Bible Commentaries
Song of Solomon

THE SONG OF SONGS

Its Place in the Canon.— We cannot be certain as to the precise date when this book was admitted into the Sacred Collection, but we have reliable evidence that down to a late period there were doubts as to its canonicity. The OT Canon consists of the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings; Canticles belongs to the third division. Towards the end of the first century A.D., Rabbi Akiba, who defended its canonicity, declared it to be the most sacred book in the Kethubim (Writings), and at the time of the conclusion of the Mishna, at the beginning of the third century, its position was secure (pp. 38f.). The books of the Canon were all supposed to be both ancient and religious, therefore the two ideas that enabled “ The Song of Songs” to gain a place in it were the ascription to Solomon as its author, and the belief that it represented, in symbolic language, the relation of Yahweh to His people. This latter belief, no doubt, led to its use, as one of the festival rolls, on the eighth day of the Passover. (The other four rolls ( Megilloth, Ps. 408) were Ruth at Pentecost, Lamentations on the ninth day of Ab (the day on which Jerusalem was destroyed), Ecclesiastes at the Feast of Tabernacles, and Esther at the Feast of Purim.) As at the beginning there were doubts of its suitability for its present position, so it seems probable that, except in the centuries when criticism was quite dead, the impression concerning its real nature was never completely lost. Unless an artificial system of interpretation is used, which puts ideas into the text instead of drawing them out, the book has no theological significance; it never mentions the name of Yahweh, it is not concerned with religious problems, it contains no word of prayer or praise.

Its Age and Authorship.— Seeing that the Solomonic authorship is no longer tenable, and is to be explained on the same principle that led to the ascription of the Law to Moses, and the Pss. to David, we have to confess that we can know nothing concerning the author; the view that we take as to the structure of the book will decide whether we regard him as a real author or merely as a collector and editor. The place where the book was written or the songs collected is also in dispute. The names of places contain references to both N. and S. Palestine, and the linguistic style is not a sure proof of northern origin, though it certainly points to a post-exilic date. This date is confirmed by the constant use of the Aramaic form of the relative pronoun and the presence of several foreign words ( Song of Solomon 1:14, Song of Solomon 4:13, Song of Solomon 3:9, Song of Solomon 4:13 f.). Some of the songs may have existed earlier, but the book, as we now have it, probably belongs to the late post-exilic Jewish community, some two or three centuries B.C.

The Structure and Interpretation of the Book.— In the brief space at our command, we cannot, either in the introduction or the notes, touch questions of metrical criticism, or enter into elaborate discussions concerning conjectural rearrangements of particular sections. It is clear that in this region there are difficulties which are not solved by any general theory, and that particular proposals, while interesting to the special student, are quite tentative and uncertain. All that we can do is to attempt to answer in the simplest fashion the question: What, on the whole, is the view of the structure and significance of the book which is most in accord with an unprejudiced reading of the text and our present knowledge of Hebrew life and literature? ( a) The allegorical view that “ the song” sets forth the relation of Yahweh to His people, of Christ to His Church or to the individual soul, does not now call for lengthy discussion. Still less are we concerned for a scheme that finds a place for the Virgin Mary. This view played its part when it helped to preserve for us this specimen of Hebrew literature; it had a long reign, but can survive only among those who are quite free from any historical method. Those who held the theory were, in their day, “ learned men,” and it is quite interesting to meet this statement, which sounds quite modern, in an exposition written more than a century ago. “ M. Bossuet has an ingenious conjecture, though it seems to be without a solid foundation, that whereas the nuptial feast with the Hebrews was kept seven days, this song is to be distributed into seven parts, a part to be sung on each day during the celebration” (Gill, p. 26). Of course it was always known that, however they were to be interpreted, these were nuptial songs, but “ the king’ s week” (p. 419) has played a great part in recent discussion. The use of marriage as a symbol of the relation between Yahweh and the nation or Christ and the Church is well known (Hosea 2, Jeremiah 3, Isaiah 49:14-21, Isaiah 52:1-5, Ephesians 5:32, 2 Corinthians 11:2), but in those cases there is no uncertainty as to the nature of the allusions. We believe in true mysticism, and are not concerned to deny that wine may be, in certain cases, an Oriental symbol of religious excitement, but that does not lead us to regard this book as a conscious allegory of Divine and human relationships. When we remember the struggle of the Hebrew religion against sensual worship, we cannot imagine a prophet or religious poet using this sensuous imagery in detail to express such relation. Beautiful illustrations as Matthew 9:15, Jeremiah 3:14, Revelation 21:2 are not in the same category (see Harper on the Allegorical Interpretation, and Martin on its influence on Christian poetry and hymnology).

( b) More than a century ago great literary critics as Herder and Goethe felt that the book was a string of pearls or collection of beautiful love-lyrics, but during the past century the dramatic theory, in some form, has received the support of many distinguished scholars. (1) Solomon falls in love with a pretty shepherd maiden and has her taken to his harem, where he pays earnest court to her, and discovers that all his efforts are vain since she remains loyal to her shepherd lover. The theme of the book is, therefore the victory of a true and pure love over temptation. (2) It is a dramatic pastoral which sings of Solomon’ s love for a shepherd maid. He takes her to be his wife, and by that means is converted from sensual passion to pure love. (3) A marriage drama or melodrama celebrating true betrothed love. The scheme is based on the Syrian marriage ceremonies, the King (Solomon) being the bridegroom in the first half of the book, when he disappears, having learned in a mysterious manner that she cannot belong to him, the same scheme goes forward ( Song of Solomon 5:2) with the new and proper bridegroom, the climax being the production of the “ proofs of virginity” the morning after the wedding (HDB). These are specimens of the forms that the dramatic theory may take. These theories show an effort to maintain the unity of the book, while it is questionable whether there is any other unity than that of subject; unity of narrative or dramatic movement cannot be proved. There is no fully-developed drama in ancient Hebrew literature; the intellectual and social conditions required to produce it were lacking. Of course, stories and dialogues (as in Job) have dramatic elements found in all living literature, but that does not give a drama in the strict sense. If a Hebrew scholar had really set himself the task of producing a drama, even of simple kind, he would probably have produced something more elaborate than a book that can be read in half an hour, and whose longest scene ( Song of Solomon 7:12 to Song of Solomon 8:4) could be read in two minutes. Why should the names of the persons speaking have been lost any more than in the book of Job? It is not the variety of opinion in points of detail (for we might have that difficulty in the interpretation of an acknowledged drama) which weighs most heavily against the dramatic theory, but the fact that so much has to be supplied to the text by the imagination of the expositor to work any such theory at all.

(c) We are left with the view that the book is a collection of love-lyrics, many of which, according to the customs of the day, were sung or recited in connexion with the marriage ceremonies ( cf. Psalms 45). This view has been strengthened by the comparison with other Oriental poems, and specially by Wetstein’ s reports (1873) concerning the marriage ceremonies in Syria and the poems still in use on such occasions. The significance of this contribution was noted by B. Stade (1888), and its application to our book worked out by K. Budde (1894). It appears that the wedding festival lasts a week, that among the peasants the threshing-floor was decorated as a throne, and that on it the bride and groom received homage and were addressed as King and Queen. Further, that poems are sung and specially songs describing the charms of the married pair; the name of this descriptive song is wasf ( Song of Solomon 5:9, Song of Solomon 7:1 ff.). It is admitted by all that many of these customs are probably ancient and that they throw light upon the literary forms and poetic imagery of the book. It is scarcely likely that all the poems here given were woven together in connexion with one articular marriage; it is rather a collection, perhaps by the poet himself, of different types. Connecting links and other slight additions may have been added by later scribes. This view, while it does not give us the power to settle all textual and exegetical difficulties, shows us why such difficulties exist, as songs are naturally more flexible and vague than any other form of literature. The book glorifies the love of man and woman, and associates this with the sweetness of spring. This “ king’ s week,” among peasants seems to have been “ a purple patch” in a life that, on the whole, was pretty drab. We also have a large literature of “ love-songs,” but in our religious teaching we lay more stress on quiet loyalty than a delirious honeymoon. We do not find here a polemic in favour of monogamy or the clear suggestion, not to say, explicit statement, of any social theory. But we cannot help feeling that the presence of such romantic poetry shows that even under the coarse forms of Oriental life “ love” comes to signify a high human relationship. It would be strange if the Church that gave monotheism to the world did not move towards a nobler view of family life ( Titus 1:6). Though the book is not a social essay or problem but a number of lyrics in thoroughly Oriental style, its theme— the purity, sweetness, and glory of love— is an everlasting one. It needs to-day, as much as ever, to be brought into relation with the highest Christian ideas of chastity, self-sacrifice, and mutual helpfulness.

Literature.— For an extensive bibliography the student is referred to the commentaries. The Exposition by John Gill (Edinburgh, 1805) is a good specimen of the length to which the allegorical interpretation was carried about a century ago. Harper (CB) makes a vigorous defence of the dramatic theory, while Martin (Cent.B) gives a clear statement and strong support to the historical or lyrical view. See also Adeney (Ex.B), Margoliouth in Temple Bible, and articles in Bible Dictionaries; D. R. Scott, Pessimism and Love. In German, the works of the following scholars are easily accessible: Budde (KHC and in Kautzsch’ s Heilige Schrift) , Siegfried (HK), Stä rk (SAT).

THE POETICAL AND WISDOM LITERATURE

THIS article’ s concerned simply with the general criticism of the poetical and wisdom literature. For Heb. poetry see pp. 22– 24, for Heb. wisdom pp. 24, 93– 95, 343– 345. Heb. metre is discussed in the “ Introduction to the Pss.” (372f.), parallelism in the article on “ The Bible as Literature” (p. 23). The commentaries on the individual books should also be consulted. Poetical passages are of course found outside the books dealt with in this section. Some of these are quite early, for example Judges 5, Genesis 49, the oracles of Balaam, to say nothing of briefer pieces in the Hexateuch, some of which may be earlier still; and several are to be found scattered through the later books, for example 1 Samuel 2:1-10, 2 Samuel 1:19-27, 2S 4:33f., 1 Samuel 23:1-7, Isaiah 38:10-20, Jonah 2:2-9, Habakkuk 3. For these reference must be made to the commentaries. Our section includes Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs; the Book of Lamentations properly belongs to it also.

When Reuss in 1834 expressed the conviction that the true chronological order was Prophets, Law, Psalms, not, as was commonly believed, Law, Psalms, Prophets, he was giving utterance to an intuition which recent criticism has on the whole justified. Dt. has behind it the prophets of the eighth century. P rests mainly on Dt. and Ezek. The Psalter is in the main a creation of post-exilic Judaism, and has behind it both the Law and the Prophets. This applies also to Proverbs, which suggests, to borrow Cornill’ s metaphor, that Prophecy and Law have been closed and minted into proverbial small coin. The existence at a very early date of poetry so great as the Song of Deborah shows that the period of the Judges was equal to the composition of the finest poetry, and David’ s elegy on Saul and Jonathan is ample guarantee that he may have written religious poetry of high quality. The shrewd mother wit of Solomon and his practical sagacity may well have found expression in aphorism, in epigram, and in parable. Indeed the traditional connexion of the father with Psalmody, of the son with Hebrew Wisdom, must have a substantial foundation. But it would be a hasty verdict which argued that the Davidic authorship of many Pss., the Solomonic authorship of Pr., Ec., and Ca., were thus guaranteed. David probably wrote psalms, but how can we be sure that they are preserved in our Psalter, and if so, which, seeing that the first collection was formed after the return from captivity? And how can we feel confident that, even if authentic proverbs of Solomon are preserved in the Canon, we can detect which they are? Titles are notoriously untrustworthy (pp. 366f.), and other criteria must be applied. The linguistic test is not so helpful as we could wish. Its verdict is clearest in the case of Ec., pp. 35, 411, which on this ground, if for no other reason, cannot be the work of Solomon. It shows that some Pss. must be late, it does not prove that any must be early. It is the place which the literature fills in the development of thought and religion which is decisive. The literature as a whole belongs to the post-exilic period. The Psalter in the main is secondary and imitative. It does not strike out new lines in theology or ethics, as do the great prophets. Even in religious experience the writers are rarely pioneers. It is true that their religious experience was their own. They do not merely give literary expression to states of feeling of which they have learnt from others, but into which they have never entered. In that sense their experience is original and not second-hand. Yet we may say that they were not the first to realise them. The glory of discovery belongs to the great adventurous spirits who preceded them; as it has been said, Without Jeremiah we should have had no Psalter.

Yet we ought not to assume that no pre-exilic Pss. have come down to us. Some at least of the royal Pss. are best placed in the time of the monarchy, and not regarded as referring either to a foreign king or a Maccabean ruler. But even if this is admitted, since historical allusions are too vague for any definite results, we cannot do more than recognise the possibility that a few of our Pss. are earlier than the destruction of Jerusalem.

At present critics are rather preoccupied, not with the question whether we have any early Pss., but whether a large number should not be regarded as very late. The same tendency appears here as in recent criticism of the prophetic literature, only, of course, in a more extreme form. It has long been debated whether any Maccabean Pss. are preserved in the Psalter. Even conservative scholars were inclined to recognise that a few, especially in Books II and III, should be so regarded. Robertson Smith, while allowing their presence in the third collection— i.e. Books IV and V— argued strongly that the history of the compilation forbade us to recognise them in Books I to III. The tendency of recent criticism has been to adopt an extreme position. Duhm, whose treatment of the Psalter reflects his most unsympathetic mood, not only recognises a large number of Maccabean Pss., but dates not a few in the first century B.C., interpreting them as party lampoons written by Pharisees and Sadducees on their opponents. Dates so near the Christian era seem to the present writer antecedently most improbable, and while he believes that there are Maccabean Pss. in Books IV and V, and possibly in Books II and III, he regards it as unlikely that anything in the Psalter should be later than 130 B.C.

The books ascribed to Solomon are probably one and all post-exilic in their present form, and belong to the Greek rather than to the Persian period. The Praise of Wisdom (Proverbs 1-9) contains a description of the Divine Wisdom ( Proverbs 8:22-32) so speculative, so unlike what we find elsewhere in the OT, that Greek influence may be plausibly suspected, but in any case it is unthinkable in Heb. literature of an early date. The two main collections, Proverbs 10:1 to Proverbs 22:16 and Proverbs 25-29, seem also to be post-exilic. The struggles of the monarchical period lie in the past. There is no attack upon idolatry, and many of the aphorisms suggest the standpoint of post-exilic Judaism. Nevertheless many in both collections bear the stamp of no particular time, so that they might quite well have originated in the pre-exilic period; and while many could not be attributed to Solomon, there is no decisive objection to the view that some proverbs from his lips may have been preserved, even though not one can be pointed out with any confidence. There is no solid reason for mistrusting the good faith of the title in Proverbs 25:1, but if a collection of proverbs alleged to be Solomon’ s was made in Hezekiah’ s reign ( Proverbs 25:1), it probably included a large number which had no title to be regarded as his, and the collection itself must have undergone considerable expansion at a later time. The minor collections, together with the three interesting sections at the close— Proverbs 30, Proverbs 31:1-9, Proverbs 31:10-31— are also late. The Song of Songs is also attributed by tradition to Solomon. Unhappily no unanimity has been attained either as to its character or to its date. Till recently modern scholars have regarded it as a drama, the most plausible form of this theory being that it celebrates the fidelity of a country maiden to her shepherd lover in spite of Solomon’ s attempts to win her love for himself. More probably, however, it is a collection of disconnected wedding songs, such as are still sung in connexion with the King’ s Week— that is, the week of festivities at the celebration of a wedding. It is by some dated not so long after the time of Solomon; more probably, however, it belongs to the Greek period.

Ecclesiastes was probably written about the close of the third or beginning of the second century B.C. It may perhaps be earlier; it belongs either to the late Persian or late Greek period. Behind it there is a background of unstable, oppressive government and acute social misery. The writer’ s attitude to life need not have been borrowed from Greek philosophy; his pessimism and scepticism had their root in his own experience and sympathetic observation of the hopeless misery of his fellows. The book has not come to us quite as he left it. The theory of Siegfried and P. Haupt that a whole series of writers have annotated, interpolated, and mutilated the original nucleus is improbable; Bickell’ s ingenious suggestion that by an accident the sheets of the original manuscript were disarranged, and that an editor produced our present book by interpolating connecting links and polemical passages, is well-nigh incredible. But in its original form it was felt to be dangerous to piety. Its alleged Solomonic origin was held to guarantee its real orthodoxy; but inasmuch as its surface meaning was frequently heterodox, passages were added whose sound theology neutralised the author’ s dangerously ambiguous statements. That the book was not actually written by Solomon is proved by its linguistic phenomena, and its whole tenor is incompatible with its origin in so early a period.

About the year 400 we may perhaps date the Book of Job. Probably the prologue and epilogue belong to an earlier work, in which the friends adopted much the same attitude as Job’ s wife, while Job maintained against them his attitude of resignation. If so, the poet has cancelled the dialogue which originally stood between the prologue and epilogue and substituted one of an entirely different character, in which the friends will accuse Job of anything rather than admit that God has dealt unjustly with him. A western reader is impressed with the curious inconsequence in the dialogue: the antagonists develop their case with very little reference to the position they are formally attacking. The book has received rather extensive additions; the most important is the speeches of Elihu, the author of which felt that the friends had not made the best of their case, and was especially shocked at the language put into Job’ s mouth, and the impropriety of representing Yahweh as condescending to answer him, a task to which the bombastic and unduly inflated Elihu feels himself quite adequate. The poem on wisdom (Job 28) is also an insertion, and probably the same judgment should be passed on the description of Behemoth and Leviathan. On the other hand, it would sadly mutilate the poem to treat the speech of Yahweh as an addition. The prologue is indispensable, the epilogue hardly less so; neither is really incompatible with the author’ s view, though he might have expressed himself somewhat differently had he himself written them rather than taken them over from an earlier work. In the main, however, he endorses them. Unhappily there has been a serious dislocation, and probably some drastic excision, in the third cycle of the debate.

The Book of Lamentations is ascribed to Jeremiah by an early tradition, but for various reasons this view cannot be accepted. Nor indeed is it probable that any portion of it is Jeremiah’ s work. But the capture of Jerusalem, which forms the background of a large part of the book, is that by Nebuchadnezzar in 586. Lamentations 2, 4 were presumably written by one who had lived through the terrible experiences of the siege and capture. Lamentations 5 was apparently written some time later, but yet before the return under Cyrus, and Lamentations 1 also during that period. Lamentations 3, which is detached from the other poems in subject-matter, probably belongs to a later period still. Some scholars have suggested that the whole book might be post-exilic. But it is unnatural to place a long interval between Lamentations 2, 4 and the siege which they describe. The writer of the commentary in this volume brings the book into connexion with Pompey’ s capture of Jerusalem. A first-century date would be in line with Duhm’ s criticism of the Psalter; but, although it is not open to quite the same objections, the present writer feels that so late a date would require strong positive evidence to remove the antecedent objections.

Literature.— The literature mentioned in the commentaries on the different books contains much valuable matter. Of the older literature Lowth, De sacra poesi Hebraeorum; Herder, Vom Geist der ebrâ ischen Poesie; and Ewald, Die Dichter des Alten Bundes may be mentioned. Among the later works, in addition to those given in the article on “ The Bible as Literature,” the following: Gordon, The Poets of the OT; G. A. Smith, The Early Poetry of Israel; Kö nig, Die Poesie des Alten Testaments; N. Schmidt, The Messages of the Poets; W. T. Davison, The Praises of Israel and The Wisdom Literature of the OT; Cheyne, Job and Solomon; articles in HDB (Budde) and EBi (Duhm). On metrical and similar problems Cobb, A Criticism of Systems of Hebrew Metre; Gray, Forms of Hebrew Poetry.

HEBREW WISDOM

AMONGST the teachers of Israel for some time before the Exile there were three main classes— the priests, the prophets, and the wise men (Hakamim). “ The Law,” it was said, “ shall not perish from the priest, nor counsel from the wise, nor the word from the prophet” ( Jeremiah 18:18). The priest gave the people instruction based upon law and tradition; the prophet was bidden to carry to them a message with which he had been directly inspired by the Spirit of God; it was the duty of the wise “ to translate general principles into terms of everyday life and to give counsel for everyday conduct.” Hear the word of the wise “ is the injunction of Proverbs 22:17; “ These also are sayings of the wise” introduces a new section of the book in Proverbs 24:23. Their influence grew considerably during the period immediately after the Captivity; it was naturally strongest when the direct inspiration of prophecy was no longer felt, and when the reflective period in the religion of Israel was at its height. They have been described as the “ humanists” of Israel; their teaching has also been compared with the “ philosophy” of other nations, especially with the “ sophists” of pre-Socratic times; they have been styled “ moral casuists.” But none of these names fits the case, and the associations connected with them should not be allowed to prejudice a first-hand study of Hebrew Wisdom.

Five extant books represent the literature of Wisdom (Hokma). Three of these are canonioal— Job, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes; two are outside the Canon— a work by the son of Sirach, known as Ecclesiasticus, and the Wisdom of Solomon. The Song of Solomon should not be included in the list, but certain Pss. illustrate the work of the school, such as Psalms 1, 37, 49, 50, 73, 112. The Book of Baruch (3:9– 27) contains a remarkable eulogy of Wisdom, while the succession of “ wise” teachers lasted till the time of Philo of Alexandria, 4 Maccabees, and the treatise Pirké Aboth. The last-named “ sayings of the Fathers” are purely Jewish, while the writings of Philo and the Book of Wisdom are attempts, only partially successful, to harmonise Hellenic philosophy with Jewish religion. Traces of the influence of Ecclesiasticus are tolerably obvious in the NT— for example, in the Epistle of James— and parallels are traceable between some passages of Wisdom and the Epistle to the Hebrews, as well as other parts of the NT. It is the object of this article not to discuss these books severally (see introductions to Job, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes), but briefly to characterise Wisdom Literature in general.

1. In discussing the meaning of Wisdom in the OT, the distinction between Divine and human must be kept in mind. The writers assume throughout that there is one God, Creator and Preserver of all, who alone is perfect in knowledge, as in power and holiness. But the Divine attribute of Wisdom is contemplated in and by itself, as is never the case with power or righteousness; it is the quality in virtue of which God knows and plans and purposes all things, possessing as He does perfect comprehension of all creatures and their capacities, and perfectly adopting the best means for the accomplishment of the highest and best possible ends. Wisdom on the part of man implies a capacity of entering to some extent into the meaning and scope of Divine wisdom, so far as that is possible to finite, ignorant, and sinful beings. Creation—“ nature,” as we call it— is one field of knowledge. The proverbial wisdom of Solomon, extolled in 1 Kings 4:29-34, included “ trees, from the cedar in Lebanon to the hyssop that springeth out of the wall,” and a knowledge of beasts and fishes and birds. But nature, animate and inanimate, was not the chief theme of “ Wisdom.” The Jewish sage was not concerned with physical science and natural law in the modern sense; it was human life in all its relations, and especially in its moral and religious aspects, with which he had to do. Wisdom for him meant the power to understand, discriminate, and form just estimates of value in this all-important region; the ability rightly to conceive the ends of life, the end of ends, and fully to master the best means for securing the highest good. All this, however, is conceived not in a philosophical but in a deeply religious spirit. Hence the subject of Providence, the moral government of the world, the distribution of rewards and punishments, and the relation between a man’ s character and his lot and condition in fife, occupied much of the attention of the students of Wisdom.

2. Close definition is difficult, if not impossible, since a measure of progress is discernible in the conception of Wisdom during the centuries covered by the literature. In the earliest stage it has been described as “ a kind of common-sense philosophy of life, with a strong religious tendency.” But this will not cover the sublime conception embodied in Proverbs 8, nor the description of Job 28, nor the process of grappling with life-problems characteristic of Job and Ecclesiastes. Still less does it correspond to the subject of the high eulogies in Sir_4:11 ; Sir_4:24 and Ecc. 24, or to the well-known description in Wis_7:22-30 . “ She is a breath of the power of God and a clear effluence of the glory of the Almighty. She is an unspotted mirror of the working of God and an image of His goodness. She, being one, hath power to do all things; and remaining herself, reneweth all things; and from generation to generation, passing into holy souls, she maketh men friends of God and prophets.” It remains true, however, that among the Jews “ philosophy” was practical and religious, in contrast with the speculative and dialectic tendencies of the Greeks. Man is represented as engaged in a search after wisdom rather than as having attained it, and advance is made in the search as time goes on.

3. But there are certain general characteristics which distinguish Hebrew Wisdom throughout, and these may be briefly summarised as follows:

( a) It is human rather than national. Every careful reader must have noticed that Job, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes are less distinctively Jewish than the other canonical books. They appeal neither to law nor to prophets as final authorities. For better, for worse, they strike a “ cosmopolitan” note. The absence of sacrificial and Messianic ideas has been made a ground of objection against these books, some portions of which, it is urged, might have been written by Pagans. But religion is never forgotten by the writers, and in the wider outlook and freedom from national prejudice compensation may be found for some alleged deficiencies. It may be remarked in passing that the Book of Wisdom, which is characteristically universalist in the earlier chapters, takes up a strongly national and particularist tone in its later portion, which presents a sort of philosophy of history from a Jewish standpoint.

( b) The details of daily social life in their moral aspects are prominent in the Wisdom Literature. The king and the day-labourer, the tradesman in his business and the guest in the home, women in the management of their houses and the due control of their tongues, the oppressor, the usurer, the cheat, the tale-bearer— all receive sound and wholesome advice. The tone of the counsel is often “ secular,” and the motives urged often run on a low and prudential rather than a lofty and ideal plane. But religious considerations are always in the background, and often come notably to the front. It would not be difficult to select from Proverbs a store of profound spiritual aphorisms, such as “ His secret is with the righteous,” “ The spirit of man is the candle of the Lord,” “ Where no vision is, the people perish,” and “ He that winneth souls is wise.” Self-regarding virtues are not foremost in the estimation of writers who tell us many times that “ before honour is humility,” who tenderly enjoin submission to the fatherly chastening of the Lord, and who remind the vindictive that to feed and help an enemy is the best revenge, one that will not pass unnoticed by the Lord of all.

( c) The ethical spirit of the “ wise” is not opposed to the legalism of the priest or the fiery earnestness of the prophet; rather does it supplement and complete both. Religion has its ceremonial and mystical side, but there is always danger lest its close connexion with prosaic duties in everyday life should be forgotten. Priest, prophet, and sage, all have a place in the old covenant, and each has a truly religious message to deliver. “ The fear of the Lord, that is wisdom,” occurs in Job and Ecclesiastes, as well as many times in Proverbs. But the God whom these writers fear and trust is one who is Himself righteous and loves righteousness in man, across the counter as well as in the Temple. He abominates a false balance, lazy habits, a greedy appetite, and a smoothly flattering as well as a scolding and contentious tongue.

( d) These writers were orthodox in their religious beliefs, but they were not closely tied by dogmatic considerations, and they expressed themselves with freedom and force. The criticism which styles them “ sceptics” makes very free with the text of Job and Ecclesiastes in order to establish the position. But it is perfectly true that in dealing with the facts and deep problems of life the writers of these two books do exhibit considerable freedom from traditional and conventional beliefs, while maintaining their faith in the God of Israel and of the whole world. It is largely to them that we owe the trains of thought which in Judaism prepared the way for the doctrine of immortality, as the saints of earlier days groped their way through the problems of pain and death, first to the hope, and afterwards to the assurance, of life beyond the grave.

4. Much may be learned concerning the current ideas of Wisdom on its human side by a study of the various synonyms used for it and the somewhat copious vocabulary which describes its opposite, Folly. In addition to the phrase “ wisdom and understanding” as used in Deuteronomy 4:5 f. and Isaiah 11:2, in which stress is laid upon intelligent comprehension of the Divine law of righteousness, we may draw attention to a number of synonyms, without professing to enumerate them all. Binah may be rendered “ intelligent perception” ; ta’ am is good taste or discernment applied to morals; tushiyah, often used for strength or help, in Proverbs indicates the solid, sound knowledge that may be relied on as a stay in time of need; ormah is on the border-line between prudence and unning, and stands for a “ subtlety” of perception that will enable a wise man to steer his vessel craftily” and well; while sekel indicates discretion, or good sense in active operation.

On the other hand, the foolish man is described sometimes as pethi, simple, ignorant, easily misled; or as kesil, heavy, stupid, obstinate; or as evil, rashly, wantonly foolish. He may be baar, coarse, brutish, or nabal, churlish and ignoble. The emptiness and unworthiness of folly are employed in one group of words, and its unsavoury and corrupt character, without wholesome salt of reason and understanding, in another ( Proverbs 1:7 *). The Bunyan-like picture of Madam Folly in Proverbs 9:13-18 stands out in bold contrast with the picture of Wisdom and her seven-pillared palace, at the opening of the same chapter.

The subject of the literary form of the Hokma books does not come within the scope of this chapter (p. 24). But it may be noted now skilfully the elementary form of the mashal, or “ proverb,” consisting of a short, bare couplet, is expanded for the presentation of symbolic pictures and of ideas far beyond the scope of the original saw or maxim. The structure of Ecclesiasticus is like that of Proverbs, but Job, Koheleth, and Wisdom exhibit different attractive developments of what might have appeared an intractable form of verse.

5. One notable feature of this literature is a certain personification of Divine Wisdom, and there is some difficulty in interpreting its exact scope and meaning. Is the writer of Proverbs 8:22 f., for example, simply using in bold and vivid fashion a well-known grammatical figure, endowing Wisdom with personal qualities only for the purpose of literary and poetical effectiveness? Or is Wisdom here truly hypostatised— i.e. was it regarded by the writer as a personal being, distinct from God Himself? The answer would seem to be that in these passages the religious imagination is at work under special conditions, and forms of expression are used which, if literally pressed by Western readers, would imply distinct personal existence, but that this was never intended by the Oriental readers, who would probably have been shocked by such a turning of their literature into dogma. A somewhat similar development is discernible in the use of the phrases “ Spirit of God” and “ Word of God,” neither of which in the minds of OT writers implied personal distinctions either within or outside the personality of the one true God, who was the sole object of faith and worship.

None the less the language employed is very bold. Wisdom not only cries and puts forth her voice, as in Proverbs 8:1— an obvious metaphor; of her it is also said, “ Yahweh possessed me in the beginning of his way. . . . I was brought forth or ever the earth was. . . . I was by him as a master-workman” (or “ foster-child,” sporting as children will do), “ . . . daily his delight, rejoicing in his habitable earth,” etc. Wisdom, says Ben-Sira, “ came forth from the mouth of the Most High. . . . He created me from the beginning, and to the end I shall not fail” ( Sir_24:3 ; Sir_24:9 ). In the Wisdom of Solomon the prayer is offered “ Give me wisdom, that sitteth by thee on thy throne” ( Wis_9:4 ); Wisdom “ fills the world” ( Wis_1:7 ), was present at and was an instrument in the creation ( Wis_9:2 ; Wis_9:9 ); Wisdom makes men prophets (Wis 9:27), gives knowledge of the Divine counsel, and confers glory and immortality ( Wis_8:10 ; Wis_8:13 ). One of the most recent commentators on this book, Rev. J. A. F. Gregg, holds that in it Wisdom “ is not hypostatised . . . is personal but not a person . . . possesses the moral qualities of God without His self-determination. . . . The writer of Wisdom regards her as far more than a merely literary personification; he conceded to her a refined, supersensuous personality.” We agree with this if the phraseology of literary personification is to be judged by modern and Western standards. But greater latitude of expression was permitted to the Jewish and Hellenistic writers of two thousand years ago, and it is necessary to remember that psychological analysis was then in its infancy. Mr. Gregg admits that “ no modern psychologist would allow personality to Wisdom on the data advanced in the book.” The line of personality is now drawn at the possession of self-consciousness and self-determination, and none of these writers held that Wisdom apart from God was personal in this sense.

The standpoint of these passages is most nearly gained if we bear in mind that at the foundation of the writers’ theology lay the idea of a living God, whom they were attempting to realise not as transcendent only, but as immanent in the world. They desired to bring all the Divine attributes— and Wisdom had almost come to include them all— into living relation with the world, and graphic personification was the best means at their disposal. If the one living and true God is to be brought into close relation and communion with His creatures, neither the abstractions of philosophy nor the language of mere transcendence will suffice. Hence we find, both within and outside the canonical Scriptures, a use of the terms “ Word of God,” “ Spirit of God,” or “ Wisdom of God” as a supreme intermediary, preparing the way for the idea of Incarnation and the fuller revelation of the NT.

Another subject of great importance can barely be touched on here. All these writers, covering a period of more than five hundred years, believed in the moral government of God, His perfectly wise and gracious ordering of the affairs of the world and of man. How do they regard the standing problems of pain, sin, and death? Is there any progress in ability to grapple with these difficulties, and is any continuous development of thought with regard to them discernible? What may be called the orthodoxy of the period before the Exile is substantially expressed in the earliest Wisdom document (Proverbs 10-24). Obedience to God is rewarded by prosperity, disobedience will be punished by calamity and overthrow. The disciplinary character of suffering, it is true, is not ignored; chastening is necessary for God’ s children; but this is quite compatible with the fatherly government which secures that justice shall be done— in this life, for no other comes into the account. Justice is also mainly concerned with the nation and the family as units; individual character in relation to individual condition and destiny is not a main theme with the writers before the Captivity.

The Book of Job— and, in a minor transitional fashion, some of the Pss.— represents a revolt against this doctrine as not in accordance with the facts of life and as not adequately describing the righteous government of God. A different interpretation of life is set forth in this sublime poem. The writer of Job, impressed by the vastness and variety of the Divine wisdom, faces the difficulty of the sufferings of the righteous and the prosperity of the wicked very much— if we may so express it— in the spirit of the prologue to Tennyson’ s “ In Memoriam.” He desires that knowledge should grow from more to more, but that more of reverence should dwell in the sons of men, who ought to know themselves “ fools and slight” in comparison with Divine Wisdom. The absence of definite dogma does not diminish, but rather increases, the profound religious impression made by a book which teaches men how to draw near to the very heart of God, even while bold enough to put searching questions concerning His mysterious ways.

The son of Sirach, “ one who gleaneth after the grape-gatherers,” who is a sage but hardly a poet, inculcates a subdued resignation, a passive submission to the Divine will, which is devout in spirit and excellent in practice, though it does little or nothing to answer the passionate questionings of anxious souls. The writer of Ecclesiastes is not the cynic, or the pessimist, or the agnostic, that he is often represented to be. (We are discussing the books of Job and Ecclesiastes as they have come down to us, without entering here on the critical questions raised by their composite authorship as it is accepted by most modern scholars.) It is true that as the preacher contemplates the working of what we should call natural law, life seems to be little but “ emptiness and striving after wind.” But if Koheleth sometimes seems little better than a Hebrew Stoic, he remains a Hebrew, not a Stoic. Apart from the teaching of the last verses concerning judgment, it would seem to be the aim of the writer to show how vain and empty is the life of the senses, viewed at its best, and the wisdom of steadfastly performing duty in reliance upon God, however He may hide Himself. He must be trusted and obeyed amidst much in life that is and will remain unintelligible.

The writer of the Wisdom of Solomon, while possessing much in common with his predecessors, is distinguished from them by his clear, explicit teaching concerning immortality. God “ made not death” ; He “ created man for incorruption.” Love of Wisdom and obedience to her laws form the path to immortality. “ The souls of the righteous are in the hands of God, and there shall no torment touch them.” Towards this doctrine earlier saints and worthies were but dimly groping their way, and even the writer of this book discerns the truth “ darkly as in a mirror.” The doctrine of the natural immortality of the soul, which he accepts in Hellenic fashion, does not abolish death and bring life and immortality to light, as does the Christian gospel. One of the chief features of interest in the study of the Wisdom Literature of the OT is to trace out the various ways in which its messengers, like heralds before the dawn, were preparing the way for the revelation of the “ manifold wisdom of God” in the New.