The Various Interpretations of the Song of Solomon - Book Report/Review Example

Liberty Theological Seminary The Various Interpretations of the Song of Solomon A Paper Submitted to Dr. David Pettus In Partial Fulfillment Of the Course Requirements For the Course The Poetry of the Old Testament OBST 620 By Gary M. Good 10/12/07 The Various Interpretations of the Song of Solomon Introduction The Song of Solomon has been the subject of many interpretations through the years. It has been commented on by the church fathers, Kings during the Reformation period, and the subject of modern popular commentaries. It has been the subject of debate among theologians and others who find the book interesting and worth more inquiry. The Song of Solomon has been the subject of proclamations by apostles, evangelists, church elders, and prophets. The book has been attributed to King Solomon by some and an unknown poet by others. For the first thousands years of the Christian timeline the church was basically one. There were five centers of Christianity: Jerusalem, Antioch, Rome, Alexandria, and Constantinople. The church began to break up with Rome taking the lead. Rome’s church became the backbone of Catholicism. Rome’s departure from the Orthodox Church happened around the same time of the Crusades. In 1517 Martin Luther posted the 95 Theses and the Reformation began. The Church of England broke away from the Roman Catholic Church in 1529. As time went on the church that had split with Rome began to splinter itself. It is this background of information that we build the story of the Song of Solomon and its many interpretations. The interpretations of the Song of Solomon include the following: Allegorical Typical Literal Dramatic Erotic-literary Liturgical Didactic-moral The Song of Solomon has been interpreted in many ways to with very different meanings. An “allegorical” interpretation consists of not taking the text literally but taking the text as having a secondary meaning rather than a straightforward meaning. A “typical” interpretation is based upon the secular or historic meaning. The church considers this interpretation to be heretical while others believe it to be a written record of Solomon’s love for the sheppardess. The “literal” interpretation had the text interpreted just as it is written, no more and no less. The “dramatic” interpretation has the text taken in a musical or metered manner with lyrical characters when it is applied to the original Hebrew text.”1 The “erotic-literary” interpretation has the text taken literally and focuses on the sexual loving relationship between two people. The “liturgical” interpretation has the book being used as a part of the worship service. The “didactic-moral” interpretation, or presentation, has the book represented as a story meant to teach a moral or theme. The Origins of the Song of Solomon There is much disagreement about the origins and authorship of the Song of Solomon. It has been called the Song of Songs, Song of Solomon, and the Canticle of Canticles. Some attribute the book to King Solomon while others argue that it must have been written about 500 years after Solomon’s rule. The justification of this argument is that the language and writing style is much like that spoken about 500 years after Solomon2. Still others argue that the book is an anthology of love poems from several different poets. The Song of Solomon has been explained as a literal or didactical interpretation describing King Solomon’s relationship with his Shulammite bride. Taken literally the book describes an emotional and physical relationship between a man and a woman. Could this relationship be in the context of marriage? It may be that the text is described as allegorical because of the texts explicit material. Perhaps the early church was not comfortable with that possibility so supported the allegorical approach. Regardless of where it comes from the Song of Solomon seems out of place in the Old Testament. Early Rabbis thought it part of the Hebrew Bible called the “Writings”3. As such the book was not to be interpreted in the literal sense but as an allegorical writing meant to express God’s loving relationship with the people of Israel. The Early Church The Early Church’s foundation was built on the writings and teachings of the Jewish people. The Jewish foundation along with New Testament books gave the early church a foundation on which to build their beliefs. The Holy Scriptures consist of the five books of Moses (the Law), the Prophets, the Minor Prophets, and the Writings. The Song of Solomon is listed in the Writings. These all make up the Old Testament of the Christian Bible. The early Church also adopted the Jewish belief that the Song of Solomon was not a literal writing but an allegorical composition depicting the relationship between God and the people of Israel. The Early Church leaders may have been attempting to give the Song of Solomon an allegorical meaning that was in line with early teachings of the Bible. One function of the Early Church was to define appropriate behavior versus inappropriate behavior for its congregations. In that case the Song of Solomon needed an allegorical meaning. It is quite possible that the early church took the description of bride and groom and compared them to the divine love we experience with God4. “The Early Church Fathers interpreted the consummation of the relationship between the bride and the bridegroom to be a type of the Eucharist.”5 The Early Church saw baptism as the marriage, or life long commitment, to Jesus Christ. The baptism is the outward expression of that marriage. Another interpretation atributed to the early church is that the Song of Solomon is the story about a maiden and the love of her life: a sheppard. The king takes a liking to the maiden and has her brought to the palace. She is given all that the palace has to offer a young maiden. The king does his best to court and gain the love of the maiden. Still the maiden professes her love for the sheppard. The king sees that he cannot win over the maiden so sends for the sheppard she loves to take her home. The sheppard goes and gets his maiden and takes her back to their village. All she asks of him is to pledge his love for her. Some in the early church interpreted the Song of Solomon as poetry celebrating human love.6 More often than not congragations in the Early Church were illiterate. The church leaders (pastor, deacon, monk,etc.) where often the only literate people for miles around. These leaders led the church by reading the Bible (in Latin) and interpreting the Bible for the masses. Thus some chose to read and interpret the Song of Solomon along the lines of jewish tradition – as a book with an alligorical meaning. John Wycliffe (1320-1384) was the first to provide the Bible in a format that could be read by those taught to read in english. His english translations were written by hand in the 1380’s. The Pope was very angry when Wycliffe translated the Latin Vulgat into english. Wycliffe also did not agree with Early Church teachings so set out to teach his interpretation of the Bible. It is believed that Wycliffe’s teachings were a precurser to the Reformation. The Reformation The change in the church over the years can be likened to a highway with exits along the way. We are on the highway called the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church as we make our way from the New Testament era to the Great Schism (1054). The next exit is the Roman Catholic Church. The Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church continues on as the Orthodox Church maintaining the Apostolic faith to this day. If the Roman Catholic Church’s road is examined we see that with Martin Luther’s 95 Theses begins the Reformation (1517). The Church of England exits the Catholic Church in 1529. It is during this time that the Church continues to break apart into other smaller church bodies. As stated earlier, John Wycliffe’s production of the Bible in English (with help from his assistant, Purvey and many other scribes7) and his opposition to church teachings may have led to the Reformation. Another factor was the mass production of the Bible by Johannes Gensfleisch zur Laden zum Gutenberg in 1455. The Gutenberg Bible was a result of Gutenberg’s invention of movable type and the printing press. The mass production of the Bible gave more people access to the written word. The number of individuals who could read went up considerably. It is thought that the ability to reproduce Martin Luther’s 95 Theses and distributed it to a wide audience help move the Reformation forward. Martin Luther used Gutenberg’s technology to print broadsheets (the forerunner of newspapers) that contained his position on the Church8. The Reformation brought a larger audience for Biblical writings including the Song of Solomon. Martin Luther, already a noteworthy fellow, wrote a commentary about the Song of Solomon. His interpretation has been compared to the Frenchman, Nicholas of Lyra (1270-1349), who also wrote a commentary about the book. Lyra is credited with giving the Song of Solomon a literal-historical interpretation while Luther is credited with giving it a simplest interpretation.9 It turns out that both author’s commentaries are very similar. Both authors continue the allegorical interpretation by referring the Song of Solomon as a kingdom or God. The bridegroom is God for Lyra and an entire kingdom for Luther. Lyra refers to the bride as the church of all ages while Luther refers to the bride as Solomon’s people.10 11 “In his preface to the Song of Solomon Luther states his goal as: to get at the simplest sense and the real character of this book”12 Lyra’s third prologue includes his own explanation of his method of interpretation: “Some doctors say that the parabolic sense is the literal sense. This is understood generally speaking because where there is no sense signified by words, the parabolic sense is first. And for this reason generally speaking it [i.e., the parabolic sense] is called the literal sense, because the literal sense is the first when there is no other sense there. And to signify this these doctors say that the parabolic sense is contained under the literal sense. And in this manner of speaking I have called the parabolic sense in many places the literal sense, when writing on the books of Sacred Scripture.”13 It is in these two quotes that the similarities in Luther’s and Lyra’s interpretation is seen. It is also assumed that Luther most probably had a copy of Lyra’s work and was well aware of Lyra’s interpretation of the Song of Solomon. The “simplest sense” and the “literal sense” could be used interchangeably by both authors without changing the meanings of their interpretations. It seems that both authors held on to the allegorical interpretation while working through their “simplest sense” and “literal sense”. This may be because of the medieval understanding of allegorical interpretation. Specifically, this would lead to the “role of authority and of discrepancy, ambiguity, and change in exegetical tradition”14 This would have been a move away from the critical interpretation of the text common in medieval times. Song of Solomon Chapter 2 Verses 10-13: 10  My beloved spake, and said unto me, Rise up, my love, my fair one, and come away. 11  For, lo, the winter is past, the rain is over and gone; 12  The flowers appear on the earth; the time of the singing of birds is come, and the voice of the turtle is heard in our land; 13  The fig tree putteth forth her green figs, and the vines with the tender grape give a good smell. Arise, my love, my fair one, and come away. The above text is often quoted when the Reformation is discussed. Many believe that the above portion of the Song of Solomon called for the Reformation: Rise up . . . winter is past  The call of the Protestant Reformation. Rising implies taking action. Come away From human tradition. (both in verse 10 and in verse 13)15 Martin Luther, in his writing “Two Kinds of Righteousness” explains the marriage of Christ and the church: “Therefore through the first righteousness arises the voice of the bridegroom who says to the soul, “I am yours,” but through the second comes the voice of the bride who answers, “I am yours.” Then the marriage is consummated; it becomes strong and complete in accordance with the Song of Solomon 2:16, “My beloved is mine and I am his.” Then the soul no longer seeks to be righteous in and for itself, but it has Christ as its righteousness and therefore seeks only the welfare of others.”16 It is in this text that Martin Luther explains, using the allegorical interpretation, that there is first and foremost a relationship between God and his people. The Song of Solomon is used as an example of the idea that there are two parts to a marriage. The marriage message that he intended the Pope to hear is a marriage between Christ and the people (Church). This was in direct conflict with the teachings of the Catholic Church which mandated a relationship with God via the Pope and Catholic Church. It is this writing that furthered the Reformation. At this point it is important to remember that there is no absolutely right or wrong interpretation of the Song of Solomon. If it furthers the relationship of Christ and the Church then it has done what has been intended. If its symbolism has furthered the cause of the Christian church then it has succeeded. If the Song of Solomon has brought one more person closer to Christ, then it is still working. Popular Commentary There are many contemporary interpretations of the Song of Solomon. As during the Early Church and the Reformation periods the Song of Solomon has an important role to play. It also has a range of interpretations as it did years ago. The Church itself has branched off in many directions. The Catholic Church remains as does the Orthodox Christian Church. A result of the reformation was a further splintering of the Protestant Church. The Song of Solomon continues to be read and interpreted by the many Churches and individuals throughout the world. The literal interpretation is a popular interpretation of the book. Martin Copenhaver writes about how the Song of Solomon is an “ode to the joys of erotic love”17. The idea that kids might find out about the book might get it banned from school/public libraries. This is a bit extreme but explains why the book almost didn’t make it into the Bible. The literal translation brings the subject of human sexuality into the equation. Many feel that the interpretation of human sexuality in the book should make it subject to censorship. For others it is a refreshing reminder of the possibilities of love in the context of marriage. Perhaps the Song of Solomon was written to remind us that love, in the context of marriage, is a good thing. Modern commentators are quite critical of The Song of Solomon because, like Esther, the name of God in any form is not mentioned. Though not mentioned the presence of God seems to “pulse through the song’s romantic imagery.”18 The source of love comes from God whether mentioned or not. Modern commentators argue that the Jewish tradition and Early Church recognized the importance of including the Song of Solomon in the canon. The Jewish tradition has Solomon’s name replaced by the name of God. Read in that manner the book is considered acceptable (allegoration of the text).19 Again, in justification of inclusion, contemporary scholars interpret other words that could be construed as the name of God. In Song of Solomon 2:7 and 3:5 the word bi-tseva’ot (transliteration of Hebrew text) is interpreted as one of the names of God and as such once written cannot be erased.20 Following this interpretation explains why the text is permitted in the canon and liturgy. Some translations have the word bi-tseva’ot translated as “gazelles”. This would remove God’s name from the book and give it a secular interpretation and thus justify its removal or not including it in the canon or liturgy. To many contemporary students of the Bible the Song of Solomon is an enigma. On the first read through the book there is no indication that the text has an allegorical meaning. It is hard to read the text and not be aware of the literal meaning. Scholarly opinions have gradually swayed away from the allegorical interpretation in favor of a literal-didactic interpretation. This is not to say that an argument no longer exists. But, it does allow for more than one meaning of the text being possible. The literal-didactical interpretation allows for describing the physical and emotional relationship between King Solomon and his Shulammite Bride.21 The literal-didactical approach allows for a moral explanation as well as a literal description of an exclusive relationship between a man and a woman. This changes how the story is understood and how King Solomon is understood or portrayed. Some modern commentaries have presented various explanations for how the Song of Solomon should be interpreted. The idea that it may be an anthology of poetic love songs pooled together in one book has gained popularity. Another interpretation is that a single writer has attempted to create a literary piece. There is not much evidence to support these claims. J. Paul Tanner’s writings suggest that various parts of the book are in line with traditional explanations of how one should conduct oneself prior to being wedded. These descriptions would make no sense in modern society but do make sense in relation to the period when the book was written. Tanner explains how brothers may have worried about their sister maintaining her purity for her marriage. “The ‘wall’ and ‘door’ describe the alternate paths she might follow on her way to adulthood. A wall suggests a boundary and barrier that forbid entrance. A door on the other hand is designed for admitting others and giving access to the interior.”22 In this case it is no surprise that the brothers would hope for their sister to grow up as a “wall” vs. a “door”. In the text the sister remained a “wall”. She protected her purity until her marriage. Tanner’s interpretation includes the physical consummation of the marriage. The wedding is portrayed in 3:6-11, King Solomon’s praise for his bride takes place in 4:1-15, and the physical consummation of the marriage takes place in 4:16-5:1. The text speaks of a garden. This garden has been locked up until 4:16 when she opens the garden to allow her beloved to enter and “eat its choice fruits.”23 In 1813 a Roman Catholic priest suggested that the Song of Solomon was actually a dream.24 Tanner suggests that the dream theory goes to far (not likely to have happened). But there are parts of the text that do support the dream theory. 3:1 says “On my bed night after night I sought him whom my soul loves” and 5:2 says “I was asleep but my heart was awake.” The text further supports the dream theory when it says “I sought him but did not find him” and “I searched for him”. Although the wedding and the sexual consummation of the marriage are much of the text the dream sections reveal a possible insecurity about the marriage. The idea of waiting all your life and saving yourself for marriage just to find it unsatisfactory is troubling. This problem parallels the problems that exist in today’s society. If the text is taken literally then the shulammite bride will join seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines. She may cherish him more than he does her. One of the most interesting interpretations of the Song of Solomon comes from the Anchor Bible commentary by Marvin Pope. His commentary sees the Song of Solomon as “liturgy from a fertility cult ritual or funeral feast.”25 Pope saw the book as a reenactment of the sacred marriage to the gods. Pope’s ideas, thoughts, and themes are not mainstream but are representative of some of the off the collar interpretations that exist. Conclusion The Song of Solomon is a book with a level of importance that many can’t agree on. Since the beginnings of the Early Church, through the Reformation, and into modern times the Song of Solomon has been interpreted in many ways. Most of the interpretations agree that the book is an allegorical story not to be taken literally. The book’s entry into canon was questionable as some believed that it did not belong. But, it made it into the canon and has played an important role in helping the Church decide what paths to take. The Song of Solomon came to the Early Church as part of the Jewish tradition that is very much the foundation of the Christian Church. This book came with an allegorical explanation that included the description of the relationship between God and his people. As the Early Church developed the Song of Solomon’s interpretation included the idea that it was a description of the relationship between the people and Christ. The consummation of this relationship with Christ was baptism. During the Early Church period there were few copies of the Bible available and the masses were pretty much illiterate. The Early Church depended on the readings and interpretations of early priests and other Church leadership. Just before the beginning of the Protestant Reformation John Wycliffe went against Church policy and translated the Bible from the Latin Vulgate into English. This angered the Pope and the Catholic Church. The combination of the availability of written text and the anger directed to the Catholic Church set the stage for the Reformation. Martin Luther was a major player in the instigation of the Protestant Reformation. The combination of his 95 Theses and Johannes Gutenberg’s invention of movable type (and printing press) moved forward the Reformation. It is believed that Luther’s interpretation of the Song of Solomon set off the Reformation. His interpretation was that the Song of Solomon was describing the marriage between Christ and the Church. There is no end to the number of modern commentaries (and interpretations) that exist to help solve the mystery of the Song of Solomon. The allegorical interpretation continues to be popular as does the literal interpretation. Many people are not comfortable with the literal interpretation because it alludes to sexual desires and the consummation of marriage. There are off the wall interpretations as well such as Marvin Pope’s that suggests a cultic connection. The many interpretations of the Song of Solomon will keep it in the forefront of theological writings and discussions. Bibliography Bernard of Clairvaux’s sermons on the Song, while “sermons” and not strictly “commentary,” which alters the literary style, are nevertheless typical of the general approach to the biblical text. See Bernard of Clairvaux, On the Song of Songs, I, tr. Killian Walsch, O.C.S.O., The Works of Bernard of Clairvaux, vol. 2, Cistercian Fathers Series: Number Four (Spencer, Mass.: Cistercian Publications, 1971). Blumenthal, David R. 1995. “Where God is Not: The Book of Esther and Song of Songs.”Judiasm 44, no.1:80. MasterFile Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed October 5, 2007). Booth, Wayne C., Gregory G. Colomb, and Joseph M. Williams. The Craft of Research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995. G Carr and D J Wiseman, Song of Solomon (1984); R Gordis, The Song of Songs and Lamentations: A Study, Modern Translation, and Commentary (1974); J B White, A Study of the Language of Love in the Song of Songs (1978). Copenhaver, Martin. 1994. “Reveling in Romance.”  Christian Century 111, no. 23:747. Dennison, James T. Jr. “What Should I Read on the Song of Solomon?” The Online Journal of Biblical Theology. Retrieved 10/08/2007 from www.kerux.com/documents/keruxv8n2a3.asp De re metrica Hebraeorum, Freiburg, Baden, 1880 Fox Michael V. Translation as published in The Song of Songs and the Ancient Egyptian Love Songs (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1985), pp. 82 94. Reverend Father Patrick Kinder. 2007. St. Ignatius of Antioch Madison Wisconsin Retrieved 10/07/2007 from: http://www.saintignatiuschurch.org/timeline.html#timechart Kieker, James G. “Luther and Lyra on the Song of Solomon: Were they singing the same tune?” www.wls.wels.net/library/Essays/Authors/k/kieckerLyra/kieckerlyra.pdf Martin Luther, Luther’s Works (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press and St. Louis: Concordia PublishingHouse, 1957f.), hereafter cited as LW XV, pp x–xi, 191. See D. Martin Luthers Werke (Weimar: Herman Bohlaus Nachfolger, 1881f), hereafter cited as WA XXXI,pt 2, p 586: Verum tquam simplicissimus et germanus huius Libri sensus quaeratur…www.wls.wels.net/library/Essays/Authors/k/kieckerLyra/kieckerlyra.pdf Nicholas of Lyra, Biblia cum postillis, 3 vols. (Venice: Franciscus Renner, 1482), vol. 2, p 132 recto, col. a, sec. a: Igitur in hoc libro sponsus accipi videtur ipse Deus. Hereafter this source will be cited as V. www.wls.wels.net/library/Essays/Authors/k/kieckerLyra/kieckerlyra.pdf The Purple Pew 2004-2007. Faith Matters “Two Kinds of Righteousnes”Retrieved 10/07/2007 from http://purplepew.org/god-matters/faith-matters/two-kinds-of-righteousness-by-martin-luther Spaeth, Adolph. L.D. Reed, Henry Eyster Jacobs, et Al., Trans. & Eds. “Works of Martin Luther” (Philadelphia: A. J. Holman Company, 1915), Vol.1, pp. 29-38 Project Wittenberg  http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/web/ninetyfive.html#95-90  Strunk, William, Jr. and E. B. White. The Elements of Style, 4th ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1999. Tanner, J. Paul. “The Message of the Song of Songs” Bibliotheca Sacra 154:613 (1997):142-161 Turabian, Kate L. A Manual for Writers of Term Papers, Theses and Dissertations. Revised by John Grossman and Alice Bennett, 6th ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996. Vyhmeister, Nancy Jean. Quality Research Papers: For Students of Religion and Theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 2001. Wade, Ted. 2007 “The Church in the Wilderness” Retrieved 10/07/2007 from http://www.bibleexplained.com/poetry/song/so02.html Webber, Robert. 2007. “The Divine Kiss: A Case for Intimacy in Worship” Retrieved 10/5/2007 from: http://liturgicsjay.wordpress.com/2007/08/11/the-divine-kiss-a-case-for-intimacy-in-worship-by-robert-webber/ Wells, David A. 2005. Friedrich Ohly and Exegetical Tradition: Some Aspects of Medieval Interpretation. Retrieved 10/07/2007 from http://fmls.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/41/1/43 Read More