rejects the view, adopted from Stickel (see p. 92) by Canon F. C.
Cook, that the deeper colouring of Aramaic is only the poet's
way of indicating the Aramæan origin of Elihu. He denies that
there is any such greater amount of Aramaism as can form a real
distinction between 'Elihu' and the undisputed chapters. I will
not inquire whether the subjectivity of a writer may impress itself on
his statistics, and willingly grant that the Aramaic colouring in 'Elihu'
may perhaps affect the reader more owing to the faults of style to
which Budde himself alludes on p. 157, and which, to me, indicate
an age or at least a writer of less taste and talent than the original
author. The Aramaisms may be thrown into stronger relief by these
infirmities, and so the colouring may seem deeper than it is. I am
not however sure that there is an illusion in the matter. Among
the counter-instances of Aramaism given by Budde from the speeches
of Eliphaz, there are at least two which have no right to figure there,
viz. (
Hebrew characters), xv. 29, and (Hebrew characters) for (Hebrew characters), xxii. 30, both which forms are probably
corrupt readings. Until Dillmann has published his second
edition I venture to retain the statement on p. 92. There is a
stronger Aramaising element in Elihu, which, with other marks of a
peculiar and inferior[1] style, warrants us in assigning the section to a
later writer. This is, of course, not precluded by the numerous
Hebraistic points of contact with the main part of the book, which
Carl Budde has so abundantly collected (Beiträge, pp. 92-123). No
one can doubt that the original poem very early became an absorbing
study in the circles of 'wise men.'
As to the words and phrases (of pure Hebrew origin) in which
Elihu differs from the body of the work, I may remark that it is
sometimes difficult to realise their full significance from Budde's
catalogue. Kleinert has thrown much light on some of them in a
recent essay. He has, for instance,[2] shown the bearings of the fact
that the disputed chapters persistently avoid the juristic sense of (Hebrew characters)
(Kal), except in a quotation from speeches of Job (xxxiv. 5), Elihu
himself only using the word of correctness in statement (xxxiii. 12),
or of moral righteousness (xxxv. 7), and that (Hebrew characters) has the sense of
'acting wickedly' only in a passage of Elihu (xxxiv. 12). The use
of (Hebrew characters), (Hebrew characters), and (Hebrew characters) in xxxii, 1, xxxiii. 26, xxxv. 8, xxxvi. 3, is also
dwelt upon in this connexion. It is true that Budde does not conceal
these points; he tabulates them correctly, but does not indicate
