TV. DESCENT, COUNTRY, AND AGE OF THE AUTHOR.—Opinions differed in ancient times as to the nation to which the author belonged ; some considering him to have been an Arab, others an Israelite ; but the latter supposition is undoubtedly preferable. For, 1st, we find in our book many ideas of genuine Israelite growth : the creation of the world is described, in accordance witb the prevailing notions of the Israelites, as the imme diate effect of divine omnipotence ; man is formed of clay ; the spirit of man is God's breath ; God employs the angels for the performance of his orders ; Satan, the enemy of the chosen children of God, is his instrument for tempting them ; men are weak and sinful ; nobody is pure in the sight of God ; moral corruption is propagated. There is promulgated to men the law of God, which they must not infringe, and the transgressions of which are visited on offenders with punishments. More over, the nether world, or Sheol, is dcpicted in hues entirely Hebrew. To these particulars might, without much trouble, be added many more ; but the deep-searching inquirer will particularly weigh, zdly, the fact, that the book displays a strength and fervour of religious faith, such as could only he expected within the domain of revelation. DrIono theism, if the assertions of ancient Arabian authors may he trusted, prevailed, indeed, for a long period among the Arabs ; and it held its ground at least among a portion of the nation till the age of Mo hammed, who obtained for it a complete triumph over polytheism, which was spreading from Syria. Still the God of the Arabs was, as those of the heathens generally were, a retired god, dwelling far apart, while the people of the Old Covenant enjoyed the privilege of a vital communion with God ; and the warmth with which our author enters into this view, incontrovertibly proves that he was an Israelite. 3dly, As regards the lan guage of our book, several ancient writers asserted that it was originally written in the Aramman or Arabic tongue, and aftenvards translated into Hebrew by Moses, David, Solomon, or some un known writer. Of this opinion was the author ot the Appendix in the Septuagint, and the compiler of the tract on Job added to the works of Origen and Jerome : in modern times it has been chiefly defended by Spanheim, in his Ifistoria 7 obi. But for a translation there is too much propriety and precision, in the use of words and phrases ; the sentences are too compact, and free from redun dant expressions and members ; and too much care is bestowed on their harmony and easy flow. The parallelism also is too accurate and perfect for a translation, and the whole breathes a freshness that could be expected from an original work only.
Sensible of the weight of this argumcnt, others, as Eichhorn, took a medium course, and assumed that the author was a Hebrew, though he did not live among his country-men, but in Arabia. The earlier Hebrew history,' they say, is unknown to the author, who is ignorant of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. In portraying nature, also, he proves him self always familiar with Arabia, while he is silent respecting the characteristics of Palestine. With Egypt he must have been well acquainted ; which can be accounted for better by supposing him to have lived in Ara Dia than in Palestine.' These reasons are, however, not cogent. The cause why the author did not enter into the history of the Hebrews, and the nature of Palestine, appears from his design. In deciding the question at issue he waves the instruction given by divine revelation.
and undertakes to perform the task by appealing only to religious consciousness and exp•erience. On the plan of the author of Ecclesiastes, he treats the question as one of natural theology, in order that the human mind might arrive at its solution spon taneously, and be more deeply impressed. He would not, by referring to a few passages of Scrip ture, overtum errors which might afterwards spring up again ; but they should be exposed and de molished separately, and the truth then be found by uniting the correct ingredients of opposite views. In following this plan the author intended to support Scripture ; in a similar manner Pascal, in his Pensies, explains the nature of man first from experience only, and next from Scripture. This plan is indicated by the scene bein,g laid not in Palestine, but among a people quite unconnected with fts inhabitants ; at the same time he will not go farther than his object required, and he there fore chooses Me imnzediate neighbourhood of Pales tine. Thus the placing of the scene in a foreign country is not historical, but proceeds from the free choice of the author. The scene being laid in a foreign country, the portraying of life and nature must of course agree with that country, and not with Palestine (see ch. xl. 23). It may no doubt be said, that the remarkable vigour and sprightli ness' of the author's descriptions of the scenery and people justify us in assuming that he was actually acquainted with them ; but this cannot be asserted as quite certain, since it would impair the high idea entertained of the powers of poetry. The correctness of this view is eminently strengthened by the manner in which the author designedly uses the names of God. The O. T. distinguishes be tween Elohim, the abstract God, the Deity, on the one hand, and Jehovah, the concrete God, with whom the Israelites had made a covenant, on the other (Gen. vi. 3, 4). Now the latter name occurs
in Job generally, where the author himself appears, not only in the prologue and epilogue, but in the short sentences introducing the speakers, as in xxxviii. ; xl. r, 3, 6. In the body of the work, however, we have only the names Elohim, Eloah, and similar terms, with the exception of xii. 9, where Jehovah occurs. This very passage argues against those who, from the distinct names of God, would infer that the prologue and epilogue are not genuine. Eichhorn (see Einleitung, sec. 644, a) assumes that the author had, by his particular use of the names of God, intended to represent himself as younger than the other interlocutors ; but the notion of the name Jehovah having come later into general use, is contrary to history, and we must then arrive at this result, that the author by his selection of the names of God, which he lends to the interlocutors, intended to express his design of waving all theocratic principles. The few passages in which he seems to abandon this design, namely, in addition to that quoted, ch. 21, where Job, in speaking of God, uses the name Jehovah, make it appear even clearer. By thus forgetting himself, he betrays the fact that his general use of the names of God proceeds from designedly forsaking the usage of the language. The context, moreover of the two passages in which he stems to forget himself and uses the name Jehovah, proves that this change is judiciou.sly made, the deep and awful sense of his subject prompting Lim to un elevated, solemn style, to which the name Eloah was not suitable. And if there is design in the selection of the names of God, why not also in the selection of the country in which the scene is laid ? This may be assumed. the rather, because history says nothing of Israel ites having permanently taken up their residence in the land of Uz, and because other circumstances already detailed oblige us to admit that the author was not only an Israelite by descent, but lived also in the midst of his people, and enjoyed the advan tage of a religious communion with them. It should also be remembered, that the author, with out directly mentioning the Pentateuch, frequently alludes to portions of it, as in ch. iii. 4, to Gen. i. 3 ; in ch. iv. 19, and xxxiii. 6, to Moses' account of the creation of man ; in ch. v. 14, to Deut. xxxii. 32 ; in ch. xxiv. t, to Deut. xxv. 4. That the name of Eliphaz the Temanite, one of the three friends of Job, seems also to have been taken from the Pentateuch, was mentioned above. In addi tion to these allusions there are several more to other books of the O. T., as the Psalms and Proverbs—which proves that the author must not be severed from the Israelite communion. From what we have stated against the hypothesis that our book was composed in Arabia, a judgment may be formed of the opinion of Hitzig and Hirz.z1, who assume that it was written in Egypt ; the sole foundation for which is, that the author shews himself perfectly acquainted with that country, which proves him to have been a long observer of it. Most particulars adduced in support of this view cannot stand a close examination. Thus it is a mistake to suppose that the desci-iption of the working of mines in ch. xxviii. must necessarily have reference ro Egypt : Phcenicia, Arabia, and Edom afforded much better materials. That the author must have known the Egyptian mausolea rests on an erroneous interpretation of ch. iii. 14, which may also be said of the assertion that ch. xxix. 18 refers to the Egyptian myths of the Phcenix. Casting aside these arbitrarily assumed Egyptian references, we have only the following : —Our author knows the Egyptian vessels of bul rushes, ix. 26 ; the Nile-grass, viii. 12 ; the .Nile-horse (Behemoth), and the crocodile (Levia than), xi. 15, xli. T. Now, as these things belong to the more prominent peculiarities of a neigh bouring country, they must have been known to every educated Israelite : the vessels of bulrushes are mentioned also in Is. xviii. 2. Neither are we disposed to adopt the compromising view of Stickel, who assumes that the author wrote his book in the Israelite territory, indeed, but close to the frontier, in the far south-east of Palestine. That the author had there the materials for his descriptions, comparisons, and imagery, set better before his eyes, than anywhere else, is true ; for there he had an opportunity of observing mines, caravans, diying up of brooks, etc. But this is not sufficient proof of the author having lived per manently in that rcinote part of Palestine, and of having there written his book : he was not a mere copyist of nature, but a poet of considerable emin ence, endowed with the power of vividly represent ing things absent from him. That he lived and wrote in the midst of his nation, is proved by all analogy and by the general character of the book. It looks not like a writing composed in some remote corner of the world, where the question at issue could not have been so fully discussed, nor have created such a deep interest. Jerusalem was the metropolis of the Jews in a sense quite different from that which belongs to any other capital : was, by order of God, the religious centre of the nation, where all general and leading measures of the nation originated, and to which all pretending to distinction and superiority resorted.