BCSpace Posted August 30, 2011 Posted August 30, 2011 Since we don't accept the Song of Solomon as an inspired text, why is it still included in our canon? Why doesn't the Church issue a new edition of the Bible with the Song of Solomon removed?I think it would be an inspired move to leave it in and actually refer to it from time to time. Erotic love between married couples is a good thing and it seems to me that some LDS couples still have a difficult time with that due to some very uninspired myths and traditions about sex in the LDS Church. The SoS could be used to help break the ice in those cases or prevent them from happening altogether. Of course I'm assuming that can get the gist of the KJV language.
volgadon Posted August 30, 2011 Posted August 30, 2011 It sounds a great deal like the poetry that accompanied the marriage of Inanna (Mesopotamian fertility goddess) and Dumuzi. The marriage rite is necessary for the kings of Mesopotamia to factor into their resumes to claim any kind of real authority. Maybe this was Solomon's attempt at justification of his kingship?? If David Bokovoy is out there he will must certainly destroy my presumptuous logic.At least one problem with this theory is that the couple in SoS is rather obviously unwed.
Calm Posted August 30, 2011 Posted August 30, 2011 At least one problem with this theory is that the couple in SoS is rather obviously unwed.I was going to point that out along with some of the rape imagery, but then I thought better of it...but since you mentioned it. I think it was David B. that pointed out just how explicit and violent the book actually was but it was awhile back and likely lost in the ether.
volgadon Posted August 30, 2011 Posted August 30, 2011 I was going to point that out along with some of the rape imagery, but then I thought better of it...but since you mentioned it. I think it was David B. that pointed out just how explicit and violent the book actually was but it was awhile back and likely lost in the ether.The give-away should be that they aren't living together and sneak off to secret, secluded rendezvouses.
Calm Posted August 30, 2011 Posted August 30, 2011 The give-away should be that they aren't living together and sneak off to secret, secluded rendezvouses.Maybe they are just living with the parents.
Maidservant Posted August 30, 2011 Posted August 30, 2011 I'm in the "keep the Song of Solomon" camp, and find myself seconding BCSpace, although everyone's comments all around makes sense also.
jadams_4242 Posted August 30, 2011 Posted August 30, 2011 There has already been more than enough removed from the KJV of the Bible. Why remove more? Thank you!
Zakuska Posted August 30, 2011 Posted August 30, 2011 (edited) I was going to point that out along with some of the rape imagery, but then I thought better of it...but since you mentioned it. I think it was David B. that pointed out just how explicit and violent the book actually was but it was awhile back and likely lost in the ether.As I said earlier.... I take all that violent imagery purpotrated by the "watchmen" of all people to be indications of the Apostasy and how the church was rapped and pilaged by force during the dark ages, by the very people who were supposed to be protecting her. Its Johns Apocolyptic image of the woman being chased into the wildernesst by the dragon and being persecuted.Daniel seems to be eluding to it as well.Daniel 11:1717 He shall also set his face to enter with the strength of his whole kingdom, and upright ones with him; thus shall he do: and he shall give him the daughter of women, corrupting her: but she shall not stand on his side, neither be for himOf course I might be up in the night with this. Edited August 30, 2011 by Zakuska
blackstrap Posted August 30, 2011 Posted August 30, 2011 Point of clarity. Scripures were not so much removed from the KJV but were not put in to the final compilation.This happened because of disagreement as to the validity of the texts,or because they were unavailable or whatever.
thesometimesaint Posted August 30, 2011 Posted August 30, 2011 blackstrap:What do you make of the Catholic version of the Bible which is longer than the KJV used by the Protestants?
LeSellers Posted August 30, 2011 Posted August 30, 2011 Point of clarity. Scripures were not so much removed from the KJV but were not put in to the final compilation.This happened because of disagreement as to the validity of the texts,or because they were unavailable or whatever.Your point had been made earlier:There has already been more than enough removed from the KJV of the Bible. Why remove more?The obvious inference here is that it is the AV (aka KJV) from which the books you allude to have been removed, when, in fact, it is from the generally accepted, Roman-imposed (albeit slightly modified) canon, not the AV per se et solo. You are absolutely right: we have lost too much of the original scriptures God caused to be written. I am grateful so much of the doctrine has been restored through the Doctrine and Covenants, the Book of Mormon, and the Pearl of Great Price (among others of lesser volume). This was precisely what Joseph meant in the VIII Article of Faith, and what Nephi was talking about when he lamented their loss. Lehi
blackstrap Posted September 1, 2011 Posted September 1, 2011 If one reads several of the more "modern" translations of the Bible,one can easily see what it left out and what is squeezed in to adjust the text to present a particular agenda.Consider the translation where the phrase"Son of God" is replaced with "Child of God" when refering to Christ so as to make it gender neutral. I have one of the earlier Spanish editions of the BoM,I also have one printed just a couple of years ago.Same language but quite a bit different "language".Scripture tone is affected. I once had a book which claimed to show many of the writings about the boyhood years of Christ. I could not make it through the first chapter as it portrayed Christ in such an unflattering light.If such was like texts rejected by the Bible Compilation Committee I have sympathy. Perhaps some sweet infants were thrown out with the bathwater by some Committee decisions but it was pretty filthy water.
Ron Beron Posted September 1, 2011 Posted September 1, 2011 At least one problem with this theory is that the couple in SoS is rather obviously unwed.I have been back and forth on this one because there seems to be many inconsistencies. Upon a little research I discovered that the notable S.N. Kramer made some comments on the Canticles or SofS. One of the prevailing mythologies in OT study is that the Song of Songs is really adramatic "script" that has been preserved for us by the Jewishcommunity as part of Holy Scripture only because its true nature has beenobscured and forgotten. Whether one attempts to reconstruct the drama as CalvinSeerveld has done,1 complete with stage directions, new music for the oldlyrics, and woodcuts to illustrate scenery and wardrobe (or lack of it), orwhether with S. N. Kramer we conclude that Canticles, "in our undoubtedlyexpurgated form,"2 includes some "passionate and rhapsodic love songs. . . which are cultic in origin and were sung in the course of the hierosgamos or 'sacred marriage' between a king and a votary of Astarte, theCanaanite goddess of love and procreation whom even so wise a Hebrew king asthe great Solomon worshipped" (1 Kgs 11:5),λ thebasic issue is really to what literary genre the Song of Songs belongs.Although Kramerrefrains from actually saying that Canticles is a sacred marriage rite as itnow stands, his argument strongly suggests that this is precisely the case. Itis only on this ground, he argues, that the sensuous, erotic book "thatfairly reeks of love and passion, of lust and desire . . . passed the sharpeyes of the austere, puritanical rabbis to whom chastity, virginity, and sexualpurity were sacrosanct." 4 He goes on to say that in his opinion thetheory proposed by T. J. Meek that the Song is "a modified andconventualized form of an ancient Hebrew liturgy celebrating the reunion andmarriage of the sun god with the mother goddess which had flourished inMesopotamia from earliest days" is "essentially sound andconstructive, in spite of the fact that a number of assumptions, influences,and arguments have turned out to be erroneous, wholly or in part." JOURNAL OF THE EVANGELICAL THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY, IS THE SONG OF SONGS A "SACRED MARRIAGE" DRAMA? " G. Lloyd Carr*,2 (June 1979)103-114Another book on this and well worth the look is Kramer's, The Sacred Marriage Rite: Aspects of Faith, Myth, and Ritual in Ancient Sumer (Bloomington: Indiana University, 1969) 99.
zerinus Posted September 1, 2011 Posted September 1, 2011 (edited) Since we don't accept the Song of Solomon as an inspired text, why is it still included in our canon? Why doesn't the Church issue a new edition of the Bible with the Song of Solomon removed?Joseph Smith removed the Song of Solomon from the scriptural canon as part of his Inspired Translation of the Bible; and since the Church is not currently using the JST as its the official Bible (although extracts are quoted from it), there is no point in just removing the SoS. When some day all of the missing bits of the Bible has been revealed, and the the Church decides to use it as its official Bible, then all the necessary changes will be made to it, including removing the SoS.Just for the record, I personally don't think that the book of Ecclesiastes is inspired scripture either. It is a book of wisdom literature, of which there are hundreds of examples still extant from the ancient world. Wisdom literature was highly prized in the ancient world, and all major Asiatic and Near-Eastern cultures and civilizations had them. Al-Mutanabbi in Arabic, Saadi in Persian, Confucius in Chinese are just a few typical examples. Some of these wisdom literatures are superior in quality to the book of Ecclesiastes. If Ecclesiastes deserves to be classified as scripture, then all of them should be.I did a Google search for wisdom literature, and didn't get very intelligent results. The search results focused mainly on Biblical and Hebrew wisdom literature; and even when you exclude "Bible" and "Hebrew" from the search (you can do that by putting a "-" sign in front of it), it still doesn't come up with very intelligent results. All I can conclude is that wisdom literature is not properly appreciated or studied in the Western world. Even biblical wisdom literature is not correctly categorized or identified. For example, the book of Job is classed as wisdom literature, along with Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Solomon. I wouldn't classify the book of Job as wisdom literature. It is genuine scripture; whereas the Song of Solomon is definitely not—and in my personal opinion, Ecclesiastes is not either. Edited September 1, 2011 by zerinus
thesometimesaint Posted September 1, 2011 Posted September 1, 2011 zerinus:Some would have the Bible consist only of the first couple of chapters of Genesis and the writings of Paul. Martin Luther did not like James at all, and hated the Sermon on the Mount. IMNTBHO The Saints should be looking for ways to expand our canon, and not reduce it. 1
altersteve Posted September 1, 2011 Author Posted September 1, 2011 Thanks for the insights, everyone. I wasn't trying to say that the SoS should be removed, I was merely wondering what it hasn't been. But now I understand, so thank you.
LeSellers Posted September 1, 2011 Posted September 1, 2011 Thanks for the insights, everyone. I wasn't trying to say that the SoS should be removed, I was merely wondering what it hasn't been. But now I understand, so thank you.If you are truly satisfied, and don't want this topic to remain open, you can contact the mods (use the Contact Us link at the top of every page) and ask to have it closed.Lehi
altersteve Posted September 1, 2011 Author Posted September 1, 2011 If you are truly satisfied, and don't want this topic to remain open, you can contact the mods (use the Contact Us link at the top of every page) and ask to have it closed.LehiNot at all. I feel satisfied with the answer I've found, but there seems to be a good discussion going on.
Ron Beron Posted September 1, 2011 Posted September 1, 2011 zerinus:Some would have the Bible consist only of the first couple of chapters of Genesis and the writings of Paul. Martin Luther did not like James at all, and hated the Sermon on the Mount. IMNTBHO The Saints should be looking for ways to expand our canon, and not reduce it.I would get rid of Paul too. Such a usurper!
Ron Beron Posted September 1, 2011 Posted September 1, 2011 zerinus:Some would have the Bible consist only of the first couple of chapters of Genesis and the writings of Paul. Martin Luther did not like James at all, and hated the Sermon on the Mount. IMNTBHO The Saints should be looking for ways to expand our canon, and not reduce it.I would get rid of Paul too. Such an usurper!
Robert F. Smith Posted September 3, 2011 Posted September 3, 2011 I was asking you what was removed from the KJV specifically.The 1611 KJV (the first edition) and even the 1828 Phinney KJV and nearly all those in between included the Apocrypha. They have since been removed from the KJV.
Robert F. Smith Posted September 3, 2011 Posted September 3, 2011 Point of clarity. Scripures were not so much removed from the KJV but were not put in to the final compilation.This happened because of disagreement as to the validity of the texts,or because they were unavailable or whatever.The actual 1611 KJV always included the Apocrypha until the 19th century A.D., when busybodies began removing it.
zerinus Posted September 3, 2011 Posted September 3, 2011 I would get rid of Paul too. Such a usurper!I am sure you would.
Ron Beron Posted September 4, 2011 Posted September 4, 2011 I am sure you would.I was joking. Although, I would keep him around for putting away the chairs.
Recommended Posts