The Song of Songs E-Book

Christian D. Ginsburg

• Herausgeber: Books on Demand
• Kategorie: Religion und Spiritualität
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 429

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2022

Beschreibung

The following is an exposition of the first of the five books called Megiloth, all of which, having engaged the attention of the Author for several years, will now, God willing, be brought before the Public in regular succession. The Author's aim has been to investigate and elucidate the true meaning of the original, in accordance with the established laws of historico-grammatical exegesis, and to show that, in its literal sense, the Song of Songs teaches a great moral lesson, worthy of Divine inspiration.

Leseprobe

The Song of Songs

The Song of SongsPREFACE.INTRODUCTION.SECTION I.—TITLE OF THE BOOK, AND ITS SIGNIFICATION.SECTION II.—CANONICITY OF THE BOOK.SECTION III.—DESIGN AND METHOD OF THE BOOK.SECTION IV.—IMPORTANCE OF THE BOOK.SECTION V.—HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE EXEGESIS OF THE BOOK.SECTION VI.—THE DIFFERENT VIEWS CLASSIFIED AND EXAMINED.SECTION VII.—AUTHOR, DATE, AND FORM OF THE BOOK.SECTION VIII.—EXEGETICAL HELPS.THE SONG OF SONGS,SECTION I.SECTION II.SECTION III.SECTION IV.SECTION V.Copyright

The Song of Songs

Christian D. Ginsburg

PREFACE.

The following is an exposition of the first of the five books called Megiloth, all of which, having engaged the attention of the Author for several years, will now, God willing, be brought before the Public in regular succession. The Author’s aim has been to investigate and elucidate the true meaning of the original, in accordance with the established laws of historico-grammatical exegesis, and to show that, in its literal sense, the Song of Songs teaches a great moral lesson, worthy of Divine inspiration.The resemblance, however, between the narrative here recorded and the experience of the people of God is striking and apposite. The Shulamite, espoused to her shepherd, is tempted by a mighty potentate with riches and pleasures to transfer her affections; but, strengthened by the power of divine love, she resists all temptation, remains faithful to her beloved, and is ultimately rewarded. The people of God, espoused to “the Shepherd and Bishop of their souls,” are tempted by the prince of this world to forsake their Lord, but, strengthened by grace divine, they resist all allurements, and eventually receive the crown of glory.The references to Genesius’ and Ewald’s Grammars are to the last editions, which differ in the numbering of the sections from the earlier ones; Fürst’s valuable Lexicon, to which frequent reference is made, is not yet completed.[viii]The author tenders his hearty thanks to his esteemed friend, the Rev. Isaac Salkinson of Hamburg; to the Rev. J. M. Charlton, A.M.; the Rev. R. Robinson, of York-road; the Rev. G. Rogers, of Albany-road; and to Nathaniel Bridges, Esq., A.M., for perusing the MS. and proofs, and for kind suggestions. Thanks are also due to those gentlemen in London and Oxford, who have facilitated the author’s access to MSS. and other rare works in the British Museum and the Bodleian Library.May the Divine Spirit, whose words the Author has attempted to elucidate, render the attempt profitable to the readers!

INTRODUCTION.

SECTION I.—TITLE OF THE BOOK, AND ITS SIGNIFICATION.

This book is called‏שִׁיר הַשִּׁירִיﬦ‎, which is literally translated by the Septuagint, ᾄσμα ᾀσμάτων, by the Vulgate,Canticum Canticorum, and by the English Version,Song of Songs; and, according to a Hebrew mode for expressing the superlative degree by repeating the same noun in the genitive, denotesthe finest,the most beautiful, orthe most excellentSong. Compare‏עֶבֶד עֲבַדִים‎,servant of servants,i.e.most abject servant (Gen. ix. 25);‏קֹדֶשׁ קָדָשִׁים‎,holy of holies,i.e.most holy (Exod. xxix. 37; Numb. iii. 32; Deut. x. 14; Eccl. i. 2; Hos. x. 15; Jer. vi. 28; Gesenius, Grammar, § 119, 2; Ewald, Lehrbuch, § 313, c). Medrash Yalkut renders it‏שִׁיר הַמְּשׁוּבַּח וְהַמְּעוּלֶה בַּשִּׁירִים‎,a song more celebrated and sublime than all songs; as Rashi, Ibn Ezra Rashbam, Luther, and many others. The opinion of Kleuker, &c., that this interpretation of the Rabbins is more owing to their preconceived notion of the sublime contents of the book than to the real meaning of these words, is refuted by Rashbam himself, who, having explained this phrase by “most excellent song,” refers not to the contents of the book for its corroboration, but adduces similar constructions of the superlative from other passages of the Bible, viz.,‏אֶלֹהַי הַאֱלֹהִים‎, and‏אֲדוֹנֵי הַאֲדוֹנִים‎(Deut. x. 17). Other explanations, such as a song of songs,i.e.a songfromthe songs of Solomon (Kimchi), or a collection of songs (Kleuker), or a chain of songs, or string of strings, comparing‏שִׁירֹ‎with the Chaldee‏שֵׁיר‎,‏שׁוּרָה‎, Greek σειρὰ,chain(Velthusen, Paulus, Good, &c.), are contrary to the Hebrew usage of the word‏שִׁיר‎, and the construction of‏שִׁיר הַשִּׁירִים‎. More recent commentators,[2]and even those who regard this book as a collection of separate songs (as, for instance, Döpke, Magnus, Noyes, &c.) admit that the Rabbinical interpretation of this title is the only admissible one. The‏ל‎prefixed to‏שְׁלֹמֹה‎, is the so-calledLamed auctoris, used in the inscriptions of Psalms and other Hebrew poems to designatethe author. Comp. Ps. iii. 1; iv. 1, &c. The addition of‏אֲשֶׁר‎here, which is not found in the other inscriptions, is owing to the article in‏שִׁיר הַשִּׁירִים‎, which generally, though not always, is followed by this pronoun; comp. Gen. xxix. 9; xl. 5; xlvii. 4; 1 Kings iv. 2; Gesen. § 115, 1; Ewald, 292 a. The rendering therefore of‏אֲשֶׁר לִשְׁלֹמֹה‎byrespecting Solomon, is contrary to usage, and is rightly rejected by modern grammarians and lexicographers.This Song is the first of the (‏הָמֵשׁ מְגִילוֹת‎)five Megiloth, or books which are annually read in the Synagogues; viz. The Song of Songs on the Feast of the Passover; Ruth on Pentecost; Lamentations on the Ninth of Ab; Ecclesiastes on Tabernacles; and Esther on Purim. The present arrangement of these five books in the Hebrew canon is according to the order of the festivals on which they are read.

SECTION II.—CANONICITY OF THE BOOK.

This book possesses all the external marks which entitle other writings to a place in the list of the sacred books. The evidence for its canonicity is as conclusive as that which is commonly adduced to prove the canonicity of any other portion of the Old Testament. In the Mishna Yadim (sect. iii. 5), we find the following testimony respecting it from R. Akiba, one of the most celebrated Rabbins, who lived at the end of the first century, and was president of the academy of Bani-Brac:No Israelite has ever disputed the canonicity of the Song of Songs. No day in the whole history of the world is of so much worth as the one in which the Song of Songs was given to Israel; for all the Scriptures are holy, but the Song of Songs is most holy.Another Rabbi (Simeon b. Azzai), in the same place, says,I[3]received it from the mouth of the seventy-two elders, at the time when R. Eliezer b. Azzaria was appointed Elder, that the Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes are canonical.1We have here positive evidence that this book existed in the canon in the Apostolic age; and that it was comprised in the sacred books, which our Lord calls τὰς γραφὰς,the Scriptures, Matt. xxii. 29. It has, therefore, been transmitted to us both by the Jewish and Christian churches as canonical. It was translated into Greek, between the years 90 and 130, by Aquila, who was anxious to furnish his Jewish brethren with a faithful version of thesacredbooks; and also by Symmachus and Theodotion, before the end of the second century. It is contained in the catalogue given in the Talmud;2and in the catalogue of Melito, Bishop of Sardis (fl. 170, A.D.), which he brought from Palestine, whither this learned and pious prelate expressly travelled to[4]obtain information respecting the number of the sacred books.3Those who in modern days have questioned the canonicity of this book have done so, not from external evidence, but from misapprehension of its design.

SECTION III.—DESIGN AND METHOD OF THE BOOK.

We have no sympathy with those who affirm that the Old Testament Scriptures contain all the national writings which were esteemed valuable in Hebrew literature, that this Song was placed among those writings simply because it possessed much poetic beauty, and was supposed to be the composition of a person so celebrated throughout the East as Solomon, and that it is destitute of any moral or practical instructions. We believe that every book of the Old Testament is inspired; and has, on that account, obtained a place in the Hebrew Canon. This is the unanimous testimony, not of the Jewish church only, but is corroborated by Christ and his apostles. Paul, referring to the Old Testament, most distinctly affirms, that “all Scripture is given by inspiration of God; and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” 2 Tim. iii. 16.4As this Song undoubtedly formed a part of the Scriptures to which the apostle alluded, it must, therefore, be inspired, and must serve some of those purposes of inspiration.The particular design of this book has been much disputed. It is here maintained, that, upon careful examination, it will be found to recordan example of virtue in a young woman who encountered and conquered the greatest temptations, and was, eventually, rewarded; the simple narrative of which, divested of its poetic form, is as follows. There was a family living at Shulem, consisting of a widowed mother, several sons, and one daughter, who maintained themselves by farming and[5]pasturage. The brothers were particularly partial to their sister, and took her under their special care, promising that her prudence and virtue should be greatly rewarded by them. In the course of time, while tending the flock, and, according to the custom of the shepherds, resorting at noon beneath a tree for shelter against the meridian sun, she met with a graceful shepherd youth, to whom she afterwards became espoused. One morning, in the spring, this youth invited her to accompany him into the field; but the brothers, overhearing the invitation, and anxious for the reputation of their sister, in order to prevent their meeting, sent her to take care of the vineyards. The damsel, however, consoled her beloved and herself with the assurance that, though separated bodily, indissoluble ties subsisted between them, over which her brothers had no control. She requested him to meet her in the evening, and as he did not come, she feared that some accident had befallen him on the way, and went in search of him, and found him. The evening now was the only time in which they could enjoy each other’s company, as, during the day, the damsel was occupied in the vineyards. On one occasion, when entering a garden, she accidentally came in the presence of King Solomon, who happened to be on a summer visit to that neighbourhood. Struck with the beauty of the damsel, the King conducted her into his royal tent, and there, assisted by his court-ladies, endeavoured with alluring flatteries and promises, to gain her affections; but without effect. Released from the King’s presence, the damsel soon sought an interview with her beloved shepherd.The King, however, took her with him to his capital in great pomp, in the hope of dazzling her with his splendour; but neither did this prevail: for while even there, she told her beloved shepherd, who had followed her into the capital, and obtained an interview with her, that she was anxious to quit the gaudy scene for her own home. The shepherd, on hearing this, praised her constancy, and such a manifestation[6]of their mutual attachment took place, that several of the court-ladies were greatly affected by it.The King, still determined, if possible, to win her affections, watched for another favourable opportunity, and with flatteries and allurements, surpassing all that he had used before, tried to obtain his purpose. He promised to elevate her to the highest rank, and to raise her above all his concubines and queens, if she would comply with his wishes; but, faithful to her espousals, she refused all his overtures, on the plea that her affections were pledged to another. The King, convinced at last that he could not possibly prevail, was obliged to dismiss her; and the shepherdess, in company with her beloved shepherd, returned to her native place. On their way home, they visited the tree under which they had first met, and there renewed their vows of fidelity to each other. On her arrival in safety at her home, her brothers, according to their promise, rewarded her greatly for her virtuous conduct.Theplot, if such it may be called, gradually develops itself, like most poetic narratives of a similar kind. Various speakers are introduced in the poem, as the Shulamite shepherdess, the shepherd, the King, the court-ladies, the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the brothers of the Shulamite, and the companions of the shepherd, all of whom are represented as speaking more or less, but without any such distinctions as we find in Job, as “After thisJobopened his mouth and cursed his day—ThenEliphazthe Temanite answered and said—Then answeredBildadthe Shuhite and said—&c.,” and withoutseparatenames, orinitialletters of names to indicate the speakers, which renders it difficult to gather the history it contains; and especially as some of the statements appear at first sight to have little or no logical sequence. The Song of Songs differs materially in this respect from all the other books of Scripture; but not, as is well known, from the poems of profane writers.Notwithstanding the aforementioned difficulty, an attentive[7]reader of the original will find nearly as much help from the masterly structure of this Song, as can be obtained from the divisions and initial letters in modern dramas, by which the different speakers are distinguished, and the various statements are connected in a regular narrative.The recurrence, for instance, of the same formula of adjuration three times (ii. 7; iii. 5; viii. 4), and the use of another closing sentence (v. 1), divide the Song into five sections. The heroine of the book, when speaking with her beloved or with the king, is easily distinguished by the feminine gender of the verb, or of the adjective or the noun; as, i. 5, “I am swarthy but comely,” where both adjectives,swarthy(‏שְׁחוֹרָה‎) andcomely(‏נָאוָה‎), are feminine in the original, and plainly indicate the speaker. The beloved shepherd, when he speaks, or is spoken to, or is spoken of, is recognised by the pastoral language (i. 3, 4, 7; ii. 12; iii. 4, &c.); the King is distinguished by express allusions to his position (i. 9–11; vi. 4–vii. 10); the court-ladies, when speaking to the Shulamite, are recognised by the phrase, “fairest of women” (i. 8; v. 9; vi. 1), and when spoken to by “daughters of Jerusalem” (i. 5; ii. 7; iii. 5, 10; v. 8; viii. 4); the brothers of the Shulamite are introduced as speaking in ii. 15, compared with i. 6 and viii. 8, 9; the inhabitants of Jerusalem, in iii. 6–11, and the companions of the shepherd, in viii. 5, are sufficiently indicated by the context.On a careful examination of the statements of the various speakers in these five sections, it will be found that the narrative, though not recorded in the order we have stated, may be easily deduced from it.In the FIRST section—ch. i. 2, 7—the heroine of the Song, who, as is evident from verse 8 and vii. 1, is a Shulamite shepherdess, ardently wishes for the presence and love-tokens of her beloved, who, as she herself most distinctly tells us (ver. 7, and ii. 16; vi. 3), is a shepherd; she wishes him to take her away from the royal apartments into which the King had brought her, for she loves him above all things (verses 2, 3, 4);[8]these apartments (or royal tent), as we learn from iii. 6–11, were out of Jerusalem, and in the neighbourhood of the Shulamite’s home, where the King temporarily resided, and where he met with the damsel (vi. 11, 12). In reply to the disdainful looks of the daughters of Jerusalem, in whose presence she had expressed her desire for the shepherd, and who had contrasted their fair and delicate countenances with her own, she insists that her swarthy complexion need not render her contemptible, for it was not natural, but had arisen from the duties which her brothers had unjustly required of her (v. 6); she then resumes the address to her beloved, asking him, as if he were present, to tell her where he tends his flock (7). The daughters of Jerusalem, who, as we see from vi. 9, are the court-ladies, comprising the maidens, concubines, and queens, ironically answer this question (8). The watchful King, having heard that she wished for her beloved, immediately comes forward, and, with flatteries and promises, tries to win her affections (9, 10, 11); but without effect; for as soon as the King retires she shows her unabated attachment to her shepherd (12; ii. 6), and concludes by adjuring the court-ladies not to persuade her to transfer her affections to another (7).The SECOND section—ch. ii. 8; iii. 5—though apparently disconnected from the first, is found, upon investigation, to be a proper and natural sequence. The Shulamite, in rebutting the contempt of the court-ladies, had reflected with some severity upon her brothers for sending her to keep the vineyards; but this had been done merely to account for the darkness of her complexion; and having been interrupted in her warm address to her beloved, which she hastened to resume, she was obliged to be satisfied with this passing allusion to that event. It was natural, therefore, to expect that, at the first opportunity, she would state more circumstantiallyhowher brothers came to be severe with her, andwhythey had made her a keeper of the vineyards, which she proceeds to do in this section. She tells the court-ladies that her brothers were displeased with her[9]because they had overheard the shepherd inviting her to accompany him into the fields to enjoy together the charms of nature (8–14), on account of which, in their anxiety for her reputation, they changed her employment, told her to be a “keeper of the vineyards,” in order to separate her from her beloved (15). She, moreover, relates that they consoled themselves with the assurance that, though separated bodily, indissoluble ties subsisted between them, over which her brothers had no control (16); that she invited him to come again in the evening, when unobserved (17); and that, seeing he did not come, she went in search of him, &c. (ch. iii. 1–4). Having thus evinced her deep attachment for the shepherd, she again concludes by adjuring the court-ladies not to persuade her to transfer her affections to another (5).This section, therefore, follows the preceding one, to set forth the cause of the brother’s severity in having made her a “keeper of the vineyards,” and thus gives a further insight into her previous history.The THIRD section (ch. iii. 6, v. i.) relates the second unsuccessful effort of Solomon to gain the Shulamite’s affections. The King, determined to gain his purpose, takes the damsel, with great pomp, into the capital (ch. iii. 6–11), in the hope of dazzling her with his great splendour; but he is again disappointed. In the midst of the imposing magnificence, the damsel tells her beloved shepherd, who has followed her thither, and obtained an interview with her, and expressed his delight at seeing her again (ch. iv. 1–5), that she is anxious to quit the palace for her rural home (6). Her beloved, on hearing this, offers his assistance to effect an escape (7, 8), and praises her constancy and charms (9–16); whereupon they both manifest their mutual attachment in so affecting a manner that even some of the court-ladies are moved (ch. iv. 16, v. 1), with whose expression of sympathy the section concludes.The bearing which this section has upon the whole plan is, in the first place, to develop the progress of the history itself,[10]inasmuch as it records the conveyance of the Shulamite from her rural home into the royal capital; and, in the second place, to relate her faithfulness in resisting another temptation, in which the grandeur of the procession which elicited so much admiration from the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and the splendour of the court, which dazzled the eyes and fed the vanity of so many of its inmates, had far less charms for her than the presence of her shepherd in a humble home.The FOURTH section (ch. v. 2–viii. 4) records the last and greatest trial which the Shulamite had to encounter, and which she also overcame. It commences with a dream which she had recently had, and which she relates (ch. v. 2–8) to the court-ladies whose sympathy with her has been shown at the close of the preceding section. The narration of this dream gives the damsel an opportunity of describing the personal appearance of her beloved (10–16), and thus we are gradually led on to her chief trial and success. The court-ladies, having listened to this charming description, inquire whither her beloved is gone, and offer their assistance to seek him (ch. vi. 1); but she, suspecting the motive, gives them an evasive answer (2, 3). The King, ever watchful for a favourable opportunity to show his attachment to her, as soon as he hears of the inquiry after the damsel’s beloved, comes forward with most alluring flatteries and promises. He begins with praising her beauty (4–7), and then promises to raise her to the highest rank of all his numerous retinue of women (8, 9), who themselves are constrained to extol her beauty (10). But the damsel, having explained how she came to be seen by those court-ladies, spurns all those praises and promises, and goes away (11, 12); the King calls her back (ch. vii. 1), and, having again described her beauty and attractions (2–8), wishes that he might enjoy the favours of so charming a person (9, 10); but she refuses the King’s overtures, on the plea that her affections are engaged, and that it is her duty to be faithful to her beloved (11); then, addressing herself to her beloved, she asks him to go with her[11]from the palace to their rural home (12, ch. viii. 3); and concludes with again adjuring the court-ladies not to persuade her to transfer her affections to another (4).This section, as we have seen, is intimately connected with the preceding one. The damsel, having obtained the sympathies of some of the court-ladies, according to the close of the last section, relates to them, at the opening of this (ch. v. 2–8), a dream which she had recently had; which gives the damsel an opportunity of describing the appearance of her beloved, and this description gradually introduces the last and the greatest trial which she has to encounter.The FIFTH section—ch. viii. 5–14—states the result of the damsel’s victory over all her temptations. The King, convinced that nothing could induce her to transfer her affections, dismisses her; and accompanied by her beloved shepherd, she quits the court for her humble country residence. On their way, they visit the tree under which they were first espoused (viii. 5), and there implore that the flame which had been kindled in their hearts might be lasting. A most graphic and powerful description of the nature of true love follows, in which all her trials are recounted (6, 7). The damsel then reminds her brothers of the promise they had made her, and obtainsthe reward of virtue.Thus this Song records the real history of a humble but virtuous woman, who, after having been espoused to a man of like humble circumstances, had been tempted in a most alluring manner to abandon him, and to transfer her affections to one of the wisest, and richest of men, but who successfully resisted all temptations, remained faithful to her espousals, and was ultimately rewarded for her virtue.[12]

SECTION IV.—IMPORTANCE OF THE BOOK.

Few, it is presumed, will question the importance of a Book, in the sacred canon, which records an example of virtue in a humble individual, who had passed successfully through unparalleled temptations.The avowed object of Holy Writ is to teach all that is good and conducive to human happiness. Lessons of wisdom and virtue are interspersed throughout the Old and New Testaments. The Apostle Paul urges the Philippians to think of whatsoever is true, noble, just, pure, lovely, and of good report: of everything, in short, that is in any way profitable or praiseworthy. These lessons are not communicated to us in abstract forms, or enforced by powerful argument merely, but they are presented in the most attractive examples drawn from the lives of illustrious men and women, who, amidst the greatest trials and temptations, have pre-eminently maintained their integrity. The Patriarch Job is set forth as an example of patience, and the Prophets as patterns of suffering affliction (James v. 10, 11). An example of virtue, very similar to the one in the Song before us, is recorded in Gen. xxxix. 7, &c., where a Hebrew slave is tempted by a woman of rank, but resists the temptations; and though left to suffer for a season, is ultimately rewarded for his virtue. Such instances, therefore, are in harmony with the design of Scripture, and its method of teaching.The individual who passes through the extraordinary temptations recorded in this Song, and remains faithful, isa woman. Who can find a virtuous woman? This was the question of the Ancients, was reiterated in the middle ages, and is still asked by many. Here is a reply to Solomon’s own enquiry. He has found one at least of spotless integrity, and her virtue is recorded in Scripture, for the defence of women against a prevalent, but unjust suspicion.The second chapter of Genesis clearly states, that the man and the woman were created with the same intellectual and[13]moral powers. The words used by God respecting the creation of the woman are, “the being of man in his solitary state is not good. I will make hima help-mate corresponding to him;” that is, one that shall be exactly like him in affections, in sympathies, in mind, in fact his counterpart; she shall be the reflection of his own person. That this is the meaning of‏כְּנֶנְדּוֹ‎is evident from the Septuagint, which renders it in verse 18, κατ’ αὐτόν, and verse 20, ὅμοιος αὐτῷ; and from the Syriac and the Vulgate; as well as from the Rabbinical usage of‏כְּנֶנֶד‎, to express thingsexactly like one another.5The word of God affirms here, that the woman was created exactly with the same capacities as the man, and contains no intimation of subserviency to him, or of being in the slightest degree weaker or less virtuous than he. The fact that the Tempter assailed the woman, and not the man, so far from showing that the woman was weaker, would rather prove that she was stronger; that the cunning serpent knew this, and was persuaded, if he could only prevail over the woman, she, with her superior influence, would be sure to succeed with the man, as the sad result showed.The curse which God pronounced upon the guilty pair, proves that the woman was created with the same intellectual and moral capacities as the man. Had the woman been weaker in these respects than the man, she would not have been accountable in an equal degree for her sin, and would not have been punished with the same severity.No alteration has taken place in their relative position, in this respect, since the fall. The curse upon the woman in relation to the man does not refer to anyintellectualormoral, but to aphysical, inferiority. Hitherto the Protoplasts resided in Paradise, and subsisted upon its delightful fruit; and the employment of the man was mere recreation. Henceforth they were to be driven from that happy abode; the woman was to experience all the sorrow and pain of[14]pregnancy and parturition, and must look to her husband for support from his hard-earned labour. The man, consigned to rough labour in the field, exposed to the assault of brutes, was henceforth to have more physical strength and daring; while the woman, destined to manage the affairs at home, and to rear up a family, was to exercise the power of patient endurance. The man, with his superior strength and boldness, was henceforth to be the protector; the woman, suffering and mild, the protected. He was to be the tiller of the ground, and she, in addition to the sorrow peculiar to her condition, must depend on what he might provide for her; and hence her desire was to be unto him; that is, she should be looking up to him for protection and maintenance, and thus he would rule over her. That this is the whole meaning of the phrase‏וְאֶל אִישֵׁדְ תְּשׁוּקָתֵדְ וְהוּא יִמְשָׁל בָּדְ‎, Gen. iii. 16, is evident from the clause immediately preceding, which describes the woman’s constant suffering, and precludes the possibility of securing maintenance for herself; and also from the following verse, where the man is destined to labour hard for bread.The notion, therefore, that the woman is intellectually or morally weaker than man, is not the teaching of the word of God. While man, through his superior out-of-door qualities, or physical strength and courage, is the supporter, protector, and ruler of the woman; she, through her superior in-door qualities, her endurance and her charms, ameliorates his government, and sways his inmost heart. Their different characteristics, arising from their different destinations, were designed to blend together so as to produce a happy harmony, andto make both one.But how vilely and treacherously has man employed his superior strength and audacity! Instead of maintaining, protecting, and defending the woman, he has used his strength to oppress, to crush, and to degrade her. As the human race became more and more alienated from their Creator, intrinsic merit and moral character were despised, and physical[15]force became rampant; the stronger, as among animals, oppressed and preyed upon the weaker, and thus woman became the slave of man, and was absolutely sold in the capacity of daughter or wife, as cattle and other property. Thus Eliezer, the servant of Abraham, purchased Rebekah as a wife for Isaac, his master’s son, (Gen. xxiv. 53). Jacob, having nothing to give as a compensation for his wives, was obliged to serve fourteen years for them (Gen. xxix. 18–28). Shechem, wishing to obtain Dinah for a wife, and ascribing the unwillingness of Jacob to part with her to the insufficiency of the compensation he had offered, says—“Ask me never so much dowry and gift, and I will give according as ye shall say unto me: but give me the damsel to wife (Gen. xxxiv. 12).” Compare, also, Exod. xxii. 15, &c.; 1 Sam. xviii. 25; Hos. iii. 2. This custom of purchasing wives was general among the Orientals. “In Babylon,6the following course was pursued in every village once a-year. All the maidens of a marriageable age were collected together, and brought in a body to one place; around them stood a crowd of men. Then a crier, having made these maidens stand up one by one, offered them for sale, beginning with the most beautiful; and when she had been sold for a large sum, he put up another who was next in beauty. They were sold on condition that they should be married. Such men among the Babylonians as were rich and desirous of marrying used to bid against one another, and purchase the most beautiful. But such of the lower classes as were desirous of marrying, did not regard beauty, and were willing to take the plainer damsels with a sum of money given with them. For when the crier had finished selling the most beautiful of the maidens, he made the plainest stand up, or one that was a cripple, and put her up for auction, for the person who would marry her for the least sum. This money was obtained from the sale of the most beautiful; and thus the beautiful portioned out the plain and the crippled.” Wives were purchased among the Assyrians and Arabians also;7among[16]the ancient Greeks8and Germans9and are still bought among the Orientals of the present day.10Fearful consequences, arising from such a mode of obtaining wives, were inevitable, and soon became apparent. As the procuring of wives depended upon the offer which any one was able to make, those that could afford it purchased as many as they pleased. Hence the practice of polygamy, than which nothing produces more contempt for the proper character of women, or tends more to their degradation. As these contracts were formed without the parties being previously known to each other, and without any affection subsisting between them, the woman, instead of beingthe help-mate or companionof man became his slave, and was kept for the gratification of his carnal appetites, or at best was regarded as a plaything for a leisure hour. Her rights were denied, her education was neglected, her intellect was degraded, her moral character was questioned. Man, seeking to possess as many wives as he could afford, gave the woman no credit for virtue. Acting upon this suspicion and false accusation, he placed her in the most inaccessible part of the house; dogs or eunuchs guarded the doors of her chambers;11the harem was made as impenetrable as a prison; none but the nearest relatives were allowed to see her, and when permitted to pass through the streets her countenance was thickly veiled, and eunuchs watched her every step. Plutarch relates that when women travelled they were placed in a conveyance closely covered on all sides, and that it was in such a covering that Themistocles fled from Persia, his attendants being instructed to tell every inquirer that they were conveying a Grecian lady from Ionia to a nobleman at Court.12The sacred books of heathen nations[17]teem with loud execrations against the natural unfaithfulness and immorality of women. “The lust of a woman,” says the pundits, “is never satisfied, no more than fire is satisfied with fuel, or the main ocean with receiving the rivers, or the empire of death with the dying of men and animals.” And again: “Women have six qualities: the first is an immoderate desire for jewels and fine furniture, handsome clothes and nice victuals; the second, immoderate lust; the third, violent anger; the fourth, deep resentment, no person knowing the sentiments concealed in their hearts; the fifth, another person’s good appears evil in their eyes; the sixth, they commit bad actions.”13The wickedness of women is a subject upon which the stronger sex among the Arabs, with an affectation of superior virtue, often dwell in common conversation. That women are deficient in judgment or good sense, is held as an undisputed fact, as it rests on an assertion of the Prophet; but that they possess a superior degree of cunning, rests upon the same authority. Their general depravity is affirmed to be much greater than that of men. “I stood,” said the Prophet, “at the gate of Paradise, and lo, most of its inmates were the poor; and I stood at the gate of hell, and lo, most of its inmates were women.” In allusion to women, the caliph Omar said, “Consult them, and do the contrary of what they advise,” which Moore has thus paraphrased:— “ Whene’er you’re in doubt, said a sage I once knew, ’ Twixt two lines of conduct which course to pursue,Ask a woman’s advice, and whate’er she advise,Do the very reverse, and you’re sure to be wise.”When woman was created, “the devil,” we are told, “was delighted, and said, ‘Thou art half of my host, and thou art the depository of my secret, and thou art my arrow, with which I shoot and miss not.’ ”14They were made so much to feel their[18]inferiority, that Iphigenia is made to say, “One man, forsooth, is better than ten thousand women.”15Though the Jewish women were treated more leniently, and enjoyed greater privileges than their sex in other nations, yet it is evident, from a variety of circumstances in Old Testament history, that they were not wholly emancipated from a state of unnatural inferiority. Polygamy was practised amongst the Jews, and its debasing effects were obvious. The harems, the veils, and eunuchs were not uncommon to their women. Weakness of moral character was imputed to them; unfaithfulness and incontinency were dilated upon (Num. v. 12; Prov. xxxi. 10; Eccl. vii. 28). Josephus tells us16that women, in consequence of their natural levity, were not admitted as legal witnesses in courts of justice. Maimonides teaches the same; “There are,” says this great luminary, “ten sorts of disqualifications, and every individual in whom one of them is found, is disqualified from giving evidence; and these are women, slaves, children, idiots, the deaf, the blind, the wicked, the despised, relations, and those interested in their testimony; these are the ten.”17The Rabbins endeavour to justify this inhuman treatment of women from the law of Moses. “Women,” say they, “are disqualified by the law from giving testimony: for it is said, ‘At the mouth of two witnesses,’ where the word ‘witnesses’ is of themasculine, and not feminine gender.” It is not to be wondered at, therefore, that the Jew, among his thanksgivings, should say to the Almighty every morning, “Blessed be thou, O Lord our God, King of the universe, that thou hast not created mea woman.”Now, if one sex of the human family has been so degraded by the other; if she whom God created to be ahelp-mate and counterparthas been reduced by man to the slave of his carnal lusts; if such slavish and inhuman treatment has been justified on the false plea of the natural unfaithfulness and incontinency[19]of the sex; if exclusion from society and imprisonment have been deemed necessary for the preservation of her morals, how greatly has woman been alienated from the original design of her creation! how unjustly has her character been aspersed! how inhumanly has she been treated! and how great is the importance of a book which celebrates the virtuous example of a woman, and thus strikes at the root of all her reproaches and her wrongs!The importance of this view of the book may be further seen from the fact, that, in proportion to the degradation of women, men themselves have become degraded; for, deprived of the meliorating influences which the delicacy and tenderness of women were designed to have over them, and never more needed than in their fallen state, they have abandoned themselves to their worst passions and desires, and thus their whole civil and social condition has been proportionally undignified and unblest. Look, on the other hand, at the state of society where woman is restored to her rightful position, there we shall find refinement of manners, purity of conversation, mutual confidence and affection, domestic happiness, intellectual enjoyment, freedom of thought and action, sympathetic repose, and whatever, in fact, tends to mitigate the unavoidable evils of the present life; all referable, in a greater or less degree, to the unrestricted influence of woman upon the child and upon the man. In religion, her influence is still more potent. If first in the transgression, she is first in the restoration; and were man as ready to follow her in doing good as he has been in doing evil, the world would long ago have been in a holier and happier state than it is at present. Who constitute the principal part of our worshipping assemblies? Women. Who form the chief portion of the members of our churches? Women. Who are the chief agents in the religious education of our children? Women. Who are the main support of our various benevolent and evangelical institutions? Women. Let it not be said, then, that a Book which celebrates the ascendency[20]of a virtuous woman in humble life over all the blandishments of wealth and royalty, is unworthy of a place in Holy Writ.The importance of this book is, moreover, enhanced by the circumstances more immediately connected with the time in which it was written.The conduct of Bath-sheba with David was calculated to confirm man in his opinion that woman was naturally unfaithful and incontinent, and that it was requisite to exclude her from society, in order to preserve her morals. But the narrative here recorded forms a contrast to the conduct of Bath-sheba. It shows the power of virtue in a woman, even of humble life. As the wife of an officer of rank, accustomed to luxury and wealth, the temptations of Bath-sheba were not so great, and yet she surrendered to them. Whereas the Shulamite, a humble shepherdess, to whom the promise of costly apparel and of elevation from a low and toilsome occupation to the highest rank, must have been an extraordinary allurement, triumphed over them all. If one woman yielded to small incitements, this book shows that another overcame unparalleled temptations, and thus checked the clamour against woman which might have arisen from the conduct of Bath-sheba with David.

SECTION V.—HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE EXEGESIS OF THE BOOK.

No book has furnished a wider field for the speculation and visionary projects of those who substitute their own imagination and enthusiastic feelings for the teaching of Scripture, than the Song of Solomon; the varieties and absurdities of which are a solemn warning against departing from the rules of sound philology and critical interpretation.An enumeration of all the different interpretations of this Song would be too lengthy, and is not required. It will be sufficient to glance at the leading expositions. We begin with the Jewish.[21]323–246, B.C.18It has been supposed that the Septuagint, which may be regarded as the oldest Jewish exegetical tradition, contains some intimation that the translators of the Old Testament into Greek and their Jewish brethren of those days must have interpreted the Song of Solomon in an allegorical manner. The only passage adduced in corroboration of this opinion is, Ch. iv. 8, where the Septuagint renders‏מֵראֹשׁ אֲמָנָה‎from the top of Amana, by ἀπὸ ἀρχῆς πίστεως,from the top of faith. That this appeal is nugatory is obvious from the rendering of‏תִּרְצָה‎Tirzahby εὐδοκία,delight, vi. 4, and of‏בַּתנָדִיב‎noble daughterby θύγατερ Ναδάβ,daughter of Nadab, vii. 1; whence it is evident that the Septuagint frequently mistookproper namesfor appellatives and adjectives, andvice versâ. It appears inconceivable that a profound scholar like Keil, who is well acquainted with the frequent errors of the Septuagint, should quote this as a special and sufficient proof that “the Alexandrian version took this Song in an allegorical sense,”19especially as he knew that some have drawn from it the very opposite conclusion, who have argued that if the authors of the Septuagint had understood this book in any other than its obvious sense, they would have betrayed it in the translation.20180, B.C. Jesus Sirach, xlvii. 14–17, is next adduced as furnishing some clue to the Jewish interpretation of this book. Ecclesiasticus, according to some, is a name given to it κατ’ ἐξοχὴν, because of its being the most remarkable and useful of the ecclesiastical or apocryphal books; others say it was so called from its resemblance to Solomon’sEcclesiastes, and others, again, with more probability, that this name was given to it by the Latins, to denoteits use in the church. Its Greek name, however, Σοφία Ἰησοῦ υἱοῦ Σειράχ,wisdom of Jesus[22]son of Sirach, is more appropriate. It specifies at once the author, who mentions his own name in Ch. l. 27. The age given to the book here, is that which is thought most probable.21This apocryphal writer says in his apostrophe to Solomon,—“How wise wast thou in thy youth, and, as a flood, filled with understanding! Thy mind covered the earth, and thou filledst it with enigmatic sayings. Thy name went forth to the distant isles, and thou wast beloved for thy peace. Countries admired thee for songs, and proverbs, and enigmas, and solutions.” The 17th verse is supposed to include the whole writings of Solomon contained in the Old Testament; and it is affirmed that παραβολαὶ αἰνιγμάτων in verse 15, cannot be understood to mean the Proverbs (παροιμία) since these are separately mentioned in verse 17, hence it follows that they refer to the allegorical interpretation of this Song.22Even Hengstenberg, who, though a defender of the allegorical interpretation, remarks,23 “ Sirach xlvii. 17, has wrongly been referred to in support of the allegorical interpretation. For the words ἐν ᾠδαῖς καὶ παροίμιαις καὶ παραβολαῖς καὶ ἐν ἑρμηνείαις ἀπεθαύμασάν σε χῶραι depend upon the historical narration in the Books of the Kings, and do not refer to the writings comprised in the Canon. This is evident from the mention of the ἑρμηνείαι, wherebythe solutionsof the enigmas in contradistinction to the enigmas themselves, can alone be meant. Comp. 1 Kings x. 1–3. Whereas in the Canon no such ἑρμηνείαι are to be found. Verse 15, in which Keil finds a special reference to the allegorical interpretation, likewise alludes to 1 Kings x., especially to verse 24.”120, B.C. The Book of Wisdom has also been supposed to contain a clue to the interpretation of this Song. The author and the age of the Book are points of great contest.[23]All that can be concluded with any degree of probability is, that the author was an Alexandrian Jew, who lived after the transplanting of the Greek philosophy into Egypt, and that he seems to refer to the oppression of the later Ptolemies.24In ch. viii. 2, Solomon is represented as speaking to Wisdom; “Her I loved and sought from my youth, I sought to bring her home for my bride, and I became a lover of her beauty.” Because Solomon is here made to speak of Wisdom as his bride, it has been maintained to be an explanation of the Song of Songs, as though the brides were necessarily the same.25Let any impartial reader peruse the description of Wisdom in the chapter quoted, and that of the bride in the Song of Songs, and he will be convinced that there is no intentional resemblance whatever.37–95, A.D. Josephus is also said to have understood this Song in an allegorical sense, although it is not in a single instance quoted by him. His arrangement of the Books of the Old Testament is the only ground of this argument. It is said, as he26mentions twenty-two books which are justly accredited as Divine, (τὰ δικαίως θεῖα πεπιστευμένα) and describes five as belonging to Moses, thirteen to the Prophets, and the remaining four as containing hymns to God, and rules of life for men (αἱ δὲ λοιπαὶ τέσσαρες ὕμνους εἰς τὸν Θεὸν καὶ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ὑποθήκας τοῦ βίου περιέχουσιν)viz., the Psalms, Job, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes, no place is left for this Song except among the Prophets; and if Josephus placed it there, it follows that he must have understood it allegorically.27But were we to admit that Josephus placed this Song among the prophetical writings, we should deny the conclusion attempted to be drawn from it. For according to the same mode of argumentation, we might infer that Josephus understood[24]Ruth and Esther allegorically, for he also places these books among the prophetical writings. The fact is, that this historian, as he tells us himself, reckons the historical books among the prophetical ones. But we demur to the assertion that Josephus put this Song among the prophetical writings; it is far more likely that he placed it among the four books which he describes as consisting of hymns to God and precepts for the life of men.28We come now to the Talmud, in which passages from this Song are quoted and interpreted. This elaborate work, consists of what is called theMishna, constituting the text, and theGemara, which is a commentary upon it, derived from two sources,viz.—Jerusalem and Babylon. The Jews, from time immemorial, had anunwrittenlaw‏תּוֹרָה שֶׁבַּעַל פֶּה‎δόγματα ἄγραφα, in addition to thewrittenone,‏תּוֹרָה שֶׁבַּכְּתָב‎, ἔγγραφος, contained in the Pentateuch. Hillel of Babylon (born 75 B.C.), who, next to Ezra, was celebrated by posterity as the restorer of the law,29first arranged and divided this oral law into six parts:—1, concerning sowing; 2, women; 3, festivals; 4, the rights of property; 5, holy things; 6, pure and impure things. This, which comprises everything that appertains to the Jewish law, was called‏מִשְׁנָה‎Mishna, δευτέρωσις, or the second recension of the law. In order to reconcile the Sadducees, who denied every law not founded on Holy Writ, Hillel laid down seven hermeneutic rules, whereby the Scriptures might be interpreted in such a manner that the oral law could be deduced from it.30When fears were afterwards entertained lest the oral tradition should be lost, Rabbi Judah Hakkadosh (i.e.holy), in the year 220 A.D., collected everything that had been said upon the subject, preserving the division of Hillel, and probably making some additions of his[25]own. This he did in a manner so masterly and satisfactory, that it superseded every other previous attempt, and constitutes the presentMishna.TheMishnabecame the chief object of study. The rules of Hillel were increased and much acted on; expositions were given upon the reasons that led to the decisions in the Mishna; the expounders were called‏אֲמוֹרָאִים‎Amoraim,public lecturers, and the exposition‏גְמָרָא‎Gemara.After the death of Judah, many of his learned disciples, objecting to the appointment of his second son Gamaliel, to his father’s office, emigrated to Babylon, and having erected schools there, pursued the study of the Mishna. The academy they established in Sura rivalled the one in Tiberias. The Gemara of Tiberias, collated about 358 (A.D.) by an unknown individual, is calledTalmud Jerushalmi; and the Gemara of Sura, the compilation of which was begun by R. Ashe (352–427), continued by his disciple and friend, Rabina, and finished about 525, is calledTalmud Babli. The latter surpasses the former in comprehensiveness, perspicuity, and depth, is about four times as large, and fills 2947 folio pages. Both united are calledThe Talmud‏תַּלְמוּד‎book of instruction; and also‏גְמָרָא‎Gemara. It contains the civil and ceremonial law, debates on various branches of art and science, moral sayings, anecdotes, expositions on different passages of Scripture, &c.31100–500, A.D.—In Yadaim, (Sect. iii. 5.) we find that R. Akiba, one of the greatest Rabbins who lived in the first century, and president of the Academy of Bai-Barc, said, “The whole world was not worthy of the day in which this sublime Song was given to Israel; for all the Scriptures are holy, but this sublime Song is most holy.” There can, therefore, be no doubt that the mysteries which this distinguished Rabbi found in the Song of Songs, he regarded as greater than those he discovered in any other portion of the Sacred Scriptures.[26]Subsequent Rabbins quote and explain different passages. Thus, Ch. i. 2 is discussed in Abodah Sarah (Sect. 2, p. 35). It is asked, “How are the words, ‘Thy love is better than wine’ understood?” Answer:When Rabbi Dimi came to Babylon, he said, “This verse is thus understood: the Congregation of Israel said to God, ‘Lord of the Universe, the words of thy friends (namely, the sages) are more excellent than even the wine of the Law.’”Here we see that the beloved is taken to beGod, and the loved onethe Congregation of Israel.Ch. i. 3, is quoted and expounded, a little further on, in the same tract of the Talmud, in the following manner. “R. Nachman ben R. Chasdah once said, in his discourse, the words ‘Delicious is the odour of thy perfumes,’ denote a learned man; for such an one is like a box of perfumes; if it is covered up, no one can smell the perfumes, but when it is opened the odour becomes widely diffused. It is so with a learned man without disciples, no one knows of his learning; but if he gets a circle of disciples his name and his learning become widely diffused. And not only this, but he himself will increase learning by teaching, so that things which he formerly did not understand will now become plain to him; for it is written in the same verse‏עלמות אהבוך‎DAMSELS LOVE THEE;read‏עלומות‎HIDDEN THINGSwill love thee, i.e.,will become plain to thee; and not only this, but even the angel of death will love him; read then‏על־מות‎HE WHO IS OVER DEATHwill love thee; and still more, he will inherit both worlds, this world and the world to come; read also‏עולמות‎WORLDSlove thee.”Ch. i. 13, 14, and v. 13, are quoted and explained in Sabbath, p. 88, b., “Rabbi Joshuah ben Levi saith, What is meant by‏צרור המור דודי לי בין שדי ילין‎is the congregation of Israel, who is saying before the Holy One thus: O Lord, though my beloved (i.e. God) oppresses me, and is embittered against me, yet he still lodges with me.By‏אשכול הכופר דודי לי בכרמי עין גדי‎is meant, He who is the owner of all things, will forgive me the[27]sin of the calf, with which I covered myself.A question is raised,How does‏בכרמי‎signify my covering?Then Rabbi Mar-Sutra ben Rabbi Nachman quotes‏כסא של כובס שכורמי עליו את הכלאם‎from another part of the Talmud (Kelim 35), where‏כרם‎meansto cover. R. Joshuah ben Levi proceeds,What is meant by‏לחייו כערוגת הבושם‎is, At every commandment which proceedeth from the mouth of the Holy One on Mount Sinai, the world was filled with aromatics.A question is asked,If the world was filled at the first commandment, where was the odour diffused at the second commandment?Answer,The Holy One sent his wind from his stores, and carried them away successively, as it is written,‏שפתותיו שושנים‎do not read‏שושנים‎but‏ששונים‎repeating in succession.Rabbi Joshuah ben Levi concludes,At every commandment uttered by the mouth of the Holy One, the soul of Israel was drawn out of them, as it is written, ‘My soul went out when he spake.’A question is again asked,If their soul was drawn out at the first commandment, how could they receive the second?Answer.He (i.e. God) caused the dew to come down, by which he will raise the dead, and revived them, as it is written, ‘Thou, O God, didst send a plentiful rain, whereby thou didst confirm thine inheritance, when it was weary.’” Ps. lxviii. 9.32Here, again, we see that the bridegroom is taken to be the Holy One, the Owner of all things, and the bride the congregation of Israel. The reader, looking into the text of the Talmud quoted in the note, will observe that most of this interpretation has been obtained, either by the separation of words, the transposition and change of letters, or by substituting[28]in the commentary words, similar in sound to those in the Scriptures. Thus,‏צרור‎a bundle, a bag, is explained by‏מיצר‎oppress;‏מור‎myrrhby‏מימר‎embitter;‏אשכול‎a clusterby‏איש שהכל לו‎He whose are all things;‏כופר‎cypress flowersby‏כפר‎pardon;‏עין גדי‎En-gediby‏עון עגל‎the sin of the calf.