Proceeding to the inquiry as to the age of the author of this lx)ok, we meet with three opinions: (a) That he lived before Moses, or was, at least, his contemporary.
(b) That he lived in the time of Solomon, or in the centuries next following.
(c) That he lived shortly before, or during, or even after. the Babylonian exile. The view of those who assert the book to have been written long after the Babylonian exile, can be supported, as Hirzel justly observes, neither by the nature of its language nor by reasons derived from its his torical groundwork, and is therefore now gener ally rejected.
Against those who refer the composition of the book to the time of the Babylonian exile, militate, first, the references to it in the Old Testament, which prove that it was before this period a generally known writing. Thus, in Ezek. xiv:14-2o are mentioned 'three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job,' as examples of righteousness. Mr. Bernstein, indeed, in defending his hypothesis, rejects this passage as spurious, but it bears every mark of genuineness. Further, in Jer. xx :14, we find evidently imitated Job's cursing of the day of his birth (Job iii). Not only the sentiments but the words are often the same ; and that this coincidence is not accidental, or that the author did not imitate Jeremiah, appears from the liter ary character of each. Jeremiah shows himself throughout dependent on ancient writings, whereas our author is quite original and independent, as proved by Kuper (see Jeremias librorunt sacro rum interpres ataque vindex, p. 164. sq.). There are also in the Lamentations of Jeremiah, many passages clearly alluding to our book, which must have eminently suited his taste and interested him (comp. Job xvi:9, to, with Lam. ii :16; and Job xix :8, with Lam. iii :7, 9). In Isaialt the peculiar use of t2D2 (x1:2) refers us to l';; kehjel, double, in Job i (comp. x:17; xiv:i4); and the double received from God's hand alludes to the end of the history of Job, who is there considered as typify ing the future fate of the church. Is. lxi :7, 'In their land they shall have the double,' alludes to the same point ; Isaiah li :9 depends on Job xxvi: 13; and Isaiah xix :5 almost literally agrees with Job xiv :it (see Kiiper, p. 166). Another ex ample of words borrowed from Job occurs in Ps. cvii :42, where the second part of the verse agrees literally with Job v :16.
A most decisive reason against assigning the composition of Job to, the period of the exile is derived from the language, since it is free from those Chaldaisms which occur in the books writ ten about that time.
To the view which places the age of the book of Job in the time of the Babylonian exile, is most opposed that which assigns the composition of it to a period prior to Moses. In support of this latter view, only two arguments having a sem blance of force can be adduced, and they will not bear the test of strict inquiry. They are: (i) 'There is in the book of Job no direct reference to the Mosaic legislation ; and its descriptions and other statements are suited to the period of the patriarchs; as, for instance, the great authority held by old men, the high age of Job, and fathers offering sacrifices for. their families—which leads to the supposition that when our book was written no sacerdotal order yet existed.' These points, however, are quite intelligible, if the design of the book, as stated above, is kept in view. The au thor intended not to rest the decision of the ques tion at issue on particular passages of Scripture, but on religious consciousness and experience. This at once explains why lie places the scene without Palestine, why Ile places it in the pa triarchal age, and why he avoids the use of the name Jehovah ; of these three items the first suffi ciently accounts for no reference being made to the Mosaic legislation. (2) The language of the book of Job seems strongly to support the opinion of its having been written before Moses.' It has been often said, that no writing of the Old Testa ment may be more frequently illustrated from the Arabic than this book. Jerome observes (Prcefat. in Dan.), `Jobunt cum Arabica lingua plurintam lzabere societatent;' and Schultens proved this so incontrovertibly that Gesenius was rather too late in denying the fact (see his Geschichte der He brdischen Sprache, p. 33). Now, from this char acter of its language we might be induced to in fer that the work was written in the remotest times, when the separation of the dialects had only begun, but had not yet been completed. This in ference would, however, be safe only if the book were written in prose. It is solely from works of this class that the general usage of the language prevailing at the time of the author can be seen. On the contrary, the selection of obsolete and rare words and forms, with the Hebrews, was a peculiar feature of the poetical style, and served to distinguish it from the usual, habitual way of writing. This peculiarity belongs to our book more than to any other.