The Pulpit Commentary — Song of Songs — Section 14

EXPOSITION. come either from the wise king himself, or CHAPTER I. from some one of his contemporaries or im- Ver. 1.-The song of songs, which is mediate successors. The preposition is the Solomon's. This is certainly the title of lamedh auctoris. If the meaning were the book which follows, although in our "referring to,'' another preposition(~~) would present Hebrew Bible it is the first verse of have been employed. It he.a been remarked the book preceded by the shorter form,' The by Delitzsch that the absence of any descrip- Song of Sono-s.' The Septuagint he.a Rimply tion of Solomon as " King of Israel" or "son the title" Acr"i,.., so that our English title in of David " e.s in Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, the Authorized Version, 'The Song of confirms 'the view that Solomon himself was Solomon,' he.a no ancient authority. It is the sole author. Some have argued against well altered in the Revised Version to 'The the authenticity of the title on the gronod Song of Songs.' The word " song" ("1'1?) that the longer form of the relative, i,t~. does not necessarily convey the meaning, is used in it, whereas in the book itself the composed to be sung to music. If the per- shorter form, 'Vj, is found, but no dependence formance of the words were chiefly in view, the word would have been i\01i;i, carmen, can be placed on that argnmeot regarded by itself, for the same writer employs both forms, "lyric poem ",••hymn," or "ode." ·The Greek as e.g. Jeremiah, who uses the l~nger form ~4crµ.r,. 4crµ.d.~"'"• and_ the Le.tin of t~e Vnl- in his prophecies sod the sh~rte: m Lamen- gate, Oanticum canti;orum, accord with ~he tations. The shorter form 1s, in fact, tbe Hebrew in representmg the work as to.king older, being Old Ca.naanitish or Phwn!ci11n, e. hio-h place either in the esteem of the i,N, whioh is e. lengthened fo~m of;:-, and Ch~h or, on e.coount of the subject, in the afterwards became,~~- Ooe writer, however esteem of the writer. Luther expresses the same idea. in the title he attaches to it, 'Das (Fleisoher), holds tha~ ~he refative pronou:1 Hohelied,' that is, the chief or finest of songs. has a substantive or1gm, and compares 1t The reference me.y be to the excellence_ of with the Arabic ithe o.nd the Assyrian asar, tho literary form, but probably the.t which me1\Ilin"' " track "or" place," like the Ger- suggested the title we.a the supreme beauty man wilcher, whioh comes from wo. But of the love which prompted the songs. The whether this be so or not, it is certainly unsafe title me.y be reo-e.rded as applied to the whole to date nny book by the form found i~ it of the 0 book or to the first portion of it giving the relative pronoun. We know that lil poetry ne.m~ to the whole. If it be a collection of the e.bhreviated form is common. 1t was separate songs strung together, ns some think, probably o. North Piilestin~- provinciitlism, as by mere resemble.nee in style and subject, we see in the Book of Krngs. It becn1:11e then the words, "which is Solomon's" (,~~ oommon,in prose writings after the Ca.ptiv1t_y because of the de"radation of Hebrew, but 1t ,o-S~)) apply to the first song alone. But the w11s not unknow;before that time either in unity whioh is olee.rly to be tre.oed through prose or_ poetry. Wit~ regard to the exact the book to the end ma.kes it probable tha.t rlesoript1on of the poet10 form of _t~e S_ong of the title is meant to ascribe the work to the Songs, the difference among entice 1s con- authorship of Solomon. 'fhis is tho opinion siderable, b11t the question is scarcely worth of the m11jority of critics. It must have discussing. There undoubtedly is unity or BONG OF SOLOMON, a 2 THE SONG OF SOLOMON. [cn.1. 1-17.