The most complete statement of the reasons in support of the opinion that the book of job was written after the age of Moses, may be found in Richter's essay, De .../E'tate 2obi definienda, re printed in Rosenmiiller's edition of Lowth's lectiones De Poesi Sacra Hebrawrzan : in which he maintains that it was written in the age of Solomon. Most of these reasons, indeed, are either not conclusive at all, or not quite cogent. Thus it is an arbitrary assumption, proved by modern researches to be erroneous, that the art of writing was unknown previous to the age of Moses. The assertion too, that the marks of cultivation and refinement observable in our book belonged to a later age, rests OD no historical ground. Fur ther, it cannot be said, that for such an early time the language is too smooth and neat, since in no Semitic dialect is it possible to trace a progressive improvement. The evident correspondence also between our book and the Proverbs and Psalms is not a point proving with resistless force that they were all written at the same time. It is, indeed, sometimes of such a kind, that the authors of the Proverbs and Psalms cannot be exactly said to have copied our book ; but it may be accounted for by their all belonging to the same class of writings, by the very great uniformity and accordance of religious conceptions and sentiments expressed in the O. T., and by the stability of its religious character.
Still the argument derived from the correspond ence between our book and the Psalms is not devoid of force ; for the accordance of ideas, sentiments, and colouring in them is such that the circum stances referred to cannot be considered as com pletely accounting for it. There are passages in which the author of our book clearly alludes to the Psalms and Proverbs. A striking example of this kind occurs in Ps. xxxix. 13. All the words of this verse, which, as they conclude the psalm, may have been deeply impressed on the public mind, are again found in various passages of the book of Job, whose author must have been acquainted with that psalm (comp. ch. vii. 19 ; xiv. 6 ; x. 20, 21 ; S, 21, in the Hebrew Bible). The whole psalm is a text-book for the speeches of Job. The argument, also, derived from the skilful plan of our book and its able exposition, must be allowed its weight in deciding that its composition is not to be assigned to an age prior to Moses ; though we must not forget that what to us appears to be art, because it is done according to established rules, may also be the product of a creative genius. But a conclusive argument against assigning so early a date to the composition of our book is its reflecting and inquiring character. A didactic poem could never have been written in the time of the patriarchs ; but our book presents a strong contrast to those immature conceptions and those statements which strike the senses but do not appeal to reason, which are of so frequent occur rence in Genesis. The notion which our author entertains of God, of his omnipotence and omni presence, is undoubtedly more refined than that presented in the books of Moses. In addition to
this it should be observed, that from many indica.
tions the problem treated in our book was at the time of its composition frequently discussed and variously solved. We have observed, indeed, above, that it is as old as the cause which origin ated it ; but it must be allowed that the Mosaic revelation, with its leading doctrine concerning retribution, was calculated to direct the attention more forcibly towards it than had been previously the case, till God vouchsafed, through an instru ment appointed by him, to promulgate the true solution. There are, moreover, indirect allusions to the Pentateuch, as stated above.
Summing up the whole of our investigations, we take it to be a settled point that the book of Job does not belong to the time of the Babylonian exile ; and it is nearly equally certain that it was not composed prior to the timc of Moses. Could it then have been written in some age preceding Samuel and David ? It is only with them that a ncw period of sacred literature began ; and our book is related to products of that period, or en larges on them. But it cannot have been com posed later than Isaiah, who alludes to it. Thus we come to this general determination of the age of our book, that it was written, not before Samuel and David, but not later than the era of Isaiah. With this result we must rest satisfied, unles. we would go beyond the indications presented. The intermediate period offers no ground on which we can safely fix the composition of the book of Job. There remains then uncertainty, but it does not concern an important point of religion. The signi ficancy of our book for the church rests on the evidence of our Lord and his apostles in support of the inspiration of the whole collection of the O. T., and on the confirmation which this external evidence has at all times received, and continues to receive, from the internal testimony, among the true believers of all ages.—E. W. H.
[There is perhaps no single book of Scrip ture of which so many versions and commentaries have been published as that of Job, or respect ing which a greater number of treatises and dis sertations have been written. The following are the principal examples :—Mercer, 1573 ; Drusius, 1636 ; Abbott, 1640 ; Spanheim, 1672 ; Schmid, 1670 ; Caryl, 1669 ; Leigh, 1656, 1736, 1742 ; Schultens, 1737; Peters, 1751; Chappelow, 1752 ; Heath, 1756 ; Scott, 1773 ; Reiske, 1779 ; Dathe, 1789 ; Garden, 1796 ; Eichhorn, 1800 ; Gaab, 1809 ; Eliza Smith, r810 ; Good, 1812 ; Bride], 1818 ; Umbreit, 1824 (translated in the b'zbl. Cabinet, vols. xvi., xix.) ; Rosenmiiller, 1824 ; Fry, 1827 ; Lange, 1831 ; Knobel, De Carmine's 2obi, etc., 1835; Ewald, 1836 ; Arnheim, 1836 ; Fackens, 1836 ; Lee, 1837; Wemyss, 1839 ; Stickel, 1842 ; Heffigstedt, 1847 ; Hahn, 1850 ; Schlott mann, /S51 ; Hirzel, 1852 ; Ewald, 1854 ; Carey, 1858 ; Conant, 1859 ; Renan, 1859 ; A. B. David son, vol. i., 1862.]