show that it breathed much of his spirit, which was both intensely Jewish and cosmopolitan, dignified and human, profound and poetic. Again, there is a considerable resemblance between the language of Solott1.on's Song and that of the Book of Proverbs-especially the first ·nine chapters and those from oh. xxii. to xxiv. (cf. Prov. v. 15 with Cant. iv. 15; vii. 17 with iv. 14, v. 3 with iv. 11, vi. 30, 31 with viii. 6, 7, xxiii. 81 with vii. 10). This is no proof that Solomon himself wrnte Oantioles, but is evidence that the two books approach one another in date. The substan_ce of the book accords with the facts of Solomon's history.. It is true that the number of queens mentioned, three score, and four soor~ concubines, and virgins without number, seem to differ from the amount given in .1 Kings xi. 3, but that may be explained by the fact that the reference of Canticles is to the early period of Solomon's splendour, when his life was less voluptuous and degenerate. The tone of the book is. not that of a. con-upt court, but rather of the simple purity of; a country maiden blooming in the presence of royal magnificence, transforming for the time being the atmosphere of worldly plea.sure into :which she.·is introduced, rebuking the fallen monarch, and setting forth by, way of contrast the superior glory of virtue. r; ,The argument for a later date derived from the language itself is of very little force. , lt"is assumed that Aramaic forms certainly betoken the decay of the Hebl'ew language. But this is by no means the case. In com- po$itions of a highly poetical and lyrical character such forms are found throughout the Old Testament, as in the Song of Deborah (Judg. v. 7), in Job; and in Amos. They were more frequently used, no doubt, in the nprthern .parts of Palestine than in the southern, and would be an evidence of the provincial cast of the book rather than its late origin. This is particularly the case with abbreviated forms such as the r;i for i~~. w:hioh we do not find in books of later date such as Jeremiah and Lamen- tations. Other Aramaisms are i19~~ in eh. i. 7 ; il;,1~ for i~~ ( oh. i. 6 ; viii, u,u'12}; n,if for Wlif ( eh. i. 17); '09, " winter" ( oh. ii.· 11 ), and others; but all these forms are confessedly poetical. There are also some few foreign words, such as pai·des (eh. iv. 13), appiryon (eh. iii. 9), but they are such as do not again appear, an9- such as we may well suppose to be wit)lin the knowledge of such a writer as Solomon. It may be observed or·the language generally, that it is much more like the Hebrew of the Augustan age of the language than of times when its native vigour was in decay, and it was rapidly becoming a dead language. There is no work subsequent to the Captivity to be compared with it in literary power, nor can we suppose that all reference to the changes in the national life could have been lacking had it come from a writer of the later times. It is utterly destitute of all philosophical thought, which would certainly have crept into it had it been composed during the Greek period. On the whole, we can scarcely doubt that it_is an early work, and the critical authorities who would dispute that conclusion are of no great weight. Umbreit II INTRODUCTION TO
would ascribe it to the time of the exile. Eichhorn, Bertholdt, and Rosen- miiller would date it still later, in the Persian age. Gratz, Ha1·tmann, and Borne few others would assign it to the Greek period. But against such names we must place the much higher authol'ity of Ewald, Dopke, Hii.ver- nick, Bleak, Hengstenberg, Zockler, Delitzsch, and Davidson, who all agree that it comes from the period of Solomon, though they ilo not all admit the royal authorship. Had it been of late origin, we could scarcely understand the extreme reverence with which it was regarded in the Jewish Church. "No man in Israel," said Rabbi Akiba in the• Mishna,' "ever doubted the canonicity of the Song of Songs, for the course-of ages cannot vie with the day on which the Song of Songs was given to Israel; all the Kethuvim [i.e. the writings of the Hagiographa] are indeed a holy thing, but the Song of Songs is a holy of holies" (' J adaim,' iii. 5). It seems probable, from the language both of Hosea and Isaiah, and the familiarity of the Jewish people with the fundamental idea of the book, the intimate relation of the truths of religion with the emotions of the human soul, that it was well known from at least as early a period as the eighth century before Christ. There is no direct" allusion to it in the New Testament; but the language of the Psalms, especially such as Ps. xlv. and lxxii., corresponds with it; and the cast of the Apostle Paul's thoughts is often in harmony with it; while the appeals of our Saviour himself to the hearts of the people to recognize their lovini l'elation to God and repent of their unfaithfulness, render it at least possible that the tenderness and persuasive beauty of Canticles was not ignored in the religious teaching of his day. He who was, in his' own words, the 1 heavenly Bridegroom, and who spoke, both by bis own life and by those of his apostles, of his bride and her desire towards him, and the joy and glory• of hi1,1 nuptials, can scarcely be said to have left this book unnoticed, although he never quoted from it or mentioned it by name. It stands by itself in 1lhe Old Testament, as the Apocalypse stands by itself in the New; but only those who have given it a hasty and superficial reading will long doubt that it contains within itself the mind of the Spirit.
§ 2. THE LITERARY FORM AND METHOD OF THE POEM.
Critics have been almost as much divided on the literary questions arising out of this remarkable book as theological writers_ have been on the interpretation of its meaning. Some have regarded it as a collection of love-songs, as Herder the great German poet and philosopher, whose interesting and able work on the subject is entitled,' Love Songs, the mo~t Ancient and Beautiful from the East ' (published in 1778). Th old IlQ._me given to the book, 'Canticles,' lends some weight to that view. The fact that no persons are introduced by name, and that the connection between the different parts of the poem is difficult to trace, seems to suggest an anthology of sop.gs rather than a composition with unity of n:i.ethod and THE SONG OF SOLOMON.