Let's play literal or figurative

[mark kennedy]

While I agree that the characters may indeed have existed, and in the location described, I believe the song to be another metaphor of a more important relationship.

Like I said, this aspect is important and possibly the most important message in the song. The Psalms were basically a hymn book of the ancient Hebrews. It was also the most often quoted book of predictive prophecy in the New Testament.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[gluadys]

There is nothing erotic about this book, I don't know where people get this.

Both food and gardens are common images of eroticism in poetry. Consider that a common vulgar English word for sexual intercourse is derived from an old English word that meant "to plow a furrow". And that a common euphemism for loss of virginity is "deflower". All sorts of love poetry uses phrases like taking/giving/plucking a flower to refer to love-making.

In love poetry, references to a garden or vineyard, are almost always a very erotic image.

 

[mark kennedy]

Both food and gardens are common images of eroticism in poetry. Consider that a common vulgar English word for sexual intercourse is derived from an old English word that meant "to plow a furrow". And that a common euphemism for loss of virginity is "deflower". All sorts of love poetry uses phrases like taking/giving/plucking a flower to refer to love-making.

In love poetry, references to a garden or vineyard, are almost always a very erotic image.

Gardens were also very popular back then as well. I'm not saying that some of the conversation isn't romatic to the point of being erotic. What I am saying is that there is no description of some physical union there at all. I was reading somewhere that the Rose of Sharon was a common symbol in fetility religions so I kind of see the point. I'm just saying, sometimes a garden is just a garden, and in this case, I think that is exactly what it is. People think making this into an elaborate allegory of some physical or spiritual union inhances the meaning. Personally, I think it robs it of it's depth.

Still not sure how every Jewish and Christian Scholar in the world got it wrong and I alone got it right. At any rate, I have a larger point to make here. I've expressed my point of view on the book as well as I can, I'm ready to start looking at other passages.

Don't get me wrong, I am wide open to futher discussing of this book. I just wanted to spend some time initially here because I think this is a prime example of how literal facts can get buried.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Mark,

I agree with Glaudys. Those symbols are very sensual. Sometimes a literal event is a perfect vehicle for much deeper meanings. Based upon what I believe this is God describing His own feelings for, and about, a certain individual.

I too, cannot understand why I'm the only one who gets it. 8^)

 

[gluadys]

Gardens were also very popular back then as well. I'm not saying that some of the conversation isn't romatic to the point of being erotic. What I am saying is that there is no description of some physical union there at all.

I would have to check. The form of description would be entry into the garden. While barriers to entry would indicate barriers to intercourse.

I'm just saying, sometimes a garden is just a garden, and in this case, I think that is exactly what it is.

Sometimes, yes, a garden is a just a garden. But it seems highly improbable that this is the case here.

People think making this into an elaborate allegory of some physical or spiritual union inhances the meaning. Personally, I think it robs it of it's depth.

Well, that's the real issue isn't it? But that is your personal reaction. Others can have the opposite reaction. The sensual eroticism that makes it shallow to you, deepens and enlarges the meaning for them. (It certainly does for me.)


Why not let every person interpret the poetry in the way that is most personally meaningful for them? That is what poetry is intended to do--stir up emotional reactions that are personally meaningful.

Your reaction is no more wrong than anyone else's, but no more right either.

 

[shernren]

I'm trying to make a point about interpruting things literally in Scripture. This is a window into the the early part of Solomon's reign. At this point he has 60 queens and 80 concubines (6:8), he calls here 'O princes daughter' (7:1) so I think she was the daughter of one of Solomon's sons. How and why things are taken literally is vital to Origins Theology, if we are going to be consistant then there has to be a principle for it.

But I don't really agree with what you make of "O prince's daughter". I think it would be far more accurate to label this as a statement of hyperbolic praise, especially in the context of many such hyperbolic statements in ch. 7. Interpreting ch. 7 the way you do, I would find several difficulties:

1. The impropriety of the relationship. After all the Song of Solomon is exulting in that love, is it not? If "prince's daughter" is referring to Solomon's granddaughter then for King Solomon to make such advances seems to be nothing less than incest. If "prince's daughter" instead refers to the alliance of a political marriage (where a princess is a daughter of a king, who must once have been a prince) which again is something not condoned by Scripture since the King was not supposed to take foreign wives according to the Pentateuch. In either case, holy canon would seem to praise an inappropriate relationship.

2. If this passage is taken as literal what does this mean?

I said, "I will climb the palm tree;
I will take hold of its fruit."
May your breasts be like the clusters of the vine,
the fragrance of your breath like apples,
and your mouth like the best wine.

(7: 8,9)
I don't mean to be crude but if this isn't sex I don't know what is.

"While the king is at his table" (1:12), which is in a banqueting house, "He brought me to the banqueting house, and his banner over me was love" (2:4). The are reclining at the table he has his left hand behind her neck and embraces her with her right. This isn't sex, in fact it sounds to me like they are just cuddled up. She tells the Daughters of Jerusalem not to stir nor awaken love untill it pleases (2:7). That is her concluding remarks to them, she goes home and doesn't see him until early the next morning.

Firstly, it depends on whether the translations "banqueting hall" and "banner" are accurate or not. If what my lecturer said was correct then even a "literal" translation clearly involves some heavy moving. And why should innocent cuddling leave her so "faint with love" that she has to be refreshed with apples or strengthened with raisins? Sounds like some pretty strenuous cuddling.

Ok, take a look at this, in Matthew 25 we have the parable of the Ten Virgins. The bridegroom is delayed, he has to make sure everything is ready. This is loaded with both cultural and theological insights. The process these two were going through would have been very common. Often these marriage festivities are used the Kingdom Parables. The Church is described as a bride in the final pages of Scripture. If you know how marriages were done in this period you can understand better the teachings of the New Testament.

Alright, I probably went a bit too far in saying that the book had nothing to do with Christ's feeling for the church. I was reacting to what I remembered of the classical commentators' allegorizing ... the kind that made "two denarii" in the parable of the Good Samaritan the sacraments of baptism and Eucharist. (Sorry for mixing my metaphors; can't really recall exactly what they said about SoS other than that it made it sound ridiculous.) Yes, there are feelings which arise in a marital relationship which are extensible to the relationship between Christ and the church. And the physical love of SoS would only have been comfortable within the context of strong agape love between the husband and wife, an agape love which we can compare to Christ's love for the church. Having said that I don't think we can really take too much from SoS to describe Christ and the church, besides the general love that underlies their physical love.

Speaking of gardens, though ...

Gardens were also very popular back then as well. I'm not saying that some of the conversation isn't romatic to the point of being erotic. What I am saying is that there is no description of some physical union there at all. I was reading somewhere that the Rose of Sharon was a common symbol in fetility religions so I kind of see the point. I'm just saying, sometimes a garden is just a garden, and in this case, I think that is exactly what it is.

I don't think the Songwriter agrees:

SoS 4:12 : You are a garden locked up, my sister, my bride;
you are a spring enclosed, a sealed fountain.

This is the very first use of "garden" in SoS, and it is the lover calling the beloved his "garden". I don't see how this robs it of meaning, in fact to me this really deepens the meaning of "garden". It is a beautifully subtle way to profess his tender ownership (in the sense of Ephesians, where the wife must submit to the husband and the husband love the wife to the point of dying for her) and care for her. It really makes a lot of the SoS clear, such as how a lover can find myrrh, wine and milk in a garden (5:1). And also, when the lover has gone down to his garden, to the beds of spices (6:2) there seems to be a humorous double entendre here: the bed of spices is not just something that makes sense in a literal garden ... wasn't the harlot in Proverbs once have said to have "perfumed her bed" in anticipation of the fool? Here the connotation is turned on its head and the garden of the beloved's body, a figurative metaphor, is being enjoyed on a literal "bed of spices". Now, that just makes the whole book a lot deeper and more interesting to explore, and I don't mean it in a pervy sort of way.

Having said that, it is interesting to see the imagery of the beloved as the garden because in the Bible many times Israel (or Judah) is referred to as God's garden: Isaiah 1:30, Isaiah 5:7, Isaiah 58:11, Jeremiah 31:12, and the whole chapter of Isaiah 5 describes Israel as God's planted vineyard. Of course one can argue to some extent that this depiction is more describing the land of Israel being verdant and productive like a garden but I think that's ignoring the obvious resonances between this, the Garden of Eden, and the garden of SoS.

Don't get me wrong, I am wide open to futher discussing of this book.

Me too!

 

[mark kennedy]

Mark,

I agree with Glaudys. Those symbols are very sensual (Yummy!). Sometimes a literal event is a perfect vehicle for much deeper meanings. Based upon what I believe this is God describing His own feelings for, and about, a certain individual.

I too, cannot understand why I'm the only one who gets it. 8^)

All I can tell you is that you will never get that from the text. I followed the wording very carefully and the physical union never happened. I don't know, maybe you are a hopeless romantic. There are larger implications but really I don't get how this has been reduced to the particulars of someones wedding night in metaphorical termonology.

 

[mark kennedy]

I would have to check. The form of description would be entry into the garden. While barriers to entry would indicate barriers to intercourse.

It does represent barriers, that's the parody. They can't be together until everything has been taken care of, the garden is one of the last peices of the puzzle. We talk a lot about nature, so I am sure you realize how long it takes to cultivate a garden that will supply a whole family and who knows how many people. They had not taken their final vows, they do that in the closing pages. It seems so obvious to me, I don't know, maybe I'm reading something into the text but I can't figure out what.

Sometimes, yes, a garden is a just a garden. But it seems highly improbable that this is the case here.

At this point I would settle for possible. Think about it, these two are crazy about one another. People around them are celebrating their love with great adulation. Leaving the Banquete Hall the bride tells the daughters of Jerusalem not to arouse love or stir it until it desires. That sounds like be patient to me, that sounds like what they are going through.

Well, that's the real issue isn't it? But that is your personal reaction. Others can have the opposite reaction. The sensual eroticism that makes it shallow to you, deepens and enlarges the meaning for them. (It certainly does for me.)

Maybe I'm just having a personal reaction or maybe I have seen something in this text. I see two people taking care of their responsiblities before the satisfy their desires. I see two people who are taking time they need for rest just to steal a couple of minutes alone. I see King Solomon writing a beautiful love song that shows people how the love of God works is expressed in the lives of these two. I see two people that are wanting to be together but are too busy taking care of their responsiblities and still finding time for one another as well.

Why not let every person interpret the poetry in the way that is most personally meaningful for them? That is what poetry is intended to do--stir up emotional reactions that are personally meaningful.

Your reaction is no more wrong than anyone else's, but no more right either.

This isn't just poetry, the Scriptures don't have a love song to be what ever it means to you personally. Sure there are emotions involved but there is a story here and a lesson that is far more then any romance novel reaches out with. This is about a covenant relationship that is right on the crest of becoming perfect. This is the virtuous wife of Proverbs right before the King of peace. I find that so much more meaningfull then a simple allegory.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

1. The impropriety of the relationship. After all the Song of Solomon is exulting in that love, is it not? If "prince's daughter" is referring to Solomon's granddaughter then for King Solomon to make such advances seems to be nothing less than incest.

I'll get to the rest of your post but you seem to be missing one of my central points. King Solomon is simply watching this go on, he is in no way, shape or form involved with this girl. They are two young people who are espoused (betrothed) that are doing what they have to to be together. He is building their home and she is working on a garden and a vineyard. They sit at the Kings Table in the palace Banquet Hall for the first two chapters. They are having a conversation with the daughters of Jerusalem. Do tell me that you realize that my premise is that Solomon is just a third party here. Please tell me you understand that much.

Solomon is not the beloved and these two are not having sex, at least not in the song. Many of the things that are taken as erotic prose are really literal things. The garden, the cedars of their house, the fruits of their garden and her trips to Jerusalem I take rather literally. Just tell me, do you see what I am saying or not?

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[shernren]

Solomon is not the beloved and these two are not having sex, at least not in the song. Many of the things that are taken as erotic prose are really literal things. The garden, the cedars of their house, the fruits of their garden and her trips to Jerusalem I take rather literally. Just tell me, do you see what I am saying or not?

Okay, finally I do see what you are saying about Solomon. I guess I was reading my own background into your statements. You see, I was brought up with this particular literal understanding of SoS:

5. According to this literal and historical interpretation, Parts I - III constitute the first half or one main division of the poem, which may be called: the bride and her espousals with the king Cant. 1:2–5:1. The three parts represent each a different scene and distinct action.
Part I. The Bride in the King’s Chambers
Cant. 1:2–2:7 subdivisible into four sections, corresponding to so many pauses in the action or dialogue.
The scene is laid apparently in a wooded district of northern Palestine near the bride’s home, where the king is spending part of the summer season in tents. The three chief speakers of the poem are now introduced in succession: first, a female chorus (the “daughters of Jerusalem&#8221 commence by singing a short ode of two stanzas in praise of the absent king Son_1:2-4. The next speaker, the Shulamite maiden (“the bride&#8221, appears to have been recently brought from her country home to the king’s pavilion, to be there affianced to him. A brief dialogue ensues between her and the chorus Son_1:5-7. The king himself appears, in the third place, and commending the beauty of the bride, receives from her in return words of praise and affection Son_1:16; Son_2:7. Throughout this part the bride is represented as of inferior rank to him whom she calls her “beloved,” shrinking at times from the splendors of the royal station that awaits her. She speaks of him both as a shepherd and as a king; but, in either character, as of one in whose favor and society she finds supreme satisfaction and entire rest. It is a day of early love, but not that of their first meeting.
Part II. Monologues of the Bride
Cant. 2:8–3:5, comprising two sections.
This part carries us back to an earlier period than the former, and affords a glance at the previous history of the Shulamite in her relations to the king. She describes to the chorus in two monologues how the beloved had visited her on a spring morning, and how she had afterward dreamed of him at night.
Part III. Royal Espousals
Cant. 3:6–5:1, subdivisible into three sections.
The scene changes to Jerusalem, where the bride is brought in royal state to be united to the king in marriage.
Parts IV - VI. The Bride, the King’s Wife
Cant. 5:2–7:1. The once lowly Shulamite, though now sharing with her beloved the high places of Israel, yet retains that sweetness, humility, and devoted affection, which in other scenes and circumstances had gained his heart. She invites him to revisit with her rural scenes, and share once more their simple pleasures Son_7:11-13.
Part IV. Seeking and Finding
Cant. 5:2–6:9 may be divided into three sections.
The scene of this part is still Jerusalem. The bride after relating to the chorus a second dream concerning her beloved, pours forth a stream of richest fancies in his praise, who, as she complains, has departed from her. The Chorus offering to aid her in her search of him, suddenly the beloved reappears and gives in his turn the noblest commendations to the bride.
Part V. Homeward Thoughts
Cant. 6:10–8:4, subdivisible into four sections.
The scene is still Jerusalem, or a palace-garden in the neighborhood; but the bride’s thoughts are now reverting to her northern home. She relates how in early spring she had first met the king in a walnut-garden in her own country. The chorus ask her to perform a sacred dance seemingly well known to the bride and her country-folk. The bride complies, and while she is dancing and the chorus are singing some stanzas in her praise, the king himself appears. The bride invites him to return with her into the country and to her mother’s house.
Part VI. The Return Home
Son_8:5-14, containing three very brief sections.
The scene changes to the bride’s birthplace, to which she has now returned with the king. The bride commends her brothers to the good graces of the king, and ends, at his request, by charming his ear with one last song, recalling to his memory a strain of other days (see Son_8:14 note).
The history, which forms its groundwork is, however, throughout the poem, contemplated from an ideal point of view; and the fundamental idea expressed and illustrated is the awful all-constraining, the at once leveling and elevating power of the mightiest and most universal of human affections. The refrains and phrases, to which allusion has been already made, give expression at regular intervals to this idea.
The ideal character of the whole poem is further evidenced by the way in which the chief points whereon the action turns are indicated; and it will be found that the two halves, or main divisions of the Song have numerous well-balanced contrasts and correspondences throughout.
These and other peculiarities, which impart to the Song of Songs its unique and enigmatical character, seem chiefly due to its idealizing treatment of an actual history felt at the time, and especially by the writer, to be profoundly interesting and significant.
Further, that the history thus idealized and the form in which it is presented have meanings beyond themselves and point to something higher, has ever been a deep-seated conviction in the mind both of the church and of the synagogue.
The two axes, so to speak, on which the main action of the poem appears alternately to revolve, may be found in the king’s invitation to the bride on bringing her to Jerusalem Son_4:8, and in the bride’s to the king in recalling him to Shunem Son_7:11-13; Son_8:2; in these two invitations and their immediate consequences - the willing obedience of the bride and the ready condescension of the king, the first surrender on her part and the final vow on his - the writer of the Song seems to have intended to exhibit the two-fold energy, both for elevation and abasement, of that affection, to the delineation of which his work is dedicated. The omnipotent, transforming, and yet conserving power of faithful love is here seen in like yet diverse operation in the two personalities through whom it is exhibited. In the case of the bride we see the lowly rejoicing in unforeseen elevation without loss of virginal simplicity, in that of the beloved the highest is made happy through self-abasement without compromise of kingly honor.
It is then no mere fancy, which for so many ages past has been accustomed to find in the pictures and melodies of the Song of Songs types and echoes of the actings and emotions of the highest love - of Love Divine - in its relations to humanity. Christians may trace in the noble and gentle history thus presented foreshadowings of the infinite condescensions of Incarnate Love; - that Love which, first stooping in human form to visit us in our low estate in order to seek out and win its object Psa_136:23, and then raising along with itself a sanctified humanity to the heavenly places Eph_2:6, is finally awaiting there an invitation from the mystic Bride to return to earth once more and seal the union for eternity Rev_22:17.

from Barnes' Commentary's introduction to the book.

That is exactly why I find a completely literal approach unconvincing. You are completely convinced that you have uncovered the historical event behind the book, and paint a picture of Solomon describing a happy couple. And yet Barnes is equally convinced that he has discovered the historical event behind the book and paints a picture of Solomon being part of a happy couple. Are you seeing what I'm seeing?

Maybe it's a cultural thing. To be honest, the first time I read SoS seriously trying to figure what sort of genre it was, the first picture that came to my mind was a Bollywood film. I don't know if you have those over in America. Basically "Bollywood" is a portmanteau of "Bombay" and "Hollywood", i.e. India's Hindi film industry, which specializes in romance flicks. They aren't the sort of romance stories you have in the West which are cut and dry factual-historical presentations. Those stories are soaked through with unreality. One moment the happy couple is waiting at a bus stop, say, and the next moment they're waltzing in the Alps with a few dozen backing dancers swirling around them as they go into a song-and-dance - and once it's over the camera cuts back to them in the bus stop - or even to the very next scene - as if nothing has happened. Perhaps this is an Asian way of doing things ... the romance story is truly romantic when it is dramatized and fictionalized and soaked right through with poetry and song-and-dance.

And is it just me or are you feeling offended about having a book in the Bible about having sex? (I could be wrong, but I doubt I am.)

 

[artybloke]

What are the principles of determining whether or not something in Scripture is a historical narrative?

Well, you could, for instance, ask where it was placed in the Hebrew Scriptures. It was placed, not with the historical books, but with the "Writings" which included the Wisdom literature of Proverbs, Wisdom of Solomon, etc, and with such works as Ecclesiastes, Lamentations, and Job, not with the histories. If the Jews don't think it's historical, why should we?

If you wish to think it's historical, you're at perfect liberty to do so of course, but I wonder if there's a deeper problem?

Can you explain to me what you find problematic about the idea of a passage of scripture being non-historical? Does it lessen a book's truthfullness if it isn't literal, and if so why? I'm genuinely puzzled by this; not even in my short fundamentalist phase did I ever think that the Song of Songs had to be historical in order to be profoundly true.

I guess you must never read poetry.

 

[mark kennedy]

Well, you could, for instance, ask where it was placed in the Hebrew Scriptures. It was placed, not with the historical books, but with the "Writings" which included the Wisdom literature of Proverbs, Wisdom of Solomon, etc, and with such works as Ecclesiastes, Lamentations, and Job, not with the histories. If the Jews don't think it's historical, why should we?

The prophets were catagorized differently but that does not mean that they have no historical relevace. History in the context of the canon of Scripture emphasises the redemptive history of God. This relationship did not have that much to do with God's intervention in human affairs as an epoch of human history. Of course it was considered seperatly. By the way, Christian Scholars don't take it as historical either, the point is that the text makes some very explicit referances. Not to sex and certainly not to Solomon being anything other then a bystander.

If you wish to think it's historical, you're at perfect liberty to do so of course, but I wonder if there's a deeper problem?

Oh, it's not problem really, it's just that I think this whole allegory approach is flawed.

Can you explain to me what you find problematic about the idea of a passage of scripture being non-historical? Does it lessen a book's truthfullness if it isn't literal, and if so why? I'm genuinely puzzled by this; not even in my short fundamentalist phase did I ever think that the Song of Songs had to be historical in order to be profoundly true.

Because there are genuine insights into a very important period of history and the character of Scripture. Fundamentalists and Evangelicals alike take this as some kind of an allegory and the text is far more detailed then that. The text says outright that they are in the Banquet Hall at the King's Table having a conversation with the Daughters of Jerusalem. In Chapter three they are at talking to one another threw a lattice and he leaves in the direction of the Bether mountain.

I don't think this is a matter of interprutation, it identifies specific places and a context. They never had sex and making this just an allegory makes this whole book seem like a mythic ramble.

I guess you must never read poetry.

Would you consider looking at the poetic apart from the narrative of the text? I think that would be helpfull.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[gluadys]

Because there are genuine insights into a very important period of history and the character of Scripture. Fundamentalists and Evangelicals alike take this as some kind of an allegory and the text is far more detailed then that.

Actually, I think it is wrong to take it as allegory too. It is more in the genre of metaphor than of allegory. Nevertheless I am puzzled by the idea that a text can be too detailed to be an allegory. Why would you think that an allegory must lack detail? Or that the presence of detail is an indication that a passage is not an allegory? That makes no literary sense.

The text says outright that they are in the Banquet Hall at the King's Table having a conversation with the Daughters of Jerusalem.

So? No indication that this is not a metaphor.

I don't think this is a matter of interprutation, it identifies specific places and a context.

So? Lots of poetry names specific places and contexts.

They never had sex and making this just an allegory makes this whole book seem like a mythic ramble.

I haven't checked this out yet, but I would agree that, like many great love poems, most of the text is devoted to the courtship phase, not to the physical consummation of their love. However, this still does not do away with the metaphors in which the courtship is described. Nor make the references to comings and goings literal. Those are metaphors for the ups and downs of their romance.

 

[shernren]

I don't think it's accurate to call the non-literal approach "allegorical", it's more parabolic or poetic.

In an allegory every detail has meaning and as a result allegories are more detailed, not less. For example, treating the Parable of the Good Samaritan as an allegory, "the man" is Adam, "from Jerusalem" represents a sinless state, "down to Jericho" represents a fall to a sinful state, etc. That's not the sense in which we interpret SoS.

It's more towards a parabolic, or poetic, structure. In a parable the details are there to bring out a lesson. In poetry, to bring out an emotion.

And Christian scholars have treated Solomon as "anything but a bystander". The two predominant theories I have known so far are that the book describes a relationship between Solomon and the Shulammite, or that the book describes the Shulammite's grief at being torn away from her shepherd lover by Solomon who desires her for his harem. I'm not saying that any of these theories are correct, just that they are supported by Christian scholars contrary to what you've been saying.

But I think we're going about this in a way that doesn't make sense and doesn't give any respect to the beauty that the Song of Solomon has, whether historical or not. Why not, instead of picking the book apart and bashing each other over the head with the pieces we have, we do a long-term group Bible study on the Song of Solomon? Chapter by chapter, verse by verse, let's go see what's actually written and what it actually means. Sure this approach isn't going to work if the original intent was to boomerang around from a discussion of this to a detraction of an ahistorical interpretation of Genesis 1 as being less Christian ... but I'm assuming from the interest here that everyone is genuinely interested in the Song of Solomon in and of itself. Aren't we?

(And no, I'm not entirely sure if they are having sex in the Song or not. But it sure seems like they're looking forward to it. )

 

[mark kennedy]

Actually, I think it is wrong to take it as allegory too. It is more in the genre of metaphor than of allegory. Nevertheless I am puzzled by the idea that a text can be too detailed to be an allegory. Why would you think that an allegory must lack detail? Or that the presence of detail is an indication that a passage is not an allegory? That makes no literary sense.

I don't think it's wrong to take it as an allegory, I am not opposed to it being understood as metaphor. What I am saying is that I personally see a narrative here that is completely absent from Jewish and Christian scholarship. I do object to this making no literary sense as a narrative, dispite the fact that I realize the reasoning behind it. It makes perfect sense to me that the events that Solomon saw inspired him to write a song about the love and wisdom he witnessed in this snapshot of their lives.

So? No indication that this is not a metaphor.

Again, I find it hard to believe that I alone am right and all of Christiandom wrong about this. Nevertheless, the first two chapters describe a conversation in a Banquete Hall between the beloved, the bride and the daughters of Jerusalem. I fail to see how the text does not support this perspective or interprutation.

So? Lots of poetry names specific places and contexts.

Lot's of historical narratives in Scripture describe historical events in highly poetic language.

I haven't checked this out yet, but I would agree that, like many great love poems, most of the text is devoted to the courtship phase, not to the physical consummation of their love. However, this still does not do away with the metaphors in which the courtship is described. Nor make the references to comings and goings literal. Those are metaphors for the ups and downs of their romance.

It is loaded with huge metaphorical comparisons. The way these two describe one another is absolutly poetic and this aspect should never be discounted. 'You have doves eyes, your nose is like the tower of David, Your teeth are like sheep cascading down the hill side'. Oh yea, that is pretty poetic but very common in the Old Testament.

When I took the Song of Songs as metaphor and analogy it did almost nothing for me. When it began to dawn on me that there was a narrative here I got really interested. I mean think about it, deep down we are all suckers for a good love story. It is so inspiring to see true love blossom right before your eyes especially since it goes bad so often.

Look, you and I have disagreed on an awful lot of points with regards to creationism and the Bible as history. I don't consider this a bar to fellowship and I know I have grown a lot as a result of hearing your input. Metaphor is a wonderfull thing, Jesus taught with parables and some of them are irrelavant as actual history. The wheat and the tares, the sheperd looking for his lost sheep, the wicked husbandmen...etc. Still he allways taught using parables and they offer insights into things that happened in their world.

What do we really know about history? How can a book like the Song of Songs offer us insights into how these ancient people lived? I think this book gives us a picture of a virtouous women becomeing this remarkable man's wife, as it was happening. Solomon sees all of this and it was included in the canon of Scripture.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

I don't think it's accurate to call the non-literal approach "allegorical", it's more parabolic or poetic.

There is a lot of that but I think you can sift out a literal series of actual events, places and people. I think it brings clarity to the book and inhances the poetic inferances.

In an allegory every detail has meaning and as a result allegories are more detailed, not less. For example, treating the Parable of the Good Samaritan as an allegory, "the man" is Adam, "from Jerusalem" represents a sinless state, "down to Jericho" represents a fall to a sinful state, etc. That's not the sense in which we interpret SoS.

Sure all of these things make good allegories, but that does not discount them as actual events. Redemptive history is about more then analogies, it is about God working in peoples lives. I have no problem with SOS being interpruted as allegory, it would seem that it allmost allways is. I just get a whole lot more out of it when I can see the events transpiring that the metaphor takes on a richness of depth. If it does not help you then I suppose it's not that important.

The truth is I find it ridiculas to take this book as an allegory for sex. I also see no basis for believing that Solomon was involved with this girl in anyway other then platonic. I seem to be the only one who looks at it that way but nevertheless that is what I'm getting from this book.

It's more towards a parabolic, or poetic, structure. In a parable the details are there to bring out a lesson. In poetry, to bring out an emotion.

Ok, no problem with that statement.

And Christian scholars have treated Solomon as "anything but a bystander". The two predominant theories I have known so far are that the book describes a relationship between Solomon and the Shulammite, or that the book describes the Shulammite's grief at being torn away from her shepherd lover by Solomon who desires her for his harem. I'm not saying that any of these theories are correct, just that they are supported by Christian scholars contrary to what you've been saying.

Well if their interprutation contradicts mine then they must need my help in understanding the text. But seriously, I realize that and I don't doubt that they have good reason for their treatment of the text. I have no clue why my view of the text is not represented anywhere in Jewish or Christian scholarship. I may be just another laymen who has completly misunderstood the meaning.

Some of the things I see that really get on my nerves are things like she was raped by the guards. That the description of her garden were metaphors of sexual intercourse. That Solomon was some kind of a villian that was stealing her away from her true love. I find this interprutations to be completely out of character for Scripture.

But I think we're going about this in a way that doesn't make sense and doesn't give any respect to the beauty that the Song of Solomon has, whether historical or not.

Actually I think it inhances it in a profound way.

Why not, instead of picking the book apart and bashing each other over the head with the pieces we have, we do a long-term group Bible study on the Song of Solomon? Chapter by chapter, verse by verse, let's go see what's actually written and what it actually means.

After two years and thousands of responses I have encountered the first proposal of the Bible study I came on here looking for. I am dumbfounded, the proposal came from a theistic evolutionists in a thread that is of very little interest to creationists. I would be very happy, even gratefull to work with you through this book. We can do this here or in the Expostional Bible Study whichever you prefer.

Sure this approach isn't going to work if the original intent was to boomerang around from a discussion of this to a detraction of an ahistorical interpretation of Genesis 1 as being less Christian ... but I'm assuming from the interest here that everyone is genuinely interested in the Song of Solomon in and of itself. Aren't we?

Of course it is, I have yet to see a post that is disinterested in the central message of SOS. I don't know if you think I'm being confrontational here or what. I am trying to offer what I think are valuable insights into both the theology of Song of Songs and it's reflection of actual history. I don't know, maybe I have spent a little too much time arguing apologetics.

(And no, I'm not entirely sure if they are having sex in the Song or not. But it sure seems like they're looking forward to it. )

That is without a doubt the most refreshing bit of humor I have seen in a long time. Trust me when I say if I had a million rep points to give you would get every one of them.

Of course they are crazy about one another and can't wait to consumate this marriage. They don't get the chance because they are too busy taking care of their responsiblites. One of the biggest problems facing marriage is finances causing conflict. Probably the biggest is fooling around on the other party. This book speaks to both issues but not as just an allegory.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[gluadys]

When I took the Song of Songs as metaphor and analogy it did almost nothing for me. When it began to dawn on me that there was a narrative here I got really interested. I mean think about it, deep down we are all suckers for a good love story. It is so inspiring to see true love blossom right before your eyes especially since it goes bad so often.

Well, I think this is where I will leave it. If finding a narrative in SoS excites you as poetic images do not, and that leads you into studying it more deeply, well, that's great.

Of course, there is a narrative---about as much as there is in an opera. The bride is the coluratura soprano, the bridegroom the heroic tenor, and the daughters of Jerusalem the chorus. And of course, there are settings as the love story proceeds.

As with most such dramas I would consider the narrative fictional. At most fictionalized history. Real life may have inspired the writer, but the important thing is the universal experience of love expressed in poetry and song.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

People think making this into an elaborate allegory of some physical or spiritual union inhances the meaning. Personally, I think it robs it of it's depth.

Why would you feel this way? Why would something not being literal be less important to you? Are the parables robbed of meaning?

 

[artybloke]

The prophets were catagorized differently but that does not mean that they have no historical relevace.

But the Song of Songs has never been considered a "prophecy." It belongs with the "Ketuvim" - The Writings - which include Ruth, Esther, Lamentations and Ecclesiastes - not the prophets. Two stories and two poems. It was probably written down a long time after Solomon. The books we call histories, by the way, they consider to be prophets. Chronicles belongs to the later Ketuvim, along with Daniel, Job, Psalms and Proverbs.

One thing that you seem to be doing is what a lot of people do with scripture - you're considering it in isolation to anything else that was written in the same area at the time. As if the books of the Bible appeared sui generis out of nowhere. As neither of us, probably, are great experts on ancient Near Eastern literature, neither of us can make a comparative study; but it wouldn't surprise me to find that there are (or were) similar poems in the surrounding culture. What was this poem like in its form and imagery, in the surrounding culture?

And there is still the question of why you find it difficult to cope with the idea of a book not being historical. I don't take the poem as an allegory, either, by the way; any more than I consider the story of Romeo and Juliet to be an allegory. But I don't go to Shakespeare for history; I go for profound meditations on the nature of love, on the nature of family and feuding; and for the sheer beauty of the language. Whatever else the Song of Songs is, it is beautiful.

Sometimes I think we're so busy trying to find "meaning" in the Bible; or trying to defend if from largely imaginary enemies, that we forget that it is one of jewels of ancient literature.

 

[mark kennedy]

Why would you feel this way? Why would something not being literal be less important to you? Are the parables robbed of meaning?

I think the parables do describe actual events that would have been common at the time. Jesus is basically taking anecdotes from the world they lived in and relating them to heavenly principles. Would it matter to me if the Prodigal Son or the Good Samaritan were just made up stories, I don't know, maybe not. I just see no reason why they would be, the people hearing these parables would have been better able to relate to real life examples.

Grace and peace,
Mark