rejects the view, adopted from Stickel (see p. 92) by Canon F. C. Cook, that the deeper colouring of Aramaic is only the poet's way of indicating the Aramæan origin of Elihu. He denies that there is any such greater amount of Aramaism as can form a real distinction between 'Elihu' and the undisputed chapters. I will not inquire whether the subjectivity of a writer may impress itself on his statistics, and willingly grant that the Aramaic colouring in 'Elihu' may perhaps affect the reader more owing to the faults of style to which Budde himself alludes on p. 157, and which, to me, indicate an age or at least a writer of less taste and talent than the original author. The Aramaisms may be thrown into stronger relief by these infirmities, and so the colouring may seem deeper than it is. I am not however sure that there is an illusion in the matter. Among the counter-instances of Aramaism given by Budde from the speeches of Eliphaz, there are at least two which have no right to figure there, viz. (Hebrew characters), xv. 29, and (Hebrew characters) for (Hebrew characters), xxii. 30, both which forms are probably corrupt readings. Until Dillmann has published his second edition I venture to retain the statement on p. 92. There is a stronger Aramaising element in Elihu, which, with other marks of a peculiar and inferior[1] style, warrants us in assigning the section to a later writer. This is, of course, not precluded by the numerous Hebraistic points of contact with the main part of the book, which Carl Budde has so abundantly collected (Beiträge, pp. 92-123). No one can doubt that the original poem very early became an absorbing study in the circles of 'wise men.'
As to the words and phrases (of pure Hebrew origin) in which Elihu differs from the body of the work, I may remark that it is sometimes difficult to realise their full significance from Budde's catalogue. Kleinert has thrown much light on some of them in a recent essay. He has, for instance,[2] shown the bearings of the fact that the disputed chapters persistently avoid the juristic sense of (Hebrew characters) (Kal), except in a quotation from speeches of Job (xxxiv. 5), Elihu himself only using the word of correctness in statement (xxxiii. 12), or of moral righteousness (xxxv. 7), and that (Hebrew characters) has the sense of 'acting wickedly' only in a passage of Elihu (xxxiv. 12). The use of (Hebrew characters), (Hebrew characters), and (Hebrew characters) in xxxii, 1, xxxiii. 26, xxxv. 8, xxxvi. 3, is also dwelt upon in this connexion. It is true that Budde does not conceal these points; he tabulates them correctly, but does not indicate