the grave by a loathsome disease, and of three or four friends, who had come to comfort him in his affliction, all of them expressing their thoughts in poetical and measured language; that the Deity was actually heard to speak a half an hour from the midst of a violent storm; and that the consultations in the heavenly world were actual occurrences, is too extravagant to need refutation.

On the other hand, it is against probability and against analogy, to suppose that no such person as Job ever existed, and that the work has no foundation in fact. The epic and dramatic poets, ancient and modern, have usually chosen historical rather than fictitious personages, as their principal characters, as being better adapted to secure the popular sympathy. It is therefore probable, that Job was a real character, at least in the same sense, in which the Adam and Eve of Paradise Lost were real characters. It is probable that tradition had handed down the name of such a person as Job, distinguished for his piety and his trials, his virtue and its reward. This tradition the author stated and embellished in a manner adapted to promote the chief object of his work.

A more important question at the present day relates to the integrity of the work; whether we have it as it came from the author, or whether various additions have been made to it in later times.

The genuineness of the introductory and concluding chapters in prose, of Ch. xxvii. 7-Ch. xxviii. and of the speech of Elihu has been denied with great confidence, by several German critics, upon what we regard as very insufficient grounds. The latest and most important writer, who has maintained this opinion, is De Wette, a scholar of great learning and fine taste, but, as I think, not of the most exact judgment upon every subject. His valuable Introduction to the Old Testament having been announced as prepared for publication in this country, it may be well to examine the arguments, which he has adduced against the genuineness of the above mentioned parts of Job.

Against the prologue and epilogue he urges, "that the perfection of the work requires their rejection, because they solve the problem, which is the subject of the work, by the idea of trial and compensation; whereas it was the design of the author to solve the question through the idea of entire submission on the part of man to the wisdom and power of God."

Thus, from a part of the work, De Wette concludes what was the whole design of the author, and then rejects whatever is inconsistent with this supposed design. But there is no necessity for the supposition of such an entire unity of purpose, as De Wette supposes. Much more probable is it, that the author not only designed to establish the necessity of unhesitating faith and unwavering submission, but also to throw all the light in his power upon the subject, for the benefit of the understanding. If he has not completely solved the question, which forms the principal subject of discussion, it does not follow that he did not undertake to do it; or, at least, to remove from it all the difficulties, which he could remove. If it were even admitted, which I do not admit, that there is not a perfect consistency and unity in the views of a poet writing upon a very deep subject, he would not be the only one, who has written inconsistently on the origin and design of evil. Would it be reasonable to reject as ungenuine all those parts of Soame Jenyns's work on the origin of evil, which Dr. Johnson points out as inconsistent with its main design, or with other parts of it?

Far more reasonable is it to gather the author's design from a view of the whole work; especially as there is no inconsistency in the supposition, that he endeavored to clear up the subject in view of the understanding, as well as to illustrate the necessity of the entire submission of the heart to God's will.

Besides, the prologue is important, not only as containing, in part, the solution of the subject, but as a preparation for the reader in estimating the character and language of Job. We could hardly sympathize with the imprecations, with which he commences, or with his irreverent language toward the Deity, or even with his bold assertions of his innocence, unless we were assured upon higher authority than his own, that he was, what he professed to be, an upright and good man. The whole takes a far deeper hold upon our sympathy, when we know that he, who is in a state of such extreme depression, suffering reproach and condemnation from fallible men, has a witness in heaven and a record on high, having received the praise of an upright and good man from the Searcher of Hearts before the angels in heaven.

The objection against ch. xxvii. and xxviii. is, that there is an apparent inconsistency between the language of Job here assigned to him, and what he has uttered in ch. xxi. This inconVOL. XXIII. 3D S. VOL. V. NO. I.

6

sistency is obvious, and was long ago observed by Kennicott. See his note on ch. xxvii. 7. And if the object of the poet was to represent merely a persevering, unbending character, like the Prometheus of Eschylus, there might be some force in the objection. But if the design of the work be, as we have represented it, to throw all possible light upon a moral subject, it is well that Job should retract what he had uttered in the heat of passion, and admit all that he could admit with truth, and in consistency with his main position, that he was innocent, or that misery is not always a proof of guilt. The great object of the poem is in fact advanced by such a course, and by Job's anticipating in some measure, in ch. xxviii., the arguments of the Supreme Judge. All that Job admits is not really inconsistent with what he says in ch. xxix. xxx. xxxi., and does not bring the subject to a crisis too soon.

In regard to the speech of Elihu, it is objected, that it differs in style from that of the other speakers; that it is weak, prolix, studied, obscure; that it is distinguished from the genuine parts of the book by the use of favorite expressions, and by reminiscences from the thoughts of some of the other speakers. That there is a difference between the language of Elihu and that of the other speakers, is conceded; but the answer is, that it was designed; that a different style was assumed by the author. There is some difference of manner in the speeches of the other adversaries of Job. It is more marked in the speech of Elihu, because he was a young man. Youthful forwardness was more inconsistent with Eastern feelings and manners, than with ours. See ch. xxix. 8. And it is not strange, that the poet should not give the most respectable appearance to a young man, appearing upon such an occasion.

It is rather evidence of skill in the poet, that he renders the sublime manifestation and language of the Deity more striking, by contrast with the flourish and parade exhibited in the manner and language of young Elihu. In regard to favorite expressions, and the reminiscences of the language of the other speakers, I should think they were circumstances of little importance. They may at any rate be the result of design, as part of the manner of Elihu, or they may be the result of inadvertence.

It is objected, secondly, that the speech of Elihu weakens the speeches of Job and of the Deity, in ch. xxix. xxx. xxxi. xxxviii., &c., obscures the relation in which these stand

to each other, and in part anticipates what that of the Deity contains. We have already replied to this in part, by the observation that the majesty of the divine appearance is heightened by contrast with that of Elihu. It may be observed, too, that all the speakers have anticipated more or less of the argument of the Deity, and could not well say any thing of the Creator, or his works, without doing it. But as a whole, the speech of the Deity is remarkably distinguished from any of them. As to the interruption of the connexion between the speech of Job and that of the Deity, it is not very important. But let it be conceded, for the sake of argument, that the omission of the speech of Elihu would contribute to the perfection of the work, or that it is in itself somewhat inferior to other parts of it. What then? Do not the critics and reviewers imagine that they can improve many of the productions of genius by the addition of a part here, or the subtraction of a part there? Besides, the author does give one view of the cause of human suffering in this discourse, which is not distinctly stated elsewhere. Ch. xxxiii. 14-28.

It is objected, in the next place, that Elihu perverts the language of Job, a thing which would have been done only by a person, who was not the author of the work. To this it may be replied, that, though the particular passages, which Elihu pretends to quote, are somewhat perverted, yet he hardly ascribes to Job worse sentiments than he had elsewhere expressed, as in ch. xxi. Besides, it is not unnatural in a disputant, especially a young one, to misapprehend a question, or to pervert the language of an opponent. It is said, again, that Elihu receives no answer. I apprehend that it was agreeable to Eastern feelings, that such a forward young man should receive no answer.

It is said that Job is mentioned by name in the speech of Elihu, and not elsewhere. But surely so unimportant a circumstance, occurring in a speech where difference of manner was to be expected, affords very slight ground for suspecting its genuineness.

Lastly, it is said, Elihu is not mentioned in the prologue and epilogue. It is sufficient answer to this, to say, that the author thought it proper to have but three speakers in the. principal part of the debate, and to give a special introduction to Elihu in ch. xxxii. His judgment on this point may not

have been as good as that of some of the German professors; but I see not why we should alter his plan on that account. As to the fact, that he is not mentioned in the epilogue, it may have been for the reason above assigned for his receiving no reply from Job, or because nothing occurred to the author, which was particularly appropriate to be said to him.

On the whole, if it were even admitted that the style of Elihu is so diverse from that of the rest of the poem, as to be somewhat remarkable, or not wholly explained by what has been said, yet when we consider the strong presumption that such a work as the book of Job would not be tampered with by his countrymen, and especially by a poet of no mean pretensions, I cannot help having a strong persuasion of the genuineness of all the passages under consideration. I can well conceive of additions being made to annals or history. But one would think, that a Jew, and especially a Jewish poet, must have had a stronger motive than any of which we can conceive, to induce him to tamper with such a production as the book of Job, and that there must have been some obstacles to the reception of his appendages to such a work, had he been disposed to make them.

As to the country of Job, or in other words, the scene of the poem, there has been a diversity of opinion amongst distinguished scholars. I was formerly inclined to adopt the opinion of those, who supposed it to be Idumea. I now think that Lam. iv. 21, which, at first view, seems to favor this supposition, in fact indicates that the land of Uz was not a part of Idumea, and that the prophet speaks of the Edomites as having gained possession of a country which did not belong to them. It appears to me, too, that Jer. xxv. 20, is also decisive of the question; else why does the prophet speak of the kings of the land of Uz, and of Edom, in the next verse, as separate nations, to whom he was to extend the cup of indignation?

I now think it more probable, that the land of Uz was in the northern part of Arabia Deserta, between Palestine, Idumea, and the Euphrates. Ptolemy speaks of a tribe in this region, called oara, which may perhaps have been written Avortal; (see Ros. Com. in Job, p. 30,) and the Septuagint renders Uz, Avots. This country would then be near the Chaldeans and Sabeans, by whose incursions the property of

>