This book is called ‏שִׁיר 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, denotes the finest, the most beautiful, or the most excellent Song. Compare ‏עֶבֶד 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 it ‏שִׁיר 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, and ‏אֲדוֹנֵי הַאֲדוֹנִים‎ (Deut. x. 17). Other explanations, such as a song of songs, i.e. a song from the songs of Solomon (Kimchi), or a collection of songs (Kleuker), or a chain of songs, or string of strings, comparing ‏שִׁירֹ‎ with the Chaldee ‏שֵׁיר‎, ‏שׁוּרָה‎, Greek σειρὰ, chain (Velthusen, Paulus, Good, &c.), are contrary to the Hebrew usage of the word ‏שִׁיר‎, and the construction of ‏שִׁיר 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. The ‏ל‎ prefixed to ‏שְׁלֹמֹה‎, is the so-called Lamed auctoris, used in the inscriptions of Psalms and other Hebrew poems to designate the author. Comp. Ps. iii. 1; iv. 1, &c. The addition of ‏אֲשֶׁר‎ here, which is not found in the other inscriptions, is owing to the article in ‏שִׁיר 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 of ‏אֲשֶׁר לִשְׁלֹמֹה‎ by respecting 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.

[[Contents]]

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.[1] We 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 the sacred books; and also by Symmachus and Theodotion, before the end of the second century. It is contained in the catalogue given in the Talmud;[2] and 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.[3] Those who in modern days have questioned the canonicity of this book have done so, not from external evidence, but from misapprehension of its design.

[[Contents]]

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.[4] As 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 record an 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.