Introduction

The Wisdom Books

The third division of the Old Testament sacred books in the Greco-Slavonic Bible consists of the “wisdom” books, of which five—Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs—are recognized as canonical, while two—the Wisdom of Solomon and the Wisdom of Jesus son of Sirach—are considered non-canonical. In contrast to this, the Hebrew Bible does not contain these two latter books, as it does not contain any non-canonical works, and the first five do not bear the name “wisdom” books, nor do they form a separate division; rather, along with Ruth, Lamentations, Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, First and Second Chronicles, they are classified as the so-called “ketubim,” “hagiographa,”—“the writings.” The name “ketubim,” which became a technical term among the Talmudic rabbis for the third part of Scripture, was replaced in antiquity by other designations that pointed to the wisdom character of the works contained in it. Thus, in Josephus the contemporary wisdom books, except Job, are known by the name “the other books containing hymns to God and rules of life for people” (Contra Apionem, 1:4); Philo calls them “hymns and other books by which knowledge and piety are ordered and perfected” (On the Contemplative Life), and the author of 2 Maccabees—“ τὰ τοῦ Δαυὶδ καὶ ἐπιστολὰς βασιλέων περὶ ἀναθημάτων “—“the books of David and letters of kings concerning votive offerings” (2 Macc 2:13-15). The designation “ τὰ τοῦ Δαυὶδ “ is equivalent to the Gospel designation of the wisdom books as “psalms” (“it is necessary that everything written in the law of Moses and the prophets and the psalms about me be fulfilled” Luke 24:44), and this latter designation, according to the testimony of Gesenius, was also used among the rabbis. Among the Church Fathers and teachers who, following the LXX translation, distinguish the wisdom books as a separate division, they do not bear the modern designation but are known as “poetic” books. This is how they are called by Cyril of Jerusalem (his fourth catechetical lecture), Gregory the Theologian (Σύνταγμα. Ralli, IV, p. 363), Amphilochius of Iconium (ibid, p. 365), Epiphanius of Cyprus and John of Damascus (An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, IV, 17). However, already Leontius of Byzantium (sixth century) calls them “wisdom” books—“ παραινετικά “ (On Sects, actio II. Migne 86 v., p. 1204).

Given the didactic character of all of Holy Scripture, the bestowal of the designation “wisdom” books on only certain works indicates that they were written with the special purpose of teaching, instructing, showing how one should think about a given subject, how it should be understood. The wisdom books do indeed pursue this goal as applied to religious and moral truths. Their view, the basic perspective on the teaching of faith and piety—is the same as in the Law; the distinctive feature lies in the effort to bring revealed truth closer to human understanding, to lead people through various reflections to the conviction that it must be understood in precisely this way, and not otherwise. Thanks to this, proposed in the Law in the form of commandment and prohibition, truth appears in the wisdom books as the living conviction of the one to whom it was given, who thought and reflected on it, expressed as truth not only because it was revealed in the Law, as truth, but also because it fully agrees with human reason, has become, so to speak, the people’s own possession, their own thought. Bringing revealed truths closer to human understanding, the wisdom books indeed “perfect consciousness and piety.” As for examples of such illumination, they are observed first of all in the book of Job. Its principal question, the matter of the relationship of God’s righteousness to human righteousness, is treated by the author from the standpoint of its acceptability to human consciousness. Initially doubtful about God’s justice, Job is found, as a result of conversations, to have believed in the immutability of divine righteousness. The objective proposition: “God is just” is elevated to the level of personal subjective conviction. The book of Ecclesiastes is distinguished by a similar character. Its goal consists in imparting to people the fear of God (Eccl 12:13), compelling them to keep God’s commandments. The means to this is, on the one hand, the explanation of the truth that everything that draws people away from God, leading to forgetting him—the various goods of this life—do not constitute true happiness for people, and therefore one should not pursue them, and on the other hand—the revelation of the truth that keeping the commandments gives them true good, since it leads to the blessedness granted for a good life after death, to this everlasting good. Likewise, the book of Proverbs contains reflections on the principles of revealed religion, the Law and theocracy, and their influence on the formation of the intellectual, moral, and civil life of Israel. The result of this reflection is the proposition that only the fear of the Lord and the knowledge of the Most Holy constitute true wisdom, which brings peace to mind and heart. And since the expression of such wisdom consists of various rules of religious and moral conduct, at their foundation lies the conviction that revealed truth is in harmony with the demands of the human spirit.

By revealing the revealed truth from the side of its agreement with human understanding, the wisdom books are indicators of the spiritual development of the Jewish people under the guidance of the Law. In the persons of their best representatives, they were not merely passive recipients of revealed truths, but rather more or less pondered them, assimilated them, that is, brought them into agreement with their inner convictions and beliefs. Immersing heart and mind in the realm of revelation, they either presented the objects of their contemplation as instruction for the development of religious knowledge and support for the purity of morality required by the Law, as we see in the books of Job, Ecclesiastes, Proverbs, and certain psalms (Ps 77; Ps 104; Ps 105 and so forth), or else marked and expressed the impression that this contemplation produced on their heart, in the lyric form of religious feeling and heartfelt meditation (the Psalms). A fruit of divinely enlightened reflection on Divine revelation given to the Jewish people in the Law, the wisdom books bear, by preference, a subjective character, in distinction from the objective presentation of truths of faith and piety in the Law and the objective description of the life of the Jewish people in the historical books. Another distinction of the wisdom books is their poetic form with its characteristic feature—parallelism, defined by researchers of Hebrew poetry as the correspondence of one verse with another. This is a kind of rhyme of thought, symmetry of idea, expressed usually twice or sometimes three times in different terms, either synonymous or opposite. According to the various relationships among the verses, parallelism is synonymous, antithetic, synthetic, and rhymic. The first type of parallelism occurs when the parallel members correspond to each other, expressing with equivalent terms one and the same meaning. Examples of such parallelism are found in Ps 113:1-4—“When Israel came out of Egypt, the house of Jacob from a people of strange language, Judah became his sanctuary, Israel his dominion. The sea saw and fled, the Jordan turned back, the mountains skipped like rams, and the hills like young sheep.” Antithetic parallelism consists in the correspondence of two members through the opposition of expressions or feelings. “Faithful are the wounds of a friend, but deceitful are the kisses of an enemy. A sated soul tramples on the honeycomb, but to a hungry soul every bitter thing is sweet” (Prov 27:6-7). “Some trust in chariots and some in horses, but we trust in the name of the Lord our God. They are brought down and fall, but we rise and stand upright” (Ps 19:8-9). Parallelism is synthetic when it consists only in the similarity of construction or measure: words do not correspond to words and phrases to phrases, as equivalent or opposite in meaning, but the turn and form are identical; subject corresponds to subject, verb to verb, adjective to adjective, and the meter is one and the same. “The law of the Lord is perfect, reviving the soul; the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple; the precepts of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart; the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes” (Ps 18:8-9). Finally, parallelism is sometimes merely apparent and consists only in a certain analogy of construction or in the development of thought in two verses. In these cases, it is purely rhymic and admits of endless combinations. Each member of the parallelism in Hebrew poetry constitutes a verse, consisting of a combination of iambs and trochees, the most common Hebrew verse being heptasyllabic, or of seven syllables. The book of Job is written in verses of this meter (Job 3:1—Job 42:6), as is the entire book of Proverbs and most of the Psalms. Verses of four, five, six, and nine syllables are also encountered, sometimes alternating with verses of different meter. Each verse, in turn, is part of a stanza, the essential property of which is that it contains a single, or principal, thought, whose complete expression is given by the sum of its constituent verses. However, in some cases either two different thoughts are united in one stanza, or one and the same thought develops and continues beyond this limit.

Concerning the Book of Job

The name of the book. The place and time of Job’s life. The book of Job (Hebrew איוב, Greek Ιώβ) received its name from the principal person whose story of suffering provided the author with the occasion for addressing the question of the causes of the suffering of the righteous.

In his own book, Job appears with all the marks of a historical person: it indicates his origin, the time and place of his life, its duration, gives a characterization of the suffering man’s family life, social position, and the like. In contrast, Theodore of Mopsuestia already denied Job’s existence, considering his book to be a collection of fables. The Hebrew rabbis Resh-Lakish and Samuel bar-Nahman expressed a similar view. “Job,” remarks the latter, “never existed; he was not a real person, but a parable, like the one Nathan proposed to David” (Talmud. Baba. Bathra, 15a). This extreme view, later repeated by Salmasius, Michaëlis, Augusti, and De Wette, was recognized as excessive even by the rabbis themselves; Hai Gaon (in the year 1000) altered the words of Samuel bar-Nahman as follows: “Job existed, but he was created to become a parable.” And indeed, denying Job’s existence does not accord with the testimony of Holy Scripture, Old and New Testament. “Son of man,” the Lord says to the prophet Ezekiel, “if a land sins against me...and I send a famine on it and destroy men and beasts in it; and if these three men—Noah, Daniel, and Job—were in it, they would deliver only their own souls by their righteousness...they would not deliver sons and daughters; they alone would be delivered” (Ezek 14:13-16). The mention of Job on equal terms with undoubtedly historical persons—Noah and Daniel—permits no doubt about the historical character of his personality. The historical reliability of Job’s sufferings, and therefore of Job himself, is also recognized by the well-known words of the Apostle James: “Behold, we count those happy who remained steadfast. You have heard of the steadfastness of Job and have seen the purpose of the Lord” (Jas 5:11). It is noted further that the name Job is a symbolic name meaning “one who opposes”; it could have been given to him because of the writer’s conception that he opposed God and his friends, and therefore in accordance with the character depicted in the book, that is, it is a fictitious name. But, as we see from the Bible, among the Hebrews many names—Abraham, Israel—had symbolic character, since they denoted certain circumstances, and therefore from the symbolism of the name one cannot conclude about the unhistoricity of the person. In the people’s memory, Job may have received this name after his misfortune, owing to the character revealed in his sufferings. The note in the margin of the LXX text may perhaps be referring to this, when it remarks that he was formerly called Jobab.

If Job is completely a historical person, then a natural question arises about the place and time of his life. According to the book itself, he lived in the land of Uz, “in the land of Ausitis,” as the LXX translators call it (Job 1:1). But where exactly this region was located cannot be said with certainty. The note found at the end of the book according to the LXX reading: “on the borders of Edom and Arabia” (Job 42:17) is as vague as the indication Job 1:3 that Job was “more renowned than all the sons of the east,” that is, the Arabs (see the commentary on this verse); and the mention of the land of Uz in the book of the prophet Jeremiah (Jer 25:20) and in the book of Lamentations (Lam 4:21) does not clarify its position. True, the words of Lamentations: “rejoice and be glad, daughter of Edom, dweller in the land of Uz,” seem to give reason to think that Uz was located in Edom, formed its region. But such an assumption is refuted by verses 20 and 21 of chapter 25 of the book of the prophet Jeremiah (Jer 25:20-21), from which it appears that the land of Uz, mentioned separately from Edom, did not fall within its bounds. But if the prophet attributes it to the Edomites, then this is explained, according to Ewald, by the fact that the land of Uz was given to them by Nebuchadnezzar as a reward for the help they rendered to the Chaldeans in the conquest of Judea. As for Jer 25:20 and following, some see in these verses an enumeration of neighboring countries and accordingly locate Uz between Egypt and Judea, to the southeast of the latter and to the east of Edom. The correctness of such reasoning is weakened by verses 21 and 22 of this chapter, which testify that in enumerating lands the prophet was not guided by the principle of being neighboring.

The absence of biblical indications regarding the location of the land of Uz compels exegetes to resort to various conjectures. It is supposed that the land of Uz received its name from the name Uz, attributed by the Bible to three persons: the eldest son of Aram, grandson of Shem (Gen 10:23), the eldest son of Nahor, brother of Abraham (Gen 22:21), and the firstborn of Dishon, youngest son of Seir the Horite (Gen 36:28). Explaining in this way the origin of the name Uz, the location of this land is indicated either in Syria, the land of Aram, or in Mesopotamia, on the banks of the Euphrates, where Nahor lived, or finally in Edom. As for the latter view, it cannot be considered correct for the reasons indicated above. The opinion about the location of the land of Uz within Mesopotamia found a place in the Alexandrian version of the Greek note to the book of Job. In it he is called living on the banks of the Euphrates, and his friend Bildad is called the son of Ammon of Chobar (Chobar is a tributary of the Euphrates). In spite of its antiquity (the note is already known to Origen) this view can scarcely be considered correct. It does not accord with the statement in the book of Job Job 1:19 that a wind, which destroyed my oldest son’s house, came “from the desert,” or more precisely, “from beyond the desert,” and with the words of Elihu “the tempest comes from the south” (Job 37:9). Taken together, these two expressions make it clear that the land of Uz was located near the northern limits of the desert or in them themselves. Mesopotamia, however, cannot be considered a desert. As for the supposition about the location of the land of Uz within Syria, it is confirmed by the testimony of ancient writers. Thus Eusebius of Caesarea, repeating the words of Josephus that Uz, son of Aram, was the founder of Trachonitae (all the basalt expanse on the eastern side of the Jordan, bounded on the south by the mountains of Gilead, and on the north adjacent to Damascus) and Damascus (Antiquities 1:6, 4), adds: “from this came Job” (De originibus. XI, 2, 6). According to another of his works (Onomasticon), Job lived in Batanea, ancient Bashan, in a region called in his time “Astaroth Karnaim.” The same view is held by Jerome (Book on the Situation and Names of the Hebrews), noting that the Greek name of the region “Ausitis” is the same as “Usitis,” given to it after Uz, son of Aram, who settled the Trachonitae with his descendants (commentary on chapter 10, verse 23 of the book of Genesis). Arab writers—the historians Mugir-ed-din el Hambeli and Abulfeda, and the geographer Muhammed el Makdesi—also indicate Batanea as the dwelling place of Job. “Job,” they say, “possessed the Damascus province of Batanea.” A visible expression of this tradition was the monastery built in the Damascus region in honor of the suffering Job (Volck. Calendarium Syriacum, p. 29).

Indicating in general terms Job’s dwelling place, the note found at the end of the book according to the LXX text determines also the time of his life. According to it, he was the fifth from Abraham, that is, lived in the patriarchal period, but later than Abraham. The correctness of the latter remark is confirmed by the fact that two of Job’s friends, Eliphaz and Bildad, descended from Abraham, the former through Teman, grandson of Esau, the latter through Shuah, son of Abraham by Keturah (see the note on Job 2:11). The general determination of the time of Job’s life—in the patriarchal period—is no less reliably attested. At least, the features of his way of life fully remind us of the patriarchal way of life. And first of all, like the patriarchs, Job combines in his person the rights of a family head with the duties of a priest. In the absence of a priestly class, he himself offers sacrifices (Job 1:5; cf. Gen 8:20). The character of the pre-Mosaic patriarchal time is fully reflected in the particular feature that the sacrifice of burnt offering presented by Job is a sin offering. Although according to the law of Moses this significance is attributed to every bloody sacrifice, including burnt offerings (Lev 1:4), for cleansing from sin two special sacrifices are appointed, unknown to the book of Job—the sin offering (Lev 4:29) and the guilt offering (Lev 5:6). The simplicity of public relations typical of ancient times corresponds to the undeveloped state of worship. In the absence of ruling authority in the form of kings or judges, judgment is administered by the elders of the people (Job 29:7-25; cf. Gen 23:5-6). An indicator of great antiquity is further the manner of writing, the engraving of letters on stone (Job 19:24), the use of the coin “shekel” (kesita), referred by the Pentateuch to patriarchal times (Job 42:11; Gen 33:19), the same musical instruments as among the patriarchs (Job 21:12; Gen 4:21), the longevity of Job, and finally, the passing over in silence of events after the time of Moses while being familiar with the events of early times—the destruction of Sodom (Job 18:15), the flood (Job 24:18).

The time of the writing of the book of Job and its author. The usual data for determining the time of writing and the author of this or that sacred book are the book’s own statements and the testimony of other sacred writers. But the book of Job itself does not contain strictly defined indications about the time of its composition, and from external testimony we know only the testimony about it of the prophet Ezekiel. His words: “Noah, Daniel, and Job...they would not deliver sons and daughters...from four great plagues—the sword, famine, wild animals, and plague” (Ezek 14:14-21) represent an almost literal repetition of the words of Eliphaz (Job 5:20) and thereby indicate that the book of Job existed by his time. Because of such conditions, the question about the time of its writing and its author has provoked and continues to provoke in exegetical literature the most varied responses. During the entire period from Moses to the prophet Ezekiel and beyond, there is not a single period or epoch to which exegetes have not found it possible to assign the writing of our book. And first of all, according to the opinion of the Talmud (Jerusalem. Sola V, 8, 6. Bathra 15a), which is shared by Origen, Jerome, Polychronius, and expressed in modern times by Carpzov, Eichhorn, Jahn, Bertholdt, and Ebrard, the book of Job was written in the age of Moses. In support of such a view, they point not only to its ignorance of the Law, the prophets, the history, and the religious terminology of Israel, but also to its similarity to the Pentateuch in language. Certain Hebrew words and entire phrases are used only in these two books and nowhere else. Such are—“semez”—“rumor,” “report” (Job 4:12; Exod 32:25); “maschasch”—“feel,” “grope” (Job 5:14; Deut 28:29), “Kesita” (Gen 33:19; Job 42:11), “as long as...his breath is in me and the breath of God is in my nostrils” (Job 27:3; Gen 2:7), “Job died...old and full of days” (Job 42:17; cf. Gen 15:15).

According to another view, to whose defenders belong the rabbi Nathan, Church Fathers—Gregory the Theologian, John Chrysostom, and orthodox Protestant as well as Catholic exegetes—Gesenius, Han, Keil, Delitzsch, Calmet, Cornely, Vigouroux, Knabenbauer, and others—the book of Job was written in the period of the flourishing of Hebrew literature and poetry, in the age of Solomon. It corresponds to this age in character, content, form, and language. Didactic in spirit, it fits perfectly with the wisdom direction expressed in psalms, proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and with them coincides in certain points of doctrine. Such is the teaching about divine wisdom, its transcendence, and its participation in the creation of the world (Job 28; Prov 1-9, especially Prov 8), and about human existence after death. Regarding the question of the latter, the book of Job expresses the same views as the psalms of the time of David and Solomon. In them, the author appears as a son of that epoch to which Heman, the compiler of Ps 87, belonged (Job 14:13; Ps 87:6; Job 14:12; Ps 87:11; Job 14:21; Ps 87:13 and so forth). Coinciding with Ps 87 in the view of existence after death, the book of Job is similar to Ps 87 in the name of the inhabitants of Sheol—“rephaim” (Job 26:5; Ps 87:11); the underworld—“abaddon” (Job 26:6; Ps 87:12) and with Ps 88 in the designation of angels as “holy ones” (Job 5:1; Ps 88:8). Common to all three are also individual thoughts and expressions (cf. Job 7:7; Ps 88:48; Job 14:14; Ps 88:49; Job 16:19; Ps 88:38; Job 19:8; Ps 87:9; Job 26:12; Ps 88:10). Likewise, in the unfolding of similar teaching, identical expressions are used in Job 14:2 and in Ps 36:2; Job 15:35 and in Ps 7:15; Job 17:9 and in Ps 55:2-7; Ps 62:8-9; Ps 72:26-28; Ps 93:16-19; Job 15:25-26 and in Ps 72:3-9; Ps 74:5-6; Job 22:11 and in Ps 17:17; Job 22:13 and in Ps 72:11; Job 36:16 and in Ps 17:20; Job 5:3 and in Prov 24:30; Job 5:17 and in Prov 3:11; Job 18:5; Job 21:17 and Prov 13:9; Prov 20:20; Prov 24:29; Job 28:18 and in Prov 3:15 and so forth. Finally, certain Hebrew expressions, such as “alak”—“to rejoice” (Job 20:18; Prov 12:18), “tachbulot”—“plans” (Job 37:12; Prov 1:5), are found only in the book of Job and the works of Solomon. As written in the age of Solomon, the book of Job was known, say the defenders of this view, to subsequent biblical writers who borrowed from it certain expressions. Thus the words of Amos (Amos 5:8): “who made the Pleiades and Orion,” are taken from Job 9:9; the words of Isaiah (Isa 40:2): “his struggle has ended” from Job 7:1; Isaiah 44:24–25: “The Lord...alone stretched out the heavens” from Job 9:8; Isa 19:5: “the waters fail from the sea, and the river wastes and dries up” from Job 14:11; Isa 19:11: “the princes of Zoan are utterly foolish; the wise counselors of Pharaoh are senseless” from Job 12:24 (cf. also Job 10:16 and Isa 38:13; Job 38:17 and Isa 38:10 and so on). If the book of Job was known to Amos and Isaiah, then it appeared no later than Solomon and his age, since from the death of Solomon to Jeroboam II, the contemporary of Amos, no Old Testament books appeared, and there was no one to write them.

While the correspondences of the book of Job with the Psalms, Proverbs, and the books of the prophets Amos, Isaiah, and Jeremiah (Job 3:1, Jer 20:1) give the above-mentioned exegetes the right to consider it written in the age of Solomon, in the hands of other scholars these data are transformed into proofs of its later origin. It was not Amos, Isaiah, and Jeremiah who were familiar with the book of Job, but, on the contrary, the author of the latter with their works. It is later than they, written after Hezekiah, as reasons Rigm, or at least in the age of Isaiah, as Strachey asserts. Among other exegetes, Ewald and Renan date the composition of the book of Job to the times of Manasseh; Gritzel to the times of the captivity of Jehoahaz, since its author shows familiarity with Egypt; Schrader, Nöldecke, Reuss to the period of the Assyrian captivity, to which Job 12:14-24 of the book of Job allegedly points. The latest date for the composition of the book of Job is considered by scholars of the negative direction (Grotius, Clericus, Schrader, Dillmann) to be the period after the Babylonian captivity. It supposedly belongs to this time because it bears in its language strong Aramaic coloring, characteristic only of post-captivity biblical writers; in grammatical forms and expressions it has parallels in Ps 136, in Daniel and the Targums, and finally, in certain points of doctrine (concerning Satan, guardian angels—Job 1-2; Job 5:1) it is similar to the book of Daniel (Dan 4:10) and Zechariah (Zech 3:1-3).

The just-enumerated opinions of Western biblical scholars have found their place also in Russian literature devoted to the book of Job. Thus, Metropolitan Philaret (The Book of Job in Russian Translation with Brief Explanations), Bishop Agathangel (The Holy Job the Sufferer), and Archbishop F. Bukharev (The Holy Job the Sufferer) assign it to the most ancient works of biblical literature. “By conjecture,” says the first, “the book of Job is assigned to the time of the patriarchs.” “It,” remarks the latter, “originated before the Mosaic legislation” (p. 4). Bishop Irenaeus (Orda) considers the book of Job written in the time of Hezekiah (A Guide to Sequential Reading of the Wisdom Books of the Old Testament); Metropolitan Arseny of Kiev (Introduction to the Holy Books of the Old Testament. Works of the Kiev Theological Academy, 1873, II) and Professor Yungerov (A General Historical-Critical Introduction to the Sacred Books of the Old Testament, p. 25. The Origin of the Book of Job. Orthodox Interlocutor, 1906. March, p. 334) before the Babylonian captivity; Mr. Pisarev (On the Origin of the Book of Job. Orthodox Review, 1865. May) and Afanasyev (The Wisdom Books of the Old Testament) in the age of Solomon, while Bishop Philaret of Riga (The Origin of the Book of Job), basing himself on its similarity to all the canonical books, declares it the very latest work of biblical literature.

The book of Job is one of the earliest and very latest works of Old Testament canonical literature—such are the two extreme opinions about the time of its origin. But as for the first, it admits an impossible and improbable fact—the appearance at the beginning of literature of such a work which in content is the height of religious reflection, and in form—one of the greatest poetic works of all the world, a poem perfect in design and magnificent in execution. The period of legislation is not characterized by abstract theoretical discussions, still less those encountered in the book of Job. In particular, the works of Moses are pervaded by faith in divine justice and strict correspondence between piety and earthly prosperity, while the book of Job not only expresses doubt about this, but reaches direct negation of righteousness in the matter of divine governance (see chapters Job 9; Job 10; Job 12). According to the teaching of Moses, the happiness of the righteous, the reward for piety, consists in the enjoyment of earthly goods (Deut 28:1). Job, however, just as he did not rejoice greatly in his great riches and the gains of his hands (Job 31:25), so too did not sink into despair when deprived of them (Job 1:21). For him, a pious man, earthly goods do not constitute the highest reward; this is God himself (Job 22:25), the highest good being the consciousness of devotion to him (Job 6:10). In short, in the matter of the development of religious and moral consciousness, the book of Job represents an undoubted step forward compared to the Pentateuch. Their appearance in one age is impossible. The second opinion also cannot be admitted. The pre-captivity origin of the book of Job is confirmed by the above-quoted words of the prophet Ezekiel. By repeating verses 20–22 of chapter 5 of the book of Job, they presuppose its existence. As for the marks of its post-captivity origin noted by exegetes (teaching about Satan and guardian angels), they do not have such significance. Teaching about good spirits, in particular about guardian angels, is already encountered in the book of Genesis (Gen 28:12-22; Gen 32:1-2; Gen 48:16) and is fully developed in Ps 90:1, while the books of Kings speak of an evil, lying spirit (1 Sam 16:14-15; 1 Sam 22:19-23). In view of this, there are insufficient grounds for considering such teaching in the book of Job as borrowed from the Persians in the post-captivity period.

The book of Job was compiled in the interval between Moses and the Babylonian captivity, most likely in the age of Solomon.

If the time of the writing of the book of Job can be determined more or less plausibly, then the personality of its author remains completely unknown. It was certainly not Moses, and to consider Solomon the author, as Gregory the Theologian and John Chrysostom suggest, there is as much reason as for any sage of his time. Keil, for example, conjectures that the author was Heman. To an unknown Hebrew author belongs, however, only the contemporary edition of the book of Job; at its foundation lies, as is thought, a record not of Hebrew but of Arab-Edomite origin. “The origin of the book in Arabia is confirmed,” says Professor Yungerov, “by the close familiarity revealed in it with the life of the peoples inhabiting Arabia; for example, the detailed description of the extraction of gold, practiced in Arabia (Job 28:1-11); the description of Arabian horses, intelligible to his audience (Job 39:19-25), the ostrich, the wild ass, the unicorn, the peacock (Job 39:1-18). Among the biblical writings of the Hebrews nothing similar is encountered, since in densely populated Palestine these animals, which love the Arabian steppe and desert expanse, could not dwell. Job’s wealth consisted, among other things, of camels (Job 1:3), and they are recognized as the property of inhabitants of deserts (Isa 30:6), steppes, nomads and wanderers (Judg 6:5; 1 Chr 5:21; Jer 49:29). In none of the biblical books is there a description of crocodiles, or leviathans, as in the speech of the Lord (Job 40:1—Job 41:1). This can be explained from the supposition that the Hebrews, having not seen anything like this in their Jordan, might not understand such a description, while the Arabs, having traveled to Egypt with their caravans (Gen 37:25-28) and seen these animals in the waters of the Nile, could understand it. In general, the foreign, non-Hebrew origin of the book is evident from the silence of the writer and the persons described about the Hebrews, Hebrew Old Testament law, events of Hebrew history, and so forth” (Orthodox Interlocutor, 1906. March, p. 336–337). If, however, despite its non-Hebrew origin, the book of Job sets forth purely biblical teaching about God, the creation of the world, Sheol, good and evil spirits, and coincides in language with other Old Testament books, then this is explained by the fact that the original record of the history of Job’s sufferings and beliefs (Job 19:24-27) became known to some Hebrew divinely inspired writer who was familiar with the Arabic language. He translated it into Hebrew, perhaps made certain revisions, brought it into agreement with biblical Old Testament views, and with the assistance of divine inspiration compiled the canonical book (Ibid., p. 339). Traces of such reworking are indicated, among other things, in the symmetrical enumeration of Job’s children and possessions: seven sons and three daughters, seven thousand sheep and three thousand camels; five hundred oxen and five hundred female donkeys—in the assignment of calamities to one day, and also in the strictly executed plan, gradualness in the flow of thoughts, constant parallelism of members, and so forth.

The composition and fundamental idea of the book of Job. Consisting of 42 chapters, the book of Job is divided into five parts: prologue—Job 1:1—Job 2:1; conversations of Job with his friends—Job 3:1—Job 31:1; the speeches of Elihu—Job 32:1—Job 37:1; the speeches of the Lord—Job 38:1—Job 42:6; epilogue—Job 42:7-36. Of these, the prologue contains, as in any drama, the beginning of the action—a dispute of Job with his friends, renewed three times. Not having led to a resolution of the question about the causes of his suffering, as the disputants remained in their views, it approaches its end, thanks to the speeches of the younger friend Elihu: they provoke the intervention of the Lord, accompanied by the resolution of the action in the epilogue. Into such a framework is inserted the content of the book of Job, unfolding the principal idea that the sufferings of the righteous, constituting a manifestation of the struggle between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent (prologue), are at the same time indicators of its results—the final triumph of righteousness, the victory of good over evil. Stricken according to Satan’s slander with all manner of calamities, Job remains faithful to God when deprived of material things (Job 1:21-22; Job 2:10), does not abandon him even when subjected to temptations of a spiritual nature. These consist in the possibility of losing faith in God as a righteous being, in renouncing him. And indeed, Job comes close to such a state. In moments of greatest agitation, deepest despair, he represents God as an arbitrary being, destroying equally the righteous and the wicked (Job 9:22-24), supporting the wicked and the ungodly (Job 12:6-10; Job 21:1-16). The Almighty, tolerating no objections and accepting no reproaches, the Lord (Job 9:4-12) violates righteousness both toward individual persons and entire peoples. The divine wisdom governing their fates manifests itself and is revealed in various kinds of catastrophes, leading to the destruction of entire nations (Job 12:16-25). Such a view of divine governance is for Job equivalent to abandoning his former religious worldview, one of the principal points of which was the conception of God as a righteous being (Job 29:1-5). But to abandon what has become one with the soul, what constituted its life, cherished convictions, cannot be done without a struggle. The mind and heart of the sufferer cannot reconcile themselves with the new conception of God, formed under the influence of suffering and especially conversations with his friends. The latter yearns to see in God a merciful, just Judge (Job 14:13-15; Job 23:3-7); reason comes to its aid, devising a whole series of reflections, by means of which Job attempts to justify God’s treatment of him, to present him as a righteous being (Job 10:2-12). As a result of such a struggle, faith conquers doubt (Job 16:19; Job 19:25-27). Job’s own words prove true of him, that the sufferer “will hold fast to his way, and the clean of hands will become stronger and stronger” (Job 17:9). Because of the age-long struggle between good and evil, the sufferings of the righteous—representatives of righteousness—are inevitable. As a fact of personal, subjective life, they find justification, compensation in their results—in the strengthening of the righteous in good—“I was comforted in my relentless anguish, because I did not reject the sayings of the Holy One” (Job 6:10).

The authenticity of the book of Job. Biblical introductory literature does not know an example of denying the authenticity of the entire book of Job. Only certain parts are questioned: the prologue (Job 1; Job 2), the epilogue (Job 42:7-17), Job’s speech about divine wisdom with the preceding discussion of the punishment of the wicked (Job 27:7 and following; Job 28), the description of Behemoth and Leviathan (Job 40:10—Job 41:1), and finally, the speeches of Elihu (Job 32:1—Job 37:1).

The authenticity of the prologue and epilogue is first of all rejected on the main ground that, in contrast to the rest of the book, they are written in prose. But if, by Keil’s just remark, the middle of the book without historical introduction and conclusion would be a torso without head and legs, on the other hand, written in prose, the prologue and epilogue bear undoubted poetic character. This is vouched for by the proportionality in the enumeration of animals (Job 1:3), the description of the heavenly council (Job 1:6), poetic parallelism in Job’s speech (Job 1:21). Another basis for rejecting the prologue and epilogue consists in the supposed contradiction of their idea to the book’s idea. While it expresses its own particular, profound view of suffering, the author of the introduction, especially the conclusion, adheres to the usual Old Testament (Mosaic) theory of retribution. But as for the prologue, the teaching contained in it about the mystery of Job’s sufferings (the heavenly council unknown to him or his friends) constitutes an undoubted indication that when compiling it the author took into account the book’s views on this subject. The epilogue indeed conducts the Mosaic theory of retribution and applies it to Job. But this is explained by the fact that verbal justification of Job without the restoration of earthly prosperity is not able to satisfy an Old Testament person. As signs of the prologue and epilogue’s inauthenticity, finally, they point to the use in them of the divine name Jehovah—in the poetic part it is not found, and is replaced by the names Elohim, Shaddai, to the contradiction between Job 1:18-19 and Job 19:17, and the teaching about Satan—a product of Persian influence. The first objection is based on a simple misunderstanding. The name Jehovah appears twice in the poetic part (Job 12:9) and no fewer than five times in the speeches of the Lord (Job 38:1; Job 40:1; Job 42:1). The more frequent use in the speeches of Job and his friends of the names Elohim, Shaddai, is explained by the author’s striving to communicate to the entire action the color of the patriarchal, pre-Mosaic period, in view of which he avoids the name of God of the covenant—Jehovah (cf. Exod 6:3. Commentary Bible. Volume 1, p. 291). Regarding the second objection, see the explanation of Job 19:17, and the third—the end of the “Introduction” section, “on the time of writing of the book of Job.”

The basis for questioning the authenticity of Job 27:7 and following, and Job 28:1, is the apparent contradiction of the teaching contained in them with Job’s fundamental views. In Job 27:7 and following, the sufferer himself expounds the very theory of retribution—the punishment of sinners—which he himself vigorously and persistently refutes in many speeches (see, for example, Job 21:7 and following; Job 24:1). Chapter Job 28:1, by depicting divine, incomprehensible wisdom, seeks to awaken a sense of humility before God, which does not correspond to Job’s proud confidence in his righteousness and the resulting unwillingness to repent (see, for example, Job 9:21). But in recognizing in Job 27:7 and following the fact of divine punishment of sinners, Job wishes to correct his former one-sided view, which reduced to denying divine justice (see also the commentary on these verses). One cannot entirely reject it, and at the same time it is impossible to deny cases of the unpunished wickedness of sinners (Job 21:7 and following). To emphasize this thought, Job describes in Job 28:1 the incomprehensible to mankind divine wisdom: its activity in the distribution of happiness and misery in the lives of people presents much that is mysterious.

As interpolations, chapters Job 40:10 and following, and Job 41, constitute, in the opinion of Ewald, Meyer, Dillmann, and Fürst, the work of some Jew of the sixth century who had been in Egypt and described two animals of the Nile. The following considerations serve as the basis for considering them a later insertion. 1) The meaning and purpose of the speeches of Jehovah do not permit the description of animals at this place. An illustration by means of its depiction of divine omnipotence is appropriate in the first speech, but not in the second, which unfolds the thought of divine justice. 2) The very way of proving divine omnipotence does not achieve its goal. If all animals, not excepting Behemoth and the crocodile, are subject to man (Gen 1:26), what then is remarkable about their obedience to God? Second, Behemoth and the crocodile are Egyptian animals, unknown to the inhabitants of Palestine, and therefore their description is not able to produce the particular, necessary in this case, impression. 3) The lengthy description of animals is entirely superfluous for the purposes of the second speech, fully completed in Job 40:1-9. And conversely, Job 41:26 does not constitute a conclusion, does not contain an indication that now Job must answer (Job 42:1 and following).

As to the first objection, it overlooks the circumstance that it is foreign to the author to separate divine omnipotence from justice. Already from the first speech it is evident that the Almighty, who by his power introduces order and harmony into visible nature, the Lord, is at the same time also just. Likewise, the description of two colossal animals, symbols of an evil, rebellious against God force, makes it clear that the almighty and perfectly just Lord subdues the manifestations of evil. The inappropriateness and weakness of the second objection is seen from the fact that on the same grounds we would have to suspect the authenticity of the description of earthquakes, solar eclipses (Job 9:5-6), the mention of Orion (Job 38:31), and so forth: not all inhabitants of Palestine were witnesses to the first phenomena, not all are familiar with the arrangement of stars in the constellation Orion (see the commentary). The third objection also has no force. If the second speech of the Lord embraced only the first nine verses of chapter 40, it would be too brief compared to the first and could not awaken in Job the consciousness of his insignificance and divine omnipotence (Job 42:2). And conversely, with the present composition of the book it is excellently prepared both by the remark Job 40:2-3 and the concluding touches in the description of the crocodile (Job 41:26).

The grounds on which scholars—Eichhorn, De Wette, Schrader, Meyer, Ewald, Dillmann, Davidson, Renan, and others, of more recent ones Ley—suspect the authenticity of the speeches of Elihu are as follows. 1) Nothing is said about Elihu in either the prologue or the epilogue, and in both places only three friends are mentioned. He appears quite unexpectedly. In reality, the silence about Elihu in the prologue and epilogue is not proof that he was not with the friends, that this person was fictitious and inserted into the book by another writer later. Elihu was young in comparison to the three friends and came, according to his own words, not to speak but to listen to the speeches of the elders (Job 32:3-7). In view of this, the author does not mention him until the necessity arises to introduce him into the course of the action. Mention of Elihu is also unnecessary in the epilogue: he was not guilty for his speeches before God and Job. The divine anger extends only to the three elder friends (Job 42:7). 2) The speeches of Elihu allegedly violently interrupt the connection between Job’s last speech and the speeches of Jehovah. The introduction to these latter necessarily presupposes that Job spoke directly before the Lord, and the fragmentary end of his last speech (Job 31:33-40) is explained only by the fact that he was suddenly interrupted by Jehovah. But if the speech of the Lord has a direct relation to Job’s last speech, and not to the speeches of Elihu, this still does not speak to the fact that the latter were inserted later. God enters into conversation with Job according to his own desire (Job 31:35), and therefore his words should directly relate to the last speech of the sufferer. Moreover, Job remained silent throughout the speeches of Elihu, in accordance with which they stand quite separately, not like the speeches of the first three friends, to each of which Job gave a response. The silent Job is called upon by God to answer (Job 38:1). Having not given an answer to an equal being (Job 33:4-7), can he make objections to the Lord? The transition from the speeches of Elihu to the speeches of Jehovah is entirely natural and clear. On the external side, it is prepared by the fact that the last speech of Elihu is pronounced before the onset of the storm (Job 37:2-4), and immediately after, in the storm, the Lord appears. Vainly, finally, is the assertion that Job’s speeches are not completed, so that the Lord interrupts them. On the contrary, his final protective speech refers to all that he had previously said about his innocence, as a sealing, confirming letter with a signature—it is the same as “tav,” the last letter of the Hebrew alphabet, used to certify something (see commentary Job 31:35). 3) A sharp contrast is noted between the lengthy introduction to the speeches of Elihu (Job 32:2-6) and the brief notice of the arrival of the friends. The introduction to the speeches of Elihu is necessary for determining the personality of the new interlocutor, clarifying his relation to the preceding speakers. In them he appears in the role of an arbiter between the disputants. Elihu seeks to clarify the errors that Job made in his speeches, and does not touch the question of his sinfulness. And from this side he prepares the speeches of the Lord, pointing out to the sufferer new shortcomings in his judgments, not noted by Elihu. Therefore, in the introduction to the speeches of Elihu, his wisdom is noted. 4) In accordance with Job’s response to the speeches of his friends, it would be natural to expect that he not leave without objection the speeches of Elihu, yet this is not observed. Job’s silence represents nothing special if one takes into account the contrast observed between the friends who dispute with Job and the standing above party concerns Elihu. His reasoning prepares the resolution of the action—in the exposure of Job’s incorrect judgments, they point to the way in which his faith can be maintained. And if the author’s goal is to show how Job’s doubts are resolved, how faith in God triumphs in him over doubt, and the speeches of Elihu are directed to this end, then it is strange to require that he involve Job in a dispute with a new friend. This would mean delaying the resolution of the question. 5) The inauthenticity of the speeches of Elihu is finally proved, they say, by their Aramaic coloring and peculiarities in style—the use of words and expressions unknown to the speeches of the other friends. But the Aramaisms in the speeches of Elihu are explained by his Aramaic origin from the family of Buz (Job 32:2). A representative of another tribe than the friends, Elihu speaks differently. That the author intentionally gave the speeches of Elihu an Aramaic coloring is evident from the fact that it is noticeable only in two cases (Job 32:6 and following; Job 36:2 and following).

* * *

The contemporary arrangement of the wisdom books in the Greco-Slavonic Bible differs somewhat from the ancient. Namely, in the Sinai Codex they are arranged in the following order: Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Job; in the Vatican manuscript, after the book of Song of Songs follows Job and then Wisdom of Solomon and Sirach.