Equally improbable is the opinion that the book is a whole, and is founded upon a true history."

There is a connection between the following passages: i. 2-8, the maiden's anxiety for her lover; i. 9—ii. 7, the lover's conversation when they come together; ii. 8 -17, the lover's visit to the maiden, in the vineyard; iii. 1-5, the maiden seeking her lover by night, and finding him; iv. 1—v. 1, the dialogue between the young man, excited with love, and the complying maiden; v. 2 -vi. 3, the maiden seeking her lover by night, and praising him; vi. 4-9, the faithful lover's praises of his beloved; vii. 2-viii. 4, the conversation of the pair, now intoxicated with love, and united therein; (compare i. 9 -ii. 7, with this ;) viii. 5-7, the love of the faithful wedded pair.

If these passages are treated rigorously, it cannot be shown that they constitute one whole, for the scene and the costume change somewhat; thus, in i. 5, ii. 7,

no one who has not completed his thirtieth year, is permitted to read the beginning of Genesis, or Canticles, or the beginning and end of Ezekiel, so that he may come to perfect knowledge and to the mystical sense of these books, when his mind is in its greatest vigor. See Origen, Prol. ad Cant. Bartolocci, Bib. Rab. vol. iv. p. 373,

a

" This is the theory of Jacobi, Velthusen, Ammon, and others. Umbreit maintains there is a certain unity in the book, and succeeds without forcing the matter much, though not without arbitrary interpretation. In particular, he gives a false explanation of the slumber song. (ii. 7, iii. 5, and viii. 4.) Ewald maintains it is a drama, and is still more guilty of arbitrary treatment, especially in separating the dialogue, (i. 9—ii. 6, vi. 2—4, vii. 2—viii. 4,) and thereby separating the terms which clearly are connected with one another — “My Beloved,” (~5777,) and “My Love,” (7777,) which latter term is applied to the absent lover. (i. 15, 16.)

Both Ewald and Umbreit make the heroine a country maiden, shut up in Solomon's harem. But this opinion is favored only by i. 4-6, and vi. 8. But the intervening passages, (i..7, sqq.,) where the scene presents us flocks and pastures, &c., as well as those which follow, (vii. 12, sqq.,) lead us away from the court. See A. T. Hartmann, On the Character and Explanation of the Song of Songs, in Winer's Zeitschrift, vol. iii. p. 412.

iii. 1, v. 1, sqq., the scene is in Jerusalem; but it is in the country in i. 7, sq., ii. 8, sqq., vii. 12, sqq., and viii. 13, 14. But yet all seems to relate to one and the same pair of lovers, and to bear the impress of one single author.

There are yet other passages which are insulated, abrupt, and perhaps stand in a false connection: iii. 6— 11, the bridal song of Solomon, if verse 6 could otherwise belong to it; viii. 8-10, innocence protecting itself; viii. 11, 12, the lover's self-complacency; (?) viii. 13, 14, the lover alarmed.

The passage, vi. 10-vii. 1, is extremely obscure: — "Who is this that shines forth like the dawn,

Beautiful as the moon,

Pure as the sun,

And terrible as an army?

"I went down to the nut-garden

To see the green things of the valley,

To see if the vine sprouted,

And the pomegranates bloomed.

I did not know,

people.

my soul made me a chariot of my noble

Return, return, Shulamith,

Return, return, that we may look upon thee.
What shall you see in the Shulamith,

[Who is] Like the dancing of angel-choirs?"

Perhaps the fragments, ii. 15, iii. 6, and viii. 5, are inserted in the wrong place. Chap. iii. 6, vi. 10, and viii. 5, have a suspicious affinity with one another, as likewise have ii. 16, 17, iv. 5, 6, [?] vi. 2, 3.

• Herder, Kleuker, Döderlein, Döpke, Hufnagel, Paulus, (Eichhorn, Rep. vol. vii. and xvii.) think the book consists of fragments. See Umbreit, Erinnerung an das Hoheslied.

§ 277.

AGE AND AUTHOR.

In respect to their language, these songs are to be classed with the latest productions of Hebrew literature, in particular with the book of Ecclesiastes." For this reason, some, like Eichhorn, Bertholdt, and Rosenmüller, place their composition in a very late period. Hartmann places it the lowest.

But the whole circle of images, and historical relations, and the freshness of life it describes, belong to the age of Solomon; for example, i. 4, 5:—

"To the horses in Pharaoh's chariot

I compare thee, my friend." (verse 9.)
"While the king is at his table,

My nard gives its fragrance;

A bunch of myrrh is my friend." (verse 12.)

"Behold the bed of Solomon;

Sixty strong men around it,

Of Israel's strong;

All grasping the sword,

Ready for war," &c. (iii. 7, sqq., iv. 4, vi. 4, 8, 9,

viii. 11, 12.)

Bertholdt thinks the author transferred himself back to the age of Solomon. But this is certainly very improbable, for, as Herder says, "Nothing in the world

a

ii. 8.

(iv. 13) is Persian, (a park, лaçadeloos.) Comp. Eccl. ii. 5, Neh. The following are Aramaan: nina, i. 17; ybp, ii. 8; b, ii. 9; 75, , ii. 11;, v.3;, (= qogɛior auдógεior,) iii. 9; ", for, ii. 13. The following belong to the later Hebrew usage:, as nota accusat., iii. 11; 7, v. 3, (Esth. viii. 6;), ii. 12, (Ezra vii. 12, Eccl. xii. 1;), prefixed, i. 7, iii. 1, sqq.; by, iii. 7, i. 6, sqq.; 7777, iv. 4. Eichhorn, § 646, sq. Hartmann, 1. c. p. 420, sqq., from whose statements much is to be abated. Köster, p. 31. On the other hand, see Döpke, 1. c. p. 29, sqq.

demands so entire and intimate a presence as love...... You can do no greater injustice to expressions of love than to rob them of their individuality."

It cannot be shown

The passage, iii. 6-11, follows the course which Solomon's nuptial song must take. - as it has been contended

that

not a chief town in Solomon's time.

Thirza (vi. 4) was
It is mentioned in

Josh. xii. 24, and the mention of this city proves an earlier age than the Persian.

Herder and Döpke rely on the freshness of the composition, as an argument for its early date. Religious lyrics could not flourish after the exile, and the amatory idyl could scarcely thrive. But Hartmann takes the other side."

A

Perhaps the riddle may be solved by maintaining that these songs were preserved orally, - in the mouth of the people, and in some degree transformed. This also will explain the fragmentary compilation of them. similar opinion has been maintained by Scyth, Ewald, and others, who seek the cause of the peculiarity of the language in the idiom of the province where the songs were composed.

The opinion that Solomon was the author, is but poorly supported by the inscriptions of the book, and is in itself improbable. Such passages as i. 4, 5, 12, iii. 6-11, vii. 6, viii. 11, 12, show that Solomon is not the author. Yet the opinion that he was the author, and the age of the songs, seem to have led to their reception into the canon, which was probably excused by the allegorical interpretation put upon them.

Köster (p. 32) thinks the book is of late origin, on account of its allegorical character, its far-fetched images, and its learned allusions to other books of the Old Testament. some of them quite recent; e. g. i. 3, 4, iii. 8, iv. 11, 14, vii. 5, comp. Ps. xlv. 15, 4, 9, 8; vi. 12, comp. Ps. cx. 2; viii. 11, comp. Isa. v 1; ii. 14, comp. Obad. 3; vii. 10, comp. Prov. xxiii. 31.

CHAPTER IV.

THE PROVERBS OF SOLOMON."

§ 278.

CONTENTS OF THE BOOK.

HERE, not only short, disconnected proverbs and enigmas, but likewise longer, connected sententious

• Phil. Melanchthonis Explicatio Provv.; 1555. Opp. t. ii.

Jo. Merceri Comm. in Provv. Salom., with his Comment. on Job. Provv. Salom. c. Cura enucleata a Mart. Geiero; Lips. 1669; 1725, 4to. Chr. B. Michaelis, Annotatt. in Provv. in J. H. Michaelis Uberr. annotatt. in Hagiogr.

Proverbia Salom: Versionem integram ad Hebræum Fontem expressit atque Comment. adjecit Alb. Schultens; Lug. Bat. 1748, 4to.; in compend. redegit et Observatt. crit. auxit G. J. L. Vogel, cum Auctario per G. A. Teller; Hal. 1769.

J. F. Hirts, Vollst. Erklär. der Sprüche Salomos; Jen. 1768, 4to.

Chr. Fr. Schnurrer, Observatt. ad quædam Loca Prov. Salom.; Tub. 1776, 4to. Dissertt. phil. crit. vol. i.

J. J. Reiske, Conjecturæ in Jobum et Provv. Salom.; Lips. 1779.

Zur Exegetik u. Kritik des A. T. von A. J. Arnoldi; Frkf. u. Lpz. 1781. J. G. Jäger, Observatt. in Provv. Salom. Versionem Alex.; Lips. 1788, 8vo. Hensler, Erläuterungen des 1 B. Sam. u. der Salom. Denkspr.; Hamb. 1796.

F. W. C. Umbreit, Philol. krit. u. philosoph. Comm. ü. d. Sprüche Sal., nebst e. neuen Uebers. u. e. Einleit. in die morgenl. Weisheit überh. u. in d. hebr. salomonische insbesondere; Heidelb. 1826.

Rosenmüller, Schol.

Paraphrase by G. J. L. Vogel, 1767; Ch. A. Bode, 1791.

Translated by J. D. Michaelis, (n. d. Pred. m. Anmerkk. f. Ungel.) 1778, 4to.; Döderlein, 3 A. 1786; Struensee, 1783; Kleuker, 1786; R. Ch. Reinhard, 1790; W. C. Ziegler, m. Einl. u. Anm. 1791; Muntinghe, n. Anmerkk. aus d. Holländ. von Scholl, 2 Bde, 1800, 1802; J. G. Dahler, n. d. Abweichungen d. alexandr. Uebers., 1810; C. P. W. Gramberg, Systemat. geordnet. m. Anm. u. Parall., 1828; E. G. A. Böckel, 1829; Ewald, 1. c. vol. iv.

[Hunt, Observations on the Book of Proverbs; Oxford, 1775, 4to. Hodg