EARLY AND MEDIEVAL JEWISH
INTERPRETATION OF THE
SONG OF SONGS
WESTON
W. FIELDS
The Song of Songs provides an excellent
background for discuss-
ing various
hermeneutical approaches to the Old Testament. This
grows out of the
large number of different interpretations attached
through the ages to
this enigmatic book. If one is to understand
Christian
interpretation, especially the roots of allegorization,
he
must first
understand Jewish interpretation of the book before Chris-
tianity and afterward.
Thus, in this article interpretation of the Song
is traced from the period of the
Septuagint translation through the
Mishnah and Talmud to
the medieval period in order to show when
and with what effect allegorization came to be the standard method
of interpreting the book.
* * *
INTRODUCTION
IF
the language of the Song of Songs is enigmatic, and the canon-
icity sometimes
disputed, its interpretation is both of these com-
bined. As one surveys
the vast array of differing interpretations of
this song over the
centuries, he can certainly sympathize with the
rather secular
perception of one interpreter who says that "it is one of
the pranks of history that a poem so
obviously about hungry passion
has caused so much perplexity and
has provoked such a plethora of
bizarre
interpretations.”1
But it is the very obviousness of the
sexual love of the Song that
is the root of this variety; for,
to the Western Christian Mind explicit
statements about sexual
love and detailed descriptions of the anat-
omy of the human
body, all discussed under a number of unmistak-
able and rather
graphic similes and metaphors, are most embar-
rassing to read in a
book of the Bible. Even later Jewish writers,
l William E.
Phipps, "The Plight of the Song of Songs," JAAR 42 (1974) 15.
222
GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
apparently influenced by
their Christian counterparts, found the
sexual descriptions of
the Song rather too lucid.2
The
history of the interpretation of the Song is thus largely the
history of Jewish and
Christian interpreters' methods of dealing with
this embarrassment,
and their commentaries are more often commen-
taries on themselves
and their times than on the Song.
If one accepts the hermeneutical
principle that the primary goal
of the interpreter is to discover
the original meaning and intention of
the author of a biblical book, he
must try as much as is possible to let
himself be controlled
in his interpretations by the same cultural
norms which
controlled the writers. In the case of the Song of
Solomon,
the interpreter must be especially careful that he does not
judge the book on the
basis of his Western culture, question its
canonicity, and allegorize
its historical meaning away so completely
that its original
intention, meaning, and use are entirely obscured. If a
great many of the
interpreters over the centuries have been unable to
do that, let judgment not fall too
harshly upon them: one must first
judge himself.
An important piece in the hermeneutical
puzzle is the contribu-
tion of early Jewish
scholars. The song is, after all, Jewish in origin
and use. And while ancient
indications about its early interpretation
are neither authoritative nor
binding, they are often instructive-even
essential-for
understanding interpretations that came later, especially
during medieval,
reformation, and modem times.
This article, therefore, explores Jewish
interpretation of the Song
of Solomon from the earliest
records of such endeavors through the
medieval period in order
to demonstrate that (1) there is no record of
allegorization in the earliest
period and (2) allegorization became the
predominant method of
interpretation in the later periods. A subse-
quent study may trace
Christian interpretation from the apostolic era
up until the Reformation in order
to show similarities and contrasts
between the two groups
in general.
Such a survey of past interpretations is
useful not only because it
is never wise to ignore the work of
those who have previously
struggled with these same
questions, but also because seen in the
more distinct
perspective of time, some interpretations condemn
themselves and others
commend themselves, and the field of possibili-
ties becomes at once
smaller and more comprehensible.
2 On the subject
of Jewish attitudes toward sex and related matters, including
adultery and divorce,
see Louis M. Epstein, Sex Laws and
Customs in Judaism (New
FIELDS: INTERPRETATION OF SONG OF SONGS 223
THE SEPTUAGINT
One might have expected to put the
interpretation found in the
Targumim first in the
line of Jewish interpretations, but for reasons
explained below, it is
probably best to consider them later than some
other
interpretations.
Since all translations in some sense
reflect the views of the
translators, it is not
unreasonable to suppose that the LXX in some
ways reflects the
views of the Jews who made it,3 however unortho-
dox these
Alexandrian Jews are supposed to have been. If the Letter
of Aristeas
is accepted substantially as it stands (as it was at least up
to and especially by Augustine, who
placed it almost on the level of
the original text), then the
translation of the LXX would be dated
about the middle of
the third century B.C., during the reign of
Ptolemy
11.4 Scholars are not generally disposed to accept it as
entirely genuine,
however, and so usually date the translation later, a
position most recently
defended again by Wurthwein.5 But whatever
the decision on that matter, even
Jellicoe suggests a terminus ante
quem of 170 B.C.6
It has been thought by some that an
allegorical interpretation is
already evident in the
LXX translation of the Song of Songs. The
main passage adduced
to prove this alleged allegorism is 4:8, where
the
LXX renders hnAmAxE
wxrome by a]po> a]rxh?j
pi<stewj, "from the top
of faith," for the Hebrew
"from the top of Amana." But the weakness
of this argument is obvious to
anyone familiar with the inconsistent,
sometimes almost
capricious way that the LXX, Josephus, and others
transliterate and translate
Hebrew proper names. It is further dis-
proved by the
rendering of hcAr;Ti, "Tirzah," by eu]doki<a,
"delight,"
(6:4),
and of bydinA-tBa, "noble
daughter," by qu<gater Nada<B "daughter
of Nadab,"
(7:2), "whence it is evident that the Septuagint frequently
3 Orlinsky cautions, however, that just because the LXX
translators often rendered
the text literally word-for-word
does not mean that they understood it that way (Harry
M.
Orlinsky, "The Septuagint As
Holy Writ and the Philosophy of the Translators,"
HUCA 46 [1975] 106).
4 Augustine, The
City .of God,
Modern Study (Oxford:
Clarendon, 1968) 47. Cf. also the very excellent "History of
the Septuagint Text" in Alfred Rahlfs, ed., Septuaginta, Vol. I (
bergische Bibelanstalt, 1935) xxii-xxxi; and Ernst Wurthwein, The Text of
the Old
Testament, trans. Erroll F. Rhodes (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1979) 49-68.
5 Wurthwein, The Text of the Old Testament, 51-53. Cf.
H. B. Swete, Introduction
to the Old Testament in Greek (2nd ed.;
and Paul Kahle,
The
introduction to and the full
text of the letter, see Herbert Andrews, "The Letter of
Aristeas"
in APOT, 2. 83-122.
6 Jellicoe, The Septuagint and Modern Study, 49.
224
GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
mistook proper names for appellatives and
adjectives, and vice versa.”7
There
does not seem to be any indication otherwise that the early
Jews
allegorized the Song, though such a practice would not have
been particularly
surprising even in this early period.
BEN SIRA
Dated about the end of the fourth
century B.C.. to the upper
half
of the third century B.C.,8
Ben Sira (Ecclesiasticus, Sirach, Ben
Sirach) is possibly
older than the LXX translation.9 The author
often
approaches an artistic
level of Hebrew comparable to that of the OT,
so steeped was he in the classical
tradition.10
The first of the passages which have
been used to prove that Ben
Sira reflects
allegorical interpretation of the Song of Solomon is
47:17.
Speaking in an apostrophe to Solomon, 47:17 says: e]n &]dai?j
kai> paroi<miaij kai> parabolai?j kai> e]n e[rmnhei<aij a]peqau<masa<n se
sw?rai, "by
your songs, proverbs,11 parables, and interpretations12
you
caused the people
astonishment." This is the Greek translation of the
Hebrew
words rywi, lwAmA, hyAd;Ha and hcAylim;.13
Ben Sira was referring
to all the works generally accorded
him by the OT (Prov. 1:6 and
I
Kgs
"riddles, dark sayings," in 47:15, some have concluded
that he was
referring to hidden
allegories in the Song of Solomon.15 It seems,
however, that since
Solomon's songs are mentioned separately, Ben
Sira is not
referring to inherent allegories in the Song of Solomon.
7 Christian David
Ginsburg, The Song of Songs and Coheleth
(
reprinted, 1970) 21.
8 G. H. Box and W. O. E. Oesterley, "Sirach," APOT,
1. 294. For a short
introduction and more up-to-date
bibliography, see Leonhard Rost, Judaism Outside
the Hebrew Canon, trans. David E. Green (Nashville:
Abingdon, 1971) 64-69.
9 Box and Oesterley, "Sirach," 294.
10 Tadeuz Penar, Northwest Semitic Philology and the Hebrew Fragments of Ben
Sira
(Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1975) 2.
11 LSJ, 1342.
12 Ibid., 690.
13 For the usage
of these and other words in Sirach, see D. Barthelemy and O.
Rickenbacher, eds., Konkordanz zum Hebraischen Sirach (
Ruprecht,
1973).
For further comparison between the Hebrew text and the LXX, see
Elmar Camilo Dos
Concordance to
the Septuagint
(
Ben Sira Scroll from
14 Box and Oesterley translate from the Hebrew: "By thy songs,
parables, dark
speeches, and satires
thou didst cause astonishment to the peoples ("Sirach,"
498).
15 There is a
textual variant here where the Hebrew text is mutilated. Box and
Oesterley translate"
And didst gather parables like the sea," following another variant
(ibid., 497).
FIELDS: INTERPRETATION OF SONG OF SONGS 225
THE BOOK OF
WISDOM
The apocryphal book of Wisdom (of
Solomon) has also been
supposed to support the
allegorical interpretation of the Song of
Solomon.
Dating from about the middle of the second century B.C.,16
the book states in 8:2, representing
Solomon as speaking to Wisdom:
Tau<thn e]fi<lhsa
kai> e]cezh<thsa e]k neo<thto<j mou kai>
e]zh<thsa
nu<mfhn a]gage<sqai e]maout&? kai> e]rasthj e]geno<mhn tou? ka<llouj au]th?j
"Her
I loved and sought since my youth to bring her (home) for my
own bride, and I became an admirer
of her beauty." Because Solomon
is here made to speak of Wisdom as
his bride, it has been supposed
that this is an
explanation of the Song of Songs, as though the brides
were the same. But
only a perusal of the two books will convince the
reader that there is
no intentional resemblance whatever.17
JOSEPHUS
Josephus
(A.D. 37-95) is supposed to have understood the Song
in an allegorical sense, but it is
never quoted by him. The ground of
this contention is
his arrangement of the books of the OT. Of the
twenty-two books he
mentions as canonical (ta> dikai<wj [qei?a]
pepisteu<mena),18
he describes five as Mosaic, ascribes thirteen to "the
prophets," and ai[
de> loipai>
te<ssarej u!mnouj ei]j to>n teo>n kai> toi?j
a]nqrw<poij u[poqh<kaj tou? bi<ou perie<xousin, "the
remaining four are
hymns to God and
rules for the life of men" (Psalms, Job, Proverbs,
and Ecclesiastes).19
Thus, he would have placed the Song among the
prophets, and would have
interpreted it allegorically.20 But since
Josephus
also puts such historical books as Esther and Ruth among
the prophets, it cannot follow that
all "prophetical" writings were
interpreted allegorically
automatically, though it is true that both
of them, were sometimes interpreted
allegorically as well.21 Further-
more, Leiman makes a good case for putting the Song in the last
classification.22
16 Samuel Holmes,
"Wisdom of Solomon," APOT,
1.
520; cf. Rost, Judaism
outside the Hebrew
Canon, 56-60.
17 A conclusion
reached as far back as Ginsburg (Song of
Songs and Coheleth,
p.23).
18 Josephus, Against Apion,
1:
19 Ibid., 1:
20 See Johann
Friedrich Kleuker, Samlung der Gedichte Salomons sonst
der
Hohelied oder
Lied der Lieder (
and W. E. Henstenberg,
Das Hohelied Salomonis (
Dehmigre,
1853) 255.
21 Ginsburg
prefers to place the book among the last four mentioned, though he
does not explain how
the five are then added up by Josephus as four (Ginsburg, Song
of Songs and Coheleth, 23).
22 Sid Z. Leiman, The Canonization of Hebrew
Scripture, vol. 47 of Transactions
qf the
226
GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
4 EZRA
The book of 4 Ezra, also dating from
about the middle of the
second century B.C.,
is sometimes claimed as one of the earliest
indications of the
allegorical interpretation of the Song of Solomon
by Jews.23 Concerning
this Audet states: "En premier lieu, il est
inexact d'affirmer que 'les Juifs ont toujours
entendu Ie Cantique au
sens allegorique.'”24
He contends that "le plus ancien temoignage
connu d'une telle interpretation est celui de IV Esdras, V, 24-26; VII,
26, et encore est-il
loin d'etre decisif.”25 It would appear
that the
passage is less than
decisive indeed, but following are the verses that
have been used:
"And I said: O Lord my Lord, out of all the woods
of the earth and all the trees
thereof thou hast chosen thee one vine;
out of all the lands of the world
thou hast chosen thee one planting
ground; out of all the
flowers of the world thou hast chosen thee one
lily; out of all the
depths of the sea thou hast replenished for thyself
one river; out of all the cities
that have been built thou hast sanctified
Sion unto
thyself" (4 Ezra
The figures allegedly taken from the
Song of Solomon and
interpreted allegorically
are the lily (Cant 2:2); the dove (Cant
and the stream (Cant
allegorical interpretation
was in vogue,27 but the hesitancy of Audet
to draw this conclusion is
commendable. Even if this would prove an
allegorical interpretation
by the writer of 4 Ezra, it would not prove
such was normative
for all Jews at that time.
THE TALMUD
The work known as the Talmud (completed
ca. 5th-6th centuries
A.D.) consists primarily of two parts: the Mishnah,
which constitutes
the text, and the Gemara, which constitutes the commentary by the
Amoraim
or public lecturers on the Mishnah. The study of
the
Mishnah was pursued in
two main geographical locations:
and Tiberias.
The Gemara from
Leiman puts Job among
the prophetical books so that the last section of Josephus
contains Psalms,
Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. See also Leiman,
ed.,
The Canon and Masorah of the Hebrew Bible (New York: Ktav, 1974).
23 G. H. Box, "4 Ezra," APOT,
2. 552-53; Rost, Judaism outside the Hebrew
Canon, 120-25.
24 "In the
first place, it is inaccurate to conclude that 'the Jews always interpreted
the Song allegorically' . .(Jean-Paul Audet, "Le Sens du Cantique des Cantiques," RB
62 [f955] 200).
25 "The most
ancient testimony known of such an interpretation is that of 4 Ezra
26 Box, "4 Ezra," 571.
27 Ibid., n. on v 23.
FIELDS: INTERPRETATION OF SONG OF SONGS 227
Talmud,
and that from Tiberias is called the Jerusalem
Talmud, and
both of these
together with the Mishnah are called the Talmud,
though the distinction
is generally made between the Babylonian and
In the Mishnah,
Yadaim 3:5, there are some
interesting state-
ments about the Song
of Songs. One is the assertion, quoted more
fully above, of its
canonicity: "All the Holy Scriptures render the
hands unclean. The
Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes render the hands
unclean.”29
It is further stated that Rabbi Akiba said: "God
forbid!-
no man in
should say) that it
does not render the hands unclean, for all the ages
are not worth the day on which the
Song of Songs was given to
of Holies.”30 This is to
some an indication that Rabbi Akiba inter-
preted the Song
allegorically. It is true that it is difficult to understand
his hyperbolic language if he did not.
It is quite evident that by the time the
Talmud was complete the
allegorical interpretation
of the Song was accepted. From a gemara
in
Tractate
Sanhedrin comes this fascinating application of Cant
7:3 to
the Sanhedrin itself:
Gemara: Whence is this
[i.e., the seating of the Sanhedrin] deduced?
Said R. Aha b. Hanina:
From (Solomon's Song, vii.3): "Thy navel is
like a round goblet
which lacketh not the mixed wine." By
"navel" is
meant the Sanhedrin.
And why were they named navel? Because they
used to sit in the
middle of the world (according to the Talmud,
centre of
were they named a
"round goblet"? Because the Sanhedrin sat in a
circle: "Which lacketh not the mixed wine"-i.e., if one wished to
28 Hermann L. Strack,
Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash (
Jewish
Publication Society of
of Hebrew literature (New York: Ktav,
1969) 97-98; R. Travers Herford, Christianity
in Talmud and Midrash (reprinted;
ing the Talmud (New York: Ktav,
1975); Richard N. Soulen, Handbook of Biblical
Criticism (Atlanta: John
Knox, 1976) 159; Irving A. Agus, review of Abraham I.
Katsh, Ginze Talmud Babli,
JQR 68 (1977) 121-26; and David Weiss
Halivni,
Contemporary
Methods of the Study of Talmud, JJS 30 (1979) 192-201.
29 Herbert Danby,
ed. and trans., The Mishnah (
reprinted, 1974) 781. As
background for the Mishnah, see Jacob Neusner, The Modern
Study of the Mishnah (Leiden: Brill, 1973) and J. Weingreen,
From Bible to Mishnah
(New York: Holmes and Meier, 1976). On the
relationship between Christian herme-
neutics and Rabbinics, see Raymond F. Surburg,
"Rabbinical Writings of the Early
Christian Centuries and New Testament
Interpretation," CTM 43 (1979)
273-85.
30 Danby, The Mishnah, 782.
For the connection of the Song with the dances
performed on the 15th of Ab, as related in the Mishnah,
cf. M. H. Segal, "The Song of
Songs," VT 12 (1962) 485-87.
228
GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
leave, it must be
seen that besides him twenty-three remained, and if
there were less, he
must not.31
Thus, it is during the Christian era
that one first encounters
indubitably allegorical
interpretations of the Song of Solomon at the
hands of the Jews.
MIDRASH
The Midrashim
are biblical expositions coming from the Mish-
naic and Talmudic
periods. They consist of Halakah,32
statements
about law, and Haggada, statements of a non-halakic
character,
principally something
devotional, or something which "transcends the
first impression
conveyed by the scriptural expression.”33 Most of the
Midrashic statements on
the Song would be Haggada.
A
specimen of such allegory is found in Mekilta
(Exodus),
Shirata, Beshallal:t, § 3:
R. Akiba said:
I will speak of the beauty and praise of God before all
the nations. They ask
another beloved that
"thou dost so charge us' (Cant. V, 9), 'that you die
for Him, and that
you are slain for Him' as it says, 'Therefore till death
do they love Thee'
(a pun on Cant. I, 3), and 'For thy sake are we slain
all the day' (Ps.
XLIV, 22). 'Behold,' they say, 'You are beautiful, you
are mighty, come
and mingle with us.' But the Israelites reply, 'Do you
know Him: We will
tell you a portion of His renown; my beloved is
white and ruddy; the chiefest among ten thousand' (Cant. V, 10). When
they hear
with you,' as it is
said, 'Whither has your beloved turned him that we
may seek him with
you?' (Cant. VI, 1). But the Israelites say, 'You have
no part or lot in
Him,' as it is said, 'My beloved is mine, and I am His'
(Cant. II, 16).34
There are other midrashim of another sort, such as the. one
which reports that
"On the day on which Solomon married Necha,
Pharaoh's
daughter, the foundation of Rome-Israel's persecutor and
oppressor-was laid by the
angel Michael.”35 The Midrash on 1:5,
"I
am black but comely," states:
"So says the house of
my knowlege,
black, yet my God considers me comely.”36
31 Michael L. Rodkinson, ed. and trans., New Edition of the Babylonian Talmud,
vols.
7, 8: section Jurisprudence (Damages), Tract Sanhedrin, 110.
32 On which see Ze'ev W. Falk, Introduction
to the Jewish Law of the Second
Commonwealth, 1 (Leiden:
Brill, 1972).
33 Strack, Introduction
to the Talmud and Midrash, 6-7.
34 Cited in C. G. Montefiore and H. Loewe, A Rabbinic Anthology (
Macmillan and Co., Ltd., 1938) 101-2,
§263.
35 Samuel Rapaport, A Treasury of the Midrash (New York: Ktav,
1968) 172.
36 Ibid., 167.
FIELDS: INTERPRETATION OF SONG OF SONGS 229
But
even within the framework of midrashic
interpretation, the
use of the book was limited.
"It was prohibited to use a text of
Canticles
from which one would develop a homily having a shameful
or odious implication.”37 As
noted above, Akiba, for example warns
that "anyone
who would dare treat this book as a secular love poem
forfeits his share in
the World to Come.”38 Another passage carried
the consequence even further:
"the penalty would not be restricted to
the individual but would jeopardize
the welfare of all mankind.”39
There is a considerable difference
between the Commentaries and
Midrashim on the
"Song of Songs" and those on the other books of
T'nach. The principle
(Shabbath 63a) vFvwp
ydym xcOy xrqm Nyx,
that no verse of the
Torah may be divorced from its plain meaning,
does not apply to Myrywh ryw [the
Song of Songs]. On the contrary,
our sages explain
(Sanhedrin 10la) "Those who recite a verse of
Myrywh
ryw as they would a common song, or who read its verses
in
inappropriate circumstances,
bring evil to the world, because the Torah
wraps itself in
sackcloth, and standing before the Holy One, blessed be
He, complains:
"Master of the World, Your children have made me a
harp on which
mockers play. . . .”40
One final sample will suffice to
demonstrate midrashic interpre-
tation. On Cant 1:2,
"For your love is better than wine," the midrash says:
Here the words of the Torah are compared
to wine. Just as wine makes
the heart of man
rejoice, as written in Psalms 104:15 bbl Hmwy Nyyv
wvnx "and wine makes glad the heart of
man," so does the Torah,
Psalms 19:9 bl
yHmwm Myrwy yh ydvqp "the
ordinances of the Lord
are right, making
the heart rejoice."--Just as wine brings joy to the
body, so do the
words of the Lord comfort the soul: Ps. 94: 19 ywpn
vfwfwy jymvHnt "Thy comforts delight my soul."--Furthermore,
the
older the wine, the better it becomes, and with the hrvy yrbd the
words of the Torah,
the longer they are instilled in man the more
effective they become.41
TARGUM
Because the legends in it seem to be
rather late, and because it
makes mention of the Gemara (the last part of the Talmud, com-
pleted ca. A.D.
450-500), the Targum on the Song of Solomon is
37 Samue1 Tobias Lachs, "Prolegomena to Canticles Rabba,"
JQR 55 (1965) 237,
citing Cant. R.
38 Ibid., citing Tosef Sanh. 12, 10.
39 Ibid., citing Sanh. 101a.
40
Philipp Fe1dheim, n.d.) 8-9.
41 Ibid., 12. A further instance of such midrashic
interpretation of the Song may be
seen in Menahem M. Kasher, ed., Encyclopedia of Biblical Interpretation,
9 (reprinted;
230
GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
usually dated
considerably later than much of the other targumic
material. Ginsburg
argues for a date about the middle of the sixth
century, when the Talmuds would have been already complete,42 but
Loewe
would date it even later yet.43
As an aid to the interpretation of the
Song the Targum is almost
useless, because it
allegorizes it beyond recognition.44 It is, in fact,
considered by some to be primarily
an anti-Christian (pro-Jewish)
apologetic.45 But as a
hermeneutical warning, the Targum is priceless:
it shows where the unbridled allegorization of the Song may lead.
A few examples from this Targum will suffice to demonstrate its
character. On 1:2,
"Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth: for
thy love is better than wine,"
the Targum says: "Solomon, the
prophet said: Blessed
be the Name of the Lord, who hath given us the
Law
by the hand of Moses, the great Scribe-a Law inscribed upon
the two tablets of stone, and hath
given us the six orders of the
Mishnah and the Gemarah by oral tradition, and communed with us
face to face, as a
man that kisses his fellow out of the abundance of
his affection, loving us, as He
does, more than the seventy nations.”46
On
2: I, "I am the narcissus of
the Targum
comments: "The Assembly of Israel speaketh: As
long
as the Sovereign of the Universe
suffers His Divine Presence to
dwell in my midst, I
am like the narcissus fresh from the Garden
of
flower-garden of
42 Ginsburg, Song of Songs and Coheleth,
28.
43 Raphael Loewe,
"Apologetic Motifs in the Targum to the Song of
Songs," in
Biblical Motifs, ed. by
Alexander Altmann (Cambridge: Harvard University,
1966)
163-69.
For the hermeneutics of the targumim,
see Daniel Patte, Early
Jewish
Hermeneutic in
bibliography of literature
up to 1966, see R. Le Deaut, Introduction a la Litterature
Targumique (Rome: lnstitut
Biblique Pontifical, 1966); and up to 1972 in Bernard
Grossfeld, A Bibliography of Targum
Literature (2 vols.;
44 Still, John
Gill considered it valuable enough to append to his commentary,
possibly because he,
too, allegorized the Song (John Gill, An
Exposition of the Book
of Solomons Song, Commonly Called Canticles [
45 Loewe,
"Apologetic Motifs in the Targum to the Song of
Songs," 173-84.
46 Herman Gollancz, trans., "The Targum
to 'The Song of Songs,'" in The Targum
to the Five Megil/oth, edited by Bernard Grossfeld
(New York: Hermon Press, 1973)
180.
47 For the text of
the Targum, cf. bvlvdg
tvxrqm, v, " ad loco Texts with
Babylonian
pointing can be found in Alexander Sperber, tymrxb wdqh ybtk,
x-
d
jrk (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1968); and Raphael Hai Melamed, "The Targum to
Canticles
According to Six Yemen MSS, compared with the 'Textus
Receptus' (ed. De
Lagarde)," JQR 10 (1920) 377-410 and 12 (1921)
57-117. He notes (10, p. 380) that an
official Targum to the Hagiographa never
existed, but that all the books except Ezra,
Nehemiah, and Daniel had Targumim, of which this one is a part. For a further
interesting' description of
this Targum, and a comparison of the midrash with the
FIELDS: INTERPRETATION OF SONG OF SONGS 231
The
Targum, as Jouon notes,48 apparently developed its allegor-
ical interpretation
from the kinds of statements found in the Midrash.
It
takes the Song to be a representation of the history of
beginning with the Exodus
through the building of the third temple,
and the coming of the Messiah, of
which there are two mentioned:
Messiah
ben David and Messiah ben
Ephraim.49
SUMMARY AND
CONCLUSION
The article set out to demonstrate that
(1) there is no record of
allegorization in the earliest
period of Jewish history; and (2) that
allegorization became the
predominant method of interpretation
among the Jews in the
later periods. It was shown that no allegoriza-
tion can be discovered
in the LXX (Hebrew canon), Ben Sira, the
book of Wisdom (of
Solomon), Josephus, or 4 Ezra. But beginning
with the Talmud, and
continuing with the Midrashim and Targumim,
allegorization took over as
the accepted method for interpreting the
Song.
Though the history given here is only
partial, and needs to be
complemented by a study of
concurrent Christian interpretation,
as well as an investigation of both
Christian and Jewish interpretation
in subsequent centuries, it does
serve to point out that once one has
loosed himself from
the moorings of literal interpretation (in the best
and widest sense of that term) he
has precluded any assurance that
the composer of the Song has
communicated to him what he intended
to communicate. Through allegorization the reader of the Song will
no doubt receive some kind of
communication; but it is highly
doubtful that it will be
what the author intended to say. And here is
the problem: if the Song can say
anything, then it says nothing. And
that is why it is
important to establish that as far as the evidence now
available is concerned,
the allegorization of the Song of Songs was
not the original or even the
earliest method of interpretation; it was a
later development.
There is, therefore, no compelling historical rea-
son from early Jewish and early
medieval interpretation for contin-
uing allegorization of the Song today.
Targum, cr. Leon J. Liebreich, "The Benedictory Formula in the Targum to the Song
of Songs," HUCA 18 (1944) 177-97.
48 P. Jouon, Le Cantique des Cantiques
(Paris: Gabriel Beauchesne & Cle, 1909) 28.
49 Bernard Grossfeld, --Introduction," in The Targum to the Five Megilloth,
ed. by
Grossfeld,
viii.
:
Grace
Theological Seminary
www.grace.edu
|| Pope Shenouda || Father Matta || Bishop Mattaous || Fr. Tadros Malaty || Bishop Moussa || Bishop Alexander || Habib Gerguis || Bishop Angealos || Metropolitan Bishoy ||
|| The Orthodox Faith (Dogma) || Family and Youth || Sermons || Bible Study || Devotional || Spirituals || Fasts & Feasts || Coptics || Religious Education || Monasticism || Seasons || Missiology || Ethics || Ecumenical Relations || Church Music || Pentecost || Miscellaneous || Saints || Church History || Pope Shenouda || Patrology || Canon Law || Lent || Pastoral Theology || Father Matta || Bibles || Iconography || Liturgics || Orthodox Biblical topics || Orthodox articles || St Chrysostom ||
|| Bible Study || Biblical topics || Bibles || Orthodox Bible Study || Coptic Bible Study || King James Version || New King James Version || Scripture Nuggets || Index of the Parables and Metaphors of Jesus || Index of the Miracles of Jesus || Index of Doctrines || Index of Charts || Index of Maps || Index of Topical Essays || Index of Word Studies || Colored Maps || Index of Biblical names Notes || Old Testament activities for Sunday School kids || New Testament activities for Sunday School kids || Bible Illustrations || Bible short notes|| Pope Shenouda || Father Matta || Bishop Mattaous || Fr. Tadros Malaty || Bishop Moussa || Bishop Alexander || Habib Gerguis || Bishop Angealos || Metropolitan Bishoy ||
|| Prayer of the First Hour || Third Hour || Sixth Hour || Ninth Hour || Vespers (Eleventh Hour) || Compline (Twelfth Hour) || The First Watch of the midnight prayers || The Second Watch of the midnight prayers || The Third Watch of the midnight prayers || The Prayer of the Veil || Various Prayers from the Agbia || Synaxarium