was to provide c. 10-22, 16 with a hortatory introduction: he was thus in any case the "editor" of this collection, and (if Prof. Davidson's view be correct) may have been its compiler as well. As regards the date of c. 1-9, Ewald, Davidson, Nowack, Cheyne (p. 168) agree in placing it shortly before the exile. 22, 17—24, 22 is not probably by the same author as c. 1-9: for though a hortatory strain prevails in both, the style and manner are in many respects different: 22, 17-21, for instance, does not produce the impression of being by the same hand as 1, 1-6.1 The injunction 24, 21, "My son, fear thou the LORD and the king," authorises the inference that this collection also was formed before the exile. 24, 23-34, the appendix to 22, 17-24, 22 was no doubt added somewhat later: for the compiler of 22, 17 ff., had these additional "words of the wise" come to his hand, would probably have included them in his collection in preference to appending them to it with a new title. C. 25-29 must have been added after 22, 17—c. 24 had been attached to C. 10-22, 16: otherwise, it is natural to suppose, the supplementary "Proverbs of Solomon" would have been made to follow the principal collection 10, 1—22, 16 immediately, instead of being placed after the "words of the wise," 22, 17—C. 24. It is thought by some, on account of the similarity of the headings 24, 23 and 25, I ("These also are". . .), that both appendices were added by the same hand, the short passage 24, 23-34 being arranged in juxtaposition with the other "words of the wise," and c. 25-29, with the more formal title, pointing back to 10, 1, being placed after it. By the addition, at a still later date, of c. 30. 31, 1-9. 31, 10-21, all seemingly of post-exilic origin, the Book of Proverbs finally reached its present form.

What share in the Book, now, may reasonably be assigned to Solomon? 22, 17—c. 24, and c. 30-31 are not, by their titles or otherwise, brought into any connexion with Solomon: the question therefore need only be considered with reference to C. I—9, C. 10—22, 16, and c. 25-29. I, I is not the title to the Book, but consists of the opening words of a sentence (vv. 1-6) declaring the value of the "Proverbs of Solomon," and

1 Observe the contrast between the 3rd pers. in I, 1-7 and the emphatic 2nd pers. in 22, 17-21. There are also many favourite expressions used by the author of c. 1–9 (e.g. 1 teaching or law) which do not occur in 22, 17 ff. See Ewald, p. 53. Kuenen (p. 105) and Nowack (p. xxxv.) agree.

evidently (as "proverbs," properly so called, are only to be found here and there in 1, 7—c. 9) pointing forwards to the collection which begins with 10, 1. The introduction, c. 1-9, is not therefore stated to be Solomon's; and, in fact, both its style and contents point to a date considerably later, as that at which it was composed. But even 10, 1-22, 16 cannot, at least in its entirety, be Solomon's work. Not only is the same proverb, or part of a proverb, often repeated, and the same predicate applied to many different subjects (above, p. 373), but there are also many other cases in which the same thought recurs, expressed in different words: it is not probable, however, that one and the same author would have adopted methods such as these for the formation of new proverbs, or have propounded a number of independent variations of the same theme. It is far more probable that in such cases we have before us the work of different wise men casting fresh generalisations into an old mould, or recording in slightly different phraseology the same observations of life and manner which another had made before them. Secondly, it is difficult not to feel that many of the proverbs are unsuitable to Solcmon's character and position. The proverbs concerning the king seem rather to express the sentiments of the people than the reflexions of a king about either himself or other kings. The proverbs which speak in depreciation of wealth, or which praise monogamy, do not fall naturally from Solomon's lips: consider, for instance, 13, 1. 15, 16. 18, 22. 19, 13. 14. 21, 31. 22, 14 in the light of Solomon's character, as depicted in 1 Kings. The most probable view is that 10, 1 ff. consists of a collection of proverbs by different "wise men living under the monarchy, including a nucleus, though we cannot determine its limits or ascribe particular proverbs to it, actually the work of the Wise King (in accordance with the tradition, 1 Ki. 4, 32). The proverbs in 10, 1 ff. exhibit great uniformity of type; perhaps this type was set by Solomon, and was afterwards adopted naturally by others. Mutatis mutandis, the same remarks will apply to c. 25-29. The title (25, 1), the accuracy of which there is no reason to question, is an indication that the proverbs which follow were reputed in Hezekiah's age to be ancient: it cannot be taken as a guarantee that all, or even a majority, were the work of Solomon himself.

1 So Kuenen (p. 94), Ewald (p. 14), Nowack.

CHAPTER IX.

THE BOOK OF JOB.

LITERATURE.-H. Ewald in the Dichter des AB.s, ed. 2, 1854 (trars. lated); K. Schlottmann, Das Buch Hiob verdeutscht u. erläutert, 1851; F. Delitzsch (in the Bibl. Comm.), 1864, (ed. 2) 1876 [only the first ed. is trans lated]; A. Dillmann (in the Kgf. Hdb.), 1869 (ed. 2 in preparation); A. Merx, Das Gedicht von Hiob, 1871 (alters the text not always wisely); W. H. Green, The Argument of the Book of Job unfolded (New York, 1873); F. Hitzig, Das Buch Hiob übersetzt u. ausgelegt, 1875; C. Budde, Beiträge zur Kritik des B. Hiob, 1876 (I. Die neuere Kritik u. die Idee des B. Hiob ; II. Der Sprachliche Charakter der Elihu-Reden); S. Cox, A Comm. on the Book of Job, 1880; A. B. Davidson (in the Camb. Bible for Schools), 1884 (to be strongly recommended), and in the Encycl. Brit. s.v. ; T. K. Cheyne, Job and Solomon, 1887, pp. 11–115; G. G. Bradley [Dean of Westminster], Lectures on the Book of Job, delivered in Westminster Abbey, ed. 2, 1888 [explanatory paraphrase]; comp. also J. B. Mozley in Essays Historical and Theological, 1878, ii. p. 164 ff.; J. A. Froude in Short Studies on Great Subjects (series 1, 1867), p. 266 ff.; A. M. Fairbairn, "The Problem of Job" in The City of God, 1886, p. 143 ff. See further, Delitzsch, p. 35 ff.; Cheyne, pp. 112-115. On the LXX text of Job, G. Bickell, De Indole Vers. Alex. Jobi, 1863; and in the Z. für Kath. theol. 1886, p. 557 ff.; E. Hatch, "On Origen's Revision of the LXX text of Job," in Essays in Biblical Greek, 1889.

The Book of Job recounts how the patriarch whose name it bears, a man of exemplary piety, was overtaken by an unprecedented series of calamities, and reports the debate between Job and other speakers, to which the occasion is supposed to have given rise.

The Book consists of five parts :—

1. The Prologue (c. 1-2), written in prose.

2. The Colloquies between Job and his three friends, Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar, written in poetry (c. 3-31).

3. The discourses of Elihu (c. 32-37), likewise poetical, except the introductory verses, 32, 1-6.

4. Jehovah's reply to Job (38, 1—42, 6), also poetical.

5. The Epilogue, recounting Job's subsequent fortunes, in prose (42, 7–17).

The Book of Job is a product of the Wisdom - Literature (p. 358 f.); it deals with a problem of human life; in modern phraseology it is a work of religious philosophy. The problem with which it deals is this: Why do the righteous suffer? and its principal aim is to controvert the theory, dominant at the time. when it was written, that suffering is a sign of the Divine displeasure, and presupposes sin on the part of the sufferer. The doctrine that righteousness brings prosperity, while wickedness is the forerunner of misfortune, is often taught in the OT.: with regard to the nation, for instance, it is inculcated in the exhortations Ex. 23, 20 ff. Dt. 28. Lev. 26; applied to individuals, it is the principle repeatedly insisted on in the Book of Proverbs.1 Of course, in a large measure, this doctrine is true. Society being organised as it is, the habits which go to constitute righteousness are such as to win a man respect from his fellow-men, and to command success; on the other hand, wickedness paralyses the moral energies, blinds an individual and a nation alike to the real conditions upon which prosperity depends, and often overreaches itself. The doctrine was deeply impressed on the ancient Hebrew mind; and all exceptions were a source of great perplexity to it. The perplexity was the greater, because the Hebrews had an imperfect conception of general laws, whether in nature or in society: they were keenly sensible of God's omnipresence, and pictured Him as interposing actively in the course. of the world: hence virtue overtaken by calamity, or vice flourishing unrebuked, seemed to them to cast a direct slur upon the justice of God's government of the world. But the laws governing nature and the constitution of society being general ones, it may happen that in individual cases their operation does not redound to the advantage of virtue or the punishment of sin: the forces of nature may combine to overwhelm the innocent; men, in virtue of the society in which they live, being variously bound together, the innocent may suffer through the ill-deeds of the guilty; or wickedness may elude detection, and triumph unchecked. The problem is touched on in Jer. 12, 1 f. 31, 29 f. Ez. 18 (see p. 266). Hab. 1, 13 f. Ps. 37. 49. 73. One solution which the Hebrew thinker found was that the prosperity of the wicked was shortlived, that it met with a sudden and ignominious fall (Ps. 37, 20 f. 36. 73, 18-20); while the righteous in 1 Comp. Jer. 7, 5-7. 17, 5-8. 19-27. Is. 58, 7 ff. 13 f. Ps. 1 &c.

the end inherited the land (Ps. 37), or was conscious that he owned a higher and inalienable spiritual possession (Ps. 49. 73). In the case of the sufferings of the righteous, there was a tendency to invert the argument, and to conclude that because sin was followed by suffering, therefore suffering was necessarily a consequence of antecedent sin. That this conclusion is illogical, is, of course, obvious. Nevertheless, it was a conclusion that was widely drawn; it prevailed even to the days of Christ (Luke 13, 1-5; John 9, 2). And it was the conclusion which Job's friends drew. Job's sufferings, they argue, convict him implicitly of some grave antecedent sin, which they urge him to acknowledge and repent of. This conclusion Job controverts. He steadily refuses to admit that he is guilty of any sin adequate to account for his extraordinary sufferings.1 And when his friends appeal to the evidences of God's retributive justice visible in the world, he retorts by pointing to the numerous instances which experience affords of the wicked prospering even to the day of their death.

The main aim of the Book is thus a negative one, to controvert the dominant theory that all suffering proceeds from sin: God's retributive justice is not the only principle by which men are governed. Positively the book teaches-(1) viewing the dialogue in connexion with the prologue, that sufferings may befall the righteous, not as a chastisement for their sins, but as a trial of their righteousness, and that as such they have a tendency to refine and elevate character. (2) It teaches the danger of conceiving too narrowly of God and His providence: by conceiving of Him solely as a dispenser of rewards and punishments, the friends charge Job unjustly with grave sin; and Job, conscious of his innocence, imputes injustice to God, and is tempted to cast off his fear of Him altogether. (3) Inasmuch as Job, in spite of his combined physical and mental suffering, does not succumb to this temptation, it teaches, in opposition to the insinuation of the Satan (1, 9), that man is capable of real and disinterested goodness, and can love God for His own sake. (4) It teaches (c. 38-42) that the true solution of moral perplexities is to be found in a fuller and larger sense of God, in a conception of Him as the author of a vast and infinitely complex system of nature, in which it is unreasonable for the individual

1 Job does not claim actual sinlessness: he only contends that he is punished out of all proportion to the magnitude of his sin (7, 21. 13, 26. 14, 16 f.).