Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadGreater Men and Women of the Bible by James Hastings: 389. The Characters
Subjects in this Topic:
III
The Characters
Literature
Benvie, A., Higher on the Hill (1900), 96.
Bradley, G. G., Lectures on the Book of Job (1888).
Caird, E., Lay Sermons and Addresses (1907), 285.
Cheyne, T. K., Job and Solomon (1887).
Cox, S., A Commentary on the Book of Job (1885).
Davidson, A. B., A Commentary on the Book of Job, i. (1862).
Davidson, A. B., The Book of Job (Cambridge Bible) (1884).
Davies, D., The Book of Job, i. (1909).
Davison, W. T., The Wisdom Literature of the Old Testament (1894), 20.
Driver, S. R., The Book of Job in the Revised Version (1906).
Fairbairn, A. M., The City of God (1883), 143.
Froude, J. A., Short Studies on Great Subjects, i. (1903) 281.
Genung, J. F., The Epic of the Inner Life (1891).
Gibson, E. C. S., The Book of Job (Oxford Commentaries) (1899).
Gilbert, J., The Book of Job (1880).
Godet, F., Biblical Studies: Old Testament (1875), 183.
Jeffs, H., Portrait Preaching (1914), 103.
Marshall, J. T., Job and his Comforters.
Matheson, G., The Representative Men of the Bible, i. (1902) 349.
Mozley, J. B., Essays Historical and Theological, ii. (1884) 164.
Peake, A. S., Job (Century Bible) (1905).
Skinner, J., in Sermon Year Book, ii. (1892) 48.
Strahan, J., The Book of Job Interpreted (1913).
Watson, R. A., The Book of Job (Expositor's Bible) (1892).
Wright, G. H. B., The Book of Job (1883).
Church and Synagogue, ii. (1912) 1 (W. O. E. Oesterley).
Expositor, 3rd Ser., viii. (1888) 127 (W. B. Hutton); 7th Ser., iii. (1907) 185, 228 (A. R. Gordon).
Expository Times, viii. (1897) 111 (K. Budde).
Interpreter, ii. (1906) 350 (W. Lock).
Methodist Review Quarterly, lvi. (1907) 663 (G. E. Hiller); lix. (1910) 553 (J. O. Knott).
New World, iii. (1894) 328 (B. Duhm); vi. (1897) 13, 261 (J. Royce).
Nowhere in the whole course of human literature, sacred or profane, do we find the inexorable problems of life's painful riddles more keenly realized, more urgently pressed home, more freshly pictured than in the Book of Job. Nor is this all. At every page that we turn, from the first to the last, we feel that if we are transported to another age, other manners, and a far-off land, we are still among our kindred and our brothers. The men who speak to us are men with the same joys, the same affections, the same difficulties, the same failings; they are children of the same God, exposed to the same temptations, vexed by the same doubts, the same fears, and upheld, if not by the same hopes, yet by much at least of the same faith and the same guidance. The book is a gift, not to one age or to one race, but to mankind.
1. The book cannot be the record of an actual history. This appears partly from the symbolical numbers, three, five, and seven, used to describe Job's flocks and children, and from the fact that after his restoration the latter are exactly the same in number as before, while the former are exactly doubled; partly from the ideal and dramatic character of his misfortunes, nature and man alternating in their endeavour to ruin him, and one only escaping each time to bring the tidings; but especially from the character of the dialogue, which contains far too much thought and argument to have been extemporized on the occasion, and is manifestly the studied product of the author's leisurely reflection.
Among the Jews in early times the book appears to have been considered strictly historical. This was probably the opinion of Josephus, who, though he does not quote Job in any of his works, appears to embrace it among the thirteen prophetical books forming one division of his Canon. The same was the generally received opinion among the Rabbinical writers. There were exceptions, however, even anterior to the age of the Talmud. A certain Rabbi Resh Lakish sitting in the school before Samuel bar Nachmani gave expression to the opinion that “a Job existed not, and was not created; he is a parable.” To this Bar Nachmani replied, “Saith not the scripture, There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job?” Resh Lakish answered, “But how is it then with that place 2Sa_12:3, The poor man had nothing, save one little ewe-lamb which he had bought, etc.? What is that but a common similitude? and so Job is a simple parable.” Bar Nachmani could but reply that not only the name of Job but that of his country was mentioned, an answer that probably did not go far to convince his opponent. Resh Lakish was most likely not alone in his opinion, though his view appears to have given scandal to others.1 [Note: A. B. Davidson, The Book of Job, p. xiii.]
The prevailing opinion among the Jews doubtless continued to be that the Book of Job was strictly historical, and Christian scholars (with the exception of Theodore) found no reason to question this till Luther arose, with his genial, though unscientific, insistence on the right of questioning tradition. In his Tischreden Luther says, “Ich halte das Buch Hiob für eine wahre Historia; dass aber alles so sollte geschehen und gehandelt sein, glaube ich nicht, sondern ich halte, dass ein feiner, frommer, gelehrter Mann habe es in solche Ordnung bracht.” Poetically treated history-that is Luther's idea, as it was that of Grotius after him, and in our own country of that morning-star of Biblical criticism, Bishop Lowth. It is acquiesced in by Schlottmann, Delitzsch, and Davidson, and with justice, provided it be clearly understood that no positive opinion can reasonably be held as to the historical origin of the tradition used by the author. I have said nothing of Spinoza and Albert Schultens. The former pronounces most unfavourably on the religious and poetical value of the book, which he regards as a heathenish fiction, reminding us somewhat of the hasty and ill-advised Theodore of Mopsuestia. The latter actually defends the historical character both of the narratives and of the colloquies of Job in the strictest sense. Hengstenberg, alone perhaps among orthodox theologians, takes a precisely opposite view. Like Reuss and Merx, he regards the poem as entirely a work of imagination. We may be thankful for his protest against applying a prosaic standard to the poetical books of the Hebrew Canon. Those who do so, he remarks, “fail to observe that the book stands, not among historical but among poetical books, and that it would betray a very low grade of culture, were one to depreciate imaginative as compared with historical writing, and declare it to be unsuitable for sacred Scripture.” I entirely agree with the eminent scholar, whose unprogressive theology could not entirely extinguish his literary and philological sense.1 [Note: T. K. Cheyne, Job and Solomon, 61.]
2. But did Job really live? This is widely different from the question whether Job actually said and did all that is related of him in our book. Once, and once only, is there any mention of Job in the Old Testament outside of the book which bears his name. This solitary reference is made by Ezekiel. The prophet insists on God's severe judgment of idolatry. It brings, he says, inevitable ruin on a land; exceptional cases of individual righteousness are powerless to avert the inevitable doom. Even if Noah, Daniel, and Job were in the devoted land they would not avert its destruction; they would “deliver but their own souls by their righteousness,” not the souls of others.
The passage does not, of course, prove that Ezekiel knew the Book of Job as we have it, and there are good reasons for the belief that our Book of Job is somewhat later than the prophet's time. Ezekiel's words do, however, clearly imply that Job was a familiar figure in Hebrew tradition; otherwise the reference would be pointless. Moreover, we may infer from the passage before us, with some degree of probability, that the contemporaries of Ezekiel were acquainted with the story of Job as given in the Prologue and the Epilogue of the book. For the order of the three names in Ezekiel seems to be chosen for the sake of climax rather than for reasons of chronology. Job, like Noah and Daniel, was a great example of righteousness. But whereas Noah saved his whole family and Daniel his three friends, Job lost his children and saved only himself. It is also probable from the collocation with Noah that Job was a saint of primitive antiquity, while for the same reason it is at least possible that Ezekiel did not regard him as a Hebrew.
3. But we are not called upon to limit our thinking to one individual sufferer. Much rather, and with very much more profit, and better point, are we bidden to look with Plato, and the world's best thinkers, on the truly good man, buffeted by every wind of adverse circumstance, and so exposed to all that keen and dreadful suffering which enters into every worthy or heroic life. In Plato's Republic we have the picture of the just man, doing “no injustice, yet having the reputation of doing the greatest, and so tortured for justice, nay, scourged, tormented, fettered, having his eyes burnt out, and lastly, having suffered all manner of evils, crucified. And all this suggests the question of questions, making us wonder, as if the gods gave to many good men misfortunes and a wretched life, and to contrary persons a contrary experience.” We do not deal here with that suffering and pain which falls on the bad man who has broken all law, and thus become the victim of his own wrong-doing; what concerns us supremely now is the suffering of the good man, the saint-that man who is the servant of God and of every good cause. Such a one belongs to no one city or place, but is a fellow-citizen of us all.
The Book of Job was never written to satisfy an esoteric few. It came glowing from a large human heart, from the furnace of universal human affliction; and it is adapted to reach every soul that has thought and suffered. The more we penetrate beyond the mere skill of the author to communion in spirit with the man, the more will this universal character, this cry from the heart of humanity, far beyond the jargon of a class or the cunning performance of a pen, impress itself upon us. Time and space are annihilated, and the unreal vagaries of speculation seem outlived, as this echo of our own deep consciousness comes floating to us across the centuries.1 [Note: J. F. Genung, Job_5:1-27.]