I’ve always loved the poetry one finds in the Bible, and “The Song of Songs” has always been a favorite.
I recently started the following:
As I read, I’ll be sharing insights from the author and would love to hear what others have read and think about this most beautiful of books.
Chapter 1: On Love and Beauty – The Complex Relationship Between the Song of Songs and Biblical Narrative
I’ll be summarizing the chapter in two posts.
This post will be talking about the differences between the Song of Songs and the rest of the Bible. The next will be talking about the web of connections between them.
The Biblical Narrative
1) We don’t see descriptions of human bodies or landscapes.
2) Beauty is mentioned for the complications it brings (Gen. 12:11, 14; Gen. 39:6-7; I Sam. 25:3).
3) Much is made of forbidden relations with foreign women (Judg. 14:16; 16:4, 15; I Kgs. 11:1-2). Even when a husband does love his wife, this comes at the expense of a woman not loved (Gen. 29:18, 30; I Sam. 1:5).
4) Sex is often seen as indecent, loveless, and violent (Gen. 35:22; 2 Sam. 13).
5) The leading characters are men. Women live in their shadow. Rarely do we read of the birth of a female character. As for their death and burials, little is said. Can we even imagine a barren woman being told she will give birth to a girl?
The Song of Songs
1) We see vivid descriptions of human bodies and landscapes (Song 4:1-7; 5:10-16; 6:4-10; 7:10-17).
2) Beauty is praised (Song 1:15, 16; 4:1-3).
3) The relationship between the man and woman is one of joy.
4) The poems are full of sensual images and metaphors and the lovers delight in sex.
5) Man is no longer superior. While societal norms remain, the woman is not discouraged. She is more daring and bolder than the man and usually initiates their intimacy. Her boldness is noticeable not only in the lovers’ dialogues but also in her monologues (Song 1:2-4; 2:15-17; 3:1-5; 7:11-13; 8:1-4).
Before we start to look at the web of connections that exist between the Song of Songs and the rest of the Bible, let us look at the reasons why it was probably attributed to Solomon (Song 1:1).
He was a poet (I Kgs. 4:32). Because of his many wives (I Kgs. 11:3), he might have been thought to be knowledgeable about love and women.
Many of the items associated with Solomon’s wealth play an important role in the Song of Songs:
Gold and silver (I Kings 10:14-29; Song 1:11; 3:10; 5:14-15; 8:9)
Ivory (I Kgs. 10:18, 22; Song 5:14; 7:4)
Precious Stones (I Kgs. 10:2, 10; Song 5:14)
Cedars and Cypresses (I Kgs 5:6-10; 7:2-3; 9:11; 10:27; Song 1:17; 3:9; 5:15; 8:9)
While Song 3:7-11 appears to be a wedding poem, what it really seems to be doing, in fact, is making fun of the king and the kind of love he represents. Outside the king’s bedroom are guards. Unlike his father, Solomon was not a warrior (I Chr. 22:9). While David had thirty chiefs (2 Sam. 23:13) who were busy fighting, his son has sixty and they are on guard duty.
If we look at Psalm 45:3, we see the groom fastening his sword to his thigh. In the Song of Songs, the guards wear it. The metaphorical meaning of the sword fixed and ready on a hero’s thigh requires little imagination.
The last reference to Solomon (Song 8:11-12) is when the lover mocks him by contrasting his own relationship to his vineyard with the king’s.
Consider for a moment the Garden of Eden and then the Garden Song (Song 4:12-5:1). There is a garden with water (Gen. 2:10; Song 4:12, 15) where a breeze blows (Gen. 3:8; Song 4:16) and in both, the man and woman eat fruit (Gen. 3:6; Song 4:16). In the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve are, of course, expelled and can’t return. In the Garden Song, the woman is in the locked garden and the man is invited in (Song 4:16; 5:1). In Genesis, eating the fruit causes their expulsion while in the Song of Songs, the main reason for going in is to eat fruit.
The author mentions many biblical stories that have a connection with either the Song of Songs or love poetry in general. I will only mention some of them.
1) The epithet “sister” for a beloved woman was widespread in ancient Egyptian love poetry (Gen. 12:13; Song 4:9-10, 12).
2) Rebekah veils her face in modesty when she meets Isaac, her future husband (Gen. 24: 65; Song 4:3; 6:7). When she arrives, she is brought into Isaac’s (recently deceased) mother’s tent (Gen. 24:67; Song 3:4; 8:1-2).
3) There is a common literary type in the Bible: a woman sets out, meets the man who is destined for her (or his messenger), gives the man something to drink, and brings him home (Gen. 24; 29:1-13; Exod. 2:15-21; Song 8:1-4). When we look at the meeting of Jacob and Rachel (Gen. 29:10-11), we see resemblances to Song 8:1-2. The wordplay between “to drink” and “to kiss” is unique to these two texts in the Bible.
4) In the poem before Song 8:1-4, we have Song 7:11-14 ending with mention of mandrakes. This plant appears only one other place in the Bible – in the story of the birth of Issachar, Jacob’s son (Gen. 30:14-18).
5) When Leah’s servant Zilpah gave birth to Asher, Leah expresses her happiness and talks of the girls praising her (Gen. 30:13). The only other example of this happening in the Bible is in Song 6:9.
6) The expression “crimson thread” occurs three places in the Bible: Song 4:3; Josh. 2:18; Gen. 38:28.
7) The motif of a fox damaging a vineyard appears only in Song 2:15 and when Samson takes revenge (Judg. 15:5).
CHAPTER 2: “Keep your Thousand, Solomon!” (Song 8:12): A History of the Tradition of Solomon’s Thousand Wives
According to tradition, Solomon was married to a thousand women. This is only explicitly mentioned once (I Kgs. 11:3); it is also alluded to (Song 8:12).
When the Vineyard Song (Song 8:11-12) was written, the tradition must have been firmly established. If not, the audience would have been baffled by the reference.
Originally, there was no mention of Solomon’s wives being foreign nor that he was led astray by their gods.
The best way of understanding the changes is to see them as a reaction to the prohibition against marrying foreign women (Deut. 7:3-4) and the Deuteronomistic program to regard once widespread polytheism (Judg. 2:11-19) as the main reason behind the Kingdom of Israel and Judah being destroyed (2 Kgs. 17:7-18; 2 Kgs. 17:19; 21:1-15).
The writer of Kings may have known of the tradition from the Vineyard Song and other poems as well (Song 3:7-11; 6:8-10). Also, it could be that the poems were similar to or exactly like those that found their way into the Song of Songs.
Song 8:11 gives us objective information. Song 8:12 gives us a point of view. Five words are repeated: vineyard, Solomon, watchmen, fruit, and thousand.
Solomon is unable to cultivate his vineyard (his many wives) so has given it out. It is so large it would bring “a thousand pieces of silver” for its fruit. This is the same number of women in the king’s harem. The phrase, “a thousand pieces of silver” is very rare in the Bible and nearly always carries with it the meaning of hush money of some sort (Gen. 20:16; II Sam 8:12).
Note the contrast between the beginning of 8:12 where the man talks of his small vineyard (his one wife) and the rest of the verse talking about Solomon and his thousand (pieces of silver? wives?) and the watchmen who tend the fruit and are rewarded monetarily.
The Vineyard Song was popular and left its mark on Isaiah’s prophecies (Isa. 5;1-7; 7:23) and the story of Naboth’s vineyard (I Kgs. 21).
CHAPTER 3: Song of Songs – Riddle of Riddles
People often read the Bible wanting to be able to get one clear meaning from the text. The texts, however, are often ambiguous.
As for poetry in general, ambiguity is quite common.
When we look at the Song of Songs, we see dreams (Song 3:1-5; 5:2-6:3) and other poems that have such a sense of fantasy about them (Song 1:2-4; 2:4-7) that we wonder if they really happened or just belong to the realm of imagination.
We also have two lovers teasing one another and we, like them, must think and rethink on the words spoken to reveal the many meanings present.
The poems are riddles, and riddles may have more than one answer. If we happen to fix on one meaning, we may not be able to appreciate the playfulness so ever present in the Song of Songs.
In Chapter 3 he discusses five poems. The subsequent posts will each deal with a single poem.
The texts, however, are often ambiguous.
Which in spiritual terms is exactly what makes them valuable. Ambiguity allows the imagination to work on them and transform them for the needs of the reader/interpreter. Interpreting the SoSs as a poetic celebration of sexual love will satisfy some (pardon the pun) but not all. Hence the mystical interpretations. Jewish and Christian mystical traditions really went to work on the SoSs.
Consisting of only nine words in Hebrew, Song 2:15 is the shortest poem in the collection.
Try to forget you saw it in the Song of Songs, and imagine you happen to come across it. What would you think it was about? When might it be used?
The repetition of the final word of the colon (שֽׁוּעָלִ֔ים – foxes) as the initial word of the next colon and its use of rhyme* gives it a lighthearted tone.
When we first read it, we may have the impression the women want the foxes caught. However, perhaps the imperative is lessened in that they are but “little foxes.”
On a second reading, we may get a completely different understanding, one in which there is no warning of danger whatsoever. Maybe it’s an invitation by the women to the men? The word “to ruin” can also mean “to conceive” as in Ps. 7:14 and Song 8:5. Also, note the vineyards are in blossom.
*While rhyme doesn’t play an important role in ancient Semitic poetry, it is sometimes present.
Here’s the Hebrew with a transliteration:
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Have a listen (2:00-2:08):
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Jewish and Christian mystical traditions really went to work on the SoSs.
They really did.
In the last chapter of the book, he asks when it began to be seen as an allegory and whether this was just a clever stratagem to get the book in the canon or if it grew out of a more ancient mode of interpretation, which we can find traces of in the prophets.
… when it began to be seen as an allegory…
I’ve been reading heavily in the Jewish Merkabah mystical tradition and the claim among scholars there is that the Merkabah folks were the first to read the SoSs text mystically as a discourse on the relation between God and humans. While the bulk of he Merkabah literature that survives, the Hekhalot, is from late antiquity, scholars can demonstrate the tradition reaches back into Second Temple Judaism. There are evidences in both the New Testament and the Dead Sea Scrolls.
If it wasn’t read allegorically, I can’t understand how it came to be regarded as scriptural. So, it seems intuitive to me that it must have been given an allegorical reading relatively early.
** you do not have permission to see this link ** it was accepted as Scripture by Jews in the 2nd cent. (on the basis that it was written by Solomon and that it was not just a secular love song but an allegory of the relationship of God and Israel) after first being controversial in the first. They offer citations, but I haven’t taken taken the time to check them.
I’ve been reading heavily in the Jewish Merkabah mystical tradition and the claim among scholars there is that the Merkabah folks were the first to read the SoSs text mystically as a discourse on the relation between God and humans. While the bulk of he Merkabah literature that survives, the Hekhalot, is from late antiquity, scholars can demonstrate the tradition reaches back into Second Temple Judaism. There are evidences in both the New Testament and the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Interesting. Who are some of those mentioned that read it mystically?
Since I’ve already read the last chapter, and I’m interested in how the author’s view compares with what you’ve been reading, I’ll likely begin work on summarizing it.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)