The Song Of Songs Essays - Solomon, Books Of Kings, Erotic Poetry

The Song of Songs CONTENTS INTRODUCTION1 Canonicity1 Authorship and Dating2 INTERPRETATION4 Allegorical4 Literal5 Wedding Cycle5 Pastoral Drama6 CONCLUSION6 INTRODUCTION The Song of Songs, or Song of Solomon, is a unique book in the Old Testament canon. The book contains exquisitely beautiful lyric poetry, full of sensuous symbolism. Because of the sexual nature of Song of Songs, the message of this book has been debated for the past eighteen-hundred years. The erotic content of this book has lead it into canonicity problems and authorship problems. These issues have become central to the interpretation of the Song of Songs. Canonicity The issue of the canonicity of Song of Songs was a major subject of debate at the 90 A.D. Council of Jamnia. Jewish Rabbis from across the spectrum of Judaism assembled in order to close in Jewish Canon. At that time, many rabbis who opposed the Song of Songs and other works toke the opportunity to argue against their inclusion in Jewish Canon. It was the Palestinian rabbinical school of Shammai that stood in the fore of the opposition for canonization of Song of Songs. They argued that nothing could be considered scripture that was being employed in lewd, barroom songs. Fortunately the cause of Song of Songs was championed by the less stringent Babylonian rabbinical school of Hillel. "The entire universe is not as worthy as the day on which the Song of Songs was given to Israel, for all the Writings are holy, but the Song of Songs are the Holy of Hollies." Lead by the defense of Rabbi Aqiba, the Hillal school succeeded in maintaining the canonicity of Song of Songs! . Authorship and Dating While the different schools represented at the Council of Jamnia may have held opposing views of the canonicity and interpretation, both held to the belief that King Solomon was the author of the work. It was not until the advent of modern textual criticism that questions began to arise over the authorship of Song of Solomon. The view now held by the majority of biblical scholars is that Song of Solomon, in reality, may have nothing more to do with Solomon than use of his name. Instead, scholars believe that Song of Songs represents a conglomeration of smaller love poems or songs. These poems, 20 to 30 in all, were collected by an unknown editor(s) for their consistent themes, and placed in the anthology which is found today. Unfortunately, the nature of Song of Songs as an anthological work precludes precise dating of the material. However, there are several textual clues within the work which allow for citing a general range of years. The naming of the city of Tirzah in 6:4 is evidence that the compilation must have occurred sometime before 876 B.C. This is because Tirzah, compared to Jerusalem in the verse, ceased to be the capital of Israel in 876 B.C. when Omri moved the Northern capital to Samaria. Further evidence used to limit the possible span of years is found in the presence of Aramaic, Persian, and Greek words in the text. The presence of these words means that the work antedates the sixth century B.C. All internal evidence considered, the best dating available places the compilation of Song of Songs between 400 and 300 B.C. INTERPRETATION Allegorical First among the four primary, modern approaches to the interpretation of Song of Songs is the Allegorical approach. This view of Song of Songs is one of the two oldest interpretations, and was forwarded by the Midrash, Targum, and Medieval Jewish commentators. This interpretation states that the intended message of Song of Songs is an allegory of God and Israel. The succession of events flows from the Sinai Covenant through subsequent events. Later, the early church fathers adapted this view to Christianity by changing the role of Israel to that of the Church. Literal The second of the two oldest interpretations of Song of Songs is the literal approach. At one time held by a few Jewish rabbis, this view fell out of acceptance in leu of the allegorical interpretation. Among the Christian fathers who accepted this approach were Theodore of Mopsuestia and Sebastian Castellio, both of whom were criticized for their opinion. The literal view saw Song of Songs as nothing more than a collection of