ARGUMENT FROM PARALLEL PASSAGES.
The new phase into which the controversy as to the early Christian work
on the _Teaching of the Apostles_ has passed excuses me from justifying
the importance (in spite of its difficulty) of the study of parallel
passages. A great point has been gained in one’s critical and exegetical
training when one has learned so to compare parallel passages as to
distinguish true from apparent resemblances, and to estimate the degree
of probability of imitation. In Essay viii. of vol. ii. of _The
Prophecies of Isaiah_, I endeavoured to help the student to do this for
himself within the field of the Book of Isaiah. I shall not attempt this
with the same thoroughness for the Book of Job. It is a sign of the
consummate skill of the writer that he is an artist even in his
imitations. As Luther says, ‘Die Rede dieses Buches ist so reisig und
prächtig als freilich keines Buches in der ganzen Schrift.’ The author
retains the parallelistic distich, but is no longer content with a bare
synonymous or antithetic bifurcation of his material, and dwells on the
decoration of an idea with a freedom which sometimes obscures his
meaning; hence too the germinal phrase or word suggested by an earlier
book may easily escape notice. I shall confine my attention to the most
defensible points of contact, referring for the rest, without pledging
myself to agreement, to Dr. J. Barth’s _Beiträge zur Erklärung des
Buches Job_ (Leipzig, _s.a._), pp. 1-17.
The influence of _Job_ on the works which all admit to be of post-Exile
origin need not detain us here. There is but one undoubted reference to
Job in Ecclesiastes (v. 14; comp. Job i. 21)—we should perhaps have
expected more. But Sirach with a true instinct detected an affinity
between his own ideas and Job xxviii. (comp. this chapter with Ecclus.
i. 3, 5, &c.), though he neglects the rest, and does not include our
poet among the ‘famous men’ and the ‘fathers that begot us.’ Passing
upwards, we shall, if historical criticism be our guide, make our first
pause at the undeniably later psalms and at the later portions of
Isaiah. In the former compare (as specimens).
Ps. ciii. 16 with Job vii. 12
— cvii. 40 — — xii. 21, 24
— — 41 — — xxi. 11
— — 42 — — xxii. 19, v. 16
— cxix. 28 — — xvi. 20
— — 50 — — vi. 10
— — 69 — — xiii. 4
— — 103 — — vi. 25.
There is, I think, no question that these psalm-passages were inspired
by the parallels in Job. In Isa. xl.-lxvi. there are, as I have pointed
out (_Isaiah_, ed. 3, ii. 250), at least twenty-one parallels to
passages in our poem. I do not, however, think that we can venture to
describe either set of passages _en bloc_ as imitations. But there are
at least two clear cases of imitation, and here the original is not the
prophet but the poet (comp. Isa. li. 9_b_, 10_a_, with Job xxvi. 12, 13,
and Isa. liii. 9 with Job xvi. 17). With regard to the book (II. Isaiah)
as a whole, or at least the greater part of it, we may say that there is
a parallelism of idea running through it and the Book of job, which may
to a large extent account for parallelisms of expression. This does not,
however, apply everywhere, least of all to the great prophetic dirge on
the ‘despised and rejected’ one, which presents stylistic phenomena so
unlike that of its context that we seem bound to assign the substratum
of Isa. lii. 13-liii. to a time of persecution previous to the
Exile.[107] How the poet of Job became acquainted with this striking
passage, we know not. Did it form part of some prophetic anthology
similar to the poetic Golden Treasury called ‘The Book of the
Righteous’? or shall we follow those bolder critics who suppose the
author of Job to have lived in the post-Exile times, when he may easily
have had access to both parts of our Book of Isaiah? These are questions
not to be evaded on account of their difficulty, but not to be decided
here.
Our next halt may be made at the Book of Proverbs, the three concluding
sections of which composite work belong at the earliest to the last
century of the Jewish state. Among the clearest literary allusions in
_Job_ are those to this book, and some of these are especially important
with regard to the disputed question of the relation between our poem
and the introduction to the Book of Proverbs (Prov. i.-ix.) That the
latter work is the earlier seems to me clear from a comparison of the
general positions indicated by the following passages from Prov. i.-ix.
and the Book of Job. Compare—
Prov. i. 7 with Job xxviii. 28
— iii. 11 — — v. 17
— iii. 14, 15} — — xxviii. 15-19
— viii. 10, 11}
— iii. 19, 20 — — xxviii. 26, 27
— viii. 22, 25 — — xv. 7, 8
— viii. 29 — — xxxviii. 10.
It will be seen by any one who will compare these passages that the case
here is different from that of the parallelisms in _Job_ and the second
part of Isaiah. The latter do not perhaps allow us to determine with
confidence which of the two books is the earlier. But, as Prof. Davidson
has amply shown,[108] the stage of intellectual development represented
by _Job_ is more advanced than that in the ‘Praise of Wisdom.’ The
general subjects may be the same, but in Job they have entered upon a
new phase.—We now pass to the earliest of the proverbial anthologies
(Prov. x.-xxii. 16). Here of course the relation is reversed: the
proverbs are the originals to which the author of Job alludes. Compare—
Prov. xiii. 19 } with Job xviii. 5, 6, xxi. 17
— xxiv. 20 }
— xv. 11 — — xxvi. 6
— xvi. 15 — — xxix. 23, 24.
We may infer from this group of parallels that the author of _Job_ not
only studied venerated ‘Solomonic’ models, but even ventured directly to
controvert their leading doctrine; see especially Job xxi. 17. In our
next comparison the relation seems reversed. The author of Prov. xxx.
1-4 not improbably alludes sarcastically to the theophany in Job
xxxviii.-xlii. 6. Note in passing the occurrence of Eloah for ‘God’ in
Prov. xxx. 5 (comp. the speeches in _Job_).
There are several parallels in the Book of Lamentations; I restrict
myself to those in the third elegy, which differs in several points from
the others, especially in its poetic feebleness. It is easier to believe
that the author of the elegy was dependent on _Job_ than to take the
reverse view. A poem, the hero of which was obviously the typical
righteous man, naturally suggested features in the description of the
representative Israelite. Compare, then, Lam. iii. 7, 9 with Job xix. 8;
iii. 8 with Job xxx. 20; iii. 10 with Job. x. 16; iii. 12, 13 with Job
vii. 20, xvi. 12, 13; iii. 14, 63 with Job xxx. 9.
Parallels to _Job_ also occur in Jeremiah. It is often, indeed, not easy
to say on which side is the originality. But in one of the most
important instances we may pronounce decidedly in favour of _Job_ (comp.
Jer. xx. 14-18 with Job iii. 3-10). The despairing utterance referred to
is an exaggeration in the mouth of Job, but suitable enough in
Jeremiah’s. In Job, l.c., we seem to recognise the slightly artificial
turn which the author loves to give to the ideas and phrases of his
predecessors; while the cutting irony of the words ‘making him very
glad’ (Jer. xx. 15) as clearly betokens the hand of the original writer.
Compare also Job vi. 15 with Jer. xv. 18; ix. 19 with Jer. xlix. 19; x.
18-22 with Jer. xx. 14-18; xii. 4, xix. 7 with Jer. xx. 7, 8; xii. 6,
xxi. 7 with Jer. xii. 1; xix. 24 with Jer. xvii. 1; xxxviii. 33 with
Jer. xxxi. 35, 36.
There are two plausible points of contact in _Job_ with Deuteronomy
(comp. Job xxiv. 2, Deut. xix. 14 [removing landmarks]; Job xxxi. 9, 11,
Deut. xxii. 22), but only one worth mentioning with Genesis (xxii. 16;
comp Gen. vi. &c.), and here observe that the word for A.V.’s ‘flood’
(Job, l.c.) is not _mabbūl_ but _nāhār_.[109] Hitzig and Delitzsch find
another in xxxi. 33. But _ādām_ in Job always means ‘men:’ in xv. 7, 8,
where the first man is referred to, he is not named. The reference in
xxxi. 33 is not to hiding sins from God, but from man. I think, however,
that the Prologue implies a general acquaintance with some current
descriptions of the patriarchal period—the ‘golden age’ to men of a more
advanced civilisation.
It is remarkable, what interesting parallels are afforded by the
prophets of the Assyrian period. Isaiah, as might be expected, contains
the largest number (see _The Prophecies of Isaiah_, ed. 3, ii. 243); but
Hosea follows close after. Compare especially—
Isa. xix. 5, certainly the Job xiv. 11, ‘the waters fail
original of Job, l.c., where from the sea,’ i.e. any inland
the special reference to the body of water
sea-like Nile is dropped
Isa. xxviii. 29 Job xi. 6 (God’s wisdom
marvellous; see Merx, and
_Isaiah_, ii. 154)
Hos. x. 13, combined with Job iv. 8 (‘ploughing
Prov. xxii. 8 iniquity,’ &c.)
Hos. vi. 1 (or Deut. xxxii. Job v. 18 (‘he maketh sore and
39) bindeth up,’ &c.)
Hos. v. 14, xiii. 7, 8 Job x. 16 (God compared to a
lion)
Hos. xiii. 12 (or Deut. xxxii. Job xiv. 17 (‘transgression
34) sealed up,’ &c.)
Am. iv. 13, v. 8 (the Job ix. 8, 9 (‘that treadeth
comparison suggests that v. 8, upon the heights of the sea;
9 stood immediately after iv. that maketh the Bear, Orion,
13 when Job was written, and and the Pleiades’)
that ‘the sea,’ i.e. the upper
ocean, stood for ‘the earth’)
Comp. also Am. v. 8, ix. 6 with Job xii. 15; Am. ii. 9 with Job xviii.
16.
I say nothing here of the parallels in the Song of Hezekiah (Isa.
xxxviii. 10-20). I have shown reason in _Isaiah_, i. 228, for believing
that the Song is a highly imitative work, and largely based on Job, such
a work in fact as can only be accounted for in the Exile or post-Exile
period.
There still remains the great body of psalms of disputed date. The
parallelisms in Ps. xxxvii.[110] are too general to be mentioned here,
striking as they are; but we may venture to compare Ps. viii. 5 with Job
vii. 17; Ps. xxxix. 12_b_ with Job iv. 19_b_; ib. 14_a_ with Job vii.
19_a_, x. 20; ib. 14_b_ with Job x. 21, 22; Ps. lxxii. 12 with Job xxix.
12; ib. 16 with Job v. 25_b_; Ps. lxxxviii. 16_b_ with Job xx. 25 (the
rare word _’ēmīm_); ib. 17 with Job vi. 4 (_bi’ūthīm_); ib. 19 (lxix. 9)
with Job xix. 14; and note throughout this psalm the same correspondence
of extreme inward and outward suffering which we find in Job. Then,
turning to the psalms of different tenor, comp. lxxii. 12 with Job xxix.
12; ib. 16 with Job v. 25_b_. I have selected these instances precisely
because they allow us to draw an inference as to priority. Ps. lxxxviii.
is clearly imitative, and no doubt there is more imitation of the great
poem in other psalms. Psalms viii., xxxix., and (probably) lxxii. were
however known to and imitated by the authors of _Job_. The parallel in
Ps. viii. is specially important. That this psalm is not earlier than
the Exile is disputed, but extremely probable; the bitter ‘parody’ in
Job vii. 17 must in this case be of the same or a later period.
And now to sum up the results of our comparisons. The Colloquies in
_Job_ are of later origin than Deuteronomy, Jeremiah, Lamentations, and
most of Proverbs, but possibly nearly contemporaneous with much in the
second part of Isaiah, except that Isa. liii. not improbably lay before
the author of _Job_; also that Ps. viii., a work of the Exile period,
was well known to him. We are thus insensibly led on to date the Book of
Job (the speeches, at any rate) during the Exile. This will account for
the large amount of imitation to which the book gave rise. Men felt
respecting the author that he was the first and greatest exponent of the
ideas and feelings, not of a long-past age, but of their own; that he
‘sat chief, and dwelt as a king in the army, as one that comforteth the
mourners’ (Job xxix. 25).
Footnote 107:
See Cheyne, _The Prophecies of Isaiah_, ed. 3, ii. 30; art. ‘Isaiah,’
_Encyclopædia Britannica_, xi. 380.
Footnote 108:
_The Book of Job_ (1884), pp. lx.-lxii.
Footnote 109:
According to Ewald, the reference is to Sodom and Gomorrah, the story
of which, we know, was familiar as early as Hosea’s time (Hos. xi. 8).
Footnote 110:
See Bateson Wright’s _The Book of Job_, Appendix. The author concludes
that the poet of _Job_ ‘selects the main threads from the complete
treatise of Ps. xxxvii. and interweaves them into the highly poetical
discourse of Eliphaz.’