Short Notes on
Ernest Renan’s Translation of Job from Hebrew published in 1859 Ernest Renan, The Book of Job translated from the Hebrew.
Originally 1859 in French but translated in 1893 by William M. Thompson. Online
available for full download.
Renan thought the author of Job had no
common sense
“How
did it happen that the author of this beautiful book did not possess common
sense”. (Preface ix) Answer to Renan: Moses just killed an
Egyptian overseer and is a criminal fleeing because of manslaughter. His
passions and emotions are disturbed. He lost everything in his life. Now he
writes Job. Talking about sense? You try. “The book of Job has, during the last
century been productive of a whole library of dissertations. From the day when the illustrious Albert
Schultens there is not a verselet in the book of Job which has not given scope
for long commentaries. It maybe fearlessly asserted that the majority
of those passages which in this precious text are still obscure will remain so.
The new readings, except in cases where they are supported by some fact
previously unknown, have, in a matter so elaborate, very little chance of being
true. I cannot recall a single passage where I
have admitted a reading entirely new, and which has not been advanced by more than
one philologist Bibliography Let one read the works of Schultens,
Reiske, Rosenmiiller, Scharer, Umbreit, Lee, Stickel, Ewald, Arnheim, Hirzel, Hahn,
Schlottmann, and of Cahen. I have adopted to have always under their eyes
the commentary of Hirzel. Ancient Biblical Translations will not help “the impossible position in which we are
placed of comparing anterior manuscripts so as to fix definitely the received
text.” (Preface ix). Hapax? “What are we to do when we only meet with
a word once in the whole range of Hebrew literature, or when the two or three
employments of it that one can adduce do not suffice to determine precisely its
shade of meaning?” Comparative Translation do not help either “The testimony of the ancient translators,
who had no other resources than we ourselves have with which to overcome these
difficulties, nay who even had fewer, seeing that they lacked the aids of
comparative philology, is then wholly insufficient” Seemingly Error? Do not correct says Renan “I am of opinion that the number of such
passages is more considerable than one thinks; but I recognise at the same time
that we must be on our guard in proceeding hence to propose bold corrections.” [Charles
Fensham complaint about the same]. Keep to the Masoretic Text Renan said “Perhaps when Semitic palaeography is more
advanced (and it is permissible to hope for considerable progress in this, in
view of what has been accomplished in late years, thanks to the labours of M.
le Due de Luynes and of several other learned antiquaries), it will be possible
to advance, yet always with the utmost caution, in that perilous path. But at
the present time the Masserotic text ought to be our guide.” Renan followed the consensus “It is to this text that my translation
belongs, except in one or two places where everybody is all but agreed that it
should be corrected.” Chapter divisions are not natural in Job (Preface xii) Discourses were fit into a text in prose “We know that the book of Job is composed
of discourses in verse fitted into a text in prose; this distinction has been
marked by the employment of a different character.” Verse divisions of the author was kept “The separation of the verselets and the verses,
which is bien de fait of the author, has been maintained throughout.” Rhythm consists of symmetrical recurrence of members of the phrase and
translation should preserve this Metre is a rhyme of thoughts Difficulty to find the history and social background in Job Persons are not Jews Locality outside Palestine Worship is of the Patriarchal Period a. Job is
priest of the family b. Rites
are not part of Mosaic customs c. Book is
not of Hebrew origin (ideas) d. Language
is not pure Hebrew e. It is a
translation from another Semitic dialect f. He wished
to give us a bit of Temanite wisdom Blatant errors of Renan ---When he speaks of the Book of Daniel,
Proverbs and Ecclesiastes his comments are very irresponsible. He may be an
agnostic or rationalist who denies miracles? It was popular in his times. ---He denies the historicity of comments
on the Patriarchs in Jesus ben Sirach, Philo and Josephus. It is not such a
major issue since they are not canon of Revelation. But Daniel, Proverbs and
Ecclesiastes he cannot be excused for. He complains about Titus Livius comments
of ancient Rome as if not historical. And that also may be fine (Study XVI). ---Based on negativeness to their
histories, he wants to drop his criticism transferred from them on Job. ---Talking about baggage of
presuppositions and preconceived doubts. It is like telling yourself on the
steps of a buffet restaurant “I hate this food but I am going in anyway”. Can
you see him pulling his face as he treats the food as if it is dung! Welcome to
Ernest Renan and Job. Renan tries to pay tribute to Wellhausen’s allocations of different author
for a different divine name theories
What utter nonsense. And people still
cling to these fabricated dogmatisms. When Job speaks about God, says Renan, he
calls Him Jehovah but when the Idumeans spoke they call Him Eloah, El,
El-Shaddai. Renan doubts whether the prologue, poem and epilogue were written by the
same hand. Renan said that the author was not imagining things or imitating. He is
too vigorous, vivid and strong in coloring. Renan said that the oldest theory is that Job is very old literature. As example he said the following: “The
wholly gratuitous hypothesis, by which Moses himself was the author of the book
of Job, hardly merits to be mentioned.” But Renan denies that because he did not
find any of Moses’ institutions in the book of Job. What is the problem with Renan thinking?
Moses wrote Job while in the Wilderness of Midiian in 1460 and the institutions
that Renan is expecting, would not start until they arrived at Sinai in 1448
BC. Moses underwent a paradigm shift from a hiding criminal when Job was
written in Midian to a law describer when the institutions of laws were
received. It is not the author of Job that is misguided, it is Renan himself. Ellen White said in Patriarch and Prophets that Moses wrote Job in Midian. If only
Renan read Patriarch and Prophets. It ascends to the Patriarchal age for they cannot find any trace of Mosaic
Institutions in it “As
we cannot find in it any trace of Mosaic institutions, it has been concluded
hence that the book was anterior to Moses, and ascends as a composition to the
patriarchal age.” Renan said Language is artificial and laboured Nothing of Mosaic Institutions 1. Also
Proverbs, Judges, First Kings.
---Renan knows very little about the
history of Israel and he made very loose remarks about it. “but either his precepts were not of a
nature to penetrate life very profoundly, or the people of Israel at first paid
little attention to them. We do not find that, until the period of reforms and
of pietism signalised in the reign of Josiah, the history of Israel had been
dominated by the complete body of the institutions, a pictured of which is
presented to us in the Pentateuch.” ---Not all the time there were rebellion
against the institutions of Moses. In fact many times the Israelites promised
to keep all in the Torah and it is recorded in Numbers as well as the
rebellions at times. Ellen White writes with more care than Renan who is her
contemporary: he an award winning Semitic Philologist and she an uneducated
writer guided by the Spirit. Every statement of Renan has to be rewritten or
edited with the fact-check corrections. ---Renan said very well about Solomon and
his writing of Proverbs: “Solomon, who cultivated it with so much success, was
in intimate relations with the neighbouring countries to Palestine to such a
degree that the purity of his character in the development of the Hebrew mind
suffered much from it.” He is correct. Solomon became so worldly and secular
that he almost painted his own experience in Proverbs hanging out with women
from every nation around them. ---The way one lives affects the way one thinks
and affects the methods one use to describe things and affect the outcome in
the form of books, like Proverbs. Renan is correct here (Study XIX). ---Renan felt that Proverbs is a mirror of
the profane wisdom of other nations. ---Not so. It is wisdom that affects our
lives if it is not connected to God. If the SQ is not right the IQ and EQ will
be in trouble. That is what the Book of Proverbs is telling us. Renan missed
it. ---Renan felt that King Lemuel of Proverbs
is maybe an Arabian person outside of Israel and that the origin of the Book
must be searched there. ---We must remember that the young
Hegelians who got their rationalism and pessimism from G. Hegel who died in
1833, were beer drinkers and in their alcoholic states at night, half-drunk,
the consider theology, philosophy, sociology and politics as Karl Marx
(President of the drinking club), Feuerbach, F. Engels, B. Bauer, a theologian,
used to do in the streets of Berlin and Bonn. The birth of atheism started in
1844 and continued to find its lobbyists even in our own day. ---Renan talks as if he was a regular
member of these clubs. But that is not proven. ---It is just that his mannerism
of talking about Scriptures compares very well with these drinkers. ---Renan felt that the poem of Agur in
Proverbs belongs not to Hebrews but outside of Hebrew culture. So he felt that
the Book of Job is the same. Do not take him seriously. ---It is a book that will not have Mosaic
Institutions because Moses was still in Midian hiding from Thutmosis III, the
illegitimate child of the streetwomen Iset that Thutmosis II took one night
much to the anguish of his wife Hathsepsut who was 18 at that time around 1518
BC. ---Thus in 1460 BC the book was written
and only after 1448 BC the Mosaic Institutions originated. Did Ernest Renan not
read his Bible? If Job was written in Midian, near the Copper Mines, near
Teman, and Job was patriarchal in history, and Moses lived in a nomadic society
hiding, then one should not look for the ‘Mosaic Institutions’ in Job that
early. Right? ---Renan then seeks in the Book of Job a
vintage of Syrian Philosophy that is not part of the Hebrew Culture. What utter
nonsense. Egyptian culture and politics, philosophy and religion was prevalent
in the Levant in those days that Moses wrote because they ruled the area in
colonial style for nearly 400 years we are told. ---So the background of the thoughts of
some of the friends of Job is not Syrian Philosophy but Egyptian Religion and
ideas sometimes. ---I do not know if it is Yehuda, but
there was a scholar that studied the Egyptianisms in the Hebrew Books and I
think it is the right approach. In Job especially since Moses knew Middle
Egyptian very well. So pull out your Gardner, Egyptian Grammar from the shelves. Your Middle Egyptian
Dictionaries. Get E. Budge’s Egyptian
Dictionary on hand. If the root is longer than three consonants you may run
to Egyptian. Especially the hapax
words of Job. Renan and others did not know it because they did not believe in
the reality of the history of the Bible so they could not figure out that Moses
was in Midian as an Egyptian learned scholar writing. They missed it due to
their own superstitious agnostic cult of Rationalism and pessimism. ---Sometimes Renan experience Job in the
right manner but he lays it in a metal confused way because he denies reality.