We may open our discussion with an examina- tion of Grimiue's theory of a Hebrew original. In
* 'Quelques mota Bur les odes de Salomon,' in ZSTW xiv. [1914) 231 fl(.
104
ODES OF SOLOMOX
ODES OF SOLOMON
spite of the excellence of his Uebrew translation of the Syriac text, we are unable to discern any strong philological foundations for his view. Ills argu- ment is two-fold. He tries, lirst of all, to tind in the Odes an acrostic arrangement of their recon- structed text, which should suggest a dependence of tlie Syriac upon the supposed Hebrew.
Here is the order of this complicated acrostic system ; Ode i. begins with N ; Ode ii. and the beginning of Ode iii. are miss- ing. Odes iv. and v. have again N ; Odes vi. and vii. have a 3 : Odes viii., Ix. : ; Odes x., xi., xii., xiii., xiv. a n ; Odes xv., xvi., xvii. a J ; Ode xviii. a n ; Odes xix., xx., xxi. a D ; Odes xxii., xxiii. a D ; Odes xxiv., xxv., xxvi. a J ; Ode xxvii. a 3 ; Ode xxviii. a 2 ; Ode xxix. a b; Odes xxx., xxxi., xxxii., xxxiii. a vi ; Ode xxxiv. an K ; Ode xxxv. a i ; Ode xxxvi. a 3 ; Ode xxxvii. a S ; Ode xxxviii. a V ; Ode xxxjx. a J ; Ode xl. a 3 ; Ode xli. a ' ; Ode xlii. a B.
The reader will readily observe that, despite the good will of the editor, this alphabetical arrange- ment is very defective, and we cannot rely upon it for critical purposes. If in the future other scholars should undertake, with better success, a Hebrew translation which would exhibit this acrostic sys- tem in a more constant manner, then the same method miglit be applied to the Aramaic language generallj'. Moreover, this acrostic arrangement is much in use in Syriac literature ; several hymns of Eplirem, all the poems called soghiathas, and in- numerable other literary compositions, exhibit such an acrostic system (cf. Brev. Chald. vols, i., ii., iii. pp. 35, 185, 195 f. ; A. Mingana, Narsai Uomilice et Carmina, Mosul, 1905, vol. ii. ad Jin.) ; the idea might have been suggested to Aramrean writers from some poems of the OT which exhibit this strophic arrangement, but the work of these Aramaeans is independent of a Hebrew text, and does not involve a flebrew original.
Grimme's second argument is more scientific. He brings forward a number of morphological and syntactical features which, according to him, point to an original Hebrew text. It would take too long to examine in detail every word that he quotes to corroborate his opinion, but we may be allowed to say that none of the 35 instances that he gives carries conviction. He emphasizes, and very justly, the fact of the double meanings of some Hebrew words, in order to deduce from them the explana- tion of some grammatical and lexicological diffi- culties of the Syriac text, but we shall wait until more convincing proofs are given to Syriac scholars. But, altliough Grimme's theory is certainly not in all points invulnerable, it has opened the way for further investigation in the domain of the general Semitic stock.
Those in favour of a Syriac original support their view by the following proofs.
(1) There is a constant relation between the style of the Odes and Syriac hymnulogy in general. Syrian and Arab writers are fond of repeating the same word several times in one sentence, to make it and the principal idea expressed by it more em- phatic. Confining ourselves to Syriac literature, we may see, for instance, how the word meaning ' star ' is repeated seven times by Ephrem in two lines of a hymn which is preserved in Brev. Chald. (vol. i. p. 338) ; the word meaning ' man ' and the verb meaning ' to eat ' are repeated four and three times respectively in one line of a homily of Narsai (the present writer's edition, vol. i. p. 21). When we examine the Odes, we find that this character- istic note occurs more than once in the text. Ode xxxviii. repeats the word meaning ' to corrupt ' five times in one short verse ; the verb meaning ' to impede ' is repeated three times in another verse of Ode vi., etc.
(2) There is a constant use by the writer of the mimmcd infinitive, or of the noun of action derived
from the verb immediately following this verb, to give ener^jy to the sentence, e.g., ' the error erred ' (Ode xxxi.), ' the truth flowed as a fiow of water' (Ode xii.). There are in all 21 verses in which this linguistic phenomenon is represented, and if some of them may be explained by the too pronounced freedom of the translator, as is sometimes the case in books translated from the Greek, it is highly uncritical to suppose that all of them are a play of words invented by the translator.
(3) There are some words which seem to point in an indubitable manner to an Arama30-Syriac original. Ode xix. contains the following remark- able passage : ' She did not require a midwife, because Himself facilitated her pains.' The word 'midwife' (in Syriac, 'the living,' the 'giver of life') is derived from the verb which comes just after it : ' He facilitated her pains ' (in Syriac, ' He gave life'). This curious derivation would have been impossible in any other language than Ara- maic. This sentence, in the absence of any ade- quate objection, is decisive.