Wilmington journal., 1874-12-25
SUNDAY READING.
E.i:,u: A Biblical study.

E.i:,u: A Biblical study.
DIR. Conant, in his translation of the |
Book ofJob, tells us that there need be
no doubt that Job was veritable his
torical person; and, in support OF this !
view. he adduces, of course, the we'll |
known passages in Ezekiel xiv. l4-2O,
and in James v. ii. He seems, rather
to assume than to vouch for the his
torical existence of Jobs three friends,
and of Elihu; but it seems to us that
the unhistorical, or mythical, or dra-
matte character of these personages
would be very difficult-nay, impossl-
ble-to prove, and that such view is
with insuperable objec-
tions. We believe that DR.. Conant is,
in the main, right, though bold, in
the following positions, viz: That the
discourses in the Book of Job, "all
proceed from the inspired writer"
that s'the superstition that we have
here the very words of Job and his
friends; that uninspired men express
ed themselves thus, and the sacred
writer only reports their language, is
too absurd to be entertained for a mo-
ment; that the whole is the production
of the inspired writer, and this Is the
mode selected by Divine Wisdom for
giving us the discussion of the various
topics OF the book"
The only exceptions which we feel
disposed to take to the statements
Just quoted are-First, that the as
sumption that Jobs three friends (and
we may add Eihu, and why not Job
himself p were uninspired men, Is
only an assumption, though probably
a correct one; and, second that the
,dsurdity of the view opposed to his
own, is, perhaps, somewhat overstated.
We do not believe that it is easy to
settle the extent Gf any, to which we
are to regard Job and the other char
acters of the book as inspired men;
were inspired-and, indeed. are in
clined to adopt Dr.. Consn nt's view as
correct-stin, when we find Paul
Job V 49, and introducing the quota
ton with the formula, ''as it is writ,
ten" We confess that our view is Lot
so satisfactory, nor so free from dlth'
culties as one could wish.
w = Iid.S MdhS cuV pIttly SdtI0AaC'
! tory proof of Elihu's existence as 9
historical character, however, what
ever may be thought of his inspiration
| Our proof rests on much the same
basis as does that of the historical ex-
istence of Job, though the argument
varies somewhat IN its FORM
True, we can point to no pas.
sage (outside of the Book of job
in which the historical character OF
Elihu is assumed; but we informed
that he was Buzite; andin Gen. xxi :,
! 20, 81, we learn that Buz was a son OF
| Major, Abraham's brother. The his.
toricai existence OF Jobs three friends
can be made out upon the same sor:
| Cf eI idsnce.
The character Of Elihu has been
very varicusly estimated. Some have
regarded him as the mouth-piece OF
Jehovah. This view seems to rest
upon tie fact, that Elihu condemns
both Job and his friends; and upon
the further fact, that Jehovah does
not condemn Elihu Gas he does Jot
and his three friendsl in the closing
chapters of the book.
10 our mind this IS exceedingly
strange reasoning. If wholesale con
| demuation Of ones associates be evi
dence OF special inspiration from the
Almighty. then the days Of lnspira
ton are certainly not passed for nc
one of us need go very far to fnO
some querulous critic, who could dc
wonders in this direction. We CO.
fess that we have no special reason fol
believing that scoldiDg is any proof ol
inspiration. If Jehovah's silence as
10 Elihu is to be regarded as proof oi
the Divine indorsation of the views ex-
| pressed by him, then we have the in.
| dorsation of the devil; for he too is &
charcter in the drama, and jehovah
does not condemn him at the close.
On the other hand, we cannot agree
with those who go to the other ex
treme. as some have done, and say
that Elihu was a conceited upstart
and that Jehovah does not notice him
because he had said nothing that was
worth noticing. He said some things
that were true; and, upon the whole,
We are Tot sure that he does not speal
about as we'll as the others. It is very
certain that all these characters (Jot
not excepted) had partial, imperfect
and unsatisfactory views of the char
! acter and course of Divine Providence
but we cannot see that this was more
conspicuously true of Elihu than ot
the other lhterlOcutors; nor, to tell the
plain truth, do we see that it was more
true of any of them than it is now Of
nearly all the speakers who attempt tc
| enter upon the same field of discussion
If a man, now a days, can talk for ter
minutes on 1.-THE Interpretation Of
Providence" and not utter a good dea
! of nonsense, you may be sure that be
| is one out of til ousand. How many
of us heard sermons at the beginning
of the late war, proving (?) that the
Southern COnfederacy must succeed
because God was just? And how many
| men, after the war was over, were
brought, by just this sort of reasoning,
| to adopt the maxim, that providence
| is on the side of the strongest battal-
| ions 2" The maxim has an infidel
sound, it is true; but it has a great
deal more sense, and great deal more
| truth in it, than can be found in the
reasoning from which it is a natural
recoil. How many of us, since the
war, have been hearing and reading
vast masses of nonsense about the
''logic of events" proving that slavery
was wrong because ''Providence had
abolished it," when any man of sense
ought to be able to see, at a glance,
that the same argum erts, before the war,
would have proved that slavery was
right because providence had estab-
lished it." If the abolition of slavery
uu6er the permission of Divine Provi-
dence shows that slavery was wrong,
how can we escape the conclusion that
kidnapping slaves was right Was not
this done under the same Providence ?
The truth is that we know of no de-
partment of thought on which men-
yes, good, pious. Christian men-talk
SO much nonsense and impiety and
downright profanity, as they do talk
when they undertake to 'interpret
Providence"
Now it was just precisely this that
Elihu and the other interlocutors were
attempting. The very point before
them was, "Why has God done this
thing 2" But God had not told any
one why He had done it; and if He
had told His reason, we do not believe
that any living man could have under