Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

BRITISH AND FOREIGN

EVANGELICAL REVIEW.

JUNE 1854.

ART. I.-1. Das Hohelied untersucht und ausgelegt. Von FRANZ DELITZSCH, Dr. u. ord. Prof. d. Theologie zu Erlangen u. s. W. 1851. 8vo. Pp. 237.

2. Das Hohelied von Salomo, uebersetzt und erklärt. Von HEINRICH AUGUST HAHN, Dr. Phil. Lic. Theologie und ausserordentlichem Professor der letzeren an der König. Universität zu Griefswalden, u. s. w. 1852. 16mo. Pp. 98. 3. Das Hohelied Salomonis ausgelegt. Von E. W.HENGSTENBERG, Dr. und Prof. d. Theologie zu Berlin. 1853. 8vo. Pp. 264. 4. The Song of Solomon, Compared with other parts of Scripture. Second Edition. London, 1852. 16mo. Pp. 230.

5. A Commentary on the Song of Solomon. By the Rev. GEO. BURROWES, Prof. in Lafayette College, Easton, Pa. 1853. 12mo. Pp. 527.

It is remarkable that such a number of commentaries upon this brief and difficult book should have appeared within so short a period, and in places so remote from each other. This circumstance, if it be not purely casual, resulting from the accidental direction of the studies of the individuals whose productions we have before us, would seem to indicate an extensive leaning in the church at present towards the study of the Canticles. This might either arise from a felt appropriateness of its lessons to existing necessities, or it might mark a struggle after, if not an advance towards its more perfect interpretation. If we may take these volumes as indicating not only the fact of an increased attention to this portion of Scripture, but the grounds from which it has sprung, we would say that the latter of the reasons suggested above predominated in Germany, the former in England and America. The German expositions

VOL. III.-NO. IX.

P

originated in the conflict of opposing systems of interpretation, and seek to mediate between them, whether successfully or not, by clearing up what has hitherto been obscure, by resolving unexplained difficulties, and by assigning with greater precision and definiteness the place of the book in the general scheme of Old Testament revelation. The American and English, on the other hand, have had it chiefly in view to elucidate and to unfold what is herein contained, for the practical uses of the people of God, for the strengthening of their faith and the increase of their love. In our remarks upon these publications we shall find it most convenient to group them according to this difference in their character and objects.

The three German commentators are men of note and of ability, and fortunately of thoroughly evangelical sentiments. They all belong to the school of strict Lutherans, and are as fair exponents as could be selected of the views and tendencies of the best class of biblical scholars upon the continent. They seem too, in the present instance, to have been actuated by a singular unanimity of motive, notwithstanding the great diversity of method pursued and of results attained. Each of them prefaces his publication by informing us that the occasion of it was the new light which he had just received, or fancied he had received, upon the general meaning and structure of Solomon's Song, and which he hastened to lay before the world. Delitzsch tells us that, in the course of his lectures upon the History of the Old Testament, he came upon this Song at the close of the summer semester of 1849. He was compelled to break off, for he did not understand it. He devoted to the subject long and earnest thought, and was at length rewarded by a solution of the mystery; and we have here, without essential alteration, the lectures which he delivered to his classes the following winter. Hahn makes a similar confession of long-continued doubts and uncertainty, finally cleared up by a more thorough comprehension of the doctrine of a Messiah. Hengstenberg had for many years cherished the purpose of writing upon this book. Indeed so long ago as 1828 he had projected a cominentary upon it, and made some preliminary preparations to that end. It was laid aside, however, in consequence of the difficulties of the task, to which he did not at that time feel himself adequate. He comes to it now with the experience of many years as an interpreter, and with the results gathered from those fields of scriptural inquiry which his previous studies have led him to explore. The question whether he should first address himself to the Song of Solomon, or to the preparation of the second edition of his Christology, which he had for some time had in contemplation, was decided by the appearance of the book of Delitzsch, containing as it did views at variance with those

held for ages in the church, and which he felt called upon to controvert by a fresh modification of old opinions.

Delitzsch, Hahn, and Hengstenberg are united of course in maintaining the canonicity of this book, its unity, its integrity, and its composition by Solomon: beyond this there is scarcely a point on which they do not diverge. We only state what our readers would probably take for granted beforehand, when we say that the unity, integrity, and genuineness of this book have been assailed in Germany. The state of religious opinion in that country during the past century, and the prevalent taste for a destructive criticism, make it almost impossible for it to be otherwise. And if the Song of Solomon had been exempted from attack, it would have enjoyed this immunity alone. The ease with which the methods of an unsparing criticism admit of application to the best accredited remains, whether of sacred or of profane antiquity, and the extravagant and incredible results to which they lead, are among the proofs of its worthlessness and failure. In fact, with their novelty these processes have lost most of their terrors. They have long since ceased not only to alarm, but even in their stale insipidity to interest and amuse. It is not probable that the world will be persuaded by them that either the Iliad of Homer or the Song of Solomon is a conglomerate of heterogeneous fragments compacted together, but having no original or proper connection.

Magnus, of the Royal Frederick Gymnasium at Breslau,* has gone to as great. a length as any in chipping up this part of Scripture into bits, and he may be taken with his conclusions as a sufficient specimen of the whole class to which he belongs. Upon the first page of his Introduction, he blazons his discovery that the Song of Solomon is made up of no less than five descriptions of constituents. These are 1. Fourteen complete sonnets; 2. Eight fragments, which, with one exception, are capable of being again united into three complete sonnets; thus making, in all, seventeen pieces, independently composed by different poets, and at different periods, from B. c. 924 to 490, or thereafter; 3. Later supplements to two of these sonnets; 4. Eighteen glosses, which are again distinguished as pure or mixed, original or borrowed; 5. Seven spurious repetitions. These various materials were wrought over and amalgamated by some nameless editor of unknown date, who published this compound of his own making as a single production from the pen of Solomon, and succeeded in inducing the world to believe it, until Magnus and his compeers have in these last days arisen to expose the cheat. No

* In his Kritische Bearbeitung und Erklärung des Hohen Liedes. 1842. 8vo, pp. 244.

one certainly can ask us to undertake the thankless labour of refuting such a brain-spun theory in detail. We have no disposition to trouble ourselves or our readers by exposing here its particular extravagances and absurdities. There is a plain and direct way of establishing the truth in this matter, without the necessity of chasing every delusive light through the lonely fens and dreary morasses over which it flits.

The most satisfactory proof of unity in a composition is one which cannot be drawn out into formal propositions, nor classified under distinct heads. It is the impression silently made upon the mind of the reader in the course of a perusal, from a hundred nameless circumstances which he would find it impossible to gather up and to present in full array before the mind of another. It is the same process by which we would tell whether a manuscript we were examining was all in the same handwriting. There is something about a familiar hand which enables us to distinguish it from all others (though we might be at a loss to explain in every case what it was precisely), so that we can neither be misled by the similarity of the attempted imitation on the one hand, nor by the free variety in the strokes of the same vigorous pen on the other. As far as a thing of this nature is susceptible of formal proof, we may refer in evidence to the superscription itself, whether we regard this as expressive of the mind of the writer, which it undoubtedly is, or allow Magnus to have his own way when he asserts that it proceeded from the subsequent collector. The "Song of Songs," a superlative of excellence like holy of holies, heaven of heavens, evidently marks the composition as a unit; or even if we admit the explanation, which, to escape this conclusion, has, in defiance of usage, been put upon the expression-a song composed of many songs-the result will still be the same. It will still be announced as a unit, though consisting of several subordinate and related parts. Then, the subject is the same throughout, the love of the king to his bride: the same personages appear in every part of the Song-king Solomon, the Shulamite, the daughters of Jerusalem. There is throughout the same style of thought and of expression, the same fertility of illustration from nature, the same peculiarities in the language, e. g., its Aramaic colouring, the unusual form of the relative, &c.; a frequent use of the same words and phrases (ii. 16 comp. vi. 3; "whom my soul loveth," i. 7, iii. 1,2,3,4; bride addressed as "fairest among women," i. 8, v. 9, vi. 1; "sick of love," ii. 5, v. 8; "thy love better than wine," i. 2, iv. 10; ii. 17 comp. iv. 6 and viii. 14; vi. 4 comp. ver. 10). Sometimes a regularly recurring formula, as if a burden to mark the close or the opening of a strain (ii. 6, 7, iii. 5, viii. 3, 4, comp. also v. 8; iii. 6, vi. 10, viii. 5), and even larger passages of close mutual

resemblance (ii. 10-13, comp. vii. 11-13; iii. 1-5, comp. v. 2-8; iv. 1-3, comp. vi. 5-7). A final argument may be drawn from the general structure and plan of the poem, if it can be shown that the alleged fragments are well-adjusted parts of a consistent whole, and that instead of being a parti-coloured patchwork, loosely stitched together, its beautiful pattern has from beginning to end been woven from the same threads and on the same loom. Our authors attempt to show this each in his own way. How well they have succeeded will appear in the sequel.

This Song is in its title ascribed to Solomon. Unvarying tradition corroborates this testimony. All the phenomena presented by the book itself correspond entirely with the authorship claimed for it. The figures, drawn indiscriminately from all parts of Solomon's dominions, from Jerusalem, Engedi, Sharon, Tirzah, Gilead, Heshbon, Carmel, Lebanon, and Hermon, present the land of Israel as still existing in its unity. The marked characteristics of this Song fall in very well, too, with what we learn from the history of Solomon's partiality for nature, for handsome gardens, for splendid buildings; and even the allusion to the horses of Pharaoh (i. 9) may be worth referring to in this connection. The theme and the spirit of the whole seem to reflect the general happiness and prosperity. Even De Wette admits that the images and allusions, and the freshness of its life, well adapt it to the times of Solomon, though he persists in denying its composition by Solomon himself.

It has been alleged on the ground of the mention of Tirzah, vi. 4, that it could not have been written before this was made the royal city of Israel, as Jerusalem was of Judah. But it is hard to see why this delightful place, as it is characterised by its very name, could not be mentioned as an image of beauty, as well before Jeroboam fixed his residence there as afterwards. In fact, this very verse is alleged on the other side with at least quite as much plausibility, as showing that Jerusalem and Tirzah still belonged to the same territory, and the schism of Jeroboam had not yet taken place. The argument which Ewald* endeavours to deduce from the unfavourable light in which the character of Solomon is here presented, rests upon his mistaken view of the whole Song, and falls with its refutation. That Solomon could not have spoken of his own personal appearance in such terms as are employed v. 10-16 et passim is an objection which lies only against the literal understanding of the Song, not its composition by Solomon. Delitzsch partly relieves but does not remove it, by suggesting that he could not do otherwise than put into the mouth of his bride the language of ardent love, which is naturally that of exaggerated praise.

Das Hohelied Salomos (1826), p. 13.

« AnteriorContinuar »