REASONS AGAINST THIS NUPTIAL THEORY.
As we concur with those who seek "nothing more than a general resemblance" between the history recorded in this poem and the experience of the people of God, we have merely to state here our reasons for rejecting their view of the narrative.
No direct mention is made in any part of this long poem of the marriage ceremony, nor of any circumstance connected with it. The bride is described as a shepherdess and keeper of the vineyards (chap. i. 6; ii. 15; viii. 12, &c.); as walking in the streets in the night to seek her beloved, and as being beaten by the watchmen (iii. 1-4; v. 6, &c.); which are incompatible with the notion that she was Pharaoh's daughter, or any other princess. Besides, the bridegroom is not a king, but a shepherd; Compare chap. i. 7, ii. 8, and v. 2-4. These, and other considerations which might have been mentioned, are entirely subversive of this nuptial theory.
SECTION VII.—AUTHOR, DATE, AND FORM OF THE BOOK.
The title of this poem designates Solomon as the author, but internal evidence is against it. The writer mentions David in such a manner as if he were not his father (iv. 4). The words, "Solomon had a vineyard," ([HE: k.erem/ hoyoh liS^elOmOh]) in viii. 11, show that the author was not a contemporary of Solomon. The subject, especially of the poem, is decisive against Solomon's authorship. It is impossible that he should describe himself as having attempted to gain the espoused affections of a country maiden, and being defeated by her virtue. The title is evidently the addition of some other person; for the author of the book never uses the pronoun [HE: 'a:S/er], but invariably employs the form [HE: S/]; nor would he announce his own production as "the finest or most celebrated Song."
