Читать книгу Job and Solomon: Or, The Wisdom of the Old Testament - T. K. Cheyne - Страница 10

Table of Contents

At a (perhaps) considerably later period than the original work (including chap. xxviii.)—symbolised by the youthfulness of Elihu as compared with the four older friends—the problem of the sufferings of the innocent still beset the minds of the wise men, the attempt of the three friends to ‘justify the ways of God’ to the intellect having proved, as the wise men thought, a too manifest failure (xxxii. 2, 3). One of their number therefore invented a fourth friend, Elihu (or is this the name of the author himself?^[42]), who is described as having been a listener during the preceding debates, and who reduces Job to silence. It is noteworthy that the sudden introduction of Elihu required the insertion of a fresh narrative passage (xxxii. 1-6) as a supplement to the original prologue.

I assume, as the reader will observe, the one assured result of the criticism of Job. To those who follow me in this, the speeches of Elihu will, I think, gain greatly in interest. They mark out a time when, partly through the teaching of history, partly through a deeper inward experience, and partly through the reading of the poem of Job, the old difficulties of faith were no longer so acutely felt. Two courses were open to the Epigoni of that age—either to force Job to say what, as it seemed, he ought to have said (this, however, was not so easy as in the case of Ecclesiastes), or to insert fresh speeches in the style of the original, separating the corn from the chaff in the pleadings of the three friends, and adding whatever a more advanced religious thought suggested to the writer. In forms of expression, however, it must be admitted that Elihu does not shine. (True, he does not profess to comfort Job.) For offensiveness the two following verses are not easily matched:

Where is there a man like Job,

who drinks^[43] scoffing like water? (xxxiv. 7.)

Would that Job might be tried to the uttermost

because of his answers in the manner of wicked men (xxxiv. 36).

A ‘vulgar braggart’ he may not be from an Oriental point of view, nor is he ‘the prototype of the Bachelor in Faust;’ but that he is too positive and dogmatic, and much overrates his own powers, is certain. He represents the dogmatism of a purified orthodoxy, which thinks too much of its minute advances (‘one perfect in knowledge is with thee,’ xxxvi. 4).

Elihu distributes his matter (of which he says that he is ‘full,’ xxxii. 18-20) over four speeches. His themes in the first three are: 1, the ground and object of suffering (chaps. xxxii., xxxiii.); 2, the righteousness of God (chap. xxxiv.); and 3, the use of religion (chap. xxxv.), all of which are treated in relation to the questionable or erroneous utterances of Job. Then, in his last and longest effort, Elihu unrolls before Job a picture of the government of God, in its beneficence and righteousness as well as its omnipotence, in the hope of moving Job to self-humiliation (chaps. xxxvi., xxxvii.) Let us remember again that Elihu represents the debates of the ‘wise men’ of the post-regal period, who were conscious of being in some sense ‘inspired’ like their prophetic predecessors (xxxii. 8, xxxvi. 4; Ecclus. xxiv. 32-34, l. 28, 29), so that we cannot believe that the bizarre impression made by Elihu on some Western critics was intended by the original author. That his portrait suggests certain grave infirmities, may be granted; but these are the failings of the circle to which the author belongs: the self-commendation of Elihu in his exordium is hardly excessive from an Oriental point of view, or would at any rate be justifiable in a more original thinker. Indeed, he only commends himself in order to excuse the unusual step of criticising the proceedings of men so much older than himself. After what he thinks sufficient excuse has been offered, Elihu takes up Job’s fundamental error, self-righteousness, but prepares the way by examining Job’s assertion (xix. 7, xxx. 20) that God took no heed of his complaints.

Wherefore hast thou contended with Him

because ‘He answers none of my words’?^[44] (xxxiii. 13.)

To this Elihu replies that it is a man’s own fault if he cannot hear the Divine voice. For God is constantly speaking to man, if man would only regard it (‘revelation,’ then, is not confined to a class or a succession). Two means of communication are specially mentioned—nightly dreams and visions, and severe sickness. The object of both is to divert men from courses of action which can only lead to destruction. At this point a remarkable intimation is given. In order to produce conversion, and so to ‘redeem a man from going down to the pit,’ a special angelic agency is necessary—that of a ‘mediator’ or ‘interpreter’ (Targ. p’raqlītā; comp. παράκλητος, John xiv. 16, 26), whose office it is to ‘show unto man his rightness’ (i.e. how to conform his life to the right standard, xxxiii. 23).

We must pause here, however, to consider the bearings of this. It seems to show us, first, that inspired minds (see above) were already beginning to refine and elevate the popular notions of the spiritual world. That there were two classes of spirits, the one favourable, the other adverse to man, had long been the belief of the Israelites and their neighbours.^[45] The author of the speeches of Elihu now introduces one of them among the symbols of a higher stage of religion. In antithesis to the ‘destroyers’^[46] (ver. 22) he implies that God has thousands of angels (the ‘mediator’ is ‘one among a thousand’), whose business it is to save sinners from destruction by leading them to repentance. Such is the φιλανθρωπία, the friendliness to man, of the angelic world, without which indeed, according to Elihu, the purpose of sickness would be unobserved and a fatal issue inevitable. To students of Christianity, however, it has a deeper interest, if the concluding words, ‘I have found a ransom,’ be a part of the Old Testament foundation of the doctrine of redemption through Christ. This, however, is questionable, and even its possibility is not recognised by the latest orthodox commentator.^[47] In his second speech Elihu returns to the main question of Job’s attitude towards God. He begins by imputing to Job language which he had never used, and which from its extreme irreverence Job would certainly have disowned (xxxiv. 5, 9), and maintains that God never acts unjustly, but rewards every man according to his deeds. There is nothing in his treatment of this theme which requires comment except its vagueness and generality, to which, were the speech an integral part of the poem, Job would certainly have taken exception.

The subject of the third speech is handled with more originality. Job had really complained that afflicted persons such as himself appealed to God in vain (xxiv. 12, xxx. 20). Elihu replies to this (xxxv. 9-13) that such persons merely cried from physical pain, and did not really pray. The fourth and last speech, in which he dismisses controversy and expresses his own sublime ideas of the Creator, has the most poetical interest. At the very outset the solemnity of his language prepares the reader to expect something great, and the expectation is not altogether disappointed. ‘God,’ he says, ‘is mighty, but despiseth not any’ (xxxvi. 5); He has given proof of this by the trials with which He visits His servants when they have fallen into sin. Might and mercy are the principal attributes of God. The verses in which Elihu applies this doctrine to Job’s case are ambiguous and perhaps corrupt, but it appears as if Elihu regarded Job as in danger of missing the disciplinary object of his sufferings. It is in the second part of his speech (xxxvi. 26-xxxvii. 24) that Elihu displays his greatest rhetorical power, and though by no means equal to the speeches of Jehovah, which it appears to imitate, the vividness of its descriptions has obtained the admiration of no less competent a judge than Alexander von Humboldt. The moral is intended to be that, instead of criticising God, Job should humble himself in devout awe at the combined splendour and mystery of the creation.

It is tempting to regard the sketch of the storm in xxxvi. 29-xxxvii. 5 and the appeals which Elihu makes to Job as preparatory to the appearance of Jehovah in xxxviii. 1. ‘While Elihu is speaking,’ says Mr. Turner, ‘the clouds gather, a storm darkens the heavens and sweeps across the landscape, and the thunder utters its voice ... out of the whirlwind that passes by Jehovah speaks.’^[48] So too Dr. Cox thinks that Job’s invisible Opponent ‘opens His mouth and answers him out of the tempest which Elihu has so graphically described.’^[49] In fact in xxxviii. 1 we may equally well render ‘the tempest’ (i.e. that lately mentioned) and ‘a tempest.’ The objection is (1) that the storm does not come into the close of Elihu’s speech, as it ought to do, and (2) that in His very first words Jehovah distinctly implies that the last speaker was one who ‘darkened counsel by words without knowledge’ (xxxviii. 3).

Such are the contributions of Elihu, which gain considerably when considered as a little treatise in themselves. It is, indeed, a strange freak of fancy to regard Elihu as representing the poet himself.^[50] Neither æsthetically nor theologically do they reach the same high mark as the remainder of the book. ‘The style of Elihu,’ as M. Renan remarks, ‘is cold, heavy, pretentious. The author loses himself in long descriptions without vivacity.... His language is obscure and presents peculiar difficulties. In the other parts of the poem the obscurity comes from our ignorance and our scanty means of comprehending these ancient documents; here the obscurity comes from the style itself, from its bizarrerie and affectation.’^[51] Theologically it is difficult to discover any important point (but see Chap. XII., below, on Elihu) in which, in spite of his sharp censure of the friends, he distinctly passes beyond them. His arguments have been so largely anticipated by the three friends that, on the whole, we may perhaps best regard chaps. xxxii.-xxxix. as a first theological criticism on the contents of the original work. From this point of view it is interesting that the idea of affliction as correction, which had already occurred to Eliphaz, acquired in the course of years a much deeper hold on thinking minds (see xxxiii. 19-30, xxxvi. 8-10). There is one feature of the earlier speeches which is not imitated by Elihu, and that is the long and terrifying descriptions in each of the three original colloquies of the fate of the impious man, and one of the most considerate of Elihu’s Western critics^[52] thinks it possible that Elihu, who says in one place—

And the impious in heart cherish wrath,

and supplicate not when he hath bound them (xxxvi. 13)—

considered no calamity whatever as penal in the first instance.