Page images




Note [A] p. 199.

This version has been formed after long and minute attention, and with a solicitous endeavour to exhibit as literal a conformity to the sense of the original, as the terms and the idiom of the English language will permit. Assistance has been gathered from the ancient, and many modern, versions. Verse 25. The manifest emphasis of 197' 121 I could not express in any way less objectionable, as conveying not more nor less than the original, than by, I surely do know.— the Living One ; the strictest rendering of this word, which is unquestionably used in the appellative form in passages almost innumerable: sometimes applied to creatures, and then usually rendered, living thing ; but very frequently it is one of the sublime denominations of the Deity, the Fountain of Life; as Job xxvii. 2. Deut. xxxii. 40. Is. xxxvii. 4. xlix. 18. Lxx. ó åévvaos.—1998 the Last, clearly a noun, as in Is. xliv. 6. xlviii. 12. where it is a part of the exalted style of Deity. There is difficulty in the phrase So Dip. According to the common use of the Hebrew language, it denotes to rise up against any one, in defence or resistance; as Deut. xix. 11. Ps. iii. 2. Am. vii. 9. This would give, “shall arise against the dust," i. e. to confute my frail and dying calumniators; or, to counteract the disorganizing and ruinous effects of mortality.But the idioms of the book of Job, on account of its very remote antiquity, cannot be justly interpreted by the state of the language many ages afterwards. This would be to explain Homer by the style of Herodian. I conjecture that this sense of the expression is of lower origin, though used in the Pentateuch; for we find the same idea in the book of Job expressed by the Hithpahel form with the prefix }; ch. xx. 27. and without xxvii. 7. but never by the form in question. Dy dust, scattered earth, always in this book, when it occurs in the figurative sense, denotes either the grave, or the decomposed elements of the body. There appears, therefore, most evidence for attributing to the clause this meaning ;- .he shall arise in triumph over the ruins of mortality." The Targum and the ancient versions, obscure as they are upon most part of the passage, are more perspicuous here, and they agree to this effect. Verse 26. By a most happy and next to demonstrable emendation, reading ONN bp2, Mr. Good has restored this hitherto inextricable clause. Verse 27. Referring, with Kennicott, Scott, and Hales, 77 not a stranger, to the Object, affords a noble and consistent meaning; but the common apposition with Job himself scarcely yields any sense at all. Line 11. I separate this clause from the rest, regarding it as a noble and exulting peroration, finely concluding this grand passage. This idea is at least countenanced by the Lxx. and Vulg. The reins are metaphorically used, in the Hebrew idiom, to denote reflection, Ps. xvi. 7. Ixxiii. 21. Prov. xxiii. 16. As the Heart is figuratively used to signify the temper and disposition; so the Reins, to signify the close thought and reflection of the mind." Taylor's Heb. Conc. The very learned Schultens understands by the phrase, a most ardent desire, consuming, as it were, the reins : “Renes mei consumuntur in sinu meo, atque flagrantissimis desideriis ejus apparitionem accelerari opto.”

Alb. Schultensiï Nova Vers. et Comm. Libr. Jobi ; vol. i. p. 497. This construction is also approved by the younger Rosenmüller, Schol. in V. T. vol. v. part ii. p. 471.

Note (B) p. 202. “Verse 25.-Christians in general, from the earliest times, maintain that Job [in this verse] declares his faith in a happy resurrection at the last day; and this, I have no doubt, is the right construction: but others think that he only hoped for a temporal deliverance. Dr. Kennicott thinks that he did not refer to either, but only to God's appearing in favour of his innocence before his death; which he actually did: but of this Job could not have had any reasonable expectation, and much of his language is inconsistent with it. His wishing so often for death, as the end of all his troubles, shews that he had no ecpectation of any temporal deliverance.Dr. PRIESTLEY's Notes on Scripture, vol. ii. p. 160.

Evidence is largely adduced to shew that the patriarch's hope was fixed on deliverance and happiness in a future state, and Bishop Warburton's assertions to the contrary are confuted, in Peters's Critical Dissertation on the Book of Job; part II. şii. and iii. “ And, indeed, were this the fixed belief of Job, as the author [of the Divine Legation] supposes, that God would at length vouchsafe him a temporal deliverance, his tragical complaints must needs appear ridiculous, his frequent wishing for death would be utterly unaccountable, and his patience so very little that posterity could never have regarded him as a pattern and example of it. No; his only hope was that his innocence would be cleared in the day of judgment; but it was a most affecting concern and grief to him, that it could not be cleared before ; that, after a life led in the practice of the most eminent and conspicuous virtues, he must nevertheless suffer in the opinions of his nearest friends, and have his fame (the dearest thing in the world to a good man, next to his integrity) transmitted with a blemish to posterity, never to be wiped off till the day of judgment." Peters, p. 180.

“Quæ viri sancti verba, qui non de aliâ post mortem vitâ, sed de reddendâ hujus vitæ felicitate, explicant, totum impediunt quæstionis filum; in cujus jam summâ, si eos audias, Jobus sibi contradicit, palinodiam canens, quâ unâ auditâ omnes conticescere disputationes potuissent.”—“Those who explain these words, not of a future life, but of the restoration of prosperity in the present, mistake completely the state of the controversy between Job and his friends; in the very crisis of which, according to them, he contradicts himself, and makes such a recantation as was sufficient to finish the whole dispute.” J. D. Michaelis Epimctron in Lowthiï Præl. xxxii. Oxon. 1763, p. 211.


Note [C] p. 203. See Peters' Critical Dissertation: and Mr. Good's Introductory Dissertation, on the Scene, Scope, Language, Author, and Object of the Book of Job, prefixed to his Version and Notes. The verity of the history, the patriarchal antiquity of the poem, and its high rank in the series of the divine dispensations, are, in my opinion, established with much sobriety of criticism, and with solidity and copiousness of proof. In collecting, from critical examination and analysis, the “ chief doctrines of the patriarchal religion," Mr. G. states these two particulars. “ VII. A day of future resurrection, judgment, and retribution, to all mankind. Ch. xiv. 13-15. xix. 25–29. xxi. 30. xxxi. 14. VIII. The propitiation of the Creator, in the case of human transgressions, by sacrifices (ch. i. 5. xlii. 8.) and the mediation and intercession of a righteous Person. Ch. xlii. 8, 9.”

Dr. Hales ( Anal. of Chronol. vol. ii. b. i. p. 58.) has a communication from Dr. Brinkley, the Dublin Professor of Astronomy; taking Chimah for the leading vernal constellation, and Chesil for the autumnal (ch. xxxviii. 31); and calculating their places by the ratio of the precession of the equinoxes : hence bringing out the age of Job to be 689 years before the Exodus under Moses. Unknown till afterwards to either of the learned writers, M. Ducoutant had published at Paris in 1765, the very same argument, with result differing only in being 42

If Chimah and Chesil be rightly determined to the signs Taurus and Scorpio (which the reasons adduced render, at least, in a very high degree probable), the argument is a demonstration.

66 This Book of Job is one of the oldest and most extraordinary productions that are now extant.—Whoever was the author of it, it is probably the oldest artificial composition of much extent that has come down to us, or of which we have any account."

Dr. Priestley's Notes on Scripture ; ii. 137. Stæudlin, a modern German critic, who plainly disbelieves any inspiration of the Old Testament, takes a middle course. “Conceiving," he says, “that I have discovered in this book phrases, sentiments, and pictures of manners, which belong to a later age, and that its composition is more elaborate and exVOL. I.


years less.

quisite than the generality of the other Hebrew books, I can hardly deem it so ancient as many scholars of the present day suppose : but, since it exhibits, other indubitable marks of a venerable antiquity, I am led to suppose that it was composed by some Hebrew author of a lower age, perhaps Solomon himself, out of certain very ancient remains of poetry, history, and philosophy, to which that author had added some things of his own, and had thrown the whole into its present poetical form and arrangement.”Theol. Moralis Ebræorum ante Christum Hist. Gotting. 1794.

Note [D] p. 204. The elder Schultens (whom Michaelis pronounces to have been “the greatest master of oriental learning in his age”), after minutely examining a vast number of interpretations, thus proceeds : “ But now, in my turn, I profess my decided opinion, that if these expressions are not an empty and unmeaning pomp of words, they clearly mark the Glorious Day of the Resurrection. Turn whithersoever we may, it is imposible, by fair criticism, to escape the conclusion that the Redeemer, the Living One, the Last standing over the dust, refers to the public vindication of Job's innocence; who, though expecting to go down into the dust of death under the reproach of being a guilty person, yet, supported by an upright conscience, declares that a crown of righteousness is laid up for him, which he is fully assured, and desires his assurance to be known to posterity, will be publicly conferred upon him by the righteous Judge of the world, and Redeemer of mankind. This is the point to which the sublime and striking introduction tends, whether (according to my opinion) the image be that of a sepulchral stone, or refer to any other kind of durable monument. With this view, it cannot be well denied that, under the appellation of Redeemer and Living Redeemer, the Messiah is to be understood. That Acharon (the Last) carries the application which the Jews understand, when they call the Messiah Goel Acharon (the Last Redeemer) and Moses Goel Rishon (the first Redeemer) is uncertain, and is not probable, as such an application of terms could not have been known at that time; but this passage might have afforded occasion for the use of the title.” Schultens in Job. v. i. 489.

« PreviousContinue »