Solomon – Spelt

Solomon

1. Sources.— 1 K 1-11 (cf. 11*‘), with parallels in 2 Ch 1-9 (add references in closing chs. of 1 Ch.). In Chronicles the character of Solomon, as of the period as a whole, is idealized; e.g. nothing is said of the intrigues attending his accession, his foreign marriages and idolatry, or his final troubles, even with Jeroboam. Details are added or altered in accordance with post-exilic priestly conceptions (5’^. ‘s 7’ 8"-"); 1’ (cf. 1 Kings 3:4) makes the sacrifice at Gibeon more orthodox; the dream becomes a theophany; in 7:1, 3 fire comes down from heaven. In 9 reference is made to authorities, possibly sections of 1 K.; there is no evidence that the Chronicler was able to go behind 1, 2 K. for his materials. The books of OT and Apocrypha ascribed to Solomon are of value only as giving later conceptions of his career. Josephus (Ant. viii. i.-viii.) cannot be relied on where he differs from OT; the same holds good of the fragments quoted by Eusebius and Clemens Alexandrinus. Later legends, Jewish and Mohammedan, are interesting, but historically valueless; the fact that they have in no way influenced the OT narrative is an evidence of its general reliability; only two dreams and no marvels are recorded of Solomon. Archeology has so far contributed very little to our knowledge of his reign.

2. Chronology .^His accession is dated c. b.c. 969, i.e. about 50 years later than the traditional chronology. We have unfortunately no exact data, the dates of Hiram and Shishak (1 Kings 11:40) not having been precisely determined. The origin and interpretation of the 480 years in 6:1 are very doubtful. The ‘little child’ of 3:7 (cf. Jeremiah 1:6) does not require the tradition that Solomon was only twelve at his accession (Josephus); the probabilities point to his being about twenty. The 40 years of his reign, as of David’s (cf. Judges 3:11, 30 5:31 S’s etc.), would seem to represent a generation.

3. Early years. — Solomon was the son of David and Bathsheba (2 Samuel 12:24, 25), presumably their eldest surviving child; his position in the lists of 5:14, 1 Chronicles 3:5 14:4 is strange, perhaps due to emphasis. The name means ‘peaceful’ (Heb. Shelomoh; cf. Irenoeus, Friedrich), indicating the longing of the old king (1 Chronicles 22:9) cf. Absalom (‘father is peace’). The name given him by Nathan (2 812^), Jedidiah (‘beloved of J",’ the same root as David), is not agam referred to, perhaps as being too sacred. It was the pledge of his father’s restoration to Divine favour. "We have no account of his training. ‘The Lord loved him’ (2 Samuel 12:24) implies great gifts; and V.2S and 1 Kings 1 suggest the influence of Nathan. His mother evidently had a strong hold over him (1 Kings 1. 2).

4. Accession. — The appointment of a successor in Eastern monarchies depended on the king’s choice, which in Israel needed to be ratified by the people (1 Kings 12); where polygamy prevails, primogeniture cannot be assumed. 1:13 implies a previous promise to Bathsheba, perhaps a ‘court secret’; the public proclamation of 1 Chronicles 22:2–19, if at all historical, must be misplaced. Adonijah, ‘a very goodly man’ (1 Kings 1:6). relying on the favour of the people (2:15) [it is doubtful whether he was the eldest surviving son], made a bid for the throne, imitating the method of Absalom and taking advantage of David’s senility. He was easily foiled by the prompt action of Nathan and Bathsheba; Solomon himself was evidently young, though soon able to assert himself. The careful and impressive ritual of the coronation was calculated to leave no doubt in the people’s mind as to who was the rightful heir. The young king learned quickly to distinguish between his friends and enemies, as well as to rely on the loyalty of the Cherethites, his father’s foreign bodyguard. The sparing of Adonijah (1 Kings 1:53) suggests that he was not a very formidable competitor; his plot was evidently badly planned. His request to Bathsheba (2:13) may have been part of a renewed attempt on the kingdom (as heir he claims his father’s wives), or may have been due to real affection. At any rate the king’s suspicion or jealousy was aroused, and his rival was removed; Canticles suggests that Solomon himself was believed to have been the lover of Abishag. The deposition of Abiathar, and the execution of Joab and Shimei, were natural consequences; and in the case of the two last, Solomon was only following the advice of his father (2:5, 8). He thus early emphasized his power to act, and as a result ‘his kingdom was established greatly’ at a cheap cost. We shall hardly criticise the removal of dangerous rivals when we remember the fate which he himself would have met if Adonijah had succeeded(121), and the incidents common at the beginning of a new reign (2 Kings 11:1; cf. Proverbs 25:5).

5. Policy. — The work of Solomon was to develop the ideas of his father. He consolidated the kingdom.

welding its disorganized tribal divisions together Into a short-lived unity, by the power of an Oriental despotism. The subjugation of the Canaanites was completed (9). The position of Jerusalem as the capital was secured by the building of the Temple and palaces and by the fortification of Millo (9 11:27). A chain of garrison and store cities was established (9:15), together with a standing army which included 12,000 horsemen and 1400 chariots (4 10:26). The extent of his dominions (4:21, 24) may represent the idea of a later age, and Eastern monarchs were ready to claim suzerainty where there was but little effective control. But inscriptions show us how kaleidoscopic were the politics of the period; kingdoms rose and fell very quickly, and the surrounding States were all at the time in a state of weakness. It was this that enabled his reign to be a generation of peace. His troubles (11) were very few for so long a life. The hostility of Hadad (v. 14 ff.) was a legacy from David, but there is no evidence that he became king of Edom. Rezon (v. 23) conquered Damascus and founded a dynasty, but we hear nothing of any serious war. Nothing is known of the Hamath-zobah which Solomon subdued (2 Chronicles 8:3). . More than any other Jewish king, he realized the importance of foreign alliances, which were closely connected with his commercial policy, (a) Early in his reign he married Pharaoh’s daughter (1 Kings 3:1). who brought as her marriage portion Gezer (9:16). This Pharaoh was apparently the last of the Tanite (21st) dynasty — a contused period of which little is known; we have no other notice of the connexion between Egypt and Palestine at this period. Solomon was able to control, and no doubt profited by, the caravan trade between the Euphrates and the Nile. The caravanserai of Chimham (Jeremiah 41:17; cf. 2 Samuel 19:37, 1 Kings 2:7) may have been established at this period in cormexion with that trade. From Egypt (unless a N. Syrian Musri is intended) came horses and chariots for Solomon’s own use, and for the purposes of a Syrian trade (10:28, 29). The alliance was apparently not disapproved at the time (cf. Psalms 45), but it was not continued; Shishak protects Jeroboam (1 Kings 11:40). (6) The alliance with Hiram of Tyre (according to Clem. Alex., Solomon also married his daughter, cf. II’- ‘) was a continuation of the policy of David [but unless this Hiram was the son of David’s ally, the building of the palace in 2 Samuel 5:11 is put too early]. This was in connexion with his building operations (5:1–12). Timber from Lebanon was brought by sea to Joppa, together with skilled workmen from Tyre, especially the Gebalites (v. 18. ct. Ezekiel 27:9) Hiram, a worker in brass, is particularly mentioned (1 Kings 7:13). The yearly payment consisted of agricultural commodities (5:11) note exaggerations in 2 Chronicles 2:10). A grant of twenty cities in Galilee was unsatisfactory to Hiram, though he apparently paid for them (1 Kings 9:10–14). A more substantial return was the security which Solomon was able to offer to Phoenician trade with the E., and, above all, access to the port of Ezion-geber on the Red Sea, made possible by his suzerainty over Edom. Tamar (1 Kings 9:18 RV [AV’ Tadmor ‘]) in S. Judab apparently protected the route to the port. A lucrative trade was carried on by the two kings in partnership, in gold, spices, sandalwood, apes, peacocks, etc. (9:26 10). The extent of their voyages is a mystery, the situation of both Ophir and Tarshish being unknown. Assuming that there was only one Tarshish, and that in the West, it is still very doubtful whether Solomon can have been allowed any share in the Mediterranean trade;’ ships of Tarshish ‘may be only a name for a particular type of vessel. The Ophir trade must have been connected with S. Arabia; hence no doubt the visit of the queen of Sheba (10:1) the’ presents’ exchanged would be really of the nature of barter, as illustrated by the Tell el-Amarna tablets. The Jews never took kindly to the sea, and, except for the abortive attempt of Jehoshaphat (22:48), Solomon’s policy found no imitators. 6. Internal condition of his kingdom, — The impression is given us of great wealth. Though the sums left by David (1 Chronicles 22:14) are incredible (equal to a thousand million pounds), Solomon’s own revenue (four millions, 1 Kings 10:14) is possible tor an exceptional year. But the gold was used chiefly in unproductive forms of display (v. 16 ff.), and probably but little was in circulation among the people; he had a difficulty in paying Hiram (9:11). His passion for buildings was extravagant; the Temple was seven years in building (B’s); his own house thirteen (7:1) there was also the palace for his wife (v. 8). He had an enormous court (note list of officers in 4:2) and harem (11:1), necessitating a luxurious daily provision (4:22). The country was divided into twelve parts, under twelve officers, each responsible tor a month’s supplies (v. 7) these did not coincide with the tribal divisions, and Judah was exempt. For the building operations a mos or forced levy was organized under Adoram (5:13, ct. 2 Samuel 20:24) with numerous subordinates(5’« 9) 30,000 men were sent to Lebanon, 10,000 a month; there were carriers and hewers (5:15), and the aborigines were used as helots (9, Ezra 2:55 mentions their descendants). The mas was the very word used of the labour in Egypt, and beneath the apparent prosperity (4) was a growing discontent and jealousy of Judah, which broke out in the rebellion of Jeroboam. By his personal popularity and extravagant display Solomon won a great ‘name’ (4 10:1, 7), and gave Israel a position among the nations. His reign came to be idealized, but his policy was clearly economically and socially unsound, and could only lead to ruin. From the religious point of view the outstanding feature is the building of the Temple. It is an anachronism to represent it as the centralization of the worship of J" according to the standard of Deut., to the exclusion of the ‘high places,’ and its effect was largely neutralized by the honour paid to other gods (11); none the less its elaborate magnificence was a visible proof of the triumph of J" over the Baal worship of Canaan, and of His exaltation as supreme God of the nation. It cannot be maintained that the material and local conception of the Deity which it suggested made entirely for spiritual religion (Isaiah 1:13. Jeremiah 7:4, Acts 7:48)) it meant a concentration of power in the hands of the Jerusalem priesthood at the cost of the prophets, who had no influence during Solomon’s reign (Nathan in 4:5 is probably his brother), and the attitude of Nathan, Ahijah, and Shemaiah makes it probable that they looked with suspicion on the new developments. It was, however, a necessary step in the religious history of the nation, and the Psalms prove that it made Zion the centre of its enthusiastic patriotism.

7. His wisdom was the special gift of God (3:5). His ‘judgment’ (v. 16 ff.) is the typical instance. It presumably took place early in hisreign(cf . the contemptuous laughter of the people in Jos. Ant. viii. ii. 2), and simply shows a shrewd knowledge of human nature; many parallels are quoted. It proves his fitness for judicial functions, and 4:29–34 gives the general idea of his attainments. He was regarded as the father of Jewish proverbial (or gnomic) wisdbm; ‘wisdom books’ existed in Egypt long before, but it seems impossible to distinguish in our present ‘Proverbs’ (c. b.c. 250) what elements may be due to him. Sirach and Wis. have no title to his name. 1 K 4 suggest general and poetical culture, parables drawn from nature, rather than the beginnings of science. Psalms 72 may possibly belong to his age, but not Psalms 127 or Canticles. Later tradition added much; the solving of ‘riddles’ held a large place in the wisdom of the East, and we hear of the ‘hard questions’ of the queen of Sheba (10:1), and of a contest between Solomon and Hiram (Jos. Ant. viii. v. 3). Josephus also speaks of his power over demons; Rabbinical legend of his control over beasts and birds, of his ‘magic carpet,’ and knowledge of the Divine name. Examples of the legendary material are accessible in Farrar’s Solomon.

8. Character. — Solomon evidently began his reign with high ideals, of which his dream (3:5) was a natural expression. His sacrifice at Gibeon (v. 4) gives another aspect; his religion was associated with external display. So the magnificence of the Temple, the pageantry and holocausts of its dedication (8), certainly ministered to his own glory, no less than to God’s. His prayer, however, if it be in any sense authentic, is full of true piety, and he seems to have had a real delight in religious observances (9). . His fall is connected with his polygamy and foreign wives (11, cf. Nehemiah 13:26). He not only allowed them their own worship, a necessary concession, but shared in it; the memory of his ‘high places,’ within sight of his own Temple, was preserved in the name ‘Mount of Offence.’ This idolatry was, in fact, the natural syncretism resulting from his habitual foreign intercourse. Self-indulgence and the pride of wealth evidently played their part in his deterioration. Of his actual end nothing is known; he was an ‘old man’ (1 Kings 11:4) at sixty years„but Jeroboam’s flight suggests that he could still make his authority felt. Ecclesiastes gives a good impression of the ‘moral’ of his life; but whether he actually repented and was ‘saved’ was warmly debated by the Fathers. Deuteronomy 17:16 f. criticises his Egyptian alliance and harem, his love of horses and of wealth, and Sirach 47:12–21 is a fair summary of the career of one whose ‘heart was not perfect with the Lord his God, as was the heart of David his father’ (1 Kings 11:4). His wisdom could not teach him self-control, and the only legacy of a violated home-life was a son ‘ample in foolishness and lacking in understanding.’

C. W. Emmet.

Solo

Solo mOK’S PORCH,— See Temple, § 11 (a).

Solomon's Servants

See Nethinim.

Someis

Someis (1 Esdras 9:34) =Shimei, Ezra 10:38.

Sometime, Sometimes

There is no difference in the use of these two forms in AV, and except in Sirach 37:14 (Tor a man’s mind is sometime wont to tell him,’ etc.), where the meaning is ‘occasionally,’ as now, both forms are used in the sense of ‘once upon a time.’

Son

See Child, Family.

Son of God, Son Ofman

See Person of Christ, I. §§ 3. 4.

Song of Songs

(or CANTICLES). 1. Place in the Canon, interpretation, structure.— (a)TheSongof Songs is one of the Kethublm, Hagiographa, or Writings, the third of the three classes into which the Jewish Canon was divided. Printed copies of the Heb. OT follow the arrangement of the German and French MSS in plaicing it at the head of the five Megilloth or Rolls — the short books which are read at the great annual solemnities of Passover, Pentecost, the 9th Ab, Feast of Booths, Purim. Probably it owes its premier position to the tact that Passover is the earliest festival of the year. But there is reason for believing that a more ancient order survives in .the LXX, where it stands by the side of Prov. and Eccles., the two other works to which Solomon’s name was attached.

Grave doubts were long entertained by the Rabbis respecting the canonicity of Canticles (a common name of the book, from Vulg. Canticum Canticorum).

The Synod ofJamnia(A.D.90-100), after some discussion, decidedmfavourof its reception, and Rabbi Akiba(tA.D. 335) lent to this conclusion the weight of his great infiuence: ‘All the Hagiographa are holy, but the Song of Songs is the most holy, and the whole world is not of such importance as the day in which it was given.’ The opening words_ of the Targum are equally strong: ‘Songs and praises which Solomon the prophet, the king of Israel, spake by the Holy Spirit before Janweh, the Lord of the whole world. Ten son^ were sung in that day, but this song was more to be praised than they all,’ The Midrash asserts that ‘Canticles 13 the most excellent of songs, dedicated to Him who one day will cause the_ Holy Ghost to rest on us; -it is that song in which God praises us and we Him.’

(6) It was evidently admitted into the OT because it was supposed to treat of a religious theme. This is Implied by its title in the Syriac Version: ‘Wisdom of Wisdoms, which is Solomon’s: the book which is called in Hebrew Shirath Shirim (i.e. " Song of Songs").’ The theme was supposed to be the reciprocal love of Jahweh and Israel, and the story of that love in the history of the Chosen People. This was here enshrined in an allegory somewhat analogous to Hos 1-3 and Ezekiel 16. The Church adopted this line of interpretation from the Synagogue: Christ is the bridegroom, the Church or the soul is the bride.

The rubrics prefixed to many verses in Cod. Amiatinus of the Vulgate illustrate the manner in which this was worked out: ‘Voice of the Synagogue,’ ‘Voice of the Church,’ ‘Voice of Christ,’ "Voice of Mary Magdalene to the Church,’ ‘Christ calls together the nations.’ Tobit 22:1 writers the Virmn Mary was the bride, and Canticles told the story of the Incarnation. Luther read here Solomon’s thanksgivings for the blessings bestowed on his kingdom. The school of allegorists has lost ground considerably in modem times, but is not yet extinct. There were, however, almost from the beginning, exegetes who saw that the subject really treated of in Ca. is the mutual love of man and woman. In the early Church the great name of Theodore of Mopsuestia stands out on this side, and among the Jews that of Ibn Ezra. Castelho was driven out of Geneva by Calvin for asserting it, and Luis de Leon was thrown into prison by the Inquisition for the same cause.

(c) The question of form is closely connected with that of subject. Origen was the first to point out its affinity to the drama, but the earliest attempt to work this out thoroughly was made as late as 1722 by a German, G. Wachter. He has found many followers. Solomon and a country maiden were supposed to be the two leading characters. He married her, and his love for her led him to adopt a simpler mode of life. But is there not a third important character in the play? Later students answered in the affirmative. The revised explanation was that Solomon carried off ‘the Shulammite’ to his harem, and, abetted by the women already there, the ‘daughters of Jerusalem,’ sought to divert her affections from her shepherd-lover: failing in this, he at last magnanimously resigned her to the shepherd. Leaving aside all detailed objections, the consideration which is fatal to these and all conceivable forms of the theory is that the drama has no place in Semitic literature. If Ca. had been an exception to the rule, how is it that there is not a single stage-direction, not a note of any kind to identify the speaker or regulate the action?

Certain important MSS of the LXX show how keenly this defect was felt: to each longer or shorter section they prefix ‘The Bndegroom,’ ‘The Bride,’ ‘A second time the Bride adjures the maidens,’ or the like, and one MS (23) runs to the following length, before 5:7, ‘Not having found the bridegroom, the bride went out, and, as one found by the city-watchmen in the night, she is wounded and the keepers of the wall take her veil.’

And how is it that there is, within the poem itself, no movement towards a climax, no knot united or cut, no denouementf Matters are as far advanced at 1:4 2:4 as at 8:5.

Even during the period when the drama-theory was most vigorously maintained, some distinguished scholars held that Ca. is made up of a number of originally detached pieces, which were eventually brought together because they all treat of Love. Wetzstein’s Die Syrische Drescktafel (1873) furnished a strong reinforcement of this opinion. He had observed, whilst resident in Syria, that the peasant bridegroom and bride are entitled king and queen for the first week of married life [a contemporary Arabic epithalamium has since then been cited {.ZATW xxiv. p. 42) in which the man actually bears the name of the reigning Sultan, Abd il-Hamid]; they are attended by a vizier, have their throne on the threshing-floor, and receive the homage of the whole countryside. Songs and dances are executed by the ‘friends of the bridegroom,’ the bystanders, and the newly married pair. Some of these ditties, especially those which enumerate the charms of the bride, ate of exactly the same character as certain sections of Canticles, and 7:1 ff. corresponds precisely with the wasf (‘description’) which the bride sings as she goes through the sword-dance on the wedding night. These facts have induced a large number of expositors to believe that Ca. is a coliection of love-songs, composed expressly for, or at any rate suitable for use at, marriage festivals.

Budde, who strongly advocates this view, admits that the boois is not without marks of unity, Ijut holds that these are sufficiently accounted for on the supposition that all these folk-songs originated in a single district and {)enod. Haupt entirely rejects the idea of a unity, and, ooking on the book in its present state as a disorganized mass, re-arranges it into twelve poems. The extent to which he carries the liberty of re-casting may be seen in his No. 3, ‘Brothera of the Bride,’ which is made up of 6:3 7:11 2:1 1:5, 6 8:8–10 gi 2. Even Budde’s less drastic treatment scarcely does justice to the tokens of plan and unity which the book presents. The recurrence of certain phrases (2:7 3:5 8:4: 2:17 4:6 8:14) is meant to indicate connexions and transitions of thought, and there is no overwhelming reason against our ascribing them to the original writer.

The sentiments and the style are so similar throughout as to justify our thinking of a single author who composed erotic and nuptial pieces tor several occasions, and afterwards wove them into a garland of verse (cf. 2:5 5:8; 1 4:1 ; 4:2 6:6; 2:16 6; 6:4 6:10; 2:9 8:14). A few of the smaller parts have probably been removed from their intended place, and it hardly admits of doubt that 4:8 is a belated fragment, unintelligible where it now stands. But when we remember the apparent irrelevance of the occasional .verses sung in Palestine to-day, we shall be slow to deny that the singers and auditors of Ca. grasped allusions and perceived a fitness which we fail to apprehend. And in studying the song from this point of view it is well to bear in mind the facts collected by Dalman (,Pal/ist. Divan, p. xii.). He points out that the wast is not limited to wedding festivities, but is sung by the tent-fire, in the village inn, in the coffee-house where townsmen gather at night; that it is usually brief when descriptive of the beauty of bride or bridegroom; that in Palestine itself — however true Wetzstein’s account of Damascus and the Hauran — there are but scanty traces of the temporary royalty of the bridal pair, and none of the threshingsledge throne.

2, Contents. — These fall into what we may call seven cantos. I. (1:2): in I*-‘the bride declares her affection; in v. deprecates unfavourable criticism; in v. 7 f. inquires for her beloved. In l’-2= we have their praise of each other; in 2:4–7 her experience of love. II. (2:8): vv. 8–14 a spring visit, v. 15 the foxes, v. 16 f. close of the canto. III. (3:1): vv. 1, 5 a dream, vv. 6–11 interlude. IV. (4:1): in 4:1–7 he sets forth her charms; V.’ afragment, vv. 9–11 his ecstasy of love, 4:12 a ‘garden.’ V. (S^-e’): 5:2–8 a dream, 5:9 wasf sung by bride; vv. 4–9 his praise of her. VI. (B^-S’): 6:10 inquiry by women, v. 11 f. her rapture, e’^T’" wasf sung during sword-dance (‘dance of camps,’ 7:1), 7:11. songs of the bride. VII. (gs-u); T.5 a reminiscence, v. 6 f. the power of love, vv. 8–10 the solicitude of the brothers, v. 11 f. an apologue, v. 13 f. conclusion.

We cannot regret that these canticles of human love have been preserved for us in the OT. The mutual attraction of the sexes is Divinely ordained. The love which finds expression in Ca. is regulated by marriage. The imagery is too luscious and the detail too complete for our taste, but they were produced by an Oriental for Orientals. More reticence does not necessarily mean more genuine purity. We should indeed have been glad to find some recognition of the loftier side of marriage, or something to remind us of Pr. 31. But the occasions for which these verses were composed and a comparison of the effusions which are still current on like occasions effectually disarm criticism. Dalman (.Pal. Divan, p. xiii.) remarks justly concerning the folk-songs which he has brought together: ‘The fact that the poems dwell only on the physical excellences of the beloved corresponds with the degree of civilization to which the Palestinian populace has attained. It does not follow that the Oriental ascribes no value to a woman’s excellences of disposition and character.’

3. Authorship and date. — The title (1:1), according to which Solomon was the poet, is entirely destitute of authority. Its late and artificial origin is betrayed by the absence of the full form of the relative pronoun, which occurs nowhere in the poems themselves. The ascription of the authorship to the famous king is due partly to his being mentioned in V 8:12 (3:7, 11 are doubtful), and partly to his reputation as the typically wise man, the composer of songs a thousand and five (1 Kings 4:32). But the canonicity of the book would not have remained an open question until the Ist cent, of the Christian era if it had then been extant a thousand years as an acknowledged product of his hand. Moreover, the language in which it is written belongs to the very latest stratum of Biblical Hebrew. The exclusive use of the abbreviated pronoun occurs in no early document, and cannot be explained as a peculiarity of the northern dialect. And there is no proof that the writer was specially connected with the North; if he mentions Lebanon, Amana, Shenir, Hermon, Tirzah, he also knows En-gedi, Heshbon, the wilderness (of Judah), the ‘daughters of Jerusalem.’ Considering the brevity of the book, there is a very considerable number of words which are seldom or never found elsewhere, or are employed here in place of more common ones, or are to be seen only in late writings. One of them pardes, is Zend; another, ‘egSz, is Persian; ‘appiryHn may be the Gr. phoreion; several are Aramaic. We should not look for these phenomena earlier than the period when Hebrew was yielding place to Aramaic, and if the exact age cannot be determined, the 3rd cent. B.C. is at least approximately correct.

4. Style. — It would be a dull eye that should miss the beauty of these poems. The verse moves lightly and gracefully, the imagery is charming. Our poet was deeply susceptible to the loveliness of nature, and fully capable of appreciating the art of his time. He carries us with him into the open air, to the vineyards, -the villages, the mountains, He is awake at daybreak, to inhale the scent of the forest trees, to gather the apples and the pomegranates, to listen to the tinkle of the rills. Flocks of wild pigeons, timid and swift gazelles, fields embroidered with lilies, the breath of spring — all appeal to him. On the other hand, he is stirred by the pomp of a court, the magnificence of a royal litter, the glittering whiteness of an ivory tower, martial trophies, the rich attire of women, their jewels and perfumes. As a poem there is nothing else in the Bible to compare with this. Had it indeed been Solomon’s, it would have been, as the title asserts, his Song of Songs, the ftne fteur of his poetry.

5. Text. — This is not in a satisfactory state, but the critic should proceed with much caution. There are many passages where our view of the interpretation suggests alterations (l^- s- s 2:9 3:10 4:14, 16 5 e. s 7:8, 9, 13) but it is obviously easy to allow ourselves too much licence. Bearing in mind what might be advanced on both sides, who shall determine whether Nergal is to be substituted for nidhffaloth (‘banners ‘) at 6:10 The Versions, especially LXX and Syr., supply a few better readings (!’• ‘■ ‘■ 2:17 S’- ‘■ ‘° 4:8 5 6:6 7:1 8:2). There are obvious errors of transcription: nard should not follow nards (4). Emendations suggested by the metre deserve attention (1:15 3:9, 11 7:8). but this has been carried much too far, not only by Bickell, but also in Kittel’s edition of the Heb. Bible. Littmann (ZATW xxiv. p. 43) pertinently remarks that in many of the popular Arabic poems which he has collected there is an absence of definite verse-measure, and considers that ‘in the OT also, verses of that Idnd, without definite metre, are at least possible.’ There has been also a little too much readiness to delete verses, sentences, or words^ on the ground that they occur in other parts of the poem in more suitable contexts. Martineau would omit 3:1–5 because of its resemblance to 5:2 ff. We must not forget that catchwords and refrains are characteristic of tiiis class of poetry.

J. Taylor. SOITG OF THE THREE HOLY CHILDREN.— See Apocrypha, § 6.

Sons of God

See Children of God.

Sons of the Prophets

See Prophecy, p.TSS".

Soothsayer

See Magic Divination and

SORCEBT.

Sop

See Meals, 6.

SOP ATEE. SOSIPATER.— These are two formsof the same name; St. Luke, as usual, adopts the more colloquial. 1. In Acts 20:4 we read that Sopater, son of Pyrrhus (BV), of Beroea, accompanied St. Paul on his journey towards Jerusalem as far as Asia (if these last words are part of the true text), i.e. Troas [see Secundus]. The mention of the father’s name, unusual in NT, is thought by Blass to denote that Sopater was of noble birth; by Alford, to be intended to distinguish him from — 2. A ‘kinsman,’ i.e. fellow-countryman [see Jason], of St. Paul, who sends greetings in Romans 16:21. It seems unlikely, but not impossible, that these are the same person.

A. J. Maclean.

Sope

See Soap.

Sophereth

A family of Nethinim, Nehemiah 7:57 Ezra 2:55 Hassophereth, 1 Esdras 5:33 Assaphioth.

Sophonias

Sophonias (2 Esdras 1:40) =Zephaniah the prophet.

S0RCER7. — See Magic Divination and Sobceky.

Soreg

See Temple, 11 (6).

Sorek, Valley of

Sorek, valley of (perh.=‘valley of the soreq vine’ [ct. art. Vine]). — The valley or wOdy in which Delilah lived (Judges 16:4). Eusebius and Jerome connect the valley with Capharsorec, a village to the north of Eleutheropolis and near Saraa, that is, Zorah, the home of Samson’s father. Capharsorec is now Khurbet Surlk, to the north of Wady es-Swar, which is identified with ‘the valley of Sorek,’ and not far from Swr’ah. See also ZOBAH.

Sorrel

See Colours, 3.

Sosipater

See Sopateb.

Sosthenes

1. Ruler of the synagogue at Corinth, whom ‘they all’ (RV) laid hold on and beat when Gallio dismissed the case against St. Paul (Acts 18:17). He probably succeeded Crispus as ruler when the latter became a Christian (v. 8). and the hostility of the rabble to the Jews showed itself when they were worsted in the courts. 2. ‘The brother’ associated with St. Paul in addressing the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 1:1). and therefore probably a native of Corinth who had special relations with the Church there. If both references are to the same man, he must have been converted after the Gallio incident. A. J. Maclean.

Sostratus

The governor of the citadel at Jerusalem under Antiochus Epiphanes (2 Maccabees 4:27 (28)- m).

Sotai

A family of ‘Solomon’s servants’ (Ezra 2:55 =Neh 7").

Soul

The use of the term in the OT (Heb. nephesh) for any animated being, whether human or animal (Genesis 1:20 ‘life,’ 2:7), must be distinguished from the Greek philosophical use for the immaterial substance which gives life to the body, and from the use in the NT (Gr. psyche) where more stress is laid on individuality (Matthew 16:26 RVm). As the Bible does not contain a scientific psychology, it is vain to dispute whether it teaches that man’s nature is bipartite (body and soul or spirit) or tripartite (body and soul and spirit): yet a contrast between soul and spirit (Heb. rHach, Gr. pneuma) may be recognized; while the latter is the universal principle imparting life from the Creator, the former is the individual organism possessed of life in the creature (Genesis 2:7 — ‘breath of life’ and ‘living soul’). — In some passages the terms are used as equivalent (Isaiah 26:9, Lk !"• ", Philippians 1:27 RV), in others a distinction is made (He 4:12. 1 Thessalonians 5:23). The distinction is this: ‘soul’ expresses man as apart from God, a separate individual; ‘spirit’ expresses man as drawing his life from God (cf. John 10:11, ‘life’^‘soul,’ and 19:30). This separate individuality may renounce its dependence and refuse its submission to God. Hence the adjective ‘psychical’ may be rendered sensual (James 3:15. Jude " [RVm ‘Or, natural. Or, animal’l), or natural (1 Corinthians 2:14 15:44–46). Probably sensual in the two passages conveys more moral meaning than the term’ psychical ‘justifies, and natural is the better rendering, as expressing what belongs to the old unregenerate life in contrast with the characteristic of the new life in Christ, the spiritual (.pneumatic). A parallel change in the use of the term’ flesh’ and its corresponding adjective may be noted.

Alpked E. Gabvib.

South

See Neqeb.

Sower, Sowing

See Agricdlture, § 1.

Spain

The extent of country to which in NT times the name Spain, or more strictly ‘the Spains,’ was given, was practically identical with modern Spain. In the earliest times of which we have any knowledge it was inhabited, at least in part, by a race supposed to be a mixture of the aboriginal Iberian population with immigrant Celts. In b.c. 236, Hamilcar, father of the great Hannibal, invaded the country from Carthage, and after nine years of conquest was succeeded by hia son-in-law Hasdrubal, who in turn was succeeded by Hannibal, under whom about b.c. 219 the conquest of the country was practically completed. Hannibal used it as his base in the Second Punic War against Rome. The Romans first invaded Spain in 218, and after various successes and reverses constituted two provinces there in 197, known for centuries afterwards as Hispania Citerior (Tarraconensis) and Hispania Ulterior (Bsetica), separated from one another by the Ebro. The mountainous districts in the NW. were not actually subdued till the time of the Emperor Augustus (b.c. 20). The country was valued for its agricultural products, as well as its precious metals. It became the most thoroughly Romanized of all the Roman provinces, and in nothing is St. Paul’s Roman attitude more evident than in his determination to proceed from Rome to Spain, rather than to Africa or to Gaul (Romans 15:24). It is not known whether he carried out his plan. Spain claims more honoured names in Roman literature than any other country in the 1st cent, a.d., having been the birthplace of the two Senecas, Columella, Mela, Lucan, Martial, and Quintilian. A. Souter.

Span

See Weights and Measures.

Sparrow

Sparrow mppsr, Psalms 84:3 102:7). The Heb. word is probably equivalent of Arab. ‘asfur, and includes any’ twittering’ birds; generally tr. ‘bird’ or ‘fowl’. See Bird. In the NT references (Matthew 10:29. Luke 12:6, 7) strouthion evidently refers to the sparrow, which to-day is sold for food as cheaply as in NT times.

E. W. G. Masterman.

SPARTA. SPARTANS.— See Lacedemonians.

Speaking, Evil

See Evil Speaking.

Spear

See Armour Arms, § 1.

Speckled Bird

Jeremiah 12:9 (only). If the MT of this passage is correct, the tr. can hardly be other than ‘Is mine heritage unto me (.i.e. to my sorrow [a dativus ethicus, Cheyne, ad loc.’]) (as) a speckled bird of prey? Are (the) birds of prey against her round about?’ (so, substantially, RV). The people of Israel is compared to a bird of preu, just as, on account of its hostility to Jehovah, it is compared in v.s to a lion. But, as a speckled bird attracts the hostile attention of other birds, Israel becomes a prey to the heathen. The rendering proposed by some, ‘mine heritage is unto me (he ravenous hyaena,’ cannot be obtained from the present text, which, however, is possibly incorrect.

Spelt

See Fitches, Rie.