The Book of Job

[Illustration: And his sons went and feasted in their houses, every one his day; and sent and called for their three sisters to eat and drink with them.]

[Illustration:

THE BOOK OF JOB

WITH AN INTRODUCTION By G. K. CHESTERTON & ILLUSTRATED IN COLOUR By C. MARY TONGUE

LONDON: CECIL PALMER & HAYWARD OAKLEY HOUSE BLOOMSBURY ST. WC ]

The text of this Reprint of the Book of Job is that of the authorized version, with certain differences in the manner of printing.

FIRST EDITION 1916

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

I. And his sons went and feasted in their houses, everyone his day; and sent and called for their three sisters to eat and drink with them Frontispiece

II. And it was so, when the days of their feasting were gone about, that JOB rose up early in the morning, and offered burnt offerings Page 13

III. And there came a messenger unto Job Page 21

IV. Then said his wife unto him, “Dost thou still retain thine integrity? Curse God and die.” Page 29

V. ... the Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord Page 45

VI. “Suffer me that I may speak; and after that I have spoken, mock on.” Page 61

VII. Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind Page 77

VIII. So the Lord blessed the latter end of Job Page 93

INTRODUCTION

The Book of Job is among the other Old Testament Books both a philosophical riddle and a historical riddle. It is the philosophical riddle that concerns us in such an introduction as this; so we may dismiss first the few words of general explanation or warning which should be said about the historical aspect. Controversy has long raged about which parts of this epic belong to its original scheme and which are interpolations of considerably later date. The doctors disagree, as it is the business of doctors to do; but upon the whole the trend of investigation has always been in the direction of maintaining that the parts interpolated, if any, were the prose prologue and epilogue and possibly the speech of the young man who comes in with an apology at the end. I do not profess to be competent to decide such questions. But whatever decision the reader may come to concerning them, there is a general truth to be remembered in this connection. When you deal with any ancient artistic creation do not suppose that it is anything against it that it grew gradually. The Book of Job may have grown gradually just as Westminster Abbey grew gradually. But the people who made the old folk poetry, like the people who made Westminster Abbey, did not attach that importance to the actual date and the actual author, that importance which is entirely the creation of the almost insane individualism of modern times. We may put aside the case of Job, as one complicated with religious difficulties, and take any other, say the case of the Iliad. Many people have maintained the characteristic formula of modern scepticism, that Homer was not written by Homer, but by another person of the same name. Just in the same way many have maintained that Moses was not Moses but another person called Moses. But the thing really to be remembered in the matter of the Iliad is that if other people did interpolate the passages, the thing did not create the same sense of shock as would be created by such proceedings in these individualistic times. The creation of the tribal epic was to some extent regarded as a tribal work, like the building of the tribal temple. Believe then, if you will, that the prologue of Job and the epilogue and the speech of Elihu are things inserted after the original work was composed. But do not suppose that such insertions have that obvious and spurious character which would belong to any insertions in a modern individualistic book. Do not regard the insertions as you would regard a chapter in George Meredith which you afterwards found had not been written by George Meredith, or half a scene in Ibsen which you found had been cunningly sneaked in by Mr. William Archer. Remember that this old world which made these old poems like the Iliad and Job, always kept the tradition of what it was making. A man could almost leave a poem to his son to be finished as he would have finished it, just as a man could leave a field to his son, to be reaped as he would have reaped it. What is called Homeric unity may be a fact or not. The Iliad may have been written by one man. It may have been written by a hundred men. But let us remember that there was more unity in those times in a hundred men than there is unity now in one man. Then a city was like one man. Now one man is like a city in civil war.