This Interpretation Involves a Traditional  3 Character Shepherd Theme. It is also considered as a 3 Act Dramatic layout. A major argument against this interpretation had been the objection of the inability to find a clear plot worthy of a dramatic production. The solution comes from the testimony of Scripture itself. The woman and main character is considered to be Abishag, King David's nurse during his last days. Unlike other more popular approaches of interpretation of this book, we believe that any devotional application should only follow from a more scholarly understanding of the place and theme of the book hermeneutically. The clear allegorical implications later arise from a literal analysis of the entire book, understanding its main themes and only then applying the significance for Christ and the Church.  

 

 

 Hermeneutics and The Song of Solomon

  

Since the late 20th and in this 21st Century the questions and conclusions about interpreting the Scriptures have risen to a new level. Since the establishment of the Old Testament Scriptures by the Massorites up through the early Church, interpretation had been almost an assumed tradition, mainly in a distinct Hebrew style. This was a mixture of literalistic, poetic/allegorical,  Midrashic and Pesher  understanding during the Apostolic Period.*   

*See Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period, by Richard Longenecker. My copy is an earlier one - 1975, from Eerdmens, but there is a 1999 2nd edition from Grand Rapids. Also a more recent paper by Peter Enns; Associate Professor of Old Testament at Westminster Theological Seminary, in the Fall 2003 Issue of the Westminster Theological Journal , titled "Apostolic Hermeneutics and an Evangelical Doctrine of Scripture: Moving beyond a Modernist Impasse".

Because of the poetic nature of the Song and its very subjective content, even Evangelical scholars that would never allow such a hermeneutic process in any other Scriptural texts have resorted to, what in effect is, a devotional, non-scholastic approach to the book. With the exception of Delitzsch and a relatively few others, this book has been abandoned to the homileticians, minor scholars and, in the Charismatic circles, the  writings of those in a "Prophetic Ministry". Although some of these writers have used a limited exegetical study, they have had little use for responsible hermeneutics. Of course, everyone who reads the Scriptures, whether they are aware of it or not, practice hermeneutics. Gordon Fee says the question is if it is good or bad hermeneutics. (How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth).

In the web page presenting the outline, I give a summarized description of certain hermeneutic approaches and references, along with a "coincidental" parallel with the man, Jesus. Most mainline Evangelical hermeneutics considers authorial intent of prime importance. This is also true of Gordon Fee's book, mentioned above. Professor Enns (also mentioned above), as well as many Evangelicals are re-thinking the limitations of the effects of rationalism upon interpretation. Some are finding fresh insights and a deepened spiritual relationship with God. One such man I recommend is Walter Brueggemann, at Columbia Theological Seminary in Georgia. Brueggemann advocates a hermeneutics of perspectivism, and considers the metaphor of drama a solution to the extremes of what he calls, the "tyranny of academic criticism" and the "hegemony of ecclesial authoritarianism". (Texts Under Negotiation: The Bible and Postmodern Imagination, Fortress Press, Minneapolis, 1993) pg 66-67 .

We are beginning to rethink much of our "old" modernist ways, and adjusting our paradigms to a more Hebrew way of thinking. Reconsidering the objective-subjective dead end of enlisting science and rationalism as adjudicators of Scripture, we again rest that it is by Faith that we relate to the Lord and His Kingdom. Perhaps the more subjective and pastoral interpretation of Song of Solomon is not too far from the Holy Spirit's intention. The presentation included here certainly allows for that, as well. Now that, for me, is what authorial intention really means.

8224.24 "What justification is there for theory that Canticles is an allegory of the love between Yahweh and His people, or of the love of Christ and the church, or of the love of the soul of the believer and Christ?  It must be frankly confessed that there is not a hint in the Song itself that it is an allegory.  If the modern reader of Canticles had never heard of the allegorical interpretation, nothing in the beginning, middle or end of the poem would be likely to suggest to his mind such a conception of the poet's meaning." 

As the writings are obviously (dramatic?) poetry, it is perfectly common and to be expected that one move from the natural to the symbolic with possible allegorical considerations. Poetry among the Hebrews was an integral linguistic tool used throughout even prophetic and historical Scriptures. As even thinking was often ordered in a poetic manner, the Hebrew mind saw things more as inclusive than in objective precision.  A problem with starting with an allegorical interpretation is, unless one understands the context, allegory moves too quickly and without direction. Because of subsequent reader's inability to experience the writer's world view, the classic hermeneutic problems come into play. Finding the writer's intention and context is at least the place one needs to start. Without this foundation the interpreter either ends up with a collection of separate sub-poems with words long ago divorced from modern understanding, or too quickly allegorizes without any context except the words and phrases themselves.

The question that a literal interpretation alone is inappropriate does not necessarily mean a literal context is out of order. As in the interpretation of natural science, the most objective and simple explanation should be the first considered.  Also, early Apostolic Hebrew hermeneutics were a mix of literal and allegorical interpretations.(* Enns)

8224.29 \Sober inquiry discovers no sufficient justification of the allegorical interpretation of the Song of Songs. The pages of the mystical commentators are filled with artificial interpretations and conceits. Many of them practice a familiarity with Christ that is without example in the Biblical devotional literature.

This is another argument from silence.

8224.32 \The way for this modern typical interpretation was prepared by Lowth (Sacred Poetry of the Hebrews, Lectionaries XXX, XXXI) in his modified allegorical view, which is thus described by Canon Driver: "Bishop Lowth, though not abandoning the allegorical view, sought to free it from its extravagances; and while refusing to press details, held that the poem, while describing the actual nuptials of Solomon with the daughter of Pharaoh, contained also an allegoric reference to Christ espousing a church chosen from among the Gentiles" (LOT, 451). Few interpreters have been found to follow Theodore of Mopsuestia and Lowth in their view that the Song celebrates the marriage of Solomon and an Egyptian princess; and Lowth's notion of a reference to the espousal of a church chosen from among the Gentiles is one of the curiosities of criticism. Of the typical interpreters Delitzsch is perhaps the ablest (Commentary on Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs).

Some different thinking on the "Egyptian Connection" can be found at  http://www.viewzone.com/sheba3.html .

8224.36 \Herder in 1778 published a remarkable little treatise entitled Lieder der Liebe, die altesten und schonsten aus dem Morgenlande, in which he advanced theory that Canticles is a collection of independent erotic songs, about 21 in number, which have been so arranged by a collector as to trace "the gradual growth of true love in its various nuances and stages, till it finds its consummation in wedlock" (Cheyne).  But the greatest and most influential advocate of the literal interpretation of Canticles was Heinrich Ewald, who published the 1st edition of his commentary in 1826. It was Ewald who first developed and made popular theory that two suitors compete for the hand of the Shulammite, the one a shepherd and poor, the other a wise and wealthy king.  In the Song he ascribes to Solomon 1:9-11,15; 2:2; 4:1-7; 6:4-13 (quoting the dialogue between the Shulammite and the ladies of the court in 6:10-13); 7:1-9.  To the shepherd lover he assigns few verses, and these are repeated by the Shulammite in her accounts of imaginary or real interviews with her lover.  In the following passages the lover described is supposed to be the shepherd to whom the Shulammite had plighted her troth: 1:2-7,9-14; 1:16 through 2:1; 2:3-7,8-17; :1-5; 4:8 through 5:1; 5:2-8; 5:10-16; 6:2 f; 7:10 through 8:4; 8:5-14.  The shepherd lover is thus supposed to be present in the Shulammite's dreams, and in her waking moments she is ever thinking of him and describing to herself and others his many charms.  Not until the closing scene (Song 8:5-14) does Ewald introduce the shepherd as an actor in the drama.  Ewald had an imperial imagination and a certain strength of mind and innate dignity of character which prevented him from dragging into the mud any section of the Biblical literature.  While rejecting entirely the allegorical theory of Canticles, he yet attributed to it an ethical quality which made the Song worthy of a place in the Old Testament.  A drama in praise of fidelity between human lovers may well hold a place beside Ecclesiastes and Proverbs in the Canon.  Many of the ablest Old Testament critics have followed Ewald in his general theory that Canticles is a drama celebrating the loyalty of a lowly maiden to her shepherd lover. Not even Solomon in all his glory could persuade her to become his queen.

In Closing Hints and Suggestions, John Richard Sampey states:

8224.40 \(1) Canticles is lyric poetry touched with the dramatic spirit. It is not properly classed as drama, for the Hebrews had no stage, though much of the Old Testament is dramatic in spirit. The descriptions of the charms of the lovers were to be sung or chanted.

8224.41 \(2) The amount that has to be read between the lines by the advocates of the various dramatic theories is so great that, in the absence of any hints in the body of the book itself, reasonable certitude can never be attained.

 

(USE IN CONTEXT -CHECK OUT web site for minimalist/maximalists Debate: http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Miller_Malarkey.htm)

 The reader should consider if the points above are valid and if the present interpretation renders them as insignificant.

--------------

ISBE, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 1915, 1st Edition, from Dr. Stanley Morris, IBT, 1997. Original unabridged edition. James Orr, M.A., D.D. General Editor. John L. Nuelsen, D.D., LL.D. Edgar Y. Mullins, D.D., LL.D. Assistant Editors. Morris O. Evans, D.D., PhD. Managing Editor. (Melvin Grove Kyle, D.D., JJ.D. Revising Editor. Revision published in 1939 by Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.)