BOOKS.

DR. DAVIDSON ON THE BOOK OF JOB" AN immense literature has grown up around the Book of Job. It is not difficult to understand why it should be so, for the Book of Job takes a high rank, not only in Hebrew literature, but in the literature of the world,—so many interests are com- bined in it, and the range of the problems discussed in it or suggested by it is so wide, that readers of all kinds find some- thing in it to stimulate and arouse them. To the man of literature and of art there are the picturesque situations, the incisive interchange of thought and feeling, and the onward march of the drama, along with the clear expression and con- centrated passion of lyric poetry, and the solemn progress of the epos. Even the outward form presents many problems of interest to the student of literature. It is neither dramatic, nor lyric, nor epic, aud yet it has affinity with all of these. It is as unique in form as in meaning.

Like every great work of art, it takes its readers where it finds them. Every one gets something from it. Those who are content with the outward aspect of things, find here a fresh setting of the old problem of a good man struggling with ad- versity, and victorious in the end. To such readers it is part of the literature of edification, which the Germans more precisely call erbaulich, a word for which we have no exact equivalent. To others, again, it is part of the literature of revolt and revolu- tion, and to many the element of fascination in the book is the Titanic element. No doubt there is, in the attitude of Job,

• The Cambridge Bible for Schools.—The Book of Job. By the Rev. A. B- Davidson, D.D., LL.D. Cambridge : the University Proem

something akin to the spirit of Prometheus. If this analogy were good, then the daring manifested by Job would be as much greater than that of Prometheus as the Hebrew conception of God is greater and more absolute than the Greek. But, in truth, the analogy is misleading, and the tone and attitude of the two are altogether different. In the tragedy of human suffering, as conceived by the Greek mind, we have the uncer- tainty under which they laboured regarding the character, the uncertain purpose, the careless ease and indifference of the- gods to the weal and woe of men. A revolt against the gods of Greece might be justified on the highest moral and social grounds, and would carry with it the sympathy of all who could understand the social and ethical basis of the feeling of revolt. But to the Hebrew, the basis of thought and life was God, who had made the worlds and man, who was holy, wise, and good. The aim of the Hebrew thinker was to recognise on all hands the God whom he knew. God was a being perfectly just, doing all ; and the world had little, if any, independence of its own. It served only to reveal the mind, the presence, and the operations of God. The earlier literature of the Hebrews reveals to us this conception of theirs in the light of a perfect harmony between their conception of what God is in himself, and his manifestation of himself in providence, in the events of human life, and in the history of man and nations. If we are to have any clear under- standing of the problem of the Book of Job, we must carry with us this distinctive note of Hebrew life and thought. We are here at the transition point, where Hebrew thinkers see that the equation between the nature of God as known and the course of events has broken down. Innocence and happiness, wickedness and misery, do not always go together. A righteous man may feel sorrow, and wickedness may prosper, and the problem is wider than the ancient thinkers of Israel had seen. We here quote from Dr. Davidson :—

"The direct teaching of the book is only half its contents. It presents also a history—deep and inexplicable afflietion, a great moral struggle, and a victory. Most not this history also be designed to teach ? Is it not a kind of apologne, the purpose of which is to inspire new conduct, new faith, and new hopes ? In Job's sufferings, undeserved and inexplicable to him, yet capable of an explanation most consistent with the goodness and faithfulness of God, and cast- ing honour upon His faithful servants; in his despair bordering upon apostacy, at last overcome ; in the highest knowledge of God, and deeper humility to which he attained, and in the happy issue of his afflictions,—in all this Israel may see itself, and from the sight take courage, and forecast its own history. What the author seta before his people is a new reading of their history, just as another new reading is set before them by the Prophet in the latter part of Isaiah._ The two readings are different, but both speak to the heart of the people. Job, however, is scarcely to be considered Israel, under a feigned name. He is not Israel, though Israel may see itself and its history reflected in him. It is the elements of reality in his history common to him with Israel in affliction, common even to him with humanity as a whole, confined within the straightened limits set by its own ignorance ; wounded to death by the mysterious sorrows of life; tortured by the uncertainty whether its cry finds an entrance into God's ear ; alarmed and paralysed by the irreconcil- able discrepancies which it discovers between its necessary thoughts of Him and its experiences of Him in his providence; and faint with longing that it might come unto HM place, and behold Him not girt with his Majesty, but in human form, as one looketh upon his fellow, —it is these elements of truth that make the history of Job instruc- tive to the people of Israel when it is set before them, and to men in all ages.' (Introduction, pp. 26, 27.)

We give also another striking quotation, which helps to cast light on the problem of the book, and to show its unique nature :—

" Job's Goel, or redeemer, is God. A distinction of persons in the Godhead was not present to his thoughts when he used this term ; though the conception of Clod in the passage, and many things said in it, may find verification in God's manifestation of himself in his Son. The strange distinction which Job draws between God and God,—God who persecutes him, and God who is his Witness and Redeemer, is, of course, not a christological distinction., nor one that corresponds to any distinction in the Godhead made known to us by subsequent revelation. To 'appose so would be a gross perversion, not only of this Book, but of the whole of Scripture. The distinction is one which Job's ideas almost compelled him to draw. He believed that every event that occurred came immediately from God's hand; and he believed that every event that befell a man reflected the disposition of God's mind towards him,—calamity indi- cated the anger, and prosperity the favour of God. This second superstition is the source of all his perplexities, and the distinction which he draws between God and God is his effort to overcome it. God, whom he appeals against, is the rule and course of this world, the outer providence of God, to which Job can give no name but "God." God to whom he appeals is the inner mind of God towards his servants, the moral ideal of the human heart. This is God, his Witness and Redeemer. Job succeeded in drawing this distinction, but the reconciliation which the distinction demanded he was only partially succesful in effecting. He could not reach the idea that God—the heart of God—might be towards him, while God—the outer

course of the world—afflicted him. These two things could not be at the same time ; but they might succeed each other, hence his reconciliation is temporal ; God will bring him unto death, but after his body is destroyed God shall appear to vindicate him, and he shall see God" (p. 296).

In these striking paragraphs we have the substance of Dr. Davidson's view of the Book of Job, a view which we believe to be wise and just; and sustained by evidence.

As regards the date of the book, Dr. Davidson is inclined to think that the time of its composition is most likely the period of the exile. The question is purely literary and historical. The time is passed when it was supposed to have a theo- logical interest. With calm and unbiassed minds, men can consider the evidence, and come to a reasonable conclusion, which may mean that we have no evidence sufficient to warrant any conclusion. It no doubt appears to some that Ezekiel knew Job, and also some are persuaded that Jeremiah borrows from the book. But the evidence is not clear. It is as likely that the author of the book borrowed from Jeremiah; at all events, the thoughts in Job have attained to a more complete expression and a higher force than in the Book of Jeremiah, and Ezekiel may only have referred to the traditions and not to the book. The question, then, turns wholly on the internal evidence.

What time of the history of Israel was most fitted to raise the questions, and to supply the answers given in the Book of Job ? There is a wide difference of opinion. There are those still who believe in the great antiquity of the book,—some, indeed, think of Moses as the author. Delitzch believes it to be the product of the age of Solomon; Merx regards it as belonging to the time between the captivity of Israel and the captivity of Judah ; and Dr. Davidson, a man as com- petent as any now living, holds it to be a product of the time of the exile. With ample knowledge of the conditions of the problem, Dr. Davidson thus concludes his able discussion :— "The question enters a region here which is not that of argu-

ment, but of impressions ; but, upon the whole, probabilities point to the age of the captivity of Judah as that to which the book

belongs."

We notice also, as characteristic of Dr. Davidson, the caution and hesitation which mark his procedure. He is not fond of resting the pyramid on its apex. He can bear suspense, and recognise when a solution cannot be reached. It is refreshing

to find such absence of dogmatism, in a sphere wherein dog- matism and assertion have ruled so absolutely. "There are some minds," he remarks," that cannot put up with uncertainty,

and are under the necessity of deluding themselves into quietude by fixing upon some known name. There are others to whom it is a comfort to think that in this omniscient age a few things still remain mysterious. Uncertainty is to them more suggestive than exact knowledge."

We cannot touch on the other features of the Introduction, nor on the questions regarding Elihn's speeches. We wish to add that, able and scholarly as the Introduction is, it is far sur- passed by the detailed exegesis of the book. In this Dr. David- son's strength is at its greatest. His linguistic knowledge, his artistic habit, his scientific insight, and his literary power have full scope when he comes to exegesis. Here there is no hesita- tion and no indecision. The connection of part with part, the scope of the whole, and the exact meaning of each separate verse and clause, are brought out with great felicity. Some commentators expend their strength on the places which are easy, and they fail us where we most need help. But in the present work light is cast on obscure places, and help is forth- coming when needed. The book is worthy of the reputation of Dr. Davidson; it represents the results of many years of labour, and it will greatly help to the right understanding of one of the greatest works in the literature of the world.