Semitic Lanrnsses

SOBS, ebn, GEORG: German Reformed theo­logian; b. at R,ossbach, in Upper Hesse, Dec. 31, 1551; d. at Heidelberg not later than Apr. 23, 1589. In 1566 he visited the University of Marburg; went to Wittenberg in 1569; studied first jurisprudence, and then changed to theology, which after 1572 he studied at Marburg. His unusual erudition led to his reception into the teaching corps of the univer­sity in 1574; he became professor of Hebrew in 1575. His principal theological adversary was his own disciple, Egidius Hunnius (q.v.). In consequence of the ecclesiastical agitations [in Hesse], he ac­cepted a call to Heidelberg in 1584, but only a brief career of activity was there his portion.

His dogmatic writings treat mainly of the ques­

tions in dispute between Lutherans and Calvinists

(touching the Lord's Supper, Christology, and free

will) and also controvert the Church of Rome. Isis

collective works appeared in 3 vols. (Herbom, 1591­

1592; 3d ed., 1609). CARL MIRHT.

BraWoaaerHY: J. Calvin's Oratio de vifa d obQu G. Sohn Heidelberg, 1589, is reprinted in the " Works," Vol. i., and is the main source for the life by M. Adam in Vitas eruditorum, pp. 298 301, Frankfort, 1708; J. Tilemann, Vita profeeaorum . . . in academia Marburpenai, pp. 129­1l0, Marburg, 1727 Cf. F W Strieder, Grundlaps zu einer nemiaehen Gdehrten  and Schriftatdlerpeschichtr, XV. 109 112, Cassel, 1808; H. Heppe, Geachichte der hessi­achan Generadayuoden 1688 81, passim, ib. 1847.

SOLEMN LEAGUE AND COVENANT (r643). See COvENANTERB, 1 4.
SOLITARY BRETHREN. See CoMMUmsM, II., 5. SOLOMON: Third king of all Israel, second son of David by Bathsheba, and his successor. His dates, according to the old chronology, are 1021 981, ac­cording to Ewald 1025 986, according to Kamp­hausen 977 938. The natural heir to the throne was Adonijah, since his elder brothers, Amnon and

Absalom, had been killed, while Chileab (or Daniel), of whom little mention is made, probably died in early youth (0f. II Sam. iii. 2 4; I Kings i. 5 sqq.). While, however, it was customary for the succes­sion to go by primogeniture (cf. I Kings ii. 15), the king had the privilege of choosing his successor, and on this the hopes of Solomon were based. Solomon, the fourth of David's sons to be born in Jerusalem (II Sam. v. 14), was brought up by the prophet Nathan, who apparently called him Jedi­diah (II Sam. xii. 25). Bathsheba seems to have been the favorite wife of David, and evidently made the end of her ambitions the gaining of the throne for her eldest surviving son. Two factions thus arose at the court of the aged David. Joab and the high priest Abiathar were the partizans of Adonijah; Bathsheba, Nathan, Benaiah, and the second priest Zadok were on the side of Solomon.

On the approach of David's death Adonijah as­sembled his partizans at the stone of Zoheleth near Jerusalem. The news of this gathering naturally excited the extremest alarm among the adherents of Solomon. At the instigation of Nathan Bath­sheba hurried to David, telling the dying king that he had sworn to appoint Solomon his successor, and that Adonijah had already seized the throne (I Kings i. 11 sqq.). David renewed his oath and commanded that Solomon be placed upon the royal mule, anointed king, and proclaimed as the lawful sovereign of Israel. When the acclamations of the new ruler were heard at the atone of Zoheleth, Adoni­jah fled to the altar, where his life was spared by Solomon.

Before the death of David, however, he announced his last wishes to his successor. These were three: vengeance on Joab for blood guiltiness incurred in the murder of Abner and Amass; rewards to the sons of Barzillai of Gilead for aid rendered David; and death to Shimei for having cursed the king (I Kings ii. 3 sqq.). The foolish ambition of Adoni­jah brought about his execution, while his partizan Joab was put to death, and the high priest Abiathar was deposed (I Kings ii. 13 sqq.), Joab being re­placed by Benaiah and Abiathar by Zadok. The rise of Solomon to the throne has been held by such scholars as Wellhausen, Stade, and Renan to have been the result of a mere palace intrigue of the usual oriental type, while David's will is alleged to be a figment of a subservient courtier anxious to turn the responsibility for the succeeding bloodshed from Solomon to David. For all this there is not the slightest evidence.

On his accession to the throne Solomon sought to protect and to extend the rich heritage of David, who had gained for his realm dimensions which compelled the respect of all the nearer East. On the other hand, it was inevitable that on the death of David recalcitrant vassals and hostile neighbors should make trouble on the boundaries. Thus Hadad, of the royal line of Edom, who had fled to Egypt from David, seized the opportunity to renew hostility, and apparently made his country par­tially independent of Israel (I Kings xi. 14 aqq.). Again, according to I Kings xi. 23 sqq., there is an allusion to the foundation of the kingdom of Da­mascus by a daring Syrian general who established

497

RELIGIOUS

ENCYCLOPEDIA

himself in the city during the reign of Solomon. It is thus evident that while Solomon held the king­dom together, it was not without difficulty or even without some diminution of territory. Possibly, however, Solomon attached less importance to pro­tecting his frontiers than to strengthening Israel within. He built strong fortifications, prepared material of war, and kept his supplies in the best possible condition. Above all, he was successful in introducing the horse for cavalry and chariots.

Solomon seems to have possessed high talents for organization and finance, and his justice became proverbial. The entire land of Israel was divided into twelve administrative districts, each required to pay the expenses of the royal court for a month. There likewise seemed to have been special districts for public works, one of the chief officials of the kingdom being Adoniram, master of the levy. Hand in hand with this organization doubtless went the final absorption of the Canasnites, whom Solomon compelled to share in the levies and taxes of the Israelites. Besides introducing the horse into Israel, Solomon extended his commercial rela­tions to the Sabeans of South Arabia and to Ophir (q.v.).

Solomon's financial talents seem to have been

exhausted in acquiring vast wealth. He was even

obliged, toward the end of his reign, to pawn twenty

cities, while taxation was so heavy that discontent

appeared in the revolt against his successor. Solo­

mon had never learned in the stern school of his

father. He grew up as a rich heir in the splendor of

a royal court, inheriting certain despotic tendencies

and weaknesses, and inclined to prodigality, dis­

play, and sensuality. In addition to the fortresses

and the luxurious court, which included 700 wives

and 300 concubines, his palaces and the Temple

(q.v.) required an immense outlay. With the help

of Syrian artists he transformed a large part of the

hill of Zion in the eastern part of Jerusalem into a

sort of city of palaces. Like his riches, the wisdom

of Solomon was proverbial (cf. I Kings iv. 29 sqq.);

3,000 proverbs and more than 1,000 songs were

ascribed to him; and he was said to be the author

of Ps. lxxii. and exxvii., as well as of the book of

Proverbs (q.v.). (R. KrrrEL.)

BIBLIOGRAPBY: The sources are I Kings i xi and I Chron. six. 22 II Chron. i. ia. Consult further: The works on the history of Israel by Milman, Stanley, F. Newman. Ewald, Stade. KShler. Kiostermann, Cornill, Kittel. McCurdy, Kent, and others named under ARAB or ISRAEL, Hi eTon: op; G. Weil, The Bible, the Koran, and the Talmud, or, Biblical Legends o! the Mussulmans, pp. 200 248, London, 1848; G. Meiman, Salomon, eon rqgns, sca krita, Paris, 1890; M. Griinbaum, Neue Beitrdpe zur semitischen Sapen­kunde, pp. 190 sqq., Berlin, 1893; idem, Gesammelts AuJ­adtze zur Sprach  and Sopenkunde, pp. 22 sqq., 187 eqq., ib. 1901; F. Vigouroua, La Bible et lea dkouvertes mod­ernes, iii. 253 405. 8th ed., Paris, 1898; B. W. Baoon, Solomon in Tradition and Fad, in New World, 1898, pp. 212 sqq.; R. Frirber, Minip Salomon in den Tradition, Vienna, 1902; C. F. Kent. Student's Old Testament, ii. 14 18, 185­199, New York, 1905; G. Beer, Saul, David, Salomo, Tijbingen, IW8; DB iv. 559 589; EB ii. 2235..,38 iv, 4880 90; JB, zi. 438 448; Vigouxoua, Duaionnaire, faro. zav.1382 9s.

SOLOMON BAR ISAAC. See RAsHi.
SOLOMON, ODES OF: The Odes of Solomon, which, until recently, were, except for certain X. 32

Sohm

13olomau

fragments and quotations, altogether lost, were commonly connected in the tradition of Christian literature with the Psalms of Solomon (see PBEUD­EPIGRAPHA, II., 1). In this grouping of material, the ancient atichometries gave them a place, more or less honorable, among the subcanonical literature. How near they came to actual ecclesiastical accept­ance could only be guessed by analogy, from the companion volume to which they were attached. The stichometries, however, gave a rough idea of the compass of the book, from the point of view of a librarian or bookseller, from which it was easy to infer that a lost book of nearly the same compass as the Psalms of Solomon was once in circulation in Christian churches. In the next place, quota­tions professing to come from the missing book were recovered from two quarters: first, there was a passage relating to the birth of Christ from a virgin, quoted by Lactantius (De div. inat., iv. 12; Eng. tranal., ANF, vii. 110), which he said was from the nineteenth ode of Solomon. Second, there was a series of Odes of Solomon quoted in a Coptic book, a chief monument of Gnostic literature, which goes under the name of Pistis Sophia. These odes and fragments of odes were turned back into Greek and published by Ryle and James at the close of their edition of the Psalms of Solomon.

The book itself, so long lost, was recovered by J. Rendel Harris in a Syrian version, Jan. 4, 1909; it had been reposing along with a number of other Syriac fragments on his bookshelves, apparently for a couple of years or more, the manuscript in question having come from the neighborhood of the Tigris. When the identification was made, it appeared that the manuscript, a late paper one of no extrinsic value, contained both the Odes and the Psalms of Solomon; it was slightly mutilated at the beginning, so that odes one and two and a part of ode three were missing; at the other end the eighteenth of the Psalms of Solomon was gone and part of the seventeenth. The nineteenth ode contained the quotation which Laatantius gives in a Latin translation; all the matter quoted by the Pistis Sophia was also identified, and in addition a part of the first ode was also with some probability detected in the Coptic text. So that, with a very, slight deduction for the imperfection of the manu­script, the complete book was recovered and restored to its place in Christian literature. The forty two odes thus recovered are of rare beauty and spirit­uality; with possibly an exception or two, they come from a single hand, and represent a hitherto unknown department of early Christian literature. They were produced in the latter part of the first century or the early part of the second. The writer was a person of Gentile extraction, who had be­come attached to a Church of Judeo.Christians, probably in Palestine. He did not, however, accept circumcision or keep the Sabbath, occupying ex­actly the position which Justin Martyr did on those

points, which he says he learned from an ancient Christian to whom he owed his conversion. So far as can be judged from the hints in the odes (it must be remembered that a Psalter is not the easiest place from which to extract history), he knew Jesus as the Messiah or Christ, but did not know the Synoptic

Solomon

Bon of God THE NEW SCHAFF HERZOG 498

tradition about him. Whether he knew the Fourth Gospel, with which he has many ideas and expres­sions in common, is one of the points that are still in debate. He has occasional points of contact with the Pauline epistles, and even more with the Apoc­alypse, though it is difficult to establish quotations. His real Gospel appears to have been one of the lost Hebrew or Nazarene Gospels, perhaps the same as that of which Jerome found a copy in Tiberias. To this he owed some details in reference to the baptism, and perhaps one or two sayings of Jesus. It is curious that he has no eschatology, and no day of judgment; immortality is not innate, but acquired. On the ethical. side the most important feature is that the book appears to contain the first Christian prohibition of the purchase of slaves.

The church orders and ritual are almost absent; it is not certain that baptism is alluded to, still less are there traces of a Christian eucharist, as com­monly (mown. The only reference to the officials are an allusion: (1) to blessed deacons who carry the water of life, (2) to a priesthood in spiritual things which the writer says he possesses, which is carefully defined as not being of a carnal nature, but consisting of truth and purity in the inmost parts.

The writer shows a strong attachment to the Jewish religion on many sides: he has an affection for the sanctuary at Jerusalem, which must be as­sumed to have fallen before the time when he was writing; he holds fast to the Old Testament, alle­gorizes (as do all early Christians) the story in Gene­sis, imitates the Psalms, and makes evangelical doctrine out of Isaiah (e.g., chap. axxv.).

Though there is much that is still uncertain, as to the place, time, and character of the writer, enough is known to place him as a worthy represen­tative of the first or second generation after the apostles; and the new hymns will exert a wide in­fluence upon the thought of the Church.

J. RENDEL HARMS.

B:snroaxsrRT: The Odes and Psalms of Solomon, edited

from the Syrian by J. Rendel Harris, Cambridge, 1909

(editio prinoepe); J. Rendel Harris, An early Christian

Psalter, London, 1909; Bin jadiarh chrsatlichesPaaimburh

aus den eraten Tahrhunded. Aue dens Syrieehen iber 

s" van J. Plemninp, ed. A. Harnack, Leipsic, 1910;

Literarsechea Zentalblatt, 1910, no. 24, cola. 777 781.

SOLOMON, PSALMS OF. See PsauDzPlaRAraA, 0. T., II., 1.
SOLOMON, WISDOM OF. See APocRyPSA, A, iv., 13.

SON, KONRAD. See SAM.
SOMASCHIARS, so mas'ki ans ("Regular Clerks of St. Majolus "): One of the most important mo­nastic congregations evoked by the Counter Ref­ormation. They derive their name from the Italian village of Somascho (between Milan and Bergamo), where their founder, Girolamo Miani (or Emiliani), wrote the first rule for them. Miani, who was of senatorial rank, was born at Venice in 1481, and, entering the army, was recognized as a brave but dissolute officer. Captured at the storming of Cas­telnuovo, near Treviso, in 1508, he was led during his imprisonment to repentance for his past career,

and on his liberation (according to many, through the miraculous aid of the Virgin) he devoted him­self to asceticism, prayer, and the care of the sick and poor. At Venice he took orders, being ordained
priest in 1518, and manifested the utmost self denial and bravery, especially during the famine

and plague of 1528. He now made absolute re­

nunciation of his wealth, and, in the habit of a men­

dicant friar, gave himself to the care, education,

and conversion of orphans and fallen women. With­

in the year he established an orphan asylum in

Venice, which was imitated at Bergamo, Verona,

and Brescia, and in 1532 he opened a home for

fallen women in his native city. In 1532 or 1533

Miani established his congregation for the care of

these institutions and the training of pupils for the

same purpose; and Clement VII. gave him the

mother house at Somascho, where Miani died Feb.

8, 1537, after having established daughter houses

at Pavia and Milan. He was beatified by Benedict

XIV., and canonised in 1761 by Clement XIII., his

day being July 20.

Miani's successor, Angelo Marco Gambarana, se­cured from Pius V., in 1568, the formal constitution of the congregation under the Augustinian rule, their name being now taken from the church of St. Majolus at Pavia, given them by St. Carlo Borromeo (q.v.). The Somaschians, who were united with the Theatines from 1546 to 1555, and with the French Fathers of Christian Doctrine from 1616 to 1647, exercised deep influence on education through their many colleges, especially the Clementinum, founded at Rome in 1595; while they so increased in num­bers that they were divided into the Lombard, Vene­tian, and Roman provinces, to which was later added the French. The Roman province is now the most important.

The constitutions of the congregation, gradually developed from the autograph draft of the founder, collected by the procurator general Antonio Paulino in 1626, and confirmed by Urban VIII., have re­mained practically unchanged to the present day. They prescribe a habit precisely like that of the other regular clerks, strict simplicity of food and furniture, numerous prayers by day and night, fasts and self castigation, and occupation with manual labor, care of the sick and orphans, and teaching.

(O. ZricKLERt.)

Brauoaasmr: The " Life " of the founder is given with commentary in ASB, Feb., ii. 217 274, Ital. trend. by A. Piegadi Venice, 1885 Other lives are by S. Albani, Milan, 1800; A. Stells, Vice, 1805; P. G. de' Ferrari, ib. 1876; an anonymous one, ib. 1767; F. Caaoia, rb. 1822; C. de Rood Borgogno, Rome, 1867; and W. E. Hubert, Mains, 1895. Consult further, on the order: L. Holeteniue, Codex rqpulanan monaeticarun, ed. M. Brockie, iii. 199 292, Augsburg, 1789; G. Giucci, Icono­praJta iatoriea depli ordini relipiosi, vii. 160 sqq., Rote, 1847; E. Gothein, Ipnaa von Loyola and die Gepenreror­mation, pp. 193 198, Halle, 1895; Helyot, Ordres monas­tiques, iv. 223 eqq.; Heimbucher, Orders and Konprepa­tionen, iii. 275 278; %L, :d. 488 487; Ranks, Popes, f. 133 134.
SON OF GOD: A phrase standing for several different meanings in the New Testament. (1) It refers to the divine origination of Jesus by the Holy Spirit (Luke i. 35). (2) In the ethical sense, he is the Son. He is like the Father, perfectly responsive

499 RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA 801omon

am of God

to him, and thus reflects the Father's will. By rea­

son of the fellowship of love, the Father is perfectly

disclosed to him, and the depths of his own inner

life are comprehended by the Father alone (Matt.

xi. 27; John v. 17 21, 30, vii. 16 18, xii. 44 50,

xiv. 7 11). (3) From the ethical oneness with the

Father sprang the consciousness of the messianic or

official sonship the social aspect of his conscious­

ness (Mark i. 11; cf. the baptismal formula, Matt.

xxviii. 19; Didache, vii.). These two aspects the

individual and the social may be distinguished but

they can not be sharply separated. The messianic

sonship points backward (I Sam. x. 1; Ps. ii. 7)

and forward (Mark xiv. 61). In him the royal hopes

of Israel are fulfilled; he founds the world kingdom

of God (John xvii. 18; cf. Matt. xxviii. 19; John

xx. 21); his universal sovereignty is won through

suffering (Matt. xix. 20 28). (4) Metaphysical son­

ship is also affirmed of him. As Logos he is the only

begotten Son of God (John i. 14, iii. 16, v. 18; Rom.

viii. 32). He is the image of the invisible God, first­

born of all creation, mediator of all existence,

through whom all things find their principle and

progressively realize their divine end (I Cor. viii.

6; Col. i. 15 17; John i. 3, 10; Heb. i. 2 3). His

pre earthly existence was exchanged for humilia­

tion and death here below (II Cor. viii. 9; Phil. ii.

5 7; cf. Rom. viii. 3; Gal. iv. 4; and see JEsus

CHRIST, TworoLD STATE OF). Accordingly he was

God's own son, the archetypal son of God; all

others become sons of God through him (John i.

12). Yet all that belongs to him is a gift of God

(Matt. xxviii. 18; John iii. 35, v. 22, xiii. 3; Acts

ii. 36; Phil. ii. 9 10; Heb. i. 2, ii. 7 8; cf. also I

Cor. xv. 24 28).

In historical theology the Son of God as pre 

END OF VOLUME X.

existent is the second person of the Trinity, con­

substantial with the Father, and is described as

only begotten, the Word; as incarnate he took upon

him human nature yet without sin; and existed in

two whole, perfect, and distinct natures insepara­

bly joined together in one person without conver­

sion, composition, or confusion; very God and very

man, one Christ, the only mediator between God

and man (see CHmaToLooy, IV., VIL; MED1eToR).

Ritachl, following Schleiermacher, took the doc­

trine of the sonahip of Christ out of metaphysics

and planted it in the field of ethics and the religious

life. As Son, Christ stands to the Father in a rela­

tion of incomparable fellowship; his will is identical

with that of the Father in the establishment of the

kingdom of God; moreover, he sustains a unique

relation to the Christian community and to the

world. While for man the Son as pre existent is

hidden, yet for God he exists eternally " as he is

revealed to us in temporal limitation." Only for

God himself, however, is the eternal Godhead of the

Son intelligible as an object of the divine mind and

will (A. Ritachl, The Christian Doctrine of iustdfi­

cation and Reconciliation, §J 47 49, New York,

1900). C. A. BECBwrTH.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: The subject is treated best in the works on New Testament theology (see under BIBLICAL THEOLOGY), and in those on systematic theology (see under DOGMA, DoaaATTCs). Much of the literature given under CHRIs­TOLoor is pertinent, also that under SON OF MAN. L'On­suit further: K. F. NBegen, Chriatua der Afenachen  and Gotteesohn, Gotha, 1869; J. Stalker, Chriatolopy of Jesus, London, 1879; A. Harnack, What is Christianity? ib. 1901; R. C. Moberly, Atonement and Personality, pp. 185 eqq., 211 215, ib. 1901; W. Ltltgert, Gotten Sohn and GotLeipsio, 1905; M. Lepina, Christ and the Gos­pel; or Jesus the Messiah and Son of God, Philadelphia, 1911; DB, iv. 570 579; DOG, ii. 854 M; EB, iv. 46W­4704.