Allegory
All night long on my bed I looked for the one my heart loves; I looked for him but did not find him. Song of Songs 3:1 NIV
Did not find – There is little doubt that the erotic poem of Song of Songs has caused consternation among translators and commentators. Read as tongue-in-cheek intimations, it oozes sexuality, often challenging cultural mores. As a result, both Jewish and Christian scholars have vociferously asserted that this poem must be read as allegory. For example, consider the comments on Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik book, And From There You Shall Seek:
“Rabbi Soloveitchik’s understanding of the love story follows the tradition of allegory—indeed, in a footnote he insists that the narrative must not be interpreted according to its plain meaning. What he takes the allegory to convey is the love of the created for the Creator and of the Creator for the created.”[1]
“What is the significance of a lover who yearns yet hides, a longing bride who conceals herself? The Rav understands this strange ‘game’ in terms of his own allegorical interpretation. The Creator loves the created, but the Creator nevertheless ‘rests in a hidden place.’ The created loves the Creator, but nevertheless refuses to open the door. That is to say: God does not reveal Himself fully; and man retreats from God just at the moment of a potential encounter.”[2]
Allegory is a legitimate interpretive scheme, but only if the author tells you what the allegory is about. If he or she doesn’t, then the interpreter can offer whatever reading he wishes, and that is usually tempered by the interpreter’s own sensitivities and culture, more often than not obscuring the original. Such is the case on both sides of the aisle with Song of Songs. Neither Jewish nor Christian commentators wish the song to be disguised sexuality. But if we read the text as it is in Hebrew, the sexual overtones and inuendoes are very hard to ignore. I don’t need to provide examples here, but in lectures I have given on this poem, the grit of the text certainly comes through. What I emphasize is that this poem, perhaps more than anything else in Scripture, reveals the thoughts of the reader since it is the mind of the reader who will see something hidden in the text. Modern civilization prior to its utter decimation of morality saw something scandalous, and provided theological frameworks to avoid that scandal. Perhaps we have stepped away from such obfuscation, but in doing so we may have treated the text as only an ancient, sexually-loaded love poem. That would be just as much a mistake. We should learn caution from the early rabbis who questioned whether the text should even be in the canon, but we should also recognize that the ancient Semitic world didn’t have the same Victorian layers that we have inherited. Real biblical interpretation requires an openness and an awareness of our own bias.
Topical Index: Song of Songs 3:1, allegory
[1] David Shatz and Reuven Ziegler, “Introduction” in Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, And From There You Shall Seek, trans. Naomi Goldblum (Ktav Publishing House, 2008), p. xiii.
[2] Ibid.
Thanks for the reminder of this enigma Skip. To be honest I have never given the book Song of Songs much thought.
I was brought up with the interpretation that it is allegory. I have heard of other interpretations of love poem. I went to Chabad.org and read Rashi’s notes and clearly he interprets as allegory. And I have to agree with your statement; “Allegory is a legitimate interpretive scheme, but only if the author tells you what the allegory is about. If he or she doesn’t, then the interpreter can offer whatever reading he wishes, and that is usually tempered by the interpreter’s own sensitivities and culture, more often than not obscuring the original. Such is the case on both sides of the aisle with Song of Songs.”
So, do we need it or not? Should it be in the canon or not?
Can it be used, probably, for some obscure theology?
What is to be learned from it? I am filled with more questions than answers.
I did a series on Song of Songs some time ago, looking at all the different approaches. I think it’s very valuable because it places sexual intimacy within the framework of Scripture. It’s a polar opposite from our usual Victorian ideas, and it shows that the people of the ancient world were quite aware and in touch with all these emotions.
I am up kind of late or early depending on your view. It is 2 am here in Phoenix. I think it is about 11am there so good morning.
“Real biblical interpretation requires an openness and an awareness of our own bias”.
Emet! But then that essential for interpretation is made relatively subjective… and intimate… which may perhaps be the intent. What could be more intimate (or gritty) than personal exposure brought to bear personally and intimately by the nature, complexion, and cast of the text?
“All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness, in order that the person of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:16-17) “But the scripture imprisoned all under sin, in order that the promise could be given by faith in Jesus Christ to those who believe.” (Galations 3:22)
Years ago I quoted a couple of lines from this poem to a girl, “your neck is like the tower of David and your breasts are like two fawns, twins of a gazelle…”…it flopped, so I’m guessing this is allegory. However, we’ve been married 45 years now, so maybe something invisible is going on. At the very least it certainly did reveal my thoughts at the time.
Well, both rabbis and pastors WANT it to be allegory. After all, it sounds too sexy for the Bible. But, in fact, this is an ancient erotic poem, with its typical tongue-in-cheek allusions.