[HE:ho'e:lOhiym/], and [HE:'a:dOvnEy ho'a:dzniym/] (Deut. x. 17). Other explanations, such as a song of songs, i.e., a song from the songs of Solomon (Kimchi), or a collection of songs (Kleuker), or a chain of songs, or string of strings, comparing [HE:S/iyr] with the Chaldee [HE:S/Eyr], [HE:S/v.roh], Greek, [GR:seira\], chain (Velthusen, Paulus, Good), are contrary to the Hebrew usage of the word [HE:S/iyr], and the construction of [HE:S/iyr haS/.iriym/]. More recent commentators, and even those who regard this book as a collection of separate songs (as for instance, Döpke, Magnus, Noyes), admit that the Rabbinical interpretation of this title is the only admissible one.
SECTION II.—CANONICITY OF THE BOOK.
This book possesses all the external marks which entitle other writings to a place in the list of the sacred books. The evidence for its canonicity is as conclusive as that commonly adduced to prove the canonicity of any other portion of the Old Testament. It is contained in all the Hebrew manuscripts which profess to give the entire Hebrew Scriptures; and it is found in the catalogue given in the Talmud,[1] and that of Melito.[2] It was commented upon by Hippolytus and Origen; it was translated into Greek by Symmachus before the end of the second century; by Theodosian during the first half of the same century; and by Aquila, according to Jahn and other biblical critics, between the years 90 and 130. "The testimony of the last mentioned translator," as Dr. Henderson justly remarks,[3] "is of high importance, on three grounds:—1st. Because it was expressly his design, in making the version, to furnish his brethren the Jews with an exact representation of the original text of their sacred books, to which he accordingly adheres with the most rigid verbality. 2ndly. Because it supplies us with positive evidence of the existence of the book in the canon at a period almost, if not entirely, coincident with the
1 Baba Bathra, 14.
2 Euseb. Hist. Eccl. IV. c. 26.
3 "Divine Inspiration," p. 349. Edit. 1852.
