Song of Solomon = "Biblical Trash"?

[Ron Beron]

Well, it is Near Eastern pornography.

In view of the Song's original intent, as well as the fact that the lovers are not married, later efforts by Jews and Christians to allegorize the sexual exploits of the fornicators is in my view a bit odd, but to each his own.

As a Master's student, I took an entire semester's course on the text in Hebrew and learned a lot about biblical poetry and Near Eastern views concerning pornography, which have been tremendously helpful in my studies, but like the Prophet Joseph, I've never viewed the Song as inspired scripture.

Do you really think it is pornography or just great kingship/fertility literature? I think that many of us 'moderns' are disconnected from the primary concerns of the ancients, i.e., fertility as it leads to vital society. When I read the Song of Songs I can see the erotic elements of the text, but I don't necessarily see it as pornographic but suggestive of a vivified kingship which connotes societal virility with sexual virility. I agree, though that it isn't inspired yet instructive into the mind of the ancient.

[katherine the great]

Do you really think it is pornography or just great kingship/fertility literature? I think that many of us 'moderns' are disconnected from the primary concerns of the ancients, i.e., fertility as it leads to vital society. When I read the Song of Songs I can see the erotic elements of the text, but I don't necessarily see it as pornographic but suggestive of a vivified kingship which connotes societal virility with sexual virility. I agree, though that it isn't inspired yet instructive into the mind of the ancient.

I'm not nearly as well studied on this as some on this board, but I know that our definition of pornography is very different than many ancient peoples. There are some mighty shocking pieces of art that were discovered in the entrances and family rooms of the Minoans, but the meaning was quite different and inoffensive to them.

[volgadon]

Do you really think it is pornography or just great kingship/fertility literature? I think that many of us 'moderns' are disconnected from the primary concerns of the ancients, i.e., fertility as it leads to vital society. When I read the Song of Songs I can see the erotic elements of the text, but I don't necessarily see it as pornographic but suggestive of a vivified kingship which connotes societal virility with sexual virility. I agree, though that it isn't inspired yet instructive into the mind of the ancient.

If you read it in Hebrew, the pornographic elements are blindingly obvious. As to the origins, the SoS is far more like profane Egyptian love songs in style and scope than Sumerian erotic liturgy. There are also parallels with later songs, but those are weaker in this context.

[David Bokovoy]

If you read it in Hebrew, the pornographic elements are blindingly obvious. As to the origins, the SoS is far more like profane Egyptian love songs in style and scope than Sumerian erotic liturgy. There are also parallels with later songs, but those are weaker in this context.

I agree with my Jewish Brother, here. The poems in the Song fit the Near Eastern genre of a wasif. They are highly explicit and designed to produce a specific response on the part of a male audience.

It's clearly an important biblical text, but I agree with the Church's position on the issue of its "inspiration."

[katherine the great]

So what was the purpose of it being written and how did it come to be included in sacred Hebrew scripture?

[Ron Beron]

I agree with my Jewish Brother, here. The poems in the Song fit the Near Eastern genre of a wasif. They are highly explicit and designed to produce a specific response on the part of a male audience.

It's clearly an important biblical text, but I agree with the Church's position on the issue of its "inspiration."

David, are you saying that there a zero elements of the Inanna/Dumuzi scenario here? Is it simply pornography in print? Like Katherine why its inclusion?

[David Bokovoy]

David, are you saying that there a zero elements of the Inanna/Dumuzi scenario here? Is it simply pornography in print? Like Katherine why its inclusion?

I do not see the original intent reflecting a divine marriage/sexual encounter. Again, we're talking premarital relations.

Why certain texts were included and excluded in the process of canonization is a complicated affair. I believe that it impart simply reflects an issue of popularity rather than spiritual worth. Personally, I'm a much bigger fan of 1 and 2 Maccabees than the Song of Songs.

When it comes to the issue of inspiration, I would take those books any day over the Song of Songs.

[volgadon]

My personal theory is that it was included so that the congregation would have something to look forward to.

The song, or parts of it, was possibly sung by girls hanging out in the vineyards hoping to attract suitors.

There is evidence (Akiva's own words) to show that during Akiva's day it was sung in 'taverns' as well as being a wedding song, much like the Egyptian ones were. Because weddings were often held during or close to holidays, that would help explain how it began to be seen as an allegory.

Akiva's influence was the deciding one. Before him, the sages were often divided as to whether or not it was a sacred work.

The SoS was not considered a sacred work until the Great Assembly (aacording to Jewish lore) decided to interpret them, settling all contradictions and controversy. This was probably closer to the Maccabbee period than Ezra's.

[volgadon]

David, are you saying that there a zero elements of the Inanna/Dumuzi scenario here? Is it simply pornography in print? Like Katherine why its inclusion?

The biggest problem is the absence of any references to divinity, which are rife in the Inana-Dumuzi liturgy. Without those references, the Inana-Dumuzi songs would not be different from a profance wasf.

[volgadon]

Let me put the Jewish interpretations into a rough chronology.

Sometime between Ezra and Alexander the Great's succesors, according to Jewish tradition there functioned a great assembly of 120 sages who reformed Jewish religious life and the way that the scriptures were taught and even what script they were written in. Avot de-Rabbi Natan, an early medieval Jewish source (the literature of the Geonim), states that. "At first it was said that Proverbs and the Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes were kept hidden, for they said fables are they and not of the Writings [scripture], and stood and put them away. Until there came the men of the great assembly and interpreted them."

How I read it is that after the return from exile, there were found several sets of old writings of uncertain status attributed to Solomon. Those in charge (Ezra and co., quite possibly) examined them and after finding them uninspired (probably because of the worldy nature of those books), filed them away. Sometime during the next 200 years, members of the great assembly decided to re-examine them and gave them a new, allegorical interpretation and thus admitting them into the cannon. Now, whether or not this occured during that period is debateable.

The tradition sprung up that Hezekiah and Isaiah convened a council and wrote down the poems composed by Solomon. Baba Batra 15, the Babylonian Talmud.

The Babylonian Talmud records a dispute over the cannon of the Tanakh between several of the sages, in part over the inclusion of SoS. In the end it was decided that the SoS does defile the hands (IE ablutions would have to be performed after touching it, thus it is sacred). This can be found in the first chapter of the Megillah tractate.

"A book [of the Law, in] which [the writing] is obliterated, but which still contains eighty-five letters, [a number] equal to the Parasha ‏ויהי בנסוע הארון‎, 12 makes the hands unclean. Any Megillah 13 which contains eighty-five letters, [a number] equal to the above named Parasha, makes the hands unclean. All sacred scriptures make the hands unclean. 14 The Canticles and Ecclesiastes make the hands unclean. R. Jehudah saith, "Canticles make the hands unclean, but Ecclesiastes is [subject to] a dispute [difference of opinion]." R. Jos

[BCSpace]

What do you think? Is Song of Solomon uninspired and pornographic, or is it an inspired allegory which contains deep spiritual insights?

Whatever it is, it should remain canon and used to help married couples with religious hang-ups about having lots of joyful, playful sex.

[Connolly]

Inspired or not, unless you treat your spouse with a similar adoration, all the rest of the scriptures won't do you much good.

[katherine the great]

Volgadon: Thanks for the chronology. It was very informative.

[volgadon]

Katherine, thanks.

I think that unless one takes the highly figurative approach of R. Akiva which was adopted by Origen, then the weight of evidence, internal, external and prophetic is against the SoS as scripture, whatever its other merits.

[zerinus]

Bruce R. McConkie said in a 1984 talk at BYU called "The Bible: A Sealed Book" that "the Song of Solomon is biblical trash â?? it is not inspired writing." The JST manuscript (OT MS 2, pg. 97, CofC Archives), shown also in a footnote in the LDS scriptures, says "The Songs of Solomon are not Inspired writings."

In contrast though, in the Jewish tradition, Rabbi Akiva Ben Joseph (c. 45-135 AD) declared, "Heaven forbid that any man in Israel ever disputed that the Song of Songs is holy. For the whole world is not worth the day on which the Song of Songs was given to Israel, for all the Writings are holy and the Song of Songs is holy of holies." (Mishnah Yadayim 3:5).

I know that EV's sometimes criticize LDS over the Song of Solomon issue as well.

What do you think? Is Song of Solomon uninspired and pornographic, or is it an inspired allegory which contains deep spiritual insights?

I donâ??t believe the Song of Solomon is an inspired book; and I have my doubts about the book of Ecclesiastes too.

zerinus

[Anijen]

To many Rap (Songs of Solomon) is music, even though I do not care for Rap, others do, so yes SoS is there but it doesn't uplift me like Beethoven which of course would be the gospels IMO.

[prisonchaplain]

IMHO, if we start with the presupposition that a particular book is not inspired, we could go through the entire Bible and discount every one. In contrast, if we accept the canon, we can justify, allegorize, and learn great truths from each one--including the Song of Solomon. I grew up in church knowing that the SoS was "spicy," but also beautiful love poetry. Doesn't deconstruction get depressing after awhile???

[David Bokovoy]

IMHO, if we start with the presupposition that a particular book is not inspired, we could go through the entire Bible and discount every one. In contrast, if we accept the canon, we can justify, allegorize, and learn great truths from each one--including the Song of Solomon. I grew up in church knowing that the SoS was "spicy," but also beautiful love poetry. Doesn't deconstruction get depressing after awhile???

Not nearly as depressing as reading about gang rapes and fornication, i.e. the focus of the Song of Solomon. I also agree that the book of Ecclesiastes is not inspired with its theme "eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die."

[Anijen]

IIRC in that same talk he also said Ruth and Esther were interesting and that's about it and Jude really didn't need to be there.

Yup, BRC was opinionated but I still love him.

[Jason]

I also agree that the book of Ecclesiastes is not inspired with its theme "eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die."

That's what Ecclesiastes says is the world's wisdom, not the actual theme of the book.

I haven't ever found anything of spiritual value in the Song of Solomon.

[volgadon]

IIRC in that same talk he also said Ruth and Esther were interesting and that's about it and Jude really didn't need to be there.

Yup, BRC was opinionated but I still love him.

Here is what BRM actually said:

But in my opinion they are not all of equal worth. The Gospels, particularly the Gospel of John, are worth their weight in gold. Acts is not far behind them. Paul's epistles, Romans being the chief and Philemon the least, are treasure houses of doctrine and wise counsel. The writings of Peter and James, plus 1 John, rank as though written by angels; 2 and 3 John are of no special moment; Jude is worthwhile, at least; and for those with gospel understanding, Revelation is a foundation of divine wisdom that expands the mind and enlightens the soul. In the Old Testament, Genesis is the book of books, a divine account whose worth cannot be measured. Exodus and Deuteronomy are also of surpassing worth. Numbers, Joshua, Judges, the Samuels, the Kings, and the Chronicles are all essential history, interwoven with deeds of faith and wonder that form a background for an understanding of the Christian faith. Leviticus has no special application to us and, except for a few passages, need not give us permanent concern. Ruth and Esther are lovely stories that are part of our heritage. The Psalms contain marvelous poetry, and the portions that are messianic and that speak of the last days and the Second Coming are of great import. Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Lamentations are interesting books; Job is for people who like the book of Job; and the Songof Solomon is biblical trash - it is not inspired writing. Ezra, Nehemiah, Obadiah, and Jonah are the least of the prophets; and all the rest of the prophets - Isaiah above them all - each in his place and order set forth the doctrinal and prophetic word that must be studied in depth.

[prisonchaplain]

Not nearly as depressing as reading about gang rapes and fornication, i.e. the focus of the Song of Solomon. I also agree that the book of Ecclesiastes is not inspired with its theme "eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die."

I've never read SoS to be about gang rape. It happened in the course of the story. True life. The incident is not glorified, encouraged--it's part of the trauma in this love story. Was Jesus not severely molested in his pursuit of our reconciliation with the Father? BTW, there are other Scriptures with stories of incest, etc. Where does this "holier than the Scriptures" deconstruction end?

As for Ecclessiastes, the point comes at the end: the meaning of life is to fear God and obey his commands. That book is perhaps the best example of narrative preaching in the Bible.

[JLFuller]

I've never read SoS to be about gang rape. It happened in the course of the story. True life. The incident is not glorified, encouraged--it's part of the trauma in this love story. Was Jesus not severely molested in his pursuit of our reconciliation with the Father? BTW, there are other Scriptures with stories of incest, etc. Where does this "holier than the Scriptures" deconstruction end?

As for Ecclessiastes, the point comes at the end: the meaning of life is to fear God and obey his commands. That book is perhaps the best example of narrative preaching in the Bible.

You use the term fear God. In our theology that actually means respect or revere. We fear God in the sense that we fear and tremble at the thought of facing Him in our unclean or unholy state. What does your church teach?

[zerinus]

I also agree that the book of Ecclesiastes is not inspired with its theme "eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die."

The book of Ecclesiastes is wisdom literature; and not a particularly good one either. It is a book of worldly wisdom. It does not strike me an inspired book in the sense of sacred scripture. Wisdom literature was highly prised in ancient cultures and civilizations, and all ancient societies had them. You will find examples of it in all Eastern cultures and languages inluding Arabic, Persian, Sanscrit, and Chinese, to name a few; and some of these wisdom writings are of a higher quality than Ecclesiastese. Confucius is a good example from Chinese. There are many more in the languages mentioned.

zerinus

[zerinus]

That's what Ecclesiastes says is the world's wisdom, not the actual theme of the book.

That is how he recommends one should live one's life:

Ecclesiastes 8:15 "Then I commended mirth, because a man hath no better thing under the sun, than to eat, and to drink, and to be merry: for that shall abide with him of his labour the days of his life, which God giveth him under the sun."

Of course, by that he does not mean that one should forget God. But still, his wisdom is a worldly one. It does not sound like sacred writ to me.

zerinus