Job.
Job.
§ 133. Job. The interpreters, both Jews and Christians, vary greatly about this book. Rabbi Moses Ben Maimon (More Nebuchim, part 3, sect. 22) denies that Job was ever possible [in rerum natura]; therefore he thinks that [Job] is only an example. The Hebrews (Talmud, ordin. 4, tr. 3) do not have the Book of Job in the divine volumes nor do they think that he lived among humans. Ezekiel’s testimony, however, refutes this opinion (Ezek. 14:14), and this is in conformity with what we have in James 5:11. In De verbo Dei, bk. 1, c. 5, Bellarmine tries to draw Luther into agreement with this error because Luther declares (in Conviv. sermon., title De patriarchis et prophetis) that he does “not believe that all things happened as they are told in the Book of Job”26 and also because he says (title De libr. V. et N.T.): “The Book of Job is like the argument of a fable for setting forth an example of long-suffering.”27
We respond, however, in this way. (1) The Table Talh was not seen, read, nor approved by Luther but had been changed often, mutilated, and added to by private whim of anyone, something that rightly takes genuine trustworthiness from it. (2) Luther himself warns that the things he said in convivial conversation among his friends must not be considered as articles of faith, as Selnecker relates in the preface to the Table Talh. (3) In the German version of the Bible, [Luther] kept the Book of Job among the canonical books and distinguished it from the apocryphal books. (4) Luther’s words are quoted out of context, for he adds in the same place: “I think the Book of Job is true history.” Also: “Meanwhile, it touches upon the truth of the situation and on the act itself.” (5) Luther only doubts whether Job sets forth everything in external speech or, on the other hand, thought some of it. For in temptations and troubles people generally say few things aloud nor do they generally arrange them in this order. He thinks, therefore, that some learned man at the time of Solomon, or even Solomon himself, put all this into this order. (6) We should accept Luther’s words in regard to both order and method of treatment, for this kind of hysteron proteron [
] is not at all uncommon in Scripture. (7) Luther does not use the word “fable” for a fictitious narrative, for in the same place he calls it a true history. Rather, he uses it for the subject of comedy in the same sense that the history of Josephus, reduced into the form of comedy, is generally called “fable” and the “arguments of fable.” (8) Let Bellarmine recognize his own words, De verbo Dei, bk. 1, c. 9, § At Hieronymus: “The ancients sometimes use the word ‘fables’ not for fictitious matters but for true narrations, as it is said in the last chapter of Luke [v. 15]: ‘It happened while they were telling stories [fabularentur] ….’ Minucius Felix, at the beginning of the dialogue that he titles Octavius calls a true story of someone’s sailing voyage a ‘fable.’”
§ 134. But let us return to the Book of Job. Rabbi Isaac thinks that this Job was Jobab, king of the Edomites, who is mentioned in Gen. 36:34. Although Rabbi Aben Ezra in his commentary on this passage laughs at this opinion, and though Jerome does not approve it (QQ. Hebraic. super Genes.), nevertheless Dr. Zehnerus confirms it with arguments we must not hold in contempt: (1) From the circumstances of places. Jobab lived “in the land of Edom” (Gen. 36:[31]); Job lived “in the land of Uz” (Job 1:1), which was the primary tract of the king of Edom (Lam. 4:21), which is proved by the invasion of the neighboring Chaldeans and Arabs.
(2) From the description of the public offices. Moses witnesses that Jobab was illustrious in royal majesty (Gen. 36:33). As testimony that Job was conspicuous because of his great office [dignitas], there is his wealth. This is attributed to him in such abundance as scarcely can fall to the lot of a private citizen (Job 1:2ff.). Then there is that praise that he is called “the greatest of all the people of the east” (Job 1:3). There is his dignity, because the princes rose for him (Job 29:[8-9]); his garb, because he was crowned with a diadem (v. 14); and his office, because he “delivered the poor who cried and the orphan who had none to help him” (v. 12). Suidas calls him “an ancient nobleman from the east, famous and celebrated.”
(3) From the similarity of names. As Moses lists among the children of Esau the name of a certain Eliphaz who begat Prince Teman, the founder of the town bearing his name (Gen. 36:10, 15), so also in the account of Job there is a repetition of the same name, Eliphaz the Temanite. The name of Job seems to be a contraction of Jobab.
(4) From a reckoning of the time. We seem to be able to conclude from Job’s long life span that he was older than Mosaic times, for his age rises far higher than the limit set by Moses (Ps. 90:10). Job lived for 140 years after the plagues, and he had lived for many years before because he had fathered seven sons and three daughters. Isidore (De vit. et mort. Patriarch., c. 24) writes that Job lived for 248 years, an age that no one reached at the time of Moses.
(5) From the judgment of various authors. In Tobit 2:1528 the friends and kinsmen of Job are honored with the name “kings.” The Septuagint translators, after the conclusion of Job 42, call him “King Jobab” in clear language. Their words read as follows:
This is translated from the Syriac book: He dwelt in the land of Ausitis, on the borders of Idumaea and Arabia. His name previously was Jobab, and having married an Arabian woman, he begot a son whose name was Ennon. Now he himself was a son of his father, Zare, one of the sons of Esau, and his mother’s name was Bosorrha, so that he was the fifth [generation] from Abraham. Now these were the kings who reigned in Edom, over which country he ruled. The first was Balak, the son of Beor, and the name of his city was Dennaba. And after Balak, Jobab, who is called Job.
And later: “Now the friends who came to Job were Eliphaz, of the sons of Esau, the king of the Thaimanites; Baldad, the prince of the Saucheans; and Sophar, the king of the Menaians.” (All this is not extant in the Hebrew and was not added by Aquila and Symmachus but only by the Septuagint translators and Theodotion.) With these words, they explain that Job lived within the borders of Edom and Arabia; that he was the great-grandson of Esau; and that he was the fifth generation of Abraham; that he was the king of Edom; and that earlier he had been called “Jobab”; finally, that each of his friends—Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar—bore the title “king.” Aristeas, a pagan writer and contemporary of Ptolemy Philadelphus, king of Egypt, certified almost the entire account of Job and published for memory that Job not only had to be born of the descendants of Esau but also was known as Jobab before the calamity befell him. Philo mentions that Job married Dinah, the daughter of Jacob, whom Shechem had ravished earlier. Eusebius points out that even before the Law of Moses many were justified (Demonstr. evang., bk. 1, c. 5). After mentioning Abraham, he adds the example of Job, his great-great-great-grandson, and says: “Why, even Job, according to the witness of Scripture, is presented before the time of Moses as a man who was just and true, blameless, a stranger to all evil. For Moses is counted in the seventh generation from Abraham, but Job is in the fifth, so he precedes Moses by two generations.” Ambrose, commentary on Romans 9, claims that “Job was from the sons of Esau, the fifth generation from Abraham.” He also confirms that many of the offspring of Esau were converted to the true faith and were saved by Job’s example. Augustine, De civit. Dei, bk. 18, c. 47:
If they (the Jews) deny that anyone belonged to God besides the Israelites, they were easily refuted by the holy and wonderful man Job, who was not a proselyte, that is, who was a stranger to the people of Israel. He was born of the Idumaean race, grew up there, and also died there. He is so praised by the divine Word that no man of his times is equated with him as regards justice and piety. Although we do not find his dates in the Chronicles, nevertheless we conclude from his book, which the Israelites have accepted into canonical authority because of its merit, that he was in the third generation after Israel.
In his commentary on Genesis 22, Luther seems to state something diverse from this opinion, but in his comments on Genesis 36, where he explains his genealogy of the kings of Idumaea, he does not totally reject the opinion of Ambrose and Augustine but witnesses that “there were many guesses about him, and this one fits into history beautifully.” In his Chronic., Luther put Job or Jobab, the son of Zerah, grandson of Raguel, among the descendants of Esau.29 In the German Bible, [Luther] notes at Job 1 that Job is the King Jobab of Edom of Genesis 36.30
§ 135. To this opinion is opposed: (1) The difference in the writing, because “the one name is read as being written with an alef in the front, the other with a yod.” With this argument, Lyra declares that he has withdrawn himself from this opinion.
We can respond, however, that this permutation of letters is common in one and the same language of the Hebrews and that there is a far greater proclivity for this in those names that pass from Hebrew into Arabic, Idumaean, and similar dialects. Furthermore, it was not unusual for the holy fathers to change their own or their families’ names when fortune changed, as we see from the example of Abraham (Gen. 17:5) and Naomi (Ruth 1:20). Therefore it could have happened that he who was named Jobab with a doubled middle letter when his situation was prosperous was later called only Job with a shorter cutoff word when he was reduced to extreme anguish because of his adverse fortune. But even if no good reason could be given for the changed name, nothing would weaken that opinion, because many double names are found in Scripture.
(2) The authority of Jerome, who repudiates this opinion in Trad. Hebraic. super Genes. We can respond, however, that Jerome followed the rabbinic scholars who frequently, knowingly, and willingly imposed on him, as Capnio shows (Rudim. Hebr., bk. 2). Moreover, from his Epistle ad Evagrium, in which he numbers Job of the seed of Esau among the priests before the tribe of Levi, and from the preface attached to the Book of Job that was translated completely to the word according to the appendix [to the Book of Job] of the Septuagint translators, it is quite clear that Jerome was not totally opposed to this opinion.
§ 136. Meanwhile, we do not deny that in other places, especially in QQ. Hebr., vol. 4, f. 96, Jerome, as well as Lyra, on Job, claim that “Job was a relative of Bileam and that the origin of both goes back to Nahor, brother of Abraham,” because Job is said to have lived in the land of Uz (Job 1:1). Uz is said to have been the son of Nahor (Gen. 22:21). That region, however, seems to have received its name immediately after the flood, not from some later contemporary of Abraham but from Uz, son of Aram, grandson of Shem (Gen. 10:23). Although Rabbi Aben Ezra denies that Job is Jobab, the king of the Edomites whom Moses mentions, yet he claims that Job belonged to the family of Esau, using the argument of the things contained in Lam. 4:21. As we already have said, there are some who want the name Job to be a contraction of Jobab. Some, however, draw it from the Hebrew 
, which means “sage” or “wise man,” but they interject the initial letter from the name “Jehovah,” lest he be considered a secular wise man. Some say that it comes from 
, which means “to hate,” because Job was a hater or foe of every wickedness and unrighteousness.
§ 137. The opinions regarding the author of this book also vary greatly. Origen says that “Moses found the Book of Job at the house of his father-in-law, Jethro, in Midian and brought it to the attention of the children of Israel that they might learn patience from it” (bk. 1, on Job). Regarding this, Sixtus Senensis treats the matter in greater detail (Biblioth., bk. 1, p. 9). We have mentioned earlier, however, that it is most likely that Moses is the earliest writer among all the canonical books and that God Himself made the majestic beginning of canonical writing in the publishing of His Law. Rabbi Salomon and others of the Hebrews attribute the writing of this book to Moses. You see, if Job were the author of this book, the first of the sacred writers would not be Moses, but Job would be older than Moses, and this book would not have been accepted into the canon because Job was not an Israelite but an Edomite, and this book would not have been written in Hebrew but in Arabic.
** Some think that the friends of Job or one of the prophets wrote it. Rabbi Levi Ben Gerson writes in his commentaries on Job that at one time there were those who rejected the last eleven chapters of this book (that is, from c. 32 to the end) because at the end of c. 31 it says in the Hebrew: “The words of Job are finished.” However, the same Rabbi Levi disapproves of their opinion and says that that short verse must be referred not simply to the end of all of Job’s conversations but only to the end of the discussions that he had with his three friends, after which follow his conversations with the fourth of his friends, Elihu. **
Some, on the other hand, do attribute this book to Job himself because he pursues a lofty type of speech and surpasses all the prophets in the heroic gravity of his speaking. Also, his diction has much in common with the Syriac and Arabic languages.
** After the happy outcome of his tribulations, he completed his victories by writing by himself what he especially had wanted in his calamity, c. 19[:23]: “May someone grant me that my words may be written!” etc. Chapter 31[:35]: “May someone grant me that the Almighty may hear my desire!” **
We can reconcile both opinions, however, in this way: Job wrote the account of his activities in Arabic, indications of which still exist in some chapters of this book, especially in the conversations of his friends. Moses, however, translated it into Hebrew and added the beginning and the end. In this sense we can also accept Origen’s statement. On the same basis we can explain the argument taken from the difference in style, which is opposed to this opinion. In Moses, they say, the native peculiarity of the Hebrew language shines out. This makes his speech so clear and attractive that Numenius, the Pythagorean philosopher, calls Plato, the master of Attic eloquence, “the Attic Moses” because of his imitation of the smoothness of Moses. Job, on the other hand, has a familiarity with Syriac and Arabic and pursues a lofty kind of speech with the result that he excels all the other prophets, even Isaiah himself, in the heroic gravity of his speaking. As a result, because of the reading of Job 1, Jerome admits that he hired the teacher from Lydda for no small price. Also Luther states that in his German translation of Job he labored and perspired so anxiously that, though he used the works of Philippus and Aurogallus, nevertheless he often could barely translate three short lines in four days. From this they conclude that it was not Moses but Job himself who, after his divinely gained liberation, consigned his history to writing and transmitted it to posterity. The distinction we mentioned earlier, however, between the first rudiments of this book and the perfect elaboration of it seems to be able to satisfy this doubt.
The Greeks divide the volume of Job into thirty-two chapters; the Latins, into forty-two. There are also some among the Greeks who divide it into twenty conversations in this order: of God to the devil, one; of Job to his friends, nine; of Eliphaz to Job, three; of Zophar to Job, two; of Bildad to Job, three; of Elihu to Job, one; and of God to Job, one.
§ 138. Nothing is found in Holy Scripture about the name of Job’s wife. The Chaldean paraphraser and Philo, in Antiq. biblicis, think she was Dinah, daughter of Jacob. This opinion fits the hypothesis that Job was King Jobab of Idumaea. After Shechem had raped Dinah in the bloom of life, namely, when she was sixteen years old, she remained unmarried at her father’s house for some time. Later, when she was older, she was given in marriage to Job. The Septuagint translators and Jerome claim that Job’s wife was of the Arabic people. Some people reconcile these opinions in this way: Just as Moses took an Ethiopian wife after the death of Zipporah the Midianite, so Job married an Arabian woman after Dinah’s death and by her had his son Ennon. Augustine, on Psalm 55, discusses her in this way: “The tempter was admitted and took away everything he had. He alone remained, deprived of his resources, of his family, of his sons, but filled with God. His wife, to be sure, had been left. Do you think it was merciful of the devil to have left him his wife? The devil knew through whom he had deceived Adam, and he left her as his helper, not as her husband’s comforter.”
§ 139. But the devout ancients honor Job himself with fine praises. For though at the first coming of temptation he suffered something human and from impatience cursed the day he had been born “because of an excess of tribulation,” as Justin says (Resp. ad orthod. q. 15. p. 242), yet afterward he acknowledged this transgression of his in true repentance, placed his hands over his mouth, and sang a recantation. During the midst of his calamity, which the Hebrews say lasted twelve months but Suidas extends to seven years, he strongly overcame every reviling of the devil, his wife, his kinsmen, and even of his own flesh with heroic faith. Eusebius calls him “thrice-blessed” (
, bk. 1). Suidas discusses him in this way (f. 412):
He alone is of noble blood from birth to death. He is the famous one and the one who is much desired (
). He carried the final and ultimate prize of his tribulations, that along with Christ he rose and once again saw this world. This happened not according to the fable of Hercules and of Admetis, the deceased wife of Alcestis, whom the renowned victor Hercules on three successive nights (
) raised up for her husband, but because of the inexplicable power of our Savior, who despoiled Orcus and snatched up the dead from the underground places, who sits at the right hand of His Father along with His clients in His human nature [
],31 who governs all created things, both visible and invisible.
Suidas took this from the appendix that the Septuagint translators added to the Book of Job, in which they say: “Job died an old man at an advanced age, but it is written that he would rise again with those whom the Lord raised.” From this it appears that they took the prophecy of Job 19 in the sense that Job would rise with the Savior before the universal resurrection.
Chrysostom says that at his own time (when pilgrimages to holy places had begun to become common) “many people made long pilgrimages from across the sea, from their countries, to Arabia to see that hidden place and, having seen it, to kiss the ground on which Job had won his victories over his tribulations and a cross more precious than all of gold” (Ad Antiochenos, homily 5). In fact, the fame of that glorious struggle and the happy reversals that followed it spread not only to the kinsmen of Job but also to many nations far and wide. Consequently, Aristeas, Alexander Polyhistor, and other heathen writers wanted this to be put into their own books. Eusebius discusses this as follows (Praeparat. evangel., bk. 9, f. 251):
In his Historia Judaica, Aristeas affirms that Job was of the children of Esau and lived in Edom and Arabia and was renowned for both righteousness and wealth. He had seven thousand sheep, three thousand camels, five hundred yoke of oxen, five hundred asses. In addition, he owned 625 acres [mille … jugera] of land. This Job, who had earlier been named Jobab, was tested by serious disasters. First, thieves stole his beasts of burden, then his sheep perished from fires cast down from the sky. Finally, his children died in the collapse of his house, and on the same day, his entire body was covered with boils. When he was in such suffering, King Eliphaz of the Temanites, Prince Bildad of the Shuhites, and King Zophar of the Minaei came along with Elihu, son of Barachel the Buzite, to comfort him. Job responded to them that he was freely prepared to suffer everything in such a way that he would never be removed from his devotion to God. Thus because of his greatness of heart, he was cured of his illness and became richer than he had been before. This is what the Polyhistor has said.
§ 140. The Christian Church has always held the Book of Job in high regard. Jerome speaks about it as follows (Ad Paulinum, vol. 3, f. 7): “It determines all the laws of dialectic with its proposition, assumption, confirmation, conclusion. Every word in it is filled with feelings.” Suidas (loc. cit.) says that it sings far more sweetly than the Homeric and Platonic nightingales and embraces “an inquiry into the nature of the entire region, the natural orders of animals and birds, and some brilliant tales.” The summary of the whole book is whether God afflicts even the devout. This Job affirms, but his kinsmen deny it.
It has forty-two chapters, and we can divide it as we do drama into introduction [protasis], tension [epitasis], and happy reversal [catastrophe], yet in such a way that nothing is taken away from historical truth. Some divide it into dialogue and epilogue. In the dialogue, the persons who speak are God, Satan, Job, Job’s wife, and four of his kinsmen: Eliphaz, Bildad, Zophar, and Elihu. It is counted quite deservedly among the poetic books of the Old Testament, for Jerome (preface to Job) witnesses that “this book from the beginning of the third chapter to the sixth line of the last chapter consists of hexametric verses of spondees and dactyls,” though the nature of this meter is unknown to us today.