the case. Not a little revision is necessary to make Job a Greek tragedy, and the result proves only that the book can be arranged as a drama, not that it was so intended.
Hebrew literature developed its own forms. Peculiarly Hebrew is the group of writings known as the Wisdom literature (q.v.). It deals with the lessons of practical experience. Religion is re garded as essentially a way of life. The value of rites and insti tutions is not considered, and if beliefs are discussed at all it is in relation to moral experience. The unique position and pre rogatives of the Chosen People are not emphasized : only in the apocryphal books does this interest creep into the Wisdom liter ature.
For the antecedents of this type of writing we must look, not to the Greeks, but to the Egyptians and Babylonians. Long before the time of the Hebrew Wisdom literature the Egyptians had writings resembling them in form and spirit. None of these, however, have any noteworthy relationship to Job. Less material of this character has been found in Babylonian literature, yet there is one remarkable composition known to scholars as "the Babylonian Job." It is the poetic monologue of a pious king who, like Job, suffered grievous maladies until delivered by his god. Not only the situation but even the language reminds us of Job, but there is no dialogue nor any discussion of moral retribution. That the Hebrew writer was acquainted with this Babylonian poem is improbable. A few scholars believe that the book of Job is of Edomitic origin. The setting of the story, the personal names and the author's theology have been cited in support of this hypothesis. The folk-tale upon which the poem was doubtless based may have come from the Edomites. This would account for the setting and the names. We know too little about the Edom ites to speak confidently of their theology, but the main problem of our book grows directly out of the historical situation of post exilic Judaism.
Whatever may be said of the form and relationships of Job, there can be no difference of opinion regarding the sublimity of the style, the vividness and beauty of the figures, the keen ness of the author's insight into human nature and the depth and earnestness of his thinking. His work has a universal quality and a note of reality which can be found only in the greatest lit erature.
Not all of the book was produced in the 4th century. The story may have circulated in both oral and written form considerably earlier. The opening and closing narratives of our book of Job were probably parts of such a composition, for they imply a con versation between Job and his friends quite different from the present dialogue. Apparently the poet has adapted the older book to his purpose by simply removing the middle portion and putting his own work in its place. There are also passages which must be later than the main body of the book. The speeches of Elihu "destroy the dramatic effect by introducing a lengthened break between Job's challenge and the answer of God." In style they differ from the rest of the book, while the arguments largely reproduce those of the friends. Furthermore there is no reference to Elihu anywhere else in the book. Most critics agree, theref ore, that the whole section is a later addition. "The position taken by Elihu is almost that of a critic of the book"—perhaps this reveals the purpose for which he was created.
The lovely lyric on wisdom in ch. xxviii. is complete in itself and is out of place where it stands or anywhere else in the book. We may be grateful, however, to the editor, who, by interpolating it, preserved it for us. Less perfect, though interesting and im pressive, are the descriptions of Behemoth and Leviathan in ch. xl. i5–xli. They destroy the force of the second divine speech, making it only a weaker copy of the first, and if they are joined to ch. xxxviii.–xxxix. as one speech, their inferiority to those chap ters becomes all the more evident. Possibly they were added by a writer who supposed that something had been lost from the second speech, which is very brief without them, and therefore undertook to restore the missing material after the pattern of the preceding chapters. In the third round of the dialogue the speech of Bildad is short, and Zophar has none. Moreover in some of the passages attributed to Job he says precisely what his friends have been urging against him. Both difficulties are met by rearranging the text. The dislocation, if not accidental, may have been designed to represent Job as convinced by the orthodox arguments of his friends. Possibly the book has suffered still further interpolation and dislocation. Several scholars have undertaken to restore the original poem. Only continued study can determine how far their schemes are justified, but in general they assume an almost incredible amount of alteration by scribes and editors.