Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament:-
The title of the book at once denotes that it is a connected whole,
and is the work of one author. - Song of Solomon 1:1.The Song of
Songs, composed by Solomon. The genitival connection, "Song of Songs,"
cannot here signify the Song consisting of a number of songs, any more
than calling the Bible "The Book of books" leads us to think of the 24
+ 27 canonical books of which it consists. Nor can it mean "one of
Solomon's songs;" the title, as it here stands, would then be the
paraphrase of שׁיר שׁירי שׁ, chosen for the purpose of avoiding the
redoubled genitives; but "one of the songs" must rather have been
expressed by שׁיר משּׁירי. It has already been rightly explained in the
Midrash:
(Note:Vid., Fürst'sDer Kanon des A. T. (1868), p. 86.)
"the most praiseworthy, most excellent, most highly-treasured among
the songs." The connection is superl. according to the sense (cf.
ἄῤῥητα ἀῤῥήτωνof Sophocles), and signifies that song which,
as such, surpasses the songs one and all of them; as "servant of
servants," Genesis 9:25, denotes a servant who is such more than all
servants together. The plur. of the second word is for this superl.
sense indispensable (vid., Dietrich'sAbhand. zur hebr. Gramm. p. 12),
but the article is not necessary: it is regularly wanting where the
complex idea takes the place of the predicate, Genesis 9:25; Exodus
29:37, or of the inner member of a genitival connection of words,
Jeremiah 3:19; but it is also wanting in other places, as Ezekiel
16:7and Ecclesiastes 1:2; Ecclesiastes 12:8, where the indeterminate
plur. denotes not totality, but an unlimited number; here it was
necessary, because a definite Song - that, namely, lying before us -
must be designated as the paragon of songs. The relative clause, "(
asher lishlōmō)," does not refer to the single word "Songs" (Gr.
Venet. τῶν τοῦ), as it would if the expression were שׁיר מהשּׁ, but
to the whole idea of "the Song of Songs." A relative clause of similar
formation and reference occurs at 1 Kings 4:2: "These are the princes,
( asher lo), which belonged to him (Solomon)." They who deny the
Solomonic authorship usually explain: The Song of Songs which concerns
or refers to Solomon, and point in favour of this interpretation to
lxx B. ὃ ἐστι Σαλ., which, however, is only a latent genit., for
which lxx A. τῷ Σαλ.Lamedmay indeed introduce the reference of a
writing, as at Jeremiah 23:9; but if the writing is more closely
designated as a "Song," "Psalm," and the like, thenLamedwith the name
of a person foll. is always theLamed auctoris; in this case the idea
of reference to, ase.g., at Isaiah 1:1, cf. 1 Kings 5:13, is
unequivocally expressed by על. We shall find that the dramatized
history which we have here, or as we might also say, the fable of the
melodrama and its dress, altogether correspond with the traits of
character, the favourite turns, the sphere of vision, and the
otherwise well-known style of authorship peculiar to Solomon. We may
even suppose that the superscription was written by the author, and
thus by Solomon himself. For in the superscription of the Proverbs he
is surnamed "son of David, king of Israel," and similarly in
Ecclesiastes. But he who entitles him merely "Solomon" is most
probably himself. On the other hand, that the title is by the author
himself, is not favoured by the fact that instead of the שׁ,
everywhere else used in the book, the fuller form asher is employed.
There is the same reason for this as for the fact that Jeremiah in his
prophecies always usesasher, but in the Lamentations interchanges
שׁwith asher. This original demonstrative שׁis old-Canaanitish, as the
Phoenician אש, arrested half-way toward the formasher, shows.
(Note: From this it is supposed thatasheris a pronom. root-cluster
equivalent to אשׁל. Fleischer, on the contrary, sees in asher an
original substantive ) athar) = (Arab.) ( ithr), Assyr. ( asar),
track, place, as when the vulgar expression is used, "The man where
(woinstead ofwelcher) has said.")
In the Book of Kings it appears as a North Palest. provincialism, to
the prose of the pre-exilian literature it is otherwise foreign;
(Note: We do not take into view here Genesis 6:3. If בּשׁגםis then to
be read, then there is in it the pronominal שׁ, as in the old proper
name Mishael )who is what God is?(.(
but the pre-exilian ( shir) and ( kinah) (cf. also Job 19:29) make use
of it as an ornament. In the post-exilian literature it occurs in
poetry ( Psalm 122:3, etc.) and in prose ( 1 Chronicles 5:20; 1
Chronicles 27:27); in Ecclesiastes it is already a component part of
the rabbinism in full growth. In a pre-exilian book-title שׁin place
of asher is thus not to be expected. On the other hand, in the Song
itself it is no sign of a post-exilian composition, as Grätz supposes.
The history of the language and literature refutes this.
கருத்துகள் இல்லை:
கருத்துரையிடுக