//■6.2-1. 
 LIBRARY OF THE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY 
 
 PRINCETON, N. J. 
 
 Presented by 
 
 Division V.~— 
 
 Section .(.. r """^ 
 

Old Testament Literature. 
 
 ,vU^V ■' "'^^z^. 
 
 -^ •\'0\/ ^ 
 
 LECTURES ON 
 
 Tlie Poetical Books of tlie Old Testaiiiciit 
 
 -^ 
 
 \^ 
 
 PSALMS, SONG OF SOLOMON, 
 
 PROVERBS, ECCLESIASTES. 
 
 —BY- 
 
 PROF. W. HENRY GREEN. 
 
 FROM NOTHS OF THE LECTURES I5EF0RE 
 
 THE MIDDLE CLASS. 
 
 COMPILED FOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF THE STUDENTS OF 
 PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY. 
 
 PRINTED, NOT PUBLISHED. 
 
 PRINCETON COLLEGE. 
 
 Edwin Fitzgeorge, Printer, S. W. Cor, State and Greene Sts., Trenton, N. J. 
 
 1881. 
 
PREFA,GE. 
 
 Tlie Editors of tliese notes have aimed to furnish as 
 full an outline of the present course in this department 
 as practiealde or necessary. Much of the matter con- 
 tained in the edition of 1878 has been omitted, because 
 it now is neither relevant to the course nor enters into it. 
 The lectures recently added to the course are here 
 inserted. Job, although belongina: to the list of Poetical 
 Books, is omitted for the reason that the full treatment 
 of it is given in Dr. Green's published work upon the 
 subject. 
 
 Although errors will doubtless a})pear, every etfort 
 has been made to guard against them; while an attempt 
 has been made, also, to secure perspicuity, so far as pos- 
 sible, through the arrangement of chapters, sections and 
 paragraphs. It is due to Dr. Green to say that he is 
 nowise responsil)le for the publication of tliis work, nor 
 for any errors it may contain. 
 
 G. F. GREENE, \ Editors for the 
 D. W. WOODS, j Class of '85. 
 
Old Testament Literature. 
 
 THE POETICAL BOOKS. 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 1. GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF HEBREW POERTY. 
 
 In this lecture, introductory to the course, we are to 
 deal with the characteristics of 0. T. poetry. In dealing 
 with this ancient poetry let us look for what is funda- 
 mental in it. Then let us trace its development. At the 
 outset we find tliat essential charaeteristics of modern 
 poetry are wanting in IIeV)rew verse. Is, then, the latter 
 true poetry? We answer that if mere rhyme and rythni 
 constitute the soul of verse, then there is no IIel)rew 
 poetry. But if those qualities are the accident rather 
 than essence of verse, the Hehrew may contain true 
 poetry. Such is the case. 
 
 The soul of verse lies in the thought and in the feeling. 
 Its form of expression does not make it poetry. The 
 genius of the Greek gave its verse one form of expres- 
 sion — that of the IIel)rew gave its verse another. Thus 
 there is nothing in Hehrew to correspond to the Greek 
 drama and Epic. In Hehrew the harmony is not of 
 rythm, but of periods. Hebrew literature, therefore, is 
 essentiall}^ poetic when the conception in the author's 
 mind, rather tlian the form of expression, is poetic. 
 
 The Epic in Hebrew. — Skeptics have sought a great 
 
E[)ic ill the Pentatoncli — something akin to the Iliad. 
 Not warrantecL The Peutateneh is a simple narration 
 of facts. No luxuriant mythology is there. The history 
 of Israel was so rich in mighty deeds that there was little 
 left for the imagination after their single narration. 
 Therefore a prime element of Epic poetry — the imagina- 
 tion — is wanting in Hebrew verse. 
 
 The Drama in Hebrew. — Ewald tliinks the drama exists 
 in a rudimentary state in Hebrew, e. g., in the Song of 
 Solonxm. and Job. He likens the Sov(/ of Solomon to Gre- 
 cian comedy, and Job to tragedy. True view : The drama 
 was unknown to the Hebrews. In the Song of Solomon all 
 the elements of dramatic poetry are wanting. It is 
 lyric throughout. Not even a plot. In the case of Job 
 there is more reason for thinking that dramatic ele- 
 ments may be found. True, Job is written in dialogue 
 form; but dialogue does not constitute tragedy. Besides, 
 there is neither 2)lot nor external ar-tion in the book. 
 From fii'st to last the action is internal (i. e., it is action 
 going on in Job's heart) and not external ; and a tragedy 
 must possess external action. When we view the theme 
 (the temptation of Job) we admit that it appears more 
 like a tragedy. So we believe that while tlie book is not 
 a developed tragedy, yet it possesses tragic elements. 
 There were no scenic representations among the 
 Hebrews. 
 
 Classifications of Hebreiv Poetry. — Some divide Hebrew 
 poetry into (1.) Lyric, (2.) Epic, (3.) Dramatic. This 
 classification we discard. The true division is into (1.) 
 Lyric, and (2.) Didactic or Aphoristic. Shir — song — a 
 lyric poem. This Hebrew term applies (a) to metrical 
 compositions in historical books, (b) psalms, (c) Song of 
 Sol., [ii) Lamentations, llaschil — a didactic poem. This 
 term applies to (a) Pror., (b) Eccies., (c) Job. — Lyric 
 poetry is historically first in every nation, — as connected 
 with the service of religion. 
 
 Extant 0. T. Lyric Poems. — Passing by Antedeluvian 
 fragments such as Lamech's lament (Gen. 4 : 23-24.) we 
 
come (a) to the blessing of dying Jacob, (b) Song of 
 Moses (Deut. 32, 33), "(c) Tiie Mnetieth Psalm, (cl) 
 Prophecies of Balaam, (e) Sacerdotal blessings (Num. 
 10 : 35, 36). (f ) Hannah's Song (1 Sam. 2)— an echo of 
 sacred songs then used in the sanctuary — is also lyric. 
 This, together with references in Num. and Josh, to col- 
 lections of poetic compositions then extant lead us to 
 infer that there were many poems which are now lost. 
 
 Golden Period of Hebrew Poetry/. — This was the age of 
 David and Solomon, of course. There was a material and 
 spiritual preparation for this, in the work of Samuel. 
 iSamuel was the father of the prophets. But outside of 
 this preparation in an age previous to his, David possessed 
 natural endowments for being the sweet singer of Israel. 
 God used his piety and poetic taste in preparing the 
 songs for the sanctuary. Solomon was gifted as his 
 father had been. He wrote 3000 proverbs, and 1005 
 Songs. 
 
 The corrupt age which followed the reign of Solomon 
 was unfavorable to poetry. During the age of the 
 prophets there were only occasional songs. Pss. 47 and 
 48 are referred to the time of Jehoshaphat. The refor- 
 mation following the Exile gave us Lamentations, the 
 only O. T. poem of that age. With this age 0. T. poetry 
 ceased. There are no true Maccabean psalms. 
 
 2. SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF HEBREW POETRY. 
 
 Hebrew poetry was sung, and accompanied by musical 
 instruments. Hence there must have been some sort of 
 harmony in its flow. It is disputed, however, whether 
 there was versification or not. Philo and Josephus 
 speak of discovering ordinary Greek mitres in Hebrew, e. 
 g,, trimeters and strophes, pentameters and hexameters. 
 The song in Deut. 22, and the song at the Red Sea were 
 said to contain hexameters. Eusebius speaks of dis- 
 covering trimeters. But these statements are mere gen- 
 eralities ; and as no specific examples are given they 
 possess but little weight. 
 
Attempts to Discover Metres in Hebrew Verse; Three 
 Chsses. 
 
 1. Those who s()iii>'ht to discover tlie (4 reek verse 
 in the 0. T. (1.) The first sdiolar of this chiss was 
 Francis (loniar (1568-ir)51). His idea was that the 
 versification in Hebrew is a mixture of the methods of 
 Roman, Greek, etc. The fault of this principle is tliat it 
 is contrarv to all laws of ])rosody, and l)esides it would 
 fir prose as well as poctrv. (2.) Otliers alter the text in 
 order to make it fit the Greek system of verse. (3.) An 
 English clergyman— J. C. Hare (1796-1854)— sought to 
 discover iambics and trochaicsin Hebrew verse. In order 
 to do this he disregarded the s^-llaldes, and the Mazoretic 
 pointing. This method is now generally abandoned. 
 
 2. Those who tried to consti'uct Hebrew verse from mea- 
 sures found in Chaldee and other cognate languages. Sir 
 Wm. Jones and the Orientalist Graliam tried this method, 
 but they were forced to assume so many errors that they 
 aban(h'»ned it. 
 
 3. Those who tried to construct the measures from a. 
 system of accents, accented syllables being looked upon 
 as long, and unaccented, short. The principle is unsys- 
 tematic and arbitrary. Hence it is abandoned. Many, 
 however, insist that some kind of metre exists, and 
 charge the difficulty of finding it upon the pointing. 
 Yet the various lengths of the linos prove, outside of the 
 pointing, that Hebrew poetry is so much less constrained 
 than that of other languages that its entire construction 
 is different from theirs. 
 
 Our last resort is therefore to believe simply that 
 Ilelirew verse is less constrained and artificial than 
 modern verse. Some scholars have suspected the exist- 
 ence of rhyme, where the lines have ended in the same 
 suffixes, — as in Is. 25: 21. But this rhyme was probably 
 unintended. Now what distinguishes Hebrew poetry from 
 prose? There must be certain distinguishing features to 
 mark the expression of the loftier thoughts of the poet. 
 Hence tlie external form of poetry must differ in some 
 
fifv^o >f(n^^ uwVt^ ru<U^'^, (^Cit^hij^yxM^ 
 
respects always from prose. For one thing the assonance 
 of words in poetry is fonnd to be more frequent than in 
 prose. 
 
 Distinguish /')}[/ J^eatarcs of Hebrcio Poefri/. — Hebrew 
 poetry difters from prose (1) as to Diction, (2) as to Verse 
 (i. e. peculiai'ity of the sentences), (3) as to the Stanza (i. 
 e. peculiar structure of the poem as a whole.) 
 
 1. Diction. — Words are used in verse Avhich are stiff 
 and pedantic in prose. Classes of words which mark 
 Hebrew poetry : (a) words used in poetry whicli are 
 never used in prose, e. g., Amer (word.) Hebrew poetry 
 sometimes uses Arabic or Aramaic forms, (b) Unpro- 
 saic forms of words used in prose, (e. g. Elohim in 
 sing.) (c) Unusual constructions or combinations foreign 
 to the usage of prose. 
 
 2. Verse. — This distinction is a distinction as to the 
 sentences. The poet does not express his thoughts in 
 long periods, Init in brief sentences. There is a stroke 
 and a rebound in tlie same line. In other poetry there 
 are alliteration, measures, rhyme, etc. In Hebrew there 
 is a parallelism — beyond that no fixedness. Lines have 
 no fixed length. jSTo unwieldy length, however. The 
 average line has from seven to ten syllables. The short- 
 est has three, the longest, fifteen. 
 
 3. Stanza — Alphabetic Psalms. — These alphabetic psalms 
 are peculiar in that their length is determined by the 
 alphabet. In some of these there is only a trace of the 
 alphabet, as in Pss. 9, 10. Some of these omit one or 
 two letters. Some critics wrongly say that verses are 
 lost out with these lost letters. In other psalms of the 
 class the alphabetic structure is adhered to only so far as 
 it suited the sulyect. Some repeat each letter in several 
 verses (e. g. Ps. 119 repeats each letter 8 times.) Some- 
 times each half verse is begun with letters in order (e. g. 
 Pss. Ill and 112.) 
 
 Parallelism of Clauses. — This is the main characteristic 
 of Hebrew poetry. We adopt Lowth's classification of par- 
 allelisms, viz., (1) si/noni/mous, (2) antithetic, and (3) s)/)i- 
 
10 
 
 thetlc. Wc also distinguisli between perfect and imper- 
 fect parallelism, i. e. whether the parallelism is complete 
 or not. 
 
 (1.) Synonymous parallelism: — Wliere the two clauses 
 each contain the same thought in ditlerent Avords. (E. 
 g. Prov. 7: 2.) /J. //^ ^ 
 
 (2.) Antithetic parallelisms : — Where the thought in 
 the first clause is illustrated in the second clause l»y its 
 opposite. (E. g. Prov. 14 : 1.) X,S4^ 
 
 (3.) Synthetic parallelisms: — Where the thouglit in 
 the second clause adds something to that of the first. 
 (E. g. Ps. 19: 7, — " The law of the Lord is perfect — con- 
 A''erting the soul : the testimony of the Lord is sure — 
 making wise the simple." 
 

 
 
^ ' (-■ ' 
 
 ■w-t' 7 
 
 
 
 
 t 
 
y\/i^'-M^, /y ^ 6} '- ^/^^^ ^"^ 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 THE PSALMS. 
 
 1. INTRODUCTION TO THE PSALMS. 
 
 Names Used for the Collection of Psalms. — The IIol)reAV 
 
 ;-2:iJJ-ii^^ 
 
 name is Tliilhn — liymns. In the ]S^. T. the word Psalmoi - / 
 
 is used— "Book of Psahiis," (Lnke 24: 44.) In Ps. 72 '^'^ 
 the term T^ph'dah is used, some say for the wliole collec- 
 tion, meaning praijers. The term for individnal psalms 
 used tiftj-seven times is Jlizmor — psalm. This term is 
 /w speciallj' used to denote psalms intended to be accom- 
 
 . panied bv music. Often the c/e.s^Vy??. and a.w^Ao/- of the psalm 
 
 0^ are mentioned with its name. Shir is often associated witli 
 
 ^C 3I!zrnor in the case of psalms that are to be recited with- y . ^^ 
 
 jlfi out the instrumental accompaniment. A<^(>. ^Mrtx.ic^t-/^^^^''^^ ' 
 
 . if I, 'y\ij ' Songs of Degrees. — There are fifteen psalms grouped to- ^-^ ^^ 
 'gether and called "Songs of Degrees." Why so named? 
 (1) Some say : Sung as the singers ascended the Temple 
 steps, a psalm for each step. (2) Otliers : It refers to the 
 annual march to the Temple, during which they were 
 sung, and they marked the progressive steps of the pil- 
 grimage. (3) Another view : So named from the charac- 
 ter of the poetry — one verse completed in the next. (To 
 illustrate vid. Pss. 121, 123, 124.) 
 
 Titles for Individual Psalms. — (1) 3Iaschil {an in. - 3 i- • ^ 
 structive i)salm,) occurs in the title of thirteen psalms. (2) 
 / (> /r^Michtam means golden jisalm. The verb from which 
 ^ it is derived, [Katam) signifies to hide, or to con- 
 
 11 
 
ccal. Hence the iioim means .'/oW, treasure. It is , 
 
 Ibiind in Pss. 10, 56,-60, etc. (3) {Shk/f/niu)}, i'vom^'^^^^-^ 
 verb ShagaJi — to wander) means a psalm of transe/rcsskm, 
 so called, Dr. Alexander says, because the psahn was 
 written durinu' David's wandering' in the wilderness_ 
 Others: The title is given because of irregular style of versi- 
 fy I fication. (Ps. 7 is an example.) 
 y^n^Wj^ Notation of the Psalms In LA^Sand //f'irew— There are 
 &_>A}\/^lf*^^ 150 different compositioiis both in Ifehrewandin the LXX. 
 ■"^ The enumeration differs. Some psalms, given as one 
 ,-v .^tf, . psalm in the LXX, are divided into two psalms in the 
 "^ Hebrew and rice versa. How account for this? Answer : 
 Some psalms have no titles, and the spaces which separate 
 them may have been overlooked by tlie transcribers. 
 But the number is the same in both versions. Pss. 9 i*c 
 10, and 114 & 115 are united in one psalm in each case 
 in the LXX, while Pss. 116 and 147 are each, in the 
 LXX, divided into two psalms. Thus the nundjer 
 remains the same. AVhen the title is wanting there is 
 no indication where one psalm ends and the following 
 ^ , ,, , ^ begins. <,, .- V .' ■• • v)^--^V.\ If Y^U^ r.i tw... <.^K--h . < e^-.^r.M ^ 
 . i^ r: / - Authors of Psabns. — Li more than 100 psalms the 
 . -^ names ot authors are given. David wrote mnetA' psalms. 
 -'-^t--'^ ■' ^ Other authors are Solomon, M(^ses, Asaph, Sons of 
 Korah, Etthan and Heman. F <jrty otk are anonymous, 
 and the time of production unknown. The whole collection 
 is usually called " David's psalms," because he wrote most 
 of them and thus set the style for others, {cf I.Chron., 
 Chap. 6.) j(^AA.(L^ui cLuO^^itUA 6o4^>>>^ ?rlux^ 
 Occasion of David's Psalms. — We know positively the 
 'JOj^iK »An«^ cause of many, and of *others it may be inferred from 
 "^'V) , ^ the character of the psalm. The contradiction between 
 i^^^*^^^]^ a psalm and its title shows that the title was not an infer- 
 i^"** ^,^ ence from its contents by a later writer. Kuenen falsely 
 1^""^ J .i^ji.v^laims that David had no such s[)iritual knowledge as is 
 ^-^''^'^''^^^gijOAA/Umplied in the psalms, nor did his contemporaries ; hence 
 "*''' none of the psalms written in David's time. 
 
 Pobertson Smith's Claim. — He claims that many psalms 
 
ililiMillUJiiiii. --■<- /' ^trt^ -j 
 
 / 
 
 
 

 / 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 ( 
 
 
 
^'^^U U-y^A^f^ IM^ cc^nj i^r ^ A^ . 
 
 rl^U<.4d.v\v^ V'^^Z-IL-t^iLA tKA^^'^^'^cM^ Oi/^.fyu.A 
 
 ^ ^^ilA 
 
 
VlcIju 
 
 
 
 13 
 
 ascribed to David are clearly not his. His argument is 
 
 as follows: \/ut^ P^.^i^l^^.y^^^'^M'.-A.i 
 
 (1.) The LXXascribesiifteen'inore psalms to David than 
 the Hebrew. So Smith says the tendency was to ascrilx' 
 more and more to David. There are four ascribed to 
 liiui in Hebrew whicli are not in theLXX. Answer: (1) 
 They correspond generally. Hence there is a strong sup- 
 position of correct ascription. (2) Musical terms are 
 always given in the LXX, and in their }tropei' place, 
 thongli translated ditferently to the Hebrew meaning. 
 
 (2.) He also claims tliat individual psalms exliibit incon- ■ • • 
 sistencies, (1) E. g., Pss. 20, 21 profess to be spoken v- >-■ ■'? '^^/n 
 to a kino- and not hii a kiuii;, tliouo'h David is a king and x/jx<-''-'/ ; "" , 
 the author. Answer: Its author represented the people. ■J^-^-* ■ 
 All the nation could not write it. There was neces- 
 sarily a single author, and David wrote for the })eople, as 
 their representative. (2) Another psalm, he claims, _Pjj.{/ur 
 mentions Abiinilecli as king of Gath while Abimilech '^^^T^T^^ 
 lived in a later age. Answer: Abimilech was a generic u 
 name (like Ctesar — emperor.) (3) Certain psalms refer -G.-fWv^ "* ^*;;" / 
 ^■^1^ to "building the walls of Jerusalem." These, Sniith V^J< ^ ^-^ |W^'^'^ 
 ^ thiidvs, must have been written after its destruction. '\.a\^^'^^'^'^ 
 
 o^(K^' Answer: Xot correct, for the word is build — not re-build. ^>pTT y^n-^-- 
 *jCsi(i*^, ^4) Another claim of inconsistency is in the case of the ' 
 '-'^^', psalms of Asa})h. These, it is said, must have been 
 written in the time of Asa|)h. Answer : Asaph was a 
 family name, like Israel. Therefore they may have been , \v^tVc>.Uj. 
 
 written anv time during the existencj of the family, and ' "' ^J^) QuJ, 
 by any meinber of it. -^ ^^'''^ f ^^^ ^.k<^\'^ c^^ ' ^^^ V j^^ 
 
 ^ / / DivisioH of ihc Pmlms Into Boohs. — There are five such' 
 
 divisions, viz.: (T.) Bk. L contains psalms 1-41, inclus- ^y»,» '•■' v 
 ^T^^' ivc. (11.) Psalms 42-72. (HI.) Psalms 73-89. (IV.) ^V^.^^^/ 
 ^"^11 Psalms 90-106. (V.) Psalms 107-150.-^^^ ^J^- U^i w!Ua<^ 
 
 Bk. I. (psalms 1-42.) These are written exclusively ' H 
 by David ; and as the name Jehovah occurs 272 times in / i.^ "^S :i 
 the book and that of Elohini only fiteen times they 
 are called Jehovah pscdms. In regard to this variation 
 of the names of the deity some have thought_that the 
 
 wLv^5^ ■ ■ .^--u^- 
 
'^ "--;'/ t/f^v^^ Elohiui psalms were written at a time when tlie name 
 ^'tu.«.Lj'\ Jehovah was lield in such re\'crenee as not to he used. 
 - lU'fwu^A/^'^^'^' '^''^'^^ Jeliovah more distinctly expressed God's per- 
 / sonality, and was thus more in danger of hecoming de- 
 
 graded. Hence tlie compositions of certain periods con- 
 tain Eloliim rather than Jehovah. 
 
 Bk. II. (psalms 42-72.) Elohlm psahns, ior the name 
 Elohim occurs 164 times, and Jehovah hut 30 times. 
 .U.hA^'^ Pss. 42-49 are hy David's singers; Ps. 50 is hv 
 ]\ij Asapii ; Pss. 51-7^.are hy ^{ivid, Avhich have no titles) 
 
 •"^*'^' except Pss. m, 67 and 7li"pl. 72 Tri)y Solomon. 
 
 Bk. III. (Psahiis 73-89^) Elohim ami Jehomh psalms. 
 Elohim used 43 times, and Jehovah 44 times. Pss. 73- 
 83 are by Asaph ; Pss. 84, 85, 87, 88, are hy the Sons 
 of Korali ; ps. 86 is by David. 
 
 Bk. IV. (Psalms 90-106.) Jvlnaih psalms. The name 
 Elohim does not occur. 
 
 Bk. V. (Psalms 107-150.) Jchwah. psalms. Elohim 
 occurs only 7 times. In Bks. \N . and V. the name Jehovah 
 occurs 339 times. 
 
 Mlscellancoas Remarks. — The })salms which follow the 
 90th arc all anonymous except Pes. 101, 103, and sixteen 
 psalms in Bk. V. None of the musical titles in the first 
 three hooks are to he found in the last two, except " To 
 the chief musician," in a few places, and Ifaschil and 
 Selah once or twice. The first psalm is a preface psalm ; 
 the last is a doxology. Ps. 90, composed by Moses, is 
 the oldest in the collection. The same psalm is occasion- 
 ally repeated in these difierent books with a slight vari- 
 ation. E. g. Pss. 14 and 53. Jehovah occurs in Ps. 14 
 where Elohim is found in Ps. 53. The closing verses of 
 Ps. 40 are nearly the same as those of Ps. 70. 
 
 Why are there precisely five hooks, when there is no 
 obvious principle of division between Bks. IV. and V. ? 
 The answer is that it was sought to make a division of 
 the collection into five books in order to produce a cor- 
 respondence to the five books of the Pentateuch. Ileng- 
 stenberg says the psalms are arranged chronologically. 
 

 
 Ox. 
 

 J^../. t^-^ ^^ ' ,.. . -/ 
 
15 
 
 Delitzscli says tlie order of psalms is due to the oeeur- 
 rence of particular words or sentences in those ininiedi- 
 atelj succeeding each other. The doxology at the end 
 of each hook is no part of the individual psalm, hut is 
 used merely to mark the division. There is a doxology 
 in I. Chron. 16, which proves that the present division 
 into hooks as ahove exhibited was then recognized. Is 
 the present collection tlie first collection of psalms ever 
 made? Smith says no, that David wrote one before, and 
 tiiat our collection is a part of that previous collection. 
 This view we reject. In regard to the age of our collec- 
 tion of psalms it may be said that the psalm occurring 
 in I. Chron. 1(3: 8-36 is made up of parts of various 
 psalms (Pss. 105, 96, 106), properly joined together, and 
 in such a way as to lead us to infer that the whole col- 
 lection was then extant, as well as the present division. 
 This is op[)Osed to Robertson Smith's view as above 
 stated. 
 
 Views of tJiC Critics. — In opposition to these we insist 
 that the entire collection was put in its present shape in 
 the time of Ezra. It certainly was not in the time of the 
 Exile. IIow was the collection put together ? Tliere 
 are different views : (1) One theory is that there were 
 various cc^.Uections, and that the collection as we have it 
 consists of a blending of these. But there is no satis- 
 factory proof of the assumption on which the tlieory is 
 based. (2) Another view is that one book was written, 
 and then a second added, and so on, in order. The 
 falsity of this appears from the systematic variation of 
 the names Jehovah and Eloliim, as well as from the posi- 
 tion of the doxologies. (3) It is also sometimes claimed 
 that Bks. I. and II. formed the original collection and 
 make a book by themselves. This they infer from the 
 last verse of Ps. 72. These two books seem to close the 
 psalms of David. They also infer that Solomon was the 
 collector of these, since Ps. 72 is his. But there is no 
 evidence of this. Nor can we affirm that Bks. I., II., 
 and III. w^ere originally one collection. In fact it is 
 
16 
 
 impossible for us to ascertain tlie deiinite steps of tlie 
 arrangement of the collection. 
 
 Do any of the psalins belong to the Maccabean period? 
 The 74th and 124th are sometimes suggested, as, e. g. 
 by Calvin; and some critics, as Oldshausen, think that 
 most of the psalms belong to that period. We reply : 
 (1) N^one of the psalms correspond with the character of 
 the Maccal)ean period, and (2) the canon was closed 
 before that age. Tlie LXX was in existence during the 
 Maccabean age, and is frequently (pioted in that age. In 
 regard to variations in the case of psaims tljat are re- 
 peated, they are always unimportant and can be explained 
 Avithout necessitating a belief that they are in any case 
 uninspired. 
 
 Qucsfioii as to Arcurac;/ of fhe Text. — This question 
 arises, (1) from the fact tliat these writings were natur- 
 ally liable to verbal changes during transcription, as is 
 seen to be the case with modern hymnx; and (2) as a 
 matter of fact the comparison of i)salms which occur 
 twice reveals a large number of variaticuis. There are 
 ditferent views upon the subject : (a) Some say these 
 variations are due to textual errors. (I)) Others cor- 
 rectly regard each of these varying psalms as original, 
 and the variations purposely introduced, perhaps by the 
 author himself (c) In regard to the alphabetic psalms, 
 the correct view concerning the fact of occasional devia- 
 tions from the alphabetic system is that in them the 
 author purposely fails to adhere to the system so closely 
 as to allow himself to l)e trammelled. 
 
 2^ MESSIANIC CONTENTS OF THE PSALMS. 
 
 The Prophetic Element Iti the Psedms. — What preparation 
 is found in the psalms for the coming of the Messiah ? 
 There is less positive prophecy concerning the Messiah 
 here than in the Prophets. This results from the differ- 
 ent aims of the l)ooks. The leading aim of tlie pro- 
 phetical books is to set forth prophecies, and to place 
 certain new truths before the inner consciousness of 
 
y 0-iQa\^ Un^^^ ^t^<•,/x > y ?,4^y u^ CluI^^^^cmaJ- r^^^tnu . 
 
 (W. 
 
 cu-^ 
 
 4^ -/^^TN-tft-ft^ f''^Ji4 
 
 ^^MM^xt^ ^Uw^^^^i^ 'Z *<''H-«.t^^ii:,uW «-^ ^lui'i ii<^^ 
 
 iA^>-(Mj^ CluJ^S^ yC^^^ ^'^ ^/ />-"-- .._^...„^.,^ 
 
 "- S. 
 
 
 

17 
 
 God's people. The leadiiiii; aim of the poetical books is 
 not so much to iiuike new disclosures of truth as to bring 
 home, explicitly or implicitly, truth already communi- 
 cated. But new elements of truth are not wanting in 
 the psalms. This growth of ideas previously imjtarted 
 is not the same as a logical development of ideas or 
 principles already laid down, but a process of unfolding 
 regularly from stage to stage. There is here an incre- 
 ment as well as an evolution. The former must precede 
 the latter. Tearing open a bud d(U'S not give us a flower. 
 There must be a constant addition of substance to the 
 bud as it gradually unfolds under the operation of the 
 laws of growth. In i»roi)hecy the ;/<'//' predominates ; in 
 the psalms and other [)oetical books the old. Yet each 
 occurs ill both. There are therefore certain elements of 
 prophetic knowledge in the psalms whicli are found 
 nowhere else. 
 
 Opinions as to the Doctrine of the 3Iessiah in the Psalms. — 
 There are three views: (1) That there is' no explicit 
 reference to the Messiah in the whole collection. (2) 
 Not only every psalm, but every poetical book has refer- 
 ence to the Messiah. (3) A middle ground between 
 these extremes. 
 
 In our view there are Messianic references only in par- 
 ticular psalms, and these do not form a distinct class. 
 They are not to be sundered from the rest. Instead of 
 being reduced to the level of the other psalms, thoy are 
 to be regarded as an integral part of a system of thought 
 and feeling. They are the crowning point of a pyramid 
 supported by all beneath. They are the foci where all 
 the rays meet in luminous points of light. The Messi- 
 anic teachings of the psalms have not been arbitrarily or 
 spasmodically injected, but are interwoven as radical 
 parts of the texture, and form the most important part 
 of the whole book. The entire O. T. is preparatory to 
 the coming of Christ, and indeed all revelation tends to 
 this point. Such teaching is found, not so much in its 
 isolated passages, as in the O. T. viewed as a whole.. 
 
 3 
 
18 
 
 Thus in the Pi'oplicts siuhleii n'limii.st's into tlie faturc do 
 not stand apart from other teachings. Likewise it is 
 easy to traee currents of thought running through tlie 
 j)sa]nis, even where [thiin Hashes of i)ro}»hecy are hicking, 
 which set toward and culminate in the Messianic idea, 
 and thus nud<e the colh'ction an integral part in the one 
 continuous scheme of Messianic prophecy. 
 
 The Two-Fold Belathii JJnfohJcd oi Ihc P..y/////.v._Thc 
 i^^^jJyL psalms ^ are utterances of worship where distracting 
 thoughts are excluded. God and man are brought face 
 to face. And in producing this effect firo rdaiioiis are 
 presented, — (a) man's relation to God, and (h) God's rela- 
 tion to man. These are distinct but correlative. 
 
 HoiT This Two-Fold Belatiou is Presented. — Man may Ite 
 regarded, (1) Passively, in his privileges, as a creature 
 endowed of God; or (2) Actireb/, in his duties as a ser- 
 vant of God, the subject of His law. In this latter aspect 
 he may be viewed either (a) as in the heat of conflictj or 
 (b) as in the position of a conqueror of evil. If we seek 
 in each of these three regards the two relations above 
 described, (viz., man's relation to God, and God's rela- 
 tion to man), we discover six ideas. They are tri[»le 
 correlates in the sphere of God's relation to man, and 
 may be thus tabulated : 
 
 I. (a.) Mau the creature endowed by God. 
 (b.) God the creator and benefactor of man. 
 II. (a.) The righteous beset by his foes. 
 (b.) God his deliverer 
 III. (a.) The righteous victorious by God's delivering aid. 
 
 (b.) Mau without God failing, though possessed of everj' 
 earthly advantage. 
 
 These six ideas are the fcnindations of the Messianic 
 teachings of the peetical books. The Messiah is not 
 mentioned in those books in any other aspect than tliose 
 exhibited in the above scheme. They all culminate in 
 the Messianic idea. The Messiah is approached both 
 from the divine and hunuin side. Those psalms which 
 a[»proach from the divine side are less consciously Mes- 
 sianic ; and although they contain Messianic ideas, it is 
 

 vfe^^^ U/VY( ""^^^ -X t^ /(] 
 
 t^y-^i-u'^^ 
 
 J^. . ^L H rtJU^^ ^^^J <^*^^ "^^^ '^'''^ 
 
 c^-^^d^"- 
 

 
19 
 
 not clear tliat the writer so intended them. Let us sec 
 how these remarks are borne out by the study of par- 
 ticuhir psahns. 
 
 These Six Ideas in Particuldr Psalms. — I. (a) Man lifted 
 into the Messianic sphere by super-human end(nvments. 
 When limits are lost sig-ht of, and the divine l)Ounty 
 takes its dimensions oidy from the [)Ower of God to give, 
 the subject rises above the sphere of ordinary men and 
 can apply only to the Messiah. Thus Ps. 8, if not thor- 
 oughly Messianic, at least trembles on the verge of the 
 Messianic idea, and is certainly by St. Paul developed 
 into full Messianic dimensions. The psalms, being pre- 
 dominantly })ractica], api)roach most naturally from the 
 human side; other poetical l>ooks, which are more s})ecu- 
 lative, from the divine side. 
 
 (b.) But the thought of God relative to His creatures 
 comes within the range of what belongs to God's Son. 
 Thus Pss. 102, 97, are cpioted in Hchreirs in application 
 to Clirist. This is done not merely by accommodation, 
 but Christ's claims are argued from them. Jehovah 
 coming into relation to man in the (J. T. is the Son of 
 God of the New. So are the Aih/el and the Word of 
 Jehovah, which we find more developed in the wisdom of 
 God (P vow 8) — regarded by many able commentators as 
 a distinct person, viz., the Messiah. 
 
 II. (a) The righteous beset by foes, with attributes or 
 results transcending the human, shaped largely by the 
 typical experience (^f David himself. In Ps. 22, which 
 Strauss pronounced the programme of the crucifixion, 
 the removal of limitations is al)solute. It is partial, in 
 Ps. 16, declared by Peter to be fulfilled only in the resur- 
 rection of Christ; in Ps. 40, from which the author of 
 Hebrews develops tlie inherent merit of Christ's sacri- 
 fice ; in P.^s. 69, 109, which likewise mediate between the 
 merely human and the exclusively Messianic. Those 
 which represent the Messiah as a sufferer exhilnt his 
 2)riesfhood, and in connection with it his prophetic office. 
 The extreme suff'eriny-s issue in the salvation of the 
 
20 
 
 worUl, Ps. 22, but are not ox[)1icitlv said to be vicarious; 
 and it is obiMlieuce ratlier tljan substitution wliich is j)re- 
 dicted of him. ((;/". Ps. 22: 22 with Ps. 40: 7.) The 
 vicarious character of His sufferings is reserv^'d for a 
 prophetic book — Is. 53. 
 
 (b.) Correlative to a suffering rigliteous cnie is a deliver- 
 ing God. Job, as a sufferer, was a distinguished type of 
 the Messiali ; but the outburst of his faith (Job 19), 
 though not perhaps consciously directed to Christ, has 
 been in all ages ai)})lied to llini by the Church as the 
 true Redeemer. 
 
 III. The struggle between the ser[>ent and the seed of 
 the woman was to reach its acme in Christ, whose con- 
 test, thougli different in manner and result from that of 
 the ordinary descendants of Adam, would be similar in 
 kind. The serpent was to bruise His heel ; though the. 
 strife-would not terminate in this, but in the full triuujpli 
 of the seed of the wonum. Thus, in the psalms, we 
 meet with : 
 
 (a.) The righteous triumplumt. Hero we see the issue 
 of the contest with evil. David and Solomon, from per- 
 sonal experience and official position, are eminent types 
 of Christ in this respect. They were the divinely ap- 
 pointed lieads of the kingdom while at the zenith of its 
 prosperity, temporal and spiritual. The conflict with 
 evil, carried on by God's lielp, issued in success. Thus, 
 in Ps. 2, the Lord's Annointed is represented as trium- 
 phant over the combined hosts of his enemies. ,^ Ps. 72 
 pictures the peace of Messiah's reign in the tranquility 
 of Soh)mon's; and as the submission rendered to Him is 
 voluntary and loyal, it is re[)resented in Ps. 45 and in 
 Solomon's Song under the figure of a marriage. In Ps. 
 110 new dignity is added to the monarch who is set forth 
 not oidy as a triumphant king, but as a priest like Alel- 
 chizedek, one with unrestricted sacerdotal privileges, of 
 near approach to God, one who has a permanent seat at 
 God's right hand, and is a priest forever. 
 
 (1>.) And lastly, the kingdom may be viewed as 
 
^ JIAajlM^^ '^ -^^"^ "^ ' ''' ''^ 
 
 <^i_j<i Lu<^ 
 
 
 6^^ 
 
 
21 
 
 aT- 
 
 lO 
 
 worldly and transitoiy, and used not as a comparison 
 with, but as a contrast to, the Messiah's kingdom. This is 
 the method followed in Ecclesiastes and Lamentations, 
 wliich represent the kingdom as unsatisfactory amid all 
 its splendor, and as tending ever to ruin. The picture is 
 that of man, without God, failing, though possessed of 
 every earthly advantage. 
 
 Summary. — To sum u}», we have in the psalms the pre- 
 sentation of a nuxn raised far above the rank of hu- 
 manity ; a Righteous Sufferer who l)rings salvation to the 
 world; a Triumphant Monarch ruling over all, wedded 
 to His people in holy love, and related to them as both 
 I'riest and Kino-. He is the same as the Wisdom of 
 God in Proverbs; the Redeemer in Job, and the Founder 
 of that Empire which, uidike that depicted in Ecclesias- 
 tes and Lamentations, is neither unsatisfactory nor tran- 
 
 Z'^ ^^^ '^ ^'^^' ''^"^ '"'^^': 
 
 C/ tLM_d/h 
 
CHAPTER II 
 
 THE SONG OF SOLOMON. 
 
 Tn1 rod ad or II Remarks. — Tlie Song of Solomon is verv 
 attractive, even fiom a literary point of view. Its natnr- 
 alness and delicacy of portrayal lend to it a cliarni. 
 Many judges call it a ver^^ gem of art. It has also all 
 the attractions of an unsolved mj-ster}-. It is one of the 
 great puzzles of the Bible. Everytliing alxnit it has 
 been disputed. 
 
 Disputed Questions Concerning the Son//. — (1) As to its 
 unity : Isita number of independent sonnets, by one autiior, 
 on one theme ? Or is it a mere congeries of different songs ? 
 (2) As to the kind of poetry : Epithalamiun, Epic, Bu- 
 colic, or Dramatic? If a drama, is it divisible into acts 
 and scenes, or is it a partial drama? (3) As to its 
 author: Is it by one or many? (^nnposed iii the same 
 or different ages? Is Solomon the author, or is he ex- 
 cluded l:)y the contents? (4) As to its contents : Is it 
 the loving language of Solomon to his bride? Is the 
 bride the daughter of Pharaoh ; or some rustic beauty? 
 Or is the lover another from whom Solomon steals the 
 object of his love ? Are the persons speaking few or 
 many ? (5) As to its interpretation : Is it to be literal ? 
 Is the book irreligious, and thus unworthy of the canon ? 
 Is it prophetic ? 
 
 In studying this book, the first impiiry is naturally as 
 to its enituvird form: What is its most literal and obvious 
 sense ? Afterwards we in(|uire as to its internal cluu-acter. 
 

 a.^i^ i4^ - "^ ^^ """^ 
 
dUtM . ^'h^'.p^ ^^ 
 
 •i. I. ■>•■.' 
 
 , l.S^- %^J>. ■A.^ 
 
1. The unity of the song. 
 There are ditfereiit theories as to the external unity or 
 outward form of the sonu'. Prineii»al among these are, 
 (I.) the Ei»ithahimiinn view (Bossuet); (II.) the IdyUic 
 Theory (Herder); (III.) the Fragmentary Hypothesis 
 (Magnus of Breshiu.) There are also ditt'erent views as 
 to its internal unity. These are, (I.) the Dranuitie Hy- 
 pothesis (Ewald) ; (11.) the Allegorical Ilhiiothesis; and 
 (III.) the Typical View, (Zockler, Green.) 
 
 I. The EpithaJdin/nnn Vieir. — This is the ojdnion of I)os- 
 suet (d . 1704.) It was at lirst well receive(h He 
 thought it an Epithalamium written in honor of Solo- 
 mon's wedding with Pharoah's daughter, and composed 
 in seven parts to correspond to the seven days of his wed- 
 ding feast (C^'. Gen. -29: 27; Judgesl4: 12.) The/>roo/x for 
 his view are : 
 
 1. The personages suggest a wedding, (a.) Solomon 
 and his hride are the chief speakers, (b.) Female com- 
 panions of the hride are introduced. {LJ. Ps. 45: 14; 
 Mt. 45 : 1.) (c.) There are male companions of the 
 o-room who say nothing. (C^ant. 5:1; 8: 18; fludges 
 14 : 11 ; Mt. o': 15.) 
 
 2. A second argument is that there are certain expres- 
 sions in the Song which imply a change of day and night. 
 The ])ride is supposed to have l)een brought to her husliand 
 the evening of the tirst day. The groom goes out as a 
 shepherd at dawn to his work. As he de])arts he leaves 
 the bride sleeping, and directs the attendants not to wake 
 her. So every day he goes out at dawn ; and the verses 
 expressing his charge to the attendants are supposed each 
 to mark the beginning of a new day. (These are C^ant. 
 2 : 7, 3 : 5; 8 : 4.) So also the expression '' Who is she ?" 
 (6 : 10) marks the beginning of a day, and the greetings 
 of her friends to the l)ride when she tirst appears. Men- 
 tion is twice made of the nigld (8 : 1 ; 5:2); and twice of 
 the bride in the husband's arms (2:6; 8:8.) 
 
 The different days are su})posed to be : First day, Chap- 
 
24 
 
 1 2 : 6 ; .^ecoixl day, 2 : 7 2 : 1 7 ; /////>/ day, 8 : 1 
 
 f) : 1 ; /o^oVA day, A : 2 6 : \) ; //'/'/A day, 6 : 10 7 : 
 
 11 ; sixth day, 7 : 12 8 : 8 ; sere id I, day, 8 : 4 8 : 14. 
 
 Objections to BossncfsVicir. — Hut there are ()l)jecti()ns to 
 this view. These are, (1) It is opjiosed to Oriental ideas 
 and nsao;es. True, niusie and song' accompanied mar- 
 riage feasts, hut the hride was always veiled and silent. 
 
 (2) Another ohjection is that recurring formulas do not 
 in themselves indicate the morn of a fresji day. The 
 utmost that can he claimed is their consistency with a 
 succession of days, which must he otherwise proved. 
 They simply mark the close and heginning of new scenes. 
 
 (3) One at least of Bossuet's divisions is not justified l)y 
 the form. The eleventh and twelffh verses of the seventh 
 chapter are in one connected speech of tlie Inide, and do 
 not justify a separation. (4) The character of the Song 
 viewed as a wliole does not suggest a succession of the 
 days. It is nonsense to speak of the hridegroom going 
 out to work every day. Besides, the parties are repre- 
 sented as meeting and speaking in the open air, and not 
 at a hanquet. 
 
 II. The Idi/Uic Theory. — The originator of this theory 
 was Herder (1778), and the way for it was prepared hy 
 the hreaking of the Song into divisions according to Bos- 
 suet's view a])ove descrihed. Herder considers the l)Ook 
 to he " Solomon's songs of love." It ranks ahove all 
 other idyls. It consists of a nund)er of independent 
 pieces, with love as their common theme. There are six- 
 teen of these sonnets, portraying different })eople and dif- 
 ferent scenes ; and they are as unconnected as the separate 
 Ecologues of Virgil. We are told (1 Ki. 4: 32), that 
 Solomon's songs were one thousand and five ; and of these 
 he supposes we have a few in the Song, <^^t.^*•■' *•'/ "^ ''^■'^■''^■'^^ 
 
 But Herder does not regard these sixteen sonnets as 
 entirely disconnected. They are united (1) in autJiorsliip, 
 all heing hy Solomon; and (2) the collector of these son- 
 nets has given to the whole a unity hy his skillful ^^•ay of 
 
 ■tt/V^— 
 


 
 sL. 
 
 ¥^-^LiU^ 
 
 44^ t 
 
 2jJuJa 
 
 nJ^ 
 
 •-u^16<x^ 
 
25 
 
 putting them together. They are so arranged as to 
 exhibit six successive scenes and an appendix, in which k)ve 
 is traced through stages of grovrth from its begin ning to 
 ripened fruits. In l)rief, this Idyllic theory is that the 
 Song consists of a number of distinct jiieces by one 
 author, so united l)y the collector as to treat of one suc- 
 cessive theme. The theory was at one time widely 
 adopted. 
 
 Good's Modification of the Id//Uic Theory. — Good inti'o- 
 duced this theory into England in 1803. He holds essen- 
 tially the same Idyllic theory ; but unlike Herder he 
 insists that the sonnets concern the same characters 
 throughout. One bride and one bridegroom tliroughout. 
 He thinks that the bride was not Pharoah's daughter, and 
 that the marriage was one of state policy. Good ditfers 
 from Herder also in tliinking that there are twelve sonnets 
 instead of sixteen. 
 
 Good thinks that he discovers in the Song several re- 
 condite facts concerning the bride: 2: 1, proves that 
 Sharon was her l)irth-place ; 7: 1, that she is of noble 
 rank; 8 : 11-12, that she had a noble marriage portion at 
 Baal-hamon ; 3:4, that her father was probably dead ; 
 8 : 5, that her mother l)etr()tlu'd her ; 1 : (J, that her 
 mother was twice married ; 8 : 1, that she had a brother ; 
 8:8, that she had a sister. 
 
 Prof. Xoyes, of Cambridge, thinks that there are twelve 
 sonnets, although he agrees with Herder as to there being 
 difterent parties involved. This Idyllic theory is held l)y 
 different classes of scholars ; some thinking it a mere 
 amatory poem, others, an allegory. 
 
 III. The Fragmentarj/ TTi/pothesis. — Magnus of Breslau 
 (1842) best represents this school. The hypothesis is that 
 the Song is the work of different writers in diiferent 
 ages. According to Magnus there are fourteen complete 
 sonnets, and eight fragments. These eiglit fragments, 
 however, togetlier make three complete sonnets. Then 
 there is one fragment (2 : 15), which he cannot account 
 
26 
 
 for. Then there are tiro .suppleiueiits to two of these 
 ^sollllets, hy hiter aiitliors. Counting these he linds that 
 there are twenty different })ieees of coniposidon. [14 + 
 3-l-l-f 2=20.] Of these, eight are written about fifty 
 years after Soh)inon, six in tlie age of Jeremiah, four in 
 the age of Ezekiel, — two he does not account for. His 
 conclusions are so al)sur(l as to need no refutation. 
 
 2. Arguments for the Unity of the Book. — These 
 are as folh)ws : 
 
 1. The Title. — The correct reading is The Soiu/ of So)u/s, 
 inJdch is Solomon's; not are Solomon\s. Tlie genitive 
 .songs is not, as Kiinchi thought, the partitive genitive, 
 })ut the Hebrew^ superlative — like Lord of lords. The 
 expression is equivalent to " most excellent of Solomon's 
 songs." The oj)ponents of this view try to avoid the 
 argument from the title in two ways : (1) By a forced 
 construction, as though the title meant a song composed, of 
 songs ; or by giving a distinct meaning to the first noun, 
 from Chaldee and Arabic analogies, so as to nuike it read 
 a chain or series of songs. But this oi»poses Hebrew usage. 
 (2) Bg denging its genuineness, (a) Because it refers the 
 composition to Solomon, which, it is claimed, is impos- 
 sible, (b) Because in the title a'sher is used, and in the body 
 of the discourse sAe, the abbreviated form of the pronoun. 
 But the title is prose, andthe book poetry. Hence the prose 
 form of the pronoun appears in the title. That there 
 should be no title, or that the title should be changed, is 
 an improbable supposition. Whoever })ut the title there 
 wished to give his testimony tliat the work was by Solo- 
 mon. If the title proceeded from the collectors of the 
 canon, they must have had good reason for it. 
 
 2. The Book Itself. — The actors aiul s})eakers in the 
 Song are the same throughout. There is also a unity in 
 the theme. Furtlier arguments from the book itself are 
 as follows : (1) Repetition of same vei^se in dift'erent parts 
 to mark the beginning and end of sections^(2) The recur- 
 rence of similar expressions, such as, lam sick of love, Fairest 
 
i^tA 4^ ^'^ "-^ w^--^ 
 
 Xu it^rvu^ nic^^ J4M^r(^ iLn^L^JZ,^ 
 
A 
 
 nrUAX^/L^ (uU^L ud 
 
 hvUc,. 
 
 K 
 
 l/r-fi^A Uy^A>kA\AUvJ -O^-AAA^rvLA iAu^ /Vv^i 
 
 VYCC<^ 
 
27 
 
 among iromcn, or Terrible as an army irith banners. (3) 
 The dirfion is peculiar, l)eing unlike that of any otlier (). 
 T. book. The abbreviated relative {she), only occasion- 
 ally occurrins: in other books, occurs uniformly here. 
 Opher occurs only in this book; but here live times. 
 (4) A sinularity of lonp^ passages. There are several 
 passages of length which are closely related, — as, e. g,, 
 two in Chaps. 4 and 6. (5) Figures derived from, nature 
 and natural scenery are often repeated. Lebanon is used five 
 times, apple four times, ynyrtle seven times. In tact the 
 range and classes of objects referred to, as well as the 
 repetition of the names of those objects, alike forbid our 
 conceiving of the different parts of the book as being com- 
 l)osed by different authors. An argument from style is 
 easier felt than stated. It is like detecting the chirog- 
 phy of a friend. Here the same hand appears throughout. 
 
 3. INTERNAL UNITY OF THE SONG OF SOLOMON. 
 
 I. The Dramrttir Hypothesis. — We have already discussed 
 the attempts to find the external unity of the Song: 
 uiany attemi)ts have also been made to find its internal 
 unity. The first of these resulted in the Dramatic hy- 
 pothesis, ably defended by Ewald (1825-1867.) He was 
 not, however, the originator of the theory. He holds that 
 the Song was not intended for the stage^ but that it has 
 all the essentials of a dramatic composition and possesses 
 acts and scenes. The story is not narrated, but jtrogres- 
 sively unfolded. The theme is not love in general : but 
 the charming delineations of love are suljordinated to a 
 high ethical or moral aim. 
 
 According to this hypothesis the theme is the ])raise of ^i L^^^Ja^ 
 innocence resisting all enticements. A Shulamite, brought ^^vS^^£!^l^^ 
 up at Engedi, is the subject. As this woman is walking ^^ ^-Lw^ >uJL 
 with her lover she is surrounded with chariots of a royal -i^^ 
 party. The king takes her to his palace, flatters her, and ' 
 seeks to turn her aside from virtue. But her virtue stands 
 
 / d. 
 
 'Uj. 
 
28 
 
 impregnable; and at last she triuirqdis over all his arts. 
 Failing in his attempt the king Unally sends her to her 
 hnnd)le home. 
 
 Delitzseh modilies this view by rejeeting the idea of tlie 
 young shepherd lover — though he retains the plot — and 
 in thinking that the Shulamite, tired of the splendors of 
 the eourt, tries to induce King Solomon to go to the 
 country, and lead with her a simple, unassuming life. 
 Zoekler thinks that the aim of the Song is to exhibit an 
 attempt of the Shulamite to win Solomon o\'er to mono- 
 gamy. 
 
 Argantciits for EirahTs Dramaik- Hypothesis. — There are 
 several things which may be said in favor of it. (1) In- 
 genaity is shown in l)ringing everything in the Song into 
 harmony with the hypothesis. Thus skill is shown in 
 producing a captivating story and exciting play. (2)' It 
 vindicates the unify of the Song. It shows that there is 
 progress from beginning to end. The fragmentary parts 
 especially are all nicely woven together. (3) It possesses 
 historic jjrobabiUty . Solomon did multiply his wives ; and 
 it is quite supposable that he might have l)een attracted 
 by one who was merely betrothed to another. (4) Tlie 
 Song thus interpreted lias a practical moral use, — to com- 
 mend virtue. A maiden, cleaving to a lowly shepherd, is 
 not allured by the l)landishments of a king. Thus there 
 is also a spiritual use, in proving that the seductions of 
 Satan cannot move him who is enamored of the True 
 Shepherd. 
 
 Objections to It. — (1) Its norelty. It gives a meaning 
 which none of its readers have ever seen in it until 
 modern times. An hypothesis in contradiction to all an- 
 tiquity should prove itself. That this is contrary to the 
 view of anticpiity is proved by the title — " which is Solo- 
 mon's." Ewald himself admits that the LarnedJi indicates 
 an author. Xow it is inconceivable tliat Solomon should 
 represent hiinself as attacking female purity, and espe- 
 ciallv as failing; in that attack. And whetlier the state- 
 

 uw^ ZT , C'^T<-.4/^4'W</f^ ' 
 

 
 
29 
 
 meiit ill the title is true or not, it represents the view of 
 its author, that Soloiiion wrote the Song. Hence who- 
 ever wrote the title believed that the Song could not repre- 
 sent the king in so unfavorable a light. Besides, the recep- 
 tion of the book into the canon implies an understanding 
 of it by those who arranged the canon diifering from this. 
 Ewald claims that it was written in the revolted kingdom, 
 and breathes hostility to Judah and Solomon. But there 
 is no hint of this inter|)retation by any ancient writer. 
 Jaeobi iirst broached it in 1751. The view requires us to 
 suppose that the true sense was very early lost. 
 
 (2) A second objection is that the whole liy})othesis 
 rests on a very slender basis. It rests on a peculiar inter- 
 pretation of a single verse, (6 : 12), or ecer I icas aware, 
 rivj soul made me like the chariots of Amminadib ; which is 
 translated by Ewald, " Or ever I was aware my desire 
 brought me to the chariots of my noble people." But 
 even if this translation is permissible (which is doubtful), 
 it is unnecessary to believe that the subject of the sen- 
 tence was carried off in those chariots. 
 
 (3) The hypothesis recpiires many gratuitous assump- 
 tions and forced interpretations. Its advocates take ach-an- 
 tage of the highly figurative language of the Song ; and 
 they resort to arbitrary divisions into parts. They fail to 
 see that no distinction appears between the language of 
 Solomon and that of the Shepherd. Both use the same 
 terms (e. g., Dore, ande filed, fair, etc.), and are therefore 
 the same person. That there are not two distinct lovers 
 appears further from the fact (a) that the Shulamite 
 always responds in loving terms to both, as though they 
 were identical ; and (b) that the supposed two lovers 
 never appear in the same scene. 
 
 (4) The hypothesis has not satisfied subsequent interpre- 
 ters. Ewald's own friends refuse to adopt it. Thus it 
 falls to the ground. 
 
 II. The Allegorical Hypothesis. — Its advocates believe 
 that the spiritual element in the Song alone gives it unity. 
 Thev hold that the aim of the Song is to set forth an en- 
 
30 
 
 tirely different suhjeet than carnal love. They helieve 
 that any literal method of interpretation is irnpossil)le. 
 
 Proof of this : (1) The king is now a wealthy nohle- 
 man, now a poor shepherd (8: 12; 1: f)) ; the bride is 
 now a })rinee's danghter, now the keeper of a vinevard 
 (7:1; 1 : S). These are inconsistencies unless the !Song 
 is allegorical. (2) The literal sense burdens it with inde- 
 corous incongruities, as when the bride is twice repre- 
 sented as rising from her couch in the night, and going- 
 through the streets in search of her beloved ( Vid. 3 : 2-4.) 
 (3) Many parts indicate that the bride is not an individual 
 person, and is not to be so understood. The same thing 
 is shown by the use of similes which are inappropriate to 
 set forth the charms of a beautiful wcunan. For ex- 
 ample : Slie is compared to an army witli l)anners (6 : 
 4); and to a com})any of horses in Pharoah's chariots 
 (1 : 9.) Xow all this cannot apply to an individual, but 
 can apply to a community. 
 
 General Considerations Which Favor This Hypothesis.-^^ 
 There are certain purely fanciful allegorical interpreta- 
 tions, which we reject. But, for the following reasons, 
 we believe that the lore of Christ to His peoj^le is meant to 
 be established : 
 
 1. The position of the book in the (). T. canon. If it 
 had been literally interpreted by those who admitted it, it 
 would not have been allowed into the canon, since they 
 admitted there only that which has a spiritual use. 
 
 2. Its title — Song of Songs — can l)e justitied only by its 
 applying to a great theme. According to the literal inter- 
 pretation the Song is too unimportant to be thus denomi- 
 nated. 
 
 3. The figure of a marriage is frequently used in the 
 Bible to show the relation of Christ to Ilis people. Ex- 
 amples may be given :" God speaks of Himself as a 
 " Jealous God," (Ex. 20 : 5.) Isaiah asks Israel, " Where 
 is the bill of your mother's divorcement?"' (Is. 50: 1.) 
 The sentence, " The beloved of the Lord shall dwell in 
 safety," occurs. (Deut. 33 : 12.) Idolatry is s|)oken ot 
 

 
 ui 
 

 i^-^U^ ^A-- /c^^T^v a^ f 
 
 T^rOeA^iivCL ijul/Z^^^'^^' 
 
 ^r- '^^ "HI'S ^ 
 
 
31 
 
 as a " Whoring- after strange gods," (Ex. 34: 15; Deut. 
 ^AiS"^ 31 : le^^Ezek. 6 : 9.) Also, " Thy Maker is thy Husband, 
 ~tFre~f::6rd is His name," (Is. 54 : 5.) This argument is 
 t\yo-fold : (a) It is probable that this figure is used here, 
 as elsewhere, simply because it is a yery common scrip- 
 tural metaphor; and (b) the more frequent use of this 
 figure in later times seems due to the influence of this 
 Song. 
 
 4. In Ps. 45 the figure of a marriage is used, aiul is 
 expressly shown to refer to the Messiah. Marriage there 
 .signifies loce to God. 
 
 5. Names of persons in the Bible are frecpiently sugges- 
 tiye of a spiritual meaning. So here. In Ps. 72 Solo- 
 mon recognizes this typical use of names. Some claim 
 that the name SJiulamite — or Shulamith — is the femiuine 
 of Solomon. 
 
 6. The spiritual sense is applied to the figure of a mar- 
 riage in the N. T. Christ explicitly calls Himself " the 
 bridegroom." (Mt. 9: 15; 22: 2-14; 25: 1-13.) The 
 ''Elect lady" is used l)y John (2 Jno. 1.) "Marriage 
 of the Lamb" occurs, (Key. 19: 7-9; 21: 9; 22: 17.) 
 (Other instances are: Jno. 3: 29; Rom. 5:7; Eph. 5: 
 25-32.) These words of the X. T. may l)e taken as an 
 exposition of the Song. 
 
 7. The spiritual inter})retation has always been the 
 yiew of scholars. The Septuagint rendering of 4 : 8 
 seems to put a spiritual sense into the words. The 
 Talmud calls it the " holiest book ; " and because of its 
 purity requires the hands of him who reads it to be 
 washed. Philastrius says, " It is heresy to consider the 
 book other than spiritual." The Fathers also generally 
 thought the same; e. g., Jerome, Origen, Cyprian, Am- 
 brose and Augustine. Pabbi Tbn Ezra, a celebrated scholar 
 of the middle ages, exclaims, " Far be it from the Song 
 
 to treat of carnal pleasure; nor is there indeed any con- ./ , ^^-v- 
 
 troversy aljout this." ^^^^^JfU^ aJUL4'^.'^'''L^u^ 7-^ / 
 
 — — The Fault of the Allegorical Hypothesis. — So far, then, ** 
 
 the Allegorical Hypothesis is justified. Modern ration- 
 alism, holding to the literal interpretation, of course 
 
32 
 
 ()jil)()sc's it. Ill modern tiiiios (Jrotiu.s is the exjioiK'iit of 
 tliis opposition. Bnt thv f((Hlf of (lie Allegorical Hypothesis 
 is that it fails to properhj explain and adcquate.b/ adjad 
 the literal and spiritiad elements in the Song. ITenee we sub- 
 stitute in plaee of it the Typical Method, for.whicli Zoek- 
 ler contends, r" ■^-^<-''vv ? *-<-< ^ H'i, -" ' • ■ '* ' f ^^ <■. i > 
 
 III. The Typical Method. — [An exliaustive exposition of 
 the Typical method of interjiretation of this liook is 
 given by Dr. Green in his transhition of Lange's Com- 
 mentary on the ISong ot Sok)mon. (Lange on Sonq of 
 Solomon, Scribner & Co., 1870, pp. 19-25.) The brief ab- 
 stract which we append is intended to exhibit merely an 
 outline of that note. — Eds.] 
 
 We adopt this method, for the following reasons : ([.) 
 There are objections to the Allegorical uddch do not apply to the 
 Typical method: (1) It neglects and unduly depreciates 
 the literal sense. (2) It inverts the true relation l)etween 
 the outward form and the spiritual sul)stance in this Song. 
 The outward form is primary, instead of the reverse. (8) 
 The Allegorical method violates the analogy of O. T. in- 
 struction, and tends to fanciful, tar-fetched explanations 
 of types. (4) It disregards the needs of the people of 
 God under the O. T. dispensation. We assume that Can- 
 ticles, like otlier books of Scripture, had its special adap- 
 tation to the wants of those for whom it was immediately 
 prepared. (5) It cannot achieve a satisfactory interpreta- 
 tion of the book. It allows anything, either of ideas or 
 doctrine, to be made out of it. 
 
 (II.) The Typical is the true method. According to this 
 the primary subject of the Song, and that which is de- 
 noted by its language in its literal acceptation, is the loving 
 intercourse of King Solomon and his bride. But his in- 
 dividual and earthly relatioNS become the mirror of the 
 spiritual and the heavenly. In properly studying the 
 Song, therefore, the first step is the inquiry after its 
 literal sense. Here both Zockler and Delitzsch have 
 failed; they seek to find a regular plot, and thus have 
 

33 
 
 marred the simplicity of its structure 1)v needless comjili- 
 cations. 
 
 The ethical sense is Iniilt upon the literal. We reject 
 the views of Delitzsch and Zockler here, wliich make it 
 teach a mere romantic sentimentalism on the one hand, 
 or the principle of monogamy on the other, as being un- 
 reasonable, and l)ascd on unfounded assumptions; and 
 believe that all that can in fairness be made out of the 
 ethical view of the book is that two persons are here de- 
 scribed who live in and for each other. Canticles (h)esnot 
 rise to the inculcation of monogamy ; nevertheless, every- 
 thing about the l)Ook is pure. 
 
 Is anything more than the literal and ethical sense in- 
 tended by the writer of this book ? Zockler thinks not. 
 We think it has, to a certain extent, a mystical 
 meaning. Yet it is a difficult question. For (1) the l)<)()k 
 contains no clear indications of its higher meaning; (2) 
 such instances as Ruth, Estlier and many of the Proverbs 
 should make us cautious in attciiqding to determine in 
 advance how much of evident religious character is neces- 
 sary to entitle a book to admission to the (). T. canon ; 
 and (8) the sacred liistorians, in all ])robability, were 
 ignorant of the typical nature of much that they have 
 recorded. Still, we believe that Soh^mon must have had 
 some knowledge of the syndxdical charactei" of that love 
 which he has here embellished, and therefore of the 
 mystical element in wliat he here records. 
 
 4. DIFFERENT VIEM^S AMONG THOSE WHO AGREE THAT THE / . 
 
 BOOK HAS A HIGHER SENSE THAN THE LITERAL, r^ CLULm{^, V U-U^ 
 
 We have decided that the book possesses a higher sense 
 than the literal. Yet there are wide differences of opinion 
 concerning its spiritual sense among those who agree to 
 the main fact. We consider some of these : 
 
 Leon. Hug (1813). — He sees in the bride the kingdom 
 of the ten tril)es; in the bridegroom. King Ilezekiah ot 
 Judah designated as Solomon; in the brothers of Shula- 
 mith, 8 : 8-9, a party in the house of Judah; in the entire 
 
 5 
 
34 
 
 Song a representation clothed in idvUic form of the h)no-- 
 ing felt by the kingdom of the ten tribes for rennion 
 with Judah, but which those " brothers " opposed. 
 
 RosenmuUer (1830.) — His view is based on the tigures 
 of Proverbs, as Wisdom is there represented as a lemale.//i 
 The bride, of the Song represents Wisdom. The marn'of/c 
 represents the relation of God to His people. Some in 
 the ^liddle Ages thonght that the bride represents the 
 Virgin Mary. 
 
 The Tare/urns. — They say that the Song denotes the re- 
 lation of Jehovah to Israel, historically and prophetically. 
 The words " Draw me " refer to the conung ont ot 
 Egypt. Blackness is induced by the sin of Avorshiping 
 the golden calf. The bride is still comely, because re- 
 stored from sin \)\ penitence. The kiss refers to the cove- 
 nant at Sinai. ^ Horses in Pharoah's chariots " refer' to 
 the overthrow of Pharoah at the Red Sea. The last 
 chapter is Messianic, and refers to the resurrection. 
 
 Weisse (d. 1824). — A view similar to the above. 
 
 Moody Stuart. — The Song is an epitome of Gospel 
 history, ending with the calling of the Gentiles. He 
 gives the following analysis : — The Song opens with a 
 longing for the advent. Then (1 : 9 — 7 : 2) alludes to the 
 birth at Bethlehem. The shepherds and wise men are 
 compared to horses. In (2 : 8 — 2 : 15) John is alluded to 
 as heralding the coming of Christ. The bridal chariot 
 represents the hoi}- human body. The mother represents 
 the Jewish people. The sleeping and tlie search refer to 
 Gethsemane and the bewilderment of the disciples at the 
 C^ross. The '' little sister " refers to the Gentile Church. 
 The vinegard let out to keepers is an alUision to the trans- 
 mission of the Gos]:)el to the Gentiles. The Song ends 
 with a cry for the second coming. 
 
 Thrupp (Recent Clerggnmn of Church of Engbind.) — He 
 finds C'hrist's advent in the middle of the Song (5: 1.) 
 What precedes refers to the waiting for, and anticipation 
 of, Christ's coming; what follows alludes to times subse- 
 quent to the ascension. 
 
fJU^ 2/U-V t-Uv A^'*^^^^^ 
 
 -co 
 
 U/TV^^JU^ . 
 
 
 
 
 icu' 
 
 

 
 
35 
 
 Herif/sfei/berf/ (Berlm , 1853.) — He finds the advent alluded 
 to in the middle of the book. The bride is the Jewisli 
 Church, and the Song- is a poetic picture of Jewish his- 
 toiy. DaiKihirrs of Jerusalem refers to the Gentile Chris- 
 tians. The rtiijhthi search refers not to the withdrawal of 
 Christ's bodily presence, but the witlidrawal of His favor 
 and love from the Jews since they rejected Ilini. '•'•He 
 puts His hand in the door " refers to Christ's manifesting 
 His power by the Church. Israel rises to open the door, 
 but too late. The u-atrhmen refer to the judgments on 
 the Jews. 
 
 H. A.^Hahn {Brest. 1852.) — He explains the Song of 
 Solomon as setting forth under a dramatic dress, and in 
 the course of six acts, the fundamental tliought that " the 
 kingdom of Israel is called to finally vancpiish heathen- 
 dom with tlie weapons of righteousness and love, and to 
 conduct it back again to the peaceful rest of a loving 
 communion with Cod." According to this, therefore, 
 Shulamith is a representative of heathendom, and particu- 
 larly of Japhetic heathendom; and her younger sister, 
 8 : 9 ff.) corresponds to Ilamitic heathendom, which is at 
 last also to be converted too. 
 
 Furtlter Vieu-s. — Some lind prophetic instead of spiritual 
 features in it. Others abandon the attempt to lind in it 
 the history of the Church of God, and seek rather to 
 lind in it phases of experience of believers in their 
 Cliristian lives. 
 
 Ixernarks on the Abore : The True View. — The fault with 
 all the above is that the}' are too speciiic and exclusive. The 
 true mode is to take the relations of eartldy love and 
 make them the synd)ol of heavenly love in all its aspects. 
 We remark : (1) The bride, in the spiritual sense, repre- 
 sents the body of C^hristian believers in the aggregate, 
 and not individuals. In Scripture the bride of Christ is 
 nowhere applied to individuals. There is but one bride. 
 But every individual believer belongs to that collective 
 body, viz., the Church — the bride. The believer partici- 
 pates in the nature and privileges of this spiritual bride. 
 
36 
 
 [2) A further remark is tliat it is not iiecessary to seek 
 a (listiuct meaning for every detail of the storv. Figures 
 arc necessarily not to he carried too far. Tlie great les- 
 son of the Song is the love of Christ for His Cliurch. The 
 former is denoted hv Sotonnm, the latter hy the l/ridc. 
 But just how far shall* we carry the attempt to discover 
 distinct meanings in the details of the ISong ? This is a 
 difficult matter to decide. There is an indetiniteness 
 liere. But this very indetiniteness is in reality a charm 
 instead of a defect in figures — especially allegories and 
 types. Hence we make no assertion as to how far here 
 distinct meanings are to he sought in the details. The 
 rule IS, la// ho/d of the ntaiii tyatli which is sw/f/ested; then all 
 the details which, in the interpretation, do not appear 
 forced are to he accepted — all else is to he rejected. 
 
 5. CONCLFDINU REMARKS. 
 
 Aatliorsjiip of the i^u)u/. — That it was written hy Solo- 
 mon appears (1) from its title. (2) It is also proved hy 
 internal corroborations. There are frequent allusions to 
 David and Solomon. (4 : 4 ; 3: 7; 3: 9; 8 : 11.) A 
 writer later than Solomon would he led hy I. Kings 11 : 
 3, and not hy the facts of this earlier period, which are 
 set forth in the hook, (3) Frequent mention of locality 
 in all parts of the land is such as to give the impression 
 that the division of the king(h)m had not heen made at 
 the date of its composition. (4) The al)undance of _////- 
 nres from nature agrees with what we know of Solomon's 
 taste, (e. g., Cedar of Lebanon, /Kdm, vi)ie//ards, orchards, 
 &c.) Solomon is known to have delighted in horses (I. 
 Ki. 10: 28.) {Cf. Cant. 1: 9.) (5) The air ef prosperous 
 o.handance and peaceful enJo//ment al)out the hook [)oints to 
 Solomon's reign. (6) We know that Solomon did com- 
 pose nuihy songs (I. Ki. 4 : 32.) 
 
 Objections to This View. — (1) The first objection is 
 founded on the use of the relatire pronoun {she for a'.vAfr.) 
 It is not found in Proverbs nor in the two psalms of 
 Solomon, It is found in Ecclesiastes, althouo-h these oh- 
 

 
 
 fLuiiAd -iuwM 
 

37 
 
 jec'tors deny that Solomon is the author of Ecelesiaste 
 Now this form is not of late date, since it is believed to 
 occur in (jrenesis.jj^ (2) A further objection is based on 
 the presence in the book of Air/me((ii forms. But the 
 poetry of the Bible is full of such forms from the earliest 
 times. (3) An objection is based on the presence in the 
 Itook of tiro iron/s — Parda s and Apiryon (Cant. 4 : 13; 3 : J'^v^^-"^"^ 
 9.) The former, it is claimed, is a Persian word, the 
 latter a Greek \\ord. If this l)e true the book must 
 have ])een composed as late as the ^Macedonian conquest. 
 But the fact asserted concerning these two particular 
 words is uncertain, and philology does not justity the 
 claim. The alleged Persian word may even be originally 
 of Hebrew origin and tlience appro] )riated by the Per- 
 sian ; while it can be [)roved that the alleged Greek word 
 is a true Hebrew term. (4) Another objection is that in 
 the Song Solomon jiraises himself too much, and thus 
 that the Song re]»resents Solonjon in an (Difarorahle liqht. 
 But we reply that the praise comes not from his own l)ut 
 from tlie lips of his l)eloved ; aiul it is not of himself or 
 of earthly love that Solomon is writinii'. 
 
CHAPTER III 
 
 TROVERBS. 
 
 General Character of the Book. — The Book of Proverbs 
 represents a general accordanee between the law of God 
 and life. It stands in a most intimate relation to law, 
 which is represented in the light of Wisdom, 
 
 (1.) The law, as a guide of life, is here shown to be 
 [)raetically nseful as well as good. Self-interest is held 
 up, yet not to the exclusion of God's law, l)ut showing- 
 how completely God has made our interest and obedience 
 coincident. Temporal advantages are not the main ob- 
 ject; these attend the course of ])iety. Yet occasional 
 passages look beyond this life — e. g., 12: 28; 14: 82; 
 15 : 24, 
 
 (2,) This blessedness is not mere external pros})erity 
 a[>art from the favor of God; but only as a sign of God's 
 blessing is it to be desired, (18 : 16 ; 3 : 15.) 
 
 (3,) Xor is its aim to inculcate mere external morality, 
 (4 : 23 ; 17 : 3 ; 6 : 16-19,) External religious services 
 jLitu^-U^^i^^re no substitutes for piety, (15^13; 2lV27; 21: 3.) 
 ^^ju^^-^j^^ jptj These passages free it from aspersions and raise it above 
 the depreciating estimate of opponents. It makes fre- 
 (pient appeals to law as the only rule of safety, (6 : 23 ; 
 28 : 4, 7, 9.) In these Torah is not to be understood as in- 
 struction, l)ut as divine authoritative hiw ; not, indeed, 
 from a human l)ut from a divine source, (6 : 20.) Law, 
 on the other hand, is not limited to the law of Moses, 
 but inchides all God's law however communicated, (13: 
 
 38 
 

 
 A-^C/J/T--^^ 
 
 ^.VUA^ 'U^.vt^ yW&Tc^ 
 
39 
 
 14 ) It iiu'liides revelation made through the jirophets, 
 (Its. 1 : 10.) Law is made parallel with vision. As well 
 priests as prophets were regarded as inspired. The law 
 of the wise, in Proverbs, ditters from either of these ; not, 
 however, in inspiration or obligation — there is no discrep- 
 ancy there — but in the form of presentation and in the 
 [)ortion of truth exhibited. 
 
 Proverbs does not deal with saered observances or Lev- 
 itical ordimmces ; nor, as is the case with the prophets, 
 with what specitically applies to Israel. It concerns itself 
 with ordinary imitters and everv-day life. It refers to 
 men as men in their daily duties. Hence we do not ex- 
 [lect to tind in it citations from the Mosaic law. There 
 is, however, a connection Avith that law, (3 : 19.) The 
 Tree of Life is mentioned, (3 : 18). And other passages 
 referring to other parts of ihe O. T. An alhision to tlie . l -I h 
 
 flood ap})ears in 3 : 20. There is no allusion to idolatry^ ov'liA*'*^^-*^ ^ 
 
 The Ndtiire of All Prorerbs. — This method of instruc- cnf itZU^nft^i^- 
 tion is curi'ent in every nation on the globe. The East is 
 fanu)us for abundant [U'overbs. They endxxly profound 
 truths in brief sentences. 
 
 TJ(eir Oriji'ui. — (1) They may l)e wise utterances ot 
 sages, or (2) they may circulate as expressive of the 
 general common sense of the people. Both of these classes 
 are found in the Book of Proverbs. Many are by [Solomon. 
 Others are ado}»ted from current language. (Such are 
 27:17; 24: 13.) 
 
 Characteristics Peculiar to Sacred Proverlj.s. — Though re- 
 lated to those from profane sources, they difl:er (a), in 
 their religious character and aim. This sho\vs that they are 
 the reflected light of God's revelation. The law says, "Obey 
 and live;" — Proverbs, "He that findetli ]\Ie flndeth 
 life.'" (b) These are inspired, and hence free from error. 
 They were spoken under special guidance of the Ploly 
 iSpirit. Proverbs are found in other parts of Scripture. 
 (I. Sam. 10 : 12; 24: 13; Luke 4 : 23-25.) Our Saviour 
 (pu3tes two : " Physician heal thyself," " No prophet is 
 without honor save in his own country.'' Those adopted 
 
40 
 
 are hi pros lie form, anil of a single line. Tho.-<e in the 
 Book of Proverbs a^-e of poetic structure and of two 
 ellipses. The substance is borrowed, Init I'ccast in }toetic 
 form. 
 
 The Sf met lire of Prorerhs. — All kinds of [)aral lei isms 
 are found. We will follow the classification of Dc- 
 litzsch : 
 
 The sim[)lest are those of two lines: (1) These may 
 form a s//no)h/moits parallelism in which the idea of the 
 first is repeated in the second in a different form. (2) 
 Antithetle parallelism. The thought of the first is in the 
 second illustrated by its opposite, or is in the fo m of a 
 question, (18 : 4.) (3) S>/nthefie. There is an additional 
 but related thought in the second line, (10 : 8.) (4) A 
 eontmuous parallelism, where one and the same thought 
 is expanded, (13 : 4.) (5) Pemibolie proverb, where the 
 thought is illustrated l)y a comparison of some familiar 
 (>l)iect by the use of the particles as and .so, (26: 11.) (<>) 
 Eiiihlenydie proverbs. Xo word expressive of (compari- 
 son is used; but the conjunction (Utd is employed, (25 : 
 25.) Sometimes they are without a conjunction, (11 : 22.) 
 These are all the varieties that proverbs of two clauses 
 assume. By extension they may be enlarged to three 
 and even eight lines. 
 
 Canonical Authorift/. — Several quotations occur in the 
 N. T. Among others, Prov. 3: 11-15 is quoted in Heb. 
 12 : 5-7 ; 29 : 23 in Jauies 4 : 6 and I. Peter 5:5; 10 : 12 
 in I. Peter 4: 8; 11 : 31 in I. Peter 4: 18; 24: 12 in 
 Pom. 2:6; 26: 12 in II. Peter 2 : 22 ; 25: 6-7 in Luke 
 14: 8-10. The Hebrew name is 3Iishle>/, the root of 
 which is Uj eompare.^ Called by the Greek fathers 
 Paroimia. "^ / _ -r 
 
 Questions of Form. — The book consists of three main 
 divisions, wnth a brief appendix. (I.) Chapters 1-9, Book 
 of Wisdom. (II.) Compters 10-24, headed " Proverbs of 
 Solomon," (including two appendices.) (HI.) The third 
 division consists of chapters 25-29. These are headed, 
 " These are also Proverbs of Solomon '' To these divi- 
 
 

 
 ■vw^ -^-^- \ 
 
 f 
 
 Cr (^^ ^ 
 
 l^cLc^:^^' CocnJW-^ 
 
 
 
 2^ . -L^.^^y\^-Jr ^iy-' (^ ^ 
 
 
 
 ^J^jjL^ aJL6 ^.JJu^'^i- ^Si../^^ 
 
^ t^ ^u..::^ ^<«**-^ <^^-tvii^< ^^ 
 
 1 
 
41 
 
 sions are appended one chapter lieaded " The wordy of 
 Agur,"' and another headed " The Proverbs of King 
 Lenuiel." This hist contains an acrostic. 
 
 (I.) The opening verses of the lirst division (1-9) are a 
 general introduction. The purpose is to teach men to 
 know wisdom. The rest of the section is one discourse 
 occupied with a commendation of wisdom and counsels 
 of parent to child, or of a teacher to his pupil. There is 
 avi intimation of the doctrine of tlie Trinity, — hxios — the 
 word of God — the wisdom of God. This wisdom is there- 
 fore a person — Christ 
 
 (II.) The second division (chapters 10-24), is of Prov- 
 erbs, properly so-called. . Wisdom is here exhibited in 
 its variety and applicability to the details of life. It con- 
 sists of brief utterances or disconnected words in juxta- 
 position. In chapter 15 the word io/v/runs through one 
 passage. In the majority of cases there is no reason for 
 the arrangement. A subdivision or appendix is indi- 
 cated in 22: 17. Another title appears in 24 : 28 — "These 
 also to the wise." This probably- denotes authorship. 
 There are ditferent interpretations : (1) " These hi/ the 
 wise," i. e., not originally by Solomon, but adopted by 
 him. (2) Some say designed /or the wise : fools may re- 
 ject them. The first view is the best. In the main part 
 of the second section, (10: 1 — 22: 16), the sentences have 
 two clauses, and are mosth* antithetical. They are 
 usually of seven words, sometimes six or eight, rarely 
 more. Four words are in the first clause, three in the 
 second. The words " in}/ son " occur only once, (19 : 
 27.) In chapters 22 : 28 — 24, though still resembling the 
 preceding in general contents, the proverbs are pro- 
 longed, extending through two or even three verses, and 
 in one instance through seven. '•'■My son" occurs fre- 
 quently. The first twenty-four chapters would seem to 
 contain all the proverbs which Solomon himself wrote in 
 this form. 
 
 (III.) The third division contains "The Proverbs 
 which the men of TIezekiah, King of Judah, copied 
 
 ,i^cL^ 
 
42 
 
 out," From what tlioy wore copied we liave no means 
 of ascertaining, nor Ity wlidm ; }>robal)ly In' persons 
 fitted by talents or ins[)iration. These proverbs follow 
 each other without any order or classification. The 
 Av o rd "/oo/ '' occurs in ten successive verses; '■'■ sloth faV 
 in four. In this division the proverl)S consist of seven 
 or eight words. C'haj»ters Ib-ll contain fre((uent com- 
 parisons. Chapter 29 is chiefly antithetical. The title 
 in chapter 25 reads as though " also '' (pialifies all th.<t 
 follows, and hence implies that all the proverbs were 
 copied by the "men of Ilezekiah." It is claimed that 
 the men of Hezekiah copied the entire book. The Tal- 
 mud says that Hezekiah and kis company wrote Isaiah 
 and Proverbs, but this simply means that they copied 
 them into the canon. The truth is, the book was com- 
 pleted by the men of Ilezekiah. 
 
 Different Views. — (1) Furst : The men of Ilezekiah con- 
 stituted a permanent body. Solomon was distinguished 
 as an author of proverbs, and many wrote proverbs and 
 gave them his name. This is a collection of these. But 
 in reply, we claim that the natural meaning is that the 
 men of Hezekiah collected these from among Solomon's. 
 
 (2.) Hitzig : He assumes that there were four collec- 
 tions, and that the present order is chronological, (a), 
 1--9; (b), 10: 1—24: 22; (c), 24: 23-34; (d), 25-29. 
 
 (3.) Ewald assumes the following origin, which he de- 
 duces from the structure of the Proverbs themselves: 
 He claims that the first collection was made by some un- 
 known person two centuries after Solomon. Chapters 
 1 — 20 : 16 may be by Solomon and some others. In Heze- 
 kiah's reign the second collection was made, but not i.^'-'i-i^ 
 united with the first. It is, at most, a little older tliaii 
 Hezekiah's reign. In the early part of the following 
 century the first division was prefixed as a preface. An- [ 
 
 other section beginning with 22 : 16 was prefixed to the ' 
 second collection and the whole appended to the first. 
 These last two additions contain nothing from Solomon. 
 The finishing touches were made and the present form 
 

 H^' .O^ v^-^ -^H fT^Z^T/^ ^^^ 
 
43 
 
 attained four centuries after Solomon's deatli, 1)}' tlie ad- 
 dition of clia[»ters 30, 31. 
 
 The aro-unient of Ewald is based on his theory of the 
 pr(jgTess of proverbial poetry among the Hebrews. The 
 oldest are the shortest. Then come the contrasted. The 
 shortest predominate in chapters 10 — 22 : 16 ; hence this is 
 the oldest portion. All proverbs of antithetical form 
 are genuine proverbs of Solomon. Those not antithetical 
 are a departure and are later than the age of Solomon. Chap- 
 ters 25 : 29 are next in age. A few antithetical are still found 
 in this section, but they are exceptional. As time progres- 
 ses the proverl) loses in l)revity and force, and tends to 
 lengthier forms. Hence parabolic and emhJamatic 
 proverbs. They are extended by lengthening the lines 
 or increasing their nund)er. The next addition was the 
 first nine chapters and the appendix of 22: 16-34. An- 
 other stage is noted : Proverbs proper are exchanged 
 for lengthy admonitions. Finally, in the appendices of 
 chapters 30 and 31, longer passages occur in pretty de- 
 scriptions of moral truths. 
 
 ThisVkv Fallacious. — The fallacy of this lies in tlie as- 
 sumption that the form of a proverb is a criterion of its 
 age, and that diversities of style are to be traced to sepa- 
 rate i)eriods, forgetting that a writer of genius might use 
 different styles. Other styles of proverbs have quite as 
 good a claim to be considered priuiitive. Chapters 10- 
 22: 16 contain one parabolic proverb. This does not 
 justify tlie assumption that they were not written l>y 
 Solomon. 
 
 (4.) Delitzsch thinks the title, "Proverbs of Solomon, 
 sf'U of David, King of Israel," does not apply to the first 
 nine chapters, but to the book as a whole. Chapters 
 1-9 are introductory to the Book of Proverbs proper, 
 which begins with chapter 10. There was an original 
 publication of three thousand proverbs (I. Ki. 4 : 32) 
 from which this collection (10 — 22 : 16) was made by some 
 unknown editor in the reign of Jehosliapluit — a reign 
 similar, in many respects, to Solomon's. The proyerl)ial 
 
44 
 
 poetry of one period was culth'ated in the otlier. Tlie 
 editor liiinself prefixed e]ia[)ter.s l-i> and added 'I'l : 17 — 
 24: 22, giving to this hitter a hrief introduetion of its 
 own, ("22 : 17-21.) Tlie reasons Delitzseh assigns for this 
 are scarcely conclusive. His reasons are: (a) A more 
 orderly arrangement is to be expected from so wise a 
 king. But we reply that no systematic arrangement is 
 required, (h) Some jiroverbs are repeated, Ifence an 
 interval must hnvo elapsed in wliich variations have 
 arisen. These variations the collector has preserved. 
 To this we answer that it is quite easy to assume that 
 Solomon uttered the same proverbs in different forms. 
 There is one instance of exact repetition, 14: 12 and 16 : 
 25. This has no bearing on the question. Witii slight 
 alteration 10 : 1 is repeated in 15 : 20 ; 14 : 20 in 19:4; 
 16 : 2 in 21 : 2 ; 19 : 5 in 19 : 9 ; 20 : 10 in 20 : 23 ; 21 : 
 9 in 21 : 19. In other cases the meaning is altered. The 
 first lines are alike, but not the second; or the second, 
 but not the first. , . : \ ^ t ( iSsx-O ^ / 1 (.. -• ,;, , i 10 :% . I 
 
 Delitzseh admits affinity in diction between chapters 
 1 — 9 and 10 — 22, but contends that this does not establish 
 an identity of authorship; for, (1) These repetitions in 
 difi'erent sections are not, after all, similar in expression. 
 (2) The style is more difiuse and repetitions in the first 
 section tlian in the second. But in reply to this it is 
 enough to say that this grows out of the ditferent charac- 
 ter of compositions. Terseness fits the proverb. (3) 
 The extended allegory of chapters 7-9, in which Wisdom 
 and Folhj are personified, is not fuund elsewhere. But 
 where is the proof that the author of the first is not the 
 author of the second? The second title is thoroughly 
 justified if Solomon wrote the first section. Because 
 Shakespeare wrote sonnets is no argument that he did 
 not write plays. 
 
 Delitzseh thinks that the remainder (24 : 23-34) was col- 
 lected by "men of Hezekiah," being selected from the 
 proverl)S of other wise men. The second collection 
 (chapters 25 — 29) was intended for popular instruction 
 


 
 
 L^-'~hyY\j 
 
45 
 
 generiilly. Cluii)tcrs 10 — 24 were designed for the in- 
 strueriou of youth, duty of chihlren, &c. Then follows 
 the <luty of kings (in cliapters 25 — 29.) Here tliere is 
 only one re[)etltion : 25 : 12 is re[)eated from 1 : 9. 
 Where there is a ditferenee in form no question arises; 
 but it is asked, wdiy repeat identical proverbs ? Answer : 
 There are constantly found identical repetitions in other 
 books, sacred and profane. 
 
 Titles. — The titles in this l)ook have as much evidence 
 of originality and authority as any titles can have. The 
 proverbs of the first twenty-nine chapters are Solomon's. 
 Chapters 25 — 29 were first added to the preceding in the 
 reign of Hezekiah, collected from a previously existing 
 book. These titles receive confirmation in I. Kings 
 4:32. 
 
 The Aathorsliij) of the Book. — The objections to Solomon's 
 authorship of the work are weak. They are : 
 
 (1.) Xo one man could ever have uttered so many wise 
 sayings. But the use of a little arithmetic will show the 
 absurdity of this objection. The book contains six hun- 
 dred proverbs, whicii allows fifteen a year in his reign of 
 forty years — certainly not an incredible task. And we 
 know from other sources that he spoke three thousand 
 proverbs, (1 Kings 4 : 32.) 
 
 (2.) Many of these suppose an acquaintance with 
 common life not to be expected in a king, and they lay 
 stress on chastity — an improbable feature in one who had 
 so many wives. But there is nothing incongruous in 
 Solomon's being acquainted with common life, and his 
 own experience would suggest utterances on chastity. 
 
 (3.) It is urged that differences in style, structure and 
 language show that the book must be a compilation of 
 different authors. There is no difficulty in admitting it. 
 Sages spoke some of them. They may have been writ- 
 ten by different authors and collected by Sokmion. But 
 as to actual differences of structure they are very slight, 
 relating, for the most part, merely to differences in 
 length. And if these variations prove au\'thing in sup- 
 
46 
 
 port of tlie aro'iiinent, tlioy prove that oiio may never utter 
 a in'overl) of more tliaii a certaii> lengtli. 'J'here is 
 (C/k-V-i-t evidenee of a plan indieating that it is the work of one 
 mind. Dttinite order appears, not depending- on the 
 nature of tlie suhjeet, hut governed In- a regard to ex- 
 ternal form. The first section of nine chapters is a kind 
 of introduction in praise of wisdom. It assumes the 
 character of a connected discourse. Then follow ad- 
 monitions, those of one line first, then those of gi-eater 
 length. In the i)roverbs Ijy " the men of Ilezekiair' 
 this method is neglected, and the collection is of a more 
 promiscuous character. The alleged differences amount 
 to this, that some wcu'ds of (uie part are not found in an- 
 other. ' 
 
 (4.) It is claimed, lastly, that confused arrangement 
 and repetition are found and are evidences of diversity 
 of authorship. But it may be answered that while there 
 is no systematic order there is no confusion. And it is 
 more probable that one person would repeat his own 
 language than that several writers would say the same 
 thing. 
 
 The Append i J' — Chapters 30,31. — Tliis consists of two 
 chapters — 30, 31. Each chapter has a separate title. 
 Chapter 30 : " The words of Agur, the son of Jakeh, 
 the prophecy: the man spake unto Ithiel, even unto 
 Ithiel and Ileal." Chapter 31 : " The words of King 
 Lemuel, the prophecy that his mother taught him." The 
 obscurity of these headings has perplexed interpreters. 
 Of the live names, Ithiel alone occurs elsewhere (Neh. 
 11 : 7), where it refers to a diilerent person. A great 
 variety of modes of dealing with these headings is sug- 
 gested. 
 
 One critic, indeed, boldly proposes to alter the text of 
 chapter 30, and make it read : " Words of the assembly 
 of Jakeh," i. e., pious men. It is also proposed to make 
 Masa reter to the name of a kingdom, and to change into 
 verbs the pr()])er names which occur in the latter }iart of 
 "** the verse. Tlie heading of chapter 31 is treated simi- 
 

 y 
 
.^.£^ >U^bVt^^^^ <^-^ 
 
47 
 
 larlv. The objections to all this are: (1) It requires a 
 gratuitous alteration oftlie text. The business of the in- 
 terpreter is not to alter but to explain. (2) It assumes 
 the e.xistence of a kingdom of which we know nothing. 
 (3) The construction of tlie Hebrew as altered is forced. 
 
 A second mode of interpretation assumes that the 
 names are enigmatical or symbolical. It was a prevalent 
 opinion among the Jews that Agiir meant a collector, i. 
 e., of wisdom or wise sayings. LetDud meant (fcrofcd to 
 God, and was a })hrase applied to Solomon or to one of 
 his successors. Ilahn undertakes to reconcile this view 
 with the alterations of the text above referred to, and 
 makes Ithiel mean " God in me,'" and IJcal, " I ant able,'" 
 or " I am sfrouf/.'" 
 
 The third explanation, and the simplest, supposes these 
 names to be real. One chapter, 30, contains the counsels 
 of a sage to the people. The otlier, 31, those of King 
 Lemuers mother to him. The objections to this are: 
 (1) A f/jyn/(mf'f!cal ohjc'cfioH. The words are not Lemuel 
 ///(' king, but (/ king., (2) There is no known Israelitish 
 king of this name. If real, he must have been a Gentile 
 [irince. But why, then, include his writings in the 
 canon ? In spite of these objections, however, it seems 
 best to adopt this view. 
 
 The sayings of Agur diiier considerably in form from 
 the previous portions of the Book of Proverbs. The 
 beauty of expression and antithesis are wanting. Afiter 
 the tenth verse they consist, for the most part, of single 
 lines. The others are more extended. Gha[)ter 31 con- 
 tains directions to a king — Lemuel. This extends only 
 through nine verses. Verses 10-31 describe a virtuous 
 woman, and are a^phal)etic in structure, each success! \'e 
 verse beginning with the letters of tlie alphabet in their 
 order. This is the only portion of Proverbs of this sort. 
 There is a return to the brief and pointed proverbs. Two 
 Aramaic forms occur. In verse 2, Bar for Ben, 3riahin. 
 for MHakhn. But this does not prove deterioration under 
 Chaldee influence. Similar forms occur in tlie writings 
 of David. vv* VS'V.*"*- (•I'V "^-^vt- iSnL^y^ 
 
48 
 
 The Septaii(/int Version of Proverbs. — The LXX trans- 
 lators take liberties with the text of this l)ook. They 
 depart from the Hebrew. Duplieate versions are g-iven, 
 some proverbs are remodeled, some omitted, some in- 
 serted and new proverV)S introduced ; and there are also 
 some transpositions. The tirst fourteen verses of chapter 
 30 are put after 24 : 22, and the remaining verses are put 
 after 24: 34. The same thing ocenrs in the Book of 
 Jeremiah. Some find evidences of two recensions of the 
 text, one in Palestine, the Masoretic ; the other in Egypt, 
 which the LXX translators used. Yet these liberties 
 taken with the text in the LXX may be due merely to the 
 caprice of its translat(.)rs. 
 

 ,Mo^P pjr-^f^ ^ 
 
CHAPTER IV. 
 
 ECCLESIASTES. 
 
 1. GENERAL CHARACTER OF THE BOOK. 
 
 In many respects Eeclesiastes is the most puzzling book 
 in the 0. T. canon. The Hebrew title, Kohelcth, corre- 
 sponds to the Greek iJ/:/desk(Ste.s, Latin Eeclesiastes^ and 
 English Preacher, in the LXX, Vulgate and Authorized 
 Version respectively. The Hebrew term is derived from 
 Kahal (an assemble/), which, in turn, comes from a verb 
 signifying to call together, to assemble, just as the English 
 cov()rega.tion and Latin Ecclesia are derived from verbs of 
 similar signilication. Preacher is therefore tlie natunil,, 
 as it is the ancient, rendering. 
 
 Fanciful Penderivgs of the Title. — Various far-fetched 
 and unreasonal)le renderings have been suggested : 
 
 (1.) Some, for example, render the words collector of 
 Proverbs. They, therefore, consider tlie book to be a col- 
 lection or conglomeration of wise sayings. But (a) the 
 etymology of the word showsS that it is related to an 
 assembly of men, and (b) there is a unity to tlie book 
 which opposesthe idea ot its being a debate. Hence this 
 view cannot be accepted. 
 
 (2.) Others render it assembly. They ex})lain the l)ook 
 by suggesting that there was probably an assembly ot 
 wise men convened \)\ Solomon, and of which he was 
 the head ; and that the book consists of the debates of 
 this assembly. In reply to this we affirm (a) that the 
 (7) 49 
 
50 
 
 word evidently refers to a }»ersoii and not a thing, and 
 (b) that tlie view is based on the false assnni})tion that 
 discordant sentiments are expressed in tlie book. 
 
 (3.) As the word possesses a feminine termination 
 some suggest that it does not represent Solomon in his 
 own })erson, but imsdom jjersonificd. But certainly no 
 foundation for this is found in the l)()ok itself, M'hile this 
 form for abstract nouns denoting offices is not at all un- 
 common in Hebrew. The advocates of the ancient view 
 claim that the title is a symbolical designation of the 
 author as a public preacher, addressing God's people. 
 The name Solomon does not occur, hut tliat he is in- 
 tended l)y the title seems to be manifest from the words 
 son of David, Jdng in Jerusalem, (1 : 1), since there is no 
 one else to whom these words can properly apply. 
 
 (4.) It has been suggested by one scholar, indeed, that 
 the words son of David may be taken in a wide sense as 
 indicating all the sons of David till the time of Hezekiah. 
 The book is, therefore, an account of each of these 
 princes. But what is said of wisdom (1 : 16) and of 
 wealtli and temporal power (2 : 4-9) certainly corresponds 
 with what is known of Solomon. This view, also against 
 the generally acce}>te(l idea that Solomon is the author, 
 we reject without refutation. 
 
 2. AUTHOBSHIP. 
 
 N"o douht has ever been expressed until recent times 
 that Solomon was the author. Arguments for this have 
 baen advanced. 
 
 Siqjposed Proofs That Solomon Wrote JEcclesiastes. — These 
 are : (1.) The reference in 1 : 12, / the Preacher ivas 
 King over Israel in Jerusalem. Solomon is here supposed 
 to be referred to as s])eaking in the tirst person. (2.) An- 
 other argument was found in the fact that this has always 
 been the prevalent view. So far as we have evidence 
 concerning them, the Jews have always held it. So the 
 Christian Church. Only in recent times have contrary 
 views been held. (3.) Then, too, it was assumed that the 
 

 flJ^ O't "T^'.^A.y 
 
51 
 
 reception of tTie book into the canon gave autljentic con- 
 firmation that the l)Ook is genuine, that it is what it pro- 
 fesses to he, and that it is, therefore, hv Soh)mon. An 
 infallible test of the canonicity of the book is given by 
 onr Lord in his sanctioning the O. T. canon which con- 
 tained it. 
 
 Tlie Vlein of Grotias. — In modern times Grotins was 
 the first to deny that the book was written l)y Solomon, 
 (Indeed, there is a random remark of Lnther's, in his 
 llible Talk, concerning the authorship of the book, which 
 is noteworthy as looking in the same direction. Yet he 
 probably confuses Ecciesiastes witli Ecdcsiasticus, since he 
 speaks of Sirach in connection with its authorship.) JSince 
 Grotius advanced his view many German critics have 
 adopted it. These include not only unbelieving scholars, 
 but also some of the soundest and aldest of Evangelical 
 interpreters. (E. g., Hengstenberg, Keil ; and of our own 
 scholars, Moses Stuart.) 
 
 The Book a Work of Fk-iiov. — The view of these critics 
 is not that the book is a forgery, issued in the name of 
 Solomon, and professing to be from Solomon, but that it 
 is a fiction, in which Solomon is represented as talking, 
 and that without the intention of conveying tlie idea that 
 he was the author. They lay stress on the fact that the 
 name of Solomon does not occur in the hook, as it does 
 in other books of which he is the alleged author. Tiieir 
 idea, then, is that the Ijook was originally intended as a 
 Avork of fiction. 
 
 The AidJiorship Difficult to Decide. — This question as to 
 authorship is exceedingly perplexing. We may affirm, 
 however, at the outset, that only one of the arguments 
 which have been advanced against the claim that Solo- 
 mon wrote it possesses any consideral)le force. That is 
 the argument based upon the language and style of the book. 
 The other arguments can be easily refuted. Thus, for 
 example, we may easily, if necessary, answer the claim 
 that the book is a work of fiction. It is asserted that in 
 certain places the fiction is transparent, as in the words, 
 
52 
 
 /, the Preacher^ iras King over Israel (1 : 12), wliere the 
 language appears 8ueh as Solomon could not nse in speak- 
 ing of himself. The argument is ])ased upon the use of 
 the past tense in the word ivas. Again, it is said that 
 the author makes a formal statement of his being a king, 
 as th(>ugh the fact were not generally known. But it is 
 evident that all this mistakes the true purport of the 
 verse. It is not there meant to say that Solomon had 
 heen king, nor that Solomon had reigned in Jerusalem, 
 ill contrast with those who reigned elsewhere ; l)ut that 
 Solomon was king in Jerusalem at the time when his ex- 
 periments of human life were being tried. The idea is 
 simply that this trial was made b}^ him as a king, and not 
 as an ordinary person, ((J. 2: 12; 2: 25.) In fact, if 
 any argument can be drawn from the language of 1 : 12 
 it Avould be on the other side. Previous to the Schism 
 Israel included the twelve tribes. Subsequently, Israel 
 denoted ten of the tribes, and Judah represented the 
 other two. If the book were written subsequent to the 
 -Schism, then the author would naturally have used the 
 words " Israel and Judah " instead of " Israel." 
 
 Farther Arguments Considered : — 
 
 (1.) One argument against the ancient view is based 
 upon the reference to wealth, (1 : 16 ; 2 : 7-9.) The ob- 
 jection here arises, (a) from the use of the past tense of 
 the verb in those verses ; (b) from the expression "All 
 that were before me" (2: 9), since there was only one, 
 viz., David, who " went before " Solomon; (c) from the 
 laudation of his wisdom, which would appear appropriate 
 in another author, but not in Solomon, if he is writing 
 concerning himself. 
 
 But in regard to this objection we reply (a), this argu- 
 ment from the use of the past tense of the verb is 
 groundless. The author is, in fact, speaking of what is 
 past at the time in which he writes. He merely states 
 the conditions of his trial of human prosperity at the 
 time that trial was made. And then,(b) as to the second 
 consideration concerning the expression "All that were 
 
53 
 
 before me," it is to be remarked that the author does not 
 say "All the kings that were,'" &c., but ''all,'' i. e., all 
 the people. There is no need, therefore, to think that 
 heathen kings are referred to. The meaning is merely 
 that he was wealthier and wiser than any — kings or 
 people. No man had ever been in better worldly cir- 
 cumstances in which to obtain happiness; and, in order 
 to state fully his experience, it is necessary for him to 
 mention these conditions. Besides, (c), the tone of the book 
 is neither that of self-depreciation on the one hand nor of 
 self-exaltation on the other. The charge of undue lauda- 
 tion of the author's wisdom is therefore unfounded. He 
 tells of his unsatisfactory attempts, and of his perplexity 
 as well as his success. He makes a statement only of 
 what is true, and that in no boastful spirit. Like Moses 
 when speaking of his own meekness, or Paul when refer- 
 ring to the honor which God had placed upon him, he 
 loses all sense of self or self-praise. 
 
 (2.)* Another argument is based on the language of 7 : " 
 15 — all things have I seen in the days of my vanity. It is 
 argued from these words that Solomon's life must have 
 been ended at the time when the book was written. But 
 it would be quite easy and natural for Solomon to speak 
 thus during his lifetime of himself. The argument is 
 altogether without force. 
 
 A Second Class of Objections : — 
 
 (1.) It is alleged that views are expressed in the book 
 which show that Solomon cannot be the author. Thus a 
 dark, gloomy view of human life is shown, which could 
 have arisen onl}' in a time of great national distress, and 
 not during the period of the prosperous abundance ot 
 Solomon's reign. But we reply by claiming (a) that it is 
 preposterous to think that State or national matters 
 could have to do with such a subject as is treated of in 
 this composition. The book could have been written by 
 a king whatever the condition of public affairs in his king- 
 dom. And (b) this gloomy view of human aftairs may have 
 
54 
 
 spruns; from a very surfeit of the pleasures which eartlily 
 prosperity imi)arts. 
 
 (2.) A further objection of this chiss is based upon the 
 language of 5 : 1 — and be more rea<h/ to licarihan to give the 
 sacrifice of fools. It is chiinied that this is a depreciation 
 of the value of sacrifice not to be expected in the l)ui]der 
 of the Temple. But this is not so. The language does 
 not imply that sacrifice is unimportant, valueless or 
 wrong, but only that it is inferior to a right state of 
 heart. And certainly we could expect such language from 
 Solomon.. God does not despise sacrifice, but he Avill 
 not accept it in lieu of a right state of heart; [Vid. I. 
 Sam. 15: 25; Ps. 50: 7-15.) " 
 
 (3.) A third objection is based upon references to the op- 
 pressio/i of riders in certain passages, which oppression, it is 
 thought, Solomon should have corrected rather than made 
 the subject of his complaints, (8: 16; 4: 1 ; 5: 8; 10: 5,-7.) 
 But we reply that apart from the fact that no ruler {;an 
 correct, in his own kingdom, all the abuses of govern- 
 ment on the part of those in authority under him, the 
 view of the author here is not really nor professedly con- 
 fined to his own aare or kina-dom. The author is takino^ 
 a broad view of life, and the misery to which he refers 
 arises from the existence of wicked rulers everywhere. 
 That misrule did, as a matter of fact, exist in his own 
 reign appears from I. Kings, 12:4. 
 
 (4.) A further objection is l)ased on 7 : 10 — sa// not thou 
 what is the cause that the former days were better than these ? 
 It is claimed that during Solomon's lifetime affairs were 
 in reality more prosperous or " better" than during any 
 " former days." But we reply that the " former days " 
 refer to a spiritual rather than j)olitical condition. Those 
 who are spiritually minded often find their greatest 
 trouble in times of greatest temporal wealth or })Ower. 
 In the same way the poet Horace praises the purity of 
 the times of his youth. 
 
 (5.) Again, it is claimed that the book treats of woman in a 
 way inconsistent with tlie notorious fondness of Solomon 
 

 ^^2.,,^T^4t. xLcc^ 
 
55 
 
 for the sex; ( Vkl 7 : 26, 28.) But tlie reply is (a) that it .^^^^Q a 
 is not the design of tlie author to rebuke the entire class '" v 
 
 of women ; and (h), concerning the degradation of those 
 women who are degraded Solomon certainly speaks quite 
 as plainly in Proverbs. Then, too, his own experience 
 may have given rise to these opinions of his concerning 
 the sex. And (c) lastly, the language may here be alle- 
 gorical. In that case he treats figuratively of Folly 
 ■personified. 
 
 The Foregoiiui Ohjedious Tririal. — These are the leading 
 objections against the authorship of Solomon, outside of 
 that based on the language and style of the book. If it 
 were not for this latter they would possess but little 
 force; and, in fact, they can all l>e easily disposed of and 
 answ^ered, as we have seen. But we come now to a 
 weightier objection. 
 
 llie Main Objection — Language aral Style. — The most 
 serious objection is one based upon the language and 
 style. It is alleged, and the fact seems to be, that the 
 Hebrew of this book is so Aramean that it must belong 
 to a period later than Solomon ; and the style is unlike 
 that of any other of the writings of Solomon. It would 
 be tedious and useless to enter into details here. It is 
 enough to remark that in this respect the book stands 
 alone in the Bible. Delitzsch gives a long list of such 
 Arameanisms, which it is unnecessary to mention, while 
 the grammar and style, as already said, point in this 
 direction. The same line of argument is followed by 
 Ilengstenberg and Keil. ^*, / 
 
 Only one thing can be said in answer to this. One \ 
 reason why there are so many Aramean words may arise 1 
 from the character of the discussion, which is of a philo- 
 sophic nature. Again, Aramaic forms are not infrequent 
 in some of the oldest books of the Bible. And further, 
 Solomon had intercourse with the Tyrians, and married 
 foreign women, which facts may account for the Ara- 
 meanisms. 
 
 As to the charge of diversity of style between this book 
 
56 
 
 and Proverbs, it i^eenis to be true. Yet tbere are prov- 
 erbs in Ecclesiastes as terse, sententious and pointed as 
 in Proverl)s, so tliat the author of Ecclesiastes, if he be 
 not Solomon, must have imitated Solomon. 
 
 One skeptical scholar thinks that the Book of Ecclesi- 
 astes could not be post-exilic, for it speaks of kings. Its 
 origin, he claims, must be placed as far back as the time 
 of Solomon, v^^hile we have the book re})rodnced in more 
 recent style, just as Shakespeare's plays are slightly mod- 
 ified in order to adapt them to the stage of our own day. 
 After all that has been said, however, we do not see how 
 the argument from the language can be met. We con- 
 clude, therefore, that it is decisive. We agree with 
 Delitzsch that if the book is Solomon's we must give up 
 everything like a history of the Hebrew language. And 
 this is the uniform opinion of scholars at the present time. 
 
 3. THE DATE OF AUTHORSHIP. 
 
 The greatest diversity of opinion exists as to the date 
 of the authorship of this book among those who do 
 not accept Solomon as the author. Some place it be- 
 fore the exile, between the reigns of Manasseh and Zede- 
 kiah. It is said that the expressions used in 8 : 10 and 
 10 : 4, 16-20 are not applicable to a later period, when 
 the Jews no longer had a king. The majority of inter- 
 preters ascribe it to a period subsequent to the exile. 
 Some place it immediately after the return ; others in 
 the time of Malachi ; while others refer it to tha period 
 of Persian dominion, or to the time of Alexander the 
 Great, or place it between Alexander the Great and 
 Antiochus Epiphanes. Hitzig, with great confidence, 
 assigrns it to 204 B. C, on the ground of the use of the 
 expression " oath of God," (8 : 2), which, he says, refers 
 to the oath exacted of the Jews by Ptolemy Epiphanes. 
 In his opinion 7 : 10 must refer to the reigns of Ptolemy 
 Philadelphus, Ptolemy Lagus and Ptolemy Energetes. 
 The " little city " mentioned in 9 : 4 is said to refer to a 
 city which Antiochus the Great failed to capture. 
 
57 
 
 4. AIM AND DESIGN. 
 
 There is a wide dift'erence of opinion in regard to its 
 aim and deskpi. Here, as in Job, the occasion of the 
 divergence seems to lie in the complexity of the book 
 itself. 
 
 Different Vieivs : — 
 
 (1.) Some regard it as impossible to discover a definite 
 plan. Grotius regards it as a collection of conilicting 
 opinions of various sages. This opinion is based on the 
 idea that the author is a collector {Koheletli.) He thus 
 evades any claim to its inspiration, and also explains ap- 
 parent contradictions. The collector, Zerubbabel, is 
 supposed to give the opinions of different men, now on 
 one side, now on another, but all related to one subject, 
 namely, human happiness. 
 
 (2.) By others the occasion is supposed to be a debate in 
 an assembly over which Solomon presided. 
 
 (3.) A third view attempts to establish a unity by assum- 
 ing that it is a dialogue between an impetuous inquirer 
 and a sage, who endeavors to curb the impetuosity of 
 his questioner. This view is adopted by Herder, Eich- 
 horn and others. 
 
 (4.) But all this is unnecessary. It is possible to find in 
 the book unity and a single theme. The above theories 
 are arbitrary; there is no intimation of more than one 
 speaker. The same difficulties are met in another, a fourth 
 view, viz., that instead of different speakers, different 
 states of mind in the same speaker are represented, and 
 that at the close the speaker reaches clear convictions. 
 
 The True View. — The true view is that the book is one 
 continuous and consistent discussion with a single aim. 
 Yet a difference of opinion is found even here : 
 
 Not Ascetic. — Some suppose a condemnation of too 
 exclusive attention to the vanities of the world. This 
 view was used by Jerome in support of monasticism. 
 (So Augustine, commentators of the Middle Ages, and 
 others.) 
 
 Not Epicurean. — A second view, which has been advo- 
 cated by some who adopt the general theory that the 
 
58 
 
 book possesses a sin:^le design and theme, is that its aim 
 is to teach Epicurean doctrine. They charge the author 
 with being Epicurean, and base the charge on the follow- 
 ing passages: 2 : 24; 3: 12, 13 ; 5 : 18^, 19 ; 8 : 15 ; 9 : 
 7-10. But the adoption of this view would lead only to 
 endless confusion. In order to understand the real pur- 
 pose of the book, we should not base an opinion upon 
 a single class of passages. That the above view is false 
 appears immediately from passages like 2 : 1-2 and 11 : 9, 
 Those verses are wholly inconsistent with an Epicurean 
 l)elief. In fact, the object of the former class of passages 
 i;s merely to prove that there is a law in human life which 
 renders happiness the result and accompaniment of good- 
 Tjieas, and that without exalting the former over the latter. 
 Piety holds the key to the chamber of happiness. That 
 is the doctrine of the book. And such teaching is surely 
 not Epicurean. 
 
 Not Fatalistic. — From another class of passages some 
 have inferred a third view, thsit the book teaches that the 
 destinies of men are shaped by inexorable fate. Such 
 passages are these : 1 : 4-11 ; 3 : 1-11, 14, 15 ; 7 : 13 ; 
 "8 : 6 ; 9 : 11. It is claimed that the author teaches here 
 that the established order of things leaves no room for 
 the action of the human will. Men can only bow before 
 and submit to the sway of fate. 
 
 This, of course, is a distortion of tl^e true teaching of 
 t^e bojok. The doctrine is that of the Divine Providence 
 and not of fate. The author simply shows in the pas- 
 sages named that God has forever dissociated sin and 
 happiness, and that man cannot unite them. 
 
 Future Jud/jment not the X)istinctive Doctrine. — A fourth 
 view magnifies the doctrine, as taught in the book, of a 
 future judgment. There are inequalities in the present 
 life, and these are to be rectified in the future. Such is 
 supposed to be the all-important doctrine of the author. 
 The view is based on the following verses : 3:17; 5:8; 
 11: 9; 12: 7, 14. 
 
 The fault with this view is that it limits the theme to 
 too narrow a range. True, this doctrine is taught ; but 
 

 
59 
 
 it is not solely taught. As in Job, although the doctrine 
 appears, yet it is not the exclusive topic. 
 
 Immortality Not Denied. — Others, again, think that the 
 book denies the immortality of the soul. The following- 
 passages are relied upon for their proof: 3: 19-21; 9: 
 4-6. " 
 
 This view is based upon a false interpretation of these 
 passages, and upon a failure to properly connect them 
 with other portions of the book. Hence, of course, it is 
 to be rejected. 
 
 The Theme not to he Unduly Widened. — Still another 
 view, a fifth, advanced by those who consider the book to 
 be a miscellaneous collection possessing neither a single 
 theme nor a single design, is that the book is a presenta- 
 tion of general rides for the guidance of life. Wisdom is 
 especially emphasized. The following verses are sup- 
 posed to justify the view: 4: 9-13; 5: 1-7; 7: 1-9; 
 10 : 1-6. 
 
 The fault here is that the treatment is made to appear 
 too vague and indefinite. In fact, the author has but a 
 single theme before him. True, there are occasional 
 digressions ; but when examined these digressions all ap- 
 pear related to the common topic evidently in the author's 
 mind. 
 
 The True View. — This embraces all that is true in par- 
 tial or one-sided views. It exhibits all the elements of 
 the book in their proper relations, and. in due symmetry 
 and proportion. The true theme of the book has been 
 already substantially stated. There is in life a true har- 
 mony between goodness and happiness. Job presents 
 the fiist apparent exception to that harmony, where a 
 good man is represented as suffering from the ills of life 
 for a season ; while the other exception is shown in Ec- 
 clesiastes, viz., the apparent successes of evil men. Yet 
 in both books it is shown that, after all, real and lasting 
 happiness is only for the good. That this is especially 
 shown in Ecclesiastes appears from the following con- 
 siderations : 
 
 Fii^st, the doctrine is explicitly stated. In 8 : 12, 13 we 
 
60 
 
 read, " Tlioiigli a sinner do evil an liundred times, and 
 his (lavs 1)0 prolonged, jet surely I know that it shall be 
 well with them that fear God, which fear before him : 
 But it shall not be well with the wicked, neither shall he 
 prolong his days, which are as a shadow; because he 
 feareth not before God." That is to say, not even ex- 
 ternal or worldly happiness can be permanent in the case 
 of the ungodly. 
 
 St'coiid, this aim and purpose are shown by the testi- 
 mony of the author, when he states the true doctrine 
 fornuilly at the close of the book. "Let us hear the con- 
 clusion of the whole nuitter : Fear God and keep His 
 commandments : For this is the whole duty of man. 
 For God shall l)ring every work into judgment, with 
 every secret tiling, whether it be good, or whether it be 
 evil,'' (12 : 13, 14.) The clause, " For this is the whole 
 duty of man," properly rendered, reads. For this should 
 tcerii man do. The entire passage proves that it has been 
 the result of the author's experience that happiness re- 
 sults t(^ the good, and sorrow to the bad. 
 
 Third, The true purpose of the book is stated by the 
 author in sentences constantly r.epeated and often referred 
 to. There are two classes of these expressions. They 
 are to be properly combined together. (1.) The first 
 class embraces those expressions in which the enjoyments 
 of this life are spoken of as vanity. " Striving after 
 vanity" is literally strimag after wind; showing the utter 
 emptiness of worldly enjoyments to the wicked. (2.) The 
 second class includes passages which are the converse of 
 the above. They explain what enjoyment this present 
 life docs aiford, and how it may be obtained. This is not 
 an Epicurean sentiment, as we have shown. Eating and 
 drinkinr/ stand, not for the material act, but for enjoy- 
 ment of all kinds. It all amounts to saying that happi- 
 ness is not graduated by earthly enjoyments ; for the 
 ability to secure happiness is always and solely a gift of 
 God. 
 
 And fourth, finallg, the same truth appears from an 
 analysis of the entire book. 
 
A^^>^w.^^f^"-^-^-^-^^^ 7^ 
 
 (u/^^^\ 
 
61 
 
 5. THE ANALYSIS OF ECCLESIASTES. 
 
 The following analysis is submitted. It may be help- 
 ful in endeavoring to understand the frame-work of the 
 book. And while it has the name of no author attached 
 to it, and represents merely the lecturer's own view, it 
 may be suggestive to the student, as showing at least one 
 method of analyzing the work: 
 
 Section I. Chs. l-2l^ ,. . 
 
 V Preliminary. 
 Section II. Chs. 3-5 j 
 
 Section III. Chs. 6:1-8: 15— Principal argument. 
 
 Section IV. Chs. 8 : 16-12 : 14— Supplementary. 
 
 I. Chs. 1 and 2— Argument from Solomon's own ex- 
 perience. 
 
 1 : 1-3, Author and general theme. 
 
 1 : 4-11, ITniformity of sequences amidst all changes. 
 
 1 : 12-18, General statement of the character and re- 
 sults of Solomon's experience. 
 
 2 : 1-11, The experiment of worldly pleasure and its 
 failure. 
 
 2 : 12-17, All must be lost at death. 
 
 2 : 18-23, And pass into the hands of he knows not 
 whom. 
 
 Conclusion : 2 : 24-26, Happiness does not arise from 
 worldly acquisitions, but is the gift of God to the good. 
 
 II. Chs. 3—5 — Argument from Solomon's observation. 
 3 : 1-15, The Divine order in the multifarious affairs 
 
 of men. 
 
 3 . 16—4 : 16, Apparent inequalities observed in the 
 world. (a) 3: 16, iniquity in judicial tribunals; v. 17, 
 rectified by God's future judgment; vs. 18-22, tempo- 
 rarily permitted to teach men their weakness and frailty. 
 
 (b) 4 : 1-3, the oppression of the weak by the strong. 
 
 (c) 4 : 4-6, the envy attendant upon success, which yet is 
 no apology for indolence nor insatiate travail, (d )4: 
 
62 
 
 7-12, folly and misery of selfish toil, (e) 4 : 13-16, 
 fickleness of popular favor however deserved. 
 
 5 : 1-7, Such facts should not seduce to irreligion. 
 
 5: 8-17, Their explanation by an appeal, vs. 8, 9 to a 
 superior tribunal which always exists to rectify abuses, 
 and vss. 10-17, to various considerations, showing that ex- 
 ternal prosperity and real welfare are not coincident. 
 
 Conclusion, 5 : 18-20, Happiness does not arise from 
 worldly considerations, but is the gift of God. 
 
 III. 6 : 1 — 8 : 1 5 — Principal argument. 
 The seeming inequalities in Divine Providence may be 
 set at rest. 
 
 1. 6 : 1 — 7 : 14, by a correct estimate of men's outward 
 fortunes. 
 
 (a.) 6 : 1-12, prosperity is not always a good, 
 (b.) 7 : 1-14, atfliction is not always an evil. 
 
 2. 7 : 15 — 29, by a correct estimate of men's character. 
 
 (a.) Vs. 16-19, some are righteous overmuch, 
 (b.) Vs. 20-22, none are perfect in deed and word, 
 (c.) Vs. 23-29, real virtue is extremely rare. 
 3_ g ; 1-13, by the existence of a righteous government, 
 (a.) Vs. 2-5, human, 
 (b.) Vs. 6-13, divine. 
 Conclusion, 8 : 14-15, contented enjoyment is superior 
 to that outward good, which even the wicked may possess. 
 
 JY^ g . 16 — 12 : 14 — Discouragements removed and 
 practical duties enforced. 
 
 8: 16 — 9: 9, The remaining mystery of this subject 
 need not interfere with enjoyment. 
 
 9 : 10 — 11 : 6, nor hinder energetic action. 
 
 (a.) 9 : 11, 12, results do not always correspond with 
 the means employed. 
 
 (^^^^ 9: 13—10: 20, but generally they do: Wisdom 
 is an advantage, and folly ruins. 
 
 (c.) 11 : 1-6, this general fact is a sufficient ground 
 for active exertion. 
 
63 
 
 11 : 7-12 : 8, In all their enjoyments and actions men 
 shonld remember the coming judgment. 
 
 Conclusion, 12: 9-14, Fear God and keep His com- 
 mandments. 
 
 THE END. 
 
1 • 1 
 
 DATE DUE 
 
 ■■■'g^P^Fe^ 
 
 m- 
 
 
 
 H&iii^^^ 
 
 m 
 
 
 
 MAT 5 3 -i 
 
 9 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 JUli 1 ^ 
 
 ;1395 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ' 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 GAYLORO 
 
 
 
 PRINTKOINU.S.A. 
 
^•^LS