not a collection of proverbs at all, but is a continuous discourse in
praise of Wisdom. In viii. 22 Wisdom is personified as a creature of
God present at the creation of the world. This hypostatization of an
attribute of God is one of the latest developments of Hebrew thought,
and is so unusual to its genius that we are compelled to seek for
some possibility of infiltration from foreign sources. The idea is
still further developed in Ecclesiasticus (xxiv.), and in the Book of
Wisdom has become quite a Platonic speculation (vii. 22-viii. 1). The
appearance of this idea in Hebrew thought seems to be most explicable
in the period of Greek influence, when Plato's doctrine of the Idea
might become known in Palestine; somewhere about 250 B.C. seems a
likely date. The identification of virtue with knowledge, which we find
in the book, is also due to Greek thought. It was along this line of
development that the conception of "the Logos" was welcomed into Jewish
thought, to have through Philo such a profound influence on some of the
writers of the New Testament.
C. (x.-xxii. 16). This collection of proverbs is ascribed to Solomon
and is generally thought by critics to be the oldest main collection;
many would even be willing to assign it to the golden age of the
monarchy. The Solomonic authorship is, however, unthinkable; the
sentiments expressed are unsuitable for a luxurious and polygamous
monarch (xv. 16, xxi. 31; xxii. 14; xiii. 1; cp. 1 Kings iv. 26; xi. 1,
4, 5-13; xii. 10, 11), and the ascription to Solomon is probably due
to circumstances similar to those which operated in the case of the
ascription of the Psalms to David. There are many objections to any
pre-exilic time as a suitable historic background for this collection;
there is no mention of idolatry, whereas we learn from Ezekiel (vi.,
viii., xxiii.) that idolatry was practised in Jerusalem down to the
time of the city's destruction; monogamy seems to be taken quite for
granted, whereas it would appear that polygamy was general before
the prophetic reforms; and of the great upheaval that these reforms
involved, this collection shows no trace. The national religion has
here given place to universalism, a development that seems to demand
some experience of contact with other nations and especially some
acquaintance with foreign culture. The references to the king neither
require Solomonic authorship nor demand an age when the monarchy was
established; for they are only general sentiments concerning the duties
of the king in the State, and are of such a nature that they show very
little reminiscence of Israel's actual experience of a monarchy.
D. (xxii. 17-xxiv. 22) and E. (xxiv. 23-34) are two collections of the
sayings of "the wise," whose ascription, together with the reference to
"instruction," points to an advanced stage of reflection and teaching,
and perhaps to the existence of philosophic teachers who had schools
and pupils.
F. (xxv.-xxix.). "These also are proverbs of Solomon, which the men
of Hezekiah, King of Judah, copied out." This title has an air of
circumstantiality about it which looks like a genuine historical note,
and it has been observed that there is a change of tone, in this
collection, in regard to the monarchy, as if some actual experience
of kingly tyranny had been lately borne; so that if we were to refer
this collection to the age mentioned in the title we should have to
ante-date the collection, C. But in view of the state of society
here portrayed, which is similar to that of Ecclesiasticus, we have
no alternative but to regard the title, as in the case of some of
the Davidic Psalms, as due to later Jewish scribes, and as without
authority.
G., H. and I. are three small collections (xxx.; xxxi. 1-9; xxxi.
10-31), the first by Agur: a very obscure passage, apparently quoting
a declaration of reverent agnosticism, with a reply to it by some more
believing scribe. The second is ascribed to King Lemuel, and the third
is in praise of a virtuous woman, by an anonymous writer.
The religious teaching of the Proverbs would seem to be a refinement
of the prophetic religion, standing quite apart from the legal and
ritual development. Religion has become entirely a matter of ethics;
the creed is wonderfully colourless and simple, and the inducement
to virtue remains almost entirely on the plane of utilitarianism and
prudence. There is a good deal that is quite worldly wisdom, but pure
religion is by no means wanting (xxi. 3; xiv. 34); the fear of the
Lord is not slavish fear, but is a guiding principle for life and the
beginning of wisdom. Men are divided somewhat roughly into the foolish
and the wise; and although no book in the world has ever depicted
the foolishness of men with greater variety and reality, yet there
seems no hope that folly may be overcome, or that wicked men can be
turned from their ways; Wisdom knows no forgiveness and can only mock
when men turn to her too late (i. 24-28). Yet the ethical level is
high; woman especially is highly estimated, and the home life is held
sacred; kindness to animals is inculcated (xii. 10), and there is a
real approach to absolute ethics in such sayings as: "Say not thou, I
will recompense evil"; "Say not I will do so to him as he hath done to
me" (xx. 22; xxiv. 17, 29; xxv. 21, 22). The writers have been called
"humanists," and this rightly describes their position; it is the
highest level rabbinical religion ever reached; it has its parallel in
some of the aphoristic teaching of Jesus, but it has no message for
the outcast and fallen; it knows no secret whereby the fool may be made
wise and the heart be changed by a great emotion; it is the religion of
the sage, not the religion of the Saviour. The doctrine of retribution
is still thought to be quite satisfactory in its working (ii. 21 f.; x.
25; xi. 21). In an earlier and less reflective age this idea would not
have been unexpected; but it is remarkable that it should be acquiesced
in by the wise men; and yet it is an idea of life that seems to persist
against all experience: it is found in the time of Christ and it still
obtains, especially in the judgment of the cause of poverty. Perhaps
its persistence is to be traced to an ideal of justice so strong as to
obscure accurate observation of the facts.
* * * * *
When we turn to the Book of Job we come to a work not only the greatest
product of the wise men, but the supreme literary production of the
Hebrew nation. The grandeur of its language has somewhat obscured the
real meaning of the book; for the opinions that the book was written
to controvert are stated with such vivid power and poetic grace that
they are now often quoted as Biblical truths of equal value with the
opinions apparently supported by the author. It is our task, not so
much to admire the literary talent of the author, as to estimate his
contribution to the religion of Israel.
The Book of Job has been referred to almost every age from Moses to
post-exilic times. There is certainly an endeavour to reproduce the
conditions of the patriarchal age, in the avoidance of the name Jehovah
(Exod. vi. 3), and in the money standard adopted (Job. xlii. 11); but
there is no desire to deceive the reader, for this archaic atmosphere
is adopted merely as the appropriate setting of the dialogue, and
is not maintained: the name Jehovah slips from the author's pen, he
takes no pains to conceal his knowledge of the Law and his interest
in the questions of his own times. The question of age is not to be
complicated by the question of authorship; there was a person named
Job, known to Ezekiel (xiv. 14), but there is nowhere any assumption
that Job himself wrote the book; and the mechanical and symbolical
character of the disasters which befall Job, and the nature of the
compensation, show that we have here only dramatic settings for
the speeches and not actual history. It is likely that there was a
well-known tradition of a man named Job who had suffered overwhelming
troubles and eventually had been restored to his former prosperity, and
this is made the basis for a discussion of the problem of suffering. It
has been suggested that in the Prologue and Epilogue we have fragments
of that old tradition, since these passages are in prose while the
body of the book is in semi-poetic rhythm; but the prose form is best
explained as that always adopted by the Hebrews for narrative, for we
find ideas in these parts that betray as late a date as anything in the
body of the work. Considered on internal evidence, everything seems
to point to the age which produced the rest of the Wisdom Literature;
and more precisely, a date shortly before or shortly after Proverbs,
seems indicated. The material for deciding more particularly is such
that different conclusions may be drawn from it. For instance, the
personification of wisdom in Proverbs seems to be in advance of the
idea of wisdom in Job; and if we could think of the development of an
idea always coinciding with chronological progression, then Job would
need to be placed earlier than Proverbs; but this is complicated by
the fact that the main body of the book of the Proverbs may have been
in circulation before the earlier chapters were added. Yet there are
apparent quotations from the Proverbs in the Book of Job (xv. 7 f. =
Prov. viii. 22-25), and the reference to the lamp of the wicked being
put out (Prov. xiii. 9; xxiv. 20) seems clearly to have Proverbs in
mind (Job. xxi. 17). Dependence might, of course, be taken to lie the
other way, but on the whole, it would appear that the problems dealt
with in Job have not yet emerged for the writers of the Proverbs, and
indeed Job seems rather an indictment of the superficial idea, which
we find everywhere assumed in the earlier work that prosperity and
goodness are inseparable. The most satisfactory order seems therefore
to be: Proverbs, Job, Ecclesiastes. The idea that Job is to be
understood as a personification of the nation, such as we were led to
conceive in the allegory of Jonah and in the Servant of the Lord, can
hardly be maintained in face of the perfect detachment from the history
and the national hopes that characterises the book.
The book deals with a problem already stirring in the minds of the
Prophets and the theme of many of the Psalms, but here stated with an
awful daring and intensity and as the subject-matter of an entirely new
form of literary composition. The Book of Job is not a drama, in the
sense that it was ever intended, or would be suitable, for presentation
on the stage; but it is a poem with dramatic elements and it has a
dramatic movement.
The endeavour to understand the message of the book is rendered
difficult because different points of view are presented, and this
has suggested different authors. The book certainly has well-marked
divisions, and they appear to yield distinct and different solutions
of the problem of suffering. The Prologue shows us what has taken
place in heaven, and seems to infer that the trials came upon Job to
establish his faith and righteousness; but the speeches between Job
and his friends, in the second division, if by the same author as the
Prologue, skilfully avoid this explanation, and the drama pursues its
course with the actors remaining in complete ignorance of the solution
that has been disclosed to the audience. The third division is taken
up with the speeches of Elihu: these break the continuity of the poem,
Job makes no reply to him, and Elihu is not mentioned in the Epilogue.
An examination of these speeches shows that they fall somewhat below
the level of brilliance and originality maintained in the rest of the
book, and the idea that they proceed from another writer of the same
school, who felt that the arguments of the three friends had not been
presented in the best possible way, is worthy of consideration. The
speeches of Jehovah are by the author of the main portion and are
wonderfully impressive and grand, although the exact contribution that
they make to the discussion of the problem is difficult to discern.
The Epilogue falls back into prose, and was certainly written by one
who had the entire work before him; but it so misses the meaning of
the whole argument, and is content with such a superficial solution of
restoration, that it has been thought by many to be an addition to the
original work. Whatever may be thought of the idea of plural authorship
as a solution of these divergences, the divergences themselves must be
borne in mind in any attempt to estimate the message of the book. But
are these different points of view incompatible with a single author?
With an author of such extraordinary talent in voicing opinions with
which he evidently does not agree, it cannot be said to be impossible;
and it may be that he only wished to state the problem and to give
those answers which were current in his age, leaving it to the reader
to discover whether these answers were really solutions; the Prologue
and Epilogue may have nothing to do with the didactive motive, but only
be due to dramatic and artistic demands.
The theology of Job certainly demands a late age and an advanced stage
of reflection. One interesting point is raised by the employment, in
the Prologue, of the figure of Satan. This personality, so fruitful a
factor in speculation on the cause of evil, demands a careful study.
It should be noted, first, that he is referred to as _the_ Satan, that
is, "the Adversary"; it is a generic, not a proper, name. This creature
is represented as appearing together with the angels in the presence
of God, and although his designs are sinister and his suggestions
unworthy, he is still a minister doing the will of God. This delegation
of evil advocacy can be traced, from the idea that it is due to God
Himself (2 Sam. xxiv. 1), to the work of the separate spirit who
offered to entice Ahab (1 Kings xxii. 21), and then to the greater
definiteness of our author. Beyond this book, again, the adversary is a
darker character who has to be rebuked by God (Zech. iii.), and in the
history of the Chronicler _the_ Satan has become "Satan," a proper name
(1 Chron. xxi. 1; cp. 2 Sam. xxiv. 1); but we have to go outside the
Old Testament Canon to get a completely dualistic opposition of God and
Satan (Wisdom ii. 24).
The conception of God has passed, in this book, entirely beyond the
tribal Deity Jehovah, and even beyond the ethical Personality known
to the Prophets, to One who is felt to be unknowable; and yet withal
Job clings to the idea that he shall one day see the face of the
Redeemer who now hides Himself. As in the Psalms, the alleged idea of
immortality (xix. 25 ff.) is not very definite, and so contradicts the
general expectation of the book (vii. 9 f. x. 21 f. xiv. 10 ff. 20 ff.
xvi. 22; xxi. 26; xxx. 23), that it must be taken to refer to Job's
conviction that some vindication of his cause will be made here in
this life. At the same time the idea of a future judgment which shall
proclaim his innocence and the ill-desert of his sufferings, is so
strong, that it sweeps death out of vision, and the hope of the future
life hovers in the thought if it does not break into language.
A dispassionate examination of the solutions here offered to the
problem of suffering shows that nothing really beyond a negative
position is reached in this book. The speeches of Job must be taken to
convey the author's opinions, and they are a most emphatic repudiation
of the doctrine of Providence expressed by the three friends. They
can only repeat the accepted notion that suffering is everywhere the
cause of sin, and with scorn and indignation Job repudiates the charge,
so far as he is concerned; he maintains his innocence and appeals to
God as his witness; but the Witness is silent and there is no daysman
betwixt them. Job's protest is not concerned with mere innocence, for
in one magnificent passage he appeals to his beneficent life spent in
the service of the poor and needy (xxxi.). The answers of Job leave
the little system of Providence supported by his friends, completely
discredited, and in this particular Jehovah sides with Job. The
theophany and speeches of Jehovah do not, however, seem to convey any
further contribution to the problem than perhaps the idea that for man
it is insoluble, because he does not and cannot see the whole; and so
nothing is left for man but to bear his griefs in silence and maintain
his trust in God.
Job remains, not only the finest contribution of Semitic genius to
the realm of literature, but a classic for all those who feel the
anguish of the world and the unintelligible perplexities of life. If it
conveys no real solution, it at least disposes of one long accepted as
adequate, and its complete overthrow removes one of the worst mistakes
of human observation and refutes one of the cruellest judgments of
men. The idea that prosperity always follows goodness has been a most
disastrous bequest of Hebrew thought, and has more than anything
else obscured from men's eyes the real meaning of life, prevented
an accurate judgment of character, and done much to turn aside the
expression of sympathy and obscure the duty of pity and forgiveness.
That a solution was not within the limits of Israel's faith cannot be
affirmed with Isa. liii. before us; but that it had never been rightly
understood and had never taken deep hold of even noble minds is driven
home with a telling force, in a further contribution of the Wisdom
Literature, the Book of Ecclesiastes.
The name Ecclesiastes is borrowed from the attempt to translate
the Hebrew term _Qoheleth_ into Greek. Of this name a variety of
interpretations have been put forward (Qoheleth, from _qahal_ an
assembly, is the active feminine participle and means, one who
calls, or addresses, or is merely member of, an assembly; A.V., "the
Preacher"; R.V. "the great Orator"), but the one that perhaps best
describes the term is that of "the debater." The work is put forward in
the name of Solomon, and of all the works ascribed to him there is none
that would come so suitably from the pen of that monarch, if he ever
reflected deeply on his career; but this ascription is not kept up with
any idea of deceiving the reader, but is simply one of the literary
customs of the time and a way of honouring a great name, for there
are biographical statements impossible to Solomon ("I _was_ king," i.
12; "above all that were before me in Jerusalem," i. 16), while the
reflection of society and the stage of thought, but most notably the
extremely late language, betray what is one of the latest of the Old
Testament writings.
Ecclesiastes is a work that has held an unusual fascination for certain
types of disposition, Renan declaring that it was the only lovely
thing that ever came from a Hebrew mind. The presence of the book at
all in the Old Testament is strange, and there were strong opinions
against admitting it into the Canon; it was perhaps only eventually
sanctioned because its contradictory statements made it possible to
interpret the book as a work written to controvert pessimistic ideas,
which are brought forward only to be refuted. For the intention of the
work is difficult to gather owing to its disjointed and incomplete
character, which makes the book as it stands a mass of contradictions.
Some passages profess utter pessimism and unbelief in God's providence,
while others, like the closing chapter, seek to inculcate religious
fear and trust. Various theories have been proposed to explain these
phenomena occurring in one book. It has been suggested that the work
is a dialogue between a doubting scholar and an orthodox believer.
With a view of straightening out the argument it has been conjectured
that the sheets of the original have somehow become disarranged, and
others have thought of a series of interpolations in an originally
quite unbelieving work; first by a writer who wishes to defend Wisdom
from the author's charges of unprofitableness, and then by a writer
who wishes to defend the providence of God. If interpolation is to be
thought of at all--and it should only be a refuge of despair--it is
to be sought in the opening and closing verses of the last chapter
(xii. 1, 13, 14), which may have been added to correct the influence
of the work; but even they are not impossible from this strangely
vacillating author. Certainly no explanations can remove the gloomy
tone of the book. The writer seems to have come into contact with
Greek pessimism, and from this standpoint he sees nothing true in the
Hebrew doctrine of retribution, and especially does he reject the too
optimistic doctrines of the Wisdom school. The problems that are solved
so simply in Proverbs, stated and left unanswered by Job, are by this
author answered in entirely negative fashion: nothing is profitable in
this life, nothing is new; nature and man move in an endless cycle
without hope or meaning. The pursuit of Wisdom is just as foolish as
the pursuit of folly: the end of the fool and the end of the wicked is
the same; life is not worth living; vanity of vanities, all is vanity.
In this book we at last come upon a clear recognition of the doctrine
of immortality, but only to find it explicitly denied by our author
(iii. 19-21). The only solution that the writer proposes is a sad
Epicureanism: make the best of a bad world. And yet in spite of this
conclusion the author still believes in God (iii. 11, 14; viii. 17);
but He is a God who has hidden His purpose from man and whom man can do
nothing to turn from His ways. This is more like the inscrutable Fate
of the Greek tragedians than the Jehovah of the Prophets: indeed the
word Jehovah is never once used throughout the book. If the concluding
chapter comes from the original author, then it recommends a religious
attitude towards these mysteries; but there is no revelation of
anything that gives assurance of the reasonableness of this position or
of the goodness of God.
What are we to learn from this Book? Are we to refuse to read it and
to reverse the judgment that included it in the Canon? Hardly that.
It is well that man's doubts should find a place in the same sacred
collection with his surest beliefs, for doubt may be but a stage in a
process from an inadequate to a fuller faith. The book shows that the
common appreciation of Israel's faith could not satisfy the mind that
had its attention fixed upon the facts of life; and especially does it
show that the hope of immortality, apart from which Israel's faith had
largely developed, is not the one thing that is lacking. That hope,
with its promise of retribution in a future and better world, will
always appear too speculative to some minds to relieve the burdens of
the life that now is, and even if believed in, it would offer no real
clue to the meaning of our trials here, but only tend to take men's
eyes off this life where perchance they might find the solution they
have missed. For there is an attitude to life that solves its darkest
problems, a disposition which transmutes its pain and failure, finding
it no enigma, but an opportunity for learning the will of the Father;
our presence here not a thing to be reluctantly borne, but a task to be
joyfully accepted as the commission of God. The book of Ecclesiastes
shows us, therefore, that the revelation through Israel is not yet
complete; for it voices the unsatisfied need and stretches out hands
of faith for something not yet made known. It is the deep dark of the
night; the next hour will see the Morning Star of Bethlehem above the
horizon, the fleeing shadows and the breaking of the day.
MESSIANIC EXPECTATIONS
The prevalence of the expectation of a personal Messiah reflected in
the Gospels, and the clearness and consistency of the idea, are not
to be explained solely from the Old Testament prophecies.
In the Apocrypha the Messianic expectation has almost died out
(Ecclus. xlix. 11; 1 Macc. ii. 57), but after the Maccabæan revolt
it revived, owing doubtless to the disappointment caused by the
deterioration of the Hasmonæan dynasty, of which so much had been
expected. The Pharisees, who resented the policy of the Hasmonæans,
made the idea of a restoration of the Davidic line the peculiar
property of their party, and from this time until the appearance of
Jesus, Messianic expectation reached a point never before attained.
The following summary shows the emergence of the idea in the
literature of the period:--
(1) The Dream-Visions of Enoch. B.C. 166-161. The Messiah appears
under the figure of a white bullock, and the saints are changed
into His image. The Messiah has only an official function in the
world-drama, and a human though glorified personality.
(2) The Sibylline Oracles. In a passage assigned to B.C. 140, the
Messiah is represented as a God-sent King, who is expected to arise
from the East, and whose appearance will be a signal for an attack
upon the Temple by the Gentiles.