Song Of Songs
VIEW:28 DATA:01-04-2020
SONG OF SONGS (or CANTICLES)
1. Place in the Canon, interpretation, structure.(a) The Song of Songs is one of the Kethûbîm, Hagiographa, or Writings, the third of the three classes into which the Jewish Canon was divided. Printed copies of the Heb. OT follow the arrangement of the German and French MSS in placing it at the head of the five Megillôth or Rollsthe short books which are read at the great annual solemnities of Passover, Pentecost, the 9th Ab, Feast of Booths, Purim. Probably it owes its premier position to the fact that Passover is the earliest festival of the year. But there is reason for believing that a more ancient order survives in the LXX [Note: Septuagint.] , where it stands by the side of Prov. and Eccles., the two other works to which Solomons name was attached.
Grave doubts were long entertained by the Rabbis respecting the canonicity of Canticles (a common name of the book, from Vulg. [Note: Vulgate.] Canticum Canticorum).
The Synod of Jamnia (a.d. 90100), after some discussion, decided in favour of its reception, and Rabbi Akiba ( a.d. 135) lent to this conclusion the weight of his great influence: All the Hagiographa are holy, but the Song of Songs is the most holy, and the whole world is not of such importance as the day in which it was given. The opening words of the Targum are equally strong: Songs and praises which Solomon the prophet, the king of Israel, spake by the Holy Spirit before Jahweh, the Lord of the whole world. Ten songs were sung in that day, but this song was more to be praised than they all. The Midrash asserts that Canticles is the most excellent of songs, dedicated to Him who one day will cause the Holy Ghost to rest on us; it is that song in which God praises us and we Him.
(b) It was evidently admitted into the OT because it was supposed to treat of a religious theme. This is implied by its title in the Syriac Version: Wisdom of Wisdoms, which is Solomons: the book which is called in Hebrew Shirath Shirim (i.e. Song of Songs). The theme was supposed to be the reciprocal love of Jahweh and Israel, and the story of that love in the history of the Chosen People. This was here enshrined in an allegory somewhat analogous to Hos_1:1-11; Hos_2:1-23; Hos_3:1-5 and Eze_16:1-63. The Church adopted this line of interpretation from the Synagogue: Christ is the bridegroom, the Church or the soul is the bride.
The rubrics prefixed to many verses in Cod. Amiatinus of the Vulgate illustrate the manner in which this was worked out: Voice of the Synagogue, Voice of the Church, Voice of Christ, Voice of Mary Magdalene to the Church, Christ calls together the nations. To some writers the Virgin Mary was the bride, and Canticles told the story of the incarnation. Luther read here Solomons thanksgivings for the blessings bestowed on his kingdom. The school of allegorists has lost ground considerably in modern times, but is not yet extinct. There were, however, almost from the beginning, exegetes who saw that the subject really treated of in Ca. is the mutual love of man and woman. In the early Church the great name of Theodore of Mopsuestia stands out on this side, and among the Jews that of Ibn Ezra. Castellio was driven out of Geneva by Calvin for asserting it, and Luis de Leon was thrown into prison by the Inquisition for the same cause.
(c) The question of form is closely connected with that of subject. Origen was the first to point out its affinity to the drama, but the earliest attempt to work this out thoroughly was made as late as 1722 by a German, G. Wachter. He has found many followers. Solomon and a country maiden were supposed to be the two leading characters. He married her, and his love for her led him to adopt a simpler mode of life. But is there not a third important character in the play? Later students answered in the affirmative. The revised explanation was that Solomon carried off the Shulammite to his harem, and, abetted by the women already there, the daughters of Jerusalem, sought to divert her affections from her shepherd-lover: failing in this, he at last magnanimously resigned her to the shepherd. Leaving aside all detailed objections, the consideration which is fatal to these and all conceivable forms of the theory is that the drama has no place in Semitic literature. If Ca. had been an exception to the rule, how is it that there is not a single stage-direction, not a note of any kind to identify the speaker or regulate the action?
Certain important MSS of the LXX [Note: Septuagint.] show how keenly this defect was felt; to each longer or shorter section they prefix The Bridegroom, The Bride, A second time the Bride adjures the maidens, or the like, and one MS (23) runs to the following length, before Son_5:7, Not having found the bridegroom, the bride went out, and, as one found by the city-watchmen in the night, she is wounded and the keepers of the wall take her veil.
And how is it that there is, within the poem itself, no movement towards a climax, no knot united or cut, no dénouement? Matters are as far advanced at Son_1:4; Son_2:4 as at Son_8:5.
Even during the period when the drama-theory was most vigorously maintained, some distinguished scholars held that Ca. is made up of a number of originally detached pieces, which were eventually brought together because they all treat of Love. Wetzsteins Die Syrische Dreschtafet (1873) furnished a strong reinforcement of this opinion. He had observed, whilst resident in Syria, that the peasant bridegroom and bride are entitled king and queen for the first week of married life [a contemporary Arabic epithalamium has since then been cited (ZATW [Note: ATW Zeitschrift far die Alttest. Wissenschaft.] xxiv. p. 42) in which the man actually bears the name of the reigning Sultan, Abd il-Hamîd]; they are attended by a vizier, have their throne on the threshing-floor, and receive the homage of the whole countryside. Songs and dances are executed by the friends of the bridegroom, the bystanders, and the newly married pair. Some of these ditties, especially those which enumerate the charms of the bride, ate of exactly the same character as certain sections of Canticles, and Son_7:1 ff. corresponds precisely with the wasf (description) which the bride sings as she goes through the sword-dance on the wedding night. These facts have induced a large number of expositors to believe that Ca. is a collection of love-songs, composed expressly for, or at any rate suitable for use at, marriage festivals.
Budde, who strongly advocates this view, admits that the book is not without marks of unity, but holds that these are sufficiently accounted for on the supposition that all these folk-songs originated in a single district and period. Haupt entirely rejects the idea of a unity, and, looking on the book in its present state as a disorganized mass, re-arranges it into twelve poems. The extent to which he carries the liberty of re-casting may be seen in his No. 3, Brothers of the Bride, which is made up of Son_6:3, Son_7:11, Son_2:1, Son_1:5-6, Son_8:8-10, Son_8:1-2. Even Buddes less drastic treatment ecarcely does justice to the tokens of plan and unity which the book presents. The recurrence of certain phrases (Son_2:7, Son_3:6, Son_8:4; Son_2:17, Son_4:6, Son_8:14) is meant to indicate connexions and transitions of thought, and there is no overwhelming reason against our ascribing them to the original writer.
The sentiments and the style are so similar throughout as to justify our thinking of a single author who composed erotic and nuptial pieces for several occasions, and afterwards wove them into a garland of verse (cf. Son_2:5, Son_5:8; Son_1:16, Son_4:1; Son_4:2, Son_6:6; Son_2:16, Son_6:3; Son_6:4, Son_6:10; Son_2:9, Son_8:14). A few of the smaller parts have probably been removed from their intended place, and it hardly admits of doubt that Son_4:8 is a belated fragment, unintelligible where it now stands. But when we remember the apparent irrelevance of the occasional verses sung in Palestine to-day, we shall be slow to deny that the singers and auditors of Ca. grasped allusions and perceived a fitness which we fail to apprehend. And in studying the song from this point of view it is well to bear in mind the facts collected by Dalman (Paläst. Divan, p. xii.). He points out that the wasf is not limited to wedding festivities, but is sung by the tent-fire, in the village inn, in the coffee-house where townsmen gather at night; that it is usually brief when descriptive of the beauty of bride or bridegroom; that in Palestine itselfhowever true Wetzsteins account of Damascus and the Hauranthere are but scanty traces of the temporary royalty of the bridal pair, and none of the threshing-sledge throne.
2. Contents.These fall into what we may call seven cantos. I. (Son_1:2 to Son_2:7): in Son_1:2-4 the bride declares her affection; In Son_1:6 f. deprecates unfavourable criticism; in Son_1:7 f. inquires for her beloved. In Son_1:9 to Son_2:8 we have their praise of each other; in Son_2:4-7 her experience of love. II. (Son_2:8 to Son_2:17): Son_2:8-14 a spring visit, Son_2:16 the foxes, Son_2:16 f. close of the canto. III. (Son_3:1 to Son_3:11): Son_3:1-5 a dream, Son_3:6-11 interlude. IV. (Son_4:1 to Son_5:1): in Son_4:1-7 he sets forth her charms; Son_4:8 a fragment, Son_4:9-11 his ecstasy of love, Son_4:12 to Son_5:1 a garden. V. (Son_5:2 to Son_6:9): Son_5:2-8 a dream, Son_5:8 to Son_6:8 wasf sung by bride; Son_5:4-9 his praise of her. VI. (Son_6:10 to Son_8:4): Son_6:10 inquiry by women, Son_6:11 f. her rapture, Son_6:13 to Son_7:10 wasf sung during sword-dance (dance of camps, Son_7:1), Son_7:11 to Son_8:4 songs of the bride. VII. (Son_8:5-14): Son_8:6 a reminiscence, Son_8:6 f. the power of love, Son_8:8-10 the solicitude of the brothers, Son_8:11 f. an apologue, Son_8:13 f. conclusion.
We cannot regret that these canticles of human love have been preserved for us in the OT. The mutual attraction of the sexes is Divinely ordained. The love which finds expression in Ca. Is regulated by marriage. The imagery is too luscious and the detail too complete for our taste, but they were produced by an Oriental for Orientals. More reticence does not necessarily mean more genuine purity. We should indeed have been glad to find some recognition of the loftier side of marriage, or something to remind us of Pro_31:1-31. But the occasions for which these verses were composed and a comparison of the effusions which are still current on like occasions effectually disarm criticism. Dalman (Pal. Divan, p. xiii.) remarks justly concerning the folk-songs which he has brought together: The fact that the poems dwell only on the physical excellences of the beloved corresponds with the degree of civilization to which the Palestinian populace has attained. It does not follow that the Oriental ascribes no value to a womans excellences of disposition and character.
3. Authorship and date.The title (Son_1:1), according to which Solomon was the poet, is entirely destitute of authority. Its late and artificial origin is betrayed by the absence of the full form of the relative pronoun, which occurs nowhere in the poems themselves. The ascription of the authorship to the famous king is due partly to his being mentioned in Son_1:5, Son_8:12 (Son_3:7; Son_3:11 are doubtful), and partly to his reputation as the typically wise man, the composer of songs a thousand and five (1Ki_4:32). But the canonicity of the book would not have remained an open question until the 1st cent. of the Christian era if it had then been extant a thousand years as an acknowledged product of his hand. Moreover, the language in which it is written belongs to the very latest stratum of Biblical Hebrew. The exclusive use of the abbreviated pronoun occurs in no early document, and cannot be explained as a peculiarity of the northern dialect. And there is no proof that the writer was specially connected with the North; if he mentions Lebanon, Amana, Shenir, Hermon, Tirzah, he also knows En-gedi, Heshbon, the wilderness (of Judah), the daughters of Jerusalem. Considering the brevity of the book, there is a very considerable number of words which are seldom or never found elsewhere, or are employed here in place of more common ones, or are to be seen only in late writings. One of them pardçs, is Zend; another, ĕgôz, is Persian; appiryôn may be the Gr. phoreion; several are Aramaic. We should not look for these phenomena earlier than the period when Hebrew was yielding place to Aramaic, and if the exact age cannot be determined, the 3rd cent. b.c. is at least approximately correct.
4. Style.It would be a dull eye that should miss the beauty of these poems. The verse moves lightly and gracefully, the imagery is charming. Our poet was deeply susceptible to the loveliness of nature, and fully capable of appreciating the art of his time. He carries us with him into the open air, to the vineyards, the villages, the mountains. He is awake at daybreak, to inhale the scent of the forest trees, to gather the apples and the pomegranates, to listen to the tinkle of the rills. Flocks of wild pigeons, timid and swift gazelles, fields embroidered with lilies, the breath of springall appeal to him. On the other hand, he is stirred by the pomp of a court, the magnificence of a royal litter, the glittering whiteness of an ivory tower, martial trophies, the rich attire of women, their jewels and perfumes. As a poem there is nothing else in the Bible to compare with this. Had it indeed been Solomons, it would have been, as the title asserts, his Song of Songs, the fine fleur of his poetry.
5. Text.This is not in a satisfactory state, but the critic should proceed with much caution. There are many passages where our view of the interpretation suggests alterations (Son_1:2; Son_1:4; Son_1:8-9; Son_2:9; Son_3:10; Son_4:14; Son_4:16; Son_5:1; Son_5:6; Son_6:2; Son_6:6; Son_6:8; Son_7:8; Son_7:8; Son_7:13), but it is obviously easy to allow ourselves too much licence. Bearing in mind what might be advanced on both sides, who shall determine whether Nergal is to be substituted for nidhgaloth (banners) at Son_6:10? The Versions, especially LXX [Note: Septuagint.] and Syr., supply a few better readings (Son_1:3-4; Son_1:7; Son_1:10, Son_2:17, Son_3:1; Son_3:6; Son_3:10, Son_4:8; Son_4:12, Son_5:11; Son_5:13, Son_6:6, Son_7:1, Son_8:2). There are obvious errors of transcription: nard should not follow nards (Son_4:13 f.). Emendations suggested by the metre deserve attention (Son_1:15, Son_3:9; Son_3:11, Son_7:8), but this has been carried much too far, not only by Bickell, but also in Kittels edition of the Heb. Bible. Littmann (ZATW [Note: ATW Zeitschrift far die Alttest. Wissenschaft.] xxiv. p. 43) pertinently remarks that in many of the popular Arabic poems which he has collected there is an absence of definite verse-measure, and considers that in the OT also, verses of that kind, without definite metre, are at least possible. There has been also a little too much readiness to delete verses, sentences, or words, on the ground that they occur in other parts of the poem in more suitable contexts. Martineau would omit Son_3:1-5 because of its resemblance to Son_5:2 ff. We must not forget that catchwords and refrains are characteristic of this class of poetry.
J. Taylor.
Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible
Edited by James Hastings, D.D. Published in 1909
Solomon had the reputation of being one of Israels greatest wisdom teachers and song writers (1Ki_4:29-34). He was also one of its most famous lovers (1Ki_11:1-4). It is not surprising, therefore, that he has been traditionally regarded as the author of the biblical book that contains one of the worlds best known collections of love songs, the Song of Songs. The book contains a number of references to the splendour of Solomon and his court, and is sometimes called the Song of Solomon (Song of Son_1:1; Son_1:5; Son_3:7-11; Son_8:11-12).
Interpretation
Although the book declares that it was written by Solomon, it is not necessarily about Solomon personally. A poet can write a poem about anybody. The reader has difficulty working out the identity of the people mentioned in the Song of Songs, because the poems can be understood in different ways. In some poems the words may all be from one speaker; in others, from several speakers. Some poems are the private reflections of individuals, others are dialogues; some describe actual circumstances or events, others recount dreams; some recall the past, others look to the future.
Since the reader has to work out for himself who is speaking in the various poems, a number of interpretations have been suggested. In some of the more recent versions of the Bible, the translators have tried to help the reader by inserting subheadings. The variations in these subheadings reflect the variations in interpretation.
Among those who regard the book as a drama involving Solomon himself, there are two main interpretations. The first sees two main characters, Solomon and a Shulammite girl who fall in love and marry. The second sees three main characters a young shepherd, his Shulammite lover, and King Solomon, who takes the girl from the shepherd and unsuccessfully tries to win her love.
Perhaps the book is best understood not as a drama, but as a collection of poems that recount the exchanges of love between an unnamed shepherd and an unnamed country girl. Yet there is a unity to the book. Certain features recur throughout, and there is a development in the love relationship.
The inclusion of such a book in the Bible is an indication of Gods approval of sexual love. Always, however, the love is in the context of a relationship where a man and a woman commit themselves to each other in marriage, to the exclusion of all others (Song of Son_2:16; Son_6:3; Son_7:10).
Contents
In the opening poem the girl longs for her distant lover (1:1-7), after which each speaks in praise of the other (1:8-2:7). Then comes a group of three poems recounting memories and dreams. First the girl imagines her shepherd-lover coming to visit her at her home (2:8-17), then she recalls a dream she had about him (3:1-5), and finally she imagines her wedding day, when he comes and praises her beauty (3:6-5:1).
Another dream indicates the frustration the girl feels at being separated from her lover (5:2-6:3). Further poems express the intensely strong desires that the two have for each other (6:4-7:13), though they know how to restrain their physical expressions of love (8:1-4). The final poem, which pictures the homecoming of the two lovers, speaks of the power of love and the reward it brings (8:5-14).
Bridgeway Bible Dictionary by Don Fleming
PRINTER 1990.
(השּׁירים שׁיר, shı̄r hashı̄rı̄m; Septuagint Ἄσμα, Ásma; Codices Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Ephraemi, Ἄσμα ἀσμάτων, Ásma asmátōn; Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) Canticum Canticorum):
I. CANONICITY
II. TEXT
III. AUTHORSHIP AND DATE
IV. HISTORY OF INTERPRETATION
1. The Allegorical Interpretation
2. The Typical Interpretation
3. The Literal Interpretation
V. CLOSING HINTS AND SUGGESTIONS
LITERATURE
The full title in Hebrew is ?The Song of Songs, which is Solomon's.? The book is called by some Canticles, and by others Solomon's Song. The Hebrew title implies that it is the choicest of all songs, in keeping with the dictum of Rabbi ‛Aqiba (90-135 AD) that ?the entire world, from the beginning until now, does not outweigh the day in which Canticles was given to Israel.?
I. Canonicity.
Early Jewish and Christian writers are silent as to the Song of Songs. No use is made of it by Philo. There is no quotation from it in the New Testament, nor is there any clear allusion to it on the part of our Lord or the apostles. The earliest distinct references to the Song of Songs are found in Jewish writings of the 1st and 2nd centuries AD (4 Esdras 5:24, 26; 7:26; Ta‛ănı̄th 4:8). The question of the canonicity of the Song was debated as late as the Synod of Jamnia (circa 90 AD), when it was decided that Canticles was rightly reckoned to ?defile the hands,? i.e. was an inspired book. It should be borne in mind that the Song of Songs was already esteemed by the Jews as a sacred book, though prior to the Synod of Jamnia there was probably a goodly number of Jewish teachers who did not accept it as canonical. Selections from Canticles were sung at certain festivals in the temple at Jerusalem, prior to its destruction by Titus in 70 AD (Ta‛ănı̄th 4:8). The Mishna pronounces an anathema on all who treat Canticles as a secular song (Ṣanhedhrı̄n, 101a). The latest date for the composition of the Song of Songs, according to critics of the advanced school, is toward the close of the 3rd century BC. We may be sure that it was included in the Kethūbhı̄m before the ministry of our Lord, and so was for Him a part of the Scriptures.
II. Text.
Most scholars regard the text of Canticles as comparatively free from corruption. Gratz, Bickell, Budde and Cheyne have suggested a good many emendations of the traditional text, a few of which commend themselves as probable corrections of a faulty text, but most of which are mere guesses without sufficient confirmation from either external or internal evidence. For details see Budde's able commentary, and articles by Cheyne in JQR and Expository Times for 1898-99 and in the The Expositor, February, 1899.
III. Authorship and Date.
The title in the Hebrew text ascribes the poem to Solomon. That this superscription was prefixed by an editor of Canticles and not by the original writer is evident from the fact that the relative pronoun employed in the title is different from that employed throughout the poem. The beauty and power of the book seemed to later students and editors to make the writing worthy of the gifted king, whose fame as a composer of both proverbs and songs was handed on to later times (1Ki_4:32). Moreover, the name of Solomon is prominent in the Song of Songs itself (Son_1:5; Son_3:7, Son_3:9, Son_3:11; Son_8:11 f). If the traditional view that Solomon wooed and won the Shulammite be true, the Solomonic authorship may even yet be defended, though the linguistic argument for a later date is quite strong.
The question in debate among recent critics is whether the Song was composed in North Israel in preexilic days, or whether it is post-exilic. The author is at home in Hebrew. His vocabulary is extensive, and the movement of the poem is graceful. There is no suggestion of the use of lexicon and grammar by a writer living in the period of the decadence of the Hebrew language. The author is familiar with cities and mountains all over Palestine, especially in the northern section. He speaks of the beauty of Tirzah, the capital of North Israel in the 10th century BC, along with the glory of Jerusalem, the capital of Judah (Son_6:4). The recollection of Solomon's glory and pomp seems to be fresh in the mind of the writer and his contemporaries. W.R. Smith regarded Canticles as a protest against the luxury and the extensive harem of Solomon. True love could not exist in such an environment. The fidelity of the Shulammite to her shepherd lover, notwithstanding the blandishments of the wealthy and gifted king, stands as a rebuke to the notion that every woman has her price. Driver seems inclined to accept a preexilic date, though the arguments from vocabulary and philology cause him to waver in his opinion (LOT, 8th edition, 450). An increasing number of critics place the composition of Canticles in the post-exilic period, many bringing it down into the Greek period. Among scholars who date Canticles in the 3rd century BC we may name Gratz, Kuenen, Cornill, Budde, Kautzsch, Martineau and Cheyne. The chief argument for bringing the Song into the time of the early Ptolemies is drawn from the language of the poem. There are many Hebrew words that are employed elsewhere only in later books of the Old Testament; the word pardēṣ (Son_4:13) is a Persian loan-word for ?park?; the word for ?palanquin? may be Indian, or possibly Greek. Moreover, the form of the relative pronoun is uniformly that which is found in some of the latest books of the Old Testament. The influence of Aramaic is apparent, both in the vocabulary and in a few constructions. This may be accounted for on theory of the northern origin of the Song, or on the hypothesis of a post-exilic date. The question of date is still open.
IV. History of Interpretation.
1. The Allegorical Interpretation:
All interpreters of all ages agree in saying that Canticles is a poem of love; but who the lovers are is a subject of keen debate, especially in modern times.
First in point of time and in the number of adherents it has had is theory that the Song is a pure allegory of the love of Yahweh and His people. The Jewish rabbis, from the latter part of the 1st century AD down to our own day, taught that the poem celebrates a spiritual love, Yahweh being the bridegroom and Israel the bride. Canticles was supposed to be a vivid record of the loving intercourse between Israel and her Lord from the exodus on to the glad Messianic time. The Song is read by the Jews at Passover, which celebrates Yahweh's choice of Israel to be His spouse. The Targum interprets Canticles as an allegory of the marital love of Yahweh and Israel. Origen made the allegorical theory popular in the early church. As a Christian he represented the bride as the church or the soul of the believer. In more recent centuries the Christian allegorical interpreters have favored the idea that the soul of the believer was the bride, though the other type of the allegorical view has all along had its advocates.
Bernard of Clairvaux wrote 86 sermons on the first two chapters of Canticles; and a host of writers in the Roman church and among Protestants have composed similar mystical treatises on the Song. Devout souls have expressed their fervent love to God in the sensuous imagery of Canticles. The imagery could not become too fervid or ecstatic for some of these devout men and women in their highest moments of beatific vision. Whatever may be the final verdict of sane criticism as to the original purpose of the author of the Song, it is a fact that must not be overlooked by the student of Canticles that some of the noblest religious souls, both Hebrew and Christian, have fed the flame of devotion by interpreting the Song as an allegory.
What justification is there for theory that Canticles is an allegory of the love between Yahweh and His people, or of the love of Christ and the church, or of the love of the soul of the believer and Christ? It must be frankly confessed that there is not a hint in the Song itself that it is an allegory. If the modern reader of Canticles had never heard of the allegorical interpretation, nothing in the beginning, middle or end of the poem would be likely to suggest to his mind such a conception of the poet's meaning. How, then, did the early Jewish interpreters come to make this the orthodox interpretation of the Song? The question is not easy to answer. In the forefront of our answer we must recall the fact that the great prophets frequently represent the mutual love of Yahweh and Israel under the symbolism of marriage (Hosea 1 through 3; Jeremiah 3; Ezekiel 16; 23; Isa_50:1; Isa_54:5, Isa_54:6). The Hebrew interpreter might naturally expect to find some echo of this bold imagery in the poetry of the Kethūbhı̄m. In the Torah the frequent command to love Yahweh might suggest the marital relation as well as that of the father and son (Deu_6:5; Deu_7:7-9, Deu_7:13; Deu_10:12, Deu_10:15; Deu_30:16, Deu_30:20), though it must be said that the language of Dt suggests the high ethical and religious teaching of Jesus in the matter of love to God, in which the sexual does not appear.
Cheyne suggests (EB, I, 683 f) that the Song was too joyous to be used, in its natural sense, by the Jews after the destruction of Jerusalem, and hence, they consecrated it by allegorical interpretation. The suggestion may contain an element of truth.
It is an interesting fact that the Psalter has so few expressions in which love to Yahweh is expressed (Psa_31:23; Psa_97:10; Psa_145:20; compare Psa_18:1; Psa_42:1; Psa_63:1). In this manual of devotion one would not be suprised to find the expansion of the image of wedlock as expressive of the soul's relation to God; but we look in vain for such a poem, unless Ps 45 be capable of allegorical interpretation. Even that beautiful song of love and marriage contains no such highly sensuous imagery as is found in Canticles.
Christian scholars found it easy to follow the Jewish allegorical interpreters; for the figure of wedlock is employed in the New Testament by both Paul and John to represent the intimate and vital union of Christ and His church (2Co_11:2; Eph_5:22-33; Rev_19:7-9; Rev_21:2, Rev_21:9 ff).
The entire body of true believers is conceived of as the bride of Christ. Naturally the purity of the church is sullied through the impure conduct of the individuals of whom it is composed. Hence, the appeal to individuals and to local churches to live pure lives (2Co_11:1). To the unmarried believer the Lord Jesus takes the place of the husband or wife as the person whom one is most eager to please (1Co_7:32 f). It is not difficult to understand how the fervid, sensuous imagery of Canticles would appeal to the mind of a man like Origen as a proper vehicle for the expression of his passionate love for Christ.
Sober inquiry discovers no sufficient justification of the allegorical interpretation of the Song of Songs. The pages of the mystical commentators are filled with artificial interpretations and conceits. Many of them practice a familiarity with Christ that is without example in the Biblical devotional literature.
2. The Typical Interpretation:
The allegorical interpreters, for the most part, saw in the Song of Songs no historic basis. Solomon and the Shulammite are introduced merely as figures through whom God and His people, or Christ and the soul, can express their mutual love. In modern times interpreters have arisen who regard the Song as primarily the expression of strong and passionate human love between Solomon and a beautiful maiden, but by virtue of the typical relation of the old dispensation, secondarily, the fitting expression of the love of Christ and the church.
The way for this modern typical interpretation was prepared by Lowth (Sacred Poetry of the Hebrews, Lectionaries XXX, XXXI) in his modified allegorical view, which is thus described by Canon Driver: ?Bishop Lowth, though not abandoning the allegorical view, sought to free it from its extravagances; and while refusing to press details, held that the poem, while describing the actual nuptials of Solomon with the daughter of Pharaoh, contained also an allegoric reference to Christ espousing a church chosen from among the Gentiles? (LOT, 451). Few interpreters have been found to follow Theodore of Mopsuestia and Lowth in their view that the Song celebrates the marriage of Solomon and an Egyptian princess; and Lowth's notion of a reference to the espousal of a church chosen from among the Gentiles is one of the curiosities of criticism. Of the typical interpreters Delitzsch is perhaps the ablest (Commentary on Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs).
The typical commentators are superior to the allegorical in their recognition of Canticles as the expression of the mutual love of two human beings. The further application of the language to Yahweh and His people (Keil), or to Christ and the church (Delitzsch), or to God and the soul (M. Stuart) becomes largely a matter of individual taste, interpreters differing widely in details.
3. The Literal Interpretation:
Jewish interpreters were deterred from the literal interpretation of Canticles by the anathema in the Mishna upon all who should treat the poem as a secular song (Ṣanhedhrı̄n, 101a). Cheyne says of Ibn Ezra, a great medieval Jewish scholar, he ?is so thorough in his literal exegesis that it is doubtful whether he is serious when he proceeds to allegorize.? Among Christian scholars Theodore of Mopsuestia interpreted Canticles as a song in celebration of the marriage of Solomon and Pharaoh's daughter. This strictly literal interpretation of the Song was condemned at the second council of Constantinople (553 AD). For the next thousand years the allegorical theory reigned supreme among Christian interpreters. In 1544 Sebastian Castellio revived the literal theory of the Song, though the allegorical view remained dominant until the 19th century.
Herder in 1778 published a remarkable little treatise entitled Lieder der Liebe, die altesten und schonsten aus dem Morgenlande, in which he advanced theory that Canticles is a collection of independent erotic songs, about 21 in number, which have been so arranged by a collector as to trace ?the gradual growth of true love in its various nuances and stages, till it finds its consummation in wedlock? (Cheyne). But the greatest and most influential advocate of the literal interpretation of Canticles was Heinrich Ewald, who published the 1st edition of his commentary in 1826. It was Ewald who first developed and made popular theory that two suitors compete for the hand of the Shulammite, the one a shepherd and poor, the other a wise and wealthy king. In the Song he ascribes to Solomon Son_1:9-11, Son_1:15; Son_2:2; Son_4:1-7; Son_6:4-13 (quoting the dialogue between the Shulammite and the ladies of the court in Son_6:10-13); Son_7:1-9. To the shepherd lover he assigns few verses, and these are repeated by the Shulammite in her accounts of imaginary or real interviews with her lover. In the following passages the lover described is supposed to be the shepherd to whom the Shulammite had plighted her troth: Son_1:2-7, Son_1:9-14; 1:16 through 2:1; Son_2:3-7, Son_2:8-17; Son_3:1-5; 4:8 through 5:1; Son_5:2-8; Son_5:10-16; Son_6:2 f; 7:10 through 8:4; Son_8:5-14. The shepherd lover is thus supposed to be present in the Shulammite's dreams, and in her waking moments she is ever thinking of him and describing to herself and others his many charms. Not until the closing scene (Son_8:5-14) does Ewald introduce the shepherd as an actor in the drama. Ewald had an imperial imagination and a certain strength of mind and innate dignity of character which prevented him from dragging into the mud any section of the Biblical literature. While rejecting entirely the allegorical theory of Canticles, he yet attributed to it an ethical quality which made the Song worthy of a place in the Old Testament. A drama in praise of fidelity between human lovers may well hold a place beside Ecclesiastes and Proverbs in the Canon. Many of the ablest Old Testament critics have followed Ewald in his general theory that Canticles is a drama celebrating the loyalty of a lowly maiden to her shepherd lover. Not even Solomon in all his glory could persuade her to become his queen.
Within the past quarter of a century the unity of Canticles has been again sharply challenged. An account of the customs of the Syrian peasants in connection with weddings was given by the Prussian consul at Damascus, J. G. Wetzstein, in 1873, in an article in Bastian's Zeitschrift fur Ethnologie, 270 ff, on ?Die syrische Dreschtafel,? in which he illustrated the Old Testament from modern Syrian customs. Driver thus describes the customs that are supposed to throw light upon Canticles: ?In modern Syria, the first seven days after a wedding are called the 'king's week'; the young pair play during this time king and queen; the 'threshing-board' is turned into a mock-throne, on which they are seated, while songs are sung before them by the villagers and others, celebrating them on their happiness, among which the wacf, or poetical 'description' of the physical beauty of the bride and bridegroom, holds a prominent place. The first of these wacfs is sung on the evening of the wedding-day itself: brandishing a naked sword in her right hand, and with a handkerchief in her left, the bride dances in her wedding array, lighted by fires, and surrounded by a circle of guests, half men and half women, accompanying her dance with a wacf in praise of her charms? (LOT, 452). Wetzstein suggested the view that Canticles was composed of the wedding-songs sung during ?the king's week.? This theory has been most fully elaborated by Budde in an article in the New World, March, 1894, and in his commentary (1898). According to Budde, the bridegroom is called King Solomon, and the bride Shūlammı̄th. The companions of the bridegroom are the 60 valiant men who form his escort (Son_3:7). As a bride, the maiden is called the most beautiful of women (Son_1:8; Son_5:9; Son_6:1). The pictures of wedded bliss are sung by the men and women present, the words being attributed to the bride and the bridegroom. Thus the festivities continue throughout the week. Budde's theory has some decided advantages over Ewald's view that the poem is a drama; but the loss in moral quality is considerable; the book becomes a collection of wedding-songs in praise of the joys of wedlock.
V. Closing Hints and Suggestions.
Having given a good deal of attention to Canticles during the past 15 years, the author of this article wishes to record a few of his views and impressions.
(1) Canticles is lyric poetry touched with the dramatic spirit. It is not properly classed as drama, for the Hebrews had no stage, though much of the Old Testament is dramatic in spirit. The descriptions of the charms of the lovers were to be sung or chanted.
(2) The amount that has to be read between the lines by the advocates of the various dramatic theories is so great that, in the absence of any hints in the body of the book itself, reasonable certitude can never be attained.
(3) The correct translation of the refrain in Son_2:7 and Son_3:5 (compare Son_8:4) is important for an understanding of the purpose of Canticles. It should be rendered as follows:
'I adjure you, O daughters of Jerusalem,
By the gazelles, or by the hinds of the field,
That ye stir not up, nor awaken love,
Until it please.'
Love between man and woman should not be excited by unnatural stimulants, but should be free and spontaneous. In Son_8:4 it seems to be implied that the women of the capital are guilty of employing artifices to awaken love:
'I adjure you, O daughters of Jerusalem,
Why do ye stir up, or awaken love,
Until it please?'
That this refrain is in keeping with the purpose of the writer is clear from the striking words toward the close of the book:
?Set me as a seal upon thy heart,
As a seal upon thine arm:
For love is strong as death;
Jealousy is cruel as Sheol;
The flashes thereof are flashes of fire,
A very flame of Yahweh.
Many waters cannot quench love,
Neither can floods drown it:
If a man would give all the substance of his house for love,
He would utterly be contemned? (Son_8:6 f).
(4) Canticles discloses all the secret intimacies of wedded life without becoming obscene. The imagery is too sensuous for our taste in western lands, so that words of caution are often timely, lest the sensuous degenerate into the sensual; but I have been told by several Syrian and Palestinian students whom I have had the privilege of teaching, that Canticles is considered quite chaste among their people, the wedding-songs now in use among them being more minute in their description of the physical charms of the lovers.
(5) Canticles is by no means excluded from the Canon by the acceptance of the literal interpretation. Ewald's theory makes it an ethical treatise of great and permanent value. Even if Canticles is merely a collection of songs describing the bliss of true lovers in wedlock, it is not thereby rendered unworthy of a place in the Bible, unless marriage is to be regarded as a fall from a state of innocency. If Canticles should be rejected because of its sensuous imagery in describing the joys of passionate lovers, portions of Proverbs would also have to be excised (Pro_5:15-20). Perhaps most persons need to enlarge their conception of the Bible as a repository for all things that minister to the welfare of men. The entire range of man's legitimate joys finds sympathetic and appreciative description in the Bible. Two young lovers in Paradise need not fear to rise and meet their Creator, should He visit them in the cool of the day.
Literature.
C. D. Ginsburg, The Song of Songs, with a Commentary, Historical and Critical, 1857; H. Ewald, Dichter des Alten Bundes, III, 333-426, 1867; F. C. Cook, in Biblical Commentary, 1874; Franz Delitzsch, Hoheslied u. Koheleth, 1875 (also translation); O. Zockler, in Lange's Comm., 1875; S. Oettli, Kurzgefasster Kommentar, 1889; W. E. Griffis, The Lily among Thorns, 1890; J. W. Rothstein, Das Hohe Lied, 1893; K. Budde, article in New World, March, 1894. and Kommentar, 1898; C. Siegfried, Prediger u. Hoheslied, 1898; A. Harper, in Cambridge Bible, 1902; G. C. Martin, in Century Bible, 1908; article on ?Canticles? by Cheyne in EB, 1899.
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
PRINTER 1915.
1. Place in the Canon, interpretation, structure.(a) The Song of Songs is one of the Kethûbîm, Hagiographa, or Writings, the third of the three classes into which the Jewish Canon was divided. Printed copies of the Heb. OT follow the arrangement of the German and French MSS in placing it at the head of the five Megillôth or Rollsthe short books which are read at the great annual solemnities of Passover, Pentecost, the 9th Ab, Feast of Booths, Purim. Probably it owes its premier position to the fact that Passover is the earliest festival of the year. But there is reason for believing that a more ancient order survives in the LXX [Note: Septuagint.] , where it stands by the side of Prov. and Eccles., the two other works to which Solomons name was attached.
Grave doubts were long entertained by the Rabbis respecting the canonicity of Canticles (a common name of the book, from Vulg. [Note: Vulgate.] Canticum Canticorum).
The Synod of Jamnia (a.d. 90100), after some discussion, decided in favour of its reception, and Rabbi Akiba ( a.d. 135) lent to this conclusion the weight of his great influence: All the Hagiographa are holy, but the Song of Songs is the most holy, and the whole world is not of such importance as the day in which it was given. The opening words of the Targum are equally strong: Songs and praises which Solomon the prophet, the king of Israel, spake by the Holy Spirit before Jahweh, the Lord of the whole world. Ten songs were sung in that day, but this song was more to be praised than they all. The Midrash asserts that Canticles is the most excellent of songs, dedicated to Him who one day will cause the Holy Ghost to rest on us; it is that song in which God praises us and we Him.
(b) It was evidently admitted into the OT because it was supposed to treat of a religious theme. This is implied by its title in the Syriac Version: Wisdom of Wisdoms, which is Solomons: the book which is called in Hebrew Shirath Shirim (i.e. Song of Songs). The theme was supposed to be the reciprocal love of Jahweh and Israel, and the story of that love in the history of the Chosen People. This was here enshrined in an allegory somewhat analogous to Hos_1:1-11; Hos_2:1-23; Hos_3:1-5 and Eze_16:1-63. The Church adopted this line of interpretation from the Synagogue: Christ is the bridegroom, the Church or the soul is the bride.
The rubrics prefixed to many verses in Cod. Amiatinus of the Vulgate illustrate the manner in which this was worked out: Voice of the Synagogue, Voice of the Church, Voice of Christ, Voice of Mary Magdalene to the Church, Christ calls together the nations. To some writers the Virgin Mary was the bride, and Canticles told the story of the incarnation. Luther read here Solomons thanksgivings for the blessings bestowed on his kingdom. The school of allegorists has lost ground considerably in modern times, but is not yet extinct. There were, however, almost from the beginning, exegetes who saw that the subject really treated of in Ca. is the mutual love of man and woman. In the early Church the great name of Theodore of Mopsuestia stands out on this side, and among the Jews that of Ibn Ezra. Castellio was driven out of Geneva by Calvin for asserting it, and Luis de Leon was thrown into prison by the Inquisition for the same cause.
(c) The question of form is closely connected with that of subject. Origen was the first to point out its affinity to the drama, but the earliest attempt to work this out thoroughly was made as late as 1722 by a German, G. Wachter. He has found many followers. Solomon and a country maiden were supposed to be the two leading characters. He married her, and his love for her led him to adopt a simpler mode of life. But is there not a third important character in the play? Later students answered in the affirmative. The revised explanation was that Solomon carried off the Shulammite to his harem, and, abetted by the women already there, the daughters of Jerusalem, sought to divert her affections from her shepherd-lover: failing in this, he at last magnanimously resigned her to the shepherd. Leaving aside all detailed objections, the consideration which is fatal to these and all conceivable forms of the theory is that the drama has no place in Semitic literature. If Ca. had been an exception to the rule, how is it that there is not a single stage-direction, not a note of any kind to identify the speaker or regulate the action?
Certain important MSS of the LXX [Note: Septuagint.] show how keenly this defect was felt; to each longer or shorter section they prefix The Bridegroom, The Bride, A second time the Bride adjures the maidens, or the like, and one MS (23) runs to the following length, before Son_5:7, Not having found the bridegroom, the bride went out, and, as one found by the city-watchmen in the night, she is wounded and the keepers of the wall take her veil.
And how is it that there is, within the poem itself, no movement towards a climax, no knot united or cut, no dénouement? Matters are as far advanced at Son_1:4; Son_2:4 as at Son_8:5.
Even during the period when the drama-theory was most vigorously maintained, some distinguished scholars held that Ca. is made up of a number of originally detached pieces, which were eventually brought together because they all treat of Love. Wetzsteins Die Syrische Dreschtafet (1873) furnished a strong reinforcement of this opinion. He had observed, whilst resident in Syria, that the peasant bridegroom and bride are entitled king and queen for the first week of married life [a contemporary Arabic epithalamium has since then been cited (ZATW [Note: ATW Zeitschrift far die Alttest. Wissenschaft.] xxiv. p. 42) in which the man actually bears the name of the reigning Sultan, Abd il-Hamîd]; they are attended by a vizier, have their throne on the threshing-floor, and receive the homage of the whole countryside. Songs and dances are executed by the friends of the bridegroom, the bystanders, and the newly married pair. Some of these ditties, especially those which enumerate the charms of the bride, ate of exactly the same character as certain sections of Canticles, and Son_7:1 ff. corresponds precisely with the wasf (description) which the bride sings as she goes through the sword-dance on the wedding night. These facts have induced a large number of expositors to believe that Ca. is a collection of love-songs, composed expressly for, or at any rate suitable for use at, marriage festivals.
Budde, who strongly advocates this view, admits that the book is not without marks of unity, but holds that these are sufficiently accounted for on the supposition that all these folk-songs originated in a single district and period. Haupt entirely rejects the idea of a unity, and, looking on the book in its present state as a disorganized mass, re-arranges it into twelve poems. The extent to which he carries the liberty of re-casting may be seen in his No. 3, Brothers of the Bride, which is made up of Son_6:3, Son_7:11, Son_2:1, Son_1:5-6, Son_8:8-10, Son_8:1-2. Even Buddes less drastic treatment ecarcely does justice to the tokens of plan and unity which the book presents. The recurrence of certain phrases (Son_2:7, Son_3:6, Son_8:4; Son_2:17, Son_4:6, Son_8:14) is meant to indicate connexions and transitions of thought, and there is no overwhelming reason against our ascribing them to the original writer.
The sentiments and the style are so similar throughout as to justify our thinking of a single author who composed erotic and nuptial pieces for several occasions, and afterwards wove them into a garland of verse (cf. Son_2:5, Son_5:8; Son_1:16, Son_4:1; Son_4:2, Son_6:6; Son_2:16, Son_6:3; Son_6:4, Son_6:10; Son_2:9, Son_8:14). A few of the smaller parts have probably been removed from their intended place, and it hardly admits of doubt that Son_4:8 is a belated fragment, unintelligible where it now stands. But when we remember the apparent irrelevance of the occasional verses sung in Palestine to-day, we shall be slow to deny that the singers and auditors of Ca. grasped allusions and perceived a fitness which we fail to apprehend. And in studying the song from this point of view it is well to bear in mind the facts collected by Dalman (Paläst. Divan, p. xii.). He points out that the wasf is not limited to wedding festivities, but is sung by the tent-fire, in the village inn, in the coffee-house where townsmen gather at night; that it is usually brief when descriptive of the beauty of bride or bridegroom; that in Palestine itselfhowever true Wetzsteins account of Damascus and the Hauranthere are but scanty traces of the temporary royalty of the bridal pair, and none of the threshing-sledge throne.
2. Contents.These fall into what we may call seven cantos. I. (Son_1:2 to Son_2:7): in Son_1:2-4 the bride declares her affection; In Son_1:6 f. deprecates unfavourable criticism; in Son_1:7 f. inquires for her beloved. In Son_1:9 to Son_2:8 we have their praise of each other; in Son_2:4-7 her experience of love. II. (Son_2:8 to Son_2:17): Son_2:8-14 a spring visit, Son_2:16 the foxes, Son_2:16 f. close of the canto. III. (Son_3:1 to Son_3:11): Son_3:1-5 a dream, Son_3:6-11 interlude. IV. (Son_4:1 to Son_5:1): in Son_4:1-7 he sets forth her charms; Son_4:8 a fragment, Son_4:9-11 his ecstasy of love, Son_4:12 to Son_5:1 a garden. V. (Son_5:2 to Son_6:9): Son_5:2-8 a dream, Son_5:8 to Son_6:8 wasf sung by bride; Son_5:4-9 his praise of her. VI. (Son_6:10 to Son_8:4): Son_6:10 inquiry by women, Son_6:11 f. her rapture, Son_6:13 to Son_7:10 wasf sung during sword-dance (dance of camps, Son_7:1), Son_7:11 to Son_8:4 songs of the bride. VII. (Son_8:5-14): Son_8:6 a reminiscence, Son_8:6 f. the power of love, Son_8:8-10 the solicitude of the brothers, Son_8:11 f. an apologue, Son_8:13 f. conclusion.
We cannot regret that these canticles of human love have been preserved for us in the OT. The mutual attraction of the sexes is Divinely ordained. The love which finds expression in Ca. Is regulated by marriage. The imagery is too luscious and the detail too complete for our taste, but they were produced by an Oriental for Orientals. More reticence does not necessarily mean more genuine purity. We should indeed have been glad to find some recognition of the loftier side of marriage, or something to remind us of Pro_31:1-31. But the occasions for which these verses were composed and a comparison of the effusions which are still current on like occasions effectually disarm criticism. Dalman (Pal. Divan, p. xiii.) remarks justly concerning the folk-songs which he has brought together: The fact that the poems dwell only on the physical excellences of the beloved corresponds with the degree of civilization to which the Palestinian populace has attained. It does not follow that the Oriental ascribes no value to a womans excellences of disposition and character.
3. Authorship and date.The title (Son_1:1), according to which Solomon was the poet, is entirely destitute of authority. Its late and artificial origin is betrayed by the absence of the full form of the relative pronoun, which occurs nowhere in the poems themselves. The ascription of the authorship to the famous king is due partly to his being mentioned in Son_1:5, Son_8:12 (Son_3:7; Son_3:11 are doubtful), and partly to his reputation as the typically wise man, the composer of songs a thousand and five (1Ki_4:32). But the canonicity of the book would not have remained an open question until the 1st cent. of the Christian era if it had then been extant a thousand years as an acknowledged product of his hand. Moreover, the language in which it is written belongs to the very latest stratum of Biblical Hebrew. The exclusive use of the abbreviated pronoun occurs in no early document, and cannot be explained as a peculiarity of the northern dialect. And there is no proof that the writer was specially connected with the North; if he mentions Lebanon, Amana, Shenir, Hermon, Tirzah, he also knows En-gedi, Heshbon, the wilderness (of Judah), the daughters of Jerusalem. Considering the brevity of the book, there is a very considerable number of words which are seldom or never found elsewhere, or are employed here in place of more common ones, or are to be seen only in late writings. One of them pardçs, is Zend; another, ĕgôz, is Persian; appiryôn may be the Gr. phoreion; several are Aramaic. We should not look for these phenomena earlier than the period when Hebrew was yielding place to Aramaic, and if the exact age cannot be determined, the 3rd cent. b.c. is at least approximately correct.
4. Style.It would be a dull eye that should miss the beauty of these poems. The verse moves lightly and gracefully, the imagery is charming. Our poet was deeply susceptible to the loveliness of nature, and fully capable of appreciating the art of his time. He carries us with him into the open air, to the vineyards, the villages, the mountains. He is awake at daybreak, to inhale the scent of the forest trees, to gather the apples and the pomegranates, to listen to the tinkle of the rills. Flocks of wild pigeons, timid and swift gazelles, fields embroidered with lilies, the breath of springall appeal to him. On the other hand, he is stirred by the pomp of a court, the magnificence of a royal litter, the glittering whiteness of an ivory tower, martial trophies, the rich attire of women, their jewels and perfumes. As a poem there is nothing else in the Bible to compare with this. Had it indeed been Solomons, it would have been, as the title asserts, his Song of Songs, the fine fleur of his poetry.
5. Text.This is not in a satisfactory state, but the critic should proceed with much caution. There are many passages where our view of the interpretation suggests alterations (Son_1:2; Son_1:4; Son_1:8-9; Son_2:9; Son_3:10; Son_4:14; Son_4:16; Son_5:1; Son_5:6; Son_6:2; Son_6:6; Son_6:8; Son_7:8; Son_7:8; Son_7:13), but it is obviously easy to allow ourselves too much licence. Bearing in mind what might be advanced on both sides, who shall determine whether Nergal is to be substituted for nidhgaloth (banners) at Son_6:10? The Versions, especially LXX [Note: Septuagint.] and Syr., supply a few better readings (Son_1:3-4; Son_1:7; Son_1:10, Son_2:17, Son_3:1; Son_3:6; Son_3:10, Son_4:8; Son_4:12, Son_5:11; Son_5:13, Son_6:6, Son_7:1, Son_8:2). There are obvious errors of transcription: nard should not follow nards (Son_4:13 f.). Emendations suggested by the metre deserve attention (Son_1:15, Son_3:9; Son_3:11, Son_7:8), but this has been carried much too far, not only by Bickell, but also in Kittels edition of the Heb. Bible. Littmann (ZATW [Note: ATW Zeitschrift far die Alttest. Wissenschaft.] xxiv. p. 43) pertinently remarks that in many of the popular Arabic poems which he has collected there is an absence of definite verse-measure, and considers that in the OT also, verses of that kind, without definite metre, are at least possible. There has been also a little too much readiness to delete verses, sentences, or words, on the ground that they occur in other parts of the poem in more suitable contexts. Martineau would omit Son_3:1-5 because of its resemblance to Son_5:2 ff. We must not forget that catchwords and refrains are characteristic of this class of poetry.
J. Taylor.
Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible
Edited by James Hastings, D.D. Published in 1909
Solomon had the reputation of being one of Israels greatest wisdom teachers and song writers (1Ki_4:29-34). He was also one of its most famous lovers (1Ki_11:1-4). It is not surprising, therefore, that he has been traditionally regarded as the author of the biblical book that contains one of the worlds best known collections of love songs, the Song of Songs. The book contains a number of references to the splendour of Solomon and his court, and is sometimes called the Song of Solomon (Song of Son_1:1; Son_1:5; Son_3:7-11; Son_8:11-12).
Interpretation
Although the book declares that it was written by Solomon, it is not necessarily about Solomon personally. A poet can write a poem about anybody. The reader has difficulty working out the identity of the people mentioned in the Song of Songs, because the poems can be understood in different ways. In some poems the words may all be from one speaker; in others, from several speakers. Some poems are the private reflections of individuals, others are dialogues; some describe actual circumstances or events, others recount dreams; some recall the past, others look to the future.
Since the reader has to work out for himself who is speaking in the various poems, a number of interpretations have been suggested. In some of the more recent versions of the Bible, the translators have tried to help the reader by inserting subheadings. The variations in these subheadings reflect the variations in interpretation.
Among those who regard the book as a drama involving Solomon himself, there are two main interpretations. The first sees two main characters, Solomon and a Shulammite girl who fall in love and marry. The second sees three main characters a young shepherd, his Shulammite lover, and King Solomon, who takes the girl from the shepherd and unsuccessfully tries to win her love.
Perhaps the book is best understood not as a drama, but as a collection of poems that recount the exchanges of love between an unnamed shepherd and an unnamed country girl. Yet there is a unity to the book. Certain features recur throughout, and there is a development in the love relationship.
The inclusion of such a book in the Bible is an indication of Gods approval of sexual love. Always, however, the love is in the context of a relationship where a man and a woman commit themselves to each other in marriage, to the exclusion of all others (Song of Son_2:16; Son_6:3; Son_7:10).
Contents
In the opening poem the girl longs for her distant lover (1:1-7), after which each speaks in praise of the other (1:8-2:7). Then comes a group of three poems recounting memories and dreams. First the girl imagines her shepherd-lover coming to visit her at her home (2:8-17), then she recalls a dream she had about him (3:1-5), and finally she imagines her wedding day, when he comes and praises her beauty (3:6-5:1).
Another dream indicates the frustration the girl feels at being separated from her lover (5:2-6:3). Further poems express the intensely strong desires that the two have for each other (6:4-7:13), though they know how to restrain their physical expressions of love (8:1-4). The final poem, which pictures the homecoming of the two lovers, speaks of the power of love and the reward it brings (8:5-14).
Bridgeway Bible Dictionary by Don Fleming
PRINTER 1990.
(השּׁירים שׁיר, shı̄r hashı̄rı̄m; Septuagint Ἄσμα, Ásma; Codices Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Ephraemi, Ἄσμα ἀσμάτων, Ásma asmátōn; Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) Canticum Canticorum):
I. CANONICITY
II. TEXT
III. AUTHORSHIP AND DATE
IV. HISTORY OF INTERPRETATION
1. The Allegorical Interpretation
2. The Typical Interpretation
3. The Literal Interpretation
V. CLOSING HINTS AND SUGGESTIONS
LITERATURE
The full title in Hebrew is ?The Song of Songs, which is Solomon's.? The book is called by some Canticles, and by others Solomon's Song. The Hebrew title implies that it is the choicest of all songs, in keeping with the dictum of Rabbi ‛Aqiba (90-135 AD) that ?the entire world, from the beginning until now, does not outweigh the day in which Canticles was given to Israel.?
I. Canonicity.
Early Jewish and Christian writers are silent as to the Song of Songs. No use is made of it by Philo. There is no quotation from it in the New Testament, nor is there any clear allusion to it on the part of our Lord or the apostles. The earliest distinct references to the Song of Songs are found in Jewish writings of the 1st and 2nd centuries AD (4 Esdras 5:24, 26; 7:26; Ta‛ănı̄th 4:8). The question of the canonicity of the Song was debated as late as the Synod of Jamnia (circa 90 AD), when it was decided that Canticles was rightly reckoned to ?defile the hands,? i.e. was an inspired book. It should be borne in mind that the Song of Songs was already esteemed by the Jews as a sacred book, though prior to the Synod of Jamnia there was probably a goodly number of Jewish teachers who did not accept it as canonical. Selections from Canticles were sung at certain festivals in the temple at Jerusalem, prior to its destruction by Titus in 70 AD (Ta‛ănı̄th 4:8). The Mishna pronounces an anathema on all who treat Canticles as a secular song (Ṣanhedhrı̄n, 101a). The latest date for the composition of the Song of Songs, according to critics of the advanced school, is toward the close of the 3rd century BC. We may be sure that it was included in the Kethūbhı̄m before the ministry of our Lord, and so was for Him a part of the Scriptures.
II. Text.
Most scholars regard the text of Canticles as comparatively free from corruption. Gratz, Bickell, Budde and Cheyne have suggested a good many emendations of the traditional text, a few of which commend themselves as probable corrections of a faulty text, but most of which are mere guesses without sufficient confirmation from either external or internal evidence. For details see Budde's able commentary, and articles by Cheyne in JQR and Expository Times for 1898-99 and in the The Expositor, February, 1899.
III. Authorship and Date.
The title in the Hebrew text ascribes the poem to Solomon. That this superscription was prefixed by an editor of Canticles and not by the original writer is evident from the fact that the relative pronoun employed in the title is different from that employed throughout the poem. The beauty and power of the book seemed to later students and editors to make the writing worthy of the gifted king, whose fame as a composer of both proverbs and songs was handed on to later times (1Ki_4:32). Moreover, the name of Solomon is prominent in the Song of Songs itself (Son_1:5; Son_3:7, Son_3:9, Son_3:11; Son_8:11 f). If the traditional view that Solomon wooed and won the Shulammite be true, the Solomonic authorship may even yet be defended, though the linguistic argument for a later date is quite strong.
The question in debate among recent critics is whether the Song was composed in North Israel in preexilic days, or whether it is post-exilic. The author is at home in Hebrew. His vocabulary is extensive, and the movement of the poem is graceful. There is no suggestion of the use of lexicon and grammar by a writer living in the period of the decadence of the Hebrew language. The author is familiar with cities and mountains all over Palestine, especially in the northern section. He speaks of the beauty of Tirzah, the capital of North Israel in the 10th century BC, along with the glory of Jerusalem, the capital of Judah (Son_6:4). The recollection of Solomon's glory and pomp seems to be fresh in the mind of the writer and his contemporaries. W.R. Smith regarded Canticles as a protest against the luxury and the extensive harem of Solomon. True love could not exist in such an environment. The fidelity of the Shulammite to her shepherd lover, notwithstanding the blandishments of the wealthy and gifted king, stands as a rebuke to the notion that every woman has her price. Driver seems inclined to accept a preexilic date, though the arguments from vocabulary and philology cause him to waver in his opinion (LOT, 8th edition, 450). An increasing number of critics place the composition of Canticles in the post-exilic period, many bringing it down into the Greek period. Among scholars who date Canticles in the 3rd century BC we may name Gratz, Kuenen, Cornill, Budde, Kautzsch, Martineau and Cheyne. The chief argument for bringing the Song into the time of the early Ptolemies is drawn from the language of the poem. There are many Hebrew words that are employed elsewhere only in later books of the Old Testament; the word pardēṣ (Son_4:13) is a Persian loan-word for ?park?; the word for ?palanquin? may be Indian, or possibly Greek. Moreover, the form of the relative pronoun is uniformly that which is found in some of the latest books of the Old Testament. The influence of Aramaic is apparent, both in the vocabulary and in a few constructions. This may be accounted for on theory of the northern origin of the Song, or on the hypothesis of a post-exilic date. The question of date is still open.
IV. History of Interpretation.
1. The Allegorical Interpretation:
All interpreters of all ages agree in saying that Canticles is a poem of love; but who the lovers are is a subject of keen debate, especially in modern times.
First in point of time and in the number of adherents it has had is theory that the Song is a pure allegory of the love of Yahweh and His people. The Jewish rabbis, from the latter part of the 1st century AD down to our own day, taught that the poem celebrates a spiritual love, Yahweh being the bridegroom and Israel the bride. Canticles was supposed to be a vivid record of the loving intercourse between Israel and her Lord from the exodus on to the glad Messianic time. The Song is read by the Jews at Passover, which celebrates Yahweh's choice of Israel to be His spouse. The Targum interprets Canticles as an allegory of the marital love of Yahweh and Israel. Origen made the allegorical theory popular in the early church. As a Christian he represented the bride as the church or the soul of the believer. In more recent centuries the Christian allegorical interpreters have favored the idea that the soul of the believer was the bride, though the other type of the allegorical view has all along had its advocates.
Bernard of Clairvaux wrote 86 sermons on the first two chapters of Canticles; and a host of writers in the Roman church and among Protestants have composed similar mystical treatises on the Song. Devout souls have expressed their fervent love to God in the sensuous imagery of Canticles. The imagery could not become too fervid or ecstatic for some of these devout men and women in their highest moments of beatific vision. Whatever may be the final verdict of sane criticism as to the original purpose of the author of the Song, it is a fact that must not be overlooked by the student of Canticles that some of the noblest religious souls, both Hebrew and Christian, have fed the flame of devotion by interpreting the Song as an allegory.
What justification is there for theory that Canticles is an allegory of the love between Yahweh and His people, or of the love of Christ and the church, or of the love of the soul of the believer and Christ? It must be frankly confessed that there is not a hint in the Song itself that it is an allegory. If the modern reader of Canticles had never heard of the allegorical interpretation, nothing in the beginning, middle or end of the poem would be likely to suggest to his mind such a conception of the poet's meaning. How, then, did the early Jewish interpreters come to make this the orthodox interpretation of the Song? The question is not easy to answer. In the forefront of our answer we must recall the fact that the great prophets frequently represent the mutual love of Yahweh and Israel under the symbolism of marriage (Hosea 1 through 3; Jeremiah 3; Ezekiel 16; 23; Isa_50:1; Isa_54:5, Isa_54:6). The Hebrew interpreter might naturally expect to find some echo of this bold imagery in the poetry of the Kethūbhı̄m. In the Torah the frequent command to love Yahweh might suggest the marital relation as well as that of the father and son (Deu_6:5; Deu_7:7-9, Deu_7:13; Deu_10:12, Deu_10:15; Deu_30:16, Deu_30:20), though it must be said that the language of Dt suggests the high ethical and religious teaching of Jesus in the matter of love to God, in which the sexual does not appear.
Cheyne suggests (EB, I, 683 f) that the Song was too joyous to be used, in its natural sense, by the Jews after the destruction of Jerusalem, and hence, they consecrated it by allegorical interpretation. The suggestion may contain an element of truth.
It is an interesting fact that the Psalter has so few expressions in which love to Yahweh is expressed (Psa_31:23; Psa_97:10; Psa_145:20; compare Psa_18:1; Psa_42:1; Psa_63:1). In this manual of devotion one would not be suprised to find the expansion of the image of wedlock as expressive of the soul's relation to God; but we look in vain for such a poem, unless Ps 45 be capable of allegorical interpretation. Even that beautiful song of love and marriage contains no such highly sensuous imagery as is found in Canticles.
Christian scholars found it easy to follow the Jewish allegorical interpreters; for the figure of wedlock is employed in the New Testament by both Paul and John to represent the intimate and vital union of Christ and His church (2Co_11:2; Eph_5:22-33; Rev_19:7-9; Rev_21:2, Rev_21:9 ff).
The entire body of true believers is conceived of as the bride of Christ. Naturally the purity of the church is sullied through the impure conduct of the individuals of whom it is composed. Hence, the appeal to individuals and to local churches to live pure lives (2Co_11:1). To the unmarried believer the Lord Jesus takes the place of the husband or wife as the person whom one is most eager to please (1Co_7:32 f). It is not difficult to understand how the fervid, sensuous imagery of Canticles would appeal to the mind of a man like Origen as a proper vehicle for the expression of his passionate love for Christ.
Sober inquiry discovers no sufficient justification of the allegorical interpretation of the Song of Songs. The pages of the mystical commentators are filled with artificial interpretations and conceits. Many of them practice a familiarity with Christ that is without example in the Biblical devotional literature.
2. The Typical Interpretation:
The allegorical interpreters, for the most part, saw in the Song of Songs no historic basis. Solomon and the Shulammite are introduced merely as figures through whom God and His people, or Christ and the soul, can express their mutual love. In modern times interpreters have arisen who regard the Song as primarily the expression of strong and passionate human love between Solomon and a beautiful maiden, but by virtue of the typical relation of the old dispensation, secondarily, the fitting expression of the love of Christ and the church.
The way for this modern typical interpretation was prepared by Lowth (Sacred Poetry of the Hebrews, Lectionaries XXX, XXXI) in his modified allegorical view, which is thus described by Canon Driver: ?Bishop Lowth, though not abandoning the allegorical view, sought to free it from its extravagances; and while refusing to press details, held that the poem, while describing the actual nuptials of Solomon with the daughter of Pharaoh, contained also an allegoric reference to Christ espousing a church chosen from among the Gentiles? (LOT, 451). Few interpreters have been found to follow Theodore of Mopsuestia and Lowth in their view that the Song celebrates the marriage of Solomon and an Egyptian princess; and Lowth's notion of a reference to the espousal of a church chosen from among the Gentiles is one of the curiosities of criticism. Of the typical interpreters Delitzsch is perhaps the ablest (Commentary on Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs).
The typical commentators are superior to the allegorical in their recognition of Canticles as the expression of the mutual love of two human beings. The further application of the language to Yahweh and His people (Keil), or to Christ and the church (Delitzsch), or to God and the soul (M. Stuart) becomes largely a matter of individual taste, interpreters differing widely in details.
3. The Literal Interpretation:
Jewish interpreters were deterred from the literal interpretation of Canticles by the anathema in the Mishna upon all who should treat the poem as a secular song (Ṣanhedhrı̄n, 101a). Cheyne says of Ibn Ezra, a great medieval Jewish scholar, he ?is so thorough in his literal exegesis that it is doubtful whether he is serious when he proceeds to allegorize.? Among Christian scholars Theodore of Mopsuestia interpreted Canticles as a song in celebration of the marriage of Solomon and Pharaoh's daughter. This strictly literal interpretation of the Song was condemned at the second council of Constantinople (553 AD). For the next thousand years the allegorical theory reigned supreme among Christian interpreters. In 1544 Sebastian Castellio revived the literal theory of the Song, though the allegorical view remained dominant until the 19th century.
Herder in 1778 published a remarkable little treatise entitled Lieder der Liebe, die altesten und schonsten aus dem Morgenlande, in which he advanced theory that Canticles is a collection of independent erotic songs, about 21 in number, which have been so arranged by a collector as to trace ?the gradual growth of true love in its various nuances and stages, till it finds its consummation in wedlock? (Cheyne). But the greatest and most influential advocate of the literal interpretation of Canticles was Heinrich Ewald, who published the 1st edition of his commentary in 1826. It was Ewald who first developed and made popular theory that two suitors compete for the hand of the Shulammite, the one a shepherd and poor, the other a wise and wealthy king. In the Song he ascribes to Solomon Son_1:9-11, Son_1:15; Son_2:2; Son_4:1-7; Son_6:4-13 (quoting the dialogue between the Shulammite and the ladies of the court in Son_6:10-13); Son_7:1-9. To the shepherd lover he assigns few verses, and these are repeated by the Shulammite in her accounts of imaginary or real interviews with her lover. In the following passages the lover described is supposed to be the shepherd to whom the Shulammite had plighted her troth: Son_1:2-7, Son_1:9-14; 1:16 through 2:1; Son_2:3-7, Son_2:8-17; Son_3:1-5; 4:8 through 5:1; Son_5:2-8; Son_5:10-16; Son_6:2 f; 7:10 through 8:4; Son_8:5-14. The shepherd lover is thus supposed to be present in the Shulammite's dreams, and in her waking moments she is ever thinking of him and describing to herself and others his many charms. Not until the closing scene (Son_8:5-14) does Ewald introduce the shepherd as an actor in the drama. Ewald had an imperial imagination and a certain strength of mind and innate dignity of character which prevented him from dragging into the mud any section of the Biblical literature. While rejecting entirely the allegorical theory of Canticles, he yet attributed to it an ethical quality which made the Song worthy of a place in the Old Testament. A drama in praise of fidelity between human lovers may well hold a place beside Ecclesiastes and Proverbs in the Canon. Many of the ablest Old Testament critics have followed Ewald in his general theory that Canticles is a drama celebrating the loyalty of a lowly maiden to her shepherd lover. Not even Solomon in all his glory could persuade her to become his queen.
Within the past quarter of a century the unity of Canticles has been again sharply challenged. An account of the customs of the Syrian peasants in connection with weddings was given by the Prussian consul at Damascus, J. G. Wetzstein, in 1873, in an article in Bastian's Zeitschrift fur Ethnologie, 270 ff, on ?Die syrische Dreschtafel,? in which he illustrated the Old Testament from modern Syrian customs. Driver thus describes the customs that are supposed to throw light upon Canticles: ?In modern Syria, the first seven days after a wedding are called the 'king's week'; the young pair play during this time king and queen; the 'threshing-board' is turned into a mock-throne, on which they are seated, while songs are sung before them by the villagers and others, celebrating them on their happiness, among which the wacf, or poetical 'description' of the physical beauty of the bride and bridegroom, holds a prominent place. The first of these wacfs is sung on the evening of the wedding-day itself: brandishing a naked sword in her right hand, and with a handkerchief in her left, the bride dances in her wedding array, lighted by fires, and surrounded by a circle of guests, half men and half women, accompanying her dance with a wacf in praise of her charms? (LOT, 452). Wetzstein suggested the view that Canticles was composed of the wedding-songs sung during ?the king's week.? This theory has been most fully elaborated by Budde in an article in the New World, March, 1894, and in his commentary (1898). According to Budde, the bridegroom is called King Solomon, and the bride Shūlammı̄th. The companions of the bridegroom are the 60 valiant men who form his escort (Son_3:7). As a bride, the maiden is called the most beautiful of women (Son_1:8; Son_5:9; Son_6:1). The pictures of wedded bliss are sung by the men and women present, the words being attributed to the bride and the bridegroom. Thus the festivities continue throughout the week. Budde's theory has some decided advantages over Ewald's view that the poem is a drama; but the loss in moral quality is considerable; the book becomes a collection of wedding-songs in praise of the joys of wedlock.
V. Closing Hints and Suggestions.
Having given a good deal of attention to Canticles during the past 15 years, the author of this article wishes to record a few of his views and impressions.
(1) Canticles is lyric poetry touched with the dramatic spirit. It is not properly classed as drama, for the Hebrews had no stage, though much of the Old Testament is dramatic in spirit. The descriptions of the charms of the lovers were to be sung or chanted.
(2) The amount that has to be read between the lines by the advocates of the various dramatic theories is so great that, in the absence of any hints in the body of the book itself, reasonable certitude can never be attained.
(3) The correct translation of the refrain in Son_2:7 and Son_3:5 (compare Son_8:4) is important for an understanding of the purpose of Canticles. It should be rendered as follows:
'I adjure you, O daughters of Jerusalem,
By the gazelles, or by the hinds of the field,
That ye stir not up, nor awaken love,
Until it please.'
Love between man and woman should not be excited by unnatural stimulants, but should be free and spontaneous. In Son_8:4 it seems to be implied that the women of the capital are guilty of employing artifices to awaken love:
'I adjure you, O daughters of Jerusalem,
Why do ye stir up, or awaken love,
Until it please?'
That this refrain is in keeping with the purpose of the writer is clear from the striking words toward the close of the book:
?Set me as a seal upon thy heart,
As a seal upon thine arm:
For love is strong as death;
Jealousy is cruel as Sheol;
The flashes thereof are flashes of fire,
A very flame of Yahweh.
Many waters cannot quench love,
Neither can floods drown it:
If a man would give all the substance of his house for love,
He would utterly be contemned? (Son_8:6 f).
(4) Canticles discloses all the secret intimacies of wedded life without becoming obscene. The imagery is too sensuous for our taste in western lands, so that words of caution are often timely, lest the sensuous degenerate into the sensual; but I have been told by several Syrian and Palestinian students whom I have had the privilege of teaching, that Canticles is considered quite chaste among their people, the wedding-songs now in use among them being more minute in their description of the physical charms of the lovers.
(5) Canticles is by no means excluded from the Canon by the acceptance of the literal interpretation. Ewald's theory makes it an ethical treatise of great and permanent value. Even if Canticles is merely a collection of songs describing the bliss of true lovers in wedlock, it is not thereby rendered unworthy of a place in the Bible, unless marriage is to be regarded as a fall from a state of innocency. If Canticles should be rejected because of its sensuous imagery in describing the joys of passionate lovers, portions of Proverbs would also have to be excised (Pro_5:15-20). Perhaps most persons need to enlarge their conception of the Bible as a repository for all things that minister to the welfare of men. The entire range of man's legitimate joys finds sympathetic and appreciative description in the Bible. Two young lovers in Paradise need not fear to rise and meet their Creator, should He visit them in the cool of the day.
Literature.
C. D. Ginsburg, The Song of Songs, with a Commentary, Historical and Critical, 1857; H. Ewald, Dichter des Alten Bundes, III, 333-426, 1867; F. C. Cook, in Biblical Commentary, 1874; Franz Delitzsch, Hoheslied u. Koheleth, 1875 (also translation); O. Zockler, in Lange's Comm., 1875; S. Oettli, Kurzgefasster Kommentar, 1889; W. E. Griffis, The Lily among Thorns, 1890; J. W. Rothstein, Das Hohe Lied, 1893; K. Budde, article in New World, March, 1894. and Kommentar, 1898; C. Siegfried, Prediger u. Hoheslied, 1898; A. Harper, in Cambridge Bible, 1902; G. C. Martin, in Century Bible, 1908; article on ?Canticles? by Cheyne in EB, 1899.
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
PRINTER 1915.
BUSCADAVERDADE
Visite o nosso canal youtube.com/buscadaverdade e se INSCREVA agora mesmo! Lá temos uma diversidade de temas interessantes sobre: Saúde, Receitas Saudáveis, Benefícios dos Alimentos, Benefícios das Vitaminas e Sais Minerais... Dê uma olhadinha, você vai gostar! E não se esqueça, dê o seu like e se INSCREVA! Clique abaixo e vá direto ao canal!
Saiba Mais
-
Nutrição
Vegetarianismo e a Vitamina B12 -
Receita
Como preparar a Proteína Vegetal Texturizada -
Arqueologia
Livro de Enoque é um livro profético?
Tags