« EdellinenJatka »
celebrated in both, and at his time it is scarcely probable there were other lamentations extant."
Under the title ng, which is the characteristic word for beginning a complaint — in 2 Sam. i. 19, 27 — and also with the title nie, (orgoñvou among the Greeks,) we have five songs relating to the conquest and destruction of the city of Jerusalem, and the temple, (i. ii. iv. V.,) and to the unfortunate lot of the poet himself. (ii.) The historical relation of the whole cannot be doubted; but yet there seems to be a gradual ascent in describing the condition of the city.
See 273. • See Josephus, x. 5, 1; Jerome, Com. in Zech. xii. 11; J. D. Michaelis, in his Uebers.; note on Lowth, Sac. Poet. Heb. xxii. (p. 565, Rosenmüller's ed.,) though he afterwards changed his opinion in N. Or. Bib. vol. i. p. 106; and Dathe, Proph. Maj. ed. 1, (different in ed. 2.) See, on the other side, Eichhorn, $ 652. — Horrer and Jahn (p. 572) think the final chapter refers to the events related in 2 Kings xxiv. 8, sqq. Bertholdt (p. 2314-2322) takes the opposite view; but, even if this is not correct, Eichhorn's explanation is forced. He says, “ The first lamentation bewails chiefly the deathlike stillness about Jerusalem; and the second, the destruction of the city and temple.” Perhaps chap. i. is written in the interval between 2 Kings xxv. 4 and 8. This is the opinion of Riegler, (Uebers, p. 4;) but Bertholdt (p. 2318) dissents from it. Pareau refers chap. i. to Jer. xxxvii. 5, sqq.; chap. iii. to Jer. xxxviii. 2, sqq.; chap. iv. to Jer. xxxix. 1, sqq., and 2 Kings xxv. 1, sqq.; chap. ii. to the destruction of the city and temple. Chap. v. appears to be the latest, and is referred to the time after it. Ewald (p. 145, sq.) says the situation is the same, only the time is different. “In chap. i. and ii. we find sorrow without consolation; in chap. iii., consolation for the poet himself; in chap. iv., the lamentation is renewed with greater violence; but soon the whole people, as if urged by their own spontaneous impulse, fall to weeping and hoping, (17
-21 ;) (?) and in chap. v., nothing remains but the simple prayer of the whole community for deliverance - a prayer, which, though full of anguish, is yet composed and hopeful.”
An old tradition mentions Jeremiah as the author. It is contained in the beginning of the first chapter of the Septuagint version — " And it came to pass after that Israel was taken captive, and Jerusalem was laid waste, that Jeremiah sat weeping, and lamented this lamentation over Jerusalem, and said”......
The contents, spirit, tone, and language, of the book agree with this tradition. The elegiac humor of the sufferer has here expressed itself with a certain completeness.
• Compare Josephus, Ant. x. 5, 1.
Comp. i. 8, sqq., with Jer. iv. 30, xiii. 21, 22, 26; i. 20, and iv. 13, sqq., with Jer. xiv. 7, 18; ii. 14, with Jer. xiv. 13; i. 16, and ii. 11, n. 48, 49, with Jer. viii. 21, sqq., ix. 16, sqq., x. 19, sqq., xiii. 17, xiv. 17; iii. 52, with Jer. xv. 26, 27; iii. with Jer. xv. 10, sqq., 15, sqq., xvii. 5, sqq., 14, sqq., xx. 7, sqq., 14, sqq.
may na nang; i. 15, ii. 13. (Compare Jer. xiv. 17, xlvi. 11.) gang; ii. 22. (Compare Jer. iv. 25, x. 3, 10.) 3311; i. 11. (Compare Jer. xv. 19.) 0970na, for 57792; i. 11. 777?, for 7779; i. 8. *15, for $3; }; iv. 5. 587; iv. 14. Zy; i. 1. son; ii. 14. Chaldaisms: 7221; i. 4. Amen, for 7w7; iv. 1. 702; iii. 12. 2-8.7; ii. 1. aning; i. 14. Peculiarities: brazze, applied to men; i. 13, 16, iii. 11, iv. 5. mi prefixed; ii. 15, iv. 9.
• [Each chapter, or elegy, is divided into twenty-two periods, to correspond to the letters in the Hebrew alphabet. The first four chapters are in the form of acrostics. In the first three chapters, each verse contains three lines, and the initial letters are, with a slight variation, in the order of the letters in the alphabet. In the fourth chapter, each verse consists of four lines. In the third, the alphabet is repeated three times.]
THE KIND OF COMPOSITION TO WHICH THE BOOK
In the Song of Songs, we possess the only relic of the amatory poetry of the Hebrews. This, from its
* J. H. Michaelis Annotatt. uberr. in Hagiogr. vol. ii. See the other numerous authors in Rosenmüller, Schol. p. 283, sqq. Eclogæ Regis Salom. interpr. Jo. Th. Lessing ; 1777. Döderlein, Auctar, ad Hug. Grot. adnotatt. ; 1779, 4to. Materialien z. e. n. Erklär. d. h. Liedes vom Verf. der Beobacht. üb. d. Orient, (Harmar.) Aus d. Engl. 1778, 1779, 2 Thle, 4to.
G. A. Ruperti Symbolæ ad interpret. S. Cod. vol. i. Fasc. 1, 2; Gott. 1792.
Nic. Schyth, Cant. Cantic. recens versum, comment exeget. atq. crit. illustratum; Havn. 1797.
Gaab, Beiträge z. Erklär. d. sogen. h. L. u. d. ( Klagl. 1795.
Salom. Regis et Sap. quæ supersunt ejusque esse perhibentur omnia ex Hebr. Lat. vertit Notasque adj. Jos. Fr. Schelling ; 1806.
Kistemaker, Cant. Canticorum illustratum ex Hierographia Orientalium; 1818.
J. Chr. C. Döpke, Philol. krit. Comm. z. h. L. Sal. 1829.
Ueberss. u. Erkll. von (J. F. Jacobi) d. ...... gerett. h. L. 1771; Hezel, 1777; Herder, 1778; J. F. Kleuker, 1780; J. F. Schlez, 1782; Döderlein, (m. d. Pred.) 1784; Hufnagel, 1784; Velthusen, 1786 ; (comp. his Amethyst, 1786; Cantilena Cantilenarum in Sal. 1786 ;) (Ammon,) Sal. verschm. Liebe, 1790; Beyer, 1792; Briegleb, 1798; Justi, Blumen alt-hebr. Dichtk. 1807; Umbreit, 1820, 2 A. 1828; G. H. A. Ewald, 1826.
[See Robinson's ed. of Calmet, and Michaelis in Lowth, p. 609.
It has been translated into English by Bishop Percy, 1764, 12mo. ; Hodgson, 1785, 4to. ; Thos. Williams, 1801, 8vo. ; J. M. Good, 1803, 8vo.; Fry, 1811, 8vo. The following authors have written commentaries or explanations upon it: Ainsworth, Annotation on Pent., Ps., and Cant. ; 1627, fol. Gill, 1728, fol., (often republished.) Harmer, Outlines of a Com. on Sol. Song, 1768, 8vo. Durell, 1772. An anonymous Scotch author, 1775. (See in Critical Review, vol. xv. for 1795.) Thos. James, D. D., Oxford, 1607. Other writers in Engnature, must fluctuate between lyric and epic poetry, and therefore it often becomes descriptive and pictorial, (or idyllic,) and willingly makes use of the form of dialogue. This kind of poetry must have existed in the form of song; but there are only slight indications thereof — ii. 12, 6 the time of song has come,” and Lam. v. 14, “ The young men have ceased from their music.” The relation of the amatory idyl to the Psalms cannot be determined more accurately. The rhythm is more periodic than that of the Psalms.“
The title (6701 702) signifies the most beautiful song. This is the only explanation which is conformable to the usage of the language, and the rules of grammar. Under this title are included several songs, and fragments of songs, which treat of love. For the most part, the subject is rural and pastoral love, which is treated of with the glowing passion of the East, and without the degen
lish, on this book, are, Durham, Bishops Hall and Patrick, Messrs. Dove, Trapp, Jackson, Collings. Dr. Owen “has given one of the best spiritual explications of the most interesting passages," in his “Communion with Father, Son, &c." See also Crorall, Fair Circassian; Lond. 1720. Davidson, Brief Outline, &c.; 1817, 8vo. See the translation and explanation of Mr. Taylor, in Calmet's Dictionary, and the remarks of Dr. Robinson, its American editor, article Canticles.]
• See a comparison of the Canticles and Theocritus's Idyls, by Staudin, in Paulus, Mem. vol. ii. p. 161, and an explanation of these songs, p. 171, sqq.
6 See other significations in Gesenius, Lexicon, and Bertholdt, p. 2580. Ewald (Hohesleid, p. 25, and Poet. Büch. A. T. vol. i. p. 184) connects na3a3 na more intimately with the inscription, and translates it, Das schönste Lied, welches von Salomo ist ; i. e. which Solomon composed.
erate bashfulness of modern times, but still in conformity with the moral spirit of the Hebrews.“
“But one is my Dove, my chaste one." (vi. 9.)
Like a seal to thine arm;
east and laki
It has been explained as an allegory by the writer of the Targum, Jarchi, Aben Ezra, Origen, Epiphanius, Theodoret, and many others, among the ancients. The latest attempts of this kind are by Rosenmüller, Hug, and Kaiser. But this method of explaining it derives no probable support from the exegesis of the book; and, besides, it is by no means necessary for the honor of the Bible.
* This is Herder's opinion, which has been followed by most of the moderns, who only differ in their modifications of this view. Carpzov, p. 348.
6 See the different exegetical hypotheses in Kleuker, l. c. 41, and a criticism of this kind of explanation in Döpke, p. 41, Umbreit, p. 6, and Hassler, Tub. Zeitschrift, vol. iii. p. 172.
· Rosenmüller, in Keil, and Tzschirner, Anal. vol. i. p. 138, sqq., though differently in his Prolegg. p. 271, sqq. Hug, Das Hoheslied, &c.; 1813, 4to. Schutzschrift, &c.; 1815, 4to. Kaiser, Das Hoheslied, ein Collectiv-Gesang, &c.; 1825.
A similar mystical explanation has been made of some of the amatory v i romen poetry of the Orientals. See Herbelot, Bibl. Orient., art. Jussuf, and William L. 1 & 0 - 100. Jones, On the Mystical Poetry of the Persians and Hindoos, in Asiatic Researches, vol. iii. p. 165, sqq. (in his Works, vol. iv. p. 227, sqq. 8vo.]
• Herder, I. c. p. 120, sqq. Ewald, Hoheslied, p. 355.
Some of the Jews had their doubts upon this book. R. Nathan says, « Formerly they determined that the Proverbs, Canticles, and Ecclesiastes, were apocryphal books, written after the manner of parables, and therefore were not to be reckoned with the Hagiographa. For this reason, they concealed them until the time of the men of the Great Synagogue, who at last explained them.” Capitula, c. i. Jerome, in his Preface to Ezekiel, says