St

Hero we must lirst consider the question whether the term is used in previous or contem- porary Jewish literature, and, if so, in what sense. In Dn 7", as has been already remarked, the 'one like unto a son of man ' denoted ori^'inally, in all probability, the glorified people of Israel ; but the expression was undoubtedly interpreted at an early date of the Messiah. The most remarkable evi- dence of this is all'iirded by that part of the (composite) Hook of Enoch (ch.

37-7ti), which is commonly known as the 'Similitudes,' and which is attributed sc'^'rally to the 1st cent. B.C. (see vol. i. pp. 707''-708'). Enoch is here represented as carried in his vision into heaven, where he sees the 'Head of Days' (a title of the Almighty sii;:gcsted by Dn 7'') surrounded by an innumer- able company of angels (40'), and beside Him the Messiah, sitting on 'the throne of his glory' (62" '• ' 69-'''-*), and executing judgment upon wicked men and anj^ids.

The ^iessiall is often spoken of as tlie ' Elect One' (Is 42') ; but in ch. 4ti he is introduced in terms which more particu- larly concern us here — 461 'And there I saw One who had a head of days (i.e. an aped head), and his head was white like wool (Dn 7"), and with him was another one whose face was as the appearance of a man, and his face was full of prxiciousness, like une of the holy afii,'els.

'< And t asked the angel who went with me, and sliowed me all the hidden tilings, concerning that sttn of vuin, who he was, and whence he was, and why he went with the Head of Days. And he answered and said unto me, ^ This is the son of man who hath righteousness, with whom dwelleth righteous- ness, and who reveals all the treasures of that which is hidden, because the Lord of Spirits hath chosen him, and his lot before the Lord of Spirits hath surp;uised everything in uprightness for ever. A!

id this ton of man whom thou hast seen will arouse >je kings and the mighty ones from their couches, and the »>ong ones from their thrones, and execut« judgment opon ?<iem.' The judgment is described most fully in ch. 62 — 62^ ' And the Lord of Spirits seated him (the Elect One) on the throne of his glory, and the spirit of righteousness was IM)ured out upon him, and the word of his mouth slew all the siimcrs [Is ll^J, and all the unrighteous were destroyed before his fa<-c. .

^And their countenance will fall, and pain will seize them, when tliey see that ion of man sitting on the throne of his glory. . "And all the kings and the mighty and the exalted and those who rule the earth will fall down on their faces before him, and worship, and set th<, ir hope upon that ton of man, and will petition him and supplicate for mercy at his hands.' But it will be too late: the 'angels of punisliment' t\ill take them incharge, and carry them away to their appointed doom.

But the righteous will he saved on that day; l*'and the Lord of Spirits will abi'le over them, and with that Kon of man will they cat and lie down and rise u]> for ever and ever.' Cf. C'.l37 ' And he sat on the throne of his glory, and the smn of Judgment was committed \nito him, the son of man, and he caiiNcd the sinners and those who have led the worUi astray to pass away and be destroyed from off the face of the earth.

* The ' son of man ' of the ' Similitudes ' is thus an angtist, suj)erhuman being, who is seated on his throne beside the Almighty, and exercises in jmr- ticularthc fiinctionsof yui/i/c. Thisrepresentation, it is to be observed, though based, no doubt, uiiun that of Dn 7, is not identical with it : in Daniel it is God who is the judge ; the 'one like unto a son of man ' appears upon the scene only after the judgment is completed, and ho comes, not to exercise judgment, but to receive a kingdom.

It has been much disputed whether ' the sod of man ' is a t-tle in the Similitudes or not. The expressions used are, ' that (zeku or ve'etu) son of man (45- 48'- ti25 (see Charles, or Beer, in Kautzsch's Apoknrphen, ad luc], vv.». 14 6,^11 60ai- 29. 29 701 7117), • this son of man' (40«), and ' thesonof man'(4<;3|6ceI)illm.-K(A. Gram. § 194)027 00^).

On the one side, it is argued, Enoch sees in his vision a human form (400, which is afterwards (46'- etc) referred to as 'that (or this) son of man,' — ' son of man,' rather than simply ' man,' being (presunjably) employed, partly on account of l>n 7'^ (which the context shows to be in the writer's mind), partly as being a rather more distinct and individual term.

' The son of man of 4&f fi27 69'-" might similarly be nothing more than an expression referring back to 401 ; and the same, it is urged, might be said even of 0 uiot T«i> ct^dpa/rov, if, as is possible (.see esp. Charles, E^chatolo'jii, p. 214 f.), this were the Greek which lay before the Ethinj.ic translator."

On the other hand, the somewhat marked prominence of the terra is an indication that some significance attachfs to it : else why does the writer not say ' the Elect one ' (as 48^ 4 513- » 628- » of.) Or ' the Anointed one ' (as 4S"' oa-")? On the whole, it may probably be fairly said, as is claimed by Baldensperger ([§ 24], p. 246), and admitted by Dr. Drummond (p.

544), that the ex- pression, even if not a title in Enoch, is next door to becoming one, and that the step of making it a title is one which at any time afterwards might be readily taken. If, however, the view of ' the son of man' adopted in this art. (§§ 17, 21) be the correct one, it will be seen to be a matter of in- dillerence whether the expression was a ' title ' in Enoch or not.

The reader ought, however, to be aware that it can hardly be said to lie certain that the ' Similitudes' are of pre-Christian origin ; though this is the view taken i)y the great majority of critics, who urge in particular tliat, hail they been written (or interpolated) under Christian iiilluence, the allusions to the historical Christ would have been more definite. See Schiirer^, iL 626(3iii. 201 f.) 12. Another passage, which, though of post- Christian date (probably A.D.

81-96), seems to show no traces of Christian influence (see vol. ii. p. 766"), and deserves to be quoted in the same connexion, is 2 (4) Es IS-'""-. Here Ezra is repre- sented as seeing in a dream the sea disturbed by a wind, and a 'man,' who is declared afterwards (v.^") to be God's appointed judge and deliverer (i.e.

, though tlie word itself is not used, the Messiah), ascending out of it — ' And 1 beheld, and, lo, this wind caused to come up from the midst of the sea as it were the likeness of a man, and I beheld, and, lo. that man Hew with the clouds of heaven [cf. l>n 71-*] : and when he turned his countenance to look, all things trembled that were seen under him.' In the se()uel, the same ' man that came up out of the sea,' ns he is termed (v. 5, cf. vv.28.

Bl), destroys by a ' flaming Ijreatii,' jiroceeding out of his mouth, the multitudes which assemble against him, and calls bock to the land of Israel the ten tribes (vv.lOf. la. 39-4U). Here then at least the Messiah is described, with evident reference to Dn 7'^ as a ' man.' Dr. Charles has called attention also to 4 Es 61 In the Syr., Eth.,and .\rab.t versions (the world to be judged finally— first by (Arab, on account of) a 'man' [Syr. KCjnD T3],— or, to judge from the Eth. vers.

, by a ' son of man,'— and afterwards by Ood : see ililgenf. Mrss. Jud. pn. 22;t. 27o, 334); but the stateilient is inconsistent with Vfi, and is open to the suspicion of being a Christian interpolation (cf. llilgenf. p. 04 n.) 13. In spite, however, of the usage of the ' Sim- ilitudes,' and of 2 Es IS'"-, it seems clear that ' the Son of man ' was no generally accepted title of the Messiah in the days of Christ. Dalm.

(Die IVurle Jesu, 197-204) shows that nothing exists in Jewish authorities in favour of such a supposition. The same conclusion is supported by the testimony of the Gospels. ' It is inconceivable that the Eord should have a<iopted a title which was pojiularly held to be synonymous with that of Alessiah, while He carefully avoided the title of Messiah itself (Westcott). The reply that Ho used it enigmatically is not to the point ; for though He • The Eth.

zeku and ur't'tn not infrequently, in translatlonf from the Oreek, represent the tlreek art. (Charles, I.e. ; Dillra. yJilh. Li-x. col. 1067, 919). They are not, however, used In the Eth. NT in the tr. of i wJt toD itOfirai. (Dr. Charles, in his tr. of 60'Ji'. 29. '.» 701, has not ri|>rcsented the Eth. 'that'). t The Arab ?ersion published bv Ewald (Dot vifrtt EzrcUfUch 1863) : that published by Uildcmeister (1877) Is different.

584 SON OF MAN SOK OF MAN might have sitrnified by it Bomethiiis difrerent I'lom the popular conception of tlie Messiah, it would still {ex hi/p.) havr liecn the Messiah, wliicli those who heard Him would have uiulerstood llini to mean.

Upon the same supposition, moreover, His use of it could not but have excited the hos- tility of the Jews, of which, however (in this con- nexion), the Gospels atlord no trace: the 'blas- phemy' of Mt 2U''' = Mk 16"* consisted evidently not in His use of this title, but in the Divine prerogatives predicated of Himself as the bearer of it.

The most that might be supposed is, that though not generally current as a title of the Messiah, it was familiar in that sense in the particular circle to which the ' Similitudes ' be- longed (above, vol. ii. 622'', cf. 616"). 14. In considering the meaning of the title, it ought to be clearly understood that it is not any- where explained in the NT, so that whatever view of it be adopted must be a matter of conjecture and inference.

To the same cause is due what is generally allowed to be the great difficulty of the question, and also the wide divergence of the con- clusions which have been reached regarding it. The question is further complicated l^y the fact that there are two possible starting-points for the investigation; is the name a mere title, taken, as it were mechanically, from Dn 7", and so a mere periphrasis for ' Messiah ' ?

or does the significance of the title lie in the four words of which it con- sists, and is the meaning which our Lord intended to convey by it to be ascertained by an analysis of these words ? Or may the interpretations suggested by these two opposite points of view be in any way combined ? Or, on the other hand, whichever of these interpretations be adopted, does it logically render the other unnecessarj' and superfluous [cf. §20.12]?

Still further difficulties arise when the details of its usage in the Gospels are considered, as, for instance, the very ditierent predicates associated with it ; and further divergent con- clusions are arrived at, corresponding to the view taken by the individual critic of the chronology of our Lord's discourses, and other questions of Gospel criticism. , 15. Two main views may be said to have been advocated.

According to one view, the title has no meaning of its own,* it is intended simply to point to the ' one like unto a .son of man ' in Dn 7'^t and so to express, directly and distinctly, tlie Messiahship of Jesus. According to the other view, the title, though it may have been chosen with an eye to Dn 7", expressed primarily the thought that Jesus was, in .

some special sense, a man above other men, the supreme representative of humanity, and only indirectly, especially towards the close of His ministry, sugge.steu in addition the thought of His Messiahship. Higli authorities can be quoted for both these views. Thus lloltzmann writes [NTTheol. 1897, p. 247), 'The title certainly originates in Dn 7".

Jesus adopts Daniels view of the future kingdom : close beside this is in Daniel the figure of tlie "one like unto a son of man" who receives the kingdom from God, and in whom therefore it was natural for Jesus to see Himself pre- figured : even though in Daniel the figure synihol- ized only the kingdom (and not its head), still here was the person who would establish it : Jesus, by His adoption of the title, implied that it would not be established apart from Himself.'

He did not, however, this being the sense of the title, use it before Peter's confession (pp. 250 top, 260, 263 • Schintedel, p. 204 : ' The name is (riven (viz. by Dn T'SJ ; what it eignillus is matter not tor an analytical Judgment, hut for a synthetical one,' ».e. it is to be ascertained from 'prfdicates defining the work or otflce of the Messiah.' C(. Uollziu. p. IM bottom, 264 n. ; Wellh. p. 214. t C(. H. A. W. Ueyer on Mt 8» (klterwl In the 8tb ed. by B. Weiss). ' [cf. below, § 10]).

' Jesus," Holtzniann continues, ' throws into the title whatever is characteristic of His mission and ministry. He makes it the exclu- sive designation of the person who is to represent and realize the ideas e.xpresseil by it. lust because He is conscious that this mission brings with it earthly privation and suffering, and even death, the "Son of man" become' the subject of pre- dications relating not only m future glory, but also to earthly humiliation and death.

Thus Jesus is, and is called, the " Son of man," on the one hand wherever by forgiving and healing, by teaching and suffering. He proclaims, represents, or extends the kingdom ; on the other hand, and especially, when, coming in glory, He completes it. As the kingdom is a present as well as a future reality, so the title "Son of man" bears reference to His work in the present not less than in the future ' (pp. 250-3, abridged). Upon this view the first art. (e) points to Dn 7^3 (Holtzm. p.

2G4 n. ; Schraiedel, p. 2(J4), the second {toZ) results simply by a kind of attraction, from the presence of the first (Schniiedel, l.c. ; Winer, Gramm. 5 19, 26-4). 16. In what is here said of the use of the title, there is much that is, of course, perfectly just; but to tlie view taken of its origin there seem to be objections. In the vision of Daniel the ' one like unto a son of man ' is represented as a glorified, heavenly being, and the kingdom is a triumphant kingdom.

No account is taken of the long period during which, as a matter of history, the kingdom was gradually and slowly to extend itself among men ; it has been finally and univers- ally established in the earth (7''').

Now, if the passages in which our Lord first used the expres- sion had been those in which He describes His future advent in glory, there would have been a direct point of contact with the vision in Daniel, sufficient to account for the title being adopted from it ; but, as it is, it is impossible, without most arbitrary treatment of the Gospel narratives, to suppose that to have been the case ; and thus, with tlie passages in which He is actually repre- sented as first using it, and which all deal with various aspects of His life in humility upon earth, there is no point of contact in Daniel at all.

As Westcott {Sjica/cer's Comm. on St. John, p. 34) says, ' It is out of the question to suppose that the definite article simply expressed " the prophetic son of man." The manner in which the title ia first used excludes such an interpretation.' There is nothing, viz.

, in the manner in which the title is first used — or indeed chiefly used — in the Synoptic Gospels, to suggest a reference to Daniel, or to lead to the supposition that our Lord intended by His use of it to bring before His hearers the tran- scendent, heavenly being represented in Daniel. A being, conscious, indeed, of his authority and of the high mi.ssion entrusted to him, but presenting all the outward marks of earthly humility, and only in the future destined to as.

sume heavenlj' majesty, is surely what the title denotes in the Gospels. Iloltziiianns identification of the king- dom pictured in Daniel, not with the kingdom of Christ in its final glory, but with the kingdom at the time of His rounding it during His earthly ministry, is not natural. There is equally little, not to say less, to suggest that the title is borrowed from the 'Similitudes' of Enoch. It is also diffi- cult not to think (in spite of Holtzm. p. 253 f.)

that it is intended to express primarily, and also more fully and distinctively than even Holsten (§20. 11) allows, some meaning directly involved in the words of which it consists (analogous, for instance, to that of its correlative, the ' Son of God '). 17. The other main view may be stated sut)- stantially, as is done by B. Weiss {NT Theol. 1884, SON OF IMAN SON OF MAN 585 § 16). (1) Our Lord adopted this title just because it wns not a current title of the Messiah.

In view of the expectations of a personal Messiah wliiih prevailed at the time, Dn 7'* could certainly in His daj- be interpreted only of the Mes.siah ; but, even so, He could not a.ssunie that this particular passa<;e would be so ■.'enerally known that the exjiression, 'the Son of man,' would be at once unilerstood as referring: to it.

The case would be ditl'erent if we could presuppose the use made of Daniel in Enoch ; but, even if the jjre-Christian origin of the 'Similitudes' be granted, it is far from clear that they were familiarly known in the circles in which our Lord's ministry principally lay. Only when Jesus in the e.schatological pas- sages directed attention to Dn 7" could the title be understood gener.ally as a Messianic designa- tion.

This view of His use of the title agrees with the manner in which, during all the earlier part of His ministry, He avoided any direct announce- ment of His ilessiahship, in order not to lend encouragement to the unspiritual ideas attaching to the popular conception of the Messiah. (2) For His hearers the idea expres.

sed by the title wouKi be that He was not a ' son of man ' like all others, but that He was 'the son of man,' one who, in virtue of His character and personality, held a unii|ue position among men. It did not designate merely Ills humanity (for this must have been evident to all who saw Him), but it marked Him out as in some sense a sj)ecinl or representative man.

(3) Christ's statements resi)ecting the 'Son of man,' the functions, oHice, and divinely ajipointed destinies tussigned to him, jioint to one wlio has a mission higher than that of an ordinary |>rophet, i.e. indirectly to one who is also the Messiah. They speak of Him, for instance, as in various ways proclaiming or establishing the kingdom of God. He has authority to forgive sins ; and He gives His life a ransom for many. He is con- trasted with John the Baptist, who is merely a forerunner.

The sufterings of tlie Son of man are divinely appointed (Sei, — Mk 8" |; II, al.), because it is imnlied in the OT that God's plan of salvation would not be linally realized upon earth without the sull'cring and death of the servant of God by whom it would he accomplished.

(4) Lastly, in the prophecies of the Second Advent, our Lord alluded so clearly to Dn 7" that though He does not expressly identify Himself with the ' one like unto a son of man ' there spoken of, those who heard Him, and who identified the figure in Daniel with the Messiah, could not but conclude that He meant by the term that particular 'son of man' who was to be the Messiah.* Upon Ihia view the second art. {raZ) is pcncric or collective (Winer, 8 27.

1 ; Gn G6 ' v:i' V\ 2 S 7'», Ml< 2-1, Jn 2!»), Uie flist ftrt, (o) sjiecilies the individual of the gniHg meant (Weiss, § 10/*). 18. This opinion, that the title, viz., even though it may have been siiqrjested by Dn 7", was never- theless intended, ami even intended primarily, to express in some manner the relation of .lesus to humanity, has been largely held (see § 20 ; and the lefeiences in Hollzm. pp. 2'A, '255).

It has, however, been objected to it that if the title denoted the 'ideal' or 'representative' man, the predicjitcs alliniied of it could be only tlio.se which were involved in the idea itself, — i.e., to speak technically, were the predicates of analytical, not of Hj-ntlietical judgments, which obviously is not the ca.se with the predicates allirmed of the ' Son of man ' in the Gospels.

This would, no doubt, he true if the title were understood to be a designa- tion of the ' ideal ' man, but not if (abandoning this abstract expression) it be understood to dcsig- • The views of Bruce. Kingdom o/ (Iml 2 (1890). 172-78, and of Steiens, XT Tlttul. (Is'.IO), 61-53, while siuiiiwlmt diSercntl)' put, do not differ materially from that of Weiss. nate a pnrtinihtr, inifivirlual man, embodying in their highest perfection the attributes of hum.anity.

And this is the sense in which Weiss and West- cott (§ '20), for instance, understand the title. There will then be no diilicultj' in understanding the predicates allirmed of the ' Son of man ' as synthetical judgments : they will result, in other word.s, not from an analysis of the idea of ' man,' but from the experience, |)i'esent or future, of the particular individual actually denoted by the term. As Holtzmann, though himself preferring the other view, writes (p. 2."

>-l), 'The ])ossibility is by no means excluded that the conception of the Messiah was rooted in the idea of man, and that Jesus, in choosing this designation, instead of others that were open to Him, intended theiebj- to express His relationship to humanity.' The fact just mentioned has been made the ground of a further objection to the same opinion.

As has just been shown, if we start from the idea of ' man,' none of the predicates apjilied in the Gospels to the ' Son of man ' can be obtained from an analysis of that idea. Hut if we start from the e(|u,'ition (given by Dn 7") ' Son of man' = ' Messiah,' then all these predicates become analytical judg- ments ; they are, it is s.

iid, derivable, at least largely, from the idea of ' Messiah ' itself ; they are expressions, not of Jesus' conception of ' man,' but of His conception of His Messiahship.* And hence it is concluded that the term was used by Him as properly and primarily signifying ' Messiah.' It may be doubted if this conclusion necessarily follows from the premises.

If the term denoted Jesus primarily as a Man above other men, a Man with a unique position and mission, tins jiosition and mission would, from another ])oiiit of view, be also those of the ' Messiah ' ; and the juedicates describing dill'erent aspects of His work and ministry would accordinglj' be those belonging to Him as 'Messiah.'

Tlie offices and functions ascribed to the ' Son of man ' in the Gospels are deduced by Weiss, starting from the idea of ' man,' not less naturallj' than by Holtzmann, starting from the idea of ' Messiah. I'J. Two questions, intimately connected, remain to be considered, which also, as will appear, have a bearing njion the question of the origin of the title. At what period in His ministry did our Lord first use the title ? And in what sense was it understood by those who heard it?

Or, to put the possible alternatives unambiguously, did it veil or reveal His Messiahship'; It is clear that our Lord only declared His ^lessiahshi[) gradually.

The question put by Him to the discijiles at (^a'sarea Philiiq>i, and I'eter's reply (Mt l(i'»-"' = Mk 8-', » = Lk l'J'"'-°), jiarticularly when taken in connexion with our Lord's comment in Mt IG", make it evident that up to that time He had not openly declarcil Himself as the Messiah ; and the prohibi- tions in Mt l(i-" = Mk 8»" = Lk 9-', and Mt 17" = Mk 9", cf. Lk 9*', show that He still did not wish the fact to be known to the pco[ile generally. In the .

Synoptic Gosjiels there are, however (.see the Table, § 3), 9 passages in Matthew, 2 in Mark, and 4 in Luke, in which the title 'Son of man' is ascribed to our Lord before the occasion at t^icsarea I'hilippi. If, then, the title was a current Mess. title, or even if His hearers, when He used it, were likely at once to perceive a reference to Dn 7", it is clear that He must, by His use of it, have revealed His Messiahslii]), from virtually the begin- ning of His ministry, both to His di.

sciples and to the people at large. This, however, as we have just seen, was inconsistent with His avowed l)urpose. Hence those who believe that it was a current Mess, title are obliged to get rid of those passages in the Gospels which represent our Lord * Unlnten ({ 10. Ill, |>p. 30-39 ; cf. LieUniaim, 14, 15, 24. 686 SOX OF MAX SOX OF MAN as using it before Peter's confession at Csesarea I'hilippi.

Matthew (in whom most of the pas- sages occur) is the evangelist who, generally, displays the least regard for historical sequence, and sometimes groups incidents and sayings to- gether merely on account of material resemblances ; he even represents the disciples as owning Jesus to be the 'Son of God' (14^: no 1! in Mk 6^"- Jn 6-^ bt'fore the confession at Ca'sarea Philippi.

Hence there is no ditrunilty in supposing that 5lt 10^ 13^' [\n which, whatever view be taken of the meaning of the title, tlie predicates api)licd to it, describ- ing the Second Advent, show that the Messiah is referred to) are placed too early in our Lord's ministry; and the same supposition might be reasonably made {upon the assumption that ' the Son of man ' was a Mess, title) in the case of some other passages, as Mt 8-^ 12"^ ;t but it is difficult to think that Mk 2'« = Mt 9« = Lk 5-, Mk 2-^ = Mt 128 = Lk Qi^ [jMi^ 3-s'=] Mt 12^2= Lk 12'^ can be so misplaced.

Nevertheless, those who believe the Son of man ' to be an exjdicit Mess, title are obliged to assume this {cf. § 20. 12), or else to hold either that Jesus never used the title at all, or (so Holtzm. p. 263, cf. 256 f.) that, on at least the three last-named occasions. He spoke of man' in general (see, further on these passages, § 22).

^ The second of these alternatives we have already found ourselves unable to accept ; but does either the first or the third suffice to remove the diffi- culty? Is it really credible that our Lord Jirst used the expression of Himself, after Peters con- fession at Ciesarea Philippi?

Is not the familiar manner in which He used the title, if not in the question put to Peter (Mt 16'^ but not Mk 8-^ Lk 9^«), yet directly after it (Mk S^S Lk 9"), with- out exciting any comment or surprise, sufficient evidence that it must have been often used by Him previously, and that it was an expression which, whatever special ideas it may have been intended to convey, was well understood to denote Himself?

These considerations, as it seems to the present writer, constitute a strong argument against the supposition that it Avas a current Mess, title, or even (without supposing as much as this) that it was adopted by our Lord as a Mess, title, for the purpose of proclaiming His Messiahship.

The title, we thus seem forced to conclude, was used by our Lord in His Galiloean ministry ; but it did not suggest to those who heard it Mess, associations, until it came to be connected with liredictions of the Second Advent ; it thus did not reveal, but veil, His Messiahship. Christ's use of the term was pctdafjogic. It veiled His Messiah- ship during the earlier part of His ministry, till the time was ripe for Him to avow it openly.

§ I»y His adopti»m of it, He found a means, on the one hand, of not denying even in public His con- sciousness of His unique mission, and, on the other hand, of lending no countenance to the crude and illusory' hopes which attached to popular ideas of tlie Messiah (Weiss, Lchen JcsUy i. 429). 20.

The following summary (which makes no pretension to be exhaustive) may be useful to the reader, partly as illustrating, especially when taken in connexion with the views that have been already stated, the gruat diversity of opinion which has prevailed— and in part prevails still — with regard to the meaning ot the title, partly as exemplifying the lines along which attempts have • Som-j other passaj^es in Matthew, involving the avowal of Jesus' Mtssiahship, though not with the use of this title, are also probahlv ant«-<lated ; cf.

Uoltzmann, p. 259. t In Lk 6-'^tcontrast5It6ii],7W=Mt ll'^, Holtzmann (p. 251) doubta whether the title (which he regards as Mess.) is original. t Fiebig, however (5 24], thinks that in these cases it was t)niplymisunderstood(a3='nian,' 'a man') by those who heard it. { Keini. Similariy Baur, Hase, Lange, Ritschl, Uarnack, and others, as cited by Uoltzmann, p. 261 n, 1, 262 n. 6. been principally made to solve the problems which it presents. 1. Neander {Lfben Jem, 1S37. 129ff.; Eng. tr.< p.

99). The title denotes Jesus on His huu)an side, as One belonging to huinaiiii.\', uho in His humanity has done so much Ifor it, through whom it is glorified, and who has realized most com- pletelv the ideal (' Urbild ') of humanity. 2. liaur iZ. Wins. Theol. 1800, 274-292 ; AT Theol ISM, 77-S;i)- Not at the time a current titl« of the Messiah, but chosen by Jesus in opposition to prevalent Jewish conceptions of a victorious, earthly Messiah.

It emphasized His humanity, His subjection to the needs and experiences of ordinary men ; and denoted Him also as one who made all the deepest human interests His own, and bad the wide human sympathies ex- pressed, for instance, in tlie Beatitudes. It was suggested by Dn 7I8 ; and Jesus adopted it as a title, which, while possessing no popular Mess, associations, was adapted to express the Mess. idea in its higher significance. 3. Hilgenfeld (if. WUs, Th. 1S63. 327-334; cf. 1894, 16f.

X Not a current Mess, title. Suggested by Dn 7'3, but used by Jf'suswith the object of givingpromuience to His humanity, and vf emphasizing the humility and external lowliness which in His person were combined with the exalted dignity of the .Messiah. It thus in a veiled manner pointed to His Messiahship. Jesus, by uniting spiritual loftiness with earthly lowliness, * trans- figured' the popular Jewish idea of the Messiah. 4. Weizsacker (Evann. Gesch. 1864, 420-431).

Not a current Mess, title (for, if it had been, Jesus would have been attacked for appropriating it) ; and adopted by Jesua, not from Dn 7is, but from Ezekiel, to designate Himself specially as a prophet. The Mess, sense, derived from Dn 7^'\ was attached to it only at a later period of our Lord's life. 5. Holtzmann (in 18G5 ; if. Wiss. Tfu 212-237).

Not a current title of the Messiah (for else Jesus would have been attacked for using it), but borrowed by Him as a Mess, title from Dn 7^3, ' the expression used by Dn. reflecting itself in His conscious- ness in a universal and human sense.' It thus denoted Him not merely as the Messiah, but as ' the bearer of all human dignity and rights,' as ' one who held a peculiar and central position among the we rv eoOp^raiy.'

Not being a cuJrent Mess, title, it was a riddle to those who heard it, and served to veil, not to reveal, His Messiahship. 6. Keim (Der Gesch. Cli rictus, IS60, p. 105 f.; Jesti^ of yaz, tr. iiL 79-92). The title had a double aspect : on the basis first of Ps S'*'-, though aften\'ards also of Dn 7^^^ n expressed Jesus^ sense on the one hand of His human lowliness, on the other hand of His Messianic dignity : in particular.

He inten'ied by His use of it to show that even in His capacity as Messiah He was part and parcel of humanity, and to teach His disciples that it was pre-eminently His vocation to 6er\'e and suffer for humanity. 7. Wittichen (1S6S). In Dn 7^3 the ' son of man ' represent* the ethical character of the future Isr. dominion, as opposed to the worldly heathen dominions; this idea is, however, first embodied in an individual in Enoch, from which book Jesus adopted the title.

He designated Himself by it as the perfect representative of the idea of man, especially on its ethical side, and at the same time as the Messiah, the chosen organ for the fuller realization of this idea in the world. The idea as pre- sented in Enoch is spiritualized and morally deepened by Jesus, and also combined by Him with associations derived from the OT * servant of Jehovah.' 8. Westcott (l.c. 1S80).

The title is a new one, not derived from Dn 7'3 ; and it expresses Christ's relation not to a family, or to a nation, but to all humanity. There is nothing in the Gospels to show that itwas understood as a title of the Messiah. The idea of the true humanity of Christ lies at the foundation of it He was the representative of the whole race, in whom the complete conception of manhood was absolutely attained, and who exhibited all the truest and noblest attributes of the race. Cf.

Stanton, The Jeu-ij<h aiid the Christiari Messiah, 1SS6, p. 246 ; 'It is clear that Christ by His phrase represented Himself u the head, the tvpe, the ideal of the race.' 9. Wendt, IhiiQiThe Teachin{j of Jes\i8, ii. 139-151). Not « current Mess, title. Dn 7^3 suggested the combination of creaturely frailty and lowliness with high dignity ; and so Jesus, when He used the title, taught that He was a frail humatj creature, and yet showed that He remembered the proph.

word that the Mess, dignity was to belong to one like unto a son of man.' It was no announcement of His Mess, claims, but rather propounded a problem for His hearers to reflect upon. lU. J. E. Carpenter (7Ae First Three Gospels, their Orujin atid delations, 1890, pp. llS-120, 244-257, 372-38S).

Jesus never used the expression to designate Himself : He employed it only in the eschatological pass:iges, and in these it was used by Him s^Tiibolically to denote the estabUshment of God's kingdom of righteousness upon earth. The primitive Church anderstood the expression m a personal sense, and then ascribed it, as ft Mess, title, to Jesus Himself. 11. Holsten (Z. /. Wiss. Theol. 1891, pp. 1-79).

The title, though not a current Mess, one, was understood by Jesus in that sense, as appears from the fact that He always uses it to express some aspect of the work or activity of the Messiah (cf.

Holtzmann : g 15), It was adopted from Dn Ti^, though this passage gave only the outer form, the contents being supplied by the experience and knowledge of the historical Jesus (afl teacher, sufferer, redeemer, etc): only thus did lie convert ' the visionarj form of a Messiah, which He found in Daniel, into His own living Mess, personality ' (p. 68, of.

60X He wouid SON OF MAN SON OF MAN 587 not, however, have appropriated the title, had He not desired to dcsijjnate Himself as a member of the gentu 'man,' and also reoOK'nized Himself as the uieinber of the genus referred to in Dd -13 (p. 47). The dilHculty (cf.

6 18) of understanding how Je»U9 could have denoted Himself, under the conditions of Hia earthly life, by a term suifgestinjf only the transcendent Beinp; of Paniel, is met by the supposition (which, however, lacks support in the text of I)n. it^elO that the ' one like unto a son of man ' in 0n 7*3 is really to be conceived as having been broujjht before God, and invested by Him with power and prealness, out of a previous state of earthly humility and weak- ness (pp. 61, 67 f.)

The title was used by Jesus in His Cialilaian ministry (Mk 2"> etc.) ; for though He Himself understood it in & Mess, sense, this was not iieceagarily placed upon it even by scripture-students, esp. if His owTi a]>pearance and manner of life did not suggest it : it would be taken naturally by those who heard it, including, up to the time of Peter's confession, even the disciples, to signify simply ' the man.'

And this would OCTee with His own purpose of keeping for a while His Messiahship a secret (pp. 20, 2'1, ,S1 f., 70f._). 12. Baldensperger iha« SHbAtbf.umsslgein Je^it im lAchte der iloi. Hofnunijen geiner Zeit-, l!j92) emphasizes strongly the prevalence of apocalyptic conceptions in the time of Christ. He rejects emphatically the opinion that the title concealed Jesus' Messiahship, and also the view that it was intended to express any aspect of His humanity.

It was (through the influence of Daniel and Enoch) a known Mess, title in the time of (Christ; and Jesus adopted it with the express object of proclaiming His .>fessiahship. It was a triumphant designation of the Messiah ; and .lesus connected it with declarations respecting His humiliation and sufiferings for the express purpose of show- ing (in opposition to current Jewish iJeaw) that these were integral elements in His conception of the Messiah.

As, how- ever, it was an open proclamation of His Messiahship, He cannot have used it before Peter's confession at Cajsarea Philippi : the passages in the Gospels which imply that He did this must be chronologically misplaced. Baldensperger closes with a severe criticism of Holsten for admitting in again * by a back-door' (see above, No.

11) any reference in the title to the humanity of Jesus, which he had himself shown to be out of the question, as well as unnecessary, in view of the direct derivation of the title from Dn 718 (pp. 182-189) ; and of Wendt for dis- covering in the expression anything of the nature of creaturely weakness or humilitv (pp. lS'j-192). 13. J. V. Bartlet (Vi.c;)o«., Deo. 1892, 427^43).

The title may have been suggested by Dn 713; but as used by Jesus it denotes Him as the ideal representative, partly of humanity in general, partly of the Kingdom of God in particular, especially under those aspects of character which belong to the suffering servant in Dcutern-Isaiah. 14. Dalnian(i)i« (Forts ./fsu. 1898, 191-219; cf. Exp. Titnm, X. 438-443). Not a current iless. title, but adopted bj* Jesus from Dn 718, and very probably also with the thouglit of Ps b^r.

at the same time, because He was the destined .Messiah. It veiled His Messiahship behind a name which emiihasized the humanity of its bearer. It implied that He was in some sense a man ' above other men,' but not that He was the * ideal ' man — a conception foreign to Jewish thought, and not at all sug- gested bv the teaching of Jesus. Ho avoided the term '.

Messiah on account of the false ideas associated with it i>y the Jews : the ' son of man ' in Daniel, on the other hand, was one who was not to win the kingdom by his own strength, but to receive it at the hands of God, and might have to do this through suffering ond death : Jesus thus assumed the title as* ' a frail child of man, whom God would make Lord of the world.'

Probably not used before Peter's confession ; the jiassages in the Gosjiels which imply that it was, being chronologically misplaced. 1,'.. Gunkel (,Z. WUl. Theot. 1899, 632-690) ogrees that In Aram, the tenn meant only 'the man,' but thinks that there may have l>een an esoteric eschat. tratlition undcrl.\ing both Daniel, Enoch, and other apocalypses, in which (like other apoc. expressions, as ■ the end,' ' the woes,' the ' elect,' i xari- X*», etc.) 'the man' (perhaps orig.

'the man of God,' or 'of heaven ') may have come to ne used conventionally as a mystic synonym of ' the Messiah ' : Jesus might thus have adopted it as a self-designation ; to outsiders It would mean simply ' the roan.' ond might be understood, for example, of an ancient prophet, returned to life(Mt 1614); by the initiated, it would be understood to be a covert title of the Messiah. 16. J. Dnimmond, 1901 (see 9 24).

The tenn is used elastic- ally : starting from Dn "'8 Jesus may have regarded it as a t.vpical expression for the ideal people of Go(l, with which a-ssociations rlerived from the 'servant of God' in Is 6213- 6.'il'^ woulii rcadilv connect themselves : conscious Himself of His Messianic calling. He would naturally regard Himself as the Heaxi of this ideal class.

The central i<iea of the expression would thus be that of the trtie gervant o/G'od,— pre-eminently Hiniftelf, but not necessarilv and uniformly exclusive of others («o. e.,<7., In Mt 82"l'J^i, Mk 2l»-'-«,— in Mt 111" the expl. 'a man' 15 8. 4] nia^v i>e mlopted). The eschat passages may be viajons of the spintual conquest of the world by a Divinely commissioned humanity, personified as ' the son of man.' '21.

Most of these opinions contain elements of truth ; but the diverL'ence as regards the funda- mental idea denoted by the exiiressiou in remark- ttble. Still those views wliicli see in the title .lame relation to humanity decidedly predominate. The present writer must own that he is most attracted by the views of Westcott and Weiss (to which those of Neander, B.iur, and Holtzmann in 1865 lead up).

The expression, understood in the natural sense of the words, denotes one who, though a Man, holds nevertheless a unique position among men ; and this, it seems to him, is the proper -starting-point for investigatin; its meaning, and discovering the further ideas (u any) attaching to it. He cannot think that the title was first used by Christ in the eschat.

passages, or even after Peter's confession : whatever its sj)ecial signifi- cance may have been, it must have been an ex- pression heard frequently upon our Lord's lips, and the discijiles must have first become familiar with it in comparatively neutral or colourless pas- sages, not in tho.se foretelling either His future sullerings or His future glory.

The title may have lieen liorrowed by our Lord from Dn 7" ; but He did not, at least when first using it, intend to bring before His hearers the figure there portrayed : He adopted it as a mere shell or form, suggestive of His humanity, into which He threw a new import and content of His own : more special associations derived from Dn 7" — perhaps, also, in Mt 16" 1928 2531 from Enoch *— came first to be attached to it in the eschat. passages.

I's 8, with its strikingly-drawn contrast between the actual lowliness and the ideal dignity of man, may also well have contributed to the adoption of the title by our Lord.

The title, as it seems to the present writer (though he would avoid such expressions as the ' ideal' or 'representative' man), designates Jesus as t/ic Man in wliom human nature was most fully and deeply realized, and who was the most comjilete exponent of its cajiaeities, warm and broad in His sympathies, ready to minister and suffer for others, sharing to the full the needs and deprivations which are the common lot of humanity, but conscious at the same time of the dignity and greatness of human nature, and destined ulti- mately to exalt it to unexampled majesty and glory.

He would in general endorse cordially what is written on this subject in vol. ii. p. 023"'' (cf. also p. 850''). 2'2. We append a few remarks on some particular passages in which the title is used. a. Mk S-<' = Lk ll'' (' the foxes have holes,' etc.) As Sclimiedel remarks (p. 2'J3), Mej'er's ' a man ' {i.e. Jesus) t is exegetically impossible ; Lietz- mann's ' man ' (generally) J is out of the question.

The contrast is evidently between the external lowliness and the inlierent dignity of Uim who in a special sense was the ' Son of man.' i. Mt !)''=Mk 2'» = Lk 5". There is no neces- sity, for the purpose of understanding this passage, to sujipose that the title was a Mess. one.

Jesus, in order to meet the objection, ' Who can forgive sins, but God only'/' heals the paralytic, thereby showing that He holds an extraordinary coninus- sion from God upon earth sullicient to satisfy the Jews tliat He is justified in claiming also to possess autliurity to forgive sins. The jia-s.^age, it is irue, is one in which an Aram, original ' that a ni.

an hath authority on earth to forgive 8ins'§ would be (juite possible, and yield a suitable sense, — the word, though in form general, being meant to be limited to Jesus Himself ; but, if ' the Son of man ' be admitted as a title of Jesus elsewhere, there is, of course, no necessity for having recourse to the supposition here. c. Mt 1'2» = Mk 2^= Lk 6». Here in Mk we read : ' (v.")

And he said unto them, The sabbath is • For (} 11) it is only here (and not in Daniel) that the ' son of man ' appears as judge. t P. 96 t. (cf. al)ovc, ; 8. 4). t P. 90 (but allowing that, in Its present connexion, only Jesui can be meant : so Well. p. 2U6), S Meyer, p. 94 (cf, S 3. 4) ; Lletzm. p. 89 ; WeUb. p. 208. 588 SON OF MAX SOX OF MAX made for man, and not man for the sabbath : (v.

^) so that tlie son of man is lord even of the sabbath,' — the statement that the son of man is lord of the sabbath bein^' based upon tlie prcmist'S contained in v.-''.

But in the premise, ' the sabbath is made for man,' ' man ' is evidentlj' meant gener- ally, so that thr only logical conclusion from it is, not that a particular man, but that man gener- ally,—or, at least (since, from the nature of the case, the worldly, unspiritual man would not be thought of), the religious man, who weighed reasons, and could judge how to use rightly what was instituted for the benelit of man, — is 'lord of the sabbath'; .lesus.

by His argument, though He would include Himself, would not delude others. And such a conclusion Avould be in agree- ment not only with the general teaching of Christ, but with the context, which shows that Jesus is defending not His own action, but that of His disriples. Hence, as Schmiedel also allows, the supposition that ' the son of man ' has arisen out of a misinterpretation, or false limitation, of the Aram, barndsliii* is here certainly plausible.

At the same time, it is possible that tlie argument is, ' The sabbath was made for man ; and therefore the Son of man, as holding a unique position among men, and knowing what their welfare requires, may, for a suHicient reason, dispense with the obligation to observe the sabbath' (cf. Stanton, 247 f . ). It must, however, then be sup- posed that the action of the disciples in plucking the ears of corn had been implicitly authorized by Jesus.

between Himself and the Holy Spirit), has, upon intrinsic grounds, a far higher (daim to originality than the renuirk of the narrator in Mk 3** (which makes blasjihcmy against Jesus tantamount to blasphemy against the Holy Spirit) ; while the declaration that blasphemy against Himself was pardonable is one which no evangelist would h ivt ventured to place in Jesus' mouth, had He lot reallv uttered it.

Mt 12'- is not necessarily a parallel recension of 12", or superlluous beside it ; it would be perfectly in place if it stated with explicit reference to the ' Son of man ' what is inaeed implicit in v.", but is not there e.xpressed explicitly. Mark ' may have liad before him, not indeed our Matthew, but Mt 12"'- in a similar form, and have re-cast v.^-', on account of its seem- ing inconsistency with reverence for Jesus, in a form influenced by the phraseology of v."

' But the correctness of the comment in Mk 3** must, upon this view, be given up ; and indeed (Schmiedel) it is not certain that Mk S^s'- ( = Mt 12'") is his- torically connected with the preceding narrative ; the parallel in Lk (12'") stands in a very ditVer- ent connexion. The impossibility of questioning the originality of Mt VS-'- = Lk 12'" thus consti- tutes to Schmiedel a conclusive argument against' explaining the variations between the Synoptists here by means of the Aramaic. 23.

In the Fourth Gospel the title is still found only in our Lord's mouth ; but it is lifted into a higher plane, and, in agreement with St. John's predominant point of view, is used commonly in more distinct connexion with His Divine nature. Mk32*«>. Mt 12SI. Mt 1233. Lk 1210. • All sins and Even' sin and And whoso speaketh a word And every one who shall speak blasphenues blasphemy a word shall to the sons of mtn shall unto men against the son ofman^ against the son o/marif be forgiven.

be forgiven; it shall be forgiven him ; it shall be forgiven him ; wherewithsoever they blaspheme : 29 But whoso blasphemeth but the blasphemy but whoso speaketh but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Spirit against the Holy Spirit of the Spirit o^inst the lioiy Spirit, hath not forgiveness aball not be forgiven. It shall not be forgiven him. it shall not be forgiven. for ever (ff tov aei v«X neither in this age {ettan) but is guilty of nor in that which is to an eternal sin. come.

80 Because lliev said. He hath an unclean spirit Here Mt 12"- '" certainly wear the appearance of being duplicate versions of one and the same say- ing, V." agreeing with Mk 3'^', and v.^' with Lk 12'" ; and the contrast expressed in Mk 3-*'- Mt 12" between ' men ' in general and the Holy Sjarit becoming in Mt 12'- Lk 12'" on.> between the ' Son of man ' and the H<dy Spirit.

It is not diflicult to understand how these du|)licates might have arisen out of dillercnt recensions of the original saying, of which one read koi 'h ('men'), and the other ei t2 ('a man,' — intended in a general sense). t Accordinf; to Wellli. the version in Mk 3^ Mt 12" is the original, the contrast (as Mk 3*' shows) being brtween blasphemy against men and blas- Shemy against the Holy Spirit [cf. 1 S 2'-^ KV] ; esus, therefore, if this view be correct, never declared blasphemy against Him.

self to be pardon- able. Schmiedel, in his acute discussion of these passages, replies that although no doubt Mark, as a rule, has the greater originality than Matthew, that is not the ease universiilly [cf. vol. ii. p. 241'] ; and in the jire.sent instance the words of Jesus in Matthew 12'^ = Lk 12'° (in which He distiyiguishes ' Meyer, p. 63; Lietzm. p. 89 ». ; Wellli. p. MS: cX. Holtnu. p. 25«. t The tabular arranj^einenC la Schmiedel't (p. 808X J LicUm. p. 87-89 ; Wellh. p.

203 1 It is thus applied to Him not only with reference to events in His life on earth as a man, but also with reference to His jire-existence with God.* The uniquene.ss of the ' Son of man ' consists in His having ' come down from heaven ' (3"), whither also He will return again (6^), and in virtue of which those who 'work' that they may apjiro- priate Him, and who further eat His flesh and drink His blood, have eternal life (e"-"", cf. yy w). 61. 6») AVhile on earth.

He remains in con- stant spiritual intercourse with His I'^ather in Heaven, as those whose eyes are oiiencd may see by His life and works (1").

He will be ' lifted up' on the cross in order that those who believe in Him may have eternal life (3'"), and that men may perceive who He is (8'^) ; and His ap- proaching death is the hour of His glorilieation (1023 i33i)_ The multitude understood Him to claim to be the Messiah ; and ask (12**) to have it ex- plained to them how, if the Son of man is thus to be ' lifted up,' He can be the Messiah w ho ia to 'abide for ever' (as head, viz., of an earthly kingdom).

In 9", according to the reading of {<I!1), the unique position occujiied by the 'Soil of man ' is attested by the impc rtance attached to In connexion with our Lord's future Adveol, it ii not uMd at all ia St. John. SONG OF SONGS SONG OF SONGS 58S beli-f in Hira. Cf., lurther, Holtzra. ii. 426-30; Weiss, § 144c. 24. LlTERATUEB.— Holtzmann, NT Thtot. (1897), i.

240-64, is Indispensable for all further study of the subject : it is, un- fortunately, not very clearly written, the writer's literary method leaving it sometimes uncertain how (ar he identities himself with the alternative views stated :— Reuss, TMoL Chrit. 1860, tr. i. 197-20<i (as realizing the moral ideal of humanity), ii. 410, 412 : Weiss. 1S84 (above, § 17) ; Baldensper^er, 11888, -W.ri (above, { 20. VI); Holsten, 1891 (} 2a 11); .S-amlay. Expos. Jan. 1891, 18-3i (crit.

of Carpenter, { 20. 10) ; RirtUt. 1892 (§ 20. 13) ; Charles, If'OJt of Enoch, 1893, 312-17 ; Oort, lSi)3(§ 8 emf) ; WeUh. Itr. u. JM. Gach. 11894, 312, 21895. 340, 31897,381 ; Eerdmans, 1894-6 (S a 2); N. Schmidt, JBL 1896, 36-63, 'Was KPJ 12 a Mess. Title?' [Answer, No, on grounds of Aram, usage]; A. Mever, ISi^B (§ 8. 4); Lietzmann, 1896 ({ 8. 6) Ipp. 1-29, survey and criticism of previous views); Hilitenfcld, 1897 ({ 10 n.); Nestle, Kxpoa. Times, Feb. 1900, p. 2;« (on I's SO"" 18 L.\.

\ (where, however, «» ui rau at. does not occur]) ; Schmiedel, Prot. ilonalsht^U, 1S9S,H. 77262-67, H. 8, 291-308 (crit. of .Meyer, Lietzm., and Wellh. Gencli.); Lietzmann, Theul. Arbciten aim dtinHhein. Wins. Pred.-Verein, 1898,11. 2, 1-14 (reply tx) llil^ren- feld and Schmiedel) ; Dalman, 1898 ({ 20. 14) ; Wellh. ^kizzeii u. Vorarbfiten, 1S99, 1S7-21.'), and v, vi ; Klopper, Z. Wise. Tk. 1899,161-86; Gunkel, 1899 (§20. 16); Homnicl, Expos. Timrs, Slay 1900, 341-."

^ (develops Gunkel's view, and traces title back to the Bab. Adapa); Fialdensperger, I'htol. Ruiulschau, June 1900, 201-10, July 1900, 243-5.^ (survey of recent discussion); J. Drunmiond, Joum. o.f Thfol. Studies, Apr. and July 1901, lor the loan of which in MS the writer of the preceding article is (fre.itly indel)te<l to the author; Fiel>ig, Der MeiiKclu'mohn, 19 ■! [.ii>pcared since thig art. was in type. Impartial and inde- pendent : very clear and thorough, esp.

on the Aramaic side ; thinks the title was a current Mess, one, meaning ' the man,' based on Dn 713, but enlarged and enriched by Jesus and adopted by Ilim because (cf. $ 19) it did not rwcfssarily point to llim- self, and also was not specifically national]. S. R. Driver. SONG OF SONGS (d-i'?? •'V ; B po-mo, X C i<Tiia gV^druji', \ ^(jfj.o.ra (^fffiiiTojv ; Vulg. Canticiun Ganti- roriiii), vlience the common name Canticles; AV Song of Solomon). — i. Name and place in the Canon. II.

Methods of Interpretation. An allegorical sense maintained both in Jewisli and Christian Church : Targum, St. Ber- nard, Luther ; Seh. Castellio (opposed traditional view) ; Grotius, R. Simon, Clericus, Whiston, J. D. Michaelis (all opposed at least to the exclusively allegorical sense) ; Herder (regarded the book as a collection of separate love- songs) ; allegorical interpretations of Keil, Uosenmiiller, Hengstenberg, Halin, Goltz, Hug, G. P. 0. Kaiser ; views of Jacobi.

Delitzscb, von Orelli, Ewald ; two distinct typea of the dramatical theory, represented by Delitzsch and Ewald respectively ; a new era in interpretation of the Song inaugurated by J. G. Wetzstein, whose views have been most fully carried out by Budde ; Budde'a view stated and criticised ; the present writer's own view. III. Authorship, Place of composition, and Date. Literature. i. Name op the Book and its place in the Canon.

— ' Sonj; of Songs,' wliioji is the exact render- ing of the Hel)rew title of this liltle book, does not mean ' a .nong of the songs {sc of Solomon),' as Ibn Kzra an<l Kimchi supposed, but, bj' a not uncom- mon periphrasis for tne superlative, is equivalent to ' the hneat song,' that which is superior to all other gongs, that which unites in itself the excel- lencesof everything that is called .song. The title, which, as we shall find, did not originally stand at the head of the book but w.

ts introduced after- wards, thus contains a signilicant expression of opinion reganling t he composition. It is explicable only on the ground of the view which a later age thought it necessary to hold as to the real sense ofa work which had now gained a place in the Canon of the OT. Nay, it is only the jirevalence of the same view that will explain how the Song ever found entrance at all into the circle of Sacred Writings.

This pregnant title corresponds with the high estimate of the book expressed by R. Akiba(cf. fadaim, iii. 1), about the end of the 1st cent. a.d. : Ood forbid ! No one in Israel has ever doubted that the Song of Kongs dotUcs the hands [i.e.. that it is a holy canonical book t], for the whole world is not worth the In Jn 6^ the expression la dilTerent, ' because he la a son of man ' {uiit itOt.), i.e. (see Westcott, or Meyer, ad toe. ; and Holtz- mann, 11. 427f.)

because of His true humanity, adapting Him si>ecially to be a Judge of men. Cf. the human sympathy of the Judge in Mt 26^46. ♦ On 'deflle the hands' see Delitzsch in Zeitsdi./. luth. Th. u. K. XT. 0864) 280 ff., and W. R. Smith, OTJC* 186, note 1. day on which the Song was given to Israel. For all the Writingl (I.e. the Hagiograpba] are holy, but the Song of Songs is a holy of the holies.' Ilenceforw.

ird this idea of the incomparable value of the book continued to be the only prevailing one amongst the Jews, and thus passed over also into the Christian Church. ii. Methods of Interpretation. — The above Talmudic citation shows, however, that this hi^h estimate of the Song of Songs did not succeed in establishing itself without oiijio.sition. The ques- tion whether they 'dulile the hands' received a vacillating answer esijecially in regard to the Song and Ecclesiastes.

And it is easy to account fur this. The plain language of the book, soberly interpreted, does not suggest that we liave to do with 0, work of high religious value or with a sacred poem. It was neces.sary to wrest the language and to assume that a deeper seu.se underlay the literal meaning, before one could justify the pres- ence of such a book and gain an abiding place for it amongst the Sacred Writings.

* What we hear of is eartlily love, that of betrt)thed or married persons, and nowhere does the natural eye detect a single indication that would call it away from this and compel it to see in the liguies presented to it images of a higher love.

But at the time the step was taken of admitting the Song into the Canon, there can be no doubt that amongst those scribes whose intlnence was greatest in the collect- ing of the Sacred Writings, it had long been the custom to find in this exijuisite work an allegory, and in the bond of love there presented to .see the bond of love between J" and Israel.

Suliictient in- ducement to such an interpretation was supjjlied by Scripture itself, for at least since the time of the prophet Hosea the representation of the cove- nant between J" and His peoiile under the figm-e of the relation between husband and wife had becoma frequent and popular. When in cciM.

sc(iuence of the allegorical interpretation the book had been received into the Canon, objections to its being allowed to remain there could, of course, arise only from the strong impression which its lan- guage makes upon the reader, and the removal of such objections was facilitated in pro|iortiou as the allegorical interjiretation obtained accei)tance.

The latter interpretation was bound to triumph in the end, for the more the true conception of the origin and character of Scripture was lost and a false notion of its inspiration came in, the more did the need make itself felt th.at all writin<;s received into the Canon, the Song included, should be viewed and interpreted in such a way as to entitle them to rank as holy writings inspired by God's Spirit.

One result of the triumph of the allegorical interpretation, and of the extravagant estimate of the book (so well illustrated by the above words of K. Akilia), was the introduction of the liturgical use of the Song into the Jewish Church. Canticles, along witli Until, Lamentations, Kcclesiastes, and Esther, made up the five Mi:;fill6th (' rolls') which were read to the congregation at certain festivals.

The liturgical use of Canticles deserves all the more careful consideration, because it heljis us to decide what view of its contents was entertained by the .Jewish congregation in the earliest times. For un(h)ubtedly the contents of each book were intcndiil to be brought into close connexion with the fcsliv.tl at which it was read. Now, Canticles was a])))ointed to be read on the 8th day of the ye.ost of the Passover.t But this feast com- • See Aboth 0/ R. Nathan, c. 1.

: 'At first they said that Proverbs, Cantideji, and Ecclesiastes were apocryphal. They said they were parabolic writings an<l not of the lIagiograj>hft . . till the men of the Great Svnagnguo canio and explained them' (cf. W. R. Smith, OTJC^ 181, note 1). t Ruth Is read on the 2n<l day of the Feast of Weeks or Pentecost, Lamentations on the 9th Ab (i.e.

the anniversary of the burning of the temple by the Chaldieans), Ecclesiastes on the 3rd day of the Feast of Tabernacles, and Esther on the ISth Adar (the opening day of the Feast of Purim). 590 SONG OF SOXGS SONG OF SOXGS meniorated the time when J" delivered His people from the oppression of a stran»^e lord in order to unite them to Himself jit Sinai by an everlasting covenant. J" then is the belovud, and the people of God or the congregation of Israel are His loved one.

According to the paraphrase of the Targuni, the poem por- trays the history of Israel from the Exodus to its redemption and glorification in Messianic times, when the full and tinal union of J" with His people shall be realized. This is certainty a profound interpretation, and one, too, wliich could 6nd its roots in the Prophetic literature (cf. Hos 1-3, Jer 2i«" S'"', Ezk 16, Is 501 54r.ir. etc.)

But this explanation puts difficulties in the way of the plain natural understandinj^r as soon as it is sought toapply it to individual features of the poetical repre- seutation. These everywhere indicate too strongly that what we have to do with is really earthly love and a product of erotic poetry.* The consciousness of this had certainly not been lost even by the Jews.

It was felt that one required ripe- ness of relipioua and moral insight and streng'th in order to understand the Song not in a false and morally pernicious fashion, but according to its hidden deeper meaning. Thus we must explain the Jewish regulation, reported to us by Origen and Jerome, that no one was to read the book till he was 30 years of age (the age, according to Nu 43, at which the Levite is ready to enter upon his sacred duties).

The allegorical interpretation, which had been adopted by the Jews, gained acceptance also in the Christian Church, chiedy through Ori^en's exposi- tion of the Song, and all through the Middle Ages this continued to be the prevailing interpretation. Nay, until quite recently it has maintained its supremacy in the Roman Catholic Church, and has found defenders even in the Churches of the Refor- mation. The allegorical interpretation, indeed, speedily assumed here a mystical character.

It was supposed that one could discover in the poem a (proplietical) description beforehand of the loving relation between Christ and His people or between Him and the individual believing soul, and of the yearning desire of the latter for loving union with the Lord.

The most notable witness to this alle- gorico-mystical view is to be found in the 86 sermons of St, Bernard, which, however, do not extend be- yond Ca 3^ Of course there are particular features in the poem which give abundant scope for nij'stical fancies. It was only with tlie Reformation that an era dawned which created the conditions neces- sarj- for a more correct understanding of the Song.

It should not, indeed, be forgotten that Theodore of Mopsuestia, who belonged to the exegetic school of Autioch, had long before sought to do justice to the literal sense of the Song, by teaching that it treats simply of earthly love. But he stood alone with his interpretation over against the prevailing allegorical view, and was anathematized for holding it at the fifth (Ecumenical Council atConstantinople {A.D. 553).

Even in the Churches of the Reforma- tion a more natural understanding of the Song made its way at first very slowly. In general the allegorical interpretation, borrowed from the Jews, and subjected to Christian modifications, continued to reign : especially within the Reformed Church was there a tendency to adhere closely to the ex- planation of the synagogue, and to see in the Song a prophetical pre-description of the development of the history of the Church.

f A unique view, which deservedly gained no adherents, was put forward by Luther : 'Solomon intends by these discourses of the lover and his beloved to show that, where obedience and cood government are, God dwells and kisses and embraces His Bride by His word ; in short, he means to sing the praises of obedience as a gift of Ood.'t— It was still a dangerous thing, * According to another interpretation. Canticles portrays Solomon's love to Wisdom.

fThe last representative of this view is Rosenmiiller, in his Scholia in Vet. Test. ; the Peshitta •ubstitutes ^^"^0 for "I'l? in the title of the book). Are we to infer from Wis 83 that the author of the Wisdom, of Solomon already held the same view? t As a notable representative of this view we may specify Cocceius (fl669), whose federal theology this view of the Song suited admirably. t Cf. Kostlin, if. Luther, tein Ltben u. aeine Schriften^t ^ P- 610 f.

even in the century of the Reformation, to dej art from the traditional allegorioU interpretation. Seb. Cast^Ilio of CJeneva learned this to his cost when, on account of having seen in the Song a 'geistlich Buhllied,' and having: pronounced it unworthy to stand in the Canon, he was accustd (not, it is true, simply for holding this opinion) by Calvin and banished from Geneva (1544).

— A more decided movement in favour of an interpreta- tion correspondint,' to the original sense of the poem, woa inaugurated by Hugo Grotius (t 1*345). Even he, to be sure, does not yet break absolutely with the traditional view, for he does not simply reject an allegorical exegesis, but, primarily and according to the literal sense, the Song is for him concerned only with earthly love, in fact the love of Solomon for the Egyptian princess, his wife.

— The number of those who under- stood the subject to be earthly love and rejected the allegorical interpretation continued to grow ; in particular the pioneers of the critical study of the OT, men like R. Simon, Clericus, Whiston (Cambridge), belonged to this categorj. "Die first to oppose the allegorical interpretation by weighty arguments was J. D. ilichaelis (in his edition of R. Lowth's De sacra porsi HebrcEoruni prcelectioius, Gottingen, 1753-61, Notes, p. (iiiaff.

, be even excluded the Song from his translation of tlie Bible). But to J. G. Herder belongs the credit of having helped to its triumphant recognition the only true view of the fundamental character of Canticles as a product of genuine and pure erotic poetry.

In his work, entitled Lieder der Liebe, die ulU'Sten uiid scfionsteii aiis detn Morgenlande; nebsi U* alien Minneliedem (177S), he contends that the book is a collection of separate love- songs of an impassioned and morally pure character, and this view of his has continued to gain adherents (Reuss, Budde, et al.', see, further, below) down to the most recent times. But the allegorical interjiretation also found champions not only among Roman Catholic, but also among Protestant theologians.

In itself this is not at all surprising, for any one who took his stand upon the ground of the old orthodox doctrine of inspiration would feel compelled to do justice to the simple fact that the Song is included in the Canon. He would have to bring it into relation with the system of revealed truth, and discover revelation, that is, prophecy, in its contents as well ; for in no other way could he explain its reception into the Canon.

Accordingly, we find, on the one hand, a movement in the direction of the old Jewish interpretation. So, in par- ticular, Keil {t'inleitujig, 1S53, p.

373) holds that in Canticles ' in dramatico-lyric responsive songs, and under the allegorj' of the betrothed love of Solomon and the Shulammite,' we have portrayed 'the loving intercourse between the Lord and His people in their ideal character resulting from Israel's choice to this privilege, according to which all disturbing of this inter- course by unfaithfulness on the part of Israel only leads to an establishing more firmly of the co\enant of love, through return to the true covenant God and His unchangeable love.'

But, as he himself expressly notes, Keil does not mean by this that we can discover in the Song a literal reflexion of the actual ' history of the covenant relation' or an allegorical veiling of the principal features of the theocratic history.' On the contrarj. It is the loving intercourse of the Lord 'according to its Divine idea ' that is portrayed. In this way Keil obtains for the Song a Messianic character in so far as it describes a relation 'which was first realized through Christ.'

Accordingly, he insists also upon the inspired character of the book, which is 'no product of the soil of the natural development of the theocratic God- consciousness, but, like the prophetical Psalms, one due to the supernatural working of the Holy Spirit in the mind of Solomon, and so constructed that the mutual love of king Solomon and the ideal Shulammite undergoes transfiguration and becomes an allegory of the marriage of tlie Heavenly Bridegroom with His elect bride on earth.'

Of course Keil considers that this allegori co-prophetical view is amply supported by the above- mentioned Biblical description of the covenant relation be- tween Jahweh and Israel under the figure of a marriage union. — The same principle of interpretation lay at the root of Rosen- muller"s original view (cf. Keil and Tschirner's Analekten, i. [1813] p. 138fE. ; for his later \'iew see preceding col., note*), OS well as at that of Hengstenberg (/>a« Hohe Lied, 1853) and others.!

— Another set of interpreters reier the contents of the Song (in a Messianic sense) to the mission of the kingdom of Israel to heathendom (H. A. Hahn, 1852), or of Christ to the presently divided Church, whicli is to be brought back to the perfection which belonged to it in the apostolic age (O. F. Goltz, 1850). The attempts to convert the Song into a political allegory may be pronounced completely mist:iken. For instance, it has been supposed by J. L.

Hug (1813) to be a fancy poem in which the longing of the ten tribes for a reunion with king Hezekiah is set forth under the figure of the love relations of the Shulammite with Solomon. According to G. P. C. Kaisef (1S'J5) the Song of Songs is 'a collective song, addressed to Zerubl>abel, Ezra, and Nehemiah, as ttie restorers of a Jewish constitution in the province of Judah.'

The form in which Grotius states the traditional view la worthy of note: Crrdittir autem Salomon, quo magis peren- narethoc scriptum, ea arte id composuisse, ut sine multa distortione allegoric in eo inveniri possent, qua Dei amorem adversus populum Israelit. exprimerent. Ille amor typus cum fuerit amoris Christi erga ecclesiam. Christian! ingenia sua ad applicanda ad earn rem huius carminis verba exercueniot, laudabili studio.' t E. Rupprecht (Einlcit. in d. ATy 1898, p. 853 ff.)

still walks quite in the footsteps of Hengstenberg. SOXG OF SOXGS SONG OF SONGS 591 The allegorical interpretation has all alon» started with presupposing the internal unity of the poem, and has uniformly seen in Solomon its author and its hero. On this view of the Song, moreover, the dramatical element in its construc- tion, which makes itself felt not indistinctly, i8 preserved, even if it is not always recognized.

Over against not only the allegorical explanation but also that view of the Song which Weaks it up into -separate songs or fragments of songs in the fashion so brilliantly inaugurated by Herder, another manner of inttrpretation began to givin always wider currency and acceptance. This agreed with the second of the views just named, in holding that it is earthly love that is the subject of the Song, and witli the first in main- taining the literary unity of the poem.

It ceased to search in Canticles for deep secrets of revela- tion, prophetico-symbolical glances into the de- velopment of the kingdom of God, and preferred to take its contents realistically, as the rellexion of a historical occurrence. What the poem lost in tills way ot the value which the allegorical interpretation had sought to impose upon it, was richly compensated by the ethical significance which it gained upon the new theory.

The man who led the waj; in this mode of interpretation was J. C. Jacobi (in his anonymous work, Das durch einc leirhte Erlcldrunq von seinen Voncilrfen gercttcte Hohclicd, 1771). He saw in the Song a pancgj'ric on conjugal fidelity, for he considers that its subject is the steadfastness with which a wife who had been carried oflf from her husband maintained her fidelity to the latter, in face of the seductive attempts of Solomon.

Afterwards the adherents of this system of interpretation deviated from Jacobi in one point. They saw in the heroine of the poem, not a married woman, but a virgin, who, in spite of all the insidious arts of Solomon, remained true to her lover or betrotlied, and who finally received the reward of her faithfulness in her union with her beloved.

Those who, in spite of dillerences in detail, which it is impossible to describe more fully here, held the same general view (just described) of the Song, were not all agreed also in regarding it as a dramatic poem. Some took it to be an epic poem ; others, in view of its strongly pronounced lyric character, would have it that it is a collection of ballads, or even an operetta, with choruses, duets, and solos.

But the majority of the ad- herents of the above theory, especially amongst the most distinguished exegetes, took the view that the Song is a drama, or it might be a melo- drama. We may specify such names as Ewald (1820, 1867), Umbreit (1828, 1839), Hitzig (1855), Renan (1800), even Delitzsch (see, further, below), Stickel (1888), Oettli (1889), Driver (1891, etc.), Bruston (1891). Amongst many others the present writer has given in his adliesion to this opinion (1893).

But as to the internal structure of the poem there is by no means complete agreement, although the dillerences that exist are no evidence, as has been supposed, that there is nothing in the dramatic theory.

The absence of scenic indica- tions in the text, and the necessity of inferring •imply from the contents, or the form of exprcs- «ion, who is the speaker in particular sentences or sections, are quite sulficient to account for the surprising dillerences in the dramatic arraiigenient of the Song proposed by dillerent exegetes. These difl'erences are, of course, due also in large measure to the very great diiliculties that beset the ex- position of the Song of Songs.

The main ditl'erence amongst the adherents of the dramatical theory is the following. Starting with the primary assumption that Canticles is a dramatic poem, exegetes, in answering the ques- tion as to the principal dramatis persona, part company in two quite dili'erent directions. De- litzsch (1851, 1875), and, in essential agreement with him, Zockler (in I.ange's Bibelwerk, IS68), and von Orelli (in I'li'E- vi. p. 24511"., art.

' Holies Lied Salomos,' 1880), hold, in harmony with the traditional view, that, apart from certain sub- ordinate figures, there are only two principal persons to be recognized, namely, Solomon and the Shulammite, and that, where a shepherd is spoken of, Solomon is here al.so to be understood.

The poem is supposed to describe the bond of love between the two, from the lirst uiouieiit of mutual burning passion ^1~2^, and mutual seeking and Ilndinjj (^^-S^J, down to the reahzation of the desire for love in the marriajre union (3tt-5i); and then, a(t«r a passing estrangi-inent, the mutual return (62-6^), tile praise of the cnanus and beauty of the bride now raised to be queen (61*'-S^), and the confiniiing of the love covenant ij> tht home of the Shulammite (!;'■'■').

Delitzsch, however, finos in the whole poem a deeper idea expressed. He says (Cornm,^ p. 6): 'the Shuiamniite is a historical person . , ". a country maiden of lowly rank, who by her physical beauty and purity of soul awakened in Solomon a love which elevated him above the wantonness of polyL^amy, and gave him a personal experi- ence of the Paradise idea of marriage as this is expressed in Gn 223f- with reference to the first created woman.

It is this personal experience that he celebrates, at the same time ideal- izing it in the manner of poets by stripping off the husk of all that is accidental, and presenting the kernel and essence. . The Song is a protest against polygamy, although only to the extent that one could expect from the Mosaic standpoint.' He finds in the Song a reflexion of the /-t'-yct fiurri.piov of Eph 532. But he claims for it, not only a historical and ethical but also a tyT>ico-mystical significance.

Solomon is to him a type of Christ, and accordingly he sees in the love relations between Solomon and the Shulammite * the mysteries of the love of Christ and His people shadowed forth ' (p. 5), remarking at the same time that the typical exegesis must bear in mind that t>Te and antiti-pe do not exactly coincide, and the miintiral that 'the heavenly stomps itself, indeed, upon the earthly, and yet is poles asunder from it.'

^Von Orelli differ* from Delitzsch only in so far as he holds the subject of the Song to be ' not marriage as a permanent bond and condition, t)ut betrothed love winch finds simply its climax and goal in the marriage union ' {I.e. p. 252). Accordingly in Si^Sl, upon his view, there cannot be already an allusion to the marriage union, as Delitzsch holds. In his t.vTiical view of the Song Orelli is otherwise essentially at one with DeUtzsch {I.e. p. 24'J>.

Apart from the fact that such exegesis as the above is dominated by considerations supposed to be involved in the history of revelation, there are serious objections to the view that there are only two principal persons in the Song, and to the idenlifj'ing of the sliephero with the king.

Above all, it is bard lo comprehend how the Shulammite, even after lier marriage has taken place, should continue to treat and to address the king as sheplierd, and should even inquire (1*) where he pastures his flocks.

To discover 'an essential feature of tlie spiritual beauty ' of the Song in the circumstance 'that the ideal virgin loves him, not as king, but loves in him the shepherd, and longs to share with him the innocent simplicity of her former manner of life, a desire to which he joyfully yields,' is possible, hideed, but in the highest degree unnatural, and may be regarded rather as an outcome of a mystical deepening of the sense of the Song than as the result of a sober interpretation of the actual words of the text.

Far more support has been accorded, and rightly BO, we consider, to the view represented above all by Ewald. According to it, besides Solomon, the kmg who is courting the love of the Shulammite, we must distinguish a .shepherd who was the real object of her passion, and the beloved of her heart. The fascinatingly beautiful Shulammite is supposed to have been met by the king on the occasion of a tour of his in the north of his kingdom (OH^-), and placed in his harem.

The king seeks by enticing flattering speeches to win her love, but from the very first nieetiiig (ch. 1) she gives him to understand to whom her heart belongs. While tiie king then presses her with ever renewed words of love ami admiration, the emotion of love thus stirred within her pours itself forth in words addressed to her lover far away. Nay, in the intensity of her feelings, she imagines she sees him come from afar to her prison, she hears his words meant for her (2^^"- J""'- .'

»-"■), and In a dream seeks for him by night in the streets (SUf b'^f). Even the prospect of becoming the favourite xvifo of the splendid monarch cannot shake her fidelity to her absent lover, and even when the king Imagines he has gained bis point she remains firm, and refuses to ent^'rtain tlic idea ot allowing any one to enjoy her love but the object of her heart's affections (SQ-f)**). A last attempt of Solomon to win her heart fails (chs. a. 7).

finally, the king magiianimouslv gives her back her liberty, and in her home in union with tier beloved shepherd she finds the consummation of her bappiness. Ob 492 SONG OF SONGS SONG OF SONGS this view, the Sontr reaches its ideal goal in the impassioned eulo^ium on true, pure love in ^^^■.

* It is quite true that, even upon this inter- pretation, whidi at all events docs fuller justice to the text than the traditional view adopted anew by Delitzsch, there are still ditliculties enough in points of detail. But it is question- able whether these difticulties are sufficiently great to make bliis explanation inadet]uate alike from the formal and the material point of view, and thus to demand its rejection. The present writer does not think so.

The principal difficulty is In the so-called Third Act(3«-6l). Tile (luestioii is whether the conclusion (51) is intended to mark the longed-for marriatre union as actually consummated. Hitzip held that this <iuestion must he answered in the alhrrna- tive, and supposed the marriage in view to have been one that Solomon contracted with a woman of Jerusalem, but not with tlie Shulatnniite.

Bruston is also of opinion that in this Third Act we have to do with the marriacje of the kin;^ to another — in fact, as he thinks may be gathered from 4"^, with a Tynan princess. This actually accomplished marriage with another woman would thus place on a still higher level the invincible fid<.-Iity of the Shulammite. But there is really no necessity to take the Shulamniite's words in 4l6b as formally different from her words in ch. 1.

She is thinking in botli passages, not of the king, but of her true lover, and it occasions no dilficulty, but onlj' marks the climax of the conflict that the king believes, of course, that the object of his desires is now about to yield to him, whereas, as the very next scene shows, such an idea haa never entered her mind.

Ewald himself held that from 4t onwards we have again words of her lover, which the Shulammite imagined she heard, as in 281" ; he even sup- posed that two lines have dropped out before v.8, their con- tents being, Behold, my beloved, behold, there comes he! Hark how he speaks to me his words . . ,' or the like. But it is unnecessary and hardly justifiable to suppose that a different subject speaks in i*^^- from the speaker in v.

itf f — Stickel, too, denies that 4fff- are words of Solomon, but he thinks to escape all dithculties by the strange assumption that in V- s 115-2* 4"-5i there are three scenes that are to be separated from the rest of the poem. In these he supposes a second pair of lovers, a shepherd and a shepherdess, to be introduced, who actually arrive at a marriage union, this inter- lude having the effect of setting Solomon's wooing of the Shulammite in a peculiar light.

J Otherwise, the relation of Solomon to the Shulammite and her relation to him remain the same as on Ewald's theory. But this view of Stickel's, which destroys the unity of the poem, presupposes far too great skill in producing stage effects (' Biihnengeschickticftkeit ') on the part of the author to be well founded. A very important turn of opinion as to the literary character of the Song of Songs has been brought about in the most recent times. J. G.

Wetzstein, %\ho was for long Prussian consul at Damascus, and who has rendered much service in the way of increasing our knowledge of Oriental life and contributing to the understanding of the OT, availed himself of bis opportunities of making acquaintance with the marriage customs in modern Syria. In this way he met with some things which are certainly calculated to throw light on certain portions of the Song of Songs. He published in Hastian's Zcitschrift f. EthnoTor/ie (1873, p. 27011.)

, an article, entitled 'Die syrische Dreschtafel,' in which he describes the manifold uses made of the threshing-board, and amongst others its symbolical employment in the so-called ' king's week,' i.e. d\iring the seven days' marriage festival (p. 287 fl'.) It was partly from this artitde that the 'Bemer- kungen zum Hohenliede ' in Delitzsch's Commentary were taken, but the author contributed further important materials to the elucidation of the sub- ject.

To the same category belongs an earlier * The reader will find an exact account of the scheme of the Song proposed by Kwald, in Driver's LUT'i p. 4-11) ff. t It may be noted that, in the opinion of the present writer, 4^ is not now in its original place. It is not till v. 7 that the description of the chan.is of the Shulammite (vv.l-^) closes. Perhaps v. 6 should follow v. 7, and formed originally the con- nectin;c link with v.s'r.. 1 Cf. Stickel, Dot HoJulied, p.

46; 'Antithesis, that india- pensat4e art of the drama, by presenting so vividly the un- disturbed happy shepherd's love in contrast with the sorely tried heroine of the Song, awakens warm sympathy with the latter, and a feeling of suspense and compaflmon,' etc. Further, this interlude is su)>posea to mark and fill up various spaces of time in the course of the main transaction. article by Wetzstein, entitli'd ' Spracbliches aui den Zeltlagern der syrischen Wii.-te,' in ZDMG xxii. (1868), p.

69 ff., containing valuable notes on a story written down from oral communication.

The remarkable similarity between certain songs sung at moilern niarria''e celebrations and certain portions of the Song of Songs, naturally enough forced upon him the conclusion that the latter ia not 'a dramatic unity,' but rather a collection of ' beautiful nuptial songs' which were received into the Canon 'to furnish good models to the occasional poets whose productions may in Hebrew antiquity, as at the present day, have transgressed the bounds of decency and good taste.'

The allegorical or mystical interpretation is held to have come in afterwards (cf. Delitzsch, Camm. p. 172, note). After Stade {Gesrh. Isr. ii. [18S8] 197) had referred approvingly to Wetzstein's ' most helpful contri- bution to tlie understanding of this (juite unique book,' Budde, in an article on ' The Song of Solo- mon' in the New World (Boston, U.S.A. 1894, p. 56 ti'.; cf. Preuss. Jahrbucher, 1894, p. 92 if.)

, went in the fullest detail into Wetzstein s communica- tions, and sought with their help to win its natural sense for the Song of Songs.* His arguments gained complete assent from Kautzsch (' Abriss der Gesch. d. alttest. Schrifttums' in the 'Beilagen' to his ATy. 210 f. [in the ' Sonderabdruck ' of 1897, p. 134 f.]), and in specially emphatic, confident fashion from Cornill (Einleitung^, p. 256 : ' In this way the enigma of our book is definitively solved ').

t Whether this confidence is really justified is open to doubt. With reference to Budde's claim (I.e. p. 9) that he has cut away the roots of the dramatical interpretation of the Song by his explanation of 'Solomon' and 'the Shulammite,' which stand simply for bridegroom and bride, husband and wife, Bruston (cf. Le Xo cungris des Orientalistes et I'ancicn 'Testament, Paris, 1895, p. 13 tf.)

declares, ' I fear that this is a huge and extraordinary illusion,' a judgment with which the present writer agrees. Budde attempts first of all to prove that by Solomon, or the king, the Song means not the real king Solomon, but that we have here only a tvpe, a poetical designation of any and every britlfgrooiii.

In order to give a worthy title to the latter on his wedding day and in his wedding dress, the figure of Solomon is supposed to have been employed as that of the monarch whose riches and splendour had become as proverbial as his •\visdom. The case is similar with the Shulammite. ' She is, indeed, no other than Abishag the Shunammite, but only as the representative of her qualities' (p. 8). The maiden from Shunem (the modern Sholam, a pronunciation to which the Heb.

Shulammith also goes back), who was brought to the aged king David, and on whose account Adonijah had to die (I K 2''"'-), was admittedly, according to the cor- rect sense of 1 K P'-, the niirest virgin to be found in the whole land, and continued to enjoy tliia reputation in the memories of the people. Hence, argues Budde (p. 9) :' ...

as the bridegroom is compared with king Solomon in his glory, or even named with his name, and would not exchange bis fortune with Solomon, so for the beauty of the bride no less a woman could be named than the fairest of whom the ancients spoke, and one who was also a queen [Solomon may have, at least according to the legend, introduced her into his harem], which certainly was not an unwelcome fact.

That she should be called the fairest of all is the right of every bride on her wedding day, however she may be outshone by hundreds a' other times.' The present writer has no difficulty in admitting * C. his Oomm. in Kurzer Bdcom. 1898, and art. PoErai. t Cf. also Siegfried's Comm. in Nowack's Udkom 18&0.

SONG OF SONGS so:n'g of songs 593 tliat the situation moy be understood in the aboie way, that is to say, that it is not nei-essarj' to pre- suppose absolutely that the Song of Songs is based upon an actual lii;-torical occurrence ; but he fails to see liow, on this view, the dramatical theory of the iMjem in its present form is wounded unto death.

If Budde is right in holding that in later times the two outsUiiuling tigures in the popular recollection were emploj'ed as above described in the poetry of marriage celebrations, this very cir- cumstance might also lead a poet to give a dramatic fashioning to the material supplied by 1 K 1. 2, and, in so doing, to utilize the further development the story had undergone in the popular memory. Now, Budde himself (p.

8) remarks that the circumstance that Solomon had his brother put to death on Abishag's account, may have given rise to the legend that he himself loved her and made her his wife, and that the execution of his brother was thus an act of jealousy. But if we admit the possibility of this, there is another possibility we slioulil not leave out of account. In 1 K 2 we hear nothinrj of Abishag having really become the wife of Solomon.

Wky may not this circumstance have given rise in poetical legend to the conception that the lovely virgin refused to become Solomon's wife, nay even to the conception that her refusal teas based upon her unconquerable love for a youth in her native district ? Moreover, when the notion wa.

s once seized that she had not chosen to be the wife of Solomon, it was no great stretch of poetic fancy to assume that her first introduction into the aj/artments of David by his servants was not a willin;; one on her part, and the presupposition that from tlie Jirst she succeeded in defending her honour fnds its firm basis in tlie express statement of I K 1' {' and the king knew her not '). AVe see then that the narrative of 1 K 1.

2 supplies, especially if we take into account the influence of inventive i)opular reminiscence, <|uite sufficient material for developing the story which the dramatical theory of the Song of Songs con- siders to be unfolded in it.

It reqviired at all events no very great gift of poetic construction to give a dramatical form to this material borrowed from recollections, in which all the points necessary for a simple dramatical development were con- tained and spontaneously ollered themselves to the poet's notice.

But, we repeat emphatically, this does not absolutely exclude the possibility that in later times it was customary in a poetical and symbolical form of address to call a bridegroom and a bride ' Solomon ' or ' king,' and ' Shulam- niite.' * At the same time we think it only right and j)roper to emphasize the other possibility, that an unknown man, of a poetical turn and moved perhaps al.

so by special circumstances, found in this very custom the motive for working up tlie material that lay to his hand. The one supposi- tion does not exclude the other. The question ihether we have really to do with a dramatical poem must be settled from the book itself, and in any case the matter is not so ea-sily settled as Biiclde and those who agree with him suppose. BuiJde flmls ' the solution of the problem of our book ' (p.

10) In the customs reported by Wetzstein in connexion with we<lilirii,-8 ajnuiigst the Syrian Budawin, namely, in the festive proiicwlinKS ol the so-cullcd 'kiiiit's wtek.' The book con- tains. iici:nrding to him, 'sontrs' suntt at the weddini; (estivilies, during; which bridegroom and bride (or husband and wife) are honoure<l for seven days as kinp and queen, whoso throne is the thre»bingl>oard, set on the Ihrishing-noor of the place and decki-d out with can>ets and pillows.

A principal elcnient in these songs are the i™«/« or lyrical descriptions of the nliysical chamis and wedding attire of the young pair. Kvpecialiy im- pressive, mccording to Wetzstein's account (cl. DcliliMch. f.'oinm. •By the way, Budde's view la not at all favoured by the drcumsuncc that in the Song of Songs the Shulammite or the bride is never called ' queen.^ The • daughter of a noMe ' (7') doe* not take the place of this.