Grace
Theological Journal 1.2 (Fall, 1980) 221-31.
Copyright © 1980 by Grace
Theological Seminary; cited with permission.
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 hea