JERUSALEM
JESHIMON
Besant
and Palmer,
; Benzinger
‘94
‘
Buhl
Bliss and Dickie
’94-’97
’98
and
of Sir Charles ’Wilson in Smith‘s
and of
Conder in Hastings’
See also Baedeker’s
by
and Benzinger, ’go, and Murray’s by
Smith, 1892. T h e sources for the Byzantine and
topography are
in the volumes of the Palestine Pilgrims’
Text Society
the Arabic topography in
the
1890
but its translations, often freely given
must he used with caution.
On
modern Jerusalem,
notices in many of the above-cited works (especially the two
guide-hooks),
the
E. Sherman Wallace,
U.S.
Consul in the city.
G . A.
R.
12-36
C .
R.
C . ,
3-11.
JERUSHA
a
compound of
and
the
latter perhaps a divine name represented by
HE’
in
[see B
AASHA
, n.
I
]
; so
S.
A.
Cook,
5266
[AL],
[Jos.
11
bath Zadok, the queen-mother of
K.
27
I
(where
Jerushah,
[B]
possibly as though= pos-
sessed
‘-
i.
e . , married
’).
JESHAIAH,
twice AV
Jesaiah
saves,’ the same name
as
that of the prophet
I
SAIAH
i.
I
)
I
.
AV
JESAIAH
and Pelatiah, sons of
b. Zerubbahel
Ch. 3
according to
Pesh., Vg., he was the son of Pelatiah.
A son of (the Merarite) Jeduthun (
I
25315
; cp 3 and 5 below.
3.
A
descendant of Moses
( I
Ch. 2625
who
in
I
Ch. 24
appears as
cp 23
17
; as a Levite
he
is probably assigned to Merari cp 24
with 23 17
See
above and 5 below.
4.
h. Athaliah, one of the clan called B’ne
in Ezra’s
(see
E
ZRA
i.,
ii.,
15
Ezra8 7
B],
[A],
Esd. 8 33
R V
[B],
[AL]).
5.
A
Merarite Levite in Ezra’s caravan (see
E
ZRA
15
Esd.848,
B),
which is based on some such form as
32).
See above.
6.
AV
J
ESAIAH
,
a
Benjamite (Neh. 11
7
K A N A
T H N A N A
a
city taken by
from Jeroboam
( 2
Ch.
and doubtless also
mentioned in
I
S.
7
(critically
text
see
Josephus ( A n t . viii.
11
3)
calls it
see
A n t .
xiv.
15
5
v.
It
mod.
‘Ain
3f m.
N.
of Bethel, a n interesting
tncient site
Ganneau,
‘77, p.
206,
PEFM
302).
JESHARELAH
I
Ch.
25
see
JESHEBEAB
‘ h e brings back a father’?
though
6 2 ; om.
[AL],
[Vg.], cp Gray,
H P N 24
[Pesh.]),
the name
of
a
priestly course
(
I
Ch.
readings point to an original Ishbanl,’ which has been
adopted by
( S B O T )
it is hardly likely that the
Chronicler would give a priest a name compounded with
that of the detested Baal. On the other hand, the name
may well have been traditional, and perhaps
illy disguised by the Chronicler (or rather by a later
scribe), with the above rather weak result.
Cp Oholiab
for
(see O
HOLIBAH
), and see I
SHBAAL
,
JESHER
[Ra.],
cp
[BA]),
son
of
C
ALEB
and
JESHIMON.
I n the six places where AV has
Jeshimon as
a
place-name
(Nu.
21
23
I
23
24
26
I
RV invariably has ‘ t h e desert,’ while
The passages in square brackets are by
also the
following sections
:
12-18,
27
30.
JASHOBEAM,
S. A.
Ch.
2
retired to the upper city, the lower town from the
temple to Shiloah was burned by the Romans.
The
capture of the upper city was effected by
a
regular
approach with mounds and battering-rams (September
70
A.D.),
and even then the huge citadel of Herod
could only have yielded to famine had it not been
abandoned by the Jewish leaders in
a
vain attempt a t
escape (I
SRAEL
,
Its three great towers, with
a
portion
of
the western wall, were left as
a
memorial,
and of this group the so-called tower
of
David (Phasael)
still stands.
The rebuilding of Jerusalem by Hadrian seems to
have been conceived in
a
spirit friendly to the Jews, and
there
is
even some evidence that the
restoration of the temple was contemplated
or
commenced. After the great revolt
A
. D . ) ,
however,
Capitolina was trans-
formed
a
purely pagan town with seven quarters
a n d many buildings of heathen
[It was not
nearly
so
large as the Jerusalem of the
: the
SW.
hill lay outside the walls (Jer.
‘ T h e
walls appear to have run very nearly on the lines of
the present city
The
of
and the rise of the
of
pilgrimage gave a new
to
the city of the ’crucifixion
and resurrection, and in the time of
36.
Christianity.
Constantine the ‘discovery’ of the Holy
Sepulchre and the erection of the magnifi-
cent
church of the Anastasis (dedicated 336
again a great religious centre.
In the pagan reaction under
Julian an attempt was made to rebuild the temple
but it was
frustrated by
an outburst of fire from the foundations (362).
T h e unfortunate empress
spent her
years a t
Jerusalem (about
built the church of
Stephen,
founded monasteries and hospitals, enriched the churches [and
above all rebuilt the walls of the city (Evagrius, H E
on the old and wider lines, especially on the
Thus
was
again included, and is so described by
Martyr
about
It
is in all probability the
of Eudocia’s
that Bliss found in his upper wall from
scarp
t o
(see above,
a,
The next great builder
was
Justinian, part of whose splendid church of
Mary perhaps
still remains in, or to the E. of, the mosque
In
614
Jerusalem was taken by
and the churches and
sepulchre were burned;
the vicar of the exiled patriarch
began to restore them even before the Persians retired.
I n 628 Heraclius retook the city; hut its Christian days were
numbered. I n 637 Jerusalem capitulated to the caliph ‘Omar
who gave directions for the erection of a place
36.
Islam.
worship on the site of the ‘remotest
the temple, to which Mohammed, according to
was transported from Mecca in his
night
journey. From this verse the great sanctuary of Jerusalem
received the name el-Aks., now generally confined to the
a t the
end
the
T h e original mosque
a s described by Arculphus
was a rude edifice of wood
capable of containing
worshippers
hut soon after, the
sanctuary
was
reconstructed in a style of
by
the caliph ‘Abd
whose date (72
A
.
H
.
A
.
D
.) is still
read in a
inscription on the Dome of the Rock, though
the name of the caliph seems to have been changed to that of
who restored the buildings after a great earthquake
which, according to Mokaddasy, left nothing standing
the part around the
or niche indicating the direction of
Mecca.
I n
their present condition the buildings of the
sanctuary show features of very various styles, from the
Byzantine downwards. T h e architectural problems which they
suggest are closely connected with controversies as to the
of the T
EMPLE
and the true site of the Holy
Sepulchre (see
G
O
L
G
O
T
H
A
).
Apart from the question of the holy
sites, the later topography of Jerusalem presents no feature that
need detain
and the subsequent fortunes of the city
to
the general history of Palestine and the crusades.
Among the countless
on
the subject the
may
and
52;
der
etc.,
‘54
D e
de la
1860
Le Temple de
Bun
etc
Neubauer,
68;
Warren,
‘76
on
Jerus., ‘84 this covers the work to
83;
for subsequent
the PEFQ, and the
Details in
2243.
Bliss
306.
3
plan of Jerusalem discovered a t Medeba in
omits the church of
Stephen and represents the
wall as turning N E . after including the church of Mt. Zion on
the site of the present
Its date must therefore be
earlier
Eudocia. There are also traces upon it of Hadrian’s
wall excluding the church
on Mt. Zion.
JESHISHAI
retains Jeshimon’
[BAFL] in Nu.,
[BA], [
T
O
O]
[L]
in
S).
The word
occurs frequently elsewhere as a common
noun
(Dt.
32
Ps.
7
78 40
Is.
43
etc.) with allusion
to
the wilderness of Sinai.
The Jeshimon of
Nu.,
which is immediately overlooked
by Pisgah,
the long tract of barren land
N.
of the
Dead Sea
that of Sam., before which is the hill of
Hachilah (see H
ACHILAH
), is the eastern part of the hill-
,country of Judah.
For a vivid sketch of the latter see
GASm.
and cp B
ETH
-
JESHIMOTH
, D
ESERT
,
JESHISHAI
‘aged’
om. Pesh.), in a genealogy of G
AD
13)
5
one might read
causes to grow,’ but this
hardly worth
while. The
contains three kindred names, derived from
and
or
First comes
a
corruption
of
Maaseiah then
Asaiah and lastly
a corruption
of
Maaseel), a Simeonite, temp. Hezekiah
(I
Ch.
suggests
Jesse.
JESHOHAIAH (
T. K.
C.
JESHUA
8 4 ;
[L]),
a
place in the list
of
towns of Judah,
25-30
(see
and obviously in the extreme
S.
towards
Edom.
I t is mentioned just before M
OLADAH
and is obviously only another form of the
Josh.
and the
[i.] of Josh.
19
T h e most original form is doubtless
became
and
b
hecame w (cp
in Jerus.
for
Frankel,
and finally was prefixed by a copyist. The
form
Shew‘a lies probably a t the root of the Ar.
the name of a ruined place situated on a high hill a
little more than half-way between Kh. ‘Attir
and Kh.
and due
W.
of Tell
So
in 1861, followed
by
commentators. Conder, however, limits the
cation to Jeshua
JESHUA
a later form
of
J
OSHUA
cp
I
.
b. Nun Neh.
A
.
A
of the b’ne Pahath-Moab in the great
exilic
list [see
E
ZRA
8
I
Esd. 5
3.
Father of Jozabad, a Levite,
Esd. 863
;
JESUS
reads esus Jozabad).
4
Father of
of
Neh.
Jeshua b. Jehozadak the high priest, who, together
Zerubbabel, is often mentioned in contemporary
writings see Hag., and Zech.
3-6,
where, however, his
name is uniformly written J
OSHUA
As in Ezra
he is mentioned prominently in connection
with the building of the temple but to other questions
Hag. and Zech. unfortunately give no answer. Was
he one of the leaders in what is commonly called
‘
the
Return ?
(For
a discussion of the large question here
suggested, see E
ZRA
-N
EHEMIAH
,
7,
and cp
BABEL
.
)
T h e
‘
sons of Jeshua b. Jozadak were among
those who had taken foreign wives
His
descendants are traced down to Jaddua
in Neh.
In the Apocryphal
books
of
I
Esd.
and Ecclus.
49
the name appears regularly
as
JESUS.
6. ‘The house of Jeshua’ was a priestly family among whom
were incorporated the
Jedaiah
39=
I
Esd.
524).
T o show their antiquity the Chronicler mentions
a
Jeshua among the representatives of the
courses
instituted by David
(
I
Ch. 24
AV
J
ESHUAH
);
cp also Ch.
31
where Jeshua is a priest of the time of Hezekiah.
7.
The b’ne Jeshua and Kadmiel are names of
families,
Esd. 526,
JESSUE,
J
ESUS
[A],
see GENEALOGIES
and cp
They both occur together a s individual
names in
and
[
IO]
(Jeshua b.
and
Jeshua alone in
R V
here
eives
‘or Sheba.’ as if Sheba were a mere
T. K.
C.
JESUS
JESHUAH
I
Ch. 2411
AV, RV J
ESHUA
i.
JESHURUN,
in Is.
AV
or
Is.];
the other Greek versions in Dt.
[Symm.,
Theod.]
Pesh., Tg. Israel
Dt.
32
Dt.
33
and Is.
Ar. Walt.
‘praised’ [Dt.
32
335,
but in
‘Israel’ Gr. Ven.
a poetical name for the people of Israel
26
Is.
From the lateness of the
writings in which it occurs Jeshurun might he an
artificial formation, designed to represent the ideal of
people,
righteousness (from
upright).
This view, however, is not favoured by the
use of the term in the above four passages Jeshurun
(if the vowels are right)
is
nothing more than
a
synonym
for Israel.
Late writers had access to and sometimes
utilised
facts. I t is possible, therefore,
that there was a shortened form of the ethnic name
Israel, which was not unknown
as
(hence the
name of
a
son
of
I
Ch.
hut was still better
known as
(vocalised on the analogy of Zebulun,
perhaps rather
The termination is probably not
a
diminutive (Ges.,
with Gr. Ven. [above]), but indicates that the bearer
of the name belongs to a certain category (Kon.
will mean one who belongs to or
represents the ethnic category
of
Whether
originally conveyed the idea of righteousness or
(cp
prosperity, we cannot
later times it
may very well have done
s o ;
the name
when
its real origin (see J
ACOB
,
6 ) had been forgotten,
may have been explained by
‘God’s righteous
one.’
See J
ASHAR
,
B
OOK
OF,
and
cp Bacher,
(‘85)
G. Hoffmann,
(’96).
JESIAH
I
Ch.
1 2 6
AV
I
Ch.
JESIAS
[B]
etc.),
I
Esd.
833,
8 7 ,
JESIMIEL
[Ginsb.], or
T. K.
C.
AV RV.
,
J
ESHAIRH
, 4.
the text seems wrong; hut see N
AMES
,
31, where
is
favoured cp
[AL] see
a Simeonite, temp. Hezekiah
Ch. 436).
JESSE
52 contracted from
[see
N
AMES
,
or
from
cp Icabod
from Ahi-cabod
[so
Marquart,
24
see
also
for
view see
J
EZEBEL
in many MSS of
I
Ch.
213
[BAQL],
son
of
Obed and father of David
(see
I
) .
JESSUE
[A]),
I
Esd.
Ezra
240,
7.
I
Esd.
J
ESHUA
3.
JESUI
Nu.
2 6 4 4 ;
Jesuite
See
T.
C.
JESURUN
Is.
RV
JESUS
(
[BAL]), the Greek form of J
OSHUA
I
.
See
JOSHUA
I
Esd.
ii.,
3.
I
Esd.
863
3.
4.
Ecclus.
etc.
and J
ESHUA
.
See
ii., 5.
name-lists
must often have troubled the Chronicler. T h e
priestly
is perhaps related to Jeshua
the same
way as Abiasaph
3);
cp
(iii.
c.
2434
variant of
In the case of Jeshua,
as
with so many post-exilic names,
there are numerous instances where identification is out of the
question. Indeed, we may plausibly suppose that such a common
and reputable name may have served
to
fill some of the gaps in
2433
JESUS
'JESUS
Esd.
2 36
6 .
6.
I
Esd.
7.
Father
of
Sirach.
8.
Son
See E
CCLESIASTICUS
,
5
A
name in
the
genealogy
of
Jesus,
Lk.
J
O
SE).
I
O.
See
See
$3
See G
ENEALOGIES
ii.,
3f;
JESUS
Sources
Tradition,
Preaching Ministry,
$3 gf;
Teaching.
Conflicts with
Judaism, $3
Messianic Ideal,
5
Passion Week,
The Future,
5
Literature,
34.
Tesus Christ. the author and obiect
of
the Christian
faith,
a
Jew by race, was born in
towards the
end of the reign of Herod the Great
The home
(C
HRONOLOGY
. 6
of his childhood was N
AZARETH
, a town
the lower
division of the province of G
ALILEE
5).
The family
to which he belonged was of humble estate.
In early
youth he worked a t a handicraft (see J
OSEPH
[husband
of Mary],
9).
On arriving at mature manhood he be-
came a
teacher, rapidly gained fame, gathered
about him disciples, offended the ruling classes by free
criticism of the prevailing religion, and ended a brief
but extraordinary career by suffering crucifixion.
This short summary of facts is taken from those
books in the N T which bear the name of Gospels, and
are
our
main source of information for
These documents
are of varying value
from
a historical point of view.
Critical opinion
is
much divided as to the fourth, that
which bears the name
of
John, the judgment of many
critics being that it is the least trustworthy as a source
whether for the words or for the acts
of
Jesus.
By
comparison, the first three, from their resemblances
called
are regarded by many as possessing
a
considerable measure of historical worth.
But even
these, from a critical point of view, are not of equal
value, nor do the contents of any one of them possess a
uniform degree of historic
They present
to the critic
a
curious, interesting, and perplexing
problem still far
final solution.
By their re-
semblances and differences, agreements and disagree-
ments, they raise
questions as to origin, relative
dates, and literary connections, which have called forth
a
multitude of conflicting hypotheses and a most ex-
tensive critical literature.
I n the present state of the
inquiry a dogmatic tone is inadmissible. All that one
may do with propriety is to indicate what he regards
as
the most plausible opinion. W e are concerned with
the question here only in as far as is necessary to explain
and justify the method on which the public life of Jesus
is
dealt with in this article.
W e may regard
as the oldest of the synoptical
Gos-
pels, and in its leading contents thenearest to the primitive
tradition.
I n its present form, or in an
earlier shape, it appears to have been the
main source of the narrative parts of the
other two Gospels.
In
many sections the style is
suggestive of an eye-witness,
so
as to make the reader
feel that he is in contact with the ultimate source of the
tradition, the oral narratives of the companions
of Jesus. As reported by Eusebius
Papias,
Bishop
of
Hierapolis, writing about
125
A.D.,
described
Mark
as
the
interpreter
of
Peter,
which
probably means that he helped the apostle to put what
he had to say into Greek or
Internal evidence
supports the hypothesis of such a connection between
much of the material in the second Gospel and one of
the men who had been with Jesus, and with none of
them more probably than with Peter as he
is
represented
in the evangelic tradition.
This Gospel is full of
realisms.
Its graphic style has often been remarked
on.
But it is not
a
question of merely pictorial narrative.
The phenomena to be noted are descriptions to the life,
See Sanday,
Lectures
for
p.
280.
2435
the history of Jesus.
vivid presentations
of
a striking personality, words and
acts reported just as they must have been said and
done, because they had impressed themselves indelibly
on the ear and eye of the reporter.
What specially
makes for the hypothesis of an eye-witness, and generally
for the primitive character of
reports, is the
disregard manifest in them of conventional considera-
tions of the fitting and edifying. The influence of such
considerations is traceable in the other two Synoptists,
especially
in
In the third Gospel Jesus is the
Lord
(about
a
dozen times
so
named in narrative
where Mt. and Mk. have Jesus), and it is never for a
moment forgotten what religions decorum demands
in recording the words and acts of so august a person
age.
For this Lk. may in part be personally re-
sponsible, but probably not altogether.
The decorum
of his narrative reflects the reverence of the early church
for its risen and exalted Head, the writer's deference
thereto showing itself in the omission
of
some things
reported in the primitive tradition and in the putting
of other things in a modified way.
This reverence
and its controlling influence would grow with time.
The absence of that influence from Mk.
narrative a s
evinced by the realism, of which examples will be given
as we proceed, is an index at once of antiquity and
of first
-
hand sources of information.
Peter doubt-
less shared the reverence of the church for its Lord.
But Peter had seen and heard, and the vivid sense of
the unique reality overpowered all considerations of
what was becoming, such as might naturally weigh with
those who had not seen or heard but drew their in-
formation mainly from documents. And
so
we see
containing, according to Papias, the report of
Peter's recollections, the real man Jesus, without the
aureole
of
faith around his head, yet with
a
glory of
truth, wisdom, and goodness the better seen on that
very
The informant who tells of
connection with
Peter says, also. that Matthew wrote a book of Logia
.
339).
Most modern critics treat this statement
with respect
:
but few identify the
of Papias, written (as he states) in the
with our Canonical Mt., even to the extent of seeing in
the latter a simple translation into Greek of the Hebrew
original.
The prevailing and intrinsically reasonable
opinion is that the book of the publican apostle was
the source whence the author
of
our Mt. drew the words
or discourses of Jesus
so
amply reported in his Gospel.
He, and also the author of
Lk.
for
in
the didactic ele-
ment there is much common to the first Gospel and the
third, though the latter contains a considerable amount
of peculiar material which may have been derived from
a
different source. T h e common matter is given in such
varied forms and connections in the two
Gospels
as to
suggest either various redactions of the source or very
free
by one
or
both Evangelists. How variations
might arise is easily conceivable.
Collections of the
words of Jesus were
not
made
a purely historical
or
antiquarian spirit. They met the demand of disciples for
Christian instruction, for words of the Master by which
they might guide their lives.
The practical aim would
influence the form and the collection
of
the Logia
as
used by preachers and catechists. The words of
the Lord Jesus 'would almost involuntarily undergo
modification to suit actual circumstances. This process
has gone farthest in Lk.
Besides the influence of
decorum already touched upon, we note in
report
of the words of Jesus, as compared with Mt.
a certain
indifference to the historical setting, to the actual cir-
cumstances under which and with reference to which
Jesus spoke, a disregard of the religious antitheses of
the time, and a translation of the sayings into terms,
and an ideal transposition to a time, which fit them for
present use of the Church. The 'Sermon on the
Mount' in
report is virtually a discourse of the
JESUS
JESUS
exalted Lord to
a
Christian congregation, edited either
by the Evangelist or by another in that view.
Having
regard to this broad contrast between the first Gospel
and the third, we can have no difficulty in giving to
the former the preference as to comparative originality.
Neither may give the
but on the whole
Mt. comes nearer them than Lk.
From the foregoing statement it follows that the
narratives common to Mt.,
and Lk., and the
courses common to Mt. and
Lk.,
may
with
a
considerable measure of confidence
be regarded
as
a trustworthy tradition con-
cerning the ministry of Jesus.
They represent the
oldest, comparatively primitive, tradition, and
as
such
must form the basis of a statement concerning that
ministry professing to be guided by
a
critical method.
They relate exclusively to the public life, passing over
in silence almost unbroken the childhood and early
According to this primitive tradition, the public
career of Jesus began when another remarkable man
6.
John
the
Baptist.
attitude as
a
was performing the part of a prophet in
the wilderness
of
:
a
man of austere
ascetic life, symbolising the severity of his
moral critic of his time preaching to all
classes the necessity of repentance, and
the
Jordan such as received his message as the voice of
God-hence known
as
the Baptist
(see
I
SRAEL
,
Jesus came from Nazareth (Mk.
to see' and hear
John, and, like the others, received baptism at his hands
(see J
ORDAN
,
a fact stated by Mk. without note or
by Mt. in a way implying that it needed ex-
planation, by Lk. (in a participial clause) as a sub-
ordinate incident.
Expositors and theologians have
endeavoured to explain the significance
of
this event.
I t meant this at least : that Jesus felt
a
deep sympathetic
interest in John's work.
T h e visit
to
the Jordan helps
us to look back into the silences of Nazareth
it is a
window into the mind of Jesus. John, we gather, was
a great man for him.
So
he confessed at a subsequent
time (Mt.
and what he said then shows what he
had thought before he left the seclusion of Nazareth.
T o be baptized by such a man was a suitable start for
his own ministry.
I t was a public intimation of moral
solidarity.
How far his tendencies, methods, and habits
agreed with
or
differed from those of the prophet
of
the wilderness would appear in due course; it was
well, to begin with, that fundamental sympathy should
be at once made manifest.
How long Jesus remained in the region
the lower part of the Jordan and the Dead Sea is un-
certain.
Mk. states that he returned
to Galilee after John had been 'delivered
(that is, thrown into prison by
Herod, tetrarch of Galilee : see Mk.
6
All three
Synoptists make mention of a retirement into the remoter
inhospitable wilderness of
and
of
an experience
of
moral trial there, familiarly known as
Temptation.
T h e bare fact (intrinsically credible) is stated by Mk.,
without the symbolic representation given in the parallel
accounts but the impulse to this'withdrawal into solitude
is
very realistically described by him, as a being
driven
by the Spirit into the desert
which, as external
force
is
not to be thought of, speaks of intense mental
preoccupation.
At length Jesus, with clarified vision and confirmed
will, returned to Galilee, the main theatre of his future
work as we know-it from the oldest tradition,'
there to enter on activities which have won
for him a unique place in the history of
the
I t does, not clearly appear from Mk.
We might
say
the exclusive theatre, were it not for
a
few
incidents
connected with the final journey
to Jerusalem
through
(little children brought to
Jesus
man seeking
eternal
life
with
relative
conversation
two
sons
man at
Jericho).
Mk.
makes
multitudes
Mt.
makes him
There are rudimentary indica-
tions of
a
Samaritan ministry in Lk. (in the long insertion
2437
whether he chose any particular spot
as
the centre from
which his activity was to radiate.
I t is certain that
Nazareth was no such centre. With the exception of
an occasional visit, his native town (but see N
AZARETH
)
was henceforth forsaken for other scenes more suitable
or more sympathetic. Among these a prominent place
belongs to Capernaum, a thriving populous town on the
shore of the lake of Galilee.
The public ministry of Jesus presents four broad
aspects :
(
I
)
a
preaching ministry among the people at
large
a
teaching ministry among disciples (3) a
healing ministry;
(4)
a
prophetic or critical ministry
antagonistic to current conceptions and embodiments
righteousness.
I
.
T h e
scene of the first form of ministry, the
was the synagogue. On his way northwards
from the Jordan Jesus at length arrived
at Capernaum, . and
straightway on
the sabbath day he entered into the synagogue and
taught
(Mk.
Shortly thereafter he set out
a
.
preaching tour through the towns of Galilee
Here one of
realisms occurs.
Jesus appears
in
his narrative making a flight from Capernaum in t h e
grey dawn while all are asleep, possibly a flight from
the unexpected reality into which his ideal conception of
his calling had brought him (Holtzmann,
certainly an escape from sudden entangling
popularity
to
similar service elsewhere.
For this
I
left (Capernaum), said Jesus simply, in self-defence,
to disciples who bad pursued him
( 1 3 8 ) .
I n
version flight is eliminated, and
a
reference to his divine
mission is substituted for an apology for flight (443).
Of this synagogue-ministry no detailed record has.
been preserved.
Not
a
single specimen of the brief
striking synagogue addresses of Jesus is to be found in
the Gospels-at least there is none under that name : it
is possible that some
the beautiful
exhortation against earthly care (Mt.
Lk.
1222-34)
-assigned
to
other occasions-were really delivered in
synagogues.
Lk. has given
us
the text, and a general
characterisation, of one synagogue address-that delivered
in Nazareth
If, as without sufficient reason
some suspect, his account be unhistorical, it is, to say the
least, a felicitous invention. The text from the
of Isaiah
is thoroughly typical
of
the religious
attitude and spirit of Jesus, and the expression 'words of
grace
is doubtless most apt, whether
we take it as applying to the manner or to the substance
of the discourse.
account of the appearance
of
Jesus in the synagogue of Nazareth is
and it is
fit, to be
a
symbolic programme of his whole preaching
ministry.
Mk.
contribution to the characterisation
of the
is a report of the impression
made by what was probably the first appearance of
Jesus as a
a synagogue, that in Capernaum.
They exclaimed, he tells
What is this, a new
doctrine
and he explains that the novelty was
that Jesus spake not as the scribes, who appealed to
authorities, but
as
himself having authority
:
with the
confidence of personal insight and with the authority
of
self-evidencing truth.
Mk. makes
a
general preliminary statement about
the preaching ministry in Galilee which may be viewed
as covering the synagogue preaching
:
Jesus came into
Galilee, preaching the Gospel of God, and saying, T h e
time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand : re-
pent ye, and believe in the Gospel
' (1
14
f.
).
Hence it may
951-1814).
The fourth Gospel makes Jerusalem and
the
main
scene
of
the activity
of
Jesus. The Synoptists
only
of one
visit to
Jerusalem-that during which he was crucified.
How long the ministry lasted
we
can
only
conjecture. There
is no
chronology in the
tradition. (See further.
C
HR
O
N
O
LOGY
,
The
use
of
this word shows that the evanqelist
did not distinguish between the
forms
of ministry so
as has
been
done above. Mt. uses both words
423)
to describe the synagogue ministry. So
Mk.
in
139.
JESUS
JESUS
be inferred that the constant theme
of
the
was
the kingdom of God, that the kingdom was presented as a
boon rather than as
a
demand as good news
not as awful news-the aspect under which it appeared
i n the preaching of John
and that the summons of the
preacher was not merely to repentance, but above all to
e . ,
good news welcome. The statement
is
summary, and its language may be secondary, coloured
:somewhat by the dialect of a later time but even in
that case we are not left without a clue to the general
tenor of Jesus' popular discourses. W e might gather it
from a saying whose authenticity is as certain as its im-
port is significant :
I
came not to call the righteous, but
sinners
(Mk.
2
17
Mt.
9
5
32).
T h e value of this
declaration lies in this, that, whilst spoken with reference
t o
a particular occasion, it indicates a habitual
a
fixed policy. Jesus addressed himself by preference to
those who could not be regarded as in the conventional
sense exemplary. The chosen audience reflects light
on the nature of the message.
It was good tidings even
t o the ignorant, the erring, the fallen, the outcast,
that the past might be forgiven and forgotten, and
that the future offered great possibilities. What
inspiring ideas of God and man and their relations
underlay such teaching
!
T h e occasion on which the
saying was uttered also throws
a
contributory light on
the
of the Galilean Gospel. Jesus had been eating
with publicans and sinners,' and was on his defence for
that act.
In this connection the term call' must bear
the special sense of an invitation to an entertainment.
gloss to repentance' restricts and even obscures
the meaning. T h e kingdom, as Jesus preached it, was
a
feast, and his call was a generous invitation to come
and enjoy its good things.
In his popular addresses Jesus would make free use
of
parables.
He spoke in parables to all classes, but
especially to the people.
'Without
parable he was not wont to speak to
them (Mk.
4 3 4 ) .
And of course the
of the para-
bolic method of instruction,
in
as far as it had a
conscious aim and was not the spontaneous outcome of
natural genius, was to popularise the truths of religion
:
simplification with
a
view to enlightenment.
In the
conversation between Jesus and his disciples after the
utterance of the parable of the sower, as reported by all
the Synoptists, an opposite purpose, that of keeping the
people in darkness, seems to be avowed by the preacher.
I t is not credible, however, that Jesus would either
cherish or avow such an inhuman intention, though it
is
credible that in the bitterness of his disappointment at
the meagre fruit of his popular ministry he might express
himself in a way that might be misunderstood, on the
principle of reading intention'
the light of result.
None of the parables preserved in the Gospels is
,expressly connected with synagogue addresses, with the
exception of
mustard
seed
and
13
cp
treasure
and
(Mt.
1344- 46)
may be a pair of parabolic gems (setting forth
the absolute worth of the kingdom of heaven) whose
setting was in such an address and the exquisite
parables concerning the pleasure of finding things lost
(Mt.
Lk.
15)
may have been first uttered on
a
similar occasion, unless we suppose that the original
place of these parables was in an address to the publicans
gathered together in the house of Matthew (Mk.
and parallels). T h e collection of parabolic utterances
preserved in the Gospels is so large and varied that
there is little room for complaint that it is not still
larger yet one cannot but reflect what a rich addition
t o
the evangelic
a
report of the
That
a
in
the
idea
of
Jesus
appears
the
centurion
(Mt. 8
the
woman
with
an
issue (Mk.
and
parallels), and the
Syro-Phoenician
woman
(Mk.
Mt.
15
See F
A
ITH
.
On
Jiilicher, Die
also
parables spoken on the Galilean preaching tour would
have been.
The teaching
given
tu
-That Jesus aimed at gathering
about him a circle of disciples
should be constantly, or at least much,
in his company is one of the most certain data of the
primitive tradition.
He began the process of selection
very early (Mk.
Mt.
4
18-22),
having some disciples
to accompany him on his first Galilean preaching
tour.
He meant to make the selected
at
least the inner circle of them-in his own happy,
phrase, 'fishers of men,' a playful allusion to
the secular occupation of those first chosen. The aim
involved, of course, special instruction, and that de-
manded leisure.
The desire of Jesus to get leisure
for
uninterrupted intercourse with his disciples, and more
particularly with the body of twelve which, according to
the testimony of all the evangelists, he formed out of a
larger company of followers, is specially apparent in
Mk.
Through his preaching and healing ministries,
the fame of Jesus rapidly rose to such a pitch that
wherever he
large masses of people gathered
round him, masses too large for any synagogue to
hold,
so
that perforce he had to
a
street or
field
T h e work was not uncongenial but, in
the tropical climate of the lake shore, it was fatiguing,
and withal it was unsatisfactory. Much sowing, little
fruit
:
such was the feeling of the preacher, as expressed
in the parable of
the
Sower,
which is a critical review
of the early Galilean ministry.
Unwearied in
doing, Jesus yet began to feel with increasing depth of
conviction that, if anything was to come of his labours,
he must find time and opportunity for careful initiation
of the few more intelligent and susceptible hearers, that
continuing in
his
word they might become disciples
indeed, and by insight into truth become enlightened,
free, and apt to tench others.
Mk. more than any
other evangelist shows Jesus making repeated earnest
efforts in this direction, fleeing from the crowd, as it
were, in quest of rest and leisure for the higher work.
T h e ascent to the hill-top
was such a flight. T h e
voyage towards the eastern shore on the day of the
parabolic discourse from
a
boat was another.
The un-
disguised manner in which Mk. allows this to appear
in his narrative is a good instance of his realism : They
[the disciples] take him with them, as he was in the
ship
( 4
sine
(Bengel) and
sine
Here
was flight along the only line of retreat, the shore being
besieged by the vast crowd, and not easy even along
that line, some of the people having got into boats to
be nearer the speaker
(436).
T h e voyage towards
Bethsaida at the north-western corner of the lake, after
the return of the twelve from their apprentice mission
was a third
attempt at escape.
T h e long excursions to the north, into the regions
of
Tyre and Sidon
Philippi
likewise flights, endeavours to escape both from friends
and from foes; more successful because taking the
fugitives outside the boundaries of Israel, or into
a
borderland where Jesus and his work were comparatively
unknown.
I n connection with the first and the last of these re-
tirements some of the most important parts of the
of Jesus were communicated to
his disciples.
With the ascent to the
bill is connected the great 'Sermon on
the Mount,' unreported by Mk., pre-
served by Mt. and
Lk.
in very diverse forms, yet withal
so
like as to leave no reason for doubt as to their
identity. Which
of
the two reports comes nearest to
the original, and whether both do not diverge therefrom
widely in different directions, are questions which cannot
be discussed here (see G
OSPELS
).
The two points which
we are concerned to emphasise are
:
( I )
that the discourse
was
disciple-instruction, possibly with none
JESUS
JESUS
present but disciples, though that is not made clear in
either narrative, and therefore might more appropriately
be called The Teaching on the
than The Sermon on
and
that this teaching was given during
a season of leisure,
days.
The latter
point has a most important bearing on the question of
the unity of the discourse as given in Mt.
If we
assume that it was delivered all in one gush, and on
a single theme-say the antithesis between Pharisaic
righteousness and the righteousness of the kingdom as
conceived by Jesus-then certain portions must be
eliminated as irrelevant :
The Lord’s Prayer
and the counsel against care
But if the teach-
ing on the hill continued for days, with different themes
for each day, then the unity must be understood in
a
wide sense, and
version of the ‘sermon’ may
be a substantially correct summary of what Jesus said
on various topics not closely connected with one
The teaching on the hill as reported in Mt. affords
large insight into the thoughts. of Jesus on the essentials
of religion: God, man, the kingdom of God, the
righteousness of God.
Jesus taught no abstract doctrine concerning God, or
indeed on any subject.
He did not say, God must be
thought of as Father, and then proceed to
explain what the title meant.
H e simply
used the new name and defined as he
went along by discriminating use.
The title Father
is applied to God no less than fifteen times in the sermon,
most suggestively,
so
as to ascribe to him by implication
a
universal and a special providence
(545
benignant
and magnanimous in its action, doing good even to the
unthankful and the evil
a perfect ethical nature
whose perfection consists in gracious unmerited love
( 5
46-48), a spirit delighting in mercy and ready to forgive,
and desiring the same spirit to rule in the hearts of those
who have the supreme honour to be called God’s children
an eye that carefully notes the most secret
devout acts of the sincere and humble worshipper
( 6 1
an ear that hears their prayers, and a heart
that is inclined to grant all the good desired
or
needed
That Jesus did not employ this new name for God
simply under the instinctive guidance of a happy religious
genius, but with full consciousness and deliberate pur-
pose, is intrinsically probable, and is attested by
a
remarkable word ascribed to him in the evangelic tra-
dition, and preserved in substantially the same terms in
the first and third Gospels :
No
one knoweth the Son,
save the Father neither knoweth any one the Father,
save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son is pleased
to
reveal him’ (Mt.
1 1 2 7
Lk.
In view of the
statement
preface as to the method on which
he compiled his Gospel, a sober criticism will not readily
acquiesce
the theory that the passage in which this
text is embedded is
a
free poetical composition by the
evangelist in the spirit of
and that it was
borrowed from him by the author of the canonical Mt.
writing at a later
I t is much more probable that
both evangelists found it in a common source containing
a
collection of the sayings of Jesus, either in the form
which it assumes in extant
MSS,
or
in that current
among the gnostics :
No
one knew the Father save the
Son, and the Son save the Father and he to
the
Son shall reveal.’ Under either form the Logion implies
a
peculiar relation, if not to God, at least to the con-
ception of God as Father, that of one who claimed to
have given currency to the name.
Weiss in his
and
in
his edition
of Meyer’s
on
This view is taken by Lutteroth
de
parties
de
saint
H e takes
(5
in the sense
of
camping out
pointing to Acts18
and
instances of the use of thd
word in a kindred sense.
in
The whole section Mt. 11
was probably a unity of which
Lk.
for some
gives only a fragment. In favour
of this view is the resemblance it bears to the prayer of Jesus
the son of Sirach (Ecclus. 51) which like it begins with a
and ends with an invitation), in thk namd of wisdom, to come
and receive instruction.
This resemblance has been used as a n
argument against the genuineness of the Logion ‘come unto
me’
But it is perfectly conceivable
that Jesus was acquainted with Sirach, and that his utterance
was coloured by the language of its closing sentences. This
view meets the objection taken to the Logion on the ground of
the self-eulogy in some of its expressions (Martinqau,
Seat
Authority
in
Religion,
When he says
I
am meek
and lowly,’ Jesus of Nazareth speaks in the
of wisdom
(one
self-designations according to Resch,
as
the earlier Jesus had spoken before him.
Jesus taught his doctrine of man on the same method
of incidental suggestion.
H e asserted the worth of
man by comparisons sometimes patheti-
cally and even humorously understating
the truth, in one instance sublimely ade-
quate.
A
man is better, greater, of more worth to God,
and to himself, thinking rightly, than a bird (Mt.
a
sheep
yea, than the whole world (Mk.
836). T h e truth implied
is
that the things compared
are really incommensurable.
It is a Hebrew way of
asserting the ideal, absolute worth of humanity,
a
method applied in the Epistle to the Hebrews to Chris-
tianity, which is declared to be better in various respects
than the Levitical religion, when what is meant is that
it is the absolute, perfect, therefore eternal, religion.
Man’s incomparable dignity in the teaching of Jesus
rests on the fact that he is a son of God, not merely
a
creature, whether small as
a
bird or great as a world
a
son indefeasibly, whether good or evil, just or unjust
(Mt.545). By this lofty conception of man’s relation
to God, rather than by expressed statement or laboured
Jesus brought immortality to light,
God
is not the God of the dead, but of the living,’ he said
A
fortiori
he would have said: ‘God is
not the Father of the dead, but of the living.’
Not to be overlooked even in a summary statement
of Christ’s teaching concerning man is his assertion of
the rights of
in connection with
married relations (Mt.
cp
Mk.
The Jewish doctors of the time for the
most part accepted the old Hebrew notion of
a
wife as
property bought and sold, and to be put away at the
pleasure of her husband.
But they were zealous to have
the bill of divorcement (Dt. 241) in due form, that the
woman might be able to show that she was free to marry
again, and doubtless they flattered themselves that they
were thereby defending the rights of women.
Jesus
asserted a more radical right of woman-not to he put
away, except when she put herself away by unfaithful-
ness.
He thus raised anew the prophetic cry
‘
I hate
putting away’ (Mal.
It was an act of humanity
of inestimable value to the highest interests of the race,
as well as an act of heroic courage.
By his friendly relations with the ‘publicans and
sinners Jesus gave a practical and impressive
of
his doctrine
man.
great social gathering of the outcasts
in Capernaum
(Mk.
2
and
brought together
by Levi
or
Matthew, called doubtless for that immediate
local service, as well as for the ulterior wider service of
the apostleship, was a concrete assertion of the great
truth that
a
man at the worst is still a man, and
a
son
of God, and that all superficial cleavages of race,
descent, colour, occupation, or even character, are of
small account in comparison with that which
is
common
to all humanity, the soul.
The so-called feast in
house cannot have been merely
a private entertainment given by the newly called disciple to as
many of his old comrades
as
his dining chamber would accom-
modate. All the
say that there were many present.
is
a great crowd’
T h e
meeting was probably in the court around which the buildings
of
a n
of any size are arranged and of the
dimensions of a congregation rather than of a
party.
Jesus was the prime mover in the matter, and Levi
merely
JESUS
JESUS
his
agent.
into personal contact with the social outcasts of Capernaum.
I t was a deliberate attempt on Christ's part to get
By these kindred ideas of God and man and their
relations Jesus became inevitably the founder
of
a
universal religion, however narrow the limits within
which his own ministry was restricted.
Those who,
like Baur and Weizsacker, have interpreted his teaching
in
a universal sense have most truly divined his inmost
thoughts.
I n setting forth the summum bonum as the kingdom
God
Jesus poured his new wine into
a
very old
skin. But that the wine, the
idea connected with the phrase, was new,
the parables of the new wine and the
new piece of cloth (Mk.
and parallels) suffice to
prove. The kingdom he preached was ethical, spiritual,
(and therefore) universal in character : not political,
theocratic, national; at least national only to those
cherishing current Jewish expectations. The Beatitudes,
which form the sublime introduction to the Teaching
on the Hill, in either version of them, amply bear out
this assertion.
Obviously
so
in
version, really
so
also,
though not
so
obviously, in
Jesus may have
said : Blessed ye poor,' as Lk. reports, and the reporter
may have understood the term poor
'
chiefly in a social
sense but it does not follow that his understanding in
this case, any more than in the case of the saying, I
came not to call the righteous,' exhausted the Teacher's
meaning. Jesus used words in
a
pregnant sense, and
in his mind the natural and the spiritual lay close to-
gether : witness the saying : 'few things (dishes) are
needful, or (rather) one'
the food that
endures for ever-Lk.
T h e high ideal of man
links together in his thought the social and the spiritual.
T h e poor man passes into the blessedness of the kingdom
whenever he realises what man is or may be.
Poor in
purse or even in character, no man is beggared who
has a vision of man's chief end and good.
If this be
idealism, then Jesus was an idealist.
He was also
a
poet, and words were symbols for him of thoughts which
no words could adequately express. T o make him the
herald of a theocratic particularistic kingdom of Israel
is to bring him down from these lofty regions to the
low level of dull prosaic
T h e kingdom of God, or of heaven,
as
it
is
usually
designated
in
the first Gospel, while in its ultimate
significance implying a high ideal of life,
realised in a heroic career rife with tribulation (Mt.
is
in its initial aspect, as already indicated,
a
boon rather than a demand. Seek ye the kingdom
(as the highest good), said the Master
to
his disciples
(Mt.
6 3 3 ) .
It is
to
be sought as the
summum
bonum,
in preference to the temporal good above which Pagan
aspiration rarely rises (Mt.
It
is the bread which
perisheth not, the raiment
waxeth not old, the
treasure which cannot be stolen (Lk.
T h e
quest of this supreme good, in singleness of mind, is
ever successful.
'Seek, and ye shall find' (Mt.
7 7 ) .
And the quest
is
the noblest of human endeavours.
He who so seeks the highest good fulfils at the same
time the highest duty of man.
In this coincidence of
the chief good with the chief end lies the unique
distinction of the Christian religion
as
expounded by its
Founder.
Jesus carefully explained his conception
of
the
both by positive statements and by keen caustic
criticism of the system of religion and
morals prevalent among the Jews in his
time.
Among the statements
a
foremost
Baur's view
of the
religion
of
Jesus as spiritual and
universal is entirely independent of his theoryas to the indebted-
ness of Jesus for these
of
his teaching to Greek
philosophy and Roman world-wide empire. We may hold aloof
from this theory,
accept his
of the essential character-
istics of the Christianity of Christ.
This prosaic view pervades the treatment of Christ's teaching
all the works of Dr. Bernhard Weiss.
2443
place belongs to the golden rule
what you wish men
to
do to you do ye to them'
for which
analogies can be found in other religions, but with this
difference, that, whilst in the teaching of Jesus the
assumes a positive form, in
other known
instances it is given negatively.
So in the saying of
Confucius, do not to others what you would not wish
done to yourself' (Legge,
Chinese
Classics,
The
negative confines us to the region of justice; the positive
takes us into the region of generosity; for we wish
more than we can claim, or than the average man is
,
willing to do to others.
Jesus would have
a
disciple to
be not merely
but
spontaneously doing to
others all that a spirit of magnanimity prompts.
The
golden rule covers only the duties arising out of human
relations. T h e summary of duty,-Love God with all
your heart, and your neighbour
as
yourself-given in
answer to a question at a later time (Mk.
covers the whole ground of obligation. Thus we have
religion and morality blent in one ideal as of co-ordinate
importance, a combination not lying to the hand in the
OT-the two great commandments, though both in the
law, are not given in one place (Dt.
Lev.
and still less in accordance with the spirit of the time.
In Rabbinism ritual was before morality, and the
tendency was to sacrifice morality in the interest of
religion. Jesus said
:
ethics before ritual-the essentials
of true religion consist in morality-placability before
sacrifice (Mt.
mercy before sacrifice (Mt.
filial
affection before sacrifice (Mt.
Mk.
Whilst putting morality on a level with, or even in
some respects above, religion, Jesus was careful to
subordinate individual interests to the universal claims
of the kingdom of God : Seek ye his kingdom said
he to his disciples (Lk.
implying if he did not say
first (Mt.
6
food or raiment being relegated to the
second place. T h e Lord's Prayer' is constructed
on
the same principle of subordination.
First God's
glory, kingdom, and will then, only in the second place,
the temporal interest (daily bread), and even the
spiritual interests (pardon and protection from tempta-
tion), of the worshipper. Jesus insisted that this sub-
ordination must be carried the length of willingness to
part with life itself.
First the things
of
God, then the
things of
(Mk.
833).
True to his great principle
that religion and morality are one, however, Jesus
gave his disciples
to
understand that the things of God
are at the same time those of deepest concern to man.
They are the true life of the spirit, for the sake-of which
one who understands the philosophy
of
life will gladly
part when needful with the lower life
of
the body (Mk.
T h e antithetic presentation of the moral ideal was
given partly in didactic form, partly in the way of
occasional polemics.
For the didactic aspect, which
concerns
us
here, we are indebted chiefly to
Mt.,
in
whose version of the
on the
the
contrast between Jesus's interpretation of the law and
that current in the Rabbinical schools is worked out in
a
series of examples (Mt.
This section of the
sermon is omitted almost entirely by Lk., whereby
the small part he has retained loses much in point.
T h e gist of the elaborate contrast is: The law as
interpreted by the scribes, externalised and restricted
in scope as interpreted by Jesus, inward and infinite.
Thou shalt not
said the scribe thou shalt not
hate
or despise, said Jesus. Thou shalt love thy
and doing that thou
enough, said (in effect) the
scribe; thou shalt love
making no distinction
between fellow-countrymen or
friend or foe,
except
as
to the form love takes, said Jesus.
The
external is that which is seen; hence the tendency of
an outward morality to become a morality of ostentation.
Jesus
this morality, much in vogue in his time, to
emphasise by contrast the reserved retiring character
of true piety (Mt. 1-8
16-18).
True goodness is in the
2444
JESUS
JESUS
heart, and the good man is content that it should be
there, visible only to the Father in
3.
T h e later teaching of Jesus will be referred to in
another connection.
W e pass, therefore, from the
19.
Healing
ministry
:
evidence.
teaching to the healing ministry.
I n
doing so we make
a
transition from a
subject which is universally attractive to
one which is distasteful to many because
of its association with the idea of
T h e distaste
is felt not only by those who do not believe in the
miraculous, but also by not a few who, whilst not ad-
herents of the naturalistic school, have no sympathy with
the apologetic value attached to miracles
as
credentials
of revelation. The following statement will not bring
us
collision with this feeling.
The
of the healing ministry is not the point in question
:
what we are concerned with is the question of fact.
Now, as to this, the healing ministry, judged by
critical tests, stands on as firm historical ground as the
best accredited parts of the teaching.
The
the narrative common to all
the three Gospels-contains no less than nine reports of
healing acts, including the cases of the leper, the
madman of Gergesa, and the dead daughter of Jairus.
Then, in most of the reports the action of Jesus is
so
interwoven with unmistakably authentic words
in
the case of the palsied man) that the two elements
cannot be separated: we must take the story a s it
stands or reject it entirely. That the healing ministry
was not only a fact but a great outstanding fact, is
attested by the popularity of Jesus, and by the various
theories which were invented to account for the remark-
able phenomena.
Mk. gives a realistic, lifelike descrip-
tion of the connection between healing acts and the fame
of Jesus.
The cure of
a
demoniac in the synagogue of
Capernaum (Mk.
1 2 3 )
creates
a
sensation even greater
than that produced by the discourse of the new preacher.
They remark to one another not only on the new
doctrine, but also on the authority which Jesus wields
over unclean spirits
(127).
The result is that in the
evening of the same Sabbath day, after sunset, the
people of the town gather at the door of the house
where Jesus resides, bringing their sick to be healed
So,
again, on his return to Capernaum, after
his preaching tour in Galilee, the report speedily spread-
ing that he had come back,
a
crowd assembles so large
and dense as to make access to him impossible except
through the roof of the house
Fresh recollec-
tions of the synagogue-sermon, but still more of the
Sabbath-evening cures, explain the popular enthusiasm.
T h e theories were various and curious. T h e relations of
Jesus had their theory, not so much indeed about the
healing acts
as
about the healer.
Mk. reports (it is
one of his realisms) that they thought
out of his
senses
(321).
Much benevolence had made
mad.
T h e beneficent deeds must have been there, else the
madness would not have been imputed.
T h e Pharisees,
more
suo,
put
a
less friendly construction on the puzzling
phenomena, seeing in them not the acts of a man more
endowed with love and with power over diseases
(physical and mental) than was good for his own health
of body and mind, but the acts of a man in league with
the prince of darkness, an incarnation of Beelzebub
Mk.
322).
[See
This
was a very unlikely theory, as Jesus pointed out
but
the thing to be noted is the existence of the theory,
showing, as it does, that there were facts imperiously
demanding explanation of some sort.
Yet another
theory, too curious to be an invention of the evangelists
who report it
(Mk. 616
Mt.
originated in the palace
of Herod the murderer of the Baptist, and in his own
guilt
-
haunted mind. This Jesus of whose marvellous
works I hear is John risen again, the mysterious powers
of the other world manifesting themselves through the
resurrected man.
T h e theory is perhaps absurd, yet
by its very absurdity it witnesses to extraordinary facts
arresting general attention, and forcing their way, how-
ever unwelcome, into kings' houses.
T h e healing ministry of Jesus presents a problem at
once for exegesis, for theology, and for science. T h e
question for exegesis is, What do the
reports necessarily imply ?
Was the
leper cured, or only pronounced clean?
Was the bread that fed the thousands miraculously
produced, or drawn forth by the bearing of Jesus from
the stores in possession of the crowd; or is the story
merely a symbolic embodiment of the life-giving power
of Jesus in the spiritual sphere? Was the daughter of
Jairus really dead?
For
theology the question is, What
bearing has the healing ministry on the personality of
Jesus? Here is certainly something to wonder at, to
start the inquiry : What manner of man is this? Is it
only a question
as
to the manner of the
of
a
man fully endowed with powers not unexampled
elsewhere, at least in kind, though lying dormant in
ordinary men? Or do the phenomena take
us
outside
the human into the region of the strictly divine? For
science the question is, Can the acts ascribed to Jesus
be accounted for by any known laws of
by
moral therapeutics,' or
emotional treatment of
disease? Care must be taken in attempting to answer
this question not to understate the facts. I n the case
of
possession, for example, it is making the
problem too easy to say that that was a merely im-
aginary disease. The diseases to which the name is
applied in the Gospels were in some cases serious
enough.
T h e 'demoniac' of Gergesa was a raving
madman; the boy at the foot of the hill of Trans-
figuration was the victim of aggravated epilepsy.
The
only door of escape open for scientific scepticism in
such cases is doubt
as
to the permanence of the alleged
cure.
There is one thing about which we may have com-
fortable certainty. Whether miraculous or not, whether
...
the works of a mere man, or of one
who is a man
more, these healing
acts are a revelation of the love of Jesus,
a
manifestation of his 'enthusiasm of
humanity,' to be placed beside the meeting with the
publicans of Capernaum as an aid to the understanding
of his spirit and aims. By that meeting he showed his
interest in a despised class
of
by the healing
ministry he showed his interest in
a
despised part of
human nature, the body, and
so'
evinced the healthy
catholic nature of his conception of redemption.
H e
was
to do all the good in the world he could.
H e was able to heal men's bodies as well as their souls ;
and he did it, thereby protesting against that pagan
notion of the body, as something essentially evil and
worthless, which underlies all modes of asceticism, and
against
a
false spiritualism which regards disease of the
'body
as
essential to the health of the soul. T h e heal-
ing ministry shows Jesus, not as a thaumaturge bent
on creating astonishment, but
as
in
a
large, grand,
human way the friend of men, bearing by sympathy
their sicknesses as well
as
their sorrows and sins
as
a
burden in his
4.
The
with
the
of
called in the Gospels scribes and Pharisees,' formed a
very essential part of the public life of
Jesus.
It soon brought that life
to
a
end.
The Gospel of Lk.
toning down that -aspect, omitting much of Christ's
poleniic against
and mitigating the asperity
Such is the view of Christ's healing ministry presented in
Mt.:
witness the prophetic citation in 8
There
no desire
in the first Gospel to magnify the miracle. Peter's mother-in-
law simply suffers from a feverish attack. The sympathy of
Jesus is the point
of
interest, which was the same whether the
fever was severe or slight.
I n Lk.
it is a g r e a t fever
(4 38)
and throughout this Gospel care is taken to magnify the power
as well as the benevolence of Jesus. Mk., on the other hand,
goes so far as to say that Jesus was not able to do any mighty
works in Nazareth, because of the unbelief of the people (6
JESUS
JESUS
of
what
retained by representing it as uttered under
the control of friendly social relations (three feasts in
Pharisees' houses peculiar to this Gospel
makes it impossible to form a clear idea of
the religious environment of Jesus, of the heroic war-
fare he had to wage, and of the forces that were at
work, moving steadily on towards Calvary.
For in-
formation on these points, we
turn to the pages
of Mt. and Mk., especially of the latter, in which the
course of the conflict is vividly depicted.
A
few anec-
dotes bring before
us
realistically Pharisaic hostility, in
its rise and progress, and prepare
us
for the end (Mk.
2-36).
Radical contrariety of view
on the whole subject of conduct in religion and in
morals was its deepest cause, and the popularity of
Jesus as
a
preacher and a healer was
a
constant and
increasing source of irritation.
The contrast
(1
)
between Jesus and the scribes, in
their respective styles of preaching or teaching, remarked
on
by the second evangelist, was not unnoticed by
the people.
If
they did not say, How unlike the
scribes ! they at least showed the new teacher an amount
of consideration not accorded to the scribes. Therefore,
we are not surprised to learn that when Jesus returned
from his preaching tour in Galilee to Capernaum the
scribes were in
a
fault-finding mood
( 2 6 ) .
They took
care, however, to conceal the cause of their chagrin,
selecting as the point
of
assault neither the preaching
nor the healing, but the
'
blasphemous word of pardon :
'Son,
thy sins be forgiven thee.'
T h e Capernaum
mission
to
the publicans and sinners
( 2
15-17)
supplied
the next occasion for offence.
These classes had begun
to take an interest in Jesus.
'There were many (of
them there), and they began to follow
They
had doubtless heard the story of the palsied
and
how Jesus had been sympathetic towards the sinner, and
had been regarded by the scribes as a blasphemer. They
naturally desired to see and hear and know the interest-
ing blasphemer. T h e offence in this instance lay in
eating with such
in having
like relations with them.
I t was
a
complicated many-
sided offence : a slight on the national feeling of Jews,
who resented whatever reminded them
of
their political
humiliation; an indirect slight
on
the laws which the
classes fraternised with habitually neglected
it was
also-though this might not be
so
clearly perceived-a
slight on the prerogative of Israel as an elect people, an
evil
of an approaching revolution when the king-
dom of God would be thrown open to all.
Next come Sabbatic controversies trivial in occasion,
but cutting contemporary
prejudice to the
Collision was inevitable.
quick, and
intensifying the ex-
asperation
These en-
counters revealed
a
radical contrarietv
between Jesus and the scribes in their respective con-
ceptions of the Sabbath. Jesus expressed the difference
in a saying preserved only in Mk.
(2
27)
: T h e sabbath
was made for man, and not man for the sabbath.' T h e
remark implied
a
manner of conceiving God, man, and
religion, different from that in vogue, and it is not sur-
prising that from that day forth dislike began to deepen
into hatred, harbouring murderous intentions.
T h e
author of Mk. winds up his narrative of the healing
of the withered hand with the significant statement :
' t h e Pharisees went forth and straightway, with the
Herodians, took counsel against him, how they might
destroy h i m '
( 3 6 ) .
The reference to the
little spoken of in the Gospels, signifies that the
Pharisees now began seriously to aim at the life of Jesus,
and naturally felt that the assistance of persons having
influence at the court would be valuable.
Hereafter the foes of Jesus come before
us
attacking
his healing ministry on a side at which it appeared to
them vulnerable.
The meeting with the outcasts
of
Capernaum had given
a
choice opportunity for a
2447
calumnious assault upon his moral character, of which
they seem
to
have taken advantage to the full extent
(Mt.
11
T h e cures of demoniacs formed the basis of
the attempt to rob him of the fame fairly won by his
wonderful works (Mk.
3
T h e cures themselves
could not be denied, nor the power they evinced but
was the power necessarily from heaven, might it not be
from an opposite quarter? T h e men who made the
malign suggestion knew better
but it was enough for
them that the suggestion was plausible.
Hence the
solemn warning of Jesus against
speak-
ing evil of that which is known to be good (Mk.
T h e next encounter had reference to ritual ablutions
(Mlc.
71-23
Mt.
15
This time, Jesus assumed the
offensive, and exposed the vices inherent
in the systems represented by the scribes
declaring in effect that the hedging of the Law by the
multiplied rules of legal doctors had for its result the
setting of the Law aside, and giving as an example the
doctrine of Corban in its bearing
on
the fifth command-
ment.
This was offence enough ; but Jesus added to it
by an appeal to the multitude, to whom he addressed
one
of
those great emancipating sayings which sweep
away the cobwebs of artificial systems better than
elaborate argument-that which defiles is not what
goeth into the mouth but what cometh out of it. ' I t
was a virtual abrogation, not merely of the traditions
of
the Elders, but even of the ceremonial law of Moses : a
proclamation of the great truth that moral defilement
alone is of importance.
When it had
to this,
a
crisis was at hand.
Tesus knew it. and retired
the scenes of strife.
partly to escape for a while from the
malice of his foes, and still more t o
prepare his disciples, by seasonable
instructions, for the inevitable end.
The time of these
later instructions was that of the northerly excursions
already referred to, and their main theme was
Jesus began to tell his disciples plainly that
he himself must suffer death at the hands of the
religious leaders, and that they and all faithful souls
must be prepared to endure hardship for truth and
righteousness (Mk.
Mt.
and
from this time forth he devoted much attention towards
developing in the twelve the heroic temper demanded
by the situation.
It was
no
easy task; for, while the
master was continually preoccupied with the cross, the
disciples were often thinking vain thoughts.
T h e
contrast is depicted in
a
realistic manner by Mk.
They were in the way, going
up
to Jerusalem
a n d
Jesus was going
them
:
and they were amazed
They could
not
comprehend the intense
preoccupation betrayed in the master's manner.
It
filled them with awe.
T h e sequel explains.
T h e
ambitious request of James and John followed soon
after, as comic scenes succeed tragic ones in a drama.
Hence the need for inculcating such recondite truths of
the kingdom as that greatness comes by service that
childlikeness is the condition of entrance into the king-
dom ; that ambition aspiring to greatness and trampling
on
weakness is a cursed passion, deserving drowning,
with a heavy millstone round the neck, in the deepest
part of the sea and that only through brotherly kind-
ness and charity can one hope to win the favour of God
(Mt.
18
Mk.
The preceding incidents are common to the three Synoptists.
This one is omitted by
Lk.
along with a group of other narra-
tives, including the second storm on the lake, the
woman, the second feeding, the demand for a sign-in short, the
whole of Mt.
and Mk.
except that
Mk.
8
15
These omissions were probably in-
tentional on
the incidents being known to him, hut
passed over for various reasons.
The Gospels speak of two excursions-one to the regions of
Tyre and Sidon, another to the neighbourhood of
Philippi. Even so conservative a critic as Weiss is inclined to
resolve the
two
into one
treating the second feeding as a
merely literary duplicate
of
the first.
JESUS
JESUS
During the period of wandering in the north the
disciple Peter, the foremost man among the twelve, and
usually their spokesman on important
occasions, made an eventful declaration
concerning the master.
Jesus had himself led
to it
by introducing into their conversation,
as
they journeyed
towards
the topic : ‘ W h o do men
say that I
Mk.
Lk.
That general question disposed of, there came
a
second :
And you, who say you that I a m ? T h e answer of
Peter was
:
Thon art the
Christ
(Mk.
I t was
apparently the answer which Jesus anticipated and
wished which would imply that he regarded himself as
one in whom the Messianic hope of the Jewish people
was fulfilled. Can this indeed have been so ? Can such
an one
as
Jesus, so wise and good, and
so
utterly out of
sympathy with the religious spirit of his time, have
thought himself the Messiah, or even taken any in-
terest in the Messianic idea? It is evident that one
occupying the position of Jesus as a religious teacher
could not escape having some conscious attitude to-
wards that idea, friendly or indifferent or hostile. And
it is certain that he would be utterly unsympathetic
towards the Messianic ideas current among the Jews of
his time.
Pharisaic notions of the Messianic king and
kingdom would be as distasteful to him
as
Pharisaic
notions of the Law, of righteousness, of God, and of
man.
His attitude towards the whole circle of ideas
associated with conventional religion was, without doubt,
that of
a
radical sceptic. But he did not live in the
region of negation.
His way was to discard unwelcome
ideas and put better ones in their place.
H e did this in
connection with all the other subjects above mentioned,
and doubtless he acted
on
the
principle
in
connection with the Messianic hope-this all the more
decisively because that hope was not rabbinical
pro-
phetic in its origin, associated with some of the most
spiritual aspirations of
O T
saints and seers, if also find-
ing expression occasionally in materialistic or political
representations of the good time coming.
By elective
affinity Jesus would choose the purest and loftiest
elements in prophetic delineations, and
of these form
his Messianic idea. From certain indications in the
Gospels-the voice from heaven at the Baptism and the
Transfiguration, the text of the discourse in the syna-
gogue of Nazareth, the intimate connection between the
confession of Peter and the first distinct intimation of
the approaching Passion-it may be inferred that
Deutero-Isaiah was the chief source of his conception,
and
that his Messiah was
endowed abundantly with
the charisma of
(Is.
therefore well-pleasing to
God (Is.
and destined to be
a
of sorrow
Messiah stands for an ideal, the summum
embodied in
a
person. The Jews believed that such
a
person would come. Jesus might very sincerely share
the expectation,
as
the Baptist did.
he also
regard himself a s the coming one? H e could not, if a
Messianic consciousness implied self-asserting preten-
sions, or, generally, states of feeling incompatible with
a
lowly spirit.
He could, if the Messianic vocation pre-
sented itself to his mind as a duty, rather than as
a
dignity,
as
a
summons to a career of suffering, a tempting
to renunciation rather than to usurpation.
So,
in fact,
it did appear to him. T h e man of sorrow in Is.
53
is
ideal Israel the faithful
in
Israel, the men who stand
for God and
in an evil world, conceived
poetically as an individual. Jesus thought of himself as
that individual, the representative of all who live sacri-
ficial and therefore redemptive lives.
All goes to bear. out this
the self-
designation
‘
Son of man,’ so much used by Jesus. T h e
In consequence
of the long omission, this section in Luke
follows immediately after the first feeding, and there is no in-
dication that it did not happen a t the same place. There is no
trace of the excursion to the north in his narrative.
(Is.
53).
See M
ESSIAH
.
meaning of this title he never defined any more
,
than he formally defined the name ‘Father’
applied to God.
It is doubtful if
O T
texts can give us much help towards
fixing its import. W e must watch the Son of man in the
act of
so
designating himself, defining the
by dis-
criminating use.
Doing this, we receive the impression
that the title is chosen because it is one that makes
claims. In Aramaic it means simply the man.’ If it
be Messianic, through the use made of it in Daniel and
the
Book
Enoch,
it is furtively
so,
an incognito.
T h e admiring people frequently called Him ‘Son of
David,’ and the early Christian Church laid stress on
the title as an important link in the chain of Messianic
proof.
Hence the genealogies in Mt. and Lk.
Even
Paul
recognises the Davidic descent as in its own
place important (Rom.
13).
There is
no
evidence that
Jesus repudiated the title
but the title Son of man
does show that he regarded the other (as implying
physical descent and therefore regal rights)
as
of little
significance. Others said
Son
of
he said Son of
See S
ON
O
F
M
AN
.
The message from the imprisoned Baptist to Jesus
(Mt.
11
Lk.
is not without significance in this
connection : ‘Art thou the coming o n e ? ’ By some
Holtzmann in Handcomm.) the question is viewed
as
the utterance rather of
a
budding than of
a
waning
faith.
But the comments of Jesus on the message and
on
the man who sent it, bearing
a
stamp of authenticity
upon them and probably taken by the two evangelists
from the Book of Logia, demand the latter inter-
pretation.
‘
Blessed is he who findeth no cause
of
stumbling in me.’ John had
cause of stumbling
in Jesus, in whom from the first his prophetic eye had
detected an extraordinary person. John’s Messiah was
to be an iconoclast, a hewer down of barren trees and
effete institutions, one coming in the fury of the Lord to
destroy by the wind and fire of judgment.
Jesus
hitherto had been nothing of the kind rather
a
preacher
of good news, even to the immoral
a
healer of disease,
a
teacher of wisdom, with nothing like
a
fan in his
hand, save one of searching moral criticism on the ways
of scribes and Pharisees. Therefore, John began t o
fear that, after all, this was not the Christ.
His fear is
a
valuable testimony to the kind of Christ Jesus believed
in and was
:
one seeking to save rather than to judge,
and
on that account liable to be niisunderstood
even by
a
John, and to be despised and rejected by
a
religious but ungodly world.
How far apart the two
prophets were in their ideas and tendencies, may be
estimated from the striking remark made by Jesus
concerning the Baptist : ‘ t h e least in the kingdom
of
heaven
is
greater than h e ’ (Mt.
11
T h e triumphal entry into Jerusalem by Jesus towards
the close of his career
to conflict with the view
set forth-above, and to exhibit a Messiah
parading his claims. T h e story belongs
to the
tradition, and must be ac-
cepted as historical (Mt.
Mk.
11
Lk.
cp H
OSANNA
.
Mt., after
usual manner, repre-
sents the whole transaction
as
happening in order that
a
certain prophetic oracle might be fulfilled.
So
he viewed
it, and
so
he wishes his readers to view i t ;
it
does not follow that Jesus rode into the holy city
on
the foal of
an
ass with conscious intention to fulfil
prophecy. The less intention
on
his part, the greater
the value of any uniformity between prophecy and
fact.
Action with intention might show that he
The discussion between Jesus and the scribes in the temple
the relation of the Christ to David has been interpreted in this
sense. But the question of Jesus does not necessarily imply
in
toto
of Davidic descent, or more than a hint as to the
comparative unimportance of it.
It meant in effect : You begin
the wrong end,, physical descent
;
and it lands yon
an
unspiritual conception of Messiah.
The passages in which the title is used in an apocalyptic
sense seem to breathe a different spirit.
They cannot be
discussed here.
JESUS
JESUS
claimed to he, not that he was, the Messiah.
On the
other hand, his right to he regarded as the Messiah
would have stood where it was though he had entered
Jerusalem on foot. T h e actual mode of entrance could
possess at most only the value of a symbol. And Jesus
seems
to
have been in the mood to let it have such
value, and that just because it was in harmony with his
of avoiding display and discouraging vulgar
Messianic hopes. There was really no pretentiousness
i n riding into Jerusalem on the foal
of
an ass.
It was
rather the meek and lowly one entering in character.
T h e symbolic act was in harmony with the use of the
title Son of man,' shunning Messianic pretensions, yet
showing himself as the true Messiah in a deeper way.
narrative
of
the incident is to be preferred
as
preserving most of the primitive simplicity. It is only
in his version that Jesus instructs his disciples to tell the
from whom the young ass is being borrowed that
i t
will he returned when he has had his use of it (Mk.
11
3).
Some modern commentators, influenced
con-
ventional notions of dignity, will
not
allow even Mark
t o put the matter
so.
But he does
it is one of his
realisms.
T h e thoughts
of
Jesus, then as always, were humble
but those of his followers were more ambitious, and
such as to provoke the ire of those who sought his
undoing.
They shouted Hosannas in his honour, a s
to
the
Son
of David through whom the 'long hoped-for
kingdom was about to come.
The
very children in the
streets, according to Mt.
(21
caught up the
cry, to the chagrin of the guardians of conventional
proprieties. The enthusiasm of the people who had
come up with Jesus to keep the feast of the
men and women from Galilee, proud of their prophet
and king-was his death-knell.
H e had come up
t o Jerusalem fully convinced that he was going to
meet death.
Therefore, he used his short time
to
hear a final testimony against plausible falsehood
and sham holiness, and for truth and godliness. Many
incidents and utterances are packed into that eventful
week-the cleansing of the Temple, parables of judg-
ment
( T w o
sons,
Marriage
the
King's
son),
sundry encounters with captious disputants, and a
sublime anti-Pharisaic discourse in which the foibles
and vices of a degenerate piety are depicted with pro-
phetic plainness and artistic felicity (Mt.
23).
During
that fatal week last words had
to
he spoken to dis-
ciples, among which was
a
foreboding reference to the
approaching judgment-day of Israel, accompanied by
useful hints for their guidance in a perilous time (Mk.
13
Mt.
24
Lk.
21).
The tender pathos of the situation is
immortalised in the anointing in Bethany (Mt.
26
Mk.
14
the holy supper (Mt.
26
26-29
Mk.
14
22-25
Lk.
22
17-20),
and the agony in Gethsemane (Mt.
26
36-46
Mk.
14
32-42
22
39-46).
T h e story of the passion is told at
length, with
much agreement, though also with many variations, in
all the four Gospels, a sure index of the
intense interest taken in the tragic theme
within the apostolic church. This interest would
not
he of late growth. When the apostles began to preach
Jesus crucified and risen, they would encounter the eager
demand, Tell
us
how it happened
!
Faith would make
three demands for information concerning its
:
What did he teach? What did he d o ? What did he
suffer Some think that the demand
for
information con-
cerning the teaching came first and was first
But even those who, like Holtzmann, take this view regard
the history of the passion as the nucleus of the narrative
department
of
the evangelic tradition.
First the logia,
then the passion drama, then the anecdotes of memorable
acts.
Whether this was the true genetic order of the
The true reading is
where
implies that the reference
is
to returning the colt
to
its
owner not to
the readiness with which the owner, after explana-
tions,
send
it to Jesus.
three masses
of
oral tradition, which in combination make
up our evangelic records, may reasonably be doubted.
T h e passion group perhaps took shape earliest. T h e
apostles would have to tell at once what they knew,-the
main factsof the case,-especiallywhen preaching outside
Jerusalem.
Thus began to form itself the
chronicle: the main facts first, then this nucleus
gradually gathering accretions of minor incidents, till
the time written records
to he compiled the
collection of passion-memorabilia had assumed the form
which it bears in, for example, the Gospel
of
Mk. T h e
presumption is that the collection as it stands there is
the truth, or at least the truth as far as it could he
ascertained.
For
modern criticism the story, even in its most historic
version, is not pure truth, hut truth mixed with
legend.
Still, even when it is ex-
amined with a critical microscope, as it
has recentlv been bv Dr.
not
a
few of the relative
stand
test.
Betrayal
one of the twelve, desertion
all of them, denial
Peter, death-sentence under the joint responsibility of
Jewish rulers and Roman procurator, assistance in
carrying the cross from Simon of
crucifixion
on
a hill called Golgotha, the crime charged indicated
the significant inscription on the cross-beam, King of
the
death if not preceded
a prayer for the
murderers,
or
the despairing cry My God, my God,'
at least heralded
a loud voice.
In these eight
particulars we have the skeleton of the story, all that
is
needful to give the passion its tragic interest, or even to
form the
for theological constructions.
T h e
details omitted-the process hefore the Sanhedrin, the
interviews with Pilate and Herod, the mockery of the
soldiers, the preferential release of Barabhas, the sneers
of passers-by, the two thieves, the parting of the raiment,
the words from the cross, the preternatural concomitants
of death-arc more or less of the nature of accessories,
enhancing the impressiveness of the picture, suggesting
additional lessons, hut not changing the character of the
event.
Still, even accessories arc not to he lightly sacrificed.
Critical estimates arc to he received with
even
in a historical interest, and to measure their value it is
important to have a clear idea about the nature of the
interest taken by the primitive church in the story of the
passion.
Now, there can he
no
doubt that along with
sympathy with the fate of a beloved Master went a
theoretic
or
dogmatic interest, at least in a rudimentary
form. There was
a
desire
to
harmonise the passion
with faith in the Messiahship of Jesus.
This was
obviously a vital matter
for
disciples. They could not
continue to believe in Jesus as the Christ unless they
could satisfy themselves that he might he the Christ,
the cross notwithstanding; nor could their faith he
triumphant unless they could further satisfy themselves
that he was all the more certainly the Christ just because
he was crucified. The words
of
the Master concerning
suffering as the appointed lot of all faithful souls might
help them to attain this insight. With this doctrine as
a key, they would see new meanings in
OT
texts, and
graduallylearnfrom histories, Psalms, and prophecies that
the path appointed for the godly, and therefore above all
for the Messiah, was a path of sacrifice. Thenceforth
unison between O T experiences and teaching and
the incidents of the passion would become proofs of
the Messiahship of Jesus.
The offence of the cross
would be turned into an apology for faith in the crucified.
Die
und der
des
Chris-
der
das
die
This points to
pretensions imputed
or
confessed.
But
such pretensions had
two
aspects,
a
religious and
a
political.
It was the religious aspect that
was
dealt with in
the
trial before
the Sanhedrin
as
reported
by
the Synoptists
; hut of
it
would he the political aspect that the Sanhedrists brought
under
the notice
of
Pilate. The Messianic idea would have
no
interest
for him except
in so far
as it involved
a
claim to temporal power.
JESUS
Were those primitive apologists content with cor-
respondence between texts and undeniable facts ? Did
they invent ‘facts’ to suit Hebrew oracles, so as to
bring out correspondence even in curious details and
make the apologetic
as
convincing as possible? There
was certainly a temptation to do so, and we are not
entitled
a
to assume that they did
not
yield to
the temptation in any instance. On the other hand, we
must be on our guard against too hastily assuming the
contrary. The probability is that,
on
the whole, facts
suggested texts, instead of texts creating facts. T h e
reasonableness of this statement may be illustrated by
a n example taken from the history of the infancy in Mt.
T h e last of several prophetic citations in that chapter is,
He shall be called a
(223).
See N
AZARETH
.
T h e fact that Nazareth was the home of Jesus is inde-
pendently certain.
I t is equally certain that, but for
the fact, the supposed prophetic citation would never
have occurred to any one’s mind for it is the weakest
link
in
the chain of prophetic evidence for the
hood of Jesus. This instance suggests that what faith
was busy about in these early years was not the manu-
facturing of history, but the discovering in evangelic facts,
however minute, the prophetic
which are
sometimesso far-fetched
as
to make it inconceivable how
they could ever have been thought
of
unless the facts
had gone before.
This general observation may be
applied to some of the most pathetic incidents in the
passion history-the prayer for forgiveness, the taunts
of passers-by, the casting of lots for possession of the
garments.
If legendary elements
of
a
supernatural character
found their wav into the traditions. it is not to be
wondered at in connection with events
which appealed so powerfully to the
of believers.
The thine to
b e noted
is
that
criticism has done its work-the
passion narratives remain in their main details history,
not legend.
A
history how profoundly significant as
well
as
moving
!
With its theological import we have
here no concern but we may not leave such
theme
without briefly indicating its ethical lessons.
T h e
crucifixion of Jesus exhibits in a uniquely impressive
manner the destiny of
in this world.
H e
was crucified not by accident, not altogether or even
mainly through misunderstanding, but because his
wisdom and goodness were inconvenient and trouble-
some.
The passion history further sets before us
a
story
not
of
fate merely, but of
I t is the story of one
who was willing to die.
He knew more or less dis-
tinctly what was to happen, consented to it, and was
helped to do it
the thought that out
of
the wrong
and evil befalling himself good to others would come.
I n proof of this statement, it is sufficient to point to the
Lord‘s supper. T h e passion-history, finally, encourages
large hope for the world.
Christianity could not have entered on its victori-
ous
career unless the followers of the Crucified had
believed that he not only died hut also
rose again.
This is acknowledged even by
those who, like Dr. Ferdinand Baur, have
themselves no faith in the resurrection. T h e
primitive disciples believed that their Master rose on
the third day,’ and that he would soon come to the earth
again; and this faith and hope became the common
possession of the apostolic church.
T h e faith and the
hope both
support and justification in the words of
Jesus as reported by the evangelists. Sad predictions of
approaching doom have added to them the cheering
words, ‘ a n d shall rise again (Mk.
and parallels).
Many sayings promise the
of
the Son of man in
glory, and that speedily, even within the lifetime of the
present generation.
These sayings present one of the
hardest problems for the student
of
the Gospels
:
on
one side a critical problem which has to deal with the
question how far the words of Jesus have been coloured
by the hopes of the apostolic age on another side, an
exegetical one having for its task to interpret these
words in harmony with others which
seem
to imply not
only
a
delayed
(parables of the Ten
Virgins,
the
Upper
playing
the Tyrant,
and the
Judge), but also an indefinitely protracted Christian era
(parables representing the kingdom
as
subject to the
law of growth-the Sower, the
Wheat
and Tares,
the
Mustard seed, and, above all, the
peculiar to Mk.
and his most valuable distinctive
contribution to the stock of evangelic traditions).
Though some of the relative logia belong to the later
and less accredited stratum of tradition, there is no
reason to doubt their genuineness.
Jesus seems to
have had two ways of speaking about the
partly because,
as
he himself confessed, he had no
clear vision of time‘s course (Mk.
1332)
partly owing to
the purpose his utterances were meant to serve. Some
of them were promises meant to cheer
(Mk.
and
parallels)
some, didactic statements bearing on the
nature of the kingdom of God (Mk.
In the
former the advent is appropriately represented as near
in the latter it is by tacit implication indefinitely remote.
T h e words of Jesus concerning the future show
limitation of vision.
I n other directions we may
indications that he was the child of his
time and people. But his spiritual intuitions
God, man,
and the moral ideal cannot be more truly or happily
conceived. Far from having outgrown his thoughts on
these themes, we are only beginning to perceive their
true significance.
How long it will be before full
effect shall be given to his radical doctrine of the
dignity of man ! How entirely in accord with the moral
order of the world, as interpreted by the whole history
of mankind, his doctrine of sacrifice as at once the
penalty and the power of righteousness in an evil world
!
T h e purity of the doctrine may seem to be compromised
by occasional references to the reward of sacrifice,
‘Great is your reward in heaven (Mt.
5
things
renounced are to be received back an hundredfold (Mk.
But the
of reward cannot be eliminated
from ethics. The heroic man is and must be blessed.
The apocalyptic presentation of the reward in the
Gospels is a matter
of
form. The essential truth is
that it is ever well with the righteous.
Besides the books referred to in the article, and the many
Lives of Jesus, the following works may be consulted :-
Wendt, Die
Weizsacker,
34.
Literature,
Wellhausen,
Gesch. Baldensperger,
Harnack,
The first two and the
last
of these works have been translated.
For History
of
Period see
C
HRONOLOGY
,
43-63,
H
ERODIAN
F
AMILY
,
and
R
OME
.
life and thought are illustrated in such
articles as
E
SSENES
, H
ERODIANS
, P
HARISEES
, S
ADDUCEES
,
S
CRIBES
,
T
EMPLE
.
Further details of life and
teaching are dealt with under such headings a s
N
ATIVITY
,
R
ESURRECTION
A N D
A
SCENSION
N
ARRATIVES
, W
ONDERS
,
P
ARABLES
(cp
H
USKS
L
EAVEN
, S
CORPION
, V
IRGINS
,
and so forth),
L
ORD
’
S
SON
O F
G O D ,
SON
O F
M
AN
,
82
On
the names of
and
places mentioned in ’the
see the separate articles
B
ETHABARA
B
ETHANY
,
B
ETHLEHEM
,
B
ETHSAIDA
,
D
ALMANUTHA
,
:
Persons : the several evangelists
and apostles also
J
OSEPH
J
OHN
THE
B
APTIST
,
M
ARY
,
and
like).
are pure
valid for all ages.
On the sources generally, compare
G
OSPELS
.
S E M A N E J
ERUSALEM
[M
T
.
OF],
N
AIN
, N
AZARETH
,
A.
B. B.
I
.
Ex.
[BAL]), another form of
J
ETHRO
Sam. and some
MSS
have
Gideon’s first-born son (Judg.
The father of Amasa
K.
2
5
32
[om.
A])
by
Abigail. In
S.
(MT) he is called
I
THRA
[BA so B in
I
Ch.]), and described, according
to the best reading, as a Jezreelite.
In
Ch. 2
however, he
as
an Ishmaelite hence
Wellhausen, Driver,
Klostermann, Budde,
H. P.
Smith read
in Sam.
2454
JETHETH
the
rival
reading
is
less likely to be a conjectural
emendation (see A
BIGAIL
,
2
;
4. A Jerahmeelite
(I
Ch.
j.
A Judahite,
I
Ch.
6.
An
I
Ch.
see
I
THRAN
,
7.
See
J
ETHETH
.
JETHETH
Jetheth,
1 3 1 3 )
one of the
‘dukes’ of Edom,
See
J
ERAHMEEL
,
In view
of
the readings of
it is plausible to read
which
also
as
a Jerahmeelite and Judahite name
C p G
ENEALOGIES
A.
C.
[B],
an unidenti-
fied site
territory (Josh.
associated with
Zorah,
Bethshemesh, Aijalon, and Timnah.
JETHRO
7 7 ;
cp Sab.
either shortened from Jithron [see I
THRAN
and
cp Ithra in
or
for
[cp
[BAL]).
Father of
Moses’
wife,
Z
IPPORAH
, Ex.
3
I
[but
does not give the priest’s
name],
[see
I
],
18
All these passages
belong to
E
the first and third of them add priest of
Midian.’ This was most probably interpolated from
( J ) by the redactor ( R ) , who also removed the
discrepant name Hobab from that passage, and thus
produced a superficial harmony, against which, however,
Nu.
and Judg.
protest (see H
OBAR
).
The futile attempts of the ancients to reconcile the discrep-
ancies
of
the documents
no elaborate consideration.
Josephus
(Ant. 12
I
)
says that Jethro was a surname of
‘superiority’)
;
this seems to have influenced
in Ex.
Targ. Jon. in Ex.
represents
a s
Zipporah‘s grandfather. In the former case Hobab, in the latter
both Hobab and Jethro are brothers-in-law of Moses. Apart
from other considerations; the only biblical sense of
is
father-in-law,’ though
doubtless can be used in the
looser
sense of ‘wife’s relation
There is no anachronism in the description given
of
Jethro
or
Hobab in Exodus as a priest, and by implica-
tion as
a
sheikh of the
such dignitaries
there must have been in ancient Arabia.
Though we
cannot adopt Homniel’s statement, that the ideas and
language (and particularly the ritual terms) of the
Priestly Code
(P)
are largely influenced by instruction
which Moses received from the
‘
Midian,’ there
need he no
objection to the view that Arabian
culture impressed its mark, at more than one period,
on the Israelites.
I t is certainly remarkable that such
an early record as J E represents the Midianite as
Moses’ instructor in the art
of
legislation
(Ex.
and
as
having been asked by Moses to be his guide in the
desert, for which
a
good reward is held out to him in
the Promised Land (Nu.
As Judg.
represents, Hobab
[B]) did actually accompany
Moses
;
Hobab’ has evidently dropped
of
the
text and should be restored, though possibly both here
and in the other passages where
our
text has
‘
Hobab’
we should change ‘Hobab’ into Jonadab‘ (see
H
OBAB
).
T h e clan called b’ne Hobab’
is
alsodesignated Kenite’;
it might, however, with sufficient accuracy have been
called Midianite,’ the line
of
demarcation between the
tribes in
S.
Palestine not being very definite (see
A
MALEK
,
Not impossibly, however, the
original text called Jethro
or
Hobab
a
Misrite
virtually a
N.
Arabian) the readings of
M T
may be
corrupt (see K
ENITES
).
It should be observed that
So
probably in Ex. 425,
‘one newly admitted
JEWEL
according to the tradition Jethro was a worshipper
of
(Ex.
[E]).
I t is interesting to notice that Sha‘ih occurs as the name of a
on the
E.
of
the Jordan opposite
(see
162
and
and that
Shu‘aib is the
given by Mohammed to Jethro.
Hut
the name
may
after all be distinct from Hohab, and in any case the Moham-
medan legends have no historical value. C p Ew.
n.
JETUR
[BADEL]), a son of
Gen. 25
I
j
[A]
I
Ch. 1
31
;
cp
I
Ch.
5
;
see
ISHMAEL,
4
JEUEL
b. Zerah, a post-exilic (Judahite)
inhabitant
of
Jerusalem :
I
Ch.
96
[B],
also the Kt. in
I
Ch. 935
J
EHIEL
,
R V
I
Ch. 1144 (AV
JEHIEL
RV
Ch. 26
(EV
Ch. 29 13 (AV J
EIEL
),
13 (AV J
EIEL
).
JEUSH
5 3 ;
[Kr. always;
so
also Kt.
except Gen. 36 5 14
I
Ch.
T
O
[God] helps’? cp Ar. god
which is transliterated
in an inscription
from Memphis; see
in Buhl, Gesch.
d.
49, n.
I
who opposes the view in Gen.
; in Ch.
See
into (my) family by the shedding of blood.’
Ex. 18, a t all events, is misplaced, Israel having already
arrived at the Mount of God (cp
6).
But the Mount of
God
Horeb (Sinai) near which
lived
3
I
), which makes the
request to return
his own
6
27,
unnecessary
cp
similarly Nu.
This mnst have been expressed in
the passage which Nu.
represents.
The redactor,
to avoid inconsistency with
Ex.
1827
has
stopped abruptly a t
3a.
See
5.
3
See Moore
and
Budde.
I
.
An Edomite clan son of Esau by his Horite wife
bamah Gen. 36
j
See
3
(Gen.
[E], v.
I
Ch 135
h.
in agenealogy
3
and9
a),
I
Ch.
7
3. b. Eshekin a
B
EN
J
AMIN
9,
1
Ch.
839
B?],
[A]; RV, AV
probably t e same as
4. h. Shimei, a division of Gershonite
I
Ch. 23
once in A]); cp (
I
) above and see
[A]).
5.
Xehoboam, Ch.
19
om. A ,
[L]), a name in a genealogy of Benjamin
g,
I
Ch.
See
11
3.
JEW
Aram.
Ass.
Ya-’u-da-ai,
a
man
of
and the
J
UDITH
are used as proper names ;
the form Jehudijah
I
Ch. 4
cannot be relied upon (see
‘Jewish
etc
theadv.
Gal.
‘became Jews’), Gal. 2
the substantive
(‘religion of the Jews,’ ‘Jews’ religion in Macc. 2
8
14
38
Gal.
I
.
A subject of the kingdom of Judah,
K.
16
6
25 jer. 32
Judah);
The date of the passages does not come
1.
in
into consideration for the Assyrian phrase
Ahaz
Judahite
inscription shows that
,was already
current in the sense of ‘man of the land of Judah.
Jer. 349 i s
not included
;
has grown out of
(see Giesebr.
A Hebrew of the Babylonian or Persian province of Judah
or of the
state,
4
I
Macc.
23 etc.
3. A memher of the Jewish race, broadly taken, Ezra4
Dan.38.
T h e word
is
in the NT, chiefly in the
I
.
Jews
distinct from Gentiles or proselytes, or Samaritans,
Mk.73
64
a Jewess ’). Similarly of Jewish
2.
Use
in NT.
‘ a Jewesswho believed’),
cp
Of
‘Israelites
worthv of the name. Rom.
2
Rev. 2 3 9.
3. Of Jews as antagonistic to Jesus
or to the Gospel, Mt.
especially
84;-57 9
10 19 11
31 33 36 12 9
Zahn,
2
554.
occurs twice.
2
Rev. 2 3 9.
3. Of Jews as antagonistic to Jesus
or to the Gospel, Mt.
especially
84;-57 9
10 19 11
31 33 36 12 9
Zahn,
2
554.
occurs twice.
JEWEL,
the rendering of several Hebrew words (see
below). See generally O
RNAMENTS
,
P
RE
CIO
U
S
S
TONES
.
(
I
)
AV
‘chains
[of
gold]’
;
R V ‘strings [of
jewels]’;
(3)
(Cant.
1
IO
; AV
[of
jewels],’
RV
‘plaits [of
’). On a l l
three see
N
E
C
KL
AC
E
,
I
and 5.
For (4)
and (5)
see R
ING
,
See P
ECULIAR
T
REASURE
.
(Is. 61
I
O
;
cp Nu.
31
50
’3,
‘jewels of gold,’
JEWRY
Ch. 32
27
See O
RNAMENTS
(
I
).
AV ‘pleasant jewels’ RV ‘goodly vessels’).
JEWRY
Dan.
AV, RV J
UDAH
JEWS’ LANGUAGE
2
K.
etc.
.
See
JEZANIAH
Jer.
JEZEBEL
[BAL].
H
EBREW
L
ANGUAGE
,
2.
See
I
.
T h e two
explanations in Ges.
are
‘chaste’;
and ‘island of habitation’-perhaps
a
of
Tyre. But
(against
I
)
a
negative particle
is unprovable [see
BOD
,
note, and cp N
AMES
,
and (against
in
a
personal name will naturally
its well-attested sense of
‘exaltation.’ The
first
element
should be explained
explanation, exalted
(Jan.
so
far as ‘isle’ goes, is surely
wrong. So,
too,
is
theory that
is an
intentional
alteration of the
exalts, or is a husband?]
so
that it
should
‘un-exalted,’ An artificial etymology,
‘what
filth,’ is implied in MT of 2K.937
see
below.)
Daughter of Ethbaal
of
Tyre (see A
HAB
), wife
of
Ahab
( I
1841319
K.
A
THALIAH
queen of Judah,
was
her
daughter.
Nothing more clearly shows Ahab’s
thoroughly political instinct than his marriage with this
Tyrian princess.
I t is not
so
clear, however, whether
he
foresaw the religious consequences of the step.
Solomon had married foreign women, and erected special
sanctuaries for them ; but the religious influence of no one
of these was supreme. Ahab was perhaps
a
monogamist,
like Jeroboam.
At any rate, Jezebel had too proud
a
nature to be content to worship her own god with a few
Tyrian sojourners
;
the Tyriau Bad-worship must have
equal rights with the worship of
According to
the Elijah-narratives Jezebel destroyed all the prophets
of
except E
LI
J
AH
and even that brave
prophet had to seek refuge from her in Horeb.
She is
made responsible for the judicial murder of
and Elijah‘s legendary
connects her
dreadful end with
a
pronounced on her by Elijah
on the occasion of Naboths death
(
I
K.
2123).
T h e
dramatic tale of Jehu’s entrance into Jezreel need not
be
repeated (see
I t is worth while, however,
to
relieve the
com-
piler of Kings from the tastelessly savage words of M T
of
K.
9
37.
The
reading can probably be recovered from
(cp
note), ‘And the carcass of Jezebel shall be like
carcass
of Naboth, and there shall be none
to
say, Woe
is me.
I n Rev.
there
seems
to be implied a misinterpreta-
tion of words of Jehu in
2
K.
T h e name Jezebel’ is
given to
a
false
who had influence in the
church of Thyatira, and is accused of seducing Christians
to commit fornication, and to eat things offered
to
idols.
Fornication
is probably meant literally.
a
party of false teachers is here personified,
or
whether ( a s Bousset and
suppose) a n individual
is
meant, is disputed.
At any rate, the adherents of
Jezebel and the
)
represent the same
antinomian tendency (cp Pet.
21
JEZREEL
I
EDDIAS
,
or
JEZIEL
Kt.
some
MSS
read
and
;
perhaps corruption of
‘God
sees,’ see N
AMES
,
but
there, n.
b.
Azmaveth, one
I
Ch.
[but in a
different text]).
JEZLIAH,
[A],
b. Elpaal, in a genealogy
of
B
EN
J
AMIN
I
Ch.
8
JEZOAR
Kt.,
I
47
AV, R V
[ii.]).
JEZRAHIAH
35,
a
Levite
musician priest in the procession at the dedication of the
wall (see
E
ZRA
ii.,
Neh.
1 2 4 2
(om.
L]).
The identical Hebrew name
appears elsewhere as I
ZRAHIAH
.
JEZREEL
‘God.
sows’
[AL],
also
B in Hos.
21
2
generally
in
[Jos.]
nearly always;
AL in
I
S.
29
and A
K.
20
K.
Other forms are
ad
I
K.
Judg.
633,
and
I
K. 1846
9
36,
I
29
I
,
22
6,
and
in
Hos.
form
I
I
6
etc.,
K.
[A],
o
I
.
Originally
a
clan-name, analogous to Israel,
Jerahmeel, Ishmael; then the name
of
a
city and
district lastly, that of the long, deep
vale dominated by the city
of
Jezreel.
Of the existence of the Jezreelite clan
in
N.
Palestine, we have no direct biblical evidence;
but it may be surmised that the fact recorded bom-
bastically in king Merneptah’s famous inscription (see
I
SRAEL
,
7,
end) was the extinction of
a
tribe called, not
Israel, but Jezreel.
Renouf‘s
conjecture that the stele
actually spoke of
Jezreel’ is not indeed confirmed
(see Spiegelberg’s report, and
,
but it
remains possible that the spelling
(
=Israel) is due
to
a
mistake of the ear such as was, a t any rate, often
made by Greek scribes.
T h e place is assigned in
Josh.
[L])
to Issachar.
W e
know from Judg.
that this tribe suffered greatly
from Canaanitish preponderance (cp I
SSACHAR
)
and
since Taanach, Ibleam, and Megiddo on the one side
and Beth-shean on the other are represented
Jndg.
1 2 7
as
Canaanitish enclaves, we may, for geographical
reasons, assume that Jezreel, though coveted by Issachar,
also long remained Canaanitish.
Josh. 17
16
probably confirms this
view
;
we read there of the
Canaanites of Beth-shean and
of
of
Jezreel
as
having formidable ‘chariots of iron.
I t may be that one of the fruits of the victory com-
memorated in Judg.
5
was the conquest of Jezreel
(Budde,
47).
In the time of
Saul,
a t any
rate, Jezreel was Israelitish not far from it
by the
fountain [of
which is by Jezreel’) was the camp
of the Israelites before the great battle in which Saul
was said to be slain
(
I
S. 291
see, however,
S
AUL
, 4).
The district of Jezreel is included in the kingdom
of
Ishbaal
but the text is
It was
For
slightly different views of the development see We.
254,
n.
;
Bu.
46,
n.
I
.
The passages quoted by
We.
to
prove that Jezreel
was
originally the
a
district,
city are S.
29
I
11
44.
The inference
is
notjustifiable
the
of
not
merely occupied
a
district; they
have had
one
chief settlement called
after
their own
name.
That
Jezreel’
was the name of
a
city
in
David’s time
certain
rightlyquotes
I
S.
25
43).
Both We. and Bu. however, seem
to
misunderstand
I
S.
29
where, comparing
we
should read
‘and the Philistines went up to fight
against Israel ’-the equivalent of the statement in
I
(cp. the
duplicate statements
in 284,
29
I
;
see
In S.
2
(‘and over Jezreel
’)
may be
a
corruption of
or
over the Girzites,’ or ‘Girshites’): see
In
4 4
Jezreel evidently means the district
of
See D
AVID
,
(a,
iii.).
See preceding note.
JEZELUS
[BA]).
I
.
1
Esd.
J
AHAZIEI
.
5.
I
8
J
EHIEL
,
8.
JEZER
in genealogy
of
N
APHTALI
(Gen.
46 24
Nu.
[A],
I
Ch. 7
13
uaap
(Nu.
[A],
in
I
Ch. 25
JEZIAH
RV
[Ba. Ginsb.]
a
third variant is
see
N
AMES
,
32
[L]), b.
in
the
list
of
those with foreign wives (see
AB Vet. Lat etc read
they make
her the
wife
of the Church
(so
Copt., Vg.
Treg., WH).
79
J E Z R E E L
J O A B
not far from Carmel whence
came Ahinoam, David s wife
[A]
and
or
brother-&-law
17
25).
Perhaps this name lies hidden in the miswritten
in
Ch. 20. See A
BIGAIL
,
A
HINOAM
3
;
also S
AUL
, 4.
I
.
Mentioned in genealogical
connection with Etam and
in
I
Ch. 4 3 t
Perhaps the eponym of
Name of a son of Hosea (Hos.
1 4
in allu-
sion to the 'bloodshed of Jezreel.'
I
.
JEZREEL
afterwards the residence
of
Ahab and, after him, of
hard by was the vineyard of N
ABOTH ( I
K.
21
I
),
where Joram, Ahab's second son, was slain by Jehu
(2
I t was at the palace of
that the
usurper had his famous encounter with Jezebel
K.
9
According
to
Hosea, vengeance would be taken
on
Jehu for the bloodshed
of
Jezreel, and where should
this be but in the vale of Jezreel ? At the same time-
so
Hosea interpreted to himself the divine message of
which he was conscious-the guilt-laden kingdom of N.
Israel would come to an end
v.
is
much later).
T h e next time the place
is
mentioned, it
is
called
Esdraelon (Judith
3 9 4 6
and Esdraelonis the name
given by Eusebius
( O S
267
omits the
name) to
' a
very notable village in the great plain
between Scythopolis and Legio
the Jerusalem Itinerary
locates it
I
O
R. m. from Scythopolis. In the times of
the Crusaders the Franks knew it as
(Gerinum
William of Tyre,
in
the Jewish traveller,
Benjamin of
calls it Zarein.
From Saladin's
time onwards
has no doubt been the Arabic name
of the village which has succeeded the ancient Jezreel
for Jezreel, as
for Bethel).
Strange
indeed it is, that a place once
so
important should have
such
a
miserable modern representative
I
The tower
referred to in K.
which was a part of the citadel,
has long since disappeared.
The ruined tower of the
squalid modern village is not ancient; but the view
from it compensates one to some extent for disappoint-
ments.
the Carmel ridge may h e followed until it
terminates a t the sea; in
distant east the Jordan line is
made out easily; Gilboa seems near enough for you so to strike
it with a stone that the missile would rebound and reach Little
Hermon before
fell. The great mountain walls of Eashan and
of
Eglon
rise in the far east, and seem to forbid any
search beyond them' (Harper,
Lands,
285).
In fact, Jezreel itself stands high you would hardly
guess how high, as
you
approach it riding across the
gently swelling plain of Esdraelon.
Looking east-
ward, however, you see that there is a steep, rocky
descent on that side into the valley of Gilboa, with the
remains of wine-presses cut in the rock, which, with a
white marble sarcophagus (found by
are the
only relics of any antiquity at
W e noticed just now (in Josh.
17
16)
the phrase the
of Jezreel'
the meaning of this has now to
be stated clearly.
An
is a
wide avenue running up into amountainous
country
the
of Jezreel ought therefore to mean,
not
the great central plain
W . of Jezreel,
the gate of which is Megiddo, but the broad deep vale
E.
Jezreel (between the so-called Little Hermon and
Gilboa), descending to the Jordan, the gate of which
is Jezreel.
I t should be borne in mind that the later
phrase 'the plain of Esdraelon' (Judith
1 8 )
is less
correct than the early phrases the plain of M
EGIDDO
and 'the Great
not mean that the
great plain' could not he designated the plain of Jezreel,
for Jezreel looks twoways-along
or 'vale'
Jordan, and across the
or 'plain' to Mount Carmel.
But if one place has more claim than another to give its
name to the great central plain, it is Megiddo-at least
if
M
EGIDDO
is
or
Legio, which looks as if it
were set there for the very purpose of guarding the chief
entrance of the plain from Sharon. The 'Vale of
Jezreel,' then, is the fit name for that broad deep vale
with its gate at Jezreel, which three miles after it has
opened round Gilboa to the south
. .
.
suddenly
drops over a bank some 300 feet high into the valley of
the Jordan' (GASm.
Near the edge of this
bank rises the mound which covers the ruins
of
Beth-
in a position not surpassed for strength by any
A place in the hill-country of Judah
in Palestine. See B
ETH
-
SHEAN
.
T.
C.
See GASm.
384
Furrer in Schenkel,
3302.
2459
[A]),
J
EHIEL
,
JIBSAM, RV IBSAM
54,
' h e is fra-
7),
I
Ch.
son of N
AHOR
(Gen.
grant ?), son of
(see I
SSACHAR
,
P
EDAIAH
,
I.
JIMNA, JIMNAH, JIMNITES.
See I
MNAH
.
JIPHTAH, RV IPHTAH
see J
IPHTAH
-
EL
),
an unidentified site in the lowland of Judah, mentioned in
the same group with Mareshah: Josh.
1 5 4 3
[AL], om. B?). See J
OTBAH
.
JIPHTAH
EL,
RV
IPHTAH
-
EL,
V
ALLEY
OF
[AL]), a place on the N. border of Zebulun
towards
Josh.
has been
with the
Jotapata
so
well known from Josephus's account of
the siege during the first Roman war
7).
the
name of which in the Mishna is
(Neub.
203;
cp
n.
6).
The names Iphtah and
(for another form see J
OTBAH
) may seem
dissimilar but the old Hebrew names passed through
strange vicissitudes the transformation of Iphtah is
not impossible.
Jotapata is no doubt the
a little to the NE. of
el-Jelil, and due
N.
of Sepphoris.
To
the NW. of
lies
see
col.
According to Robinson
(BK
the 'valley' of Iphtah-el is the great
which takes its rise SW. of
but this is
not plausible. Should we not read, for
letters
may have fallen out owing to the proximity
of
The round and lofty Tell
which is
only connected with the hills to the N. of it by a low
saddle,' would form an excellent landmark. For
a
less probable identification (Conder's), see D
ABBASHETH
.
JOAB
is father ' ? cp J
OAH
,
E
LIAB
.
A possible derivation from
must not be disregarded:
cp
477
[,BAL]).
I
.
b.
Z
ERUIAH
David's
nephew and general
(I
S. 266
S.
etc.,
I
K.
etc.,
I
Ch.
2 1 6 ;
[A,
Ps.
60
title],
in
I
Ch.
W e do not
know whether he, like his elder brother Abishai,'
followed the fortunes of David from the first.
first hear of Joab in connection with the encounter
between the men of Abner and Ishbaal and the
men of David at Gibeon
S.
see
and the vengeance which he
upon A
BNER
for the violent death of his
brother
had consequences which
were helpful to the claims of David, though David him-
self (according to
2
;
cp
I
K.
did not
recognise this.
I t was the exploit of this warrior
at the capture of Zion which, according
to
I
Ch.
114-9,
was rewarded by his promotion to be a head
JIDLAPH
T. K. C.
So
I
Ch. 2 16 ; in
S.
2
18,
however, he stands first.
How long a time elapsed between
encounter a t Gibeon
and the events in chap. 3 is unknown.
v.
28
(cp
of the
former chapter presupposes a cessation of the war but ch. 3
I
(cp
represents the strife between the rival houses a s
continuing.
2460
JOAB
and commander
In
2023
(cp 816)
we find him placed ‘over all the host of Israel.’ But
through what events one who began
as
the
leader
of
a
band (cp
rose to the generalship
cp
8
we are not told
and, unlike Abishai,
Joab is not referred to
the scanty notices of the
war
with the Philistines.
Passing over the wars of David and his complicity in
the death of Uriah
S.
we meet with him next in
the account of Absalom’s exile and rebellion.
Here he
is represented as standing
on
terms of close intimacy
with David and as prevailing on the king to recall his
banished son
(14
although it was not until Absalom
had taken severe measures that he was able to procure
him a n interview with the
In the fight against
Absalom
18)
a
thud of the people is put under his
charge, although from
v.
he would seem, to have been
a t the head of the army.
That he was directly re-
sponsible for the death
of
Absalom (vv.
is
rendered doubtful
(I)
by the conflicting statement in
which ascribes the deed to his armour-bearers,
by
his retaining influence over the king, and ( 3 ) by the
remarkable fact that no allusion is made to the deed in
David‘s final charge
( I
K. 2 1 3 )
or elsewhere.
But,
however this may be, the king felt himself obliged to
promise
the post which Joab had held.
On the occasion of Sheba’s revolt (which the
M T ,
according to its present arrangement, places immedi-
ately after Absalom’s rebellion), the command, in the
absence of Amasa, was given to Abishai, the king fully
that Joab would naturally follow his brother
S.
20).
T h e fact that he then takes the leadership
his own hands is so much
a
matter of course that
it does not need to be
Joab finds an
opportunity of ridding himself of his rival Amasa,
and successfully quells the revolt.
In
David’s frontier wars Joab was the foremost
figure it
is
true he is unmentioned in the panegyric,
ch.
81-14,
but the account in ch.
10
probably gives a
more historical view.
The later tradition may have
deepened the horrors of his campaign in
but
that his policy was thorough is shown by the deadly
hatred which arose between Edom and Israel.
An
equally successful campaign was carried out against
Ammon and the allied
(ch.
1 0
see D
AVID
,
8
and in the following year Rabbath-Ammon, the
capital, with all its spoil, fell into his hands (ch.
26-31).
In ch.
24
(a later but pre-deuteronomic narrative; cp
S
A
M
UEL
6 )
Joab is ordered to number the people. The
un-
willingness he exhibits is characteristically treated
I
Ch.
216, Levi and Benjamin counted he not among them, for the
king’s word
was
abominable
(so
EV) to
Finally, at the close of David’s life, Joab sided with
Adonijah
attempt to gain the crown
(
I
K.
and upon the accession of Solomon was slain by Benaiah
a t the altar-horns and buried in his house in the wilder-
ness’
(I
K.
See
JOAB.
A recollection
of
his name may he preserved
in
and
3
otherwise he passes
out of
history. In the list given
at
the close of
I
K.
2 a
certain
but
L, cp also chap.
46)
son
of
Joab
is
cited
as
captain of
the army,
The Chronicler’s account
the way
in
which he
rose
to
distinction ignores the important part which he played
coun-
teracting Abner
.
the
Abner episode
is in fact
omitted
in
Chron.
It is
to place much
the
notice
that two years elapsed before Absalom saw David’s face.
vv.
are an
acknowledged gloss
;
but since
v.
is
almost
identical repetition
of v.
it is
probable that
is
also
a
gloss,
and
follows immediately upon
24.
3
So at any rate
Bu. (SBOT)
in
opposition to the
genera!
opinion
for Abishai
6)
we
should read Joab
(so
Pesh.). If
as
has been suggested elsewhere (see
16
168
the
cdnnection
between the revolts of Sheba and
the
story of
Amasa’s murder are both due to
a
redactor,
it
is
probable that Pesh. is right and that the alteration to
Abishai occurred
after
the two
had been joined, and
was indeed rendered absolutely necessary by
19
4
’In
I
18
the campaign is ascribed to Abishai.
I
Ch.
says that Joab began tonumber, but finished not.’
2461
JOANAN
but unfortunately there is no further evidence to support this
In reviewing Joab’s history it is difficult to gain
a
clear insight into his relation to David.
Powerful and
indispensable
he was, he was replaced by Amasa at
the close of Absalom’s rebellion, which throws doubt
upon
the suggestion that the increase in
influence over
David dates from the episode of Uriah.
If David was
afraid of Joab because of his acquaintance with the true
facts of
death, he could certainly have found
means to get rid of him.
Joab’s treachery to Uriah is
not
too
clearly stated in
11
and although
Joab may have justly incurred blame, it is difficult to
see why his brother Abishai (to whom David owed
so
much,
2
S.
should be included in the
invectives against the ‘sons of Zeruiah’ (cp
S.
339
[see
Klo.],
1 9
There is
a
consensus of critics that the injunction
ascribed to David in
I
K. 2 5 J
was written after his
time to excuse the killing of Joab and Shimei (see
D
AVID
,
Here,
in the section
228-34,
Joab’s
fate
is
represented as a just retribution for the murder
of Abner, captain of the host of Israel,’ and of Amasa,
captain of the host of Judah.’ The special stress laid
upon the innocence of
as
well
as
the reiterated
condemnation of the ‘sons
of
Zeruiah,’ reveals the
tendency to
the character of the great national
hero which characterised later ages (cp D
AVID
,
See
H
ARASHIM
. Meyer
suggests a connection with
The resemblance between Seraiah
,name of his father) and Zeruiah (above) is superficially
striking, but apparently accidental.
3.
One
of
the
two
families of
in the great
post-exilic list
ii.,
g, 8
in
both])
=
I
Esd.
5
11
AV
om.)
;
cp Ezra
8 =
I
Esd.
835.
The father
of
Ge-harashim
(I
Ch.
414
;
A. C.
JOAB,
HOUSE
OF.
See A
TROTH
-
BETH
-
J
OAB
.
JOACHIM
Bar.
and J o a c i m
I
Esd.
RV
Joakim.
See J
EHOIAKIM
,
Joakim
is
also the name of a son of
babel
( I
Esd.
5 5 ) .
of the high priest in Judith’s time
(Jud.
and of the husband of
(Sus.
G
EDALIAH
,
5.
is brother,’
cp
and see
I
.
b. Asaph,
vizier
at
the
time
of
invasion
K.
18
[BA, omitting b. Asaph’],
26
[B; in v.
26
Is.
363,
N
AMES
,
44
v.
om.
v.
h.
Josiah’s vizier during the religious reforms Ch.
348,
om. Pesh
Ant.
x.
4
3.
b. Zimmah, a Gershonite
(I
Ch.
[6]
om. B.,
See
7
and note that
3,
cp
I
above) is also
a
Gershonite
name.
4.
b.
(I
Ch.
26 4 :
JOAHAZ
cp
[BAL]).
The father
of
Ch.
348
om. Pesh.).
J
EHOAHAZ
),
of Israel
K.
14
I
3.
king of Judah
Ch.
36
JOANAN.
I.
[A],
,
om.
I
106,
RV ‘Jonas.
See JOHANAN,
2.
[Ti.
WH]),
Lk.
3 27
RV. See G
ENEALOGIES
ii.,
Joab according
to
Thenius, is a mistake for Shaphat (cp
BA K. 46).
David orders Uriah to he placed in the thick of the battle
and then left. But
in
vv.
Uriah appears
to
join with other
heroes in an onslaught against the
city
(no
names
of
enemy
or
city are
given in
11
and falls with them.
Nor
is the intro-
duction
of
Abimelech in
a
case in point for how was a city
to be taken
going up to the
wall
17
my
father David knew it not ;
cp the awkward
expression S.
3
K.
2
:
2462
JOANES
[Ti.]),
AV Jona,' RV John.
See B
AR
-
J
ONA
, J
OHN
.
JOANNA, or rather, as in RV
WH]), eighteenth in the ascending genealogical
series which begins with Joseph, Mary's husband, in Lk.
Ber. R.
64,
b. Sot.
a,
from an original
Heb.
or
Dalm.
Arum. 142,
n.
9,
cp B
AR
-
JONA
), wife
of
C
HUZA
(Lk.
83).
She
was
one of the pious women who ministered to Jesus and
the twelve apostles
[Ti.
WH]) of their substance,
and of those who went to the sepulchre to embalm his
body
(Lk.
83
JOANNAN
[AAKV]),
I
Macc.
RV
JOARIB
(I
Macc. 2
I
).
and, in an abbreviated form,
Both forms occur in
I
and
but in
latter
is
found cp
an
temp. Sennacherib
[Hommel,
Sab.
Sin.
Possibly ' Y a h gives,'
see Gray,
hut more probably it
is
not a verbal form
;
;
[A
K.
14
81).
I.
b. Ahaziah, king of Judah
(
B
.c.
835-7963, who was
hidden during the usurpation of Athaliah and crowned
a t the age of seven
K .
12
Ch. 24).
On
the two parallel accounts of the revolution which
placed Joash
on
the throne, ( a )
K. 11
i6.
see Stade,
5
('85) who is followed by
Benzinger and
T h e former,
emphasizes the
religious motives of the revolution, may have come from a work
o n the history of the temple. The account in Ch.
is
largely recast ; hut, where this is not the case,
he used a s
a
,parallel text to (a).
Somehow
the temple had been allowed to get into disrepair, and
Joash made
a
new arrangement for the due preservation
of the fabric, the priests being made responsible for this.
T h e temple is evidently regarded as a royal possession.
A statement of more historical interest (turned to his own
account by the Chronicler,
Ch.
is concerned
with the inroad of the Syrians under Hazael, who only
departed on receiving a large tribute.
No doubt this
inroad stands in close connection with Hazael's successful
wars against Jehu or Jehoahaz.
Joash met his death at
the hands of assassins,
possibly an act of private
vengeance for the cruel murder of Zechariah b. Jehoiada,
the priest.
(This is suggested by the statement of
Ch. 2425, which may be not wholly incorrect.) See
I
SRAEL
,
31;
C
HRONICLES
,
8
C
HRONOLOGY
,
35.
b. Jehoahaz
(797-783
?), king of Israel
K .
13
Ch.
25).
One of the greatest of the Israelitish
kings.
His success over
b. Hazael
(which
is
said to have been foretold by
K.
and his victory over Amaziah, followed by his
breaking down of the wall
of
Jerusalem, are the most
prominent facts of his reign.
That Judah was reduced
to vassalage
was
the result, according to the narrative,
of
an
challenge of Amaziah b. Joash
(I),
king
of Judah, which provoked the scornful and only
prophetic parable of the thistle and the cedar'
K.
See A
MAZIAH
,
I
.
Gather of
(Judg.
A
prince (lit. ' t h e king's son') temp. Ahab
(I
K. 2226
cp
a
Ch. 1825
Either the title 'king's son' was given
to officers of state, or members of the royal house did not disdain
such a n office as the governorship of the prison. Possibly
is a corruption of
(Che.), see
H
AMMELECH
.
5.
A son of
b. Judah,
Ch. 422
6.
One of David's heroes
(I
Ch.
12
3,
See
JOASH
aids,' for
cp
Ar.
and Sab.
This, however, is not
favoured by the Gk. transcription
[BAL], which
See
Cook, Aramaic
See G
ENEALOGIES
ii.,
John.' See M
ACCABEES
I
,
3.
See
W e know but little of Joash's long reign.
See
D
AVID
,
11
a,
iii.
S. A.
JOB
does
presuppose the harder
y
See
I.
b.
Of
BENJAMIN
a),
I
Ch.
8
cp
I
O
,
and
I
Ch. 23
One of
overseers
(I
Ch.
27
JOATHAM
WH]), Mt.
RV
See
D
AVID
,
87,
J
OSABAD
.
JOAZABDUS
[A]),
I
Esd.
JOB
Gen.
4 6 1 3
AV,
a
corruption of
JOB
the hero of the Book of Job
(cp also Ezek.
Jas.
on which see below),
confounded in the postscript to
with
J
OBAB
king
o f
Edom (Gen. 3633).
Though this confusion is due to
a
late uncritical miter.
probably
a
Jewish
we must admit the
possi-
bility that there may be a connection
the
names.
Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar all have points
of contact with name-lists in Genesis, and we should
naturally expect this to he the case with
I t is
true, most critics before Dillmann have explained
from the Hebrew, as if the original framer of the story
of Job either coined the name or at least modified it
so
as
to make it symbolic of his hero the alternatives are
(
I
)
the pions
one who turns to God
(see Koran,
38
16
44)
the assailed, or persecuted
by God, or by Satan.'
Neither is very satis-
factory. The former is not definite enough in meaning,
nor is the root Israelitish
the latter implies an ex-
ceptional use of the grammatical form (cp
There is no indication that the writers of Job thought
any meaning for the name.
Another problem remains-
the true origin of the
name.
In
Am.
2376
13
we find Aiab a personal
name in N. Palestine (Che.
6,
p.
possibly
I n the next article (J
OB
, B
OOK
the name of
the hero of Job
from
is traced to Ea-bani,
the name of an ancient Babylonian hero, whose creation
out of clay has been compared with the narrative
(see C
REATION
,
n. 4). Ea-bani seems
to have been
with
who, according
to the myth, was attacked by some sore disease, and
was supernaturally healed. For other legendary Hebrew
names of Babylonian origin, see C
AINITES
,
6-8,
IO.
On the land of
see Uz.
The question whether Job really lived-
which
distinct from the question whether he actually said and
did all that is related of him in our book
only be answered in the affirmative
we are prepared to regard Cain, Enoch,
and Noah
as
historical personages. The saying of
Resh Lakish, 'Job existed not, and was not created,
but is (only)
a
shows that great freedom of
speech upon such matters was allowed among Jewish
doctors.
There has been some vagueness in the
utterances of modern Christian scholars, who have
not always considered that for a story to have a tradi-
tional basis is not equivalent to its being founded
on fact. The moral value of the story of Job is
impaired by the denial of its historicity
;
like the story
of Jonah it is a parable, and the only question is
-a parable of what? The ancients were struck
by
Job's righteousness (Ezek.
14
14
Ecclus.
[Heb.
text]), or by his patient endurance
511).
Mohammed, too, Job was a model
of
piety and
Bleek, Dillmann, Rudde ascribe it to a Hellenist: but the
arguments
of
21
deserve attention.
See
Uz.
Cp Lag.
go.
3
Cp
also
the later Heb.
Dalm.
T h e saying was, however,' tampered
with.
See
On Resh Lakish see further
310;
and
Gratz,
(ET),
JOB
(BOOK)
JOB
(BOOK)
patience (Koran,
and the Mohammedans humor-
ously call the camel
Job's father.'
I n
Christian Egypt, too, as
the
story of Job was very popular, but not the speeches.
T h e one was practical, the other appeared to be specu-
lative.
of Mopsuestia witnesses to the same
preference of the
to the speeches in his time.
For evidence of the further legendary development of
the story of Job in the Jewish and Moslem world see
D.
B.
Macdonald,
K. Kohler,
' T h e Testament of Job,'
I n Ecclus. 499
is certainly wrong in reading
for
the latter reading
is
supported both by
and by
our
Hebrewtext. Therecovered Heb. text how-
References.
ever, must be corrupt. Smend thinks
can
read
in the MS after
'97,
32).
however, has
and
this is what the copyist of our
MS
may have meant to give but
the word we want is
and
in
should be
and the
of
and Neubauer should he
T h e passage then becomes, H e also mentioned Job the upright
whoutteredright
In Jas.
155)
may be right in preferring the reading
(AB3 13 31
L
Arm.) to
vv.).
T h e verse becomes 'Ye have
heard of the patience of Job and the end
by)
Lord.
The book stands third among
the
or Hagiographa, according to the Tal-
mudic arrangement, but not always in the same place
relatively to other books in the Greek Bible too, there
are variations in the
On these points see Ryle,
Canon
O T
(1892). I n the
Bible Job
is
placed between the Pentateuch and Joshua, because,
according to the Jews
it was written
by Moses (cp
C
A
N
ON
,
45).
It may mitigate our
surprise to remember that one of the fathers of modern
criticism, Eichhorn, even claimed for the book a
Mosaic origin. W e need not, however, any longer
discuss the possibility of this view, since no scholar
could be found to defend it.
The most scientific
arrangement is that which includes Job in the group of
books
of Wisdom
of which it is doubtless the
greatest, and the most fraught with suggestion for the
history of the Jewish religion. See W
ISDOM
L
ITERA
-
See (here) that the Lord is full
of
compassion and pitiful.
T. K.
C.
JOB, BOOK
OF.
TURE.
As
the book now stands, it consists of five parts.
I
.
T h e Prologue, written, like the Epilogue,
in
prose (chap.
The Colloquies of Job and his friends (chaps. 3-31).
The speeches of
(chaps. 32-37).
4.
The speeches of Yahwl:
out of the storm, with very brief
answers of
(chaps.
5.
The Epilogue (42
Thus it
is
plain that the book of Job
is
deficient in
Two literary styles are represented in it
literary unity.
-narrative prose and didactic poetry
however, are thoroughly artistic
character.
W e must not read the
Prologue a s a history this would be to do injustice to
a
considerable epic poet.
Nor must we read the
Col-
loquies as mere specimens of Hebrew philosophy in
metre.
This would be to miss making the acquaintance
of a powerful lyric poet who was also skilled in the
delineation of varieties of character.
Certainly it
is
not
legitimate to call the book of Job a drama a Hebrew
drama, especially in post-exilic times,
is
inconceivable.
T h e attitude of the Priestly Writer ( P ) in the Hexateuch
towards the ancient Hebrew myths and legends suf-
ficiently shows how hopeless a dramatic movement would
have been, even had it been initiated.
Nevertheless,
the idea of inclosing
a
poetical debate between the two
parts
of
a
quasi-poetical tale is dramatic in tendency,
and suggests that in more favourable circumstances
gifted dramatists might have arisen among the Jews.
In order that students may appreciate the art (not less
'Version Thebaine d u Livre de
Job,'
'87,
p.
than the meaning)
of
the poem and its different sections,
there is one preliminary service
the textual critic
must render-viz., to submit the text of Job to a careful
revision.
A!!
that can he done for exegesis from an opposite point of
view has been done by Dillmann, and if Davidson cannot
be
mentioned as Dillmann's rival, yet every one of the too few
that Davidson has written on Job testifies to familiarity
with the available exegetical material
where either of these
eminent critics has failed
has
been simply owing to the
inadequacy of their critical methods.
T o Bickell Siegfried
Budde, Beer, and Duhm is due the credit of
perceived
that the next step forward
in
exegesis must be preceded by a
purification of the text. T h e labours of these scholars and
of
others who have worked a t the text of Job on the
lines
though less continuously, cannot be disregarded by
students, and any article like the present must constantly refer
not
only to the Massoretic but also to a n emended text.
T h e present writer is tied
no master, and will
the student the best that he knows.
Nor can he abstain
from adding that the emended text to which he will
appeal
is
one which has partly been produced by con-
siderations
of
metre.
For the most necessary informa-
tion on this subject he would refer to the article
P
OETICAL
L
ITERATURE
it is enough here to endorse
the statement of Duhm, that the usual poetical form in
the Colloquies of Job and his friends is the simplest
metre of Hebrew prosody-viz., the stanza of four
stichi, of three beats
There are also, it is true,
passages of tristichs in chaps.
24
and (perhaps)
30
but
these are among the later insertions.
One of the
clearest reasons for denying these passages to the main
author
of
the work is the difference in their poetical
form. The statement of Zenner
Th.
p.
that the book of Job contains much more than
a hundred tristichs implies far too conservative an atti-
tude towards the traditional text.
The object of the Prologue
Is
to show that disin-
terested love of God is possible, and that in the case of
such an one as Job, or of that quasi-
personal being whom Job symholises,
the terrible load of suffering has this
one intelligible
that the
of
his unbought piety may be exhibited before angels and
men. Job
is
introduced to us as a rich Edomite Emeer,
happy
in
his family and in his enormous possessions.
He also knows the true God under the name
and is scrupulous in the established observances
of
piety. Heaven is thrown open to
us
that we may see
what Yahwb himself thinks of Job, and how the Satan
is only permitted to hurl this great and good man into
an abyss of misery that his piety may come out
as
pure
gold.
The deed is done, and Job, stricken with a
loathsome sickness (see
P
ESTILENCE
),
withdraws to the
ash-mound
of his village (cp Lam.
45).
Flesh for
the Satan had said
( 2 4 )
'his dearest
relations are nothing
to
a man, if he may but save his
life.'
That, however, was not the right reading of
Job's character.
His wife's faith indeed gave way.
Loyal to her husband, but faithless to her God, she
bade Job be a man, since God withheld the reward of
piety, and curse his all-powerful enemy before he died.
To
Job, however, this was the height of folly she who
so
spoke had degraded herself-had become one of the
foolish women' (see F
OO
L
). Not only did he speak
no rash
against God,' he willingly accepted the
Jerome states that the book
is
composed in hexameters with
a
dactylic and spondaic movement. Evidently he means double
trimeters.
Duport, Prof. of Greek
Cambridge translated
Job in Homeric hexameters under the title
(Cambr.
Vetter (Die
des
and Ley
(articles in
are the most recent special monographs
on the metre of Job.
'skin for
skin,' gives
no adequate sense ; Schwally's explanation ( Z A
is only slightly more plausible than that of Merx
Read probably
,
3
in
reads
'and attributed
nothing unsavoury to God, the exact sense
of which is variously
Schultens,
Probably,
2466
JOB
(BOOK)
evil which could not blot from his memory the good
of happier days.
In
a
little while his three chief friends
arrive, for the news has spread far and wide they are
doubtless
Job, and they know how true
sympathy should express itself.
The prose narrative is resumed in the Epilogue.
Yahwk declares that his anger is kindled against the
friends of Job became they have not said of him the
thing that is right, like his servant J o b ; he tells them
to
offer sacrifice, and Job shall intercede for them, that
sudden ruin may not befall
So
Job prayed for
them, and, as a public act of justification, God restored
him more than his former prosperity, till at length he
old and full of days.
As
a
piece of narrative the Epilogue compares very
unfavourably with the Prologue.
The idea that after
JOB
(BOOK)
having been proved capable of fearing
God for naught,' Job should have to
spend a hundred and forty years in the
enjoyment of a commonplace
seem t o
most moderns so unreasonable that they probably would
be glad to have reasons for
it.
I t
is
not less
strange that nothing should be said in the Epilogue
either of Satan's loss of his wager,
or
of Job's recovery
from his leprosy.
However, to do justice
to
the writer
we must view him, not
as
an artist, but as a teacher.
The Epilogue was a necessary concession to the
un-
spiritual multitude, who had been taught even
prophets to look forward to double compensation for
Israel's afflictions
2
(Is.
617 Jer.
Zech.
Job
a
symbol of suffering Israel, Jewish
readers could not but expect him to be re-endowed with
sons and daughters, flocks and herds, and treasures
of
(cp
Now, too, we can see
why, instead of telling ns how Job recovered from his
sicliness, the narrator uses the vague
which
is so
often used of the hoped-for
of
the
prosperity
Ps.
[4]
H e is thinking here, not of the legendary Job, but of
his people Israel.
W e next consider Prologue and Epilogue together.
Can these be by the same writer as the Colloquies?
(I)
It must be admitted that the Colloquies in general
presuppose the main facts of the story in the Prologne
on the other hand, in
(contrast 8 4
we
have certain statements which are plainly incon-
sistent with some of those facts.
In Job427
Job is commended for having spoken rightly of
G o d ; obviously this does nof correspond with the
speeches of Job in the Colloquies.
( 3 )
The Prologue
ascribes the trials of Job to the Satan.
Nothing
is
said of this in the poem; neither Job nor his friends
know anything of such
a.
being.
(4)
In the Prologue
Job is a model of patience; in the Colloquies he is
impatient.
(5)
T h e explanation of Job's sufferings
given in
1
is unknown to the Colloquies.
(6)
Sacri-
fices are essential to piety in the prose-story of Job
they are not once mentioned in the Colloquies.
T h e necessary inference is that the Prologue and the
Epilogue were written before the Colloquies, and since
(cp
2
IO
,
and especially Ps.
33).
represents
comes from
was
inserted
by the
last
editor to make sense.)
In
42
gives,
that I
may
not
do something shameful
to
give
a n
exemplary
punishment
The
text
of
is
so
far from
immaculate
it is better to emend
it
here than to
force
in
A
more impossible word than
for
to use
could hardly be imagined. Probably
we
should read,
and
are both
very
liable (as
experience
of
and Psalms will show) to corruption.
I h e
exact doubling
of
Job's
former possessions
shows
that
we are
not
reading literal history here' (Davidson on
42
On the close
of
4211
see
and on'the names of
Job's three daughters the first and the third of which
are
strangely misread, see
implies that both Yahwk and the friends had held
discourse with Job, it follows that the present Collo-
quies (if we may provisionally regard them as
a
whole)
have been substituted for speeches of very different
purport which
from the narrator of the
story, and were in perfect harmony with
The chief value
of
the
for
us
moderns (who
aesthetic and religious grounds
are
compelled
to
take
exception
to its
contents)
is
that
it
enables
us to
reconstruct
the main outlines of
the
original
colloquy
and of those portions
of
the story which had to be omitted
together
with the original
colloquy. Elsewhere
a n
attempt has been made to
what inight conceivably have formed the omitted portion of the
earlier hook
of
Something of the sort can hardly be
dispensed
with
in a
full
treatise on
the criticism
of
Job, though
to economise space it is not given here. The theory adopted
above enables
us to
account
( a )
for
the severe
which
gives
to
the three friends, and for their assumed liability
to
some terrible calamity
for the high praise awarded to
(c)
part for the expressions
the
description of the
Servant of Yahwl: in
and
for the
early
view
of Job, which persisted for centuries in
many
quarters in spite of the
later insertions
in the hook, as
a
model
of righteousness and patient endurance.
W e must now ask, I s it possible to get behind the
of
and of his misfortunes in
the Prologue and Epilogue?
That
there is a legendary basis may be
assumed
as
on a
Even the book
of
has its legendary element, though
the
main current of t h e
narrative is unaffected by it.
Much
more may
we expect
to
find
a
traditional
for the
story
of
which is of
just
the type in which the primitive
imagina-
tion delighted
;
indeed, the name of its hero (in striking contrast
to
is plainly no fiction, but
a
legacy from
antiquity.
The prevalent view among critics is that
a
wise man
of poetical gifts in
in the post-exilic period
adopted a story which had been handed on from age
to age in popular tradition, and adapted it to his own
didactic purposes.
One
of
the chief points
i n
favour of this
view
is
the super-
natural machinery of the Prologue, which
has
a
strong quasi-
mythological character. In particular,
the
humorousness5
of
the dialogue between Yahwl: and
Satan, which might
he
abundantly paralleled
from
Christian hagiology, evidently
the
popular,
not
the official
religion.
On
other
and, it
must
be
remarked
that the
is
evidently
constructed with
a
didactic
,
to
give
an
adequate
explanation
of
the sufferings of the righteous;
that the
Epilogue
is not
fully
unless Job
he
understood
as a
type
of
the people
of
Israel; and
(3)
that the Epilogue pre-
supposes that
and his three friends
have
been conversing
on the subject of the divine government of the world
whereas discussions
on
speculative
are
uncongenial to
the popular mind.
How far can this view be endorsed?
So
much
as
this appears to be certain-the story of Job
is
based upon
a
popular legend.
I t is probable, however, that some
of the most interesting features of the Prologue are not
of traditional origin, but come from a cultivated wise
man who knew how to write for the people, but stood
somewhat apart both from the popular and from the
official religion.
This wise man lived in the
exilic period, when the belief in the Satan was becoming
general. Very probably the imaginary dialogue between
and the Satan is not merely humorous but
ironical.
T h e narrator may wish to suggest
a
grave
doubt
as
to the appropriateness
of
such
a
belief in
Judaism certainly he regards the Satan, like the b'ne
as
no more than a part of his poetic machinery.
His main object, however, is to show (anticipating much
later teaching) that the accumulated woes of Israel are
but tests of the disinterestedness of Israel's love for
God.
It is true, the Epilogue is inconsistent with
this : this wise man and artist, free-minded as he
is,
has to make concessions to the multitude (see
3).
See,
B. Macdonald,
Duhm,
Che.
161.
3
(see preceding
col. n.
I
).
Eml.
viii.
Che.
and
Sol.
6 6 ;
5
(parallel between Job and
'members of the divine guild' (A
NGELS
,
Budde, pp.
;
Duhm,
p.
2468
JOB (BOOK)
JOB
(BOOK)
Most probably all that he adopted from the legend
was
(
I
)
the name of the hero and of the land in which
he lived
the fact of Job's close intercourse with
God
and
( 3 )
the surprising circumstance that this
most righteous and divinely favoured of men was
attacked by some dread disease such as leprosy, but
was ultimately healed.
So
much as this was not
improbably known to Ezekiel, who
mentions
three men, Noah, Daniel (or rather perhaps Enoch
'-
see E
NOCH
), and Job as having escaped from peril of
death
their righteousness. T h e original story was
probably derived from Babylonia (cp preceding article).
Eabani, the friend of the solar hero
(see
E
NOCH
),
himself too created for E a by the
goddess Aruru, was attacked by a distressing sickness,
apparently the same from which
had for a
time been
a
sufferer.
I n the Babylonian legend Eabani
dies, whereas
is healed for a time
a magic
potion and immersion in the fountain of life in the
earthly paradise.
It
would seem that in Palestine one
part of the story
of
dropped away from that
hero and attached itself to Eabani, whose name became
Hebraised into
out of which arose
(Job). Probably the story was brought by the Israelites
from Hauran, if, as has been suggested (see
the
of Genesis is a distortion
of
Hanran.
The
land of
Uz
(see
was therefore probably in the NE.
of Palestine, where indeed the name
would naturally
lead
us
to place it, but is transferred to Edom by the
author of the original
Book
of Job, because
of
the tra-
ditional reputation of the Edomites for
(Obad.
8
cp
T
EMAN
).
This new situation suggested the mention
of the Sabeans
and the Cushites
read
.
for
see
2,
also the designation
of Jbb as the greatest of all the sons of Jerahmeel
read
for
see J
ERAHMEEL
,
K
EDEM
,
and of the friends of Job as
a
Temnnite, a Zarhite, and
a
Temanite respectively
(for the emendations here adopted see S
HUHITE
,
T h e later wise man (once more we pro-
visionally
the unity of the Colloquies) who,
a s we have seen, discarded the original Colloquies
and substituted new ones, does not seem to have
altered the Prologue and Epilogue.
To
his work,
which from the very first impressed thinkers as much
as
the prose narrative of Job impressed the multitude,
we now direct our attention.
Evidently he admired
that narrative, for he has adopted i t ; but not less
evidently he was not satisfied even by the attractive
theory embodied in the Prologue, partly, we may
suppose, because it depended for its efficacy on the
opening of the heavens, and the admission of human
listeners to the council-hall
of
For the wise
men sought to connect religion as much as possible with
mother-earth.
It should be noticed that there are three cvcles
of
speeches, or colloquies,
so
that each
friend speaks nine times (on Zophar's
third speech see below), and Job answers
nine times.
Job
also opens the colloquies by
a
poetic
complaint.
The friends, who represent the Jewish theologians
of the author's time, are about to speak. An excuse
for this had to be provided.
Submission to the divine
will was the fundamental note of the character of Job,
according to the Prologue.
I n order to justify argu-
mentation, the sufferer must he seen to have lost his
composure. T h e word God occurs but twice in Job's
complaint (chap.
3)
he murmurs, but without accusing
God of injustice. All that he craves is an explanation
of
this sudden catastrophe.
Why was he suffered to
live on when born-why must he live on, now that he
is
in abject misery? Piety does not forbid him to
For a peculiar view of the
setting'
of
the original
poem, see Klostermanu on
I
curse his natal day-the day which
with the
night of his birth.
Perish the day on which
I
was to be born
And the night which said,
a boy'!
Let
not God above
ask after it
Let not the moon show her
above
Years and days are not imaginary, but have an
objective existence in the unseen world. Job would
fain revenge himself on this luckless day.
As Moulton
well says, 'All variations of darkening that fancy
can suggest are invoked to blot out that day
which betrayed Job into
Then Eliphaz the
Temanite comes forward.
He is the oldest of the
party-older than Job's
It is char-
acteristic
him that he appeals to special revelations
of his own; characteristic of Bildad that he loves to
appeal to tradition; characteristic of the young and
impetuous Zophar that he appeals to
no
authority but
his own judgment, and gets irritated at any one who
disputes the correctness of his
All are agreed
that the cause of all calamity (and therefore of
Job's) is
sin, whereas Job himself from the first ascribes his
trouble to some baffling mystery in God himself.
T h e
point which is not clear to the friends is, whether the
calamity which has befallen Job
is
a
punishment or
merely an educational. chastisement.
They could not
have hesitated to adopt the second view but for the
vehemence of J o b s complaint which seemed to them
unbecoming in
a
devout man.
Eliphaz gently re-
monstrates with his friend, and, if textual corruption be
removed, his speech will not strike
us
as either un-
connected or dictatorial.
Why should Job lose heart?
Who ever perished, being innocent? Job must know
this; clearly Eliphaz does not expect any criticism of
his statement.
There is one truth, however, of which
Job seems to him not fully aware; indeed Eliphaz
himself had needed to have it enforced by a special,
personal revelation, whispered to him by
a
mysterious
form at night
( 4
17-21) :-
Can mortal man be righteous before God?
Can man be pure before
maker?
Behold he trusteth not his servants
His
ones are unclean before
;
How much more the dwellers in
of clay
.
.
.
Do
they not dry up when he bloweth
upon
them?
They die, but
wisdom.6
What, then, is man's true wisdom?
I t is to
recognise trouble as the consequence of sin, and not
to
he seduced into irritating words which can only
lead to the complete destruction both of the fool who
utters them and of his children
( 5 2
Does Job
think that there
is
anyone of the celestials who can be
induced to help him? H e will hardly indulge in this
fancy after the revelation which Eliphaz has just
related.
For his own part, Eliphaz would rather turn
trustfully to God, whose purposes are
so
unsearchable,
but, for the righteous man, so beneficent. H e con-
cludes with an idealistic picture of the happiness in
store for Job,
if
he will defer to the friendly advice
offered to him by Eliphaz
(5
17-27).
and
IO
are late insertions which
the
fine rhetoric of the poet.
Chap. 5 is also questioned by
Siegfr Beer and Duhm hut
to
be protected by 4
if
read
above indeed, call now,' etc. is much too
vigorous an address for a n ordinary glossator. Verse 7 needs
correction in order to suit v.
6 , but cannot be rescued for the
poem, both v. 6 and
7 being alien to the Temanite's argu-
ment, (Verse
should probably
be read, 'Yea man brings
forth misery, and the sons of wickedness pour
iniquity';
for
Bick., Bu.,
See translation of four stanzas of
Job's complaint; with
p.
4
Cp Davidson,
5
In
I.
4
read
justification, in
After
1.
5 we have
omitted four lines, to avoid having to justify emendations a t too
great length. When we
follow
there is
a
quotation from Is.
40 24. See Beer
ad
JOB
(BOOK)
Cp Budde, Duhm,
Matthes).
first speech is chiefly remarkable for his
respectful attitude towards tradition.
We are of
yesterday,' he
says,
and know nothing'
whereas
the wisdom of the past is centuries old, and has a
stability to which Job's new-fangled notions (for Job
represents a
new school
of
religious philosophy)
cannot pretend.
Here the first genuine allusion to
Egypt
Nile-grass,'
8 1 1
see
R
EED
)
should be
noticed; also
cruel reference to the fate of
Job's children
( 8 4 ) .
Zophar gives a panegyric of the
divine wisdom
which, however, only leads up
to the poor inference that God must be able to see
secret sin
and which Job
14-25
13
)
reduces,
as
he thinks, to its just proportions.
T h e saying in
therefore that God exacteth of
thee less than thine iniquity deserveth'
(EV) is indeed a
terrible one hut Zophar
is
not to he held responsible for it.
I t is not a n
however, but a n editorial attempt to
sense of a corrupt passage. When duly emended, it may
assist us in the emendation of
66,
which should probably run
thus, ' T h a t thou mightest know that it
divine wisdom) is
marvellous in reason':
is corrupted from
Chap. 12 has been much misunder-
stood. Grill would excise 12 4-13 a s a later insertion. Sieg-
fried prints
and 127-13
I
in colours (as insertions): and
omits
and
and makes
(tristichs, he
thinks) parallel to the cycle of poems in chaps. 24 and 30
This is simply owing to corruptions of the text which have
obscured the meaning.
the only interpolations are
49
and 13. T h e passage should begin,
No
doubt with you
is discernment, And with you is perfection of
wisdom. Yea
I
have not learned wisdom, And your secrets
I
know not (cp
But ask now the
that they may teach thee, etc.
T h e wicked man a t the judgment is confident. At (God's) fixed
time his foot is secure, etc.
Doth not the ear try
words, etc.
The only result
of
these successive speeches
is
to
make the complaints of the sufferer bolder and more
startling.
But before he gives free course to his com-
plaint' (10
I
),
he secures his right to do
so.
T h e im-
mensity of his woe is his justification. All he asks of
his friends is-spoken or silent sympathy but he asks
it in
vain,
and this intensifies his agony. The friends
may lecture to him on the infinite power and wisdom of
God.
Miserable comfort ! He knows it only too well.
T o be compelled to think that this power and wisdom
is not directed by morality, and that he is worth
no
more to the Almighty and the All-wise than the moun-
tains which he removes, or the rivers which he dries
up,
acutely painful. Job does not profess to under-
stand God's dealings
in
the world of nature, but hitherto
it has appeared to him that he understood G o d s inter-
course with His moral creature-man.
He looks for
consistency in
G o d s
dealings with moral beings.
The
sudden transition from happiness to misery in Job's
case can only,
so
he fancies, be ascribed to capricious-
ness in G o d ; or, if we may express the underlying
symbolic meaning, the catastrophe by which a religious
and prosperous people like Israel was suddenly crushed
by
the iron heel of a foreign despot, appears to show
that Zion has been forgotten
her God. As for the
theory that calamity is a chastisement, it will not apply
to Job's case, for his days are numbered, and even for
those few days God,
as
if
a
wild beast, cannot refrain
from torturing his prey.
Yet, such is the power of true
religion, the man who utters these desperate words,
pleads with his God for gentler treatment ! These three
speeches of Job
( 6 J
12-14)
are rich in poetic
o r e ; but we have space here only for the wonderful
expressions of an inextinguishable heart-religion which
occur near the close of the first and third speeches
respectively.
Davidson's remark (p. 88) that in reply to Zophar Job
shows, by a brilliant declaration of the divine wisdom and
power that he is a greater master in the knowledge of these
than his friends are hardly touches the main point.
admits
that God is
but the result
of
his observation
I
S
that
God's
wisdom is mainly devoted to destructive ends.
JOB (BOOK)
I t will be noticed that in the first quotation a supposed
'parody' of Ps.
and an unaesthetic phrase which no
can make tolerable, have disappeared. Ifemenda.
is
permissible, it is
so
What is man that thou shouldest spy him out,
And direct thine attention to him?
That thou shouldest try him (by fire) every morning
And test him every moment?
How long ere thou look away from me
Ere thou leave me that I may have a
cheer?
Why
thou set me as a target?
Why
I
unto thee as a mark?
And why
thou not pardon my transgression,
And cause mine iniquity to remove?
For
now I must lie down
dust,
And when thou seekest after me,
I
shall he gone
17-21).
0
that thou wouldest hide me
in Shed,
That thou wouldest conceal me till thine anger were spent,
That thou wouldest appoint me a set time and remember me,
If the fury of wrath should come to an end
!
*
*
*
All my days of anguish
I would
wait
Till thy relenting came ;
Thou wouldest call, and
I
would answer thee,
Thou wouldest long after the work of thy hands (14
It will be plain, even from these quotations, that the
first part of the discussion has not been wholly useless.
It is true, the several points of view
of Job and of the friends are in some
respects totally different. Both parties,
however, have alike become awake to the fact
that the problem before them has more than
a
merely
personal reference.
It is not only Job but
a
large
section of the
race which has, apparently, lost
its sense of union with God.
The old days of idyllic
happiness and unquestioning faith have
away
not merely for Job, but also for Israel, and for many
another people, and the earth' seems to be given over
into the hands of the wicked'
( 9 2 4 ) .
According to
the friends, this was because of some sin committed by
Job
by Job'santitypes).
Job, however, could not
accept this, and went on piling complaint upon coni-
plaint.
T h e friends, he said, were treacherous, and
God was inconsistent-' He destroys the perfect and
the wicked'
W e might have supposed that
this enlargement of the problem would
softened
Job's
I t does not soften i t ; the poet fails to
make the most of the psychological situation. There
is
but one idea which can at all comfort Job it is this-
that G o d s love cannot really be extinct-that in the
depths of his nature God cannot be
as
hostile to him as
he seems.
Though slowly
he can even now
imagine God longing after him when it is, humanly
speaking, too late, and he indulges in the dream of
a
successful conflict between God's wrath and God's
I t is Wrath that hurries
to
.
Love stands
fully and waits his time. Thanks to
it will a t length be
seen that Job's removal to the dark underworld was the best
thing that could have happened.
No longer seeing him, God's
T h e readings here proposed are
I
):
3 ;
see
381):
6);
cp
Beer). T h e opening words of v.
are omitted as an interpo-
lation (Bick.,
The
are
(1.4);
5 ;
(1.6).
Of these, the most im-
portant
is
the first.
M T has,
yap
which Bickell
Jew.
Duhm follow ('if a man were
die and to live again
This however does not fit the parallelism.
and
and
are
confounded.)
Cp the touching apologue
of
the mustard-seed in
4
On this division of God into two parties, cp Davidson on
17
3 ;
Che.
31.
The Jewish poet
Gabirol finely says,
' I
fly
from Thee to Thee' and our own in-
imitable Crashaw says
thou
leave (dread Lord!) that we
Take shelter from Thyself in Thee
And with the wings of Thine Own dove
Fly
to Thy sceptre of soft love.
JOB
(BOOK)
irritation will pass away, and he will long to renew his inter-
course with him
on
earth or in heaven. l h u s though Job will
still have the 'anguish
of being parted
God, he will be
able to wait patiently for the reawakening of his love. Will
come to believe that this is no dream? That is the impor-
t a n t
question with which we approach the second colloquy.
J o b s essential devoutness is manifest to us but it was
not
so
to his friends (cp
154).
In fact, passages like
those quoted above are not intended for the ears of the
friends. They are lyric
which illustrate the
dramatic process going
on
within the mind
of
Job they
form no real part of the colloquy.
Job's
narrow-
minded friends can see his outward irreverence, but not
the longing to be at peace with God which alone made
such irreverence possible.
Now, they think, Job reveals
himself in his true character, and, their gentler treatment
having failed, they proceed to try the effect of
pictures of the wicked man's
intending that Job
should see in these pictures no distant resemblance to
himself.
This wounding language Job
with
growing dignity. The symptoms of his sickness are
becoming aggravated; death, he feels, cannot be far
distant.
He has already said, Yea, let him kill me,
I
will not
Surely my ways I will defend before
him'
(13
But now his condition appears
and in his loneliness he returns to the idea that God
cannot be entirely his enemy.
Death, indeed, he cannot escape; he
is
caught in
God's net, and complaints of injustice are unavailing
(19
).
Job is now sure that he has an avenger of
blood in heaven (cp
Ps.
9
when he is dead, his
cry
the appeal of his blood, which lies
on
the
bosom of the earth) will reach the ear of the divine
Love. T o mgther-earth he first makes his appeal;
then he tells the universe of a stupendous fact of his
consciousness.
0
earth cover not my blood
And let'my cry have no
place.
Yea, I know it-my piercing cry is in heaven,
And my shriek has entered the heights.
H e will accept the words with which
I
cry,
My Blood-avenger will hear my call,
That be may decide between a man and God
And between man and his fashioner
But here Job stops.
I t is implied that reparation will
be made for J o b s unjust and violent death; but
no
surmise is offered as to the form that this will take.
T h e much-suffering man has advanced beyond what he
said in
he has found a
betwixt
us
that might lay his hand upon
us
both
the daysman's
nature, if not his name, is Righteous Love.
But he has
not resumed the position adopted for
a
in
Read
for
both in
14
and in
7
I
.
There are of course, corruptions of the text as elsewhere.
For
instance
as
they stand are highly suspicious.
I t is not
to
14
and
(hi.) a s interpolations. A
single stanza should take the place of
the original text
can easily be detected under the present much-edited text.
What Eliphaz really says is, 'Ask the wise men, for they alone
have unerring wisdom they will not withhold their
(see
3
Read
10
MT,
clearly
wrong. Davidson,
' I
will not wait'; Duhm,
'I
cannot hold
out
.
Budde
I
hope for nothing.'
so
far as we can understand it,
interrupts the context, and must surely be an interpolation.
Cp.
Siegfried's notes.
Lines 3 and 4 in M T run, Even now,, behold, my witness
isinheaven, and mywitness
the heights.
quiresmore thana witness'of
and
(Aram.)
occurs only once again in the MT, and there it is corrupt (see
Read probably
Sense, metre, and the textual phenomena
are thus satisfied. Lines
make a miserable sense in M T
represents an
stage between the true text and
MT.
T h e true text may be something like this,
In
line 8, for
read
(illus-
trated by the argument in
friend,' however explained,
whether as Job's friends (collectively) or a s a title for God, is
intolerable.
For a minute, though not quite satisfactory discus-
sion
of
the passage, see Budde
;
and
on
the versions see Beer.
Bib.).
(BOOK)
14
13-15
he does not on this occasion specify the form
which the expected reparation, or vengeance for blood,
will take.
I t was a noble idea that he had stated but,
not being able to offer any tangible proof of its correct-
ness, he soon falls back into his old elegiac strain, and
even appeals to the friends for pity
(19
He might
as well have appealed to icebergs. From their averted
faces the persecuted heretic sees that his doom is sealed.
If
God had not marked him out for death, they might
have thought to do God service (cp
13
8)
by stoning
him. Job warns them of their guilt (cp
13
does not threaten them with the sword,' as the faulty
M T represents.
First, however, he revives his own
courage by giving for the third time a public expression
to
his unextinguished belief in his God
(19
We
cannot indeed venture, in deference to later Christian
beliefs, to let the text of
19
25-27
pass, and
that
the passage refers either to the hope of the resurrection,
or at least to the hope of conscious and continuous
intercourse with God in an unbodied state of existence
cp
A
close examination of the text
shows that it has not
suffered corruption but also
received interpolations, and our general experience with
the ancient versions (which have often made prophets
and poets give support to the later eschatology) justifies
us in
dealing with the M T somewhat freely.
T h e
present writer's attempt at
a
thoroughly critical restora-
tion may be
rendered,-
As for me
I
know it-my Avenger lives,
And
in the dust
I
shall receive his pledge
Shaddai will bring to pass my desire,
And a s my justifier
I
shall see God.
When ye say 'We will pursue him like a hart
And will
ourselves with his (lacerated) desh
;
Have fear for yourselves because of your words,
For those are words of iniquity
So
then the dream of a permanent resurrection of the
old intercourse with God
on
earth or in heaven
is
not
finally ratified by
mature thought.
Still he
ventures nearer to that dream than when he uttered the
cry to mother-earth.
H e will not give up his belief in
God's righteousness, and therefore declares it to be
certain that God will one day publicly recognise his
servant's innocence; and since on the one hand it is
essential to the completeness
of
this reparation that Job
should witness it, and on the other it is inconceivable
(14
that man should awake, or be raised out of his
sleep' to the old familiar life, it is the only solution
which remains that the unbodied spirit of Job should
for a moment he transferred to the upper world to see
God as his justifier.'
On
this view great stress must
be laid
no other exegesis appears possible,
' o n
the dust (of S h a d ) , ' and
' m y justifier'
(underlying
being both apparently planted
firmly in the text.
That God can both
and make
alive would no doubt have been granted by the poet
exceptionally a man like Enoch or Elijah might doubt-
less be saved
death
or
out
But he
regards his hero not as an exceptional person hut as a
representative df the class
of
righteous sufferers, and as
such
(so
the poet thinks) Job cannot be raised from the
dead.
Job, then, in some unimaginable way will for
a
moment be enabled to see the Light of
His desire has been to have his innocence established
by the righteous Judge that desire Shaddai will bring
to pass.' First, the
or Vindicator (see
will
convey to Job the pledge of
his
willingness to act as
(cp Ruth
4
then the solemn act of justification
will be performed in the presence of Job.
We
must
not be 'wise above that which is written,' and speculate
with the help of later Jewish eschatology
on
the change
which, for Job, must pass upon
when he returns
thither at peace with God.
Certain it is, that Job, and
therefore also his poet, has broken with the conventional
Shaddai (see
N
A
ME
S
,
occurs
times
in
the
of
Job.
2474
JOB (BOOK)
doctrine of
but he has not formed
a
new and
better doctrine, capable of being presented in poetical
form.
The view that
anticipates
restoration
to
health and
prosperity
in
this
life
still finds
supporters (see Bu.,
Laue,
49f
Beer
It
appears
to
the
present
to
he
with an
a
priori view
of the
structure of
the
Book of
and,
in
the case
of
Budde especially, with
an
unduly
optimistic view
of
M T
in
this passage. Di. and
Da.
both
favour the
view that
Job's justification will be
after
death such
also,
in
a form
agreeing in
with
that
given ahove,
is
the view of
We.
Smend
Gesch.
and
Of
these
critics, Duhm has given most
attention
to
t h e
text; hut his retention of
and his introduction of
(which properly means a tribal or religious sign
on
the
person [see
can
by no means be justified. The restor-
ation offered
is
the writer's third experiment
; it is,
even if imperfect, neither hasty nor arbitrary.
A few
notes
I n 1.
we
should
read
J O B
(BOOK)
appear for his vindication and been disappointed
the
account of
which this view presupposes,
is
that
which the best recent critics of Job have rejected.
Still, it remains true that the Job
we meet with
from chap.
20
onwards,
that tender religious
undertone which surprises and delights
us
in the first
colloquy, and we might be tempted to suppose with
Meinhold that
a
new part of the poem begins at chap.
20.
This supposition we might support by the
theory that when the poet reached the end of chap. 19,
he laid his work aside for a
and that when he
resumed it he was himself in
a
less religious and
a
more definitely critical frame of mind than before.
This theory, however, is by no means probable. T h e
poet would certainly have corrected his earlier work,
and not have allowed such strongly contrasting works
to stand side by side. W e cannot help supposing that
another member of the guild of wise men to which the
poet belonged, took up his
and continued it,
so
as
to embody
a
somewhat different conception of the
hero.
This view is supported by the phenomena of
chaps. 29-31.
Several critics have noticed that this
much-admired section is deficient in unity. Chaps.
are a n elegy chap. 31 is a proud self-justification. T h e
present writer
thought
a
that the author might
have written chap. 31 some time after he wrote chaps.
and have placed it here by an afterthought,
omitting to construct a connecting link with the preced-
ing chapter.
But there is no necessity for such a n
assumption here.
T h e elegy in chaps.
appears to
be the original conclusion of the colloquies-the counter-
part of the elegy (chap.
3)
which forms the opening of
Any one who will read chaps.
and
consecu-
tively will be struck by the appropriateness of the
arrangement. Chap.
19
itself is strongly elegiac.
As
Davidson says, ' H e realises
.
.
.
more clearly than
ever he had done before, his dreary isolation, God and
men being alike estranged from him, which he laments
in most pathetic words.'
Have pity, have pity upon
me,
0
ye my friends,' is its central passage, and when
the sufferer thinks of the cruel insinuations of his
friends, he warns-he does not threaten them.
H e
speaks indeed of an Avenger of blood, but it is God,
not God's misguided advocates, from whom reparation
is
expected, and there is an Over-God, whose nature is
Love, and whom Job longs to be permitted to love.
After this we are prepared to hear his sorrowful retro-
spect of past happiness in chap. 29, and the contrasted
contemplation of his present abject condition in chap.
The first part is
a
poetic commentary on the
opening verses of the prologue
(1
:-
the poem.
0
that I were
as
in
months past,
As
in
the
days
when God watched over
he made
his lamp shine
ahove my head,
By his light I
went
in
darkness
According
as
I
fared in my (life's) way,
When God screened my
tent
When
mine
intimates
were
with
me,
And
my
children
were
round about me
I t seems far back-the time when the poor and father-
less blessed him, and when the great
their
words a t his presence.
Now to those who once
honoured him he is a
The Providence which
used to guard him is no more; God hears him not.
It is
true,
2313 expresses disappointment
at
God's
evident
determination not
to
hear
Job's
case,
but
this
has
no
reference
to
the
hope uttered in
Although
Job's
wish for
an
equitable discussion
of
his
case
has
found repeated expression,
he has never deluded himself with the fancy that his wish will
be granted. He could
never
have said, with reference to this,
39,
n.
Reading
or
Bu., Beer, Du.):
omitted (see
and
v.
should follow
I
know,' I am sure.'
88
_-
.
as
in
17
3
[Beer Bu. Du.]
a
passage which belongs
to
the
same
group as
:
the
idea of
a
division
in t h e
divine Being-the God of
love
over
against
the
God
of wrath.
For the impossible
read
(Is.
508)
this reading
is
practically certain. M T s
is now generally explained
as
'='
vindicator' (cp Perles,
which
produces
a
good parallel
to
hut is
in
itself unnatural.
has
no
intelligible meaning. As Eichhorn
1 3 8 8 )
remarks
always
means
' t o
assail.'
Unaware
Eichhorn We:
makes the
same
observation and
to render MT, 'will
arise (as
witness)
against
against
the
Job
!
This
too
artificial either
or
must
he
read, and
con-
sidering
Jdh has mentioned
his
expec-
tation of 'lying down
on
on
the
dusty
of
(see
it
is the more reasonable
course t o
the
latter and retain
which means '(lying) upon the
21
2 6 ;
for
an
easy
change;
the
preformatives
and
are
frequently confounded.
I n
3 for
read probably
is
dittographed. For
read
fell out owing
to
cp
(in dread
The much tortured
is
a
mere editorial
guess.
clearly
a
of
(note
the
warning
a
gloss
on
is
a
corruption
a
gloss
on
('God shall arise
.
.
.
lo
revive me
1.
the
critics
have
not
noticed that
returns
to his
statement in
v.
yet to a
practised eye
should
reveal its secret. Read
'n
for
in
Perles, Beer) ;
has two
beats.
I n
is too
vague and the threat
of
a
violent
death is
not
in
character with
of chaps. 3-19. Nor
is
there
any
allusion
to
the threat in Zophar's third speech. Read
03131
and
and
for
ann
read
(Ges.). The last
three words of
in the consonantal text (read, with
Bu.,
'that ye may know that there is
a
judge') are
a
gloss.
Job has now taken
a
long step forward tow-ards the
religious solution of the problem of the suffering of the
and since true religion
is
primarily individualistic he can, if
he will, afford to
lay
the large problem
of the suffering of
classes
of men on one
side.
The importance of the deeply felt utterance of
Job in 1925 is universally
yet none perhaps
have realised its bearing on the structure of the poem
and
The former critic makes
new part of the poem begin a t chap. 20 the latter
thinks that the non-appearance of
to recognise
Job's
innocence has produced
a
radical transformation
of the character of Job, who, aggrieved a t his dis-
appointment, becomes an open blasphemer, gives an
unqualified denial to the divine righteousness, and,
welcoming a temptation which he has twice before
overcome, challenges God, in language
full
of Titanic pride, to a n investigation of his case
35-37).
The latter view is, certainly inadmissible.
Nothing
is
said in the second cycle of speeches which
leads
us
to suppose that Job had expected God to
dertsch.
go.
Die
des
53, 77,
2475
JOB
(BOOK)
Life has ceased to be a song of joy he is perishing by
a slow, painful death.
My skin falls, blackened from me,
M y bones are burned
heat ;
My cithern is changed to mourning,
My pipe to notes of grief
So
ends the elegy according to the present text.
Most
probably, however,
has taken the place of two
lost stanzas which formed the real conclusion
after
this may have come the editorial notice, The words of
Job are ended’
That the writer intended it
to be followed by the present epilogue is impossible;
neither chap.
19
nor chap. 30 could possibly have been
followed by
Whether the writer gave an epilogue
of his own, or left his work a torso, it is impossible to
,conjecture.
The skilful writer who, with an object that we shall
see later, undertook to continue the earlier poem, had
no difficulty in adopting his pre-
decessor’s style, though he fails very
much in consistent delineation of character.
Zophar
no
doubt is still the same blunt person as before
(though
must not be quoted as a proof of
hut Eliphaz too is surely blunt enough in
Job
for his part disdains to answer such
He is
absorbed in the astonishing heresy
(so
he deems it)
which he has to propound.
He shrinks from it with
horror, and yet ventures to state it-the divine governor
of the world is non-moral.
The friends may prescribe
methods of operation to God which are pleasing to
human minds, hut God too clearly shows that they are
not the methods which he himself adopts.
Not unnaturally chap.
21
gave offence to many
readers.
I t appears that
16-18
were inserted to
conform the passage to the prevalent doctrine of
retribution.
Though Budde and Duhm still claim for
i t the authorship of Job, Siegfried‘s view, which is here
adopted, seems more probable. At any rate,
corrections have certainly been made elsewhere in this
chapter. Thus, in
MT says, that after a prosper-
ous
life the wicked man goes down ‘ i n
a
moment’
into
This cannot be right the true text
probably had
‘in luxury.’
So
in
and
6
is an orthodox correction which makes Job say that
the wicked man is reserved for the day of calamity, and
led forth
(?)
to the day of wrath.
I n
30a
it seems necessary to read
and
in
b
seems to be a corruption of
should also be
read for
in
28).
T h e whole description of the wicked
man’s career in
28-33
is full of textual errors. ‘Know their
tokens’
(u.
should be ‘examine travellers’
are ludicrously wrong.
Read probably,
‘Seeing that he is escorted (in honour) to the citadel, and
,diligently seeks
sanctuary of G o d ’ “
‘Gold he amasses like the sand, and
of his
treasures there is no number’
Perhaps no passage has given more useless exercise to
exegetical ingenuity than this.
That even Eliphaz should follow Zophar’s example,
and hurl the falsest accusations against Job, would be
indeed a striking phenomenon, if the original writer
were responsible for this speech.
’Surely,’ he says,
‘thy wickedness is great, and thine iniquities are
‘infinite’
Job must be a practical atheist
21-30
appear to be a later
designed to mitigate
the strange contrast between the Eliphaz of chap.
22,
the editor interpreted according to his own fancy.
of
Ps.
88-a very Job-like psalm (cp Delitzsch).
31
I
looks a s if it were based on a scarcely legible text
its sadness the present conclusion reminds
us
of the close
The sanctuary would naturally be attached
to the citadel.
Note the points of contact between
(Eliphaz) and
2133
emended text). I t is
not likely that the chief
p o e t
would have fallen into
such a
close parallelism
between Job and Eliphaz.
2477
For
read
JOB (BOOK)
and the kindly speaker who opened the first colloquy).
Job’s next speech, in its original form, was probably
intended to show that, as the wicked often enjoy a long
and prosperous life,
so
the righteous often experience
but
Such
a
case is his own. God’s
commandments have been his rule of life.
If he could
only find
ever eludes his search-and induce
him to listen to his plea, his vindication would be
certain.
True, Job
have to
one condition
with God ( 2 3 6 ; cp 934,
In
M T
the passage is
strangely distorted
most probably it should run thus-
H e would remove the pressure of his hand
me
;
Then he would use no threatening
L
O
But alas! it has become too plain that
God
has
resolved to destroy him
13
read
with
Du.),
though God knows full well that if he were to examine
Job would come forth as gold
and feeling
himself to
the spokesman of the suffering righteous
everywhere, Job goes on
(so
we
suppose) to pro-
duce further evidence for the awful theory of Gods non-
moral character.
T h e true continuation, however, has
been lost.
Chap.
24, as
Duhm rightly holds, is not a
connected discourse, but
a
cycle of poems written in
tristichs instead of
It is only
that we
can safely regard as genuine this is the true close of
Job’s original speech.
How Bildad took this powerful indictment
of
the
Governor of the world, does not appear. His third
speech was lost, and a rhetorical description of the
power, wisdom, and purity of God was inserted as a
substitute.
The second part
of
this description was,
by a scribe’s error, transposed
so
as
to
after
T h e latter passage is properly Job’s ironical answer to
this superfine but unoriginal piece of rhetoric; it is
therefore necessarily not genuine. J o b s true answer to
the (lost) speech of Bildad is to be found in chap.
27.
I t is, however, impossible to ascribe the whole of this
chapter to Job part of it in all probability is a genuine
fragment of the third speech of Zophar.“ T h e calm-
ness of Job’s dignified protest in
and
is very
noteworthy.
Duhm contrasts it with the bitterness of
J o b s earlier speeches, and ascribes the change of tone
to the intuition expressed by Job in chap.
19.
The
observation is j u s t ; but the cause assigned does not
seem to be the right one.
As
we have seen, it is a
partly new conception of Job that underlies these later
chapters.
Job is calm because that bitter-sweet under-
current of yearning love to God which appears again
and again in chaps.
3-19
does not disturb or distract
him.
If
it is correct to view
13-23
as
a
fragment
of
Zophar’s last speech, the latter certainly merited the
disdain with which Job treated it.
I t is, however,
impossible that we have here the attempt of a later
orthodox writer to make the sufferer retract his heterodox
statements (cp chap. 28). At any rate it has no right
to appear in the last speech of Job, the true continuation
of which
be sought elsewhere. W e have in fact
reached the great
Oath of Clearing,’ by which Job
finally proves his innocence, and which represents the
Cp
with 216 (which precedes the description
of the
T h e parallelism
is
pointed
out
by
prosperity of the wicked).
Duhm.
a
I n
should be read thus,
T h e tristichs in
are imperfectly preserved, and the
form may therefore be doubted.
It does not seem likely, how-
ever that this member of the cycle of poems would be in
when the other members were in tristichs.
4
So
Gra. (MGWJ,
Che. (Job
and Sol.
G.
Hoffm Duhm.
and
Hoffm.,
however, are wrong in
chap.
28
to Zophar (see below).
is only
and
13.23
which
can
reasonably be given
to
this lover
of
platitudes.
Moulton,
p.
J O B
(BOOK)
high-water mark of Old Testament morality.
words to his friends are-
His last
Behold, ye have
all seen
it
'
Why
then
do
ye so
vainly
(27
Then, in all probability, followed an appendix,
so
framed as to form
a
parallel to chaps.
29
The
opening words were transferred to the end, when chaps.
29
were removed to their present place.
Let us
restore
to its proper place a t the head of the
Oath of Clearing,' and since it is highly corrupt, let
us
endeavour to emend it in accordance with Job's
aspirations elsewhere.
0
that he would hearken to my voice,
.
[And
listen
to
the
words of
my
complaint,]
That he would take away the insulting of mine
That he would
lay his
hand upon
us
both I
Surely my concern would I present,
1
would
arrange arguments for
him ;
I would tell him the
of my steps,
My
rising up and my lying down he would examine.
The usual view
is
that Job imagines himself approaching
the Divine
(whom in
356
he is made to call
' m y
adversary') with the proud self-possession of a 'prince'
holding the accusation written
God and his own answer with
his signature and
that
declares that if he
possessed
this
he would
not
hide it as a thin which brought
disgrace,
parade
it upon
his back
a distinction
(cp
Is. 22
and (or wear it
as
a diadem
on
his
All
this
is
violently improbable, and yet this very passage is
utilised in the service
of
the theory
that
fell away
from
his
God (Laue,
96).
Hoffmann deserves credit
for
his
refusal to twist the exegesis
of
36
in
order
to
soften the
surprising character
of
the passage. It is God he
says
whom
Job
says that he will take
upon
his hack and
upon himself
as
a
coronet-an Ungeheuerlichkeit,'
says
Budde yes, indeed,
hut
an
inevitable one,
if the present
text
is to he
strictly
interpreted. It is probable that the passage can he restored
nearly to its original state. The most important emendations
are
(1.
8)
For the rest, see
Then this ideal righteous man tells us how he would
clear himself if God were to hear his cry, and investi-
gate his case.
H e goes through
a
catalogue of evil
deeds and thoughts, and in the most solemn manner
imprecates upon himself God's vengeance if he be guilty.
The first two stanzas
5-8)
fit on particularly well
to the last stanza of the introduction
they continue the figure of the way.'
T h e last stanza
is by no means a n equally good conclusion.
Doubt-
less, like
35-37
(which, as we have seen, should form
the opening of the chapter), it has been misplaced, and
probably the same fate has befallen
If
so,
the last extant part of the monologue will be
*
*
*
*
*
If,
when I
saw
how
the sun shone,
Or the
moon walking
in
splendour,
My
heart was
secretly beguiled
And I kissed-putting hand
to
This, however, cannot be the true conclusion.
Un-
fortunately that was lost at an early date, and the two
opening stanzas were detached
so
as to form
a
con-
clusion.
W e can now see why the second wise man undertook
to continue the original colloquies.
It was to complete
the disproof of the current theorythat sufferingwas always
either disciplinary or educative.
This wise man must
have agreed with his predecessor in rejecting the
Epilogue, and he would certainly not have sanctioned
either the speeches of Elihu or even the grand orations
of Yahwb.
Read
;
cp
Ps.
62
where
a
similar emendation is
JOB (BOOK)
T o the speeches of Elihu we now turn our attention.
According to Duhm Elihu
is
brought before
us
as
a
repuired.
31
are doubtless an editorial insertion (cp
4
with v.
3
'The opponent' is a collective
term
for
the friends who
with one
consent vilify
(cp
43
I
).
In
the
next
the
continuator forgets that, according
t o
the original poet, God
is Job's adversary, and the friends
merely
his partial advocates.
4
Davidson's view of
as
the repudiation of another
class of secret sins is hardly quite satisfactory.
They
fill
the place
of a n
illegible
passage.
distinguished historical person, and
so
(as a man
family') contrasts
with Job and the three friends.
The
truth, however, probably is that the prolixity of the
description of Elihu in
is due to corruption and
interpolation
Elihu was originally called simply the
son of Jerahmeel
e . , the Jerahmeelite, with reference
to a Jerahmeelite famous in legend for his wisdom,
who appears to be mentioned in
I
K.
(on the text
see J
ERAHMEEL
,
The lateness of the prose
introduction to chaps.
3 2 - 3 7
is shown by the use of the
ethnic 'the
which presupposes the corrupt
traditional reading
Gen.
2221,
'and
his brother
(instead of
' a n d Ahibuz
cp
Anticipating some surprise a t Elihu's appearance, the
narrator states that Elihu was angry with Job because
he held himself more righteous than God, and with
the friends because they found no answer (to Job), and
so
made God seem guilty
H e says himself
that he had waited because he was so young, and
assuredly he falls into all the worst errors of juvenility.
There
is
no intention, however, of amusing the reader
the faults of juvenility were also the faults of the narrow,
orthodox school to which the writer belonged. T h e
matter
of
which Elihu is so full
( 3 2
is distributed
over four speeches. The themes of the first three are
(
I
)
the ground and object of suffering
the
righteousness of God
( 3 )
the use of religion
( 3 5 ) .
These are treated in relation to the erroneous utterances
of Job, whom (unlike the three friends) Elihu constantly
mentions by name.
Then, in his last and longest
effort, Elihu
before Job
a
picture
of
the divine
government, in its beneficence and righteousness a s
well as its omnipotence, with the object of breaking
down Job's pride
I t
is
in the second part of
his last speech that Elihu exerts himself most as
a
poet,
and it has often been suggested that the sketch of the
storm in
and the accompanying appeals
to
Job, are preparatory to the theophany in
38
I
(so
lately
Moulton, xxxiii).
The objection is
( I )
that the
close of the speech
of
Elihu does not relate to the
storm, as it ought
to
do,
that Yahwb begins
( 3 8 2 )
with the declaration that the last speaker was
a
darkener of (the divine) counsel. W e shall return to
the Elihu section which
is
more interesting theologically
than poetically see
There is much corruption
and possibly some interpolation in
Elihu.'
shall not spend more time on this speaker, whose
discourses are but a foil to the Colloquies, the speeches
of
and the Praise of Wisdom.
W e now pass on to the great poetical ornament
of
the book.
The
of Yahwk
serve
a
purpose.
They are a link
between the Colloquies (in their
and the
and
they present, if not
a
solution, yet a powerfully ex-
pressed substitute for
a
solution of the great problem of
suffering. The writer had rejected the theory defended
by the three friends; he also disapproved of Job's
vehement censure of the divine government of the world,
but not, we
suppose, of his intuition of a justifica-
tion
of
the righteous after death.
H e was obliged to
make
intervene in Job's lifetime, because he felt
it necessary for the circulation of the book (Prologue
Cp
further
12.
Barachel and Ram are probably fragments
of
'
Jerah-
'The
would
of
course be superfluous after
of
Jerahmeel.
It seems
to
be due to
a
scribe who had hefore him
the same corrupt text that we have.
was suggested
4
was
the true name of the brother
of
and Jerah-
according to
Gen. 22
Jerahmeel' should
ably be read for Kemuel the father of Aram,'
a
late editor
produced the latter
as
attempt to make sense of corrupt
fragments of Jerahmeel.
See
2480
2479
J O B
(BOOK)
J O B
(BOOK)
and Colloquies) that it should be accompanied by the
Epilogue, and he could not help making YahwB pass
a
strong censure on J o b s fault-finding propensity, partly
no
doubt to satisfy his own conscience, and partly also
to make it possible for
in
to
eulogise Job’s
statements respecting God (after Job had retracted all
that could justly be accused of arrogance).
An
editor has prefixed to these Speeches the words,
‘And YahwB answered Job out of the tempest, and
said (38
I
) ,
but it would have been more in the spirit
of our poet to have quoted
I
K.
19
(Elijah’s
theophany), where it is distinctly said that
was
not present in the storm-wind.
I t
is
by an appeal to
the reason, not by physical terror, that YahwB seeks to
work upon Job, though the
mysteriousness of the
universe, as set forth poetically by YahwB, forces from
the lips of Job the words :-
I had
heard
of thee hy the ear,
But
now
mine eye has
seen
thee
Therefore I must pine away
And‘dissolve to dust and
What Job means
is
that his previous notions
of
the
divine government were derived from mere doctrine,
whereas now he had obtained
a
vivid intuition of God’s
working, not merely among
but in the great and
complex universe.
H e had in fact seen
G o d s
glory,
and the strain upon his whole nature was such that he
seemed about to break down.
Of consciousness of
offence on his part there
is
no trace his error
was
of intellectual origin, and this certainly did not
require him to ‘repent in dust and ashes.’ The only
charge hrought against him
is
that he has darkened
(Gods)
counsel by words without insight’ ( 3 8 2 ; cp
Remonstrance is the general purport
of
the
speeches of YahwB, and though the form of this may be
humiliating to Job, yet the glorious pictures of nature
which are presented cannot fail to lighten his load of
grief (see Blake’s beautiful thirteenth illustration of Job).
Unfortunately the
of the Speeches is in some dis-
order. As the text stands, the Divine Speaker breaks
off a t
with
a
searching question which elicits from
Job a confession of his ignorance.
This, however,
cannot be right.
Another question is put in
and,
as
Davidson remarks, the second question
is
implied
in
the first. As Bickell and Duhm have seen,
8-12
must originally have followed
v.
the separ-
ation was consequent on the interpolation of
40
15-41
(Behemoth and Leviathan).
The Behemoth and
Leviathan passages will be considered later
other
insertions are the passage
on
the ostrich
(39
13-18),
and,
according to G. Hoffmann and Duhm, 38136
15
3828,
too, should be omitted
as
a
tautological prose
version of
w.
T h e poem (for
as
such we may regard
it) will gain much by restoration to its original form
its splendid imagery will then be seen to the best
advantage.2
T h e earth, the sea, the world under the
sea
and the manifold wonders of the heavens
are successively treated Job
asked whether perchance
he brought these into existence, or knows the secrets
connected with
More striking, however, are the
poetical pictures of animals.
Nine (excluding the
ostrich) are brought before
us
in
searching
interrogatory the poet enters into
habits of each,
and conveys to
us
the fascination of which h e is
conscious himself.
Regretfully we
from dilating on these pictures. in
special
the omission is partly remedied (see,
Read
(Bottcher, Beer), and
Jnh surely
cannot say that he
is
now ready to die on his ash-mound, with
the gladness of
one
who has seen God
of
the poem are to some extent treated in
special articles.
3
There
are
Zoroastrian parallels. See the question put by
to
in
the
(Yasna
443-5
in the
Oxford
3
also
the
fine description
of
the
divine creative acts
‘in
(West,
2481
C
REATION
.
H
ORSE
;
O
STRICH
;
.
S
TARS
UNICORN).’ It
he
that
the
pictures were
in
number
is
deficient
in
some details) : if
so,
we need
not
regret
the insertions.
the
raven-stanza
and
adopts Wright’s conjecture
‘for the evening’);
cp
52,
n.
4.
More probably
is a
corruption
of
‘for
the
wolf.‘
The
lion
and the
wolf
are
naturally mentioned together.
Our survey of Job would be most imperfect if we did
not mention here a t least the principal interpolations
Duhm hints
a
doubt respectin
This
can hardly
be
right.
(cp especially
and Duhm).
(
I
)
T h e poems
of
which
is
composed are as follows
vv.
a
fragment on the merciless rapacity of the’wicked.
Details of this sort are not characteristic of Job.
T h e
other poems spoken of being in tristichs, it is probable
that
(a)
was also written in this form.
T h e text, how-
ever, is in
a
bad condition.
For
I
48
only gives
omitting
text was already corrupted,
reasons;
v.
which is also omitted, was apparently unintelligible. In
fact,
and
are
obscure. Duhm’s restoration of the
imperfect tristich in v.
I
is not quite natural, and he has
to
change
It is better to
emend in such
a
way as
to
suit the sequel.
should probably
he
for
the rest
see
The
sense
which we obtain
is,
Why do the wicked prosper?
They grind the face of
the
destitute;
Bad men oppress the poor.
Verses
8
I
O
adescription
of
anoppressed,
pariah race.
This should be taken with
which
contains the sequel.
Text very b a d ; compare
or
contrast
(c)
Verses
a
sketch of the
against the light ‘-murderers, thieves, etc.
( d ) Verses
a
fragment on the end
of
tyrants.
Text very bad.
more on the unhappy pariahs and tro-
glodytes; one could almost fancy that it came from
the oration of
a
democratic leader (cp
( 3 )
N o
earthly treasures lie too deep
for
human industry, but Wisdom is with God alone. By
Wisdom the writer means the Reason which originated
and pervades the phenomena of the world (cp Prov.
8).
T h e poem cannot have been written to stand where it
does, for it is altogether in
a
different style, full of
imagery, and too rich for the deep but simple idea
which it
is
meant to convey
it contains no allusion
whatever to Job’s
An editor of the Collo-
quies, however, seems to have thought that it might
fitly be introduced (cp Job
11
5-12),
because Job,
as a
censor of the government of the world, had virtually
questioned the existence of the Divine Wisdom (a
different view of Wisdom). According to this
minded person all speculation was
and he
pleased himself with making Job anticipate his re-
tractation in
Verse
comes from his pen,
unless, as the warning Pasek after
may perhaps
suggest, the interpolated verse
is
no longer in its
original form, in which case we must be cautions
far
we accuse the interpolator of narrowness of mind
it may have been a later scribe who made the best
substitute he could for an indistinctly written passage.
It
is
the distinction of Duhm to have cleared up the exegetical
problem of the opening word
‘for’).
Verse
7
is
usually
to take
up
what is said in v.
the path’
is
the way
to the place of ‘sapphires
But
it
much
more
natural
to
suppose
that
the words ‘(But) whence doth wisdom
come,’
etc.,
which
now
appear
in
and
v.
originally stood
before
7,
and if the refrain was forgotten
we may
reasonably explain the ‘for’ in v.
I
as
referring
to
the same
refrain, which would therefore
seem
to have opened each of the
For
a seemingly important emendation
of
the text
of
see
So
Studer Che.
Sol.
Du Laue. On the
other side see
Budde, and
414).
3
Rel.
In v.
has evidently intruded from
13.
5
As
was the case in Pss. 46 and
49.
2482
JOB
(BOOK)
JOB (BOOK)
four stanzas of the
Into the complicated controversy
which has
arisen out
of
this little word ‘for,’ it
is
needless
to
enter.
Budde adheres
to
the
ingenious but unnatural theory
which he proposed
in
2
he has
not
however, convinced
still
hold;
to
view (Bleek‘s
that
27
27
is
of
late
when restored to its original strophic form,
is
a
beautiful specimen of Hebrew poetry.
The cor-
ruptions of the text are not incurable (see, besides the
of Budde and Duhm, the articles
G
O
L
D
,
L
ION
,
M
INING
,
S
APPHIRE
,
T
OPAZ
).
T h e
delight
which the author takes in his knowledge of mining and
of
gems (cp Dante) is communicated to the reader.
(4)
See O
STRICH
.
(5)
41
T h e description
of two mythical monsterscalled Behemothand Leviathan;
the old mythological tradition having become pale, the
poet fills
up
the gaps in his supposed knowledge from
what he had seen
or
heard of the two Nile
the hippopotamus and the crocodile (see
B
EHEM
OTH AND
L
EVIATHAN
,
HIPPOPOTAMUS). If Job was really G o d s
equal, he could of course bring even these wondrous
creatures into subjection.
T h e seeming hyperboles in
the descriptions are partly due to corruption of the text.
Thus in 4017 ‘tail’ and
‘cedar’
in
4131 ‘pot
of ointment,’
and
41
the
I n
40
17
we
should perhaps read ‘he cleaveth reeds as with
shears;
the
sinews
of his neck
are
intertwined’
in
41
maketh
the
hoary’
sea
disappear.
sea like a
and
in
32
the sea is his
path; the dark places of
the sea
are his
For other
critical
emendations,
see
H
O
O
K
,
J
O
R
D
AN
,
S
O
UL
,
and of course
such writers as Budde, Duhm,
and Beer should be
consulted. Budde
Duhm, however,
start
with an
incorrect
theory as
to
the meaning of the
names
Behemoth and Leviathan.
That the passages which we have been considering
really are interpolations, can hardly be questioned
except
on
the ground of
an a priori
assumption of the
unity of the hook.
They are interpolations because
their insertion in the Book of
has involved inter-
ference with the form of the context, except where,
as
in the case of chap. 28 (see
the interference was
confined to the inserted poem itself, and, even when
beautiful
in
themselves, they mar the effect of the true
poem of Job.
The Speeches of Elihu are somewhat differently
circumstanced.
I t seems
to call them (with
G.
Hoffmann)
a
supplement to the original
poem, rather than an interpolation.
Their
insertion (if they were inserted) has in-
volved taking no liberty, either with the
text of the speeches themselves, or with that of the
Colloquies of Job and his three friends, and some
think that they give the best solution of Job’s
problem that was, from the point of view of the Hebrew
Wisdom, possible, and that without them the Speeches
of
would be liable to the charge of using force
towards Job instead of argument.
This charge, how-
ever, would be valid only if the Speeches of
belong to the author
or
authors of the Colloquies.
For
certainly the Speeches of
noble as they are in
themselves, are not such
as
were adapted to impress
the supposed auditor (see,
233-7).
As
to the high
estimate of the Elihu Speeches in the writers referred to,
it may be enough to say that (in spite of Elihu‘s asser-
tion in 32146) there
is
hardly any argument in the Elihu
section which cannot he found in the Speeches of the
Friends, while the description of God‘s incomprehensible
greatness in
appears like a n inferior copy
of
Each stanza consists of four tetrastichs or quatrains.
Giesebrecht
’79) adopts a
3
Read
See
Read
Read
(see
and cp
point
of
view
akin
to
that of Budde.
and in
for
.
.
.
.
.
Am.
3).
Among older scholars Stickel
and among recent
writers Budde,
and
may
he specially
mentioned.
the Speeches
of
T h e admiration expressed by
some critics for the teaching of Elihu
is
certainly much
exaggerated, and would not have been shared by the
poet of the Colloquies, who rejects the doctrine of
Friends.
Not to speak now of the poverty of the style,
it may truly be said that the speaker or writer thinks
far too much of his minute advances in religious theory.
T h e only excuse for him is his marvellous
Here
is one
of
his self-assertive utterances :-
I
will
fetch
my
knowledge
from
far,
And
will
see
justice done
to
my
Maker,
For truly
my
words
are
no
lies
One perfect in knowledge is
thee
Elihu’s
favourite theory of the disciplinary character of suffering
368-25)
was fully stated by Eliphaz a t the
outset
If he ceases to advocate it, it is
because Job will not allow that it applies to his case.
There is only one section
in
which Elihu may claim
some originality.
H e says (3314) that God speaks to
sinners in two ways ; first, by alarming them with
dreams
15-18),
and next by sending them sicknesses
which would have
a
fatal issue but fot the intervention
of
a
friendly angel
19-28).
The central stanza of the
former passage
should run thus
:-
What a n over-estimate of his originality
!
By a dream a vision
of
the night,
In
upon
the bed,
He
opens
the
ears
of
men
And
makes
their flesh
to
Here
differs from Eliphaz his model by making
the dream (see
a
means of
withholding a man
from injustice
’
17.
after
The
most important part of the second passage (3322-25) is
very incorrectly given in MT, though the
given to M T by critics (cp P
ARACLETE
) does not
seriously misrepresent the mind of the
Most
probably we should read as follows :-
And his soul draws
near to
the pit,
And
his
life
to
the dark world,
Unless an
angel
redeem
him,
One who rescues
man
from
Abaddon,
And he be gracious
to
him, and say,
Let
him go
I have found the
ransom
of
his
soul
Let
his
flesh
swell
with youthful strength,
Let him
return to
the days
of
his
*
*
Here Elihu ventures on a virtual contradiction of
Eliphaz who
( v .
I
)
denies that holy ones,‘
angels,
can
help
a
man struck
deadly sickness.
H e
positively asserts that when
a
sick man seems near
his
one of those angels whom God commissions,
not to lie in wait (like the Satan) for the tripping of the
righteous, hut to prevent the chastisement of penitent
sinners from going too far, rescues him from the
destroying angel who has already grasped him.
The
‘ransom spoken of is probably the prayer of penitent
confession
26-28).
The angelology of
Elihu’
is
MT,
obscurely,
‘and seals their disci-
pline’ (or, ‘their
@,
Aq., Pesh. (Bick., G. Hoffm.,
Bu.,
Beer, Du.),
‘terrifies.’ For
Du., Beer sug-
gest
‘terrors’
But this
leaves metre and parallelism imperfect. A close inspection
reveals
(see
4
;
Ps.
119
120). Writing
the letters of M T continuously,
one
sees how the error
arose.
In
for
‘to
the
which is not
properly
to
‘to
the pit,’ read
gives one beat
more,
but has no other
recommenda-
tion. In 1.
read
the
after
In
4
read
was perhaps still in
the text when the gloss
was inserted.
hy
a
little
transposition and corruption, became
Bu.
omits
agloss, which isunjustifiable. In 1.
5
read
(so
some MSS) with
Wright, Gra.,
Beer.
In
7
read
Hoffm.,
Bi., Bu.,
In
6
insert
Bu., Du.
JOB (BOOK)
therefore more developed than that of the Colloquies
(cp
and
We have on the one hand an angel of Death and on the
other a n angelic redeemer. Whatever may have
popularly
believed a t a n earlier date it is only a late poet (later it would
seem than those who
the tone to the Psalter
later
also
the poem of Job) who could have
sanctioned this belief.
Elihu's minute reproductions of sayings
o f Job (see
also point to an author who had
the book before him as a whole so far as it was then extant.
What he gives us is a
of the doctrine of earthly
retribution in what seemed to him a n improved form, and h e
gives this reassertion greater force by leading the reader to
suppose that Job was silenced by
it,
and that
tacitly
approved it.
there are many points of
contact between Elihu and the Colloquies is not
denied (cp Bu.,
but there
are also many words
and phrases
peculiar to Elihu'
(ib.
which
would hardly have been the case if
'
Elihu
were written by the author of the Colloquies, considering
that the circle of ideas in Elihu' is not very different from
that in the Colloquies. I t may of course be answered
that an interval of some duration separates the com-
position of the two sections,
so
that we are ultimately
thrown back on the question whether it is likely that
the same writer would have worked up the old material
again with the object of restating old solutions of
Job's
problem.
A
good deal has been said on the larger
number of Aramaisms in Elihu as compared with the
Colloquies, and, as the text
now
stands, not without
reason.
But the text of
Elihu' is in urgent need of
critical emendation
in Job376 is certainly
wrong).'
So
far as the present writer can see,
the legitimate emendations of the text of
'
Elihu
'
not raise the Speeches of Elihu to the same plane of
literary excellence as the Speeches of Job and his Friends
(upon which, be it remembered, the same beneficent art
.of critical emendation has also to be practised).
Budde,
it is true, is of an opposite opinion. By the removal of
corruptions and interpolations he thinks that the linguistic
.argument against the so-called genuineness of the
Elihu-section has lost its basis, and that both the form
.and the contents of the speeches can now be much
appreciated
Einl.,
T o
this statement adequately would require too much
space.
The present writer has no disinclination to
in the effort to relieve Elihu's speeches from some
of the rust which has gathered about them; but he
feels sure that no restoration can make the picture
a
masterpiece (cp Driver,
in
Prologue and
ought to have been a condemnation of Elihu
in the Epilogue the non-mention of him in the Prologue
we can perhaps pass over. I t is absurd to speak of the
.harmony
(?)
between the Speeches of Elihu and those
of
as
sufficiently indicating
approval of
his youthful advocate (Stickel). Almost more reasonable
is
the statement in the
Testament
( a Greek Jewish
Midrash), 'And after he (Elihu) had ended, God
appeared to me (Job) in a storm and in clouds, and
spoke, blaming Elihu, and showing me that he who
had spoken was not a man but a wild
I t
would, indeed, have been inhuman to harass a sufferer
like Job with such feeble commonplaces
T h e recognition of the fact that the Book
of
Job, like
Homer and like the Sagas, has grown together by the
combination of different elements, has an
important bearing on the date
of
the Book.
'The phrase the Book
of
Job may have two meanings
:
(
I
)
the original Book of Job,
so
far as it is extant
and
the Book of Job with the
latest inserted passages. The date of the Book, in the
second sense, will be that of the latest insertion in the
first
will be that of the writing
of
the Prologue
'The Testament
of
Kohut
333.
Elihu
Perles,
Siegfr.,
J O B
(BOOK)
and Epilogue.
The latter date can easily be determined.
A prominent supernatural personage in the celestial
court is called
the Satan
adversary,'
accuser
').
The same personage appears in his character of accuser
before
in Zech.
3,
and it can readily be shown
(see S
ATAN
) that the conception of the Satan is more
developed in
and
2
than in Zech.
Now
date of Zech.
3
is
the first Book of Job is
therefore later than
I t is no objection to this
date:
that the picture of the life of Job in the
Prologue is in harmony with the old patriarchal stories,
or
(6)
that the author shows himself to be a gifted
narrator.
The Book of Ruth shows that there were
highly gifted narrators in the later times, and such a
writer could easily imitate the patriarchal stories.
I f
the
( E V
piece of money) in
is really copied
from Gen. 33
the writer of the original Job was only
too faithful an imitator, for
is probablya corrup-
tion of a much more intelligible and historical phrase
(see
The mention of the Chaldeans (1
17)
as
marauders has been thought to point to the period before
Nabopolassar
Nebuchadrezzar.
But Chaldeans'
should probably be Cushites' (see
I
)
the
Cushites and 'Sabeans' of antiquity were remembered
by
a
late tradition (cp Ch.
T h e date of the Prologue and Epilogue is marked
(I)
by the double restoration
of
Job's
may be a
which corresponds to a standing
feature in the descriptions of glorified Israel (see Is.
61
7,
Zech.
Jer.
and
still more by the
parallelism between the story of Job's calamity and
restored prosperity and the figurative description of
the vicissitudes
of
the Servant of
in Is.
,
T h e latter point requires some elucidation.
Is. 53
3
46 7
are like a poetic description of the stroke
of Job's
sickness, of the horror of his
and of his own
pious resignation G.
deserves special credit
for pointing out the analogy of the metaphorical sickness
of the Servant to the actual sickness
of
Job.
I t appears
likely that Job, who in the Prologue and the Epilogue is
a
type of Israel, partly suggested the figurative description
of the Servant of
'-the personification of the
company of pious Israelites in the age inaugurated by
Ezra which regarded itself as the true, spiritual Israel.
Reflecting
the
Job's misery, the writer (of Is.
53) came to the conclusion that God must have appointed
this for the good of those who, unlike Job, were trans-
gressors (cp
and that J o b s consciousness of this
must have helped him to bear his sufferings
And taking Job
fo
be a type of Israel,
he became assured that true Israelites, who bore the
sufferings brought upon them through the great national
calamity as uncomplainingly as Job
the Job of the
original Book), would like him be the means of salvation
to others, and would thus, like him, demonstrate the
possibility of disinterested piety.
I t must surely be
admitted that the two writers (of the original Job
of
the Servant passages) belonged to the same period,
and if
so
it is probable that they lived subsequently to
the introduction of Ezra's lawbook, for this is the period
to which the passages on the Servant of Yahwi: may
most plausibly beassigned (see S
ERVANT
OF
L
ORD
).
I t is, however, not quite impossible to give both Is.
53
and the original Book of Job a somewhat earlier date,
somewhere about
B.
which
the date to
which
G.
Hoffmann,
34,
assigns the 'genuine
Book of Job.'
I t is impossible to estimate with precision the amount of lin-
guistic evidence for the late date of Prologue, Epilogue, and
Colloquies, owing to the frequent
of the text. For
instance, the first three words cited by Dillmann
a s
Aramaic probably do not belong to the true text of the Colloquies.
This
is
of importance.
But see Budde's note.
Jew.
162.
Dillmann asserts,
'In
Zech. (1
6 5 )
the Prologue of Job is already used and imitated
Einl. p. xxxvi). See, however, Nowack,
325.
2486
J O B
(BOOK)
in
and
in 31 33 are corrupt; and 15
which
contains
(a
favourite word of Elihu), is a wretched distich,
which has
place in this fine poem;
a doubly
Aramaic form, also occurs
an
interpolated distich
see Bick.,
which Beer
83)
and Nestle
172
rightly claim a s an Aram. word for
(so
‘
skin-bottle,’ is found again in an inserted dis-
tich
(1328;
see
Du.);
‘my witness,’
and
in
(see
R
A
H
AB
)
are corrupt.
There are, however,
doubted Aramaisms, such a s
with
plural
and
and often),
(168
22
Dillmann accounts for these partly as dialectal peculiarities
partly as arising from a rhythmic need of variety; hut the forme;
explanationcannot safelybepressed.
characteristic of later Hebrew (7th
or 6th century) he mention;
(a)
I O ;
‘ t o
a n Aramaic usage.
But Dillmann’s note on 22
is most unsatisfactory he is com-
pelled to take the next word
to mean ‘ a thing’-a purely
imaginary meaning, though one commentator after another re-
affirms it.
T h e passage is corrupt ;
comes from
the line
is
copied from 11 17
which see
10
it occurs in the
late
appendage
t o
the third speech of Eliphaz;
(a doubtful
(e)
hand),’
Here again the text is corrup
more confidence
in 73.
Read
‘that h e
would grant my prayer and shatter me.’
‘tyrant,:
21
as
in
Is.
13
The change from liberal, noble to tyrant
is
not
probable (contrast
Is.
and it is better to emend to
both passages. (g)
223.
1 0
But
was certainly not
‘disorderly’
is based on a miswritten form of
(j)
4 13
(doubtful passages).
21
6.
(m)
21 34. Dillmann
also
mentions the use of for the accusative, and the occasional
use of the plural in
H e might have added that the relative
only occurs once
the M T
of
the Colloquies
(192963); it
is found, however, in Lam. 2
(see L
AMENTATIONS
).
On the whole, Dillmann has not been able to indicate many
distinctly late Hebrew words in the Colloquies ; rare words
only to be explained from the Arabic, need not necessarily
late, though the possibility of the late adoption of Arabic words
in literary Hebrew
be
I t would seem that if the
writer is of late date (and the other arguments go far to prove
that he is so)
took
pains to cultivate a classic Hebrew style
and his success shows that the facilities for writing
were great there was probably a regular school for the practice
of classic Hebrew writing. T h e falling off
in
the Hebrew of
Ben Sira is very noticeable.
To
place the Book
of
Job-whether in a larger or a
narrower sense-in the age of Jeremiah (Dill., Konig),
o r more precisely not long before the siege of Jerusalem,
is becoming more and more difficult.
I t is true, the
death of
and the sad events which rapidly
followed, must have prompted the question, Wherefore
doth the way
of
the wicked prosper’ (Jer.
12
cp Job
21
7 ) ?
Moreover, we actually find Jeremiah
cursing the day on which he was born.
It is true, both
passages are liable to grave suspicion, and may without
arbitrariness he regarded as secondary’ even Dillmann
questions
20
14-18.
But even accepting provisionally
Jeremiah‘s authorship
of
both passages, we cannot
draw any critical inference from this.
Poetry like that
of
Job and the Psalms represents, not the scanty band
of
a
prophet’s disciples, but that large section of the
community which had a t length absorbed Jeremiah’s
The parallelism is bad, and the distich does
not fit in with
the context.
The scribe may have collected the
singular
combination
of
corrupt variants
v.
from different manuscripts.
See Konig
who, with Dillmann, reads
the
is
See also Konia on the
and
(8
7
T I
1223).
(continue
is a corruption of
JOB (BOOK)
ideas.
probability, therefore, is that the poems
which contain parallels to passages plausibly ascribed to
Jeremiah were written
a
good while after that prophet’s
age.
It is true the language of Job is
so
vigorous and,
comparatively speaking,
so
pure (especially when a
methodical textual criticism has been applied) that
apart from other considerations one’s first impulse might
be to place such a book
early.
But
early it
is impossible to place it, and a time of rapid national
decline, like that of Jeremiah, is really less suitable for
the composition of such a fine work than any moderately
part of the Persian period.
As
a compromise
might of course refer the work to the exilic period (see
lxvii Che. Job
74).
But
when we
take the ideas of the book into consideration, we see
that it is best understood as the provisional summing
up
of
a
long period
of
meditation under the combination
of special influences which existed in the post-exilic
age
and at no other period.
How much later the existing Colloquies were sub-
stituted for the original Colloquies or Colloquy,
is of
course uncertain.
The former imply a heightened
interest in the problem of suffering. The wise men tell
Job that he must have been a great sinner to have been
overtaken by such
a
calamity.
So
in
Is.
6317
we find
the Jewish community asking why
bad caused
the Jews to err from his ways, and hardened their hearts
so
as not to fear him? The company
of
faithful Jews
Servant of
could not remember any
transgressions sufficient to account for the recent aggra-
vation of their misery.
They were those who worked
righteousness and remembered the ways that God would
have’
(Is.
yet they were compelled to suppose
that Israel had somehow broken faith, and become
guilty in the eyes
of
God,
so
that all their righteous
deeds (which they could
no
more disown than Job could
disown his righteousness) were as a filthy garment (Is.
645
and consequently they had to bear the
weight of God‘s unaccountable anger. This is analogous
t o what the three Friends would have had Job say, and
what he stoutly refused to s a y ; there is nothing to
compare with it in the section consisting of Is. 40-55
.
variation of usage in
Job between
of
is a translation.
and
4
Ihn Ezra (on Job 2
expresses the opinion that the
Book
I n his
the language a s
and says that it
expresses the
genius
of
Arabic. This is in every way a n
exaggeration.
14).
The later we bring down the date
of
the Colloquies
the better we can understand not only the atmosphere
of political and social unrest (see,
which seems
to pervade them (cp
but also the wide
intellectual interests of the author.
Even if we restrict
view to Job
3-19,
the extent of those interests is very
striking the earlier writer apparently had it in him to
say nearly all the best that his successors have said.
Apart from their particular controversy, both Job and
the Friends state much that is admirable respecting God
and human nature, and show an interest
in
the world
of nature which can only be paralleled to some extent
in the second part of Isaiah.
The angelology and
mythological allusions, too, indicate a remarkable
freedom from religious scruple, such as we know to
have characterised the later
Nor must we
omit to pay homage to the purity and inwardness of the
morality of
Job’s
great self-justification (chap.
31).
H e
may seem to be self-righteous but this is only due to
the predominance of the conception of God as
a
Judge.
He knows equally well with the Friends that essential
purity belongs to God alone, though the passage which
distinctly expresses this truth
( 1 4 4 )
is
plainly an
Job has never really fallen away from
God.
Nor are the authors of the Colloquies sceptics except as
regards an antiquated orthodoxy. They are no doubt
I n
Professor Davidson places the Book ‘somewhere in
the troubled period between the early part of the seventh and
the fifth centuries.
See
Job
270; and cp Budde,
Hiob,
Einl.
3
I t interrupts the connection. Rudde keeps
passage
the text, hut in the note inclines to regard it as
an
(so Bick., Beer).
2488
JOB
(BOOK)
JOB
(BOOK)
in
a
sense cosmopolitans.
Either by hearsay or by
travel (cp
6
21
they have
real acquaintance
with the world outside
But to all that, from a
modern Christian point of view, is fundamental in the
Jewish religion Job is as loyal as Ezra himself. And
what can be more truly prophetic than Job's appeal to
God's love against his undiscriminating wrath? All
this can hardly have been written much before the close
of the Persian
The Speeches of YahwB
6)
belong to
a
poet of
the same school as the poem on the Divine Wisdom
(28
1-27)
they are, however, of
earlier date
than that fine poem, which contains one line borrowed
from the Speeches
cp 38
256).
The writer's in-
terest in the problem of suffering is but slight.
Nor does
philosophical speculation attract him : he is a n observer
-a
poetic observer-of nature.
Chap. 28 has special
with the eulogies of wisdom in Prov.
3
13-20
and
The happy tone, the interest in nature, and
the case of chap. 28 (and parallels) the tendency to
hypostatize Wisdom, suggest the bringing down of all
these works to the period of widened outlook and
greater freedom from anxiety at the beginning of the
Greek rule.
W e need not, however, on this account
identify
wisdom,' with the
or the
indeed, such
a
view would oblige
us,
with Duhm,
to bring down Prov.
8
22-31
and Job28 to the
third
century
B.C.
The Zoroastrian conception of the two-
fold wisdom
2
(heavenly and earthly) is old enough to
have influenced the Jews : Persian (and Babylonian)
influences continued to be felt long after the fall of the
Persian Empire.
The various conflicting theories which have been
offered as to the
of
the book will now be seen
to proceed from a false assumption.
The book of Job has
no
literary
and cannot have had
a
pose.
I t has
it has not been made.
T h e
different parts of the book, however, had their purpose,
which must be sought for by an exegesis unfettered by
a
theories.
The earliest writer wished to suggest
that righteous Israel's sufferings were
an
honour, because
they showed that Israel's service of God was disinterested.
The next writer simply gave expression to the conflict-
ing thoughts of his time on the great problem of suffer-
i n g ; he himself had no definite solution to give.
A
third writer could only offer the anodyne of the poetic
imaginative observation of the wonders
of
nature.
A fourth sought to undo the work of his predecessors
b y restating a theory which had not, he thought, been
adequately represented before.
The present book
is heterogeneous
amorphous ; it gives
us,
however,
a
picture of Jewish religious life and thongbt which is of
priceless value.
For a subtle and interesting attempt to
commend a very different view see
of the Introduc-
tion to Budde's comnientary.
The genuine Septuagint text has been practically
recovered from the
Version
of
Egypt) of Job
Agostino Ciasca in 1889;
39
is
the only lacuna,
It is shorter than the Hebrew
text
nearly 400 stichi. Origen in his
supplied its deficiencies from Theodotion, mark-
i n g
the insertions by asterisks, and there are still five
MSS
which give Origen's marks more or
com-
pletely (see Hatch,
on
Greek,
216).
Hatch in 1889 accepted the shorter Septuagint form as
that of the original Book of Job, and Bickell
whenever his metrical theory will allow it, follows
the
Dillmann, however, in the Transactions
of
the Royal Prussian Academy
See Kleinert.
B.
.
For Bickell's earlier view of
see his
,De
ac ratione
A
in
('63).
a , p. 79 cp
P
ERSIA
(Religion).
3
See
'go)
has subjected Hatch's arguments to a de-
tailed consideration, and has shown that, except
a
few cases, the omissions were arbitrarily made by the
translator, or, as we might almost better call
him, paraphrast. This does not, of course, exclude the
possibility that some of the omissions may he justifiable
on grounds of internal criticism, and that the translator
may have been partly guided by warning signs
in the Hebrew text indicating the non-originality of
certain passages, some of which signs may easily have
become misplaced.
See further Budde, Hiob, Einl.
Beer, 'Textkritische
B.
Job,'
Beer's work deals with all the versions see also
Text
des
parts
'98). On the Peshitta,
see A. Mandl, Die
u.
(
2 0 1 7 7 8
(1900). See also
W.
Bacher, ' D a s
Targ.
Hiob,'
20
and H. Gratz,
Das
Zeitalter der griech. Uebersetz. des B.H.,
(a)
Text.-Now that the study of the textual criticism of Job
is entering on a new stage
must not
to
trace its earlier
These are the chief names.
C.
F.
Literature.
Houbigant (priest of the
Note
in
V T
A hundred years later A. Merx
reviewed
by
Nov.
hut gratefully by
H.
Schultz,
The import!
of the hook lies in its treatment of the text, especially
in its attempt a t a methodical use of the versions, not so much
in its use of a theory of strophes to discover interpolations or
lacunae.
P. de Lagarde,
see
('72).
G.
Bickell,
V T
giving
the text of Job arranged according to his metrical theory, marks
a step forward; cp Flunk in
G.
H.
Wright,
Book
a
new
translation
with essays on scansion, date,
('intended to follow
in
wake of the critical edition of A. Merx'), a pioneering work,
produced a t
Kong, with easily explained defects, a n d
strange indications of a critical tendency almost new among
students of the text of Job (cp Bndde, TLZ, une
'84;
Cheyne
and Solomon,
;
3QX
9
574,
H.
Gratz,
in
a review of Cheyne's Job and Solomon,
which contains a conspectus of
emendations as far a s
chap. 29, not included in the posthumous
G .
Hoffmann
cp Cheyne
1
Bickell
des
B.
Job
'86, p.
'
Bearbeitung des Job-dialogs,:
pp.
highest importance in spite of
its
too frequent arbitrariness,
which is subjected to good-natured banter
Budde.
Perhaps
however, Budde would have improved his own work by
more from Bickell. T h e theory that
poetical portions (except
the eight-line speech of Yahwi: and certain passages in tristichs)
are composed in four-line strophes cannot he said to have been
overthrown by Budde. On Bickell's view of the original Septu-
agint, see
C.
Siegfried 'Job' in
SBOT
(Heb.), '93 ;
R.
Gottheil
Bickell's work was not in time to
be used
Siegfried.
metrische Beschaffenheit des
B.H.'
pp.
and later essays in
'99.
G. Beer
Budde
Duhm
see below. Perles
Cheyne, The Text of
9
More Critical Gleanings from Job,'
10
and
many scattered notes
in
Crit. Bid., and the
present work.
Paul Vetter,
des
B.
(97).
also
Bickell, Budde, Duhm, and cp
94,
(1.)
Ley, as above.
L
I
T
E
R
ATUR
E
(c)
and Translations.-For orientation
the
work
of the earlier exegesis, see
indispensable work on
Introduction,
IO,
'History of Exegesis
cp
A
in
other book was so
impossible to interpret before the
of linguistic know-
ledge as that of Job.
I n the 16th century
both
for Job and for the 'Solomonic' writings did work of some
permanent value. The famous passage,
Job 19 25, he explains of
Job's hope of a public recognition of his innocence by God in
his lifetime.
The first strictly philological commentary
that
of Albert Schultens
vols. Leyden,
magnifi-
cent and thorough
to
the key of Arabic philology
to problems which were often only created
corruption of the
text. Elizabeth Smith
translation,
'
I
O
.
S.
Lee, '37.
H.
des
3
cp
Cheyne,
Renan
de
Job,
in
'60.
(valuable).
Hitzig, '74.
excellent).
A.
J. C. Matthes, part
commentary;
G.
L.
PO
Document Outline
- Title
- Key to Signatures in Volume II
- Maps in Volume II
- Contributors to Volume II
- Eagle - Eglath-Shelishiyah
- Eglon - Egypt
- Egypt, River of - Enos
- En-Rimmon - Essau
- Eschatology
- Esdraelon - Evil-Merodach
- Exact - Ezra-Nehemiah
- Ezra, the Greek - Flint
- Flock, Tower of the - Gaius
- Galatia - Gallery
- Galley - Geography
- Geography - Gilgal
- Giloh - Goshen
- Gospels part 1
- Gospels part 2
- Gospels part 3
- Gotholias - Hamu or Hami, names with
- Hamuel - Heath
- Heathen - Hermon
- Hermonites - Hippopotamus
- Hirah - Horonaim
- Horonite - Inn
- Inscriptions - Isle, Island
- Israel
- Issachar - Javan
- Javelin - Jeremiah (book)
- Jeremiah, Epistle of - Jerusalem
- Jerusalem - Job (book)
- Jobab - John, Son of Zebedee
- Joiada - Jotham
- Jozabad - Kedesh
- Kedeshah - Kushaiah