Is the Book of Job a Translation from an Arabic Original?

Author(s): Frank Hugh Foster

Source: The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures, Vol. 49, No. 1 (Oct.,
1932), pp. 21-45
Published by: The University of Chicago Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/528801
Accessed: 05/04/2010 10:03
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may 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 at
http://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 printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

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

http://www.jstor.org

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 Protestant scholars believed it to be from an Arabic original. My attention
was specially drawn to Schultens' Commentaryon 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 impossible. Perhaps the time has not been ripe for its critical examination. But in these days of scholarly and unprejudiced biblical criticism, 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 JOURNALOF SEMITICLANGUAGES

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 Prophets, are accepted as indicating a considerable literary and religious
commerce between Arabia and Palestine, evidently important modifications 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
regardedas a translationfrom an Arabic original?
I
I begin by recalling those first impressions as to the Arabic atmosphere 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 whirlwind (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); experienced the cold of the desert night (24:7); looked upon the constellations 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 animals, 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 belonged 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.

24

THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SEMITIC LANGUAGES

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 sinner must present the sacrifice himself.
If the ritual is different, the idea of God is still more widely separated 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 unmentioned 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 relief. 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 interference 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

Is

BOOK OF JOB A TRANSLATION

FROM THE ARABIC?

25

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 expressed 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 unbelievers, 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 regarding 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 believes 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 philosophy of the book, (5) parallels in the Psalms, and (6) per contra the lack of Jewish materials,
look in the same direction.

26

THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SEMITIC LANGUAGES

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 languagesareat all akin,as is the casein Job, the transferof words
from one languageto the other in which they do not exactly fit.
II. More commonis the transfer of idioms introducinguncertainty and
obscurityinto the translation.
III. The transferof proverbialexpressionswhich are nonexistentor uncommon in the languageof the translation.
IV. The use of expressionswhich, while correctin verbal and grammatical
in the originalwhichis lacking
aspects,have an explanatorybackground
in the translation,and without which they are obscure.
V. Mistranslations,or misunderstandingsof the original.
VI. Betrayal by a number of turns of thoughtand expressionthat the
atmosphereof the originalwas anotherfromthat naturalto the derivative work.
VII. The impossibilityof changingthe sceneof 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, Edinburgh. 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.

Is

BOOK OF JOB A TRANSLATION FROM THE ARABIC?

27

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 twentythree 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) Christians 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 examination; 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 transferred, 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 shallstand up at the last uponthe earth[ms], etc. [19:25].

28

THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SEMITIC LANGUAGES

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.
p
i
; Heb. Dlp
i.e., to intercede for him.
),l
E"=-j
Insq.performing
i. intercession, the intercessor took his stand at the
the soul of the dead was believed to remain in the
because
grave
body for a period variously defined. It thus becomes evident that
is unfortunately translated. Understood as meaning
the Heb. '"
"redeemer," who should stand upon the "earth," it was long applied, 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
"intercessor." One should compare at this point the
Arab. A,
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
"eyewitness." An interLd~Set,
consists in part in bearing witcessor is a witness, for his intercession
ness. 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.

Is

BOOK OF JOB A TRANSLATION FROM THE ARABIC?

29

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,
L), in his re-created flesh
~
;
he should be vindicated.
the
inaccurate ?bWwas chosen
. ....
C.
Perhaps
the
translator
is
because
there
no
exact
by
equivalent in Hebrew
for
, TH 2, which is translated "intercessor" (Isa. 59:16),
CA
not
being
quite the same, but is rather to be strictly rendered
"intervener."
2. He shall have neitherson nor son's son amonghis people,
Nor any remaining '5It
wherehe sojourned[18:19].
The Hebrew here is difficult, for 1""2ameans properly a dwellingplace. As generally translated, the parallelism is rather flat. The kindred word %'0,generally rendered "sojourner," may be taken as a
transfer from some Arabic form from the root
which in the III
)L,
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 arethosewhosedependent[client,)L.-] suffersno fear,sinceourearsare
deaf to the perfidyof others. We defendour domain;and our spearsviolate
the domainof every people whose meadowsare desiredby 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 (so19:25, stands for an original
Lj
' One feels inclined to suppose that
-\",
(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.

30

THE AMERICAN
OF SEMITIC
JOURNAL
LANGUAGES

journ). Take it for a transfer word from

("client"), and you
)L..
in
as
the
a
have,
preceding example,
descending scale, "kinsfolk,
personal friends, clients of my house [gen.], servants," all destroyed.
4. My supplicationto the childrenof my ownmother[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 n3ir , whereas 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
am loathsome to the sons of my belly,"
cS
~
all becomes
.
.,"Iperfectly 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. Seeingthat he judgeththose 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.
?.),the
"rotten." This gives the meaning of the line "seeing he judgeth
and
with
the
in
is
exact
concord
which
context,
probably
dead,"
correct. See the Koran (xxxvi. 78), "Who shall give life to bones when
they are rotten [
]?
are full of milk [21:24].
7. His pails [
tj]
is practically given up. As in so many cases, various
1~3'"t
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.

Is BOOK OF JOB A TRANSLATIONFROMTHE ARABIC?

31

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"
is unintelligible as a He(Z')
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;
means "to pour out" (water). Suppose the IV form to be used,
S
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 herselfon high [39:18].
The words "lifteth herself"
though referred by BDrB
(R''2-),
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 Arabic 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 runnethupon 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-

32

THE

AMERICAN

JOURNAL

OF SEMITIC

LANGUAGES

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. Comeupon 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
means the fear "of God," without the
ey
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 frequently 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
I judge to be a misprint, on the authority of two lithographed
Fligel's text
(5.+J)
and one MS copy of the Koran in my possession.

Is

BOOK OF JOB A TRANSLATION FROM THE ARABIC?

33

13. First-bornof death [18:13].

In Arabic, fevers and other diseases are called children of death
The figure is not otherwise used in the
U..J
( fl
,i~

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 finally 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
in one of its uses: respexit, observavit(fulmen) ut videret
defines
,L which definition Lane repeats. This is exactly the use reubi plueret,
quired for the best understanding of the passage in its context, and
is an explanation better than to say (as BDrB does) "all cases doubtful," suggesting emendation.

34

THE

AMERICAN

JOURNAL

OF SEMITIC

LANGUAGES

15. For he performeththat whichis appointedfor 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).

Godanddie [2:9].
17. Curse[r:, R.V. "renounce"]
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,
fate."

"my

Is

BOOK OF JOB A TRANSLATION FROM THE ARABIC?

35

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 satisfiedwith 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 alonetill I swallowdownmy 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 godlessman shall perish;
Whose confidenceshall breakin sunder,
And whosetrust is a spider'shouse.
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

36

THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SEMITIC LANGUAGES

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, excellent 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 commenting 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
the Koran ii. 6;
proceed from him." Compare on the use of
p:
vi. 46; xlv. 22; xxxvi. 65.
26. Calamityshall be ready at his side [18:12].
The Hebrew for the last phrase is
Taking this as a re15.
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 oppresshim, can meet even the breakerof ribs [.ta*!*

X1]."

Freytag and Lane sustain him. The expression "bars of his skin"
i>A
(1'1 7"0) is probably also proverbial. Certainly
(rags
A.. for fortune,
of his skin = destruction) is, and
(his skin) is used
a"
.
life, everything. Compare the Koran xxxiv. 7: j~
p"J ,
"torn all to pieces" for destruction in death.
27. I am escapedwith 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
"He escaped with a sip of
known proverb:
j iJ,1
.5Jp

37

Is BOOK OF JOB A TRANSLATIONFROMTHE ARABIC?

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 bridlebeforeme [30:11].
This figure, common enough in all languages, for casting off restraint, 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 causestme to ride upon it [viz., on the wind],30:22.
This figure is not found elsewhere in the Old Testament. It is,

however,a commonArabicexpression,as, for example,i2~L

"He rode on the wings of the wind."

"e,

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]swalloweththe 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,

38

THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SEMITIC LANGUAGES

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 article. 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 unconscious mountains. Very common in the Koran, a kind of recurring refrain, 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 brethrenhave dealt deceitfullyas 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. Possessmonths of misery [7:3], and
37. I say, Whenshall I arise? [7:4].
On these Schultens remarks that they are familiar Arabic expressions, 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 familiarity 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-

Is BOOK OF JOB A TRANSLATIONFROMTHE ARABIC?

39

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 openedmy doorsto 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 disgraceful to encamp in a place out of the way of travelers." Schultens
quotes from the Hamdsa:
Howfrequentlyhave I stirredup the firefor the travelerimitatingthe bark
of a dog [viz.,to indicate his arrival,to which the dogs responded]to which
the echoresounded[theresponseof the dogs],that its flamemightburnbrightly! I have hastily risento meet him, that I might makehim my prey, for fear
that my peoplemight get him beforeme.
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

40

THE

AMERICAN

JOURNAL

OF SEMITIC

LANGUAGES

the egg of the ostrich which she lays and then deserts, though frequently 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 connection 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 aspects 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 Heis adduced, but
brew root to support which the Arabic root f
with great hesitation. It is more easily explained as a transfer word
from
which means a "pouring forth." But, supposing it to
e..,
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
rinsed"
out,
(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 exhibited, that answer becomes this, that they are transfer words.
42. Becomeunclean[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 evidently a transfer word; which is the more evident from the onceoccurring word
in the previous verse, from the Arabic root
ypp,
.a,
"to ensnare." One such transfer easily leads to another.
43. Why do thine eyes wink
[15:12]?
['T]
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 despair often has. Even then the phrase is difficult.
44. Deal hardly

[19:3].
[I'tj.?1]
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
by Lane
meaning "vigor." It is borne out by the definition of t
and Salmon6 as "to vie for superiority in strength." It occurs only
in Job, here and in 5:26.

42

THE AMERICANJOURNALOF SEMITICLANGUAGES

47. Bray [6:5].

The verb p , occurring only here and in 30:7, is manifestly transferred from the Arabic word of the same root, unless indeed emphasis
be laid on the new Hebrew.
BDrB "mallow"][30:4].
48. Saltwort[r
6_;from the Arab.
A transfer word
"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 reIA (an alternate form) in his MERk
producing the Arabic plural
(39:30).
51. Spreadethhis cloudupon 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"

4 with the same meaning.

.
52. She dealeth hardly
with her young [39:16].
[rjtp]
An evident transfer from the Arab.
., of which III has the

and

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 Freytag (in which, however, Lane does not follow him),' derived from the
Qamus, is cepit, sumsit.
54. He is greenbeforethe sun [8:16].
This adjective, =I: , is not found again, but a verbal form is once
"to be
found (24:8). It is also new Hebrew. The Arabic root is
.,
1 The best of dictionaries of this marvelously copious language have considerable
omissions.

Is BOOK OF JOB A TRANSLATIONFROMTHE ARABIC?

43

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
as a transfer from the Arab. -J6 would give a more
=,.6
forcible rendering-"the word that importuneth [or constantly addresseth] 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: tremorecorreptusfuit 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,
and translate: "in shuddering fears from the visions of
say, X.Z.~A4,
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,
.. Arabic Jim and its twofold Ayin.
corresponding to the
59. Ready ['rynrm] [15:28;alsoProv. 24:27; the N.H. hasthe 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'swisdom]is manifoldin effectualworking[11:6].
This line would be better translated "That [his is] a double portion
of sound wisdom." For "double portion" the Hebrew is

000,

44

THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SEMITIC LANGUAGES

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

KoranIvii. 28,
transfer.

ai,

a .JC ?
..

This is probablya case of

62. My wordshave 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 atmosphereof the book is that of the ArabianDesert.
2. That Job is representedas an Arab sheik.
3. That many wordsof the Hebrewtext are transfersfrom the Arabic.
4. That many Arabicidioms are found in it.
5. That Arabicproverbsare incorporatedin it.
6. That the explanatorybackgroundof many expressionsis Arabic.
7. That distinctive featuresof the Hebrewcivilization,such as its cities, its
religiousobservances,etc., are lacking.
8. That the idea of God is the Arabicidea.
9. That Job's attitude toward God, both in his denunciationsand in his
growingappeal to God's justice, is not Hebrew,but is Arabic, for it is
such as an Araboften sustainedtowardhis 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

Is

BOOK OF JOB A TRANSLATION FROM THE ARABIC?

45

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 introduce 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 accumulation 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 acceded to, and some competent scholar goes thoroughly into this matter, 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 Arabialifting, at least, a corner of that curtain.