Page:Job and Solomon (1887).djvu/310

 6. Page 52 (On Job xxxviii. 31, 32, ix. 9).—(1) I admit that the identification of and the Pleiades is uncertain. Still it is plausible, especially when we compare Ar. kumat 'heap.' And even if it should be shown that kimtu was not the Babylonian name for the Pleiades, this would not be decisive against the identification proposed. The Babylonians did not give the name kisiluv to Orion, yet Stern's argument (Jüdische Zeitschrift, 1865, Heft 4: comp. Nöldeke, Schenkel's Bibel-Lexikon, iv. 369, 370) in favour of equating k'sîl and Orion remains valid. (2) As to 'sweet influences' is fortunate enough to exist by sufferance in the margin of R.V. It is sometimes defended by comparing 1 Sam. xv. 32. But the only possible renderings there are 'in bonds' or 'trembling' (see Variorum Bible ad loc.). Dr. Driver has shown that 'sweet influences' is a legacy from Sebastian Münster (1535). (3) is probably not to be identified with (2 Kings xxiii. 5), in spite of the authority of the Sept. and the Targum (see Dillmann's note). In this I agree with G. Hoffmann, whose adventurous interpretations of the astronomical names in Amos and Job do not however as yet seem to me acceptable. According to him, kîma = Sirius, k'sîl = Orion, Mazzaroth = the Hyades and Aldebaran, 'Ayish' = the Pleiades (Stade's Zeitschrift, 1883, Heft 1). Mazzaroth = Ass. mazarati; Mazzaloth (i.e. the zodiacal signs) seems to be the plural of mazzāla = Ass. manzaltu station.

7. Pages 60-63.—That the story of Job is an embellished folk-tale is probable, though still unproved. The delightful humour which in the Prologue (see pp. 14, 110), as in the myths of Plato, stands side by side with the most impressive solemnity of itself points to this view. No one has expressed this better than Wellhausen, in a review of Dillmann's Hiob, Jahrbücher für deutsche Theologie, xvi. 552 &c.: 'Den launigen und doch mürrischen Ton, den der nonchalante Satan Gott gegenüber anschlägt, so ganz auf Du und Du, würde schwerlich der Dichter des Hiob gewagt haben; schwerlich auch würde es ihm gelungen sein, mit so merkwürdig einfachen Mitteln so wunderbar plastische Figuren zu entwerfen.' He also points out the inconsistencies of the story, precisely such as we might expect in a folk-tale, and concludes (a little hastily) that the Prologue is altogether a folk-story and had no didactic object. Eichhorn, too, in a review of Michaelis on Job (Allgemeine Bibliothek, i. 430 &c.), well points out that the illusion of the poem is much impaired by not admitting an element in the plot derived from tradition. Of course this view of Job as based on a folk-tale is quite reconcileable with the view that the hero is a personification.