Monday, 12 December 2016

Authorship, Date, message and theology of Song of Songs

Authorship, Date, message and theology of Song of Songs

Introduction
Song of Songs portrays the deep, genuine love between a man and a woman in marriage. It is a collection of love songs which clearly celebrate the joys of physical, intimate love. The songs use highly figurative and poetic language.[1] It is placed first among the five scrolls (Megilloth) in the Jewish canon used on festive season, assigned to be read at Passover.[2] The inclusion of Song of Songs in the poetical books remains enigmatic.[3] This book can be interpreted in many ways, From Christian perspective this points to the mutual commitment between Christ and His Church and the fullness of fellowship which ought to subsist between them.
1)      Title
The Hebrew title of this book is Sir has sirim that is, The song of songs or the best of songs. The Septuagint rendered this title literally as asma asmaton and the Vulgate as Canticum Canticorum both of which mean Song of Songs. It is from the Latin word canticum the term Canticles is derived as another[4] title for this book. Some English translations have kept the title “Song of Songs” (e.g., NIV, TNIV), but many have changed it to “Song of Solomon” based on 1:1 (e.g., NASB, AV, RSV, NKJV).[5]
2)      Author
Many references to Solomon throughout the book confirm the claim of 1:1 that Solomon wrote this book, and it begins with the formula which is to Solomon. Some scholars have interpreted this phrase as a formula of dedication rather than a true attribution of authorship, but it should be understood that this preposition le, “to”, is the only convenient way of expressing possession or authorship in Hebrew where the same author have composed many other works. Delitzsch, Raven, Steinmueller and Young have denied the authorship of Solomon. Richard Hess believed the writer is unknown.[6]
3)      Date
The lack of historical references in the song makes dating difficult, but much of the setting and tone reflect Solomon’s age. H.J schonfield argues for the Persian period precisely between 430 and 350.[7] Liberal scholars assign the composition of the books to a period later than tenth century B.C. Moderates like W.R.Smith and S.R Driver favored a pre exilic date, that is before 600 B.C. Radicals Kuenen, Cornill, Cheyne, Budde, Kautzsch and Eissfeldt confidently dated it in the post exelic or even Hellenistic period. W. Baumgartner assigns it to the late third century.[8] But it have been transmitted orally, added to and then given its present setting by a nameless, inspired poet around the time of exile.[9]
4)      Theories of interpretation
The interpretation of this Song helps us to know the message of it. There are numerous interpretations of this poetic composition.[10] There is great diversity and much overlapping among interpretations of the Song of Songs. The main interpretations are:
4.1 Allegorical: - This theory may be Jewish, Christian or a combination of these. The first regards the song as descriptive of the love of God and his people Israel; second discerns the love of Christ and the Church. Hippolytus and Origen introduced this interpretation into the church.[11] The nineteenth century conservatives Hengstenberg and Keil tend to favor an allegorical line of interpretation.[12] Roman Catholic understanding of this song as allegory is illustrated in the commentary of A.Robert, R.Tournay, A.Feuillet.[13]
4.2 Literal: - The literal interpretation speaks of human love or a secular love not intended to convey a spiritual message, but simply a lyric expression of human love on a high romantic plane.[14] In other words the literal view is that the book presents actual history and nothing more.[15]
4.3 Typical view: - In many ways this seems to be the most satisfactory of the theories. This interpretation is defended by Raven and Unger, who understand the poem as based upon actual historical incident in Solomon’s life.[16] The typical interpretation combines literal and allegorical views, maintaining both the historicity and the spiritualizing of the book.[17]
4.4 Dramatic: - The presence of dialogue, soliloquy[18] and choruse[19] has led to treat it as drama,[20] drama based on the marriage of Solomon to a Shulammite girl. The book is not labeled drama, which was not a widely used Hebrew literary form.[21]
4.5 Liturgical rites: - Canticles derived from liturgical rites of the cult of Tammuz,[22] or borrowed pagan liturgy associated with fertility cults.[23]
4.6 Love song or erotic literary view: - Scholars have viewed the song as a poem or collection of love poems, perhaps not connected with wedding celebration or other specific occasion.
4.7 Nupital song: - J.G.Wetzstein’s study of Syrian wedding rites fostered a fresh view of the song. Schonfield’ contention that similar wedding customs can be traced in Jewish antiquity is accepted.  J.P. Audet understands the song as an engagement pact.[24]
4.8 Didactic- Moral: - This interpretation holds that the book presents the purity and wonder of true love. It regards the book as history and also agrees that the love portrayed does direct us to the greater love of Christ, in accordance with the history of Christian interpretation.[25]   
5) Message
For many years, believers considered this book to be a revelation of God's love for the believer and the believer's love for God, expressed in vivid metaphorical language. This was the predominant viewpoint for centuries when most people did not talk about the intimacies of human physical love publicly. Some have even suggested that it is an inspired marriage manual that God has given us to enable us to develop strong marriages. The values of this book are primarily two:
5.1 Supremacy of human love
When this book was written, it was a poem about the love of two people, a man and a woman, for each other. It is a revelation of the true nature of human love and it also emphasizes the supremacy of love. Human life finds its highest fulfillment in the love of a man and a woman. God gave it to us so we could understand the nature of love primarily. God wanted us to apply that understanding: both in our love for our spouses, and in our love for our Savior. This is also the view of many contemporary evangelical scholars, including Merrill, Hubbard, and Hess. There are four things revealed in this book about human love:
i)                    The foundation of love is mutual satisfaction that is both complementary and exclusive.
ii)                  The strength of love is the strongest force in life and commitment to satisfy each other more than themselves.
iii)                To love is reaching out to his loved one with intensity and protecting her.
iv)                The fruits of love are rest in home, joy in suffering, courage, gain strength and recover from failures.
5.2 Relationship with God
Loving God was the ultimate intention of the divine Author and the belief of Jewish interpreters, as well as Christian scholars, in both Old and New Testament times. It is therefore important that we take these revelations concerning the nature of love, and apply them to our relationship with God, and not only to our relationship with our spouse.
i)                    The foundation of our love for God and His love for us is also mutual satisfaction. He satisfies our every need and our every want and He also finds satisfaction in us.
ii)                  The strength of God’s love for us can be seen on Calvary. The strength of our love for God is the extent to which we respond to Him in obedience (1 John 2:3-6).
iii)                God initiated love for us, reaching out intensely and protectively and we express our love for Him by yielding to Him and trusting in Him.
iv)                The fruit of love is the same in our relationship with God as in our relationship with another human being. We enjoy rest, joy, and courage. God does too; He experiences courage in the sense of encouragement.[26]
6)      Theology of Song of Songs
Every book of the Bible teaches us about God, and so does this one. The word God is not directly mentioned in this book, References to God have only been indirectly concluded, and also in a wisdom saying where a short form of the name Yahweh is used as a superlative: “a mighty flame / the flame of Yah” (8:6). A text’s theological base is not determined solely by the explicit presence of the name of God or if the text is ascribed to an author who lays claim to a theological context.
Song of Songs utterances can be linked to creational theology. Several parallels between this garden and the Garden of Eden have been claimed: the plants, the fruits, the spices, the rivers and the flowing water. Landy, analysis and concludes that this garden is in close correspondence to the imagery of the Garden of Eden. Since the garden is a metaphor for the woman, the beauty of the garden corresponds to her beauty. The Garden of Eden is locked and mankind has been expelled (Gen 3:22-24) but metaphorically, in Song of Songs, the woman herself is a locked garden (4:12). She does not restrain herself from her lover but opens up to him (4:16). The union of the two lovers takes place in the garden. She is a fruitful orchard (4:13.14), like a paradise. She is a fountain, a well of living waters, a stream, and she alone allows him to drink (4:15). He experiences the intimacy of two lovers, which is also the ideal within the wisdom tradition (Prov 5:15-19). Her fragrance and luxurious appearance give a sensual pleasure like the choicest food and drink. The intimacy of lovemaking is the place of recreation. Barbiero suggests that love is the way back to paradise. God is implicated in this scene and summons the lovers to become intoxicated with lovemaking, love becomes the remedy for regaining paradise. Thus there is two structural focuses namely, a wisdom teaching on the strength of love as a gift of Yahweh (8:6b.7) and an intimate scene of lovers (4:16-5:1) guaranteed by God.
Christian interpreters have extended allegorical interpretations to Christ as the bridegroom and the Church or the believer or even Mary, as the bride. Phillips identifies the bride with the church or the individual believers, the shepherd with Jesus Christ, who has won the heart of the believer or the church, and Solomon with the seducer, who leads the believers astray. In each interpretive instance the theological contribution is found in the allegorical transformation.[27]
Conclusion
Song of Songs is a book of controversies based on its title, authorship, setting, and inclusion in canonical order and interpretations but it is included because of its rich wisdom. To understand the message of this book theory of interpretations is used. The most suited interpretation is allegorical interpretation, which says that this book is about love of human and love of God, human and God’s love. There is no mentioning of the word God in this book but a shorter form of the word Yahweh can be found. This Song can be compared with creation theology and modern Christian scholars interpret allegorically to Christ as bridegroom and the church as bride. Theological contribution can be found only in allegorical interpretation.    

Bibliography
Douglas, J.D. Merril. C. Tenny. New International Bible Dictionary. Grand Rapids:           Zondervan , 1963.
Gleason L.Archer, A survey of Old Testament introduction. Chicago: Moody press, 1964
Samuel J. Schultz. The Old Testament speaks. London: Larper and Row publishers, 1960
Sanford lasor, William. David Allan Hubbard, Frederic WM Bush.  Old Testament survey.            Michigan: William B. Eerdmans publishing company
Webliography
Accessed from http://www.studylight.org/dictionaries/bed/view.cgi?n=660 on 10-02-2015 at        10:03 pm



[2] William Sanford lasor, David Allan Hubbard, Frederic WM Bush Old Testament survey, (Michigan: William B. Eerdmans publishing company), 601. (Here after cited as William Sanford lasor… )
[3] Samuel J. Schultz. The Old Testament speaks, (London: Larper and Row publishers, 1960), 295. (Here after cited as Samuel J. Schultz. The Old Testament speaks… )
[4] Gleason L.Archer, A survey of Old Testament introduction, (Chicago: Moody press, 1964), 488.  (Here after cited as Gleason L.Archer, A survey… )
[6] Gleason L.Archer, A survey… 489.
[7] William Sanford lasor…,603.
[8] Gleason L.Archer, A survey…,489.
[9]William Sanford lasor…,603.  
[10] Samuel J. Schultz. The Old Testament speaks…,296.
[11] J.D.Douglas, Merril. C. Tenny. New International Bible Dictionary, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan , 1963), 956.(Here after cited as J.D.Douglas, Merril. C. Tenny…..)
[12] Gleason L.Archer, A survey…, 492.
[13]William Sanford lasor…, 607.  
[14] Gleason L.Archer, A survey…, 492.
[15] J.D.Douglas, Merril. C. Tenny…, 956.
[16] Gleason L.Archer, A survey…, 492.
[17] J.D.Douglas, Merril. C. Tenny…, 956.
[18] An act of speaking one’s thoughts aloud when alone or regardless of hearers, especially by a character in a play
[19] Large group of singers, a part of a song which is repeated after each verse.
[20] William Sanford lasor…
[21] J.D.Douglas, Merril. C. Tenny… 956.
[22] William Sanford lasor… P.609
[23] J.D.Douglas, Merril. C. Tenny… 956.
[24] William Sanford lasor…, 608, 609.
[25] J.D.Douglas, Merril. C. Tenny… 957.

No comments:

Post a Comment

‘LOGOS’ ‘LOGOS CHRISTOLOGY’

  Introduction The mystery which lies in the foundations of Western civilization is that of logos. Logos is the only word which defines al...