is the book of job a translation from an arabic original?

Is the Book of Job a Translation from an Arabic Original?Author(s): Frank Hugh FosterSource: The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures, Vol. 49, No. 1 (Oct.,1932), pp. 21-45Published by: The University of Chicago PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/528801Accessed: 05/04/2010 10:03

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to TheAmerican Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/stable/528801?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress

IS THE BOOK OF JOB A TRANSLATION FROM AN ARABIC ORIGINAL?

BY FRANK HUGH FOSTER, PH.D. Oberlin Graduate School of Theology

A recent study of the Book of Job led me unexpectedly to the query whether the confessed "arabisms" of the book were not something more than a mere departure from Hebrew. The scene and Arabian

atmosphere of the whole book which strongly impressed me and which Professor R. H. Pfeiffer has more fully developed' suggested that the reason for the arabisms might be that the book was originally written in Arabic. A little reading soon showed me that there had been some idea of such an origin in many writers, beginning with the LXX

(Job 42:18), where it is said to have been translated from the Syriac. Aben Ezra (b. ca. 1108) believed it a translation. Several early Protes- tant scholars believed it to be from an Arabic original. My attention was specially drawn to Schultens' Commentary on Job, and although I have found him to be against the supposition of an Arabic original, I have examined him carefully, and drawn from his discussions a large part of my argument for such an original. In recent times the supposition has been generally ignored, or, when mentioned, declared im-

possible. Perhaps the time has not been ripe for its critical examination. But in these days of scholarly and unprejudiced biblical criti-

cism, it may, and I think it should, receive a new and thorough discussion. I shall in the following pages present, as it appears to me, an

argument drawn from the book itself, for the hypothesis that it is a translation from an Arabic original. I do not present this argument as a final and conclusive one, but to rouse some scholar more competent than I, and possessed of more complete apparatus, to an adequate review of all the considerations for and against the hypothesis. If Professor Pfeiffer's contention that there is an "Edomitic" (why not Arabic?) document, S, among the elements from which Genesis was

compiled, is sustained, and if Job is believed to be an Arabic book, and

1 See ZA W, 1926 and 1930. I am indebted to both Professor George F. Moore and Professor Pfeiffer for reading my MS and making valuable suggestions.

21

22 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SEMITIC LANGUAGES

if, further, the apparent traces of a Semitism other than that of the

post-Exilic Jews in some of the Psalms, and occasionally in the Proph- ets, are accepted as indicating a considerable literary and religious commerce between Arabia and Palestine, evidently important modi- fications of the traditional view of the origin and progress of religion in Israel must be introduced, and a larger conception of the divine Providence in the religious guidance of mankind will be gained. The broader relations of the inquiry raise it to the level of a major theological topic of high potential importance. Therefore I would by this article put the question to oriental scholars, Is not the Book of Job to be regarded as a translation from an Arabic original?

I

I begin by recalling those first impressions as to the Arabic atmos-

phere and tone of the book, which form the first element in the discussion of our theme.

It is, first of all, a production of the desert. Its author has watched the desert wadi, swollen sometimes in winter to a torrent (38:25), always with some possibility of water, freezing by night but drying with the sudden coming of the heat (6:16 ff.); seen the fierce storms of the desert gather and break with thunder and lightning and whirl- wind (21:18; 27:21) and floods (14:19; 24:8; 27:20, 21); was familiar with the sand and barren rock of the trackless (12:24) and solitary wilderness, "wherein was no man" (38:26); watched the coming of the rain and the reviving of a "dead" earth (14:8),' and the springing of the grass and the pasturing camels; has seen the desert caravans, has perhaps himself conducted them (31:31, 32), known their search for water, led on, sometimes, by its "scent" (14:9) in the nostrils of the camels, and their terrible fate when they found none (6:18); ex- perienced the cold of the desert night (24:7); looked upon the con- stellations of the sky blazing in the dry and cloudless atmosphere (38:31 ff.); has eagerly practiced the hospitality of the desert (31:32). Thus the great waste of the desert, its customs and its inhabitants, live before us. The tent is its native dwelling-place, the trusted home (18:14), nightly pitched, upon a journey, by the desert trail (31:32). The wild creatures of the distant and unfrequented desert are familiar

1 Cf. the frequent use of this figure in the Koran, e.g., xxxvi. 33.

Is BOOK OF JOB A TRANSLATION FROM THE ARABIC? 23

objects of his interest, the wild ass, and the ostrich swifter than the

horse, foolish, and neglectful of her young (39:14). The domestic ani-

mals, camels and oxen and asses for burden-bearing and for work, and the horse for the gazu and the battle (39:19 ff.), are there. Thus it is the desert with which the author is familiar, so familiar that figures derived from it are constantly springing to his pen; but of the trade of the cities, of their crowds, of the rude manufactures of their people, of Israel as it was, and above all of its history, its kings, its palaces, the

temple, the festivals, its terrible exile, and its subjection to the hated

foreigner, not a word! The book is apparently a book which has come out of the desert.

The Koran, though "revealed" in Mecca and Medina, is also a book of the desert, and we may find in it many things which reflect this

origin. Its author looked out upon the same earth which the author of Job saw. And yet, remarkable as it may seem, there is no such picture of the desert and its life in the whole Koran, so much larger than Job as it is, as is painted in many a passage of our book. If the Koran is, in any degree, of the Arabian Desert, Job is so even more.

But Job was no Beduin, whose wandering home was in the midst of the trackless wastes. His wealth consisted in the wealth of the desert, in camels and sheep and oxen and asses, but he dwelt with his children in houses, or they were city people (29:7). Can any situation be found where the Arab lives in the midst of the desert, and yet in the city? The whole Najd fulfils this condition upon a large scale, but, still

better, the Jowf. It is a broad, deep valley, some sixty by ten miles in extent, fertile, well watered, flourishing with palm groves and

gardens and fields of grain, its principal town fortified, and filled with

houses, about four hundred in number. Here in our own time the city centers in the sheik, its ruler; and the community to which Job be-

longed had also its sheik, and that sheik was Job (chap. 29). His

prosperity, so exceptional; the great deference which was shown him when he came to preside in the court at the gate, where all, even to the

princes and nobles, kept silence at his coming; and his administration of justice (vss. 11-17) make this clear. And more, his regal impatience with opposition, which under his calamity roused him to fury' and even made him attack God in terms which no one would ascribe to a

1 Cf. 18:4, where Bildad describes Job as "tearing himself" in his anger.


pious Hebrew (7:11-21), is an additional proof, for it is an example of the effect, even upon a good man, of possessing absolute authority. It is a part of that Arabic atmosphere in which the whole book lives and moves, this sheikship of its principal character.

When we approach the religious side of the story, the tone is still Arabian. The pious Job offers daily sacrifices for his children, "lest

they had sinned and renounced God in their hearts." The children themselves have nothing to do with this service. No such vicarious sacrifices are provided for anywhere in the Hebrew religion. The sin- ner must present the sacrifice himself.

If the ritual is different, the idea of God is still more widely separat- ed from the Hebrew. The God of Job and his counselors is not the "friend" of man, but, until Elihu adds an element to that moment un- mentioned and unthought of, is viewed after the analogy of the actual Arab sheik. That absolute master of the Arab tribe was a capricious, arbitrary, cruel, and unreckonable despot. So is the God of Job. Like the sheik, he views the government of the world as a great game and plays it according to his liking. He does not think of the human

susceptibilities and interests of Job, but, regardless of them, he exposes his faithful servant to the most terrible suffering to gratify a whim, or, one may almost say, to gain a bet (2:5, 6). He is represented as passing all limits of self-restraint, as "tearing" Job in his wrath, "gnashing with his teeth" upon him (16:9), and pursuing him (19:22). As there is no regard to the interests of man, so there is no regard to justice. Yet, as to the Arab, there is to Job no hope of justice except from this divine sheik (16:19; 19:25). And in the d6nouement we have no re- lief. Man is simply crushed. "You have no wisdom or power that can be compared with mine," God says. "You have nothing to do but to submit." And Job submits. Then as God has unjustly deprived him of everything, so he now prodigally heaps upon him double wealth; and in that outcome, the hope of Job, that God was after all a God of justice, remains unjustified, or if justified in fact, by God's interfer- ence in Job's behalf is yet unexpressed in word. But still the finale seems to satisfy all concerned.

Now this is Arabian, and how absolutely so may be seen from the Koran, which supplies parallels at almost every point. God's mere will is universally viewed by Mohammed as the reason, sufficient and


superior to all criticism, of whatever he does. And what he does is "to appropriate his mercy to whom he pleases" (Koran ii. 99; xi. 109; xiv. 32; xxiv. 21). His administration of justice in his treatment of sinners is vengeful, cruel, and implacable. He apparently delights in the tortures of hell. With all his "mercy," there is sometimes ex-

pressed an antagonism to man amounting to hatred (xl. 10), and he is even said to "tempt" men (xiv. 32; xvi. 38, 39; cf. iii. 172). He, as well as Job's God, heaps wealth on certain men, but they are unbe-

lievers, and he does it "that they may err from his way" (x. 88; cf. xv. 3).

How thoroughly Arabian the Book of Job is at this point we may see if we look with a little more of detail at what has already been intimated just above. In chapters 9 and 10 Job expresses himself re-

garding God in contradictory terms. He is "wise" and "mighty" (9:4; cf. the constant refrains of the same nature in the Koran, e.g., ii.

205); above all question (9:3, 15, 16); beyond our understanding (9:10); angry without cause and without limit (9:13); arbitrary (9:17, 22); a malevolent plotter and spy (7:20); and there is no justice in his dealings (10:5 ff., 15 ff.). And yet, with all this, Job be- lieves in the justice of God, for he expects a witness to arise in his behalf (16:19), and a deliverer to appear and intercede for him

(19:25), which witness and deliverer is God, to whom he appeals against God himself (16:21). By a similar inconsistency, the Koran writes above its most lurid suras, "In the name of the merciful and

compassionate God"!! We have here, therefore, the old Arabian background, a religion of

monotheism,' with a strong emphasis upon the natural attributes of

God, omniscience, omnipotence, etc. Mohammed in his own conception was only reintroducing this religion, for he believed that the ancient Arabs were monotheists (Koran xxvii. 24; xxix. 61), and his

emphasis was also laid upon the natural attributes. In Job we are in Arabia.2 And this impression is heightened when we note that Job

1 This, which is the total impression of the book, is heightened by the passage (23: 13), "God is One," which will be discussed later.

2 Professor R. H. Pfeiffer sets forth at considerable length, in the articles already cited, the "Edomitic" character of the Book of Job. He draws his argument from the following considerations, of each of which he presents a number of illustrations: (1) The legend is itself Edomitic; so (2) the geographical references, (3) the flora and fauna, (4) the philoso- phy of the book, (5) parallels in the Psalms, and (6) per contra the lack of Jewish materials, look in the same direction.


utterly lacks the conception of God as a friend, which the writer of the stories about Abraham put into the chapters of Genesis. Here, again, Job agrees with the Koran.' But it was early Hebrew religion!

The principal argument for an Arabic original of the Book of Job is drawn from the appearance in the text of what may be called "translation-Hebrew." Any translator, however well qualified for his task, and however careful in performing it, is likely to fall unconsciously into peculiarities which show his production to be a translation and not his own untrammeled original composition. The principal of these errors of style are the following:

I. If the languages are at all akin, as is the case in Job, the transfer of words from one language to the other in which they do not exactly fit.

II. More common is the transfer of idioms introducing uncertainty and obscurity into the translation.

III. The transfer of proverbial expressions which are nonexistent or uncom- mon in the language of the translation.

IV. The use of expressions which, while correct in verbal and grammatical aspects, have an explanatory background in the original which is lacking in the translation, and without which they are obscure.

V. Mistranslations, or misunderstandings of the original. VI. Betrayal by a number of turns of thought and expression that the

atmosphere of the original was another from that natural to the derivative work.

VII. The impossibility of changing the scene of the original.

All these features of translation-language we may find exemplified in almost any translation, let us say, from German into English. The

comparison of such examples is the more instructive in the present case because the German and English sustain relations which are

quite analogous to those obtaining between Hebrew and Arabic.

Many examples may be found in the very valuable library of translations of German theological works issued by T. and T. Clark, Edin-

burgh. Some of these are so marred by the errors listed that they are in fact more difficult to understand in their English dress than in the German original. There lies before me at this moment an example

1 I shall call attention to the fact, which will receive accumulating evidence as we proceed, that the true kinship of this book is with the Koran rather than with any book of the Hebrew Bible. This is a fact of the greatest importance.


from another quarter in an article on Calvin's ethics. The translator

knew, perhaps, enough German for his task, had he only been more skilful as a translator. Forty-seven pages of this article give twenty- three examples of translation-English. There are fifteen examples of the first class given above, the transfer of words, e.g., "impious" used for "secular," "use" in the sense of "function," "over" (iiber) Chris- tians for "upon," etc. There are eight cases of the adoption of a German idiom, as a fact "fulfilling itself," "pious" consciousness for the consciousness "of a pious man," "lets us take" for "gives us," etc. Of course the German theological atmosphere is prevalent throughout the article. Who can doubt the meaning of such facts?

They were the result of the fact that the article was a translation from the German, and they would be a sufficient proof of translation, if we had no other means of knowing this fact. There are innumerable such

translations, shorter or longer, in our current theological literature, whose origin is indisputably exhibited by these peculiarities. No other

knowledge of their source is necessary to clinch the proof. And no amount of other considerations, of supposed impossibilities, of lack of

corroborations, of dim and hazy historical arguments, and of our

ignorance of any historical presupposition as to the existence of a

literary matrix for the supposed original can invalidate the proof. The following argument, therefore, demands a most critical examina-

tion; if judged successful, the contention is proved against all comers. We may restrict ourselves under this head to the earlier of the

classes of peculiarities of diction given above, and begin with

I. TRANSFERRED WORDS

The principle on which this class of proofs is founded is that, if a word is rare in Hebrew (especially those occurring but once), and the

meaning is unknown, or that gained by supposing it a pure Hebrew word does not fit the context, and if there is an identical Arabic root, or corresponding grammatical form, from which it might be trans-

ferred, the meaning of which does fit the context, then such a word is "translation-Hebrew," and the Arabic meaning is to be accepted as the true meaning.

1. I know that my Redeemer [F )] liveth, And that he shall stand up at the last upon the earth [ms], etc. [19:25].


This most famous passage is also one of the most striking cases of

unintelligibility which is completely solved by a reference to a supposed Arabic original. The interpretation has been wrecked by a mistranslation of the Heb. 013, by "earth." It has this meaning in no passage in the Old Testament. It means here, as everywhere, "dust," and in this case the dust into which the body is resolved in the tomb.' The clause is therefore to be rendered, "He shall stand over [my] dust." The missing "my" is rendered necessary by the

"my" expressed in verse 26, "my skin," and therefore "my dust." The metaphor is of an intercessor who, after the manner of the Arabs, should come to the grave to pray for the deceased. An exact parallel to the clause is contained in the Koran ix. 85,2 where Mohammed is forbidden to pray over any one of the Moslems who shirked military service on a certain occasion, or "to stand over his grave" (Arab.

sq.

p i.

; Heb. Dlp E"=-j

i ),l

i.e., to intercede for him.

In performing intercession, the intercessor took his stand at the

grave because the soul of the dead was believed to remain in the

body for a period variously defined. It thus becomes evident that the Heb. ' " is unfortunately translated. Understood as meaning "redeemer," who should stand upon the "earth," it was long ap- plied, in the current method of interpreting prophecies and types, to Christ. The innumerable difficulties thus created, often leading to a complete reconstruction of the text, may be seen by reference to any commentary. ?5X should be rendered by some such word as "deliverer" rather than "redeemer"; but, however rendered, it should be understood as an unfortunate rendering of the probable Arab. A, "intercessor." One should compare at this point the

passage 16:19, "my witness," which is only less emphatic since it lacks the element of assurance, but means substantially the same. There the word '4r;"i translates

L•d~Set, "eyewitness." An inter-

cessor is a witness, for his intercession consists in part in bearing witness. It was the Arabic idea that at the Judgment guilty men would seek an intercessor, and he is repeatedly refused them (Koran vi. 51; xl. 19; xxi. 28; lxxiv. 49; ii. 45; vii. 51, etc.); but Job believed that he,

1 Cf. Job 10:9; 20:11. The Arabic word is used in the Koran of the dust of the tomb (xiii. 5).

2 See Canon Cook, Bible Commentary, p. 77, upon whose suggestion this interpretation is founded.


being guiltless, should find such an intercessor,' and that in his identical flesh, which the Arabs, as witnessed by Mohammed, believed would be re-created for the purpose of judgment (Koran xvii. 100, 101: f, •;

. .... ~

C. L), in his re-created flesh

he should be vindicated. Perhaps the inaccurate ?bW was chosen by the translator because there is no exact equivalent in Hebrew for

C•A , TH 2, which is translated "intercessor" (Isa. 59:16),

being not quite the same, but is rather to be strictly rendered "intervener."

2. He shall have neither son nor son's son among his people, Nor any remaining '5It where he sojourned [18:19].

The Hebrew here is difficult, for 1""2a means properly a dwelling- place. As generally translated, the parallelism is rather flat. The kin- dred word %'0, generally rendered "sojourner," may be taken as a transfer from some Arabic form from the root

)L•, which in the III

means "to receive as a client," the derived noun )Lz. meaning "client."2 With this meaning the passage declares that the "wicked" are to be wiped out, self, sons, grandsons, and dependents-which makes the parallelism much better. Schultens gives us a passage from the Hamdsa of Abu Tammam in support of this interpretation:

We are those whose dependent [client,)L.-] suffers no fear, since our ears are deaf to the perfidy of others. We defend our domain; and our spears violate the domain of every people whose meadows are desired by our dependents, etc.

The Hamdsa, from which I shall cite a number of Schultens' quotations, as a collection of a large number of lesser poems, some well known, others obscure, from a wide range of territory, is a very good source of information upon prevailing Arabic modes of speech. We shall find these to be a legitimate source of explanation in many difficult passages.

3. They that dwell in my house [19:15]. The R.V. has here somewhat departed from the Hebrew, for "

does not mean exactly a dweller, as is intimated in the margin (so-

' One feels inclined to suppose that -\"•,

19:25, stands for an original Lj

(see Koran ii. 3 et passim), "in the world to come," but that might have been a bit too strong for the Hebrew agnostic eschatology.

2 See Freytag, also Lane, Dictionary.


journ). Take it for a transfer word from )L..

("client"), and you

have, as in the preceding example, a descending scale, "kinsfolk, personal friends, clients of my house [gen.], servants," all destroyed.

4. My supplication to the children of my own mother [lit., of my (mother's) womb, E.R.V.] [19:17].

This translation is impossible, for "supplication" involves apparently an emendation of "nrl to some noun, possibly n3i•r , where- as the rendering of the margin of the R.V. gives us a perfectly good meaning, "I am loathsome to the children of my body." So also

BDrB,I except as to the meaning of 't, which, however, they give under the word itself as meaning "body" as well as "womb," though not in the sense of the reproductive system. This rendering depends upon the Arabic for its authority, and if that Arabic is supposed to have been the original passage in an Arabic Job, and be reproduced as

~ cS . .,"I

am loathsome to the sons of my belly," all becomes perfectly plain.

5. Let his own eyes see his destruction [21:20]. The Hebrew for "destruction" is 7"1, of which "the meaning is

unknown" (BDrB). But we are not left in this darkness if we suppose an Arabic original. As a transfer of the Arab. L , it may have the

meaning "plot"-"let his own eyes see God's plot"-which has a

parallel in 7:20, "thou spy"; or according to the Qamus the meaning of the action of brushwood in emitting fire-in short, the torments

(of hell). The translation in the R.V. is thus a good guess.

6. Seeing that he judgeth those that are high [21:22]. This line gives an inappropriate sense. Schultens takes Cl'P"I

not from the root =11 but from C'"~, and cites the Arab.

?.), "rotten." This gives the meaning of the line "seeing he judgeth the

dead," which is in exact concord with the context, and probably correct. See the Koran (xxxvi. 78), "Who shall give life to bones when

they are rotten [ ]? 7. His pails [

•tj•] are full of milk [21:24].

1~3'"t is practically given up. As in so many cases, various

emendations are suggested, and the R.V. and other versions (Ball, "his belly [%=2] is full of milk") suggest various changes for the

1 Here and often below for Brown. Driver, & Brigg's great edition of Gesenius' Lexicon.


A.V.-"his breasts"!-but all are futile. Schultens explains it by a

supposed Arabic original from jra, ~.awo, a place where camels

lie down, and translates, "His pastures are full of milk." As usual he

brings an Arabic quotation to sustain him, and is confirmed by Freytag and Lane.

8. Who can pour out the bottles of heaven [38:37]? The verb translated "pour out"

(•Z•') is unintelligible as a He-

brew word ("cause to lie down") and is evidently given up by the R.V. Various emendations are suggested. The Dictionary (BDrB) makes it mean "tip up," so as to let the rain pour out, but that is as bad as an emendation. If it is taken as a transfer from the Arabic, all is plain; S means "to pour out" (water). Suppose the IV form to be used, which would naturally be reproduced by the Hiphil in Hebrew, and

you read, "Who causeth the bottles of heaven to pour out water?"

9. What time she lifteth herself on high [39:18]. The words "lifteth herself"

(R''2-), though referred by BDrB

to the Arabic root . ("urge on," as a horse), is translated by them,

somewhat grotesquely, "flaps away." Schultens translates "stirs herself up to run"; and so substantially the margin of R.V. This whole

passage (vss. 13-18) is the more clearly Arabic in origin from the fact

that, while the ostrich is a creature frequently mentioned by the

Arabs, it is mentioned only twice in the Old Testament. It was, in

fact, only to be found in distant and unfrequented parts of the desert, with which the Hebrews had nothing to do. Proverbial forms in Arab- ic are: "swift as an ostrich"; "borne upon the wings of the ostrich," i.e., attaining the highest degree of lightness in running.

The remaining passages which I have to consider under this class I shall defer to a later point. We now pass to

II. TRANSFER OF IDIOMS

The principle on which this class of proofs is based, is that an idiom which is not a Hebrew idiom, but which is found in Arabic, suggests an Arabic original.

10. He runneth upon him with a stiff neck, With thick bosses of his bucklers [15:26].

The translation "stiff neck" is hardly successful. "Stiff" is supplied. That phrase in English means "obstinately." Schultens shows by sev-


eral quotations that "with a neck" is used in Arabic in the sense of

"proudly" and "contemptuously." The word translated "boss" (=5) is used in this sense nowhere else. It is also defined "back" by BDrB. It would then take up the Arabic proverb, "He turned to him the back of his shield," for "showed himself an obstinate enemy"; as in the Hamasa, "When a friend attacks me with sinister suspicions, I turn the back of my shield to him," which is explained by the commentator in the sense given above. The meaning of the whole passage is, therefore, when taken as derived from an Arabic original, "He

charges at him haughtily and behaves as his unchanging enemy." 11. Come upon him [15:21]. The construction of R1 with an accusative suffix is difficult

Hebrew (cf. Gesenius, sees. 118 f.); but in the much looser use of the suffixes in Arabic, quite comprehensible there. An exact equivalent of this idiom is found in Koran xi. 78, "A punishment is coming upon them"

(p,•f).l 12. Thy fear [4:6].

Pbt', used here and in 15:4 and 22:4 in the sense of "the fear of God," is not a Hebrew idiom, and is not found elsewhere in the Old Testament. It is an arabism, as is shown by the use of the word in the Koran, where

ey means the fear "of God," without the

addition of that word (ii. 193, 185; xxii. 38; lxxiv. 55, etc.). In this use the noun has acquired the meaning of "piety," since this is, in Mohammedan theology, at bottom the fear of God (xxii. 33; ii. 238). So thoroughly established is this idiom that the verb ? is frequent-

ly used in the same sense without the addition of the object, as at ii. 199; xx. 112; xxxix. 29, 34. Quite parallel with this idiom is that by which the word "associates" (xlii. 20, ,X -) without the

phrase "with God" (cf. its use with this phrase, vii. 31) signifies "idols," "genii," etc., just as if the phrase were employed. After the word "fire" ()0) the word "hell" is generally omitted. This idiom

is so common in Arabia that it was almost inevitable that one familiar with an Arabic text should sometime unconsciously fall into it in any translation he might make.

1 Fligel's text (5.+J) I judge to be a misprint, on the authority of two lithographed

and one MS copy of the Koran in my possession.


13. First-born of death [18:13]. In Arabic, fevers and other diseases are called children of death

( fl ,i~ • .;

U..J .).

The figure is not otherwise used in the Old Testament. It points to an Arabic original.

14. But he is in one mind [23:13]. The Hebrew is "T~2 ?*~'1,. It signifies simply that God is one,

as Schultens translates it (At ille unus). The attempts to treat this

passage as of a purely Hebrew origin and to give some distinctive

meaning to the preposition 2 are not very successful. Even Gesenius

(sec. 119i), in the explanation of it as a case of . essentiae, arrives final-

ly at nothing but "He is one." It is better to take it as a case of the redundant use of this preposition with the predicate. There are, I

think, but two other clear cases so absolutely redundant in the Old

Testament, viz., Exod. 18:4 and Prov. 3:26. Why, then, did not Job write simply TrS as in Deut. 6:4? The best answer is given by the

supposition of an Arabic original. The construction is very common in Arabic,

. being used with both subjects and predicates, and very

often with the genitive serving for an accusative. Freytag calls it

"pleonastic" and "without meaning" (vacat), and Lane calls it "redundant." It is frequently used in the Hamdsa (as Freytag says) for metrical purposes, and may be found on any page of the Koran. Delitzsch (on Ps. 35:2) does not do justice to its frequency in Arabic. It fairly runs riot there, as in one passage of the Arabian Nights, in the story of the fisherman, where it occurs with the subject in four successive clauses. In Arabic, this passage would not attract attention as in any way strange.

14a. He would give heed unto me [23:6]. The Hebrew of this passage is very doubtful (": U Z'). But if it

is a transfer from the Arab. ,. j .•..,

all is plain. It then means

"look at me inquiringly" (Wright, II, sec. 56). That is, he would consider me in order to know what I have to say for myself. Freytag defines

,L in one of its uses: respexit, observavit (fulmen) ut videret

ubi plueret, which definition Lane repeats. This is exactly the use re-

quired for the best understanding of the passage in its context, and is an explanation better than to say (as BDrB does) "all cases doubt-

ful," suggesting emendation.


15. For he performeth that which is appointed for me [23:14]. This text is adjudged by Kittel corrupt; "It is lacking in the LXX

and should perhaps be deleted,' or possibly transferred after vs. 17." But let us rather suppose it to be a case of transfer of an idiom and

read as the original Arab. W.

.

That is a formula which means

"He surrenders my right," i.e., does not defend it but gives me over to my enemies to vex me. Schultens sustains this meaning by quotations from the Hamdsa and various other writers. Thus translated it is as much as to say, "He is denying my appeal for vindication from him (16:21; 19:25). Even the Hebrew would bear this meaning, "He

puts an end to my right." Thus the "corruption" is removed.

16. If I rejoiced, etc. [31:29-34]. This passage closes with an entire ellipsis of the apodosis. This is a

Semitic idiom, found occasionally in the Old Testament (e.g., Gen. 3:

22) but running riot in Arabic. Compare the Koran xli. 41, 44. Sura cii is rendered almost unintelligible by ellipses. They are a standing defect of the style of the Koran. Sura xxxix. 12, 23, 25 are extreme cases (cf. also xxxv. 9). The ellipsis of such words as "doom," "punishment," "hell," seems to be intended to emphasize their awfulness, as if it were plain enough what was intended, and this was too terrible to be mentioned (cf. Penrice, Lex. to the Koran, s.v. y, , on this idiom).

17. Curse [r:, R.V. "renounce"] God and die [2:9]. This verb means properly "to bless." The use of a verb in contrary

meanings is an established Semitic idiom, of which other cases are found in Hebrew (e.g., "=, to know and not to know; ?=, confidence and stupidity: 7E , to meet with kindness and with hostility, etc.), but it runs to great excess in Arabic. The use of'pD in the sense of "curse" occurs in the Old Testament in only one clear example outside of Job, viz., I Kings 21:10, 13. Standing here in the midst of so much unquestionable Arabic influence, it seems natural to regard this as one more example of the same.

III. TRANSFER OF PROVERBIAL EXPRESSIONS

Principle.-An expression evidently proverbial, whether plain in

meaning or obscure, not drawn from conditions found among every 1 Moffatt follows this advice, and Ball partly emends and partly mistranslates, "my

fate."


people and in all times, and not explained by other cases of its use in the Old Testament, but found as a proverb among the Arabs, proves, so far forth, an Arabic original.

18. Why are ye "not satisfied with my flesh"? [19:22]. A proverbial expression in Arabic for "Why do ye slander me?"

Schultens paraphrases: "Why do ye tear my fame and my life to pieces?" He also quotes from a poem: "You say, I fast [L3o]; and

you are feeding [(L., note the pun] on the flesh of your brother"; he also quotes from the Hamasa.

19. Let me alone till I swallow down my spittle [7:19]. This is evidently a proverbial expression, and so unique as probably

not to be found in two different languages. It is also not on the high level usually maintained by the Hebrew proverbial literature, but is like the utterances of a more primitive people such as the Arabs were, more volkstiimlich. It is in fact found in the Qamus, and in Hariri (15). The Arabic Bible (Beirut) repeats it in the same words. It means "the briefest possible space of time."

20. Touch his bone [2:5]. This is also an Arabic proverb, "plunge the knife to the bone,"

being employed to signify "bring into extreme misery." 21. Out of the thorns [5:5]. This common figure was particularly natural in the desert, and is

found frequently in Arabian writers. Schultens cites several of these, including the Hamasa.

22. So are the paths of all that forget God; And the hope of the godless man shall perish; Whose confidence shall break in sunder, And whose trust is a spider's house. He shall lean upon his house, but it shall not stand; He shall hold fast thereby, but it shall not endure [8:13-15].

Compare this with the Koran (xxix. 40): "The likeness of those who take to themselves guardians instead of God [i.e., the godless man, of the passage in Job] is the likeness of a spider which buildeth a house. But, verily, the frailest of houses [see Job, 'it shall not stand .... endure'] is the house of the spider-if they knew it!" The similarity


of the two passages can hardly be explained except by the supposition of some proverbial form of speech lying at the basis of both.

23. Face without spot [11:15]. Whiteness of face is an Arabic proverbial figure for nobility, excel-

lent reputation; blackness of face for the contrary.

24. It shall be as the morning [11:17]. This figure of speech, common to all languages, is also proverbial

in Arabia. Schultens quotes from the History of the Caliphs: "After the night, the morning of righteousness, most glorious." And in com-

menting upon 35:10 he quotes various authors to show the common use of night as an image of evil and misfortune.

25. Thou hast hid their heart from understanding [17:4]. Schultens compares this with the formula of the Arabs, "to set a

seal upon their hearts," which is explained in the Qamus, "to effect that one should not understand anything and that nothing should

proceed from him." Compare on the use of p:

the Koran ii. 6; vi. 46; xlv. 22; xxxvi. 65.

26. Calamity shall be ready at his side [18:12]. The Hebrew for the last phrase is

•1•5••. Taking this as a re-

flection of the Arabic proverbial expression for extreme calamity, viz., rib-breaker (i.L~o, the same radicals as the Hebrew), one

may translate, "Calamity ready for [i.e., to break] his ribs." This

agrees with the immediately following, "The bars of his skin shall be devoured." Schultens quotes the Hamdsa: "A man who, when calam- ities oppress him, can meet even the breaker of ribs [.ta*!

* X1]."

Freytag and Lane sustain him. The expression "bars of his skin" (1'1 7"0) is probably also proverbial. Certainly

A.. i>A (rags

of his skin = destruction) is, and a"

. (his skin) is used for fortune,

life, everything. Compare the Koran xxxiv. 7: j~ p"J , "torn all to pieces" for destruction in death.

27. I am escaped with the skin of my teeth [19:20].

Evidently a proverbial expression, and smacks of the Arabic. A

quite parallel expression for the narrowest possible escape is the

known proverb: .5Jp

j iJ ,1 "He escaped with a sip of


water on his beard"-i.e., trying to drink, he had to flee before he got his mouth into the water.

28. Neither hath the falcon's eye seen it [28:7]. The sharpness of the falcon's eye is proverbial with the Arabs; but

there is no other token of such a proverb among the Hebrews.

29. They have cast off the bridle before me [30:11]. This figure, common enough in all languages, for casting off re-

straint, seems in Arabic to be proverbial for an extreme degree of this

repudiation of control-when one is bound by respect for neither God nor man and is borne forward in unchecked current to every sort of evil. This stronger meaning is appropriate to this passage. Hence the Arabian origin of the phrase here is probable.

30. Men that have no helper [30:13].

This, again, is a figure of speech common in Arabia for men who have lost goods and hope; as in the Hamdsa: "We see that you are

vulgar, poor, who have no helper among men." No friends, no worth, low and mean.

31. Thou causest me to ride upon it [viz., on the wind], 30:22.

This figure is not found elsewhere in the Old Testament. It is, however, a common Arabic expression, as, for example, i2~L

~ "e, "He rode on the wings of the wind."

32. To leap as a locust [39:20]. An Arabic proverbial phrase. The Arabic Qamus explains: L.

denotes either a troop of horses or a swarm of locusts.

33. He [the horse] swalloweth the ground [39:24]. An Arabic expression for "consumes it by his rapid running."

Schultens quotes here: "The horse is a drinker, surpassing all others: he drinks the earth, as it were, or swallows it."

IV. EXPRESSIONS INVOLVING A BACKGROUND

Principle.-Expressions involving some fact or custom or form of

speech or common mode of thought not Hebraic, and therefore more or less unintelligible to the mere Hebrew reader, but at once explicable if an Arabic fact be brought into the consideration, prove, so far forth,


an Arabic original in which they were natural, at home, and hence

entirely intelligible. Much of this ground was covered in the opening pages of this arti-

cle. We may consider, however, some peculiar cases a little farther with advantage.

34. And they know it not [9:5]. An Arabic touch-the feeling of the pathos in the ignorance of men

regarding the real meaning of events, here transferred to the uncon- scious mountains. Very common in the Koran, a kind of recurring re-

frain, as see lxiii. 8 of blindness regarding God's wisdom; lii. 47, of the blindness of the wicked regarding their own fate; ii. 12, of lack of

self-knowledge, etc. Kittel suggests here the singular of the verb, and Moffatt. translates, "He [God] never notices"-both evidently feeling that the passage is not Hebrew.

35. My brethren have dealt deceitfully as a brook [6:15]. A figure to us not immediately intelligible, but proverbial in Arabia

to men familiar by daily observation with the phenomena of the desert. For example, we may read: "It is said proverbially: 'One should not trust a man in the flood-time of his torrent,' for 'He is not found truthful in his affairs' " (quoted by Schultens).

36. Possess months of misery [7:3], and 37. I say, When shall I arise? [7:4]. On these Schultens remarks that they are familiar Arabic expres-

sions, especially "inheriting misery," for so he translates •r'$1. I shall not continue to discuss such passages as these, for Schultens'

pages are literally strewn with them. The oriental scholars to whom this appeal is addressed will no doubt recall, from their larger famil-

iarity with Arabic literature, many other examples. There remain, however, three other passages that we cannot omit.

38. And he shall keep watch over the tomb [21:32]. This verse has led to numerous attempts at emendation. But if it

be remembered that the Arabs believed that the soul of the dead remained in the body for a time, either until the examination by the

angels, or seven days, or sometimes during the whole time until the Resurrection (cf. Sale, Koran, Introd., sec. 4), it is easy to understand how such a soul should "keep watch over the tomb." This idea re-


garding the dwelling of the soul in the body is indicated in the Koran viii. 53 and xlvii. 29, which refer to the beating inflicted upon the bodies of the wicked when their souls could not sustain the angelic examination; and still more plainly in ix. 85, where the intercessor is alluded to as "standing over the grave of the dead" because, of course, the soul was supposed to be still in the body. The translation of R.V. is therefore correct if the margin be deleted. And the derivation from an Arabic original is the more evident because the word "tomb" is ~fld", a word found nowhere else, and evidently a transfer from the Arab. Ik .

39. I have opened my doors to the traveler [31:32]. The word translated* "traveler" is Mri', and should be translated

"road," or here perhaps "trail." The picture is of a traveler pitching his tent upon the public road, or better, the path usually followed

through the desert by caravans or smaller groups, and placed so that its door should be upon that trail, in order that any stranger also

passing along might find a ready access to him to claim his hospitality. This is distinctly a Beduin touch. Cf. Burkhardt, quoted in Smith's Bible Dictionary, page 1100: "It is held [by the Beduin] to be dis-

graceful to encamp in a place out of the way of travelers." Schultens

quotes from the Hamdsa: How frequently have I stirred up the fire for the traveler imitating the bark

of a dog [viz., to indicate his arrival, to which the dogs responded] to which the echo resounded [the response of the dogs], that its flame might burn bright- ly! I have hastily risen to meet him, that I might make him my prey, for fear that my people might get him before me.

40. The wings of the ostrich, etc. [39: 13-18]. The series of animals here employed by the poet are all familiar

to the readers of Arabic poetry-the wild ass, the ostrich, the wild ox, the hawk. But the ostrich is peculiarly an Arabic favorite because, of course, peculiarly a denizen of the desert, and of its remote parts. The egg laid in the "dust" (vs. 14) is a symbol of a contemptible object, "more worthless than the egg of the earth," i.e., as further

defined, "the egg of the ostrich which she has forsaken." In the Hamdsa we have: "I am a man whose brothers the injurious hand of fortune has destroyed, made thus like an egg of the earth." The commentator upon this passage says that it is "to be understood of


the egg of the ostrich which she lays and then deserts, though fre-

quently brooding eggs that are not her own." Again the Hamdsa has this: "Like one who suckles the young of others and permits the sons of her own womb to perish." And this is, says the commentator, "a hint at a proverbial reference, the ostrich does this .... incubating the eggs of other birds." So common is this reference that it is sometimes made without specific mention of the ostrich, and in a connec- tion which would not suggest it to one unaccustomed to Arabic

proverbial speech, as in Koran xxxvii. 47, "fair like the sheltered egg," spoken of the houris in heaven.

At this point we may resume our consideration of the "transferred words."

V. FURTHER TRANSFERRED WORDS

In a number of the following cases there is to be found some parallel, or sometimes the same word, in the new Hebrew. I am not familiar with this phase of the language, and cannot decide whether such words may have been already a part of the language at the time of the

writing of Job or may have been derived from Job itself. Doubtless the Old Testament, in consequence of its restriction to the religious as-

pects of life, does not contain the entire vocabulary of the language then in use. But, after all, the question whether a given word is properly an Arabic word does not turn entirely upon its appearance in new Hebrew. The probability seems to me somewhat greater that the new Hebrew is dependent upon Job, and that the word in question in Job is derived from the Arabic. The weight of the preceding cases is

entirely in that direction.

41. Overflowings [~;'•C•] [14:19].

This word occurs but once. It is derived by BDrB from a new He- brew root to support which the Arabic root f is adduced, but

with great hesitation. It is more easily explained as a transfer word from

e.., which means a "pouring forth." But, supposing it to

be really a Hebrew word, the question remains, Why did Job use it, and why does he employ in so many cases, of which we are to see a number of examples, extraordinary Hebrew words when common Hebrew words were to be had? In this case the word 1Mi might

Is BOOK OF JoB A TRANSLATION FROM THE ARABIC? 41

have been used, for it occurs in this sense in Jer. 47:2 and Isa. 30:28, and in both cases is associated with the very verb employed in Job, viz., Zjt , the Arabic equivalent of which, L , means "washed

out, rinsed" (Salmon6), lavit (Freytag). The natural answer is that this particular word was suggested to his mind by something before

him; and if the presence of an Arabic manuscript to be translated were assumed from the marks of its influence which have been already ex-

hibited, that answer becomes this, that they are transfer words.

42. Become unclean [1:'2-tt] [18:3].

A better translation is that of BDrB, "are stupid." This translation is given by reference to the Arabic root ;;6, "to be filled up," "choked up," as a well. The word occurs nowhere else. It is evi-

dently a transfer word; which is the more evident from the once-

occurring word ypp,

in the previous verse, from the Arabic root .a, "to ensnare." One such transfer easily leads to another.

43. Why do thine eyes wink [•'T•]

[15:12]? The Dictionary, BDrB, derives this word by transposition from the

Arabic, c), and translates it "flash." It might mean, then, "give

signal." That gives a sense hardly appropriate. Hence it is better taken from the root ), since no transposition is required, one of

the meanings of which is "to be dead." One may then translate, "Why are thine eyes so dead?" That is, such eyes as a person in de-

spair often has. Even then the phrase is difficult.

44. Deal hardly [I'tj.?1]

[19:3].

The meaning of this is derived by BDrB entirely from Arabic, and should be credited to an Arabic original.

45. Ready for the battle ["1tj] [15:24].

The Hebrew is explained by BDrB entirely from the Arabic.

46. Ripe age [r?t] [30:2]. The combination given by BDrB is probably correct, giving the

meaning "vigor." It is borne out by the definition of t by Lane

and Salmon6 as "to vie for superiority in strength." It occurs only in Job, here and in 5:26.


47. Bray [6:5]. The verb p , occurring only here and in 30:7, is manifestly trans-

ferred from the Arabic word of the same root, unless indeed emphasis be laid on the new Hebrew.

48. Saltwort [r 6_;

BDrB "mallow"] [30:4]. A transfer word from the Arab.

". ., "mallow."

49. They gnaw [t py] [30:3, 17].

Evidently a direct transfer from the Arabic.

50. Rabble [nrsn] [30:12]. BDrB defines this simply as "brood," and explains it as "wretched

crowd." Would it not be easier to define it as "miserable men," taking the definition of Freytag and Lane for i I; as a vile and abject

man? The writer of Job shows his familiarity with this word by re-

producing the Arabic plural IA (an alternate form) in his MERk

(39:30). 51. Spreadeth his cloud upon it [26:9]. The quadrilateral 71i1:3 gives much difficulty. Gesenius (Gram.,

sec. 56) explains this as a variation of the Pilel. It is simpler to suppose it suggested by an Arabic quadrilateral. The same root J 3 has two derivative quadrilaterals: ;zz which means "to spread"

and 4 .

with the same meaning.

52. She dealeth hardly [r•jtp] with her young [39:16].

An evident transfer from the Arab. ., of which III has the

meaning "treat hardly." Also in Isa. 63:17.

53. Laid fast hold [I~tpn] [16:8]. This verb occurs twice, here and in 22:16. The Arabic may have

a closer relation to it than BDrB intimates, for one meaning in Frey- tag (in which, however, Lane does not follow him),' derived from the Qamus, is cepit, sumsit.

54. He is green before the sun [8:16]. This adjective, =I: , is not found again, but a verbal form is once

found (24:8). It is also new Hebrew. The Arabic root is •.,

"to be 1 The best of dictionaries of this marvelously copious language have considerable

omissions.


fresh," "moist." It occurs with middle damma, with an adjective of the form

,•). 55. The word dealeth gently [f.N] with thee [15:11]. To treat

=,.6 as a transfer from the Arab. -J6 would give a more

forcible rendering-"the word that importuneth [or constantly ad-

dresseth] thee."

56. In thoughts [4:13; also 20:2]. BDrB gives various information regarding possible sources of this

word, ='E"DS . Regarding the' definition of 7,7T from ..A , I should

be inclined to question it, for, while t generally stands for &., uo is also an equivalent, and the word might then be derived from

a? . This root Freytag defines: tremore correptus fuit ex metu vel

frigore aliave de causa (Salmon6, "shuddered"; Lane not giving the word at all). I should therefore take it for an Arabic transfer from, say, X.Z.~A4, and translate: "in shuddering fears from the visions of the night."

57. Destroyed [1~p:] [19:26; also Isa. 10:34; N.H.]. This seems to be a transfer from the Arab. I . 58. Eyelids [:,~~'] [3:9]. Twice elsewhere in Job, and also in Psalms, Proverbs, and Jeremiah.

The Arabic is ..

Ayin of the Hebrew is a double consonant, corresponding to the Arabic Jim and its twofold Ayin.

59. Ready ['rynrm] [15:28; also Prov. 24:27; the N.H. has the adj. "l Cf. Job 8:13 and 15:24].

The Arabic root, a , is a very common one.

60. Disaster [~:•] [31:3]. This transfer word occurs once more only in the Old Testament,

Obadiah, verse 12, and there in the form ?1: . It is worthy of note that the Arabic has forms corresponding to both Hebrew forms, viz.,

SC' and 0; and that the meaning "bad," "painful," "unfortunate,"

"misfortune," turns up often among the nominal derivatives from this root. The new Hebrew has ""t. in the meaning "gentile."

61. That it [God's wisdom] is manifold in effectual working [11: 6]. This line would be better translated "That [his is] a double portion

of sound wisdom." For "double portion" the Hebrew is 000,


which is used only once elsewhere in the Old Testament (Isa. 40:2). Job also uses the singular (41:5). The Hebrew does not lack other

expressions for "double," ~ J" , "Dit (common), and a repetition of the word, as in b=1 b•. The corresponding form is found in the

Koran Ivii. 28, ai, •) a .JC ?

..

This is probably a case of transfer.

62. My words have been rash [1) ; 'a] [6:3].

This word seems to be a direct transfer from the Arabic root , "to speak wrongly," "to utter nonsense." It occurs once more, Prov. 20:25.

III

We may pause here in our review of the evidence for an Arabic original of the Book of Job. Much more might be adduced. We have

surveyed only the most striking parts of the evidence, but enough, I think, for the present purpose.

What, now, have we to conclude from this evidence? It would

appear: 1. That the atmosphere of the book is that of the Arabian Desert. 2. That Job is represented as an Arab sheik. 3. That many words of the Hebrew text are transfers from the Arabic. 4. That many Arabic idioms are found in it. 5. That Arabic proverbs are incorporated in it. 6. That the explanatory background of many expressions is Arabic. 7. That distinctive features of the Hebrew civilization, such as its cities, its

religious observances, etc., are lacking. 8. That the idea of God is the Arabic idea. 9. That Job's attitude toward God, both in his denunciations and in his

growing appeal to God's justice, is not Hebrew, but is Arabic, for it is such as an Arab often sustained toward his sheik.

I therefore present my request for a fuller and more competent discussion of the question whether we have not in the larger part of Job a translation of an Arabic original. The larger part, I say, for there is one great exception, the speeches of Elihu, in chapters 32-37. Here the Arabic atmosphere is wholly lacking. No one can read these

chapters and then pass on to chapters 38 ff. with their waterflood, their wild ass and ox, their pawing and galloping horse, their hawk and eagle, their ostrich, their behemoth and leviathan, and with the


atmosphere of the gazu, without feeling, "Here we are in the desert

again, in the free, open air of its great expanse 'wherein is no man' "

(38:26). The Elihu chapters are not from Arabia, nor are they a part of the original Job, but an interpolation (cf. Driver, Introduction to the

O. T., pp. 403 ff.) breaking the progress of the poem. They also intro- duce a new idea, not found in the genuine Book of Job, the idea of the friendliness of God toward man (33:14) and his yearning providence (33: 16 ff.).

Incidentally there has appeared another argument for the Arabic

original of Job, its elements scattered through the whole treatment, of which it will be sufficient to make brief mention at this point. It is

this, that the Book of Job shows a decided kinship with the Koran, while showing little or none with the books given us in the Hebrew Bible. It seems to belong in the same religious and literary group as the Koran, and not in that of the Bible. It would be superfluous to repeat here the passages already cited from the Koran. They may be found on many a page in this discussion. The fact is a momentous one.

Here I rest my case. In almost any other book such an accumula- tion of evidence would, I think, be thought to establish the hypothesis that the book was a translation. Is it sufficient in this case? I am not unaware of the objections to it that may be raised from the history of Arabic literature and other sources; and I may, if my request is ac- ceded to, and some competent scholar goes thoroughly into this mat-

ter, have something further to say regarding certain of these objections. But does it not appear that the evidence from the book itself forces the hypothesis upon us? And is it not obligatory upon scholars to re-examine the supposed facts which seem to render the hypothesis "impossible," in the light which the hypothesis sheds, rather than follow those who are ready to deny the hypothesis with all its evidence, on account of "facts" which may turn out not to be facts at all? It would seem as if the hypothesis of an Arabic original of Job were

lifting a curtain which has long concealed important chapters in the

history of the theology and the literature of both Israel and Arabia- lifting, at least, a corner of that curtain.

is the book of job a translation from an arabic original?

Documents