Page:03.BCOT.KD.HistoricalBooks.B.vol.3.LaterProphets.djvu/1518

 essential and most beautiful portions of the dramatic whole, forms this transition. Eichhorn (in his translation of Job, 1824), who formerly (Allgem. Bibliothek der bibl. Lit. Bd. 2) inclined to Kennicott's view, and Böckel (2nd edition, 1804) seek another explanation of the difficulty, by supposing that in Job 27:13-23 Job reproduces the view of the friends. But in Job 27:11 Job announces the setting forth of his own view; and the supposition that with זה חלק אדם רשׁע he does not begin the enunciation of his own view, but that of his opponents, is refuted by the consideration that there is nothing by which he indicates this, and that he would not enter so earnestly into the description if it were not the feeling of his heart. Feeling the worthlessness of these attempted solutions, De Wette (Einleitung, §288), with his customary spirit of criticism with which he depreciates the sacred writers, turns against the poet himself. Certainly, says he, the division Job 27:11-28:28 is inappropriate and self-contradictory in the mouth of Job; but this wan to clearness, not to say inconsistency, must be brought against the poet, who, despite his utmost endeavour, has not been able to liberate himself altogether from the influence of the common doctrine of retribution. This judgment is erroneous and unjust. Umbreit (2nd edition, S. 261 [Clark's edition, 1836, ii. 122]) correctly remarks, that “without this apparent contradiction in Job's speeches, the interchange of words would have been endless;” in other words: had Job's standpoint been absolutely immoveable, the controversy could not possibly have come to a well-adjusted decision, which the poet must have planned, and which he also really brings about, by causing his hero still to retain an imperturbable consciousness of his innocence, but also allowing his irritation to subside, and his extreme harshness to become moderated. The latter, in reference to