Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.comKeil and Delitzsch Commentary - Song of Solomon 1:1 - 1:1
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
The title of the book at once denotes that it is a connected whole, and is the work of one author. - Son 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 שִׁיר שִׁירֵי שְׁ, chosen for the purpose of avoiding the redoubled genitives; but “one of the songs” must rather have been expressed by שִׁיר מִשִּׁירֵי. It has already been rightly explained in the Midrash:
(Note: Vid., Fürst's Der 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 ἀῤῥήτων of Sophocles), and signifies that song which, as such, surpasses the songs one and all of them; as “servant of servants,” Gen 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's Abhand. 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, Gen 9:25; Exo 29:37, or of the inner member of a genitival connection of words, Jer 3:19; but it is also wanting in other places, as Eze 16:7 and Ecc 1:2; Ecc 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 שִׁיר מֵהַשִּׁ, but to the whole idea of “the Song of Songs.” A relative clause of similar formation and reference occurs at 1Ki 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. Lamed may indeed introduce the reference of a writing, as at Jer 23:9; but if the writing is more closely designated as a “Song,” “Psalm,” and the like, then Lamed with the name of a person foll. is always the Lamed auctoris; in this case the idea of reference to, as e.g., at Isa 1:1, cf. 1Ki 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 uses asher, but in the Lamentations interchanges שׁ with asher. This original demonstrative שׁ is old-Canaanitish, as the Phoenician אש, arrested half-way toward the form asher, shows.
(Note: From this it is supposed that asher is a pronom. root-cluster equivalent to אֲשֶׁל. 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 (wo instead of welcher) 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 Gen 6:3. If בּשׁגַם is 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 (Psa 122:3, etc.) and in prose (1Ch 5:20; 1Ch 27:27); in Ecclesiastes it is already a component part of the rabbinism in full growth. In a pre-exilian book-title שׁ in 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.