When was Song of Solomon written?

The Song of Solomon. Solomon was not only a Preacher (Ecclesiastes) and a Moralist (Proverbs), but a Song-composer (Canticles). Of the 1005 Songs (1 Kings 4:32) written by Solomon, all have perished save this one which is styled by way of pre-eminence "The Song of Songs," unless we include in the number of 1005 the two Psalms 72 and 127 attributed to Solomon. The book was written in Palestine, probably Jerusalem, by Solomon in the early period of his reign, about 1014 B.C. Its typical application is to the Jew of the future; its moral bearing is all-important for the Christian now. This divine poem is in the form of a dialogue between Solomon, his spouse, and her companions. No doubt Solomon's marriage with the lovely Egyptian princess formed the historical ground on which is based the moral and prophetic teachings of the book. Some arrange it in seven portions, answering to the seven days of the Jewish marriage feast.

All Jews and Jewish writers in ancient times regarded the book as a sacred one, and it has always formed part of the Hebrew canon unquestioned till modern times. It also received the seal of the risen Lord as contributing its quota of testimony to Himself — His sufferings and glories (Luke 24:44).

The Song of Songs is one of the most peculiar and difficult books of the OT. The name of God appears just once in the whole book (chap. 8:6: Jah). The book is not mentioned in the NT at all. The expressive description of love between a man (Solomon) and a woman (Shulamite) has led many a scientist, especially in modern times, to very negative conclusions. Some have doubted that Solomon should be the author and that the book should be an entire work. The question has even been asked whether the book ought to have a place in the canon of Holy Scriptures!

Yet these questions have never arisen with the Jews. It is true that the Talmud-tradition says Hezekiah is the author of the book (probably so because during his time many an old tradition from the first period of kings came to honour; compare 2 Chron. 30:26; Prov. 25:1). But the place of the Song of Songs in the Hebrew canon of the AT has ever been in the third main part, that is the "writings" (Hebr. ketubim). Here the book belongs to the five scrolls (Hebr. megillot) for special feast days and is been read on the eighth day of the Passover.

The name "Song of Songs" is an absolute comparison in the Hebrew and means as much as the most beautiful song. The first verse already mentions Solomon as author. We find this mentioned seven times (chap. 1:1+5; 3:7+9+11; 8:11+12) and besides three times the title "King" (chap. 1:4+12; 7:6). According to 1 Kings 4:32+33 Solomon wrote 1,005 songs and he had a deep knowledge of nature. Only this one song of Solomon has been preserved. The song mentions 22 names of plants and 15 names of animals. As Solomon reigned from around 970 to 931 BC the time of writing would have to be set in the middle of the 10th century BC.

Three Scripture books have come down to us from the pen of king Solomon — Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. The character of their contents suggest that these books were written at different periods in his life. The ardent language of the Song, describing the love of Bridegroom and Bride — Christ and Israel at the last, points to Solomon's early days when his spiritual affections were alert towards God. Proverbs was probably written in the days of his maturity: and Ecclesiastes, with its language of chastened disappointment, was almost certainly Solomon's latest effort. The Spirit of God led him to record his painful experiences when in search of "good under the sun" for the warning of men in all ages who might be disposed to tread the same path.

Solomon, the wisest man of Old Testament times, in the heyday of his youth and regal splendour, wrote many songs. The choicest of all has been preserved to us in the Song of Songs! Literary people tell us that it is a superlative love lyric, which is matchless in any language. However, the Christian sees therein the added quality of prophetic character with reference to Christ and those whose hearts have been won by His love. In the zenith of his reign, Solomon enunciated a series of proverbs which have formed a book of reference of wise judgment for men in every clime and age. In his declining years (indeed only two years before he died), Solomon wrote a book of very different character to either of the foregoing. In the Ecclesiastes (lit. the Book of "calling together"), he sets forth a very pessimistic view of affairs. These were described repeatedly as being "under the sun." His summary of everything was vanity or emptiness, literally of soap bubble consistency! The soap bubble is very beautiful. Its film has been the subject of great scientific investigations of entrancing interest. But the bubble notwithstanding its beauty has little permanency and when subjected to small disturbance it vanishes. How aptly descriptive is that feature of "everything under the sun"! Solomon also mentions the added feature of "vexation of spirit." No one had ever before or have they ever had since such an opportunity of enjoying to hearts content everything under the sun. Yet his closing days were not joyful, indeed they were shrouded in gloom: the end of all whose vision is limited to what is under the sun!

The Solomonic authorship has likewise been attacked, and it is claimed that the book was written long after Solomon's day. Wellhausen, the German critic, declares that "the most original of the Hagiographic writings is the song of Solomon; the names and things which occur in it assign it clearly to the second half of the Persian period. We see from it that the law had not yet forbidden love-poetry to the Jews, and had not made the enjoyment of life impossible." Nearly all the other critics have placed the date after the exile. The objections against the composition of the book in Solomon's period are mostly on account of a few words, which critics think were unknown to the people during Solomon's reign. What we have stated on these philological objections in the introduction to Ecclesiastes holds good in the case of this book also. While Wellhausen and others have denied the Solomonic authorship and date, other scholars have declared that the song itself has all the marks of Solomon. Among these marks Professor Delitzsch mentions "the familiarity with nature, the fulness and extent of the book's geography and artistic references, the mention of so many exotic plants and foreign things, particularly of such objects of luxury as the Egyptian horses."

Neither the Jews nor the early church doubted the authenticity of Solomon's Song. It formed part of the Hebrew Canonical Scriptures from very ancient times, and there is no valid reason why it should be rejected or the Solomonic authorship be denied.

Another question which has been raised is as to the unity of the contents. Inasmuch as different voices are heard speaking in this little book, and it being composed of dialogues as well as monologues, some critics claim that the book is not a unity, but rather a collection of love poems, similar to those written by Burns and Heine. One critic (Budde) endeavors to prove that the book is a collection of folk-songs sung at weddings, which some unknown hand collected. But the unity of the book in tone and its language disposes of this theory, nor is there any ground to call it, as some have done, a Hebrew drama.

The characteristics of the Hebrew of different Books can alone be learned from close study of the original. Scholars of rationalistic tendencies have attempted to assign dates to some Books according to the kind of Hebrew in which they are written: this is always a precarious test. The fact that some Books of the Old Testament contain even many Aramaisms, is no proof of their late composition; because the writer may have been accustomed (as Jonah, for instance, in Galilee) to provincialism, or may himself have been one speaking the language of the lower orders. Every country or nation presents examples of such variation. It is recognised by Ewald (Lehrbuch, § 2), who refers to Amos. Isaiah and Micah were contemporaries, but the individuality of their style is easily seen. Dialects also must be taken into account. We have mention of one, the Ephraimitic, at an early period (Judges 12:6). But probably the importance of dialects in the history of the language was not great, from the narrow geographical limits of Palestine. For discrimination of this kind direct acquaintance with the Hebrew must be obtained.

The main objection is on linguistic lines. Hebraeists have pointed out that there are several scores of words and forms in Ecclesiastes which are found only in the post-exilian books and literature; some they claim originated even later. Professor Delitzsch makes the bold statement, "If Ecclesiastes is of Solomonic origin, then there is no history of the Hebrew language." And another scholar states, "We could as easily believe that Chaucer is the author of Rasselas as that Solomon wrote Ecclesiastes." But not so hasty, gentlemen! There is another side to this question of the foreign words in this book, which, after all your objections, still is believed to be Solomon's. Your objection on these linguistic peculiarities is really an evidence for the Solomonic authorship of this book. The words which are Aramaic (and Aramaic belongs to the same branch of language as the Hebrew Semitic) have been proven by other scholars to be in common use among the nearby nations who used the Chaldean language. Solomon was a scholar himself. No doubt all the available literature of that age and of the surrounding nations was at his disposal, and he was familiar with it. It is said of him, "His wisdom excelled the children of the East country and all the wisdom of Egypt, for he was wiser than all men." That Solomon used Aramaic words is perfectly logical; but it would have been strange if such words had been absent from this book, with its peculiar character and message. That Solomon's foreign diplomacy, as well as marriages with foreigners also made him familiar with Aramaic words and sayings is quite possible. Then we might add that no unimpeachable proof has ever been given that the Aramaic words and forms used by Solomon were of later date at all. At any rate objections to the date and authorship of a Bible book on purely philological evidence suits those perfectly who approach the Word of God as they approach any other literary production.

Both Jewish and Christian tradition ascribe this book to King Solomon. The book itself does not leave us in doubt about it. Chapter 1:12-16 is conclusive. If this is disputed, as it is almost universally among rationalistic critics, and also by some who are not rationalists, we may well ask the question, Who wrote Ecclesiastes? The higher critic is unable to give a satisfactory answer. They give the date of the book and its composition about 250-235 B.C. The book itself shows that this is impossible, for the author of it lived at a time when Israel had reached the zenith of prosperity and glory. That time was during Solomon's reign. If Solomon was not the author, then another person living during the reign of Solomon must have written the book. But everything shows that only Solomon could have been the author fit and fitted to write this book.

Solomon was probably the most versatile monarch that has ever lived. Many of the kings who ruled England and Scotland centuries after his time could neither read nor write. Their ignorance may explain their subserviency to papal delusions, to the injury of their people as well as of themselves. But no subject seemed outside the range of Solomon's knowledge. "He spoke three thousand proverbs"; good would it be for all if we read through at least once every year those which the Holy Spirit has preserved for us. "His songs were a thousand and five"; but only one remains. Its theme is Christ, and thus it could not be allowed to lapse. It is indeed "the Song of Songs"; no other metrical composition will compare with it. The believer in Jesus, indwelt by the Holy Spirit, must be in a pitiful condition if unable to read it with sacred joy. The 'song' has been the delight of the pious through the ages. What was it to Samuel Rutherford in his afflictions?

For Solomon's wisdom was self-evidently of that kind which fitted him for the kingly office which he filled, and for which he sought it (2 Chron. 1:9-10). It is compared with that of other kings, and with the wisdom of the East, and of Egypt, though it surpassed all these. He was the naturalist of his day; his proverbs a storehouse of practical wisdom for the path on earth. But he is not the sweet psalmist of Israel, and his numerous songs are mostly forgotten. The Song of Songs is an allegory, and he was evidently in it the unconscious singer of spiritual things of which he knew but little. Who could compare him with David for spiritual insight? And who but must lament his manifest departure from the path in which his father walked? that departure which, if it be admitted (as it must be) spite of Solomon's wisdom, so simply accounts for the book of Ecclesiastes being not the record of a path in which the Spirit of God LED, however much He might make the one who walked there the preacher of the vanity of a world which he had ransacked in vain for satisfaction.