Putting all the facts together, it would probably be near the truth to say that music was first in- troduced into religious worship to some small extent with the second temple, but was first thoroughly organized and greatly developed under the reforms of Ezra and Nehemiah. This use of Psalms, under the control of the Priestly guilds, would have given authority not only to those specially composed for the purpose, but to those adapted to liturgical use, and they would have required no further sanction. See, further, artt. PRAISE IN OT, and PSALMs.
Proyerbs.—It was different with the Bk. of Proverbs. It belongs to a class of literature the sanction of which is by no means so obvious. If required to place in order of time the Prophetic, the Priestly, and the Ethical spirit among the Jews, we should certainly give them in this order. The last of the three is most closely connected with modern Judaism. The destruction of Jeru- salem and the abolition of its sacrificial system must have gone far to give it strength and per- manence, but in its inception the ethical spirit is of much earlier date, as we see from Sirach. But, as we see from the Prologue, Sirach itself was an imitation of earlier books, among which we must obviously reckon Proverbs; and these earlier books are spoken of as already ancient, ‘the other books of our fathers,’ and yet are not so ancient as the prombete, unless indeed the phrase ‘others that
ave followed in their steps’ points especially to Chronicles, which was in a sense an imitatica of the prophetic Bk. of Kings. The fact, too, that Solomon came to be looked upon as the fountain of proverbial philosophy, is at once a proof of the relative antiquity of the germ and the sanction of what came to be ascribed to him. When once Solomon had gained this reputation, it became customary to ascribe proverbs tohim. That many of these were originally popular sayings, handed down as ancient saws, hardly needs saying. That they were gathered together into small collections first, and that such collections were afterwards Bat together so as to form our present Bk. of Proverbs, is evident to any one who carefully studies the book. See PROVERBs.
With regard to the canonicity of this book, all that we can positively say is, that it is extremely unlikely that a scoop sacred character should have begun to be attached to such proverbs only when the whole collection had been finally com- pleted. The words at the beginning of Pr 25! ‘These also are Proverbs of Solomon, which the men of Hezekiah, king of Judah, copied out,’ make it probable that, when what is believed to be the earliest collection was made, the proverbs which composed it were already believed to be Solomon's,
OLD TESTAMENT CANON 613
It proves at the least that, when the final compila- tion was complete, this earlier collection was headed by a title which the compilers did not venture to disturb. The case is parallel to that of Ps 72%. We may, then, ἘΠῚ say that the canonicity of the whole Bk. of Proverbs was firmly established long before B.c. 180, and that of parts of it, certainly chs. 25-29 were recognized long before, possibly as early as the reign of Hezekiah.
Ecclesiastes.—In point of canonicity Ecclesiastes stands on quite a different footing from Proverbs. It was neither a collection of sayings tradition- ally ascribed to Solomon, nor was it a collection of booklets which bore his name. Ecclesiastes was apparently ascribed to Solomon neither by ancient tradition nor by literary criticism ; but the person of Solomon is assumed by the writer. s the authorship of Solomon is precluded on literary sromndles there are no alternatives except either a
eliberate fraud or a mere literary device designed to give force to his subject. The latter alterna- tive seems by far the most probable. It was written in a literary age (see 193), when a modern book would not easily be mistaken for one of ancient date, by a writer, probably an old sage, who had observed much and studied much, and felt that he had a right to speak (125-13), and was giving such advice as Solomon himself might have given had he lived in his day. That in a less critical age this literary device should have been misunderstood, and that, if so, it should have done much for the reception of this book, is not surpris- ing. How soon this was so, or the exact date of its composition, must be largely matter of con- jecture. We cannot be certain that it was known to the writer of Sirach. On the other hand, it is said to have been quoted by one Simon, son of Shetach, in the first ἍΜ of the century before Christ (see Buhl, pp. 15, 17). It probably belongs to the literary age which terminated in the dis- turbed period of the Maccabees, and was cer- tainly authoritatively recognized by the Council of Jamnia at the end of the Ist cent. A.D. See, further, art. ECCLESIASTES.
Song of Songs.—The Song of Songs is so far like Ecclesiastes that the subject of the poem is connected with the person of Solomon, not obviously as the assumed writer, but as one of the principal characters. The poem, or group of poems, is, how- ever, probably ancient, and originally, there can be no serious doubt, quite secular in character. According to 1 K 4% Solomon was traditionally known as a writer of poetry, and it is quite possible that this work was ascribed to him at a comparatively early date, before the Exile. The allegorical interpretation of the book would have naturally followed. He who was believed to have drawn lessons of morality from plants and animals (cf. 1 K 45 with Pr 658 26%% etc.), might easily be supposed to have intended some ieep mystic meaning in this simple story of pure and natural love. In this case the reception of the book was probably slow and gradual, and naturally enough met with considerable opposition. Had itnot been for its allegorical interpretation, it is unlikely that it would have gained a place in the Canon. The Christians accepted the book, but gave it a new allegorical interpretation of their own. ἥ