S. R. Driver. SONG OF SONGS (d-i'?? •'V ; B po-mo, X C i<Tiia gV^druji', \ ^(jfj.o.ra (^fffiiiTojv ; Vulg. Canticiun Ganti- roriiii), vlience the common name Canticles; AV Song of Solomon). —
i. Name and place in the Canon.
II. Methods of Interpretation. An allegorical sense maintained
both in Jewisli and Christian Church : Targum, St. Ber- nard, Luther ; Seh. Castellio (opposed traditional view) ; Grotius, R. Simon, Clericus, Whiston, J. D. .Michaelis (all opposed at least to the exclusively allegorical sense) ; Herder (regarded the book as a collection of separate love- songs) ; allegorical interpretations of Keil, Uosenmiiller, Hengstenberg, Halin, Goltz, Hug, G. P. 0. Kaiser ; views of Jacobi. Delitzscb, von Orelli, Ewald ; two distinct typea of the dramatical theory, represented by Delitzsch and Ewald respectively ; a new era in interpretation of the Song inaugurated by J. G. Wetzstein, whose views have been most fully carried out by Budde ; Budde'a view stated and criticised ; the present writer's own view.
III. Authorship, Place of composition, and Date.
Literature.
i. Name op the Book and its place in the Canon. — ' Sonj; of Songs,' wliioji is the exact render- ing of the Hel)rew title of this liltle book, does not mean ' a .nong of the songs {sc of Solomon),' as Ibn Kzra an<l Kimchi supposed, but, bj' a not uncom- mon periphrasis for tne superlative, is equivalent to ' the hneat song,' that which is superior to all other gongs, that which unites in itself the excel- lencesof everything that is called .song. The title, which, as we shall find, did not originally stand at the head of the book but w.ts introduced after- wards, thus contains a signilicant expression of opinion reganling t he composition. It is explicable only on the ground of the view which a later age thought it necessary to hold as to the real sense ofa work which had now gained a place in the Canon of the OT. Nay, it is only the jirevalence of the same view that will explain how the Song ever found entrance at all into the circle of Sacred Writings.
This pregnant title corresponds with the high estimate of the book expressed by R. Akiba(cf. .fadaim, iii. .1), about the end of the 1st cent. a.d. : *Ood forbid ! No one in Israel has ever doubted that the Song of Kongs dotUcs the hands [i.e.. that it is a holy canonical book t], for the whole world is not worth the
* In Jn 6^ the expression la dilTerent, ' because he la a son of man ' {uiit itOt.), i.e. (see Westcott, or Meyer, ad toe. ; and Holtz- mann, 11. 427f.) because of His true humanity, adapting Him si>ecially to be a Judge of men. Cf. the human sympathy of the Judge in Mt 26^46.
♦ On 'deflle the hands' see Delitzsch in Zeitsdi./. luth. Th. u. K. XT. 0864) 280 ff., and W. R. Smith, OTJC* 186, note 1.
day on which the Song was given to Israel. For all the Writingl (I.e. the Hagiograpba] are holy, but the Song of Songs is a holy of the holies.' Ilenceforw.ird this idea of the incomparable value of the book continued to be the only prevailing one amongst the Jews, and thus passed over also into the Christian Church.
ii. Methods of Interpretation. — The above Talmudic citation shows, however, that this hi^h estimate of the Song of Songs did not succeed in establishing itself without oiijio.sition. The ques- tion whether they 'dulile the hands' received a vacillating answer esijecially in regard to the Song and Ecclesiastes. And it is easy to account fur this. The plain language of the book, soberly interpreted, does not suggest that we liave to do with 0, work of high religious value or with a sacred poem. It was neces.sary to wrest the language and to assume that a deeper seu.se underlay the literal meaning, before one could justify the pres- ence of such a book and gain an abiding place for it amongst the Sacred Writings.* What we hear of is eartlily love, that of betrt)thed or married persons, and nowhere does the natural eye detect a single indication that would call it away from this and compel it to see in the liguies presented to it images of a higher love. But at the time the step was taken of admitting the Song into the Canon, there can be no doubt that amongst those scribes whose intlnence was greatest in the collect- ing of the Sacred Writings, it had long been the custom to find in this exijuisite work an allegory, and in the bond of love there presented to .see the bond of love between J" and Israel. Suliictient in- ducement to such an interpretation was supjjlied by Scripture itself, for at least since the time of the prophet Hosea the representation of the cove- nant between J" and His peoiile under the figm-e of the relation between husband and wife had becoma frequent and popular. When in cciM.sc(iuence of the allegorical interpretation the book had been received into the Canon, objections to its being allowed to remain there could, of course, arise only from the strong impression which its lan- guage makes upon the reader, and the removal of such objections was facilitated in pro|iortiou as the allegorical interjiretation obtained accei)tance. The latter interpretation was bound to triumph in the end, for the more the true conception of the origin and character of Scripture was lost and a false notion of its inspiration came in, the more did the need make itself felt th.at all writin<;s received into the Canon, the Song included, should be viewed and interpreted in such a way as to entitle them to rank as holy writings inspired by God's Spirit.