EXCURSUS UPON ARGUMENTS URGED BY PROF. GRAETZ, 701

3. A far more formidable argument for assigning a recent date to the Song is that based on its linguistic peculiarities. Graetz enumerates and discusses between 30 and 40 words and phrases which he classes, I. as Aramaisms and neo-Hebraisms discussed under 18 heads; II, as words derived from the ancient Persian language; he contends for the appearance in the Song of two such words; and 1. as linguistic elements derived from Greek; these are discussed under 7 heads. The last indictment, which might seem at first the most, formidable, reduces itself on even a superficial examination to very moderate dimensions. The derivation of from kúpos for example, and that of from píoyew, seem to be mere trifling. So also the etymology suggested for л, Tλis or Tηλwπós, and the consequent rendering of iv. 4, Thy neck is like

the tower of David, built for a distant view, and 7, iv. 14, changed into for

the sake of a derivation from podov. The only

Greek derivation which has any measure of

probability is the old one of

N from po petov. But inasmuch as always means in later Hebrew a nuptial couch or a bridal litter with stately canopy (MD), the ordinary Rab

binical derivation from "to be fruitful" need not be given up. Of the two Persian etymologies the second is obtained by the substitution of (carmine or crimson) for (Mount Carmel, vii. 6), a substitution as unpoetical as it is unnecessary. But the former of these Persian etymologies, that of 77 from a supposed old Persian word equivalent to the Zend or Bactrian pairidaêza and original of the Greek napádeloos carries much more weight, and is now generally accepted. (See Canon Rawlinson's Note on Neh. ii. 8 in this Comm.) But even so, Graetz's argument based upon it, that the Song could not have been written before the era of the Persian conquests in the sixth century B.C., would not be conclusive. The Hebrew language undoubtedly contained many foreign non-Semitic words at and before the time of Solomon, and may have been enriched with several additions during his reign (comp. 1 K. X. II, note, additional Notes B and C at end of the Chapter, and M. Müller, ‘Lect. on Lang.,' First Series, 5th ed. pp. 222-228). There are also several other foreign terms in the Song,,, (Delitzsch 'H. L.' p. 22), which few would regard as indications of its post-Salomonic origin. Why may not D have been as early an importation into the language as one of these? But the suggestion is not required. The Aryan derivation of may surely be considered doubtful. Pairidaêza in the ‘Vendidad' (111. 58, Spiegel, p. 82) is not (as the Editor of this Commentary remarks) a park or hunting-ground or garden, but a heap or mound

thrown up around a space in which a corpsebearer is to be; "Let the worshippers of Ormuzd throw up about it a pairidaêza.” He suggests that the old Persian term represented by Tapádeloos may after all have been a Semitic word adopted by the Persian kings. Prof. de Lagarde ('Gesamm. Abhandl.' pp. 75, 76, 210, 211) arrives, though on different grounds, at a similar conclusion. Why may not have a Hebrew etymology (say from "to spread out" with afformative D, like Job xxvi. 9, from with afformative 1) and be an old Hebrew word for a garden or plantation of fruit trees? This at any rate would justify Ibn Ezra's interpretation of the term already cited (see Comm. on Song iv. 13, note); with which may be compared that given in the Schah of Al-Jauexplaining the use of the word in Arabic: hari (kindly pointed out by Prof. Wright)

کرم مفردس an. فردوس

gji.e. an

orchard laid out in the manner of a Pardēs is

one in which the trees are trained on walls or

trellis work. The meaning of both in the
Song and Eccles. ii. 5 is evidently rather that of
a nursery garden for valuable fruit-trees, than
to have been the old Persian use of the term
of a hunting-park or plantation, which seems
represented by the Greek Tapaderos. At any
rate the proof is not established that
was derived from pairidaiza or παράδεισος,
or any non-Semitic word.

The real strength of Graetz's linguistic argument lies in the large number of so-called Aramaisms and other forms and words supposed to be characteristic of later Hebrew. Two general remarks must suffice here.

(1) Some of the most marked peculiarities of diction in the Song seem, when viewed in connection with the general purity of its Hebrew style, to be best accounted for on Ewald's hypothesis that they are provincialisms due to the author's predilection for the dialect spoken in his time in northern Palestine, and similar in kind, though fewer in number, to the Doric forms in Theocritus or the Scoticisms in Burns. Among such provincialisms (or archaisms) may be reckoned the use of for N throughout the Song, and, in combination with other particles, no, now,

and

for מדכר לכי רעיה עטיה such forms as

"mouth," &c.

(2) The Song contains a remarkable number of peculiar words; the non-appearance of some of these in other parts of Scripture is, however, easily accounted for. The Song is a work quite sui generis. Its subject and mode of treatment is unique among the writings of the Hebrew Canon. We need not therefore be surprised at meeting there with terms not found elsewhere in Scriptural books, but retained, it may be, in later Hebrew, or

702 EXCURSUS UPON ARGUMENTS URGED BY PROF. GRAETZ.

END OF VOLUME IV.

CAMBRIDGE: PRINTED BY C. J. CLAY, M.A. AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.

Now Publishing, in Medium 8vo. Volumes,

THE HOLY BIBLE;

WITH

An Explanatory and Critical Commentary, and a Revision of the
Translation.

BY BISHOPS AND OTHER CLERGY OF THE ANGLICAN CHURCH.

Edited by F. C. Cook, M.A., Canon of Exeter.

Already Published,

Vol. I.-GENESIS, EXODUS, LEVITICUS, NUMBERS, DEUTERONOMY. By HAROLD E. BROWNE, D.D., Lord Bishop of Winchester; F. C. Cook, M.A., Canon of Exeter; SAMUEL CLARK, M.A., Rector of Eaton Bishop; and T. E. ESPIN, B.D., Canon of Chester.

Vols. II. & III.-JOSHUA, JUDGES, RUTH, SAMUEL, KINGS, CHRONICLES, EZRA, NEHEMIAH, ESTHER. BY ARTHUR CHARLES HERVEY, D.D., Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells; T. E. ESPIN, B.D., Canon of Chester; and GEORGE RAWLINSON, M.A., Canon of Canterbury.

This great Work, which has been prepared by a combination of leading divines of the Church of England, had its origin in the widely-felt want of a plain explanatory Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, which should be at once more comprehensive and compact than any previously published. The cordial and enthusiastic reception which has been extended to the work-even by those whose connections would lead them to the most severe and indeed hostile criticism-demonstrates the great success which the enterprise has already achieved. From the fulness, fairness, thoroughness, and candour with which all difficult questions are discussed, the Bible Commentary is sure to be satisfactory to the scholar; while the plain, direct, and devout manner in which the meaning of the Sacred Text is explained, thoroughly adapts it for the widest popular use, whether in the closet, in the family, or in the Sunday-school. -Advertisement to the American Edition.

AMERICAN TESTIMONY TO THE SPEAKER'S COMMENTARY.

The Episcopal Clergy.

Rt. Rev. HORATIO POTTER, Bishop of New York. I beg to thank you for a copy of the first volume of the Speaker's Commentary, and to congratulate you on the privilege and honor you have of introducing that important work to the American public. There can be no manner of doubt of its great value, or of its eminent success. We have long felt the want of just such a comprehensive and complete Commentary on the Holy Scriptures for our Students of Divinity, our Clergy, and for a large class of general readers. The Editor, Canon Cook, has for many years been one of my most highly valued friends. He is an able man; and most of the distinguished contributors are well known to me personally or by reputation. I earnestly hope that a copy of it may find its way into the library of every Clergyman of our Church in the land. Of course, in saying this, I do not mean to deny that there are subordinate points about which there will be differences of opinion.

Rt. Rev. ARTHUR CLEVELAND COXE, Bishop of
Western New York.

The Speaker's Commentary is a feature of the age in which we live. It cannot fail to mark an era in the Scientific Exposition of Scripture for popular ends. It may possibly disappoint the very high expectations which have been raised by the names of those who are taking part in it, but it would fail to embody a larger amount of fresh and condensed elucidation of the inspired pages than has ever been brought together in a single work heretofore. For the Society who wish to form intelligent and critical opinions on points which are now everywhere

Presbyterian Clergymen.

Rev. Prof. W. G. T. SHEDD, D.D., Union Theological
Seminary, New York.

I have examined the first volume of the Bible Commentary, and find it a superior work. If completed in the manner in which it is begun, it will supply a want that has been widely felt. In the first place, it is concise and brief, so that the purchaser and reader will have an exposition of the entire Old and New Testaments in a small compass, compared with any existing commentary. Secondly, the difficult points and passages are not shunned, as is too often the case, especially in comprehensive commentaries. Thirdly, the questions that are raised by natural science are examined with fairness, and answered satisfactorily. Lastly, while it would be premature to pronounce a judgment respecting the manner in which the exposition of passages relating to disputed doctrinal points will be made, there can be no doubt that the Commentary, as a whole, will be firmly evangelical, and that the whole influence of the work will be to strengthen the reader's confidence in Divine Revelation, and put him in a way to popularize it either in the Sabbath-school or the pulpit.

Rev. HOWARD CROSBY, D.D., Pastor of the Fourth
Avenue Presbyterian Church.

The Speaker's Commentary fully realizes the expectation of its most hopeful friends. It is pithy and clear, and exhibits the condensed results of the best and latest scholarship. The English-speaking Church has long been demanding a popular and yet learned and precise commentary on the Old Testament, and, for want of such, the reading and study of the Old Testament have been neglected. This Commentary, coming from a trustworthy

The Episcopal Clergy-continued.

discussed, in their relations to Modern Learning, the work is therefore a precious gift. It will enable them to read and to understand the Scriptures with relish and satisfaction. I doubt not it will deepen their confidence that "the Word of God shall stand for ever."

Rt. Rev. A. N. LITTEJOHN, Bishop of Long Island.

Though I have not been able, as yet, to examine the Speaker's Commentary as fully as I could wish, yet I have seen enough of it to justify me in saying that it will prove a most valuable addition to the department of Sacred Literature to which it belongs. There can be no doubt that it will obtain an extensive circulation, and will be highly prized by all who use it.

Rt. Rev. F. D. HUNTINGTON, Bishop of Central New
York.

It may be said of the work that it not only meets a real want in religious literature, but that it meets a want which had become consciously and widely felt, not to speak of the needs of a large portion of the working clergy themselves, with little time and less money for books. Nearly all Parish Ministers have found it difficult to answer the frequent inquiry of the laity, "What Commentary shall we buy ?" The best that could be done was to name half-a-dozen different exegetical books, on different parts of Holy Scripture, disconnected with each other, and some of them necessarily either very costly or very superficial. Till the Speaker's Commentary was proposed, there appeared small promise that the need would be supplied. That announcement awakened a strong and confident hope; and, in my judgment, the whole American public ought to acknowledge a great debt to your house for the re-publication.

Rt. Rev. THOMAS M. CLARK, Bishop of Rhode Island.

I have examined the Bible Commentary with sufficient care to satisfy me that it will probably be the most valuable work of the kind for general use which has ever been produced in the English tongue. I have the honour of a personal acquaintance with several of the bishops and clergy who are engaged in its preparation, and the reputation of all the contributors to this Commentary, for profound scholarship, is a sufficient guarantee that it will be conducted in the most thorough and satisfactory manner. So far as I have had the opportunity to study this Commentary, it appears to me that it deals with the difficulties of Scripture in an unprejudiced and honest way, while at the same time it is always sound and conservative. The common reader will derive a vast amount of information from its pages, and the most accomplished scholar can read it to advantage.

Rt. Rev. J. JOHNS, Bishop of Virginia.

I have not had time to give the Bible Commentary such examination as would enable me to express an opinion of its merits entitled to consideration by others: yet a partial inspection has impressed me so favorably that I cannot deny myself the privilege of possessing the entire work, and therefore request that as the other volumes are published they may be forwarded to me.

I am sure the clergy and laity will appreciate the service you are rendering in placing this valuable Commentary within their reach.

Rt. Rev. J. B. Kerfoot, Bishop of Pittsburgh. After reading with much care and interest the essays which Bishop Harold Browne gives in his part of the Speaker's Commentary on the Pentateuch, I cannot hesitate to say that that well-known and very able and learned scholar has begun the work in a way worthy of his honoured name; and that from the tone and promise thus given we may anticipate great excellence and soundness in the entire work. Its general usefulness must be very great, for the intelligent, educated layman will find here scholarly, thoughtful, and clear answers to the popular scepticism of the day, as well as instructive expositions of the text of God's word. I hope that the whole Commentary may equal its beginning, and secure a wide circulation among American readers.

Presbyterian Clergymen-continued.

and pious scholarship, will mark an important era in Bible
research on the part of the Church at large. It will do
much to put into possession of all, that which hitherto has
been the exclusive property of a few erudite investigators.
I devoutly thank God for this publication, and expect
great things from it for the cause of truth,

Rev. M. W. JACOBUS, D.D., of the Alleghany
Theological Seminary.

The first volume of the Bible Commentary is a welcome earnest of another extensive and massive Bible work. Its most attractive feature is in the line of excursus, after the manner of a Bible dictionary, incorporating with the notes elaborate and valuable articles on important topics. This method commends itself especially in the treatment of the Pentateuch, and controverted subjects can thus be dealt with more fully than would be allowable in the notes. We were led to expect much from the editorship of Canon Cook, and we are not disap pointed. This work will fill a place not wholly occupied by any that has preceded it, and will add to the scholarly facilities placed within reach of Bible students in our day for thorough understanding of the word of God.

We cordially recommend this work, more than seven years ago projected by dignitaries and scholars of the English Church, as well representing the present status of Biblical science.

Rev. Z. M. HUMPHREY, D.D., Pastor of the Calvary
Presbyterian Church, Philadelphia.

own.

The Speaker's Commentary occupies a place of its It has peculiar merits. If I may judge by the first volume, no commentary of its size is so well calculated to give the reader a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures. It is specially rich in notes, which are treatises rather than simple explanations, and which embody the results of the latest and best scholarship of the times. It also fairly meets the difficulties supposed to arise from the progress of scientific thought and discovery.

Prof. CHARLES A. Aiken, D.D., LL.D., of Princeton.

The use which I have thus far made of the Speaker's Commentary has satisfied me of its adaptation to fill a place heretofore unoccupied in our exegetical literature. With sufficient unity of plan, and similarity in the execution of its several parts, it enlists larger and more varied resources than could be found in any one scholar. It is compact without meagreness, and usually minute enough for all ordinary purposes in canvassing difficulties and illustrating obscurities. It displays candour and sterling sense (so far as I have examined) in treating perplexities, and is well abreast of modern scholarship, philo. ophical, archæological, and historical, while maintaining the deyoutness of a rational Christian faith. It is not wearisome in its parade of learning, and yet abundantly indicates to those whom duty or inclination may call to deeper investigation, the sources of a minuter knowledge. As a compendium it will be prized by many who have access to more exhaustive commentaries, and will furnish helps fresh, solid, and sound, to many who have no access to, or leisure for using, the more extensive store-houses of Biblical learning.

Rev. Dr. GEO. L. PRENTISS.

As far as I have been able to examine the Bible Commentary, it is evidently the work of thoughtful, devout, and earnest Christian scholars. Its tone and spirit are excellent; and if the whole Commentary is executed in this manner, the result will be a most desirable and important addition to our exegetical literature of the Holy Scriptures. My best wishes for the success of this new attempt to explain and do honour to the Word of Life.

The Methodist Clergy.

Rt. Rev. Bishop SCOTT, Bishop of Methodist
Episcopal Church.

I regret much that I am so pressed with official and other engagements that it is not practicable for me to give the work such an examination as would enable me to write such a notice of it as would be satisfactory even to myself. I can say this, however, that having looked through the volume, glancing at paper, type, and binding, and reading an article here and there on important passages, I am very favourably impressed with the work every way. The mechanical execution is all that could be desired, and the notes are brief, comprehensive, and exhaustive, and, on the results reached, the mind generally rests with uncommon satisfaction. I heartily wish you great success in your noble but expensive enterprise.

JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET,