|
|
Appendix Three:
INTERPRETATIONS OF
THE SONG OF SONGS
|
|
|
A. Early Interpretations
The Song of Songs, alone among biblical books, devotes itself entirely to "romantic" love.1 It has often been compared to love-song texts
from Egypt,2 Mesopotamia and even
later Arabic poetry. It is far superior in literary quality to parallel texts from ancient Sumeria. However, it
has no parallel with any known texts from Ugarit, even if the language of Ugaritic texts sheds light on textual
problems in the Song. In its 117 verses, it has 49 words found nowhere else in the Bible, as well as number of
uncommon words. It also has a number of unusual grammatical features, which are discussed in part in Appendices One and Two.3
Jewish and Christian exegetes have traditionally agreed on the unity and authorship of the Song. Modern critical
scholarship generally rejects the unity and Solomonic authorship of the Song. The reasons for this are interwoven,
best understood after a review of historical exegesis.
Some first-century Jewish authorities challenged the canonicity of the Song, in part because (allegedly) none of
God's names are mentioned in it. The Song's popular appeal, with its mention of King Solomon, supported its canonicity.
Rabbi Akiva upheld its canonicity thus: "God forbid that it should be otherwise! No one in Israel ever disputed
that the Song of Songs defiles the hands [is canonical]. For all the world is not worthy as the day on which the
Song of Songs was given to Israel, for all the Writings [the last third of the Hebrew canon] are holy, but the
Song of Songs is the Holy of Holies!"4
Never again was the canonicity of the Song seriously challenged.
Rabbi Akiva believed (as did many rabbis and common people in the first century) that the Song of Songs is allegorical.5 The Loved One (Solomon), according to this interpretation, represents God; the Dear One (Shulamith),
His people Israel. Naturally, this view forced many (as it still does) to ignore or "explain away" much
of the Song's eroticism (even when it is explicit in the Song's wording).
In this light, Akiva admonished: "He who trills his voice in the chanting of the Song of Songs in the banquet-halls
and makes it a secular song has no share in the world to come."6 This implies that not everyone shared Rabbi Akiva's view (or respect for the Song as a spiritual
work), and modified its traditional cantillation (and religious context) accordingly.
Later Jewish exegetes considered the Song an allegory
of Israel's history, from the Exodus to Israel's restoration and the building of the Third Temple (Ezekiel 40-48).7 The early and medieval Church (though not,
it seems, the New Testament Church) treated the Song as strict allegory, this time of Christ and His Bride, the Church.
Some early Jewish authorities held to a literal
interpretation of the Song. To them, human love itself was its subject (and therefore holy). The Mishnah discusses the order in which Solomon wrote the
Song of Songs, Proverbs and Ecclesiastes. Rabbi Jonathan, drawing on his knowledge of human nature, justified the
order thus: "When a man is young, he sings songs [the Song of Songs]. When he becomes an adult, he utters
practical proverbs [Proverbs]. When he becomes old, he speaks of the vanity of things [Ecclesiastes]."8 Both medieval Judaism and Christianity suppressed
this literal view, Christianity in part because of its dualist-inspired distrust of sexuality.
Anciently the Jews recited the Song of Songs at Passover, as modern Jews still do. Later the Song was also recited
on Sabbath eve to welcome the bride, "Queen Shabbat". This was, of course, taking the Song in an allegorical
mode, this time in a mystical sense.9 As we will see, the Song may have been recited
for different reasons in the Temple.
B. Recent Interpretations
By the 18th century, another interpretation was in vogue: the Song of Songs as a drama, complete with characters, a plot and a moral. One view held Solomon married a country girl
(very early in the book) who enabled him to rise from mere infatuation to a higher form of love. A more popular
view was that Solomon competed with a shepherd for the love of a shepherdess, eventually freeing her from his harem
to return to his rival. (This view is still held by some exegetes; we call it "the love-triangle theory".)
Unfortunately, this interpretation demeans Solomon in a way which is not demanded by the words themselves, and
divides certain passages in an arbitrary way. Again, one must read into the text certain assumptions for the theory
to stand.
The Christian exegete Origen (3rd c.) had already described the Song as a nuptial
drama; the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Alexandrinus (Greek manuscripts of the
4th and 5th centuries) even attempt to identify the speakers. Unfortunately, the verbal text of itself was too
ambiguous; the identity and order of the speakers, stage directions, textual divisions, and plot all had to be
imposed arbitrarily on the words. Moreover, the words do not of themselves make Solomon the center of the plot;
they generally refer to him obliquely. Finally, while the Bible is a masterwork of literature (and indeed, of art
song), there is no independant evidence Israel (or, later, Judea) ever produced "drama" as such in antiquity.
In 1873 J.G. Wetzstein compared the Song to the songs of Syrian wedding festivals, in which bride and groom are treated as "king" and "queen" for seven
days, praised in song for their beauty, and treated to a "sword dance" performed by the bride before
the groom. (We surmise that the "sword dance" was compared to the "dance of Mahanaim" in Song
7:1, Hebrew versification.) In 1893, K. Budde, expanding on this, proposed that the Song of Songs is actually a
collection of Palestinian wedding songs.
Unfortunately, if one assumes the Song is a collection of songs, many of them cannot be easily identified as wedding
songs, or even as being about marital love (because their context is removed by that assumption). Nor can the Song
be convincingly divided into seven sections as the theory demands. Finally, there is no firm evidence that modern
Syrian peasants of different ethnic origins had the same nuptial customs as the Palestinian Arabs, let alone the
ancient Israelites.
A 20th-century theory proposes that the Song of Songs was derived ultimately from the cult
of Tammuz, the god of fertility (cf. Ezekiel 8:14; Isaiah 17:10-11). This
view holds that the Loved One is Tammuz, the Dear One a goddess who laments him until his return and their sacred
marriage. But this view must assume Israel absorbed cultic writings from paganism (which was constantly resisted
by Israel's prophets), then denatured their cultic connotations. Even the assumption that the Song may contain
mythological allusions is completely unsupported by the text itself. The marital theme is the one common thread
between the cult of Tammuz and the Song of Songs.
C. A Modern "Consensus"
Most critical scholars believe the Song of Songs is a collection of love songs, not a single work by one author. Some, they say, come from nuptial ceremonies; others simply
celebrate youthful love. A few words of the Song, with some of its grammatical peculiarities (supposedly Aramaisms),
suggest to them that some of the original songs date after the Babylonian Exile: about 400 B.C., when Aramaic replaced
Hebrew as the lingua franca in Palestine.
Other songs, however, have archaic features (some with parallels in Ugaritic), indicting their origin before the
Exile.
The unusual features of the Hebrew text, said to be common in later Aramaic and Mishnaic Hebrew, lend support to
this view, as do features of the Hebrew grammar itself which appear (supposedly) only in later texts. (Among these
"late" works is Ecclesiastes, also traditionally ascribed to Solomon. Since the problems of the authorship
of these books are related, we treat them together in Appendix Two.) The references to locations in the
north of Israel supposedly indicate that some of the songs came from the House of Israel, before its Assyrian captivity.
Jerusalem was the capital of all Israel during Solomon's time. During his son Rehoboam's reign, Israel was split
into two kingdoms: the Houses of Israel and Judah.10 Tirzah (Song 6:4), the early capital of the House of Israel, is compared with Jerusalem, capital
of the House of Judah. Supposedly, this means that at least part of the Song was written after Solomon's time,
but before 800 B.C. (when Samaria became the House of Israel's capital). But Tirzah was a major Canaanite city
conquered by Joshua (Joshua 12:24). Its location and strategic value made it important for northern Israel, even
in Solomon's day; it was not later picked as the House of Israel's capital for nothing. It was still important
after Samaria was built (2 Kings 15:14-16). In any case, the Song compares its pleasant
situation and beauty (as the city name tirtsah itself makes evident) with that of Jerusalem; it does not compare the two cities' political status.
Above all, the diversity of poems and variety of poetic elements in the Song precludes unity of authorship (according
to liberal scholarship). But this view must explain away the uniformity of language (which could hardly have been imposed by later editing without greatly altering the character
of the Song), the overall chiasmic (X-shaped) poetic structure of the Song, the common threads of verbal and poetic
themes throughout, and the high literary quality of the Song as a whole. These things are prima
facae evidence of unified authorship, not of later editorship.
Besides, the Song of Songs has, if not a dramatic structure, an obvious thematic
progression, rather like that of an oratorio. If we had only the libretto
of, say, Mendelssohn's Elijah (leaving
aside obvious biblical quotes), would we assume it was the creation of different authors at different times? Yet
the Song of Songs has a far more involved poetic structure, and uses specific verbal themes far more commonly,
than do many modern works!
It is simply not possible that diverse texts of different ages by different authors could have been so intricately
interwoven by a later editor. (This is tantamount to admitting that someone of Solomonic genius used earlier texts
for his inspiration, yet was never recognized as the Song's author.) How intricately this would have had to be
done is detailed in our main text. Yet even if we admit the unity of the Song, how do we explain its diversity
of poetic images? How can we define who speaks when, and to whom? How can we find the common threads of meaning
and purpose which tie together the diverse elements of the Song? And can we show that the Song was written by Solomon rather than about him?
D. Why Interpretation is Problematic
Much of our confusion stems from this: in Hebrew, how
one says something is as important as what
one says. The verbal text alone (with its consonants and vowels) is frequently ambiguous concering both the "how"
and the "what". Even the masculine and feminine pronouns used do not always indicate who says what to
whom. A comparison of the translations of the Song in different modern versions will illustrate this.
The original vocal melody (unknown until recently) is the thread that ties the Song together. Only there are found
the clues determining the authorial style, choral structure, meaning and purpose of this enigmatic text. Since
well before the fall of the Second Temple, the words are all that most exegetes we know of have had to examine.
Not surprisingly, their exegesis of the words alone has only made the Song more obscure.11
Whether the Song was originally a "non-liturgical" work or not, it was eventually received and preserved
by the priests and Levites of the Temple. These were in charge not only of the biblical verbal texts, but of their
melodic rendition. This rendition was available from earliest times only to those initiated in its performance.12 Neither the early translators (such as the
authors of the Septuagint), nor the earliest known Jewish and Christian commentators (with rare exceptions), nor
the early synagogues, had any direct access to this reading tradition. When the Temple was destroyed, its living
reading tradition died with it (even if the notation which preserved it did not).13
Yet the Babylonian Talmud says (quoting Ecclesiastes 12:9) that Solomon taught the people proverbs "with notes
of accentuation", or somewhat more literally, "with explanatory signs" (besimanê
te`amim).14
Te`amim comes from ta`am, "to taste, discern, judge, appreciate"; these signs enable the reader or hearer
to discern and appreciate the sense of
the words. Moshe ben Asher, next-to-last of the Masoretes, waxed rhapsodic regarding the te`amim
and their exegetical power.15 Thanks
to the rediscovery of their original melodic meaning, we can appreciate these traditional remarks, which the traditional
interpretations of the signs by no means justify!
E. The Song of Songs and the New Testament
Many Christians still ask, "How did such a 'sexy' song ever get into the Bible?" The New Testament nowhere
quotes the Song in support of its teachings on marriage; it gives no support to either a literal or allegorical
interpretation. But this is not the source of later Christian ambiguity about sexuality, an ambiguity characteristic
neither of the Hebrews nor of the early Church.
That ambiguity stems from dualism (the
idea of a body/soul dichotomy), which came into nominal Christian thought from Greek and Gnostic teachings. Once
dualism was entrenched, "traditional" Christians viewed even marital sexuality with suspicion. They retained
the allegorical interpretation because the literal interpretation glorified the very thing they suspected. The
New Testament's teachings on marriage were reinterpreted also in this light (as were the other, relevant Old Testament
texts).
Even in today's sexual climate, Christians remain divided as to the meaning and purpose of the Song. Some who realize
that it refers to both physical and spiritual reality are divided as to how the two relate to each other.
Some, interpreting the Song allegorically, have held that the sexual act itself is symbolic of God joining with
his people. Paul makes the same analogy ("one flesh" compared with "one spirit" in 1 Co. 6:16-17);
but taken too far, it leads to absurdities. How can the earthly details of sex and romantic love portray the details
of the spiritual life? The Song's melos
makes clear that the marital relationship
is the type of God's love for his people. Sexual love is merely one of the three elements which make that relationship
possible. For that matter, the Greek language notes the same three elements: eros (sexual love), philia
("brotherly" love) and agape
(idealistic, general or spiritual, self-sacrificing love).
Why then does the New Testament avoid the Song of Songs (save perhaps for indirect connections, such as Revelation
3:20 with Song 5:2)? Barring information we do not now have, neither Jesus,16 nor the twelve original apostles, nor Paul ever had direct access to the biblical cantillation preserved in the Temple. At most, they heard it publicly performed there. While pilgrims from the synagogue
were allowed to observe and learn from the Temple liturgy (including its cantillation), they took only oral reminiscences
home with them. The early Christians would have been familiar mostly with the synagogue liturgies, not the music
of the Temple. True, Temple music was revered after 70 A.D. -- but the Christian and Jewish communities preserved
only fragments of it in practice (some allegations to the contrary notwithstanding).
Thus the New Testament Church cited texts which could be understood from the words alone, in the light of Christ's
life, teachings, death and resurrection, and ongoing revelation. From these, they understood that human marriage
was a "mystery", a spiritual relationship, a type of the relationship between God and the Church (which
would one day encompass Israel and all nations, everywhere and from all times). Undoubtedly, they would have understood
the Song of Songs in this light, even it its details were somewhat obscure. Had they known the Song's original
melody, it would have only confirmed and magnified this teaching (since, after all, the same God inspired both
the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures).
We surmise too that the initiates of the Second Temple who preserved the Song's melody understood something of its
original spiritual import. Whereas the Pharisees (and their heirs in Rabbinic Judaism), not having access to the
original melody, interpreted the Song allegorically (as did the Kabbalists). Even so, the Rabbis forbade the private
reading of the Song until the reader's thirtieth birthday; its eroticism alone takes a mature mind to understand.
Its true spiritual nature is only discerned through its original melody. We hope that our commentary will help
others to discern it more fully. |
|
|
|
FOOTNOTES
1. Psalm 45 is a schir
yedidot, a "song of loves", but with messianic overtones. It describes
the marriage of a Divine King and his bride.
2. The ancient Egyptians were and
remain famous for their erotic art, poetry and music, especially in the context of religion. "Music and Sexuality"
in Lise Manniche's Music and Musicians in Ancient Egypt
(British Museum Press, 1991) describes the Egyptians' views as we understand them. The Bible's view of Egyptian
religion, naturally, is quite different (cf. Ezekiel 16:26; 23:3, 8, 19-21)!
3. Much of the information in this
section is taken from the article "Song of Songs" in Encyclopedia
Judaica, Vol. 15 (Jerusalem), col. 144-152.
4. Yad. 3:5; cf. Eduy. 5:3;
Tosef., Yad. 2:14.
5.Tosef.,
Hag. 2:3.
6. Tosef., Sanh. 12:10.
7. The bride has been taken as wisdom;
the wanderings of the shepherds (Song 1:7-8), as those of Israel "from Egypt through the day of destruction",
as well as "the hope of messianic restitution". The Five Scrolls, ed. by Herbert N. Bronstein and Albert H. Friedlander, illust. by Leonard Baskin (CCAR Press,
New York, 1984), p. 158.
8. Song
Rabbah 1:1, no. 10.
9. In the cantillation of the ancient
Oriental synagogues, "there can be no question of a common Song of Songs mode. The reason is that the Song
of Songs was not obligatory in public worship. The practice of reciting it on the entry of the Sabbath is of cabalistic
origin and recent, originating from the mystic significance which the Zohar attached to the Song of Songs. On the
other hand the custom of reciting the Song of Songs in the home circle on the eve of Passover is ancient; in Eastern
Europe it is recited in the synagogue before the Reading of the Law, on the Intermediate Sabbath of Passover."
A.Z. Idelsohn, Thesarus of Oriental Hebrew Melodies,
Vol. II (KTAV Publishing House, Inc., 1973), p. 11 (text).
10. "Israel" (the northern
tribes, dominated by Joseph) and "Judah" were, however, always distinct entities with distinct aspirations,
founded in different national promises (those made to the descendants of Joseph, Judah and Levi especially).
11. The Westminister Assembly in
the 17th century commented, in its Annotations upon all the Books of the Old
and New Testaments: "It is not unknown to the learned, what the obscurity
and darknesse of this Book hath ever been accounted, and what great variety of Interpreters have indeavoured to
clear it, but with so ill successe many times, that they have rather increased, [than] removed the cloud."
Advances in biblical scholarship have not brought a consensus on the book's unity, origin, divisions, purpose,
the number and identity of its characters and its date. As we have seen, only the original melody can do this.
Cited by Encyclopedia Judaica, op. cit., col. 147.
12. Ancient Babylonian tablets had
some sixty cuneiform characters (of apparently unknown musical value) in the margins of texts giving the Babylonian
myth of creation. The texts ended with this formula: "Secret. The initiated may show it to the initiated."
Again, the Abyssinian Church's singers used a secret notation of syllables written above the sacred verses. An
Ethiopean liturgical book used 168 symbols which were likewise kept secret. The Vedic notation (of three symbols)
is also extremely old. The musical notation of our Masoretic Text was likewise the charge of initiates (cf. Chapter 2). Cf. Curt Sachs, op.
cit., pp. 85-86. There are other examples one may cite. The medieval Armenian
liturgical khazer (superlinear signs likewise
kept secret among the initiates) were only recently deciphered after their meaning had been lost.
13. As we have noted, Clement of
Alexandria (fl. 3rd century) mentions an authoritative notation of "accents" and "(vowel-)points".
No other notation of such authority is cited before Masoretic times (9th century). Benjamin of Tudela reported
that "the Rabbi Eleazar ben Semah [of Baghdad] was descended from the prophet Samuel and he and his brothers
still knew the songs of the Temple." Rabbi Petahja of Regensburg (13th c.) reported that in Baghdad "on
semi-festivals they chant the traditional songs with instrumental accompaniment as they know the tradition of the
use of the instruments 'asor' and 'sheminit' [used in Temple psalmody]." But the Babylonian traditions were
not pure, nor were they purely transmitted. Cf. Idelsohn, op. cit., p. 21 (text); Sachs, op. cit.,
p. 80; and cf. the above note.
14. Other Talmudic passages link
the use of te`amim to Moses and Ezra.
15. According to Moshe ben Asher,
ta`am had an all-inclusive meaning: "accent-taste".
It represented "tone, timbre, sound; sense, feeling, meaning; to sound, to resonate, to proclaim, to celebrate"
-- all with reference to the biblical notation he transcribed. Paul Kahle, The
Cairo Geniza (London: Oxford, 1959), p. 103.
16. But if Jesus knew (by study
or by inspiration) the original cantillation of Isaiah 61:1-2a, He could have indicated directly (via the melody)
its partial fulfillment (cf. Luke 4:17-21, which interestingly enough hints at the same thing via its own much
simpler tonal accentuation). It is noteworthy that the te`amim under Haïk-Vantoura's "key" punctuate Isaiah 40:3 as do the New Testament and
Septuagint; while under the Masoretic "grammatical rules" accepted by Rabbinic Judaism, the te`amim punctuate the verse as do certain Dead Sea Scrolls.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Updated March 01, 2010 |
|
|
