TO SING (of the Songs)
The last of the 5 poetic books of the OT, according to the classification of the LXX. It appears between Job and Ruth, in the Writings, the 3rd section of the Jewish canon.
This book was one of the 5 small scrolls (Megilloth) considered as a whole, because they were read during the five great commemorative solemnities.
The Song was read on the 8th day of Easter, being interpreted allegorically, in relation to the historical theme of the Exodus. The title has a superlative meaning (cp. servant of servants, Lord of lords, heaven of heavens, vanity of vanities), indicating that the work has a most elevated character.
The Vulgate literally translates “Canticum Canticorum”, which is the basis of the Castilian title: Song of Songs.
(a) CHARACTERS.
(A) Main characters name problem.
Since the grammatical forms of the original Hebrew indicate gender and number, the interlocutors are clearly distinguished.
However, although the existence of two protagonists has generally been maintained, the Shulamite and King Solomon, the theory that there are three protagonists in this book is currently taking shape, and that it is called the “theory of the Shepherd”. According to her, the main interlocutors are: a young peasant girl, her fiancé (a shepherd), and Solomon.
During a trip to the north of the country, Solomon and her entourage see the young woman (Song 6: 10-13), take her to Jerusalem, and leave her among the women of the palace. The king tries to seduce her, but without success.
The Shulamite responds to her flattery with praise directed at her fiancé, the shepherd. During the day she longs to see him, during the night she stays awake. She constantly remembers her words and remains faithful to her.
Finally, the bride and groom are reunited (Song 8:5-7). The young woman’s brothers praise her resistance in the face of her temptation.
Throughout the poem, Solomon, according to this theory, would play a lackluster role, striving to lead the bride to unfaithfulness (Song 7:1-9). According to this theory of three protagonists, the poem sings of a pure love that resists the seductions of the court and the monarch.
The “shepherd’s” interpretation states that the Shulamite’s passionate exclamations are directed at her estranged fiancé (Song 1:4, 7; 2:16).
But all these passages, and the entire poem as a whole, are much easier to understand with only 2 protagonists, and if the Shulamite’s words of love are addressed to Solomon.
The peasant woman thinks of the king as shepherd of the people (cp. Jer. 23:4). The imagery of the young peasant woman from Sunem is taken from rural life.
A close examination of the book shows that the “shepherd” theory is so artificial and contrived that it can be dismissed out of hand.
(B) Instead of taking the Shulamite for a peasant woman, some exegetes have seen her as the daughter of Pharaoh, the wife of Solomon: a dark-skinned foreigner and the daughter of a prince (Song. 1:5; 7:1).
Objection: her dark complexion was due to the sun (Song. 1:6), and the title “daughter of a prince” probably does not indicate her birth, undoubtedly dark (Song. 1:6; 2:9) but the rank at which she was born. which had been elevated (cp. Song 6:12; 1 Sam. 2:8).
(b) FORM.
The form of the poem has been variously appreciated; This appreciation is important, since the interpretation of the work partly depends on it.
(A) It is commonly believed, and we believe rightly so, that it is a lyric poem with a dramatized and dialogic form.
(B) Others assimilate the song to a true drama (Origen, Ewald, Delitzsch, Godet). These authors divide the Song into a variable number of acts and scenes (discovering 4, 5, or even 7 acts, varying between 2 and 13 scenes).
The main objection to this opinion is the absence of action and dramatic development. The poem does not present a plot. Commentators have imposed transitions to reconnect artificial divisions relating to very different episodes.
Let us cite an argument in favor of drama: The Western mind searches in vain for the logical development that it hopes to find in a drama, while the Eastern mind is not deceived. The structure of the poem is in line with the writing methods of the Orientals.
(c) INTERPRETATION.
There are 3 main methods of interpretation: Allegorical, literal and symbolic. Jews have always considered the Song of Songs to be a spiritual allegory intended solely to show God’s love for Israel, his people.
The husband represents Jehovah. The beloved is Israel. The allegorical interpretation was introduced into the Christian church by Origen, whose commentary on the Song is a classic: Christ becomes the husband; the church or the individual soul is the beloved.
The literal interpretation sees in this poem a historical account that describes Solomon’s love for a Shulamite. Symbolic interpretation harmonizes the two previous methods.
The mutual love of a great king and a young woman represents the affection that unites the Lord with His people.
Just as the institution of marriage is an expression of the truth relative to the relationship of Christ with the Church (Eph. 5:31-32), this song literally referring to conjugal love created and willed by God also becomes the typological expression of the relationship of the Lord with his people.
This principle of interpretation is also evident in the messianic psalms which, based on the experiences of David and Solomon, expose the truths relative to the King of kings. For example, Ps. 45 presents us with the King, the most beautiful of the sons of men and who enters his palace resplendent (Ps. 45: 1-3, 10-16).
How can we not discern in these two passages Christ (since in Heb. 1:8-9 the passage of Ps. 45:6-7 is applied to Him) and His Wife! Cp also Rev. 19:7-9; 21:9 etc.
(d) DATE AND AUTHOR.
Date of writing and author. Not even the very interpretation of “the shepherd” (three characters) prevents attributing the poem to Solomon. The title states: “Song of Songs which is Solomon’s” (Song 1:1). This statement can be understood in Hebrew in two ways:
(A) Solomon is the author of the Song (cp. Heb. 3:1).
(B) Solomon is the subject of the poem (cp. Is. 5:1, Heb.).
Despite the ambiguity of the title, the attribution of it to Solomon is fully justified. The mood expressed by the author of the poem corresponds to what we know about this monarch.
The images that the king uses are inspired by the exotic plants in his gardens. His taste for botany and zoology is evident. The poem presents in miniature an exact description of the time of Solomon.
Supporters of a late date of writing after Solomon allege the use of Aramaic terms.
But the Song contains only three Aramaicisms, and the particularities of the syntax are limited to the use of a relative pronoun, which also appears in other writings, e.g. e.g., in the song of Deborah and in the story of Elisha.
And there is certainly no doubt that the song of Deborah is a work written many centuries before Solomon, and the story of Elisha is an ancient, pre-exilic Hebrew work.
Ewald and Hitzig have placed the Song in the golden age of Hebrew literature, in an era of great national prosperity, attributing it to a poet of the generation following that of Solomon.
These exegetes consider that the three Aramaic forms “n’tar”, keep (Song 1:6; 8:11, 12), “b’roth”, cypress (Song 1:17), “s’thav”, winter (Song 2:11) are characteristics of the dialect of northern Palestine.
This is the reason why they attribute the work to a poet from the northern kingdom. But, admitting that they are northern terms, there is no reason why Solomon could not have used them in the Shulamite part, probably originally from Shunem, of the northern part of Israel, to give the poem the twist of the northern region.
Two other words have prompted other exegetes to place the work at a date after the exile: “pardes”, garden. park (Song 4:13), and “‘appiryon”, litter (Song 3:9); “pardes” is of Persian origin: “‘appiryon” suggests the Greek term “phoreion”, palanquin.
This argument is totally worthless, since Solomon sent his fleet to Ophir, and traded with India. His merchants brought to Palestine all kinds of objects and animals with foreign names.
It is not at all strange that the sovereign gave an Aryan name to some gardens that he himself had ornamented with exotic plants.
The Song of Songs is a masterpiece where vocabulary and mystical meaning soon became authoritative.
The allegorical and mystical application of this poem, which corresponds to the image given by the prophets of the alliance between Jehovah and Israel as a marriage (Hos. 1-3; Ez. 16:8; Is. 50:1; 54: 5; 62:4; Jer. 31:22), fully justifies its presence in the canon.