Encyclopaedia Biblica/Job (Book of)-John the Baptist

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search

JOB, BOOK OF[edit]

The book stands third among the Kethubim or Hagiographa, according to the Tal- mudic arrangement, but not always in the same place relatively to other books ; in the Greek Bible too, there are variations in the MSS. On these points see Ryle, Canon of the OT (1892). In the Syriac Bible Job is placed between the Pentateuch and Joshua, because, according to the Jews (Babd bathra, I5<z), it was written by Moses (cp CANON, 45). It may mitigate our surprise to remember that one of the fathers of modern criticism, Eichhorn, even claimed for the book a pre- Mosaic origin. We need not, however, any longer discuss the possibility of this view, since no scholar could be found to defend it. The most scientific arrangement is that which includes Job in the group of books of Wisdom (Hokmah], of which it is doubtless the greatest, and the most fraught with suggestion for the history of the Jewish religion. See WISDOM LITERA TURE.

As the book now stands, it consists of five parts.

  • 1. The Prologue, written, like the Epilogue, in prose (chap. 1-2).
  • 2. The Colloquies of Job and his friends (chaps. 3-31).
  • 3. The speeches of Elihu (chaps. 32-37).
  • 4. The speeches of Yahwe out of the storm, with very brief answers of Job (chaps. 38-42:6).
  • 5. The Epilogue (42:7-17).

1. Contents and character.[edit]

Thus it is plain that the book of Job is deficient in literary unity. Two literary styles are represented in it narrative prose and didactic poetry ; both however are thoroughly artistic in character. We must not read the Prologue as a history ; this would be to do injustice to a considerable epic poet. Nor must we read the Col loquies as mere specimens of Hebrew philosophy in metre. This would be to miss making the acquaintance of a powerful lyric poet who was also skilled in the delineation of varieties of character. Certainly it is not legitimate to call the book of Job a drama ; a Hebrew drama, especially in post-exilic times, is inconceivable. The attitude of the Priestly Writer (P) in the Hexateuch towards the ancient Hebrew myths and legends suf ficiently shows how hopeless a dramatic movement would have been, even had it been initiated. Nevertheless, the idea of inclosing a poetical debate between the two parts of a quasi-poetical tale is dramatic in tendency, and suggests that in more favourable circumstances gifted dramatists might have arisen among the Jews. In order that students may appreciate the art (not less than the meaning) of the poem and its different sections, there is one preliminary service which the textual critic must render viz. , to submit the text of Job to a careful revision.

All that can be done for exegesis from an opposite point of view has been done by Dillmann, and if Davidson cannot be mentioned as Dillmann s rival, yet every one of the too few pages that Davidson has written on Job testifies to familiarity with the available exegetical material ; where either of these eminent critics has failed, it has been simply owing to the inadequacy of their critical methods. To Bickell, Siegfried, Budde, Beer, and Duhm is due the credit of having perceived that the next step forward in exegesis must be preceded by a purification of the text. The labours of these scholars and of others who have worked at the text of Job on the same lines, though less continuously, cannot be disregarded by exegetical students, and any article like the present must constantly refer not only to the Massoretic but also to an emended text.

The present writer is tied to no master, and will give the student the best that he knows. Nor can he abstain from adding that the emended text to which he will appeal is one which has partly been produced by con siderations of metre. For the most necessary informa tion on this subject he would refer to the article POETICAL LITERATURE ; it is enough here to endorse the statement of Duhm, that the usual poetical form in the Colloquies of Job and his friends is the simplest metre of Hebrew prosody viz. , the stanza of four stichi, of three beats each. 1 There are also, it is true, passages of tristichs in chaps. 24 and (perhaps) 30 ; but these are among the later insertions. One of the clearest reasons for denying these passages to the main author of the work is the difference in their poetical form. The statement of Zenner (Zt. f. Kalh. Th. 99, p. 173) that the book of Job contains much more than a hundred tristichs implies far too conservative an atti tude towards the traditional text.

1 Jerome states that the book is composed in hexameters with a dactylic and spondaic movement. Evidently he means double trimeters. Duport, Prof, of Greek at Cambridge, translated Job in Homeric hexameters under the title 6privo6pia.nfios (Cambr. 1653). Vetter (Die Metrik des B. Job [ 97]), and Ley (articles in St. Kr. 98) are the most recent special monographs on the metre of Job.

2 Read probably nb 3 nya lb|. MT s my lin lltf, skin for skin, gives no adequate sense ; Schwally s explanation (ZA TIV W$6f. [1900]), is only slightly more plausible than that of Merx nnd Budde.

3 MT in 1 22 reads D nSx 1 ? rt7Ert )ru tfVli and attributed nothing unsavoury to God, the exact sense of which is variously given (see Schultens, Di.,Bu.). Probably, however, we should read (cp 2 10, and especially Ps. 10633). (nj represents ND3 ! ftsnj comes from vnSEQ- V was inserted by the last editor to make sense.)

2. Prologue and Epilogue.[edit]

The object of the Prologue is to show that disinterested love of God is possible, and that in the case of such an one as Job, or of that quasi-personal being whom Job symbolises, the terrible load of suffering has this one intelligible purpose viz., that the perfection of his unbought piety may be exhibited before angels and men. Job is introduced to us as a rich Edomite Emeer, happy in his family and in his enormous possessions. He also knows the true God under the name Elohim, and is scrupulous in the established observances of piety. Heaven is thrown open to us that we may see what Yahwe himself thinks of Job, and how the Satan is only permitted to hurl this great and good man into an abyss of misery that his piety may come out as pure gold. The deed is done, and Job, stricken with a loathsome sickness (see PESTILENCE), withdraws to the ash-mound (mazbala) of his village (cp Lam. 4s). Flesh for flesh, 2 the Satan had said (24) ; his dearest relations are nothing to a man, if he may but save his life. That, however, was not the right reading of Job s character. His wife s faith indeed gave way. Loyal to her husband, but faithless to her God, she bade Job be a man, since God withheld the reward of piety, and curse his all-powerful enemy before he died. To Job, however, this was the height of folly ; she who so spoke had degraded herself- had become one of the foolish women (see FOOL). Not only did he speak no rash word 3 against God, he willingly accepted the 'evil' which could not blot from his memory the good of happier days. In a little while his three chief friends arrive, for the news has spread far and wide ; they are doubtless Emeers like Job, and they know how true sympathy should express itself.

The prose narrative is resumed in the Epilogue. Yahwe declares that his anger is kindled against the friends of Job because they have not said of him the thing that is right, like his servant Job ; he tells them to offer sacrifice, and Job shall intercede for them, that sudden ruin may not befall them. l So Job prayed for them, and, as a public act of justification, God restored hun more than his former prosperity, till at length he died, old and full of days.

3. Criticism of the preceding.[edit]

As a piece of narrative the Epilogue compares very unfavourably with the Prologue. The idea that after having been proved capable of 'fearing God for naught', Job should have to spend a hundred and forty years in the enjoyment of a commonplace prosperity will seem to most moderns so unreasonable that they probably would be glad to have reasons for cancelling it. It is not less strange that nothing should be said in the Epilogue either of Satan's loss of his wager, or of Job's recovery from his leprosy. However, to do justice to the writer we must view him, not as an artist, but as a teacher. The Epilogue was a necessary concession to the un- spiritual multitude, who had been taught even by prophets to look forward to double compensation for Israel s afflictions 2 (Is. 61? Jer. 1614-18 Zech. 9 12). Regarding Job as a symbol of suffering Israel, Jewish readers could not but expect him to be re-endowed with sons and daughters, flocks and herds, and treasures of gold 3 (cp Is. 54 1 606/. 9). Now, too, we can see why, instead of telling us how Job recovered from his sickness, the narrator uses the vague expression 32* ruae Tix, which is so often used of the hoped-for restora tion of the national prosperity (e.g. , Ps. 14? Joel3 [4] i). He is thinking here, not of the legendary Job, but of his people Israel.

We next consider Prologue and Epilogue together. Can these be by the same writer as the Colloquies ? (i) It must be admitted that the Colloquies in general presuppose the main facts of the story in the Prologue ; on the other hand, in 19isi7/. (contrast 84 29s) we have certain statements which are plainly incon sistent with some of those facts. (2) In Job 42; Job is commended for having spoken rightly of God ; obviously this does not correspond with the speeches of Job in the Colloquies. (3) The Prologue ascribes the trials of Job to the Satan. Nothing is said of this in the poem ; neither Job nor his friends know anything of such a being. (4) In the Prologue Job is a model of patience ; in the Colloquies he is impatient. (5) The explanation of Job s sufferings given in 1 ioa is unknown to the Colloquies. (6) Sacri fices are essential to piety in the prose-story of Job ; they are not once mentioned in the Colloquies.

The necessary inference is that the Prologue and the Epilogue were written before the Colloquies, and since

42:7 implies that both Yahwe and the friends had held discourse with Job, it follows that the present Collo quies (if we may provisionally regard them as a whole) have been substituted for speeches of very different purport which came from the narrator of the prose- story, and were in perfect harmony with it. 1

The chief value of the Epilogue for us moderns (who on aesthetic and religious grounds alike are compelled to take exception to its contents) is that it enables us to reconstruct the main outlines of the original colloquy and of those portions of the story which had to be omitted together with the original colloquy. Elsewhere an attempt has been made to reconstruct what might conceivably have formed the omitted portion of the earlier book of Job. 2 Something of the sort can hardly be dispensed with in a full treatise on the criticism of Job, though to economise space it is not given here. The theory adopted above enables us to account (a) for the severe blame which Yahwe gives to the three friends, and for their assumed liability to some terrible calamity ; 3 (b) for the high praise awarded to Job ; (r) in part for the expressions in the description of the suffering Servant of Yahwe in Is. 02 13-63 12 ; and (d) for the early view of Job, which persisted for centuries in many quarters in spite of the later insertions in the book, as a model of righteousness and patient endurance.

1 In42sMT gives, n*?a: DDDi; Tfl&y vblh, that I may not do something shameful to you" i.e., give you an exemplary punishment (Bu.). The text of Job is so far from immaculate that it is better to emend it here than to force H733 in this way. A more impossible word than ~ l ^5- 3 * r Yahwe to use could hardly be imagined. Probably we should read, R^n? nn^3 crSj; nnxn. nWia and nnVa are both very liable (as experience of Job and Psalms will show) to corruption.

The exact doubling of Job's former possessions shows that we are not reading literal history here (Davidson, on 42 12).

3 On th e close of 42 it see KESITAH, and on the names of Job s three daughters, the first and the third of which are strangely misread, see JEMIMA, KEZIA, KEREN-HAPPUCH.

4. Legendary basis.[edit]

We must now ask, Is it possible to get behind the representation given of Job and of his misfortunes in the Prologue and Epilogue? That there is a legendary basis may be assumed as on a priori grounds likely.

Even the book of Tobit has its legendary element, though the main current of the narrative is unaffected by it. Much more may we expect to find a traditional basis for the story of Job, which is of just the type in which the primitive imagina tion delighted ; indeed, the name of its hero (in striking contrast to Tobit = Tobiah) is plainly no fiction, but a legacy from antiquity.

The prevalent view among critics is that a wise man of poetical gifts in Judaea in the post-exilic period adopted a story which had been handed on from age to age in popular tradition, and adapted it to his own didactic purposes. 4

One of the chief points in favour of this view is the super natural machinery of the Prologue, which has a strong quasi- mythological character. In particular, the humorousness 5 of the dialogue between Yahwe and the Satan, which might be abundantly paralleled from Christian hagiology, evidently re presents the popular, not the official religion. On the other hand, it must be remarked (i) that the Prologue is evidently constructed with a didactic object viz., to give an adequate explanation of the sufferings of the righteous ; (2) that the Epilogue is not fully intelligible unless Job be understood as a type of the people of Israel ; and (3) that the Epilogue pre supposes that Job and his three friends have been conversing on the subject of the divine government of the world (Job 42 7), whereas discussions on speculative subjects are uncongenial to the popular mind.

How far can this view be endorsed? So much as this appears to be certain the story of Job is based upon a popular legend. It is probable, however, that some of the most interesting features of the Prologue are not of traditional origin, but come from a cultivated wise man who knew how to write for the people, but stood somewhat apart both from the popular and from the official religion. This wise man lived in the post- exilic period, when the belief in the Satan was becoming general. Very probably the imaginary dialogue between Yahwe and the Satan is not merely humorous but ironical. The narrator may wish to suggest a grave doubt as to the appropriateness of such a belief in Judaism ; certainly he regards the Satan, like the b ne Elohim, 6 as no more than a part of his poetic machinery. His main object, however, is to show (anticipating much later teaching) that the accumulated woes of Israel are but tests of the disinterestedness of Israel s love for God. It is true, the Epilogue is inconsistent with this : this wise man and artist, free-minded as he is, has to make concessions to the multitude (see 3).

1 See D. B. Macdonald, / 14 63-71 ( 95); Duhm, Hio6, ( 97), Einl. p. viii.

2 Che. fm ish Religious Life, 161.

3 fWfn (see preceding col. n. i).

4 See Wellh. JDT, 1871, p. 555 ; Che. Job and Sol. 66; Budde, pp. viii ff. : Duhm, p. viiyC

5 Cpjok and Sol. 110 (parallel between Job and Faust).

6 I.e. members of the divine guild (ANGELS, 2).

Most probably all that he adopted from the legend was ( i ) the name of the hero and of the land in which he lived ; (2) the fact of Job s close intercourse with God ; and (3) the surprising circumstance that this most righteous and divinely favoured of men was attacked by some dread disease such as leprosy, but was ultimately healed. So much as this was not improbably known to Ezekiel, who (14 14 20) mentions three men, Noah, Daniel (or rather perhaps Enoch see ENOCH), and Job as having escaped from peril of death by their righteousness. The original story was probably derived from Babylonia (cp preceding article). Eabani, the friend of the solar hero Gilgames (see ENOCH), himself too created for Ea by the potter- goddess Aruru, was attacked by a distressing sickness, apparently the same from which Gilgames had for a time been a sufferer. In the Babylonian legend Ea-bani dies, whereas Gilgames is healed for a time by a magic potion and immersion in the fountain of life in the earthly paradise. It would seem that in Palestine one part of the story of Gilgames dropped away from that hero and attached itself to Eabani, whose name became Hebraised into p K [ayabi], out of which arose avx, Iyyob (Job). Probably the story was brought by the Israelites from Hauran, if, as has been suggested (see HARAN), the Haran of Genesis is a distortion of Hauran. The land of Uz (see Uz) was therefore probably in the NE. of Palestine, where indeed the name Uz would naturally lead us to place it, but is transferred to Edom by the author of the original Book of Job, because of the tra ditional reputation of the Edomites for wisdom 1 (Obad. 8 ; cp TEMAN). This new situation suggested the mention of the Sabeans (lis), and the Cushites (li?; read D"B*3 for D^BO ; see CUSH, 2, i.), also the designation of Job as the greatest of all the sons of Jerahmeel (la; read Worn :a for onp 33; see JERAHMEEL, KEDEM, MAHOL) and of the friends of Job as a Temanite, a Zarhite, and a Temanite respectively (for the emendations here adopted see SHUHITE, ZOPHAR). The later wise man (once more we pro visionally assume the unity of the Colloquies) who, as we have seen, discarded the original Colloquies and substituted new ones, does not seem to have altered the Prologue and Epilogue. To his work, which from the very first impressed thinkers as much as the prose narrative of Job impressed the multitude, we now direct our attention. Evidently he admired that narrative, for he has adopted it ; but not less evidently he was not satisfied even by the attractive theory embodied in the Prologue, partly, we may suppose, because it depended for its efficacy on the opening of the heavens, and the admission of human listeners to the council-hall of Elohlm. For the wise men sought to connect religion as much as possible with mother-earth.

1 For a peculiar view of the Edomite setting of the original poem, see Klostermann on x K. 4 11.

5. First cycles of speeches.[edit]

It should be noticed that there are three cycles of speeches, or colloquies, so that each friend speaks nine times (on Zophar's third speech see below), and Job answers nine times. Job also opens the colloquies by a poetic complaint.

The friends, who represent the Jewish theologians of the author s time, are about to speak. An excuse for this had to be provided. Submission to the divine will was the fundamental note of the character of Job, according to the Prologue. In order to justify argu mentation, the sufferer must be seen to have lost his composure. The word God occurs but twice in Job s complaint (chap. 3) ; he murmurs, but without accusing God of injustice. All that he craves is an explanation of this sudden catastrophe. Why was he suffered to live on when born why must he live on, now that he is in abject misery? Piety does not forbid him to curse his natal day the day which began with the night of his birth.

Perish the day on which I was to be born,
And the night which said, Behold, 1 a boy !
Let not God above ask after it,
Let not the moon show her splendour above it. 2

Years and days are not- imaginary, but have an objective existence in the unseen world. Job would fain revenge himself on this luckless day. As Moulton well says, All variations of darkening that fancy can suggest are invoked to blot out that day which betrayed Job into life. 3 Then Eliphaz the Temanite comes forward. He is the oldest of the party older than Job s father (15:10). It is char acteristic of him that he appeals to special revelations of his own ; characteristic of Bildad that he loves to appeal to tradition ; characteristic of the young and impetuous Zophar that he appeals to no authority but his own judgment, and gets irritated at any one who disputes the correctness of his theory. 4 All are agreed that the cause of all calamity (and therefore of Job s) is sin, whereas Job himself from the first ascribes his trouble to some baffling mystery in God himself. The point which is not clear to the friends is, whether the calamity which has befallen Job is a punishment or merely an educational chastisement. They could not have hesitated to adopt the second view but for the vehemence of Job s complaint which seemed to them unbecoming in a devout man. Eliphaz gently re monstrates with his friend, and, if textual corruption be removed, his speech will not strike us as either un connected or dictatorial. Why should Job lose heart ? Who ever perished, being innocent ? Job must know this ; clearly Eliphaz does not expect any criticism of his statement. There is one truth, however, of which Job seems to him not fully aware ; indeed Eliphaz himself had needed to have it enforced by a special, personal revelation, whispered to him by a mysterious form at night (4:17-21) :

Can mortal man be righteous before God ?
Can man be pure before his maker ?
Behold, he trusteth not his servants,
His holy ones are unclean before God ;
How much more the dwellers in houses of clay . . .
Do they not dry up, when he bloweth upon them?
They die, but without wisdom. 8

What, then, is man s true wisdom? It is to recognise trouble as the consequence of sin, and not to be seduced into irritating words which can only lead to the complete destruction both of the fool who utters them and of his children (5:24-25). Does Job think that there is anyone of the celestials who can be induced to help him ? He will hardly indulge in this fancy after the revelation which Eliphaz has just related. For his own part, Eliphaz would rather turn trustfully to God, whose purposes are so unsearchable, but, for the righteous man, so beneficent. He con cludes with an idealistic picture of the happiness in store for Job, if he will defer to the friendly advice offered to him by Eliphaz (5:17-27).

Job 4:5-11 and 5:36-37 10 are late insertions which spoil the fine rhetoric of the poet. Chap. 5 is also questioned by Siegfr., Beer, and Duhm, but seems to be protected by 4:16b if read as emended above ; indeed, 'call now', etc. is much too vigorous an address for an ordinary glossator. Verse 7 needs correction in order to suit v. 6, but cannot be rescued for the poem, both v. 6 and v. 7 being alien to the Temanite s argu ment. (Verse 7 should probably be read, Yea, man brings forth misery, and the sons of wickedness pour forth iniquity ; |ty W2P yen Vni T^ V tay 1 ? DIN *3. Cp Budde, Duhm, Matthes).

1 nan for rnn ( iSov; Bick., Bu., Du.).

2 See translation of four stanzas of Job's complaint, with justification, in Exp. T 10 38o_/C ( 99).

3 Book of Job, Introd. p. xix.

4 Cp Davidson, Job, z^f.

5 In 1. 4 read a lW? VEhp ^NMl. After 1. 5 we have omitted four lines, to avoid having to justify emendations at too great length. When we follow , there is a quotation from Is. 40 24. See Beer ad loc.

Bildad's first speech is chiefly remarkable for his respectful .attitude towards tradition. We are of yesterday, he says, and know nothing (89), whereas the wisdom of the past is centuries old, and has a stability to which Job s new-fangled notions (for Job represents a new school of religious philosophy) cannot pretend. Here the first genuine allusion to Egypt inx, Nile-grass, 8n ; see REED) should be noticed ; also Bildad s cruel reference to the fate of Job s children (84). Zophar gives a panegyric of the divine wisdom (11:5-8), which, however, only leads up to the poor inference that God must be able to see secret sin (11:11), and which Job (12:2-3, 12:11-12, 12:14-25, 13:1-2) reduces, as he thinks, to its just proportions. 1

The saying in 11:6c, Know therefore that God exacteth of thee less than thine iniquity deserveth (EV) is indeed a terrible one, but Zophar is not to be held responsible for it. It is not an interpolation, however, but an editorial attempt to make sense of a corrupt passage. When duly emended, it may assist us in the emendation of 11:66, which should probably run thus, 'That thou mightest know that it (i.e., divine wisdom) is marvellous in reason' : ,YlW )*? rig" 3 Ijni is corrupted from nytub D X^S 3 jnm. Chap. 12 has been much misunder- stood. Grill would excise 12:4-13:2 as a later insertion. Sieg fried prints 12:4-6 and 12:7-13:1 in colours (as insertions): and Duhm omits 12:7-10 and 12:4-6, and makes 12:4-6 (tristichs, he thinks) parallel to the cycle of poems in chaps. 24 and 30:2-8. This is simply owing to corruptions of the text which have obscured the meaning. Probably the only interpolations are vv. 49 and 13. The passage should begin, No doubt with you is discernment, And with you is perfection of wisdom. Yea, I have not learned wisdom, And your secrets I know not (cp 1 1). But ask now the beasts that they may teach thee, etc. (vv. if.). The wicked man at the judgment is confident. At (God s) fixed time his foot is secure, etc. (vv. 5-6). Doth not the ear try words, etc. (v. 11).

The only result of these successive speeches is to make the complaints of the sufferer bolder and more startling. But before he gives free course to his com plaint (10i), he secures his right to do so. The im mensity of his woe is his justification. All he asks of his friends is spoken or silent sympathy ; but he asks it in vain, and this intensifies his agony. The friends may lecture to him on the infinite power and wisdom of God. Miserable comfort ! He knows it only too well. To be compelled to think that this power and wisdom is not directed by morality, and that he is worth no more to the Almighty and the All-wise than the moun tains which he removes, or the rivers which he dries up, is acutely painful. Job does not profess to under stand God s dealings in the world of nature, but hitherto it has appeared to him that he understood God s inter course with His moral creature man. He looks for consistency in God s dealings with moral beings. The sudden transition from happiness to misery in Job s case can only, so he fancies, be ascribed to capricious- ness in God ; or, if we may express the underlying symbolic meaning, the catastrophe by which a religious and prosperous people like Israel was suddenly crushed by the iron heel of a foreign despot, appears to show that Zion has been forgotten by her God. As for the theory that calamity is a chastisement, it will not apply to Job s case, for his days are numbered, and even for those few days God, as if a wild beast, cannot refrain from torturing his prey. Yet, such is the power of true religion, the man who utters these desperate words, pleads with his God for gentler treatment ! These three speeches of Job (6-7, 9-10, 12-14) are rich in poetic ore ; but we have space here only for the wonderful expressions of an inextinguishable heart-religion which occur near the close of the first and third speeches respectively.

It will be noticed that in the first quotation a supposed parody of Ps. 8 5 [6] and an unasthetic phrase which no Arabic parallel can make tolerable, have disappeared. If emenda tion is permissible, it is so here. 1

What is man that thou shouldest spy him out,
And direct thine attention to him?
That thou shouldest try him (by fire) every morning,
And test him every moment?
How long ere thou look away from me,
Ere thou leave me that I may have a moment s cheer?
Why hast thou set me as a target?
Why am I unto thee as a mark?
And why dost thou not pardon my transgression,
And cause mine iniquity to remove ?
For now I must lie down in the dust,
And when thou seekest after me, I shall be gone (7:17-21).
O that thou wouldest hide me in Sheol,
That thou wouldest conceal me till thine anger were spent,
That thou wouldest appoint me a set time and remember me,
If the fury of wrath should come to an end !
All my days of anguish I would wait
Till thy relenting came ;
Thou wouldest call, and I would answer thee,
Thou wouldest long after the work of thy hands (14 i3-is). 2

1 Davidson s remark (p. 88) that in reply to Zophar Job shows, by a brilliant declaration of the divine wisdom and power that he is a greater master in the knowledge of these than his friends are, hardly touches the main point. Job admits that God is wise ; but the result of his observation is that God s wisdom is mainly devoted to destructive ends.

6. Second cycle.[edit]

It will be plain, even from these quotations, that the first part of the discussion has not been wholly useless. It is true, the several points of view of Job and of the friends are in some respects totally different. Both parties, however, have alike become awake to the fact that the problem before them has more than a merely personal reference. It is not only Job but a large section of the human race which has, apparently, lost its sense of union with God. The old days of idyllic happiness and unquestioning faith have passed away not merely for Job, but also for Israel, and for many another people, and the earth seems to be given over into the hands of the wicked (9:24). According to the friends, this was because of some sin committed by Job (i.e. , by Job s antitypes). Job, however, could not accept this, and went on piling complaint upon com plaint. The friends, he said, were treacherous, and God was inconsistent He destroys the perfect and the wicked (9:22). We might have supposed that this enlargement of the problem would have softened Job s mood. 3 It does not soften it ; the poet fails to make the most of the psychological situation. There is but one idea which can at all comfort Job ; it is this that God s love cannot really be extinct that in the depths of his nature God cannot be as hostile to him as he seems. Though slowly dying he can even now imagine God longing after him when it is, humanly speaking, too late, and he indulges in the dream of a successful conflict between God s wrath and God s love. 4 It is Wrath that hurries Job to SheOl ; Love stands by sorrow fully and waits his time. Thanks to Love, it will at length be seen that Job s removal to the dark underworld was the best thing that could have happened. No longer seeing him, God's irritation will pass away, and he will long to renew his inter course with him on earth or in heaven. Thus, though Job will still have the anguish * of being parted from God, he will be able to wait patiently for the reawakening of his love. Will Job come to believe that this is no dream? That is the impor tant question with which we approach the second colloquy.

1 The readings here proposed are U3TR (1. i) : 3S1SH (1. 3 ; see Exp.T 10381); jwn r^2*ri (l- 6); <^> (1-8; cp 16126; Beer). The opening words of v. 20 are omitted as an interpo lation (Bick., Du.).

2 The emendations in 14 13-15 are : non TTOy DFIH CN 0- 4) , "??y (1. 5 I E*P- T, I.e.); in^On (1. 6). T Qf these, the most im portant is the first. MT has, ."Pirn 133 fllD^CN ; <B fiv yap otn-ofldi/TjacflpcoTros <JV}creT<u, which Bickell,Cheyne(7f7f. Rel. Life, 234), arid Duhm follow ( if a man were to die and to live again ). This, however, does not fit the parallelism, (j; and j, o and n are easily confounded.)

3 Cp the touching apologue of the mustard-seed in Buddha- ghosha s Parables.

4 On this division of God into two parties, cp Davidson on 17 3 ; Che. Job and Sol. 31. The Jewish poet Ibn Gabirol finely says, TpW ?;ap rnaK, I fly from Thee to Thee ; and our own in imitable Crashaw says,

But thou giv st leave (dread Lord !) that we
Take shelter from Thyself in Thee ;
And with the wings of Thine Own dove
Fly to Thy sceptre of soft love.

Job's essential devoutness is manifest to us ; but it was not so to his friends (cp 15:4). In fact, passages like those quoted above are not intended for the ears of the friends. They are lyric monologues which illustrate the dramatic process going on within the mind of Job ; they form no real part of the colloquy. Job s narrow- minded friends can see his outward irreverence, but not the longing to be at peace with God which alone made such irreverence possible. Now, they think, Job reveals himself in his true character, and, their gentler treatment having failed, they proceed to try the effect of lurid pictures of the wicked man s fate, 2 intending that Job should see in these pictures no distant resemblance to himself. This wounding language Job meets with growing dignity. The symptoms of his sickness are becoming aggravated ; death, he feels, cannot be far distant. He has already said, Yea, let him kill me, I will not desist. 3 Surely my ways I will defend before him (13:15). But now his condition appears desperate ; 4 and in his loneliness he returns to the idea that God cannot be entirely his enemy.

Death, indeed, he cannot escape ; he is caught in God s net, and complaints of injustice are unavailing (19:6-7 ). Job is now sure that he has an avenger of blood in heaven (cp Ps. 9:12 [13]); when he is dead, his cry (i.e., the appeal of his blood, which lies on the bosom of the earth) will reach the ear of the divine Love. To mother-earth he first makes his appeal ; then he tells the universe of a stupendous fact of his consciousness.

O earth, cover not my blood,
And let my cry have no (resting-) place.
Yea, I know it my piercing cry is in heaven,
And my shriek has entered the heights.
He will accept the words with which I cry,
My Blood-avenger will hear my call,
That he may decide between a man and God,
And between man and his fashioner (16:1-21). 5

But here Job stops. It is implied that reparation will be made for Job s unjust and violent death ; but no surmise is offered as to the form that this will take. The much-suffering man has advanced beyond what he said in 9 ytf. ; he has found a daysman betwixt us that might lay his hand upon us both ; the daysman s nature, if not his name, is Righteous Love. But he has not resumed the position adopted for a moment in 14:13-15 ; he does not on this occasion specify the form which the expected reparation, or vengeance for blood, will take.

1 Read 3^y for K3X, both in 14 14 and in 7i.

2 There are, of course, corruptions of the text as elsewhere. For instance, 15 14-19, as they stand, are highly suspicious. It is not enough to omit w. 14 and 17 (Bi.) as interpolations. A single stanza should take the place of w. 14-19 ; the original text can easily be detected under the present much-edited text. What Eliphaz really says is, Ask the wise men, for they alone have unerring wisdom ; they will not withhold their torah (see Crit. Bib.).

3 Read jiriN vh (Exp. T 10 382) ; MT, WN N 1 ?, is clearly wrong. Davidson, I will not wait ; Duhm, I cannot hold out ; Budde, I hope for nothing.

4 The passage, 1622, 17 if., so far as we can understand it, interrupts the context, and must surely be an interpolation. Cp. Siegfried s notes.

8 Lines 3 and 4 in MT run, Even now, behold, my witness is in heaven, and my witness is in the heights. But the context re quires more than a witness of Job s innocence, and v lHB (Aram.) occurs only once again in the MT, and there it is corrupt (see JEGAR-SAHADUTHA). Read probably D O^Il HST Bjn^ Q? D Dinsn "I^ZI flVJB l Sense, metre, and the textual phenomena are thus satisfied. Lines $f. make a miserable sense in MT ; <8 represents an intermediate stage between the true text and MT. The true text may be something like this, ?D nxT ^Xj tfDB>; nVsnl nggs. In line 8, for ?njn read np (illus trated by the argument in 10 8). His friend, however explained, whether as Job s friends (collectively) or as a title for God, is intolerable. For a minute, though not quite satisfactory discus sion of the passage, see Budde ; and on the versions see Beer.

It was a noble idea that he had stated ; but, not being able to offer any tangible proof of its correct ness, he soon falls back into his old elegiac strain, and even appeals to the friends for pity (19:21). He might as well have appealed to icebergs. From their averted faces the persecuted heretic sees that his doom is sealed. If God had not marked him out for death, they might have thought to do God service (cp 13 8) by stoning him. Job warns them of their guilt (cp 13 iof. ) ; he does not threaten them with the sword, as the faulty MT represents. First, however, he revives his own courage by giving for the third time a public expression to his unextinguished belief in his God (19 2$f. ). We cannot indeed venture, in deference to later Christian beliefs, to let the text of 19 25-27 pass, and assume that the passage refers either to the hope of the resurrection, or at least to the hope of conscious and continuous intercourse with God in an unbodied state of existence cp ESCHATOLOGY). A close examination of the text shows that it has not only suffered corruption but also received interpolations, and our general experience with the ancient versions (which have often made prophets and poets give support to the later eschatology) justifies us in dealing with the MT somewhat freely. The present writer s attempt at a thoroughly critical restora tion may be thus rendered,

As for me, I know it my Avenger lives,
And (lying) in the dust I shall receive his pledge ;
Shaddai I will bring to pass my desire,
And as my justifier I shall see God.
When ye say, We will pursue him like a hart,
And will satisfy ourselves with his (lacerated) flesh ;
Have fear for yourselves because of your words,
For those are words of iniquity (19:25-29).

So then the dream of a permanent resurrection of the old intercourse with God on earth or in heaven is not finally ratified by Job s mature thought. Still he ventures nearer to that dream than when he uttered the cry to mother-earth. He will not give up his belief in God s righteousness, and therefore declares it to be certain that God will one day publicly recognise his servant s innocence ; and since on the one hand it is essential to the completeness of this reparation that Job should witness it, and on the other it is inconceivable (14:12) that man should awake, or be raised out of his sleep to the old familiar life, it is the only solution which remains that the unbodied spirit of Job should for a moment be transferred to the upper world to see God as his justifier. On this view great stress must be laid ; no other exegesis appears possible, nsjr^j;, on the dust (of ShS61), and pHsD, my justifier (underlying HBOD). being both apparently planted firmly in the text. That God can both kill and make alive would no doubt have been granted by the poet ; exceptionally a man like Enoch or Elijah might doubt less be saved either from death or out of death. But he regards his hero not as an exceptional person but as a representative of the class of righteous sufferers, and as such (so the poet thinks) Job cannot be raised from the dead.

Job, then, in some unimaginable way will for a moment be enabled to see the Light of lights Eloah. His desire has been to have his innocence established by the righteous Judge ; that desire Shaddai will bring to pass. First, the Go'el, or Vindicator (see GOEL), will convey to Job the pledge of his willingness to act as Go'el (cp Ruth 4 jf. ), then the solemn act of justification will be performed in the presence of Job. We must not be wise above that which is written, and speculate with the help of later Jewish eschatology on the change which, for Job, must pass upon Shgol when he returns thither at peace with God. Certain it is, that Job, and therefore also his poet, has broken with the conventional doctrine of Sheol, but he has not formed a new and better doctrine, capable of being presented in poetical form.

1 Shaddai (see NAMES, 117), occurs 31 times in the MT of Job.

The view that Job anticipates restoration to health and prosperity in this life still finds supporters (see Bu., no ; Laue, 4<)f. ; Beer, 127). It appears to the present writer to be con nected with an a priori view of the structure of the Book of Job, and, in the case of Budde especially, with an unduly optimistic view of MT in this passage. Di. and Da. both favour the view that Job s justification will be after death ; such also, in a form agreeing in essentials with that given above, is the view of We. (!JG 177), Smend (Kel. Gesch. 471), and Du. 104. Of these critics, Uulim has given most attention to the text ; but his retention of nt SD and his introduction of W (which properly means a tribal or religious sign on the person [see CROSS]), can by no means be justified. The restor ation offered above is the writer s third experiment ; it is, even if imperfect, neither hasty nor arbitrary. A few notes appear necessary. In 1. 2 we should probably read pnjn as in 1?3 [Beer, Bu., Du.], a passage which belongs to the same group as 19:25-29 : i.e., it implies the idea of a division in the divine Being the God of love over against the God of wrath. For the impossible "lEOD read p ^SB (Is. 50s) ; this reading is practically certain. MT s jnn is now generally explained as afterman = vindicator" (cp Perles, Analekten, 74), which produces a good parallel to ?:, but is in itself unnatural. Dip T5J7 7j7 has no intelligible meaning. As Eichhorn (A I/gem. Bibliothek, 1388) remarks, ^y Dip always means to assail. Unaware of Eichhorn, We. <J DT, 16 556 [ 71]) makes the same observation, and proposes to render MT, will arise (as witness) against dust i.e., against the friends (cp Job 419) ! Thisbein,; too artificial, either nsy-^y or mp< must be read, and con sidering how emphatically (7zi)Job has mentioned his expec tation of lying down on the dust i.e., on the dusty ground of SheOl (see 17:16), it is the more reasonable course to emend the latter and retain "ISJT 7J7, which means (lying) upon the dust (20:11, 21:26; cp 7:21). npN for op is an easy change; the preformatives and are frequently confounded. In 1. 3 for my read probably "W; iriK is dittographed. For riNT IBp: read HIKR J3 ; fell out owing to "It?; cp 17:15 (in b read TIlNrl) The much tortured ijpj is a mere editorial guess. 3N ~\!tfK s clearly a corruption of 1BQD (note the warning Pasek), and 7- of ni^N- "irK?! INT J Jfl is a gloss on rnTHN ! pro n 73 173 is a corruption of H3pB Jn n?, a gloss on Dip "1SV"7V ( God shall arise . . . to revive me from my grave ). In 1:5-6 the critics have not noticed that Job returns to his statement in v. 22 ; yet to a practised eye 131 enty should reveal its secret. Read J73tPJ nBQBl W"lD3 13STU n 3 ( 7 N for 7K, in v. 22, Reiske, Perles, Beer) ; nBQDl has two beats. In 1:7-8, 3in is too vague, and the threat of a violent death is not in character with the Job of chaps. 3-19. Nor is there any allusion to the threat in Zophar s third speech. Read D3 131 and rvmy 131, and for HDH read nan (Ges.). The last three words of v. 29 in the consonantal text (read, with Bu., [ T BV [ 3], that ye may know that there is a judge ) are a gloss.

1 Nette Jahrbb. f. deutsch. Tk., 92, p. 90.

2 Die Cotttf. des B. Hiob, 53, 77, 141.

7. Original close of colloquies.[edit]

Job has now taken a long step forward towards the religious solution of the problem of the suffering of the individual, and since true religion is primarily individualistic he can, if he will, afford to lay the large problem of the suffering of classes of men on one side. The importance of the deeply felt utterance of Job in 19:25-26. is universally admitted ; yet none perhaps have realised its bearing on the structure of the poem except Meinhold 1 and Laue. 2 The former critic makes a new part of the poem begin at chap. 20 ; the latter thinks that the non-appearance of Yahwe to recognise Job s innocence has produced a radical transformation of the character of Job, who, aggrieved at his dis appointment, becomes an open blasphemer, gives an unqualified denial to the divine righteousness, and, welcoming a temptation which he has twice before (9:2-3, 13:18-19) overcome, challenges God, in language full of Titanic pride, to an investigation of his case (31:35-37). The latter view is certainly inadmissible. Nothing is said in the second cycle of speeches which leads us to suppose that Job had expected God to appear for his vindication and been disappointed ; * the account of 19:25-26, which this view presupposes, is that which the best recent critics of Job have rejected. Still, it remains true that the Job whom we meet with from chap. 20 onwards, lacks that tender religious undertone which surprises and delights us in the first colloquy, and we might be tempted to suppose with Meinhold that a new part of the poem begins at chap. 20. This supposition we might support by the theory that when the poet reached the end of chap. 19, he laid his work aside for a time, and that when he resumed it he was himself in a less religious and a more definitely critical frame of mind than before. This theory, however, is by no means probable. The poet would certainly have corrected his earlier work, and not have allowed such strongly contrasting works to stand side by side. We cannot help supposing that another member of the guild of wise men to which the poet belonged, took up his work and continued it, so as to embody a somewhat different conception of the hero. This view is supported by the phenomena of chaps. 29-31. Several critics have noticed that this much-admired section is deficient in unity. Chaps. 29/. are an elegy ; chap. 31 is a proud self-justification. The present writer formerly thought 2 that the author might have written chap. 31 some time after he wrote chaps. 29-30, and have placed it here by an afterthought, omitting to construct a connecting link with the preced ing chapter. But there is no necessity for such an assumption here. The elegy in chaps. 29-30 appears to be the original conclusion of the colloquies - the counter part of the elegy (chap. 3) which forms the opening of the poem.

Any one who will read chaps. 19 and 29-30. consecu tively will be struck by the appropriateness of the arrangement. Chap. 19 itself is strongly elegiac. As Davidson says, He realises . . . more clearly than ever he had done before, his dreary isolation, God and men being alike estranged from him, which he laments in most pathetic words. Have pity, have pity upon me, O ye my friends, is its central passage, and when the sufferer thinks of the cruel insinuations of his friends, he warns he does not threaten them. He speaks indeed of an Avenger of blood, but it is God, not God s misguided advocates, from whom reparation is expected, and there is an Over-God, whose nature is Love, and whom Job longs to be permitted to love. After this we are prepared to hear his sorrowful retro spect of past happiness in chap. 29, and the contrasted contemplation of his present abject condition in chap. 30. The first part is a poetic commentary on the opening verses of the prologue (1:1-5) :

O that I were as in months past,
As in the days when God watched over me ;
When he made his lamp shine above my head,
By his light I went in darkness ;
According as I fared in my (life s) way,
When God screened my tent ;
When mine intimates were with me,
And my children were round about me (29:2-5). 3

It seems far back the time when the poor and father less blessed him, and when the great hushed their words at his presence. Now to those who once honoured him he is a by- word. 4 The Providence which used to guard him is no more ; God hears him not. Life has ceased to be a song of joy ; he is perishing by a slow, painful death.

My skin falls, blackened, from me,
My bones are burned with heat ;
My cithern is changed to mourning,
My pipe to notes of grief (30:30-31).

So ends the elegy according to the present text. Most probably, however, 31:1-4 has taken the place of two lost stanzas which formed the real conclusion ; l after this may have come the editorial notice, The words of Job are ended 1 (31:40b). That the writer intended it to be followed by the present epilogue is impossible ; neither chap. 19 nor chap. 30 could possibly have been followed by 42:7. Whether the writer gave an epilogue of his own, or left his work a torso, it is impossible to conjecture. 2

1 It is true, 23:13 expresses disappointment at God's evident determination not to hear Job's case, but this has no reference to the hope uttered in 19:25-26. Although Job's wish for an equitable discussion of his case has found repeated expression, he has never deluded himself with the fancy that his wish will be granted. He could never have said, with reference to this, nUT 3N, "I know," 'I am sure'.

  • Job and Solomon, 39, n. 1.

3 Reading lVn| or iVrina (Olshausen, Bu., Beer, Du.) ; rm-i33 *rr;n 13*3 (cp ); j-rp (Ps. 8819).

  • 30i-8 should be omitted(see | 8, n), andf. 9 should follow 29:20.

8. Third cycle.[edit]

The skilful writer who, with an object that we shall see later, undertook to continue the earlier poem, had no difficulty in adopting his predecessor's style, though he fails very much in consistent delineation of character. Zophar no doubt is still the same blunt person as before (though 20:70 must not be quoted as a proof of this), 3 but Eliphaz too is surely blunt enough in 22:2-20. .Job for his part disdains to answer such revilings. He is absorbed in the astonishing heresy (so he deems it) which he has to propound. He shrinks from it with horror, and yet ventures to state it the divine governor of the world is non-moral. The friends may prescribe methods of operation to God which are pleasing to human minds, but God too clearly shows that they are not the methods which he himself adopts.

Not unnaturally chap. 21 gave offence to many readers. It appears that vv. 16-18 were inserted to conform the passage to the prevalent doctrine of retribution. Though Budde and Duhm still claim for it the authorship of Job, Siegfried s view, which is here adopted, seems more probable. At any rate, dogmatic corrections have certainly been made elsewhere in this chapter. Thus, in v. 13b MT says, that after a prosper ous life the wicked man goes down in a moment (yjna) into Shgol. This cannot be right ; the true text probably had t"ys, 'in luxury'. So in v. 30a and b DV 1 ? is an orthodox correction which makes Job say that the wicked man is reserved for the day of calamity, and led forth (?) to the day of wrath.

In v. 30a. it seems necessary to read TND and in b BVD (Du.). 1^31 seems to be a corruption of 733 (l should also be read for a "13 in v. 28). The whole description of the wicked man s career in vv. 28-33 s f u " f textual errors. Know their tokens (v. 29b) should be examine travellers (*OH D HINl 13IJ3n). vv. 32-33. are ludicrously wrong. Read probably, 'Seeing that he is escorted (in honour) to the citadel, and diligently seeks the sanctuary of God 4 (vfapm SnV tt^f M.11 "int? 7X), Gold he amasses like the sand, and of his treasures there is no number' (f K l 3SsSl VlH3 iV iSx Cn3 "ISpp). Perhaps no passage has given more useless exercise to exegetical ingenuity than this.

1 31 i looks as if it were based on a scarcely legible text which the editor interpreted according to his own fancy.

2 In its sadness the present conclusion reminds us of the close of Ps. 88 a very Job-like psalm (cp Delitzsch).

For M33 read ni33 (.Exp. T 10 382).

4 The sanctuary would naturally be attached to the citadel.

5 Note the points of contact between 22:24 (Eliphaz) and 21:33 (Job ; emended text). It is not likely that the chief poet himself would have fallen into such a close parallelism between Job and Eliphaz.

That even Eliphaz should follow Zophar s example, and hurl the falsest accusations against Job, would be indeed a striking phenomenon, if the original writer were responsible for this speech. Surely, he says, thy wickedness is great, and thine iniquities are infinite (22:5). Job must be a practical atheist (vv. 21-30 appear to be a later insertion, 5 designed to mitigate the strange contrast between the Eliphaz of chap. 22, and the kindly speaker who opened the first colloquy). Job's next speech, in its original form, was probably intended to show that, as the wicked often enjoy a long and prosperous life, so the righteous often experience nothing but misery. 1 Such a case is his own. God s commandments have been his rule of life. If he could only find God who ever eludes his search and induce him to listen to his plea, his vindication would be certain. True, Job would have to make one condition with God (23:6 ; cp 9:34, 13:21). In MT the passage is strangely distorted ; most probably it should run thus

He would remove the pressure of his hand upon me ;
Then he would use no threatening to me. 2

But alas ! it has become too plain that God has resolved to destroy him (v. 13 ; read ina with Bu. , Du. ), though God knows full well that if he were to examine him, Job would come forth as gold (y. 10) ; and feeling himself to be the spokesman of the suffering righteous everywhere, Job goes on (so we must suppose) to pro duce further evidence for the awful theory of God s non- moral character. The true continuation, however, has been lost. Chap. 24, as Duhm rightly holds, is not a connected discourse, but a cycle of poems written in tristichs instead of tetrastichs. a It is only 24:25 that we can safely regard as genuine ; this is the true close of Job s original speech.

How Bildad took this powerful indictment of the Governor of the world, does not appear. His third speech was lost, and a rhetorical description of the power, wisdom, and purity of God was inserted as a substitute. The second part of this description was, by a scribe s error, transposed so as to stand after 26:1-4. The latter passage is properly Job s ironical answer to this superfine but unoriginal piece of rhetoric ; it is therefore necessarily not genuine. Job s true answer to the (lost) speech of Bildad is to be found in chap. 27. It is, however, impossible to ascribe the whole of this chapter to Job ; part of it in all probability is a genuine fragment of the third speech of Zophar. 4 The calm ness of Job's dignified protest in vv. 1-6 and 12 is very noteworthy. Duhm contrasts it with the bitterness of Job s earlier speeches, and ascribes the change of tone to the intuition expressed by Job in chap. 19. The observation is just ; but the cause assigned does not seem to be the right one. As we have seen, it is a partly new conception of Job that underlies these later chapters. Job is calm because that bitter-sweet under current of yearning love to God which appears again and again in chaps. 3-19 does not disturb or distract him.

1 Cp 2815-17 with 2l6(which precedes the description of the prosperity of the wicked). The parallelism is pointed out by Duhm.


^JD IT pnv .
3 oyr N? tun m

In 23:6b LXX should be read thus, etra. diretAjj iv ifj

3 The tristichs in vv. 1-4 are imperfectly preserved, and the form may therefore be doubted. It does not seem likely, how ever, that this member of the cycle of poems would be in tetrastichs when the other members were in tristichs.

4 So Gra. (MGIVJ, 21 241^), Che. (Job and Sol. 38), G. Hoffm., Duhm. Gratz and Hoffm., however, are wrong in assigning chap. 28 to Zophar (see below). It is only 27:7-11 and 13-23 which can reasonably be given to this lover of platitudes.

6 Moulton, p. 36.

If it is correct to view 27:7-11, 27:13-23 as a fragment of Zophar's last speech, the latter certainly merited the disdain with which Job treated it. It is, however, not impossible that we have here the attempt of a later orthodox writer to make the sufferer retract his heterodox statements (cp chap. 28). At any rate it has no right to appear in the last speech of Job, the true continuation of which must be sought elsewhere. We have in fact reached the great Oath of Clearing, 6 by which Job finally proves his innocence, and which represents the high-water mark of Old Testament morality. His last words to his friends are

Behold, ye have all seen it ;
Why then do ye so vainly rage? (27:12).!

Then, in all probability, followed an appendix, so framed as to form a parallel to chaps. 29 f. The opening words were transferred to the end, when chaps. 29 f. were removed to their present place. Let us restore 31:35-37 to its proper place at the head of the Oath of Clearing, 2 and since it is highly corrupt, let us endeavour to emend it in accordance with Job s aspirations elsewhere.

That he would hearken to my voice,
[And listen to the words of my complaint,]
That he would take away the insulting of mine opponent, 3
That he would lay his hand upon us both !
Surely my concern would I present,
I would arrange arguments for him ;
I would tell him the number of my steps,
My rising up and my lying down he would examine.

The usual view is that Job imagines himself approaching the Divine Judge (whom in v. 35^ he is made to call my adversary ) with the proud self-possession of a prince (vjj), holding the accusation written by God and his own answer with his signature and that Job declares that if he hut possessed this accusation he would not hide it as a thin which brought disgrace, but would parade it upon his back (!) as a distinction (cp Is. 22:22), and (or ?) wear it as a diadem on his brows. All this is violently improbable, and yet this very passage is utilised in the service of the theory that Job fell away from his God (Laue, p. 96). Truly Hoffmann deserves credit for his refusal to twist the exegesis of v. 36 in order to soften the surprising character of the passage. It is God, he says, whom Job says that he will take upon his back and bind upon himself as a coronet an Ungeheuerlichkeit," says Budde ; yes, indeed, but an inevitable one, if the present text is to be strictly interpreted. It is probable that the passage can be restored nearly to its original state. The most important emendations are (1:3) 3 v ri! N ns^n qb$n ; (1:4) U JI^V? ii T rrcn ; (1:5) IT3N MtfSD ri rDN ; (1:8) Ypp; yani Dp. For the rest, see Crit. Bib.

Then this ideal righteous man tells us how he would clear himself if God were to hear his cry, and investi gate his case. He goes through a catalogue of evil deeds and thoughts, and in the most solemn manner imprecates upon himself God s vengeance if he be guilty. The first two stanzas ( = vv. 5-8) fit on particularly well to the last stanza of the introduction (i.e. , 31:35-37); they continue the figure of the way. The last stanza is by no means an equally good conclusion. Doubt less, like vv. 35-37 (which, as we have seen, should form the opening of the chapter), it has been misplaced, and probably the same fate has befallen vv. 29-34.* If so, the last extant part of the monologue will be (vv. 26f. )

If, when I saw how the sun shone,
Or the moon walking in splendour,
My heart was secretly beguiled,
And I kissed - putting hand to mouth.

This, however, cannot be the true conclusion. Unfortunately that was lost at an early date, and the two opening stanzas were detached so as to form a conclusion.

We can now see why the second wise man undertook to continue the original colloquies. It was to complete the disproof of the current theory that suffering was always either disciplinary or educative. This wise man must have agreed with his predecessor in rejecting the Epilogue, and he would certainly not have sanctioned either the speeches of Elihu or even the grand orations of Yahwe.

1 Read l/VnriD; cp Ps. 62 1 1, where a similar emendation is required.

  • 31 1-4 are doubtless an editorial insertion (cp v. 4 with v.

37<z). They fill the place of an illegible passage.

3 The opponent is a collective term for the friends, who with one consent vilify Job (cp Ps. 43 i). In the next line the continuator forgets that, according to the original poet, God is Job s adversary, and the friends merely his partial advocates.

4 Davidson s view of vv. 24-34 as the repudiation of another class of secret sins is hardly quite satisfactory.

9. Speeches of Elihu.[edit]

To the speeches of Elihu we now turn our attention. According to Duhm Elihu is brought before us as a distinguished historical person, and so (as a 'man of family' ) contrasts with Job and the three friends. The truth, however, probably is that the prolixity of the description of Elihu in 322: is due to corruption and interpolation ; Elihu was originally called simply the son of Jerahmeel i.e. , the Jerahmeelite, with reference to a Jerahmeelite famous in legend for his wisdom, who appears to be mentioned in i K. 4:31 (on the text see JERAHMEEL, 4). 2 The lateness of the prose introduction to chaps. 32-37 is shown by the use of the ethnic the Buzite, 3 which presupposes the corrupt traditional reading in Gen. 22:21, and Buz his brother (instead of na rwTiKi. and Ahibuz ; cp AHi). 4 Anticipating some surprise at Elihu s appearance, the narrator states that Elihu was angry with Job because he held himself more righteous than God, and with the friends because they found no answer (to Job), and so made God seem guilty (32:2-3). He says himself that he had waited because he was so young, and assuredly he falls into all the worst errors of juvenility. There is no intention, however, of amusing the reader ; the faults of juvenility were also the faults of the narrow, orthodox school to which the writer belonged. The matter of which Elihu is so full (32:18-20) is distributed over four speeches. The themes of the first three are ( i ) the ground and object of suffering (32-33), (2) the righteousness of God (34), (3) the use of religion (35). These are treated in relation to the erroneous utterances of Job, whom (unlike the three friends) Elihu constantly mentions by name. Then, in his last and longest effort, Elihu tmrolls before Job a picture of the divine government, in its beneficence and righteousness as well as its omnipotence, with the object of breaking down Job s pride (36-37}. It is in the second part of his last speech that Elihu exerts himself most as a poet, and it has often been suggested that the sketch of the storm in 36:29-37:5, and the accompanying appeals to Job, are preparatory to the theophany in 38:1 (so lately Moulton, xxxiii). The objection is (i) that the close of the speech of Elihu does not relate to the storm, as it ought to do, and (2) that Yahwe begins (38:2) with the declaration that the last speaker was a darkener of (the divine) counsel. We shall return to the Elihu section which is more interesting theologically than poetically ; see 12. There is much corruption and possibly some interpolation in Elihu. But we shall not spend more time on this speaker, whose discourses are but a foil to the Colloquies, the speeches of Yahwe, and the Praise of Wisdom.

1 Cp further. 12.

- Barachel and Ram are probably fragments of Jerah meel.

a The Buzite would of course be superfluous after son of Jerahmeel. It seems to be due to a scribe who had before him the same corrupt text that we have. Buz was suggested by Uz.

4 Ahibuz was the true name of the brother of Uz and Jerah meel (?), according to Gen. 22:21-22 Jerahmeel should prob ably be read for Kemuel the father of Aram, ib. ; a late editor produced the latter as an attempt to make sense of corrupt fragments of Jerahmeel. See JERAHMEEL, 4.

10. Speeches of Yahwe.[edit]

We now pass on to the great poetical ornament of the book. The Speeches of Yahwe (38-42:6) serve a twofold Purpose. They are a link between the Colloquies (in their expanded form) and the Epilogue, and they present, if not a solution, yet a powerfully expressed substitute for a solution of the great problem of suffering. The writer had rejected the theory defended by the three friends ; he also disapproved of Job's vehement censure of the divine government of the world, but not, we may suppose, of his intuition of a justification of the righteous after death. He was obliged to make Yahwe intervene in Job's lifetime, because he felt it necessary for the circulation of the book (Prologue and Colloquies) that it should be accompanied by the Epilogue, and he could not help making Yahwe pass a strong censure on Job s fault-finding propensity, partly no doubt to satisfy his own conscience, and partly also to make it possible for Yahwe in 42? to eulogise Job s statements respecting God (after Job had retracted al that could justly be accused of arrogance).

An editor has prefixed to these Speeches the words, 'And Yahwe answered Job out of the tempest, and said' (38:1), but it would have been more in the spirit of our poet to have quoted i K. 19:11b-12 (Elijah's theophany), where it is distinctly said that Yahwe was not present in the storm-wind. It is by an appeal to the reason, not by physical terror, that Yahwe seeks to work upon Job, though the awful mysteriousness of the universe, as set forth poetically by Yahwe, forces from the lips of Job the words :

I had heard of thee by the ear,
But now mine eye has seen thee ;
Therefore I must pine away,
And dissolve to dust and ashes. 1

What Job means is that his previous notions of the divine government were derived from mere doctrine, whereas now he had obtained a vivid intuition of God s working, not merely among men, but in the great and complex universe. He had in fact seen God s glory, and the strain upon his whole nature was such that he seemed about to break down. Of consciousness of moral offence on his part there is no trace ; his error was of intellectual origin, and this certainly did not require him to 'repent in dust and ashes'. The only charge brought against him is that he has darkened (God's) counsel by words without insight (38:2; cp 42:3). Remonstrance is the general purport of the speeches of Yahwe, and though the form of this may be humiliating to Job, yet the glorious pictures of nature which are presented cannot fail to lighten his load of grief (see Blake s beautiful thirteenth illustration of Job). Unfortunately the text of the Speeches is in some dis order. As the text stands, the Divine Speaker breaks off at 40:1-2. with a searching question which elicits from Job a confession of his ignorance. This, however, cannot be right. Another question is put in 40:8-9, and, as Davidson remarks, the second question is implied in the first. As Bickell and Duhm have seen, vv. 8-12 must originally have followed v. 2 ; the separ ation was consequent on the interpolation of 40:15-41:34 (Behemoth and Leviathan). The Behemoth and Leviathan passages will be considered later ; other insertions are the passage on the ostrich (39:13-18), and, according to G. Hoffmann and Duhm, 38:13b, 14b-15; 38:28, too, should be omitted as a tautological prose version of v. 29. The poem (for as such we may regard it) will gain much by restoration to its original form ; its splendid imagery will then be seen to the best advantage. 2 The earth, the sea, the world under the sea (Sheol), and the manifold wonders of the heavens are successively treated ; Job is asked whether perchance he brought these into existence, or knows the secrets connected with them. 3 More striking, however, are the poetical pictures of animals. Nine (excluding the ostrich) are brought before us in Yahwe s searching interrogatory ; the poet enters into the habits of each, and conveys to us the fascination of which he is conscious himself.

Regretfully we abstain from dilating on these pictures ; in special articles the omission is partly remedied (see, e.g., CREATION, 21 ; HORSE ; OSTRICH ; MAZZAROTH ; STARS 7 UNICORN). It may be that the pictures were originally fewer in number ( is deficient in some details) : if so, we need not regret the insertions.

Duhm hints a doubt respecting the raven-stanza (8841), and adopts Wright s conjecture (anyS for the evening ) ; cp Job and Sol. 52, n. 4. This can hardly be right. More" probably 3-wA is a corruption of y/ffy, for the wolf. The lion and the wolf are naturally mentioned together.

1 Rend D&t} Deri (Boucher, Beer), and fljTDJ. Job surely cannot say that he is now ready to die on his ash-mound, with the gladness of one who has seen God (Du.).

2 The details of the poem are to some extent treated in special articles.

3 There are Zoroastrian parallels. See the question put by Zarathustra to Ahura-mazda in the Gathas (Yasna 443-5 in the Oxford Zendavesta, 3irj/C); also the fine description of the divine creative acts in Bundahish 804-6 (West, Pahlavi Texts Il2l).

11. Chief interpolations.[edit]

Our survey of Job would be most imperfect if we did not mention here at least the principal interpolations (cp especially Bickell and Duhm).

(1) The poems of which 24:1-24 is composed are as follows :

  • (a) vv. 1-4, a fragment on the merciless rapacity of the wicked. Details of this sort are not characteristic of Job. The other poems spoken of being in tristichs, it is probable that (a) was also written in this form. The text, however, is in a bad condition.
For v. i only gives Sia rt Se xvpiov e\a8ov copai, omitting X 1 ? (the text was already corrupted, as in MT) for dogmatic reasons; v. 2, which is also omitted, was apparently unintelligible. In fact, Q nv and Vtr are obscure. Duhm's restoration of the imperfect tristich in v. i is not quite natural, and he has to change VD into mi - It is better to emend in such a way as to suit the sequel. -,E D should probably be D VBH ; for the rest see Crit. Bib. The sense which we obtain is,
Why do the wicked prosper?
They grind the face of the destitute ;
Bad men oppress the poor.
  • (b) Verses 5-6 ( 7 ?) 8, 10, 12, a description of an oppressed, pariah race. This should be taken with 30:2-8, which contains the sequel. Text very bad ; compare or contrast LXX.
  • (c) Verses 13-18a (??), a sketch of the 'rebels (?) against the light' murderers, thieves, etc.
  • (d) Verses (18b(?)-24, a fragment on the end of tyrants. Text very bad.

(2) 30:2-8, more on the unhappy pariahs and troglodytes ; one could almost fancy that it came from the oration of a democratic leader (cp i^). 1

(3) 28:1-27. No earthly treasures lie too deep for human industry, but Wisdom is with God alone. By Wisdom the writer means the Reason which originated and pervades the phenomena of the world (cp Prov. S). The poem cannot have been written to stand where it does, for it is altogether in a different style, full of imagery, and too rich for the deep but simple idea which it is meant to convey ; it contains no allusion whatever to Job s problem. 2 An editor of the Collo quies, however, seems to have thought that it might fitly be introduced (cp Job 11:5-12), because Job, as a censor of the government of the world, had virtually questioned the existence of the Divine Wisdom (a different view of Wisdom). According to this humble- minded person all speculation was wrong, 3 and he pleased himself with making Job anticipate his re tractation in 40:4-5. Verse 28 comes from his pen, unless, as the warning Pasek after -ctri may perhaps suggest, the interpolated verse is no longer in its original form, in which case we must be cautious how far we accuse the interpolator of narrowness of mind ; it may have been a later scribe who made the best substitute he could for an indistinctly written passage.

1 For a seemingly important emendation of the text of vv. $/., >ee PURSLAIN.

2 So Studer, Che. (Job and Sol. 40 /.), Du., Laue. On the other side see Dillmann, Budde, and Konig (Einl. 4.14)

3 See/t. Rel. Life, 153.

4 In v. 12 Nsan has evidently intruded from v. 13.

5 As was the case in Pss. 46 and 49.

It is the distinction of Duhm to have cleared up the exegetical problem of the opening word ( 3, for ). Verse 7 is usually supposed to take up what is said in v. 6 ; the path is the way to the place of sapphires (?). But it is much more natural to suppose that the words, (But) whence doth wisdom come, etc., A hich now appear only in v. 12 {4} and v. 20, originally stood Before v. 7, and if the refrain was forgotten there, 5 we may reasonably explain the for in v. 1 as referring to the same refrain, which would therefore seem to have opened each of the four stanzas of the poem. 1 Into the complicated controversy which has arisen out of this little word for, it is needless to enter. Budde adheres to the ingenious but unnatural theory late origin. -

28:1-27, when restored to its original strophic form, is a beautiful specimen of Hebrew poetry. The corruptions of the text are not incurable (see, besides the commentaries of Budde and Duhm, the articles GOLD, LION, MINING, SAPPHIRE, TOPAZ). The naive delight which the author takes in his knowledge of mining and of gems (cp Dante) is communicated to the reader.

(4) 39:13-18. See OSTRICH.

(5) 40:15-24, 4l:9-11 (12?), 41:1-8, 41:13-24. The description of two mythical monsters called Behemoth and Leviathan; the old mythological tradition having become pale, the poet fills up the gaps in his supposed knowledge from what he had seen or heard of the two Nile monsters the hippopotamus and the crocodile (see BEHEMOTH AND LEVIATHAN, HIPPOPOTAMUS). If Job was really God's equal, he could of course bring even these wondrous creatures into subjection. The seeming hyperboles in the descriptions are partly due to corruption of the text.

Thus in 40:17 'tail' and 'cedar', in 41:31 'pot of ointment', and in 41@32 the 'hoary sea' should disappear. In 40:17 we should perhaps read 'he cleaveth reeds as with shears ; the sinews of his neck are intertwined' ; 3 in 41:31b, 'he maketh the sea like a caldron', 4 and in v. 32 'the bottom of the sea is his path; the dark places of the sea are his road'. 5 For other critical emendations, see HOOK, JORDAN, SOUL, and of course such writers as Budde, Duhm, Gunkel, and Beer should be consulted. Budde and Duhm, however, start with an incorrect theory as to the meaning of the names Behemoth and Leviathan. That the passages which we have been considering really are interpolations, can hardly be questioned except on the ground of an a priori assumption of the unity of the book. They are interpolations because their insertion in the Book of Job has involved inter ference with the form of the context, except where, as in the case of chap. 28 (see v. 28), the interference was confined to the inserted poem itself, and, even when beautiful in themselves, they mar the effect of the true poem of Job.

1 Each stanza consists of four tetrastichs or quatrains.

2 Giesebrecht (Der Wendepunkt des B. Hiob, 79) adopts a point of view akin to that of Budde.

3 Read 1SJ?3 jiOJN 3SIV, and in 6, isny. for linS. See Crit. Bib.

4 Read TriXB3 D B^ C\

5 Read l S 3E> DirtB "3Vn? iaTU lir yjTljJ (see , and cp Am. 9 3).

6 Among older scholars Stickel ( 42), and among recent writers Budde, Cornill, and Wildeboer may be specially mentioned.

12. Elihu section (resumed).[edit]

The Speeches of Elihu are somewhat differently circumstanced. It seems best to call them (with G., Hoffmann) a supplement to the original poem, rather than an interpolation. Their insertion (if they were inserted) has involved taking no liberty, either with the text of the speeches themselves, or with that of the Colloquies of Job and his three friends, and some writers 6 think that they give the best solution of Job's problem that was, from the point of view of the Hebrew Wisdom, possible, and that without them the Speeches of Yahwe would be liable to the charge of using force towards Job instead of argument. This charge, how ever, would be valid only if the Speeches of Yahwe belong to the author or authors of the Colloquies. For certainly the Speeches of Yahwe, noble as they are in themselves, are not such as were adapted to impress the supposed auditor (see, e.g. , 23:3-7)- As to the high estimate of the Elihu Speeches in the writers referred to, it may be enough to say that (in spite of Elihu's asser tion in 32:14b) there is hardly any argument in the Elihu section which cannot be found in the Speeches of the Friends, while the description of God s incomprehensible greatness in 36:13-37:24 appears like an inferior copy of the Speeches of Yahwe. The admiration expressed by some critics for the teaching of Elihu is certainly much exaggerated, and would not have been shared by the poet of the Colloquies, who rejects the doctrine of the Friends. Not to speak now of the poverty of the style, it may truly be said that the speaker or writer thinks far too much of his minute advances in religious theory. The only excuse for him is his marvellous naivete". Here is one of his self-assertive utterances :

I will fetch my knowledge from far,
And will see justice done to my Maker.
For truly my words are no lies,
One perfect in knowledge is before thee (36:3-4).

What an over-estimate of his originality ! Elihu's favourite theory of the disciplinary character of suffering (33:14-30, 36:8-25) was fully stated by Eliphaz at the outset (5:8-9, 5:17+}. If he ceases to advocate it, it is because Job will not allow that it applies to his case. There is only one section in which Elihu may claim some originality. He says (33:14) that God speaks to sinners in two ways ; first, by alarming them with dreams (vv. 15-18), and next by sending them sicknesses which would have a fatal issue but for the intervention of a friendly angel (vv. 19-28). The central stanza of the former passage (33: 15-16) should run thus :

By a dream, a vision of the night,
In slumberings upon the bed,
He opens the ears of men,
And makes their flesh to tremble. 1

Here Elihu differs from Eliphaz his model by making the dream (see v. 17) a means of withholding a man from injustice (nSys, v. 17, Bick., Du., after LXX). The most important part of the second passage (33:22-25) is very incorrectly given in MT, though the interpretation given to MT by critics (cp PARACLETE) does not seriously misrepresent the mind of the writer. Most probably we should read as follows :

And his soul draws near to the pit,
And his life to the dark world,
Unless an angel redeem him,
One who rescues man from Abaddon,
  • * * * * * * *
And he be gracious to him, and say, Let him go ;
I have found the ransom of his soul ;
Let his flesh swell with youthful strength,
Let him return to the days of his youth. 2

Here Elihu ventures on a virtual contradiction of Eliphaz who (v. i) denies that holy ones, 1 i.e., angels, can help a man struck by deadly sickness. He positively asserts that when a sick man seems near his end, one of those angels whom God commissions, not to lie in wait (like the Satan) for the tripping of the righteous, but to prevent the chastisement of penitent sinners from going too far, rescues him from the destroying angel who has already grasped him. The ransom spoken of is probably the prayer of penitent confession (vv. 26-28). The angelology of Elihu is therefore more developed than that of the Colloquies (cp Job and Sol. 44-45 ).

We have on the one hand an angel of Death, and on the other an angelic redeemer. Whatever may have been popularly believed at an earlier date, it is only a late poet (later, it would seem, than those who gave the tone to the Psalter, and later also than the poem of Job) who could have authoritatively sanctioned this belief. Elihu s minute reproductions of sayings of Job (see 33:8-9, 34:5-6, 35:2-3) also point to an author who had the book before him as a whole, so far as it was then extant. What he gives us is a reassertion of the doctrine of earthly retribution in what seemed to him an improved form, and he gives this reassertion greater force by leading the reader to suppose that Job was silenced by it, and that Yahwe tacitly approved it.

1 MT, obscurely, DBIV DTDD31, i.e., and seals their disci pline (or, their bond ). , Aq., Pesh. (Bick., G. Hoffm., Bu., Beer, Du.), DBIT, terrifies. For DTDD Du., Beer sug gest D tjniD, terrors (G$, fv eiSecriv <6/3ou TOIOUTOIS)- But this leaves metre and parallelism imperfect. A close inspection reveals nSD? DTb 3 VnnBDI (see 4 i 4 / ; Ps. 119 120). Writing the letters of MT continuously, one sees how the error arose.

2 In 1. 2 for QTIDS^, to the destroying (angels?), which is not properly || to nnB V, to the pit, read rfloSj to 1 ?; <B ev <ffirj. D na ID 1 ? gives one beat more, but has no other recommenda tion. In 1. 3 read ^Sp "&* tt rDN. Note the Pasek after 1 Sy. In 1. 4 read JIISKD CTtf Wp ; ClJt was perhaps still in the text when the gloss ui Tjn 1 ? was inserted. jmtm, b V a little transposition and corruption, became <]^K SO. Bu. omits rj jK- JD -inN T^D as a gloss, which is unjustifiable. In 1. 5 read injre (so some MSS) with Bottch., Wright, GriL, Hoftm. Bii.VDu., Beer. In 1. 6 insert te EJ ; Bick.ai, Bu., Du. In 1. 7 read pSBS Hoffm., Bi., Bu., Du.

13. Style of Elihu speeches.[edit]

(a) Language. That there are many points of contact between Elihu and the Colloquies is not denied (cp Bu. , Beitr. 92-123) ; but there are a;so many words (e.g. , JH) and phrases peculiar to Elihu (ib. 124-146), which would hardly have been the case if Elihu were written by the author of the Colloquies, considering that the circle of ideas in Elihu is not very different from that in the Colloquies. It may of course be answered that an interval of some duration separates the com position of the two sections, so that we are ultimately thrown back on the question whether it is likely that the same writer would have worked up the old material again with the object of restating old solutions of Job s problem. A good deal has been said on the larger number of Aramaisms in Elihu as compared with the Colloquies, and, as the text now stands, not without reason. But the text of Elihu is in urgent need of critical emendation (e.g. , xin in Job 37:6 is certainly wrong). 1 So far as the present writer can see, how ever, the legitimate emendations of the text of Elihu do not raise the Speeches of Elihu to the same plane of literary excellence as the Speeches of Job and his Friends (upon which, be it remembered, the same beneficent art of critical emendation has also to be practised). Budde, it is true, is of an opposite opinion. By the removal of corruptions and interpolations he thinks that the linguistic argument against the so-called genuineness of the Elihu-section has lost its basis, and that both the form and the contents of the speeches can now be much better appreciated (Hiob, Einl., p. xx). To criticise this statement adequately would require too much space. The present writer has no disinclination to join in the effort to relieve Elihu s speeches from some of the rust which has gathered about them ; but he feels sure that no restoration can make the picture a masterpiece (cp Driver, Intr.W, 429).

(b) Non-mention in Prologue and Epilogue. There certainly ought to have been a condemnation of Elihu in the Epilogue ; the non-mention of him in the Prologue we can perhaps pass over. It is absurd to speak of the harmony (?) between the Speeches of Elihu and those of Yahwe as sufficiently indicating Yahwe s approval of his youthful advocate (Stickel). Almost more reasonable is the statement in the Testament of Job (a Greek Jewish Midrash), And after he (Elihu) had ended, God appeared to me (Job) in a storm and in clouds, and spoke, blaming Elihu, and showing me that he who had spoken was not a man but a wild beast. 2 It would, indeed, have been inhuman to harass a sufferer like Job with such feeble commonplaces !

1 Perles, .TIT]; Siegfr., Bu., TH-

2 Kohler, The Testament of Job, Kohut Memorial, 333.

14. Date.[edit]

The recognition of the fact that the Book of Job, like Homer and like the Sagas, has grown together by the combination of different elements, has an important bearing on the date of the Book.

The phrase 'the Book of Job' may have two meanings :

  • (1) the original Book of Job, so far as it is extant (1:1-2:13; 42:7-17), and
  • (2) the Book of Job with the latest inserted passages.

The date of the Book, in the second sense, will be that of the latest insertion ; in the first sense it will be that of the writing of the Prologue and Epilogue. The latter date can easily be determined. A prominent supernatural personage in the celestial court is called the Satan ( adversary, accuser ). The same personage appears in his character of accuser before Yahwe in Zech. 3, and it can readily be shown (see SATAN) that the conception of the Satan is more developed in Jobl and 2 than in Zech. 3. 1 Now the date of Zech. 3 is 519 B.C. ; the first Book of Job is therefore later than 519 B.C. It is no objection to this date : (a) that the picture of the life of Job in the Prologue is in harmony with the old patriarchal stories, or (b) that the author shows himself to be a gifted narrator. The Book of Ruth shows that there were highly gifted narrators in the later times, and such a writer could easily imitate the patriarchal stories. If the kesitah (EV piece of money) in 42:11 is really copied from Gen. 33:19, the writer of the original Job was only too faithful an imitator, for kt sitah is probably a corrup tion of a much more intelligible and historical phrase (see KESITAH). The mention of the Chaldeans ( 1:17) as marauders has been thought to point to the period before Nabopolassar and Nebuchadrezzar. But Chaldeans should probably be Cushites (see CUSH, 2, i) ; the Cushites and Sabeans of antiquity were remembered by a late tradition (cp 2 Ch. 14g).

The date of the Prologue and Epilogue is marked (i) by the double restoration of Job's property (42:12 ; v. 10b may be a gloss), 2 which corresponds to a standing feature in the descriptions of glorified Israel (see Is. 61:7. Zech. 9:12, Jer. 16:14-18), and (2) still more by the parallelism between the story of Job s calamity and restored prosperity and the figurative description of the vicissitudes of the Servant of Yahwe in Is. 52:13-53:12. The latter point requires some elucidation. Is. 53:3, 46:7 are like a poetic description of the stroke of Job s sickness, of the horror of his neighbours, and of his own pious resignation ; G. Hoffmann deserves special credit for pointing out the analogy of the metaphorical sickness of the Servant to the actual sickness of Job. It appears likely that Job, who in the Prologue and the Epilogue is a type of Israel, partly suggested the figurative description of the Servant of Yahwe the personification of the company of pious Israelites in the age inaugurated by Ezra which regarded itself as the true, spiritual Israel. Reflecting on the cause of Job's misery, the writer (of Is. 53) came to the conclusion that God must have appointed this for the good of those who, unlike Job, were trans gressors (cp 42:8), and that Job s consciousness of this must have helped him to bear his sufferings uncom plainingly. 3 And taking Job to be a type of Israel, he became assured that true Israelites, who bore the sufferings brought upon them through the great national calamity as uncomplainingly as Job (i.e. , the Job of the original Book), would like him be the means of salvation to others, and would thus, like him, demonstrate the possibility of disinterested piety. It must surely be admitted that the two writers (of the original Job and of the Servant passages) belonged to the same period, and if so it is probable that they lived subsequently to the introduction of Ezra s lawbook, for this is the period to which the passages on the Servant of Yahwe may most plausibly be assigned (see SERVANT OF THE LORD). It is, however, not quite impossible to give both Is. 53 and the original Book of Job a somewhat earlier date, viz., somewhere about 500 B.C., which is the date to which G. Hoffmann, Hiob, 34, assigns the genuine Book of Job.

1 This is of importance. Dillmann asserts, In Zech. (1 io./ 3 if. 65) the Prologue of Job is already used and imitated" (Hioti, Einl. p. xxxvi). See, however, Nowack, Kl. Pr. 325.

2 But see Budde s note.

3 Jew. Rel. Life, 162.

It is impossible to estimate with precision the amount of linguistic evidence for the late date of Prologue, Epilogue, and Colloquies, owing to the frequent uncertainty of the text. ^For instance, the first three words cited by Dillmann (p. xxxi) as Aramaic probably do not belong to the true text of the Colloquies. 1?3 in 16:15 and 3fl in 31:33 are corrupt; and 15:17-18, which contains ran ( a favourite word of Elihu), is a wretched distich, which has no place in this fine poem ; nirtK, a doubly Aramaic form, also occurs in an interpolated distich (18:17; see Bick., Du.)- afTk which Beer (p. 83) and Nestle (ZATW1Q 172 [1900]) rightly claim as an Aram, word for aerxos (so @), skin-bottle, is found again in an inserted dis tich (ISzs; see Du.); "into, <m y witness, 1619 and "HBE in 2613 (see RAHAB) are corrupt. There are, however, un doubted Aramaisms, such as |D3 (622), 7^D (82), nVo with plural D ^D and J ^D (6:26, 12:11, 13:17, and often), ID (13:27), DDJ3 (168 [?], 22:16), Htiv and ntiff (87 u 12:23).

Dillmann accounts for these partly as dialectal peculiarities, partly as arising from a rhythmic need of variety; but the former explanation cannot safely be pressed. As words, or senses of words, characteristic of later Hebrew (7th or 6th century) he mentions

(a) 73p, 2 10 ; (6) "N3 to determine (22 28), an Aramaic usage. But Dillmann s note on 22 28 is most unsatisfactory ; he is com pelled to take the next word TDK to mean a thing a purely imaginary meaning, though one commentator after another re affirms it. The passage is corrupt ; TDNIUrn comes from Dnrtjpl (continue spSn IT) ; the line is copied from 11 17 (on which see Exp. T 10 381 f. [ 99]) ; it occurs in the late appendage to the third speech of Eliphaz; (c) *]gn [Aram.], 14 20 1624; (d) n|D, 7 3 (a doubtful passage). 1 (f) "I nn, to let loose (the hand), 69. Here again the text is corrupt ; we can emend with more confidence than in 73. Read JXlH l "h iny, that he would grant my prayer and shatter me. (f) 3 "n, tyrant, 21 28, as in Is. 13 2. The change from liberal, noble to tyrant is not probable (contrast Is. 32 5), and it is better to emend to 113:1 in both passages, (g) fSn, interest, 21 21, 22 3. (A) TID, 10 22. t But SheOl was certainly not D "1"JP~X7, disorderly ; D K7 is based on a miswritten form of DID?*. 2 (f) YXJ3, branches (149, etc.). (j) O SV? , 4 13 20 2 (doubtful passages). Ci)fflxfo,81& (0 n^DB, 2(i io. (;) n3^n, 21 34. Dillmann also mentions the use of 7 for the accusative, and the occasional use of the plural in p-. He might have added that the relative E> only occurs once in the MT of the Colloquies (19 29^ 3 ) ; it is found, however, in Lam. %4f. (see LAMENTATIONS).

On the whole, Dillmann has not been able to indicate many distinctly late Hebrew words in the Colloquies ; rare words, only to be explained from the Arabic, need not necessarily be late, though the possibility of the late adoption of Arabic words in literary Hebrew cannot be denied. 4 It would seem that if the writer is of late date (and the other arguments go far to prove that he is so) he took pains to cultivate a classic Hebrew style, and his success shows that the facilities for writing such Hebrew were great ; there was probably a regular school for the practice of classic Hebrew writing. The falling off in the Hebrew of Ben Sira is very noticeable.

To place the Book of Job whether in a larger or a narrower sense in the age of Jeremiah (Dill., Konig), or more precisely not long before the siege of Jerusalem , is becoming more and more difficult. It is true, the death of Josiah, and the sad events which rapidly followed, must have prompted the question, Wherefore doth the way of the wicked prosper (Jer. 12:1 ; cp Job 21:7)? Moreover, we actually find Jeremiah (20:14-18) cursing the day on which he was born. It is true, both passages are liable to grave suspicion, and may without arbitrariness be regarded as secondary ; even Dillmann questions 20:14-18. But even accepting provisionally Jeremiah s authorship of both passages, we cannot draw any critical inference from this. Poetry like that of Job and the Psalms represents, not the scanty band of a prophet s disciples, but that large section of the community which had at length absorbed Jeremiah's ideas. The probability, therefore, is that the poems which contain parallels to passages plausibly ascribed to Jeremiah were written a good while after that prophet s age. It is true the language of Job is so vigorous and, comparatively speaking, so pure (especially when a methodical textual criticism has been applied) that apart from other considerations one s first impulse might be to place such a book rather early. But very early it is impossible to place it, and a time of rapid national decline, like that of Jeremiah, is really less suitable for the composition of such a fine work than any moderately quiet part of the Persian period. As a compromise we might of course refer the work to the exilic period (see Davidson, 1 p. Ixvii ; Che. Job and Sol. 74). But when we take the ideas of the book into consideration, we see that it is best understood as the provisional summing up of a long period of meditation under the combination of special influences which existed in the post-exilic age and at no other period.

1 The parallelism is bad, and the distich does not fit in with the context. 7 13D is a corruption of JIN.

2 The scribe may have collected the singular combination of corrupt variants in v. 22 from different manuscripts.

3 See Konig (/ /. 417), who, with Dillmann, reads "tv. Probably the passage is glossatorial. See also KSnig on the variation of usage in Job between jx and :nN-

4 Ibn Ezra (on Job 2 n) expresses the opinion that the Book of Job is a translation. In his Liber Jpbi (1737) Schultens describes the language as Hebraso-Arabic, and says that it expresses the true genius of Arabic. This is in every way an exaggeration.

How much later the existing Colloquies were sub stituted for the original Colloquies or Colloquy, is of course uncertain. The former imply a heightened interest in the problem of suffering. The wise men tell Job that he must have been a great sinner to have been overtaken by such a calamity. So in Is. 63:17 we find the Jewish community asking why Yahwe had caused the Jews to err from his ways, and hardened their hearts so as not to fear him ? The company of faithful Jews ( = the Servant of Yahwe) could not remember any transgressions sufficient to account for the recent aggra vation of their misery. They were those who worked righteousness and remembered the ways that God would have (Is. 64:5a); yet they were compelled to suppose that Israel had somehow broken faith, and become guilty in the eyes of God, so that all their righteous deeds (which they could no more disown than Job could disown his righteousness) were as a filthy garment (Is. 64s W/). and consequently they had to bear the weight of God s unaccountable anger. This is analogous to whSU the three Friends would have had Job say, and what he stoutly refused to say ; there is nothing to compare with it in the section consisting of Is. 40-55 (see 40:27, 49:14).

The later we bring down the date of the Colloquies the better we can understand not only the atmosphere of political and social unrest (see, e.g., 7:1) which seems to pervade them (cp 12:17-25, 14:1-2), but also the wide intellectual interests of the author. Even if we restrict our view to Job 3-19, the extent of those interests is very striking ; the earlier writer apparently had it in him to say nearly all the best that his successors have said. Apart from their particular controversy, both Job and the Friends state much that is admirable respecting God and human nature, and show an interest in the world of nature which can only be paralleled to some extent in the second part of Isaiah. The angelology and mythological allusions, too, indicate a remarkable freedom from religious scruple, such as we know to have characterised the later period. 2 Nor must we omit to pay homage to the purity and inwardness of the morality of Job s great self-justification (chap. 31). He may seem to be self-righteous ; but this is only due to the predominance of the conception of God as a Judge. He knows equally well with the Friends that essential purity belongs to God alone, though the passage which distinctly expresses this truth (14:4) is plainly an inter polation. 3 Job has never really fallen away from God. Nor are the authors of the Colloquies sceptics except as regards an antiquated orthodoxy. They are no doubt

in a sense cosmopolitans. Either by hearsay or by travel (cp 6:19, 21:29) they have some real acquaintance with the world outside Judcea. But to all that, from a modern Christian point of view, is fundamental in the Jewish religion Job is as loyal as Ezra himself. And what can be more truly prophetic than Job s appeal to God s love against his undiscriminating wrath ? All this can hardly have been written much tjefore the close of the Persian period. l

The Speeches of Yahwe (38-42:5) belong to a poet of the same school as the poem on the Divine Wisdom (28:1-27) ; they are, however, of somewhat earlier date than that fine poem, which contains one line borrowed from the Speeches (v. 26b ; cp 38:25b). The writer s in terest in the problem of suffering is but slight. Nor does philosophical speculation attract him : he is an observer a poetic observer of nature. Chap. 28 has special affinities with the eulogies of wisdom in Prov. 3:13-20 and 8:22-31. The happy tone, the interest in nature, and in the case of chap. 28 (and parallels) the tendency to hypostatize Wisdom, suggest the bringing down of all these works to the period of widened outlook and greater freedom from anxiety at the beginning of the Greek rule. We need not, however, on this account identify roan. wisdom, with the \6yos or the voOs iroi-rj- rt/c6? ; indeed, such a view would oblige us, with Duhm, to bring down Prov. 8:22-31 and Job 28 to the third century B.C. The Zoroastrian conception of the two fold wisdom 2 (heavenly and earthly) is old enough to have influenced the Jews : Persian (and Babylonian) influences continued to be felt long after the fall of the Persian Empire.

1 In ( 9 ) Professor Davidson places the Book somewhere in the troubled period between the early part of the seventh and the fifth centuries.

2 See Job and Sol. wff.\ OPs. 270; and cp Budde. ffioi, Einl. 44y:

3 It interrupts the connection. Budde keeps the passage in the text, but in the note inclines to regard it as an interpolation (so Bick., Beer).

15. Growth and object of Job.[edit]

The various conflicting theories which have been offered as to the purpose of the book will now be seen to proceed from a false assumption. The book of Job has no literary unity, and cannot have had a purpose. It has grown ; it has not been made. The different parts of the book, however, had their purpose, which must be sought for by an exegesis unfettered by a priori theories. The earliest writer wished to suggest that righteous Israel s sufferings were an honour, because they showed that Israel s service of God was disinterested. The next writer simply gave expression to the conflict ing thoughts of his time on the great problem of suffer ing ; he himself had no definite solution to give. A third writer could only offer the anodyne of the poetic imaginative observation of the wonders of nature. A fourth sought to undo the work of his predecessors by restating a theory which had not, he thought, been adequately represented before. The present book is heterogeneous and amorphous ; it gives us, however, a picture of Jewish religious life and thought which is of priceless value. For a subtle and interesting attempt to commend a very different view see 4 of the Introduc tion to Budde s commentary.

1 SeeKleinert, Das spezifisch-hebraische im B. Hiob, *$"/. Kr., 86, p. 290 ff.

2 See Expositor, 92 a, p. 79 ; cp PERSIA (Religion).

3 See 17 a. For Bickell s earlier view of <S, see his De indole ac ratione Versionis Alexandrincz in interpretando libra Jobi ('63)

16. Versions.[edit]

The genuine Septuagint text has been practically recovered from the Sahidic Version (Coptic of Upper Egypt) of Job published by P. Agostino Ciasca in 1889; 39:9b-40:7 is the only lacuna. It is shorter than the Hebrew text by nearly 400 stichi. Origen in his Hexapla supplied its deficiencies from Theodotion, mark ing the insertions by asterisks, and there are still five MSS which give Origen s marks more or less com pletely (see Hatch, Essays on Biblical Greek, 216). Hatch in 1889 accepted the shorter Septuagint form as that of the original Book of Job, and Bickell (1892- 1894), whenever his metrical theory will allow it, follows the Greek. 3 Dillmann, however, in the Transactions of the Royal Prussian Academy (Textkritisches zum B. Ijob, '90) has subjected Hatch s arguments to a de tailed consideration, and has shown that, except in a few cases, the omissions were arbitrarily made by the Greek translator, or, as we might almost better call him, paraphrast. This does not, of course, exclude the possibility that some of the omissions may be justifiable on grounds of internal criticism, and that the translator may have been partly guided by warning signs (Paseks) in the Hebrew text indicating the non-originality of certain passages, some of which signs may easily have become misplaced. See further Budde, Hiob, Einl. xlviii^ ; Beer, Textkritische Studien zum B. Job, ZATW 16297^ ( 96), 17 w/. ( 97), 18257 ff. T98). Beer s work deals with all the versions ; see also his Text des B. Hiob two parts ( 95, 98). On the Peshitta, see A. Mandl, Die Peschittha zu Hiob, nebst einem. Anhang jib. ihrer Verhaltniss zur LXX u. Targum ( 92), andE. Baumann, ZATWl&ios/. ( 98), 19 288^: ( 99), 20 177 ff. (1900). See also W. Bacher, Das Targ. zu Hfob, A1GWJ 20208-223 ( 71), and H. Gratz, Das Zeitalter der griech. Uebersetz. des B. H., MG WJ 2683-91 ( 77)-

17. Literature.[edit]

(a) Text. Now that the study of the textual criticism of Job is entering on a new stage, we must not omit to trace its earlier history. These are the chief names. C. F. Houbigant (priest of the Oratory), Notm Criticce in universes VT litres 2 IS5-2I& (1777). A hundred years later, A. Merx, Das Gedicht von Hiob (1871), reviewed unfavourably by Ewald, GGA, Nov. 29, "71, but gratefully by H. Schultz, JDT lt> ( 71)]. The import ance of the book lies in its treatment of the text, especially in its attempt at a methodical use of the versions, not so much in its use of a theory of strophes to discover interpolations or lacunae. P. de Lagarde, Prophets Chaldaice, see pp. 1 . f. ( 72). G. Bickell, Carmina I/T metrice, 150-187 ( 82), giving the text of Job arranged according to his metrical theory, marks, a step forward ; cp Flunk in Z.KT, 82, p. 340^ G. H. Bateson Wright, The Book of Job, a new critically revised translation, with essays on scansion, date, etc. ( intended to follow in the wake of the critical edition of A. Merx ), a pioneering work, produced at Hong Kong, with easily explained defects, and strange indications of a critical tendency almost new among students of the text of Job (cp Budde, TLZ, June 14, 84 ; Cheyne, Job and Solomon, 113 ; JQR 9 574, [ 97]). H. Gratz, MGWJ 36 ( 87), in a review of Cheyne s Job and Solomon, which contains a conspectus of Gratz s emendations as far as chap. 29, not included in the posthumous Emendationes. G. Hoffmann, Hiob ( 91); cp Cheyne, Crit. Rev. 1 250-259 ( 91). Bickell, Der ursprungl. Sept.-text des B. Job, ZKT, 86, p. 557 ft I Krit. Bearbeitung des Job-dialogs, WZKM, 92, pp. I 37 ff- *$*ff- 327^.; 93, PP- iff- 153 # , 94, P- 121 ; of the highest importance .in spite of its too frequent arbitrariness, which is subjected to good-natured banter by Budde. Perhaps, however, Budde would have improved his own work by adopting more from Bickell. The theory that the poetical portions (except the eight-line speech of Yahwe and certain passages in tristichs) are composed in four-line strophes cannot be said to have been overthrown by Budde. On Bickell s view of the original Septu agint, see C. Siegfried Job in SBOT (Heb.), 93; cp. R. Gottheil, JQR 7 552 ff. ( 94). Bickell s work was not in time to be used by Siegfried. J. Ley, Die metrische Beschaffenheit des B.H. St.Kr. 95, pp. 635-692, and later essays in St.Kr. 99. G. Beer ( os- gS) ; Budde ( 96); Duhm ( 97); see below. Perles, Analtkten^s). Cheyne, The Text of Job, JQA 9 573^ ( 97); More Critical Gleanings from Job, Exp. 7*10 380 ft ( 99), and many scattered notes in JQR, Exp. T, Crit. Bib., and the present work.

(b} Metre. J. Ley, as above. Paul Vetter, Die Metrik des B. Job ( 97). See also Bickell, Budde, Duhm, and cp POETICAL LITERATURE, 8.

(c) Commentaries and Translations. For orientation in the work of the earlier exegesis, see Del. s indispensable work on Job, Introduction, 10, History of Exegesis ; cp Diestel, Gesch. des A T in der christl. Kirche. No other book was so impossible to interpret before the reawakening of linguistic know ledge as that of Job. In the i6th century Mercerus (1573) both for Job and for the Solomonic writings did work of some icrmanent value. The famous passage, Job 19 25, he explains of pb s hope of a public recognition of his innocence by God in _,is lifetime. The first strictly philological commentary is that of Albert Schultens, Liber Jobi, 2 vols. Leyden, 1737 a magnifi cent and thorough attempt to apply the key of Arabic philology to problems which were often only created by corruption of the text. Elizabeth Smith (d. 1805), translation, 10. S. Lee, 37. H. Ewald, Dichter des Alien BundesP), 3 ( 54) ; cp Cheyne, Founders, 88 f. J. G. Stickel, 42. K. Schlottmann, 51. E. Renan, Le Livre de Job, 59. F. Delitzsch, 64, (ET 76). A. Dillmann, in KGH, 69, 0,1 (valuable). A. Merx, 71 (see above). A. Elzas, 72 (Jewish). F. C. Cook (Speakers Comm.), 73. F. Hitzig, "74. J. C. Matthes, part i, 76 (philological commentary; excellent). G. L. Studer, Das B.H.fur geistliche u. gebildete Laien, 81 (a useful companion to his critical essays ; see below). E. Reuss, in La sainte Bible, Anc. Test. vi. ( 78), and Hiob (translation), 88. G. H. B. Wright, 83 (see above). A. B. Davidson, Commentary, vol. i. 62 (philological), 84 (in Cam bridge Bible). W. Volck, in KGK, 89. G. H. Gilbert, The Poetry of Job, part i., a rhythmical translation^ in three-toned lines; part ii., interpretative essays (Chicago, 89). G. Hoffmann ('91 . trahation, etc.). Fr. Baethgen 'in Kau. HS '94. and Hi06 (translation) '99. G. Bickell, Job, in Dichtungen der Hebraer, n, 82 (translation ; should go with Carm. VT Metr. ; see above, a) ; Das B. Job nach Anleitung der Strophik u. der Septuaginta, 94 (trans lation ; should go with Bi. s later Heb. edition; see a). K. Budde, 96. B. Duhm, 97. The last two writers seem to mark a new stage in exegetical study.

(d) Articles and other contributions. A. Schultens, Amm- adversiones philologicae in librum Jobi, in Opera minora, 9-92 (1769). Fr. Boucher, in Exeg.-krit. Aehrenlese, 49, and Neue exeg.-krit. Aehrenl. (Abthl. 3), 65. J. A. Froude, Short Studies on Great Su6jects,'l 2368T67): S: Hoekstra,' 'Job de knecht van Jehovah,' Th. T 5 I 8 ('71). H. Gritz, Die Integritit der Kap. 27 u. 28 in Hiob,' MGT! 21 2418 ('??). J. Wellh. JDT, 71, P- 552^ A. Kuenen, Job en de hjdende knecht van Jahveh, ib. 7 492^ ( 73). Godet, essay in Etudes Bibliques, 74. W. H. Green, The Argument of the Book of Job unfolded, 73. Studer, Uber die Integritat des B.H. JPT, 75 p. 668 ff. J. Barth, Beitrdge zur Erkldrung des B. Job, 76. K. Budde, Beitrdge zur Krit. des B.H. j6 ; Die Capp. 27 u. 28 des B.H., ZA TW1 193^ ( 82). Fr. Giesebrecht, Der Wendepunkt des B.H., 79 (subtle; obscure in style). J. Derenbourg, Reflexions detachees, REJ 1 i ff. ( 80). T. K. Cheyne, Job ">nd the Second Part of Isaiah, Proph. /*.W 2 259^ ( 84)- : J"* and Solomon, 87. J. Grill, Zur Kritik der Composition des E.H. 90 (original). J. Meinhold, Das Problem des B.H. Neue Jahrbb. f. deutsche Theol., 92, p. 63^7; H. Gunkel, SchSpfung u. Chaos, 36 - 38 48-70 92 95 (im portant). L. Laue, Die Composition des B.H. , 95. C. H. H. Wright, Biblical Essays, 1-33, 86. G. G. Bradley, Lectures on Job, 87. Seyring, Die Abhdngigkeit der Spriiche Sal. Cap. 1-9 von Hiob 89. D. B. Macdonald, The original form of the Legend of Job, JBL, 14 63^ ( 95)- H. L. Strack, Die Prioritatdes B.H. gegeniiberden Einleitungsreden z.d. bpr. hal. St.Kr., 96, p. 609^ J. Ley, Die dramat. Anlage der Hiob- dichtung, Neue Jahrbb. f. Philos. u. Pddagogik, 96(2), T.if>ff.\ Charakteristik der drei Freunde Hiobs, St.Kr., 1900, p. 33^ S. R. Driver, Sceptics of the OT, Contemp. Rev., 96, p. 257^ T. K. Cheyne, The Book of Job and its Latest Commentator, Expos., 97 a, p. 401 ff.\ 976, p. 22^; Jew. Rel. Life, 98, passim. R. G. Moulton, 96 (in Modern Reader s Bible).

Among the Introductions see especially those of Driver, Cor- nill, and Wildeboer. T. K. C.


(33 V, 1 60 BAB [BADFL]).

1. One of the thirteen tribes called sons of JOKTAN (Gen. 102 9> iu/3a5 [E] ; i Ch. 123 om. B, wpa/i [A]). Its precise seat is unknown, but there may be an echo of the name in that of the Yukaibab (anvr), a tribe mentioned in two of Glaser s inscriptions (Skisse, 2303), which seems to have been subject to the Saboean king. Cp Di. s note.

2. b. Zerah, an Edomite king whose city was Bozrah (Gen. 36 33 /, ia>M [A in v. 33], iwjSax [E] ; i Ch. 1 4 4/, i<oa/3a/3 [B in v. 44 only]) ; identified with Job in the appendix to the version of that book (42 17^). Cp schol. in Field s Hex. on Gen. 36 I.e.

3. King of Madon, who joined Jabin, king of Hazor, against Joshua (Josh. 11 1, icoa/3 [L]).

The name Jobab appears twice in a genealogy of BENJAMIN (a v. 9, ii. |3), 4. b. Shaharaim (i Ch. 8 9) (see JQR 11 108, 6), and s b. Elpaal (i Ch. 8 18, i<oa/3 [B]) (see JQR 11 102^, i,

Very possibly Jobab is not always correct. Joab or Jonadab is more probable (cp HOBAB) ; is often omitted or misread.

T. K. C.


(hebrew script, probably 'Yahwè is [my tribe's] glory', cp §§ 38, 80; greek script [BAFL]) was, according to P, the dōdāh (hebrew script) or aunt of Amram, who took her to wife; their children were Aaron, Moses, and Miriam (Ex. 620 [P], Nu. 2659† [R], -greek script [A]). The tradition (a) that the mother of Moses was a daughter of Levi (i.e., a woman of the tribe of Levi) was certainly, and the tradition (b) that her name was Jochebed was possibly, earlier than P, because (1) the phrase 'daughter of Levi' is used of Moses' mother in Ex. 2:1 (E), and (2) names compounded with Jeho- (Jo-) were apparently regarded by P as of somewhat later origin (see Nu. 13:16). It is noteworthy, however, that the narrators nowhere call Moses and Aaron b'nē Amram; we cannot be sure that in the earlier tradition Moses was not like Mel- chizedek, greek script. A son of the second Phinehas (b. Eli) was probably called Jochebed (see Ichabod). This would hardly have been so if tradition attached the same name to Moses mother. We may safely assume, however, that Jochebed was a name current in the family of Aaron and Moses from the Sinaitic period, and perhaps it is the long looked-for key to the mysterious name hebrew script (Jacob) which has doubtless been worn down in popular use from some longer name, which we need not suppose to have included the divine title el. Cp Jacob, § i.

On the name see Nestle, Eig. 77ff.; Gray, HPN 156, and cp Names, § 112. Q's representation of Jochebed as Amram's cousin (Ex. 620) is interesting; a dōdāh could not marry her nephew, according to Lev. 1812 2019. But perhaps (G is right: hebrew script could easily disappear after hebrew script. Cp Kinship, § 5, Marriage, § 2.

T. K. C.


i. i Esd. 5s8 (icoAd. [A]) = Ezra 89, JUDAH

2. (i8a [Ti. WH]), Lk. 826 RV, AV JUDA. See GENE ALOGIES ii., jf.


("WV [Bit.], "WV [Ginsb., misprint?]; iu)&A [B, omitting preceding yioc], I60&A [AL]. AB [N], cp on the name, Ki. s note 2 Ch. 929, SBOT), a Benjamite (Neh. 11 7).


pKV ; icoHA [BXAL]).

1. b. Pethuel (Joel 1 1), see next art.

2. The eldest son of Samuel the prophet ; see SAMUEL. In the parallel passage i Ch. 6 28 [13], for n 3N1 JE l TOan (AV the firstborn Vashni and Abiah) we must read ,T2K 3i? rn 7KV TDQrt 1 (cp RV the firstborn Joel and the second Abiah ). The com parison of the two texts illustrates, in an interesting manner, the ways in which errors have found their way into ST. Accord ing to the Chronicler (i Ch. 6 33 [18] and 15 17), Joel is the father of the singer HEMAN (q.v.).

3. The brother of Nathan of Zobah, i Ch. 11 38 (so A*-, but B in both Ch. and S. , followed by Bertheau, Keil, Gesenius, the son of Nathan ) and one of David s heroes. In 2 S. 2836 his name appears as ^NV (see IGAL). The correct reading is doubtful, since in S. <S L reads t<oi)A ( B A, however, read -yooA). For ZOBAH, however, Marquart (Fund. 21) would read nsssn = n31tsn in Benjamin.

4. A Simeonite prince (i Ch. 435).

5. In i Ch. 648 Joel would seem to have dropped out of the preceding verse, or else we must insert here the name of one of the sons of Reuben. Pesh. reads here CARMI, which is probably right.

6. A Gadite chief (i Ch. 5 12).

7. A Kehathite, i Ch. 6 36 [21]. In v. 24 [9] his name appears as SHAUL (q.v.\ He is mentioned again in zCh. 2i>i2. See GENEALOGIES i., 7 (iii., c).

8. b. IZRAHIAH (q.v.), i Ch. 7 3 (par,A [B]).

9. A Gershonite chief (i Ch. 16711), descended from Ladan (iCh. 238). Cp 10 below.

10. b. Jehieli, a Gershonite temple treasurer (iCh. 2622). Joel was perhaps looked upon as a favourite Gershonite name ; cp GENEALOGIES i., 7 (iii.j b. n.).

11. b. Pedaiah, a Manassite captain (i Ch. 27 20).

12. One of the b ne NEBO in list of those with foreign wives (see EZRA i., 5 end), Ezra 1043 = 1 Esd. 935, JUEL (ovTjA [B], iov)A [A]).

13. b. Zichri, in list of Benjamite inhabitants of Jerusalem (see EZRA ii., 56, 15 [i]a), Neh. 11 9.

1 This is actually supplied by LXX{L}.


The second book among the minor prophets is entitled 'The word of Yahwe that came to Joel the son of Pethuel', or, as the LXX (lu-rj\ rbv TO ~ p a()ovr]X [BSAQ]), Latin, Syriac, and other version's read, 'of Bethuel'.

1. Scarcity of data.[edit]

Nothing is recorded as to the date or occasion of the prophecy, which presents several peculiarities that aggravate the difficulty always felt in interpreting an ancient book when the historical situation of the author is obscure. Most Hebrew prophecies contain pointed references to the foreign politics and social relations of the nation at the time. In the book of Joel there are only scanty allusions to Phoenicians, Philistines, Egypt, and Edom, couched in terms applicable to very different ages, while the prophet s own people are exhorted to repentance without specific reference to any of those national sins of which other prophets speak. The occasion of the prophecy, described with great force of rhetoric, is no known historical event, but a plague of locusts, perhaps repeated in successive seasons ; and even here there are features in the description which have led many ex positors to seek an allegorical interpretation. The most remarkable part of the book is the eschatological picture with which it closes ; and the way in which the plague of locusts appears to be taken as foreshadowing the final judgment the great day or assize of Yahwe, in which Israel s enemies are destroyed is so unique as greatly to complicate the exegetical problem. It is not therefore surprising that the most various views are still held as to the date and meaning of the book. Allegorists and literalists still contend over the first and still more over the second chapter, and whilst the largest number of recent interpreters accept Credner s view that the prophecy was written in the reign of Joash of Judah, a rising and powerful school of critics follow the view suggested by Vatke (Bib. Theol. 462 / ), and reckon Joel among the post-exilic prophets. Other scholars give yet other dates ; see the particulars in the elaborate work of Merx (see below, 8). The followers of Credner are literalists ; the opposite school of moderns includes some literalists (as Duhrn), whilst others (like Hilgenfeld, and, in a modified sense, Merx) adopt the old allegorical interpretation which treats the locusts as a figure for the enemies of Jerusalem.

2. Alternative dates.[edit]

The reasons for placing Joel either earlier or later than the great series of prophets extending from the time when , Amos first proclaimed the approach of the Assyrian down to the Babylonian exile are cogent.

In Joel the enemies of Israel are the nations collectively, and among those specified by name neither Assyria nor Chaldaea finds a place. This circumstance might, if it stood alone, be explained by placing Joel with Zephaniah in the brief interval between the decline of the empire of Nineveh and the advance of the Babylonians. It is further obvious, however, that Joel has no part in the internal struggle between spiritual Yahwe- worship and idolatry which occupied all the prophets from Amos to the captivity. He presupposes a nation of Yahwe-worshippers, whose religion has its centre in the temple and priesthood of Zion, which is indeed conscious of sin, and needs forgiveness and an outpouring of the spirit, but is not visibly divided, as the kingdom of Judah was, between the adherents of spiritual prophecy and a party whose national worship of Yahwe involved for them no fundamental separation from the surrounding nations.

The book, therefore, must have been written before the ethico-spiritual and the popular conceptions of Yahwe came into conscious antagonism, or else after the fall of the state and the restoration of the community of Jeru salem to religious rather than political existence had de cided the contest in favour of the prophets, and of the law in which their teaching was ultimately crystallized.

3. Supposed early date.[edit]

The considerations which have given currency to an early date for Joel are of various kinds. The absence of all mention of the one great oppressing world-power seems most natural before the westward march of Assyria involved Israel in the general politics of Asia. The purity of the style also is urged, and a comparison of Amos 1:2 Joel 3 [4] :16, and Amos 9:13 Joel 3 [4] :18 has been taken as proving that Amos knew our book.

The last argument might be inverted with much greater probability, and numerous points of contact between Joel and other parts of the OT (e.g., Joel 2:2 Exod. 10:14, Joel 2:3 Ezek. 36:35, Joel 3 [4] :10, Mic. 4:3) make it not incredible that the purity of his stylewhich is rather elegant than original and strongly - marked is in large measure the fruit of literary culture. The absence of allusion to a hostile or oppressing empire may_be fairly taken in connection with the fact that the prophecy gives no indication of political life at Jerusalem. When the whole people is mustered in 1:13 f., the elders or sheikhs of the municipality and the priests of the temple are the most prominent figures. The king is not mentioned, which on Credner s view is explained by assuming that the plague fell in the minority of Joash, when the priest Jehoiada held the reins of power, and the princes, councillors, and warriors necessary to an independent state, and so often referred to by the prophets before the Exile, are altogether lacking. The nation has only a municipal organisation with a priestly aristo cracy, precisely the state of things that prevailed under the Persian empire. That the Persians do not appear as enemies of Yahwe and his people is perfectly natural. They were hard masters but not invaders, and under them the enemies of the Jews were their neighbours, just as appears in Joel. 1

Those, however, who place our prophet in the minority of King Joash, draw a special argument from the mention of Phoenicians, Philistines, and Edomites (3[4] :4-5, 3[4]:19), pointing to the revolt of Kdom under Joram (2 K. 8:20), and the incursion of the Philistines in the same reign (2 Ch. 21:16, 22:1). These were recent events in the time of Joash, and in like manner the Phoenician slave trade in Jewish children is carried back to an early date by the reference in Amos (1:9).

This argument is specious rather than sound. Edom's hostility to Judah was incessant, but the feud reached its full intensity only after the time of Deuteronomy (23:7 [8]), when the Edomites joined the Chaldeans, drew profit from the overthrow of the Jews, whose land they partly occupied, and exercised barbarous cruelty towards the fugitives of Jerusalem (Obad. passim, Mal. 1:2-3, Is. 63). The offence of shedding innocent blood charged on them by Joel, is natural after these events, but hardly so in connection with the revolt against Joram.

As regards the Philistines, it is impossible to lay much weight on the statement of Chronicles, unsupported as it is by the older history, and in Joel the Philistines plainly stand in one category with the Phcenicians, as slave dealers, not as armed foes. Gaza in fact was a slave emporium as early as the time of Amos (1:6), and continued so till Roman times.

Thus, if any inference as to date can be drawn from chap. 3 [4], it must rest on special features of the trade in slaves, which was always an important part of the commerce of the Levant.

In the time of Amos the slaves collected by Philistines and Tyrians were sold en masse to Edom, and presumably went to Egypt or Arabia. Joel complains that they were sold to the Grecians (Javan, lonians). 2 It is probable that some Hebrew and Syrian slaves were exported to the Mediterranean coasts from a very early date, and Is. 11:11 already speaks of Israelite captives in these districts as well as in Egypt, Ethiopia, and the East.

The traffic in this direction, however, hardly became extensive till a later date.

In Deut. 28:68 Egypt is still the chief goal of the maritime slave trade, and in Ezek. 27:13 Javan exports slaves to Tyre, not conversely. Thus the allusion to Javan in Joel bettei suits a later date, when Syrian slaves were in special request in Greece. 3 The name of Javan is not found in any part of the OT certainly older than Ezekiel. In Joel it seems to stand as a general representative of the distant countries reached by the Mediterranean (in contrast with the southern Arabians, Saberans, chap. 3 [4]: 8), the furthest nation reached by the fleets of the Red Sea. This is precisely the geographical standpoint of the post-exile author of Gen. 10:4, where Javan includes Carthage and Tartessus ; cp JAVAN.

Finally, the allusion to Egypt in Joel 3 [4] :19, must on Credner's theory be explained of the invasion of Shishak a century before Joash. From this time down to the last period of the Hebrew monarchy Egypt was not the enemy of Judah.

1 In the AV of 2:17 it appears that subjection to a foreign power is not a present fact but a thing feared. The parallelism, however, and v. 19 justify the now prevalent rendering, that the heathen should make a mock of them.

2 The hypothesis of an Arabian Javan, applied to Joel 3 [4] 6 by Credner, Hitz., and others, may be viewed as exploded. See St. De Populo favan, Giessen Programme, 80 (reprinted in Akademische Reden u. Abhandlungcn, 99, 125^).

3 Cp Movers, PhSnizisches Alterthum,\\\. 1 ^of.

4 See Ewald on Jer. 4847, and Kuenen, T/i.7\ 1873, p. 519 f. [Di. on Job42setc.].

4. Probable late date.[edit]

If the arguments chiefly relied on for an early date are so precarious or can even be turned against their inventors, there are others of an unambiguous kind which make for a date in the persianperiod. It appears from chap. 3:1-2 that Joel wrote after the Exile.

The phrase, to bring back the captivity (nnc 31E>), would not alone suffice to prove this, for it is used in a wide sense, and perhaps means rather to reverse the calamity ; 4 but the dispersion of Israel among the nations, and the allotment of the Holy Land to new occupants, cannot fairly be referred to any calamity less than that of the captivity.

With this the whole standpoint of the prophecy agrees. To Joel Judah and the people of Yahwe are synonyms ; Northern Israel has disappeared.

Now it is true that those who take their view of the history from Chronicles, where the kingdom of Ephraim is always treated as a sect outside the true religion, can reconcile this fact with an early date. In ancient times, however, it was not so ; and under Joash, the contemporary of Elisha, such a limitation of the people of Yahwe is wholly inconceivable. The earliest prophetic books have quite a different standpoint ; other wise, indeed, the books of northern prophets and historians could never have been admitted into the Jewish canon.

Again, the significant fact that there is no mention of a king and princes, but only of sheikhs and priests, has a force not to be invalidated by the ingenious reference of the book to the time of Joash's minority and the supposed regency of Jehoiada. 1

Moreover the assumption that there was a period before the pro- Ehetic conflicts of the eighth century when spiritual prophecy ad unchallenged sway, when there was no gross idolatry or superstition, when the priests of Jerusalem, acting in ac cord with prophets like Joel, held the same place as heads of a pure worship which they occupied after the Exile (cp Ewald, PrtJ/>/ieien,\8g), is not consistent with history. It rests on the old theory of the antiquity of the Levitical legislation, so that in fact almost 2 all who place that legislation later than Ezekiel, are agreed that the book of Joel is also late.

In this connection one point deserves special notice. The religious significance of the plague of drought and locusts is expressed in chap. 1:9 in the observation that the daily meal-offering and drink- offering are cut off, and the token of newblessing is the restoration of this service, chap. 2:14. In other words, the daily offering is the continual symbol of gracious intercourse between Yahwe and his people and the mam office of religion. This conception, which finds its parallel in Dan. 8:11, 11:31, 12:11, is quite in accordance with the later law (cp the importance attached to the meal-offering and burnt-offering in Neh. 10:33 [34]).

Such is the historical basis which we seem to be able to lay for the study of the exegetical problems of the book.

5. First part.[edit]

The style of Joel is clear, and his language presents little difficulty beyond the occurrence of several unique words, which in part may very well be due to errors of the text. On the other hand, the structure of the book, the symbolism, and the connection of the prophet's thoughts, have given rise to much controversy. It seems safest to start from the fact that the prophecy is divided into two well-marked sections by chap. 2:18-19a.

According to the Massoretic vocalisation, which is in harmony with the most ancient exegetical tradition as contained in , these words are historical : 'Then Yahwe was jealous . . . and answered and said unto his people, Behold', etc. Such is the natural meaning of the words as vocalised, and the proposal of Merx to change the vowels so as to transform the perfects into futures, and make the priests pray that Yahwe will answer, and deliver the gracious promises that fill the rest of the book, is an exegetical monstrosity not likely to find adherents.

Thus the book falls into two parts. In the first the prophet speaks in his own name, addressing himself to the people in a lively description of a present calamity caused by a terrible plague of locusts which threatens the entire destruction of the country, and appears to be the vehicle of a final consuming judgment (the day of Yahwe).

There is no hope save in repentance and prayer ; and in chap. 2:12 the prophet, speaking now for the first time in Yahwe's name, calls the people to a solemn fast at the sanctuary, and invites the intercession of the priests. The calamity is described in the strongest colours of Hebrew hyperbole, and it seems arbitrary to seek too literal an interpretation of details, e.g., to lay weight on the four names of locusts (see LOCUST), or to take chap. 1:20 of a conflagration produced by drought, when it appears from 2:3 that the ravages of the locusts them selves are compared to those of fire.

When due allowance is made for Eastern rhetoric, there is no occasion to seek in this section anything else than literal locusts.

Nay, the allegorical interpretation, which takes the locusts to be hostile invaders, breaks through the laws of all reasonable writing ; for the poetical hyperbole which compares the invading swarms to an army (2:4-5) would be inconceivably lame if a literal army were already concealed under the figure of the locusts. Nor could the prophet so far forget himself in his allegory as to speak of a victorious host as entering the con quered city like a thief (2:9).

1 Stade (pp. clt. 17 \Akad. Reden, 142]) not unreasonably cjuestions whether 2 K. 12 1-3 [2-4] implies the paramount political influence of Jehoiada.

2 Reuss (La Bible, and Gesch. Heil. Schr. A T, 2io/), though with hesitation, adhered to the earlier date.

6. Second part.[edit]

The second part of the book is Yahwe's answer to the people's prayer. The answer begins with a promise of deliverance from famine, and of fruitful seasons compensating for the ravages of the locusts.

In the new prosperity of the land the union of Yahwe and his people shall be sealed anew, and so Yahwe will proceed to pour down further and higher blessings. The aspiration of Moses (Num. 11:29), and the hope of earlier prophets (Is. 32:15 592i ; cp Jer. 31:33), shall be fully realised in the outpouring of the Spirit on all the Jews and even upon their servants (cp Is. 01 5 with 566yl) ; and then the great day of judgment, which had seemed to overshadow Jerusalem in the now averted plague, shall draw near with awful tokens of blood and fire and darkness.

The terrors of that day are not for the Jews but for their enemies.

The worshippers of Yahwe on Zion shall be delivered (cp Obad. v. 17, whose words Joel expressly quotes in chap. 2:32 [3:5]), and it is their heathen enemies, assembled before Jerusalem to war against Yahwe, who shall be mowed down (see JEHOSHA- PHAT, VALLEY OF) by no human arm, but by heavenly warriors ( thy mighty ones, O Yahwe, 3 [4] :11). Thus definitely freed from the profane foot of the stranger (cp Is. 52 I), Jerusalem shall abide a holv city for ever. The fertilitv of the land shall be such as was long ago predicted in Am. 9:13, and streams issuing from the temple, as Ezekiel had described in his picture of the restored Jerusalem (Ezek. 47), shall fertilise the barren Wady of Acacias (cp AHEL-SHITTIM).

Egypt and Edom, on the other hand, shall become desolate, because they have shed the blood of Yahwe s innocents. Cp the similar predictions against Edom, Is. 34:9-10. (Mai. 1 3 ), and against Egypt, Is. 19s/. Ezek. 29. Joel's eschatological picture appears indeed to be largely a combination of elements from older unfulfilled prophecies.

The central feature, the assembling of the nations to judgment, is already found in Zeph. 38, and in Ezekiel s prophecy con cerning Gog and Magog, where the wonders of fire and blood named in Joel 2 30 [3 3] are also mentioned (Ezek. 8822). The other physical features of the great day, the darkening of the lights of heaven, are a standing figure of the prophets from Amos (5s 89) downwards. It is characteristic of the prophetic eschatology that images suggested by one prophet are adopted by his successors, and gradually become part of the permanent scenery of the last times ; and it is a proof of the late date of Joel that almost his whole picture is made up of such features. In this respect there is a close parallelism, extending to minor details, between Joel and the last chapters of Zechariah.

That Joel's delineation of the final deliverance and glory attaches itself directly to the deliverance of the nation from a present calamity is quite in the manner of the prophetic perspective. On the other hand, the fact that the calamity which bulks so largely is natural, not political, is characteristic of the post-exile period.

Other prophets of the same age speak much of dearth and failure of crops, which in Palestine, then as now, were aggra vated by bad government, and were far more serious to a small and isolated community than they could ever have been to th& old kingdom. It was indeed by no means impossible that Jerusalem might have been altogether undone by the famine caused by the locusts ; and so the conception of these visitants as the destroying army, executing Yahwe s final judgment, is really much more natural than appears to us at first sight, and does not need to be explained away by allegory.

7. Verse 2:20.[edit]

The chief argument relied upon by those who still find allegory at least in chap. 2, is the expression TT o :ssn, 'the northerner', in 2:20. In view of the other points of affinity between Joel and Ezekiel, this word inevitably suggests Gog and Magog, and it is difficult to see how a swarm of locusts could receive such a name, or if they came from the N. could perish, as the verse puts it, in the desert between the Mediterranean and the Dead Sea. The verse remains a crux interpretum, and no exegesis hitherto given can be deemed thoroughly satisfactory ; 1 but the interpretation of the whole book must not be made to hinge on a single word in a verse which might be altogether removed without affecting the general course of the prophet's argument.

The whole verse is perhaps the addition of an allegorising glossator. The prediction in v. 19, that the seasons shall hence forth be fruitful, is given after Yahwe has shown his zeal and pity for Israel, not of course by mere words, but by acts, as appears in v. 20-21, where the verbs are properly perfects, re- cording that Yahwe has already done great things, and that vegetation has already revived. In other words, the mercy already experienced in the removal of the plague is taken as a pledge of future grace not to stop short till all God s old promises are fulfilled. In this context v. 20 is out of place. Observe also that in v. 25 the locusts are spoken of in the plain language of chap. 1. [See PROPHETIC LITERATURE, and on the relation between passages of Joel and Amos, see AMOS, 8, 10. On the argument as to date drawn from the language of Joel, see Holzinger s article cited below.]

1 [See the commentaries. In Critica Biblica it is proposed to make v. 25 precede v. 20, and in v. 20, for the enigmatical JIEi TDKl to rea d V39TN1 ^BD rlNl, and both its rear and its van (will I remove, etc.), referring to Tflj& *?Q, my great army, which precedes. It is held that many examples occur of just Mich corruption and contraction, and just such misplace ment, as is here supposed. The sense appears good. ED.]

8. Literature.[edit]

Ew. Propheten, 1; Hitz., Keil, Pusey, v. Orelli, We., Nowack, GASm. , in their comm. on the Minor Prophets; and T -, separate comm. by Credner ( 31), Wiinsche ^^ Dr (in Cambridge Bible, 97). See also Kue. Otui. l, 68f. Merx (Die Prophetic des Joels . ihre Auslegcr, 79) gives an elaborate history of interpretation from the LXX down to Calvin, and appends the Ethiopic text edited by Di. Of older comm. the most valuable is Pococke s (Oxford, 1691). Bochart s Hieroz. may also be consulted ; cp also Dav. Expositor, March 88 ; Gray, ibid., Sept. 93 ; H. T. Fowler, JBL 16146-153; Oort, Godgeleerde Bijdragen, 66, pp. 2-15, Th. T, 76, p. 362 ff. ; Matthes, ibid., 85 pp. 34-66 129-160 ; 87, pp. 357-381; Gratz, Die einheitliche Charakter der Prophetic Joels, 73 ; Holzinger, ZATW, 89, pp. 89-131.

W. R. S. S. R. D.


(rVNl/V), b. JEROHAM [5] one of David's warriors (i Ch/127, eAl<\ [BN], I60HA& [AL]). See DAVID, ii, (a iii.).

j;V appears to be the error of a scribe who began to write -ujfl (see v. 6); read therefore fl^N, Elah (cp 98, where Elah and Jeroham again occur close together). Ki., however, suggests nVy) ; but this, though supported by many MSS (Kenn.), and perhaps by B , is less natural. T. K. C.


pUn 11 , 'Yahwe is help', cp ITIT^X Ph. "lTLvl 2, and NAMES, 28), one of David s warriors, a Korahite ( i Ch. 126 icozARA [BN], -ZA&p [A], lezpAAR [L]). See DAVID, n, (a iii.).


(nrnV; Nu. K&I YYOOCAN <\YT*.C [BAL]; Judg. lepeB^A [B], el eN&NTiAC zeBee [A], eZ eiMANTI&C N<\Be [L]), one of the cities fortified by Gad (Nu. 3235). The indications given in the story of Gideon (Judg. 8n) are sufficient to show that it is the modern Kh. Ajbehdt (so GASm. HG 585 and Baed.< 3 ) 172 ; usually el-Tubeihat), 3468 ft. above sea level, some 6 m. NNW. from Amman (Rabbath Ammon) on the road to es-Salt.

The identification is not Colider s. It had been critically defended by Dietrich, Beitrage zur bibl. Geog. , in Merx s Archiv, 346-349 (1867-69), but even before him had been accepted by Knobel and Ewald (against Gesenius and Bertheau). Cp. NOBAH, KENATH. T. K. c.


("^{P, led into exile ), father of BUKKI (Nu. 3422 [P], T erAei [B], eKAi [A], IGKAI [F], iGKAei [L]).


(Kni\ abbrev. from J3HV, 51 ; or more probably an error for TlSV i.e. , THNV, Joahaz ; cp some of LXXs forms below).

1. b. Beriah in a genealogy of BENJAMIN (q.v., 9 ii. /3) ; I Ch. 8 16 (i.iaa.\a.v [B], iu><i\a. KCU te^ia [A], Kat ieia [L]).

2. One of David's heroes (i Ch. 11 45 ; iwa&e [BNA], r,\a [L]). See DAVID, ii.


(|3n V [nos. 9-15], a shorter form of IjnirP fnos. i-8, EV nearly always JEHOHANAN!, C L , Yahwe is gracious ; cp J3H 7N, 7&O3n, etc. , and see NAMES, 28, 84. With one exception [no. 9], the name occurs only in late writings. iuavav [BXAL], luvav [BL] ; for details see JOHN, SON OF ZEBKDEE).

1. Priest temp. Joiakim (see EZRA ii., 66, ii), Neh. 1213.

2. b. Eliashib, a high-priest (Ezra 106, iiavav [*(=*], AV JOHANAN, cp Neh. 12 22 f., l^P )- In i Esd. 9 1 called JOANAN, RV JONAS (twi/a [B], om. L) ; perhaps the same as JONATHAN b. Joiada (Neh. 12 n ; but cp Meyer, Entst. 91), and possibly also the high-priest Johanan who murdered his brother Jeshua in the temple in the time of an Artaxerxes (Jos. Ant. xi. 7 i). If so, Johanan was the uncle, not the brother, of Jeshua (so Marq.).

3. A priest in procession (see EZRA ii., 13 g) Neh. 1242 (om. BN A).

4. b. Tobiah, the Ammonite, who married the daughter of Meshullam (Neh. 6 is ; ^vaQav [*< c - a A]).

5. b. Meshelemiah, a porter (i Ch. 263 : twi>as[B], Koyaflai/ [L]).

6. A captain, temp. Jehoshaphat (2 Ch. 17 15), perhaps the one whose son Ishmael is mentioned in 2 Ch. 23 i.

7. EV JOHANAN, an Ephraimite (2 Ch. 28 12 itaavov [B]).

8. One of the b ne Bebai in list of those witli foreign wives (see EZRA ^, 5 end), Ezra 1028= i Esd. 929, JOHANNES, RV JOANNES (tioawris [BA]).

9. b. KAKEA.-. (q.v.), a captain, who revealed to Gedaliah Ishmael s conspiracy. He took a leading part in the attempt made to renew the Jewish commonwealth after the destruction of Jerusalem (2 K. 2623, Jer. 408-16 iiaavvav [AQ vz>. 8 13 16 ; A v. 15 ; N* v. 16], avvav [j<* v. 15], 41 11-16 iwavvav [Q w. n 13 f. 16 ; AQ w. 14 16 x* -v. 14], inwi/d [N*] laiaavav [tfl] in v. 16; 42 1-8 itaavvav [Az>. i ; Q w. i 8], 43 2 -5 UMOTW [Q W. 24_/]). In Jer. 40s, he is mentioned along with his brother JONATHAN (3.11., no. 7).

10. b. JosiAH (i Ch. 815). <0 L reads lamias, i.e., inNin i probably this is right (see Hitz. GVI 246, and cp JEHOAHAZ).

11. b. Elioenai ( ?), a descendant of Zerubbabel (i Ch. 824 tooava^ [A]).

12. A name introduced into the list of high priests in i Ch. 69/1 [5 3S./] (iwavas [BA ; B only in 69]). See GENEALOGIES i., 7 (iv.).

13. 14. A Benjamite (i Ch. 124), and a Gadite (ib. v. 12, iiaav [B]), two of David s warriors (DAVID, ii).

15. A representative of the b ne Azgad in Ezra s caravan (see EZRA i. 2, ii. 15 [i] d), Ezra8i2=i Esd. 838, JOHANNES RV JOANNES (laxxi/jjs [B] -i//r)s [A]).


(IOOANNHC [A]), i Esd. 838 9 29. See JOHANAN, 8 15.


(IGOA.NNHC [ANY, Ti. WH] ; WH in Jn. 1 42 2lis_f. IOOANHC; for details, see JOHN, SON OF ZEBEDEE, i).

1. Father of Mattathias (i Mace. 2 1). See MACCABEES i., 3-

2. Surnamed Caddis or Gaddis, son of Mattathias (i Mace. 22). See MACCABEES i., 3.

3. Son of Acco, father of EUPOLEMUS [q.v.], i Mace. 817 2 Mace. 4 1 1.

4. Surnamed Hyrcanus, son of Simon (i Mace. 13 53 etc.). See MACCABEES i., 7.

5. An envoy from the Jews to Lysias (2 Mace. 11 17).

6. A member of the high-priestly family (Acts 4 6) otherwise un known. D substitutes Jonathas, that is, Jonathan (on the form of the name see JOHN, SON OF ZEBEDEE, i), son of the high priest ANNAS, and himself high priest in 36-37 A.D. ; he still held a prominent position in 50-52 A.D. and was assassinated at the instigation of Felix the Roman procurator (Jos. Ant. xviii. 63 xx. 85; BJ \\.\1 f,f. 183). Blass gives Jonathan in the text of Acts 4 6, not only in his edition based upon D but also in the other edition which, according to him, was made by Luke. Thus his hypothesis (Acrs, 17) finds no confirmation here, for it cannot be supposed that Luke would of his own proper motion have substituted a false name for the true. Yet confusion of the names through the carelessness of copyists is hardly more prob able. It remains for us to suppose that perhaps a John other wise unknown to us was really intended ; in this case the inser tion of Jonathan in D rests, like so much else in this codex, on learned conjecture.

7. Surnamed MARK \.q.n.\

8. Father of Simon Peter (Jn. 142 2115-17 RV); AV Jona, Jonas. See BAR-JONA.

9. The divine ; the description of the recipient of the Reve lation in the title of the Apocalypse in EV, following TR, a7roKaAui//is Iwai/i/ov TOU 0eo\oyov. So 14, 91. Other slightly different short descriptions occur, as well as longer ones, e.g., O.TTOK. iw. TOU Oeo\oyov KOH. eva-yycAitrrou (Q), and a very long eulogistic one in 7. The Divine, lit. The Theologue, inti mates that John was specially devoted to the presentation of the Logos-doctrine. This form of the title (which is not accepted by modern editors) claims the same origin for the Apocalypse as for the Fourth Gospel, in opposition to the ancient theory of a second John (see APOCALYPSE, $ 14 ; and on John 'the Elder', JOHN, SON OF ZEBEDEE).

10 and 11. John the Baptist ; and John the son of Zebedee ; see below.


(ICOANHC o BATTTICTHC [Ti. WH]). The forerunner of Jesus is only less interesting to biblical students than Jesus himself. Twice already his life and work have been referred to (ISRAEL, 92 ; JESUS, 6) ; it is our present object, to supplement these references by a more connected treatment without undue repetition.

1. appearance.[edit]

Long before the time of John the Baptist there was a great ascetic prophet who sought his inspiration in the desert, and cried 'Repent ye' with fearless impartiality before kings and common men. His life was a guiding star to many in the days of John an age not unlike his own, when alien influences again threatened to extinguish pure Hebrew religion. Not to speak of the ESSENES [q.v.], there was the hermit teacher of Josephus called Banus, who lived in the desert, covered himself with leaves, sustained life with fruits, and bathed frequently, by day and by night, in cold water for religious purity (Jos. I it. 2). The same historian also mentions John surnamed the Baptist, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to justice towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism (/JaTrrtcr/zy crvvi^vai) ; for baptism (TTJV fiaima-iv) would be acceptable to God, if they made use of it, not in order to expiate some sins, but for the purification of the body, provided that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteous ness (Ant. xviii. 62). That this is a complete statement, no one can believe. The hostility of Antipas, recorded by Josephus himself, is a proof that something more dangerous to established governments than plain moral exhortations had fallen from the lips of the desert preacher. What that was, may be learned from the synoptic gospels.

Shortly before the beginning of the public ministry of Jesus, Johanan (so let us call him) appeared in the wilder ness of Judcea, 1 announcing in the old prophetic phrase ology the approach of the Messianic judgment and the necessity of immediate turning to God. As he moved about, the number of his followers increased, and he led them to the Jordan (cp BETHABARA), there to give them as representatives of a regenerate people the final purifi cation which attested the reality of their inward change. 2 It is said to have been the opinion of doctors of the law that the waters of the Jordan were not pure enough for sacred uses. 3 Johanan, however, was not to be damped by this ; he was no formalist, or he would not have deserted Jerusalem, and called the Pharisees and the Sadducees broods of vipers. At the same time it is worthy of remark that according to Jn. 1:28, 3:23 Johanan had baptised converts at Bethany or Bethabara beyond Jordan i.e. , probably, at Beth-nimrah, which is 13^ m. E. of Jordan and at ynon, near Salim (to be emended Jerusalem. ) i. e. , perhaps, Ain Karim, which is a short distance W. of Jerusalem. 4

2. Mode of life.[edit]

As regards his mode of life, Johanan was an ascetic, but not such a one as the hermit Banus of whom Josephus tells , nor yet a preacher of Essenism (as Gratz supposes). His object was not to make mere ascetics, but to prepare as many as possible for the Messianic judgment, in which only a remnant would escape. His own asceticism was a consequence of his life in the desert ; he was not primarily an ascetic but a prophet after the manner of Elijah. Hence locusts (or rather carob-beans ) 8 and wild honey were his food, and a cloak of camel s hair 6 with a broad leather waist-cloth was his dress.

According to Lk. , he adapted, not indeed his standard, but his practical requirements, to the different classes represented in the multitude before him. Certainly the meaning of the primitive tradition was not that anyone who liked might receive the symbolic rite ; a course of teaching is presupposed (cp Lk. 87). False ideas had to be corrected. The true and the false children of Abraham had to be distinguished. The true Messianic doctrine had to be made plain. The relative imperfection of the highest spiritual gifts at present attainable had to be inculcated.

1 WH read in Mk. 1 4 e-yeVero Iioarrj; 6 ficarTifiav fv rfj epr/fup Kypviro-iav ; Ti. nai KT]pv<T<T<av ; Treg. [KOI] Ki)pv<r&iav. RV renders Ti. s text John came, who baptised in the wilderness and preached. But surely the revised text is correct, iv rjj epjjjtiw must go with eyevero (see Mk. 933) which cannot mean came (rropeyeVe-ro), and the view that 6 fLanrifav is a synonym of 6 /SaTTTioTTJ? (.Mk. 624 yC 828) is most improbable. The article slipped in through the influence of the familiar phrase 6 /3a7rTicmjs.

2 No other exegesis seems reasonable ; Jos., as we have seen, sanctions it. The true baptism is spiritual (Ps. Ol;^]). But it needs an outward symbol, and Johanan, remembering Ezek. 8625, and having prophetic authority, called those who would know themselves to be purified to baptism. It is no doubt true that baptism was regularly required of Gentile proselytes (see BAPTISM, i), but Johanan s baptism had no connection with ceremonial uncleanness.

3 Neub. Geogr. 31.

4 See BETHANY, 2; SALIM. Schick (ZDPVZito. ff. [ 99!) actually thinks that the wilderness of Judaea where Johanan preached was the traditional spot, near the hermit s fountain ( Ain el-Habis). He also accepts the traditional birthplace of the Baptist (Mar zakarya).

8 See HUSKS.

6 Does camel's hair mean the tough, harsh cloth woven from the rough hair of the camel (cp Jerome)? Or does rpi\et, like (perhaps) ~iy y in 2 K. 1 8, mean the skin with the hair ? D in Mk. 3:6 reads evSt&oncvos Sepprjv Ka^TjAov, clothed with camel s skin, omitting the rest, which Julicher and Nestle approve.

3. Relation to Jesus.[edit]

The relation of Johanan's ideas to those of his time is considered elsewhere (see ISRAEL, 92, JESUS, 6). What we have to do now is to grasp the peculiarity of this great teacher and his relation to Jesus. On both these subjects Jesus himself will enlighten us. But something we can gather from the recorded fragments of his sermons, which all may be, and of which the most important part must be, his own ; something too from the scanty details of his history. Fragments is the word which criticism entitles us to use. The sermon given in Mt. 87-12 is even more devoid of unity than the Sermon on the Mount. Let us pause a moment to see where we stand. Exhortation, if not also individual teaching, must, as we have seen, have preceded the symbolic act of plung ing his converts individually into the stream of Jordan. But if Matthew is to be followed, the exhortations, which follow the record of the baptisms, were addressed to many of the Pharisees and Sadducees (Mt. 87) ; this however, is impossible.

For these reasons v. 11 (except indeed KOI irupi) is out of harmony with v. 7. Verses 11-12, must once have been inde pendent ; Mk. 1 7 X evidently gives a more original form. Verses 8f. are also not free from difficulty. Verse 9 must have come from another context (cp Jn.S^s/T); in>. -jf> 108 may have stood together as an address to Pharisees (cp Mt. 12337^). The difficult icai Trupc in v. 11 (not in Mk. 1 8 Acts 1 5) is evidently due to the assimilation of v. 11 to v. 10 and v. 12 by the editor. 1 It was found in his text of Mt. by Lk. (3 16), but this only proves the antiquity of the alteration.

Artless simplicity, then, characterised Johanan s teaching. Jesus too was simple, but in another sense ; he had a natural art in the expression of his thoughts. This simplicity corresponded to the fundamental note of Johanan s character ; he was too untrained to see far into the complexities of character. He knew himself to be a voice of God, and this was enough ; but he did not know that to represent God fully a prophet must under stand human nature. Easily therefore could Johanan rise above the fear of man. He does not hesitate to exasperate the Pharisees by his plain-speaking. Was he more reticent or respectful towards Antipas ? We may well doubt this. That the tetrarch considered him a dangerous demagogue (Jos. Ant. xiii. 62) was hardly the whole reason for Johanan s arrest and subsequent execution in the fortress of MACH.-KRUS [q.v.]. There was probably some personal offence as well, though the story told in the primitive tradition (Mt. and Mk. ) 2 is not free from chronological and other difficulties (see CHRONOLOGY, 49 ; HERODIAN FAMILY, 2), and may be merely what a later generation (accustomed to think of Johanan as a second Elijah) substituted for history.

May we believe that Jesus of Nazareth was numbered among the disciples of Johanan ? An affirmative answer has been given ; 3 but it is as unlikely as the connected view that the baptisms of Johanan were private cere monial lustrations (cp Mk. 7i-8). Primitive tradition (Mt. , Mk. , Lk. ) said that Jesus came to Johanan for baptism. Certainly this appears plausible ; if Johanan was a true prophet, how could Jesus absent himself from the gathering of those who had turned to God and who reverenced his messenger ? That Jesus had seen and heard Johanan is probable from the clear impression which he had of the great prophet s character and from the prophet's message of inquiry to Jesus. That Jesus, however, whose views of truth were so much deeper than Johanan's, gained any fresh insight into the will of God from his forerunner, is altogether incredible.

1 See Bakhuyzen, Toepassing van tie conjecturaal-kritiek,

Mt. 14$ and Mk. 620 differ. The former passage states that Antipas would have put Johanan to death, were it not that Johanan was reverenced by the people as a prophet ; the latter, that Antipas himself reverenced Johanan, and was unwilling to put him to death. Mt. seems to draw from two sources.

3 Brandt, Die Evang. Gesch. 458/1

4. Jesus' references to him.[edit]

At any rate, Jesus saw in the Baptist a great character and an unrivalled prophet. We have gained much already by limiting our view to the best attested traditional statements; we may gain still more by steeping ourselves in those sayings of Jesus which bear the most distinct marks of genuineness. The highest authority shall tell us what Johanan was, and how he stood related to Jesus.

a. Mt. 11:2-6 Lk. 7:17-23. The authenticity of this saying of Jesus is proved by Lk's. failure to comprehend it (see NAIN). It is certain that Jesus claimed to be the forerunner of the kingdom of heaven ; certain too that he rested his claim on such works as these the blind receive their sight, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the glad tidings brought to them, and that he conceived it possible that moral marvels of this sort would not seem to all to be adequate credentials. Further, it is probable that the occasion assumed for the utterance of this speech is on the whole correct ; the only strong doubt can be as to the words in prison ( Mt. 112), which imply a freedom of intercourse between Johanan and his disciples not likely to have been granted by the suspicious Antipas. If, however, we omit these words * (which are responsible for a good deal of erroneous speculation respecting the weakening effect of confinement upon the character), all is plain. The prophet Johanan (before his imprisonment) sends an embassy to one in whom he recognises a spiritual superior, and whose answer he will regard as final. He has heard of the wonderful works of Jesus, which mainly consist, as Jesus himself has said, in the conversion of sinners (Mt. 913), and asks, Does Jesus, on the ground of his unparalleled success in this holy work, claim to be the Messiah ? The answer virtually is, I claim to be what I am ; and what I am my works show. Jesus is more anxious to do the works of God than to receive any official title ; he lays bare an infirmity of the time, from which even Johanan has not escaped.

The difficulty of the harmonistic point of view (which recog nises all references to Johanan in our four Gospels as equally authoritative) comes out very clearly in the following passage from Bp. Ellicott : The exact purpose of this mission will perhaps remain to the end of time a subject of controversy, but it has ever been fairly, and, as it would seem, convincingly urged, that he whose eyes, scarce sixteen months before, had beheld the descending Spirit, whose ears had heard the voice of paternal love and benediction, and who now again had but recently been told of acts of omnipotent power, could himself have never really doubted the truth of his own declaration, that this was indeed "the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world " (Lectures on the Life of our Lord Jesus Christ, 81837^ [ 62]). Bp. Ellicott agrees with Cyril of Alexandria that the primary object of Johanan s mission was fully to convince his disciples of the Messiahship of Jesus.

1 Why does not Johanan come himself? Because he has no leisure to leave his sacred work. So apparently Schleiermacher and Bleek ; on the other side, see Keim, Jesu von Na.zn.ra, 2 356, n. 3.

b. Mt. 11:7-10 Lk. 7:24-27. c. Mt. 12:39-42 Lk. 11:29-32. Among those who complied with the call of Johanan were both Pharisees (Mt. 87) and common people. The former were repelled by Johanan s teaching and by the want of a sign in corroboration of his statement that the Messiah was at hand ; the latter recognised Johanan as a prophet. So all the people that heard him, and the tax-collectors, recognised God s claims, being baptized with Johanan s baptism, whereas the Pharisees and men of the law frustrated the counsel of God concerning themselves, being not baptized by Johanan (Lk. 7 29 /. ). Jesus has a telling word for both classes. To the common people he says, Yea, verily ; ye have been rewarded. The sight of Johanan was worth a journey. Not the reed-like Jonah, but the thunder- prophet Elijah was his symbol. Yea, he is the second Elijah, the messenger who is the Lord s pioneer (Mal. 3:1 cp 4:5 [3:23]). To the Pharisees, Have ye, then, seen no sign? The fault is yours ; the sign, the only permitted sign, has been given. For as Jonah was a sign to the Ninevites, so shall also [Johanan] be to this generation (Lk. 11:30, see below). The Ninevites will prove the guilt of this evil class the Pharisees for they turned to God at the preaching of Jonah, and surely a greater than Jonah is here. The queen of Sheba will prove the guilt of this evil class, for she came from afar to hear the wisdom of Solomon, and surely a greater than Solomon is here. (The reader will be on his guard ; we have had to go behind the traditional text. But even the best of the current explanations of that text [see JONAH, 8] is not perfectly satisfactory, and there is some probability that a testimony to John has been converted by the reporters of tradition into a testimony of Jesus to himself. That Jonah and Joannes or Johanan may be identical, is clear from Mt. 16:17 (see BAR-JONA ; also JOHN, SON OF ZEBEDEE, i).

The special advantages of this theory which, except the interpretation of uai/a in Mt. 12:39 Lk. 11:29 is due to Brandt, Evang. Gesch. 459, n. 2 are (i) that it accounts for the reference to the Queen of Sheba as well as to the Ninevites, (2) that it makes the sign a new one, and (3) that it relieves Jesus from the appearance of self-laudation. The play upon the names tonv Johanna and n^V Jonah is in the familiar Hebrew style. Note also that Jonah and Solomon in (c) correspond to the reed and those luxuriously clad (cp Mt. 629) in (6).

d. Mt. 11:11-15 Lk. 7:28 16:16. A still more decisive word on Johanan, spoken some time after his martyrdom. A prophet has hitherto been the highest style of man, and there has been no greater prophet than Johanan. Since his days, however, a change has taken place. The prophets and the law lead up to the second Elijah Johanan ; and in Johanan s person the old order of things passes away. Then comes a difficult saying especially difficult in Mt. s form. Already for some time the kingdom of heaven has been the prize of spiritual athletes ; the violent take it by force.

But can Jesus have meant this? Surely not. Nor can he refer to blameworthy acts of zealots. The passage can be emended with certainty by the aid of Lk. Read, evayyeAuJeTcu for jSid^erai, and continue, K<X! Trai/res eis avrriv f\wi^ov(ni> (in Lk., (cat n-as ets ain-jjy eATn fei). How the scribe s errors arose is obvious. The sense is, Every one hopes for a share in the Messianic blessings, but without having listened to John's call to repentance, no one will be admitted to it.

Resch supposes that the original word was pis, but if so, /SiaoTcu should correspond to Q sns, an d so we arrive at the sense the law-breakers take it by force. Marshall (Crit. Rev. 648 [ 96]) accepts this (only Aramaizing the passage), but is it at all likely that Jesus would have been understood to mean the publicans and harlots?

e. Mt. 11:18-19. Lk. 7:33-34. Johanan kept a perpetual fast (cp Mt. 9:14 Mk. 2:18) ; Jesus abstained from fasting. It was said of Johanan that he had a daifioviov (see DEMON), i.e. , that his inspiration was of questionable origin, that he was a false prophet.

f. Mt. 17:12 Mk. 9:13. After Jesus had definitely assumed the Messianic title, he threw a fresh light on the prophecy in Mal. 4:5 by explaining Elijah to be a symbolic term for Johanan. Nor need any wonder at the abrupt termination of the second Elijah s ministry. If the Son of man must suffer many things, as it is written of him, the forerunner could not hope for a better fate. But his work is not yet finished. Before the Son of man comes again, Elijah verily will come, and will restore all things. Which Elijah ? Or shall it be a greater incarnation of zeal and spiritual energy than either the first or the second? Cp Rev. 113 (the two witnesses ).

g. Mt. 21:31-32 (not in Mk. or Lk. ). The Pharisees paid no heed to Johanan s insistence on righteousness of life, but the tax-collectors and harlots turned to God and will enter his kingdom (cp HARLOT). Cp Lk. 729/. (quoted already).

5. Comparison with Jesus.[edit]

It is plain that Jesus felt a greater sympathy with Johanan than with any other of his contemporaries. The probablility is that the latter was much the older ; it was therefore too much to expect that within the narrow limits allotted to the activity of each, Johanan should come over to the side of Jesus. For both, a martyr s death was indicated by circumstances. Though neither of them favoured the violent plans of zealots and revolu tionists, secular rulers could not help suspecting them, and the spiritual rulers hated them for their hostility to formalism. 1 It was to each doubtless a comfort to know that the other existed and was doing the works of God. Primitive tradition rightly accentuates the inferiority of Johanan to Jesus, and the later Johannine recast of tradition still further emphasises it. Between these two versions of tradition stands the beautiful narrative of Lk. 1 5-80, which honours the forerunner only less than the Saviour himself is honoured in the still more exquisite and infinitely suggestive story that follows it.

The study of the non-primitive traditions of the life of Johanan belongs to another department (cp JOHN, SON OF ZEBEDEE, 17). We should do a great injustice to the idealising historian of the Fourth Gospel if we separated his statements respecting the forerunner from the rest of his gospel, and contrasted them with earlier traditions. An idealised picture may give much food for thought, and only the coldest of rationalists could disparage it ; nor need we admit any idealisation in the words of Jn. 635 He was a burning and a shining lamp. See JESUS, 27.

6. Disciples of John.[edit]

We hear of disciples of John in Mt. 9:14 (Mk. 2:18 Lk. 5:33), 11:2 (Lk. 7:18-1), 14:12 (Mk. 6:29), Jn. 8:25. They seem to have followed his strict mode of life, and to have been his faithful assistants, as Elisha was to Elijah. According to Jn. 8:25 RV, there arose a questioning on the part of John's disciples with a Jew about purifying ; but the statement is very obscure, and the text seems to be in confusion.

Bentley proposed to emend 'with a Jew' (jifra lou&u ov) into 'with [those] of Jesus' (/icrd [TUP] Irjo-ou). But 'of Jesus' may BK>n easily be obtained 'from purification' ([<coSap]io>iov). 'A Jew about purif' [ ] (tou5aiou irpt KaSap) is perhaps a corrup tion of 'beyond the Jordan' (ircpav rov lop&avov), words which intruded by accident from v. 26. If so, we should read simply, There arose a dispute between John's disciple and those of Jesus. 1 (Transposition and corruption of letters go together.)

In Acts 18:25, 19:2-3, we also appear to meet with disciples of John ; but they are there represented as having become believers in Jesus the Messiah (note ^aO^rai and TriffTfiLiffavTfs). One of them is the Alexandrian Jew Apollos, and one may assume that their presence at Ephesus was connected with the arrival of Apollos at the same city. We are not told that Apollos was rebaptized by Paul s companions ; but we may infer this from the fact of the rebaptism of the other Johannine Christians (if we may call them so) related in Acts 19:1- What can have led Paul to ask the strange question, Did ye receive the holy spirit when ye believed ? which drew the not less strange answer, 1 Nay, we did not even hear that there is a " holy spirit " ? That disciples of John knew nothing of the holy spirit, in the strict sense of the word, is of course impossible (see Mt. 3:11). Holy spirit (irvv/j,a &JLOV) must here be used in a pregnant sense, as in Jn. 7:39 ; it means the abiding presence of the Spirit, which was accom panied by special gifts for the individual, and the mediation of which was an apostolic privilege (Acts 8:14-16). It is difficult not to see here a disposition on the part of the author of Acts to magnify Paul at the expense of Apollos and his companions. The original report respecting Apollos which was used in Acts 18:24-28 may have been without the closing words of Acts 18:25 ( knowing only the baptism of John ). See APOLLOS. A reference to the later sect of disciples of John is quite out of place.

Cp Volter, Die Apokalypse des Zacharias, Th.T 3 t 9 6 ]. PP- 2 44/ r - T - K - c.

1 A report appears to have been current that the Baptist had risen from the dead in the person of Jesus (Mt. 14:2, 16:14). The people therefore were more struck by the resemblances of the two than by their differences.