be inferred both from peculiar expressions and peculiar ceremonies. But though it may be perfectly clear to us Christians that it may be deduced from the volume of the Law, the real question is, whether it was possible to be 30 deduced by the Israelites. This is an important question, and the affirmation is, in our opinion satisfactorily made out. It is not meant by this observation that the doctrine of a future state was as clearly and particularly declared to the ancient Jewish, as to the Christian Church; for as Mr. F. judiciously remarks,

*

"That the matter was as well understood during the Levitical Dispensation as during the Christian, it would be alike absurd and unscriptural to assert. The Apostle himself teaches us, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing; (Heb. ix. 8.) and the reason is plain; if it had been made fully manifest, no room would have been left for Christ to bring life and immortality to light through the Gospel. Amidst the shadows of the Law, the old Israelites saw as in a glass darkly; but still, though they might have much to learn, both as to the mode and as to the nature of their redemption to eternal life, they had light enough to guide them in their road to heaven; they possessed the grand outlines of that religion, which alone is suitable to fallen man.” Vol. ii. p. 185.

He who institutes an inquiry into the Divine Dispensations vouchsafed to man in the earlier ages of the world would be guilty of a palpable omission, if he did not carefully consult that most instructive, most sublime, but withal most mysterious relict of Patriarchism, the book of Job. Neither the penetration nor industry of Mr. F. would suffer a matter to be overlooked, or negligently handled, which is essential to the full illustration of his subject, notwithstanding the difficulties and dangers that must be encountered in the attempt. Almost every thing relating to the book of Job is involved in doubt and uncertainty. The person of Job, the author of the book, its age, its scope and design, have given birth to multifarious disputes; and it would require a volume to collect the widely diversified opinions of even eminent writers. Mr. Faber has brought to the examination a mind naturally sagacious, and well furnished with the stores of learning; he treats the subject like a scholar and divine; and though we cannot entirely acquiesce in his theory, we admire the acuteness with which it is supported.

The sum and substance of his theory is, that Job was a real person resident in Idumèa; that his family was of the stock of Esau; that he flourished synchronically with Amram and Moses; that the book is an inspired composition written

by Moses; and that its object is to establish the sinfulness of man, the consequent need of a Redeemer in order to obtain justification before God, and the doctrine of a future life to be bestowed through that Redeemer.

That Job was a real, not fictitious, person, there seems no rational ground to deny; and that his country was Idumèa, a part of Arabia Petrèa, is both highly probable, and has been maintained by Lowth, Kennicott, Magee, Hales, Good, Dathe, and many others. As to the age in which he flourished there is a great diversity of opinions; nor has our author cleared up the mist which hangs over it. He may be right in the period to which he has assigned him, but the reasons alleged for it do not amount to any thing like proof.

His principal argument for the position that Job lived contemporaneously with Amram and Moses, is the following:

"One of Job's friends is said to have been Eliphaz the Temanite. (Job ii. 11.) But, in the Scriptural genealogy of Edom, we find Eliphaz mentioned as the son of Esau and as the father of Teman. (Gen. xxxvi. 10, 11.) Now the circumstance of the Edomite Eliphaz being described as the futher of Teman, and the circumstance of Eliphaz the friend of Job being styled the Temanite, jointly identify Eliphaz the friend of Job and Eliphaz the son of Esau: for Eliphaz the friend of Job is styled the Temanite, plainly in consequence of his inhabiting a district in the land of Edom on which he had bestowed the name of his eldest son." Vol. ii. p. 198.

The lameness of this argument is apparent; since it rests upon the supposition that Eliphaz the friend of Job is styled the Temanite, because of his inhabiting a region on which he had bestowed the name of his eldest son, which is surely in a high degree improbable. It is usual to give a patronymic derived from some person to his descendants, but where is the proof that such a patronymic was ever given to his ancestors, and especially to the person by whom it was first applied? The identity, then, of Eliphaz the friend of Job, and Eliphaz the son of Esau and father of Teman, is a merely gratuitous assumption.-His next argument is, that Job is the same as Jobab, the great-grandson of Esau, mentioned Gen. xxxvi. 3, 4. 10. 13. 32, 33. But of this there is no evidence, except what arises from the similarity of the names, which, however, are different, and this difference not only renders it improbable that they denote the same person, but would be unaccountable, if, as Mr. F. supposes, Moses was the writer of both works. To these arguments he subjoins a chronological one; but, though our limits forbid us to exS

VOL. XX. SEPTEMBER, 1823.

amine it at large, we must be allowed to express our opinion, that it contains more of assumption than of proof. Besides, the opinion which places Job in a more remote age, is supported by reasons which must be pronounced to be at least plausible, and which, therefore, ought to be refuted before a different hypothesis can be adopted; especially the argument of Dr. Brinkley, given to the public in Dr. Hales's New Analysis, in which, by a very ingenious astronomical calculation, he fixes the time of the patriarch's trial to the 184th year before the birth of Abraham.

Though Mr. Faber has not, in our judgment, removed the uncertainty in which the age of Job has been left by preceding writers, one thing is clear, that it must be referred to a very remote period. The length of Job's life evidently places him in the patriarchal ages; the total silence of the book respecting the miracles which accompanied the departure of the children of Israel from Egypt; the absence of any allusion to the passage of the red sea, and journeyings in the wilderness; the omission of any reference to the peculiarities of the Mosaic laws and institutions; the allusion made by Job to Zabianism, or the worship of the heavenly host, which was probably the most ancient species of idolatry; the manners, and customs, and sentiments recorded in the poem, exactly correspond with those of a very high antiquity; and the language and idiom of the book, which are allowed by those who are most competent to judge to evince a remote age; all these circumstances prove beyond a doubt the great antiquity of the poem, and the remote period in which Job lived, though it may not be possible to ascertain with precision the exact age in which he flourished.

The question respecting the author of the book is one of great difficulty, as, from the absence of direct testimony, it must be determined by such internal evidence as the work itself affords. The opinion of its late composition, defended by Grotius, Heath, Garnet, and Warburton, is ably refuted by our author; but he is not so successful in vindicating his own hypothesis as in demolishing those of others. Adopting the opinion of many writers, that Moses was the author, he endeavours to demonstrate it by shewing, in the first place, that the book must have been written by an Israelite subsequent to the delivery of the law; and, in the next place, that this Israelite must have been Moses. The former of these positions he attempts to establish by an appeal to Job xxxi. 26-28. If I beheld the sun when it shined, or the moon walking in brightness; and my heart hath been secretly enticed, or my mouth hath kissed my hand: THIS ALSO WERE

AN INIQUITY TO BE PUNISHED BY THE JUDGE; for I should have denied the God that is above. Job, he argues is here represented as speaking of a law by which idolatry might be punished by the civil magistrate. But no such law was in existence, until it was delivered to Moses from Mount Sinai. Therefore the author of the book must have flourished subsequent to the delivery of the law; and consequently could not have been Job himself, who flourished at an earlier period. (Vol. II. pp. 240-247.)

The whole force of this argument depends upon the circumstance that Job, in the passage just cited, actually represents idolatry as a sin punishable by the civil magistrate, which, to say the least, is extremely doubtful, as is apparent from the discordant glosses of commentators *, Our own authorised version is supported by some writers of no mean distinction; but it is rather a paraphrase than translation, so many words being supplied to make out the sense. The important clause "this also were an iniquity to be punished by the judge," in the original is

גם הוא

The word in this precise form occurs no where else but certainly denotes judges, and it is derived from a verb denoting to judge, so that it cannot in fairness be supposed to have any other meaning here. In this signification of the word the phrase admits three interpretations, viz. first, "this is a judicial iniquity," i. e, an iniquity to be punished by the judge: secondly, "this is an iniquity to or towards my judge:" and thirdly, this, Q my judge, is an iniquity." These, perhaps, are not irreconcileable; but the main point to be determined is, who is meant by the person here denominated the judge? Now Job would scarcely call the civil magistrate "my judge," or

even

*The clause in E. T. "this also were an iniquity to be punished by the judge," is thus variously explained: "delictum meum foret etiam judex meus," Le Clerc; "etiam hæc iniquitas arbitratoria," Schultens; "crimen hoe fuisset judice dignum," Dathe; "this also would be a profligacy of the understanding," Good; "percioche quello è una sceleratezza, ed un iniquita criminale," Diodati; "hoc quoque esset crimen censura arbitrorum dignum," Bauer; even this were iniquity to be punished by my judge, or, this were iniquity, O my judge," Scott; this were iniquity to be punished by my judge," Boothroyd; "etiam hoc reputetur mihi pro crimine deperdite flagitiosorum," Reiske; "this also were a fearful crime which God's vicegerents should punish," Bp. Patric's Paraphrase; "this were an iniquity to be punished by the judge," E. T.; and it is rendered much in the same way by most in Poli Synop. by Jo. Hen. Michælis, Rosenmüller, Dathe, Bishop Stock, &c. and by the Lexicographers Castell, Buxtorf, Cocceius, and Simonis. The word 5 is taken by Gousset " pro quolibet arbitro ac miti æstimatore." With respect to the ancient versions, the Vulgate, Septuagint, and Targum, understand the clause as denoting "a great iniquity," "quæ est iniquitas maxima." The Syriac and Arabic diverge from the original, and the Hexapla is defective in loc.

emphatically "the judge;" for, as an Arabian prince, there was no power on earth to call him to account, or to punish his transgressions. It is far more natural to suppose that he would give this appellation to the Almighty, whose power and justice are largely set forth in the poem; and that he does actually mean to designate the omniscient Governor of the world appears from the circumstance of his speaking of SECRET SINS, of which God alone can be the judge. If I have made gold my hope, says he, or have said to the fine gold, Thou art my confidence; if I have rejoiced because my wealth was great, and because my hand hath gotten much; if 1 beheld the sun when it shined, or the moon walking in brightness; and my heart hath been secretly enticed, or my mouth hath kissed my hand; then, in this case he asserts, that it were an iniquity to be punished by the judge; for I should have denied the God that is above; the evident meaning of which is, that if he had been guilty of the sins specified, it would have been an iniquity known to, and punishable by the Supreme Judge *. Hence, as there is no allusion to the civil magistrate in the text, the foundation of Mr. Faber's argument is subverted; an argument which, though previously advanced among others by Bishop Warburton, would never have been brought forward with such confidence, had the original been consulted with a critical eye.

The remaining position, that the Israelite who, in Mr. F.'s opinion, must have written the book was Moses, is backed by several passages from the book itself; but it is unnecessary to examine them, as with respect to all of them he makes the following acknowledgment.

"Here, indeed, I would have it distinctly understood, that the allusions, which I am about to produce, by no means stand on the same footing as the passage relative to the punishment of idolatry by the civil magistrate; nor do I at all bring them forward as any proofs, properly so called, that Moses was the author of the poem. So far from it, I freely allow, that they might be viewed as mere general expressions; and, consequently, I build no demonstrative argument upon them whatsoever. All which I contend for is this; that, if the passages in question be allusions to particular incidents, they are precisely such as Moses, under his circumstances, might well be expected, above all other men, to have introduced.". Vol. II. P. 248.

* We refer our readers to Parkhurst, Lex. 5; Scott's Note to his Metrical Version of Job; and the judicious Peters, Pref. to Critical Diss. on Job.