Behold King Solomon on the Day of His Wedding: A Symbolic-diachronic Reading of Song 3,6-11 and 4,12-5,1 (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium, 320) 9789042944756, 9789042944763, 9042944757

Citation preview

“BEHOLD KING SOLOMON ON THE DAY OF HIS WEDDING” A SYMBOLIC-DIACHRONIC READING OF SONG 3,6-11 AND 4,12–5,1 NINA S. HEEREMAN

“BEHOLD KING SOLOMON ON THE DAY OF HIS WEDDING” A SYMBOLIC-DIACHRONIC READING OF SONG 3,6-11 AND 4,12–5,1

BIBLIOTHECA EPHEMERIDUM THEOLOGICARUM LOVANIENSIUM

EDITED BY THE BOARD OF EPHEMERIDES THEOLOGICAE LOVANIENSES

Louis-Léon Christians – Joseph Famerée – Éric Gaziaux – Joris Geldhof Arnaud Join-Lambert – Mathijs Lamberigts – Johan Leemans Annemarie C. Mayer – Olivier Riaudel (secretary) Matthieu Richelle – Joseph Verheyden (general editor)

EDITORIAL STAFF

Rita Corstjens – Claire Timmermans

UNIVERSITÉ CATHOLIQUE DE LOUVAIN LOUVAIN-LA-NEUVE

KU LEUVEN LEUVEN

BIBLIOTHECA EPHEMERIDUM THEOLOGICARUM LOVANIENSIUM CCCXX

“BEHOLD KING SOLOMON ON THE DAY OF HIS WEDDING” A SYMBOLIC-DIACHRONIC READING OF SONG 3,6-11 AND 4,12–5,1

BY

NINA S. HEEREMAN

PEETERS LEUVEN – PARIS – BRISTOL, CT

2021

A catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. ISBN 978-90-429-4475-6 eISBN 978-90-429-4476-3 D/2021/0602/103 All rights reserved. Except in those cases expressly determined by law, no part of this publication may be multiplied, saved in an automated data file or made public in any way whatsoever without the express prior written consent of the publishers. © 2021 – Peeters, Bondgenotenlaan 153, B-3000 Leuven (Belgium)

For my parents whose mutual love and fidelity has been for me the living symbol revealing Christ’s spousal love for the Church

PREFACE

The present publication represents the slightly revised version of my doctoral dissertation defended at the École Biblique et Archéologique de Jérusalem in co-tutelle with the University of Fribourg in October 2017. Before I present this book to the public, it is my happy duty to publically acknowledge my gratitude to the people without whose help it would never have seen the light of day. In the first place, I want to thank my parents for their unconditional love and support through the ups and downs of this adventure. Hans Buob, UAC who was the first to introduce me to the spousal mystery of the Song of Songs. Thank are due also to my thesis directors: Marc Avila, OMV, supervisor on behalf of the École Biblique and Philippe Lefebvre, OP, on behalf of the University of Fribourg. Avila’s openness to a fresh approach to the traditional reading of the Song, combined with an unpaired philological know-how and eagle eye for any misplaced yota and inconsistency in the argumentation, was of immeasurable help in the redaction of the thesis. Lefebvre’s keen “rabbinic” spirit and sensitivity to the hidden nuptial symbols traversing the Bible opened my mind to new horizons. After many years spent in minutely dissecting the Word of God in my previous studies, his courageously intuitive way of reading the Bible was a healing experience for me, setting me free to trust my own intuitions. Moreover, faced with some fierce objections to my project, his defense and chivalrous support did honor to the medieval roots of his order. My heartfelt gratitude extends to my two additional readers for working their way through a dissertation of 900 pages: Gary Anderson, who sacrificed his autumn break and endured the associated jet-lag to give me the honor of having him on my defense committee. Minus the jet-lag, Ludger Schwienhorst-Schönberger went through the same trouble, for which I am equally grateful. I furthermore thank him for many fruitful discussions on the topic over the years. His own pioneering scholarship and eager readiness to share his most recent research with me both prepared the way for the present thesis and were an immeasurable support. I want to thank the Dominicans of the École for having offered me the opportunity to write my doctorate in this august and extraordinary place, and for having sheltered me in the bosom of their convent for almost 6 years. The same gratitude goes also to the generous hospitality of the Dominican community in Fribourg. The bi-annual, week-long visits at the Albertinum

X

PREFACE

are among the most beautiful memories of my time as a doctoral student. I equally thank the Franciscaines Missionaires de Marie for their warm hospitality during my final year, witness of prayer, and cozy accommodations in “Tabor”. A particular word of gratitude is due to Émile Puech who prepared a fresh reconstruction of all four Qumran Canticle scrolls just for the purpose of this study. In fact, the key argument for a religious intention in the Song’s final composition hinges substantially on Puech’s work. In this regard, I also thank Torleif Elgvin for having directed my attention to the different versions represented in Qumran and for many fruitful discussions on the topic. To Kevin Stephens, OP, immense thanks are due for his generosity and skill and for his help with handling the electronic version of my thesis, which on multiple occasions he saved from the abyss of a word-processing apocalypse. I express my gratitude to my proofreaders, Fr. Shane Deman and Fr. Wenifredo Padilla, OP, who both read and corrected the entire thesis at two different stages of its genesis. Yes, blessed are the fault-finders, because they will not go empty – but still more blessed the author who can count on such friends. The responsibility for all remaining errors is, of course, entirely my own. I thank my benefactors without whose support it would have been impossible to accomplish this work: First and foremost, Prinz Emanuel zu Salm whose substantial, generous, and loyal financial support over almost eight years has uniquely made it possible that I consecrate my life to the study of the Word of God. Moreover, the Swiss Friends of the École Biblique, Johann Gamberoni †, and Katharina and Carlos Mendez de Vigo who covered the additional costs of my stay in Jerusalem. The publication of this book would not have been possible without the financial aid of Lucille Sanchez Correa, who generously offered to bear all the expenses from the editing to the proofreading of the manuscript. While financial support is essential for any scholarly work, without a fraternity of family and friends the costs of such challenging study would be too high to endure. I thank my siblings for their constant love and support. I thank Lorenzo Gasparro, Fr. Henri Vallançon, Raul Luna Miranda, Bieke Mahieu and Sr. Aniela for their encouraging, sympathetic, and always welcome companionship. More than anyone I owe thanks to Anthony Giambrone, OP. Words cannot express my gratitude, nor acknowledge the enormous merits he has in this project. Uncountable are the hours he spent cheering me up with his matchless humor, scholarly advice, faith-filled council, prayers, and

XI

PREFACE

penance, in the face of ever new obstacles to the defense of this thesis and both the prenatal and postpartum depressions that accompanied the delivery of this book. There is not a single idea in this doctorate which he did not hash and re-hash with me, helped me to sharpen, reformulate, and bring to full fruition, not a single page which he did not read at least twice. Blessed the one who finds a friend like him! Happy the students who will write their doctoral thesis under his direction. Finally, a word of thanks to the editors of BETL for having accepted to publish my work in this excellent series. Nina HEEREMAN Jerusalem, Israel January 9, 2020

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PREFACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ABBREVIATIONS

IX

SIGLA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

XXV

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1

CHAPTER 1: STATUS QUAESTIONIS – REENERGIZING

3

AND

THE DEBATE . . . I. “Elegantly Fashioned Contempt”: The Consensus in Song Scholarship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Historical Trend: From Divine to Profane Love. . . . . . . . . 2. Current Opinion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. “Elegantly Fashioned Contempt” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. Main Arguments of the Consensus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a) God Is Not Mentioned in the Song . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b) Allegory Should Be Explicit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . c) No Kinship to the Prophets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . d) Wisdom Literature Is Creation Theology. . . . . . . . . . . . e) Bilderverbot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . f) The Allegorical Sense Is Not the Literal Sense . . . . . . . II. Objections to the Consensus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Theological Dissatisfaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a) Why Was the Song Canonized?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b) Is the Entire Jewish and Christian Tradition Wrong? . . c) Inspiration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . d) Loss of Theological Relevance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . e) Gen 2,23-25 Unfolded . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . f) Significance by Canonical Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Exegetical Resistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a) Both … And . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b) Canonical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . c) Synchronic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . d) Redactional-Intertextual Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . e) Intertextual . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . f) Neo-Allegorical Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Hermeneutical Objections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a) Allegoresis ≠ Allegory. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b) Allegory Is Part of the Literal Sense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3 3 6 10 11 11 11 12 13 14 14 15 15 15 17 17 18 19 20 22 23 25 26 28 29 30 38 38 40

XIV

TABLE OF CONTENTS

III. The Present Thesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Basic Alignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a) Answers to the Exegetical Postulates against Reading the Song as an Allegory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b) Anachronism of the Naturalistic Reading . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Adjustments: Taking My Stance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Reframing the Question . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a) Limitations of the Synchronic Approaches . . . . . . . . . . b) Limitations of Allegory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. Symbolic-Diachronic Approach. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV. Development of the Argument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

41 41 42 49 59 62 62 63 65 67

PART I HERMENEUTICS AND PRESUPPOSITIONS

CHAPTER 2: SEEKING

THE SENSUS LITERALIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I. Seeking the Sensus Literalis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. The “Established Fact” of Manifold Meaning . . . . . . . . . . 2. The Classical Notion of Sensus Literalis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a) Practical Identification of the Figurative with the Spiritual Sense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b) Figurative Speech Belongs to the Literal Sense . . . . . . 3. Modern Literary Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a) “Intentional Fallacy” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b) Intentio Operis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . c) Intentio Auctoris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. On Authors and Texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a) Redactors and Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b) Urtext Fallacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. Points of Intersection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II. Choosing the Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Distinguishing Intertextual Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a) Intertextuality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b) Inner-Biblical Exegesis and Allusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. From Überlieferungsgeschichte to Inner-Biblical Exegesis a) Transmission History (Überlieferungsgeschichte) . . . . . b) Traditionsgeschichte . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . c) Inner-Biblical Exegesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Relevance for the Song . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

73 74 75 76 78 80 83 84 85 86 88 88 90 91 92 92 93 93 94 94 95 96 98

TABLE OF CONTENTS

XV

a) Urtext Fallacy in Song Exegesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 b) Traces of Inner-Biblical Exegesis within the Song . . . . 99 c) Adopting a Hermeneutical Lens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 III. Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 CHAPTER 3: METAPHOR – ALLEGORY – SYMBOL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I. Metaphor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. The Function of Metaphor in Communication . . . . . . . . . . a) The Theory of Substitution and Its Deficiency . . . . . . . b) Theory of Interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . c) Relevance for the Song. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Metaphors Belong to Image Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a) Bildfeld – Image Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b) Relevance for the Song. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Conflict of Sense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a) Intentio Operis and Intentio Auctoris Intersect . . . . . . . b) Relevance for the Song. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II. Allegory. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. The Aesthetic Rejection of Allegory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. The Rhetorical Definition of Allegory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. New Literary Approaches to Allegory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. Relevance for the Song . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III. Symbol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Symbol as Manifestation of the Sacred . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a) Perpetuations of Hierophanies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b) Aspects of Depth in Symbolic Revelation . . . . . . . . . . . c) “History” and the Expressive Power of Symbol . . . . . . 2. Symbol as a Semantic Phenomenon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a) Symbol as Distinct from Other Signs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b) Symbol as Distinct from “Logic Symbol” . . . . . . . . . . c) Symbol as Distinct from Allegory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . d) Symbol as Distinct from Metaphor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . e) Characteristics of Symbols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Relevance for the Song . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. Interpreting Symbols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV. Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 4: HISTORICAL POSTULATES: FROM COMPOSITION TO CANON

107 108 109 109 111 114 117 117 119 121 121 122 123 124 125 127 131 132 135 135 136 138 139 141 144 145 148 150 153 155 158

165 I. Literary Unity and Structure of the Song . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 1. The “Author” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168

XVI

II.

III.

IV.

V.

VI.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2. Unity of Characters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. The Overall Structure of the Song. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a) Structuring Elements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b) Chiastic Structure? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. Indicators of an Original Disunity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Charting the Song’s Composition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Content-Related Arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Language-Related Arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. A Different Angle: From the Cult to King Solomon . . . . . The Qumran Manuscripts and Their Implications . . . . . . . . . . 1. The Textual Witnesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a) 4Q106 (4QCanta) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b) 4Q107 (4QCantb) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Abbreviated Text or Different Version? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a) “Abbreviated” Texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b) Variant Editions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. 4Q106 and 4Q107 in View of a Redactional Growth. . . . . a) 4Q106 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b) 4Q107 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Testimony of the LXX Version of the Song . . . . . . . . . . . 1. A First Century A.D. Translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Hints of a Possible Symbolic Understanding . . . . . . . . . . . a) The Toponyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b) A King Bound in Tresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . c) The Adjuration Formula . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . d) Breasts or Love-Making in Song 1,2.4; 4,10; 7,13?. . . e) Righteousness Has Loved You. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “Canonization” and the Early History of Interpretation . . . . . 1. The Rabbinic Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a) Rabbi Akiva, “Canonization” and the “Allegorical” Interpretation of the Song . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b) Further Rabbinic “Evidence” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Further Early Traces of an Allegorical Interpretation . . . . . a) 4 Ezra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b) Rev 3,20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. An Afterthought on “Canonization” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

169 170 172 175 177 177 179 191 194 201 202 203 211 223 223 224 228 228 229 236 238 239 242 242 249 250 252 259 260 261 263 263 266 268 268 271 272 273 275

TABLE OF CONTENTS

XVII

PART II THE PHENOMENOLOGY OF THE SYMBOL

CHAPTER 5: THE SONG

OF SONGS AND THE WISDOM OF THE KING . . I. The Consensus: Solomon, Wisdom, and the Song . . . . . . . . . 1. The Song as Creation Theology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. A Mistake in Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Solomonic Books . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II. The Divorce and Remarriage of Wisdom and History . . . . . . 1. Wisdom and History Opposed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. The Merging of Wisdom and History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a) Wisdom and History in Classical Wisdom Books . . . . . b) Cracks in the Wall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III. Wisdom and the Person of the King . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Wisdom Motifs in the Song . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Wisdom’s Role in the ANE Royal Ideology . . . . . . . . . . . . . a) Kingship and ANE Creation Myths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b) Kingship in Biblical Creation Mythology . . . . . . . . . . . 3. King Solomon the Wise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a) Solomon’s Wisdom as a Royal Prerogative . . . . . . . . . . b) Solomon’s Wisdom and the Temple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV. Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

279 281 281 283 286 288 288 290 291 296 297 297 300 300 307 313 315 316 320

CHAPTER 6: SACRED MARRIAGES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

325 325 326 327 329 332 333

I. Wedding Songs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Syrian Wedding Festival Customs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Alleged Parallels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Counterarguments to the Wedding-Song Theory . . . . . . . . II. Rehabilitating Sacred Marriage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Sacred Marriage in ANE Studies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Comparative Song Scholarship: The Classical Cult Hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a) Theophile Meek: Fertility Cult . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b) Geo Widengren: Divine Kingship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . c) Hartmut Schmökel: Cultic Drama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . d) Samuel Kramer: Tammuz and King Solomon . . . . . . . e) Helmer Ringgren: Cultic Origin But Not Cultic . . . . . . f) Basic Elements of the Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. The Dismissal of the Cult Hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a) Weaknesses of the Cult Hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

337 338 340 340 341 342 343 344 344

XVIII

TABLE OF CONTENTS

b) Preference for “Secular” Poetry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. Nissinen’s “Critique of the Critique” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III. Nabû and Tashmetu: Love in the Sanctuary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. The Ritual . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Parallels between The Love Lyrics and the Song of Songs a) Similarities in Poetic Style . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b) Similarities in Symbolic Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. An Afterthought on the “Secular” Nature of the Egyptian Love Poetry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV. The Biblical Adoption of the Sacred Marriage Metaphor . . . . 1. The Presence of Sacred Marriage Cults in Israel . . . . . . . . 2. The Prophets’ Appropriation of the Marriage Symbol . . . . a) Israel as the Divine Consort (Hos 2,16-25) . . . . . . . . . . b) YHWH as Asherah (Hos 14,6-9) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. In Defense of Diversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a) Jerusalem Personified . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b) Sacred Marriage as Source of Wisdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. A Hypothetical Sitz im Leben . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V. Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 7: SYMBOLIC LOVE

AND PERSONIFICATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . I. The Marital Symbol in the Prophets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Some General Observations on the Marital Symbol . . . . . . a) The Diachronic Genesis of the Symbol . . . . . . . . . . . . . b) A Performative Symbol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . c) A Dynamic Symbol: From Legalism to Love . . . . . . . . d) A Symbol of Israel’s History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Covenant as Marriage in Hosea 1–3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a) The Broken Covenant (Hos 1,2-9) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b) Covenant Restored: Three Oracles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Allusions to the Prophets in the Song . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. Summing Up . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II. Psalm 45: The Wedding of the (Messianic) King . . . . . . . . . . 1. Parallels between the Song and Psalm 45 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Similar Histories of Interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a) Form Criticism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b) The Anthological Method and Redaction Criticism . . . 3. A Symbolic “Messianic” Wedding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. Psalm 45 within the First Group of Korah Psalms . . . . . . . 5. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

345 347 352 352 355 356 359 371 378 379 385 385 390 392 393 397 401 408 411 412 412 412 417 419 423 426 427 435 443 447 449 449 451 452 453 454 459 460

TABLE OF CONTENTS

III. Personifications of Israel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Susanna. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Jephthah’s Daughter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Judith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV. Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

XIX

461 465 468 470 471

PART III RECONSTITUTING THE SONG’S SYMBOLIC HERMENEUTIC

CHAPTER 8: CLUES

FOR A SYMBOLIC MEANING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I. Names and Epithets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Dôḏî ‫ דודי‬. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a) The Occurrences of the Root ‫ דוד‬. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b) The Meaning of Dôḏî . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . c) Dôḏî an Epithet for YHWH? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . d) David the Beloved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Solomon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. The Shulammite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a) The Shulammite and Abishag from Shunem . . . . . . . . . b) The Shulammite, Shelomo, and Jerushalaim . . . . . . . . . 4. The Epithet Dove . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II. The Beloved as Jerusalem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. The Beloved and Mother Zion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. The Beloved as a Royal Urban Architecture. . . . . . . . . . . . 3. The Song of the Little Sister (Song 8,8-10) . . . . . . . . . . . . a) The Little Sister, a Fortified City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b) The Little Sister, a City of Peace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III. Sacred Geography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Historical Toponyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. The Ideal Borders of Israel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Symbolic Toponyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV. Plants and Flowers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V. Symbolic Numerals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI. The Shepherd-King . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Love Triangle (Hirtenhypothese) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Travesty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a) Wetzstein’s “Syrische Dreschtafel” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b) Literary Travesty and Egyptian Love Poems . . . . . . . . . c) Literary Travesty and Greek Bucolic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

477 477 478 478 479 481 486 486 488 488 490 491 492 492 494 496 497 500 502 502 503 508 509 510 517 518 519 519 520 523

XX

TABLE OF CONTENTS

3. Editorial “Glosses” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. Inner-Biblical Interpretation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. The Shepherd as an ANE and Biblical Symbol for Kingship a) The Shepherd-King in the ANE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b) The Shepherd-King in the Bible. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. The Shepherd-King in the Song . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII. Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

525 526 527 528 529 539 549

CHAPTER 9: FOR SOLOMON

THE MESSIANIC KING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I. The Solomonic Ascription . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. “By Solomon” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. “Concerning Solomon” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Original Ambiguity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. Excursus: “Messianic” – “Messiah” – “Messianism” . . . II. The Construction of the Figure of Solomon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. The “Historical” Solomon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. The Two Faces of Solomon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a) Solomon, an Ambiguous King (1 Kings 3–11) . . . . . . . b) Solomon, There Was None Like Him (Neh 13,26) . . . . c) Solomon, You Were Beloved in Your Peace (Sir 47,1221) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . d) Solomon, the Royal Adam in His Garden . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Solomon the Ideal King (1–2 Chronicles). . . . . . . . . . . . . . a) The Chronicler’s Typological Ages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b) Solomon the Son of David par excellence. . . . . . . . . . . 4. Solomon the Messianic King (Psalm 72) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. The Messiah, a Solomon-like Figure (Zech 9,9-10) . . . . . . 6. Simon the Maccabee, a Solomonic Messiah (1 Macc 14,4-15) 7. The Messiah, a Son of David (Psalms of Solomon 17) . . . 8. Summing Up . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III. Song of Songs Which Is for Solomon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV. Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

551 551 553 556 557 560 567 569 571 571 579

CHAPTER 10: SOLOMON’S WEDDING (SONG 3,6-11) . . . . . . . . . . . . .

623 623 623 624 625 636 636 637 638

I. Preliminaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Position within the Song . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Text and Translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Text-Critical and Philological Annotations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. Poetic Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a) Delimitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b) Poetic Unity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . c) Strophe Division . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

580 582 591 593 598 606 612 613 615 617 617 619

TABLE OF CONTENTS

XXI

d) Narrative Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . e) Discursive Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . f) Literary Motif: “Royal Wedding” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. Sitz im Leben or Sitz im Buch? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a) Epithalamium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b) Burlesque or Travesty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . c) A Cultic Hymn in Kunstdichtung . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II. Plain Sense: A Close Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. “Who Is This?” (Song 3,6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a) “Like a Column of Smoke” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b) “Smoking with Myrrh and Frankincense”. . . . . . . . . . . c) “With All Powders of the Merchants” . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. “The Litter of Solomon” (Song 3,7-8) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a) “Mighty Men” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b) “The Terror in the Night” (Song 3,8) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. “The Palanquin” (Song 3,9-10) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. “King Solomon on the Day of His Wedding” (Song 3,11) . . . 5. Some Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III. Symbolic Sense: Who Is the Bride? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Götterwagen and ANE Kings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a) Egyptian Parallels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b) Mesopotamian Parallels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. David and the Ark (2 Samuel 6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a) Parallels with the ANE Liturgical Chariot Procession . . b) David’s Enthronement and Dynastic Line . . . . . . . . . . . c) Sacred Marriage Reminiscences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . d) Who Is David’s Consort? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. The Day of King Solomon’s Wedding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a) Solomon’s Litter: The Ark of the Covenant . . . . . . . . . b) Solomon’s Wedding: The Dedication of the Temple . . c) Who Is Solomon’s Spouse? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . d) Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV. Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

639 640 641 642 643 644 644 645 646 651 652 657 657 658 660 661 666 669 669 671 674 675 682 682 685 688 691 697 697 707 712 716 716

CHAPTER 11: THE WEDDING

721 721 721 723 724 736 737 739

OF THE GARDEN-BRIDE (SONG 4,12–5,1) I. Preliminaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Positioning within the Song . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Text-Critical and Philological Annotations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. Poetic Analysis and Structure of Song 4,12–5,1 . . . . . . . . . a) The First Strophe: Song 4,12-15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b) The Second Strophe: Song 4,16–5,1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

XXII

TABLE OF CONTENTS

II. Plain Sense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. The Garden-Bride (Song 4,12) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a) “Bride – ‫ ”כלה‬. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b) “My Sister” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . c) “A Closed Garden” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . d) “A Sealed Spring” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. “A Paradise” (Song 4,13-14) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a) “Your Shoots” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b) “Paradise” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . c) “Pomegranate” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . d) “With Choicest Fruits”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . e) The Aromatic Plants of the Garden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. “Spring of Gardens” (Song 4,15) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a) “Well of Water” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b) “Living Water”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . c) “Flowing from Lebanon” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. Invocation of the Winds and the Lover (Song 4,16) . . . . . a) “Wake up North” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b) “Let My Lover Come”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. The Union of the Lovers (Song 5,1a-d) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. The Wedding Banquet (Song 5,1e.f) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7. Some Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III. Symbolic Sense: Who Is the Bride? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. The Garden Symbol in the ANE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a) Entering Temple Gardens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b) The “Garden of Abundance” in Assyrian Royal Ideology c) The “Paradise” Gardens in the Persian Royal Ideology d) Royal Gardens in Jerusalem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. The Garden Symbol in Biblical Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . a) Paradise in the Past: Echoes of a Lost Eden . . . . . . . . . b) Expectation of a New Eden: Echoes of a Promised Eden c) Solomon’s Union with Lady Wisdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. The Wedding of the Garden-Bride, Song 4,12–5,1 . . . . . . IV. Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CHAPTER 12: SYNTHETIC RETROSPECT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

740 740 741 743 746 747 750 750 752 753 755 756 761 762 764 766 769 770 772 773 778 779 780 783 784 790 794 798 800 801 805 808 812 814

819 I. The Contemporary Debate: Efforts to Overturn One-Sided Exegesis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 819 1. Naturalistic Consensus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 819 2. Discontented Voices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 820

TABLE OF CONTENTS

3. “Contempt” of the Literal Sense? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II. A New Approach: The Symbolic-Diachronic Bridge from Composition to Canon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. In Defense of the Sensus Literalis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Symbol Not Allegory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Solomonic Redaction(s) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III. Overturning Objections: Putting King Solomon at the Center 1. Solomon, the Perfect ANE King . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Love Lyrics and the Cult Hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Rethinking the Prophetic Connection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV. On the Offensive: The Messianic King and Israel as Bride . . 1. Symbolic Personifications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Mapping the Shulammite as Israel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Solomonic Adscription and the Shepherd-King . . . . . . . . . . . . V. Second Naïveté: Reencountering the Symbols of Solomon’s Wedding and the Royal Garden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Solomon’s Wedding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. The Royal Garden-Bride . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI. The Community of Readers: Messianic Wirkungsgeschichte and the Meaning of the Song . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Messianic Expectation in the Targum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Messianic Fulfillment in the New Testament . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Paths for Future Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

XXIII

822 823 824 825 826 828 829 830 834 837 837 838 840 842 842 844 847 847 850 855

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 859 INDEX OF AUTHORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 919 INDEX OF BIBLICAL REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 935 INDEX OF OTHER REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 971

ABBREVIATIONS AND SIGLA

References to biblical verses always follow the Hebrew versification of BHQ, and if not yet edited, the BHS. Unless otherwise noted translations of biblical verses are my own. Where translations of other non-English sources have been published, citations will be to the translation, not to the original language. Unless otherwise noted, all definitions of Hebrew words are from HALOT. The sigla of the biblical books, as well as abbreviations of ancient sources, that is, apocrypha, pseudepigrapha, DSS, the works of Philo and Josephus, as well as Rabbinic and Targumic texts and classical and ancient Christian authors, if not defined otherwise below, are taken from P.H. ALEXANDER et al. (eds.), The SBL Handbook of Style for Biblical and Related Disciplines (Atlanta, GA, 22014). ABG ABL ABRL AJSL AnBib AncB AOAT ArBib ATD BBB BETL BHQ BHS Bib BibG BibRev BiLiSe BIS BiTS BKAT BM BN BTCB BWANT BZ BZAR BZAW BZNW CAD CB.OT

Arbeiten zur Bibel und ihrer Geschichte R.F. HARPER, Assyrian, and Babylonian Letters (Chicago, 1892-1914) Anchor Bible Reference Library American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures Analecta Biblica Anchor Bible Alter Orient und Altes Testament The Aramaic Bible Das Alte Testament Deutsch Bonner Biblische Beiträge Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium Biblica Hebraica Quinta Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia Biblica Biblische Gestalten Bible Review Bible and Literature Series Biblical Interpretation Series Biblical Tools and Studies Biblischer Kommentar. Altes Testament Museum siglum, British Museum, London Biblische Notizen Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament Biblische Zeitschrift Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft The Assyrian Dictionary of the University of Chicago (Chicago, 1956ff.) Coniectanea Biblica. Old Testament

XXVI

CBQ CCSL CHANE CT DCSL DJD ÉB ETCSL ETL FAT FLP FOTL FRLANT GCS HALOT HAT HBS HkAT HSM HSS HThKAT HTR HUCA ICC IDB IM JAAR JAOS JBL JBTh JCS JNES JNSL JSJSup JSOT JSOTS JSSt KAR KAT KEHAT LA LCL LeDiv LeDivHS LHB/OTS

ABBREVIATIONS AND SIGLA

Catholic Biblical Quarterly Corpus Christianorum. Series Latina Culture and History of the Ancient Near East Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum (London, 1896ff.) Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Studies Discoveries in the Judaean Desert Études Bibliques Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses Forschungen zum Alten Testament Museum siglum, Free Library of Phildadelphia Forms of the Old Testament Literature Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller W. BAUMGARTNER – L. KÖHLER – J.J. STAMM (eds.), The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament Handbuch zum Alten Testament Herders Biblische Studien Handkommentar zum Alten Testament Harvard Semitic Monographs Harvard Semitic Studies Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament Harvard Theological Review Hebrew Union College Annual International Critical Commentary The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible Museum siglum, Iraq Museum, Baghdad Journal of the American Academy of Religion Journal of the American Oriental Society Journal of Biblical Literature Jahrbuch für Biblische Theologie Journal of Cuneiform Studies Journal of Near Eastern Studies Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament. Supplement Series Journal of Semitic Studies Keilschriften aus Assur religiösen Inhalts (Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen der deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft, 28) Kommentar zum Alten Testament Das Kurzgefasste Exegetische Handbuch zum Alten Testament Studii Biblici Franciscani Liber Annuus Loeb Classical Library Lectio Divina Lectio Divina Hors Série The Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies

ABBREVIATIONS AND SIGLA

MAD MDOG NEB.AT NICOT NTOA OBO ÖBS OTL OTM OTS PEQ PG PL QD RB RevScRel RHPhR RIMA RivBib RSR RThom RTP SAA SBLAIL SBLDS SBLEJL SBS SC SJOT STT TBü TDOT ThWAT TIM TS UBL UCOP UF VAT VL VT VT.S WBC WdO WMANT

XXVII

I.J. GELB, Materials for the Assyrian Dictionary (Chicago, 19521970) Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient Gesellschaft Neue Echter Bibel. Altes Testament New International Commentary on the Old Testament Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis Österreichische Biblische Studien The Old Testament Library Oxford Theological Monographs Old Testament Studies Palestine Exploration Society Patrologia Graeca Patrologia Latina Quaestiones Disputatae Revue Biblique Revue des Sciences Religieuses Revue d’Histoire et de Philosophie Religieuses The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Assyrian Periods (Toronto, 1987ff.) Rivista Biblica Recherches de Science Religieuse Revue Thomiste Revue de Théologie et de Philosophie State Archives of Assyria Society of Biblical Literature. Ancient Israel and Its Literature Society of Biblical Literature. Dissertation Series Society of Biblical Literature. Early Judaism and Its Literature Stuttgarter Bibelstudien Sources Chrétiennes Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament O. GURNEY – J. FINKELSTEIN, The Sultantepe Tablets, I/II (London, 1957/1964) Theologische Bücherei Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament Texts in the Iraq Museum (Baghdad – Wiesbaden, 1964ff.) Theological Studies Ugaritisch-Biblische Literatur University of Cambridge Oriental Publications Ugarit-Forschungen Museum siglum, Vorderasiatisches Museum, Berlin (Vorderasiatische Abteilung. Tontaflen). Vetus Latina Vetus Testamentum Supplements to Vetus Testamentum Word Biblical Commentary Die Welt des Orients Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament

XXVIII

WUNT ZAW ZDMG ZNW ZTK

ABBREVIATIONS AND SIGLA

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche

INTRODUCTION

The Song of Songs is a theological work in its literal sense. For centuries this was recognized by the overwhelming majority of its readers. Allegorical modes of thought, however, obscured and complicated this basic insight for modern students of the text, so that for more than a century now scholars have failed to understand the central meaning of the Song. While new approaches rightly affirm the book’s extraordinary exploration of human love, the book’s profoundly religious, covenantal perspective has been eclipsed and even openly rejected. Both exegetical and theological dissatisfaction with this prevailing assessment of the Song has led a number of contemporary scholars to propose, once again, different forms of interpretation that perceive a “spiritual” or “theological” dimension in the text. It is thus increasingly admitted that human and divine love are not mutually exclusive. This new openness to the Song’s theological significance, however, has not settled the genuine challenge posed by modern exegesis. A decisive question still remains. Was the Song originally intended to celebrate the love between God and his people? Or was it, in fact, originally only a profane love song, which at a secondary stage – because of its inclusion in the canon – came to be interpreted theologically? Several scholars have recently argued that the Song was, in fact, originally meant as an allegory. This position, however, risks losing the anthropological value of the Song, treating the literal sense merely as a springboard for reaching the theological meaning. My thesis is situated within this line of renewed interest in an original theological intention on the level of the text’s production. The argument, however, is that the Song is neither an allegory of divine-human love, nor a mere human love song. Rather, by adopting a symbolic language, the Song is able to express the realities of divine love in and through human love, thereby giving full expression to both dimensions. In order to substantiate and advance this view I introduce a new hermeneutical refinement into the discussion, giving careful consideration to different orders of textual meaning (i.e. “metaphor”, “allegory”, and “symbol”) in order to better understand what precisely we mean in speaking of the sensus literalis. The success of this symbolic approach owes much to its diachronic method. In particular, it is able to assimilate a redactional analysis of the Song’s composition in which the personage of Solomon plays a remarkable

2

INTRODUCTION

and increasingly significant role (i.e. “Solomonic Redaction”). This prominence of Israel’s legendary king is plotted within an identifiable ancient near-eastern (ANE) royal ideology marked by an unmistakably religious orientation. This ideology in turn opens the door to a phenomenology of the kingship symbol by which certain aporias are resolved and the poetics of the text recover their full force. Two major objections leveled against a theological reading of the Song are answered through this symbolic-diachronic reading. First, the Song, so the argument goes, is found among wisdom literature and can therefore only treat the created reality of human love. This is a grave category mistake, however, which confounds the Song’s canonical position among the Solomonic books with the form-critical definition of wisdom literature – to which the Song undisputedly does not belong. By virtue of its genre, however, the Song is a species of love lyric which belongs – just like wisdom literature – to the domain of ANE royal ideology, the implications of which are developed at length in connection with sacred marriage. Against this background of royal ideology a second objection is also addressed. This objection seeks to drive a wedge between the prophetic use of the nuptial symbol and the Song. In fact, both are biblical adaptations of the sacred marriage ideologies so common in the cultures surrounding Israel. In the end, I identify the Solomonic ascription of the Song as the hermeneutical key to the whole book. While the significance of this attribution is usually reduced to an understanding of Solomon as the “patron of love” or “Solomon the wise”, here the perspective is broadened to read the book within the whole spectrum of connotations that a late Second Temple period audience would have associated with the fabled king. The figure of Solomon is in fact inseparable from the First Temple of Jerusalem, the memory of which occupied biblical writers particularly during the Second Temple period. Allowing for this broader perspective illuminates the many liturgical allusions within the Song and opens up multiple resonances with other biblical traditions. In this interpretative light, I demonstrate how the multivalent symbolic language of “Solomon’s wedding” (Song 3,6-11) and the “garden poem” (Song 4,12–5,1) give expression to the transcendent reality of divine-human love in the poetic representation of love between a man and a woman.

CHAPTER 1

STATUS QUAESTIONIS – REENERGIZING THE DEBATE

I. “ELEGANTLY FASHIONED CONTEMPT”: THE CONSENSUS IN SONG SCHOLARSHIP 1. Historical Trend: From Divine to Profane Love While the Song of Songs1 was one of the scriptural texts most commented on until the time of the Enlightenment, nowadays it has nearly disappeared entirely from Old Testament theology. Until the eighteenth century it was the almost undisputed tenet of both Jewish and Christian tradition that the text constituted an allegory on the love of God for his people Israel2, or, in the Christian development of that same thought as the love of Christ for his Church3, or for the single baptized soul. Theological interpretations ranged from the Christological (Irenaeus of Lyon), to the ecclesiological (Origen, Gregory the Great), to the mariological (Rupert of Deutz), or to the spiritual or personal (Bernard of Clairvaux)4. The main approach to the interpretation remained nonetheless allegorical, regardless of its different developments. 1. Subsequently referred to as “Song”. 2. F. MANNS, Le Targum du Cantique des cantiques: Introduction et traduction, in LA 41 (1991) 223-301, p. 229: “La tradition juive a compris le Cantique comme une allégorie de l’histoire. La tradition midrashique, interprétative de l’Écriture, présente dans le Midrash Cantique Rabba une continuité remarquable et une grande stabilité des thèmes. […] La tradition targumique a compris qu’elle avait affaire à une allégorie historique rattachée par de multiples liens à son contexte historique. Elle a tout simplement retraduit l’allégorie en rappel formel du passé, en expliquant les allusions du texte et ne gardant que le canevas de l’allégorie, ce qui la rapproche des homélies du Deutéronome”. Further, ID., Jewish Interpretations of the Song of Songs, in LA 58 (2008) 277-295, p. 283. 3. MANNS, Jewish Interpretations, p. 292: “The Church inherited from the Jews the allegorical approach to the Canticle and replaced God and Israel by Christ and the Church as the two partners of the dialogue”. 4. This is not the place for a history of Song reception, wherefore the overview is reduced “to a matter of emphasis”. While Gregory’s emphasis is on the ecclesiological, he also develops moral and spiritual topics. Alan of Lille, whose commentary is mariological, “never allows the reader to forget that praise of Mary, the mother of God, is rooted in her role within the Church”. According to Turner, “only in the very late mediaeval commentary of Denys the Carthusian do the ecclesiological, the individual, and mariological readings become separated out from one another along clear lines of demarcation”. D. TURNER, Eros and Allegory: Medieval Exegesis of the Song of Songs (Cistercian Studies, 156), Kalamazoo, MI, Cistercian Publications, 1995, p. 39.

4

CHAPTER 1

The Enlightenment brought about a change to an apparently “literal”, so-called “naturalistic” or “erotic” reading of the text. Groundbreaking for the new hermeneutical approach was the commentary of Johann Gottfried Herder in the second half of the eighteenth century. He came to the conclusion that the Song of Songs is nothing but a collection of profane love songs “loosely stitched together like pearls on a necklace”5. From then on the allegorical reading was considered an arbitrary aberration of the religious communities. Scholars sought to give the literal sense its appropriate place in the interpretation of the Song, whereby the possibility that the Song might have been composed as an allegory in its literal sense was discarded from the outset (with few exceptions). The approaches henceforward can be categorized into four principal classes: (1) the dramatic theory (already held by Origen)6, with a variety of differing analyses of the characters involved, varying from two to three (love triangle) with a changing number of supplementary characters7; (2) the wedding cycle theory, which enjoyed high prominence at the end of the nineteenth century upon the publication of Wetzstein’s Die Syrische Dreschtafel8. Wetzstein therein describes a nineteenth-century Syrian wedding custom according to which, during a seven-day festivity, the spouses were enthroned on a threshing sledge, crowned as king and queen, and 5. J.G. HERDER, Salomon’s Lieder der Liebe: Die ältesten und schönsten aus Morgenlande. Nebst vierundvierzig alten Minneliedern, Leipzig, Weygand, 1778. It is, however, interesting to note that Herder himself did not exclude a religious application of the Song to Christ and the Church. On the contrary, Herder calls those who deny such a possibility: “Pedanten und Wortkrämer, die uns am Hohenlied nur Hebräisch lehren und Anakreontisch singen lehren wollten; weitere Anwendung und Seelenspeise daran aber untersagen”. Ibid., p. 147, quoted in M. GERHARDS, Das Hohelied: Studien zu seiner literarischen Gestalt und theologischen Bedeutung (ABG, 35), Leipzig, Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2010, p. 23. 6. See ORIGÈNE, Commentaire sur le Cantique des cantiques. Tomes I-II: Version latine de Rufin (SC, 375-376), Paris, Cerf, 1991, I, p. 80:“Epithalamium libellus hic, id est nuptiale carmen, dramatis in modum mihi videtur a Salomone conscriptus”. 7. First developed by Johann Friedrich Jacobi (1771), adopted by E. RENAN, Le Cantique des cantiques, Paris, Calmann-Lévy, 1860; F. DELITZSCH, Das Hohelied, Leipzig, Dörffling und Franke, 1851, expanded by H. EWALD, Die Salomonischen Schriften, Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1867; L. WATERMAN, The Role of Solomon in the Song of Songs, in JBL 44 (1925) 171-187; P. DE AMBROGGI, Il Cantico dei cantici, Roma, Paoline, 1952, and others. For an insightful critique see H. GRAETZ, Schir Ha-Schirim, oder: Das Salomonische Hohelied, Breslau, Wilh. Jacobsohn & Co, 1885, pp. 9-23, and R.E. MURPHY, Recent Literature on the Canticle of Canticles, in CBQ 16 (1954) 1-11, pp. 3-4. 8. J.G. WETZSTEIN, Die syrische Dreschtafel, in Zeitschrift für Ethnologie 5 (1873) 271-302. In the line of this tradition stand the commentaries of K. BUDDE, Das Hohelied, in ID. – A. BERTHOLET – G. WILDEBOER (eds.), Die Fünf Megillot: Das Hohelied, Das Buch Ruth, Die Klagelieder, Der Prediger, Das Buch Esther (Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament, 17), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 1897, 1-48 and W. RUDOLPH, Das Buch Ruth – Das Hohe Lied – Die Klagelieder (KAT, 17/1-3), Gütersloh, Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1962.

STATUS QUAESTIONIS – REENERGIZING THE DEBATE

5

honored by descriptive poems praising their beauty. This led to the hypothesis that the Song contained a collection of wedding songs sung at peasant weddings9; (3) the cult-mythological theory which presumes the Song’s original Sitz im Leben in a sacred marriage rite of fertility worship as practiced in the pagan religions surrounding Israel10; (4) and finally the collection of secular love songs theory11. The drama theory is, as the example of Origen shows, compatible with both a secular and a religious reading of the text12. It is more concerned with the form and has no immediate implications for the literal sense. The wedding cycle theory is somewhat outdated, because of the obvious flaw that a theory for a third-century B.C. love song has been based on nineteenth-century A.D. comparative material; the anachronism is salient. If it is still defended by some, it may be subsumed under the fourth approach, the secular love songs theory. The third proposal, i.e. that of the cult mythology, has fallen into oblivion in the mid-seventies of the previous century, and would have probably been forgotten, had not the question been reconsidered with serious arguments by a number of Assyriologists over the last decade. It needs to be earnestly reconsidered. The fourth approach, the secular love songs theory, is presently the prevailing opinion. The great majority of today’s scholars favor the supposedly literal sense of the text, giving relevance only to the human dimensions of the love concerned in the Song13. It will be the object of the present study to challenge 9. See BUDDE, Hohelied; U.M.D. CASSUTO, Il significato originario del Cantico dei cantici, in Giornale della società asiatica italiana n.s. 1 (1925) 32-52. 10. See T.J. MEEK, Canticles and the Tammuz Cult, in AJSL 39 (1922) 1-14; H. SCHMÖKEL, Zur kultischen Deutung des Hohenliedes, in ZAW 64 (1952) 148-155; ID., Heilige Hochzeit und Hoheslied (Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes, 32/1), Wiesbaden, Steiner, 1956; G. WIDENGREN, Sakrales Königtum im Alten Testament und im Judentum: Franz Delitzsch Vorlesungen 1952, Stuttgart, Kohlhammer, 1955, p. xxi; S.N. KRAMER, The Sacred Marriage Rite: Aspects of Faith, Myth, and Ritual in Ancient Sumer, Bloomington, IN, Indiana University Press, 1969; H. RINGGREN, The Marriage Motif in Israelite Religion, in P.D. MILLER – P.D. HANSON – S.D. MCBRIDE (eds.), Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross, Philadelphia, PA, Fortress, 1987, 421-428, pp. 421-424; M.S. SMITH, God Male and Female in the Old Testament: Yahweh and His “Asherah”, in TS 48 (1987) 333-340, pp. 337-338. 11. See, e.g., P. HAUPT, The Book of Canticles, in AJSL 18 (1902) 193-245, p. 208: “Cant. is … simply a collection of popular love ditties, and these erotic songs are not all complete …, neither are they given in their proper order”. 12. According to Origen, Solomon assumes the role of the bride who marries and burns with love for her heavenly spouse, the Word of God. See ORIGÈNE, Commentaire sur le Cantique des cantiques, I, p. 81. 13. Some more examples: J. SNAITH, The Song of Songs: Based on the Revised Standard Version (New Century Bible Commentary), London, Marshall Pickering, 1993; C. BLOCH – A. BLOCH, The Song of Songs: The World’s First Great Love Poem (Modern Library Classics), New York, The Modern Library, 1995; R. WEEMS, The Song of Songs, in The New Interpreter’s Bible, V, Nashville, TN, Abingdon, 1997, 370-371; D. BERGANT,

6

CHAPTER 1

this prevailing theory, which can be summarized as “naturalistic” or “profane” and will now be briefly defined. 2. Current Opinion Following one of its eminent representatives, Wilhelm Rudolph, I call “naturalistic” or “profane” interpretations those that claim the object of the Song to be “nothing else than the love between man and woman”14. This interpretation had only one prominent advocate in the first millennium15. Theodore of Mopsuestia (350-428) denied the Song its inspired character, as it does not mention God, and viewed it to be a domestic and marital song of Solomon for banquets, by which the illustrious king would have defended himself against reproaches for having married the daughter of Pharaoh16. In the twelfth century the prominent Ibn Ezra (†1167) read the Song as a profane love song but nonetheless admitted the classical Il Cantico dei cantici (Guide Spirituali all’Antico Testamento), Roma, Città Nuova, 1998; A. LACOCQUE, Romance, She Wrote: A Hermeneutical Essay on Song of Songs, Harrisburg, PA, Trinity Press International, 1998; J.C. EXUM, Song of Songs (OTL), Louisville, KY, Westminster John Knox, 2005. 14. “Es findet sich als Gegenstand des HL nichts anderes als die Liebe zwischen Mann und Frau”. RUDOLPH, Hohe Lied, p. 93. Rudolph calls this interpretation “profane-erotic” or also “natural”, for only the natural interpretation renders the literal sense, which, according to him, describes and celebrates the love between a man and a woman. The allegorical reading on the other hand he classifies as “unnatural”. See ibid., pp. 86, 89. The problem with this label, “natural reading”, is that a figurative reading as proposed in our own study is also based on the literal sense. Thus it is not “natural” versus “unnatural”, as Rudolph claims, just by being based on the literal sense. Even Origen had shown interest in the obvious erotic expressions of the Song. Rather, the “naturalistic” reading is a reductionist way of looking at the plain sense. Yet, since the term has been coined by its own defenders it is adopted here for the sake of clarity and congruence with the well-established terminology. For the choice of a different terminology see A.-M. PELLETIER, Petit bilan herméneutique de l’histoire du Cantique, in J.-M. AUWERS et al. (eds.), Regards croisés sur le Cantique des cantiques (Le Livre et le Rouleau, 22), Bruxelles, Lessius, 2005, 130-147, who prefers to speak about a “lecture mystique” versus an “intérpretation anthropologique”. 15. For a good overview of the history of the Song’s interpretation, see M.H. POPE, Song of Songs (AncB, 7C), New York, Doubleday, 1977, pp. 112-229. 16. Theodore of Mopsuestia (350-428) was condemned by the Second Council of Constantinople (553). While his commentary on the Song is lost, we know about his interpretation only from the acts of the Council. According to Leontius Byzantinus, Advers. Nestorium et Eutichen, III, 12-17, in PG 86/I, col. 1365-1368, Theodore compared the Song to the Book of Job and the titles of the Psalms, all of which he considered to be merely private writings, lacking any inspiration. Consequently he wanted to exclude them from the canon, which was the opinion condemned by the council. See G. RICCIOTTI, Il Cantico dei cantici, Torino, Società Editrice Internazionale, 1928, pp. 54-55. Today scholars argue that Theodore’s condemnation did not regard the interpretation of the Song as concerning human sexual love. See MURPHY, Recent Literature, p. 10; A.-M. DUBARLE, L’amour humain dans le Cantique des cantiques, in RB 61 (1954) 67-86; A.-M. BRUNET, Théodore de Mopsueste et le Cantique des cantiques, in Études et recherches 9 (1955) 155-170; RUDOLPH, Hohe Lied, p. 93.

STATUS QUAESTIONIS – REENERGIZING THE DEBATE

7

allegorical reading of the Synagogue alongside his naturalistic interpretation17. The sixteenth-century Reformers did not adopt the naturalistic reading for many years. A friend of Calvin’s, Sebastian Castellio, made an attempt and thus lost both Calvin’s friendship and his right to reside in Geneva (1545)18. It was only towards the second half of the eighteenth century when Johann Gottfried Herder (1744-1803) published his Lieder der Liebe that the interpretation of the Song as a mere profane love song made a groundbreaking entry into the history of its interpretation19. Herder was followed by Johann Wolfgang Goethe (1749-1832), who called the Song a “charming confusion”20. While the nineteenth century still had scholars defending the allegorical or typological interpretation21, it can be said that by the mid-twentieth century the naturalistic interpretation was unanimously adopted by the exegetes of the reformed communities22. In the Catholic world the resistance 17. See H. GRAETZ, Geschichte der Juden: Vom Aufblühen der jüdisch-spanischen Kultur (1027) bis zu Maimunis Tod (Von den Ältesten Zeiten bis auf die Gegenwart, 6), Leipzig, Leiner, 1896, p. 171, who accuses Ibn Ezra of having often veiled his true opinion or of having clothed it in such fashion that only the like-minded could recognize it. As an example Graetz states Ibn Ezra’s commentary on the Song: “Der Erläuterung des hohen Liedes schickte er eine kurze Einleitung voran, worin er die Ansicht lächerlich macht, als sei in dieser großartigen Kunstschöpfung die Mystik über das Verhalten der Welt zu Gott und das der Seele zu dem irdischen Leibe allegorisch angedeutet. Nach seiner Ansicht tönt durch das Ganze die Sehnsucht der Liebe durch, aber er deutete es auch nach Ansicht der Alten als das Verhältnis Israels zu Gott in der glutvollen Sprache eines treuen Liebesbundes”. 18. See RUDOLPH, Hohe Lied, p. 94. Castellio had held that the Song is nothing but a fine love song and therefore it did not merit a place in the canon. RICCIOTTI, Cantico, p. 56. 19. HERDER, Lieder. However, it needs also to be said that Herder never denied the possibility of applying these Songs to the relationship between Christ and his Church. To those who oppose it, Herder says: “Die Kirche die ihr im Sinne habt, mag freilich ohne Christum sein; sie hat auch seiner nicht nöthig”. Cited in D. SCHLOTTMANN, Der Brautzug des Hohen Liedes 3,6-11, in Theologische Studien und Kritiken 40 (1867) 209-243, p. 209. 20. “Wir verweilen sodann einen Augenblick bei dem Hohen Lied, als dem Zartesten und Unnachahmlichsten, was uns von dem Ausdruck leidenschaftlicher, anmutiger Liebe zugekommen. Wir beklagen freilich, daß uns die fragmentarisch durcheinander geworfenen, übereinander geschobenen Gedichte keinen vollen reinen Genuß gewähren, und doch sind wir entzückt, uns in jene Zustände hinein zu ahnen, in welchen die Dichtenden gelebt … Mehrmals gedachten wir aus dieser lieblichen Verwirrung einiges herauszuheben, aneinander zu reihen; aber gerade das Rätselhaft-Unauflösliche gibt den wenigen Blättern Anmut und Eigentümlichkeit. Wie oft sind nicht wohldenkende, ordnungsliebende Geister angelockt worden irgendeinen verständigen Zusammenhang zu finden oder hineinzulegen, und einem folgenden bleibt immer dieselbe Arbeit”. J.W. VON GOETHE, Noten und Abhandlungen zum West-östlichen Divan (Goethes Sämtliche Werke, 5), Stuttgart – Berlin, J.G. Cotta’sche Buchhandlung, 1902, p. 150. Cited in RUDOLPH, Hohe Lied, p. 75. 21. DELITZSCH, Hohelied; P. JOÜON, Le Cantique des cantiques: Commentaire philologique et exégétique, Lyon, Beauchesne, 1909. 22. In 1962 Rudolph stated that the allegorical or typological interpretation has been generally and justly abandoned. See RUDOLPH, Hohe Lied, p. 86.

8

CHAPTER 1

was more difficult to overcome. Giuseppe Ricciotti attempted a last major defense of the Song’s being an allegory on the basis of the prophetic use of the marital metaphor23. Along similar lines the French scholars André Robert and André Feuillet continued to offer an allegorical interpretation of the Song based on a more refined intertextuality, called procédé anthologique24. However, due to the great ingenuity displayed in application of their method, they found no prominent followers25. Others argued for the Song being a parable or a mixed form of parable and allegory in which the details are not to be subjected to a one-to-one mapping26. This approach, 23. RICCIOTTI, Cantico. 24. A. ROBERT – R. TOURNAY – A. FEUILLET, Le Cantique des cantiques (ÉB, 48), Paris, Lecoffre, 1963, p. 411, recognize a procédé anthologique in the Song. They show how particularly in post-exilic writings a lot of earlier biblical terms and phrases are re-used in a given book. As a rule only those references are considered significant “in which identical or synonymous terms are repeated from contexts which treat an identical or positively analogous thought”. See also A. FEUILLET, Comment lire le Cantique des cantiques? Étude de théologie biblique et réflexions sur une méthode d’exégèse, Paris, Pierre Téqui, 21999. 25. For an attentive critique of Robert and Feuillet’s reading proposal, see MURPHY, Recent Literature, pp. 5-8. Other than deeming it incoherent and forced, he judges Robert and Feuillet’s approach as being “far too literary, leaving little or no verve to a poem that is nothing if not spontaneous, too delicate to be rigidly inserted into a literary jig-saw puzzle”. The adduced inner-biblical parallelisms are too tenuous and not as Feuillet had argued “convergent argument”. A. FEUILLET, Le Cantique des cantiques: Étude de théologie biblique et réflexions sur une méthode d’exégèse, Paris, Cerf, 1953, p. 85. Murphy, on the contrary, can be reproached of having an over-idealized image of the Beloved. For him she is “beautiful, faithful (and) united to her lover” wherefore she cannot be the same Israel known to us and therefore the allegory would be flawed. MURPHY, Recent Literature, p. 8. 26. D. BUZY, La composition littéraire du Cantique des cantiques, in RB 49 (1940) 169-194; ID., L’allégorie matrimoniale de Jahvé et d’Israël et le Cantique des cantiques, in Vivre et penser 3 (1945) 77-90; ID., Le Cantique des cantiques, Paris, Letouzey & Ané, 1950; J.-J. WEBER, Le Livre des Proverbes, Le livre de la Sagesse, Le Cantique des cantiques, Paris, Société de Saint Jean l’Évangéliste, 1949; J. FISCHER, Hohes Lied – Rut – Weisheit (Echter-Bibel), Würzburg, Echter, 1950; DE AMBROGGI, Cantico; A. BEA, Canticum canticorum, Roma, Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1952; P.P. SAYDON, A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, London, Nelson, 1953; R.J. TOURNAY, Quand Dieu parle aux hommes le langage de l’amour: Études sur le Cantique des cantiques, Paris, Gabalda, 2 1995. For all of them the subject of the Song is the marriage relationship between YHWH and Israel. Buzy speaks against allegory for which the text does not give sufficient indices, but he equally resists a naturalistic reading. Instead, he proposes a parabolic reading of the Song which he calls a metaphor on the relationship between YHWH and his people. Passages like Ezekiel 16 and 23; Prov 31,1-31; Isa 5,1-7, and Qoh 12,1-7 point to a parabolic exegesis from Hosea to Qohelet. The poet of the Song blanks out Israel’s infidelities and makes reference only to the ideal historical time of Israel’s first love, as if it had lasted for all of its history; or in a different image, the poet imagines the relationship between God and man in such ideal terms as if Eden had never been lost. The literal sense is metaphorical, that is, the Lover is a permanent metaphor of YHWH and the Beloved of Israel. See D. BUZY, Le Cantique des cantiques: Exégèse allégorique ou parabolique, in RSR 39 (1951) 99-114, pp. 113-114. From the parabolic approach a messianic reading of the Song was derived. The poem so idealizes YHWH’s Beloved that it cannot be allocated in Israel’s history but projects

STATUS QUAESTIONIS – REENERGIZING THE DEBATE

9

though generally appreciated for avoiding the pitfalls of detailed allegorical exposition, was critiqued due to a lack of literary grounds for reading the Song as a parable. The genre appeared to be more “imputed to the Song rather than demonstrated on the basis of overt content”27. Eventually the naturalistic interpretation became the mainstream position of Catholic exegetes as well28. Towards the second half of the twentieth century the naturalistic interpretation had become something like a “dogma of orthodoxy” for mainstream exegesis29. Samuel Kramer established in 1969, “there is probably no serious biblical scholar today who sees the book as anything but an assortment of exquisite lyrics of love and passion”30. This position still held sway in 2011. Ellen F. Davis observes: [It is the] central and now nearly unchallenged presupposition that the Song celebrates human love and does so in terms that are not directly theological. In other words, it has little or no direct connection with the essential subject matter of every other book of the Bible. According to the modern orthodoxy itself into the future, the messianic kingdom. It is not a question of reading particular passages as messianic. Rather, the entire Song is messianic because it refers to YHWH and his people in that coming period. See DE AMBROGGI, Cantico, p. 94. 27. R.E. MURPHY, The Song of Songs (Hermeneia), Minneapolis, MN, Fortress, 1990, p. 94. 28. For an overview of the Catholic exegetical development towards embracing the naturalistic reading, see H. HAAG, Das Heutige Verständnis des Hohenliedes in der Katholischen Kirche, in A. CAQUOT – S. LÉGASSE – M. TARDIEU (eds.), Mélanges bibliques et orientaux en l’honneur de M. Mathias Delcor (AOAT, 215), Kevelaer, Butzon & Bercker, 1985, 209-219. 29. Exemplary: H.-P. MÜLLER, Das Hohelied, in ID. – O. KAISER – J.A. LOADER (eds.), Das Hohelied – Klagelieder – Das Buch Ester (ATD, 16/2), Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992, 3-90, p. 8: “Anstelle der in Judentum und Christentum jahrhundertelang herrschenden allegorischen Deutung hat sich, nicht zuletzt dank des reformatorischen Schriftverständnisses, die buchstäbliche oder natürliche Deutung der Einzeltexte als Liebesgedichte so weit durchgesetzt, daß es ihrer Rechtfertigung nicht mehr bedarf”. 30. KRAMER, The Sacred Marriage Rite, p. 86. Another paradigmatic summary of the Song’s contemporary understanding is given by J. SANMARTIN-ASCASO, ‫דּוֹד‬, in TDOT, p. 156: “In Canticles, however, the word [dodhim] unites two people who experience their passions in the purest absoluteness. In this case eros emerge as simple human reality with no moral or sociological undertones. Love (dodhim) and loving (dodh) are presented naturally and sound lyrically in their sensuality. No mention is made of fertility or even of marriage. The lovers are not described as a bridal couple or a married couple. The writer does not praise the pleasure of love as a gift of God. A religious atmosphere is entirely absent. Nothing at all is said about God and his relationship to his people. The love of which the writer speaks is consummated in the most radical manner in this world. It expresses itself in a secular way, wants to be understood in its secularity, and makes no attempt to convey a deeper, more mysterious meaning. In Canticles, love is desacralized and demythologized; it has neither prerequisites nor consequences. This is the main significance of Canticles. For the experience of sex in its sensual depth and sheer radicality traces in the love between man and wife an appropriate symbol for illustrating the other feelings of relationship which shape human life”.

10

CHAPTER 1

of the Song, then, the once-traditional notion that it speaks of love between God and Israel, or God and the soul, is an extraneous imposition – even if that imposition is what won it a place in the canon31.

As a trenchant and recent example of the consensus it may suffice to cite the opening verses of Cheryl Exum’s 2005 commentary: The Song of Songs is a long lyric poem about erotic love and sexual desire – a poem in which the body is both object of desire and source of delight, and lovers engage in a continual game of seeking and finding in anticipation, enjoyment, and assurance of sensual gratification. A love poem. […] It looks at what it is like to be in love from both a woman’s and a man’s point of view, and it relies exclusively on dialogue, so that we learn about love through what lovers say about it32.

This view of the Song as a lyric poem about purely immanent love represents well the prevailing mainstream approach to the book. 3. “Elegantly Fashioned Contempt” Rolf Rendtorff reflects this mainstream understanding of the Song well in his Theology of the Old Testament: “[The Song] contains love songs of great beauty and linguistic artistry. But it does not speak of God or of the relationship between humans and God, not even indirectly or in code”33. Tremper Longman III apodictically affirms, “There is absolutely nothing in the Song of Song itself that hints to a meaning different from the sexual meaning”34. Another pivotal example of the new “orthodoxy” – to quote just one of the most renowned scholars on the Song – is Othmar Keel, who writes in the introduction to his commentary on the Song: “[Allegorization] is nothing but an elegantly fashioned contempt of the text, which like a pack mule is loaded with all sorts of things but which itself no longer has either voice or significance”35. “(Die Lieder) bringen ganz einfach 31. E.F. DAVIS, Review of E. KINGSMILL, The Song of Songs and the Eros of God (OTM; Oxford – New York, 2009), in Review of Biblical Literature 13 (2011) 234-237, pp. 234-235. Exemplary is HAAG, Verständnis, p. 219: “Es geht im HL einzig und allein um die Freude, die zwei junge Menschen aneinander haben, und um den Liebesgenuß. Darum spielen das Drängen zueinander hin und die unerfüllte Sehnsucht eine so große Rolle”. 32. EXUM, Song, p. 1. 33. R. RENDTORFF, The Canonical Hebrew Bible: A Theology of the Old Testament, Leiden, Deo Publishing, 2005, p. 373. 34. T. LONGMAN III, Song of Songs (NICOT), Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 2001, p. 37. 35. O. KEEL, Das Hohelied (Zürcher Bibelkommentare. Altes Testament, 18), Zürich, Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 1986, p. 40: “[Die Allegorisierung ist] nichts als eine elegant gestaltete Verachtung des Textes, der wie ein Packesel mit allen möglichen Dingen beladen wird, dem selber aber keine Stimme und keine Bedeutung mehr zukommt” (my translation).

STATUS QUAESTIONIS – REENERGIZING THE DEBATE

11

den Wert und die Bedeutung der Geliebten und des Geliebten zum Ausdruck, die Sehnsucht der beiden nach Vereinigung, das Glück des Beisammenseins und den Schmerz der Trennung. Dabei ist die Betroffenheit total. Man möchte immer und ausschließlich (allein) beisammen sein, ahnt aber gleichzeitig, dass dies nicht möglich ist”36. As Keel has it, the Song is about nothing but the value of human love in itself, the Lovers’ appreciation for each other, their desire for union, and the insatiable desire to be always and exclusively together. 4. Main Arguments of the Consensus Modern Song scholarship’s major arguments against reading the Song as love lyrics concerning God and his people, thus giving them a theological dimension, can be summarized as follows37. a) God Is Not Mentioned in the Song Since the humanistic Renaissance (reinforced by the Reformation), the interest in the “literal sense” has become the focal point of exegesis38. With the advent of historical-critical scholarship, however, the “literal sense” has come to be identified with the “plain sense” that does not speak of God but of two human lovers. b) Allegory Should Be Explicit If the Song were intended as an allegory on God’s love, the author would have supplied his audience with a key to decode the allegory. Thus, it is argued that in the Bible allegories would always be explicit39. 36. O. KEEL, Deine Blicke sind Tauben: Zur Metaphorik des Hohen Liedes (SBS, 114/115), Stuttgart, Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1984, p. 13. 37. For the summary of the objections now presented, see P. RICŒUR, La métaphore nuptiale, in ID. – A. LACOCQUE, Penser la Bible, Paris, Seuil, 1998, 411-457, p. 453. 38. See MÜLLER, Hohelied, p. 8. 39. Two random examples at an interval of one hundred years. BUDDE, Hohelied, p. xi: “Das ist eben das Gericht der allegorischen Deutung des Hohenliedes, dass sein Text lediglich die leere Hülse bildet für die geistreichen Einfälle seiner Ausleger. Damit ist der Beweis geliefert, dass das Buch selbst keine Allegorie sein will. Denn wirkliche Allegorien wie Hes 16,23 lassen sich als solche mit Sicherheit erkennen und geben ihre Deutung selbst an die Hand” (emphasis added). Also, M. COHEN, Métaphores et figures littéraires dans le Cantique des cantiques, in Graphè 8 (1999) 11-31, p. 12: “Non que l’allégorisation soit considérée comme un procédé exégétique en soi condamnable puisque la littérature biblique elle-même en fait ample usage. Il suffit pour cela de se souvenir e.g. de l’allégorie de l’aigle et du cèdre (en Ez 17); de l’histoire allégorique de Jérusalem et Samarie (ibid. 23) ou encore l’allégorie des ossements desséchées (ibid. 37) etc. Seulement, les passages

12

CHAPTER 1

While the prophets Hosea, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and the book of Deuteronomy clearly indicate the metaphoric use of the nuptial metaphor for the covenant relationship between God and his people Israel, the Song gives no indication for a transferred identification of either of its characters40. c) No Kinship to the Prophets The metaphor of nuptial love for the covenant relationship is said to be strictly limited to the prophetic corpus41. Moreover, the nuptial metaphor as applied by the prophets (cf. Hosea 2–3; Jeremiah 2–3; Ezekiel 16; Isaiah 54) would serve primarily to denounce Israel’s harlotry (i.e. the broken covenant), not as an expression of Israel’s faithful past or future42. Contrary to the prophets, the Song would have no sign of the woman’s infidelity. The metaphor as applied by the prophets is further said to be modeled on the pattern of a patriarchal marriage that does not accord with the vision of love and equality between the sexes which the Song displays43. Thereby the distance between God and his people is preserved. For this reason the prophets allegedly refrain from giving that relationship any sexual connotation. Othmar Keel summarizes the argument as follows: It is true that the OT uses relations between men and women as models (metaphors) for the relation between Yahweh and Israel (Hosea 2; Jeremiah 2), occasionally giving these models allegorical development (Ezekiel 16 and allégoriques consignées dans les divers écrits de la Bible hébraïque sont très souvent basés sur des images ou sur des indices révélateurs si clairs qu’ils suggèrent sans peine au lecteur le sujet sous-entendu” (emphasis added). Similarly O. LORETZ, Zum Problem des Eros im Hohenlied, in BZ 8 (1964) 191-216, pp. 205-211, recently reiterated by I. KOTTSIEPER, Über die Macht der Liebe: Erwägungen zur Lehre des Hoheliedes in seiner Endgestalt, in L. HIEPEL – M.-T. WACKER (eds.), Zwischen Zion und Zaphon: Studien im Gedenken an den Theologen Oswald Loretz (14.01.1928–12.04.2014) (AOAT, 438), Münster, UgaritVerlag, 2016, 103-144, pp. 107-108, 117-118. 40. See O. KEEL, The Song of Songs (A Continental Commentary), Minneapolis, MN, Fortress, 1994, p. 7; MURPHY, Song, p. 92; LONGMAN, Song, p. 23. 41. KEEL, Song, p. 7. 42. See C. UEHLINGER, Cantique des cantiques, in T. RÖMER – J.-D. MACCHI – C. NIHAN (eds.), Introduction à l’Ancien Testament (Le Monde de la Bible, 49), Genève, Labor et Fides, 2004, 530-543, p. 539: “Le fossé paraît quasi infranchissable face à la tradition prophétique: les références prophétiques à l’amour, le plus souvent une image du rapport liant Yhwh et Israël (p. ex. Os 2; 11; Es 5; Ez 16; 20), tiennent plus de la frustration, de l’obsession jalouse, voire de la pornographie que de la passion amoureuse telle que le Cantique la conçoit. Enfin, les prophètes ne savent que faire de bijoux (Es 3,16-17), parfums et autres richesses ‘artificielles’ (Ez 27), ou de jouissances en pleine nature (Os 4,13-14), alors que le Cantique célèbre, sans retenue aucune, fruits de la nature et artifices subtils”. 43. See, e.g., M.V. FOX, The Song of Songs and the Ancient Egyptian Love Songs, Madison, WI, University of Wisconsin Press, 1985, p. 237.

STATUS QUAESTIONIS – REENERGIZING THE DEBATE

13

23). But these passages limit the comparison (tertium comparationis) to the legal aspects of the relationship, especially to the question of faithfulness; they avoid sexual or erotic symbolism. What the author intends to say always either shines clearly through the imagery or is made explicit. This whole tradition is typical of the prophetic literature and limited strictly to it44.

For the same reason Michael Fox argues that the perfect parity between the sexes in the Song makes its depicted love unsuitable as a model for the relationship between God and man: Equality is the essence of the relationship between the young lovers in the Song, and this can hardly have been intended as a model for God’s relation to Israel (or to an individual soul). Patriarchal marriage, where the man initiates the relationship and provides for a woman, from whom he can then demand fidelity, is a more appropriate metaphor for the relationship between God and Israel and is so used by the prophets, most notably Hosea and Ezekiel45.

d) Wisdom Literature Is Creation Theology It is presumed that wisdom literature is concerned only with “secular” matters. For that reason the placement of the Song within the wisdom literature would argue against attributing it the literary genre of an “allegory” for God’s covenant love. Wisdom literature, it is held, does not treat per definitionem covenant matters but is concerned with creation theology46. It seeks “to understand through reflection the nature of the world of human experience in relation to divine reality”47. For this reason the Song should be considered a sapiential reflection on the created reality of the love and attraction between the sexes (Gen 1,26-27; 2,23-24)48. 44. KEEL, Song, pp. 6-7 (my emphasis). 45. FOX, Song, p. 237. 46. See, e.g., G. BARBIERO, Song of Songs: A Close Reading (VT.S, 144), Leiden – Boston, MA, Brill, 2011, p. 39; M.T. ELLIOTT, The Literary Unity of the Canticle (Europäische Hochschulschriften. Theologie, 371), Frankfurt a.M., Lang, 1989, p. 263. In this view there is a fundamental tension between wisdom’s approach to life which obeys the universal laws of one creator and the prophet’s sacral approach to the life of Israel as a chosen covenant people. Wisdom treats creation theology while the prophets develop a salvation-historical theology. See W. ZIMMERLI, The Place and Limit of Wisdom in the Framework of the Old Testament Theology, in Scottish Journal of Theology 17 (1964) 146-158; G. VON RAD, Wisdom in Israel, London, Trinity Press International, 1972. 47. B.S. CHILDS, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture, Philadelphia, PA, Fortress, 1979, p. 574. 48. As to whether this is a reflection on marital love, opinions diverge. Contra (i.e., the Song as treatise on free love): RUDOLPH, Hohe Lied, pp. 105-106; G. KRINETZKI, Kommentar zum Hohenlied (Beiträge zur biblischen Exegese und Theologie, 16), Meisenheim am Glan, Lang, 1981. Pro: CHILDS, Introduction, p. 575: the Song is, “wisdom’s reflection on the joyful and mysterious nature of love between a man and a woman within the institution

14

CHAPTER 1

Accordingly, it cannot be about Israel’s history, nor symbolize “the prophetic themes of God’s love for his people, of the new exodus, etc. … [for] these are the themes which are missing in the wisdom corpus”49. Though the synthesis of wisdom and history in Midrashic form is admitted for Sirach 24 and the Wisdom of Solomon, this combination is said to be a very late feature, to be found only “after the Old Testament period”50. e) Bilderverbot It has further been argued that the Song cannot be speaking figuratively about God in the character of the Lover because the Bilderverbot would not have allowed for a description of God in the way Song 5,1016 does. f) The Allegorical Sense Is Not the Literal Sense Another frequent objection is that by allowing for an expression of God’s covenant love for Israel by way of allegory, the literal sense would lose its autonomy, i.e. the powerful expression of human love would be denigrated to a mere vehicle for divine love. This is based on an understanding of allegory that distinguishes between two senses: the plain sense which speaks of the two lovers, and the allegorical which speaks of God’s love for his people. In the case of an allegory the author intends the first sense only as a figure for the second. The true sense of the Song would, accordingly, not be “the sexual love between man and woman (something considered unworthy of the sacred text), but supernatural charity”51. Allegory thus appears to disdain the plain sense of the letter in order to jump immediately to a supposedly secondary meaning, using the letter as a guise for its spiritual or theological affirmations52. According to this of marriage. … The writer simply assumes the Hebrew order of the family as a part of the given order of his society, and seeks to explore and unravel its mysteries from within”. 49. CHILDS, Introduction, p. 575. 50. Ibid. 51. BARBIERO, Song, p. 37 (parentheses in text). 52. See M. GIRARD, Les symboles dans la Bible (Recherches, NS 26), Paris, Bellarmin, 1991, p. 62: “Au point de vue de l’objet qui aide à faire connaître, celui qui sous-tend l’allégorie n’a aucune importance en lui même; son seul rôle est de pointer vers l’autre, l’objet à connaître”. G. BORGONOVO, Dodi li waani lo: Monogamia e monoteismo alla radice del simbolo dell’amore sponsale nella tradizione dello Jahvismo, in G. ANGELINI et al. (eds.), Maschio e femmina li creò (Disputatio, 20), Milano, Glossa, 2008, 151-232, p. 222: “il limite dell’allegoresi sta proprio nell’abbandonare troppo presto il significato letterale del testo, per la fretta di raggiungere il significato superiore (o più profondo)” (italics in text).

STATUS QUAESTIONIS – REENERGIZING THE DEBATE

15

understanding of allegory it translates an abstract idea that is difficult to grasp or express in simple terms into a concrete semantic content53. It is a conscious mental and literary play that is entirely made up54. Once the abstract idea of the allegory is grasped, the semantic content that clothed the idea has no more function of its own. Thus, in the case of the Song, the love expressed between the protagonists has no more significance of its own once one understands that God’s covenant with Israel is of an analogous sort.

II. OBJECTIONS TO THE CONSENSUS Though scholarship appears to have reached a consensus regarding the naturalistic reading, it continues to face a number of objections. These are of theological (1), exegetical (2), and hermeneutical (3) nature. 1. Theological Dissatisfaction a) Why Was the Song Canonized? The strongest theological objection to the naturalistic interpretation concerns the question of its canonization. How, it is asked, can we account for the Song’s canonization unless we suppose that it had a theological significance from the outset55? The answer many scholars give is not satisfying. According to modern narrative, the Rabbis either consciously imputed an extrinsic allegorical meaning to the Song56, or they “did not really know what they were reading … [thinking] the Song was about the love between God and Israel”57. Scholars hold that the ancient Rabbis 53. See the introduction to GIRARD, Les symboles dans la Bible, pp. 33-99. 54. See ibid., p. 51: “L’allégorie est un jeu mental et littéraire, conscient et recherché d’un bout à l’autre. Elle consiste à traduire, dans des contenus sémantiques concrets, une idée abstraite, difficile à saisir ou à exprimer simplement”. 55. M. FISHBANE, Song of Songs = ‫שיר השירים‬: The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation (JPS Bible Commentary), Philadelphia, PA, The Jewish Publication Society, 2015, p. xix. 56. N. GOTTWALD, Song of Songs, in IDB, IV, New York, Abingdon, 1962, 420-426, p. 422: “It is probable that the allegorical interpretation followed canonicity, rather than preceded it. Once the Song was accepted as canonical, the rabbis would be tempted to look for esoteric religious meaning, especially if they had to counteract its frivolous employment”. Also KEEL, Hohelied, p. 16; G. GARBINI, Cantico dei cantici (Biblica. Testi e studi, 2), Brescia, Paideia, 1992, pp. 11-19, 293. 57. BUDDE, Hohelied, p. xii. Budde presumes that the acceptance of the Song into the canon was due to a misunderstanding concerning its content, but that God has used this

16

CHAPTER 1

were right to include the Song as part of the canon, yet for the wrong reasons58. The idea of a conscious falsification of the text’s meaning is hardly convincing. Rather, given the overwhelming testimony of the traditional religious interpretation of the Song, it must be said that if the Song ever had a meaning other than symbolical, the alteration of this reading must have followed very shortly upon its composition. Yet, as Geza Vermes affirms, “such a process would, a priori, demand a fair amount of time, and those who maintain that the Song, as a whole, was primitively conceived as a love poem, must explain why and how this profane poetry was so rapidly adopted as religious allegory”59. It is further evident from the Jewish sources that the Rabbis of the first and second century were as sensitive to the erotic connotations of the Song’s poetry as we are. Gerson Cohen is right in demanding that the historical question be asked, how … could they [the rabbis] have been duped – or better yet, have deluded themselves and others – into regarding a piece of erotica as genuine religious literature, as the holy of holies! Should not the requirements of elementary common sense give us reason for pause and doubt? Perhaps, after all, the poem was known to them as a religious work; or – granted that modern literary criticism is correct in its appraisal – perhaps, many of its earliest readers felt that the Song, with all its direct and uninhibited expressions of sensual love, best expressed their highest and most profound religious sentiments. Perhaps they seized upon it – regardless of the intentions of its author(s) – as a work of authentic religious expression. If so, why? Why should ancient Jews, who after all were quite modest and socially correct, expose themselves and their most precious book to the kind of “misuse” and misunderstanding that ancient and moderns alike have manifested? … The problem is, really, why anyone should have thought of treating the work as an allegory in the first place. There must have been works aplenty that were excluded from the canon and that were not reinterpreted. One must, therefore, misunderstanding in order to make it be received among the Holy Scriptures. “Denn wer den Wortsinn vertritt, erklärt damit gleichzeitig, dass die Aufnahme des Buches in den Kanon auf einem Irrtum beruht, und damit stösst er den Begriff des Kanons selbst als einer unter Gottes besonderer Leitung zustande gekommenen Sammlung inspirierter Heiliger Schriften um”. 58. E.F. DAVIS, Reading the Song Iconographically, in Journal of Scriptural Reasoning 3 (2003) 172-184, p. 181. 59. G. VERMES, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism: Haggadic Studies (Studia PostBiblica, 4), Leiden, Brill, 1961, p. 38. See also LACOCQUE, Romance, pp. 195-196: “What in the world did the early allegoretes see in this particular love song that was conducive to the understanding they proposed? If nothing distinguishes the Canticle from the rest of Near Eastern pictures and literatures, why single it out? Why speculate on its hidden meaning? Why eventually canonize it? If the Canticle is the most ‘unbiblical book of the Bible’ [reference to Keel; N.H.], not only by what it does not say but also by what it does say, what is it doing in Hebrew sacred Scriptures?”.

STATUS QUAESTIONIS – REENERGIZING THE DEBATE

17

ask why the scales were tipped in favor of this particular poem that was a priori so religiously questionable60.

Rather than presuming a falsification of the Song’s literal sense it does indeed appear more logical to presume an already-established religious understanding of the Song by the time the Rabbis and consequently the Church received this book among their corpus of sacred scriptures. b) Is the Entire Jewish and Christian Tradition Wrong? The allegorical interpretation has nourished both the Jewish and Christian tradition for eighteen uninterrupted centuries. It has brought forth literary works of great theological and artistic value as well as great saints. Modern exegesis rejects this entire tradition as a venerable but complete misunderstanding of the text61. c) Inspiration Related to the question of the Song’s canonization is that of its inspiration62. Theologians ask, “if the Song had nothing else to teach us on the relationship between men and women, it is difficult to explain how it has been able to uphold for so many centuries its status of being an inspired 60. G.D. COHEN, The Song of Songs and the Jewish Religious Mentality, in ID., Studies in the Variety of Rabbinic Cultures, Philadelphia, PA – New York, The Jewish Publication Society, 1991, 3-17, pp. 4-5. 61. BARBIERO, Song, p. 38. 62. Hermeneutically the question is not as insignificant as one may be led to believe. If the religious communities have admitted this text into their religious corpus it is at least a very early attestation to its sacred character and its most ancient religious interpretation. A question of authority and authorship is involved here. The author is not merely the writer of the preexistent ancient love poetry, or the one who redacted it in the present form. A valid question also concerns the role of the person or community who inserted this text into a bigger corpus, roughly speaking the Hebrew Bible. By doing so “he” gives the text a new context and thereby also a new breadth of meaning. The question of how the concept of inspiration, which is after all a hermeneutical premise on which most Christians approach the Scriptures, ties into the correct understanding of the Song, is a delicate one and needs deeper development. It cannot, however, be excluded from the discussion, for it is the most obvious objection which most people instinctively raise against an exclusively naturalistic reading. Though it is not a fact which historical-critical scholarship can submit to its methods of investigation, it is mentioned as an issue in the great majority of commentaries. See also the discussion in L. SCHWIENHORST-SCHÖNBERGER, Die theologische Bedeutung des Hohenliedes: Ein Gespräch mit Oswald Loretz, in L. HIEPEL – M.-T. WACKER (eds.), Zwischen Zion und Zaphon: Studien im Gedenken an den Theologen Oswald Loretz (14.01.1928–12.04.2014) (AOAT, 438), Münster, Ugarit-Verlag, 2016, 171187, and O. LORETZ, Die theologische Bedeutung des Hohenliedes, in BZ 10 (1966) 29-43, pp. 29-32.

18

CHAPTER 1

narrative”63. Or, to put it more bluntly, “If love is in itself a good and noble and necessary thing, human beings hardly need to be aroused to it by an inspired book”64. Though the argument appears as impertinent to some, it does merit attention and is not circular65. The inspiration of the Song is an a priori premise for any Jewish or Christian exegete, and it is a legitimate theological question to consider what that implies66. One may ascertain with the medieval commentator Nicholas of Lyra that it needs no special revelation by the Holy Spirit for the knowledge of sexual pleasures: “Solomon’s knowledge of his love for his wife and of hers for him and of the pleasures such love yields was a matter of personal experience; he did not learn about this love from that revelation of the Holy Spirit which is the reason why hebrew and latin scholars alike list this book among the canonical works”67. d) Loss of Theological Relevance The implications of a mere naturalistic reading for theology are evident from the space Rendtorff dedicated to the Song in his Theology of the Old Testament. In a work of 756 pages of text the Song of Songs receives exactly one page68. In other words, the Song appears to be of no theological significance69. Friedrich Ohly rightly observes that ever since Goethe, 63. P. LEFEBVRE – V. MONTALEMBERT, Un homme, une femme et Dieu: Pour une théologie biblique de l’identité sexuée, Paris, Cerf, 2007, pp. 354-355 (my translation). 64. FEUILLET, Comment lire?, p. 15: “[O]n admettra difficilement que Dieu ait inspiré une œuvre d’une portée purement profane. Si l’amour est en soi chose bonne et noble et nécessaire, les hommes n’ont guère besoin d’y être excités par des écrits inspirés”. 65. See MURPHY, Recent Literature, p. 11: “Human love is certainly worthy of divine inspiration since it is of divine creation”. All the same Murphy holds that the traditional interpretation offers the best grounds for the Song’s canonization. “Rather than being exercised over what humans think God can or cannot write, it is better to be satisfied with the fact that the traditional symbolic interpretation still affords the best historical explanation of the Jewish canonization of the Canticle”. 66. See also SCHWIENHORST-SCHÖNBERGER, Bedeutung, pp. 172-174, who rightly insists that understanding without presuppositions is a scholarly fiction. See also ID., Das Hohelied und die Kontextualität des Verstehens, in D.J.A. CLINES – H. LICHTENBERGER – H.-P. MÜLLER (eds.), Weisheit in Israel: Beiträge des Symposiums “Das Alte Testament und die Kultur der Moderne”, anlässlich des 100. Geburtstags Gerhard von Rads (19011971), Heidelberg, 18.-21. Oktober 2001 (Altes Testament und Moderne, 12), Münster, Lit, 2003, 81-91, 67. NICHOLAS OF LYRA, The Postilla Litteralis on the Song of Songs, n. 19; cited in TURNER, Eros, p. 136. 68. RENDTORFF, Canonical Hebrew Bible, pp. 373-374. 69. MURPHY, Song, p. 100, too observes the striking absence of the Song from studies of biblical theology. GARBINI, Cantico, p. 12 observes: “With the allegorical interpretation we have lost ‘Christi et ecclesiae laudes, et sacri amoris gratiam, et aeterni connubii … sacramenta; simulque … sanctae desiderium animae’ (S. Bernardi Sermones super Cantica

STATUS QUAESTIONIS – REENERGIZING THE DEBATE

19

“Christianity has not experienced any great encounter with the Song of Songs”70. From the theological irrelevance derives a pastoral irrelevance. David Carr observes that as the naturalistic interpretation gained ground, “Jews and Christians started turning away from the Song”. Its relevance has been reduced to a book for marriage counseling. “Biblical scholarship had in effect killed the influence of the Song on the communities of faith. Though the Song was still in the Bible, it was ‘merely’ sexual”71. e) Gen 2,23-25 Unfolded According to Rendtorff and Keel, two major exponents of the mainstream consensus, the theological significance of the Song lies precisely in its speaking solely “of humans, the woman and the man and their relationship with each other”72. Rendtorff explains the presence of the Song within the Old Testament as a “development of what is said at the beginning of the Bible about the relationship between man and woman: ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh’ (Gen 2:24)”73. This line of thought is also present in the Jewish tradition which proposes to read the Song as a Midrash to the joyous exclamation of Adam: “This at last is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of man” (Gen 2,23). The joy and marvel that Adam expresses here is seen to be developed at length in the Song in the mutual admiration of the two lovers. The divine intention of creating a love relationship between the two sexes, only alluded to in Gen 2,23-24, receives its full expression in the eight chapters of the Song74. Moreover, according to the Canticorum 1,4,8) and even worse, the Spiritual Canticle of St. John of the Cross, but we have found nothing to replace it with” (my translation). 70. F. OHLY, Hohelied-Studien: Grundzüge einer Geschichte der Hoheliedauslegung des Abendlandes bis um 1200, Wiesbaden, Steiner, 1958, p. 5: “Wenn irgend einem Buch des Alten Testaments so drohte der Einbruch des geschichtlichen Denkens in die Theologie des vergangenen Jahrhunderts der religiösen Wirkung des Hohenliedes zum Verhängnis zu werden, indem es in dem gleichen Maße, als es ihn zur geschichtlichen Urkunde werden ließ, diesen Text seines Offenbarungscharakters beraubte. … Das Christentum der Zeit nach Goethe hat keine große religiöse Begegnung mit dem Hohenlied mehr erlebt und sein Verhältnis zu ihm in steigendem Maße als philologisch-historisches wenn nicht ästhetisches Problem oder als eine Frage unveräußerlicher Tradition betrachtet, der jedoch keine lebendigen Impulse mehr verdankt wurden”. 71. D.M. CARR, The Erotic Word: Sexuality, Spirituality, and the Bible, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2003, p. 4. 72. RENDTORFF, Canonical Hebrew Bible, p. 373. 73. Ibid., p. 374. 74. The approximation between the Song and Genesis 2 was developed at length by the Swiss theologian Karl Barth: “Gerade jene stürmische Bewegung, in der der Mann Vater

20

CHAPTER 1

Swiss theologian Karl Barth, it is here in the Song that Adam’s joyous exclamation of Gen 2,23 finally finds an equally delighted response from the woman’s lips75. f) Significance by Canonical Context Though he himself is not an exegete but a theologian, Barth’s reading of the Song is a good example of how scholars have made “theological” sense of the Song despite its alleged profane character. It is a reading that has subsequently been adopted by many exegetes76. In full agreement with reading the Song as an erotic love poem which extolls the love between a man and a woman, Barth cautions against either a “wishing away of the Song out of the canon” or a spiritualized reading of the erotic poetry. The Song is, “as any upright exegesis has to joyfully admit, … a collection of true and in the primitive sense so to be called love songs, in which there is talk not of the child, but of man and woman in their differentiation, of und Mutter verlässt, um seinem Weibe anzuhängen, um mit ihr ein Leib zu werden, kommt im übrigen Alten Testament nur noch an einer Stelle, hier nun allerdings fast erschreckend stark und unzweideutig zur Aussprache und Darstellung: in dem (nicht umsonst gerade ihm, dem von so viel antizipierter Eschatologie umgebenen) König Salomo zugeschriebenen ‘Lied der Lieder’. Hier, aber auch nur hier – und diese Ausnahme bestätigt doch geradezu die Regel – kommt Gen. 2 zur Entfaltung, kommt es zum Vorschein, daß das Bild von Gen. 2 nun doch nicht einfach zufällig und als ein Fremdkörper in das Alte Testament hereingekommen ist, sondern im Denken Israels seine bestimmte, aber in der Regel nicht sichtbare Rolle gespielt hat: das Entzücken – nicht des potentiellen Hausvaters und Familienoberhauptes, sondern schlicht des Mannes als solchen – nicht an der potentiellen Gebärerin seiner Kinder, sondern schlicht an der Frau als solcher, der Eros, für den es, genau nach v 25 unseres Textes nun eben keine Scham gibt”. K. BARTH, Die Kirchliche Dogmatik. Dritter Band: Die Lehre von der Schöpfung, Zürich, Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 1957, p. 358. 75. “Hier erklingt dann sogar ein Ton, der in Gen. 2 noch nicht zu hören ist: hier steht die Frau im gleichen Entzücken – mit einem ebenbürtigen ‘Dieser nun endlich!’ möchte man fast sagen – dem Mann gegenüber. Hier antwortet sie ja ebenso laut und ausdrücklich, wie sie von ihm angeredet wird. Hier preist sie ihn nicht weniger, als sie von ihm gepriesen wird. Hier ist es gerade sie, die ihn unter Schmerzen sucht und mit Freuden findet. Hier kommt es gerade aus ihrem Munde zu der berühmten Umkehrung: ‘Mein Geliebter ist mein und ich bin sein’ (Hohel. 2,16). ‘Ich bin meines Geliebten und mein Geliebter ist mein’ (Hohel. 6,3)”. Ibid. 76. See e.g. D. LYS, Le plus beau chant de la création: Commentaire du Cantique des cantiques (LeDiv, 51), Paris, Cerf, 1968; H.-J. HEINEVETTER, “Komm nun, mein Liebster, dein Garten ruft dich!”: Das Hohelied als programmatische Komposition (BBB, 69), Frankfurt a.M., Athenäum, 1988, p. 183; P. BEAUCHAMP, L’un et l’autre Testament. Tome 2: Accomplir les Écritures, Paris, Seuil, 1990, pp. 115-137; and L. ALONSO SCHÖKEL, I Nomi dell’Amore: Simboli matrimoniali nella Bibbia, Casale Monferrato, Piemme, 1997, p. 38: “Il Cantico dei cantici è un momento poetico culmine e al tempo stesso aurorale. In esso l’amore sembra non conoscere né peccato né vergogna, pur non essendo esente da un timoroso fascino e sfiorato dalle ali della morte (6,5; 8,6). Come se fosse la voce del secondo capitolo del libro della Genesi”.

STATUS QUAESTIONIS – REENERGIZING THE DEBATE

21

their being in encounter and of nothing else. The deepest interpretation can here only be the most natural”77. Yet, Barth does not halt at a reductionist reading on the mere level of the human erotic encounter. He reads the Song in its wider canonical context. According to him the Song speaks of real and not just metaphoric love between a man and a woman. However, it does so because its redactor (or the redactors of the canon – he leaves it open) kept in sight the Urbild of the human love relationship which is the eternal covenant of YHWH with his people Israel78. Thus Barth sees in the love of the Song’s protagonists an Abbild of the ontologically prior Urbild, which is God’s covenant with Israel that is so often referred to by the prophets in marital terms. Barth warns against viewing the biblical marriage language merely in metaphorical terms79. Human love is real because God’s covenant love is real from which the former takes its origin; thus he can insist that the Song is not an allegory. It can be read on a merely anthropological level and is doubtlessly and unambiguously erotic poetry; but it stands within a wider context and cannot be understood apart from the latter80. In this 77. “Man soll es nicht aus dem Kanon wegwünschen … Und man soll es auch nicht spiritualisieren, als ob, was im Kanon steht, nur spiritualistische Bedeutung haben dürfte. Es ist, wie jede ehrliche Auslegung zugeben muss, und wie man nicht zögernd und verlegen, sondern freudig erkennen sollte, eine Sammlung von echten und im primitiven Sinn so zu nennenden Liebesliedern, in denen nicht vom Kind, sondern vom Mann und von der Frau in ihrer Differenzierung und in ihrer Zusammengehörigkeit, in ihrem Sein in der Begegnung und sonst von gar nichts die Rede ist. Gerade die tiefsinnigste Auslegung wird hier nur die natürlichste sein können”. BARTH, Dogmatik, pp. 354-355 (my translation). 78. “Man trifft ihre Meinung natürlich nicht, wenn man ihre Darstellung bloß bildlich versteht. Es war zweifellos der Mann und die Frau als solche, Liebe und Ehe als solche, von denen sie reden wollten und tatsächlich geredet haben. Man versteht sie aber wiederum nicht, wenn man nicht sieht, dass sie gerade von diesem Bereich darum so geredet haben, wie wir sie reden hören, weil ihnen als Urbild des Geschehens in diesem Bereich die von Jahve als Israels Mann ihm ein für allemal zugewendete Liebe, die von ihm zwischen sich und Israel aufgerichtete und aufrecht erhaltene Ehe vor Augen stand”. Ibid., p. 363. 79. “Und so würde man nun auch die Meinung der Propheten nicht treffen, wenn man ihre Rede von dieser Liebe und Ehe Jahves bloß bildlich verstehen wollte: als hätten sie die Verbindung Jahves mit Israel an Hand eines Idealbildes aus dem erotischen Bereich illustrieren und deutlich machen wollen. Was sie als Liebe und Ehe Jahves beschrieben haben, das hat ja in jenem Bereich nicht seinesgleichen, das sprengt ja jeden Vergleich mit dem, was zwischen Mann und Frau je wirklich geworden ist. Denn solche Liebe und Ehe ist keines menschlichen Mannes, sondern ganz allein des Mannes Jahve Sache. Mit dem unerreichbaren Urbild dessen haben wir es hier zu tun, was im menschlichen Bereich zwischen Mann und Frau wirklich wird. Aber nun immerhin gerade dieses Geschehens Urbild! Weil Gottes Erwählung wirklich ist, darum gibt es menschliche Liebe und Ehe. … Das Bild, das diese Texte bieten, ist der klare, notwendige Reflex des Gnadenbundes: nicht des von Israel, wohl aber des von Gott gehaltenen Gnadenbundes”. Ibid., pp. 363364. 80. Ibid., p. 365. Barth gives us here an excellent example of a canonical reading of the Song. He reads the Song not only in the context of the prophetic literature but also within

22

CHAPTER 1

context the Song gives us an incarnate and visible Abbild of the invisible Urbild which is God’s covenant love. 2. Exegetical Resistance In spite of the collected efforts of two centuries of exegesis, the “new orthodoxy” has never convinced the entirety of the exegetical field. Since the end of the twentieth century an increasing number of scholars from different fields have begun to express their discomfort with an exclusively naturalistic reading of the Song81. Advancements in intertextuality, literary criticism, and canonical criticism call for a renewed investigation into the nature of the Song. This “New Quest” was also launched by Roland E. Murphy’s plea not to dismiss the Nachleben of the Song altogether82. “As modern expositors we should be open to the possibility that our predecessors, despite their foibles, may have caught a glimpse of theological reality that is not exhausted by the literal sense of the Song’s poetry”83. This, of course, is to make a case for reading the Song within the wider the unity of the two Testaments and so he comes to see in the person of King Solomon a prophetic image of the Messiah as the future Bridegroom of Israel and the Church: “Daß diese Lieder gerade im Zusammenhang der sog. salomonischen Literatur, im Anschluss an die Sprüche und den Prediger überliefert worden sind, läßt uns nämlich daran denken, daß Salomo, der Erbauer des Tempels, sein Reich, seine Herrlichkeit, seine Weisheit, die Figur des Königs der Endzeit und seiner Glorie darstellt. So sah der Davidssohn aus, auf den Israel wartete, so sein Reich: so mächtig, so glänzend, so weise und nun eben endlich und zuletzt: so menschlich. So werden wir wohl auch diese ihm zugeschriebenen Lieder, indem wir ihren ganz konkreten Gehalt ernst nehmen, eschatologisch zu verstehen haben. Auf der langen Mitte der Linie zwischen Schöpfung und Endzeit hat das Alte Testament anders, als es hier geschieht, vom Mann und von der Frau geredet. Dort regiert die Frage nach der Nachkommenschaft. Da sind die ‘erotischen’ Klänge ganz, ganz selten. Da regiert das Gesetz und vor allem die Gefahr und das Verbot des Ehebruchs. … Der Anfang aber und das Ende, der Anlauf und das Ziel sind wie zwischen Jahve und Israel, so auch zwischen Mann und Frau, so wie sie Gen. 2 und im ‘Lied der Lieder’ geschildert werden. Im Rückblick auf die Schöpfung und im Ausblick auf die neue Schöpfung der Endzeit kann, darf und muß also von Mann und Frau auch so geredet werden, wie es in diesen Texten geschieht” (ibid., p. 355). 81. G. RAVASI, Il Cantico dei cantici: Commento e attualizzazione (Testi e commenti, 4), Bologna, EDB, 1992, pp. 132-133: “La metodologia da noi seguita nasce dall’insufficienza delle due ermeneutiche classiche. Quella ‘letterale’, che è certamente da accogliere come base, è pero incapace di giustificare l’arco della tradizione biblica, giudaica e cristiana che nel segno nuziale ha costantemente iscritto un significato ulteriore. La lettura ‘spirituale’ offende spesso l’‘incarnazione’ del testo, la sua realtà, riducendola a un puro campo di esercizi liberi ‘spirituali’. […] La nostra proposta vorrebbe, invece, tentare un legame tra i due ‘sensi’ senza prevaricare l’uno sull’altro ma rispettandone le gerarchie e le funzioni”. According to Ravasi, the harmony of the two senses can be maintained by a symbolic exegesis of the text, a reading which is also here adopted. 82. CARR, Erotic Word, p. 145, makes Murphy out to be the first to have raised the questions about the opposition of sexuality and spirituality. 83. MURPHY, Song, p. 103.

STATUS QUAESTIONIS – REENERGIZING THE DEBATE

23

context of its Wirkungsgeschichte, a method which had already been masterfully defended and applied by Anne-Marie Pelletier in her notable doctoral thesis84. Pelletier’s contribution has given rise to an increased interest among scholars in reviving a theological reading of the Song. Approaches range from both erotic and subsequent theological readings, via canonical, synchronic, intertextual readings to ones that once again propose on historical-critical grounds that the Song was intended as an allegory on God’s love for his people. a) Both … And Among the first authors to make an extensive plea for overcoming the distinction between a “secular” versus “spiritual” reading of the Song was Carey Ellen Walsh85. She denounced this distinction as being built on “the same dualism as their allegorical forebears”86. On the one hand, Walsh insists that the original intention of the Song is not spiritual but “clearly about sexual yearning between two flesh-and-blood lovers”. The Song is about the erotic desire of a woman for her ever-absent lover. However, since God is the “most absent object of all”, the biblical reader can identify his spiritual desire for God with the longing of the Song’s female protagonist87. It is because of its inclusion into the Bible that the Song’s metaphor of desire “resonates for the reader on both the sexual and spiritual planes”88. The plain sense of the Song is about human desire, yet in a metaphoric way it can be read spiritually in the context of the entire Bible. The sexual want expressed in it is “the vehicle for the implied tenor of spiritual want”89. Though Walsh insists repeatedly on the non-theological intention of the Song’s authors, she notes six points that hint at the possibility of God’s presence in the text. These are (1) the mysterious kinship of the king-shepherd-Solomon lover with God; (2) the alleged allusion to YHWH as fire in Song 8,6; (3) the allusions to the pillar of cloud that accompanied Israel during its time in the wilderness (Exod 31,21) in Song 3,6; (4) the vineyard, which recalls the Song of the vineyard Israel in Isaiah 5; and (5) the garden motif which is at once reminiscent of paradise, the Promised Land, and the Temple; as well as (6) the many materials that 84. A.-M. PELLETIER, Lectures du Cantique des cantiques: De l’énigme du sens aux figures du lecteur (AnBib, 121), Roma, Biblical Institute Press, 1989. 85. See C.E. WALSH, Exquisite Desire: Religion, the Erotic, and the Song of Songs, Minneapolis, MN, Fortress, 2000. 86. Ibid., p. 51. 87. See ibid., p. 31. 88. Ibid. 89. Ibid., p. 34.

24

CHAPTER 1

recall the Temple90. For Walsh, however, these constitute only “clues for the divine … they are too meager to hang a theology on, but along with the theme of searching, they are suggestive of a slight spiritual pulse”91. David Carr also argues against the “sexuality-spirituality dichotomy” and proposes to read the Song on multiple levels, both as a song of passion between humans and of human-divine passion92. Carr bases his proposal on the observation that the cultures of the ANE “did not strongly separate human male-female love from human-divine love the way moderns do”93. Rather, divine-human love was understood to be “governed by much the same principles as male-female love on the human level”94. Yet, though the Song may have drawn on “forms and/or specific cultic traditions that depicted divine love, the Song itself shows no clear signs of having been written to depict God’s relation with God’s people or the soul”95. Not even in the latest level of redaction, the superscription, does Carr see a theological orientation. If the Song had an original theological intention it would have been placed in the vicinity of those texts which use the marriage matrix (e.g. the prophets)96; or it would have had indicators of its divine referents as similar ANE cultic dialogues. Finally the “nontheological props and scenery of the Song suggest that it originally focused on human lovers”97. Yet, though Carr is convinced that the Song of Songs was not originally intended to be about divine-human but about genuinely human love, he holds that on a secondary level, the Song can be read as concerning a divine-human relationship also98. For its early interpreters it was natural to understand the depiction of male-female love in the Song of Songs to be relevant to the theological marriage matrix known elsewhere in Israel. Just 90. See ibid., pp. 202-210. 91. Ibid., p. 210. 92. See CARR, Erotic Word, pp. 4, 144. 93. D.M. CARR, Gender and the Shaping of Desire in the Song of Songs and Its Interpretation, in JBL 119 (2000) 233-248, p. 244. 94. Ibid. 95. Ibid., p. 246. 96. See CARR, Erotic Word, p. 129. 97. CARR, Gender, p. 247. 98. “The Song of Songs, in and of itself, does not appear to have originally been a song of love between YHWH and YHWH’s people. The Song lacks explicit indicators of such a divine-human dimension that are seen in texts such as the Gita Govinda, nor do we see divine direct-addresses such as are found in Mesopotamian divine love poetry. Instead, it appears that much material in the Song relates instead to very human dramas of love of the sort seen in Egyptian love poetry. Nevertheless, when read as a part of the broader Hebrew scriptural corpus, the love language and other elements of the Song of Songs gain new resonance. […] the former prophets provide a precedent for seeing YHWH in a love relationship with his people, one that then can be taken as a key for understanding the Song. Further, certain details of the Song, such as its mention of ‘honey and milk’ in Song 4:11, resonate with Deuteronomic descriptions of the land of Israel as a land ‘of milk and honey’

STATUS QUAESTIONIS – REENERGIZING THE DEBATE

25

as Hosea, the Deuteronomists, Isaiah, or Ezekiel could apply human gender categories to a picture of human infidelity to the divine, it was but a small step to take the radically different picture of love in the Song of Songs and use it to depict that same divine-human love relationship differently99.

Both Walsh and Carr thus make a convincing case to read the Song at least on a secondary level as also being about the expression of a divine-human eros. Carr, however, holds firm to the claim that the Song was not “originally” about the love between God and his people. b) Canonical In his Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture, Brevard Childs calls for a reading of the Song within its proper canonical context, that is, as wisdom literature because of its ascription to Solomon100. According to Childs the placing of the Song within wisdom literature rules out the possibility of reading the Song as “secular” love poetry, for the “polarity of ‘secular versus sacred’ is alien from the start to the categories of Hebrew wisdom”101. It also rules out the possibility of reading the Song as symbolizing the prophetic theme of God’s love for his people, for “these are precisely the themes which are missing in the wisdom corpus”102. As wisdom literature the Song is a sapiential “reflection on the joyful and mysterious nature of love between a man and a woman within the institution of marriage”103. According to Childs the material stems from traditional marriage wedding songs that has been “secondarily drawn within this orbit of wisdom”. This context was to function canonically as a theological construct, enabling the Song “to be heard along with other portions of Israel’s scripture as a guide to wisdom. The canonical concerns were highly theological but expressed in such a way that the profane and sacred dimensions of life were never separated”104.

(e.g., Deut 6:3; 11:9; 26:15; 31:30). […] these dynamics become even stronger when the Song is read as part of a Christian scriptural corpus, which includes depictions of marriage between Christ and the church in Paul, the deutero-Pauline materials, and the Apocalypse of John”. D.M. CARR, For the Love of Christ: Generic and Unique Elements in Christian Theological Readings of the Song of Songs, in C. HELMER (ed.), The Multivalence of Biblical Texts and Theological Meanings (SBL Symposium Series, 37), Atlanta, GA, Society of Biblical Literature, 2006, 11-35, pp. 31-32. 99. CARR, Gender, pp. 244-245 (my emphasis). 100. See CHILDS, Introduction, p. 573. 101. Ibid., p. 574. 102. Ibid., p. 575. 103. Ibid. 104. Ibid., p. 578.

26

CHAPTER 1

Larry Lyke adopts Child’s proposal, yet also provides a much wider understanding of the genre of wisdom literature. Lyke indicates how the metaphors for human love in the Song form part of a larger phenomenon in the Scriptures “in which the love of God is consistently described in sexual metaphors”105. Using the example of Prov 5,15-18; Sirach 24, and a number of select passages from Genesis and Exodus, he explains how in the Second Temple period the Sages quite naturally adopted language connoting human sexuality to articulate their theological conception106. Sexual metaphors are never entirely separable from either human or divine registers. In fact, the sexual metaphor comes to be so intimately associated with the feminine principle of wisdom “that Israel’s loyalty and dedication to God are now understood properly to be channeled through scripture or Torah, another feminine noun”107. Lyke therefore deems it quite likely “that for those responsible for including the Song in the canon, its metaphors were understood in terms of both their human and their divine significance”108. In other words, while it is poetry of human love, it can be simultaneously understood as speaking metaphorically about man’s relationship to God. In that respect the Song can, as a whole, be read allegorically109. c) Synchronic The Italian exegete Gianni Barbiero adopts some elements of the preceding approaches but in his final analysis offers a synchronic reading of the 105. L.L. LYKE, The Song of Songs, Proverbs, and the Theology of Love, in C.R. SEITZ – K. GREENE-MCCREIGHT (eds.), Theological Exegesis: Essays in Honor of Brevard S. Childs, Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 1999, 208-223, p. 209. 106. Ibid., p. 211. 107. Ibid. 108. Ibid., p. 209. 109. Ibid., p. 223. In I Will Espouse You Forever: The Song of Songs and the Theology of Love in the Hebrew Bible, Nashville, TN, Abingdon, 2007, LYKE demonstrates with great success such an allegorical reading of the Song as a whole. Therein he pushes the boundaries of the genre of wisdom literature even wider, engaging the Song with Hebrew Scripture, Targumic, and Midrashic writings in order to reveal its biblically developed theology of love. Against the background of Hosea, Jeremiah, Nahum, Ezekiel, Lamentations, the Book of Judith, and Jon Levenson’s concept of Eden, he substantiates the metaphorical concept of God’s marital love for Israel. Paying particular attention to the biblical temple-as-woman motif (Ezek 16,23; Judith), the water-well-woman-fertility motif (Genesis), and the equation Wisdom/woman/water (Prov 3,9; 4,5; 5,15-18; 8,22) he makes out two “pillars” of the theology of love in Second Temple literature: the Temple and Wisdom-as-Torah (Sirach 24). Both represent the divine in female imagery and are possibly personified in the female character of the Song. While God is conceived as male, his Temple and spouse is female. The Song thus expresses in metaphoric language God’s ongoing and eternal love for his people.

STATUS QUAESTIONIS – REENERGIZING THE DEBATE

27

Song against the background of both the Old and the New Testament. He warns against reducing the Song’s meaning to “only the material aspect” by “eliminating the spiritual and theological dimensions”110. According to him, “the original sense of the book, the sense intended by the author, is not of an allegorical nature”, but has an inherent theological dimension in and of itself111. Its place among the sapiential writings stands in support of a “natural reading of the Song in its obvious sense as a poem about the love between a man and a woman”112. Like Childs, in accord with the classical definition of wisdom literature, Barbiero holds that wisdom literature is not directly interested in religion but everyday life, “mundane reality, ‘secular’ matters as we would say today”113. He points out that for biblical man, there was no such thing as a secular matter since everything was in relation to God. Yet, God is only present as the source of wisdom or the foundation of the cosmic order and not as an agent in the Song itself. For Barbiero, the Song is born from the sages’ amazement in the face of the mystery of love114. “Among all the mysteries of life, the most fascinating is the outpouring of love between two young people. There is not talk of God (in the Song), but the author feels himself to be before a reality greater than he, something that man can neither understand nor control; he feels himself grasped by transcendence”115. Thus, the Song is theological insofar as the transcendent reality of God is present in the love of the two protagonists. In that way he holds that the “theological dimension … is inherent in the letter itself. It is the literal sense of the Song which has a theological dimension”116. The “high road to recovering the theological dimension of the Song”, however, is for Barbiero, “to read it against the background of the entire Bible, above all the Old Testament”117. Recognizing the refined intertextuality of the Song with other biblical books, he discovers a theologicalcanonical dimension in the Song118. In this way Barbiero distinguishes between an original meaning of the Song, which is concerned with the beauty of human love and desires, and a second theological dimension 110. BARBIERO, Song, p. 42. 111. Ibid., pp. 38, 43. 112. Ibid., p. 39. 113. Ibid. This argument will be treated extensively in Chapter 5. 114. A mystery he finds expressed in Prov 30,18-19: “Three things are too wonderful for me; Four I do not understand: The way of an eagle in the sky, the way of a serpent on a rock, the way of a ship on the high seas, and the way of a man with a maiden (RSV)”. Ibid., p. 40. 115. Ibid. 116. Ibid., p. 42. 117. Ibid. 118. Ibid., p. 44.

28

CHAPTER 1

that follows from its canonical context119. This theological dimension is rooted “not on the allegorical level, but on the metaphorical” which corresponds “at root, to the reality of human love which is, at once and inseparably, flesh and spirit”120. The dissertation of Yvonne Sophie Thöne also offers a synchronic approach based on a reader-response theory. Though in itself treating human love only, the Song of Songs has, by its insertion into the biblical canon, become a theologically dense text, as the Jewish and Christian history of interpretation shows121. d) Redactional-Intertextual Approach Yair Zakovitch, by contrast, holds that “the allegorization of the Song must have happened before the final fixation of the text”122. He presumes that pre-existing love songs have been interpreted allegorically by the prophets in describing the relationship between God and Israel even before the final redaction of the Song. These same love songs subsequently made their way into the Song. Thus “it cannot be excluded that the allegorical interpretation has already been taken into account in the final redaction of the Song”123. He views the relationship between the Song and the prophets’ use of the marital metaphor as reciprocal. Zakovitch also holds that “the absence of any reference to God facilitates paradoxically the interpretation of the Song of Songs as the relationship between God and Israel”124. Insofar as the Bible speaks of man as having been created in the image of God (Gen 1,26) and conversely of God in anthropomorphic language, Zakovitch has no problem in seeing allusions to the figure of God in the male Lover of the Song. Zakovitch points to a number of inner-biblical parallels that hint to an allegorical understanding of the Song even before 119. Barbiero does not elaborate his hermeneutical approach. It appears that underlying is the semiotic view, that the significance of a text is co-defined by its context. Through different contextualizations the text gains new significances. See also the discussion of the sensus literalis in the next chapter. 120. Ibid., pp. 43-44. 121. See Y. THÖNE, Liebe zwischen Stadt und Feld: Raum und Geschlecht im Hohelied, Berlin, Lit, 2012, pp. 44, 46. She refrains from any hypothetical diachronic reflections but bases her text on the dialogue between texts and thus between text and reader. 122. Y. ZAKOVITCH, Das Hohelied (HThKAT), Freiburg i.Br., Herder, 2004, p. 96. 123. Ibid., pp. 96-97. 124. Ibid., pp. 94-95. He goes on to say: “Wenn nämlich neben dem männlichen Protagonisten (Bräutigam, Hirt, König) hier und da auch Gott genannt wäre, könnte die zentrale männliche Hauptfigur nicht ohne weiteres mit Gott identifiziert werden. Dies ist eher möglich, weil Gott überhaupt nicht vorkommt. Da in der Bibel die Beziehung zwischen Gott und Israel vielfach poetisch ausgestaltet ist – etwa in manchen Geschichtspsalmen und in Klgl –, rückt die Allegorisierung das Hld in die Nähe dieser Vorstellungswelt”.

STATUS QUAESTIONIS – REENERGIZING THE DEBATE

29

its literal fixation125. Among these is the description of the man in linen garments in Dan 10,5-6 that is reminiscent of the body of the Lover in Song 5,10-16 and which recalls the descriptions of statues of deities (cf. Dan 2,31-32). The Bible compares God at several points both with a shepherd (e.g., Gen 48,15; Ps 23,1-2; 80,2) and with a King (e.g., Ps 93,1; 98,6). The description of Israel is also in accord with that of the female figure of the Song (cf. e.g., the comparisons of Israel with a lily or wine in Hos 14,6-8 and respectively Song 2,1; 6,11). The designation “Daughter Zion” or “Daughter Jerusalem” for the Judean population is frequent among the prophets (i.e. Isa 1,8; 37,22; Zech 2,14; 9,9) and aligns with the “Daughters of Jerusalem” or “Daughters of Zion” that form the female choir in the Song. The Bible commands Israel to love God (Deut 6,5; 10,12) and God loves his people (cf., e.g., 1 Kgs 10,9; Hos 3,1). After all, the Bible depicts the relationship between God and Israel in the same words and same images as the Song uses in order to describe the relationship between the Lover and his Beloved, which facilitates and supports the allegorical interpretation of the Song. Zakovitch acknowledges that parts of the lyrics of the Song are preexistent to its final form and thus might have influenced the prophets in their choice of metaphors in the description of the relationship between God and Israel. On the one hand, he presumes that Isa 5,1-7, the Song of the vineyard, has been influenced by Song 8,11-12126. On the other hand, the prophets’ frequent description of the relationship between God and Israel in the terms of a love relationship between a man and a woman has probably led to the allegorical interpretation of the Song. Zakovitch goes beyond defending a justified posterior allegorization of the Song. According to him, the many apparent parallels between the Song and the prophetic literature might be an indication that already on the level of the final redaction an allegorical interpretation was intended. Yet, he retains that the Song itself is not an allegory, but has subsequently been purposefully allegorized127. e) Intertextual Contrary to the many who hold that the Song has no similarity with any other book of the Bible, Ellen Davis undertakes an intertextual reading 125. For all the examples that follow, see ibid., pp. 95-96. 126. “Das Weinberglied Is 5,1-7 verwendet das Weinberglied Hld 8,11-12 … und deutet es allegorisch auf die Beziehung zwischen Gott und Israel: ‘Denn der Weinberg des JHWH Zebaot ist das Haus Israel, und die Männer von Juda sind die Pflanzung seiner Lust’ (Is 5,7). Dieses Beispiel macht deutlich, dass Liebeslieder bereits vor der literarischen Fixierung von Hld allegorisch ausgelegt wurden”. Ibid., p. 95. 127. Ibid., p. 97.

30

CHAPTER 1

of the Song and comes to the conclusion that it is “the most biblical of books” with an intentional intertextual structure linking it to the pre-existing biblical literature128. She distances herself from the two mutually exclusive approaches of either naturalistic or allegorical, which allows her reading to be informed by both the sexual and the religious understanding of the Song129. According to Davis, one is incomplete without the other, for the awareness of our own sexuality lies at the basis of our religious capacity. “Fundamental to both is a desire to transcend the confines of the self for the sake of intimacy with the other”130. Both experiences are ecstatic, carrying the lover beyond himself to the encounter of the o/Other131. She recognizes the rooting of the Song’s images both in the ANE “religion, art, literature, and history” and the Old Testament, particularly in the physical geography of Israel. These images demand “the vigorous exercise of the religious imagination, while assuming that our imaginations have already had some ‘training’ in biblical tradition”132. Demonstrating a high sensibility to the Song’s intertextual allusions, particularly to the prophetic literature, she detects a prophetic dimension to the Song. While the earlier prophets Hosea, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel had depicted Israel most of all as an unfaithful bride, the Song offers a counter-vision. Inspired by TritoIsaiah’s “vision of Jerusalem as the bride in whom God delights”, the Song appears to be a highly imaginative amplification of that image133. Dating the Song somewhere between the fifth and the third century B.C., during which Israel was a vassal state, and in the face of a Temple which although rebuilt lacked its former glory, she reads the Song as a prophetic celebration of God’s enduring passion for “the bride”. God continues to long for Israel, a longing that will at long last be satisfied134. f) Neo-Allegorical Approaches Since the beginning of the new millennium, more scholars are reconsidering the Song to be an allegory of YHWH’s love for his people Israel and vice versa135. The Assyriologists Martti Nissinen and Pirjo Lapinkivi 128. See E.F. DAVIS, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs (Westminster Bible Companion), Louisville, KY, Westminster John Knox, 2000, p. 231. 129. Ibid., p. 233. 130. Ibid. 131. Ibid.: “Like the love of God, profound love of another person entails devotion of the whole self and steady practice of repentance and forgiveness; it inevitably requires of us suffering and sacrifice”. 132. Ibid., p. 238. 133. Ibid., p. 268. 134. Ibid. 135. CARR, Gender; R. BARTELMUS, Von jungfräulichen Huris zu “pflückreifen Trauben” (C. Luxenberg) oder Vom myrrhegetränkten Venushügel (Hld 4,6) zur Kirche als Braut

STATUS QUAESTIONIS – REENERGIZING THE DEBATE

31

merit mentioning, as well as an article by Rüdiger Bartelmus136. The recent doctoral dissertation by Edmée Kingsmill and the Habilitationsschrift by Meik Gerhards argue that the author of the Song, or the final redactor, had the intention of creating an allegory137. Additionally, Ludger SchwienhorstSchönberger has published a commentary and a number of articles similarly arguing that the Song was composed as an allegory138. (i) Mythic Symbolism Martti Nissinen has published three important contributions to the field since 1998 in which he calls for a reconsideration of the religious background of the Song based on Assyrian material from the first millennium, which has been largely ignored thus far139. He does not downplay the importance of the parallels in Egyptian love poetry, nor does he revive any abandoned theories on the Song of Songs as a sacred marriage drama. He cautions, however, against a unilateral regard only to Egypt in defense of the Song’s alleged secular character and seeks to demonstrate that on the basis of the cuneiform sources, the mythical background of the Song’s metaphors, language, and cultural setting can be seen140. The Song uses Gottes: Überlegungen zur Möglichkeit einer theologischen Lesung des Hohenlieds – ausgehend vom Phänomen der Polyvalenz semitischer Lexeme, in F. HARTENSTEIN – M. PIETSCH (eds.), Sieben Augen auf einem Stein (Sach 3:9): Studien zur Literatur des Zweiten Tempels. FS I. Willi-Plein, Neukirchen-Vluyn, Neukirchener Verlag, 2007, 21-41; M. NISSINEN, Song of Songs and Sacred Marriage, in ID. – R. URO (eds.), Sacred Marriages: The DivineHuman Sexual Metaphor from Sumer to Early Christianity, Winona Lake, IN, Eisenbrauns, 2008, 173-218. 136. M. NISSINEN, Love Lyrics of Nabû and Tasmetu: An Assyrian Song of Songs?, in M. DIETRICH et al. (eds.), “Und Mose schrieb dieses Lied auf”: Studien zum Alten Testament. Festschrift für Oswald Loretz zur Vollendung seines 70. Lebensjahres mit Beiträgen von Freunden, Schülern und Kollegen (AOAT, 250), Münster, Ugarit-Verlag, 1998, 585634; ID., Akkadian Rituals and Poetry of Divine Love, in R.M. WHITING (ed.), Mythology and Mythologies: Methodological Approaches to Intercultural Influences, Helsinki, NeoAssyrian Text Corpus Project, 2001, 93-136; ID., Sacred Marriage, p. 195; P. LAPINKIVI, The Sumerian Sacred Marriage: In the Light of Comparative Evidence (SAA, 15), Helsinki, Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 2004; BARTELMUS, Huris. 137. E. KINGSMILL, The Song of Songs and the Eros of God (OTM), Oxford – New York, Oxford University Press, 2009; GERHARDS, Hohelied. 138. See L. SCHWIENHORST-SCHÖNBERGER, Das Hohelied der Liebe, Freiburg i.Br., Herder, 2015; ID., Bedeutung; ID., The Song of Songs as Allegory: Methodological and Hermeneutical Considerations, in A. SCHELLENBERG – L. SCHWIENHORST-SCHÖNBERGER (eds.), Interpreting the Song of Songs: Literal or Allegorical? (BiTS, 26), Leuven, Peeters, 2016, 1-50; ID., Das Hohelied als Allegorie, in ID. (ed.), Das Hohelied im Konflikt der Interpretationen (ÖBS, 47), Frankfurt a.M., Lang, 2017, 11-56; ID., Traces of an Original Allegorical Meaning of the Song of Songs, in S.C. JONES – C. ROY YODER (eds.), “When the Morning Stars Sang”: Essays in Honor of Choon Leong Seow on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday, Berlin, De Gruyter, 2018, 317-330. 139. NISSINEN, Love Lyrics; ID., Akkadian Rituals; ID., Sacred Marriage. 140. NISSINEN, Love Lyrics, p. 585.

32

CHAPTER 1

a language similar to that of some of the first millennium Assyrian love lyrics that were used in religious cults. It stands to reason that in a culture where these religious symbols were commonly known, the reader/hearer of the Song would have easily identified the religious connotation. According to Nissinen, “Even in its final form, the text of the Song of Songs is so heavily loaded with mythological reminiscences and theomorphic symbolism that one cannot escape the idea that more than a strictly desacralized ‘atmosphere of exalted profanity’ (Gerlemann) is at stake”141. Rather than continuing on the bifurcated track of an “either or”, “cultic or profane” interpretation, “which corresponds to the modern distinction between the corporeal and the metaphysical but may be utterly misleading when applied to ancient Near Eastern sources”, Nissinen proposes a both … and approach. He states, “There is no need to refute the modern contention that the Song of Songs reflects and celebrates human love and erotic desire, but it would also be a Pyrrhic victory to explain away every religious, divine or mythological aspect of the text. It is important to note that ancient love poetry does not fall neatly into the categories of ‘human’ and ‘divine’, or ‘cultic’ and ‘non-cultic’”142. As the prophetic corpus shows, the erotic metaphors and symbols were still actively in use in Israel at the time of exclusive monotheism. Nissinen cautions, “the alleged Israelite crusade against the ‘deification of sexuality’ may be motivated by modern presuppositions more than by the historical conditions. It was not the sexuality that was worshipped in the Mesopotamian rites of divine love; rather, sex and eroticism served as symbol of the benediction and benevolence of the gods towards their worshippers”143. In post-exilic Israel such rites were indeed no longer tolerated; however, Israel did not abandon love as a divine attribute. “Instead”, says Nissinen, “the imagery of love and eroticism was adapted into a new symbolic world and reproduced under monotheistic conditions, strictly divorced from ritual practices but maintaining its legitimacy in metaphorical speech. From this point of view, even the lamented allegorical interpretation of the Song of Songs shows itself less awkward”144. Nissinen’s refreshing understanding of a re-adaptation of ANE 141. Ibid., p. 626. 142. Ibid. 143. Ibid., p. 627. 144. Ibid. In a later publication on the same topic he writes: “The use of imagery is strikingly similar in all sources, which shows the persistence of symbolic language through ages and cultures. All this suggests that the affinity between the Song of Songs and the Mesopotamian love poetry is not merely due to a haphazard distribution of universal expressions of love but to the continuity of a common erotic-lyric tradition in which the idea and ritual practice of sacred marriage is an important constituent”. See NISSINEN, Sacred Marriage, p. 209.

STATUS QUAESTIONIS – REENERGIZING THE DEBATE

33

love imagery into Israel’s own symbolic world and monotheistic belief will be amply treated in Chapter 6. (ii) Poetry of Divine Union In her study on Sumerian sacred marriage, the Assyriologist Pirjo Lapinkivi comes to a similar conclusion145. Displaying awareness for the problems of an allegorical versus natural reading, and the impossibility of the Song having originated from a sacred marriage fertility cult, which would have hardly escaped the condemnation of the prophets, she states, “the Song almost certainly was composed as a direct continuation of the previous Near Eastern love poetry traditions which originated in Sumer”146. She sees a strong parallel to the “most dominant theme of the Sumerian love poetry [which] are the woman’s point of view and her sexuality”147. This is true both in those love songs that support the royal ideology and in those which can be interpreted as songs of redemption. Pointing to the fact that these Sumerian texts were most probably written by men, she supports the gender theory according to which, in its relationship to God, the soul is perceived as female. If the Sumerian love songs were “understood as depicting the soul’s union with the divine, then they [the scribes] were able to identify themselves with the woman, Inana (= soul). Since the Song was composed in a world where there was only one God who was male, the other party had to be a woman”148. Lapinkivi is aware of the objection that the prophets would depict God’s relationship to Israel according to the patriarchal model in which the wife (allegedly) had to be submissively obedient and faithful. However, she holds that “the composer of the Song may have been reflecting a more idealistic view of love – that of equality”149. (iii) Polyvalence of Language Bartelmus recalls the argument that the Song would have hardly been accepted into the canon if the possibility of a theological reading of its explicitly erotic and body-related lexemes had not existed from the outset150. Leaving uncontested the (allegedly profane) Egyptian and probably Greek literary parallels, Bartelmus (like Nissinen) points to the fact that historically 145. 146. 147. 148. 149. 150.

LAPINKIVI, Sacred Marriage. Ibid., p. 94. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. BARTELMUS, Huris, p. 21.

34

CHAPTER 1

Mesopotamia is the more probable origin of source texts. Just as Ezekiel has used the Mesopotamian religious erotic literature to convey his theological message about Jerusalem in Ezekiel 16 and 23 in a metaphoric language known to his audience, so also it is conceivable that the author of the Song of Songs may have used love songs in order to convey his theological message. The comprehensibility of the Song’s message was provided by the prophet Ezekiel151. On the basis of the obvious polyvalence of the metaphoric language of the Song, which impedes a “literal” understanding of the poetic language but calls for the correct interpretation already on the level of the so-called literal sense, Bartelmus argues that the classical opposition “allegorical-literal” is erroneous152. He offers the image of the female Beloved as an example, depicted according to a literal understanding of the metaphors which describe her beauty (such as: “Your nose is like the tower of Lebanon overlooking Damascus”, Song 7,5). According to Bartelmus “literal” is the wrong label for any possible reading of the Song, for hardly any of its lexemes can be read in the sense of a primus usus153. It is this inherent polyvalence of the Song’s language that prompts the reader to look for a “literal sense” of a “higher kind”. But, if this search for the meaning of the encoded formulations was intended by the Song’s author(s), should it not then be allowed or even required to read these texts on a “higher” level as “assertions on Israel’s or the Church’s relationship to God”154? This reading is all the more necessary as the man-woman relationship is repeatedly used as the model for Israel’s relationship to God in the OT. “Every lexeme of the Song […] can be located in the natural and the theological realm. And if furthermore Solomon – who is after all mentioned in the text itself […] – is made the 151. “Genauso wie sich Ezechiel ohne jede Hemmung der Bildwelt seiner Umwelt bedient hat, um die Erscheinung Jahwes am Flusse Kebar zu schildern, hat er offenbar auch Anleihen bei der religiös-erotischen Literatur seiner Umwelt genommen, um seine Botschaft in einer Weise zu artikulieren, die für seine Hörer/Leser aktuell war. … daß Ezechiels theologische Applikation der einschlägigen erotischen Literatur Mesopotamiens den Weg dafür geebnet hat, die weltlichen Liebeslieder, die heute im HL gesammelt sind, theologisch zu verstehen, ist wohl kaum zu bestreiten”. Ibid., p. 36. 152. “Das Prinzip, dem Litteralsinn den Vorzug zu geben, kommt angesichts der metaphorischen Sprache des Hohenlieds an unübersehbare Grenzen: Ein Beharren auf der hermeneutischen Standardopposition ‘allegorisch-literal’ führt hier in die Irre”. Ibid., p. 37. 153. Ibid., p. 38. 154. “Wenn nun aber der bzw. die Autoren der einzelnen Lieder den Leser / Hörer ganz bewußt dazu veranlaßt haben, selbst nach dem Sinn der verklausulierten Formulierungen zu suchen – ist es dann nicht erlaubt, ja sogar angezeigt, daß man die Texte auf einer noch ‘höheren’ Ebene als Aussagen zur Gottesbeziehung Israels bzw. der Kirche liest?”. Ibid., p. 40.

STATUS QUAESTIONIS – REENERGIZING THE DEBATE

35

patron of a spiritual reading, then an allegorical or typical reading is implied nearly inevitably”155. (iv) Reversed Prophetic Allegory The 2003 thesis of Edmée Kingsmill, The Song of Songs and the Eros of God, should also be mentioned156. Kingsmill undertakes a study of the Song in biblical intertextuality on the presupposition that the text is decidedly younger than the prophetic literature. She is inclined to date it between the third and the first century157. While the prophets use the nuptial metaphor to describe the relationship between God and Israel as a “devastated erotic relationship”, she postulates that the poet of the Song reverses this image and “provides the biblical literature with a picture of the ideal”158. Very much like Buzy and Feuillet she holds that the poet’s “purpose is encouragement, to inspire by depicting the ideal against the discouraging reality. Like the prophets he conveys the eros of God for ‘the people he has chosen for his own possession’ (Ps. 33:12), but unlike them he portrays the eros for God of his chosen people at its most sustained, unfaltering and faithful”159. Because of the widespread confusion between the terms “allegory”, as a literary genre, and “allegorizing”, as an exegetical method, Kingsmill avoids the term “allegory” in her study in favor of “metaphor”160. However, in the light of literary works like Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress that have been written as an allegory, she understands “the Song of Songs to have been written as an allegory of the love of God for his 155. “Es gibt nicht nur einen Grund für die Möglichkeit einer theologischen Lesung des HL – man muss von einem Mix aus verschiedenen Aspekten ausgehen: Aus dem Mythischen ins Lyrische übertragene mehrsinnige Metaphern und Bilder lassen sich auch wieder in umgekehrte Richtung lesen, dies um so mehr, als auch sonst im AT die MannFrau-Beziehung wiederholt als Modell der Gottesbeziehung verwendet ist. Jedes einzelne Lexem läßt sich – wie eingangs erwähnt – vielfach in der natürlichen wie der theologischen Welt verorten, und wenn man dann noch die im Text immerhin erwähnte (also nicht sekundär an ihn herangetragene Größe) Salomo zum Patron einer geistlichen Lesung macht, ergibt sich fast zwangsläufig eine Legitimität der allegorischen bzw. typologischen Lesung”. Ibid., pp. 40-41. 156. KINGSMILL, Eros. 157. Ibid., p. 8. She reckons “that Sirach pre-dates the Song as it seems more likely that the author of the Song alludes to Sirach than that the author of Sirach is expanding on the Song”. She moreover proposes links between Song 5 and 6 with the Merkava literature which is why she tends toward a late dating. 158. Ibid., p. 2. 159. Ibid., p. 39. 160. She confesses in her introduction that her understanding of the term “allegory” has suffered a loss of its correct sense because of the way it is often applied in Songscholarship, i.e., “as a term applied to a text by others, not as describing the nature of the work”. Ibid., p. 42.

36

CHAPTER 1

creation and particularly, from the perspective of the poet, for the land of Israel, Jerusalem, the Temple, and the people God chose to be his own possession (cf. Deut. 7:6)”161. (v) Rehabilitating Allegory Another recent monograph that defends the Song as an allegory is the Habilitationsschrift of the German Protestant scholar Meik Gerhards162. On the background of its ANE and most of all Hellenistic parallels, he reads the Song as love poetry, the monologue of a woman, and dream poetry. Following the observations of David Carr, Rüdiger Bartelmus, and Martti Nissinen, and insisting that historical-critical scholarship must ask if the Song was not intended to be an allegory from the outset, he dedicates about the last twenty percent of his habilitation to this question. Gerhards investigates the whence of the “horror” of allegory in historical-critical exegesis and roots it in German Classicism and its time-conditioned artideals. Showing how the German ideal of art as Erlebniskunst (see Chapter 3, II.1, below, p. 124) had led to a rejection of allegory as a cold and dogmatic expression of art – or even non-art – he points to the anachronism of applying such an understanding of art to texts, which are decidedly older. Distinguishing carefully between allegory (a literary genre) and allegorical interpretation (a hermeneutical method)163, Gerhards demonstrates the necessity of reconsidering the question if the Song had not been intended to be an allegory on the level of the text’s production. Gerhards adopts the ancient definition by Quintilian of “allegory” as a prolonged metaphor. Dating the Song to the Seleucid period (second century B.C.) and having carefully demonstrated its unity, Gerhards comes to the conclusion that the Song takes recourse to the Bildfeld “marriage with God”, which at that time already had a strong biblical tradition history164. A decisive clue to the Song’s being an allegory is found in the superlative of the title that indicates the importance of the content. Particularly the toponyms, which serve to describe the beauty of the woman, indicate with all likelihood that she stands for Israel165. A further indication for the allegorical nature of the Song appears to lie in its attribution to Solomon. 161. Ibid., p. 43. 162. GERHARDS, Hohelied. 163. See extensively H.-J. KLAUCK, Allegorie und Allegorese in Synoptischen Gleichnistexten (Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen, 26), Münster, Aschendorff, 1978. 164. According to the Bildfeld theory of Harald Weinrich, metaphorical language is strongly tradition-bound and works text-pragmatically because the author can count on his reader/hearer’s ability to associate the Bildfelder (image fields). See H. WEINRICH, Sprache in Texten, Stuttgart, Klett, 1976. 165. See, GERHARDS, Hohelied, p. 531.

STATUS QUAESTIONIS – REENERGIZING THE DEBATE

37

Solomon, as the sage par excellence, was known for his capacity for interpreting enigmas and formulating them. This could be an indication for the reader that the poet is speaking in a codified language. Finally, taking into account that the audience is familiar with the Bildfeld “marriage with God”, Gerhards comes to the conclusion that the author is probably using allegory not to encrypt his message but in order to make it more impressive166. His thesis is that the Song was composed “as a book of edification and consolation for those who held on to the hope that God would realize the restoration of Israel, which had been promised by the prophets in the metaphor of a marriage in spite of the continued hegemony over Israel”167. Building on Gerhards’ rehabilitation of allegory, Ludger SchwienhorstSchönberger has also recently argued for reconceiving the Song as having been composed as an allegory168. In line with Robert – Tournay – Feuillet, and Davis’ approach, he offers an intertextual reading of the Song and shows the numerous contacts with other mostly post-exilic texts of the Bible169. “Taken together … [these intertextual references] introduce a new level of meaning which surpasses the alleged clear literal wording of the songs”170. He insists particularly on the fact that the so-called “natural understanding of the Song of Songs is strongly influenced by genre criticism (Gattungskritik)”171, the application of which to the Song has obscured “the literary setting within which the text was handed down. The text is usually 166. He cites J.G. Sulzer, Theorie I,30, a German polymath from the time before allegory was generally rejected, who recommended the use of allegory in order to reinforce the message one wants to convey and shed a stronger light on it. The highest purpose of allegory is, according to Sulzer, “die Sache stärker und nachdrücklicher zu sagen, zugleich aber ihr auch ein größeres Licht zu geben”. Allegory, he continues “hat bisweilen eine beynahe beweisende Kraft. Denn Wahrheiten, deren man sich nicht sowohl durch einen deutlichen Beweis, als ein schnelles Überschauen vieler einzelnen Umstände versichern muß, die also keines wirklichen Beweises fähig sind, können durch solche Allegorien die Art des Beweises bekommen, dessen sie fähig sind”. Cited ibid., p. 541. 167. Ibid., pp. 542-543; 503: “In einer Reihe von prophetischen Texten wird also die Wiederherstellung Israels nach Exil und Fremdherrschaft in das Bild einer Hochzeit gefasst, wobei es jeweils eindeutig um das Verhältnis Jahwe und Israel, bzw. Jahwe und Jerusalem geht. Diese Texte aktualisieren also ein Bildfeld, das einen Spezialfall der altorientalischen göttlich-menschlichen Geschlechtsmetapher darstellt. In dem speziellen Feld ist der Sinnbezirk Erneuerung des Gottesverhältnisses, dem die Wiederherstellung Israels entspricht, mit dem Sinnbezirk Hochzeit verbunden, wobei letzterer als bildspendend wirkt”. 168. See SCHWIENHORST-SCHÖNBERGER, Das Hohelied; ID., Bedeutung; ID., Allegory; ID., Allegorie, and ID., Traces. 169. For a full-length allegorical reading of the Song, see his commentary: Das Hohelied. 170. SCHWIENHORST-SCHÖNBERGER, Allegory, p. 45. 171. Ibid., p. 13. See also L. SCHWIENHORST-SCHÖNBERGER, Alttestamentliche Weisheit im Diskurs, in ZAW 125 (2013) 118-142.

38

CHAPTER 1

removed from its given literary context and interpreted against the background of a reconstructed Sitz im Leben”172. Schwienhorst-Schönberger does not exclude the possibility of an originally secular setting of the individual songs. “In its current [biblical] context, however, these songs probably did have the loving relationship between God and his beloved bride, his people, in view from the beginning. The numerous correspondences with other topical texts of the OT especially attest to this suggestion. Both the Jewish and the Christian tradition have basically understood these intertextual correspondences correctly”173. 3. Hermeneutical Objections A major source of confusion in the discussion about the Song’s interpretation is the failure to distinguish between allegory as a literary device, which belongs to the level of the production of a text (Produktionsästhetik) and thus to the level of the “literal meaning”, and allegoresis, which belongs to the reception of a text on the level of its interpretation (Rezeptionsästhetik)174. a) Allegoresis ≠ Allegory Allegoresis is a method of interpretation that may be applied to a work that is not, in itself, an allegory but which, for one reason or another, encourages or demands a figurative interpretation175. It searches for a hidden meaning in or behind what was traditionally called the sensus literalis. This deeper philosophical, theological, moral, or eschatological meaning was in the Middle Ages referred to as the sensus spiritualis176. Thus 172. SCHWIENHORST-SCHÖNBERGER, Allegory, p. 13. See also ID., Kontextualität. 173. SCHWIENHORST-SCHÖNBERGER, Allegory, p. 46. In Bedeutung, p. 177, he explains: “Das Hohelied … entfaltet die erotisch-sexuelle Konnotation der prophetischen Ehemetaphorik als einen eigenständigen, erotisch-sexuellen Diskurs, als ein Liebeslied, das zur Entschlüsselung der in ihm verwendeten Metaphorik zweiten Grades einen idealen Leser voraussetzt, der in der Lage ist, die subtilen intertextuellen Verknüpfungen des Textes zu entschlüsseln”. 174. See KLAUCK, Allegorie, pp. 32-61. 175. See J. ROSENBERG, King and Kin: Political Allegory in the Bible, Bloomington, IN, Indiana University Press, 1986, p. 13. 176. See G. SCHWEIKLE, Allegorese, in ID. – I. SCHWEIKLE (eds.), Metzler Literatur Lexikon: Begriffe und Definitionen, 2Stuttgart, Metzler, 1990, 9. The term sensus spiritualis proper is coined by THOMAS AQUINAS (Summa Theologiae I.1.10). Before him the Fathers speak rather of four intelligentia. See M. REISER, Bibelkritik und Auslegung der Heiligen Schrift (WUNT, 217), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2007, pp. 139-145, and Marguerite Harl’s introduction to ORIGÈNE, Philocalie, 1-20 sur les Écritures – La lettre à Africanus sur l’histoire de Suzanne (SC, 302), Paris, Cerf, 1983, pp. 19-159.

STATUS QUAESTIONIS – REENERGIZING THE DEBATE

39

allegoresis reads a non-metaphorical text in a metaphorizing (figurative) way177. Allegoresis has its roots in the earliest known Homeric exegesis that sought to justify the Greek mythology to Stoic philosophy178. Philo of Alexandria adopted the method for his Old Testament exegesis, on which the Jewish reading of the Song’s female character as Israel and the male character as YHWH was based. Adopting the basic principles of the Jewish exegesis in a modified way by taking the literal sense of the Old Testament as a historical sense (not mythological as in the case of Homer), which had to be re-read and understood in the light of the New Testament, the Church Fathers then developed upon this method of allegoresis as the doctrine of the four-fold senses of Scripture179. Thus allegoresis differentiates between two meanings: the literal sense, understood to be the historical sense, and the spiritual sense, which was considered to be hidden to the naked eye. The confusion is increased by the fact that one of the classical four senses of Scripture, that is, a subcategory of the spiritual sense, was called the “allegorical sense”180. Thereby no allegorization was designated, as happens in all processes of interpretation, but the very specific sense a text assumes when re-read in the light of the Christ-event. Thus in the case of the Song for instance, the literal sense was transposed onto Christ and his Church under the category “allegorical sense”. This process has its own validity, but it must not be confused with the question of whether the literal sense of a certain text may in itself be allegorical or figurative181. 177. REISER, Bibelkritik, p. 80. 178. See the in-depth study by J. PÉPIN, Mythe et allégorie: Les origines grecques et les contestations judéo-chrétiennes, Paris, Aubier-Montaigne, 1958. 179. For an extensive treatment of how the allegoresis of the Church Fathers differed from that of Homeric exegesis, see H. DE LUBAC, History and Spirit: The Understanding of Scripture according to Origen, San Francisco, CA, Ignatius, 2007. 180. Cf. the mnemotechnic verse: Littera gesta docet, quid credas allegoria // Moralis quid agas, quo tendas anagogia. 181. The allegorization of the texts of the OT has its due place within the Christian tradition but must not be confused with the literal sense. Rather, it belongs to what is traditionally called the “spiritual sense”. In light of the fulfillment of the Scriptures – the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus – the words and events of the OT are re-interpreted, revealing how they testified in advance (προ-μαρτύρομαι) to Christ’s resurrection and the following glory (1 Pet 1,11). However, the validity (and maybe the necessity of recovering) the allegorical interpretation of biblical texts is a matter beyond this present study. Suffice it to say that it cannot be labeled “an elegantly fashioned contempt of the text” (Keel), for such a contempt for an allegorical interpretation of the Old Testament only shows contempt for the mystery of Christ, which is contended in the entirety of Scripture and not just in the accounts of the New Testament. The question of the validity of the allegorical interpretation of the Song as practiced both by the Synagogue and by the Church depends decidedly on the sensus literalis of the Song, for at least in the Christian tradition it is an undisputed fact that the spiritual sense (understood as the sense revealed through the fulness of revelation in the Christ-event) has to be grounded in the literal sense. Only the quest for the latter is the subject of this study.

40

CHAPTER 1

Modern exegesis has come to reject this method of allegoresis for a number of reasons. One reason is that it leads to an incalculable, seemingly arbitrary number of possible interpretations that appear to lack a traceable rooting in the literal sense182. While its Christian pioneers like Origen were diligent about searching for the literal sense before deriving the spiritual sense from the former, later generations of commentators jumped immediately to the spiritual sense, whose rooting in the literal sense of Scripture was in some cases anything but obvious. Thus the spiritual or allegorical sense appeared to float in an unrelated fashion upon the literal sense; it became, in a way, dis-incarnate. It has, however, always been Christian doctrine (eastern and western) that any theological meaning must be rooted in the literal sense. However, it was not until the rise of Humanism that the literal sense once again came to be the center of attention, and rightly so. b) Allegory Is Part of the Literal Sense While the failure of pre-critical exegesis may have been to rush too hastily to the spiritual sense – particularly in Song exegesis where the plain sense was apparently of little use for a reading that took place primarily in monastic communities – critical exegesis must beware of the contrary fallacy of a reductionist understanding of the literal sense. Here the distinction between allegory and allegoresis is especially vital. For while allegoresis refers to a method of interpretation, which places a supplementary meaning over the plain meaning, the term “allegory” does not denote a method of interpretation but a literary device employed on the level of the text’s production. An allegory, in its plainest form, is a text that is constructed to mean something other than what it says (= ἄλλο ἀγορεύειν). In this case the literal sense is in itself an allegorical sense. Allegories, understood as a literary device, occur in many different forms and degrees, which range from an allegoria tota (or explicit allegory), which has its explanation attached to it183, to very implicit allegories, which only the 182. Marius REISER, who does not share this opinion, characterizes it as follows: “Allegorese gilt heute gewöhnlich als eine – glücklich überwundene – Form von willkürlicher Exegese, bei der die Intention der Texte und ihrer Autoren grob missachtet wird; eine Art Interpretation, bei der Assoziation und Phantasie freies Spiel haben und den Text nur als Spielball benützen”, Bibelkritik, p. 99. For an excellent demonstration of the legitimacy of allegoresis as an appropriate method of exegesis, see his chapter “Biblische und nachbiblische Allegorese” (ibid., pp. 99-118). 183. This is the case in texts like Ezekiel 16 where the text has no other meaning than the telling of Jerusalem’s history in the garments of a young adulterous girl. Isaiah 5, the Song of the vineyard, is another such example. In the NT this is the case with the parable of the weeds among the wheat (Matt 13,24-30.36-43) and in the parable of the sower (Mark 4,3-8). See ibid., p. 87.

STATUS QUAESTIONIS – REENERGIZING THE DEBATE

41

context-initiated reader may be able to decipher. The only pertinent question is not whether the allegoresis of the Church Fathers was legitimate or not, as their methods of interpretation involve different but not less valid premises than historical-critical scholarship. Rather, the question at stake is whether the Song is an allegory in and of itself.

III. THE PRESENT THESIS From the dichotomy “profane-sacred” the discussion has moved to a different level. Most contemporary authors are willing to allow for a “spiritual meaning” of the Song. However, what they define as “spiritual” varies widely and holding against the profanity of love need not mean claiming that the Song is theological from the outset. Rather, the majority of commentators, even those who argue for recuperating a theological dimension for the Song, are still of the opinion that the Song is originally about the love between a “flesh and blood woman and man”. Only on a secondary level does it assume a theological significance concerning the divine-human relationship, either because sexual yearning is somehow analogical to mystical desire (i.e., Walsh), or because the canonical context of the Bible allows for such a posterior intertextual reading (i.e., Barbiero). Thus, the question is no longer if it is either an allegory of God’s love for Israel or a profane love song. Rather, it is generally admitted that human and divine love are not exclusive of each other184. This new openness to the Song’s “spiritual message”, however, has not settled the real question. The core of the discussion still concerns the literal sense of the Song. Is it originally intended to be “merely” about human love, and theological only on a secondary level, or is its literal sense intentionally theological? “Theological” is taken here in the strong etymological sense of a word (logos) about God (theos). 1. Basic Alignment The present study places itself in the line of the renewed interest in an original theological intention on the level of the text’s production185. 184. DAVIS, Reading the Song Iconographically, p. 181: “In my judgment, the characteristic weakness in both traditional and modern commentaries is the commitment to confine its meaning within a single sphere of relationship, be it divine-human (the allegorical tradition) or male-female (most modern interpreters)”. 185. With Carr “the term theological is meant to designate approaches that see God as a character in the Song. One could argue of course that this use of the term theological is inadequate, because it ignores the potential theological character of readings focusing

42

CHAPTER 1

It is not sufficient to posit a posterior possibility of allegorization or “spiritualization”186, which is doubtlessly given by the canonical context in which its interpreters found plenty of indications. As the works of Robert – Tournay – Feuillet and more recently Zakovitch (partially), Davis, Kingsmill, Gerhards, and Schwienhorst-Schönberger, supported by renowned Assyriologists (Klein, Nissinen), have argued with different approaches, an original theological intention on behalf of the author (understood as the final redactor) cannot be discarded as unhistorical. The naturalistic reading has its validity, if only partially. It rightly claims that exegesis must be concerned with the literal sense, and that we discern between the literal sense of the text itself and its posterior allegorization. It also rightly claims that due attention must be given to the anthropological reality of the text. The classical allegorical interpretations tend to underestimate the plain sense of the text, which describes an erotic love relationship between a man and a woman. The plain sense of the Song does, in fact, reveal in lucid fashion both the joys and pains of the human loving heart. This dimension must not be lost in any approach. The anthropological dimension must not be sacrificed for the theological, nor vice versa. However, the naturalistic reading has been constructed on a number of false premises that necessarily distort the conclusion. It is built both on questionable exegetical assumptions, and on contingent philosophical and theological premises. a) Answers to the Exegetical Postulates against Reading the Song as an Allegory Under I.3, above p. 10, a number of postulates have been listed as to why the Song cannot be an allegory. To these postulates I shall briefly respond. (i) God Is Not Mentioned in the Song The argument that the Song speaks only about human lovers because God is not mentioned is the least valid among the common objections. on love between human beings”, CARR, Love of Christ, p. 12, n. 2. However, the term anthropological seems more adequate for this latter way of reading the Song, as it is the creational aspect of the divinely instituted attraction of the sexes which is revelatory. When allowing a reading in which God takes part in the “love affair”, we reach what are actually theological conclusions on “God’s Eros” for man. 186. The latter is basically the position of Barbiero, who holds that the Song was intended as a human love song, but assumes a spiritual dimension through its insertion into the canon and so through the thus-established intertextuality with both the Old and the New Testament.

STATUS QUAESTIONIS – REENERGIZING THE DEBATE

43

The “absence of God” is a feature that is typical for the late books of the Old Testament187. This so-called Gottesschweigen (silence of God) testifies on the one hand to the growing awareness of God’s immanent presence in history188, and conforms with the endeavor to avoid the mention of the divine Name as much as possible. On the other hand, it bears witness to the development of more refined scribal practices that seek to speak about the obvious in hidden, often coded, fashion. Prominent for the absence of God is the book of Esther (MT)189. While at first sight it seems to be a narrative interested primarily in Judaism as an ethnic entity, it is a highly theological book which demonstrates an intricate intertextuality with other biblical books of which it constitutes a rereading with a new and creative theological message190. There is no a priori reason why the Song should not have recourse to similar techniques191. (ii) Refined Allegories Are Implicit It is precisely the fact that God is not explicitly mentioned that allows for the possibility of reading the Song as an allegory192. Allegory does 187. See, for example, the Gottesschweigen in the MT of the Book of Esther which originates in the same period (third century B.C.). See E. ZENGER, Einleitung in das Alte Testament (Studienbücher Theologie, 1), Stuttgart, Kohlhammer, 82012, p. 384. 188. See ibid., p. 385. 189. ZENGER (ibid.) gives an illuminating explanation: the absence of God in the book of Esther is its theological program, which is condensed in the name Esther as an aptronym. Originally the name Esther derives probably from Ishtar. According to a Talmudic tradition, however, it has to be understood with Deut 32,20: “I will hide (῾astīrah) my face from them”, which is an exilic theodicy psalm, meditating on the absence of God. The same meaning seems to be implied in the Book of Esther in the face of the endangered Jewish existence in the world. As Zenger sees it, “In Israels Leid bildet sich das Geheimnis des Sich-Verbergens-Gottes ab, das Israel seine besondere Gottes-Sendung inmitten der Völker gibt – nämlich dass Rettung geschieht für und durch Israel, wenn es sich von seinem Geschichtswissen leiten lässt” (italics in text). 190. See ZENGER, ibid., pp. 382-383, who detects a relecture of the old conflict between Israel and Amalek (Exod 17,8-16; Deut 25,17-19), and of the Joseph-Cycle. Zenger records further that Gillis Gerleman has wanted to make out Esther to be a relecture of Exodus 1–12. Though this latter theory might have feet of clay (so Zenger), the clear parallels between the Pesach-tradition and the book of Esther cannot be denied. In a situation reminiscent of the Exodus and the Exile, Esther rises as a “female figure with ‘messianic traits’ in the place of David”, and saves her people Israel from imminent death. 191. In fact, in explaining the “allegorical” nature of the book of Esther, J. GROSSMAN, Esther: The Outer Narrative and the Hidden Reading (Siphrut, 6), Winona Lake, IN, Eisenbrauns, 2011, pp. 1-2, calls upon the Song of Songs as “the classic example of this type of writing. … Whether one views this book as a metaphor for the relationship between a believer and God or between the entire nation of Israel and God, one must acknowledge that the book’s intended significance is never stated openly. According to either view, a person who reads the book with no awareness of its hidden level is, in fact, reading a parable with no knowledge of its moral, thereby missing the essence of the text”. 192. See ZAKOVITCH, Hohelied, pp. 94-95.

44

CHAPTER 1

not have to be explicit. On the contrary, as Schwienhorst-Schönberger has recently recalled, an allegory usually contains no explicit signals in the text pointing to the target domain. This is a point in which allegory differs from parable. In a parable, the descriptivenarrative textual level is embedded in the level of the actual statement, which makes a text easily recognizable as a parable. In the case of the complete allegory (tota allegoria) … it is the task of the recipient to gain access to the target domain without the aid of explicit signals in the text193.

A fine example of implicit biblical allegory is Qoh 12,3-4, where the aging body parts (arms, legs, teeth, eyes) are described in vivid but coded images. The body is compared to a stately house. With advancing age, the guardians of the house (v. 3; the arms and hands) begin to shiver; the strong men bend (v. 3; the legs); the women who grind (v. 3; the teeth) cease to do so because they are few; and those who look out of the windows (v. 3; the eyes) are dimmed. The doors to the street (v. 4; the ears) are shut; the sound of grinding is low (v. 4; eating ceases); one rises up at the sound of a bird, and the sound of singing fades away (v. 4; the old rise early with the singing of the birds, but cannot enjoy the sound for their deafness)194. Other biblical examples of implicit allegory are the Book of Jonah and the narrative of Daniel and Susanna195. What links these two narratives particularly to the Song are the symbolic names of their respective heroes. Both are personifications of Israel, once in a male and once in a female figure. The former is called dove (‫)יונה‬, and the latter by the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew word for “lily” or “lotus” (‫ ;)שושנה‬notably both are names by which the Beloved of the Song is called (“dove”: 2,14; 5,2; 6,9; “lily”: 2,1-2). 193. SCHWIENHORST-SCHÖNBERGER, Allegory, p. 32. See also GERHARDS, Hohelied, pp. 137-152. Pace T. STAUBLI, Love Poetry from the House of the Mother: Arguments for a Literal Understanding of Song of Songs and against Its Neo-Allegorical Interpretation, in A. SCHELLENBERG – L. SCHWIENHORST-SCHÖNBERGER (eds.), Interpreting the Song of Songs: Literal or Allegorical? (BiTS, 26), Leuven, Peeters, 2016, 79-101, p. 97, according to whom an implicit allegory would make the Song an esoteric text that would contradict the whole tradition of biblical literature; a contradiction not evident to the present writer. 194. E. BIRNBAUM – L. SCHWIENHORST-SCHÖNBERGER, Das Buch Kohelet (Neuer Stuttgarter Kommentar. Altes Testament, 14/2), Stuttgart, Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2012, p. 265. 195. On Jonah as an allegory on Israel in Exile, see P.R. ACKROYD, Exile and Restoration: A Study of Hebrew Thought of the Sixth Century BC (OTL), London, SCM, 1968, pp. 244-245. For Susanna as an allegory, see H. ENGEL, Die Susanna-Erzählung: Einleitung, Übersetzung und Kommentar zum Septuaginta-Text und zur Theodotion-Bearbeitung (OBO, 61), Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1985, treated in Chapter 7.

STATUS QUAESTIONIS – REENERGIZING THE DEBATE

45

Moreover, the Diasporanovellen of Joseph, Esther, and Daniel propagate in implicit allegorical fashion the role of Israel among the nations196. These three figures are each personifications of Israel, which reflect the post-exilic situation of Israel in a positive light. Typical for the literature of that time is the genre “one for all”. The protagonist of the story stands for the people whose fate he or she epitomizes197. (iii) Problematic Distinction from the Prophets It is not correct that the tertium comparationis in the prophet’s use of the nuptial metaphor for the relationship YHWH-Israel is “limited to legal aspects, most of all fidelity”, and that “the sexual-erotic symbolism is avoided as impertinent to that relationship”198. Though it is correct that the emphasis is on fidelity in Hosea 1–3 and Jeremiah 2–3 as also in Ezekiel 16 and 23 (using strong terms of infidelity, adultery, and harlotry), it must also be seen that the same prophets speak of the future restoration of Israel in similar nuptial language (Hos 2,16-22; 14,5-7; Jer 31,22). Hosea is particularly noteworthy as he announces the future salvation not as the healing of the broken marriage covenant, but in the image of a new betrothal199. Hosea’s prophecy of a renewed wooing by God for Israel’s love has no shade of a patriarchal claim for fidelity: “Therefore, behold, I will allure her and bring her into the desert and speak to her heart” (Hos 2,16 MT). However, what is entirely omitted in the argument is Isaiah’s use of the nuptial metaphor that is exclusively positive (Isa 54,410; 62,4-5). The description of God’s delight in Zion, for example, has nothing to do with marital fidelity but simply with the joy a man experiences 196. For Esther as a narrative with a concealed message, see GROSSMAN, Esther, pp. 1-2. He explains: “When a narrative conceals messages, it allows the reader to become a partner in the process of decoding the narrative and exposing its meaning. The reader’s sense of having discovered the narrative’s secret considerably enhances his identification with the narrative. Its message impresses itself on him or her more firmly than it would if the educational message were spelled out explicitly”. 197. See A. MEINHOLD, Die Gattung der Josephsgeschichte und des Estherbuches: Diasporanovelle, I, in ZAW 87 (1975) 306-324; ID., Die Gattung der Josephsgeschichte und des Estherbuches: Diasporanovelle, II, in ZAW 88 (1976) 72-93; S.B. BERG, The Book of Esther: Motifs, Themes and Structure (SBLDS, 44), Missoula, MT, Scholars, 1979, pp. 133-152; Y.T. CAHN, Links beyond Time: The Book of Esther in the Light of the Life of Yoseph, Southfield, MI, Targum Press, 1995; GROSSMAN, Esther, pp. 210-213. 198. KEEL, Hohelied, p. 15. 199. See R. ZIMMERMANN, Geschlechtermetaphorik und Gottesverhältnis: Traditionsgeschichte und Theologie eines Bildfeldes in Urchristentum und antiker Umwelt (WUNT, II/122), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2001, p. 111. These prophecies appear to date from a different, post-exilic redaction. See M.-T. WACKER, Figurationen des Weiblichen im HoseaBuch (HBS, 8), Freiburg i.Br., Herder, 1996, p. 187. However, that does not invalidate the prophet’s positive use of the nuptial metaphor.

46

CHAPTER 1

in the sight of his bride: “As the bridegroom rejoices over the bride, so shall your God rejoice over you” (Isa 62,5b; NRSV). Furthermore, one cannot claim that the prophets avoided the use of sexual-erotic symbolism as impertinent to the relationship between God and Israel. Ezekiel 16, for example, testifies to the contrary200. Finally it cannot be held that “this entire tradition is typical for the prophetic literature and is strictly limited to it”201. It occurs in various forms outside the prophetic context as major theological streams in Israel make use of the theological marriage matrix. In adopting ANE treaty language, the Deuteronomist exhorts the people of Israel to love God with the same exclusive love with which a wife was to love and cleave to her husband (i.e., with all her heart, life and strength, Deut 6,4-6)202. Psalm 45 also is a prominent example that is widely accepted as constituting an allegory on the return of Daughter Zion from the Exile and the concomitant covenant renewal203. (iv) Wisdom’s Creation Theology vs. Revelation through History Related to the restriction of the nuptial love metaphor to the prophetic corpus is the argument according to which the Song could not be about YHWH’s covenant love because it belongs to wisdom literature. Wisdom literature, as the conventional opinion states, “has no relation to the history between God and Israel”204. This distinction refers back to the works of Gerhard von Rad and found expression in an influential article by Walther Zimmerli in 1964. According to Zimmerli, wisdom literature “emerges from an explicit theology of creation, which is in no way connected with the encounter of God and Israel in history”205. This assertion has become something like a scholarly dogma. According to Whybray, “Ben Sira was the first Jewish wisdom writer to concern himself with historical events and persons”206, a common persuasion that is also reflected 200. See FISHBANE, Song, p. xx, who points to the “bold erotic tropes” in Ezek 16,444. 201. Ibid., p. 15. 202. See W. MORAN, The Ancient Near Eastern Background of the Love of God in Deuteronomy, in CBQ 25 (1963) 77-87, esp. pp. 78-80; see also M. WEINFELD, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, Oxford, Clarendon, 1972, pp. 81-83. The Deuteronomistic history elaborates the motif by calling Israel to “love”, “walk after”, and “cleave to” YHWH (Deut 10,12.20; 11,1.13.22; 13,5; 19,9; 30,6.16.20; Josh 22,5; 23,8). 203. See Chapter 7, II. 204. ZIMMERLI, Wisdom, p. 147. 205. Ibid., p. 155. 206. R.N. WHYBRAY, Ben Sira and History, in N. CALDUCH-BENAGES – J. VERMEYLEN (eds.), Treasures of Wisdom: Studies in Ben Sira and the Book of Wisdom. Festschrift M. Gilbert (BETL, 143), Leuven, Leuven University Press, 1999, 137-145, p. 137.

STATUS QUAESTIONIS – REENERGIZING THE DEBATE

47

by Martin Hengel, who asserts that before Ben Sira wisdom literature was “unhistorical”207. This argument is questionable in several ways. First, though the Song has been handed down by the Christian tradition within the canonical corpus of wisdom books, it has never been recognized as belonging to the genre of wisdom literature by modern standards of form criticism. It does not feature in the classical form-critical canons of wisdom literature (i.e., Job, Proverbs, Qohelet, and some Psalms). Those same standards, however, have established that the genre treats creation theology only and never covenant history. The argument is evidently circular. Second, it is questionable according to recent studies on the Books of Job, Proverbs, and Qohelet208. This argument is based on an exegesis which is imprisoned by form criticism and fails to notice the redaction history of these books, which shows that what may have originally been an independent literary genre has been woven into the greater context of Israel’s written patrimony by an intricate intertextuality209. Just like Qohelet, the Song’s composition is situated toward the end of the composition of the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible, “within the wider sphere of Hellenistic bookish culture, or at least within the literate circles of Hebrew scribal culture [that] makes intertextual relations with the defining texts of that period and community even more likely”210. In that period the main corpus of what would later become the Hebrew Scriptures was already extant and regarded as authoritative. Job, Proverbs 1–8, and Qohelet 207. M. HENGEL, Judaism and Hellenism. I: Studies in Their Encounter in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic Period, London, SCM, 1974, p. 131. 208. André ROBERT had already exemplified the thick intertextuality of Proverbs 1–9 with Deuteronomy, Jeremiah, and Isaiah in a series of articles, Les attaches littéraires bibliques de Prov. I–IX, in RB 1934-1935. Now Gregor REICHENBACH has dedicated a whole monograph to the inner-biblical references in Proverbs 1–9. Gültige Verbindungen: Eine Untersuchung zur kanonischen Bedeutung der innerbiblischen Traditionsbezüge in Sprüche 1 bis 9 (ABG, 37), Leipzig, Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2011. For the nexus between Qohelet and other biblical writings, see J. BARBOUR, The Story of Israel in the Book of Qohelet, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2012. For Job, see R. HECKL, Hiob – vom Gottesfürchtigen zum Repräsentanten Israels: Studien zur Buchwerdung des Hiobbuches und zu seinen Quellen (FAT, 70), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2010. 209. See for example, the study by B.U. SCHIPPER, Das Proverbienbuch und die Toratradition, in ZTK 108 (2011) 381-404, p. 404, who shows that some passages of Proverbs 1–9 are a kind of inner-biblical exegesis on the Torah. “Different ways of relating and specifying wisdom and Torah shaped the composition and redaction of the book of Proverbs (Prov 2,30). In the final redaction of the book, however, a position prevailed which emphasizes the limitations of wisdom and in this way comes close to late prophetic texts”. See further, B.U. SCHIPPER – D.A. TEETER (eds.), Wisdom and Torah: The Reception of “Torah” in the Wisdom Literature of the Second Temple Period (JSJSup, 163), Leiden, Brill, 2013. 210. BARBOUR, The Story of Israel in the Book of Qohelet, p. 8.

48

CHAPTER 1

display in fact a high “canon consciousness” and are well in dialogue with books that concern directly the history of Israel. Third, the genre of wisdom literature is not limited to the corpus of books classified as wisdom literature. Genesis 1–3, for example, bear the traits of a sapiential reflection. Here, however, creation theology is temple theology, which again is deeply rooted in and even modeled on the covenant theology. A clear-cut distinction between creation- and history-theology (though not negated for the origins of the genre) is historically improbable at such a late stage211. In the case of the Song it is an artificial exegetical imposition, as its many allusions to the Law and Prophets show (see the discussion in Chapters 5 and 7)212. (v) Bilderverbot The argument that the Bilderverbot would not have allowed for a description of God in the images used for the Lover in the Song (i.e. Song 5,10-16) lacks substance. The Bible often uses anthropomorphic language to speak about God: his mighty arm, his nostrils, his feet, his mouth, etc. Since in other parts of the Bible it is obvious to the exegete that this language is not to be taken literally but to be interpreted, the same may be claimed for the metaphoric language of the Song213. Metaphoric language calls for the correct determination of the referent. It may further be pointed out that Dan 7,9 does not shun away from an anthropomorphic 211. See also, SCHWIENHORST-SCHÖNBERGER, Das Hohelied, pp. 19-20: “Eine strikte Trennung zwischen prophetischer und weisheitlicher Literatur ist schon in überlieferungsgeschichtlicher Hinsicht künstlich. Gerade in Texten der nachexilischen Zeit sind die Übergänge fließend. Die weisheitliche Literatur greift auf prophetische Redeformen zurück, prophetische Texte werden weisheitlich gelesen und erweitert (vgl. Hos 14,10). Im Buch der Sprichwörter (1,20-33) tritt die Weisheit wie eine Prophetin auf. In späten Passagen weisheitlicher Literatur wird in hohem Maße mit Metaphern und Allegorien gespielt. In Spr 1–9 erscheinen Weisheit und Torheit in der Gestalt einer Frau. Im Buch der Weisheit ist die Geliebte Salomos Frau Weisheit, die an der Seite Gottes thront (Weish 8,9-18; 9,4)”. 212. These allusions are amply evidenced in the work of LACOCQUE, Romance, though I could not disagree more profoundly with his conclusion that the Song’s message is a subversion of the Law and the Prophets. 213. “Die metaphorische Rede von Gott, in der das Verglichene nur eine geringe Ähnlichkeit mit dem Referenten hat oder der Vergleichspunkt in einem Nebenumstand zu finden ist, können wir als eine Art apophatische Theologie begreifen. Diesen Gedanken hat Joseph Bernhart einmal wie folgt zum Ausdruck gebracht: ‘Der sehr beherzte Realismus der Bibelsprache, der Gott ergrimmen und wie einen Löwen brüllen läßt, ist außer Verdacht, er wolle wörtlich genommen sein, im Gegenteil, er baut eine Schutzwehr um das Geheimnis des Unfaßlichen; verglichen mit dieser Drastik ist die spekulative Begriffssprache von Gott eine sublime Arroganz der Vernunft und der eigentliche, der gefährlichste Anthropomorphismus, weil er nicht wie der biblische seiner bewußt ist’”. REISER, Bibelkritik, p. 85.

STATUS QUAESTIONIS – REENERGIZING THE DEBATE

49

description of God either. Gerson Cohen is right in pointing to the paradox, “that the very same circles that were insistent on the most scrupulous observance of the prohibition against representing God by any image or likeness not only admitted, but advocated the canonization of a work whose idiom makes anthropomorphism a triviality by comparison!”214. (vi) Allegory Reduces the Literal Sense to a Springboard In answer to the argument that in an allegory the literal sense would be reduced to serving only as a springboard for the allegorical sense with no significance of its own, it must be said first that this presupposes a very limited formal definition of allegory (typical for Romanticism); and secondly, it is an aesthetic argument of personal taste that should not determine the outcome of a scholarly debate (see the discussion in Chapter 3, II.1, below, p. 124). b) Anachronism of the Naturalistic Reading The naturalistic reading is undermined by a series of problematic assumptions about literature and religion, as well as problematic academic agendas in exegetical philosophies and idiosyncratic personal projects. Though the early history of modern exegesis goes back to the humanistic movement that is older than the Reformation, contemporary exegesis developed primarily in the context of German Protestantism215. It was born in the eighteenth century by relinquishing the regula fidei and embracing the basic assumption of the Enlightenment, which accepted only that which met with the criteria of pure reason216. Thus, exegesis is based not only on the methods of philology and literary criticism but also on the philosophical and theological premises of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. These deeply influenced a number of a priori decisions that affect the results of present exegesis217. These are, in metaphorical terms, 214. COHEN, Song, p. 5. 215. See COHEN, ibid., pp. 31-34, who points out that contrary to common belief, the very roots of historical-critical scholarship are to be sought in the pre-Reform humanistic movement, hence a Catholic world. This humanistic spirit in the sixteenth century is found rather with the Spanish Jesuits than with Luther or Calvin. However, the real parting of the ways between exegesis and theology came about in the eighteenth century and was accomplished in the Protestant world on the background of the Enlightenment. 216. See REISER, Bibelkritik, pp. 20, 36. 217. See ibid., p. 36: “Die Rede von ‘historisch-kritischer Methode’ meint dabei so viel wie ‘historisch-kritische Auslegungsweise’, denn abgesehen von der Methode der Literarkritik geht es hier weniger um Methoden als um eine Form der Exegese, die nach bestimmten Regeln, den Regeln der Kritik, und unter bestimmten Voraussetzungen, den Grundüberzeugungen der Aufklärung, betrieben wird. Ich schlage vor, zum Sprachgebrauch der

50

CHAPTER 1

the lenses by which texts are currently read. Some of those prejudices that have influenced Song exegesis are the following. (i) Disdain for Allegory Allegory as a literary device on the level of Produktionsästhetik (the text’s production) was considered contrary to the then-reigning ideal of Erlebniskunst, an art that demanded an ingenious inspiration and not the implementation of a preconceived idea or coded dogma (see Chapter 3, II.1, below, p. 124)218. (ii) Suspicion of Passion In the aftermath of Kant, religion was reduced to morals. Johann Gottfried Herder, who was the first and groundbreaking figure to have proposed that the Song is nothing but a “profane love song”, was a disciple of Immanuel Kant. He was thus in a line of philosophical and theological thought in which God is of interest only for man’s morality. God is perceived as so utterly transcendent and man so immanent that a communication, let alone a divine-human love relationship, between the creator and his creatures is inconceivable. The Enlightenment’s sober concept of religion gave little to no room for the passions of the mystic219. Mysticism cannot defy the Kritik der reinen Vernunft. Just as the cult was considered to be a relic of ANE religions, so also the ancient dream of sacred marriage. In a religion that has been submitted to pure reason, the mystic is viewed with suspicion220. What the Enlightenment had begun, Romanticism Humanisten zurückzukehren, d.h. Kritik als eine Kunst zu verstehen, die in der Anwendung gewisser Regeln und Methoden besteht”. 218. C.S. Lewis, who did much work on the medieval allegory of love, warned that many of our modern readings of these ancient texts are informed by our personal tastes, rather than an objective sense for literature. “The popular erotic literature of our own day tends rather to sheikhs and ‘Salvage Men’ and marriage by capture, while that which is in favor with our intellectuals recommends either frank animalism or the free companionship of the sexes”. Ibid., p. 1. Lewis’ perception is perfectly mirrored by the modern interpretation of the Song: “charming confusion of love songs”, the “Solomon kidnapping the shepherd-girl” theory, harlot-songs, license for free-love, see G. GERLEMAN, Ruth – Das Hohelied (BKAT, 18), Neukirchen-Vluyn, Neukirchener Verlag, 1965, p. 120: “Das Rendezvous ist von keiner gesellschaftlichen Legalisierung geschützt, steht nur unter der Schirmherrschaft der Liebe und muss nach gemeinsam verbrachter Nacht mit dem schmerzlichen Abschied rechnen”. For further examples see KEEL, Tauben, p. 13, n. 5. 219. What should they do with a verse like Song 1,2, “Your love is better than wine”? For the mystic the only human vocabulary which comes close to his ecstatic experience of God is that of the erotic sphere. For a Kantian, to whom that experience is a priori impossible, the sentence can only be conceivable in the mouth of a woman who is passionately in love with her lover. 220. Emblematic for this rejection of mysticism is Carlos Eire’s helpful description of Calvinism: “[The] Calvinist redefinition of the sacred was revolutionary on two fronts.

STATUS QUAESTIONIS – REENERGIZING THE DEBATE

51

accomplished. The interpretation of the Song became “naturalistic” and “moralistic”221. The “mystical” interpretation was disqualified as an aberration imposed by the religious authorities (Synagogue and Church)222. Rationality and morals had taken the place of passionate love for God. The grievous consequences of this reduction can still be felt today. Christianity is often rashly identified with moralizing whereby the essence of the Christian message that God is love is missed223. (iii) Discrediting Divine Eros Based on similar philosophical premises, Nygren’s division between eros and agape influentially undermined any religious interpretation of the Song. Such theology knows no analogia entis, that is, a participation of human love in divine love cannot be envisioned224. Both are essentially different entities with no possible interference. According to Nygren’s system, man’s love, which is essentially erotic, i.e. “need-love”, has nothing in common with God’s “gift-love”, which is essentially agapic. A meeting of the two on a mutual level is, according to this concept, impossible and therefore the Song can only be about erotic love, which is, according to Nygren’s system, unworthy of God’s love225. First, it was a theological and epistemic upheaval, a cognitive iconoclastic crusade against the medieval worldview, and against the paradigm of mystical union with God that church and society had promoted for centuries as the ultimate human goal. John Calvin recoiled in horror at the thought that humans might claim any sort of divinization or gain intimacy with the divine, for his God was ‘entirely other’ and ‘as different from flesh as fire is from water’. Calvin had no place in his theology for raptures, trances, visions, or miracles, either”. C.M.N. EIRE, Reformations: The Early Modern World, 1450-1650, New Haven, CT – London, Yale University Press, 2016, p. 317. 221. J.M. VINCENT, Hoheslied III/2, in Theologische Realenzyklopädie 15 (1986) 513514, p. 513. The moralistic reading is a reaction against the naturalistic which is understood to be unfitting for Sacred Scripture. Thus, the theory is born that the Song is about a shepherd girl’s fidelity to her shepherd boy against the advances of King Solomon who had kidnapped her into his harem. The girl, however, remains faithful to her primary love, escapes from the harem, and is reunited to her shepherd boy (Jacobi, Ewald, Umbreit, Böttcher, Hitzig, Renan, Stickel). 222. See F. JUNG, Habt Ihr den gesehen, den meine Seele liebt? (Hld 3,3): Das Hohelied Salomos und seine Auslegung in Geschichte und Gegenwart, in E. DÜSING – H.D. KLEIN (eds.), Geist, Eros und Agape: Untersuchungen zu Liebesdarstellungen in Philosophie, Religion und Kunst, Würzburg, Königshausen & Neumann, 2009, 121-166, p. 135. 223. See ibid.: “Die einstige Leidenschaft des Gott-ergriffenen Menschen hatte in der nüchternen Auffassung der Religion seitens der Aufklärer keinen Platz mehr. Vernünftigkeit und Moral traten an die Stelle der Leidenschaft. Die schmerzlichen Folgen dieser Verkürzung des Religionsbegriffes sind bis heute zu spüren und tragen mit dazu bei, dass Christentum häufig vorschnell mit Moralisieren gleich gesetzt wird, ohne zur tiefen innerlichen Freude vorzustoßen, die dem Menschen durch die Liebe Gottes geschenkt wird”. 224. See ibid. 225. GERHARDS, Hohelied, p. 444: “‘Der Hiatus zwischen Eros und Agape’, der die christliche [protestantische, N.H] Tradition stark, wenn auch nicht völlig, bestimmt und

52

CHAPTER 1

(iv) Demythologizing The naturalistic reading is intermingled with a modern idea of a desacralized profaneness and attempts for demythologization, which are with certainty incongruous with the time of ancient Israel226. It is typical for our modern times that we separate the profane from the sacred, a distinction that was foreign to antiquity. The exegesis of the nineteenth and twentieth century especially approached the mythological with a certain a priori disdain, as something so “unenlightened” that it would not have been worthy of Israel’s religion, and therefore, according to a Protestant understanding of it, of Christianity’s Old Testament either227. The possibility of an original kinship between the Song and the myths of sacred marriage from Israel’s surrounding cultures had little chance to be considered or heard in that exegetical climate. Martti Nissinen rightly reacts to such preconceived prejudices. “If the religious or allegorical reading of the Song of Songs is discredited as a constrained but deliberate misunderstanding, one could, in the name of honesty, ask whether the same might be said of hermeneutical models better suited for modern theology. The ‘natural’ and ‘un-mythological’ readings are deliberate choices as well”228. Or as Larry Lyke put it, “What to modern sensibilities may seem an odd reading of the Song turns out to be based on a literary and cultural competence few moderns share with their ancient counterparts”229.

den Hintergrund dafür abgibt, dass Gottesliebe als ‘unerotische Liebe’ gilt, und ‘Gottesbeziehung und zwischengeschlechtliche Liebesbeziehung […] nicht verglichen oder gar analogisiert werden können, besteht im Judentum nicht. So konnte ‘einerseits die Erotik der Liebessymbole des Cant noch wahrgenommen’ werden, andererseits aber wurde das Hohelied konsequent religiös-allegorisch verstanden, wobei ‘die Beziehung zwischen Jhwh und seinem Volk […] in der Intimität der Liebesbeziehung gedeutet’ wurde”. See also ZIMMERMANN, Geschlechtermetaphorik, pp. 3-5, 207-208. 226. See ZIMMERMANN, Geschlechtermetaphorik, p. 101, n. 55. 227. As an example for such an a priori decision against the mythological as something unworthy of revelation, Gillis Gerleman may be cited, who simply states without proving, “In einer Umwelt, in der von der erotischen Liebe nur im Rahmen eines mythischen Geschehens gesprochen wurde […], zeichnet sich die entmythisierte Profanität, die uns im Hohen Lied begegnet, scharf ab und bekommt fast bekenntnishaften Charakter. […] Demnach liegt hier eine Sammlung von weltlichen Liebesliedern vor, die auf der Ebene des Wortsinns keine Hinweise auf allegorische oder mythisch-kultische Intentionen geben”. GERLEMAN, Hohelied, p. 84. One may invert the argument and ask why, if Gerleman admits that in the entire ANE erotic love was only spoken of in the context of myth or the divine, this should be any different in Israel? Even if the prophet’s polemic against the fertility cults on the high places testifies to a certain degree of purification of eros, they do not strictly tie it back into a merely profane realm. Rather, as Ezekiel 16 and 23 exemplify, the erotic energy is re-directed from idolatry to monolatric YHWH worship. 228. NISSINEN, Sacred Marriage, pp. 195-196. 229. LYKE, I Will Espouse You Forever, p. xvii.

STATUS QUAESTIONIS – REENERGIZING THE DEBATE

53

(v) Implausible Sitz im Leben Furthermore, an exaggerated search for a false notion of Sitz im Leben led the first generations of historical-critical exegetes to create at all costs a historical Sitz im Leben for the Song. We are, however, dealing with poetry. There is no inherent reason why the Song must have been composed for a specific historical event, as the proposed marriage of Solomon with Pharaoh’s daughter. Nor is it necessary to find it in Palestinian wedding ceremonies or Syrian eighteenth-century folklore. This over-preoccupation with a Sitz im Leben demonstrates an insensitivity to poetic truth. Poetry is an end in itself. It is not necessarily functional. It is equally possible that a scribe (possibly a mystic also) composed the Song as his meditation on Israel and its already existing Scriptures230. Moreover, as Ludger Schwienhorst-Schönberger has rightly pointed out, the exclusive attention to the Sitz im Leben obscures “the literary setting within which the text was handed down. The text is usually removed from its given literary context and interpreted against the background of a reconstructed Sitz im Leben”231. The literary context of the Song is the Bible, and that is the first context against which it must be read and understood. (vi) Anachronistic Paradigms It must be asked if “secular love poetry” can be an adequate label for an ancient text. Modern (mainly) Western scholarship has introduced a false distinction between secular and profane love. Such a distinction must be diagnosed as being anachronistic, as it did not exist as such in the ANE. Suffice it to quote one connoisseur of ancient oriental love literature: “In the ancient Orient, love was more than a passing emotion felt by one human being towards an object – it described a deep felt relationship not only between man and woman but also between god and worshipper, ruler and ruled, parent and child. It was not divided between pure and profane love – sacred and the sexual. This dichotomy did not exist in their world 230. Whether this be called Fortschreibung, or relecture (Robert), or Schriftgelehrte halachische Literatur (Fischer), or Inner-biblical exegesis, or Rewritten Bible, all these terms recognize that the decisive key to understanding the text is not its Sitz im Leben but the Sitz of its composition. See also SCHWIENHORST-SCHÖNBERGER, Das Hohelied, p. 17. “Das so genannte weltliche Verständnis des Hoheliedes ist vor allem von der Gattungskritik her geprägt … Die Gattungskritik fragt nach der Gattung, der ursprünglichen und idealen Form eines Textes und einem ihr entsprechenden ‘Sitz im Leben’. Bei dieser Methode tritt der literarische Zusammenhang, in dem der Text überliefert ist, in den Hintergrund. Der Text wird für gewöhnlich aus dem vorliegenden literarischen Kontext herausgenommen und vor dem Hintergrund eines hypothetisch rekonstruierten Sitzes im Leben interpretiert”. 231. SCHWIENHORST-SCHÖNBERGER, Allegory, p. 13 (italics in text).

54

CHAPTER 1

outlook”232. Where we make a distinction between the erotic relationship between the sexes and the apparently asexual friend’s love, parent’s love, or love for God, antiquity knew no such distinction. Love as an emotion or abstract concept and the physical attraction between two individuals were not conceived of as two distinct forces. Any love, including the love for the gods, was conceived to be physical. “The love metaphor was a physical one”233. And “thus, the possibility arose that the mystical union between humans and deities could be depicted symbolically” in sacred love rituals “or invoked lyrically in the Song of Songs”234. ANE love poetry is rich in both erotic and religious references. The sexual imagery permeates its myth and poetry, the liturgical as well as the “worldly” one235. It is highly questionable if the ANE knew such a distinction between “sacred” and “worldly” literature. Rather, all literature was considered sacred. Anything was understood in relation to the gods. As Wilfred Lambert points out, “The distinction between sacred and secular in this matter [secular 232. J.G. WESTENHOLZ, Metaphorical Language in the Poetry of Love in the Ancient Near East, in D. CHARPIN – F. JOANNÈS (eds.), La circulation des biens, des personnes et des idées dans le Proche-Orient ancien: Actes de la XXXVIIe Rencontre Assyriologue Internationale (Paris, 8-10 juillet 1991), Paris, Recherche sur les civilisations, 1992, 381387, p. 381. See also ID., Love Lyrics from the Ancient East, in J.M. SASSON et al. (eds.), Civilizations of the Ancient Near East: IV, New York, Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1995, 2471-2482, p. 2471: “In the ANE, love was more than a passing emotion that individuals felt for each other […]. In our rhetoric we tend to value emotional love as nobler than physical sex. In antiquity, these two aspects of human attachment were deemed reflexes of the same relationship. For the ancients the love metaphor remained physical, whether it reflected a love that was not sexual (parents and children) or sex that was not loving (rape). Thus, the mystical union between humans and deities could be depicted symbolically as a ‘sacred marriage’ or evoked lyrically in the Song of Songs. Accordingly, the love poetry of the ANE encompasses explicit references of an erotic character both in texts used for divine liturgy and as worldly entertainment”. 233. See as a fine example the vivid personification of Lady Wisdom in the version of Sir 51,13-30 found at Qumran Cave 11: D.J. HARRINGTON, Wisdom Texts from Qumran (The Literature of the Dead Sea Scrolls), London, Routledge, 1996, pp. 28-29. The judgement of Zimmermann is illuminating: “The bluntness and clarity of the language lead one to conclude that the poem, which initially seems to be a mere appendix to Ben Sira, is in fact a profane love song that was interpreted in the wisdom tradition as a metaphorical reference to wisdom”. R. ZIMMERMANN, The Love Triangle of Lady Wisdom, in M. NISSINEN – R. URO (eds.), Sacred Marriages: The Divine-Human Sexual Metaphor from Sumer to Early Christianity, Winona Lake, IN, Eisenbrauns, 2008, 243-258, p. 247. 234. WESTENHOLZ, Metaphorical Language, p. 381. A good example for the employment of physical love language even with regard to the love of one’s own mother might be the “Message of Ludingara to his Mother” known from four Old Babylonian tablets stemming from Boghazköi, which according to Jerrold Cooper is “decidedly erotic” in its tenor. See J. COOPER, New Cuneiform Parallels to the Song of Songs, in JBL 90 (1971) 157-162, p. 162. 235. WESTENHOLZ, Metaphorical Language, p. 381: “The content of the poetry plays on the theme of love. The wording is identical whether in liturgical or non-liturgical texts and in worldly songs”.

STATUS QUAESTIONIS – REENERGIZING THE DEBATE

55

love poetry], as in others, is not fully valid for the ancient world, since Inana/Ishtar was the goddess of love, and all human love is accordingly an expression of the attribute of this goddess”236. In the same line Carr recalls: “Ancient love poetry often involves an intricate interweaving of human and divine elements, the sexual and the spiritual”237. (vii) Anachronistic Gender Constructions In the ANE, gender-related metaphors served primarily to express hierarchical differences. The male gender served as a symbol for the hierarchically superior whereas the female gender designated the subordinate partner. As Carr observes, “the fundamental aspect of sexual gender … is not a body but where one stands on a broader cosmic hierarchy”238. Thus, a female symbolism need not necessarily designate a female individual or female community. An example to the contrary is Isaiah’s Song of the Vineyard (Isaiah 5). Whereas God is compared to a lover who has planted his seeds in his vineyard, the people of Israel, the vineyard, are accused of yielding “wild grapes”, an image for children born from adultery239. The male audience that is rhetorically led to condemning this adulterous wife have to recognize that “they were the female vineyard, and their God was the angry husband” (Isa 5,7)240. The point is that “in this matrix the believing community is depicted as the female spouse of the male god – called on to love that God with the exclusive love of a wife and punished for failure to do so”241. It follows that “Israel as a ‘woman’ may not be ‘just’ the metaphor that we often think it to be”242. (viii) Positivistic Understanding of Language The naturalistic reading is based on a positivistic understanding of language as being univocal, according to which A means always A and never B and C or even D at the same time. This leads to the exclusivity that 236. W.G. LAMBERT, Devotion: The Languages of Religion and Love, in M. MINDLIN – M.J. GELLER – J.E. WANSBROUGH (eds.), Figurative Language in the Ancient Near East, London, School of Oriental and African Studies, 1987, 25-39, p. 26. 237. CARR, Erotic Word, p. 92. See also ID., Gender, p. 244, where he points out that the “public realm in ancient Israel probably did not strongly separate human male-female love from human-divine love the way moderns do. Instead, many understood divine-human love to be male-female love governed by much the same principles as male-female love on the human level”. 238. CARR, Gender, p. 236. 239. See K. NIELSEN, There Is Hope for a Tree: The Tree as a Metaphor in Isaiah (JSOTS, 65), Sheffield, JSOT, 1989, pp. 94-97. 240. CARR, Gender, p. 239. 241. Ibid. 242. Ibid., p. 240.

56

CHAPTER 1

this reading claims and which is no longer tenable either from the point of modern literary criticism or on historical grounds243. Plurality of meanings is on the one hand inherent to a poetic text itself and on the other hand context-related244. (ix) Personal Agendas The sexual revolution, woman’s liberation, and gender mainstream all constitute programs which, if they belong to the personal agenda of the exegete, will influence his hermeneutical a priori decisions. David Carr rightly observes that the interpretations say more about the modern interpreters than about the dynamics of the Song and its ancient interpretations. […] because of elements of our culture like the myth of repression, generations of biblical scholars time and again have depicted their nontheological approaches to the Song as a radical improvement over the repressed, ridiculous interpretations of their predecessors. In this respect much critical biblical scholarship has been insufficiently critical of its own aims and categories245.

243. According “to postmodern critics […] any text, including a biblical text, can be read legitimately in perhaps an infinite number of ways”. G.T. SHEPPARD, Biblical Wisdom Literature at the End of the Modern Age, in A. LEMAIRE (ed.), Congress Volume – Oslo 1998, Leiden, Brill, 2000, 369-398, p. 369. It is argued that a text does not “have” sense but that it is the reader – ancient and “naïve” or modern and “scientific” – who “makes sense” of a given text. This position is based mainly on the works of H.-G. GADAMER, Truth and Method, London, Continuum, 22006, and Paul Ricœur. This latter philosopher has himself given an exemplary reading of the Song in defense of a multitude of meanings, in RICŒUR – LACOCQUE, Penser la Bible, p. 411: “À cette conception unilinéaire de la ‘trajectoire’ de l’explication, je voudrais opposer une histoire multiple et foisonnante de la lecture, dans le cadre d’une théorie de la réception du texte, histoire dans laquelle trouveraient une place non seulement l’exégèse allégorique ancienne, mais l’exégèse scientifique moderne et pourquoi pas ? de nouvelles interprétations théologiques, apparentées ou non à l’ancienne exégèse allégorique”. See also P. NIEUVIARTS – P. DEBERGÉ (eds.), Les nouvelles voies de l’exégèse: En lisant le Cantique des cantiques (LeDiv, 190), Paris, Cerf, 2002; especially the contributions of A.-M. PELLETIER, Le Cantique des cantiques: Un texte et ses lectures, 71-101, and Le livre ouvert, 321-345; see further: PONTIFICAL BIBLICAL COMMISSION, The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church, Città del Vaticano, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1993, II.B. 244. For an in-depth study on how the widening of context enlarges also the meaning of a text, and in particular the Song, see J.-E. DE ENA, Sens et interprétations du Cantique des cantiques: Sens textuel, sens directionnels et cadre du texte, Paris, Cerf, 2004. 245. CARR, Gender, p. 247. In the same article Carr points to the fact that critical Song scholarship has even participated in the modern construction of sexualities by “reproducing a mini-variant of the myth of repression discussed by Foucault. In the place of general sexual repression, we have the specific story of the repression of the original erotic meaning of the Song. In place of more general sexual liberation, we have scholarly recovery of the original erotic meaning of the Song. Recent readings of the Song as promoting non-fertilityrelated erotic love echo the more general shift in industrialized societies toward nonreproductive sexuality”. Ibid., p. 235.

STATUS QUAESTIONIS – REENERGIZING THE DEBATE

57

In the very same line Oswald Loretz points to an uncritical application of a modern understanding of “eros” to an ancient text: “Es bedürfte einer selbständigen Untersuchung, inwieweit der Erosbegriff O. Keels von Vorstellungen des 19. Jh. über Intimität und Gefühl im modernen Familienleben und der Lehre S. Freuds über Eros und Destruktion beeinflußt ist”246. If scholars of previous decades have thought it legitimate to make a presumed pastoral need their hermeneutical key to the Song, it would today be the world’s need for a far more important biblical message (call it the Bible’s kerygma if you will), which is that God is Love. Edmée Kingsmill makes a strong and convincing case here: If the Song is about a pair of lusty lovers, its relevance is confined to the relatively few in this category, and from them only as long as the senses retain their vigour (though the imagination, of course, seems to retain its vigour for as long as life lasts). But the Song of Songs tells us about the eros of God, available to each one of us who desires it, however wounded, however wretched, however old. [And it] is surely intended to reach the many who are called neither to marriage nor, by choice, to the celibate life, among them the physically or mentally handicapped, and those suffering every type of disability in between247.

Another trenchant flaw of the naturalistic interpretation has been pointed out by Philippe Lefebvre and Viviane Montalembert, which cuts to the heart of the matter and shows that what the defenders of the naturalistic reading most try to defend, that is, esteem of human love in itself, is by this reductionist reading most endangered. In choosing to understand the words only in their primary sense, i.e., the Lover as a man and the Beloved as a woman, the interpretation of the Song seemingly rehabilitates human love and opens it to the divine without the necessity of a transposition to a so-called spiritual dimension. However, the inconvenience for such an interpretation which spares God becomes quickly apparent: one soon perceives as sole protagonists of the drama the two lovers camping face to face. What to say of such a couple? The response imposes itself: it is seriously unbalanced! What a miserable image of a woman does the book then deliver: being all dependent she laments; constantly unsatisfied; she yearns for her mate to the point of losing her breath; even her flaming declarations of love do not console us. “Oh how well one understands him!” one is tempted to say248. 246. O. LORETZ, Ägyptisierende, mesopotamisierende und ugaritisierende Interpretationen der Götter Môt und Eros in Canticum 8,6-7: ‘Die Liebe ist so stark wie Môt’, in Ugarit Forschungen 36 (2004) 235-282, p. 273, n. 148. 247. For both citations see KINGSMILL, Eros, p. 45. 248. LEFEBVRE – MONTALEMBERT, Homme, femme, Dieu, pp. 354-355 (my translation).

58

CHAPTER 1

(x) Women’s Liberation The Song’s presumed profanity has been defended in the name of women’s liberation and the emancipation of female sexuality from male patronizing. One might wonder, however, if the female character of the Song is the best-suited advocate. After all, it cannot be ignored that even though in some parts of the Song the relationship between man and woman seems indeed to have been restored to almost paradisiacal wholeness (i.e. the famous inversion of Gen 3,16 in Song 7,11) it is not shadeless. And, sadly enough, these shades are to be found in the female character, as Lefebvre and Montalembert have pointed out so sharply. To the alreadymentioned oddness in her behavior it must be added that the Song gives no indication of any flaw in the male character, whereas she is depicted as “black but beautiful”249. She confesses not to have kept her vineyard, probably her virginity (Song 1,6); this vineyard is threatened by foxes (2,15); and it is she who at times appears to be a little slow in responding to the ardent desire of her beloved (5,2-6)250. Instead of making her the epitome of female sexual behavior, but allowing her to be also a personification of Israel’s behavior towards YHWH (and thereby of humanity in general), less harm is done to women and maybe more justice to the broken human nature in general – whereas God’s unfaltering love, which never rebukes her shortcomings, is duly emphasized. The obvious danger with these premises is that they are exterior to the text itself. Instead they represent preconceptions of what the text is saying, as Lefebvre and Montalembert point out: As soon as one wants to reduce the male Beloved to a type of banal lover, one is constrained to leave the coherence of the precise text. The Song would then be a series of disjoined pieces, stuck together in more or less random fashion. This is a petition of principle: one wants to find in the male Beloved nothing that makes one think of God, for fear of a misplaced spiritualization. 249. A case has been made for translating this passage (Song 1,5) as “I am black and beautiful”. However, that again, is entirely anachronistic and irrespective of the context. The text itself explains that the sun has scorched her, and anyone who has only the slightest experience with oriental cultures knows, that (sadly enough) even today to be white or pale in color is considered to be beautiful while the opposite is the case for a darker complexion. In some countries these color differences are unfortunately still cause for discrimination. 250. The objection will doubtlessly be raised that “virginity” is not a good in itself but another expression of male patriarchal claims. This idea is also anachronistic. Never before the sexual revolution has virginity been disdained, nor has its loss been understood as a sign for women’s liberation. From a non-dualistic philosophical standpoint true love calls for an exclusivity. The body is the gift of self in the sexual act. If that gift desires to be total, it will be given once and forever. And once given it cannot be repeated with the same uniqueness. Of course, one can adopt a more dualistic or hedonistic point of view, but it would be wrong to argue that from the Bible.

STATUS QUAESTIONIS – REENERGIZING THE DEBATE

59

Thus, one decides beforehand that he is not to be found in the text. But there is a reality which calls us to do our job: the text. The text in its given and visible logic which remains to be understood251.

2. Adjustments: Taking My Stance As stated above, this study places itself within the renewed interest of an original theological intention on the level of the Song’s literal sense. Many aspects elaborated in the new approaches have to be re-evaluated in the debate. Nissinen and Bartelmus are right in underlining the fundamental parentage between the Song and the Mesopotamian cult-religious love poetry. These parallels must not be eclipsed in favor of the reportedly profane Egyptian and Greek parallels. Neither the Egyptian nor the Greek parallels are denied; however, the Mesopotamian parallels are both form-critically and historically closer to the Song. As Bartelmus rightly says, we have the prominent case of Ezekiel 16 and 23 where the prophet makes use of Mesopotamian metaphoric love language because that was familiar to his audience. It therefore stands to reason that the author of the Song has made equal use of the Mesopotamian love songs, all the more so, since Ezekiel had paved the way for the comprehensibility of the message. Bartelmus, Lyke, and Davis are then right in bridging the gap which Song exegetes have artificially built between the Song and the prophets’ use of the marriage metaphor. Bartelmus is further to be agreed with that the classical distinction “allegorical-literal” is erroneous. There is no such thing as a literal reading of the Song, for any interpretation is an allegorization. The Song’s polyvalent language invites the reader to search for a “literal sense of a higher kind”. In fact as the recent history of interpretation shows, the now prevailing so-called “literal” (naturalistic) reading is, in the case of many authors, at least as allegorizing as the traditional theological allegorizing reading252. Lapinkivi and Carr’s argument is decisive that gender metaphors were used to express hierarchical relations and not (only) bodily sexual differences. The use of the female symbolism for male or gender-mixed communities as “female entities” in relation to God pervades both ANE literature and the Old Testament. This needs to be considered in the identification of the Song’s protagonists. Lapinkivi rightly points out that in relation to God every soul (male and female) was perceived as female, and that a 251. LEFEBVRE – MONTALEMBERT, Homme, femme, Dieu, pp. 356-357 (my translation). 252. “Whereas the theological-allegorical reading thought it could point to an underlying religious meaning for almost every term in Canticles, the anthropological-allegorical reading goes in search of allusions to human genitalia and sexual behavior”. Ibid., p. 8.

60

CHAPTER 1

scribe may well have identified himself with the female symbolism. Yet, though the Song’s poetry resembles in great parts the ANE cult-mythological poetry, it also needs to be seen that it has in fact been filtered through the screen of the prophetic message. The prophets’ reworking of the ANE material has replaced the female goddess, be it Inana, Astarte, Ishtar, or Asherah, by the people of Israel themselves. Thus, whereas in the Sumerian love poetry, according to Lapinkivi the soul is invited to identify with Inana, in the Bible Israel has congenially taken the place of the goddess. God has no other “wife” besides Israel. Carr makes a strong case for the recognition of the male-female metaphor as expressing hierarchical relationships, yet he fails to explain why the Song should not have been composed with God and Israel in view from the outset. He begs for clearer signs. Yet for an ancient audience the talk of shepherds and vineyards, love in gardens, and the language and metaphors of ANE fertility cults, as well as the many reminiscences of mythological language, all invite the reader to suspect a religious meaning in the Song. Quite on the contrary, the burden of proof must be reversed in the case of a text to whose allegedly profane meaning we have hardly any testimony, whereas the witnesses to its religious understanding are overwhelming in number. Carr further does not allow for indications of a theological orientation of the text on the level of its last redactions. It is here that Zakovitch’s commentary comes in as an important contribution to the discussion. It is not of minor importance to the interpretation of the Song that a scholar like Zakovitch affirms that the allegorization of the Song must have happened already before the final fixation of the text. During several reprises Zakovitch points at “glosses” or “additions” in the text that testify to the fact that the Song was already read in an allegorizing way before its final redaction253. However, the problem with Zakovitch’s position is that it is not quite clear which text form he refers to when stating that the Song is not an allegory. For while he says that the first traces of allegorization appear before the final redaction of the work, he simultaneously calls this allegorization a posterior event. It all depends on the concept of text or authorship one adopts. If the exegete searches for the intentions of the different authors whose poems have been assumed into a hypothetical collection of love poems, then it might be correct to speak of a posterior allegorization in the process of that collection. If, on the other hand, one attributes the final redactor also an “authorial” status (as I do, see Chapter 2, I.4, below, p. 88), then that person’s intention is decisive. Contrary 253. See ZAKOVITCH, Hohelied, pp. 96-97.

STATUS QUAESTIONIS – REENERGIZING THE DEBATE

61

to Zakovitch’s assessment, these additions must not be eliminated from the text in order to attain an allegedly original meaning. These additions and glosses have themselves become part of the literal sense of the text and have to be considered as part of its meaning. As Fishbane rightly points out, traditum and interpretation are so intimately intertwined in the biblical text that the interpretation has itself inseparably become part of the traditum254. If Zakovitch is right and we have traces of allegorization within the text itself, then these would be the earliest witnesses to a theological understanding of the Song. These traces are not only a witness to the earliest Wirkungsgeschichte but constitute a reception history that has itself become part of the authoritative text. Moreover, the works of Robert –Tournay – Feuillet, LaCocque, Davis, Kingsmill, Gerhards, and Schwienhorst-Schönberger have in great part independently of each other demonstrated that the text is full of allusions to other texts of Israel’s traditum. One of the criteria for the valid recognition of allusions established by Richard Hays is that they should have been recognized independently by several observers255. This is evidently the case. LaCocque and Davis detect many similar allusions without knowing of the other’s works, though their interpretations are diametrically opposed. Gerhards writes unaware of the works of Robert – Tournay – Feuillet but comes to very similar conclusions. The same holds true for the conclusions of Gerhards and Kingsmill, who worked contemporaneously but independently of each other. All these authors, working in different language and confessional circles (French, English, American, and German), make out a strong dependence on the prophetic literature with which they say the Song is in dialogue. Again, the burden of proof is on the one author, LaCocque, who claims that the Song is a subversive reading of the prophets’ religious reading of the marriage metaphor. In his eyes the author of the Song secularizes intentionally, but he fails to substantiate this claim. Schwienhorst-Schönberger rightly asks if there is any historical plausibility to it. LaCocque fails to provide any verifiable parallel to such a process of subversive deconstruction of pre-existing biblical texts256. Rather, it stands to reason, as the majority of the above-mentioned authors propose, that the author developed them affirmatively257.

254. See M. FISHBANE, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, Oxford, Clarendon, 1985, pp. 7-8. 255. See R.B. HAYS, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul, New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, 1989, p. 31. 256. See SCHWIENHORST-SCHÖNBERGER, Allegory, p. 19. 257. See ibid., p. 29.

62

CHAPTER 1

3. Reframing the Question The brief overview of recent scholarship has shown that a certain new consensus appears to be forming about the somewhat “spiritual” or “theological” significance of the Song. These affirmations, however, are partly based on opposing approaches. There is quite a difference between affirming a theological dimension to the Song based on a synchronic approach and claiming a theological dimension as an authorial intention. a) Limitations of the Synchronic Approaches Canonical criticism, if it takes into account diachronic matters as Childs does, has proven helpful to the debate. Yet the danger in this approach lies in shutting up the Song into our pre-conceived ideas of canonical compartmentalizations. Childs himself allows his reading of the Song to be restricted by von Rad’s definition of wisdom literature. He thereby fails to see that much more is at stake – even canonically speaking – than a reflection on human marital love. Contextual approaches that read the Song within the larger context of the entire Bible regardless of diachronic considerations have their own validity but also limits. They are based on the literary theory that a text acquires a certain autonomy once the author has published it. From the moment that it is released into the public domain its literal sense may assume new dimensions that had not been the intention of the author, but are co-natural to it because of the literary and historical context into which it is re-contextualized. Thus, the Song, though originally presumably intended as a collection of love songs or a pious meditation on marital love, acquires a deeper theological meaning because of the literary context, that is, the “library” of canonical books, which we now find it in (Barbiero, Walsh, Thöne). This is a context-related approach that reveals a meaning that may have been inherent to the original text but is made apparent or extracted from it only by its re-contextualization in posterior times and contexts. Similarly, investigations into the Wirkungsgeschichte are in vogue and form an important part of exegesis, particularly from a Jewish-Christian point of view, according to which the meaning of a text has to be determined within the tradition of a living faith-community. Not all the readings a text has undergone in the course of its reception history, however, are per se valid interpretations. Just as the results of historical-critical scholarship are regulated by the regula fidei, so also the various readings of a text in the course of its reception history must have an objective regulator by

STATUS QUAESTIONIS – REENERGIZING THE DEBATE

63

what critical scholarship establishes as the sensus literalis. It is true, readerresponse theories have shown to what a high degree the meaning of a text is constructed by its reception258. Nevertheless, unless one wants to risk falling back into uncontrolled allegorizations of any text, exegesis cannot dispense with determining the literal sense of a text, which is in part constituted by the author’s intention. Synchronic approaches therefore cannot dispense from the first step, which is to investigate the possible historical significance of a book or text when it was first released into the public259. b) Limitations of Allegory The other approach that has been reintroduced into the exegetical debate since the turn of the millennium has been to ask whether the Song has not been composed as an allegory from the outset. The question has been positively answered by an increasing number of authors260. The defenders of the naturalistic reading, however, have not been convinced and their refusal is helpful. The distinction between allegoresis and allegory has been advantageous, for it has shifted once and for all the exegetical discussion to the literal sense. The proposal, however, to understand the Song as having been composed as an allegory, is not without its shortcomings either. Whereas the ancient interpreters like Origen (who worked with the concept of a basically 258. See W. ISER, The Act of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic Response, Baltimore, MD, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1980, and the famous dictum of GREGORY THE GREAT: “The divine words grow with their readers”. Homiliae in Ezechielem, I, VII, 8: CCSL 142, 87 (PL 87, 843D). 259. Pace U. LUZ, Die Bedeutung der Kirchenväter für die Auslegung der Bibel, in J.D.G. DUNN et al. (eds.), Auslegung der Bibel in orthodoxer und westlicher Perspektive: Akten des west-östlichen Neutestamentler/innen-Symposiums von Neamț vom 4.-11. September 1998 (WUNT, 130), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2000, 29-52, p. 41, who holds that literary criticism has proven that the historical quest has become obsolete. “Historisch-kritische Auslegung versteht … die biblischen Texte tendenziell als geschlossene Texte. Sie versucht, den Ursprungssinn zu rekonstruieren. Ich verstehe die in der theologischen Exegese unter dem Einfluss Schleiermachers besonders lange festgehaltene ausschliessliche Orientierung an der Intention des Autors als Versuch, für den Textsinn eine eindeutige Instanz festzuhalten. Die Dominanz des Autors und die Sehnsucht nach dem eindeutigen Textsinn in moderner westlicher Exegese hat traditionelle theologische Wurzeln. Die biblischen Schriften sind apostolische Schriften … Die Verfasser der biblischen Schriften galten als inspiriert. … Demgegenüber hat moderne Leserforschung gezeigt, in wie hohem Mass der Sinn eines Textes durch den jeweiligen Lektürevorgang, also durch den Leser im Gespräch mit seinen Texten, konstituiert wird”. 260. RICCIOTTI, Cantico; ROBERT – TOURNAY – FEUILLET, Cantique; FEUILLET, Comment lire?; DAVIS, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs; KINGSMILL, Eros; GERHARDS, Hohelied.

64

CHAPTER 1

twofold sense: the literal and the spiritual) by their very method always left room for the exploitation of the plain meaning (which in the case of the Song is erotic), a narrow understanding of allegory risks reducing the literal sense once again to one singular meaning: in this case the theological one. That is, if “allegory” means “speaking differently”, then it would be the task of the exegete simply to clarify the decoded meaning of the primary, apparent text. Once the intended meaning is discovered, however, the plain sense would lose its importance261. Herein lies the warranted concern of authors like Keel and the naturalistic school. The concentration on a merely human reading over the last two centuries has indeed brought to light the Song’s immense anthropological riches, which reflect in an admirable lucidity the human movements of the soul and body in the loving relationship between a man and a woman. This is so much so that even Pope John Paul II derived a vital part of his anthropology of love from the eight chapters of the Song262. There can be no doubt that the Song has an anthropological wealth which the spiritual interpretation of the ancient and medieval tradition has in great part neglected. However, the shortcoming of the merely anthropological or naturalistic reading is that it has reduced the Song to the human level and does not allow for the other dimension that is also inherent to the literal sense. In fact, the literal sense does reflect in a figurative way the “Eros of God” for Israel (felicitous expression of E. Kingsmill), and by the same token the yearning of Israel for her God. The Song does not deny or denigrate the human eros; rather it ennobles it, for it is through the human experience accessible to every man and woman that the love of God is made tangible. The human expression of the erotic is not accidental to the Song’s figurative message, but rather the substantial vehicle without which its theological message would be lost. This way of perceiving or expressing the transcendent in the concrete is generally referred to as “symbolic”263. 261. Well reflected in G. Krinetzki’s critique: “Diese sog. allegorische Deutung [italics in text], die in der Regel keinen selbständigen Wortsinn neben dem allegorischen anerkennt, für die in diesem biblischen Buch vielmehr alles von vornherein nur Bilder und Gleichnisse (Allegorien) höherer Wirklichkeiten darstellt…”. See G. KRINETZKI, Hoheslied, in W. DOMMERSHAUSEN – G. KRINETZKI (eds.), Esther, Hoheslied: Kommentar zum Alten Testament mit der Einheitsübersetzung (NEB.AT, 2), Würzburg, Echter, 1980, 1-31, p. 5. 262. See JOHN PAUL II, Man and Woman He Created Them: A Theology of the Body, Boston, MA, Pauline Books & Media, 2006, pp. 548-592 (catechesis 108-103). 263. “Une reconnaissance de ces implications sexuelles est indispensable à l’exégèse qui les sous-entend pour les spiritualiser. De ce fait, l’exégèse symbolique avoue qu’il existe un infini rhétorique – une prolifération métaphorique – aux fondement du discours amoureux. L’exégèse symbolique nous apparaît comme l’aveu d’une convergence: celle entre métaphore, amour et interprétation à l’infini”. Julia Kristeva in the introduction to F. LALOU – P. CALAME, Le Grand livre du Cantique des cantiques: Le texte hébreu, les

STATUS QUAESTIONIS – REENERGIZING THE DEBATE

65

4. Symbolic-Diachronic Approach The highway between the two roadside ditches of literalism and allegory is symbol. The fallacy of the naturalistic reading is that it takes the literal sense as being quasi-transparent to meaning, that is, letter and meaning are supposed to coincide. In this view, all that would need to be done is to translate the metaphors of the Song into commonly known language. The fallacy of the opposite roadside ditch is that of the allegorical reading which divorces form and content264. Here the form would become a mere shell or cover for the content, which thereby would become so utterly contingent that it could be replaced by any other cover265. It is proper to symbol to hold both form and content together, for in a symbol the transcendent meaning is inherent to form. The symbol is not an arbitrary or univocal linguistic sign, nor is its content in any way separable from its form. As an alternative to an either allegorical or naturalistic reading, this thesis therefore proposes a symbolic-diachronic reading of the Song266. Our reading is “symbolic” because symbolic speech is the only way of holding together the two sides of reality, the concrete and the transcendent. The concept of symbol serves as a bridge over the apparent gap between the traditional reading of the believing communities and the valid results traductions historiques et les commentaires selon les traditions juive et chrétienne (Spiritualités Vivantes), Paris, Albin Michel, 1999, p. IV. 264. “These twin dangers – ‘allegorical’ reading and prosaic, ‘over-literal’ reading – are the Symplegades, the ‘justling rocks’, between which too many ventures into poetry are wrecked”. Chap 2, “Figurative Language” (slightly modified), I.A. RICHARDS, Practical Criticism: A Study of Literary Judgement [1929], London, Routledge, 2011. 265. “Der Akt der Interpretation hat sich zwischen zwei Klippen zu vollziehen. Er muss sich auf der einen Seite davor hüten, etwa die religiöse Konfession für eine wahre Rede zu halten, die der heutige Mensch ohne weiteres nachvollziehen könne. Ricœur hat jede Auslegung geächtet, die behauptet, in der Quasi-Transparenz des Buchstabens Wahrheit, die offen zutage liegt, zu finden […]. Aber Ricœur spricht sich ebenso gegen die Unterscheidungen der allegorischen Methode von Form und Inhalt, Schale und Kern o.ä. aus. Eine zum Sinn vorstoßende Entschlüsselung kann man nicht so versuchen, dass man Form, Schale oder Gewand eines Textes für hinfällig erklärt, um den verschlossenen Kern der Wahrheit für heute ans Licht zu bringen. Wäre das möglich, so wäre die besondere und kontingente Sprache einer Zeit tatsächlich zweitrangig, und es interessierte allein ihre Botschaft”. Pierre Gisel in the introduction to P. RICŒUR – E. JÜNGEL, Metapher: Zur Hermeneutik religiöser Sprache, München, Kaiser, 1974, pp. 11-12. 266. In the very same line BORGONOVO, Monogamia e monoteismo, p. 227: “Nonostante i molti spunti interessanti, soprattutto per i molti rimandi intertestuali con gli altri testi canonici, l’allegoresi non è la migliore via ermeneutica, a ragione della sua estrinseca giustapposizione di un significato che quasi totalmente ignora la littera del testo. Al contrario, è rimanendo nella littera che bisogna cercare un senso che permetta di comprendere quel valore simbolico che si dà già a livello letterale”. The first one to employ the term “symbolic” reading for the Song is, to my knowledge, B. SCHÄFER, Das Hohe Lied, Münster, Theissing, 1876, p. 46, who sees in the Song a “Sinnbild für Übernatürliches, Geistiges, Ewiges”.

66

CHAPTER 1

of historical-critical scholarship267. The great advantage of a symbolic approach over an allegorical one is that a symbolic meaning is always rooted in the material or, in our case, in the anthropological sense of the letter268. The symbol rests by definition on its material foundation. Some scholars have sought to express the same concept by detecting in the Song a metaphoric expression of divine-human love by human love. However, as we will see in Chapter 3, “metaphor” is a linguistic creation, an instance of poetical invention, which has no inherent rooting in creational reality. The surplus meaning of a symbol, on the other hand, is never an arbitrary creation but is bound by its entrenchment in reality. The meaning of a symbol is never invented; it can only be discovered and further deployed. Our reading is also “diachronic” because it contends that the Song is theological on the level of its literal sense. This is evident, on the one hand, from the Song’s use of symbols that are perfectly coherent with the exploitation of these same symbols in older and contemporary ANE and Jewish literature269. Furthermore, the Song is replete with mythological elements related to ANE cultic love lyrics. The deployment and integration of that language into the Song has not been sufficiently taken into account by those interpretations that claim an exclusively anthropological meaning on the level of the literal sense. 267. REISER, Bibelkritik, p. V: “Wer eine Brücke zur Tradition schlagen will, kann an dieser Thematik (der Allegorese) nicht vorbeigehen. […] Mit Hilfe des Begriffs der symbolischen Auslegung versuche ich diese Interpretationsweise zu verstehen und zu erneuern”. Similarly RAVASI, Cantico, pp. 132-133: “(La lettura ‘letterale’) è certamente da accogliere come base, è però incapace di giustificare l’arco della tradizione biblica, giudaica e cristiana che nel segno nuziale ha costantemente iscritto un significato ulteriore. […] L’armonia può essere raggiunta solo con un’esegesi simbolica, laddove per ‘simbolo’ non si intende l’accezione popolare di vaga immagine, di metafora, di traslato, ma il suo significato specifico di realtà concreta che in sé contiene anche potenzialità semantiche ulteriori”. BARBIERO, Song, adopts it too, but concentrates more on a synchronic reading. 268. See R. MURRAY, Der Dichter als Exeget: Der hl. Ephräm und die heutige Exegese, in Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie 100 (1978) 484-494, p. 485, who shows that the Antiochian school had already developed a symbolic exegesis in reaction to the allegorizing school of Alexandria on the grounds of the historical anchorage of the symbol: “Dagegen betont Diodorus wiederholt im Vorwort zu seinem Psalmenkommentar, daß die ‘Geschichte’ […] wichtig bleibt und nicht aufgehoben werden soll; aber durch die und mit der ‘Geschichte’ erblickt der gläubige Leser noch etwas Tieferes und weniger Zeitbedingtes, das die ewige Absicht Gottes sowie des inspirierenden Geistes dem Auge des Glaubens enthüllt […] aber sie ist nicht losgelöst vom Grundsinn. Dieser bleibt immer wirksam als Realsymbol, dessen symbolische Kraft die ‘Theoria’ entdecken kann, gerade weil durch das Festhalten am Grundsinn diese Kraft ‘geerdet’ ist”. 269. It is moreover worth mentioning that the language of religious love, used elsewhere in Scriptures of God’s love for Israel, “is not a special vocabulary, but an argot of lover terms that occurs even in the most debased situations”. FISHBANE, Song, pp. xxxxxxi.

STATUS QUAESTIONIS – REENERGIZING THE DEBATE

67

Another diachronic element that has been neglected but needs to be taken into serious consideration is Zakovitch’s contention that the Song shows signs of an allegorizing redaction before its final closure. This presumption, which had already been observed by the older German scholarship (Loretz, Gerleman), has been buttressed by the Song manuscripts found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. There are good reasons to believe that the final version of the Song was not fixed before the first century B.C. That, however, has strong implications for the way it was understood by its final redactors. The signs of redaction are of twofold importance. First, they collapse the time-gap between an allegedly naturalistic composition of the Song and its posterior religious interpretation. Second and more important, if the final redaction shows traces of a theological understanding of the text, this redaction has to be considered as having become part of the literal sense of the Song. The intention of the redactors has to be considered as authorial, giving the Song its decisive meaning, for it is this text and not some pre-existent fragments that is submitted both to the religious and the scholarly interpretation. Investigations into previous stages of the text may prove helpful, but the definitive meaning subsists only in the final (canonized) product. A last point that imposes diachronic considerations is that none of the theories that propose a subsequent theologization of the Song (whether by insertion into the canon or allegorization through the Rabbis) can explain how the allegedly original and purely anthropological meaning of the text could have “fallen victim” to a religious interpretation in the course of a relatively short time-span270.

IV. DEVELOPMENT OF THE ARGUMENT The argument will be developed as follows. The thesis will be divided into three parts. Chapters 2 to 4 treat preliminary matters, i.e., “Hermeneutics and Presuppositions” (Part I). Chapter 2 focuses on questions surrounding the “original meaning” or sensus literalis, the concept of authorship, intertextuality, redactional layers and glosses and the choice of an appropriate methodology. Chapter 3 will seek to clarify the concepts of metaphor, allegory, and symbol. Chapter 4 will expose the basic historical 270. The Song would have hardly been accepted into the canon, had it not had “some kind of impact on religious life”. As Lapinkivi points out, “the allegorical interpretation of the Song, whether it is a description of a union between God and Israel as a community, or God and an individual, or Christ and the Church, would explain the reason why a love song has been seen as a holy text, and why it was accepted in the canon by both the Jews and Christians”. LAPINKIVI, Sacred Marriage, p. 95.

68

CHAPTER 1

assumptions informing the exegesis, that is, questions related to literary unity, dating, and the earliest traces of symbolic interpretations in the Qumran manuscripts, other late Second Temple writings, and in the LXX. Finally, some questions regarding the early Rabbinic witness to the Song’s symbolic character will be discussed. Part II (“The Phenomenology of the Symbol”) will consider the symbolic background of the Song, especially as it is expressed in the ritual and myth surrounding ANE royal ideology and sacred marriage. Chapters 5 to 7 treat questions that are partially external to the Song but have a decisive impact for the interpreter’s predisposition in approaching the Song, investigating both external and internal evidence that indicates why one should reckon with a religious symbolic intent. For the most part these chapters are organized as answers to the objections by the consensus against the allowance of a theological dimension to the Song’s literal sense. Chapter 5 will focus on questions of genre, notably the Song’s relationship to wisdom literature and the ANE royal ideology. Chapter 6 reviews older and recent sacred marriage theories and places the Song squarely within that tradition. Chapter 7 argues against reading the Song in discontinuity from the prophet’s use of the marriage symbol. It furthermore gathers some indications from non-prophetic biblical texts that use the marital metaphor for God’s relationship with Israel and gives some examples of texts that function as implicit “allegories” or personifications of Israel in biblical figures (i.e., Psalm 45, Gen 12,10-20). Part III (“Reconstituting the Song’s Symbolic Hermeneutic”) seeks to recover what Ricœur has called “second naïveté”, in particular a renewed, post-critical experience of the Song’s symbolic power. Chapter 8 highlights in the form of a cumulative argument indications from within the Song that strongly invite a symbolic-theological reading of the Song. Given the importance of the Song’s ascription to King Solomon, Chapter 9 will be dedicated entirely to the figure of this ambiguous king, both on a diachronic and a synchronic level. Chapters 10 and 11 will supply, by way of example, a symbolic exegesis of two chosen passages. Chapter 10 treats the so-called “Wedding of Solomon” (Song 3,6-11), while Chapter 11 will give a symbolic exegesis of the “Garden-Bride Song” (Song 4,12–5,1). The choice of these two passages is motivated by the fact that they undisputedly belong to the same cycle of cantos (3,6–5,1), with 3,6-11 being the opening canto and 4,12–5,1 the closing one. Moreover, the choice is motivated by the fact that the latter (4,12–5,1) is widely held to constitute the climax of the Song, describing arguably the consummation of the protagonists’ love and a wedding banquet. The topic and the protagonists

STATUS QUAESTIONIS – REENERGIZING THE DEBATE

69

of these cantos allow for the poem to be plotted within the arc of Israel’s salvation history. Finally, in Chapter 12 the results of this study will be summed up and conclusions drawn. It may be helpful, given the length and detail of the argumentation of this thesis, if the reader also uses this final chapter as a reference and overview in the course of reading.

PART I

HERMENEUTICS AND PRESUPPOSITIONS

CHAPTER 2

SEEKING THE SENSUS LITERALIS

A huge majority of modern exegetes insist that the literal sense of the Song of Songs is exclusively and exhaustively erotic. The argument of this thesis, by contrast, is that the Song of Songs is theological precisely at this level. It is thus evident that on one point, at least, the naturalistic school and I are in profound agreement. The historically determined, literal sense of the Song must control its interpretation – even in the Church. Since considerable confusion reigns in understanding the “literal sense”, it is necessary as a first step in substantiating my exegetical claim to make a number of distinctions between different types and orders of meaning. Indeed, it is precisely the surprising absence of such hermeneutical nuance in the great bulk of contemporary Song scholarship that has permitted the unacceptable claims not only of the (reductionistic) naturalistic school, but also of those who for varying reasons hope to append to the erotic level an extraneous theological reading. In the course of this chapter it will be seen, in fact, that the proponents of the naturalistic interpretation, who insist that the Song is purely erotic, ironically presuppose the same hermeneutical naïveté and confusion as their arch-opponent, the allegorizing Origen of Alexandria. Insensitive, specifically, to the subtle range and functioning of possible figurative meanings (e.g. metaphor, allegory, symbol), they strip the “literal” level down to (what shall be called here) the plain sense, excluding from it an authorially intended second order of meaning. This and the following chapter deal with hermeneutical issues related to establishing the two-tiered, literal sense of the Song, classically referred to as the sensus literalis. The present chapter has two parts and will prepare the ground. The first part seeks to give a definition of the term literal sense (I), while remaining sensitive to the complex ancient realities of authorship and redaction. The second part of the chapter discusses the exegetical methods appropriate in detecting and deciphering this twofold literal sense in the case of the Song (II). Inner-biblical exegesis will play an important role in this discussion; as a later chapter will show, the final redaction of the Song already shows traces of a more-than-plain-sense self-interpretation. The nature of symbolic language, which, importantly, is also part of the literal sense as understood here, will be treated in the following chapter where it will be carefully distinguished from metaphor

74

PART I – CHAPTER 2

and allegory. It is the symbolic meaning of the Song that will provide my primary exegetical avenue of approach for accessing the inherently religious dimension of the text.

I. SEEKING THE SENSUS LITERALIS Sensus literalis or “literal sense” is the terminology employed to identify the level of meaning on which I contend that the Song is theological. It is theological not in an anachronistic, faith-bound way unintended by the author(s), but on the historical level of the text’s actual production. Unfortunately, the term sensus literalis or literal sense has been used in many different, often conflicting ways, and the classical notion is difficult to pin down. The Church Fathers show no consistent understanding before the synthesis of Thomas Aquinas. Nor is there a consensus on what comprises the literal sense in modern hermeneutics. Particularly confusing is the frequent equation of “literal sense” and “literal meaning” by scholars who adhere to the naturalistic school. In the present study it is understood that the term “literal meaning” or better “plain sense” refers to a “descriptive meaning that is free from ambiguity”1. In other words, the “literal meaning” of a word, an utterance, or a sentence, is that prototypical meaning which can be established by semantic-syntactical rules. Correlative to this “literal meaning” is the “figurative meaning”. The “figurative meaning” is any meaning that words can acquire that exceeds the basic power of tools like grammars and dictionaries to establish (there are, of course, always exceptions). This figurative level is a second, atypical order of meaning, which is nevertheless still bound to the words and directly intended. Such figurative speech (e.g., metaphoric, allegoric, symbolic) belongs properly to the essentially bipartite “literal sense”. A still more careful discussion and definition of this literal sense is indispensable for the development of the thesis. In the following it will be argued first (1) why the quest for literal sense matters at all, especially in a post-modern world. Second (2), the traditional use of the term sensus literalis will be traced in order to highlight an important development of its understanding in the thought of Thomas Aquinas that stands at the basis of the subsequent Humanistic renewal and ultimately of modern historicalcritical scholarship. Third (3 and 4), two contemporary positions on the literal sense will be explored, suggesting finally (5) that one must navigate between them in order to establish a privileged meaning of the Song. 1. N. FRYE, Anatomy of Criticism, Toronto, University of Toronto Press, 2006, p. 70.

SEEKING THE SENSUS LITERALIS

75

1. The “Established Fact” of Manifold Meaning Why continue the quest for the “meaning” of the Song? Has not postmodernism brought this one advantage over modernism, that it may be accounted as a fait accompli that there is no such thing as the meaning of a text, but that any work of literary art is open to a sequence of meanings? “The principle of manifold or ‘polysemous’ meaning”, so Northrop Frye, “is not a theory any more, still less an exploded superstition, but an established fact”2. A century-old knowledge that a text grows with each of its readers and assumes new meanings with a broadening of its contexts is today an unswerving premise of literary criticism3. A text is considered to become an autonomous entity from the moment its author delivers it to the public4, to the point that the original “intention of the author” in writing the text becomes of secondary or even no importance. Criticism has moved from looking “behind the text”, that is, from the search for the author’s intention, to standing “in front of the text” or the “world it opens up for the reader”5. Why then continue to battle over the meaning of the Song or any text? We can now either stop “with a purely relative and pluralistic position, or we can go on to consider the possibility that there is a finite number of valid critical methods, and that they can all be contained in a single theory”6. The challenge lies in establishing criteria to distinguish a privileged interpretation from the proliferation of possible meanings. Whereas literary theory is comparatively free to establish an infinite number of 2. Ibid., p. 66. 3. Divina eloquia cum legente crescunt. GREGORIUS MAGNUS, Homiliae in Hiezechihelem prophetam I, VII, 8 (CCSL, 142), Turnhout, Brepols, 1971, p. 87. 4. According to FRYE, “The author’s intention ceases to exist as a separate factor as soon as he has finished revising” (Anatomy, p. 67). Similarly O.T. VENARD, Les deux asymptotes du sens littéral des Écritures, in ID. (ed.), Le sens littéral des Écritures (LeDiv HS), Paris, Cerf, 2009, 9-24, p. 11. Every act of speech is charged with a multiplicity of significances which escape the immediate intention of the speaker. See also LACOCQUE, Romance, p. 9. 5. See P. RICŒUR – E. JÜNGEL (eds.), Metapher: Zur Hermeneutik religiöser Sprache, München, Kaiser, 1974, p. 32: “Was bleibt zu interpretieren, wenn wir die Hermeneutik nicht mehr definieren können als Frage nach den hinter dem Text verborgenen inneren Absichten eines anderen, wenn wir die Interpretation aber auch nicht auf die Zerlegung der Strukturen beschränken wollen? Ich würde sagen: interpretieren heißt, die Weise des vor dem Text entfalteten In-der-Welt-Seins darzustellen. […] Ein Text ist zu interpretieren als ein Entwurf von Welt, die ich bewohnen kann, um eine meiner wesenhaften Möglichkeiten darin zu entwerfen. Genau dies nenne ich Textwelt, die diesem einzigen Text eigene Welt”. See also B.S. CHILDS, The Sensus Literalis of Scripture: An Ancient and Modern Problem, in W. ZIMMERLI et al. (eds.), Beiträge zur Alttestamentlichen Theologie, Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977, 80-93, p. 90. 6. FRYE, Anatomy, p. 66.

76

PART I – CHAPTER 2

possible levels of meaning according to the “contexts or relationships in which the whole work of literary art can be placed”7, the exegete cannot renounce the very elementary quest for an original historical meaning. Exegesis includes literary criticism and therefore needs to apply literary tools. But exegesis is also a historical science. In spite of the proliferations of meanings a text acquires through the increase of its readers and possible inter-texts, scriptural exegesis will always be concerned with the historical context in which the word was first spoken or written8. For that reason the Jewish and Christian tradition has always demanded that any interpretation of Scripture be rooted in the literal sense, which was classically identified to the original historical sense intended by the author of the text9. Today our understanding of the literal sense has been considerably broadened from numerous perspectives (see I.3 below, p. 83)10. Nonetheless, the communicative and historical nature of revelation still demands that the literal sense not be severed from the intention of its author. For that reason Song exegesis has a continued interest in establishing the literal sense as a privileged meaning over and against an infinite number of possible meanings the text might have assumed through new contexts. Unfortunately there is no unanimity on how to define the literal sense, not even among scholars belonging to the same denomination. Yet, a working definition is necessary, the establishment of which is the subject of the following sections (I.2–I.5). 2. The Classical Notion of Sensus Literalis From the time of Origen’s Peri Archon until the late Middle Ages, Christian exegesis accepted the principle of a twofold understanding of the Scriptures, known as the literal and the spiritual sense. It is a distinction of categories which is relevant solely to the interpretation of holy Scriptures and derives from the Christian belief in its inspiration as well as the therewith connected reality of a twofold authorship, human and divine. The 7. Ibid., p. 67. 8. In this, I affirm, with T. RÖMER, ‘L’invention de Dieu’ – les origines et l’évolution du dieu d’Israël, in Angelicum 92 (2015) 519-536, pp. 535-536: “Je reste décidément ‘moderne’, et ne peux accepter une déconstruction postmoderne selon laquelle toutes les opinions et reconstructions se valent. La tâche de l’historien est de faire découvrir les contextes historiques dans lesquels les textes religieux et les représentations du divin ont vue le jour”. 9. See R.N. SOULEN – K.R. SOULEN, Handbook of Biblical Criticism, Louisville, KY, Westminster John Knox, 32001, p. 104. 10. In the Jewish tradition the equivalent to the “literal sense” would be called the perash, the “simple sense”. See CHILDS, Sensus Literalis.

SEEKING THE SENSUS LITERALIS

77

sensus literalis (or literal sense) concerns everything related to the human dimension of the text, whereas the sensus spiritualis (or spiritual sense) concerns the theological dimension of its divine authorship. The literal sense is consequently not faith-bound. It is accessible to the human reason by the tools of historical-critical and literary exegesis11. The spiritual sense, on the other hand, is a strictly theological category, not accessible outside the realms of faith. Nonetheless, according to tradition, it is to be developed departing from the literal sense12. Contrary to common prejudice, the Fathers neither neglected the literal sense nor did they have a simplistic understanding of it. Origen, who is often blamed as the culprit behind the tradition’s excesses in allegorization, was not inattentive to the literal sense13. In his Song commentary, his first effort is to establish the literal sense14. All the same, Origen’s definition of the literal sense was not yet as refined as that of later medieval theologians. Specifically, Origen promotes a practical identification of 11. See D. FARKASFALVY, Inspiration & Interpretation, Washington, DC, Catholic University of America Press, 2010, p. 121. Similarly, F. GONÇALVÈS, Enjeux et possibilités de la quête du sens historique originaire: Est-ce la même chose que le sens littéral?, in O.T. VENARD (ed.), Le sens littéral des Écritures (LeDiv HS), Paris, Cerf, 2009, 47-74, pp. 49-50, 66. 12. The spiritual sense of the Old Testament is the sense which is revealed when rereading the text in light of the mysteries of the life of Christ. This basic division into two senses, the sensus literalis and the sensus spiritualis, is embraced by the entire Christian theology until the late middle ages, Alexandrians and Antiochians alike. The prevalent approach, however, was the Origenian model, which is a further division of the spiritual sense into three subcategories known as the allegorical, tropological, and anagogical sense. In practice this resulted in a “four-fold” sense; see DE LUBAC, History and Spirit. See also REISER, Bibelkritik, pp. 139-145, who prefers to speak of four ways of understanding the Scriptures. 13. Ulrich Luz writes that for Origen “die wörtliche Auslegung ist nur die manchmal wichtige Vorstufe der geistlichen”. LUZ, Die Bedeutung der Kirchenväter, p. 47. FARKASFALVY counters to this commonly held prejudice, “It was for the sake of understanding the literal sense that Origen consulted Jewish teachers and exegetes, all experts in the Hebrew. Had Origen undervalued or neglected the importance of the literal meaning, he would not have invested so much work in text-critical studies, nor would he have discussed countless questions of textual variations, geographic locations, and biblical names and personalities”. Inspiration & Interpretation, p. 121. Very lucid also is the riposte by REISER: “Für Origenes ist es Christus, der den geistlichen Schriftsinn konstituiert; er hat diesen Sinn im Fall des Alten Testaments nicht einfach nur aufgedeckt, sondern überhaupt erst geschaffen, indem er das Wasser der Schrift in Wein gewandelt hat. Für die Gewinnung des ‘Weins’ ist das Wasser mehr als die ‘manchmal wichtige Vorstufe’. […] Der ‘Geist’ der Schrift existiert nicht losgelöst vom ‘Buchstaben’, sondern ist als Geist des Buchstabens zu verstehen”. Bibelkritik, p. 65. 14. According to Origen the Song is in its literal sense an epithalamium, that is, a wedding song, written by Solomon in the form of a drama. ORIGÈNE, Commentaire sur le Cantique des cantiques, I, p. 81. See also L. PERRONE, The Bride at the Crossroads: Origen’s Dramatic Interpretation of the Song of Songs, in ETL 82 (2006) 69-102.

78

PART I – CHAPTER 2

the figurative sense of Scripture (i.e. metaphor and other literary devices) with the spiritual sense. As a result, the majority of medieval Song commentators crassly ignored the natural reference of the figurative language of the Song, that is, the human expressions of love contained therein, and sought only its spiritual sense. It was not until Hugh of Saint Victor and Thomas Aquinas that a more careful distinction of the literal sense from the spiritual sense was developed, both in their respective definitions and in their mutual relation. a) Practical Identification of the Figurative with the Spiritual Sense Origen recognized clearly that not every account in the Old Testament was a historical narrative. For narratives like a parable or a tale of edification he would admit the absence of a historical sense and yet search for the literal sense of the text15. Origen, however, lacks precision in distinguishing the literal from the spiritual sense of Scripture, since he fails to recognize that figurative language is part of the literal sense and does not automatically indicate a hidden spiritual meaning. In his Peri Archon Origen asks how to know if a scriptural passage is to be read as bearing a spiritual sense distinct from the literal sense. According to him, we are led to suspect a spiritual meaning when a passage is intractably obscure. In such cases there would be no proper literal sense to the Scriptures, but by means of those divinely intended obscurities we are led to search directly for a spiritual sense16. The problem is that Origen exemplifies his principle with passages that demonstrate no special obscurities. They only indicate his failure to identify figurative speech as a literary device. Indeed, the “obscurities” listed by Origen concern figurative language and not intrinsically obscure passages. The examples include metaphors chosen from Genesis like “God planted trees in the garden of Eden”, “the tree of life”, “the face of God”, 15. See ORIGEN, On First Principles: Volume II (Oxford Early Christian Texts), Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2017, p. 519 (Prin IV.3.1). Also FARKASFALVY, Inspiration & Interpretation, p. 121; and REISER, Bibelkritik, pp. 105, 144-145. For example, Origen does not search for a historical meaning of the creation and paradise narrative in Genesis, or the temptation of Jesus and apocalyptic descriptions. 16. ORIGEN, On First Principles, p. 515 (Prin IV.2.9): “[D]ivine Wisdom took care that certain stumbling blocks or interruptions of the narratival sense should occur, by inserting into the midst certain impossibilities and incongruities, so that the very interruption of the narrative might make the reader pause, as if by casting certain obstacles before him on account of which he might refuse to proceed along the path of the ordinary sense and, by excluding and debarring us, it might recall us to the beginning of another way, in order that, by entering upon a narrow path, it might unfold, as a loftier and more sublime road, the immense breadth of divine knowledge”.

SEEKING THE SENSUS LITERALIS

79

Adam hiding from God, etc. In such cases the problem is not hermeneutical but only literary. Origen concludes from the fact that certain passages are not to be read literally, and that figurative speech belongs to the non-literal, spiritual sense; that is, they must be read as having a spiritual sense only17. Origen’s understanding that figurative speech does not belong to the literal but to the spiritual sense leads later commentators to a practical identification of figurative speech with the spiritual sense. This is particularly salient in the majority of Song commentaries subsequent to Origen. Because the Song’s poetic language is figurative throughout, commentators took this as evidence that the literal sense of the Song must itself be the spiritual sense. In other words, there is only one sense to the Song, i.e. the spiritual. The figurative language of the Song was understood as a clothing that needs to be stripped away in order to discover the spiritual significance hidden underneath. It was de facto Gregory the Great’s reception of Origen that led to the neglect of the literal sense in medieval Song exegesis. For Gregory, the Song’s erotic language made it “obscure” according to Origen’s principle, and this led to an exclusively “spiritual” reading throughout18. Gregory sees in the Song’s language of human love an allegory which serves as a kind of mechanism to raise the soul to God by means of enigmas. Recognizing in the words something familiar to the human mind, it will understand in these words something which is not familiar to the soul19. His understanding of the spiritual sense as something hidden and disguised within the literal meaning is very clear from his introductory explanation: The letter hides the spirit just as the chaff conceals the wheat. But it is beasts of burden who feed on the chaff; humans feed on the wheat. Using human reason, therefore, a person discards the chaff of beasts and hurries to eat the wheat of the spirit. To this end, therefore, it serves a purpose that the mysteries of the letter should be concealed under wraps because the wisdom which has to be worked for is all the better to taste. For this reason it is written: The wise hide their knowledge (Prov 10,14), because, of course, the spiritual meaning is hidden under the cover of the letter20.

17. TURNER, Eros, p. 96. 18. This, again, was not the case with Origen’s commentary who does discern the literal meaning before proceeding to the spiritual significance. 19. GRÉGOIRE LE GRAND, Commentaire sur Le Cantique des cantiques 2.3-5 (SC, 314), Paris, Cerf, 1984, p. 70: “Interpostis quippe aenigmatibus, dum quiddam in verbis cognoscit, quod suum est, in sensu verborum intellegit, quod non est suum, et per terrena verba separatur a terra”. 20. GRÉGOIRE LE GRAND, Cantique 4.19-29. The English translation is taken from TURNER, Eros, pp. 218-219.

80

PART I – CHAPTER 2

According to Gregory, then, the literal sense of the Song needs to be cast off in order to reach its spiritual sense. The literal sense is not considered as having a value of its own. b) Figurative Speech Belongs to the Literal Sense It was not until Hugh of Saint Victor and particularly Thomas Aquinas that a more careful definition of both the literal and the spiritual senses of Scripture and their mutual relation was developed. Hugh, Thomas, and Thomas’ follower, Nicholas of Lyra (who applied Thomas’ principles to the Song), shared the conviction that the spiritual sense had to be rooted in the literal sense, or else it would lack its basis. “If the letter is taken away, what is Scripture?”, Hugh of Saint Victor asks emphatically21. All three explicitly warn against searching for a spiritual sense without sufficient grounding in a firmly established literal sense. Both Hugh and Thomas develop a theory of how the spiritual sense relates to and relies on the literal sense. They furthermore introduce the important clarification that figurative speech is part of the literal sense of Scripture, and the spiritual sense is not just a kind of metaphor22. “Allegory”, which in the Middle Ages is often the designation for the spiritual sense, is not part of the meaning of the text of Scripture, but rather of the events recorded in it. For Hugh, Thomas, and Nicholas the spiritual sense of Scripture is not a textual meaning, but a metaphysical meaning on a different order of reality: the meaning of the historical events and realities that the textual meaning literally signifies23. (i) Thomas Aquinas According to the distinction developed by Thomas, the literal sense regards the things signified by the words. The spiritual sense, on the other hand, is constituted by those things which can themselves be figures (or types) of other things. “Truth is made plain in sacred Scripture in two ways. In one way insofar as things are signified by the words: and this is the literal sense. In another way by virtue of the fact that things are figures of other things: and this is what the spiritual sense consists in”24. This does 21. Cited in TURNER, Eros, p. 108. 22. See ibid., p. 100, and CHILDS, Sensus Literalis, pp. 80-93. 23. TURNER, Eros, p. 104. 24. THOMAS AQUINAS, Quodlibet 7, Q. 6: On the Senses of Sacred Scripture Art. 1, co. In Art 2, co., Thomas reformulates: “Scripture reveals the truth which it hands down in two ways: through words and through the types of things. This disclosure which is made through words yields the historical or literal sense; and so all this is part of the literal sense which can genuinely be got from the meaning of the words. But as has been said, the spiritual

SEEKING THE SENSUS LITERALIS

81

not result in a plurality of meanings, for “the spiritual sense is always based upon the literal and follows from it”25. However, the literal sense can itself be metaphorical. It is not that the spiritual sense is to be found in the poetic language of Scripture26. Rather, the act of signifying something, be it by words or by “the construction of images designed to signify, yields nothing but the literal sense”27. “Poetic images refer to something else only so as to signify them; and so a signification of that sort goes no way beyond the manner in which the literal sense signifies”28. (ii) The Spiritual Sense Is Typological in Nature The spiritual sense, then, for Thomas, is not, as metaphors are, a further layer of the textual meaning, but the meaning of the realities (e.g., events or objects) to which the text literally refers29. In the medieval terminology this meaning is referred to as allegorical or typological, which can be misleading to a modern reader. “Allegory” in our modern, post-Romantic understanding, is a literary device which operates on the level of a text’s production. It is a text that is constructed according to a pre-established code to mean something other than what it says (= ἄλλο ἀγορεύειν) in the plain text, that is, something other than what its words mean on the semantic-syntactic level. In this case the literal sense is in itself an allegorical sense, because the author intends the text’s allegorical meaning (see Chapter 1, II.3, above, p. 38 and Chapter 3, II, below, p. 123). The medieval use of the term “allegory”, on the other hand, corresponds to what we would refer to as “typology”30. Typology is not a literary device but a theological construct, according to which earlier events in sacred history not only “match later events in formal outline, but are prophetic anticipations of them”31. This is possible sense is got from, or consists in, the fact that some things are expressed through types of other things, for it is normal for visible things to be figures of invisible things, as Denys says. Thus it is that the sense which is derived from types is called spiritual sense”. See TURNER, Eros, pp. 344, 347-348. 25. THOMAS AQUINAS, Quodlibet 7, Q. 6, Art. 1, ad. 1; cited in TURNER, Eros, p. 344. 26. In Song exegesis there appears to have been a “virtual unanimity in practice” to assign “metaphorical expressions to the side not only of the semantically non-literal, but also, and in the second sense of the non-literal, to the allegorical”. TURNER, Eros, p. 94. 27. THOMAS AQUINAS, Quodlibet 7, Q. 6, Art. 3, co.; cited in TURNER, Eros, p. 351. 28. THOMAS AQUINAS, Quodlibet 7, Q. 6, Art. 3, ad. 2; cited in TURNER, Eros, p. 352. 29. See TURNER, Eros, p. 103. 30. For a thorough explanation see L. GOPPELT, Typos: Die typologische Deutung des Alten Testaments im Neuen, Darmstadt, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1939. See also E. AUERBACH, Figura, in Scenes from the Drama of European Literature (Theory and History of Literature, 9), Minneapolis, MN, University of Minnesota Press, 1984, 11-76. 31. TURNER, Eros, pp. 107-108.

82

PART I – CHAPTER 2

because the principal author of the Scriptures is the Holy Spirit, who is also the author of the historical events recorded therein. An event can, therefore, be prophetic of a future event, even if that escapes the consciousness of the human author. The basis of typology is the historical events recorded in the text, not the text itself. Therefore, Hugh and Thomas can insist that the spiritual sense of Scriptures is not – strictly speaking – the meaning of the text, but the meaning of the realities which the text literally records, even if it does so in figurative language32. (iii) Nicholas of Lyra Thomas’ distinction that the spiritual sense is based on historical events and not on the figurative language of the text led to a very different interpretation of the Song. Unfortunately, none of Thomas’ reported Song commentaries are extant. We have, however, a practical application of Thomas’ principle in the work of Nicholas of Lyra33. Nicholas recognizes that the literal sense in the case of the Song can have two possible meanings. It can either refer to the concrete love between Solomon and the Shulammite (then understood to be the daughter of Pharaoh), or it can be, in its literal sense, figurative of another love relationship. Nicholas (like all the medieval commentators) judged the carnal love between Solomon and the Shulammite unworthy of being a prophetic anticipation of Christ’s love for the Church, wherefore he opted for the second solution. For Nicholas, the literal sense was nothing else than the sensus historicus hebraicus. Familiar with the exegetical work of Rashi, Nicholas read the Song in its literal sense as an extended series of metaphors (parabola) for the history of Israel. In its literal sense, the erotic love play of the Song is a metaphor for the history of Israel. In the spiritual sense it is Israel’s history, which is the type of the mystery concerning Christ and his Church34. Among Song commentaries, Nicholas’ solution remained unique. It was, however, the Thomistic principle according to which the spiritual sense had to be based on the historical events designated by the literal sense that eventually led the Humanists to lay the foundations of our modern “historical-critical” method, whose primary concern is still to uncover the literal sense of the text, understood as restricted to the historical “original” meaning35. What has changed, though, is that due to our post-Enlightenment 32. See ibid., p. 113. 33. See NICHOLAS OF LYRA, The Postillae Litteralis on the Song of Songs. 34. See TURNER, Eros, p. 114. 35. See CHILDS, Sensus Literalis, p. 89: “[With the rise of historical-critical scholarship] scholars grew to assume that the meaning of the biblical text lay in its historical reference and the issue of historical factuality, usually couched apologetically in terms of ‘evidence’ … The task of exegesis lay in working out the true historical reference since revelation no

SEEKING THE SENSUS LITERALIS

83

“historical consciousness” and the emancipation of literary criticism from theology into an autonomous field of research, we have a sharper awareness of the difficulty not only of discovering, but even of defining what the literal sense is36. 3. Modern Literary Approaches Today the debate about how to establish the literal sense continues37. For some, the literal sense “is nothing else than the original historical sense which historical-critical exegesis searches for”38, and is thus intimately connected to the quest for the “author’s intention”. For others, the history matters little. The literal sense is located on a literary level, embracing every possible significance, from the author’s original conception to any other which could result from the text’s re-contextualization39. The latter view corresponds to the insight of modern literary criticism that a text’s meaning is constituted by more than the “original intention” of the author. “The meaning of a literary work forms a part of a larger whole […] (established) by a sequence of context relationships in which the whole work of literary art can be placed”40. Within this spectrum, the exegetical methods applied to establishing a text’s literal sense range from the historicalcritical reconstruction of an alleged Urtext to studies of unintentional intertextuality. Nonetheless, even authors who plead for an entirely ahistorical location of the literal sense on the textual level agree that there must be some control against an arbitrary proliferation of interpretations41. Exegesis must longer consisted in the words, but exclusively in the subject matter to which the words referred. … In the new approach … the historical sense of the text was construed as being the original meaning of the text as it emerged in its pristine situation. Therefore, the aim of the interpreter was to reconstruct the original occasion of the historical reference on the basis of which the truth of the biblical text could be determined. In sum, the sensus literalis had become sensus originalis”. See also GONÇALVÈS, Enjeux et possibilités de la quête du sens historique originaire, p. 66. 36. For the complexity of the question which seems all but settled, see VENARD (ed.), Le sens littéral des Écritures. 37. See VENARD, Asymptotes, and O.T. VENARD, Problématique du sens littéral, in ID. (ed.), Le sens littéral des Écritures, 193-353. 38. GONÇALVÈS, Enjeux et possibilités de la quête du sens historique originaire, p. 66. 39. Venard labels these two opposing positions as the two asymptotes on a curve that ranges from historical to literary, that is, from the psychological historical to the textual asymptote. Neither exists in a pure form. The individual interpreter is closer to one or the other asymptote according to his respective understanding of inspiration. See VENARD, Asymptotes, pp. 11-13. See also ID., Problématique, pp. 301-307. 40. FRYE, Anatomy, p. 67. 41. See, e.g., U. ECO, Interpretation and History, in S. COLLINI (ed.), Interpretation and Overinterpretation: Umberto Eco with Richard Rorty, Jonathan Culler, Christine

84

PART I – CHAPTER 2

claim a coherent continuity between the results of diachronic and synchronic approaches to the text. “Without the stable determinacy of meaning there can be no knowledge in interpretation, nor any knowledge in the many humanistic disciplines based upon textual interpretation”42. Biblical exegesis, which is concerned with a historical word of revelation, cannot afford to abdicate the search for the “original meaning”. It is the purpose of this section to integrate the insights of modern hermeneutics with the traditional understanding of the sensus literalis. On the one hand, it is important to retain the understanding of Hugh of Saint Victor and Thomas Aquinas that the literal sense concerns the historical sense43 and “its accuracy as a record of facts or truths”44. The historical sense was furthermore classically understood as the sense intended by the human authors45. Today one can no longer apply the medieval identification of the literal sense with the historical sense tout court. Both historical criticism and modern literary criticism have seen more. Modern hermeneutics teaches us that there is more to a text than the author’s intention. In addition to the meaning intended by the author there is a meaning which is inherent to the text itself, referred to as the intentio operis. At the same time, historical-critical scholarship instructs us that our (mostly) romantic notion of “authorship” cannot be applied to ancient texts. Rather, many texts from antiquity are a result of a complex process of redaction and editing, which in some cases we are lucky to be able to trace. All these factors coalesce and have to be taken into account in the establishment of the literal sense. a) “Intentional Fallacy” In the quest for the “original meaning” of a text, modern literary criticism warns against the so-called “intentional fallacy”. This is “the notion that the poet has a primary intention of conveying meaning to a reader, and that the first duty of a critic is to recapture that intention”46. The word “intention” is here understood analogically, implying a relationship between the Brooke-Rose, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1992, 23-43; ID., Overinterpreting Texts, ibid., 45-66; ID., Between Author and Text, ibid., 67-88. 42. E.D. HIRSCH, JR., The Aims of Interpretation, Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press, 1976, p. 1. 43. THOMAS AQUINAS, Quodlibet 7, Q. 6, Art. 2, resp.: “the manifestation which is through words constitutes the historical or literal sense, whence that whole [matter] pertains to the literal sense which is rightly taken from the very signification of the words”. 44. FRYE, Anatomy, p. 70. 45. See CHILDS, Sensus Literalis, p. 85. 46. FRYE, Anatomy, p. 79.

SEEKING THE SENSUS LITERALIS

85

conception of an idea in the author’s mind and the act by which he aims at transmitting this idea. By the middle of the twentieth century, the leading literary critics had established a “literary doctrine that the best poetry is impersonal, objective, and autonomous; that it leads an afterlife of its own, totally cut off from the life of its author”47. The conviction is that it is either impossible to retrieve the author’s intention48, or at least wrongheaded, because the author surrenders his intentional property in the act of publishing49. b) Intentio Operis According to Northrop Frye, the intentional fallacy arises from a failure to distinguish between “fiction and fact, hypothesis and assertion, imaginative and discursive writing”50. The search for the author’s intention is proper to discursive writing, where the correspondence between the written word and the described object is of vital importance. In discursive writing, assertion, or factual discourse, the intention of the author needs to be sought, so to speak, outside of the text in the mind of the writer51. In fiction and poetry, on the other hand, it is in the work of literary art that the “literal meaning” is contained. A poet is not primarily concerned with conveying a message, but with producing “a work of art, and hence his intention can only be expressed by some kind of tautology”52. Frye 47. HIRSCH, Interpretation, p. 1. Hirsch points to the classic statement of this doctrine by T.S. Eliot, “Tradition and the Individual Talent”, Selected Essays (New York, 1932). Similar P. RICŒUR, Essays on Biblical Interpretation, Philadelphia, PA, Fortress, 1980, p. 99: “We underestimate the phenomenon of writing if we reduce it to the simple material fixation of living speech. Writing stands in a specific relation to what is said. It produces a form of discourse that is immediately autonomous with regard to its author’s intention. And in that autonomy is contained […] the issue of the text which is removed from the finite intentional horizon of the author. In other words, thanks to writing, the world of the text can burst the world of the author”. 48. See ECO, Between Author and Text, p. 88. 49. HIRSCH gives a good summary of the objections against establishing the text’s meaning on the basis of authorial intention: “His [the text’s] meaning, being conditioned by history and culture, is too confined and simple; second, it remains, in any case, inaccessible to us because we live in another age, or because his mental processes are private, or because he himself did not know what he meant”. Interpretation, p. 216. 50. FRYE, Anatomy, p. 79. 51. Whether that is possible, however, is also highly discussed. According to Umberto Eco it is not: “The private life of the empirical authors is in a certain respect more unfathomable than their texts. Between the mysterious history of a textual production and the uncontrollable drift of its future readings, the text qua text still represents a comfortable presence, the point to which we can stick”. ECO, Between Author and Text, p. 88. Also VENARD, Problématique, p. 312. 52. FRYE, Anatomy, p. 80. Similarly Umberto Eco proposes to focus on the intentio operis. See ECO, Interpretation and History, p. 25.

86

PART I – CHAPTER 2

concludes, “What the poet meant to say, then, is, literally, the poem itself”53. The intention of the author must not be sought for outside of the poem, but only within54. This “intention” which is to be discovered within the text is (again analogically) called intentio operis55. c) Intentio Auctoris The theory of “intentional fallacy” has led to a considerable skepticism, which calls into doubt the possibility of any valid interpretation56. Eric Donald Hirsch, aware that the theory has an advantage over the naïve positivism of Romanticism, points out that the disadvantages, nonetheless, predominate. Hirsch defends the position that the meaning of a text “is permanent and can be no other than the author’s meaning”, while its “significance” is subject to changes57. Criticism that makes the meaning of a text entirely dependent on a reader-response interpretation is a reductio ad absurdum of all criticism58. Once the author is banished, there remains no valid criterion for judging the validity of an interpretation. “As soon as the reader’s outlook is permitted to determine what a text means we have not simply a changing meaning but quite possibly as many meanings as readers”59. 53. FRYE, Anatomy, p. 80. 54. A similar proposal was made by Umberto Eco who calls this the intentio operis. “My idea of textual interpretation as the discovery of a strategy intended to produce a model reader, conceived as the ideal counterpart of a model author (which appears only as a textual strategy), makes the notion of an empirical author’s intention radically useless”. ECO, Overinterpreting Texts, pp. 65-66. 55. According to Umberto Eco the intentio operis is not given directly by the textual data, but must be inferred from them. “The intention of the text is basically to produce a model reader able to make conjectures about it”; the initiative of the model reader, on the other hand, “consists in figuring out a model author that is not the empirical one and that in the end coincides with the intention of the text”. Whenever identifiable, however, the empirical author still plays a role insofar as the text has to be interpreted with respect to the author’s cultural and linguistic background. See ECO, Overinterpreting Texts, p. 64 and ID., Between Author and Text, p. 68. Thus the intentio operis is imbedded both in textimmanent structures and its context, that is, the cultural as well as the intertextual context. 56. HIRSCH, Interpretation, p. 2. 57. Ibid., p. 216. Hirsch distinguishes between the meaning and significance of a text. “Meaning is that which is represented by a text; it is what the author meant by his use of a particular sign sequence; it is what the sign represents. Significance, on the other hand, names a relationship between that meaning and a person, or a conception, or a situation, or indeed anything imaginable. […] Significance always implies a relationship, and one constant, unchanging pole of that relationship is what the text means. Failure to consider this simple and essential distinction has been the source of enormous confusion in hermeneutic theory”. Ibid., p. 8 (italics in text). 58. See ibid., p. 213. 59. Ibid.

SEEKING THE SENSUS LITERALIS

87

Theories that shift the focus from what the author has wanted to say to “what the text says” fail to take into account that the text must express somebody’s meaning – “if not the author’s, then the critic’s”. “A word sequence means nothing in particular until somebody either means something by it or understands something from it”60. By deliberately banishing the author, the critics have “usurped his place”61, which has led to an uncontrollable increase in “authors”. “To banish the original author as the determiner of meaning was to reject the only compelling normative principle that could lend validity to an interpretation”62. If one enters into the discussion of the validity of a certain interpretation at all one needs to preserve the consideration of the author. The intention that the author had in mind cannot be known with certainty. That does not mean, however, “that the author’s intended meaning is inaccessible and therefore a useless object of interpretation. It is a logical mistake to confuse the impossibility of certainty in understanding with the impossibility of understanding”63. It is not the psychology of the author that is at stake, but whether the verbal meaning intended by the author is accessible to understanding. “Most authors believe in the accessibility of their verbal meaning, for otherwise most of them would not write”64. Written communication, in fact, “takes for granted that all meaning communicated by texts is to some extent language bound” and that no meaning can transcend the possible meanings bound by the language in which it is expressed65. What Hirsch rightly and vigorously denies is the idea “that linguistic signs can somehow speak their own meaning – a mystical idea that has never been persuasively argued”66. These conflicting opinions (i.e. intentio operis vs. intentio auctoris) apply in various forms to the quest of the Song’s literal sense. In fact, both sides have valuable insights concerning the diachronic and synchronic aspects of a text’s literal sense. The problem lies in their mutually exclusive arguments. De facto the literal sense is constituted by both diachronic and synchronic elements, that is, “authorial intention” matters just as much as the text’s immanent and intertextual structural relations (intentio operis). However, as valuable as the insights of modern hermeneutics are for exegesis, they cannot be applied to biblical exegesis tout court. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66.

Ibid., p. 4. Ibid., p. 5. Ibid., p. 6. Ibid., p. 17. Ibid., p. 18. See ibid., p. 23. Ibid.

88

PART I – CHAPTER 2

Before an attempt at a synthesis can be made, another factor has to be expounded which qualifies the pertinence of modern hermeneutical literary theory. This factor concerns the notion of authorship and its applicability to biblical texts. 4. On Authors and Texts To the diachronic considerations of the medieval theologians, modern literary hermeneutics added synchronic considerations. What remains to be seen is the change in understanding of “authorship” which historicalcritical exegesis contributes to the debate. While the medieval theologians could reckon with a single author whose intention alone mattered, and the presumption that these authors gave a reliable account of the historical events, neither of these can be assumed today. Both textual criticism and literary criticism have altered our understanding of “authorship” and the “historicity” of the accounts. In the case of the Song only “authorship” is relevant. a) Redactors and Authors The notion of “author” underlying most literary theories is that of Romanticism, the idea of one individual genius writer. Most ancient texts, however – and within the Bible, Old Testament texts in particular – are anonymous67. They are the fruit of a long history of handing down, interpretation, reinterpretation, and redaction of ancient anonymous sources. The vast majority of Old Testament texts, therefore, cannot be considered the work of an individual author, in the modern sense of the term. Rather, these texts belong to the tradition of different communities. As Jean-Louis Ska explains, in antiquity “the ‘author’ or ‘writer’ is the mouthpiece of the community and ‘says’, interprets, and actualizes the tradition, the common possession of all the members of the community”68. The task of these “writers” is not as we understand it today “to express any personal or original ideas and to find the best means in order to convey them to their readers”69. Quite to the contrary, their task is, first, to secure the living tradition of the communities for their contemporaries, 67. Ben Sira is the first to sign by name a biblical book as its author (Sir 51,27). See J.-L. SKA, The Exegesis of the Pentateuch: Exegetical Studies and Basic Questions (FAT, 66), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2009, p. 235, n. 11. 68. Ibid., p. 235. See also CHILDS, Introduction, p. 574: “Whereas the modern reader considers a book to be the property of its individual author, the Old Testament viewed a book as traditional, communal, and developing”. 69. SKA, Pentateuch, p. 235.

SEEKING THE SENSUS LITERALIS

89

and, second, “to ‘actualize’ the tradition or traditional texts because the ‘writer’ is always a bridge between the past and the future”70. To preserve the tradition and to actualize it for the community is the main reason why there was “editorial”, “redactional”, or “compositional” work in antiquity. In view of this, one must be careful not to attribute to the terms “author” and “redactor/editor” a modern understanding. Ever since the Renaissance, the term “editor” signifies a person who stands between the ancient text and its ideally “pure” transmission to posterity. His work is never to “up-date” a text by interpolations or explanatory glosses – still less by Fortschreibung. Today, rather, it is the editor’s task to eliminate any additions that can be identified. The ancient writers, on the other hand, “were not later editors of ancient authors, but living channels of transmission of ancient – mostly anonymous – and collective traditions. There was little interest in the past as such, but in the past that could inform, shape, and inspire the present”71. As “living channels” they felt authorized to actualize the textual patrimony by adding interpreting interpolations to the text which in the process became themselves part of the patrimony. Since the findings of the Dead Sea Scrolls, it is evident that there was a continued “redactional or editorial activity that took place after the text had already been written down”72, a process that led to pluriformity rather than uniformity of texts73. What is more, comparison between the Dead Sea Scrolls, the LXX, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Old Latin, and the MT sheds considerable light on the origination and formation of biblical texts. Different faith communities have handed down variant recensions of the same source texts. “These different versions hardly come from different ‘authors’ but are more likely explained as the reworking of the same or similar ‘sources’ in different areas or at different times”74. Contrary to authors, redactors in antiquity altered extant texts and adapted these to the needs of the community75. They drew on pre-existing anonymous sources, whose “author” was rather – speaking analogically – the community76. The redactor’s primary task was to compile and organize 70. Ibid. 71. Ibid. 72. Ibid., p. 238 (italics in text). 73. See E.C. ULRICH, Our Sharper Focus on the Bible and Theology Thanks to the Dead Sea Scrolls, in CBQ 66 (2004) 1-24, p. 4. 74. SKA, Pentateuch, p. 237. 75. See ibid., p. 238. 76. It is beyond the limits of this thesis to expand on the understanding of “revelation” that undergirds these affirmations. A helpful introduction can be found in J. RATZINGER,

90

PART I – CHAPTER 2

earlier sources at their disposal in order to transmit them to future generations. Yet, because of their authority to actualize the texts, their interpretations also assume an “authorial status”. In terms of the discussion above, the “redactor’s intention” co-determines the literal sense of the text. This type of redactional activity is particularly attested in the transmission of oral poetry77. Long before the findings of the Dead Sea Scrolls, scholars had surmised that the Song presented a collection of love song poetry. In the eyes of Herder and Goethe, these poems were loosely, even randomly stitched together like pearls on a necklace. Others have subsequently brought to light the underlying architecture of the Song’s poetic construction. From this apparent literary unity some have argued for the assumption of a single author, others for a “unifying mind” responsible as a final redactor. As will be seen in detail in Chapter 4, III (below, p. 201), the manuscripts found at Qumran, however, have supported the hypothesis of a high degree of redactional work in the production of the “final” (MT) text. The divergence between the Qumran manuscripts and the MT allows the exegete to trace redactional layers, giving precious hints of the probable intention of the redactors (who appear in the case of the MT already to be giving the Song an “allegorical/symbolic” interpretation). Moreover, the redactional insertions serve as indicators for the dating of the final redaction of the MT. This provides a necessary key for understanding which intertextual context was intended to inform the literal sense of the Song. b) Urtext Fallacy While some renounce the historical quest for an author’s intention invoking “intentional fallacy”, others fall victim to an “Urtext fallacy”. Milestones: Memoires 1927-1977, San Francisco, CA, Ignatius, 1998, pp. 108-109, 127. Ratzinger explains that “‘revelation’, is always a concept denoting an act. The word refers to the act in which God shows himself, not to the objectified result of this act. And because this is so, the receiving subject is always also part of the concept of ‘revelation’. Where there is no one to perceive ‘revelation’, no revelation has occurred because no veil has been removed. By definition, revelation requires a someone who apprehends it. Because, … revelation precedes Scripture and becomes deposited in Scripture but is not simply identical with it”. The “someone who apprehends” revelation is first of all the Jewish people, to whom God reveals himself. The Jewish Scriptures are the deposit of that which the “receiving subject”, that is, God’s people, Israel, have received as revealed and have transmitted. In that sense the faith-community of Israel can also, analogically speaking, be called an “author” of the scriptural books. 77. See SKA, Pentateuch, p. 239, who relates among others the examples of the Gilgamesh Epic and the Homeric literature. See J.H. TIGAY, The Evolution of the Gilgamesh Epic, Philadelphia, PA, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1982. On Homer see A.B. LORD, The Singer of Tales (Harvard Studies in Comparative Literature, 24), Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1964.

SEEKING THE SENSUS LITERALIS

91

This is the notion that with the refined tools of text and literary criticism one can restore a hypothetical Urtext. Even if this were technically possible, there is no such thing as an Urtext. At the very most, one could speak of varying retrievable Ur-recensions or traditions. Most texts have undergone a long and complicated process of transmission and redaction. To the hermeneutical corrective, which shifted the focus of literary criticism towards the intentio operis, corresponds the principle that the goal of exegesis should be to establish the literal sense of a scriptural book as transmitted by a faith-community, rather than the literal sense of a hypothetical prototype – notwithstanding that the hypotheses about the latter are often a valuable aid in establishing the former. 5. Points of Intersection As a matter of fact, the literal sense has two principal axes: the intentio auctoris and the intentio operis, a diachronic and a synchronic axis. Some theorists want to consider only one or the other. It is, however, wrong to isolate them, because they intersect. The intentio auctoris with its textimmanent structures (grammar, semantics, literary devices) matters as well as the text-external element of its Sitz im Leben, which is related to the historical context of the “author” (or redactor). In addition to the intentio auctoris, however, the intentio operis also needs to be considered. This again consists of text-immanent structures and context-related elements. The exegete is confronted with a finished literary work which has its text-immanent literary structure and an autonomous expressive potentiality. Contextually it stands in intertextual relationship theoretically with the entire textual patrimony of humanity. This is where the intentio auctoris and the intentio operis intersect. Though the inter-text created by a text’s publication is theoretically infinite, the author does not intend for his texts to have an infinite number of meanings. Rather, as is the case in the Song, by allusions and citations of concrete texts he circumscribes the penumbra of the intended intertextuality. The “author” himself alludes to the canonical background against which he wants the Song to be read and interpreted. The warning against intentional fallacy is justified insofar as it is not possible to pin down a person and access his psychological intention. Even so, it is possible to define a Sitz im Leben and certain recurring themes, intended echoes, and allusions. In that way the author himself constitutes a quasi-canonical context. He does more than that, however. He also synchronizes the ancient sources that he alludes to with much later texts and contemporary history. Thus, ANE myth and ritual texts are synchronized

92

PART I – CHAPTER 2

with historical figures and places of the history of Israel, like David, Solomon, Jerusalem, and Zion, as also eighth-century prophets with postexilic messianic expectations. Just as in apocalyptic literature there is a sudden re-emergence of much older mythological material, so also in the Song; by the choice of source texts the redactor makes, he “brings forward” ancient myth, ritual language, and topoi and synchronizes them with the Hellenistic period (or maybe the Hasmonean period). In this way mythological features and eighth-century prophets are situated in the streams of messianic and canonical re-readings. By paying careful attention to the trajectories that point to other texts, the “synchronic context” intended by the author can be discerned. It is here that the intentio auctoris emerges and sets a limit to the theoretically infinite intentio operis. It is for this reason that the intended intertextuality plays a major role in establishing the sensus literalis of the Song. The choice of the appropriate exegetical method will therefore be the subject of the next section.

II. CHOOSING THE METHODOLOGY The proper understanding of the Song depends essentially on the method adopted for its exegesis. Based on the elements proper to the literal sense elaborated above, a brief discussion of exegetical methods will follow with regard to their effectiveness in arriving at the literal sense of the Song. Different intertextual approaches will be distinguished, one of which will be shown to yield the best results. 1. Distinguishing Intertextual Approaches A key element in arriving at the literal sense is to establish the context proper to a given text. Studies of this kind are generally referred to as “intertextual”. They are based on the fundamental insight that “every text builds itself as a mosaic of quotations, every text is absorption and transformation of another text”78. Studies in intertextuality have become very common over the last decades, to the point that the same term “intertextuality” is often applied to very different approaches, to synchronic and diachronic approaches alike. Since the goal of this study is to attain a privileged, that is author-orientated, interpretation of the Song’s literal sense, the following distinctions are necessary79. 78. J. KRISTEVA, Semeiotikè: Recherches pour une sémanalyse, Paris, Seuil, 1979, p. 146. 79. See R.L. MEEK, Intertextuality, Inner-biblical Exegesis, and Inner-biblical Allusion: The Ethics of a Methodology, in Bib 95 (2014) 280-291.

SEEKING THE SENSUS LITERALIS

93

a) Intertextuality “Intertextuality” is strictly speaking a “synchronic discussion of wideranging intertextual relationships that necessarily precludes author-centered, diachronic studies”80. Any text can be brought into relation with any other text, regardless of diachronic order, synchronizing “vast spectrums of time and space”81. Studies into intertextuality are thus free from the constraints of demonstrating literary dependencies between the different texts, for in a study of that order, the “responsibility for determining textual relationships rests with the reader, there is little or no concern for proving that such a relationship resulted from authorial intent”82. These studies are entirely “reader-response” based83. However, when it comes to studies that are interested in authorial intent, we are well advised to use other terms for describing the intertextuality at work. Such studies are concerned with either “innerbiblical exegesis”, or “inner-biblical allusions”84. b) Inner-Biblical Exegesis and Allusions Studies into intended intertextuality pay particular attention to transient or covert reference that biblical texts make to other passages of the Bible, to conventional themes, or to common patterns. “Inner-biblical exegesis” is present if an author makes reference to other biblical texts in order to “explicate, comment on, or expand or in some other way make it applicable to a new situation”85. A related phenomenon is the case in which an author does not intend to make an exegesis of a pre-existing text but alludes to it in order to bring it into the reader’s mind. In this case one should speak of an “inner-biblical 80. Ibid., p. 283. See further B.D. SOMMER, Exegesis, Allusion and Intertextuality in the Hebrew Bible: A Response to Lyle Eslinger, in VT 46 (1996) 479-489, pp. 486-489. 81. MEEK, Intertextuality, p. 284. 82. Ibid. 83. The intertextual readings performed by G. BARBIERO, Cantico dei cantici (I Libri Biblici. Primo Testamento, 24), Milano, Paoline, 2004; and ZAKOVITCH, Hohelied, are of this order. 84. MEEK, Intertextuality, p. 290, makes a case for distinguishing further between “innerbiblical exegesis” and “inner-biblical allusions”, stating that “inner-biblical exegesis argues that the receptor text has in some way modified the source text, whereas inner-biblical allusion argues that the receptor text alludes to the source text with no attempt at modification”. This distinction will not be adopted in this study for, first, it seems to overcomplicate matters. Fishbane himself includes intended “allusions” in the various forms of “inner-biblical” exegesis. Second, it is difficult to state with certainty whether an “allusion” only wants to evoke the source text without modifying it, for every allusion enters into a dialogue with the text alluded to and thereby modifies it to some extent. 85. Ibid., p. 288.

94

PART I – CHAPTER 2

allusion”. Its features are as various as the technical terms applied to describe it. The most common features are “dialogue”, “quotation”, “repetition”, “echo”, “interference”, “reflection”, “transformation”, “inversion”, etc.86. All these features presuppose an implied (ideal) reader who – fully imbued with biblical literature – would naturally perceive the echo of other biblical passages and read one in the light of the others87. Such an ideal reader could evidently be presupposed in antiquity when literary creativity was often a dialogue between scripturally versed scholars. Signs of both inner-biblical exegesis and biblical allusions can be made out in the Song and have not always been properly taken into consideration in the establishment of the Song’s meaning88. Some examples will be highlighted in Chapters 4, III (below, p. 201) and 7, I.3 (below, p. 443). 2. From Überlieferungsgeschichte to Inner-Biblical Exegesis The finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls has brought about a paradigmshift in exegetical approaches which has not yet had its full impact on the exegesis of the Song. In general, it can be observed that a shift has taken place from the focus on transmission history (Überlieferungsgeschichte) and (subsequently) tradition history (Traditionsgeschichte) to the signs of inner-biblical exegesis or allusions, Fortschreibung and comparative redaction history. a) Transmission History (Überlieferungsgeschichte) Song scholarship focused for a long time exclusively on extra-biblical material. The Song was considered to be so unique in its genre that interpreting it against the background of other biblical material appeared to be futile89. This is partly due to the fact that the leading model of Song 86. This list is taken from T. STORDALEN, Echoes of Eden: Gen 2–3 and Symbolism of the Eden Garden in Biblical Hebrew Literature (Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology, 25), Leuven, Peeters, 2000, p. 57. For a comprehensive introduction to the typology of intertextual references in Second Temple literature, see A. LANGE – M. WEIGOLD, Biblical Quotations and Allusions in Second Temple Jewish Literature (Journal of Ancient Judaism Supplements, 5), Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011, pp. 23-35. 87. STORDALEN, Eden, pp. 58-59. 88. Among the few exceptions are the French authors André Robert, André Feuillet, and Raymond Tournay, who applied a method akin to intertextuality, developed by Robert and called “méthode anthologique”. See their commentary ROBERT – TOURNAY – FEUILLET, Cantique. See also LACOCQUE, Romance, p. 65, who describes the Canticle’s intertextuality as “midrashic”. “Every passage in the Canticle refers to well-known Israelite traditions and cannot be interpreted independently of them”. 89. E.g. see ZAKOVITCH, Hohelied, p. 30: “Durch das Fehlen der religiösen und nationalen Atmosphäre, welche die biblische Literatur sich sonst auszeichnet, unterscheidet sich

SEEKING THE SENSUS LITERALIS

95

scholarship was Überlieferungsgeschichte, “the study of the oral transmission of a unit prior to its written formulation”90. In this way, research into the history of transmission concentrated primarily on the oral prehistory of a text. The concentration on the oral prehistory is manifest in interpretations based on the “collection hypothesis”. A longstanding oral tradition of love songs was supposed to have been written down by a scribal archivist, with presumably no authorial function in the process. The scope of intention allowed to these archivists was limited to the preservation of traditional material. The meaning of the individual songs was thus sought after in their original (pre-biblical) Sitz im Leben. Accordingly, scholars proposed rituals of sacred marriage (Hartmut Schmökel), or wedding ceremonies (Karl Budde), or even Solomon’s own wedding to the Egyptian princess (Robert Gordis) (see Chapters 6, 7, and 10). b) Traditionsgeschichte Research into the history of transmission proved unable to uncover “those antecedents of a text which are neither an earlier form of the text itself nor topoi which appear simply because of the chosen genre”91. The approach was therefore broadened to include the Traditionsgeschichte, that is, the investigation into not only the oral transmission of a text, but also “the concepts or notions that lie behind a text”, and which form “the ‘stream of tradition’ in which this text is rooted”92. This approach should, in the case of the Song, have led to the investigation of how the spousal symbolism of the Song is related to the tradition history of Israel’s prophets’ use of the “marital metaphor” for the covenant relationship between YHWH and his people Israel. This was not done, because a “dividing wall” had been raised between prophetic and wisdom literature. Their genres were said to be so different that one could not have influenced the other93. While the prophets dealt with Israel’s history and the covenant94, wisdom literature was said to treat only universal das Hld merklich von ihr. … Diese Besonderheit von Hld bringt es mit sich, dass die Mittel zu seiner Dekodierung und Deutung aus ihm selbst zu gewinnen sind; die übrige biblische Literatur und deren Exegese kann dazu nicht viel beitragen”. 90. B.C. OLLENBURGER, Zion, the City of the Great King: A Theological Symbol of the Jerusalem Cult (JSOTS, 41), Sheffield, JSOT, 1987, p. 14. 91. Ibid. 92. Ibid. 93. KEEL, Hohelied, p. 15. 94. See, e.g., KEEL (ibid.) according to whom the marital metaphor applied for the relationship between YHWH and Israel is typical only for the prophetic literature and strictly limited to that literature.

96

PART I – CHAPTER 2

truths that could be derived from meditation on the cosmos, a kind of creation theology, which needed to be kept distinct from covenant theology95. Because in the Christian canon the Song is found among the wisdom books, it came to be treated as belonging to a sapiential theology of creation96. The problematic aspects of these arguments need to be addressed. First, the Song’s canonical classification with the Solomonic books does not make it a “wisdom” book according to the form-critical criteria. Secondly, this strict a priori division between creation and covenant theology is no longer tenable (see the discussion on “Wisdom Literature” in Chapter 5, I and II, below, pp. 281 and 288). Nor is it possible to interpret the Song by ignoring the strong prophetic tradition of describing the relationship between God and Israel in marital metaphors or symbols, because the Song itself makes too many allusions to the prophetic literature (see Chapter 7, I, below, p. 412)97. c) Inner-Biblical Exegesis Subsequently, the understanding of tradition history and the formation of the Bible in general was decisively broadened by the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Though it had already been surmised by a number of authors before the spectacular findings98, Qumran has made it evident that the process of the writing and the transmission of the Bible could not be split into two different moments, as if the Bible had first been written by a certain set of authors, then canonized, and only afterwards interpreted by 95. This goes back to ZIMMERLI, Wisdom, p. 147: “Wisdom has no relation to the history between God and Israel”. This verdict is adopted by many commentaries. See, e.g., BARBIERO, Song, p. 39: “It is clear in these cases, however, that the interest of the prophet is not in the concrete relationship between man and woman; this is only an image with which to speak of the other relationship, that between God and his people. It is this which is the concern of the prophet. In the sapiential books, however, the perspective is different. There, the interest is not directly in religion but in every day life, mundane reality, ‘secular’ matters as we would say today, although for biblical man there was no reality that did not have a relationship with God”. 96. See for example ELLIOTT, Literary Unity, p. 263: “It is within a theology of creation that the Canticle can best be treated”. 97. See the works by FEUILLET, Comment lire?; DAVIS, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs; LACOCQUE, Romance; CARR, Erotic Word; SCHWIENHORST-SCHÖNBERGER, Das Hohelied. 98. As an example Fishbane calls to mind Abraham Geiger’s Urschrift und Übersetzungen der Bibel in ihrer Abhängigkeit von der inneren Entwicklung des Judentums (1857; repr. Frankfurt a.M., 1928): “Geiger not only demonstrated that the major textual versions (LXX, Targum, Hebrew Bible) reflect reworkings of the Hebrew Bible in the light of post-biblical social and theological concern, but that the Hebrew Bible is itself a product (and source) of such reworkings”. FISHBANE, Biblical Interpretation, p. 5.

SEEKING THE SENSUS LITERALIS

97

the respective traditions. Rather, the process of transmission, interpretation, and re-interpretation is intertwined from the very outset with the process of the writing of the Scriptures99. “Re-rewritten Bible” begins within Scriptures100. The reuse of biblical texts, which became so common in post-biblical literature, was already practiced in the biblical period. In its biblical form we can observe the later phenomenon in its nascent, precanonical modes101. Identification of the original Sitz im Leben of a given text does not automatically give access to the meaning which the text has subsequently assumed in the Bible. Michael Fishbane, the pioneer in the field of “innerbiblical exegesis”, cautions: “Over the centuries, modern textual analysis has been principally concerned to establish the ‘original’ text, which is deemed ‘authentic’, and to weed out the scribal addenda and annotations, which are considered secondary and therefore ‘inauthentic’. This attitude has thus greatly misprized the independent value of these additions”102. Indeed, it is precisely these additions which are of decisive analytical potential. They serve both as indices to the ongoing theological revisions of the texts and help “to recover the underlying hermeneutical process whereby biblical texts were clarified or re-signified in the course of their study and transmission”103. 99. See extensively J. TREBOLLE BARRERA, The Jewish Bible and the Christian Bible: An Introduction to the History of the Bible, Leiden, Brill, 1998, p. 431: “The relationship between scripture and exegesis can be considered from two different points of view: scripture is the basis of exegesis which in principle follows it, or conversely, scripture is itself an interpreted text and the essence of a whole tradition of interpretation. The first point of view supposes that the creative process of scripture ended towards the close of the Persian period. From that time on the different methods and forms of biblical exegesis took shape. According to the second point of view, the Bible is the final precipitate of a long exegetical process. During the Persian period and even in a later period, scripture was open to every kind of interpolation and re-working. After the canonisation of the biblical books, and once their interpretation had developed in the rabbinic schools, it was natural for the exegetical dimension of scripture to be forgotten. Scripture was considered more as the source of all interpretation than as a stream of interpretations. The character and pseudepigraphical processes of inner-biblical exegesis also help to conceal the exegetical nature of the Bible. The biblical text was born already immersed in a current of oral traditions and has always been accompanied by a body of oral commentary. Oral tradition has not ceased to influence the interpretation of the biblical text and even how it was formed”. Trebolle Barrera concludes: “There is no absolute divide between the final form of the text and later commentaries. From the beginning of biblical tradition, interpretation was an integral part of the text”. Ibid., p. 430. 100. See I. FISCHER, Von der Vorgeschichte zur Nachgeschichte, in ZAW 125 (2013) 143-160, p. 149. 101. See M. FISHBANE, Torah and Tradition, in D.A. KNIGHT (ed.), Tradition and Theology in the Old Testament, Philadelphia, PA, Fortress, 1977, 275-300, p. 275. 102. FISHBANE, Biblical Interpretation, p. 42. 103. Ibid. Also TREBOLLE BARRERA, Bible, p. 48: “Following a trend typical of both the Enlightenment and of Romanticism, the interests of modern criticism have preferred

98

PART I – CHAPTER 2

The study of inner-biblical exegesis is based on the fact that the interpretation of Scripture is already present within Scripture itself. It is not a process that started only after the “canon” was closed. Rather, as Julio Trebolle Barrera affirms, “Today it is accepted that the history of biblical exegesis is rooted in the origins of the Bible itself. Some biblical books interpret others, the more recent books interpret older ones. The interpolations or reworking of the text are no longer considered as mere inferior products of a late and decadent period but as witnesses to Jewish exegesis”104. The movement towards inner-biblical exegesis is gradual and does not develop uniformly in all genres. It can be observed in the redactional insertions into some books, but it may also concern an entire book. It is particularly salient, however, in a number of later books which are in fact re-readings of earlier events of Jewish history105. 3. Relevance for the Song The relevance of the movement from tradition history to inner-biblical exegesis for the Song is evident. Older scholarship focused entirely on the “original Sitz im Leben” of presumed pre-existing poems and sought to deduce their meaning as biblical texts entirely from that alleged Sitz im Leben106. This may explain how Yair Zakovitch can affirm, on the one hand, that the Song was not originally an allegory, and, on the other hand, that “it cannot be excluded that the allegorical interpretation has already been taken into account in the final redaction of the Song”107. to focus on the ‘original’ form and meaning of the biblical texts, with the abandonment of if not contempt for the whole history of interpretation of the Bible carried out later in Judaism and Christianity. The hermeneutical presuppositions and the prejudices of historical criticism made themselves felt more in the usually negative view of later periods, and especially of the final stages of the redaction of the biblical books. This applies well to the large number of interpolations which the critics have detected in them: in the eyes of many critics, the redactions and glosses are the expression of trends peculiar to decadent periods, Judaising in the case of the OT and catholicising in the case of the NT”. 104. TREBOLLE BARRERA, Bible, p. 47; see also p. 49: “The biblical Scriptures, like all literature and more than any literature, are a continual rewriting of what is already written”. 105. This way of text-production had already in the nineteenth century been recognized and called by Ernst Bertheau gelehrte Haltung or gelehrte Geschichtsforschung. See, E. BERTHEAU, Das Buch der Richter und Rut (KEHAT, 6), Leipzig, S. Hirzel, 1845, p. 236. 106. Cf. also FISCHER, Vorgeschichte, p. 146, “In ihren Auswüchsen führte die historischkritische Forschung … zu einer Geringschätzung von Redaktionen und Kompositionen, die als unerleuchtete Prozesse gesehen wurden, die eher zerstört, denn etwas Neues geschaffen hätten. Der Endtext wurde als additives Produkt bewertet und meist wurde ihm nicht einmal als Endstadium der zu beforschenden Textentwicklung die für einen kanonischen Text vorgesehene Beachtung geschenkt”. 107. ZAKOVITCH, Hohelied, pp. 96-97.

SEEKING THE SENSUS LITERALIS

99

a) Urtext Fallacy in Song Exegesis The exclusive focus on the function of the Song’s individual poems in an alleged pre-biblical Sitz im Leben is a product of the “Urtext Fallacy”108. Certainly, the knowledge of a presumed original Sitz im Leben is of great help in understanding the biblical texts. It is not only the pre-biblical Sitz im Leben itself, however, which can determine the meaning of the text, but rather the use which the tradition of Israel has made of it by incorporating these texts into their corpus of sacred books. If, therefore, as Zakovitch holds, the final redactor of the Song has submitted pre-existing poems to an allegorization, then this final redactor’s intention is decisive for the interpretation of the Song as Scripture. Our focus shall not be on an alleged Urtext, but on the Song as transmitted within the context of the Hebrew Bible. It is neither appropriate to start the interpretation from “an alleged religio-historical or cultic Vorgeschichte” nor “within the book’s Nachgeschichte and move ‘backwards’ to the book itself […] but to take the book’s own literary character and composition as the point of departure, a procedure that has become increasingly customary”109. b) Traces of Inner-Biblical Exegesis within the Song Traces of “inner-biblical exegesis”, or Fortschreibung, have long been recognized in the Song. They have not, however, greatly affected the exegesis of the Song. Oswald Loretz, for example, identifies a number of important redactional insertions into the text, among which is the attribution of the Song to King Solomon. According to him, these insertions, however, are of no consequence for the interpretation of the Song110. Moreover, he recognizes a scribal hand with allegorizing intentions on the level of the final (MT) text. His historical-philological interpretation, however, does not attribute to this hand the “rank of a redactor”111. According 108. Again, there is no such thing as an Urtext. At the latest, the findings of the Qumran scrolls have done away with this romantic idea. What we are dealing with is a text which underwent a long and complicated compositional process, “much of which began as oral literature and much of which developed over centuries at the hands of multiple authors and creative scribes and editors”. E.C. ULRICH, The Text of the Hebrew Scriptures at the Time of Hillel and Jesus, in A. LEMAIRE (ed.), Congress Volume – Basel 2001 (VT.S, 92), Leiden, Brill, 2002, 85-108, p. 85. 109. M. SAEBØ, On the Canonicity of the Song of Songs, in M.V. FOX et al. (eds.), Texts, Temples, and Traditions: A Tribute to Menahem Haran, Winona Lake, IN, Eisenbrauns, 1996, 267-277, p. 269. 110. See O. LORETZ, Studien zur althebräischen Poesie. 1: Das althebräische Liebeslied: Untersuchungen zur Stichometrie und Redaktionsgeschichte des Hohenliedes und des 45. Psalms (AOAT, 14/1), Neukirchen-Vluyn, Butzon & Bercker, 1971, p. 60. 111. Ibid.

100

PART I – CHAPTER 2

to Loretz, the work of this hand merely adds glosses and interpretations of pre-existing love songs. Loretz admits that these are signs of an alreadyestablished allegorical understanding of the Song: “Nachdem die allegorische Auslegung des Hohenliedes bereits bekannt war, hat ein Schriftgelehrter diese allegorisierenden Einfügungen nachträglich angebracht”112. Even so, for Loretz they belong to the history of interpretation and not to the “Werdeprozeß des Textes”113. For him it would lead to a fundamental misunderstanding of both Wirkungsgeschichte and the Song itself if one were to declare these posterior redactions as constituting the meaning of the Song114. This is where Fishbane and the school of inner-biblical exegesis depart decisively from Loretz’s view. It is precisely in these insertions that signs of an inner-bibilical exegesis can be made out and an “authorial” intention be traced. The alleged pre-existing collection of love songs remains an hypothesis. Not so the biblical text which has been “published” in its present form and calls for an interpretation in this form. (i) Traces of Redaction To give some examples. According to Loretz, the following features can be made out as posterior redactional insertions: the various refrains: the “Daughters of Jerusalem” (Song 1,5a; 2,7a; 3,5; 5,8b.16d; 8,4b); the embracing refrain (2,6; 8,3); the adjuration refrain (2,16; 6,3; 7,11); the refrain of mutual belonging (2,17; 4,6); the invitation to the banquet (5,1); the gazelles on the mountains refrain (2,9a-b.17; 8,14), and 4,6 which is a variation of the mountain topic (2,17; 8,14)115. For Loretz, it seems evident “that the redaction intended in no case to give the poetry or the collection of love songs a particular interpretation by way of these refrains. The redaction has taken over this element of the songs just as it had probably found it”116.

112. Ibid., p. 62. 113. Ibid. 114. See ibid.: “Zusammenfassend läßt sich über die Berechtigung der allegorischen Auslegung des Hl vom philologischen Standpunkt und der Redaktionsgeschichte her festhalten, daß bereits im Text des Hl Anzeichen eines allegorischen Verständnisses vorhanden sind, diese zugleich aber ein späteres Verständnis einer bereits vorliegenden Liedersammlung darstellen. Von der Textgeschichte her gesehen gehört somit die allegorische Deutung einer Phase an, die nicht mehr zum Werdeprozeß des Textes zählt, sondern zu seiner Nachund Deutungsgeschichte”. 115. For a more detailed individualization of these refrains, see Chapter 4, I, below, p. 166: “Literary Unity and Structure of the Song”. 116. LORETZ, Das althebräische Liebeslied, p. 61 (my translation).

SEEKING THE SENSUS LITERALIS

101

Another eminent case of what will be considered “inner-biblical exegesis” in this study, but which for Loretz is nothing but a redaction without any significance for the interpretation of the Song itself, is the ascription ‫“ אשר לשלמה‬which is for or by Solomon” in the title117. The reason it is commonly supposed to be a later insertion is – apart from the fact that such posterior ascriptions are very common within the OT – the fact that the relative pronoun ‫ אשר‬is used instead of its short form ‫ ש‬that is persistently used throughout the Song. The ascription is generally understood as a sign of classification of the Song as wisdom literature118. Solomon, patron of wisdom, just as David was patron of the Psalms, was supposed to vouch for the sapiential and sacred character of the book. For the interpretation of the content of the Song, however – Loretz states clearly, representing the mainstream of his time – “the redaction has not wanted to derive any consequences” from the ascription119. Loretz likewise ascribes all mentions and allusions to the king within the Song to an attempt to give Solomon more room within the “collection of love songs” without, however, allowing for these insertions to have given the Song a new meaning120. Obviously, so Loretz, the glossator (as he calls this hand) intended to establish a direct relationship between the poems of the Song and the person of King Solomon who is also mentioned in the heading (1,1)121. This glossator is supposed to have inserted the word king (‫ )מלך‬in the following passages: 1,4.5.12; 3,7.9.11; 7,6. To the same hand Loretz attributes the mention of the maidens (‫)עלמות‬ 117. Analogous to the superscriptions of the Psalms, which M. Fishbane classifies as cases of “aggadic exegesis”. FISHBANE, Biblical Interpretation, p. 403. We have here a case of reapplication and reinterpretation of a pre-existing text in light of the traditum of Israel, notably the person of King Solomon and all that he stands for. Aggadic exegesis “makes broad and detailed use of moral dicta, official or popular theologoumena, themes, motifs, and historical facts. In a word, aggadic exegesis ranges over the entire spectrum of ideas, genres, and texts of ancient Israel. It is these which form the basis of its textual transformations, reapplications, and reinterpretations. […] [It] is primarily concerned with utilizing the full range of the inherited traditum for the sake of new theological insights, attitudes, and speculations”. It is characteristic for aggadic exegesis that it seeks not to fill a lacuna in the traditum but overflows from its fullness, drawing “forth latent and unsuspected meanings from it”. See ibid., pp. 282283, 403. 118. See CHILDS, Introduction, pp. 569-579; and BARBIERO, Song, p. 45. 119. LORETZ, Das althebräische Liebeslied, p. 60: “Die Hand der Redaktion hat nach allgemeiner Ansicht in Hl 1,1 die Überschrift eingesetzt, die das Werk dem König Salomon zuschreibt. Sie folgt hiermit dem allgemeinen Trend, die Weisheitsliteratur, und insbesondere die Sprüche und Lieder auf diesen König zurückzuführen. Für die Deutung des Hohenliedes hat die Redaktion hieraus keine Konsequenzen ableiten wollen”. 120. Ibid., p. 62. 121. Ibid., p. 61.

102

PART I – CHAPTER 2

in 1,3c.4e, which are reminiscent of the maidens of the royal harem in 6,8-9. Another group of glossing insertions is supposed to have facilitated the interpretation of the Lover as King Solomon. These are the words “his chambers” (‫)חדריו‬, “in you” (‫)בך‬, “let us rejoice” (‫)נזכירה‬, “your love” (‫ )דדיך‬in 1,4122, “from the desert” (‫ )מן־המדבר‬in 3,6 and 8,10; the word “for him” (‫ )לו‬in 3,9, and the word “in his eyes” (‫בעיניו‬, instead of “in your eyes” in accordance with the brothers of the previous verses) in 8,10. For Loretz it is clear that all these passages are in accordance with the “correction ‫‘ מלך‬king’” and make it a “certainty” that these additions and amendments of the Song were supposed to give the Song a posterior reading-orientation towards the King (Solomon) as the Lover. “The passages interpreted in view of the ‘king’ facilitated likewise a later interpretation of YHWH as the king”123. The curiosity lies in the fact that Loretz detects an allegorizing intention behind these passages, without, all the while, allowing for the possibility that they would give the Song a new meaning124 (ii) Redactions as Part of the Text (Literal Sense?) Some passages, however, can – even in the eyes of Loretz – only be understood in light of a willful transfer of the love affair between the two lovers onto the relationship between YHWH and his people. These are, according to him, the re-elaborations of Song 3,6 and 8,10 (“from the desert”). It is here that the change of paradigm in text-interpretation becomes most apparent. Today it seems evident that a text has to be understood and explained in its final form, unless the stated aim is to do a diachronic study in redaction history, but then it may not be deduced from former text-stages that the later redactions were insignificant for the meaning of the text. Scholarship has become much more cautious in the detection of hypothetical interventions into a text125. The following are to be retained: (1) the detection of “glosses” by Loretz is based on the premise that the presence of a king in the poetry 122. RUDOLPH, Hohe Lied, pp. 84, 122, equally detects v. 4, particularly the words “let us rejoice in you”, as an allegorizing redaction in view of YHWH: “‘Ich’ und ‘wir’ (sind) gleichermaßen das Volk Israel”. 123. LORETZ, Das althebräische Liebeslied, p. 62: “[Die] Glossen stimmen in Tendenz und Form mit der Korrektur mlk ‘König’ überein und lassen es mit dieser zusammen zur Gewißheit werden, daß durch diese Beifügungen und Änderungen dem Hohenlied nachträglich eine deutliche erkennbare Ausrichtung auf den König (Salomo) als den Geliebten gegeben werden sollte. Die auf den ‘König’ gedeuteten Stellen ließen sich zugleich später leichter auf Jahwe als den König hin auslegen”. 124. See ibid.: “Die mlk (‘König’)-Glossen geben jedoch den einzelnen Liedern sowie der ganzen Sammlung keinen neuen Sinn”. 125. On the fallacy of wanting to establish an alleged Urtext, see ULRICH, Text, p. 94.

SEEKING THE SENSUS LITERALIS

103

allows for an allegorical interpretation which would apparently stand in contradiction to its allegedly profane nature. (2) Many of the glosses are justified by a change of person within the verses, i.e., from the third person singular to the second person singular (note the change between Song 1,2 and 1,3.4), which might just as well be a Hebrew poetic device126. (3) The elements that Loretz makes out to be insignificant later glosses or insertions are so many that one is left with a text that may represent a hypothetical pre-existing collection of love songs but that can no longer be said to be the Song of Songs as handed down by the Jewish community. c) Adopting a Hermeneutical Lens What Loretz has made out to be “glosses”, “insertions”, or insignificant “redactions” into the Song will, in this thesis, be treated as possible signs of inner-biblical exegesis that need to be understood on the level of a thereby-created intertextuality, which certainly bestows upon the Song a meaning that is different from that of the presumably pre-existing love songs. Loretz is right in affirming with Robert – Tournay – Feuillet that the understanding of the Song depends essentially on the method adopted in its exegesis127. He therefore makes a case for not neglecting classical exegetical methods, such as studies in colometry, redaction history, and textual criticism; otherwise one would run the risk of sacrificing the material accumulated over many centuries to a merely content-related hermeneutical method128. Loretz is right in his pledge though poor in its implementation. It is precisely in the redactional insertions or glosses that the exegete finds precious traces of “authorial intention”. What Loretz calls a gloss in reality forms part of the text and gives the – presumably – pre-existing songs a new uniform meaning. The Hebrew Scriptures are the product of a community whose communitarian understanding and interpretation of them has become part of the meaning of these texts. They have in fact been collected in view of a certain understanding129. It is anachronistic 126. Another dubious case is 8,10 where Loretz wants to emend “Then I found peace in your (2. pl., i.e. the brothers’) eyes”, just because in the verses before, the brothers were the main speakers. But such an abrupt change of persons is common throughout the entire Song. 127. ROBERT – TOURNAY – FEUILLET, Cantique, p. 10: “C’est un fait que la multiplicité des opinions concernant le Cantique provient essentiellement de la méthode que l’on adopte pour étudier ce livre”. 128. See O. LORETZ, Enjambement, Versus und ‘salomonische’ Königstravestie im Abschnitt Canticum canticorum 3,6-11, in M. WITTE (ed.), Gott und Mensch im Dialog: Festschrift für Otto Kaiser zum 80. Geburtstag (BZAW, 345/1-2), Berlin, De Gruyter, 2004, II, 805-816, p. 814. 129. In the words of Fishbane, we find in these compositional texts, “evidence for the existence – however nascent – of a unifying ‘Scriptural’ vision. Such a vision may, in fact,

104

PART I – CHAPTER 2

to try to liberate these texts of the signs of interpretation that this community or the final redactor have left behind. Rather these signs should be taken as serious indicators to the proper understanding of the text, that is, as a hermeneutical lens.

III. CONCLUSION Faced with the post-modern assumption that there is an infinite number of possible meanings to a text, which makes the search for the meaning apparently futile, this chapter has argued for the contrary position. There exists, indeed, a “finite number of valid critical methods” that allow the exegete to distinguish a privileged interpretation from a proliferation of possible meanings. Though exegesis is in part literary criticism and therefore needs to apply literary tools, it is also a historical discipline. As such, it cannot abdicate the task of retrieving the text’s “original” meaning in its historical context. This historical meaning is traditionally sought in a text’s “literal sense”. Though the battle rages over the “literal sense” of the Song, there is unfortunately no unanimity in scholarship as to how the “literal sense” should be defined. Traditionally, the literal sense was held to coincide with the historical sense of the Bible as intended by its author. The development the literal sense’s understanding within the Christian tradition was traced in order (1) to highlight that the “literal sense” was originally a theological term, which served in contradistinction to and as a basis for the determination of the “spiritual sense”; and (2) to explain why, because of a misconception of figurative speech as belonging to the spiritual sense, some Church Fathers were of the opinion that the Song had no literal sense but only a spiritual sense. This notion was eventually corrected by Thomas Aquinas, whose rigorous distinction between the literal and spiritual sense is deployed in an exemplary way in Nicholas of Lyra’s Song commentary. The Thomistic principle, according to which any scriptural sense has to be based on the historical realities designated by the literal sense, is what eventually led the Humanists to lay the foundations of our modern historical-critical method, whose primary concern is still to uncover the historical “original” meaning of the text. The development of new methods be characterized as synoptic in nature, in so far as it envisages disparate texts in one coordinated focus, and thereby clarifies or embellishes one traditum by another. In this respect, at least, the historical superscriptions reflect a type of aggadic traditio which seeks to co-ordinate distinct traditions – not harmonize, transform, or otherwise obscure them”. See FISHBANE, Biblical Interpretation, p. 407.

SEEKING THE SENSUS LITERALIS

105

of literary criticism, however, has cast serious doubt on the question whether the literal sense as a historical factum, understood as established by an authorial intention, is at all accessible. The warnings of the New Criticism against the “intentional fallacy”, along with Northrop Frye’s urge to seek the intentio operis rather than the intention of the author, has thus been engaged above. With Eric Donald Hirsch, it was argued, however, that the theory of the “intentional fallacy” has led to an exaggerated skepticism that calls into doubt the very possibility of any valid interpretation. Indeed, by deliberately banishing the author, the critics have usurped the author’s place, which has led to an uncontrollable increase in “authors”. In contradistinction to these conflicting theories, this chapter argued that the literal sense has two principal axes: the intentio auctoris and the intentio operis, i.e. a diachronic and a synchronic axis. On a synchronic level, the text stands theoretically within a horizon of infinite intertextual relationships. The author, however, does not intend for his text to have an infinite number of possible meanings. Rather, through a variety of decipherable signals, from allusions to citations of concrete texts, he can effectively circumscribe the penumbra of his intended intertextuality. This is where the intentio auctoris and the intentio operis intersect. The author can further synchronize the ancient sources which he makes use of or alludes to with much later texts and contemporary history. By his choice of source texts, the author of the Song thus “brings forward” ancient mythic and ritual language along with certain topoi and synchronizes them with the Hellenistic or Hasmonean period in which he writes. In this way, mythological features and eighth-century prophets are situated in the streams of messianic and canonical re-readings. Today, thanks to the advancements made in historical-critical exegesis, traces of authorial interventions into the text’s transmission history can be detected. In particular, the Qumran Song manuscripts allow for the observation of a redactional growth of the Song’s composition, which in turn gives insight into the way the Song was read and received even before its final MT revision (see Chapter 4). Passages that earlier scholarship had treated as additions and glosses should now be reconsidered not only as part of the text, but as precious indicators of the “authorial” intention of the community which received and transmitted these texts. The traces of their interpretive “up-dates” of the text have become part of the written traditum and are an important indicator to the historically rooted literal sense of the Song during the final stages of its composition.

CHAPTER 3

METAPHOR – ALLEGORY – SYMBOL

This chapter focuses on the second aspect in which the Song’s literal sense is theological, that is, the Song’s figurative language, which on the level of the literal sense points to a meaning beyond the merely human level. The exegetical discussion of the Song still revolves around one basic question: Is the Song a human love song or an allegory on God’s love for his people? The present thesis argues that it is both, not either … or. More precisely, the Song’s figurative language is symbolic. By adopting a symbolic language, the Song is able to express the realities of divine love in and through the symbol of human love, thereby giving full expression to both dimensions. Symbol, in contradistinction to allegory, holds both the human and the divine levels together without sacrificing one to the other. This chapter will define the terms “metaphor”, “allegory”, and “symbol” in three corresponding parts. It is intended to be neither a survey of recent scholarship concerning the matter nor a comprehensive review of their treatment in biblical studies. However, an elucidation on how the terms are understood is indispensable. First (I), the chapter will focus on a change in the understanding of metaphor from ancient rhetoric to modern literary criticism. Today, metaphors are understood to be epistemologically more than simple wordallegories, as they were understood by the ancient rhetors. They are carriers of new information that cannot be translated into prose language without losing a vital part of the information given. This is key to an adequate exegesis of the Song’s metaphoric language, which avoids the pitfall of handling the Song as an allegory. Next (II), a similar change in the approach to allegory is traced. Despite its rehabilitation by modern literary criticism, “allegory” will be seen as inadequate to describe the Song’s polyvalent language. Instead (III), the concept of symbol opens up a correct perception of the multiple resonances that are immanent in the text. It will be the topic of the third part of this chapter. First (III.1) the focus will be on the role of symbol in manifestations of the sacred as explored by Mircea Eliade. Second (III.2), it will be argued with Paul Ricœur that symbols are primarily

108

PART I – CHAPTER 3

a semantic phenomenon. Only through language is the manifestation communicated effectively and thus accessible to interpretation. Third (III.3), their text-pragmatic function will be expounded. The chapter will close (III.4) with some considerations about the interpretation of symbols. With regard to terminology the following preliminary note is necessary. Metaphor, allegory, and symbol all have in common at least two orders of meaning. In all three the first-order meaning is not exhaustive, but serves as a vehicle to express the intended second-order meaning. The “literal sense” thus includes in all three cases this intended level of the second order. The first-order meaning is that which can be established on a semantic, grammatical, and syntactical level. It can accordingly also be called the semantic-syntactic level. Often it is also referred to as the “literal meaning”, as illustrated in the previous chapter by the example of Northrop Frye1. Since “literal meaning” is so easily confused with the “literal sense”, however, the former term will be avoided here, because in all three cases the second-order meaning (i.e. metaphoric, allegorical, symbolic) belongs to what I will more comprehensively designate as the literal sense. When referring to the first-order meaning of a metaphor, an allegory, or a symbol, the term plain sense (or equally plain meaning) will be adopted to designate the sense that corresponds to the semantic-syntactic level. The second-order meaning is that which the author intends to express by means of the metaphor, allegory, or symbol, and will be referred to as metaphorical, allegorical, or symbolic respectively, or also, in any of these cases, simply as the surplus meaning.

I. METAPHOR “The Song of Songs is a garden of metaphor”, as Robert Alter beautifully says2. His claim is uncontested and probably incontestable. Yet it is not at all undisputed what exactly a metaphor is or how it works on the level of text-pragmatics. A wrong understanding of metaphor, moreover, entails a misguided approach to the interpretation of the Song. While in the ancient world rhetors were primarily concerned with the metaphors, the last century of research in literary criticism and semantic studies has brought to light a more differentiated, more literal, and less rhetorical 1. Frye explains the literal meaning as a “descriptive meaning free from ambiguity. We usually say the word ‘cat’ ‘means literally’ a cat when it is an adequate sign for a cat, when it stands in a simple representative relation to the animal that says meow”. FRYE, Anatomy, p. 76. 2. R. ALTER, The Art of Biblical Poetry, New York, Basic Books, 1985, p. 185.

METAPHOR – ALLEGORY – SYMBOL

109

understanding of metaphor. The following presentation is based on the linguistic studies by Harald Weinrich, Paul Ricœur, and Gerhard Kurz3. 1. The Function of Metaphor in Communication As long as man reflects on language, he reflects on the phenomenon of metaphor, which is often used in everyday language. One speaks of the sunrise, though since Galileo it is known that the sun does not actually rise. One says the stairs lead up to the second floor, though every child knows that unless he or she uses electric stairs, the stairs will not move. One says Mr. So-and-So lives on Main Street, though it is perfectly clear that no man, unless someone who is homeless, lives on a street but rather in a house4. Examples can be multiplied to show a very simple fact: hardly any language, unless it is technical, can do without the employment of metaphor5. Language in which every word corresponds exactly to one definite meaning does not exist. The attempt to create a language free of metaphor is “an iconoclastic fallacy”6. But what is a metaphor, how do metaphors work, and what is their function in communication? a) The Theory of Substitution and Its Deficiency Etymologically, “metaphor” means simply “transfer”, from the Greek verb μεταφέρω, “to transfer, carry over”. This simple notion leads directly to the classical definition of metaphor given by Aristotle7. According to Aristotle, the transfer happens on the level of single words. It is the transfer of a noun which normally belongs to a different lexical position than that of its use in the metaphor (for Aristotle, a “noun” is any word which can be nominalized – including verbs and adjectives). A metaphor replaces the proper word in the sentence or, where a word is missing to express a certain idea, a word is borrowed from a different lexical context. Thus, a word that is not used in its supposed literal meaning or lexical context (i.e. not according to the plain sense), but is transferred to another place where it has to be understood figuratively, is called a metaphor. Take, for example, the “engine bonnet”. When this metaphor was first created around the year 1900 in order to describe the engine cover, it was 3. G. KURZ, Metapher, Allegorie, Symbol, Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 62009. 4. Ibid., p. 13. 5. See G. LAKOFF – M. JOHNSON, Metaphors We Live By, Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press, 2003. 6. KURZ, Metapher, p. 13. 7. For the entire explanation, including the examples, see ibid., pp. 7-14.

110

PART I – CHAPTER 3

obvious to everybody that the word “bonnet” was used in a figurative way and served to replace the word “lid”. The idea behind this concept of metaphor is that language is understood according to a topological model. In that model, every word has just one significance and therefore its proper lexical place. Each word has but one place (τόπος) in the language and therefore just one significance. When it is used “out of place”, due to an analogy between its own meaning and the word it is supposed to replace, one is dealing with a metaphor. Another example given by Aristotle is that of “old age”, spoken of metaphorically as the “eve of life”. The analogy between “evening” and “old age” is easily perceptible. The evening comes at the end of day with its work-load and fatigue and precedes the night during which man lies down to sleep. In the same way, old age often follows upon a life of hard work and is considered the time of rest before one dies. This definition of metaphors was widely applied by the rhetors following Aristotle. It represents a theory of metaphor that is referred to today as “theory of substitution”. The deficiency of such an understanding of metaphor begins with the fact that words are understood to be similar to labels, in that they stand for a specific thing. Yet it has long been observed that such an understanding of word-semantics is deficient. Words have no meaning of their own outside of their communicative function. According to such an understanding of words, a metaphor carries no new information. It only serves to either embellish or to fill in a gap for a missing word (e.g. “engine bonnet”). Understanding a metaphor would in this case mean replacing it with the correct word: “eve of life” would have to be replaced by “old age”8. The communicative function of a metaphor, however, is much larger and much more essential than just a substitution of one word by another. In fact, a true metaphor cannot be replaced by a different word without losing its communicative essence. Seen from a different angle, even the example of the “eve of life” shows that one is not dealing with a simple substitution on the basis of analogy. While the term “age” can connote a time of rest after the burdens of a laborious life, it also connotes a high number of years and wisdom, as well as frailty, decay, infirmities, and one’s approaching death. All these latter connotations are not analogous to evening. The metaphor “eve of life”, however, transfers only the positive aspects of the evening’s restfulness to the domain of old age. 8. Ibid., p. 12.

METAPHOR – ALLEGORY – SYMBOL

111

b) Theory of Interaction Today, literary criticism has shifted from understanding metaphors on the level of words to understanding them in the context of utterances (understood as the smallest possible unit of speech)9. The matter is not whether a single word, but whether an utterance is meant literally. The question of its literality depends on the communicative context. If, for example, someone says “Peter is a child”, the utterance is meant literally if Peter is six years of age. But if he is thirty, it is obviously meant metaphorically. Literary critics call this approach to understanding metaphor the “theory of interaction”10. It is not the single word but only the communicative context that reveals if the utterance is meant metaphorically or literally or even both11. This theory is based on the further observation that a metaphorical utterance cannot be replaced by a literal act of speech without a considerable loss of meaning. This more recent approach to the phenomenon of metaphor is well summarized by Paul Ricœur’s enumeration of characteristics that identify a metaphor12: (i) A metaphor is created on the level of an enunciation (= utterance) or sentence. It is “a phenomenon of predication”. When a poet speaks of “a mantle of sorrows” he puts two terms in a tension, called “tenor” and “vehicle”, which together make up the metaphor. The “tenor” is the 9. “Ein beliebiges Wort kann isoliert gebraucht werden, z.B. in einer wortgeschichtlichen Untersuchung, also metasprachlich. Wer jedoch eine Metapher von jeglichem Kontext (und dazu ist natürlich immer auch ein Situationskontext zu rechnen) zu entblößen versucht, zerstört damit die Metapher. Eine Metapher ist folglich nie ein einfaches Wort, sondern immer ein – wenn auch kleines – Stück Text”. WEINRICH, Sprache, p. 319. Weinrich exemplifies this by a line of Verlaine: “Votre âme est un paysage choisi”. “Keines der sechs Wörter dieses Satzes ist identisch mit der Metapher, sondern der ganze Satz – und im weiteren Verstande der ganze Text des Gedichts – ist die Metapher. Der Kontext determiniert nämlich das Wort paysage in einer besonderen Weise, und eben dadurch entsteht die Metapher. Wort und Kontext machen zusammen die Metapher”. 10. For the definition including the examples given here, see KURZ, Metapher, p. 14. The main exponents of this theory are I.A. RICHARDS, The Philosophy of Rhetoric (The Mary Flexner Lectures on the Humanities, 3), New York, Oxford University Press, 1936; M. BLACK, Models and Metaphors: Studies in Language and Philosophy, Ithaca, NY, Cornell University Press, 1962; P. WHEELWRIGHT, Metaphor and Reality, Bloomington, IN, Indiana University Press, 1973; P. RICŒUR, Parole et symbole, in RevScRel 49 (1975) 142-161. 11. Sometimes the literal and the metaphorical sense are both intended at the same time. In rhetoric this is called syllepse. For example, the utterance “Peter is an actor” can be true both literally and metaphorically. See KURZ, Metapher, p. 14. 12. RICŒUR, Parole. See also L. ALONSO SCHÖKEL, A Manual of Hebrew Poetics (Subsidia Biblica, 11), Roma, Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1988, pp. 95-141.

112

PART I – CHAPTER 3

subject to which attributes are ascribed (“mantle”). The “vehicle” is the object whose attributes are transferred (“sorrows”)13. (ii) The metaphor is not created by a deviation on the level of the plain sense of a single word, but by a deviation of the constituents of an utterance on the level of the entire enunciation. “A metaphor arises from a certain inconsistency of the plain sense. Keeping in mind the lexical value of the words, one cannot make sense of the sentence unless one makes the words suffer a certain ‘torsion’ thanks to which the metaphorical sense comes to light”14. In the example “the mantle of sorrows” both predications of the utterance, “the mantle” and “sorrows”, do not function together coherently in the plain sense of the words. Yet the “absurdity” of the expression becomes evident only on the level of the plain sense. It therefore calls for an interpretation that creates the metaphor15. By the “torsion” of the word’s plain sense one is forced to give the words a new significance, or an extension in significance, which allows us to make sense of the enunciation where the interpretation according to the plain sense is properly sense-less16. When one first hears a metaphor, one does not perceive the application of the term as an error but rather as an extraordinary and insightful variance of its ordinary use. Its specific significance might not be immediately accessible, but that does not qualify the use of the metaphorical term as wrong. A metaphor is a deviation from the dominant, prototypical use of an utterance, of its standard significance17. It is the dominant use of the term that first comes to our mind and which serves as an orientation for understanding the metaphor18. In metaphorical communication the consciousness of a figurative meaning is necessary; otherwise the act of metaphorical communication fails19. Here one is conscious of the act 13. This common distinction goes back to RICHARDS, The Philosophy of Rhetoric. 14. Cf. RICŒUR, Parole, p. 147 (my translation). 15. Ibid., p. 146. “La métaphore n’existe pas en elle-même, mais dans une interprétation. L’interprétation métaphorique présuppose une interprétation littérale qui se détruit. L’interprétation métaphorique consiste à transformer une contradiction, qui se détruit elle-même, dans une contradiction signifiante”. 16. Ibid. 17. KURZ, Metapher, p. 18. 18. “Beim metaphorischen Gebrauch wird nicht einfach ein Wort anders verwendet. Es ist charakteristisch für die Metapher, daß dem Hörer/Leser eine dominante Bedeutung als Ausgangsbedeutung gegenwärtig sein muß, sonst handelt es sich nicht nur um eine Metapher, sondern um eine Polysemie, bei der das Wort einmal dies und einmal etwas anderes bedeutet. Es muß bewußt sein, daß der metaphorische Gebrauch eine Ableitung vom Standartgebrauch ist. Dieser Standartgebrauch bleibt bestehen, er wird sogar an der Abweichung intensiv und oft überhaupt erst bewußt”. Ibid. 19. For this seemingly evident and yet essential observation, see W. STÄHLIN, Zur Psychologie und Statistik der Metaphern, in Archiv f.d. gesamte Psychologie 31 (1924) 297-425.

METAPHOR – ALLEGORY – SYMBOL

113

of transfer. When creating or hearing a metaphor one actualizes at least momentarily all possible meanings and affective connotations in search for its actual and intended meaning that is extracted in the process of interpretation20. (iii) By bringing together two things or incompatible ideas, an affinity appears which is not visible to ordinary perception. A metaphor assimilates things which do not ordinarily go together. Yet by bringing them together a relationship in meaning becomes apparent, which the common classification of the terms cannot communicate21. An example taken from the Song would be “your eyes are doves” (Song 1,15). By associating those two terms which are originally distinct, the poet teaches one to see the characteristics of doves in the eyes of the Beloved. In the ANE doves were understood to be the messengers or the symbol of the goddess of love22. Thus, the eyes of the Beloved are themselves seen to be those messengers. The metaphor brings forth a similarity that outside the metaphor goes unnoticed. (iv) The tension created between the words – or better between the plain sense and the metaphorical sense – creates a new meaning on the level of the utterance. A metaphor is in this regard like an instant creation, a semantic innovation, which has no status in the established language. As soon as the metaphor is assumed into the current vocabulary of the language it becomes a “dead metaphor”. A metaphor is dead when the tension or absurdity created by the approaching of two incompatible terms goes quasi-unnoticed because the expression has entered common use23. Typical examples of dead metaphors are lexicalized expressions like “the foot of the mountain”, “table leg”, “data-highway”, and “riverbed”24. One is so acquainted with the meaning of these metaphors that one no longer stumbles over the apparent contradiction in the combination of terms if both were to be understood according to their plain sense. Two conclusions result from these characteristics which highlight the way in which the theory of interaction differs from the rhetorical model 20. KURZ, Metapher, p. 19. 21. Referring to Poetics (1459a), Ricœur says, “Aristote, à cet égard, avait raison de dire que ‘faire de bonnes métaphores, c’est percevoir la ressemblance’”. RICŒUR, Parole, p. 147. 22. See KEEL, Tauben; ID., Hohelied, pp. 71-74. 23. RICŒUR, Parole, pp. 156-157: “En appelant la métaphore une innovation sémantique, nous soulignons le fait qu’elle n’existe qu’au moment de l’invention; n’ayant pas de statut dans le langage établi, la métaphore est, au sens fort du mot, un événement du discours. Il en résulte, quand une métaphore a été reçue et acceptée par la communauté linguistique, elle tend à se confondre avec une extension de la polysémie des mots: elle devient d’abord triviale, avant de devenir métaphore morte”. 24. These examples are taken from KURZ, Metapher, p. 19.

114

PART I – CHAPTER 3

of substitution. First, a true metaphor is untranslatable because it is only in the combination of the particular terms and the tension caused that a new sense is created. Of course, they can be paraphrased, but then the innovation of sense would precisely be lost25. Second, a metaphor is neither a mere linguistic ornament nor of only emotional value. It is a carrier of new information. It “says something new about reality”26. c) Relevance for the Song The relevance of this change in metaphor-theory for Song exegesis becomes apparent by a simple example. Several commentaries approach the metaphors of the Song on the rhetorical model of substitution. The Song is treated like the speech of an ancient rhetor who has bedecked a preconceived concept with a variety of images, which serve either to reinforce, to embellish, or even to hide the otherwise naked concept he wants to convey. In practice this leads one to conceive of the Song as an erotic allegory, and its interpretation becomes once again allegorical. When, for example, the Lover calls his Beloved: “a garden closed, a sealed spring” and goes on to say “your canals are a paradise of pomegranates …” (Song 4,12-13)27, the exegete searches to dismantle the image by equating each aspect of the garden to a part of the female’s body. The canals indicate the woman’s vagina, the pomegranates her pudenda, etc.28. In this case the interpreter of 25. Ibid., p. 22: “Eine Metapher erläutern kann man so schlecht wie den Witz eines Witzes”. On the example of Verlaine’s poetic love metaphor “votre âme est un paysage” Weinrich elucidates: “Eigentlich, so hören wir oft sagen, ist die Seele keine Landschaft. Eigentlich hätte Verlaine statt dieser Metapher das richtige, das wahre Wort setzen müssen. Aber leider, so tönt es weiter, stellt uns die Sprache nicht immer die notwendigen Wörter zur Verfügung, und zumal die Dichter nehmen es oft mit der Wahrheit nicht so genau. Nein, diese Eigentlichkeit ist ein Phantom. Nicht nur, dass man billigerweise annehmen muss, dass Verlaine seine Gründe gehabt haben wird, gerade dieses und kein anderes Wort zu wählen. Wer weiß denn seine Worte zu wählen, wenn nicht die Autoren? […] Es gibt an der Stelle des Metaphernworts paysage in unserem Vers kein eigentliches Wort, das den Sachverhalt richtiger und wahrer bezeichnete. Es gibt an dieser Stelle auch keinen richtigeren und wahreren Gedanken, der von der Metapher verhüllt würde. Die Sprachkritik der Eigentlichkeit vergisst den Kontext. […] Wer daher um jeden Preis ohne Metaphern auszukommen sucht, schreibt nur langweiliger, nicht richtiger. Die Richtigkeit ist nicht immer mit den trockeneren Sätze. Schlechter Stil ist kein Wahrheitskriterium”. WEINRICH, Sprache, p. 324. 26. RICŒUR, Parole, p. 148: “Par le moyen d’une méprise catégoriale, de nouveaux champs sémantiques procèdent des rapprochements neufs. En bref, la métaphore dit quelque chose de nouveau sur la réalité”. 27. Whereby the translation “canals” is itself based on a debatable interpretation of the Hebrew ‫שלכיך‬. For details, see below, Chapter 10. In defense of “canals” see KEEL, Hohelied, p. 164; KRINETZKI, Hohelied, p. 148. 28. KEEL, Hohelied, p. 162. The “allegorical” interpretation goes so far as to propose that the milk and honey eaten by the Lover in Song 5,1 are equated to the fluids of the woman’s breast and vagina, insinuating that the Lover longs for oral sex. See M. PEETZ,

METAPHOR – ALLEGORY – SYMBOL

115

the Song’s poetry treats the metaphors in question as if the poet had “dressed up his ideas”. Alonso Schökel elucidates: The supposition is that first comes the idea or concept, which the normal person will enunciate with its corresponding vocabulary. The poet on the other hand, in the interest of decency or fashion, searches around in his imaginative wardrobe, gets out a set of clothes and dresses up his concept or idea. It is the task of the intelligent reader to remove the clothes and understand the idea. If the reader cannot do this alone, the exegete will help him29.

Ironically, modern exegesis that treats the metaphors of the Songs in this manner differs in no fundamental way from the traditional allegorizing interpretation. The only difference is that neither God nor his people are suspected to be “hidden” underneath the metaphoric covering of the Song’s poetry. Instead, the metaphors are treated as word-allegories (theory of substitution) designating the body-parts of a naked woman and a male’s lascivious desire. The exegetical technique remains the same30. Following this path we can translate the Bible into a language that is more abstract and less expressive, but we will not reach its original meaning31. The process involved in writing and interpreting poetry is not “experience → conceptual formulation → imaginative dressing up → conceptual Emotionen im Hohelied: Eine literaturwissenschaftliche Analyse hebräischer Liebeslyrik unter Berücksichtigung geistlich-allegorischer Auslegungsversuche (HBS, 81), Freiburg i.Br., Herder, 2015, pp. 200, 207: “Die Kanäle der Geliebten [werden] in Vers 13 und 14 als Pardes von Myrrhe und Balsam beschrieben … Insofern liegt der Vorschlag nahe, dass die Rede vom Pflücken seiner Myrrhe samt Balsam auf Geschlechtsverkehr anspielt. Das Essen der Wabe samt ihrem Honig meint auf der metaphorischen Ebene den Oralverkehr, und das Bild vom Trinken seines Weines samt seiner Milch will die Hörenden und Lesenden an das Saugen an weiblichen Brüsten erinnern”. 29. ALONSO SCHÖKEL, Poetics, pp. 100-101. In dealing with poetry, “what comes before the image is not the concept, but formless experience. The image gave a certain form to the experience; it was the first vision or spiritual reflexion, the first formulation which could be communicated. By means of the image the author understood what he had experienced and expressed it and it is the image which he intends to put across”. Ibid., p. 101. 30. See also H. AUSLOOS – B. LEMMELIJN, Praising God or Singing of Love? From Theological to Erotic Allegorisation in the Interpretation of Canticles, in Acta Theologica 30 (2010) 1-18, who call this phenomenon “erotic allegory” and demonstrate this new allegorization on some modern interpretations of the ‫“( שושנים‬lillies”, or “lotus”) in Song 2,16. One textbook example is HAUPT, Canticles, p. 204, who translates the ‫ שושנים‬as “(dark purple) lilies” and interprets them as an allegory for the hair on the mons Veneris, while “to feed on the lilies” would be a synonym for “to uncover the nakedness”. From a comparison with the Indian Tantrism, Pope derives that they are a symbol for the female genitalia, with pronounced sexual connotations. “The lotus is laden with sexual symbolism and represents the female organ as a whole and in all its parts and functions and is attributive to every feature of the great goddess in her venereal aspect”, POPE, Song, pp. 406-407. Since this interpretation is inconsistent with the occurrence of ‫ שושנים‬in Song 4,5, he corrects the Hebrew text, and judges that the allusion to lotus-eating should be deleted here, ibid., p. 470. 31. See ALONSO SCHÖKEL, Poetics, p. 100.

116

PART I – CHAPTER 3

translation” but rather: “experience → imaginative formulation → conceptual translation”32. This means the poet does not first have an (erotic) experience of love that he then translates into a mental concept and afterwards dresses up accordingly with the images of a garden, water, plants, and eating and drinking, leaving it for the reader to translate the images back into the mental concept of erotic enjoyment. Rather, the poet experiences love and without translating it into a concept he formulates and expresses it in the imagery of a garden, a wedding banquet, etc. The conceptual translation does not precede the image but follows its perception. This is of vital importance for understanding biblical poetry and particularly that of the Song. For if one proceeds with the idea that the poet uses his images merely to “dress up” his concepts (theory of substitution), one splits off the experience of the poet and what he wants to express from the image employed. If the image serves only – to remain in the image – to “dress up” the idea or concept of the poet, the image in and of itself loses its communicative power. Not only does it become replaceable by any other image, or “dress”, to express the same abstract concept that it is supposed to clothe, but it also loses the newness of its information. Above all, it loses its intertextual communicative power, the figurative and symbolic allusions that the poet has intended to import into the present context by using the exact chosen image and not different ones. In the case of the garden image the difference between the two approaches is striking. Based on the theory of substitution the exegete is led to undress the poetry of its metaphors and is left with the mental image of a naked woman. The metaphor, treated like a “word-allegory”, is decoded, the plain sense has done its service, the metaphorical sense remains. Based on the theory of interaction it becomes apparent that by choosing precisely the garden image the poet communicates a whole range of experiences. Not only does he express that his Beloved is to him like a Lustgarten in which he finds all the rest and luxurious refreshment that such a garden offers, concomitantly the chosen image alludes to the long lost paradisiacal garden of Eden, the original experience of perfect love and harmony between the sexes, to man’s desire for that original harmony, and for the return to paradise that he experiences as a foretaste in the loving encounter with his Beloved. The garden imagery further alludes to 32. Ibid., p. 101. The example Alonso Schökel gives is illuminating: “The tragic experience of mortal danger which approaches and increases is expressed in the symbol ‘the waters have come up to my neck, I sink in deep mire’ (Ps 69,2-3); ‘danger of inevitable death’ is a later conceptual translation which we may wish to apply, not a mental formulation of the poet which came before the symbol”. For an excellent first-hand description of this process, read C.S. LEWIS, Essay Collection and Other Short Pieces, London, HarperCollins, 2000.

METAPHOR – ALLEGORY – SYMBOL

117

eschatological expectations frequently expressed in garden metaphors, as well as to the liturgical and sacramental experience of God that religious language frequently describes in that very same way. In understanding the image itself as the immediate formulation of the precise experience that the poet wants to express, it becomes clear that the expressive power of this particular image cannot be arbitrarily replaced by any other image. Nor does one have to “decode” the image in order to discover the abstract concept behind it. Instead the expression of the poet’s experience has to be discovered in the image. The metaphoric language of the Bible is what is essential33. 2. Metaphors Belong to Image Fields In addition to the distinction between the theory of substitution and interaction it is helpful to introduce a further term developed by Harald Weinrich: the Bildfeld or “image field”34. This concept serves for the hermeneutics of the Song’s metaphors and their interaction with other biblical books. a) Bildfeld – Image Field Instead of the terms “vehicle” and “tenor”, Harald Weinrich speaks of Bildspender and Bildempfänger – “image giver” and “image receiver”. These expressions emphasize the image-character of metaphors. The image giver stands for the metaphorical element. Because a metaphorical utterance does not immediately make sense in the same way as a nonmetaphorical one, in the process of its interpretation one actualizes a number of possible meanings. These are not merely lexical meanings but also “a diffuse, and therefore suggestive complex of imaginations, opinions, evaluations and affective notions. Metaphors release emotions and effect that the image receiver is ‘experienced’ under the perspective of the image giver”35. Weinrich distinguishes between the actual creation of a certain metaphor in a punctual act of speech and the Bildfeld to which that metaphor belongs on the meta-level36. On the one hand, one can study the use of 33. ALONSO SCHÖKEL, Poetics, p. 101. 34. H. WEINRICH, Semantik der kühnen Metapher, in Deutsche Vierteljahresschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Geistesgeschichte 37 (1963) 324-344. 35. KURZ, Metapher, p. 24 (my translation). 36. Weinrich develops his theory in analogy with Ferdinand de Saussure’s distinction between langue (language) and parole (speech act). The langue is the objectively structured

118

PART I – CHAPTER 3

metaphors by a certain author. This corresponds to the speech act theory and belongs to stylistics37. On the other hand, one can also conduct a supraindividual study of the metaphors that belong to the cultural heritage of a certain community. An individual author always stands in a tradition of metaphors that either belong to the era or have come down to him through a literary patrimony. Thus, metaphors can be studied both diachronically and synchronically, and Weinrich emphasizes the latter. A diachronic study can show that a certain metaphor stands in a line of tradition, but this perspective contributes to the misconception that a metaphor might be isolated from the language system. His emphasis, accordingly, lies in the synchronic study, which shows that a metaphor stands not only in a tradition, but also in correlation with other metaphors that together form an image field38. According to Weinrich, it is futile to study the image giver (vehicle) and image receiver (tenor) separately, for it is only together that they make up the metaphor39. What happens in the punctual activation of a metaphor is the joining of two sprachliche Sinnbezirke (linguistic sense domains). By one act of speech two sense domains are combined and set in analogy to one another, and out of this the metaphor is born. The two verbal sense domains when coupled together constitute an image field. Weinrich illustrates such an image field by the common metaphor of speaking in terms of financial language. From antiquity down to our own day, this metaphor can be traced in different literary and philosophical writings. He calls it the Wortmünze (word coin) image field40. All the related metaphors belong to the same sense domains, that is, language and finance, and together they form the image field. This one image field can be actualized in various forms, but the source (i.e. financial language) remains the same. If someone says, “Politicians’ words are a bouncing check”41, the language possession of a community, while parole is the individual act of speech which actualizes certain elements of that language. 37. WEINRICH, Sprache, p. 277. 38. Ibid., p. 279. 39. Thus, he points to the fact that studies in St. Paul’s use of metaphor have been undertaken which show that he never uses images from tent-making and only once from shipping. Does that mean Paul was neither a tent-maker nor knew much about shipping? No, the reason is that the image field “ship” is conventionally used when speaking about political systems. That, however, was not the subject of Paul’s letter, for which reason he did not use this metaphor. 40. WEINRICH, Sprache, pp. 279-281. Examples can be found in all languages and cultures: “an expression is coined”, “a loan-word”, “Wortschatz/thesaurus”, “the wealth of language” (Leibniz), “Luther stößt die Wechslertische der scholastischen Wortkrämer um” (Herder), “Das Genie erkennt man an der einmaligen Münze, die es ausgibt” (Villemain), “Sprachkünstler und Philologen sind ‘die Banquiers der gelehrten Republik’” (Hamann), “Translations are like copper coins” (Montesquieu), “golden words”. 41. Ibid., p. 279.

METAPHOR – ALLEGORY – SYMBOL

119

reason one can immediately understand the metaphor lies in the fact that we have long been familiar with the image field word coin42. A single metaphor like “to coin a word” may become lexicalized and therefore “dead”. The image field, however, which allows for the formation, or – to say it metaphorically – coining of similar metaphors, remains as alive as ever43. According to Weinrich a metaphor always belongs to the larger domain of an existing image field. Metaphors never come singly. They come in clusters, and one image calls for another; that is, a metaphor takes up one place within an image field. Weinrich does not reject the possibility of an author creating a new image field, but in reality that is extremely rare44. Metaphorical language is tradition-bound. In the interpretation of metaphors it is therefore vital to understand to which image field they belong in their respective culture45. b) Relevance for the Song The understanding of metaphors as belonging to certain image fields that are situated on the meta-level of a language is of methodological importance for this present study. The metaphorical – and eventually allegorical or symbolic (see below) – character of an ancient text is all the more probable if the already-existing tradition of a certain image field can be demonstrated for the time of the text’s production. The central image field in question is the nuptial metaphor as elaborated by the prophets, also called “wedding with God”, an image field closely linked with the ANE idea of sacred marriage (Hos 2,16-22; 14,5-9; Jeremiah 2–3; Jes 54,4-8; 61,10; 62,1-12; Ezekiel 16; Ps 45,11-12). In its many variations, the constant in this biblical image field is always that 42. A metaphor is never isolated. “Sie gehört seit ihrer Geburt in ein festgefügtes Bildfeld. Das zu zeigen ist Aufgabe der synchronen Metaphorik”. Ibid., p. 282. 43. “Heute ist die Metapher des classicus scriptor in allen Sprachen zum Terminus erstarrt. Aber das Bildfeld der Sprache als eines Finanzwesens, das schon vorher da war, ist so lebendig wie eh und je. So beobachten wir hier das Werden und Vergehen einer Metapher innerhalb eines in größerem Rythmus lebenden Bildfeldes. Seitdem sie zur Exmetapher verblaßt ist, hat das Bildfeld eine freie Stelle. Sie kann allezeit wieder neu besetzt werden”. Ibid., p. 282. 44. “Wirkliche Schöpfungen eines neues Bildfeldes sind sehr, sehr selten. Meistens füllen wir nur die freien Metaphernstellen aus, die mit dem bestehenden Bildfeld bereist potentiell gegeben sind”. Ibid., p. 288. 45. “Die konkreten Bildfelder sind wohl kaum jemals Allgemeinbesitz der Menschheit, aber auch nicht exklusiver Besitz der Einzelsprache. Sie gehören zum sprachlichen Weltbild eines Kulturkreises. … Es gibt (z.B.) eine Harmonie der Bildfelder zwischen den einzelnen abendländischen Sprachen. Das Abendland ist eine Bildgemeinschaft”. Ibid., p. 287.

120

PART I – CHAPTER 3

the domain of Israel’s relationship with YHWH in history is articulated in nuptial language. The punctual actualization of the metaphor, however, may vary from case to case as also its concrete elements. In the nuptial metaphor YHWH-Israel, for example, one member may be replaced, i.e., Messiah instead of YHWH46. The female role can be depicted as the land or people of Israel in one prophet (i.e. Hosea), or in the city of Jerusalem in another (i.e. Isaiah). The effectiveness and reception of a certain metaphor is determined by the relationship between tradition and innovation within the image field. Thus, due to the constancy of the image field “sacred marriage”, the reader will immediately understand that the messianic wedding belongs to the same domain as the divine wedding (i.e. YHWH and Israel), and that Israel and Jerusalem as bride metaphors belong to the constant image field evoking the (eschatological) restoration of the nation. Furthermore, since image fields do not co-exist in an isolated manner, one image field may overlap with another. In this way, the image field Messiah-bridegroom, for example, has intersections with the image field “sacred-marriage” or “town-woman”. A clear separation is impossible47. On the basis of this insight, Ruben Zimmermann has dedicated a monograph to the study of the tradition history of the image fields related to the nuptial metaphor in relationship to the divine. It reaches from the third millennium B.C. myth of sacred marriage and androgyny up to the early Christian centuries and their gnostic transmission48. For the Song, Zimmermann claims a spousal image field, even though the wedding as a topic does not stand in the foreground of the poem49. The Beloved is called ‫( כלה‬Song 4,9–5,1) and in Song 3,1-6 we find direct allusions to a wedding ritual that describes King Solomon on the day of his wedding. This passage shows a blending of the love/nuptial metaphor and the royal figure. Zimmermann sees here a possible point of contact that has served to create a conscious inter text with the use of the spousal and nuptial love metaphors in the prophetic corpus50. In reading the Song against the background of such inter text, one will easily discover a strong overlap with the image fields “God-shepherd/redeemer” 46. The example is taken from ZIMMERMANN, Geschlechtermetaphorik, p. 42. 47. Ibid. 48. Ibid. 49. According to Zimmermann (who basically follows the collection theory and the naturalistic reading on this point) the Lovers are not portrayed as spouses, for though the female Beloved is called bride (‫)כלה‬, the male Lover is never called ‫חתן‬. See ibid. 50. Though Zimmermann follows the naturalistic reading which cannot detect any hints of an original allegorical intention of the Song, he does defend the claim that by the Song’s integration into the Hebrew Scriptures, the presumably originally profane love songs were invested with a religious meaning. See ibid., p. 103.

METAPHOR – ALLEGORY – SYMBOL

121

(Ezekiel 34; Psalms 23; 80; Isa 40,10-11; Jer 31,10) and “God-king” (Exod 19,6; Zeph 3,15; Psalm 47; etc.), and Israel-paradise (Deuteronomy 8; Jer 2,7; Psalm 48; Isaiah 66; Ezek 47,1-12) (see Chapters 6, 8, and 11). 3. Conflict of Sense It belongs to the hermeneutical conditions of text-communication that if a text is metaphorical, the recipient must have at least a vague preunderstanding of the text. Usually the author will give either contentrelated guidance or formal indications that point the reader to the metaphorical character of the text51. Thus, the reader approaches the text with a certain preconceived expectation that will guide his interpretation. This is so even in cases where the text eventually does not confirm the reader’s expectation. a) Intentio Operis and Intentio Auctoris Intersect On the basis of a famous example from modern literature, it shall now be seen how focus on the intentio operis (see Chapter 2) alone is not sufficient. For the establishment of the full literal sense of a metaphoric text it is indispensable to have some knowledge of the intentio auctoris. The example chosen is a text by Walter Benjamin called Möwen (seagulls) from his book Städtebilder52. At first glance and without any background knowledge, the reader will take it to be a travel account. Yet at some point, the metaphors employed clearly leave the source-domain of seagulls and move on to words like “people”, “left-right”, “unnamable messengers”, “parties that don’t get on”. The attentive reader realizes that the image giver-words stem from human and no longer animal behavior. The giver-words at a certain point in the account build a new context, which runs contrapuntally to the topic of the text53. The reader will be led to ask himself why the seagulls are called messengers if this text is about a voyage by sea. Why are there people belonging to the left or right wing? What is the “actual” message of this text? The reader is led to surmise that this apparent travel account, the circumstances of which are described 51. WEINRICH, Sprache, p. 344. 52. The example is taken from ibid., pp. 334-340. For the text see http://gutenberg. spiegel.de/buch/-2983/5 (accessed on December 20, 2019). 53. “Nun muss der Leser doch aufmerksamer auf die bildspendenden Wörter achten, und er wird bemerken, daß diese Wörter, die allesamt aus dem Bereich des menschlichen, nicht tierischen Verhaltens stammen, einen eigenen Kontext Zusammenhang bilden, der kontrapunktisch zum Thema des Textes verläuft”. WEINRICH, Sprache, p. 334.

122

PART I – CHAPTER 3

with such a high array of metaphors, is the carrier of another message underlying the surface level of the text. The intentio operis itself leads the reader to suspect a more than “literalistic” meaning of the text. That is, he will expect the first-order meaning of the text to be the carrier of a second-order meaning. To detect this second-order meaning, however, the text itself is too small a frame. The reader needs to know the political context and the time of its production. The text has to be read within its proper context and thus some access to the intentio auctoris is indispensable. In the case of Möwen, the instructed reader will know that Benjamin wrote the text in the year 1929 in memory of a journey he had actually undertaken. So the reader might in fact presume at first that he is reading an account of that journey. And most readers will probably rest content with this. However, a reader well informed about the political situation of Germany at the time and the difficulty it meant for Benjamin to position himself autonomously as an intellectual within the different political currents, will read this prose against the background of the historical fields of power of a friend-enemy ideology and the intellectual problematic and interpret it accordingly54. Against the evidence of the words and their immediate context, he will take recourse to experiences that are external to the text and that belong to the conditions of the production and reception of the text. He will insist that the entire text is to be understood as a metaphor55. b) Relevance for the Song It should be clear how much this debate resembles the discussions on the meaning and interpretation of the Song. The great majority of scholars want to see nothing but a (collection of) love songs in the text. Is that so because of some a priori decision, perhaps, e.g., some desire to mount a defense of human sexuality? Or is it really that the text itself yields nothing more than a naturalistic interpretation? Othmar Keel is convinced that he has shown once and for all that the metaphors of the Song, interpreted in the light of ANE sources (particularly from Egypt and Canaan), prove that the exaltation of human eros exhausts 54. See ibid., p. 340. 55. WEINRICH (ibid.) calls the text a political metaphor. Strictly speaking Benjamin’s text Möwen is an allegory. Weinrich shies away from using the term because of its unpopularity with literary critics. It is, however, better to restrict the term “metaphor” to an utterance and apply the term “allegory” to an entire text, as will be argued in the following. Benjamin, moreover, is among the prominent authors who have contributed decisively to the rehabilitation of “allegory” in the twentieth century.

METAPHOR – ALLEGORY – SYMBOL

123

the meaning of this collection of love songs. By the same token, however, one may ask if recourse to exactly these same ANE sources and metaphors does not demand the recognition that most of the metaphors employed belong to the image field marriage with god (“sacred marriage” understood in its widest sense). On what grounds do we claim the presumed “desacralization”, or, as is often said, “subversive” use of these metaphors in the Song? The problem is more complex than Keel allows. On the one hand, the comparison with ANE love poetry shows that the Song draws on a language which is highly charged with religious and erotic imagery. On the other hand, if the author drew on pre-existing love songs in order to compose the Song, their respective metaphors have assumed a new meaning by their insertion into a new context, i.e., the faith of Israel. Metaphors are always contextual and intertextual phenomena56. To this new context, however, the image field “marriage with god” was neither alien nor neutral. Rather it was already bound up with the very concrete connotation of the covenant relationship between YHWH and his people (see on this whole subject Chapters 6 and 7, I, pp. 325 and 412, below).

II. ALLEGORY Fatefully, the rise of modern critical Song scholarship coincided with the Romantic movement. The latter had a pronounced distaste for allegory, and this Zeitgeist of dislike for allegory could not fail to influence the judgements of the exegetes. It is mainly for aesthetic reasons that the possibility of the Song’s being an allegory in its literal sense was a priori excluded. The purpose of this section is to highlight the Romantic prejudice that is at the basis of modern exegesis’ rejection of allegory. Tracing the bias will reveal that the rejection concerns a reduced understanding of allegory. This shrunken view understands allegorical art as it was approached by French Classicism and the concept of allegory as understood in rhetoric. However, modern literary criticism has recuperated a broader understanding of allegory. 56. Cf. ZIMMERMANN, Geschlechtermetaphorik, p. 103: “Im Blick auf die religiöse Tiefendimension des Cant gilt es allerdings zu bedenken, dass die genannte Symbolwelt keineswegs zum zentralen Bildrepertoire des Jhwh-Glaubens gerechnet werden kann. Sind die Symbole hier also ihrer religiösen Dimension entkleidet? Metaphern sind kontextuelle und intertextuelle Phänomene (s.o.), so dass selbst ein profanes Liebeslied durch die Beiordnung zu den Glaubenstexten des Volkes Israel eine ursprünglich nicht intendierte Tiefendimension erhält”.

124

PART I – CHAPTER 3

The aesthetic prejudice of the Romantic movement has not been entirely without profit, it should be said, for it led to a rediscovery and deepened understanding of “symbol”. In contradistinction to “allegory”, which is the expression of a universal idea in the particular, “symbol” is the apprehension of the universal in the particular57. This distinction helps clarify why the Song is not an “allegory” (on the level of text production, see Chapter 1, II.3, above, p. 38) and yet, comprises multiple resonances of meaning it its literal sense58. 1. The Aesthetic Rejection of Allegory Allegory is in disrepute. This has not always been the case, and it is helpful to understand how it fell from favor. Otherwise, one risks rejecting the possibility of the Song’s being an allegory for the wrong reasons. The aversion to reading the Song as an allegory has its roots in nineteenthcentury German Romanticism59, more particularly in the German reaction against French Classicism. Though allegory is originally a rhetorical or hermeneutical figure, the criticism of allegory originates not in the context of literary criticism but in art aesthetics. The Classicism of the Renaissance had led to a different sense of what was “classical” in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries and had found its peak expression in the court of Louis XIV. It was characterized by an adherence to axiomatic and deductive reasoning, by love of order and predictability, the use of geometry and grids, the importance of rigorous discipline and pedagogy, in the schools of both art and music. Allegory and allegorizing abounded in that period and were considered the highest expression of art, as conveying an objective truth. In reaction to such a codified, rhetorical understanding of art, German Romanticism conceived of art as Erlebniskunst60. The term refers to an understanding of art that owes itself to inspired genius (an experience) and that in turn becomes an experience for the person exposed to it61. 57. See, e.g., Goethe’s definition, which has become canonical: “Es ist ein großer Unterschied, ob der Dichter zum Allgemeinen das Besondere sucht oder im Besonderen das Allgemeine schaut. Aus jener Art entsteht Allegorie, wo das Besondere nur als Beispiel, als Exempel des Allgemeinen gilt; die letztere aber ist eigentlich die Natur der Poesie, sie spricht ein Besonderes aus, ohne ans Allgemeine zu denken oder darauf hinzuweisen. Wer nun dieses Besondere lebendig faßt, erhält zugleich das Allgemeine mit, ohne es gewahr zu werden, oder erst spät”. J.W. GOETHE, Maximen und Reflexionen, cited in KURZ, Metapher, p. 57. 58. Interestingly, this contemporary concept of symbol corresponds more to the mediaeval concept of allegory than the Classicist notion of allegory which it rejects. 59. See the extensive study by GERHARDS, Hohelied, pp. 446-454. 60. GADAMER, Truth and Method, p. 61. 61. H.-G. GADAMER, Symbol und Allegorie, in Archivio di Filosofia 2/3 (1958) 23-28, p. 23. The conference on the distinction between symbol and allegory was later integrated into his work. See GADAMER, Truth and Method, pp. 61-67.

METAPHOR – ALLEGORY – SYMBOL

125

Nothing is predefined, nothing dictated by dogmas. For the century of Goethe, art needed to reflect an authentic experience (= an inspiration) and transmit that experience. Breaking with the entire tradition up until the Enlightenment, art had now become an expression of subjectivity62. Against the background of art as an Erlebniskunst, any hint of the rhetorical figure of “allegory” in poetry could only earn contempt. From antiquity up to the rise of modernity it had been essential to its understanding “that the literal narrative and the significatio should be separable”63. That is, it was understood that art should have multiple orders of meanings. Under the influence of Romanticism, however, it came to be held that “‘art means what it says’ or even that it is meaningless”64. Looking at a piece of art or literature, modernity (and with it modern exegesis) demanded that the significance of the text lie on the apparent surface (that is, that intended meaning coincide with the plain sense) – heedless of the anachronism of its demand. Literary criticism today appears to have overcome the aversion to allegory by developing a modified understanding of it. The evolution from the classical rhetorical definition of allegory (which eventually led to its rejection in the nineteenth century) to its definition in modern literary criticism will now be sketched. 2. The Rhetorical Definition of Allegory Allegory is originally a rhetorical device. The locus classicus for the definition of allegory remains Quintilian’s definition for rhetors given in Institutio oratoria (The Orator’s Education), VIII.6.44: Allegory, which people translate inversio, presents one thing by its words (verbis) and either a different or sometimes even a contrary thing by its sense (sensu). The first type generally consists of a succession of metaphors, as 62. The same transition can be traced in the English Romantic movement of the time. Joel Rosenberg explains: “Roughly from the late eighteenth to the late twentieth century, ‘allegory’ had generally come to be seen as something ‘bad’, by virtue of its mechanical nature, its artificiality, its extraneousness to its referent, and the like, and ‘symbolism’ as something ‘good’, by virtue of its organic concreteness, its naturalness, its fusion of sign and meaning, and the like”. According to J. Rosenberg, “this trend goes back to Coleridge’s statement that allegory ‘cannot be other than spoken consciously, whereas in … the symbol the general truth may be unconsciously in the writer’s mind. … The advantage of symbolic writing over allegory is that it presumes no disjunction of faculties, but simple dominance (Miscellaneous Criticism, ed. T.M. Raysor [London 1936], 29-30)”. ROSENBERG, King and Kin, pp. 13, n. 41 and 219. 63. C.S. LEWIS, The Allegory of Love, New York, Oxford University Press, 1958, p. 1. In fact, the turn in the aesthetic judgement of allegory led to the parting of ways between poetry and rhetoric, which one finds as late as the eighteenth century side by side. See GADAMER, Truth and Method, p. 62. 64. LEWIS, Allegory, p. 1.

126

PART I – CHAPTER 3

in “O ship, new waves will take you back to sea: what are you doing? Be resolute, make harbor”, and that whole passage of Horace in which he represents the state as a ship, the civil wars as waves and storms, and peace and concord as the harbor65.

According to this definition, an allegory expresses something through its words, and something else through its sense. The differentiation between verbis/sensu corresponds to the differentiation literally/non-literally or explicitly/non-explicitly. Allegory, which is translated as inversio, says one thing but means another thing. Something is said on the literal level and something else is meant on the non-literal. It is a speaking-differently. Indeed, etymologically “allegory” means speaking differently than overtly or in public (gr.: ἄλλος + ἀγορεύειν, approximately “speaking different than in the assembly, the agora”66); i.e. “to say otherwise”. Quintilian therefore classifies allegory, just like metaphor, synecdoche, and metonymy, as a trope. “A trope is a shift of a word or phrase from its proper meaning to another”67. By a trope one thing is said, another understood. In the same way, allegory says one thing directly, by which it says another indirectly. Thus understood, allegory is an indirect speech. Something is said by which and through which something else than what is actually said is meant68. As the example of the state-ship demonstrates, Quintilian conceives allegory as a metaphor continued and implemented throughout a larger segment of a text. This “deduction of allegory from metaphor corresponds to the above mentioned theory of substitution. The classical (rhetorical) theory of substitution understands metaphor as operating on the level of a singular word, as word-allegories that mean something different than what is actually said. Up to the eighteenth century, allegory and metaphor were therefore also used synonymously”69. 65. “Allegoria, quam inversionem interpretantur, aut aliud verbis aliud sensu ostendit, aut etiam interim contrarium. Prius fit genus plerumque continuatis translationibus ut O navis, referent in mare te novi fluctus: o quid agis? Fortiter accipe portum, totusque ille Horati locus, quo navem pro re publica, fluctus et tempestates pro bellis civilibus, portum pro pace atque concordia dicit”. QUINTILIAN, The Orator’s Education (LCL, 126), Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 2001, VIII.6.44. 66. KURZ, Metapher, p. 34, who furthermore points out that Johann Jakob Bodmer defined it as alieniloquium: “Allegory is a way of speaking in a double sense, which follows two meanings, one is secret, hidden, allegorical and the other one is only external, historical. The allegorist has to care for both, for if he misses out in one, the entire work is ruined (verdorben)” (my translation). 67. VIII.6.1: “Tropos est verbi vel sermonis a propria significatione in aliam cum virtute mutatio”. QUINTILIAN, The Orator’s Education, pp. 424-425. 68. See KURZ, Metapher, pp. 37-38. 69. Ibid., p. 39. See also QUINTILIAN, The Orator’s Education VIII.6.47-53, where he treats metaphors like word-allegories and uses the terms indiscriminately.

METAPHOR – ALLEGORY – SYMBOL

127

On the basis of this definition, it is apparent why one would not agree that the Song is an allegory. If one understands allegory as metaphor continued, then an allegory has only one meaning, which is the one it expresses indirectly, that is, not the plain sense but the allegorical one. If, however, an allegory bears only one meaning – the one expressed indirectly, i.e. the allegorical one – then the plain sense has no inherent importance other than as a vehicle for the allegorical sense. The intended meaning of the text lies only in the allegorical sense beyond the plain sense. This application of “allegory” to the Song was welcome to the ancient commentators who, it is true, shied away from giving too much importance to the expression of human sexuality in the Song. However, as the ample number of modern commentaries on the Song merely on the natural level have also brought to light, the plain sense of the Song has its own proper meaning and proposition to make. The Song read as a mere human love song expresses anthropological realities about the attraction of the sexes that can stand absolutely on their own. The predication of the erotic language cannot be reduced to the function of lending analogous vocabulary to a mystery that could not be expressed otherwise. 3. New Literary Approaches to Allegory Quintilian’s definition is no longer unanimously embraced. Its limits have been seen not only in the field of exegesis, but by literary criticism in general. The following observations have been made by literary critics that have led to a more refined understanding of allegory today. (i) Allegory and Metaphor Differ. The basic understanding of “allegory as metaphor continued” is criticized as misunderstanding both metaphor and allegory. Of course, an allegory can be based on a metaphor. But while an allegory has at least one double sense, the plain and the allegorical one, a metaphor does not. A metaphor has but one sense, which is the metaphorical one, that is, it cannot be understood literally and metaphorically at the same time (i.e., “your eyes are doves” makes no “literal” sense). In other words, the plain and prototypical meaning disappears, displaced by the new and deviant meaning that is created, while in an allegory both the plain and the allegorical meaning can (and do) stand on their own70. The same composition Möwen, which Weinrich reads as a metaphor, is classified by Kurz as an allegory71. According to Kurz it is not sufficiently specific to classify Möwen just as metaphor, for it brings it too close to 70. KURZ, Metapher, p. 40. 71. See ibid., pp. 30-36.

128

PART I – CHAPTER 3

Quintilian’s classical rhetorical definition of allegory72. The metaphors used in the text generate a coherent second meaning, which goes beyond that of a travelogue expressed in the plain sense. The reader is invited to read the text as one that wants to convey a surplus meaning, a political meaning. For Kurz, Benjamin’s Möwen is a political allegory. According to him “an allegorical text allows simultaneously for two meanings, namely, two systematic interpretations that can be implemented with all relevant text-elements”73. Contrary to Quintilian, Kurz defends the claim that allegory does in fact say what it means; it says it in a direct and in an indirect manner. It means what it says (verbis) – and it means this with and through the something else (sensu) that is primarily intended74. “Der Autor einer Allegorie will das Gesagte so verstanden wissen, daß es verstanden wird und noch etwas anderes mitverstanden wird”75. (ii) Allegory Is More Than “This Is That”. Quintilian’s rhetorical definition of allegory is reductive. It approaches an allegorical text with a “this is that” mentality. The rhetorical model tends to see a one-dimensional reference work in which only the target referent counts76. Allegories taken from modern literature, however, exemplify that it is not only the second, hidden, coded meaning that counts, such that the plain, first-order meaning could be done away with once the intended message is understood. In addition to the above mentioned Möwen, C.S. Lewis’ Chronicles of Narnia, George Orwell’s Animal Farm, Herman Melville’s Moby-Dick, Kafka’s Das Urteil, or the recent Life of Pi by Yann Martel, are all fine examples of allegories whose plain sense is firmly intended by the authors77. 72. Ibid., p. 92. “Weinrich kommt … zu folgender Definition: ‘Eine Metapher ist ein Text in einer konterdeterminierten Situation’ (341). Diese Definition ist unspezifisch, nicht zufällig gerät sie in die Nähe des rhetorischen Allegoriebegriffs”. 73. Ibid., p. 38. 74. Ibid.: “Quintilians Formel, […], stellt das Verhältnis der beiden Bedeutungen in der Allegorie nicht angemessen dar. Dies liegt sowohl an der Bedeutungstheorie der Rhetorik als auch an einer strikten Trennung von Sagen und Meinen. Es gibt jedoch kein Sagen ohne Meinen. Es gibt keinen Satz ohne illokutionäre Kraft. Worte können nicht geäußert werden ohne irgendeine kommunikative Absicht. Die Allegorie sagt sehr wohl, was sie meint – sie sagt es eben direkt und indirekt. Sie meint, was sie sagt (verbis), und sie meint damit und dadurch noch etwas anderes (sensu), auf das es vor allem ankommen kann”. 75. Ibid. 76. Ibid., p. 40. 77. Northrop Frye points to the fact that often the commenting critic is prejudiced against allegory because “continuous allegory prescribes the direction of his commentary, and so restricts its freedom”. Hence such commentators urge us to read works, like those of Spenser and Bunyan, or those mentioned above, “for the story alone and let the allegory go, meaning by that that he regards his own type of commentary as more interesting. Or else he will frame a definition of allegory that will exclude the poems he likes”. FRYE, Anatomy, p. 83.

METAPHOR – ALLEGORY – SYMBOL

129

All of these narratives are perfectly comprehensible without their secondorder meaning necessarily being decoded. Moreover, the second-order meaning would lose its expressive power if the first-order meaning where subtracted. This is well expressed in a dialogue at the end of Yann Martel’s Life of Pi. Martel’s main character, Pi Patel, having related to his listeners a long story about animals on a raft, then decodes the story (= plain sense) he has just recounted, revealing that, in fact, it signifies (= allegorical sense) the story of his own fight for survival on the open sea, including a horrible series of cannibalistic acts, but also the mysterious saving interventions of God. Pi then says: “I told you two stories…”. “Yes, you did”. “Neither makes a factual difference to you”. “That’s true”. “You can’t prove which story is true and which is not. You must take my word for it”. “I guess so”. “In both stories the ship sinks, my entire family dies, and I suffer”. “Yes, that’s true”. “So tell me, since it makes no factual difference to you and you can’t prove the question either way, which story do you prefer? Which is the better story, the story with animals or the story without animals?” “The story with animals”. “Thank you. And so it goes with God”.

The story the interlocutors prefer is the one with the animals. They prefer, in other words, the plain sense. It was, indeed, for exactly this reason that Pi Patel had chosen it in the first place; for the second(true?)-order meaning is too brutal to bear when told in a non-allegorical fashion. The firstorder meaning, however, cannot be done away with once the intended meaning is understood. It is the only vehicle that can make accessible the religious experience and truth he desires to communicate. (iii) Allegories Need Not Be Explicit. Allegory often works by polysemy, or with systematically implemented allusions, direct or indirect citations. An allegory does not need to be explicit. On the contrary, the more subtle the implicit allusions, the more appreciated the allegorical refinement will usually be. (iv) A Wide Range of Allegorical Forms. Northrop Frye employs the term “allegory” for a wide range of literary works. On the one extreme, he posits “naive allegory”, which he calls a disguised form of discursive writing. It is “so anxious to make its own allegorical points that is has

130

PART I – CHAPTER 3

no real literary or hypothetical centre”78. Then, within the boundaries of literature proper, we find a whole “sliding scale”, ranging from the most explicit allegory on the one extreme to “the most elusive, anti-explicit and anti-allegorical at the other”. Literature like Bunyan’s The Pilgrim’s Progress and Spenser’s The Faerie Queen are fine examples of explicit allegory on the one side of the scale. More to the center are works like Shakespeare’s, where “the structure of imagery, however suggestive, has an implicit relation only to events and ideas”. On the other extreme we find poetic imagery, “which begins to recede from example and precept and becomes increasingly ironic and paradoxical”. Here, says Frye, the modern critic begins to feel more at home, for it corresponds to the “modern literal view of art, the sense of the poem as withdrawn from explicit statement”79. While most scholars in the exegetical field would refrain from calling these latter works of literature “allegories”, Northrop Frye and Kurz do actually classify them as such. According to such a wide definition of “allegory”, the Song would in fact qualify as such, all the while resisting a one-to-one mapping of its poetic elements. (v) Motivations for the Use of Allegory. Allegory can be motivated by time and circumstances. These motivations may be aesthetic (Life of Pi) or perhaps political, as in a totalitarian regime where plain speech has become impossible (i.e., Klaus Mann’s Mephisto, Bertolt Brecht’s The Resistible Rise of Arturo Ui). Religious, mythological, or theological motivations are also possible and common (i.e., Lewis’ The Pilgrim’s Regress). As Friedrich Schlegel says: “Das Höchste kann man eben weil es unaussprechlich ist, nur allegorisch sagen”80. In other words, the deep mystery of the highest truth can only be understood and mediated in an indirect manner81. Concerning the Song, this latter motivation is evident. The love of God for his people cannot be expressed in discursive language, without remaining an abstract idea. Expressed analogically, as the prophets Hosea and Ezekiel do, in the allegory of human love, it is, however, indirectly but powerfully conveyed. 78. Ibid., p. 84. 79. Ibid. 80. F. SCHLEGEL, Ästhetische und politische Schriften, München, Carl Hanser, 2013, p. 323. 81. Thus ORIGEN, On First Principles, p. 561 (Prin IV.3.15): “There are certain things the significance of which cannot be adequately explained at all by any words of human language”. Similarly, CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA, Stromata V, 4,21.4, states: “On peut dire que tous ceux, Barbares et Grecs, qui ont traité de la divinité, ont occulté les principes des choses et ont transmis la vérité par des énigmes et des symboles, par des allégories et des métaphores et autres semblables figures” (SC, 278), Paris, Cerf, 1981.

METAPHOR – ALLEGORY – SYMBOL

131

4. Relevance for the Song Summing up, interpreters of the Song are well advised to pay heed to this broader understanding of allegory, which is found in varying degrees in literature of all times, throughout different genres, and having diverse motivations. To impose a romantic aversion to allegory on an ancient piece of literature is anachronistic. Rather, one should distinguish the vast scale of possible degrees of allegory “so as to correct the perspective both of the Medieval and Renaissance critics who assumed that all major poetry should be treated as far as possible as continuous allegory, and of the modern ones who maintain that poetry is essentially anti-allegorical and paradoxical”82. According to modern literary theory, in an allegory the first-order meaning maintains its proper sense and value along with the allegorical one. The plains sense is not sacrificed to the allegorical one, nor does it merge with the latter or become expendable. The plain meaning is based on a self-contained plot, a narration that can stand on its own. A good allegory does not force its secondary meaning upon the reader. The reader is, rather, invited to follow the traces that lead beyond the literal meaning, but he is not obliged to do so. As modern exegesis has shown, the reading of the Song as a human love song is meaningful, suggestive, and enchanting. This, however, does not preclude an allegorical level to the plain sense. The long history of its interpretation shows that the Song can well be read on more than one level. Modern non-rhetorical definitions of allegory would allow for the Song to be an allegory without the plain sense, that is, all that it expresses about the realities of human erotic desires and love being sacrificed to the allegorical sense, that is, the expression of God’s love for his people. The question remains, nevertheless, whether or not “allegory” is in fact the proper term to describe the polyvalence of the Song’s literal sense. Even if the rhetorical definition of Quintilian is laid aside and a wider definition of allegory is accepted83, in which the primary and the secondary sense both maintain their autonomy, it appears that the concept of allegory does not properly describe what is fundamentally at work in the Song’s polyvalence.

82. FRYE, Anatomy, p. 85. 83. For an extremely elastic definition, see ROSENBERG, King and Kin, the first chapter, “The Question of Biblical Allegory”, 1-46.

132

PART I – CHAPTER 3

An allegory remains essentially an artistic creation of the human mind, based on a pre-established or decodable system of arbitrary correspondences84. In the case of the Song, however, there is an intrinsic relationship between the literal and the figurative meaning, the natural and the divine. While it is true that the Song can be and has been read both as a mere human love song and as an allegory on God’s love for his people, something appears to be lacking. The two levels are not held together. Indeed, contemporary exegetes set them in opposition. What is missing in holding these two levels of meaning is a manner of properly expressing the intrinsic relationship between human and divine love, a relationship that is neither the mere fruit of an arbitrary biblical code (marriage = covenant), nor an abstract idea, nor simply based on the analogous nature of the two loves. What is at work in the Song’s polysemy is of a different, more incarnate nature. The concept of “allegory” itself has contributed to the alienation of the Song’s two levels of meaning, and a more precise language must be found. The polysemy of the Song’s figurative language is better expressed in the term “symbol” as rediscovered in modernity and particularly developed by Mircea Eliade, Paul Ricœur, and Tzvetan Todorov in the field of religious and literary studies. The reason why the Song can speak about both human and divine love at the same time is that human love is in its essence a symbol of divine love. The love depicted in the Song is the strongest biblical symbol for God’s love – not simply by analogy or correspondence of terms, but because human love is by participation “theophanic” – sacramental. It is, as Karl Rahner would call it, a Realsymbol (see III, below)85. III. SYMBOL The Romantics’ disdain for allegory has led to a deepening of the concept of symbol, which previously had not been considered in distinction to allegory. In some traditions allegory and symbol were even synonyms86. 84. Kurz wants to differentiate between ontological and hermeneutical allegories, classifying specially those allegories whose reference text is the Bible as ontological. See KURZ, Metapher, p. 45. The distinction between symbol and allegory, however, is more adequate to capture the ontological rooting of the figurative in the literal. 85. “Das Realsymbol ist der von ihm bezeichneten Wirklichkeit nicht zu trennen und doch von ihr real verschieden. Oder anders ausgedrückt: Die symbolisierte ist so mit der symbolisierenden Wirklichkeit verbunden, daß sie nur in dieser zu ihrer eigenen Vollendung gelangt”. K. RAHNER, Realsymbol, in Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche, VIII, Freiburg i.Br., Herder, 21999, 867-868. 86. GADAMER, Truth and Method, p. 62: “It cannot be forgotten that Winckelmann, whose influence on the aesthetics and philosophy of history of the time was very great,

METAPHOR – ALLEGORY – SYMBOL

133

Both terms are in fact related in their origin, for both designate something “whose meaning does not consist in its external appearance or sound but in a significance that lies beyond it. Common to both is that, in both, one thing stands for another”87. At the same time these two terms originate from two different spheres and function differently. Allegory is originally a rhetorical or hermeneutical figure. It belongs to the sphere of speech, of the logos. “Instead of what is actually meant, something else, more tangible, is said, but in such a way that the former is understood”88. Symbol, on the other hand, “is not limited to the sphere of the logos, for a symbol is not related by its meaning to another meaning, but its own sensory existence has meaning”89. As Avery Dulles defines it, a symbol is a type of sign. It is a word, a gesture, picture, statue, or some other type of reality which can be made present to the senses or the imagination, and which points to a reality behind itself. But this other reality is one which cannot be precisely described or defined; it is not knowable, at least with the same richness and power, except in and through the symbol. The symbol has power to evoke more than it can clearly represent because it addresses itself not simply to the sense and the abstract intelligence, but to the entire human psyche90.

No matter what the context, be it religious or secular, the “meaning of the symbol depends on its physical presence and acquires a representational function only by being shown or spoken”91. In the symbol then, there is a relation of meaning whereby the non-sensory is made apparent to the senses in and through perceivable realities. This is so both in the field of poetry and plastic art, as well as in that of the religious and sacramental92. As the following elaboration will show, symbol is a carrier of a plurality of meanings that all depend on the material sense of the symbol itself. On those grounds it is a concept particularly apt for the language of revelation and in my estimation, the proper concept to describe the polyvalent language of the Song93. used both concepts synonymously; and the same is true of the eighteenth-century aesthetics as a whole”. Gadamer concedes, however, that a more detailed investigation would have to be made “to discover to what extent the classical use of the words ‘symbol’ and ‘allegory’ paved the way for the latter contrast between the two with which we are now familiar”. 87. Ibid., p. 63. 88. For this definition Gadamer takes recourse to Plutarch, de aud. poet. 19e. “ἀλληγορία tritt für das ursprüngliche ὑπόνοια ein”. H.-G. GADAMER, Hermeneutik I: Wahrheit und Methode: Grundzüge einer philosophischen Hermeneutik, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 61990, p. 78. 89. GADAMER, Truth and Method, p. 66. 90. A.R. DULLES, Symbol, Myth, and Biblical Revelation, in TS 27 (1966) 1-26, p. 2. 91. GADAMER, Truth and Method, p. 63. 92. Ibid., p. 62. 93. Gadamer sees the birth of the concept of symbol in the Christian transformation of Neoplatonism. “Pseudo-Dionysus”, thus Gadamer, “defends the need to proceed symbolically

134

PART I – CHAPTER 3

Following the rediscovery of symbol in both German and English Romanticism94, study of the concept was deepened throughout the twentieth century in the fields of linguistic analysis, language philosophy, anthropology, history of religion, and biblical theology95. This has led to basically three different understandings of symbol: (1) Symbol as part of a signsystem in semiotics and linguistics (arbitrary according to Ferdinand de Saussure; conventional according to Charles Sanders Peirce and Roman Jacobson); (2) Symbol as a product of the human psyche (Sigmund Freud, Carl Gustav Jung, Konrad Lorenz); and (3) Symbol as an expression of a more comprehensive ontological reality (Johann Wolfgang Goethe, Mircea Eliade, Romano Guardini, Paul Tillich). The third category has proven helpful for a better understanding of the largely symbolic biblical language where the significance of mythic symbols is much more pertinent than the conceptual categories of philosophical discourse. The studies of Mircea Eliade and Paul Ricœur allow for a deeper understanding of the Bible’s symbolic language. Eliade’s work is helpful because as a historian of religion, he has dedicated his research to understanding how manifestations of the sacred are both perceived and transmitted by symbols. Ricœur’s merit, in contrast, is to have emphasized the particularly semantic character of symbols. This section will entail an exposition on the role of symbolism in the manifestation of the sacred as systematized by Mircea Eliade (III.1), then follows an elaboration of a definition of symbol in contradistinction to other linguistic signs and literary devices (III.2), a discussion of the characteristics of symbolic language (III.3), and its interpretation (III.4).

(symbolizes) by referring to the incommensurability of the supra sensory being of God with our minds, which are accustomed to the world of the senses. The symbol here acquires an anagogic function; it leads to the knowledge of the divine – just as allegorical speech leads to a ‘higher’ meaning”. Ibid., p. 64. 94. J.W. Goethe, F. Schiller, F.W.J. Schelling, A.W. Schlegel, and G.W.F. Hegel are the leading figures among the Germans to have worked on the notion of symbol in particular in distinction to allegory. Most representative for corresponding British movement is S.T. Coleridge. For a deeper study see T. TODOROV, Théorie du symbole, Paris, Seuil, 1977, pp. 235-260, and N. HALMI, The Genealogy of the Romantic Symbol, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2007, pp. 1-26. 95. See, e.g., M. ELIADE, Images and Symbols, New York, Sheed, Andrews and McMeel, 1969; E. CASSIRER, Philosophie der Symbolischen Formen (I-IV), Darmstadt, Primus Verlag, 10 1994; L. JUNG-MERKER (ed.), Symbole der Wandlung: Analyse des Vorspiels zu einer Schizophrenie, Zürich, Rascher, 1973; R. GUARDINI, Religion und Offenbarung, Würzburg, Werkbund-Verlag, 1958; P. TILLICH, Symbol und Wirklichkeit (Kleine VandenhoeckReihe, 151), Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966; DULLES, Symbol, Myth, and Biblical Revelation.

METAPHOR – ALLEGORY – SYMBOL

135

1. Symbol as Manifestation of the Sacred a) Perpetuations of Hierophanies In Eliade’s view, through religious symbols man seeks to extend the experience of a punctual hierophany into a perpetual presence. He uses symbolic objects as a means of sharing in a given hierophany, with “a tendency to identify that hierophany with the universe as a whole”96. A symbol in the realm of the sacred can therefore best be understood as “a prolongation of hierophanies and an autonomous form of revelation”97. The primitive mind had – in a way advantageous beyond our own – the experience of perceiving the hierophany in symbolism. The fact that we have lost this capacity does not mean that the symbolism is no longer valid. “A symbolism does not depend upon being understood; it remains consistent … and preserves its structure even when it has been long forgotten”98. By participating in symbols, man finds a means to become one with “the deeper rhythms of nature”, and he is integrated into the larger unity of society and the universe99. Eliade exemplifies this by the symbol of knots, bonds, or nets often found in mytho-religious language. This symbolism reveals man’s specific entanglement in a crisis situation in need of salvation, which no other hierophany could reveal in the same way. It is through this symbolism that man comes to understand his own situation in the universe and can express himself coherently. In a way, one may say that symbolic language is inevitable in the expression of mytho-religious concepts100. A similar function is assumed by the symbol of the paradisiacal garden in the Bible. It symbolizes at once man’s provenance, his original state of innocence and life in harmony with God, his own fellow beings and nature, and the human desire to return to that condition. For this reason, the Promised Land, the Temple, and the New Jerusalem (cf. 1 Kings 6–8; Ezek 36,35; 47,1-12; Revelation 22) are symbolized by the similar garden imagery as the original Garden of Genesis 2. 96. M. ELIADE, Patterns in Comparative Religion, New York, Sheed & Ward, 1958, p. 448. 97. Ibid. 98. Ibid., p. 450. “It does not matter in the least whether or not the ‘primitives’ of to-day realize that immersion in water is the equivalent both of a Deluge and of the submerging of a continent in the sea, and that both symbolize the disappearance of an ‘outworn form’ in order that a ‘new form’ may appear. Only one thing matters in the history of religion; and that is the fact that the immersion of a man or a continent, together with the cosmic and eschatological meaning of such immersions, are present in myth and ritual; the fact that all these myths and all these rituals fit together, or, in other words, make up a symbolic system which in a sense pre-existed them all”. 99. Ibid., p. 451. 100. Ibid., p. 453.

136

PART I – CHAPTER 3

Furthermore, symbolic language reveals a coherence between the symbols of the sacred and those of the subconscious or psychological sphere. The symbols recurring in both domains are at every level consistent and systematic101. Eliade stresses the point that a great number of symbols that seem to emerge from the subconscious have the characteristics of archetypes, which do not proceed exclusively from the subconscious sphere but correspond in their structure to those of the conscious mind102. There is, for example, a certain structural correspondence between the use of the garden symbol for the sacred space and concurrently for everything that a woman represents psychologically for the fulfillment of a man’s desires. b) Aspects of Depth in Symbolic Revelation According to Eliade, symbols do not simply reflect the reality. Rather, they reveal something more profound and more basic, the different aspects of which he makes out to lie in the following. (i) Symbols reveal a modality of the real or a structure of the world that is not immediately evident to ordinary experience103. Symbolic elements are like keys by which man understands the significance of some of the fundamental experiences of life, such as birth and death, culpability and forgiveness. The living experience that is transmitted by the symbol gives access to an intuition of reality even before this is expressed in reflected manner104. (ii) By pointing to something real, distinct from the concrete object, or to a structure of the world, primitive symbols are always religious symbols, for to the archaic world the “real” is equivalent to the “sacred”. Archaic symbolism has ontological implications105. (iii) Symbols are multivalent, that is, they have the capacity to express a number of meanings at once, and different levels of sense. These various levels of meaning reveal a correspondence on the symbolic order between 101. Ibid., pp. 453-454. 102. Rather than presuming a kind of universal pool or heritage of archetypes common to all humanity, as C.G. Jung does, Eliade therefore proposes that the subconscious might be imitating the forms of the conscious (or transconscious, another proposal he makes) mind in its creation of archetypal symbols. 103. M. ELIADE, Methodological Remarks on the Study of Religious Symbolism, in ID. – J.M. KITAGAWA (eds.), The History of Religions: Essays in Methodology, Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press, 1959, 86-107, p. 98. 104. Ibid.: “It is not a question of reflective knowledge, but of an immediate intuition of a ‘cipher’ of the World. The World ‘speaks’ through the symbol … and this ‘word’ is understood directly”. 105. See ibid., pp. 98-99.

METAPHOR – ALLEGORY – SYMBOL

137

cosmic reality and some modalities of human existence. This correspondence is not immediately accessible to critical reflection. Rather, it is “the result of a certain mode of ‘being present’ in the world”106. (iv) Because of its multivalence, a symbol can furthermore integrate and unite even heterogenous realities into one singular symbolic expression. It can do so because it reveals the full multitude of its possible senses all at once. It tends to unite the opposites107, like the symbol of water that integrates in itself the extreme opposites of life and death, destruction and re-creation, death and re-birth, punishment and purification, etc.108. It thereby has the ability to express paradoxical situations, or structures of ultimate realities that are otherwise inexpressible109. Eliade calls this aspect of symbolic revelation the coincidentia oppositorum, thereby recalling Nicholas of Cusa, who considered this to be the most appropriate definition of the nature of God110. By uniting such opposites as day and night, life and death, wrath and mercy, symbol has the power to abolish our fragmented way of apprehending the world and the cosmos and gives access to “the mystery of the contradictory aspects of reality”, which man could not reach by critical reflection. This capacity of symbol shows also how the ultimate realities cannot be apprehended other than by mystery. (v) Symbols, in contradistinction to concepts, have an existential value, for “a symbol always aims at a reality or a situation in which human existence is engaged”111. Symbols have their roots in the profound sources of life; they express spiritual realities as lived. This is where form and content (i.e., first- and second-order meaning) are so intimately bound in a symbol: “they reveal that the modalities of the spirit are at the same time manifestations of life”, and that consequently life itself is a revelation of the spiritual112. (vi) Symbols have the capacity to open up immediate realities as well as particular situations. Whenever, for example, a concrete tree comes to incarnate the World Tree, one could say that this particular tree opens up 106. See ibid., p. 99. 107. ELIADE, Patterns, p. 455: Symbols “identify, assimilate, and unify diverse levels and realities that are to all appearances incompatible”. 108. “The diptych of light and darkness, for instance, symbolizes at once the day and night of nature, the appearance and disappearance of any sort of form, death and resurrection, the creation and dissolution of the cosmos, the potential and the actual, and so on”. Ibid., p. 450. 109. See ELIADE, Remarks, p. 101. 110. See ELIADE, Patterns, p. 419. 111. ELIADE, Remarks, pp. 102-103 (italics in text). 112. Ibid.: “The religious symbol translates a human situation into cosmological terms and vice versa; … it reveals the continuity between the structures of human existence and cosmic structures”.

138

PART I – CHAPTER 3

or “‘bursts’ under the irruptive force of a more profound reality”. “The symbolism ‘bursts’ the bonds of this particular situation, making it exemplary, that is to say, indefinitely repeatable in many and varied contexts”. The symbol awakens the individual experience to a spiritual awareness, which finally gives access to the universal113. c) “History” and the Expressive Power of Symbol In addition to these aspects of depth in symbolic revelation, Eliade makes two more observations concerning symbols’ relation to history and their expressive power that further advance the understanding of religious symbolism. (i) “History” of Symbol. Some symbols are universal, archetypal, and therefore ahistorical. They are either cosmic in scope and structure or related to the human condition in general (heaven, earth, water, light). Other symbols are historical (i.e., the spade could not be a phallic symbol before the invention of agriculture). The function of neither, however, is changed by the historical condition. That which changes in the course of history is their “weight with freight”. That is, symbols have the capacity to become enriched in history114. An archetypal and universal symbol like the Cosmic Tree became enriched by a historical event, the death of Christ on a cross, the Cross subsequently taking the place of the Cosmic Tree in Christianity. Salvation by the Cross adds a new value to the symbol, “but this new idea extends and perfects the idea of cosmic renovatio symbolized by the World Tree”115. By the same token, symbols are capable of being understood on a more and more “elevated” plane of reference. Thus, the primordial symbolism of darkness expresses not only “cosmological and initiatory concepts”116 but also mystical experiences like the “dark night of the soul” of St. John of the Cross117. (ii) Unlimited Expressive Power of Symbol. The expressive power of symbols is not conditioned by the aptitude of its addressee to decipher them. According to Eliade, “depth psychology has taught us that the symbol delivers its message and fulfills its function even when its meaning escapes awareness”118. Though its meaning may be veiled to its symbolically illiterate receivers, a symbol “carries with it in its structure all the 113. 114. 115. 116. 117. 118.

Ibid., p. 103. Ibid., p. 105. Ibid., p. 106. Eliade gives the example of the cosmic night or the prenatal darkness. Ibid. Ibid., p. 107.

METAPHOR – ALLEGORY – SYMBOL

139

values that have been progressively revealed to man in the course of time”119. From this it follows that if at a certain moment in history a symbol has come to express a transcendent meaning, it can be presumed that this meaning had already been dimly grasped at an earlier stage. Secondly, when deciphering a symbol, it is necessary to take into consideration not only its context, but also all its possible meanings. Since the symbol is capable of carrying within its structure “all the values that have been progressively revealed to man in the course of time”120, it is necessary to take into account its most general meaning, “that is the one meaning which can articulate all the other, particular meanings and which alone permits us to understand how the latter have formed a structure”121. 2. Symbol as a Semantic Phenomenon While Eliade focuses on the phenomenology of religious symbolism as such, Paul Ricœur’s work is helpful in the interpretation of symbol as a linguistic expression. Ricœur’s key insight is that symbols are encountered primarily as linguistic phenomena. It is never the “naked” symbol that is the object of interpretation, but its expression in and through language. That is to say, even when symbols are elements of the universe (like the heavens, water, moon), or things (tree, menhir, etc.), it is only in the universe of discourse that these elements take on a symbolic significance122. Ricœur developed this understanding of symbol on the basis of the interpretation of myth, where he found the key to understanding myth not in allegorical interpretation, but in the examination of its symbolism. Myths (as also dreams and poetic insights) are expressed in symbolic language. It is in and through their spoken expression that myths and dreams become accessible to interpretation. Symbols are thus semantic phenomena that call for interpretation. Ricœur’s focus on symbols as semantic phenomena is particularly pertinent for the interpretation of religious language. “Le symbole donne à penser” (the symbol gives rise to thought) is a famous dictum dear to Ricœur. That is to say, it is not man who generates the sense of a symbol, but the symbol that delivers its own sense to man. For this reason symbols call for interpretation. 119. Ibid. 120. Ibid. 121. Ibid., pp. 106-107. 122. P. RICŒUR, Le Symbole donne à penser, in Esprit 27 (1959) 60-76, p. 64. Even if dreams are nocturnal spectacles, they must be told and communicated by language, and can be interpreted only in the spoken form.

140

PART I – CHAPTER 3

Domains of Symbolic Expression. Ricœur identifies three major fields of symbolic expression: the religio-mythological, the oneiric, and the poetic. In all three the experience of symbols precedes the linguistic expression. The experience, however, is accessible to the interpreter only in and through symbolic speech. Ricœur describes the role of symbols in the respective domains as follows: The Religio-Mythological. In the religio-mythological domain, the hierophany of the numinous is observed in the material symbol, but that which appears finds its expression only through ritual, sacrament, or religious narrative. Related to rites and myths, symbols constitute the so-called sacred language. Adopting an expression coined by Mircea Eliade, Ricœur calls symbol the “verb of hierophanies”123. As Eliade has shown, a natural phenomenon like the sky can be all at once a symbol for God, a symbol of the elevated and immense in general, of power and order, of the clear vision of the sage, of the sovereign, of the unchangeable, etc. “This symbol is properly inexhaustible and ramifies into the three orders of cosmos, ethics and politics”124. Religious symbols have the function of fixing exemplary models of human rites and signifying actions. They are not a posterior allegorization of human action. Quite to the contrary, it is the symbols that institute and render possible the religious actions by sacralizing them125. Symbols truly open and discover a domain of experience126. A symbol, or a symbolic narrative, as it is for example used in myth, universalizes an experience (e.g. that of sin) by representing it in one exemplary man (e.g. Adam, a King, a Titan… ) who designates in enigmatic form the universally concrete of the human experience127. The function of the symbol is, moreover, “to introduce into this experience a tension, an 123. Cf. ibid., p. 62. 124. Ibid. 125. Ibid. He develops this idea on pp. 73-74 with his favorite example, the language of confession. There is no other language than the symbolic to speak about culpability. Even today it is expressed in the very archaic language of staining, of defilement. Evil is perceived as something positive that affects and infects from the outside. This symbolism is absolutely irreducible. A modern man will still speak in the same terms as the prophet Isaiah: “Woe is me! … For I am a man of unclean lips, living among a people of unclean lips” (Isa 6,5, NAB). Even today we speak of “sullying someone’s reputation” or say that someone has “a stainless reputation”. It is noteworthy that all these symbols are not added onto a consciousness of evil, but they are the very original and constituting language of the confession of sins. The person who has done evil will express this experience in the symbolism of being stained, or lost, or a prisoner of his impulses, etc. Here the symbolism is in the truest sense “revealing”. It is the “logos” of a sentiment that without it would remain vague, non-explicit, and non-communicable. One is confronted with an irreplaceable language. 126. Ibid., p. 74. 127. Ibid.

METAPHOR – ALLEGORY – SYMBOL

141

orientation between a beginning and an end, between a fall and a salvation, between an alienation and a rapprochement, a separation and a reconciliation”128. The symbol becomes at the same time a figure for the human experience and of the depth of the human existence. It designates in a way the suture between history and ontology, in mythic language, between fall and creation129. The Oneiric. In the second case identified by Ricœur, the oneiric, man dreams in symbols, but needs to express them in language in order to be able to interpret them. Not every dissimulating object in a dream is a symbol, but only that which belongs to an archetypal heritage of the human subconscious of a culture, or the folklore of the entire human family130. In these archetypal symbols Ricœur detects symbol’s capacity to reintegrate man into the totality of that sacrality that precedes the individual human existence131. The Poetic Imagination. The third field of symbolic expression is the poetic imagination. Here Ricœur observes that the poetic image brings us to the origin of the speaking being. “[L’image] devient un être nouveau de notre langage, elle nous exprime en nous faisant ce qu’elle exprime”132. The image-verb is no longer a vehicle of poetic re-presentation, but that which Ricœur calls a symbol. “Ce qui naît et renaît dans l’image poétique, c’est la même structure symbolique qui habite les rêves les plus prophétiques de notre devenir intime et qui soutient le langage du sacré sous ses formes les plus archaïques et les plus stables”133. a) Symbol as Distinct from Other Signs The term “symbol” is subject to many different and even contradictory definitions. Following Ricœur, I will define and describe what is proper to symbol by distinguishing it from other neighboring structures, as it is by way of dissociation that what is proper to symbol will best emerge. I will first distinguish symbol from other signs, then from logic symbols, from allegory, and finally from metaphor. 128. Ibid. 129. Ibid. 130. Ibid., p. 62. 131. “Dans la thérapeutique jungienne […] le symbole fournisse des thèmes de méditation capables de jalonner et de guider le ‘devenir soi-même’, le Selbstwerden. C’est cette fonction de prospection que je retiens et que je rattache à la fonction cosmothéologique des symboles selon Eliade, par laquelle aussi l’homme était réintégré à la totalité du sacré antérieur”. Ibid., pp. 62-63. 132. Ibid., p. 63. 133. Ibid.

142

PART I – CHAPTER 3

Symbols are signs. But to say that a symbol is a sign remains too general. Every sign points beyond itself, but not every sign is a symbol. A symbol must be distinguished from the natural sign, the symptom and the signal. A natural sign is a visible reality that indicates another, not yet visible, reality. The relationship between the sign and the signified is in this case entirely causally determined134. A rapidly clouding sky, for example, is a natural sign that indicates an oncoming storm (cf. Luke 12,5455). In this case the clouds are not a symbol, because natural signs are not used by anyone with the intention of communicating. Natural signs work by causal efficacy alone135. Similarly a symptom is a visible sign of an invisible reality, the connection being causally and not intentionally determined. Thus, a fever, for example, indicates an inflammation of the body; the thermometer indicates a certain temperature. Yet another case is the conventional sign, or signal. A red traffic light is a signal that indicates “stop”, not a symbol for an abstract concept. “The signal calls for observance, the symptom for recognition and the sign wants to be understood”136. All of these are indicative but not symbolic, though they may also serve as symbols. Thunder is a natural sign indicating the probability of rain; it is similarly a signal which indicates that one should seek shelter. It may, however, also be used as a symbol. Thus, in the Bible (as in many ancient cultures), for example, thunder is considered as an element in theophanies; it is a symbol for God’s super-human majesty and presence (e.g. Exod 19,16)137, for God’s voice (e.g. Psalm 29; John 12,29), his anger or rage (Job 20,25). In contradistinction to a natural sign, a signal, or a symptom, a symbol is “that which means or stands for something more than itself, which invites consideration rather than overt action, and which characteristically (although not perhaps universally) involves an intention to communicate”138. A symbol necessitates an act of interpretation, not just understanding, on behalf of the addressee. Symbols are furthermore characterized and distinguished from other signs through a double intention of signification. As any sign, a symbol points to something else. This “something else”, however, has itself a plain and a symbolic meaning. It has the double structure of being first a word, 134. W. STÄHLIN, Symbolon: Vom gleichnishaften Denken, Stuttgart, Evangelisches Verlagswerk, 1958, p. 321. 135. P. WHEELWRIGHT, The Burning Fountain, Bloomington, IN, Indiana University Press, 1959, p. 20. 136. STÄHLIN, Symbolon, p. 322. 137. R. RIVA, Simbolo, in P. ROSSANO – G. RAVASI – A. GIRLANDA (eds.), Nuovo Dizionario di Teologia Biblica, Cinisello Balsamo, Paoline, 1991, 1472-1490, p. 1483. 138. WHEELWRIGHT, Fountain, p. 24.

METAPHOR – ALLEGORY – SYMBOL

143

functioning as a sign that designates a verbal symbol, and secondly a verbal symbol that points to a plurality of symbolic significations. Signs also have a duality in meaning, but of a different kind. A sign is a vehicle of signification that may be understood without a process of interpretation. A sign is understood, not interpreted. Further, with signs the tension of duality that lies between the sign and the signified lies on one and the same level. The duality in symbolism is of a higher degree. “In a symbol the duality is added to and superimposed upon the duality of sensory sign and signification as a relation of meaning to meaning; it presupposes signs that already have a primary, literal, manifest meaning”139. The duality thus lies not between the signifier and the signified (in the language of F. de Saussure), but between the plain meaning of the signified (e.g. a garden as a planted plot of land) and the various symbolic meanings that are signified (e.g. paradise, Promised Land, Temple, woman, love, fertility, etc.). Hence the duality lies not between sign and signified, but between the meaning of the signified and the meaning of that which it symbolized140. Ricœur takes the classic example of a stain as symbol for religious impurity. It has a plain meaning, i.e. that the person has dirtied himself. But secondly, through the physical dirt, that is, the stain, a situation of the person in the sacred is envisioned. That situation, indicated through the plain meaning of the symbolic sign of a stain, is precisely the fact of being impure. Le sens littéral et manifeste vise donc au delà de lui-même quelque chose qui est comme une tache. Ainsi, à l’opposé des signes techniques parfaitement transparents qui ne disent que ce qu’ils veulent dire en posant le signifié, les signes symboliques sont opaques, parce que le sens premier, littéral, patent, vise lui-même analogiquement un sens second qui n’est pas donné autrement qu’en lui141.

This twofold expression of a symbol, the plain meaning coupled with the symbolic meaning, is what Ricœur calls the “double intentionality”. The relationship between the first- and second-order meaning, however, cannot be rationalized. “C’est en vivant dans le sens premier que je suis entraîné par lui au delà de lui-même – le sens symbolique est constitué dans et par le sens littéral, lequel opère l’analogie en donnant l’analogue”142. 139. P. RICŒUR, Freud and Philosophy: An Essay on Interpretation, New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, 1970, pp. 12-13 (emphasis mine). 140. “C’est dans l’intentionalité seconde du signifié que réside la correspondance analogique qui n’est donc pas entre mot signifiant et chose signifiée mais entre sens premier et sens second”. RICŒUR, Symbole, p. 65. 141. Ibid., p. 64. 142. Ibid., p. 65.

144

PART I – CHAPTER 3

In this way, “the symbolic meaning is constituted in and through the literal meaning which achieves the analogy by giving the analogue”143. Because of this double intentionality that is inherent to symbols, Ricœur pleads that one restrict “the notion of symbol to double- or multiplemeaning expressions whose semantic texture is correlative to the work of interpretation that explicates their second or multiple meanings”144. A symbol, contrary to other signs, does not immediately deliver its symbolic meaning; it calls for an interpretation, a hermeneutical process – in other words: an exegesis. b) Symbol as Distinct from “Logic Symbol” The term “symbol” is employed in the field of semiotics and logic with a meaning that is diametrically opposed to the use of the term here intended. According to the terminology of Charles Sanders Peirce, the relationship between the sign and the signified rests on the mere convention of a language or cultural community, independent of an inherent meaning attributable to a symbol. The significance is thus arbitrary, but understandable in the community of recipients familiar with the convention145. Based on clear conventions, logic or mathematical symbols are unambiguous signs. For the logician it is important that a symbol have only one exact, uncompromisable meaning or identity of reference. The letter π has a very specific, but arbitrary, connotation in mathematical language. It could conventionally be replaced by any other sign, without at all changing the significance146. Understood as a conventional, arbitrary, univocal sign, symbol has no direct bearing upon poetry, religion, love, and the like, 143. RICŒUR, Freud, p. 17: “There is no doubt that the analogy constituting the meaning and force of many symbols is in no way reducible to a type of argument such as reasoning by analogy, in the strict sense of reasoning by proportionality: A is to B as C is to D. The analogy that may exist between the second meaning and the first meaning is not a relation I can place before me and inspect from the outside. It is not an argument; far from lending itself to formalization, it is a relation adhering to its terms. I am carried by the first meaning, directed by it, toward the second meaning; the symbolic meaning is constituted in and through the literal meaning which achieves the analogy by giving the analogue. In contrast to a likeness that we could look at from the outside, a symbol is the very movement of the primary meaning intentionally assimilating us to the symbolized, without our being able to intellectually dominate the likeness”. 144. Ibid., p. 13. 145. ZIMMERMANN, Geschlechtermetaphorik, p. 47. 146. “The technical symbolism of mathematical logic […] is an instrument of unsurpassed precision within its field of relevance”. WHEELWRIGHT, Fountain, p. 25. For fields like mathematics and logic, such a constrained understanding of the term “symbol” is indispensable.

METAPHOR – ALLEGORY – SYMBOL

145

and as such it stands in diametrical opposition to what symbols are to the sacred, the oneiric, and the poetic. Contrary to this scientific (Anglo-American) linguistic definition of symbol as a conventional sign, Ricœur rightly argues for the necessity of preserving a word which designates that “group of signs whose intentional texture calls for a reading of another meaning in the first, literal, and immediate meaning”147. Particularly in the field of exegesis, the term “symbol” should be restricted to those “expressions that share the peculiarity of designating an indirect meaning in and through a direct meaning and thus call for something like a deciphering, i.e., an interpretation in the precise sense of the word. To mean something other than what is said – this is the symbolic function”148. In symbolic language the meaning is “bound” to the content. It is not bound in a formal way, as in symbolic logic, but by the analogical bondage that links the symbolic meaning to the plain meaning, and by the impossibility to attain the symbolic meaning other than through that analogical operation. Symbolic language is essentially bound, “bound to its content, and through its primary content, bound to its secondary content”149. A symbol, far from being rooted in an arbitrary convention, is a sign that is, so to speak, transparent to its second-order meaning, which can therefore even take on a transcendent character150. A concrete example from the Song illustrates this notion of symbol. The term “garden” is employed at several stages (Song 4,12–5,1; 6,2.11; 8,13). It can be used in its plain meaning of garden as a place (6,2), or else as a metaphor for the body of the Beloved. However, the signified, the garden, points also to a number of other symbolic senses: paradise (as in Genesis 2), the Promised Land (Gen 13,10; Jer 2,7; 4,26; Ezek 20,6; Joel 2,3), the Temple (1 Kgs 6,1-8; Ezek 47,1-12), the city of Jerusalem (Ps 46,5; Joel 4,18; Zech 14,8), and the Torah (Sirach 24)151. It is in and through the material sense of the plain meaning “garden” that the symbolic sense is indicated. The latter is not an arbitrary additional or superposed sense to the plain sense, but inherent to it. c) Symbol as Distinct from Allegory The essence of what a symbol is appears nowhere as clearly as in its distinction from allegory. In addition to the aesthetic difference seen 147. 148. 149. 150. 151.

RICŒUR, Freud, pp. 11-12. Ibid., p. 12 (emphasis mine). RICŒUR, Symbole, p. 66 (my translation). ZIMMERMANN, Geschlechtermetaphorik, p. 47. See Chapter 11.

146

PART I – CHAPTER 3

above (II, p. 123), it is helpful to summarize how they differ in their function as literary devices. The distinction is essential to the Song’s inherent multivalence. (i) Symbolic Meaning Is Inherent to Its Form. Both symbol and allegory are media of representation or designation. In allegory, however, the relationship between the form (plain meaning) and the content (allegorical meaning) rests on a rational convention152, while the meaning of a symbol is inherent to its outer form153. An allegory in this sense is rhetorical; it is conventual and possibly even arbitrary; it is not motivated by itself; its meaning is, rather, achieved by a pre-established code. It is understandable only for the initiate. An allegory needs to be learned before it can be understood154. The symbol, on the other hand, is a Sinnbild, a signifying image, which originates in the natural. The meaning of a symbol is immediate; it is comprehensible for all, and appeals first to the intuitive, not to the reason155. (ii) Symbol Is Multidimensional. The key difference between the symbol and allegory is that the symbol is itself the carrier of the transcending meaning to which it points. In contrast to allegory that is rationally resolvable and one-dimensional, a symbol has a holistic, multidimensional, and ambiguous meaning. (iii) A Symbol Performs the Representation. Behind this difference lies a distinction between mere linguistic reference on the one side and material representation on the other. An allegory is defined as a linguistic sign for something else (either conventional or arbitrary). It is not itself part of that to which it refers156. A symbol, on the other hand, performs the 152. “L’allegoria è ‘enunciazione di altro’ da quello per cui si usano le espressioni secondo la codificazione lessicale. Nella metafora e nella metonimia vi è traslazione semantica, nella allegoria pura i vocaboli conservano i significati codificati dal lessico, ma ora sono unità di un altro codice. Poiché i vocaboli conservano il loro significato, l’enunciato da essi costituito si riferisce alla realtà per la quale essi sono usati secondo il lessico della lingua, ma in verità, a motivo della sovrapposizione dell’altro codice, non vi è più riferimento alla prima realtà e l’enunciato risulta essere ‘altro’”. RIVA, Simbolo, p. 1475. 153. For Tsvetan Todorov, the difference lies in the fact that in allegory the face of the signifier is instantly traversed in view of the recognition of the signified; whereas in the symbol the signifier retains its own proper value, its obscurity. “Allegory is transitive, symbol is intransitive”. TODOROV, Symbole, p. 237 (translation mine). 154. Ibid., p. 239. 155. Ibid., p. 240. 156. “Nell’allegoria pura la realtà di riferimento delle espressioni secondo il loro significato codificato non ha più la sua consistenza reale, perché proprio l’apparenza di realtà nel riferimento senza traslazioni di significato è per dare la concretezza del reale all’altro dell’enunciato. E l’altro dell’allegoria, situato su un piano diverso da quello del riferimento al reale, è analizzabile in concetti, mediante l’analogia, come ogni astrazione, nonostante l’apparenza del reale concreto”. RIVA, Simbolo, p. 1475.

METAPHOR – ALLEGORY – SYMBOL

147

representation materially, wherefore it is more than just a sign157. While both point to something other than themselves, the difference lies in the relation that exists between the sign and the signified. In the case of an allegory, the relation is arbitrary. In the case of a symbol, the relation depends upon immediate sensation of the object158. It leads us beyond itself without itself retreating from sight. The symbol does not sacrifice its material nature, because only in this is the transcendent element manifest159. Or, in the words of Goethe: the symbol re-presents and thereby designates; allegory designates but does not represent160. Allegory, in contradistinction to the symbol’s capacity of representation, has a certain Uneigentlichkeit to itself161. One thing is said, shown, or represented, but something else is meant. That which is immediately visible is in reality not to be regarded, but something else is to be understood instead. The communication has “worked” all the better the less the visible appearance is taken into consideration, since that is to be understood “only allegorically”. A good allegory is thus supposed to be as transparent as a window, which is ideally so transparent that one does not even notice the presence of the window162. In the process of interpretation, the account is stripped or unclothed of its factuality in order to lay bare the spiritual concept that the allegorical speech had enveloped163. (iv) Different Proportions of Signifying. The plurality in meaning rests on different proportions. An allegory signifies directly, that is, its sensible part has no other raison d’être than to transmit the intended sense164. The symbol, on the other hand, signifies indirectly, in a secondary manner. What the symbol signifies has its own proper value, but only at a second stage of interpretation does one discover that the signified itself signifies, it points beyond itself. In allegory the designation is primary; in 157. STORDALEN, Eden, p. 49: “An item making a reference is called a sign, and one performing representation is called a symbol”. 158. Ibid.: “Symbolic objects have a certain iconicity which may become part of the semantic value of the lexeme. Of course, such symbolism is also to a certain extent conventional. One and the same symbol may acquire distinct significance in different cultural and linguistic systems. Still symbols seem in part to depend upon a non- or pre-linguistically conceived significance”. 159. ALONSO SCHÖKEL, Poetics, p. 110. 160. TODOROV, Symbole, p. 238. 161. KURZ, Metapher, pp. 5, 32. 162. STÄHLIN, Symbolon, p. 323 163. Ibid., p. 324. 164. “Dans l’allégorie, le signifié primaire – c’est- à-dire le sens littéral – est contingent et le signifié second, le sens symbolique lui-même, est suffisamment extérieur pour être directement accessible. Il y a alors entre les deux sens un rapport de traduction; une fois la traduction faite, on peut laisser tomber l’allégorie désormais inutile”. RICŒUR, Symbole, p. 65.

148

PART I – CHAPTER 3

symbol it is secondary165. In allegory the signification is obligatory and the elements of the text are transitive to their (allegorical) meaning. In a symbolic text, the symbol does not indicate by itself that it has another meaning; it is by taking a further step that the reader is led to a process of re-interpretation. The symbol gives by enigma, not by translation166. (v) Different Signifying Relations. In the case of symbol, one passes from the particular (the object) to the general (the ideal); in other words, the symbol is a particular case through which (and never in the place of which) one somehow transparently sees the general or universal. “The symbolic is the exemplary, the type, which may be considered as the manifestation of a general law”167. The emphasis is on participation rather than resemblance. In allegory the exact opposite is the case: the general idea precedes the particular representation. (vi) Symbol Is Dense, Allegory Expansive. In contrast to the expansion of discursive language, symbolic communication is dense. Only one symbol (i.e., a fire) is represented but manifold meanings are communicated. An allegory compels interpretation and is thereby nearly as expansive as expressive discourse168. d) Symbol as Distinct from Metaphor Most scholars who argue for reading the Song on multiple levels do so by invoking its metaphoric language. However, even when adopting non-rhetorical metaphor theories, this is not an adequate description of the multilayered language at work in the Song. Just like allegory, metaphor has a particular Uneigentlichkeit of its own, a lack of rooting in the creational (ontological) reality. As Paul Tillich says, “a symbol participates in the reality of that to which it points”, whereas a metaphor, by definition, is not the thing it stands for, but is merely like it169. Both metaphor and symbol are linguistic signifiers that point to another referent, which is generally oriented towards an immaterial, moral, or transcendent nature. But while a metaphor is a linguistic sign, a figure of speech, a symbol is a Sinnbild, a sensible sign (or signifying image)170. 165. According to Tsvetan TODOROV this difference resides in the mode of perception. “In the case of symbol, there is something like a surprise due to an illusion: one thought that the thing was there, just for the sake of itself; then one discovers that it also has a (secondary) sense”. Symbole, p. 238 (translation mine). 166. “J’opposerai si vous voulez la donation en transparence du symbole à la donation en traduction de l’allégorie”. RICŒUR, Symbole, p. 66. 167. TODOROV, Symbole, p. 238. 168. Ibid., p. 240. 169. See TILLICH, Symbol, p. 4. 170. See REISER, Bibelkritik, p. 89.

METAPHOR – ALLEGORY – SYMBOL

149

A living metaphor is an instantaneous linguistic creation or semantic innovation that exists only in the moment of its invention and functions by way of the perturbation of the semantic coherence. It is a phenomenon of linguistic discourse. The symbol, on the other hand, is of a stability which surpasses time and often even cultures. It operates on the pragmatic level of the text and can therefore even be ignored without the coherence of the text being disturbed; it has its roots in universal significations; it is more than a linguistic creation. “La métaphore se tient dans l’univers déjà purifié du logos. Le symbol hésite sur la ligne de partage entre bios et logos”171. Metaphoric speech refers to a referent different from the objects announced. Symbolic speech uses eidetic (descriptive) objects to which one attributes a sign character. In a text, it is therefore the referent that may have or take on a symbolic character, not the expression itself; the thing which is signified, not the words172. The symbol testifies to the primary rooting of the symbolic discourse in life. This is particularly evident in sacred symbolism. Here it becomes evident that mythology cannot be reduced to linguistics. That which myth expresses as a numinous experience is not just a linguistic creation. Rather, it expresses that a pre-verbal experience of something transcendent in the powers of nature – across the boundaries of cultures – has been interpreted as a manifestation of the divine173. Precisely in this characteristic of the symbol as being “bound” lies the main difference between symbol and metaphor. “The latter is a free invention of the discourse, the former is bound by the configuration of the cosmos”174, and is therefore the appropriate language (image-verb) for the expression of mytho-religious experiences. Especially in poetry there is a certain overlap between metaphor and symbol. On the level of the poetic analysis of the Song a great number of metaphors will be encountered. Yet some of these metaphors are likewise symbols175. “A closed garden my sister bride” (4,12), for example, is in 171. RICŒUR, Parole, p. 153 (my translation). 172. See REISER, Bibelkritik, p. 89. 173. “… dans l’univers sacré, le symbolisme est lié: les symboles ne venant au langage que dans la mesure où les éléments du monde deviennent eux-mêmes transparents”. RICŒUR, Parole, p. 155. 174. “Celle-ci est une libre invention du discours, celui-là est lié aux configurations du cosmos”. Ibid. 175. “La frontière entre sens figuré et symbolique n’est pas toujours au couteau”. GIRARD, Les symboles dans la Bible, p. 84. “In many cases it is difficult to decide whether an image is working as a symbol or as a simple comparison. Furthermore, by repetition and frequent use a metaphor or an image may be transformed into a symbol. The context in which it is found is usually of decisive importance”. ALONSO SCHÖKEL, Poetics, p. 111.

150

PART I – CHAPTER 3

fact a metaphor, a linguistic creation. Simultaneously, however, the object employed to create the metaphor, the garden, is a major biblical symbol. Symbols have a history, and therefore it may also be the case that an image that is first used as a metaphor has evolved into a symbol over time and repeated use (i.e., the lily or the dove as symbols for Israel). e) Characteristics of Symbols So far the focus has been on distinguishing symbol from other semantic signs. In the following a positive analysis of the particular characteristics of symbolic language will be sketched, some of which are expressed as principles by which they signify176. (i) Principle of Iconic Signification. Symbols express their meaning by resembling177. Yet the referent may be something totally different. A phenomenon in nature that stirs up something deep in man, like a sunset, the blossoming of a flower, the mating-dance of the turtledove, seems at once valuable in itself and a kind of window or threshold to an unexplorable “something more”178. A symbol is charged with otherness, “a potentiality of otherness that indefinitely exceeds the mind’s objective grasp, and suggests infinite unnamed possibilities”179. A symbol thereby brings its referent(s) into Erscheinung; that is, the symbol is perceived as the object itself “plus something else” that it refers to by virtue of its own material visibility. Thus, in the ancient world, the vision of a shepherd guarding his flock became a symbol for the king’s duty of protection and governance over his people and, by analogy, for God’s protective care for Israel (Psalms 23; 80). (ii) Principle of Multivalence (or “plurisignation”). “An expressive symbol tends, on any given occasion of its realization, to carry more than one legitimate reference, in such a way that its proper meaning is a tension between two or more directions of semantic stress”180. In poetic symbolism this polyvalence is particularly evident. Its intended meanings are always likely to be multiple and yet so fused as to defy any attempt at analyzing them into more or less monovalent components. The multiplicity of its meanings is, in fact, intended to produce an integral meaning “that radically transcends the sum of the ingredient meanings”181. 176. This summary is based on the analysis of WHEELWRIGHT, Fountain, pp. 60-75. The numerical order does not correspond. 177. See ibid., p. 60. 178. Ibid. 179. Ibid. 180. Ibid., p. 61. 181. Ibid.

METAPHOR – ALLEGORY – SYMBOL

151

(iii) Principle of Soft Focus. From the principle of multivalence it follows that symbols have meanings “which do not have definite outlines and cannot be adequately represented by terms that are strictly defined”182. “Over and above its denotation every symbol bears a connotative fringe which is not likely to be altogether the same for everybody”183. According to the context the connotative surplus may be irrelevant or unimportant. The indefinite outlines of symbols allow a poet to “produce his effect more fully by producing an ambivalent impression upon the reader’s mind”184. Often this ambivalence is justified “because it corresponds to a real ambivalence in the nature of things”185. Because the symbol is not restricted in meaning to a rigid definition, it appeals to the freedom of its interpreter to discover a surplus meaning, which does not impose itself forcefully. (vi) Principle of Paradox. A symbol is a controlled semantic variable, “the full meaning of which, although identical throughout all instances on some level of analysis, tends to shift about within moderate limits”186. Thus, in poetry the concrete meaning of a particular symbol is determined by its literal and cultural context. For someone unfamiliar with biblical literature, the name Solomon might perhaps stand for any random man of ancient Israel, who by means of travesty celebrates his love for a girl called Shulammite. Within the Bible, however, and within the literary community of Second Temple ancient Israel, the name Solomon had clear connotations, both negative and positive. According to the time and context they would have differed (see Chapter 9). Symbols, furthermore, maintain a certain openness towards an increase of meaning. Thus, while in the Old Testament the connotation of the promised son of David is already present, the new contextualization of the Song in the Christian era, notably through the New Testament, effects an additional connotation to the son of David, who is Jesus. (v) Principle of Paradox. The principle of paradox states “that two statements which by the canons of strict logic are mutually contradictory, may sometimes be jointly acceptable”187. A paradox of the ordinary sort can be clarified by an explanatory sentence. A symbolic paradox, on the other hand, “aims more directly at some transcendent truth, which is so mysterious and so multi-sided in its suggestions of meaningful 182. 183. 184. 185. 186. 187.

Ibid., p. 62. Ibid. (italics in text). Ibid., p. 63. Ibid. Ibid., p. 64. Ibid., p. 70.

152

PART I – CHAPTER 3

possibilities, that taking either half of the paradox alone would be grossly inadequate and partisan”188. An eminent biblical example is that of the messianic wedding in which one bridegroom takes a multitude of “brides”, or rather, the community as a bride (Revelation 22). (vi) Principle of Significant Mystery. The truth or falsity of a symbolic statement “transcends to some degree the evidence of any possible set of propositions”189. In fact, “truth is more than a function of logically articulable evidence”190. In this characteristic the intuitive aspect of symbolic understanding comes into play. Intuition is always an aspect of apprehending transcendent truths, or else, “any integral truth – as opposed to either conventional or technical truths – involves irreducible semantic and logical surds”191. (vii) Symbolic Language Has Its Own Precision. It would be false to suggest that on the basis of its paradoxical and mysterious character, symbolic language lacks precision. Language should ideally have two aims: to be as precise and clear as possible and to express itself with maximum fullness192. One employs either mathematical language, where symbols are mere univocal signs, or “depth language”, which is speaking in maximum fullness, broadly speaking in the language of poetry and religion193. Yet one must beware of introducing a false dichotomy of precision into this differentiation. The symbolic language of logic has its own obvious precision in its unambiguity. However, the symbolic language “strives toward its own kind of precision, but never at the cost of expressive fulness”194. The precision of metaphoric and symbolic language is evident in the fact that any attempt to translate its meaning into other words “is bound to be crudely inaccurate”195. Symbolic language cannot be translated into abstract concepts without losing its expressive power and communicative force. 188. Ibid., p. 71. 189. Ibid., p. 73. 190. Ibid. 191. Ibid. 192. Ricœur speaks of fullness of language (plein du langage). See RICŒUR, Symbole, p. 66. 193. WHEELWRIGHT, Fountain, p. 26. See also Ricœur: “C’est à l’époque même où notre langage se fait plus précis, plus univoque, plus technique en un mot, plus apte à ces formalisations intégrales qui s’appellent précisément logique symbolique […], c’est à cette même époque du discours que nous voulons recharger notre langage, que nous voulons repartir du plein du langage. Or cela aussi est un cadeau de la ‘modernité’; car nous sommes, nous modernes, les hommes de la philologie, de l’exégèse, de la phénoménologie de la religion, de la psychanalyse du langage. Ainsi c’est la même époque qui développe la possibilité de vider le langage et celle de le remplir à nouveau”. RICŒUR, Symbole, p. 61. 194. WHEELWRIGHT, Fountain, p. 27. 195. Ibid.

METAPHOR – ALLEGORY – SYMBOL

153

(viii) Symbols Are “Regressive-Progressive”. Ricœur adds another very important point to the above numbered principles. According to him symbols have both an “archeological” and a “teleological” aspect196. As he explains, “the images of the beginning receive their true meaning from the images of the end”197. Symbols thus reveal the end as the fulfillment of the beginning. On the one hand, there is a regressive (“archeological”) dimension to symbol. A beautiful garden evokes the nostalgia of paradise. At the same time, however, it is prophetic of the future. This is the “teleological” aspect of symbol. It bears within itself the promise of an eschatological fulfillment, inasmuch as paradise will one day be restored. This helps explain, for example, why the Bible’s eschatological images so often appear in garden imagery. Whether the Promised Land, Mount Zion, or the New Jerusalem, these realities are consistently depicted as large paradisiacal gardens (Ezek 36,35; Joel 2,3; Isa 35,1-10; Psalm 48; Ezek 47,1-12; Isaiah 40–66). These two dimensions (archeological and teleological) assure a continuity in the different symbolic meanings and link the beginning (arche) to the end (telos). Every symbol is pregnant with its origin (its archaic meaning) and yet tends towards its future fulfillment. 3. Relevance for the Song The Song of Songs belongs at once to the religio-mythical, the oneiric, and the poetic domain of symbolic expression. Whatever the poet experienced preceded his expression, but is accessible to the interpreter only through his written expression in symbolic speech. The symbols of the Song thus call for interpretation. The love relationship described in the Song’s symbolic language has since antiquity given rise to a religious interpretation; not as an extrinsic imposition alienating the poetry from its “original” meaning, but as a meaning that arises directly from its key symbol, the symbol of nuptial love. Being part of the fundamental structure of the world, nuptial love is a “primitive symbol”. As such it was a religious symbol in the ancient cultures (as the cultural rites attest that have until recently universally accompanied the first official sexual encounter between a young woman and a man). In fact, the living experience of nuptial love has in many times and places given rise to the idea that the “world of the gods” must 196. “Authentic symbols are truly regressive-progressive; remembrance gives rise to anticipation; archaism gives rise to prophecy”. RICŒUR, Freud, p. 497. 197. Ibid., p. 39.

154

PART I – CHAPTER 3

somehow be structured similarly. The different, particularly ANE, mythologies concerning sacred marriages between the gods, gods and men, or heaven and earth are expressions of this fact. Based on this living experience of the loving attraction between the sexes, Israel is, however, unique in having conceived of its own covenant relationship with God under the symbol of a wedding (e.g., Hosea 2–3)198. In contradistinction to allegory, it is not the abstract idea, i.e., the covenant with God that came first, but the lived reality of nuptial love, which over time gave access to the perception and expression of God’s love under the symbol of spousal love. Having its roots in the profound sources of life, the nuptial symbol can thus express the spiritual reality of the divine-human love relationship as lived. Life itself is a revelation of the spiritual, not the other way around. Perceiving God’s love in the material of human love, far from degrading the human reality, ennobles the love between the sexes and gives a meaning to human life and its gendered existence. The symbol’s multivalence, that is, its capacity to express at once a number of meanings, explains why one can legitimately interpret the Song as a human love song and at the same time, without doing violence to the “literal sense” (to which the symbols belong), as a song between God and Israel or Jerusalem, the King and the People, or the sage and Wisdom, etc. The various levels of meaning reveal that there is a correspondence of symbolic order between the modalities of human existence and the cosmic or religious reality. By its capacity to integrate and unite even heterogeneous realities into one singular symbolic expression, the symbolism of the Song furthermore makes it possible to move from the human level to the divine, without needing to sacrifice either one for the other, and without merging them unduly. Symbol’s ability to express structures of ultimate realities that are otherwise inexpressible (i.e., the principle of paradox), is well exemplified in Song 5,1 where the friends of the bridegroom are paradoxically invited to share in the couple’s enjoyment of love. Taken literally this would result in an orgy of love on the day of Solomon’s wedding, as some have indeed ventured to propose. On the symbolic level, however, the paradox of the people of God’s (eschatological) wedding with one single Bridegroom, that is God or the Messiah (cf. Matthew 25; Revelation 22), can be expressed. Symbol’s capacity to grow with “freight” in the course of history, that is, to be enriched with symbolic meanings, shows how by virtue of its 198. See COHEN, Song, p. 6.

METAPHOR – ALLEGORY – SYMBOL

155

symbols the Song is at once rooted in the “Beginning” and teleologically projected towards its future consummation in the “Eschaton”. This symbolic continuity and tension towards future fulfillment is particularly relevant to Song exegesis. As Ricœur exemplifies, “to the figure of the first Adam correspond the successive figures of the King, the Messiah, the Just One who suffers, the Son of Man, the Lord, the Logos”199. The Lover of the Song, as many exegetes have observed, is an Adamic figure200. The Song, however, does not just project a return to paradise by way of a romantic love relationship201. The Adamic symbol is rather assumed by the person of the king. Yet Solomon is not just any king, but the one who is himself symbolic of Israel’s messianic expectations. The Adamic symbolism has thus been enriched by the shepherd-king symbolism and its symbolic connotations accordingly expanded. The symbolism employed by the Song thereby, on the one hand, is rooted in the archaic mythic origin of the royal ideology, and at the same time points towards a future fulfillment. The symbolic structure calls for and tends towards the appearance of a new royal Adam, whose arrival is announced under the symbol of a messianic wedding for Israel. 4. Interpreting Symbols The immediacy of ancient sacred symbols has been irretrievably lost for modern readers. One cannot possibly retrieve that premier naïveté of the ancient people. Instead, one has to regain a sort of second naïveté by way of a critical hermeneutic. This critique has to be re-constructive and not deconstructive. The “second naïveté wants to be the post-critical equivalent to the pre-critical hierophany”202; it seeks to regain that same ability to see the Erscheinung of the sacred in the material symbol. Our modern critique has freed religious symbols from the pantheistic temptation of turning them into fetishes. But at the same time this “demythologization” of the symbol allows us once again to recognize it as the original sign of the sacred, and to reflect starting from the symbol. 199. RICŒUR, Freud, pp. 39-40. 200. This dimension is even underscored by an allusion to Gen 3,16 in Song 7,11, according to which the original curse (“your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you”, Gen 3,16) is abolished (“I am my beloved’s, and his desire is for me”, Song 7,11). 201. See, P. TRIBLE, Love’s Lyrics Redeemed, in A. BRENNER (ed.), The Song of Songs (A Feminist Companion to the Bible, 1), New York, Sheffield Academic Press, 2001, 100-120. F. LANDY, The Song of Songs and the Garden of Eden, in JBL 98 (1979) 513528. 202. RICŒUR, Symbole, p. 72 (all translations are mine).

156

PART I – CHAPTER 3

“Symbols give rise to thought”: so goes Ricœur’s famous dictum. Yet how do symbols give rise to thought and how can one begin thinking from symbols without falling back into the old trap of allegorizing? In other words, how is it possible “to release an otherness from a symbol without this otherness being hidden, dissimulated, veiled, and rediscovered”203? Ricœur explains: Je voudrais essayer une autre voie qui serait celle d’une interprétation créatrice, d’une interprétation qui respecte l’énigme originelle des symboles, qui se laisse enseigner par elle, mais qui, à partir de là, promeuve le sens, forme le sens, dans la pleine responsabilité d’une pensée autonome204.

Thus, the question centers on how reasoning can be both bound and free, “how the immediacy of the symbol and the mediation of reasoning can be held together”205. A symbol cannot be understood other than by interpretation, but how can the comprehension be at once in and beyond the symbol206? Ricœur lays out three steps in the process of comprehension that come forth from the symbol towards a reasoning whose starting point is that very symbol. The first step is phenomenological. Ricœur calls it “understanding the symbol by the symbol; by the totality of symbols”207. It is necessary “to replace a symbol into that totality which is homogenous to the symbol but which is bigger than it, and which on the level of the symbol, forms a system”208. Four ways of comprehension are recommended at this stage. a. A first way consists in unfolding the different values of a particular symbol. The sky, for example, stands for the transcendence of the immense, an indication of order, which is at once cosmological, ethical, and political209. b. A second way is to understand a symbol by other related, or satellite, symbols. Related to the celestial symbol are mountains, towers, high places, etc. From there the step is not far from the symbols of ascent, climbing, voyage, raptures, ecstasy, to spiritual realities like the ascent of Mount Carmel (in the Carmelite tradition)210. c. A third way of comprehension is that within the context of rituals or myths. The symbolism of water will be better understood by observing 203. 204. 205. 206. 207. 208. 209. 210.

Ibid., p. 68. Ibid. Ibid. See ibid. Ibid. In this respect he follows Eliade. Ibid., p. 69. Ibid. See ibid.

METAPHOR – ALLEGORY – SYMBOL

157

the symbolic rite of immersion, where the threatening character of water becomes evident, as well as its promise of re-birth. d. A fourth way of understanding is to see how the same symbol unites several levels of experience or representation: the exterior with the interior, the concrete and the speculative, the material and the spiritual. The phenomenology of symbol thus makes apparent a certain coherence, something like a symbolic system. Yet this is only a first stage. Revealing a coherent symbolic system does not yet constitute a proposition. A second hermeneutical step has to follow. While the first step consisted more in acquiring a sort of “panoramic intelligence”, as Ricœur calls it, “curious but unconcerned”211, the exegete must now ask: “What does this [particular] text say by means of its symbols?”. Not every possible symbolic significance is necessarily intended as an assertion of the text. A critical hermeneutic is thus required, that is, an interpretation that moves from the totality of the symbolic system towards the study of each particular symbol as it appears in the text. The third step is philosophical, which Ricœur calls “penser à partir du symbole”212. The exegete participates in the realm of symbol by way of the phenomenology of religion, myth, and poetry, and by way of text interpretation. But how is the hermeneutic of symbols possible if the relapse into an allegorizing interpretation is to be avoided? If it is excluded to search for some hidden meaning behind the symbols, or disguised under the dressing of the plain sense, then the interpretation must depart from the symbol itself. It is necessary to promote the sense inherent to the symbol, and starting from there to form a creative interpretation213. The task of the exegete then is to use symbols as “detectors” of reality. He will detect the first indication of their symbolic meanings in the way they are employed in myth to express transcendent concepts. Tracing the use of a certain symbol within the broader historical and religious context it belongs to, will help to establish its multivalent symbolic references. The interpreter has no need of allegorizing the symbol; rather, he is called to discover its power to evoke, to illuminate, and to order a whole field of human experience214. Symbols are, in fact, like an index of man’s situation in the totality of being. The “philosophical” task of the exegete is then to let himself be guided by the symbol and thus to “break the enchanted enclosure of self-consciousness” and subjectivity, and thereby 211. 212. 213. 214.

Ibid., p. 70. Ibid., p. 73. Ibid. Ibid., p. 75.

158

PART I – CHAPTER 3

to exceed the merely anthropological order. “Every symbol effectively strives to re-integrate man into a totality, the totality of the transcendent sky, of the immanence of vegetation, of mortality and rebirth”215. IV. CONCLUSION The chapter has sought to lay the hermeneutical groundwork and provide the necessary conceptual clarifications for the argument that the Song is neither a mere human love song, nor merely poetry on divinehuman love, but both. By adopting a symbolic language, the Song is able to express the reality of divine love in and through the expression of human love. Considerable confusion concerning the terms “metaphor”, “allegory”, and “symbol” reigns among Song scholars, and the terms appear at times to be used in an undifferentiated manner. The first and second part of the chapter accordingly focused on the clarification of the terms “metaphor” and “allegory” in order to clear the ground for the exposition of the concept of “symbol” as a hermeneutical key to the Song’s multiple layers of meaning. The treatment of “metaphor” traced an important shift in the understanding of metaphors. The classical definition of metaphor given by Aristotle treated metaphor like a word-allegory, whereby the metaphor serves as a substitute for another, more plain, but less forceful or less evocative, word in a sentence. Thus, metaphors were understood as lexical placeholders that could be exchanged with any other word without a loss of meaning to the sentence. The approach to metaphor today is to replace this so-called “theory of substitution” with the “theory of interaction”. The latter understands metaphors in the context not of words but of utterances that cannot be replaced by a “literal” act of speech without a substantial loss in meaning. This shift in the understanding of metaphor is of considerable importance for Song exegesis, since many interpreters treat the metaphoric speech of the Song as if it consisted of word-allegories. While contesting the spiritual allegorization of former Song exegesis, they produce the same result. By “translating” the poetry’s metaphoric language into prose, they effectively treat the Song as it if were indeed allegory: not of God’s love, but of the poet’s sexual imagination. However, 215. Ibid., p. 76: “Tous les symbols en effet tendent à réintégrer l’homme dans une totalité, totalité transcendante du ciel, totalité immanente de la végétation, du dérérissement et de la renaissance” (my translation).

METAPHOR – ALLEGORY – SYMBOL

159

according to the “theory of interaction”, the poet does not “dress up” his idea in metaphors. Rather the metaphors give expression to his initial experience. The metaphors employed cannot be replaced by a more “direct” way of speaking without losing both the “newness” of the information and the intertextual communicative power of the figurative allusions that the poet has intended to import into his work. In view of the intertextual aspect, Harald Weinrich’s concept of image field (Bildfeld) was adopted as a helpful paradigm. The Song’s central image field is that of nuptial love, which Scripture uses elsewhere to express Israel’s and/or Jerusalem’s relationship with YHWH and/ or the messianic bridegroom, and the sage’s relationship with Wisdom and/or the Torah. Nuptial love is, moreover, a ubiquitous image field that significantly impacts the patriarchal stories, the lives of King David and Solomon, as well as major biblical narratives such as Ruth and Tobit. Overlapping with that of the shepherd-king, the Song’s two image fields taken together generate a strong resonance with the image fields of other biblical books. Despite the rehabilitation of “allegory” in modern literary criticism, its use as a correct description of the Song’s polyvalent language was rejected. Because allegory is originally a rhetorical figure, it remains essentially an artistic creation of the human mind, based on a pre-established system of arbitrary correspondences. The relationship between the first- and the second-order meaning is therefore essentially extrinsic. Moreover, because of the pre-established code an allegory has a restricted number of possible, normally two-dimensional, meanings, i.e. the plain and the allegorical meaning. The polysemy of the Song’s figurative language, on the other hand, is better expressed in the term “symbol”. A symbol is in its material sense a carrier of a plurality of meanings, whereby the non-sensory meaning is inherent to the symbol’s form and is made apparent only in and through the symbol’s perceivable representation. In symbolic speech, the meaning of a symbol, therefore, does not depend on a pre-established code, but entirely on the multiple symbolic resonances that are inherent to the plain sense. Contrary to allegory, the plain sense of a symbol can never be superseded without losing the surplus meaning as well, which is perceivable only in and through the former. For that reason, the category of “symbol” is the proper key for the interpretation of the Song. Only a symbolic reading can do justice to the plain sense of the text, which is a powerful expression of one of the most fundamental human realities: the erotic attraction between a man and a woman.

160

PART I – CHAPTER 3

Based on Mircea Eliade’s studies of symbols as manifestations of the sacred and Ricœur’s observations on symbol as a semantic phenomenon, the third part of the chapter sought to lay out a definition of symbol in contradistinction to other signs, allegory, and metaphor. In this context, some characteristics of symbolic language were described. Some of the most important elements defining symbols and symbolic language highlight why “symbol” is the adequate hermeneutical category for the Song’s polyvalent language. The Song is punctuated with mythological language, which Israel has taken up from its surrounding cultures and integrated into its own religious expression (see Chapter 4, II.1 below, p. 179 and Chapter 6). While the mythology has been purged from the poetry, the symbolism, which is the “image-verb” proper to religious language, remains essentially the same though being at the same time enriched with a new value. The central symbol of the Song is that of nuptial love. Being part of the fundamental structure of the world, nuptial love is a “primitive symbol”. As such it was a religious symbol in the ancient cultures (as the cultural rites attest that have until recently universally accompanied the first official sexual encounter between a young woman and a man). In fact, the living experience of nuptial love has in many times and places given rise to the idea that the “world of the gods” must somehow be structured similarly. The different, particularly ANE, mythologies concerning sacred marriages between the gods, gods and men, or heaven and earth are expressions of this fact, based on this living experience of the loving attraction between the sexes. Israel is, however, unique in having conceived of its own covenant relationship with God under the symbol of a wedding216. The symbol’s multivalence, that is, its capacity to express at once a number of meanings, explains why one can legitimately interpret the Song as a human love song and at the same time, without doing violence to the “literal sense” (to which the symbols belong), as a song between God and Israel or Jerusalem, the King and the People, or the sage and Wisdom, etc. The various levels of meaning reveal that there is a correspondence of symbolic order between the modalities of human existence and the cosmic or religious reality. Having its roots in the profound sources of life, the nuptial symbol can express the spiritual reality of the divine-human love relationship as something lived. Life itself is a revelation of the spiritual, not the other way around. The perception of God’s love in the material symbol of human 216. See COHEN, Song, p. 6.

METAPHOR – ALLEGORY – SYMBOL

161

love, far from degrading the human reality, ennobles the love between the sexes and gives a deeper meaning to human life in its gendered existence. By its capacity to integrate and unite even heterogeneous realities into one singular symbolic expression, the symbolism of the Song makes it possible to move from the human level to the divine, without needing to sacrifice either one for the other, and without merging them unduly. Following Eliade, it was highlighted that the symbolic function of symbols is not changed by the historical conditions. Rather, that which changes is their “weight with freight”. This capacity of symbol to grow in the course of history, that is, to be enriched with symbolic meanings, shows how by virtue of its symbols the Song is at once rooted in the “Beginning” and teleologically projected towards its future consummation in the “Eschaton”. This is particularly evident in the case of its three core-symbols: nuptial love, the shepherd-king, and the garden-land. First, the fundamental symbol of man and woman in love relates the couple of the Song back to the archetypal symbol of the first human couple in the garden of Genesis. All through Scripture this “arch-situation” of man and woman is spelled out in new ways. The patriarchs and their wives, Elkana and Hannah, David and Solomon with their various women, Ruth and Boaz, Tobit and Sarah: all take up the fundamental human condition of a man in front of a woman in the presence of God. The prophets, for their part, recognize in this symbol the expression of God’s own love for Israel; the New Testament finally unites the opposites and depicts Jesus as the divine-human bridegroom who has come to wed his people. Second, the king and the shepherd symbol evoke at once the figure of Adam (who is a royal figure; see Chapter 9), the patriarchs, and the kings of Israel, all shepherds of the people of God. In certain sapiential traditions (e.g. Wisdom of Solomon) the king becomes a symbol for every man who seeks after wisdom, while the messianic idea is also increasingly “democratized”, shifting the reference of a special election from the anointed king towards the people. In the New Testament, finally, the process of “democratization” is completed. God has become man, the king is a humble man from Nazareth, the son of David is the shepherd and bridegroom of his people. Third, the garden symbol (Song 4,12-16; see Chapter 11) equally ties the Song back to the origins, i.e. the paradisiacal garden of Genesis, and opens a trajectory towards the future, i.e., the transformation of Israel/ Jerusalem into an eschatological paradisiacal garden state (Isa 65,17-25; Revelation 22). As an archetypal symbol of Scripture, the garden symbol

162

PART I – CHAPTER 3

is “weighted with freight” with the progression of Israel’s history. From the paradisal garden of Genesis 2, to the Promised Land, the Temple, the city of Jerusalem, the Torah (Sirach 24), to the description of the Beloved in Song 4,12-16, the garden takes on ever richer connotations before they all merge in the “wedding” of all symbols in Revelation 22. Taking up the archetypal symbol of a man and a woman in a garden, the book of Revelation discloses the End as both a recapitulation and accomplishment of the Beginning. The New Jerusalem is at once a bride and a city, a garden and a temple, and the source of all life. As the collective people of God, she is the bride adorned for her husband (Rev 21,1), ready for the eschatological wedding to her Messiah and God. The chapter concluded with Ricœur’s reflections on three steps in the interpretation of symbols: phenomenology, hermeneutics, and philosophizing. These reflections on interpretative method will help give order to the thesis, which seeks to attain precisely the second naïveté that Ricœur also seeks. The phenomenological analysis, which means to re-place the symbol within that totality of symbols that forms a system, is above all important for the present project. Chapters 5 to 7 accordingly focus on the core symbol of the Song, which is that of nuptial love. They study this symbol in the broader religiohistorical context of the ANE, seeking to understand it within its original historical context of rituals and myth. In fact, in the ANE the nuptial symbol functions as a satellite symbol of a much larger and more fundamental complex of ideas: ANE royal ideology. Within that complex the nuptial symbol is always associated and subordinated to the symbol of the king and ultimately the Temple. The latter two are again intimately connected to the shepherd and the garden symbol. These three, however, are also the core symbols of the Song: the symbol of nuptial love between a shepherdking and a garden/vineyard beloved. Chapters 8 to 11 of this book seek to reconstitute the Song’s symbolic hermeneutic. Whereas Chapter 8 will highlight some internal clues that invite a symbolic exegesis of the Song, Chapters 9 to 11 will seek to interpret a complex of core symbols: King Solomon (Chapter 9), his royal wedding (Chapter 10), and that of a garden-Bride (Chapter 11). These final two, most properly exegetical, chapters, treating the royal wedding and the garden-Bride, will exploit the theory of symbol as a carrier of a special sort of two-fold meaning. This will be represented in the structure. I will seek first to give maximum attention to the “plain sense” of the passage, giving full play to the human realities expressed in the text. Then, in a second step, the main symbols of the passages under

METAPHOR – ALLEGORY – SYMBOL

163

examination will be identified, their manifold meanings unfolded, and interpreted. Re-constructed in the light of the previous phenomenological analysis, these potent symbols will be re-activated as meaningful for postcritical intelligence: my effort to capture an experience of second naïveté in encountering the Song’s symbolic sense.

CHAPTER 4

HISTORICAL POSTULATES: FROM COMPOSITION TO CANON

The consensus that the Song must be interpreted in a strictly profane sense assumes that all symbolic readings are extraneous, artificial, and late. A familiar narrative line of reasoning stands behind this view: The Song is an ancient collection of love songs that had difficulty entering the Hebrew canon on account of its profane, erotic character. This erotic character posed no problem until the rabbis at Jamnia were compelled to decide on the canon of their Scriptures. When it came to the Song, none wished to do without this venerable scroll, but it apparently posed a challenge to the Rabbis’ ideas about sexuality. Rabbi Akiva, however, intervened to impose an allegorical interpretation so that the Song might be included in the canon. In defense of this perspective, scholars adduce a number of Rabbinic texts, intended as a proof that the Song was understood in a profane sense until Rabbi Akiva introduced the allegorical reading. No traces of such an understanding of the Song are thought to be found before the second century A.D. In support of this position, the LXX, with its allegedly “slavishly literal” faithfulness to the Hebrew Vorlage, is often taken as an indication that the profane reading still prevailed in the first century A.D. The purpose of this chapter is to discuss these introductory issues and critical presuppositions that challenge the exegesis of the Song here pursued. The Song’s structure and unity, dating, Qumran, the LXX, and early attestations of a symbolic interpretation are addressed. The chapter will demonstrate that one must reckon with an established symbolic reception of the Song by the first century A.D. at the latest. At the same time, traces of a redaction are identified that are linked to this symbolic reading and dated at least a century earlier. By thus uncovering the first signs of a symbolic understanding of the Song in the final stages of its redaction, the time gap between the Song’s composition and its theological reception collapses and the integrity of its religious interpretation is pressed. The argument is organized as follows. First, I will address the literary unity and structure of the MT version of the Song (I). The theory of preexisting disparate love songs is not discarded. Yet, a governing ratio is recognized, whose structuring imprint is decisive in giving the Song its basic form. Second, the issue of dating will be discussed (II). Here caution will be urged. Instead of fixing a particular date, I will suggest that it

166

PART I – CHAPTER 4

is preferable to imagine a rolling history of composition, articulated in different redactional stages and historical contexts, but with a decisive authorial event (“Solomonic Redaction”) responsible for the essential poetic unity evident in the final (MT) form of the text. Third, I will consider the Song manuscripts (Mss) found among the Dead Sea Scrolls (III). These are closely related to the question of dating, but equally to that of the earliest discernible symbolic interpretations. The manuscripts testify to the long-lasting fluidity of the text, and hence to the lateness of the MT. Likewise, some important features of inner-biblical exegesis are displayed. Fourth, the status of the LXX translation will be briefly considered (IV). This material corresponds to the evidence from Qumran as a possible early witness to a symbolic understanding. Finally, fifth, in the same context, the early Rabbinic discussions and the alleged lack of symbolic interpretations prior to “Jamnia” will be addressed, along with two non-Rabbinic firstcentury witnesses to the theological interpretation (V).

I. LITERARY UNITY AND STRUCTURE OF THE SONG Is the Song to be read as a literary unit or simply as a loose collection or anthology of disparate poems? The most common view until the mid 1980s was that the Song is an anthology of (profane) love songs1. This view may be found as early as Johann Gottfried Herder, who already in 1778 had called the Song a collection2. On the other hand, there is the uninterrupted tradition of reading the Song as a literary unit. Delitzsch writes, “Nach der Überschrift ‫ שיר השירים‬zu urtheilen, ist das Hohelied ein einheitliches Ganze und nicht, wie Herder meint, eine Reihe schöner Perlen auf eine Schnur gefasset, nicht wie der Verfasser des westöstlichen 1. The expression was coined by Johann Gottfried Herder and later adopted by Wilhelm Rudolph, Othmar Keel, Günther Krinetzki, Hans-Peter Müller, and Gillis Gerleman. See, e.g., R. GORDIS, The Song of Songs (Texts and Studies of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 20), New York, The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1954, p. 18: “[…] the Song of Songs, like the Psalter, is an anthology, running a wide gamut of its emotions”. KEEL, Tauben, p. 11: “Man darf heute voraussetzen, daß es sich beim Hohenlied um eine sehr locker geordnete Sammlung von Liebesliedern handelt”. See also A.C. HAGEDORN, Die Frau des Hohenlieds zwischen babylonisch-assyrischer Morphoskopie und Jacques Lacan, in ZAW 122 (2010) 417-430, p. 418; A. WAGNER, Das Hohe Lied – theologische Implikationen seines literarischen Charakters als Sammlung von Liebesliedern, in ZAW 119 (2007) 539-555; M. FALK, Love Lyrics from the Bible: A Translation and Literary Study of the Song of Songs (BiLiSe, 4), Sheffield, Almond Press, 1982; J.B. WHITE, A Study of the Language of Love in the Song of Songs and Ancient Egyptian Poetry (SBLDS, 38), Missoula, MT, Scholars, 1978, p. 33. 2. See HAGEDORN, Die Frau des Hohenlieds, p. 418, n. 6.

HISTORICAL POSTULATES: FROM COMPOSITION TO CANON

167

Divans sich ausdrückt: eine liebliche Verwirrung”3. In the same line Driver writes as early as 1894, “The frequent repetition of the same words and phrases […] and indications […] that the same characters are speaking in the latter as in the earlier parts of the poem, have convinced most recent commentators and critics that this view is not correct, and that the poem forms, in some sense or another, a real unity”4. Several studies have been published over the last decades defending the plausibility of the composition of the Song as a literary unit5. This plausibility first results from the demonstrably unified structure of the book, discussed below6. At the same time, it proceeds from a literary obligation to follow the instruction of the author or redactor who inserted the title7: an obligation owed to the one who wants the book to be read as one song – not as a collection of love songs8. 3. DELITZSCH, Hohelied, p. 1; on p. 79: “Im Hohenliede […] wechseln nicht blos Arie und Personen, sondern auch die Zeiten, und doch fällt das Ganze nicht in kleine, unzusammenhängende dialogische Bilder auseinander, sondern es zieht sich durch alle ein goldener Faden”. See also BARBIERO, Cantico, p. 57: “If fatto che si parli di ‘Cantico’ al singolare, suggerisce discretamente l’unità della composizione”. 4. S.R. DRIVER, An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament, Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 51894, p. 410. 5. In defense of unity, see also R.E. MURPHY, The Unity of the Song of Songs, in VT 29 (1979) 436-443; J.C. EXUM, On the Unity and Structure of the Song of Songs, in M. BAR-ASHER (ed.), Shai le-Sara Japhet: Studies in the Bible, Its Exegesis and Its Language, Jerusalem, The Bialik Institute, 2007, 305-316; E. BOSSHARD-NEPUSTIL, Zu Struktur und Sachprofil des Hohenlieds, in BN 81 (1996) 45-71. 6. Those arguing in favor of a collection of love songs deny a unified structure. In some cases this is achieved by a somewhat circular line of argument. See for example BUDDE, Hohelied, p. xix. Basing his interpretation on Wetzstein’s Syrische Dreschtafel, Budde sees in the Song the textbook for a Palestinian wedding feast. Since the “Daughters of Jerusalem” feature in the Song, he supposes that these songs must have been sung in the area around Jerusalem and written down there too. His argument against an ordered unity reads as follows: “Since the waṣf which was sung on the day immediately following the wedding day is found in chapters 6 and 7 while other songs which would have been sung more towards the end of the wedding-week are found in chapters 1, 3 and 4, it is proved that the collection does not observe an orderly progress”. See ibid., p. xix (my translation). 7. See also GERHARDS, Hohelied, p. 173. 8. In recent years there have been a growing number of scholars who have come to the conviction that the assumption of a unity of authorship is not as unlikely as older studies would make one believe. J.C. EXUM, A Literary and Structural Analysis of the Song of Songs, in ZAW 85 (1973) 47-79, p. 78, comes to the conclusion that Song exhibits “a unity of authorship with an intentional design, and a sophistication of poetic style”. See also GERHARDS, Hohelied, pp. 173, 177: “Konsequent durchgeführt läuft sie [die Sammlungshypothese] auf die Atomisierung des Hohenlieds in zum Teil völlig unverständliche Textsplitter hinaus; darüber hinaus widerspricht die Sammlungshypothese grundsätzlich dem Votum der Überschrift, die auf ein einheitliches Verständnis zielt”. Even if the title was a later insertion, as in fact the use of the relative pronoun ‫ אשר‬might indicate, it would all

168

PART I – CHAPTER 4

1. The “Author” This study recognizes with Roland Murphy an “inner thread of unity” in the significant repetitions that can be found throughout the book9. A close examination of the literary structure shows that one has to reckon with an “author” who drew on a number of pre-existing love songs, which, by means of these repetitions, he reshaped significantly and arranged into a complex opus, a unified and structured whole. In fact, such a model can already be found both in other ANE compositions10, and notably within the Bible, i.e., in the Psalter11. The profound inner unity of the Song’s cantos is nearly unquestionable on account of the many words which – though they only partially belong to the erotic language – occur almost nowhere else in the Old Testament, but appear consistently and cumulatively throughout the Song12. This is corroborated by the fact that eight words occur two or three times in different passages of the Song, and, although they are again not at all linked to the erotic context, occur nowhere else in the Old Testament13. These words have the character of “braces” that “staple” the different cantos into one unified whole and point to a poetically skilled composer14. For this reason, I choose to speak of an “author” when referring to the one responsible for the decisive redactional event in the composition of the Song. As Gerhards affirms, it is reasonable the same be “das älteste Zeugnis der Wirkungsgeschichte, das dem Hohelied selbst sehr viel näher steht als alle Rekonstruktionen und Interpretationen der neuzeitlichen Bibelwissenschaft”. 9. See MURPHY, Unity, p. 436. Unity is also held by BARBIERO, Cantico, p. 34; EXUM, Song; EAD., On the Unity and Structure of the Song of Songs; GERHARDS, Hohelied. 10. For a comparison with the Egyptian Nakhtsobek songs, see D.A. GARRETT, Song of Songs. Lamentations (WBC, 23B), Nashville, TN, Thomas Nelson, 2004, p. 54. 11. The Song’s carefully placed repetitions and refrains point to an artfully organized song, or a cultic background, comparable to what we find in the repetitions of the Psalter (cf. Ps 80,4.8.20). See SCHMÖKEL, Heilige Hochzeit, pp. 38-40. 12. ‫ דוד‬as an abstract for “love” in Song 1,2.4; 4,10; 5,1; 7,13; elsewhere in the OT only in Ezek 16,8; 23,17; Prov 7,18. ‫ דוד‬for “beloved” in Song 1,13.14.16; 2,3.8.9.10. 16.17; 4,16; 5,2.4.5.6.8.9.10.16; 6,1.2.3; 7,10.11.12.14; 8,5.14; otherwise in the OT only in Isa 5,1. ‫“ רעיה‬friend, companion” in Song 1,9.15; 2,2.10.13; 4,1.7; 5,2; 6,4; otherwise in the OT only in a ketiv kere to Judg 11,37. ‫ מור‬in Song 1,13; 3,6; 4,6.14; 5,1.5.13; otherwise only in Ps 45,9; Prov 7,17; Esth 2,12; Exod 30,23. ‫“ שושנה‬lily or lotus” in Song 2,1.2.16; 4,5; 5,13; 6,2.3; 7,2; otherwise in the OT only once in Hos 14,6; in Sir 50,8 (Hebrew MS B) and the Greek female name Susanna. ‫“ תפוח‬apple” in Song 2,3.5; 7,9; 8,5; otherwise only in Prov 25,11; Joel 1,12. ‫“ מגדים‬choice produce” in Song 4,13.16; 7,14; otherwise only in Deut 33,13-16. See ibid., p. 41. 13. ‫“ שמנים‬ointments” Song 1,3; 4,10; ‫“ נטר‬to keep, guard” Song 1,6; 8,11.12; ‫נרד‬ “nard” Song 1,12; 4,13.14; ‫“ כפר‬henna”, pl. “henna bushes” Song 1,14; 4,13; 7,12; ‫עפר‬ “young” (of a deer, fawn, stag) Song 2,9 || 2,17 || 8,14; 4,5 || 7,4; ‫“ סמדר‬flower buds” Song 2,15; 7,13; ‫“ קוצות‬locks” Song 5,2.11. See ibid. 14. See ibid., p. 42.

HISTORICAL POSTULATES: FROM COMPOSITION TO CANON

169

denjenigen, der für das Ganze des Hohenliedes verantwortlich ist, als “Autor” zu bezeichnen, und zwar … analog zu einem Musiker, der auch in dem Fall, dass er in seine größeren Werke bekannte Melodien aufnimmt, nicht deren “Redaktor” ist, sondern der Komponist im Sinne des Urhebers. Dass die Aufnahme vorliegender Traditionen, auch in Gestalt bereits geprägter Texte oder Textbruchstücke, an manchen Stellen wahrscheinlich ist … und dass auf bekannte Gattungen wie das Beschreibungslied und Motive wie das Paraklausithyron zurückgegriffen wird, ist nur dann gegen die Rede von einem “Autor” einzuwenden, wenn der Begriff auf ein von Vorgaben möglichst unabhängiges “Originalgenie” eingeengt wird. Dieses neuzeitliche Autorenideal darf aber bei der Arbeit mit biblischer Literatur auf keinen Fall vorausgesetzt werden15.

2. Unity of Characters By assuming a unity in composition I also assume a unity of characters involved. The two Lovers are consistently the same throughout the whole book. This is to say, I do not adopt the love triangle theory, which turns king and shepherd into opposing figures, contending for the love of the shepherd girl16. The pervasive use of the personal pronoun “my” in the lovers’ addresses to each other urges the exclusivity of their mutual love. The love that is extolled here is love in its highest form, a personal love which intends peremptoriness that outlasts death17. The two lovers are undoubtedly the main protagonists of the Song. The Lover calls his Beloved ‫רעיתי‬, “my companion”, “my beloved”, a term which evokes also “shepherdess”18 (Song 1,9.15; 2,2.10.13; 4,1.7; 5,2; 6,4); he further refers to her as “sister” and “bride” (4,8–5,2) and uses epithets like “dove” (2,14; 5,2; 6,9) and “pure one” (5,2; 6,9). When the Beloved speaks of herself she uses epithets like “rose”, or “lotus” (2,1). She refers to him mostly with the term ‫“ דודי‬my beloved”, but also as “the king” (1,12) or “the one whom my soul loves” (1,7; 3,1.2.3.4). The Beloved is at times in dialogue with a group of women who appear to be her companions and who are called “the Daughters of Jerusalem” (1,5; 15. GERHARDS, Hohelied, p. 295. The same example is adduced by GARRETT, Song, pp. 57-58. Not only did composers like Bach, Handel, or Mendelson collect pre-existent songs into an integrated corpus, but an artist like Bach purposefully drew on popularly known love melodies and gave them a new interpretation by integrating them into his passions. John of the Cross, for his part, drew on popular love lyrics and reinterpreted them through integration into his Spiritual Canticle. 16. See, e.g., EWALD, Salomonische Schriften, pp. 334-336. 17. In the words of H.U. VON BALTHASAR, Glaubhaft ist nur die Liebe, Einsiedeln, Johannes Verlag, 1963, p. 43: “Personale Liebe, wie sie Liebende sich in hohen Augenblicken zu-schwören, meint Endgültigkeit, die den Tod überdauert; ‘ewige Liebe’ ‘auf Zeit’ aber ist ein Widerspruch, der nicht gelebt werden kann”. 18. See FISHBANE, Song, p. xxxviii.

170

PART I – CHAPTER 4

2,7; 3,5.10; 5,8.16; 8,4). They are her intimates to whom she confides her desires or events. Twice the Song makes mention of ‫חברים‬, “friends” (1,7; 8,14), who appear to be the male equivalent companions to the Lover. Their role is, however, so marginal that it is safe to identify only three major characters in the Song: the Lover and the Beloved with her companions, the Daughters of Jerusalem. 3. The Overall Structure of the Song Suggestions on how to structure the Song are nearly as numerous as commentaries on the book19. The question of structure is, naturally, inseparable from the question of the literary genre. Those who want to read the Song as a drama will seek to find a narrative thread or plot and then structure the Song accordingly20. Those who, on the other hand, see in the Song only an anthology or collection of love songs will simply search to identify the originally separate poetic units and their respective Sitz im Leben21. The problem with such an approach becomes apparent on close inspection, because it ignores the manifest signs of coherence among the different parts of the Song and thus discounts any single author or decisive redactor. At a hermeneutical level, the overall meaning of the book thus dissolves into a post-modern potpourri of romantic expressions22. Over the last fifty years several studies have investigated the literary unity of the Song23. Elliott has convincingly argued that one of the major 19. Pope and Ravasi each give a very good survey of the propositions that had been made up to their respective dates of publication. See POPE, Song, pp. 40-54; and RAVASI, Cantico, pp. 86-92. 20. An outstanding example is DELITZSCH, Hohelied, pp. 81-83. Delitzsch divides the Song into five acts with two scenes each (in brackets): Act I 1,1–2,7 (1,2-8; 1,9–2,7); Act II 2,8–3,5 (2,8-17; 3,1-5); Act III 3,6–5,1 (3,6-11; 4,1–5,1); Act IV 5,2–6,9 (5,2–6,3; 6,4-9); Act V 8,5-14 (8,5-7; 8,8-14). 21. See BUDDE, Hohelied, pp. xvii-xxi; P. HAUPT, Biblische Liebeslieder, Helsingfors – Baltimore, MD, Hinrichs, 1907, pp. 18f; GORDIS, Song, pp. 16-18. 22. See also ELLIOTT, Literary Unity, p. 32, according to whom a mere form-critical approach is “an inclination to interpret the text in light of parallel Near Eastern love poetry rather than a biblical background. The songs become merely an expression of erotic love, and since there is no context of commitment through betrothal or marriage, a framework of Israelite law and custom, they appear to condone pre-marital sexual relationships”. 23. BUZY, La composition littéraire; R.E. MURPHY, The Structure of the Canticle of Canticles, in CBQ 11 (1949) 381-391; J. ANGÉNIEUX, Structure du Cantique des cantiques en chants encadrés par des refrains alternants, in ETL 41 (1965) 96-142; ID., Note sur les trois portraits du Cantique des cantiques, Louvain, Publications Universitaires de Louvain, 1966; ID., Le Cantique des cantiques en huit chants à refrains alternants, in ETL 44 (1968) 87-95; EXUM, Literary and Structural Analysis; MURPHY, Unity; E.C. WEBSTER, Pattern in the Song of Songs, in JSOT 22 (1982) 73-93; W.H. SHEA, The Chiastic Structure

HISTORICAL POSTULATES: FROM COMPOSITION TO CANON

171

arguments against treating the book as a unity, the absence of a narrative plot and/or a linear progression, is an argument valid only for tragedy or epic poetry. In the case of lyric poetry such as the Song, an “organic unity” is the only necessity24. If such a unity can be shown, it will have decisive consequences on the hermeneutical level, since “in an organic unity each part functions in virtue of the whole and, without each part, the whole lacks either integral or essential unity”25. The studies by Murphy, Exum, Shea, Webster, Dorsey, Heinevetter, and Elliott have shown that there is actually literary unity in the Song26, in spite of the lack of consensus in the details of their various propositions27. In what follows, the basic structuring features of the Song will be introduced. Following a suggestion made by Wilfred Watson, I adopt the term “cycle” when referring to a series of poems that form a coherent unity, while “canto” is applied to a sub-collection of poems within the cycle28. of the Song of Songs, in ZAW 92 (1980) 378-396; HEINEVETTER, “Komm nun, mein Liebster”; ELLIOTT, Literary Unity; D.A. DORSEY, Literary Structuring in the Song of Songs, in JSOT 46 (1990) 81-96; BOSSHARD-NEPUSTIL, Struktur; D. ROBERTS, Let Me See Your Form: Seeking Poetic Structure in the Song of Songs, Lanham, MD, University Press of America, 2007. 24. See ELLIOTT, Literary Unity, p. 33. 25. Ibid.: “When the organic model is used as a standard of unity, the ‘structure’ of a lyric poem can be defined as a highly complex organization in which many components or facets are interrelated in such a way that they mutually support and explain each other. Structure in this sense not only refers to the formal aspects […] but includes the whole of the literary work”. 26. MURPHY, Structure; R.E. MURPHY, Wisdom Literature: Job, Proverbs, Ruth, Canticles, Ecclesiastes, and Esther (FOTL, 13), Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 1981; EXUM, Literary and Structural Analysis; SHEA, Structure; WEBSTER, Pattern; DORSEY, Literary Structuring; HEINEVETTER, “Komm nun, mein Liebster”; ELLIOTT, Literary Unity. 27. It is worth quoting Roland Murphy’s balanced judgment in its entirety on the subject: “The various ‘poems’ in the Song show a remarkable homogeneity, not merely in the topoi associated with love, but in specific details. While a certain similarity is to be expected among any collection of love poems, the repetitions within the Song are striking enough to suggest a deliberate, contrived, unity. The experiences of the Lover and the Beloved are relatively limited and continually repeated: losing and finding, mutual compliments, descriptions of each other’s beauty. This homogeneity goes beyond, for example, the coherence and similarities existing in the collections of Egyptian love songs, with which the Song is rightly compared. It is to be expected that there would be significant differences between the four major collections of Egyptian love poetry, that are datable as collections to distinct periods. But even within any one of these collections, there is lacking the signs of homogeneity which we have just surveyed for the Song. It seems intrinsically more probable that one author has given a unity to his love poems by repeating certain words and motifs within them”. MURPHY, Unity, p. 441. 28. See W.G.E. WATSON, Classical Hebrew Poetry: A Guide to Its Techniques (JSOTS, 26), Sheffield, JSOT, 1984, p. 14, n. 7. “Cycle” is equivalent to the term “Liedgruppen” adopted by KRINETZKI, Hohelied, pp. 16-19.

172

PART I – CHAPTER 4

a) Structuring Elements Already in the Middle Ages scholars like Rupert of Deutz had taken some of the apparent repetitions in the Song (such as the refrain in 2,7; 3,5; and 8,4) into account when searching to identify the subdivisions of the book29. In fact, one of the most striking elements of the Song is the abundance of repetitions of entire phrases (refrains)30, words, metaphors, recurring motifs and themes31. Some major features that serve as dividing markers between the strophes of the Song are worth mentioning here as they show the unifying intention at work. The most apparent division marker is the so-called Adjuration Refrain: “I adjure you, O Daughters of Jerusalem, by the gazelles or the hinds of the field, that you stir not up nor awaken love until it please”32. It appears in its lengthy, slightly varied form three times (Song 2,7; 3,5; 8,4) and once more in a short, evocative form (5,8). All four instances have in common the opening colon ‫“( השבעתי אתכם בנות ירושלם‬I adjure you, O Daughters of Jerusalem”). Leaving aside 5,8 for the moment, it is generally agreed that these adjuration formulas each mark the end of a major section33, thus creating the following four units: 1,1–2,7; 2,8–3,5; 3,6– 8,4; 8,5-1434. The Embracing Refrain (“His left is under my head and his right embraces me”) occurs twice and is exactly identical (Song 2,6; 8,3) in each case. Significantly, in both cases it stands just before the Adjuration Refrain (i.e. 2,7; 8,4), which, as seen above, has the function of closing the poetic units. Thus, the very first major section ends with the Embracing 29. See RUPERTUS ABBATIS TUITIENSIS, In Cantica (PL 168, 839): “quatuor perioch[ae], id est recapitulation[es], quarum est signum capitulum hoc tertio repetitum: ‘Adjuro vos, filiae Hierusalem, per capreas cervosque camporum, ne suscitetis, neque evigilare faciatis dilectam, quoadusque ipsa velit (Cant. ii)’”. 30. According to the definition of WATSON, Hebrew Poetry, p. 295: “a refrain is a block of verse which recurs more than once within a poem. Such a block can comprise a single word, a line of poetry or even a complete strophe. […] its distinguishing feature is its structuring function”. They have been studied in detail by R. KESSLER, Some Poetical and Structural Features of the Song of Songs, Leeds, Leeds University Oriental Society, 1965, whose book, however, was unavailable for the present writer. 31. See MURPHY, Unity, p. 436. 32. See EXUM, Literary and Structural Analysis, p. 58: “It provides the external structure”. 33. For a different opinion, see ibid., p. 53, where she takes the two adjuration formulas in 2,7 and 3,5 to form an inclusion of the proposed section 2,7–3,5. 34. It is immediately evident that the third section (3,6–8,4) is disproportionally long. If one takes the abbreviated adjuration formula in 5,8 into account, five major sections result. Still, the fourth part, 5,9–8,4, remains longer than all the other parts. Even if length or brevity should not turn out to be a valid argument against considering 5,9–8,4 as a strophe, an examination of the context reveals that 5,8 can be separated neither from the preceding (5,2-7) nor from the following (5,9–6,3) passage.

HISTORICAL POSTULATES: FROM COMPOSITION TO CANON

173

Refrain in combination with the Adjuration Refrain (2,6-7), as does the second-to-last unit (8,3-4). This might be an indication that originally those two units were the opening and the closing units of the entire book, after which an “epilogue” (8,5-14) was added by a later redactor35. In any case 2,6-7 and 8,3-4 mark the end of cycles I and IV (see below). Next there is the “Who is this?” (‫זאת‬-‫ )מי‬Refrain, which occurs three times (Song 3,6; 6,10; 8,5). Twice it acclaims someone coming up from the desert (3,6; 8,5). Curiously, in both cases this acclamation follows the Adjuration Refrain, which corroborates the surmise that these refrains have been purposefully positioned in order to structure the book36. The simple “Who is this?” refrain in 6,10 closes a passage of the Lover praising the unique beauty of the Beloved (6,4-10)37. Thus, they all stand at the beginning or end of what many commentators judge to be poetic units: 3,6 and 8,5 are the opening verses of entire cycles; 6,10 closes a subunit. Further, there is the Possession Refrain (‫)דודי לי ואני לו‬38, which appears in Song 2,16 and 6,3 in a nearly identical form, only slightly varying in word order39. Again, both refrains close poetic units, 2,16 being read in union with 2,17 (Day/Shadow Refrain, see below), and 6,3 closing the dialogue between the Beloved and the Daughters of Jerusalem. The Possession Refrain occurs once in a shorter form in 7,11 (‫אני לדודי ועלי‬ ‫)תשוקתו‬, where it is modified to form an allusion to Gen 3,1640. At this point it closes a poetic subunit. Lastly there are two refrains that are a little more varied and yet also employed in the division of strophes or poems, and which clearly stitch 35. For the term “epilogue”, see BARBIERO, Song, 19. Both with regard to the exact ending of the alleged original poem and to authorship or editorship opinions differ. A. ROBERT, Les appendices du Cantique des cantiques (VIII, 8-14), in RB 55 (1948) 161-183, speaks of appendices. MURPHY, Unity, p. 443, adopts the term “appendices” but makes the cut with the main poem after Song 8,4 and argues for originality of authorship over a later redaction. HEINEVETTER, “Komm nun, mein Liebster”, pp. 166-169, holds that the original book ends with 8,6 after which a redactor would have inserted 8,7-14: “Unsere Analyse […] läßt keinen Zweifel daran, daß 8,6 einen wirklichen Schlußpunkt darstellt. […] 8,7-14 stellen […] eine nachträgliche Bearbeitung des HLD dar, mit deren Hilfe das kritische Potential geglättet werden sollte (vergleichbar den Epilogen zum Buch Kohelet)”. 36. Thus, Zakovitch points out that 3,6 disturbs the careful structure of 3,1-5 and 3,711; as he also believes 6,10 to be dislocated, belonging rather at the beginning of 6,4-9. ZAKOVITCH, Hohelied, p. 170. 37. They stand at the beginning of what many commentators judge to be poetic units in the sense of strophes. 38. “My Lover is mine and I am his”. The name “possession refrain” is adopted from MURPHY, Unity, p. 437. 39. 2,16 ‫ ;דודי לי ואני לו הרעה בשושנים‬6,3 ‫אני לדודי ודודי לי הרעה בשושנים‬. 40. Gen 3,16 reads ‫אל־אישׁך תשוקתך והוא ימשל־בך‬. Song 7,11 has reversed the situation: no longer is he ruling over her, but his desire actually corresponds to hers, that is, he longs for her.

174

PART I – CHAPTER 4

the different poetic units together. They are interlinked with each other and may be titled the Day/Shadow Refrain41 (Song 2,17; 4,6) or Gazelle on the Mountains Refrain (Song 2,17; 8,14)42. The Day/Shadow Refrain closes the cantos 2,8-17 and 4,1-7. The Gazelle on the Mountains Refrain is clearly positioned at the end of significant poetic sub-units: 2,8-17 and 8,5-14, the latter closing the entire book. When they are referred to simultaneously (for they overlap) they will be called Mountain Refrain. In addition to these refrains, a number of exact or slightly varied repetitions may be observed (e.g. Song 2,5 || 5,8; 2,8 || 5,2; 3,1 || 5,6; 4,5 || 7,4; 6,11 || 7,13)43. Central motifs also recur, e.g., the garden motif (4,16; 5,1; 6,2.11), the vineyard motif (1,6.14; 2,15; 7,13; 8,11-12), different sequences of flowers and spices44, and notably the metaphoric lotuses that seem to span the book45. Other elements additionally pulse throughout the text: seeking and finding (3,1-4; 5,2-9), the house of her mother (3,4-5; 8,2), the different invitations (2,8-13; 4,8.16; 7,12), the renewal of nature (2,10-13; 7,12-13), etc. While these diverse repetitive elements do not function in delimiting specific textual units, their very distribution across such units contributes to the impression of a coherent, integrated fabric in the final (MT) form of the text. 41. See MURPHY, Unity, p. 437. 42. The Beloved is twice described metaphorically as a gazelle (2,17; 8,14); time is indicated twice with the words ‫( עד שיפוח היום ונסו הצללים‬2,17; 4,6); and in each there is a movement towards the mountains: (2,17; 4,6; 8,14). There is not only a clear repetition between 2,17 and 4,6 (day/shadow) but also between 2,17 and 8,14 (“be like a gazelle or a young stag”). All three verses share a movement towards the mountains, though the designation of the mountains changes: “Be like a gazelle … upon the mountains of beter” (2,17); RSV and others translate “upon the rugged mountains”, which is philologically correct. The Hebrew ‫בתר‬, however, appears to be an intentional allusion to the sacrifice of Abraham in Gen 15, by which the Temple Mount is indicated (cf. Jer 34,18). The same holds true for the other two refrains of this group: “I will go to the mountain of myrrh” (4,6); “Be like a gazelle … on the mountains of balsam” (8,14). 43. “I am sick with love” (2,5 || 5,8); “voice of my beloved” (2,8 || 5,2); “I sought him but I found him not” (3,1 bis || 5,6); “your two breasts are like two fawns, twins of a gazelle” (4,5 || 7,4); “who (or that) grazes among the lotuses” (2,16 || 6,3; 4,5); “to see if the vine has budded” (6,11 || 7,13). POPE, Song, pp. 50-52 draws attention to the fact that all the above-mentioned poetic features, notably what is called “repetitive parallelisms”, are highly reminiscent of Ugaritic mythological texts. They are “replete with clichés, which could be regarded as refrains or distant repetitions analogous to the phenomena which are seized by analysts of the structure of Canticles as evidence of literary unity of compositeness”. According to Pope, “repetitive parallelisms are manifestly an archaic literary feature which is also found in Sumerian poetry. Inner-biblically he points to the comparative passages of Judg 5,7.21 and Ps 92,9. A nearly identical repetition of body descriptions also appears in 4,1-3 and 6,5b-7”. 44. See in detail MURPHY, Unity, p. 438. 45. She as a lotus in 2,2; his browsing amongst the lotuses as an expression of union between the two 2,16; 6,3; her breasts being compared to twin fawns, again browsing amongst the lotuses 4,5; and finally her belly “surrounded” by lotuses 7,3. See ibid., p. 439.

HISTORICAL POSTULATES: FROM COMPOSITION TO CANON

175

In coordination with the refrains noted above, the Song is divided into six major units: Song 1,1–2,7; 2,8–3,5; 3,6–5,1; 5,2–6,3; 6,4–8,4; 8,5-14, of which the first and the last constitute a prologue (1,2–2,7) and an epilogue respectively (8,5-14)46. From this analysis the following structure results: 1,1–2,7 2,8–3,5 3,6–5,1 5,2–6,3 6,4–8,4 8,5-14

Prologue Cycle I Cycle II Cycle III Cycle IV Epilogue

b) Chiastic Structure? It has been frequently noted that the book is bipartite, since the second half repeats and varies many of the themes of the first half47. The centre is commonly held to be Song 5,148. The way in which the two parts of the book relate to each other is, however, disputed. Three studies have been dedicated to the question. Their results are displayed here to show how, although they all agree on a chiastic structure of the Song, there remain different possibilities of arranging the echoing themes into a purposefully planned layout of the book. The proposals of Exum49 and Shea50 are displayed in the following table. J.Ch. Exum

W.H. Shea

A B C Bʹ C′ A′

A B C C′ B′ A′

1,2–2,6 2,7–3,5 3,6–5,1 5,2–6,3 6,4–8,3 8,4-14

1,2–2,2 2,3-17 3,1–4,16 5,1–7,10 7,11–8,5 8,6-14

Exum and Shea both seek to show a chiastic structure of the Song. Even though they depart from each other in the demarcation of the first 46. See ELLIOTT, Literary Unity, pp. 43, 189, followed by BARBIERO, Cantico, p. 35. 47. See BARBIERO, Cantico, p. 36. HEINEVETTER, “Komm nun, mein Liebster”, p. 132, notes on the second part: “Dieser stellt inhaltlich und z.T. strukturell eine Art Reduplikation von 2,8–5,1 dar und bestätigt damit rückwirkend die Berechtigung, 2,8–5,1 als größere literarische Einheit zu lesen”. 48. See HEINEVETTER, “Komm nun, mein Liebster”, p. 133. 49. See EXUM, Literary and Structural Analysis. 50. See SHEA, Structure.

176

PART I – CHAPTER 4

and the last part of Song, they both agree that the passages A and A′ are modeled on each other to form an inclusio (Exum) or a frame (Shea) around the Song. As to the main part of the book, however, they differ in their results. Exum sees an intricate structure of BCB′C′, whereas Shea, at the expense of separating some significant literary unities like Song 4,8– 5,1, seeks to give the entire Song a chiastic pattern. Shea’s proposal is not quite as convincing, since it is mainly based on content parallels within the book without taking the poetic structure into sufficient account. Yet another proposal is that of Dorsey51: A 1,2–2,6 Mutual love and desire B 2,8-17 His invitation to her to join him in the countryside C 3,1-5 Her dream of him and their union D 3,6–5,1 Their wedding C′ 5,2–7,10 Her dream and the mutual expression of admiration B′ 7,11–8,4 Her invitation to him to join her in the countryside A′ 8,5-14 Closing words of love and desire

As can be easily seen from the schema, Dorsey also affirms the framing function of the opening and closing part of the Song, but differs again on how to structure the middle part. The strength of his proposal is that the singularity and centrality of the wedding scene (3,6–5,1) are emphasized. Yet its weakness is the great disparity in length between C and C′. These studies show some striking parallels within the book, which constitute a strong argument against calling the Song a “charming confusion” in favor of some manner of unified authorship. The frequent repetition of themes invites one to read it not in a linear but in a spiral way, always keeping the rest of the book in mind. The most apparent recurring features are the following: the two scenes of the Beloved searching for the Lover in Song 3,1-5 and 5,2-8, each at the beginning of major sections; the parallel structure of the waṣf in 5,10-16 and 7,2-652, the first one praising his body from the head down, the second one describing the beauty of her body from the feet up; and the two scenes of invitations to come out into nature, one by him (2,8-15) and one by her (7,11-13). This paralleling property of the book has also been called the “mirror effect”, 51. DORSEY, Literary Structuring. 52. Waṣf is an Arabic term for a Beschreibungslied, a poetic device by which the beauty of the beloved person is extolled. The different body parts are singled out and described in detail. It is found as early as in Egyptian love poetry (Papyri of Chester Beatty) up to the nineteenth-century Syrian wedding songs. Noteworthy in this context is the presence of a waṣf in the pseudepigraphic Hellenistic tale of Joseph and Aseneth (early second century) and in 1QapGen 20,1-8; see below II, pp. 180-181.

HISTORICAL POSTULATES: FROM COMPOSITION TO CANON

177

according to which the words and actions or attributes of one of the lovers always find their counterpart in the other lover. 4. Indicators of an Original Disunity Despite the remarkable unity in structure and poetic composition, some features remain that are a clear indicator of the disparate origins of the different cantos. Most of these features will emerge when the issue of dating of the Song is addressed (II, below). At this stage it suffices to point to the uneven distribution of the epithets used for the lovers. While the male protagonist is nearly always called “my beloved” (‫)דודי‬53, it is striking that this epithet occurs always in clusters or in hinge verses54. In Song 3,1-4, on the contrary, he is in every single verse called “the one whom my soul loves” (‫)שאהבה נפשי‬. The irregular dissemination of epithets is even more apparent with the Beloved. Only in 4,8–5,2 is she called “sister” or “bride”, while everywhere else her name may vary55. The uneven dissemination of Late Biblical Hebrew features56, and the clustered occurrence of geographically northern locations (i.e. in contrast to the strong insistence on Jerusalem in the refrains), also speaks against a thoroughgoing unity. On the basis of such features it may, for instance, safely be assumed that the cantos in Song 1,2-4; 4,8-11; and 4,12–5,1 are of quite different origin than those in 2,8-17; 3,1-4; or 3,6-11.

II. CHARTING THE SONG’S COMPOSITION Conflicting evidence complicates efforts to discern the origin of the Song. At one level the text is highly unified; at another it shows signs of disparate micro-histories. In this context, to speak about the Song’s “dating” is misleading. The Song cannot be compared to a modern work 53. With the exception of one occurrence of “my friend” (‫ )רעי‬in Song 5,16 and five occurrences of “whom my soul loves” (‫ )שאהבה נפשי‬in Song 1,7; 3,1.2.3.4. 54. Song 1,13-16; 2,3; 2,8-10; 2,16-17 (= refrains); 4,16; 5,2; 5,4-6.9-10; 5,16–6,3; 7,10-12.14; 8,5 (refrain); 8,14 (refrain). 55. Other appellations are: ‫( רעיתי‬my friend) Song 1,9.15; 2,2.10.13; 4,1.7 (framing feature of the waṣf 4,1-7); 5,2; 6,4; ‫( היפה בנשים‬most beautiful among women) 1,8; and 5,9; 6,1 (framing the waṣf of 5,10-16); ‫( יפתי‬my fair one) 2,10.13; ‫( יונתי‬my dove) 2,14; 5,2; 6,9; ‫( תמתי‬my perfect one) 5,2; 6,9; ‫( השולמית‬Shulammite) 7,1 bis; ‫( בת־נדיב‬daughter of a prince) 7,2. 56. See for example the clustered use of the particle ‫ ש‬in Song 1,6-7; 2,17–3,4; 3,10– 4,2.6; 5,2.8-9; 6,5-6; 8,8.12 while it is completely absent from the remaining parts of the Song. Similarly, there are cantos that are virginal of any sign of LBH like 1,2-4 and 4,8-11 and (if one leaves the Persian terms aside) 4,12–5,1 while others abound in them.

178

PART I – CHAPTER 4

of poetry that flowed from the pen of a single author. Rather, as with many ancient texts, notably the Psalter, the Song was a work in progress over a period of time, spanning possibly a millennium. Instead of narrowly dating the Song, the aim of this section is thus to offer a diachronic scale, describing different temporal features evident in the text. Opinions regarding the time of the composition of the Song include a variety of periods from Solomon’s reign down to the Hasmonean era, i.e., anywhere between the tenth and the first century B.C. Mainstream opinion, nonetheless, has settled for the late Persian57, or early Hellenistic period58. Relatively few studies argue for an even later date, between the early second59, and the first half of the first century B.C.60. This conventional project of dating a text like the Song is misleading. The material contained in the book has a range of affinities – indicated by the range of proposed dates – which make the proposal of any one specific date difficult. On the one hand, the Song appears to bear a relationship to poems of both New Kingdom and archaic Canaanite origin. On the other hand, it resembles much later material such as Neo-Assyrian sacred marriage songs and Greek Bucolic. Ultimately, it appears that the Song has undergone an extended process of redaction that may reach deep into and perhaps beyond the Hasmonean period. Instead of dating, then, it is preferable to describe the emergence 57. See F.W. DOBBS-ALLSOPP, Late Linguistic Features in the Song of Songs, in A.C. HAGEDORN (ed.), Perspectives on the Song of Songs / Perspektiven der Hoheliedauslegung (BZAW, 346), Berlin – New York, De Gruyter, 2005, 27-77, p. 71, who comes to the conclusion: “The presence of several Persianisms provides our most sensitive linguistic barometer for gauging the actual date of Cant’s language, pointing rather concretely to the two centuries of Achaemenid rule in the Near East (539-323 B.C.), and it is here that I am most inclined to place the composition of the poems themselves”. However, he goes on to state: “This position is not incontrovertible, of course, […]. Nonetheless, the language of Cant is by far its most tractable datum, and its lateness, as noted, is beyond doubt”. 58. For a very good and succinct overview of elements in favor of the Hellenistic period, see BARBIERO, Cantico, pp. 44-48. See also C. SCHEDL, Der verschlossene Garten: Logotechnische Untersuchungen zum Hohenlied (4,12–5,1), in W. VOIGT (ed.), XIX. Deutscher Orientalistentag. Vom 28. September bis 4. Oktober 1975 in Freiburg im Breisgau: Vorträge, Wiesbaden, Steiner, 1977, 165-177, p. 175; H.-P. MÜLLER, Die lyrische Reproduktion des Mythischen im Hohenlied, in ZTK 73 (1976) 23-41, pp. 37-40; ID., Neige der althebräischen ‘Weisheit’: Zum Denken Qohäläts, in ZAW 90 (1978) 238-264, pp. 252253, 259-260; FOX, Song, p. 242; H.-P. MÜLLER, Miszellen zu Einzeltexten: Hld 4,12– 5,1: Ein althebräisches Paradigma poetischer Sprache, in ZAH 1 (1988) 191-201, p. 200; A.C. HAGEDORN, Of Foxes and Vineyards: Greek Perspectives on the Song of Songs, in VT 53 (2003) 337-352; GERHARDS, Hohelied, pp. 29-60; A.C. HAGEDORN, What Kind of Love Is It? Egyptian, Hebrew, or Greek?, in WdO 46 (2016) 90-106. 59. GERHARDS, Hohelied, pp. 537-540; KINGSMILL, Eros, p. 8, who presumes that Ben Sira predates the Song. 60. GARBINI, Cantico, pp. 293-296, dates the Song to 70 or 68 B.C.

HISTORICAL POSTULATES: FROM COMPOSITION TO CANON

179

of the text as a rolling process, punctuated by a series of major and minor redactional events, which correlate to the different time-bound features of the Song61. Only in this way can justice be done both to the reminiscences of early and late material, as well as the disparate origins of the individual cantos and the phenomenon of final coherence. The main factors commonly taken into consideration when investigating the emergence of the Song are (1) elements of content and (2) linguistic features. These will be treated successively in sections II.1 and II.2. In II.3 a new interpretation of this evidence will be provided. 1. Content-Related Arguments The Song resonates with a variety of very archaic motifs. Egyptian texts from the late New Kingdom period (between ca. 1305 and 1150)62, for instance, have attracted the attention of many scholars and show some remarkable affinities with the Song63. Even the most impressive of these, however, cannot secure an Egyptian provenance, since the parallels extend widely through ANE material64. A few examples will illustrate this. The appellations “sister” and “brother” between the lovers, known from Egyptian sources, is a striking parallel noted by many scholars65. This locution is just as common in the Mesopotamian and Ugaritic literature, however66. It may thus be surmised that we are concerned with a typical 61. See also FISHBANE, Song, p. xxi. 62. The Mss of the Egyptian love songs date from the nineteenth dynasty (ca. 1305 – 1200 B.C.) to the early part of the twentieth dynasty (1200 – ca. 1150 B.C.). See FOX, Song, p. 181. 63. For an in-depth study of the question I refer to S. SCHOTT, Les chants d’amour de l’Égypte ancienne, Paris, Maisonneuve, 1956; GERLEMAN, Hohelied, pp. 63-72; WHITE, Language; FOX, Song; KEEL, Hohelied; A. NICCACCI, Cantico dei cantici e canti d’amore egiziani, in LA 41 (1991) 61-85; B. MATHIEU, La poésie amoureuse de l’Égypte ancienne: Recherches sur un genre littéraire au Nouvel Empire (Bibliothèque d’étude, 115), Cairo, Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale du Caire, 1996; GARRETT, Song, pp. 49-57; M.V. FOX, Rereading the Song of Songs and the Ancient Egyptian Love Songs Thirty Years Later, in WdO 46 (2016) 8-21; J.F. QUACK, Where Once Was Love, Love Is No More? What Happens to Expressions of Love in Late Period Egypt?, in WdO 46 (2016) 62-89; J.C. DARNELL, The Rituals of Love in Ancient Egypt: Festival Songs of the Eighteenth Dynasty and the Ramesside Love Poetry, in WdO 46 (2016) 22-61. 64. On Sumerian and Akkadian love lyrics, see G. LEICK, Sex and Eroticism in Mesopotamian Literature, London, Routledge, 1994; WESTENHOLZ, Love Lyrics; Y. SEFATI, Love Songs in Sumerian Literature, Jerusalem, Bar-Ilan University Press, 1998; NISSINEN, Love Lyrics; V. HAAS, Babylonischer Liebesgarten: Erotik und Sexualität im Alten Orient, München, Beck, 1999. 65. See M.V. FOX, The Cairo Love Songs, in JAOS 100 (1980) 101-109, pp. 103, IV(11), V(14) and 104, XII(22). 66. SCHMÖKEL, Heilige Hochzeit, p. 37; and FOX, Song, p. 136.

180

PART I – CHAPTER 4

ANE motif, which might even be found in the love lyrics of many other cultures and thus prove to be an archetypal relationship between two lovers. Another commonly adduced parallel is the use of waṣfs (Arabic for Beschreibungslieder) in the description of the beloved’s body (Song 4,1-7; 5,10-16; 6,5-7; 7,2-7). A famous example is the Papyrus Chester Beatty I, Group A: No 31 (C1,1–1,8)67:

(A) One alone is (my) sister, having no peer: cf. Song 6,9 more gracious than all other women. cf. Song 2,2 (B) Behold her, like Sothis rising cf. Song 6,10 at the beginning of a good year: shining, precious, white of skin, cf. Song 5,10 lovely of eyes when gazing. cf. Song 1,15; 4,1.9; 5,12; 6,5; 7,5 (C) Sweet her lips (when) speaking: cf. Song 4,11 she has no excess of words. Long of neck, white of breast, her hair true lapis lazuli. (D) Her arms surpass gold, her fingers are like lotuses. cf. Song 5,14 Full (?) (her) derrière, narrow (?) (her) waist, her thighs carry on her beauties. Lovely of ⟨walk⟩ when she strides on the ground, she has captured my heart in her embrace. cf. Song 4,9 (E) She makes the heads of all (the) men turn about when seeing her. Fortunate is whoever embraces her – he is like the foremost of lovers. (F) Her coming forth appears cf. Song 6,10 like (that of) her (yonder) – the (Unique) One. cf. Song 6,9

While this certainly resembles a number of texts in the Song, waṣfs also appear in Sumerian and Neo-Assyrian literature68. The impossibility of dating on account of a stylistic device like the waṣf is even more apparent when taking into account the waṣf found in the secondcentury B.C. Genesis Apocryphon, where it serves to exalt the beauty of Sarah (1QapGen 20,2-8)69. 67. The love song is dated to the twentieth dynasty (1200 – ca. 1150 B.C.) by SCHMÖKEL, Heilige Hochzeit, p. 181. The English is taken from ibid., pp. 52-56. For the slightly different French version, see MATHIEU, Poésie, pp. 26-27. 68. See COOPER, New Cuneiform Parallels, p. 158. See also, for example, The Rites of Egašankalamma, r. 9-17, and Chapter 6, III, The Love Lyrics of Nabû and Tashmetu (below, p. 352). 69. The translation is taken from D.A. MACHIELA, The Dead Sea Genesis Apocryphon: A New Text and Translation with Introduction and Special Treatment of Columns 13-17,

HISTORICAL POSTULATES: FROM COMPOSITION TO CANON

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

181

… How irresistible and beautiful is the image of her face; how lovely h[er] foreh[ead, and] soft the hair of her head! How graceful are her eyes, and how precious her nose; every feature of her face is radiant beauty! How lovely is her breast, and how beautiful her white complexion! As for her arms, how beautiful they are! And her hands, how perfect they are! Every view of her hands is stimulating! How graceful are her palms, and how long and thin all the fingers of her hands! Her legs are of such beauty, and her thighs so perfectly apportioned! There is not a virgin or bride who enters the bridal chamber more beautiful than she. Her beauty surpasses that of all women, since the height of her beauty soars above them all! And alongside all this beauty she possesses great wisdom. Everything about her is lovely!

Just as in the Song, the beauty of the beloved is exalted by giving a description of the individual body parts (cf. hair: Song 4,1; 6,5; eyes: 1,15; 4,1.9; 5,12; 6,5; 7,5; nose: 7,5; breast: 4,5; 7,3.7; hand: 5,14; thighs: 5,15; appearance: 5,15)70. The abundant use of waṣfs in the Song and the similarity of other motifs found in Egyptian literature is, therefore, in itself not an argument for Egyptian provenance71. Even though some of these poetic features might Leiden, Brill, 2009, pp. 76-77. For the dating, see ibid., p. 142. See moreover the waṣflike description of Aseneth in the Hellenistic Jewish novel Joseph and Aseneth 18,9. See U.B. FINK, Joseph und Aseneth: Revision des griechischen Textes und Edition der zweiten lateinischen Übersetzung (Fontes et Subsidia, 5), Berlin, De Gruyter, 2008, pp. 186, 308309. 70. Even if it is impossible to assert more than a common family tree between the Song and the waṣf of Sarah’s beauty, the possibility should not be excluded that the Genesis Apocryphon’s use of this device depends upon the Song and is an early reflection of how the Song was read, i.e. in view of the mothers of Israel, who are inner-biblically often depicted as personifications of Israel (cf. Gen 12,10-20). The latter view is affirmed by R.J. TOURNAY, Abraham et le Cantique des cantiques, in VT 25 (1975) 544-552, pp. 547548, and J. CARMIGNAC – É. COTHENET – H. LIGNÉE (eds.), Les textes de Qumran. II: Règle de la congrégation, Recueil des bénédictions, Interprétations de Prophètes et de Psaumes, Document de Damas, Apocryphe de la Genèse, Fragments des grottes 1 et 4; traduits et annotés, Paris, Letouzey & Ané, 1963, p. 231. 71. Another similar case which appears to be widely pervasive is the recurring motif of the uniqueness of the beloved and that of love sickness (cf. Song 2,8; 5,8). For Love sickness, see P CB I, Group A: No. 37, and also P. Harris 500, Group A: No. 6 (2,10-11). FOX, Song, p. 13: I will lie down inside and then I will feign illness. Then my neighbors will enter to see, and then (my) sister will come with them. She’ll put the doctors to shame (for she) will understand my illness.

182

PART I – CHAPTER 4

have originated in Egypt, they pervade ANE love poetry and persisted during centuries, even up to nineteenth-century Syria72. The Song could have drawn on this tradition just as well during the New Kingdom period and New Testament times. In fact, scholars make out an equal number of content-related features pointing to Mesopotamian comparative material. The Sumerian Inana and Dumuzi love lyrics are of particular importance. In view of the pervasive presence of this “sacred marriage” material in third-millennium Mesopotamia, and the close contacts between Mesopotamia and Syria-Palestine, certain scholars have assumed that these originally Sumerian love lyrics penetrated into Israel in second-millennium Canaan, and, after having undergone substantial modifications, were eventually accepted into the Jewish canon73. Thus the description of the Lover in Song 5,10-16 has a striking parallel in the Sumerian composition known as “The ‘Message of Lu-Dingir-Ra to his Mother’”74. Scholars agree that the description in this text does not correspond to a mortal woman, let alone the mother of Lu-Dingir-Ra. Rather, it seems that the text describes a splendid statuette of costly metals and stones depicting a deity. Like its Sumerian counterpart, the description in Song 5,10-16 also suggests the image of a Götterstatue, such as described in Dan 2,3275. Among the Mesopotamian comparative material the following parallels of religio-cultic origin are further worth mentioning. (1) The descents into gardens: “You who bloom in beauty, to the garden you go down, to the garden of fragrance go down”76 (cf. Song 4,16); “I went down to the garden of your love”77; “she seeks the beautiful Another striking parallel, ibid., p. 55 is the longing to kiss the Lover in public (cf. Song 8,2). Papyrus Chester Beatty I, Group A: No 36 (C4,3–4,4): (D) If only mother knew my heart— she would go inside for a while. O Golden One, put that in her heart! Then I could hurry to (my) brother and kiss him before his company, and not be ashamed because of anyone. 72. See WETZSTEIN, Syrische Dreschtafel. See also G.H. DALMAN, Palästinensischer Diwan: Als Beitrag zur Volkskunde Palästinas, Leipzig, Hinrichs, 1901, pp. 112, 123-125. 73. See SCHMÖKEL, Kultische Deutung; ID., Heilige Hochzeit. 74. See M. CIVIL, The ‘Message of Lu-dingir-ra to His Mother’ and a Group of AkkadoHittite ‘Proverbs’, in JNES 23 (1964) 1-11; COOPER, New Cuneiform Parallels; LEICK, Sex and Eroticism, pp. 153-156. 75. See M.W. HAMILTON, The Body Royal: The Social Poetics of Kingship in Ancient Israel (BIS, 78), Atlanta, GA, SBL Press, 2005, p. 55, and POPE, Song, p. 72. 76. MAD V. 8.6-11. See J.A.A. WESTENHOLZ, Help for Rejected Suitors: The Old Akkadian Love Incantation MAD V 8, in Orientalia 46 (1977) 198-219, pp. 202-203. 77. BM41005 obv. vii. 9. See W.G. LAMBERT, The Problem of the Love Lyrics, in H. GOEDICKE – J.J.M. ROBERTS (eds.), Unity and Diversity: Essays in the History, Literature,

HISTORICAL POSTULATES: FROM COMPOSITION TO CANON

183

garden of your charms; the king goes down to the garden”78 (cf. Song 5,1; 6,2). In Mesopotamia statues of divinities were apparently placed in gardens, so as to ritually vivify the garden, which was a model of the cosmos itself. “The Placement of the statue there signifies the location of the divinity in the universe”79. Song 6,2 retains this idea when it claims that the Lover, who in 5,10-16 has been described according to the “canons” of a Götterbeschreibung, descends into the garden80. (2) Plucking fruit: “Your caresses are sweet; growing luxuriantly is your fruit81; may my eyes behold the plucking of your fruit”82 (cf. Song 5,1; 6,11). (3) Eating and drinking as metaphors for the pleasures of love-making: “Let us eat of your strength” (cf. Song 4,16; 5,1). In addition to these parallels with Egyptian and Mesopotamian material, a series of Canaanite echoes also resound through the Song. Given the affinities with the more distant cultures of Egypt and Mesopotamia, it is no surprise to find a preponderance of such “local color” as well. (1) The first type of evidence is found in a range of figures from the Canaanite pantheon who populate the background of the biblical text. The close configuration of the elementary powers of ‫( מות‬death)83, ‫( שאול‬sheol), ‫( רשף‬lightning)84, ‫( מים רבים‬mighty waters), and ‫נהר‬ and Religion of the Ancient Near East, Baltimore, MD, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1975, 98-135, p. 104. 78. KAR 158 7. 26; see E. EBELING, Ein Hymnen-Katalog aus Assur (Berliner Beiträge zur Keilschriftforschung, 1/3), Berlin, Selbstverlag, 1922, pp. 1-9. 79. HAMILTON, The Body Royal, p. 59. 80. See ibid. 81. Old-Babylonian. See J. WESTENHOLZ, A Forgotten Love Song, in F. ROCHBERGHALTON (ed.), Language, Literature and History, Winona Lake, IN, American Oriental Society, 1987, 415-425, pp. 422-423. 82. A. LIVINGSTONE – J. READE, Court Poetry and Literary Miscellanea (SAA, 3), Helsinki, Helsinki University Press, 1989, pp. 36-37; NISSINEN, Love Lyrics. 83. Môt is a Canaanite deity or demonic figure, who reigns over Sheol, the underworld, in the Ugaritic mythology. See J.F. HEALY, MOT ‫מות‬, in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, Leiden, Brill, 1995, 1122-1132, and M.S. SMITH, The Ugaritic Baal Cycle. I: Introduction with Text, Translation & Commentary of KTU I.I – I.2 (VT.S, 55), Leiden, Brill, 1994, pp. 18-19. 84. The term used for flashes is a subtle allusion to the god Reshef, “a chthonic deity, god of the Netherworld”, who was very popular throughout the ANE world. “He is the lord of battle and of diseases, which he spreads through his bows and arrows”. Though the etymology of his name is uncertain, it is usually explained as “the one who burns”, and related to the root *‫ רשף‬with the basic meaning of “to light, set on fire”. In the Old Testament he appears as the demonized version of an ancient Canaanite god, now submitted to YHWH. Emblematic is his appearance in Hab 3,5, “where God is described as a divine warrior, Lord of light; before him goes Deber (master of epidemics; cf. Exod 9,3 and Jer 21,6), while Resheph (Pestilence) follows on God’s heels”. P. XELLA, Resheph ‫רשף‬, in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, Leiden, Brill, 1995, 1324-1330.

184

PART I – CHAPTER 4

(floods)85 in Song 8,6-7, for instance, is evocative of the Baal myth86: “Strong as Death (‫ )מות‬is Love (‫)אהבה‬, hard as Sheol (‫ )שאול‬is jealousy. Its Lightning (‫ )רשף‬is fiery lightning, a flame of Yah. Many waters (‫מים‬ ‫ )רבים‬cannot quench love (‫)אהבה‬, neither can floods (‫ )נהרות‬drown it”. The victorious contest of Love (‫ )אהבה‬against the numinous powers of Death and destruction calls to mind the similar contest of Baal against the figures of Yam, Nahar, and Môt87. The appellation ‫דודי‬, Dôḏî, the title for the Song’s Lover (e.g. Song 1,13. 14.16, etc.), may also conceal a reference to Northwest Semitic religion. Specifically, the same title appears in eighth-century Aramaic seals as a name for the god Hadad88, identified with Baal in the Ugaritic texts89. Further reminiscences of Canaanite deities are found in Song 3,7 and 6,10, where the Terror of the Night (‫ )פחד לילות‬and Shahar (‫)שחר‬, the god of dawn and son of El (cf. Isa 14,12-15; Job 38,12), respectively appear. 85. The primordial forces of chaos and death, the mighty waters (‫ )מים רבים‬and floods (‫ )נהרות‬are suggestive of the mythological gods of Yam and Nahar whom Baal fights and overcomes. The chthonic forces of these powers appear clearly in Ezek 31,15 in the allegory of Pharaoh as a cedar who will be cast out from Eden into Sheol, “Thus says the Lord YHWH: On the day it [the cedar] went down to Sheol I closed the deep (‫ )תהום‬over it and covered it; I restrained its rivers (‫)נהרות‬, and its mighty waters (‫ )מים רים‬were checked. I clothed Lebanon in gloom for it, and all the trees of the field fainted because of it”. 86. See O. LORETZ, Nachklänge des ugaritischen Baal-Mythos in Hld 8,6-7, in Studi storico-religiosi 5 (1981) 197-207; ID., Môt und Eros. See also the excellent article by A.M. WILSON-WRIGHT, Love Conquers All: Song of Songs 8,6b-7a as a Reflex of the Northwest Semitic Combat Myth, in JBL 134 (2015) 333-345. 87. As Yitzhak Avishur has pointed out, even the phrase “strong as death” (‫עזה כמות‬ ‫ ;אהבה‬Song 8,6) has a direct parallel in Ugaritic. “And the hand of a god here is very strong like death” (KTU 1.53,11-13). “Concerning a battle between Baal and the god Mot (death) it is said, mt ῾z b῾l ῾z: ‘Mot is strong. Baal is strong’ (KTU 1.6: VI:17-20). The phrase ‘Mot is strong’ appears as a noun and its attribute. This phrase, coined in the account of the battle, became a simile for the strength of the god Mot (Death)”. See Y. AVISHUR, Motifs and Phrases Common to the Literature of Ugarit and the Bible, in R. DEUTSCH (ed.), Shlomo: Studies in Epigraphy, Iconography, History and Archaeology in Honor of Shlomo Moussaieff, Tel Aviv, Archaeological Center, 2003, 11-22, pp. 19-20. 88. The cylinder reads “Daday” or “Dadi”. It is supposed to be a form of writing the name Hadad, maybe a hypocoristic, since it is accompanied by an image of the same god. See A. LEMAIRE, Nouveaux sceaux nord-ouest sémitiques: A. Sceaux et bulle hébraïques – B. Sceaux ammonites – C. Sceaux moabites – D. Sceau araméen – E. Sceau phénicien, in Semitica 33 (1983) 17-31, pp. 27-28; R. DEUTSCH – A. LEMAIRE, Biblical Period Personal Seals in the Shlomo Moussaieff Collection, Tel Aviv, Archaeological Center, 2000, Seal 120. For Dôḏî as reminiscence of a fertility divinity, see also MÜLLER, Hohelied, pp. 19-20. See further Chapter 8. 89. “The name Addu appears as Haddu in Ugaritic texts where Haddu stands in parallelism with Baal. In the second millennium, Baal was an epithet of Haddu. Like the name Jerubbaal, the name Rib-Addi [Byblian King] means ‘may Addu contend’”, M.S. SMITH, The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel, San Francisco, CA, Harper, 1990; (The Biblical Resource Series), Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 22002, p. 45.

HISTORICAL POSTULATES: FROM COMPOSITION TO CANON

185

(2) Another type of mythic Canaanite coloring appears in a variety of intricate cultic echoes. For instance, the praise of the Dôḏî as ‫ נעים‬in Song 1,16, corresponds to a similar usage derived from the Baal cult. In particular, the predicate ‫ נעים‬is applied to Baal (KTU 1.5 VI 5f.), either as a proper name or as a term of endearment90. Furthermore, there is the motif of “sitting in the shade” of the Lover (Song 1,17)91, and the desire to eat “raisin cakes” (Song 2,5; cf. 2 Samuel 6,19 || 1 Chr 16,3; Hos 3,1)92. 90. KTU 1.6 II 14-17. “In n῾my haben wir … einen Namen oder ein Kosewort für Baal vor uns, das aus n῾m + y besteht”. O. LORETZ, Vom Baal-Epitheton adn zu Adonis und Adonaj, in UF 12 (1980) 287-292, pp. 291-292. From the Baal cult the language was transferred to Adonis, who bore the same property of being lovely, and whose personal name came to be n῾mn in Phoenician. See W.F. ALBRIGHT, Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan: A Historical Analysis of Two Contrasting Faiths (Jordan Lectures in Comparative Religion, 7), London, Athlone, 1968, pp. 186-187. See further G.A. RENDSBURG, Additional Notes on “The Last Words of David” (2 Sam 23,1-7), in Bib 70 (1989) 403-408, and MÜLLER, Hohelied, p. 21. A remnant to this cult is seen among other places in Isa 17,10-11 where the prophet reproaches Israel with the words: “For you have forgotten the God of your salvation, and have not remembered the Rock of your refuge; therefore, though you plant pleasant (‫ )נעמנים‬plants and set out slips of an alien god, though you make them grow on the day that you plant them, and make them blossom in the morning that you sow; yet the harvest will flee away in a day of grief and incurable pain” (RSV). The term ‫ נעמנים‬is a hapax in the Hebrew Bible. According to context it is explained as being a reference to the Adonis gardens, which has to be understood as designating the god Tammuz-Adonis. T. KRONHOLM, ‫נָ ַעם‬, in ThWAT, IX, Stuttgart, Kohlhammer, 2016, 467-474, p. 473. See also H. WILDBERGER, Jesaja: Teilband 2 (BKAT, 10/2), Neukirchen-Vluyn, Neukirchener Verlag, 1978; L. GRABBE (ed.), The Seleucid and Hasmonean Periods and the Apocalyptic Worldview: The First Enoch Seminar Nangeroni Meeting, Villa Cagnola, Gazzada (June 25-28, 2012), London, T&T Clark, 2016, pp. 657-658, who comes to the conclusion that the ‫ נעמן‬in question is probably Baal, whom Israel had gotten to know as a Canaanite vegetation god. However, an influence of the Tammuz cult cannot be excluded. The adjective “lovely” was also used to designate YHWH, Ps 135,3, “Praise the Lord, for good is the Lord; sing to his name for he is ‫( נעים‬lovely/gracious)”. See also, Ps 27,4; 90,17; 147,1. According to MÜLLER, Hohelied, p. 21, the epithet ‫ נעים‬as an original predicate of a god would be found in names like ‫( נעמן‬Naaman, 2 Kgs 5,1); ‫( נעמי‬Naomi; Ruth 1,2); and ‫( נעמה‬Gen 4,22; 1 Kgs 14,21.32; 2 Chr 12,13). 91. See NISSINEN, Love Lyrics, pp. 606-607, according to whom there is “no question about the close connection of tree and goddess in the religious milieu of ancient Palestine”. On the basis of a comparison with seventh-century Mesopotamian love lyrics he asserts an indisputable connection between the tree-and-shade metaphor and divine eroticism. According to him, “it seems that the exilic and post-exilic reforms were successful in extirpating the ritual activity akin to the goddess worship, but could not do away with the positive imagery related to the condemned practices which the ancient Israelites largely shared with their neighbors. Rather, this imagery needed to be reinterpreted in terms of monotheistic Yahwism as obviously attempted in Hos 14,6-9”. 92. Both in 2 Sam 6,19 and Hos 3,1 the raisin cakes are reminiscent of an ancient Canaanite fertility rite. “The ‘cakes of raisins’ were eaten by the participants in the cult (cf. 2 Sam 6:19; 1 Chr 16:3; cf. Is 16:7; Song 2:5) and apparently also enjoyed by Hosea’s contemporaries as gifts from Baal (cf. 2,7, 14 and Dalman, Arbeit 4, 353f.)”. H.W. WOLFF, Hosea: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Hosea (Hermeneia, 28), Philadelphia, PA, Fortress, 1974, p. 61 with nn. 43 and 44). See also A.A. ANDERSON, 2 Samuel (WBC, 11), Dallas, TX, Word Books, 1989, p. 107.

186

PART I – CHAPTER 4

(3) The abundant mythic imagery as well documented in the commentary of Othmar Keel resonates equally with Ugaritic mythology. Most prominent among these is the “goddess with lions and leopards” (cf. Song 4,8)93, and the “woman at the window motif” (cf. Song 6,10) which pervades the ANE literature in general94. Notably the description of the Beloved in Song 6,10 corresponds to the “iconography” of Ishtar as the goddess of both love and war, also expressed in her appearance as the evening and morning star95. The Song differs from the traditions about Dumuzi and Baal (which are similar in their death and perhaps in their return to life) insofar as there is no apparent death in the Song. There is, however, a strong similarity in the motif of the female protagonist, the Beloved of the Song, and the divine consorts, Inana/Ninhursag and Anat respectively, searching for their lovers. While Dumuzi and Baal are apparently dead, the Lover of the Song has merely disappeared (Song 3,1-4; 5,2) which initiates the Beloved’s search in the night (the night being, nonetheless, a symbol for death). There might, moreover, be a reminiscence of death in Song 8,5-6. There the Beloved is said to be going up from the desert, a classical motif for a place where death reigns. She claims to have “awoken” the Lover under the apple tree96. The verse is immediately followed by the famous victory of love over death (8,6) which, as mentioned before, is evocative of the Baal cycle (KTU 1.5 I–1.6 VI). The broad ANE context – Egyptian, Mesopotamian, and Canaanite – accords well with an early dating, and it was common in the nineteenth century to date the Song to the tenth century B.C., largely in view of the then still-presumed Solomonic authorship of the text97. This view of the authorship, however, has been entirely abandoned. The title is now recognized to be a later fictional attribution. Indeed, the exalted depiction of Solomon within the Song itself speaks against authorship in the time of the historic Solomon. There is, nevertheless, a certain ancient and Solomonic aura about the Song, which leads some scholars to assume a date in the monarchic period98. This aura is created by the extensive stage-presence granted to 93. See GARBINI, Cantico, p. 226; and KEEL, Tauben, pp. 39-45. 94. See KEEL, Hohelied, pp. 205-206, ill. 113, 114. See also SCHMÖKEL, Heilige Hochzeit, pp. 50-51. 95. See SCHMÖKEL, Heilige Hochzeit, pp. 49-50. 96. SCHMÖKEL, ibid., p. 78, associates this tree with the sacred-tree motif, which in the Sumerian tradition was a cedar. In the context of Israel, however, one is reminded of the fact that Asherah’s symbol is a stylized tree. 97. See POPE, Song, p. 22. 98. For the list of authors and their arguments see ibid., pp. 23-24.

HISTORICAL POSTULATES: FROM COMPOSITION TO CANON

187

King Solomon, references to his harem (Song 6,8; cf. 1 Kgs 11,1-3), his wisdom, poetic abilities, and knowledge of nature (cf. 1 Kgs 5,9-14), the mention of the town Tirzah, the former capital of the Northern Kingdom (Song 6,4)99, the pool of Heshbon (7,5), and similarities to the Egyptian love songs100. According to Gillis Gerleman, who in the 1960s still favored a tenthcentury dating, it would be hard to find another period of Israel’s history which could have been more congenial to erotic love poetry than the so-called time of “Solomonic Humanism”101. He buttresses this view with the alleged parallels to the Egyptian love poetry of the New Kingdom102. The contemporary scholars Scott Noegel and Gary Rendsburg argue for the period of the divided kingdom (930-721 B.C.), more concretely circa 900 B.C., on the basis of their diagnosis of an anti-Solomonic subtext103. Moreover, they – as others before – argue that the mention of Tirzah in parallel to Jerusalem in Song 6,4, would favor a dating to a time when Tirzah was still the capital the Northern Kingdom before Omri moved it to Samaria, i.e., before 870 B.C.104. Tirzah, however, was not forgotten as soon as it ceased to be the capital. Rather, people in later times would have known about it from the same sources as we do now and could have easily given it a symbolic value105. Indeed, it stands to reason that the mention of northern towns, particularly Tirzah, might during the final phase of the Song’s composition have been intended to evoke the ideal time of 99. S.B. NOEGEL – G.A. RENDSBURG, Solomon’s Vineyard: Literary and Linguistic Studies in the Song of Songs (SBLAIL, 1), Atlanta, GA, SBL Press, 2009, p. 174, base their dating to the tenth century on these references: “[…] it was during the existence of the northern kingdom (930-721 B.C.E.) that large segments of the population were wroth with Solomon. One could further argue, in fact, that it was during the beginning of this period that anti-Solomonic fervor was strongest. The key passage in Song 6:4, which presents Tirzah and Jerusalem as parallel terms, supports this position, for the former was the capital of the northern kingdom from sometime during the reign of Jeroboam I (see 1 Kgs 14:17) until the sixth year of the reign of Omri (see 1 Kgs 16:23), that is, approximately, 918876 B.C.E. We would date the Song to specifically this period”. 100. KEEL, Hohelied, pp. 12-14. For a late dating based on the mention of the geographical names, see T. ELGVIN, The Literary Growth of the Song of Songs during the Hasmonean and Early-Herodian Periods (Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology, 89), Leuven, Peeters, 2018, pp. 111-120. 101. GERLEMAN, Hohelied, p. 76. 102. See ibid., p. 77. Similarly, Chaim RABIN, who perceives parallels to Tamil poetry and assumes Israelite voyages to India during the reign of King Solomon. The Song of Songs and Tamil Poetry, in Studies in Religion/Sciences religieuses 3 (1973) 205-219. 103. See NOEGEL – RENDSBURG, Solomon’s Vineyard, p. 174. 104. See GORDIS, Song, p. 23. Re-proposed by I. YOUNG, Diversity in Pre-Exilic Hebrew (FAT, 5), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 1993, p. 160. 105. See FOX, Song, pp. 151, 187. Pace D.M. CARR, The Formation of the Hebrew Bible: A New Reconstruction, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2011, p. 441.

188

PART I – CHAPTER 4

Israel, when the twelve tribes were living in peace within and without, under the one common shepherd, King Solomon (cf. 1 Kgs 5,5). The appearance of the oasis En-Gedi in Song 1,14 provides a stronger temporal indicator than Tirzah. Since the site was not populated before the seventh century B.C., this date has been invoked as a terminus a quo. In particular, Keel reckons with a collection of songs that had originally been sung in the North and are to be dated somewhere between the eighth and the sixth century B.C. The Egyptian love poetry would have still been prospering and well known, which cannot be presumed for the later Hellenistic period106. Keel does not exclude the possibility that some toponyms, verses, or entire cantos, e.g., Song 3,9-10d, would have been inserted by a later hand and that this final redaction is to be traced back to Jerusalem107. There is no need to contest a probable northern provenance of individual cantos stemming from the time of the divided kingdom or even before. Both the toponyms as well as the many mythological reminiscences speak in favor of their northern provenance and antiquity. On the other hand, the significant role of Jerusalem (8× in the MT, and 9× in the LXX) and its fabulous King Solomon is such that one must presume a decisive moment in the composition to have taken place in Jerusalem. It is unlikely that in the period of the Deuteronomistic literature, when the reason for the division of the kingdom was seen in Solomon’s idolatry induced by his many foreign wives (Deut 17,17; 1 Kgs 11,1-13), a book as approving of Solomon’s love as the Song would have been composed108. Furthermore, references to Solomon’s paradigmatic wisdom and knowledge of the secrets of nature are also indicative of late influences. The different portrayal of Solomon in the respective books of Kings and Chronicles shows a tendency to valorize the figure of the legendary King, a tendency continued in the para-testamental literature (Psalms of Solomon, Testament of Solomon, Odes of Solomon). Attributions of great wisdom to Solomon appear already in the late strata of 1 Kings and increase markedly in later books, notably Qohelet and the Book of Wisdom. The fictive attribution of texts to Solomon (Prov 1,1; 10,1; 25,1; Qoh 1,1; Wisdom of Solomon; Ps 72,1; 127,1) is also a late feature which follows this trajectory and has an obvious implication for the dating of the Song. 106. KEEL, Hohelied, p. 14. 107. Ibid. 108. Contrary to scholars who want to read all mentions of Solomon in a negative light, it appears that only Song 8,11 takes a “critical” view of the historic Solomon – but only to indicate that the “Solomon” envisioned by the Song is not the historical one but the ideal son of David yet to come. See Chapter 9.

HISTORICAL POSTULATES: FROM COMPOSITION TO CANON

189

Another interesting argument in favor of a late dating based on the toponyms has been brought forth by Detlef Jericke109. According to Jericke the naming of a majority of locations in the North does not necessarily lead to an entrenchment of the Song in the Northern Kingdom. Rather, they favor in his view a dating in Hellenistic times. The totality of the toponyms mentioned in the Song would cover all the territory of Palestine according to its extension under Ptolemaic control in the third century B.C.: Die Gesamtheit der Toponyme im Hohenlied deckt alle Gebiete Palästinas ab, die unter ptolemäischer Kontrolle standen: Das südliche Palästina (Kedar) als die Übergangsregion zum ptolemäischen Kernland, die zentralen Gebirgsregionen südlich und nördlich von Jerusalem (Bet-Ter, Tirza, Karmel), die Küstenebene als wichtige Handelsverbindung (Scharon), die strategisch diffizile Nordgrenze (Libanon) und die ostjordanischen Landesteilen (Gilead, Heschbon). Auch dieser Hinsicht legt sich eine Datierung des Werkes in das 3. Jh. v. Chr. nahe110.

Jericke’s geographical observation is good, yet the historical conclusion is debatable. Michael Avi-Yonah and Israel Finkelstein both hold that the geographical extension of the province of Yehud was still quite small under Ptolemaic rule111. In fact, it was only under Hasmonean rule, i.e., in the second half of the second century B.C., that Judea expanded to a size that is similar to that of the kingdom of Judah in the seventh century112. If the imaginary map depicted by the toponyms of the Song should be of any indicative value as reflecting an actual territorial extent of Judea at the time of its composition it would rather point to Judea under Hasmonean rule113. 109. D. JERICKE, Toponyme im Hohenlied, in Zeitschrift des Deutschen PalästinaVereins 121 (2005) 39-58. 110. Ibid., p. 51. 111. See M. AVI-YONAH, Palästina, in Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, Supplementband XIII, Stuttgart, Metzler, 1973, 322-323; I. FINKELSTEIN, The Territorial Extent and Demography of Yehud/Judea in the Persian and Early Hellenistic Periods, in RB 117 (2010) 39-54, pp. 46-51. 112. See FINKELSTEIN, The Territorial Extent, p. 52. Schürer goes even further in affirming, “Following his ancestors’ advancement of Jewish territory as far as the sea by means of the acquisition of Joppa and Gazara and other conquests in the west, Hyrcanus had, by new conquests in the east, south and north, and by ensuring his independence of Syria, created a Jewish state such as had not existed since the dispersal of the ten tribes, and perhaps not since the partition of the kingdom after the death of Solomon”. E. SCHÜRER, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ: (175 B.C.-A.D. 135), I, Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1973, p. 215. 113. For a similar dating, see ELGVIN, Literary Growth, pp. 111-120. The setting for the Song’s composition is in Palestine. See KEEL, Tauben, pp. 16-17; and GERHARDS, Hohelied, p. 28.

190

PART I – CHAPTER 4

Finkelstein contributes yet another observation. According to him and Avi-Yonah there was a population of an estimated “400-500 people, that is, ca. 100 adult men” in Jerusalem during the Persian and Early Hellenistic period, and a maximum of 20,000-30,000 people in the entire province of Yehud during the Persian period114. Even if this is an extreme estimate, the population was probably too small to account for a high literary activity going on in Jerusalem. The Late Hellenistic (Hasmonean) fortifications of Jerusalem, on the other hand, represent a “well organized territorio-political entity with significant wealth and population, evidence for high-level bureaucracy and clear ideology of sovereignty”, which most scholars date to the time of the Hasmoneans115. Such an extremely late dating accords well with those exegetes who see a stronger influence from Greek Bucolic than its Egyptian predecessors116. According to Garbini, Theocritus’ works served as a Vorlage for the poetry of the Song117. On the basis of similar observations, particularly the use of the paraklausithyron motif, Meik Gerhards dates the Song in the Seleucid period118. Even David Carr, who argues for a northern provenance of the Song, concludes, “certainly the Song of Songs as we have it now is a Hellenistic product, no earlier than our oldest manuscripts of the Bible, and some parts of it may originate from its latest phases of transmission”119. More recently Anselm Hagedorn has reiterated his view that the Song is a product of Ptolemaic Alexandria120. 114. See I. FINKELSTEIN, Jerusalem in the Persian (and Early Hellenistic) Period and the Wall of Nehemiah, in JSOT 32 (2008) 501-520, pp. 506-507. 115. Ibid., p. 510. Considerations of the kind could of course also be made in favor of the period of the divided monarchy, for “it was in such settings, with Israel and Judah as independent political entities in their native lands, and with kings sponsoring royal chancelleries, that texts from Egypt and Mesopotamia would have been read, considered, and adapted for Hebrew usage and dissemination”. NOEGEL – RENDSBURG, Solomon’s Vineyard, p. 184. 116. See F. DORNSEIFF, Ägyptische Liebeslieder, Hoheslied, Sappho, Theokrit, in ZDMG 90 (1936) 589-601; GARBINI, Cantico, p. 293; HAGEDORN, Foxes; ID., What Kind of Love?; and GERHARDS, Hohelied, pp. 48-61. 117. GARBINI, Cantico, p. 293 postulates further a dependence on Theocritus, who wrote his Idylls in the first half of the third century B.C. 118. GERHARDS, Hohelied, pp. 48-61, gives an elaborate demonstration of the Greek influence on the example of the paraklausithyron motif and the description of Solomon’s litter. A paraklausithyron is “a lover’s song at his beloved’s door, in which he begs for admission and laments his exclusion”. P.A. WATSON, Paraklausithyron, in Oxford Classical Dictionary: The Ultimate Reference Work on the Classical World, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 32005, 1112. 119. CARR, The Formation of the Hebrew Bible, p. 447. 120. See HAGEDORN, What Kind of Love?, p. 102. According to him, “Love poetry is shaped and created to demonstrate the (Jewish) ability to participate in the international intellectual life of the Eastern Mediterranean in the (early) Hellenistic period”. He postulates that the Song may be “the first attempt in Jewish literature to fuse the traditions

HISTORICAL POSTULATES: FROM COMPOSITION TO CANON

191

2. Language-Related Arguments The majority of dating attempts are currently based on linguistic features121. This is an intricate matter, however, on account of the lack of consensus concerning the development of the Hebrew language122. The very same features serve some scholars for an early dating and others for a late one. Beyond any doubt is the fact that the Song contains several layers of Hebrew, and that this has implications for the history of its composition. The earliest evidence consists of Canaanite (Ugaritic) influences on the poetics and vocabulary123. Mark Smith, for example, points out the similarity to the Baal Cycle in poetic devices such as the double command “go, go” (likā likā) (in KTU 1.1 III 17), found in Judg 5,12 (‫עורי עורי‬ ‫ )דבורה עורי עורי‬and Song 7,1 (‫)שובי שובי השולמית‬124. One may add the double command “with me from Lebanon” in Song 4,8 (‫אתי מלבנון‬, ‫)אתי מלבנון‬, a passage that is incidentally replete with northern geographical locations and free of any Late Biblical Hebrew (LBH) features125. Particularly striking, however, are the many parallel word pairs similarly found in Ugaritic. Yitzhak Avishur educes more than a dozen word pairs in the Song that also occur in Canaanite sources126. Exemplary are the pairs ‫בתינו || ערשנו‬ (“our couch”, || “our house”, Song 1,16-17), ‫“( אצבעתי || ידי‬my hands” || “my fingers”, Song 5,5), ‫“( כרמים || שדה‬fields” || “vineyards”, Song 7,1213), and rare word combinations such as ‫ קוצותיו‬with ‫“( תלתלים‬his locks are curly”, Song 5,11). Michael Fishbane points out another syntactic similarity to a basic pattern in Ugaritic poetry, where the first line has a noun plus a direct address (e.g., Lebanon+bride), the second line repeats the same noun (Lebanon) plus a second-person verb (come), and the third of love poetry of Egypt (and the Near East for that matter) with Hellenistic culture, something that we will later encounter, for example, in the thirty epigrams of Philodemus of Gadara”. Given the many specifically Canaanite mythological reminiscences and the massive allusions to Israelite geography, as well as the overt Hebrew character of the Song, I find this hypothesis highly improbable. The comparative examples Hagedorn adduces (i.e., Song 1,9-11, comparison of women to horses in Greek literature) are too few and incidental. 121. DOBBS-ALLSOPP, Linguistic Features. 122. MEEK, Canticles and the Tammuz Cult, p. 13. 123. See, for example, O. LORETZ, Hebräisch *tymrh “Palmettensäule” in der Liebesdichtung (Cant 3,6), in UF 35 (2003) 385-389. 124. See SMITH, Baal Cycle, p. 181. See also POPE, Song, p. 595. 125. It is significant in this respect that 4Q107 appears to preserve a very old text form. Where the MT reads “from the peak of Amanah” 4Q107 reads ‫אומנון‬, which might be the Aramaic name for this mountain and a further hint to both the ancient and northern providence of this canto. 126. See Y. AVISHUR, Le-Ziqah ha-Signonit ben Shir-ha-Shirim ve-Sifrut ‘Ugarit’, in Beit Mikra 59 (1974) 508-525.

192

PART I – CHAPTER 4

line replaces the preceding noun and verb (Lebanon+come) with synonyms (leap up+Amana) while inverting their sequence127. An example of this is found in Song 4,8: “With me from Lebanon, my bride || With me, from Lebanon, come || leap up from the summit of Amana”. Gillis Gerleman based his tenth-century dating on the presence of Greek and Persian words, which he explains by the strong influence of Phoenician culture on tenth-century Israel. Scott Noegel and Gary Rendsburg, for their part, consider the many Aramaisms and “Mishnaisms” recognized by other scholars to be, in fact, a tenth- to ninth-century dialect of northern Israel128. In favor of the monarchic period and northern provenance, many scholars have noted that except for Jerusalem and En-Gedi, nearly all locations are situated in the former Northern Kingdom or even farther north (e.g., Lebanon, Amana, Senir, Hermon, Damascus; Song 4,8; 7,5) or east (Heshbon; 7,5)129. Frederick William Dobbs-Allsopp interprets the evidence differently and affirms that the language of the Song is “unmistakably” LBH130. On the grounds of his analysis there are relatively few verses in the Song that are not characterized by the linguistic features of LBH131. In addition to 127. See FISHBANE, Song, p. xxxiv, who cites UT 68 IV, 8-9; 49 IV, 25-27. 128. See NOEGEL – RENDSBURG, Solomon’s Vineyard, pp. 174-175. They prefer not to speak of Aramaisms “as true borrowings from Aramaic during the postexilic period, but rather lexical and grammatical features shared by Israelian Hebrew and Aramaic during their coexistence over centuries. Similarly, the Mishnaisms are not indications of a late date but rather evidence for the northern dialect in which the Song of Songs was composed”. 129. See ibid., pp. 9-10. 130. DOBBS-ALLSOPP, Linguistic Features, pp. 28, 71. See also BARBIERO, Cantico, pp. 43-48. Contrary to this view see NOEGEL – RENDSBURG, Solomon’s Vineyard, pp. 181, 184, who defends a theory already proposed by DRIVER, Introduction, p. 421, according to which the language of the Song displays a dialect spoken in the Northern Kingdom of Israel. Noegel and Rendsburg explain the presence of the admittedly Persian loan-word ‫ פרדס‬as “the product of linguistic updating […] by a later scribe, during the Persian period (or possibly during the Hellenistic period)”. In this article Rendsburg revises his earlier position according to which the Hebrew had been dated into the Persian period; see G.A. RENDSBURG, Israelian Hebrew in the Song of Songs, in S. FASSBERG – A. HURVITZ (eds.), Biblical Hebrew in Its Northwest Semitic Setting, Jerusalem, The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 2006, 315-323; see also DELITZSCH, Hohelied, pp. 19-26. 131. Among the most striking features are the following: More than 60% of the Song’s spellings are plene, which along with the book of Esther is the highest percentage of plene spellings among biblical compositions. The persistent use of the relative article ‫ ש‬throughout the Song is a clear indicator for LBH (and not of a northern dialect; see the 42 uses of ‫ אשר‬in the presumably northern Gideon-cycle). Though the preposition ‫ אל‬is used on seven occasions in the Song it has been mostly encroached by the prepositions ‫ על‬and ‫ל‬ as is typical for LBH. Feminine pronouns have completely disappeared and been replaced by their masculine equivalent (cf. Song 6,5 and 6,9 where the female antecedents are beyond doubt), as have also the feminine suffixes (‫כן‬/‫ )הן‬and the feminine verb forms of both the prefix and the suffix conjugations (cf. 1,6; 2,7; 3,5; 5,8; 6,9; and 8,4). There

HISTORICAL POSTULATES: FROM COMPOSITION TO CANON

193

the consistent signs of LBH, the many Aramaisms noted in the Song are generally counted as an argument in favor of a late dating of the composition132. As Dobbs-Allsopp points out, it is hard to perceive that these Aramaisms are due to a language up-dating during the Persian period, for most of their occurrences are deeply embedded in the poetry and contribute critically to the Song’s construction. In consideration of the Persianisms133, Dobbs-Allsopp thus dates the composition of the Song somewhere between “the two centuries of Achaemenid rule in the Near East (538-323 B.C.)”134. Other scholars who recognize a Grecism in the word ‫( אפריון‬Song 3,9) are more inclined to date the final version of the Song slightly later to the third century B.C.135. Dobbs-Allsopp refrains from expressing an opinion on the great number of hapax legomena that feature in the Song136. Though his caution is prudent, it should be noted that among these biblical hapaxes are at least eleven words that occur neither in the Bible nor at Qumran but are frequently attested in Mishnaic and Talmudic Hebrew137. This high number of Mishnaic Hebrew terms was already observed by Paul Joüon and might lead to the conclusion that such passages cannot be older than 200 B.C. at the earliest138. The most striking late feature may be singled is a clear preference for plural forms of words which in SBH are routinely used in the singular (e.g., ‫ מגדים‬in 4,13.16; 7,14, versus ‫ מגד‬in Deut 33,14-16); and a use of feminine plural ‫( שפתות‬Song 4,3.11; 5,13) instead of the common dual form. This feature occurs elsewhere in the Bible only in late texts, in Sirach (51,22) at Qumran and in Mishnaic Hebrew. As would be expected in LBH, the paragogic nun is completely absent from the Song. See extensively DOBBS-ALLSOPP, Linguistic Features. 132. Ibid., pp. 49-65. Examples of Aramaisms are ‫“ ברותים‬cypress” (Song 1,17); ‫מזג‬ “mixed wine” (7,3; in BH it should be ‫ ;מסך‬in MH it becomes ‫“ נטר ;)מזג‬to guard” (1,8; 8,11). 133. See ibid., p. 65: ‫( פרדס‬4,13); ‫( אגוז‬6,11); ‫( נרד‬1,12; 4,13.14); ‫( כרכם‬4,14). 134. Ibid., p. 71. 135. See H.-P. MÜLLER, Poesie und Magie in Cant. 4,12–5,1, in W. VOIGT (ed.), XIX. Deutscher Orientalistentag: Vom 28. September bis 4. Oktober 1975 in Freiburg im Breisgau Vorträge, Wiesbaden, Steiner, 1977, 157-164, p. 157; BARBIERO, Cantico, pp. 47-48; ZAKOVITCH, Hohelied, p. 66; GERHARDS, Hohelied, p. 48. 136. I count at least 45 biblical hapaxes. See also the list in ZAKOVITCH, Hohelied, pp. 64-65. 137. See the enumeration given by GERHARDS, Hohelied, p. 30: ‫( ָר ִהיט‬1,17) Mqere “wood for building”; ‫ צוּץ‬II (2,9) “to gaze, to peer”; ‫( ְס ָתו‬2,11) “winter”; ‫( חנט‬2,13) “to bring about ripeness”; ‫פּג‬/‫ה‬ ַ ָ‫( ַפּג‬2,13) “fruit that is not fully ripe”; ‫( ְס ָמ ַדר‬2,13.15; 7,13) “flower buds of the vine”; ‫( ַא ִפּ ְריוֹן‬3,9) “litter, sedan chair”; ‫( גלשׁ‬4,1; 6,5) “to boil”; ‫( ְקוֻ צּוֹת‬5,11) “locks”; ‫תּל ַתּ ִלּ ים‬ ְ (5,11) its meaning is still discussed; ‫( ֶאגוֹז‬6,11) “nut”, “walnut”. ZAKOVITCH, Hohelied, pp. 233, 235, notes further that the syntax of Song 6,8 is characteristic for Mishnaic Hebrew. And regarding the vocabulary of 6,10, “‫ לבנה‬kommt biblisch stets in Verbindung mit ‫ חמה‬vor (vgl. Jes 24,23; 30,26) und immer in derselben Reihenfolge. … In der rabbinischen Literatur sind dies die üblichen Bezeichnungen für Sonne und Mond”. 138. See GARBINI, Cantico, p. 293.

194

PART I – CHAPTER 4

out here. It is the use of the possessive pronoun ‫ של‬preceded by a noun with a pronominal suffix (Song 1,6; 8,12 ‫ ;כרמי שלי‬and 3,6 ‫)מטתו שלשלמה‬. This is the only time that genitive construction occurs in the Hebrew Bible, while it appears also in Ben Sira and will develop fully into an independent particle in Mishnaic Hebrew139. The present scholarly consensus was already expressed in 1962 in the words of Moshe Segal: “[The Song’s] language represents the latest stage of Biblical Hebrew as current in the Hellenistic period before it passed into the dialect of Mishnah and its allied literature”140. It should be observed, however, that although the final redaction could not have taken place before 200 B.C. in all probability, certain very ancient elements in the text may have been preserved more or less untouched. A good example of a unit of possibly northern provenance, lacking any LBH features, and impressed with a mythological motif, is Song 4,8-11. The LBH relative pronoun ‫ ש‬does not occur and it is the only passage where there is a relic of the old feminine prefix conjugation (4,11 ‫)תטפנה‬. At the same time, a concentration of northern place names (Lebanon, Amana, Senir, and Hermon) clusters in this unit, which plays upon the motif of the mythic mountain on which Ishtar dwells with her sacred animals, the lion and the leopard (Song 4,8). The passage is unique within the broader context of the Song in several ways, which indicates the likelihood of its separate and early origin141. 3. A Different Angle: From the Cult to King Solomon As stated above, the attempt to “date” a work as complex as the Song is misleading. As seen, the text is characterized both by very early and very late affinities. Affirming these connections, therefore, makes it impossible to fix a single date or narrow range. It appears rather that the transmission of the work was fluid and the text grew progressively. It is thus preferable to describe a rolling process, punctuated by a series of redactional events, which correlate to the different temporal features of the Song. Four major moments in this history might be profiled. 139. See M. PÉREZ FERNÁNDEZ, An Introductory Grammar of Rabbinic Hebrew, Leiden, Brill, 1999, p. 31, who furthermore insists that this is a “genuinely Hebrew development, not an adaption of Araimaic ‫ די‬or -‫”ד‬. 140. M.H. SEGAL, The Song of Songs, in VT 12 (1962) 470-490, p. 478. See also ID., A Grammar of Mishnaic Hebrew, Oxford, Clarendon, 1927, pp. 16-20. 141. Neither the appellation ‫ דודי‬nor ‫ רעיתי‬occur, as elsewhere in the Song. Instead she is called ‫ אחתי‬and ‫כלה‬. Similarly the literary unity of 1,2-4 lacks any LBH feature, but has conspicuous parallels to Song 4,8-11 (cf. 1,2b-3a ‫ לריח שמניך‬:‫כי־טובים דדיך מיין‬ ‫ טובים‬and 4,10 ‫)מה־טבו דדיך מיין וריח שמניך מכל בשמים‬.

HISTORICAL POSTULATES: FROM COMPOSITION TO CANON

195

(i) Cultic Origin. As the Song belongs to the genre of ANE songs, it can safely be assumed that its transmission happened orally before it was written down, as is the case with many ancient collections of songs and poetry142. This oral stage is obviously inaccessible, but might be aligned with the most ancient elements in the text, namely the ANE poetic and mythic affinities. A multifaceted deposit of this material, shaped in the form of a primitive cycle of songs, likely represents the earliest textual condensation. Some of these early songs remain recoverable, although they have been touched by later redaction: e.g. the “Sister-Bride Song” (Song 4,8– 5,1)143. It is quite probable that these earliest cantos and motifs belong to a northern monarchic provenance and that their first gathering occurs in a cultic setting. Indeed, the persistence, specifically in northern Israel, of syncretistic dabbling in Canaanite religion assures the necessary contact with the cults of Baal and Asherah (or Tammuz and Inana/Ishtar). The high antiquity of this cultic material can be affirmed, but the period of contact with Israel is later than these remote origins and, though extending for centuries, still confined. It remains difficult, nevertheless, to offer more than a broad religio-historic context for this moment of contact, which, on account of Judaean syncretism influenced by practice in the north (cf. Jer 7,18; 44,17-19.25; Ezek 8,14; Zech 12,11), might be as late as the late seventh or early sixth century. Moreover, one must acknowledge an important subsequent encounter with the Mesopotamian cult, postulating that the exilic encounter with Neo-Assyrian life has mediated certain garden motifs and an exalted royal ideology. It was during this complex Babylonian experience and its post-exilic extension that a smattering of Persian loanwords would have entered the Song. The particular character of this earliest rolling phase of composition – lasting for centuries and stretching from murky syncretistic oral sources to the gathering of a song collection incorporating both Canaanite and Mesopotamian genres and topoi – is definitively stamped by a pronounced “sacred marriage” motif (to be discussed in Chapter 6, below). This poetic cult motif, at once divine and royal, provides the essential substrate and matter of the Song of Songs. One may imagine this broad stage of the book’s growth on the rough model of the early compilation of the Psalter’s various proto-collections144.

142. See the prominent examples given by SKA, Pentateuch, pp. 238-243. 143. See above, I.1, p. 3 and in more detail Chapter 11, below. Song 4,8–5,1 appears to contain two originally distinct units. 4,8-11 is discernibly of ancient northern provenance, while 4,12–5,1 is pregnant with Mesopotamian influence. 144. See Chapter 7 on the example of Psalm 45.

196

PART I – CHAPTER 4

(ii) Solomon-Jerusalem Redaction. The foundational authorial-redactional event in the composition of the Song is the initial infusion of specifically Israelite royal ideology into the text. While a variety of new materials probably entered in a focused way at this point, the center stage given here to King Solomon’s marriage and to the city of Jerusalem in Song 3,611 is decisive. It is likely enough that an earlier collection was rearranged and reworked to some extent to accommodate this unique new scene; nevertheless, it is clear from the scrolls found at Qumran (see III below, p. 201) that the Song was still considerably shorter and more loosely organized than the present MT. In the religious reconfiguration of the book around this idealized wedding scene of Israel’s “Sun King”, however, a distinct, if implicit, organizational principle was introduced: a hermeneutical key, by which the future trajectory of the emerging composition was determined145. As a biblical personage, constructed in continuity with Neo-Assyrian royal imagery, the legendary king represents the critical intersection between the covenantal history of Israel and the surrounding cultural milieux. The significance of Solomon’s figure in the Song is, therefore, not to be underestimated. He bridges the distance between the Song’s primitive “sacred marriage” material and the symbolic reading. The symbolic reading waxes with ever-growing clarity, on the basis of the link to the biblical traditions first articulated here146. Indeed, the subsequent history of the text (Stage 4) will expand upon the seminal insight of this first edition that the sacred marriage songs (Stage 1) somehow concern David’s son. The emergence of the Solomon connection probably belongs to a relatively late post-exilic moment, when the figure of the king was already taking on a new importance, as in texts like Chronicles, or much later in the Book of Wisdom. A relatively large number of inner-biblical allusions and intertextual references can also be made out at this stage of the Song’s creation (e.g. Song 4,4-7) – which further suggests a late date, when a primitive “canon consciousness” was already in place. 145. For a similar opinion see LORETZ, Môt und Eros, p. 269, who assumes a SalomoRedaktion, “die im ganzen bestrebt war, den überlieferten erotischen Liedern über die Gestalt Salomos einen umfassenderen Charakter und eine Ausrichtung auf die Geschichte Israels aufzuprägen”. 146. Three occurrences of Solomon (cf. 1,1.5; 8,8-11) in the Song are also linked with Jerusalem texts. These passages may be due to a later expansion of the text, since they are not yet found in the first century B.C. Qumran scrolls (4Q106, 4Q107, see III below, p. 201). It is, nevertheless, hard to make a judgment ex absentia since the first and last chapters are always the least likely to be preserved in a scroll. Their concurrent absence, together with the lack of any witness to Song 5,2–6,10 in the Qumran Mss, however, is a strong indicator that some major units may have been added at even later stage (i.e, 1,1; 5,2– 6,10; 8,8-14).

HISTORICAL POSTULATES: FROM COMPOSITION TO CANON

197

Another important element of this earliest version of what we now recognize as the Song of Songs is the initial appearance of various versicles (e.g. the refrains), which would, as with the Solomon and Jerusalem motifs, later be multiplied and serve a unifying function across the expanded work (Stage 4). On a small scale, the Solomon-Jerusalem redaction thus provides the essential hermeneutical and structural elements that will ultimately govern the unity of the book. In this sense, the real moment of authorial genius might be located here. The apparently archaic character of the refrains that emerge at this stage, for example the “Who is this?” and the Adjuration refrains, does not contradict the late dating of this second stage of composition. Rather, this represents a stylized archaism characteristic of the Hellenistic mythological revival147. Thus, alongside the ANE royal ideology, now centered upon David’s son, the Song here reveals contact with currents also impacting apocalyptic books of the period. Together, this means that favorable conditions are met, from this period on, for a messianic development of the text (see Chapter 9). (iii) Textual Pluriformity. Indications of a further redactional phase are found in the Qumran Mss, which will be examined in detail in the next section. The fragmentary and haphazard nature of this evidence ultimately prevents the reconstruction of any full textual history. We have only a few random pieces of an enormously complex jigsaw puzzle. This much may nevertheless be said: first, the manuscripts witness to variant text forms that already center around Solomon and Jerusalem, yet without showing the same careful architectonic structure as the MT. Secondly, the scrolls give witness to a gradual growth of the text with small, but ever new, redactional insertions that serve either to stitch the cantos together, or – more importantly – elaborate on the already symbolic meaning of the cantos. Thus, in a summary way, the evidence from Qumran confirms that through a non-linear process of creative copying and transmission, the Song developed along divergent, yet hermeneutically consistent, trajectories. The hypothesis of an authorial Urtext – identified with Stage 2 and already symbolically linked with Solomon – is thus confirmed, even while hope of its text-critical recovery must be abandoned. The dating of the relevant manuscripts (i.e. 4Q106 and 4Q107) proves that at a very late stage in the Song’s transmission history, even as late as the first century B.C., different versions of the book were still circulating 147. A “recrudescence” of mythological elements is, in fact, characteristic of the second century B.C., as seen especially in apocalyptic materials (e.g. in Daniel); and this same mythological orientation might be perceived in the refrains. Such a theological affinity might help explain the presence of certain seemingly messianic Solomon texts (see Chapter 9).

198

PART I – CHAPTER 4

concurrently. Of course, the age of the traditions recorded in the texts cannot simply be identified with the age of the physical scrolls. The text forms themselves are also, for that matter, variegated artifacts: a bricolage of both older and younger elements. It seems clear, for instance, that 4Q107 preserves a primitive form of the text in its lack of much material, both structural and symbolic: for example, the Adjuration and Day/Shadow refrains (3,5; 4,6), or Song 4,4-7, which identifies the Beloved with Jerusalem148. On the other hand, 4Q106, which includes the refrains and symbolic texts like 4,4-7, lacks blocks of material found in 4Q107, most notably 4,8–5,1149. One thus confronts a phenomenon of alternating primitivity. With respect to dating, then, all that can be said is that the scrolls serve as witness not only to an open period of textual pluriformity, extending down to the turn of the era. They also provide hard evidence of earlier stages of textual formation, approximating to various degrees the Song as it existed at Stage 2. Though the content of the Mss differs quite significantly, the sequence of the cantos is already the same as in the MT. Moreover, all the major themes and motifs of the Song are already attested to in one or the other of the Mss, even if not always simultaneously or completely. A movement toward the ultimate MT form of the text, thus, obviously characterizes at least certain streams of transmission in this period of composition. More important at this stage, however, is the accumulating emphasis on Jerusalem and the Land of Israel. This is evident in the growth from 4Q107 to 4Q106, text forms which, although not genetically related, nevertheless help chart the progress of the symbolic thrust initiated at an earlier date. (iv) Stabilization and Solomonic Adscription. The final decisive event in the genesis of the Song was an end event of the period of pluriformity and had a broadly structural character. Though it also cannot be reconstructed in every detail, it is evident that at a certain point, through what was likely a gradual process, the variety of circulating text forms narrowed and stabilized. The versions attested at Qumran were accordingly supplemented and collated in various ways to form a full, ordered text such as that found in the MT. No indication would lead us to believe that any material was selectively rejected at this point, since Qumran provides no 148. The text of 4Q107 also lacks the symbolic motif of the watchmen in the city (Song 3,3-5), which recalls Isa 62,6. It possibly additionally lacked everything after 5,1 – thus the structural “mirror effect” and all the developed symbolism of the second half of the text. 149. In fact, 4Q106 lacks 4,8–6,10, but as 4Q107 ends at 5,1, a judgment on 5,1–6,10 cannot be made. See III, below, p. 201.

HISTORICAL POSTULATES: FROM COMPOSITION TO CANON

199

significant evidence of verses or readings that were not ultimately assimilated into the canonical text. On the contrary, it is inevitable that as a part of this development some new material was introduced in order to help glue the whole together, notably by creating the “mirror effect” (so strikingly absent from 4Q106, and probably also from 4Q107), by which the Song centers symmetrically around 5,1. The reduplicated character of this material in the second half of the Song hints at its secondary origin. It is impossible to judge the extent of these additions, nevertheless, on account of the fragmentary evidence afforded by the scrolls. As a maximal index, the full bulk of text comprising the end of chapter 7 and all of chapter 8 may have arisen at this point – but this seems improbable. Nonetheless, certain refrains already present in Phase 2 and attested in 4Q106 were likely multiplied and added to secure the integrity and balance of the newly configured whole. In this connection, it is highly significant that Jerusalem is mentioned pervasively throughout the MT version of the Song and is deeply intertwined with the literary unity described in section I, above, p. 166. It is striking, for instance, that the structural refrains are coordinated in a significant way with the word ‫( ירושלם‬cf. Song 1,5; 2,7; 3,5.10; 5,8.16; 6,4; 8,4), which may rightly be called the “literary-topographic center” of the Song150. These refrains accordingly serve to elaborate a skeletal framework and indicate that the Jerusalem motif is an organizing idea that belongs to the formal shaping of the work. Closely related, the city motif – thematically linked with the “Daughters of Jerusalem” of the Adjuration Refrain – interestingly clusters around texts with a heavy concentration of late linguistic features (e.g. 3,1-4; 5,2-7; cf. 8,8-10) and belongs to the internal interweaving of the earlier material. While the prologue belongs to a missing portion of the earliest scrolls, it was surely already in place by the early first century A.D. (cf. 6Q6, Song 1,1-7). An empirical judgment about the time of its introduction is excluded by the nature of the evidence, but this material may rightly belong to the final framing of the text. It may be as well that as the whole text came into view, the Solomonic adscription was also added. The valorization of Solomon is characteristically late, as indicated above (II.1, p. 179). Such an adscription would have provided a clear affirmation at 150. JERICKE, Toponyme, p. 41: “Von hier aus verteilen sich die übrigen Toponyme auf alle Himmelsrichtungen: Tirza (6,4), Karmel (7,6), Hermon (4,8), Libanon (3,9; 4,8.11.15; 5,15; 7,5) und Damaskus (7,5) im Norden; Gilead (4,1; 6,5) und Heschbon (7,5) im Osten; En-Gedi (1,14) und Kedar (1,5) im Süden; Scharon (2,1) im Westen”. Jerusalem is mentioned eight times (seven of which in combination with the “Daughters of Jerusalem”; cf. Song 1,5; 2,7; 3,5.10; 5,8.16; 8,4).

200

PART I – CHAPTER 4

the very head of the work that the storied king of Israel provided the hermeneutical key to the meaning of the text. The epilogue (8,11-14) almost certainly belongs to the last stage of the composition, for it appears to interact with and qualify the Solomonic attribution. (v) Minor Glosses. The final phase in the transmission of the Song entailed a small number of isolated alterations, not impacting the overall shape of the text. A few traces of this terminal stage of glossing are still visible. A striking example is the replacement of the “Daughters of Jerusalem” with the “Daughters of Zion” in Song 3,11 – a variant reading that none of the ancient versions attest to. The direction of such a change aligns the Jerusalem motif of the book more directly with an explicit Zion theology, such as that encountered in Isaiah. Though subtle, such shifts further highlight the continuous development of a reading of the Song focused upon the royal ideology surrounding David’s ideal son, King Solomon. From its earliest origins in the ANE sacred marriage cult down to these finishing touches on the final form of the text, the composition of the Song of Songs was a religiously oriented work, whose interaction with the biblical tradition at each stage became increasingly explicit. Two conclusions may be drawn from the foregoing analysis. First, one has to reckon with the reworking by late scribal circles of very old cult-mythological songs in the light of both the Law and the Prophets151. Second, though the Song contains very ancient strata, in its final composition it must be considered a work of the Jewish culture that emerged under the influence of Hellenism and as a consequence of its impact152. 151. For a similar opinion see LORETZ, Môt und Eros, pp. 274-275: “Die SalomoRedaktion stellt mit ihrer Sicht der ᾿hbh ‘Liebe’ von selbst einen indirekten Kontakt mit anderen Texten der Bibel über die Rolle der Liebe in der Geschichte Israels her. Unabhängig von den im Canticum niedergelegten Darstellungen und Interpretationen der Erotik wissen prophetische Texte (siehe z.B. Hos 1–2 etc.; Jes 1,21; Jer 3,1; Ez 16; 23) und das Deuteronomium von der Liebe Jahwes zu seinem Volk. Den Grund für die Erwählung Israels findet man in der Liebe Gottes, in seinem nicht weiter ableitbaren Willensentschluß. Im Ausspruch ‘Mit ewiger Liebe habe ich dich geliebt; darum habe ich dich zu mir gezogen aus Güte!’ (Jer 31,3) schließen sich die beiden Überlieferungskreise von der Erwählung und Bundesschließung zusammen. Jahwes ‘ewige Liebe’ (᾿hbh ῾lm, Jer 31,3) stellt die historisierte und zugleich vergöttlichte Form der Liebe dar, deren mythische Vorläuferin bereits in dem tief altsyrisch-kanaanäisch eingefärbten Text Cant 8,6b-7a greifbar wird”. 152. See also ibid.: “Aus Cant 8,6-7 geht im Verein mit anderen Stellen, die ähnlich von der Salomo-Redaktion gestaltet sind, hervor, daß der überlieferte Text des Canticums einen langen zeitlichen und inhaltlichen Prozeß der Entwicklung durchgemacht hat. In ihm sind Elemente altorientalischer erotischer Literatur in gleichem Maß enthalten wie Zugaben

HISTORICAL POSTULATES: FROM COMPOSITION TO CANON

201

The relevance of this view of the Song’s dating is evident. If a Hellenistic (or even later) date is accepted, then the author of the Song would have already had at hand much of what would later become the biblical canon153. Significantly, it is in this precise period that we find not only allegorical interpretation as the hallmark of Hellenistic literary exegesis, but also the time in which on the level of text-production, we observe the emergence of literary works that employ “Israelological” personifications (e.g. Jonah, Esther, Susanna, Tobit; see Chapter 7), and the first derashlike writings like the Book of Ben Sira. At the same time, allusions to other scriptural passages are only likely if their writing and publication precedes that of the Song154. In the case of the Song, the bulk of what was later acknowledged as canonical (and already reckoned as authoritative!) within Judaism was in circulation by the time of stage two in the composition. Accordingly, as the late date envisioned here, the “canon consciousness” found in texts like Tobit is almost expected in a Jewish work like the Song.

III. THE QUMRAN MANUSCRIPTS AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS The findings in the Judaean desert shed new light on the disputed question of the dating and composition of the Song. If scholars proposing a date later than the third century for the final composition of the text have so far been few in number (the clear minority)155, the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) make a strong argument in their favor. The manuscripts (Mss) confirm the conjecture of a complicated redaction history that reaches up to the last centuries before the turn of the era. Of the four extant Mss two – 4Q106 (4QCanta) and 4Q107 (4QCantb) – are particularly interesting as they differ significantly from the MT by lacking substantial segments. They might reflect previous redactional stages aus der Welt des Judentums der hellenistischen Zeit und letztlich sogar Gedanken der Masoreten aus nachbliblischer Epoche”. With regard to the Jewish and Hellenistic impact, see also COHEN, Song, p. 13, and HAGEDORN, What Kind of Love?. 153. See also L.S. LIEBER, A Vocabulary of Desire: The Song of Songs in the Early Synagogue (Brill Reference Library of Judaism, 40), Leiden, Brill, 2014, p. 46. 154. HAYS, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul, pp. 29-30. 155. Two exceptions are worth mentioning: GARBINI, Cantico, pp. 293-296, dates the Song to 68 or 70 B.C., on the basis of a supposed link to the story of Susanna, the story of eighty women “in Ascalona” (m. Sanh. 6.4), and the unhappy first marriage of Cleopatra. KINGSMILL, Eros, p. 8, who is not convinced by Garbini’s arguments, yet encouraged by his view to take an innovative stance, dates the Song after Sirach. In her judgement it is more likely that the Song alludes to Sirach than vice versa.

202

PART I – CHAPTER 4

of the Song, or testify to a stage when the ordering of the cantos was not yet fixed. Most important, however, it may be conjectured that the passages missing both in 4Q106 and in 4Q107 testify to later additions that are indicative of an early symbolic interpretation of the Song. This section will first (III.1) describe and – where relevant – reproduce the textual reconstructions of the Mss 4Q106 and 4Q107. Significant variants will be pointed out and discussed at the end of each reconstruction. Next (III.2), it will be argued that the variant Mss reflect textual versions prior to the final redaction. Finally, an important minus of 4Q107 will be analyzed as a later addition reflecting an early symbolic interpretation of the Song (III.3). 1. The Textual Witnesses Among the DSS four manuscripts of the Song have been found: three in Cave 4, i.e. 4Q106 (4QCanta), 4Q107 (4QCantb), and 4Q108 (4QCantc) and one in Cave 6, i.e. 6Q6 (6QCantd)156. At least three of them – if not all – are from the Herodian period (i.e. between 30 B.C. and 50 A.D.), 6Q6 being the latest. Previous discussions of the Mss have all been based on the editions of Emanuel Tov and Maurice Baillet157. On the basis of the IAA images, however, which are now available online and facilitate an easier reading of the Mss158, both Émile Puech and Torleif Elgvin have proposed substantial corrections to Tov’s earlier reading. Their respective reconstructions of all four Mss bring to light a number of new readings and clarifications159. All the reconstructions here reproduced are taken from Puech, whose reading has most convinced me160. The following tables give an overview of the manuscripts, their sigla, classification, content range, and estimated dating. 156. See E. TOV, Canticles, in E.C. ULRICH et al. (eds.), Qumran Cave 4 XI: Psalms to Chronicles (DJD, 16), Oxford, Clarendon, 2000, 195-219; and M. BAILLET, Cantique des cantiques, in ID. – J.T. MILIK – R. DE VAUX (eds.), Les ‘Petites Grottes’ de Qumran: Exploration de la falaise. Les grottes 2Q, 3Q, 5Q, 6Q, 7Q à 10Q. Le rouleau de cuivre (DJD, 3), Oxford, Clarendon, 1962, 112-114. They have been reproduced without any changes in E.C. ULRICH, The Biblical Qumran Scrolls: Transcriptions and Textual Variants (VT.S, 134), Leiden, Brill, 2010, pp. 739-748. 157. P.W. FLINT, The Book of Canticles (Song of Songs) in the Dead Sea Scrolls, in A.C. HAGEDORN (ed.), Perspectives on the Song of Songs / Perspektiven der Hoheliedauslegung (BZAW, 346), Berlin – New York, De Gruyter, 2005, 96-104, p. 97. 158. The IAA images are available at http://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/explore-thearchive. 159. See E. PUECH, Le Cantique des cantiques, in RB 123 (2016) 29-53. See also ELGVIN, Literary Growth, pp. 5-80 for often differing readings. 160. For all the readings and reconstructions, see PUECH, Cantique.

HISTORICAL POSTULATES: FROM COMPOSITION TO CANON

203

Description of the Manuscripts161 Siglum

Classification

Content Range

Date Copied

4QCanta

4Q106

3,2–7,7

Early Herodian

b

4Q107

2,9cβ–5,1

End first cent. B.C.

c

4Q108

3,7-8

(Herodian?)

d

6Q6

1,1-7

ca. 50 A.D.

4QCant 4QCant

6QCant

4Q106 and 4Q107 are of immediate interest for this study, as these manuscripts differ significantly from other textual witnesses of the book. Their specific content is detailed in the following table162: 4Q106 (4QCanta)

4Q107 (4QCantb)

frg. 1

3,2c-3.4d-5a[b-6]

frg. 1

2,9cβ–3,2aα

frg. 2 i - 3 to 5

3,7–4,6

frg. 2 i + 4

3,2aβ.c.6-11

frg. 2 ii

4,7; 6,11–7,7

frg. 2 ii

4,1b-3.8-11a

frg. 3

4,[11b-14d]14e–5,1

In what follows, only the fragments of those Mss whose variant readings or peculiarities are relevant for our study are reproduced and the pertinent variants discussed. a) 4Q106 (4QCant a) 4Q106 preserves verses ranging from Song 3,2–7,7 on five fragments163. Yardeni estimates the manuscript to be early Herodian, and the orthography is close to that of the MT164. Its most striking feature is that it lacks the text from 4,8 to 6,10. The editor of the DSS, Emanuel Tov, describes it as an “abbreviated text”165, while Eugene Ulrich, Peter Flint, Elgvin, and Puech speak of shorter versions of the Song, probably reflecting earlier literary editions of the book. The question will be addressed in 161. The table is based on FLINT, Canticles, p. 98. The content range denotes the first and last preserved verses in the Mss, without necessarily presuming that the intervening text is preserved. 162. The content corresponds to the reading of PUECH, Cantique. While Puech follows the stich division of BHS, I adopt the stich division as reproduced in BHQ, which results in a slightly different numbering. 163. I follow the recent reconstruction proposed by PUECH, ibid. 164. See TOV, Canticles, p. 199. 165. Ibid., pp. 194-195.

204

PART I – CHAPTER 4

section III.2 (below, p. 223), after the reconstructed texts of 4Q106 and 4Q107 have both been examined166. (i) 4Q106 (4QCanta) Frg. 1 (Song 3,2c-3.4d-5a[b-6]) The content of fragment 1 is disputed. Émile Puech in his recent reconstruction identifies the content range as Song 3,2c-3.4d-5aα[b-6]. It is here reproduced167. The numbers above the lines indicate the corresponding verses in the MT (in the English translation they are given in parentheses). [‫ אבקשה[ את שא]הבה נפשי בקשתיו‬2c‫בשוקים וברחבות‬3,2b] [‫מצאוני [השמר]ים [הס]בבים בעיר את שאהבה‬3 ‫]ולא מצאתיו‬ [‫ אחזתיו ול[א ארפנו עד ש]הביאתיו אל בית אמי‬4d‫]נפשי ראיתם‬ [‫השבעתי א[תכם בנות] ירושלם בצבאות או‬5 ‫]ואל חדר הורתי‬ [‫]באילות השדה אם תעירו ואם תעוררו את האהבה עד‬ [ vacat ‫]שתחפץ‬ [‫מי זאת עלה מן המדבר‬6 vacat ] [‫]כתימרות עשן מקטרת מור ולבונה מכל אבקת רוכל‬ [bottom margin]

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

7(3,2b)

[in the streets and the squares (3,2c)I will search] for the one whom [my soul] lo[ves. (3,2d)I sought him 8but I did not find him. (3,3)They found me] the watchmen who g[o about the city. The one whom 9my soul loves, have you seen him? (3,4d)I held him and n]ot did I let him go until that [I brought him into the house of my mother, 10and into the chamber of her that conceived me. (3,5)I adjure] you, daughters of [Jerusalem, by the gazelles or 11the wild does, that you do not awake, do not stir up love until 12it pleases. (vacat) 13 (vacat) (3,6)Who is this going up from the desert 14like a column of smoke, billowing of myrrh and frankincense, with all sent powders of the merchants?]//

According to this reconstruction, the presence of Song 3,2b-3 and 3,4d-5 can be affirmed with high probability, while 3,4a-c are lacking (namely, “Scarcely had I passed them when I found him, whom my soul loves”). If the reconstruction is valid, we have here the first attestation of a series of important vacats, all of which span more than a line and correspond perfectly to the division markers, setumôt, found in the MT. The absence of 3,4a-c, i.e., the jump from verse 3 to 4d, is hard to explain. Even though both the end of verse 3 and the last omitted colon of verse 4 (i.e., 4c) contain the phrase ‫“( את שאהבה נפשי‬whom my soul 166. The entire excerpt is based on the critical edition by TOV, ibid., p. 200. 167. Curt Niccum basically agrees with Émile Puech in identifying the content as Song 3,4-5, while Wilhelm Nebe identifies the same fragment as 2 Chr 20,10-12. See ibid., and W. NEBE, Qumranica I: Zu unveröffentlichten Handschriften aus Höhle 4 von Qumran, in ZAW 106 (1994) 307-322, p. 309, note 11.

HISTORICAL POSTULATES: FROM COMPOSITION TO CANON

205

loves”), the decisive last verse, i.e., verse 3, ends with ‫ראיתם‬. The omission of 3,4a-c can therefore not be explained by a homoioteleuton proper. Though most of the letters in lines 7-8 are disputed, the reconstruction of lines 9-10 is not, which means that the Adjuration Refrain (Song 3,5) is present in 4Q106, while it is absent from 4Q107 (see below). Assuming that the reconstruction of lines 7-8 is correct, it cannot be excluded that, even though Song 3,1-4 MT appears as a skillful poetic unity in the textus receptus, this unit may not yet have been fully formed at an earlier stage of the text’s evolution, such as is possibly reflected in 4Q106. This suspicion is supported by the fact that in 4Q107 the equivalent to Song 3,2b.2d-5 MT is missing (see below), and that the reprise of the motif of searching for the lover in the night, which the MT takes up again in Song 5,6-8, is absent from both 4Q106 and probably also from 4Q107 (if that Ms ended in Song 5,1 as proposed by Tov). (ii) 4Q106 (4QCanta) Frg. 2 i - 3-5 (Song 3,7–4,6) The second column of 4Q106 contains Song 3,7–4,6 and reaches from the top to the bottom margin. The reconstruction is unproblematic. Striking is the fact that the Ms leaves a vacat line between 3,11 and 4,1. This corresponds to the dividing marker ‫( ס‬sǝtumah) in the MT. It further corresponds to the dividing of the literary units identified by modern studies into the literary structure of the Song. This is an extremely important testimony to the antiquity of the division markers in the MT168. top margin ‫הנה מטתו שלשלמה ששים גבורים סביב לה מ[גבורי ישראל‬3,7] ‫כלם אחזי חר]ב מלמד]י מלחמה איש חר[בו על ירכו מפחד בלילות‬8] ‫ע[מודיו עשה כסף‬10 ‫אפריון ע[שה לו המלך] שלמה [מעצ]י הלבנון‬9] ‫]רפידתו ז[הב מרכבו אר[ג]מן [תו[כ]ו [רצוף] אהבה[ מבתולת ירושלם‬ ‫ צאינה וראינה בנ[ות ירושלם במלך שלמה בעטרה‬vac?11] vacat ‫]שעטרה לו אמו ביום חתנ[תו ביום שמחת לבו‬ vac[at ]

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

168. See the extensive study on the frequently recurring correspondence between vacats in the DSS and the Masoretic division marker petuḥah and of sǝtumah, by J. TREBOLLE BARRERA, Division Markers as Empirical Evidence for the Editorial Growth of Biblical Books, in R.F. PERSON – R. REZETKO (eds.), Empirical Models Challenging Biblical Criticism, Atlanta, GA, SBL Press, 2016, 163-213. Trebolle asserts in conclusion that “late phenomena in textual transmission, including the petuhah and setumah divisions in the masoretic medieval codices, the vacats in Qumran biblical manuscripts, and the Hexaplaric additions in the LXX, can be connected with phenomena that occurred in the editorial process of the biblical books such as the different arrangement of pericopes in the MT or LXX and the interpolations inserted in either text”. See ibid., p. 213. In defense of the ancient delimitations, see also W.G.E. WATSON, Unit Delimitation in the Old Testament: An Appraisal, in M.C.A. KORPEL – J.M. OESCH – S. PORTER (eds.), Method in Unit Delimitation (Pericope, 6), Leiden, Brill, 2007, 162-184.

206

PART I – CHAPTER 4

‫הנך יפה רעיתי הנך יפ[ה עיניך יונים מבעד לצמתך כעדר‬4,1] 8 ‫כעדר הקצובות שניך עלו‬2 ‫ ]העזים שערך שמ[וציאות מהר גלעד‬9 ‫כחוט ]ה[שני‬3 ‫ ]מן הרחצה שכלם מ]תאימות ושכלה אינה בהם‬10 ‫ ]שפתתיך ומדבריך נאוה [כפלח הרמון מזקנתך מבעד לצמ]ת[ך‬11 ‫כמגדל דויד צוארך בנוי לתלפיות [אלף המגן תלוי בו כל שלטי הגבורים‬4] 12 ‫עד שיפוח‬6 ‫שני שדיך כשני עפרים תאומי צבי[ה רעים בשושנים‬5] 13 ‫ ]היום ונסו הצללים אלך לי אל הר המו[ר אל גבעת הלבונה‬14 bottom margin              1(3,7) [Behold, the litter of Solomon sixty mighty men surround it] of the mighty men of Israel. 2(3,8)[All of them armed with swo]rd trained in warfare. Each one ]his [swo]rd on his thigh against the terror of the night. 3(3,9)[A palanquin m]ade for himself the King [Solomon] from the tree[s of Lebanon.] (3,10)Its [pi]llars he made of silver, 4[its back-rest of g]old, its mount of pu[r]ple, [its in]te[rior] inlaid [with love ]of the virgins of Jerusalem. 5(3,11)[Go out and behold, oh daughter]s of Jerusalem, King Solomon with the crown 6[with which his mother crowned him on the day of] his [wedding], on the day of the joy of his heart. (vacat) 7 [(vac]at) 8(4,1) Behold you are beautiful, my friend, behold you are beauti]ful. Your eyes are doves behind your veil. Like a flock 9[of goats is your hair (that) ]are being led out from mount Gilead. (4,2)Like a flock of shorn ewes are your teeth, they have come up 10[from the washing, all of which] bear twins, and bereavement is not with them. (4,3)Like a crimson thread [are 11your lips and your speech is lovely,] like halves of a pomegranate are your cheeks behind your veil. 12(4,4)[Like the tower of David is your neck built in courses,] thousand bucklers are hanging on it, all shields of mighty men. 13(4,5)[Your two breasts are like two fawns, twins of a gazell]e, pasturing among the lotuses. (4,6) Until breathes 14[the day and flee the shadows, I will go myself to the mountain of my]rrh, to the hill of frankincense.

As observed in the previous fragments, the considerable vacat of the entire line 7 corresponds exactly both to the sǝtumah in the MT and to the results of modern literary analysis. Three important variants are noticeable. First, lines 4, 9, and 10 display forms that differ from those employed in the MT. In line 4 (= 3,10 MT) the text reads ‫ בתולת ירושלם‬instead of ‫בנות ירושלם‬. It stands to reason that ‫ בתולת‬is a plural lectio defectiva, designating the “virgins of Jerusalem”. The expression ‫ בתולת ירושלם‬occurs only once more in the Hebrew Bible, namely in Lam 2,10, where it designates the “virgins of Jerusalem”169. This aligns with a few other intertextual references to Lamentations (Song 1,5, cf. Lam 4,8; Song 2,15, cf. Lam 5,18; Song 5,10, cf. Lam 4,7; Song 5,11.14.15, cf. Lam 4,1-2) all referring to the fate of Zion, her children, or princes. Gianni Barbiero correctly comments on the subtle 169. In my estimation it must not be confounded with the expression ‫בתולת ישראל‬ (sing.; cf. Jer 18,13; 31,4.21; Amos 5,2).

HISTORICAL POSTULATES: FROM COMPOSITION TO CANON

207

intertextuality between the Song and Lamentations, in that “what Lamentations weeps over as lost, the Song of Songs celebrates as present”170. 4Q106 (and according to Puech also 4Q107) would thus retain a stronger “memory” of these original scriptural allusions than the MT. In line 9 4Q106 reads ‫ שמ[וציאות‬instead of ‫ שגלשו‬in Song 4,2 MT. The verb ‫ גלש‬occurs only here and in the parallel passage of Song 6,5 within the Hebrew Bible. Its meaning in Mishnaic Hebrew is “to boil”, which makes no sense in reference to flocks. On the basis of the comparison of hair with flocks, most modern dictionaries conjecture the meaning to be “moving down”. None of the ancient versions, however, attest to a reading of “moving down”. The LXX reads ἀπεκαλύφθησαν (“were revealed”), σ ἀνεφάνησαν (“appeared”), the Vulgate ascenderunt (“come up”), the Syriac ûáé (“go up”). Given that the root ‫“( יצא‬to come out, come forth, arise”) is the terminus technicus for the rising of the sun (cf. Psalm 19)171, and ‫ מוצא‬can have the connotation “coming forth, appearance” in the Hebrew Bible (cf. Ps 65,9; Hos 6,3)172, there is a slight possibility that the Greek Vorlage read a word similar to the one found in 4Q106. If the conjectured connection between the Greek and 4Q106 is tenable, then the expression ‫ גלש‬could be a later poetical emendation. It must not be overlooked that the goats are said to ‫ גלש‬from the mountain of ‫גלעד‬. By the double repetition of the consonants gimmel and lamed an alliteration is created which results in the poetically more refined version of the MT. In line 11 4Q106 reads ‫ מזקנתך‬instead of ‫“( רקתך‬your temples”) as in Song 4,3 MT. Tov explains the word ‫מזקנתך‬, which is not attested elsewhere, as “probably somehow connected with ‫“( ”זָ ָקן‬beard”), “which, though indicating an area different from ‫‘( רקה‬temple’) in 𝔐, nevertheless, indicates a section of the face, viz., chin”173. That would seem to be affirmed by the Vetus Latina’s maxillae tuae (“your jaws”)174. Similarly Puech relates ‫ זקן‬to the cheeks175, which coincides with Vulgate’s rendering genae tuae (“your cheeks”). 170. BARBIERO, Song, p. 286. See also LACOCQUE, Romance, pp. 121-122. 171. See B. LANGER, Gott als “Licht” in Israel und Mesopotamien (ÖBS, 7), Klosterneuburg, Österreichisches Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1989, p. 139, and A. SPANS, Die Stadtfrau Zion im Zentrum der Welt: Exegese und Theologie von Jes 60–62 (BBB, 175), Bonn, Bonn University Press, 2015, p. 290. 172. See HALOT II, 559: “‫”מוֹצא מ ָֹצא‬. ָ 173. TOV, Canticles, p. 202. 174. See D. DE BRUYNE, Les anciennes versions latines du Cantique des cantiques, in Revue Bénédictine 38 (1926) 97-122, p. 101. 175. See PUECH, Cantique, p. 33, n. 7, who explains the etymology by the part of the cheeks where the beard would grow.

208

PART I – CHAPTER 4

A second important variant is the inversion of the word order in the opening comparisons of the body description song (waṣf) in 4Q106 with respect to the MT, 4Q107, and the LXX. While the latter mention first the body part and then the simile, 4Q106 has the reverse order of naming the simile first and then the body part:

MT

Song 4,1b

4Q106 Frg 2 i ll. 8-9 MT

Song 4,2

4Q106 Frg 2 i ll. 9-10

‫ שערך כעדר העזים‬Your hair is like a flock of goats, ‫שגלשו מהר גלעד‬ moving down the slopes of Gilead. ‫ כעדר ]העזים שערך‬Like a flock of goats, is your hair, that ]are being led out from mount Gilead. ‫שמ[וציאות מהר גלעד‬ ‫ שניך כעדר הקצובות‬Your teeth are like a flock of shorn ewes ‫שעלו מן־הרחצה‬ that have come up from the washing. [‫ כעדר הקצובות שניך‬Like a flock of shorn ewes are your teeth, ‫עלו ]מן הרחצה‬ they have come up from the washing.

The inversion of the word order in this waṣf is all the more surprising given the fact that in the waṣf of 4Q106 Frg 2 ii, lines 7-12 (= 7,2-6 MT, see below) the description consistently begins with naming the body parts first – though a little different in style – just like in the MT and the LXX. On the other hand, the word order of 4Q106 lines 8 and 9 (= 4,1-2 MT) corresponds perfectly to that of the immediately following 4,3-4 MT where the element of comparison is also mentioned first and second only the body-part: ‫כחות השני שפתתיך ומדברך נאוה כפלח הרימון רקתך מבעד לצמתך‬ (“Like a crimson thread are your lips and your mouth is lovely, like halves of a pomegranate are your cheeks behind your veil” Song 4,3-4 MT). An apparently small but significant further variant is the absence of the relative particle ‫ ש‬in the reversed order of 4Q106 (Song 4,2) before the verb ‫“( עלו‬they have come up”) whereas the MT reads ‫“( שעלו‬that have come up”). Grammatically the omission of the relative particle ‫ ש‬might be a mistake. In the previous line 9 of 4Q106 (= 4,1 MT), the beginning of the participle is not extant. It is, accordingly, impossible to be certain whether it also lacked the ‫ש‬, or whether it was prefixed by the article ‫ה‬ like the participle in Song 4,5 MT. The absence of the relative particle ‫ ש‬in line 9, though possibly a grammatical mistake, in combination with the reverse order, is still significant. The relative particle ‫ שׁ‬is an important element in the poetics of Song 4,1d2 MT, where every stich begins with the letter ‫( שׂ‬1d) or ‫( שׁ‬1e, 2a.b.c.d), thus creating a strong pattern of alliteration. Its consistent presence in Song 4,1d-2 MT gives witness to a refined poetic structuring of the passage, which is not perceivable in the same way in the corresponding lines of

HISTORICAL POSTULATES: FROM COMPOSITION TO CANON

209

4Q106. Taking into further consideration that the relative particle ‫ ש‬is one of the well-known markers of LBH within the Song, it is conceivable that the arrangement of the waṣf in 4Q106 reflects an older version of the Song. This reasoning is buttressed by the fact that while 6,5-7 MT repeats the waṣf of 4,1c-2.3b MT with the same careful repartition of the letter ‫ש‬ in the verses 5-7, it is entirely absent in 4Q106. It is not unreasonable to imagine that a later redactor wanted to bring the word order of 4,1-2 in alignment with 7,2-6. One might argue to the contrary that 4Q107, which probably reflects an even older version of the Song, nevertheless follows the same word order as the MT. In this regard it must be said that one should beware of family tree thinking. The Mss do not allow for the tracing of a perfect text genesis. They do, however, witness to different text forms, which existed well into the first century, and which in their own right possibly preserve older text forms. They testify to a complex, multifaceted text that in various ways was systematized by the MT. (iii) 4Q106 (4QCanta) Frg. 2 ii (Song 4,7; 6,11–7,7)176 The second fragment contains Song 4,7 and 6,11–7,7. The reconstruction is more problematic than that of the previous column. Nevertheless, Emanuel Tov and Émile Puech both agree with regard to its versification177. The first line clearly continues with 4,7 of the previous column. The conjectured vacat in line 2 can safely be presumed (see reproduction below), as can the resumption of the text at 6,11 in line 3. Here again, the vacat in line 2 corresponds to the Masoretic division markers indicated 176. The excerpt and all the following are based on the critical edition of Puech. 177. On the top margin of frg. 2 ii the text which had left off at Song 4,6 in the previous column continues with 4,7. Only the first two letters of 4,7 are visible: ‫כל]ך‬. This is, however, sufficient to see that the text continues with the same verse on which the previous column ended. See TOV, Canticles, p. 203. Lines 2 and 3 are not extant in the fragment, but line 4 begins with a single word of 6,11 (‫)פרחה‬. It can safely be presumed that line 3 contained 6,11. It is not quite clear whether line 2 was left vacant, or if it contained another verse, that is, either 4,8 or 6,10. Tov argues persuasively for an empty line 2 as follows: (1) First, there is not enough room for either 4,8 or 6,10 in the remaining space of lines 1 and 2. (2) Second, both 4,7 and 6,10 form the end of a literary unit, as is indicated in the MT with a sǝtumah and affirmed by every literary analysis of the literary structure of the Song. In the previous column, frg. 2 i, of 4Q106 a vacat is visible between 3,11 and 4,1 also indicating the transition between two undisputed literary units (i.e., the end of “the wedding of Solomon” in 3,11 and the opening of a waṣf in 4,1). Tov’s proposal of presuming a vacat in line 2, separating the unit 4,1-7 from that of 6,11–7,7, is endorsed also by Puech. In the MT both 4,7 and 6,10 are followed by the marker ‫( ס‬sǝtumah), which indicates the end of a content unit. The probability of a vacant line 2 is heightened by the fact that in 4Q107 too the transition from 4,3 to 4,8 is marked by an open paragraph. See ibid., p. 203, n. 3. See also PUECH, Cantique, p. 33.

210

PART I – CHAPTER 4

by the setumôt after Song 4,7 and 6,10, as well as to the results of modern literary analysis. Clearly, the juxtaposed textual units in 4Q106 are not successive in the MT, which includes a large section of intervening material of four literary units (Song 4,8–6,10). top margin                                                                vacat ‫כל]ך יפה רעיתי ומום אין בך‬4,7 [ [           vacat ] [‫אל גנת אגוז ירדתי לראות באבי הנחל לראות אם‬6,11] [‫לא ידעתי נפשי שמתני‬12 ‫הנצו הרמנים‬/‫פרחה] הגפן אם‬ [‫שובי שובי השולמית ונחזה בך‬7,1 ‫מרכ]בות עמי נדיב‬ [‫ מה יפו פעמיך‬2 ‫מה תח]זו בשולמית כמחלת המחנים‬ [‫בנעלים] בת נדיב חמוקי ירכיך כמו חלאים‬ [‫שררך אגן הסהר אל יחסר‬3 ‫כמע]שה ידי אמן‬ [‫שני‬4 ‫המזג ב]טנך ערמת חטים סוגה בשושנים‬ [‫צוארך כמגדל השן‬5 ‫שדיך כמער]כת עפרים תאמי צביה‬ [‫עיניך ברכות בחש]בון על שער בת רבים אפך כמגדל‬ [‫ראשך עליך ככרמל ודלת‬6 ‫הלבנון צפה פני דמש]ק‬ [‫מה יפית ומה‬7 ‫ראשך כארגמן ]מ[לך אס]ור ברהטים‬ [ ‫נעמעמת א]הבה בתענותים‬ bottom margin

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

1(4,7)

[You are] all [beautiful my friend, and flaw is not in you. (vacat) (vacat) 3(6,11) To the nut garden I descended to look at the blossoms of the valley, to look whether] 4has budded [the vine, whether have flourished the pomegranates. (6,12)I did not know (how) my soul set me] 5chari[ot of my princely kinsman. (7,1)Return, return, O Shulammite! that we may look at you]. 6What do you se[e in the Shulammite? As a dance of two camps (Machanayim). (7,2) How beautiful your feet] 7in the sandals [daughter of a prince. Your rounded thighs are like jewels], 8like a work [of a master hand. (7,3)Your navel is a rounded bowl, it will not lack] 9mixed wine. Your b[elly is a heap of wheat encircled by lotuses. (7,4)Your two] 10breasts like a ro[w of two fawns, twins of a gazelle. (7,5)Your neck is like the ivory tower] 11your eyes are pools in Hesh[bon on the gate of Bat Rabbim. Your nose is like the tower of] 12 Lebanon, facing towards Damas[cus. (7,6)Your head upon you is like Carmel, and the locks of] 13your head like purple [a k]ing is bound in the tresses. (7,7) How beautiful and how 14most ravishing. O L[ove with all delights. Such is your stature, it resembles a palm]. 2

The juxtaposition of 4,7 and 6,11 is noteworthy. The vacat which the Ms commonly employs between literary units corresponds perfectly to the end of the literary unit 4,1-7 and the beginning of 6,11-12, also signaled by setumôt in the MT. This juxtaposition differs from the sequence in 4Q107 where the text continues with 4,8–5,1, while, however, “omitting” 4,4-7 (see below). A scribal error is very unlikely. The question is whether the Ms has been voluntarily shortened, or if the MT and the Vorlage of the LXX

HISTORICAL POSTULATES: FROM COMPOSITION TO CANON

211

reflect a later text edition with substantial additions. The question will be discussed under III.2 (below, p. 223). Another variant worthy of note is the probable lack (unless it was added in a correction above the line) of the second exhortation ‫ שובי שובי‬in Song 7,1. It is improbable that the repetition that is present both in the MT and the LXX is due to a later addition. This kind of repetition is a very ancient poetic device, found for example also in Judg 5,12, similar to the repetitions found in Ugaritic poetry. Finally, three other variant readings are found in this fragment. Line 8 (= 7,2 MT) reads a comparison, ‫“( כמעשה‬like a work”), instead of simply ‫“( מעשה‬a work”) of the MT. Line 10 (= 7,4 MT) reads ‫“( מערכה‬row”) instead of ‫“( שני‬two”). The third variant is a pe’alal form of the verb ‫ )נעמעמת( נעם‬in line 14 (= 7,7 MT), where the MT has a qal (‫)נעמת‬, intensifying thereby the notion of her attractiveness178. (iv) Summing Up From this examination of 4Q106, the following important elements emerge: the vacats can have a considerable size of up to one entire line and correspond perfectly to the setumôt division markers in the MT; the absence of Song 3,4a-c; the complete absence of Song 4,8–6,10, a section comprised of four distinct literary unities; the variant readings ‫בתולת‬ ‫ ירושלם‬instead of ‫ בנות ירושלם‬in Song 3,10 MT and ‫ בנות ירשלם‬instead of ‫ בנות ציון‬in Song 3,11 MT; the inversion of the word order in the waṣf of Song 4,1-2 MT; and possibly two lexical alignments with the Greek and Latin Vorlage of Song 4,2 ‫ ;המוציאות‬and 4,3 ‫מזקנתך‬. b) 4Q107 (4QCantb) The four fragments of 4Q107 preserve passages ranging from Song 2,9– 5,1179. The orthography varies from plenior to defective with respect to the MT. According to Puech, the calligraphy reflects a semi-formal Herodian writing with tendencies towards the cursive. It is dated towards the second half of the first century B.C.180. The scroll displays a great number of Aramaisms and a number of errors, many of which the scribe has corrected himself181. 178. It may be compared to ‫ יפיפית‬the pe’alal of ‫ יפה‬found in Ps 45,3 where it describes the exceeding beauty of the king-spouse. See PUECH, Cantique, p. 35, n.13. 179. See ibid., p. 36 who corrects the previous edition by TOV, Canticles, pp. 205-218. 180. See PUECH, Cantique, p. 36. Yardeni dates it towards the end of the first century B.C. See TOV, Canticles, p. 208. 181. See TOV, Canticles, pp. 208-209, and PUECH, Cantique, p. 36.

212

PART I – CHAPTER 4

The extant text varies greatly from the MT182, ranging only over the first half of the book and significantly omitting segments between 3,2a and 3,6 and all of 4,4-7. Noticeable is the fact that 4Q107 (just as 4Q106) consistently marks the end and beginning of literary units in concordance with the setumôt in the MT by leaving vacats at the end and beginning of these units. These vacats confirm the literary structure of the Song uncovered by many modern literary analyses. Most striking, furthermore, is the fact that according to the judgment of Tov, the Mss ended on Song 5,1. (i) 4Q107 (4QCantb) Frg. 1 (Song 2,9cβ–3,2aα) Fragment 1 is not reproduced here, for it contains no major variants in the preserved part. It preserves Song 2,9cβ–3,2aα without any omissions183. Instead it reads an extra ‫ הנה‬both at the beginning of 2,12 (“Behold, the blossoms…”) and 2,13 (“Behold, the green figs…”) (lines 3, 5). In line 8 (= 2,14 MT) it reads ‫“( המדלגה‬skipping”)184 instead of ‫“( המדרגה‬cliff”). Elgvin judges this to be a scribal error, whereas Tov considers it as an example of phonetic interchange between ‫ ר‬and ‫ל‬185. In line 9 (= 2,14 MT) the Ms reads ‫“( שמעך‬your hearing”) instead of ‫“( קולך‬your voice”). Puech suggests a paronomasia186, while Tov points to Jer 50,42-43 where ‫ קול‬and ‫ שמע‬are used in synonymous parallelism187. In line 10 (= 2,15 MT) ‫“( שועלים‬foxes”) occurs only once as in the LXX, the Vulgate, and a number of Hebrew Mss, while the MT reads it twice188. In line 13 (= 2,17 MT) the Day/Shadow Refrain is present but it lacks stich 17c ‫או לעפר האילים‬ (“or to a young stag”). It is hard to judge whether this was due to scribal negligence or an omission in the Vorlage. On account of the many errors in this Ms189, a scribal mistake is of course possible. On the other hand, this refrain recurs three times (in varied forms in 2,17; 4,6; 8,14 MT), of 182. See TOV, Canticles, p. 207. 183. Pace ELGVIN, Literary Growth, p. 38 who proposes ‫( ה[נה זה דוד‬behold my Beloved?) thereby postulating that the fragment begins with the first two words of 2,8b plus an additional ‫ דודי‬for which no explanation is given. In line 13 also, his reconstruction deviates from the MT and the versions. I follow Puech, who sees no problem in fitting the full text of the MT into the Qumran scroll. 184. Thus the translation proposed by PUECH, Cantique, p. 38. 185. See ELGVIN, Literary Growth, p. 38, and TOV, Canticles, p. 212. PUECH, Cantique, p. 39, rightly notes the resulting lack of accord between the feminine participle ‫ מדלגה‬and the masculine substantive (‫)סתר‬. 186. See PUECH, Cantique, p. 39. 187. See TOV, Canticles, p. 212; ELGVIN, Literary Growth, p. 41, reckons with “a stylistic attempt to create variation, suggesting that the 4QCantb variant is secondary”. 188. P.B. DIRKSEN, Canticles, in A. SCHENKER et al. (eds.), Megilloth (BHQ, 18), Stuttgart, Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2004, 11-24, p. 14, explains the repetition of ‫ שועלים‬in the MT as the result of a dittography. 189. See the table provided by TOV in Canticles, p. 208.

HISTORICAL POSTULATES: FROM COMPOSITION TO CANON

213

which the second occurrence is certainly absent from 4Q107, and the third very likely is also absent, since the end of chapter 8 is commonly held to belong to the latest stratum of redaction190. For this and other reasons developed below, I hold Song 2,17c MT to be a later redactional insertion not yet present in 4Q107. Finally, line 14 (= 3,1 MT) contains the word ‫ )בלי[לות( בלילות‬twice instead of once as in the MT, followed by an uncorrected metathesis ‫בשקתי‬ (instead of ‫ )בקשתי‬in the same line. (ii) 4Q107 (4QCantb) Frg. 2 i + 4 (Song 3,2aβ.c.6-11) The reconstruction of this column is complicated and uncertain. Emanuel Tov had proposed a reconstruction that reads Song 3,5.9–4,1191. On the basis of the IAA infrared images now available online192, Puech identifies the content to be Song 3,2aβ.c-d.6-11, while Elgvin proposes to reconstruct Song 3,2aβ.6–4,1193. Puech’s reconstruction is the most convincing of the three and adopted here: top margin                    ‫]ו[אסו]ב[ב]ה בעיר אבקשה את שאהבה נ[פשי‬3,2 1 [ vacat ‫]בקשתיהו ולא מצאתיהו‬3,2 2 ]3,2 3 ‫מי זאת עלה מן המדבר כתימרת ע[שן‬6 7 ‫]מקטרת מור ולבונה מכל אבקת רוכל [ הנה‬3,2 4 ‫]מטתו שלשלמה ששים גברים סביב לה מג[ברי‬3,2 5 [‫כלם אחוזי חרב מלומדי‬8 ‫]ישראל‬3,2 6 ‫]מלחמה איש )איש( חרבו על ירכו [מן פחד‬3,2 7 vacat ‫]בלילות‬3,2 8 [ ‫אפריון עשה לו המלך שלמה[ מן עצי הלבנון‬9]3,2 9 ‫עמודיו עשה כסף רפידתו זהב מ[רכבו ארגמן‬10]3,2 10 ‫]תוכו רצוף אהבה מן בתולות[ ירושלם‬3,2 11 [‫צאינה וראינה בנות ציון במלך ש[ל]מה‬11]3,2 12 ‫]בעטרה שעטרה לו אמו ביום חתנתו ו[ביום‬3,2 13 [ vacat ‫]שמחת לבו‬3,2 14 bottom margin 1(3,2)

[And I will ]ci[r]cl[e in the city, I will seek for the one whom loves] my [s]oul. 2[I sought for him but I did not find him. vacat] 3(3,6) [Who is this going up from the desert like a column of sm]oke 4[billowing with myrrh and frankincense, with all sent powders of the merchants?] (3,7) Behold, 5[the litter of Solomon sixty mighty men surround it of the mi]ghty men 6[of Israel. (3,8)All of them armed with sword trained in 7warfare. Each one (each one) his sword on his thigh ]against the terror [of the 8night. (vacat) 190. See HEINEVETTER, “Komm nun, mein Liebster”, pp. 166-169; ROBERT – TOURNAY – FEUILLET, Cantique, p. 19. 191. See TOV, Canticles, pp. 207, 213-215. 192. http://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/explore-the-archive/manuscript/4Q107-1. 193. See PUECH, Cantique, p. 40; and ELGVIN, Literary Growth, pp. 47-48.

214

PART I – CHAPTER 4 9(3,9)

A palanquin made for himself the King Solomon] from the trees of Lebanon. 10(3,10)[Its pillars he made of silver, its back-rest of gold, its m]ount of purple, 11[its interior inlaid with love of the virgins of] Jerusalem. 12(3,11)[Go out and behold, oh daughters of Zion, King ]S[o]lo[mon] [with the crown 13 with which his mother crowned him on the day of his wedding, and] the day 14 [of the joy of his heart. (vacat)]

Differing from Tov, Puech identifies a little fragment disposed diagonally on the IAA photos PAM 43.093 (= B-284896)194, and ABMC [DJD, Pl. XXV] as belonging to frg. 2 i line 1 instead of 2 ii line 1 where it had been previously placed. He now calls this fragment 4. On it, he reads ‫]ו[אסו]ב[ב]ה‬. At the end of the line (on photos AMBC and B-295453195, a newer photo of the same fragments) he reads ‫נ[פשי‬196. If he is correct, this word belongs to Song 3,2c. In this case, verse 2b (“in the streets and the squares”) is, however, lacking from the Ms. Quite evident is the absence of Song 3,3-5. Line 2 reads “I sought for him but I did not find him” (= 3,2d MT), after which there is a vacat, followed by a short vacat at the beginning of line 3, which then continues with 3,6 MT. The odd configuration of this entire passage calls for some explanation and it is the only major variant in this fragment. The absence of verse 5 creates no difficulties, as it is the Adjuration Refrain and as such, it may well have come in at a later moment of the Song’s composition. The absence of verse 2b (“in the streets and the squares”) is, on closer examination, not so astonishing since it does not necessarily fit into the carefully arranged poetic structure of 3,1-2: 3,1a 3,1b 3,1c

‫ על־משכבי בלילות‬On my bed at night ‫ בקשתי את שאהבה נפשי‬I sought for the one whom my soul loves ‫ בקשתי ולא מצאתיו‬I sought for him but I did not find him

3,2a

‫ אקומא נא ואסובבה בעיר‬I will get up and circle in the city

3,2c

‫ אבקשה את שאהבא נפשי‬I will seek for the one whom my soul loves

3,2d

‫ בקשתי לא מצאתיו‬I sought for him but I did not find him

Without 3,2b, both verses consist of three cola each. The first colon of each verse indicates a location, the bed (1a), and the city (2a) (bold font). The second colon of each verse construes a form of the verb ‫( בקש‬1b perf., 194. http://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/explore-the-archive/image/B-284896. 195. http://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/explore-the-archive/image/B-295453. 196. See PUECH, Cantique, p. 41.

HISTORICAL POSTULATES: FROM COMPOSITION TO CANON

215

2b imperf.) with the same object “for the one whom my soul loves” (underlined). The third colon of each verse repeats “I sought for him but I did not find him” (italics). Verses 1 and 2 thus form a strict poetic pattern in the light of which, colon 2b could be judged as superfluous. In view of the poetic unity of 3,1-2, therefore, 2b is arguably due to a later expansion as yet absent in 4Q107. The absence of Song 3,3-4 MT is startling. It creates a disjunction in what was previously held to be a compact literary and poetic unity (i.e. 3,1-4 MT)197. Several elements add up to create the impression that Song 3,1-4 MT is a self-standing literary unit. First, the fourfold repetition of the phrase “whom my soul loves” (3,1b.2c.3c.4c; cf. 1,7) resounds like a refrain throughout the poem functioning as a unifying element. In a similar way the repeated motif of searching (3,1b.c.2a.b) and (not) finding (3,1c.2d.3a.4b), and the double reprise of the expression “circling the city” (3,2a.3b) give evidence of the carefully composed unity of 3,14198. The whole section is pervaded by a vivid dynamic of searching and finding. A movement is created from the intimacy of the Beloved’s own couch to the openness of the city, its streets and squares, the encounter with the watchmen out in the public, and finally back into the intimate space of her mother’s room, (according to some) an allusive return even to her mother’s womb. The unity of Song 3,1-4 seems perfect; uninterrupted by any division marker in the MT. And yet, the absence of verse 2b is a first indicator that Song 3,1-4 may not always have had the shape known to us from the MT. A further indication of this is the absence of verse 4a-c from both 4Q106 and 4Q107. A third indicator is the literal repetition of verse 3,3a-b in 5,7a (“they found me the watchmen as they were circling the city”). Song 5,6-8 takes up the same motif of searching and not finding the lover in the night but is apparently extant in neither 4Q106 nor 4Q107. Though there is no definitive proof that 4Q107 ends at 5,1, the absence of 4,8–6,10 in 4Q106 is undisputed. Given the evidence of the lack of 3,3-4 MT in 4Q107, it is here conjectured that, although 3,1-4 appears as a self-standing poetic unity in the MT, this apparent unity is due to a later composition that expanded 3,1-2 with verses 3-4 and eventually with the refrain of v. 5 that was unknown to the Vorlage of 4Q107. At that moment the insertion of an extra colon in 3,2, viz. 3,2b MT, might also have occurred. 197. See HEINEVETTER, “Komm nun, mein Liebster”, p. 107; KRINETZKI, Hohelied, p. 115. 198. According to GERLEMAN, Hohelied, p. 132 the poem is constructed with the aid of fixed literary topoi and motifs.

216

PART I – CHAPTER 4

(iii) 4Q107 (4QCantb) Frg. 2 ii (Song 4,1b-3.8-11a) top margin [‫הנך] יפה ע[י]ניך)?( יונים מבעד לצמותך‬4,12 [‫שערך כעדרי הע]זים שגלשו מן הר גלעד‬2 [‫שניך כעדרי הסא]ן הקצובות שעלו [מהרח]צה‬2 ‫כחוט‬3 ‫שכלם מתאמות ו]שכל[ה] אינ[ה בהם‬2 ‫השני שפתותיך ומדברך נאוה כפלח הרמון‬2 vacat ‫רקתך ומבעד לצמותך‬2 ‫את מן לבנון כלה את מן לבנון‬8 vacat2 ‫אבאי תשורי מן ראשי אומנון ממענות‬2 ‫לבבתני אחותי‬9 ‫אריות מן הררי נמרים‬2 [‫כלה לבבתני באחד מעיניך באחד] ענק‬2 ‫מה יפו דדיך אחותי‬10 ‫]מצו[רניך‬2 [‫])ל[בבתני( ›]כ[לה‹ מה טב]ו[ דדיך מן יין ור]יח‬2 ‫נפת תטפנה‬11 ‫שמניך מן כל בשמין‬2 [‫שפתותיך אחותי כלה דבש ]וחלב‬2 2 bottom margin

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

1(4,1aβ)

Behold [you are beautiful! Your e]ye[s are doves behind your veil!] Your hair is like flocks of go[ats which have streamed down mount Gilead.] 3(4,2) Your teeth are like flocks of shee[p shorn that have come up] from the wash[ing], 4all of which bear twins, and [bereave]ment [is not] with them. (4,3) Like a crimson 5thread are your lips and your speech is lovely, like halves of a pomegranate 6are your temples, behind your veils (vacat). 7 (vacat) (4,8)Come from Lebanon, bride, come from Lebanon, 8come near, descend from the summits of Aumnon, from the dens of 9lions, from the mountains of leopards. (4,9)You have ravished my heart my sister 10bride, you have ravished my heart with one of your eyes with one [perl] 11[of your ne]cklaces. (4,10)How beautiful are your loves my sister 12(you have ravished my [he]art) ‹[b]ride›. How (much) better [are] your loves than wine, and the fra[grance] 13of your anointments better than any balsam oils. (4,11)Honeycomb drips (from) 14your lips my sister bride, honey and [milk]. 2

There can be no doubt that frg. 2 ii contains Song 4,1b-3.8-11. Yet it clearly lacks Song 4,4-7. Line 1 starts with Song 4,1aβ. The first part of the verse, namely 4,1aα (‫הנך יפה רעיתי‬, “behold you are beautiful”), is lacking. In my estimation this is due to neither homoioarcton nor homoioteleuton199, but reflects a prior stage of the Song’s compositional process. This is suggested by the fact that verse 1aα is part of a compositional frame around the waṣf of Song 4,1-7 in the MT200. As the second part of the waṣf, 199. See PUECH, Cantique, p. 46. 200. See HEINEVETTER, “Komm nun, mein Liebster”, p. 116. The frame is composed of the twofold exclamation ‫רעיתי יפה‬, whereby the appellation ‫ רעיתי‬appears here only in the framing verses. This conspicuous position of the term ‫ רעיתי‬can be observed also in Song 1,9 and 1,15, both of which are opening verses of literary units; as well as in 1,10 and 1,15 framing a strophe.

HISTORICAL POSTULATES: FROM COMPOSITION TO CANON

217

that is Song 4,4-7, is clearly absent from 4Q107, the absence of the framing member ‫ הניך יפה רעיתי‬comes as a confirmation of what literary criticism had long conjectured, namely that Song 4,1-7 is the product of a “multifarious compositional work”201. Lines 2 and 3 (in conformity with LXX Song 4,1-2) read ‫“( כעדרי‬like flocks”) in the plural instead of the singular as does the MT (‫)כעדר‬. Line 3 interestingly supplies the noun lacking in the MT specified by the feminine passive participle ‫“( הקצובות‬shorn”). Instead of ‫“( כעדר הקצובות‬a shorn flock” = MT, followed by LXX, VL, Vg, and S), 4Q107 reads ‫כעדרי הסא]ן‬ ‫“( הקצובות‬like a flock of shorn sheep”). This resolves a double difficulty raised by the MT. First, the MT does not specify what kind of flock the participle refers to. Most translations supply “ewes” or “sheep”. Second, the masculine noun ‫ עדר‬and the feminine participle ‫ הקצובות‬do not accord in the MT. The reading of 4Q107 line 3, however, where the feminine participle refers to the common ‫סאן‬, is both comprehensible and grammatically correct. Line 5 reads ‫( מדברך‬your speech) in the singular instead of the plural ‫ מדבריך‬of Song 4,3 MT. This variant is again a confirmation of the ancient versions, LXX, VL, Vg, S, which all preserve the singular. At the end of line 6 and the beginning of 7, the scribe has left two vacats. These are the common division markers between literary units in the Mss usually corresponding to the setumôt of the MT. Here, however, 4Q107 offers an important deviation from all the other versions in omitting Song 4,4-7. As already stated above, this “omission” comes as an important text-critical confirmation of previous conjectures of literary criticism, namely, that Song 4,1-7 is the product of a complicated composition history. The verb ‫( את‬2×) in line 7 (= 4,8 MT) is an abbreviated form of the Aramaic ‫אתי‬, vocalized ‫“ ֱא ִתי‬come”, the singular feminine imperative of ‫אתה‬202. 4Q107 accords here with the ancient versions (cf. LXX: δεῦρο; Vg: veni, Syr ‫)תאתין‬. The MT, however, reads ‫“ ִא ִתּי‬with me”. Instead of discussing the superiority of one version over another, it is preferable to recognize the pluriformity of the text that still persisted in the first century B.C.203. 201. Ibid., p. 117. 202. See PUECH, Cantique, p. 45; see also D. BARTHÉLEMY, Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament (OBO, 50/5), Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015, p. 898. 203. Though scholars have brought forward a number of reasons why the reading of the MT is preferable over the versions, 4Q107 apparently confirms the versions. Argued in favor of the MT is the chiastic form of “Verbalsätzen”. The first two begin with the adverbial phrases ‫ אתי מלבנון‬followed by the verb. In the second sentence (4,8b) the verb (‫ )תשורי‬stands at the beginning followed by four adverbial phrases, each beginning with the preposition ‫מן‬. See GERLEMAN, Hohelied, p. 151, followed by MURPHY, Song, p. 155,

218

PART I – CHAPTER 4

However, given the unanimity of all the versions, it is safe to recognize the MT reading as a later phenomenon204. In line 8, the Ms reads ‫ אבאי‬instead of ‫( תבאי‬Song 4,8 MT). According to Puech this appears to be “the imperative hif‛îl of the aramaizing form ᾿afel in defective orthography ābi’î (see the Hebrew ‫ הבא‬in Gen 43,16, Exod 4,6, …) for the ‫ תבואי‬of the MT, the ἐλεύσῃ of the LXX and the ‫תאתין‬ of the Syriac”205, and not necessarily the error of the copyist. Moreover, there is an important variant in line 8 where the Ms lacks ‫ מראש אמנה מראש שניר וחרמון‬of Song 4,8 MT and reads instead ‫ראשי אומנון‬, where ‫ ראשי‬is an “aramaizing plural”206. According to Tov, ‫ אומנון‬might reflect a variation of several Rabbinic attestations referring to the mountain peak in the Anti-Lebanon as ‫אמנון‬. On this assumption he explains the omission by way of homoioteleuton207. Puech, on the other hand, presumes that the scribe may have compressed the longer Hebrew text (2× ‫מראש‬, cf. also LXX and S) by homoioarcton and homoioteleuton at the same time208. While he disagrees with Tov’s proposal to recognize ‫ אומנון‬as a “Rabbinic” designation for Mount Amana, for their reading is ‫ אמנון‬and not ‫אומנון‬209, Puech, however, does not explain why the scribe would have read a waw after the alef by way of homoioarcton. Tov’s explanation is reasonable. It is confirmed, for example, by Rashi, who might reflect a tradition that commented on a text with a similar reading as 4Q107 when explaining: “Because it is said ‫מראש אמנה‬: this is a mountain on the northern border of the land of Israel and its name is Amanah. And in a different language ‘Mount Amnon (‫( )אמנון‬Shir ha-Shirim IV.8)’”210. Rashi, or the tradition he hands down, must have been acquainted with a reading of ‫ ;אמנון‬his comment would otherwise be inexplicable. The omission of Senir and Hermon, on the other hand, is, in my view, due to neither homoioteleuton or homoioarcton. Rather, it appears that with reference to W.F. ALBRIGHT, Archaic Survivals in the Text of Canticles, in G.R. DRIVER (ed.), Hebrew and Semitic Studies, Oxford, Clarendon, 1963, 1-7, pp. 3-4. Perhaps the strongest argument against the reading of “come” in the imperative is given by Yair Zakovitch, who calls it unsuitable “denn in der Fortsetzung des Verses steht nicht der Imperative ‘komm’, sondern der Indikativ: ‘kommst du’”. However, he admits that the ambiguity of the word might have been intended. See ZAKOVITCH, Hohelied, p. 192. See also BARTHÉLEMY, Critique V, pp. 897-899. 204. Unless M. WEIPPERT, ‘Veni de Libano, sponsa!’ Hoheslied 4:8, in UF 48 (2016) 343-369, is right who has recently argued that the MT is in consonance with the versions and should be translated as “towards me”. 205. PUECH, Cantique, p. 46 (my translation). 206. Ibid. 207. See TOV, Canticles, p. 216. 208. See PUECH, Cantique, p. 46. 209. See TOV, Canticles, p. 216. 210. My translation. For the original see https://www.responsa.co.il/home.en-US. aspx.

HISTORICAL POSTULATES: FROM COMPOSITION TO CANON

219

the Ms lacks the second pair of mountain peaks because they are not yet present in this particular version of the Song. They seem to be a later addition made in the course of the “sacralization” of the Song’s geography (see Chapter 8, III.2, below, p. 503) when this verse was already interpreted in view of Israel taking possession of the Promised Land. The addition of Senir and Hermon may be compared to a similar process in the Pentateuch, where later additions enlarged the ideal borders of Israel, notably by including the territories east and north of the Jordan and the Lebanon mountain range that marked its northern limits (cf. Deut 1,7; 3,8.25)211. According to Deut 3,8, Israel’s territory reached from the valley of Arnon up to Mount Hermon. A parenthetical note in Deut 3,9 then clarifies, “the Sidonians call Hermon Sirion, while the Amorites call it Senir”. The same extension of territory appears to have taken place within the Song by the insertion of ‫“ ֵמר ֹאשׁ ְשׂנִ יר וְ ֶח ְרמוֹן‬from the peak of Senir and Hermon”. This would be an inner-biblical exegesis that has itself become part of the text (i.e. a proto-Rabbinic interpretation). (iv) 4Q107 Frg. 3 (Song 4,[11b-14d]14e–5,1) The last column extant of 4Q107 is found on fragment 3. By all indications it contained verses ranging from Song 4,11b–5,1, of which vv. 14e–5,1 are more certain. top margin                [‫וריח שלמותיך כריח‬11c ‫תחת לשונך‬4,11b] 1 [ ‫ ]לבנון‬2 ] 3 [‫גנ נעול אחותי‬4,12 [‫שלחיך‬13 ‫ ]כלה גן נעול מעין חתום‬4 [‫ ]פרדס רמונים עם פרי מגדים כפרים‬5 [‫נרד וכרכם קנה וקנמון‬14 ‫ ]עם נרדים‬6 [‫ ]עם כל עצי לבונה [ כפר]ים עם נרדים מור‬7 [‫מעין גנים‬15 ‫ ]ואהלות עם כל [ראשי בש]מין‬8 [‫עורי צפון‬16 ‫ ]באר מים חי[ים ונוזלים מ]ן לבנון‬9 [‫ ]ובואי תימ[ן הפיחי גני י]זלו בשמיו יבא‬10 [‫באתי לגני אחותי‬5,1 ‫ ]דודי ל[גנו ויאכל מן גד]יו‬11 [‫ ]כלה [אריתי מרי עם בשמ]י שתיתי ייני‬12 [‫ ]עם חלב[י אכלתי יערי עם דבשי] אכלו רעים‬13 vacat ‫ ]שתו ושכרו דו[דים‬14 bottom margin 211. On the enlargement of Israel’s borders by posterior additions, see A.R. ROSKOP, The Wilderness Itineraries: Genre, Geography, and the Growth of Torah, in History, Archaeology, and Culture of the Levant 3 (2011) 204-215 and A. ROSKOP ERISMAN, Transjordan in Deuteronomy: The Promised Land in the Formation of the Pentateuch, in JBL 132 (2013) 769-789. On the ideal borders of Israel that included the Lebanon mountain range, see M. WEINFELD, Deuteronomy 1–11 (AncB, 5), New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, 1974, pp. 133-134, 190.

220

PART I – CHAPTER 4 1(4,11b)

[under your tongue, (4,11c)and the scent of your garments is like the scent of 2Lebanon. (vacat) 3 (vacat) (4,12)A garden locked is my sister 4bride, a garden locked, a fountain sealed. (4,13)Your shoots a 5paradise of pomegranates, with choicest fruits, henna 6with nards, (4,14)nard and saffron, calamus and cinnamon, 7with all trees of incense.] Henna[ with nards, myrrh 8and aloes, with all ]the best balsam[s. (4,15) Fountain of gardens, 9well of living w]aters and flowing from [Lebanon. (4,16) Wake up North 10and come Sou]th, cause my garden to waft, l[et its balsams flow. Let 11my Lover come into] his garden. And eat its choicest fru[its. (5,1) I have come into my garden my sister 12bride] I have plucked my myrrh with [my] balsam, [(5,1dMT)I have drunk my wine 13[with] my [milk], (5,1cMT)I have eaten my honeycomb with my honey. [Eat friends, 14drink and be inebriate, be]loved.

This fragment, once again, attests to the correspondence between the setumôt in the MT and the vacats in the Qumran Canticle scrolls. Minor variants are the additional “Henna[ with nards” in line 7 [= 4,14 MT], and an Aramaizing ‫ מן גד]יו‬instead of the ‫“[ מגדים‬choice”]. Two noticeable major variants merit attention. Both Emanuel Tov and Émile Puech reconstruct in lines 12-13 a text differing in word order from the corresponding Song 5,1 MT. On the basis of Tov’s hypothesis of the inversion of the word order, Puech reconstructs the last three lines of the scroll as follows212: I have plucked my myrrh with my balsam [I have drunk my wine with my milk], milk I have eaten my Eat friends, friends,] honeycomb with my honey. [Eat drink, and inebriate belo belo]ved!

‫ ]כלה[ אריתי מרי עם בש]מי‬12 ‫שתיתי ייני‬ ‫חלבי[ אכלתי‬ ‫ עם חלבי‬13 [‫יערי עם דבשי] אכלו רעים‬ vacat ‫ שתו ושכרו דו[דים‬14 bottom margin

Line 13 is slightly indented and line 14 even more. As the sheet of parchment is stitched onto the previous one on the right side, it is possible that the right lower corner of the sheet was damaged, so that the scribe had to indent the last lines. Line 14 (= 5,1 MT) is the last line of the fragment. It reads only ‫ום‬/‫די‬. The third letter of the word, the final mem, which is also the very last letter of the fragment, is much larger than all the other letters of the preceding lines. The downstroke of the first letter dalet, though clear in the copy of the reconstruction I have provided above, is only partly visible in the photograph of the scroll due to what appears from the photograph to be surface abrasion, but clearly identifiable as a dalet. With regard to the second letter, Tov is not certain whether it is a yod or 212. For a different reconstruction see TOV, Canticles, pp. 217-218.

HISTORICAL POSTULATES: FROM COMPOSITION TO CANON

221

a waw, which he therefore renders: ‫ום‬/‫די‬. According to Tov, the three visible letters could be read either as ‫“ = דוֹם‬silence”, which “may have been an exegetical note relating to the content of the last line. It could also have indicated the end of a literary unit or even the scroll”213. However, in the photograph the head of the letter that is still visible to the unaided eye resembles much more a yod than a waw. I therefore agree with Puech, who reads the three visible letters as ‫דים‬214. Thus, these three letters form the last syllable of the entire literary unit of Song 4,12–5,1, as also displayed in all other ancient versions. Since there is a lacuna at the beginning of the line before the three visible letters, there is every reason to believe that the first two letters ‫ דו‬have been chopped off by the same abrasion, which damaged the trunk of the still visible dalet. This latter conjecture is also adopted by Tov in the reconstruction of 4QCantb in DJD. Lines 12 to 14 display the conjectured reconstruction of Song 5,1. It is striking that while we read in MT 5,1b ‫“( אריתי מורי עם בשמי‬I have plucked my myrrh with my balm”) and in 5,1c ‫אכאלתי יערי עם־דבשי‬ (“I have eaten my honeycomb with my honey”) as two subsequent cola, in 4QCantb they are each displayed at the beginning of a line (i.e., l. 12 and l. 13, respectively), whereas the rest of the lines are missing. It is not clear if these missing parts of the lines were vacant as is visibly the case in line 14 or if the missing cola 5,1d-fα of the MT are to be found here, as has been proposed in the above copied reconstruction of Tov. Yet in this case, the colon-order of 4QCantb would differ from that of the MT. Instead of MT reading “cI have eaten my honeycomb with my honey, d I have drunk my wine with my milk”, 4QCantb would read: “bI have drunk my wine with my milk, cI have eaten my honeycomb with my honey”. MT

5,1b I have plucked my myrrh with my balsam 5,1c have eaten (‫ )אכלתי‬my honeycomb with my honey 5,1d I have drunk (‫ )שתיתי‬my wine with my milk. 5,1e Eat (‫ )אכלו‬friends, f drink (‫ )שתו‬and be inebriate, beloved.

5,1b 5,1cc 5,1d 5,1e

4QCantb I have plucked my myrrh with my balsam I have drunk (‫ ))שתיתי‬my milk with my honey I have eaten (‫ )אכלתי‬my honeycomb with my honey. Eat ((‫ ))אכלו‬friends, f drink (‫)שתו‬ ( ) and be inebriate, inebriate beloved

213. For the whole passage see ibid., pp. 217-218. 214. See PUECH, Cantique, p. 46.

222

PART I – CHAPTER 4

Why this inversion of cola? Tov presumes a different poetic arrangement of the cola according to the distribution of the finite forms of the verbs ‫אכל‬ and ‫שתה‬. Whereas in the MT, the use of those verbs alters in cola c-f on the pattern of abab (‫ שתו‬,‫ אכלו‬,‫ שתיתי‬,‫)אכלתי‬, 4QCantb creates a chiastic pattern of abba (‫ שתו‬,‫ אכלו‬,‫ אכלתי‬,‫)שתיתי‬. If this conjecture is correct, it would be another testimony to a previous, not yet strictly fixed, stage of the text. The second important variant is that, according to the judgment of Emanuel Tov, the Ms ended with Song 5,1. At the left edge of the last line of 4Q107, fragment 3, Tov sees the mark of a letter that looks like a Greek gamma215. There are several letters of the kind in the scroll. Their function remains unclear. It is not impossible that “they served as line-fillers written in the spaces at the end of the lines lest the lines be mistaken as ‘open-sections’”216. If this proved to be the case, it could strengthen Tov’s assumption that 5,1 is actually the last line of the scroll and therefore, that there existed an “abbreviated” version of the Song at Qumran217. According to Tov, this might also explain the large size of the final mem in the word ‫דו[דים‬, which in this case, would be the last letter of the entire scroll218. However, there is no proof that the scroll ended here. All that can be said is that the column and the sheet of parchment ends at this point. The vacant space after the last word of 5,1 corresponds exactly to the division marker sǝtumah in MT. (v) Summing Up From this examination of 4Q107, the following important elements emerge: 4Q107 might reflect a shorter version of the Song ending on 5,1; the absence of Song 2,17d; 3,2b.3-5; 4,4aα.4-7 and 4,8d MT, suggests also that the Ms reflects an older text form; 4Q107 concords with the variant reading of the versions in Song 2,15; 4,3.8. According to Puech, the many Aramaisms of 4Q107 “se coulent fort bien dans la langue de la composition originale du Cantique, à l’époque perse jusqu’au début de l’époque hellénistique, et dans ce cas, le textus receptus serait une révision et une réduction de plusieurs de ces aramaïsmes et de traits aramaïsants présents dans une édition antérieure du type 4Q107, 215. There are different scribal markings in the fragments of 4Q107, whose functions are not clear yet. They probably “represent letters in the Paleo-Hebrew script, or the Cryptic A script, or a combination of several scripts, including Greek”. See TOV, Canticles, p. 205. 216. See ibid., p. 206. 217. See ibid., p. 218. 218. See ibid., pp. 217-218.

HISTORICAL POSTULATES: FROM COMPOSITION TO CANON

223

quoi qu’il en soit des fautes et des ratures de la copie”219. If he is correct in his assessment, 4Q107 would represent the oldest text form of the Song so far known to us. 2. Abbreviated Text or Different Version? The most significant variants of 4Q106 (4QCanta) and 4Q107 (4QCantb) are the absence of major parts of the textus receptus. Part of the section that is lacking in 4Q106 is extant in 4Q107, namely Song 4,8-11a and 4,[11b-14a]b–5,1. Of the sections missing in 4Q107, parts of 3,3-4 and the entire range of 4,4-7 are extant in 4Q106. Song 5,2–6,10 is, however, glaringly absent from any Qumran scroll. The question is why the texts reflected in 4Q106 and 4Q107 differ so significantly from the MT. Are they “abbreviated” texts, as Tov presumes, or is Ulrich correct in affirming that they are witnesses of earlier recensions still circulating in the first century B.C.? If the latter is the case, what are the implications for the composition history of the Song? a) “Abbreviated” Texts According to Tov, 4Q106 and 4Q107 are excerpted and abbreviated texts220. He holds that the divergences of the Mss from the MT are not due to scribal negligence or error but were created quite consciously221. Nonetheless, it is only “with some hesitation” that Tov chooses to label them “abbreviated texts”222. He admits that there are no exact parallels for this phenomenon among other Qumran Mss223. This is significant. On the basis of the theory that the Song “contains a conglomeration of love songs and not a coherent composition”, Tov conjectures that “segments could be removed from it without harming the context”224. He explicitly excludes 219. PUECH, Cantique, p. 53. 220. See E. TOV, Three Manuscripts (Abbreviated Texts?) of Canticles from Qumran Cave 4, in Journal of Jewish Studies 46 (1995) 88-111; and more recently, ID., A Didactic Approach to the Biblical Dead Sea Scrolls, in P.W. FLINT – J. DUHAIME – K.S. BAEK (eds.), Celebrating the Dead Sea Scrolls: A Canadian Collection (SBLEJL, 30), Atlanta, GA, SBL Press, 2011, 173-198, pp. 186-187. 221. See TOV, Abbreviated?, pp. 88-89: “The shorter text […] was created consciously by the scribes or their predecessors, who shortened the content of the biblical book, and not by scribal negligence”. He classifies them as biblical manuscripts of the Song rather than a paraphrase. 222. TOV, Canticles, p. 195. More recently he employs the term “excerpted texts”. See ID., Didactic Approach, p. 186. 223. Note that other Mss which have selective text passages concern scrolls like the Psalms or Torah that would have been used in the liturgy. 224. TOV, Canticles, p. 196.

224

PART I – CHAPTER 4

– though without argumentation – the possibility that they would represent earlier literary versions of the Song, differing from the textual witness as known from the MT and the LXX225. One possible explanation for an abbreviation of 4Q106, according to Tov, is the desire to exclude “sensual language” and the “erotic imagery found in much of Cant 4,8–6,10”226. Another possible explanation is the similarity in content of the omitted passages with material already present in the text: the missing Song 5,2-8 is similar to the extant 3,1-5 (i.e. the searching for the Lover in the night), and the omitted 6,5-7 resembles the waṣf in 4,1-3227. Finally, Tov notes that the juxtaposed sections in 4Q106 show a similarity in imagery and motifs: pomegranates (4,3; 6,11), breasts (4,5; 7,3), twins (4,5; 7,4), neck (4,4; 7,5), eyes (4,1; 7,5), and tower (4,4; 7,5)228. With regard to the omissions in 4Q107 of 4,4-7 MT, Tov invokes as a “remote possibility” that the mention of “breasts” in Song 4,5 might have caused the removal of the unit 4,4-7229. Additionally, Tov observes that the description of the female body in 6,5-7 is nearly identical to that in 4,1-3. Accordingly, since the waṣf in 6,5-7 ends on the line corresponding to 4,3, he proposes that 4,1-7 was abbreviated to 4,1-3230. For the alleged omission of 3,6-8 (according to his reconstruction) no explanation is offered. The small physical dimensions of the Mss have also led Tov to propose the possibility that liturgical or personal use may have led to the abbreviations231. b) Variant Editions It is evident from the vacats which separate the literary units that the major “omissions” in the Mss cannot be due to scribal negligence. Tov’s reasoning, however, that the 4QCant Mss represent abbreviated versions of an already existing complete form of the Song is not persuasive. It is known from other cases like 4QJosha, 4QJudga, 1QSama, 4QJerb.d that some biblical text arrangements were still quite fluid up until the Herodian 225. See ibid. 226. Ibid. See also FLINT, Canticles, p. 101. 227. See TOV, Canticles, p. 203. 228. See ibid. 229. See ibid., p. 216. 230. See ibid., making reference to an oral communication by Yair Zakovitch. 231. See ibid., pp. 197-198: “We notice a relatively large number of small liturgical scrolls, possibly the small copies of the Five Scrolls fit into this category”. Elgvin points out with good reason that the term “five megillot (scrolls)” belongs to a later terminology and is therefore anachronistic with reference to the Second Temple period. See ELGVIN, Literary Growth, p. 192, n. 6.

HISTORICAL POSTULATES: FROM COMPOSITION TO CANON

225

period, and that two different versions of the same book could circulate in one and the same community. It is more likely than not that 4Q106 and 4Q107 represent two different versions of the Song that display a stage of redaction prior to the MT. (i) Arguments against an Alleged Abbreviation With regard to 4Q106, it is true that Song 5,2-8 employs the same motif as the extant 3,1-5 (the search for the Lover in the night), but these two passages also differ significantly. They are by no means a doublet that would permit or invite the omission of 5,2-8 without loss. Moreover, the hypothesis of the omission of repeated material cannot explain the omission of the great bulk of the material. Neither the Sister-Bride Song (4,8-11), nor the Garden Song (4,12–5,1), nor the description of the Lover’s beauty (5,10-16), nor the dialogue between the Beloved and the Daughters of Jerusalem (6,1-3), nor the frame around the waṣf of 6,5-7, that is, 6,4 and 6,8-10, have a counterpart in the extant passages of 4Q106 that would justify their omission on the basis of repetition. At the same time, this bulk of omitted material cannot be characterized as particularly sensual language. By comparison, the extant waṣf of the Beloved in 7,1-7 (4Q106 frg. 2 ii, lines 5-14) is more sensually suggestive than the omitted waṣf of the Lover’s beauty in 5,10-16 MT. The presumed omission of Song 4,4-7 in 4Q107 frg. 2 ii, lines 6-7 because of the word “breasts” in Song 4,5 is not convincing either. The same word is present in the extant part of 4Q106 Song 7,4. It follows that the mention of breasts was not too sensual for the alleged “abbreviator” of 4Q106. Nor do the “breasts” of 4,5 appear to be more indecent than 4,10, “How beautiful is your love-making (‫ )דדים‬my sister, my bride…”. The possibility of an abbreviation for reasons of decency must therefore be rejected. Indeed, if decency were an argument, one should rather expect the absence of any Song Ms from Qumran. Finally, Tov’s explanation for the omission of Song 4,4-7 is problematic. It is unclear why the close resemblance of 4,1-3 to 6,5-7 should be relevant, since if indeed 4Q107 ends at 5,1 there would be no doublet in any case. Even if one were to presume that 4Q107 once continued through chapter 6 (which Tov rules out), it is hard to conceive why the scribe would have wanted to streamline the two waṣfs. If such had been the purpose, one might ask why he should have omitted the surplus material of vv. 4-7 while not suppressing Song 4,3c-d, the presence of which also deviates from the material in Song 6,5-7. Rather, it appears that at a prior state of redaction the Song contained only this more rudimentary version of the waṣf represented in Song 4,1-3 4Q107.

226

PART I – CHAPTER 4

The suggestion that the 4QCant Mss were abbreviated for liturgical or personal usage cannot be sustained, and Tov himself has backed away from these arguments. In the first place, many Mss of a similar diminutive size were not used in the liturgy (e.g., 4QBirth of Noahb.c ar; 4QCal. Document A, B, D; 4QZodiology and Brontology; 4QToh A; 4QMMTc.f; 4QPsJuba; 4QDane)232. Furthermore, the many scribal errors and generally careless production displayed in 4Q107 argue against the liturgical provenance of the manuscript. As to personal use, it may tolerate greater scribal negligence but the great “omissions” of entire literary units of the Song Mss are certainly not of this sort233. If however, the liturgy hypothesis were correct, then we would here have the earliest attestation of a religious use of the Song and thereby the strongest argument against its alleged preRabbinic profane character. (ii) Variant Editions of the Same Book It is difficult to establish with certainty whether the variations between the Mss are the result of an editorial process or the textual transmission, or if they respond to literary changes in the process of composition and redaction. These processes are, without doubt, interrelated. However, the view that 4Q106 and 4Q107 would represent excerpts of biblical scrolls is not convincing234. As Tov himself concedes, there are no other examples of consciously abbreviated texts found in Qumran235. Rather, it might be pointed out that even the LXX of Jeremiah had been falsely considered an abbreviated text until 4QJerb proved otherwise236. This alone should urge caution against the supposition that the Song was for some (as yet undisclosed) reason deliberately shortened. Sixty years after the discoveries, it has become more and more apparent that our previous assumptions about Urtexts were “naïve in the extreme”237. As Ulrich says, “the books grew organically and dynamically over the centuries, in what we can call new and expanded editions or revised literary editions”238. Indeed, “pluriformity was the nature of the text in the late Second Temple Period”239. Variant editions of the same book were often circulating simultaneously, while the unification of 232. See B.P. GAULT, The Fragments of Canticles from Qumran: Implications and Limitations for Interpretation, in Revue de Qumran 95 (2010) 351-371, p. 366. 233. See ibid., p. 367. 234. See ibid. 235. See TOV, Canticles, p. 196. 236. See ULRICH, Focus, pp. 6-7. 237. ULRICH, Text, p. 86. 238. Ibid. 239. Ibid., p. 95.

HISTORICAL POSTULATES: FROM COMPOSITION TO CANON

227

these different text-versions seem to have started no earlier than after the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D., or perhaps even only after the Second Revolt in 132-135240. In sum, “there does not appear to be any evidence prior to the end of the first century of our era that any Jewish group showed awareness or concern about the various text forms or that their texts differed from those preserved in the temple of Jerusalem”241. Elgvin242 and Ulrich243 both argue against Tov that the Song Mss found in Cave 4 appear to represent earlier literary stages of the text, before the book attained its final, now canonical, shape244. Ulrich presumes that 4QCanta.b represent variant literary editions that existed side by side in the first century B.C. He assumes that the poetic units absent in the two manuscripts may have been located elsewhere in the scrolls in a variant arrangement; or they may even have been simply ignored by the editor responsible for the textual form transmitted in the Qumran manuscripts. Ulrich thus considers the simultaneous circulation of three different literary editions of the Song of Songs as possible. Elgvin judges that “it seems […] probable to see in these two scrolls stages in the literary growth of individual songs into the later canonical composition of Canticles that still had not reached its final form”245. Both Elgvin and Ulrich point to parallel cases such as 4QJosha, 4QJudga, 1QSama, 4QJerb.d, and Schøyen Jeremiah, all of which preserve earlier literary versions of scriptural texts, thus confirming earlier redaction-critical hypotheses on the literary development of biblical books. Puech is led to a similar conclusion. According to him, the copies might be witnesses to a previous stage of redaction (“témoins d’étapes d’une édition du texte”) of a shorter and older text that subsequently would have undergone additions in the course of further “redactions-copies”. 240. See ibid., p. 107. 241. ULRICH, Focus, pp. 12-13. 242. See T. ELGVIN, Nytt fra de siste års Qumranforskning: Hva har hule 4 åpenbart?, in B. OLSSON – T. KRONHOLM (eds.), Qumranlitteraturen: Fynden och forskningsresultaten (Konferenser, 35), Stockholm, Kungl. Vitterhets, 1996, 147-163, p. 154. 243. See ULRICH, Text, pp. 104-105: “It is conceivable that the poetic units not found in their accustomed order in 4QCanta and 4QCantb may have appeared elsewhere in those scrolls in a variant arrangement; it is also quite possible, as Tov assumes, that they were simply absent. If the first scenario obtained, these Mss would be analogous to the rearranged Book of Jeremiah; if the second obtained, they would be analogous to the longer vs. shorter forms of the Book of Daniel”. What speaks in favor of the latter scenario is the fact that neither of the Mss display an inverted order, in any of the extant passages. It seems therefore more likely that they represent a shorter version of the Song. See also ULRICH, Focus, p. 8, where he affirms that it is more likely that 4QCanta and 4QCantb could simply be “variant literary editions of the Song, similar to the many other instances of variant literary editions of biblical books”. 244. See ELGVIN, Literary Growth, pp. 159-167. 245. Ibid.

228

PART I – CHAPTER 4

The final composition having taken place no later than the first century B.C. is attested to by the Vorlage of the LXX and the MT246. Given that the Song’s status as authoritative was probably still disputed247, and that the book was arguably not translated into Greek before the second half of the first century A.D.248, it is quite conceivable that the text underwent further editions in the course of its transmission, resulting in a number of different circulating versions. Though it is difficult to suggest a convincing text-genealogy, since parts of the text lacking in one scroll are extant in the other, the perspective of Ulrich, Elgvin, and Puech remains plausible and is a much more productive hypothesis. This is evident from the strongly redactional character of particularly Song 4,4-7 detailed below. 3. 4Q106 and 4Q107 in View of a Redactional Growth The units lacking in 4Q106 and 4Q107 can be explained on the supposition of a literary growth of the Song through redactional work. The absence of certain texts in 4Q106 and 4Q107, in fact, confirms hypotheses ventured by redaction-critical investigations of the Song before the publication of the DSS. Of the two Mss in question, 4Q107 gives more clues with regard to the intention of the redactional expansion of the book and thereby to its earliest interpretation. The omissions in 4Q106 will only be briefly described, while sustained attention will be given to the most evident part missing in 4Q107. a) 4Q106 The minus in the manuscript contains four coherent literary units: the “Sister-Bride Song” (Song 4,8-11); the “Garden Song” (4,12–5,1); the 246. PUECH, Cantique, p. 53: “Il faut sans doute y regarder à deux fois et se demander si ces copies ne pourraient pas être des témoins d’étapes d’une édition du texte plus courte et plus ancienne qui aurait subi des additions au cours de rédactions-copies, celles-ci étant certainement antérieures à la séparation du noyau essénien en 152 avant J.-C., la composition finale ayant eu lieu au plus tard au cours du premier siècle av. J.-C. comme l’attestent la Vorlage du grec et le textus receptus”. 247. At least if one adopts the theory that this was an open question until “Jamnia”. I adopt Sid LEIMAN’s definition of “authoritative scripture”. From a traditional Jewish perspective “a canonical book is a book accepted by Jews as authoritative for religious practices and/or doctrine, and whose authority is binding upon the Jewish people for all generations. Furthermore, such books are to be studied and expounded in private and in public”. The Canonization of Hebrew Scripture: The Talmudic and Midrashic Evidence (Transactions, 47), Hamden, CT, The Shoe String Press, 1976, p. 14. 248. According to Barthélemy the LXX version of the Song belongs to the καίγε-family and is not a revision but its first translation. See D. BARTHÉLEMY, Les devanciers d’Aquila (VT.S, 10), Leiden, Brill, 1963, p. 47.

HISTORICAL POSTULATES: FROM COMPOSITION TO CANON

229

search for the Lover in the night (5,2–6,3); and the “Beautiful like Tirzah…” unit (6,4-10). If one were to assume that this is an abbreviated text, there is, as already argued, no apparent reason for the omission of these literary units. The supposition that these units did not exist, however, is equally unlikely. On the contrary, they contain passages that, in motif and language, belong to the oldest part of the Song. Song 4,8-11, for instance, represents one of the few units which display no influence of LBH. The motif of searching for the Lover, likewise, has parallels in Egyptian love poetry of the New Kingdom period. Ultimately, then, since two of the units missing in 4Q106 are extant in 4Q107 (i.e, 4,8-11; 4,12–5,1), it is possible that 4Q106 displays a stage of the fixing of the text in which the cantos had not yet found their final position in the composition. On the other hand, one might entertain the possibility that the text of 4Q106 stands outside the line of textual transmission at the point where some (or all) of these materials entered 4Q107. b) 4Q107 4Q107 offers more clues with regard to the possible literary growth of the Song. The first clue is that 4Q107 might represent a version that ended with Song 5,1. As discussed above (I.3.b, p. 175), this verse is judged by most scholars to be the center of the book, after which a number of themes from the first part are taken up again249. Given the fact that most of the second part of the book is a repetition of the first even if with strong variations, it is conceivable that 4Q107 preserves a version of the Song prior to its expansion. In a previous publication I had argued, based on the reconstruction of Tov, that the passages missing in 4Q107 contain precisely those elements that give the MT such a nationalistic coloratura250. This argument can no longer be sustained since the more recent reconstructions of both Puech and Elgvin have proven the presence of 3,6-8 in 4Q107. The absence of 249. The paraklausithyron of 2,8-17 followed by the searching in the night 3,1-5 is mirrored by the paraklausithyron of 5,2-5 followed by another search in the night, in the streets of the city 5,6-7. The latter search is then prolonged by a unique dialogue between the Beloved and the Daughters of Jerusalem, which permits for a waṣf describing the beauty of the Lover (5,10-16). Just as 3,1-5, after the intermezzo of Solomon’s wedding, is followed by a waṣf describing her beauty (4,1-7) and the descent of the Lover into his garden (5,1), the description of his beauty (5,10-16) is followed by another descent of the Lover into his garden (6,2.11). 250. The allusion to the desert wandering (3,6), the single mention of Israel in the Song (3,7), the single mention of David (4,4), the two passages that make allusion to David’s “mighty men” (‫גבורים‬, 3,8; 4,4), an allusion to Solomon (3,7), and the only mention of Zion (3,11). See N.S. HEEREMAN, ‘Behold King Solomon!’: Inner-biblical Interpretation in Song 3,6-11, in A. SCHELLENBERG – L. SCHWIENHORST-SCHÖNBERGER (eds.), Interpreting the Song of Songs: Literal or Allegorical? (BiTS, 26), Leuven, Peeters, 2016, 181-219, pp. 207, 213.

230

PART I – CHAPTER 4

Song 4,4-7, however, remains indisputable and is glaring. The passage itself gives indeed some clues with respect to its later addition. Song 4,4-7 MT missing in 4Q107 4 Like the tower of David is your neck built in courses; on it hang a thousand shields, all quivers of mighty men.

‫ כמגדל דויד צוארך‬4 ‫בנוי לתלפיות‬ ‫אלף המגן תלוי עליו‬ ‫כל שלטי הגבורים‬

5 Your two breasts are like two fawns, twins of a gazelle, that feed among the lotuses.

‫ שני שדיך כשני עפרים‬5 ‫תאומי צביה‬ ‫הרועים בשושנים‬

6 Until the day breathes and the shadows flee, I will hasten to the mountain of myrrh and the hill of frankincense. 7 You are altogether beautiful, my friend; and there is no flaw in you.

‫ עד שיפוח היום‬6 ‫ונסו הצללים‬ ‫אלך לי אל־הר המור‬ ‫ואל־גבעת הלבונה‬ ‫ כלך יפה רעיתי‬7 ‫ומום אין בך‬

Several clues speak in favor of this being a later insertion. It stands more to reason that these verses belong to a different redaction, not reflected in 4Q106, than to presume that these verses were lost in an abbreviation. The following seven reasons support the idea of a later redactional insertion of this passage. (i) In the MT, Song 4,4-7 forms part of a larger literary unity, i.e. 4,1-7, a waṣf of the Beloved. In the MT version of the Song, vv. 1-3 of the waṣf reappear almost identically in 6,5-7 as can be seen in the following table. The passages in bold italics indicate the parallels. 4,1 aBehold you are beautiful, my friend, beautiful indeed! b Your eyes are doves 6,5 Turn away your eyes from me, c behind your veil. for they overwhelm me! d Your hair is like a flock of goats, Your hair is like a flock of goats, e moving down the slopes of Gilead. moving down the slopes of Gilead. 4,2 Your teeth are like a shorn flock 6,6 Your teeth are like a flock of ewes  that have come up from the washing,  that have come up from the washing, all of which bear twins,  all of them bear twins, and not one among them is bereaved.  and not one among them is bereaved. 4,3 aYour lips are like a crimson thread, b and your mouth is lovely. c Your cheeks are like halves 6,7 Your cheeks are like halves  of a pomegranate of a pomegranate d behind your veil. behind your veil.

HISTORICAL POSTULATES: FROM COMPOSITION TO CANON

231

Though there are differences between the two description songs, it is remarkable that the substantial parts (4,1-3 and 6,5-7) correspond not only in content but also in sequence. Because the waṣf of 6,5-7 ends with the exact same line as 4,1-3, the double occurrence of this nearly identical waṣf strongly suggests that 4,1-3 had existed as an independent literary unit before it was combined with or extended by vv. 4-7. This presumption is substantiated by the literary structure of 4,1-3. Song 4,1a-b is identical with 1,15 (“Behold you are beautiful my friend, beautiful indeed, your eyes are doves”). By adding 4,1c (“behind your veil”) to 4,1a-b the phrase is converted into the first member of the waṣf. However, 4,1c is also identical with 4,3d (“behind your veil”). Together they form a frame (inclusio) around the 4,1-3. (ii) In the first three verses of the waṣf (4,1-3) the elements of comparison are taken from the animal and fruit world (i.e., doves, goats, ewes, pomegranates). In 4,4 (MT), on the contrary, the imagery changes abruptly to military and urban metaphors (Tower of David, shields, quivers, mighty men)251. Theses metaphors constitute biblical allusions unrelated to the previous verses (1-3). Verse 4 is the first and only time that David is explicitly mentioned in the Song (though, as will be argued in Chapter 8, his name appears to be implicitly present in the Lover’s appellation ‫)דודי‬. The Tower of David might have been known at the time; today, however, it is unknown252. The two species of armor (shields and quivers) appear in combination with David also in 2 Chr 23,9. Furthermore, out of the seven times that the word ‫“( שלט‬quiver”) appears in the Hebrew Bible, five times are in connection with David253. The mighty men (‫ )גברים‬constitute another strong allusion to David, whose royal elite troop was made up of 30 ‫גברים‬ (see Chapter 10). It is striking that the only other mention of mighty men (‫ )גברים‬in the Song is in 3,6-8, a passage that, just like 4,4-7, mentions another Davidic King of Israel, Solomon, and the mighty men of Israel, which inner-biblically are so strongly linked with David. Although ignorant of 4Q107, Heinevetter had already suggested in 1988 that the redactor 251. HEINEVETTER, “Komm nun, mein Liebster”, p. 118, makes the same observation: “Während die Vergleiche 1e und 2a aus dem Ländlichen gewählt sind und 3a/3c wenigstens im weiteren Sinn noch dem natürlichen Bereich zugerechnet werden können, fällt V 4 inhaltlich deutlich heraus. Die hier gewählten städtischen, kriegsbaulichen Bilder führen in eine andere Welt, die eher an 3,7b-8 erinnert”. 252. ZAKOVITCH, Hohelied, p. 187. 253. With David 2 Sam 8,7; 2 Kgs 11,10; Song 4,4; 1 Chr 18,7; 2 Chr 23,9. The two mentions apart from David are in Jer 51,11 – but here it has another meaning (quiver) – and in Ezek 27,11 (the oracle against the King of Tyre).

232

PART I – CHAPTER 4

of 4,4 intentionally builds on 3,7b-8 in order to create internal links for the purpose of creating greater literary interconnections in the Song254. Most revealing, however, is the abrupt shift in the description of the Beloved between images drawn from nature and the land of Israel by evocation of Mount Gilead in Song 4,1-3 to a stark city imagery in 4,4. The image here evoked is that of shields and quivers ornamenting city walls as jewels on a crown255. In the ANE the spectacle of shields and quivers hanging down from the city walls and parapets was very common. They were to underscore the fortification of the city and discourage possible aggressors. At the same time they made the city look glorious when the sun reflected on the metal shields256. The Bible makes reference to the usage of hanging shields and quivers on towers in Ezek 27,10-11, and on the Temple in 1 Macc 4,57. Ezekiel makes this connection between the beauty of a city and her decorated walls explicit. “Persia and Lud and Put were warriors in your army; shields (‫ )מגן‬and helmet they hung (‫ )תלו‬in you; they gave you splendor. Men of Arvad and Helech were on your walls all around; men of Gamad were at your towers (‫)במגדולותיך‬. Their quivers (‫ )שלטיהם‬they hung (‫ )תלו‬all around your walls; they made perfect your beauty (‫”)יפיך‬. Other than the striking resonance of similar lexemes, it results clearly from this passage in Ezekiel, that a city decorated in such fashion was perceived like a beautifully ornamented woman. It is easily conceivable that the woman praised in Song 4,4 is Jerusalem personified in all her decorated glory with her symbol, the mural crown (see Chapter 6, IV.3.a, below, p. 393, and 7, III.2, III.3, below, pp. 468, 470). (iii) Verse 5 is a combination of two phrases encountered elsewhere in the Song. Song 4,5a-b is identical to 7,4, “your two breasts are like two fawns” (‫)שני שדיך כשני עפרים‬, where it is followed – not preceded as here – by a comparison of her neck to a tower. More importantly, however, the phrase “that feed among the lotuses” (‫ )הרועים בשושנים‬in v. 5c is also identified in 2,16 as being a redactional insertion, belonging to the Possession Refrain (see I.3.a, above, p. 172). In 2,16, just as here in 4,5, it precedes the equally redactional Day/Shadow Refrain (2,17; 4,6)257. In connection to what has been said about the city wall and temple decoration à propos of 4,4, it is significant that the image of gazelles feeding 254. See HEINEVETTER, “Komm nun, mein Liebster”, p. 118. 255. See M.E. BIDDLE, The Figure of Lady Jerusalem: Identification, Deification and Personification of Cities in the Ancient Near East, in J. YOUNGER – W.W. HALLO – B.F. BATTO (eds.), The Biblical Canon in Comparative Perspective (Ancient Near Eastern Texts and Studies, 11), Lewiston, NY – Queenston, Edwin Mellen, 1991, 173-194, p. 185. 256. See U. BERGES, Jesaja 49–54 (HThKAT), Freiburg i.Br., Herder, 2015, p. 320. 257. See HEINEVETTER, “Komm nun, mein Liebster”, p. 120.

HISTORICAL POSTULATES: FROM COMPOSITION TO CANON

233

among lotuses that crown a stylized tree is known from ANE iconographic evidence, dating from the thirteenth-twelfth century down to the Hellenistic period258. These animals belong to the sphere of the love goddess, as does the “tree of life” symbol and the lotus259. Both the translation of ‫ שושנים‬as lotuses and the symbolic connotation of this metaphor require a brief explanation. While the Hebrew term ‫ שושנה‬is traditionally rendered as “lily”, Othmar Keel has convincingly demonstrated that the lexeme ‫שושן‬/‫ שושנה‬is best understood as “lotus”260. The traditional translation of ‫ שושן‬as “lily” appears to derive from the Septuagint’s rendering of the lexeme as κρίνον, which is considered to refer to the white lily (Lilium candidum L) from where it passed into the Latin tradition261. Keel, however, has shown on iconographic evidence that the term ‫ שושנה‬is borrowed from the Egyptian sšn, or sššn, which refers to the lotus (Nymphae alba or Nymphae caerulae)262. This derivation is confirmed by archaeological findings all over the ANE263. According to 1 Kgs 7,19.22 the capitals of Solomon’s temple were decorated with ‫שושנים‬. Capitals with lotus ornamentation have been found in various places, while none have been found with lilies, a flower whose existence in Israel has not even been botanically attested264. The lotus appears to be almost “omnipresent … in the handicraft of the Southern Levant and Egypt”265. The lotus emerging perfectly clean and waxy out of the swamps is a symbol for refreshment and regeneration of life, the principle of cosmogony out of which the child of the sun as creator proceeded266. The lotus was, furthermore, an attribute of Qetesh/ Qudshu, the Levantine fertility goddess267. 258. See KEEL, Hohelied, pp. 107, 110-111, 138-141, fig. 61-62, 81-84. 259. See ibid., p. 139, fig. 8-11, 43-46. 260. See KEEL, Tauben, pp. 63-69; and W.D. SUDERMAN, Modest or Magnificent? Lotus versus Lily in Canticles, in CBQ 67 (2005) 42-58. 261. The LXX’s rendering of ‫ שושן‬as κρίνον, in fact, appears to be an adaption to the Greek conceptual universe as can be understood from Herodotos: “When the river is in flood and overflows the plains, many lilies (κρίνεα πολλά), which the Egyptians call lotus (λωτόν), grow in water” (Histories 2,92). See KEEL, Tauben, pp. 63-64. 262. Ibid., p. 63. 263. See the ample evidence adduced by STAUBLI, Love Poetry, pp. 84-87. 264. See for an extensive iconographical documentation KEEL, Tauben, pp. 63-69; and STAUBLI, Love Poetry, p. 84. 265. STAUBLI, Love Poetry, p. 84. 266. The child of the sun on or in the lotus is frequently represented on Phoenician ivories, of which a ninth-century copy has been found in Samaria; and also found on Phoenician metal bowls and Hebrew seals. See KEEL, Tauben, p. 67. 267. See STAUBLI, Love Poetry, p. 84. See S. SCHROER, Die Ikonographie Palästinas/ Israels und der Alte Orient: Eine Religionsgeschichte in Bildern. Band 2: Die Mittelbronzezeit, Freiburg/CH, Academic Press, 2008, no. 860 (Minet el-Beida), 862 (Akko), 863 (Kh. Abu el-Quhuf), 864 (Bet Shemesh), 867 (Egypt), 869 (Lakhish).

234

PART I – CHAPTER 4

The gazelles are similarly a symbol of life, being animals living in the arid area of the steppe where life is seemingly impossible. Gazelles would never be found grazing in the marshlands where the lotuses grow. Thomas Staubli thus rightly observes, “[I]t is evident that the image formed by the metaphor is not inspired by nature but born of art, where the motif is to be found over centuries in the southern Levant (about 1800-100 B.C.)”268. In the Hellenistic times the gazelles feeding on lotuses are still a typical decoration found in Isis(-Hathor) temples269. According to Staubli, “the traditional, artificial motif [of gazelles among lotuses] interprets the temple of Isis(-Hathor) as a place of refreshment and renewal of life”270. This iconographical reference, contemporary to the Song’s final stages of composition, indicates that the image of gazelles grazing among lotuses was a recognizable temple-motif in the Hellenistic times271. In fact, it seems that the decoration interprets the temple-precinct as a paradisiacal garden, in which the god(s) venerated therein find(s) refreshment. Contrary to the general pattern in the modern West, a woman’s breasts were not inevitably charged with erotic connotations in antiquity, but very often evocative of blessing, fertility, nourishment, sustenance, protection, and renewal of life (cf. Genesis 49)272, which corresponds to the lotus’ symbolic meaning of the regeneration of life273. (iv) The temporal sentence “until the day breathes and the shadows flee” (‫ )עד שיפוח היום ונסו הצללים‬in Song 4,6 is identical with 2,17 (the Day/Shadow Refrain). Song 2,17, however, is also part of the Mountain Refrains together with 8,14, which are commonly recognized as one of the (redactional) structuring features of the Song (see I.3.a, above, p. 172). It is noteworthy that even though 2,17 is extant in 4Q107, it is not yet complete as it lacks the d-stich, namely “or a young stag”, the exact feature that likens it to 8,14. Song 8,14, however, is commonly recognized as belonging to the latest redactional stages274, and it might not be a coincidence that no attestations of chapter 8 are found in Qumran. 268. See STAUBLI, Love Poetry, pp. 84-85. 269. Particularly relevant for the present study is the depiction of gazelles grazing among lotuses on the relief of a bowl, probably stemming from the temple of Koptos in Upper Egypt (ca. 25 km to the north of Luxor), dedicated to the worship of Min, Isis, and Horpakhered, and likely dating to the third-first century B.C. See ibid., p. 84. 270. Ibid., p. 85. 271. Pace STAUBLI, ibid., who infers from this finding, that “it documents the ongoing use of the metaphor of the gazelles feeding among lotuses in an erotic context” (p. 87). 272. See KEEL, Hohelied, pp. 138-139. 273. See STAUBLI, Love Poetry, p. 84. See also S. SCHROER, Die Ikonographie Palästinas/ Israels und der Alte Orient: Eine Religionsgeschichte in Bildern. Band 3: Die Spätbronzezeit, Freiburg/CH, Academic Press, 2011, no. 748.809-811. 274. See HEINEVETTER, “Komm nun, mein Liebster”, pp. 166-169.

HISTORICAL POSTULATES: FROM COMPOSITION TO CANON

235

(v) With the expression ‫ אלך לי‬Song 4,6b clearly moves out of the waṣf genre. For this reason, and because the phrase is absent from the Hexaplaric version of Theodotion, previous scholars had presumed that v. 6 is in some way part of a redactional insertion, even before the findings of the DSS275. Zakovitch recognizes in the phrase ‫ אלך לי אל־הר המור‬an allusion to Mount Moriah, identified with the Temple Mount in 2 Chr 3,1. This is not only suggested by the obvious pun on sound and consonants (cf. ‫ הר המוריה‬and ‫)הר המור‬, but also by the context: The expression ‫אלך אלי‬ recalls the divine summons to Abraham ‫ לך־לך אל־ארץ המריה‬in Gen 22,2. This echo is affirmed by the Jewish tradition in Gen. Rab. 50.7 where the “land of Moriah” in Gen 22,2 is explained as “the place where incense would be offered, as you read, I will get myself to the mountain of myrrh – Mor (Song 4,6)”276. (vi) The pair of myrrh and incense in 4,6 create a further link to Song 3,6, another indication that the redaction of 4,4-7 might have built on 3,6-8277. (vii) Song 4,7, finally, is easily recognizable as a redactional addition, which links vv. 4-6 to the preceding vv. 1-3 by creating a frame together with v. 1a. The frame is created by the two nearly identical phrases in 4,1a, ‫“( הנך יפה רעיתי‬behold you are beautiful my friend”) and 4,7a, ‫כלך יפה‬ ‫“( רעיתי‬you are all beautiful, my friend”). In addition to repeating the words ‫יפה רעיתי‬, these are the only recurrences of the appellation ‫ רעיתי‬in the entire poem of 4,1-7. The redactional character of these two framing phrases is now impressively confirmed by 4Q107, where not only 4,4-7 are lacking, but also the first part of 4,1, the framing phrase ‫הנך יפה רעיתי‬ “behold you are beautiful my friend” (v. 1aα), is absent. It is quite obvious that 4,1aα belongs to the later redaction that inserted 4,4-7 and that on this account 4Q107 represents a text form that is anterior to the textus receptus as reflected in the MT278. 275. RUDOLPH, Hohe Lied, p. 145; HEINEVETTER, “Komm nun, mein Liebster”, p. 120; ZAKOVITCH, Hohelied, p. 189. 276. ZAKOVITCH, Hohelied, p. 48. For the English of the Midrash see, H. FREEDMAN – M. SIMON, Midrash Rabbah: Genesis I, London, Soncino Press, 1961, p. 488. It shall further be seen that there is a similar allusion to the Temple Mount in Song 2,17, which phrase ‫ הרי בתר‬is reminiscent of the verb employed for the splitting (‫ )בתר‬of the animals for the covenant making in Gen 15,7-21 and Jer 34,18-19. See IV.2.a, below, p. 242. 277. HEINEVETTER, “Komm nun, mein Liebster”, p. 120. 278. It is interesting that exegetes had always noticed the double repetition of ‫יפה הינך‬ in Song 4,1 as redundant. However, they judged its second occurrence as a secondary insertion. See, e.g., V. ZAPLETAL, Das Hohelied: Kritisch und metrisch untersucht, Freiburg/ CH, Universitätsbuchhandlung, 1907, p. 100.

236

PART I – CHAPTER 4

In addition to this major lacuna, another indication that 4Q107 reflects an earlier redactional stage of the Song is the absence of the Adjuration Refrain from the literary unit of Song 3,1-5 (4Q107). Curiously, the stiches in which the word ‫“( עפר‬a young”) appears in the MT are also lacking in 4Q107 (2,17; 4,5) or not extant (2,9; 7,4; 8,14). This might reflect a stage of redaction that literary criticism had long conjectured, namely that 2,9a-b had been inserted into the literary unit of Song 2,8-17 – although v. 8 is held to be originally part of the composition – at the moment when the different cantos were stitched together by the insertion of the refrains279. If Tov is correct in saying that 4Q107 ended on Song 5,1, then this Ms might indeed reflect a text version that did not yet know the Adjuration Refrain, in which Song 2,17 (Day/Shadow – Mountain) did not yet figure as a refrain, and in which the expression “or like a young stag” (cf. 2,9.17; 8,14 ‫ )כעפר‬and the waṣfs that compare her breasts to “young stags” (‫ עפרים‬4,5; 7,4), were not yet present either. All of this comes to confirm older hypotheses of literary criticism about the literary growth of Song 4,1-7280. 4. Conclusion What can be gleaned from these Mss? Both 4Q106 and 4Q107 give witness to text forms that are older than and different from the MT. Both Mss must reflect text forms that predate the early Herodian period. Both confirm multiple variant readings of the LXX, the VL, the Vg, and the S; and both Mss strikingly confirm the Masoretic subdivisions by leaving major vacats between literary units. This is an important testimony to the antiquity of the literary structure as transmitted by the MT, which no exegesis of the Song should henceforth ignore281. The Ms 4Q106 lacks the passages ranging from 4,8–6,10 and has a different word order in 4,1-3 compared to the MT where it is more refined and harmonized with 6,5-6 – one of the passages notably lacking in 4Q106. 4Q107 witnesses to a stage of the text before the redactional insertion of Song 2,17c, 3,3-5 and 4,4-7 and 4,8d. Though 4Q107 probably made mention of “the Daughters of Zion” in Song 3,11, it is not yet reflected in 4Q106 or in the LXX, wherefore this might be another late development. It can be inferred from this data that, with the exception of Song 2,17c, 3,4a-c, and 4,8d, the passages ranging from Song 2,9–5,1 and 6,11–7,7 279. See BUDDE, Hohelied, p. 9. 280. See LACOCQUE, Romance, p. 87, who refers to Budde, Siegfried, Haupt, Dussaud, Staerk, Wittekind, and Haller. 281. See TREBOLLE BARRERA, Division Markers, p. 213.

HISTORICAL POSTULATES: FROM COMPOSITION TO CANON

237

existed independently before the Herodian period. But as to when the different passages, in particular Song 2,17c; 3,3-5; 4,4-7; 4,8d; and 5,2– 6,10, may have been inserted or merged with the existing material, is left to conjecture. All of the evidence taken together attests to the fact that the text was probably still open to interventions until into the first century B.C.282. The glaring absence in 4Q107 of material with stark allusions to Jerusalem, the Temple, and Mount Moriah (Song 3,5; 4,4-7) is highly significant. These motifs link the Song explicitly to the history of Israel and provide the theological profile of a textually preserved moment in the Song’s redaction. The major interest, therefore, lies in understanding the intention of the later insertions. From their content it appears that a redactor had an obvious interest in forging links between the Song as it existed then and eminent personages and significant places of the history of Israel (David, Moriah, Jerusalem, Zion). By alluding to David, he forges a hint to the suggestive 33 occurrences of the root ‫דוד‬, in which both the Jewish tradition and modern commentators have recognized a suggested identification of the ‫ דודי‬of the Song with the fabled King of Israel (see Chapter 8). By evoking the image of Jerusalem with its mural crown in Song 4,4, he identifies the Beloved with the city of David. Moreover, by echoing Gen 22,2 in Song 4,6, he gives the Temple Mount center stage. The addition of the Adjuration Refrain (Song 3,5; cf. 2,7; 8,4), which introduces the prominent role of the “Daughters of Jerusalem”, and Song 4,4-7 with its evocative image of the walls of Jerusalem and Mount Moriah, invite the idea of a “Jerusalem redaction”. This material reflects a community whose poetical and theological focus is altogether on Jerusalem. Allusions to Jerusalem, the Temple, and the city walls, can furthermore be found in the “watchmen of the city” or “of the walls” (3,3; 5,7), the city wall imagery of 8,8-10 (see Chapter 8), and the role of the Beloved’s mother and her house, figures for Jerusalem and the Temple (cf. 1,6; 3,4; 6,9; 8,1-2)283. All these passages are not extant in the presumably short Song version of 4Q107. The redaction reflected in the MT might have been a further development of the already extant focus on Jerusalem in the wedding of Solomon (Song 3,6-11) and the Jerusalem/Temple imagery in Song 4,12–5,1 (see Chapters 10 and 11). By introducing the name of David into the poetry, the importance of Jerusalem as the city of David 282. See also PUECH, Cantique, p. 53. 283. See ROBERT – TOURNAY – FEUILLET, Cantique; SCHWIENHORST-SCHÖNBERGER, Das Hohelied, p. 99.

238

PART I – CHAPTER 4

was underscored. On the one hand, the mention of David scales down the prominent role played by Solomon, preventing an interpretation overly occupied with Solomon as a lover, and underscoring his role as the son of David, Jerusalem’s most important “messianic” king. This intentional dissociation of the “Solomon of the Song” from “Solomon the Lover” is also behind the insertion of Song 8,11, which is critical of him. At the same time, the allusion to the founder of the Judah dynasty reinforces the ancient trio of Temple, King, and Land, though the Land is now reduced to the city-state standing metonymically for the people. The addition of Song 4,8d (“from the mountain of Senir and Hermon”) might harken back to the intention of attuning the “sacred geography” outlined in the Song, with the ideal borders of Israel. Such a textual intervention can also be observed in Deut 3,8. Finally, reading “Daughters of Zion” instead of “Daughters of Jerusalem” as does 4Q106, Song 3,11 MT might reflect the understanding of Zion as an appellation for both Jerusalem and God’s people284. By replacing the Daughters of Jerusalem with the Daughters of Zion (3,11), the redactor underscores the importance of Jerusalem as the city of God’s indwelling in Israel in the Temple (cf. Zech 2,15).

IV. THE TESTIMONY OF THE

LXX

VERSION OF THE SONG

The testimony of the Greek translation of the Song (LXX) is of twofold interest. First, the dating of the LXX translation helps establish a terminus ante quem in plotting the recognition of the Song as an authoritative book, meriting a translation285. Secondly, as a translation, it constitutes arguably one of the oldest interpretations of the Song286. Scholars usually invoke the LXX as a witness to prove that the Song had not yet been interpreted symbolically at the time of its translation into Greek287. The translation 284. See H.W. MARE, Zion (Place), in Anchor Bible Dictionary, VI, New York, Doubleday, 1992, 1096-1097, p. 1096. 285. Of course, the translation itself is no proof of its acceptance as an authoritative book, as the case of Ben Sira shows. Nonetheless, it shows that the Song existed within a collection of books and as such merited translation. Moreover, all the books from this particular group of translation (so-called καίγε) were subsequently canonized. See TREBOLLE BARRERA, Bible, p. 163. 286. See J.-M. AUWERS, Les Septantes, Lecteurs du Cantique des cantiques, in Graphè 8 (1999) 33-47, p. 33. 287. See KOTTSIEPER, Über die Macht der Liebe, p. 110; H. AUSLOOS – B. LEMMELIJN, Canticles as Allegory? Textual Criticism and Literary Criticism in Dialogue, in H. AUSLOOS – B. LEMMELIJN – M. VERVENNE (eds.), Florilegium Lovaniense: Studies in Septuagint

HISTORICAL POSTULATES: FROM COMPOSITION TO CANON

239

is said to be “slavishly literal” and where it deviates significantly from the MT (e.g. in reading “breasts” instead of “love” in Song 1,2.4; 4,10; 7,13) it would want to eroticize the poetry even more288. Both judgements are unfounded. Rather, it is the particular feature of the καίγε-group to be extremely literal in their translation techniques. Neither a profane nor a symbolic preconception of the text can be deduced from its literalism. Nonetheless, some of the features in the translation of the LXX indicate that an already established symbolic understanding of the Song might have guided the translator in some renderings of Hebrew terms. These renderings may aim at facilitating an interpretation according to proto-Rabbinic hermeneutics that were developed in its initial stages and practice around the turn of the era. 1. A First Century A.D. Translation Studies on the LXX version of the Song are few, since to date no critical edition has been published289. In his work Les devanciers d’Aquila, Dominique Barthélemy argues that the translation of the Song into Greek belongs to the καίγε-group290. The translation displays a great concern for literalism, which suggests the manner of Aquila291. For that reason scholars situate it at the latest in the first century A.D.292, or during the first century B.C. at the earliest. The place of translation is Jerusalem, according and Textual Criticism in Honour of Florentino García Martínez (BETL, 224), Leuven – Paris – Dudley, MA, Peeters, 2008, 35-48; KEEL, Hohelied, p. 14. 288. See KEEL, Hohelied, p. 14; GERLEMAN, Hohelied, pp. 77-82. 289. Unfortunately, Auwers’ pivotal contribution to the LXX version of the Song was published after the completion of this manuscript and could not be taken into account. See J.-M. AUWERS, Le Cantique des cantiques (La Bible d’Alexandrie, 9), Paris, Cerf, 2019. Eva SCHULZ FLÜGEL is working on the Göttingen edition of the LXX and on the Beuron edition of the Vetus Latina. 290. See BARTHÉLEMY, Devanciers, p. 47. Contrary to the large bulk of the καίγεgroup, the LXX version of the Song is most probably not a revision but a new translation by the same hand responsible for the revisions. See also J.-M. AUWERS, Canticles (Song of Songs), in J.K. AITKEN (ed.), T&T Clark Companion to the Septuagint, London – New York, Bloomsbury, 2015, 370-384, p. 371, and TREBOLLE BARRERA, Bible, p. 163. Since it does not share in all the characteristics of the καίγε, however, some believe it should perhaps be attributed to Theodotion instead. For the discussion see, M. HARL, La version LXX du Cantique des cantiques et le groupe Kaige-Theodotion – Quelques remarques lexicales, in Text 18 (1995) 101-120; AUWERS, Septantes, pp. 36-37, and n. 10; and ID., Canticles, p. 371. 291. See AUWERS, Septantes, p. 37. 292. See ibid.; J.-M. AUWERS, Le traducteur grec a-t-il allégorisé ou érotisé le Cantique des cantiques?, in M.K.H. PETERS (ed.), XII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies Leiden, 2004 (SBL Septuagint and Cognate Studies, 54), Atlanta, GA, Society of Biblical Literature, 2006, 161-168, p. 161.

240

PART I – CHAPTER 4

to Jean-Marie Auwers293. At the present stage of research no earlier translation is known. The fact that the book had seemingly not been translated earlier, however, might be another indicator of its late composition. Gerleman has described the LXX’s version of the Song as “slavishly faithful” to the Hebrew Vorlage and argued that its great concern for literalism was as a proof for a non-“allegorizing/spiritualizing” understanding of the Song on the part of the translator294. A “slavishly” faithful, or rather, extremely literal translation, however, is exactly what is to be expected for this particular translation-family295. As stated above, the hebraizing (καίγε) revisers and translators have been described as precursors of Aquila. Their aim was to render the Greek translation in as strict a conformity as possible to the Hebrew Vorlage, in order to facilitate proto-Rabbinic exegesis296. The LXX’s great literalism, therefore, cannot be used as an argument against a possible symbolic understanding of the Song297. The literalism is in service of the exegesis and not an interpretation in itself. Auwers gives an example of such conformity. The translation of the Hebrew ‫ שלחיך‬as ἀποστολαί σου (“your sent ones”) in Song 4,13 is not exact but has the advantage of allowing the exegesis proposed by José ha-Gelili (first century A.D.) who applied this passage to Israel that was “sent” out of Egypt298. More examples will be given below. In some cases, however, the LXX does not translate literally, nor does it always transliterate toponyms. It is unlikely that these cases are due to a lack of understanding or knowledge on the part of the translator, as has been claimed299. A recent study by Hans Ausloos and Bénédicte Lemmelijn of the LXX’s renderings of the hapax legomena in the Hebrew of the Song suggests to the contrary that the translator had a profound understanding of his Vorlage and rendered the difficult hapaxes faithfully, 293. See AUWERS, Septantes, pp. 34, 37. Marguerite Harl, without disputing the Palestine hypothesis, points out that the translator employed some agricultural terms that are particularly well documented in Egyptian papyri. See HARL, La version LXX du Cantique, p. 120. The Göttingen edition by Schulz-Flügel should bring about more clarification. 294. See GERLEMAN, Hohelied, pp. 77-82; and KEEL, Hohelied, p. 14. 295. It is typical for these late translations and revisions not to render articles and prepositions where they would be expected in Greek. See, for example, Song 4,8: “You shall come and pass through from beginning of faith, from head of Sanir and Hermon”. On this characteristic feature see the seminal contribution by J. ZIEGLER, Beiträge zum griechischen Iob (Mitteilungen des Septuaginta-Unternehmens, 18), Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1985. 296. See AUWERS, Septantes, pp. 36-37, 46-47. 297. As has been done by GERLEMAN, Hohelied, p. 77; and BARBIERO, Song, pp. 2526. 298. See AUWERS, Septantes, p. 47, with reference to BARTHÉLEMY, Devanciers, p. 31. 299. KEEL, Hohelied, p. 14; AUWERS, Allégorisé ou érotisé?, p. 163; and BARBIERO, Song, p. 6.

HISTORICAL POSTULATES: FROM COMPOSITION TO CANON

241

but with relative freedom300. As their study shows, the Greek translator generally searches “for due Greek equivalents that semantically and sometimes even phonetically represent the Hebrew text and its immediate context”301. Ausloos and Lemmelijn conclude that in rendering the hapax legomena the translator “offered idiomatic Greek constructions, took care of stylistic characteristics … played with assimilation and aimed rather at an understandable text than at a literal rendering of enigmatic words”302. The adjective “slavishly”, introduced by Gerleman, should therefore be abandoned when referring to this translation. The study’s result also suggests that deviations from the Hebrew Vorlage presume either a different Vorlage (i.e. “breasts” versus “love-making”) or were carefully chosen and did not happen at random. This suggests the possibility that a symbolic understanding of the Hebrew Vorlage may, in fact, be embedded in some readings of the LXX where it deviates overtly from the Hebrew. The translation was made at a time when the theological interpretation of the Song was already established at the Qumran community and, in Barthélemy’s view, among Pharisaic (i.e., proto-Rabbinic) circles303. Therefore, it may have been influenced in some way by a symbolic understanding of the text and given some indications of an already accepted and practiced proto-Rabbinic interpretation, which viewed YHWH and Israel as personified in the protagonists of the Song304. This is the case, for instance, with those toponyms that the Greek translates (rather than transliterates) and which encode a proto-Rabbinic interpretation (see the examples below, IV.2.a, p. 242). A related phenomenon hinting at a symbolic interpretation appears in the rendering 300. H. AUSLOOS – B. LEMMELIJN, Rendering Love: Hapax Legomena and the Characterization of the Translation Technique of Song of Songs, in H. AUSLOOS et al. (eds.), Translating a Translation: The LXX and Its Modern Translations in the Context of Early Judaism (BETL, 213), Leuven, Peeters, 2008, 43-61, pp. 60-61: “The Greek translator of Canticles renders most of the hapax legomena with respect to his Vorlage, searching for a legitimate and adequate Greek equivalent that fits the literary context, but at the same time taking into account the Greek rendering itself. Thus, he has tried to represent the content of the Hebrew text, even in cases where it was extremely difficult: hapax legomena sometimes seem to be a quiz in which guessing is the only option. However, even in this complicated situation, he only very rarely chose the easiest solution, i.e., transliteration”. 301. Ibid., p. 61. 302. Ibid. 303. See D. BARTHÉLEMY, Comment le Cantique des cantiques est-il devenu canonique?, in A. CAQUOT – S. LÉGASSE – M. TARDIEU (eds.), Mélanges bibliques et orientaux en l’honneur de M. Mathias Delcor (AOAT, 215), Kevelaer, Butzon & Bercker, 1985, 13-22; and KEEL, Hohelied, p. 16. It is also more or less contemporary to the NT, which shows signs of a symbolic interpretation of the Song. See below V. 304. See, e.g., BARBIERO, Song; AUWERS, Allégorisé ou érotisé?; and S. SALFELD, Das Hohelied Salomo’s bei den jüdischen Erklärern des Mittelalters, Berlin, Benzian, 1878, p. 4.

242

PART I – CHAPTER 4

of the adjuration formula305, and the reading of “breasts” instead of “lovemaking” as does the MT. When compared to the later Rabbinic traditions, these LXX “variants” prove to correspond to the proto-Rabbinic methods already operative during the first century A.D.306. A word of clarification is due for the term “allegorical”. Authors tend to use the term “allegorical” indiscriminately for both the early Jewish and Christian interpretations of the Song. With respect to what we find at work in the LXX translation, “allegorical” is not the right description (on “allegoresis” see Chapter 1, II.3.a, above, p. 38). Rather than allegorizing, the interpretative technique at work appears to be “Midrashic”307. It breaks down the words of the Song “into new components” and then relates them to other Scripture passages, frequently but not exclusively, in the Torah. In this way, the literary figures in the Song are deemed symbols of topics suggested or depicted elsewhere in Scripture. The task of Midrash is to make this explicit308. 2. Hints of a Possible Symbolic Understanding Examples in which the LXX facilitates the application of such protoRabbinic interpretation techniques are discussed in this section. These include etymologically rendered toponyms, the adjuration formula, and the variant reading of “breasts” instead of “love-making”. The Jewish texts adduced are, of course, of much later date. Nonetheless, they often conserve much older traditions that might be as old as the LXX translation. a) The Toponyms Of the thirteen undisputed toponyms featured in the Song, three have been semantically rendered: ‫אמנה‬/πίστεως (4,8); ‫תרצה‬/εὐδοκία (6,4); ‫בת־רבים‬/θυγάτηρ πολλῶν (7,5). The other ten toponyms are all transliterated309. In addition, the Hebrew ‫( הרי בתר‬Song 2,17) has been semantically 305. For an extensive treatment of the variant readings found in the LXX see AUWERS, Septantes. 306. See J. KÖNIG, L’herméneutique analogique du judaïsme antique d’après les témoins textuels d’Isaïe (VT.S, 33), Leiden, Brill, 1982, p. 32. 307. See also O. FRAISSE, Moses Ign Tibbons Kommentar zum Hohenlied und sein poetologisch-philosophisches Programm: Synoptische Edition, Übersetzung und Analyse (Studia Judaica, 25), Berlin, De Gruyter, 2004, pp. 4-6. 308. FISHBANE, Song, pp. xxxvi-xxxvii. 309. The transliterated toponyms are Jerusalem (Song 1,5), Kedar (1,5), En-Gedi (1,14), Lebanon (3,9 etc.), Gilead (4,1; 6,5), Senir (4,8), Hermon (4,8), Heshbon and Damascus (7,5), and Carmel (7,6). The transliteration should be expected, as the names are commonly known, and do not lend themselves to etymologizing. In addition, the LXX treats

HISTORICAL POSTULATES: FROM COMPOSITION TO CANON

243

rendered, while Jerome and the Talmud treat it as a toponym reading “mountains of Bether”. These renderings are arguably early attestations of a theological understanding of the Song310. The translation versus transliteration of toponyms (and other nouns) is not in itself a proof of a symbolical understanding of the Song. Transliterations are, in fact, considered a characteristic of the καίγε-group311, while “translations” or semantic renderings are typical for the later revisers (Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, or the Quinta)312. This is so because the later revisers undoubtedly intended to render Rabbinic exegesis possible in the Greek translations while the καίγε-group is – though a precursor of Aquila – still more reserved on this matter. The translator of Song LXX does, in fact, not yet appear interested in the geographical symbolism that often helps to illuminate or actualize the text313. Its reservation, however, is neither a proof for an “erotic” or profane reading of the text, nor for the absence of an underlying symbolic understanding of the Song. For even Aquila, who undoubtedly presupposed a symbolic reading (being a disciple of Rabbi Akiva), preserves some transliterations. Rather, since transliterations are a characteristic of the καίγε-group, the “translation” of toponyms like Amana, Tirzah, and Bat-Rabbim are all the more noteworthy. The semantic rendering of these toponyms may, of course, simply be owed to the fact that those words were no longer recognized as place names. Even today the localization of Bath-Rabbim (Song 7,5) is debated the Hebrew ‫( בעל־המון‬8,11) as an actual toponym. Up to today there is no unanimity with regard to whether such a location ever existed, or whether it is a metaphorical toponym, punning on Solomon’s wealth and multitude of wives. Since the vineyard is always metaphoric of the Bride in the Song (1,5; 8,12) and Solomon was famous for his harem, one might have expected a translation with the sense of “husband of many”, like Aquila, who renders it ἐν ἔχοντι πλήθη. In this case, however, the LXX apparently does not suppose a symbolic understanding but rather a location that is possibly to be identified with Βαλαμων in Jdt 8,3. HARL, La version LXX du Cantique, pp. 109-110, points out that in seven out of twelve cases in which either Aquila, Symmachus, or the Quinta translate or interpret toponyms, the LXX of the Song transliterates. Only two cases of “translation” overlap between the LXX and the other Greek versions. This indicates a preponderance of transliterations in the LXX (7/12). This finding is, however, not surprising, since transliterations are considered a characteristic of the καίγε-group (see E. TOV, Transliterations of Hebrew Words in the Greek Versions of the Old Testament: A Further Characteristic of the Kaige-Th. Revision? in Text 8 [1973] 78-92), while “translations” or semantic renderings are to be expected from the later revisers (Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion of the Hexapla). 310. See also SALFELD, Hohelied, p. 4. Pace GERLEMAN, Hohelied, p. 79. 311. See TOV, Transliterations. 312. See HARL, La version LXX du Cantique, pp. 109-110. Examples that the LXX transliterates where other revisers “translate” are: Song 1,5 Kedar; 6,12 Aminadab; 7,1a and c Soulamitis; 7,2 Nadab; 7,5 Heshbon; 7,5e Damascus; 8,11 Baalhamon. 313. See ibid., p. 112.

244

PART I – CHAPTER 4

and the identification of ‫( בתר‬Song 2,17) as a toponym disputed314. The rendering of the town Tirzah in Song 6,4 as εὐδοκία might be a way of avoiding the name of the early northern capital and, instead, providing a closer parallel with Jerusalem. Nonetheless, the semantic rendering of these toponyms is significant because in some cases the later Rabbinic tradition testifies to the very same etymological interpretation. In other words, because the LXX’s rendering corresponds perfectly to the later Midrashic interpretation, this is a strong indicator for an already existing protoRabbinic tradition of reading the Song symbolically. The following examples may be given. (i) “Amana” (Song 4,8) MT

4,8

LXX

4,8

‫אתי מלבנון כלה אתי מלבנון‬ ‫תבואי תשורי מרוש אמנה‬ With me from Lebanon, bride, with me from Lebanon Come and descend from the peak of Amana. δεῦρο ἀπὸ Λιβάνου, νύμφη, δεῦρο ἀπὸ Λιβάνου· ἐλεύσῃ καὶ διελεύσῃ ἀπὸ ἀρχῆς πίστεως, Come here from Lebanon, bride, come here from Lebanon, Come and pass through from beginning of faith.

The rendering of ‫ מרוש אמנה‬as ἀπὸ ἀρχῆς πίστεως (“from beginning of faith”) may be owed to the translator’s lack of familiarity with the mountain Amana315, which belongs to the Anti-Lebanon range. It does, however, correspond perfectly to the later Rabbinic exegesis that is based on the equivocation of the consonantal text, which could equally mean “Amana” or “faithfulness”. The Midrash Shir ha-Shirim Rabbah, for instance, explains: “Look from the top of Amana: this refers to Abraham, of whom it is written, ‘and he believed (‫ )האמין‬in the Lord’ (Gen 15,6)”316. The eleventh-century Midrash Leqaḥ Tov317 also refers ‫ מראש אמנה‬to the faith of Abraham, when commenting on Song 4,8, ‫מראש אמנה‬: For the merits of Abraham your father who was the head (‫)ראש‬ of the faithful (‫ )למאמינים‬from the beginning (‫)מראש‬, as it is said (‫)וחרמון‬: 314. See A. BRENNER, A Note on Bat-Rabbîm (Song of Songs VII 5), in VT 42 (1992) 113-115. 315. See AUWERS, Allégorisé ou érotisé?, p. 161. 316. ShiR IV.8 §3. Even though the earliest manuscripts date from the eleventh century A.D., the midrash on the Song of Songs is dated to the second half of the sixth century A.D. It is, however, considered to contain much older traditions. See G. STEMBERGER, Einleitung in Talmud und Midrash, München, Beck, 92011, p. 348. 317. Leqaḥ Tov (LeqT) is a midrash on the Torah compiled by Tobia ben Eliezer, who lived in northern Greece in the eleventh century. He utilized the words of the sages as found in the talmudim and midrashim, as well as some mystical literature. See ibid., p. 395. For an English edition see A.W. GREENUP (ed.), The Commentary of Rabbi Tobia ben Elieser on Canticles, London, [np], 1909.

HISTORICAL POSTULATES: FROM COMPOSITION TO CANON

245

I will recall you the merits of your fathers whom I made walk through the desert for forty years and whom I brought to the Jordan318.

The commentary continues explaining the location and identification of Hermon and Senir according to Deut 3,9, while showing no trace of reading ‫ אמנה‬as a toponym (‫)א ָמנָ ה‬ ֲ but only as “faith” (‫)א ֻמנָ ה‬ ְֶ 319. Rashi similarly explains: Contemplate and understand the reward for your works, from the beginning (‫ )בראש‬of your faith (‫ )האמונה‬with which you believed in me (‫)בי שהאמנתם‬ in your walking after me in the desert, and your travelings and campings at my command and your arrival at the peak of Senir and Hermon which were the “lions dens” of Sichon and Og320.

Rashi, however, recognizes ‫ אמנה‬also as a toponym, for he continues to explain Because it is said ‫מראש אמנה‬: this is a mountain on the northern border of the land of Israel and its name is Amanah. And in a different language “Mount Amnon”. And the mountain, that is the mountain of which it is said (Num 34,7) “from the great sea you will trace for yourself a line to Mount Hor. And as the waves gather and arrive there, they watched from there and they saw the border of the land of Israel and the panorama of the land of Israel and they rejoiced and said: a hymn for you, as it is said: “depart from the peak of Amana”.

Thus while the translator of Song 4,8 may arguably not have been familiar with the mountain Amana, he nonetheless renders the Hebrew with its Midrash-like connotation as one that will persist well into the middle ages. In fact, the LXX is the earliest written trace we have of this kind of Midrashic Song interpretation. (ii) “Tirzah” (Song 6,4) MT

6,4

LXX

6,4

‫יפה את רעיתי כתרצה נאוה כירושלם‬ You are beautiful, my friend, like Tirzah, lovely like Jerusalem. Καλὴ εἶ, ἡ πλησίον μου, ὡς εὐδοκία, ὡραία ὡς Ιερουσαλημ, You are beautiful, my near one, as good pleasure, Graceful like Jerusalem.

318. GREENUP (ed.), The Commentary of Rabbi Tobia ben Elieser on Canticles. 319. See LeqT 4.8. 320. R.M. ZLOTOWITZ, Shir haShirim / Song of Songs: An Allegorical Translation Based upon Rashi with a Commentary Anthologized from Talmudic Midrashic and Rabbinic Sources (ArtScroll Tanach Series), New York, Mesorah Publications, 1977, p. 134.

246

PART I – CHAPTER 4

In the case of Tirzah it is unlikely that the translator should not have been familiar with the former capital of the Northern Kingdom. Rather, he either purposefully wanted to omit its mention or – which I consider the more likely – he may have been familiar with an interpretation that punned on the root ‫ רצה‬contained in the name Tirzah (‫ )תרצה‬and which he did not want to lose in his translation. This same pun is found in later Rabbinic exegesis: “You are beautiful, my beloved, like Tirzah: when you desire (‫רוֹצה‬ ָ ‫)כ ֶשׁ ַא ְתּ‬. ְ – When you desire [to serve God], you have no need ‘to learn from anyone else’” (ShirR IV.4 §2). Rashi, quoting Sifra, interprets Tirzah as a form of the word ‫רצוּיָ ה‬,ְ “pleasing”, “desirable”, and comments: “You are beautiful, My love, when you are desirable [‫]רצוּיָ ה‬, ְ […], i.e., ‘You are beautiful, My love, when you appease [‫]תּ ַר ֶצה‬ ְ My anger’”321. While the Midrash and Rashi read “Tirzah” and then build their interpretation on the puns that the letters ‫ רצה‬allow for, the LXX renders the word “Tirzah” directly as “good pleasure”. By doing so it allows for a proto-Rabbinic exegesis that can take its basis also from this latter meaning and not from the toponym Tirzah. Here, as in the above case, the LXX’s etymological rendering of the Hebrew Vorlage corresponds to the later Rabbinic interpretation, an interpretation the translator was arguably familiar with and which is already reflected in the LXX of the Song. (iii) “Bath-Rabbim” (Song 7,5) MT

7,5

LXX

7,5

‫צוארך כמגדל השן‬ ‫עיניך ברכות בחשבון על־שער בת־רבים‬ Your neck is like an ivory tower, your eyes pools of Heshbon on the gates of Bath-Rabbim. τράχηλός σου ὡς πύργος ἐλεφάντινος· ὀφθαλμοί σου ὡς λίμναι ἐν Εσεβων ἐν πύλαις θυγατρὸς πολλῶν Your neck like an ivory tower, your eyes like pools in Heshbon in the gates of daughter of many.

The translation (instead of transliteration) of ‫ בת־רבים‬as θυγάτηρ πολλῶν allows the reader of the Greek to recognize a poetic echo of ‫ בת־נדיב‬in Song 7,2, which the LXX renders as θύγατερ Ναδαβ. (Repetitions of these kind are a typical feature in the Song). An underlying Midrashic understanding of ‫ בת־רבים‬cannot be affirmed with certainty. 321. Ibid., p. 163.

HISTORICAL POSTULATES: FROM COMPOSITION TO CANON

247

The Midrash interprets the word ‫ רבים‬with reference to the public. Here the bat rabbim is interpreted in view of the Sanhedrin (many). “Thine eyes are the Sanhedrin who are the eyes of the congregation […]. Pools in Heshbon: decisions that depend on counting (ḥushban), […] By the gate of Bat-Rabbim: this refers to the halachah which issues from the gate [where the Sanhedrin sat] and spreads to the public (rabbim)” (ShirR IV.4 §2)322. In the Targum of Canticles, the reading is emended to ‫“( בית רבים‬house of many”) instead of ‫בת־רבים‬, with the commentary, “Your scribes are full of wisdom as pools of water, and they know how to make the calculations for intercalation, and they intercalate years, and fix the beginning of years and the beginning of months in the gate of the house of the Great Sanhedrin”323. Rashi interprets the toponym as a pun on Jerusalem: “Your eyes – like the pools in Cheshbon that draw water – are your wise men as they sit at the gates of Jerusalem, the city ‫בת רבת עם‬, greatly populated [cf. Lam 1,1] involved in calculation of the season and constellation”324. Jerusalem is here called the “daughter greatly populated”. The sixteenthcentury commentator Moshe Alshich does, in fact, pun on a “daughter of many”, but because this evidence is so late it is of little importance with respect to the tradition behind the LXX. ‫בשער בת רבים‬: that is the gate of the elders, which is the house of judgement, for what is this the ‫ בת רבים‬as it is said, the daughter of the daughter of the many (or, the Rabbis; ‫)בת הרבים‬, this is according to the general opinion. And the word “daughter”, like daughter of my people (Isa 22,4), the daughter of Babel, etc. Thus it is said, in the gate, that is the house of judgement. What is ‫ ?בת רבים‬She [the daughter] is the assembly of the many either they acquit or they convict. What is the assembly of the many? That is the word which went out from the Lord, and it was his law and his judgement from the heavens above (Alshich, Shir ha-Shirim VII.5)325.

In this case the Rabbinic exegesis casts no clear light on the LXX’s rendering, except that the words “daughter” and “many” continued to be punned upon.

322. Translation taken from H. FREEDMAN – M. SIMON, Midrash Rabbah: Esther – Song of Songs, London, Soncino Press, 1961, pp. 285-286. 323. P.S. ALEXANDER, The Targum of Canticles: Translated, with a Critical Introduction, Apparatus, and Notes (ArBib, 17A), Collegeville, MN, Liturgical Press, 2003, pp. 179-180 (emphasis mine). 324. ZLOTOWITZ, Shir haShirim / Song of Songs, p. 180. 325. My translation from the Barilan online source “responsa”. https://www.responsa. co.il/home.en-US.aspx.

248

PART I – CHAPTER 4

(iv) ‫( הרי בתר‬Song 2,17) The term ‫“( הרי בתר‬mountains of Bether”, or “cleft mountains”) is not unanimously considered to be a toponym. Since it is, however, treated as such by some versions (e.g., Jerome), it may be treated here. MT

2,17

LXX

‫ונסו הצללים עד שיפוח היום‬ ‫או לעפר האילים סב דמה־לך דודי לצבי‬ ‫על־הרי בתר‬. Until the day breathes and the shadows flee, turn, be like my beloved, a gazelle or a young stag on the mountains of cutting.

2,17 ἕως οὗ διαπνεύσῃ ἡ ἡμέρα καὶ κινηθῶσιν αἱ σκιαί. ἀπόστρεψον ὁμοιώθητι σύ, ἀδελφιδέ μου, τῷ δόρκωνι ἢ νεβρῷ ἐλάφων ἐπὶ ὄρη κοιλωμάτων. Until the day breathes and the shadows stir, turn, my brotherkin; be like the gazelle or a fawn of stags on the hollow mountains.

From antiquity there is no consensus about whether the term ‫הרי בתר‬ refers to an actual place by the name “Bether mountains”, or whether it should be rendered as “mountain of separation”, or “cleft mountains”. While Jerome understood it to be a toponym, the LXX, Theodotion, and the Quinta all opt for translation: Theodotion, θυμιαμάτων, “of perfumes”; Quinta, διχοτομημάτων, “of pieces”. Harl observes a kinship in their renderings. According to her, κοιλωμάτων can be understood as a reference to the bowels of the sacrificial animals, that are “cut in pieces”, and θυμιάματα, “that which is burnt” also makes an allusion to the ritual of sacrifice. She concludes, “In the three interpretations of ‫ בתר‬one can see an intertextual reference to the sacrifice of alliance in Genesis 15”326. That intertextual reference is, in fact, present in the Hebrew. The root ‫ בתר‬occurs only here in Song 2,17, in Gen 15,10 where it is used as a verb meaning “to cut in two” (the sacrificial animals), and in Jer 34,1819, where it makes allusion to a covenant renewal according to the same rite as in Gen 15,10. Given the above-mentioned pun on Mount Moriah in 4,6, which is part of the same refrain group, some scholars see a hidden allusion to the Temple Mount as the place of sacrifice in the expression ‫הרי בתר‬327. If Harl’s interpretation of the different Greek renderings 326. HARL, La version LXX du Cantique, p. 105 (my translation). 327. See R.J. TOURNAY, Word of God, Song of Love: A Commentary on the Song of Songs, Mahwah, NJ, Paulist, 1988, pp. 85-97; LACOCQUE, Romance, p. 106; ZAKOVITCH, Hohelied, p. 48.

HISTORICAL POSTULATES: FROM COMPOSITION TO CANON

249

of this term is correct, then a theological understanding on the part of the LXX translator would be substantiated. b) A King Bound in Tresses Another hint to the nascent Rabbinic interpretation of the Song may be found in Song 7,6, where the LXX translates ‫“ ברהטים‬ἐν παραδρομαῖς” “passages”, while Aquila transliterates “βερατειμ”328. MT

7,6

LXX

7,6

‫ודלת ראשך כארגמן ראשך עליך ככרמל‬ ‫מלך אסור ברהטים‬ Your head upon you is like the Carmel and your twisted locks are like purple, a king is bound in the tresses. κεφαλή σου ἐπὶ σὲ ὡς Κάρμηλος, καὶ πλόκιον κεφαλῆς σου ὡς πορφύρα, βασιλεὺς δεδεμένος ἐν παραδρομαῖς. Your head upon you is like Carmel, and the curls of your hair like purple, a king is bound in passages (corridors?).

The translation “tresses”, or “locks of hair”, for ‫ רהטים‬is a conjecture from context. The word ‫ רהטים‬is otherwise attested to only in Gen 30,38 and Exod 2,16 with the meaning “trough”, “gutter”, “runnel”, from which cattle drink. Other conjectures are “beam” (cf. Song 1,17 ‫)רחיט‬, or “leather strip”, by means of which someone is bound, or “gallery”, as a path planted with trees329. The translation chosen by the LXX, ἐν παραδρομαῖς, is a rare word in Greek (in the LXX only in 2 Macc 3,28 “retinue”, “train”, “corridor”, “gallery”). Harl conjectures a rendering as “corridors” (French: “courses”) in the Song330, a meaning that is also reflected in the Vulgate’s rendering canalibus. The etymological rendering of the LXX as something that “runs” or is a “water gallery” is also attested to in the Jewish interpretation. The Midrash comments ‫אסור ברהטים‬: “because it was decreed that he should not enter the Promised Land. On account of what? On account of streams (‫ )רהטים‬of the waters of Meribah” (ShirR VII.6 §1)331. The Targum puns 328. HARL, La version LXX du Cantique, p. 108. 329. See ‫ר ַהט‬,ַ in CDCH, p. 415. 330. HARL, La version LXX du Cantique, p. 108. She relates a suggestion made by G. Marquis, according to whom the Greek could have been influenced by the Aramaic ‫רהט‬, “to run”. 331. Translation taken from FREEDMAN – SIMON, Midrash Rabbah: Esther – Song of Songs, p. 289.

250

PART I – CHAPTER 4

on Gen 30,38 and posits, “Isaac, who was bound for sacrifice by his father, and thanks to the holiness of Jacob who took off the bark of branches and put them in the troughs”. Rashi comments, “‘The King’ – i.e. God – is bound in love to the mitzvot and to the haste with which you run before him”332. Similarly, Moshe Alshich echoes the Targum and comments, “But through it all, God was bound in love to Israel because of the ‘running’ of Abraham; and because of Jacob who ‘peeled the rods’ in the ‫ רהטים‬watering troughs (Gen 30,38)”333. c) The Adjuration Formula The adjuration formula (Song 2,7; 3,5; 8,4), which in the MT adjures the Daughters of Jerusalem by the “gazelles and hinds of the fields” is in the LXX rendered “by the powers and the forces of the field”. MT

LXX

‫השבעתי אתכם בנות ירושלם בצבאות או באילות השדה‬ I adjure you, Daughters of Jerusalem, by the gazelles and the hinds of the field ὥρκισα ὑμᾶς, θυγατέρες Ιερουσαλημ, ἐν ταῖς δυνάμεσιν καὶ ἐν ταῖς ἰσχύσεσιν τοῦ ἀγροῦ I have adjured you, Daughters of Jerusalem, by the powers and by the forces of the field

Oaths are normally sworn by divinities or supernatural powers, such as demons. In mythology, gazelles and hinds are in fact the animals of the goddess of love, and therefore likely to be invoked as her symbols334. Thus while the adjuration formula appears to be at odds with the first commandment, commentators have not failed to notice that this apparently heterodox oath is in fact a pious way of circumventing the pronunciation of the divine Name in an oath formula, as is typical for late books. The Hebrew consonants of the word “gazelles” ‫ צבאות‬can, in fact, be read as the plural of ‫“( ְצ ָבא‬army”, “host”), as in the well-known expression ‫יהוה צבאות‬ (“Lord of hosts”). As for ‫אילות שדה‬, commentators have noticed the morphological resemblance of ‫ אילה‬to ‫אל‬/‫ אלוה‬and the assonance between ‫( שדה‬field) with ‫ שדי‬as in ‫“( אל שדי‬God Almighty”)335, and have concluded that the “reference to the gazelles and hinds seems to be an imitation of an invocation of God”336. 332. ZLOTOWITZ, Shir haShirim / Song of Songs, p. 182. 333. Ibid. 334. See KEEL, Hohelied, pp. 93-94. 335. See LACOCQUE, Romance, p. 63. 336. See MURPHY, Song, p. 137. See also GARRETT, Song, p. 152; LACOCQUE, Romance, pp. 63-64; GORDIS, Song, p. 28.

HISTORICAL POSTULATES: FROM COMPOSITION TO CANON

251

This assessment is partially confirmed by the LXX, which appears to have recognized in the adjuration by the gazelles a circumlocution for an oath by ‫ יהוה צבאות‬when rendering it as ἐν ταῖς δυνάμεσιν. The rendering of the divine Name ‫ יהוה צבאות‬as κύριος τῶν δυνάμεων is, in fact, a typical feature of the καίγε-group. The habitual Greek translation of ‫ יהוה צבאות‬is κύριος παντοκράτωρ. The Psalms, however, introduced the translation κύριος τῶν δυνάμεων and the καίγε subsequently adopts it throughout337. With respect to the second part of the adjuration formula, the LXX gives no such unmistakable clue. It renders the oath by “hinds of the field” as ἐν ταῖς ἰσχύσεσιν τοῦ ἀγροῦ (“by the powers of the field”). It is, however, striking, that it is another typical feature of the καίγε-group to render ‫אל‬ as ἰσχυρός338. If the LXX’s translator was aware of a pun on ‫“( אל שדי‬God Almighty”), he might have attempted to reproduce this same pun by translating ‫ אילה‬by a word that was at once faithful to its Vorlage, rendering ‫ אילות‬on the basis of ‫ אול‬II “to be strong” ἰσχύς (cf. ‫ אילות‬Ps 22,20)339 and at the same time capable of alluding to the divine Name ἰσχυρός, rendering the phrase as ἰσχύσεσιν τοῦ ἀγροῦ. While the proposition for the second part remains very conjectural, the LXX’s interpretation of the first part of the formula as an oath in the name of the “Lord of hosts” is confirmed by the later Jewish tradition. Thus the Targum comments on Song 2,7 and 3,5: “Moses the teacher of Israel opened his mouth and said: ‘I adjure you, congregation of Israel, by the Lord of hosts and by the mighty ones of the Land of Israel…’”340, which corresponds closely to the LXX’s rendering. The Midrash, too, renders ‫“ בצבאות‬by the Hosts – the heaven and the earth: the Upper Hosts and the Lower Hosts; who were witnesses to this adjuration of the Jews to fulfill the Torah”341. Ramban, furthermore, also takes ‫ צבאות‬literally as an oath in the Name of the “Lord of Hosts”342. Given the fact that the καίγε-group is known for its effort to render the text as closely as possible to the Vorlage (hinting in a Rabbinic direction), the late date of this translation and the coincidence with both the Jewish interpretation and the results of modern exegesis confirming the allusion to the divine Name, it can safely be concluded that the LXX of the Song presupposes an already existing theophoric understanding of the 337. 338. 339. 340. 341. 342.

See BARTHÉLEMY, Devanciers, pp. 82-83. In 2 Kgs 24,15 it uses ἰσχυρός even for the homonym ‫איל‬. See ibid., p. 83. See AUWERS, Allégorisé ou érotisé?, p. 164. ALEXANDER, Targum of Canticles, pp. 102-103, 120-121. FREEDMAN – SIMON, Midrash Rabbah: Esther – Song of Songs, p. 112, II.7 §i. ZLOTOWITZ, Shir haShirim / Song of Songs, p. 103.

252

PART I – CHAPTER 4

adjuration formula. It is a respectful way of swearing by ‫ יהוה צבאות‬by way of circumlocution, which the LXX has faithfully rendered. d) Breasts or Love-Making in Song 1,2.4; 4,10; 7,13? Finally, there is the well-known disaccord between the MT’s reading of ‫ דדים‬and that of the entire Greek and Latin tradition343. While the MT vocalizes ‫ דּ ֶֹדיָך‬meaning “your love”, “your caresses”, or “your love-making”, the reading of the LXX, VL, and Vg as “your breasts” presupposes a vocalization as ‫( ַדּ ֶדּיָך‬Song 1,2.4; 4,10 and 7,13; LXX: μαστοί σου; VL and Vg: ubera tua). Both renderings are orthographically possible, the difference hinges on the vocalization of the consonantal text. (i) Philological Assessment The MT ‫ ד ֹדים‬is a scriptio defectiva for ‫דודים‬. The word ‫ דודים‬occurs in Hebrew and in other Semitic languages with the meaning of “beloved”, “love”, “uncle”, and “paternal uncle”344. In Hebrew (much as in Akkadian and Ugaritic) the plural ‫ דדים‬has the meaning “love”. Outside of the Song the plural occurs in Ezek 16,8; 23,17, and Prov 7,18, where its meaning clearly has a sexual connotation (“love-making”). In exactly the same books, however, the dual word ‫“ ַדּ ִדּים‬breasts” also occurs (Ezek 23,21; 23,3.8; Prov 5,19). It is generally argued that in contexts where the male lover is concerned (Song 1,2.4) the MT vocalization as ‫ ד ֹדים‬is more justified. It is indeed perplexing to find the Beloved praise the breasts of the Lover as being better than wine in the LXX and the Latin versions345. One argument brought forth in favor of the MT reading is that the Song uses another unambiguous term for indicating “breasts”, ‫( ַשׁד‬Song 1,13; 4,5; 7,4.8.9; 8,1.8.10)346 – moreover, that the term ‫“ ד ֹדים‬love” corresponds better with the term ‫“( דודי‬my Beloved”) applied to designate the male Lover. On the other hand, one might argue that ‫ ד ֹדים‬is written in scriptio defectiva and ‫ דוד‬in scriptio plena, that is, one would expect the same scriptio if the two words were related. The fact that the scriptio plena form is rather typical for the Song as a whole and for the root ‫ דוד‬in particular (cf. also Song 5,1) has therefore been brought forth as an argument 343. For an extensive tracing of both the Jewish and Christian traditions regarding the rendering of ‫דדיך‬, see D.G. MARTIN, Multiple Originals: New Approaches to Hebrew Bible Textual Criticism (SBL Text-critical Studies, 7), Atlanta, GA, SBL Press, 2010, pp. 99-166. 344. A. VAN DE SANDE, ‘Amour’ ou ‘Seins’ dans le Cantique des cantiques (TM-LXX), in RB 118 (2011) 515-532, p. 517, gives a good overview of all the relevant lexicon entries. 345. AUWERS, Allégorisé ou érotisé?, pp. 166-167. 346. GERLEMAN, Hohelied, p. 96.

HISTORICAL POSTULATES: FROM COMPOSITION TO CANON

253

in favor of an original reading ‫“ ַדּ ִדּים‬breasts”347. The composite nature of the Song’s cantos, however, renders such arguments fragile. As discussed above, the Song consists of many different pre-existing songs or fragments of songs, stemming from different time-periods and places. Neither the existence of a synonym for “breasts” in other passages of the Song nor the scriptio plena versus defectiva argument is therefore strong, for both could be owed to the different origins of the cantos. In fact, three of the appearances of ‫( דדים‬1,2.4 and 4,10) belong to passages that have no signs of LBH (like the characteristic scriptio plena spelling), but appear to be older than most other material in the Song and are related by other common motifs (1,2-4; 4,8-11)348. For the same reasons, it is possible that some of the cantos used the word ‫ ַדּ ִדּים‬for breasts, whereas others used the words ‫שד‬. In any event, it is apparent from the disparate spellings and distribution of terms that the composer of the Song harmonized neither the orthography nor the use of vocabulary when drawing his different sources into constructing the one Song of Songs. An argument in favor of an original reading as ‫“ ַדּ ִדּ ים‬breasts” can, however, be drawn from Jan de Waard’s discussion on the occurrence of ‫ דדים‬in Prov 5,19349. The MT reads: A lovely deer, a graceful doe. May her breasts (‫יה‬ ָ ‫ ַ)דּ ֶדּ‬satisfy you at all times; may you be intoxicated always by her love (‫)אהבא‬.

While in this case the Masoretes vocalize ‫יה‬ ָ ‫“ ַדּ ֶדּ‬breasts”, the LXX renders the word as ἡ δὲ ἰδία, and some Greek Mss as ἡ δὲ φιλία. The LXX “ἡ δὲ ἰδία” presents arguably a remnant of φιλία, signifying that the Greek tradition interpreted the Vorlage as reading ‫יה‬ ָ ‫ד ֶֹד‬350. The reading φιλία is also found in the Origen recension, in a correction of Sinaiticus, and in Venetus351. All those readings are either based on the vocalization ‫ד ִֹדים‬ instead of ‫ד ִדים‬,ַ or they are a harmonization with Prov 7,18 where ‫דּ ִֹדים‬ has also been rendered with φιλία. It is telling, however, that Aquila, Symmachus, and the Vulgate appear to harmonize Prov 5,19 and 7,18 in the opposite direction, reading in both cases ‫“( ַדּ ִדּים‬breasts”). These different 347. See KINGSMILL, Eros. 348. Cf. 1,2b-3a ‫ כי־טובים דדיך מיין לריח שמניך טובים‬and 4,10 ‫מה־טבו דדיך מיין וריח‬ ‫שמניך מכל בשמים‬. Even in the fourth appearance of ‫ דדים‬in 7,13, it looks like the encompassing occurrences of the word ‫( דודי‬scriptio plena 7,12.14) belong to the redaction that has stitched the songs together, as they appear in the two cola which frame the strophe. 349. See J. DE WAARD (ed.), Proverbs (BHQ, 17), Stuttgart, Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2008, p. 35*. 350. See ibid. 351. See ibid.

254

PART I – CHAPTER 4

readings attest to the fact that both were obviously disseminated and that the correct rendering of ‫ דדים‬in Prov 5,19 was a point of discussion that gave rise to two different reading traditions. While in the case of Prov 5,19 the Hebrew tradition testifies to the reading of “breasts” and the Greek to reading “love”, in the Song the opposite is the case. (ii) Possible Reasons for the Deviating Traditions Different reasons have been offered as to why the LXX reads “breasts” instead of “love”. The least convincing is that the translator would not have paid attention to the contradictory context (i.e. male Lovers not having nurturing breasts) as some have proposed. In contrast to a copyist, a translator does his work with reflection, and it is unreasonable to presume that he did not realize the contradiction in his translation. As Ausloos and Lemmelijn have shown, this translator appears to have been particularly diligent in his rendering of words352. Others have claimed that the translator wanted to render the text even more erotic353, and made this a proof for an “originally profane” reading of the Song. This solution is not convincing either, for the term “breasts” cannot be judged more erotic than the term “love-making”. First, in antiquity breasts connote maternity and nourishment. Second, as the passages in Ezekiel and Proverbs show, ‫ ד ֹדים‬clearly refers to the joys of the sexual act354. The ecstatic moment of the sexual act is further underscored by the simile, “your love-making is better than wine”. The LXX is therefore even less erotic than the MT in this case. A further proposal is that the translator of the LXX was an Aramaic speaker, which would have had a decisive influence on his understanding of the consonantal text355. The word ‫ דדין‬with the sense “love” is not attested to in Aramaic. According to Axel van de Sande, an Aramaic speaker, even though conscious of translating Hebrew, could not but understand the word “breast”, ‫ דד‬in Aramaic, used here in the plural with the suffix356. This is, indeed, possible and at the same time a strong indicator that “breasts” was in fact the older reading, given the many Aramaic features of the book. Another solution to this crux has been offered by Gary Martin. He argues for a greater awareness of textual double entendres on behalf of the ancient authors and their respective renderings in the ancient versions. He observes 352. 353. 354. 355. 356.

See AUSLOOS – LEMMELIJN, Rendering Love, p. 61. See GERLEMAN, Hohelied, p. 78; KEEL, Hohelied, p. 14. See SANMARTIN-ASCASO, ‫דּוֹד‬, in TDOT, p. 151. See VAN DE SANDE, ‘Amour’ ou ‘Seins’?, p. 529. See ibid., p. 530.

HISTORICAL POSTULATES: FROM COMPOSITION TO CANON

255

a conscious punning on the different possible meanings of the root ‫ דד‬in a large number of ANE texts in cognate languages, where the words constructed on this root can have multiple meanings: “they can mean ‘love’ or refer specifically to male and/or female genitalia, and can occur where double entendre is present”357. Martin concludes that the same polysemy might be operative in the Song: “The duality of meaning could have originated by exploiting the vowelless mode of writing, allowing each of the two different lexemes from roots containing a double dalet to bring their respective semantic values into the visual text at the same place”358. The least conjectural explanation remains that the translator of the LXX was acquainted with an oral tradition that read the Hebrew Vorlage as ‫ַדּ ַדּיך‬ wherefore μαστοί σου (1,2.4; 4,10; ‫ ַדּ ַדּי‬μαστοί μου Song 7,13) was the correct translation359. This is substantiated by the fact that even the Vulgate reflects that reading in translating ubera360. A fragile evidence to an original reading of “breasts” might further possibly be derived from 6Q6361. Kingsmill deduces from the absence of a vowel letter in 6Q6 1,2.5 that the word was read as meaning “breasts” (‫)דּדיך‬, ַ arguing that Qumran elsewhere tends to supply matres lectionis. Such an argument from absence 357. MARTIN, Originals, p. 125. 358. Ibid., p. 133. 359. E. KINGSMILL, “Love” or “Breasts” at Song of Songs 1,2 and 4? The PreMasoretic Evidence, in E.A. LIVINGSTONE (ed.), Papers Presented at the Twelfth International Conference on Patristic Studies Held in Oxford 1995: Biblica et Apocrypha, Ascetica, Liturgica (Studia Patristica, 30), Leuven, Peeters, 1997, 8-11, p. 9, argues in favor of an original meaning as “breast”. According to her, the change to “love” would have occurred early in the Masoretic period. In the later Rabbinic tradition the word in question is written with a vowel letter ‫דודיך‬, thus clearly rendering it as “your loves” and assimilating the reading to the MT. 360. Jerome’s ubera have been explained as a fidelity to the VL tradition from which he did not want depart, in spite of his familiarity with the Hebrew tradition. This argument, however, is not convincing since he otherwise shows great liberty with respect to the VL. In his translation of Origen’s homilies of the Song, for example, Jerome renders ἀδελφιδός (LXX for ‫ )דודי‬as literally as possible by fratroelis. In his Song translation, on the other hand, he renders it as dilectus. (Jerome might be influenced by Symmachus here who had already replaced ἀδελφιδός with ἀγαπητός.) The same freedom with respect to the VL tradition can be observed in his rendering of the Hebrew ‫רעיתי‬. While LXX renders it as πλησίον μου, and the VL accordingly as proxima mea, Jerome translates amica mea. It should rather be presumed that Jerome’s reading of ubera reflects the Hebrew reading of his time and surroundings with this meaning. See J. TREBOLLE BARRERA, ‘Antiguo’ y ‘Nuevo’ Testamento: Las identidades judía y cristiana. Líneas de continuidad y de divergencia, in RivBib 60 (2012) 161-188, p. 174. Another important fourth-century witness is Gregory of Nyssa, who in other places of his commentary (e.g., on Song 5,11) shows an awareness of divergence between the Greek and Hebrew rendering or interpretation of words. In the case debated here, however, he gives no indication that he was aware of a similar discrepancy. See MARTIN, Originals, p. 146. 361. Pace KINGSMILL, Love or Breasts?, p. 9.

256

PART I – CHAPTER 4

is, however, weak362. Though 6Q6 tends to demonstrate a very developed script, in the case of ‫ דדיך‬no persuasive conclusion can be drawn from the absence of the vowel letter, because ‫ דדיך‬is a suffixed form. The suffix leads to a shift of accentuation and therefore the absence of the vowel letter might be expected. The evidence points strongly to the fact that the understanding (or pronunciation) of the letters ‫ דדיך‬in the Jewish circles responsible for the LXX was in fact that of “breasts”, and that we are either dealing with two different oral traditions, or that the LXX’s rendering is the older one. (iii) Symbolic Breasts Even if it cannot be proven with certainty that the LXX’s reading of “breasts” instead of “loves” is the “original” one, it is nonetheless an attestation to a very old symbolic reading of the text. Since the male lover’s breasts give no nourishment that could be better than wine, it appears rather that the reading “breasts” was of no obstacle to those acquainted with a symbolic reading of the Song, according to which the male Lover represented God. The Lover’s breasts might actually have been a hint to read the text not at face value but rather as symbolic, that is, as a hint that the naturalistic reading leads to an impasse363. As Auwers has pointed out with reference to a variety of ancient biblical and para-biblical texts, it was not uncommon to apply female symbols unproblematically to God or even ordinary males364. Thus, Isa 60,16 speaks of Israel sucking the milk of the nations, and the breasts of kings suckling her365. Num 11,12 and Hos 11,1-4 are further examples. Though this latter passage presents numerous textcritical problems, Hos 11,4 clearly employs the image of a father feeding his child. Similarly, the Qumran Hymn, 1QHa, col. xvii, 35-36, reads: You are Father for all the [sons] of your truth. You rejoice in them, like her who loves her child, and like a wet nurse, you take care for all your creatures on (your) lap366. 362. It is correct that the same Ms displays a case of scriptio plena when compared to the scriptio defectiva of the MT. In Song 1,6 the MT reads ‫“( שמני נטרה‬they made me keeper”), while 6Q6 2,2 reads the same words with additional vowel letters ‫שמוני נוט]רה‬. 363. See AUWERS, Allégorisé ou érotisé?, p. 167. 364. See ibid. 365. As MARTIN, Originals, pp. 187-188 points out, “for ancient commentaries, passages like Isa 60,16 referring sucking ‘the milk of nations’ and ‘the breasts of kings’ were natural connections to Song 1:2, 4”. This connection was “natural” for “many ancient commentaries depended simply on parallels of expression, and that context was determined secondarily based on observance of those verbal parallels”. In the same vein it was natural to see a connection between Song 1,2 and Isa 66,8-13, where YHWH is described as compared to a nursing mother (v. 13). 366. Translation taken from F. GARCÍA MARTÍNEZ – E.J.C. TIGCHELAAR (eds.), The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition: I, Leiden, Brill, 1997, p. 184.

HISTORICAL POSTULATES: FROM COMPOSITION TO CANON

257

Finally, Auwers points to Odes of Solomon 19,1-5 where God is referred to as a nursing father and Christ is compared to a cup of milk from the two breasts of the Father367, as also to 8,14 where Christ speaks of his “own breasts”368. All of these passages suggest that the appropriation of female attributes to male subjects might not have been as disturbing to an ancient audience as they are to a modern audience369. In the Song, God’s metaphoric “breasts” were apparently the words of the Torah, as a number of Jewish traditions suggest. In Rabbinic commentaries on the Song the word in question is always written with a vowel letter ‫דודיך‬, thus clearly rendering it as “your loves” and assimilating it thereby to the reading of the MT, and almost always interpreted as regarding the words of the Torah370. Yet, the discussions that follow often concern “milk” and “breasts”. This suggests that although the Jewish reading of the Song was eventually assimilated into the MT, the commentaries perhaps still reflect older traditions that were most probably reading “breasts”. Thus ShirR I.2 §1 refers to a prohibition of eating cheese, i.e. a milk product, and in the next section (ShirR I.2 §2) the phrase “your dodeka are better than wine” is explained: “The words of the Torah are like one another”, to which a footnote is added commenting: “According to an appropriate opinion, the word ‫ דודיך‬is to be explained as ‫“ דדיך‬your breasts” 371. Similarly, ShirZ I.2 gives an interpretation that is intelligible only if one supposes an older tradition that originally read “breasts”: ‫כי טובים דודיך מיין‬: That is he who studies Torah from his childhood, after (he is) weaned from his mother’s breast into the Torah, weaned from milk for this (milk) which is pleasant, for the words of the Torah, … weaned from the mother’s breasts (‫)עתיקי משדים‬, to those who serve the elders from their mothers’ breasts (‫( …)מדדי אמותן‬ShirZ I.2)372.

With respect to Song 1,4, Shir ha-Shirim Zuta comments again twice on “breasts” even though reading “your love” with the MT. 367. See J.H. CHARLESWORTH, The Earliest Christian Hymnbook: The Odes of Solomon, Eugene, OR, Cascade Books, 2009, p. 55. 368. See ibid., p. 22. 369. On the metaphor of nursing applied to males as imparters of life and saving knowledge, as increasingly developed from the Hellenistic times onwards, see also C.G. PATERSON, The Milk of Salvation: Redemption by the Mother in Late Antiquity and Early Christianity, in HTR 82 (1989) 393-420, pp. 406-409. 370. See Tg.Cant. 1.2, 4; ShirZ I.2.; LeqT 1.2. 371. A note in the English translation infers from similar passages “like two breasts (daddin)”. FREEDMAN – SIMON, Midrash Rabbah: Esther – Song of Songs, pp. 30-31. 372. Midrash Shir ha-Shirim Zuta (ca. 900-1000) is a Medieval midrash on the Megilloth (excluding the scroll of Esther), and was first published from manuscripts by S. BUBER (ed.), ‫ וקהלת‬,‫ איכה‬,‫ רות‬,‫ על שיר השירים‬:‫מדרש זוטא‬, Berlin, H. Itzkowski, 1894 (my translation).

258

PART I – CHAPTER 4

‫“( נזכירה דודיך מיין‬we will extol your love more than wine”): This is Moses. Just as a breast gushes forth milk, thus Moses gushes forth wisdom. For it is said about him that for three nights from the time he ascended Mt. Nebo, he declaimed all of the midrash and halakhah. But others say (that he did this) in the span of three hours on the evening before the day he died. ‫נזכירה דודיך מיין‬: This is Rabbi Akiva. But can a breast really produce wine?! Of course not, the meaning must rather be that just as a breast gushes forth milk, so R. Akiva pours forth Torah373.

Both Midrashim suggest that their commentary might perhaps preserve an older reading in which the “breasts” of the Lover were praised, whose milk was understood to be the words of the Torah. The symbolic equation of God’s word with milk is, in fact, not uncommon in Judaism (cf. 1 Pet 2,2). As Shemuel bar Naḥman (ca. 300 A.D.) explains, “Why do we compare the words of the Torah with a breast? Because each time the baby presses the breast, it finds milk. In the same way, each time someone meditates the words of the Torah, he finds a meaning in them”374. The cumulative evidence of both the LXX and the Vulgate, which render ‫ דדיך‬as “breasts”, in conjunction with the Jewish tradition that comments on the Torah, breasts, and milk, leads one to presume that “breasts” may be the older reading. This conclusion further inclines in the direction of Auwers375, who contends that the Lover’s breasts were probably understood “symbolically” from very early on and taken to be a hint not to read the text at face value376. The LXX, in any case, is an indicator that such a symbolic understanding was already in place.

373. See ibid. I thank Prof. Gary Anderson for his help with the translation. 374. This comment regards Prov 5,18-19, where “the wife of your youth” and “her breasts” are understood to be the symbolic Torah. See BARTHÉLEMY, Critique V, pp. 495496. 375. See AUWERS, Allégorisé ou érotisé?, p. 167; and ID., Canticles, p. 378. 376. J. RAINBOW, Male μαστοί in Revelation 1.12, in Journal for the Study of the New Testament 30 (2008) 249-253, sees another first trace of such a symbolic interpretation of Song 1,2 in Rev 1,13, where Christ is described as being clothed in a golden belt πρὸς τοῖς μαστοῖς (“around the breasts”). According to Rainbow the word μαστός (“breast”) is never employed for the male chest in Christian Greek literature. Since the Book of Revelation makes a number of other allusions to the Song (see V.2 below, p. 268), Rainbow argues, that the expression πρὸς τοῖς μαστοῖς is a symbolic marker hinting to the identification of Christ with the Lover of the Song 1,2.4. As favorable as I am towards recognizing the Lover of the Song in the Christ of Revelation, Rainbow’s argument does not convince. The term μαστός is occasionally attested to as the male breast outside Christian literature, as early as Homer. Its absence from Christian Greek literature is, in my view, not sufficient to affirm a reference to the “textual ‘irritant’ in LXX” Song 1,2.

HISTORICAL POSTULATES: FROM COMPOSITION TO CANON

259

e) Righteousness Has Loved You Gianni Barbiero sees a trace of “allegorization” in the Greek rendering of Song 1,4 MT

LXX

‫מישרים אהבוך‬ rightly do they love you. 1,4 εὐθύτης ἠγάπησέν σε. Righteousness has loved you.

The translator reads the substantive ‫ מישרים‬not as an adverb but as the subject of the verb377. It can only be conjectured whether he did so with the intention of facilitating an “allegorical interpretation”378. The Vulgate, in any event, translates recti as “the righteous”, a rendering that is continued and confirmed in the Rabbinic tradition. Thus the Targum comments, “all the righteous who do what is right before You will fear You and love Your commandments”379. Similarly Midrash Zuta refers to the “righteous” who love the Lord, when commenting, ‫מישרים אהבוך‬: that is Ben Avai/ Azzai and his friends. In the next paragraph it dwells even more on the word ‫ישר‬, referring it to those who are “straight”, to Abraham, the righteous man par excellence, and the righteous in general. ‫מישרים אהבוך‬: The upright (‫ )יושר‬of heart will love (obey) you, without reservations in their heart and not disparaging your words. You said to Abraham to give him the land, as it is said: “for all the land which you see … Rise up, walk through the length and the breadth of the land (Gen 13,15.17). You said to him: take a tomb and do not (judge) [rejoice] after you. Jehoshua son of Jonathan said regarding those who slew the wicked Turnos Rufus: They loved you a lot more than the former righteous ones (‫( )צדיקים‬Midr. ShirZ I.4)380.

Midrash Lekach Tov equally dwells on righteousness: ‫ מישרים‬that are in Israel have loved you. When the Almighty, blessed be He, gathered the suppressed of Israel, and built them his Sanctuary, all were made just (‫)צדיקים‬, as it is said: And your people are all just. And all will be righteous (‫ )מישרים‬and all of them will know the way of the Lord, therefore it is said: ‫( מישרים אהבוך‬LeqT 1.4)381. 377. AUWERS, Allégorisé ou érotisé?, p. 165. 378. BARBIERO, Song, p. 7. 379. ALEXANDER, Targum of Canticles, p. 81. 380. See BUBER (ed.), ‫( זוטא‬my translation). 381. My translation from the Barilan online source “responsa”. https://www.responsa. co.il/home.en-US.aspx (based on print edition by Solomon Buber, 1980 Vilna).

260

PART I – CHAPTER 4

Finally, Alshich reflects a similar tradition of relating ‫ מישרים‬to the righteous of Israel, “Our righteous ancestors love You”382. While the Vulgate is closer to the Rabbinic tradition than the LXX, it is nonetheless clear that LXX’s translation already facilitates this kind of Rabbinic Midrash by rendering ‫ מישרים‬not as an adverb, but as concrete “righteousness”. 3. Conclusion The translator of LXX-Song has made an effort to make the Greek as faithful as possible to its Hebrew Vorlage. His translation does not aim at literary beauty but at maximum correspondence to the Hebrew so as to facilitate a correct interpretation. For that purpose he sometimes translates rather than transliterates, so as to make the underlying puns accessible even in the Greek. He has certainly not made any attempt to eroticize the text383. He has not “allegorized” the text either384. He simply remains faithful to a translation technique that has been called a “precursor” to that of Aquila. That is to say, he has made an attempt to render the Hebrew as literally as possible into Greek, and at the same time, “to facilitate the application of the rules of interpretation that were practiced by the rabbis of the first century, in order to provide a Greek basis on which the rabbinic exegesis could be founded”385. The fact that later revisers of the Greek like Aquila and Symmachus practiced this method in a more elaborate fashion cannot be held as an argument against these proceedings being already present in nuce in the LXX version of the Song386. In any event, the translator of Song-LXX did not “allegorize” the text, but by the choice of some of the renderings seen above, the text suggests that a “protorabbinic/derash-type” interpretation was already practiced and recognized for the Song. For this reason, it is inadmissible to adduce the LXX as a witness to an allegedly “literal profane erotic” versus a “religious symbolic” understanding of the text. To the contrary, the LXX’s rendering of the Song may 382. ZLOTOWITZ, Shir haShirim / Song of Songs, p. 77. 383. GERLEMAN, Hohelied, p. 166, and KEEL, Hohelied, p. 14, see an effort to eroticize in the translation of “breasts” instead of “love”. 384. Thus the judgement of JOÜON, Cantique, pp. 94-95. 385. AUWERS, Septantes, p. 36 (my translation). 386. For examples of “interpretation” rather than “transliteration” in the later versions, see HARL, La version LXX du Cantique. She surmises that because of the symbolic value many Hebrew expressions bore in the different Jewish currents of “allegorical” interpretation, the differences between the Greek versions might be due to their revisors’ acquaintance with different interpretations. Ibid., p. 119.

HISTORICAL POSTULATES: FROM COMPOSITION TO CANON

261

testify in some cases to the fact that a theological understanding of the Song was already established at the time of its production. Yet given that those cases are rather few, I fully agree with Auwers’ judgement on the matter that little attempt was made by the translator to “allegorize” the text, for the “allegorical” significance of the Song was self-evident and the religious dimension was in no need of being made explicit387. For the translator, as for any ancient reader, the indications of a symbolical meaning of the Song that the text itself supplied would have been sufficient. The mere fact of the Song’s ranging among the books that “defiled the hands” suggested to its ancient reader the religious nature of its content. Pour les Anciens, l’interprétation allégorique se lisait dans le texte tel quel. Les mots pris dans leur sens obvie – un jardin, des fruits, une vigne, de l’ombre, une femme et un homme qui s’aiment – évoquaient pour eux d’autres réalités, qui sont exprimées par les mêmes mots ou par des synonymes ailleurs dans la Bible, en particulier dans les contextes prophétiques. Le sens allégorique de l’amour de Dieu pour son peuple n’avait pas besoin d’être explicité pour les Anciens: ils occupaient une position de lecture qui le leur rendait évident388.

To demonstrate this “evidence” is the scope of this thesis. However, for the present discussion, the most important point is that neither the literalism nor the absence of “allegorizations” in the LXX can be called upon as witnesses for an allegedly profane understanding of the text. The literalism is in service of creating a basis for exegesis, not an exegesis in and of itself.

V. “CANONIZATION” AND THE EARLY HISTORY OF INTERPRETATION In the debate over the profane or theological nature of the Song, the early Rabbinic material is frequently cited as proof for the text’s fundamentally erotic character. The fact that the Song’s ability to “defile the hands” was disputed supposedly attests to its originally non-canonical and secular nature, as would also the fact that Rabbi Akiva had to ban the singing of the Song in the taverns.

387. See J.-M. AUWERS, L’interprétation du Cantique des cantiques à travers les chaînes exégétiques grecques (Instrumenta Patristica et Mediaevalia, 56), Turnhout, Brepols, 2011, p. 19. 388. Ibid., p. 20. See also J.-M. AUWERS, Anciens et modernes face au Cantique des cantiques: Un impossible dialogue?, in A. LEMAIRE (ed.), Congress Volume – Leiden 2004 (VT.S, 109), Leiden, Brill, 2006, 235-253.

262

PART I – CHAPTER 4

Part of the debate revolves around the question whether the Rabbinic allegorizing interpretation is what made the book’s inclusion into the “canon”389 of the Hebrew Scriptures possible, or, rather, whether the opposite is true, and the canonization of a collection of love poetry gave impetus to an allegorical reading390. Either way, an utterance of Rabbi Akiva at the so-called Council of Jamnia mentioned in m. Yad. 3.5 is regularly adduced to explain how either the Song gained its place in the canon, or how the “allegorical” interpretation gained its official position391. In order to put the Rabbis at ease with the erotic character of the Song and to pave a way for its entrance into the “canon”, Rabbi Akiva supposedly imposed an “allegorical” interpretation upon the originally profane Song392. This section will first discuss Rabbinic material usually invoked as a proof for the Song’s originally “profane” nature, and second adduce two first-century “allegorical” interpretations of the Song that precede Rabbi Akiva and the “Council of Jamnia”393. With this evidence the historical 389. The use of the terms “canon”, “canonization”, and “canonical” is of course anachronistic, since the term “canon” etymologically derives from the Greek, and was used only by the later Christian churches in their conciliar decisions about which books were to be included in the Bible. See T.H. LIM, The Formation of the Jewish Canon (ABRL), New Haven, CT, Yale Universtiy Press, 2013, p. 2. In spite of its obvious anachronism, it is adopted here as scholars have been using it in the debate. In the present context it designates a scroll that was recognized as “authoritative” and holy by the end of the Second Temple period. For the discussion and the difficulty of using the term “canon”, see E.C. ULRICH, The Notion and Definition of Canon, in L.M. MCDONALD – J.A. SANDERS (eds.), The Canon Debate, Peabody, MA, Hendrickson, 2002, 21-35. 390. In favor of the “allegorical” understanding preceding canonization, see CASSUTO, Il significato originario del Cantico dei cantici, p. 48: “è ovvio che l’interpretazione allegorica deve essere anteriore alla inclusione tra i libri sacri, della quale è la necessaria premessa; poiché non è da ritenersi che sia stata insignita della dignità di libro sacro un’opera che era considerata unicamente come una raccolta di canti d’amore se prima non si era attribuito a questo amore un significato religioso”. See also J. BARTON, The Canonicity of the Song of Songs, in A.C. HAGEDORN (ed.), Perspectives on the Song of Songs / Perspektiven der Hoheliedauslegung (BZAW, 346), Berlin, De Gruyter, 2005, 1-7 and FISHBANE, Song, p. xx. KEEL, Hohelied, p. 16, on the other hand, is of the opinion that the allegorical reading presupposes canonicity. 391. KRINETZKI, Hohelied, p. 31: “Dass eine solche Intervention überhaupt nötig wurde, zeigt in jedem Fall, wie man der offenbar noch nicht so selbstverständlichen und keineswegs alten allegorischen Deutung mit den Mitteln rabbinischer Autorität zur Geltung verhelfen musste, zu einer Geltung, die sie ganz offensichtlich vorher noch nicht besaß”. Similarly see also recently, M. GIRARD, Symboles bibliques, langage universel: Pour une théologie des deux Testaments ancrée dans les sciences humaines, Montréal, Médiaspaul, 2016, p. 1668. 392. See RUDOLPH, Hohe Lied, p. 84; GERLEMAN, Hohelied, p. 43; KRINETZKI, Hohelied, p. 31. Even the most recent commentary of FISHBANE, Song, p. xxii affirms: “The emergence of the Song as a sacred text … required bold reinterpretation”, i.e., “transformation via exegesis from a series of love lyrics into a song of religious love”. 393. Concerning the “Council of Jamnia”, which is now generally agreed to have been a scholarly figment, see J.P. LEWIS, What Do We Mean by Jabneh?, in JAAR 32 (1965) 125-132; ID., Jamnia Revisited, in L.M. MCDONALD – J.A. SANDERS (eds.), The Canon

HISTORICAL POSTULATES: FROM COMPOSITION TO CANON

263

argument is made that the symbolic understanding of the Song precedes the alleged “canonization” of the Song and is therefore not the result of the latter, but is already firmly established during the late Second Temple period394. 1. The Rabbinic Evidence a) Rabbi Akiva, “Canonization” and the “Allegorical” Interpretation of the Song M. Yad. 3.5 reports a discussion among the Rabbis about whether or not the Song renders the hands unclean during which Rabbi Akiva is said to have protested exclaiming, Heaven forbid! No Israelite man ever disputed concerning the Song of Songs that it imparts uncleanness to hands. For the entire age is not so worthy as the day on which the Song of Songs was given to Israel. For all scriptures are holy, but the Song of Songs is holiest of all. And if they disputed, they disputed only concerning Qohelet. Said R. Yohanan b. Joshua the son of R. Aqiba’s father-in-law, according to the words of Ben Azzai, indeed did they dispute, and indeed they did they come to a decision395.

Further, t. Sanh. 12.10 reports a word of Rabbi Akiva’s concerning the profane use of the Song, “He who trills his voice (in singing) Song of Songs in taverns and makes a sort of ditty of it has no portion in the world to come”396. From these two statements of Rabbi Akiva many Song scholars have deduced that the Song was originally a profane love song that owes its place in the “canon” to the intervention of Rabbi Akiva; or that it was only following Rabbi Akiva’s “intervention at Jamnia” and the prohibition of singing the Song in taverns that an allegorical interpretation, foreign to the Song’s original meaning, was imposed397. This common view has been seriously challenged in recent years, and for the following reasons: Debate, Peabody, MA, Hendrickson, 2002, 146-162; ULRICH, Canon; BARTON, Canonicity, p. 3, n. 8; LIM, Formation, pp. 178-188. 394. See also J. KAPLAN, A Divine Love Song: The Origins of the Theo-erotic Interpretation of the Song of Songs in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity (Diss. Harvard University; Cambridge, MA, 2010), and ID., The Song of Songs: From the Bible to the Mishnah, in HUCA 81 (2013) 43-66. 395. M. Yad. 3.5, translation taken from J. NEUSNER, The Mishnah: A New Translation, New Haven, CT – London, Yale University Press, 1988, p. 1127. 396. See E.E. URBACH, The Homiletical Interpretations of the Sages and the Expositions of Origen on Canticles and the Jewish-Christian Disputation, in J. HEINEMANN – D. NOY (eds.), Studies in Aggadah and Folk-Literature (Scripta Hierosolymitana, 22), Jerusalem, Magnes Press, 1971, 247-275, p. 249. 397. See, e.g., RUDOLPH, Hohe Lied, p. 83; GERLEMAN, Hohelied, p. 43; POPE, Song, p. 94; KRINETZKI, Hohelied, p. 31.

264

PART I – CHAPTER 4

(i) The Song’s allegedly profane character is not obvious from either statement. Nor is a preference for either a “literal” or a “allegorical” interpretation discernible. All that can be inferred from t.San 12,10 is that Rabbi Akiva banned the Song’s use in a profane context because it constituted a profanation of the sacred book398. That a sacred book, particularly one like the Song, might be profaned in the context of tavern singing is easily conceivable and must not be interpreted as ineluctable evidence of its secular character399. (ii) Nothing in the passages quoted suggests that the Rabbis had a problem with the Song’s “canonical” status because of its alleged eroticism. The content is not even mentioned. As John Barton rightly observes, “The belief that it was this that caused a problem is a pure decuit ergo factum argument: this must have been the problem, even though there is not the slightest whisper about it anywhere in the rabbinic literature”400. There is, moreover, a great deal of Second Temple literature that never made it into the Hebrew canon, despite its religious content (e.g., Jubilees, Enoch). Therefore, it is hardly inevitable that conferring some (artificial) religious significance would have somehow ensured the (allegedly profane) Song’s sudden acceptance as an authoritative text. Other prior factors must have influenced and predisposed the Song’s reception. (iii) It is commonly overlooked that the allegorical interpretation of the Song predates Rabbi Akiva by at least a century. It may have already been practiced by early Jewish circles, beginning at the latest in the second half of the first century B.C.401. It is, therefore, not Rabbi Akiva who by imposing an allegorical interpretation helped the Song enter into the canon. Rather, Akiva’s statement presupposes the allegorical interpretation402. Much more importantly, Jewish sources attribute an allegorical interpretation of the Song to Tannaitic figures preceding Akiva. Dominique Barthélemy, who was the first to point out the untenable explanation for Rabbi Akiva’s intervention, highlights the ample traditions connected with the houses of Hillel and Shammai403. Moreover Barthélemy indicates that Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrkanos, Akiva’s teacher, is already connected with an 398. G. NOLLI, Cantico dei cantici (La Sacra Bibbia), Torino, Marietti, 1968, p. 18: “Dalle parole di Rabbi Aquiba null’altro si può strettamente dedurre se non che è vietato l’uso profano del Cantico, perché si tratta di un libro che ‘contamina le mani’. La ragione del rispetto è nell’ispirazione, non nel significato allegorico”. 399. See also GERHARDS, Hohelied, pp. 478-482. 400. BARTON, Canonicity, p. 3 (italics in text). 401. See BARTHÉLEMY, Canonique; KEEL, Hohelied, p. 16; SAEBØ, Canonicity. 402. See M.E. STONE, The Interpretation of Song of Songs in 4 Ezra, in Journal for the Study of Judaism 38 (2007) 226-233, pp. 226-227. 403. BARTHÉLEMY, Canonique, pp. 14-17.

HISTORICAL POSTULATES: FROM COMPOSITION TO CANON

265

allegorical interpretation of the Song as concerning the relationship between God and Israel404. Five Rabbis that precede Akiva (i.e. Hanina the Segan Ha-Kohanim405, Johanan ben Zakkaï406, Joshua ben Hananya and Eliezer ben Hyrkanos407, Rabban Gamaliel II)408, and four rabbis contemporary to him (i.e. José ha-Gelili, Jose son of the Damascene, Eleazar de Modiim, Ishmaël ben Elisha) are reported to have interpreted the Song as being about God and Israel or the time of the Messiah. None of these Rabbis are ever associated with a “naturalistic” reading of the Song, nor is there any indication of an objection to the Song’s sacredness409. While Barthélemy’s sanguine view of the historicity of these traditions is problematic, it remains significant that Rabbinic literature remembered the “allegorical” interpretation of the Song as a widely established view well before Akiva and beyond his sphere of influence. The extent of the evidence is quite impressive and challenging to any isolated construal of m. Yad. 3.5 and t. Sanh. 12.10410. (iv) Most importantly, Rabbinic Judaism had no accepted process of canonization. Whatever was discussed at Jamnia (if anything) did not have a “canonizing” effect, for unlike Christian councils, it had no binding force411. Rather, “the Council of Jamnia” (if it existed) received the substantive body of the “canon” already brought together412. It must be remembered that synods or councils did not decide on the sacred nature of books but rather “they did not more than sanction what had already been established by long tradition”413. The process of canonization is now understood to have been a much longer, formative, traditio-historical process414. Moreover, there are no “examples of a book whose canonicity was secured by interpreting it allegorically”415. The common interpretation of Rabbi Akiva’s intervention is, thus, anachronistic and historically naïve. 404. Melkhilta Exod 12,11; cited in BARTHÉLEMY, Canonique, p. 16. Also ShirR I.8; I.12 §1; II.2 §2; II.14 §4; FREEDMAN – SIMON, Midrash Rabbah: Esther – Song of Songs, pp. 64, 78, 95, 130. 405. Avot de-Rabbi Nathan (ARN) I, 20; cited in BARTHÉLEMY, Canonique, p. 14. 406. Mekhilta Exod 19,1; cited in BARTHÉLEMY, Canonique, p. 15. 407. ShirR VII.2, §1. FREEDMAN – SIMON, Midrash Rabbah: Esther – Song of Songs, p. 277. 408. San 90b. 409. See BARTHÉLEMY, Canonique, p. 17. 410. See ibid., pp. 21-22. Barthélemy is far more ambitious in his conclusions than what is reported here. He imagines that the Song was read during Passover even from the first century B.C. Yet this appears too daring, as there is no evidence in the Mishnah nor in any other ancient source for such an early establishment of the Megilloth repartition. 411. LIM, Formation, p. 180; TREBOLLE BARRERA, Bible, p. 155. 412. See STONE, Interpretation, p. 227; BARTON, Canonicity, p. 3, n. 8; A. DE PURY, Qohélet et le canon des Ketubim, in RTP 131 (1999) 163-198, pp. 165-169. 413. TREBOLLE BARRERA, Bible, p. 155. 414. See SAEBØ, Canonicity, p. 268. 415. BARTON, Canonicity, p. 3.

266

PART I – CHAPTER 4

(v) Another important point that has not been sufficiently considered is that it is generally taken for granted that “to render the hands unclean” equals “to be canonical”416. In fact, the discussion about the Song’s ability to defile the hands is about ritual purity417. As Armin Lange explains, “When the rabbis discuss whether or not a book renders the hands unclean, this does not put its canonical status into doubt. It only qualifies or disqualifies it for liturgical use”418. In fact, scholars now argue that it is only because the book was already considered as Scripture that the discussion even arose419. Since it is only the holy writings which defile the hands, the discussion might have arisen if holy books that do not contain the Tetragrammaton (e.g. Qohelet, Esther, and the Song) also defile the hands420. The point is, if the books had not been considered as Scripture, the issue about defiling the hands would not even have come up421. As Mark Giszaczak has thus summed up the argument, “The discussion in m. Yad. 3.5 deals with complex issues of ritual purity related to the scrolls of scriptures and … does not justify specific statements about the canonicity of the Song of Songs being under dispute from earliest times”422. Apart from m. Yad. 3.5 “there is no other independent evidence at all that the ‘canonical’ status of the Song of Songs was ever an issue for Jews, just as there is none that it was an issue for Christians”423. There is no recorded evidence that anyone tried to “block” the Song’s acceptance into the Hebrew Bible424. b) Further Rabbinic “Evidence” Another passage that is often quoted as “proof” of the originally profane character of the Song is m. Ta῾an. 4.8: 416. See, e.g., recently KOTTSIEPER, Über die Macht der Liebe, p. 112, who like many before him adduces m. Yad. 3.5 as a prooftext concerning the “Zugehörigkeit des Hohenliedes” and its “Heiligkeit”. 417. See M.J. BROYDE, Defilement of the Hands, Canonization of the Bible, and the Special Status of Esther, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs, in Judaism 44 (1995) 65-79; TREBOLLE BARRERA, Bible, p. 148; BARTON, Canonicity; A. LANGE, The Hebrew Bible: Overview Articles (Textual History of the Bible, 1A), Leiden, Brill, 2016, pp. 46-47; and M. GISZACZAK, The Canonical Status of Song of Songs in m. Yadayim 3.5, in JSOT 41 (2016) 205-220, p. 211. 418. LANGE, Hebrew Bible, p. 47. 419. See BARTON, Canonicity; LANGE, Hebrew Bible, pp. 46-47; GISZACZAK, Canonical Status; and also FISHBANE, Song, p. xxii, according to whom m. Yad. 3.5 is “evidence of a deliberation long after the book in question had been incorporated into the canon”. 420. See BARTON, Canonicity, p. 4. For a recent overview of the discussion see GISZACZAK, Canonical Status. See also LIM, Formation. 421. BARTON, Canonicity, p. 5. 422. GISZACZAK, Canonical Status, p. 220. 423. BARTON, Canonicity, p. 5. 424. Ibid., p. 6.

HISTORICAL POSTULATES: FROM COMPOSITION TO CANON

267

Said Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel: “There were no days better for Israelites than the fifteenth of Ab and the Day of Atonement”. For on these days Jerusalemite girls go out in borrowed white dresses – so as not to shame those who owned none. All the dresses had to be immersed. And the Jerusalemite girls go out to dance in the vineyards. What did they say? Those who came from noble families said, “Fellow look around and see – choose what you want”. “Don’t look for beauty, look for family”. “Charm is deceitful and beauty is vain, but a woman who fears the Lord will be praised” (Prov 31,30). And it says, “Give her of the fruit of her hands and let her works praise her in the gates” (Prov 31,31). And so it says, “Go forth, you daughters of Zion, and behold King Solomon with the crown with which his mother crowned him in the day of his espousals and in the day of the gladness of his heart” (Song of Songs 3,11). “The day of his espousals” – this refers to the day on which the Torah was given. “The day of the gladness of his heart” – this refers to the building of the Temple – “may it be rebuilt quickly in our days”425.

Scholars quote this passage as if it proved a secular use of the Song, i.e., as if the girls were singing Song 3,11 in the fields426. The conspicuous allegorical interpretation that follows upon the citation of Song 3,11, however, is often neglected. In fact, the Mishnah does not relate that the girls themselves were singing passages of the Song of Songs. Rather, the Mishnah quotes Song 3,11 to give a religious interpretation of the (folkloric) practice of these dancing girls, which might originally have had quite a different (profane or cultic) significance (cf. Judg 21,19-21)427. Along these lines, Laura Lieber gives a more convincing interpretation of the Mishnah’s text. According to her, it “supports the antiquity of the allegorical interpretation through its explicit reading of ‘Solomon’ as a divine name. … The conclusion segues from a description of human matchmaking rituals to a quotation from the Song”428. As she points out, “the day of his wedding” and the “gladness of his heart” is not understood as referring to King Solomon, the human king of Israel, but to the deity as Solomon was not even yet alive when the Torah was given. The Mishnah’s interpretation of Song 3,11 “implies that Sinai is the location of the nuptials, and the Temple … becomes the locus of the consummation 425. Translation taken from NEUSNER, Mishnah, p. 316. 426. See KEEL, Hohelied, p. 15: “Die Stelle ist wohl so zu verstehen, dass er zur Erntezeit Feste in den Weinbergen und Baumgärten gab, bei denen junge Männer und Frauen Gelegenheiten hatten sich zu treffen und bei denen die Lieder des Hhld. gesungen wurden”. See also BARBIERO, Song, p. 4. According to FISHBANE, Song, p. xxiii “the tradition shows how even the work’s straightforward sense made its way into normative rabbinic pronouncement – but was subsequently subverted”. 427. For the questionability of using this quote as an attestation of a profane reading, see also ZAKOVITCH, Hohelied, p. 93. 428. LIEBER, Desire, p. 30.

268

PART I – CHAPTER 4

of the union. This divine wedding thus becomes the model or inspiration for human nuptials, blending human and divine eros together”429. 2. Further Early Traces of an Allegorical Interpretation The first evidence of symbolical interpretations of the Song of Songs as a “divine love song”430 emerges towards the second half of the first century A.D. Among the most widely recognized are those of 4 Ezra and the Book of Revelation. Both 4 Ezra and Revelation reflect an underlying apocalyptical interpretation of the Song of Songs according to which the Lover was understood to be a savior figure, and the Beloved the personified community of the faithful. Drawing on language taken from the Song, they look forward to an eschatological victory of God through his Messiah and the faithful, reassuring their readers of God’s fidelity and love. In fact, the allusions to the Song in 4 Ezra and the Book of Revelation argue in favor of an established symbolic reading of the Song by the first century A.D.431. a) 4 Ezra Scholars have detected allusions to the Song of Songs in the late firstcentury A.D. apocalypse 4 Ezra (or 2 Esdras 3–14)432. The dating of 4 Ezra is usually based on the vision of the three-headed eagle in 4 Ezra 11– 12, which is held to represent the three Flavians – Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian – responsible for the destruction of the Temple. In this historical context the author of 4 Ezra presents an apocalyptical vision of the future for the Jewish community in Roman Palestine433. 4 Ezra is believed to have been originally composed in Hebrew, though no fragments have survived. It was translated into Greek, but the Greek has not survived either, with the exception of some quotations in Greek writers434. Our sources are 429. Ibid. 430. KAPLAN, Love Song, p. 43. 431. See also KAPLAN, Song of Songs, pp. 65-66; and ID., My Perfect One: Typology and Early Rabbinic Interpretation of Song of Songs, Oxford – New York, Oxford University Press, 2015, pp. 185-188. 432. For studies on 4 Ezra see M.E. STONE, Fourth Ezra: A Commentary on the Book of Fourth Ezra (Hermeneia), Minneapolis, MN, Fortress, 1990; B.W. LONGENECKER, 2 Esdras (Guides to Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha), Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press, 1995; J.J. COLLINS, The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature (The Biblical Resource Series), Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 1998. 433. For a comprehensive discussion of the dating of 4 Ezra, see STONE, Fourth Ezra, pp. 9-10. 434. See ibid., p. 1.

HISTORICAL POSTULATES: FROM COMPOSITION TO CANON

269

Latin and Syriac translations, a fact which commends caution in establishing allusions. Intertextuality, however, is not only based on the appropriation of vocabulary similar to that of the alleged source text, but also mainly functions through the evocation of images. The latter can be observed in 4 Ezra 5,23-30 with regard to the Song. Michael Stone demonstrates that 4 Ezra 5,24 and 26 contains four attestations to an allegorical interpretation of the Song435. The verses are quoted here in context, first, because from the context the intertextual allusions to the Song are immediately apparent, and second, because there are more allusions to the Song than have been seen by Stone. 4 Ezra 5,23-28 23

24

25

26

27

28

And I said, “O sovereign Lord, from all the forests of the earth and from its trees thou hast chosen for thyself one vine (Song 1,5; 8,11), and from all the lands of the world, thou hast chosen for thyself one region, and from all the flowers of the world, thou hast chosen for thyself one lily (Song 2,2), and from all the depths of the sea, thou hast filled for thyself one river, and from all the cities that have been built, thou hast consecrated Zion for thyself, and from all the birds that have been created, thou hast named for thyself one dove (Song 2,14; 5,2) and from all the flocks that have been made, thou hast accepted for thyself one sheep, and from all the multitude of peoples, thou hast gotten for thyself one people; and to this people whom thou hast loved, thou hast given the Torah which is approved by all. And now, O Lord, why hast thou given over the one to the many, and dishonored the one root beyond the others, and scattered thine only one among the many? (cf. Song 6,9)

It is apparent that the metaphors employed to designate the chosen people Israel, their land, and the city of God’s habitation, Zion, are referred to in metaphors taken from a symbolic interpretation of the Song: The vine (Song 1,15; 8,11), the lily (Song 2,2), and the dove (Song 2,14; 5,2). This one people is God’s “only one” (Song 6,9)436. It has been pointed out that with respect to the “one lily”, the author alludes to Hos 14,6 and the Song 435. STONE, Interpretation. 436. See also KINGSMILL, Eros, pp. 108-122.

270

PART I – CHAPTER 4

at the same time437. In Hosea, however, the lily is only used as a simile, while in both the Song and in 4 Ezra it is used as a metaphor for Israel. A similar case can be made for the dove that appears as a simile for Israel in Hos 11,11; Isa 59,11, and as a metaphor proper in Ps 74,19. However, it is not the singular reference or allusion to the Song but the accumulation of similar metaphors that suggests the Song of Songs as a source text for 4 Ezra. Stone’s assertion is in fact buttressed by a second passage that contains an allusion to the Song, namely 4 Ezra 4,37. An angel interpreter, when asked about the resurrection of the righteous dead, answers (4 Ezra 4,3637): “When the number of those like yourselves is completed; for he has weighed the age in the balance, and measured the times by measure, and numbered the times by number; and he will not move or arouse until that measure is fulfilled”. According to Stone, the two verbs that were probably used in the original Vorlage of 4 Ezra also occur together in Song 2,7; 3,5; and 8,4 in the adjuration not to “stir up or awaken love until it is ready”. Though Stone’s identification of this allusion is conjectural (because the similarity is predicated on extant Latin manuscripts from a Greek translation of the original Hebrew), Kaplan is right in affirming that “The similarity of the verbs combined with the parallels in phrasing between the texts buttresses this conjecture, and establishes a firmer connection between Song of Songs and 4 Ezra”438. If this allusion is correct, then 4 Ezra presupposes a symbolical and apocalyptical interpretation of Song 2,7; 3,5; and 8,4439. Congruent with the later Jewish tradition, which often identifies the Lover with the expected Messiah of Israel, we have here an early eschatological interpretation of the Song in which “the love is redemption or the Redeemer”440. The author of 4 Ezra draws upon language from the Song “to describe God’s love, through the agency of the divine redeemer, for the unique elect people Israel”441. While the allusions to the Song are limited and fragile, in the absence of the Hebrew original, one can still agree with Stone and Kaplan that 4 Ezra provides evidence of an emerging symbolical interpretation of the Song “as a divine love song”442.

437. 438. 439. 440. 441. 442.

See KAPLAN, Love Song, p. 56; STONE, Interpretation. KAPLAN, Love Song, p. 57. See STONE, Interpretation, pp. 230-231. See ibid., p. 233. KAPLAN, Love Song, p. 57. Ibid.; see also STONE, Interpretation, p. 233.

HISTORICAL POSTULATES: FROM COMPOSITION TO CANON

271

b) Rev 3,20 Another allusion to the Song appears in the first century A.D. apocalyptic text, the Book of Revelation. Like 4 Ezra, the Book of Revelation is widely held to have been written during the Flavian period, and during the reign of Domitian (81-96 A.D.) in particular443. As a number of scholars have recognized there is an intentional allusion to Song 5,2 in Rev 3,20444. Song 5,2 (LXX)

Rev 3,20

The voice (φωνὴ) of my brother (ἀδελφιδοῦ μου) knocking on the door (κρούει ἐπὶ τὴν θύραν): open to me (Ἄνοιξόν μοι), my sister …

Behold! I am standing at the door, knocking (ἐπὶ τὴν θύραν καὶ κρούω); if someone hears my voice (φωνῆς) and opens the door (ἀνοίξῃ), I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me.

Within the context of the seven letters to the seven different Churches (Rev 2,1–3,22), the voice of the risen Jesus calls here the church of Laodicea to repentance and a renewed intimacy with him. In the Song, the Lover requests entrance into the chamber of his Beloved, that is to say, the knocking of his voice asks for intimacy with her. Yet in the Song, the Beloved is hesitant to let him in. By analogy, in Rev 3,20 Jesus the Bridegroom is offering his intimacy to his bride, the Church, if she is willing to let him in445. Yet another allusion to the Song buttresses the impression that the author of Revelation was familiar with a symbolic interpretation of the Song which he draws upon for the shaping of his own message. Scholars generally recognize an allusion to Song 6,10 LXX in the description of the “woman clothed with the sun (τὸν ἥλιον), with the moon (ἡ σελήνη) under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars” (Rev 12,1). The 443. For a comprehensive discussion on the dating of Revelation and in favor of the reign of Domitian, see G.K. BEALE, The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text (The New International Greek Testament Commentary), Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 1999, pp. 5-27. 444. FEUILLET, Cantique, p. 327; R.H. CHARLES, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Revelation of St. John (ICC), Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1920, pp. 100-101; M. CAMBE, L’influence du Cantique des cantiques sur le Nouveau Testament, in RThom 62 (1962) 5-25, pp. 5-9; BEALE, Revelation, p. 308; W.J. HARRINGTON, Revelation (Sacra Pagina, 16), Collegeville, MN, Liturgical Press, 1993, p. 74; KAPLAN, My Perfect One, p. 186. 445. See BEALE, Revelation, p. 308. Pace J. WINANDY – A.-M. DUBARLE, Le Cantique des cantiques (Bible et vie chrétienne), Tournai – Paris, Casterman, 1960, pp. 173-177.

272

PART I – CHAPTER 4

following vv. 2-6 identify this woman as the community of the faithful that existed both before and after the coming of Christ446. The source for the image appears to be at once Gen 37,1-9, the dream of Joseph wherein he sees his father, mother, and eleven brothers bowing down before him (37,9)447 and the description of the Beloved in Song 6,10 LXX, where the Beloved is said to be “peeping forth like the dawn, fair as the moon (ὡς σελήνη), chosen as the sun (ὁ ἥλιος), awesome as (armies) arrayed”448. The crown of stars evokes the image of the woman as the mother of Israel (a conflation of Leah and Rachel), whose twelve sons are represented by the stars. At the same time the woman appears in the sky, just as the Beloved of the Song is “peeping forth” like a celestial being (cf. Ps 101[102],20). In addition the celestial bodies of the sun as her garment and the moon below her feet (a sign of submission of the cosmic forces to this woman) forge a stronger link with the Beloved of the Song, whose description – just as the woman’s in Rev 12,1 – is reminiscent of an ANE goddess449. As argued above (II.1), p. 179, Song 6,10 takes up this ANE love goddess iconography and applies it to the people of God personified in the Beloved of the Song. The Book of Revelation, familiar with the symbolism, draws on the imagery of Song 6,10 and applies it analogically to the personification of the people of God suffering the messianic birth pangs (Rev 12,2)450. This allusion to the Song of Songs presupposes an already existing tradition of reading the Song in an eschatological or apocalyptical context, as is attested to by the later Jewish tradition451. 3. Conclusion There is no convincing evidence that the Song’s “canonicity” was in doubt before “Jamnia” and in need of an “allegorical” re-interpretation 446. See BEALE, Revelation, p. 625. 447. See ibid. 448. See CAMBE, Influence, pp. 9-12. See also, A. FEUILLET, Le Cantique des cantiques et l’Apocalypse: Étude de deux réminiscences du Cantique dans l’Apocalypse johannique, in ID. (ed.), Études d’exégèse et de théologie biblique, Paris, Gabalda, 1975, 333-361, pp. 335-360; KAPLAN, Love Song, p. 20, and ID., My Perfect One, p. 186. 449. The most prominent contender is Isis. See the comprehensive discussion in D. AUNE, Revelation 6–16 (WBC, 52B), Grand Rapids, MI, Zondervan, 1998, p. 680. 450. See FEUILLET, Le Cantique des cantiques et l’Apocalypse. 451. Some Jewish commentators understood “open to me” in Song 5,2 as a call for Israel’s repentance within the context of the covenant relationship. See, for example, PesK 5.6-9, 24.12; PesR 15.6; BerR 33.3; ShirR V.2 §2. For further attestations in the New Testament of an already established symbolic reading of the Song, see KAPLAN, Love Song, and P.J. TOMSON, The Song of Songs in the Teachings of Jesus and the Development of the Exposition on the Song, in New Testament Studies 61 (2015) 429-447.

HISTORICAL POSTULATES: FROM COMPOSITION TO CANON

273

in order to be accepted as holy writ. Nor is there any evidence that Rabbi Akiva imposed an “allegorical” interpretation upon an allegedly profane book. Rather, there is sufficient evidence that its “allegorical” interpretation predates the turn of the era. The early attestations of its “allegorical” interpretation indicate that the Song was already considered a sacred writing by the first century B.C. at the latest. The Tannaitic material discussed above, in fact, indicates that a symbolic understanding of the Song could be taken for granted early in the first century. I fully agree with Lieber’s conclusion in which she says, “The narrator of m. Ta῾an. 4:8 does not need to linger expansively on his reading of Song 3:11 or persuade his audience of his point, and in m. Yad. 3:5 (and t. Sanh. 12:10), Rabbi Akiva is presented as speaking to colleagues already convinced of the Song’s sanctity”452. If the Tannaitic evidence was considered as questionable, there is at least first-century evidence of a symbolic understanding that precedes Akiva and Jamnia in 4 Ezra and the New Testament Book of Revelation453. The Rabbis of the Tannaitic period do not innovate the symbolic interpretation of the Song as a divine love song between God and Israel. Rather, they adapt “what they have received from a broader, late Second Temple Period tradition of interpreting the Song of Songs as a divine love song to their particular context”454. By the same token they do not invent the symbolic interpretation of the Song in order to accommodate it to the canon of Scripture455. 4. An Afterthought on “Canonization” The attempt to “fix” the moment of the Song’s canonization is misguided. Rather than being a single centralized event, a discrete process involving multiple related dynamics must be supposed. The text was already widely considered as sacred and authoritative before it reached its current shape. The strongest argument in favor of a formative, traditio-historical process rests upon the two shorter and differing versions of 4QCanta.b treated above. The fact that Song scrolls were found in Qumran testifies in all probability to the book’s status as a religious and authoritative text for the Qumran community. Furthermore, as is the case with other biblical books, these scrolls highlight the fact that in the final redaction of the Song its 452. LIEBER, Desire, p. 31. 453. For further evidence of New Testament allusions to the Song that presuppose a symbolic understanding of the Song, see TOMSON, The Song of Songs; and the bibliography mentioned in Chapter 12, VI.2. 454. KAPLAN, My Perfect One, p. 33. See extensively ID., Love Song. 455. See extensively KAPLAN, Love Song, pp. 41-76; see also BARTON, Canonicity, p. 5.

274

PART I – CHAPTER 4

written and oral tradition merged. The oral interpretation that had accompanied the transmission of the sacred scrolls has entered the redactional stream and become part of the written, sacred text. For this reason, Magne Sæbø speaks of the process of canonization as lying between the Vorand the Nachgeschichte of the book456. According to Sæbø, “The foundation was laid for the book’s canonization in different ways in the final stages of redaction”457. He thus envisions a “sacralization” by way of redaction, which led to its acceptance into the canon. “It may be argued”, he continues, “that before a biblical book had reached the canonical status of being a holy and authoritative entity, it was provided with the authority of some past personage of indisputable authority, such as the Law of Moses with Moses and the Psalms of David with David”458. In the case of the Song, this personage was Solomon. His name guaranteed the inspired character of the book459. Sæbø, as have many before him, detects a redaction that intended to “focus upon the picture of King Solomon as the exalted figure of authority in the book”460. “His honor, status, and authority seem to have contributed decisively to the status and authority of the collection of songs now constituting the Song, and may have been a primary cause for the upcoming process of ‘sacralization’ and canonization of the book. In due time, his authority became a shield preventing attack against it”461. Though Sæbø (taking up an expression of Childs’) makes out a number of further redactional “stamps” that “the collectors of Israel’s scripture left as a key for its interpretation”462, he concludes that it was beyond any dispute that “the complex Solomonic element in the Song had the primary significance for the process of ‘sacralization’ and canonization as part of the final stages in the tradition and redaction history of the book”463. 456. A similar language is adopted by E.C. ULRICH, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Delevopmental Composition of the Bible (VT.S, 169), Leiden – Boston, MA, Brill, 2015, p. 278: “The definition of a canon is a relatively minor matter. Much more important, interesting, and ripe for analysis is the canonical process – the historical development by which the oral and written literature of Israel, Judaism, and the early church was handed on, revised, and transformed into the scriptures that we have received, as well as the processes and criteria by which the various decisions were made”. 457. SAEBØ, Canonicity, p. 268. 458. Ibid., p. 270. See also TREBOLLE BARRERA, Bible, p. 153: “Sacred character was accorded to books which could prove a Mosaic or prophetic origin, going back to a period before the time when the continuous succession of prophets was finally broken”. 459. According to TREBOLLE BARRERA, Bible, p. 160, Solomon was considered a prophet, just like his father David. 460. SAEBØ, Canonicity, pp. 274-275. 461. Ibid., p. 277. 462. CHILDS, Introduction, p. 573. The further “stamps” he makes out are the adjuration formula not to wake up love before she pleases (2,7; 3,5; 8,4). 463. SAEBØ, Canonicity, p. 275.

HISTORICAL POSTULATES: FROM COMPOSITION TO CANON

275

Sæbø is correct to stress the attribution of the Song to Solomon in the superscription as a key element in assuring the Song its sacred, “canonical” status. He stretches the point, however, in claiming the same for the “Solomonic redaction” of the book’s corpus, for this redaction was not (as he imagines) the “sacralization” of a “collection of old love and marriage songs”464. Rather, the “Solomonic redaction” must be understood as a textualization of the oral tradition that had accompanied the transmission of the pre-canonical Song versions. It stands more to reason, then, that these texts, pregnant with a long history of transmission, were already part of the patrimony of Israel’s religious texts. In the course of their transmission the interpretation focused more and more on an identification of the royal features of the Song (Song 1,4.12 and 7,6) with the historical personage of King Solomon (Song 1,1.5b; 3,6-11; 8,11), thus resulting in the royal-messianic character that is so salient in the book we now call the Song of Songs.

VI. CONCLUSION The scope of this chapter was to trace the earliest attestations of a symbolic reading of the Song. To this end it was necessary to address the question of dating. On the one hand, the Song displays a remarkable poetic unity (I, above, p. 166). On the other hand, it is clearly of a composite nature as it combines sources from different origins in time and space. It has been concluded that the final unity must have been achieved by a governing ratio, that gave the Song its present coherent poetical form. This has a decisive import for the interpretation of the Song. First, the governing ratio (“author”) is the one who gives the Song its primary meaning, not the original sources. Second, because the final redaction appears to have happened at a very late moment in the Second Temple period (ca. second century B.C.), a highly developed canon consciousness can be presumed both on the side of the “author” as well as on that of the readers. The author synchronized the ancient sources with much younger texts and contemporary history. In this way, mythological features and eighth-century prophets are situated in the streams of messianic and canonical re-readings (II, above, p. 177). The Qumran Mss are an extremely important witness to the process of the Song’s growing composition. The manuscripts testify to a complicated redaction history that lasts until the turn of the era. They reflect, in fact, text forms that are older than and different from the final redaction reflected 464. Ibid.

276

PART I – CHAPTER 4

in the MT. Both confirm multiple variant readings of the LXX, the VL, the Vg, and the S; and both Mss strikingly confirm the Masoretic subdivisions by leaving major vacats between literary units. This is an important testimony to the antiquity of the literary structure as transmitted by the MT. Most importantly though, the passages missing both in 4Q106 and in 4Q107 arguably testify to later additions that are indicative of an early symbolic interpretation of the Song. All of the evidence taken together attests to the fact that the text was probably still open to interventions until into the first century B.C. (III, above p. 201). The quasi consensus on the LXX as proof for the Song’s cantos’ allegedly profane (or merely erotic) nature has been challenged. First the LXX’s literalism is no proof material for a (merely) erotic reading of the Song, for this kind of literalism is the typical characteristic of this translation family. All the translations and revisions of this late period are characterized by their extreme literalism. Because this is so, the variants in the LXX gain greater value. It is an established fact that this translation family seeks to facilitate proto-Rabbinic exegesis. Though examples in the LXX are less than what later revisers provide (Aquila, Theodotion, Symmachus, Quinta), the LXX displays some examples that indicate an established symbolic interpretation of those passages at the time of its translation. Finally, the discussion on the Song’s ability to defile the hands has been interpreted not as a proof for the Song’s difficulty in making it into the “canon”, but as proof for a discussion on ritual purity. In fact, as in the explanations of the Rabbis predating Akiva, some first-century symbolic allusions to the Song show that the symbolic understanding of the Song had been attained long before “Jamnia”. The historical argument was made that the symbolic understanding of the Song precedes the alleged “canonization” of the Song and is therefore not the result of the latter, but is already firmly established around the turn of the era. This data, taken together with the Qumran material, show that the process of composition and interpretation dislimn. It is inappropriate to claim an original profane or merely erotic character for the Song on the level of its composition and to attribute the theological interpretation of it to the later Rabbinic interpretation. Rather, the process of composition and that of interpretation are blurred and intertwine. The Song in its prior text forms was already received and handed down as symbolic of the love between God and Israel. The earliest symbolic interpretations have themselves become Scripture and must be reckoned as authoritative in our understanding of the text.

PART II

THE PHENOMENOLOGY OF THE SYMBOL

CHAPTER 5

THE SONG OF SONGS AND THE WISDOM OF THE KING

A considerable number of scholars classify the Song as belonging to the genre of wisdom literature1. As a consequence, any relationship of the book’s content with the history of Israel, as reflected in the historical or prophetic books of the Hebrew Bible, is a priori excluded2. Wisdom literature is understood to treat creation theology, which is supposedly characterized by its “lack of concern for ‘the history of salvation’”3. Walther Zimmerli’s influential, categorical affirmation typifies this perspective: “Wisdom thinks resolutely within the framework of creation”4. For that reason the Song’s subject is predefined as treating exclusively the created reality of human love. Although a merging of wisdom and Heilsgeschichte is admitted for very late books like Ben Sira, Baruch, and the Wisdom of Solomon5, this possibility is flatly excluded for the Solomonic triad of Proverbs, Qohelet, and the Song6. The result of this rigid perspective is that the symbolic interpretation of the Song, being concerned with covenant history and grounded in a wide range of inner-biblical allusions, is on the basis of the Song’s interpretation as wisdom literature preemptively ruled out7. 1. See, e.g., G. KUHN, Erklärung des Hohen Liedes, in Neue Kirchliche Zeitschrift 37 (1926) 501-510; 521-578; J.-P. AUDET, Le sens du Cantique des cantiques, in RB 62 (1955) 197-221; WINANDY – DUBARLE, Cantique; M. SADGROVE, The Song of Songs as Wisdom Literature, in E.A. LIVINGSTONE (ed.), Studia Biblica 1978. I: Papers on Old Testament and Related Themes. Sixth International Congress on Biblical Studies, Oxford 3-7 April 1978 (JSOTS, 11), Sheffield, JSOT, 1979, 245-248; CHILDS, Introduction; KRINETZKI, Hohelied; N.J. TROMP, Wisdom and the Canticle, in M. GILBERT (ed.), La Sagesse de l’Ancien Testament (BETL, 51), Leuven, Peeters, 1990, 88-95; K.L. SPARKS, The Song of Songs: Wisdom for Young Jewish Women, in CBQ 70 (2008) 277-299. 2. See, for example, BARBIERO, Song, p. 39; ELLIOTT, Literary Unity, pp. 263-265; KEEL, Hohelied, p. 15; CHILDS, Introduction, p. 574. 3. R.E. MURPHY, Tree of Life: An Exploration of Biblical Wisdom Literature, Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 21996, p. 1. 4. ZIMMERLI, Wisdom, p. 148. 5. M. GILBERT, L’Antique Sagesse d’Israël: Études sur Proverbes, Job, Qohélet et leur prolongements (ÉB, NS 68), Pendé, Gabalda, 2015, p. 357. 6. See the helpful summary of theories on how the traditions came to be equated in post-exilic Israel, the book of Sirach in particular, by E.J. SCHNABEL, Law and Wisdom from Ben Sira to Paul: A Tradition Historical Enquiry into the Relation of Law, Wisdom, and Ethics (WUNT, II/16), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 1985, pp. 1-7. 7. Already in 1994 Jon Levenson observed: “The old separation of creation from the history of redemption (Heilsgeschichte) has been eroding in recent decades, but the full

280

PART II – CHAPTER 5

Underlying this line of argument is a confusion between the complex phenomenon abstractly labeled by modern scholars as “wisdom literature” and the ancient canonical entity of “Solomonic books”, i.e., books concretely ascribed to the wise King Solomon. The Song is a Solomonic book, but it does not – according to the criteria of Zimmerli – belong to wisdom literature, to which alone the wisdom-creation theology equation might apply8. Certain wisdom motifs do indeed find expression in the Song, but these must be subordinated to and viewed within a more fundamental and fertile complex of ideas: ANE royal ideology. It is in this specific context that the Solomonic character of the Song emerges in its fullest clarity, integrating both sapiential elements and ultimately, an evocative sacred marriage paradigm (see Chapter 6, below). The simplistic equation “wisdom books = creation theology” has been superseded in recent years9. Not a single biblical book conforms to this categorical conceit. Not only late books like Ben Sira and the Wisdom of Solomon, but even those books which are traditionally considered genuine wisdom books, that is, Job, Proverbs, and Qohelet, all display a hybrid form of a sapiential reflection, read in the light of the Law and Prophets and hence of Israel’s history with God10. measure of congruence between the two needs attention”. See J.D. LEVENSON, Creation and the Persistence of Evil: The Jewish Drama of Divine Omnipotence, San Francisco, CA, Harper & Row, 1988, p. xiv. Unfortunately, more than twenty years later this separation still prevents us from exploring the Song in light of Israel’s Heilsgeschichte. 8. Within the Hebrew Bible three books are reckoned as wisdom literature: Proverbs, Job, and Qohelet. The LXX adds two more: Ben Sira and the Wisdom of Solomon. See MURPHY, Tree, p. 1; GILBERT, Antique Sagesse, pp. 6-11. None of the classical introductions to wisdom literature number the Song of Songs in their index. 9. It is not denied that the equation holds true for the sources of the biblical wisdom books. Proverbs, for example, “is grounded in cosmic orderliness and retributive optimism”. In their present biblical shape, however, all these books have undergone a relecture in the light of the law, which results in a “synthetic theological and literary force brought to bear by the order of arrangement of the final collection”. See R. O’DOWD, The Wisdom of Torah: Epistemology in Deuteronomy and the Wisdom Literature (FRLANT, 225), Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009, p. 10. 10. Ibid., p. 113, n. 17, observes: “By centring wisdom on the fear of ‫יהוה‬, the God of creation, the writers of Proverbs contextualise wisdom within covenantal language. Torah is not explicitly abandoned”. According to R.C. VAN LEEUWEN, Proverbs, in The New Interpreter’s Bible, V, Nashville, TN, Abingdon, 1997, 19-264, p. 33: “With very few exceptions, Proverbs refers to God as ‘the Lord’ (Yahweh), the god who made covenant with Israel and led the people throughout history (cf. Gen 20:11; Eccl 12:13). … The editors of Proverbs are very consistent in avoiding the suggestion that the God of the sages is any other than Israel’s covenant God, Yahweh … Perhaps the consistent use of ‘Yahweh’ was meant to forestall the idea that the God of Proverbs was not Israel’s covenant God”. A different perspective is opened up by F.J. GONÇALVÈS, Deux systèmes religieux dans l’Ancien Testament: De la concurrence à la convergence, in Annuaire de l’École pratique des hautes études. Sciences religieuses 115 (2007) 117-122, who holds that the Old

281

THE SONG OF SONGS AND THE WISDOM OF THE KING

In this chapter a different analysis of the Song’s affinities to wisdom literature will be offered, stressing the importance of the figure of Solomon as an embodiment of the archetypal ANE king. It endeavors to show that the Solomonic coloring of the Song points in the direction of ANE royal ideology, not towards a type of secular “creation theology” hermetically sealed from religious and cultic interests. The chapter will first (I) expound the problem using Childs’ emblematic proposition about the Song as wisdom literature. In a second step (II), the origin of the “scholarly divorce of wisdom from salvation history” will be exposed and critiqued. Three examples of recent scholarship will be adduced to show that the merging of the two currents of wisdom and Heilsgeschichte must be assumed for a much broader range of wisdom literature than presumed by the conventional consensus. Finally (III), the Song’s affiliation with wisdom literature through its Solomonic ascription is discussed and aligned with an ANE constellation of ideas about the ideal king.

I. THE CONSENSUS: SOLOMON, WISDOM,

AND THE

SONG

The consensus that the Song, as an instance of wisdom literature, necessarily concerns the “created” nature of love between a man and a woman – to the exclusion of all covenantal allusions – is nowhere more clearly expressed than in the work of Brevard Childs. His argument will first be summarized (I.1) and then critiqued (I.2). 1. The Song as Creation Theology According to Brevard Childs, the key to the Song’s interpretation must be sought in the canonical shape of the book, that is, in “the particular stamp which the collectors of Israel’s scripture left as a key for its interpretation”. He considers this stamp to be the ascription of the book to Solomon in its superscript. Childs interprets the Solomonic ascription not in terms of a historical Solomonic authorship, as was traditionally the case, but in view of Solomon “as the source of Israel’s wisdom literature”11. Testament encompasses two distinct Yahwisms: one founded on the creation myth and the other founded on the history of YHWH and Israel. Though his proposal is cogent, I still hold that the redactional “interpretative frame” of Proverbs 1–9 and 31 situates the originally genuine wisdom/creation material within the context of the Torah. See II.2.a, below, p. 291. 11. CHILDS, Introduction, p. 573.

282

PART II – CHAPTER 5

Just “as Moses is the source of the Law, and David of the Psalms, so is Solomon the father of sapiential writing”12, Childs affirms that the mention of Solomon relates the Song to the realm of wisdom, the book “is to be understood as wisdom literature”13. On the basis of this classification, Childs derives far-reaching conclusions for the Song’s interpretation. He states, “The effect of this classification [i.e. as wisdom literature] has some immediate implications for the reading of the book, both in terms of its form and content”14. On the basis of a perspective on wisdom literature as creation theology, Childs explains: “Wisdom sought to understand through reflection the nature of the world and of human experience in relation to divine reality. … By ordering the Song within wisdom literature certain other alternative contexts for interpreting it are ruled out. Thus, for example the Song is not to be understood simply as secular songs which have only superficially been offered a sacred meaning”15. This initial conclusion can easily be affirmed. It is, however, valid for any scriptural book and is not directly derived from the Song’s classification among the wisdom books. Childs’ second conclusion goes even further and must be challenged as a problematic a priori assumption with untenable consequences for the Song’s interpretation. The recognition of the Song as wisdom, he states, runs counter to a symbolic reading of the Song as a text concerned with God’s covenant love, because such an understanding would “transfer the Song into a different genre of biblical literature”16. By interpreting the Song’s imagery primarily within the framework of prophetic literature, the book is made to symbolize the prophetic themes of God’s love for his people, of the new exodus etc. But these are precisely the themes which are missing in the wisdom corpus. … It transfers the canonical text into a product of a learned reflection akin to Chronicles. Only after the Old Testament period did wisdom and midrash come together in this way, as for example Ben Sira and early rabbinic literature17.

According to Childs, the content of the Song is predetermined by its affiliation with wisdom literature. Since wisdom – according to the classical scholarly definitions related by Childs – treats creation theology, it must be the “love between a man and his wife”, that “inextinguishable force within the human experience … which the sage seeks to understand [in 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17.

Ibid., p. 574. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid., pp. 574-575.

THE SONG OF SONGS AND THE WISDOM OF THE KING

283

the Song]”18. Presupposing the “Hebrew order of the family as a part of the given order of his society”, the Song, according to Childs, can only be “wisdom’s reflection on the joyful and mysterious nature of love between a man and a woman within the institution of marriage”19. 2. A Mistake in Category Childs’ reasoning is emblematic of many approaches to Song exegesis and needs to be addressed, for it has led scholarship to an impasse20. This impasse is due to a basic mistake in category, which confuses the scholarly entity called “wisdom literature” or simply “wisdom” with the canonical entity of “Solomonic books” and imposes the criteria derived from the study of the former onto the latter21. Wisdom as an entity apart from the Law and the Prophets is a scholarly construct that was developed in the nineteenth century, following Hermann Gunkel’s development of form criticism22. It is derived from the observation of a common ANE phenomenon of sapiential reflection on universal experience, from which rules of conduct for a good living are derived23. In biblical wisdom scholarship two types of texts are reckoned among 18. Ibid., p. 575. 19. Ibid. 20. The same argument is made by Othmar Keel and the defenders of a naturalistic reading. According to them, the Bildfeld marriage with God is “typical for the prophetic literature and strictly confined to it. The Song on the other hand has always been passed on as part of the wisdom tradition”. The Song, being part of the wisdom literature, must therefore be, by definition, a meditation on the created reality of the loving attraction between the sexes. KEEL, Hohelied, p. 15. See also, ELLIOTT, Literary Unity, pp. 263-265; A. NICCACCI, Il libro della Sapienza: Introduzione e commento, Padova, Messaggero, 2007, p. 105; BARBIERO, Song, p. 39. Much more nuanced is F. LANDY, Paradoxes of Paradise (BiLiSe, 7), Sheffield, Almond Press, 1983, pp. 24-33, n. 69, who expressly objects to a dissociation of wisdom from cult and law. 21. See also LACOCQUE, Romance, p. 8. 22. See W. KYNES, The Nineteenth-Century Beginnings of ‘Wisdom Literature’, and Its Twenty-First-Century End?, in J. JARICK (ed.), Perspectives on Israelite Wisdom: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar (LHB/OTS, 618), New York, T&T Clark, 2015, 83-108; M.V. FOX, Three Theses on Wisdom, in M. SNEED (ed.), Was There a Wisdom Tradition? New Prospects in Israelite Wisdom Studies (SBLAIL, 23), Atlanta, GA, SBL Press, 2015, 69-86; and M. SNEED, Is the “Wisdom Tradition” a Tradition?, in CBQ 73 (2011) 50-71. 23. In his introduction to wisdom literature MURPHY, Tree, p. 1, gives a standard definition of wisdom: “The most striking characteristic of this literature is the absence of what one normally considers as typically Israelite and Jewish. There is no mention of the promises to the patriarchs, the Exodus and Moses, the covenant and Sinai, the promise to David (2 Sam 7), and so forth. The exceptions to this statement, Sir 44–50 and Wis 11–19, are very late, and they only prove the rule. Wisdom does not re-present the actions of God in Israel’s history; it deals with daily human experience in the good world created by God”.

284

PART II – CHAPTER 5

wisdom literature: “(1) experimental wisdom, chiefly in the form of brief proverbial sayings or longer instructions; and (2) theoretical wisdom, either as philosophical probing of life’s inequities or as personal reflections on life’s meaning in the light of death’s inevitability”24. These types are considered to be genuinely represented in books like Job, Proverbs, and Qohelet, Ben Sira, and the Wisdom of Solomon25. Parts of other books, for instance Genesis 1; 2–3, some Psalms (e.g. Ps 1; 19; 37; 49; 73; 90; 112; 119; 139), Bar 3,9–4,4, and Tob 4,3-19 and 14,8-11, are also reckoned as belonging to wisdom26 . When speaking about wisdom, Katherine Dell adopts a helpful distinction between three categories: “wisdom literature” as a scholarly designation for a certain corpus of closely defined books in the Bible (i.e. Job, Proverbs, Qohelet, Ben Sira, Wisdom), “wisdom as a genre which might include evidence of wisdom influence in a predominantly non-wisdom text” (e.g. Baruch, Tobit, Genesis, and the Psalms), and “Wisdom, with a capital W, as referring to the female personification as found in Proverbs 1–9”27. Concerning the classification of the Song, Dell affirms, first, that it clearly cannot “be characterized as wisdom literature in the same way as Proverbs or Ecclesiastes on a narrow, form-critical definition”28. Secondly, that “in relation to the wisdom genre; even on a wider definition of the genre of wisdom, which might arguably include works influenced strongly by wisdom forms or ideas, the Song tends to stay off the list”29, for the Song belongs to a different genre, that is, to the genre of ANE love poetry of which 24. J.L. CRENSHAW, Old Testament Wisdom: An Introduction. Revised and Enlarged, Louisville, KY, Westminster John Knox, 1998, p. 5. 25. See ibid., p. 4; and M. GILBERT, La Sagesse de Salomon / The Wisdom of Solomon (AnBib, 189), Roma, Gregorian Biblical Press, 2011, p. 13. ZIMMERLI, Wisdom, p. 146, regards as wisdom literature only the book of Proverbs, Qohelet, some Psalms, and some parts of Job. In his pivotal book Weisheit in Israel, Gerhard VON RAD treats Proverbs, Qohelet, Job, and the Wisdom of Ben Sira. More recent introductions like the one by Markus SAUR still treat as wisdom proper only the book of Proverbs, Job, and Qohelet, and as deuterocanonical the book Ben Sira, the Wisdom of Solomon, and the book of Tobit. Einführung in die alttestamentliche Weisheitsliteratur, Darmstadt, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2012. MURPHY, Tree, pp. 106-107, who deems it “needless to say, [that] the Canticle is not a wisdom book; it is a collection of love poems”, is, however, among the few writers on wisdom literature who has included a section on the Song entitled “Wisdom’s Echoes” in his introduction. 26. See M. GILBERT, Les cinq livres des Sages: Proverbes – Job – Qohélet – Ben Sira – Sagesse (Lire la Bible, 129), Paris, Cerf, 2003, pp. 16-18. 27. K.J. DELL, Does the Song of Songs Have Any Connection with Wisdom?, in A.C. HAGEDORN (ed.), Perspectives on the Song of Songs / Perspektiven der Hoheliedauslegung (BZAW, 346), Berlin, De Gruyter, 2005, 8-26, p. 8. 28. Ibid. 29. Ibid., p. 9.

THE SONG OF SONGS AND THE WISDOM OF THE KING

285

there are parallels both in the Egyptian and the Mesopotamian literature30. For this reason the Song does not feature in any of the classical introductions to wisdom literature31. The Song is not a wisdom book32. In addition to Dell’s three senses of “wisdom” (literature, genre, personification), a further distinction must be made. From the scholarly classification of books as “wisdom literature” one needs to distinguish books that are attributed to Solomon and are, by that token, sometimes considered as belonging to wisdom. “Wisdom literature” as defined by historical-critical scholarship is not automatically identical to “Solomonic literature”. Not every text written in a sapiential mode33 has been attributed to Solomon (cf. Job, sapiential Psalms, Ben Sira), nor, inversely, does every book or text attributed to Solomon belong automatically to wisdom literature (e.g., Psalms 72; 127; Psalms of Solomon)34. The wide range of 30. “The agreed designation for the Song in modern times, […] is that of love songs”. Ibid. 31. See, e.g., H. MEINHOLD, Die Weisheit Israels: In Spruch, Sage und Dichtung, Leipzig, Quelle & Meyer, 1908; H. DUESBERG, Les scribes inspirés. I: Le Livre des Proverbes. II: Job et L’Ecclésiaste – L’Ecclésiastique – La Sagesse, Paris, Desclée de Brouwer, 1939; MURPHY, Song; CRENSHAW, Wisdom; K.J. DELL, Get Wisdom, Get Insight: An Introduction to Israel’s Wisdom Literature, Macon, GA, Smyth & Helwys, 2000; L.G. PERDUE, The Sword and the Stylus: An Introduction to Wisdom in the Age of the Empires, Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 2008. For a detailed argument against classifying the Song as wisdom literature see A. SCHELLENBERG, Questioning the Trend of Classifying the Song of Songs as Sapiential, in H. JENNI – M. SAUR (eds.), Nächstenliebe und Gottesfurcht: Beiträge aus alttestamentlicher, semitischer und altorientalistischer Wissenschaft für Hans-Peter Mathys zum 65. Geburtstag (AOAT, 439), Münster, Ugarit-Verlag, 2016, 393408. 32. Pace J. STEINBERG, Die Ketuvim – ihr Aufbau und ihre Botschaft (BBB, 152), Hamburg, Philo, 2006, pp. 343-344, 369–373; ID., Das Hohelied – ein integrativer Ansatz, in S. RIECKER – J. STEINBERG (eds.), Das heilige Herz der Tora: Festschrift für Hendrik Koorevaar zu seinem 65. Geburtstag (Theologische Studien), Aachen, Shaker, 2011, 167181, pp. 179-181. 33. In applying the term “mode” I adopt a proposition made by SNEED, Tradition?, p. 57: “Hebrew wisdom literature should be described as a mode of literature and not strictly a genre. Mode is a broader category than genre, a higher level of abstraction. It is usually recognized in an adjectival form as, for example, in comic play or heroic epic. Other modes in the Hebrew Bible include legal material, historical books, prophetic literature, and so on”. On the distinction between “mode” and “genre” see the seminal distinction introduced by A. FOWLER, Kinds of Literature: An Introduction to the Theory of Genres and Modes, Oxford, Clarendon, 1982, pp. 106-111. See also J. FROW, Genre: The New Critical Idiom, London, Routledge, 2006, pp. 63-67. 34. The matter is further complicated by the fact that the Christian tradition later came to group the Solomonic books together in the Canon and speak of them in terms of a canonical entity as Salomonis libri quinque. As such it considered the books of Proverbs, Song of Songs, Qohelet, Ben Sira, and Wisdom (although Ben Sira is nowhere in Scriptures ascribed to Solomon). The term Salomoni libri V is first attested to at the Council of Hippo (393 A.D., canon 36) and received by the Council of Carthage, called the third by Denzinger (397 A.D., canon 47), from whence onwards it becomes a technical term to designate the

286

PART II – CHAPTER 5

literary genres attributed to Solomon burst the narrow categories of the form-critical definition of “wisdom”. It is only because of its attribution to Solomon that the Song has come to be reckoned by Childs and others as a wisdom text of some sort. According to the definitions derived from form criticism, however, which eventually led to the “wisdom = creation theology” equation, the Song does not count as wisdom literature. Yet, because the Christian tradition has transmitted the Song within a corpus that is canonically speaking “sapiential” due to its attribution to Solomon, the Song is indiscriminately interpreted as if it belonged to the category of wisdom35. It is, however, essential to keep the Solomonic attribution and its resulting affinity with biblical wisdom distinct from the scholarly classifications and definitions of wisdom literature36. 3. Solomonic Books There is no scholarly certainty as to why some books have been attributed to Solomon. Was it in order to assure their inspired character by associating them with Israel’s wisest king?37 Or was there an interest in classifying books according to biblical modes like law, prophets, psalms, wisdom, apocalyptic literature? The latter suggestion must be discarded, canonical books attributed to Solomon. See Enchiridion Biblicum: Documenta Ecclesiastica Sacram Scripturam Spectantia, 4th ed., Rome, 1965, pp. 9-10, nos. 16, 19. Both the term and the classification are, however, specific to the Latin tradition. They are neither found in the Hebrew Canon, which knows only the three sub-categories of law, prophets and ketuvim, nor in the Greek canon lists which follow no fixed order. The Jewish lists count consistently eleven ketuvim (writings), but display no fixed order. The Patristic Synodal lists of the Eastern Churches display no fixed order of books either, but the Song is always grouped with Proverbs and Qohelet and ranges third among them. See H.B. SWETE, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2 1914, pp. 200, 203-210. 35. Note that the Jewish tradition transmits the Song within the third part of its canon, the “writings” or ketuvim. In the present order of books it is classified within the Megilloth following the order of feasts during which they are read. This tradition is first attested in the seventh century A.D. The Jewish tradition shows no concern for grouping books according to their authors. In the ancient lists, the Song has different “neighbors” in nearly every list. See ibid., p. 200. 36. DELL, Song, p. 8. See also R.N. WHYBRAY, The Intellectual Tradition in the Old Testament (BZAW, 135), Berlin, De Gruyter, 1974, pp. 119-120: “No doubt it was the ascription to Solomon which led to the classification of this book with the ‘wisdom’ books; but this ascription does not necessarily indicate an original attachment to any specific ‘wisdom’ tradition”. 37. See, e.g., W. BRUEGGEMANN, An Introduction to the Old Testament: The Canon and Christian Imagination, London, Westminster John Knox, 2003, p. 324. Just like the Psalter was attributed to King David, the prophet, wisdom literature would have been attributed to King Solomon, thereby assuring the book’s divine inspiration.

THE SONG OF SONGS AND THE WISDOM OF THE KING

287

for even though this might be the case for Moses and the Law, the Hebrew tradition knows no such subcategories. The ketuvim, to which the canonical Solomonic books belong, gather together a number of authors as well as anonymous books of different literary genres38. The subdivision of some of the books belonging to the ketuvim into a category of “wisdom literature” is actually not attested before the eighteenth century39. For the same reason, Childs’ argument against interpreting the Song’s imagery primarily within the framework of prophetic literature is based on a faulty premise. According to Childs, this would erroneously transfer the canonical text into a world of learned reflection akin to Chronicles. It is, however, not the exegete who transfers the Song in a context akin to that of Chronicles, but the Hebrew canon itself. The ketuvim is the only subcategory genuine to the Hebrew tradition, and in this context the Song and Chronicles are, in fact, related. It is, thus, the opposite of Childs’ contention. Squeezing the Song into a pre-conceived idea of possible wisdom topics is a procedure extrinsic to both the text and its canonical position. Nonetheless, Solomon is the biblical patron of wisdom, and by its attribution the Song has become affiliated with the other Solomonic books, many of which are characterized by their association with wisdom. Childs is correct in saying that it may represent “a deliberate attempt to associate this work, in a more integrated way, to wisdom’s wisest patron, Solomon”40. The attribution of the Song to Solomon, however, does not make of the Song a Wisdom book. It was not because of its alleged wisdom character that the Song was attributed to Solomon41. Rather, because Solomon plays an eminent role within the book’s body (cf. Song 1,5; 3,7.9.11; 8,11-12), it was fitting to attribute it subsequently to Solomon’s authority through association with his name42. As a consequence of that attribution, or by the same token, it was classified with the other Solomonic books, some 38. On the constitution of the Ketuvim, see DE PURY, Qohélet et le canon des Ketubim, pp. 175-198. He calls them an “anthology of different literary genres”, and observes that “the diversity of the literary genres is so great, and apparently systematic, that it must be tied to the nature of this collection, and could well constitute the principle of its organization”. 39. See J. TRUBLET, Le corpus sapientiel et le Psautier, in La Sagesse Biblique (LeDiv, 160), Paris, Cerf, 1995, 139-174, p. 139; for an even later dating see KYNES, Wisdom Literature. 40. DELL, Song, p. 13. 41. See SAEBØ, Canonicity, p. 271. 42. Ibid. The attribution must not be “regarded so much in terms of Solomonic authorship as in the terms of securing the book’s authority through association with the name of a person of authority”.

288

PART II – CHAPTER 5

of which have come to be classified as wisdom literature. Yet it is important to maintain a right ordering. It was not because of the Song’s sapiential perspective that Solomon was identified as its author, but rather, the book was associated (first by modern scholars) with wisdom because of its attribution to Solomon. The fabled person of the king, rather than the exegetes’ taxonomic abstraction, must be given the hermeneutical priority.

II. THE DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE OF WISDOM AND HISTORY In addition to this basic mistake in category which conflates Solomonic and wisdom literature, one should note that the “divorce of wisdom and history” that was introduced in the twentieth century has also been a problematic assumption in Song scholarship. In other words, misclassification has been compounded with a dangerous mischaracterization, for the incompatibility of salvation history with wisdom motifs can no longer be upheld – not even for those books that have without dispute always been counted as “wisdom literature”. Within the biblical corpus of wisdom literature, a number of allusions to the history between God and Israel, i.e., the Law and the Prophets, can, in fact, be found. As recent scholarship shows, the classical form-critical definition is too narrow and insufficient to describe the phenomenon of wisdom in the Bible43. This section will briefly trace how the divorce came about (II.1) and, following the example of some recent studies, show that it cannot be maintained (II.2). The phenomenon of biblical wisdom is much larger than just an experiential reflection on the universe. All the biblical wisdom books in their final redactional stages have been integrated into the covenant faith of Israel, becoming sapiential reflections on earlier wisdom material in the light of Israel’s history with God. 1. Wisdom and History Opposed The categorization of wisdom as a genre began in the nineteenth century. It is a modern scholarly construct. Under the influence of Wellhausen’s geschichtstheologische view, wisdom literature was seen as a corruption 43. According to SCHWIENHORST-SCHÖNBERGER, Alttestamentliche Weisheit, p. 141: “[s]tudies of intertextual relationships and those focused on the practice of ‘inner-biblical exegesis’ have brought out stronger connections between what are generally regarded as ‘wisdom books’ and the narrative, poetic, cultic, prophetic and legal traditions”.

THE SONG OF SONGS AND THE WISDOM OF THE KING

289

of revelation and considered as marginal in the biblical canon44. It was Gerhard von Rad who, by its favorable treatment in the first volume of his pivotal Theologie des Alten Testaments, revived an appreciative interest in wisdom literature and encouraged its focused study45. Expanding on the form-critical investigations of Hermann Gunkel, von Rad introduced what has been aptly called “a scholarly divorce of wisdom from history”46. This view found a further influential expression in a seminal article by Walther Zimmerli in 1964, entitled “The Place and Limit of Wisdom in the Framework of Old Testament Theology”47. On the basis of the formcritical analysis developed by Gunkel, von Rad and Zimmerli draw a sharp distinction between revelation through the history of Israel, as expressed by the Law and the Prophets, and the wisdom of Israel. Law and Prophets are concerned with direct revelation and therefore with the Heilsgeschichte of Israel. Wisdom literature, on the other hand, issues not from direct divine revelation, but rather from the sages’ meditation on cosmic realities48. It is thus concerned with Schöpfungstheologie49. In the apodictic 44. Ibid., pp. 119-120, cites emblematically Karl Marti: “Zwar hat sie ‘einen religiösen Grund’, doch erreicht sie nicht ‘die Reinheit der prophetischen Sittenlehre, vielmehr drängt sich die Rücksicht auf den Erfolg … allzu stark hervor’” (K. MARTI, Geschichte der israelitischen Religion, Strassburg, Friedrich Bull, 41903, p. 237). Such a negative view of wisdom is still represented by Horst Dietrich von Preuß. According to him Old Testament wisdom belongs to the “Frömmigkeit des natürlichen Menschen”, which is doomed to fail. “Es scheiterte die optimistische Auffassung eines Ordnungsdenkens im Tun-ErgehenZusammenhang sowohl an der Empirie wie an JHWH, der sich so nicht verrechnen ließ”. H.D. PREUSS, Einführung in die alttestamentliche Weisheitsliteratur, Stuttgart, Kohlhammer, 1987, pp. 189, 176. 45. See in detail SAUR, Einführung, pp. 31-42; and SCHWIENHORST-SCHÖNBERGER, Alttestamentliche Weisheit, pp. 119-122. 46. BARBOUR, The Story of Israel in the Book of Qohelet, p. 1. 47. ZIMMERLI, Wisdom. 48. See for example GILBERT, Sagesse de Salomon, p. 358: “Croyants sincères [les sages], leur recherche ne s’appuyait pas sur la révélation historique dont Abraham et ses fils, Moïse et les prophètes avaient été les messagers. Ils s’appuyaient plutôt sur une théologie de la création, plus universelle dans son principe. Car les lois de la nature révèlent l’intention du Créateur de l’univers, le même que se révéla dans l’histoire religieuse de l’antique Israël”. 49. See also H.-J. HERMISSON, Weisheit und Geschichte, in H.W. WOLFF (ed.), Probleme biblischer Theologie: Gerhard von Rad zum 70. Geburtstag, München, Kaiser, 1971, 137148: “Sie [ist] auf der Suche nach den in der Welt gültigen Ordnungen, nach dem Zusammenhang der Phänomene im sozialen wie im natürlichen Bereich, nach der Gesetzmäßigkeit bestimmter, immer wiederkehrender und so als gültige Wahrheit fixierbarer Abläufe, so muß sie offenbar von geschichtlicher Kontingenz gerade absehen. Gewiß hat die Weisheit wo sie vom Menschen redet, geschichtliche Phänomene im Blick, aber das ändert nichts an dem Sachverhalt, daß die Geschichte eines Volkes in der eigentlichen Weisheitsliteratur nirgends thematisch wird – sieht man einmal von der spätnachexilischen israelitischen Weisheit ab” (p. 136).

290

PART II – CHAPTER 5

words of Zimmerli, “wisdom has no relation to the history between God and Israel”50. According to him, wisdom stops short, “behind the full message of election and grace in the Old Testament”51. A full discussion of the development of this perspective is beyond the scope of this study. It is, however, helpful to see where this definition of wisdom literature has its roots and to understand its assumptions. It is the result of the form-critical analysis of the books of Proverbs, Qohelet, some Psalms, and part of the book of Job. It is here that the genuine character of wisdom as creation theology is most apparent, and one indeed perceives a mode of thinking “resolutely within the framework of a theology of creation”52. Sapiential material in this mode is said to have a “world-wide horizon” and is not confined to the historical revelation of God to Israel. It “aims at mastering the reality of the world”, is a “description of the creation”, and “ultimately … aims at showing how man should live”53. “Wisdom shows man as a being who goes out, who apprehends through his knowledge, who establishes, who orders his world”54. Conscious of the fact that the world has been created by God, the sage is confident that the same creation is based on a divine order which is accessible to the human mind by observation. 2. The Merging of Wisdom and History Although both the salvation-historical theology of the prophets and sapiential creation theology have equal claims to ancient roots in Israel, it may be conceded that they might have kept each other “at arm’s length” during the pre-exilic period55. After the traumatic experience of the exile, 50. ZIMMERLI, Wisdom, p. 147. 51. Ibid., p. 158. For a good summary of this so far prevailing paradigm, see also SNEED, Tradition?, pp. 50-53 and his introduction to M. SNEED (ed.), Was There a Wisdom Tradition? New Prospects in Israelite Wisdom Traditions (SBLAIL, 23), Atlanta, GA, SBL Press, 2015, pp. 1-2. 52. ZIMMERLI, Wisdom, p. 148. 53. Ibid., p. 150. 54. Ibid. 55. See D.G. MEADE, Pseudonymity and Canon: An Investigation into the Relationship of Authorship and Authority in Jewish and Earliest Christian Tradition (WUNT, 39), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 1986, p. 47. I cite this as a concession to the mainstream consensus. After I had completed writing this chapter, the book edited by SNEED (ed.), Wisdom Tradition, came to my attention. The majority of its contributors (Weeks, Sneed, Saur, Heckl, Kynes, Fox, and Hamilton) argue against the boundaries that scholars have raised between the various traditions reflected in the Bible. In fact, Sneed, Kynes, and Fox are probably right in affirming that a separate wisdom tradition never existed in ancient Israel. See SNEED, Tradition?; W. KYNES, The Modern Scholarly Wisdom Tradition and the Threat of Pan-Sapientialism: A Case Report, in M. SNEED (ed.), Was There a Wisdom

THE SONG OF SONGS AND THE WISDOM OF THE KING

291

however, this sharp distinction vanished. The new national religious identity that the exile helped to forge led gradually to a reconciliation of the different currents and to an increasing “nationalization” of later wisdom and its closer identification with covenant and Law56. The embodiment of this marriage between the two currents is best seen in the books of Ben Sira and the Wisdom of Solomon57. These books represent a sapiential reflection on the history between God and Israel, i.e., the law and the prophets. a) Wisdom and History in Classical Wisdom Books Though many hold that the merging of the two currents occurs only with the book of Ben Sira58, recent scholarship into the classical wisdom books of Proverbs, Job, and Qohelet shows that the process began much earlier and is already expressed in those very books. In fact, there is no wisdom book in the Hebrew Scriptures which is not a product of the fusion of wisdom and history. As the following examples show, the strict dichotomy wisdom vs. history can no longer be defended. (i) Proverbs 1–9 and the Torah Since Johannes Fichtner’s 1933 study Die altorientalische Weisheit in ihrer israelitisch-jüdischen Ausprägung, the prevailing opinion holds that, though one encounters words like ‫תורה‬, ‫ מצות‬and ‫ דברים‬in the book of Proverbs, they have a different meaning there than in the book of Deuteronomy59. Fichtner reasons within the paradigm of a sharp distinction between wisdom and the mosaic Law. This distinction has shaped wisdom scholarship so deeply that even Michael Fox’s recent commentary (20002009) is still entirely based upon it60. Voices arguing to the contrary, Tradition? New Prospects in Israelite Wisdom Traditions (SBLAIL, 23), Atlanta, GA, SBL Press, 2015, 11-38; and FOX, Three Theses on Wisdom. 56. MEADE, Pseudonymity, p. 47. On the merging of the currents see further O’DOWD, Wisdom, pp. 162-183. 57. See GILBERT, Les cinq livres des Sages, pp. 266-268. 58. CHILDS, Introduction, p. 575. According to Whybray, “[i]t is a commonplace that Ben Sira was the first Jewish wisdom writer to concern himself with historical events and persons”. WHYBRAY, Ben Sira and History, p. 137. This common persuasion is also reflected by Martin Hengel, who asserts that before Ben Sira, wisdom literature was “unhistorical”. HENGEL, Judaism and Hellenism I, p. 131. 59. J. FICHTNER, Die altorientalische Weisheit in ihrer israelitisch-jüdischen Ausprägung: Eine Studie zur Nationalisierung der Weisheit in Israel (BZAW, 62), Giessen, Töpelmann, 1933, p. 82. 60. M.V. FOX, Proverbs 1–9: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AncB, 18A), New York, Doubleday, 2000; ID., Proverbs 10–31: A New Translation with

292

PART II – CHAPTER 5

however, have never been lacking61, and these have begun to gain the upper hand since studies in intertextuality have advanced. Thus, in a study comparing the epilogue of Qoh 12,9-14 to the introduction of Prov 1,1-8 and their intertextual links with Deuteronomy, Gerhard Wilson already in 1984 came to the conclusion that [i]t is no longer really sufficient to maintain that miṣwâ/miṣwôt is never “explicitly” employed in reference to the commandment(s) of God/YHWH in Proverbs. In light of Deuteronomy the implicit connection is unavoidable. It would seem impossible for the contemporary Israelite, steeped in the traditional rhetoric and verbiage of the Deuteronomic Torah, to fail to make the connections62.

Similarly, Scott Harris, according to whom Proverbs 1–9 serve as an introduction to the entire book, makes out references to Genesis and Jeremiah which have been “refashioned to fit into the framework of Proverbs”. Thus, “the traditions from the Torah and Prophets are creatively woven into the larger pattern of the book of Proverbs”63. Gerlinde Baumann comIntroduction and Commentary (AncB, 18B), New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, 2009. See particularly the essay 7, ibid., pp. 946-962: “Torah and Wisdom”. 61. See inter alia, F. DELITZSCH, Biblischer Commentar über die Poetischen Bücher des Alten Testaments. IV/3: Das Salomonische Spruchbuch, Helsingfors, Dörffling und Franke, 1872; A. ROBERT, Les attaches littéraires bibliques de Prov. I–IX, in RB 43 (1934) 42-68; 172-204; 374-386; RB 44 (1935) 344-365; 502-525; G.W. BUCHANAN, Midrashim pré-tannaites: À propos Prov. I–IX, in RB 72 (1965) 227-239, reads Prov 2,27–7,3 as a Midrash to Deut 11,18-22 and 6,4-9. FISHBANE, Torah and Tradition, pp. 276, 284 identifies the reuse in Prov 6,20-35 of Deut 5,6-21; 6,4-9 as “a midrashic exposition of the Decalogue”. C.M. MAIER, Die “fremde Frau” in Proverbien 1–9: Eine exegetische und sozialgeschichtliche Studie (OBO, 144), Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1995, equally contends the pre-existence of the book of Deuteronomy. According to her, Proverbs 1–9 must have been written by an educated upper class, well versed with the religious tradition of Israel. Ibid., p. 262. See furthermore the extensive study by O’DOWD, Wisdom. Commenting on the recurring phrase ‫ ירא יהוה‬and observing its strategic redactional position throughout the book, he affirms on p. 117: “the final collection very clearly intends to identify Yahweh as the one God of wisdom and creation (cf. Sir 1:14). […] The combination of ‫ יהוה‬with the creation imagery in 3:19 and 8:22-31 parallels a similar tendency throughout the Pentateuch, Deuteronomistic history and the Writings to combine the divine epithets (Yahweh Elohim) and divine acts (creation and salvation) for theological reasons. It is also common to overlook the fact that ‫ יהוה‬naturally evokes the underlying realities of Israel’s national history as does the introduction by Israel’s king of wisdom, Solomon (Prov 1:1)”. 62. G.H. WILSON, ‘The Words of the Wise’: The Intent and Significance of Qohelet 12:9-14, in JBL 103 (1984) 175-192, p. 189 (italics in text). 63. S.L. HARRIS, Proverbs 1–9: A Study of Inner-biblical Interpretation (SBLDS, 150), Atlanta, GA, Scholars, 1995, pp. 1, 109. He compares the function of Proverbs 1–9 to the introductory function of Psalms 1–2 for the Psalter: “As Psalm 1 and 2 initiate a reading of the Psalter by referring the reader to the Torah and the Prophets, Prov 1,8-19 [Gen 37,12-36] and 1,20-33 [Jer 7,1-34] establish a comparable viewpoint. One now reads the following chapters through the lens of the opening lessons, 1,8-19 and 1,20-33”. Ibid., p. 165. See also ID., Proverbs 1:8-19, 20-33 as “Introduction”, in RB 107 (2000) 205-231.

THE SONG OF SONGS AND THE WISDOM OF THE KING

293

pares the use of the terms ‫ תורה‬and ‫ מצות‬in Proverbs 1–9 and the book of Deuteronomy and concludes that the figure of Wisdom in Proverbs 1– 9 has a function analogous to the Torah in Deuteronomy64. She brings this parallel in line with the progressive convergence of wisdom and Torah, ultimately identified in Sir 24,31 and Bar 4,165. The most comprehensive and recent study thus far is the dissertation of Gregor Reichenbach, which treats the intertextual relationships between Proverbs 1–9 and Deuteronomy and the prose discourses of Jeremiah66. The investigation leads him also to insist that “a segregation of practical wisdom from revelation theology must be discounted”67. From the categorical divorce of wisdom and history, the consensus has thus moved to a recognition that by providing a frame for Proverbs 10–29 with chapters 1–9 and 30–31, the post-exilic sages have integrated the classical collection of proverbs into a theological program which corresponds to that of law and prophets68. It is now the prevailing opinion that Proverbs 1–9 had recourse to the book of Deuteronomy to formulate its teaching: namely, to keep and guard the Torah and the commandments69. 64. G. BAUMANN, Die Weisheitsgestalt in Proverbien 1–9: Traditionsgeschichtliche und theologische Studien (FAT, 16), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 1996, p. 297. 65. Ibid., p. 300. G. BRAULIK, Das Deuteronomium und die Bücher Ijob, Sprichwörter, Rut: Zur Frage früher Kanonizität des Deuteronomiums, in E. ZENGER (ed.), Die Tora als Kanon für Juden und Christen (HBS, 10), Freiburg i.Br., Herder, 1996, 61-138, p. 104, comes to a similar conclusion upon observing that in Prov 8,35-36 Lady Wisdom faces man with a similar decision concerning herself as Deut 30,15-20 regarding the Torah. “Vor dem Hintergrund der Gebote und der Entscheidung zwischen Leben und Tod, die der deuteronomistische Text fordert, bildet die Weisheitsgestalt ein Äquivalent zu Jahwe. Wie im Deuteronomium die Liebe zu Jahwe durch die Gebotsbeobachtung verwirklicht wird […] so fasst analog dazu die Weisheitsgestalt in Spr 1–9 die Rolle Jahwes und (indirekt) die der Gebote in sich zusammen. Mit der impliziten Gleichsetzung von Gesetz und Weisheit hat Spr 1–9 eine Denkstruktur übernommen, die bereits in Deut 6,4-6 vorgezeichnet ist”. See also, WILSON, Words of the Wise, p. 183: “We have here [Proverbs 1–9], perhaps, the initial steps in the identification of wisdom and Torah, which finds its ultimate expression in the Wisdom of Ben Sira”. 66. REICHENBACH, Gültige Verbindungen. 67. Ibid., pp. 374-376. “Die sich für die Autoren von Spr 1–9 als gültig erweisenden innerbiblischen Traditionsbezüge zeigen zunächst eine Einheit der rezipierten protokanonischen Literaturen und ihrer Theologien an, die sich über die Verbindung von Offenbarung und Erfahrung zum einen, über die Verbindung der einzelnen theologischen Aussagen zum anderen konstituiert. Es wird deutlich, wie den spätpersischen Autoren die unterschiedlichen theologischen Traditionen der Tora, der Prophetie und der Weisheit in ihren Eigenschaften als sich erweisende, anders gesagt, als sich in der historischen Erfahrung je unterschiedlich offenbarende religiöse Traditionen in einer verbundenen Einheit erscheinen”. 68. FISCHER, Vorgeschichte, p. 153. See also BRAULIK, Deuteronomium, pp. 92, 105, who states that according to the present state of research, a pre-exilic dating can be excluded. “Spr 1–9 bzw. das Sprichwörterbuch, das diese Kapitel als jüngste Sammlung einleiten, könnten sich also schon am kanonischen Pentateuch orientiert haben”. 69. WILSON, Words of the Wise, p. 192: “The common criticism that wisdom shows no concern with Torah or Prophets does not apply to wisdom as redefined by this new

294

PART II – CHAPTER 5

Secondly, it is recognized that Wisdom raises a prophetic voice in Proverbs 1–9. Her discourses echo the prose discourses of the prophet Jeremiah. This shows that, contrary to the former consensus, the sages themselves recognized Torah and Prophets as authoritative sources of revelation which they sought to integrate with their sapiential reflection70. (ii) Job and the History of Israel One can observe a similar change of paradigm in Joban studies. Job was for many years considered the most generically ANE of the biblical books, having no specific Israelite character. While older studies focused almost exclusively on the comparative ANE material, Melanie Köhlmoos’ 1999 dissertation leads her to affirm, “those comparisons are of little help to understand the book of Job. The major contextual and intertextual background of the book of Job is the Old Testament”71. Konrad Schmid, similarly, shows how the book of Job frequently takes up texts and beliefs of the Old Testament in order to discuss them critically72. Apparently, the book of Job not only reads and interprets the Scriptures, but, as Raik Heckl defends, it is in its final form geared towards the restoration of Israel, “wenn dieses seine ihm in seinem Leid zugewachsene Rolle übernommen hat”73. At the time of the composition of the frame, the poetry must have been understood as, “der große Dialog des leidenden Israels mit seinem Gott, dem dieser sich am Ende zuwendet”74. Thus, the a-historical wisdom canonical context. The canonical editor insists that the ‘words of the wise[men]’ cannot be rightly understood apart from the ‘commandments of God/YHWH’. While this single exhortation by itself might be overlooked, it serves to bring out the implicit connections made between Proverbs 1–9 and Deuteronomy, which cannot so easily be dismissed. Where are these ‘commandments’ hammered out but in Torah and Prophets? On the basis of this ‘canonical’ statement, Proverbs-Qohelet can no longer be read simply as practical advice on how to succeed in life, wisdom that could pass easily across national and religious boundaries. They are now inextricably bound up with the Torah of Israel’s God, YHWH – his commandments – and cannot be read apart from them”. See also REICHENBACH, Gültige Verbindungen, pp. 125, 142. 70. See also SCHIPPER, Proverbienbuch, who goes even further in his affirmations. He makes out two competitive currents in Proverbs. One according to which Wisdom surpasses the Torah (Proverbs 2; 8), and another one according to which Wisdom can ultimately not lead to the knowledge of God (Prov 3,5; 30), but lays the ground for the later prophetic insight, that neither Torah nor Wisdom but a divine intervention on the model of Ezekiel 11 and 36 must be hoped for. See further SCHIPPER – TEETER (eds.), Wisdom and Torah. 71. M. KÖHLMOOS, Das Auge Gottes: Textstrategie im Hiobbuch (FAT, 25), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 1999, p. 15. 72. K. SCHMID, Hiob als biblisches und antikes Buch: Historische und intellektuelle Kontexte seiner Theologie (SBS, 219), Stuttgart, Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2010, p. 33. It does so “usually neither affirmative or deprecating, but differentiating and dialectically”. 73. HECKL, Hiob – vom Gottesfürchtigen zum Repräsentanten Israels, p. 439. 74. Ibid.

THE SONG OF SONGS AND THE WISDOM OF THE KING

295

book par excellence is now recognized not only as engaging actively with the Law and the Prophets, but as also making its proper contribution to the question of how to understand the history of God with his people in the light of Israel’s continued struggle with suffering75. Important in view of our own study is the personification of Israel in the figure of Job. This is particularly striking in some parts where the poet takes up the central theme of the Deuteronomistic history, i.e., the destruction of Jerusalem, and individualizes it in the person of Job76. As will be argued in Chapter 7, these kinds of personifications of Israel in heroes of biblical books are a common feature in the Hebrew Bible and prepare the reader of the Song to recognize a similar personification of Israel in the Shulammite. (iii) The Story of Israel in the Book of Qohelet Finally, our attention turns to the latest of the classical wisdom books, Qohelet, about which Zimmerli affirms so confidently “[the author] emerges from an explicit theology of creation, which is in no way connected with the encounter of God and Israel in history. […] In his attempt to master the world ‘by wisdom’, which means ‘by knowledge and active life’, he encounters the reality of the creator more clearly than any other Israelite wise man before him”77. While this view is already tacitly undermined by the book’s epilogue, which construes the wisdom of Qohelet as a rereading of earlier Torah narratives, confirming the close contact of the book (Qoh 12,9-12) with the Law (12,13-14)78, Jennie Barbour has now advanced the thesis that the entire book of Qohelet presents a re-reading of earlier narratives. Throughout her dissertation she shows how Qohelet is “reading traditions – narratives especially – in the searching light of wisdom”79. She sees Israel’s historical traditions pushing to the surface throughout the book of Qohelet, “as citations, as ironic retellings of old stories, as fragmentary and jumbled snippets of memory”80. 75. See also more recently R. HECKL, How Wisdom Texts Became Part of the Canon of the Hebrew Bible, in M. SNEED (ed.), Was There a Wisdom Tradition? New Prospects in Israelite Wisdom Traditions (SBLAIL, 23), Atlanta, GA, SBL Press, 2015, 221-240. 76. See SCHMID, Hiob, p. 42. Cf. Job 16,12-14; Ps 137,8; Lam 3,12-13; Job 2,7 and Deut 28,35; Job 3,25 and Deut 28,66; Job 42,8 and Deut 22,21; Josh 7,15; Judg 19,23; 20,6.10; 2 Sam 13,12. 77. ZIMMERLI, Wisdom, p. 155 (emphasis mine). 78. G.T. SHEPPARD, Wisdom as a Hermeneutical Construct: A Study in the Sapientializing of the Old Testament (BZAW, 151), Berlin, De Gruyter, 1980, pp. 121-129. 79. BARBOUR, The Story of Israel in the Book of Qohelet, p. 171. 80. Ibid., p. 3. For a critical review of her dissertation, see L. MAZZINGHI, Review of Jennie BARBOUR, The Story of Israel in the Book of Qohelet. Ecclesiastes as Cultural

296

PART II – CHAPTER 5

b) Cracks in the Wall As this short survey of recent scholarship on wisdom literature shows, the wall of division between experiential wisdom and creation theology on the one hand and history, Law, and Prophets on the other, can no longer be assumed for the final shape of biblical books. The “marriage of wisdom and history” that is generally accepted for the “deuterocanonical” wisdom books Ben Sira and the Wisdom of Solomon did not arise abstractly. Rather, the scholarship noted above shows that the way for the fusion of currents had already been paved by the redactors of Proverbs, Qohelet, and Job. Since this merging of currents is already true for wisdom books in the proper sense, then a division of wisdom from history cannot be made an a priori for a book like the Song, which does not even belong to the genre according to the classical definition. Two further points may also be made. First, just as the composition of the wisdom books reflects a process of relecture in the light of Israel’s history, so also some narrative books treating with history are punctuated with wisdom motifs81. Second, the argument has been made that if the Song had been composed as a symbolic love song on God’s marriage-like relationship with Israel, it would have been canonically placed in the prophetic literature (which uses this metaphor)82. To this one must object that the prophetic corpus is evidently comprised only of books that are related to Israel’s prophets. Moreover, there is no intrinsic reason why a book belonging either to the Megilloth or to wisdom literature, or to the Ketuvim more broadly, could not be a sapiential meditation on the Law and the Prophets and thereby a meditation on the covenant relation between God and Israel imagined in concepts derived from these earlier texts: i.e., a marriage between the Lord and his people.

Memory. (Oxford Theological Monographs). Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2012, xv-225 p. 16 × 24, in Bib 95 (2014) 450-454. Though Mazzinghi does not agree with the concrete allusions to the Deuteronomistic history identified by Barbour, he fully agrees with her verdict that the book of Qohelet has a strong link with history (p. 454). Mazzinghi asserts that “[c]ertamente il Qohelet non può essere chiuso in quel ‘sapiential egotism’ di cui lo accusa J.L. Crenshaw, ma va visto in stretto dialogo con altre voci bibliche e parabibliche e inserito a pieno titolo nella storia del suo tempo”. 81. Roland Whybray, for example, has drawn attention to the crucial role that wisdom (‫ )חכמה‬plays in the succession narrative to the throne of David (2 Samuel 9–20; 1 Kings 1–2). See R.N. WHYBRAY, The Succession Narrative: A Study of II Samuel 9–20; I Kings 1 and 2 (Studies in Biblical Theology. Second Series, 9), London, SCM, 1968; and ID., Intellectual Tradition. For a general treatment of echoes of wisdom in other biblical books, see MURPHY, Tree, pp. 97-108. 82. See, for example, AUSLOOS – LEMMELIJN, Canticles as Allegory?, p. 38.

THE SONG OF SONGS AND THE WISDOM OF THE KING

297

III. WISDOM AND THE PERSON OF THE KING The Song does not qualify as a classic wisdom book, but is instead love poetry83. Yet, through its attribution to Solomon it became affiliated with wisdom as a general movement. This has led scholars to observe certain parallels in vocabulary and topoi between the Song and genuine wisdom books and surmise a “sapiential redaction” of the pre-existing collection of love songs. The key category for understanding the Song’s affiliation with the other Solomonic books is, however, not wisdom literature or a sapiential redaction, but royal ideology. The royal ideology of the ANE is based on the king’s participation in divine wisdom, which finds expression in more domains than just the teaching of wisdom (as we find it in Proverbs and Qohelet) and a penetrating knowledge of creation. An essential part of the royal ideology is that the king, not only through wise governance and the teaching of wisdom, but also through his service to the gods, particularly in the construction of temples, participates in the ongoing work and maintenance of creation (understood as an establishment of cosmic order). Royal wisdom is, thus, inseparable from creation and temple theologies. On that account, however, it is also inseparable from the concept of sacred marriage. In variegated forms the ANE believed that life on earth depended on an ever-renewed union with the realm of the gods, that was brought about by actual or symbolic theogamies or hierogamies celebrated in the temple (see Chapter 6, II, p. 332 below). Under the umbrella of ANE royal ideology, wisdom, creation, temple, and sacred marriage belong inseparably together. This section will first briefly enumerate the parallels between the Song and wisdom motifs (III.1). Secondly, it will situate the love poetry of the Song within the context of the ANE royal ideology (III.2). Finally, it will consider in what way the Song should be understood as associated with wisdom through its association with Solomon (III.3). 1. Wisdom Motifs in the Song The suggestion is often made that the Song shows signs of a sapiential redaction84, and that a sage of Israel has reworked the ancient Israelite 83. See MURPHY, Tree, p. 106. In so far as ANE love poetry belonged to the texts that formed part of the scribal education and were copied in the schools, it may be called sapiential. See D.M. CARR, Writing on the Tablet of the Heart: Origins of Scripture and Literature, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2005, pp. 88-90, 155. 84. The sapiential redaction is usually detected in the “insertion” of Song 8,6c-7b. See, e.g., AUDET, Sens, p. 216; WINANDY – DUBARLE, Cantique, p. 159; TROMP, Wisdom; DELL,

298

PART II – CHAPTER 5

love poetry and turned it into a sapiential reflection on human love85. Parallels in vocabulary, motifs, topoi, and imagery between the Song and genuine wisdom literature can, in fact, be detected. The following examples may illustrate this. The vocabulary of Prov 5,15-20 (an admonition for marital fidelity) recalls Song 4,12.15 (‫נזלים‬, ‫ )מעין באר‬and Song 2,7 (‫אילה‬, always used with respect to the woman). Several passages referring to the Beloved in the Song are reminiscent of Lady Folly: i.e., the motif of seeking and finding and kissing the Lover (Prov 7,10-15 and Song 3,1-4; 5,6; 8,1b); the perfumes with which the woman spices her bed (Prov 7,16-18 and Song 3,6; 4,14 [‫ קנמון‬,‫ אהל‬,‫ ;)]מר‬and her promise of a night of love (Prov 7,18 and Song 7,13). Genuine wisdom literature views the quest for wisdom like the quest for a beloved woman. Wisdom is to be found (Prov 3,13; 8,17.35) as one finds a good wife (Prov 18,22; 31,10). The sage advises the youth, “call wisdom your sister” (Prov 7,4) which is reminiscent of the ‫ אחתי‬appellations of the Beloved in Song 4,8–5,2. Sir 14,22-27 recalls the paraklausithyron (see Chapter 4, II.1, above, p. 179) of Song 2,9. Sir 15,1-6 compares Wisdom to a mother and bride who nourishes, like the Beloved of the Song offers food to her Lover (7,14–8,2). Solomon describes Wisdom as his “bride” (Wis 8,2) whom he loved above all else (Wis 7,10) and whom he decided to take as a “consort” (συμβίωσις; Wis 8,9-18)86. Furthermore, one should note Ben Sira’s description of his ardent love for Wisdom in Sir 51,13-21. Even in the LXX version the erotic overtone is explicit. It is, however, very explicit in the version found among the DSS (11Q5)87. Scholars surmise that this appendix to Sirach 51 was originally Song, pp. 14, 17, speaks about a “stage of redaction that was connected with wisdom circles”, “a wisdom redaction”. 85. See, e.g., SADGROVE, Song, p. 246, who holds that the introduction of Song 8,6-7 represents “a piece of instruction of a wisdom type, meditating on the meaning […] of the Song as a whole”. He reads it as a sapiential reflection “upon the mystery of human sexuality and love”. According to him, the Song “passed through the hands of an editor of the wisdom school, who used it as an opportunity to reflect upon the mystery of human sexuality and love”. MEADE, Pseudonymity, pp. 53-55 considers the Song to be sapiential on account of its redactional ascription to Solomon. 86. On Wisdom as a bride in Wis 6–9, see P. BEAUCHAMP, Épouser la Sagesse – ou n’épouser qu’elle? Une énigme du Livre de la Sagesse, in M. GILBERT (ed.), La Sagesse de l’Ancien Testament (BETL, 51), Leuven, Peeters, 1990, 347-369: “La Sagesse y est recherchée comme une épouse et nulle autre n’y est recherchée”. A. LEPROUX, Un discours de sagesse: Étude exégétique de Sg 7–8 (AnBib, 167), Roma, Biblical Institute Press, 2007, pp. 253-283, on the other hand, prefers to interpret the conjugal metaphor of the text in the light of the Hellenistic concept of political friendship. 87. See ZIMMERMANN, Geschlechtermetaphorik, pp. 170-171; M. KÜCHLER, Schweigen, Schmuck und Schleier: Drei neutestamentliche Vorschriften zur Verdrängung der Frauen

THE SONG OF SONGS AND THE WISDOM OF THE KING

299

a love song that has undergone a sapiential redaction in view of Wisdom as a bride88. That brings the literary genealogy of Sirach 51 close to that of the Song. Furthermore, the description of Wisdom in Sir 24,13-21 is reminiscent of Song 1,14; 4,8-16; 7,8-989. Finally, Song 7,11 appears to be a rereading and inversion of Gen 3,16, which some scholars take to be a further sign of a sapiential redaction, i.e., a sapiential reflection on Genesis90. These parallels, however, do not remake the genre of the Song into wisdom91. The parallels of erotic language in the wisdom literature proper instead show that the sages were conversant with use of the love metaphor for expressing religious concepts. The direct allusions to the Law and the Prophets, demonstrated by the work of André Robert, Ellen Davis, André LaCocque, and Edmée Kingsmill92, moreover, show that – sapiential or not – the author of the Song was not restricted to meditating on human mysteries, but reinterpreted and revised the love poetry at his disposal against the background of the entire Hebrew Scriptures93. auf dem Hintergrund einer frauenfeindlichen Exegese des Alten Testaments im antiken Judentum (NTOA, 1), Freiburg/CH, Universitätsverlag; Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986, pp. 210-215; P.W. SKEHAN, The Acrostic Poem in Sirach 51,13-30, in HTR 64 (1971) 387-400. 88. It is noteworthy in this context that MS B of Ben Sira 51,19-21 (Sirb 21r:17 – 21v:1) appears to allude to Song 5,4-6. The Sage recounts “my hand (‫ )ידי‬opened (‫)פתחה‬ her gates […] and I pen[etrated] her and I perceived […]”. The image evoked is that of the Lover thrusting his hand (‫ )ידו‬through the opening in Song 5,4. The Sage continues: “I set my soul (‫ )נפשי‬to follow after her … My innermost being roared (‫ )מעי יהמו‬like a furnace in my desire to gaze upon her” (Sirb 21r:16 – 21v:1). Note how this corresponds to the reaction of the Beloved to the Lover’s thrusting his hand through the opening in Song 5,4. She exclaims: “My innermost being yearned (‫ )מעי המו‬for him”. Having opened (‫ )פתח‬the door, she proclaims: “my soul (‫ )נפשי‬went out in his word” (Song 5,6). Other than the explicit evocation of a hand penetrating the Beloved’s door or gate (which is held to be an euphemism for the woman’s pudenda), and the literal echo to Song 5,4 (‫)מעי המו‬, MS B of Ben Sira 51,13-21 also plays on the motif of seeking (‫בקש‬, cf. Sirb 21r:10; Song 5,6) and finding (‫מצא‬, cf. Sirb 21r:12.14.18; Song 5,6.7.8). The Cairo Genizah version of Ben Sira 51,19-21 MS B, then, might reflect an early interpretation of the Song, read as a love relationship between the Sage and Wisdom. It is, however, impossible to pin down the date of this interpretation, since the Ms is a medieval copy. 89. SADGROVE, Song, p. 248, n. 4; MURPHY, Song, pp. 106-107; DELL, Song, pp. 17-23. 90. See LANDY, Paradoxes, pp. 248-251; HEINEVETTER, “Komm nun, mein Liebster”, pp. 179-187. 91. See also MURPHY, Song, pp. 106-107, and DELL, Song, p. 16, who affirms that “it would be wrong on grounds of genre to deny the book’s nature as love poetry and simply assign it to wisdom literature”. See most recently SCHELLENBERG, Questioning, pp. 401405. 92. ROBERT – TOURNAY – FEUILLET, Cantique; LACOCQUE, Romance; DAVIS, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs; KINGSMILL, Eros. 93. See GERHARDS, Hohelied, p. 523: “Berücksichtigt man, dass, …, das Hohelied in der Schilderung der Sänfte (3,9f) auf die biblisch überlieferte Salomontradition zurückgreift,

300

PART II – CHAPTER 5

2. Wisdom’s Role in the ANE Royal Ideology The parallels between the Song and wisdom literature noted above are certainly genuine, but it is misleading to speak of a “sapiential redaction”. The relationship between the Song and wisdom language and motifs must be explained differently. Specifically, in the ANE wisdom appears as an integral part of royal ideology. Love lyrics, furthermore, bear a certain relationship to this same ideology of the king. The striking convergence of love poetry and wisdom themes characteristic of the Song accordingly points to the person of the king. Solomon is the figure who, qua ideal ANE king, combines both the love lyric genre and sapiential mode of the Song of Songs. In order to understand this point of intersection it is indispensable to recall briefly the main elements of ANE royal ideology. This ideology is intimately connected to creation mythology, temple ideology, and the role wisdom plays therein. This section will first (III.2.a) recall that as an extension of the ANE cosmogonies, wisdom is inseparable from the person of the king and their common role in creation. Second (III.2.b), it will demonstrate that wisdom cannot be reduced to the sapiential observations of cosmic order but finds its highest expression in the construction of a temple, an act which is understood to be the completion of creation. A third point, viz., how wisdom and temple are related to sacred marriage, will be taken up in Chapter 6. These three points provide the necessary basis for the discussion in the following section (III.3), which argues that the key to the Song is not an abstract idea of wisdom as conceived for example by Childs, but the person of the King. It is through his person that the Song is related to creation and temple ideology and the ANE corpus of love literature. a) Kingship and ANE Creation Myths In the Ancient Near East, wisdom was inseparable from royal ideology. Royal ideology in turn was rooted in creation mythology. There is a recurring pattern that we find in key texts spanning the Levant with attestations from twenty-second-century B.C. Sumerian to eighth-century Neo-Assyrian. und dass in 7,11 wohl eine Anspielung auf die biblische Urgeschichte vorliegt, so dürfte der Hohelieddichter mit den schon damals als kanonisch geltenden alttestamentlichen Texten vertraut gewesen sein. Man wird dem Dichter eine Art Schriftgelehrsamkeit unterstellen können, die zur Weisheit in einem umfassenderen Sinn gehört. Vor diesem Hintergrund ist aber die Annahme unproblematisch, dass er das Bild der Liebesbeziehung für das Verhältnis von Jahwe und Israel aus den prophetischen Schriften aufnahm und einer religiösallegorischen Dichtung zu Grunde legte”.

THE SONG OF SONGS AND THE WISDOM OF THE KING

301

According to the pervasive mythic view, creation was the result of a primordial battle between a divinity and the cosmic forces of chaos. Following his victory, the divinity established his kingship and, thereby, order in the cosmos. The god’s decisive supremacy over chaos is symbolized in his enthronement. This entails the establishment of a throne and earthly dwelling place, i.e. a temple94. The conception of the temple as the god’s throne on earth, whence he reigns and establishes order in creation, deeply integrates this sacral structure into the creation myth95. The actual construction of the temple, of course, was the work of an earthly and not a divine king. The work of temple building, however, aligned the king on earth with the mythic monarch in the sky. The relationship between kingship and creation as a principle of order in cosmogonic myth has been succinctly described by Frank Moore Cross: “The cosmogonies recount the warfare between the olden god or gods and the young god and the establishment of kingship among the gods, and an orderly, cosmic government. Kingship and its hierarchical institutions are thus fixed in the orders of creation, and human kingship, patterned after the cosmic government, gains religious sanction”96. In this scheme, creative wisdom comes to expression through the establishment of order and justice in the world, while the earthly king acts as the gods’ lieutenant on earth, responsible for maintaining divine order by the wisdom that the gods accord him97. 94. See M. WEINFELD, Sabbath, Temple and the Enthronement of the Lord – The Problem of the Sitz im Leben of Genesis 1:1–2:3, in A. CAQUOT – M. DELCOR (eds.), Mélanges bibliques et orientaux en l’honneur de M. Henri Cazelles (AOAT, 212), Kevelaer, Butzon & Bercker; Neukirchen-Vluyn, Neukirchener Verlag, 1981, 501-512. 95. See O. KEEL, The Symbolism of the Biblical World: Ancient Near Eastern Iconography and the Book of Psalms, New York, Seabury Book Service, 1978, p. 118. 96. F.M. CROSS, From Epic to Canon: History and Literature in Ancient Israel, Baltimore, MD, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998, p. 78. 97. The Egyptian king was regarded as a divine being either by right of birth, being begotten by the god, or by right of divine proclamation as the son of god. One of his official titles was “Son of Re”. At the same time, he was believed to be the manifestation of the supreme god. “When he was enthroned he was deified as Horus, thus becoming an earthly manifestation of the god of kingship”. L. KALUGILA, The Wise King: Studies in Royal Wisdom as Divine Revelation in the Old Testament and Its Environment (CB.OT, 15), Lund, Gleerup, 1980, pp. 17, 37: “[T]he king had great responsibilities to his people, thereby fulfilling the will of Re. His responsibilities concerned the entire social or political and religious life of his subjects. The king had to administer ma’at ‘truth’ or ‘order’ or ‘justice’, by creating cosmos in place of chaos, i.e., he was responsible for establishing peace throughout his realm. The king was a shepherd, a father and mother of his subjects, taking care of the poor, the widows, the orphans, feeding the hungry, releasing the prisoners, clothing the naked etc. He was believed to be the mediator between Re and his people. He must act as ruler, priest and prophet. The king could not do all this without the help of Re; thus he needed Sia”.

302

PART II – CHAPTER 5

The king’s wisdom was manifest not only in righteous governance, judicial wisdom, knowledge, and instruction, but also, and preeminently so, in the king’s construction of a temple for the gods. This royal work of temple building was, significantly, understood as a replication on the part of the king of the gods’ own act of creation98. The king’s role in the construction of the gods’ temple, thus, ultimately enables the monarch’s earthly participation in divine wisdom. Just as the gods create and order everything through their wisdom, so also wisdom is given to the king for his creative work in administration and the building of temples99. Whether Mesopotamian (specifically Sumerian) kings were regarded as divine is a matter of debate; nonetheless, they acted as the representatives of the gods. Here too, “the godgiven wisdom of the king is manifested primarily in his sound judgement, his wise plans, and his judicial insight”. Ibid., p. 49. On the disputed question of the divine status of NeoAssyrian kings, see S.W. HOLLOWAY, Aššur Is King! Aššur Is King! Religion in the Exercise of Power in the Neo-Assyrian Empire (Culture and History of the Ancient Near East, 10), Leiden, Brill, 2002, pp. 178-193. 98. This mythic significance of the temple was mainly expressed in its architecture, iconography, and cultic vessels. See L.E. STAGER, Jerusalem and the Garden of Eden, in M.L. MORALES (ed.), Cult and Cosmos: Tilting toward a Temple-centered Theology (BiTS, 18), Leuven, Peeters, 2014, 99-116. This is a reprint of L.E. STAGER, Jerusalem and the Garden of Eden, in Frank Moore Cross Festschrift (Eretz-Israel, 26), Jerusalem, Israel Exploration Society: Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, 1999, 183*-194*; E. BLOCH-SMITH, ‘Who Is the King of Glory?’ Solomon’s Temple and Its Symbolism, in M.D. COOGAN – J.C. EXUM – L.E. STAGER (eds.), Scripture and Other Artifacts: Essays on the Bible and Archaeology in Honor of Philip J. King, Louisville, KY, Westminster John Knox, 1994, 18-31; J.D. LEVENSON, The Temple and the World, in The Journal of Religion 64 (1984) 275-298. As John M. Lundquist explains, the ANE temple was understood to be “the architectural embodiment of the cosmic mountain” which in turn “represents the primordial hillock, the place which first emerged from the waters that covered the earth during the creative process”. J.M. LUNDQUIST, What Is a Temple? A Preliminary Typology, in H.B. HUFFMAN – F.A. SPINA – A.R.W. GREEN (eds.), The Quest for the Kingdom of God: Studies in Honor of George E. Mendenhall, Winona Lake, IN, Eisenbrauns, 1983, 205-219, pp. 207 and 208. As such the cosmic mountain “was situated above the primordial waters (the ‘deep’)”. STAGER, Eden, p. 100. These waters “were perceived as the primeval waters of creation, Nun, in Egypt, abzu in Mesopotamia, těhôm in Israel”. J.M. LUNDQUIST, The Common Temple Ideology of the Ancient Near East, in G.M. TRUMAN (ed.), The Temple in Antiquity: Ancient Records and Modern Perspectives (The Religious Studies Monograph Series), Salt Lake City, UT, Deseret Book, 1984, 49-67, p. 67. (To be sure, etymologically at least tehôm corresponds to Ti’āmat in Mesopotamia – the goddess/saltwater from which the universe was fashioned.) The temple blocked these forces of evil and prevented their eruption. 99. Gudea of Lagash, for example, tells in two cylinder inscriptions how he had received the plan of the temple in dreams from Ningirsu (see the examples below). Similarly Assurnasirpal praises Ea for having endowed him with wisdom for building the temple of Ishtar, “in the wisdom of my heart, with which Ea, king of the Deep, the wise and understanding (god), had endowed me, I built that temple of Kidmuri anew for her”. KALUGILA, The Wise King, p. 54. Similarly for Canaan, Kalugila, ibid., p. 63, explains, “The revelation concerning architectural work … spring from El’s wisdom”. Thus when Athirat wanted to build a temple for Ba῾al, El revealed its plan (UT 51 IV, 50ff.; V, 1ff.).

THE SONG OF SONGS AND THE WISDOM OF THE KING

303

Studies of ANE kingship have shown that a king could not perform his regal duties without wisdom; otherwise he would plunge his country into chaos. Moreover, he depended entirely upon the gods to receive wisdom, which was a divine prerogative100. No earthly king is ever wise by himself, and in the ANE perspective, wisdom is always a gift which the king receives directly from the gods101. It is beyond the scope of this study to give an account of all the different versions of this basic creation myth. It will suffice to mention three examples (drawn from Mesopotamia, Canaan, and Egypt) which all reflect a similar pattern. Mesopotamia. The Enuma Elish recounts the victory of the Babylonian god Marduk over the sea monster Tiamat102. After having slain her and eliminated her co-conspirators, he fashions out of her the universe and then fashions humanity to work, so that the gods might rest. In order to express his newly attained supreme kingship he has a ziggurat temple built for himself by his servant gods, the Annunaki, in his city, Babylon103. This earthly temple was regarded as a replica of Marduk’s celestial abode. Thus Enuma Elish 6.113 proclaims, “He shall make on earth the counterpart of what he brought to pass in heaven”104. This temple of Marduk is called the “house of the foundation of heaven and earth”105. The Enuma Elish speaks exclusively about divine kingship in the sky, not kingship on earth, although Marduk’s reign is in Babylon. In the code of Hammurabi, however, we see that the earthly king is presented as extending the ordering work of Marduk, the divine monarch, within the human realm106. In another interesting text (reminiscent of the Atraḫasīs myth) 100. See CRENSHAW, Wisdom, p. 5. 101. See KALUGILA, The Wise King, p. 133. In Mesopotamia many gods are described by epithets which emphasize their wisdom, which was a prerogative of the gods, as taught (emblematically) in the Instruction of Ahiqar: “Wisdom is from the gods, even to gods she is precious – in heaven she is established, because the lord of the gods (the holy ones) has exalted her” (Ahiqar, lines 94f. Cf. ANET p. 428). 102. Cf. the tehôm of Gen 1,2. 103. See Enuma Elish 5.77-114. 104. Translation Benjamin R. Foster, in W.W. HALLO et al., The Context of Scripture. I: Canonical Compositions from the Biblical World, Leiden, Brill, 1997, p. 402. In 5.122-124 Marduk says about the Temple he will build in Babylon: “A house I shall build, let it be the abode of my pleasure. Within it I shall establish its holy place, I shall appoint my (holy) chambers, I shall establish my kingship”. 105. See KEEL, Symbolism, 1978, p. 113, who furthermore points out that the ziggurat of Larsa is called “house of the bond between heaven and earth”, the step tower of Nippur “house of the mountain”, that of Assur “house of the great mountain over the nations”. 106. A locus classicus which exemplifies this concept is found in the prologue of the Codex Hammurabi: “At that time [the gods] Anu and Enlil called me, Hammurabi, by name [= commissioned me] to show justice in the land, to destroy the evildoers and

304

PART II – CHAPTER 5

dating from the Neo-Babylonian period, on the creation of man, we again find an illustration of the earthly king as created reflection of this divine kingship on earth. In this case the person of the king himself is described as created as an image of the gods. Ea [the god of wisdom] hub an zu sprechen, indem er an Bēlet-ilī das Wort richtete: “Bēlet-ilī, die Herrin der großen Götter, bist du. Du hast den lullû Menschen geschaffen: Bilde nun den König, den überlegend-entscheidenden Menschen! Mit Gutem umhülle seine ganze Gestalt, gestalte seine Züge harmonisch, mach schön seinen Leib!”. Da bildete Bēlet-ilī den König, den überlegend-entscheidenden Menschen. Es gaben dem König den Kampf die [großen] Götter. Anu gab ihm die Krone, Ellil ga[b ihm den Thron], Nergal gab ihm die Waffen, Ninurta g[ab ihm gleißenden Glanz], Bēlet-ilī gab [ihm ein schönes Aus]sehen107.

In order that the king may act in the place of the gods, he receives their insignia of divine office and divine potency (e.g., crown, throne, weapons, aspect/looks). With regard to wisdom’s role in the human participation in divine kingship, an emblematic example of the king being endowed with wisdom is found in the Sumerian Hymns of Gudea of Lagash108. The cylinder commemorating the rebuilding of Ningirsu’s temple complex, Eninnu, narrates how Gudea had seen the god, Ningirsu, in a night vision, during which he received the instructions for building his (Ningirsu’s) temple109. those filled with hatred, so that the strong may not oppress the weak, to arise for the people like the sun god to light the land, to care for the welfare of the people … as Marduk commanded me, to lead the people and to provide for morality in the land, I placed law and justice in the mouth of the land and cared for the welfare of the people. At that time I issued the following laws…”. 107. VAT 17019 (BE 13383), Vs. 30ʹ-40ʹ. For text and commentary, see W.R. MAYER, Ein Mythos von der Erschaffung des Menschen und des Königs, in Orientalia 56 (1987) 55-68, pp. 57-58. “Ea [the god of wisdom] began to speak, directing his words to Bēlet-ilī: ‘Bēlet-ilī, the lady of the great gods, you are. You created the lullû-man [human being]: now make the king, the superior-deciding man (māliku-amēlu). Surround his whole stature with good, make his features harmonious, make lovely his body!’ Then Bēlet-ilī made the king, the superior-deciding person. The [great] gods gave the battle to the king. Anu gave him the crown. Enlil gave him the throne. Nergal gave him the weapons. Ninurta gave him terrifying aspect. Bēlet-ilī gave him beautiful looks” (my translation from the German). 108. “The master [Ningirsu] said concerning his House: I will render Eninnu most influential in heaven and on earth. Wise as he is, the ruler will use his intellect, he will bestir himself to achieve great deeds. He will direct (for offering) unblemished bulls and he-goats. The auspicious brick (already) has looked up to him, it raised its neck (eager) to build the bright House”. D.O. EDZARD, Gudea and His Dynasty (Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia. Early Periods, 3/1), Toronto, University of Toronto Press, 1997, p. 69, Cylinder A, i 10-16 (emphasis mine). 109. Here too the temple is understood as an axis between heaven and earth which holds the chaos waters at bay. “My House, the Eninnu, founded in heaven, whose powers are the greatest, surpassing all others […] The fierce halo [of my House] reaches up to heaven, great fear of my House hovers over all the lands, and all [these] lands will gather on its

THE SONG OF SONGS AND THE WISDOM OF THE KING

305

Gudea goes to see the goddess, Nanše, and tells her, “there was someone in my dreams, … he told me his house should be built, (but) I did not understand what (exactly) he intended”110. Nanše appears to him, holding “a stylus of shining metal, on her knees there was a tablet (with) heavenly stars, and she was consulting it. Furthermore, there was a warrior who bent (his) arm holding a lapis lazuli plate on which he was setting the ground-plan of a house”111. Nanše then explains: “My shepherd, I will interpret your dream for you from the beginning to end. … he was in fact my brother Ningirsu; he talked to you about the building of his shrine Eninnu”112. The essence of wisdom’s integral relation to the royal ideology is encapsulated in this hymn. The king’s wisdom enables him to build a temple for his god. He receives both the commission for building as also the plans for the temple construction in a dream. The concrete instructions appear to be written on a tablet. The content of the tablets, however, needs to be explained to him by mediation of the goddess. In all this the hymn affirms that “the good shepherd Gudea is wise and able, too, to realize things”113. Canaan. A similar pattern is found in the Ugaritic Baal-cycle, even if more characters are involved. El, the head of the pantheon, the king and bn šmym (creator of the heavens)114, father of the gods and father of men, was exceedingly wise, as Asherah repeatedly emphasizes in her addresses to the great god115. By his wisdom he executed judgment. El did not conceal his wisdom but revealed his secrets to goddesses and kings116. In this myth, however, it is not El, but his son Baal who establishes his kingship against the opposition from the chaos forces of Yamm (Sea) and Mot (Death). As a manifestation of his establishment of order and kingship among the gods, he founds his temple on Mount Ṣapôn117. In the words of Frank Moore Cross, behalf from as far as where heaven ends […] I, Ningirsu, who has turned back the fierce waters, great warrior of Enilil’s realm, lord who has no rival – my house, a crown, is bigger than a mountain”. Ibid., pp. 74-75, E3/1.1.7. Cylinder A ix 11 – ix 23 (emphasis mine). The inscription reads further, that Gudea “made it grow as big as heaven and earth”, “he made it grow like a mountain range of lapis lazuli, let it stand to be admired like a mountain range of white alabaster”, “a house founded in heaven”, “whose front is an enormous mountain set on the earth”. Ibid., xxiv 8-17, xxvii 8-13. 110. Ibid., p. 71, Cylinder A, iv 16-21. 111. Ibid., p. 72, Cylinder A, iv 25-26. 112. Ibid., p. 72, Cylinder A, iv 25-26, v 12, 17-18. 113. Ibid., p. 73, E3/1.1.7. Cylinder A, vii 9-10. 114. In Ugaritic literature, the evidence for El is ambiguous and inconsistent. 115. See KALUGILA, The Wise King, p. 62. 116. Ibid., p. 63. 117. CROSS, From Epic to Canon, pp. 90-91; P. BORDREUIL – D. PARDEE, Le combat de Ba’lu avec Yammu d’après les textes ougaritiques, in Mari: Annales de recherches interdisciplinaires 7 (1993) 63-70.

306

PART II – CHAPTER 5

the earthly temple of Baʻl not only manifested Baʻl’s creation of order, but at the same time established the rule of the earthly king. There is thus a tie between the temple as the abode of the king and the gods and the temple as a dynastic shrine of the earthly king, the adopted son of the god. The temple and the kingship are thus part of the “orders of creation”, properly the eternal kingship of the god of order, the eternal dynasty of his earthly counterpart118.

As in Mesopotamia the Canaanite kingship was understood as an earthly mediation of heavenly kingship. Thus, for example, King Krt was called “son of El”; his wisdom was like that of El, the wisest among the gods. Krt dreamed dreams in which he received El’s revelations. “He was a sacral king and mediator and representative of his people. He must pass judgement and administer justice in his realm, to judge ‘the case of the widow’ and ‘the suit of the orphan’”119. Krt was the typical ANE sacral king, the channel of blessing to the people and upholder of order120. Egypt. In the solar theology prevalent in Egypt, “the cosmos came into being through the creative word and through the wisdom of Re. Re conquered the forces of chaos (Isfet) and initiated Maat, the world order, which henceforth prevailed unconditionally”121. This image of the god’s victory over chaos is reflected in Egyptian temple architecture and iconography. “The great sanctuaries claimed to house within their courts the primeval hill, the ‘glorious hill of the primordial beginning’, which had first emerged from the floods of Chaos”122. The “undulating” walls 118. CROSS, From Epic to Canon, p. 91. 119. UT 127.32-38, 45-53, cited in KALUGILA, The Wise King, p. 64. 120. See ibid., with reference to J.C.L. GIBSON, Myth, Legend and Folk-Lore in the Ugaritic Keret and Aqhat Texts, in G.W. ANDERSON – P.A.H. DE BOER – H. CAZELLES (eds.), Congress Volume – Edinburgh 1974 (VT.S, 28), Leiden, Brill, 1975, 60-68, p. 64. 121. KALUGILA, The Wise King, p. 12. See also H. FRANKFORT, Kingship and the Gods: A Study of Ancient Near Eastern Religion as the Integration of Society & Nature, Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press, 1948, pp. 148-161, and MEADE, Pseudonymity, p. 49. KALUGILA, The Wise King, p. 13 explains, “According to Heliopolitan theology the sun-god was the father of Sia, who helped him create the world. […] Sia is the organ of Re’s thought or intelligence, which at the same time appears as creative energy. […] The principle is […] the creator god conceives in his heart the plan of the creation, then utters the creative word bringing the world into existence. Personified Wisdom and Word represent the thought and the utterance of the creator god”. Re was regarded not only as the creator but as “the one who by his Sia was the protector and the ruler of the universe”, ibid., p. 15. As a king Re maintained justice, which “according to the Egyptian solar theology was named Ma’at which means ‘truth’, ‘established order’, ‘right order’”. She was believed to be the daughter of Re. With Ma’at, Re protects the poor, the afflicted, the widows, and the orphans, which are all the attributes of a wise king. Re’s kingship is the root of divine rule in Egypt. Ibid., pp. 15-16. 122. KEEL, Symbolism, 1978, p. 113.

THE SONG OF SONGS AND THE WISDOM OF THE KING

307

surrounding the temple of Karnak symbolized “the primeval waters which formerly lapped around the temple hill”123. The creator god appeared on the primeval hill and the order of the cosmos had its origins from it124. Thus in Egypt, just like in the Semitic cultures, the temple is constructed by Pharaoh as an earthly replica of the gods’ heavenly abode. The Egyptian Pharaoh Thutmoses II restored a temple for Amon and made it “like the heavens”125. Ramses III (1195-1164 B.C.) affirms about the temple he constructed for his god: “I made for thee an august house in Nubia … the likeness of the heavens”126. And again “I made for thee an august place … like the great house of [the god] Atum which is in heaven”. The temple of Karnak is actually called “heaven on earth”127. Emblematic of the Egyptian concept of kingship is also a tractate from the New Kingdom (fifteenth century B.C.): “Re hat den König eingesetzt auf der Erde der Lebenden für immer und ewig beim Rechtsprechen der Menschen, beim Befriedigen der Götter, beim Enstehenlassen der Maat, beim Vernichten der Isfet”128. The text demonstrates well how Re, the creator and sun god, has established kingship on earth to serve in the administration of Maat and destruction of Chaos. b) Kingship in Biblical Creation Mythology Similarly, in the Bible a royal ideology is founded on a “creation myth” similar to those treated above129. YHWH is the king of the universe (cf. Isa 6,1-9; 1 Kgs 22,19-23; Job 1,6; 2,1; Ps 82,1; 89,7). He established 123. Ibid. 124. Ibid. 125. J.H. BREASTED, Ancient Records of Egypt. II: The Eighteenth Dynasty, Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press, 1927, §601, p. 239. 126. J.H. BREASTED, Ancient Records of Egyp. IV: The Twentieth to the Twenty-Sixth Dynasty, Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press, 1927, §218, p. 123. 127. KEEL, Symbolism, 1978, p. 172. 128. J. ASSMANN, Ma’at: Gerechtigkeit und Unsterblichkeit im alten Ägypten, München, Beck, 1995, p. 206: “Re has established the king on the earth of the living forever and ever, to administer justice to the people, and to satisfy the gods, to realize Maat and drive away Isfet” (my translation). 129. See the seminal study by H. GUNKEL, Schöpfung und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit: Eine religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung über Gen 1 und Ap Joh 12. Mit Beiträgen von Heinrich Zimmern, Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1895. See also, O. KAISER, Die mythische Bedeutung des Meeres in Ägypten, Ugarit und Israel (BZAW, 78), Berlin, Töpelmann, 1959; J. DAY, God’s Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea: Echoes of a Canaanite Myth in the Old Testament (UCOP, 35), Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1985; C. KLOOS, Yhwh’s Combat with the Sea: A Canaanite Tradition in the Religion of Ancient Israel, Leiden, Brill, 1986; W.H.C. PROPP, Exodus 1–18 (AncB, 2A), New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, 1999, pp. 554-559.

308

PART II – CHAPTER 5

his kingship through his work of creation, understood as a victory over inimical (“chaotic”) forces130, and through his wise establishment of justice (cf., e.g. Ps 74,12-17; 89,5-19)131. Subsequently YHWH elected a king to be his representative or lieutenant and carry out his earthly tasks132. Psalm 93 provides an excellent biblical example in which the motifs of creation, enthronement, and temple building are all combined133. The psalm sings of the establishment of the world (v. 1) and of the throne of God (v. 2), understood as the “house of YHWH” (v. 5)134. In the background of the Psalm echoes God’s defeat of the “rivers (‫ )נהרות‬and mighty waters (‫( ”)מים רבים‬Ps 93,3-4) – concepts familiar from Ugaritic mythology135. God’s victory over inimical forces (“mighty waters”) and his enthronement in “his sanctuary” are also found in Psalm 29 (vv. 3.10). And in Psalm 89 we find the “foundation of the world together with the victory over Rahab”, God’s ruling over the sea, his throne and kingship136. The pattern is most vividly recorded in the exaltation of YHWH in the Song of the Sea in Exodus 15. Though the poem does not recount a 130. J.J.M. Roberts gives a succinct description of the Israelite transformation of the Canaanite myth: “The Canaanites worshipped Baal as the god who established and preserved order in the world. The powers of chaos, dissolution, and evil personified by the unruly Sea had been defeated and were kept under restraint by this god. This aspect of ancient polytheism was simply taken up and only slightly modified by the Yahwistic faith. It was Yahweh, not Baal, who established the orders of creation and made possible a fruitful life in a relatively harmonious universe. But the element of continuity remains strong. Both in Israel and Canaan people were aware that the possibility for meaningful existence – both of the human and non-human creation – was dependent on the ordering grace of divine power”. See J.J.M. ROBERTS, The King of Glory, in ID., The Bible and the Ancient Near East: Collected Essays, Winona Lake, IN, Eisenbrauns, 2002, 104-109, p. 106. 131. To be sure, in the Bible creation is not understood as YHWH’s victory over a chaos monster. Yet hostile powers are sometimes described under the mythological imagery of the unruly sea (cf., e.g., Ps 46,2.4). The chaos monster may reappear under the guise of historical hostile kings or nations (cf. Ps 46,7; 48,5-7; 76,6-8) or as both at the same time (Isa 17,12-14; 51,9-10). “The mythological imagery of the unruly sea was undoubtedly borrowed from the Canaanite myth of Baal’s struggle with Prince Yamm”. J.J.M. ROBERTS, Zion in the Theology of the Davidic-Solomonic Empire, in ID., The Bible and the Ancient Near East: Collected Essays, Winona Lake, IN, Eisenbrauns, 2002, 331-347, p. 340. With regard to the above-mentioned Ps 74,12-17 it is noteworthy that “the theme of God’s victory over the sea dragon [vv. 13-14] is followed by the theme of creation. This is clear from the reference to day and night, sun and moon, but it also is what is intended in the reference to opening of springs and streams”. Ibid., p. 106. See also J.-L. SKA, Il Cantico di Mosè (Es 15,1-21) e la regalità di YHWH, Dio d’Israele: Riflessione sulla poetica ebraica, in G. BORTONE (ed.), Il bello della Bibbia: Visione poliedrica del “bello ideale”, L’Aquila, Edizioni ISSRA, 2005, 3-34, p. 32, who furthermore points to the following texts which contain allusions to the primordial myth: Job 3,8; 7,12; 9,13; 26,12; 40,15-25; 40,25– 41,26; Ps 65,8; 77,17; 89,10-11; 93,3-4; 104,7.26; 107,29; 148,7. 132. See ROBERTS, Zion, p. 337. 133. See WEINFELD, Enthronement, p. 508. 134. Ibid. 135. See ibid. 136. See ibid.

THE SONG OF SONGS AND THE WISDOM OF THE KING

309

mythological battle but a historical combat, the poet uses the pattern of the Baal myth in structuring his poem137. The role that the chaotic forces play in the cosmogonic myth is here assumed by the Egyptians, Israel’s enemies, whom YHWH, the Divine Warrior, defeats by means of a stormtossed sea. After his victory over the Egyptians (Exod 15,1-12), God leads his people to his “holy abode” and plants them on the mountain of his inheritance, the place of his dwelling, the “sanctuary” which his hands have established (Exod 15,13.17). Following this comes the declaration that YHWH will reign for ever and ever (v. 18). Jean-Louis Ska highlights well the re-elaboration of the underlying founding myth: Lo schema tradizionale è solamente stato rielaborato per adattarsi al suo contesto attuale: Yhwh vince le nazioni e non le acque, e viene ad abitare il suo santuario “terreste” dopo aver fatto attraversare il deserto al suo popolo. Il mito di fondazione è stato “storicizzato” per celebrare Yhwh, il Dio che salva il suo popolo dai suoi nemici per regnare nel suo santuario in mezzo ad esso138.

YHWH established his kingship on “his holy mountain”, that is, “Mount Zion, in the far north (‫( ”)צפון‬Ps 48,2-3). In fact, “Mount Zion is to Yahwism what Mount Zaphon […] is to Canaanite religion; namely, the dwelling of God and the most hallowed spot of the land”139. Ps 78,65-71 give a succinct account of God’s election of Mount Zion and the institution of his Davidic King on his holy mountain. 137. See F.M. CROSS, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1973, pp. 121-144. See also LEVENSON, Creation and the Persistence of Evil, p. 75; V.A. HUROWITZ, I Have Built You an Exalted House: Temple Building in the Bible in Light of Mesopotamian and Northwest Semitic Writings (JSOTS, 115), Sheffield, JSOT, 1992; and SKA, Cantico. Jon Levenson is right to observe that the principal difference between the biblical account and the “creation myth” is that the former “claims to relate not primordial creation, but rather the decisive instance of historical redemption”. LEVENSON, Creation and the Persistence of Evil, p. 76. The enemy is neither a chaos monster, nor the sea – which is under YHWH’s control – but Pharaoh and later the Philistines. The historicization of the underlying myth, however, has “only relativized the cosmogonic myth; it has not replaced it”. Ibid. Accordingly it is false to introduce a dichotomy between myth or cosmology and history. Cosmology and history “could coexist nicely, for they reinforce each other: history concretizes cosmology, and cosmology lifts history above the level of the mundane”. Ibid., p. 82. Besides these ancient songs which preserve the outlines of an Israelite cosmogonic myth, the same pattern is also preserved in some narrative accounts of sanctuary building in the Bible. For instance the configuration of the Ark narrative corresponds to this pattern. The Chaoskampf is reflected in YHWH’s victory over the Philistines (2 Sam 5,17-25) and the account of the subsequent transfer of the Ark to Jerusalem as YHWH’s enthronement on Mount Zion (2 Samuel 6), reflects this historicized cosmogonic pattern. See also C.-L. SEOW, Myth, Drama, and the Politics of David’s Dance (HSM, 44), Atlanta, GA, Scholars, 1989, pp. 7-8. 138. See also SKA, Cantico, p. 33. 139. See M. DAHOOD, Psalms I: 1–50 (AncB, 16), New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, 1974, pp. 289-290.

310

PART II – CHAPTER 5

The Lord awoke from sleep, like a warrior shouting because of wine. He put his adversaries to rout; he put them to everlasting disgrace. … he chose the tribe of Judah, Mount Zion, which he loves. He built his sanctuary like the high heavens, like the earth, which he has founded forever. He chose his servant David, and took him from the sheepfolds, from tending the nursing ewes he brought him to be the shepherd of his people Jacob, of Israel, his inheritance (Ps 78,65-71; NRSV).

Psalm 78 reflects, in fact, the ANE royal and temple ideology succinctly: God himself is victorious over his adversaries, chooses the mountain of his residence, builds the temple to be comparable to the heavens and to the earth140, whence he reigns over the entire world, and chooses David as his lieutenant, the shepherd of his people (Ps 78,71; cf. Ps 89,22.27-28; and Psalm 132)141. The victory over chaos was thus also in Israel the grounding myth behind the institution of the monarchy. As YHWH’s deputy on earth, the king is endowed with God’s power over the forces of chaos (Ps 89,2128)142. By appointing the king as head of the cult and administrator of “justice” (‫צדק‬, cf. Ps 72,1-2), YHWH entrusts the king with the mission to maintain creation143. This Hebrew concept of ‫צדק‬, the signal, God-given quality of Israel’s monarch, bears a sense of ordering wisdom comparable to the Egyptian Maat144. Though the later biblical tradition relates wisdom 140. G.K. BEALE, The Temple and the Church’s Mission (New Studies in Biblical Theology, 17), Downers Grove, IL, Inter Varsity, 2004, p. 32, points to a striking parallel in Enuma Elish 6.112, where it is said concerning Marduk’s temple, “A likeness of what he made (?) in heaven [let him make (?)] on earth”. 141. See GONÇALVÈS, Deux systèmes religieux, pp. 118-119. In Psalm 89 we see the same pattern. The Israelite King was understood as the “son of god”, similar to the (much debated) royal ideology in Egypt, Mesopotamia, and Canaan. 142. See E. ZENGER – F.-L. HOSSFELD, Psalms 2: A Commentary on Psalms 51–100 (Hermeneia, 19B), Minneapolis, MN, Fortress, 2005, p. 410: “The might of the king (cf. the image of the horn from 75,5-6) is a power lent by YHWH. This is expressed also in v. 26, where YHWH guides the hands, or hand, of the king. Laying the hand on the sea and the river is a mythical way of saying that the king dominates chaos, in the sense of the ruling of chaos by the divine king in 93,3-4 […] This king has a share in the power of God (cf. vv. 10 and 14)”. See also M. DAHOOD, Psalms II: 51–100 (AncB, 17), New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, 1974, p. 317. 143. See GONÇALVÈS, Deux systèmes religieux, p. 118. 144. Tate explains: “The Hebrew ‘righteousness’ (‫ )צדק‬is equivalent to the Egyptian maat (‘fundamental order/truth/justice’); the throne of the [Egyptian] king was thought of as resting on a pedestal of maat, a divinely established order which sustained the kingship and to which the king was responsible. Yahweh’s throne (kingship) is founded upon and characterized by the fundamental, cosmic characteristics of right order and justice. Loyallove and Faithfulness (‫ )חסד ואמת‬are personified as royal attendants who do the bidding of the Cosmic King. They are expressions of the righteousness and justice which are fundamental in the rulership of Yahweh”. M.E. TATE, Psalms 51–100 (WBC, 20), Waco, TX, Word Books, 1990, p. 422.

THE SONG OF SONGS AND THE WISDOM OF THE KING

311

primarily to the sages of Israel, wisdom is first of all a divine and (derivatively) a royal prerogative, which YHWH bestows on the king for governance (1 Kgs 3,7-9; 10,8-9; Psalm 72; Prov 8,15-16; Wis 9,1-12). Thus, even though Solomon is the wise king par excellence (1 Kgs 3,12), wisdom is not connected to him only, but also to David (2 Sam 19,27), Hezekiah (Prov 25,1), and to non-Israelite kings such as Lemuel (Prov 31,1)145. The harmony and prosperity of the kingdom depend on the king’s wisdom, for Wisdom’s gifts are richness, honor, and well-being for both king and kingdom (Prov 8,18.21; Wis 7,11-12). Moreover, royal wisdom manifests itself in knowledge of the secrets of creation (1 Kgs 5,13 [4,33]) and literary wisdom, to which the composition of both proverbs and also of songs belonged (1 Kgs 5,9-14)146. The primary and foremost expression of the king’s practical wisdom, however, lies in his building a temple for the Lord. In the Bible the construction of God’s sanctuary throne is not the prerogative of any random king, however147. It is rather reserved for the chosen of the Lord. Thus the striking parallel between Gudea of Lagash, mentioned above, and David/Solomon is worth mentioning here, for it reveals that fundamental patterns span the millennia and are still preserved in the Bible. David, the good shepherd-king, intends to build a house for the Lord (2 Sam 7,2-3). Just as Gudea is told, “sweet sleep will not come into your eyes while you build the House”148, so also David prayed, “I will not enter my house or get into my bed; I will not give sleep to my eyes or slumber to my eyelids, until I find a place for the Lord, a dwelling place for the Mighty One of Jacob” (Ps 132,3-5; NRSV). In a similar way, Gudea’s divinely granted gift of wisdom which enables him to complete his building of Ningirsu’s Temple recalls the gift of wisdom Solomon received at Gibeah just before he undertook the building of Israel’s Temple. Interestingly, however, in 2 Sam 7,11-13, contrary to David’s desire to build a temple for God, an aspiration in perfect harmony with the ANE ideal of consummate kingship, YHWH proposes instead himself to build a “house” for the king. Although this rejection of David’s desire appears to stand in stark contrast to the prevailing ANE royal ideology, it is balanced 145. MEADE, Pseudonymity, p. 49. One of the eminent qualifications of the messianic king will be his wisdom (Isa 9,6; 11,2; Jer 23,5). 146. KALUGILA, The Wise King, p. 118. 147. On the Temple as God’s heavenly palace (‫ )היכל‬on earth, see P. DUBOVSKY, The Building of the First Temple: A Study in Redactional, Text-critical and Historical Perspective (FAT, 103), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2015, pp. 122-123. 148. EDZARD, Gudea, p. 72, Cylinder A, vi 9-11.

312

PART II – CHAPTER 5

by an ultimate endorsement of royal temple building. In particular, Solomon completes the work David himself begins in erecting for the Lord a dwelling place in Zion. David himself, moreover, is depicted as participating in preparatory construction activities both through his gathering of resources, and especially through his conveyance of the Ark to Jerusalem. The climax, however, is reserved for Solomon his son, who ceremoniously completes and consecrates the Temple (preserving nonetheless its characteristic aniconism, cf. 1 Kgs 8,27 [MT]). The ANE background highlights that it is no mere coincidence that Solomon – the wise king par excellence – built the Temple. It is a necessity that only the greatest and wisest of all the kings of the earth would have been able to construct a Temple for YHWH. The Solomon narrative in 1 Kings 3–11 thus fittingly depicts an Israelite King who is on a par with the most glorious of ANE kings (see Chapter 9, II.2.a.ii, bewlow p. 574). An interesting sign of this specific background has been identified by Victor Hurowitz, who demonstrates how both Solomon’s templebuilding story in 1 Kings and the Tabernacle account in Exodus conform to the literary pattern employed in Neo-Assyrian Tempelbauberichte149. As Hurowitz explains, Mesopotamian monarchs characteristically distinguished themselves through their monumental construction projects – i.e., temples, cities, and palaces – undertaken both for the gods’ and for their own royal glory. When they did so they commissioned their poets or scribes to commemorate the event in a literary form, texts we now refer to as “building and dedication hymns”150. These building and dedication hymns can be related in royal inscriptions in prose style, but they are also found embedded in royal hymns, myths or cultic or historical narratives such as the biblical story of the Tabernacle (Exodus 35–40) and Solomon’s Temple (1 Kgs 5,15–9,25)151. Hurowitz enumerates the following common pattern between the biblical and Mesopotamian texts: 149. See extensively V.A. HUROWITZ, The Priestly Account of Building the Tabernacle, in JAOS 105 (1985) 21-30, pp. 25-26, with further bibliography on pp. 25-26, and ID., “Solomon Built the Temple and Completed It”: Building the First Temple according to the Book of Kings, in M.J. BODA – J. NOVOTNY (eds.), From the Foundations to the Crenellations (AOAT, 366), Münster, Ugarit-Verlag, 2010, 281-302. 150. J. KLEIN, Building and Dedication Hymns in Sumerian Literature, in Acta Sumeriologica 11 (1989) 27-67, p. 27. 151. See HUROWITZ, “Solomon Built the Temple and Completed It”, who points out (p. 283) that even though literary criticism and form-critical analysis has made out a great variety of material and genres used in the composition of 1 Kgs 5,15–9,27, “all this variegate material is combined, narrativized, arranged and shaped in its present form according to the traditional story outline” of an ANE royal temple-building account. For further bibliography on the matter, see KLEIN, Building and Dedication Hymns, p. 57, nn. 2-7.

THE SONG OF SONGS AND THE WISDOM OF THE KING

313

• Commissioning of the building enterprise by a god (cf. Exodus 25–31; 1 Kgs 5,15-19)152; • Description of the preparations for the building (procurement of the materials, workmen, purification rites, etc.) and the actual building activity (cf. Exodus 35–39; 1 Kings 6–7); • The description of the edifice and its appurtenances; • The story of the dedication of the completed building (cf. Exod 40,134; Leviticus 8–10; Numbers 7; 1 Kgs 8,1-11); • Prayers or divine blessings on behalf of the royal builder (cf. 1 Kgs 8,2240); • The blessing of the king or the ruler by the gods, as a reward for his building activity (cf. Lev 1,1; 9,4.6.23.24; Num 7,89; 1 Kgs 9,2-9). Though the biblical Tempelbaubericht differs significantly from its Mesopotamian template153, the parallels highlighted by Hurowitz show that the biblical royal ideology attributes a similar importance to the king’s role in temple building. In fact, an ancient audience could not fail to notice that Solomon was equal to the most glorious Neo-Assyrian kings. 3. King Solomon the Wise While the biblical royal ideology applies to all the Davidic kings, and particularly to David, its most developed expression is found in the paradigmatic son of David, King Solomon. The description 1 Kings 3–11 offers 152. In his letter to Hiram, king of Tyre, Solomon informs Hiram of his decision to build the Temple according to God’s promise to his father David that his son would build a temple. Thus it is clear that Solomon undertakes his building activities according to divine commission. 153. The differences between the biblical account and the Mesopotamian material are well summarized by HUROWITZ, “Solomon Built the Temple and Completed It”, p. 301: Even though the account of building the Temple contained in 1 Kgs 5,15–9,27 corresponds in its “overall design, numerous ideas, language, and style typical […] to building accounts known from Mesopotamian inscriptions in general and Neo-Assyrian inscriptions in particular […], it is completely unique. Unlike the accounts in the Sumerian and Akkadian royal inscriptions which were composed at the time of the events they described and were even integral parts of those events, this one reached its given form centuries after the building project it describes was completed. As such, it expresses in its present form many ideas which would be foreign to Solomon and his age. The story underwent a long development in the course of which the contributing authors utilized it as a vehicle for expressing their own novel conceptions of the temple. All hands involved have also used the story to connect the event not only with Solomon’s reign but with Israelite history and in particular the Exodus. Furthermore, whereas the Bauberichte in the Mesopotamian royal inscriptions are intent on aggrandizing the royal builder for what he has done, the Biblical Baubericht is much more focused on the temple itself, how it serves as a locus of divine presence, how it functions in the cult, and how its building and initiation is a climactic event in the history of God’s vanquishing His and Israel’s enemies”.

314

PART II – CHAPTER 5

of King Solomon strikingly resembles the royal ideologies common to Egypt and Mesopotamia. An ideal, wise king, promotor of arts, he is described like the Neo-Assyrian kings Sennacherib, Esarhaddon, and Ashurbanipal154. Solomon accomplished everything that a perfect ANE king would have boasted of having achieved. Among all the Davidic kings, Solomon alone is granted wisdom in a memorable dream (1 Kings 3)155, to the measure of having become the wisest of all the kings of the earth (1 Kgs 5,9-14). He alone enjoyed peace on all sides around (1 Kgs 5,4). He alone reigned over the “entire universe” (1 Kgs 5,1). And, very importantly, he alone accomplished the construction of the Temple. On account of his singular status, King Solomon – the wise King par excellence – dominates not only the wisdom tradition (1 Kings 3–11; Prov 1,1; 10,1; 25,1; Qoh 1,1; Sir 47,1-17; Wisdom of Solomon)156, but also the Temple and love traditions. This section will highlight how the Solomon tradition puts Solomon on par with ANE royal ideology, in all of the above-related areas. First, Solomon is granted wisdom in view of his royal office (III.3.a). Second, Solomon’s wisdom finds its supreme expression in the building of the Temple (III.3.b).

154. See T. RÖMER, Salomon d’après les deutéronomistes: Un roi ambigu, in C. LICH– D. NOCQUET (eds.), Le Roi Salomon, un héritage en question: Hommage à Jacques Vermeylen (Le Livre et le Rouleau, 33), Bruxelles, Lessius, 2008, 98-129. See further HUROWITZ, I Have Built You an Exalted House. The Neo-Assyrian paragon seems to be especially discernible in the account of the decision to construct the temple (1 Kgs 5,15-19), the acquisition of building material (5,20-26), the manpower (5,27-32), the description of the temple and its furniture (1 Kings 6–7), and the dedication of the sanctuary (1 Kings 8). A. KUNZ-LÜBCKE, Salomo: Von der Weisheit eines Frauenliebhabers (BibG, 8), Leipzig, Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2004, pp. 81-87, has furthermore shown how the narration of Solomon’s ascension to the throne in 1 Kings 1–2 is modeled on the account of the Assyrian King Assarhaddon’s accession to the throne. 155. For the Ugaritic matrix of Solomon’s dream see, C.-L. SEOW, The Syro-Palestinian Context of Solomon’s Dream, in HTR 77 (1984) 141-152. Seow’s article supersedes the older view promoted by Siegfried Herrmann, according to whom Solomon’s dream belonged to the same literary genre as the Egyptian Königsnovelle (see S. HERRMANN, Die Königsnovelle in Ägypten und Israel: Gesellschafts- und Sprachwissenschaftliche Reihe, 1, in Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Karl-Marx-Universität Leipzig 3 [1953] 51-62). While not denying the importance of the Egyptian material, Seow points to the secondary nature of its influence, having filtered into Israel through her Canaanite neighbors, ibid., p. 152. Beyond pointing to the parallels in Phoenician, Aramaic, and Moabite inscriptions, Seow points out that communication with the gods through dreams was granted only to those who were regarded as the earthly representative of the divine. When Saul was no longer the legitimate king of Israel, YHWH therefore “answered him not in dreams, neither by Urim, nor by the prophets” (1 Sam 28,6), while David was able to receive the divine word “in a vision” (Ps 89,20). See Solomon’s Dream, p. 144. 156. In addition to scriptural books attributed to King Solomon (Proverbs, Qohelet, Song), the extracanonical Psalms of Solomon, the Odes of Solomon, and the Testament of Solomon merit to be mentioned. TERT

THE SONG OF SONGS AND THE WISDOM OF THE KING

315

a) Solomon’s Wisdom as a Royal Prerogative Solomon’s wisdom remains proverbial to this day. Its connection to his royal identity, however, is less often noted. The Solomon traditions recorded in the Scriptures indicate, however, that the king is granted wisdom as a royal prerogative in view of his charge to govern the people of God (1 Kgs 3,12; Wisdom 9). It is for this reason that the biblical account of Solomon’s reign opens with the account of his request for a listening heart in order to be able to judge (‫ )שפט‬God’s people and to discern (‫)הבין‬ between good and bad, “for who could judge (‫ )שפט‬this great people?” (1 Kgs 3,9). Solomon’s request is heard and immediately narratively epitomized by his arbitration between the two harlots (1 Kgs 3,16-28). “All Israel heard of the judgment (‫ )המשפט‬that the king had rendered (‫;)שפט‬ and they stood in awe of the king, because they perceived that the wisdom of God (‫ )חכמה‬was in him to execute judgement (‫( ”)עשה משפט‬1 Kgs 3,28). In perfect correspondence with the ideal monarch portrayed in Psalm 72 – which the scriptural tradition places in the mouth of David as a prayer for Solomon – the people are judged (‫ )דין‬with righteousness (‫ )צדק‬by Solomon, and the poor obtain judgement (‫( )משפט‬Ps 72,2). As a result of Solomon’s wise reign, the land abounds in peace and prosperity. Solomon alone ruled over all the kingdoms from east to west, and unlike his father and all his successors he alone “had peace on all sides” (1 Kgs 5,4). During this ideal reign, “Judah and Israel lived in safety”, and every man “sat under his vine and fig tree” (1 Kgs 5,1.5-6 MT). The image of the people sitting under their vine and fig trees is paradigmatic of the (eschatological) messianic times of peace (Mic 4,4)157. As a proof of Solomon’s wisdom, his unsurpassable richness and the abundance of gifts he receives are related extensively in the Solomon narrative (1 Kgs 5,1-8 MT; 1 Kgs 10,1-29). “Solomon excelled all the kings of the earth in riches and in wisdom” (1 Kgs 10,23). The extensive description of Solomon’s wealth is ultimately an expression of the prosperity of the entire nation. “Judah and Israel were as numerous as the sand by the sea; they ate and drank and were happy” (1 Kgs 4,20). Note that the people’s happiness is related first (1 Kgs 4,20), before the country’s welfare is epitomized in the king’s own prosperity (1 Kgs 5,1-8 MT). An unfailing indicator of the well-being of a people is that science and learning flourish. In the ANE this is naturally concentrated in the wisdom of the king. The surpassing wisdom of Solomon is encapsulated in 1 Kgs 5,9-14, which describes Solomon in the vestments of a more than exemplary ANE King. 157. R.L. SMITH, Micah – Malachi (WBC, 32), Waco, TX, Word Books, 1984, p. 37.

316

PART II – CHAPTER 5 9 And God gave Solomon wisdom (‫)חכמה‬, and great understanding (‫)תבונה‬, and breadth of heart as vast as the sand on the seashore. 10And Solomon’s wisdom surpassed the wisdom of all the sons of the east, and all the wisdom of Egypt. 11He was wiser than anyone else, wiser than Ethan the Ezrahite, and Heman, Calcol, and Darda, sons of Mahol; his fame spread throughout all the surrounding nations. 12He composed three thousand proverbs, and his songs numbered a thousand and five. 13He spoke of trees, from the cedar that is in the Lebanon to the hyssop that grows in the wall; and he spoke of animals, and birds, and reptiles, and fish. 14People came from all the nations to hear the wisdom of Solomon; they came from all the kings of the earth who had heard of his wisdom (NRSV).

The repeated accent on Solomon’s peerless wisdom in this text corresponds to a type of standard exaggeration customary in ANE royal rhetoric. His status above “all the kings of the earth” stresses Solomon’s unrivaled monarchic splendor and situates his wisdom unmistakably in the international context of the ANE kingship. As an addendum, two further features of this locus classicus of Solomonic wisdom (1 Kings 9–14) might be briefly noted. Both will be dealt with in the exegesis of the Song in Part III. First, Solomon’s composition of songs as an expression of his regal wisdom relates directly to the attribution of the Song in 1,1. Second, his penetrating knowledge of creation, i.e., trees, animals, birds, reptiles, and fish – a theme dear to the classic form-critical construction of wisdom – connects with a wider Adamic motif coursing through 1 Kings 3–11, and further developed in Wis 7,15-21. This intertextual binding of Solomon and Adam envisions both men as royal figures158 (see Chapter 9, II.2.d, below, p. 582). b) Solomon’s Wisdom and the Temple The expression of his kingly wisdom, however, is not exhausted by Solomon’s proverbial knowledge, the welfare of the people, the flourishing of learning, or the prosperity of the country. The principal and most potent expression of Solomon’s kingship is found in his building of the Temple. To this extent it is significant that Solomon’s wisdom and his temple building are regularly held together in rhetorical conjunction, a motif which is pervasive in both the First and Second Temple Solomonic traditions.

158. On Solomon as a royal adamic figure see the excellent contribution by J.-P. SONNET, Côté cour, côté jardin: Salomon, l’Adam royal, in C. LICHTERT – D. NOCQUET (eds.), Le Roi Salomon, un héritage en question: Hommage à Jacques Vermeylen (Le Livre et le Rouleau, 33), Bruxelles, Lessius, 2008, 247-260.

THE SONG OF SONGS AND THE WISDOM OF THE KING

317

The intimate relationship between wisdom and the construction of the Temple is located in the royal personality of Solomon himself and deeply rooted in the biblical Solomon traditions. The following four texts give evidence of that Solomonic wisdom and temple building are inseparable. (i) The “Deuteronomistic History” The narrative arrangement of 1 Kings 3–10 highlights the centrality of the Temple within the wider depiction of Solomon’s wisdom and reign159. The narrative structures the accounts of Solomon’s proverbial wisdom like a frame around the focal point, which is the construction of the Temple. Frame: Solomon’s Wisdom (1 Kgs 3,1–5,14): Solomon’s marriage to the daughter of Pharaoh (3,1), The gift of wisdom in Gibeon (3,2-15), Solomon’s wise judgement (3,16-28), Solomon the wise reigns over all kingdoms in wisdom and peace (4,1–5,14). Centre: Solomon constructs and dedicates the Temple (1 Kgs 5,16–9,66): The construction and dedication of the Temple of Jerusalem (5,15–6,38; 7,13–9,66) and the construction of Solomon’s Palace (7,1-12), where the emphasis is squarely on the former. Frame: Solomon’s Wisdom (1 Kgs 10,1-25): The Queen of Saba admires Solomon’s wisdom (10,1-13). Second description of the abounding prosperity of Solomon’s reign, a gift of wisdom (10,14-29).

Not only do the accounts of Solomon’s wisdom frame the construction of the Temple. It is also clear from the Temple construction narrative itself that Solomon’s wisdom finds its maximum expression in the building of a house for YHWH160. When Solomon calls Hiram for help in the construction, Hiram’s immediate response is the praise of Solomon’s wisdom: “When Hiram heard the words of Solomon, he rejoiced a lot, and said: 159. The image depicted of Solomon in 1 Kings 3–10 is thoroughly positive. These seven chapters that relate Solomon’s glory are framed by the story of his ascent (1 Kings 1–2) and his decline (1 Kings 11). While the centre part of the narrative (3–10) depict Solomon spotlessly as le Roi Soleil of Israel, the frame-narrative taints the immaculate image of Solomon. This arrangement results in a concentric structure. A (1 Kings 1–2) and A’ (1 Kings 11) recount Solomon’s ascent and decline. B (1 Kings 3–5,14) and B’ (1 Kings 10) focus on the description of his wisdom. The center C (1 Kings 5,15–9,28) revolves primarily around the construction of the Temple, with a minor excursus on the construction of Solomon’s palace. The only suspicion of a shade can be found in 1 Kgs 5,27-28 where there is talk of Solomon having “conscripted forced labour out of all Israel” but Solomon is cleared of that doubt in 1 Kgs 9,15-22, where it is specified that Solomon conscripted only the sons of the Canaanite people. 160. See G. SAVRAN, 1 and 2 Kings, in R. ALTER – F. KERMODE (eds.), The Literary Guide to the Bible, London, Collins, 1987, 146-164, p. 156, who notes that – contrary to the description of the building of the Tabernacle in Exodus 25–40 – “the architectonics of the Temple is presented not as the embodiment of a heavenly blueprint but as a practical demonstration of Solomon’s much launched wisdom”.

318

PART II – CHAPTER 5

‘Blessed be the Lord today, who has given to David a wise son to be over this great people’” (1 Kgs 5,21 [5,7; NRSV]). In 1 Kgs 5,26 [5,12; NRSV] the construction narrative is interrupted to inform the reader that YHWH granted wisdom to Solomon, and that peace reigned between Solomon and Hiram. Furthermore, the construction of the Temple requires wisdom. This results clearly from an allusion to Exod 31,3 and 35,31 according to which YHWH had filled Bezalel with the spirit of God and wisdom (‫ )חכמה‬and intelligence (‫ )תבונה‬and knowledge (‫ )דעת‬for every kind of craft. Similarly, Solomon commissions a certain Hiram of Tyrus, son of a widow from the tribe of Naphtali, with the bronze works for the Temple, who is characterized in the same way as Bezalel: “He was full of wisdom (‫)חכמה‬ and intelligence (‫ )תבונה‬and knowledge (‫ )דעת‬for every kind of bronze craft” (1 Kgs 7,14). Exod 31,3

I have filled him with divine spirit, with wisdom, intelligence, and knowledge in every kind of craft, Exod 35,31 he has filled him with divine spirit, with wisdom, intelligence, and knowledge in every kind of craft, 1 Kgs 7,14 he was full of wisdom, intelligence, and knowledge for every kind of bronze-working craft (my translation)

(ii) Chronicles In 1 Chr 22,9-12, a succinct idealized portrait of Solomon is depicted: See, a son shall be born to you; he shall be a man of rest. I will give him rest from all his enemies on every side; for his name shall be Solomon, and I will give peace and quiet to Israel in his days. 10He shall build a house for my name. He shall be a son to me, and I will be a father to him, and I will establish his royal throne in Israel forever.11Now, my son, YHWH be with you, so that you may succeed in building the house of YHWH your God, as he has spoken concerning you. 12Only, may YHWH grant you discretion (‫ )שכל‬and understanding (‫)בינה‬, so that when he gives you charge over Israel you may keep the law of the YHWH your God (1 Chr 22,9-12).

Solomon’s wisdom is mentioned as David prays that his son might be given discretion and understanding, but this wisdom is ordered to the discharge of the duties proper to a king. In the same way, the central task laid upon David’s son is not to acquire an abstract knowledge of creation but the building of the Temple. In 2 Chronicles the accentuation on Solomon’s wisdom is even more in evidence. While in 1 Kgs 5,21 the emphasis was on wisdom for governance, in 2 Chr 2,11 his wisdom remains bound to a broader royal profile in which temple building has the central place. Specifically, Hiram praises

THE SONG OF SONGS AND THE WISDOM OF THE KING

319

the “God of Israel, who made heaven and earth, who has given King David a wise (‫ )חכם‬son, endowed with discretion (‫ )שכל‬and understanding (‫)בינה‬, who will build a temple for the YHWH, and a royal palace for himself”. (iii) Sir 47,12-18 Sirach again presents us with a condensed profile of King Solomon which begins and ends with his wisdom. Once again, however, this wisdom is not conceived as his sole distinguishing mark, but belongs to a fuller picture of a glorious king. “After him (David) a wise son rose up who because of him lived in security: Solomon reigned in an age of peace, because God made all his borders tranquil, so that (ἵνα) he might build a house in his name and provide a sanctuary to stand forever. How wise you were when you were young! You overflowed like the Nile with understanding (Sir 47,12-14 LXX). As in 1 Kings 3–11, here again Solomon’s temple building is framed by the double mention of his wisdom. (iv) Wisdom 9 Finally, the Wisdom of Solomon relates Solomon’s prayer for wisdom, in which he exposes the reasons for his request. Solomon asks for wisdom in order to fulfill his major duties: to be king, judge, and builder of God’s Temple. Well aware that he can fulfill neither without wisdom he prays, 7

You have chosen me to be king of your people and to be judge over your sons and daughters. 8You have given command to build a temple on your holy mountain, and an altar in the city of your habitation, a copy of the holy tent that you prepared from the beginning. 9With you is Wisdom, she who knows your works and was present when you made the world; she understands what is pleasing in your sight and what is right according to your commandments. 10Send her forth from the holy heavens, and from the throne of your glory send her, that she may labor at my side, and that I may learn what is pleasing to you. 11For she knows and understands all things, and she will guide me wisely in my actions and guard me with her glory. 12Then my works will be acceptable, and I shall judge your people justly, and shall be worthy of the throne of my father (Wis 9,7-12).

Here the author puts in the mouth of Solomon a prayer for wisdom to enable him to execute of everything God has appointed him to do. The logic would seem to be that wisdom is required for the fulfillment of his royal duty, namely governance and temple building161. 161. Interestingly, the passage is reminiscent of the above-mentioned Hymn of Gudea of Lagash, who similarly received a divine commission to build his god’s temple, but needs divine wisdom – mediated by the goddess Nanshe – in order to fulfill the task.

320

PART II – CHAPTER 5

IV. CONCLUSION Though the Song of Songs does not represent a wisdom book according to the form-critical definition of wisdom as a genre – i.e., a sapiential reflection on nature which leads to a creation theology – many scholars approach the Song as if it were a wisdom text because it ranges among the Solomonic books. Confusing the form-critical construct of “wisdom literature” with the canonical entity of “Solomonic books”, they commit a mistake of category which results in an a priori judgment about the Song’s possible content. The faulty reasoning can be summed up as follows: the Song belongs to wisdom literature; therefore it cannot be about Israel’s Heilsgeschichte. It must not be read within the framework of the prophetic literature, which interprets the covenant history as a love story between God and Israel under the symbol of nuptial love. This argument is faulty for the following reasons. First, according to form criticism, the Song does not belong to the genre of wisdom but to the genre of ANE love songs. Second, the form-critical definition of wisdom literature is outdated; or rather, it is reductionistic, since in its narrow limits it does not correspond to the biblical understanding of wisdom, which is much larger. Recent research has shown that even the books considered to be genuine wisdom literature, e.g., Job, Proverbs, and Qohelet, are replete with intertextual allusions to both Law and Prophets. The biblical sage was not only concerned with penetrating the order of the universe. From the postexilic period onwards, he was equally concerned with a sapiential meditation of Israel’s history in the light of the scriptural story. The third reason why the conventional opinion must be rejected is that the Song itself is presented as specifically Solomonic rather than sapiential. It is anachronistic to say that Solomonic books and wisdom are simply interchangeable. Solomonic books represent a more ancient text classification in which the figure of the king, rather than a detached, secular conception of wisdom, provides the hermeneutic lens. For this reason the integral portrait of the king, shaped and stylized on the model of ANE royal ideology, serves as a refinement and rebuttal to Childs’ canonical perspective. In effect, Childs has unraveled the threads of a coherent tapestry. He has artificially separated Solomon’s identity as a wisdom figure from its original and natural grounding in the royal figure. He is right, on the one hand, to highlight the Song’s Solomonic attribution as the decisive key to its theological perspective. Childs is mistaken when he reduces Solomon to simply “the father of sapiential writing”162. Wisdom is certainly one aspect of Solomon’s identity, though the Scriptures preserve a much broader and 162. CHILDS, Introduction, p. 574.

THE SONG OF SONGS AND THE WISDOM OF THE KING

321

more historically contextualized conception. In particular, the persona of king Solomon corresponds to ANE royal ideology. It is accordingly structured by a religiously charged cosmogonic myth, in which wisdom is inseparable from the enthronement of God within the Temple. The common mythic character of kingship in both the ANE and in the Scriptures invites a religiously oriented perspective on creation, contrary to the anachronistically secular form-critical elaboration of wisdom theology. At the same time, a historicizing movement within the context of ancient Israel suffuses this grounding ANE myth with a specifically covenantal content. Solomon’s status as that king who gloriously erects the Lord’s dwelling place in Jerusalem thus contextualizes and informs the biblical memory of his wisdom. King Solomon the wise is not a mere patron of sapiential reflection on “every day life, mundane reality, ‘secular’ matters as we would say today” (cf. Prov 30,18-19)163. Rather he is inescapably a central figure in the history of the Lord’s relation to Israel, his people. The perspective elaborated here brings a significant exegetical advantage. Many features of the Song which escape the attention of an exegesis prejudiced by the traditional form-critical approach become explicable when a more robust ANE and scriptural portrait of Solomon is entertained. Specifically, read in the context of the Solomonic material as biblically depicted, numerous allusions in the Song to the cult and Temple of Jerusalem surface and suggest a reading of the text within the Heilsgeschichte of Israel. Among the textual data newly explicable from this perspective are the following. • The prominent role that King Solomon himself plays within the Song (1,1.5; 3,7.9.11; 8,11) invites comparison with the wider portrayal of his reign within the Scriptures (see Chapter 9). • Jerusalem as center stage for the Song (7 LXX, or 8 MT mentions) evokes the sacred city as the cultic heart of Israel and the site of Solomon’s Temple164. It is by that token the place where the marriage between God and Israel is consummated in the Temple (see Chapter 7, I.2.b.iii, below, p. 439). • The “curtains (‫ )יריעות‬of Solomon” in Song 1,5 lexically recall the curtains of the desert sanctuary165. 163. BARBIERO, Song, p. 39. 164. The important role of the mother, with total absence of a father, points again in the direction of the cult city of Jerusalem. The seven mentions of the mother are like a redactional water-mark (Song 1,6; 3,4; 3,11; 6,9; 8,1.2.5). The mother is Jerusalem; her house is the Temple. It is there that the Beloved wants to bring her Lover and be forever united to him (see Chapter 8, V, below, p. 510). 165. Of its thirty-two occurrences the word ‫ יריעה‬refers twenty-five times to the sanctuary curtains (Exod 26,1-13; Exod 36,8-17; Num 4,25; 2 Sam 7,2 || 1 Chr 17,1) and one

322

PART II – CHAPTER 5

• The ascent of Solomon’s “bed” (3,7) or “litter” (3,9) evokes Solomon’s transfer of the Ark of the Covenant “from the city of David, that is Zion” to the Temple (1 Kgs 8,1-13)166 (see Chapter 10). • In Song 3,9-10 the “palanquin” that Solomon “made for himself” (‫ )עשה לו‬is reminiscent of the construction of the Temple, which Solomon is depicted as having made (‫ )עשה‬himself (1 Kgs 7,48; 7,51) (see Chapter 10, III.3.b, below p. 707). • The Song’s poetry abounds in liturgical ingredients: e.g., incense (‫;לבונה‬ Song 3,6; 4,6.14), myrrh (‫ ;מר‬1,13; 3,6; 4,6.14; 5,1.5.13); spice (‫;בשם‬ 4,10.14.16; 5,1.13; 6,2; 8,14); cinnamon (‫ ;קנמון‬4,12.13.14); and cane (‫ ;קנה‬4,14); all suggestive of a cultic interest167 (see Chapters 6, 10, and 11). • The insistence on Lebanon, the cedar wood, and cypress (Song 1,17 [the house]; 5,16 [his stature]; 8,9 [the little sister/Jerusalem]) recall the material used in the construction of the Temple (cedar according to 1 Kings 6–7; cypress according to 2 Chr 3,7)168. more time to heaven as a sanctuary (Ps 104,2). Four occurrences refer to Jerusalem, three to its destruction (Jer 4,20; 10,20; 49,29), and one to its restoration (Isa 54,2). Only one occurrence refers metonymically to the people of Midian (Hab 3,7). 166. Note that the only occurrence of the name “Zion” in the Song is in the description of the ascent of Solomon’s bed or litter up the mountain. The whole procession, though frequently reduced to a wedding procession, is strongly reminiscent of a liturgical procession (cf. Song 3,6, someone going up “like a pillar of smoke”, smoking (‫ )קטר‬of myrrh and frankincense). 167. All of these are ingredients used for the preparation of the holy anointing oil (Exod 30,22-33). Even the term employed for the dress of the Beloved in Song 5,3 ‫כתנת‬ (tunic) appears in a new liturgical light. In fact, the term ‫ כתנת‬is most often employed to denote the priestly tunic (see, e.g., Exod 28,4.39; 29,5.8; 39,27; 40,14; Lev 8,7.13; 10,5; 16,4; Ezra 2,69; Neh 7,69.71; Ben Sira C 45:8). Elsewhere it appears in Gen 3,21, where it might indicate the progenitor’s priestly role of mediators in creation, and in the JosephStory where it denotes his special election, or as Levenson calls it, “his investiture, analogous to the special apparel that Aaron and his descendants don in connection with their ordination to the priesthood” (see J.D. LEVENSON, The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son: The Transformation of Child Sacrifice in Judaism and Christianity, New Haven, CT – London, Yale University Press, 1993, p. 57). Lastly Tamar wears a ‫כתנות‬ (2 Sam 13,18), which typologically denotes Israel’s special election of which she (Tamar/ Israel) is bereaved by the violent behavior of her selfish kings of whom Amnon is a type. 168. The importance of that material is underscored in the Solomon narrative of 1 Kings by the ample room that is given to its procurement (1 Kgs 5,15–6,38). Though the wooden cypress envelopment of the Temple may have originally played only an aesthetic role, chances are high that it had a symbolic function from the outset. The mountains of Lebanon were considered sacred and a divine dwelling place. R.J. CLIFFORD, The Cosmic Mountain in Canaan and the Old Testament (HSM, 4), Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1972, p. 132; M. WEIPPERT, Libanon, in Reallexikon der Assyriologie und vorderasiatischen Archäologie VI, Berlin – New York, De Gruyter, 1980, 641-650, p. 648; V.A. HUROWITZ, YHWH’s Exalted House: Aspects of the Design and Symbolism of Solomon’s Temple, in J. DAY (ed.), Temple and Worship in Biblical Israel: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar (LHB/OTS, 422), London, T&T Clark, 2005, 63-110, p. 72, points out that “an

THE SONG OF SONGS AND THE WISDOM OF THE KING

323

• The garden imagery shared by the Bride of the Song and the Temple is also illuminating169. The prominence of pomegranates (‫ ;רמון‬Song 4,3.13; 6,7.11; 7,13; 8,2) and lotuses (‫ ;שושנה‬cf. Song 2,1.2.16; 4,5; 5,13; 6,2-3; 7,3) characteristically present in the Song is reproduced elsewhere in the Scriptures only in connection with the Temple of Jerusalem170 (see Chapter 11). One more factor has yet to be taken into account. Just as wisdom was a kingly prerogative and belonged to the ANE royal ideology, so also love poetry and sacred marriage were associated with the king. Both are genres which often belong to the royal domain. The prominent presence of Israel’s most fabulous king in the love poetry of the Song thus urges one to consider the ANE topos of sacred marriage, the celebration of which is attested to in Mesopotamia down to the second century B.C. (cf. 2 Macc 1,13-15). Such will be the topic of the following chapter.

inscription of Nebuchadnezzar II calls the Lebanon qištu ellu, ‘holy/pure forest’, and another qišāti Marduk, ‘the woods of Marduk’ (Langdon 1911,174, IX, 16)”. According to Hurowitz, “Covering the Temple with cedar wood, both from within and without, would suggest that the Temple was the natural habitat of the deity in residence, and by doing so the resident deity’s natural home is transferred to the new location”. Ibid. In the Bible “Lebanon” thus came to be a cypher for the Temple in the second Temple period. On that account it is striking that there is a sevenfold mention of Lebanon in the Song. 169. The Temple and the Land are two corresponding symbols for the fulfillment of God’s promise: a kind of “paradise restored”. For that reason, descriptions of both the Temple and the Land abound in the garden imagery. When God will take his dwelling in the midst of his people (cf. the Bundesformel 1 Kgs 6,13), the life of man in the paradisiacal harmony with the entire cosmos will be restored. The Song, as we will see, expresses the same theological mystery of God’s dwelling within Israel, by using the paradisiacal gardenland symbolism (elsewhere used for the Temple and the Promised Land) for the female Beloved, chosen as his spouse. 170. For the use of the pomegranate in liturgical context, see 1 Kgs 7,18.20.42 (|| 2 Chr 3,16; 4,13), 2 Kgs 25,17, Jer 52,22-23. See also Exod 28,33.34 and 39,24-26. Furthermore, the pomegranate is one of the symbolic fruits of the Promised Land, whose blooming is a sign of salvation (Deut 8,8; 1 Sam 14,2; Hag 2,19) and whose absence signifies the absence of God’s blessing (Joel 1,12) and death (Num 20,5). The lotus (‫ )שושנה‬functions like the pomegranate. It occurs as a Temple decoration in 1 Kgs 7,19.22.26 and 1 Chr 4,5; four times in Psalm headings (Psalms 45; 60; 69; 80), of which one is a wedding song symbolizing the return of Israel from the Exile (Psalm 45); once as a symbol for Israel in an oracle of future restoration (Hos 14,6); and eight times in the Song. In the Song it is, with one exception (5,13), consistently used as a symbol for the Beloved. As we will see in Chapter 8, the LXX plays directly with this established imagery in the story of Susanna, whose name is not chosen at random. Rather, both by her story and name, which is the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew lotus, she personifies Israel. See ENGEL, Susanna-Erzählung, p. 74.

CHAPTER 6

SACRED MARRIAGES

As noted in Chapter 4, the religious understanding of the text reaches back into the last stages of its composition. Yet the question remains as to whether in a previous stage the cantos that constitute the Song already had a religious character, or if they are of “secular” origin, i.e. wedding songs, or love ditties, as held by the majority of present scholarship. The Song has numerous parallels to ANE love lyrics. In the ANE, most love lyrics stem from ritual celebrations of sacred marriages, which belong intimately to the ANE royal ideology. As such, they were part of the scribal education and were copied in the schools1. Love lyrics, King, and wisdom were thus inseparable and given the royal character of the Song make it most likely that its origin would have been in the royal cult. This chapter will first review the wedding-song theory (I). Then it will address the hypothesis of a cult-mythological provenance related to sacred marriage concepts (II). Finally, it will argue that a transformation and integration of the ancient sacred marriage myths into Israel’s religion has precedents to the Song in the Hebrew Scriptures and was compatible with Israel’s faith (III).

I. WEDDING SONGS After Wetzstein’s nineteenth-century description of Syrian wedding customs in his Die Syrische Dreschtafel of 18732, it became popular to interpret the Song as a songbook for Palestinian weddings sung in the regions surrounding Jerusalem3. Wetzstein had observed the popular wedding customs in the neighborhood of Damascus and derived a number of supposed parallels with the Song of Songs. Though the theory has long been contested4, it is still widely held and therefore merits a discussion5. 1. See CARR, Writing on the Tablet of the Heart, pp. 88-90. 2. See WETZSTEIN, Syrische Dreschtafel. 3. See BUDDE, Hohelied, p. xix, who is exemplary for this theory. He was followed, inter alios, by CASSUTO, Il significato originario del Cantico dei cantici. 4. Early opposition to this position was mounted by MEEK, Canticles and the Tammuz Cult. For a more recent rebuttal, see POPE, Song, pp. 141-145, and LACOCQUE, Romance, p. 51. 5. See SAEBØ, Canonicity, p. 277.

326

PART II – CHAPTER 6

This section will (1) sketch the Syrian wedding festivals, (2) outline the alleged parallels to wedding customs in ancient Israel, and (3) argue against the Song’s Sitz im Leben in wedding celebrations. 1. Syrian Wedding Festival Customs Wetzstein provides an elaborate description of nineteenth-century Syrian wedding customs in which several elements are prominently featured. On the day of the wedding the bride dances the sword dance, accompanied by the spectator’s singing of a waṣf. A week of celebrations that is called “the king’s week” follows, during which the newlyweds play king and queen and are celebrated as such by their male and female companions. During the first morning after the wedding, the friends of the groom take a threshing board, which will serve as a throne for the royal couple, and placing it on their shoulders, carry it around in procession. Once the threshing board is raised, the friends intone songs of joy, of war, or of love, or of all at the same time. On the threshing floor the male friends build a scaffolding and install the decorated threshing board as a throne for the grooms. Then the “royal couple” is solemnly led to their enthronement, symbolized by the bride wearing a crown. Their friends subsequently constitute a tribunal and present the “document” of the bride’s virginity (Deut 22,1517), after which the female friends of the bride and the other women access the threshing floor. A festival in honor of the spouses begins with a series of games, alternating with dancing, which lasts late into the evening for an entire week. Only on the seventh day does the merrymaking cease before sundown. During this entire week the spouses have no responsibilities other than to play king and queen. The bride will, however, often perform a dance to favor the admiration of her vesture. Furthermore, the friends of the groom will take turns during dances by singing different epithalamia, to which all respond as one choir with recurring refrains. The waṣfs play a large role in these celebrations, according to the traditional scheme of describing the physical beauty of the spouses. Parallel to this custom, Wetzstein and those who followed him6 conjectured that the Song of Songs was an anthology of popular epithalamia, which was sung during the ancient Palestinian wedding feasts, of which the Syrian customs provided a late reverberation. This theory would explain why the Lover of the Song receives at times the epithet “king” and is featured in parts as King Solomon (Song 1,1.4.12; 3,7.9.11; 7,6). The appellation “king” for the Lover of the Song should be understood as the 6. Most prominently BUDDE, Hohelied, and CASSUTO, Il significato originario del Cantico dei cantici.

SACRED MARRIAGES

327

name given to the groom during the wedding feast, in the same way as May Kings and Queens in a number of European cultures today. The name Solomon would have been chosen as a hyperbole, the highest possible enhancement of the term “king”. As Budde describes, “If one already plays King, one does not play King Tom, Dick, or Harry, or whatever might be the name of a bridegroom, but Solomon”7. The different waṣfs would have been sung in honor of the bridal couple, particularly to praise the bride’s beauty (Song 4,1-7; 6,4-7; 7,2-7). The role of the “Daughters of Jerusalem” (Song 1,5; 2,7; 3,5.10; 5,8.16; 6,4; 8,4) could be explained as that of the bridesmaids, and the role of the male friends (‫ ;חברים‬Song 1,7; 8,13) as that of groomsmen (or friends of the bridegroom). The request to see the Shulammite dance in Song 7,2 would refer to the sword dance, which – so it was conjectured – the brides in Ancient Israel would have already practiced. 2. Alleged Parallels As proof of this theory, scholars proposed parallels between marriage celebrations in Ancient Israel and nineteenth-century Syria folk-wedding customs. According to biblical evidence, Israelite marriage festivals also lasted for one week (cf. Gen 29,27-28; Judg 14,10-18; Tob 11,19). The Bible attests to a similarly important role of the groom’s friends (Judg 14,11.20; 15,2.5; 1 Macc 9,39; Matt 9,15; Mark 2,19; Luke 5,34; John 3,29), and 1 Macc 9,37-41 records a pompous wedding procession (cf. Song 3,6-11). Umberto Cassuto likens the “king-like” authority granted to the bridal pair for the duration of the wedding week to the story of Samson’s riddle. For according to Judg 14,18, the Philistines had to resolve a riddle before sundown on the seventh day. And similar to Syrian wedding customs, the sundown of the seventh day would have marked the end of the celebrations and the end of the extraordinary role played by the newlyweds during the wedding week8. On the basis of a study of Rabbinic material (ranging from Tannaitic [ca. 110-220 A.D.] to medieval), Cassuto reconstructs further parallels. There are Jewish texts that mention wedding processions in which the bride is carried in a litter (‫ ;אפריון‬cf. Song 3,9) from her father’s house to the house of the groom9. The wedding banquet itself took place in 7. BUDDE, Hohelied, p. 16. 8. CASSUTO, Il significato originario del Cantico dei cantici, p. 30. 9. According to m. Soṭah 9.14 it was forbidden during the last war against Hadrian 132-135 A.D., to carry the bride through town in a ‫( אפריון‬litter). For the litters, see also t. Soṭah 15.9 and y. Soṭah 110.

328

PART II – CHAPTER 6

the house of the groom10, where a week of feasting followed11. During that week daily banquets were held, and ample drinking of wine was provided (hence the name ‫ ;בית המשתה‬cf. also John 2)12. The bride is reported to have danced, and her beauty was celebrated with singing and the playing of instruments13. Games and dancing were part of the week-long celebration, during all of which the couple held the place of honor. The groom wore a crown as a symbol of his dignity (m. Soṭah 9.14; cf. Isa 61,10; Song 3,11), and, according to the eighth-century A.D. source Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer, he was considered to be a king (‫[ חתן דומה למלך‬the groom resembled a king]), honored by his friends and not allowed to work for the entire week14. Though the bride is never called a queen in the Jewish sources, Cassuto thinks this is implied. She sat on a throne (‫[ כסא של כלה‬throne of the bride]); m. Ed. 1.11; m. Kel. 22.4; 23.4) and wore a crown (‫ )עטרה‬on her head (m. Soṭah 9.14)15. There also exists a story about Agrippa letting a bride pass first, saying that she was lucky to be queen only for a day, wherefore she should have been given the precedence (tr. Semaḥot 11; b. Ketub. 17a). According to the Jewish sources, the friends of the bridal couple played important roles in the festivities16. Their group was led by the paranymphoi, called ‫ שושבינים‬or ‫ שושבינין‬in Hebrew or Aramaic, compared to the Arabic šebîn, the name for the friends in nineteenth-century Syria. Both Cassuto and Strack-Billerbeck interpret Rabbi Akiva’s interdiction to sing the Song in the ‫( בתי משתאות‬houses of feasting) as a prohibition of singing it at wedding banquets and conclude, therefore, that it was sung during Jewish weddings17. The importance given to proving the bride’s virginity is absent from Jewish sources. Cassuto presumes that the custom must have been lost with time, but that it was certainly present in antiquity. There is, further, no mention of something corresponding to the threshing-board based on 10. t. Meg. 4 (3), 15. 11. CASSUTO, Il significato originario del Cantico dei cantici, pp. 32, 41. 12. See also S. KRAUSS, Talmudische Archäologie, Vol. 2, Hildesheim, Olms, 1966, p. 41. 13. See CASSUTO, Il significato originario del Cantico dei cantici, p. 32. 14. Pirqe R.El. XVI. See G. FRIEDLÄNDER (ed.), Pirkê de Rabbi Eliezer: (The Chapters of Rabbi Eliezer the Great) according to the Text of the Manuscript Belonging to Abraham Epstein of Vienna, New York, Sepher-Hermon Press, 41981, pp. 112-113. 15. Cassuto presumes that this might also be behind Ezek 16,12-13. See CASSUTO, Il significato originario del Cantico dei cantici, p. 35. 16. See KRAUSS, Archäologie, pp. 38-42. 17. CASSUTO, Il significato originario del Cantico dei cantici, pp. 37-43; H.L. STRACK – P. BILLERBECK, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch. I: Das Evangelium nach Matthäus, München, Beck, 1922, p. 505. In Jer 16,5.8 the prophet is warned to go neither into a house of mourning nor a ‫בית־משתה‬. See also Qoh 7,2; ShirR II.2; t. Meg. 4 (3), 15.

SACRED MARRIAGES

329

the difference in custom between peasant feasts (Syrian) and the more urban character of the Jewish feasts. Cassuto nonetheless concludes that the Song was originally an anthology of poems destined to be sung in honor of the spouses on the day of their wedding and during the ensuing week, as it was the custom in Palestine until 70 A.D.18. 3. Counterarguments to the Wedding-Song Theory The similarities between the Syrian peasant weddings and ancient Jewish customs that Cassuto identifies cannot be denied. They are, however, quite general and often taken from late medieval Jewish sources. They do little to secure an identification of the Song as an anthology of wedding songs, let alone the “song book” for a wedding. Rather, a number of points make it highly unlikely that the Song as a whole stems from wedding ceremonies. (1) A confirmation of the key elements of the nineteenth-century Syrian marriage ceremony, which would allow us to assume a similar celebration behind the Song, has not been found in Palestine19; neither has it been found in the Jewish Sources. With regard to m. Soṭah 9.14-15, according to which it was decreed during the Vespasian war against the wearing of crowns (‫ )עטרה‬of the bridegrooms and during the last war (Hadrian) that a bride should not go out in a palanquin (‫ )אפריון‬inside the city, skepticism is warranted. The clear scriptural echoes of Song 3,9-11 along with the unlikely series of legal gradations from the time of Vespasian to Titus to Bar Kochba, reinforces the likelihood that in this Mishnah later scribes have simply characterized the period of these wars as a time when the sounds of bride and bridegroom progressively ceased in Israel. In other words, as seen elsewhere, the Rabbinic tradition here retroactively ensures the fulfillment of the biblical prophecies (e.g. Jer 7,34; 16,9; 25,10; 33,11). Other than the medieval mention in Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer, there is no evidence of a groom and bride “playing King and Queen for a week”. In fact, this evidence merely likens the groom’s status to that of a king; it does not state that the couple enjoyed the status of king and queen for a week. Moreover, the Beloved of the Song is never referred to as a queen. 18. CASSUTO, Il significato originario del Cantico dei cantici, pp. 45-46. 19. See the judicious comment by W.W. Cannon from 1913 cited by POPE, Song, p. 144: “It is an enormous assumption that these wedding ceremonies described by Wetzstein as taking place in Syrian villages near Damascus in 1861 were necessarily the same in weddings in Judea more than 2000 years earlier, or at any time”. See also LACOCQUE, Romance, p. 51.

330

PART II – CHAPTER 6

Second, since Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer is a very late source, one should further examine if this custom had been in any way influenced by the Byzantine wedding rituals of crowning a bridal couple. The same possible influence should be kept in mind with respect to the Syrian wedding customs. Considering the significance of Syria as a major cultural crossroads and a land that was under the control of diverse cultures from various regions, it is to be expected that the customs are of hybrid origin20. Further, there is no evidence of the Jewish brides having performed the sword dance, which seems to have been a symbolic ritual of repelling bad luck and driving off evil spirits21. (2) The Song in its given form would be too short to serve as a “song book” for a ceremony lasting seven days22. Indeed, the brevity of the book facilitated its use (at some point in time) as the lectionary reading for a single day, i.e., Passover. The entire book may be read in less than thirty minutes. (3) With the exception of five verses that describe a wedding procession (Song 3,6-11), there are no allusions to a concrete wedding rite within the Song. The question of the girl’s virginity, so important in the ancient world and elaborated in Deut 22,13-30, is entirely absent from the Song23. On the contrary, according to a widespread interpretation of Song 1,5-6, the young woman has not guarded her virginity. The little foxes threatening to ruin the vineyards are, according to the naturalistic reading, allusions to lovers that threatened the exclusive love of the maiden for her Lover (Song 2,15). The exposition of the girl to her possible abuse in the squares of the town at night (3,1-4; 5,5-7) equally speaks against a wedding setting for these songs. The conspicuous absence of marriage motifs (except for Song 3,11), which would be expected in a marriage celebration, together with the presence of non-marital motifs, thus renders very unlikely the possibility of the Song being an anthology of marriage songs or text of folkloric wedding songs. (4) The fact that it is always the female Beloved who takes the initiative excludes the possibility of this text representing a marriage lyric. It is inconceivable that a bride would have sung about her longing and searching for her lover in the night during her own wedding ceremony. Rather, the long monologues of the female voice yearning for her Lover is a very 20. See J.M. SASSON, On M. H. Pope’s Song of Songs (AB 7c), in Maarav 1 (1978) 177-196. 21. R. DE VAUX, Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions, Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 1997, p. 34. 22. See SASSON, Pope. 23. See LACOCQUE, Romance, p. 50.

SACRED MARRIAGES

331

typical feature of Sumero-Akkadian cult ritual love poetry, in which the female voice usually belongs to a goddess like Inana or Ishtar24. (5) Contrary to the Syrian wedding customs, where the friends of the grooms are the ones who perform and dance in front of the “royal couple”, the Song is a loving dialogue between the two lovers, in which the companions play an exceedingly minor role25. (6) The concept of an anthology is untenable. As has been highlighted in Chapter 4, I (above, p. 166), the Song displays a highly artistic architecture. As such it resembles more a carefully conceived of schriftgelehrte Poesie than an anthology. In conclusion, the following points may be emphasized. Until recently, no inner- or extra-biblical proof has been furnished to sustain the theory that the cantos of the Song stemmed originally from popular wedding celebrations. Although the Mishnah regards it as imperative to dance and sing in front of the bride and take part in a marriage cortège26, there is not the slightest hint that the Song of Songs was composed for or used on those occasions27. The only attestation of a non-religious use of the Song is the famous saying of Rabbi Akiva, that “whoever sings the Song of Songs in the ‫ בתי משתאות‬will have no part in the world to come”28. The term ‫בתי‬ ‫ משתאות‬is regularly translated as “taverns”. It is however not improbable, as Umberto Cassuto has argued, that the term refers to “wedding banquets”, or to the house in which wedding banquets are celebrated29. In either case, if the Song’s cantos had ever served as wedding songs, the custom would have probably been sanctified with the passing of time and the sages would not have forbidden its singing, either in the taverns, or (even less so) in wedding celebrations30. Rather, it was probably then like now that the Song’s cantos would induce people to sing them in a celebratory mood. But that does not prove their origin as wedding songs. Akiva’s saying should simply be taken at face value: because the Song was considered sacred – and had been so for a long time – its singing in profane settings had to be forbidden. Finally, if the Song or part of its cantos had served as a text book at popular weddings, 24. See SCHMÖKEL, Heilige Hochzeit, p. 119; NISSINEN, Sacred Marriage, pp. 210-211. 25. They intervene merely in Song 5,9; 6,1; 7,1 and possibly as a choir in the Who is this? refrains 3,6; 6,10; 8,5. 26. See b. Ketub. 16b-17a. 27. See COHEN, Métaphores, p. 12. 28. t. Sanh. 12.10. 29. Cassuto argues thus in accordance with the term’s use in Jer 16,8, where there is an opposition between the house of mourning and the house were a wedding is celebrated. The same contrast is implied in Qoh 7,2. In Shir ha-Shirim Rabbah II.2 the term indicates clearly the house where the wedding is celebrated. See CASSUTO, Il significato originario del Cantico dei cantici, pp. 37-38. 30. See COHEN, Métaphores, pp. 12-13.

332

PART II – CHAPTER 6

one would need to explain how it became regarded as religious literature. In fact, the wedding-song theory has never been substantiated and needs to be abandoned. It imposes a preconceived reading key which is founded neither on the text nor on historical evidence. The only evidence that might be derived from the parallels between modern Arabic wedding folklore and the ancient Jewish customs is that the Song does in fact partly describe a wedding. Rather than being an old wedding song, it is a song about a wedding. The question remains, however, whose wedding does it describe?

II. REHABILITATING SACRED MARRIAGE In 1922 Theophile Meek aptly asked: “By practically all scholars the book is regarded as late, but how could the Jewish fathers have possibly admitted to their sacred canon a book consisting largely of secular songs, composed shortly before their own time and sung at their own weddings?”31. In order to have been accepted as sacred scripture “it must have been regarded as religious and must for long have had religious usage”32. Since the allegorical interpretation of the Song is the oldest we have, it must have some basis to account for its origin. Meek therefore proposed that the Song might be a “late conventionalized form” of an earlier sacred marriage liturgy, as celebrated throughout the ANE on the occasion of the New Year festival33. This theory, which had been largely abandoned, has been taken up again by recent scholarship and appears to be the most promising prospect for the retrieval of the original Sitz im Leben of a good number of the Song’s cantos. Confusion concerning the term “sacred marriage” has hindered the successful integration of this theme into Song studies. At the same time, owing to the unavoidable ignorance of Neo-Assyrian texts published only recently, the restricted attention of key mid-twentieth-century exegetes on Sumerian material, often imperfectly understood, prevented the full scope of religiously oriented ANE marriage/love rhetoric from being appreciated. This unfortunately led to a premature conclusion to the discussion of sacred marriage in connection with the Song. A more informed and methodologically responsible engagement with this critical comparative material, however, both among contemporary assyriologists and among biblical scholars, has made the use of “sacred marriage” discourse in the study of the Song once more viable. 31. MEEK, Canticles and the Tammuz Cult, p. 2. 32. Ibid. (emphasis mine). 33. See ibid.

SACRED MARRIAGES

333

This section will first trace the different usages of the term “sacred marriage” in ANE studies, and justify its newly embraced usage as an umbrella term for the broadly disseminated phenomenon of the divine-human love relationships (II.1). Secondly, it will outline the classical cult hypothesis as it was proposed by various scholars over the last century (II.2). Third, two basic reasons for its dismissal are pointed out. These are, on the one hand, inherent weaknesses to the cult hypothesis itself, and, on the other hand, a general preference in Song scholarship for “profane” versus religiously oriented sex (III.3). Finally, room is made for Martti Nissinen’s helpful critique of the critique (of the cult hypothesis), arguing that the debate was prematurely closed (II.4). It does, in fact, appear that “the Song carries forward the erotic-lyric tradition that is firmly, though not exclusively, connected with the idea of sacred marriage in the ancient Near East”34. This is a statement about the religious origin of the Song that is more compelling than the supposed profane love-song theory. 1. Sacred Marriage in ANE Studies Originally the term “sacred marriage” (Greek ἱερὸς γάμος, subsequently also referred to as hieros gamos) was a terminus technicus among classicists to describe the union between Zeus and Hera or Demeter and the mortal Jason (Homer, Od. 5.125-128)35. Under the influence of Sir James Frazer’s Golden Bough, however, in which the concept of “sacred marriage” was widely extended, scholars from the nineteenth century onwards came to apply the term to any ritual enactment of the marriage between a god and a goddess, or between a human and a deity36. Though the term “sacred marriage” was initially used to denote any divine love affair, its use was gradually restricted by Assyriologists to designate the second millennium Sumerian texts which describe a marriage between Inana and Dumuzi37. According to the classical theory, these texts 34. NISSINEN, Sacred Marriage, p. 215. 35. See J. RENGER, Heilige Hochzeit: A. Philologisch, in Reallexikon der Assyriologie, IV, Berlin, De Gruyter, 1975, 251-259, p. 251; B. PONGRATZ-LEISTEN, Sacred Marriage and the Transfer of Divine Knowledge: Alliances between the Gods and the King in Ancient Mesopotamia, in M. NISSINEN – R. URO (eds.), Sacred Marriages: The Divine-Human Sexual Metaphor from Sumer to Early Christianity, Winona Lake, IN, Eisenbrauns, 2008, 43-73, p. 47. 36. See J. COOPER, Sacred Marriage and Popular Cult in Early Mesopotamia, in E. MATSUSHIMA (ed.), Official Cult and Popular Religion in the Ancient Near East: Papers of the First Colloquium on the Ancient Near East – The City and Its Life Held at the Middle Eastern Culture Center in Japan (Mitaka, Tokyo), Heidelberg, Winter, 1993, 8196, p. 82. 37. On sacred marriage in Sumer, see the seminal work by W.H.P. RÖMER, Sumerische ‘Königshymnen’ der Isin-Zeit (Documenta et monumenta Orientis Antiqui, 13), Leiden,

334

PART II – CHAPTER 6

reflect a ritual, celebrated annually on the occasion of the New Year’s festival, realized by the king, representing the figure of Dumuzi, and a priestess in the temple representing the goddess of love, Inana. The main aim of the sacred marriage was purportedly to secure the fertility of the land, through a ritualized sexual act38. Related to this vision of sacred marriage and fertility was the concept of the “dying and rising god”, mentioned by Frazer and bound to the myth of Dumuzi’s annual descent to and return from the Netherworld (later recurring in the Tammuz or Adonis myth)39. The hypothesis was that following a period of seven days of wailing over the god’s descent to the netherworld, a feast of rejoicing over his “resurrection” followed on the eighth day on which his marriage with his bride was ritually enacted40. Brill, 1965, pp. 143-149; KRAMER, The Sacred Marriage Rite, pp. 49-66; D.D. REISMAN, Iddin-Dagan’s Sacred Marriage Hymn, in JCS 25 (1973) 185-202; T. JACOBSEN, Religious Drama in Ancient Mesopotamia, in H. GOEDICKE – J.J.M. ROBERTS (eds.), Unity and Diversity: Essays in the History, Literature, and Religion of the Ancient Near East, Baltimore, MD, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1975, 65-97; RENGER, Heilige Hochzeit; SEFATI, Love Songs, pp. 30-49; P. STEINKELLER, On Rulers, Priests and Sacred Marriage: Tracing the Evolution of Early Sumerian Kingship, in K. WATANABE (ed.), Priests and Officials in the Ancient Near East, Heidelberg, Winter, 1999, 103-137; P. JONES, Embracing Inana: Legitimation and Mediation in the Ancient Mesopotamian Sacred Marriage Hymn Iddin-Dagan A, in JAOS 123 (2003) 291-302; LAPINKIVI, Sacred Marriage. 38. See FRANKFORT, Kingship and the Gods, pp. 286ff.; KRAMER, The Sacred Marriage Rite; and S.N. KRAMER, The Dumuzi-Inanna Sacred Marriage Rite: Origin, Development, Character, in Actes de la XVIIe Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale. Université Libre de Bruxelles, 30 juin – 4 juillet 1969 (1970) 135-141. “The idea behind the rite is self-evident […]: to make his people happy, prosperous, and teeming in multitude, it was the king’s pleasant duty to marry the passionate, desirable goddess of fertility and fecundity, the alluring deity who controlled the productivity of the land and the fruitfulness of the womb of man and beast”. Ibid., p. 137. 39. See A. MOORTGAT, Tammuz: Der Unsterblichkeitsglaube in der altorientalischen Bildkunst, Berlin, De Gruyter, 1949, and KRAMER, The Sacred Marriage Rite, pp. 107-133. Although this aspect has been subsequently questioned – see, e.g., M.S. SMITH, The Death of ‘Dying and Rising Gods’ in the Biblical World: An Update with Special Reference to Baal in the Baal Cycle, in SJOT 12 (1998) 257-313 – it has been recently reaffirmed by T.N.D. METTINGER, The Riddle of Resurrection: “Dying and Rising Gods” in the Ancient Near East (CB.OT, 50), Stockholm, Almqvist & Wiksell, 2001, and positively reviewed by E. FRAHM, Review of T.N.D. METTINGER, The Riddle of Resurrection: ‘Dying and Rising Gods’ in the Ancient Near East (CB.OT 50). Stockholm 2001, in Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 93 (2003) 294-300. Other scholars viewed the sacred marriage between Inana and Dumuzi as an institution aimed at the divinization of the king or a strategy for producing a royal heir (Geo Widengren; W.W. Hallo). For the dismissal of this theory see COOPER, Sacred Marriage, pp. 89-90. Yet another approach has been to link the sacred marriage with the coronation of the king. RENGER, Heilige Hochzeit, p. 257: “Die Bekundung Inannas, Šulgi sei der königlichen Insignien würdig, […] weist das Ritual der H. H. aus als Teil der Zeremonien, die mit der Thronbesteigung eines Königs von Ur III bzw. Isin verbunden waren. Eine später, d.h. schon während der Herrschaft ausgesprochene Verleihung der Herrscherinsignien hätte wenig Sinn”. COOPER, Sacred Marriage, p. 87 objects that “there is no reason why the king could not be reconfirmed periodically in his office”. 40. See MEEK, Canticles and the Tammuz Cult, p. 4.

SACRED MARRIAGES

335

The restricted focus of this scholarship was terminologically codified in Johannes Renger’s important definition of sacred marriage41. Renger explicitly reserved the term hierogamy (“sacred marriage”) exclusively for the Inana and Dumuzi material. To cover the wider range of related material, particularly Neo-Assyrian and later texts, treating the union between two deities (see the example treated under III below, p. 352), he spoke instead of theogamy42. This reduction of the language of “sacred marriage” to a historically remote and restricted application, coupled with objections to the centrality of fertility to the Dumuzi material and skepticism about the enacted sexual element in the ritual, helped lead to a general rejection of “sacred marriage” (so understood) among Assyriologists43. The effective collapse of “sacred marriage”, narrowly identified with the ritual act of intercourse, has led to a reconsideration of the fundamental nature and significance of Mesopotamian love texts in general. It appears to be the now prevailing opinion that “sexual intercourse between the king and the goddess represented by a priestess was not essential”44, but that instead either a merely symbolic enactment transpired, or that in treating these texts as literature the “sacred marriages” have to be taken “as metaphors for the divine-human relationship”45. Likewise, the focus on fertility, while present, is now often considered to be secondary. The emphasis of the marriage metaphor points rather in other directions. Jerrold Cooper, for instance, stresses the political dimension of the sacred marriage which was “a way for the king, and through him the people, to establish personal and social ties to the gods”46. Beate Pongratz-Leisten places the emphasis on the transferal of divine knowledge necessary for the king to fulfill his divinely ordained duties of maintaining the cosmic and social order47. This communication could happen either nonverbally, as in the 41. RENGER, Heilige Hochzeit. 42. See ibid., p. 255. 43. For the various theories espousing the view of a physical intercourse as part of the ritual as well as their critical assessment, see COOPER, Sacred Marriage, pp. 87-89. For a critique of the physical intercourse as a part of the ritual, see E. ANAGNOSTOU-LAOUTIDES, In the Garden of the Gods: Models of Kingship from the Sumerians to the Seleucids, London, Routledge, 2016, pp. 81-89; LAPINKIVI, Sacred Marriage, pp. 243-245; LEICK, Sex and Eroticism, pp. 97-110; STEINKELLER, Rulers, pp. 133-134. 44. PONGRATZ-LEISTEN, Alliances, p. 50. See also ANAGNOSTOU-LAOUTIDES, Garden, p. 105. 45. ANAGNOSTOU-LAOUTIDES, Garden, p. 81. 46. COOPER, Sacred Marriage, p. 87. 47. PONGRATZ-LEISTEN, Alliances, pp. 44-47. For a similar view, see also ANAGNOSTOULAOUTIDES, Garden, p. 78: “The ‘sacred marriage’ displays the king’s exclusive privilege to modulating the fertility of the goddess and maintaining the cosmic balance. Since cosmic balance becomes a major preoccupation of the royal and theological tradition of the later millennia, the sexuality of the goddess, inextricably linked with it, must have also remained a major expression of cosmic affluence and of the king’s role in it”.

336

PART II – CHAPTER 6

sacred marriage (hierogamy or theogamy), or verbally, as in prophecy. In both cases, the love goddess Ishtar (the Akkadian equivalent to the Sumerian Inana) played a central role as intercessor, mediator, and transferrer of divine knowledge48. The status of the king emerges with special clarity in this new perspective on sacred marriage. In fact, as Martti Nissinen resumes it, Sacred marriage was an essential constituent of the royal ideology. It is noteworthy that the ideal relationship between the king and the gods was expressed in the language of love and eroticism. […] while “love” was an expression of loyalty and could be used of a vassal and a suzerain, the marriage metaphor expressed the idea of a legal bond between the goddess and the king that made him capable of executing his kingship49.

This contemporary view of sacred marriage as centered on the persona of the king has not yet been recognized and assimilated by Song scholarship. Its sensitivity to the metaphorical nature of Mesopotamian sacred marriage texts, however, which must not be read as the mere rubrics for a ritualized act of intercourse50, invites comparison with a cross-culturally wider range of love literature. In this way, the formerly restricted meaning of “sacred marriage” is being replaced by a much more expansive signification. As a broad umbrella term, it might concern (1) the union between the cosmic elements of heaven and earth (cosmogamy)51, (2) the union between a goddess and a king or a god and a queen (hierogamy), or (3) the union between two deities (theogamy)52. It is this more expansive sense of “sacred 48. In the ANE relational patterns (filiation, brotherhood), or “alliances with goddesses in the form of adoption, nursing, or sacred marriage are common metaphors for expressing the interaction between the human sphere and the gods”. Thus, according to one of the Sumerian royal hymns, Šulgi X, the role of Inana/Ishtar on behalf of the king, was (1) to protect him as a warrior charged with the duty of protecting the cosmic order, (2) intercede for him before the divine council of the gods, (3) and act as a divine messenger bringing him the decision of the great gods. Flowing out of this latter aspect, Ishtar becomes in the Old Babylonian and Late Assyrian period an oracular deity, who tells the king herself: “The secrets of the gods lie before me. Because the invocation of my name is ever in your mouth, I shall reveal to you, one by one, the secrets of the gods”. FLP 1674: 3-8. Both in ancient Sumer and the Mesopotamian religious system, however, Ishtar continues to perform “the role of transferring divine knowledge to the king in order to allow him to partake in the divine plan and to enable him to perform the duties of his royal office”. PONGRATZ-LEISTEN, Alliances, pp. 51, 56-57, 59, 60. 49. NISSINEN, Sacred Marriage, p. 203. 50. In defense a metaphorical understanding of sacred marriage, see particularly ANAGNOSTOU-LAOUTIDES, Garden, pp. 81-89. 51. “The only manner which human beings have of creating life is through sexual relations. That is why the very constitution or formation of what exists (cosmogeny) is attributed to sexual relations between the gods. Thus the sexual drive is taken up into the sacred”. C. YANNARAS, Variations on the Song of Songs, Brooklyn, MA, Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2005, p. 38. 52. See PONGRATZ-LEISTEN, Alliances, p. 44.

SACRED MARRIAGES

337

marriage”, embracing a wide range of religiously oriented Mesopotamian love lyrics, which is most promising for the study of the Song and which is the intended meaning of the term here. Of interest for our study are both hierogamy as known in its classical form, the Sumerian sacred marriage, and theogamy as it appears mainly in Akkadian texts from the late second millennium through the first millennium, down to the Hellenistic (Seleucid) period53. 2. Comparative Song Scholarship: The Classical Cult Hypothesis At the beginning of modern comparative Song scholarship stood a concentration on Mesopotamian parallels54. The myth and ritual school adopted Frazer’s understanding of sacred marriage as a sexually enacted fertility rite with particular interest and energy. These scholars, to whom the most relevant (i.e. Neo-Assyrian) material for comparison with the Song was still unknown, necessarily restricted their attention to a confined corpus of material stemming from second-millennium Sumer. The sense of “sacred marriage” in their discussion was thus confined to Renger’s narrow meaning – to the prejudice of related ANE phenomena equally concerned with marriage/love as a religious metaphor. The theory emerged that the parallels between the Song and the Sumerian sources indicate that the Song or some of its cantos might have originally belonged to the cultic context of ANE fertility rites, notably harking back to the ancient Canaanite Tammuz-Ishtar cult55. Later, when monotheism had asserted itself, leaving no place for such rituals, the poems became purportedly a “conventionalized form for the celebration of the coming of spring”56. The canonical status of the Song, however, is to be explained by its originally religious function. 53. According to Jerrold S. Cooper, the evidence for such a ritual can be divided chronologically into three groups: early (Early Dynastic, Sargonic, Lagash II), classical (Ur III-Isin), and late (later OB-first millennium). See COOPER, Sacred Marriage, p. 82. See also STEINKELLER, Rulers. 54. This history of Song scholarship in relation to the classical cult hypothesis is largely based on NISSINEN, Sacred Marriage, pp. 177-180. 55. The Tammuz/Ishtar rite is the Babylonian-Assyrian version of the Sumerian Dumuzi/ Inana rite, which “marked the annual death and descent into the netherworld of the minor god Dumuzi, a symbol of plenty. ‘In the cult drama of the death of the god and lament for him, celebrated at the end of spring, the loss of the god, the waning of the power for new life in nature, is counteracted by mourning and lament’ (T. JACOBSEN, Toward the Image of Tammuz and Other Essays … [Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1970], p. 100). Wailing for Tammuz (in his several forms) was a women’s rite practiced widely over the Near East through centuries. A seventh-century B.C.E. Assyrian daybook ordains bikitu ‘weeping’ on the second of the month of Tammuz”. M. GREENBERG, Ezekiel 1–20 (AncB, 22), New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, 1974, p. 171. 56. See MEEK, Canticles and the Tammuz Cult, pp. 2, 6; NISSINEN, Sacred Marriage, p. 187.

338

PART II – CHAPTER 6

The main protagonists of this classical cult hypothesis were – with slight variations in its elaboration – Theophile Meek, Geo Widengren, Samuel Kramer, Harmut Schmökel, and Helmer Ringgren57. They shall each be briefly treated, as they together represent an important stage in the discussion of the Song’s possible origin. It will then be argued that the discussion has been prematurely closed and should be reconsidered on account of new perspectives on sacred marriage mentioned above. a) Theophile Meek: Fertility Cult Theophile Meek was the first to elaborate a full-fledged theory of the cultic origin of the Song58. He advanced the theory that the Song might be “the late conventionalized form of the earlier liturgies that celebrated the marriage of sun-god with mother-goddess, which the world over typified the revival of life and vegetation that came with the return of the growing season”59. This sacred marriage, he ventured, might have been part of a fertility cult which the nomadic Hebrews took over from their urbanized Canaanite neighbors, who, in turn, had borrowed it from the Tammuz-Isthar cult as it is found in the Assyro-Babylonian literature, a modified form of the Dumuzi-Inana cult of the Sumerians60. Meek 57. See MEEK, Canticles and the Tammuz Cult; T.J. MEEK, Babylonian Parallels to the Song of Songs, in JBL 43 (1924) 245-252; ID., The Song of Songs, in The Interpreter’s Bible, V, New York – Nashville, TN, Abingdon, 1956, 89-148; WIDENGREN, Sakrales Königtum, pp. 78-79; SCHMÖKEL, Heilige Hochzeit; S.N. KRAMER, The Biblical “Song of Songs” and the Sumerian Love Songs, in Expedition Magazine 5 (1962); ID., Inanna and Sulgi: A Sumerian Fertility Song, in Iraq 31 (1969) 18-23; ID., Sumerian Sacred Marriage Songs and the Biblical ‘Song of Songs’, in Mitteilungen des Instituts für Orientforschung 15 (1969) 262-274; ID., The Sacred Marriage Rite; H. RINGGREN, Das Hohe Lied, in ID. – O. KAISER (eds.), Das Hohe Lied, Klagelieder, Das Buch Esther (ATD, 16/2), Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 31981; ID., Marriage Motif. 58. See MEEK, Canticles and the Tammuz Cult. 59. Ibid., p. 2. The sun-god he conjectured to have been Šelem or Šalma (Dod or Tammuz, the Palestinian counterpart to the Syrian Adad) with the mother-goddess Šala (the consort of Hada), whence the names of Solomon and Shulamit. 60. Meek gives no explicit bibliographical references to the Sumerian texts. It is, however, apparent that his primary reference texts are the Sumerian compositions concerning Inana and Dummzi, in particular, Inana’s Descent to the Netherworld. Meek was also inspired by KAR IV, 158, a catalogue listing the incipits of a large collection of Akkadian love songs, much of which – according to him and also Samuel Kramer – appear to have been connected to the Tammuz-Ishtar cult. See ibid., p. 13. He refers here particularly to E. EBELING, Keilschrifttexte aus Assur religiösen Inhalts: Erster Band (Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen der deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft, 28), Helsingfors, Hinrichs, 1919, Heft IV, n. 158. The newest edition is H. LIMET, Le texte KAR 158, in H. GASCHE – B. HROUDA (eds.), Collectanea Orientalia: Histoire, arts de l’espace et industrie de la terre. Études offertes en hommage à Agnès Spycket (Civilisations du Proche-Orient. Serie I: Archéologie et Environnement, 3), Neuchâtel, Recherches et publications, 1996, 151-158; MDOG, No. 58, 1917, p. 49.

SACRED MARRIAGES

339

conjectured that Israel had developed a similar ritual which celebrated the sacred marriage between YHWH and a goddess (Astarte or Anat), the prophets’ polemicizing against fertility rites being a reflection of such syncretism (cf. Ezek 8,14)61. Reminiscences of such a cult would, therefore, still be found in the text. The word ‫ דוד‬for the Lover, for instance, would hark back to the god name Dod, Dad, or Dadu and the like, none other than the god Adad, the Palestinian counterpart of Tammuz. The name Shulamit, in turn, would hark back to the goddess Šala, the consort of Adad62. Traces of this fertility cult are found in a number of books in the Bible (Ezek 8,14; Zech 12,11; Jer 7,18), and though the prophets condemned it severely, it was never fully eradicated. In fact, the prophets themselves drew some of their symbolism from the cult (e.g. Hos 2,21-25, see IV.2.a, below, p. 385). According to Meek, the prophetic use of the marital metaphor for the relations between YHWH and Israel as that of husband and wife indicates the existence of a sacred marriage between YHWH and the goddess Astarte. The dispute with regard to the Song’s reception into the canon, he argued, was therefore not so much due to any moral prejudice (which he held to be “more modern than ancient”), “but by its connection with a cult which through prophetic opposition had come into religious disfavor”63. This theory of the Song’s origin, argues Meek, resolves not a few of the difficulties that have beset biblical scholars. (1) It explains why the Lover in the Song is designated both shepherd and king – these are the very epithets of Tammuz-Dumuzi in the cuneiform documents. (2) It further explains why the Beloved is designated as both bride and sister – these are identical with the epithets of Ishtar-Inana. (3) The Sumerian Dumuzi-Inana cult liturgies consist largely of dialogues and monologues uttered by the couple, interrupted here and there by chorus-like refrains. (4) Finally, it can account for the literary structure of the book and helps to explain its acceptance as part of the Holy Scriptures because of its religious use from of old. According to Meek the similarity to marriage songs is “more likely due to the fact that the marriage ceremony drew much from the 61. See MEEK, Canticles and the Tammuz Cult. See also GREENBERG, Ezekiel 1–20, p. 171. 62. MEEK, Canticles and the Tammuz Cult, p. 7, explains in footnote 1: “Of interest in this connection is a god list published by Schroeder, Keilschrifttexte aus Assur verschiedenen Inhalts, viz., VAT 10434 (KAV No. 145), Rev. 6 = VAT 13034 (KAV No. 73), 7: ilat Ištar Uru-silim-ma = Šul-ma-ni-t[u], i.e., Šulmânîtu is the title of Ištar of Urusilima. From the text it would appear that Urusilima was situated in Babylonia, but so far as the spelling is concerned it could very well be Jerusalem, and it is not impossible that ‫שׁוּל ִמית‬ ַ ‫ ַה‬and Šulmânîtu may have some connection with each other”. 63. Ibid., p. 3.

340

PART II – CHAPTER 6

rites of the fertility cult”64. The symbolic language of the Song can, of course, “equally well suggest human love as divine love, but this is their secondary significance”. In the Song, as it stood originally, “these words were symbolic of the love of god and goddess”65. b) Geo Widengren: Divine Kingship Geo Widengren took up Meek’s theory and placed the sacred marriage in the context of divine kingship. The royal ideology of Jerusalem was an offshoot of the Tammuz ideology, mediated by the Canaanites, in which the king represented the dying and rising god. He was also the representative of Tammuz in the sacred marriage ritual which, according to Widengren, was an essential part of the Sukkoth festival: “the booth, as a symbol of the garden of Eden, was the venue of the sacred marriage, the central purpose of which was begetting a royal heir”66. The goddesses involved in this sacred marriage rite would have been Anat or Astarte, who – as interpreted on the basis of Elephantine (Anatyahu) and the Hebrew Bible (1 Kgs 11,5; Jer 44,17) – was apparently worshipped alongside YHWH from the reign of Solomon until the time of Jeremiah. The attribution of the Song to King Solomon was quite logical. Widengren reckons that it would have been sung at the Sukkoth festival, when young men and maidens danced the ‫( מחוֹל‬cultic dance, cf. Song 7,1)67. The advantage of Widengren’s theory is, in the first place, that he gives prominence to the person of the King, and in particular Solomon. Secondly, he provides a matrix that might hold together scattered and speculative but suggestive hints at Israelite fertility rites that appear both in the Song and elsewhere in the Scripture (e.g., Judg 21,19-21; 2 Samuel 6; Hos 3,1; 5,13; Jer 44,15-19). c) Hartmut Schmökel: Cultic Drama According to Hartmut Schmökel the texts discovered at Mari, which asserted the presence of the Dumuzi-Inana cult, helped to explain the genealogical bridge of sacred marriage from Sumer to Israel, that is, from 64. Ibid., p. 8. 65. Ibid. 66. NISSINEN, Sacred Marriage, p. 182, with reference to G. WIDENGREN, Konungsens vistelse i dödsriket, in Svensk Exegetisk Årsbok 10 (1945) 66-81; ID., Hieros gamos och underjordsvistelse: Studier till det sakrala kungadömet i Israel, in Religion och Bibel 7 (1948) 17-46. See my own reading of 2 Samuel 6 along similar lines in Chapter 10. 67. WIDENGREN, Sakrales Königtum, p. 79.

SACRED MARRIAGES

341

Mesopotamia to western Syria and Palestine68. According to Schmökel the Song of Songs was originally a cultic drama that follows the essential phases of the Tammuz myth and the sacred marriage rite69. For acceptance into the Hebrew canon the original texts would have been jumbled, so that the original cultic sequence would no longer be observable within the text without a major re-arrangement of the verses. Although Schmökel’s ultimate reconstruction of the Song is highly suspicious, he successfully highlights a critical issue in the cult hypothesis: namely, how the ANE sacred marriage motifs were mediated to Israel. At the same time, he plausibly suggests the presence of Canaanite influence on the biblical text. d) Samuel Kramer: Tammuz and King Solomon Samuel Kramer follows Meek, yet introduces an important modification to the theory he propounds70. For while in Meek’s time scholars still thought Tammuz to have been a Mesopotamian deity and his marriage with Ishtar therefore a marriage between gods (theogamy), Tammuz was in the meantime discovered to have originally been not a god but a deified king, therefore fitting even better with the role allocation in the Song71. Through his wedding with Ishtar he was ensured well-being for himself and for his people72. Thus, one of the weaknesses of Meek’s proposal according to which YHWH, though nowhere mentioned in the Song, had taken the role of the presumed god Tammuz, was now rectified by Kramer. According to him, in Israel’s assimilation of the Canaanite sacred marriage between the king Tammuz and Astarte, it was not YHWH who was to wed Astarte, but the king (Solomon), presumably for the same reasons (i.e. well-being for himself and his people)73. 68. See SCHMÖKEL, Kultische Deutung; ID., Heilige Hochzeit, p. 6. 69. See SCHMÖKEL, Kultische Deutung, pp. 27-36. Schmökel further makes out the following biblical reminiscences of the Tammuz cult: Isa 17,10-11; Hos 6,2; Jer 22,18.20; Dan 11,37. 70. See KRAMER, The Sacred Marriage Rite, pp. 85-106, and ID., Sumerian Sacred Marriage Songs. Kramer points out that it should rather be called the Dumuzi-Inana cult, since nearly all the compositions are in the Sumerian language. Nonetheless, since Meek’s theory was inspired to a great extent by the Accadian “Liederkatalog” KAR 158, which from its initial phrases he judges to have been part of the Tammuz-Ishtar cult, Kramer surmises the existence of such Songs and adopts Meek’s terminology. 71. There is mention of a shepherd-king Dumuzi in the King List. The identification with Dumuzi, Inana’s lover, is however, a hypothesis. Dumuzi(d) simply means “good son”. 72. See KRAMER, The Sacred Marriage Rite, p. 91. See also S.N. KRAMER, Dumuzi’s Annual Resurrection: An Important Correction to ‘Inanna’s Descent’, in Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 183 (1966) 31. 73. See KRAMER, The Sacred Marriage Rite, p. 91. See also WIDENGREN, Sakrales Königtum, p. 12.

342

PART II – CHAPTER 6

Another weakness of Meek’s proposal was that his references were comprised of dirges and laments, leading him somewhat artificially to seek all kinds of “possible and impossible allusions” to the descent to and return from the Netherworld of the deity in the Song, contrary to the text’s generally joyous character74. Kramer, on the other hand, was in the fortunate possession of more than a dozen Sumerian sacred marriage songs of celebration and rejoicing, which yielded even more “parallels between the biblical book and some of its probable cuneiform forerunners”75. Kramer’s importation of new material confirms and strengthens Widengren’s attention on King Solomon. The king is no longer a mere place holder for YHWH; he is in his own right as a royal personage the spouse of the goddess. Kramer’s acquaintance with newly discovered texts further enabled the liberation of the cult hypothesis from Frazer’s dying and rising god typology and confirmed the actual lyrical nature of the Song. e) Helmer Ringgren: Cultic Origin But Not Cultic The last major scholar who proposed a cult-mythological origin for the Song’s cantos was Helmer Ringgren, even if he advanced the thesis in a slightly more moderate form. In his last contributions to the matter he maintains that the Song probably had a cultic origin without being a cultic text in its present form76. He warned against trying to classify the Song as either secular or religious love poetry, as represented by those who want to derive the comparative material from either Egypt (allegedly secular) or Mesopotamia (allegedly religious)77. Ringgren insists that the varying parallels are in great part literary conventions spread over the entire ANE78. Ringgren’s contributions are significant. In the first place, he identifies a false dichotomy between secular and religious, which maps onto a forced choice between Egyptian and Mesopotamian material. He also reveals a nuanced way to confirm contact with ANE cults without implausibly suggesting (à la Schmökel) that the Song is simply a (garbled) cult text. Finally, he opens the way to a comparative consideration of broad ANE 74. See KRAMER, The Sacred Marriage Rite, p. 91. 75. Ibid. 76. See RINGGREN, Marriage Motif, pp. 422-423. 77. RINGGREN, Hohe Lied, p. 225: “Es gibt hier nicht eine kultische und eine profane Liebespoesie, sondern beide schöpfen aus einer gemeinsamen poetischen Tradition und beeinflussen einander gegenseitig. Ebensowenig darf man das vergleichende Material einseitig aus ägyptischen (Gerleman, White) oder mesopotamischen (Schmökel, Pope) Quellen holen. Die literarischen Konventionen sind zu größten Teil über das ganze vorderorientalische Gebiet verbreitet”. 78. See ibid., p. 255.

SACRED MARRIAGES

343

materials. Treated almost as an archetype, this perspective on sacred marriage is less bound to the specific parallels in ancient Sumer. In his last contribution to the subject Ringgren holds that the Song probably had cultic origins without being a cult text in its present form79. If sacred marriage ceremonies had ever been practiced in Israel (as the inscriptions concerning YHWH and Asherah would seem to imply, see IV.2.a, below, p. 385), those would have probably long been forgotten at the moment of the Song’s inclusion among the Hebrew sacred Scriptures80. Rather, the old idea of sacred marriage had been reinterpreted, in view of the marriage-like relationship between God and Israel. “In other words, the real sacred marriage which produced fertility is that between Yahweh and his people, not the one celebrated in the fertility cult. We have before us a transformation of the fertility religion”81. f) Basic Elements of the Theory While differences exist among them, the foregoing exponents as a whole provide pieces of a portrait of the classical cult-mythological hypothesis. Nissinen abstracts the following basic elements of the theory82: (1) The Song displays noteworthy parallels to certain ANE, particularly Sumerian texts. (2) The comparative material describes a sacred marriage ritual between Inana/Ishtar and Dumuzi/Tammuz, centered upon a sexual act uniting the king and a priestess. The main purpose of this ritual was to secure fertility for the land and, perhaps, to beget a royal heir. (3) A similar ritual was presumably practiced in Canaan and, under Canaanite influence, also by the Israelites, who likewise celebrated a sacred marriage between YHWH and a goddess (Astarte or Anat). The prophets’ polemics against fertility festivals testify to the existence of such rites (cf. Ezek 8,14). (4) The parallels linking the Song and the ANE material indicate that at least some portions of the Song stem ultimately from that (illicit) sacred marriage cultic context. At a later point, when such ritual practices were no longer tolerated in Israel’s religion, these textual elements were re-crafted to fit Israel’s monotheistic faith. The acceptance of the Song into the canon, however, remains a function of the book’s originally religious purpose.

79. 80. 81. 82.

See RINGGREN, Marriage Motif, pp. 422-423. See ibid., p. 424. Ibid., p. 425. See NISSINEN, Sacred Marriage, p. 187.

344

PART II – CHAPTER 6

3. The Dismissal of the Cult Hypothesis In spite of the obvious parallels between the Song and the Sumerian cultic love poetry the cult hypothesis was dismissed by the majority of scholars. This was due, on the one hand, to some obvious weaknesses in the cult hypothesis. On the other hand, it resulted from a general preference for the naturalistic reading of the Song and the allegedly non-religious Egyptian parallel material. These reasons will be dealt with in the following paragraphs. a) Weaknesses of the Cult Hypothesis Comparative studies are regularly burdened with explaining the differences which separate the texts under consideration. In the case of the cultmythological hypothesis this was not always accomplished with great success. A variety of weak points have been identified and well summarized by Martti Nissinen83. (i) With respect to the form and content of the Song, a number of obvious differences from the Sumerian material can be observed. First, the suggestion, as advanced by Schmökel, that the Song was a cult text, is too strained to recapture a ritual form and thus remains unconvincing. Furthermore, the Song nowhere describes a ritual marriage between deities, something that is evident in Sumerian texts. In connection with this, it has been noted that the explicit description of sexual contact in the sacred marriage texts is not paralleled in the language of the Song. For instance, in a hymn celebrating the marriage between King Šulgi of Ur and the goddess Inana (ca. 2050 B.C.), the deity speaks of Šulgi playing with “the hair of my loins” and laying his hands on “my pure vulva”84. Similarly, when (the well-travelled) Inana marries King Iddin-Dagan (ca. 1910-1890 B.C.), the goddess washes “her holy loins” before the monarch comes and “beds down with her”85. Such directness is vainly sought in the scriptural text. Also absent is any direct mention of fertility, which the cult-mythological school held to be at the center of sacred marriage. 83. See ibid., pp. 187-188. 84. Šhulgi X, lines 28-30. See the edition by J. KLEIN, Three Šulgi Hymns: Sumerian Royal Hymns Glorifying King Šulgi of Ur, Ramat-Gan, Bar-Ilan University Press, 1981, p. 137. 85. Iddin-Dagan A, line 181. See W.H.P. RÖMER, Ein Lied zum Ritus der Heiligen Hochzeit der Göttin Inanna mit König Iddindagān von Isin (ca. 1974/1954 v.Chr.), in Orakel, Rituale Bau- und Votivinschriften, Lieder und Gebete (Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testaments, II/2), Gütersloh, Mohn, 1989, 659-673; KRAMER, The Sacred Marriage Rite, pp. 65-66.

SACRED MARRIAGES

345

(ii) The problematic question of the mediation, already highlighted in Schmökel’s work, is unfortunately more complex than he allowed. The supposed existence of a Canaanite sacred marriage ritual remains an hypothesis. The fact that Ugaritic texts describe the love between divine couples does not necessarily constitute evidence for sexually enacted sacred marriage rituals. “The theory operates”, says Nissinen, “as though there was a direct link from poetry to ritual, from metaphor to practice. However, poetry can be used for a variety of purposes, and metaphors do not have unidimensional points of reference outside their own textual world”86. Similar uncertainty troubles the Sumerian material with the added difficulty that it is more temporally and geographically removed from the Song of Songs. The ultimate decision of many Assyriologists that no such sexually realized “sacred marriage” ever existed powerfully undermined the cult-mythological thesis which had been built upon the assumed existence of this rite. If “sacred marriage” in this form never existed in the ANE, how could it be found behind the biblical text? (iii) One final objection concerns the inhospitality of Israelite religion for all forms of surrounding idolatrous cults. Supposing that the prophets had successfully eradicated the practice of pagan fertility rights, it appears implausible that texts which originally belonged to such cultic practices would have made their way into Israel’s corpus of sacred texts. b) Preference for “Secular” Poetry While the sacred marriage theory was initially welcomed, it was largely rejected beginning in the 1960s (with the exception of Marvin Pope and Helmer Ringgren). In addition to the above-mentioned weaknesses of the cult-mythological hypothesis, a long-standing discomfort with mythological elements in biblical religion exerted a measurable influence in the theory’s rejection. The visceral revulsion of some exegetes for what they deemed unworthy of religion is well captured in the disdainful words of Wilhelm Rudolph, who calls the cult-mythological interpretation an “Ausfluß einer gewissen Mythologitis, die die Arbeit am AT zeitweilig ergriffen hat”87. The Zeitgeist of the late sixties onwards added another element of discomfort with the idea of sacred marriage in the Bible. A new attunement to the idea of secular love, unhinged from institutional religion, warmly welcomed the idea of secular love in the Song. Accordingly, scholars 86. NISSINEN, Sacred Marriage, p. 188. 87. RUDOLPH, Hohe Lied, p. 93.

346

PART II – CHAPTER 6

shifted their attention from Mesopotamia where love poetry was admittedly of religious nature88 to Egypt where the love poetry was presumably more profane. The study of Egyptian love poetry from the New Kingdom (thirteenth-twelfth century B.C.) particularly corroborated the idea of noncultic extra-biblical sources for the Song89. The publication of Michael V. Fox’s commentary, which treats the Song as Egyptian love songs, has had a particularly strong influence in shaping the opinio communis. Fox convincingly demonstrates the rich parallels between the texts and makes a strong case for tracing the Song’s origin back to an influence of Egyptian (in his estimation secular) love literature90. Othmar Keel, who further takes into account the iconographic material, likewise reckons with a strong Egyptian influence on the Song (though not to the exclusion of the elements taken from West Semitic and Mesopotamian divinities and sacred marriages)91. The “secular” nature of the Egyptian love poetry is no longer undisputed. The subject will be discussed under III.3, below, p. 371. From the late sixties onwards, however, as a result of this general preference for allegedly secular love poetry, the majority of scholars subsequently preferred the Egyptian parallels to the Song over the Mesopotamian sources, and for the following basic reasons92: ii(i) In comparison to the Sumerian texts, the time lapse between the Egyptian texts and the Song is shorter. i(ii) The language, imagery, and scenery of Egyptian love poetry appear to be more akin to the Song than the Sumerian sacred marriage poems, which, as noted above, are much more sexually explicit than the Song93. (iii) While Mesopotamian love poetry was thought to be concerned with fertility rites, sacred marriages, and love between the deities, the 88. The secular nature of the Mesopotamian material, in particular KAR 158, has been repeatedly disputed by Assyriologists. In support of the cultic origin of KAR 158 see recently B. GRONEBERG, Searching for Akkadian Lyrics: From Old Babylonian to the “Liederkatalog” KAR 158, in JCS 55 (2003) 55-74. On the religious nature of Mesopotamian love songs in general see J. KLEIN – Y. SEFATI, ‘Secular’ Love Songs in Mesopotamian Literature, in C. COHEN et al. (eds.), Birkat Shalom: Studies in the Bible, Ancient Near Eastern Literature, and Postbiblical Judaism. Presented to Shalom M. Paul on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday, Vol. 2, Winona Lake, IN, Eisenbrauns, 2008, 613-626. 89. See A. HERMANN, Altägyptische Liebesdichtung, Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz, 1959; WHITE, Language; FOX, Song; MATHIEU, Poésie . 90. See FOX, Song. 91. See KEEL, Tauben; ID., Hohelied. 92. For this summary, see NISSINEN, Sacred Marriage, p. 191. 93. See WHITE, Language, p. 24; FOX, Song, pp. 204-205, 242-243, 287-288; KEEL, Tauben, pp. 18-21; ID., Hohelied, pp. 22-24, 38; GARRETT, Song, p. 49.

SACRED MARRIAGES

347

Egyptian love poetry was allegedly composed exclusively for entertainment purposes, without any cultic background whatsoever94. A reading of the Song against the background of the Egyptian parallels thus apparently permits one to presuppose an originally non-religious, “secular” setting and dispenses one from considering a religious (cultic) origin. It is striking that the presumably “profane” parallel of the Egyptian love songs displaced the earlier cultic school just as wider social currents also sought to free love from its traditional religious context. This verdict was mainly issued by Fox, whose influence here must be stressed. However, contradicting views that point to the religious nature of the Egyptian texts have been overruled without sufficient debate95. By turning predominantly to the Egyptian parallels, the presumption of a cultic origin related to sacred marriage for the Song has been generally abandoned96. The similarity in imagery and poetic devices between the Song and the Mesopotamian cultic love poetry is not denied, but simply explained by a common ANE literary tradition. 4. Nissinen’s “Critique of the Critique” In an important recent article, Martti Nissinen revives and revises the cult hypothesis and argues convincingly that the Song – though not a sacred marriage ritual in its present form – “demonstrably carries forward the erotic-lyric tradition that is firmly, though not exclusively, connected with the idea of sacred marriage in the ancient Near East”97. Nissinen points out that the debate was prematurely closed. In particular, the recent discovery of Neo-Assyrian ritual love lyric material has substantially broadened our understanding of both sacred marriage and its possible infiltration into Israel. As a prominent example, The Love Lyrics of Nabû and Tashmetu (to be discussed below) may be mentioned98. The demonstrably liturgical character of this text and its Neo-Assyrian location make it a 94. See FOX, Song, pp. 244-247; MURPHY, Song, p. 42. 95. See V.L. DAVIS, Remarks on Michael V. Fox’s ‘The Cairo Love Songs’, in JAOS 100 (1980) 111-114; and more recently A. LOPRIENO, Searching for a Common Background: Egyptian Love Poetry and the Biblical Song of Songs, in A.C. HAGEDORN (ed.), Perspectives on the Song of Songs / Perspektiven der Hoheliedauslegung (BZAW, 346), Berlin, De Gruyter, 2005, 105-135. 96. Among the more recent rejections, see MURPHY, Song, pp. 55, 57; LONGMAN, Song, pp. 44-46, 49; GARRETT, Song, pp. 82-83; ZAKOVITCH, Hohelied, pp. 36-37. 97. NISSINEN, Sacred Marriage, p. 215. 98. For more ample reference texts, see the list provided by NISSINEN, ibid., pp. 206208.

348

PART II – CHAPTER 6

relevant and compelling point of comparison with the biblical text. It will be dealt with under III. Nissinen also points to another key problem in the debate. For while acknowledging the weaknesses of the earlier cult-mythological hypotheses, he indicates that “[t]he critics of sacred marriage understand it in the same unidimensional way as the targets of their criticism, i.e., as a fertility rite consummated in ritual intercourse, with a heavy emphasis on the sexual aspect”99. Assyriological scholarship, however, energized in part by the fund of new materials, has developed a more sociological and symbolic, cross-cultural paradigm of sacred marriage – embracing both hierogamy and theogamy, and reaching from Sumerian through Akkadian down to Greek and Demotic texts. Characteristic of this new paradigm is a deemphasis on the sexual and fertility aspects of sacred marriage – without denying their role altogether – and a broadened understanding of “sacred marriage” as a mode of ANE love lyric discourse100. The new perspective at work here, inasmuch as it marginalizes the role of cultic intercourse in sacred marriage, could, as Nissinen points out, help expose a basic affinity between the Sumerian and Ugaritic traditions that constitutes the necessary bridge over time and space from Sumer to Israel101. Specifically, the protest of some scholars that the presence at 99. Ibid., p. 193. 100. A significant representative of the new paradigm is Jerrold Cooper, whose influential article on “Sacred Marriage and Popular Cult in Early Mesopotamia” argued for a shift in interpretation from a primarily sexual to a sociological understanding of sacred marriage. Cooper understands the ritual as a way for the king of securing legitimacy and divine blessings on himself and the people. A practice “to be compared […] with the use of royal princesses in ‘diplomatic’ marriages to cement relations between states. The emphasis on the social rather than the carnal aspects of marriage might then explain, why, in ‘Inanna and Iddin-Dagan’, despite the carnevalesque character of the festival, it is explicitly said that ‘the robust young man has intimate relations with his wife’ (L. 103) and not, as we might otherwise expect, with a(ny) young woman. It is the marriage relationship that is being reinforced; this is no random copulation intended to encourage fertility, but rather a sexual relationship in a carefully circumscribed context that entails a whole network of obligations between partners and their kin”. He maintains the presence of a ritual intercourse, subordinating it, however, to the primary aim of reinforcing “the legitimacy of the marriage relationship between the goddess and the king”. The fertility aspect, which indeed cannot be denied, “would then have developed naturally as a secondary phenomenon from this feature of the rite”. COOPER, Sacred Marriage, pp. 91-92. “Sacred marriage therefore was much more than a mere fertility rite. Rather it was a symbol of an intimate connection between the divine and human world, since it was not only the king that took part in it but the entire people by way of representation through the king, and since it would have been a popular festival on which occasion these kinds of love songs would have been sung. Thus, a division into ‘sacred’ and ‘secular’ would make little sense”. Ibid., p. 202. 101. In fact, to this point no collection of love poems has been found at Ugarit. Nevertheless, as H.J. MARSMAN, Women in Ugarit and Israel: Their Social and Religious Position in the Context of the Ancient Near East (OTS, 49), Leiden, Brill, 2003, p. 703, points out,

SACRED MARRIAGES

349

Ugarit of “sacred marriage”, strictly understood as ritual sex within a cultic fertility drama, cannot be shown (e.g. “The Birth of the Goodly Gods”, KTU/CAT 1.23)102 is not a decisive argument against the broader evidence for a shared poetics of sacred marriage103. One may add here, nevertheless, that recent findings have unearthed strong archaeological evidence that sexually enacted sacred marriage rituals were in fact celebrated in Palestine during the late fourth and third millennium B.C.104. To this extent, the new paradigm helps ease the problem of genealogy and opens up a likely channel of contact with Israel. The geographic proximity of Israel with such surrounding Canaanite traditions can be granted, while the growing corpus of Neo-Assyrian material provides a more secure temporal point of contact between the ANE lyrical poetry of divine love and ancient Israel105. “love songs probably did exist, for they are quoted in literary texts such as KTU 1.100,7072”. See also KTU/CAT 1.24,3-13 and 1.14 III 38-54. 102. For a recent translation see M.S. SMITH, Sacred Marriage in the Ugaritic Texts? The Case of KTU/CAT 1.23 (Rituals and Myths of the Goodly Gods), in M. NISSINEN – R. URO (eds.), Sacred Marriages: The Divine-Human Sexual Metaphor from Sumer to Early Christianity, Winona Lake, IN, Eisenbrauns, 2008, 93-113, pp. 98-102. 103. Among those who argue for a sacred marriage ritual at Ugarit (largely on the basis of KTU/CAT 1.23) are J.C. DE MOOR, New Year with Canaanites and Israelites. Part One: Description; Part Two: The Canaanite Sources (Kamper Cahiers, 21-22), Kampen, Kok, 1972, §§2.14, 4.32; ID., An Anthology of Religious Texts from Ugarit (Religious Texts Translation Series. Nisaba, 16), Leiden, Brill, 1987, pp. 117-128; E. LIPIŃSKI, Fertility Cult in Ancient Ugarit, in A. BONANNO (ed.), Archaeology and Fertility Cult in the Ancient Mediterranean: Papers Presented at the First International Conference on Archeology of the Ancient Mediterranean, the University of Malta, 2-5 September 1985, Amsterdam, Grüner, 1986, 207-216, p. 211; N. WYATT, Religious Texts from Ugarit: The Words of Ilimilku and His Colleagues (The Biblical Seminar, 53), Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press, 1998, p. 94; and MARSMAN, Women, pp. 528-531. Against this view stand D.T. TSUMURA, Kings and Cults in Ancient Ugarit, in K. WATANABE (ed.), Priests and Officials in the Ancient Near East, Heidelberg, Winter, 1999, 234-236; SMITH, Ugaritic Texts, and J.I. TRUJILLO, The Ugaritic Ritual for a Sacrificial Meal Honoring the Good Gods (Ph.D. Diss., Johns Hopkins University; Baltimore, MD, 1973), p. 146, cited in SMITH, Ugaritic Texts, p. 95. 104. See the thorough discussion of the archaeological evidence by P. MIROSCHENDJI, At the Origin of Canaanite Cult and Religion, in Eretz-Israel: Amnon Ben Tor Volume (Eretz-Israel, 30), Jerusalem, Israel Exploration Society, 2011, 74*-103*. Miroschendji complements the discussion on the nature of “sacred marriage” – which appears to have been lopsidedly focused on texts only – by including rich glyptic material. The evidence adduced leaves no doubt that the king played a key role in the sacred marriage rites and that they included materially enacted sexual rite. 105. For an ample documentation of ritual celebrations of divine love in first millennium B.C. Mesopotamia, consisting of royal inscriptions, cultic calendars, administrative documents, literary texts, and poetry, see E. MATSUSHIMA, Problèmes des déesses Tasmetum et Nanaia, in Orient 16 (1980) 133-148; ID., Le “lit” de Samas et le rituel du mariage à l’Ebabbar, in Acta Sumerologica 7 (1985) 129-137; ID., Le rituel hiérogamique de Nabû, in Acta Sumeriologica 9 (1987) 131-175; ID., Les rituels du mariage divin dans les documents accadiens, in Acta Sumeriologica 10 (1988) 95-128. For an extensive treatment of the relevance of this material for the “sacred marriage” discussion in general and its purport for Song scholarship, see NISSINEN, Akkadian Rituals. See also J. KLEIN, Sacred

350

PART II – CHAPTER 6

Whatever religious and literary influence is postulated at the level of early interaction with Canaan, Israel almost certainly experienced the influence of Babylonian sacred marriage traditions through their exile experience. In opening the door to a greater Mesopotamian and Canaanite influence on the Song, Nissinen necessarily relativizes the presently popular unilateral comparison with the Egyptian parallels. He does not deny the value of these materials; still, his panoramic perspective on the ANE allows him to view them in a different light. In particular, Nissinen sees a greater continuity between all the ANE love poetry than those who insist on the necessity of choosing between supposedly “secular” Egyptian and “religious” Mesopotamian parallels. As Nissinen observes, “The secular versus sacred dichotomy has led to the development of two strictly distinct categories of texts: texts composed for entertainment purposes and texts with a cultic-religious function”106. This view, however, can no longer be upheld. Today scholarship is more aware that such a dichotomy does not exist. Ritual texts served not exclusively for liturgical purposes; the ritual celebrations were always perceived as entertainment by the people who participated in them107. Moreover, the purely secular nature of the Egyptian texts has become questionable, as they demonstrably borrow from religious and magical literature108. The simple fact that such texts were transcribed further points to their religious nature, as Jacob Klein observed in connection with the scribal habits of antiquity: Both in the Sumerian period and later, the scribes did not deem it worthy or important to copy and transmit to future generations popular and “secular” love songs, which were no doubt circulating orally and were commonly sung at wedding banquets. Thus, all types of love songs known to the present day are connected in one way or other to gods and goddesses, rooted in the cult; or at least they center around the personality of the king and were written down and copied by the scribes for him and his courtly circle109. Marriage, in Anchor Bible Dictionary, V, New York, Doubleday, 1992, 866-870, p. 869; LEICK, Sex and Eroticism, pp. 130-138; and NISSINEN, Sacred Marriage, pp. 206-207. 106. NISSINEN, Sacred Marriage, p. 196. 107. The texts give evidence of huge sacrificial meals whose celebrations were not confined to the temples and of processions of gods through the streets of the cities. In Hellenistic Uruk people are said to have celebrated these rituals even in their homes. See ibid., pp. 207208. 108. See MATHIEU, Poésie, pp. 226-241; MARSMAN, Women, p. 75; J. ASSMANN, Die Zeugung des Sohnes: Bild, Spiel, Erzählung und das Problem des ägyptischen Mythos, in Funktionen und Leistungen des Mythos: Drei altorientalische Beispiele (OBO, 48), Freiburg/CH, Universitätsverlag, 1982, 13-61; M. RIKALA, Sacred Marriage in the New Kingdom of Ancient Egypt: Circumstantial Evidence for a Ritual Interpretation, in M. NISSINEN – R. URO (eds.), Sacred Marriages: The Divine-Human Sexual Metaphor from Sumer to Early Christianity, Winona Lake, IN, Eisenbrauns, 2008, 115-144; and recently DARNELL, Rituals of Love. 109. KLEIN – SEFATI, ‘Secular’ Love Songs, p. 624.

SACRED MARRIAGES

351

This point is of considerable importance. What Klein observes explicitly in regard to the Sumerian texts is likely applicable also to the Egyptian material. The questionable division between “secular” and “religious” ANE literature has been artificially reinforced in this debate by the common a priori decision for the profanity of the Song, as observed above (II.3.b, p. 345). Given the modern Western bias against the idea of a mythologically burdened “sacred sex”, critics usually favor a “desacralized and demythologized concept of sexuality in the Song and look for its theological relevance in the dignity of human love and eroticism as God-given gifts”110. The desacralized view is curiously insensitive to the well-documented mythological elements in the biblical book111. A further, but related point may also be added. One must be cautious of retrojecting modern gender conceptions onto ancient texts. In the ancient world the hierarchical difference between a sovereign and a vassal, a king and his people, or a divinity and its devotees was naturally expressed in male-female sexual metaphors112. In their self-consciously egalitarian understanding of the relation of Lover and Beloved in the Song, contemporary exegetes risk a fatal anachronistic blindness to the characteristically hierarchical ANE perspective on love and sex (cf. Chapter 1, II.2.b, above, p. 25)113. Whatever value modern gender theorists may or may not find in the viewpoint of the Song, from its ancient patriarchal standpoint the ranked difference between the genders inevitably entailed an analogy with the divine-human relationship. 110. NISSINEN, Sacred Marriage, p. 195. 111. The case of Othmar Keel is representative and perplexing. On the one hand, he chronicles religious and cultic echoes without end. At the same time, he argues for a de-mythologized, democratized vision of sexuality in the Song. See KEEL, Hohelied, p. 42. For the multiple mythological elements in the Song, see in particular POPE, Song; MÜLLER, Lyrische Reproduktion; and KEEL, Hohelied. 112. See CARR, Gender. See also NISSINEN, Sacred Marriage, pp. 210-211: “Special attention should be paid to the gender matrix evident in the rituals and poetry of divine love, which reflects a cosmic hierarchy in which the ‘male’ gender belongs to the dominant divine and the ‘female’ to the weaker human party of the imaginary love relationship. In the case of a divine couple, the divine male-female gender mirrors the human male-female matrix of the patriarchal society. The female deity clearly occupies the step below the male deity on the hierarchical ladder; nevertheless, she is not a passive and submissive object of the male deity’s sexual needs but a partner in a mutual love affair, often taking the initiative and speaking with her own voice as the subject of her own desires. Within this gender matrix, the goddess clearly identifies herself with humans – either herself representing the human individual (as in the Inanna-Dumuzi metaphor, according to Lapinkivi) or interceding on behalf of the king and country in front of the male god in the privacy of the divine bedroom and drawing his attention to human concerns”. 113. See, e.g., KEEL, Hohelied, p. 41; TRIBLE, Love’s Lyrics, p. 119; M. FALK, The Waṣf, in A. BRENNER (ed.), A Feminist Companion to the Song of Songs (Modern Critical Interpretations), Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press, 1993, 225-233, p. 228; BLOCH – BLOCH, Song, pp. 4-5; EXUM, Song, pp. 77, 80-81; BARBIERO, Song, p. 120.

352

PART II – CHAPTER 6

III. NABÛ AND TASHMETU: LOVE IN THE SANCTUARY Among the rich documentation of rituals of divine love from first millennium B.C.114, The Love Lyrics of Nabû and Tashmetu (henceforth, The Love Lyrics) constitutes the closest Mesopotamian parallel to the Song of Songs so far known115. It is a text from the Neo-Assyrian period (seventh century B.C.)116, the ritual setting of which is evident from related sources (see III.1). Despite this ritual setting the text is not ostensibly a ritual text (with the exception of the first five lines), there is no mention of fertility, nor does the text hint at physical intercourse performed during these rituals. It does, however, confirm our understanding of sacred marriage as a ritual of divine love, meant to procure divine blessing on both king and people. Chronologically, the The Love Lyrics testify to the continuation and modification of the Sumerian sacred marriage idea and its practice well into the Hellenistic period, providing evidence of its enduring presence in Mesopotamia for millennia. Israel’s encounter with those texts is more likely than with the Egyptian ones. 1. The Ritual It is the good fortune of contemporary scholarship to be well-informed about the Sitz im Leben of The Love Lyrics of Nabû and Tashmetu. While the text is principally love poetry with respect to genre, it is nevertheless clear from the related sources that it belongs to a distinctly ritual setting117. This setting is determinative for the understanding of the text and demands an interpretative horizon contoured by the heavy presence of cultic action and temple imagery. The text itself begins with a hint at its liturgical nature: “May anyone trust in whomever he trusts! As for us, we trust in Nabû, we are devoted to Tashmetu. What is ours is ours: Nabû is our lord, Tashmetu is the mountain of our trust” (l.1-5). Beyond these five lines, however, nothing 114. NISSINEN, Akkadian Rituals, p. 95 affirms, that “letters, royal inscriptions, cultic texts and administrative documents … leave no doubt that (divine love) rituals were indeed celebrated from the Neo-Assyrian to the Late Babylonian (Seleucid) period in different Mesopotamian cities”. 115. IM 3233 = TIM 9 54 = SAA 3 14. The text is edited by MATSUSHIMA, Le rituel hiérogamique, and LIVINGSTONE – READE, Poetry. For the parallelism with the Song of Songs, see LAMBERT, Devotion: The Languages of Religion and Love, p. 27; W.G.E. WATSON, Some Ancient Near Eastern Parallels to the Song of Songs, in J. DAVIES et al. (eds.), Words Remembered, Texts Renewed (JSOTS, 195), Sheffield, JSOT, 1995, 253-271, p. 261; NISSINEN, Love Lyrics. 116. NISSINEN, Love Lyrics, p. 624. 117. See ibid., p. 592.

SACRED MARRIAGES

353

in the poem hints that it is a piece of religious devotion. Without this fortuitous introduction, therefore, one might surmise that it is a simple love song, the Sitz im Leben of which would arouse the exact same questions as those surrounding the Song. Given the verses, however, and our knowledge from other sources of the existence of a marriage rite between Nabû and Tashmetu, it is evident that the text had a cultic background118. In particular, several extant letters give a detailed description of the marriage rite between Nabû and Tashmetu119. All these documents describe the same ritual: the marriage of Nabû and Tashmetu in Kalhu in the month of Iyyar, which was performed in time of Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal (ca. 681-627 B.C.). This annual symbolic marriage between Nabû, the god of writing, and his consort, Tashmetu120, was in fact celebrated widely in different cities in Neo-Assyrian times121. The rite varied a little from town to town but basically contained the following elements122: (1) The ceremonial bedchamber (bēt erši) for the erotic encounter of the divine couple was prepared in the innermost recess of the temple on the third or fourth of Iyyar. (2) On the fifth day of the month, the gods were conveyed to the chamber (by a chorus 118. For these sources see J.N. POSTGATE, The bit akiti in Assyrian Nabu Temples, in Sumer 30 (1974) 51-74, pp. 57-59, 69-71; F. POMPONIO, Nabû: Il culto e la figura di un dio del Pantheon babilonese ed assiro (Studi Semitici, 51), Roma, Istituto di studi del Vicino Oriente, 1978, pp. 136-139; B. MENZEL, Assyrische Tempel. Band I: Untersuchungen zu Kult, Administration und Personal. Band II: Anmerkungen, Textbuch, Tabellen und Indices (Studia Pohl: Series Maior, 10), Roma, Biblical Institute Press, 1981, pp. 91-100; A. LIVINGSTONE, Mystical and Mythological Explanatory Works of Assyrian and Babylonian Scholars, Oxford, Clarendon, 1986, pp. 106-108; LEICK, Sex and Eroticism, pp. 134-138; B. PONGRATZ-LEISTEN, Ina Sulmi Irub: Die kulttopographische und ideologische Programmatik der akitu-Prozession in Babylonien und Assyrien im I. Jahrtausend v. Chr. (Baghdader Forschungen, 16), Mainz, Philipp von Zabern, 1994, pp. 98-99. 119. See letters ABL 65, 113, 366, in S.W. COLE – P. MACHINIST (eds.), Letters from Priests to the Kings Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal (SAA, 13), Helsinki, Helsinki University Press, 1998, pp. S56, 70, 78. See further MATSUSHIMA, Le rituel hiérogamique, pp. 132143; NISSINEN, Love Lyrics, pp. 592-595; LAPINKIVI, Sacred Marriage, p. 84. 120. Nabû is the Babylonian god of writing. He appears in Akkadian sources from early in the second millennium B.C., though it is only with the rise of the Neo-Assyrian power from ca. 925 B.C., that Nabû’s worship reaches its peak. By the seventh century B.C. Nabû was the most common divine element in theophoric names, and he had become one of the principal gods of Assyria. Tashmetu is his spouse with whom he shared a twin Temple in the large sacred precinct on the Citadel of Kalakh (modern Nimrud). See A.R. MILLARD, Nabû, in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, Leiden, Brill, 21999, 607-610; and also NISSINEN, Akkadian Rituals, pp. 97-99. 121. NISSINEN, Love Lyrics, p. 592. There is no unanimity concerning the frequency of the celebration of its rite. A monthly or bi-annual rhythm has also been proposed. The decisive question for our study, however, is its actual existence not the frequency of its celebration. 122. The following is taken from the detailed description by NISSINEN, Akkadian Rituals, pp. 97-99.

354

PART II – CHAPTER 6

of worshipers) and entered the temple for their erotic encounter in a solemn procession – probably represented symbolically by figurines123. A dialogue between the two gods then followed. (3) The divine couple remained in the bedchamber for several days, during which offerings of the royal family were brought before the gods. (4) On the fifth day of the celebration, a royal banquet was held in the form of a sacrificial meal. (5) Nabû and Tashmetu stayed together in the nuptial chamber for another five days until the tenth of the month, while the temple administrator remained in their presence. Though nothing is known about the ritual performances during these five days, something essential about the purpose of the gods’ divine intimacy can be learned from a Neo-Assyrian colophon addressed to Nabû by Ashurbanipal: “Tašmetu, the Great Lady, your beloved spouse, who intercedes (for me) [daily] before you in the sweet bed, who [never] ceases demanding you to protect my life. [The one who trusts in] you will not come to shame, O Nabû”124. Nissinen observes that “this telling piece of evidence makes plain the earthly ramifications of the divine love-making. The goddess, while gratifying her beloved in the ‘sweet bed’, intercedes with him on behalf of the king – and, through him the community of worshippers”125. (6) On the eleventh day of the festival, Nabû emerged from the bedchamber and was carried in a chariot in procession through the city streets to a game park or a garden. The ritual fails to mention the presence of Tashmetu in this procession, but given the “heated mutual invitations to the garden” (see lyrics below), it is presumed that Tashmetu’s presence was taken for granted. The Love Lyrics of Nabû and Tashmetu were most probably sung on the occasion of this annual sacred marriage festival. The lyrics resemble, however, a literary composition more than “a manual of a cult drama. As such, the text may reflect different aspects of the ritual without exactly mirroring its performance”126. This juxtaposition of ritual and poetry is characteristic of ANE cultic practice127. In light of this certain, if in various 123. According to the traditional theory the “sacred marriage” was consummated by a king and a woman representing Inana (i.e., KRAMER, The Sacred Marriage Rite). However, no evidence is given to that effect. “The absence of any specific description suggests that, rather than a kind of sympathetic magic confirmed with a respective action, the divine eroticism should be understood as a metaphor for the blessings that are believed to be received from the deities”. NISSINEN, Love Lyrics, p. 596. 124. H. HUNGER, Babylonische und assyrische Kolophone (AOAT, 2), Kevelaer, Butzon & Bercker, 1968, n. 388. Cited in MATSUSHIMA, Le rituel hiérogamique, pp. 157-158. 125. NISSINEN, Akkadian Rituals, p. 98. 126. NISSINEN, Love Lyrics, p. 595. 127. See SMITH, Ugaritic Texts, pp. 103-106. Smith discusses the common, if diverse, ANE practice of associating mythic or poetic material with cultic texts and actions, without the poetry representing “a libretto of any specific ritual”. He mentions, e.g., the Enuma Elish, read at the Akitu festival, the Cow of Sîn, and KTU 1.23.

SACRED MARRIAGES

355

ways still unclear, connection of the love poetry with the “sacred marriage” celebration (understood in its broad signification, see above II.1), there can be no serious doubt that the lyrical text, whatever its ultimate origin, was associated with a feast celebrating the consummation of divine love, and therefore had, as we would understand it, a profoundly religious component128. The main purpose of the rite was to procure not fertility but rather the protection and benediction of the king and his family, as might be deduced from the above-cited prayer by Ashurbanipal, who pleads with Nabû to heed the intercession of Tashmetu (“the Great Lady”). Consequently, though the governing myth is a theogamy and not as in Sumer a hierogamy uniting the monarch with a female deity, the king, nevertheless, enjoys a distinct, personal intimacy with the goddess, who even plays the role of his lady and patroness before the governing god. The intercessory nature of Tashmetu’s patronage of the king must color the love lyrics with a particular cultic meaning. In short, the interpreter’s ear should be attuned to any hints in the poetic text that might evoke the myth and suggest its ritual, temple context. 2. Parallels between The Love Lyrics and the Song of Songs Martti Nissinen has already provided a detailed analysis of The Love Lyrics, highlighting a series of parallels with the Song129. Beyond the general similarity in poetic style, the primary importance of the parallels lies mainly in the shared repertoire of symbolic love metaphors. Especially noteworthy is the common use of double entendre in the love language of both texts, with imagery often simultaneously signaling an erotic love encounter and echoing the cultic language of sacred marriage. Such imagery includes the double meaning of “cella” (bēt papāḫi; bēt ešri) for both bedroom and sanctuary and the waṣf-like description of Tashmetu’s body, reminiscent of the god-description texts. The symbolic use of the garden metaphor, which is evocative of both the woman’s body and the temple, is also common to both these texts. Its expansive nature and pertinence to Song 4,12-16, however, require the postponement of its discussion until Chapter 11 (III.1.a). In the present section, building on Nissinen’s work, some broad similarities in the poetic style will first briefly be identified (III.2.a). An examination of the double entendres will follow (III.2.b). Finally, the significance of the cultic Mesopotamian relative to the socalled secular Egyptian parallels will be commented on. 128. NISSINEN, Love Lyrics, p. 595. 129. Ibid., pp. 585-634.

356

PART II – CHAPTER 6

a) Similarities in Poetic Style A range of similarities in general poetic style links The Love Lyrics and the Song: (i) synonymous and progressive parallelism, (ii) dialogical structure, (iii) love metaphors and motifs. (i) Synonymous and Staircase Parallelism. A widespread feature of poetry, characteristic of diverse genres ranging from proverbs to hymns and love poetry, is the use of parallel expressions in juxtaposed stichs130. Such frequent repetitions appear in both the Song and The Love Lyrics. Consider the synonymous parallelism in Tashmetu’s exclamation: ANE

r. 17 Let me go to the garden, to the garden and [to the Lord!] r. 18 Let me go alone to the beautiful garden!

Compare this to the similar repetitions of in the Song: 4,12 A garden closed, my sister bride; A garden closed131, a sealed spring

While this is a simple synonymous parallelism, The Love Lyrics also contain more complex parallel structures. 9a 9b 10 11a 11b

The shade of the cedar, the shade of the cedar! The shade of the cedar, the king’s shelter! The shade of the cypress, (the shelter) of his magnates! The shade of a sprig of juniper is shelter for my Nabû and my games!

What here first appears like a constant repetition is in fact slowly expanded into elements describing the character and function of the shade, what kind of wood provides that shade, and the person that benefits from it. This so-called staircase parallelism also appears, for example, in Song 4,8: 4,8

Come towards me from Lebanon, my bride; come towards me from Lebanon. Depart from the peak of Amana, from the peak of Senir and Hermon, from the dens of lions, from the mountains of leopards132.

See also Song 4,9 and 7,1. A staircase parallelism of particular interest for us is found in Song 1,15-17, a text to be treated in III.2.b, below, p. 359. 130. A. BERLIN, The Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism, Bloomington, IN, Indiana University Press, 1985; ALTER, The Art of Biblical Poetry; WATSON, Hebrew Poetry. 131. Following Vg, LXX, and S which read “garden”. 132. For the translation of the ‫ אתי‬as “come towards me” see WEIPPERT, ‘Veni de Libano, sponsa!’, pp. 347-348.

SACRED MARRIAGES

15 16 17

357

Behold you are beautiful my friend, behold you are beautiful, your eyes are doves. Behold you are beautiful my Beloved, lovely indeed lovely is our verdant couch (bed). The walls of our house are cedars our rafters are cypresses.

The phenomenon of staircase parallelism is seldom found in Sumerian and Assyro-Babylonian literature, but frequently in biblical and Ugaritic poetry133. Its surprising appearance in The Love Lyrics accordingly represents a point of special affinity between the Mesopotamian sacred marriage poetry and the Song. (ii) Dialogical Structure. At a larger structural level a more striking similarity also binds The Love Lyrics and the Song. The dramatic design of the whole portrays the alternating voices of the lovers, suspended intermittently by the intervention of a chorus. This is commonly called a dialogical structure. The dialogical structure of The Love Lyrics is nicely illustrated in the exclamation of the chorus in rev. l. 14-16: Chorus 14 Thither, ask, ask (m.), question, question! Nabû + Tashmetu 15 “For what, for what, are you adorned, my Tashmetu?” 16 “So that I may [go] to the garden with you, my Nabû”.

The invitation of the Chorus, “Thither, ask, ask (m.), question, question!” leads to Nabû asking Tashmetu for the reason of her adornment. Nabû’s question in turn gives Tashmetu the occasion to invite him to the loving encounter in the garden: “So that I may [go] to the garden with you, my Nabû”. In the Song, the chorus of the Daughters of Jerusalem plays a similar rhetorical role. Thus in Song 5,9 they ask the Beloved: What is your beloved more than another beloved, O fairest among women? What is your beloved more than another beloved, that you thus adjure us? (RSV).

This question functions as a literary device allowing the Beloved to give a detailed description of her Lover in the immediately following verse (Song 5,10): My beloved is all radiant and ruddy, distinguished among ten thousand. 133. See NISSINEN, Love Lyrics, p. 622.

358

PART II – CHAPTER 6

Without supposing that this interaction of the chorus and the characters records the specific call and response of a ritual, its cultic, dramaturgical nature remains, nevertheless suggestive. (iii) Love Motifs. Beyond these general formal patterns, a striking shared idiom is also found on the level of content in the motifs used to evoke the coming together (or separation) of the lovers. An interesting example of this is the motif of the woman alone in her bedroom. In The Love Lyrics, Tashmetu enters her bedroom (r. 9), closes her door, puts in place a bolt of lapis lazuli, rinses herself, climbs into her bed and cries. 9a 9b 10a 10b 11a 11b 12a 12b

Tashmetu, looking exuberant entered the bedroom. [*] She closed her door, put in place the bolt of lapis lazuli. She rinsed herself, climbed up, got onto the bed. Into a bowl of lapis lazuli, into a bowl of lapis lazuli, her tears flow.

Tashmetu’s washing and locking herself up in a room is reminiscent of Song 5,2-4. [The differences are perhaps even more conspicuous.] 2

3

4

I am asleep but my heart wakes the voice of my Beloved knocking: Open to me, my sister, my friend, my dove, my perfect one for my head is dripping with dew my locks with drops of night. I have stripped of my tunic how can (will) I put it on again? I have washed my feet how can (will) I defile them? My Beloved send his hand through the opening and my inward parts stirred up after him I rose to open my Beloved and my hands where dripping myrrh and my fingers flowing myrrh on the handle of the bolt.

The crying of the Assyrian goddess is, moreover, reminiscent of the Bride’s nocturnal yearning for her Lover in Song 3,1-2a. The scenes of Song 3,1-4 and 5,2-4 are often compared to the Greek poetic love motif of a paraklausithyron (see Chapter 4, II.1, above, p. 179)134. 134. See GERHARDS, Hohelied, pp. 53-61, who compares the paraklausithyron motifs of the Song to Egyptian and Hellenistic parallels of which he judges the Hellenistic to be closer.

SACRED MARRIAGES

359

In fact, a similar motif appears already in Sumerian love poetry. In a Balbale of Inana (DI C, lines 1-8)135, we find a somewhat similar situation, where Dumuzi needs to inquire of Inana what she has been doing in the house, to which he apparently did not have access. As in Song 5,3, she responds that she has already washed herself: 1-2 Dumuzi: My sister, what have you been doing in the house? Little one, what have you been doing in the house? 3-8 Inana: I was bathing, I was rubbing myself with soap. I was washing myself with water from the holy kettle, I was rubbing myself with the soap from the white stone bowl. I was anointing myself with good oil from the stone bowl, and dressing myself in the formal dress proper to Inana. That is how I was busying myself in the house.

In view of this persistent motif in ANE love poetry, one must be cautious of claiming a unilateral kinship between the Song and Greek poetry. Furthermore, the use of this motif is no evidence of the “secular” nature of the Song’s poetry, as this human suffering of lovers’ separation and desire for each other has for millennia appeared in the context of sacred marriage136. b) Similarities in Symbolic Language A comparison of the Song with The Love Lyrics brings to light a number of similarities in the use of metaphors, motifs and symbols. Of special importance are certain modes of expression that indicate the ritual background of these texts, without declaring this directly on the surface. The use of double entendre to describe the place of the lovers’ encounter is one highly suggestive example (i), while the employment of “goddescription texts” further anchors the language in a religious, cult setting (ii). (i) Love in the Sanctuary One of the most impressive parallels between The Love Lyrics and the Song of Songs is the similar double-layered language used to describe the place of the lovers’ encounter. In both texts, through a double entendre, 135. See http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/etcsl.cgi?text=t.4.08.03#. For the print edition see SEFATI, Love Songs, p. 135, n. 3. 136. See also E. JACOB, L’héritage cananéen dans le livre du prophète Osée, in RHPhR 43 (1963) 250-259, pp. 255-256, who relates it to the myth of the dying and rising god (Tammuz/Osiris).

360

PART II – CHAPTER 6

the place of their rendezvous is described at once as a cella, the inner sanctum of a temple, verdant and shaded and as a bedroom. While The Love Lyrics leave no doubt that the bedroom is the innermost chamber of the sanctuary, the Song is less explicit. Read against the background of The Love Lyrics, however, it becomes apparent that in the Song too, the king’s chamber, the verdant couch, the beams of cedar, and the garden are symbolic ways of describing the Temple. The Love Lyrics proper (after the devotional intro of lines 1-5) commence with an invitation by the Chorus to Tashmetu to sit down “in the cella” (l. 7). Nissinen entitles these lines “Invitations to the Sanctuary”137. Chorus 6a To her of the wall, to her of the wall, 6b to Tashmetu say (pl.): 7 8

“Save, sit down in the cella (bēt papāḫi)!” Let (the scent of) pure juniper fill the sanctuary (parakku)!”

Tashmetu 9a The shade of the cedar, the shade of the cedar! 9b The shade of the cedar, the king’s shelter! 10 The shade of the cypress, (the shelter) of his magnates! 11a The shade of a sprig of juniper 11b is shelter for my Nabû and my games!

In lines 6-8 the Chorus asks Tashmetu to enter her sanctuary. The cella denotes clearly her sanctuary as is clear both from the term bēt papāḫi and the synonymous parallelism in line 8. There, in the sanctuary, Tashmetu proclaims that she provides shelter for the king and his magnates (l. 10) as well as for Nabû, who is invited to take part in her “games”. The term bēt papāḫi, translated as “cella” in line 7, is a customary designation for Tashmetu’s temple. She is accordingly at times referred to as the “the Lady of bēt papāḥa”138. The place of the goddess’ loving encounter with her husband Nabû is called both bēt papāḫi (l. 7) and, further on in the tablet, bēt erši (rev. l. 9), literally “bedroom” (from eršu “bed”): “Tashmetu, looking exuberant entered the bedroom (bēt erši)”. Although these terms are not strictly synonymous, bēt papāḫi and bēt erši can be functionally equivalent, embedding the same double meaning, i.e., temple and bedroom139. It is interesting in this connection to note that bēt erši was a pervasive metaphor in the ANE for the innermost 137. For the following short summary of his exegesis, see NISSINEN, Love Lyrics, pp. 600-607. 138. Ibid., p. 601; with reference to MATSUSHIMA, Le rituel hiérogamique, p. 166: “Tas̄mētu, la dame du sanctuaire”. 139. NISSINEN, Love Lyrics, p. 601.

SACRED MARRIAGES

361

room of a sanctuary. As Daniel Fleming observes, it is a regular designation of Mesopotamian palaces and temples, mostly in the first millennium; but the cognate term also appears at Ugarit140 – according to Marsman, possibly in connection with a sacred marriage rite141. This manner of designating the sanctuary with the word for a bedchamber involves a two-tiered description of the marriage of Nabû and Tashmetu, the double entendre simultaneously expressing both the ritualized encounter of the figurines in the temple, as well as the deities’ mythic union in their bedroom. The common ANE polysemy by which “bedroom” and “inner sanctum” coincide functions within a larger linguistic metaphor. Our word “temple” is a Latinate inheritance; every language in the ANE referred to a temple simply as a “house”. In Sumerian (é) and Akkadian (bītu), Egyptian (pr nṯr, ḥwt nṯr), Ugaritic (bt), and Hebrew (ḇayiṯ), the place of cult and ritual was understood and referred to as the god’s dwelling place. Far from being a dead metaphor, this perception colored every aspect of the temple idea, particularly when the inner sanctum was discretely veiled and inhabited by the sculpted images of a god and his consort (as for example at Arad), the conception of this sacred recess in the “house” as a “bedroom” was inescapable142. In lines 9-11b The Love Lyrics moves beyond the bedroom metaphor. The staircase parallelism of these verses elaborates the place of the gods’ union as a wooded place of shade. The seemingly abrupt transition from the sanctuary to the locus amoenus requires explanation. ANE temples were associated with sacred forests in a double fashion. Owing to the mythic idea that the gods dwelled in the cedar forests atop the Lebanon mountains, the temple courts were customarily seeded with a sacred grove meant to transplant the gods’ edenic abode from the Lebanon mountains into the temple precinct143. With the same intention, the temple 140. See D.E. FLEMING, The Installation of Baal’s High Priestess at Emar: A Window on Ancient Syrian Religion (HSS, 42), Atlanta, GA, Scholars, 1992, p. 116; E.J. PENTIUC, West Semitic Vocabulary in the Akkadian Texts from Emar (HSS, 49), Winona Lake, IN, Eisenbrauns, 2001, pp. 190-191. 141. The Ugaritic love poem KTU 1.132 commissions (?) in lines 1-3 “on the nineteenth of the month you are to prepare the bed of Pidray with the king’s bedcovers”. Several lines describing sacrifices meals follow (lines 25-26), after which the ritual ends with the command: “before nightfall, you will remove the bed”. SMITH, Ugaritic Texts, p. 102. See also MARSMAN, Women, pp. 528-532. Furthermore, a Syrian ritual (dating roughly to the same period as KTU 1.132) describes the installation of the entu-priestess at Emar (Emar 369.73) and mentions “her place of repose” or “bedchamber” (ur-ši-ša). See SMITH, Ugaritic Texts, p. 102. 142. On the resemblance of a temple with a domestic dwelling (the so-called “Arad House”), see MIROSCHENDJI, Canaanite Cult, pp. 89-90. 143. See STAGER, Eden, p. 103. According to the Epic of Gilgameš, the mountain of cedars is the “dwelling-place of gods, shrine of Irnini (Ištar)”, Gilg. V i; S. DALLEY, Myths

362

PART II – CHAPTER 6

interior was dominated by an arboreal decoration. The cedar and cypress from Lebanon were to symbolize the sacred and a divine dwelling place in the north144. All these mythic and cultic associations are certainly in play in The Love Lyrics, as Tashmetu’s bēt papāḫi was reportedly paneled with cypress145. The Song of Songs displays the same double entendres concerning the place of their loving encounter just examined in The Love Lyrics. In the first place, the invitation by the Chorus to Tashmetu to come into the “cella” is reminiscent of the opening verses in the Song, where the Beloved is brought into the king’s “chambers” (‫)חדר‬. Although explicit bedchamber imagery plays a relatively limited role within the Song (1,4; 3,1.4; 5,2-5), a two-tiered meaning again suggestive of the Temple is arguably at work in Song 1,4. 1,4 Draw me after you, let us run! The king has brought me into his chambers (‫)חדריו‬ Let us rejoice and be glad (‫ )ונשמחה נגילה‬in you. Let us remember (‫ )נזכירה‬your love more than wine. Rightly do they love you (my translation).

In a way parallel to the Akkadian bēt erši, the Hebrew word ‫ חדר‬can be used both for the inner room of a house, notably the bedroom (2 Sam 13,10; cf. Exod 7,28; 2 Sam 4,7; 2 Kgs 6,12; Qoh 10,20), as well as for inner chambers in the sanctuary (Ezek 8,12; 1 Chr 28,11). A cultic echo in the Song’s usage becomes all the more plausible if one reads the verse in line with the hymnic vocabulary and traces of liturgical language used in the immediate context146. The verbs employed in 4c, ‫גיל‬ (“to exult”) and ‫“( שמח‬to rejoice”), and even more so the verb utilized in 4d, ‫“( זכר‬to remember”), all have a liturgical coloring147. The very same from Mesopotamia: Creation, the Flood, Gilgamesh, and Others (The World’s Classics), Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2008, p. 71. 144. See CLIFFORD, The Cosmic Mountain in Canaan and the Old Testament, p. 132; WEIPPERT, Libanon, p. 648; HUROWITZ, YHWH’s Exalted House, p. 72. 145. See NISSINEN, Akkadian Rituals, p. 605, n. 93, where he quotes a report on a temple reconstruction (CT 53 60 r. 4-5.): “We have covered the sanctuary of [Tashmetu] with cypress and pine. Engurra we have covered with cypress and [pine]. All this work [has been carried through]”. 146. See ROBERT – TOURNAY – FEUILLET, Cantique, pp. 65-67. 147. See BARBIERO, Song, p. 25. These liturgical reminiscences in the Song have in fact long been noticed. Wanting, however, at all costs to defend a “naturalistic” reading of the Song, they simply deleted them by way of emendation. It is astounding to see with what liberty and meticulousness Rudolph (following Budde) emends the text, presuming that the MT is already an allegorical revision of an alleged “original” text. Thus wherever the MT appears to indicate an allegorical meaning he writes sentences like: “ধ setzt die allegorische Deutung voraus, bei der ‘ich’ und ‘wir’ gleichermaßen das Volk Israel bedeutet”; concerning v. 4 “let us rejoice and be glad in you ‫ ”בך‬he writes: “ধ ist wieder durch die

SACRED MARRIAGES

363

expression, “let us rejoice and be glad”, is actually used also in Ps 118,24, where it stands in a clearly liturgical context: “This is the day which the Lord has made; let us rejoice and be glad in (‫ )נגילה ונשמחה‬it” (RSV). It is noteworthy that the wording of the invitation to cultic exultation is exactly the same in Song as in the Psalm148. The same word pair (‫ גיל‬and ‫ )שמח‬appears also in Hos 9,1 where it is used in the context of Israel’s apostasy. In fact, one might call this an instance of “reversed apostasy language”. Hosea proclaims: “Do not rejoice, O Israel! Do not exult as other nations do; for you have played the whore, departing from your God. You have loved a prostitute’s pay on all threshing floors”. Hans Walter Wolff calls this word pair a “hymnic summons and priest’s cultic instruction”149. He sees therein evidence for the originally Dionysian character of the Canaanite fertility cult, in which such a word pair would denote “the fall harvest festival revelries of dancing, singing, shouting, etc., both for the benefit and enjoyment of the people, and as an act of devotion to Yahweh”150. Keeping in mind the many instances of shared language and motifs between the Song and Hosea (IV.2.b)151, Hosea’s reversal of apostasy language would seem to indicate that a similar reminiscence of cult language is found in Song 1,4. In the later process of a re-elaboration of these originally “pagan” cantos, however, it came to express Israel’s hope for the eschatological joy that the arrival of the Messiah bridegroom king would bring (cf. Chapter 7, II, below, p. 449). Apart from Hos 9,1, in fact, the word combination occurs neither in the Pentateuch, the Former Prophets, nor in the early latter prophets Amos, Micah, and Jeremiah. It is, however, frequently used in the Psalter and resurfaces in late passages allegorische Deutung (‘du’=Jahwe) beeinflußt”. Thus he simply revocalizes the text without any other apparent reason than to avoid an allegorical understanding and makes it ‫בו‬ (“in him” instead of “in you”). Concerning the term ‫נזכירה‬, he again recognizes that this term fits well the praise of YHWH but then conjectures, that “therefore” it must have originally meant ‫נשכרה‬: “ধ: ‘laßt uns preisen’; da aber das Mädchen mehr erwartet als gemeinsames Liedersingen, mit Budde ‫ …נשכרה‬das bei der Umdeutung auf die Liebe Jahwes allzu unpassend erschien und deshalb in ‫ נזכירה‬geändert wurde, als dessen Objekt auch sonst gern die göttlichen Eigenschaften erscheinen” (RUDOLPH, Hohe Lied, p. 122). The arbitrariness of these emendations based on an a priori decision that the text must not speak of YHWH is too apparent. 148. For its use as a liturgical expression of praise in the Psalter, see also Ps 14,7; 16,9; 21,2; 31,8; 32,11; 48,12; 53,7; 96,11; 149,2. 149. WOLFF, Hosea, p. 153. 150. Ibid. 151. For a fruitful comparison, see F. VAN DIJK-HEMMES, The Imagination of Power and the Power of Imagination: An Intertextual Analysis of Two Biblical Love Songs: The Song of Songs and Hosea 2, in A. BRENNER (ed.), The Song of Songs (A Feminist Companion to The Bible, 1), New York, Sheffield Academic Press, 2001, 156-170.

364

PART II – CHAPTER 6

like Isa 25,9 where it connotes the eschatological joy which will be like the joy men experience on the occasion of harvest festivities152. In addition to the hymnic vocabulary and psalmic resonance, scholars have also noted traces of a liturgical setting in the sudden change of grammatical person, namely, from the first person singular to the first person plural, a recognized feature in Sumerian sacred marriage texts which is also found in Song 1,4 (see above)153. Rather than seeing an erotic connotation in these plurals (a so-called “plural of ecstasy”) as some contend154, these plurals may indicate the participation of functionaries as a choir in the liturgical rite for which these texts were supposed155. This view would substantiate the suggestion that ‫ חדר‬in Song 1,4 – though not so conveniently and overtly identified with the “sanctuary” as in The Love Lyrics (l. 7) – is nevertheless not to be understood simply as a “bedroom”. Rather, read in light of the surrounding hymnic verses, the “inner chamber” operates on two levels and takes on a distinctly sacral note. Equally suggestive and multilayered is the Song’s language of cedars and cypresses, an arboreal imagery already seen in The Love Lyrics. Song 1,15 Behold you are beautiful my friend, behold you are beautiful, your eyes are doves. 1,16 Behold you are beautiful my beloved (‫)דודי‬, lovely (‫ )נעים‬indeed indeed verdant (‫ )רעננה‬is our couch (bed). 1,17 The walls of our house are cedars our rafters are cypresses.

This text, noted above as an instance of staircase parallelism, appears to exegetes who presume a profane meaning to be a loving encounter on 152. See D. STUART, Hosea–Jona (WBC, 31), Waco, TX, Word Books, 1987, p. 142. See Joel 2,21: “Fear not, O land; be glad (‫ )גילי‬and rejoice (‫)שמחי‬, for the Lord has done great things!”, and Joel 2,23: “Be glad (‫)גילו‬, O sons of Zion, and rejoice (‫ )שמחו‬in the LORD, your God; for he has given the early rain for your vindication, he has poured down for you abundant rain, the early and the latter rain, as before”. See further Isa 9,2; 25,9; Ps 16,9; 32,11. In all these passages the word pair appears in either cultic or eschatological context. 153. A remarkable example with many contacts to the Song are the ecstatic words of King Shu-Sin’s divine bride in the Sumerian sacred marriage text: Bridegroom, let me give you my caresses, In the bedchamber, honey-filled, My precious sweet, I would be laved[?] by honey, Let us enjoy your goodly beauty. The translation is taken from SEFATI, Love Songs, p. 354, n. 26. The similarities with the Song are noteworthy, namely the shifting of the grammatical person, the bedchamber language, the comparison of love with honey, the notion of caresses and kisses, and the hymnic call “let us rejoice”. 154. See WESTENHOLZ, A Forgotten Love Song; and S.M. PAUL, The ‘Plural of Ecstasy’ in Mesopotamian and Biblical Love Poetry, in Divrei Shalom: Collected Studies of Shalom M. Paul on the Bible and the Ancient Near East 1967-2005 (CHANE, 23), Leiden, Brill, 2005, 239-252. 155. See LAPINKIVI, Sacred Marriage, p. 72.

SACRED MARRIAGES

365

a bed of green grass. From this spot the lovers can observe the branches of the trees, which seem to constitute the roof of their chamber156. When read against the background of the Mesopotamian parallels, however, specifically the Temple connotation noted above, the imagery takes on a very different character. Given the persistent association that cedar wood had with temple buildings in the ANE, it stands to reason that the cedars and cypress of the lovers’ encounter in the Song imply more than just “a luxurious Wunschmilieu”157. What is apparent in The Love Lyrics, i.e., that the cedar and cypress wood refers to the temple sanctuary, seems equally to be the case in the Song. If there is one “House” made of cedar and cypress in the Old Testament it is Solomon’s Temple158. Kings and Chronicles both describe in detail how the house of the Lord was built and paneled from the inside, “from the floor of the house to the rafters of the ceiling” with the cedars from Lebanon (1 Kgs 6,9.10.15)159. Furthermore, Solomon “covered the floor of the house with boards of cypress” (1 Kgs 6,15). Given the sheer status of Solomon’s Temple within the Israelite world to which the Song’s author belonged and against the background of the Akkadian love poetry’s use of cedar and cypress, it is perfectly plausible to perceive a reference to the Temple in Song 1,15-17160. 156. See BARBIERO, Cantico, p. 85. Similarly, BLOCH – BLOCH, Song, p. 147; LACOCQUE, Romance, p. 80. These commentators basically have the romantic idea of “love in nature” “amour sans toit ni loi” in mind. 157. NISSINEN, Akkadian Rituals, p. 606. For Wunschmilieu see MÜLLER, Hohelied, p. 22, who wants to see in the mention of cedars and cypress a poetic device to transport the reader/hearer to a “Wohlstands und Luxusatmosphäre […] worin ein Milieuhinweis, vielleicht auch nur der Hinweis auf ein Wunschmilieu, das Element einer Travestie nach oben, liegen mag”. 158. It is true, the king’s palace was also built of cedars. David, after having constructed his own palace, expresses the desire to build a house for the ark: “See now, I dwell in a house of cedar, but the ark of God dwells in a tent” (2 Sam 7,2). David, however, built a house of cedar only for himself (2 Chr 2,3), while Solomon (the King of the Song) built a house of cedar for the Lord (2 Chr 2,3.7). The Temple of Jerusalem is the preeminent building of cedars. The same house and inner chamber language is applied both to the Temple and the King’s palace. The fact that the king’s house and the god’s house are somehow parallel invests the king with a numinous divine aura. This buttresses the claim that the king and God play an interchangeable role in the Song. 159. The word used for the cypress wood in Song 1,17 (‫ )ברות‬is a hapax in the OT, that is, it is the Aramaic form of the equivalent ‫ ברוש‬in Hebrew. Whenever cypress wood is mentioned in the OT it is paired with cedars. Six times this word pair is mentioned in the book of Kings of which five times in relation to king Solomon. This suggests the assumption that a house made of “cedar and cypress” would evoke the Temple in the minds of the audience. 160. See LACOCQUE, Romance, p. 70, who observes similar allusions to the Temple chambers: “Speaking of ‘royal chambers’ is not without evoking also other chambers in

366

PART II – CHAPTER 6

The suggestion that the cedars, cypress, and verdant trees in Song 1,1517 designate the Temple as YHWH’s palace by way of double entendre becomes still more compelling when the vocabulary employed in Song 1,16 is taken into account. A constellation of three specific terms points exactly in this direction, through a seeming allusion to the Canaanite fertility rites practiced in shady groves. First, it has been argued that the appellation ‫דודי‬ for the Lover reflects the name Dod, Dad, Dodo, or Dadu, various renderings of the storm and fertility god (Haddad, Addu, or Adad), the Syrian counterpart of the Canaanite Baal161. Moreover, the adjective ‫ נעים‬used to describe the Dôḏî in v. 16, is known from the Ugaritic sources to have been a predicate for Baal162, and in derivation thereof for the legendary kings as Keret163 and Aqhat164. Finally, the term ‫( רעננה‬verdant) here employed to describe the verdant couch of the lovers, elsewhere in the Bible almost always appears in conjunction with the term ‫( עץ‬tree) or with some species of tree165. Duane Garrett argues that, Although ‫רענן‬, “verdant”, occasionally means “prospering” (Ps 92,15 [ET 92,14]; Dan 4,1 [ET 4,4]), that would not seem to be the sense here. In light of the reference to trees in the next verse (1,17), the greenness of their bed must refer somehow to the greenness of trees. In the rest of the building next door to the palace, namely, the temple (cf. 1 Kgs 6.15; 2 Chr 21.11; Neh 10.39 [the term is different from ḥeder in these texts but designates the same reality]). Besides, ‘exultation’ and ‘rejoicing’ in the Bible designate almost always cultic responses to the proclamation of salvation. A similar situation obtains with the mention of ‘remembrance’ (NRSV: ‘extol’), generally in celebration of the acts of YHWH (Isa 63.7; Ps 45.18; 71.16; 77.12). There is thus consistency in the rest of the verse when we come across the mention of meyšarîm, which means normally the ‘righteous ones’ and thus parallels the ones who ‘delight in you’, or ‘desire you’ in the same verse, and is translated with respect to the context by ‘rightly’ (cf. Pss 58.2; 75.3)”. 161. See Seal 120, in DEUTSCH – LEMAIRE, Biblical Period Personal Seals; and LEMAIRE, Nouveaux sceaux nord-ouest sémitiques, pp. 28-31. See further MEEK, Canticles and the Tammuz Cult, pp. 4-5, with bibliographical references. 162. See LORETZ, Baal-Epitheton, pp. 291-292, with reference to KTU 1.5 VI 5f.; 1.6 II 14-17. WILDBERGER, Jesaja: Teilband 2, pp. 657-658, points out that from the Baal cult and under the influence of the Tammuz cult the Adonis cult developed to whom the same property of being “lovely” appears to have been transposed (cf. Isa 17,10-11). In reference to Adonis, see W.A.M. BEUKEN, Jesaja 1–12 (HThKAT), Freiburg i.Br., Herder, 2003, p. 159. According to J. BLENKINSOPP, Isaiah 1–39 (AncB, 19), New York, Doubleday, 2000, pp. 302, 305, the theophoric element of the “pleasant god”, i.e., “the god Adonis/ Naaman worshiped in Syria and the Phoenician cities” is preserved in the name of the Syrian army commander Naaman (cf. 2 Kgs 5,1). This is another indication of a possible cultic origin of some of the Song’s cantos. 163. See O. LORETZ, ‘Sättigung’ mit Wein bis zur ‘Trunkenheit’ beim ‘Angesicht’ und zur ‘Rechten’ einer Kultstatue während eines Banketts nach ugaritischen und biblischen Texten: Die Entwicklung gegensätzlicher Darstellungen der Anwesenheit Gottes/Jahwes in Israel und im Judentum, in ID., Entstehung des Judentums: Ein Paradigmenwechsel (AOAT, 422), Münster, Ugarit-Verlag, 2015, 363-496, p. 443: “Keret ist der schöne/ liebliche/anmutige Diener des El (n῾mn ġlm il, KTU 1.14 I 40)”. 164. See ibid., with reference to KTU 1.18 IV 14. 165. See GARRETT, Song, p. 148.

SACRED MARRIAGES

367

the Bible, “every green tree” (‫ )כל־עץ רענן‬invariably refers to the groves and woodland shrines where the sacred prostitution of the fertility cult flourished166.

By engaging this highly suggestive fertility-cult language in the description of their locus amoenus, the Beloved of the Song is indicating that the place of their loving encounter is precisely not under “every green tree”, but in his House built of cedar and cypress (1 Kgs 6,9.15)167. In the Song’s re-elaboration of the pagan sacred marriage matrix, Solomon’s Temple thus becomes the place for the “sacred marriage”. This can only be fully appreciated, however, when it is admitted that the fertility and sex rites that preoccupied the prophets have also shaped this text. The Canaanite echoes in the material nevertheless suggest that the “high places” are no longer the pagan ones, but the Temple in Jerusalem. The Song accordingly puts the Temple of Jerusalem in competition with other cult places in a way that does not appear in The Love Lyrics. (ii) The “God-Description” Texts A second significant feature that the two love lyric compositions have in common is waṣf-like descriptions. In lines r. 3-8, unfortunately fragmentary, Nabû intones several intriguing verses which are reminiscent of Mesopotamian god-description texts described below. 3 4 5

Let me hold […], …[…] [Let me prov]ide a new chariot for you (f.) [……]! [(you)168 whose thi]ghs are a gazelle in the plain [*]

166. Ibid. See Deut 12,2; 1 Kgs 14,23; 2 Kgs 16,4; 17,10; Isa 30,25; 57,5; Jer 2,20; 3,6.13; Ezek 6,13; 20,28; 34,6; Hos 4,13; 2 Chr 28,4. See extensively W.L. HOLLADAY, On Every High Hill and under Every Green Tree, in VT 11 (1961) 170-176. 167. While this equation of a Canaanite high place with the Temple of Jerusalem might appear as too bold, it finds a corroborating precursor in Isa 57,7-8 where the prophet creates a similar equation punning on the paronomasia between ‫( משכן‬shrine) and ‫( משכב‬bed). P.D. HANSON, The Dawn of Apocalyptic: The Historical and Sociological Roots of Jewish Apocalyptic Eschatology, Philadelphia, PA, Fortress, 1979, pp. 198-199, has shown that some of the activities described in Isa 57,3-13 appear to have taken place on the Temple Mount. By accusing Jerusalem of having established her harlot bed (‫ )משכב‬on a high and lofty mountain (‫)הר־גבוה ונשא‬, a deft allusion to the Mount Zion and the Temple (Tabernacle, ‫ )משכן‬is created. Hanson observes that instead of the usual accusation of sacrificing on ‫במות‬ (pl.), “here one single bed on one particular mountain is under attack”. Secondly “a mountain high and lofty” elsewhere in scriptures refers always to Mount Zion (cf. Mic 4,1; Isa 2,2; Ezek 40,3). Finally, verse 8 makes reference to doors and doorposts (‫)הדלת והמזוזה‬, structures that are normally not found on high places. (On this pun see also H.L. GINSBERG, Some Emendations in Isaiah, in JBL 69 [1950] 51-60, pp. 59-60.) While Isaiah uses the imagery of a harlot’s bed and her activity to denounce the defiled Temple on Mount Zion, the author of the Song – in a similar but positive inversion – uses the language connoted with high places and Canaanite fertility rites to designate the Temple in Jerusalem as the only true place for Israel’s sacred marriage with YHWH. 168. I have supplied the personal pronoun to Livingstone’s translation to make it clear that “whose” reflects the second feminine singular possessive pronoun.

368

PART II – CHAPTER 6

6 7 8

[(you) whose an]kle bones are an apple of Siman! whose heels are obsidian! whose whole being is a tablet of lapis lazuli!

Though the interpretation of the partially preserved text is difficult, it shows clearly the structure of a waṣf, poetically describing the different body parts of the beloved top to bottom: thighs, ankles, heels, and then, summing up, “whose whole being is a tablet of lapis lazuli!”. In Mesopotamia the waṣf genre occurs often in the so-called goddescription texts169. Compare for example this passage of The Rites of Egašankalama, a Neo-Assyrian state cult170. On the twenty-eighth day of the month Tammuz’s return from the Netherworld is celebrated and the image of the “Kidnapped God” (Tammuz) evoked by this lyrical description (r. 9-17). 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Honey is the pus of the Kidnapped God. Tamarisk is his topknot. Cypress is [his] trunk. [Ca]nnabis is his bristle. Juniper is [his] thighs. Cedar is his knees. The medlar is [his] ankle bones. [The bundle of re]eds is his fingers. Myrrh is his semen. [The c]at is his blood. Oak is [his] arms. Gold is his sperm. Lettuce is [his] breasts. [The box]thorn is the hair of his groin. The thorn plant is the hair of [his arm]pits. The hair of [his] breasts is […].

God-description texts consist of the description of a divinity by equating each part of the body to a metal, a plant, an animal, an object, or a substance. The purpose of these expositions is to describe the otherwise invisible divinity in a visible manner171. The parts usually add up to a whole body, but do not follow an order from head to foot or the reverse (as in the above mentioned waṣf), but instead proceed in seemingly arbitrary order172. 169. A god-description text is the description of a deity as if it were a human being composed by equating parts of the body with different objects, animals, or plants. See LIVINGSTONE, Mystical, pp. 92-112. 170. See LIVINGSTONE – READE, Poetry, pp. 98-99; 38: r. 9-17. See also, ibid., p. 99; 39: r. 1-18. 171. See LIVINGSTONE, Mystical, p. 92. 172. See LIVINGSTONE, ibid., p. 98, who points out that in this respect the god-description texts differ from lexical texts where the order follows that of the actual body parts.

SACRED MARRIAGES

369

Often the materials used in these descriptions belong to an iconographic tradition and somehow emphasize the nature of the god in question. For instance, certain gods might be specially associated with certain metals, animals, or vegetables173. The use of such metaphors has, unfortunately, not been thoroughly deciphered. It nevertheless seems clear that there is strong symbolism involved. Thus it is, for example, a commonly acknowledged fact that in Egypt gold was known as the “flesh of the gods”, whereas their bodies were made up of the most precious metals174. It is the symbolic function of each item rather than the external form of the objects that makes the comparison meaningful175. Some descriptive comparisons, thus, serve to distinguish one deity from another; others draw their significance from their cultic use; others “express the presence of the god in the various contexts to which the descriptions belong”176. These efforts to describe the gods’ invisible essence in lyrical fashion are naturally related to the production of cult images. Accordingly, the goddescription texts are closely bound to similar texts elaborately describing ritual figurines and cult idols177. Such descriptions could extend to their cult objects, in particular their Götterwagen (processional chariots and boats)178. It is possible, in fact, that in The Love Lyrics Nabû is actually singing a waṣf not to Tashmetu but to her chariot, but this cannot be definitively confirmed for the text is too fragmentary in this place. The Song displays suggestive parallels to waṣf-like god-description texts. In four places one of the lovers is described through the poetic praise of his or her members, sequenced in different ways (cf. Song 4,1-5; 5,1016; 6,5-7; 7,2-6). Compare the above Rites of Egašankalama text and the 173. See LIVINGSTONE, ibid., pp. 105, 182-183, who shows that in some texts silver can stand for Anu, gold for Enlil, copper for Ea, tin for Ninazal. If reminiscence of such a god-description text survives in Song 5,10-16 it would be clear that ‫ זהב‬and ‫ כתם פז‬can only stand for the “highest” divinity. Livingstone furthermore stresses, that the Akkadian The Love Lyrics of Nabû and Tashmetu were influenced by the Sumerian usage of goddescriptions. See ibid., p. 108. See further KEEL, Hohelied, pp. 92, 111, who shows the consistent association of the love goddess with gazelles in the ANE. The gazelles also often appear flanking a tree of life motif associated with the love goddess. The metals used for the description of the Lover of the Song and the animals associated with the Beloved suggest that they initially served to indicate the divine identity of the Song’s protagonists. 174. See E. HORNUNG, Der Eine und die Vielen: Ägyptische Gottesvorstellungen, Darmstadt, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1973, p. 124, and M. LURKER, The Gods and Symbols of Ancient Egypt: An Illustrated Dictionary, London, Thames & Hudson, 1980. 175. See NISSINEN, Love Lyrics, p. 614; LIVINGSTONE, Mystical, pp. 108, 111. 176. LIVINGSTONE, Mystical, p. 103. 177. See POPE, Song, p. 534. See for example the Akkadian “Göttertypentext” listed in ANET, p. 515. Following a fixed pattern, these texts describe god statues descending from head to foot. See also ANET, pp. 109f. 178. This will be discussed in detail in Chapter 10.

370

PART II – CHAPTER 6

lines r. 3-8 of The Love Lyrics to the description of the Lover in Song 5,1016, who is portrayed like the statue of a deity179: 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

My beloved is all radiant (‫ )צח‬and ruddy, distinguished among ten thousand. His head is the finest gold; his locks are wavy, black as a raven. His eyes are like doves beside springs of water, bathed in milk, fitly set. His cheeks are like beds of balsams, yielding fragrance. His lips are lilies, distilling liquid myrrh. His arms are rounded gold, set with jewels. His body is ivory work, encrusted with sapphires. His legs are alabaster columns, set upon bases of gold. His appearance is like Lebanon, choice as the cedars. His speech is most sweet, and he is altogether desirable. This is my beloved and this is my friend, O Daughters of Jerusalem.

The generic similarity linking Song 5 and the god-description texts is clear. Both are structured by a litany of metaphors identifying body parts with such things as animals (e.g., doves), myrrh, metals (e.g., gold), gems (e.g., beryl and sapphire), and plants (e.g., cedars). Just like in the Egyptian concept, the Lover’s body is made up of gold and the most precious materials. Even his fragrance of balsams and myrrh is typical of the gods in antiquity180. Note furthermore how both The Love Lyrics and Song 5,16 end with a summary description (“Whose whole being is a tablet of lapis lazuli” [l. 8]; “he is altogether desirable” [5,16]). The force of this generic likeness between the Song’s waṣfs and the goddescription texts is that the Lover and Beloved are effectively cast as divine figures181. This is a point of major importance, for it addresses one of the supposed weaknesses and objections directed against the sacred marriage parallels proposed by the cult hypothesis, namely, the lack of divine protagonists in the Song. In “Mesopotamia waṣfs generally refer to male deities”182. One might note here the peculiar significance of the Hebrew adjective ‫ צח‬in Song 5,10, translated above as “radiant”. The word technically denotes brightness, radiance, brilliance, or shining – a conceptual parallel to the Akkadian word for “pure/holy/sacred” (ellu) and a general 179. See HAMILTON, The Body Royal, p. 57; POPE, Song, p. 539; LORETZ, Das althebräische Liebeslied, p. 36; H. RINGGREN – A. WEISER, Das Hohelied – Klagelieder – Das Buch Esther (ATD, 16/2), Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1958, p. 278. 180. See HORNUNG, Der Eine und die Vielen, pp. 123-124. 181. See HAMILTON, The Body Royal, pp. 55-60. 182. Ibid., p. 58.

SACRED MARRIAGES

371

characteristic of descriptions of Mesopotamian gods183. It is, thus, appropriately taken in the Song as stressing more than the Lover’s complexion. Rather, it hints at his numinous presence. In fact, all the materials chosen to describe his appearance allude to the god-like quality of the Lover. The Song’s appropriation of divine attributes for the Lover and Beloved is not limited to the use of waṣfs, but belongs to a wider pattern of mythic coloring. As has been extensively shown by Othmar Keel, among others, the Beloved bears many traits of an ANE love goddess (cf. Song 3,6; 4,8; 6,10; 8,5)184. Nevertheless, the three waṣfs addressed to the Beloved must be distinguished from that addressed to the Lover in 5,10-16. Whereas the man is characterized with the precious metals and gem stones typical of cult images, the woman is regularly described with a mixture of plant, animal, and topographical symbols. While certain of these metaphors (e.g., pomegranates, gazelles) are associated with divinities185, it is striking that the many geographical references (e.g., Gilead, Heshbon, Bat-Rabbim, Damascus, Lebanon, Carmel) equate her with the Promised Land186. It is furthermore striking that in contrast to the Lover’s godlike “whiteness”, the Beloved calls herself “black” as the tents of Kedar (Song 1,5). This simultaneous “divinization” of the Lover and his Beloved and distinction between his radiant holiness and her more ambiguous description is deeply suggestive of the Song’s unique engagement with and alteration of the Mesopotamian sacred marriage tradition. 3. An Afterthought on the “Secular” Nature of the Egyptian Love Poetry As mentioned in II.3.b (above, p. 345), the perceived strength of Egyptian parallel material has effectively diminished the weight of Mesopotamian parallels within Song scholarship. The evident strength of the Egyptian parallels can freely be admitted. Nevertheless, this eclipse of the 183. See LIVINGSTONE, Mystical, p. 102. M.S. SMITH, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2001, p. 94. 184. The Mî-Zôt refrain (Song 3,6; 6,10; 8,5) typically identifies a super-human being (see Chapter 10, II below, p. 645). In Song 4,8 the Beloved is called to come towards her Lover from Lebanon, Amana, Senir, and Hermon, the residence of lions and leopards. Numerous scholars have pointed out that Lebanon is typically a divine abode and that the lions and leopards are the typical Begleittiere of the goddesses Astarte, Anat, or Asherah. (Schmökel, Ringgren, Müller, Keel). In addition Manfred Weippert has recently pointed to the parallel invocations in Hittite invocation rituals from the New Kingdom that summon goddesses to leave their abode and come into the Hittite kingdom. Accordingly, Song 4,8 might originally have been addressing a goddess. See WEIPPERT, ‘Veni de Libano, sponsa!’, pp. 357-360. See also KEEL, Hohelied, pp. 72-75, 144-148, 205-206, fig. 113, 114. 185. KEEL, Tauben, pp. 89-100; MÜLLER, Hohelied, p. 26. 186. See Chapter 8, III (below, p. 502): “Sacred Geography”.

372

PART II – CHAPTER 6

Mesopotamian tradition is unfortunate. At the same time a false paradigm has been used in the analysis of the Egyptian texts. To a significant degree, the perception of a forced choice between the “secular” nature of the Egyptian love literature and the “religious” character of the Mesopotamian has distorted the comparative enterprise. While ignorance of Neo-Assyrian texts like The Love Lyrics partially explains the unilateral decision for Egyptian analogues of older scholarship, more recent commentaries (e.g., Garrett, Exum) familiar with the new evidence, nevertheless, remain within this paradigm187, and fail to assimilate the religious worldview so evident in the sacred marriage tradition188. This is due not only to an undervaluing of the Neo-Assyrian texts, but also to a problematic emphasis on the entirely profane interest of the Egyptian love poems. The state of scholarship is thus trapped within a false dichotomy, predisposed both to minimize the Mesopotamian comparisons and to neglect evidence of Egypt’s religious influence on the Song189. An answer to this aporia might be offered by more recent scholarship on the Egyptian love poetry, that shows significantly a greater openness towards a possible ritual background of the comparative material in question. Thus regarding the striking similarities between the Egyptian love poetry from the Ramesside period (which is the only extant Egyptian love poetry available)190, the Egyptologist John Darnell points out, that “the apparent Persian Period date of composition for the Song of Songs removes that text from any probable influence by the surviving love poems of the ancient Egyptians”191. Rather than postulating a direct borrowing of the 187. See, e.g., EXUM, Song, pp. 47-67. 188. Michael Fox is a commendable exception. In his most recent publication on the subject he also takes the Mesopotamian parallels into consideration and proposes to read the Song as “a late offshoot of an ancient continuous literary tradition, one whose early forms, or at least early written forms, are found in the Egyptian love poetry and in Mesopotamia”. See FOX, Rereading the Song of Songs, p. 13 (italics in text). The Song would thus constitute a kind of literary meeting point from both directions. 189. In his most recent article Fox concedes the cultic, ritual setting of much (but not all) of the Egyptian love poetry as well as the fact that “numerous religious motifs and themes and some prayers permeate the songs”; yet he strangely resists the significance of this evidence. His position on the profane nature of the poetry thus remains essentially the same; yet his continued insistence on the sharp distinction and division between secular and religious orientations is being slowly undermined by his own admissions. He finds himself in the uncomfortable posture of arguing “against imputing religious motives or message to Canticles at its formative stages”, even while accepting that like the Egyptian songs, “it too may have been sung as entertainment at banquets on festival days, which were by their nature religious”. See FOX, Rereading the Song of Songs, p. 10. 190. “Surviving Egyptian texts of the first millennium BCE do not preserve either copies of the Ramesside love poetry, or any truly comparable later versions of the same genre”. DARNELL, Rituals of Love, p. 24. 191. DARNELL, Rituals of Love, p. 24. On this point scholars now appear to generally agree. See FOX, Rereading the Song of Songs, p. 12, and QUACK, Love, p. 62: “An obvious

SACRED MARRIAGES

373

Egyptian material then, Darnell proposes that “the common festival background for parallel corpora of texts celebrating divine love and human love”192 may perhaps be the explanation for the seeming parallels between the Egyptian love songs and the biblical text. With this affirmation Darnell upsets a longstanding scholarly fiction, that is the alleged “secular” nature of the Egyptian love lyrics, which has led so many commentators to explain the Song rather against the Egyptian than against the Mesopotamian backdrop. It is the case, in fact, that religious themes and associations are not absent from Egypt’s amatory literature. As already mentioned (cf. II.4, above, p. 347), the Egyptian love songs draw heavily on religious and magical literature, while the mention of gods and use of prayers are not uncommon193. The distinction between “secular” and sacred is entirely modern and cannot be retrojected onto ancient texts without serious anachronism. Virginia Davis has pointed to exactly this anachronism in criticizing Fox’s “profane” interpretation of the Cairo Love Songs, even arguing against him that the unnamed female in the Egyptian songs is “the all important new year’s goddess, Sothis ‘the supplier’ who brings the annual flood”, while the “brother is associated with Nefertem, the lotus god”194. This view has now been substantiated by John Darnell, according to whom the festivities that accompanied and ensured the return of the goddess of the New Year “form a backdrop to many of the love poems from the New Kingdom Egypt”195. Thus Darnell observes: The first group of the Papyrus Chester Beatty I love poems stresses an identification of the beloved with the returning goddess of the eye of the sun. … References to elements of festival and ritual, and to enobling aspects of participation in the acting out of love, are, however, also present in the poems, obstacle to all comparisons [between the Song and Egyptian love poetry] which go beyond purely typological similarities and aim at establishing genuine relationships of dependence is the chronological distance. The Song of Songs is normally considered to be one of the latest compositions of the Hebrew Bible, with a date of composition in the second half of the first millennium BCE”. See also P. VERNUS, Le Cantique des cantiques et l’Égypte pharaonique, in A.C. HAGEDORN (ed.), Perspectives on the Song of Songs / Perspektiven der Hoheliedauslegung (BZAW, 346), Berlin, De Gruyter, 2005, 150-162, who concludes that a genetic connection is possible but cannot be proved. 192. DARNELL, Rituals of Love, p. 22. 193. The Cairo Love Songs conclude with a prayer in the mouth of the boy: “If only she would come that [I might] see her […] I would make festivities to (the) god who makes her not be far. May he give me (my) lady every day. May she [nev]er be separated from [me]!” (translation from FOX, The Cairo Love Songs, p. 104). 194. See DAVIS, Remarks on Michael V. Fox, p. 112. 195. DARNELL, Rituals of Love, p. 23. QUACK, Love, p. 81 is “not quite convinced” of Darnell’s arguments about the New Year festival and inundation. Nevertheless, Quack’s own argument demonstrates that a variety of Demotic poetic texts “are rather closely linked religious feasts … emanating from a temple context”. Evidence for the cultic/religious social setting of Egyptian love poetry accordingly mounts.

374

PART II – CHAPTER 6

and augment the more overt presence of a specific divinity in the corpus. The description of the beloved reflects an enobling description of the body and its accoutrements as elements of a ritual of divinization. The festival background that appears in a number of the songs reflects a possible performance background in riverine processions and bucolic celebrations, in which the reconciliation of elements of a divine pair find both prototypes and reflections in the interactions of human lovers196.

Far from expressing merely “individual feelings and private concerns, showing us how some sensitive observers […] saw sexual love and the behavior of adolescent lovers”197, Darnell detects a participatory worship in which human lovers act out and reflect the loving embrace of their divine prototypes that undergirds the performance of the love poetry. Evidence from both archaeological and epigraphic sources indicates, in fact, that such participatory worship existed “from the Middle Kingdom through the Graeco-Roman Period […] in which humans greet and accompany a divine journey”198. Darnell explains: A portion of the Mut Temple at Karnak […] appears to be the architectural setting of such worship, a place of human worship through imitation, the setting for human celebration, ritual drunkenness, and sexual activity ensuring the return and pacification of the potentially yet angry goddess of the eye of the sun. Group worship for the goddess Mut as the returning deity to be pacified, led by – at least in theory – the ruler in person, occurred well into the later periods of Egyptian religion199.

Darnell’s description of these festivities corresponds in many ways to the description of a “classical” ANE sacred marriage celebration, i.e., worship through imitation, ritual drunkenness, sexual activity, and – even if only in theory – the presiding presence of the ruler. It is a thoroughly religious and royal festivity. Darnell bases his religious apprehension of the Ramesside love poetry on what he calls their “precursors”, festival texts from the Eighteenth Dynasty. These festival texts which have an apparent ritual setting, 196. DARNELL, Rituals of Love, p. 25. 197. FOX, Song, p. xix. 198. DARNELL, Rituals of Love, p. 23. For the evidence see ID., A Midsummer Night’s Succubus, in S.C. MELVILLE – A.L. SLOTSKY (eds.), Opening the Tablet Box: Near Eastern Studies in Honor of Benjamin R. Foster (CHANE, 42), Leiden – Boston, MA, Brill, 2010, 99-140. 199. DARNELL, Rituals of Love, p. 23, with reference to B.M. BRYAN, Hatshepsut and Cultic Revelries in the New Kingdom, in J.M. GALÁN – B.M. BRYAN – P. DORMANN (eds.), Creativity and Innovation in the Reign of Hatshepsut (Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization, 69), Chicago, IL, Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 2014, 93-123; and D. KLOTZ, Caesar in the City of Amun: Egyptian Temple Construction and Theology in Roman Thebes (Monographies Reine Elisabeth, 15), Turnhout, Brepols, 2012.

SACRED MARRIAGES

375

foreshadow the Ramesside love poems in their representations of “divine interactions with allusions to human love in their depictions of the reconciliation of divine elements”200. They are “festival songs that blend themes of human and divine love, and include architectural elements as objects of love, thus presaging both the love poetry and eulogies of cities in the New Kingdom Theban literary corpus”201. Both genres are characterized by poetic praise of human and architectural bodies. In the festival texts, for example, the temple of Amun at Karnak is described “as a woman awaiting the visit of the divine consort, evocative of the setting, imagery, and vocabulary of the ancient Egyptian love poetry”202. The union of the god with his temple is described in language of human love, evoking the sexual relationship between a man and a woman203. Similarly the love of a city and the love of a specific temple can be expressed in love language indiscernible from that describing a beloved woman. A number of passages in the Ramesside love poetry evoke a similar festival setting. The “riverine and bucolic festival landscapes” evoke the temples and their gardens that were perceived as “continuing into the world of the present the fossilized, stone-carved swamp plants of the temple world”204. Moreover they contain many “allusions to interactions between the lovers that closely mirror the events of divine epiphany and the entry of the deity into his feminine temple counterpart that appear in Eighteenth Dynasty festival texts”205. A significant example with a link to the interpretation of the Song is a love poem (O. Borchardt 1 + O. CGT 57367 recto)206 where the woman expresses the desire that the brother come into her in a term that “refers to the crossing of liminal boundaries, and in a temple context to the introduction of the ruler”207. The poem is permeated with worship language, in which the lovers receive each other as deities. As Darnell explains, “the individual microcosm of human interactions reflects the macrocosm of god and temple; human sexual relations embody the interactions of the male and female aspects of divinity”208. The use of intercourse language 200. 201. 202. 203. 204. Creator 205. 206. 207. 208.

DARNELL, Rituals of Love, p. 24. Ibid. Ibid., p. 40. Ibid., p. 43. Ibid., p. 29. See also R.B. FINNESTAD, Image of the World and Symbol of the (Studies in Oriental Religion, 10) Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz, 1985. DARNELL, Rituals of Love, p. 46. See MATHIEU, Poésie, pp. 113-114. DARNELL, Rituals of Love, p. 47, with further bibliography in note 72. Ibid.

376

PART II – CHAPTER 6

as a metaphor for a deity’s entry into his temple is highly significant with regard to the interpretation of the Song, where – as we shall see in later chapters – so many elements point towards an identification of the Beloved with either the Temple or the city of Jerusalem. The Lover’s entering into his garden-Beloved in Song 4,12–5,1 might just be the biblical expression of a genuine ANE topos, i.e., that of the Lord’s taking possession of his Temple under the symbol of a man entering into his beloved woman209. Gardens and wooded groves appear in both Egyptian and Mesopotamian lyric traditions. In the Egyptian love poetry, however, a girl may be compared to a garden, but “the garden never seems to be an independent symbol for a girl or for feminine sexuality”210. By contrast, in Sumerian and Akkadian poetry the image is metaphorical and multi-layered211. The garden may stand at the same time for the locus amoenus, the body or the pudenda of the woman, and as a metaphor for the temple212. As argued below (see Chapter 11) with respect to the garden, the Song seems to use its imagery in a way more akin to the Mesopotamian than the Egyptian style. If this usage underscores a special affinity of the Song with sacred marriage texts like The Love Lyrics, the Song’s use of the waṣf genre highlights the problematic conception of Egyptian influence as simply “secular”. It is frequently urged that the Song’s use of this descriptive lyrical form points directly towards an Egyptian influence. The point has been made above, however, that Mesopotamian god-description texts also provide a compelling, religiously oriented point of comparison. In fact, as Othmar Keel himself has illustrated, the Egyptian texts also derive from an originally cultic context213. The presentation of the body, member by member, was, namely, a manner of describing the apotheosis of the deceased king. Your head is Horus of the Netherworld, O Imperishable… Your ears are the Twin Children of Atum, O Imperishable. Your nose is the Jackal, O Imperishable… You demand that you ascend into the sky and you shall ascend. 209. Another example pertinent for Song scholarship is the echo that Darnell makes out to the divine aroma that fills the palace at the time of the hieros gamos in the second poem of the third group of P. Chester Beatty I: “the sky descends as a wind, bringing ‘her aroma, a scent inundating and intoxicating those present’”, ibid., p. 37. An analogous case could be made for Song 4,16–5,1. 210. FOX, Song, p. 284. 211. See WESTENHOLZ, Metaphorical Language, p. 381. 212. Ibid., p. 383: “Orchards play a role as the setting for sacred marriage rituals, as a backdrop to the meetings of lovers in the poetry as well as metaphors for the physical attributes of the lovers”. 213. See KEEL, Hohelied, pp. 31-33.

SACRED MARRIAGES

377

Later, in the Book of the Dead, this form was extended to all the dead in search of eternal life, and at a still later point with the living, too, who sought divine power in their members, e.g., over sickness. Body parts were still identified with various gods, but also increasingly with precious metals. The genre is thus essentially a type of divinization poem, even in supposedly “secular” Egyptian literature214. For that reason Darnell argues that the description of the beloved in the Papyrus Chester Beatty I Group A 1,1-4 – a text often adduced in comparison to the Song’s waṣfs – “reflects an enobling description of the body and its accoutrements as elements or a ritual of divinization”215. One unique is the sister, without her equal, more beautiful than all women. cf. Song 6,9 Behold her like the star/constellation, cf. Song 6,4.10 having appeared in glory at the beginning of a good year. Shining of excellence, luminous of hue; beautiful of eyes when glancing, sweet her lips when speaking – cf. Song 4,11 for her no word is excessive. Long of neck, luminous of chest; true lapis is her hair, her arms putting on gold, her fingers like lotuses.

cf. Song 7,5 cf. Song 4,1; 6,5; 5,11 cf. Song 5,14 cf. Song 5,13-14

This way of “referencing adornments and the body transformed into precious elements of the cosmos” reveal “the person of the beloved to be enobled and even divine” and reflect rituals that accompanied the songs216. This text is but one of many examples adduced by Darnell in arguing that even the Egyptian love poetry might belong to a genre of texts in which human intercourse performed during religious festivals represents the mysterious interplay of the masculine and feminine facets of deities217. With regard to the similarities between the Song and the Egyptian love poetry Darnell infers thereof that a similar festival background celebrating divine and human love might have provided a template for the performance setting of the Song. Despite the artificial dichotomy between “secular” Egyptian and cultic Mesopotamia, it remains true that the Mesopotamian and Egyptian 214. The claim that the form was “democratized” operates as a Deus ex machina in Keel’s commentary. See ibid., p. 33. 215. DARNELL, Rituals of Love, p. 25. 216. Ibid., p. 34. Darnell makes these observations with respect to the Eighteenth Dynasty festival text, and hence surmises that similar rituals undergirded the Ramesside Period love poetry, in this case Chester Beatty I. 217. Ibid., p. 55.

378

PART II – CHAPTER 6

parallels represent two distinct traditions of love literature. In contrast to the Mesopotamian material, the Egyptian is regularly marked by a narrative pattern of separation, love sickness, and searching, which has obvious correlates in the Song (e.g., Song 2,5; 3,1-4; 5,2-8). On the other hand, although a unique sacred marriage tradition deeply intertwined with Egypt’s own unique royal ideology does appear during the New Kingdom period218, the Sitz im Leben of the Mesopotamian material is undeniably more cultic. In identifying distinct accents of the Mesopotamian and Egyptian love lyric traditions, and their respective impact on the Song, it is important to avoid imagining that these cultures had no contact with one another. Strong evidence exists, for instance, specifically linking the Sumerian sacred marriage between the En of Uruk and Inana219 in the Ur III period and a fifth-century-B.C. sacred marriage rite during a New Year’s festival in Syene in Egypt, evidently brought there by exiles by way of Bethel in Samaria220. Such cross-pollination in the ANE world – not least this wide reach of Mesopotamian sacred marriage rituals – further cautions against the manufactured idea of a purely secular Egyptian influence.

IV. THE BIBLICAL ADOPTION OF THE SACRED MARRIAGE METAPHOR The incompatibility of Israelite religion with idolatrous practices, such as sacred marriage rites, was mentioned above as an objection to the cult hypothesis. The place of prophetic literature within this discussion is critical. On the one hand, it voices the Bible’s most strident protest against exactly such heathen cults. On the other hand, the prophets provide the 218. See also RIKALA, Sacred Marriage. 219. According to Piotr STEINKELLER, Enship “was the original form of Sumerian kingship”. In a composition of Ur III, Enmerkar the legendary ruler of Uruk functioned as a consort of Inana. See Rulers, p. 104. 220. R.C. STEINER, The Aramaic Text in Demotic Script: The Liturgy of a New Year’s Festival Imported from Bethel to Syene by Exiles from Rash, in JAOS 111 (1991) 362-363, p. 362, relates: “The high point of the festival is the sacred marriage ceremony. The king initiates the rite by declaring: ‘Nana, though art my wife. […] Nanai, bring near to me thy lips’. The king and the goddess keep vigil outside the bridal chamber […] At the appointed hour, the king invites the goddess to enter the bridal chamber: ‘My beloved, enter the door into our house. With my mouth, consort of our lord, let me kiss thee’. They enter the ‘perfumed highway’, where the goddess is laid upon an embroidered bedspread”. STEINKELLER, Rulers, p. 135 adds that the ceremony culminates in an exchange of blessing between Nanai and Baal of heaven and a promise by the king to rebuild the ruined capital of rš. In the ritual, here described, the king enters, as a personification of Ba῾al, the bed chamber of Nanai. Here too, the marriage is purely symbolic. The goddess is represented by her statue.

SACRED MARRIAGES

379

best light for understanding how these practices penetrated Israel, providing the “orthodox” protest with new metaphoric resources to articulate Yahwistic faith. In this section the evidence for the persistent presence of pagan cults deep into the first millennium will be briefly adduced (IV.1). Second, the prophetic reworking of the sacred marriage metaphor in the light of the Yahwistic faith, as typified by Hosea, will be traced (IV.2). Finally, an appropriate space for diverse biblical engagement with sacred marriage traditions will be argued for (IV.3). 1. The Presence of Sacred Marriage Cults in Israel Israel was never perfectly successful at keeping unauthorized idolatrous practices at bay. It is thus hard to imagine that sacred marriage traditions, so widespread and resilient in the ANE, would have had no effect on Israelite religion and literature. Both the historical and the prophetic books leave little doubt that from its earliest settlement in Canaan, all throughout the First Temple period, the cult to YHWH was intermingled with heathen practices. These seem to have included sacred marriage rites. Ezekiel, for instance, reports with horror that the people ritually wept over the death of the fertility god, Tammuz, at the Temple gate (Ezek 8,14). As observed above (II.2.a), Tammuz is identified with Dumuzi, the divine king figure married to the goddess Inana in the earlier Sumerian rites221. His dying was ritually enacted throughout the centuries under various names and in various forms, attested in Israel, for instance in the Adonis gardens of Isa 17,10-11222, and perhaps the wailing over the god 221. Regarding Tammuz/Dumuzi in general see T. JACOBSEN, The Treasures of Darkness: A History of Mesopotamian Religion, New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, 1976, pp. 25-73; B. ALSTER, Tammuz, in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, Leiden, Brill, 21999, 828-834; LIVINGSTONE, Mystical, pp. 136-139. 222. See ALSTER, Tammuz, p. 833. Concerning the vegetation-rituals in Isa 17,10-11, Beuken explains: “Dabei geht es um Schalen oder Kisten, in denen man schnell wachsende Pflanzen zum Blühen und Verwelken bringt. So wird das Kommen und Gehen, d.h. der Tod des Vegetationsgottes Adonis, rituell gefeiert und zugleich umgekehrt”. W.A.M. BEUKEN, Jesaja 13–27 (HThKAT), Freiburg i.Br., Herder, 2007, p. 159. See also H.-P. MÜLLER, Adonis und Adonisgärtchen, in ZDMG 154 (2004) 265-284, who – though skeptical against an original concept of Adonis’ “resurrection” – argues for an endorsement of a resurrection and Unterweltfahrt motive in the myth at a later stage. “So werden Tod und Leben in einem gefeiert; die entsprechenden Mythen und Riten ermöglichen eine enthusiastische unio mystica mit beiden”. Ibid., p. 284. See further J.-M. HUSSER, Adonis et le chasseur tué: Chasse et érotisme dans les mythes ougaritiques, in J.-M. MICHAUD (ed.), Le royaume d’Ougarit de la Crète à l’Euphrate (Proche-Orient et Littérature Ougaritique, 2), Sherbrooke – Québec, Éditions GGC, 2007, 545-565.

380

PART II – CHAPTER 6

Hadad Rimmon practiced in Megiddo in Zech 12,11223. His death and return from the Netherworld represent the seasonal death and resurgence of nature’s flora. Hence these gardens are ultimately fertility images, which are closely related to the sexual tenor of Tammuz’s sacred marriage224. In addition to these hints, another form of the sacred marriage cult seems to have disturbed the prophets. From Jeremiah it is clear that during the Neo-Assyrian period the Israelites made offerings to the “Queen of the Sky” (‫( )למלכת השמים‬Jer 7,16-20; 44,15-19). Scholars have established that the Queen of the Sky is Astarte/Ishtar225, and that the name has the meaning of increase and progeny226. Jeremiah specifically mentions women baking cakes (‫ )כונים‬for and pouring out libations to this goddess of love (Jer 7,16-18; 44,15-19.25). It is suggestive of the fertility overtones of the ritual that these cakes were offered in order to secure a fruitful harvest, as is apparent from the context227. Although the terminology is different, they evoke the fertility cakes associated with the “love” of other gods and infidelity towards the Lord in Hos 3,1 (cf. Song 2,5)228. While Hosea, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel all protest against these syncretistic aberrations229, it is apparent that the matter cannot be dismissed 223. See S. ACKERMAN, Under Every Green Tree: Popular Religion in Sixth-Century Judah (HSM, 46), Atlanta, GA, Scholars, 1992, pp. 89-93, who helpfully identifies Hadad Rimmon with the storm and fertility god Baal Haddu, whose mourning might also be alluded to in Hos 7,14 and 1 Kgs 18,28. 224. See GREENBERG, Ezekiel 1–20, p. 171. KRAMER, The Sacred Marriage Rite, Chapter 6 helpfully analyzes the Tammuz/Dumuzi material in the sacred marriage paradigm. In the same vein, see also ACKERMAN, Tree, pp. 79-82, 93. While the language of “resurrection” in application to the return of Dammuzi/Adonis from the underworld is not entirely appropriate (one should rather speak about his “return from the Netherworld”), it is clear that this return represented the return of life at spring. However, the “rising” of Tammuz/ Dumuzi and even Adonis is disputed among scholars. On the discussion see J.Z. SMITH, Dying and Rising Gods, in M. ELIADE (ed.), Encyclopedia of Religion: A Comprehensive Guide to the History, Beliefs, Concepts, Practices, and Major Figures of Religions Past and Present (vol. 4), New York, McMillan, 1987, 521-527; SMITH, Update; ID., Origins, pp. 110-120; METTINGER, Resurrection. 225. See ACKERMAN, Tree, pp. 3-35. K. KOCH, Aschera als Himmelskönigin in Jerusalem, in UF 20 (1988) 97-120, p. 109, identifies the here mentioned “Queen of Heaven” (venerated in the early sixth century) with the Asherah for whom according to 2 Kgs 23,12 a cult symbol had been erected in Jerusalem in the late seventh century. Koch mentions further that veneration by Judeans of the Queen of Heaven in Elephantine is also attested in the Aramaic Hermopolis-Papyros 4, ibid., p. 110. 226. The meaning “increase” can be seen in Deuteronomy, where the abundant prolificacy of sheep is called ‫( עשתרת צאנך‬e.g., Deut 7,13; 28,4.18.51). 227. On this point see M. WEINFELD, Feminine Features in the Imagery of God in Israel: The Sacred Marriage and the Sacred Tree, in VT 46 (1996) 515-529, p. 522. 228. F.I. ANDERSEN – D.N. FREEDMAN, Hosea (AncB, 24), New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, 1974, p. 298. 229. On Isaiah’s protest against some kind of sexual cultic ritual in Isa 57,3-13, see ACKERMAN, Tree, pp. 152-163. According to Ackerman there is an “organic unity between fertility rituals, child sacrifice, and cults of the dead”. See also ibid., p. 155.

SACRED MARRIAGES

381

as an inconsequential phenomenon. The practice of worshipping Asherah (either as the “Queen of Heaven”, Ishtar/Astarte or Asherah) extended not only to the Israelites but also to the court of the Judean kings (1 Kgs 15,13; 16,33; 18,19; 2 Kgs 13,2; Jer 44,17; cf. 2 Kgs 23,4)230. Indeed, the cult was obviously sufficiently widespread among the people that Deut 16,21 had to forbid it explicitly. It remains a matter of heated dispute, however, just how deeply and in what precise form an Asherah cult may have penetrated Israelite worship231. Material evidence, notably the Kuntilett ῾Ajrûd and Qirbet elQom inscriptions, which read “for YHWH … and for his ashera (lyhwh … wl᾿šrth)” have agitated the question and may suggest that YHWH was at times understood to have Asherah (represented by “an asherah”, that is, a sacred wooden pole) as a divine consort232. While this reading of the 230. See R. ALBERTZ, A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament: Volume I (OTL), Louisville, KY, Westminster John Knox, 1994, p. 87. For the blending of the figures of Ishtar and Asherah into the one “Queen of Heaven” after the Assyrian invasion and before the Babylonian, exile see R. ALBERTZ – R. SCHMITT, Family and Household Religion in Ancient Israel and the Levant, Winona Lake, IN, Eisenbrauns, 2012, p. 378. W.G. DEVER, Did God Have a Wife? Archaeology and Folk Religion in Ancient Israel, Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 2005, pp. 179, 211-236, also identifies the biblical “Queen of Heaven” with Asherah. Acknowledging the goddesses’ eminent role in providing for life and fecundity, he presumes that Asherah or the Queen of Heaven assumed a central role in family religion, declaring “The female figurines […] would almost certainly have had to do with women’s prayers to conceive, to bear a child safely, and be able to nurse the baby through infancy” (ibid., p. 241). See also KOCH, Aschera, pp. 107-109; M. DIJKSTRA, El, YHWH and Their Asherah: On Continuity and Discontinuity in Canaanite and Ancient Israelite Religion, in M. DIETRICH – O. LORETZ (eds.), Ugarit – Ein ostmediterranes Kulturzentrum im Alten Orient. 1: Ugarit und seine altorientalische Umwelt (Abhandlungen zur Literatur Alt-Syrien-Palästinas, 7), Wiesbaden, Ugarit-Verlag, 1995, 43-73, p. 69; O. KEEL – C. UEHLINGER, Gods, Goddesses and Images of God in Ancient Israel, Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1998, pp. 338-339. 231. For a recent discussion of the biblical material, see S.J. PARK, The Cultic Identity of Asherah in Deuteronomistic Ideology of Israel, in ZAW 123 (2011) 553-564. For the veneration of Asherah in domestic cult, see ALBERTZ – SCHMITT, Household Religion, pp. 4, 9-10, 12. 232. For the final excavation report containing the discussion of both the archaeology and the findings, see Z. MESHEL, Kuntillet ꜤAjrud (Ḥorvat Teman): An Iron Age II Religious Site on the Judah-Sinai Border, Jerusalem, Israel Exploration Society, 2012. It is disputed whether the “asherah” mentioned in the descriptions designates the goddess herself, or whether her cult symbol is intended, because divine names generally do not take possessive suffixes (in this case, “his”). In either case, most scholars refer to the inscription to support the idea that YHWH and Asherah were a divine couple in ancient Israel and Judah. See, e.g., S.M. OLYAN, Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh in Israel (SBL Monograph Series, 34), Atlanta, GA, Scholars, 1988, p. 33; G. BRAULIK, Die Ablehnung der Göttin Aschera in Israel, in M.-T. WACKER – E. ZENGER (eds.), Der eine Gott und die Göttin: Gottesvorstellungen des biblischen Israel im Horizont feministischer Theologie (QD, 135), Freiburg i.Br., Herder, 1991, 106-136, pp. 107-117; ACKERMAN, Tree, pp. 65-66; SMITH, Origins, p. 47. Yet other scholars hold that by the first millennium B.C. the original association of the cult symbol with the goddess Asherah had been forgotten, and that the “asherah” was

382

PART II – CHAPTER 6

text presents problems233, biblical evidence appears to confirm the veneration of an independent goddess Asherah in the Temple of Jerusalem devoted to YHWH and that Asherah was seemingly regarded as his consort (2 Kgs 17,16; 23,15)234. Many scholars believe the “Asherah” venerated there was none other than the goddess herself symbolized by her cult object, either a sacred tree or a wooden pole, and that the ‫פסל האשרה‬ (“the image of the asherah/Asherah”) was indeed the image of the goddess (2 Kgs 21,7)235. In any event, 2 Kgs 23,4 suggests quite clearly “that the cult of ‘Baal, Asherah and all the host of heaven’ was tolerated within the Jerusalem temple in the late seventh century (see also 2 Kgs 21,3)”236. now simply a sacred object belonging to the cult of YHWH. See, e.g. MESHEL, Kuntillet, pp. 129-132; KEEL – UEHLINGER, Gods, p. 237: “a gender neutral mediating entity that brings Yahweh’s blessing […] subordinate to Yahweh”; and A. LEMAIRE, Naissance du Monothéisme: Point de vue d’un historien, Paris, Bayard, 2003, pp. 37-82. 233. For a thorough discussion of the inscriptions, see J.A. EMERTON, New Light on Israelite Religion: The Implications of the Inscriptions from Kuntillet ꜤAjrud, in ZAW 94 (1982) 2-20; ID., “Yahweh and His Asherah”: The Goddess or Her Symbol?, in VT 49 (1999) 315-337; M. WEINFELD, Kuntillet ꜤAjrud Inscriptions and Their Significance, in Studi Epigrafici e Linguistici sul Vicino Oriente Antico 1 (1984) 121-130; OLYAN, Asherah, pp. 23-34; J.M. HADLEY, The Cult of Asherah in Ancient Israel and Judah: Evidence for a Hebrew Goddess (UCOP, 57), Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2000; ID., Some Drawings and Inscriptions on Two Pithoi from Kuntillet ꜤAjrud, in VT 37 (1987) 180-213; ID., The Khirbet el-Qom Inscription, in VT 37 (1987) 50-62; S.A. WIGGINS, The Myth of Asherah: Lion Lady and Serpent Goddess, in UF 23 (1991) 383-394; M. DIETRICH – O. LORETZ, “Jahwe und seine Aschera”: Anthropomorphes Kultbild in Mesopotamien, Ugarit und Israel. Das biblische Bilderverbot (UBL, 9), Münster, Ugarit-Verlag, 1992, pp. 77-133; DIJKSTRA, El, YHWH and Their Asherah; KEEL – UEHLINGER, Gods, pp. 228-248, 332, 369-370; C. FREVEL, Aschera und der Ausschließlichkeitsanspruch YHWHs. Band 1: Beiträge zu literarischen, religionsgeschichtlichen und ikonographischen Aspekten der Ascheradiskussion (BBB, 94/1-2), Meisenheim am Glan, Athenäum, 2 vols., 1995. See also the response by O. KEEL, Goddesses and Trees, New Moon and Yahweh: Ancient Near Eastern Art and the Hebrew Bible (JSOTS, 261), Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press, 1998; P. MERLO, La dea Asratum – Atiratu – Asera: Un contributo alla storia della religione semitica del nord, Roma, Pontificia Università Lateranense, 1998; DEVER, Did God Have a Wife?; B.A. MASTIN, A Note on Some Inscriptions and Drawings from Kuntillet ꜤAjrud, in PEQ 137 (2005) 31-32; E. PUECH, L’inscription 3 de Khirbet el-Qôm revisitée et l’’ashérah, in RB 122 (2015) 5-25. For an overview of the discussion, see KOCH, Aschera, pp. 99-100; S.A. WIGGINS, Asherah Again: Binger’s Asherah and the State of Asherah Studies, in JNSL 24 (1998) 231-240; SMITH, Origins, pp. 73-74. 234. See KOCH, Aschera, pp. 100-117; BRAULIK, Aschera, pp. 123-125; PARK, Cultic Identity, p. 564, and T. RÖMER, L’invention de Dieu (Les livres du nouveau monde), Paris, Seuil, 2014, pp. 213-288. 235. See SMITH, Origins, p. 47, and the bibliographical references on p. 222. 236. Ibid., p. 73. See also DEVER, Did God Have a Wife?, p. 212, and recently RÖMER, Dieu d’Israël, p. 532: “Il es plus simple de considérer Ashérah, bien attestée comme déesse et épouse du dieu El à Ougarit, comme parèdre de Yhwh, identifié à El, laquelle avait également sa place dans le temple de Jérusalem et sans doute dans d’autres sanctuaires. De toute façon, les textes bibliques attestent très clairement la vénération d’une déesse à Jérusalem appelée ‘Reine du Ciel’ (Jr 44), déesse qui est peut-être à identifier avec Ashéra”.

SACRED MARRIAGES

383

Such an evidently compromised form of monotheistic devotion appears furthermore confirmed by the archaeological findings of numerous terra cotta goddess figurines and Asherah seals237, as well as by the finds at Tell Arad, where two standing stones (‫)מצבות‬, probably a YHWH and an Asherah, occupy the inner chamber of a sanctuary238. A marital union of YHWH with Asherah may also find textual support in Deut 33,2-3. came from Sinai And dawned from Seir, his possession He shone forth from Mount Paran And he came amidst the myriads of Qodesh. At his right Asherah, his own239. 3 Also the favorite of the clans And all his holy ones at his left hand. YHWH

This understanding of the verse as describing YHWH as the member of a northwest Semitic pantheon, escorted by his Asherah, is startling, but deserves “serious consideration”240. It would, in any case, cohere well with the inscriptional and material evidence. 237. For the identification of these eighth- and seventh-century B.C. figurines from Judah with the goddess Asherah, see R. KLETTER, The Judean Pillar-Figurines and the Archaeology of Asherah (British Archaeological Reports. International Series, 636), London, Tempus Reparatum, 1996; ID., Between Archaeology and Theology: The Pillar Figurines from Judah and the Asherah, in A. MAZAR (ed.), Studies in the Archaeology of the Iron Age in Israel and Jordan (JSOTS, 331), Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press, 2001, 179-216; KEEL – UEHLINGER, Gods, pp. 192-195; DEVER, Did God Have a Wife?, pp. 176-195. Concerning the seals, see the discussion with further references ibid., pp. 230-236. 238. See A. MAZAR, The Divided Monarchy: Comments on Some Archaeological Issues, in I. FINKELSTEIN – A. MAZAR – B.B. SCHMIDT (eds.), The Quest for the Historical Israel: Debating Archaeology and the History of Early Israel (SBL Archaeology and Biblical Studies, 17), Atlanta, GA, SBL Press, 2007, 159-180, p. 176. For the dating of the Temple to the period of the kingdom of Judah, around 900-735 B.C., see Z. HERZOG, The Date of the Temple at Arad: Reassessment of the Stratigraphy and the Implications for the History of Religion in Juda, in A. MAZAR (ed.), Studies in the Archaeology of the Iron Age in Israel and Jordan (JSOTS, 331), Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press, 2001, 156-178, p. 174. 239. The MT reads ‫ ֵא ְשׁ ָדּת‬in this place, an obscure reading that has called forth a great variety of explanations. The editor of the BHQ, C. McCarthy, notes in her commentary on this text: “Serious consideration should be given to the possibility that G’s reading [ἄγγελοι] might represent a later (exegetically motived) emendation of a Vorlage which read, as one word: ‫᾿( אשרת‬Ašērat = Asherah), thus presenting a theophany which originally would have included Asherah at YHWH’s right”. C. MCCARTHY (ed.), Deuteronomy (BHQ, 5), Stuttgart, Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2007, pp. 155-156*. See also EAD., Moving from the Margins: Issues of Text and Context in Deuteronomy, in A. LEMAIRE (ed.), Congress Volume – Basel 2001 (VT.S, 92), Leiden, Brill, 2002, 109-137, pp. 126-134; H.S. NYBERG, Deuteronomion 33,2-3, in ZDMG 92 (1938) 320-344, p. 335; WEINFELD, Kuntillet, p. 124. 240. MCCARTHY, Deuteronomy, p. 156*.

384

PART II – CHAPTER 6

The evidence is regrettably fragmentary and arguments exist on both sides. Even estimable scholars have vacillated on the question of a marriage of YHWH and Asherah241. What seems beyond dispute, however, is that real fertility rites linked with sacred marriage myths colored and formed the background to the prophetic protests. Indeed, had no such incursions of neighboring religious thought and praxis touched Israel, it would be nearly impossible to explain the rhetoric of figures like Hosea, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel. Possibly these incursions reached so far, in certain times and places, as to depict the God of Israel in a union with the love goddess, a cult myth certainly attended by adapted rituals. If so, this would provide a very compelling explanation of the Song’s origin, as Mark Smith has written: “The Song of Songs may have been allegorical in the sense that the human audience participates in the story of the two human lovers whose relationship mirrors and participates in the divine love. Originally, that love may have been between Yahweh and his consort Asherah”242. This would also explain the heavy presence of symbols related to cult, fertility, and love goddesses. The dove, for example, which appears frequently in the Song particularly in reference to the Beloved (cf. Song 1,4; 2,14; 4,1; 5,2; 6,9) “is a common symbol of the female fertility goddess until Late Antiquity”243. The caprids too, which one finds associated both with the Beloved and the Lover of the Song (cf. Song 2,7.9.17; 3,5; 4,5; 7,4; 8,14), feature frequently in the iconography related to fertility rituals244. The astral character of the love goddess Ishtar appears reflected in Song 6,10 where the Beloved “is portrayed as shining with the radiance of the goddess who is associated with the dawn and the full moon”245. Song 6,10 is part of the thrice recurring Mî-Zot Refrain. Contrary to the other two occurrences where the Beloved is reminiscent of Ishtar returning from the Netherworld (= wilderness motif) (cf. 3,6; 8,5), she is here likened to the morning dawn: “Who is she looking down like Shaḥar?”. Three factors are strong indicators of mythological language. (1) The question ‫ מי־זאת‬is a question which typically indicates that the person addressed is of super-human, i.e., angelic, demonic, or divine, status (for details see the exegesis of 3,6-11 in Chapter 10). (2) The verb used for “looking down” is reminiscent of the ANE “woman at the window” motif (cf. 241. Mark Smith, e.g., changed his view from 1987 to later publications on the matter. See SMITH, God Male and Female; ID., Origins, p. 73; ID., Early History of God, 22002, pp. 125-133. 242. SMITH, God Male and Female, p. 338. 243. See MIROSCHENDJI, Canaanite Cult, p. 88*, with further bibliography. 244. See ibid., p. 82*. 245. KEEL – UEHLINGER, Gods, p. 294. See also KEEL, Hohelied, pp. 204-206; MÜLLER, Hld 4,12–5,1.

SACRED MARRIAGES

385

Judg 5,28; 2 Sam 6,16 || 1 Chr 15,29; Psalm 76) and is preferably used for God “looking down” from heaven (cf. Deut 26,15; Ps 14,2; 85,12; 101,20; Lam 3,50)246. (3) The term used for “dawn”, ‫שחר‬, to whom the Beloved is compared, is the name of a divine being in Canaanite mythology, probably connected to the morning star247. In addition to the many mythological reminiscences that have already been highlighted in Chapter 4, the mention of raisin cakes (‫ )אשישות‬in Song 2,5, traceable as belonging to the Canaanite fertility cult denounced in Hos 3,1, might also be pointed out, as well as the affirmation that love is stronger than “death”, “sheol”, “mayim rabbîm”, and “floods” (něhārôt), the well-known Ugaritic forces of chaos, in Song 8,6. The Song thus fits within a trajectory defined by this sacred marriage myth connected with Asherah. The popular idea that YHWH had a consort provides the template not only for the interpretation of the Song, but also for its composition. There appears to be a common ancestry between the Song of Songs and the shared ANE sacred marriage material, which has come down to us largely in the form of love lyrics. Instead of attempting the impossible, that is, to eradicate a powerfully present sacred marriage myth, the genius of the author was to transform and reinterpret this myth in the light of Israel’s singular relationship to YHWH. The way for such a reinterpretation had been paved by the prophetic use of the marriage metaphor, in particular by the prophet Hosea. In strong opposition to the Canaanite Baal worship and the related fertility rites, the people of Israel came to understand that YHWH had no Asherah, but that Israel herself had been raised to the dignity of a divine consort. 2. The Prophets’ Appropriation of the Marriage Symbol a) Israel as the Divine Consort (Hos 2,16-25) Though fertility rites were severely denounced, the concept of a hieros gamos was not banned from Israel but transformed and adapted to YHWH’s relationship to Israel248. The moment the prophets took up the marriage 246. See KEEL, Hohelied, p. 206. 247. See S.B. PARKER, Shahar ‫שׁחר‬,in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, Leiden, Brill, 1995, 1424-1427. The mythological reminiscence of ‫ שחר‬is particularly evident in its occurrence in Isa 14,12. The oracle addresses the king of Babylon as ‫בן־שחר‬, recalling how he had set his throne above the stars, on the mount of the divine assembly in the far north, and become like Elyon. It is presumed that the divine Shahar may be the father of the Morning Star, but the myth is not known. 248. See G. VON RAD, Theologie des Alten Testaments. Band II: Die Theologie der prophetischen Überlieferungen Israels, München, Kaiser, 1987, pp. 147-148; RINGGREN, Marriage Motif, pp. 424-425.

386

PART II – CHAPTER 6

symbol to describe Israel’s relationship with YHWH as Israel wedded to her God, “they created a discursive world in which Israel had taken upon itself/herself the usual role that in the ancient Near East was assigned to a goddess”249. As Ben Zvi observes, Though this ideological concept of Israel could not really be identified as a goddess, it still included some of her attributes, and was still construed as elevated beyond the worldly realm. Moreover, since within these discourses city dwellers were identified with their cities, and “people” with their land, the land was also ideologically construed as elevated and, in some prophetic books, the ideological center of the land, Zion/Jerusalem/temple, even more so250.

While in the cults of Ishtar and Astarte fertility rites were to secure the harmony between heaven and earth and thereby fruitfulness (rain being the seed with which the heaven seeds the earth), in Israel fertility was not to be achieved by the indulgence in sacred marriage rites but by the renewal of the covenant between YHWH and Israel, which the prophet Hosea announced under the metaphor of a renewed betrothal (Hos 2,1825)251. Hosea views the “sacred marriage” between YHWH and Israel as the legitimate and only source of harmony between heaven above and the world below. Thus, the same Hosea who fought so relentlessly against the worship of the Baals (Hos 2,4-15.19; 7,16; 9,10; 11,2)252, golden calves 249. E. BEN ZVI, Observations on the Marital Metaphor of YHWH and Israel in Its Ancient Israelite Context: General Considerations and Particular Images in Hosea 1.2, in JSOT 28 (2004) 363-384, p. 375. 250. Ibid., p. 376. 251. The relationship between the covenant theology of the Deuteronomist and the prophet’s use of the marriage metaphor is debated. While the Deuteronomist depicts the covenant analogous to the ANE vassal treaties, Hosea metaphorically joins the institution of covenant and marriage both in symbolic act (Hosea 1, 3) and poetic presentation (Hosea 2). On this note and the “covenant and marriage” in Hosea in general, see J.A. DEARMAN, The Book of Hosea (NICOT), Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 2010, pp. 50-59. See also more extensively Chapter 7, I below, p. 412. Pace ZIMMERMANN, Geschlechtermetaphorik, pp. 123-124. Though the question is debated, it has been argued convincingly that the prophets Hosea, Ezekiel, and Malachi viewed the social and religious aspects of the covenant as a marriage (cf. Hos 2,20-22; Ezek 16,8.59-62; Jer 2,2-3; Mal 2,14). See G.P. HUGENBERGER, Marriage as Covenant: A Study of Biblical Law and Ethics Governing Marriage Developed from the Perspective of Malachi (VT.S, 52), Leiden, Brill, 1994. E.J. ADLER, The Background for the Metaphor of Covenant as Marriage in the Hebrew Bible (Diss. University of California; Berkeley, CA, 1990). It may further be pointed out that even if the covenantal references in Hos 6,7 and 8,1 were added later (i.e. no earlier than the Babylonian exile), as some scholars claim (e.g. S. RUDNIG-ZELT, Hoseastudien: Redaktionskritische Untersuchungen zur Genese des Hoseabuches [FRLANT, 13], Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2006), that would not affect the fact that in the book of Hosea the covenant is viewed under the metaphor of a marriage. 252. WOLFF, Hosea, p. 35: “In cultic mythology, the ‘lovers’ are the Baals (v 15) of the various cultic places; each Baal is responsible for its own district. In the cultic ritual, it is the ‘partners’ – representing Baal – who are sought out by those participating in the fertility cult”.

SACRED MARRIAGES

387

(Hos 4,14; 8,5-6; 10,5; 13,1-3; 14,9), and worship on high places (4,13; 10,8), does not hesitate to depict the renewal of the broken marital relationship between God and Israel by borrowing terms clearly reminiscent of the Canaanite fertility cult253. On that day, says the Lord, “you shall call me ‘my husband’ (‫ )אשי‬and no longer ‘my Baal’ (‫)בעלי‬. For I will remove the names of the Ba’als from her mouth, and they shall be mentioned by name no more” (2,18; NRSV). The text puns on the word and name Ba’al (‫)בעל‬, which designates the foreign god Ba’al which the Israelites had been rendering idolatrous service, and at the same time it means “owner, lord, husband”. Thus when Israel will forsake her idol-worship she will forget the names of the foreign gods and call YHWH her husband instead254. As a result, YHWH promises to establish for Israel a covenant (‫)ברית‬255 with the forces of the created order “for the purpose of bringing to fruition a cosmic community of security and blessing”256 (Hos 2,20-22): 20

And I will make a covenant (‫ )ברית‬for them on that day with the beasts of the field and with the birds of the sky and with the creeping things of the earth, and bow and sword and war I will abolish from the land and I will make them dwell in safety. 21And I will betroth you to me forever; I will betroth you to myself in righteousness and justice, in faithfulness (‫ )חסד‬and mercy. 22I will betroth you to myself in fidelity (‫)אמונה‬, and you will know (‫ )ידע‬the Lord.

Israel will then know (‫ )ידע‬the Lord intimately. The verb ‫ ידע‬is rich with sexual connotation, as it is the same verb which designates the sexual intimacy between a husband and a wife257. Most striking, however, is that this covenant and betrothal between YHWH and Israel will bring about a harmony between heaven and earth and a fecundity, just as would have been the expected result of a theogamy 253. See also JACOB, Héritage, p. 250. 254. DEARMAN, Hosea, p. 124. 255. Though the term “covenant” is in Hos 2,20 not directly employed for a covenant between God and Israel, but instead between Israel and the forces of the cosmos, the contextual setting within the book of Hosea makes it evident that the passage points towards a covenant renewal. The larger context draws repeatedly on covenant themes. Events from Israel’s earlier history like the exodus from Egypt, the wilderness wandering, and the gift of the land (Hos 2,16-17), serve typologically to shape the depiction of the promised renewal of the relationship between YHWH and Israel, in the symbol of a new betrothal. DEARMAN, Hosea, p. 120. The exodus-typology envisions the experience of the impending Assyrian (Babylonian) exile as return to Egypt (Hos 8,13; 9,3.6); the return from the Exile and the period following it, will, however, be like a second time in the wilderness, where – similar to the Sinai covenant – God will speak to the heart of Israel and woo her (2,16; cf. also Jer 2,2). 256. DEARMAN, Hosea, p. 51. 257. Cf. Gen 4,1. It has, however, also been read in the context of the covenant language of Exod 6,2-7, “and you will know (‫ )ידע‬that I am the Lord your God, the one who brought you out from the burdens of Egypt”.

388

PART II – CHAPTER 6

between Baal and his Anat, viz. YHWH and his Asherah258. Hosea describes YHWH in terms reminiscent of a weather god (Hos 2,23-25)259: 23

And it will come to pass on that day, I will answer, says the Lord; I will answer the heavens and they will answer the earth. 24And the earth shall answer the grain; and the must, and the oil, and they shall answer Jesreel. 25 And I will sow her unto me in the earth, and I will have mercy with “nomercy”; and I will say to “not my people”: “you are my people”; and she will say to me “my God”.

Hosea is drawing on the commonly known ANE sacred marriage motif of a marriage between heaven and earth. What is reflected is the motif of the gods’ watering the earth by their semen as symbolized by rain and the earth being perceived as a female deity260. In the ANE mythologies the gods are perceived as having intercourse with the earth. This event can be either observed in the forces of nature, or ritually enacted in the sacred marriage between a king and a goddess261. We find a very concrete description of the sexual union between heaven and earth in the “Disputation between Tree and Reed”262: The holy Earth, the pure Earth, beautified herself for holy Heaven, Heaven, the noble god, inserted his sex into the wide earth, Let flow the semen of the heroes, Trees and Reed, into her womb. The Earthly Orb, the trusty cow, was impregnated with the good semen of Heaven.

In this context scholars have observed that the semantic field of speech has sexual notions263. The encounter between heaven and earth is sometimes 258. On the substitution of YHWH for Baal in Hos 2,23-24, echoing the words of Baal’s message to Anat in KTU 1.3 III 13-31, see SMITH, Early History, 22002, pp. 73-75. 259. W. BOSHOFF, Yahweh as God of Nature: Elements of the Concept of God in the Book of Hosea, in JNSL 18 (1992) 13-24, p. 21. 260. Cf. Isa 45,8; 55,10-11; Ps 65,10-11. See extensively M. MALUL, Woman-Earth Homology in Biblical Weltanschauung, in UF 32 (2000) 339-363. 261. Thus in the Sumerian sources of the third and second millennium we find the king approaching Inana (Ishtar) “with lifted head” and making love to her in order to bring fecundity to the kingdom. See SEFATI, Love Songs, pp. 300-311, 306: “The Blessing of Dumuzi on his Wedding Day” (DI D1), col. iii, lines 65-68: “The king goes with lifted head [to the holy lap], He goes with lifted head to the holy lap [of Inanna], The king going with lif[ted head]… Going with lifted [he]ad [to] my lady”. 262. S.N. KRAMER, From the Poetry of Sumer: Creation, Glorification, Adoration, Berkeley, CA, University of California Press, 1967, pp. 120-121. Cited in WEINFELD, Feminine Features, p. 524. 263. For “talking” as a euphemism to express intimate relations between a man and a woman in the Akkadian and Sumerian sources, see S.M. PAUL, Euphemistically ‘Speaking’

SACRED MARRIAGES

389

cast as a meteorological event, which can also be described as a conversation taking place between heaven and earth as a metaphor for the sexual, marital union264. A good example of a text describing a cosmogenic marriage between heaven and earth in terms of a conversation, which sheds light on Hosea’s metaphoric speech of the heaven answering the earth, is the Barton Cylinder i-ii 10265. Column i 1-2 Those days were indeed faraway days. 3-4 Those nights were indeed faraway nights. 5-6 Those years were indeed faraway years. 7 The storms roared, 8 the lights flashed 12-13 Heaven talked with Earth 14 Earth talked with Heaven Column ii 1 With the “Grand-Good-Lady-of-Heaven”, 2 Enlil’s older sister, 3 with Ninhursag, 4 with the “Grand-Good-Lady-of Heaven”, 5 Enlil’s older sister, 6 with Ninhursag, 7 he had intercourse. 8 He kissed her. 9 The semen of seven twins 10 he impregnated into her womb.

It is not necessary to multiply the examples as the point is clear. Hosea has reworked the ANE idea of sacred marriage and revolutionized it in a manner that is singular for the ANE266. As Ben Zvi rightly observes267: and a Covetous Eye, in Hebrew Annual Review 14 (1994) 193-204, p. 194; WEINFELD, Feminine Features, p. 524, n. 26; and M. MALUL, Knowledge, Control and Sex: Studies in Biblical Thought, Culture and Worldview, Tel Aviv, Archaeological Center Publication, 2002, pp. 245-246. Compare also the English expression “intercourse” for sexual intimacy. 264. PONGRATZ-LEISTEN, Alliances, p. 45. 265. Text and translation are taken from ibid. For this and similar texts, see also J. VAN DIJK, Le motif cosmique dans la pensée sumérienne, in Acta Orientalia 28 (1964) 1-59, pp. 36-37. Van Dijk makes out a pattern in these texts, which comprises: (1) “On that day”, (2) the thunder and lightning symbolizing the conversation between heaven and earth, (3) which is at least the preparation for the cosmic marriage. Ibid., p. 37. 266. See WEINFELD, Feminine Features; B. MARGALIT, The Meaning and Significance of Asherah, in VT 40 (1990) 264-297, p. 283: “One may venture the surmise that the prophet Hosea confronted by the enormous syncretic Yahwism in evidence at K. ‘Ajrud and Kh. elQôm by the mid-8th century, took over the idea and the image implied by yhwh w᾿štrth and made it the cornerstone of a new Israelite theology. YHWH has indeed an asherah – i.e., a wife – named ‘Israel’, a former slave-girl whom he wed in his native Sinai”. 267. E. BEN ZVI, Hosea (FOTL, 21A/1), Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 2005, p. 75 (emphasis mine). See also E. JACOB, Traits féminins dans la figure du Dieu d’Israël, in

390

PART II – CHAPTER 6

The text contains no reference to Asherah, or to any other goddess, but it develops a metaphorical world in which YHWH has a spouse. Significantly, within that world, when YHWH will be finally united with her (Israel, the land) in a permanent, proper manner (2:21-25), then the land will be fruitful because YHWH (the male) will cause rain to fall upon her (the land) from the heavens. The text adapts and revises common ancient Near Eastern mythological constructions, with one most substantial change: Israel (/land) now stands in the mythological slot of a goddess. The text thus conveys an ideological frame of mind that not only removes the place of the/any goddess as the spouse of the deity of heavens, but also elevates Israel (and, indirectly, its land; see also Hos 9:3; cf. Ps 85:2) well above the level of that which may be considered worldly.

This religiously and historically singular move of the prophet to have Israel take the “mythological slot of a goddess” in the sacred marriage myth – simultaneously dethroning and negating the ANE goddesses of their existence and elevating Israel to the height of a goddess herself through her peerless relationship with YHWH – provided the matrix within which the author of the Song could assimilate the traditional sacred marriage love lyrics material. He thereby gave expression to the passionate loving and searching of the divine-human Lovers for each other, as also already encrypted in Hosea’s message (cf. Hos 2,8; 5,6; Song 3,1-4; 5,2-7)268. b) YHWH as Asherah (Hos 14,6-9) A slightly different reinterpretation of Asherah (sacred tree) motifs can also be observed in the late stratum of Hosea. According to the biblical A. CAQUOT – S. LÉGASSE – M. TARDIEU (eds.), Mélanges bibliques et orientaux en l’honneur de M. Mathias Delcor (AOAT, 215), Kevelaer, Butzon & Bercker, 1985, 221-230, pp. 227228: “Dans le symbolisme de l’union conjugale Yahweh tient le rôle de l’époux, mais l’insistance sur le fait qu’il a une épouse peut laisser supposer que celle-ci joue le rôle tenu ailleurs par une déesse. Ce mariage du dieu avec une déesse, Osée qui est à l’origine du symbolisme conjugal, reçoit l’ordre de le mimer en quelque sorte, d’entrer dans les pratiques du culte de Baal, afin de la combattre en le prenant sur lui, illustrant à la fois l’apostasie du peuple et l’amour de Dieu qui est capable de transformer le mal en bien et faire d’un rite païen une parole révélatrice. Le mariage d’Osée ne peut être compris que comme un acte théologique […]. C’est chez Osée que la seule fois dans la Bible le symbole de l’arbre, symbole féminin par excellence, est appliqué à Dieu: ‘Je serai pour Israël comme la rosée, il fleurira comme le lis …. Je suis moi comme un cyprès toujours vert, c’est moi que procède ton fruit’” (14,5-8). […] c’est la même ligne théologique reprise par Jérémie et DeuteroEsaïe qui a facilité la conciliation entre une théologie de l’alliance et une théologie de la création, avec parfois une note mystique comme dans le Cantique des Cantiques où les deux partenaires se répondent sur un plan d’égalité”. 268. See also LACOCQUE, Romance, p. 34: “YHWH as a masculine god needed no paredra; his ‘wife’ was his people. In one stroke, the prophet was thus emphasizing the oneness of God and the intimate relationship binding him with his people. Hosea was the first prophet to express with such power the love of God, stronger even than death (Hos 6.1-2)”.

SACRED MARRIAGES

391

and iconographic evidence, the “green trees” of the high places represented the goddess Asherah, who was believed to give life in a barren land269. In Hos 14,6-9, however, YHWH applies the attributes of the sacred tree to himself and claims that he gives shade to the people270. He will be like a verdant cypress tree that generously provides them with fruit271. 6 I will be like the dew for Israel: he shall blossom like the lily (‫ ;)שושנה‬he shall strike root like the Lebanon (‫)לבנון‬, and 7his shoots shall spread out. His beauty shall be like the olive tree and his fragrance like that of Lebanon (‫)ריח לו כלבנון‬. 8They will return who dwell in his shade (‫ )ישבי בצלו‬and raise grain; They shall blossom as the vine, and their fame shall be like the wine of Lebanon. 9Ephraim! What more have I to do with idols? I have humbled him, but I will look upon him. I am like a verdant cypress tree (‫ – )כרוש רענן‬From me comes your fruit!

According to the prophetic words, YHWH himself will be to Israel what they had erroneously been looking for in the fertility cult of Asherah: the source of new abundant life. There are unmistakable parallels in imagery and vocabulary between the Song and Hos 14,6-9272. First, Israel’s eschatological prosperity is likened to the blossoming of the lily (‫שושנה‬, Hos 14,6; cf. Song 2,23). Its fragrance will be like Lebanon (Hos 14,7). In the Song the fragrance of the Beloved’s garments is compared to the fragrance of Lebanon (‫כריח לבנון‬, Song 4,11). Those who return shall dwell in his shade (‫ישבי בצלו‬, Hos 14,8; cf. Song 2,3). Instead of its pagan gods and their sacred trees, YHWH himself will be like a verdant cypress (‫)כברוש רענן‬ to them (Hos 14,9; cf. Song 1,16-17, where “cypress” [here in the Aramaic form ‫ ]ברות‬and “verdant” stand in parallelism, each at the end of the respective verses). The connotation in Hos 14,6-9 is obvious. What Israel had sought for in the veneration of the baals and the goddesses had led to their destruction. In the time of her future restoration, however, she will obtain fertility, pleasure, and protection solely from YHWH, who is not above applying to himself language and metaphors which otherwise serve in the pagan cult. 269. DEVER, Did God Have a Wife?, p. 224. For a detailed treatment of both the iconographic and biblical evidences see KEEL, Goddesses, Chapters 2-5. 270. BEN ZVI, Hosea, p. 298. 271. Y. IKEDA, Because Their Shade Is Good – Asherah in the Early Israelite Religion, in E. MATSUSHIMA (ed.), Official Cult and Popular Religion in the Ancient Near East: Papers of the First Colloquium on the Ancient Near East – The City and Its Life Held at the Middle Eastern Culture Center in Japan (Mitaka, Tokyo), Heidelberg, Winter, 1993, 56-80, p. 74. 272. See VAN DIJK-HEMMES, Imagination. See furthermore the commentaries by ROBERT – TOURNAY – FEUILLET, Cantique; LACOCQUE, Romance; DAVIS, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs.

392

PART II – CHAPTER 6

As Georg Braulik has written, “YHWH alone fulfills the function which Israel ascribes to the love, viz., fertility goddess”273. Some authors like Wellhausen have even proposed that YHWH’s appropriation of the pagan goddess’ attributes are still visible under a re-worked version of Hosea’s text. Where the text now reads in v. 9b ‫אני עניתי ואשורנו‬, “I have humbled him and I will look upon him”, there would have originally stood: ‫אני ֲענַ תוֹ וַ ֲא ֵש ָרתוֹ‬, “I am his Anat and his Ašera”274. The interpretation would be the same but more explicit: the powers ascribed to these goddesses are in fact “my”, YHWH’s, powers275. While such excesses in emendation are no longer indulged, nonetheless one cannot exclude a very erudite pun on the part of the prophet. A more moderate suggestion has been made according to which the text has not undergone a “dogmatic correction”, but rather that it is the phonetic and not explicit allusion to the goddesses that belongs to the poetic intention of the book, which typically adopts a “verhüllend-enthüllende Redeweise”276. It is clear, at least, that “in contrast to the syncretism of Canaanite religion, Hosea declares that the fertility and vitality Ephraim vainly sought in its Canaanite cult is to be found in his God alone”277. By assimilating the tree symbolism to YHWH, he thus gives it a new and positive legitimation278. Given the well-noted parallels between Hos 14,6-9 and the Song, it stands to reason that a conscious allegorization of the Song was at work279. The author of the Song (in its final stage) appears to have consciously made use of the religious symbolism of the cedars, the cypress, the verdant trees (Song 1,15-16), and the shade of trees (2,3), to reinterpret them with regard to Israel’s relationship to God. 3. In Defense of Diversity The penetration of sacred marriage traditions into Israelite literature is not limited to any single mode. Hosea’s alternate depiction of now Israel, now YHWH as the Asherah figure, already indicates this pliability. It is 273. BRAULIK, Aschera, p. 123, with bibliography ad loc. 274. J. WELLHAUSEN, Die Kleinen Propheten, Berlin, De Gruyter, 41963, p. 134. 275. See JACOB, Héritage, p. 264: “S’assimiler à une déesse, l’absorber en quelque sorte, c’était de la part de Yahweh à la fois le moyen de montrer le peu de consistance des dieux du paganisme et la grandeur de son prestige qui ne perdait rien à se revêtir de leurs dépouilles. C’était aussi la preuve qu’il ne voulait pas que toutes les modalités de l’amour représentées par les diverses divinités cananéens restent étrangères à la religion d’Israel”. 276. WACKER, Figurationen des Weiblichen im Hosea-Buch, p. 271. See also BRAULIK, Aschera, p. 122. 277. WOLFF, Hosea, p. 237. 278. NISSINEN, Love Lyrics, p. 607. 279. ZAKOVITCH, Hohelied, p. 97.

SACRED MARRIAGES

393

common in the prophetic literature that YHWH plays the role of the man, be it bridegroom or husband, while the woman represents his (usually unfaithful) partner, be it the people of Israel, of the land, or of a city, such as Jerusalem (Hos 2,4-25; Jeremiah 2–3; Ezekiel 16). Within the prophets’ struggle against the Canaanite high places, sacred marriage echoes in the biblical tradition are, however, not straitjacketed by this pattern. Other configurations of sacred marriage are also found. Isaiah, for example, develops a God-Israel marriage motif, built around an ANE concept expressing the patron goddess of the city as the consort of the protector god. Beyond the prophetic corpus, moreover, an altogether different sacred marriage metaphor is pursued in, e.g., the marriage of Solomon with Lady Wisdom. It is essential to recognize and defend this diversity in Israel’s appropriation of marriage symbolism, since the differences of the Song from (a monolithic construct of) “the prophets” has often been used to discredit the possibility of the former’s deployment of a God-Israel marriage motif 280. a) Jerusalem Personified The diversity in the Israelite appropriation of the sacred marriage myth is paradigmatically apparent in the personified figure of Jerusalem/Zion. Scholars have detected here yet another reconfiguration of an ANE goddess in this female personification of Jerusalem. Aloysius Fitzgerald has demonstrated that the biblical trope of personifying major cities, i.e. Daughter Jerusalem/Zion, were derived from the West Semitic habit of regarding the society’s major cities as goddesses and, hence, as spouses of their patron deities281. Mark Biddle has extended the investigation to the Mesopotamian realm. While the Mesopotamian city probably never assumed the status of a goddess, it was, nevertheless, “identified in closest terms with its patroness and her fortunes”282. The close identification was powerfully expressed by the mural crowns found on the heads of royal figures and city patron goddesses in the Mesopotamian iconographic material283. 280. See KEEL, Hohelied, p. 15. 281. See A. FITZGERALD, The Mythological Background for the Presentation of Jerusalem as a Queen and False Worship as Adultery in the OT, in CBQ 34 (1972) 403-416. For that reason Zion could be regarded as the legitimate spouse of YHWH. 282. See BIDDLE, The Figure of Lady Jerusalem, p. 175. 283. See M. HÖRIG, Dea Syria: Studien zur religiösen Tradition der Fruchtbarkeitsgöttin in Vorderasien (AOAT, 208), Neukirchener-Vluyn, Neukirchener Verlag, 1979, pp. 129-197. “Die turmbewehrte Mauer einer Stadt erschien als eine Krone der Erde, deren göttliche Repräsentantin, die Verkörperung der chtonischen Kräfte, damit geschmückt wurde”. Ibid., p. 135; BIDDLE, The Figure of Lady Jerusalem, pp. 178-179; KEEL, Hohelied, fig. 89;

394

PART II – CHAPTER 6

Throughout the Bible are found reminiscences of this ANE city goddess, who was at once the spouse of the city’s patron god and the mother and protector of its inhabitants. Thus, Jerusalem/Zion personified (as “Daughter Zion”, “Daughter Jerusalem”, or “Daughter [of] my people”), weeping over her city and children in Jeremiah 4–10 and in Lamentations, is the Israelite counterpart to the weeping goddess in the Mesopotamian city laments284. In addition to these correspondences, scholars have further pointed to the fact that the syntagma bat GN (bat followed by a geographical name), i.e., Daughter Jerusalem/Zion, “is best interpreted as a divine epithet”. In the Mesopotamian comparative material, as Dobbs-Allsopp notes, “in a title, the GN of bat GN would have designated the place where a goddess was worshipped, and bat would have had a real antecedent, a goddess”285. In the Hebrew Bible, the bat Zion is, naturally, not a goddess but a figurative way of personifying the city of Jerusalem, the nation-state or city temple complex (Zion) as a woman. While in the North-West Semitic context capital cities were regarded as goddesses married to the city’s patron god, Israel applied the same understanding of a marital relation between its cities (cf. Ezekiel 23) and YHWH without C. UEHLINGER, ‘Zeichne eine Stadt … und belagere sie!’: Bild und Wort in einer Zeichenhandlung Ezechiels gegen Jerusalem (Ez 4f), in M. KÜCHLER (ed.), Jerusalem (NTOA, 6), Freiburg/CH, Universitätsverlag; Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1987, 111-200, pp. 153-158; U. BERGES, Klagelieder (HThKAT), Freiburg i.Br., Herder, 2002, pp. 52-64. In the West Semitic and Hellenistic area, where the city itself was regarded as divine, the mural crown came to adorn the deified city and thus became a primary symbol of the city’s divine status. 284. For a succinct comparison between the Lamentations of Jerusalem personified and the Mesopotamian city goddesses’ wailing, see F.W. DOBBS-ALLSOPP, Weep, O Daughter of Zion: A Study of the City-Lament Genre in the Hebrew Bible (Biblica et Orientalia, 44), Roma, Biblical Institute Press, 1993, pp. 75-90. See further W.C. GWALTNEY, The Biblical Book of Lamentations in the Context of Near Eastern Lament Literature, in W.W. HALLO (ed.), Scripture in Context II, Winona Lake, IN, Eisenbrauns, 1993, 191-211, pp. 208-209; C. WESTERMANN, Die Klagelieder: Forschungsgeschichte und Auslegung, Neukirchen-Vluyn, Neukirchener Verlag, 1990, p. 30; T. FRYMER-KENSKY, In the Wake of the Goddesses: Women, Culture, and the Biblical Transformation of Pagan Myth, New York, The Free Press, 1992, p. 170; D.R. HILLERS, Lamentations (AncB, 7), New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, 1992, p. 34; S.N. KRAMER, The Weeping Goddess: Sumerian Prototypes of the Mater Dolorosa, in The Biblical Archaeologist 46 (1983) 69-81; ID., Sumerian Literature and the Bible (AnBib, 12; Studia Biblica et Orientalia, 3), Roma, Biblical Institute Press, 1959. 285. F.W. DOBBS-ALLSOPP, The Syntagma of bat Followed by a Geographical Name in the Hebrew Bible: A Reconsideration of Its Meaning and Grammar, in CBQ 57 (1995) 451-470, p. 470. Both in this article, pp. 463-467, and in his monograph Weep, p. 83, DobbsAllsopp, points to further divine epithets used for personified cities in the Bible. Among them feature prominently the epithet ‫בתולה‬, either by itself (cf. Amos 5,2; Jer 31,4.21), or in union with ‫ בת‬+ GN (cf. Isa 23,12; 47,11; Lam 1,15c; 2,13b), and ‫ יושבת‬GN/bat-GN “enthroned one of GN” or “the One Enthroned in GN” (cf. Jer 10,17; 22,23; 48,19; 51,35; Lam 4,21; Mic 1,11[twice].12.15; Nah 3,8). See also A. FITZGERALD, BTWLT and BT as Titles for Capital Cities, in CBQ 37 (1975) 167-183.

SACRED MARRIAGES

395

however, deifying the city itself286. Yet once again, we see a consistent pattern at work in Israel’s Scriptures, i.e., “the move to monotheize” ANE goddesses and to apply her attributes either to the nation, the people, or the city (or to a mediating figure like Lady Wisdom). If the personified Jerusalem, wretched in distress, finds notable expression in Jeremiah and Lamentations, it also finds expression in circumstances of prosperity and, more particularly, in Israel’s appropriation of the sacred marriage topos287. Specifically, the city is represented, especially in Isaiah, as the Lord’s own bride, beautifully adorned and fruitful on account of his love and favor288. In a context concerned with the future reconstruction and repopulation of Jerusalem, Zion is assured that she has not been forgotten, but that YHWH has inscribed the outline of her walls into his hands, and that her sons will hasten back “whom she will wear as a wedding jewelry”, i.e., like a crown (cf. Isa 49,14-18)289. The image of Jerusalem’s walls as her jewelry occurs in Isa 54,11-13, once again in close association with her sons, who appear to be the precious stones that the Lord has used to reconstruct the walls290. Moreover, the image occurs in continuity within a unit dominated by the marriage topos (Isa 54,110). Isa 54,5 is the only place in the Hebrew Bible where YHWH is explicitly said to “marry” Israel (‫ ;בעליך‬Isa 54,5)291. With good reason scholars have thus proposed that the detailed description of YHWH personally reconstructing her walls with precious stones is to make Zion appear as a bride292. Finally, the combination of the city and its mural crown is taken up again in Isa 62,1-5. Zion’s walls are now a crown in YHWH’s hands (v. 3); she is YHWH’s delight293, her land will be married (v. 4), for “as a young man marries a young woman”, so shall her sons marry her, and “as a bridegroom rejoices over his bride”, so will God rejoice over her294. 286. See FITZGERALD, BTWLT and BT as Titles for Capital Cities. 287. See BERGES, Klagelieder, p. 61. 288. BIDDLE, The Figure of Lady Jerusalem, p. 182. 289. Ibid., p. 183. 290. BERGES, Jesaja 49–54, p. 322: “Wie sich Zion ihre heimkehrenden Söhne als Brautschmuck in Erwartung ihres Bräutigams anlegte (49,18b), so stehen diese nun für die edlen Baustoffe, aus denen JHWH das neue, nachexilische Gemeinwesen erbaut”. 291. See ibid., p. 302. 292. See ibid., p. 319. Compare also Rev 21. 293. F.W. DOBBS-ALLSOPP, Daughter Zion, in J.J. AHN – S.L. COOK (eds.), Thus Says the Lord: Essays on the Former and Latter Prophets in Honor of Robert R. Wilson, New York, T&T Clark, 2009, 125-134, p. 127 comments: “The new names symbolize, in this case in a way made explicit in the larger context […], her new status as Yahweh’s wife and delight”. 294. The imagery is, of course, complex. While it is clear that she is the delight, i.e., beloved and spouse, of the Lord (Isa 62,4) who rejoices over her “as the bridegroom rejoices over the bride” (Isa 62,5), it is also announced that her land will be called married

396

PART II – CHAPTER 6

As scholars have not failed to notice, the image of Zion as a crown in God’s hand is reminiscent of the ANE depiction of the city goddess with the mural crown295. The unique idea of Zion herself as a crown in YHWH’s hand expresses, “that her crown will never again fall from her head”, and more importantly that, the marriage between the King (YHWH) and his queenly bride (Zion) will never again be broken296. The stress laid here on Jerusalem’s mural crown in all these passages serves to show how this ANE motif of the city goddess, spouse of the patron god, has been integrated into the biblical personifications of Jerusalem as spouse of YHWH without, however, deifying the city. The role of Jerusalem personified oscillates. She is at times depicted as a self-standing figure, the daughter of God (Isa 49,15) or the mother of the people (cf. Isa 49,21; 50,1; 54,1-3.13; 60,4.9; 66,7-14)297, who can at once be married by YHWH and by her own sons, while her land can also be married (Isa 62,4-5). In other passages she functions as a representative for the collective postexilic people of God 298. Zion’s roles as mother of the people and queenly bride of God acquired particular importance during the restoration after the exile, and remained important throughout the entire Second Temple period (cf. Tobit 13; Bar 4,5–5,9; 4 Esra 9,26–10,59; PsSol 1,1ff.; 2,5; Revelation 21–22)299. An example of particular interest for the present discussion of Israel’s appropriation of the divine-human marriage topos, is the royal “messianic” wedding of “Daughter Zion” in Psalm 45. It will be given fuller treatment in Chapter 7. (‫ ;בעולה‬Isa 62,4) and that she will be married by her sons (Isa 62,5). In the affirmation “your sons will marry you” we have two metaphors: the city as mother of its inhabitants, and the city as their bride. The inhabitants are seen now as sons, now as spouse (collectively). The difficulty raised by the imagery of sons marrying their mother is resolved by the translation of the LXX which compares the cohabitation of a young man with his virgin with the children of Zion reentering the city to dwell within her: “And as a young man lives together in marriage with a virgin, so shall your sons dwell with you” (NETS). This comparison between marriage and city dwellers inhabiting a city, is fundamental for understanding the biblical use of the marriage symbol for God’s indwelling in the city (cf. Jer 31,22; Zeph 3,14). God’s descent into Zion is visually understood as the first entering of a young man into his virgin, an act by which he unites himself to her, never to be departed. 295. BIDDLE, The Figure of Lady Jerusalem, p. 182: “The city, personified as Mother Zion or identified with the deity, is celebrated as the representation of the deity’s favor. The city, the deity’s crown, unites heaven and earth”. See also BERGES, Klagelieder, p. 63. 296. See BERGES, Klagelieder, p. 63. 297. On the motherhood of Jerusalem, see J.J. SCHMITT, The Motherhood of God and Zion as Mother, in RB 92 (1985) 557-569. 298. See BERGES, Jesaja 49–54, p. 298: “Die Verheißung, ‘du wirst dich ausbreiten’ (2. Person feminin Singular), meint nicht Zion als Einzelgestalt, sondern als kollektive Repräsentantin des nachexilischen Gottesvolkes”. 299. See BERGES, Klagelieder, p. 63.

SACRED MARRIAGES

397

b) Sacred Marriage as Source of Wisdom Like the prophets, wisdom literature also employs the sacred marriage tradition, though in a different cast. Here the female personified Wisdom (‫ ;חכמה‬so-called Lady Wisdom), or her Greek counterpart Σοφία (Sophia), becomes the mediating figure between God and humans. In addition to being described as a sister, mother, hostess, and teacher, Wisdom is also described as a woman in relationship to a man, as a lover, a bride, or a wife300. In relation to Wisdom’s persona as lover, bride, and wife, a recasting of the ancient sacred marriage myth appears to be at work: a use of the myth entirely different from the pattern of the prophets. Specifically, in the ANE sacred marriage tradition, the goddess is traditionally a mediating figure between her spouse, the supreme god, and the king, with whom she similarly enjoys a spousal relationship301. A similar pattern can be observed in late biblical wisdom tradition, where the King/sage does, 300. Sister: Prov 7,4; Mother: Sir 15,2-3; 4 Ezra 11,55; Tg. Prov. 2.3; b. Ber. 57a; Num. Rab. 10.4; Hostess: Prov 9,1-6; Sir 15,3; 24,25-29; Teacher: Sir 4,11-19; 6,18-37; Wisdom 6–8. For the “Wisdom as a Man’s Lover” motif, see ZIMMERMANN, Love Triangle, pp. 244-248. 301. This relationship could be expressed in several ways: either in terms of a divine filiation as in Egypt where Pharaoh was conceived in a hieros gamos and therefore son of the goddess Isis/Hathor through whose lactation he received divine wisdom. See RIKALA, Sacred Marriage. From the New Kingdom onwards Isis was seen as the mother of the pharaoh, who was both son and incarnation of Horus. Isis began to merge with Hathor. Later during the Ptolemaic and Roman Periods, the goddess Isis eventually took over Hathor’s role and assimilated with the Queen of Heaven (Ishtar/Ashtarte). On the role of Isis lactans, the mother of the king who transferred a divine power onto him, in Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt, see PATERSON, Milk of Salvation. In Mesopotamia the king was regarded as consort of Inana/Ishtar from whom he received the knowledge necessary for governance. In the Uruk period, for example, the famous “man in the kilt” – the oldest representation we possess of an ANE man in “royal stature”, – the en of Uruk “ranked as a human consort of Inana”. STEINKELLER, Rulers, p. 104. Similarly “the Ur III and Isin kings bore the titles of the en of Uruk and of the husband of Inanna”. Ibid., p. 130. See also the “Uruk Vase” depicting the king heading a long procession towards Inana, in MIROSCHENDJI, Canaanite Cult, pp. 78*-86*, Fig. 3. While both in the Mesopotamian and Semitic royal ideology, one prominent way for the king to acquire wisdom was that of incubation (see SEOW, Solomon’s Dream), it often needed a goddess to interpret these dreams to the king. See, for example, the role of dreams in the hymnic composition that recounts Gudea’s building of Ningirsu’s temple (E3/1.1.7. CylA). EDZARD, Gudea, pp. 69-88. Another way of acquiring divine wisdom was that of sacred marriage with a goddess. See PONGRATZ-LEISTEN, Alliances. When the king received the divine consort (Inana/Ishtar) in “marriage” she communicated the wisdom necessary for the administration of justice to him. Pongratz-Leisten, ibid., p. 46, explains, “throughout the history of the Ancient Near East, Inana/Ištar was one of the key divinities to communicate the decisions of the divine assembly to the king using a variety of speech forms. These include blessings and oracles such as sacred marriage and prophecy” (emphasis mine). A similar role is played by Isis in Egypt who is at once mother and spouse of pharaoh.

398

PART II – CHAPTER 6

however, not enter into a “sacred marriage” with a goddess but with Lady Wisdom (cf. Wis 8,2.9.18). This is in harmony with the contention of many scholars who argue that Lady Wisdom is a Hebrew rendering of the ANE love goddess, or “a move to monotheize the imagery of Asherah in a wisdom framework”302. While she is no longer an independent goddess in her own right but an expression of YHWH’s wisdom, the recast goddess (be it Ishtar, Ashera, Maat, or Isis), nevertheless, remains the mediator between God and man through her simultaneous spousal relationship with both God and King Solomon. This twofold love relationship of hers has been described as “the love triangle of Lady Wisdom”303. Another example of recasting mythic material appears in the book of Proverbs. Scholars have suggested that in Proverbs 1–9 Lady Folly represents the Canaanite Asherah and her cult, against which Israel’s sage alerts his student in favor of Lady Wisdom, arguably representing the Torah (see Chapter 5, II.2.a.i, above, p. 291), the real “tree of life”304. Though one is condemned and the other praised, both appear to have been shaped upon the model of an ANE goddess; that is, both derive their characteristics from Asherah and her cult305. The “tree of life”, which recalls the tree of 302. SMITH, Origins, p. 2, and RÖMER, Dieu d’Israël, pp. 534-535, who argues that in the “construction of monotheism” during the Exile, Wisdom came to substitute the formerly feminine functions of the goddess. 303. See ZIMMERMANN, Love Triangle. 304. See VON RAD, Wisdom, p. 167. 305. See SMITH, God Male and Female, p. 337, with reference to G. BOSTRÖM, Proverbiastudien: Die Weisheit und das Fremde Weib in Spr. 1–9, Lund, Gleerup, 1935, pp. 12-14, 135; H. RINGGREN, Word and Wisdom: Studies in the Hypostatization of Divine Qualities and Functions in the Ancient Near East, Lund, Håkan Ohlssons Boktryckeri, 1947, pp. 132-134; VON RAD, Wisdom, p. 67; R.J. CLIFFORD, Proverbs IX: A Suggested Ugaritic Parallel, in VT 25 (1975) 298-306; B. LANG, Wisdom and the Book of Proverbs: An Israelite Goddess Redefined, New York, Pilgrim, 1986, p. 5; M.D. COOGAN, The Goddess Wisdom – “Where Can She Be Found?”: Literary Reflexes of Popular Religion, in R. CHAZAN – W.W. HALLO – L.H. SCHIFFMAN (eds.), Ki Baruch Hu: Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical and Judaic Studies in Honor of Baruch A. Levine, Winona Lake, IN, Eisenbrauns, 1999, 203-209, pp. 203-208. All of these scholars recognize in the figure of Lady Wisdom a reinterpretation or redefinition of the old Canaanite goddess Asherah or Astarte. Though critical on the overemphasis on Canaanite goddesses for the understanding of Lady Wisdom, C.V. CAMP, Wisdom and the Feminine in the Book of Proverbs (BiLiSe, 11; LHB/ OTS, 591), Sheffield, JSOT, 1985, pp. 95, 103, 106, 115, 133, 187-189, 276, 283, nonetheless retains that those goddesses may have contributed to the emergence and the shaping of Lady Wisdom. Christa Kayatz, on the other hand, has argued that Proverbs 8 is a Hebrew transposition of the goddess Ma’at (the principle of cosmic and social order) of the Egyptian pantheon. See C. KAYATZ, Studien zu Proverbien 1–9 (WMANT, 22), Neukirchen-Vluyn, Neukirchener Verlag, 1966. Given the widespread dissemination of ANE religious ideas and traditions the two views need not be mutually exclusive. Rather, they confirm the genuine ANE idea of a goddesses’ role in the mediation of wisdom. This holds true even if Maat was never understood to be a goddess but an abstract concept, for her role as a mediator

SACRED MARRIAGES

399

Asherah306, is a metaphorical expression for Wisdom (Prov 3,18; cf. 11,30; 15,4; Gen 3,22; Rev 2,7)307. Like Asherah, Wisdom existed before all else (Prov 8,22) and, although she is not divine, like Asherah she is – according to Prov 8,22-30 – “intimately related to the Lord as beloved”308. At the same time, she is arguably the beloved of the sage309. While in the opening chapters of the book, Proverbs 1–9, she pursues the sage, at the end of the book she has become his “valiant wife” (‫ ;אשת חיל‬Prov 31,10)310. The reshaping of Isis material in the Book of Wisdom is of particular interest and clarity. The intimate relationship of Isis with the Egyptian king impressively gathers all the ANE sacred marriage traditions from Inana, Ishtar, Astart, and Asherah through to Hathor. Then in the Book will subsequently be taken up by the Goddess Isis, the Hellenistic counterpart to Ishtar. In fact, more recent studies detect Isis and not Maat as the “role model” behind Lady Wisdom in Proverbs 8. See B.U. SCHIPPER, Proverbs (Hermeneia), Minneapolis, MN, Fortress, 2019, p. 292, who traces Wisdom’s self-descriptions in Proverbs to Isis aretalogies in Demotic Script, published by J. QUACK, “Ich bin Isis, Herrin der beiden Länder”: Versuch zum demotischen Hintergrund der memphitischen Isisaretologie, in S. MEYER (ed.), Egypt, Temple of the Whole World / Ägypten: Tempel der gesamten Welt: Studies in Honor of Jan Assmann (Studies in the History of Religions, 97), Leiden, Brill, 2003, 319-365, pp. 336-339. 306. On the tree as a symbol for Ashera, see SMITH, Early History, 22002, pp. 111-117; DEVER, Did God Have a Wife?, pp. 222-232. 307. See SMITH, Origins, p. 172, who speaks of “a move to monotheize the imagery of Asherah in a wisdom framework”, at work, for example, in Prov 3,13-18. In this passage Smith detects a sophisticated scribal pun on the name Asherah in the framing verses 13 and 18. The passage opens with the macarism “Happy the man” (‫ )אשרי אדם‬in v. 13 and closes with the affirmation, “She is a tree of life … those who hold her fast are called happy (‫”)מאשר‬. 308. CLIFFORD, Proverbs IX, p. 305. See also the extensive treatment of “Lady Wisdom as God’s Lover” by ZIMMERMANN, Love Triangle, pp. 248-253. 309. See ZIMMERMANN, Love Triangle, pp. 244-248. Zimmermann makes out references to Wisdom as a lover in relational verbs that elsewhere in the Bible are associated “with the domain of gender relations”. Thus he recognizes in the “seeking and finding of Wisdom” motif (cf. Prov 1,28; 2,4a; 3,13; 8,17) an intertextual allusion to Song 3,1-4 and 5,6 where the same terms “speak disparagingly of the seeking and finding of sexual partners”. In Prov 8,17.35 the background is constituted by marriage metaphors as results particularly from a comparison of 8,35 with 18,22. The exhortation to acquire (‫ )קנה‬wisdom in Prov 4,4-8 is further understood as referring to the act of acquiring a wife (cf. Ruth 4,5-10), just as God acquired her (cf. 8,22). See also B. LANG, Frau Weisheit: Deutung einer biblischen Gestalt, Düsseldorf, Patmos, 1975, p. 173, who sees this metaphoric exhortation to acquire wisdom like one acquires a wife as the basis for the personification of wisdom as a bride. The fact that Wisdom crowns the “bridegroom”, Lang understands as either figurative or as referring to a wedding custom (cf. Song 3,11). Note further the verbs ‫אהב‬ (4,6; LXX ἐράσθητι) and ‫( חבק‬4,8), that instruct the sage to love and embrace Wisdom (for the amorous connotation of these verbs cf., e.g., ‫ אהב‬Song 1,3.4.7; 3,2.3; Gen 29,13; Prov 5,20; Song 2,6; 8,3). 310. T.P. MCCREESH, Wisdom as Wife: Proverbs 31,10-31, in R.B. ZUCK (ed.), Learning from the Sages, Grand Rapids, MI, Baker Book House, 1995, 391-410; CAMP, Wisdom, pp. 90-96, 179-208.

400

PART II – CHAPTER 6

of Wisdom, Sophia/Wisdom, assimilated into this depiction of Isis, is represented as standing in a spousal relationship with both God and with King Solomon (epitome of the sage), acting as a mediator, analogous to how in ANE myth the love goddess transfers divine wisdom to the human king through a sacred marriage. According to Wis 8,2-18, Solomon entered into an intimate spousal relationship with Lady Wisdom/Sophia (Wis 8,2.9.18), the characteristics of whom are related according to the model of the Alexandrian descriptions of Isis311. In Egyptian mythology, “Isis figured importantly in the theology of kingship as the mother, protector, wife and vindicator of the monarch”312. In the Wisdom of Solomon, Sophia plays an analogous role313. Most importantly, Sophia is similarly described as standing at once in a spousal relationship with Solomon (cf. Wis 8,2 νύμφη; 8,9 συμβίωσις, 311. B.L. MACK, Logos und Sophia: Untersuchungen zur Weisheitstheologie im hellenistischen Judentum (Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments, 10), Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1973, and J.S. KLOPPENBORG, Isis and Sophia in the Book of Wisdom, in HTR 75 (1982) 57-84, have shown that the depiction of Jewish Sophia in Sirach 24 and Wisdom 6–9 is a reshaping of the Hellenistic depictions of Isis (who herself has inherited several aspects of Ma’at). “The peculiar configuration of Sophia’s characteristics is a result of and a response to the immediate and powerful challenge to Judaism presented by another feminine figure, savior and revealer, a goddess linked to the pursuit of wisdom and one associated with the throne: Isis”. KLOPPENBORG, Isis, p. 67. In Wis 7,22-23, Sophia is described by a series of 20 epithets that allude to a mythological background, which is clearly the Greek reception of the cosmic Isis. See also J.M. REESE, Hellenistic Influence on the Book of Wisdom and Its Consequences (AnBib, 41), Roma, Biblical Institute Press, 1970, p. 40, who shows that Wis 7,22–8,1 corresponds to the aretalogical statement of the nature and origin of Isis; Wis 8,2-18 corresponds to the description of Isis’ power, and the catalogue of Sophia’s benefits for men listed in Wis 10,1-21 corresponds to the benefactions of Isis listed in the aretalogies. 312. KLOPPENBORG, Isis, pp. 72-74: “Egyptian royal theology ascribed to Isis a principal role in securing kingship for the monarch and providing him (occasionally, her) with knowledge and ability to reign” (p. 72). Just like Isis, Sophia is a teacher and revealer of God’s will and initiator into encyclopedic knowledge (Wis 7:17-22) for King Solomon, who represents both the ideal king and the ideal sage. The student of Sophia is promised immortality and nearness to God (Wis 6,18-19), just as Isis wakes Horus to new life and immortality. The exaltation to cosmic sovereignty is the product of sapiential reflection on kingship ideology (p. 74, with reference to MACK, Logos und Sophia, pp. 87-90). “Sophia is presented as the divine agent by which the king first attains kingship (6:20-21), by which he rules (8:10-16; 9:10-12), attains wisdom (8:2-21), influence and power (8,12-15), eternal kingship (6:21) and immortality (8:13, 17). It can scarcely be a coincidence that Isis performs precisely the same functions”. 313. ZIMMERMANN, Love Triangle, p. 254, gives a summary of the parallels: “Just as Isis helps her husband and brother Osiris to attain immortality, so Solomon is promised eternal life through wisdom (6,18-19; 8,13.17); just as Isis is the king’s wife and an adviser of divine rank, so Wisdom is described as an adviser (8,9, σύμβουλος) and a companion on the throne (9,4; πάρεδρος) who rules over all (8,1, διοκεῖ τὰ πάντα). Indeed, Wisdom is praised as all-seeing, omniscient, even omnipotent (7,23: παντοδύναμος, πανεπίσκοπος), her spirit is holy and unique (7,22: ἐν αὐτῇ πνεῦμα νοερόν, ἅγιον, μονογενές)”.

SACRED MARRIAGES

401

Lebensgefährtin/“life companion”) and with God (8,3 συμβίωσις; 9,4 πάρεδρος)314. As has been convincingly argued by John Kloppenborg in a detailed comparison of Wisdom 6–9 with the Alexandrian Isis tradition, the double role of Sophia as spouse and beloved of God (8:3), but also as spouse of Solomon (8:9) […] almost certainly reflects the mythic pattern of Egyptian kingship. Isis is, of course, the wife of Osiris, and in Greek sources she is the associate (πάρεδρος; cf. 9:4!) of Sarapis or the Sun. But she also functions as “lady of the house of the king” and “royal spouse”. […] The double relationship of Sophia to God and to the King is due to the influence of the pattern of Egyptian kingship315.

At work here is a re-elaboration of the Isis myth in the context of the Jewish wisdom tradition. It is not Isis who is given in sacred marriage to Solomon, from whom he would have obtained his peerless wisdom. Rather, Lady Wisdom, Sophia, the Jewish counterpart to the ANE goddess, is his spouse-like companion. We have here a reconfiguration of the old mythic sacred marriage relationship between king and goddess in terms that are in conformity with the unique configuration of kingship and wisdom within Judaism316. 4. A Hypothetical Sitz im Leben If one postulates a cultic origin for the earliest of the Song’s cantos, the question naturally arises where in Israel’s festival calendar there would have been room for a “sacred marriage” celebration. The feast best qualified for such an event would have been the New Year festival, as this is a royal feast associated with sacred marriages and divine love lyrics in the ANE317. There is, of course, only sparse evidence in the Bible of a sacred marriage celebration on a New Year festival in Israel. Nonetheless, the accumulation of certain indicators allows at least for the proposal of such a hypothetical (nothing more) early Sitz im Leben of the Song’s cantos. The reasons which lead me to venture this hypothesis are the following. Numerous scholars have convincingly argued that the post-exilic feast of Tabernacles was originally an Autumn festival, that is a New Year 314. See ibid., pp. 253-258. 315. KLOPPENBORG, Isis, p. 76. 316. See also COOGAN, Goddess, p. 208. 317. “[The New Year festival] has been regarded as the ‘most complete expression of Mesopotamian religiosity’ through which the king secured the renewal of the cosmos and divine approval for his rule”. ANAGNOSTOU-LOUTIDES, Garden, p. 105.

402

PART II – CHAPTER 6

festival, analogous to that celebrated in the cultures surrounding Israel, Ugarit in particular318. The following elements characterized this feast319. (i) It was a harvest feast, just before the onset of the new rain, which inaugurated the new cultic and agricultural year320, and thus also the festival of the new wine. The principal officiant was the king, who would organize a sacrificial banquet during which the new wine was produced, and drunk in large quantities confirming to the Canaanite practices (cf. Judg 9,27; 21,19; 1 Samuel 1; cf. Deut 14,22-27; Isa 62,9)321. (ii) An important element was the celebration of the deity’s kingship, who ascended a mountain that was understood to be its throne. This was symbolized by processions with the divine chariot. In the Canaanite/ Syrian version the festival belonged to the cult of the weather god Baal/ Haddad, whose victorious return to his throne on Ṣapunu after the summer draught was celebrated. While in Israel it was hardly conceivable that YHWH would have ever left his throne, the Autumn festival nonetheless became the setting of solemn Ark processions, on the occasion of which YHWH’s ascension to the throne was celebrated or re-enacted. Though the transfer of the Ark in 1 Kings 8 on the occasion of “the feast” is 318. See O. LORETZ, Die Umdeutung des vorexilischen Neujahrsfestes im Herbst in nachexilisch-eschatologischen Thronbesteigungsliedern: Die Vereinigung des Jerusalemer Jahwe-Thrones mit dem himmlischen Gottesthron, in ID., Die Entstehung des Judentums: Ein Paradigmenwechsel (AOAT, 422), Münster, Ugarit-Verlag, 2015, 237-247, p. 237; J.A. WAGENAAR, The Priestly Festival Calendar and the Babylonian New Year Festivals: Origin and Transformation of the Ancient Israelite Festival Year, in R.P. GORDON – J.C. DE MOOR (eds.), The Old Testament in Its World (OTS, 52), Leiden, Brill, 2005, 218-252, pp. 224-228; O. KAISER, Das Laubhüttenfest als Nachfolger des altisraelitischen Neujahrsfestes, in Der Gott des Alten Testaments: Theologie des Alten Testaments. I: Grundlegung (Uni-Taschenbücher), Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993, 321-323; K. VAN DER TOORN, The Babylonian New Year Festival: New Insights from the Cuneiform Texts and Their Bearing on Old Testament Study, in J.A. EMERTON (ed.), Congress Volume – Leuven 1989 (VT.S, 43), Leiden, Brill, 1991, 331-344; J.D. LEVENSON, Sinai and Zion: An Entry into the Jewish Bible (New Voices in Biblical Studies), Minneapolis, MN, Winston, 1985, pp. 69-77; DE MOOR, New Year, pp. 12-29; WIDENGREN, Sakrales Königtum, pp. 20, 34; J. MORGENSTERN, The Three Calendars of Israel, in HUCA 1 (1924) 13-78, p. 50. 319. For the following elements see the excellent summary by VAN DER TOORN, New Year Festival, pp. 340-342. 320. According to the Gezer Calendar, the Hebrew agricultural year begins with two months of in-gathering, roughly corresponding to our months September-October. See DE MOOR, New Year, p. 10. 321. On the biblical attestations of the celebration of an Autumn/New Year festival see DE MOOR, New Year, pp. 12-29. On the Dionysian character of the feast, see recently O. LORETZ, Freude durch Wein und Bier im Alten Orient: Kultische Wein-Bankette mit Taumel, Gespei und Exkrementen in Ugarit und Israel beim Neujahrsfest und Theoxenien (KTU 1.114,20-22a; 1.17 I 30-31a; Jes 28,7-8 und KTU 1.6 IV 18-19; Jes 28,1), in ID., Entstehung des Judentums: Ein Paradigmenwechsel (AOAT, 422), Münster, Ugarit-Verlag, 2015, 512-535, pp. 531-535.

SACRED MARRIAGES

403

presented as a unique event, it is presumed to reflect an annually recurring cultic event on the occasion of the Autumn/New Year festival322. 2 Chr 35,3 testifies to the fact that processions were a regular feature of the Israelite cult, and several Psalms suggest that such cultic memory including Ark processions were held (i.e. Psalms 24; 47; 132)323. (iii) The return of the Ark into its cella was interpreted as a reaffirmation of the Lord’s kingship. By entering the Temple YHWH entered his palace. Thus Psalm 47 connects the Lord’s ascension in verse 6 (referred to in the verb ‫עלה‬, “to go up”) to his accession to kingship (‫ )מלך‬and his enthronement in vv. 8-9324. As Karel van der Toorn explains, the procession with the Ark, which was a central element of the feast, was “closely connected with the visual demonstration of God’s title to the throne. The transfer of the Ark leads up to its re-entry into the sanctuary, conceived of as an act of enthronement”325. (iv) The reaffirmation of YHWH as king carried the religious legitimation of the king in its train. The king asserted the legitimacy of his kingship by his role as the chief liturgist in the Ark procession, his offerings, and the distribution of food (2 Sam 6,19; Ps 132,15)326. The divine mandate of the ruler was thus reconfirmed and celebrated as in oracles, some of which can still be traced in processional psalms as “frozen oracles” (Psalm 68,23-24; 132,11-18; 1 Kgs 8,15-16.20-21)327. (v) Highly debated, but too well attested to be merely a Frazerian fiction, was an associated element of sacred marriage in the New Year festivals in the cultures surrounding Israel328. In Ugarit, the king would apparently have to act as a divine bridegroom on behalf of his tutelary deity and consummate the sacred marriage with his wife, the queen, who acted 322. Solomon is said to have dedicated the Temple on “the feast” in the month of Etanim. Etanim is a Phoenician month name for the seventh month, known under the name of Tishri in the post-exilic Jewish calendar. For this reason there is a scholarly consensus that Solomon dedicated the Temple on the occasion of the Autumn festival which was a New Year festival, very much analogous to the ones celebrated in Mesopotamia during the equivalent month of Tišritu (Akiti in Sumer and Akitu in Babylon). See WAGENAAR, Calendar, pp. 224-228, and the bibliography listed in note 23. See also VAN DER TOORN, New Year Festival, pp. 339-343. 323. See LORETZ, Umdeutung; pace P. PORZIG, Die Lade Jahwes im Alten Testament und in den Texten vom Toten Meer (BZAW, 397), Berlin, De Gruyter, 2009, pp. 228-243. 324. See VAN DER TOORN, New Year Festival, p. 340. 325. Ibid., p. 342. 326. See DE MOOR, New Year, p. 29. 327. See VAN DER TOORN, New Year Festival, p. 342. 328. See STEINER, Liturgie, pp. 362-363; STEINKELLER, Rulers; MIROSCHENDJI, Canaanite Cult; ANAGNOSTOU-LAOUTIDES, Garden, p. 123; and most importantly 2 Macc 1,14, which attests to the existence of sacred marriage rites celebrated in Mesopotamia even down to the Hellenistic times. In this respect see also Polybius, Hist. 31.9, and ANAGNOSTOULAOUTIDES, Garden, pp. 172-174.

404

PART II – CHAPTER 6

on behalf of a goddess329. Even if this text is to be understood metaphorically, as recent scholarship argues, it attests to the association of a sacred marriage with the New Year festival. The same associations are attested for the Sumerian New Year festival, during which the sacred marriage between Inana and Dumuzi was celebrated and arguably preserved in the Akitu festivals of the first millennium Mesopotamia330. A reminiscence of such a rite might have survived in the account of David’s transfer of the Ark to Jerusalem, and his aborted marriage with Michal (see Chapter 10, III.2.c). This descriptions of the Autumn/New Year festival accords well with the royal, vinicultural, and Dionysian character of the Song. It helps, in fact, explain these seemingly contrasting features of the Song which have all too often led commentators to posit an opposition between the “royals” and the “peasants” of the Song (cf. “Travesty”, Chapter 8, I). The New Year’s feast furthermore helps to accommodate the many mythological and liturgical elements so present in the Song and the poetic allusions to the Ark and Temple (see Chapters 10 and 11). The royal character of the Song needs no further demonstration. In the ANE love poetry belonged to the royal domain (see Chapter 5, III.2). The Song is ascribed to Solomon, who moreover plays a central role within the Song. The opening verses of the Song plunge the reader into the presence of a King whose anointment oils are praised, who is loved by the maidens (allusion to the harem), and who has brought the Beloved into his chambers (Song 1,1-4). The same Lover compares his Beloved to a mare in Pharaoh’s chariots, and they praise each other’s beauty with adjectives that are characteristic of royal folks only (‫ יפה‬and ‫ נעים‬Song 1,15-16; cf. Ps 45,3)331. The same holds true for the material of their housing, cedars and cypress wood (1,17), and the description of Solomon’s litter (3,9), all of which points to the royal domain. Most importantly Song 5,10-16 329. See DE MOOR, New Year, p. 6; ID., Anthology, pp. 117-118; see also O. LORETZ, Das Neujahrsfest im syrisch-palästinischen Regenbaugebiet: Der Beitrag der Ugaritund Emar-Texte zum Verständnis biblischer Neujahrstradition, in E. BLUM – R. LUX (eds.), Festtraditionen in Israel und im Alten Orient (Veröffentlichungen der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft für Theologie, 28), München, Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2006, 81-110, pp. 99-100. 330. See extensively, ANAGNOSTOU-LAOUTIDES, Garden, pp. 103-133. 331. See HAMILTON, The Body Royal, pp. 46-60. For ‫ נעים‬see O. LORETZ, Entstehung des Judentums: Ein Paradigmenwechsel (AOAT, 422), Münster, Ugarit-Verlag, 2015, pp. 497-511: “The fitness of beauty for royalty is a commonplace: Ps 45:3 (addressed to a king): ‘you are the most beautiful of men’ (cf. Isa 33:17) and the archetypal David (1 Sam 16:12, 18; 17:42), and his son, Absalom, whom the people followed (2 Sam 14:25)”. See also E.S. GERSTENBERGER, Psalms. Part 1. With an Introduction to Cultic Poetry (FOTL, 14), Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 1988, p. 187.

SACRED MARRIAGES

405

describes the Lover like a deity. Consequently, as Mark Hamilton affirms, “the burden of proof lies with anyone who would argue that the statue of Song 5,10-16 portrays a commoner. We are left with two choices then: either the statue in this section of the Song is of a god, or it is of a king”332. In the aniconic cult of Israel, this text – though it looks like a description of a deity – must have been accommodated to describe a human being. In the Bible, however, such accommodations fit hardly any other human being than the king, who alone is deemed worthy of such divine attributes333. At the same time the Song makes multiple allusions to viniculture and the different seasons of the agricultural year which fit well with a harvest festival. According to André Lemaire the “time of zāmīr” (2,12) described in Song 2,11-15 would correspond to the time of the vintage at the beginning of early July, that is the month of Tammuz334. Foxes ravaging the vineyards (2,15) are a sure sign that the vintage season has come, since they famously would not ravage sour grapes (“Nondum matura est; nolo acerbam sumere”)335. The new fruits which the Beloved has stored together with the old ones for her Lover (7,14) are another indication of a harvest season. At the same time the blossoming of the vine and the blooming of the pomegranates that are mentioned twice are reminiscent of springtime (Song 6,11; 7,13). Thus it appears to be spring when the Beloved summons her Lover: “Come my beloved, let us go out into the fields, let us sleep in the villages, let us go out early into the vineyards, let us see whether the vines have budded, whether the grape blossoms have opened; and the pomegranates are in bloom. There I will give you my love” (Song 7,1213). These partly confounding allusions to different moments of the agricultural year appear, however, fitting for a feast that celebrates at once the end and the beginning of the agricultural year336. One might expect these songs to recapitulate the different seasons, and that they might have been celebrated twice a year337.

332. HAMILTON, The Body Royal, p. 59. 333. See ibid. 334. See A. LEMAIRE, Zāmīr dans la Tablette de Gezer et le Cantique des cantiques, in VT 25 (2013) 87-98. 335. See ibid., p. 95; and Phaedrus IV,3 De vulpe et uva. 336. The precedence of the Autumn New Year over the Spring New Year in Israel appears to be older, but it may also vary according to regions. Thus King Solomon dedicated his Temple on the Autumn New Year (1 Kgs 8,2), while the Mishkan was dedicated on the occasion of the spring New Year (Exod 40,2). 337. In Mesopotamia, for example, the Sumerian and the Babylonian Akiti/Akitu festival was celebrated twice a year, once in the first and once in the seventh month. See DE MOOR, New Year, pp. 4, 11-12, 22; and WAGENAAR, Calendar, p. 245.

406

PART II – CHAPTER 6

Particularly the many mentions of wine evoke the setting of a vintage feast, and give the Song its Dionysian character. The couple’s mutual love is celebrated as better than wine (Song 1,2; 4,10). The Lover has brought her into the “wine house” (2,4; 4,10) which echoes the setting of a new wine festival, such as the New Year festival was338. The kisses of the beloved are “like the best wine that goes down smoothly, gliding over lips and teeth” (7,10); she desires to saturate him with “spiced wine” and “the sweet wine” of her pomegranates (8,2). It lies in the nature of things that a festival of wine should also be a festival of love339. The love which the Song praises is more ecstatic than wine. Furthermore, the Song is reminiscent of liturgical language (Song 1,4 “let us rejoice and be glad in you”), and stages even a liturgical procession in Song 3,6-11 the main characters of which are a sacred chariot and the King who actually celebrated a Temple dedication (see Chapter 10, III). The Beloved is described like a garden Temple (see Chapter 11, III), and the Lover’s description is reminiscent of the Götterstatue (see above III.2.b.ii). The Shulammite is summoned to dance a ‫מחלה‬, a “dance in a ring”, which is exactly the term used for the dance that the daughters of Shiloh dance in the description of the harvest feast celebrated at the time of the Judges (21,21), one of the presumed biblical attestations of an Israelite New Year festival. Moreover, there are the oft-cited ‫אשישות‬ (“raisin cakes”), whose cultic use is attested in Hos 3,1 and which David distributed precisely on the occasion of the transfer of the Ark towards Jerusalem. Finally, the divers mythological reminiscences in the Song 338. See LORETZ, Sättigung, pp. 379-380: “Bei der Diskussion über das Verhalten der Israeliten gegenüber einer sogenannten kanaanäischen, durch Weingenuß hervorgerufenen Orgiastik wird häufig zu wenig beachtet, daß in der altsyrisch-kanaanäischen und israelitischen Überlieferung das im Herbst zu Beginn der Regenzeit gefeierte Neujahrsfest als das große Jahresfest wahrscheinlich fest und auf traditionell erlaubte Weise mit alimentarer und sexueller Orgiastik verbunden war. Die in der Bibelwissenschaft gepflegte historische Anschauung, daß das kultische Trinken von Wein in Altsyrien und Palästina engstens mit der Verehrung des alljährlich nach der Ernte zu Beginn der Regenzeit wiederkehrenden Wettergottes Baal verkettet und aus diesem Grund in Israel abgelehnt und sogar von den Anfängen der israelitischen Geschichte her verboten gewesen sei, verstellt den Blick auf die in den Psalmen und anderen biblischen Texten noch erhaltenen Belege für die zeitweilig zentrale Rolle des Weines auch im israelitischen Tempelkult und im religiösen Leben. Die zumeist befolgte bibelwissenschaftliche Methode, die kultischen Aspekte des Weinkonsums in Israel von den späten Verboten her zu erforschen und ethisch zu beurteilen, eignet sich kaum zur vollen Erfassung der sozialen und religiösen Bedeutung des Weins in den biblischen Texten”. Loretz argues rightly: “Man berücksichtigt zu wenig die Tatsache, daß die biblischen Verbote nur einen Sinn ergeben, wenn sie gegen fest eingewurzelte kultische Überlieferung gerichtet waren”. 339. On the Dionysian and orgiastic character of the Canaanite cult and its initial persistence in Israel, see LORETZ, Sättigung.

SACRED MARRIAGES

407

(3,6; 6,10; 8,5)340 and the echo of Baal/Haddad-mythos in the Lover’s name ‫ דוד‬and in Song 8,6-7341 further point to the Song’s parentage with an ancient (Canaanite/Syrian) New Year festival. Last but not least, the Mishnah offers a clue, that might come to confirm an uninterrupted association of the Song with harvest festivals, the Autumn New Year festival in particular. The already quoted m. Ta῾an. 4.8342 describes a scene on Yom Kippur (which is also supposed to have its roots in the Autumn New Year festival) in which girls are dancing in the vineyards, citing a passage from the Song and relating the scene of Solomon’s wedding (Song 3,11) explicitly to the building of the Temple. Not only is Yom Kippur held to be a post-exilic development of the preexilic New Year festival343, but the dancing in the vineyards is strongly reminiscent of what is arguably considered the oldest biblical reference to an Israelite Autumn festival in Judg 21,19.21. There the Benjaminites are advised to lie in ambush in the vineyards during the Feast of YHWH (‫ חג־יהוה‬cf. Lev 23,39) in Shiloh when the daughters of Shiloh would come out and dance in a ring (‫ ;מחלה‬cf. Song 7,2). The scene appears to be depicting maidens dancing a cultic dance on the occasion of a vintage feast during which pilgrims would come to worship the Lord at Mizpah and Bethel344. The same custom appears to have perdured into the time of the Mishnah, during which the Song was sung in a folkloric way, yet with an already established “allegorical” interpretation. Unfortunately it escapes our knowledge as to when exactly the Song entered the Pessaḥ liturgy. It is, however, not without significance that the Passover celebration too can be traced back to a spring New Year festival, which Israel adopted during the Babylonian Exile345. All of the above is 340. With regard to Song 6,10 it is noticeable that the word pair ‫ לבנה‬and ‫חמה‬, employed for “moon” and “sun”, occurs elsewhere in the Bible only in the so-called apocalypse of Isaiah (Isa 24,23; 30,26). Is it a mere coincidence that those chapters are partly based on an eschatological view of the New Year festival? See DE MOOR, New Year, p. 28. LORETZ, Entstehung, pp. 487-488, explains: In the succession of Isa 24,21-23 and 25,6-8 “wird die Thronbesteigung Jahwes beim vorexilischen Neujahrsfest, die ihrerseits wieder auf eine Adaption der jährlich in Altsyrien-Kanaan gefeierten Thronbesteigung des Wettergottes Baal zurückgeht, anschließend mit einem großen Krönungsmahl gefeiert. Dieses Bankett projiziert der Abschnitt Jes 25,6-8 in die Endzeit, so daß man von einem ‘eschatologischen Neujahr’ auszugehen hat, dessen Wurzeln zweifelsohne bis in die ugaritischen Texte zurückzuverfolgen sind”. 341. See LORETZ, Nachklänge des ugaritischen Baal-Mythos in Hld 8,6-7; WILSONWRIGHT, Love Conquers All. 342. See above, Chapter 4, V.1, p. 263. 343. See WAGENAAR, Calendar, p. 249. 344. See DE MOOR, New Year, p. 12. 345. From the moment Israel adopted the Babylonian calendar (just before the Exile) onwards, the New Year was no longer celebrated only in autumn but also in the month of

408

PART II – CHAPTER 6

extremely hypothetical, but given the convergence of so many elements – the royal character of the Song, its agricultural and Dionysian character, the divine aspects of the lovers, the allusions to the Temple and the Ark, the reminiscences of Ugaritic myth, and the local coloring – it is not unreasonable to surmise a Sitz im Leben in such a royal cult that was associated with wine banquets, temples, and sacred marriages.

V. CONCLUSION The objective of this chapter has been to argue that ANE sacred marriage material, which is religiously oriented, provides a crucial comparative background for the interpretation of the Song of Songs. To this end, it was necessary to challenge a competing theory, answer several standing objections, and offer an illustration of the value of this perspective. In the first place, the wedding-song theory was shown to be unconvincing. The special appeal of this theory lies in its understanding of the Song as a “secular” anthology or songbook, derived from wedding customs in the villages of ancient Israel. Although allowance is here rightly made for the ritualized background of a marriage ceremony, the literary evidence dates from nineteenth-century A.D. Syria – an inadmissible anachronism. At the same time, the canonization and religious interpretation of the text remains unexplained on this theory’s presupposition of a purely “secular” origin. A better hypothesis was developed by Theophile Meek and the later Cult School of the mid-twentieth century. According to this view, a specifically cultic, ANE rite ultimately stands behind the love motifs of the Song. Such a background, shaped by the myth of a sacred marriage and Nisan. The precedence of the Autumn New Year over the Spring New Year in Israel appears to be older, but it may also vary according to regions. The acceptance of two New Year’s festivals into the Jewish festival calendar under Babylonian influence may be observed in Ezek 45,18-25, which prescribes two festivals with important Temple purification rites, as would have been typical for the Akitu festival, one for Pessach and one for the feast in the seventh month. See WAGENAAR, Calendar, p. 243. See also M. COHEN, The Cultic Calendars of the Ancient Near East, Bethesda, MD, CDL Press, 1993, pp. 6-7, who argues that “the concept of a six-month equinox year appears to have been a major factor in the establishment of the cultic calendar throughout the Near East”. Both festivals might have marked the beginning of equal equinox years of six months. It was under this influence that the Pessach festival appears to have been transformed into a New Year’s festival celebrated around the vernal equinox, in equidistance to the autumn new year festival. See WAGENAAR, Calendar, p. 245. While Ezek 45,18-25 registers a moment when Israel apparently took over the Babylonian custom of celebrating two New Year festivals, this custom is not upheld in the priestly festival calendar, which fixes a single feast around the spring equinox (cf. Exod 12,2).

SACRED MARRIAGES

409

centered upon the union of a human community with a god (through the person of the king), supplies an explanation for the book’s canonization and later allegorical interpretation. It illuminates the specifically symbolic rhetoric characteristic of the Song, as seen, e.g., in the double entendre in the cedar and cypress tree imagery, as well as the notion of inner chamber. While criticism of this cult hypothesis identified a number of weak points, its dismissal among Song scholars was premature. Specifically, a negative verdict was pronounced – and subsequently often repeated – based on now outdated objections: i.e., without awareness of relevant, recently published Neo-Assyrian texts or the more nuanced understanding of “sacred marriage” that has developed among Assyriologists. Doubts about the existence of a sexually enacted fertility rite are thus no longer decisive or germane to the discussion. The Love Lyrics of Nabû and Tashmetu helps concretely to confirm the value of sacred marriage parallels in the study of the Song. The problem of transmission or mediation is first of all resolved. Positioned advantageously in a time and place in which contact with ancient Israel poses no problem, the text is manifestly more relevant than the rural wedding festivals of modern Syria. At the same time, those who promoted Egyptian, New Kingdom love poetry to the prejudice of the Mesopotamian literature, when only the Sumerian parallels were known, must now face their own objection that too great a distance separates the parallels from the Song. Another concern driving scholar’s recent predilection for Egyptian materials is the claim that the Song depicts no gods or goddesses, such as appear in the Mesopotamian parallels. This objection, closely related to the a priori decision for a “secular” reading, is insensitive to the manifold ways in which mythic portrayals of ANE divinities have been transposed onto the protagonists of the Song. A special example was identified in the use of waṣfs, which closely resemble the Mesopotamian god-description texts, and which even in Egypt belong to a type of divinization discourse. Moreover, recent scholarship contests the allegedly profane character of the Egyptian love literature, postulating instead a common festival background involving participatory worship in sacred marriage-like celebrations. Similarly related to the issue of the false “secular” versus “religious” dichotomy is the claim that the Song cannot be compared with ANE sacred marriage because the Song is not a ritual text. To this objection, the evidence of The Love Lyrics is important, since the ritual nature of the text is known principally from external sources, and only a brief introductory prayer betrays the cultic nature of the poetry. This prayer, moreover, is no lengthier and no more revealing than a similar petition found at the

410

PART II – CHAPTER 6

end of the supposedly purely “profane” Cairo Love Songs. For its part, the Song is structured on the pattern of The Love Lyrics, including, importantly, the presence of a chorus (a feature not characteristic of the Egyptian love poetry). This feature, as well as other subtle signs (e.g. the echo of psalmic hymnody), hints at the cultic nature of the Song. The imagined character of a ritual text as somehow a “libretto” of a fertility rite is not in accordance with the evidence in The Love Lyrics and must not be leveled against the cult hypothesis as it has been in the past. A particular objection surfaced in the supposed prophetic censorship of sacred marriage in the Israelite context. This objection, however, is misguided. It is clear from both the biblical and archaeological records that cults intimately associated with sacred marriage traditions (e.g. Tammuz/ Dumuzi, Baal, and Asherah) penetrated the religious praxis of ancient Israel. Moreover, the prophets, notably Hosea, adeptly appropriated imagery and language drawn from the contested rites and reformulated it to support an “orthodox” perspective. The same pattern is observable in other scriptural contexts (e.g., Lamentations, Isaiah, Book of Proverbs, Wisdom of Solomon), and a diversity of “sacred marriage” metaphors can be identified in the Bible. The Song ought to be considered among these.

CHAPTER 7

SYMBOLIC LOVE AND PERSONIFICATIONS

The scope of this study is to show that the Song depicts the realities of divine love in and through the symbol of human love. In this way both the human and divine dimensions are given full expression. The use of this symbol in the Song was prominently prepared for by the prophetic books. The prophets’ use of marriage imagery in their discourse is well known and has been amply studied1. The prophets refer to the covenant relationship between God and Israel using the image of a human marriage relation between husband and wife (e.g., Hosea 2; Isa 54,1-10; 62,1-12; Jeremiah 2–3; Ezekiel 16; 23). Any connection between the prophets’ use of the marriage symbol and the Song is, however, categorically denied by the “naturalistic” school. The whole tradition of using marriage imagery for the divine-human relationship “is typical of the prophetic literature and limited strictly to it”2. This rejection of any connection between the prophets’ use of marriage imagery and the Song is partly due to the artificial division between the prophetic and Wisdom literature, to which the Song allegedly belongs. This objection has been replied to in Chapter 5. Another argument holds that the prophets “limit the comparison (tertium comparationis) to the legal aspects of the relationship, especially to the question of faithfulness; they avoid sexual or erotic symbolism”3. Finally, scholars argue that contrary to the figurative language of the Song “what the author [of the prophetic book] intends to say always either shines clearly through the imagery or is made explicit”4. This range of objections is based, first of all, upon a false apprehension of the prophets’ application of the marriage imagery as being a mere 1. See, e.g., ADLER, Marriage; A. WEIDER, Ehemetaphorik in prophetischer Verkündigung: Hos 1–3 und seine Wirkungsgeschichte im Jeremiabuch. Ein Beitrag zum alttestamentlichen Gottes-Bild, Würzburg, Echter, 1991; R. ABMA, Bonds of Love: Methodic Studies of Prophetic Texts with Marriage Imagery (Isaiah 50,1-3 and 54,1-10, Hosea 1– 3, Jeremiah 2–3) (Studia Semitica Neerlandica, 40), Assen, Royal Van Gorcum, 1999; G. BAUMANN, Liebe und Gewalt: Die Ehe als Metapher für das Verhältnis JHWH – Israel in den Prophetenbüchern (SBS, 185), Stuttgart, Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2000; Ł. POPKO, Marriage Metaphor and Feminine Imagery in Jer 2,1–4,2: A Diachronic Study Based on the MT and LXX (ÉB, NS, 70), Leuven, Peeters, 2015. 2. KEEL, Song, pp. 6-7 (emphasis mine). 3. Ibid. 4. Ibid., p. 7.

412

PART II – CHAPTER 7

rhetorical metaphor. It ignores, furthermore, that the “marriage metaphor” occurs also outside the prophetic corpus, in application to the relationship between Israel and a divine savior figure. Finally, this position fails to account for the Bible’s ample use of personifications of Israel in both male and female figures during the late Second Temple period. Such personifications demonstrate a culture of high biblical intertextuality, to which the Song belongs, as well as an audience acquainted with and trained in decoding symbols that are not always explicitly in the foreground, as often in the prophets, but rather play with multiple levels of meaning. The first section of this chapter (I) will focus on the multifaceted application of the marriage imagery by the prophets. Two aspects are important. First, the marriage imagery cannot be reduced to the mere level of metaphorical discourse. Marriage is an archetypal symbol, so deeply rooted in biblical revelation that the prophets’ own marriages serve as revelatory symbols of the marriage relationship between God and Israel. The prophets’ message is “incarnated” in their own marriages. Moreover, because it is a symbol, the prophetic use of the nuptial imagery cannot be reduced to the legal aspects of fidelity. Rather, the nuptial symbol encompasses all dimensions of a human love relationship, from courtship, marriage, divorce, and reconciliation. Because of this dynamic, all-encompassing character of the reality of human marriage, the prophets adopted it as the ideal Realsymbol for the expression of the multifaceted covenant relationship between God and Israel. The second section (II) will evoke Psalm 45 as an example of an extra-prophetic and implicit use of the marriage symbol for the divine-human relationship. Finally (III), it will be argued that the Bible’s frequent use of symbolic personifications prepares the reader of the Song to recognize a personification of Israel in the Shulammite.

I. THE MARITAL SYMBOL IN THE PROPHETS 1. Some General Observations on the Marital Symbol a) The Diachronic Genesis of the Symbol The image of Israel as YHWH’s wife is first encountered in the book of Hosea5. The prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel also adopted it and 5. When commenting on “Hosea” I do not refer to the eighth-century prophet tout court and his disputed knowledge of the Pentateuch tradition, but to the “Book of Hosea”, as a post-monarchical literary production. It is a self-standing, coherent literary unit with a clear beginning and conclusion. See BEN ZVI, Hosea. To be sure, the present book is most likely the result of a long and complicated process of redaction, that has carefully woven

SYMBOLIC LOVE AND PERSONIFICATIONS

413

developed it for their own purposes. Isaiah 5 and Jeremiah 2–4 applied it just as Hosea did to the relationship between YHWH and the nation/land of Israel, while other parts of Isaiah and Ezekiel applied it to the relationship between YHWH and Jerusalem/Zion (Isa 54,1-10; 62,1-12; Ezekiel 16) or Samaria (Ezekiel 23). The exact origin and diachronic genesis of the symbol is disputed, but has no direct bearing on the present study6. Since the decisive authorial event of the Song’s composition is deemed to have taken place at a moment when the major prophetic corpora were extant in their entirety, together different written sources and oral traditions, but the book as it stands now has been presented to its readers as a unit and as such carries a particular message. The book is replete with cross-references that demand the reader constantly to refer back or forth to different passages of the book or even other books. “All these cross-references serve well texts meant to be read and re-read. They create signposts for the readers that remind them of particular issues dealt with in the book as a whole”, ibid., p. 5. I follow Ben Zvi in presuming a post-monarchic setting for the book of Hosea and for the following reasons: the Exile and the return from it is a central and pervading motif of the book. The future, which will lead Israel back to its original ideal state, is construed to follow the Exile and the dissolution of the monarchy. The return, understood as a second Exodus, postulates at least conceptually a re-united Israel as YHWH’s people (cf. Hos 2,2). This return will be explicitly associated with a future Davidic king (cf. Hos 2,2; 3,5). The combination of all these themes, the return from Exile, the reunification of Judah and Israel, the promise of a future Davidic King, of an eternal and peaceful covenant, and of Israel being YHWH’s people clearly resonate with post-monarchic texts like Isaiah 11; Jer 50,4; and Ezek 34,2428; 37,15-28 and do not fit within a monarchic setting. See ibid., pp. 15-16. 6. As was suggested in Chapter 6, some scholars hold that Hosea’s use of the marital metaphor may have come about as a polemical response to the pervasive Canaanite fertility cult that was threatening Yahwism. See WOLFF, Hosea, pp. XVIII-XIX; VON RAD, Theologie des Alten Testaments II, pp. 147-148; MARGALIT, Asherah, p. 286. Zion as YHWH’s city wife, on the other hand, is held to have originated in the West Semitic idea that capital cities were married to their patron deities. See FITZGERALD, The Mythological Background for the Presentation of Jerusalem; BIDDLE, The Figure of Lady Jerusalem; O.H. STECK, Zion als Gelände und Gestalt: Überlegungen zur Wahrnehmung Jerusalems als Stadt und Frau im Alten Testament, in ID., Gottesknecht und Zion: Gesammelte Aufsätze zu Deuterojesaja (FAT, 4), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 1992, 126-145; J. GALAMBUSH, Jerusalem in the Book of Ezekiel: The City as Yahweh’s Wife (SBLDS, 130), Atlanta, GA, Scholars, 1992, pp. 2027, 35-39; and J.J. SCHMITT, Yahweh’s Divorce in Hosea 2 – Who Is That Woman?, in SJOT 9 (1995) 119-132. ADLER, Marriage, pp. 3-6, 419 (cited in ABMA, Bonds, p. 23), holds that the biblical marriage imagery was fostered by intra-Israelite factors, namely, “the strong analogy between the institution of marriage and the Hebrew concept of covenant”. In her view, marriage in its ANE configuration is the ideal metaphor to describe the unique covenant relationship between YHWH and Israel. Adler lists four elements that make marriage the most suitable metaphor to express the covenant relationship: (a) the requirement of absolute fidelity on behalf of one partner (the female, the nation); (b) Israel’s election as an expression of YHWH’s special love; (c) the mutual commitment beyond the natural ties of the family; and (d) the emotional intensity in the relationship, that is characteristic of notions like “love”, “passion”, “jealousy”. Further, the notion of marriage offers the possibility of expressing the different stages in the relationship, framing its history in the different stages from their first love, wooing, engagement, marriage, fidelity/infidelity, progeny, divorce, and reconciliation.

414

PART II – CHAPTER 7

it can safely be presumed that the author of the Song had himself a synchronic approach to the prophets and did not differentiate between possible layers of redaction and source texts. One recent study, however, bears notice, as it sheds a valuable light on the currency that the marriage symbol enjoyed around the time of the decisive authorial event in the composition of the Song. According to a widely held scholarly opinion, the marriage symbol as applied by the prophets ceased to be productive after the exilic period, its latest occurrence being Isaiah 627. There would be no further evidence of its use after the Persian period. Some scholars even argue that the LXX tends to “denuptialise” in its translation of the prophets8. Contrary to this common view, Lukas Popko has shown that the presence of the marriage symbol in Jeremiah 2–4 (i.e., Jer 3,6-11), which is usually self-evidently taken to be an integral part of Jeremiah’s proclamation, actually only enters the text at a very late stage of the book’s redaction. In other words, the redaction history of Jeremiah 2–4 attests that marriage as a symbol for the covenant relationship between God and Israel was still employed and theologically productive in the Hellenistic period. Popko reconstructs the following basic redaction history. The oldest stratum of the text, which he makes out to be Jer 2,4-37, is not addressed to Israel as YHWH’s wife, but to an anonymous “stupid girl, naively looking for freedom away from him” 9. YHWH, on the other side, has at this stage at best “the role of a teacher or a parent”10. The voice belongs to a proBabylonian party, written some time after the destruction of Jerusalem11. In a first and major expansion Jer 3,1-5.12-13 was inserted. The redactor selected and developed the preexistent aspects of the woman’s prostitution and YHWH’s paternity. Israel became a daughter whose return (contrary to that of a divorced wife, cf. Deut 24,1-4) was possible. She could be reinstalled in her heritage (cf. Jer 3,1.19)12. In a second step, Jer 2,2-3 was inserted, as an introductory oracle to preface the primary poem of Jer 2,4-37. Introducing a time of the people’s original fidelity to YHWH, 7. See, e.g., M.L. SATLOW, The Metaphor of Marriage in Early Judaism, in J.W. VAN HENTEN – A. BRENNER (eds.), Families and Family Relations as Represented in Early Judaisms and Early Christianities: Texts and Fictions. Papers Read at a NOSTER Colloquium in Amsterdam, June 9-11, 1998 (Studies in Theology and Religion, 2), Leiden, Deo Publishing, 2000, 13-42, p. 14. 8. See M. TAIT, Jesus, the Divine Bridegroom, in Mark 2,18-22: Mark’s Christology Upgraded (AnBib, 185), Roma, Gregorian & Biblical Press, 2010, p. 23. 9. See POPKO, Marriage Metaphor, p. 548. 10. Ibid. 11. See ibid., pp. 442, 554. 12. See ibid., p. 550.

SYMBOLIC LOVE AND PERSONIFICATIONS

415

it functions as a prefiguration of the positive conclusion of the woman’s wandering, namely her return to the original fidelity13. By disclosing the striking intertextuality that exists between Jer 2,2-3 and Lev 22,12-16 (the law regulating the reintegration of a priestly daughter into her father’s house), Popko is able to show that Israel’s identity as YHWH’s daughter was at this stage reconfirmed and shaped in a more positive light. It served “as the theological justification of YHWH’s unexpected and otherwise inexplicable forgiveness and readiness to re-establish the relationship with the polluted and openly rebellious people”14. At this stage the metaphor governing Jer 2,2–4,2 would still have been that of a household, YHWH as a father, Israel his daughter15. Finally, the prose narrative of Jer 3,6-11 was inserted, the only passage to apply explicitly the marriage metaphor. Under the influence of Ezekiel 16 and 23, the metaphor of the two unfaithful wives, Judah and Israel, was introduced. It is for the first time in Jer 2,1–4,2 that the woman is identified with Judah or Israel. Both of them were married to YHWH and then divorced. It is a prose insertion that expresses the difference in guilt between Judah and Israel16. The insertion intended to explain the otherwise unexpected invitation to Israel, understood as the Northern Kingdom, to return in Jer 3,12. The redactor had to argue why Israel could return. She was less guilty than Judah. According to Popko, the author responsible for this insertion was highly influenced by the book of Ezekiel, which led him to approximate the narratives told by the two prophets. He was mostly concerned with establishing coherency in the context of Jeremiah 317. The insertion of Jer 3,6-11 has subsequently triggered the interpretation of the entire passage of Jer 2,1–4,2 in the light of the marital symbol. This came about at a time when the prophetic books began to be perceived as a corpus18. According to Popko, it is only the redactor of the long edition of Jer 2,1–4,2 who turned the passage into a coherent allegory of the nation’s history. Only at this stage was the idea introduced that Israel’s time in the desert was a time of an ideal original marital fidelity19. Positive connotations with the time of the desert wandering are absent from other biblical books20. The idea of Israel’s time in the desert as a metaphorical 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.

See ibid., pp. 531, 559. Ibid., p. 548. See ibid., pp. 551, 557. Ibid., p. 549. Ibid., p. 551. See ibid., p. 557. See ibid., pp. 293-304. See ibid., p. 558.

416

PART II – CHAPTER 7

time of “betrothal” (cf. Jer 2,2) appears, according to Popko, to be an adjustment by the Masoretic tradition, which “tried to render Jer 2,1–4,2 a more coherent allegory of the people’s history”21. Most importantly for this present study, Popko shows that contrary to the current scholarly opinion, “the marriage metaphor remained influential and productive especially in the most recent stages of text history”22. It was only the long version of Jeremiah 2,1–4,2 that made the marriage symbol the main interpretative key, thus attesting to the existence of Jewish circles for whom “Jeremiah 2 was a poem about an unfaithful bride, comparable to Hosea and Ezekiel’s story”23. Popko argues that the marriage symbol came to dominate the text, “because it furnished a neat and concise model of the nation’s history with a clear schema: original time of fidelity and bliss, followed by the time of rebellion, subsequent conversion, finally the people is transformed and becomes a blessing to the nations”24. The results of Popko’s study thus shed considerable light on the historical setting and the literary “ideology” reigning in Jerusalem at the time of the Song’s presumed composition. Preoccupation with the “marriage” between YHWH and Israel was by no means a marginal or forgotten endeavor. Rather, the symbol once launched by Hosea still enjoyed high currency and remained theologically productive. As can also be deduced from texts like Isa 62,1-12, the symbol had assumed an important place in the prophetic announcement of a better future. Furthermore, Popko observes that only the long version of Jer 2,1–4,2 develops the theme of the land and places it “in a strict parallel with the fate of the personified nation, to the extent that the land seems to be the woman’s body”25. As Popko persuasively argues, “there was a certain merging or at least strong parallel between the personified nation and their land”26. That corresponds exactly to the equation of Jerusalem with the land in Isa 62,4: 21. Ibid. Note that the LXX reads ἀγάπης τελειώσεως (“perfect love”), which according to Popko presumes a Vorlage reading something like ‫ ַא ֲה ַבת כלילתיך‬instead of ‫אַה ַבת‬ ֲ ‫לוֹּלתיִ ְך‬ ָ ‫“( ְכּ‬love of your betrothal”). See ibid., p. 82. 22. Ibid., p. 560. For the contested opinion see ibid., pp. 23-25. 23. Ibid. 24. Ibid., p. 562. 25. Ibid. 26. Ibid. “In a few precise strokes the redactor of the long text shaped the fornicating woman of Jer 2–3 into an adulterous wife of YHWH, whose sin and subsequent punishment is automatically imprinted in the land. The association with the palingamy prohibition from Deut 24:1-4 in Jer 3:1 explains the ritual bond between the sexual impurity and the state of the land, as well as how the land in disgrace is transformed into a desert. This last element is apparently reinforced by the Hosean marriage metaphor”. Ibid., pp. 292-293.

SYMBOLIC LOVE AND PERSONIFICATIONS

417

You shall no more be termed Forsaken, and your land shall no more be termed Desolate; but you shall be called My Delight Is in Her, and your land Married; for the Lord delights in you, and your land shall be married (NRSV).

Jerusalem/Zion personified is here also set in parallel with the land of Israel. Both will be the wife of God. The very same poetical merging or superposition of Jerusalem/Zion with the land of Israel, both of which personify the nation, can be observed in the Song. There, the Beloved is on the one hand depicted as Jerusalem personified (cf. Song 4,4; 7,1; 8,810; see Chapter 8, III, below, p. 502), or even the Temple (4,12–5,1; see Chapter 11, III, below, p. 780). On the other hand, her silhouette is clearly reminiscent of a “sacred geography” that alludes to the ideal borders of a restored Davidic Israel (see Chapter 8, III.2, below, p. 503). This is particularly salient in the waṣfs of Song 7,2-6, of which the same observation can be made as the one Popko states with regard to Jer 2,1-4: “the land seems to be the woman’s body”27. b) A Performative Symbol Most scholars employ the term “marriage metaphor” when handling the prophetic description of Israel’s covenant relationship with YHWH in marriage terms. On the basis of what has been said above on the difference between allegory, metaphor, and symbol (Chapter 3, above, p. 107), the term “metaphor” here is correct (insofar as the prophets use figurative and analogical speech) but insufficient. This insufficiency is significant, since the objection against reading the Song within the framework of the prophetic “marriage metaphor” is thus implicated in a misapprehension of the prophetic deployment of marriage imagery. The objection reveals an underlying definition of metaphor as a “mini-allegory”, on the model of the rhetorical theory of substitution, a kind of one-to-one correspondence (see Chapter 3, I.1.a, above, p. 109). This is clear from the reduction of the marital imagery “to legal aspects of the relationship, especially to the question of faithfulness”28. Of all the multifaceted dimensions of a human marriage relationship, only the rigidly legal aspect is isolated and transferred to the covenant relationship between God and Israel. It is as if marriage imagery were just a rhetorical device for saying that Israel is 27. Ibid., p. 562. 28. KEEL, Song, pp. 6-7.

418

PART II – CHAPTER 7

unfaithful to the covenant, and has therefore merited punishment. This is certainly not the dynamic at work in the prophetic literature, as will be explained further on. Even where the marriage imagery is expanded into a proper allegory, as in Ezekiel 16 and 23, the allegory still functions on the exploitation of all the dimensions that are proper to the symbol of human marriage. It may be recalled that metaphor, just like allegory, has a particular Uneigentlichkeit to itself, a lack of rooting in creational (ontological) reality. A true metaphor is a phenomenon of linguistic discourse, which forces a reconsideration of the plain sense and even its evacuation in favor of the metaphoric meaning. A symbol on the other hand, “participates in the reality of that to which it points”29. Its meaning is inherent to its appearance, semantically speaking, to the plain sense, wherefore it is immediately and intuitively comprehensible. A symbol is thus “bound” to the configuration of the cosmos by participation. It has its roots in universal significations, wherefore it is more than a linguistic or rhetorical creation. As pointed out in Chapter 3, II.d, above, p. 149, metaphor belongs to the “purified universe of the logos. The symbol hesitates on the dividing line between bios and logos”30. This participative involvement of the symbol with concrete bios is outstandingly evident in the case of the prophets. Specifically, those prophets who deploy the marriage metaphor with regard to the covenant (Hosea 1–3; Jeremiah 2–3; Ezekiel 16) also symbolize the marital relationship between God and Israel in their own lived marital relationships31, or by symbolic acts32. Hosea has to marry (‫ )לקח אשה‬a prostitute in order to symbolize through his own marital relationship the broken and then renewed marriage between God and Israel (see I.2, below). Jeremiah is commanded to renounce both marriage (‫ )לא תקח לך אשה‬and progeny (Jer 16,2), thereby inverting Hosea’s symbolic act, which symbolizes the imminent end of the covenant with its fiercest consequences33. Ezekiel for his part has 29. TILLICH, Symbol, p. 4. 30. RICŒUR, Parole, p. 153 (my translation). 31. In all of these cases, interest of the narrative lies not in the personal (psychological) life of these prophets, but in the illustration of YHWH’s message through the prophets’ actions. As such, a characteristic of the prophets’ symbolic acts is the lack of interest in the personal life of the prophets. See S. MOUGHTIN-MUMBY, Sexual and Marital Metaphors in Hosea, Jeremia, and Ezekiel (OTM), Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2008, pp. 210-212. 32. On symbolic prophetic acts, see S. AMSLER, Les prophètes et la communication par les actes, in A. RAINER (ed.), Werden und Wirken des Alten Testaments, Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980, 194-201; D. STACEY, Prophetic Drama in the Old Testament, London, Epworth, 1990. 33. The command issued to Jeremiah “do not take a wife” (‫ ;לא־תקח לך אשה‬Jer 16,2) is the direct inversion of the one issued to Hosea “take a wife” (‫ ;קח לך אשה‬Hos 1,2). While

SYMBOLIC LOVE AND PERSONIFICATIONS

419

to suffer the death of his wife, the “desire of his eyes”, so as to announce the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem, the “desire of the eyes” of the people (Ezek 24,15-27)34. In every case the prophet’s marital situation symbolically incarnates the message he is sent to deliver. The lives of Hosea, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel can be rightfully called “living symbols”, and in the case of Jeremiah and Ezekiel, even “living antimarriage symbols”35. There is an analogical relationship between the symbolic gesture demanded of the prophet and God’s intervention in the history of Israel, for that which the prophet “is called to live in first person corresponds to what God is going to realize on the scene of history”36. The prophets’ gestures thus have a revealing value. Their “behavior offers a visible and tangible anticipation of the future that God is preparing for his people”37. There is, ultimately, a performative nature to the prophets’ symbolic act. What Hosea, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel are “called to fulfill does not just represent a simple announcement, but the beginning of the fulfillment of God’s project for his entire people”38. Their symbolic acts are not just another literary genre, but symbolic in the strictest sense39. c) A Dynamic Symbol: From Legalism to Love The book of Hosea is the first to cast the covenant relationship, which in the pentateuchal traditions is rather conceived as a legal treaty, in the image of a marriage relationship between YHWH and Israel as a nation Hosea had to marry a whore in order to symbolize the broken covenant relationship between YHWH and wife Israel (“for the land commits great whoredom by forsaking the Lord”), Jeremiah is commanded not to marry any wife at all, in order to symbolize the end of that same relationship. See W.L. HOLLADAY, A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah: Chapters 1–25 (Hermeneia, 24A), Minneapolis, MN, Fortress, 1986, p. 469. For a more detailed examination of Jer 16,1-9 and the significance of Jeremiah’s celibacy as an anti-metaphor for the covenant relationship between YHWH and Israel, see L. GASPARRO, La parola, il gesto e il segno: Le azioni simboliche di Geremia e dei profeti, Bologna, EDB, 2015. 34. In a one-to-one mapping of this symbolic act, the Temple is to the people as Ezekiel’s wife is to him. Strictly speaking, Ezekiel anticipates in his unexpressed mourning the non-mourning of the people for their Temple. If one reads this in connection to Lam 2,4, one may also understand that the Temple is the desire of God’s eyes, and therefore the metaphorical place holder of YHWH’s wife. Note how in Lam 2,4, “everything desirable to the eye” (‫ )מחמדי־עין‬stands in parallel to the tent of Daughter Zion, i.e., the Temple. 35. See GASPARRO, Parola, p. 113. Gasparro uses the term “metaphor”, but on the basis of my own distinction of the terms I prefer to employ the term “symbol” here. 36. Ibid., p. 64. 37. Ibid. 38. Ibid. 39. See ibid., p. 113: “La carne e l’esistenza del profeta fanno da sostrato significante al messaggio che Dio intende trasmettere al suo popolo”.

420

PART II – CHAPTER 7

(cf. Hosea 2–3)40. This was a major hermeneutical turning point, as from now on the politically charged symbol of a mere contractual relationship is aligned with a more “psychological” symbol, i.e., that of love between two spouses41. The motivation for the covenant thus shifts from a politically calculated necessity towards love (particularly expressed on behalf of the superordinate partner), which in spite of the love language employed in vassal treaties was certainly not the motivation for either the suzerain or the vassal when concluding a treaty42. To be sure, in ancient Israel marriage was also perceived as a contract with mutual obligations, and the marriage relationship was understood as asymmetrical, the male having a dominant role. Nonetheless, even in antiquity marriage was ideally motivated by love43. In fact, the Scriptures give a number of examples where the love of the partners is either explicitly mentioned (cf. Gen 24,67; 40. It is disputed whether the early monarchical prophets had knowledge of the Pentateuchal traditions, and thus the covenant understood as ‫ברית‬, as reflected in the Torah. The question whether the prophets refer to the covenant in their marriage imagery is therefore disputed. BAUMANN, Liebe und Gewalt, p. 74, and ZIMMERMANN, Geschlechtermetaphorik, pp. 123-124, contest this for Hosea and Jeremiah, while the great majority of scholars answer in the affirmative. See A. NEHER, L’essence du prophétisme (Épiméthée), Paris, Presses universitaires de France, 1955; VON RAD, Theologie des Alten Testaments II, pp. 145-153; and FISHBANE, Biblical Interpretation, p. 311: “this legal theme (of marriage, divorce and reconciliation) is allegorized both in Jeremiah’s discourse and in Hos 2,4-15 in terms of God’s relationship to apostate Israel who follows Canaanite gods, and in both texts marriage and sexual promiscuity are metonyms for the covenantal bond and infidelity”. The book of Hosea, in any event, is replete with pentateuchal traditions to which it makes plentiful conscious allusions. 41. See G. RAVASI, Il rapporto uomo-donna simbolo dell’alleanza nei Profeti, in Lo sposo e la sposa (Parola Spirito e Vita, 13), Bologna, EDB, 1986, 41-56, p. 41. 42. See MORAN, Love of God in Deuteronomy. 43. Contrary to modern prejudice, love is an essential part of marriage as far back as we have human records. In a recent survey of “Love and Marriage in the Ancient World”, John Gee asserts that in Mesopotamia “love is seen as part of marriage and lack of it was seen as sufficient for divorce, which could be initiated by the woman. Abuse was seen as a reason to dissolve a marriage”. As for Egypt, affection and love play a particularly large role both in its literature and artistic representation of married couples. According to Gee “The only explanation for the data is that affection and love were an integral part of the ideals of marriage in ancient Egypt”. Gee comes to the conclusion that love, though being possibly “not the only factor in the forming of a relationship or making it endure, any more than such is the case in our day, but like in our day, it was the ideal. It was expected that husband and wife love each other, that love began the union and persisted in it”. J. GEE, Love and Marriage in the Ancient World: An Historical Corrective, in Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities 35 (2008) 83-103, pp. 91, 103 (emphasis mine). Pace S. COONTZ, Marriage, A History: From Obedience to Intimacy, or How Love Conquered Marriage, New York, Viking, 2005, pp. 53-65, according to whom marriage in the ancient world served simply “to forge political and family ties”, “make alliances and establish their legitimacy” for rulers, “to consolidate property”, and to be “the equivalent to today’s business mergers or investment partnerships”. Cited in GEE, Love and Marriage, p. 85, who skillfully discloses the selectiveness and cursoriness of her study.

SYMBOLIC LOVE AND PERSONIFICATIONS

421

29,20; 34,3-8; Judg 14,3; Tob 8,7) or insinuated (1 Samuel 25, David and Abigail; Tobit and Sarah; Ruth and Boaz)44. The patriarchal, hierarchical structure of ancient marriage – as problematic as that may seem to the modern mind – as well as its contractual nature, in fact, made marriage a particularly apt symbol for the covenant relationship between God and Israel. According to the constraints of the naturally and culturally conditioned reality of gendered love, God as the dominant partner is represented as the husband. Israel, as the subordinate party, takes up the role of the wife. While this allotment of roles is shaped by the unequal roles attributed to man and woman in that patriarchal society, throughout the ANE gender-related imagery served also to express power relations45. God could thus only have the superordinate and Israel the subordinate role46. At the same time, patriarchal marriage imposed obligations on the male, which correspond perfectly to the obligations assumed by YHWH in his relation towards Israel. He has to protect, care, and provide for her and her offsprings’ life unconditionally. By shifting away from the concept of a mere legal contract that binds Israel to YHWH towards a marriage covenant, their relationship “comes to be defined as much in terms of Eros as in terms of Nomos”47. From Hosea onwards the idea of Israel as YHWH’s bride (‫כלה‬, cf. Jer 2,2; Isa 62,5) becomes “a major tenet of Israelite religion, vying for theological primacy with the older legalistic notions of imagery of ‘covenant theology’”48. A covenant relationship understood in terms of conjugal love renders the relationship dynamic. Expressed by other symbols like that of a father-son, creator-creature, king-servant relationship, the covenant remains static because it is bound to a situation of dependence, a constitutional disparity between the partners that is itself immutable. Only a revolt on the part of 44. See ALONSO SCHÖKEL, I Nomi dell’Amore, pp. 46-48: “Incidentally, the boldest expression of sentiments between two lovers – whose love is undoubtedly mutually exclusive and ultimately perceived in the framework of marriage (cf. Song 3,6-11; 4,8–5,1) – is found in the Song. It is here that the Bible offers its most developed and affirming expression of the sentiments of the love and desire that a loving couple experiences. The Song is like an open window into the soul of the ancient Israelites. Their love ideals were in no way inferior to those of our own day. Rather, the unique and mutually exclusive love which the Song presents to us appears to surpass the modern conception of ‘love’ by far”. 45. See CARR, Gender. 46. See BEN ZVI, Hosea, p. 36. 47. With regard to Ezekiel, Baruch Margalit points out: “If Israel is YHWH’s wife, she owes him obedience and respect, but also love and fidelity. YHWH, for his part, is obligated to care for and shelter Israel, and to love her. Obedience to God remains a constant of marital no less than of covenantal theology; but the underlying motive shifts subtly but significantly from one of strict duty to sense of obligation inspired by love and devotion”. MARGALIT, Asherah, p. 286 (emphasis mine). 48. Ibid.

422

PART II – CHAPTER 7

the dependent subject can bring about a change in the relationship. Yet this is not so in a conjugal relationship. There the love between the partners is at once the constant part and that which renders the relationship dynamic. Love gives rhythm to a life that is full of desires, encounters, separations, nostalgia for an encounter in the past, and desire for a new embrace in the future. The love of a couple undergoes a permanent coming into being (Werden). This dynamic change in a stable loving relationship is perfectly expressed by the different moments of love and desire, searching and finding, separation and re-union. In a relationship conceived as a marriage, the partners – even though bound by the hierarchical order of the patriarchal conception of marriage – therefore tend towards equality through the bond of their mutual love. They are lovers of each other49. Instead of insisting on the inequality between the partners in attributing to God a privileged position of power and to Israel the duty of obedience, the Bible in fact overcomes and effaces the difference by expressing the culminating point of their love relationship in the image of a sexual encounter between two spouses (cf. Hos 2,22)50. As André Neher has pointed out, the knowing (‫ )ידע‬of love is realized in its deepest sense only in the sexual encounter of the spouses. It is love’s most elevated and complete moment. In biblical terms, in this encounter man and woman become one flesh (cf. Gen 2,23). The unity of the partners is perfect and both are disposed to the same power of love. In the moment of mutual knowing (‫ )ידע‬in the flesh, their dialogue of love is equal51. This mutual knowing, and none other, is the aim of the covenant relationship envisioned by YHWH for Israel (Hos 2,22; 6,3)52. The symbol of a conjugal relationship thus proves more dynamic and multifaceted than a mere law-based treaty. Because love and not law constitutes the heart of the partners’ relationship, the nuptial symbol allows one to describe not just an agreement between two legal entities, but a veritable “dialectique d’alliance”53. As Neher has rightly observed: La relation conjugale implique un jeu de proximité et de distance, de jaillissement et de lassitude, de connaissance et d’infidélité, qui la rattachent à un éternel mouvement. Ce mouvement ou, si l’on préfère, ce caractère 49. See A. NEHER, Le symbolisme conjugal: Expression de l’histoire dans l’Ancien Testament, in RHPhR 34 (1954) 30-49, pp. 37-39. 50. See ibid., p. 38. 51. See ibid., pp. 38-39. 52. Although the meaning of ‫ ידע‬in Amos 3,2 is probably closer to the connotation “to choose”, it may in this context also be understood as expressing “an emotional and experiential relationship between the two”. S.M. PAUL, A Commentary on the Book of Amos (Hermeneia), Minneapolis, MN, Fortress, 1991, p. 101. 53. NEHER, Essence, p. 251.

SYMBOLIC LOVE AND PERSONIFICATIONS

423

dramatique du symbolisme conjugal, est décisif dans l’adoption du symbole par la Bible. Celle ci y trouve une ressource pour exprimer ce qui, dans sa conception générale du monde, est essentiellement mouvant et dramatique: l’histoire54.

d) A Symbol of Israel’s History Several correspondences contributed to making the marriage symbol so suitable for the conceptualization of the covenant relationship between YHWH and Israel55. (i) Love was the essential motivation for contracting the marriage and for its persistence, which corresponds to both the moment of YHWH’s election of Israel and his unwavering fidelity to unfaithful Israel (expressed in emotional terms of “love”, “passion”, “jealousy”). (ii) The obligation of exclusive fidelity is presumed56. (iii) The element of commitment beyond the natural family ties provides the relationship with unique force57. A decisive point, however, which has not been sufficiently stressed by scholarship, is (iv) the fact that the nuptial symbol with its ample dimensions proves most apt to express the variegated historical dimensions of the relationship between YHWH and Israel, in which the future is eminently more important than the past or present58. In fact, 54. Ibid., pp. 251-252. 55. For the following see ADLER, Marriage, pp. 42-84; BEN ZVI, Hosea, p. 35. 56. It is a matter of intense debate whether the marriage metaphor as employed by the prophets with the heavy stress on the woman’s infidelity, reflects and perpetuates a worldview in which only the woman was obliged to exclusive fidelity. It is true that the Bible allows for royal concubines and even two patriarchal wives. In ancient Mesopotamia, the possibility of having more than one wife appears to have been a royal prerogative, and was not accepted for the common people. In ancient Egypt, even adultery on the part of the male was not tolerated. There marriage was “an institution that involved husband (hy) and (ḥmt) wife”. See GEE, Love and Marriage, pp. 87, 92. The Bible reflects a similar understanding in the laws concerning marriage and adultery (Deut 22,13-29). It furthermore gives proof to the high importance attributed to the “wife of one’s youth” (Isa 54,6; Joel 1,8; Mal 2,14-15; Prov 2,17; 5,19), which is the status attributed to Israel in relation to YHWH. As BEN ZVI, Hosea, p. 36, correctly observes: “within the discourse of Israel, YHWH had no ‘wives’ when he metaphorically married Israel, the latter cannot be other than the first wife of YHWH, and therefore Israel symbolically takes the role of the wife of YHWH’s youth. It bears notice, that the marriage to the wife of youth is associated elsewhere with a sacred covenant (see Prov 2,17; Mal 2,14). Within this symbolic and metaphorical discourse, even if YHWH were to have some personal relation to another people, Israel’s unique role, as the wife of youth, remains solid, unless YHWH divorces his wife/ Israel”. 57. A father-son relationship is not chosen. A marriage, by contrast, is freely contracted. 58. Pace W. EICHRODT, Theologie des Alten Testaments. Teil I: Gott und Volk, Stuttgart, Ehrenfried Klotz, 71962, pp. 250-251, who held that the move from a covenant of law to a covenant of love is a dehistoricizing of YHWH’s relationship with Israel and its removal from the sphere of the public and national to that of the private and individual. In my view, Eichrodt’s assessment of marriage as belonging to the private non-public sphere reflects

424

PART II – CHAPTER 7

to describe the covenant between God and Israel under the symbol of a marriage is to say that the covenant is “history”59. It confers on the partners a common past and, more importantly, a shared destiny. Their relationship moves towards a common goal: that of an eternal inseparable union between the partners (Hos 2,22; Isa 62,1-12; Jer 31,3; 31–34; Ezek 34,23-31). From the first moment of its conception, the nuptial symbol corresponded to the need of expressing the nation’s history in a narrative and didactic manner, and of attributing an intention to God’s history with his people60. The inherent structure of the nuptial symbol is, in fact, such that “it localizes the past, situates the present and projects a future, in short, it gives to the succession of time the significance of a history”61. Accordingly, its literary construction allows one to express the past as a golden period of perfect love, from which Israel has deviated, the present punishment as a result of Israel’s sinfulness and as an explanation for the present wretched state of the nation, but also as the source of hope for a reconciliation between the partners and a restoration of the “golden period”62. When applied to the history of YHWH with Israel, the nuptial symbols range from falling in love (Deut 7,7), wooing (Hos 2,16), betrothal (Hos 2,2122; Jer 2,2; Ezek 16,8), marriage (Ezek 16,8), “honeymoon” (Jer 2,2), fecundity/progeny (Hos 2,4-7; Ezek 16,20), faithfulness (Isa 54,6; Jer 2,2; 31,3)/unfaithfulness (Hos 2; Jer 2,1–3,5; 13,26-27; Ezek 16,15-58), divorce (Jer 3,1; Isa 50,1-4), widowhood (Isa 47,8-9; 54,4; Jer 51,5) to reconciliation (Hos 2,21-22; Isa 54,1-10; Jer 31,3; Ezek 16,60-63)63. Every part of the love story corresponds to a concrete segment of Israel’s history, which can only be roughly sketched. According to Hosea and Jeremiah, the moment of their first love is situated in the desert after the Exodus from Egypt and before the entry into the Promised Land (Jer 2,2; cf. Hos 2,17; 13,5)64. Israel as a young bride and the first betrothal rather a modern secularized understanding of marriage anachronistic in its application to the ancient world. See also MARGALIT, Asherah, p. 286, n. 36. 59. See NEHER, Symbolisme, p. 39. 60. See NEHER, Essence, p. 252. 61. NEHER, Symbolisme, p. 45. 62. See BEN ZVI, Observations on the Marital Metaphor of YHWH and Israel, pp. 367368. 63. See RAVASI, Simbolo. 64. See NEHER, Symbolisme, p. 41. POPKO, Marriage Metaphor, pp. 293-304, has argued that the positive depiction of Israel’s past in Jer 2,2 is a late development, and indeed does not correspond to the original meaning of ‫ וענתה‬in Hos 2,17. While the MT is usually interpreted as meaning “and she will respond” (as in the days of her youth), the original meaning is more faithfully reflected in the LXX’ reading ταπεινωθήσεται (“she will be

SYMBOLIC LOVE AND PERSONIFICATIONS

425

characterize the time of the origins, the Exodus. Upon entering into Canaan Israel is already YHWH’s wife, the land is the wedding gift, and here married life begins with its successes and failures65. Ezekiel, who addresses Jerusalem, depicts a slightly different story, nonetheless, when the time of “her” adolescence had come, YHWH spread his mantle over her and covered her nakedness, a symbol of entering into marriage, which is commented on in the words, “I pledged myself to you and entered into a covenant with you, says the Lord God, and you became mine” (Ezek 16,8). The present is symbolized under a broken or dysfunctional marriage. Israel is depicted as grossly unfaithful, the consequences being the natural and socio-political desolation of their land and nation (Hos 2,4-15; Ezek 16,15-58; Jer 2,4–3,13). Some scholars hold Hos 2,4 (“she is not my wife and I am not her husband”) to be a legal divorce formula. The expression corresponds to the inversion of the covenant formula in Hos 1,9 (“you are not my people and I am not your God”), which is to say, the divorce symbolizes the end of the covenant relationship66. Jer 3,1.6-11 also pictures Judah and Israel as divorced from YHWH, while Isa 50,1-3, however, explicitly rejects a divorce. In a well-functioning marriage the couple’s children normally symbolize the future, the perpetuation of their parents’ love. The present Israel, as seen by the prophets, are the children of YHWH as father and Israel as mother. Ephraim is called the rebellious son and Israel the mother who has conceived the rebellious child (Hos 2,4.6-7; cf. also Jer 3,1-5; Isa 50,13). According to the present state of affairs, however, the children will be the ones to suffer the consequences of the mother’s infidelity, be it death (Isa 47,8.9; 49,20-21), or the painful expulsion from the country (Jer 31,1516). The marital relationship between Israel and YHWH has come to an end; there is apparently no future for either the couple, the mother, or the children (cf. Hos 2,4-15; Jeremiah 16)67. The intention of the symbol is not only to ask the audience of these texts “to imagine in human terms the relationship between YHWH and Israel, and to find fault in Israel’s past idolatrous behavior. Rather, the humiliated”). Nonetheless by the time of the insertion of Jer 2,2-3 the idea of a “perfect love” on behalf of Israel in the time of the desert had become part of the tradition. The MT’s reading ‫לוֹּלתיִ ְך‬ ָ ‫אַה ַבת ְכּ‬ ֲ (“love of your betrothal”) – even if judged a later emendation of the Masoretic tradition by Popko (see above) – reflects well the development of the application of the marriage symbol to the covenant story, as accessed in the Second Temple period. 65. See NEHER, Symbolisme, p. 41. 66. See WOLFF, Hosea, pp. 22, 33. 67. On the celibacy of Jeremiah as a symbol of the impending end of the covenant relationship, see GASPARRO, Parola, pp. 99-124.

426

PART II – CHAPTER 7

text communicates hope, and offers the audience a way to interpret their past and ponder what the ideal future should be”68. Thus, in spite of the dramatic consequences of Israel’s infidelity and contrary to the law stipulated in Deut 24,1-4, Israel is called to return to the Lord (Jer 3,1-4). The return of mother and children (Hos 3,5; Jer 3,12; 31,21; Isa 49,20-21; 54,1), understood in the sense of conversion (‫)שוב‬, in fact “allows the continuation of a history that their obstinacy had rendered difficult”69. The main emphasis of the whole marriage symbol therefore lies on the future. The focus is not on Israel’s infidelity, but on YHWH’s indestructible love for and faithfulness to Israel (Jer 31,3; Hos 11,8) that wants at all cost to bring about a better future for his “wife”. Without exception, every prophetic book that makes use of the nuptial symbol envisions the future in terms of a renewed marriage covenant (Hos 2,18-25; Isa 54,1-10; 62,1-12; Ezek 16,60; Jer 31,3). What is important, particularly in light of the literary background with which the primary audience of the Song would have been acquainted, is not the reconstruction of Israel’s sinful past, but the power of the nuptial symbol that casts into an ideal future the restoration of a golden past. It is here that the covenant metaphor and the nuptial symbol forge an important alliance that gives shape to the pre-understanding of the Song’s first audience. According to Hosea, Ezekiel, and Isaiah, the ideal future will bring about an eternal covenant pictured under the image of a perfect marriage of love. And it is exactly this perfect state of the divine-human love relationship envisioned by the prophets that the Song can refer to and develop on. 2. Covenant as Marriage in Hosea 1–3 As the first of the prophets to craft and deploy the marriage symbol, Hosea set the agenda and provided the archetypal shape for later scriptural use of this imagery. By far the most important and fundamental point to appreciate – a point which is denied by significant scholarly voices70 – is that, for Hosea and the subsequent biblical tradition, the covenant is conceptualized as a marriage between God and Israel, a marriage strained to the breaking point, but destined to be restored. The restoration of this broken covenant has six distinctive marks, moreover, which are expressed in the covenant formula traditions drawn upon by Hosea. The renewed 68. BEN ZVI, Hosea, p. 40 (emphasis mine). 69. NEHER, Symbolisme, p. 42. 70. See, e.g., BAUMANN, Liebe und Gewalt, p. 74, and ZIMMERMANN, Geschlechtermetaphorik, pp. 123-124.

SYMBOLIC LOVE AND PERSONIFICATIONS

427

covenant/healed marriage between Israel and her God will include: (i) the fulfillment of the promises to Abraham (Hos 2,1); (ii) the gift/ reunification of the land (2,3); (iii) a new Exodus (2,16-17); (iv) the experience of “knowing” the Lord (2,10.22); (v) God’s presence dwelling in Israel’s midst (3,3-5); and, finally, (vi) the gift of a Davidic king (2,2; 3,5). Although a strong accent in Hosea is placed upon the strained present moment in Israel’s relations with YHWH, these marks of an anticipated future happiness are of high significance since they will all recur in the Song, where the destined restoration of the divine marriage bond comes to its most powerful biblical expression. a) The Broken Covenant (Hos 1,2-9) Though scholars question whether the eighth-century prophet Hosea had knowledge of the pentateuchal traditions, it is undisputed that the book of Hosea knew these traditions, as it is replete with references to the latter71. With this outlook, it is highly interesting that Hosea 1–3 reformulates the covenant history of Israel with YHWH in the symbol of a marriage between YHWH as a husband and Israel as his wife. Though YHWH’s punishment of Israel in the past is described in jarring colors, the book’s main scope is to communicate hope by pointing to an ideal future72. It does not employ the marriage symbol with the sole scope of displaying Israel’s infidelity. Rather, it depicts God’s covenant faithfulness as targeting the restoration and consummation of a perfect marital relationship. Hosea 1–3 constitute one literary unit, consisting of three subunits (Hos 1,2– 2,3; 2,4-25; 3,1-5). Each of these subunits moves from an explanation for the terrible judgment of the Exile that stood in the past of the book’s primary intended audience (1,2-9; 2,4-15; 3,1-4) to explicit notes of assurance and hope for the future (2,1-3.16-25; 3,5)73. For the primary audience of the book, Hos 1,2–2,3 recapitulates and represents Israel’s sinful past and the destruction of its kingdom(s) in the symbol of a broken marriage covenant between YHWH and Israel74. The 71. See above, I.a, n. 5, p. 412. 72. The book is set in monarchic times (Hos 1,1). Nevertheless, it most likely addresses a post-monarchic readership. Though the fulfillment of the message of salvation is still to come, the events foreseen by the prophet that point towards judgment and destruction have already come to pass. The partial fulfillment of the prophecies thus lends authority and validity to the text and makes it a reliable message of hope for its readers. See BEN ZVI, Hosea, pp. 15-19. 73. See ibid., p. 35. For a different but equally possible structure that reads 2,1-3 as a summarizing prologue to 2,5-25, see ABMA, Bonds, pp. 120-122, 151-152. 74. See BEN ZVI, Hosea, p. 45.

428

PART II – CHAPTER 7

particular names given to the second and third child leave no doubt about the significance of Hosea’s symbolic act: the covenant relationship between YHWH and Israel has come to an end. Yet a message of hope is given for an ideal future in which the promise to the fathers will come true: Israel will reunite and return to the land. The first unit of the book opens with a report of YHWH’s command to Hosea: “Go, marry the prostitute, and have children of a prostitute, for the land has whored gravely away from YHWH” (Hos 1,2). The divine command for Hosea is “to literally and ideologically re-enact the metaphorical, marital life of the deity and Israel”75. Both Hosea 1 and 3 ask the reader to imagine Hosea and Gomer playing “the roles of the deity and Israel in the metaphor. The role of the husband was given to the prophet”76. Gomer personifies Israel, and her debaucheries serve to describe the “harlotry” of the land of Israel. At the same time, these sins help construct the literary figure of Hosea who represents YHWH. The marriage between Hosea and Gomer thus serves to symbolize both the broken covenant relationship between God and Israel and God’s unbroken fidelity to Israel (Hosea 1–3)77. The three children born to Gomer are given symbolic names that explain YHWH’s behavior towards Israel. The first child’s name, Jesreel, occasions the explanation for YHWH’s resolve to “punish the house of Jehu” and “put an end to the kingdom of house of Israel (Hos 1,4)”. The reason given is “the blood of Jesreel”, which should be read as a reference to the sins of the entire house of Jehu, i.e, the Kings from Jehu until Zechariah, including the kings presently in charge78. The second child receives the name Lo-Ruhama, “no mercy”. The reason for this name is not directly given by the divine commission but presupposes the command given in Hos 1,2, which explains that these are “children of whoredom, for the land whores away from the Lord”. As 75. BEN ZVI, Observations on the Marital Metaphor of YHWH and Israel, p. 379. 76. Ibid., p. 378. In my own words I would not use the term “metaphor” but rather say that Hosea and Gomer’s relationship symbolizes the relationship between YHWH and Israel. 77. Much ink has been spilled on the attempt to recover Hosea’s personal family relationship. Such attempts are highly speculative and distract from the primary task to interpret the significance of that symbolic marriage. “Hosea 1 and 3 are simply not concerned with the life of this prophet, but with the sign-acts so brutally conveying YHWH’s vital message”. MOUGHTIN-MUMBY, Marital Metaphors, p. 214. See also BEN ZVI, Hosea, p. 93; DEARMAN, Hosea, p. 80. 78. See ABMA, Bonds, pp. 143-145. Pace, K. WEISSFLOG, Zeichen und Sinnbilder: Die Kinder der Propheten Jesaja und Hosea (ABG, 36), Leipzig, Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2011, pp. 293-299, who provides a helpful discussion but follows the mainstream in identifying the sin with Jehu’s act of usurpation.

SYMBOLIC LOVE AND PERSONIFICATIONS

429

the text explains, God will no longer have mercy on the house of Israel (‫ לא אוסיף עוד ארחם‬Hos 1,6; cf. 2,6), which presupposes a former dispensation of mercy79. The name implies the very negation of God’s own name as revealed to Israel in Exod 33,19 and 34,6, after the episode of the golden calf (Exodus 32–34). Israel has “whored after other gods”. In Exodus 32–34 Israel had committed the very same “original sin”, but the divine reaction had been one of mercy. Instead of consuming the people in his burning anger (Exod 32,10), YHWH dispensed forgiveness and made Israel’s sin the occasion for the second and even deeper revelation of his dealing with sinful Israel, namely, “I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy (‫ורחמתי‬ ‫”)את אשר ארחם‬80. With the command to call the daughter Lo-Ruhama, YHWH intimates that he will no longer dispense the covenant gift of his mercy on sinful Israel. The third name, Lo-Ammi (“not my people”) confirms the preceding implicit denial to continue to be YHWH to Israel. In fact, this name makes the reversal of the covenant relationship explicit, as God himself explains: “Lo-Ammi (‫)לא עמי‬, for you are not my people (‫ )לא עמי‬and I will not be (‫ )לא אהיה‬for you” (Hos 1,9). In other words, the name Lo-Ammi expresses that the covenant between YHWH and Israel has come to an end81. The second half of the verse (‫ )ואנכי לא־אהיה לכם‬is well crafted suggesting a double reading. On the one hand, though it is elliptic, it allows for the connotation, “and I will not be yours”, i.e. your God, as is clear from the parallel in Hos 2,25 (“I will be your God and you will be my people”, cf. Exod 6,7). It is the inversion of the covenant formula. On the other hand, it alludes to the revelation of the divine Name in Exod 3,14, in which ‫ אהיה‬serves as a proper name82. By way of this pun, a kind of counterExodus is proclaimed in which YHWH will no longer be the “I Am on behalf of Israel”83. The name of Gomer’s third child reveals nothing less 79. Pace WEISSFLOG, Zeichen und Sinnbilder, p. 304, who sees in this name Hosea’s refusal to recognize the child as his own and to take over the related responsibility of care and protection. 80. God promises in Exod 33,19 to call out his name in front of Moses. The promise is in its second part reminiscent of the first revelation of YHWH’s name in Exod 3,14 (‫אהיה‬ ‫)אשר אהיה‬, when it reads ‫“( חנתי־את אשר אחן ורחמתי את־אשר ארם‬I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy”). Syntactically, this formulation recalls Exod 3,14, while with respect to its content it anticipates the actual revelation of YHWH’s name in Exod 34,6. See C. DOHMEN, Vom Sinai nach Galiläa: Psalm 103 als Brücke zwischen Juden und Christen, in R. SCORALICK (ed.), Das Drama der Barmherzigkeit Gottes, Stuttgart, Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2000, 92-106, p. 94. 81. See ABMA, Bonds, p. 151. 82. See BEN ZVI, Hosea, p. 49. 83. DEARMAN, Hosea, p. 97.

430

PART II – CHAPTER 7

than the apparent end of the covenant between YHWH and Israel84. This finding is confirmed and made even more explicit in God’s direct proclamation about Israel in Hos 2,4 – “she is not my wife, and I am not her husband” – which is held to be a legal divorce formula. In short, the names of the second and third child reveal the symbolic significance of Hosea’s marriage with Gomer. They symbolize the broken marriage covenant between YHWH and Israel. While the order to marry a prostitute in Hos 1,2 serves at first to make apparent Israel’s state of infidelity, the names of the children communicate a far more threatening message, namely that the covenant relationship between YHWH and Israel has come to an end. God will no longer be YHWH to Israel. Yet these events occur only in the opening chapter. The emphasis – as will be clear from the upcoming message of hope in Hos 2,1-3, and even more so from Hos 2,16-25 – is on the promise of a covenant renewal, that is, on a new and eternal (hence incorruptible) marriage between YHWH and Israel. Throughout the entire composition of chapters 1–3, the covenant formula and the connotations it bore for its Scripture-versed audience plays a vital role. An excursus on the covenant formula will therefore prove helpful to show how the same connotations which the covenant formula bears are woven into Hosea’s extended marriage symbolism. We will see that for Hosea 1–3 the covenant formula equals a marriage formula (1,9; 2,4) and God’s dwelling in the midst of Israel is analogous to the marriage relationship between a couple, which – in good biblical fashion – leads to the “knowing” of the partners. According to Hosea the “consummation” of this marriage will coincide with the gift of a Davidic king (Hos 3,5; cf. Ezek 37,21-28). To see this is vital in order to grasp the full impact of the Song’s punning on the covenant formula in the refrain of mutual belonging (Song 2,16; 6,3; 7,11) in combination with the heavy engagement of the King and Temple symbolism. Excursus: Covenant Formula Israel’s covenant idea finds its fullest expression in the so-called covenant formula (Bundesformel), “I will be your God, and you shall be my people”, and its abbreviated variations85. The sheer number of the formula’s 84. See also WEISSFLOG, Zeichen und Sinnbilder, p. 313. 85. The expression “Bundesformel” was first coined by R. SMEND, Die Bundesformel (Theologische Studien, 68), Zürich, EVZ-Verlag, 1963. The most important monograph that serves as a reference here is R. RENDTORFF, Die Bundesformel (SBS, 160), Stuttgart, Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1995; for the English translation see ID., The Covenant Formula: An Exegetical and Theological Investigation (Old Testament Studies), Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1998. The full formula is found in Exod 6,7; Lev 26,12; Deut 26,17.19; 29,12; 2 Sam 7,24;

SYMBOLIC LOVE AND PERSONIFICATIONS

431

occurrences points to its eminent importance on the level of the end text. The mass of evidence, concentrated in Exodus, Leviticus, and the prophets expresses the hope for a future ideal state of a “mutual belonging” between God and Israel as the purpose of the covenant history86. With respect to its form, the covenant formula is more analogous to a marriage stipulation or to a parent-child relationship than to a political treaty (cf. Hos 2,4; 2 Sam 7,14; Jer 31,9)87. In the Bible the closest parallel is Hos 2,4 (“she is not my wife and I am not her husband”), which is held to be a divorce formula. Extra-biblical material, in fact, confirms that behind Hos 2,4 stands a marriage formula. A typical example of the marriage formula of the diaspora Jews can be found, for instance, in the fifth-century B.C. Aramaic papyri from Elephantine: “I came to your house that you might give me your daughter Miphṭaḥiah in marriage. She is my wife and I her husband (‫ )הי אנתתי ואנה בעלה‬from this day for ever”88. Since the marriage formula (just as the presumed adoption formula) is constituted of nominal phrases, however, and not like the covenant formula with the verb ‫ היה‬followed by double lamed, the covenant formula cannot be understood as patterned exactly on a marriage formula. Nonetheless, because of its bipartite character, it is reminiscent of marriage (and adoption) language, which is not surprising since Israel elsewhere understood its relationship to YHWH as analogous to a marriage or fatherson relationship89. In spite of its closer resemblance to a marriage or adoption formula than to political treaties, scholars have labeled it a “covenant formula” because of its close connection with the term ‫ ברית‬and for Jer 7,23; 11,4; 24,7; 30,22; 31,1.33; 32,38; Ezek 11,20; 14,11; 36,28; 37,23.27; Zech 8,8. Rendtorff labels it C. Furthermore, variations of the formula with either only the first or the second part of its members, i.e., A: “I will be your God”, or, B: “You shall be my people” are also subsumed under the category. For A cf. Gen 17,7b.8b; Exod 29,45; Lev 11,45; 22,33; 25,38; 26,45; Num 15,41; Ezek 34,24; for B cf. Deut 4,20; 7,6; 14,2; 27,9; 28,9. In fact the three variations of the formula are so intimately connected that they cannot be treated as three different entities. All three of them serve to explicate the content and purpose of the covenant. For a reconstruction of the formula’s diachronic genesis, see N. LOHFINK, Dt 26,17-19 und die “Bundesformel” (1969), in Studien zum Deuteronomium und zur deuteronomistischen Literatur I, Stuttgart, Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1990, 211261. 86. In the context of the Deuteronomy, this state of “mutual belonging” comes about with the stipulation of the covenant and only in David’s prayer of thanksgiving for the promise of an eternal dynasty does it occur as something that happened in the past. It holds enormous importance for the prophets Jeremiah and Ezekiel. 87. It is generally presumed that Hos 2,4 is the citation of a divorce formula, which is worded as the inversion of a marriage formula. 88. A. COWLEY, Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century BC, Oxford, Clarendon, 1923. 89. See LOHFINK, Bundesformel, pp. 213-215, 218, who points further to the following references where the covenant formula appears in a marriage or father-son context: Deut 7,6.8; 14,1-2; 2 Sam 7,14.24; Jer 7,23.28; 31,1.9; Hos 1,9; 2,25.

432

PART II – CHAPTER 7

the fact that it actually serves to explicate the content and purpose of the covenant. In his seminal study on the covenant formula, Rendtorff has shown its eminent role both in the priestly texts of the Pentateuch and in the book of Deuteronomy as well as in the prophets Jeremiah and Ezekiel. For the present context its function in the priestly texts and the prophets is of major importance. Rendtorff shows that particularly in the priestly composition of the Pentateuch the covenant formula appears in cornerstone positions, a clear sign of an “extremely deliberate and theologically thoughtthrough use” (cf. Gen 17,17; Exod 6,7; 29,45; Lev 11,45; 22,33; 25,38; 26,12; 26,45; Num 11,45)90. In Exod 6,7 the covenant formula appears within a well-structured unit that elaborates once again the substance of God’s covenant with Israel (note the frame created by the Selbstvorstellungsformel)91: I am the LORD, and I will free you from the burdens of the Egyptians and deliver you from slavery to them. I will redeem you with an outstretched arm and with mighty acts of judgment. I will take you as my people, and I will be your God. You shall know that I am the LORD your God, who has freed you from the burdens of the Egyptians. I will bring you into the land that I swore to give to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; I will give it to you for a possession. I am the LORD (Exod 6,7-8).

The context explains that in view of the previous covenant with the fathers, God leads Israel out of Egypt in order to take them as His people and to be God to them. Referring back to Genesis 17, the promise to the fathers of the gift of the land is maintained. Yet a new important element is added, namely, the so-called “recognition formula” – “you shall know that I am the Lord”92. 90. For the following résumé, see RENDTORFF, Covenant, pp. 87-92. 91. On the Selbstvorstellungsformel, see W. ZIMMERLI, Ich bin Jahwe (1953), in ID. (ed.), Gottes Offenbarung: Gesammelte Aufsätze zum Alten Testament (TBü, 19), München, Kaiser, 1963, 11-40. On Exod 6,2-8 as part of the final redaction of the Pentateuch, see J.-L. SKA, La place d’Ex 6,2-8 dans la narration de l’exode, in ZAW 94 (1982) 530-548; ID., Quelques remarques sur Pg et la dernière rédaction du Pentateuque, in A. DE PURY – T.C. RÖMER (eds.), Le Pentateuque en question: Les origines et la composition des cinq premiers livres de la Bible à la lumière des recherches récentes (Le Monde de la Bible, 19), Genève, Labor et Fides, 2002, 95-125. 92. Outside the “priestly” texts too, the formula appears as an exposition of the covenant. Thus in Deuteronomy 29, Moses explains that the covenant that Israel is about to agree to, is stipulated by YHWH so “that he may establish you today as his people, and that he may be your God, as he promised you and as he swore to your ancestors, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob” (Deut 29,12). Within the close context, the text stresses that the covenant made at Horeb stands in direct continuation with Abraham and the event of the Exodus (cf. 29,1-14). The same is the case in Jer 31,33 where, though criticizing the conduct of the fathers, Jeremiah explicates that the “new covenant is going to confirm

SYMBOLIC LOVE AND PERSONIFICATIONS

433

In Jeremiah and Ezekiel, the covenant formula is used with emphasis on a still impending future. Analogous as he did to the Israelites in Egypt addressed in Exod 6,6-8, God now announces to the exiles the return to their country and the restoration of the covenant relationship in the words of the covenant formula, together with the gift of a heart able to know him (Jer 24,7; cf. Exod 6,7). This promise culminates in the promise of a “new covenant” in Jer 31,31-34. The same promise is reiterated in Jer 32,3840, the future covenant now being called an “eternal covenant”. The same vision is again expressed in Ezekiel, where the establishment of a future incorruptible bond between God and Israel is always proclaimed with the covenant formula (Ezek 11,20; 36,26-28; 37,21-27). Thus far, four important aspects have been identified that center around the covenant formula: (i) the mutual-belonging covenant made with the patriarchs; (ii) deliverance from Egypt or the Exile; (iii) the gift of the land; and (iv) knowledge of the Lord (cf. Exod 6,6-8; Jer 31,34). Yet another aspect is integral to the covenant formula within the priestly texts of the Pentateuch and the book of Ezekiel. According to the priestly vision, the purpose of the covenant will only be properly achieved when God dwells in the midst of his people. Thus, at the end of the instructions about constructing the tabernacle, God announces in Exod 29,4546: I will dwell (‫ )ושכנתי‬in the midst (‫ )בתוך‬of the sons of Israel and I will be God to them, and they will know that I am the Lord their God who brought them out of Egypt so that I might dwell (‫ )לשכני‬among them (‫)בתוכם‬. I am the Lord their God.

Once again the covenant formula, expressed here in the short form, is intimately connected to the Exodus event. However, YHWH’s purpose for leading Israel out of Egypt was to dwell (‫ )שכן‬among them (‫ )בתוך‬and become their God. Moreover, in the recognition formula that follows, it is unmistakably expressed for a second time that the ultimate goal of bringing Israel out of Egypt was to bring about God’s dwelling among His people. Lev 26,11-12 repeats this purpose of the covenant just as clearly: the previous one inasmuch as its essential content is and will remain the mutual relationship between God and Israel”. Jer 31,33 thus stands in perfect continuation with Lev 26,44-45, where God proclaims that although Israel will break the covenant (26,15), he will not break it, “for” so he affirms, “I am the Lord their God; but I will remember in their favor the covenant with their ancestors whom I brought out of the land of Egypt in the sight of the nations, to be their God: I am the LORD”. Similarly Jer 31,33 stands in perfect continuity with the central text of Exodus 32–34, even though the covenant formula is not mentioned there. See RENDTORFF, Covenant, pp. 88-89.

434

PART II – CHAPTER 7

I will place my dwelling (‫ )משכני‬in your midst (‫)בתוככם‬, and I shall not abhor you. And I will walk (‫ )התהלכתי‬among you (‫)בתוככם‬, and I will be your God, and you shall be my people (‫)והייתי לכם לאלהים ואתם תהיו־לי לעם‬.

Ezek 37,26-28 echoes the same purpose of the covenant with regard to the deliverance from the Exile. In Ezek 37,26 God announces that he will stipulate a covenant of peace (‫)ברית שלום‬, an eternal covenant (‫ברית‬ ‫ )עולם‬with Israel, and he will set his sanctuary among them for ever. In v. 27, the Lord specifies, “My dwelling place (‫ )משכן‬shall be with them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people”. Here the covenant formula is the direct consequence of God’s definitive and eternal dwelling in Israel. This is an obvious recasting of the Exodus and Leviticus texts adduced above, as it is only here in the entire book of Ezekiel that the word ‫ משכן‬is used for the Temple, echoing thereby the verbs used in Exodus and Leviticus93. In the priestly vision, God’s dwelling in Israel is part and parcel of the mutual belonging that cannot be realized otherwise. In Ezek 37,28, as well, the recognition formula is thus once again linked with the covenant formula and the promise of indwelling94. Ezekiel adds yet another important aspect to the realization of the covenant in an “eschatological” future, integral to the perspective of Hosea 1– 3. When YHWH fulfills his covenant promises by establishing an eternal covenant, the people of Israel will have but one king (Ezek 37,22). David, YHWH’s servant, will be king and shepherd over them (v. 25). Here in Ezekiel we thus find a maximum of elements centering around the covenant formula (vv. 23, 27): the deliverance from the nations, the return to the land promised to the fathers (vv. 21, 25; cf. Exod 6,6-8), the gift of a Davidic king (vv. 22, 25), God’s dwelling among Israel in a ‫משכן‬, and the recognition formula (vv. 26-28). Finally, the covenant formula is found in the book of Zechariah. While in Zech 8,1-8 God’s dwelling in Zion is announced “classically” as the fulfillment of the covenant95, Zech 2,14-15 adds one last startling variation. The fulfillment of the covenant goal, that is, God’s dwelling in the midst of his people, will bring about the extension of the covenant to all the goyim96. Sing and rejoice, O daughter Zion! For lo, I will come and dwell in your midst, says the Lord. Many nations shall join themselves to the Lord on that day, and shall be my people (‫ ;)והיו לי לעם‬and I will dwell in your midst. And you shall know that the LORD of hosts has sent me to you. 93. See ibid., p. 90; W. ZIMMERLI, Ezekiel 2: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, Chapters 25–48 (Hermeneia, 26B), Philadelphia, PA, Fortress, 1983, p. 277. 94. See ZIMMERLI, Ezekiel 2, p. 277. 95. See RENDTORFF, Covenant, p. 90. 96. See SMEND, Bundesformel, p. 39.

SYMBOLIC LOVE AND PERSONIFICATIONS

435

Zechariah surprisingly uses the second part of the covenant formula in application to many nations, “they will be a people to me”. He does so in the exact same wording as appears with regard to an eternal or new covenant between God and his people Israel in Jeremiah and Ezekiel (Jer 31,1.33; 32,28; Ezek 11,20; 14,11; 36,28; 37,23.27). For Zechariah, however, just as for Trito-Isaiah, the covenant has been universalized (cf. Isa 56,6.7)97. Furthermore, Zechariah echoes the tabernacle terminology of Ezekiel. In Ezekiel it is set in a future, Davidic context in which the nations will ultimately recognize God’s sovereignty98. Yet for Zechariah, the fact of God’s dwelling among Israel will cause the nations’ joining the covenant people, and trigger “recognition”, though this time not of YHWH but of the prophets’ divinely authenticated mission. In summary, the function of the covenant formula is to span “the whole range of God’s acts with Israel from the beginning until the end-time goal still to come”99. As Israel’s covenant history progresses, it gathers the following central topics into its orbit: (i) the covenant with the fathers, (ii) the Exodus from Egypt and the Exile, (iii) the gift of the land, (iv) God’s purpose of dwelling within Israel (Tabernacle/Temple), (v) Israel’s knowledge of God with the gift of a new heart, the gift of a new, eternal covenant (of peace), (vi) the gift of a Davidic king, and eventually (vii) the extension of the covenant to all the nations. The realization of all this will bring about the “consummation” of mutual belonging between God and Israel expressed in the formula, “I will be your God and you will be my people”. b) Covenant Restored: Three Oracles Counterbalancing and reversing Hosea’s grim broken covenant/marriage motif in chapter 1 are a series of three positive oracles in chapters 2 and 3 depicting Israel’s positive future. Together these function to intone most of the motifs associated with the covenant formular just considered. (i) First Oracle (Hos 2,1-3): Reestablishment of the Covenant The first of Hosea’s three oracles for a prosperous future is very short, yet it already combines some of the elements clustering around the covenant 97. See C.L. MEYERS – E.M. MEYERS, Haggai, Zecchariah 1–8 (AncB, 25B), New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, 1974, p. 169. In addition to the two prophets’ using covenant language in their use of “join” (Zech 2,15; Isa 56,3.6) both their passages include temple language. 98. See ibid., p. 168. 99. RENDTORFF, Covenant, p. 91.

436

PART II – CHAPTER 7

formula. Thus, Hos 2,1 promises that the number of the sons of Israel will be like the sand of the sea, a clear reference to the promise given to Abraham and Jacob (cf. Gen 22,17; 32,13). The covenant will once again be established, as the allusion to the covenant formula in Hos 2,2 implies, and, just as promised in the context of the covenant formula in Ezek 37,22 and 25, the sons of Judah and Israel will gather together100, set one head over them101, and (once again) go up to the land of Israel (Hos 2,3)102. Textual markers clearly indicate that 2,1-3 is to be read with 2,16-25, the second positive oracle, which will buttress the promise of a new Exodus and the renewal of the covenant, while 3,5 will identify the “one head” as a Davidic king. (ii) Second Oracle (Hos 2,4-25): New Exodus YHWH addresses Israel directly throughout Hos 2,4-25. First, the sins of Israel are denounced and the consequences threateningly pronounced, expressed in the image of a divorce (2,4)103. If Israel is not ready to give up her “whoredom”, YHWH will strip and reduce Israel to a desert-like land. A sort of an anti-Exodus is pictured (2,5; cf. 2,16; Ezek 16,4.39) as God will withdraw his mercy from her children (Hos 2,6; cf. Exod 33,19; 34,7), he will hedge his wife to force her to return (Hos 2,8), and he will make her search for her lovers in vain until she decides to return to him (2,9). But she did not know that it was YHWH who lavished the gifts of grain, wine, oil, and silver on her. In the imagery of Hos 2,10-11, the gifts of the divine bridegroom were supposed to bring about the knowledge of the Lord, as had been the purpose of the covenant gift of deliverance from Egypt and the gift of the land (Exod 6,6-8). The withdrawal of the gifts and the stripping naked of the wife Israel, thus announces (just like the names of the children in Hosea 1) the inversion of the Exodus: Israel will have to go into Exile; the land will lie bare, its fruits will be devoured 100. The verb employed here ‫( קבץ‬to gather) is almost a set term for the return of the people from exile, cf. Ezek 34,11-13.23-30; Jer 31,8-10; Isa 40,11. 101. On the simultaneous allusion to a Mosaic (cf. Num 14,4) and Davidic head (cf. Hos 3,5) see BEN ZVI, Hosea, p. 51: “The reference to ‘head’ (instead of ‘king’) and the association of this head with the Davidides allow for the ideal, messianic images of the future to come”. 102. Though the interpretation of “they will go up from the land” is disputed, it is clear both from the expression GN ‫עלה מן‬, which is typically used for the going up to Israel/ Canaan, that the return of the exiles to Israel is alluded to here. See exhaustively, BEN ZVI, Hosea, pp. 50-51. 103. For an overview of the discussion whether or not this reflects a legal divorce formula, see ABMA, Bonds, p. 170.

SYMBOLIC LOVE AND PERSONIFICATIONS

437

by the beasts of the field, and the false “liturgies” will come to an end (Hos 2,11-15; cf. Ezek 16,19). For the primary audience, the image depicted here corresponds to the concrete history that the people have experienced. It explains Israel’s recent history both as the consequences of Israel’s own infidelity to the covenant and as a divine attempt to cause Israel to return to YHWH (Hos 2,9). The second part of the discourse (Hos 2,16-25) announces YHWH’s unequaled initiative to restore the covenant, as in 2,1-3. The introducing ‫( לכן‬therefore) seems to have no other grounds than the sins of Israel enumerated in vv. 4-15 where the punishment had also been introduced by ‫( לכן‬cf. vv. 8 and 11). The promise is divided into three parts, 2,16-17 (return to the desert), vv. 18-22 (renewed marriage) and vv. 20-25 (the positive consequences). In vv. 16-17, God announces that he will allure Israel, like a young man allures a girl (cf. Exod 22,15) by leading her (back) into the desert where he will speak to her heart, that is, court her anew104. The first Exodus is evoked here as a golden past that is to give expression to an ideal future. Israel will respond as in the days of her youth when she came up from Egypt (2,16-17). From there, i.e., the desert, she will receive her vineyards back. The passage is reminiscent of the promise of the land that is an integral part of the covenant formula. The next passage (Hos 2,18-22) then announces the renewal of the covenant in the image of an eternal betrothal (cf. v. 21 ‫)ארשית לי לעולם‬. In the framework of the symbol, the return to the land is the day of their marriage. “On that day” (‫ )ביום ההוא‬Israel will once again call YHWH “my husband”; thus “on that day” God will “stipulate a covenant with them (Israel), and with the beasts of the field and the birds of the air” etc., and they will dwell in peace (v. 18; cf. Isaiah 11). As the parallel repetition of the phrase ‫ ביום ההוא‬in vv. 18 and 20 underlines, the covenant that God announced in v. 20 is his act of betrothing Israel to himself forever (vv. 18, 21). YHWH’s marriage gifts are his own attributes. While those of righteousness and justice are taken from the royal domain, the gifts of faithfulness and mercy recall the “second” covenant of Exodus 32–34, that is, the gift that had been withdrawn (cf. Hos 1,6; 2,6). When YHWH betroths Israel anew she will finally know (‫ )ידע‬the Lord (v. 21). The double entendre expressed by the word ‫ ידע‬is of eminent importance here. Within the framework of the symbol, the verb “to know” clearly refers to the marital 104. The Hebrew expression ‫ לדבר על־לב‬employed here, means “to convince” and equally “to court” (cf. Gen 34,3; Judg 19,3). See ALONSO SCHÖKEL, I Nomi dell’Amore, p. 47.

438

PART II – CHAPTER 7

embrace between husband and wife105. On the intertextual/historical level, it refers to one of the covenant aims identified above: Israel shall know the Lord (cf. Exod 6,7; 29,46; Jer 31,34). The third part (Hos 2,23-25) expresses the consequences of this new betrothal. The marriage between YHWH and Israel will bring about an extraordinary fecundity of heaven and earth that will restore the covenant gifts of grain, wine and oil (2,23-24), and the complete renewal of the covenant. The names of the three children, which had signified the end of the Northern Kingdom and of the covenant, are now taken up and reversed, contextualized by a newly positive outlook. YHWH will sow Israel for himself in the land (2,25). He will again have mercy and the covenant formula will find fulfillment; that is, YHWH will say “you are my people” and Israel will say “you are my god” (v. 25). For one last time in chapters 1–3, the covenant formula resounds, yet this time within the context of a renewed, eternal marriage covenant (cf. v. 21). What is most striking in this last announcement of a new covenant, understood as a new betrothal, is the fact that vv. 20-22 and 23-25 are structured in parallel manner, thereby explicitly equating the marital encounter between a man and a woman (“you will know the Lord” v. 22) with the mutual belonging of the covenant partners (v. 25). In other words, the fulfillment of the covenant formula is viewed by Hosea in the image of an eternal, never ending marital embrace. At this point the book of Hosea is most innovative. For while the priestly traditions of the Pentateuch and Ezekiel express the final goal of the covenant as YHWH’s dwelling in the midst of Israel (Lev 26,12; Ezek 37,28), Hosea gives expression to the same objective in the symbol of the marital encounter between husband and wife in the deepest union of love (Hos 2,22). In other words, the coming of YHWH to make his dwelling in Israel is symbolically understood as the sexual encounter between a man and a woman, which in Hebrew is expressed as the man going (‫)בוא‬ (in)to the woman, making his dwelling in her. Contrary to the marital embrace of man and woman, however, which is temporally and spatially conditioned, God envisions an unending eternal embrace with his wife Israel. Thus, while in covenant language the shared future between God and Israel is expressed under the images of the gift of the land, where YHWH will dwell in the midst of Israel, in Hosea’s marital symbol that same shared 105. Given the context of the marital language, the verb ‫ ידע‬is clearly used with the double entendre of knowing YHWH as God (cf. Hos 5,4; 6,3; Jer 31,34) and the marital sexual relationship between the conjugal partners, with emphasis on the latter (e.g., Gen 19,8; Num 31,17; Judg 11,39). See ALONSO SCHÖKEL, I Nomi dell’Amore, p. 163; NEHER, Essence, p. 248.

SYMBOLIC LOVE AND PERSONIFICATIONS

439

destiny of God and Israel is expressed in terms of lovers belonging to each other forever in an inseparable embrace (cf. 2,21.25). (iii) Third Oracle (Hos 3,1-5) So far it has emerged from the text that Hosea views the fulfillment of the covenant formula, that is, the mutual belonging of YHWH and Israel, in the symbol of an eternal marital embrace in the flesh. Chapter 3 adds two more important aspects, that are in perfect accord with the connotations that the covenant formula assumes in Ezekiel and Zechariah. Cult and kingship enter the metaphor and become the key mediating elements for the metaphoric consummation of the marriage. After having announced the renewal of the covenant through the symbol of a renewed betrothal in Hos 2,20-25, YHWH commands Hosea a second time to enact God’s treatment of Israel symbolically with his wife. Hosea is asked to “remarry” his wife, though without having marital relations. This unconsummated marriage is to symbolize the covenant relationship between YHWH and Israel during a time when the two key mediating institutions, Temple and King, would be lacking in Israel106. Hos 3,1-5 reads: And YHWH said to me, “Go once again, love the woman who has a lover and practices adultery, just as YHWH loves the sons of Israel, though they turn to other gods and love raisin cakes”. 2So I bought her for fifteen shekels of silver and a homer of barley and a measure of barley. 3And I said to her, “For many days (‫ )ימים רבים‬you shall dwell (‫ )תשבי‬as mine; you shall not play the whore, you shall not belong to any man (‫)ולא תהיי לאיש‬, so will I also be to you (‫”)וגם אני אליך‬. 4Because, for many days (‫ )ימים רבים‬the Israelites shall dwell (‫ )ישבו‬without king or leader, without sacrifice or pillar, without ephod or teraphim. 5Then the Israelites shall return and seek the LORD their God, and David their king; they shall come in awe to the LORD and to his goodness in the latter days.

Hosea 3 functions as a confirmation of the promise announced in chapter 2 by way of another symbolic act107. Hosea is to love once again108 106. See also ANDERSEN – FREEDMAN, Hosea, p. 303: “The nearest analogy to the total suspension of Israel’s cultic life (v 4) would be the total suspension of the woman’s sexual life (v 3)”. 107. WOLFF, Hosea, p. 59: “By means of the account of a specific command from Yahweh, together with its consequences, chap. 3 summarizes all of the foregoing, bringing it to an impressive conclusion”. 108. Ibid., pp. 59-60: “‘Again’ (‫ )עוד‬belongs already to the context of the divine address, as G correctly understood, and as a comparison of Zech 1,17; 11,15 with Ex 3,15 demonstrates. […] The word […] makes certain that the woman to be won over ‘once again’ is not just any adulteress, but that she committed adultery against Hosea”. BEN ZVI, Hosea, p. 79, sees a double meaning expressed in the employ of ‫עוד‬, meaning at once, “the Lord said to me again”, thus linking 3,1-5 to the 1,2–2,3, and also “Go again”.

440

PART II – CHAPTER 7

his adulterous wife (Hos 3,1)109, just as YHWH loves adulterous Israel110. Upon buying her back, Hosea himself explains the significance of his symbolic act. In her guise as Israel (and Judah), Gomer, the unfaithful wife, has to undergo a time of disciplinary penance111. For many days (‫ימים‬ ‫ )רבים‬Gomer will dwell (‫ )ישב‬with Hosea, without “playing the whore”, without having intercourse with any man or with Hosea either (cf. 3,3)112. The terms “for many days” and “to dwell” suggest that Hosea’s treatment of his wife, and the situation of Israel described in vv. 4-5, are analogous and illuminate each other113. The situation of Israel (Judah) described in 109. On the identity of the unnamed adulteress with Gomer, Hosea’s wife, see WOLFF, Hosea, p. 60; DEARMAN, Hosea, p. 132. 110. ANDERSEN – FREEDMAN, Hosea, p. 292: “The comparison between the woman and Israel is explicitly made in 3,1, as it was in 1,2. As in cc 1–2, both levels of the story are dealt with here at once, though they are more clearly distinguished. In vv 2-3 the human level is foremost; vv 4-5 apply the similitude to Israel’s historical experience”. See also WOLFF, Hosea, p. 60; DEARMAN, Hosea, p. 132. The adultery of Israel is expressed in the Deuteronomistic term of “turning to other gods” (cf. Deut 5,7; 6,14; 7,4; 8,19; 11,16.28; 13,3.7-14; 17,3; 18,20; 28,14.36.64; 29,25), and in their “loving raisin cakes”. “‘Cakes of raisins’ were eaten by the participants in the cult and apparently also enjoyed by Hosea’s contemporaries as gifts from Baal”. They may be compared to the sacrificial cakes (‫)כּוָּ נִ ים‬ ַ offered to the Queen of the skies mentioned in Jer 7,18; 44,19. WOLFF, Hosea, p. 61; and ANDERSEN – FREEDMAN, Hosea, p. 297. 111. See DEARMAN, Hosea, p. 80. See also BEN ZVI, Hosea, p. 93: “The text indicates to its readers that they should understand the period in which Israel is without king, officers, sacrifices, and priests – that is, without monarchy and without temple – as a purification period”. 112. When the subject of the idiom ‫ היה ל‬is a woman and the complement is ‫ ל איש‬it describes marriage relationships in general. It is clear from the context that Gomer is not to have sexual intercourse with any other man, nor with Hosea either. See also ANDERSEN – FREEDMAN, Hosea, p. 303. The phrase in the MT ‫ וגם אני אליך‬is not clear, which is lamentable as it is crucial. Some illumination comes from vv. 4-5 as they are clearly constructed in parallel with v. 3. The phrase “for many days” makes it clear that the two situations correspond to each other. As Israel will be deprived for many days of both monarchy and Temple cult (see below), so Gomer is to be deprived of “whoring” and “belonging to another man”. The implication is that Gomer will not have intercourse with anybody for many days. For that reason, what appears to be implied by the enigmatic phrase “so will I also be to you” seems to be that Hosea will not have intercourse with Gomer either. See also ibid., p. 301. A corresponding result is achieved by an old standing scholarly conjecture that an “‫ ]…[ ל ֹא ֵא ֵלְך‬may have been lost as homoeoteleuton. Ibn Ezra and David Kimchi already inserted ‫ל ֹא אָבוֹא‬. The parallelism to the previous sentence, underscored by ‫וגם‬, requires such a supposition”. WOLFF, Hosea, p. 247. See also ANDERSEN – FREEDMAN, Hosea, pp. 291, 301. Although they render the phrase differently, that is, “then indeed I will be yours”, their argumentation mounts to a similar meaning: “Israel’s experience is well known: they were to be deprived of the familiar furnishings of worship and denied a close relationship with Yahweh, for a considerable period, after which the old relationship would be restored. So, in the same general way, the wife will be deprived, and her freedom will be restricted for a long period”. 113. See ANDERSEN – FREEDMAN, Hosea, p. 303: “Verse 4 does not make it clear whether the items listed are used in the worship of Baal or of Yahweh. The list is mixed,

SYMBOLIC LOVE AND PERSONIFICATIONS

441

v. 4 is well known: Israel will be deprived of its monarchy and its Temple cult, which is to say it will be denied an intimate relationship with YHWH, although they will not cease to belong to him. Verse 5 announces that this situation will not last forever, but come to an end, when “after” (‫ )אחר‬that time of penitential deprivation, the Israelites will return and seek YHWH their God and David their king114. The correspondence between v. 3 and vv. 4-5 suggests that Gomer’s deprivation of sexual intercourse symbolizes Israel’s deprivation of her intimacy with YHWH. The abstinence from “sexual relationships” between husband YHWH and wife Israel curiously symbolizes the absence of the monarchy and Temple cult. This remarkable image expresses well the mediating function of King and Temple. Only through their presence can a real “intercourse” between YHWH and Israel take place. In days to come, however, “the Israelites will return (‫ )ישבו‬and seek the Lord their God and David their king” (3,5). In other words, the betrothal promised in 2,1625 will now be consummated. Israel will be betrothed to YHWH for ever (‫ ;לעולם‬cf. 2,21), and she will know (‫ )ידע‬the Lord (2,22). As husband and wife speak to each other, thus the Lord will say to Israel: “you are my people”, and Israel (who was once not his people ‫ )לא־עמי‬will say: “You are my Lord” (2,25). The decisive point is that the sexual intimacy between a man and a woman are in Hos 3,1-5 used as symbols for the presence of the cult and the monarchy, particularly the presence of a messianic Davidic King115, through whom Israel is understood to be intimate with YHWH in a way analogous to a woman being intimate with her husband116. and could represent both intentionally (cf. cc 8-9). The Israelites will worship formally neither their true god (Yahweh) nor the false ones (the Baals). The wife will have no sexual relations, neither with her husband nor with her lovers”. 114. YHWH issues a charge against Israel “for many days” (‫)ימים רבים‬, which is to say “not forever”, but “temporarily”. In Hosea “for ever” is expressed as ‫לעולם‬, cf. 2,21. As the explanation of the symbolic act in vv. 4-5 clearly indicates, the command is temporary and looks forward to the “thereafter” (‫)אחר‬. WOLFF, Hosea, p. 62: “This interpretation of the entire chapter is consistent with the Hosean concept of a temporary judgment that serves the purpose of renewal (cf. 2,8f.16f)”. 115. BEN ZVI, Hosea, p. 92, reads Hos 3,5 in view of a future, in which Israel will have “a ‘messianic’ Davidic king”. He also observes that from the perspective of Achaemenid Yehud (the date of this redaction) the “exile” is not yet over, as Israel is neither re-united nor autonomous but still under foreign rule. “The readers of Hosea 3 certainly cannot consider themselves as living under the conditions of v. 5; rather they are still in those described in vv. 3-4, hoping for the time in which YHWH will metaphorically and finally consort with Israel, thus ending the period of lack of intimacy referred to in v. 3”. 116. See also ibid., p. 88: “Israel’s period of judgment is construed through the metaphor of sexual estrangement between husband and wife. A period in which there is no sexual activity between husband and wife is imagined as the counterpart of a period in which Israel has no king and no temple”.

442

PART II – CHAPTER 7

Ben Zvi points yet to another startling feature of the text. Although the expression to seek YHWH is not uncommon in prophetic literature (Isa 65,1; Jer 29,13; 50,4; Hos 5,6; 7,10; Zeph 1,6; 2,3; Zech 8,21-22), “to seek YHWH and David” (Hos 3,5) is very unusual. To be sure, YHWH and a human king can be the object of the same verb elsewhere (cf. Jer 30,9), but “to seek” was an activity that people were supposed to do only visà-vis gods, not human beings. As Ben Zvi points out, “to seek ‘X’ cannot but characterize X as something more than a human being essentially similar to all those who populate the earth (cf. Isa 11,10; Mal 3,1). In other words, the text intimates that the future David, the king of the children of Israel (meaning here trans-temporal Israel) is not just another king to reign on earth but an elevated, a messianic figure”117. This understanding of the Davidic king as the key mediating figure in the covenant is also reflected in Ezek 34,24, as mentioned above. Like Hosea, Ezekiel depicts the result of the restoration as a covenantal relationship and employs the covenant formula in his oracle: “I, the LORD, will be their God, and my servant David shall be prince among them” (Ezek 34,23; NRSV). Just as in Hos 3,5 (and also Jer 30,9-10) the restoration of the covenant is inextricably linked with the Davidic covenant118. The prepositional expression “in their midst” does in fact recall the aforementioned element of the covenant formula “I will dwell in their midst” (cf. Exod 29,45-46; Lev 26,12-13)119. For Ezekiel therefore, “[the new David] symbolizes the presence of Yahweh in the midst of his people”120. Both Hosea and Ezekiel thus view the new David as the key player in the restoration of Israel’s covenant. On the background of Hosea’s marriage symbolism, however, this meant that the role of the bridegroom, which traditionally belonged to YHWH, came to be occupied by the expected Davidic king, from which the expectation of a messianic wedding developed (cf. Psalm 45, see II, below). These late strands of the book of Hosea are furthermore an important witness to the merging of two currents which according to the theory of the “Two Yahwisms” established by Francolino Gonçalvès were originally distinct121. According to Gonçalvès, the Old Testament testifies to 117. Ibid., p. 89. 118. See J. WILLITTS, Matthew’s Messianic Shepherd-King: In Search of ‘The Lost Sheep of the House of Israel’ (BZNW, 147), Berlin, De Gruyter, 2007, p. 63. 119. See D.I. BLOCK, Bringing Back David: Ezechiel’s Messianic Hope, in P.E. SATTERTHWAITE (ed.), The Lord’s Anointed: Interpretation of Old Testament Messianic Texts, Carlisle, Paternoster, 1995, 167-188, p. 177. 120. Ibid. 121. See GONÇALVÈS, Deux systèmes religieux; ID., Iavé, Deus de justiça e de bênção, Deus de amor e de salvação, in Cadernos Instituto S. Tomás de Aquino 14 (2009) 107-152;

SYMBOLIC LOVE AND PERSONIFICATIONS

443

the existence of two originally competing forms of Yahwism that eventually merged. Centered around Jerusalem and its Kingship and Temple cult one finds a Yahwism founded on the general ANE myth of creation, i.e., Creation Yahwism. YHWH as the creator and conqueror of chaos is conceived of as the king of the universe who establishes justice, the earthly king being his deputy in the act preserving the order of creation and justice in the world. This form of Yahwism is not based on a prophetic revelation but rather mediated through the created order and is therefore universal, concerning primarily justice in the social world. The books of Amos and Isaiah, as well as the Wisdom compositions of Job and Proverbs, are its most clear expressions. The other form of Yahwism is related to the Northern Kingdom. It is a Yahwism that is founded on the history of YHWH with Israel, whence the name History Yahwism. Its religious expression is unequaled in the ANE, as it claims that Israel has a unique relationship with YHWH, who revealed himself and his laws solely to Israel. It appears, for instance, in the book of Hosea, and after the demise of the Northern Kingdom it appears also in Judah, witnessed by Jeremiah, Deuteronomy, and Ezekiel. In this form of Yahwism, relational metaphors are dominant. Whether familial bonds or political alliances, they express fundamentally the same reality. Creation Yahwism which is centered on King and Temple cult has entered History Yahwism in Hosea’s vision of the restoration of the covenant marriage. In the same way as Creation Yahwism has influenced History Yahwism within the book of Hosea, it is to be expected that the composition of the Song, which is indeed deeply rooted in the royal domain (i.e. Creation Yahwism, see Chapters 5 and 6), has been influenced by History Yahwism, as its subtle allusions to the prophetic use of the marriage symbol demonstrate. It is impossible, in other words, to use Hosea as a witness against the merging of creation and covenant in the Song. 3. Allusions to the Prophets in the Song This long exposition of Hosea’s integration of marriage symbolism into covenant theology was meant to illuminate the import of the Song’s allusions to the prophets. As argued in Chapter 4, the Song’s final and decisive compositional act would have taken place at a time when the Torah and the Prophets were already established and assumed the role of authoritative Scriptures. With regard to these books the Song displays a subtle but distinct “canon consciousness”. Such “canon consciousness” ID., Fondements du message social des prophètes, in A. LEMAIRE (ed.), Congress Volume – Ljubljana 2007 (VT.S, 133), Leiden, Brill, 2010, 597-620.

444

PART II – CHAPTER 7

on the level of the Song’s production is suggested by a number of allusions to key prophetic passages with which the Song appears to be interacting and which suggest that the Song is attuned to the canonical story122. In particular, the Song draws the same motifs into the orbit of the nuptial symbol as does the book of Hosea with regard to the covenant. It alludes to the covenant stipulated with Abraham in the “mountain refrains” (cf. Song 2,7; 4,6, see Chapter 8, III, below, p. 502); it puns in a manner similar to Hosea on the covenant formula in the “refrain of mutual belonging” (Song 2,16; 6,3; 7,11); it alludes to situations of “exile” (Song 3,14; 5,2-7); it centers around a Davidic king (see Chapter 8) who descends into the Temple like gardens (see Chapter 11); it depicts the Beloved as the geographical and reunited land of Israel (Song 6,4; 7,1-7, see Chapter 8, III, below, p. 502); and it arguably even draws the nations into the love story under the guise of the “Daughters of Jerusalem”. Some of these allusions in the Song to covenant motifs in the prophets may be highlighted here. (i) “My Lover is mine and I am his” (Song 2,16; 6,3; 7,11). As numerous scholars have observed, this expression appears to be a pun on the covenant formula123. The Song’s formula is particularly reminiscent of the way it appears in Ezek 16,8. The Lord recalls how he entered into a covenant with Jerusalem when she was a young girl and her time for love-making (‫)עת דודים‬, that is, her maturity had come. I spread the edge of my cloak over you, and covered your nakedness: I pledged myself to you and entered into a covenant with you (‫)ואבוא בברית אתך‬, says the Lord God, and you became mine (‫( )ותהיי לי‬Ezek 16,8).

The two expressions “I entered my covenant with you” and “you became mine” stand in parallel and express the same reality: through the stipulation of the covenant she became his. The expression employed ‫ותהיי לי‬ (“and you became mine”) is clearly reminiscent of the Song’s thrice recurring refrain of mutual belonging ‫“( דודי לי ואני לו‬my Lover is mine and I am his”). By subtly alluding to the covenant formula, and depicting it as fulfilled, the Song thereby also opens up the reader’s attention to the other elements associated with the fulfillment of the covenant, namely 122. For an elaborate exposition of the highly developed intertextuality between the Song and the prophets, see the commentaries by DAVIS, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs; FEUILLET, Comment lire?; LACOCQUE, Romance; ROBERT – TOURNAY – FEUILLET, Cantique; and more recently SCHWIENHORST-SCHÖNBERGER, Das Hohelied. 123. See, e.g. LACOCQUE, Romance, p. 64, who calls the refrain of mutual belonging “an obvious imitation of Lev 26.12”. See also RAVASI, Cantico, p. 265; A. FEUILLET, La formule d’appartenance mutuelle (II, 16) et les interprétations divergentes du Cantique des cantiques, in RB 68 (1961) 3-38.

SYMBOLIC LOVE AND PERSONIFICATIONS

445

the end of the Exile, the gift of the land, the expectation of a Davidic King, and God’s dwelling in the country, namely the Temple. (ii) “I sought him but I did not find him” (Song 3,1-2; 5,6). In the prophetic conception of the nuptial symbol two moments in the covenant history of Israel are conceived of as a moment of separation between the partners. The Exile in particular (both Israel’s and Judah’s) is emblematic for the separation of the couple. Separation from the country, the Temple, and the King equals the separation from husband-YHWH, the time in which “they will seek the Lord but they will not find him” (Hos 5,6.15; cf. Hos 3,5; Deut 4,29)124. This situation is alluded to twice in the Song when the Beloved finds herself separated from her Lover in the night. In her painful nightly search for her Lover she expressly cites Hosea’s prophecy as fulfilled when exclaiming “I sought him but I did not find him”. (iii) “Voice of my Lover” (‫)קול דודי‬. In Jeremiah the motif of the “voice of bridegroom and bride” (‫ )קול חתן וקול כלה‬plays an eminent role in designating either the absence of the covenant relationship between YHWH and Israel, or its renewal. It resounds like a refrain throughout the book (Jer 7,34; 16,9; 25,10; 33,11) and is in fact the sign par excellence of God’s covenant with Israel125. Jeremiah announces three times the imminent end of the covenant, that is, the eventuation of the covenant curses announced in Deut 28,15-68, in which the disaster is signaled by the cessation of the voice of bridegroom and bride (Jer 7,34; 16,9; 25,10). Conversely, the sign of the “new covenant” (cf. Jer 31,31) will be that in the very same place (‫המקום הזה‬, cf. 16,9) in which the total destruction struck the covenant people, the voice of bridegroom and bride will once again resound (Jer 33,11). It is evident that the voices of the earthly grooms stand as concrete symbols for the resounding of the voices of the heavenly bridegroom YHWH and his earthly bride Israel/Jerusalem. The Song seizes on the motif of the groom’s voice. The “voice of my Lover” (‫ )קול דודי‬resounds twice at the beginning of major units (Song 2,817; 5,2–6,3), in which the Beloved is separated from her Lover, but his voice announces his coming or presence just beyond the obstacle separating the two (2,7; 5,2). Each time the voice calls the Beloved to overcome the obstacle in order to be with him, whether in 2,10 to get up and join him outside the house in the awakening spring, or as in 5,2 to open the door and let her Lover come in. In the first case, the Lover’s words, “Arise … and go!” (‫ ;קומי… ולכי לך‬Song 2,10.13) echo at once God’s 124. Jer 29,13 also echoes this prediction of Hosea’s and inverts it. See Isa 51,1; 65,1; Zech 8,21-22. 125. On this section see GASPARRO, Parola, pp. 92-94.

446

PART II – CHAPTER 7

words to Abraham in Gen 12,1, the call to leave his homeland and go to the country that God is going to show him, and the call to Jerusalem/ Zion in Isa 51,17 (‫)קומי‬, 52,1-2 to rise from her captivity126. In the same Isaian context the prophet announces the arrival of a messenger upon the mountains (‫ ;על־ההרים‬Isa 52,7; cf. Song 2,8) who announces peace to Zion and that her God is the king who returns to Zion and will himself guide Israel back to Jerusalem (Isa 52,7-12). The Song indicates a similar time of eschatological salvation by the exuberant signs of life and fecundity so typical of springtime. The winter of Exile is over (Song 2,1013). The voice of the Lover King is now calling his beloved bride to rise and leave the place of her exile, he has come at last to restore Jerusalem (Song 2,15; cf. Lam 4,7) and lead the people back to Zion for the messianic wedding that is to be celebrated there (Song 3,6-11; cf. Psalm 45 below). The second passage that opens with the Lover’s voice (‫קול דודי‬, Song 5,2) is also punctuated with allusions to prophets’ oracles of salvation. Song 5,4b is an almost verbatim echo of Jer 31,20 “my inmost being yearns for him” (‫)המו מעי לו‬, though in Jeremiah it is God’s for Ephraim. This allusion implies that even though at first reluctant to answer the Lover’s voice beckoning (5,2), Israel is finally reciprocating God’s tender feelings towards her (5,4), she rises (cf. 2,10.13) ready for the loving encounter, when – alas – he has disappeared. She seeks him but does not find him (Hos 5,6.15; cf. Jer 29,13; Isa 51,1; 65,1; Zech 8,21-22). The twofold resounding of the Lover’s voice (Song 2,8; 5,2) corresponds to the twofold mention of the Lover’s or his friends’ desire to listen to her voice (Song 2,14; 8,13). In fact, throughout the Song, the voice of Bride and Bridegroom, whose return Jeremiah so ardently desired, resounds at last. (iv) “Return Return oh Shulammite” (Song 7,2). The call to the Shulammite to return, echoes the prophetic call to Israel to repent and return to her homeland from Exile (e.g. Jer 3,12; 12,15; 31,16-18.21). This echo is powerfully underscored by the ensuing dialogue, in which the same voice demands to see the dance of the two camps or the dance of ‫מחנים‬. While the Hebrew ‫ מחנים‬means “two camps”, it is also a prominent place name, the etiology of which is given in Genesis 32. It designates, in fact, the two camps that Jacob had acquired by his two wives, Leah and Rachel, and thereby the totality of the tribes of Israel. As numerous commentators have observed, the request to dance the dance of Maḥanayim 126. See LACOCQUE, Romance, p. 88. The later Jewish tradition reinterprets God’s summons to Abraham, God’s call to the covenant people to leave their Babylonian exile, the place of Abraham’s origin, and return to the land of Israel (cf. Psalm 45 below).

SYMBOLIC LOVE AND PERSONIFICATIONS

447

and the subsequent admiration of the Shulammite’s feet is a poetic expression of the desire to see North and South reunited, dancing together in the sight of the Lover. This interpretation is corroborated by the ensuing waṣf, which reads like a description of the land of Israel (see Chapter 8, IV.2). The expectation of Israel’s reunification is a constant element of the prophetic salvation oracles combined with the motif of return to the land127. (v) “Shalom” (cf. Song 8,10). The motif of ‫“( שלום‬peace”) for Israel is heavy with theological significance in the Hebrew Scriptures, and so intimately connected to the concept of the covenant that the term ‫שלום‬ forms part of the specific covenant vocabulary128. In texts like Ezek 34,25 and 37,26, ‫ שלום‬designates properly the result of the conclusion of a covnant, while inversely the breaking of the covenant immediately the absence of ‫( שלום‬cf. Jer 16,5; 30,5). The purpose of a covenant is nothing other than ‫( שלום‬cf., e.g., Judg 9,15; 1 Sam 15,26). In fact, the term expresses the most perfect covenant gift granted by God to Israel (cf. Isa 54,10 – also in a marriage context). In the next chapter the Song’s notable pun on the root ‫ שלום‬will be further elaborated. Yet one may point out that in Song 8,10 – after eight long chapters of mutual longing and never quite staunched desire – the Beloved can finally exclaim “then I was in his eyes as one who finds peace (‫”)שלום‬. As André LaCocque rightly deduces, “Israel reinstated in God’s covenant of peace” (cf. Isa 42,19; 54,10)129. 4. Summing Up Instead of referring to the prophets’ use of the marriage imagery as “metaphoric”, I propose to recognize the symbolic power of the imagery which has the advantage of highlighting its participatory character in the human reality of love. The nuptial symbol as employed by the prophets is not another rhetorical device. Rather, it is rooted in the lives of the prophets themselves. It is the incarnated reality of human nuptial love which the prophets have recognized as being transparent to the mystery of God’s covenant love relationship with Israel. Human love is, in fact, the analogatum princeps for divine love. There is, furthermore, an essentially temporal and dramatic structure to the nuptial symbol. It is compounded of as many phases as a conjugal love story may have. Or in other words, to describe the covenant between 127. Robert, LaCocque, Feuillet, Kingsmill, have all elaborated this aspect. 128. See G. VON RAD, ‫ ָשׁלוֹם‬in the OT, in TDNT, II, Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 1965, 402-404, p. 403. 129. See LACOCQUE, Romance, p. 184.

448

PART II – CHAPTER 7

God and Israel in terms of conjugal love is to say that this relationship is “history”. It is also to say that this history has an aim, a purpose, an objective, a destination. The aim of a conjugal relationship is to become “one flesh” once and for all in an indissoluble union. It is this temporal and dramatic structure of the nuptial symbol exploited by the prophets for the expression of the historical dimension of the covenant relationship that in turn predisposed the cantos of the Song to be read (and arranged) in light of Israel’s covenant history with YHWH. Hosea corresponds to all these general characteristics we have outlined. The synchronic reading of Hosea 1–3 has allowed for an array of themes to emerge that orbit equally around the covenant formula and the marriage symbol. This convergence of themes shows, on the one hand, how deeply Hosea’s use of the marriage symbol is rooted in the covenant history of Israel and how it is perfectly “in tune” with the eschatological vision of the covenant formula as envisioned by the priestly texts of the Pentateuch and by the prophets Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Zechariah. For as with these latter texts, Hosea too sees the future realization of the covenant history expressed as the consummation of a marriage in the return to the now paradisiacal land, the reunification of North and South under one Davidic King, God’s indwelling presence, and the knowledge of the Lord. Through his subtle integration of King and Temple into the marriage metaphor, Hosea skillfully joins two disparate traditions: the northern concept of a covenant relationship between YHWH and Israel, always expressed in some relational metaphor, and the southern concept, according to which King and Temple are the binding forces between Israel and YHWH. In this manner, the way is paved for the reading of a royal love poem, such as the Song, in view of both the more historically informed covenant relationship between God and Israel, and the relationship between Israel and the storied King Solomon, the paradigmatic son of David and constructor of the First Temple. The Song is, on the one hand, fundamentally rooted in the royal tradition and in the expectations of the Temple milieu of Jerusalem (see Chapters 9 to 11). At the same time, through its recurring intertextuality with the prophetic books of Hosea and Jeremiah, it attunes the dynamics of its protagonists’ love relationship to the historical dimension of God’s love story with Israel. The Lover King is the bridegroom, the Beloved is Israel the spouse, the Temple and the Land of Israel the place of their loving encounter. Their mutual belonging will cause the land to give forth its choicest fruits (Song 4,13-15; 7,3.14), the King will be forever bound in her tresses (Song 7,6), and Israel will at last find Shalom in his eyes (Song 8,10).

SYMBOLIC LOVE AND PERSONIFICATIONS

449

II. PSALM 45: THE WEDDING OF THE (MESSIANIC) KING The tradition of depicting the relation between YHWH and Israel as a figurative marriage is not exclusive to the prophetic literature nor to the use of explicit allegories as the naturalistic school claims130. Multiple scholars have adduced Psalm 45 as an illustration of an implicit “allegory”, or metaphoric text, that engages the same marital symbolism as the prophets with regard to the restoration of the covenant131. In particular, Psalm 45 ties in with Trito-Isaiah’s use of the nuptial symbol with regard to an eschatological wedding between YHWH and Daughter Zion. However, while the prophets attribute the role of the Bridegroom consistently to YHWH, Psalm 45 testifies to a later development of this tradition in which YHWH’s role as a husband is taken on by an eschatological royal “messianic” figure. In fact, Psalm 45 testifies clearly to the post-exilic hope for a messianic wedding, in which the bride, Daughter Zion, will be espoused by a royal figure132. Psalm 45 thus illustrates a further development of the king’s role as a mediator of divine-human intimacy (cf. Hos 3,5). Against this background, the author(s) of the Song composed a similar love poem in expectation of the arrival of this ideal son of David. 1. Parallels between the Song and Psalm 45 There are many striking parallels between Psalm 45 and the Song133. Like the ‫שיר השירים‬, Psalm 45 is called a ‫שיר‬, more specifically even a love song, ‫שיר ידידת‬, the only of its kind in the Psalter and reminiscent of the allegorical love song on the vineyard Israel in Isaiah 5, the first line of which reads ‫“( אשירה נא לידידי שירת דודי‬I will sing to my beloved the song of my lover”). The term ‫( ידיד‬beloved) is found only nine times in the Old Testament. Five times it designates someone beloved by YHWH, 130. See introduction to this chapter and Chapter 1, I.4.b, above, p. 11. 131. See R.J. TOURNAY, Les affinités du Ps. xlv avec le Cantique des cantiques et leur interprétation messianique, in A.W. GEORGE (ed.), Congress Volume – Bonn 1962 (VT.S, 9), Leiden, Brill, 1963, 168-212; GERHARDS, Hohelied, pp. 497-503; SCHWIENHORSTSCHÖNBERGER, Das Hohelied, p. 103; ID., Allegory, pp. 32-33; D. BÖHLER, Das Hohelied und die Tochter Zion, in L. SCHWIENHORST-SCHÖNBERGER (ed.), Das Hohelied im Konflikt der Interpretationen (ÖBS, 47), Frankfurt a.M., Lang, 2017, 141-159, pp. 151-154. See extensively the recent monograph by K. KREMSER, Die Hochzeit des Königs: Exegetisch Theologische Untersuchungen zu Psalm 45 (ÖBS, 51), Berlin – Bern, Lang, 2019 (unfortunately this chapter had been written before the publication of this important book). 132. See F.-L. HOSSFELD – E. ZENGER, Die Psalmen: Psalm 1–50 (NEB.AT, 1), Würzburg, Echter, 1993, p. 279. See also D.C. MITCHELL, The Message of the Psalter: An Eschatological Programme in the Book of Psalms (JSOTS, 252), Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press, 1997, p. 251, who furthermore sees this hope testified to in Zech 9,9. 133. For this whole passage see TOURNAY, Affinités, pp. 168-173.

450

PART II – CHAPTER 7

i.e. Benjamin (Deut 33,12), Jeremiah (Jer 11,15), Israel (Ps 60,7; 108,7), and Solomon (Ps 127,7). Once it designates the Temple (Ps 84,2), and twice YHWH himself (Isaiah 5). The term thus always appears to designate a person in an intimate relationship with YHWH, if not YHWH himself. Given the close parallel with the root ‫ דודי‬that occurs twenty-six times in the Song, and the reminiscence of Solomon’s own name, who according to 2 Sam 12,25 was named ‫( ידידיה‬Beloved of the Lord), the Psalm’s title is one of many elements that connects it to the Song. The Song is ascribed to Solomon, renowned for his great wisdom. Psalm 45 is called a ‫משכיל‬, a designation that traditionally has been understood as a Psalm with wisdom elements134: εἰς σύνεσιν (G), eruditionis (V), “good insight” (Tg)135. Furthermore, the title contains the indication ‫על ששנים‬, which is thought to refer to the melody according to which the psalm was to be played. It is translated as pro liliis (V), “according to lilies” (RSV), or “des lys” (JB). One might recall here the prominent role the ‫ שושנים‬play in the Song (cf. 2,1.2.16; 4,5; 5,13; 6,2.3; 7,3). There are furthermore a number of motifs that connect Psalm 45 and the Song. Whether read allegorically, dramatically, cultically, or naturalistically, there is a long-standing tradition of identifying the two main characters of the Song, the one who wears the garments of Solomon and the woman he loves, as King Solomon and the daughter of Pharaoh136. A similar allocation of roles is found in Psalm 45. The messianic king of Psalm 45 bears the traits of an idealized King Solomon in whom Nathan’s prophecy to David in 2 Sam 7,13-15 comes to its fulfillment (cf. Ps 45,7)137, while the daughter whose beauty the king desires is seemingly of foreign origin (Ps 45,11). In both texts, furthermore, a Solomonic king desires the 134. C.-A. BRIGGS – E.G. BRIGGS, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Psalms (ICC), Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1906, p. lx, §26: “Maskil, … indicates a collection of meditations made in the late Persian period. … ‫ משכיל‬was formed by the prefix ‫מ‬ from ‫ שכל‬in the Hiph. consider, contemplate, and is, therefore, probably a meditation, meditative poem”. See also J.W. THIRTLE, The Titles of the Psalms: Their Nature and Meaning Explained, London, Henry Frowde, 1904, p. 137: Maskil seems “to describe a psalm of instruction, a public homily. It comes from a verb (sâchǎl) meaning to be prudent and intelligent, and has been explained as signifying a didactic poem. In the Septuagint it is rendered by forms of σύνεσις, ‘understanding’, ‘discernment’, implying a purpose of instruction in the psalms”. Cf. also C. SCHEDL, Psalmen: Im Rhythmus des Urtextes. Eine Auswahl, Klosterneuburg, Klosterneuburger Buch- und Kunstverlag, 1964, p. 318: “Der Psalm trägt die alte Überschrift maskil, das wohl nicht einfachhin Weisheitslied bedeutet, sondern ein Lied mit symbolischem Sinn. Wer es liest, verstehe es wohl. Es handelt sich nicht bloß um ein höfisches Minnelied sondern um ein messianisches Symbollied”. 135. See D.M. STEC, The Targum of Psalms: Translated, with a Critical Introduction, Apparatus, and Notes (ArBib, 16), London – New York, T&T Clark, 2004, p. 95. 136. See for a brief overview, KEEL, Hohelied, pp. 18-19. 137. For the Solomonic identity of the king in Psalm 45, see TOURNAY, Affinités, pp. 187188.

SYMBOLIC LOVE AND PERSONIFICATIONS

451

beauty of a woman for himself. The king of Psalm 45, like the Lover of the Song, is distinguished among his companions (cf. Ps 45,8; Song 1,7). The Bride in the Psalm is surrounded by virgins and friends (Ps 45,15, ‫ בתולות‬and ‫)רעות‬, she is preferred over daughters of kings (Ps 45,10); the Beloved of the Song is unique among queens, concubines and maidens (Song 6,8-9) and stands out among the Daughters of Jerusalem. The garments of the king smell of myrrh and aloe (Ps 45,9), just like the lips of the Song’s Lover distill myrrh, and the garden-Bride of the Song grows myrrh and aloe (Song 4,14), both of which are reminiscent of the sacred anointing oils in Exod 30,23. Moreover, the smell of garments is equally important to both texts (Ps 45,9; Song 4,11) as is the topic of their physical beauty (cf. Ps 45,3.11; Song 1,15-16). The importance of oils (cf. Ps 45,8; Song 1,3; 4,10) and the expressions of joy (Ps 45,16; Song 1,4) and the glorification of the name of the king (Ps 45,18; Song 1,3) are furthermore impressive parallels. 2. Similar Histories of Interpretation Like the Song, Psalm 45 belongs historically to the domain of ANE royal ideology, and has been interpreted as an expression of such138. The history of its interpretation reflects the same movement from a religious to a profane understanding. Yet in the case of Psalm 45, these two extremes of interpretation are reconciled in a convincing solution that acknowledges both the historical and the symbolic level of the Psalm’s meaning. Both Jewish and Christian tradition have read Psalm 45 as messianic. The New Testament already testifies to this in Heb 1,8-9, where Ps 45,7-8 is reinterpreted in the light of a Christological reading: “But of the Son he [God] says, ‘Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, and the righteous scepter is the scepter of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions’” (Heb 1,8-9; NRSV). A similar line of thought transpires in the Targum of Psalm 45, which explicitly names the king as “the messiah” (v. 3 ‫ )מלכה משיחא‬and identifies the bride as “the assembly of Israel” (v. 11 ‫)כנישתא דישראל‬139. However, with the 138. See S.H. HOOKE (ed.), Myth and Ritual: Essays on the Myth and Ritual of the Hebrews in Relation to the Culture Pattern of the Ancient East, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1933; and A.R. JOHNSON, Hebrew Conceptions of Kingship, in S.H. HOOKE (ed.), Myth, Ritual, and Kingship: Essays on the Theory and Practice of Kingship in the Ancient Near East and in Israel, Oxford, Clarendon, 1958, 204-235. 139. For the messianic interpretation of the Targum, see H.L. STRACK – P. BILLERBECK, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch. III: Die Briefe des Neuen Testaments und die Offenbarung Johannis, München, Beck, 1926, p. 679.

452

PART II – CHAPTER 7

rise of form criticism and the search for the original Sitz im Leben of the biblical texts, this kind of interpretation was abandoned, and exegetes sought to locate the origin of the Psalm in a historical event in the history of Israel140. A variety of proposals were made, which will briefly be reviewed because they are so reminiscent of the Song’s own history of interpretation. a) Form Criticism Hermann Gunkel in his famous Introduction to the Psalms classifies Psalm 45 as a royal psalm originating from the Northern Kingdom stemming from a royal wedding141. The myth and ritual school understood Psalm 45 to be another relic of “sacred marriage” rites celebrated yearly by the king in Jerusalem until the time of Jeremiah142. According to Artur Weiser, Psalm 45 is the only example of profane literature in the Psalter143. He calls it a song of praise to a young king and his spouse, a princess of Tyre (v. 13), composed by a court minstrel for the wedding of the sovereign. Hans-Joachim Kraus calls it a wedding song, and Klaus Seybold even goes so far as to label it “an old yellowed heirloom […], which was obviously preserved because of its old Hebrew provenance”144. The king and his bride have been variously identified: Ahab and Jezebel, Jehu, Jeroboam II, Solomon, Joram, and even Aristobulus I or a Ptolemaic king145. The parallels to the discussions regarding the Song’s origin are obvious. From the Song’s supposed origin as Egyptian love poetry, to its purported attribution to a historical king up to the Hasmonean period, for both pieces scholars seek some historical anchorage in the presumption that only uncovering the original Sitz im Leben will give true access to the meaning of these texts, arguing equally as in the case of the Song that biblical “allegory” should always be explicit146. 140. Artur Weiser, however, sees the messianic interpretation as the basis for the assumption of the Psalm into the Psalter: “Der Psalm hat schon in alter Zeit “eine Umdeutung auf den Messias erfahren und (hat) so verstanden in die Psalmensammlung Aufnahme gefunden”. A. WEISER, Die Psalmen (ATD, 14-15), Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1950, p. 233. 141. See H. GUNKEL, Introduction to the Psalms: The Genres of the Religious Lyrics of Israel (Mercer Library of Biblical Studies), Macon, GA, Mercer University Press, 1998, §5, p. 100. 142. See WIDENGREN, Sakrales Königtum, p. 78. 143. WEISER, Psalmen, p. 233. 144. H.-J. KRAUS, Psalms 1–59: A Continental Commentary, Minneapolis, MN, Fortress, 1993, p. 453; K. SEYBOLD, Die Psalmen (HAT, I/15), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 1996, p. 185. 145. See WEISER, Psalmen, p. 233. For a further list of proposed kings, see TOURNAY, Affinités, p. 169. 146. See J.S. MULDER, Studies on Psalm 45, Oss, Offsetdrukkerij Witsiers, 1972, p. 154: “There is no explicit allusion at all in the Psalm itself to the fact that it should be read

SYMBOLIC LOVE AND PERSONIFICATIONS

453

One weakness of these historicizing attempts, however, is that the language of the Psalm cannot precede the Persian period, nor even the Hellenistic period, during which Israel no longer had a monarchy147. A good number of authors have therefore proposed to see in this royal psalm a messianic psalm148, since, in the words of Roland de Vaux, “every king of the Davidic line is a figure and a shadow of the ideal king of the future”149. While recognizing the historical monarchic character of the royal psalms, Gerhard von Rad reads the royal psalms not so much in light of their historical origin, but in the light of the messianic expectations expressed in them150. Hans-Joachim Kraus follows this line of interpretation and recognizes in the magnificence of the king depicted here, which surpasses any historical reality, the Urbild of YHWH’s anointed one, who represents God’s royal presence on earth151. If this psalm had in fact been composed for Solomon, the son of David, as some authors have proposed, it would have been “bivalent” from the moment of its composition, that is, charged with a messianic meaning in its historical literal sense152. Such is, in fact, the interpretation attested to by Heb 1,8-9 and by the Targum, as well as a number of authors in the nineteenth century153. b) The Anthological Method and Redaction Criticism Two different approaches gradually advanced a symbolic interpretation of the Psalm that was historically justified rather than a historicizing one. First, applying André Robert’s méthode anthologique, Raymond Jacques Tournay and Alfons Deissler offered a reading that recognized in the subtle intertextual allusions of the Psalm a scribe’s expression of post-exilic expectations, namely, hope for a messianic wedding of the Messiah-King with the people of God154. Joachim Becker subsequently examined Psalm 45 as a kind of allegory, which, however, is normal for the allegories in the Old Testament: Jdg. 9,16; Isa. 5,7; Jer. 3,1-5; Ez. 16,1-3; Os. 1:2-7; 3:1-5”. 147. See M.-J. LAGRANGE, Notes sur le Messianisme dans les Psaumes, in RB 14 (1905) 39-57, p. 55. 148. See G. VON RAD, Erwägungen zu den Königspsalmen, 1940-1941, in ZAW 58 (1941) 216-228, p. 222; H.-J. KRAUS, Psalmen. Teilband 1: Psalmen 1–59 (BKAT, 15/1), Neukirchen-Vluyn, Neukirchener Verlag, 1978, p. 493. 149. R. DE VAUX, Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions, New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1961, p. 110. 150. See VON RAD, Königpsalmen, pp. 181-184. 151. See KRAUS, Psalmen 1–59, p. 493. 152. On the definition of “messianic” adopted in this thesis, see the excursus in Chapter 9, I.4. 153. For the references see TOURNAY, Affinités, p. 170. 154. See TOURNAY, Affinités; A. DEISSLER, Die Psalmen: Ps 42–89 (Welt der Bibel, 1/2), Düsseldorf, Patmos, 1964.

454

PART II – CHAPTER 7

for traces of redactional interventions and their possible intentions. Using the tools of redaction criticism, Becker persuasively showed that a presumably older royal psalm – on the model of Psalms 2; 72; or 110 – namely, vv. 1-10, 17-18, was later expanded by the insertion of the verses concerning the young bride, namely, vv. 11-16, thus revamping an original song of praise for the king into an epithalamium, expressing symbolically the wedding of YHWH with the eschatological community155. Becker’s claim constituted a breakthrough in the exegesis of Psalm 45. He showed that even though the oldest part of the psalm must have been a royal poem, Psalm 45 as such was not composed as a wedding song for a historical king. Rather, the wedding theme has been worked allegorically into the psalm156 . 3. A Symbolic “Messianic” Wedding Erich Zenger elaborates on this idea further and comes to the following conclusion, which is now widely adopted by Psalm scholars. The catastrophic experience of the Exile spawned hope for a renewed divine kingship over Israel, one that would establish justice and righteousness (cf. also Isa 9,1-6; 11,1-9). On the horizon of this messianic theology the old royal texts were read anew and reinterpreted, as was this old royal enthronement song (*Ps 45,1-10.17-18). The bride addressed in verses 11-16 symbolizes the post-exilic community of Daughter Zion157. The “messianic” 155. See J. BECKER, Israel deutet seine Psalmen (SBS, 18), Stuttgart, Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1966, pp. 80-90. The basic results of Becker’s study can be resumed as follows: vv. 2-10 constitute an original royal psalm praising a king with messianic features on the day of his enthronement. It is only in v. 11 that the psalmist turns to a female figure whom he addresses as “daughter” and whose beauty – one then learns – the king greatly desires. After three verses which address this seemingly foreign bride (11-13) and three further verses which describe her wedding cortege (14-16), the psalmist returns to addressing the king directly (17). The original royal hymn is distinguishable by the presence of the second person masculine singular suffix which recurs repeatedly throughout vv. 3-10 and again in vv. 17-18 which – at least in the MT tradition – are clearly addressed to the king. It is entirely absent in vv. 11-16. To be sure, it could be argued that the absence of the second person masculine suffix is to be expected in vv. 11-16, since the poet now addresses himself to the bride of the king. In fact, in vv. 11-12 the masculine is replaced by the second person feminine suffix. Nevertheless, the personal suffixes disappear entirely in vv. 14-16 which are in the third person and descriptive. Redactional work on the psalm is furthermore discernible in irregular stichometry: vv. 2-10 are constituted of seven tricola, in a meter of 2+2. This rhythm is abruptly interrupted with vv. 11-16, in which no clear meter of poetry can be made out. Only vv. 17-18 return to an even rhythm of bi-cola. 156. See ibid., p. 90. 157. See HOSSFELDT – ZENGER, Psalm 1–50, p. 283. See also TOURNAY, Affinités, pp. 197-205; M. MANNATI, Les Psaumes: Tome I, Paris, Desclée de Brouwer, 1966.

SYMBOLIC LOVE AND PERSONIFICATIONS

455

king was given a new bride, Daughter Zion, who was again to leave her father’s house, Chaldea, and bow down before her Lord and spouse (cf. Ps 45,11-12). Following her are the nations who were to celebrate and honor this messianic wedding. The one who had once been without children (Isa 49,21-23) will now become queen over the nations (Isa 49,21-23; 54,1-10; 61,10; 62,1-12; Zeph 3,14-17)158. Zenger does not settle the question as to whether the groom is to be identified as YHWH himself or as a Davidic king. According to him both interpretations are possible159. Zimmermann, however, reads the Psalm as depicting the wedding of an eschatological-messianic king with Zion his bride160. Markus Saur follows Zimmermann’s interpretation and affirms: “Es geht in Ps 45 nicht um die Hochzeit eines historischen Königs Israels mit einer ausländischen Prinzessin, sondern um die zeitlos gültige Verbindung des erwarteten Heilskönigs mit Zion, die im Bild der Hochzeit zum Ausdruck gebracht wird”161. The male protagonist of Psalm 45 is an idealized Davidic king, much like the one described in Psalm 72, to whom Daughter Zion, symbolic Israel, is being led in a messianic wedding. If the psalmist wanted to evoke the image of a particular king of Israel, then it is likely to be Solomon. Everything recalls him: the title “a love song”, and “a maskil”, as also the “grace poured out” on the kings lips (v. 3) are allusions to the great wisdom of king Solomon; his horses (cf. 1 Kgs 10,28-29; 2 Chr 9,25); justice and (vv. 5; 8) uprightness (v. 7) which the later tradition associates with Solomon in Psalm 72 and Zech 9,9 (see Chapter 9, II.4; II.5, below, pp. 606; 612). Verse 10 makes a clear allusion to the King’s harem and the many foreign princesses which he married. The šēgal standing at the right hand of the king is reminiscent of Bathsheba, who played such an important role on the day of her son’s anointing as king over Israel and hence on the day of his wedding (cf. Song 3,11). The Psalm thus alludes to an idealized Solomon as the Books of Chronicles also present him: a Solomon purged from his stains. Solomon as the Son of David par excellence – the one in whom in a first moment the prophecy of Nathan finds its completion when he builds the 158. See HOSSFELDT – ZENGER, Psalm 1–50, p. 279. 159. See ibid., p. 283. 160. R. ZIMMERMANN, ‘Bräutigam’ als frühjüdisches Messias-Prädikat? Zur Traditionsgeschichte einer urchristlichen Metapher, in BN 103 (2000) 85-100, pp. 87-90. 161. M. SAUR, Königspsalmen (BZAW, 340), Berlin, De Gruyter, 2004, p. 130. See also S. WEYERING, Der Messias Israels als Bräutigam der Nationen: Radaks Deutung von Psalm 45 entfaltet, in H. HOFER (ed.), Vernunft und Glauben: Gottessuche heute, Salzburg, Anton Pustet, 2016, 138-155, although he reads Psalm 45 as depicting the Messiah’s wedding with the nations.

456

PART II – CHAPTER 7

Temple – and to whom an everlasting throne has been promised (Ps 45,7; 2 Sam 7,12; 1 Chr 28,7)162. The following features are indicative of the bride standing for more than an individual foreign princess. The form of the appeal chosen in v. 11a is reminiscent of the appeal the sage makes to his disciples in the wisdom literature. “Listen daughter, behold and incline your ear” is a typical sapiential formulation as can be found in the wisdom literature (cf. Prov 4,1.10; 5,1). The invocation addressed to a daughter (‫ )בת‬sounds as if the psalmist is consciously replacing the disciple of the sage, commonly addressed as “my son(s)” by a community that is known under the collective term of “daughter”. Both in the psalm’s post-exilic context, as well as on account of its position before the two Zion Psalms, 46 and 48, Daughter Zion is the most likely of possible contenders for the identity of this community. The Bride has to forget her country and her father’s house (v. 11). The appeal addressed to her is an echo of God’s call to Abraham in Gen 12,1, who once set out from the same country in which Israel is now captive in exile163. Because of her forefather Abraham, Israel is – according to the allegory of Ezekiel 16 – considered to be of Mesopotamian origin. When Israel is unfaithful, that is, when she returns to the idol-worship which her father had forsaken upon leaving the Chaldeans, she returns to her impure origins164. Now she is called, once again, to forsake her people and her father’s house, Babylon, and return to the pure worship of her only Lord. By this she is to re-enter into a covenant, that is, wedding relationship, with him, who desires her beauty. The verb used for the prostration, ‫השתחוה‬ (v. 12), though frequently used in the context of courtly reference paid to the king, is the verb par excellence used in the worship of the God of Israel. The designation of the bridegroom as “your Lord” (‫ )אדניך‬recalls Isa 51,22 where the prophet refers to ‫ יהוה‬as “your Lord” (‫)אדניך‬, when addressing Jerusalem. Verse 13 promises the bride that even Daughter Tyre will come with a gift, and that the richest of the people will entreat her face. It has been proposed, instead, that a daughter of Tyre would here be identified as being the bride in question. Yet there is no reason for such a reading. 162. Several interpreters from of old have also noted the possible allusion in Ps 45,7 to 1 Chr 29,3 according to which Solomon would reign on the “throne of YHWH”. See MITCHELL, Psalter, p. 246. 163. Religio-historically it is important for Israel that Abraham was called to leave from the same geographical region in which Israel finds herself in Exile and which she will have to leave in order to return to the only place of legitimate worship. 164. MANNATI, Psaumes I, p. 112.

SYMBOLIC LOVE AND PERSONIFICATIONS

457

‫ בת־צר במנחה‬is a nominal sentence depicting Daughter Tyre approaching with a gift for the bride of the King. As in the case of Daughter Zion, the expression ‫ בת־צר‬has to be understood as an epexegetical genitive; thus “Daughter Tyre” indicates the people of Tyre. By evoking Daughter Tyre as the neighbor who brings a gift to the new Bride, the importance of this “royal wedding” is emphasized. In the time of the Babylonian Exile Tyre was particularly perceived as a rival to Jerusalem. While Jerusalem had been utterly destroyed and its population taken captive in 586 by Nebuchadnezzar, Tyre was able to resist the Babylonian besieger. Though Tyre’s King Ethbaal III was deposed and probably deported to Babylon, the city itself was never destroyed, and this must have a cause of vexation for fallen Daughter Zion. The (unfulfilled) oracles of Ezekiel 26–27 against Tyre give a good impression of the enmity that must have existed between the two cities165. Daughter Tyre coming with a gift thus underlines the unprecedented honor that will be bestowed unto the ‫ בת־ציון‬if she follows the call of her Lord. Daughter Tyre comes with a ‫מנחה‬, a term which has two main semantic specifications, that of “sacrifice, offering” and that of “gift”. It is striking, however, that in the Prophets and Psalms (where it is mentioned only six times) ‫ מנחה‬is almost never understood as “gift” or “tribute” but, with very few exceptions, nearly always with its sacrificial connotation166. The ambiguity of the term is probably intended in the present case. Daughter Tyre is at once depicted as bringing a wedding gift to the young Bride, just like the kings of Tarshish bring a tribute (‫ )מנחה‬to the anointed king in Ps 72,10. At the same time, she brings a sacrificial offering to Daughter Zion. The bride is said to be all glorious ‫פנימה‬, which could signify that she is all glorious “within”, or ‫ פנימה‬could also be translated as “towards the inside”, giving the verse a directional sense: All glorious the daughter of the king is [being led] inside. Out of its twelve occurrences in the Old Testament, ‫ פנימה‬refers ten times to the innermost of the sanctuary167, thus suggesting another double entendre. On the one hand, the Bride is described as being all glorious “within”, maybe alluding to her virtues168. 165. See M. GREENBERG, Ezekiel 21–37 (AncB, 22A), New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, 1974, p. 540. 166. See H.-J. FABRY, ‫מנְ ָחה‬, ִ in TDOT, VIII, Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 1996, 407421, p. 419. 167. Cf. Lev 10,18; 1 Kgs 6,18 (bis).21.30; Ezek 40,16; 41,3; 2 Chr 3,4; 29,16; 29,18. 168. This understanding is also reflected by the LXX: πᾶσα ἡ δόξα αὐτῆς θυγατρὸς βασιλέως ἔσωθεν “all her glory – as daughter of the king – is within”.

458

PART II – CHAPTER 7

On the other hand, the term appears to be an intentional allusion to the interior of the Temple, thus equating the Bride to the Temple of Jerusalem. This understanding of ‫ פנימה‬as an allusion to the Temple finds corroboration in the description of the Bride’s clothes. She is dressed in “gold embroidered” clothes (‫)משבצות‬, a term which otherwise appears exclusively in the book of Exodus referring to the decoration of the Ephod (Exod 28,13.14.25; 39,6), and to Aaron’s breastplate. It is highly indicative of a symbolic meaning of this wedding that the Bride is described inwardly like the Temple, and outwardly she is dressed in the same material as the high priest while a neighboring city brings a sacrificial gift. The dress of the Bride is moreover of “colorful weaving” (‫)רקמה‬. It is the same colorful weaving with which God had dressed Jerusalem in the allegory of Ezekiel 16 (cf. Ezek 16,10.13.18) before her fall. As in any wedding cortège in the ANE, virgins and friends are in the bride’s entourage169. Yet the difference here is that though the maids usually precede the bride as she is led to the groom in a true wedding cortège, in Psalm 45 they follow her. This is another hint to the author’s symbolizing intention. For what is depicted here is not a wedding cortège, but a liturgical procession in which the daughter of the King, Israel, precedes dressed in priestly gowns, with virgins and friends following her. At the end of v. 15 it becomes apparent that this description of the Bride and her entourage is addressed to the king, for the verse concludes “her companions are brought to you (masc.)”. The singing and rejoicing with which they are being led into the king’s “palace” (‫ )היכל‬underline the typical characteristics of a wedding (v. 16). ‫“( שמחה‬joy”) and ‫“( גיל‬gladness”) are, however, also typical terms to express liturgical jubilation (cf. Ps 43,4; Joel 1,16). Similarly the term ‫היכל‬ alludes also to the Temple on a symbolic level170. The virgins following after symbolize the nations, who according to Ps 48,8-9 will gather as the people of the God of Abraham. As bridesmaids they join themselves to Israel in order to worship the only true God in the Temple, a theme prominent also in Trito-Isaiah171. In this symbolic wedding an extension of Israel’s covenant relationship with YHWH towards the nations is already implied.

169. See C. SCHROEDER, “A Love Song”: Psalm 45 in the Light of Ancient Near Eastern Marriage Texts, in CBQ 58 (1996) 417-432, p. 427: “It seems that it was a custom that the virgins spent together the time of transition from the status of a virgin to that of a married woman”. 170. See HOSSFELDT – ZENGER, Psalm 1–50, p. 283. 171. Cf. Isa 60,3; 62,2; 66,18. In Isa 66,6 the Temple is also referred to as ‫היכל‬.

SYMBOLIC LOVE AND PERSONIFICATIONS

459

4. Psalm 45 within the First Group of Korah Psalms The symbolic identification of the bride with Daughter Zion finds further support in the position of Psalm 45 within the first group of Korah Psalms (42–48). The three psalms preceding Psalm 45 are set in the Exile. They are prayers from the heart of the community that is far from the place where God’s house was once erected (42,5), from the holy mountain where God’s dwelling is (43,3), the altar of the God of their joy (43,5). Psalm 44 describes the situation of the exiled community in dramatic colors (vv. 12-15) and asks God to awaken and come to their rescue (vv. 19-20). To this desperate cry for redemption Psalm 45 supplies a first response172. Some mots-crochets testify to the relationship between the two psalms by the redactor of the group of psalms. Just as the king who is said to be the Lord (‫ )אדני‬of the bride in Ps 45,12, God himself is called Lord (‫)אדני‬ in Ps 44,24. Furthermore, God is addressed as “king” in Ps 44,5 by a person who formulates his prayer in the first person singular just as the composer of Psalm 45 formulates his prayer in the first person singular to the anointed king. Ps 44,5 thus prepares the reader for a correct understanding of the king that will be addressed in Psalm 45. Psalm 45 announces to a distressed Daughter Zion that a new calling is awaiting her, just as in Trito-Isaiah where the God who seems to have forsaken her (cf. Ps 44,10) is preparing to wed her (cf. Isa 62,4-5). Contrary to Zion’s experiences, her God-king desires her beauty and wants to make her the mother of a multitude of sons (Ps 45,11.17). In this way Psalm 45 becomes also the hermeneutical key for the following Psalms 46–48 insofar as “the cosmic and political relationship YHWH – Zion (the city of God) is to be understood as a profoundly personal relationship”173. Psalms 46–48 thus form a triptych. Psalms 46 and 48, which share a number of motifs, lexemes, and even the same meter, give extensive treatment to the bride, Daughter Zion and city of God (cf. Ps 46,4; 48,1). Yet positioned in the middle, Psalm 47 focuses on the supreme majesty of the bridegroom YHWH, who is again designated “king”. God is in fact the “king over all the earth” (‫ ;כי מלך כל־הארץ אלהים‬Ps 47,8), just as Ps 45,17 had prophesied that the king’s sons would be princes in all the earth (‫)שרים בכל־הארץ‬174. God is king over all the nations and 172. In fact, all of books two and three of the Psalter seek to give a response to the tragedy of the exile. See STEINBERG, Die Ketuvim, pp. 239-253. 173. HOSSFELDT – ZENGER, Psalm 1–50, p. 279. 174. It is hardly coincidental that the psalmist summons to sing a maskil in Ps 47,8 to God, which is one of the titles of Psalm 45.

460

PART II – CHAPTER 7

his throne is holy (Ps 47,8; cf. Ps 45,7). The role of the virgins and daughters of kings in Ps 45,15 is now taken up by “the princes of the peoples” who gather as the people of the God of Abraham (Ps 47,8-9). Barbiero explains: Just as in Psalm 45, so also in the three following psalms the relationship of the king with the holy city and the nations is twofold. For on the one hand, there is a battle fought by the king against the people (Ps 45,6 “people fall under you”), and the people attack the holy city (Ps 46,4.7; 47,4; 48,59). In both cases the God of Israel is victorious. At the same time, as a consequence of this victory the people turn from being enemies to being the allies of Israel (Ps 47,9-10). They have now become the “friends” that follow the bride in order to adore the king in his temple (Ps 45,15-16)175.

5. Conclusion Psalm 45, though now appearing to us under the form of an epithalamium, was arguably not composed as a wedding song from the outset. Rather, an original royal hymn – probably a psalm composed for the enthronement of the king – was at a later stage redacted and thereby transformed into an allegory of the covenant renewal between YHWH and Israel under the form of a messianic wedding. There is a great difference between a piece that is originally composed as a wedding song and one that by reworking and reinterpretation takes on the form of a wedding song. In the former case a certain consistency of composition can be expected. In the latter case the inconsistency in form and content gives precious hints about what might have been the intention of the redactor. The glimpse into the hypothetical prehistory of the text proved helpful as a key to the correct interpretation of the text in its biblical form. It delivers strong evidence that one is not dealing with a wedding song composed for the marriage of a particular historical Israelite king, but with a psalm that was composed to be symbolic in nature176. It is often assumed that the Old Testament knows no such thing as a Messiah-Bridegroom177. Yet Psalm 45, as interpreted by current scholarship, provides evidence to the contrary. Psalm 45 is an important witness to the existence of yet another constellation of the marriage motif. The 175. G. BARBIERO, Il secondo e il terzo libro dei Salmi (Sal 42–89): Due libri paralleli, in RivBib 58 (2010) 145-175, p. 149 (my translation). 176. BECKER, Psalmen, p. 90. 177. See the discussion in ZIMMERMANN, ‘Bräutigam’ als frühjüdisches MessiasPrädikat?, p. 85.

SYMBOLIC LOVE AND PERSONIFICATIONS

461

advance that Psalm scholars have made in appreciating this fact is an urgent invitation for Song scholars now to follow suit. If Psalm 45 was composed to praise or prophesy the expected wedding of YHWH or the Messiah with his people or with the city of Jerusalem, then the identification that is based on it by the New Testament of Christ as the messianic Bridegroom and of his Church as the Bride is not forced contrary to its literal sense, but emerges naturally from the text in the light of the Christ-event. Similarly, the Song has not been read merely as symbolic of the love relationship between YHWH and Israel, but as the New Testament, the Midrash, and the Targum attest, it was also read as symbolic of the royal Messiah’s love and coming to wed Israel. In light of its many parallels with Psalm 45 then, it stands to reason that the Song represents a similar artistic symbolic composition whose audience could easily identify its Lover King with YHWH or his anointed Davidic deputy (see Chapters 8 and 9) and the Beloved as standing for corporate Israel.

III. PERSONIFICATIONS

OF ISRAEL

As the example of Psalm 45 demonstrates, biblical texts with multitiered meanings need not always be explicit. There exists yet another biblical literary device, namely, symbolic personification, important for this study. From post-exilic times on, biblical figures serve as symbolic personifications of Israel with increasing frequency. In fact, these personifications are often shaped as inner-biblical typologies178. One example is Sarai in Pharaoh’s Harem (Genesis 12). As the mother of Israel, she foreshadows in her own life the destiny of her children, the people of Israel who are captive in Egypt179. In fact, the story in Gen 12,1020 presents Sarai’s “captivity” in Pharaoh’s harem and subsequent release as a prefiguration of the Exodus. A famine in the land of Canaan forces the ancestral couple to sojourn in Egypt (Gen 12,10, cf. Gen 47,4) where the life of a male is in danger, while that of a female is spared so as to exploit her sexually, just as the young boys of the Israelites will be killed, while the girls are left alive (Exodus 2). God strikes Pharaoh and his house 178. On inner-biblical typologies, see FISHBANE, Biblical Interpretation, pp. 350379. 179. See J. JOOSTEN, Abram and Sarai in Egypt (Genesis 12,10-20), in L. KOGAN – N. KOSLOVA – S. LOESOV (eds.), Babel und Bibel 6: Annual of Ancient Near Eastern, Old Testament, and Semitic Studies (Orientalia et Classica: Papers of the Institute of Oriental and Classical Studies, 43), Winona Lake, IN, Eisenbrauns, 2013, 369-381.

462

PART II – CHAPTER 7

with a plague (‫ )נגע‬because of Sarai and thus forces the ruler to send (‫ )שלח‬Abraham and Sarai out of Egypt, just as the Lord strikes Pharaoh and the Egyptians with a plague (‫ )נגע‬so that Pharaoh will send (‫)שלח‬ Israel out from Egypt (Exod 11,1). Upon leaving, Abraham is enriched with gifts (Gen 12,16; 13,2), just as the Israelites will leave Egypt rich in jewelry of silver, gold, and clothing (Exod 12,35). Abraham and Sarai’s sojourn in Egypt is clearly intended to prefigure the destiny of their descendants180. “What happened to the fathers is a sign for the later generations”, explains a Hebrew proverb181. The story of Joseph’s descent to Egypt and subsequent ascent to the highest post in the land, second only to Pharaoh, represents a similar typological portent. As Jon D. Levenson explains, the Joseph cycle “adumbrates the great national epic in which the people of God, ‘Israel […] My first born son’ (Exod 4,22), leaves the Promised Land in extremis, endures enslavement and attempted genocide in Egypt, and yet, because of the mysterious grace of God, marches out triumphantly”182. Like the story of Sarai in Pharaoh’s harem, so also the Joseph story is “a pre-enactment of the fate of the Israelites in Egypt”, for which it serves as an archetype183. Just as Joseph’s unjust suffering in Egypt eventually brought about his own elevation (cf. Gen 41,40-44) for the good not only of his own people (cf. Gen 50,20) but also for the profit of a foreign nation (cf. Gen 41,47-49.5357; 47,13-26), so also Israel’s diaspora existence is expected to bring about the elevation of Israel among the nations for its own good and that of the whole world184. It is in fact a striking biblical pattern that in the opening chapters of new cycles one often finds a personage embodying in his own life the imminent fate of his people. Thus, similar to Abraham and Sarai’s sojourn in Egypt (which opens the patriarchal cycle) and the Joseph story (which bridges the patriarchs’ cycle with the Exodus), the first four chapters of Exodus recount the life of Moses from his childhood to the moment of the theophany and his call (Exodus 1–4) as a typological foreshadowing of the 180. On the whole paragraph and for a detailed comparison, see U.M.D. CASSUTO, Commentary on the Book of Genesis. Part II: From Noah to Abraham: Genesis VI.9– XI.32. With an Appendix: A Fragment of Part III, Jerusalem, Magnes Press, 1964, pp. 334336. 181. Cited in JOOSTEN, Abram and Sarai, p. 375. 182. See LEVENSON, The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son, p. 143. 183. See ibid. 184. See MEINHOLD, Die Gattung der Josephsgeschichte und des Estherbuches: Diasporanovelle, I, p. 318, who has coined the genre term Diasporanovelle for Joseph’s story and elaborated how Joseph’s life-long sojourn in Egypt is understood as an encouragement to the primary and intended readers to work for the good of the nations.

SYMBOLIC LOVE AND PERSONIFICATIONS

463

Exodus (Exodus 5–19)185. Moses is saved through water, the very means which Pharaoh had determined to bring death to all the male Hebrew boys (Exod 1,22); his floating safely in an ark (‫ )תבה‬among the reeds (‫סוף‬, Exod 2,3.5), not only echoes Noah’s saving ark (‫תבה‬, e.g. Gen 6,14), but likewise foreshadows the triumphant salvation of the Israelites from the hands of the same Pharaoh through the waters of the Sea of Reeds (‫ים־סוף‬, Exod 14,16-30; cf. Exod 15,4)186. Like Israel, Moses prospers at first at Pharaoh’s court (cf. Exod 1,7), but then Pharaoh seeks to kill Moses. Moses escapes Pharaoh and has to sojourn as a stranger (‫ )גר‬in a foreign country (cf. Exod 2,22; 18,3) – for forty years according to Jewish tradition (cf. Acts 7,30) – just as Israel was a ‫( גר‬foreigner) in Egypt before he could lead his people out of Pharaoh’s captivity into another forty years of desert wandering. On Mount Horeb, at the burning bush (‫)סנה‬, Moses has his personal Sinai event (Exod 3,1-14) before he will lead his people to encounter God in a similar theophany at a burning mountain (Exodus 19). Commentators throughout the ages have pointed out that the Hebrew word for bush (‫“ )סנה‬intimates Horeb’s other name, Sinai, by way of a pun”187. Another such typological personification of the people of Israel in a mother of Israel is of Hannah in 1 Samuel 1–2, cast as a second Rachel, the favorite but sterile wife of her husband. Hannah’s request for a child (‫ ;שאל‬cf. 1 Sam 1,17.20.27; 2,20) typifies Israel’s request for a king (cf. 8,20; 12,30). “Having asked (‫ )שאל‬him of the Lord” (1 Sam 1,20; cf. 1,2728), Hannah will give birth to the one who will gift Israel with its first king Saul (‫)שאול‬188. With good reason Robert Polzin affirms, “the birth of Samuel, in all its complex detail, introduces and foreshadows the birth of kingship in Israel”189.

185. See in detail, FISHBANE, Biblical Interpretation, pp. 14-18, and M. FISHBANE, Text and Texture: Close Readings of Selected Biblical Texts, New York, Schocken Books, 1979, pp. 63-76. 186. See R. ALTER, The Five Books of Moses: A Translation with Commentary, New York, W.W. Norton & Company, 2004, pp. 312-313. 187. See ibid., p. 318. 188. See R. POLZIN, David and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of the Deuteronomic History. Part Three: 2 Samuel, Bloomington, IN, Indiana University Press, 1993, pp. 20-26: “No other specific requests are made of the Lord in these chapters, so that there is a solid basis in the text for suggesting that the story of Hannah’s request for a son is intended to introduce, foreshadow, and ideologically comment upon the story of Israel’s request for a king”. See also more recently C. JERO, Mother-Child Narratives and the Kingdom of God: Authorial Use of Typology as an Interpretive Device in Samuel-Kings, in Bulletin for Biblical Research 25 (2015) 155-169. 189. POLZIN, 2 Samuel, p. 25.

464

PART II – CHAPTER 7

Furthermore, figures like the Shunammite (2 Kgs 4,8-37)190, Tamar (2 Samuel 13)191, Noemi (Ruth)192, Jona193, Sarah the daughter of Raguel (Tobit)194, and Esther195 could be mentioned. To elaborate on them would 190. See JERO, Mother-Child Narratives and the Kingdom of God, pp. 161-166. 191. The virgin Tamar (“Date palm”) (cf. her namesake, Judah’s daughter-in-law Genesis 38), and daughter of King David, is raped by David’s first born Amnon, the heir to the throne, and left desolate (‫)שוממה‬. She is the only woman who is ever described this way. The term can be used for towns, settlements, countries and the entire earth (cf., e.g. Ezek 6,6; 12,19; 19,7; 33,28; 35,12.15). In Isaiah the term designates the desolation caused by the Exile (Isa 49,8.19; 61,4; 64,9) and particularly the desolation of Jerusalem (Lam 1,4.13; 3,11; 4,5; 5,18). See BERGES, Jesaja 49–54, p. 295. After the rape she tears apart her ‫“( כתנת‬tunic”). Elsewhere in the Bible ‫ כתנת‬is a term used for priestly garment (Exod 28,4.39; 29,5.8; 39,27; 40,14; Lev 8,7.13; 10,5; 16,4; Ezra 2,69; Neh 7,69.71; Sir 45,8). In the Joseph narrative (Gen 37,3.23.31) it is a sign of the election of its bearer, as also in Gen 3,21. Tamar is possibly depicted as Israel/Jerusalem personified, who is violated through the abusive rule of the heirs to David’s throne. The loss of her ‫ כתנת‬symbolizes her defilement, much like the desolation of Zion in the book of Lamentations. The corruption of her leaders has led her to lie raped (common ANE image for the conquest of a town, cf., e.g., Jer 13,24-27), naked, desolate, and sterile. In this respect the significance of her name, “date palm”, bears mentioning. The date palm is the epitome of fertility in the ANE and according to Jewish tradition a symbol for Israel (cf. Song 7,8-9). On the parallels between the two Tamar narratives in Genesis 38 and 2 Samuel 13, see J. BLENKINSOPP, Theme and Motif in the Succession History (2 Sam. xi 2 ff) and the Yahwist Corpus, in G.W. ANDERSON (ed.), Volume du Congrès – Genève 1965 (VT.S, 15), Leiden, Brill, 1966, 44-57; G.A. RENDSBURG, David and His Circle in Genesis XXXVIII, in VT 36 (1986) 438-446; E.L. GREENSTEIN, The Formation of the Biblical Narrative Corpus, in Association for Jewish Studies Review 15 (1990) 151-178, pp. 165-166. On rape as an image of the conquest of a town, see T.S. KAMIONKOWSKI, Gender Reversal and Cosmic Chaos: A Study on the Book of Ezekiel (JSOTS, 368), London, Sheffield Academic Press, 2003, pp. 64-65; C.R. CHAPMAN, The Gendered Language of Warfare in the Israelite-Assyrian Encounter (HSM, 62), Winona Lake, IN, Eisenbrauns, 2004; B.E. KELLE, Writing and Reading War: Rhetoric, Gender, and Ethics in Biblical and Modern Contexts (SBL Symposium Series), Atlanta, GA, SBL Press, 2008, pp. 95-111; and POPKO, Marriage Metaphor, pp. 430-441. 192. Noemi personifies Israel as a widow returning sterile and hopeless from Exile for whom there is apparently no goel to procure for the continuation of her line, let alone the Davidic dynasty (cf. Ruth 1). See ALONSO SCHÖKEL, I Nomi dell’Amore, p. 260: “Se una generazione giudaica si sente vedova e senza figli, segua fedelmente il Signore, suo riscattore, disposto a prenderla in moglie e a dargli figli. Sebbene Rut non dia alla luce un popolo (Isa 66,7-14), dà comunque alla luce una dinastia regale, quella di Davide”. 193. See P. CARY, Jonah (Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible), Grand Rapids, MI, Brazos, 2008. 194. On the relationship between Raguel and Sarah as symbolizing the relationship between God and his people see G.D. MILLER, “I Am My Father’s Only Daughter”: Sarah’s Unbalanced Relationship with Her Parents in the Book of Tobit, in A. PASSARO (ed.), Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook: Family and Kinship in the Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature, Berlin – Boston, MA, De Gruyter, 2013, 87-106. Sarah represents oppressed Jerusalem that is close to extinction, while Raguel represents YHWH, the caring and providing father. Sarah, i.e. “Princess” an epithet of Jerusalem in Lam 1,1, is weeping in the night, living in exile and close to death (Tob 3,10-15). She is, however, saved through her obedience to and love for her father. Raguel provides for his daughter (Tob 10,10) just as God for Abraham (Gen 24,35). Raguel’s “loving absence” and pedagogy is parallel to God’s discrete guiding. 195. See J.D. LEVENSON, Esther (OTL), Louisville, KY, Westminster John Knox, 1997, p. 17: “Both figures [Mordechai and Esther] also personify the transformation of the Jews

SYMBOLIC LOVE AND PERSONIFICATIONS

465

go beyond the constraints of this study. The point is clear, however. Both the authors and the readers of late biblical books were accustomed to creating and detecting typological figures of Israel in the “heroes” of their literature. Particularly in Hellenistic times a considerable number of narratives appear to recount the story of individual women. Upon closer examination, however, it is evident that the heroine’s fate embodies that of Judah or Israel; she is the embodied personification of the people. The surface level story tells in fact a “hidden story” that need not be detected upon the first reading196. In this regard, the Susanna narrative, Jephthah’s daughter (Judg 10,6–12,7), and Judith are particularly significant for our study. These warrant more detailed attention, as they exemplify the literary mood at the time in which the Song assumed its final shape. 1. Susanna In his 1985 habilitation, Helmut Engel argues that the Susanna of the version of the eponymous narrative is “a symbolic-figure for IsraelJudah”197. The Theodotion recension – which is about 100 years younger and represents the text reproduced in almost every ancient and modern Bible translation – has subsequently changed the Susanna narrative into a story about “sex and crime”198 in which only the surface story is left. According to Engel, the older LXX version of the Susanna narrative was a hidden critique of Judah’s political and religious leadership. Susanna is the personified people of Judah who are in peril because of their “lawless” leaders, epitomized by the two lusty elders and judges. He discerns the following indications of an original symbolic meaning in the older version (SusLXX). SusLXX is neither spatially nor temporally located, because it is not meant to be historicized on a surface level. The narration begins with the words199 LXX

that the narrative in its larger outline reflects … Mordecai is an Exile from Judah who, by adhering to his ancestral traditions in defiance of the king’s command and at the risk of life itself, saves the lives of his people and becomes both second to the king and the beloved advocate of the Jews (2:5-6; 3:1-6; 10:3). Esther is not only an exile, but an orphan and a person who must disguise her ethnicity. Yet through good luck of mysterious origin, great personal courage, obedience to her foster father, and rare eloquence, she too rises to royal estate and effects the deliverance of her threatened nation. Those transformations from refugee to prime minister and from orphan to queen recall prophetic visions of restoration after Exile (e.g., Isaiah 54) and suggest that Mordecai and Esther, for all their particular character, are also allegorizations of Israel’s national destiny. See also GROSSMAN, Esther. 196. See on this whole section BÖHLER, Tochter Zion, pp. 147-150. 197. See ENGEL, Susanna-Erzählung, p. 182. 198. BÖHLER, Tochter Zion, p. 148. 199. On the beginning of Susanna LXX see, ENGEL, Susanna-Erzählung, pp. 12-15.

466

PART II – CHAPTER 7 5 περὶ ὧν ἐλάλησεν ὁ δεσπότης ὅτι ᾽Εξῆλθεν ἀνομία ἐκ Βαβυλῶνος ἐκ πρεσβυτέρων κριτῶν, ὃι ἐδόκουν κυβερνᾶν τὸν λαὸν 6καὶ ἤρχοντο κρίσεις ἐξ ἄλλων πολέων πρὸς αὐτούς.

About whom the Lord said: Lawlessness went out from Babylon, from elders who were judges, who seemed to guide the people, so to them were coming court cases from other cities.

The place named in verse 5, Babylon, is not understood topographically, but as the symbol of all evil (cf. Zech 5,5-11). Lawlessness, which characterizes the elders throughout the narration200, goes out from Babylon, that is, from the rulers of the people201. The introductory verdict sets the theme that the narrative will develop: the rulers are only seemingly steering the people, yet in reality they are Babylon, the source of lawlessness and sin202. In Susanna of Theodotion (SusTh), however, Babylon becomes the hometown of Joakim and Susanna, changing it to a mere topographical location. In the LXX the trial against Susanna takes place before the assembly of the town, while Theodotion’s places it in Joakim’s private house (cf. v. 28). Theodotion’s topographical indications de-symbolize and historicize the narration203. Lawless judges are the problem in both recensions. Theodotion, however, psychologizes and eroticizes the narrative by giving them personal traits and elaborating at length on their preparations for the crime (vv. 1218). While in the SusLXX Susanna is only walking according to her custom in the park of her husband (vv. 7.13 SusLXX), Theodotion turns the whole scenario into an erotic bathing scene that increases the lust of the two elders (vv. 15-18 SusTh). In SusLXX Susanna is called ἡ Ἰουδαία, which can mean either “the Jewess” or “Judah-Judea” (v. 22). It marks Susanna as transparent to the corporate people of Judah204. This symbolic personification of Susanna becomes most evident when, in the denouement of the narrative, Daniel proclaims in v. 57: “This is how you have been treating the daughters of Israel, and they were intimate with you through fear; but a daughter of Judah would not tolerate your lawlessness”. From this verse it is evident 200. See ibid., p. 86. 201. As ENGEL (ibid., p. 89) explains, the second ἐκ has to be understood, epexegetically, “from Babylon, namely, from the elders-judges lawlessness went out”. 202. See ibid., p. 90. 203. See ibid., pp. 181-182. 204. See ENGEL, ibid., p. 99, who points out that the embodiment of a group in a single narrative figure is not unusual for the Old Testament, notably in the case of Jonah and Judith. According to him, the female figuration of Israel is introduced into the Hebrew Scriptures with Hosea; it is found also Ezekiel, the Psalms, Lamentations, and possibly Esther.

SYMBOLIC LOVE AND PERSONIFICATIONS

467

that in the exemplary figure of Susanna, Judah, the southern tribe, is set over the northern tribes of Israel. While the daughters of Israel, symbolic for the northern tribes, are “intimate” with the elders by yielding out of fear to their leaders’ lawless proposals, the South is praised as being faithful in spite of its corrupt elders and judges. Yet in Theodotion’s recension Susanna is no longer the symbolic figure representing Judah-Israel. She is just Susanna, reduced to a God-fearing and law-abiding woman of exemplary conduct who is defamed but saved from death205. In SusLXX it is, notably, the two elders who judge Susanna (v. 29). They represent precisely the religious authorities that the hidden narrative targets with the charge of being the source of lawlessness. In SusTh the criticism of authority is considerably attenuated in so far as the two elders are reduced to being only witnesses in the process, but not – as in SusLXX – the judges206. Through this reworking the theological thrust is lost. Moreover, while SusLXX understands the attempted adultery as a symbol for the religious infidelity of the symbolic female figure, Theodotion reduces it to a mere sexual sin of the elders207. In the case of SusLXX we have an older recension of the narrative that on the surface level depicts a female figure that cannot be localized, either spatially or temporally, and with relatively few personal traits. But she has a name that is highly significant for the present study. The name “Susanna” does not occur elsewhere in the OT as a woman’s name208. Susanna is the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew plant ‫“( שושנה‬lotus flower”, “lily”)209, and is as such atypical for a woman’s name210. In Hebrew ‫ שושנה‬designates a flower (Hos 14,6; Song 2,1.2.16; 4,5; 6,1.3; 7,3), the shape of which decorates also the capitals in the Temple and on the molten sea (1 Kgs 7,19.22; 7,26; 2 Chr 4,5). It is also found in the instructions of some psalm headings (Ps 45,1; 60,1; 69,1; 80,1). According to Helmut Engel, the author of the Susanna story may have been influenced in the choice of his heroine’s name by the Jewish tradition which, already in the 205. See ibid., p. 182. 206. See ibid., pp. 162-170, 182. Note in SusTh 28–29 the omission of the title “judge”, its addition in v. 41 and the alteration in 50-51, where Daniel speaks to the congregation of elders, instead of, as is the case in the SusLXX, to the people. SusTh has turned the whole scene into a veritable court proceeding. 207. See ibid., p. 182. 208. Even in later literature it does not show up, it is attested in the New Testament (Luke 8,2). See ibid., p. 92. 209. Because of the LXX’s rendering ‫ שושנה‬as κρίνον, the Latin tradition has come to render ‫ שושנה‬as “lily”. As Keel has convincingly demonstrated, however, the correct translation is “lotus”. See KEEL, Tauben, pp. 63-69; ID., Hohelied, pp. 79-80; and also SUDERMAN, Modest or Magnificent?. 210. See ENGEL, Susanna-Erzählung, p. 93.

468

PART II – CHAPTER 7

Hellenistic times, saw in the ‫ שושנה‬a symbol for Israel211. SusLXX insinuates from the outset that the narrative treats the “pious Susanna” only on a surface level, and that she is in reality a personification of Judah, who suffers under her lawless leaders212. It is notable that the narrative makes no mention of any king, priest, or prophet. These wicked elders are the only rulers of “the people”, the “sons of Israel”. Engel argues convincingly that the narrative is a hidden critique of the corrupt Hasmonean rulers, against whom Daniel is set as a prudent and just judge, acting like the prophets of old “who declare to Jacob his transgression and to Israel his sin” (Mic 3,8). The narrative calls for Torah observance in times of an unjust regime213. One hundred years later, the political climate was different. Jews no longer held the highest positions of political or religious authority anywhere. Theodotion thus reshaped the originally hidden political criticism and theological Lehrerzählung into an “edifying legendary sapiential didactic or exemplary narrative” that encourages a Torah-observant Jewish lifestyle in the diaspora, despite those Jews who turned away from law and justice (v. 9)214. 2. Jephthah’s Daughter Dieter Böhler has shown a similar mechanism at work in the story of Jephthah’s daughter (Judg 10,6–12,7)215. According to Böhler, the Book of Judges takes up the widespread Mediterranean motif of a father who, through a vow, gets himself into the dilemma of having to offer up his beloved child or favorite slave (cf. Agamemnon and Iphigenia, or Idomeneus and Idamantes)216, and reworks it into a symbolic narrative in which the nameless daughter stands for the people of Israel and Jephthah for Israel’s leaders that ruin the people. Böhler shows in detail how the intricate intertextuality between the story of Jephthah’s daughter and Numbers 20–22 provides the key to the symbolic understanding of Jephthah’s sacrifice. Like the two elders in 211. Engel points particularly to Hos 14,6 and the term ‫ על שושנים‬in the Psalm titles, which the aggadic tradition unanimously interprets as “concerning the Israelites”. See ibid., pp. 73-75. 212. See ibid., p. 179. 213. See ibid., p. 189. 214. See ibid., p. 181. 215. See D. BÖHLER, Jiftach und die Tora: Eine intertextuelle Auslegung von Ri 10,6– 12,7 (ÖBS, 34), Frankfurt a.M., Lang, 2008. For the following summary, see ID., Tochter Zion, p. 149. 216. See T. RÖMER, Why Would the Deuteronomist Tell about the Sacrifice of Jephthah’s Daughter?, in JSOT 77 (1998) 27-38, pp. 33-34.

SYMBOLIC LOVE AND PERSONIFICATIONS

469

SusLXX, Jephthah also stands for the leaders of Israel, while his daughter personifies the people of Israel who are being sacrificed to death by their leaders’ disobedience to the law. Jephthah makes a vow for victory over the Ammonites, the first part of which echoes verbatim the vow the Israelites made during the Arad: Num 21,2ab Judg 11,30

‫וידר ישראל נדר ליהוה ויאמר אם־נתן תתן את־העם הזה בידי‬ ‫וידר יפתח נדר ליהוה ויאמר אם־נתון תתן את־בני עמון בידי‬

In Judg 11,30 Jephthah appears, in fact, to be following perfectly the script of Numbers 21 in his attempt to secure the conquest. Jephthah’s promise, however, deviates dramatically from the Torah template and perverts it to the contrary. Instead of vowing the foreign people to destruction (‫חרם‬, cf. Num 21,2) in case of victory, he vows the first thing to come out of the doors of his own house as a sacrifice to YHWH (Judg 11,31). As Böhler argues, the narrative constructs the person of Jephthah as a prefiguration of the future leaders and kings of Israel, who will finally forfeit the conquest (2 Kings 25). The story of Jephthah functions like a bridge between Moses and the Kings (as Reinhard Kratz similarly interprets the entire Book of Judges)217. This Brückentext clarifies that all the rulers of Israel will be gauged by their Torah observance. If they fail to follow it, they will deliver the virgin-daughter of their people to perdition – as in fact they eventually did218. The narrator, furthermore, links the story with four days of fast every year in lamentation over Jephthah’s daughter’s death. Commentators fail to find evidence for such a custom. Böhler, however, remarks that Judaism knows until today the ‫ארבעה ימים‬, four days of fasting and mourning over the destruction of Jerusalem (17th Tammus, 9th Ab, 3rd Tischri; 10th Tebet). Those four days of mourning relate to the destruction of the first Temple, as is already attested to in Zecheriah 7–8, particularly in 8,19: Thus says the LORD of hosts: The fast of the fourth month, and the fast of the fifth, and the fast of the seventh, and the fast of the tenth, shall be seasons of joy and gladness, and cheerful festivals for the house of Judah: therefore love truth and peace.

These four days of fasting appear thus to be a confirming indicator that the wailing takes place not so much for Jephthah’s daughter, but rather for those who she symbolizes, Jerusalem, its people, and the Temple. 217. On the book of Judges as a bridge between Moses and the Kings see R. KRATZ, Die Komposition der erzählenden Bücher des Alten Testaments, Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000. 218. See BÖHLER, Jiftach, pp. 364-368.

470

PART II – CHAPTER 7

3. Judith Judith, the Judahite/Jewess, is beautiful like the Jerusalem of Ezekiel 16; she respects the memory of her late husband and is blameless in her conduct (Judg 8,6-8). As a widow, she represents the abandoned and threatened community of Judah, whose name she bears219. According to David Carr, the narrative dates from the time of the Hasmoneans and projects the wars of the Maccabees back into pre-exilic times220. The author of the book of Judith has purposefully and obviously created a fictional narrative221. By telescoping together disparate historical characters and topographical names, like the Babylonian Nebuchadnezzar with the longdestroyed Nineveh, the author creates in the figure of “Nebuchadnezzar, King of the Assyrians in Nineveh” the archetype of Israel’s fiercest enemy222. The story is moreover transparent for Alexander’s campaign and the people’s distress in the face of Antiochus IV and Demetrios in the rededication of the Temple in Jdt 4,3.12223. The narrative, in fact, is replete with allusions to the entire Old Testament (e.g. Exodus 15, Miriam, Debora, Jael, David and Goliath) and demonstrates an extraordinary “canon consciousness”. As Böhler observes rightly, “Like Jesus Sirach and other products of the second century the narrative swims like a fish in the waters of the Old Testament”224. As Schmitz and Engel explain: Das ganze Buch Judith – die Schauplätze der Handlung, die auftretenden Figuren, die erwähnten Ereignisse sowie die Reden und Gebete – werden in ihrer Bedeutung erst voll verständlich, wenn die ständigen und verschiedenartigen Bezugnahmen auf die älteren biblischen Bücher miterfasst werden. Biblische Figuren, Episoden, Motive und Texte werden kreativ aufgegriffen 219. See ALONSO SCHÖKEL, I Nomi dell’Amore, p. 261; and A.-J. LEVINE, Sacrifice and Salvation: Otherness and Domestication in the Book of Judith, in J.C. VANDERKAM (ed.), “No One Spoke Ill of Her”: Essays on Judith (SBLEJL, 2), Atlanta, GA, Scholars, 1992, 17-30, p. 17. 220. CARR, The Formation of the Hebrew Bible, p. 15. Others date Judith to the time of Salome Alexandra and the invasion of the Armenian king Tigranes in 69 B.C., as a background for an allegorical rewriting of Israelite history with a female hero. S. ROCCA, The Book of Judith, Queen Sholomzion and King Tigranes of Armenia: A Sadducee Appraisal, in Materia Giudaica 10/1 (2005) 1-14; T. ILAN, Silencing the Queen: The Literary Histories of Shelamazion and Other Jewish Women (Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism, 115), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2006; G. BOCCACINI, Tigranes the Great as ‘Nebuchadnezzar’ in the Book of Judith, in G. XERAVITIS (ed.), A Pious Seductress: Studies in the Book of Judith (DCLS), Berlin, De Gruyter, 2012, 55-69. 221. See B. SCHMITZ – H. ENGEL, Judit (HThKAT), Freiburg i.Br., Herder, 2014, pp. 50-59. 222. See ibid., p. 51, Assyrian, Babylonian and Persian commanders are all telescoped into one type-enemy. For Nineveh as the arch-symbol of evil see also the books of Nahum, Tobit, and Jonah. 223. See ibid. 224. BÖHLER, Tochter Zion, p. 150.

SYMBOLIC LOVE AND PERSONIFICATIONS

471

und zu einer Erzählung umgestaltet, in der die gegenwärtigen Verhältnisse und Ereignisse der Hasmonäerzeit theologisch kritisch gespiegelt und nach den der Heiligen Schrift entnommenen Maßstäben beurteilt werden225.

Just as in the case of the Susanna story, Judith, “the Judahite” stands as a symbolic figure for that Judah which, unlike Judas the Maccabee, does not trust in war but in God, who saves his people if they prove faithful to him226. Significant too is the name of the periled town Bethuliah, which has been interpreted as being a pseudonym for Jerusalem, either by way of the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew ‫“( בתולה‬virgin”) or ‫בית אלוה‬ (house of God)227. Like the virgin town of Bethuliah, which stands in peril of being penetrated by the violator Holofernes, so also the Temple of Jerusalem is in peril of being profaned by the enemy. In conclusion, this section has highlighted the numerous female protagonists in the Hebrew Bible and the late Second Temple writings, who stand as personifications of the whole people. Since this was such a current practice, both in the modes of text production and reception, it is reasonable to assume that a late Second Temple audience would have been quite prepared to detect in the Shulammite of the Song the stand-in for an entity bigger than herself, namely the nation.

IV. CONCLUSION This chapter served to situate the Song within the scriptural, particularly the prophetic, trajectory of depicting the divine-human relationship between God and Israel under the symbol of a mutually exclusive love relation, that is marriage. It has been shown (I) that the prophetic use of the marriage symbol is more complex than what the objection allows. It is not simply about fidelity and punishment, nor just another metaphor, comparable to that of the broken covenant treaty for which Israel receives her due punishment. It is an archetypal and dynamic symbol that encompasses all aspects of the covenant relationship. It is performative insofar as the prophets do not simply employ a metaphor but live the message in their own flesh. As such, their own marriage relationship becomes a symbolic act. While many aspects center around this symbol, its core is the love that binds the partners in an eternal covenant of mutual belonging. The restoration of the 225. SCHMITZ – ENGEL, Judit, pp. 55-56. 226. See ibid., pp. 64-66, and BÖHLER, Tochter Zion, p. 150. 227. See SCHMITZ – ENGEL, Judit, pp. 60-61.

472

PART II – CHAPTER 7

perfect communion between “husband” YHWH and “wife” Israel is the primary purpose of the prophet’s use of the marriage symbol, not the denunciation of Israel’s unfaithfulness, which is only a means for that end. It has been furthermore shown that the marriage symbol is most suitable for the articulation of the historical dimension of the covenant relationship, as it encompasses at once the different temporal aspects of (an ideal) past, present, and hoped-for ideal future. It is this temporal and dramatic structure of the nuptial symbol exploited by the prophets for the expression of the historical dimension of the covenant relationship that in turn predisposed the cantos of the Song to be read in light of Israel’s covenant history with YHWH. In the example of Psalm 45, it has been shown that marriage as a symbol for the divine-human relationship is also employed outside the prophetic corpus (II). Scholars generally recognize that Psalm 45 does not reflect the historical wedding of an Israelite king with a foreign princess. Rather, an old royal hymn (vv. 2-10) is held to have been re-used after the Exile and extended by the verses referring to the bride (vv. 11-16). In this way a symbolic psalm was created as a Heilsorakel that invites sinful Daughter Zion to leave behind her sinful past and to return from Exile to Jerusalem where she will be espoused by a royal (i.e., messianic) figure. Thus while the prophets employ the marriage symbol to the covenant relationship between YHWH and Israel, Psalm 45 evinces a later development of that same current in which the role of the bridegroom is taken up by an eschatological royal “messianic” figure. This is a direct development of the king’s mediating role in the covenant relationship as already indicated in Hos 3,5. The Song, in addition to its many lexical affinities with Psalm 45, is equally a royal song, inscribing itself within this same faithful expectation of an eschatological messianic wedding (as the earliest traces of its symbolic interpretation attest to in the New Testament)228. It has been further pointed out (III) that the Bible in general, but particularly in those texts dating to the Hellenistic period, personifies the people of Israel in individual figures. As the examples of Susanna, Jephthah’s daughter, and Judith show, those narratives demonstrate a highly developed “canon consciousness” and reckon with an audience capable of identifying 228. For the earliest traces of a symbolic interpretation of the Song in view of an eschatological messianic wedding, see A. TASCHL-ERBER, Maria von Magdala – erste Apostolin? Joh 20,1-18: Tradition und Relecture (HBS, 51), Freiburg i.Br., Herder, 2007; EAD., Der messianische Bräutigam: Zur Hohelied Rezeption im Johannesevangelium, in L. SCHWIENHORSTSCHÖNBERGER (ed.), Das Hohelied im Konflikt der Interpretationen (ÖBS, 47), Frankfurt a.M., Lang, 2017, 323-375; A. FEHRIBACH, The Women in the Life of the Bridegroom: A Feminist Historical-Literary Analysis of the Female Characters in the Fourth Gospel, Collegeville, MN, Liturgical Press, 1998, pp. 157-163.

SYMBOLIC LOVE AND PERSONIFICATIONS

473

the allusions to other biblical books. Since the Song was composed during that same period, it must be expected that the scribes responsible for the book’s composition reckoned with an audience similarly capable of grasping the scriptural allusions and attentive to personifications and “protoRabbinic” puns on names and letter combinations.

PART III

RECONSTITUTING THE SONG’S SYMBOLIC HERMENEUTIC

CHAPTER 8

CLUES FOR A SYMBOLIC MEANING

It was argued in the previous chapter that both the nuptial symbolism, applied to the relation between God and Israel, and female personifications of Israel enjoyed high currency in the late Second Temple period, both in the prophetic corpus and the ketuvim. The present chapter will highlight certain clues by which the Song itself further invites a symbolic reading. First, the symbolic value of the names of the Lovers will be highlighted (I). Second, several passages that appear to identify the Beloved with the city of Jerusalem will be discussed (II). Third, the so-called sacred geography of the Song will be addressed (III). Fourth, the plants and flowers of the Song will be briefly examined in view of their symbolic significance (IV). Fifth, some striking recurrences of symbolic numbers are highlighted (V). Finally, attention will focus upon one core biblical symbol, which in my estimation lays the burden of proof on those who endorse a purely naturalistic reading of the Song: the symbol of a Lover who is at once a shepherd and a king (VI). I. NAMES

AND

EPITHETS

In poetry and especially in that of the Bible, names are never chosen at random. A name is ideally the symbol of a person, for it should express the essence of the one who bears it1. If the author has chosen Solomon as the hero of this love song, he has done so because the name of that king bore certain connotations in late Second Temple literature. The same holds true for the Beloved, whose proper name occurs only once, when she is presented to the reader under the name Shulammite (Song 7,1). It is not a coincidence that the names of both lovers, ‫ שלמה‬and ‫שולמית‬, are two variants of the same Hebrew root ‫שלם‬. Shulammite will even proclaim in the epilogue, “Then I had become in his eyes as one who has found ‫‘( שלום‬peace’, Song 8,10)”. If one considers, furthermore, the eight occurrences of the toponym ‫( ירושלם‬Jerusalem; 1,7; 2,7; 3,5.10; 5,8.16; 1. See M. GARSIEL, Biblical Names: A Literary Study of Midrashic Derivations and Puns, Jerusalem, Bar-Ilan University Press, 1991, p. 212; and C.S. LEWIS (ed.), George Macdonald: An Anthology, 365 Readings, New York, Geoffrey Bles, 1946, p. 9.

478

PART III – CHAPTER 8

6,4; 8,4), it is reasonable to conclude that the author plays with root ‫שלם‬ and all the key scriptural concepts connoted with the city of Jerusalem: “peace”, the kings of Israel, particularly King David and King Solomon, Jerusalem as the city of the great king and the city of YHWH (Ps 48,3.9), the location of the Temple and the capital of the kingdom of Judah, and metonymical for the people of Israel (cf. Isa 52,1-6). This section will highlight the significance of the names Dôḏı̂, Solomon, and Shulammite for a symbolic reading of the Song. The name Solomon will thereby be treated only briefly since ample room is given to the connotations of his person in the next chapter. 1. Dôḏı̂ ‫דודי‬ The recurrence of the epithet ‫( דודי‬Dôḏı̂ ) as an appellation for the Lover is salient in the Song. Neither the appellation Dôḏı̂ itself nor the number of its occurrences is random. a) The Occurrences of the Root ‫דוד‬ Words from the root ‫ דוד‬recur forty times total in the Masoretic tradition of the Song (including five occurrences of the lectio defectiva as ‫)דד‬. In precisely thirty-three instances it appears as an epithet for the Lover. In twenty-six cases it is the Beloved who speaks of her Lover as ‫( דודי‬my lover/my beloved); six times the Daughters of Jerusalem refer to him as ‫ דוד‬when talking to her (Song 5,9; 6,1); and once he is referred to as ‫דוד‬ by an unidentified voice in the ‫ מי־זאת‬refrain of 8,5. In addition to these thirty-three occurrences in reference to the Lover, the plural of ‫ דוד‬is employed once to address the friends of the two lovers (5,1) and, of course the name David (4,4) comes from this root. Moreover, in the Masoretic tradition there are five occurrences of a lectio defectiva ‫ דד‬referring either to his or her love2. She tells him twice that his love (‫)דד‬ is “better than wine” (1,2.4) and he echoes this, telling her how beautiful her love (‫ )דד‬is and, again, “better than wine” (4,10). Finally, she refers to her own love once more as ‫ דד‬which she wants to give to him in the blossoming vineyards (7,13). Thus in the Masoretic tradition there are forty instances of the root ‫ דוד‬in the Song. In the Song, numbers are not left to chance. Too many words have a symbolic numerical occurrence to be coincidental (see V, below, p. 510). Thus scholars have noted that the twenty-six times in which the Beloved 2. The LXX’s reading of the same word as “breasts” has been discussed in Chapter Four.

CLUES FOR A SYMBOLIC MEANING

479

refers to her Lover as ‫“ דודי‬my Love” corresponds exactly to the numerical value of the divine Name ‫ יהוה‬in Hebrew gematria3. Nor is it a coincidence that the total number of occurrences of the term ‫“ דוד‬Beloved” as the name for the Lover is thirty-three, which corresponds to the age of David when he began to reign and to the number of years that David reigned “at Jerusalem over all Israel and Judah” (2 Sam 5,4-5; 1 Kgs 2,11)4. Moreover, according to 2 Sam 5,4 David reigned forty years in total, which corresponds to the number of occurrences of the root ‫ דוד‬in the Masoretic tradition. Given that the name David (‫ ָ)דוִ ד‬is composed of the same consonants as the appellation ‫ דוֹד‬of the Song’s Lover5, the thirtythree occurrences of this appellation in the Song appear to be carefully calculated. The convergence of the numbers twenty-six, thirty-three, and forty points toward the identification of the Lover with both YHWH and his anointed Davidic king whom the Lord has set to be king on his holy mountain (cf. Psalm 2). b) The Meaning of Dôḏî In the Old Testament the word ‫ דוד‬can mean “beloved” or “love” (Isa 5,1; Ezek 16,8; 23,17; Prov 7,18; Sir 40,20 Heb.), corresponding to the meaning of its cognates in the ancient Semitic languages of Mesopotamia and Syria. It can also mean “uncle”, “father’s brother” (Lev 25,49; Jer 39,7f. = 32,7f.; Lev 20,20; Amos 6,10), as in its Aramaic and Old South Arabic cognates. According to Sanmartin-Ascaso, the meaning of “love”, “beloved”, is with all probability “the original meaning of dd in the ancient Hebrew (Canaanite) language, while the meaning ‘uncle’, which is found only in the Pentateuch and in traditions dependent on it, must be assigned to a later stage of the language”6. It appears that the prophetic books and the wisdom literature preserve the linguistic usage of “the pre- and non-Mosaic people which were still alive in pre-exilic Israel” and subsequently preserved in later texts7. It is significant that outside the Song the word ‫ דוד‬with the meaning “beloved/darling/love” also appears in the opening verse of Isaiah’s Song of the vineyard: “Let me sing a song to my beloved (‫)ידידי‬, song of my Lover (‫)דודי‬, concerning his vineyard” (Isa 5,1). In the context of Isa 5,1, 3. See BARBIERO, Song, p. 3. 4. See TOURNAY, Word of God, p. 38. 5. In the books Samuel, Kings, and the Psalms the name David is always spelled ‫דוד‬. The mater lectionis yôd appears in the books Esdras, Nehemiah, Chronicles, Zechariah, the additions to Amos (9,11) and Ezek 34,23. 6. SANMARTIN-ASCASO, ‫דּוֹד‬, in TDOT, p. 148. 7. Ibid., p. 150.

480

PART III – CHAPTER 8

it is clear that ‫( דודי‬my Lover) is to be interpreted as an epithet of YHWH, as whom v. 7 explicitly identifies him. As Sanmartin-Ascaso observes, “Both words [i.e., ‫דודי‬, and ‫ ]ידידי‬are used in an erotic sense: they characterize Yahweh as being in love with his girlfriend Israel, who here again is described allegorically under the well-known literary figure of the vineyard (kerem)”8. This appellation for God has put a number of exegetes at unease. How could Isaiah use “so familiar a term”9 for the Holy One of Israel? Some want to emend the text to ‫שירת דודים‬, “love song”, supposing that the final mem could have been lost in the text’s transmission10. Others, following a proposal first made by Cersoy, change the pointing to ‫דוֹדי‬ ַ in order to read “the song of my friendship”11 or “song of my love for my vineyard”12 – always in order to avoid the expression “song of my lover/ beloved”. There is no convincing reason to change the meaning or vocalization of ‫ שירת דודי‬other than for the avoidance of calling YHWH “my love/beloved”, considered inappropriate. As Stade argued already in 1906, “the ‫ דּוֹד‬of the prophet is YHWH. This is a linguistic usage ascertained by the proper names 13 ‫דּ ַֹדי‬, ‫דּוֹדי‬, ַ ‫ דּוֹדוֹ‬Δωδια, ‫דּוֹדוָ הוּ‬ ָ for ‫”דּוֹדיָּ ה‬ ִ . The evidence of the onomastics will be considered in the next section. Another way around Isaiah’s unsettling appellation “my beloved” for YHWH has been to translate it instead as “my friend”14. However, no convincing philological reason has been given for doing so. Rather, the words ‫( ידיד‬cf. Jer 11,15; Ps 45,1) and ‫ דוד‬are consistently found in the context of a love song: in the Song itself, in the allegories of Ezekiel (16,8 and 23,17), in the eros-laden passage of Lady Folly in Prov 7,18, and in various other vineyard texts (cf. Isa 27,2f.; Jer 12,10; Song 1,6; 2,15; 8,11)15. There is, therefore no convincing reason to either emend the text or to translate ‫ דודי‬as “my friend” instead of “my Lover”. From a text-critical 8. Ibid. 9. G.B. GRAY, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Isaiah: Introduction and Commentary on I–XXVII (ICC), Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1912, p. 84. 10. H. SCHMIDT, Die großen Propheten (Die Schriften des Alten Testaments), Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1923, p. 40: “ein Liebeslied”. 11. See P. CERSOY, who seems to want to avoid the word “love” at all costs: “Nous aurions l’expression: širat dôdai, qui signifie littéralement: le chant de mon amitié, et peut se rendre en bon français par: mon chant d’amitié, ou mon chant amical”. L’apologue de la vigne au chapitre Ve d’Isaïe (versets 1-7), in RB 8 (1899) 40-49, p. 44. 12. Ibid.; GRAY, Isaiah, p. 85. 13. B. STADE, Zu Jes. 3,1.17.24. 5,1. 8,1f.12-14.16. 9,7-20. 10,26, in ZAW 26 (1906) 129-141, p. 134 (translation mine). 14. BEUKEN, Jesaja 1–12, p. 133. 15. Ibid., p. 135.

CLUES FOR A SYMBOLIC MEANING

481

point of view, Isa 5,1, according to all evidence, has been transmitted securely. Sanmartin-Ascaso is right in asserting: The prophet is here using “beloved [my Lover]” ambiguously. On the one hand, Yahweh is his beloved insofar as Isaiah tells of him and speaks on his commission as a prophet. On the other hand, Yahweh is actually the “beloved” within the erotic allegory of the vineyard. To translate dodh by “friend” here would falsify the meaning and purpose of Isaiah’s composition. In this context dodh means “beloved” in the fullest sense16.

Thus we have a striking parallel in Isaiah 5 and in the Song of Songs. In both cases there is a song about the love between someone referred to as ‫ דוד‬and a vineyard (cf. Song 1,5). In Isaiah the allocation of roles is clear since it is an explicit allegory. The ‫ דוד‬is YHWH and Israel is the vineyard. Given the status of the prophet Isaiah – and the “canon consciousness” of the Song – one may reasonably assume that the same allocation of roles is at work in the Song. A late Second Temple audience would not have missed this reference. The vineyard symbolism would have been firmly established by that time as would the appellation ‫ דוד‬for YHWH clearly attested in at least one case. One may ask, however, if ‫ דוד‬might at some stage have indeed been a more commonly used epithet for YHWH, as some have proposed. c) Dôḏî an Epithet for YHWH? There is as yet no unanimity regarding the use of the word ‫ דוד‬as a divine epithet for YHWH at some point in Israel’s history17. It has been debated whether the term ‫ דוד‬may have been the reminiscence of an old Canaanite godhead called dôḍ18, a vegetation deity like Tammuz, or perhaps a common “kinship epithet for Yahweh”19, as suggested by the proper names ‫דּ ַֹדי‬, ‫דּוֹדי‬, ַ ‫דּוֹדוֹ‬, Δωδια, ‫דּוֹדיָּ ה‬, ִ ‫דּוֹדוָ הוּ‬ ָ in which the root ‫דוד‬ appears arguably “as a theophorous element”20. (i) The Oath Formula of Amos 8,14 A locus classicus for an assumed trace of a (divine) epithet ‫ דוד‬for YHWH is Amos 8,14. The MT reads: 16. SANMARTIN-ASCASO, ‫דּוֹד‬, in TDOT, p. 151. 17. See ibid.; and J.A. BJØRNDALEN, Untersuchungen zur allegorischen Rede der Propheten Amos und Jesaja (BZAW, 165), Berlin, De Gruyter, 1986, p. 260. 18. See H. RINGGREN, Israelitische Religion (Die Religionen der Menscheit, 26), Stuttgart, Kohlhammer, 1963, pp. 86, 242. 19. SANMARTIN-ASCASO, ‫דּוֹד‬, in TDOT, pp. 143-156; S.M. OLYAN, The Oaths of Amos 8.14, in G.A. ANDERSON (ed.), Priesthood and Cult in Ancient Israel (JSTOTS, 125), Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press, 1991, 128-149, p. 128. 20. See STADE, Jesajah, pp. 134-135.

482

PART III – CHAPTER 8

Those who swear by the guilt of Samaria and say: ‘By the life of your god. O Dan’, and ‘By the life of the way of Beersheba’. they will fall and never rise again!

What is conspicuous in this oath formula is the expression “by the way (‫ )דרך‬of Beersheba”, which is more than unusual for an oath. This is all the more so given that in the previous colon the prophet uses the expected form “by the life of your god (‫”)אלהיך‬. In an oath formula of this kind one expects to find the name of a godhead in its second part, or a powerful person accorded divine status21. The oldest attestation to the reading of the MT is a manuscript found in Wadi Murabba῾ât. According to its editor, Joseph Milik, the text was written only a few decades after the fixation of the textus receptus, probably in the early second century A.D.22. This important manuscript, containing the entire text of the twelve prophets, attests to the reading of the MT, ‫וחי דרך בער שבע‬, and “By the life of the way of Beersheba” (Mur 88, VIII, 5)23. Jerome testifies to the same reading, i.e., via. The Peshitta equally testifies to a Vorlage that must have read ‫דרך‬, since it translates ¿Ð{s (“way”)24. The Targum reads ‫ר־שׁ ַבע‬ ַ ‫ימוֹסי ְב ֵא‬ ֵ ִ‫“( נ‬the laws of Beersheba”), which is obviously an interpretation of the word ‫ דרך‬in the sense of law (Torah)25. The LXX, on the other hand, is either a witness to the earliest difficulty in making sense of ‫דרך‬, or to a different Vorlage, as it reads καὶ ζῇ ὁ θεός σου, Βηρσαβεε (“and your god lives, O God Bersabee”) in the case of the codex Washingtonensis, followed by the Vetus Latina26, which has deus tuus, or κύριος, in the case of the Codex Alexandrinus27. 21. On the oath formula “by the life of” in general see M. GREENBERG, The Hebrew Oath Particle Hay/He, in JBL 76 (1957) 34-39. Only during the second Temple period are oath formulas found with a place or an object. See OLYAN, Oaths, p. 127. 22. P. BENOIT et al. (eds.), Les Grottes de Murabbaꜥât (DJD, 2), London, Oxford University Press, 1961, Texte, p. 183. 23. Ibid., p. 187, l. 5; see also Planches, p. LVIII. 24. A. GELSTON – T. SPREY, The Old Testament in Syriac according to the Peshitta Version. Part III, fascicle 4: Dodekapropheton – Daniel-Bel-Draco, Leiden, Brill, 1980, p. 35. 25. A. SPERBER, The Bible in Aramaic. Vol. III: The Latter Prophets according to Targum Jonathan = ‫ יונתן תרגום אהרונים לנביאים‬:‫ כרך ג‬, Leiden, Brill, 1962, p. 429. 26. OLYAN, Oaths, p. 125, presumes that the VL’s Vorlage departed from Jerome’s “Rabbinic Bible”, as he calls it. However, to the best of my knowledge the VL is based on the LXX, wherefore its concurrence with codex W does not come as a surprise. 27. See J. ZIEGLER, Duodecim Prophetae (Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum, 13), Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 31984, pp. 7-8, 51, 202. Ziegler follows the reading of W. Three minuscles (26, 49, 106) also read κυριος.

CLUES FOR A SYMBOLIC MEANING

483

Three solutions have been proposed to the problem: (i) to re-vocalize the ‫ ֶד ֶרך‬as ‫ד ְֹרָך‬, “your council”, “assembly”, or “circle”28; (ii) to emend ‫ דרך‬to ‫ ;דדך‬or (iii) to leave the text as it is and translate accordingly. The first solution has the advantage of leaving the consonantal text unaltered. However, ‫ דר‬would still not make much better sense in an oath formula. Furthermore it is not attested to in any of the ancient versions. The third option has the weakness of calling for conjectures in its interpretation. The Targum is not helpful in the search for the original meaning of the word ‫ דרך‬in the context of Amos 8,14, for the equation of “way” with “law” is a Rabbinic interpretation, a meaning unattested in biblical Hebrew. It is likely, therefore, that the text is the result of some scribal error. The LXX alone may be a witness to a different text-tradition. Either the LXX read ‫ דרך‬and ventured a translation in parallelism with ‫ אלהיך דן‬in the first colon, making it ὁ θεός σου in both cola; or it had a different Vorlage. The double employment of the expression ὁ θεός σου, however, is problematic. Whatever the Vorlage, it would certainly have not read ‫ אלהיך‬as in the previous colon. By translating κύριος, the Codex Alexandrinus might be witness to an original synonym. On the other hand, the translator of the codex might have just been more attentive to the synonymous parallelism obviously implicit in the Hebrew and therefore translated “your Lord”, instead of another “your God”29. There is not sufficient evidence to settle the question. Based on the witness of the LXX, it could be conjectured that the Hebrew text originally read ‫ ד ֹדָך‬which was subsequently emended or corrupted in transmission30. The reading ‫דדך‬, “your Dōd”, is thus a synonymous parallelism with the previous ‫אלהיך‬. A misreading of dalet as MT

28. F.J. NEUBERG, An Unrecognized Meaning of Hebrew Dôr, in JNES 9 (1950) 215217; P.R. ACKROYD, The Meaning of Hebrew ‫ דור‬Considered, in JSSt 13 (1968) 3-10, p. 4. 29. According to V. MAAG, Text, Wortschatz und Begriffswelt des Buches Amos, Leiden, Brill, 1951, p. 140, n. 7, the LXX has not read ‫דודך‬, for it would have probably given that expression a literal translation. He therefore explains the translation on the basis of the parallelism with the first colon. 30. This solution was first proposed by H. WINCKLER, Zum Alten Testament: Marduk‫?דרך‬, in ID. (ed.), Altorientalische Forschungen, Helsingfors, Verlag von Eduard Pfeiffer, 1897, 191-196, p. 194, and has been accepted by a majority of scholars. See A. WEISER, Das Buch der zwölf kleinen Propheten. I: Die Propheten, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadja, Jona, Micha (ATD, 24), Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1949, pp. 172-173, for whom it is not a scribal error, but a voluntary “purification” of the text’s witness to idol worship; MAAG, Amos, pp. 56, 139-140; RINGGREN, Israelitische Religion, pp. 78, 86, 242; R.G. LEHMANN – M. REICHEL, Dod und Asima in Tell Dan, in BN 77 (1995) 29-31, pp. 3031.

484

PART III – CHAPTER 8

a resh is a frequent copyist’s mistake31. An original reading of ‫ דד‬appears all the more plausible as the term ‫ דוד‬is encountered elsewhere in the Bible as an epithet for YHWH, particularly in proper names, the subject to which we now turn. (ii) “Dōd’”or “Dôd” in Hypocorisms Several Israelite personal names indicate that such an epithet existed at some stage for YHWH. In his foundational study on personal names in Israel, Martin Noth lists the names “Do-davahu” (2 Chr 20,37; ‫)דּוֹדוָ הוּ‬, ָ “Dodo” (Judg 10,1; 2 Sam 23,9.24; 1 Chr 11,12.26; ‫ )דּוֹדוֹ‬and “Dodai” (1 Chr 27,4; ‫דּ ַֹדי‬, ‫דּוֹדי‬,) ַ under the topic Vertrauensnamen (names expressing trust)32. According to Noth, these are names that express a relationship to the divinity or a part of the divine essence, capable of strengthening man’s trust in the divinity33. According to Noth, the original meaning of ‫ דוד‬is “beloved”, or “friend”. The meaning “father’s brother” he holds to be secondary. He therefore translates the names in question as “friend, beloved of Jahweh”34. It should be noted that ‫דוֹדי‬ ַ is rendered as Δωδια in the LXX version of 1 Chr 27,4. This points to a possible reading of ‫דּוֹדיָּ ה‬ ִ (“my beloved is the Yah”) in the LXX’s Vorlage. The same is the case in 2 Chr 20,37, where the MT reads the improbable ‫ד ָֹדוָ הוּ‬. It has been proposed that this reading is the result of a copyist’s error, confusing an original yod with a waw. The LXX in the edition of Rahlfs reads Δωδια (“my beloved is Yah”), which would also attest to a probable ‫דּוֹדיָּ ה‬ ִ in the Vorlage. Yet the problem here is that the conjectured reading in Rahlfs finds no support in the manuscripts. Swete reads Ὠδειά following the Codex Vaticanus and cites the variant Ὠδιά from the Alexandrinus. The Targum in the edition of Alexander Sperber corresponds to ‫דודוה‬35. The Targum translation by Stanley McIvor based on the Vatican manuscript, Urbinas Ebr. 1 (dated 1294), on the other hand, reads ‫דודיהו‬, a reading also found in the Copenhagen manuscript, Cod. Hebr. 11 (dated 1290)36. This reading is 31. F.M. CROSS, The Development of the Jewish Script, in G.E. WRIGHT (ed.), The Bible and the Ancient Near East, New York, Doubleday, 1961, 133-202. 32. M. NOTH, Die israelitischen Personennamen im Rahmen der gemeinsemitischen Namengebung (BWANT, 10), Stuttgart, Kohlhammer, 1928, pp. 149, 241. 33. Ibid., p. 148. 34. Noth discusses whether they are to be understood as nominal sentences or rather as a status constructus relations and opts for the latter, since the order predicate-subject (beloved is YHWH) would be unusual, particularly in the case of the more ancient names. 35. A. SPERBER, The Bible in Aramaic. Vol. IV.A: The Hagiographa: Transition from Translation to Midrash = ‫א ד כרך‬: ‫לכתובים תרגום‬, Leiden, Brill, 1968, p. 50. 36. D.R.G. BEATTIE – J.S. MCIVOR, The Targum of Canticles – The Targum of Chronicles: Translated with Introduction, Apparatus, and Notes (ArBib, 19), Collegeville, MN, Liturgical Press, 1994, p. 13.

CLUES FOR A SYMBOLIC MEANING

485

also reflected in Targum Onkelos, which has ‫דודיהו‬. The Peshitta reads zxx (‫ )דדה‬which corresponds to ‫ דּוֹדוֹ‬in Hebrew37. (iii) Dōd in Glyptic Evidence An Aramaic seal dating from the eighth century B.C. might also testify to a theophoric name with dd38. The seal bears a schematic engraving of a figure walking with raised arms and holding a stylized axe. Scholars identify the figure as a possible representation of the storm, rain, and fertility god Hadad (Adad), the NW Semitic counterpart of Baal39. Next to the figure the letters ‫ דדי‬are inscribed. According to the publisher of the seal, André Lemaire, this letter combination might refer to Hadad, already known under the form of hdd or hd. If that is the case, the letters ‫ דדי‬are “un hypocoristique du dieu ‘Hadad’ probablement représenté sur le sceau luimême”40. It is also possible that ‫ דדי‬is the endearment “my beloved”, which in this case would refer to Hadad (represented by the figure on the seal) as “my beloved”, much as the above-mentioned biblical names refer to YHWH as “my beloved”. If Lemaire’s interpretation of the seal is correct, one might surmise one more indication of the cantos’ origins in Canaanite religion. Though the corresponding “sacred marriage” rites were successfully uprooted, the songs survived and where integrated in the Yahwistic faith. In the second millennium B.C. the king of Aleppo called himself the “beloved of Hadad”41. Even during the first millennium, Aramaean kings still called themselves Benhadad or simply Hadad (cf. 1 Kgs 15,18). Hadad is also known by the byname rmn, Hebrew ‫“( רמּוֹן‬Thunderer”). His Temple in Damascus is attested to in 2 Kgs 5,18. Yet more importantly, 37. R.P. GORDON – P.B. DIRKSEN (eds.), Chronicles (The Old Testament in Syriac according to the Peshitta Version, IV/2), Leiden, Brill, 1998, p. 117. For further variants see R. HANHART (ed.), Septuaginta Vetus Testamentum Graecum. VII/2: Paralipomenon Liber II, Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2014, p. 274; and B. KENNICOTT (ed.), Vetus Testamentum Hebraicum (II), Oxford, Clarendon, 1780, p. 706. 38. See Seal 120 in DEUTSCH – LEMAIRE, Biblical Period Personal Seals. For the description and interpretation, see the editio princeps of LEMAIRE, Nouveaux sceaux nordouest sémitiques, pp. 28-31. 39. See LEMAIRE, Nouveaux sceaux nord-ouest sémitiques, p. 27. According to SMITH, Early History, 1990, p. 12; “The name Addu appears as Haddu in Ugaritic texts where Haddu stands in parallelism with Baal. In the second millennium, Baal was an epithet of Haddu. Both Hadad and Baal share the same traits in their iconography. Baal is on occasion even called ‘Haddu’”. For attestations, see CROSS, Canaanite Myth, pp. 140, 148. Some scholars hold that Baal and Hadad are the same god in the Ugaritic religion. J.C. GREENFIELD, Hadad, in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, Leiden, Brill, 21999, 377-382. 40. LEMAIRE, Nouveaux sceaux nord-ouest sémitiques, p. 28. 41. See U. OLDENBURG, The Conflict between El and Ba’al in Canaanite Religion (Supplementa ad Numen, Altera Series. Dissertationes ad historiam religionum pertinentes, 3), Leiden, Brill, 1969, p. 67.

486

PART III – CHAPTER 8

Zech 12,11 notes that the people participated in mourning rites over the death of Hadad Rimmon (‫ )הדד־רמון‬in the valley of Meggido. For this reason scholars have already suggested, even before finding the Ugaritic texts, that Hadad Rimmon might have been a “dying and rising god” like Dumuzi/Tammuz or Adonis42. Given the frequent attestations of the integration of the Baal cultus into the cultus of YHWH43, it is not implausible that the same should have occurred with Hadad. By syncretism of the figure of Hadad with that of YHWH the appellation Dôḏı̂ which originally referred to Hadad now became a way of addressing YHWH. d) David the Beloved There is an important Old Testament tradition that explains the name of David as deriving from ‫דוד‬, “darling” or “beloved” of YHWH and the people44. Specifically, the tradition links the name David with the root ‫ידד‬, “to love”, and with the appellative ‫דוד‬. The symbolic thirty-three occurrences of the appellative ‫ דוד‬in the Song that coincides with the number of years that David reigned over Jerusalem (cf. 2 Sam 5,5) has already been pointed out above (I.1.a, p. 478). The author of the Song seems to be consciously punning on the name of David. A similar tradition links the person of Solomon to the root ‫ידד‬. As heir to the throne of David he is called ‫ידידיהּ‬, “YHWH’s darling, for the sake of the Lord” (2 Sam 12,25, cf. ‫“ ויהוה אהבו‬and YHWH loved him” v. 24). This appellation is also hinted at in the Solomonic Ps 127,2. It appears unlikely to be coincidental that the Lover’s name not only echoes David’s name but is also closely associated with the name of Solomon. 2. Solomon The associations that the name Solomon had during the Second Temple period will be amply treated in the next chapter. In the present context, the following observations intend simply to show that his name is intrinsically linked to the person of the Lover and by the same token to that of the Beloved. 42. See F.C. MOVERS, Die Phönizier: Untersuchungen über die Religion der Phönizier, mit Rücksicht auf die verwandten Götterdienste der heidnischen Israeliten, der Carthager, Syrer, Babylonier und Aegypter (I), Bonn, Eduard Weber’s Verlag, 1841, p. 196. 43. See, for example, O. LORETZ, Psalm 29: Kanaanäische El- und Baaltraditionen in jüdischer Sicht (UBL, 2), Altenberge, CIS-Verlag, 1984. 44. See A. CARLSON, ‫דוִ ד‬,ָ in TDOT, III, Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 2015, 157-163, p. 158.

CLUES FOR A SYMBOLIC MEANING

487

The Song is ascribed to Solomon, and this ascription is well integrated into the opening poems. In fact, the verses of Song 1,1-2 are a well-crafted play on the sounds of Solomon’s name and his royal character, as the following transliteration makes evident: šı̂ r haššı̂ rı̂ m ᾿ᵃšer lišlōmōh: yiššāqēnı̂ minnᵉšı̂ qôṯ pı̂ hû! kı̂ -ṭôḇı̂ m dōḏêḵā mı̂āyin. lᵉrêaḥ šᵉmānêḵā ṭôḇı̂ m šemen tûraq šᵉmeḵā ῾al-kēn ῾ᵃlāmôṯ ᾿ᵃhēḇûḵā. The Song of Songs, which is Solomon’s. Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth! For your love is better than wine, your anointing oils are fragrant, your name is perfume poured out; therefore the maidens love you.

The first two verses of the Song resound with a š-sound that connects the terms “Song of Songs”, “Solomon”, “to kiss”, “kisses”, “anointing oils”, “name”, and “perfume” (‫ שיר השירים‬,‫ שלמה‬,‫ נשק‬,‫ נשיקות‬,‫ שמן‬,‫)שם‬. This Song, which is the supreme song, belongs to Solomon whose kisses, name, royal anointing oils, and perfumes are exalted by the one who, in the course of the Song, will be presented under the feminine form of the same name, Shulammite. Furthermore, his name is mentioned in the Beloved’s first dialogue with the Daughters of Jerusalem, when she presents herself as dark as the tents of Kedar and the curtains of Solomon, arguably a reference to the Temple curtains (Song 1,5-6; cf. Exodus 26; 36 )45. From the very outset of the Song then, the Lover is associated with the royal person of Solomon: his name, anointing oils, harem, the Temple curtains, and the royal city of Jerusalem (here represented by its daughters). The “epilogue” of the Song (8,8-10) will take up these same echoes. There the Beloved is represented as a fortified city, arguably Jerusalem (see below, III.3, p. 503), who has found peace (‫ )שלום‬in the Lover’s eyes (8,10). As Tournay already observed, Le début du Cantique rapproche à dessein les mots shelomo, Salomon, le “pacifique” (vv. 1 et 5 …), shemen “huile” (pour oindre le Roi-Messie), shem, “nom” (v. 3), enfin Yerushalaïm (Jérusalem, v. 5), la ville du nouveau Salomon et de la paix, shalom (mots rapprochés à la fin de Cant viii 10-11). De même 1 Chron 22,9 rapproche Salomon, shalom et shem. Le Ps cxxii rapproche Jérusalem, sham (là), shem et shalom dans les vv. 2 à 846.

To the “canon conscious” reader the notion of “peace”, “Jerusalem”, and the name of Solomon echo each other and belong together. Jerusalem is 45. See LACOCQUE, Romance, p. 71, who furthermore points out that the tents of Kedar might evoke the curtain’s color that were made of goat skin. Even if the long-standing conjecture that the verse may have read ‫ ַשׁ ְל ָמה‬at some point is plausible (e.g., J. Wellhausen, H. Winckler, V. Zapletal), it cannot be made the basis of Song exegesis since none of the versions attest to it. Rather, the versions unanimously read “Solomon”. 46. TOURNAY, Abraham, pp. 550-551.

488

PART III – CHAPTER 8

the city of the great king (Ps 48,3), the city of peace (Psalm 122), and the city of the Temple. In the late Second Temple period the possible reminiscences of the name Solomon to the old Jebusite Stadtgott Salem must have been long forgotten. Rather, his name evoked the peace (‫ )שלום‬and quiet that God famously granted Israel in the days of his reign (cf. 1 Kgs 5,4; 1 Chr 22,9). In the closing poem of the Song (Song 8,11-14), two verses (11-12) seem to distance the Lover of the Song from the “historical Solomon” whose harem comprised 1,000 women (cf. 1 Kgs 11,3; see Chapter 9, III, below, p. 617). However, Solomon’s name is mentioned another two times, as if a redactor had wanted to make sure that his name appeared exactly seven times in total in the Song. Together with the thirty-three occurrences of the appellation ‫ דוד‬and its strong allusion to David, there are a total of forty allusions to the “messianic” king of Israel (Judah in particular). The careful distribution of thirty-three plus seven is not likely to be a coincidence. It is arguable that the redactor who added the title is also responsible for having added the epilogue, thus achieving the symbolic fullness of seven references to ‫שלמה‬, the fabled king of peace47. 3. The Shulammite One of the strongest indicators that the Song speaks of more than “ordinary lovers” is the choice of the name Shulammite as the proper name for the Beloved. It occurs in only one verse, Song 7,1, where she is twice addressed as “the Shulammite”. This name has been interpreted differently. a) The Shulammite and Abishag from Shunem The name first of all indicates that she originates from a town called ‫שולם‬, just as in 2 Kgs 4,8 Elisha comes to a place called ‫( שונם‬Shunem) where he encounters a woman who is subsequently referred to as ‫השונמית‬, “the Shunammite” (2 Kgs 4,12). In the same way, the beautiful virgin girl Abishag, who had been chosen to serve King David in his old age and lie in his bosom in order to warm him, is referred to as “the Shunammite” (1 Kgs 1,1-4). It has been argued that Shunem and Shulem might at some stage have been interchangeable, wherefore the Shulammite of the Song would refer 47. See TOURNAY, Dieu, pp. 75-83.

CLUES FOR A SYMBOLIC MEANING

489

to Abishag the Shunammite48. Dominique Barthélemy affirms that “il est presque certain qu’on a là une déformation voulue de la désignation d’Abisag (‫ השונמית‬en 1 R 1,15) pour le rattacher formellement à la racine ‫”שלם‬49. Given the Solomonic aura of the Song, the mention of Solomon’s mother in combination with Solomon’s marriage (Song 3,11), and the role that she had played in asking the Shunammite in marriage for Adonijah (1 Kgs 2,19-22), the suggestion is plausible. This is exactly the kind of pun one would expect in these late Jewish writings, as seen in the previous chapter in the examples of Judith’s and Susanna’s names. Moreover, in the story about the old and decrepit David, Abishag the Shunammite very likely serves as a symbol for Israel. Just as David is depicted as an impotent old man, lacking virility in his incapacity to “know” this beautiful young virgin (1 Kgs 1,4), so also he is not able to govern the people of Israel, as Adonijah’s usurpation of the throne in the immediately following verses proves50. As discussed elsewhere (see Chapter 10, III.2.d.ii, below, p. 693), the King’s relationship to the people is often symbolized through his intimacy with select women of the nation (cf. 2 Sam 16,21-22; 17,3 LXX). Bathsheba’s request to give Abishag in marriage to Adonijah in 1 Kgs 2,22 is, for Solomon, tantamount to asking for the kingdom. The beautiful young virgin Abishag, the Shunammite, is a symbol for the nation; and so is the Shulammite of Song 7,1, whose name is a modification of the former51. The Codex Vaticanus and some other codices of the LXX, which Rahlfs does not identify, equally reflect an ancient identification of Abishag the Shunammite and the Shulammite of the Song, as they read ἡ Σουμανεῖτις and τῇ Σουμαωίτιδι in Song 7,1. This reading is not an attestation of an original reading of “Shunammite” instead of “Shulammite”, since all the other ancient versions, i.e., Vg, S, and T, and the major Greek Mss read “Shulammite” as the proper name for the Beloved in Song 7,1. However, the identification of the Shunammite with the Shulammite in the Codex Vaticanus reflects a very early interpretation, which identified the Beloved of the Song with the beautiful virgin girl Abishag, the Shunammite. Eusebius’ Onomasticon has also been invoked to justify the identification of Shunem and Shulem and therefore of Abishag the Shunammite with the Shulammite of the Song. According to Eusebius, however, the origins of Abishag the Shunammite are to be identified with the ‫ שונם‬of 48. See ZAKOVITCH, Hohelied, p. 242; see also S.J. DEVRIES, 1 Kings (WBC, 12), Nashville, TN, Word Books, 2003, p. 12. 49. BARTHÉLEMY, Critique V, p. 899. 50. See J. GRAY, I & II Kings (OTL), London, SCM, 31977, p. 77. 51. See DEVRIES, 1 Kings, p. 12.

490

PART III – CHAPTER 8

1 Sam 28,4 MT, rendered as Σωμάν in the LXX52. Eusebius differentiates this Shunem from the homonymous toponym mentioned in Josh 19,18, which the LXX renders as Σουναν. According to Eusebius, this latter Σουναν was called Σουλήμ in Byzantine times53. Thus Eusebius clearly distinguishes the Σωμάν from where Abishag originates and the Σουνάν/ Σουλήμ. Nonetheless, even if a historical identity between Shunem and Shulem cannot be affirmed, it also cannot be excluded that the paronomasia of Shulammite and Shunammite is intended by the author of the Song54. Midrashic name derivations are a very common feature in the writings of the Second Temple period55. A phenomenon that is often encountered is “the transferring of a midrashic derivation from one name to another whose sound it much resembles”56. Abishag played a significant symbolic role in the narrative about both King David and King Solomon, the two kings who are hinted at throughout the Song, where the Shulammite is likely intended to evoke the Shunammite as well. b) The Shulammite, Shelomo, and Jerushalaim While the identification of the Shulammite with the Shunammite remains open to discussion, an intentional word-play of the name ‫ שולמית‬with the root of the names ‫( שלמה‬Solomon), and the city of Jerusalem, ‫ירושלם‬ cannot be denied57. It is nearly certain that the author of the Song has carefully crafted this name in order to allude at once to her Lover, King Solomon, to the city of Jerusalem, and to the peace (‫ )שלום‬which the Shulammite finally acquires in the eyes of her Lover (cf. Song 8,10). The mirror effect of the reappearance of the Beloved’s features in the description of the Lover (and vice versa) can be observed even here. Both names are made up of the same root consonants ‫ ;שלם‬both names are charged with the notion of peace (cf. 1 Chr 22,9).

52. “Shunem (Σωμάν | ‫שׁוּנֵ ם‬: 1 Sam 28,4). From whence came the Shunammite (1 Kgs 1,3). There is a village in the territory of Sebaste in Acrabattine called Sanim”. EUSEBIUS, Onomasticon: The Place Names of Divine Scripture / Including the Latin Edition of Jerome Translated into English and with Topographical Commentary (Jewish and Christian Perspectives, 9), Leiden, Brill, 2005, p. (876) 150. 53. “Shunem (Σουνὰν | ‫שׁוּנֵ ם‬: Josh 19,22). In the inheritance of Issachar. Sulem (Σουlήμ) is now near Mount Tabor”. Ibid., p. 148. 54. Thus even BUDDE, Hohelied, p. xv. 55. See GARSIEL, Biblical Names, pp. 19-21. 56. Ibid., p. 184. 57. See ZAKOVITCH, Hohelied, p. 242.

CLUES FOR A SYMBOLIC MEANING

491

Zakovitch, however, points to the fact that the female corresponding name for Solomon should be “Solomit”58. The fact that she is called ‫שולמית‬, nonetheless, points to the place of her origin, which is a town called Salem, ‫שלם‬59. The biblically literate reader will recognize the allusion to Jerusalem, which in Gen 14,18 and Ps 76,3 is referred to as Salem. Whereas the reference to Jerusalem as Salem in Gen 14,18 is of a more Midrashic character60, it is overt in Ps 76,3 where in a synonymous parallelism it is said that the God of Israel has his abode in Salem (‫ )שלם‬and his dwelling in Zion (‫)ציון‬61. Either way the names Solomon and Shulammite echo each other in Hebrew. Historically they might both derive from the city-god Shalem, venerated in Jerusalem during the Canaanite period and to whom Jerusalem owes its name62. More importantly, however, on the level of the poetry, it is clear that the Beloved’s name is to mirror her Lover Solomon’s name and at the same time that of Israel’s capital Jerusalem, which she also appears to personify, as will be explained in the following section (II, below, p. 492). 4. The Epithet Dove Another clue to the identification of the Beloved with Israel or Jerusalem is the fact that three times she is called “my dove” (Song 2,14; 5,3; 6,9). Though this is a very common term of endearment63, it cannot be 58. See ibid., p. 243. 59. See ibid. 60. Though in early to second-millennium texts Jerusalem is called Rushalimum/ Urusalim, and historical evidence that Jerusalem was at some point called merely Salem is absent, it is clear from the context in both Genesis 14 and Psalm 76 that Salem is identified with Jerusalem. What lends support to the assumption for Genesis 14 is the association of Salem with King Melchizedek. This theoforic name occurs again in combination with Jerusalem in Josh 10,1 where the King of Jerusalem is called Adonizedeq. Furthermore David’s high priest in Jerusalem was called Zadoq, apparently the priest of the local divinity Salem (see also the name of King Solomon). Ps 110 also associates the king in Zion with Melchizedek, and both the Genesis Apocryphon (22,13) and Josephus (Ant. 1.10.2 [1,180]) affirm the identity of Salem with Jerusalem. See G.J. WENHAM, Genesis 1–15 (WBC, 1), Dallas, TX, Word Books, 1987, p. 316. 61. See also ZAKOVITCH, Hohelied, p. 243. 62. See O. KEEL, Die Geschichte Jerusalems und die Entstehung des Monotheismus (Orte und Landschaften der Bibel, 4/1), Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007, §224, p. 190. 63. The dove was in fact a common symbol of the fertility goddess until late antiquity. See M.N. VAN LOON, The Naked Rain Goddess, in A. BOUNNI et al. (eds.), Resurrecting the Past (Publications de l’Institut historique et archéologique néerlandais de Stamboul, 67), Leiden, Nederlands Historisch-Archeologisch Instituut te Istanbul, 1990, 363-378. See also KEEL, Hohelied, pp. 72-75.

492

PART III – CHAPTER 8

ignored that the dove also came to be a symbol of Israel64. This symbol might already be operative in the book of Jonah, a man called “dove” and who personifies the fate of Israel in exile65. It is also at work in Ps 74,19 MT where the Psalmist prays that the Lord may not deliver the soul of his “turtledove” (‫ ;תור‬i.e. Israel) to the wild animal66. A very interesting attestation of an association of Zion with a dove is found in Zeph 3,1 LXX which reads. Zeph 3,1 LXX Ὦ ἡ ἐπιφανὴς καὶ ἀπολελυτρωμένη, ἡ πόλις ἡ περιστερά. “Ah, distinguished and ransomed, the city, the dove!” (NETS).

The LXX testifies here to the dove as a term of endearment for Zion. Finally, the use of the dove-symbol for Israel is also attested to in the first-century text of 4 Ezra 5,26 (see Chapter 4, V.2, above, p. 268).

II. THE BELOVED AS JERUSALEM The affinity between the Beloved and the city of Jerusalem is variously suggested in the Song. First, the city of Jerusalem features prominently throughout the entire Song. The name occurs eight times. Seven times it appears in combination with the Daughters of Jerusalem (Song 1,5; 2,7; 3,5.10; 5,8.16; 8,4), who function like a dialogue partner of the Beloved and might be the same daughters among whom she stands out “like a lily among thorns” (2,2). In an eighth mention of Judah’s capital, the Beloved is said to be “lovely like Jerusalem” (6,4). 1. The Beloved and Mother Zion There is one more direct reference to the famous city, albeit as Zion, again in combination with its daughters (cf. Song 3,11). Zakovitch has cogently argued that the appellation “Daughters of Jerusalem” and “Daughters of 64. See A. FEUILLET, Le symbolisme de la colombe dans les récits évangéliques du baptême, in RSR 46 (1958) 524-544. See STRACK – BILLERBECK, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus, pp. 123-124: “Die Taube ist in der rabbinischen Literatur mehrfach Sinnbild der Gemeinde Israel”. 65. See CARY, Jonah; and ACKROYD, Exile and Restoration, pp. 244-245. On the disputed matter whether Jonah can be read as an allegory, see J.M. SASSON, Jonah: A New Translation with Introduction, Commentary, and Interpretation (AncB, 24B), New York, Doubleday, 1990, pp. 37-351. Though Sasson denies that Jonah was composed as an allegory, he proposes a possible allegorical interpretation, which effectively buttresses suspicion that Jonah had been composed as such from the outset. 66. The version, however, does not confirm that reading (LXX and S read ‫תוד‬, and Vg: eruditam lege).

CLUES FOR A SYMBOLIC MEANING

493

Zion” are to be read in light of the common prophetic designation “Daughter Zion” or “Daughter Jerusalem” for the inhabitants of Jerusalem and the Judaic population (cf. Isa 1,8; 37,22; Zech 2,14; 9,9)67. The “Daughters of Zion” in Song 3,11 might in fact be a later emendation of the MT since 4Q106 reads “Daughters of Jerusalem” in this place and the LXX makes no mention of Zion either. The emendation from “Jerusalem” to “Zion” might thus reflect an early symbolic interpretation that identified the Beloved of the Song with “Mother Zion”, as she is depicted in Jeremiah, Lamentations, and Isaiah (see Chapter 6). In Lamentations Jerusalem is called “Daughter Zion” only when in desolation, wailing the loss of her children68. With Deutero- and TritoIsaiah, however, a tradition emerges that prophesies the inversion of Zion’s earlier fate69. The oracles of Isaiah 54–55 and 60–62 are addressed to Zion personified. This female figure appears in texts about the restoration as royal bride and mother of those who return from exile70. Zion’s children will be restored to her and she will be espoused by YHWH (cf. Isa 62,1-6). This restoration of Zion in the image of a wedding and the return of her children is, in fact, the inversion of the image depicted of Daughter Zion in Lamentations and Baruch71. As Berges explains, “In the post-exilic restoration Zion plays a vital role as royal bride and mother of her population. But even afterwards the personification of Zion and Jerusalem remained vigorous in the Jewish tradition (cf. Tobit 13, Baruch 4–5 and Revelation 22)”72. Baruch 4–5, for instance, develops the image of Jerusalem as a mother, first mourning for her children and then receiving them back. It has been pointed out that her children are brought back to her on a royal litter, an image indeed reminiscent of Solomon’s litter approaching Jerusalem (5,5-9, cf. Song 3,7-10)73. This tradition of referring to Jerusalem personified as a mother might be at work in the emendation of the Daughters of Jerusalem to the Daughters of Zion in Song 3,11. The interpretation behind this emendation, if indeed it is one, may be motivated by the tradition whereby Zion is a mother whose daughters are to assist at King Solomon’s wedding. In this case, Zion would also be the symbolic mother of this messianic King (cf. Isaiah 66). 67. ZAKOVITCH, Hohelied, p. 95. 68. See BERGES, Klagelieder, p. 63. 69. See BÖHLER, Tochter Zion, p. 144; and BERGES, Klagelieder, p. 63. 70. See BÖHLER, Tochter Zion, p. 145. 71. See ibid., pp. 144-147. 72. See BERGES, Klagelieder, p. 63 (my translation). For further personifications of Zion or Jerusalem as a mother see Hos 2,4; 4,5; Gal 4,26; 2 Apoc Bar 3,1; 10,6 (also in the context of Zion’s desolation). 73. See BÖHLER, Tochter Zion, p. 147.

494

PART III – CHAPTER 8

Such a tradition might even be echoed in the fourth vision of 4 Ezra 10. In that vision Zion is again personified as a mother who mourns the death of her only son, who died when he entered the wedding chamber (4 Ezra 9,47–10). As the angelic interpreter, Uriel, explains, This woman whom you saw, whom you now behold as an established city, is Zion. And as for her telling you that she was barren for thirty years, (it is) because there were three thousand years in the world before any offering was offered in it. And after three thousand years Solomon built the city (and the temple)74 and offered offerings; then it was that the barren woman bore a son. And as for her telling you that she brought him up with much care, that was the (period of) residence in Jerusalem. And as for her saying to you, “When my son entered his wedding chamber he died”, and that misfortune had overtaken her, that was the destruction which befell Jerusalem (4 Ezra 10,44-48)75.

4 Ezra presupposes an existing tradition according to which Zion is the mother of the Temple and the cult that was instituted in Jerusalem by Solomon. The function of the son in the vision is not quite clear. The son could equally be the Temple and the cult or King Solomon who built and instituted them76. The reminiscences of Song 3,11, that is, Zion as a mother and Solomon on the day of his wedding, suggest, however, some common tradition of motifs that associate Zion, Solomon, and the Temple with mother, son, and wedding symbolism. In any event, the eight mentions of Jerusalem and the allusion to “Daughter Jerusalem” / “Daughter Zion” who features so prominently as a bride and mother in Isaiah are a strong hint to a possible identification of the Beloved with the royal city of Jerusalem. 2. The Beloved as a Royal Urban Architecture Implicitly Jerusalem features even more often in the Song by way of figurative allusion. Looking at the Beloved the way she is described in Song 4,4-7 and 8,8-10, one is reminded of a strong and wealthy, even royal, city. In Song 4,4 the Beloved’s neck is compared to the Tower (‫ )מגדל‬of David, a monument unknown to archaeology and otherwise absent from all known text traditions. The Song’s original audience might have been 74. The Latin adds civitatis murum iherusalem et templum domino in eo construxit. Similarly an Arabic and the Aramaic version add “and the temple”. These are, however, probably exegetical. See STONE, Fourth Ezra, p. 333. 75. Translation taken from ibid. 76. According to STONE, ibid., p. 335: “the son plays a completely passive role”. Yet this does not answer the question of who the son is.

CLUES FOR A SYMBOLIC MEANING

495

familiar with it77. In the waṣf of Song 7,2-6 both her neck and her nose are compared to towers, the former to a tower of ivory, the latter to the tower of Lebanon (7,5). In 8,10 she claims her breasts to be like towers (‫)מגדלים‬. Towers thus feature prominently in the Song. They evoke not only the image of urban architecture and their protective function in the defense of a city78, but also the decorative function by which they often give a city its characteristic look. Even today a city is typically conspicuous for its towers (or its high-rises, the modern equivalent to the ancient towers). The impression of the Beloved as a royal city is buttressed by the description, “Your neck is like the tower of David, built in courses, whereon hang a thousand bucklers (‫)מגן‬, all of them shields (‫ )שלט‬of warriors (Song 4,4; NRSV)79. As was argued in Chapter 4, the image evoked is that of a fortified city with a mural crown decorated with the weaponry of mighty men, a mighty and beautiful city80. The vocabulary used in the description of the shields, ‫ מגן‬and ‫שלט‬, appears elsewhere in the Bible to describe the utmost beauty of the ornamentation of the city of Tyre (legendary rival to Jerusalem) in Ezek 27,10-11. Note the similarity both in vocabulary and imagery. The Beloved of the Song is visualized by an image well known in the ANE, that of a town from whose towers and walls hang the bucklers and shields of its warriors (see Chapter 4, III.3.b, above, p. 229). When used for decoration, these shields (‫ )מגנים‬feature elsewhere in the Bible conspicuously in connection with the person of King Solomon. According to 1 Kgs 10,17 Solomon “made three hundred shields (‫)מגנים‬ of beaten gold; three minas of gold went into each shield and the king put them in the House of the Forest of Lebanon” (NRSV)81. These shields are of such an importance that the narrator deems them worthy of mention among the spoils which the Egyptian King Shishak takes from the royal palace on the occasion of his campaign against Jerusalem (1 Kgs 14,25; 2 Chr 12,9). The first book of Maccabees relates that the Temple was 77. ZAKOVITCH, Hohelied, p. 187. 78. See KEEL, Tauben, pp. 32-38. 79. Scholars disagree on how to translate the phrase in apposition to the neck, ‫בנוי לתלפיות‬. The term ‫ תלפיות‬is a hapax in the MT. KEEL, Hohelied, p. 138, proposes “constructed in layers, built in courses”. Many modern translations follow him. The LXX renders it as a proper name, while Aquila reads εἰς ἐπάλξεις (“with merlons, with defences”) and Vg: cum propugnaculis (“with battlements”, “bulwark”, “rampart”, “defence”). 80. It has been suggested that v. 4 describes the jewelry that embellishes the Beloved’s neck, slender like a tower (see, e.g., RAVASI, Cantico, p. 356: “il collo slancio e sottile della donna”). Keel, however, rightly objects, that ANE towers were massive and evoke rather a stout than an elegantly thin neck. See KEEL, Hohelied, p. 136. 81. See also 2 Chr 9,16.

496

PART III – CHAPTER 8

decorated on the outside with small shields of gold, ἀσπιδίσκη (1 Mac 4,57)82. Even if ἀσπιδίσκη is not employed elsewhere to translate the Hebrew ‫מגן‬, it is an indication to how in the time of the Song’s final redaction one thought of the Temple as decorated exteriorly with precious shields of gold. The image of the Beloved that thus appears in Song 4,4-7; 7,4-5, and 8,10 is partly that of a woman who evokes the vision of a beautifully fortified royal town, or else the Temple of Jerusalem83. In the Second Temple period there is only one town around which the thinking of the poets revolve: the royal city of Jerusalem. As will also be highlighted in Chapter 11, the Beloved has more than one allusive reminiscence of the city of Jerusalem. 3. The Song of the Little Sister (Song 8,8-10) Another strong allusion to Jerusalem appears in Song 8,8-10, where the Beloved is again associated with urban architectonical images. 8

9

10

We have a little sister but she has no breasts what shall we do with our sister on the day that she is spoken for? If she is a wall we will build on her a battlement of silver and if she is a door we will enclose her with boards of cedar. I am a wall and my breasts are like towers then I was in his eyes as one who finds peace.

The voice heard in v. 8 is probably the voice of the brothers who already featured in Song 1,6. As is still the case in the Near East today, brothers played a major role in the sister’s courtship and marriage (cf. the story of Dina in Gen 34,6-17; and Tamar in 2 Sam 13,20.32). Here they wonder what to do when the sister is “spoken for (‫”)לדבר ב‬84. According to them, the sister is not yet pubescent, which is symbolized by her lack of breasts. What follows is an enigmatic metaphorical comparison of their sister to a wall and a door. If she is a wall the brothers want to build an 82. HALOT lists this occurrence under the entry ‫מגן‬. 83. ShirR IV.4 §9 in fact interprets Song 4,4 as referring to the Temple of Jerusalem. 84. The expression can be translated as either “spoken against” as is the case in Num 21,1.5.7; Ps 50,10; but also in the sense of “asking for marriage” as is the case in 1 Sam 25,39, where David speaks for (‫ )וידבר ב‬Abigail.

CLUES FOR A SYMBOLIC MEANING

497

encampment of silver upon her, and if she is a door, they want to enclose or fashion her with boards of cedar85. What is the meaning of these metaphors, and do they stand in synonymous or antithetical parallelism? A wall (‫ )חומה‬encloses, protects, defends, and even repels86, and might therefore signify, as Robert Gordis has proposed, that the sister is obstinate and rejects suitors87. In that case the brothers would want to overcome her resistance on the day she is spoken for and embellish her, the battlement of silver being like a bridal crown88. The wall might, however, similarly simply represent the fact that the little sister has guarded her virginity (cf. also 4,12, a garden closed), and that the brothers want both to reinforce that virginity as well as to render it more attractive. A door (‫)דלת‬, on the other hand, grants access and thus in antithetical parallelism the brothers would be saying that if she is promiscuous and signaling inappropriate accessibility, then they should bar her with boards of cedars89. In v. 10 she takes up the wall-metaphor approvingly and – against the allegation of her brothers in v. 8 that she has no breasts – claims that her breast are like towers (‫)מגדלים‬. She is both a virgin and ready for marriage. a) The Little Sister, a Fortified City What is of interest here is the metaphoric use of architectonical images. As Alonso Schökel has pointed out, it is very frequent – both in ancient and in modern poetry – that a city or a landscape are compared to a woman in the poetic description. The reverse, however, as is the case here, is not as common90. 85. “Enclose her”: G, Vg, and T apparently read the ‫ נצור‬of the MT in the sense of ‫ צור‬III “to form”, “fashion”, “shape”, “sketch”. G: διαγράψωμεν; Vg: conpingamus. Modern translations and commentators unanimously opt for ‫ צור‬I, “to block”, “enclose”, “besiege”. The later translation emphasizes the brother’s protection of her sister’s (virginity), while the former underlines the embellishing aspect of cedar wood. Both translations are possible. However, it seems that the ancient versions capture better the allusions to the architectonical imagery. 86. POPE, Song, pp. 679-680; MURPHY, Song, p. 198. 87. GORDIS, Song, p. 100. 88. E. WÜRTHWEIN, Das Hohelied, in ID. – K. GALLING – O. PLÖGER (eds.), Die Fünf Megilloth – Der Prediger – Die Klagelieder (HAT, 18), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 1969, 25-71, p. 70; RUDOLPH, Hohe Lied, p. 183. 89. RUDOLPH, Hohelied, pp. 198-199. It has also been proposed that the door would stand in synonymous parallelism to the wall. See the summary by POPE, Song, pp. 279-280. However, if the door were an image for the sister’s inaccessibility then the question arises, why would the brothers want to reinforce that closure with boards of cedar on which she is asked for marriage? 90. L. ALONSO SCHÖKEL, El Cantar de los cantares: O la dignidad del amor, Estella, Verbo Divino, 1990, pp. 60-61.

498

PART III – CHAPTER 8

In his study on Song 8,8, Hayil Tawil has shown how the author’s choice of metaphors, and their symbolic significance are better understood in the light of ANE epigraphical and iconographical parallels91. The imagery employed in Song 8,8-10 in speaking about the Beloved is that of an ancient city whose walls are fortified and crowned with a parapeted breast-shaped battlement and gates that are paneled with cedar planks. While in the ANE, battlements were primarily constructed for defensive military purposes, they were also used decoratively for the beautification of city walls92. It is well attested in the cuneiform literature that the merlons used in the construction of such battlements were highly decorated, which made the walling of a city or a palace look like a crown. Esarhaddon, for example, describes the decoration of his palace as follows: “I had a frieze and battlements of obsidian and lapis lazuli (colored bricks), made all around that palace, surrounding (it) like a wreath”93. Tawil adduces another example where the builder boasts of having “lavished silver (on the building) from its foundation to its parapets”94. According to Tawil, “the Akkadian phrase gabadibbâ kaspa šumllû is indeed the parallel of the Hebrew sentence ‫‘ בנה טירת כסף‬to lavish/build a silver battlement’”95. Thus the expression of the brothers in Song 8,9b ‫“( נבנה עליה טירת כסף‬we will build on her a battlement of silver”) refers to the construction of silver parapets or merlons on the imaginary wall which is the little sister. Because of their rich and luxurious decoration these parapeted citywalls resembled royal crowns. Since the female personification of a city was a common practice in the ANE, parapeted crowns were used as symbols of magnificent cities and “worn by goddesses and queens alike” as early as the thirteenth century B.C. until the early Roman period96. On the basis of this widely spread iconographical evidence it can safely be assumed “that the author(s) of Song was indeed cognizant of the architectural symbolism that depicts the battlement (that decorates the city wall) as a crown worn by queens”97 (see Chapter 6, IV.3.a, above, p. 393). 91. H. TAWIL, Two Biblical Architectural Images in Light of Cuneiform Sources: A Lexicographical Note XI, in A.J. BERKOVITZ (ed.), Lexical Studies in the Bible and Ancient Near Eastern Inscriptions: The Collected Essays of Hayim Tawil, New York, The Michael Scharf Publication Trust of the Yeshiva University Press, 2012, 123-142, p. 128. 92. Ibid., p. 129. 93. See ibid., with reference to CAD N/II 144b top. 94. See ibid., p. 130 with reference to CAD G 1a b. 95. Ibid. 96. See ibid. 97. Ibid., p. 131.

CLUES FOR A SYMBOLIC MEANING

499

The doors of palaces and cities, furthermore, were elaborately decorated with cedar panels – particularly by the Mesopotamian kings98. Tawil therefore understands the door metaphor as standing in synonymous parallelism to the wall metaphor, arguing that “both the ‘silver battlement’ and the ‘cedar paneled door’ are indeed legitimate figures to describe the beauty, strength, and nobility of the ‘sister’”99. Yet by choosing these metaphors, the poetry not only compares the Beloved to a beautiful city, but makes her appear to be a city herself. The two images, that of a young woman and that of a royal city, are blended into one. This architectural imagery is further advanced by the affirmative answer of the sister in v. 10, “I am a wall, and my breasts are like towers”. Modern critics have been misled to imagine the breasts of the Beloved as “towering mammae” or the like100. What occurs in the poetry of the Song is a blending of corporal and architectural images. The breasts she refers to are, in parallel to v. 9, the merlons of her wall, which are like towers (‫)מגדלים‬101. According to Tawil, the evidence provided by the iconographic material indicates that the merlons of the parapeted walls often had the form of female breasts. For our context it is revealing that the Akkadian gabadibbû “parapet” is a Sumerian loan composed of gaba “chest, breasts” + dib “fasten”102, which literally translated perhaps means “fastened breasts”. The German equivalent for “parapet”, Brustwehr, expresses the same pictorial ideal: for the defense of the city “breasts” have been fastened to the wall. Parapeted walls first appeared in Egypt. There a small ivory tower has been found, “on its tops strongly projecting circular platforms which rest on round beams and [having] a parapet with rounded merlons”103. This Egyptian artistic tradition of round-shaped merlons apparently spread throughout Hittite Asia Minor, Syria, and Palestine. Thus the headgear of the goddess in Yaziklikaya, the rock sanctuary of Hattusa, the capital city of the Hittite Empire, appears in the form of turreted crowns, each tower having two rounded merlons104. Mesopotamian battlements, on the other 98. Ibid., p. 128. 99. Ibid. 100. POPE, Song, p. 683. 101. See also GARBINI, Cantico, p. 280. 102. TAWIL, Images, p. 129. 103. E. PORADA, Battlements in the Military Architecture and in the Symbolism of the Ancient Near East, in D. FRASER – H. HIBBARD – M.J. LEWINE (eds.), Essays in the History of Architecture Presented to Rudolph Wittkower, London, Phaidon Press, 1967, 1-12, p. 1b (fig. 5); cited in TAWIL, Images, p. 132. 104. TAWIL, Images, pp. 132-133.

500

PART III – CHAPTER 8

hand, were decorated with stepped merlons105. In all cases, however, the merlons bear resemblance to women’s breasts106. Tawil thus makes a cogent argument that on the background of the ANE iconography the term ‫ מגדלות‬employed in this particularly architectural context does not connote “towers” in the general sense, but rather visually depicts “the more suitable constructional term ‘merlons’”107. What appears before the audience’s eye, then, is the image of a city with its beautiful and highly decorated crown-like wall and paneled gate, a metaphor for the splendid beauty of the little sister. The sister thus personifies the one royal city that prominently occupies the writings of the Second Temple literature, the city of Jerusalem108. Moreover, the emphasis on her walls aligns well with the literary focus on the reconstruction of Jerusalem’s walls in that same period. b) The Little Sister, a City of Peace The impression that Jerusalem is the real protagonist of this passage is reinforced by the Beloved’s final exclamation: “Then I was in his eyes as one who finds peace (‫”)שלום‬. This expression is unique in the Bible. It appears to be a singular variant of the more common expression, one particularly employed for women who gain the affection of a man, “to find favor (‫ )חן‬in his eyes” (Deut 24,1; Jer 31,2f.; Ruth 2,2.10; Esth 2,17). The substitution of the word “peace” (‫ )שלום‬for “grace” (‫ )חן‬appears once again to be a deliberate word play on the connotations borne by the root ‫שלם‬. In the context of the Song, these are the names of Solomon (‫)שלמה‬, the Shulammite (‫)שולמית‬, and Jerusalem (‫)ירושלם‬. The Shulammite and Solomon have finally found each other. Her yearning heart has found peaceful repose. It is the peace that is conferred to her by the love of Solomon, the man of rest, in whose days God promised to give peace (‫ )שלם‬and rest to Israel (cf. 1 Chr 22,9; see Chapter 9, II.3.b, below, p. 598). At the same time, the modification of the current formula of finding “grace” to finding “shalom” – which contextually draws so strongly on 105. See ibid., p. 133. 106. Ibid. 107. Ibid. 108. See also GARBINI, Cantico, p. 281, who sees here a clear allusion to how Zion is described as spouse in Isa 49,16-19; 54,5; 61,10; 62,4-5. “Per non lasciare dubbi su quello che voleva dire, l’autore parafrasa direttamente Isaia 54,12, dove l’immagine della cittàdonna si ritrasforma direttamente in quella della donna città: ‘farò i tuoi merli di rubino, le tue porte di pietre di cristallo e tutta la tua cerchia di pietre deliziose’. […] È dunque Gerusalemme la ‘sorella piccola’”.

CLUES FOR A SYMBOLIC MEANING

501

urban architectonical imagery – is an allusion to the popular etymology of the name Jerusalem as the City of Peace109. Ps 76,3 (see above, I.3.b, p. 490) plays on that etymology, “His abode has been established in Salem (‫)שׁלם‬, his dwelling place in Zion”. The same play on words can furthermore be observed in Ps 122,6-8: 6 Ask (‫ )שאלו‬peace (‫ )שלום‬for Jerusalem (‫)ירושלם‬ may they prosper (‫ )ישלו‬who love you! 7 Peace (‫ )שלום‬be within your walls tranquility (‫ )שלוה‬in your palaces. 8 For the sake of my brothers and friends I will say: peace (‫ )שלום‬be within you!

The paronomasia exploiting the root ‫ שלם‬in ‫ ירושלם‬is intensified by the use of the words ‫( שאלו‬ask), ‫( ישלו‬may they prosper), and ‫( שלוה‬tranquility), as they contain the consonants shin and lamed. The entire psalm is based on the recurrence of the consonants that make up “Jerusalem”110. The same is the case in the Song. As here, the poetry of the Song also plays with the consonants shin, lamed, mem in various constellations. Not only does it allude to Jerusalem (‫)ירושלם‬, the city of peace (‫)שלם‬, but also to the proverbial king of peace, Solomon (‫)שלמה‬, eponym of the Lover of the Song. In summary, the accumulation of these allusions to the city of Jerusalem leads one to conclude that the poet intends to evoke this all important royal city and its Temple by insistent alliteration with the consonants shin, lamed, mem that make up at once the names Solomon, Shulammite, and Jerusalem. These names all pun on the shalom, which the Beloved finds at the end of the Song and which is the one gift to which Jerusalem aspires through the indwelling of God in her Temple. While in other passages of the Song the Beloved is also described as the country of Israel and the Temple, the passages treated above depict her as a personification of Israel’s royal and holy city. 109. See also GARBINI (ibid.), who affirms, that the expression “finding peace” serves to recall Psalm 122 in order to underscore the identification of the young girl with Jerusalem. 110. See GARSIEL, Biblical Names, p. 190, who calls this kind of punning a “Midrashic Name Derivation” (MND) within biblical literature. For similar examples associating Jerusalem with peace, he points to 2 Sam 19,25-26 and Isa 26,3, within the so-called apocalypse of Isaiah, which announces that “on that day, there will be sung this song in Judah, we have a mighty town … though does keep him peace, peace (‫)שלום שלום‬, because he trusts in thee”; Isa 66,10-12, “I will extend to her [Jerusalem] peace [‫ ]שלם‬like a river”; Jer 23,1517; Zech 8,10-12 (implicit but again concerning the eschatological peace for Jerusalem); Ps 128,5-6, “YHWH bless you from Zion! May you see in prosperity Jerusalem, all the days of your life. And may the children of your children see peace upon Israel!”. Ps 147,12.14, “Praise YHWH, O Jerusalem, praise your God, O Zion! He makes peace within your borders, with finest wheat he feeds you”.

502

PART III – CHAPTER 8

III. SACRED GEOGRAPHY One way in which the poetry of the Song departs decisively from any comparative material in the ANE is its heavy use of geographical placenames in the waṣfs of the Beloved. These are exclamations of admiration like “your nose is like the Lebanon-tower” (Song 7,5). Though it may be conceded that people of ancient Israel had a different sense of beauty and different metaphors to express their appreciation of it, it is the lack of any comparative material that confirms the suspicion that the poet might in fact be singing the praises of a land in the image of a woman and not vice versa. Thus, though the poet is employing the common ANE literary genre of waṣf, his purpose in describing the Beloved is not that of giving a picture of her natural beauty. Rather, he is depicting the Land of Israel within its ideal borders in the image of a woman. In so describing the Beloved, he creates a sacred geography of Israel with which his Jewish audience can identify in virtue of their social memory. The list of places that emerges from the Song is a product of sophisticated literary craftsmanship. The careful choice of toponyms that outline the borders of an “ideal Israel” sheds light on the composition and interpretation of the book in its present form. In hearing the text, a Jewish audience of the second century B.C. could not have avoided picturing the sacred geography of Israel with all its royal and messianic implications. 1. Historical Toponyms Othmar Keel provides a list of the toponyms mentioned in the text. Starting from south to north he lists: Kedar (1,5), En-Gedi (1,14), Heshbon (7,5), Jerusalem (1,5; 2,7; 3,5.10; 5,8.16; 6,4; 8,4), Zion (3,11), Sharon (2,1), Tirzah (6,4), Gilead (4,1; 6,5), Carmel (7,6), Hermon/Senir/ Amana (4,8), Lebanon (4,8.11.15; 5,15; 7,5) and Damascus (7,5)111. With the exception of Song 5,15 (“His appearance is like Lebanon, chosen cedars”), all of these toponyms serve as image-donors to describe the Shulammite. Jerusalem and Tirzah (the latter being the former capital of the Northern Kingdom!) serve to describe her beauty in general (Song 6,4). Lebanon, Amana, Senir, and Hermon are the places of her dwelling from where the Lover calls her to leave with him (4,8). Thus, the scent of her garments is like the scent of Lebanon (4,11) and she is a “well of living waters, flowing down from Lebanon (4,15). Then, moving from the head 111. KEEL, Tauben, p. 17, n. 19. Keel lists three further toponyms, which according to him cannot be localized: Baal Hamon (8,11), Bat Rabbim (7,5), and Beter (2,17).

CLUES FOR A SYMBOLIC MEANING

503

down, her head is like the Carmel (7,6); her hair “is like the flock of goats moving down the slopes of Gilead” (4,1; 6,5); her nose like the tower of Lebanon, overlooking Damascus (7,5); her eyes like the pools of Heshbon (7,5), her breasts are compared to the vineyards of En-Gedi (1,14). Her complexion is compared to the tents of Kedar; and finally she calls herself a “rose of Sharon” (2,1). The place-name Maḥanayim (Song 7,1) should also be added to the list. Maḥanayim marks the place where Jacob had to cross back into the Promised Land (Gen 32,3) when returning from his service with Laban (Gen 31,55), and where he learned that his brother Esau was coming to meet him (Gen 32,7). Though one can translate the passage in question as “two camps”, or “two armies” (KJV; NRSV), “two companies”, (cf. Doppellager, Buber), the double significance of this word, denoting both “two camps” and the geographical place Maḥanayim (cf. ERV, WEB) is certainly intended112. “Two camps” is in fact the etiology given to the place name “Maḥanayim” in Gen 32,1-12, because Jacob’s two camps paused there. The significance of Maḥanayim will be taken up again below. 2. The Ideal Borders of Israel Gianni Garbini discerns in the description of the Beloved what he rightly calls “a sacred geography”. The “pools of Heshbon”, the “gate of Bat-Rabbim”, the “tower of Lebanon” that looks “towards Damascus” (Song 7,5), the Beloved’s head which is like “Carmel” (7,6) and the “dance of Maḥanayim” (7,2), “the vines of En-Gedi” (1,14), “Mountains of Beter” (2,17), the “Mountains of Gilead” (4,1), and Tirzah (6,4) – Garbini makes all out to be the result of a “rabbinic redactor’s” intervention into the text113. Though his “rabbinic redactor”, his identification of various other toponyms concerning Israel, and his emendations to the text are highly conjectural, his contention that the Beloved appears to be described according to a “sacred geography” holds up under closer scrutiny. In fact, her “silhouette” appears to correspond to the ideal borders of Israel as envisaged in Gen 15,18; Deut 1,7; 3,8.25; and 2 Sam 8,1-14 112. For the place name cf. among others, Gen 32,3; Josh 13,26.30, 2 Sam 17,24.27. 113. GARBINI, Cantico, pp. 105-106: “Tutto diventa chiaro se si pensa che la parte centrale del v. [7,]5 potrebbe essere intesa: ‘i tuoi occhi sono benedizioni per la meditazione sopra la porta della casa dei rabbi’ e che il Libano rappresenta il tempio di Gerusalemme; questo tipo di lettura non è frutto di fantasia ma è precisamente quello seguito da Aquila, il più vicino cronologicamente al momento dell’edizione rabbinica del Cantico”.

504

PART III – CHAPTER 8

(|| 1 Chr 18,1-13)114, with the inclusion of Tirzah along with Jerusalem symbolizing the reunification of North and South115. In the association of the Beloved’s physical appearance with these particular toponyms, in three major waṣfs in praise of the Beloved, the allusion to Transjordanian territories stand out. The waṣf of Song 4,1-3 || 6,5-7 compares her hair to the slopes of Gilead, while the waṣf of Song 7,1-7 compares the Shulammite’s eyes to the “pools of Heshbon”, and her nose to “the tower of Lebanon” (7,5). Both Heshbon and Gilead stand synecdochically for the two Transjordanian territories which God had given in heritage to Israel according to Num 21,21-35, Deut 2,24–3,17, and Judg 11,19-24116. Not only do Heshbon and Gilead designate the Transjordanian heritage of Israel117, the book of Deuteronomy specifies that the territory reached from the valley of Arnon up to Mount Hermon, called Sirion by the Sidonians and Senir by the Amorites (Deut 3,9), and thus included the (Anti-)Lebanon mountain range that marked its northern limits (cf. Deut 1,7; 3,8.25)118. In other words, in Deuteronomy the territories of Heshbon and Gilead are claimed up to Mount Hermon, i.e. Senir, in the north, which all belong to the mountain range mentioned explicitly in Song 4,8119. A similar case must be made for the apparently fictive toponym BathRabbim (Song 7,5), literally “daughter of many”. “Your eyes, pools in Heshbon at the gates of Bath-Rabbim”. Both the LXX and the Vulgate translate this apparent toponym literally (θυγατρὸς πολλῶν; filiae multitudinis), 114. As pointed out in the context of dating (see Chapter 4, II.1, p. 189, at nn. 109-110), Detlef Jericke has shown that the totality of these toponyms cover the Palestinian territories which were under Ptolemaic control. JERICKE, Toponyme, p. 51. This is certainly correct, but I think the emphasis is on an ideal vision of the re-united Israel. 115. BUDDE, Hohelied, p. xxiii, has already pointed out that in the late Second Temple period one would not have chosen Samaria to represent to the royal capital of the Northern Kingdom, for it was too associated with the “heretical” Samaritans. 116. According to Angela R. ROSKOP, “Num 21,21-35 is a revision of the text made for the purpose of including Transjordan in Israel’s land”. Transjordan in Deuteronomy, p. 771, with reference to her earlier book, The Wildernss Itineraries, pp. 204-215. For a similar argument on Deut 2,24b-37, see ROSKOP ERISMAN, Transjordan in Deuteronomy, pp. 773779. Both “revisions are designed to expand the concept of the promised land so that it is no longer limited to Cisjordan but includes the plateau north of the Arnon in Transjordan as well”. Ibid., p. 778. 117. Note that Moses’ visual tour of the Promised Land in Deut 34,1-4 “begins with Gilead, which is elsewhere associated with territory conquered in the Sihon and Og narratives … (Deut 2,36; 3,8-16; Josh 12,1-6; 13,8-32; 17,1-6; 21,36-37; Num 26,29-30; … Num 32 and Joshua 22)”. ROSKOP ERISMAN, Transjordan in Deuteronomy, p. 780. 118. On the ideal borders of Israel which included the Lebanon mountain range, see WEINFELD, Deuteronomy 1–11, pp. 133-134, 190. 119. See also Chapter 4, III.1.b, above, p. 211, where the absence of “Hermon and Senir” in 4Q107 is discussed.

CLUES FOR A SYMBOLIC MEANING

505

which shows that the versions wanted to guarantee that they capture the meaning rather than point to an actual place (see the discussion in Chapter 4, IV.2.a, above, p. 242). Athalya Brenner, however, makes a convincing case for ‫ בת־רבים‬capturing both the literal translation and localizing it geographically120. There are many biblical examples where a city or a territory is personified by the appellation ‫בת‬, daughter (Zion, Babylon, Tyre, Jerusalem, Egypt, Judah), just as villages that belong to major towns are called “daughter cities”. This frequent use of the term ‫ בת‬when referring to towns could indeed be an indication that here too, ‫ בת־רבים‬is “a poetic appellation for ‘town, city’”. Brenner conjectures that on the grounds of the phonetic affinity between ‫ רבים‬and ‫רבה‬, the capital of the Ammonites, “the source text for this sentence might have read: ‘Your eyes are [like] pools at Heshbon, by the gate of Bat Rabbah’”, just as in Jer 49,3 (“Wail, O Heshbon, for Ai is laid waste! Cry, O daughters of Rabbah”); thus, the two cities became interchangeable. According to Brenner, in Song 7,5 “the two cities function as a conventional metaphor to designate foreign (Transjordanian) places, located outside Israel proper121. If Brenner is correct and ‫ בת־רבים‬is a poetical way of referring to the Ammonite capital Rabbah, then this would be another affirmation of Jericke’s thesis, that the toponyms are carefully chosen to mark off the borders of Israel, or – as argued here – the borders of ‫“( כל־ישראל‬all Israel”) under the reign of David and Solomon. Significantly, both 2 Sam 12,29 and 1 Chr 20,1 recount how David fought against Rabbah and took it. Thus the Israel envisioned here corresponds at once to the ideal past and to the ideal future as promised, for example, by the prophet Jeremiah: “I will restore Israel to its pasture, and it shall feed on Carmel and in Bashan, and on the hills of Ephraim and in Gilead its hunger shall be satisfied” (Jer 50,19). Similarly, in Zech 10,10 the Lord promises to bring his people back to Gilead and Lebanon, as if these territories self-evidently belonged to the ideal borders of the re-united Israel. Carmel, Gilead, and Lebanon are expressly and repeatedly mentioned in the Song. In this respect, the intertextual echo to Maḥanayim in Song 7,1 is also significant. As mentioned above, the etiology for the name Maḥanayim as the place of the “two camps” is given by Jacob upon his return to the Promised Land. When menaced by his brother Esau he divided his people “into two camps” and prayed: “O God of my father Abraham and God of my father Isaac, Lord who said to me, return (‫ )שוב‬to your land and your kindred, I will be good to you. 120. BRENNER, A Note on Bat-Rabbîm. 121. Ibid., p. 114.

506

PART III – CHAPTER 8

I am not worthy of all the proofs of mercy and all the faithfulness which you have done to your servant, for with only a rod your servant has crossed this river and now I have become two camps (Gen 32,10-11).

Two things from this text are important for the present study. First, the etiology of the name Maḥanayim, according to which the “two camps” designate the offspring which Jacob had acquired through his two wives, Leah and Rachel, is significant. All alone with only a staff he had crossed the Jabbok, now with eleven sons, and an enormous amount of livestock, all of which he has acquired through Leah and Rachel, symbolized by two camps, he returns (‫ )שוב‬to the land promised to him and his fathers. Secondly, the insistence on God’s command to return to his land is significant, as Maḥanayim will from now on mark the point of return, i.e., re-entry into the Promised Land122. In just this way, the place figures also in the David-Absalom narrative, as the decisive place of crossing over the Jordan back into the territory of Israel (cf. 2 Sam 17,24–19,40). It is certainly not a coincidence that the poetry in Song 7,1 combines the notion of return (‫)שוב‬, expressed in the double command “return, return, oh Shulammite, return, return” (‫)שובי שובי השולמית שובי שובי‬, with the dance of Maḥanayim or the dance of the “two camps”. The toponym Maḥanayim is symbolically charged with the memory of Jacob’s two camps and marks the specific place of return into the Promised Land. And just as Jacob re-entered here from his symbolic exile with his brother-inlaw Laban, so Maḥanayim also marks the turning point for David’s fate and his return into the land and to the throne from his symbolic exile. By the late Second Temple literature the verb ‫ שוב‬had long become a technical term to designate conversion and the return from the Exile (cf. e.g. Jer 3,12; 12,15; 31,16-18.21)123. In the context of the preceding waṣf, Song 6,4-10, which compares the Beloved’s beauty to both Tirzah and Jerusalem, and the present waṣf of Song 7,1-7 that appears to describe the country of Israel from south to north124, the call to return (‫ )שוב‬and to do the dance of the two camps (Maḥanayim) expresses the desire to see Jacob’s two camps once again united. The unified and restored Israel whose head reaches as high as the 122. There are different traditions about the extensions of the Promised Land. The tradition behind Num 21,21-35 and Deut 34,1-4 includes the Transjordan territory “from Gilead to Dan” (Deut 31,1). According to the extended land tradition, Maḥanayim marks the boundaries between the tribe of Gad and Manasseh (Josh 13,26.30). Manahaim further becomes a city of refuge for the Levites (Josh 21,23). 123. For a highly charged use of the term ‫ שוב‬to designate the return to the land see also Ruth 1. 124. See ROBERT – TOURNAY – FEUILLET, Cantique, pp. 255-268.

CLUES FOR A SYMBOLIC MEANING

507

Lebanon is depicted as dancing like a young girl. North and south dance together as Israel reenters the land, restored to its former glorious extent. With good reason authors have detected here an allusion to Jer 31,4.13 where in the context of the return from the Exile and the restoration of both Samaria/Ephraim and Judah, virgin Israel is invited to dance125. Taken in their entirety, those toponyms thus signify both the reconquista of the northern territories and the re-unification of North and South (cf. Jer 50,4; Ezek 37,15-28; Zech 10,6), hinted at by the binomial Tirzah and Jerusalem (Song 6,4) and the allusion to the two camps (Maḥanayim) in Song 7,2 as well as the toponyms of Carmel, Lebanon, and Gilead. Taking into account the great importance of Israel-focused theology that was dominant in Jerusalem in the post-exilic period, and of which we have fine examples in the books of Chronicles, Sirach, and Tobit126, it is hard to imagine that such a text would not have led the audience to associate the land of Israel with the Beloved of the Song127. In the one instance that a foreign toponym is used to describe the Lover’s appearance, i.e. Lebanon, it is – not by chance – a toponym that has a strong association with the Temple of Jerusalem. In this case this association is even reinforced by the parallelism with cedars (Song 5,15). Because Solomon built the Temple with cedars from Lebanon, Lebanon soon became a near synonym for Jerusalem and the Temple (cf. Jer 22,23)128. The instances of so many toponyms referring to the Beloved call for an explanation. This is all the more so since this feature is absolutely unique in ANE love literature. A plausible explanation is that the Song is a symbolic composition in which the Beloved is cast as a personification of Israel. In that case the striking number of links between her and the toponyms, especially in the waṣfs, suggests that she is meant to reflect the beauty and the ideal extent of the land under its ideal kings David and his son Solomon and which it hoped to reattain in the days of the future son of David to come129. 125. See ibid., p. 253; FEUILLET, Comment lire?, pp. 175-180. 126. In particular, the way Chronicles refers to “Israel” when speaking of Judah, its vision of kol Israel, and the ideal reign under David and Solomon, or Sirach 24, where wisdom is ordered to make her roots in Jerusalem. 127. Of a very different opinion is Keel: “Daß hier nicht von Stadt im allgemeinen, sondern von Tirza und Jerusalem die Rede ist, hat gleich wenig zu bedeuten wie der Umstand, daß in Hld 8,10 von Türmen im allgemeinen, in 4,4 aber vom Davidsturm und in 7,5 vom Elfenbein-, bzw. Libanonturm, die Rede ist”. For Keel the comparison serves but to figure the inaccessibility of the virgin girl. See KEEL, Tauben, p. 35. 128. See VERMES, Scripture and Tradition, p. 37. 129. “Dass also mit großem Abstand die meisten Toponyme auf die Geliebte bezogen sind, bildet einen auffälligen Befund, für den nach Möglichkeit eine Erklärung gefunden werden sollte. Eine solche ergibt sich, wenn das allegorische Verständnis vorausgesetzt und

508

PART III – CHAPTER 8

3. Symbolic Toponyms Keel lists two further toponyms that according to him cannot be localized: Ba῾al Hamon (8,11) and Beter (2,17). It appears that these places are intentionally fictive, for their names have clearly Midrashic or symbolic significances. “Solomon had a vineyard in Ba῾al Hamon. He gave the vineyard to keepers, each would in turn give for its fruits a thousand silver-pieces” (Song 8,11). The place as such is unknown. An ancient conjecture, however, is that the place is to be identified with the Balamon of Jdt 8,3 (Βαλαμων), a city that according to the text was near Dotan130. As Cross explains, El was called by the epithet Baal Hamon, because he is said to have pitched his tent on Mount Hamon131. Ba῾al Hamon can be translated “lord of uproar”, “lord of a multitude”, “lord of wealth”, or also “husband of a multitude”. Many take this vineyard as an allusion to Solomon’s famously immense harem (1 Kgs 11,1-13)132. According to 1 Kgs 11,3 it numbered a thousand, of which seven hundred were wivesprincesses and three hundred concubines. The Song appears to allude to exactly this harem in the words of the Lover: My vineyard, my very own, lies before me. The thousand I leave to you Solomon. And two hundred to the keepers of its fruits (Song 8,12).

The passage takes a critical distance from the historical Solomon, an indication that the Solomon of the Song is not to be identified with the historical Solomon as he is known to the reader from the book of Kings. Rather he is an ideal Solomon, a figure of the one he was supposed to be as the ideal son of David. We will have occasion to return to this figure of Solomon in the next chapter. For the present it suffices to highlight the symbolic intention behind the fictive toponym. It has already been argued in Chapter 4, IV.2.a (above, p. 242) that the Mountains of Beter (‫ ;הרי בתר‬Song 2,17) do not appear to indicate a toponym, but rather that the name is one in a series of puns on the Temple Mount. The Hebrew term employed to designate these mountains derives from the verb ‫“( בתר‬to cut in pieces”), and is found only twice elsewhere in the Old Testament. In both occurrences, it refers to the covenant (‫)ברית‬ of the cut pieces that God concluded (i.e, cut) with Abraham (Gen 15,10) die Geliebte als Personifizierung Israels verstanden wird. Dann nämlich bedeutet ihre auffällig zahlreiche Verbindung mit Toponymen, zumal in Komplimenten und Beschreibungsliedern, dass sich in ihr die Schönheit des Landes spiegeln soll”. GERHARDS, Hohelied, p. 527. 130. See GARRETT, Song, p. 261. 131. CROSS, From Epic to Canon, p. 88. 132. See GARRETT, Song, pp. 261-261.

CLUES FOR A SYMBOLIC MEANING

509

and which appears to have been renewed in Jerusalem at the time of Jeremiah (Jer 34,18). Scholars have argued that the expression ‫ הרי בתר‬is an intended pun on the mountain where Abraham first received the covenant promises133. Two additional arguments lead in this direction. First, Song 2,17 forms part of a refrain group (the “mountain refrains” 2,17; 4,6; 8,14), of which the second occurrence puns on Mount Moriah (‫הר‬ ‫המור‬, Song 4,6), which according to 1 Chr 3,1 is to be identified with the Temple Mount of Jerusalem. The third occurrence of the refrain reads “mountain of spices” (‫הרי בשמים‬, Song 8,14), which when read in conjunction with 2,17 and 4,6 is arguably an allusion to the balsam oils used in the Temple service (cf. Exod 25,6; 30,23; 35,28) and thus another veiled allusion to the Temple Mount. Additionally, the verse preceding the mention of the Beter Mountains is “My Beloved is mine and I am his” (Song 2,16), which is an allusion to the covenant formula as argued in Chapter 7, I.3 above, p. 443. It thus appears that the term ‫ הרי בתר‬is not a toponym but a symbolic name that is meant to evoke the Temple Mount, that is, the mountain that assembles the memory of all the important sacrifices and covenants of Israel.

IV. PLANTS AND FLOWERS While many see a purely esthetic evocation in the choice of plants and animals that populate the Song as a celebration of the beauty of nature for its own sake, it is possible to perceive in them a highly evocative symbolism. Throughout the Song five different fruits and their respective fruit trees (or plants) appear. These are the vineyard (1,7; 7,13) with its vine (2,13; 6,11; 7,1), the apple tree (2,3; 8,5) and its fruits (2,5; 7,9), the fig tree (2,13), the pomegranate (4,3; 6,7 / fruit; 6,11; 7,13 / tree), and the palm tree (7,9). Furthermore, there is mention of a nut garden (6,11), a hapax in the Hebrew Scriptures. Is it a coincidence that all five fruit-bearing trees mentioned in the Song (vine ‫ ;גפן‬fig tree ‫ ;תאנה‬pomegranate, palm, and the apple tree) are mentioned also in Joel 1,12 where their withering is an indication of Israel’s destitution. These trees appear as a barometer of Israel’s “spiritual health”. When they wither, as in Joel 1,12, it is a sign of God’s punishment and absence from the country, and thus of the brokenness of the covenant134. When they blossom, as in the Song, they 133. See TOURNAY, Word of God, pp. 85-87; LACOCQUE, Romance, pp. 90-91. 134. See also Amos 4,9, “ ‘I smote you with blight and mildew; I laid waste your gardens and your vineyards; your fig trees and your olive trees the locust devoured; yet you did not return to me’, says the LORD’”.

510

PART III – CHAPTER 8

are indicators of the time of salvation (Song 2,13; cf. Joel 2,22; Mic 4,4; Zech 3,10). The vine, the fig, and the pomegranate, together with oil, honey, and wheat (Song 7,3) are six of the seven products that the Promised Land yields (Deut 8,8)135. Only barley does not appear in the Song. The trio of grapes, figs, and pomegranates are the fruits of the Promised Land par excellence, as they are the fruits the spies bring back from their exploratory trip (Num 13,23). Their absence is noted in the desert (Num 20,5, “And why have you made us come up out of Egypt, to bring us to this evil place? It is no place for grain, or figs, or vines, or pomegranates, and there is no water to drink”). Furthermore, the recurring pair of milk and honey (Song 4,11; 5,1) is reminiscent of the Promised Land which is famously flowing with them136. Moreover, according to Deut 33,13-16 the land promised to Joseph will be blessed with choice fruits (‫)מגד‬. The term ‫מגד‬, as a designation for choice fruits, occurs solely in the blessing of Joseph and in the description of the fruits that the Song’s garden-Bride yields (4,16; 7,14). Thus, these botanic species have arguably not been chosen at random. Rather, if one traces the biblical significance of the different items, one is led time and again to the discovery of three different ideal garden-lands: paradise, the Promised Land, the Temple of Jerusalem with Mount Zion (see Chapter 11).

V. SYMBOLIC NUMERALS One of the strongest clues to a symbolic meaning of the Song is the careful calculation and distribution of words or concepts in numerical occurrences that are laden with symbolic significance. Though attention to numerals in the biblical text had for a long time been considered to be a medieval Rabbinic, cabalistic invention, recent studies show that such attention to numerical patterns was already paid by the scribes responsible for the composition of the biblical texts137. In fact, “counting was 135. In Deut 8,8 ‫ שמן‬refers to the olive tree which does not feature as such in the Song. But its product, which is equally called ‫שמן‬, occurs also in the Song (1,3 bis; 4,10) and adds to the Song’s royal messianic traits. 136. Exod 3,8.17; 13,5; 33,3; Lev 20,24; Num 13,27; 14,8; 16,13.14; Deut 6,3; 11,9; 26,9.15; Josh 5,6; Jer 11,5 et al. 137. On the symbolism of numbers in extra-biblical ancient texts, see W.H. ROSCHER, Die Sieben und Neunzahl im Kultus und Mythus der Griechen, in Abhandlungen der philologisch-historischen Klasse der königl. Sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften 24 (1904) 3-114; J. HEHN, Siebenzahl und Sabbat bei den Babyloniern und im Alten Testament:

CLUES FOR A SYMBOLIC MEANING

511

part and parcel of the art of writing in biblical antiquity as a device to give structure to the text”138; it was a compositional technique139. With the exception of the twenty-six occurrences of the appellation Dôḏî mentioned above, and a recent observation with regard to the sevenfold occurrence of the term “mother” by Thomas Staubli140, numbers have not received due attention in Song scholarship. However, the composition of the Song in its present form reflects a carefully arranged distribution of certain terms that cannot be the result of mere chance. The most striking feature in this respect is the number of terms that appear exactly seven times. With no claim to completeness, the sevenfold occurrence of the following (significantly) terms may be pointed out: “mother” (Song 1,5; 3,5.11; 6,9; 8,1.2.5); “my soul” (1,7; 3,1.2.3.4; 5,6; 6,12), “sister” (4,9.10.12; 5,1.2; 8,8 bis), “Lebanon” (4,8 bis.11.15; 3,9; 5,15; 7,5), “Solomon” (1,1.6; 3,7.9.11; 8,11.12), “wine” (1,2.4; 2,4; 4,10; 5,1; 7,10; 8,2), and “Daughters of Jerusalem” (1,5; 2,7; 3,5.10; 5,8.16; 8,4). Moreover, the waṣf of Song 4,1-7 describes exactly seven body parts of the Beloved: eyes, hair, teeth, mouth, cheeks, neck, breasts. As if to underline this number of perfection, the poet ends the Beloved’s description on the note, “there is no flaw in you” (‫)מום אין בך‬. Finally, as already pointed out under I, above, p. 477, the term ‫( דוד‬without the first person singular suffix) occurs also exactly seven times. The accumulation of terms and features that occur exactly seven times is the most salient of the numerical observations. In fact, there appears to be something of an heptadic structure to the Song. Naming something seven times conveys its particular importance141. The heptad as a structuring feature of ancient texts is a feature that can be traced all over the ANE. It is found in Ugaritic, Babylonian, Greek, and prominently also in biblical texts. As Umberto Cassuto remarks in connection with his studies into the structuring element of the heptad in Genesis 1: “Both to the Israelites and to the Gentiles, in the East and also in the West – but especially in the Eine religionsgeschichtliche Studie (Leipziger semitische Studien, 2/5), Helsingfors, Hinrichs, 1907; A.S. KAPELRUD, The Number Seven in Ugaritic Texts, in VT 18 (1968) 494499. For observations on the importance of numbers in the composition of biblical texts, see J. HEHN, Zur Bedeutung der Siebenzahl, in K. BUDDE (ed.), Vom Alten Testament (BZAW, 41), Giessen, Töpelmann, 1925, 128-136; C. SCHEDL, Baupläne des Wortes: Einführung in die biblische Logotechnik, Berlin, Herder, 1974; J.B. SEGAL, Numerals in the Old Testament, in JSSt (1965) 2-20; J.G. WILLIAMS, Number Symbolism and Joseph as Symbol of Completion, in JBL 98 (1979) 86-87; C.J. LABUSCHAGNE, Numerical Secrets of the Bible: Rediscovering the Bible Codes, North Richland Hills, TX, BIBAL Press, 2000. 138. LABUSCHAGNE, Secrets, p. 11. 139. See ibid., p. 33. 140. See STAUBLI, Love Poetry, pp. 87-94. 141. See DAVIS, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs, p. 267.

512

PART III – CHAPTER 8

East – it was the number of perfection and the basis of ordered arrangement; and particular importance attached to it in the symbolism of numbers”142. Seven “was the number par excellence employed to express symbolically the idea of fullness, completeness, totality, and wholeness”143, perfection, and abundance144. It was considered a sacred number in virtually the entire ANE145. It “reflects the supernatural, whether divine or royal”146. While the heptad can be found as a structuring feature in a plethora of biblical texts147, it is particularly noteworthy as a number that marks the Creation narrative in Genesis 1 and that of the instruction about and the construction of the Tabernacle in Exodus 25–31; 35–40148. As numerous scholars have observed, the Tabernacle narrative appears to have been adjusted to the Creation narrative to mark the creation of the Tabernacle as a microcosmic reflection of the macrocosmos149. By implication this suggests that Genesis 1 describes the creation of the world as the creation of one immense Temple. On account of creation’s completion on the seventh day, seven is, of course, the day that marks the Sabbath. And just as the Sabbath recalls the day on which creation was completed and God rested (Gen 2,1-3), so also, the instructions concerning the Tabernacle conclude with the law of Sabbath rest (Exod 31,12-17). Seven is also a number associated with the Promised Land, the Land of Israel’s rest. Deut 8,7-9, which sing the praises of the Promised Land, demonstrate thus an heptadic structure on several levels. The verses are structured around a sevenfold occurrence of the term “land” (‫)ארץ‬. The land is characterized by seven products and seven further characteristics (cf. Deut 8,7-10)150. And according to Deut 7,1, Israel inherits the land from seven nations. 142. U.M.D. CASSUTO, Commentary on the Book of Genesis. Part I: From Adam to Noah: Genesis I–VI.8, Jerusalem, Magnes Press, 1961, p. 12. 143. LABUSCHAGNE, Secrets, p. 26. 144. See HEHN, Zur Bedeutung der Siebenzahl, p. 136. 145. KAPELRUD, The Number Seven, pp. 494-495. See I. ABRAHAMS, Numbers, Typical and Important, in Encyclopedia Judaica, XII, 1971, 1254-1261, p. 1256. See also W. WARNING, Literary Artistry in Leviticus (BIS, 35), Leiden, Brill, 1999, p. 28. See also M.H. POPE, Number, in IDB, III, New York, Abingdon, 1962, 561-567; ID., Seven, Seventh, Seventy, in IDB, IV, New York, Abingdon, 1962, 294-295. 146. SEGAL, Numerals, pp. 18-19. 147. For an overview of the predominant recurrence of the number seven in the Bible see LABUSCHAGNE, Secrets, pp. 27-31. 148. See CASSUTO, Genesis I, pp. 12-19; LEVENSON, Creation and the Persistence of Evil, pp. 67-68; and LABUSCHAGNE, Secrets, pp. 42-48. 149. In the words of Levenson: “We see here a general ancient Near Eastern mythos that identifies the temple with the world viewed sub species creationis”. See LEVENSON, Creation and the Persistence of Evil, p. 75. 150. See LABUSCHAGNE, Secrets, p. 126.

CLUES FOR A SYMBOLIC MEANING

513

As will be seen with greater detail in Chapter 11, the biblical garden symbolism establishes an equation between the primordial paradise, the Promised Land, and the Temple. All three symbolize states in which man lives in the blissful presence of God. “Paradise lost” is regained in the Promised Land, in the center of which God dwells with his people in the Temple, which is itself a micro-paradise. From the Exile onwards, with the loss of Land and Temple, the Torah will be added as a fourth idealized garden, by the observance of which man can live in the presence of God. “The scribes constructed a temple of words for their God Yahweh. Holy Scripture substituted the temple as the spiritual sanctuary”151. This equation is not only symbolized by the garden symbol that is equally applied to paradise, Promised Land, Temple, and Torah, but also by the fact that the number seven functions as one of its basic architectural building blocks of the Pentateuch152. In light of these observations, the Song’s predilection for the number seven echoes at once Creation and the Tabernacle, the Land of Israel, and possibly the Torah. This is in fact in perfect consonance with the Song’s elaborate use of the garden symbolism, which echoes these same biblical realities, as will be seen in Chapter 11, III, below, p. 780. It is particularly noteworthy in this respect that Lebanon, which is significant among the terms that have a sevenfold occurrence, became in the Second Temple period a cipher for the Temple153. The sevenfold occurrence of the term “mother” should be read in the same light. She may symbolize Israel as a nation (Isaiah 66) and/or Jerusalem (cf. Lamentations 1–2 and 3; Bar 4,5–5,9). Her house is the Tabernacle or Temple as maintained by the Jewish tradition154. The sevenfold repetition of the term “vine” is also significant in this respect, for the vine is the symbol for Israel (cf. Psalm 80, Isaiah 5)155. The terms “my soul” and “sister”, both occurring seven times, refer to the Beloved who is thus depicted as 151. Ibid., p. 118. The relationship between the word of God and the eschatological Temple becomes in fact a topos in the Jewish writings of the Second Temple period. See S. RUZER, From Man as Locus of God’s Indwelling to Death as Temple’s Destruction, in RB 119 (2012) 383-402; and K. SCHMID, The Canon and the Cult: The Emergence of Book Religion in Ancient Israel and the Gradual Sublimation of the Temple Cult, in JBL 131 (2012) 289-305. 152. See LABUSCHAGNE, Secrets, pp. 31-42, 111-114. 153. See WEINFELD, Deuteronomy 1–11, p. 191; VERMES, Scripture and Tradition, p. 37. 154. See, for example, the Tg. Cant. 8.2 “I will lead you, O King Messiah, I will bring you up into my Temple, and you will teach me”. Here, the “house of my mother” is the Temple. Similarly, in Tg. Cant. 3.4 “the house of my mother” is interpreted as referring to the desert tent. See ALEXANDER, Targum of Canticles, pp. 117, 190. 155. And the numerical value of the term “vine” (‫ )יין‬is seventy according to the Hebrew Gematria: Yud = 10, nun = 50.

514

PART III – CHAPTER 8

having attained perfection, as also underlined at the end of the waṣf in Song 4,1-7, “You are altogether beautiful, my love, there is no flaw in you” (v. 7). The seven occurrences of the name Solomon, on the other hand, underline the “messianic” character of the Song’s male protagonist. Significantly, the spirit that according to Isa 11,1-5 will rest on the Messiah is qualified by seven titles. It is (i) the spirit of the Lord, (ii) a spirit of wisdom and (iii) understanding, (iv) a spirit of counsel and (v) power, (vi) a spirit of knowledge and (vii) fear of the Lord156. One must not suppose a one-to-one mapping of these symbolical terms and numbers. The Jewish writings of the late Second Temple period often display this kind of ambiguity, according to which the place of God’s indwelling may be at once the sanctuary or tabernacle and the community of Israel as a whole157, or the city of Jerusalem understood as one huge sanctuary (cf. Psalm 48, Nehemiah, Revelation 22). The same ambiguity is apparently at work in the Song. As already seen with respect to other features, her identity oscillates between the land and the nation of Israel, the city of Jerusalem, the Temple, and at times even the Torah. The “Daughters of Jerusalem” also recall the totality of the nations158 who are expected to come to know the God of Israel when YHWH will come to dwell with his people, i.e. when the marriage covenant will be fulfilled (cf. Zech 2,14-15)159. Another salient feature are the eight occurrences of “Jerusalem” (1,5; 2,7; 3,5.10; 5,8.16; 6,4; 8,4). According to Gen 7,13 eight people survived the flood with whom an eternal covenant was made (Gen 9,13-17). According to the covenant with Abraham, the circumcision of a baby boy had to take place on the eighth day (Gen 17,12-14). The eight occurrences of the city of Jerusalem might hint towards that state of covenant fulfillment, when under the rule of the divinely appointed Davidic king, YHWH will come to dwell in the midst of his people. Finally, in addition to its “heptadic structure” the book’s watermark appears to be the divine Name. As pointed out above, the name Dôḏî appears exactly twenty-six times in the Song. As also already mentioned, twenty-six is the numerical value of the tetragrammaton. The overwhelming presence of this numeral in the architecture of the Pentateuch and 156. See LABUSCHAGNE, Secrets, pp. 31-33. 157. See RUZER, Indwelling, p. 384, who gives the examples of Ezek 37,26-27 and Lev 26,11. 158. Seven having been the number of peoples whom Israel disinherited when taking the Promised Land, it became the number symbolizing the totality of nations. 159. See Chapter 7, I.2.b.iii.

CLUES FOR A SYMBOLIC MEANING

515

many other biblical books160 has led Labuschagne to the conclusion that attention to the numbers twenty-six and seventeen appear to have been a sophisticated way that scribes weave the name of God into the fabric of the Torah161: The divine name numbers were the instruments employed by the biblical writers to interweave the holy name in the text of the Torah. … The relationship between the name of God and the text of the Torah did not originate in medieval kabbalistic circles. It goes back to the time of the formation of Scripture itself, the time between the Babylonian Exile and the completion of the Hebrew canon and the finalization of the text of Holy Scripture in the first century of the Common Era162.

Since “the name of God was regarded as signifying his presence in person” the purpose of structuring texts according to the divine number was apparently that of “interweaving of the name of God in the texture of the biblical texts” and thus to symbolize his presence163. In light of these findings and of the longstanding tradition of recognizing YHWH in the Lover of the Song, the twenty-six occurrences of the term Dôḏî appear to have been a first sophisticated hint of the Song’s composer to the Lover’s divine identity. In conclusion, Labuschagne rightly observes: We should appreciate that numerical principles offer an author the opportunity to imbue his text with a symbolic significance and to give it an extra dimension. … In virtue of the symbolism of the numbers, the texts contain a latent message hidden in the text that can only be unlocked by the reader who is familiar with such techniques or who knows how to look for these devices and find them164.

Unfortunately the key to this hidden message has almost been lost and scholarship has so far paid too little attention to understanding such underlying techniques of composition. Nonetheless, the features highlighted above should suffice to show that the composition of the Song is not only 160. To give a random example, “in the prose framework of the book of Job: the introduction (1,1–3,1 in the Hebrew text) and the epilogue (42,7-17), the name YHWH and the name of Job both occur exactly twenty-six times”. LABUSCHAGNE, Secrets, p. 103. 161. The idea was first expressed by the Austrian orientalist Claus Schedl and developed by Casper Labuschagne. The number seventeen is also associated with the divine Name. It is presumably based on the numerical value of ‫“( אהוה‬analogous to the archized form ‫”יהוה‬, cf. Exod 3,14). According to another explanation it is the sum of the digits of the numerical values of the letters ‫יהוה‬: 1(+0)+5+6+5. See ibid., p. 89. 162. Ibid., p. 92. 163. Ibid., p. 96. 164. Ibid., p. 94.

516

PART III – CHAPTER 8

highly sophisticated and unified on the poetic level as many different studies have shown, but that it even displays a carefully constructed numerical architecture, the full significance of which remains to be studied more closely165. The frequent use of the number seven in combination with the numbers eight and twenty-six should, however, suffice to show that the Song has a highly theological import. If one allows for the number twentysix to signify the presence of the Lord with his Beloved, then the heptadic structure expresses the absolute perfection and completion of Israel that has finally been attained. It is the perfection of creation, lost with the expulsion from the primordial garden, but recovered in the gift of the Land, the construction of the Temple, and the Lord’s descent into his paradisiacal abode, which is at once the Temple, the people, and the Land. In addition, the symbolic hidden message interwoven into the structure of the text, the careful attention paid to particular numerals in the distribution of certain key terms, is also a valuable indication to the background of the Song’s author. In light of the Song’s numerical architecture, the contention that a woman should have given expression to her (romantic) love yearnings is even less convincing166. The scribe responsible for the composition of this text has enjoyed a professional scribal training, mastered highly sophisticated techniques, and might have been associated with priestly circles167. 165. Some more numerical features should be pointed out: The number nine marks the occurrence of the terms ‫“( רעיתי‬my friend/love” 1,9.15; 2,2.10.13; 4,1.7; 5,2; 6,4) and ‫כרם‬ (“vineyard” 1,6 bis.14; 2,15 bis; 7,13; 8,11 bis.12), while the key term “love” (‫)אהבה‬ occurs exactly eleven times (2,4.5.7; 3,5.10; 5,8; 7,7; 8,4.6.7 bis). Significantly also, the fruits and spices that constitute the closed garden (4,12–5,1) mount up to twelve. (The two occurrences of nard, once in the singular and once in the plural, are counted separately supposing a voluntary repetition of these terms in order to achieve the symbolic number twelve. See BARBIERO, Cantico, p. 188). Less significant but still noteworthy are the terms “bride” (‫כלה‬, 4,8.9.10.11.12; 5,1) and “dove” (‫יונה‬, 1,15; 2,14; 4,1; 5,2.12; 6,9) which occur six times each. Studies in the numerical values of the Hebrew Bible are too few to unlock these codes. It is, however, noteworthy that according to LABUSCHAGNE, Secrets, pp. 70-73, eleven is the number of fulfillment, being the sum of four and seven. The eleven occurrences of the term “love” ‫ אהבה‬might therefore be significant, the fullness of love being the subject of the book. The six occurrences of the term “bride” and “my beloved” might hint to the earthly perfection of the Beloved, six being the number that symbolizes creation (cf. the six days of creation). 166. Pace P. TRIBLE, Depatriarchalizing in Biblical Interpretation, in JAAR 41 (1973) 30-48. 167. See also P. DI LUCCIO, Shulamìt e la Samaritana, in La Civiltà Cattolica 3914 (2013) 123-134, p. 134.

CLUES FOR A SYMBOLIC MEANING

517

VI. THE SHEPHERD-KING The Lover of the Song is sometimes presented as a generic king (Song 1,4.12; 7,6), sometimes concretely as King Solomon (3,6.7.9.11; 8,11), and sometimes as a shepherd (1,7; 2,16; 6,2-3). The Beloved equally assumes changing roles: once that of a “keeper of vineyards” (1,5-6), or a shepherdess (1,8); at other times that of an oriental princess (3,6-11; 7,2). She is not only shepherdess and princess, however. She is also equated with a vineyard (1,6; 8,11) and a garden (4,12-14; 6,2). In this particular constellation of images, the inner-biblical allusions of these symbols would seem to impose themselves. Israel as a vineyard is an established biblical symbol (Isaiah 5; Psalm 80), as is that of a garden, which potently symbolizes in different contexts the land, the people, the Temple, the city of Jerusalem, and eschatological Israel168. Given the additional motif of the exclusive love between the shepherd-king Lover and his vineyard-garden-Beloved, the whole constellation points any biblically literate reader irresistibly towards Israel (or Jerusalem) and her shepherdking YHWH (or her anointed [Davidic] king)169. The presence of this specific configuration of symbols has through the ages facilitated a theological reading of the Song. In the attempt to defend a merely naturalistic reading of the Song, however, modern exegesis has downplayed or denied these symbols their biblical resonance. It has done so by essentially severing the generic king from the shepherd figure, explaining their concomitant presence with artistic sophistry but 168. Just as in Song 4,12-14 the Beloved is a garden, the people of Israel are seen as a garden Num 24,5-7. The garden of Eden in Genesis 2 is the Ursymbol for the Land of Israel: W. BERG, Israels Land, der Garten Gottes: Der Garten als Bild des Heiles im Alten Testament, in BN 32 (1988) 35-51, p. 49; L. ALONSO SCHÖKEL, Sapiential and Covenant Themes in Genesis 2–3, in J.L. CRENSHAW (ed.), Studies in Ancient Israelite Wisdom, Hoboken, NJ, KTAV, 1976, 468-480. See also Deut 13,10; Joel 2,3 (before the destruction) and in the eschatological context Isa 51,3; 58,11; and Ezek 36,35. Furthermore, as is typical for the ANE, in the Bible the Temple is conceived of as a garden (cf. Genesis 2; 1 Kings 5–8; Ezek 47,1-12; Zech 14,8). See the in-depth study by STORDALEN, Eden. 169. Thus RUDOLPH, Hohe Lied, pp. 84-85, for example, himself a staunch defender of the naturalistic reading, sees the basis for an interpretation of the shepherd-king Lover as YHWH as rooted in the MT: “Das Recht zu dieser Deutung, die, wie ich glaube, an einzelnen Stellen (1,4; 3,6.11; 8,2) sogar auf den masoretischen Text selbst abgefärbt hat, nahm man wohl in erster Linie aus Jes 5,1ff., dem ‘Lied meines Freundes [‫ ]דודי‬von seinem Weinberg’, aus dem sich ja eindeutig ergab, dass der ‫ דוד‬Jahwe und der Weinberg, der im HL mehrfach als versteckte Bezeichnung für die weibliche Hauptperson dient (s. bei 1,5f.), das Haus Israel war (vgl. auch Jes 27,2f.). Daneben spielte natürlich das Bild von der Ehe, unter dem die Propheten (bes. Hos 2 und Jer 2) das Verhältnis zwischen Jahwe und Israel beschreiben, eine bedeutsame Rolle”. See also ZAKOVITCH, Hohelied, p. 95.

518

PART III – CHAPTER 8

at the expense of severing the Song from both its ANE and biblical roots in royal ideology. There have been three major explanations for the concomitant presence of a shepherd and a king in the Song. They have been treated either as two competing characters – “love triangle hypothesis” – or explained as different modes of travesty (VI.2, below, p. 519). Yet other scholars have recognized the biblical potential of the shepherd-king figure and its implications for an “allegorical” reading of the Song. They have consequently eliminated the passages referring to the king as later glosses (VI.3, below, p. 525), supposedly alien to the original “profane” nature of the Song’s love affair. I intend to show that these various solutions do not stand up to criticism and are no longer convincing. It stands more to reason that the shepherd-king figure was understood as a symbol for Israel’s anointed King or for YHWH himself (VI.4 and 5 below, pp. 526 and 527)170. 1. Love Triangle (Hirtenhypothese) The first modern explanation came to be known as the Hirtenhypothese or the love triangle hypothesis. Johann Friedrich Jacobi first proposed this, and it was developed extensively by Heinrich Ewald. It turns king and shepherd into opposing figures, contending for the love of the shepherd girl, who in spite of Solomon’s glory remains faithful to her shepherd boy171. This view has, however, largely been abandoned, for the alleged rivalry between king and shepherd nowhere appears demonstrably in the 170. The material in sections VI.1-4 likewise appears in my article ‘Behold King Solomon!’: Inner-biblical Interpretation in Song 3,6-11. 171. The elaborate absurdity of Ewald’s position is easily exposed. See, e.g., EWALD, Salomonische Schriften, pp. 334-336. According to Ewald the Song of Songs tells the story of Solomon who on an outing from Jerusalem, going up north into the countryside to the town of Shunem, accompanied by his harem (the Daughters of Jerusalem) spots a maiden girl dancing in a nut-orchard (6,11-12). Heartbreakingly he informs his readers that this girl, called Shulammite, has had a sad youth. Her father had died prematurely; she was the only daughter of her mother; the mother, however, had a number of sons from a – conjectured – previous marriage. These brothers had taken over the role of the father and had raised the Shulammite severely. They had made her keeper of a large vineyard, wherein she had come to know and fallen in love with a young man from a neighboring village. The two fell deeply in love and now she is dancing, love-drunk in her orchard, not knowing that King Solomon is observing her. The King captures her and brings her to Jerusalem into his royal harem (1,4f.). The young shepherd girl is at first flattered by so much homage and luxury. However, after a long and painful fight she victoriously withstands the lure of the royal glitter and in “true free love” she chooses faithfulness as the highest of all goods and returns to her first love, the shepherd boy (8,5). They express in glowing words the superiority of genuine affection over that which may be purchased by wealth or rank (8,6-7).

CLUES FOR A SYMBOLIC MEANING

519

text. Moreover, the Shulammite would be answering the king with expressions that are supposed to be addressed to the shepherd boy; and there are no expressions of rejection from her part, nor any clear words of pleading on the part of Solomon that seek to convince her172. 2. Travesty A subsequent explanation of the concurrent presence of a king and a shepherd in the Song, which in various forms still holds sway today, came to be known under the label Travesty. It comes in three variations. a) Wetzstein’s “Syrische Dreschtafel” The theory of travesty was first based on evidence drawn from nineteenthcentury Syrian wedding customs. According to Wetzstein’s Syrische Dreschtafel, the first seven days after a wedding were called “the King’s Week” in the neighborhood of Damascus, and during this time the newlyweds played pretend roles of a king and queen173. Parallel to this custom, it was conjectured that the Song reflected a collection of popular wedding songs, for which the epithet “king” for the Lover of the Song would have to be understood as the name given to the groom during the week-long wedding feast (cf. Gen 29,27; Judg 14,12; Tob 11,19). The name “Solomon” would have been chosen as a hyperbole, the highest possible enhancement of the term “king”174. As discussed at length in Chapter 6, I, above, p. 325, a number of points make it highly unlikely that the original Sitz im Leben of these Songs stems from wedding ceremonies. The main reasons may be briefly recalled here. (1) A confirmation of the nineteenth-century Syrian marriage ceremony has not been found in Palestine175. (2) The Song in its present form would be too short for a ceremony lasting seven days. (3) There are no 172. As MEEK, Canticles and the Tammuz Cult, p. 6, rightly points out, this is “a figment of exegetical imagination and does not seem to be based on fact”. The Hirtenhypothese was furthermore tied into the drama-hypothesis, which has equally been shelved, for one would have to presume that all the indications that made the drama comprehensible (indication of speakers, different acts, etc.) have been either removed or lost by chance. Moreover, there are no attestations to drama in any other Semitic writings; and even though there are a couple of dialogues, the majority of the passages are monologues. Thus the speaking person more often than not would remain without an answer in the drama. See BUDDE, Hohelied, p. xiv. 173. WETZSTEIN, Syrische Dreschtafel. 174. BUDDE, Hohelied, p. 16. 175. LACOCQUE, Romance, p. 51.

520

PART III – CHAPTER 8

allusions to a concrete wedding rite within the Song. The question of the girl’s virginity, so important in the ancient world and elaborated in Deut 22,13-30, is entirely absent176. (4) The conspicuous absence of marriage motifs (except for Song 3,11), which would be expected in a marriage celebration, rules out the possibility of the Song being a marriage ritual or book of folkloric wedding songs. (5) The fact that it is always the woman who takes the initiative excludes the possibility that these are profane marriage lyrics177. (6) Finally, other than nineteenth-century Syria, we have no extra-biblical comparative material. On this theory, it would, of course, also need to be explained how it was possible for the Song to have become regarded as religious literature in such a short time. The weddingsong theory has never been substantiated and must be abandoned178. It imposes a preconceived reading key that is founded neither on the text nor on historical evidence. b) Literary Travesty and Egyptian Love Poems Next came the theory of literary travesty, one that is still in vogue with commentators and largely uncritically accepted, though it rests – as I hope to show – on false premisses. The Lovers in the guise of a king and a princess, a shepherd and shepherdess, and gardeners alike, are explained as a literary artifice of highly developed ornate poetry, called “travesty”, meaning a change of costume or a disguise. These disguises are said to provide ways of temporary escapes from the constraints of one’s own social position. One may imaginatively move either upward to the aristocratic world (the king travesty) or downward to a lower rung of society (the shepherd travesty)179. This theory is based on a study of western literature from antiquity to seventeenth-century France by André Jolles. Jolles detects three types of travesty in occidental literature: the knight, the shepherd, and the prankster180. He discerns a general human tendency to desire a temporary disguise, a momentary escape from one’s own social position, either upwards (knights), or downwards (shepherds), or outwards (pranksters). This is 176. See ibid., p. 50, who points out that the preservation of the “coat” stained with the blood of the defloration and kept by the young woman’s parents, is still practiced in some parts of the world, e.g., Sicily and the Near East. 177. SCHMÖKEL, Heilige Hochzeit, p. 119. 178. For an extensive refutation of the wedding-song theory, see POPE, Song, p. 144. 179. GERLEMAN, Hohelied, p. 61. See also BARBIERO, Song, pp. 14-15. 180. A. JOLLES, Die literarischen Travestien: Ritter – Hirt – Schelm, in Blätter für Deutsche Philosophie 6 (1931) 281-294.

CLUES FOR A SYMBOLIC MEANING

521

reflected in the three kinds of literary genres, which allow man such an escape through the reading of the respective works of literature. Alfred Hermann subsequently sought to discern the same phenomenon in Egyptian love literature, where, of course, there are no knights. Hermann found the equivalent to the western shepherds in Egyptian servant travesties, and the corollary to the prankster in the shepherd travesty181. In spite of the somewhat questionable correspondences, Gillis Gerleman then applied Hermann’s categories to the Song182. According to Gerleman, “[t]he ‘king’ and the ‘queen’ of the Song are to be understood as literary travesties, ‘upward’ disguises, which the poet uses in order to make the lovers appear in ideal situations and make the scenes exciting and alternating”183. In the same manner, the Song is said to use “shepherd travesties” and “gardener travesties”184. The popularity of gardener-travesties is explained by the erotic connotations of the garden metaphor by which the girl and her bodily charms are often depicted under the image of a garden or a vineyard (1,6; 4,12; 6,2; 8,11). Both the shepherd and the garden-travesty belong to the same category of “downward travesty”185. According to Gerleman these literary travesties are typical for Egyptian love poetry and their presence in the Song would not be explicable except by Egyptian influence. Numerous scholars followed Gerleman, rather uncritically, in reading the appearance of the Lovers as shepherds, gardeners, or kings in the mode of simple literary travesty186. 181. HERMANN, Altägyptische Liebesdichtung, pp. 111-124. On the basis of Jolles’ theory, that shepherd travesty in European literature is based on the desire to be freed from social and temporal constraints and to return to the happy “Urzeit, des goldenen Zeitalters, das im ‘Neuen Arkadien’ wieder auflebt”, Hermann conjectures an analogous concept for ancient Egypt: “Der Ägypter dagegen, dem ein geschichtliches Bewußtsein im strengen Sinne des Wortes fehlte, und dem die ewige Gegenwart der Urzeit viel zu real war, als daß er sie auf dem Umweg einer Travestie hätte suchen müssen, will, wo er zum ‘Hirten’, das heißt bei ihm zum Vogelfänger, Gärtner oder Fellachen wird, nicht die historische Gegenwart verlassen, um sich einer urtümlichen Vorzeit zuzuwenden, sondern er will der Zivilisation schlechthin nach außen hin entfliehen. Wahrscheinlich ist die fehlende Einwirkung des Geschichtsfaktors die Ursache dafür, daß die Verkleidung zu einer Art ‘Hirt’ oder ‘Schäfer’ hier diejenige Stelle einnimmt, welche in den späteren Literaturen die Verwandlung in einen ‘Schelm’ innehält, der nichts anderes will, als aus der Umwelt hinauszufinden” (p. 119). 182. GERLEMAN, Hohelied, p. 61. 183. Ibid. 184. The Lovers both appear as shepherds who shepherd their flock (Song 1,7.8; 2,16; 6,2-3); the Beloved is a keeper of vineyards (1,6); the Lover enjoys the fruits and flowers of the garden-Bride (4,16; 5,1; 6,2.11). 185. GERLEMAN, Hohelied, pp. 61-62. 186. MURPHY, Wisdom Literature, p. 102; HEINEVETTER “Komm nun, mein Liebster”, p. 173; H.-P. MÜLLER, Travestien und geistige Landschaften: Zum Hintergrund einiger Motive bei Kohelet und im Hohenlied, in ZAW 109 (1997) 555-574; S. FISCHER, Das Hohe-

522

PART III – CHAPTER 8

There are, however, several serious problems with Gerleman’s theory. First, as has been pointed out by Michael Fox, himself a serious student of Egyptian literature, Hermann has misapplied Jolles’ theory of travesty to the Egyptian love lyrics. Jolles’ categories, according to Fox, are a way of describing entire literary works and “cannot properly be applied to isolated motifs and certainly not to epithets”187. According to the categories of Jolles, “travesty” is a type of fantasy, a disguise which an author, and thereby his readers, may assume in order to escape temporarily from the constraints of society without abandoning their identities. It is an escape from ordinary life by identification with a character outside one’s state in society. In true travesty, “it is not the characters, but the author and reader, who put on ‘disguises’ by identifying with the fictional characters”188. Jolles was inquiring into the ways in which literature makes possible the “transformation” (Verwandlung) of the reader. Yet in the case of the Song, commentators do not claim the transformation of the readers but of the Lovers. As Barbiero explains: “Love transfers its participants into a sphere of nobility, of feasting and wealth in which the social conventions and conditions of daily life no longer apply”189. In other words, the Lovers of the Song appear in the disguise of king and queen or shepherd and shepherdess (downward travesty)190. This is, however, not what happens in true literary travesty, where the reader can escape from the constrains of daily life, by identifying with the “true” kings and queens he encounters in the literature. Moreover, in the case of love poetry, as Michael Fox rightly points out, though the lovers do momentarily escape from society (e.g., by departing into the fields and vineyards, Song 7,12-13), they “escape society not for the pleasure of defiance, or even for the sake of liberation in itself, but in order to define themselves as a new unit within society. The lovers’ escape is thus temporary and ultimately affirmative”191. Finally, Hermann’s transposition of the western modes of literary travesty in the form of knights, shepherds, and pranksters onto the Egyptian kings, servants, and shepherds is forced and lacks a cogent structural correspondence. Ultimately, Gerleman has ventured an unconvincing hypothesis of literary parody that is grounded not in Semitic but in occidental medieval literature. lied Salomos zwischen Poesie und Erzählung: Erzähltextanalyse eines poetischen Textes (FAT, 72), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2010, pp. 212-216; and BARBIERO, Song, pp. 15-16. 187. FOX, Song, p. 292. 188. Ibid., p. 293. 189. BARBIERO, Song, p. 14. 190. See ibid. 191. FOX, Song, pp. 293-294.

CLUES FOR A SYMBOLIC MEANING

523

c) Literary Travesty and Greek Bucolic Hans-Peter Müller subsequently proposed a similar theory based on the influence of Greek Bucolic on the Song192. Though not claiming a direct influence of Theocritus’ writings, he postulates common literary predecessors and their probable influence on the pre-existing collection of songs incorporated into the Song193. Like Gerleman, he bases his theory entirely on the theory of Jolles, according to whom travesties emanate from societies that suffer a certain “culture-weariness”, from which people seek escape194. Thus Müller postulates a “gemeinhellenistische Kulturmüdigkeit”195 in the third century B.C. by which he explains the pastoral mode as an emotional antithesis to the general Weltverdruß. Such culture-weariness would have been felt in third-century Jerusalem, where it was linked with an atmosphere of deteriorating religious commitment (“religiöse Verbindlichkeit”)196. In this context, the Song would have provided an escape from reality into a world of long-forgotten nature religiosity, the significance of whose signs, however, had also been lost. Thus, this poetry, consisting of signs that had lost their signified counterparts, would have become an autonomous poem, carrying its own “truth” within itself, that is, in its “aesthetic power of conviction over against the world”197.

192. MÜLLER, Travestien; Müller is followed by HEINEVETTER, “Komm nun, mein Liebster”, p. 173; and BARBIERO, Song, pp. 14-15. Parallels to Theocritus had already been noticed by GRAETZ, Schir Ha-Schirim. 193. “Sammlung und Redaktion älteren Gutes zu dem uns vorliegenden Hohenlied dürften sich der Anregung hellenistischer Vorbilder wie Theokrits und der alexandrinischen Dichterschule verdanken”. MÜLLER, Travestien, p. 572. 194. “Irgendwo beschwert und bedrückt uns unsere Kulturwelt, ihre sogenannten Wohltaten quälen und verletzten uns. Die Gesellschaft und alles, was zu ihr gehört, erscheint uns als eine Sackgasse; die Stadt mit ihren Mühseligkeiten, der Hof mit seiner Konvention, die bürgerliche Gesellschaft mit ihrer Dumpfheit ermüden und langweilen uns. Wo sollte da Freiheit eher zu finden sein, als in dem Bereich, der immer der Kultur gegenübergestellt wird: in der Natur. Zurück zur Natur, heißt die Losung. Natürlich sein, natürlich leben, ein Naturwesen werden”. JOLLES, Die literarischen Travestien, p. 288. 195. MÜLLER, Travestien, p. 573. 196. Müller posits a deterioration of myth, rite and nomos and follows that, “Die Bildung von Travestien und geistigen Landschaften (scheint), insbesondere in Zeiten des Abbaus religiöser Verbindlichkeiten, einem gemeinhumanen Bedürfnis zu entsprechen […]. Ästhetischer Religionsersatz schafft dabei Signifikate ohne Referenzbezug, ja Signifikante ohne Signifikate als Erscheinungsformen einer dichterischen Gegenwelt zur Realität”. Ibid., pp. 571, 574. 197. Ibid., p. 574: “Wenn […] die religiöse Realitätskorrektur in Realitätsflucht umschlägt, wird die umbra poetica zu einem Syndrom zunächst von Signifikaten, denen die Referenz verloren gegangen ist, zuletzt von Zeichen, die auf nichts mehr verweisen, Signifikaten selbst ohne Signifikate; das autonom gewordene Gedicht trägt seine ‘Wahrheit’ allein in sich selbst, d.h. in seiner ästhetisch-gegenweltlichen Überzeugungskraft”.

524

PART III – CHAPTER 8

There are multiple shortcomings in Müller’s theory. Besides being entirely based on Jolles’ observations of western literature, as mentioned above, no proof of the bucolic travesty theory is offered in application to Theocritus. Rather, one cannot avoid the impression that a mixture of nineteenth-century romanticism and post-1968 institution-critical attitudes have been retrojected onto third-century-B.C. Jerusalem, which, judging from its literary record, does not seem to have been in such a desolate state as Müller contends. Müller’s theory, moreover, accounts only for the prominent role of nature in the Song. It gives no coherent explanation for the presence of the royal figures in the royal city of Jerusalem. This last point is important. There is, significantly, no such thing as royal travesty in Greek Bucolic. Nor can such royal travesty be viably imagined in the ANE, where the king and queen were never conceptualized as secular figures. To “play king and queen for a day” could, therefore, not be done without drawing in the entire religious worldview of ANE royalty and, in the case of the Song, of Israel’s monarchy in particular. Royal marriage was not a blank slate for anonymous teenage lovers into which they could insert themselves in order to express the exaltation of their love. We have, unsurprisingly, no examples of such travesties anywhere in Israel or in the surrounding ANE. Rather, when it comes to the ANE parallels, we are always dealing with sacred marriage in the broader sense. King imagery in the Hebrew Bible inevitably brings the covenant in its train. Finally, as Manfred Görg has pointed out, the term “travesty”, as it has come to be used in Song criticism, is different from what the term means in literary criticism198. Travesty, as understood in literary criticism, is a literary genre, which reprocesses a well-known literary theme without changing the substance, though often changing the style. It is a form of an actualized literary tradition and often entails a critique of society. Its identification rests on the discrepancy between the inherited literary theme and the new genre199. In Song scholarship, by contrast, the focus has been only 198. M. GÖRG, “Travestie” im Hohen Lied: Eine kritische Betrachtung am Beispiel von HL 1,5f., in BN 21 (1983) 101-115. 199. G. MAHAL, Travestie, in G. SCHWEIKLE – I. SCHWEIKLE (eds.), Metzler Literatur Lexikon: Begriffe und Definitionen, Stuttgart, Metzler, 21990, 450-451: “Komisch-satir. literar. Gattung, die einen bekannten Stoff beibehält, aber seine Stillage oft grob verändert, eine Form der aktualisierten u. häufig nicht nur traditions-, sondern gleichzeitig gesellschaftskrit. Auseinandersetzung. Entgegen gängigen Definitionen kommt es nicht immer auf eine bloße Verspottung der travestierten Vorlage an. […] Erkennbarkeit, Effekt u. ‘Witz’ der T. beruhen stets auf der Diskrepanz zwischen altem Inhalt u. neuem Gattungsniveau, wobei das Kalkül mit dem Zeitaspekt u. dem so gebrochenen Erwartungshorizont eine zentrale Rolle spielt”.

CLUES FOR A SYMBOLIC MEANING

525

on the role-playing of the actors or speakers, without considering the figures’ literary position within “text-oriented fields of relationships”200. We are dealing neither with literary travesty, nor with a fictive disguise, be it downwards or upwards. Rather – if “travesty” is what it must be called – we have here an “historical travesty”. The author is by no means a contemporary of Solomon. Yet he introduces historical figures onto his literary stage that represent their historical Urbilder (though with some major modifications)201. In the line of Görg’s “historical travesty”, one must ask why the biblical figure of King Solomon was chosen as a character in the Song and what are the possible historical and symbolic connotations the author might have intended in invoking this prominent figure of Israel’s history. Both the royal and the shepherd metaphors that the Song offers are of such major inner-biblical significance that it seems incredible that they should simply invite the reader to an upward or downward travesty in his love dreams. The person of Solomon, in particular, is not just a generic type of a king. It is not sufficient to point to the parallels in world literature as Gerleman does, particularly when that survey starts in a Greek world that knew of no sacred kingship. Within the context of the ANE and in the literary community of post-exilic Israel, in particular, the king, the shepherd, the garden, and the gardener, as well as the vineyard, were symbols with clearly established, sacred connotations that cannot and must not be ignored in the Song’s interpretation. There is no such thing as “simple literary parody” within the books of the Old Testament. The Forschungsgeschichte of related books like Ruth should stand as a stark warning. From Goethe to Gerleman, the book of Ruth had been misconstrued as “lovely epic idyll”202, until studies into intertextuality and inner-biblical exegesis proved it to be a carefully constructed early form of halachic Midrash203. 3. Editorial “Glosses” A third way to explain the royal metaphors of the Song and the presence of King Solomon in particular has been to declare them as “glosses” that an editor had supposedly added in order to facilitate an allegorical 200. GÖRG, Travestie, p. 104. 201. Ibid., p. 113. 202. See GOETHE, Noten und Abhandlungen zum West-östlichen Divan; and GERLEMAN, Hohelied, p. 25. 203. See Y. ZAKOVITCH, Das Buch Rut: Ein jüdischer Kommentar (SBS, 177), Stuttgart, Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1999, p. 62; and I. FISCHER, Rut (HThKAT), Freiburg i.Br., Herder, 2001, pp. 72, 77-85.

526

PART III – CHAPTER 8

reading204. In the attempt to restore an alleged Urtext they were consequently eliminated from the Song by the exegetes. To scholars acquainted with the use of both the vineyard and the shepherd-king motif in the Bible, the intertextuality created by their usage in the Song was apparently so evident that their elimination appeared the only practicable solution to defend the presumed profanity of the Song’s literal sense. This solution had already been proposed by Gustav Bickell and partly adopted by Karl Budde towards the end of the nineteenth century205. It was most influentially advanced by Friedrich Horst, the editor of BHS, and Oswald Loretz206 (see Chapter 2, II.3.b, above, p. 99), but it is also found in major commentaries like that of Wilhelm Rudolph207, and in slightly varied form in that of Yair Zakovitch208. Since the aim of these exegetes was to restore an alleged Urtext, these glosses were discarded from consideration in their exegesis209. 4. Inner-Biblical Interpretation While the redaction-critical approach is plausible at one level, the conclusion drawn by its earlier exponents, nevertheless, must be revised, for the discussion about the “allegorical” meaning of the Song concerns its final form. There is no reason to argue from earlier stages in text formation that later redactions are insignificant for the meaning of the text210. On the contrary, if – as Loretz, Horst, and Rudolph argue – the passages which apparently impose an “allegorical” reading of the Song could be proven to be later insertions or glosses, then that very redactional process provides a valuable clue to the “authorial” intention behind the Song.

204. See LORETZ, Das althebräische Liebeslied, p. 60, and RUDOLPH, Hohe Lied, pp. 84-85. 205. See BUDDE, Hohelied, p. xxi. 206. See LORETZ, Das althebräische Liebeslied, pp. 60-61. In a more recent publication Loretz repeats his view that a so-called “Solomon redaction” was “bestrebt, den auf zwei Liebende beschränkten Rahmen der Erotik auf die Geschichte des Volkes Israel hin dadurch zu erweitern, daß sie Salomo als den großen Liebenden einführt”. By introducing Solomon, the redaction established links to the role of love in the history of Israel, notably in the prophetic tradition, to locate the cause for Israel’s election and the covenant in YHWH’s love for his people. See LORETZ, Môt und Eros, pp. 274-275. 207. RUDOLPH, Hohe Lied, pp. 83-85. 208. ZAKOVITCH, Hohelied, pp. 96-97: “Love songs that were included in the Song were interpreted allegorically in the prophetic context, even before the text of the Song had been concluded. The possibility cannot be excluded that the allegorical interpretation was already taken account of during the final redaction of the Song” (emphasis mine). 209. See LORETZ, Das althebräische Liebeslied, p. 60. 210. See ULRICH, Text, p. 94.

CLUES FOR A SYMBOLIC MEANING

527

This shift in the evaluation of redactional layers has been achieved by studies in inner-biblical exegesis211. Such studies recognize that the interpretation of Scripture is not something that starts only after the canon is closed. Rather, the production of Scripture and its interpretation are so intimately intertwined that the interpretation itself has become a part of Scripture212. The movement from traditio (handing down) to interpretation of the traditio begins within the Scriptures themselves213. The so-called glosses have to be recognized as evidence of inner-biblical exegesis, traces of the interpretation of the traditio that have themselves become Scripture214. As such, they call for an interpretation in accordance with the redactor’s intention215. For the present argument the following points are important. The detection of “glosses” by previous scholarship was based on the premise that the presence of a king and shepherd, as well as the vineyard and garden motif in the poetry, promote an allegorical interpretation, which would contradict its allegedly profane nature. However, the elements that were made out to be “insignificant” later glosses or insertions are so many, that, if one were to eliminate them all, one would be left with a text which may represent a hypothetical pre-existing collection of love songs, but can no longer be said to be the Song of Songs as handed down by Jewish tradition. It is argued here, instead, that what scholars made out to be “glosses”, “insertions”, or “redactions” of the Song have to be treated instead as either signs of inner-biblical exegesis or symbolic allusions216, which need to be understood on the level of the intertextuality thereby created, and that certainly bestow on the Song a meaning different from the presumably pre-existing love songs. Furthermore, the simultaneous presence of a shepherd and a king points to an identification of the Lover with either YHWH the shepherd-king and/or his viceroy the Davidic Messiah king of Israel. 5. The Shepherd as an ANE and Biblical Symbol for Kingship In this section I will argue that the concurrent presence of a king and a shepherd in the Song must be interpreted in harmony with the genuine 211. See the foundational work by FISHBANE, Biblical Interpretation. 212. See, e.g., TREBOLLE BARRERA, Bible, p. 47: “Today it is accepted that the history of biblical exegesis is rooted in the origins of the Bible itself. Some biblical books interpret others, the more recent books interpret older ones. The interpolations or reworking of the text are no longer considered as mere inferior products of a late and decadent period but as witnesses to Jewish exegesis”. 213. See FISHBANE, Biblical Interpretation, pp. 7-8 (italics in text). 214. See TREBOLLE BARRERA, Bible, p. 430. 215. On the “authorial” authority of redactors, see SKA, Pentateuch. 216. On the use of these terms, see MEEK, Intertextuality.

528

PART III – CHAPTER 8

ANE and biblical usage of shepherd imagery for kingship. Consistent with this usage, the Bible uses it consistently to refer to YHWH as the supreme king of Israel, and in connection with this also for Israel’s rulers, her Davidic kings in particular. Against this background it is to be expected that a late Second Temple audience would have identified the shepherdking of the Song with either YHWH or his anointed (and expected) Davidic King.

a) The Shepherd-King in the ANE The Song has made use of a well-established ANE and biblical symbol, that is, the symbol of the shepherd as referring to gods and kings alike. Shepherd imagery is typically associated with kingship in the ANE217, where the image of a shepherd pasturing his flock was commonplace. Gods and kings were expected to care for the well-being of their people and provide food, land, and justice, in the same way that a shepherd would care for his flock. The use of this imagery for rulership is ubiquitously attested in Egyptian, Ugaritic, Hittite, and Mesopotamian texts, in reference to gods like El, Baal, Haddu, Enlil, and Marduk or god-man figures like the Gilgamesh or Dumuzi. Serving as the divinities’ lieutenants on earth, the kings were likewise titled shepherds (or “undershepherds”)218. Attestations range from Lugal-Zage-Si, the king of Umma (ca. 2500 B.C.), the Sumerian Šulgi (2029-1982 B.C.), the Egyptian king Amenhotep III (14111374 B.C.), the Assyrian king Šalmaneser I (ca. 1280 B.C.) down to the Babylonian king Sennacherib (705-687 B.C.) and the Neo-Assyrian king Ashurbanipal (668-626 B.C.)219. In short, in the ANE gods and kings alike were pictured as the shepherds of their people; shepherd imagery is a means of expressing kingship. 217. See, e.g., The Code of Hammurabi, in J.B. PRITCHARD (ed.), Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press, 31969, p. 164. See further V. HAMP, Das Hirtenmotiv im Alten Testament, in Festschrift Kardinal Faulhaber zum achtzigsten Geburtstag: Dargebracht vom Professorenkollegium der Philosophischtheologischen Hochschule Freising, München, Pfeiffer, 1949, 7-20; I. SEIBERT, Hirt, Herde, König: Zur Herausbildung des Königtums in Mesopotamien (Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaft zu Berlin: Schriften der Sektion für Altertumswissenschaft, 53), Berlin, Akademie Verlag, 1969; R. HUNZIKER-RODEWALD, Hirt und Herde: Ein Beitrag zum alttestamentlichen Gottesverständnis (BWANT, 155), Stuttgart, Kohlhammer, 2001, pp. 16-33. 218. See Y.S. CHAE, Jesus as the Eschatological Davidic Shepherd: Studies in the Old Testament, Second Temple Judaism, and in the Gospel of Matthew (WUNT, II/216), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2006, p. 21. 219. For an extensive overview, see ibid., pp. 19-25. See also R. HUNZIKER-RODEWALD, Hirte aus Barmherzigkeit: Zu einer als Symbol wahrgenommenen Metapher, in P. VAN HECKE (ed.), Metaphor in the Hebrew Bible (BETL, 187), Leuven, Peeters, 2005, 233247, pp. 233-235.

CLUES FOR A SYMBOLIC MEANING

529

b) The Shepherd-King in the Bible Consistent with the ANE use of shepherd imagery, the Bible too employs it for divine and human kingship. Future rulers of Israel are first depicted as literal shepherds before they are raised to becoming metaphorical shepherds of God’s people, and both the former and latter prophets use the imagery consistently to designate Israel’s leaders, the king in particular. Studies on the God as shepherd motif abound220. The shepherd motif appears first of all as a symbol for YHWH, the shepherd and king of Israel221. Secondarily, it is applied to the anointed kings of Israel in general, the rulers of other nations, and those in charge of leading Israel222. Most specifically, however, the shepherd-king motif is found in application to David223, and eminently so with respect to the expected future Davidic King announced by the prophets Micah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Zechariah224. In these prophetic texts two important strings of Old Testament currents merge with that of the shepherd imagery: the Davidic expectation (cf. 2 Sam 7,12-16), and the restoration of Israel225. It is this shepherd-king imagery that constitutes a key clue to the messianic identity of the Lover shepherd-king of the Song. (i) Rulers as Shepherds in the Bible Scholars have argued that though the shepherd imagery recurs often in the Old Testament, the “historians of ancient Israel […] avoided the use of the title ‘shepherd’ both for the description of their patriarchs and their kings”226. The term “shepherd” was supposedly reserved for YHWH and 220. For a bibliography, see P.J.P. VAN HECKE, Pastoral Metaphors in the Hebrew Bible and in Its Ancient Near Eastern Context, in R.P. GORDON – J.C. DE MOOR (eds.), The Old Testament in Its World (OTS, 52), Leiden, Brill, 2005, 200-217, p. 200, n. 2. 221. For YHWH as shepherd of Israel, see: Gen 48,15; 49,24; Psalms 23; 28,9; 74,1; 77,20; 78,52-55; 79,13; 80,2; 95,7; Mic 2,12-13; 4,6-8; 7,14-15; Isa 40,10-11; 49,913; Jer 23,2; 31,10; 50,19; Ezek 34,11-16.31. For YHWH as the king of Israel see, e.g., 1 Sam 12,12; Ps 44,5; 74,12; 98,6; 145,1; Isa 6,5; 41,21; 43,15; 44,6; Jer 46,18; 51,57. 222. For rulers of nations as shepherds cf. Jer 6,3; 12,10; 25,34-36; 49,19; 50,44; Nah 3,18; Isa 44,28. For kings as shepherds of Israel, cf. Num 27,17; 1 Kgs 2,17; 1 Sam 21,8; 2 Sam 5,2; 7,7-8; Ps 78,70-72; Isa 56,11; 63,11; Jer 2,8; 3,15; 22,22; 23,1-4; 25,34-36; 50,6; Ezek 34,2-10.23-24; Zech 10,2-3; 11,5-8. See also K.R. SCHAEFER, Psalms (Berit Olam), Collegeville, MN, Liturgical Press, 2001, p. 10, who notes, “Zion’s head of states was […] understood to be a function and instrument of God. To obey the human sovereign was to obey God, and to rebel against human authority meant insurrection against God (cf. Ps 2,2-3)”. 223. Cf. 2 Sam 5,2; 7,8; Ps 2,9 LXX; 78,70-72; 11Q5 (11QPs [Ps 151A]) 28,3-4.1012; 4Q504 (4QDibHama) Frgs. 1-2; 4,6-8; Psalms of Solomon 17,40-41. See WILLITTS, Matthew’s Messianic Shepherd-King, pp. 52-92. 224. Cf. Mic 5,1-5; Jer 23,1-8; 50,6; Ezek 34,23-24; 37,22-25; Zech 9-14. 225. See CHAE, Shepherd, p. 19. 226. WILLITTS, Matthew’s Messianic Shepherd-King, p. 53.

530

PART III – CHAPTER 8

David his anointed one227. This affirmation, however, appears overstated. The title “shepherd” – so the argument goes – would have been avoided for the patriarchs in order to underscore that YHWH was himself the preeminent shepherd of Israel (Gen 48,15; 49,24)228. Only with the Exodus event and the ensuing journey through the wilderness, would it have become clear that YHWH exercises his pastoral office by means of human instruments, that is, Moses and Aaron (cf. Ps 77,20; cf. Isa 63,11)229. However, this view of YHWH’s unmediated shepherding of Israel during the time of the patriarchs fails to notice that the patriarchs were all shepherds by profession, a fact that is not accidental but profoundly symbolic of their role as shepherds of the people of God230. In the case of Joseph it is particularly evident that his occupation in shepherding the flock of his father (Gen 37,2) was symbolic of his future role to become the ruler, and hence shepherd, of a nation. Joseph, Moses, and David, these eminent “shepherds” of Israel, are all depicted as first shepherding the flock of their kinsmen, before they are raised to take up the higher office of shepherding the people of God231. Note the parallel that the narrative constructs between Joseph and Moses, in the way it introduces their respective “vocation” stories. Now, Moses was tending the flock of his father-in-law Jethro… ‫( ומשה היה רעה את־הצאן יתרו חתנו‬Exod 3,1) At seventeen years of age, Joseph was tending the flock with his brothers ‫( יסף־בן־שבע־עשרה שנה היה רעה את־אחיו בצאן‬Gen 37,2b).

Both men were literal shepherds before they became metaphorical shepherds. Jon Levenson observes: That the similarity in wording is no coincidence is corroborated by the remarkable parallels in the lives of the two shepherds-turned-rulers: both are separated from their family early on, both survive conspiracies to murder them, both endure exile, both marry the daughters of foreign priests, both have two sons, and the two leaders, one dead and one alive, leave Egypt together (Exod 13,19). But most important, both of them are commissioned by God to lead and provision an unruly people with a pronounced proclivity 227. See ibid. 228. See ibid. 229. See CHAE, Shepherd, p. 26, according to whom even Moses was not truly regarded as a shepherd, but only as “being under the shadow of YHWH, Israel’s prime shepherd”. Yet this is not convincing as both Ps 77,20 and Isa 63,11 clearly refer to Moses’ instrumentality in leading Israel as a shepherd. To be sure, just like the kings, Moses derives his shepherding role from YHWH, but in that name Moses is also Israel’s shepherd. 230. See LEVENSON, The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son. 231. See ibid., p. 144.

CLUES FOR A SYMBOLIC MEANING

531

to reject their leaders. It is striking that we hear the same note at the very onset of the narrative that will bring Israel down to Egypt as we shall hear at the onset of the narrative that will bring them back up to Canaan232.

There can be no doubt that the description of Joseph as a shepherd was not a nomadic necessity, but a symbol of his future vocation to become a shepherd-ruler, who would feed both the Egyptians and his own people. He was in fact destined to become a shepherd to both Egypt and the tribes of Israel. The intrinsic connection between the patriarch’s profession and future royal office is further underscored by the analogies between Joseph and David, “the other great shepherd-turned-ruler”233. Like Joseph, David is introduced as the little brother (1 Sam 16,11-13). The theme in David’s election story is the same as in the Joseph narrative. “The last shall be first, the youngest brother shall rule his elders. In the case of David, it is the idealized picture of the humble shepherd elevated to kingship yet never divested of his pastoral simplicity that the tradition continued to celebrate (Ps 78,70-72)”234. These carefully constructed parallels between Joseph, Moses, and David show that the shepherd imagery for rulership is deeply inscribed into the world of biblical symbolism235. An opposition between YHWH’s own shepherdship and that of the patriarchs cannot be sustained. Rather, there is an impressive consistency in the use of shepherd imagery to designate rulership from Genesis down to the exilic prophets. Also in need of rectification is the claim that “the avoidance of the title [shepherd] is commonplace in the historical books”236. Only David would have been “closely aligned with the function of a shepherd”. Scholars point out that except for David before he assumed the throne (cf. 2 Sam 5,2 || 1 Chr 11,2; Ps 78,71), no specific king of Israel is ever explicitly called ‫“( רעה‬shepherd”)237. The argument is advanced that while “ANE shepherd 232. See ibid. 233. Ibid., pp. 144-145. On the function of shepherding as the starting point for the conception of David’s career and the presentation of his kingship as “shepherdship” (Hirtenschaft), see HUNZIKER-RODEWALD, Hirt und Herde, pp. 46-50; and W. BRUEGGEMANN, First and Second Samuel (Interpretation), Louisville, KY, Westminster John Knox, 1990, p. 119. 234. LEVENSON, The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son, p. 145. 235. As Philippe Lefebvre has pointed out (personal communication), the close connection between the shepherd office of the patriarchs and kingship is also apparent in the case of Jacob, to whom the Lord announces, after years of shepherding first Laban’s and then his own flock: “I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall come from you, and kings shall spring from you (Gen 35,11)”. 236. WILLITTS, Matthew’s Messianic Shepherd-King, p. 53. 237. See CHAE, Shepherd, p. 26.

532

PART III – CHAPTER 8

imagery reveals an intimate connection between a human king and deity in terms of title, in Israel, the title ‘shepherd’ squarely belongs to YHWH, and thus indicates his particular rulership”238. The Old Testament would accordingly “reserve shepherd imagery for YHWH and, significantly, extend its use only for YHWH’s Davidic appointee (Mic 5,2-4 [5,1-3]; Jer 3,15; 23,4-6; Ezek 34,23-24; 37,24-25; cf. Zech 13,7)”239. In my view, this reductive statement is, inter alia, due to a misguided interpretation of the term ‫נגיד‬. While it is true that the shepherd imagery applies particularly and preeminently to David, who is the only king said to have shepherded both a flock and the people of God, the Bible does nonetheless refer to Israelite kings in general as “shepherds” (e.g., Jer 22,22; 23,2.4; Ezek 34,2.7; cf. 1 Kgs 22,17). The intimate connection between the human and divine kingship results further from the fact that every king of Israel receives a sacred anointing and thus exercises his office in the name and authority of the supreme shepherd-king YHWH. This intimate connection between divine and human rule results, for instance, clearly from the biblical depiction of Saul’s anointing: Samuel took a vial of oil and poured it on his head, and kissed him; he said, “The Lord has anointed you ruler (‫ )נגיד‬over his people Israel. You shall reign over the people of the Lord and you will save them from the hand of their enemies all around (1 Sam 10,1; NRSV; cf. also 1 Sam 16,13; 1 Kgs 1,39).

Both the etymology and the biblical usage of the term ‫ נגיד‬are illuminating. This term has at times been understood in reference to the king’s military activity and in opposition to the term ‫רעה‬. For that reason ‫ נגיד‬is often translated as “leader”, or “prince”, and related to the pre-royal savior figure. Though its origin has been linked to the northern tribes of Israel, the term, however, does not occur in a single tradition that could be traced back to the Northern Kingdom240. A compelling etymological explanation was already proposed in the 1960s and has been offered again more recently by Eduard Lipiński241. The Hebrew term ‫ נגיד‬is, in fact, cognate 238. Ibid. 239. Ibid. 240. Within the Deuteronomistic history it occurs in 1 Sam 9,16; 10,1; 13,14; 25,30; 2 Sam 5,2; 6,21; 7,8; 1 Kgs 1,35; 14,7; 16,1; 2 Kgs 20,5. See A.A. FISCHER, Die SaulÜberlieferung im deuteronomistischen Samuelbuch (am Beispiel von 1 Samuel 9–10), in M. WITTE et al. (eds.), Die deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerke: Redaktions- und religionsgeschichtliche Perspektiven zur “Deuteronomismus”-Diskussion in Tora und Vorderen Propheten (BZAW, 365), Berlin, De Gruyter, 2006, 163-181, p. 170. 241. See E. LIPIŃSKI, ‘Leadership’. The Roots DBR and NGD, in M. DIETRICH et al. (eds.), “Und Mose schrieb dieses Lied auf”: Studien zum Alten Testament und zum Alten Orient. Festschrift für Oswald Loretz zur Vollendung seines 70. Lebensjahres mit Beiträgen

CLUES FOR A SYMBOLIC MEANING

533

to the Akkadian naqidu(m). The noun means “shepherd” and is used as a royal honorary title242. Accordingly, the Assyrian king Asarhaddon refers to himself as taklum naqid ṣalmat qaqqadi, “trustworthy shepherd, guardian of the black-headed”243. The intrinsic link between the shepherd imagery and the royal office understood as a shepherd-kingship results also clearly from the prophetic words addressed to David in 2 Sam 7,8: I took you from the pasture, from behind the sheep to be ‫( נגיד‬royal shepherd) over my people Israel.

The title ‫ נגיד‬stands here in a clearly consequential relationship to David’s former office as shepherd of his father’s flock. From having been a shepherd of sheep, he has been made a royal shepherd (‫ )נגיד‬by YHWH over his people. In fact, ‫ נגיד‬is not used in relation to the old savior figures. Rather, it is an honorific royal title, that metaphorically designates the king as one leading his people like a shepherd, an office that naturally includes the task to save the people from the enemy (cf. 1 Sam 10,1), just as a shepherd would save his sheep (cf. John 10). This link is made even clearer in a synonymous parallelism used in the assent given by the tribes to David when making him king over Israel at Hebron: For some time, while Saul was king over us, it was you who led out Israel and brought it in. The Lord said to you: It is you who shall be shepherd (‫)רעה‬ of my people Israel, you who shall be ruler (‫ )נגיד‬over Israel (2 Sam 5,2; NRSV).

This depiction of David as a national shepherd-king is further illuminated by the intertextual allusion to Num 27,17, where the idea of “going out and bringing in” is also used in reference to the shepherding of God’s people244. Moses prays to the Lord to appoint him a successor that would go out before them and come in before them, who shall lead them out and bring them in, so that the congregation of the Lord may not be like sheep without a shepherd (Num 27,17; NRSV).

“Going out and coming in” before the people is a metaphoric allusion to the activity of a shepherd applied here to the office of a king in war, where von Freunden, Schülern und Kollegen (AOAT, 250), Münster, Ugarit-Verlag, 1998, 501-514; and A.A. FISCHER, Von Hebron nach Jerusalem: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Studie zur Erzählung von König David in II Sam 1–5 (BZAW, 335), Berlin – New York, De Gruyter, 2004, pp. 217-221. 242. See FISCHER, Die Saul-Überlieferung, p. 171; see also ID., Hebron, pp. 217-221. 243. See R. BORGER, Die Inschriften Asarhaddons Königs von Assyrien (Archiv für Orientforschung. Beiheft, 9), Graz, Ernst F. Weidner, 1956, p. 80 (translation mine). The “black-headed” are a poetical description of humanity. 244. See WILLITTS, Matthew’s Messianic Shepherd-King, p. 56.

534

PART III – CHAPTER 8

the king, just like a shepherd, has to lead his people out and bring them back in (cf. also 1 Kgs 22,17 || 2 Chr 18,16 to describe a military defeat)245. In sum, it is misleading to allege opposition between the terms ‫רעה‬ and ‫נגיד‬, when applied to the kings of Israel. While the term ‫ רעה‬is used metaphorically in reference to the king as “shepherd” of God’s people, the term ‫ נגיד‬reflects the genuine ANE idea of sacred shepherd-kingship as derived from and in intimate connection with the divine shepherdkingship to which it owes its legitimacy. The Deuteronomist takes up the ‫ נגיד‬and attributes it primarily to the first kings of Israel Saul, David, and Solomon (cf. also 2 Kgs 20,5 for Hezekiah)246. It is thus not correct to claim that in the Bible shepherd imagery was reserved for YHWH and extended only to the Davidic appointee247. Just as anywhere else in the ANE, the Bible understands both divine and human kingship as a metaphorical shepherdship. It is, nevertheless, correct that no specific king of Israel is ever called a ‫ רעה‬except for David and the future Davidic king (though plenty of unnamed kings are being scolded for being bad shepherds)248. Of particular interest for the Song, however, is the repeated appearance of the future Davidic king as a shepherd in texts referring to the final restoration of Israel, where he will act as the deputy of YHWH, the supreme shepherd of Israel. (ii) The Davidic Messianic Shepherd-King From the time of the Exile to the first century B.C., the hope and promise for a restoration of Israel was expressed in terms of shepherd-king imagery. Four prophetic passages and one non-biblical Jewish text attest to the expectation that YHWH would save his people through the mission of a Davidic shepherd-king. These passages all have three important features in common. First, they re-employ the Exodus shepherd language and apply it to the restoration of Israel. Second, YHWH will be the eschatological shepherd over Israel249. Third, YHWH will exercise his eschatological shepherdship with the help of a human mediator, that is, his anointed future Davidic king (Mic 2,12-13; Jer 23,8-9; Ezekiel 34; Zech 9,9-10; Psalms of Solomon 17). In these passages the shepherd imagery applies invariably 245. Ibid., p. 57. 246. See FISCHER, Die Saul-Überlieferung, p. 171. To be sure, Solomon is never depicted as a shepherd in the same way as David, who had been literarily shepherding the flock of his father before he became the shepherd-king over Israel. Yet like David, Solomon was ‫ נגיד‬over Israel (1 Kgs 1,35; 1 Chr 28,4; 29,22). 247. Pace CHAE, Shepherd, p. 26. 248. See Jer 22,22; 23,2.4; Ezek 34,2.7; cf. 1 Kgs 22,17. 249. See CHAE, Shepherd, p. 76.

CLUES FOR A SYMBOLIC MEANING

535

to YHWH and his Davidic king at once. The Davidic King is the shepherding presence of YHWH among the people. (1) Mic 2,12; 5,1-5. According to Mic 2,12, as the eschatological shepherd, YHWH will reverse the fate of his scattered people and “gather them like sheep in a fold”. Instrumental in this saving action will be the figure of a king who will pass through a gate with his gathered people, going before them at their head (cf. Exod 13,21; Num 27,16-17; Zech 12,8)250. The role of YHWH, the shepherd of Israel, and that of the king, who will actually make a breach and go up (i.e., towards Jerusalem), are inseparable. The interplay between these two verses indicates that YHWH is shepherd by means of the king’s saving action. The shepherd imagery is resumed in Mic 4,6–5,4. YHWH will gather (‫ )קבץ‬the exiles (v. 6; cf. Jer 31,10; Ezek 34,13; Zech 10,10). The three motifs of Davidic expectation, shepherd imagery, and Israel’s restoration connect again in Mic 5,1-4. Though David is not explicitly mentioned, his figure is recalled by the mention of his hometown BethlehemEphrata (1 Sam 17,12; 1 Sam 16,18; 17,58) and by YHWH’s choice of a ruler from a small and insignificant clan of Judah (cf. 1 Sam 16,11-13). The expression “from of old” is also considered to be an allusion to David’s time (cf. Neh 12,46; Amos 9,11). The new ruler to come will share David’s origins, “if not the exact Davidic royal lineage”251. He shall “stand and shepherd (‫ )רעה‬in the strength of the Lord” and the flock will “dwell” (‫ )ישב‬in security (Mic 5,3). His rule will be universal; it will extend to the ends of the earth (‫ ;עד־אפסי־ארץ‬5,3) and there shall be peace (‫ ;שלום‬5,4). Thus the restoration of Israel under a coming Davidic shepherd also signals the time of this shepherd’s universal reign in the name of YHWH. The shepherd imagery is clearly employed to focus on the figure of a Davidic ruler (v. 2) who will stand and shepherd YHWH’s flock (v. 3), and ‫שלום‬ will go out from Israel to all the nations (v. 4)252. (2) Jer 23,1-8. In Jer 23,3 YHWH promises to act himself as a shepherd for his remnant flock and to restore the nation to the land, and to place over them shepherds “who will shepherd them”: I myself will gather the remnant of my flock out of all the lands where I have driven them, and I will bring them back to their fold, and they shall be fruitful and multiply. I will raise up shepherds over them who will shepherd them, and they shall not fear any longer, or be dismayed, nor shall any be missing, says the LORD (Jer 23,3-4).

250. See ibid., p. 33. 251. See ibid., p. 36. 252. See ibid., p. 37.

536

PART III – CHAPTER 8

While it results already from this oracle that YHWH will shepherd Israel by means of earthly rulers, he concretizes his plans in the ensuing verses 5-6. YHWH promises to install a righteous branch for David who will rule over a united monarchy of Israel and Judah that will live in security. And his name shall be “the Lord is our righteousness”. I will raise up for David a righteous Branch, [who] shall reign as king and deal wisely, and shall execute justice and righteousness in the land. In his days Judah will be saved and Israel will live in safety. And this is the name by which he will be called: “The LORD is our righteousness”.

The last part of the oracle (vv. 7-8) establishes a comparison of God’s future saving action to the former deliverance from Egypt, by bringing his people back to inhabit their land. In summary, the oracle of Jer 23,1-8 brings together in a cluster Exodus language, the restoration of a united monarchy, the promise of security (i.e. peace), and a new David253. (3) Ezekiel 34; 37. In the book of Ezekiel the same correspondence between YHWH’s theocratic shepherding (Ezek 34,11-22) and the promise of a Davidic Shepherd (34,23-24; 37,24) is found, along with a promise of God’s sheltering presence among the people (37,26-27; 48,35)254. Because the sheep were scattered because of a lack of shepherds, and the shepherds had turned into predators feeding on the sheep (Ezek 34,5-10; cf. Num 27,17), YHWH promises to be himself the shepherd of his people, to seek them out and rescue them from all the places where they had been scattered. Everything that shepherds appointed by the Lord over Israel had failed to do, he personally will accomplish, including bringing them back to their own land, feeding them on the mountains of Israel by the fountains, giving them good pasture, and making them lie down in good grazing land (Ezek 34,11-14). “I myself will shepherd (‫ )ארעה‬my sheep, and I will make them lie down (‫)ארביץ‬, says the Lord God” (Ezek 34,15; cf. Song 1,7). Just as in the prophecies of Micah and Jeremiah, however, YHWH will exercise his shepherding office by means of a human king, whom he calls “my servant David” and who will be appointed by the Lord himself: I will set up over them one shepherd, and he shall pasture them, my servant David; he shall pasture them and be their shepherd. And I, the Lord, will be their God, and my servant David shall be prince among them (Ezek 34,23-24).

There is “an implicit amalgamation” of divine and human “functions as the new David will mirror the shepherding function of YHWH”255. As 253. See WILLITTS, Matthew’s Messianic Shepherd-King, pp. 60-61 254. See CHAE, Shepherd, p. 40. 255. WILLITTS, Matthew’s Messianic Shepherd-King, p. 62.

CLUES FOR A SYMBOLIC MEANING

537

Levenson rightly observes, “God does not send his messiah to rule; he rules through his messiah”256. What is more, we have here in Ezekiel, as in Hosea (see Chapter 7, I.2.b.i, above, p. 435), a conjunction of the covenant formula and the promise of a Davidic king. Instead of the conventional formula, according to which YHWH will be Israel’s God and dwell among them (Exod 29,4546; Lev 26,11-12; Ezek 37,26-28), the first part of the covenant formula (“I will be their God”) is here combined not with the promise of God’s indwelling but with the promise of the Davidic king’s presence among the people. However, the promise of a Davidic king and the renewed presence of YHWH among his people are not set at odds. Rather, as seen in Hos 3,1-5 (see Chapter 7, I.2.b, above, p. 435), they are complementary. The presence of the “new” David will coincide with a renewed dwelling of YHWH in his sanctuary in the midst of his people. Ezek 37,15-28 nicely encapsulates all the elements of the promised restoration: Israel and Judah will be reunited and brought back into their land (vv. 16-21). They will be one people under one king, and the covenant purpose will be fulfilled in Israel’s being YHWH’s people and his being their God (v. 23). The covenant formula is then further explicated: David will be their King, they will dwell in the land promised to their fathers, the Lord will establish a covenant of peace with them, erect his sanctuary in their midst for ever (v. 26), and his dwelling shall be with them, which is once again explained as the fulfillment of the covenant formula (v. 27). And because of the presence of the Lord’s sanctuary in the midst of Israel, all the people shall know that God is the Lord who sanctifies Israel (v. 28). What is important in this oracle for our present investigation is the accumulation of the following key theological topoi: The king is shepherd on behalf of YHWH’s shepherdship, the united monarchy, the gift of the land, the promise of a covenant of peace, and the promise of YHWH’s indwelling in Israel which coincides with the gift of the Davidic king. (4) Zechariah 9–14. The same conjunction of YHWH’s eschatological shepherd office with that of a human Davidic mediator and the restoration of the unified kingdom is found also in Zechariah 9–14. In this context the human king who is to bring peace to Jerusalem (cf. Zech 9,9-10) is not explicitly depicted as a new David, but rather by way of intertextual allusion to Ps 72,8 and 1 Kgs 5,4 he is identified with Solomon the son of David (see Chapter 9, II.5, below, p. 612). Though this Davidic king is not explicitly called a shepherd, the imagery is nonetheless present 256. J.D. LEVENSON, Theology of the Program of Restoration of Ezekiel 40–48 (HSM, 10), Atlanta, GA, Scholars, 1976, p. 87.

538

PART III – CHAPTER 8

(the chapters have been called the “shepherd allegory”)257, both in the promise of YHWH’s saving intervention for Judah and Efraim “like the flock of his people” (9,16) and in the polemic against the bad shepherd-rulers (10,2-3; 11,3-17). In conclusion, as can be seen in all of the aforementioned prophets, “King David’s characterization as a shepherd-king in the Former Prophets became a significant motif in the formulation of the prophetic expectations for national redemption”258. Hopes for the future restoration of Israel as a united monarchy were consistently associated with the coming of a new Davidic shepherd-king, who would pasture Israel on behalf of the supreme shepherd YHWH. (5) Psalms of Solomon 17. Finally, there is one non-biblical Jewish text from the late first century B.C. that attests to the endurance of this hope until late into the Second Temple period, far beyond the time of the prophets. PsSol 17,40-42 makes use of the same shepherd-king motif as do the prophets in expressing the hope for a Davidic Messiah king, who would “shepherd the flock of the Lord”. “The entire psalm is book-ended with the confession that the Lord is king forever (17,1.46)”, thus laying the theological foundation for the content of the Psalm259. Analogous to the above quoted prophetic oracles, this Psalm then takes King David as a model to express its hope and prayer for the coming of a future messianic Davidic king (χριστὸς κυρίος 17,32). The ideal rule of that messianic king that will lead to the complete purification and restoration of Israel is summed up in the picture of this shepherd herding the Lord’s flock in faithfulness and righteousness260. In his depiction of this ideal shepherdking, the author of the Psalm draws heavily on Jer 23,1-8 and the related Ezekiel 34 and 37. “The actions of ‘gathering’ (συνάγω) and ‘leading’ or ‘going before’ (ἀφηγέομαι), which the Davidic King will perform, reflect elements of the messianic shepherd-king motif in Jeremiah 23:18; 31:17 and Ezekiel 34:13; 37:21”261. This is significant for our purposes for it shows the persistence of the association of shepherd imagery with kingship and the hope for the coming of a shepherd-king who would restore Israel’s monarchy and bring the people back to the Promised Land262, 257. See WILLITTS, Matthew’s Messianic Shepherd-King, p. 65. 258. Ibid., p. 66. 259. See ibid., p. 80. 260. S. SCHREIBER, Gesalbter und König: Titel und Konzeptionen der königlichen Gesalbtenerwartung in frühjüdischen und urchristlichen Schriften (BZNW, 105), Berlin, De Gruyter, 2000, pp. 179-180: “Die Herrschaft des gesalbten Königs, die das Volk vor einem Abweichen vom rechten Weg zu bewahren vermag, wird in V. 40 mit dem Bild des Weidens der Herde des Herrn beschrieben”. See also WILLITTS, Matthew’s Messianic Shepherd-King, pp. 81, 83. 261. WILLITTS, Matthew’s Messianic Shepherd-King, p. 83. 262. See ibid.

CLUES FOR A SYMBOLIC MEANING

539

as a shepherd gathers his flock. In a manner even stronger than the prophets seen above, the author of Psalms of Solomon 17 “coalesces” the roles of YHWH and the Davidic shepherd-king. According to his vision “it is God, by means of the messianic Davidic King, who will accomplish these tasks: the work is at one and the same time both the Messiah’s and YHWH’s”263. The preceding overview of the biblical text and one related text’s use of shepherd imagery has yielded the following results. Shepherd imagery is consistently associated with YHWH’s supreme kingship over Israel. As YHWH’s viceroy on earth and in the ANE mode, Israel’s kings are – regardless of their fittingness – equally understood as shepherd-kings. The shepherd imagery is, however, particularly associated with King David, who later became the prototype of the hoped-for shepherd-king in the prophetic oracles of salvation. There is a widely attested hope that YHWH would restore Israel to its former glory through the hand of a Davidic shepherd-king. The shepherd-king motif is so widely adopted in the former and latter prophets and even beyond that it is hard to imagine that a later Second Temple reader of the Song would have failed to make this connection. 6. The Shepherd-King in the Song Commentary on the Song often highlights its pastoral atmosphere with little regard for its royal character. While it is true that the Beloved is often (but by no means always) associated with motifs from nature264, the Lover is predominantly associated with the royal domain. Thus, the opening verses of Song 1,2-4 plunge the reader directly into the atmosphere of a royal court, ending with the affirmation that the king has brought her into his chambers. He is described with adjectives worthy of ANE kings and divinities (‫נעם‬, ‫ ;יפה‬Song 1,16); the Lover’s “house” is made of cedars and cypress (1,17); the Lover is compared to an apple tree (2,3; trees are kingly symbols)265 in whose shade (another divine/royal symbol)266 263. Ibid., p. 84. 264. Even though the Beloved is compared to vineyards, gardens, and the geography of Israel, she appears at the same time in the garments of an ANE goddess (cf. Song 3,6; 6,10), is compared to a royal mare (1,9), carries the royal adjective beautiful (‫ ;יפה‬7,2.7; cf. Ezek 16,13; Ps 45,3), is depicted as a royal garden (4,12-16), and is called a ‫בת־נדיב‬ (“princely daughter”). 265. See, e.g., Judg 9,8-15; 2 Kgs 14,9; Ezek 17,3; Dan 4,7-23. See also S. PARPOLA, The Assyrian Tree of Life: Tracing the Origins of Jewish Monotheism and Greek Philosophy, in JNES 52 (1993) 161-208, p. 167. 266. The protective function of the shade of gods and kings is a widespread metaphor in the ideology of ANE kingship. For the protective “shade” of the Davidic king, see, e.g., Lam 4,20; cf. Judg 9,15.

540

PART III – CHAPTER 8

the Beloved longs to sit; he owns a litter that is protected by the royal guard of Israel and constructed of the most costly materials (3,7-10); and he is depicted as Solomon on the day of his wedding (3,11). His Beloved is described like a Persian orchard with the most costly spices (4,12-15). His own description resembles that of an ANE Götterstatue (5,10-16; see Chapter 6, III.2.b.ii, above, p. 367); and his appellation, ‫דוד‬, is at once reminiscent of the Syrian storm-god and Israel’s unrivaled king David (see above, II.1, p. 492). Everything in the Song points towards the Lover’s royal identity267. The only time the Lover of the Song is seemingly associated with a pastoral context is when the Beloved asks him268, Tell me (‫)הגידה לי‬, you whom my soul loves (‫)שאהבא נפשי‬, where you pasture (‫ )אכיה תרעה‬your flock, where you make it lie down (‫)איכה תרביץ‬ at noon; for why should I be like one who is veiled beside the flock (‫)עדר‬ of your companions? (Song 1,7; NRSV).

Scholars committed to a “naturalistic” reading see in this phrase either the proof of the love triangle theory, according to which the king and the shepherd are two different contenders for the Shulammite’s love (see VI.1, above, p. 518), or that the Song makes use of the literary artifice of “travesty” emulating Greek Bucolic269. According to Barbiero, who encapsulates well the “travesty” (or burlesque) theory, the question [where do you pasture your flock] situates the action in a bucolic atmosphere […] The nearest parallels lead us to Hellenistic (Theocritus) and Roman (Virgil, Longus the Sophist) poetry, although there are also antecedents in Amarna Egypt. It is the nostalgic dream of someone who has up until now belonged to the ambience and culture of the city270. 267. See HAMILTON, The Body Royal, pp. 55-60. 268. ZAKOVITCH, Hohelied, p. 122, points out that the Lover is elsewhere depicted as “pasturing among the lilies” (2,16; 6,2-3). Yet this image is not taken from nature, as STAUBLI, Love Poetry, p. 85, correctly points out, but from art. The author of the Song takes up the wide-spread ANE Temple motif of gazelles pasturing among lilies and supplants the gazelles (themselves theomorphic animals) by the Lover. Regardless of the concrete meaning of this image, it is clear that it is again taken from the royal domain of the Temple and not from a pastoral idyll. This is particularly evident in the context of Song 6,2-3, where the Lover who has just been described like a Götterstatue (5,10-16), descends into the garden just like the statue of a deity would have been placed in the garden of a temple precinct in Mesopotamia. See HAMILTON, The Body Royal, pp. 58-59. 269. See BARBIERO, Song, pp. 14-15; MÜLLER, Travestien; and HEINEVETTER, “Komm nun, mein Liebster”, p. 173. 270. See BARBIERO, Song, pp. 65-66. A similar explanation is that of seeing in the king and the shepherd idealized figures, “archetypal lovers – composite figures, types of lovers rather than any specific lovers”. This alleged archetypal dimension makes it, according to EXUM, “easier for readers to relate the Song’s lovers’ experience to their own experience of love, real or fantasized” (Song, p. 8).

CLUES FOR A SYMBOLIC MEANING

541

The dubiousness of the “travesty” theory has been addressed above (VI.2, above, p. 519)271. In part, Barbiero’s explanation goes back to Graetz, who was the first to propose an influence of Theocritus’ Idylls on the Song272. Graetz, however, was himself hard pressed to explain his theory. On the one hand, he discusses at length the difference between the Song and the bucolic or idyll and concludes that though there are some similar features, the Song is “weit entfernt von einem Bucolicum”273. Nevertheless, he allows for an influence of Theocritus’ Idylls on the Song because it lets “Sulamit und ihren Freund oberflächlich als Hirten auftreten”274. He recognizes that the shepherd’s nomadic life was not highly esteemed in Judea during the Hellenistic period, and therefore presumes that only an influence of Theocritus could explain the idealization of a shepherd’s life as he sees it depicted in the Song: In der judäischen Welt konnte der Dichter also keinen Anhalt finden, die Hirten zu idealisieren. Da er aber dennoch das einfache Leben der höfischen Ueppigkeit gegenüber durch Hirten darstellt, so kann er nur nach fremdem Muster gearbeitet haben. […] Da es nun durch Theokrit und seine Nachfolger Typus geworden war, das einfache Leben durch Hirten vertreten zu lassen, so musste der Dichter des H.L. – der für den gebildeten jüdischen Kreis dichtete – dieses Genre anwenden. Aber, als wollte er sich entschuldigen, dass er judäische Hirten zu Vertretern von höheren Tugenden genommen hat, fügt er hinzu: “ein Hirte, der unter Lilien weidet”. Es sind nicht die stumpfen Hirten von Gilead oder der Wüste Juda’s, die so herrliche Dialoge halten, sondern Hirten von feinem Geschmacke275.

The problem with Graetz’s explanation is first that he simply assumes a poetic will to contrast the opulence of the court to the life of the shepherds, while nothing in the Song points to a rejection of the courtly life. Rather, 271. For a more recent critique of the “travesty” theory, see also E. BIRNBAUM, “Just Call Me Salomo?”: Hld 3,6-11 und 8,11-12 als Fallbeispiele der Hoheliedinterpretation, in L. SCHWIENHORST-SCHÖNBERGER (ed.), Das Hohelied im Konflikt der Interpretationen (ÖBS, 47), Frankfurt a.M., Lang, 2017, 233-264, pp. 245-251. 272. GRAETZ, Schir Ha-Schirim, pp. 33, 60, 71, 118, makes out the following correspondences: the “bed of fresh grass” (Song 1,16; cf. Theocritus, Idyll 7,133-136); the foxes damaging the vineyards (Song 2,15; cf. Idylls 1,46-47; 5,111-112); the ewes who are “mothers of twins” (Song 4,2; 6,2; cf. Idyll 1,25); the dark color of the woman (Song 1,6; cf. Idyll 10,26); “Pharaoh’s mare” (Song 1,9; cf. Idyll 18,30-31). See BARBIERO, Song, p. 33. For the opposite argument, that “a corpus of songs, of which the Song of Solomon is a byproduct, may have provided part of the context for the development of Theocritean pastoral”, see E. ANAGNOSTOU-LAOUTIDES – D. KONSTAN, Daphnis and Aphrodite: A Love Affair in Theocritus Idyll 1, in The American Journal of Philology 129 (2008) 497-527, pp. 503-516. 273. GRAETZ, Schir Ha-Schirim, pp. 22-24, 69. 274. Ibid., p. 69. 275. Ibid., p. 70.

542

PART III – CHAPTER 8

as Graetz himself admits, the Song spills over with myrrh and balsams, perfumes and anointing oils276. Secondly, he presupposes the (unproven) necessity of applying the Greek literary genre of idylls in order to please his educated Judaean readership. One may wonder why the exegete has to have recourse to the latest Greek fashion, when the Song itself is so undisguisedly royal, imbued with an ANE ideology in which kings were the shepherds of their vineyard-countries. His idea of shepherds of “a higher virtue” pasturing among lilies does not lack a certain irony, in light of Thomas Staubli’s observation that this image is found in the Hathor temples of the time – which is it to say: it points to Temple language and once again to the royal domain277. Moreover, Barbiero’s understanding of the classic idyll as “the nostalgic dream of someone who has up until now belonged to the ambience and culture of the city” evidently owes much to the Schäferdichtung of the eighteenth and nineteenth century and the questionable analysis of Alfred Hermann, who lumps together Theocritus and Virgil with Goethe and Arno Holz. Such conflation of a modern, romantic vision and an ancient text is highly dubious278, particularly in light of recent studies into the Idylls of Theocritus that read his Bucolic squarely within the ANE tradition of “sacred marriage”279. Thus Eva Anagnostou-Laoutides argues that Theocritus seems to have been aware of the long tradition of near-eastern consorts who enjoyed a love affair with Aphrodite. Idyll 15, which exhibits a detailed knowledge of the cult of Adonis, as well as the poems of Bion and Pseudo-Moschus, which refer to his tragic death, make it clear that bucolic 276. See ibid., p. 24. 277. HAUPT, Canticles, pp. 207-208, contested the assumption of Theocritus’ influence pointing to similar parallels of the much older Egyptian love songs. 278. There are in fact ancient claims “that bucolic poetry had a ritual substance and endow this seemingly naïve genre and its ministers with prophetic dimensions later monopolized by Christian writers”. As Anagnostou-Laoutides has argued, Virgil has invested his Arcadia “with ritual and philosophical notions that actually render the Arcadian experience tangible […]. By placing the new Golden Age in a Roman Arcadia with Orpheus or Orpheus-like figures as officiating at it, Vergil does not simply negotiate the idea of returning to this ancient Shangri-La, but, in fact, he introduces ritual as the only means of dealing with loss and death in this otherworldly paradise”. E. ANAGNOSTOU-LAOUTIDES, Ancient Ritual and the Search for Arcadia: From Vergil to Poussin, in Transcultural Studies 2-3 (2007) 19-53, pp. 19-20. See also T.G. ROSENMEYER, The Green Cabinet: Theocritus and the European Pastoral Lyric, Berkeley, CA, University of California Press, 1969, pp. 77-78. 279. See ANAGNOSTOU-LAOUTIDES – KONSTAN, Daphnis and Aphrodite. ANAGNOSTOULAOUTIDES, Garden, p. 129: “The reclining couple of the Jewish Song and the reclining Adonis in Theocritus’ Idyll 15 represent the two facets of the ‘sacred marriage’: the celebration of life’s exuberance and its commemoration”. The “commemoration” refers here to the re-establishment of the cosmos in royal rites like the Babylonian akītī festival to which she associates both the Song and Theocritus’ Bucolic poetry.

CLUES FOR A SYMBOLIC MEANING

543

poetry was keenly interested in the erotic adventures of the goddess and her companion. Indeed, the genre may well have drawn inspiration from popular near-eastern cultic hymns and mourning songs for the death of the divine consort with their rich use of pathos. Theocritus alludes to this tradition precisely in the context of Idyll 1 (104–6, 108–9), in which Daphnis, just before breathing his last, addresses Aphrodite angrily and compares himself to previous consorts of hers, namely, Anchises, Adonis, and possibly Diomedes280.

Far from expressing a “nostalgia for the world of shepherds and peasants”281 of the kulturmüde Greek urban upper class, bucolic shepherds like Daphnis belong to “a cultural and ideological continuum between songs employed in ‘sacred marriage’ rites from the Sumerian period to the first millennium”282. David Halperin observes that “The religious aura surrounding the figure of the herdsman … can be traced back from the Daphnis of Greek lyric poetry and cult all the way to the Sumerian shepherd-god Dumuzi”283. The public staging of the spectacle by Queen Arsinoe in King Ptolemy’s Palace to which Theocritus alludes in Idyll 15,22-25, may therefore arguably belong to the same propaganda of royal ideology as its more expressly politico-religious predecessors, the hymns sung during the rites of the Adonis, Ishtar-Tammuz, and Inana-Dumuzi cult284. Ultimately, it is best to give methodological preference to the most proximate cultural context of the verse in trying to decipher its meaning. 280. ANAGNOSTOU-LAOUTIDES – KONSTAN, Daphnis and Aphrodite, p. 499 (emphasis mine). Commenting on Daphnis’ last words she explains: “The mention of Aphrodite’s affair with Anchises alludes, of course, to the Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite, the locus classicus for this tale. Charles Penglase notes that Aphrodite’s affair with Anchises has ‘striking motifs which recall the relationship of Inanna /Ishtar and her young lover the herdsman / shepherd Dumuzi…’. Diomedes, too, may be a parallel for Gilgamesh. The representation of Aphrodite in the hymn is itself undoubtedly indebted to near-eastern conceptions of a goddess associated with wild animals (cf. μητέρα θηρῶν, 68), whose passion for a mortal entails grave danger for him (153-54)”. See C. PENGLASE, Greek Myths and Mesopotamia: Parallels and Influence in the Homeric Hymns and Hesiod, London, Routledge, 1994, p. 165. For further comparisons of Daphnis with Adonis and other such consorts of great female divinities in ANE myth, most often Dumuzi, see I. TRENCSÉNYI-WALDAPFEL, Werden und Wesen der bukolischen Poesie, in Acta Antiqua 14 (1966) 1-31; G. ANDERSON, The Origins of Daphnis: Vergil’s Eclogues and the Ancient Near East, in Proceedings of the Virgil Society 21 (1993) 65-79; ROSENMEYER, Cabinet; W.J. BERG, Early Vergil, London, Athlone, 1974, p. 12; D. HALPERIN, Before Pastoral: Theocritus and the Ancient Tradition of Bucolic Poetry, New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, 1983, pp. 83-117; R. HUNTER, Theocritus: A Selection, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1999, p. 68. 281. BARBIERO, Song, p. 433. 282. ANAGNOSTOU-LAOUTIDES, Garden, p. 124. 283. See HALPERIN, Pastoral, p. 99. See also J. DUCHEMIN, La houlette et la lyre: Recherche sur les origines pastorales de la poésie. Vol. I: Hermès et Apollon, Paris, Les Belles Lettres, 1960, pp. 70-84; BERG, Vergil, pp. 15-22. 284. See ANAGNOSTOU-LAOUTIDES, Garden, pp. 129-130, and EAD. – KONSTAN, Daphnis and Aphrodite.

544

PART III – CHAPTER 8

This means turning first to the Song, the Old Testament, and the ANE royal ideology, rather than to Greco-Roman parallels – and here all the indications point to a religiously charged direction285. Scholars frequently point out that the question “Tell me, […] where do you pasture?” in Song 1,7 closely resembles Gen 37,16, of which “it appears to be almost a pastiche”286. Wandering in search of his brothers, Joseph is found by an unnamed man, who asks him, “What are you seeking” (Gen 37,15; cf. Song 3,1-4). Joseph answers that he is in search of his brothers and adds, “Tell me, please, where they are pasturing the flock”. Song 1,7 Tell me (‫)הגידה לי‬, whom my soul loves, where do you pasture? Gen 37,16 Tell me (‫)הגידה־נא לי‬, where do they pasture?

The author of the Song puts the words of Joseph in the mouth of the Beloved with the same question and the same imperative. “The imitation of Genesis is striking”287, indeed. Some versions underscore this allusion in rendering the Hebrew term ‫( כטעיה‬like someone veiled) in Song 1,7 as “like one wandering” thus reading: “For why should I be like one wandering among the flocks of your companions?” (S, Vg, Symmachus)288. It is noteworthy that according to a Rabbinic tradition reflected in Gen. Rab. 95.5, the man whom Joseph encountered when wandering in search of his brothers was none other than the three angels who had previously come to visit Abraham at the oaks of Mamre, that is, the Lord himself (cf. Gen 18,1-2). If this reflects an ancient tradition (as the evidence suggests) then it may be that the Song presupposes it and reckons with his reader’s ability to catch the allusion to the divine interlocutor289. Most importantly the image of a shepherd pasturing his flock is in the biblical context reminiscent of the tradition of referring to YHWH as shepherd of Israel, the most famous example of which is certainly Psalm 23. There the psalmist proclaims that God is his shepherd (‫)רעה‬, who will make him lie down (‫רבץ‬, hifil) in green pastures (Ps 23,2). Especially 285. In this connection, the allegedly non-religious character of Egyptian love poetry has also recently been refuted by John D. Darnell. According to him the “bucolic” elements of these love songs reflect rather a festival performance background, “in which the reconciliation of elements of a divine pair find both prototypes and reflections in the interactions of human lovers”. DARNELL, Rituals of Love, p. 25. 286. LACOCQUE, Romance, p. 76. See also ZAKOVITCH, Hohelied, p. 122. 287. LACOCQUE, Romance, p. 77. 288. See the critical apparatus of BHQ ad loc. 289. Commentators have furthermore highlighted that the expression “whom my soul loves” (‫)שאהבה נפשי‬, which is found only here and at four reprises in Song 1,1-4, is reminiscent of the command in Deut 6,5 (cf. Deut 30,6) to love (‫ )אהב‬the Lord with all one’s heart and with all one’s souls (‫)נפש‬. See ZAKOVITCH, Hohelied, p. 122; SCHWIENHORSTSCHÖNBERGER, Das Hohelied, p. 47.

CLUES FOR A SYMBOLIC MEANING

545

prominent, however, is the use of shepherd language with respect to YHWH and his appointed king in the salvation prophecies of exilic times, “when the predicament of the dispersion appeared to offer no future beyond the dissolution of Israel among the nations (e.g., Jer. 23.3; 31.8-10; Isa. 40.11; Ezek 34)”290. It is therefore highly significant that the symbol of the Lover as a shepherd in Song 1,7 is also intertextually linked to the prophetic passages where the Lord promises to rescue his people in the context of Israel’s final restoration, that is, in the time of covenant renewal. There the same expressions of pasturing (‫ )רעה‬the flock and making them lie down (‫רבץ‬, hifil), are repeatedly used for God the shepherd-king who makes his people lie down at the time of salvation291. Thus, for example, Song 1,7 makes an intertextual allusion to Ezek 34,15, where YHWH promises to be himself the shepherd of his sheep, that is, of Israel dispersed among the nations when he says: I will bring them out (‫ )הוצאתים‬from the peoples and gather them from the countries, and will bring them into their own land; and I will pasture them (‫ )רעיתים‬on the mountains of Israel, by the watercourses, and in all the inhabited parts of the land. I will pasture them (‫ )ארעה‬with good pasture, and the mountain heights of Israel shall be their pasture; there they shall lie down (‫ )תרבצנה‬in good grazing land, and they shall pasture (‫ )תרעינה‬on rich pasture on the mountains of Israel. I myself will pasture (‫ )ארעה‬my sheep, and I will make them lie down (‫)ארביץ‬, says the Lord God (Ezek 34,1415).

The Lover in the Song is described as being about the same business as YHWH in Ezekiel, that of pasturing (‫ )רעה‬his sheep and making them lie down (‫ )רבץ‬at noon. Significantly even the motif of “going out” (‫ )יצא‬and pasturing (‫ )רעה‬is echoed in the Lover’s response to the Beloved, when he tells her: Go out (‫ )צאי־לך‬on the tracks of the flock, and pasture (‫ )רעי‬your kids beside the shepherds’ tabernacles (Song 1,8c-e).

In the context of Ezekiel, the term “bringing out” (‫יצא‬, hifil) refers to YHWH who will bring out his people out of captivity in Babylon. Though it is not immediately apparent that the Beloved should here be called to leave her Exile, the immediately preceding passage allows for just this reading. 290. See J.L. MAYS, Micah: A Commentary (OTL), London, SCM, 1976, p. 75. 291. Cf. Ezek 34; Isa 40,11; 49,9; Jer 23,3; 31,10; Zech 9,16; 10,2-3; 11,1-17; 13,7-9. See ROBERT – TOURNAY – FEUILLET, Cantique, p. 76; LACOCQUE, Romance, p. 74; KINGSMILL, Eros, p. 210; SCHWIENHORST-SCHÖNBERGER, Das Hohelied, pp. 47-49.

546

PART III – CHAPTER 8

According to Song 1,5-6 the Beloved is as black as the princes of Israel in Exile (cf. Lam 4,7-8). She has not been able to guard her own vineyard (‫)כרם‬, that is the land of Israel (cf. Isaiah 5; 27,2-6; Jer 12,10; Psalm 80), because “the sons of her mother” were angry with her and made her a keeper of (other) vineyards292. “The sons of her mother” are possibly an allusion to her Brudervölker, the Chaldeans (Gen 11,17-32; 22,20-24; 25,20; 28,1-9; Ezek 16,3.45)293 as also to the Edomites who, rather than coming to the help of their brother Jacob, supported the Babylonians in their assault of Jerusalem (cf. Lam 4,21; Obad 1,1-15; Ps 137,7; Ezek 25,1214)294. In other words, the anger of her brothers drove Israel out of her own vineyard and made her the keeper of other vineyards, a poetic way of describing the slave labor to which she was submitted during the Exile295. Exposed to the sun in the “vineyard” of Babylon her skin became as black as the tents of Kedar. According to this reading the Beloved is in Exile, black but beautiful. It is here that she searches for her shepherd-king YHWH, and from where she must go out (‫ ;יצא‬cf. Isa 49,9) in order to find him. Significant in this context is also the term ‫( משכנות‬Song 1,8) which elsewhere in the Bible is often used both in the singular and the plural in reference to the Temple (cf. Ps 43,1; 46,5; 84,2; 132,5.7; Isa 54,2)296. Ezekiel is not the only text that refers to YHWH who brings his people back from Exile under the symbol of a shepherd caring for his flock. The same symbolism is also employed in Isa 40,11; 49,9; 63,11; Jer 23,3.7-8; 31,10; 50,19; Mic 7,14; Zech 9,16; 10,2-3; 11,1-17; 13,7-9; Ps 80,1-8. It is a symbolism which is so deeply rooted in the biblical “salvation lexicon” with respect to the restoration of Israel, that a Second Temple audience of the Song could have hardly missed these echoes. Against the identification of YHWH with the Lover of the Song, scholars have mentioned the latter’s anthropomorphic features, the description of his stature in Song 5,10-16 in particular, or the fact that he appears to have a mother (cf. Song 3,11; 8,5)297. This argument is not conclusive, for anthropomorphic descriptions of YHWH are common elsewhere in the Bible298. Moreover, the Lover’s description in Song 5,10-16 “echoes both 292. See FEUILLET, Comment lire?, p. 101. 293. At several reprises the Bible insists on the Chaldean (viz. Aramean) origins of Israel, wherefore these people may well be called sons of the same mother. See ROBERT – TOURNAY – FEUILLET, Cantique, p. 73. 294. See SCHWIENHORST-SCHÖNBERGER, Das Hohelied, p. 45. 295. See ROBERT – TOURNAY – FEUILLET, Cantique, p. 75. 296. See LACOCQUE, Romance, p. 77. 297. See BARBIERO, Song, pp. 8, 38-39. 298. For example the many passages that speak of the Lord’s “arm” (e.g. Exod 6,6; Deut 5,5; 26,8; Jer 21,5; Ezek 20,34) or the “face of the Lord” (e.g. Ps 34,16; Jer 21,10) etc.

CLUES FOR A SYMBOLIC MEANING

547

the form and content of similar Mesopotamian texts that refer to deities”299. On the other hand, these same features point to his royal character, that is, towards the identification of the Song’s Lover with one of Israel’s shepherdkings. Mark Hamilton makes a helpful comparison with the royal psalms, where the bodies of the king and YHWH appear to resemble each other: The two [YHWH and the king] are moving points on a continuum. Like the deity, whose son he is, the king trains for war, strikes his enemies, extends his reach over the sea, and so on. The Psalms feel free to employ divine imagery for the human king in a way inappropriate for other mortals. This means that the burden of proof lies with anyone who would argue that the statue of Song 5:10-16 portrays a commoner. We are left with two choices, then: either the statue in this section of the Song is of a god, or it is of a king300.

Hamilton is correct concluding that the Lover of the Song is either a deity or a king. In accordance with both the ANE and biblical royal ideology it can at times be hard to distinguish the two. The other possible reading of Song 1,7, therefore, is based on the prophetic tradition traced above in which YHWH will exercise his shepherding by raising a new Davidic shepherd-king who will vicariously shepherd Israel (cf. Mic 2,12; Jer 23,3-8; Ezek 34,23-31; 37,21-28; Zech 9,9-10). According to the prophets’ vision, this Davidic king will be YHWH’s concrete instrument to shepherd his people. Read in light of these promises, the question of the Beloved in Song 1,7 may then be addressed to this promised shepherd-king whose arrival Israel was desperately awaiting and who would make them “lie down” (‫ )רבץ‬in their restored home country. Given the Song’s many reminiscences with ANE royal ideology, the Beloved’s vivid engagement with the Lover, the allusion to his having a mother, and a number of other features that will be addressed in Chapter 9, hint at the Lover’s identification with a “mortal” royal, the Davidic king. In the present context one can note further identifiers. Both Jer 31,1012 and Ezek 34,23-31 combine the promise of a coming Davidic shepherdking with the notion that Israel will be restored to a garden-like country, which is the symbol employed for the Beloved in the Song (cf. Song 4,1216; see Chapter 11)301. Under that king Israel will live in safety (Ezek 34,27) 299. HAMILTON, The Body Royal, p. 57. 300. Ibid., p. 59. See also T. PODELLA, Das Lichtkleid JHWHs: Untersuchungen zur Gestalthaftigkeit Gottes im Alten Testament und seiner altorientalischen Umwelt (FAT, 15), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 1996. 301. Jer 31,1-22 handles the topic of God the shepherd bringing the virgin Israel back to her land. In this respect the shared vocabulary between this text and the Song is compelling: ‫“ מדבר‬desert”; ‫“ אהבה‬love”; ‫“ אהב‬to love”; ‫“ משך‬to draw”; ‫ מחול‬twice “dance”; ‫“ כרם‬vineyard”; ‫“ קום‬to rise”; ‫“ רנן‬to rejoice”; ‫ שוב‬8× “to turn around”; ‫“ מים‬water”; ‫“ עדר‬flock”; ‫“ ציון‬Zion”; ‫“ גן‬garden”.

548

PART III – CHAPTER 8

because YHWH will make a covenant of peace (‫ )שלום‬with them (Ezek 37,26). The gift of “peace” marks, in fact, a climactic moment in the relationship of the lovers of the Song, when the Shulammite finally finds peace in the eyes of her shepherd-king (cf. Song 8,11; see I, above, p. 477). The promised Davidic king will also bring about the reunification of Israel and the restoration of her ideal borders, a state that appears to be attained in the “sacred geography” outlined in the description of the Beloved (see III, above, p. 502). Finally, Hos 3,1-5 and Ezek 37,26-28 insist that the coming of the Davidic king will coincide with the achievement of a major covenant purpose: God’s dwelling in the Temple in the midst of his people. Then YHWH will be their God and they will be his people (Ezek 37,27). As seen in Chapter 7, I, above, p. 411, this will bring about the consummation of their marriage (cf. Hos 3,1-5). In this respect it is significant that while the identity the Song’s Lover oscillates between that of YHWH and his Davidic appointee, the Beloved resembles at once the Promised land and the Temple, both hinted at in garden imagery. The Lover’s descent into his garden-Beloved (cf. 4,16; 6,2) is thus reminiscent of God’s eschatological descent into his Temple, when the covenant formula will be fulfilled. This is expressed in the words of the Song, when Israel will be able to say: “My Lover is mine and I am his” (‫ ;דודי לי ואני לו‬see Chapter 7, I.3, above, p. 443). In summary, nothing in the Song allows one to affirm that the Lover is literally a shepherd boy. Rather, the royal context of the preceding verses (Song 1,1-4) and particularly the description of the Lover in Song 5,1016, which constitutes a genuine ANE god-description text (see Chapter 6, III.2.b.ii, above, p. 367), all point to ANE royal ideology as a source for the confluence of the shepherd and king imagery in the Song. Furthermore, given the close association of ANE love poetry with the royal court and its ideology of “sacred” kingship, the reading of the Song’s Lover who appears in the guise both of a king and of a shepherd as a literary travesty (or burlesque) is not justified. Rather, the few verses that associate the Lover with a pastoral setting have to be interpreted in the light of his predominantly royal character. Like anywhere else in the ANE the Lover’s shepherdship is an expression of his kingship. In the Old Testament the symbol of the shepherd-king is preeminently used for YHWH as Israel’s supreme shepherd-king. In the context of the prophetic oracle of salvation, however, it is equally used for the expected Davidic king. The latter will restore Israel on behalf of YHWH to its former unity and glory and lead the people back to their land, like a shepherd who “pastures” his flock and makes them lie down at noon. Both the ANE ideology and the biblical intertextual references then suggest an identification of the Lover

CLUES FOR A SYMBOLIC MEANING

549

with either YHWH the supreme shepherd-king himself or his viceroy the expected Davidic shepherd-king. More clues point in fact to the latter solution.

VII. CONCLUSION This chapter has addressed the current argument against reading the Song symbolically, according to which there are no clues to the Song’s symbolical value to be found within the text. Against this argument, six different text-inherent clues have been offered that invite the reader to view the Song as a symbolic text, as now summarized. An analysis of the names and epithets given to the lovers of the Song has uncovered their symbolic significance. The appellation Dôḏî points on the one hand to a divine identity of the Lover. On the other hand, it associates the Lover of the Song with a Davidide, as the sevenfold occurrence of the name Solomon also suggests. The name Shulammite has also been shown not to have been chosen at random. Rather, being the female counterpart of the name Solomon, her name echoes at once Abishag the Shunammite and the city of Jerusalem. The identification of the Beloved with the city of Jerusalem was further traced in some conspicuously architectural descriptions of the woman/city (cf. Song 4,4-7; 8,8-10). The salient punning on the root ‫ שלם‬in the names of Solomon and the Shulammite, in combination with the prominent role played by the city of Jerusalem, also linked with the ‫ שלום‬she finds in the denouement of the Song (8,11), argue compellingly for this identification of the Beloved with the city of peace. This identification is, however, not univocal. The Song equally offers clues to the identification of the Beloved with the Land of Israel. An analysis of the toponyms that occur in the description of her beauty allows for a delineation of the supposed ideal borders of Israel, as also encountered in the book of Deuteronomy and the Heilsorakel of Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Zechariah. Similarly the plants, flowers, and fruit trees that populate the Song are all inner-biblically associated with either paradise, the Promised Land, or the Temple of Jerusalem. Some salient numerical features have been pointed out that appear to have escaped previous Song scholarship. The cumulative sevenfold occurrence of important terms, in particular, points to an association of the Beloved with the Temple and the Land of Israel, while the twenty-six occurrences of the term Dôḏî suggest an association of the Lover with the divine Name.

550

PART III – CHAPTER 8

Finally, it was argued that the concomitant presence of a shepherd and a king should be viewed in light of the ANE symbol of shepherd-kingship which biblical texts adopt for YHWH and the rulers of Israel, and for the expected divinely appointed Davidic king in particular. The ancient audience, therefore, steeped in the traditional rhetoric and symbolic universe of the Scriptures, when hearing the description of the Shulammite and her impeccable shepherd-king Lover, might be expected to have picked up on the various clues and understood them as references to Israel and her God or the expected Messiah.

CHAPTER 9

FOR SOLOMON THE MESSIANIC KING

The opening words of a book fulfill a most important function. They inform the readers about the genre of the book, provide a title, and, above all, introduce them to the book they are about to read1. They serve to raise a set of expectations (and also assumptions) that are supposed to guide the readers’ approach to the book. In short, the title is a critically important hermeneutical key to the book that follows. The Song is entitled The Song of Songs which is Solomon’s. Considering the hermeneutical function of this ascription, the question arises: What were the associations that a late Second Temple period audience would have made with the name of Solomon? Was he simply the ideal lover? Was he instead the sage whose name was meant to ensure the Song’s sacred status? Or was he rather the King whose name would forever be bound to Israel’s most important edifice, the glorious First Temple of Jerusalem, the first and only King under whose reign Israel lived in peace with God dwelling in her midst? A number of different answers have been proposed to this fundamental question about the significance of Solomon and these will be briefly discussed in this chapter (I). As the best key to a correct answer, however, the development of the biblical figure of king Solomon will also be traced (II). In light of a growing idealization of the royal son of David a more comprehensive proposal for the interpretation of the Solomonic ascription of the Song will be developed.

I. THE SOLOMONIC ASCRIPTION It is generally recognized that the superscription of the Song, “Song of Songs which is Solomon’s” belongs to the latest, if not to the last redactional layer of the Song’s composition2. Yet it is debated whether the title is part of the original composition or if it is a later addition. Its supplementary and late character is suggested by the archaizing form of the relative 1. See BEN ZVI, Hosea, p. 23. 2. According to GERHARDS, Hohelied, p. 173, the characterization of this ascription as a late addition is already attested in 1722.

552

PART III – CHAPTER 9

particle ‫ אשר‬that stands in sharp contrast to the otherwise consistent use of the proclitic particle ‫ ש‬in the Song3. In favor of the supplementary character is also its similarity in expression to the redactional insertion of psalm titles in the Psalter (cf., e.g., ‫ לדוד‬and notably ‫ לשלמה‬in Psalms 72; 127)4. At the same time, however, this alliterative title fits nicely with the alliteration of the following verses 2-3 and the royal aura of the entire first poem (vv. 2-4)5. It is possible that Song 1,1-4 constituted from the outset one coherent literary unity that was at some point joined to a pre-existing composition. In either case, Song 1,1 is a late addition to the book and functions now as the title. As such, Song 1,1 serves an important function. The title is a textually inscribed semantic marker that provides the readers of the book with a decisive interpretative key6. The expression “Song of Songs” is a superlative, similar to other biblical superlatives like “holy of holies” (cf. Exod 26,33), “king of kings” (Dan 2,37; Ezra 7,12), or “God of Gods” (Deut 10,17)7. It is the equivalent to saying “the most excellent of all songs” or “song of all the songs”8. The reader is thus asked to read the ensuing text as one coherent song and not as a collection of songs9. It has been composed either by or for Solomon (‫)לשלמה‬. This ascription can, in fact, be interpreted in several ways. The lamed can be understood as a lamed auctoris, in which case it would designate “by Solomon”, that is, “from the pen of Solomon”10. It can, however, also be interpreted as a “for Solomon”, “dedicated to Solomon”, or “concerning Solomon”11. The latter is in fact the rendering of the LXX, ὅ ἐστιν τῷ Σαλωμων. 3. Though the relative particle ‫ ש‬is already attested in the Song of Deborah (Song 5,7), and has a cognate in the Akkadian ša, it is increasingly used after the Exile and comes to supersede the use of ‫ אשר‬in the Second Temple period and replaces it completely in Mishnaic Hebrew. See JOÜON-MURAOKA, §38. 4. The process of the redaction of the Psalm titles has been referred to as “Davidisierung” of the Psalter. See ZENGER, Einleitung in das Alte Testament, p. 369. On the hermeneutical importance of these titles, see B.S. CHILDS, Psalm Titles and Midrashich Exegesis, in JSSt 16 (1971) 137-150. 5. The Hebrew šîr haššîrîm ᾿āšer lišlōmōh creates an untranslatable sound play that resounds well with the alliteration created by the constant repetition of the letter šin of the following verses 2-3. See BARBIERO, p. 45. 6. See F. CRÜSEMANN, ‘… für Salomo’? Salomo und die Interpretation des Hohenliedes, in F.-L. HOSSFELD – L. SCHWIENHORST-SCHÖNBERGER (eds.), Das Manna fällt auch heute noch: Beiträge zur Geschichte und Theologie des Alten, Ersten Testaments (Festschrift für Erich Zenger) (HBS, 44), Freiburg i.Br., Herder, 2004, 141-157, p. 141. 7. See BARBIERO, Song, p. 45; and POPE, Song, p. 294. 8. See POPE, Song, p. 294. 9. See BARBIERO, Song, p. 45; HEINEVETTER, “Komm nun, mein Liebster”, p. 70; MURPHY, Wisdom Literature, p. 105. 10. See RUDOLPH, Hohe Lied, p. 121; KRINETZKI, Hohelied, p. 11; MURPHY, Wisdom Literature, p. 105; HEINEVETTER, “Komm nun, mein Liebster”, p. 68. 11. See DELL, Song, p. 10.

FOR SOLOMON THE MESSIANIC KING

553

1. “By Solomon” Most modern commentators on the Song claim that the lamed must indicate a fictional attribution of Solomonic authorship12. This is a feature typically known from the incipits of the Psalter, where many psalms have been a posteriori ascribed to David, possibly in order to indicate Davidic authorship13. Similar attributions to Solomon are found in the case of Proverbs, Qohelet, and the Book of Wisdom. Different reasons are proposed for the Song’s attribution to Solomon. (i) Solomon the Wise. According to biblical tradition, Solomon expressed his great wisdom, inter alia, in uttering three thousand proverbs and in the composition of 1005 songs (cf. 1 Kgs 5,12). For this reason it was only natural that the Song was attributed to Solomon14. This attribution is also reflected in Sir 47,17 LXX where his works are enumerated in reverse order, the songs receiving the eminent first position: “Your songs (ᾠδαῖς), proverbs (παροιμίαις), and parables (παραβολαῖς, SirB: ‫“ חידה‬riddles”)15, and the answers you gave astounded the nations”16. According to Di Lella this reversal of the order in 1 Kgs 5,12 might reflect the understanding that the Song of Songs was his masterwork17. 12. See RUDOLPH, Hohe Lied, p. 121; KRINETZKI, Hohelied, p. 11; MURPHY, Wisdom Literature, p. 105; HEINEVETTER, “Komm nun, mein Liebster”, p. 68; AUSLOOS – LEMMELIJN, Praising God or Singing of Love?, p. 17; BARBIERO, Song, p. 45. Reading the lamed auctoris as a factual attribution has been almost abandoned. Commentators of the nineteenth century were still inclined to read the Song as an original piece of Solomonic poetry, suggesting as its Sitz im Leben Solomon’s marriage with Pharaoh’s daughter (1 Kgs 3,1). That view was based on the comparison of the Beloved with a mare of Pharaoh’s chariots (1,9) and the allusion to her dark skin color (1,5) pointing to her African origin. Alternatively, it was proposed that the dark beauty might refer to the Queen of Sheba. The last such proposal was made in 1944 by R. GORDIS, albeit concerning only Song 3,6-11. See A Wedding Song for Solomon, in JBL 63 (1944) 261-270. 13. See KRAUS, Psalmen 1–59, p. 16; CHILDS, Psalm Titles, p. 138; M. KLEER, Der liebliche Sänger der Psalmen Israels: Untersuchungen zu David als Dichter und Beter der Psalmen (BBB, 108), Amsterdam, Athenäum; Bodenheim, Philo, 1996, pp. 78-86. 14. See O. LORETZ, Das Hohelied, in Gotteswort und menschliche Erfahrung, Freiburg i.Br., Herder, 1963, 70-112, p. 76. 15. The word ‫ חידה‬occurs otherwise only in Judg 14,12-14. Because Solomon composed riddles Meik Gerhards proposes that the Song should be understood as a riddle, or an enigma that the reader is invited to solve. See GERHARDS, Hohelied, p. 523. This, however, must contend with the fact that “songs” are named as a specific subcategory of Solomon’s œuvres distinct from “riddles”. 16. There is a curious discrepancy in Sir 47,15 between the Greek and the Hebrew text. While the Greek reads in Sir 47,15 “Your influence spread throughout the earth, and you filled it with proverbs (παραβολαῖς) having deep meaning”, the Hebrew MS B reads, “The earth [ – ] your [life] [[ ]] and you sang in the heights of heaven a song (‫ )שירה‬of pra[ise]”. According to the Greek version Solomon filled the earth with his proverbs, while the Hebrew lays the stress on his songs. 17. See P.W. SKEHAN – A. DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira: A New Translation with Notes (AncB, 39), New York, Doubleday, 1987, p. 527.

554

PART III – CHAPTER 9

(ii) Solomon the Lover. It has also been suggested that because Solomon was famed for his great harem (1 Kgs 11,1-3) and relationships with women (1 Kgs 1,17-22; 3,1; 10,1-10) his name would serve as the paragon of love. “If Solomon is evoked in the Song, thus giving it a legendary flavor, it is not so much Solomon-the-Wise that the author is calling to the bar, as Solomon-the-Don-Juan. With his thousand wives (1 Kgs 11,3), Solomon appears as one who has known love in all its forms, as the paragon of love”18. This interpretation, however, is quite unlikely19, given the negative assessment Solomon receives by the Deuteronomistic historian precisely for this reason. 1 Kgs 11,2-8 detects in Solomon’s love for a multitude of foreign women the cause for Solomon’s idolatry: a sin so grave that it led to the breaking apart of the kingdom (1 Kgs 11,9-13). In fact, the Deuteronomistic history views Solomon’s love for his many foreign women as “the original sin” of Israel’s monarchy and the ultimate cause for the Exile (cf. 2 Kgs 17,7-18)20. Even at the time of Ben Sira the reason for the division of the two kingdoms was still found in Solomon’s “bending his flanks for women” (cf. Sir 47,19-21 LXX). It is, consequently, rather unlikely that in a book of the late Second Temple period, when monolatry and monogamy were seen as intimately connected (cf. Mal 2,10-16)21, 18. A. LACOCQUE – P. RICŒUR, Thinking Biblically: Biblical and Exegetical Studies, Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press, 1998, p. 237. See also, P. HÖFFKEN, Das Hohelied und die Salomonliteratur, in “Fürchte Dich nicht, denn ich bin mit dir! (Jes 41,10): Gesammelte Aufsätze zu Grundsätzen des Alten Testaments (Beiträge zum Verstehen der Bibel, 14), Münster, LIT, 2005, 267-278. 19. On different grounds M. Gerhards also rejects this possibility: “Es ist nicht recht nachvollziehbar, wie die innige Zuneigung zu dem einen Geliebten, von der das Hohelied durchgehend handelt, zu Salomos großem Harem passt”. See GERHARDS, Hohelied, p. 521. 20. See SONNET, Salomon, l’Adam royal. 21. Mal 2,10-12 and 2,13-16 link two different transgressions by the same negative effect on the covenant relationship of the people with YHWH, namely, intermarriage with foreign women (vv. 10-12) and divorce (vv. 13-16). In Mal 2,14 “Marriage is defined not only as a relationship between husband and wife but also as a relationship in which Yahweh is directly involved as a ‘witness’ (῾d). The marriage relationship thus takes on the nature of a lasting covenant; and because divorce violates this covenant, it becomes a kind of ‘unfaithfulness’ (bgd). A man who divorces his wife is thus being ‘unfaithful’ to her as his covenant partner, and is at the same time being ‘unfaithful’ to Yahweh”. M.H. FLOYD, Minor Prophets (FOTL, 22), Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 2000, p. 608. In the same line see also A.E. HILL, Malachi (AncB, 25D), New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, 1974, p. 258; SMITH, Micah – Malachi, p. 325; V. LOPASSO, Unicità di Dio e matrimonio in Malachia 2,1016, in Vivarum NS 21 (2013) 125-133; C. GRANADOS, Monogamia y monoteísmo: Claves para una lectura de Ml 2,10-1, in Estudios Bíblicos 68 (2010) 9-29; and ID., Un enigma sapiencial: El camino del varón por la doncella (Pr 30,18-19), in Estudios Bíblicos 71 (2013) 21-35. While the book of Malachi is generally dated to the Persian period, the explicit divine aversion against divorce in Mal 2,16 (which is in contradiction to Deut 24,1-4) is arguably due to second century redactional intervention in the MT. See I. HIMBAZA, Malachie parmi les prophètes, in J.-D. MACCHI et al. (eds.), Les recueils prophétiques de la Bible:

FOR SOLOMON THE MESSIANIC KING

555

scribes would have seen a reason to attribute the Song to Solomon on account of his love affairs. Song 8,11-12 also speaks against such an argument with its implicit criticism of Solomon. By alluding to his thousand wives (cf. 1 Kgs 11,3), Song 8,12 takes a clear distance from the historical King Solomon, “the lover”, and gives a precious hint that the Solomon of the Song is another22. (iii) Solomon as a Guarantor for Canonization. Others have suggested that the ascription to Solomon as an ancient and inspired author served to facilitate the Song’s acceptance into the canon23. In the same way as the ascription to David assured the prophetic character of the Psalms, so too the ascription to Solomon would have implied the Song’s inspired character. As Michael Fox, however, rightly retorts, the attribution to Solomon “would not in itself lead to canonization, for other books and songs ascribed to him were not accepted”24. Besides, none of the early Rabbis ever argued for the “canonicity” of the Song on behalf of Solomon’s authorship25. Yet it is true that due to Solomon’s famous wisdom (cf. 1 Kings 3; 5,9-10) his name may have served to underline the authorial and maybe even the inspired character of the book for the Jewish community at the time of the title’s insertion. (iv) Solomonic Wisdom Classification. It has similarly been argued that the ascription to Solomon was intended to secure the Song’s collocation among the Solomonic books and thereby classify it as wisdom literature26. As argued in Chapter 5, I, above, p. 281, however, the category of “Solomonic books” is a later Christian invention unknown to early Rabbinic classification genres, while wisdom as a genre is a product of form criticism which does not apply the Song. Rather, ‫“ שירים‬songs” are a separate literary genre found mostly in literature outside the so-called classical wisdom books: in the Pentateuch (Exodus 15), the Former Prophets (Judges 5), the Latter Prophets (Isaiah 5), and notably in the Psalter (cf. the titles of Psalms 45, 46, 48, 65–68). In addition to their designation as songs (‫)שיר‬, psalms commonly bear titles attributing them to historical figures. While Origines, milieux, et contexte proche-oriental, Genève, Labor et Fides, 2012, 435-461, pp. 446-454. 22. Given the presumably late date of the epilogue (cf. Chapter 4, II, above, p. 177), it is likely that at this point Song received a monogamous “monotheistic stamp”. See also BORGONOVO, Monogamia e monoteismo. 23. See, e.g., LACOCQUE, Romance, p. ix: “It may be that the title … was an early attempt at ‘clearing’ the poem for its inclusion among the sacred texts, even through classifying it as wisdom literature”. 24. FOX, Song, p. 250. 25. See ibid. 26. MEADE, Pseudonymity.

556

PART III – CHAPTER 9

the most common case is that of a late attribution to David, one also finds two psalms, Psalms 72 and 127, attributed to Solomon. The attribution of these two psalms is phrased in the exact same way as the attribution of the Song: ‫לשלמה‬. 2. “Concerning Solomon” The fact that Solomon features not only in the title but as a main character within the book works as an argument against the lamed auctoris27. Including the title, the Song makes seven mentions of the name Solomon in total (Song 1,1.5; 3,7.9.11; 8,11-12)28. In particular, the description of his “wedding” in 3,6-11 and the hidden criticism of his person in 8,11-12 argue against a fictional Solomonic authorship on the model of the Solomonic attribution of Proverbs, Qohelet, and Wisdom. It also bears notice that Qohelet and Wisdom have Solomon address the audience in the first person, wherefore a Solomonic attribution understood as authorship is naturally suggested. In the Song, however, Solomon takes up center stage as a main character, wherefore ‫ לשלמה‬is more plausibly to be translated “concerning Solomon”29. This interpretation is suggested by similar usage of the lamed in the Psalter. While some commentators claim that the lamed can only be understood as a lamed auctoris30, the Psalter proves particularly in the case of Solomonic ascriptions that other ways of reading are possible. Specifically, Psalm 72, mentioned above, also has a subscript in v. 20 that leaves no doubt about the meaning of the superscription ‫לשלמה‬. It reads, “The prayers of David son of Jesse are ended”. Though this subscript applies to the entire second book of the Psalter, it is also clear that its redactor wanted the superscription of Psalm 72 to be understood as the prayer of supplication which David made for his son Solomon31. Like the Song, Psalm 72 is rich in motifs that allude to the Solomon tradition and invite 27. See also FISCHER, Das Hohelied Salomos, p. 225; and CRÜSEMANN, ‘… für Salomo’. 28. See also Chapter 8, I.2, above, p. 486. 29. Marvin Pope helpfully points to a parallel case in the titles of Ugaritic literature, where the lamed followed by a proper name (e.g., lb῾l, lkrt, laqht) “need not be a lamed auctoris since the authorship of these texts can hardly be attributed to the god Baal or the heroes Keret, or Aqhat”. POPE, Song, p. 294. The meaning of these Ugaritic superscriptions is rather that “the composition deals with or concerns the god or hero named”. In the case of the Song, this could suggest that the Song deals in some way with King Solomon, without needing to imply authorship. 30. See BARBIERO, Song, p. 45; and HEINEVETTER, “Komm nun, mein Liebster”, p. 68. 31. See KLEER, Sänger, p. 86. See also E. ZENGER, Psalm 72, in F.-L. HOSSFELD – E. ZENGER (eds.), Psalmen 51–100 (HThKAT), Freiburg i.Br., Herder, 2000, 302-330, pp. 316-317, 328.

FOR SOLOMON THE MESSIANIC KING

557

a reading of the Psalm in view of Solomon32. This understanding may again have been captured by the LXX’s rendering of the title as Εἰς Σαλωμων (“regarding Solomon”)33. Furthermore, the parallel with Psalm 72 can be seen on mere lexical grounds. This particular formula of attribution, ‫לשלמה‬, is found exclusively in Song 1,1 and in the titles of Psalms 72 and 127. The titles of Proverbs and Qohelet, on the other hand, contain a genitive construction, ‫“( משלי שלמה‬proverbs of Solomon”) and ‫“( דברי שלמה‬words of Solomon”) and add the specifying apposition “son of David/King of Israel/ Jerusalem”. Just as the Psalm titles together with the Song’s appear to correspond to typified patterns on the model of ‫לדויד‬, so also do the titles of these two wisdom books. Thus instead of placing the Song “within the sapiential literature”34, the phrasing of the title places the Song rather with the Psalter. As mentioned above, the generic proximity to the Psalter is even suggested by the Song’s auto-identification in genre. The term ‫ שיר‬is the Bible’s generic term for song and is frequently applied to designate the Israelite cult worship (cf. Ps 42,9; 69,31). It appears in many Psalm titles and notably in Psalm 127, the other Psalm with Solomonic attribution, whose title reads ‫“( שיר המעלות לשלמה‬Song of ascent by/for/belonging to Solomon”). The parallel of its syntactic construction with Song 1,1 is significant. It is a further indication for the Song’s proximity to the Psalms both in genre and concerning the intention of the Solomonic attribution. 3. Original Ambiguity It is difficult to make a definite judgment how exactly to understand ‫לשלמה‬, since no clear translation emerges from those outlined above. It is quite possible that the author of the Song’s superscription consciously played on the ambiguity of the title. Given the eminently royal character of the Song and the presence of the many Solomonic motifs within the body of the book, the author was in a position to perceive the resonances such a formula would have had with the text and to play with its various meanings. The title both suggests a fictional authorship and points towards the character’s dominant role within the book.

32. For v. 1: cf. 1 Kgs 3,5-9; v. 2: cf. 1 Kgs 3,9; vv. 5-7: cf. 1 Kgs 3,14; vv. 10-11: cf. 1 Kgs 5,15-26; 9,10-14; 10,1-13). 33. See J.-M. AUWERS, Les Psaumes 70–72: Essai de lecture canonique, in RB 101 (1994) 242-257, pp. 244-245, with further bibliography. 34. Pace BARBIERO, Song, p. 46.

558

PART III – CHAPTER 9

Another example from the Psalter is helpful. As Martin Kleer has argued in a monograph on the Davidic ascriptions in the Psalter, the title ‫לדויד‬ invites one to read the Psalms in view of David. The David concerned, however, is not always the same. According to Kleer, the ascriptions in the first two books of the Psalter (Psalms 1–72) are to be read in view of the historical David, as the many biographical references indicate. The ascriptions in the fourth and fifth book of the Psalter, by contrast, lenken den Blick auf einen neuen, nicht näher spezifizierten eschatologischen David, der in der Tradition des historischen stehend in der exilischnachexilischen Leidenszeit als Armer die Not des Volkes teilt, aber im Vertrauen auf die künftige Rettung JHWHs das Gotteslob bereits vorwegnimmt35.

An analogical argument is here made with regard to the Solomon to whom the Song is ascribed. The Solomon concerned is not the historical one. Rather, the Solomon for whom the Song was composed, or to whom it belongs, is a “new” Solomon who stands in the tradition of his prototype but is yet expected to come. Far more important than the precise meaning of the lamed, then, is the question of the associations that the author wanted to evoke by intimating attribution of the Song specifically to King Solomon. It is easily conceded that Solomon is the patron of wisdom, and by its perceived attribution the Song has become associated with other Solomonic books, many of which are of the wisdom genre. In this regard, commentators who claim that the Solomonic attribution placed the Song among the “wisdom books” have a point. Nonetheless, as already argued on other grounds, this affiliation does not make the Song itself a wisdom book, nor can the Solomonic attribution be interpreted as an instruction to read the Song as a wisdom book (see the discussion in Chapter 5, I, above, p. 281). The basic mistake of many Song interpretations lies in having reduced Solomon to the mere patron of wisdom. As amply argued in Chapter 5, wisdom is a subcategory of the royal ideology, but the King brings more in his train than just wisdom. In fact, as the attribution of Psalms 72 and 127 to Solomon show, the association of the Temple with Solomon surpasses his affiliation with wisdom by far; indeed, it is the single most important association with the name of Solomon, attested to deep into the Common Era36. During the Second Temple period, Israel constantly 35. KLEER, Sänger, p. 126. 36. For a first century A.D. attestation, see 4 Ezra 9,38–10,54. Ezra sees the vision of a woman, namely Zion, mourning over the death of her son, namely the city of Jerusalem (and according to some Mss the Temple) which Solomon had built “and offered offerings” (10,46). In the apocalyptic vision the whole timespan from the erection of the First Temple

FOR SOLOMON THE MESSIANIC KING

559

bewailed the Second Temple’s pallor in comparison with the glory of the former Temple (cf. Ezra 3,12-13)37. In that time Solomon emerges with ever waxing clarity as a figure of the ideal king who had built the perfect Temple. He is remembered as the King of peace who “was sovereign over all the kingdoms from the Euphrates to the land of the Philistines, even to the border of Egypt” (1 Kgs 5,1 [4,21; NRSV]). Solomon “had peace on all sides. During Solomon’s lifetime Judah and Israel lived in safety, from Dan even to Beer-sheba, all of them under their vines and fig trees” (1 Kgs 5,4-5 [4,24-25; NRSV]). Under his reign the scope of YHWH’s covenant with Abraham and Israel had reached (a momentary) apogee through God’s indwelling in the Temple. The high currency of these Solomonic associations with the name of Solomon are clearly attested to by the ascription of Psalms 72 and 127 to Solomon. Both titles reflect a relecture of the original psalms in light of Solomon as the perfect “messianic” king (cf. Psalm 72)38, and as the builder of the Temple (Psalm 127)39. In both cases someone with the authority of interpretation has read these psalms in the light of Solomon the “messianic” king of peace (Psalm 72) and the builder of the Temple (Psalm 127). This is an important indication by Solomon until its destruction in 587 B.C. is stereotypically considered as one period. No clear distinction is made between the city and its Temple, and the cult offered during the entire period is the one that Solomon had installed in Jerusalem. See STONE, Fourth Ezra, pp. 310-339. 37. See H. NAJMAN, Wilderness in Ancient Judaism, in P.W. FLINT – J. DUHAIME – K.S. BAEK (eds.), Celebrating the Dead Sea Scrolls: A Canadian Collection (SBLEJL, 30), Atlanta, GA, SBL Press, 2011, 447-466, pp. 449-455, and M.A. KNIBB, The Exile in the Literature of the Intertestamental Period, in The Heythrop Journal 17 (1976) 253272. 38. On the term “messianic” see I.4 “excursus”, below, p. 560. On Psalm 72 see extensively below, II.4, p. 606. 39. See E. ZENGER, Psalm 127, in F.-L. HOSSFELD – E. ZENGER (eds.), Psalmen 101– 150 (HThKAT), Freiburg i.Br., Herder, 2008, 512-534, pp. 519-520, 533. Zenger names five elements in the Psalm that resonated with the person of Solomon and led to its ascription to the famed king. (i) There is a noticeable kinship with Proverbs and Qohelet both on the level of language and content. (ii) Ps 127,2 echoes the name Jedidjah (“Beloved of Yah”) given to Solomon in 2 Sam 12,25. (iii) The construction of the house that can only be successful if the Lord constructs it (Ps 127,1), resonates with the “House of the Lord” that Solomon constructed. (iv) Solomon is associated with the establishment of the Davidic dynasty (cf. 2 Samuel 7; Psalm 132), a topic that resonates with the gift of sons for the Lord’s beloved (Ps 127,3-5). (v) “He gives to his beloved when he sleeps” (v. 2) is understood by some as an echo of the gifts promised to Solomon in his dream (cf. 1 Kgs 3,2-15). Zenger explains, “[Die Deutefigur ist] hier Salomo als Tempelbauer und ‘Friedenskönig’ für die Stadt Jerusalem und sein Reich. Sein ‘Hausbau’ d.h. der Bau des Hauses JHWHs durch ihn, und seine ‘Stadtbewachung’, d.h. die Sicherung Jerusalems durch seinen Stadtausbau und die mit ihm beginnende dynastische ‘Hausbegründung’ Davids werden hier zu Metaphern für die Präsenz JHWHs auf dem Zion, die Ruhe und Geborgenheit (der gute ‘Schlaf’ in Psalm 127:2 …)”. See also B. RENAUD, Salomon, figure du messie, in RevScRel 68 (1994) 409-426, pp. 411-412.

560

PART III – CHAPTER 9

that Solomon’s name bore a connotation beyond that just that of wisdom and love in the post-exilic period. He was seen as a figure of the promised son of David (cf. Qoh 1,1; Prov 1,1), the one in whom the promises of 2 Samuel 7 were fulfilled40: a king of peace and the builder of the Temple41. The association of Temple and messianism with Solomon is not only particular to the Psalms. In fact, it is a current that surfaces already in the Persian strata of the first book of Kings, and takes on a more distinct shape in the books of Chronicles, Zech 9,9-10, Sir 47,13, and in the extrabiblical tradition of the Psalms of Solomon. To better understand this “messianic” figure of Solomon as it emerges over the Second Temple period, in contrast to the historical prototype, the following section II will trace its development. Yet before this comparison, a short excursus is necessary to clarify the use of the term “messianic”. 4. Excursus: “Messianic” – “Messiah” – “Messianism” According to a widespread scholarly consensus, the Messiah is a savior or redeemer figure “who terminates the present order and ushers in a new order of justice and blessing”42. The establishment of a new order is often related to the eschaton, the last days of the present world. As has become increasingly clear since the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the rediscovery of other intertestamental literature, the expectation of such a redeemer figure was not limited to a specifically royal figure, but could concern equally a priestly or prophetic figure or even an angelic being43. This decisively eschatological messianism has its origins in the 40. “Il nous semble que la silhouette du roi Salomon se profile constamment à l’horizon du Cantique. Le poète montre un intérêt spécial pour le fils de David: il cite son nom à plusieurs reprises (I,5; III, 7, 9, 11; VIII, 11-12); …Autant la comparaison de Dieu avec des jeunes hommes (II, 3) ou des compagnons (I, 7; cf. V, 10) paraît étrange, autant la mise en parallèle de Salomon avec des ‘concurrents’ éventuels se justifie aisément (cf. Ps, XLV, 3)”. C. HAURET, Cantique des cantiques 1, 3: Introduxit me re in cellaria sua, in RevScRel 38 (1964) 60-70, pp. 62-63. 41. “La place centrale ménagée à Salomon dans le Cantique ne doit pas nous surprendre. Elle correspond à celle qu’il occupe dans les livres des Chroniques. Le bâtisseur du Temple y joue avec David le rôle essentiel selon l’historien de la fin du IVe siècle, pour qui la liturgie et le culte constituent l’occupation principale du peuple de YHWH et de ses ministres. Le Chroniqueur élimine avec soins les ombres du règne de Salomon dont parlait le livre des Rois et idéalise le fils de David, prototype du Messie attendu par Israel”. TOURNAY, Dieu, p. 30. 42. P. SCHÄFER, Diversity and Interaction: Messiahs in Early Judaism, in M. COHEN – P. SCHÄFER (eds.), Toward the Millennium: Messianic Expectations from the Bible to Waco, Leiden, Brill, 1998, 15-36, p. 15. 43. For the expectation of a priestly and a royal figure, “the prophet and the messiahs of Aaron and Israel”, see 1QS 9,2. The expectation of a prophetic figure is attested by CD 2,9; 1QM 11,7; and 11QMelchizedek. See J.J. COLLINS, The Scepter and the Star:

FOR SOLOMON THE MESSIANIC KING

561

late Second Temple period, presumably around the time of the Maccabees44. While messianism understood in a restricted eschatological sense does not constitute the heart of the message of earlier biblical books, it does, nonetheless have its roots in the Hebrew Bible, notably in its transformation of ANE royal ideology45. The restriction of the word “messianic” to an eschatological redeemer figure has, in fact, severed the term from its Old Testament roots, notably from its etymological origin, according to which the word “messiah” (‫)משיח‬ refers primarily to a person who has been anointed (‫)משח‬. In the context of the Hebrew Bible, “messianism” thus first concerns the anointed kings of Israel (North and South) and later becomes connected to the phenomenon of anointing mediators between God and men, notably the high priests. Since the word complex ‫משח‬/‫ משיח‬is never explicitly applied to a general redeemer or eschatological figure in the Old Testament, scholars have proposed to return to a use of the term that simply refers to any anointed person46. Yet, given the fact that the late Second Temple period “messianic” expectations developed directly out of the Old Testament matrix and use of the term, it is preferable to show justice to both aspects and adopt a wide definition of the term, such as that proposed by Christoph Rösler: “A Messaiah is a person consecrated by anointing or a mediator expected to come in the future”47. This definition has the obvious The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Ancient Literature (ABRL), New York, Doubleday, 1995, p. 11. 44. See SCHÄFER, Messiahs, p. 24; and E. ZENGER, Jesus von Nazaret und die messianischen Hoffnung des alttestamentlichen Israel, in U. STRUPPE (ed.), Studien zum Messiasbild im Alten Testament, Stuttgart, Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1989, 23-66, p. 54. According to Klaus Koch, the growing influence of an eschatological ideology is also reflected in the transformation of the Torah into the bipartite structure of Law and Prophets around 200 B.C. This text corpus ended with the prophecy of Elijah’s return (Mal 3,23-24). Even the division of the prophetic books into former and latter prophets may reflect a messianic option. The former (historical) prophetic books end with the failure of the monarchy (2 Kings 25) which the first of the latter prophets, Isaiah, answers with the announcement of an ideal future king (Isaiah 7; 9; 11). See K. KOCH, Das Hohe Lied unter kanonischer Perspektive: Beobachtungen zur Rezeptionsgeschichte anhand von Targum und Midrasch, in M. ALBANI (ed.), Gottes Ehre erzählen: Festschrift für Hans Seidel zum 65. Geburtstag, Helsingfors, Thomas-Verlag, 1994, 11-23, cited in T. RÖMER, Origines des messianismes juif et chrétien: Transformations de l’idéologie royale, in J.-C. ATTIAS – P. GISEL – L. KAENNEL (eds.), Messianismes: Variations sur une figure juive, Genève, Labor et Fides, 2000, 13-29, p. 26. 45. See RÖMER, Messianismes, p. 13. 46. See, e.g., E.J. WASCHKE, Die Frage nach dem Messias im Alten Testament als Problem alttestamentlicher Theologie und biblischer Hermeneutik, in Theologische Literaturzeitung 113 (1988) 321-332, p. 325. 47. C. RÖSEL, Die messianische Redaktion des Psalters (Calwer Theologische Monographien. Reihe A: Bibelwissenschaften, 19), Stuttgart, Calwer, 1999, p. 95: “Ein Messias ist eine durch Salbung geweihte Person oder ein für die Zukunft erwarteter Mittler”.

562

PART III – CHAPTER 9

advantage of referring at once to the Old Testament use of the term and its later development into a person who as a mediator between God and men was expected to come in the future (be it as a king, a priest, or a prophet). It has the further advantage of not reducing the future mediator to an eschatological figure, which would lead to the exclusion of most of the biblical “messianic” expectations, i.e., the hope for the restoration of the Davidic dynasty during the post-exilic era48. At the moment of his enthronement the king was anointed with the sacred anointing oils, made thereby “the anointed of YHWH”. Saul and David are explicitly referred to as ‫“ משיח‬the anointed”, and Solomon is anointed (‫ )משח‬king over Israel49. The Bible adopts here an Egyptian concept according to which the anointing oil is compared to light, and this stands behind the Judean kings being called a “light” for the people (2 Sam 21,17; 1 Kgs 8,19; 11,36; 15,4). Through the act of anointing the king receives the divine spirit (1 Sam 16,13). The title “anointed of YHWH” expresses the function of mediator between God and his people, a concept common to all ANE royal ideologies50. While the southern kingdom was first more influenced by the Egyptian culture, from the eighth century B.C. onwards it was equally influenced by Mesopotamia and the Assyrian royal ideology51. Thus both monarchies reflect the idea of a divine kingship, according to which the king was considered to be the son of a divinity. While Egyptians considered the king to be directly begotten by a god, in Mesopotamia one frequently finds the concept of the king’s adoption at the moment of his investiture52. Both concepts are reflected in the Bible. Thus, in Ps 2,6-7, after installing him on Mt. Zion, God declares to his anointed (‫)משיח‬: “you are my son, today I have begotten you”. Ps 45,7 addresses the king as God (‫)אלהים‬53, and Ps 110,1 seats him at the right hand of God. As such he is the visible image and deputy of God on earth, called to maintain the order of creation (ma’at in Egypt, ‫ שלום‬in Judah-Israel) (see Chapter 5)54. 48. See ibid. 49. See RÖMER, Messianismes, p. 15, who points out that only these three kings, who are at the origins of the Israelite kingdom, receive this title. In the Northern Kingdom Jehu, the usurper, is further reported to have been anointed. The spare use of the verb shows that only the founders of dynasties and Solomon have been singled out. 50. See ibid. 51. See ibid. 52. See C. WESTERMANN, Sacred Kingship, in The New Encyclopedia Britannica. Macropaedia XVI, Chicago, IL – London, 1980, 118-122, cited in RÖMER, Messianismes, p. 15. 53. See COLLINS, Scepter, p. 23. 54. See RÖMER, Messianismes, p. 15.

FOR SOLOMON THE MESSIANIC KING

563

The well-being both of the people and of the land depended entirely on the person of the king. He had to provide justice on earth and defend the poor, the widows, and the orphans; his just governance would bring about peace for the people and the fertility of the land (cf. Psalm 72). He was the supreme mediator between heaven and earth and as such assumed a priestly role in important cultic rituals such as the transfer of the Ark (2 Samuel 6) or the dedication of the Temple (1 Kings 8). For this reason he is called “shepherd” both in Egypt and Mesopotamia, as this title summarizes the king’s principal duties55. The association of an ideal Davidic king with the term “messiah” ultimately derives from Ps 2,2 which speaks of the subjugation of all the peoples of the earth to God’s anointed (‫)משיח‬56. Following the downfall and exile of the Judean monarchy, when there was no longer a king to reign over the people, the hope for a future ideal king arose as made evident in a number of prophetic passages (cf., e.g., Jer 23,5-6). This expectation may be called a proto-messianic hope57. It stands in direct continuation with the Judean Davidic royal ideology. The scribes responsible for the first redaction of the books of Samuel and Kings reinforced the Davidic royal propaganda by making him the one king against whom all others were measured and to whom only Josiah could stand up (cf. 2 Kgs 22,2). Even after Josiah’s death in 609 B.C., this “davidic-josianic ideology” became the matrix for the hope of a future restoration of the Davidic monarchy58. Thus after the downfall of the Judean monarchy, the collected writings of those prophets who had announced this event were expanded with oracles of salvation, notably the promise of an ideal Davidic king in perfect accord with the old royal ideology (Amos 9,11; Mic 5,1-5; Isaiah 7; 9; 11)59. The expected king was to shepherd the people in the name of YHWH, bring about ‫שלום‬, abundant fertility of the land, and the people would live in safety in their Eden-like country (cf. Ezek 34,23-31)60. Alongside this hope for a restoration of the Davidic dynasty other models of “messianism” arise. Thus some scholars see in the oracles of Deutero-Isaiah the transfer of royal election from the Davidic dynasty 55. See COLLINS, Scepter, p. 25. According to a Mesopotamian proverb, “a people without king is like a flock without a shepherd”, cited in RÖMER, Messianismes, p. 16. 56. See COLLINS, Scepter, p. 11. 57. See RÖMER, Messianismes, p. 17. 58. See ibid., p. 18. 59. See COLLINS, Scepter, pp. 24-25. The names given to the ideal king promised in Isa 9,5 are inspired by the Egyptian royal ideology; and RÖMER, Messianismes, pp. 19-20. 60. According to COLLINS, Scepter, p. 28 the term “shepherd” here takes on messianic connotations.

564

PART III – CHAPTER 9

directly to the people (cf. Isa 55,1-5)61, a shift referred to as “democratization of the messianic idea”62. A similar retreat from the ancient royal ideology can be observed in Deuteronomy where the authority passes from the king to the people (cf. Deuteronomy 16–18): the king is submitted to the law like any other Israelite (cf. Deut 17,14-20). Thus it is no longer the king who is the object of the divine election but the people of Israel63. Similarly, other scholars see “anti-messianic” currents at work in the first edition of a proto-Pentateuch, presumably at the time of Ezra, in which the priests are referred to as “messiah” (Lev 4,3.5.16; 6,15) instead of the king. Most importantly, Moses has taken on the role of king as supreme mediator between God and the people. The story of his birth resembles that of an ANE sovereign64; he resembles Solomon in the construction of the desert tent (Exodus 25–40); like David he is set over the “house of YHWH” (Num 12,7; cf. 1 Sam 22,14); and if the expected king is “humble”, Moses is said to be “the most humble of all the men on the face of the earth” (Num 12,3). Through the gift of the Torah Moses defines a new space which replaces the country and the kingship, wherefore he can die outside the Promised Land65. Notwithstanding these anti-royalistic and anti-“messianic” currents, the hope for the restoration of the Davidic dynasty centered on the Jerusalem Temple was still never quite extinguished. It persisted as a current alongside concurrent antithetical political models or hopes, whether immanent or eschatological. Prominent examples of the persisting hope for the restoration of the Davidic dynasty are the so-called “Messianic Psalter”, the books of Chronicles, 1–2 Maccabees, and the Psalms of Solomon. While the latter books will be treated below, it is the messianism expressed in the royal psalms of the Psalter that is the earliest attestation of a “proto-messianic” (utopian but not eschatological) hope. Following Gunkel, many scholars have recognized those psalms that refer to YHWH’s king or anointed (‫ )משיח‬as forming a separate Gattung66, including 61. See, e.g., C. WESTERMANN, Isaiah 40–66: A Commentary (OTL), Philadelphia, PA, Westminster Press, 1969, pp. 283-286; J. BECKER, Messiaserwartung im Alten Testament (SBS, 83), Stuttgart, Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1977, pp. 63-65; H.G.M. WILLIAMSON, The Book Called Isaiah: Deutero-Isaiah’s Role in Composition and Redaction, Oxford, Clarendon, 1994, pp. 112, 226; W. BRUEGGEMANN, Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy, Minneapolis, MN, Fortress, 1997, p. 619; B.S. CHILDS, Isaiah (OTL), Louisville, KY, Westminster John Knox, 2001, pp. 435-437. 62. See RÖMER, Messianismes, p. 20. 63. See ibid., pp. 21-22. 64. The story of Moses floating in a basket on a river, to be discovered and raised by another family, has often been compared to the birth tale of Sargon the Great (2334-2279). 65. See RÖMER, Messianismes, p. 24. 66. See H. GUNKEL – J. BEGRICH, Einleitung in die Psalmen (HkAT, 2), Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1933, pp. 140-171.

FOR SOLOMON THE MESSIANIC KING

565

Psalms 2; 18; 20; 21; 45; 72; 89; 110; and 132. The similarity between these psalms appears to have been recognized already by ancient authors. Thus the author of the letter to the Hebrews cites Psalms 2; 45; and 110 in succession and alludes to Ps 89,27 in the context of a discussion about messianic beliefs (cf. Heb 1,5-13)67. He sees in this selection something that is already implicit in the Psalter. As an increasing number of scholars has noted, the royal psalms hold key positions in the compositions of the Psalter and suggest that the redactors of the Psalter themselves interpreted them messianically68. In conjunction with Psalm 1, Psalm 2 functions as an introduction to the entire Psalter. Psalm 72 is set at the end of an entire collection, the so-called “Davidic Psalter” (Psalms 51–72)69, and closes the second book of the Psalter. Psalm 89 occurs at the end of the third book, and Psalm 110 is the last of a short group of Davidic psalms that precede the Hallel group (Psalms 111–118). The collection of Psalms 2–89* is today assumed to have once been a separate collection, commonly referred to as the “Messianic Psalter”70. It is also assumed that the collection of Psalms 3–41 was “Davidized” through the insertion of the titles ‫ לדוד‬only at the moment of its conjunction with Psalms 42–89*. Through this “Davidization” of these Psalms, the whole collection of Psalms 2–89 received a royal imprint. Moreover, a number of redactional insertions in several Psalms demonstrate an evident interest in kingship theology and David as the founder of the Judean dynasty71. The two framing psalms, Ps 2,1-9 (the institution of kingship or the “birth of the king”) and Psalm 89 (lament over the end of the kingship or the “death of the king”) found the Davidic dynasty explicitly in a divine 67. See MITCHELL, Psalter, p. 243. 68. See CHILDS, Introduction, pp. 515-517; G.H. WILSON, The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter (SBLDS, 67), Atlanta, GA, Scholars, 1985, pp. 209-214; RÖSEL, Redaktion; SAUR, Königspsalmen. 69. On the “Davidic Psalter”, see F.-L. HOSSFELD – E. ZENGER, Psalmen 51–100 (HThKAT), Freiburg i.Br., Herder, 2000, p. 30. It formed the collection of Psalms 51–72. Through the insertion of the attributions ‫ לדויד‬it connected the psalms to the concrete life of David. It presumably occurred during the Persian period as a reflection on the Davidic dynasty. 70. See E. ZENGER, ‘Es sollen sich niederwerfen vor ihm alle Könige’ (Ps 72,11): Redaktionsgeschichtliche Beobachtungen zu Psalm 72 und zum Programm des messianischen Psalters Ps 2–89, in E. O TTO – E. Z ENGER (eds.), “Mein Sohn bist Du” (Ps 2,7): Studien zu den Königspsalmen (SBS, 192), Stuttgart, Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2002, 66-93, pp. 80-91. On the “Messianic Psalter”, see furthermore RÖSEL, Redaktion; and below, II.4, p. 606. 71. ZENGER, Beobachtungen, p. 87, refers to the following redactional insertions: Ps 18,51; 20,7; 28,8; 45,11-16; 61,7-8; 63,12; 84,9-10. See also F.-L. HOSSFELD, Messianische Texte des Psalters, in I.Z. DIMITROV et al. (eds.), Das Alte Testament als christliche Bibel in orthodoxer und westlicher Sicht (WUNT, 174), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2004, 307-324, p. 311.

566

PART III – CHAPTER 9

oracle. Because of their strategic positioning at the beginning and end of the collection, the two Psalms demand to be read together. While Psalm 2 recalls the divine foundation of the kingship, the proclamation of divine sonship, and the king’s task to establish YHWH’s world-order, Psalm 89 reflects from a post-exilic viewpoint on the end of Jerusalem’s kingship (cf. vv. 39-45) and urges YHWH to fulfill the promise of his eternal covenant for the house of David (cf. vv. 4; 29-30; 34-38; 50). Read from the perspective of Psalm 89, Psalm 2 is turned into a prophetic vision (cf. Ps 89,20) that has not yet been fulfilled. In the words of Erich Zenger, it becomes “a utopia yet to come true”72. Read in this light, these two Psalms give the collection “a royal theological frame meant to be read ‘messianically’”73. The collection is a meditation on the Davidic dynasty74, expressing the unabated hope that God’s promise to David – that his dynasty would reign eternally – remains true. The mere fact that this collection was redacted “at a time when the house of David was in eclipse, suggests that the redactor was looking forward to its resurgence under a future Davidic king”75. This hope, however, is not restorative, but corresponds to an utopian ideal in correspondence to the vision depicted in Psalm 72 (see below, II.4, p. 606). The messianic redaction conceives of a kingship the reign of which will extend to the ends of the earth and establish YHWH’s ‫“ משפט‬justice”, ‫“ צדקה‬righteousness”, and ‫“ שלום‬peace” universally76 . For our purposes, then, the definition of the “messiah” as an eschatological redeemer figure is deemed to be too narrow. Proto-messianic currents such as the immanent hope of a restoration of the Davidic dynasty must be included under the umbrella “messianic” as they constitute the very roots of those later expectations. At the same time, it is neither helpful nor accurate to restrict the term “messiah” to the bearers of the title 72. On this and the preceding paragraph see ZENGER, Beobachtungen, p. 88. 73. See ibid., pp. 32-33. 74. RÖSEL, Redaktion, pp. 211-213 explains: “Aus der von Ps 2:1-9 vorgegebenen Perspektive königlicher Siegeszuversicht bewirken und stützen die Psalmen die Gewißheit, daß Gott zu seinem Gesalbten steht und für ihn rettend eingreift. … Vom Abschluss der Sammlung aus (i.e. Ps 89) erschließen sich die vorausgehenden Texte als Vergewisserung der Treue Gottes zu seinem Bund mit dem davidischen Königtum und als Unterweisung in der Bedeutung des Königtums für Israel … Sie (die Sammlung) [ziehlt] auf eine Wiederherstellung des Königtums in Gestalt der davidischen Dynastie”. On the “Messianic Psalter” see also HOSSFELD – ZENGER, Psalmen 51–100, pp. 32-33. 75. MITCHELL, Psalter, p. 244. 76. See ZENGER, Beobachtungen, pp. 89-90: “Der Gesalbte JHWHs dieser beiden Rahmenpsalmen des Teilpsalters 2–89* ist die Figuration einer erhofften Zukunft, in der weltweit die in einem idealen Königreich gegebenen Größen Gerechtigkeit und Barmherzigkeit, Lebensfülle und Frieden (vgl. Ps 72) Realität werden – und zwar als Gaben JHWHs. Dabei soll der von JHWH erwählte ‘Gesalbte’ eine wichtige Mittlerrolle einnehmen”.

FOR SOLOMON THE MESSIANIC KING

567

‫משיח‬. Later traditions will refer to the expected ideal Davidic king as “messiah”, so that passages like Jer 23,5-6 or Ezek 34,23-24; 37,23.25 may be rightly called messianic, even though the word does not occur77. It is helpful, nevertheless, to restrict the term “messiah” to persons who play a role in the future hope of the people, whether they are so called or not. Thus it is in view of these concrete, biblical hopes for the restoration of the Davidic dynasty, which gradually developed and focused upon an eschatological figure, that the term “messianic” is best understood. This is the sense of the term adopted here. It will show that the figure of Solomon played an important role in both immanent and eschatological messianic expectations even if the term ‫ משיח‬is never explicitly applied to his persona.

II. THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE FIGURE OF SOLOMON This section will trace the development of the figure of Solomon within the biblical tradition, moving from the historically established facts to his literary persona in its various diverse inflections. It cannot provide a detailed exegesis of all the passages concerning him. The purpose is, rather, to trace the development of his portrait in order to establish the parameters against which the Solomon of the Song must be read. While Solomon’s historical existence is generally not doubted, the real circumstances of his birth, life, and reign are vague, and the actual extension of his kingdom is disputed. Even the maximalist archaeological school would recoil at the claim that 1 Kgs 5,1 [4,21] gives a historically adequate description of Solomon’s reign: “Solomon was sovereign over all the kingdoms from the Euphrates to the land of the Philistines, even to the border of Egypt; they brought tribute and served Solomon all the days of his life” (NRSV). Rather, what can be observed here is the emergence of the monumental figure of King Solomon. Though rooted in the historical person of Solomon, the figure of King Solomon, which the biblical authors constructed over time, is oversized beyond all measure. The more distant a biblical book is from the historical Solomon, the more he emerges as the Louis XIV of Israel’s history78.

77. The messianic re-reading of such passages already on an inner-biblical level is clear from the later redactional insertion of Jer 33,14-22, which is a reassurance of the fulfillment of Jer 23,5-6 in the face of apparent nonfulfillment. See COLLINS, Scepter, p. 26. 78. See RENAUD, Salomon, p. 410; RÖMER, Salomon.

568

PART III – CHAPTER 9

While all the Solomon traditions glorify the figure of Solomon far beyond the contours of his historical reality, two different trends can be distinguished. One tradition, reflected in 1 Kings, Nehemiah 13, and Sirach 47, depicts Solomon as a man with two faces. One face of Solomon is dark; it is that of the sinner-king. According to the Deuteronomistic historian and also Ben Sira, Solomon is the king whose sin is responsible for the breakup of the united kingdom (1 Kgs 11,9-13; Sir 47,19-21) and ultimately for the demise even of the Judean kingship. Like Adam for humanity, so too was Solomon the first of the kings to have committed the “original sin” of going after foreign gods by building high places for them (1 Kgs 11,7), a sin that his descendants would repeat and that would eventually drive Israel into Exile. The other face of Solomon, however, is glorious. He is the king of peace who built the Temple and under whose reign all the blessings of salvation are realized: the kingdom of Israel has reached its maximum extension; the children of Israel have come into the land of their rest (cf. Deut 12,9-10) and they have peace on all sides (1 Kgs 5,4); their king is the sovereign “from the Euphrates to the land of the Philistines, even to the border of Egypt” (1 Kgs 5,1); the Temple is built and God dwells amidst his people (1 Kings 6–8). The tradition reflected preeminently in Chronicles and Psalm 72 records only this glorious side of Solomon. These texts stylize the memory of Solomon as the figure of the ideal king, the icon of the son of David whom Israel is awaiting. In fact, the further in time Israel’s memory is removed from the historical Solomon, the more gloriously his figure emerges as he ultimately becomes the prototype of the expected king to come in the future, the long-desired “messiah” who would restore the kingdom of Israel to its former glory79. The insertion of the Solomonic ascription into the Song occurred at a time when the glorification of Solomon had reached its climax. Its formal similarity to the titles of Psalms 72 and 127 (discussed above) suggests that it corresponds to a similar “Solomonic ideology” as reflected in those Psalms. Moreover, the Solomon of 1–2 Chronicles carries the same “messianic” traits. The historical vicinity of the Song’s final redaction 79. This image of Solomon as the prototype of a future king emerges particularly clearly in 1–2 Chronicles, as will be expounded upon below. See R. MOSIS, Untersuchungen zur Theologie des chronistischen Geschichtswerkes (Freiburger Theologische Studien, 92), Freiburg i.Br., Herder, 1973, p. 63: “Der Chr[onist] gestaltet … seine Salomogeschichte nach der in 2 Makk 2,1ff bezeugten, endzeitlichen Heilserwartung und entwirft damit ein Bild des Heils, das zu seiner Zeit, der Zeit des zweiten Tempels, noch aussteht und dessen Kommen er für eine noch zukünftige Zeit erwartet”.

FOR SOLOMON THE MESSIANIC KING

569

to that of the Psalm-titles and Chronicles suggest a similar depiction of Solomon. The emergence and the traits of this figure in the biblical testimony shall now be traced. 1. The “Historical” Solomon A brief sketch of the presumed historical Solomon is helpful in order to better discern how much of the figure is a literary construction and to what extent that figure supersedes the historical person. Unfortunately, it is beyond the scope of this study to enter into the heated debate of archaeologists concerning the extent – or very existence – of the kingdoms of David and Solomon and the united monarchy80. The attestation of the existence of a “house of David” on the Tel Dan Stele, however, is taken to be credible even by scholars as skeptical as Israel Finkelstein and need not be doubted81. By the same token, there is no reason to doubt the historical existence of Solomon as even the Bible appears to be at odds with his ignoble origins and end82. Moreover, Solomon’s name speaks in favor of the historicity of his existence as it points to the local Canaanite divinity of pre-Israelite, Jebusite 80. For a comprehensive overview of the debate depicting both the minimalist view of Israel Finkelstein and a moderate maximalist view of Amihai Mazar, see I. FINKELSTEIN – A. MAZAR, The Quest for the Historical Israel: Debating Archaeology and the Early History of Israel, ed. B.B. SCHMIDT (SBL Archaeology and Biblical Studies, 17), Leiden, Brill, 2007. 81. I. FINKELSTEIN – N.A. SILBERMAN, The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts, New York, The Free Press, 2001, p. 129: “[I killed Jeho]ram son of [Ahab] king of Israel, and [I] killed [Ahaz]iahu son of [Jehoram kin]g of the House of David. And I set [their towns into ruins and turned] their land into [desolation]”. The authors comment: “This is dramatic evidence of the fame of the Davidic dynasty less than a hundred years after the reign of David’s son Solomon. The fact that Judah (or perhaps its capital, Jerusalem) is referred to with only a mention of its ruling house is clear evidence that the reputation of David was not a literary invention of a much later period. Furthermore, the French scholar André Lemaire has recently suggested that a similar reference to the house of David can be found on the famous inscription of Mesha, king of Moab in the ninth century BCE, which was found in the nineteenth century east of the Dead Sea. Thus, the house of David was known throughout the region; this clearly validates the biblical description of a figure named David becoming the founder of the dynasty of Judahite kings in Jerusalem”. 82. Redaction analysis of 2 Samuel 12 has led Timo Veijola to affirm that the whole story about the firstborn’s death and Nathan’s parable in which he reproaches David for his deeds are later redactional legendary insertions to cover up the inglorious circumstances of Solomon’s birth. According to Veijola, Solomon was Bathsheba’s firstborn son, born from an act of adultery with David, his name signifying a substitution for the loss of her husband Uriah. Thus 2 Sam 12,24 would have originally followed upon 2 Sam 11,27a, “and she bore him a son”. See T. VEIJOLA, Salomo – Der Erstgeborene Bathshebas, in J.A. EMERTON (ed.), Studies in the Historical Books of the Old Testament, Leiden, Brill, 1979, 230-250, p. 236.

570

PART III – CHAPTER 9

Jerusalem83. According to a scholarly opinion, the etymology of Jerusalem means probably “foundation of the god Shalem”. Shalem was “the Canaanite solar divinity, probably of the morning dawn or the evening twilight, and its hypostasis was Venus, the morning or the evening star”84. If this etymology proves to be correct, then “the name ‘Solomon’ might point to this old Canaanite divinity of pre-Israelite, Jebusite, Jerusalem”85. Evidence for this is perhaps found in the so-called “succession narrative” of 1 Kings 1–286. The two rivaling brothers, Adonijah and Solomon, are depicted as supported by opposing circles. The party in support of Adonijah appears to have been the conservative circle in the country, supporters of the Yahwistic religion, as Adonijah’s name well reflects. He was David’s legitimate heir after the deaths of Amnon, Chileab, and Absalom. Solomon, on the other hand, appears to have been supported by the circles of the Jebusite city-state, “the representatives of the Jerusalem cult, which went back to the Bronze Age, the priest Zadok and the prophet Nathan, and the mercenaries of Solomon”87. Bathsheba belonged to this latter party, as 1 Kgs 1,11-21.28-32 clearly indicates. Being the wife of a Hittite who belonged to the original Canaanite population, she would naturally have been a worshipper of the local divinity, Shalem88. Furthermore, 83. M. LIVERANI, Oltre la Bibbia: Storia Antica di Israele, Roma – Bari, Laterza, 2005, p. 106, points to the fact that the names of David’s sons born to him in Hebron differ from those born to him in Jerusalem. The sons born in Hebron have Yahwistic names, while those born in Jerusalem have names composed with the theonym Shalom. As an example he cites Absalom and Shelomo/Solomon. Even if it is correct that some of the sons born in Hebron like Adonijah and Shephatiah are Yahwistic, Absalom, however, was also born in Hebron (cf. 2 Sam 3,3 || 1 Chr 3,2). His name therefore cannot serve as proof case that the name Solomon would necessarily carry a theonym and not just the root of “peace” and all the other connotations the word ‫ שלם‬has in Hebrew. 84. P. SÄRKIÖ, Solomon in History and Tradition, in J. VERHEYDEN (ed.), The Figure of Solomon in Jewish, Christian and Islamic Tradition: King, Sage and Architect (Themes in Biblical Narrative, 16), Leiden, Brill, 2013, 45-56, pp. 52-54. 85. On the whole section see ibid. The historical etymology does not exclude the later Midrashic name-derivation that associated the name of Solomon exclusively with “peace”. See R. ALTER, The David Story: A Translation with Commentary of 1 and 2 Samuel, New York, W.W. Norton & Company, 1999, p. 262. 86. On the succession to David’s throne, see L. ROST, Die Überlieferung von der Thronnachfolge Davids (BWANT, 6), Stuttgart, Kohlhammer, 1926; F. LANGLAMET, Pour ou contre Salomon? La rédaction prosalomonienne de I Rois, I–II, in RB 83 (1976) 321379, 481-528. 87. See SÄRKIÖ, Solomon in History and Tradition, p. 49; and extensively KEEL, Geschichte Jerusalems, §222, pp. 188-189: “David nahm zwar als Judäer vor rund 3000 Jahren in Jerusalem Residenz. Die Erben seiner Macht aber waren nicht seine jud. Landsleute, sondern Salomo, der Sohn Davids und einer Jerusalemerin, dessen wichtigste Parteigänger alteingesessene Jerusalemer Stadtbewohner waren, also Mitglieder jener Volksgruppe, die die atl. Überlieferung, bes. die dtn.-dtr. Literatur, später unter dem Namen ‘Kanaanäer’ als Kontrastgruppe und Negativfolie zum wahren Israel hinstellt”. 88. See KEEL, Geschichte Jerusalems, §224, p. 190.

FOR SOLOMON THE MESSIANIC KING

571

these chapters give a realistic version of Solomon’s accession to the throne. It was not primarily in fulfillment of Nathan’s oracle that Solomon ascended to the throne – as the Chronicler would indicate in 1 Chronicles 22 and 28. Nor would Solomon have been next in line after the death of his brothers Amnon and Absalom. Even David’s alleged promise to Bathsheba that Solomon would be the heir to the throne is mentioned here for the first time (cf. 1 Kgs 1,30). In this way, it appears that Solomon ascended to the throne as an usurper due to the influential support of the prophet Nathan, the priest Zadok, and his mother Bathsheba. The subsequent extinction of his former rivals has been probably embellished by making Solomon act in obedience to the last will of his father89. In any event, these chapters are the closest we can get to the historical Solomon. Thankfully they have not airbrushed Solomon of all his shades of sin. On the one hand, they make him more credible as a historical figure and, on the other hand, they are of great help in distinguishing Solomon the son of Bathsheba from the figure of Solomon the ideal king and son of David. 2. The Two Faces of Solomon The Solomon traditions recorded in 1 Kings 3–11, Neh 13,26, and Sirach 47 all have in common a representation of Solomon as a king with two starkly contrasting faces. On the one hand – in line with all the Solomon traditions – they depict Solomon as the most glorious of all the kings of Israel. On the other hand, they picture Solomon as the arch-sinner, a type of Adam whose sin with women resulted in Israel’s loss of “paradise”. Due to this shared heritage, these three Solomon traditions are treated under the same subsection. a) Solomon, an Ambiguous King (1 Kings 3–11) The literary figure of Solomon, which is the main interest of our study, emerges first in the narrative of 1 Kings 3–11. While the narrative style of 1 Kings 1–2 is reminiscent of the style adopted in 1–2 Samuel, also referred to as the “family saga” of King David, from chapter three onwards a different narrative style is adopted. It is now Solomon (and no longer David) who takes up the center stage.

89. On the Solomon critical redaction of 1 Kings 1–2, see LANGLAMET, Salomon.

572

PART III – CHAPTER 9

(i) A Synchronic Survey The annals of King Solomon as reported in 1 Kings 1–11 show a remarkable feature: the narrative is structured by two divine visions (1 Kgs 3,415 and 9,1-9) that divide the account in two parts (1 Kgs 3–8,66 and 9,143)90, and serve partially to separate the glorious Solomon from the fallible one. Within eight chapters of the First Book of Kings (1 Kings 3–8), the reign and person of Solomon are glorified and centered around his most important work: the construction of the Temple. Before the second divine vision in chapter nine, the reader gets only glimpses at possible failures of Solomon. At the beginning of chapter three Solomon is seen going up to the high places, where – in spite of his love for God – he sacrifices and burns incense (1 Kgs 3,3)91 and, according to 5,27, he imposes forced labor on fellow Israelites. Apart from those two flaws, the image of Solomon depicted from 1 Kings 3–8 until the inauguration of the Temple is largely that of a glorious and impeccable king. “Solomon is an ideal, wise king, the constructor of the Temple who realizes the program given in Deuteronomy 12 of the centralization of the cult in the place chosen by YHWH”92. He is the wise king par excellence, an exemplary judge (1 Kgs 3,1628), in possession of an encyclopedic knowledge (5,9-14), a wisdom that “was greater than the wisdom of the sons of the east and than all the wise of Egypt (5,10)” and that was admired by monarchs from the ends of the earth (1 Kgs 5,9-14; cf. 10,1-13.23-25). He perfectly ordered his reign over “all Israel” into twelve districts, which reflect the twelve tribes living in perfect order and peace under one King (4,1-19). His kingdom is depicted as the center of the then-known universe. He had vassals from “all the kingdoms from the Euphrates to the land of the Philistines and to the border of Egypt” who “brought tribute and served Solomon all the days of his life … he had dominion over all the region west of the Euphrates from Tiphsah to Gaza, over all the kings west of the Euphrates” (5,1.4). Under his reign even the promise to Abraham is fulfilled (Gen 22,17): “Judah and Israel were as numerous as the sand by the sea, they ate and drank and were happy” (4,20). The happiness of the people as described in these chapters becomes proverbial, for Solomon “had peace on all sides round about him. And Judah and Israel dwelt in safety, from Dan even to Beer-sheba, every man under his vine and under his fig tree, 90. RÖMER, Salomon, p. 106. 91. Solomon loved the Lord, walking in the statutes of David his father; only he sacrificed and burnt incense at the high places. 92. RÖMER, Salomon, p. 108 (my translation).

FOR SOLOMON THE MESSIANIC KING

573

all the days of Solomon (5,4-5; Mic 4,4)”. Solomon, most importantly, is the builder of the Temple of Jerusalem, realizing what even his father David had not been able to do, namely, to construct a sanctuary for the God of Israel where the Ark of the Covenant came to rest (1 Kgs 5,15–8). The second divine vision in 1 Kgs 9,1-9 prepares the reader to measure the extent of Solomon’s own sin in chapter eleven and foreshadows the Exile93. Immediately after this, the reader learns about the loss of twenty villages to Hiram (9,10-14) and of the destruction of Gezer by Pharaoh (9,16-17). Yet in general, the positive and glorious traits still prevail and even increase. Chapter 10 depicts Solomon throughout in his unsurpassable internationally recognized glory. He is said to have “excelled all the kings of the earth in riches and in wisdom, and the whole earth sought the presence of Solomon to hear his wisdom, which God had put into his mind” (10,23-24). No other king in the Bible – not even David – is described with such splendid glory. It is only in chapter 11 that the reader openly learns of Solomon’s dark side. Against the law of Moses (Deut 17,17) Solomon took a great number of women for himself (1 Kgs 11,1.3). Furthermore, these women were foreign, contrary to the law prescribed in Deut 7,3-4, and thus they led his heart astray. Instead of tearing down the idol altars, as Deut 7,5 prescribes, Solomon builds high places for Astarte, Milkom, and the gods of his foreign wives (1 Kgs 11,3-8). Thus, “his heart was not wholly true to the Lord his God, as was the heart of David his father” (1 Kgs 11,4). In this last chapter of the Solomon cycle the account is very clear. Solomon is the culpable for the national disaster that is to follow. The failures are depicted as the “original sin” of Israel’s kings that led not only to the breaking up of the united monarchy but eventually to the demise of the Kingdom of Judah as well (cf. 1 Kgs 9,4-9). The Deuteronomistic historian has God himself announce to Solomon the consequences of his disobedience to the law: Therefore the Lord said to Solomon, ‘Since this has been your mind and you have not kept my covenant and my statutes which I have commanded you, I will surely tear the kingdom from you and will give it to your servant. Yet for the sake of David your father I will not do it in your days, but I will tear it out of the hand of your son. However I will not tear away all the kingdom; but I will give one tribe to your son, for the sake of David my servant and for the sake of Jerusalem which I have chosen (1 Kgs 11,11-13; NRSV).

This final dark image of Solomon stands in sharp contrast to the description that chapters 3–10 give of him. 93. Ibid. (my translation).

574

PART III – CHAPTER 9

In conclusion, the figure of King Solomon that emerges from a synchronic reading of 1 Kings 3–11 is at once the figure of a Roi du Soleil, in whom and under whose reign all the promises given to the fathers had been fulfilled, notably the construction of the Temple and rest from the enemies for Israel, in addition to the promise of an eternal reign that had been made to David. And yet, Solomon is simultaneously depicted as a kind of second Adam, whose sin will eventually lead to the loss of the garden-land of Israel94. The Bible leaves its readers with the portrait of an ambiguous king. This ambiguity is apparently intentional, for it helps the reader to discern the “real Solomon” from the “ideal Solomon”. In more technical terms, one perceives the construction of a literary figure removed from its historical model, and thus portrays a king whose arrival is hoped for in the future on the grounds of a retrospection to the past. (ii) A Diachronic Survey How did this ambiguous picture of Solomon come about? An in-depth diachronic study of the Solomon cycle in 1 Kings 1–11 is beyond the scope of this study. It suffices to trace the general currents of the different redactions in order to see how a person of whom little historical evidence remains is construed into the figure of a king who is on par with the most glorious ANE kings that ever existed. For in spite of the shadows cast on his reign by 1 Kings 11, Solomon remains a glorious sun king in the memory of Israel. In fact, a diachronic overview of the presumed redaction history of 1 Kings 3–11 reveals that the strata critical of Solomon have neither the first nor the last word on him. Rather, the initial description of Solomon’s reign appears to have been glorious. It was followed by a heavy critique from an exilic perspective, upon which followed a time of uninhibited glorification. Thomas Römer gives a helpful summary of the four main redactional events that mark the varied depictions of Solomon. – Pre-Exilic “Deuteronomistic”. A first version of the history of King Solomon has probably been edited by “deuteronomistic scribes” in the seventh century B.C.95. There is good reason to believe that they had older 94. See SONNET, Salomon, l’Adam royal. The description of King Solomon’s rise to power, the enfolding of his glory and the eventual decline has also been analyzed as a critical description of Israel’s monarchy on a whole. See J. CAZEAUX, Saül, David, Salomon: La royauté et le destin d’Israël (LeDiv, 193), Paris, Cerf, 2003. 95. For a comprehensive overview of the actual state of the debate concerning the Deuteronomistic history (Joshua-Kings; Deuteronomistisches Geschichtswerk), see RÖMER, Salomon. Contrary to Martin Noth’s initial proposition, it is today no longer conceived as the work of one single redactor-author who (presumably around 560 B.C.) presented his view of Israel’s history, from the time of Moses until the rise and fall of the monarchy

FOR SOLOMON THE MESSIANIC KING

575

sources at their disposal, but not a ready-made history of King Solomon96. The description they render of the King strikingly resembles the royal ideologies common to Egypt and Mesopotamia97. As an ideal, wise king, protector of the arts, he is described like the Neo-Assyrian kings Sennacherib, Esarhaddon, and Ashurbanipal98. It is the glorious, perfect King and the rehabilitation of King Jehoiachin, in the light of Deuteronomy. The title given by Noth remains nonetheless a handy “working title”, for there can be no doubt about the intertextual links between Deuteronomy and 1–2 Kings in particular. Someone has at some stage reread the history of the monarchy in the light of Deuteronomy. See also J.-L. SKA, Salomon et la naissance du royaume du nord: Fact or Fiction?, in C. LICHTERT – D. NOCQUET (eds.), Le Roi Salomon, un héritage en question: Hommage à Jacques Vermeylen (Le Livre et le Rouleau, 33), Bruxelles, Lessius, 2008, 36-56, p. 50. The concept underlying the redaction theory presented here is that developed by the Anglo-American school around Frank Moore Cross, which presumes a first edition of the Deuteronomistic history in the seventh century under the reign of Josiah (among other reasons, because expressions like “until this day” seem difficult to explain from an exilic perspective). Contrary to that school, however, which assumes only light redactional interventions during the Babylonian Exile, at least three further stages of redaction after the fall of Jerusalem are postulated. According to Römer, the strong critique of Solomon is not comprehensible in the context of Josiah’s reign. Contrary to the German tradition, to which the Exile “is often the origin of a quasi mystique literary activity”, Römer holds that a number of indicators point to a first edition of both Deuteronomy and the books of Samuel and Kings during the Assyrian period. “It is precisely this model of three principle Deuteronomistic editions, during the seventh century B.C., during the Babylonian Exile and the first part of the Persian period which offers interesting tracks for understanding the construction of the figure of Solomon”. RÖMER, Salomon, pp. 101-102 (my translation). 96. See RÖMER, Salomon, pp. 104-106, who lists some elements that might prove to be “pre-deuteronomistic” traditions. The divergent lists of Solomon’s ministers in 3 Kgdms 2,46h and 4,2-6 LXX, of which the MT might reflect a later harmonized version (see A. SCHENKER, Septante et texte massorétique dans l’histoire la plus ancienne du texte de 1 Rois 2–14 [Cahiers de la RB, 48], Paris, Gabalda, 2000, pp. 34-35): the apparently more ancient version of the dedication of the Temple prayer conserved in the LXX. According to Keel this ancient version reflects the installation of the God of the thunderstorm YHWH by the solar divinity, who accords him a place in the Temple of Jerusalem where the two deities cohabit. See O. KEEL, Der salomonische Tempelweihspruch: Beobachtungen zum religionsgeschichtlichen Kontext des Ersten Jerusalemer Tempels, in ID. – E. ZENGER (eds.), Gottesstadt und Gottesgarten: Zur Geschichte und Theologie des Jerusalemer Tempels (QD, 119), Freiburg i.Br., Herder, 2002, 9-23. Furthermore the account of Solomon’s wedding to the daughter of Pharaoh: though its historicity is debated, the tradition of the account most likely precedes the Deuteronomist. The fact that she is so frequently mentioned both in the MT (1 Kgs 3,1; 7,8; 9,16-17.24 and 11,1) and in the LXX (1 Kgs 2,35c.f; 5,14; 7,45), though integrated in a very different manner in these two text-traditions, speaks in favor of the antiquity of this account. For a dating of the Grundtext in the eighth century, see W. ZWICKEL, Der Tempel Salomos im Kontext der Ikonographie und der Archäologischen Funde, in J. VERHEYDEN (ed.), The Figure of Solomon in Jewish, Christian and Islamic Tradition: King, Sage and Architect (Themes in Biblical Narrative, 16), Leiden, Brill, 2013, 57-84, pp. 62-68. 97. See RÖMER, Salomon, pp. 103-104. 98. According to Römer, “Le premier récit sur Salomon traduit […] la culture des scribes judéens du VIIe siècle avant notre ère qui utilisent la littérature royale néoassyrienne pour montrer en Salomon le roi fondateur. […] Selon les scribes josianiques, la grandeur

576

PART III – CHAPTER 9

Solomon, the constructor of the Temple, who brings to completion the program of cult centralization of Deuteronomy which is presented to the reader. – Exilic “Deuteronomistic”. The second stage is a redaction from the perspective of the Exile and the catastrophe that led to it. It is at this point that the above traced negative traits of Solomon have likely been inserted from an exilic perspective. Solomon – whose seventh-century portrait had been that of an ideal (Assyrian) king, wise, rich, international tradesman, constructor of the Temple, etc. – now becomes ambiguous99. From an exilic perspective the Deuteronomist inserts a vision (1 Kgs 9,1.9) that subjects the divine promises to conditions of fidelity to the law and threatens the destruction of the Temple and loss of the country for the case of disobedience. Solomon’s idolatry (1 Kgs 3,3; 11,1*[without “many foreign women”].3a.4.5.7*.9-13), caused by his multitude of women, horses, silver, and gold, which stand in clear contradiction to Deut 17,16-17, are shown to be the cause of the schism of the kingdom and the demise of not only Israel but even Judah100. – Persian “Deuteronomistic”. During the Persian period a further Deuteronomistic redaction seems to have taken place. The preoccupation of these redactors was still the observance of the law of Moses (cf. 1 Kgs 2,3) and segregation from the pagan nations101. These concerns explain why the multitude of Solomon’s women mentioned in 1 Kgs 11,1 is specified to have been of foreign extraction and to have turned Solomon’s heart away from the Lord. 1 Kgs 11,2.3b and 8 are held to be insertions from the Persian period. These verses indicate that Solomon did not heed Deut 7,1-5 or 12,2-4, which is altogether a preoccupation typical of the time of Ezra and Nehemiah (Ezra 9,10; Nehemiah 13). These redactors are no longer interested in questions of the royalty. Their preoccupation is to link the observance of the law to the special identity of Israel with respect to the other nations102. – “Post-Deuteronomistic” Relectures. So far the progress of redaction has followed a simple movement. From a glorification of King Solomon du royaume de Salomon est clairement présentée comme résultant de la construction du temple. Cette idéologie se trouve dans le récit du règne de Josias; la rénovation du temple y est présentée comme prélude pour le rétablissement de ‘l’ancienne’ grandeur de la monarchie davidique”. RÖMER, Salomon, p. 123. See also Chapter 5, III.3, p. 314, n. 154. 99. RÖMER, Salomon, p. 126. 100. See ibid., p. 127. 101. Thus 1 Kgs 9,20-22, for example, pays heed to highlight that it is not the Israelites who are submitted to the corvée, but the descendants of those Canaanites who remained in the country after the conquest. 102. RÖMER, Salomon, p. 128.

FOR SOLOMON THE MESSIANIC KING

577

on the model of the contemporary Assyrian kings to that of the great king Josiah – for whom the magnified accounts of David and Solomon had to serve as models – the redaction took a negative turn. From an exilic (Babylonian) perspective the cause for the demise of the kingdom was sought in the abounding wealth of Solomon and his many women, namely, his non-observance of the law. From the Persian perspective then, the image of a Solomon, who did not submit to the law as he should have, is further elaborated, adding the accusation of having wedded foreign wives and their respective gods. Yet, this negative representation of the figure of Solomon does not continue. In a final, “post-deuteronomist” redaction, as Römer calls it103, Solomon is again glorified. It is this redaction that adds the passages that make Solomon appear like the protagonist of a fairy-tale104. As Albert de Pury has shown, the story of the Queen of Sheba in 1 Kings 10 presupposes “a solidly installed Achaeminide empire”, which presents King Solomon in the guise of the great Persian King, and which “does not back off from the most delirious numbers”105. According to de Pury, this story acts as a counterbalance to the Deuteronomistic warnings against foreign wives. “In the Queen of Sheba, Solomon encounters at the same time the ‘foreign woman’ and ‘Lady Wisdom’”106. It is further possible that the story about the judgment of Solomon (1 Kgs 3,16-28) was included at that time, a story that, just like the episode of the Queen of Sheba’s visit, serves to illustrate the unsurpassable wisdom of Solomon107. Finally the note on 103. See ibid.: “Il me semble qu’on devrait utiliser le terme de ‘post-deutéronomiste’ pour des ajouts faits dans des ensembles littéraires de provenance deutéronomiste mais se distinguant des textes deutéronomistes quant au style et aux idées théologiques”. 104. Ibid. 105. A. DE PURY, Salomon et la Reine de Saba: L’analyse narrative peut-elle se dispenser de poser la question du contexte historique?, in D. MARGUERAT (ed.), La Bible en récits: L’exégèse biblique à l’heure du lecteur, Genève, Labor et Fides, 2003, 213-238, p. 233: “C’est un empire achéménide solidement installé […] qui offre […] la précondition nécessaire à la rédaction de 1 R 10 et de l’histoire du règne de Salomon sous sa forme actuelle. […] Salomon est présenté […] à l’image du Grand Roi, souverain de l’empire. À l’instar du suzerain perse, il domine, grâce à ses relations avec la Phénicie, l’Arabie du Sud, l’Égypte, la Cilicie et Aram, le commerce et le flux des richesses. Le récit ne recule pas devant les chiffres les plus délirants: ainsi, selon 1 R 10:14, Jérusalem aurait engrangé chaque année 666 talents d’or, ce qui correspondrait à plus de 22 tonnes […] presque le chargement en bombes d’un B52! Tous les biens précieux affluent à Jerusalem. Le modèle pour cette construction imaginaire est évidemment l’empire perse”. 106. Ibid., p. 236. De Pury furthermore wants to see an allusion to the Queen of Sheba in Song 1,5, “I am very dark, but comely, O daughters of Jerusalem, like the tents of Kedar, like the curtains of Solomon”. 107. RÖMER, Salomon, p. 129, with reference to E. WÜRTHWEIN, Die Bücher der Könige: 1 Könige 1–16 (ATD, 11/1), Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977, pp. 36-37. Würthwein dates 1 Kgs 3,16-28 as “nachdeuteronomistisch”. The story which speaks only

578

PART III – CHAPTER 9

the extent of Solomon’s reign appears to fit perfectly in that same period, though this note has no historical plausibility. It claims the entire Persian province as dominion for the legendary king. The annotation in 1 Kgs 5,4 that “he had peace (‫ )שלום‬on all sides round about him” is at once a word play on Solomon’s name (‫ )שלמה‬and the expression of the Judean desire to live in peace with their neighbors within the framework of the Persian empire108. At the center of the Solomonic empire, the depiction of which is modeled after the Persian empire, is the city of Jerusalem with its most magnificent Temple, the abode of the divine presence. “Jerusalem is the center towards which the extremities of the earth converge. Both the Queen of Sheba and King Hiram of Tyre, by their access to the most inaccessible goods, represent perfectly the access to the extremities of the inhabited world”109. The wood from Lebanon and the gold of Ophir serve notably for the edification of the Temple. YHWH’s abode thus takes its center place in the entire empire, a theme which appears only from the time of the Exile onwards. “It is found in the motif of the pilgrimage of the nations (Mic 4:15; Isa 2:2-4) as well as in the promises of the exaltation of Jerusalem”110. Furthermore, the combination of Phoenician and Arabian contributions appears notably in the odes to Jerusalem in Trito-Isaiah (Isaiah 60, above all vv. 5-9) and in the Ps 72,10: “May the kings of Tarshish and of the isles render him tribute, may the kings of Sheba and Seba bring gifts!”111. How is this vision of Solomon reconcilable with the historical truth of the moment? De Pury gives a convincing explanation that corresponds well with the further development of the figure of Solomon, be it in the books of Chronicles, in Psalms 72 and 127, or in the Song of Songs. At the time of the (final?) redaction of 1 Kings 1–11, when Solomon is given his most fantastic traits, there was no longer a king in Jerusalem, which was nothing but a small town, capital of the rather insignificant province of Yehûd. Jerusalem with its reconstructed Temple encompassed a territory of maybe twenty kilometers in perimeter. Nevertheless, Jerusalem was already claiming to be the religious capital for the diaspora. The God of the Persian Empire, who was admittedly the creator of heaven and earth, of “a king” is probably pre-existent and has been ascribed to Solomon subsequently in order to illustrate the wisdom promised in the dream has actually been accorded. The original account is taken up again in 4,1 “And King Solomon was king over all Israel”, which becomes more meaningful and intelligible if understood as closing the Gibeon account. 108. RÖMER, Salomon, p. 129. 109. DE PURY, Salomon et la Reine de Saba, p. 234. 110. Ibid. 111. Ibid.

FOR SOLOMON THE MESSIANIC KING

579

had revealed his true identity to Israel. Even though the Persian Empire was seen to be the legitimate, divinely chosen authority (cf. 2 Chr 36,22; Ezek 1,2; Isa 44,28; 45,1.13), it was nevertheless Israel, and notably Jerusalem, whom God had chosen to be the abode of his name, and no one other than Solomon on whom YHWH was pleased to confer his royal wisdom (1 Kgs 3,12; 10,6-9). De Pury concludes that “[t]he Solomon of 1 Kgs 10,1-12 is thus in a way a messianic king: he represents that which the king chosen by YHWH is called to become again, just as the Jerusalem which astounded the Queen of Sheba represents that which the chief city of Yehûd will become again, on the day when the ‘true’ hierarchy of roles and identities will have been re-established”112. In conclusion then, it can be argued that four layers of redaction account for the extreme ambivalence in the depiction of the fabulous king. A seventh-century redaction described Solomon on the model of the great Assyrian kings. Exilic and post-exilic Deuteronomistic redactions cast a shadow on Solomon that made him responsible for the demise of the “united monarchy” and the final catastrophe. Finally, a post-Deuteronomist redaction lent Solomon his storied traits on the model of the Persian kings, whom he even outstrips in wisdom and wealth113. This redactional phase corresponds to the time of the Song’s decisive compositional moment and most likely provides the “Solomon” who has informed the associations that the author of the Song attached to his person. b) Solomon, There Was None Like Him (Neh 13,26) The memory of Solomon as a king with two faces, a glorious and a tainted one, is also well preserved in the teaching of Nehemiah against taking foreign women in marriage: Did not King Solomon of Israel sin on account of such women? Among the many nations there was no king like him, and he was beloved by his God, and God made him king over all Israel; nevertheless, foreign women made even him to sin (Neh 13,26; NRSV).

While it is freely admitted that foreign women led Solomon to commit his great sin (that is, apostasy), Solomon remains in the memory of Israel the king without equal among many nations and even more importantly 112. Ibid., p. 235. For a similar judgement see S. WÄLCHLI, Der weise König Salomo: Eine Studie zu den Erzählungen von der Weisheit Salomos in ihrem alttestamentlichen und altorientalischen Kontext (BWANT, 141), Stuttgart, Kohlhammer, 1999, p. 90: “Die Zeit und Herrschaft Salomos wird damit zunehmend idealisiert und geradezu in eschatologisierenden Farben gemalt”. 113. See RÖMER, Salomon, p. 130.

580

PART III – CHAPTER 9

the one “beloved by his God” (‫)אהוב לאלהיו‬. Surprisingly, the memory of his sin has not blotted out the remembrance of his glory. Even in retrospect he remains unparalleled and God’s beloved (cf. 2 Sam 12,25). c) Solomon, You Were Beloved in Your Peace (Sir 47,12-21) These two sides of Solomon’s life are also neatly recorded in Sir 47,1221. In eight bicola Ben Sira sings the praises of Solomon’s glory with increasing intensity (vv. 13-18), the climax of which abruptly turns towards the negative. The ensuing eight bicola are dedicated entirely to the description of Solomon’s downfall, his sin, and the result thereof. Sir 47,12-18 LXX give a panegyric description of King Solomon as having been a king of peace “to whom God gave rest all around” (vv. 12-13), “so that he might establish a house to his (God’s) name and prepare a holy precinct forever” (v. 13), a king “filled like a river with understanding” (v. 14), whose “soul covered the earth” (v. 15), whose name reached faroff islands, who was beloved in his peace (v. 16), and at whose explanations countries marveled (v. 17). “In the name of the Lord God, who is called God of Israel”, Solomon “gathered gold like tin and amassed silver like lead” (v. 18). This description of “Solomon the Fabulous” is in accordance with the idealization seen at work in 1 Kings 3–10 (see II.2.a, above, p. 571). The description of Solomon is equally laudatory in the Hebrew versions, notwithstanding some variations. The most interesting variant is certainly SirB 17r:9 (= Sir 47,18). ‫נקראת בשם הנכבד ⟧ ⟦ הנקרא על ישראל‬ You were called by that glorious name, [[ ]] which was conferred upon Israel

Solomon’s name is here etymologically traced to the name of the Lord himself. This “glorious name which was conferred upon Israel” and also given to Solomon is the name Jedidiah (‫)ידידיה‬, “beloved of Yahweh”, which Nathan bestowed on him (2 Sam 12,25)114. In Jer 11,15 YHWH calls Israel by nearly the same name, Jedidi (‫)ידידי‬, “my beloved”. The tradition recorded in the Hebrew version of Ben Sira thus evinces the perduring tradition both of Solomon as the “beloved of the Lord” and a name echoed in various forms in the Song (root ‫ידד‬, see Chapter 8, I.1-I.2, above, pp. 477-487) as well as the association of his name with peace (‫)שלום‬.

114. See SKEHAN – DI LELLA, Ben Sira, p. 527.

FOR SOLOMON THE MESSIANIC KING

581

Similar to 1 Kings 11 and Neh 13,26, Ben Sira credits Solomon’s downfall according to the fact that he “bent [his] loins to women, and gave them dominion over [his] body” (Sir 47,19 LXX). The whole verse appears to be a reworking and application of the admonition in Prov 31,2, “Do not give your strength to women, your ways to those who destroy kings”115. Yet differing from 1 Kings 11 and Neh 13,26, Ben Sira makes no mention of these women as having been foreigners or having seduced Solomon to idol worship. While Sir 47,20 LXX denounces Solomon’s subjection to women for having “defiled [his] family line”116, the Hebrew version can be understood to be accusing Solomon of adultery. Unlike Abraham, who “kept his glory without stain” (see Sir 44,19b), since neither Pharaoh nor Abimelech had defiled Sarah (cf. Gen 12,10-20; 20,1-18)117, Solomon is accused ‫ו]ת[תן מום בכבודך ⟧ ⟦ ותחלל את יצועיך‬ you brought a stain upon your glory [[ ]] you defiled upon your marriage bed (SirB 17r,12; = 47,20).

The latter accusation “you defiled your marriage bed” (‫)תחלל את יצועיך‬ is an echo to Ruben’s sin who had defiled his father’s bed (cf. Gen 49,4; ‫“ חללת יצועי‬you defiled my bed”) by lying with Bilhah, Jacob’s concubine (Gen 35,22). In this way Solomon brought “wrath upon [his] descendants” and the “monarchy was divided” (Sir 47,20.21). Though Ben Sira follows the same logic as 1 Kings 11, namely that Solomon’s many women led eventually to the split of the monarchy (1 Kgs 11,11-13; Sir 47,20-21), the concrete sin is not the same. For according to 1 Kings and Nehemiah, the many women were the cause for Solomon’s covenant unfaithfulness through idol worship (cf. Deut 7,3.4), whereas Ben Sira sees the unfaithfulness in the act of adultery118. 115. See ibid., p. 528. 116. It is possible that Skehan is right when commenting that Solomon brought “wrath upon [his] descendants” (47,20c) “because, being born of foreign mothers, they shared not in God’s blessing but in his anger; cf. Ezra 9:2; Mal 2:15; Wis 3:16-19. The worst disaster would come after Solomon’s death”. Ibid., p. 529. It is, however, equally possible that the tradition here is in line with Mal 2,15 and Wis 3,16-19 that consider defiled not only children conceived of foreign women, but those who are the fruit of any adulterous act. 117. See ibid., p. 506. 118. To be sure, the Greek is less clear on the matter, and thus might leave room for an implicit evocation of the idol worship caused by the foreign women. The fact, however, that even the Greek version of Sir 47,20 alludes directly to Gen 49,4 and Ruben’s defilement of his father’s bed through incest, and never mentions the fact that the women were foreigners, suggests that at the time of Ben Sira, Solomon’s sin was understood to have been adultery.

582

PART III – CHAPTER 9

Thus the almost symmetrical picture drawn by Ben Sira of a Solomon in all his splendor connected to the topics of peace, a God-given rest, the Temple, wisdom, international renown, and special favor with God (vv. 1218), with a Solomon who brings about the kingdom’s demise through his love for women (vv. 19-23) corresponds well to the ambiguous twofaced image of the king depicted in 1 Kings 3–11 and to the brief notice in Neh 13,26. The memory of Israel preserved both Solomon’s brightest as well as his darkest side. It bears notice that these two sides are presented in unalloyed fashion. In none of the traditions is the positive depiction of Solomon intermingled with the negative. They always appear side by side but unblended. The two faces of Solomon are thus presented like the two sides of one coin, depicting the same person but under opposite aspects. The radical change in his depiction from best to worst, caused by his many women and unfaithfulness to the covenant, has therefore led some scholars to see an Adamic figure in Solomon, an aspect which will now be roughly sketched. d) Solomon, the Royal Adam in His Garden Reading the Solomon cycle synchronically allows the reader to perceive the emergence of an Adamic figure in the person of King Solomon. The Solomon cycle of 1 Kings 3–11 resembles, in fact, “une parabole historique où se rejoue la trajectoire d’Adam entre adoubement et chute”119. King Solomon reigning over Israel within its ideal borders, with the Lord dwelling in the midst of his people in the Temple, resembles a new Adam reigning over the “garden-state” of Israel, a veritable paradise restored. Similar to Adam, however, he was trapped into disobedience to the Godgiven law by clinging to women instead of the Lord which led him to commit the “original sin” of all the kings of Israel, a sin that would lead eventually to the people’s expulsion from the garden-land of Israel towards the east. (i) Typological Relations Beginning with Spinoza, scholars have recognized the narrative sequence from Genesis through Kings as a unified literary composition120. It tells the story of Israel with her God from the creation of the world, the creation of man and his expulsion from paradise towards the east, the creation of 119. SONNET, Salomon, l’Adam royal, p. 247. 120. B. DE SPINOZA, A Theologico-Political Treatise and A Political Treatise, New York, Dover Books, 1951, reprinted, New York, Dover Books, 2004, pp. 120-132. Cited in GREENSTEIN, Formation, p. 151.

FOR SOLOMON THE MESSIANIC KING

583

Israel and the gift of a land, and the expulsion from this land into Exile in the east. Leaving aside the many different theories about how this unity came about121, the most notable feature of biblical narrative, from Genesis through Kings, is, as Edward Greenstein observes, “that between the Torah on one side and the so-called Deuteronomistic History (or Former Prophets) on the other there is a very high incidence of repetitions – of stories, motifs, characters, names of persons and places, phrases, as well as ideology and themes … The narrator is all too often telling different versions of the same story”122. This repetition of stories with similar motifs between the Torah and the corpus of Joshua through 2 Kings has been highlighted by various scholars123. Typological relationships between Adam, the Patriarchs, and David, the paradigmatic King of Israel, have been identified. Among them, the Adam-David124, Abraham-David125, and Jacob-David126 typologies merit mention127. Of particular interest for our study is the Adam typology that appears to have informed the narrative shaping of the Kings of Israel128, 121. On the varying opinions on the formation of this literary corpus, see GREENSTEIN, Formation, pp. 152-165. 122. Ibid., p. 141. 123. See BLENKINSOPP, Theme and Motif in the Succession History; W. BRUEGGEMANN, David and His Theologian, in CBQ 30 (1968) 156-181; ID., David and His Theologian: Literary, Social, and Theological Investigations of the Early Monarchy, Eugene, OR, Cascade Books, 2011; RENDSBURG, David; ROSENBERG, King and Kin; J. CAZEAUX, Le partage de minuit: Essai sur la Genèse (LeDiv, 208), Paris, Cerf, 2006. 124. BRUEGGEMANN, David and His Theologian (CBQ); ROSENBERG, King and Kin. 125. R.E. CLEMENTS, Abraham and David: Genesis XV and Its Meaning for Israelite Tradition (Studies in Biblical Theology, 5), London, SCM, 1967; CROSS, From Epic to Canon, pp. 40-41. 126. RENDSBURG, David; GREENSTEIN, Formation, pp. 165-175; and M. GARSIEL, The First Book of Samuel: A Literary Study of Comparative Structures, Analogies and Parallels, Ramat-Gan, Revivim Publishing House, 1985, pp. 130-132. 127. On the reading of Genesis as a parabolic representation of monarchic “interests and institutions” see also S. FELDMAN, Biblical Motives and Sources, in JNES 22 (1963) 73-103. 128. As M. FISHBANE, The Sacred Center: The Symbolic Structure of the Bible, in ID. – P.R. FLOHR (eds.), Texts and Responses: Studies Presented to Nahum N. Glatzer on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday by His Students, Leiden, Brill, 1975, 6-27, p. 20, n. 34 explains, “The nexus between the first man and kingship is a symbolism expressed in the Enuma Elish, the Akitu festival and elsewhere in Mesopotamia. It also has Biblical reflexes, not least of which are the royal images and terms found, e.g., in Gen. 1 and Psa. 8. This nexus also formed the basis for polemics against foreign kings”. For J.-M. HUSSER, La typologie comme procédé de composition dans les textes de l’Ancien Testament, in R. KUNTZMAN (ed.), Typologie biblique de quelques figures vives, Paris, Cerf, 2002, 11-34, “la représentation adamique de la royauté est largement attestée […]. Le nom d’Adam ouvre le Livre des Chroniques, où David est glorifié. L’enclos des connaissances de Salomon (zoologique et botanique) est un autre jardin d’Adam; un oracle isaïen met dans un nouveau paradis le roi attendu, maître des animaux qui avaient tenu le pouvoir de l’homme (Gn 1:26, 28) en échec dès lors qu’il avait perdu la puissance de la paix: Ézéchiel surtout

584

PART III – CHAPTER 9

notably that of David and Solomon, and its equating of the Garden of Eden with the Promised Land129. The Adam typology of Genesis 2–3 is held to have its deepest roots in the ANE royal ideology. Most researchers believe that the history of Israel, as recounted in the Deuteronomistic history, served as the matrix for the story of the origins130. In this way, the kings of Israel and Solomon in particular are “a kind of proto-Adam”131. The matrix of Adam as a royal figure is most clearly perceivable in Ezekiel’s lament over the King of Tyre. As befitting for a king, he was exceedingly wise, “wiser than Daniel”, “full of wisdom” and “perfect in beauty” (Ezek 28,3.12)132. No secret was hidden from him (Ezek 28,3; cf. Dan 8,26; 12,4.9). By his wisdom and understanding he acquired great riches (Ezek 28,4-5). He had his abode in “the home of the gods” (Ezek 28,2), which is equated with “Eden, the Garden of God” (Ezek 28,13). In the Garden of God, the king is “covered” by nine precious stones (Ezek 28,13), all of which cover also the breastplate of Aaron (Exod 28,15-22)133 and part pose les rois de Tyr ou d’Égypte dans l’Éden (Ezek 28; 31), faisant de l’un l’arbre central du jardin, de l’autre un être surnaturel. En mettant Nabuchodonosor à la même place, Dn 4 montre sa dépendance de cette tradition […] de l’Homme nous paraît suggérer que, pour finir l’histoire, s’approche une royauté dont la place est égale à celle d’Adam, qui la commence […]”. 129. On this equation see, e.g., M. FISHBANE, The ‘Eden’ Motif: The Landscape of Spatial Renewal, in Text and Texture: Close Readings of Selected Biblical Texts, New York, Schocken Books, 1979, 17-19, 111-120; ID., Biblical Interpretation, pp. 368-372. 130. See, inter alia, N. LOHFINK, Das Siegeslied am Schilfmeer: Christliche Auseinandersetzungen mit dem Alten Testament, Meisenheim am Glan, Knecht, 1965, pp. 81101; ALONSO SCHÖKEL, Sapiential and Covenant Themes in Genesis 2–3; J. VERMEYLEN, Le récit du Paradis et la question des origines du Pentateuque, in Bijdragen 41 (1980) 230-250; J. VAN SETERS, Prologue to History: The Yahwist as Historian in Genesis, Louisville, KY, Westminster John Knox, 1992; E. OTTO, Die Paradieserzählung Genesis 2–3: Eine nachpriesterliche Lehrerzählung in ihrem religionshistorischen Kontext, in A.A. DIESEL et al. (eds.), “Jedes Ding hat seine Zeit”: Studien zur israelitischen und altorientalischen Weisheit. Diethelm Michel zum 65. Geburtstag (BZAW, 241), Berlin, De Gruyter, 1996, 167-192. 131. SONNET, Salomon, l’Adam royal, p. 249. The majority of scholars today hold that the redaction of the Pentateuch, in particular Genesis, is posterior to the Deuteronomistic history, and thus the Genesis narratives would have been composed as kind of “political allegories” on the lives of the kings of Israel. See BLENKINSOPP, Theme and Motif in the Succession History; BRUEGGEMANN, David and His Theologian (CBQ); RENDSBURG, David; ROSENBERG, King and Kin; CAZEAUX, Partage. Y. ZAKOVITCH, Assimilation in Biblical Narratives, in J.H. TIGAY (ed.), Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism, Philadelphia, PA, Pennsylvania State University Press, 1985, 175-196, on the other hand, proposes that assimilations have been intentionally created between the secondary version of different biblical traditions. 132. Five times the chapter makes explicit mention of his wisdom (‫חכמה‬, cf. Ezek 28,35.7.12). Note that beauty was another feature of election and/or royalty; cf., e.g., Gen 39,6; 1 Sam 16,12; 2 Sam 14,25. 133. To be sure, Aaron’s breastplate is covered with twelve stones symbolizing all the tribes of Israel, “a symbolism irrelevant to this context”. GREENBERG, Ezekiel 21–37, p. 582.

FOR SOLOMON THE MESSIANIC KING

585

of which are found in the primordial Temple-Garden of Genesis (Gen 2,1112; cf. also Rev 21,19-20). Thus, the King of Tyre is a priestly figure in the cosmic temple garden of God134. There he walked in the presence of God guarded by cherubs: “With an anointed cherub as guardian I placed you; you were on the holy mountain (‫ )הר קדש‬of God; you walked among the stones of fire (Ezek 28,14 LXX)”. Also like Adam, he had been “unblemished in [his] ways from the day [he] was created, until wrongdoing was found in [him]” (Ezek 28,15) and he was cast out of his sacred precinct (Ezek 28,16). (ii) Solomon, a Royal Adam135 Among all the kings of Israel, the “Adamic traits” are most developed in the person of King Solomon. As an Israelite king he is “the most beautiful of the sons of Adam” (cf. Ps 45,3), and enjoys a special intimacy with God (cf. Ps 2,7; 2 Sam 7,14). In his request “to discern between good and evil” (‫ ;להבין בין־טוב לרע‬1 Kgs 3,9) an allusion to the figure of Adam is made (cf. Gen 3,5). Just as Adam was called to have a universal “dominion” (‫ )רדה‬over all creation (Gen 1,26), so Solomon had “dominion (‫)רדה‬ over all the region west of the Euphrates from Tiphsah to Gaza, over all the kings west of the Euphrates” (1 Kgs 5,4). Solomon’s wisdom, which surpassed the wisdom of all the sons of the East and the wisdom of Egypt, finds expression in the composition of three thousand proverbs (‫)משׁל‬ (1 Kgs 5,12). His knowledge was encyclopedic, whereby, among other things, “he would speak of trees, from the cedar that is in the Lebanon to the hyssop that grows in the wall; he would speak of animals, and birds, and reptiles, and fish” (1 Kgs 5,13). This recalls Adam’s participation in creation by giving a name to every living creature (cf. Gen 2,20)136. Indeed, “l’enclos des connaissances de Salomon [zoologique et botanique] est un autre jardin d’Adam”137. 134. According ANE royal ideology the king is the only mediator between heaven and earth. The development of a cultic priesthood is a later derivation thereof. While the king holds the office of God’s deputy on earth, the priest is rather to be seen as the deputy of the King who executes the cultic office in his name. See STEINKELLER, Rulers. 135. The title is inspired by that of Jean-Pierre Sonnet’s article Salomon, l’Adam royal. 136. According to Genesis 1 God creates by naming things (‫ויקרא‬, cf. Gen 1,5.8.10). By reflecting God’s act of calling or naming (‫)ויקרא‬, Adam participates in the work of creation (Gen 2,20). Correspondingly the sage who, like Solomon, is able to classify all things in nature, has insight into the divine order of creation. Sonnet explains, “the organization of the phenomena of reality refers to their names, and thus echoes, in the bible, the activity of creation of God who creates all things by naming them”. SONNET, Salomon, l’Adam royal, p. 153. See also J. BOTTÉRO, Mésopotamie – l’écriture, la raison et les dieux, Paris, Gallimard, 1987, pp. 165-169, 206-217; and CAZEAUX, Partage, p. 94. 137. P. BEAUCHAMP, L’un et l’autre Testament. Tome 1: Essai de lecture, Paris, Seuil, 1976, p. 222.

586

PART III – CHAPTER 9

Under Solomon’s reign the biblical history appears to have reached a moment of consummation. All the promises God made to Israel since first calling Abraham come to fulfillment under Solomon’s reign. The promise of the land within its ideal borders was now fulfilled, for Solomon “was sovereign over all the kingdoms from the Euphrates to the land of the Philistines, even to the border of Egypt” (1 Kgs 5,1). The extension of the borders delineated here corresponds clearly to the promise given to Abraham in Gen 15,18, and reiterated ever since in Exod 23,31; Deut 1,7; 11,24; and Josh 1,4138. Furthermore, because “during Solomon’s lifetime Judah and Israel lived in safety, from Dan even to Beer-sheba, all of them under their vines and fig trees” (1 Kgs 5,5) there is a symbolic time of “messianic peace” (cf. Mic 4,4). This signals the fulfillment of another promise. Israel has come into the land of her rest; God has granted her “rest from all [her] enemies around so that [she] lives in safety” (Deut 12,9-10). This rest from all enemies around was a major condition for the construction of the Temple which Solomon could now undertake (cf. Deut 12,9-10; 2 Sam 7,1; 1 Kgs 5,17). With the construction and dedication of the Temple, the narrative that began in the Book of Genesis reaches its climax. In fact, the completion of the Temple echoes the completion of creation in Gen 2,1-4139. For just as the earth was understood to be an expansive cosmic temple, the Temple, in turn, was conceived as a microcosm of heaven and earth140, a replica of “paradise”141. In the ANE, “the Temple and the world [are] considered 138. The frontiers outlined in 1 Kgs 5,1 are, in fact, the ideal borders of Israel, anticipated arguably already in the mention of the rivers Euphrates and Tigris in Gen 2,10-14. “L’Euphrate, la frontière idéale du future Grand Israël, mais aussi la barrière fragile devant l’Assyrien, comme l’apprendra le future Royaume du Nord, ou devant le Babylonien, comme l’apprendra le futur Royaume du Sud, Juda. Ces fleuves contiennent d’avance les métaux précieux et les substances divines (Job 28). Et donc, tout annonce, tout prévient et anticipe”. CAZEAUX, Partage, p. 95. 139. Mediated by the echoes to the completion of the Tabernacle (cf. Exod 39,32.42; 40,33), Joseph Blenkinsopp has shown in a now classical essay that the priestly source (P) establishes a clear parallel between the “creation of the world”, the “construction of the desert sanctuary”, and “the establishment of the sanctuary in the land and the distribution of the land among the tribes” by describing them all in similar and at times identical language. See J. BLENKINSOPP, The Structure of P, in CBQ 38 (1976) 275-292. 140. See B. JANOWSKI, Der Himmel auf Erden: Zur kosmologischen Bedeutung des Tempels in Israel und in seiner Umwelt, in M. EBNER et al. (eds.), Der Himmel (JBTh, 20), Neukirchen-Vluyn, Neukirchener Verlag, 2005, 85-110; BEALE, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, pp. 50-64; HUROWITZ, I Have Built You an Exalted House, pp. 335-337; LEVENSON, The Temple and the World, pp. 285-286. 141. On the Temple as a replica of “paradise”, see STAGER, Eden; WEINFELD, Enthronement. On the paradisiacal garden as an archetypal sanctuary, see ALONSO SCHÖKEL, Sapiential and Covenant Themes in Genesis 2–3, pp. 468-480; G.J. WENHAM, Sanctuary Symbolism in

FOR SOLOMON THE MESSIANIC KING

587

congeneric”142, and in the Scriptures, paradise, and Temple are almost synonymous143. Building a temple meant replicating the macrocosm in a microcosm144. Various parts of temples were made to resemble aspects of the first creation, thus symbolizing that the temple was a recreation of paradise. The paradisal symbolism is particularly expressed in Solomon’s Temple145. Paradise is described as it was densely forested (Gen 2,8-9); the source of life-giving waters (Gen 2,10-14)146 was thought to be located on a high mountain (cf. Ezek 28,13-16, in the oracle against Tyre). Solomon thus built the Temple on Mount Zion as a replica of the paradisiacal heavenly abode, a divine garden sanctuary on earth147. Outwardly, the precinct of the Temple area, like paradise, was separated from the profane148. Inwardly, the cedar envelopment recalled the forests of paradise (1 Kgs 6,1519). The two cherubim guarding the Ark (1 Kgs 6,23-28) recalled the cherubs guarding the access to the tree of life (Gen 3,24)149. The walls of the inner and outer room and the doorposts were decorated with palmette-style trees and open flowers (1 Kgs 6,29-35). The palmette style-trees symbolized sacred trees150, resembling ANE iconographic recreations of the gods’ abode151. The two bronze pillars Jachin and Boaz were decorated with pomegranates, lilies, and tangled branches and thereby also appeared like stylized trees (1 Kgs 7,15-22). They may have recalled the two trees of life and knowledge that, according to Gen 2,9, stood in the middle of the Garden of Eden152. The bronze sea symbolized at once the cosmic waters, the Garden of Eden, in Proceedings of the Ninth World Congress of Jewish Studies. Division A: The Period of the Bible, Jerusalem, World Union of Jewish Studies, 1986, 19-25. 142. LEVENSON, The Temple and the World, p. 286. 143. See M. BARKER, The Gate of Heaven, Sheffield, Phoenix, 2008, p. 68. 144. See BEALE, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, pp. 31-50. 145. The Temple of Jerusalem was, in fact, regarded as paradise restored. See LEVENSON, Creation and the Persistence of Evil, pp. 90-99. 146. See KEEL, Symbolism, 1978, p. 118. 147. See WENHAM, Sanctuary; STAGER, Eden; E. BLOCH-SMITH, Solomon’s Temple: The Politics of Ritual Space, in B.M. GITTLEN (ed.), Sacred Time, Sacred Place, Winona Lake, IN, Eisenbrauns, 2002, 83-94. 148. Similarly, Moses had to set the boundaries around the sacred mountain Sinai (Exod 19,12). In the book of Nehemiah the walls were also understood as sacred, fencing off the holy city Jerusalem from the profane surroundings. 149. See BLOCH-SMITH, ‘Who Is the King of Glory?’, p. 24. 150. See STAGER, Eden, p. 103, who relates that “the palmette variety, symbolic of the sacred tree was very popular from the 10th century BCE and later”. In note 16 he adds, “Many royal cities in Iron Age II Israel had public buildings with pilasters and columns crowned with palmette capitals … The earliest of these was found in Solomonic Megiddo (Stratum VA-IVB), although it seems very probable that this architectural form, like so many others, originated in Phoenicia and Syria”. 151. See BLOCH-SMITH, Solomon’s Temple, p. 87. 152. See HUROWITZ, YHWH’s Exalted House, p. 84.

588

PART III – CHAPTER 9

which the Temple’s liturgy continuously held at bay and which, having been subdued, were turned into the waters that flowed out of the Garden of Eden (Gen 2,10) watering all of creation153. The paradisal water symbolism is further realized by ten bronze wagon-like supports (‫ )מכונות‬that carried the smaller water vessels (1 Kgs 7,27-39). They were arranged in parallel rows, five to the right and five to the left of the Temple entrance. They very likely represented the rivers flowing out of the divine paradisiacal residence giving fertility to the surroundings (cf. Ezek 47,1-12)154. This imagery is curiously enhanced by their decoration with lions, cattle, and cherub (1 Kgs 7,29), creatures that characterized the divine gardens in ANE mythology and typified the divine realm155. With the dedication of the Temple by Solomon (1 Kings 8), then, the climax of both creation and the history of Israel were reached. God finally took up his abode and dwelt in the midst of Israel. Under the wise governance of Solomon, the sons of Israel seemingly recovered the garden of Genesis and dwelt in the presence of God156. Solomon appears like a royal Adam who reigns over a kind of ideal “garden-state”157. As Michael Fishbane explains, A king who “did good in the eyes of the Lord” was, so to say, a “tree of life” (Ezek. 5; cf. Ezek. 31; Dan. 4). Such is the splendor of Solomon, the paradigmatic Davidic king in Zion. His temple became the font of blessing for Israel and the world (1 Kng. 8). In his day Jerusalem was fully established as the new Sinai, a cosmic mountain and source of order. The order of Eden, restored in historical time by the covenant at Sinai, was the present and future blessing of Jerusalem158.

The implications of this symbolic recreation of Eden within the borders of Solomonic Israel for the Song will be taken up again in the exegesis of Song 4,12–5,1 in Chapter 11. 153. See LEVENSON, Theology of the Program of Restoration of Ezekiel 40–48, pp. 736; HUROWITZ, YHWH’s Exalted House, pp. 80-81. 154. HUROWITZ, YHWH’s Exalted House, p. 81. 155. See HUROWITZ, ibid., pp. 81-82, who explains further: “The Temple, the Garden of Eden, and the Assyrian palaces and temple are on mountains that are divine residences, and are surrounded by gardens, through which rivers flow. Since Jerusalem had no natural river, and even the Gihon spring is not on Temple grounds, Solomon made a bronze Sea and the water wagons in order to provide the necessary water, and symbolize the life-giving river flowing forth from the garden of God”. 156. See SONNET, Salomon, l’Adam royal, p. 252. Similarly BEAUCHAMP, L’un et l’autre Testament. Tome 1, p. 108: “S’il y a un moment décisif de la sagesse, il se situe avec la réalisation de la promesse, une fois franchi le fleuve et bien assurée la station de l’arche, avec Salomon archétype du sage, par qui Dieu prend demeure permanente dans la terre qu’il donne, présent comblé par sa présence”. 157. SONNET, Salomon, l’Adam royal, p. 252. 158. FISHBANE, Sacred Center, p. 21.

FOR SOLOMON THE MESSIANIC KING

589

(iii) Solomon’s “Original Sin” Recognizing this Adam typology invites a quest for the woman. The reader wonders if the “original sin” will be repeated, and if so, what it might be. There is an interplay between Genesis 2–3 and the history of Israel. In this regard the King plays a key role. The story told in the narrative of Gen 2,5–3,24 is like a prolepsis of Israel’s own covenant history with YHWH159, which, like the creation of Adam outside the garden (Gen 2,7), begins in a land that is not Israel. Furthermore, just as God plants the garden of Eden (Gen 2,8) he plants Israel as a garden (Ps 80,16; Exod 15,17). Just as God takes (‫ )לקח‬Adam and makes him rest (‫נוח‬, hif.) in the garden (Gen 2,15160), so also he takes Israel (Deut 4,20) and gives her rest in the Promised Land (cf. Exod 33,14; Deut 3,20; 12,9; Josh 1,13.15; 1 Kgs 8,56)161. Both the garden of Eden and the land of Israel are free gifts of the Lord. Most importantly, both Adam and Israel remain in the garden or land as long as they observe the commandment of the Lord. Life outside the garden equals death (Gen 2,17; Deut 28,63-68)162. Losing possession of the garden-land means being sent (‫ )שלח‬towards the east (Gen 3,23-24; Jer 24,5; 29,20). In Israel’s historical expulsion from her paradisal heritage it is not so much the people as a whole but the kings of Israel who play the role of Adam. They are the ones whom the Deuteronomist blames for the catastrophe of the Exile, which is caused by their disobedience to the law. The “original sin” of Israel’s kings is the turning away from the Lord and going after other gods, a sin Solomon is the first to commit. 159. For ALONSO SCHÖKEL, Sapiential and Covenant Themes in Genesis 2–3, p. 474, “[t]he narrative of Gn 2–3 is simply the classical outline of salvation history. There is a minor pattern, that of the covenant. The benefits of God appear in historical prologue; then come the requirements in the apodictic form of blessing and curses. This minor pattern turns out to serve as the first of three or four acts in a drama: covenant, sin, punishment, reconciliation. In Gn 2–3 we have a perfect example of that larger pattern; the covenant sub-pattern is present only partially”. The basic theory was adopted an developed by LOHFINK, Siegeslied; VERMEYLEN, Paradis; BERG, Israels Land, der Garten Gottes; OTTO, Paradieserzählung; HUSSER, Typologie. 160. The account of the placing of men in the garden recurs twice, in vv. 8 and 15. However, the allusion to salvation history occurs in the resumption of the narrative in v. 15 with the verb ‫לקח‬. As Alonso Schökel points out, ‫ לקח‬is a verb of divine election; cf. Abraham, Gen 24,7; the Levites, Num 3,12; the people, Deut 4,20; David, 2 Sam 7,8; Solomon, 1 Kgs 11,37; Amos 7,15. See L. ALONSO SCHÖKEL, Motivos sapienciales y de alianza en Gn 2–3, in Bib 43 (1962) 295-316, p. 306. 161. On the prominent motif of “rest” (‫ )מנוחה‬in the Deuteronomistic history, see G. VON RAD, Es ist noch eine Ruhe vorhanden dem Volke Gottes, in Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament (TBü, 8), München, Kaiser, 1958, 101-108. 162. Cf. BERG, Israels Land, der Garten Gottes, p. 40: “Das Land ist nicht nur Bild, Symbol des Heils, sondern das Leben in diesem Land ist selbst ein Leben im Heil, oder, wie das Dtn sinngemäß öfters sagt: Nur das Leben in diesem Land ist ‘Leben’ (Dtn 6,2; 7,13; 8,1)”.

590

PART III – CHAPTER 9

This motif of idol worship appears to be prefigured in the snake of Genesis 3, who, notwithstanding its mythological origins, arguably evokes the role of the Canaanite cults in the history of Israel163. The symbol of the snake figured prominently in the Canaanite religion and must have been recognizable for the readers of the time (cf. 2 Kgs 18,2). The associations which it evoked form the basis of the polemic against the foreign cults: idolatry, feminine divinity, sexuality, prostitution164. The parallelism between the story of the fall of Adam and Eve and the history of Israel is apparent: the seductive power which the snake in the garden of Genesis exercises over the first couple anticipates and prefigures the seduction that the foreign cults would exercise over Israel and particularly over its kings in the land of Canaan165. Even the fact that Adam is seduced by a woman reflects to a certain extent the attitude of the Deuteronomist against the foreign women through whom the foreign gods enter into Israel, and who bring about the downfall of Solomon (1 Kings 11). Like Adam in paradise, the king must guard the Lord’s commandment in the garden-land of Israel. He is not to “acquire many horses for himself”, and “he must not acquire many wives for himself, or else his heart will turn away; also silver and gold he must not acquire in great quantity for himself” (cf. Deut 17,16-17). As noted above, Solomon, the royal Adam, famously transgressed all of these commandments. The key sin, however, which caused him to lose the kingdom, is reported in 1 Kings 11: King Solomon loved many foreign women along with the daughter of Pharaoh … from the nations which the Lord had said to the Israelites, “You shall not enter into marriage with them, neither shall they with you; for they will surely incline your heart to follow their gods”; Solomon clung (‫ )דבק‬to these (‫ )בהם‬in love (vv. 1-2).

In his old age Solomon transgressed the divine commandment and took foreign women. As Sonnet observes, “[l]’ironie veut que le bâtisseur du temple hébergeant l’arche et les dix paroles – et notamment la première d’entre elles: ‘Tu n’auras pas d’autres dieux face à moi’ (Dt 5,7) – soit devenu le bâtisseur de sanctuaires de dieux étrangers, aussi nombreux que les femmes étrangères aimées par lui (1 R 11,7-8)”166. By loving these women, the Bible informs us, Solomon “clung” (‫ )דבק‬to their divinities 163. The argument is well summed up by C. WESTERMANN, Genesis 1–11 (BKAT, I/1), Neukirchen-Vluyn, Neukirchener Verlag, 1974, p. 323. See also K. JAROS, Die Motive der Heiligen Bäume und der Schlange in Gen 2–3, in ZAW 92 (1980) 204-215. 164. HUSSER, Typologie, p. 21. 165. Ibid. 166. SONNET, Salomon, l’Adam royal, p. 158.

FOR SOLOMON THE MESSIANIC KING

591

in love (‫ ;אהבה‬v. 2)167. He thus perverted the original design of his Creator according to which man was to “cling” (‫ )דבק‬to his wife (Gen 2,24) and was to love (‫ )אהב‬the Lord his God (Deut 6,5)168. By contrast, Solomon’s “wives turned away his heart after other gods; and his heart was not wholly true (‫ )שלם‬to the Lord his God” (v. 4). Note the pun on Solomon’s name ‫שלמה‬. He has become his own counter-image. Like Adam in his garden, Solomon was the first of all the kings of Israel, to commit the “original sin” of going after foreign gods, a sin that would eventually lead to Israel’s expulsion from its paradisal garden-land. 3. Solomon the Ideal King (1–2 Chronicles) The construction of the figure of King Solomon as the ideal prototype of a messianic king in the latest redactional layers of 1 Kings 3–11 comes to full bloom in the books of 1 and 2 Chronicles169. While earlier scholarship scorned the Chronicler’s work as rendering a false, ideological, and therefore irrelevant history of Israel170, it is now generally accepted that the Chronicler had no intention of giving an account of the history of ancient Israel according to the modern understanding of historiography. To be sure, the Chronicler writes his book as history and in conformity with the demands of historiography171. Nonetheless, he writes it with his own conception of history (Geschichtsbild) 167. Since the suffix in the third person masculine plural (‫ )בהם‬in 1 Kgs 11,2 can only refer back to the just-mentioned gods, it is clear that it is Solomon’s love for foreign women that induced him to love the foreign gods. See also T. HÄNER, Salomo und das Lied der Lieder: Die Überschrift des Hoheliedes in kanonisch-intertextueller Perspektive, in BN 172 (2017) 13-42, p. 23. 168. See SONNET, Salomon, l’Adam royal, p. 158. See also ALONSO SCHÖKEL, Sapiential and Covenant Themes in Genesis 2–3, pp. 473, 475. With regard to the use of ‫ דבק‬and ‫אהב‬ in the covenant contexts see also WEINFELD, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, pp. 83, 333, 341. 169. As mentioned under I.3, above, p. 557, the term “messianic” is employed in the broadest possible sense. It is not reduced to an eschatological anointed savior figure, but refers equally to the hope of a concrete and political restoration of the Davidic monarchy in current history. Such a non-eschatological (understood as a definite irruption of YHWH into time) hope for a future Solomon-like king is expressed by the Chronicler. See S. JAPHET, The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and Its Place in Biblical Thought (BEAT, 9), Frankfurt a.M., Lang, 1989, p. 493. The Chronicler sees retrospectively in Solomon the perfect son of David, who therefore becomes the historical model for the “Son of David” yet to come. 170. Ibid., p. 1: “The earliest researchers of Chronicles wished to prove that the book had absolutely no value as an historical source and should therefore be ignored by any scientific account of Israel’s history during the First Commonwealth”. Foremost in that scholarly current were, as she points out, Wilhelm Martin Leberecht de Wette, K.H. Graf, and Julius Wellhausen. 171. See ibid., p. 444.

592

PART III – CHAPTER 9

in mind172. In fact, “[t]he Chronicler’s conception of history is – as not least indicated by the open end in 2 Chr 36:22 – oriented towards the future”173. By representing the reign of David and Solomon as the normative age of Israel’s history (contrary to the Deuteronomistic history, which bases the normative age on the patriarchs, the exodus and the conquest)174, the Chronicler envisions a future for Israel that will correspond to the “golden age” under the reign of Solomon175. 172. The view was first proposed and exposed by G. VON RAD, Das Geschichtsbild des Chronistischen Werkes, Stuttgart, Kohlhammer, 1930, and consequently adopted by scholarship. See, e.g., R.D. DILLARD, 2 Chronicles (WBC, 15), Waco, TX, Word Books, 1987, p. xix; and Y. KAUFMANN, History of the Religion of Israel: The Babylonian Captivity, New York, Union of American Hebrew Congregations, 1970, pp. 536-538. See VON RAD, Geschichtsbild, p. 2. 173. See the introduction by Erich Zenger to S. JAPHET, 1 Chronik (HThKAT), Freiburg i.Br., Herder, 2002, p. 9. 174. See ibid. 175. See MOSIS, Theologie, p. 121. Scholars disagree on how to interpret the Chronicler’s emphasis on David and his dynasty, and his stress on the immutability of God’s covenant made with David. It is debated whether the Chronicler’s idealization of the Davidic and Solomonic reign serves the expression of his hope for the coming of an eschatological anointed (messianic) redeemer figure, or the hope for the restoration of the immanent Davidic monarchy through a David or Solomon-like king who would restore Israel to its former glory and redeem it from foreign oppression. Many agree, however, that the Chronicler projects onto an ideal past his hopes for the future. In either case, the picture he draws of the Davidic-Solomonic reign serves as a prototype for the expected future king, be he a historical political or else an eschatological figure. For a messianic and eschatological reading of the Chronicler’s outlook on David or Solomon, see J. HÄNEL – J.W. ROTHSTEIN, Kommentar zum ersten Buch der Chronik (KAT, 18/2), Helsingfors, Scholl, 1927, pp. xxi, xliii-xliv; and VON RAD, Geschichtsbild, pp. 119-132; A. NOORDTZIJ, Les intentions du Chroniste, in RB 49 (1940) 161-168; A.-M. BRUNET, La théologie du chroniste: Théocratie et messianisme, in J. COPPENS – A.-L. DESCAMPS – É. MASSAUX (eds.), Sacra Pagina. Miscellanea Biblica Congressus Internationalis Catholici de Re Biblica. Volumen primum: Actes du Congrès International Catholique des Sciences Bibliques (Bruxelles-Louvain, 1958) = Handelingen van het Internationaal Katholiek Bijbelcongres (Brussel-Leuven, 1958) (BETL, 12), Gembloux, Duculot, 1959, 384-397; W.F. STINESPRING, Eschatology in Chronicles, in JBL 80 (1961) 209-219; R. NORTH, Theology of the Chronicler, in JBL 82 (1963) 369-381; and KAUFMANN, History, pp. 561-562. For a more political and immanent take on the Chronicler’s future expectations, yet modeled on the idealization of the DavidicSolomonic kingdom, see M. NOTH, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien I: Die sammelnden und bearbeitenden Geschichtswerke im Alten Testament (Schriften der Königsberger Gelehrten Gesellschaft, 2), Halle a. d. Saale, Max Niemeyer, 1943, pp. 221-222; MOSIS, Theologie, pp. 162-163; H.G.M. WILLIAMSON, Eschatology in Chronicles, in Tyndale Bulletin 28 (1977) 115-154; JAPHET, Ideology, p. 503. Other scholars deny the Chronicler an interest in the restoration of the Davidic monarchy but hold that his only interest is in the post-exilic Temple theocracy, the divine establishment of which was the real goal of the Davidic line. This view ultimately goes back to Wilhelm Rudolph’s theory of a “realized eschatology” in Chronicles, and was subsequently adopted and in various ways adapted by scholars such as: O. PLÖGER, Theokratie und Eschatologie (WMANT, 2), Neukirchen-Vluyn, Neukirchener Verlag, 1959, pp. 54-61; A. CAQUOT, Peut-on parler de messianisme dans l’œuvre du Chroniste?, in RTP 99 (1966) 110-120; BECKER, Messiaserwartung, pp. 75-77; P.R. ACKROYD, The Chronicler in His

FOR SOLOMON THE MESSIANIC KING

593

a) The Chronicler’s Typological Ages In a monograph on the theology of the chronistic history (ChrH), Rudolph Mosis has shown how the Chronicler typifies the history of Israel in three paradigmatic reigns, depicted consecutively in the reigns of Saul (1 Chronicles 10), David (1 Chronicles 10–29), and Solomon (2 Chronicles 1–9). The reign of each of these kings represents a distinct archetypal situation of Israel’s existence among the nations176. Saul is the archetype Age (JSOTS, 101), Sheffield, JSOT, 1991, pp. 252-272, especially 268-272; P. ABADIE, La figure de David dans les livres des Chroniques: De la figure historique à la figure symbolique. Contribution à l’étude de l’historiographie juive à l’époque postexilique, Paris, Institut Catholique de Paris, 1990, p. 161; W. RILEY, King and Cultus in Chronicles: Worship and the Reinterpretation of History (JSOTS, 160), Sheffield, JSOT, 1993; and R. MASON, The Messiah in the Postexilic Old Testament Literature, in J. DAY (ed.), King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar (JSOTS, 270), Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press, 1998, 338-364, pp. 358-363. According to KAUFMANN, History, p. 558, this view is, however, in discordance with the Chronicler’s eminent interest in the tribe of Judah (whose genealogy covers 2,3– 4,23 compared with the shorter space dedicated to the sons of Levi, 5,27–6,15) and the threefold repetition and reworking of Nathan’s promise as an unconditional promise to David’s offspring to be confirmed in God’s house and kingdom forever (1 Chr 17,14). The Chronicler does not portray ancient Israel as a “hierocratic cultic community”. In his account the monarchy is “a paramount gift of grace”, and although the institution of the Temple cult was “the crown and glory of their reign” it “is not exhausted in cultic function”. Israel’s kings are warriors whose battles and military exploits are recounted in detail. The Chronicler even gives accounts of battles that are not recorded in Kings (cf. 2 Chr 13,3-19; 14,7-14; 20,1-30; 26,6-8; 27,5). It was David, and not a priest, who founded the cult and drew up the blueprint for the Temple’s construction. Zadok is completely overshadowed by the figures of David and Solomon. Moreover, as JAPHET, Ideology, pp. 502503, points out, it is difficult to understand how the Chronicler should have envisioned the post-exilic Temple theocracy as a fulfillment of Nathan’s promise to David. In fact, the books of Ezra and Nehemiah depict such a very dark picture of the post-exilic times, with so many political, economic, social and religious problems, that it is hard to conceive the Chronicler would have wanted to glorify this state of affairs. The strongest argument against a “realized eschatology” and the idea that for the Chronicler the purpose of the monarchy has been exhausted in the construction of the Temple, has been made by WILLIAMSON, Eschatology. The Chronicler’s reworking of Nathan’s dynastic oracle leaves no doubt that “with the completion of the period of Davidic-Solomonic rule, the Chronicler intends his readers to understand that the dynasty has been eternally established” (p. 142). With the construction of the Temple “the promise was not exhausted, but rather … the completion of the [T]emple was a contributory factor to the establishment of the promise” (p. 142). This is further underscored by the Chronicler’s reworking of Solomon’s dedication prayer, which ends with a reminder of God’s promise to David “and the request that God will now go on to confirm that word of promise” (p. 144) (cf. 2 Chr 6,41-42); there is no indication that “the Chronicler intended to move away from any kind of royalist hope” (p. 146). This is underlined in the speech of Abija in 2 Chr 13,5-8, in 2 Chr 21,7 and 2 Chr 23,3, where “the Chronicler strengthens the allusion to the unconditional promise to the Davidic dynasty” (p. 148); and in 2 Chr 7,12-22, where “there is no hint of any sort that the dynastic promise would lose its validity” (p. 153). 176. See MOSIS, Theologie, p. 165. In the same vein, see also T. WILLI, Die Chronik als Auslegung: Untersuchungen zur literarischen Gestaltung der historischen Überlieferung

594

PART III – CHAPTER 9

of apostasy and failure, that is, Exile, whereas David represents the Chronicler’s own time of restoration, an effective preparation of future salvation. David’s reign, however, is not yet itself a period of perfection. It is rather preparatory of ultimate fulfillment, typified by the presentation of Solomon’s reign177. (i) The Reign of Saul The reign of Saul in 1 Chronicles 10 is recounted in such a way that the death of Saul and his sons and the Israelites’ ensuing flight from the Philistines results in an image of timeless typology178. To this end, the concrete historical and geographical details are blurred. The people Saul governs are idealized as “all Israel” (‫)כל ישראל‬, while Saul’s concrete failure remains inexplicit. The fate of the king, moreover, is mirrored in the fate of the entire people, as the people’s flight corresponds to the flight and death of the royal household (1 Chr 10,1-7). The intention of chapter 10 is not to give a historical account of the downfall of Saul’s house, but “to show in typecast clarity the relation between three entities: (1) YHWH; (2) Israel and its King; (3) the nations”179. Saul’s infidelity (‫ )מעל‬and failure to keep the Lord’s word (‫על־דבר‬ ‫ ;יהוה אשר לא שמר‬1 Chr 10,13-14) constitute a basic pattern of sin that the post-Solomonic kings will repeat (cf. 2 Chr 34,21; 35,14-15) thereby causing the downfall of the kingdom180. The story of Saul’s own downfall and the flight of the people from the land is in this way a proleptic prefiguration of the end of Israel and its kingship in exile and the nation’s loss of the land181. The case of Saul represents a fundamental historical possibility of Israel’s existence: if the ambassador of the people, the king, is unfaithful to the Lord, “YHWH delivers the royal house up to death and Israel loses the space of its historical existence through the hands of the Israels (FRLANT, 106), Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1972, pp. 160-169, esp. 165166: “Gerade wenn nach den letzten irdischen Ereignissen, die Offenbarungsqualität beanspruchen konnten, der Heimkehr aus dem Exil, dem Tempelbau und der Konstituierung der Kultgemeinde, die Gegenwart in den Schatten der Irrelevanz für Gottes Plan trat und die Prophetie erlosch, rückten ferne Vergangenheit und letzte Zukunft einander näher und konnten beide unter völliger Bindung an das geoffenbarte Gotteswort typisch gefaßt werden”. 177. See MOSIS, Theologie, p. 163. 178. See ibid., pp. 21, 29. 179. See ibid., p. 42. 180. See ibid., pp. 28-43. 181. See ibid., p. 42: “Die Schuld Sauls wird nicht an konkreten Beispielen vorgeführt, sondern in grundsätzlichen, theologischen Formulierungen thesenartig behauptet. Anschaubar werden allein die Folgen der Fehlhaltung Sauls: Jahwe läßt das Haus Saul zusammen zu Tode kommen; Israel verliert seine Städte, sein Königtum gerät in den Machtbereich der Philister und ihrer Götter”.

FOR SOLOMON THE MESSIANIC KING

595

nations”, here typified by the Philistines182. In short, the continued existence of the people and its kingship in the land allotted to them depends on the consistency and integrity of their relationship with YHWH183. This is the lesson the Chronicler derives from Saul’s reign. (ii) The Reign of David In fact, David’s reign is depicted as provisional and imperfect. Though all of his deeds are geared towards the ultimate realization of a perfect state of salvation for Israel, the fulfillment of this dream is left to Solomon. David’s reign thus reflects the concerns of the Second Temple period, whereas Solomon’s reign anticipates the future ideal situation for which the Chronicler and his contemporaries hoped184. The Chronicler has only one interest: the construction of the Temple as a place of rest for YHWH and his ark. This is the realization of the people’s salvation, the rest Israel herself is to find in the Promised Land (1 Chr 22,9). With the construction of the Temple, the blessings (Heilsgüter) of rest and peace will come about. From the way in which the Chronicler has selected and arranged his material, it is clear that David’s entire reign is oriented towards the realization of this salvation. David and with him all Israel know but one aim, according to 1 Chronicles 11–16: to bring the Ark of the Lord to Jerusalem. Both David’s anointing and the conquest of Jerusalem are subordinate to the aim of preparing a place for the Ark of the Lord. Nonetheless, though David prepares everything to bring about this goal, he is refused its fulfillment. Rather, the Ark remains in a provisional tent and the building of the Temple has to be left to Solomon. In this way, just as Saul’s reign had prefigured the Exile, so David’s reign in service of the Ark and all the help that YHWH granted him and Israel in order to overcome their pagan adversaries prefigures the state of postexilic Israel185. The Second Temple period was characterized by just this total dedication to the rebuilding of the Temple and marked by the experience of life among the nations – without, however, having attained the fullness of the salvation that Solomon’s reign and the First Temple epitomized. The Ark had not returned to the Temple, and Israel had not yet found rest from all its enemies in its own land. Just so, David’s reign as depicted by the Chronicler remains somehow provisional, a preparation that lacks 182. See ibid., p. 43. 183. See ibid. 184. See ibid., pp. 166-167. 185. See ibid., pp. 80-81. Among other features it is striking that Jerusalem needs to be reconstructed before the Ark can be transferred (1 Chr 11,8).

596

PART III – CHAPTER 9

completion. The tent erected for the Ark of the Covenant prefigures the “house of rest” for the Ark, while the purchase of Ornan’s threshing floor as the future place for the cult is the first step towards the realization of the future sanctuary. The fulfillment, however, is left to the future reign of Solomon. The post-exilic period shimmers through the Chronicler’s description of David’s reign in 1 Chronicles 17–29. Israel’s situation under the reign of David is depicted in a way similar to 2 Macc 2,4-9, according to which Jeremiah hides and conceals the Mosaic sanctuaries, the desert tent, and the Ark, until God gathers his people together again and shows his mercy. Then the Lord will disclose these things, and the glory of the Lord and the cloud will appear, as they were shown in the case of Moses, and as Solomon asked that the place should be specially consecrated (2 Macc 4,7-8).

This tradition reflects an understanding of the Second Temple itself as provisional. It cannot match the perfection of the First Temple as long as the Ark, the altar, and the desert tent are missing. The ultimate fulfillment as a restoration of the time of Moses and Solomon is, according to 2 Macc 2,4-9, expected for the future in a time when God will gather Israel and show his mercy. However, the deficiency of the Second Temple will be overcome when YHWH puts an end to Israel’s diaspora existence, and when the glory of the Lord will – just as on Mount Sinai and at the moment of Solomon’s dedication of the Temple – return to the Temple. In 2 Maccabees the time of Solomon, which brought back the glory of the Lord as known from the time of Moses, is typologically equated to that expected future time in which the Mosaic sanctuaries will be returned to the Second Temple, and the glory of the Lord and the cloud will appear, thereby giving the Temple its final perfection. This will also be the time of the ultimate gathering of Israel and the time of God’s mercy186. In harmony with the presentation in 2 Maccabees, the Chronicler reports that although David sacrificed on Ornan’s threshing floor, thereby instituting the future cult, “the Lord’s tent, which Moses had made in the wilderness, and the altar of whole burnt offerings at that time were in Bama in Gabaon” (1 Chr 21,29-30; cf. also 2 Chr 1,5). The decisive sancta, namely the desert tent and the altar of burnt offerings, are absent from the place where David instituted the future cult. This tradition seemingly considers the Second Temple as inferior to the First because the sacred vessels of the Mosaic times, the tent, the Ark, and the altar are 186. See ibid., pp. 121-122.

FOR SOLOMON THE MESSIANIC KING

597

withheld from it by divine dispensation187. Only Solomon will bring the Ark into the Temple and thereby cause the divine cloud to descend into and fill the Temple (2 Chr 5,2–6,2)188. Nonetheless, David’s and all Israel’s efforts for the construction of the Temple as a resting place for the Ark are a valid preparation for the fulfillment that will come about when God will grant Israel another Mosaic-Solomonic leader. (iii) The Reign of Solomon Contrary to a number of scholars who see the Chronicler’s account as a glorification of David alone, Mosis shows that the real focus of the Chronicler is not on David but rather on Solomon189. As it is depicted by the Chronicler, Solomon’s reign typifies the ideal historical existence of Israel. As the preview of Solomon in the David story and particularly the Chronicler’s reworking of Nathan’s promise (see below) show, Solomon is first and foremost the one who has been called and enabled by God to construct the Temple. Everything else concerning Solomon is subordinate to this one aim190. The purpose of the Chronicler’s report of Solomon is not to write an eulogy of an idealized individual. Rather, he depicts “das Bild einer geschichtlichen Konstellation der Existenz Israels vor Jahwe, das die Gegenwart Jahwes bei seinem Volk in der höchstmöglichen Vollkommenheit darstellt und Israel von allen Bedrängnissen befreit sieht”191. The gift of wisdom to Solomon in the beginning of his reign is intimately associated to Solomon’s main and most important governmental act: the construction of the Temple (cf. 1 Chr 22,9-12; see also Chapter 5)192. The time inaugurated by Solomon’s reign and Temple construction for Israel brings back the ideal time of Moses. Solomon receives his wisdom after having offered sacrifices on the Mosaic bronze altar at the desert tent (2 Chr 1,6-13). The construction of the Solomonic Temple follows in great part the blueprint of the Mosaic desert sanctuary193. The description of the descent of the glory of God into the Temple (2 Chr 7,1b.2) is formulated 187. See ibid., p. 127. 188. According to the Chronicler, the Temple came to replace the desert tent, and the cult offered to God on Solomon’s altar prolongs the one offered on Bezalel’s altar. See ibid., p. 130; and S. JAPHET, 2 Chronik (HThKAT), Freiburg i.Br., Herder, 2002, p. 70. 189. See MOSIS, Theologie, p. 162. See also CAQUOT, Messianisme, p. 116. 190. See MOSIS, Theologie, p. 162. 191. Ibid. 192. See ibid., pp. 130-135. 193. Huram-abi, the “skilled artist, endowed with understanding” whom Huram of Tyrus sends to Solomon, is described as a second Belzalel (2 Chr 2,6.12-13; cf. Exodus 31; 35). Though the Hiram mentioned in 1 Kgs 7,13 is already modeled on the image of Belzalel, the Chronicler’s description of Huram-abi has direct recourse to the template of Belzalel in Exodus 31; 35. See ibid., pp. 136-137.

598

PART III – CHAPTER 9

exactly according to Exod 40,34 and different from the description in 1 Kgs 8,10-11194. Fire from heaven consumes the sacrifices on the altar, just as Moses’ sacrifice had been consumed in the desert (2 Chr 7,1-3; cf. Lev 9,23; 2 Macc 2,10)195. The splendor of Solomon’s Temple underlines its ultimate perfection as a “return” of the Mosaic sanctuary (cf. 2 Chr 3,4– 5,1)196. All in all, the Chronicler treats Solomon’s Temple construction and dedication as equal to that of the Mosaic desert sanctuary197. Both sanctuaries, however, serve as types for the final Temple in the expected time of complete salvation for Israel, and therefore embody the future consummation that – according to 2 Macc 2,1-10 – was in the time of the Second Temple period still to come198. This “eschatological” character of Solomon’s reign is further underscored by the description of Solomon’s enormous wealth and the glory that Jerusalem enjoyed in his time, as well as the recognition the nations give to YHWH and his sanctuary. The same expectation is expressed here in prose as elsewhere it is expressed in prophecy, namely, the eschatological glorification of Jerusalem through the gifts of the nations, the end of all distress caused by the nations, and their confession of faith in YHWH199. b) Solomon the Son of David par excellence According to the tradition reflected in the books of Chronicles, Solomon outshines even David himself. While the image of David is glorified 194. See ibid., pp. 148-149. 195. See ibid., pp. 147-155. It is at the conclusion of the priestly ordination ceremony recounted in Lev 9,23 that the glory of the Lord fills the tent and fire consumes the sacrifices. Yet there is no mention of Moses praying at the time suggested by the tradition recorded in 2 Macc 2,10 according to which both upon Moses’ and Solomon’s prayer fire came down from heaven to consume the sacrifice. Moses is here depicted as a type for Solomon. By alluding to the same tradition the Chronicler expresses that in the Solomonic Temple the Tabernacle of the Lord from the time of Moses is represented. 196. See ibid., pp. 136-147. Among the many echoes to the construction of the Mosaic desert tent, the following are particularly striking. The stereotypical description of his construction activity with the twelvefold recurrence of ‫“( ויעש‬and he made”) is reminiscent of the priestly description of Moses’ construction of the desert tent, that is also introduced by ‫“( ויעש‬and he [Moses] made”) in Exodus 36. However, the nails mentioned in 2 Chr 3,9, absent from 1 Kings 6, play a role in the priestly description of the desert tent (Exod 26,32.37; 36,36). Similarly the fabrication of a ‫“( פרכת‬curtain”) recalls the description of the desert tent in Exod 26,31; 36,35. 197. In Solomon the cultic legacy of both Moses and David is united. See CAQUOT, Messianisme, p. 117: “Le Chroniste … fait gloire à Solomon d’avoir opéré entre les deux traditions la synthèse définitive à laquelle le culte de Jérusalem doit d’être ce qu’il est”. 198. See MOSIS, Theologie, p. 163. 199. See ibid., pp. 155-161.

FOR SOLOMON THE MESSIANIC KING

599

with respect to 1–2 Samuel, he is yet left with some blemishes. Yet the figure of Solomon is reworked in such a way that he appears as the perfect king, “pure and clean, without any stain and sin”200. Solomon typifies the son of David par excellence promised by Nathan: the one who was chosen to sit on the throne of YHWH’s kingdom over Israel (1 Chr 28,5); the man whom God granted the supreme blessing of rest from all his enemies around, and on whose account God granted peace (‫ )שלום‬and rest (‫ )מנוחה‬to Israel (1 Chr 22,9); the king who accomplished the work of salvation that David was impeded from fulfilling: the construction of the Temple as a place of rest for the Ark and thereby for YHWH himself (1 Chr 28,2-10; 2 Chr 6,41)201. Since the construction of the Temple brought about the perfected presence of YHWH with his people, the goods of salvation that were given to Israel through Solomon enjoyed an “eschatological dignity”202. With good reason scholars have claimed that the Chronicler presents us with the Solomon of his own messianic expectations203. (i) Solomon Surpasses David Solomon’s superiority over David in the Chronistic history is conveyed by their different treatment at the hands of the Chronicler. While the personage of David is indeed idealized in comparison to his depiction in 1–2 Samuel and 1 Kings, he is still not purified from all stigma. Two grave flaws continue to taint his image: the census to which David was tempted by Satan himself (1 Chr 21,1-17), and having shed blood which impeded him from constructing the Temple (1 Chr 22,8; 28,3), a fact that the Deuteronomist had struggled to explain (cf. 1 Kgs 5,17)204. The Solomon of the Chronicler, on the contrary, is without blemish. He is completely purged of any spot; all elements that could cast a negative 200. I. KALIMI, The Rise of Solomon in the Ancient Israelite Historiography, in J. VERHEYDEN (ed.), The Figure of Solomon in Jewish, Christian and Islamic Tradition: King, Sage and Architect (Themes in Biblical Narrative, 16), Leiden, Brill, 2013, 7-44, p. 41; S. JAPHET, I & II Chronicles (OTL), Louisville, KY, Westminster, John Knox, 1993, p. 48: “Solomon […] is indeed flawless, and several positive qualities are appended to his figure, such as his personal election, his special relationship with God, and the achievements in his time of ‘rest’ and ‘peace’”. See also DILLARD, 2 Chronicles, p. 3; and CAQUOT, Messianisme, p. 115. 201. To be sure, David gathered all the material necessary for the construction of the Temple (1 Chr 22,2-4.14-16), instituted the priests and Levites for the cult (1 Chronicles 23– 26), and gave Solomon the construction plan, but it is Solomon who carries out the actual construction, dedication of the Temple, and inauguration of the cult. 202. See MOSIS, Theologie, pp. 123, and also 163. 203. See, e.g., DILLARD, 2 Chronicles, p. 2; HAURET, Cantique; RENAUD, Salomon. 204. See the extensive argument against an idealization of David by JAPHET, Ideology, pp. 469-478, 478; and CAQUOT, Messianisme, p. 116.

600

PART III – CHAPTER 9

light on him are omitted. The entire story about his parents’ adultery prior to his conception (2 Samuel 11–12) is omitted as well as the subversive circumstances of his accession to the throne (1 Kings 1–2). Furthermore, there is no trace of Solomon having married foreign women or having been induced into idolatry by them (1 Kings 11). The blame for the falling apart of the two kingdoms is put entirely on Solomon’s son Rehoboam (2 Chr 10,1-19; 12,1.14). Solomon, on the other hand, is presented as the promised son of David who would build the Temple (1 Chr 17,11-15), a man of rest and peace (1 Chr 22,9)205. (ii) Nathan’s Solomonic Prophecy The Chronicler submits Nathan’s prophecy to a Solomonic re-interpretation by introducing some important amendments206. First, Solomon is from the outset indicated as the promised son of David. Second, in the Chronicler’s version of Nathan’s prophecy it is no longer the Davidic dynasty (i.e., house) that counts (cf. 2 Sam 7,16). The promise concerns instead the establishment of one of David’s offspring in YHWH’s own house and kingdom forever (1 Chr 17,11.14). Among all the sons of David there is only one son of interest: Solomon, not as a personality, but for the work he is chosen to complete. The object of Nathan’s promise includes “rest from all enemies around” (1 Chr 22,9) and the construction of the Temple as “the house of rest” for YHWH’s Ark (1 Chr 28,2). Solomon is put in opposition to David: what David was prohibited from doing, Solomon is granted207. The possibility of failure and YHWH’s consequent punishment is not mentioned. – Solomon the Promised Son of David In Chronicles, Solomon’s election is eminently associated with the construction of the Temple and the translation of the Ark into the Temple. In 2 Samuel 7 Nathan offers no clarification as to who of David’s offspring would build the Temple. Solomon’s name appears for the first time in connection to that prophecy in 1 Kgs 8,19-21, but there it seems rather the result of the circumstances that led to Solomon being the 205. See CAQUOT, Messianisme, p. 116. 206. Among the amendments, some appear minor. Thus, while in 2 Sam 7,13 the oracle proclaims that “he will build a house for my name”, 1 Chr 17,12 reads: “he will build a house for me”. Both texts have a divine promise to establish the throne of David’s offspring for ever. Cf. 2 Sam 7,13, “I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever”, and 1 Chr 17,12, “I will establish his throne” (notice the omission of “his kingdom”) “for ever”. 207. See MOSIS, Theologie, p. 122.

FOR SOLOMON THE MESSIANIC KING

601

constructor of the Temple. Yet this is not so in Chronicles. Solomon is the man chosen and predestined for the task by YHWH from before his birth (1 Chr 22,9-10; 28,6). Contrary to the Books of Kings where Solomon is no different from the kings following him and where only David stands out as a chosen ruler, the Chronicler attributes to Solomon a special divine election, even to the point of diminishing the value of David’s election and the dynastic promise. “Solomon succeeds to the throne and builds the Temple not only by virtue of his father and the promise (as the version in Kings would have it), but also because he himself was chosen by God even before he was born”208. In 1 Chr 22,6-16 David summons his son Solomon and orders him to build the temple in fulfillment of the divine ordinance. Doing so the Chronicler makes David give an account of Nathan’s oracle according to which YHWH himself had designated Solomon to be the son of the promise: Behold a son will be born to you, he will be a man of rest and I will give him rest from all his enemies around, for Solomon (‫ )שלמה‬will be his name, and peace (‫ )שלם‬and tranquility I will bestow on Israel in his days. And he will build a house for my name. He will be for me a son and I will be for him a father and I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel for ever. And now my son, may the Lord be with you, and may you be successful and build the house of the Lord your God as he has said about you (1 Chr 22,9-12).

Contrary to the account in 2 Samuel 7 and 1 Kings 1–11 where Solomon is identified a posteriori with the son predicted by Nathan’s prophecy (cf. 1 Kgs 2,15.24; 8,19-20), the Chronicler presents Solomon as predestined and chosen from before his birth to be the builder of the Temple, king of peace, and heir to an everlasting throne. From the mother’s womb YHWH himself has called Solomon by his name because he was destined to be a king of peace – as the Hebrew root of his name ‫ שלם‬indicates209. This vision of Solomon as God’s chosen instrument for the construction of Temple and heir to the throne receives an even more pointed emphasis in 1 Chr 28,5-7. While 1 Kings 1–2 give an extended account on the throne-succession rivalry between Adonijah, who according to the order of filiation would have been be the legal heir to the throne, and Solomon who succeeded in seizing the throne only through intrigue, the Chronicler 208. JAPHET, Ideology, p. 452. 209. This stands in clear contrast to 2 Sam 12,24-25 where it was not clear whether Bathsheba or David gave Solomon his name, and whether this name was to signify that Solomon had to be a substitute for the death of his older brother or maybe even for the deceased Uriah, or if the name was simply given in honor of the local divinity.

602

PART III – CHAPTER 9

gives a different version of the story. According to 1 Chr 28,5 God himself chose Solomon “to sit on the throne of YHWH’s kingdom over Israel”. In a last speech to the leaders of Israel, David tells them, “Of all my sons (for the Lord has given me many sons) he has chosen Solomon my son to sit upon the throne of the kingdom of the Lord (‫על־כסא מלכות‬ ‫ )יהוה‬over Israel”. In yet another relecture, David cites Nathan’s oracle, leaving no doubt that it concerned Solomon: “It is your son Solomon who shall build my house and my courts, for I have chosen him for my son, and I will be a father to him. I will establish his kingdom forever” (1 Chr 28,6-7). – Solomon on the Throne of YHWH While in 2 Sam 7,16 the divine promise is to establish David’s house and David’s kingdom for ever, according to the Chronicler it is no longer David’s but God’s own house and kingdom that is of concern. In 1 Chr 17,14 God promises David’s offspring that “I will confirm him in my house and in my kingdom for ever and his throne shall be established for ever (‫”)והעמדתיהו בביתי ובמלכותי עד העולם‬. It is now God’s house and kingdom that constitute the center of the prophecy. While the ensuing promise of an everlasting throne from 2 Sam 7,16 is repeated, the difference is that while in 2 Sam 7,16 this promise regards the throne of David, in 1 Chr 17,14 it is said of the throne of David’s offspring. Thus, while Nathan’s oracle in 2 Samuel 7 basically concerns David’s house, kingdom, and throne, in Chronicles, on the other hand, God’s promise concerns one of David’s sons who will be established in God’s own house and kingdom for ever and to whom he will give an eternal throne. In Chronicles one finds for the first time the concept of the “kingdom of YHWH (‫ ”)מלכות יהוה‬that later on will become so central to both Jewish and Christian thought210. In the theology of the Chronicler, “Israel’s kingdom and the kingship of YHWH are identical, and, at the same time, Israel’s kingdom is established through David’s sons. These two facets of kingship in Israel limit each other: the Davidic monarchy is still ‘the kingdom of the Lord’, and YHWH’s kingship is only realized by means of David’s dynasty”211. The “throne of the Lord” is an abstract way of referring to YHWH’s dominion over Israel, which is put into concrete political practice by means of David’s son Solomon. His “very kingship over Israel is 210. See JAPHET, Ideology, p. 397. 211. Ibid. On p. 398 she adds: “God promises David that his successor will act in YHWH’s capacity in His kingdom; thus, Israel’s monarchy and the kingdom of YHWH are identical, but David’s son must be appointed so that divine kingship can be put into practice”.

FOR SOLOMON THE MESSIANIC KING

603

equal to sitting on YHWH’s throne ‘as king for the Lord’ […] the king is God’s representative and executor of the functions of kingship”212. In Chronicles the kingdom of Israel and the historical Solomon are idealized and glorified to such an extent that Solomon is said to be sitting on the throne of YHWH’s kingdom over Israel. This notion is repeated five times, four times in direct application to Solomon and the fifth time concerning the sons of David in general (cf. 1 Chr 17,14; 28,5; 29,23; 2 Chr 9,8; 13,8)213. Thus, “Solomon’s kingship symbolizes the union of theocracy and monarchy: he is the representative of God on earth, as well as the king of the people and their representative in front of God”214. Contrary to the book of Judges (8,23) and 1–2 Samuel, the Chronicler sees no contradiction between divine and human kingship over Israel. Rather, the earthly monarchy “puts God’s kingship into practice here on earth”215. This is, in fact, a surprising view of kingship in the Second Temple period, during which the monarchy no longer existed. It is often claimed that a theocratic priestly ideal prevailed in that time. In marked contrast to that view, however, Chronicles not only elevates and glorifies the institution, it even “equates the monarchy with theocracy – the Israelite monarchy is YHWH’s kingship over Israel”216. (iii) Solomon Completes the “New Creation” Just as God in Gen 1–2,3 accomplished the work of creation by dominating the primordial chaos (waters) and ordering the cosmos, so also the King as God’s deputy on earth has the task of subduing Israel’s enemies, the paragons of chaos, and transforming the country into a peaceful resting place of the Lord. That is why the pinnacle of Solomon’s work is accomplished when the Ark of the Covenant, the symbol of God’s presence, takes her rest in the Temple. 212. Ibid., p. 400, with further bibliographical references. 213. Though several authors (i.e., Hänel – Rothstein, von Rad) base their claim that the Chronist idealizes David on the alleged fact that David sits on the throne of YHWH. In point of fact, however, the Chronist explicitly only mentions Solomon as sitting on the throne of YHWH. 214. KALIMI, The Rise of Solomon, p. 40. 215. JAPHET, Ideology, p. 402. 216. Ibid., p. 403. Simultaneously a “democratization” can be observed in Chronicles. By altering its sources the Book of Chronicles “tends to consider the people an active force in history, thereby eliminating the monarch’s position as exclusive representative. While for example in 2 Sam 6:12 David is said to have brought up the ark, 1 Chr 15:25 quickens to add ‘David and the elders of Israel, and the commanders of thousands went to bring up the ark […]’”. Ibid., pp. 417-418. For a good refutation of the opinion held by a certain scholarly current that the Chronicler sees the post-exilic theocracy as the ideal replacement of the monarchy, see ibid.

604

PART III – CHAPTER 9

The Solomon encountered in the books of Chronicles accordingly has only one task: to bring to completion the “new creation” of the kingdom of Israel that his father David had commenced. This entailed first a task similar to the planting of a garden, namely, a boundary had to be drawn that separates the sacred space from the primordial chaos. In the case of God’s chosen people this is the boundary of the land that separates Israel from the nations. Anything outside of Israel symbolizes the world of chaos, of “enemies” and “violent men” (1 Chr 17,9): “I will establish a place (‫ )מקום‬for my people Israel (‫ )עמי‬and plant them (‫ )נטעתיהו‬there; they will live there and not be disturbed anymore. Violent men will not oppress them again, as they did in the beginning … and I will subdue all your enemies” (1 Chr 17,9-10). This sacred space is a place of peace (‫ )שלום‬and order (‫ משפט‬and ‫)צדק‬. Once the space was prepared, that is, the people had been granted peace from all their enemies217, then the second task was to build a resting place for God so that he would return to dwell with his people. At this point the act of (re-)creation was complete (Gen 2,2-3; 2 Chr 6,41). According to the Deuteronomistic history, salvation will be complete when Israel enters into the Promised Land and receives the gift of “rest” (‫)מנוחה‬, an important biblical theologumenon, from all its enemies round about and at last dwells in perfect safety (Deut 12,9-10; 25,19)218. This state was realized under Joshua (cf. Josh 21,43), David (2 Sam 7,1.11), and Solomon (1 Kgs 8,56). Moreover, according to Deut 12,9-10, the Temple can only be built after Israel has been granted the gift of rest; hence David’s desire to build the Temple as soon as the Lord had granted him rest (2 Sam 7,1). Contrary to the Deuteronomist, however, the Chronicler avoids any association of David with the concept of “rest”. In his reworking of the material in 1 Chronicles 17 he is careful to omit the statement made in 2 Sam 7,1. The peace (‫ )שלום‬which explains the Midrashic derivation of his name ‫ שלמה‬is explicitly associated with this notion of rest (‫)מנוחה‬ (cf. 1 Chr 22,9)219. Only under the reign of Solomon is Israel granted the 217. B. GOSSE, Structuration des grands ensembles bibliques et intertextualité à l’époque perse: De la rédaction sacerdotale du livre d’Isaïe à la contestation de la Sagesse (BZAW, 246), Berlin, De Gruyter, 1997, p. 113: “Le don du repos au roi équivaut au don du repos au peuple tout entier”. 218. See VON RAD, Ruhe, p. 102. 219. The Chronicler knows about a time of rest under Asa (2 Chr 3,23; 14,4-6) and Jehoshaphat (2 Chr 20,30). However, in both cases the rest concerns only a restricted period of time, while the rest granted to Solomon is absolute and characterizes the entire era of his reign. See MOSIS, Theologie, p. 100.

FOR SOLOMON THE MESSIANIC KING

605

salvific gift of perfect rest in its own land. Neither David nor any other king of the post-Solomonic time can claim this for himself220. While it was already clear from Deut 12,9-10 that the Temple could not be built before Israel came into its rest, the Chronicler adds an important element. He explicitly associates Israel’s rest with God’s own rest by calling the Temple the place of rest for the Ark and YHWH (2 Chr 6,41). In fact the gift of rest that YHWH grants Solomon is not an end in itself. It is only the conditio sine qua non for the construction of the Temple which will serve as a “house of Rest” for YHWH (1 Chr 28,2). As Gerhard von Rad observes, “Nicht, daß das Volk zur Ruhe kommt, ist das Wesentliche, sonder daß Gott in seinem Volk zur Ruhe kommt!”221. Even more important than Israel’s rest, then, is that God should find rest with and in his people222. For this reason the Temple is built to provide a house of rest (‫ )בית מנוחה‬for the Ark, that is for YHWH himself223. This purpose becomes clear in the Chronicler’s reworking of Solomon’s prayer upon the dedication of the Temple. While in 1 Kgs 8,56 Solomon praises YHWH for having given rest (‫ )מנוחה‬to his people, the Chronicler omits this praise and replaces it with a slight re-elaboration of Ps 132,8-10, that summons YHWH to come to the place of his rest: “And now arise, O Lord God, and go to thy resting place (‫)לנוחך‬, thou and the Ark of thy might” (2 Chr 6,4142)224. 220. See ibid., p. 94. 221. VON RAD, Ruhe, p. 104 (italics in text). 222. See MOSIS, Theologie, p. 100. 223. In Chronicles, the Ark symbolizes the divine presence. This is evident from a number of factors. In 1 Chr 17,1-4 the connection is made between the dwelling of David in a house of cedars and the Ark of the Lord dwelling in a tent, for which David wants to also build a house. To this proposal God responds: “Thus says the Lord: You shall not build me a house to dwell in. For I have not dwelt in a house since the day I led up Israel to this day, but I have gone from tent to tent and from dwelling to dwelling” (1 Chr 17,4-5). David’s intention to build a house for the Ark is identified with building a house for the Lord himself. God’s answer shows that the presence of the Ark among the people was considered as God’s own indwelling presence with the people. This notion of the Ark as God’s symbolical presence in the Temple corresponds well with earlier biblical literature, where the presence of the Ark is considered as the physical presence of God in the camp (e.g., Num 14,42). In 1 Chr 28,2 the Ark is identified with God’s footstool, for which the Temple is the “house of rest”. According to JAPHET, Ideology, p. 78 this “affirms that YHWH is actually present, however insignificant the Temple may be in comparison to God himself”. The fact that the transfer of the Ark to the Temple, brings about the presence of God is signified by the divine cloud (‫ )ענן‬and the glory of God (‫( )כבוד־יהוה‬cf. 2 Chr 5,13-14). 224. Even if the waw is not understood as a copulative “and”, but explicatively or instrumental, namely “you, that is, the Ark of your might”, the citation of Psalm 132 would still indicate that symbolized by the ark, YHWH has found a resting place in the Temple, that is, in the midst of his people. Pace JAPHET, I & II Chronicles, p. 603.

606

PART III – CHAPTER 9

In constructing the Temple Solomon symbolically recreated paradise (see above, II.2.d, p. 582). The construction of the Temple symbolized the bringing about of a new creation in which the Lord would come to dwell with Israel and find rest225, that is, the restoration of the archetypal idea of primordial bliss226. As also mentioned above, in the Scriptures the Temple was perceived as a “reflection and recapitulation of the first temple in the Garden of Eden”227. According to interpreters of Genesis 1, the entire creation is one immense temple after the creation of which God rests (Gen 2,2-3)228, even if God rests spatially outside his temple-creation. In the same way, the building of a Temple signifies the restoration of creation and the provision of a divine resting place. In Chronicles (just as in 1–2 Kings) there is a great awareness that neither heaven nor earth can contain God (cf. 2 Chr 2,5; 6,18). Yet here YHWH is conceived as having chosen Israel for his dwelling place, and the Temple in particular229. In Chronicles the Ark is the symbol of God’s own presence. Therefore with the completion of the Temple, Solomon prays: “And now, rise Lord God to your rest, you and the Ark of your force; let your priests Lord God be dressed with salvation (‫ )תשועה‬and your faithful ones rejoice in goodness (‫( ”)טוב‬2 Chr 6,41). Salvation and goodness are loaded words in the Bible’s land theology. By employing these terms the Psalmist implies that the gift of salvation, symbolized in the gift of the land, comes to fulfillment when the Lord takes his rest in the Temple. 4. Solomon the Messianic King (Psalm 72) The most explicitly messianic Solomonic text is undoubtedly Psalm 72. The redactor(s) of the Psalter marked it as a prayer of supplication by David for his son Solomon (cf. Ps 72,1.20). At the conclusion of the Davidic Psalter (Psalms 51–72), the aging David (cf. Psalm 71) delivers his testament to his son Solomon in the form of a prayer. In it Solomon is portrayed as the definitive ideal universal king of peace, who is yet to come. Psalm 72 is a royal psalm, the primary version of which emerged presumably during the seventh century. According to Erich Zenger, the primary version comprised vv. 1b-7.12-14, and 16-17ab230. The psalm is a prayer 225. See BEALE, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, pp. 64-66. 226. See J. BLENKINSOPP, The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible (ABRL), New York, Doubleday, 1992, pp. 217-218. 227. BEALE, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, p. 66. 228. See ibid., pp. 60-80. 229. “Presence does not denote containment”. JAPHET, Ideology, p. 61. 230. See ZENGER, Beobachtungen; ID., Psalm 72, p. 312.

FOR SOLOMON THE MESSIANIC KING

607

of supplication to YHWH on behalf of the king or the son of the king. God is to give his justice to the king, so that he may be enabled to judge and save the poor (vv. 2-4; 12-14) and be the mediator of grace, whose reign will have a healing effect even on nature (vv. 5-7; 16-17). 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 12 13 14 16

17

Give the king your justice, O God, and your righteousness to a king’s son. May he judge your people with righteousness, and your poor with justice. May the mountains yield prosperity for the people, and the hills, in righteousness. May he defend the cause of the poor of the people, give deliverance to the needy, and crush the oppressor. May he live while the sun endures, and as long as the moon, throughout all generations. May he be like rain that falls on the mown grass, like showers that water the earth. In his days may righteousness flourish and peace abound, until the moon is no more. For he delivers the needy when they call, the poor and those who have no helper. He has pity on the weak and the needy, and saves the lives of the needy. From oppression and violence he redeems their life; and precious is their blood in his sight. May there be abundance of grain in the land; may it wave on the tops of the mountains; may its fruit be like Lebanon; and may people blossom in the cities like the grass of the field. May his name endure forever, his fame continue as long as the sun (NRSV).

Both the king’s judgement and the blessing of his reign will have social and cosmic effects. As such, it reflects an ANE royal ideology with NeoAssyrian traits231. The soteriological components, that is, the inauguration of the time of salvation by the Assyrian king on behalf of and with the support of the gods is transferred to the king of Judah and his relationship to YHWH. Much like the Assyrian God Aššur, YHWH took on the typical 231. According to ZENGER – HOSSFELD, Psalms 2, p. 205, “the psalm takes up Assyrian royal theology while maintaining an anti-Assyrian intention, something that happens, in comparable fashion, in the formation of the treaty-covenant theology of Deuteronomy, which was developed in Jerusalem at the same time and was also inspired by Neo-Assyrian texts and ideas”.

608

PART III – CHAPTER 9

characteristics and functions of a sun deity232. This primary version of the Psalm most likely had its Sitz im Leben in the liturgy of monarchic Judah. Scholars assume that during the Persian period the redaction responsible for the so-called “Davidic Psalter” (Psalms 51–72, see I.4, above, p. 560) purposefully set this Psalm at its conclusion233. The same redaction seems responsible for the insertion of the colophon of v. 20 at the end of this collection (“The prayers of David son of Jesse are ended”), simultaneously giving this Psalm a biographical note, while making it the prayer of the aging David (cf. Psalm 71) for his son234. A further and decisive layer of redaction, however, is detected in the insertion of vv. 8-11.15 and 17cd. 8 9 10

11

May he have dominion from sea to sea, and from the River to the ends of the earth. May his foes bow down before him, and his enemies lick the dust. May the kings of Tarshish and of the isles render him tribute, may the kings of Sheba and Seba bring gifts. May all kings fall down before him, all nations give him service.

15

May all nations be blessed in him; may they pronounce him happy. Long may he live! May gold of Sheba be given to him.

17cd

May prayer be made for him continually, and blessings invoked for him all day long.

It presumably dates to the same redaction that created the so-called “Messianic Psalter” (Psalms 2–89, see above I.4, p. 560) in the Hellenistic period235, enriching the Psalm with important traits of the Judean royal 232. See M. ARNETH, “Sonne der Gerechtigkeit”: Studien zur Solarisierung der JahweReligion im Lichte von Psalm 72 (BZAR, 1), Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz, 2000, p. 204; see also B. JANOWSKI, JHWH und der Sonnengott: Aspekte der Solarisierung JHWHs in vorexilischer Zeit, in ID., Die rettende Gerechtigkeit (Beiträge zur Theologie des Alten Testaments, 2), Neukirchen-Vluyn, Neukirchener Verlag, 1999, 192-219, cited in ZENGER, Psalm 72, p. 309. 233. See ZENGER, Psalm 72, p. 314. 234. While the colophon of v. 20 certainly refers to the entire Davidic Psalter (see HOSSFELD – ZENGER, Psalm 1–50, p. 30) it also marks this particular Psalm as a prayer of petition for Solomon. See ZENGER, Psalm 72, p. 317. See further RÖSEL, Redaktion, pp. 5255; and G. BARBIERO, The Risks of a Fragmented Reading of the Psalms: Psalm 72 as a Case in Point, in ZAW 120 (2008) 67-91, p. 90: “vv. 1a and 20 simultaneously form part of Psalm 72 and of the entire ensemble of Psalms 51–72”. 235. See E. ZENGER, ‘So betete David für seinen Sohn Salomo und für den König Messias’: Überlegungen zur holistischen und kanonischen Lektüre des 72. Psalms, in

FOR SOLOMON THE MESSIANIC KING

609

theology (or “messianology”)236. “As such [i]t stands within the overarching context of a redaction for which the theme of the nations, within the horizon of a royal theology, was very important”237. The middle verses, 8-11, extend the effects of the king’s reign to the sphere of “foreign politics”; they qualify “the king’s God given competence for dominion and saving as a universal reign over the entire earth (v. 8), and all the Kings // all the peoples of the earth”, who will show him reverence, and bring gifts and tributes (vv. 9-11)238. The passage is conspicuously rich in intertextual references absent from the earlier version of the psalm239. “Through the insertion of v. 8, [‘May he have dominion from sea to sea, and from the River to the ends of the earth’], the redactor brings in the (‘messianic’) royal ideology of Zech 9:9-10”240. Through the verbatim citation of Zech 9,10 (“his dominion shall be from sea to sea, and from the River to the ends of the earth”), the whole prophetic oracle of Zech 9,9-17 is alluded to. “This is indicated by the keyword ‫ שלום‬in Ps 72,7 that characterizes the content of the message of the king to the nations in Zech 9,10a (‫”)ודבר שלום לגוים‬241, as also by the characterization of the king as ‫ צדיק‬in Zech 9,9a, which corresponds to the theological program for the king in Ps 72,1-4242. Verse 9, “[m]ay his foes bow down before him, and his enemies lick the dust”), alludes to Mic 7,14-17, which is a supplication to YHWH, the royal shepherd, to tend his people and thereby cause the nations

I. BALDERMANN (ed.), Der Messias (JBTh, 8), Neukirchen-Vluyn, Neukirchener Verlag, 1993, 57-72, p. 69; RÖSEL, Redaktion, pp. 52, 174; HOSSFELD – ZENGER, Psalmen 51–100, pp. 314, 316; B. JANOWSKI, Die Frucht der Gerechtigkeit: Psalm 72 und die judäische Königsideologie, in E. OTTO – E. ZENGER (eds.), “Mein Sohn bist Du” (Ps 2,7): Studien zu den Königspsalmen (SBS, 192), Stuttgart, Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2002, 94-134, pp. 113114. 236. See ZENGER, Psalm 72, p. 315; and B. RENAUD, De la bénédiction du roi à la bénédiction de Dieu (Ps 72), in Bib 70 (1989) 305-326, and ID., Salomon, pp. 419-420. On the messianic nature of this redaction see further J. BOEHMER, Zu Psalm 72, in ZAW 26 (1906) 147-158; F. BAETHGEN, Die Psalmen (HkAT, 2/2), Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1891, p. 222. 237. See ZENGER, Psalm 72, p. 314. 238. See B. JANOWSKI, Stellvertretung: Alttestamentliche Studien zu einem theologischen Begriff (SBS, 165), Stuttgart, Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1997, pp. 48-49; ZENGER, Psalm 72, p. 311. 239. See ZENGER, Psalm 72, p. 313, who points to the following intertextual connections: “For v. 8 cf. Gen 15:18; Mic 7:12; Zech 9:10; and Pss 2:8; 89:26; for v. 9 cf. Isa 49:23; Mic 7:17; for v. 10 cf. Isa 60:9-10; Ezek 27:15; for v. 11 cf. Isa 45:15; 49:7, 23; 60:14; Mic 7:17; and Pss 86:9; 96:7–9; 97:7; 100:2”. 240. ZENGER, So betete David, p. 69. 241. Ibid. 242. See ibid.

610

PART III – CHAPTER 9

to be ashamed … [and] they shall lick dust like a snake, like the crawling things of the earth; they shall come trembling out of their fortresses; they shall turn in dread to the Lord our God, and they shall stand in fear of you (Mic 7,16-17; NRSV).

The latter verse (Mic 7,17) is again echoed in Ps 72,11, “May all kings fall down before him, all nations give him service”. Verse 10, “may the kings of Tarshish and of the isles render him tribute, may the kings of Sheba and Seba bring gifts”, recalls the visit of the Queen of Sheba to Solomon (1 Kgs 10,10), and in conjunction with v. 11 alludes quite explicitly to Isa 60,6.9-10.14, which enforces the theocratic and eschatological perspective243. With regard to v. 15, [l]ong may he live! May gold of Sheba be given to him. May prayer be made for him continually, and blessings invoked for him all day long,

which presumably dates to the same redaction, Zenger notably observes, “the king is, in fact, designed on the ‘model’ of the liturgist Solomon”244. Moreover, the “name theology” of v. 17ab (“may his name endure forever, his fame continue as long as the sun”) may have occasioned the insertion of v. 17cd (“[m]ay all nations be blessed in him; may they pronounce him happy”), which echoes the promises made to Abraham and Jacob in Gen 12,3; 22,18, and 28,14. Zenger comments, “Since Gen 12:1-3 is the first divine word of the Torah spoken to Abraham/Israel, the Psalm now takes on an eschatological dignity: the king now stands in service of the history of God with Israel, that once began with Abraham, and which is to bring together Israel and the nations”245. Through this allusion to the Torah’s first and most important promise, the redaction does in fact bestow the psalm with an “eschatological perspective”246. Finally, the doxology of vv. 18-19 and the superscription ‫“( לשלמה‬for Solomon”) are equally reckoned as going back to this early Hellenistic, messianic, redaction247. The attribution of the Psalm to Solomon is suggested by the many elements that connect it to the Solomon traditions of 1 Kings 3–10248. Ps 72,8-11 clearly echoes Solomon’s universal dominion as described in 1 Kgs 5,1-4, particularly enforced by concrete verbal links: 243. See ibid., p. 70. 244. See ZENGER, Psalm 72, p. 313. English translation in ZENGER – HOSSFELD, Psalms 2, p. 208. 245. ZENGER, So betete David, p. 69. 246. Ibid. 247. See RENAUD, Salomon, p. 420; ZENGER, Psalm 72, pp. 315-316. 248. In this regard ZENGER, Psalm 72, p. 317, points to the following parallels: “for v. 1 cf. 1 Kgs 3:5-9; for v. 2 cf. 1 Kgs 3:9; for vv. 5-7 cf. 1 Kgs 3:14; for vv. 10-11 cf. 1 Kgs 5:15-26; 9:10-14; 10:1-13”.

FOR SOLOMON THE MESSIANIC KING

611

the verb ‫“ רדה‬to have dominion”, the border indication ‫“ מנהר‬from the river”, ‫“ מנחה‬offering, tribute”, ‫“ עבד‬to serve”, and the motifs of “all kingdoms” (1 Kgs 5,1) and “all kings” (1 Kgs 5,4) being subjected to him. Furthermore, one can detect an allusion to the visit of the Queen of Sheba to Solomon in Ps 72,15. Zenger presumes that another factor that led to the Solomonic extension of the Psalm might have been the reminiscence in v. 2 of Solomon’s prayer for wisdom in Gabaon (1 Kgs 3,9), which is particularly strong in the LXX, where he prays for a listening heart “to judge your people in righteousness”. Finally, Solomon is granted a long life (1 Kgs 3,14, cf. Ps 72,5) and “riches and honor” (1 Kgs 3,13; cf. Ps 72,10.17cd). In this fictional prayer of David for Solomon the reign of Solomon takes on messianic traits. In comparison to 1 Kings 3–10, the reign of Solomon described in Psalm 72 is even more universalistic. While according to 1 Kgs 5,4, Solomon’s reign was limited by the Euphrates River and the border of Egypt, Psalm 72 portrays Solomon as reigning till the ends of the earth249. Ps 72,8-11 sketch a quasi “utopian Topography, the center of which is Jerusalem with its King”250. Solomon’s reign is reflected here as the prototype of the ideal son of David, who would inaugurate the universal reign of peace and bring rescue to the poor through the “justice” YHWH gives. “In this way Psalm 72 becomes a bridge to the other royal psalms, especially Psalms 2 and 89, but at the level of the completed Psalter also Psalm 110 and 132”251. As Zenger observes, “within the horizon of these psalms, Psalm 72 is implicitly set in the light of messianic hope; something that the Septuagint and the Targum of the Psalms, but also the New Testament reception of Psalm 72 will make explicit”252. By equating this desired ideal universal sovereign of peace with Solomon, the son of David, 249. See RENAUD, Salomon, p. 421. 250. ZENGER, Beobachtungen, p. 81. 251. See ZENGER, Psalm 72, p. 329. 252. See ibid. The LXX renders the title as Εἰς Σαλωμων which may, but not necessarily, have referred to the “messianic” Solomon; the rendering of the Hebrew jussives by the future in Greek, however, does give the Psalms a messianic perspective. The Targum makes Solomon the author who speaks in prophecy: “from the hand of Solomon, spoken in/as prophecy”. The fact that the Psalm is understood messianically is obvious from the Targumist’s expansion of Ps 72,1: “God, give your legal decisions the king, the Messiah, your righteousness give to the son of David, the King”. The Peshitta’s rendering of the Psalm as a prayer for Solomon is the most explicit: “A Psalm of David, when he had made Solomon king”. The entire ancient Jewish and Christian tradition is in accord with this messianic reading. See, e.g., Midr. Ps. 72; the commentaries of Rashi, Ibn Ezra, and Kimhi; furthermore Augustine (PL 41, 540-541); Jerome (PL 25, 565-566); and R. DEVREESSE, Le commentaire de Théodore de Mopsueste sur les Psaumes (I–LXXX) (Studi e Testi, 93), Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1939, pp. 469-477.

612

PART III – CHAPTER 9

the king whose certain coming the Messianic Psalter affirms and prays for, appears once again as an idealized Solomon who is yet to come253. 5. The Messiah, a Solomon-like Figure (Zech 9,9-10) It is debated whether Zech 9,9-10 depends on Psalm 72, or vice versa254. While Zenger (see II.4, above, p. 606) holds that “Ps 72,8 records the (‘messianic’) royal ideology of Zech 9,9-10”255, David Mitchell argues that Zech 9,10 “is the earliest messianic interpretation” of Ps 72,8256. The question of precedence obviously depends on the dating of the respective passages257; it need not, however, be resolved at this juncture. Both views hold that Psalm 72 and Zech 9,9-10 reflect a similar vision of a Solomonlike messianic figure. 9

10

Rejoice greatly, O daughter Zion! Shout aloud, O daughter Jerusalem! Lo, your king comes to you; triumphant and victorious is he, humble and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey. He will cut off the chariot from Ephraim and the war horse from Jerusalem;

253. See ZENGER, Psalm 72, pp. 307-309, 314-315, 316. On the messianic nature of Solomon’s reign as depicted in this psalm, see also BARBIERO, Psalm 72, p. 89. In addition, just as in Psalm 72 the reign of Solomon is seen as subordinate to that of YHWH (see vv. 1.5.18-19), so in Chronicles Solomon reigns in God’s own kingdom (‫ ;מלכות־יהוה‬see above, II.3.b.ii, p. 600). See further RENAUD, Bénédiction; MITCHELL, Psalter, pp. 250-253, and E.S. GERSTENBERGER, Psalms. Part 2; and Lamentations (FOTL, 15), Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 2001, pp. 67-68. Pace J.-M. CARRIÈRE, Le Ps 72 est-il un psaume messianique?, in Bib 72 (1991) 49-69. 254. For the dependence of Psalm 72 on Zechariah, see CARRIÈRE, Ps 72, pp. 67-68; and MITCHELL, Psalter, pp. 250-253. Mitchell regards the entire Psalter as a commentary on the eschatological vision of Zechariah. 255. See ZENGER, So betete David, p. 69. 256. MITCHELL, Psalter, p. 252. 257. While MEYERS – MEYERS, Haggai, Zecchariah 1–8, read this passage against the backdrop of Yehud under Persian Rule, K. ELLIGER, Ein Zeugnis aus der jüdischen Gemeinde im Alexanderjahr 332 v. Chr, in ZAW 62 (1950) 63-115, and Mathias Delcor date Zech 9,910 at the time of Alexander the Great’s expedition towards Syria and Phoenicia. In contraposition to the Macedonian conqueror, Zechariah announces a Solomonic messiah, who renounces to all warfare in establishing his universal reign of peace. See M. DELCOR, La paix et le messie juif, nouveau Salomon, en Zach 9,10, in XXV congreso eucaristico internacional 1952: La eucaristia y la paz – Sesiones de estudio, Barcelona, Huecograbado Planas, 1953, I, 331-334; cited in BARBIERO, Psalm 72, p. 90. More recent authors date the passage to the Seleucid period. See H. SEEBASS, Herrscherverheißungen im Alten Testament, Neukirchen-Vluyn, Neukirchener Verlag, 1992, pp. 53-66, cited in RÖMER, Messianismes, p. 23; and A. KUNZ-LÜBCKE, Ablehnung des Krieges: Untersuchungen zu Sacharja 9 und 10 (HBS, 17), Freiburg i.Br., Herder, 1998, pp. 199-242.

FOR SOLOMON THE MESSIANIC KING

613

and the battle bow shall be cut off, and he shall command peace to the nations; his dominion shall be from sea to sea, and from the River to the ends of the earth.

The prophecy announces the arrival of a “humble” king, who will put an end to war and inaugurate a universal reign of peace. The passage is generally accepted as referring to a genuine messianic, in this case, eschatological king258. To be sure, it makes explicit reference neither to the Davidic dynasty in general nor to Solomon in particular. Nonetheless, a number of elements overlap significantly with the Solomonic tradition. “His general demilitarization (cf. Mic 4,3-4; 5,9-10; Isa 9,3-6; Ps 46,10) corresponds perfectly to the aura of peace that surrounds the messianic Solomon, the pacificus”259. There are, of course, no points of contact with the historical Solomon. The idealized Solomon of the post-exilic time, however, can be recognized in this description, particularly through the citation of Ps 72,8: “his dominion shall be from sea to sea, and from the River to the ends of the earth”, which is itself – as we have seen – an echo of 1 Kgs 5,4. With good reason scholars have characterized this eschatological king as a “Solomonic messianic figure” which emerges here in contradistinction to the warrior messiah represented by David260. 6. Simon the Maccabee, a Solomonic Messiah (1 Macc 14,4-15) A properly eschatological messianism was born as a reaction to the Maccabees’ starkly immanent messianism, which claimed priestly and royal prerogatives for the ruling family, although they were of neither Davidic nor Zadokite descent. The propaganda written in their favor, 1 and 2 Maccabees, proves the existence of a strong political, worldly, immanent, messianic expectation of a Davidic-Solomonic savior who would restore the kingdom of Israel. In particular, First Maccabees presents Judah and Simeon with messianic traits and pretensions (cf. 1 Macc 3,1-9 and 14,4-15). They are depicted as having established an Israelite state that matched the biblical accounts of the united monarchy. Unveiling the dense biblical intertextuality at work, Michael Tilly shows how the last of the Hasmonean brothers was depicted as an ideal ruler in accordance with the Judean tradition261. In fact, a Davidic-Solomonic 258. See MEYERS – MEYERS, Haggai, Zecchariah 1–8, p. 123. 259. See RENAUD, Salomon, p. 421 (my translation). 260. See DELCOR, La paix et le messie juif, nouveau Salomon; cited in BARBIERO, Psalm 72, p. 90. 261. For all of the following, see M. TILLY, 1 Makkabäer (HThKAT), Freiburg i.Br., Herder, 2015, pp. 275-278.

614

PART III – CHAPTER 9

model has informed the depiction of Simeon. The conquest of the Akra is a central symbol of his perfect victory against the enemies within and without Israel (1 Macc 13,49-52; cf. 2 Sam 5,6-7), while the redemption of the now autonomous city and the reconstruction of the Temple are modeled on the earlier narrative of Judah’s cleansing of the Temple (cf. 1 Macc 4,52-58). Just like David and Solomon (cf. 2 Sam 5,9; 1 Kgs 3,1; 7,1-12), Simeon fortified the Temple area and erected his palace in its immediate vicinity. This account is followed by a praising of Simeon that makes him appear like a Solomon redivivus. 1 Macc 14,4-15 reads, 4

5 6 7

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

And the land had rest all the days of Simon, He sought the good of his nation; his rule was pleasing to them, as was the honor shown him, all his days. To crown all his honors he took Joppa for a harbor, and opened a way to the isles of the sea. He extended the borders of his nation, and gained full control of the country. He gathered a host of captives; he ruled over Gazara and Beth-zur and the citadel, and he removed its uncleanness from it; and there was no one to oppose him. And they tilled their land in peace, the ground gave its increase, and the trees of the plains their fruit. Old men sat in the streets; they all talked together of good things, and the youths put on splendid military attire. He supplied the towns with food, and furnished them means of defense, until his renown spread to the ends of the earth. He established peace in the land, and Israel was rejoiced with great joy. All the people sat under their own vines and fig trees, and there was no one to make them afraid. No one was left in the land to fight them, and the kings were crushed in those days. He gave help to all the humble among his people; he sought out the law, and did away with all the renegades and outlaws. He made the sanctuary glorious, and added to the vessels of the sanctuary (NRSV).

The rest that Judah enjoyed in the days Simeon was reminiscent of the rest granted to Israel under the reign of David and Solomon (cf. 2 Sam 7,11; 1 Kgs 5,18), particularly the description of everyone sitting “under their own vine and their own fig tree” – a direct allusion of the ideal time of

FOR SOLOMON THE MESSIANIC KING

615

salvation under the reign of the fabled king of peace (cf. 1 Kgs 5,5). The territorial expansion accomplished by Simeon is seen as the fulfillment of earlier biblical promises (Exod 34,24; Deut 12,20; 19,8; Isa 26,15; 54,1) and recalls the ideal extension of Solomon’s vast reign (1 Kgs 5,1). Just as 1 Kings and Psalm 72 depict Solomon’s reign, with his construction of the Temple, as an absolute golden age of peace, wealth, and abundant fertility, so does Simeon’s reign bring about a golden age for Judah in which the former promises of salvation appear fulfilled and restored. The last lines of the hymn (vv. 14-15) in particular connect Simeon’s active service of the holy places with Solomon’s total dedication to the Temple (cf. 1 Kgs 7,1-51; Isa 60,17; Hag 2,8)262. 7. The Messiah, a Son of David (Psalms of Solomon 17) The Hasmonean messianic pretensions and their decadent demise and increasing non-observance of the Torah provoked a messianic reaction from synagogue circles against the false Hasmonean messiahs (cf. PsSol 17,46)263. The Psalms of Solomon, particularly Psalm 17 and 18, presumably composed towards the middle of the first century B.C.264, testify to the stillexisting hope that the true Messiah would be a son of David. Thus Psalms of Solomon 17,21-26 reads, 21 22 23 24

Look, O Lord, and raise up for them their king, a son of David, to rule over your servant Israel in the time that you know, O God. Undergird him with the strength to destroy the unrighteous rules, to purge Jerusalem from the Gentiles who trample her down to destruction. In wisdom and righteousness to drive out the sinners from the inheritance, to smash the arrogance of sinners like a potter’s jar; to demolish all their resources with an iron rod; to destroy the lawbreaking Gentiles with the word of his mouth;

262. For this and the intricate intertextual allusions that cast Simeon as a savior figure, see TILLY, 1 Makkabäer, pp. 276-278. 263. “It was you, O Lord, who chose David as king over Israel, and you promised him that his descendants would continue forever, that you would not abandon his royal house. But sinners revolted against us because of our sins: they attacked us and drove us out. Those to whom you promised nothing, they violently stole from us, in their pride they flamboyantly set up their own royal house. Their arrogant substitution desolated David’s throne, and they did not glorify your honorable name”. For this and the following translations see R.B. WRIGHT, The Psalms of Solomon: A Critical Edition of the Greek Text (Jewish and Christian Texts, 1), London, T&T Clark, 2007, pp. 177-203. 264. See ibid., pp. vii, and 1: “Historically, the eighteen Psalms of Solomon represent the response of a group of pious Jews to the invasion and capture of Jerusalem by the Roman army under Pompey in the year 63 BCE”.

616

PART III – CHAPTER 9

25 26

to scatter the Gentiles from his presence at his threat; to condemn sinners by their own conscience. He will gather a holy people whom he will lead in righteousness; and he will judge the tribes of the people who have been made holy by the Lord his God265.

The close resemblance between this most prominent Psalm of the collection to Psalm 72 is the suspected reason for the collection’s attribution to Solomon266. While there is no direct reference to Solomon within the psalms, some traits of the expected Lord Messiah nonetheless allude to David’s most important son. In addition to the similarity to the petition found in Ps 72,1 to grant the king judgement and righteousness, there is an emphasis on the Messiah King’s wisdom to judge: “He will judge peoples and nations in the wisdom of his justice” (v. 29). Just as Solomon reigned over all the nations from the Euphrates to the border of Egypt, receiving tributes and their service (cf. 1 Kgs 5,1 and Ps 72,10-11), so the son of David which the Psalms of Solomon pray for “will have gentile peoples serving him under his yoke (PsSol 17,30). And just as “people came from all the nations to hear the wisdom of Solomon; they came from all the kings of the earth who had heard of his wisdom” (1 Kgs 5,14; cf. Ps 72,17), so the Lord Messiah “will have nations come from the ends of the earth to see his glory” (PsSol 17,30-31). The Messiah who “will be a righteous king over them, taught by God” is reminiscent of Solomon who received his wisdom from God “to govern/judge your people” (1 Kgs 3,9; LXX adds “in righteousness”). The Messiah will be a king of peace, “for he will not depend on cavalry and archers; nor will he need to finance a war; he will not place his hope on making war” (v. 33). While Solomon was indeed famous for his horses (1 Kgs 5,6), he never fought a single war, and for this reason came to be regarded as the king of peace par excellence (see above, II.3.b.iii, p. 603). In their prayer for an eschatological royal redeemer figure, the Psalms of Solomon evoke traits characterizing this Messiah that are deeply rooted in the Wirkungsgeschichte of the idealization of Solomon, as has been traced above. They are first-century-B.C. attestations to the fact that messianism in its eschatological configuration has been shaped by the evolving repercussions of the literary figure of Solomon and is associated with his name.

265. Translation taken from WRIGHT, ibid., pp. 187-191. 266. See ibid., p. 7.

FOR SOLOMON THE MESSIANIC KING

617

8. Summing Up In tracing the Solomon tradition over the different centuries, one can thus observe the shaping of two different trends in the Hebrew Bible and in the Jewish literature of the Second Temple period. One trend praises king Solomon to the point of creating an ideal and nearly blameless king, the vision of an idealized son of David, who is yet to come. He will sit on the Lord’s throne and inaugurate the universal reign of YHWH (as attested in the late phases of 1 Kings; Chronicles; Psalm 72; 2 Maccabees 14; Psalms of Solomon 17). The other trend (found in 1 Kings 11; Neh 13,26; Sirach 47) keeps the memory of Solomon the sinner alive, the one who through his marriage to too many and to foreign women committed the “original sin” of the kings of Israel, and thus caused the eventual downfall of the monarchy. The “two faces” of Solomon could not be more contrasting. One is shining with super-human brightness, the other is dark and shameful. The effect of this contrast, however, allows two figures of Solomon to emerge over the centuries, who can be differentiated with ever-growing clarity. The dark figure refers to the “historical” Solomon, the one who in spite of his having been the beloved of God (Jedidiah), eventually sinned and failed with catastrophic consequences for his people. Like Adam in his garden, he committed the one sin that was the origin of all future breaches of the covenant and that would lead to the expulsion of the people from their “paradise-land” towards the east. The other Solomon, the ideal king of peace, seated on the throne of YHWH, became the prototype of the expected Davidide, in whom Nathan’s promise to David of an eternal dynasty would finally be fulfilled. He would not only restore the kingdom of Israel to its former “paradisiacal” glory, but inaugurate the kingdom of God, a YHWH-given universal reign of peace, at the center of which God would reign through his king from Jerusalem over all the nations of the earth (cf. Psalm 72).

III. SONG OF SONGS WHICH IS

FOR

SOLOMON

One can detect the same contrasting faces of Solomon in the Song. They are almost as neatly distinguished as in the above-sketched traditions. Of the seven times that the name of Solomon appears, five have doubtlessly positive connotations (cf. Song 1,1.5; 3,7.9.11). The attribution of the Song to Solomon (Song 1,1), and the reference to his curtains (1,5) and preeminently his wedding (3,6-11) are references to Solomon in all

618

PART III – CHAPTER 9

his glory. While the title in itself is neutral, it can safely be assumed that the Song would not have been attributed to Solomon unless such an attribution carried a positive connotation. The reference to the curtains of Solomon in Song 1,5 evokes the curtains of the First Temple267, to which the Beloved compares her complexion. Solomon’s wedding, which takes center stage in the Song, is presumably the key passage that leads to a later more explicit “Solomonization” of the entire Song. It is here that Solomon appears without the faintest doubt as the main character of a wedding that takes place at the heart of Israel, in the royal city of Jerusalem, and which is replete with allusions to Israel’s history and liturgical language268. This passage combines allusions to the Exodus, the return from Exile, the construction of the First Temple, and the transfer of the Ark of the Covenant to the Temple, transforming them into a symbolic wedding of which Solomon is the shining bridegroom, while the Bride is not clearly identified (see Chapter 10). Yet the context of the Song, and in particular the waṣf sung in admiration of the bride which follows in Song 4,1-7, suggests that the bride is no one else than the Beloved of the Song, here described in tones that are reminiscent of both the country of Israel and the City of Jerusalem or Mount/ Daughter Zion (see Chapters 4, III.3, 6, IV.3.a, and 8, II, above, pp. 228, 339 and 492). The subsequent passage, Song 4,12–5,1, constitutes at once the conclusion and consummation of Solomon’s wedding and the high-point of the entire Song of Songs. This passage delivers another description of the Beloved (reminiscent of the Temple, the city of Jerusalem, and the Promised Land) as a paradisal garden, followed by the bridegroom’s (i.e., Solomon’s) descent into the garden. Given the explicit identification of the Bridegroom as Solomon in Song 3,11 and the innumerable allusions to the Promised Land, to the land of Israel, and to the city of Jerusalem in the description of the Bride, the whole cycle of Song 3,6–5,1 is highly suggestive of a messianic wedding similar to the one depicted in Psalm 45 (see Chapter 7, II, above, p. 449). The wedding is consummated with the Solomonic Lover’s descent into the garden.

267. In modern translations this reference is often emended to “Salma”, on the conjecture that the parallelismus membrorum would require another toponym in the second member in accord with Kedar in the first. This emendation, however, lacks any support in the ancient versions which unanimously read “curtains of Solomon”. It is, nonetheless, possible that the occurrence of the name Solomon in this place is owed to the “Solomonic redaction” (see Chapter 4, II.3, above, p. 194). 268. Pace ZAKOVITCH, Hohelied, pp. 173-174, who wants to read this passage as a Spottlied on Solomon.

FOR SOLOMON THE MESSIANIC KING

619

However, so as not to confound the Solomonic Lover/Bridegroom of the Song with the historical Solomon, sinner and womanizer, the other side of Solomon features also in the Song. Just as in the traditions of 1 Kings, Neh 13,26, and Sirach 47, here too the positive and idealized figure of Solomon is contrasted with the memory of the “real” Solomon. The late redactional addition of Song 8,11-12 gives an important clue for the correct identification of the Solomon of the Song. He is not to be mistaken for the Solomon who once ruled Israel and was the “Lord of a multitude” of women (Baal-hamon). Solomon’s “vineyard”, is a veiled allusion to his fabled harem that comprised the symbolic number of a thousand women, “seven hundred princesses and three hundred concubines”, who “turned away his heart after other gods; and his heart was not wholly true to the Lord his God” (1 Kgs 11,3.4). The Lover of the Song, an idealized king who unites in himself the figures of both David and Solomon, takes a clear distance from his historical type in Song 8,12. The harem and the thousand silver pieces that anyone would give for the possession of its “love”, he leaves to the “historical” Solomon. His own undivided love, on the contrary, belongs to Israel, his one and only vineyard (Song 8,12; cf. Isa 5,1). In the fitting words of SchwienhorstSchönberger, [d]er Freund des Hohenliedes distanziert sich von jenem Salomon, der sich den Frauen hingab und sie herrschen lies über seinen Leib (Sir 47:19f). Der Freund der Geliebten ist ein anderer Salomo, der wahre Salomo, der Geliebte Gottes. Wenn der Mann des Hoheliedes an einigen Stellen in eine salomonische Aura gerückt wird, dann ist damit jener ideale Salomo gemeint, der den messianischen König des Friedens repräsentiert, wie er in Psalm 72 anschaulich zur Sprache kommt269.

IV. CONCLUSION The Solomonic ascription of the Song is usually explained either by Solomon’s association with his many women, making him a kind of biblical “patron of love”, or else by his being the “patron of wisdom”, thereby unduly earning the Song its treatment as a wisdom book. The Song, instead, belongs to the genre of songs (‫)שירים‬, most of which are found in the Psalter. The ascription of the Song to Solomon should therefore be read in the light of the ascriptions found in the heading of Psalms, notably the two Psalms that have been attributed to Solomon with the exact same formula, ‫( לשלמה‬cf. Psalms 72; 127), a formula that is otherwise unattested in the 269. SCHWIENHORST-SCHÖNBERGER, Das Hohelied, p. 164.

620

PART III – CHAPTER 9

wisdom literature. Besides the commonality with the Song in the formulaic ascription and in genre, these two Psalms attest to a much broader spectrum of motifs that were associated with the name of Solomon. Psalm 72 recognizes in Solomon the prototype of the expected messianic king, while Psalm 127 closely associates Solomon with the Temple. The association of Solomon both with the Temple and Messianic Kingship has its roots in ANE royal ideology, which, as has been amply argued in Chapter 6, also gave birth to the Song. The same formulaic ascription to Solomon which opens the Song and these two Psalms (where neither Solomon’s wisdom nor his love affairs justify it) as well as the similarity in genre thus suggests an affinity in their respective Solomon connotations. Based on this observation, section II, above, p. 567, traced the contours of an ideal Solomon with proto-messianic traits that emerged with ever greater clarity during the Second Temple period. While the memory of Solomon’s dark side becomes a topos that recognizes in his oversized harem the cause for his later apostasy, the “original sin” of all the kings of Israel, a massive glorification and idealization of Solomon takes place contemporaneously. Part of the Solomonic tradition thus casts the image of a king with two faces. On the one side Solomon is depicted as “a messianic king” who “represents that which the king chosen by YHWH is called to become again”270. On the other hand, he is the royal Adam, and just like his progenitor he lost the garden-state entrusted to him, through womaninduced disobedience to the Lord’s commandment. The other part of the Solomonic tradition has expunged from memory any trait that could stain the figure of Solomon. Far removed from his actual historical person, this Solomon has been stylized into the figure of an ideal king, who acts as a model for the expected future (messianic) king. This ideal Solomon has informed part of the later messianic expectations and is associated mainly with the construction of the Temple, Israel’s rest from her enemies, the inauguration of YHWH’s reign and presence within Israel, and a universal reign of peace in which the nations recognize the God of Israel and worship him in Jerusalem. Many of the topics that the late Second Temple period associates with Solomon are echoed in the Song. The royal character of the Song leaps out from the first verses (Song 1,1-4), as it is replete with allusions to the Temple and its liturgy (cf. Song 1,17; 2,17; 3,6.9-10; 4,6.12-15) and to the city of Jerusalem both as the place of Solomon’s wedding (3,11) and as a personification of the royal bride (4,4; 8,8-10). The Beloved is at once described in images that are reminiscent of an ideal paradisal garden, 270. DE PURY, Salomon et la Reine de Saba, p. 235.

FOR SOLOMON THE MESSIANIC KING

621

the perfection of Israel as the Promised Land (Song 4,1-7.12-15; 6,4-6; 7,1-6), the city of Jerusalem, and the Temple. In symbolic images that are superimposed, the Solomonic Lover whose description resembles that of a divinity (Song 5,10-16), thus appears at once like a royal Adam who has reentered his garden paradise and like the divine presence that descended into the Temple in the days of Solomon. Even the nations, represented by the Daughters of Jerusalem, have recognized the uniqueness of this godlike Lover (5,9) and have joined the Beloved in her search for him (6,2). Finally, the core motif of peace (‫ )שלום‬that the tradition associates preeminently with the figure of the ideal Solomon, reverberates throughout the Song. The names of both lovers, Solomon and Shulammite, are Midrashic derivations from the root ‫שלום‬, the Beloved’s name ‫ שולמית‬mirroring the name of ‫( שלמה‬see Chapter 8). The eight occurrences of Jerusalem hint in the same direction. Yet, most importantly, though the Song appears to have no linear plot, the love story attains a denouement when the Beloved finally exclaims “Then I was in his eyes like one who found ‫( ”שלום‬Song 8,10). The peace that the Beloved finds in her Lover’s eyes is reminiscent of the peace and rest God granted Israel under the reign of Solomon. The peace that a Lover’s heart experiences in the possession of the other is made the symbol of that peace that Israel experiences in God’s indwelling presence. Thus, just as the Solomon traditions of 1 Kings, Nehemiah, and Ben Sira, so too the Song displays two different Solomons. The climactic statement of Song 8,10 is followed by two critical verses that take a clear distance from the “historical” Solomon, the husband of a thousand women (8,1112). This subscript is an important clue for the reader that the Solomon of the Song is not to be confused with the historical son of David, but evinces rather an ideal Messianic King of whom the historical Solomon was only a pale prefiguration. It is he who will restore Israel to the condition of a paradisiacal garden state of which Solomon’s kingdom had equally been a true but fragile foreshadowing. When the true Solomon comes to wed Israel, the divine presence will once again dwell within her and make her like one who has found ‫ שלום‬in his eyes (Song 8,10).

CHAPTER 10

SOLOMON’S WEDDING (SONG 3,6-11)

In this chapter and the following a concrete exegetical application of the symbolic-diachronic approach will be offered. As examples of a symbolic exegesis of the Song, two passages will be treated. One focuses mainly on the figure of the Lover (Song 3,6-11) and is the subject of this chapter, while the other, which centers on the Beloved (4,12–5,1), will be featured in Chapter 11. Both passages belong to the same cycle of cantos. Song 3,6– 5,1, the so-called “wedding of Solomon”, has the advantage of being recognized as a literary unity by a great majority of scholars. Moreover, this is the only cycle within the Song that indisputably thematizes a wedding. Song 3,6-11 depicts a procession on the day of King Solomon’s wedding, and in Song 4,8–5,1 the Beloved is consistently addressed as a bride (‫)כלה‬. Finally, Song 5,1 is universally considered to be the center of the Song, depicting the consummation of this wedding. Three major sections make up this chapter. Section one will treat the preliminary questions concerning the canto’s position within the Song, its text-critical and philological analysis, its poetic unity and structure, and the question of its presumable Sitz im Leben (I). Section two will give a close reading of Song 3,6-11 thereby allowing as much room as possible for the “love song” dimension of this canto (II). Section three will give a symbolic reading of the same passage against the background of the ANE and biblical comparative material (III). Section four will give a short conclusion of the resulting reading (IV).

I. PRELIMINARIES 1. Position within the Song The passage under study constitutes the first canto of the second cycle (Song 3,6–5,1)1. In Song 3,6-11 the wedding of King Solomon is described as the Beloved of the Song processes towards him2. Thereupon follows 1. See Chapter 4, II, 3, above, p. 194. 2. According to the extra-biblical evidence from Elephantine (fifth century B.C.), marriages were stipulated by contracts between the arranging parties. Neither from the Bible

624

PART III – CHAPTER 10

a waṣf, a song of admiration likely to have been sung by the bridegroom for the bride on the day of their wedding (4,1-7)3. Having praised her beauty, he recalls and repeats his wooing and call for her to leave her home – the den of Lions – to come towards him (4,8)4. In this context the epithet “bride” (‫ )כלה‬first occurs in the Song. Another description of her beauty follows (4,9-11) and the so-called “Garden Song” (4,12-15). She responds to his love by inviting the forces of nature and ultimately the Lover himself into his garden (4,16). The wedding appears to be consummated in 5,1 by his entering into his garden-Beloved, and the invitation to the friends to participate in a wedding banquet, that is, metaphorically, in the joys of their love (see Chapter 11, II, below, p. 740). In contrast to the other cycles, the love of the two protagonists of the Song is here seen in its social and nuptial dimension5. 2. Text and Translation 6

7 8

9 10

Who is this going up from the desert, ‫ן־ה ִמּ ְד ָבּר‬ ַ ‫ִמי זֹאת ע ָֹלה ִמ‬ like a column of smoke ‫ימרוֹת ָע ָשׁן‬ ֲ ‫ְכּ ִת‬ smoking with myrrh and frankincense ‫וּלבוֹנָ ה‬ ְ ‫ְמ ֻק ֶטּ ֶרת מוֹר‬ of all the powders of a merchant? ‫רוֹכל‬ ֵ ‫ִמכֹּל ַא ְב ַקת‬ Behold, the litter of Solomon, ‫ִהנֵּ ה ִמ ָטּתוֹ ֶשׁ ִלּ ְשֹׁלמֹה‬ sixty mighty men surround it ‫ִשׁ ִשּׁים גִּ בּ ִֹרים ָס ִביב ָלהּ‬ of the mighty men of Israel. ‫ִמגִּ בּ ֵֹרי יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬ All of them armed with sword ‫ֻכּ ָלּם ֲא ֻחזֵ י ֶח ֶרב‬ trained in warfare. ‫ְמ ֻל ְמּ ֵדי ִמ ְל ָח ָמה‬ Each one his sword on his thigh ‫ִאישׁ ַח ְרבּוֹ ַעל־יְ ֵרכוֹ‬ ‫ִמ ַפּ ַחד ַבּ ֵלּילּוֹת‬ against the terror in the night. King Solomon made a palanquin for himself ‫ַא ִפּ ְריוֹן ָע ָשׂה לוֹ ַה ֶמּ ֶלְך ְשֹׁלמֹה‬ from the trees of Lebanon. ‫ֵמ ֲע ֵצי ַה ְלּ ָבנוֹן‬ Its pillars he made of silver, ‫מּוּדיו ָע ָשׂה ֶכ ֶסף‬ ָ ‫ַע‬ its backrest of gold, ‫ְר ִפ ָידתוֹ זָ ָהב‬ its mount of purple, ‫ֶמ ְר ָכּבוֹ ַא ְרגָּ ָמן‬ its interior inlaid with love of the Daughters of Jerusalem. ִ‫רוּשׁ ָלם‬ ָ ְ‫תּוֹכוֹ ָר צוּף ַא ֲה ָבה ִמ ְבּנוֹת י‬

nor from the extra-biblical material is there evidence of a religious rite being celebrated. The marriage thus came about in a twofold process, the first inchoative, the second completing. A first and necessary phase was the betrothal. According to the ancient Jewish praxis the girl was already considered as married from the moment of her betrothal and was thereafter considered to be the man’s wife. The second and conclusive step was the actual wedding to which belong the ceremony of preparing, washing, and perfuming the bride, the wedding feast, the departure of the bride from her father’s house, and the escort of the bride to the groom’s house, and finally the beginning of the cohabitation. See A. TOSATO, Il matrimonio israelitico (AnBib, 100), Roma, Biblical Institute Press, 1982, pp. 84-100. 3. See BARBIERO, Song, pp. 144, 172-173. 4. For the translation of the ‫ אתי‬as “come towards me”, see WEIPPERT, ‘Veni de Libano, sponsa!’, pp. 347-348. 5. BARBIERO, Song, p. 143.

SOLOMON’S WEDDING (SONG 3,6-11)

11

625

Go out and behold, oh daughters of Zion, King Solomon ‫ְצ ֶאינָ ה ְוּר ֶאינָ ה ְבּנוֹת ִציּוֹן ַבּ ֶמּ ֶלְך ְשֹׁלמֹה‬ with the crown with which his mother crowned him on the day of his wedding ‫ָבּ ֲע ָט ָרה ֶשׁ ִע ְטּ ָרה־לּוֹ ִאמּוֹ ְבּיוֹם ֲח ֻתנָּ תוֹ‬ and on the day of the joy of his heart. ‫וּביוֹם ִשׂ ְמ ַחת ִלבּוֹ‬ ְ

3. Text-Critical and Philological Annotations V. 6 ‫מי זֹאת‬: ִ Instead of the translation “who is this?”, some have argued for “what is this?”, since the answer later in v. 7 indicates a thing, “Solomon’s litter”, and not a person6. In some cases ‫ זאת‬can, in fact, be used to designate the neuter gender as an abstract of generalization7. If that were the case here, the pronoun ‫“ מי‬who” would have to be understood instead as “what”, designating a thing, which in rare cases appears to be possible8. However, if the Hebrew ‫ זאת‬is intended to indicate a neuter, the correct interrogative pronoun would have been ‫מה‬. A drastic proposal was made by Rudolph who translated “who is this (fem.)”, but postulated that in an alleged version prior to an allegorizing redaction the answer to the question would have indeed designated the bride. In the present version, however, the verse referring to the bride would have been suppressed in favor of the bridegroom who has become YHWH-Solomon. The same allegorical interpretation would have added the words ‫( מן המדבר‬from the desert)9. There are, however, neither literary nor text-critical indications that support this solution. Within the Song the same question occurs also in Song 6,10 and 8,5, where it is evident from the context that the phrase ‫ מי־זאת‬refers to the 6. J.C. EXUM, Seeing Solomon’s Palaquin (Song of Songs 3:6-11), in Biblical Interpretation 11 (2003) 301-316, p. 302; WÜRTHWEIN, Hohelied, and RINGGREN, Hohe Lied, translate “what”. W. FRANKENBERG – C. SIEGFRIED, Prediger und Hoheslied (HkAT, 2/3,2), Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1898, and BUDDE, Hohelied, emend the text to ‫מה‬. Such an intervention into the text is not justified by any of the versions. For a detailed discussion of the problem, see P.B. DIRKSEN, Song of Songs III 6-7, in VT 39 (1989) 219-225. 7. See JOÜON-MURAOKA, §152 a. 8. See JOÜON-MURAOKA, §144 b. 9. See RUDOLPH, Hohe Lied, pp. 141-142: “Nach allen modernen Analogien bezieht sich V. 6-10 auf die Einholung der Braut durch die Freunde des Bräutigams […], und hinter V. 10 war in einer weiteren Strophe gewiß ursprünglich gesagt, daß die Braut in dem Tragsessel saß und daß der Bräutigam in der Hochzeitskrone sie erwartete oder ihr entgegenging. Als man aber – begreiflich genug – den Tragsessel auf die Lade Jahwes deutete, die ihren Einzug in Zion hielt (vgl. T und Midrasch), konnte man kein weibliches Wesen auf ihr brauchen, und wenn Jahwe mit der Lade einzog, konnte er nicht gleichzeitig in der Gestalt des Bräutigams wartend dastehen. Deshalb fiel diese Strophe der allegorischen Deutung zum Opfer”. If Rudolph’s conjecture is correct, then this would be a very early attestation of a symbolic reading according to which Solomon’s palanquin is the Ark of the Covenant. In that case this symbolic reading would, however, have been in the intention of the redactor.

626

PART III – CHAPTER 10

Beloved. The question “Who is this (fem.)?” in Song 3,6 appears, then, to be purposefully chosen. It announces the arrival of the Beloved, coming up from the desert in a nuptial procession. The translation must therefore be “Who is this?” as referring to a woman, viz. the bride10. ‫ימרוֹת‬ ֲ ‫ ִתּ‬appears otherwise only in Joel 3,3, where it designates columns of smoke. Note the similar ‫ עמוד עשן‬in Judg 20,40, i.e., the “column of smoke” rising from the burning of Gibeah11. The root of the word in question is possibly the same as in “palm tree”, ‫תמר‬, to whom the Beloved is likened in Song 8,712. Thus Keel proposes a connection with ‫תמ ָֹרה‬, ִ a palmshaped ornament that is found in Solomon’s Temple (1 Kgs 6,29.32.35), because the columns and pillars typical for monarchical Israel had capitals stylized with palm crowns13. In Middle Hebrew one finds the singular ‫“ ִתּ ְמ ָרה‬palmartig aufsteigender Dampf”14 or as ‫ת ָמ ָרה‬, ִ a pillar of smoke15. ‫ תימרות‬is described as ‫“ ְמ ֻק ֶטּ ֶרת‬smoking” (of myrrh and frankincense), a feminine singular, and must thus be construed as a plural of generalization, a feature which is mainly found in poetry and “seems to convey the nuance of generalization and indetermination”16. This is confirmed by the versions. The LXX translates στέλεχος, also used in Exod 15,27 and Num 33,9 to indicate the trunks of palm trees. Aquila reads ὡς ὁμοίωσις καπνοῦ, “as the likeness of smoke” (probably from a Vorlage reading ‫ כתמוּנה‬or ‫)כתמונות‬17. Vg translates virgula “pillar” and VL vitis propago “a vine’s sapling”. ‫ ְמ ֻק ֶטּ ֶרת‬is the pual participle of ‫ קטר‬which in the piel means “to make smoke”, i.e. “to make smoke offering”. This is the only occurrence in MT of the pual for this verb, “burn the food offerings”. In the piel, the verb use is always linked to sacrificial offerings burnt on the altar in a liturgical 10. A similar case is found in Isa 60,8 where one reads “Who are these (‫ )מי אלה‬that fly like a cloud, and like doves to their windows?”. Here the answer is understood from the context. It is the Israelites who are stirred up to return from the land of their Exile towards the land of Israel. See POPE, Song, p. 424. 11. See HALOT IV, 1726. 12. See ZAKOVITCH, Hohelied, p. 172. 13. See KEEL, Song, p. 126. 14. See J. LEVY, Wörterbuch über die Talmudim und Midraschim: Nebste Beiträgen von Heinrich Leberecht Fleischer (IV), Berlin – Wien, Benjamin Harz, 21924, p. 653a. 15. G.H. DALMAN, Aramäisch-Neuhebräisches Handwörterbuch zu Targum, Talmud und Midrasch, Göttingen, Pfeiffer, 1938, p. 445a. In Rabbinic Hebrew the root ‫ תמר‬appears both as a verb and as a noun, always with the meaning “to grow up tall and slenderly”, b. Pesaḥ. 26a (noun); b. Yoma 38a (verb); b. Ketub. 111b (verb). See ZAKOVITCH, Hohelied, p. 172, n. 138. 16. JOÜON-MURAOKA, §136 d, who points to its particularly frequent use within the Song. Cf. 1,9 ‫ ;רכבי‬1,17 ‫ ;בתינו‬2,9 ‫אילים‬, ‫ ;חלונות‬2,14 ‫ ;חגוי‬2,17 ‫ ;הרי‬3,6 ‫ ;תימרות‬5,5 ‫;כפות‬ 6,2 ‫ ;גנים‬7,14 ‫פתחינו‬. 17. See J.F. SCHLEUSNER, Novus thesaurus philologico-criticus sive lexicon in LXX et reliquos interpretes Graecos ac scriptores apocryphos veteris testamenti: IV, Leipzig, Weidmann, 1821, p. 87.

SOLOMON’S WEDDING (SONG 3,6-11)

627

context18. While the piel of ‫ קטר‬is never used to describe incense burning19, such is the case here with the myrrh and aloe. The LXX accordingly renders τεθυμιαμένη, from θυμιάω “to burn incense” or “to make an offering of incense”. Other versions read a vocalization ‫מ ְקּט ֶֹרת‬, ִ i.e. preposition + noun. Thus, Aquila: ἀπὸ θυμιάματος “of incense”, Vg: ex aromatibus “of spices”, and Onkelos: ‫“ מן קטורת‬of incense”. Similarly S: ¿ćäêÃã “of spice” or “of perfume”. In Rabbinic Hebrew the participle pual of ‫ קטר‬is used with the meaning “perfumed”20. Many modern translations are based on the Rabbinic usage and render ‫ ְמ ֻק ֶטּ ֶרת‬here as “completely filled with fragrance, completely filled with incense”21, or “fumigated with myrrh”22, or “perfumed”23. Given the clear reference to the sacrificial connection of ‫מ ֻק ֶטּ ֶרת‬, ְ however, translations like “perfumed” or “redolent” are too weak. In order to grasp this liturgical nuance, I translate it as “smoking with myrrh and frankincense”. V. 7 ‫ מטה‬denotes in nearly all instances a bed, a couch, or a divan; it can also refer to a portable bed (1 Sam 19,13.15.16). Thus the translation “litter” for a portable bed is appropriate24. This is also reflected in the versions LXX: κλίνη “couch”25; Vg: lectulum “bed”; S: Íéüï “litter”. The construction ‫ מטתו שלשלמה‬with the (pleonastic) possessive suffix on the noun which is explicated by a following genitival construction ‫ש‬+‫ל‬, is a late feature, found in Aramaic26. Within the Bible the construction occurs elsewhere only in the Aramaic of Daniel (cf. Dan 3,26; 4,23), and otherwise in Mishnaic Hebrew. Some scholars therefore judge v. 7a to be a later gloss to the hapax legomenon ‫ אפריון‬in v. 9, which would identify that loan-word as a carrying-chair, by the more commonly known Hebrew word ‫מטה‬27. The gloss would furthermore anticipate the role of King Solomon in vv. 9-11. 18. See D.V. EDELMAN, The Meaning of Qiṭṭēr, in VT 35 (1985) 395-404, p. 404. 19. See ibid., p. 400. Pace M. HARAN, The Uses of Incense in the Ancient Israelite Ritual, in VT 10 (1960) 113-129, pp. 116-117. 20. See ZAKOVITCH, Hohelied, p. 172. 21. HALOT III, 1094: “‫”קטר‬. 22. BDB 883 “‫”קטר‬. 23. POPE, Song, p. 426. 24. See also 2 Sam 3,31where ‫ מטה‬designates a portable bier on which the slain Abner is laid. 25. “Die Kline diente zum Schlafen, seit dem 7./6. Jh. in Griechenland (in Rom später) auch zum Speisen. Die K. war das wichtigste Objekt kostbarer Inneneinrichtung; sie gehörte ins Privathaus sowie in alle Räume, in denen gegessen wurde”. P. SCHMITT PANTEL – W.H. GROSS, Kline (κλίνη, Bett), in H. CANCIK – S. HELMUTH (eds.), Der Neue Pauly: Enzyklopädie der Antike, VI, Stuttgart, Metzler, 604-605, p. 604. 26. See JOÜON-MURAOKA, §146 f. 27. See M. HALLER, Die Fünf Megilloth: Ruth, Hoheslied, Klagelieder, Esther (HAT, 18), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 1940, p. 32; RUDOLPH, Hohe Lied, p. 139; WÜRTHWEIN, Hohelied, p. 48; MÜLLER, Hohelied, p. 36. BHK3 proposed to delete verse 7a as a gloss; so also

628

PART III – CHAPTER 10

V. 9 ‫ ַא ִפּ ְר יוֹן‬is a notorious crux, where all Semitic etymologies appear to fail28. Among the more important ancient versions one could cite LXX: φορεῖον “litter”, and Vg: ferculum “litter”. A “litter” or a “sedan-chair” fits in fact well with the portable bed (‫ )מטה‬mentioned in v. 7. The Targum interprets it as ‫היכל קודשׁא‬, “the holy temple”, which is one of four traditional interpretations in the Jewish tradition for the ‫אפריון‬29. Different Peshitta versions have ¿ćàËÆã (ed. Leiden), “tower”, and ¿ÚéÎÝ (ed. Walton) “chair”, the latter of which is also used in the Babylonian Talmud for “sedan chair” (Sanh. 109b[31]). The translation of the former reflects, with the Targum, most probably the already-recurrent allegorical interpretation of ‫ אפריון‬as “Temple”. Winckler30, followed by Jeremias, Ricciotti31, Robert32, and Nolli33, has proposed to emend the text to ‫א ֶפּ ֶדן‬, ַ (cf. Akkadian appadānu, “palace”) presumably a Persian loan-word (apadāna), “a columned hall”. The word ‫ ַא ֶפּ ֶד ן‬appears in Dan 11,45 where it designates the royal tents of the King of the North, probably Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Analogously then, in the Song it would refer to Solomon’s royal palace, the construction of which as described in 1 Kgs 10,18-20 is, indeed, reminiscent of Song 3,9-10. Robert, who also opts for this emendation, believes that an audience hall with the royal throne is intended. Following Joüon on this matter, Robert further argues from context that ‫ אפריון‬cannot be a synonym for ‫מטה‬, for one would not expect a litter to be first described by a common Hebrew word and then in the second instance by a rare and strange term34. However, the sequence of moving from a commonly known word to a more sophisticated loan-word is not unusual in the Song. We have a similar case in Song 4,12-13 where the Beloved is first called a garden by the common Hebrew term ‫ גן‬and subsequently a ‫פרדס‬, a Persian loan-word35. Furthermore, the emendation significantly rewrites the consonantal text without being supported by any of the ancient versions. Also, the ‫ אפריון‬is said to F. Horst, the editor of the Song for BHS. For a different opinion, see GORDIS, A Wedding Song for Solomon, p. 270; also ID., Song, pp. 22-23. 28. See RUDOLPH, Hohe Lied, p. 139. 29. See ShirR III.10 §3. 30. H. WINCKLER, Salomos Sänfte: HL 3,9-10, in ID. (ed.), Altorientalische Forschungen (1901), Helsingfors, Verlag von Eduard Pfeiffer, 1902, 236-238, p. 236. 31. RICCIOTTI, Cantico, p. 224. 32. ROBERT – TOURNAY – FEUILLET, Cantique, p. 148. 33. NOLLI, Cantico, p. 97: “un padiglione”. 34. ROBERT – TOURNAY – FEUILLET, Cantique, p. 148; JOÜON, Cantique, p. 184. 35. So also J. WINANDY, La litière de Salomon (Ct. III 9-10), in VT 15 (1965) 103-110, p. 105: “Mais n’est-il pas tout aussi naturel qu’une expression claire soit suivie d’un synonyme peu connu dont l’obscurité est levée par le fait même qu’il apparaît comme symétrique à la première?”.

SOLOMON’S WEDDING (SONG 3,6-11)

629

have a “mount” (‫ )מרכב‬made of purple, a word which implies transport, or voyage; it cannot be an element of a stable building36. Görg has proposed an Egyptian etymology based on the verb prj referring to the “pulling out” of the gods for their official apparition in the procession when coming out of the temple or the palace37. He considers the possibility that a Hebrew noun has been formed by affixing an ‫ א‬and ‫ ון‬to designate the instrument used by the king for his solemn parades, i.e., a kind of sedia gestatoria38. There is iconographic evidence for such litters or sedan-chairs39. Against this etymology it has been argued that the meaning of ‫ פרה‬narrowed in scope in Hebrew and the cognate languages to denote “the bringing forth of fruits”40. The proposal is, nonetheless, interesting, for it would undergird the associations of this “litter” with the ancient Götterwagen that will also be seen in the course of the symbolic exegesis (III, below, p. 669). The most probable explanation of ‫ אפריון‬is, in fact, that it derives from the Greek φορεῖον and is thus a loan-word in late biblical Hebrew, meaning “litter”, “palanquin”, or “sedan-chair”41. Already Jerome conjectures this 36. According to W.B. BARRICK – H. RINGGREN, ‫ר ַכב‬,ָ in TDOT, XIII, Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 2004, 485-491, p. 485, “the root rkb is found in all Semitic languages, always with the meaning ‘mount, ride’”. For similar use in the OT, see Lev 15,9 and 1 Kgs 5,6. For the same reason the proposal made by GERLEMAN, Hohelied, pp. 141-142, to identify ‫אפריון‬ as an Egyptian loan-word from “pr”, “ house”, cf. ‫פרעה‬, “the great house” whereby a preformative alef and the ending ‫ יון‬would have been added, is to be rejected. See GERHARDS, Hohelied, p. 38 and M. GÖRG, Die ‘Sänfte Salomos’ nach HL 3,9f., in BN 18 (1982) 15-25, who points out that the root-word pr lost the pronunciation of the r over the centuries. It is only attested to in cuneiform texts. For that reason Görg thinks it very unlikely that the word pr would have been taken over at a later stage into the Hebrew lexicon. He further objects that a word denoting a thing as common as a “house” should have been “polished up” to meaning throne-hall. 37. See GÖRG, Sänfte Salomos. 38. See ibid., p. 20. 39. See KEEL, Hohelied, p. 123, figs. 68, 69. 40. GERHARDS, Hohelied, p. 40. See ibid. for further proposals. 41. F. RUNDGREN, Tragsessel, Sänfte ‫אפריון‬, in ZAW 74 (1962) 70-72, p. 72. See also SCHLOTTMANN, Brautzug, p. 228. For a detailed analysis, see RUNDGREN, Tragsessel, pp. 7172. Also GERHARDS, Hohelied, pp. 39-40, who meticulously traces the phonetic development of the treatment of the Greek letter φ when assumed by loan-woards into Hebrew. Among the most important alternative proposals, the following deserve mention. Robert Gordis, from Sanskrit paryańka, Hindi pālkī, Pali pallanko, which was assumed into the Latin languages and English as “palanquin”. GORDIS, A Wedding Song for Solomon, p. 270. The weakness of this proposal is that one would have to assume that the k-sound has disappeared in the Hebrew, while the modern languages still preserve it. See GERHARDS, Hohelied, p. 41. It must also be noticed that Gordis’ proposal was motivated by the intention to prove that the entire passage, Song 3,6-11, stems from a historical wedding of Solomon, wherefore he could not do with the Greek etymology of the word. Geo Widengren conjectured an Iranian *upari-yāna, from Sanskrit upari “over” or “above” and yāna “vehicular”, “litter”, and which would have developed into *aparyan >apiryōn. See WIDENGREN,

630

PART III – CHAPTER 10

in his commentary on Isa 7,1442. The same meaning, “litter” or “sedan chair”, is testified to by the Rabbinic sources43. In Greek literature φορεῖον is found as early as Dinarchus, the last of the Attic orators (ca. 360-291 B.C.)44. To respect the Hebrew stylistic variation between ‫ מטתו‬and ‫ אפריון‬the present translation opts for “litter” in v. 7 and “palanquin” in v. 9. In v. 10 ‫ר ִפ ָידה‬,ְ translated here as “its backrest”, is a hapax legomenon and appears to derive from the verb ‫ רפד‬which in Song 2,5 is usually translated as “to support, to refresh”. In the cognate languages it always has the meaning of “supporting”45. This is also reflected in LXX ἀνάκλιτον “that which serves to recline on”, “back of chair”, and Vg reclinatorium, “the back of a couch” or “the seat in a chariot”. S translates ÀĀÙÎý which can mean “bedding, mattress” (cf. 2 Sam 17,28) or “bed“ (cf. Gen 49,9; 1 Chr 5,1; Ps 63,7)46. ‫מ ְר ָכּב‬: ֶ LXX: ἐπίβασις “a stepping upon”, “a means of approach, access”; Vg: ascensum “a climbing”, “ascent”; S: ÀĀÚêݏ “its garment”, “its covering”. The word ‫ מרכב‬occurs elsewhere in Lev 17,9 designating a “saddle” and in Lev 15,9 and in 1 Kgs 5,6 a “chariot”. The real difficulty of the passage is the meaning of the last colon ‫תּוֹכוֹ‬ ִ‫רוּשׁ ָלם‬ ָ ְ‫ר צוּף ַא ֲה ָבה ִמ ְבּנוֹת י‬,ָ which the versions variously render: LXX: ἐντὸς αὐτοῦ λιθόστρωτον, ἀγάπην ἀπὸ θυγατέρων Ιερουσαλημ “its interior was inlaid with stone, love from Jerusalem’s daughters”; Vg: media caritate constravit propter filias Hierusalem, “the midst he covered with charity Sakrales Königtum, p. 112. The composition would then mean something like “carried from above”. The word combination is, however, a mere conjecture and it has never been proven that the Sanskrit yāna has a corresponding word in Iranian. See RUDOLPH, Hohe Lied, p. 140. 42. See JÉRÔME, Commentaires de Jérôme sur le Prophète Isaïe. Livres I-IV (Vetus Latina, 23), Freiburg i.Br., Herder, 1993, p. 346.: “ΦΟΡΙΟΝ, id est ferculum sibi fecit Salomon, quod et in hebraeo ita legimus”. 43. See LEVY, Wörterbuch, p. 17; DALMAN, Aramäisch-Neuhebräisches Handwörterbuch, p. 36; M. JASTROW, A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature, II, New York, Pardes, 1950, p. 1147; ZAKOVITCH, Hohelied, p. 176. 44. See RUNDGREN, Tragsessel, p. 71; and R. HURSCHMANN, R., Sänfte, in H. CANCIK – S. HELMUTH (eds.), Der Neue Pauly. Enzyklopädie der Antike, X, Stuttgart, Metzler, 2001, 1210-1211, p. 1210. 45. See HALOT III, 1276. 46. See M. SOKOLOFF, A Syriac Lexicon: A Translation from the Latin, Correction, Expansion, and Update of C. Brockelmann’s Lexicon Syriacum, Winona Lake, IN, Eisenbrauns, 2009, p. 1673. For other conjectures see POPE, Song, p. 443 who proposes “‘bolster’, which may designate a long pillow for a bed, or a supporting piece in a structure or apparatus”. According to GERLEMAN, Hohelied, p. 120, who reckons with the description of a throne-hall, the ‫ רפידה‬would in this instance mean “a golden cover, a throne sheathed in gold leaf”. ROBERT – TOURNAY – FEUILLET, Cantique, p. 151 based on the meaning “ to spread out” for the verb ‫ רפד‬attested to in Job 17,13; 41,22, opt for something one stretches either under, i.e., a bed, or over something else, i.e., a roof or a canopy.

SOLOMON’S WEDDING (SONG 3,6-11)

631

for the Daughters of Jerusalem”; S: ĀÚ èã ÀĀäЍ ôً zÎÅ åáý{s “its interior inlaid with love from the Daughters of Jerusalem”. Only the VL deviates considerably: dorsum eius gemmatum stratum: fecit sibi charitatem a filiabus Israel, “its back strewed with jewels, he made for himself with the love of the daughters of Israel”. The antecedent of ‫ תּוֹכוֹ‬is not immediately evident. According to Joüon and Buzy it refers to ‫“ ארגמון‬purple cloth” and they point to a parallel in Exod 39,3 where in the description of the high priest’s ephod golden threads are woven into the purple (‫)בתוך הארגמן‬47. However, with the majority of the versions, exegetes agree that ‫ תוכו‬stands along with ‫עמודיו‬ ‫ רפידתו‬and ‫מרכבו‬, and that the pronominal suffix of ‫ תוך‬must also refer to the ‫ אפריון‬mentioned in v. 948. The subject of the entire sentence is Solomon (v. 9) and all the following objects (columns, backrest, mount, and the interior) are the direct object of the verb ‫( עשה‬v. 10a)49. Thus having described how Solomon made the pillars, the backrest and the mount, the poet now proceeds to explain how the litter’s interior was made. ‫ר צוּף‬,ָ a passive participle, is the only instance of the verb ‫ רצף‬in MT. However, the noun ‫ רצפה‬occurs in Ezek 40,17-18; 42,3; 2 Chr 7,3; and Esth 1,6, denoting a “stone pavement”, “flagstone floor”, or a “mosaic floor”. The Greek rendering of ‫ רצפה‬is not consistent. In Ezekiel it is always translated as περίστυλον, “peristyle”, “colonnade round the temple court”. As here, in 2 Chr 7,3 and Esth 1,6, LXX translates λιθόστρωτος “spread (paved) with stones”, “a mosaic or tessellated pavement”50. The same is found in the Syriac tradition. S renders ôً which is a 47. JOÜON, Cantique, pp. 189-190: “Cet emploi de ‫ תוך‬dans Ex 39,3 est remarquable: le milieu de la pourpre, c’est les mailles du tissu, à travers lesquelles on fait passer les fils d’or. Nous avons, si je ne me trompe, un sens analogue dans le Cantique: il s’agit d’une étoffe de pourpre dont le tissu a été orné par les filles de Jérusalem d’une sorte de broderie”. 48. See also ROBERT – TOURNAY – FEUILLET, Cantique, p. 152; KRINETZKI, Hohelied, p. 124; KEEL, Hohelied, p. 122; G. BARBIERO, Die Liebe der Töchter Jerusalems: Hld 3,10b MT im Kontext von 3,6-11, in BZ 39 (1995) 96-104; EXUM, Palanquin, p. 305; ZAKOVITCH, Hohelied, p. 173. Kjell Aartun, by contrast, holds it to refer back to the ‫מרכב‬. See K. AARTUN, Textüberlieferung und vermeintliche Belege der Konjunktion pV im Alten Testament, in UF 10 (1978) 1-13, p. 10. This seems rather unlikely for all the described subjects of v. 10 carry a third-person pronoun suffix masculine referring back to Solomon’s litter. 49. Pace ZAKOVITCH, Hohelied, p. 178, according to whom it is no longer the verb ‫עשה‬ but the verb ‫ רצוף‬that governs this colon, 10d. Though his translation makes the Daughters of Jerusalem the agent (“das Innere ausgekleidet mit Liebe von den Töchtern Jerusalem”), his interpretation mounts to the same result, “Der Dichter will anscheinend zu verstehen geben, der Fußboden des königlichen Tragsessels sei voller junger Mädchen gewesen”. 50. See also Josephus, B.J. 6.1.8 and 3.1 of an apartment whose pavement consists of tessellated work. The Midrash Esther Rabbah comments on the use of ‫ רצפה‬in Esth 1,6, “his house was paved (‫ )רצוף‬with precious stones and jewels”, see JASTROW, A Dictionary of the Targumim, p. 1495.

632

PART III – CHAPTER 10

denominative of ¿×óً, “floor laid with precious and semi-precious flag stones”. From the cognate languages it can be deduced that ‫ רצף‬means something like “to lay firmly against one another” (J. Arm., Syr. Arab.) or “to layer, to arrange, erect structures” (cf. the Akk. raṣāpu)51. The Hebrew passive participle ‫ רצוף‬is therefore rendered “inlaid” as in a tesselate work. This meaning is also reflected both in the VL: stratum “spread”, “strewed”, “scattered”, “laid out”, and the Vg: constravit “covered”, “paved”, “lined”. ִ‫רוּשׁ ָלם‬ ָ ְ‫אַה ָבה ִמ ְבּנוֹת י‬ ֲ has occasioned a great number of proposed textemendations, from exegetes who do not think “love of the Daughters of Jerusalem” to be a fitting material for constructing a palanquin [‫אַה ָבה‬ ֲ ‫]רצוּף‬. ָ However, the sentence does make sense without any emendations. Since cola a, b, and c enumerate the different materials out of which Solomon made his litter, wood from Lebanon, silver, gold, and purple, one might expect another costly material in colon d. One may indeed ask what could be even more precious than purple? Only ‫“ אהבה‬love”, against which all ‫“ הון‬wealth” is reckoned as nothing but scorn (Song 8,7)52. Thus it appears to be the poet’s intention to imply that while the palanquin’s essential parts are constructed with wood from Lebanon, silver, gold, and purple, its inside is inlaid with the most precious, but immaterial good: love. Of course, in “real” life a litter cannot be inlaid with love. But this is poetry, where exactly this freedom of expression and imagination reigns53. This view, however, is not shared by many54. A good number of commentators conjecture that the text must be corrupt and that the last two 51. HALOT III, 1284; H. TAWIL, Paved with Love (Cant 3,10d): A New Interpretation, in ZAW 115 (2003) 266-271, p. 267. 52. So also ELLIOTT, Literary Unity, p. 87: “in a listing of precious things, love is not misplaced as the final item”. She furthermore adopts a reading already proposed by Renan. According to this reading, “‫ אהבה‬with or without the definite article, can be understood throughout the Canticle either as an abstract noun (‘love’) or as a person (‘Love’). Here in 3,10d it would seem that ‫ אהבה‬should be recognized as an example of the rhetorical figure ‘synecdoche’, when the most central, interior place stands for the person of the Beloved herself”. Ibid., p. 88. Though the proposal of synecdoche merits consideration for the exegesis of the Song in general, it can here only be defended for the price of detaching the ‫מן‬ from the “Daughters of Jerusalem” as Elliot and others do. However, it is a proposal which considering the unanimity of the ancient versions cannot convince. 53. Against FOX, Song, p. 126, who holds “inlaid with love” to be “a pointless metaphor”. 54. Among those who share my view, see ZAKOVITCH, Hohelied, p. 178; BARBIERO, Song, p. 157; J. HOLMAN, A Fresh Attempt at Understanding the Imagery of Canticles 3:6-11, in K.D. SCHUNK – A. MATTHIAS (eds.), “Lasset uns Brücken bauen”: Communications to the XVth Congress of the International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament, Cambridge 1995 (BEAT, 42), Frankfurt a.M., Lang, 1998, 303-309.

SOLOMON’S WEDDING (SONG 3,6-11)

633

words of the verse, ‫בנות ירושלם‬, would belong to the following v. 1155. Graetz, for example, joins the remaining mem of the preposition ‫ מן‬to the preceding ‫אהבה‬, making it ‫ אהבהם‬and reading it as ‫אהבים‬, which he translates as “ebony”56. But since ‫“ הבנים‬ebony” occurs as a qere in Ezek 27,15, subsequent commentators have proposed to read ‫ הבנים‬instead of ‫אהבה מי‬57. Similarly, Gerleman wants to read ‫( אבנים‬stones) intending the little stones by which mosaics were made58. Keel has revived an old interpretation, assuming that the word ‫ אהבה‬denotes the decorative love scenery which embellished many litters from the inside. He suspects that the text originally read ‫“ אהבים‬love scenes”59. He gives good archaeological evidence for the presence of such love scene decorations in the ancient world, particularly on beds60. All the foregoing emendations are, however, text-critically dubious for lack of any support by the ancient versions61, which are unanimous in their support of the MT. The sentence as it stands is enigmatic but not senseless, and it fits in nicely with the previous verses. All the verses so far examined end with the expression ‫ מן‬+ two nouns in a genitive construction: 3,6d ‫ ;מכל אבקת רוכל‬7c ‫ ;מגברי ישראל‬8c ‫ ;מפחד בלילות‬9b ‫מעצי הלבנון‬. On the basis of this repeated pattern, there can be little doubt that ‫מבנות‬ ‫ ירושלם‬at the end of this verse is intended, at least on a poetic level, and must not be eliminated by emendations that are founded on mere conjecture. The question now becomes one of understanding the sentence. The LXX gives a literal translation: ἀγάπην ἀπὸ θυγατέρων Ιερουσαλημ, “love from Jerusalem’s daughters”, where ἀγάπην is perhaps an abstract for the concrete, “its interior inlaid, a love work of the Daughters of Jerusalem”, as first proposed by Buber and subsequently adopted by many62. However, 55. See, e.g., KEEL, Song, pp. 130, 135; MÜLLER, Hohelied, p. 37; HEINEVETTER, “Komm nun, mein Liebster”, p. 114; MURPHY, Song, pp. 148, 150; GARBINI, Cantico, p. 151; POPE, Song, p. 413. 56. Cited in RUDOLPH, Hohe Lied, p. 140. So also, Budde, Haupt, Kautzsch, Dussaud, Ricciotti, Wittekind, Miller, Haller, Siegfried, Gordis, Noller, JB. For the references, see RAVASI, Cantico, pp. 327, 135f.; and POPE, Song, p. 445. 57. See F. Horst, in the apparatus criticus of BHS. 58. GERLEMAN, Hohelied, p. 120; referring to the article by F. VON LORENTZ, Mosaik, in W. KROLL (ed.), Paulys Real-Encyclopädie der Classischen Altertumswissenschaft, XVI/1, Stuttgart, Metzler, 1933, 328-343. Also MÜLLER, Hohelied, p. 37. 59. KEEL, Hohelied, p. 126. 60. See ibid., pp. 125-26, with the illustration of a love scene on a bed from Ugarit (fourteenth cent. B.C.); according to him such scenes would have been found on the ivory discovered on the sight of old Samaria (ninth cent. B.C.); a Greek mosaic found near Paphos (Cyprus) depicting Aphrodite or Leda with a Swan. 61. For the same opinion see BARBIERO, Die Liebe der Töchter Jerusalems, p. 98. 62. See ibid., p. 97, with reference to Buber’s translation: “Ihr Inwendiges eingelegt, Liebesarbeit von den Töchtern von Jerusalem”. Likewise JOÜON, Cantique, p. 190; BUZY,

634

PART III – CHAPTER 10

such an understanding of ‫ אהבה‬as “love work” is unattested elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible63. Another solution is to read ‫ אהבה‬in an adverbial sense, “with love”, i.e., “related to the beauty of the work or the motivation and feeling with which it was executed”64. Thus already Luther, “lieblich” and Ginsburg “tessellated with love”65, “lovingly wrought” (RSV; Gordis)66. Barthélemy proposes the same solution and translates “son intérieur, incrusté (litt. patchworké) avec amour par les filles de Jérusalem”67. ‫ אהבה‬is, however, never used in the adverbial sense in the Song. Rather, ‫ אהבה‬is a key word in the Song, always denoting love68. It is much preferable to translate the Hebrew literally, “its interior inlaid with love”, and respect the metaphorical language. This solution finds support in a comparative study by Hayim Tawil of Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian royal building inscriptions. It has the great strength of making sense of the text as it stands without the necessity of an emendation, and is founded on archaeological evidence from the area. In a number of examples Tawil shows that the Akkadian cognate to ‫רצף‬, raṣāpu, is often found in expressions like arṣip(u) ušaklil(u), “I have constructed, I have completed” (the building) where it is “followed by the expression lalâ/lulâ mullû/šumlǔ ‘to fill with splendor/glamor/attractiveness’, namely, ‘to fill (the palace/ temple) with sumptuous decorations’”. Tawil adds that the Akkadian lulû/ lalû (v. ullû) can also connote “sexual attractiveness/charm and vigor”69. In the light of this evidence Tawil ventures to propose that, Le Cantique des cantiques, 1950, p. 110: “gage d’amour des filles de Jérusalem”. J. HERZER – C.M. MAIER, Asma Canticum Canticorum / Das Hohelied, in M. KARRER – W. KRAUS (eds.), Septuaginta Deutsch: Erläuterungen und Kommentare zum griechischen Alten Testament, Stuttgart, Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2011, 2029-2040, p. 2037, on the other hand, propose to understand the use of ἀγάπην here as an accusativus graecus, “in view of the love, which he expected from the Daughters of Jerusalem”. 63. Objection rightly raised by GERLEMAN, Hohelied, p. 139, and BARBIERO, Die Liebe der Töchter Jerusalems, p. 97, against Buber, Joüon, and Buzy. As a noun denoting “love” in the LXX, ἀγάπη occurs eleven times in the Song (2,4.5.7; 3,5.10; 5,8; 7,7; 8,4.6.7); in 2 Sam 13,15 denoting the “love” with which Amnon had desired Tamar; twice in Kohelet (9,1.6); thrice in Wisdom (Wis 3,9; 6,17.18) and once in Jeremiah where it denotes the love of Israel with which it followed God in the desert (Jer 2,2). 64. POPE, Song, p. 445. 65. Lutherbibel (1912), “Inwendig ist sie lieblich ausgeziert um der Töchter Jerusalems willen”. Ginsburg, cited in POPE, Song, p. 445; see further, RSV: “lovingly wrought”; MURPHY, Song, p. 148: “with love”; RAVASI, Cantico, p. 327: “con amore”; and TOB: “amoureusement”; WINANDY, Litière, p. 109: “avec amour”. 66. GORDIS, A Wedding Song for Solomon, p. 269, argues on the basis of Hos 14,5 ‫נְ ָד ָבה א ֲֹה ֵבם‬, “I will love them freely”, and renders the stich, “Its inside is lovingly inlaid by the Daughters of Jerusalem”. 67. See BARTHÉLEMY, Critique V, p. 894. 68. BARBIERO, Die Liebe der Töchter Jerusalems, p. 98. 69. TAWIL, Paved, p. 268.

SOLOMON’S WEDDING (SONG 3,6-11)

635

[t]he hapax ‫ רצוף אהבה‬may functionally be compared to the Akkadian standard sum up formula lalû/lulû mullû/šumlû. The poet would intentionally select this word which lavishly depicts the essence of the Song. He would thus deliberately use the architectural term ‫‘ רצוף‬paved, arranged’ with ‫ אהבה‬as a double entendre, in order to connote ‘love’ as well as ‘attractiveness, luxuriance’ i.e., ‘sumptuous decorations’ (= Akk. lalû/lulû/kuzbu)70.

Tawil’s proposal of translation then reads, “Its interior arranged/paved with sumptuous decorations”. This is plausible, except that if a double entendre is in fact intended, then the translation should save this and read, “its interior arranged/paved with love”. The remaining difficulty is understanding the preposition ‫ מן‬which is prefixed to the “Daughters of Jerusalem”. The versions vary. LXX renders it ἀπὸ, VL: a; Vg: propter; S: èã. Does ‫ מן‬indicate that the interior was inlaid with love by the Daughters of Jerusalem, in this case taking the ‫ בנות ירושלם‬as the agent of the passive participle ‫ ?רצוף‬Though grammatically this is not per se impossible, it is unlikely since Solomon is the agent of the entire sense-unit of vv. 9-10. He made the pillars, the backrest, and the mount of the litter (v. 10a-c) and also its interior, which is said to be inlaid with love (‫)רצוף אהבה‬. Two viable translations of ‫ מן‬are that of Vg propter “for the sake of”, and “of”, i.e. expressing “the idea of provenance: material from which something was made, cause, source or origin”71. In the latter case the translation must be “its interior is inlaid with love of the Daughters of Jerusalem”72. That solution is corroborated by both LXX and VL which both render “from the daughters” (ἀπὸ θυγατέρων; a filiabus). How that is possible will have to be considered in the exegesis. Reasons to emend the text are, however, not apparent. Had the sentence “inlaid with love of the Daughters of Jerusalem” been incomprehensible to the ancient Jewish interpreters, they would have probably not hesitated to correct or gloss it. That this is not the case is apparent from the witness of all the ancient versions examined. V. 11 ‫בּנוֹת ִציּוֹן‬: ְ Some Mss of the LXX, the Vg, and the Syro-Hexapla omit the vocative “Daughters of Zion”, while 4Q106 reads ‫בנות ירושלם‬ instead73. Possibly these Mss represent a different text tradition in which there is no mention of the “Daughters of Zion”. 70. Ibid., p. 270. 71. JOÜON-MURAOKA II, §133 e. 72. In agreement with BARBIERO, Die Liebe der Töchter Jerusalems, pp. 103-104. 73. See TOV, Canticles, pp. 200-201; PUECH, Cantique, p. 31. With regard to 4Q107, Puech proposes to read “Daughters of Zion”, but this cannot be affirmed with certainty because the parchment is too wrinkled to measure the exact width of the lacuna.

636

PART III – CHAPTER 10

4. Poetic Analysis a) Delimitation Song 3,6-11 is noticeably different from the other cantos. The rupture in subject and tone between this passage and the preceding search for the male-Beloved at night (Song 3,1-5), and the following description of the Beloved (4,1-7), has been deemed as “brutal”74. While the principal motif of the Song is otherwise the love between the two protagonists, their longing and searching for each other, and their mutual admiration, Song 3,611 is of a totally different kind. The style is different; it is the longest narrative passage in the entire Song; there is no dialogue between the lovers, no mutual praise. There is just the voice of a narrator or choir who by a question in v. 6 involves the audience and in v. 11 addresses the Daughters of Zion. The passage has therefore frequently been judged to be an “addition”75. The delimitation of the passage within the Song is fairly straightforward. The preceding passage, Song 3,1-5, ends on the adjuration formula which typically stands at the end of a pericope (cf. 2,7; 8,4)76. Up until 3,5 the Beloved had been speaking; now in 3,6 the voice of the narrator or a choir can be heard, “Who is this, coming up from the desert?” (cf. 6,10; 8,5)77. Just as in 8,5, here also, it serves as an opening refrain introducing a new scene, that of Solomon’s litter going up to Jerusalem. The end of the canto is just as easy to discern. The poet leaves us with the climactic image of King Solomon crowned on the day of his marriage. Thereupon another canto of a different kind starts in 4,1, a waṣf stretching to v. 7 which describes the beauty of the Beloved by praising different parts of her body. This delimitation is also confirmed in the Qumran Mss, 4Q106 and 4Q107, which in turn attest to the antiquity of the Masoretic division markers between Song 3,5 and 3,6, and 3,11 and 4,1 (see Chapter 4, III, above, p. 201).

74. R. COUFFIGNAL, Le glaive et la couronne, in RThom 84 (1984) 607-617, p. 607. 75. See, e.g., WINANDY, Litière, p. 103. 76. See Chapter 4, I.3.a, above, p. 172. 77. According to GERLEMAN, Hohelied, p. 138, it is the poet’s voice. According to J. LUZARRAGA, Cantar de los cantares: Sendas del amor (Nueva Biblia Española), Estella, Verbo Divino, 2005, p. 316 it is the Lover’s (Dôḏî) voice. RAVASI, Cantico, p. 307, and BARBIERO, Song, p. 142, are probably right in affirming that this is a voice with a function similar to that of the chorus in the Greek tragedies, a kind of accompanying song on the model of Ps 45, which is sung by the court scribe. However, as Luzarraga rightly points out, it is not decisive who is speaking; rather it is important that the question incites the contemplation of the bride.

SOLOMON’S WEDDING (SONG 3,6-11)

637

b) Poetic Unity The unity of the passage is not undisputed. A number of scholars want to detect two (either 3,6-8 + 9-11; or 3,6 + 7-11)78, or three (3,6-8; 9-10d; 10e-11)79, distinct compositions80. Regarding the origin of the poem’s different verses these are possible, since v. 6 is part of a refrain group, vv. 910 might be the remnant of an ancient chariot hymn, and verse 11 differs distinctly from the preceding verses in its meter. Moreover, the Masoretic tradition attests to a division between vv. 8 and 9 by the insertion of a sǝtumah (‫ )ס‬after verse 8. However, since Song 3,6-11 reflects a unified structure as a composition81, it is not evident what should be made of the Masoretic division already attested to in 4Q107 but not in 4Q10682. The poem is unified both by the subject speaking (the narrator or a chorus)83, as also by the three mentions of Solomon (vv. 7a; 9a; 11b). From a narrative point of view one coherent scene is described, a wedding procession of a bride towards her bridegroom on the day of their wedding. Moreover, Song 3,6-10 displays a unified poetic construction. Each of verses 6-10 ends with the same construction, ‫ מן‬+ a genitive construction. This feature lends a strong unity to the wedding procession that is being described. It is no longer present in v. 11, which thereby serves to distinguish it from the preceding verses as it moves on to a different image on the level of content. Verse 11 is, however, strongly united to the preceding verses by the presence of King Solomon, and the explicit mention of his wedding. It is thus clear, therefore, that the wedding procession and the sight of the groom belong together and that the procession approaches the waiting King. The following transcription highlights the poetic features described. 3,6d 3,7c 3,8d 3,9b 3,10d

mikkol ᾿bqat rôkēl miggibborēj¯jisrā᾿ēl mippaḥad bāllējlôt mē῾ǎẓēj hallebānôn mibbenôt jerûshālāim

78. ZAKOVITCH, Hohelied, p. 170: “V 6 steht für sich, er bildet nicht die Einleitung zu V 7-11, denn die Frage ‘Wer ist es, die…’ verlangt als Antwort eine Person, nicht einen Gegenstand (obwohl die Vokabel für ‘Bett’ feminin ist)”. 79. KEEL, Hohelied, pp. 118-129. 80. For two compositions see, e.g., GERLEMAN, Hohelied, pp. 134-143, who wants to strictly separate the description of the procession from the wedding; for three see KRINETZKI, Hohelied, pp. 118-132 and KEEL, Song, pp. 118-129. 81. See BARBIERO, Song, p. 143 whose argument is adopted here. So also RUDOLPH, Hohe Lied, pp. 138-139; RAVASI, Cantico, pp. 305-306. 82. See PUECH, Cantique, p. 31, 83. See BARBIERO, Song, p. 142.

638

PART III – CHAPTER 10

Verse 11 is, nonetheless, set apart from the preceding six verses. Unlike vv. 6-10, each of which consists of rather short cola of two to five words, v. 11 consists of three cola, of which the first two have six words each. Though there is still too little known about Hebrew meter to make a general judgement on its functioning in the Song as a whole, it is, however, obvious that the rhythm of v. 11 is very different from that of the preceding verses. Furthermore, both 11a and b begin with two words of equal phonetic ending in âh, while cola a, b, and c end in ô. This is reinforced by an accumulation of the third person singular endings (4×). The following transcription highlights the poetic features described. v. 11a ‫ ְצ ֶאינָ ה ְוּר ֶאינָ ה ְבּנוֹת ִציּוֹן ַבּ ֶמּ ֶלְך ְשׁל ֹמֹה‬ṣᵉ᾿ênāh ûrᵉ᾿ênāh bᵉnôṯ ṣı̂ôn bammeleḵ šᵉlōmōh v. 11b ‫ ָבּ ֲע ָט ָרה ֶשׁ ִע ְטּ ָרה־לּוֹ ִאמּוֹ‬bā῾ᵃṭārāh še῾iṭṭᵉrāh-lô ᾿immô bᵉyôm ḥᵃṯunnāṯô v. 11c ‫וּביוֹם ִשׂ ְמ ַחת ִלבּוֹ‬ ְ ûḇᵉyôm śimḥaṯ libbô

In spite of this metric difference, however, it is clear that Song 3,6-11 represents a unified whole, held together by the figure of Solomon whose wedding it describes. c) Strophe Division With a number of scholars I distinguish four strophes: I: 6; II: 7-8; III: 9-10; IV: 1184. As an opening question the mi-zôt refrain marks the beginning of a new song and prepares the reader/hearer for a new scene. What follows is the description of a nuptial procession coming up from the desert (v. 6). Thereupon a litter with its entourage is described (vv. 7-8). In the third strophe there is a close-up of the litter and its construction which is explained in detail (vv. 9-10). The fourth strophe (v. 11) focuses entirely on the bridegroom with his crown on the joyful day of his marriage. The canto has for that reason frequently been referred to as “Solomon’s wedding”85. The whole scene has a climactic structure86. From afar someone is detected coming up from the desert (v. 6). In a cloud smoking with myrrh 84. SCHLOTTMANN, Brautzug, p. 211; RUDOLPH, Hohe Lied, p. 139; HEINEVETTER, “Komm nun, mein Liebster”, p. 109; RAVASI, Cantico, p. 306; BARBIERO, Song, pp. 142-143. 85. Cf. e.g. SCHLOTTMANN, Brautzug, p. 215. “Dass übrigens hier die öffentlich Hochzeitsfeier des Salomo und der Sulamith gemeint sei, ist auch von fast sämmtlichen Vertretern der Jacobi’schen Hypothese festgehalten worden, nach welcher eine Entführung der Sulamith in den Harem des Salomo stattgefunden haben soll. Sie mussten darin freilich lediglich den Gipfelpunkt der vermeintlichen Angriffe des Königs auf die Treue Sulamith’s erblicken”. 86. Pace BARBIERO, Song, p. 143, who wants to recognize a chiastic structure, vv. 6 and 11 being the dialogical frame around the two central strophes (vv. 7-8; 9-10) which

SOLOMON’S WEDDING (SONG 3,6-11)

639

and frankincense Solomon’s litter is identified (v. 7) with an escort surrounding it (v. 8). The picture is frozen for a moment and the litter is described in great detail (vv. 9-10), whereupon the poet moves the eyes of the spectator even further up. From below whence the bride approaches, from the desert, the view is taken up to Mount Zion where King Solomon stands crowned to be admired by the Daughters of Zion. Because there is such a strong upward movement it is misleading to call the description of the litter “the central strophes”. The poem has more of a peak in v. 11 than a center in vv. 7-10, even if the description of the litter is granted a certain epic broadness. The poet clearly wants to move the eye of the observer to the climactic sight of Solomon with his crown on the day of his wedding. Verse 6 asks a question about someone going up from the desert, vv. 7-10 describe this one going up, and verse 11 designates the goal intended in v. 6. d) Narrative Structure The narrative structure of the passage corresponds to the strophe division87. A voice asking “Who is this?” introduces the vision of a cortège, for which the bridegroom, King Solomon, appears to have sent for to come up to Mount Zion. From the last verse of the canto (v. 11) it is evident that the marriage of King Solomon is what directs this procession from the desert below up towards Jerusalem. There is, however, a curious lack of information about the bride. Her only introduction into the scene is with the question “Who is this?” posed at the beginning. This phrase occurs three times in the Song (3,6; 6,10; 8,5) and serves each time to indicate the approach of the Beloved. “Who is this coming up (‫ )עלה‬from the desert?”. The verb ‫ עלה‬signals a displacement from one region to another: one is the desert, the other Jerusalem; one symbolizes a place of deprivation, austerity, death, and danger to life, while the other is the symbol for life in abundance in the shelter of the city walls. Within the Bible the contrast between Jerusalem and the desert is particularly striking. While the desert stands for the place where chaos, death, demons (symbolized by wild animals), and Sheol reign88, Jerusalem is often depicted as the ideal of paradise restored. The describe the litter and its escort. The structure, however, is chiastic only in so far as one observes the movement from dialogue to description to dialogue. In terms of content it is climactic. 87. For what follows I base myself primarily on the excellent literary analysis by COUFFIGNAL, Glaive. 88. See O. KEEL, The Symbolism of the Biblical World: Ancient Near Eastern Iconography and the Book of Psalms, Winona Lake, IN, Eisenbrauns, 1997, pp. 76-77.

640

PART III – CHAPTER 10

desert is the symbol for solitude (Hos 13,5, LXX: ἐν γῇ ἀοικήτῳ; Vg: in terra solitudinis), while the town symbolizes life in community. The desert is here governed by the “terror in the night”, a demonic power, while Jerusalem, the city of peace (cf. Psalm 76), is governed by the King of peace, Solomon, whose wedding epitomizes the joy of life in abundance. The journey is an upward movement from down below up to the heights of Zion, the holy mountain (Ps 2,6); “we assist at an ascension, metaphor for the elevation of a hero on the occasion of his crowning”89. The description of Solomon’s litter and its entourage in the two verses following (Song 3,7-8), with its accumulation of military vocabulary, viz., “mighty men”, “armed with sword”, “war”, “his sword on his hip”, give the impression that an enemy or an imminent danger (“the terror in the night”) have been overcome. Song 3,9-10, though of a similar poetic structure (see table above), draw on a very different stock of imagery, not that of military battle but one of luxurious construction. Wood from Lebanon, gold, silver, and purple are mentioned. Instead of the “terror in the night”, “love” moves the activity. After a successful march and a description of the components a luxurious palanquin, Song 3,11 depicts King Solomon as crowned on the day of his wedding. The two most important events in the life of a king are merged into one: accession to the throne and marriage. Solomon, as King and Spouse, is finally “able to realize all his potentialities, access to the fulness of power, social, and sexual”90. e) Discursive Structure Regarding space, the desert is opposed to the royal city, a place of familiarity, where the mother of the hero and the Daughters of Jerusalem reside, and where the litter, so extensively described, enters. Regarding time, night is opposed to day, both of which are reinforced, the former by the plural (‫ ;לילות‬8d), the latter by repetition (11b.c). Just as the desert and the city, night and day are charged with opposite psychological connotations. The night is fraught with terror and the day with the joy of the wedding. Another opposition is that between virility and femininity: the mighty men and the sword (both twice repeated), war, and Israel (cf. the etymology in Gen 32,29); all belligerent terms which are counterbalanced by the terms: daughters (twice), bed (litter, palanquin), love, wedding, mother, 89. COUFFIGNAL, Glaive, p. 609 (my translation). 90. Ibid., p. 610.

641

SOLOMON’S WEDDING (SONG 3,6-11)

crown, myrrh, frankincense. As Couffignal puts it well: “Mars and Venus”. These terms are complementary, since “it is owing to affirmed virility that femininity can blossom, once the war is fought, one can give oneself up to love”91. Thus the semantic of the language reproduces that of the royal procession: from the place of the desert and the hostile powers, which the procession has overcome thanks to its military force, it moves up to the familiar, royal, and peaceful city of Jerusalem where the joyful wedding of the king takes place, an expression of the triumph of love92. The careful distribution of opposites can be schematized as follows. v. 11 Mount Zion civilization/order/protection ↑ v. 6 Desert wilderness/chaos/danger

In the center of the procession is the litter which in Hebrew is the feminine noun ‫ מטה‬and stands metonymically for the bride, surrounded by mighty and armed men. mighty men ♂

litter/bride ♀

mighty men ♂

On the top of the mountain the arrangement is inverted: the masculine king is in the centre surrounded by the Daughters of Zion, viz. Jerusalem. Daughters of Jerusalem/Zion ♀

King Solomon ♂

Solomon’s Mother ♀

f) Literary Motif: “Royal Wedding” The universal model of a royal wedding, according to which a hero who wants to make a woman his spouse obtains her after having overcome his enemies (cf. 1 Samuel 17), can, in fact, be detected in the structure and in the semantics of the passage93. The origin of this archetype is to be found in myth. Behind each element of the biblical passage one can make out universal symbols: Victory over the powers of death (desert and terror), ascent (the procession goes up to Jerusalem), the holy mountain 91. Ibid., p. 611. 92. See ibid. 93. See ibid.

642

PART III – CHAPTER 10

on which the chief resides, and who appears in the brightness of day, wearing his crown. The archetypal pattern described by Gilbert Durand appears to be perfectly represented: Au symbolisme du soleil se relie enfin celui de la couronne solaire […], l’auréole réalise une des formes du succès contre la résistance à la montée […]; chiffre manifeste de la transcendance; […] la lumière a tendance à se faire […] glaive, et l’ascension à piétiner un adversaire vaincu94.

Regarding femininity it comprises the symbols of intimacy, motherhood, and nuptials; the palanquin, as described in vv. 9-10, is an enclosed room (uterus symbol) with a protective and precious casing (rare wood, gold, silver); it is surrounded by delightsome scents; it is like a small, moving house which gives it a connotation of the erotic, “its interior laid out with love”; even the color, purple, is symbolic of love95. It is noteworthy that the literary motif of the royal wedding has been considered as a desacralized resumption of the rite of sacred wedding, the conclusion of which is generally the wedding with the princess who appears to be an avatar of the goddess who unites herself to the king, thereby divinizing him96. The mythical background of the passage will be considered in the exegesis (III, below, p. 669). It is an important attestation of the symbolic coherency of the passage from its mythic inception to its later reception and modern-day interpretation. 5. Sitz im Leben or Sitz im Buch? Because Solomon’s wedding is explicitly mentioned in Song 3,11 and vv. 6-10 fit the description of an ancient wedding procession, Song 3,611 is often regarded an epithalamium97, i.e., a song written specifically 94. G. DURAND, Les Structures anthropologiques de l’imaginaire: Introduction à l’archétypologie générale, Paris, Bordas, 1969, p. 169; cited in COUFFIGNAL, Glaive, p. 612. 95. COUFFIGNAL, Glaive, p. 612. 96. Ibid. 97. “Hymenaios”, and since Hellenistic times ἐπιθαλάμιος, is the name for the Greek wedding song. It appears to have been originally a folk custom known neither to the court nor to heroic legend, to sing such songs during weddings. They had an apotropaic character to them, and were sung during the wedding procession in the form of choirs, formed by the bride’s maids and the groom’s best-men (Theocritus, Idyll 18), or else in front of the wedding chamber, particularly in the morning after the first night (Aischylos, frg. 43). Epithalamia as a literary genre are known from the works of Sappho, which are the only pre-Hellenistic witnesses come down to us. In Hellenistic times they are first in Diogenes of Babylon. However, only one completely preserved example is extant, a hexametric epithalamium by Theocritus, Idyll 18 on Helena and Menelaos. Its form is semi-epic. In eight verses the poet gives his own historical introduction to the epithalamium, which is then sung by Helena’s maids. It pokes fun at the hypersomnia (9ff.) of the couple and

SOLOMON’S WEDDING (SONG 3,6-11)

643

for the bride on the way to her marital chamber. The question is, however, whose wedding is being described? Is it a song come down to us from a historical “wedding of great luxury, one possessing even national significance”98, of one of Solomon’s weddings99, or of any other king of Israel and subsequently supplied with the name of Solomon by a redactor? Or is its royal character just “a literary fiction”, a “high burlesque” in royal guise, as many scholars hold100? Or is it literary fiction, viz. ornate poetry, which has reworked ancient cult-mythological material in a rereading of Israel’s sacred history (see III, below, p. 669)? a) Epithalamium Robert Gordis holds Song 3,6-11 to be the most archaic passage of the entire book and even proposes that this must have been a “song composed on the occasion of one of Solomon’s marriages to a foreign princess”101. Many other authors similarly hold this canto to be a vestige of an old royal epithalamium, though not necessarily Solomon’s, i.e., a song composed for the wedding of a Judean/Israelite king. For a comparison they point to Psalm 45, allegedly the only other historical epithalamium transmitted within the Bible102. The cycle Song 3,6–5,1, of which 3,6-11 forms an integral part, presents indeed some elements that would fit an epithalamium103. Song 3,6-11 describes a bride on her way to meet the bridegroom. 3,6 depicts a king on the day of his wedding (v. 11). The following waṣf of Song 4,1-7 resembles songs that might have been an element of nuptial ceremonies. The wedding theme continues in 4,8–5,1, the only passage in the Song that addresses the Beloved as a “bride”. In a kind of flashback the different stations from the bride’s mystical home on top of the mountains, where the wild animals dwell (4,8), towards the house of her bridegroom in Jerusalem are described. The wedding day is mentioned (3,11) and its consummation hinted at (5,1). Untypical for an epithalamium in the ancient world, however, is that no wishes of blessings for the grooms are expressed in any commands them not to forget to wake up on time. See P. MAAS, Hymenaios, in W. KROLL (ed.), Paulys Real-Encyclopädie der Classischen Altertumswissenschaft, IX/1, Stuttgart, Metzler, 1914, 130-134. It is probably because of the humorous character of Theocritus’ epithalamium that exegetes want to identify Song 3,6-11 as a satirical song. 98. GORDIS, Song, p. 20. 99. See GORDIS, A Wedding Song for Solomon; ID., Song, pp. 18-23. 100. See, e.g., GERLEMAN, Hohelied, pp. 60-62; MÜLLER, Lyrische Reproduktion, pp. 2627; HEINEVETTER, “Komm nun, mein Liebster”, p. 173; BARBIERO, Song, p. 149. 101. GORDIS, A Wedding Song for Solomon, p. 268. 102. E.g., Kirkpatrick, Briggs – Briggs, Hitzig, Buttenwieser, Delitzsch. 103. See BARBIERO, Song, p. 144.

644

PART III – CHAPTER 10

way (cf. Ruth 4), nor are any gods invoked104. The poetry thus integrates elements that were possibly reminiscent of a wedding celebration, without being an epithalamium itself105. b) Burlesque or Travesty Others have followed Gerleman in arguing that there is no question of this depicting a “historical” wedding of Solomon. It is rather “a literary fiction, that high burlesque which is typical of the Song”106. If, at most, this might be tenable for country lovers who imagine the green fields to be their couch and the cedars and cypress the beams of their house (cf. Song 1,16-17)107, the luxurious palanquin in vv. 9-10 made up of silver, gold and purple, does not allow for such a reading. As Gordis rightly points out, the description of the palanquin in vv. 9-10 in particular is “much too explicit to be merely the product of a poet’s imagination. […] The circumstantial description of a luxurious palanquin, far beyond the reach of a rustic couple, would be a mockery”108. The rusticity of the wedding is further contradicted by the luxurious description of the nuptial procession which strikes one as almost liturgical: the pillar of smoke, smoking with myrrh and incense sets the procession in the realm of the divine. The mention of sixty mighty men of Israel further lends this wedding procession a national significance (see II, below, p. 658)109. c) A Cultic Hymn in Kunstdichtung Song 3,6-11 is neither an epithalamium from an ancient wedding nor a literary travesty or burlesque of a royal wedding. Rather, its Sitz im Leben appears to be rooted in the royal cult, of which it preserves a poetic memory. As the symbolic exegesis will demonstrate, Song 3,6-11 (or parts of it) appear to be of a cult-mythological origin. It might preserve a fragment 104. In a Greek wedding typically the God Hymenaios would be invoked frequently throughout the song. 105. As argued in Chapter 8, VI.2.b above, p. 520, it is anachronistic to infer from WETZSTEIN’s Syrische Dreschtafel that waṣfs were an element of wedding celebrations in ancient Israel. However, even if that were the case, the waṣf of Song 4,1-7 is an artistic composition (see Chapter 4, III.3.b above, p. 229), and cannot be said to have had “its Sitz im Leben in the nuptial ceremonies”. Pace BARBIERO, Song, p. 144. 106. Ibid., p. 149. See also MÜLLER, Hohelied, p. 40. 107. See BARBIERO, Song, p. 81. 108. GORDIS, A Wedding Song for Solomon, p. 266. 109. Ibid., pp. 266, 268. Gordis points out that “while the Palestinian locale pervade the entire book” the “Daughters of Zion” (3,11) feature only here and “the only reference to ‘Israel’ occurs in 3:7”.

SOLOMON’S WEDDING (SONG 3,6-11)

645

of an ancient sacred chariot hymn (3,9-10) stemming arguably from a feast commemorating the translation of the Ark to Jerusalem in the context of the Autumn-festival during the monarchic times. While identification of the Sitz im Leben gives a precious clue to the Song’s religious origins, in its final form, however, this little canto may well be the result of ornate scribal poetry, i.e., the poetic re-elaboration of an ancient text that thereby acquired a new meaning110. The proper question to ask is therefore not only regarding its original Sitz im Leben, but even more importantly for its Sitz im Buch111, i.e., how the description of this literary wedding of King Solomon functions within the Song of Songs and how it resonates with other ancient Jewish texts. Which of the many different faces of the rich Solomonic tradition does this particular Solomon represent and who is the bride? An example of such a poetic re-elaboration of a royal hymn into a new composition now designating a messianic wedding has been seen with Psalm 45 (see Chapter 7, II, above, p. 449). Similarly, Song 3,6-11 describes indeed a wedding, but a fictive, poetic one. Fragments of different origins like the “Who is this” refrain or the description of the litter in vv. 9-10 have apparently been unified by a later hand – as the traces of Mishnaic Hebrew in v. 7 suggest – into one coherent poetic canto. As will be argued under III, below, p. 669, Song 3,6-11 views in retrospect the day of the Ark’s translation into the Temple as the day of the completion of the Exodus storyline, the day on which the Lord was enthroned on his holy mountain by King Solomon, the day which by the same token signified the day of King Solomon’s crowning and wedding to Israel.

II. PLAIN SENSE: A CLOSE READING If most biblical texts are polyphonous, poetry is so to an enhanced degree. The exegesis of the Song cannot be reduced – as is so often the case – to one univocal meaning. Rather, an attempt needs to be made to give room to the multilayered dimensions of the text in its exposition. The exegesis will proceed in two steps. The first step will be dedicated to a close reading of the plain sense. One might also call it reading the Song as a mere love song. Everything that constitutes the plain sense, including 110. The term “scribal ornate poetry” is coined from the term “Schriftgelehrte Poesie” which is commonly used to denote the Fortschreibung of Isaiah 1–55 in 56–66. See U. BERGES, Jesaja: Der Prophet und das Buch (BibG, 22), Leipzig, Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2010, pp. 46-47. 111. See SCHWIENHORST-SCHÖNBERGER, Das Hohelied, pp. 19-20.

646

PART III – CHAPTER 10

inner-biblical allusions and echoes, is taken into account on this level. In a second step the dominant symbols encountered in the close reading will be singled out and their multivalent references investigated. 1. “Who Is This?” (Song 3,6) Who is this going up from the desert / like a column of smoke, smoking with myrrh and frankincense / with all powders of the merchant? (Song 3,6)

As seen at length in the discussion of the translation, the question “Who is this” is a rhetorical question implying that the answer is known: a female person is going up from the desert. She can be no one other than the Beloved herself, as is clear from the same expression in Song 8,5, where she is said to be “leaning on her Lover” and from the parallel in 6,10 where the beauty of the Beloved is likened to the celestial beauty of moon and sun. More than a rhetorical question, it is a demonstrative exclamation of admiration and praise112. In a nuptial procession the bride is announced to be going up from the desert below towards Jerusalem, where Solomon the bridegroom is expecting her (cf. v. 11). Conspicuous is, however, the formulation of the question “Who is this?”. As Julio Trebolle Barrera has shown, this question has a distinctive connotation and appears only in specific contexts113. First, it always occupies a strategic place in the literary structure, and secondly it “urges the identification of the mysterious or superhuman person, which elicits the question”114. Beyond the two further occurrences within the Song (6,10; 8,5) this formulation is found addressed to masculine figures in Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Job as well as in Psalm 24: Isa 63,1

Who is this (‫ )מי־זה‬that comes from Edom, from Bozrah in garments stained crimson? Who is this (‫ )זה‬so splendidly robed, marching in his great might? (NRSV).

The “heavenly warrior”, is YHWH himself115. He comes to fight in the desert like an avenger of blood, rescuing from the enemy Edom116. 112. “Voz de admiracion y de loor”, Luis de Leon; cited in SCHLOTTMANN, Brautzug, p. 215. Also LUZARRAGA, Cantar, p. 316. 113. For what follows on the question ‫מי־זאת‬, see J. TREBOLLE BARRERA, Paralelismos de género en la poesía hebrea: La mujer del Cantar de los cantares y el hombre del libro de Job, in ‘Ilu. Revista de Ciencias de las Religiones 10 (2005) 225-247. 114. Ibid., p. 239. 115. See ibid., p. 237. 116. See L. ALONSO SCHÖKEL – J.L. SICRE DÍAZ, Profetas. I: Isaias, Jeremias. I: Commentario, Madrid, Cristiandad, 1980, pp. 374-376; J. BLENKINSOPP, Isaiah 56–66 (AncB, 19B), New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, 1974, p. 248.

SOLOMON’S WEDDING (SONG 3,6-11)

647

In Jer 46,7 the expansionistic aims of Pharaoh Neco who in his hubris wants to cover the earth with his armies is implied by the question “Who is this?”117. Jer 46,7 Who is this (‫)מי־זה‬, rising like the Nile, like rivers whose waters surge? (NRSV).

The rising waters of the Nile recall the mythological waters of chaos, which make Egypt appear as the chaotic monster of destruction, which devours the earth (cf. Jer 46,8)118. But the day of the battle belongs to YHWH, the Lord of armies who will make a ritual slaughter of them for sacrifice (cf. 46,10). In Ps 24,8.10 the question “Who is this?” indicates, as in Isa 63,1, YHWH himself: Who is the (‫ )מי זה‬King of glory? The LORD, strong and mighty, the LORD, mighty in battle. Ps 24,10 Who is this (‫ )מי הוא זה‬King of glory? The LORD of hosts, he is the King of glory. Ps 24,8

In the book of Job, the first divine discourse, centering on the question of who dominated the primordial powers in the creation of the world, significantly begins with the question “Who is this”? Job 38,2-3 Who is this (‫ )מי זה‬that darkens counsel by words without knowledge? Gird up your loins like a man, I will question you, and you shall declare to me (NRSV).

The same question is repeated at the beginning of Job’s answer in 42,3, “Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge?”. The repetition of this question in the mouth of Job himself signalizes the basic question of the book “who is Job?”, “who is this man?”119. The question that YHWH directs at Job, “who is this…” addresses Job as “a superior being, more than a man, superhuman included, […] to whom YHWH deigns to speak as to a human, with the irony of accepting to be informed by someone who lacks knowledge”120. The Job who has challenged God to appear in judgement acquires here dimensions of a minor god, or a celestial being, even more defiant than Satan (Job 1–2)121. 117. See J.R.J. LUNDBOM, Jeremiah 37–52 (AncB, 21B), New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, 1974, p. 196. 118. See R.P. CARROLL, Jeremiah: A Commentary (OTL), Philadelphia, PA, Fortress; London, SCM, 1986, p. 764. 119. TREBOLLE BARRERA, Paralelismos, p. 238. 120. Ibid., p. 239 (my translation). 121. See ibid.

648

PART III – CHAPTER 10

The question “Who are you?” is the typical initial question of an exorcism as attested in the apocryphal psalms of 11QPsApa, the Testament of Solomon, and the Questions of Bartholomew. This question of identification is followed by the self-representation of the corresponding demon who then reveals data about his name, his place of residence, his demonic activity, and the angel in charge of neutralizing it122. It is also noteworthy that the name of the most powerful angel implied in the battle against demonic powers is Michael, ‫( מיכאל‬who is like God?). From this overview of the recurrence of the Who is this? formula in the Bible and late Jewish writings it results, first, that the question “Who is this?” always occupies a strategical place in the literary structure: at the beginning of the divine discourse (Job 38,2-3); at the beginning of an oracle (Isa 63,1); at the beginning of a poem (Song 3,6; 8,5), and once at the end of a poetic unit (Song 6,10). Secondly, the question “urges the identification of the mysterious or superhuman person, who elicits the question”123. This second point is particularly important as it gives the Beloved the aura of a mythological, angelic, or even divine figure. The Beloved’s goddess-like aura emerges even more powerfully in the parallel of Song 6,10: “Who is this (‫ )מי־זאת‬that looks forth like the dawn, fair as the moon, bright as the sun, terrible as an army with banners?” (NRSV).

The subject of the question “Who is this?” is here likened to dawn, ‫שחר‬, which is likewise the name of a divinity124. The image evoked by the verb ‫“ נשקפה‬looking down” is that of the “woman at the window” motif which was very common in the ANE, and in the Bible125. Like the awe122. P.A. TORIJANO, Solomon the Esoteric King (JSJSup, 73), Leiden, Brill, 2002, pp. 41-87. 123. TREBOLLE BARRERA, Paralelismos, p. 239. 124. See PARKER, Shahar ‫שׁחר‬. A very clear reference to this divinity is also made in Isa 14,12. The fact that ‫ שחר‬stands without an article in Song 6,10 underscores the allusion to the proper name of the divinity. 125. For the “woman at the window” motif, see W. FAUTH, Aphrodite Parakyptusa: Untersuchungen zum Erscheinungsbild der vorderasiatischen Dea Prospiciens, in Jahrbuch der Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur 6 (1966) 331-437; and KEEL, Symbolism, 1997, p. 235. For other biblical references, see ZAKOVITCH, Hohelied, pp. 153-156, who points to the parallels in Gen 26,8; Judg 5,28; 2 Sam 6,16; 2 Kgs 9,30-32; Prov 7,623; Song 2,9; 4,1-7; 6,4-9. As Zakovitch explains, a window is an opening that creates a communication between the inside and the outside world. In the Bible this motif often expresses the relationship between the masculine and the feminine world. If a woman is standing at a window she looks out for a man (Judg 5,28 Sisera’s mother; [Judg 9,52-53]; 2 Sam 6,16 Michal; 2 Kgs 9,30-32 Jezebel). If a man looks through a window he peers in for a woman (Song 2,9; Sir 14,23), or observes a loving relationship between a man and a woman (Gen 26,8; Prov 7,6-23).

SOLOMON’S WEDDING (SONG 3,6-11)

649

inspiring dawn she is looking down from her celestial window, beautiful as the moon and pure as the sun, the two celestial bodies that govern night and day. Instead of the common Hebrew terms for sun and moon, ‫ ירח‬and ‫שׁמשׁ‬, which are both masculine, here the synonymous ‫ לבנה‬and ‫ חמה‬have been chosen which, as comparisons for the Beloved, are fittingly in the feminine126. ‫ לבנה‬and ‫ חמה‬occur in the Bible always as a pair, that is, in Isa 24,23 and 30,26, both of which are late apocalyptical verses. In Isa 24,23 moon and sun are treated as dominating powers which will be put to shame once the Lord of hosts will reign in Zion. In other words, “the Moon-god’s powers are transferred to Yahweh and the moon is polemically portrayed as an object created and controlled by Yahweh”127. In Song 6,10, however, the Beloved is likened to these celestial powers, whereby she is given the traits of a mythological, theomorphic being128. That same aspect is reinforced in Song 3,6, where she is said to be going up from the desert, just like the “divine warrior” of Isa 63,1 comes from the desert, where a battle of mythical and cosmic dimensions has taken place129. In summary, the question “Who is this?” not only announces the approach of the Beloved of the Song but introduces her as a super-human being that has overcome the powers of death, as her going up from the desert powerfully suggests. Some authors have wanted to interpret ‫ מדבר‬as a “meadow”130, or a “plain field”, or an “open space” outside the city131. In the present context, however, this reading is not convincing for several reasons. In the Hebrew Bible ‫ מדבר‬invariably means “steppe”, “wilderness”, or “desert”. It refers to the unsettled and unsown steppe-land with sparse rainfall (Jer 2,2), where vegetation grows spontaneously, sheep graze (Exod 3,1; 1 Sam 17,28), and wild animals roam (cf., e.g. Joel 2,22; Ps 65,12; Job 38,26). Moreover, the desert motif has a distinctive association in the Bible. The desert is a key 126. For the general feature of observing gender features in Hebrew parallelism see W.G.E. WATSON, Gender-Matched Synonymous Parallelism in the OT, in JBL 99 (1980) 321-341; and ID., Hebrew Poetry. 127. B.B. SCHMIDT, Moon, in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, Leiden, Brill, 1995, 1098-1113, p. 1105. 128. See also MÜLLER, Hohelied, p. 37. 129. See TREBOLLE BARRERA, Paralelismos, p. 239. 130. For “meadow”, understood as the pasture-land between two villages, see HAUPT, Biblische Liebeslieder, p. 21. 131. Budde, following Wetzstein takes the ‫ מדבר‬to refer to an open space outside the city like a threshing floor, where the wedding is celebrated. This is a good example of how the text is submitted to a preconceived idea of a rustic wedding song instead of interpreting it as it stands.

650

PART III – CHAPTER 10

symbol for chaos and death132. It is the place where evil spirits and demons reside, where the outlaws and fugitives seek shelter (cf. 1 Sam 22,2)133. Its major association is, however, with the desert or wilderness which the Israelites had to traverse during the forty years of the Exodus (Deut 2,7), which is equally symbolic for the death and resurrection of a new generation of Israelites (Num 14,29-31). Recalling that event, the prophets later spoke of the land separating Mesopotamia and Israel as the desert (Ezek 20,35). In Hos 2,16 the way into Exile is compared to a return into the desert, where God will speak to her heart and she will once again answer the Lord, as in the days of her youth, “on the day of her going up from the land of Egypt”. Both Hos 2,17 and Jer 2,2-3 depict the time of Israel’s desert wandering as a time of particular faithfulness to the Lord, an ideal time in her history, in fact as a time of betrothal (cf. Jer 2,2MT). The return from the Exile is consequently described in terms of a second Exodus (Isa 40,3), that is, a second desert wandering, during which God will renew the signs and wonders of the first and even the luminous cloud will once again accompany them (Isa 4,5-6; 40,5; 52,12). The biblical motif of ascent to Jerusalem is also alluded to by the verb ‫עלה‬, “to go up/come up/to make one’s way up”. It can have several connotations, which ultimately, however, all meet in the place of salvation, be it the Promised Land or Jerusalem. Particularly the expression “X ‫”עלה מן‬ is widely used for leaving place X to come to the land of Israel/Canaan134. ‫ עלה‬is used to denote the “going up” (a) from Egypt to the Promised Land (cf. Gen 13,1; 45,25; Exod 12,38; 13,18; Num 32,11; Judg 11,13.16)135; (b) of the Exiles from Babylon (cf. Ezra 1,3.11; 2,1.59; 4,2; 7,6.7.28; 8,1; Neh 7,5.6.61; 12,1); (c) as a technical term in the procession of the 132. Deut 32,10; Isa 34,14. POPE, Song, pp. 424-425, points to the mythological background of the desert as a symbol for the netherworld both in Mesopotamian and Ugaritic Myth. 133. See S. TALMON, Har and Midbar: An Antithetical Pair of Biblical Motifs, in M. MINDLIN – M.J. GELLER – J.E. WANSBROUGH (eds.), Figurative Language in the Ancient Near East (School of Oriental and African Studies), London, University of London, 1987, 117-142, pp. 125-130; and A.M.L. MILLAN, The Desert in the Tradition of Israel: An Analysis of Passages from Hosea, Amos, Isaiah, Jeremias, Ezekiel, and the Psalms; Extracto de la tesis doctoral presentada en la Facultad de Teología de la Universidad de Navarra, in Excerpta e Dissertationibus in Sacra Theologia 32 (1997) 9-69. 134. For example, Gen 13,1; 45,25; 50,24; Exod 3,8.17; 17,3; 32,1.4.7.8.23; 33,1; Num 16,13; 20,5; 21,5; 32,11; Deut 20,1; Josh 24,32; Judg 6,8.13; 11,13.16. See BEN ZVI, Hosea, p. 50. 135. In particular in reference to the Exodus from Egypt, cf. Exod 3,8.17; 17,3; 32,1; 4,7.8.23; 33,1; Num 16,3; 20,5; 21,5; 32,11; Deut 20,1; Josh 24,32; Judg 6,8.13; 11,13.16; 19,30; 1 Sam 8,8; 10,19; 12,6; 15,2; 2 Sam 7,6; 1 Kgs 12,28; 2 Kgs 17,7.36; Isa 11,11; Jer 2,6; 11,7; 16,14; 23,7; Hos 2,17; 12,14; Amos 2,10; 9,7; Mic 6,4; Ps 81,11.

SOLOMON’S WEDDING (SONG 3,6-11)

651

Ark (cf. Ps 47,6); (d) for the “going up” in pilgrimages (cf. Exod 34,24; 1 Sam 1,3; 10,3), particularly to Jerusalem (cf. Isa 2,3; Jer 31,6; Ps 122,4)136. In short, ‫ עלה‬is the typical verb to describe the ascent to the capital and holy city of Jerusalem, whence the root ‫ עלה‬in the titles of the “Psalms of ascent” (Psalms 120–134). The verb ‫ עלה‬in combination with the symbol of the desert can thus be at once an allusion to Israel’s first ascent towards the Promised Land through the desert of Sinai, to the ascent of the Ark towards the city of David, which is Zion (1 Kgs 8,1-11; note the mention of Zion in Song 3,11), and to Israel’s return from the Exile which was seen as a new Exodus traversing the desert and going up to Jerusalem137. a) “Like a Column of Smoke” The likelihood of an allusion to Israel’s ascent from the desert in the Exodus (be it the first ascent from Egypt or the second from Babylon) is further underscored by the description that follows. The bride coming up from the desert is likened to “a column of smoke” (‫)תימרות עשן‬. The image evoked is reminiscent of the pillar of the divine presence that accompanied Israel during the desert wandering, “a pillar of cloud by day […] and a pillar of fire by night” (Exod 13,21). The same lexeme occurs elsewhere only in the prophecy of Joel 3,3, “I will show portents in the heavens and on the earth, blood and fire and columns of smoke (‫( ”)תימרות עשן‬NRSV). It is noteworthy that the “columns of smoke” in Joel, which together with darkness and blood function as a natural sign of destruction, are found within the broader context of a potent positive sign of YHWH’s coming for deliverance (Joel 2,18–3,5)138. It is called a “wonderful sign” (‫ )מופת‬which will be given on the day of the outpouring of God’s spirit (Joel 3,1), the day on which everyone who will call on the name of the Lord will be saved, “for on mount Zion and in Jerusalem there will be escape” (Joel 3,5). These signs, of which the “columns of smoke” are one, are an allusion to the signs which God 136. HALOT II, 828-289. 137. Pace MÜLLER, Hohelied, who thinks of a lyrical countryside without a precise geographical location. It is noteworthy that Rudolph, who undertakes a strictly naturalistic reading of the Song, notes in this regard, “I hold, that the allegorical interpretation in view of Israel’s entry into Canaan from the desert has had an influence here”. According to Rudolph a version prior to the present text would have mentioned a different place of origin of the bride, but under the influence of the allegorical reading “the original expression” would have been removed and replaced with the expression “from the desert”. RUDOLPH, Hohe Lied, p. 142 (my translation). 138. See STUART, Hosea–Jona, p. 261.

652

PART III – CHAPTER 10

worked through Moses for Israel in Egypt in order to deliver them (Exod 4,21; 7,3.9; Deut 4,34; 34,11). In the context of Joel, it has been proposed that the term ‫ תימרה‬is a synonym for the ‫“ עמוד‬pillar”, “column”, the pillar of cloud and fire symbolizing the presence of Yahweh on Israel’s journey through the desert (Exod 13,21.22; 14,19.24; Neh 9,12.19)139. In Song 3,6, together with the “desert” and the verb ‫עלה‬, they are a powerful allusion to Israel’s desert wandering140. Loretz believes that both the phrase ‫מן המדבר‬, “from the desert”, and the term ‫ עשן‬are due to an allegorizing expansion, or, as he also calls it, a Kommentierung141. The original phrase would have simply read, “Wer ist die, die da heranzieht [aus der Wüste] wie eine Palmetten-Säule [von Rauch], umräuchert von Myrrhe und Weihrauch, von allen Würzen des Händlers?”. In the alleged “original” version the poet would have alluded to the “herrschaftliche, königliche Erscheinung der Braut”, since the palmornamented pillars were an indication “of royal glamour and the primacy of the kingship”142. While the palm-shaped column might work well as an indicator of the bride’s royal appearance in context, the emendation of the text on mere metrical grounds is unwarranted. It is, nonetheless, noteworthy that Loretz holds an emendation necessary in order to escape an allegorical understanding of the verse. b) “Smoking with Myrrh and Frankincense” With the one coming up from the desert “smoking (‫ )מקטרת‬of myrrh and frankincense”, the procession assumes a liturgical character. As seen above, ‫ קטר‬in its piel form always means “to burn the food offerings”. Commentators have thus proposed that its passive form, as used uniquely here, alludes to the clouds of smoke and incense that ascended from the multitude of offerings as were offered when David transferred the Ark to Jerusalem (2 Sam 6,13) and Solomon transferred it to the Temple (1 Kgs 8,5)143. According to Rabbinic sources, there was a special art observed in the incense offering to prevent the vapor from dispersing immediately and to make it rise in a straight column instead. These columns resembled palm trees, as the dispersion only took place high up in the air, appearing like a palm’s bushy crown. This art was apparently at home in Alexandria, whereby it became a custom to have experts trained in it to come to Jerusalem 139. 140. 141. 142. 143.

See POPE, Song, p. 426. See BARBIERO, Song, p. 147. See LORETZ, Hebräisch *tymrh “Palmettensäule”, p. 385. See ibid. See POPE, Song, p. 426.

SOLOMON’S WEDDING (SONG 3,6-11)

653

for the incense offering144. It was a sacred art practiced for liturgical purposes. Thus, in addition to being a technical term for the ascent towards Israel or Jerusalem, ‫ עלה‬also denotes the going up of a sacrifice on the altar145. The liturgical character of this procession going up from the desert is further evinced by the spices of myrrh and frankincense of which the column is said to be smoking. Myrrh (commiphora abyssinica) is native to Arabia, Ethiopia, and Somalia. It was among the most precious and popular resins in antiquity146. According to the Egyptian mythology, myrrh trees grew in Punt, god’s land, and “were sacred to Hathor in so far as she was the mistress of fragrance and was regarded as the ‘lady of Punt’”147. It was used for anointing, that is, for purification, in particular of the dead. The mouth and lips of the dead “were anointed with myrrh that they might be pure for the enjoyment of the sacrificial food”148, at the offering table of Re149. The rare mention of myrrh within the Bible, or rather its particular use, is worth noting. Of eleven mentions in the Old Testament, seven are found in the Song (1,13; 3,6; 4,6.14; 5,1.5.13). The other four occurrences, however, offer important indications for its significance. Together with the finest balsams and cinnamon (‫ בשמים‬and ‫קנמן‬, cf. Song 4,14), myrrh served, much as in the Egyptian custom, as an ingredient for the sacred anointing oils with which the tent of meeting, the Ark of the Covenant, the sacred vessels, and the Altar of burnt offerings (‫ )הקטרת‬were to be anointed (Exod 30,23-29). While in the ANE the effusion of such costly perfumes was a frequently documented characteristic of the gods150, in the context of the Tabernacle narrative, the anointing with these spices sanctified the Holy Tent, the Ark, and its vessels so as to be fit to contain the God of Israel himself. 144. See SCHLOTTMANN, Brautzug, p. 218, with reference to b. Yoma 38a, where the art is ascribed to the house of Abtinas: “The house of Abtinas were expert in preparing the incense but would not teach [their art]. The Sages sent for specialists from Alexandria of Egypt, who knew how to compound incense as well as they, but did not know how to make the smoke ascend as well as they. The smoke of the former ascended [as straight] as a stick, whereas the smoke of the latter was scattered in every direction” (my translation). 145. HALOT II, 829. 146. See M. ZOHARY, Plants of the Bible, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1982, p. 200. 147. LURKER, The Gods and Symbols of Ancient Egypt, p. 83. 148. Ibid. 149. See ibid. 150. See E. PASZTHORY, Salben, Schminken, und Parfüme im Altertum, Mainz, Philipp von Zabern, 1992, p. 13, and HORNUNG, Der Eine und die Vielen, pp. 123-124.

654

PART III – CHAPTER 10

Similarly, perfumes, balms, and incense were used in Egypt to “divinize” a human being or relate him to the divine. Thus, it happened that when Queen Hatshepsut received the Punt expedition she emanated myrrh and divine fragrance from all her members and entered into the role of a god151. Similarly, in the Bible the robes of the divine royal bridegroom of Psalm 45 are said to be “all fragrant with myrrh”. In Psalm 45 the divinity of the king (v. 7) and the fragrance of his vestments are, in fact, intimately related (v. 9)152: 7 8 9

Your throne, O God, for ever and ever, a scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness, therefore God, your God, has anointed you with oil of gladness above your companions. Myrrh, and aloe, cassia are all your garments.

The self-praise of divine Wisdom in Sirach 24 further attests the sacred character of myrrh. She who “came forth from the mouth of the Most High” (Sir 24,3) and who ministered in the Holy Tabernacle (24,10) gives expression to her divine origin by the emanation of choice myrrh and the fragrance of frankincense (24,15). Furthermore, “Lady Folly” or rather the Strange Woman in Prov 7,17 perfumes her bed with myrrh, aloe, and cinnamon. Though these perfumes may of course be “evocative of the sweet delights, emotional and physical, of love”153, they may also be an imitation of the divine. While “Lady Wisdom” invites the youth to Torah observance and to her sacrificial banquet (in the allegorical Temple of Jerusalem, cf. Prov 9,1-6)154, the Strange Woman acts as her foil and rival, who under the allegory of an adulterous liaison, invites the youth to follow the attractions of idolatry155. Thus her adulterous bed is anointed with the same balms as the Holy of Holies. Finally, myrrh occurs in Esth 2,12 where it is used as a cosmetic in the preparation of the women for their encounter with the king. In the Song, myrrh appears similarly associated with the divine and sacred. The description of the Lover as being for her “a pouch of myrrh that lies between my breasts” (Song 1,13) resonates powerfully with 151. See HORNUNG, Der Eine und die Vielen, p. 123. 152. See J. KÜGLER, Gold und Weihrauch und Myrrhe: Eine Notiz zu Mt 2,11, in BN 87 (1997) 24-33, p. 30. 153. M.V. FOX, Proverbs 1–9 (AncB, 18), New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, 1974, p. 247. 154. See ROBERT, Les attaches littéraires bibliques de Prov. I–IX, p. 375. 155. It is noteworthy, in this respect, that Isa 57,6-10 uses a very similar imagery when denouncing Israel’s idolatry: the decked couch, the sacrifices, the oils, and the perfumes. See ROBERT, Les attaches littéraires bibliques de Prov. I–IX, p. 55.

SOLOMON’S WEDDING (SONG 3,6-11)

655

the aromatic’s cult-mythological origins. The practice of wearing sachets filled with various things as amulets around the neck is attested to in Egypt from the third millennium onwards156. The sacral usage of such amulets might be hinted at in the idolatrous practice condemned by Hosea (Hos 2,4)157. In a Neo-Assyrian Heilsorakel for Ashurbanipal, the goddess Mullissu says to the King: “Als ein Lanzen-Amulett lege ich dich zwischen meine Brüste”158. While in the pagan cult the love goddess receives the king between her breasts, the Beloved of the Song (Israel) has replaced the goddess and now holds the Lord, her ‫דוד‬, tight between her breasts, like a sachet of the sacred perfume. It is, however, important to note the inversion of the pagan cult. While in Egypt and Assyria the goddess divinizes the king, it is here the royal Lover who, symbolized by a sachet of myrrh, divinizes his Beloved. The Mount of Myrrh in Song 4,6 appears to be a pun on Mount Moriah (Gen 22,2), understood as in 2 Chr 3,1 to be Mount Zion, the Temple Mount on which the holy sacrifice ascends to God159. Similarly in Song 3,6 the column smoking with myrrh is going up towards Mount Zion (v. 11), the Temple Mount, the only legitimate place for burnt offerings160. Myrrh is further mentioned in Song 4,14 and 5,1, where, as shall be seen in the next chapter, together with other spices it gives this gardenBeloved an odor of paradise, or rather of the Temple. Finally, myrrh is 156. See KEEL, Hohelied, p. 68. 157. In Hos 2,4 the unfaithful wife is summoned to remove the signs of her prostitution (‫ )זונים‬from her face and her adultery (‫ )נאפופים‬from between her breasts. It can only be conjectured what this might have been, but apparently it was something removable. According to H.W. Wolff, “these were probably certain marks or emblems, e.g., headbands, belts, rings, necklaces, or similar jewelry, placed on a woman who participated in a Canaanite sex cult”. WOLFF, Hosea, pp. 33-34. Since there are recurring allusions to the book of Hosea in the Song, it could be that Song 1,13 is the inversion of the Hosean adultery. No longer an amulet used in the idol worship for foreign gods, but her own spouse she embraces faithfully between her breasts. 158. G. POSENER, Catalogue des ostraca hiératiques littéraires de Deir el Médineh: II (ns. 1109-1266) (Documents de fouilles de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale du Caire, 18), Cairo, Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale du Caire, 1972, Pl. 76, 11. Translation taken from KEEL, Hohelied, p. 70. 159. According to Zakovitch there is a clear allusion to Gen 22,2 and Mount Moriah in phrase ‫“ אלך לי אל־הר המר‬I will get myself”, reminiscent of the summons of God to Abraham ‫“ לך לך אל־ארץ המריה‬get yourself!” which is the prelude to the sacrifice of Isaac. See ZAKOVITCH, Hohelied, p. 48. See also TOURNAY, Dieu, pp. 60-61. This is also the interpretation given by the Midrash on Mount Moriah: “To the place where incense would be offered, as you read, / will get me to the mountain of myrrh – Mor (Song 4,6)”. Gen. Rab. 55.7. Zakovitch argues that the Midrash would put the verse back into its religious context, from which the poet of the Song had taken it. I argue that the poet never took it out of its liturgical context, but rather reckoned that his readers would be able to understand the allusions. 160. See also SCHWIENHORST-SCHÖNBERGER, Das Hohelied, p. 116.

656

PART III – CHAPTER 10

featured in Song 5,13, in the description of the Lover’s lips that are lotuses dripping with running myrrh. Just as the gold and the other precious metals in the description of the Lover’s body are reminiscent of Egyptian god-description texts (see Chapter 6), so also the lips dripping with flowing myrrh are an indication of the Lover’s divinity. The second scent that follows has an even clearer sacrificial overtone. Frankincense (‫ )לבנה‬is the white resin (from the root ‫“ לבן‬white”) boswellia sacra161. In Jer 6,20 its foreign origin “from Sheba” is noted and its costliness is indicated by its mention along with precious metals in a prophecy of eschatological significance in Isa 60,6, “A multitude of camels shall cover you, the young camels of Midian and Ephah; all those from Sheba shall come. They shall bring gold and frankincense, and shall proclaim the praise of the Lord”. In the Old Testament the use of frankincense is strictly reserved for religious usage. In Exod 30,34-37 frankincense is named among the ingredients for the holy incense; it forms part of the daily sacrifice (Exod 30,7-8); it is used in various offerings by the Levites (Lev 2,1-2.15-16; 5,11; 6,15; 24,7); and it is listed among the temple treasures (Neh 13,5). Apart from Song 3,6; 4,6.14, the only other occurrences of myrrh and frankincense as a pair are in Sir 24,15 and in the New Testament Matt 2,11. In both cases they give expression to the divine origin of the one who is associated with these fragrances (Wisdom and Jesus)162. Taken together, all this evidence suggests that the two fragrances are not chosen at random. They give the procession ascending from the desert a liturgical character, and point to the sacred character of the one who is going up toward Mount Zion. As will be seen in more detail under III, below, p. 669, there are good reasons to believe that the Beloved is in this scene identified with the Ark of the Covenant. If this is the case, it should come as no surprise that it is smoking with myrrh and frankincense as they are exactly the resins used for the sacred oils with which it was anointed (cf. Exod 30,26). The sacred, Ark-like character of the Beloved is confirmed in the next chapter where the fragrances that make up the gardenBride are indeed reminiscent of the oils that anointed all that belonged to the interior of the Tabernacle (cf. Exod 30,22-29; Song 4,13-14, see chapter 11). 161. It occurs in Arabia and East Africa (Somalia) and was imported into Palestine by the Phoenicians via the spice route, a caravan highway which came from East Africa across southern Arabia, and which was also used to import goods from India and farther east. See ZOHARY, Plants, p. 197. 162. See KÜGLER, Gold, Weihrauch, Myrrhe.

SOLOMON’S WEDDING (SONG 3,6-11)

657

c) “With All Powders of the Merchants” The word ‫רוכל‬, literally “merchant”, generally refers to the international trade (cf. Ezek 27,3.20.23). The feminine noun ‫אבקה‬, rendered here as “powders”, however, is a hapax in the Bible. The masculine ‫ אבק‬denotes “dust” swirled up by horses (Ezek 26,19) or by pedestrians (Deut 28,24; Isa 5,24; Nah 1,3), or soot (Exod 9,9). For this reason and because of the presumed profane character of the Song most commentators explain that what is really described in this scene would be a pillar of dust, kicked up by the entourage of the litter which is coming up from the desert163. That explanation, however, disregards the liturgically charged vocabulary used in the verse. In fact, there is nothing in it that points to a cloud of dust rising from the desert. Rather, what is conveyed is a pillar smoking with myrrh and frankincense and other ground costly resins that rises tall and slim like the pillars of artfully burnt incense which takes on the shape of a palm tree in their burning164. The Beloved who is going up from the desert towards Jerusalem, and who looks like a pillar of rising smoke, is thus herself presented as being like a sacrifice smoking with myrrh and frankincense and all the powders of the merchants. In combination with the question Who is this? the emanation of myrrh and frankincense points to her sacred character. Like the “divine warrior” of Isa 63,1 she is going up from the desert, a place of mythological combat against the powers of chaos and death as well as the place of historical combat, out of which she emerges victoriously. The bellicose aspect of the ascent will be even more evident from the following verse. 2. “The Litter of Solomon” (Song 3,7-8) Behold, the litter of Solomon, sixty mighty men surround her, of the mighty men of Israel, all of them armed with sword, trained in warfare. Each one’s sword on his thigh against the terror in the night (Song 3,7-8).

As in a cinematographic zoom165, the image draws closer and instead of the bride, the shape of Solomon’s litter becomes visible surrounded by a heavily manned escort. The text gives no indication as to who is being carried in the litter. The phrasing puts the emphasis on Solomon, “behold his litter, which is Solomon’s”. Some have thus wanted to see Solomon 163. See BARBIERO, Song, p. 147; and GERHARDS, Hohelied, p. 98. 164. See RUDOLPH, Hohe Lied, p. 142. 165. See BARBIERO, Song, p. 145.

658

PART III – CHAPTER 10

himself coming up on the litter towards Jerusalem166. There are, however, no attestations in the ancient world of royal bridegrooms carried about in processions, whereas the gods were167. As seen in Chapter 8, Solomon’s name appears, in fact, to derive from the name Shalem, a Canaanite divinity, which is also reflected in the name Jerusalem. The name that stood here originally might have been “changed to Solomon when the liturgy came to be adapted to the Jerusalem cultus”168. This proposal is interesting given the many mythological reminiscences, but it remains a mere conjecture. The fact that the litter is said to belong to Solomon need not imply, however, that the litter is carrying him. Rather, the question ‫ מי־זאת‬in v. 6 implies that it is the bride who is in the litter. It was, in fact, quite the usage in the ancient world that a king of the importance of Solomon would send an escort to fetch his bride. It is attested for the Hellenistic period in 1 Mac 9,37, and might even stand behind Abraham sending his servant Eliezer to find a bride for Isaac (Genesis 24). In fact, it seems to go back as early as the thirteenth century B.C. Keel cites an episode of Ramses II sending “army, cavalry and noblemen” to escort the daughter of a Hittite king towards Egypt, where the wedding was held169. The fact that Solomon sent his litter would thus also underscore the nobility of the bride who is sent for. It is also worth noting that the word ‫ אפריון‬used in v. 9 as a synonym is used in the Mishnah specifically for the bride’s litter (m. Soṭah 9.14)170. a) “Mighty Men” Sixty mighty men (‫ )גברים‬surround the litter. ‫ גברים‬feature in the settlement narratives of the Books of Joshua and Judges as well as in 1–2 Samuel, 1–2 Kings, and 1–2 Chronicles. The historical books mention the ‫ גברים‬explicitly as the royal elite troops171; mainly in the stories of David, in the time of his wandering as a mercenary among the Philistines as well as after his accession to the throne172. The “heroes of David” 166. See, e.g. SHEA, Structure, p. 389: “The first question gives the narrator an opportunity to identify Solomon as the bridegroom who is brought upon his litter to celebrate his wedding”. Similarly, RUDOLPH, Hohe Lied, p. 141. 167. See POPE, Song, p. 434. 168. Ibid. 169. KEEL, Hohelied, p. 120. See J.H. BREASTED, Ancient Records of Egypt. III: The Nineteenth Dynasty, Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press, 1927, pp. 185-186. 170. See RUDOLPH, Hohe Lied, p. 141. 171. Cf. 2 Sam 20,7; Jer 26,21. 172. The lemma ‫ גבור‬features 152 times in the OT. It is applied to the giants of old (Gen 6,4) and to different types of able men. It can mean strength, ability, or wealth, and

SOLOMON’S WEDDING (SONG 3,6-11)

659

constitute a special group of ‫גברים‬173. In 2 Sam 23,23 they are said to have numbered thirty, a number which is apparently symbolic174. A portion of this group formed the bodyguard (cf. 1 Sam 22,14) of the king. It appears to be the bodyguards of the king in particular which the Song is alluding to here. As they usually guard the king, they now surround his litter. Joshua chose thirty thousand ‫ גברים‬for the taking of the city Ain (Josh 8,3); Samson had thirty companions for his wedding (Judg 14,11). Solomon’s troop of ‫ גברים‬in Song 3,8 is, however, doubly as strong. Sixty mighty men surround his litter. The doubling of the number increases at once the importance of the literary King Solomon as well as the person carried within, or represented by the litter which the mighty men escort. In the manner of an anadiplosis v. 7c repeats the word ‫ גברים‬175, and specifies that these mighty men were the mighty men of Israel. That concretization gives the whole procession a national importance and a nationalistic note to the Song176. It is the only time in the entire Song that Israel is named177. Its importance cannot be underestimated. It wrests the Song of Songs from its allegedly profane and folkloric moorings. As Barbiero rightly points out, “the mighty men of Israel” in conjunction with the “Daughters of Jerusalem” (v. 10) and the “Daughters of Zion” (v. 11) even be applied ironically to the one mighty in drinking (Isa 5,22). The concrete meaning has to be established by context. It is, however, noteworthy that according to H. KOSMALA, ‫גִּ בּוֹר‬, in TDOT, II, Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 1975, p. 374: “by far the most frequent use of the word gibbor occurs in connection with military activities, especially as a designation for a warrior, either a man who is eligible for military service or is able to bear arms, or one who has actually fought in combat, who has already distinguished himself by performing heroic deeds”. A third of all the biblical mentions of ‫ גיברים‬occur in 1–2 Chronicles. 173. See B. MAZAR, The Military Elite of King David, in VT 13 (1963) 310-320, p. 310. 174. In the Books of Samuel there is a certain unsteadiness in the data. 2 Sam 23,8 speaks of three ‫גבורים‬. The following verses 13 and 24 however, mention the number thirty. Yet, 2 Sam 23,39 speaks of thirty-seven in all. It is probable that 2 Sam 23,8, where only three are mentioned, refers to an inner circle of the thirty (cf. v. 13 “three of the thirty”). By the time of the Chronicler, however, the number of thirty mighty men as forming the elite troop of David is well established (1 Chr 11,10-15; 12,4.19). The number thirty itself is probably symbolic. It appears frequently for the number of sons of companions of a charismatic figure (Judg 10,4; 12,9; 1 Sam 9,22; 1 Chr 11,42). There is no mention of ‫ גברים‬as an institution in the historical books during the reign of Solomon. However, in the days of Nehemiah “the house of the heroes” (‫ )הגברים בית‬is still known (Neh 3,16). See ibid. 175. See BARBIERO, Song, p. 148, with reference to A. MARCHESE, Dizionario di retorica e di stilistica, Milano, Mondadori, 1979, p. 19: “It is a rhetorical figure which consists in the repeating – at the beginning of a verse or a phrase – of a word that concludes the previous verse or phrase”. 176. See BARBIERO, Die Liebe der Töchter Jerusalems, p. 103; ID., Song, p. 150. 177. Possibly the VL represents a version with more mentions of Israel. In 3,10 it reads filiabus Israel instead of “Jerusalem” (MT, LXX and V).

660

PART III – CHAPTER 10

“are the representatives of society. Not of any society, but of the people of God (‘Israel’, ‘Jerusalem’, ‘Zion’)”178. The staging of a wedding in which the litter of a son of David goes up from the desert towards Jerusalem, surrounded by the mighty men of Israel, the people of God, cannot be reduced to a folkloric literary travesty. The Song is here staging a scene of national importance and alluding to historical episodes in the history of the people of Israel (see below, III, p. 669). b) “The Terror in the Night” (Song 3,8) The literary camera next focuses on the mighty men. An entire verse is dedicated to their description. Images drawn from combat are introduced into the otherwise nuptial imagery. Each warrior is said to be “armed with a sword, instructed in warfare”. Armed with a sword (8a) at his hip (8c) each is ready and able to draw it for combat179, and on his guard for the defense of Solomon’s litter. What they are ready to fight is the enigmatic “terror in the night” (‫פחד‬ ‫)בלילות‬. The only other explicit reference to the “terror of the night” is in Ps 91,5. The Psalmist here evokes the threat of death by means of a demoniac personification which the one who takes refuge in the Most High does not have to fear. In the context of the Psalm, the “terror of the night” is no doubt a reference to a belief in evil spirits that roamed through the night seeking to pounce on the living180. The ‫ פחד לילות‬might also refer to demons howling at night in the desert from which the litter just ascended (cf. Deut 32,10). The popular imagination of the desert is powerfully described in Isa 34,14: “Wildcats shall meet with hyenas, goat-demons shall call to each other; there too Lilith shall repose, and find a place to rest” (NRSV). It is only natural that Solomon’s litter carrying a precious freight should be heavily guarded and protected both against evil spirits and natural dangers on such a perilous route. In the context of Song 3,8 the ‫ פחד לילות‬has been interpreted on the basis of the assumption that the Song is a collection of wedding songs, and hence identified with “the widespread belief in evil spirits and night demons lying in wait to harm the young couple particularly whilst the marriage is being consummated”181. A biblical example of this belief is 178. Ibid. 179. Girding the sword on the hip means getting ready for fight; cf. Exod 32,27; Judg 3,16; Neh 4,18. 180. See HOSSFELD – ZENGER, Psalmen 51–100, p. 622; and M. MALUL, Terror of the Night ‫פחד לילה‬, in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, Leiden, Brill, 21999, 851-854. 181. MALUL, Terror of the Night, p. 854. See also S. KRAUSS, Der richtige Sinn von “Schrecken in der Nacht” HL III. 8., in B. SCHINDLER (ed.), Gaster Anniversary Volume:

SOLOMON’S WEDDING (SONG 3,6-11)

661

found in the story of Tobit and Sarah. Seven grooms in a row had been killed on their wedding night by the demon Asmodeus who jealously watched over Sarah (cf. Tob 3,8.17; 6,8.17; 8,2-3)182. The tradition of a demon coming to kill the very night the newlyweds first slept together is also well attested to in later Judaism183. The fact that both bride and bridegroom are accompanied by a number of men and women (paranymphs for the Greeks and ‫ שושבין‬for the Rabbis) has been related to this belief. They held watch at the nuptial chamber184. This custom would explain why Solomon’s is protected by sixty mighty men against the terror in the night. 3. “The Palanquin” (Song 3,9-10) A palanquin made the King Solomon for himself from trees of Lebanon. Its pillars he made of silver, its backrest of gold, its mount of purple, its interior inlaid with love of the Daughters of Jerusalem (Song 3,9-10).

If it is to be understood, as it is by most commentators, as a synonymous term for Solomon’s litter185, then the poet now shifts the focus from the description of the litter’s entourage (vv. 7b-8) to the description of the litter/ palanquin itself (vv. 9-10)186. In doing so he zooms in from the broader scene to the finer detail, or rather, from outside to inside. Commentators are surprised by the fact that Solomon is said to have made this palanquin for himself (‫)עשה לו‬. One would expect him to have made a sedan chair for his bride. On the one hand, it could be that Solomon sent his own sedan chair to bring home the bride, as was probably the custom in royal weddings. By using the verb ‫עשה‬, however, the poet makes explicit reference to the fact that Solomon himself did the construction and thereby makes implicit reference to Solomon’s heavy construction activity. It is Being Studies in Semitic Philology and Literature, Jewish History and Philosophy and Folklore in the Widest Sense. In Honour of Haham Dr. M. Gaster’s 80th Birthday, London, Taylor’s Foreign Press, 1936, 323-330. 182. A similar tradition is attested to in 4 Ezra 10,1, “But when my son entered his wedding-chamber, he fell down dead”. Here, however, we are dealing with an allegory of the destruction of Jerusalem, symbolized by a woman, who mourns the death of her inhabitants in the symbol of her son, as Uriel explains in vv. 48-49, “Jerusalem was inhabited. Then she told you of the great loss she suffered, how her son died on the day he entered his wedding-chamber; that was the destruction which overtook Jerusalem”. 183. See extensively KRAUSS, Der richtige Sinn von “Schrecken in der Nacht”. 184. See ibid., p. 325. According to Rabbinic sources, cited by Krauss (Pirqe RE. c. 12), there was fear of ‫( כשפים‬witchcraft). 185. See RUNDGREN, Tragsessel; G. GARBINI, La Datazione del “Cantico dei cantici”, in Rivista degli Studi Orientali 56 (1982) 39-46, p. 41; MÜLLER, Hohelied, p. 36, n. 99; HEINEVETTER, “Komm nun, mein Liebster”, p. 69; RAVASI, Cantico, p. 323; BARBIERO, Song, p. 153. 186. See BARBIERO, Song, p. 152.

662

PART III – CHAPTER 10

noteworthy that he made the palanquin “of trees from Lebanon”. Wood from Lebanon has a very specific connotation within the Bible. It is the epitome of the choice material with which both Solomon and Ezra constructed the Temple (cf. 1 Kgs 5,20 || 2 Chr 2,7; Ezra 3,7). Furthermore the “House of the Forest of Lebanon” constructed by Solomon is so called because it was built with wood from the cedars of Lebanon (cf. 1 Kgs 7,2). The “House of the Forest of Lebanon” also had pillars (‫)עמודים‬. In 1 Kgs 7,8 it is said that Solomon made (‫ )עשה‬a similar house for Pharaoh’s daughter whom he had taken in marriage187. No other king in the Old Testament is depicted as so busy in construction as Solomon. However, the most important implementation of all his reign was without any doubt the construction of the Temple. Particularly in 2 Chr 2,3–5,1 the construction of the Temple is described as if Solomon (and not Hiram) had done everything by himself188. This implicit allusion to Solomon’s construction activity will have to be reconsidered when looking at the possible symbolic meaning of this passage as it hints at an equation of the palanquin with the Temple. Verse 10 proceeds with the description of this lavishly decorated ‫אפריון‬. Solomon made its pillars of silver. If the ‫ אפריון‬refers to a palanquin as the ancient witnesses would suggest, the word “pillars” probably refer to the poles that uphold the baldachin and form the legs that support the litter at the same time. The use of very elaborately constructed litters especially for women increased greatly during the Hellenistic period. A passage of the Deipnosophists of Athenaeus relates that in the year 167 B.C., “on the occasion of the opening ceremonies for the thirty-day games that Antiochus IV Epiphanes put on in Daphne, bearers carried in eighty richly dressed women on litters (φορεῖος) with gold supports and five hundred litters with silver supports”189. The materials of gold and silver used in these Greek litters correspond to the ones used in the construction of the ‫ אפריון‬here in question. It appears that the poet wants to describe a palanquin which is in every respect able to compete with the most magnificent palanquins of his time. The mount is made of purple. In the same Hellenistic text quoted above there is mention of purple rugs in the interior of the litter190. As mentioned earlier (see I.3, above, p. 625) the construction 187. GERLEMAN, Hohelied, pp. 141-142, sees here a poetic hyperbole making allusion to the House of the Forest of Lebanon (‫בית יער הלבנון‬, 1 Kgs 7,2; 10,17.21); the Hall of Pillars (‫אולם העמודים‬, 1 Kgs 7,6); or the Hall of the Throne (‫הכסא אולם‬, 1 Kgs 7,7). 188. Note how in 2 Chr 4,18-19 Solomon is said to have constructed (‫ )עשה‬the entire Temple furniture by himself. The verb ‫ עשה‬is repeated seven times in this passage. 189. ATHENAEUS, Deipnosophists 5.195 (ed. C.B. GULICK, II, 385); cited in KEEL, Song, pp. 131-132. 190. ATHENAEUS, Deipnosophists 5.212 (ed. C.B. GULICK, II, 461); cited in KEEL, Song, p. 131.

SOLOMON’S WEDDING (SONG 3,6-11)

663

of the litter brings together the most valuable materials of the ancient world, and they are enumerated in increasing costliness: cedar wood, silver, gold, and purple191. As Ravasi points out, because of its high cost, “[m]aterial dyed with purple was reserved for special purposes, like statues of divinities (Jer 10,9), curtains, and other objects of the sanctuary (Exod 26,1.4.31), priests’ vestments (Exod 28,4-35; Sir 45,10), and those of the king (Judg 8,28; Esth 8,15; 1 Macc 10,63.64; 14,44)”192. The description of the litter’s construction materials thus underlines once again the affinity of royal and sacral symbolism that is so characteristic of the ANE royal ideology and which is consistently found throughout the Song. It is highly significant, however, that wood, silver, gold, and purple with which the palanquin is constructed echo the construction material of the Mishkan. According to Exod 36,8–39,1 the material used in the construction of the Ark, the Tabernacle, and its furniture was acacia wood, silver, gold, and purple193. There, too, we have an insistence on the “pillars”, the hooks of which were made of gold. In fact, the Ark and the Tabernacle may well be seen as a metaphorical “litter” and “palanquin” in which the Lord traverses the desert in the midst of his people. As LaCocque rightly observes: “[the] epithalamium’s backdrop is striking: smoke pillars, fragrant myrrh and frankincense, silver, gold, purple … the parallel with the temple liturgy (cf. Exod 30.34; Lev 2.1-2, 15-16; cf. 1 Chr 9.20; Neh 13.5, 9; Jer 6.20; Isa 43.23) does not lack trenchancy”194. These allusions shall be further exploited under III, below, p. 669. Its interior was inlaid “with love of the Daughters of Jerusalem”. It is a challenge for every commentator to respect at once the metaphoric language and yet not to shrink back from the concrete meaning: the construction material with which the interior of the litter was made is said to have been “love of the Daughters of Jerusalem”. It is as if one were to imagine all the love of the Daughters of Jerusalem filling this litter; or even to represent before one’s eyes the presence of the royal harem within the litter. In the context of a wedding this is an odd situation. Some want to recognize a polemic note concerning Solomon’s love for many women195. “The poet is making sport of the foolishness of King 191. See Rev 18,12 for a similar enumeration of the most precious materials. Regarding the costliness of purple, Ravasi points out that it was more precious than gold. A gram of purple was apparently equivalent to 10-20 grams of gold. See RAVASI, Cantico, pp. 325326. 192. Ibid. 193. See also ROBERT – TOURNAY – FEUILLET, Cantique, pp. 150-151; and LACOCQUE, Romance, pp. 100-101. 194. LACOCQUE, Romance, pp. 100-101. 195. See, e.g., HEINEVETTER, “Komm nun, mein Liebster”, p. 113.

664

PART III – CHAPTER 10

Solomon, who does not understand that he cannot love many women at the same time, for the greatness of their number thwarts the realization of a truly loving relationship”196. The ANE, however, knew no such thing as a royal monogamy. On the contrary, the size of a king’s harem reflected his wealth and power197. Nowhere in the story of Israel’s royalty is a king reprimanded for having had a harem. While David had a good number of wives, he is reproached only for having taken the wife of another (2 Sam 12,8-9). Solomon in 1 Kgs 11,1-4 is reproached for having “loved many foreign women”, not the fact of having had a harem. Deut 17,17 admonishes the king not to multiply wives for himself, but this is not yet an interdiction of polygamy198. Only at the time of Sir 47,19-21 is Solomon reproached for having bent his loins to a multitude of women and having thereby caused the breaking apart of the kingdom. Such a critique, however, remains a biblical outlier and does not obviously underlie the description of Solomon’s wedding. The Song, in fact, takes up the topic of Solomon’s harem at several reprises. Song 6,8 is a clear allusion to Solomon’s vast harem, which according to 1 Kgs 11,3 comprised “seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines”, which makes a total of one thousand women, a symbolic number which is to express the uncountability of Solomon’s wives and therefore the inestimable power of this fabled king. Though the exact numbers differ, Song 6,8 expresses the same concept: “Sixty were the queens, eighty the concubines and maidens without number”. Among this uncountable number of women, the Beloved of the Song is praised to be unique Singular (‫)אחת‬, is my dove, my perfect one, singular (‫ )אחת‬is she to her mother, pure is she to her that bore her. The maidens saw her and called her blessed, the queens and the concubines praised her (6,9).

There is no trace of condemnation of the immensity of the harem here. On the contrary, the greatness of the harem serves to underscore the uniqueness of the Beloved. Among the ladies of the harem, she holds the king’s preference199. The same is the case in Ps 45,10 where the king is surrounded by daughters of kings, who form no doubt part of the royal harem on the day he receives his spouse for marriage. In Song 3,10c-d, too, the love of the Daughters of Jerusalem in no way undermines the unique importance 196. ZAKOVITCH, Hohelied, p. 178. 197. DE VAUX, Ancient Israel, 1961, p. 115. 198. See ibid. 199. Ibid., p. 117, who gives the fitting examples of Bathsheba and David, of Jezebel and Ahab, of Athaliha and Joram, and Maacah whom Rehoboam “loved more than all his other wives and concubines” (2 Chr 11,21).

SOLOMON’S WEDDING (SONG 3,6-11)

665

of the Beloved; indeed it underscores her importance. Even though Song 8,11 will be very critical of Solomon’s many wives (see Chapter 9, III, above, p. 617) there is no trace of irony or criticism to be made out in the present description of Solomon’s litter200. The Daughters of Jerusalem certainly play a positive role in the Song. They are addressed by the Beloved seven times in total, four of which in the adjuration formula (Song 2,7; 3,5; 5,8; 8,4), twice more, 1,5 and 5,16, and once in the present passage. It is noteworthy that in Song 1,5 they are also mentioned in relation to Solomon. They may appear as playing only the literary role of a chorus that allows for a certain dramatic vivacity of the poem. In the present context, however, the Daughters of Jerusalem play an active role. Their love is a vital ingredient of Solomon’s palanquin. Even the frequency of their appearance gives them a constitutive role within the Song which cannot be reduced to the literary device of a dialogue partner or the dramatic role of a chorus. Outside of the Song the expression “Daughters of Jerusalem” does not appear anywhere else in the Hebrew Bible. The expression in the singular, “Daughter of Jerusalem” (‫)בת ירושלם‬, however, is frequently found (e.g. 2 Kgs 19,21; Isa 37,22; Mic 4,8; Zeph 3,14; Zech 9,9; Lam 2,13.15). With one exception (Lam 2,15), the “Daughter Jerusalem” is always mentioned in parallel with “Daughter Zion”. It is therefore noteworthy that in the present context the “Daughters of Jerusalem” are also mentioned in parallel with the “Daughters of Zion” (v. 11). The conjunction of the Daughters of Jerusalem in v. 10 and the Daughters of Zion in v. 11 is a poetic variation of the prophetic expression201. In this way the all-important motif of the expected covenant renewal in the form of a marriage between YHWH and Zion is evoked (cf. Isa 54,4-10; 62,1-5), as also the coming of a Solomonic Messiah (cf. Zech 9,9)202.

200. It has, however, to be kept in mind that 8,11 stands in a different context. The whole passage 8,5-14 appears to be part of a sapiential reflection on the five preceding cycles. In that context the rejection of Solomon is key to understanding who the Solomon of the Song is, i.e. who the poetic figure of Solomon is. It is only in this last cycle that the poetry takes a clear distance from the historical Solomon and his many wives, as if to say: “It is not he about whom I have been singing but the one of whom he was to be the figure, that is, a Solomon, who like in the Books of Chronicles is spotless, a Solomon who is yet to come”. 201. See ZAKOVITCH, Hohelied, p. 95: “Die Bezeichnung ‘Tochter Zions’ oder ‘Tochter Jerusalems’ für die judäische Bevölkerung oder die Einwohnerschaft von Jerusalem bei den Propheten (z.B. Jes 1,8; 37,22; Sach 2,14; 9,9) trifft sich mit den ‘Töchtern Jerusalems’ (Hld 1,5; 2,7; 3,5; 5,8.16; 8,4) oder auch ‘Töchtern Zions’ (Hld 3,11), die in Hld den weiblichen Chor bilden”. 202. See MITCHELL, Psalter, pp. 20-209, 249, 264.

666

PART III – CHAPTER 10

How can a litter presumably sent to fetch the one and only bride be inlaid with the love of the Daughters of Jerusalem? Barbiero interprets this metaphorically and sees in the “love” by synecdoche “the person whose love is indicated. At the ‘center’ of the litter is the personification of love, the young bride”203, while the Daughters of Jerusalem have “the literary function of conferring ‘choral’ richness on the love of the two people”204. His solution is not convincing. The text speaks clearly of the “love of the Daughters of Jerusalem” lining the litter from within. One cannot turn these daughters into “an amplification of the love of the one who alone enters into the chamber of the king” (cf. Song 1,4) without doing violence to the text205. Rather, a wedding palanquin filled with the “love of the Daughters of Jerusalem” points to the fact that the full meaning of the passage cannot be found on the level of the plain sense. Barbiero is, however, right when he then points out that “the ‘Daughters of Jerusalem’ fit in with other expressions that give this love a social and national character (‘mighty men’, ‘Daughters of Zion’). In the person of the bride all the love of the ‘Daughters of Jerusalem’ comes to Solomon. The young bride personifies not only the theological dimension of love … [i]t is the expression of the people of Israel”206. We find here yet another indication that the plain sense hints at a symbolic level. 4. “King Solomon on the Day of His Wedding” (Song 3,11) Go out and behold, oh Daughters of Zion, King Solomon with the crown with which his mother crowned him on the day of his wedding and on the day of the joy of his heart (Song 3,11).

Abruptly the voice of the narrator turns to the Daughters of Zion and summons them to go out (‫ )יצא‬and look at King Solomon. It is the first time in the Song that these “Daughters of Zion” are mentioned. The expression “Daughters of Zion” is also found in the Book of Isaiah where it serves as a “pars pro toto” designating the upper class of Jerusalem (cf. 3,16.17; 4,4)207. The insertion of the “Daughters of Zion” into the text creates an allusion to the Zion theology of the prophetic texts, particularly to that of Deutero- and Trito-Isaiah. Their mention in conjunction with the “mighty men of Israel” lends yet another nationalistic coloratura to the poem. 203. 204. 205. 206. 207.

BARBIERO, Song, p. 157. Ibid. Ibid., p. 158. Ibid., pp. 157-158. See BEUKEN, Jesaja 1–12, p. 119.

SOLOMON’S WEDDING (SONG 3,6-11)

667

The scene is reminiscent of the women going out (‫ )יצא‬from all the cities of Israel to greet Saul and David upon David’s victory over the Philistines with singing and dancing (1 Sam 18,7). Though coming to meet both King Saul and David, the women praise David more than Saul. In that context the behavior of Israel’s women is representative of the behavior and love of the entire people towards David wherefore Saul fears for his kingdom. In the Song, it is the Daughters of Zion who are to go out (‫ )יצא‬and welcome King Solomon on the day of his wedding. Solomon is not the victorious King coming back from battle, as was David, but rather – as befits the king of peace (see Chapter 9) – the bridegroom King whom they are called to admire. Peace and marriage belong intimately together. Young bridegrooms are even dispensed from battle during the first year of marriage (cf. Deut 24,5). A king would not celebrate a luxurious wedding during a time of war. Thus, it is telling that Solomon first establishes his father David’s reign and only after having killed the latter’s remaining enemies (1 Kgs 2,36-46) proceeds to marry208. Upon the focused procession in motion follows the static image of King Solomon in all his splendor wearing a crown on the day of his wedding. By summoning the Daughters of Zion to go out and behold the sight of this glorious King, the audience is called to gather around the scene and behold the King in his adornment at the center. The oddity is that the bride is not mentioned. The identity of King Solomon’s bride remains enigmatic throughout the canto. This is another indicator of the passage’s symbolic potency, one which the reader is called to carefully search out. For the moment, however, neither eye nor mind are distracted from the King. Another curiosity of this passage is the fact of Solomon’s mother crowing him on the day of his wedding. There is not one historical example of a king’s enthronement coinciding with the day of his wedding – a feature known only from sacred marriages – nor with a king’s mother crowning her sons. One is, however, reminded of the key role Solomon’s mother played in giving him the throne. Had it not been for Bathsheba’s intrigues Solomon would not have become King of Israel (cf. 1 Kgs 1,11-40)209. In this respect one might say that Bathsheba has metaphorically crowned Solomon. Nonetheless, she did not crown him, as v. 11 would have it, on 208. The account of Solomon’s ascension to the throne closes with the death of Shimei and is followed by the assessment, “So the kingdom was established in the hand of Solomon” (NRSV). Thereupon follows the first act of his reign which is his marriage to the daughter of Pharaoh (1 Kgs 3,1). 209. See RICCIOTTI, Cantico, p. 226; RAVASI, Cantico, p. 330; ZAKOVITCH, Hohelied, p. 179.

668

PART III – CHAPTER 10

the day of his wedding, unless the enthronement of a king was symbolically understood as his wedding to his people. This possibility will have to be further investigated in the symbolic reading below. There is, of course, also the possibility that Solomon’s crown reflects an ancient wedding custom. With regard to the attestation in m. Soṭah 9.1415 according to which the wearing of crowns (‫ )עטרה‬by the bridal couple was prohibited during the Vespasian War, as was the going out in palanquins (‫ )אפריון‬for brides during the Bar Kochba revolt, there is some skepticism (cf. Chapter 6, I, above, p. 325). Yet, it is clear from the context that this is the day of Solomon’s wedding and that his mother crowned him on this day. Crowns occur in the Bible as the symbol of regality, though only once is there explicit mention of a king being crowned, i.e. when David takes the crown of the Ammonite King’s head and has himself being crowned with it (cf. 2 Sam 12,30)210. From an oracle of Jeremiah it appears that both the king and the king’s mother, the ‫גבירה‬, had a crown as symbols of their regal dignity and authority (cf. Jer 13,18). Another occurrence is in the prophetic word of Zech 6,11, according to which “Joshua, the son of Jehozadak, the high priest” is to be crowned. Furthermore, God’s blessing, whether given or taken, is compared to a crown (Ps 21,3; Job 19,9). Wisdom, too, will crown her devotee (Prov 4,9); a good wife is a crown for her husband (Prov 12,4); and the downfall of Jerusalem is likened to her having lost her regal crown (Lam 5,16). Others have proposed that the crown was the bride herself whom the mother procured as a spouse for her son211 – not in the homely sense of the proverb, but rather as in Isa 62,3, where Zion the divine spouse is regarded as a crown in the hand of the Lord. There are, in fact, a number of parallels between the passage under study and the prophecy of Isaiah to Jerusalem in Isa 62,1-12. Just as in Song 3,10-11, Zion and Jerusalem are paralleled in Isa 62,1, “For Zion’s sake I will not keep silent, and for Jerusalem’s sake I will not rest”. She will be a crown (‫ )עטרה‬in the Hand of YHWH; the Lord will delight in her; and her (Jerusalem’s) land will be married (62,4). Moreover the prophet likens God’s joy over Jerusalem to that of a young bridegroom (‫ )חתן‬over his bride (‫( )כלה‬Isa 62,5), which is exactly the language used in Song 3,11 and 4,8–5,1. Even the watchmen of the previous scene, Song 3,1-5, find an echo in Isa 62,6, “Upon your walls, O Jerusalem, I have set watchmen (‫ ;)שמרים‬all the day and all the night they shall never be silent”. If these parallels were intended, then 210. In the parallel verse of 1 Chr 20,2 it says, “and it was placed on David’s head”. 211. LYS, Le plus beau chant de la création, p. 163 (my translation).

SOLOMON’S WEDDING (SONG 3,6-11)

669

Jerusalem itself, or metonymically Israel, can be seen to be the bride of this little canto. The scene of this final verse describes clearly the day of Solomon’s wedding. Together with the Daughters of Zion, the audience is summoned to admire King Solomon in all his spousal and royal splendor who is at the center of the picture. The allusion to his mother’s crowning him gives the impression that she is standing next to him (cf. Ps 45,10). Neither is his bride mentioned nor is her identity unveiled. It is only suggested that she is the one coming up from the desert in the procession that has been amply described in vv. 6-10. 5. Some Conclusions The close reading has brought to light the following elements. A voice, probably a choir or a narrator, is indicating by the question “who is this, coming up from the desert?” that the Beloved of the Song is coming up towards Jerusalem. Yet, she is not mentioned once in the entire canto of Song 3,6-11. Instead, four long verses describe Solomon’s heavily guarded and luxuriously decorated litter, a kind of palanquin or sedan chair, coming up towards Mount Zion (cf. v. 11). The genre of the passage has been compared to an ancient epithalamium because of the fact that a nuptial procession seems to be described in vv. 7-10 and because explicit mention of Solomon’s wedding is made in v. 11. At the same time, it has been observed that the language employed to describe the procession is charged with liturgical vocabulary. This is either because the poet wants to give the love between the two protagonists of the Song a sacred character, or because there is in fact a very real sacred character to this wedding as shall be argued now.

III. SYMBOLIC SENSE: WHO IS

THE

BRIDE?

Up to now the attempt has been made to give as much room to a nonsymbolic reading as possible to allow for a sufficient unfolding of the anthropological sense of the Song. It is time now to allow the symbolic dimensions of the text to develop their potential212. Even after the close reading, the answer to the question “Who is this?” in Song 3,6 remains enigmatic. Though the question implies that the answer is the Beloved of 212. It may be repeated here that a symbolic reading is not to be understood in opposition to the “literal sense”; rather, the symbolic meaning is part of the literal, as it is based entirely on the material sense of the text.

670

PART III – CHAPTER 10

the Song213, it remains open just who she is. For the fact is that the passage takes no further notice of the bride. On the contrary, the poem concentrates extensively on the description of Solomon’s litter/palanquin coming up to Jerusalem. It is the only occurrence in the Song of such an intensive description of an object and not a person. The description of the litter/ palanquin and its entourage receives an attention that is elsewhere in the Song only given to the description of the bodies of the two lovers. This feature is a sure indication of its symbolic significance within the poem. In order to gain a deeper understanding of the symbolic meaning of this passage, its two core symbols, that is, the symbol of a royal litter/palanquin and that of the King, will be traced in their mutual relationship. A first clue is given by Zakovitch, for whom the difficult transition from Song 3,6 to v. 7 is an indicator of a posterior allegorizing intention. He suspects a possible allusion to the desert tent in v. 9 and proposes the following: “Etwas im Sinne von Jer 2,2 könnte der Redaktor von Hld 3,6 auf die Beziehung zwischen Gott und Israel zur Zeit der Wüstenwanderung bezogen haben; dann wären die Rauchsäulen ein Hinweis auf die Wolken- und Feuersäule, die Israel damals begleitete, und die Schilderung des königlichen Tragsessels eine Bezugnahme auf die Anfertigung der Stiftshütte”214. Zakovitch has rightly made the decisive hermeneutical move in reading the text as a symbolic representation of the history of Israel. Nevertheless, the imagery and reference of these verses appear to be even richer than Zakovitch allows. While he is certainly right to perceive allusions to the column of cloud and the time of Israel in the wilderness, the image of a litter in this context also inevitably evokes the image of the Ark of the Covenant215. The passage thus not only makes allusion to the Exodus and wilderness but telescopes the whole history of Israel from Sinai to Solomon into a single symbolic tableau. Indeed, Song 3,6-11 ultimately depicts the bringing of the Ark and the Tabernacle into the Temple at the time of Solomon, as will be demonstrated in the present section. The advantage of this reading is that in contrast to Zakovitch it takes full account of both the figure of Solomon and the extensive attention given to his litter. At the same time the appearance of both marriage and coronation imagery in Song 3,11 finds an explanation in the parallel materials, both ANE and biblical.

213. See above II, p. 645: Song 3,6. 214. ZAKOVITCH, Hohelied, p. 171. 215. See, e.g., JOÜON, Cantique, pp. 180-191; RUDOLPH, Hohe Lied, p. 141; LACOCQUE, Romance, p. 98.

SOLOMON’S WEDDING (SONG 3,6-11)

671

In order to gain the necessary historical perspective on the litter/palanquin symbol, the robust royal associations of divine litters (Götterwagen) in Egypt, Mesopotamia, and in Israel will be treated (III.1). This will aid in identifying the litter/palanquin of Solomon as the Ark of the Covenant viewed in a liturgical, sacred marriage procession. In III.2 the key biblical inter-text, the traditions surrounding David’s transport of the Ark (2 Samuel 6), will be analyzed in the light of this ANE material. From this vantage point a key hint of background of sacred marriage, as well as new dimensions of the Ark’s symbolic meaning, will be articulated. Finally, in light of the foregoing, the traditions surrounding Solomon and the Ark will be brought to bear on Song 3,6-11 in III.3. The resulting reading of the passage will allow for both a satisfactory resolution of the crux in v. 6, “Who is this?” and the heuristic that will open the sealed garden in Song 4,12– 5,1 in the following chapter. 1. Götterwagen and ANE Kings In the ancient world the gods had chariots on which they were presented to their people. On these chariots they rode into warfare or were carried around in cultic processions216. The Ark of the Covenant is the biblical version of these Götterwagen; it is in fact God’s palanquin. It served as a chariot or a litter to bring the Lord into war with the people (cf. Joshua 6; 1 Samuel 4–6; 2 Sam 11,11) in the belief that the victory would be won through the presence of God on his palanquin (Num 14,44-45)217. During the wilderness wandering, YHWH thus accompanied the Israelites, residing upon the Ark as on his war chariot (cf. Num 10,33-36)218. When Joshua set out to take Jericho, YHWH himself, residing on the Ark, made the city walls fall (Josh 6,1-20)219. The function of the Ark as God’s palanquin emerges most clearly from the so-called Ark narrative in 1 Samuel 4–6. It is here that the Ark is 216. See R. MAYER-OPIFICIUS, Götterprozessionen, in J.-W. MEYER – M. NOVÁK – A. PRUSS (eds.), Beiträge zur vorderasiatischen Archäologie: Festschrift für Orthmann Winfried, Frankfurt a.M., Johann Wolfgang Goethe Universität, Archäologisches Institut, 2001, 282-291. 217. When the people made a first vain attempt to conquer the Promised Land against the command of the Lord, “the Ark of the Covenant and Moses did not depart from the midst of the camp”. In the absence of God on his chariot, the Amalekites and the Canaanites defeated the Israelites. 218. “From his chariot the Lord searched out the place of rest for the people and dispelled their enemies. Thus, “whenever the Ark set out, Moses would say: ‘arise Oh Lord, let your enemies be scattered, and those who hate you flee before you!’” (Num 10,35). 219. All that Israel had to do was to carry the Ark around the city, blow the trumpets, and make the characteristic battle-cry (‫ )תרועה‬resound.

672

PART III – CHAPTER 10

designated for the first time as “Ark of the Covenant of YHWH of Hosts who sits enthroned upon the cherubim” (cf. 1 Sam 4,4; 2 Sam 6,2). Other than this being apparently the most ancient liturgical name of the Ark220, it witnesses to an early conception of the Ark as being a portable throne for YHWH the warrior king221. While in the later priestly tradition the Ark will be referred to as the footstool of the cherubim throne on which, in the innermost chamber of the Temple, God was invisibly enthroned as king222, in the earliest biblical references it is understood to be the concrete palanquin of God himself, his war chariot (Num 10,33-36; Josh 6,1-21; 220. See T.N.D. METTINGER, The Dethronement of Sabaoth: Studies in the Shem and Kabod Theologies (CB.OT, 18), Lund, Gleerup, 1982, p. 121. 221. T.N.D. METTINGER, Yhwh Sabaoth – The Heavenly King on the Cherubim Throne, in I. TOMOO (ed.), Studies in the Period of David and Solomon and Other Essays: Papers Read at the International Symposium for Biblical Studies, Tokyo, 5-7 December, 1979, Winona Lake, IN, Eisenbrauns, 1982, 109-138, p. 134, supposes that “both the complete divine designation of ‫ יהוה צבאות ישב הכרבים‬and a corresponding throne of cherubim existed already at Shiloh”. In ID., Dethronement, pp. 107-133, he traces three currents of Ark traditions in the Old Testament. The oldest current, which he refers to as the “ZionSabaoth Theology of the Jerusalem Cult Tradition”, goes back to monarchical Israel. It sees God, ‫יהוה־זבאות‬, enthroned as a King in Zion, the Ark serving as the footstool of his cherubim throne. With the catastrophe of the Exile this idea was no longer tenable and two different theological currents developed, each searching for a solution to an apparent dilemma: “On the one hand there was the established cult theology with its assurance of God’s presence in the Temple and protection of the City (the Zion tradition), and on the other hand the approach of judgement (Ezekiel) and the harsh reality of the disasters at the beginning of the sixth century”. The latter is developed in the Deuteronomistic history according to which God only made his name reside (‫ )שכן‬in the Temple, called The Name Theology. The former is found in the Priestly material and Ezekiel, and is referred to as The Kabod Theology. It is clearly related to the early Zion-Sabaoth Theology, with ancient pre-monarchical roots, for it envisions the kābōd as God’s actual, immanent, but mobile presence over the Ark, or his chariot throne. Whereas in pre-exilic times the term kābōd would have been used as a divine attribute (see Ps 24,7-10; 29), in Ezekiel it develops into a divine name. There kābōd has both a broad and a narrow meaning. It can encompass the divine presence and his chariot throne simultaneously, but there are also several passages which “make a clear distinction between the kābōd and the throne beneath God. This is the case when the texts describe the kābōd as located above the cherubim (Ezek 10:19; 11:22), or when it simply abandons the chariot throne (Ezek 9:3; 10:4). Here the kābōd functions as a name of God”. See also M. METZGER, Königsthron und Gottesthron: Text. Thronformen und Throndarstellungen in Ägypten und im Vorderen Orient im dritten und zweiten Jahrtausend vor Christus und deren Bedeutung für das Verständnis von Aussagen über den Thron im Alten Testament (AOAT, 15), Neukirchen-Vluyn, Butzon & Bercker, 1985, pp. 309-319. 222. For the Ark as footstool of God’s heavenly throne, see 1 Chr 28,2; Ps 99,5; 132,78; Isa 66,1; Lam 2,1. See METTINGER, Dethronement, p. 23: “we are told that David intended to build ‘a house of rest for the ark of the covenant of the Lord, and for the footstool of our God’ (1 Chr 28:2) the expression does not describe two different objects, but one and the same, since the wāw connecting both phrases is an example of the wāw explicativum: the Ark is identical with the footstool. Similarly, ‫ הדם רגליו‬seems in Pss 99:5 and 132:7 to refer to the Ark”.

SOLOMON’S WEDDING (SONG 3,6-11)

673

1 Samuel 4–6)223. Chariot language is applied to the Ark with special clarity in 1 Chr 28,18 where the Ark is called a ‫“ מרכבה‬chariot”. This idea of YHWH riding on the Ark as his palanquin is also preserved in Ps 24,7-10, which celebrates YHWH’s cultic return as mighty warrior and glorious king to the sanctuary224. Scholars presume that his return was represented by the procession of the Ark225, during which the psalm was perhaps antiphonally sung between those who carried the Ark and the gatekeepers of the Ark (1 Chr 15,23-24)226. A possible reminiscence of a liturgical procession with the Ark in the early monarchy may also be found in the incipit of Psalm 68, “Let God rise up, let his enemies be scattered; let those who hate him flee before him” (NRSV). Similarly, in Ps 47,6 the ‫תרועה‬, the characteristic battle-cry associated with the Ark, presumably makes allusion to a procession of the Ark (1 Sam 4,6; 2 Sam 6,15/ 1 Chr 15,28)227. Finally, in Psalm 132, an old hymn from the royal cult, YHWH’s entry into his abode on Zion is associated with the transfer of the Ark to the Temple of Jerusalem. As in Psalm 24, the transfer of the Ark to the Temple in Ps 132,8 equals YHWH’s entry into the Temple. Arise, Oh Lord, towards the place of your rest228, you and the Ark of your force.

The tradition of this psalm appears to be wholly independent of the traditions in the Deuteronomistic history, for the Ark is depicted as being 223. See HUROWITZ, YHWH’s Exalted House, p. 86. The term which expresses this concept of the divine presence being enthroned on the Ark is the verb ‫ישב‬, “to sit, dwell”. See METTINGER, Dethronement, pp. 19-24, who supplies a number of figures from oriental graphic art, depicting ANE cherubim thrones. Thus on the sarcophagus of Ahiram of Byblos a relief is found representing a god or a king seated upon a cherubim throne; in a Late Bronze Age stratum of Megiddo, a depiction of a prince on a cherubim throne has been found, as well as an ivory model of a cherubim throne. In all these representations the throneseat itself is supported by the two cherubim. 224. See H. GRESSMANN, Die Lade Jahves und das Allerheiligste des Salomonischen Tempels (Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten Testament, 1), Stuttgart, Kohlhammer, 1920, p. 4; and CROSS, Canaanite Myth, p. 93: “[T]he portion of the psalm in verses 7-10 had its origin in the procession of the Ark to the sanctuary at its founding, celebrated annually in the cult of Solomon and perhaps even David”. 225. On the evidence of Ark-processions in monarchic Israel, see VAN DER TOORN, New Year Festival, pp. 340-341, with further references. 226. See C.-L. SEOW, Ark of the Covenant, in Anchor Bible Dictionary, I, New York, Doubleday, 1992, 386-393, p. 387. 227. See ibid. 228. Note that according to the Deuteronomist, Canaan is the place of rest (‫ )מנוחה‬for Israel (Deut 12,9, “for you have not yet come into the rest and the possession that the LORD your God is giving you”), which is acquired only when the Temple is built and the Ark transferred into it; then Solomon can pray, “Blessed be the Lord, who has given rest to his people Israel according to all that he promised; not one word has failed of all his good promise, which he spoke through his servant Moses” (1 Kgs 8,56). In 2 Chr 28,2 the Temple is therefore called “a house of rest for the Ark”.

674

PART III – CHAPTER 10

transferred directly from its old sanctuary in Ephrata (v. 6) to the Jerusalem Temple229. Yet, the theology is the same, i.e. Mount Zion is the abode of YHWH (Ps 132,13; 1 Kgs 8,1) and the transfer of the Ark into the Temple means that YHWH now dwells therein (cf. Ps 132,13-14; 2 Sam 6,1-23; 1 Kgs 8,1-13), which is to say, YHWH and the chariot on which he rides are conceived of as inseparable. From the neighboring cultures a number of texts have come down to us that attest to hymns sung during such Götterwagenprozessionen230. This material reveals the enormous liturgical importance that was dedicated to these divine chariots. Kings would regularly receive detailed divine commissions to construct Götterwagen, the execution of which reflected the same royal ideology as temple building (see Chapter 6). The dedication of these divine chariots would coincide with major liturgical processions and were presumably annually commemorated. Major elements of these feasts were the sacred marriage of the divine couple for whom the chariot had been constructed and the crowning of the king who had executed the works. In addition to being crowned, the gods would decree the fate of the king and grant him a goddess as spouse. It is to be expected that Israel too would have had a similar patrimony of rites surrounding its Ark liturgies in which the king would have played a central role and which were related to the King’s crowning and symbolic wedding. a) Egyptian Parallels One of the ANE parallels with which the Ark has been compared is the Egyptian procession barque on which the statues of the gods were placed231. Noteworthy are the Egyptian festivals under the Thutmosides232, particularly the so-called “beautiful feast of the desert-valley”, the annual feast of the dead at Thebes which united the living and the dead233, and the feast of Opet, a feast during which the god Amon of Karnak would 229. For this and further evidence see CROSS, Canaanite Myth, pp. 94, n. 16, 97. 230. See MAYER-OPIFICIUS, Götterprozessionen. 231. See GRESSMANN, Lade Jahves, pp. 9, 12: “Dort [in Ägypten] findet sich nun auch eine genaue Analogie zu den beiden einander gegenüberstehenden Keruben mit ausgebreiteten Flügeln, zwischen denen sich Jahve offenbart: Schutzgottheiten, die mit ihren Flügeln einen thronenden Gott, den Osirisfetisch, die Götterstandarten oder andere Heiligtümer beschirmen. […] Zwar ist die Lade Jahves kein Schrein, weil der Kasten dem widerspricht; dennoch kann man den Aufsatz der Lade nach Analogie der ägyptischen Prozessionschreine verstehen, so dass die Verwandtschaft nicht zu bestreiten ist”. 232. These feasts continued to be celebrated during the reign of Ramses II and Ramses III. See GERLEMAN, Hohelied, p. 137. 233. See S. SCHOTT, Das schöne Fest vom Wüstentale: Festbräuche einer Totenstadt (Akademie der Wissenschaft und der Literatur. Abhandlungen der geistes- und

SOLOMON’S WEDDING (SONG 3,6-11)

675

render a yearly visit to the goddess Mut in her temple in Luxor234. For both feasts a great number of hymns as well as complete sequences of images are extant. Both entail night processions accompanied by a great number of soldiers, during which the priests would offer incense. The processions would lead to the tombs of the kings thus transforming them into the “house of the joy of the heart”235. The core of these processions was constituted by a procession barque, one of which was for the king236. The striking similarity between Song 3,6-11 and the Egyptian cultic Götterwagen processions have been treated by Gerleman237. b) Mesopotamian Parallels As in Egypt, Götterwagen processions, whether with boat, litter, chariot, or any other kind of carriage, appear as a consistent feature of cultic life in Mesopotamia. Three things are of particular interest in the corpus of relevant Mesopotamian materials. First, we find hymns overtly modeled on Temple dedication texts. Second, these hymns are composed in honor of the cultic vehicle itself, celebrating the elements of its construction. Third, the ritual climax envisioned in these hymns is a sacred marriage. Here, as also in temple building, ANE royal ideology informing these texts comes to particular expression, whereby the sacral climax in hierogamy might also conclude with the confirmation of the king’s reigns as a reward for his service to the divine chariot. Several different Mesopotamian texts illustrate these points. The Bānītu text (STT 2, 366), a Neo-Assyrian composition that preserves the description of a divine chariot, apparently stems from a sacred marriage context238. Interestingly, the goddess Bānītu commands that her chariot be harnessed for going to the juniper garden (STT 366, line 1). The “Going to the Garden” motif, already encountered in The Love Lyrics of Nabû and Tashmetu (The Love Lyrics, rev. 16-18, 25; see Chapter 6, III, above, p. 352)239, appears to be a hallmark of divine love poetry240. The Bānītu text has sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse. Jahrg. 1952, 11), Wiesbaden, Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur, 1953, p. 92, cited in GERLEMAN, Hohelied, p. 136. 234. See W. WOLFF, Das schöne Fest von Opet: Die Festzugsdarstellung im großen Säulengang des Tempels von Luksor (Veröffentlichungen der Ernst von Sieglin-Expedition in Ägypten, 5), Leipzig, Hinrichs, 1931. 235. See GERLEMAN, Hohelied, p. 136. 236. For depictions see W. WRESZINSKI, Atlas zur altägyptischen Kulturgeschichte. Teil II (Tafel 100-202), Leipzig, Hinrichs, 1935, Table 189 et seqq., cited in GERLEMAN, Hohelied, p. 137. 237. See GERLEMAN, Hohelied, pp. 135-137. 238. See K. DELLER, STT 366: Deutungsversuch 1982, in Assur 3-4 (1983) 3-17. 239. See ibid., p. 7. 240. See WESTENHOLZ, Help for Rejected Suitors, p. 213.

676

PART III – CHAPTER 10

temporal and contextual (i.e. marriage) contacts with the Song, which are helpful in appreciating the long and abiding usage of such texts. However, two Sumerian chariot hymns have stronger textual parallels. For that reason they will now be illustrated in more detail241. “Šulgi and Ninlil’s Boat” (Šulgi R)242, the older of the two hymns, dated to the eighth year of King Šulgi’s reign (ca. 2143 B.C.), during the Third Dynasty of Ur, is a poem of approximately ninety lines commemorating a grand liturgical event243. The hymn consists of two parts of unequal length. The first part (sagidda, 1-39) is addressed directly to the boat, recounting the boat’s construction as commissioned by the goddess Ninlil, and praising its various parts. The second part (sagarra, lines 40-82) describes a ceremonial procession of the boat to Ninlil, in which the Enlil and Ninlil embrace “in marital bliss”244, and concludes with a description of the divine blessings bestowed upon Šulgi’s reign as a reward for his pious undertaking245. The second hymn, “Išme-Dagan and Enlil’s Chariot” (Išme-Dagan I) is similarly a song of praise commemorating the construction and dedication to the god Enlil of a chariot by Išme-Dagan, a king of the Isin Dynasty (1953-1935 B.C.)246. The hymn is closely related to Šulgi R, as Jacob Klein has shown – perhaps even a direct imitation meant to rival King Šulgi247. It was apparently sung during cultic processions of Enlil’s chariot248. It is approximately ninety-seven lines long and equally made up of two parts. In the first part (sagidda, 1-65), just as in Šulgi R, the poet addresses the chariot directly in the first person, telling the story of its construction and of its furnishing (the latter element is not found in Šulgi R). This is followed by a waṣf-like praising of the various parts of the chariot. In the 241. See the two comparative studies by KLEIN, Building and Dedication Hymns and J. KLEIN, Šulgi and Ismedagan: Originality and Dependency in Sumerian Royal Hymnology, in ID. – A. SKAIST (eds.), Bar-Ilan Studies in Assyriology Dedicated to Pinhas Artzi (BarIlan Studies in Near Eastern Languages and Culture), Ramat Gan, Bar-Ilan University Press, 1990, 65-136. 242. For an English translation see, http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/etcsl.cgi?text= t.2.4.2.18#. 243. See KLEIN, Šulgi and Ismedagan, pp. 80, 85. 244. The “embracing” of the gods is a frequent motif in these Sumerian dedication hymns and appears to be “an allusion to the marriage of the two deities”. See HUROWITZ, I Have Built You an Exalted House, p. 60. 245. See KLEIN, Building and Dedication Hymns, pp. 28-29. 246. See KLEIN, Šulgi and Ismedagan, p. 66. See also M. CIVIL, Išme-dagan and Enlil’s Chariot, in JAOS 88 (1968) 3-14; KLEIN, Building and Dedication Hymns. For an English translation see, http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/etcsl.cgi?text=t.2.5.4.09#. 247. See KLEIN, Building and Dedication Hymns. Išme-Dagan apparently “aspired to compare to the great Šulgi in fame and popularity”. See ID., Šulgi and Ismedagan, p. 67. 248. CIVIL, Išme-dagan, p. 3.

SOLOMON’S WEDDING (SONG 3,6-11)

677

second part (sagarra, 67-97) the dedication of the chariot is recounted, in the center of which stand Enlil and Ninlil embracing “in marital bliss”249. Thereafter Ninurta intercedes with Enlil to grant Inana as a spouse to Išme-Dagan as a blessing in recompense for his having built the divine chariot250. Both of these hymns “commemorate real cultic events”251. As for their precise cultic use, however, one is left to hypothesize252. The place of their performance was probably the Ekur temple, where the sacred vessel was installed, perhaps sacrifices offered, and the sacred marriage celebrated253. This temple Sitz im Leben is significant, for both in their thematic and structural form the Götterwagen hymns reflect the same literary pattern as the Mesopotamian royal temple dedication hymns, which all appear to have their prototype in the great Sumerian Gudea hymn describing the building and dedication of the Eninnu temple in Lagaš254. The shared hymnic pattern can be illustrated as follows: • the construction of the sacred chariot is carried out by the king in accordance with divine orders; • the beauty of the chariot is praised at length in waṣf-like descriptions; • the dedication ceremonies are described during which gods enjoy marital intimacy (probably for ensuring the fertility of the kingdom)255; 249. HUROWITZ, I Have Built You an Exalted House, p. 61. 250. See lines 88-92: “Lord Ninurta prays to Enlil: ‘Please, look with favour on IšmeDagan, the accomplished shepherd, who is at your service in the dining-hall; on the king who has built you the chariot! Give him Inana your beloved eldest daughter as a spouse. May they embrace each other forever! May the days of delight and sweetness last long in her holy embrace full of life!’”. 251. KLEIN, Building and Dedication Hymns, p. 33 (italics in text). 252. The two most likely scenarios are (1) that these hymns were recited at the beginning of the year, subsequent to the one in which the cultic event actually took place, or (2) that “these hymns were chanted in the first anniversary day of the relevant cultic event, and even could be put to regular use in the subsequent years”. Ibid. 253. See ibid., pp. 33-34. 254. Ibid., pp. 27-28. Klein identifies the following pattern of content and structure: I. Commissioning of the building of the Eninnu by Ningursu II. Preparation and building of the temple by Gudea III. Praise of the Eninnu IV. Dedication of the Eninnu V. Blessing of the Eninnu and Gudea. See also HUROWITZ, I Have Built You an Exalted House, pp. 30-62, who does a comparative study of The Cylinder Inscriptions of Gudea of Lagash and Šulgi and Ninlil’s Boat. 255. On the central role of the sacred marriage in Temple dedications see ibid., pp. 45, 58, 60. In addition to their entry into the Temple, a sacred marriage between the gods Ningirsu and Bau appears to be alluded to. In this marriage Gudea possibly played an active role by representing Ningirsu in the consummation of this marriage, although there is no unambiguous evidence for this. See ibid., p. 45.

678

PART III – CHAPTER 10

• the king who built the boat receives blessings, i.e. a divine spouse and the confirmation of his reign, from the godhead as a reward for his construction activity256. (i) Royal Temple Building Ideology As the parallels with temple building hymns indicate, the dedication of ceremonial Götterwagen belongs to the same ANE ideology as temple building, discussed in Chapter 5, III.2 (above, p. 300). In effect, these idolbearing vessels represent miniature temples and are thus invested with a similar set of associations, even while the liturgies transporting the cult image find their climactic termination within the god’s temple. It is striking that, like the temples that represented the final expression of a king’s established reign, these Götterwagen were directly commissioned by a divinity. Moreover, here too the king is described as a shepherd, and required gifts of divine wisdom to accomplish his task. Both Šulgi R and Išme-Dagan I attest these patterns with great clarity. Oh barge, Enki assigned the quay of abundance to you as your fate. Father Enlil looked at you with approval. Your lady, Ninlil, commanded your construction. She entrusted it to the faithful provider, King Šulgi; and the shepherd, who is of broad intelligence, will not rest day and night in thinking deeply about you. He, the wise one, who is proficient in planning, he, the omniscient one, will fell large cedars in the huge forests for you. He will make you perfect and you will be breathtaking to look upon (Šulgi R 1-9). August chariot! Enlil, the lord of wisdom, the father of the gods, ordered your construction in the E-kur, his exalted shrine. He instructed Išme-Dagan, the wise shepherd called by an auspicious name, born from a beautiful mother’s womb, the adviser of the Land, to make your holy and pure divine powers manifest. He set to work on you and worked without stopping. He decorated you with … and lapis lazuli. He placed you … (Išme-Dagan I 1-8).

The biblical Ark fits within this same ANE pattern. Although the relevant scriptural material is more dispersed, the following parallels are striking. Like the chariots of Ninlil and Enlil, the Ark is constructed upon divine commission as a portable throne for YHWH (Exod 25,10-22). In addition, Moses, who is commissioned with the construction of the Ark, is pictured as shepherd over Israel (e.g. Exod 3,1; Isa 63,11), while King David, who transports the Ark in ceremonial procession, is even more explicitly depicted as a shepherd-king. The Ark’s construction, finally, requires divine wisdom, which YHWH gives to Bezalel, the man appointed to carry out the workmanship (Exod 35,31; 36,1-2; 37,1-9). 256. See HUROWITZ, The Priestly Account of Building the Tabernacle; ID., “Solomon Built the Temple and Completed It”; and KLEIN, Building and Dedication Hymns, p. 27.

SOLOMON’S WEDDING (SONG 3,6-11)

679

(ii) A Waṣf-like Hymn in Honor of the Götterwagen A second notable feature of the Götterwagen hymns is the ample room accorded to waṣf-like descriptions of the different parts of the chariot. As argued above in Chapter 6, III.2.b.ii (above, p. 367), the waṣf form appears to have originated in royal, religious hymns applied to god-like figures and sacred objects, not in profane erotic poetry257. Here in Šulgi R the same primitive royal-religious context of such lyrics is again encountered. 10-22. Your woven … is … Your covering reed-mats are the daylight spreading wide over the holy settlements. Your timbers are sniffing (?) … reptiles crouching on their paws. Your punting poles are dragons sleeping a sweet sleep in their lair. Your strakes (?) are … snakes, … Your floor-planks are flood-currents, sparkling altogether in the pure Euphrates. Your side-planks, which are fastened into their fixed places (?) with wooden rings (?), are a stairway leading to a mountain spring (?), a …… filled with … Your holy … are persisting and firmly founded abundance. Your bench is a lofty dais erected in the midst of the abzu. Your … is Aratta, full-laden with treasures. Your door, facing the sunrise, is a … bird, carrying a … in its talons while spreading wide its wings. 23-31. Your glittering golden sun-disc, fastened with leather straps, is the brilliant moonlight, shining brightly upon all the lands. Your banner, adorned with the divine powers of kingship, is a woodland of cypress trees irrigated with clean water, giving a pleasant shade. Your small reed mats are the evening sky, illuminated with stars, imbued with terrible awesomeness. In the midst of your carefully tended small gizi reeds with numerous twigs (?), flocks of little birds twitter as in a holy swamp. Their chirping, as pleasing to the heart as the sound of the churn’s shaking, makes Enlil and Ninlil extremely happy (?). 32-39. Your rudder is a large kiĝ fish in the broad waters at the mouth of the Kisala canal. Your … are a bison, inspiring terror on the great earth. Your tow-rope is the gliding Niraḫ extended over the land. Your mooring pole is the heavenly bond, which … Your longside beams are a warrior striking straight against another warrior. Your prow is Nanna … fair sky. Your stern is Utu … at the horizon. Your canopy (?) is … (Šulgi R 10-39) 9-18. Your two … are something to be marvelled at. Your furnishings are most outstanding, like a forest of aromatic cedars. Your pole is a field with open furrows, an abundance of dappled grain. Your … is a thick cloud covering the … of heaven all over. Your yoke is a huge neck-stock from which there is no escape, which clamps down the evildoer. Your rope-fastened pegs are laid down as a huge net spanning heaven and earth. 257. Its “profane” use is not attested until much later (see Chapter 4, II, above, p. 177) and for that reason cannot be reduced to “a genre of erotic love poetry”. Pace R.N. SOULEN, The Waṣf of the Song of Songs and Hermeneutic, in A. BRENNER (ed.), The Song of Songs (A Feminist Companion to the Bible, 1), New York, Sheffield Academic Press, 2001, 214233, p. 214.

680

PART III – CHAPTER 10

19-21. Your side-poles (?) are … subduing the hostile countries. Your … of the side-poles are … 28-40. Your mudguard is Utu … the horizon, … The front of your mudguard is the ornament of (?) … Your implements are Nanna who fills the midst of heaven with delight. Your axle is … which … a flood. Your rope-box is a whip … which rouses up the donkeys. Your pole-pin is a huge open battle-net which does not let the evildoer escape. Your farings are the exalted princely divine powers sought out with great care. Your platform is warriors fiercely attacking each other. Your side beams are strong breeding bulls carrying a heavy load. Your cross-beams are urgent young men embracing each other. Your side-boards are … Your foot-board is … Your seat … 21 lines missing 62-64. At that time Išme-Dagan … decorated the chariot with silver, gold, and lapis lazuli for his king, Enlil (Išme-Dagan I 9-64).

Again, the elaborate description in Exod 25,10-22 and 37,1-10 of the components of Israel’s Ark is illuminated by this Sumerian material. In the chariot hymns it is apparent that the description of luxurious accoutrements of a divine chariot was a topos in the ANE. Only the most expensive wood would do for such a chariot, cedar wood in the case of Enlil’s chariot, acacia wood in the case of the Ark. Conspicuous furthermore is the insistence on the poles of both the chariot (Išme-Dagan I 11, 19, 33) and those of the Ark (Exod 25,13-15 = 37,4-5; 1 Kgs 8,6-8 = 2 Chr 5,89)258. (iii) Sacred Marriage, Crowning of the King, Blessing and Fertility “Just as the temples built by Gudea and Ur-Nammu were dedicated by the divine couple’s sitting in them in marital bliss”, in the chariot hymns, too, the element of a sacred marriage, both theogamy and hierogamy, is essential259. In Šulgi R, Ninlil and Enlil embrace as they take their seats on the barge’s holy dais. In Išme-Dagan I, Enlil takes possession of his chariot by setting his foot into the chariot and then embracing his consort 258. Contrary to the poles of the other sacred vessels, those of the Ark were never to be removed. The reason for this distinction appears to lie in the fact that the Ark was “to be carried not only when the camp as a whole was on the move, but also in connection with solemn processions, like those described in Jos 3:3-17; 4:4-21”. See R. SCHMITT, Zelt und Lade als Thema Alttestamentlicher Wissenschaft: Eine kritische forschungsgeschichtliche Deutung, Gütersloh, Gütersloher Verlagshaus Mohn, 1972, pp. 161-162. Consequently, it was fitting that whatever was necessary to this transportation should always be ready. The poles became, so to speak, an inseparable part of the Ark, which was intended always to be carried”. U.M.D. CASSUTO, A Commentary on the Book of Exodus, Jerusalem, Magnes Press, 1967, p. 330. The inseparability of the poles and the Ark remains a constant fact as the description of the poles in 1 Kgs 8,6-8 || 2 Chr 5,8-9 reveals. 259. On sacred marriage in Temple dedications see HUROWITZ, I Have Built You an Exalted House, pp. 45, 58, 60.

SOLOMON’S WEDDING (SONG 3,6-11)

681

Ninlil. Both examples illustrate how the act of dedication is connected to the gods’ marital encounter in the sacred vessel. The mother of the Land, Ninlil the fair, comes out (?) from the house, and Enlil embraces her like a pure wild cow. They take their seats on the barge’s holy dais, and provisions are lavishly prepared (Šulgi R 41-47). His great festival having been performed perfectly, Enlil stepped onto the chariot and embraced Mother Ninlil, his spouse. He was followed by Ninurta, his mighty hero, and by the Anuna who are with Enlil. The chariot shimmers like lightning, its rumbling noise is sweet. His donkeys are harnessed to the yoke. Enlil came out on his august votive (?) chariot radiantly. Ninurta, the support of his father, made the way pleasant. Having reached the place which gladdens the soul, where the seed is blessed, Enlil stepped down from his holy … and established a feast (Išme-Dagan I 66-81).

The gods then reward the King’s service of the holy chariot by decreeing a favorable fate for him and his reign. Ninlil, the consort of Enlil for whom the chariot has been constructed, looks upon the King and promises him an everlasting name, the prolongation of his god-given crown, the extension of the days of his reign, and the confirmation of his throne. Finally, she decrees a blessing on the king by her son, the moon god Nanna, who is responsible for fertility in the country. With Ninlil, they take their seats at the banquet, and Šulgi the shepherd brings along his great food-offerings for them. They pass the day in abundance, they give praise throughout night. They decree a fate, an allotted fate to be pre-eminent forever, for the king who fitted out the holy barge (Šulgi R 64-70). With joyful eyes and shining forehead, Ninlil … looks upon King Šulgi: “Shepherd … Šulgi, who has a lasting name, king of jubilation! I will prolong the nights of the crown that was placed upon your head by holy An, and I will extend the days of the holy sceptre that was given to you by Enlil. May the foundation of your throne that was bestowed on you by Enki be firm! Shepherd who brings about perfection, may Nanna, the robust calf, the seed of Enlil, to whom I gave birth, cover your life with … which is full of exuberance as if it were my holy ba garment!” (Šulgi R 82-90).

While the aspect of fertility was only hinted at in Šulgi R, by Ninlil decreeing the blessing of Nanna on the king, it plays a central role in Išme-Dagan I. The king’s service of the chariot is rewarded by an extended blessing of fertility. After you have taken out the implements to the … fields from … let the hoe and the plough, the implements of field workers, rival each other before you. The king has paid attention to Enlil’s instructions: Ninurta has prepared the holy plough, has ploughed the fertile fields and, to see that the silos and granaries of Enlil will be piled up high, he has sown with good seed (IšmeDagan I 82-87).

682

PART III – CHAPTER 10

Finally, Ninurta intercedes with Enlil on behalf of Išme-Dagan, praying him to offer his daughter Inana in sacred marriage to the King as a reward for the latter’s construction of the divine chariot260: The young hero then proudly enters the resplendent E-kur, Lord Ninurta prays to Enlil: “Please, look with favour on Išme-Dagan, the accomplished shepherd, who is at your service in the dining-hall; on the king who has built you the chariot! Give him Inana your beloved eldest daughter as a spouse. May they embrace each other forever! May the days of delight and sweetness last long in her holy embrace full of life!” (Išme-Dagan I 88-95).

As can be seen from these Sumerian chariot hymns, a king’s provision of a Götterwagen is intimately related to the blessing and perpetuation of his reign, as also the element of sacred marriage. 2. David and the Ark (2 Samuel 6) The traditions surrounding the ANE Götterwagen shed considerable light on the biblical Ark, which was, like these sacred vessels, considered to be a chariot, featuring in festive liturgical processions. Nowhere is this liturgical significance seen more clearly than in the narrative recounting David’s solemn processional transport of the Ark from Baale-Judah to Jerusalem (2 Samuel 6), an event that constituted the high-point of David’s reign and the term of all his striving (Psalm 132). Indeed, this event encapsulates a recognized enthronement topos and is focused upon the stabilization of David’s royal dynasty. It is of very special interest, moreover, that this passage preserves the vestigial memory of a sacred marriage celebration in Israel and is strongly colored by fertility motifs. The Yahwistic purging of the text is evident, but the peculiar Israelite reconfiguration of these ANE traditions preserves an extraordinary element: the Ark itself appears eventually in the position of the king’s bride. The three key elements identified in the Götterwagen texts, i.e. ministry to the chariot, enthronement, and marriage motif, all reappear in 2 Samuel 6. For all these reasons the text represents a biblical inter-text of supreme importance for the exegesis of Song 3,6-11. a) Parallels with the ANE Liturgical Chariot Procession 2 Samuel 6 recounts the transfer of the Ark from Baale-Judah to Jerusalem in two stages (vv. 1-11: from Baale-Judah to the house of Obed-Edom; vv. 13-23 from there to the city of David). Even if the two processions 260. See KLEIN, Building and Dedication Hymns, pp. 31-32.

SOLOMON’S WEDDING (SONG 3,6-11)

683

differ slightly in character261, it is essentially one great liturgical act in which David presides in the vanguard of the entire people of Israel. This liturgy has all the traits of the motif of the “divine warrior” ascending his throne after the final defeat of his enemies (see Chapter 5, III.2.a, above, p. 300)262, the elements of which may be briefly recalled. According to the mythic pattern, creation was the result of a divinity’s victory over the forces of chaos. Following his victory, the divinity established his kingship and, thereby, order in the cosmos. The god’s decisive supremacy over chaos is symbolized in his enthronement. This entails the establishment of a throne and earthly dwelling place, i.e. a temple. Finally, as also seen in Chapters 5 and 6, the divinity’s enthronement would be typically linked with a sacred marriage, in which the king would participate in some form or another and thus receive the divinity’s blessing for both his own reign and his people. The narration in 2 Samuel 6 follows essentially the same pattern, yet in a demythologized, historicized form. The inimical chaos forces are replaced by Israel’s archenemies, the Philistines, and the mythic mountain of the gods has become Mount Zion. The prelude to the ascent of the Ark to Jerusalem is thus significantly a double defeat of the Philistines, recounted in 2 Sam 5,17-25, which David comments upon, “YHWH has broken (‫)פרץ‬ my enemies before me like a breaking (‫ )פרץ‬of waters” (2 Sam 5,20). The analogy here is the shattering of unruly waters and sea monsters, a motif well attested elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible263. The second battle is concluded with the remark, “he struck down the Philistines from Geba all the way to Gezer” (2 Sam 5,25), i.e. his victory over the Philistines was decisive and complete. Yet, the victory is not David’s but YHWH’s: “When you hear the sound of marching in the tops of the balsam trees, then be on the alert; for then YHWH has gone out before you to strike down the army of the Philistines” (2 Sam 5,24)264. This defeat is properly followed 261. See D.P. WRIGHT, Music and Dance in 2 Samuel 6, in JBL 121 (2002) 201225. 262. See SEOW, Myth, Drama, and the Politics of David’s Dance, pp. 7-8: “The procession was a religio-political drama celebrating the victory of YHWH as the divine warrior of Canaanite mythology and his consequent accession as king. […] The parts of the ancient drama […] correspond substantially to the pattern of the divine warrior myth in the ancient Near East. Inasmuch as the Ark was already associated with the mythological traditions of ’Ēl and Ba‘l in the earlier sanctuaries, the significance of this drama must have been immediately apprehended by those who witnessed it”. 263. See ibid., pp. 80-89. 264. For the lexical allusions to the divine warrior motif concerning this passage, see ibid., pp. 89-90. Noteworthy is 2 Sam 5,23-24: “When David inquired of the Lord, he said, ‘You shall not go up; go around to their rear, and come upon them opposite the balsam trees. When you hear the sound of marching (‫ )צעד‬in the tops of the balsam trees, then be

684

PART III – CHAPTER 10

by a victory parade and the ascent of the divinity to his or her throne, after “David gathered once again all the chosen men of Israel, thirty thousand of them” (2 Sam 6,1). As pointed out by Seow: “the language is of mustering of troops for warfare, suggesting a continuation of the combat scene from the previous unit of thought – only now the advance of YHWH with his troops would be dramatized in the victory parade”265. The procession dramatizes the ascent of the divine warrior on his chariot to his rightful place (‫ ;במקומו‬2 Sam 6,17266) as a king267. The transfer of the Ark into “the tent that David had pitched for it” in fact equals the symbolical enthronement of YHWH the King on Mount Zion in his tent-shrine, a precursor of the future Solomonic Temple (cf. 1 Kgs 8,6). Within the Ark narrative, 2 Samuel 6 represents the climax of the Ark’s history, i.e. the final triumph of YHWH. It is an exalted liturgical procession as its description does not fail to evidence. David and all the house of Israel were dancing (‫ )משחקים‬before YHWH with all sorts of wood-instruments, with lyres, hand-drums, rattles, and with cymbals (cf. 2 Sam 6,5)268. The verb ‫ משחק‬can be translated as “merrymaking” but includes also the notion of an ecstatic liturgical dancing269. The naming of the different musical instruments underlines further the liturgical character of the procession270. Finally, the liturgical character of the procession becomes apparent when the Ark is taken up again after the incident of Uzzah’s death and its subsequent halt in the house of ObedEdom (2 Sam 6,6-11). When it is reported to David that YHWH had blessed the house of Obed-Edom because of the Ark, he brings up the Ark from there “to the city of David in joy” (6,12).

on the alert; for then the YHWH has gone out (‫ )יצא‬before you to strike down the army of the Philistines’” is reminiscent of Josh 5,13-15 where the celestial host is gathered at the command of YHWH. The root ‫ צעד‬is typically used of the deity’s advance to battle (cf. Judg 5,4; Ps 68,8 [Ark related, see above]; Hab 3,12; Isa 63,1); whereas ‫ יצא‬functions in the same way in Judg 5,4; Ps 68,8; Hab 3,13; Zech 14,3. “When used in tandem, ‫ צעד‬and ‫ יצא‬always concern divine warrior’s advance”. 265. Ibid., p. 91. 266. Note how the Philistines had wondered in 1 Sam 6,2 how the Ark could be returned to “its place” (‫)במקומו‬. 267. A. BENTZEN, The Cultic Use of the Story of the Ark in Samuel, in JBL 67 (1948) 37-53, pp. 44-50, has shown how even the Ark narrative in 1 Samuel 4–6 is told in terms of an ANE cultic pattern. It tells of the god’s defeat of the forces of darkness and chaos, after his apparent defeat by them. 268. On the identification of the instruments and their function in the context, see WRIGHT, Music, p. 203. 269. On the matter of ‫משחקים‬, see ibid., p. 217. Cf. also 1 Sam 18,7; Jer 31,4; Prov 8,30. 270. See extensively on the character of the music and dancing in 2 Samuel 6, ibid.

SOLOMON’S WEDDING (SONG 3,6-11)

685

And when those who bore the Ark of the Lord had gone six paces, he sacrificed an ox and a fatling. And he danced (‫ )מכרכר‬with all his might before the Lord, and David was girded with the ephod alone. And David and all the house of Israel brought up the Ark of the Lord with shouting (‫ )תרועה‬and the sound of the trumpet (‫( )שופר‬2 Sam 6,13-15).

Wearing the linen ephod at the vanguard of the procession, David has clearly taken the lead as a priestly director271, and appears to be performing a fertility rite in the form of a dance272. Though the exact meaning of the verb ‫ מכרכר‬is not quite clear, it is commonly acknowledged that it refers to a rotating movement and because it is used in the intensive pilpel form refers to a state of cultic ecstasy. David’s dancing before the Ark of YHWH is interspersed with leaps (‫ ;מפזז‬6,16), “which may also be interpreted as a whirling dance before the Ark”273. Noteworthy are furthermore the number of six steps which give rhythm to the sacrifices of ox and fatlings offered by David before the Ark274. Taking into account that the Ark is the symbol of YHWH, Carlson sees here an excellent illustration of YHWH’s solemn processional steps (‫ )הליכות‬mentioned in Ps 68,25, “They saw your entrance procession (‫ )הליכות‬oh God, the entrance of my God and my king into the sanctuary”. A hymnic memory of this extraordinary event may also be preserved in Psalm 132 (see below, III.3.a.iii, p. 703). b) David’s Enthronement and Dynastic Line It has been frequently observed that David’s transfer of the Ark to his capital was an astute political move275. By moving Israel’s central shrine to the formerly Jebusite Jerusalem, David secured a religious legitimization on his claim to power over the twelve tribes, now for the first time united 271. See ibid., p. 201. 272. See R.A. CARLSON, David, the Chosen King: A Traditio-Historical Approach to the Second Book of Samuel, Stockholm, Almqvist & Wiksell, 1964, p. 87, who points out that sukkōt, antonomastically called ‫החג‬, was called “the dance festival”. Carlson refers to a work by W.O.E. OESTERLEY, The Sacred Dance: A Study in Comparative Folklore, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1923, p. 155: “who has shown quite clearly that the aim of the dancing rites which were connected with the sukkōt from of old was to promote fertility. Conversely the name ‫ ]…[ חג‬indicates that the dancing rites of the festival actually express the fertility which they are going to create”. 273. CARLSON, David, the Chosen King, p. 87. 274. Though the sacrificing of animals every six steps along the way may appear excessive, this is what the text implies in v. 13. Such repeated sacrifices along the way were apparently a typical feature in processions accompanying the transfer and installation of “gods”. See P.K. MCCARTER, II Samuel (AncB, 9), New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, 1974, p. 171. 275. See ibid., p. 172.

686

PART III – CHAPTER 10

under one single monarch276. The narrative about the transfer of the Ark to the City of David in 2 Samuel 6, therefore, concerns not only the Lord’s enthronement, but by the same token that of David himself277. Having enthroned YHWH by bringing his Ark to the holy mountain, David in turn receives – in accord with the ANE royal ideology – the divine blessings that would affirm his own throne and perpetuate his dynasty (cf. 2 Samuel 7). This aspect of affirmation is particularly highlighted in Psalm 132, a psalm which commemorates this historic event. Psalm 132 correlates the transfer of the Ark to its place (v. 5; cf. 2 Sam 6,17) on Mount Zion – the place that God himself had chosen as his abode and divine resting place (vv. 13-14) – with the promise of an heir to sit on David’s throne (v. 11). The Lord will “cause a horn to sprout up for David” where he has “prepared a lamp for [his] anointed one” (v. 17). The metaphor of the lamp indicates the promise of an heir who is to perpetuate the dynasty278. The commemoration of David’s service of the Ark ends on the promise that a crown will shine on his head (v. 18)279. The same essential elements are present in the narration of 2 Samuel 6–7. From the narrative arrangement of these two chapters, in fact, it can be deduced that the transfer of the Ark into the royal city should have been followed by Michal’s conception of a royal heir for the Davidic dynasty. This conclusion is suggested by the several converging events. First, David blesses the people and distributes fertility cakes, after which all return to their homes – a euphemistic expression for conjugal intimacy. When David returns to his own wife in order to “bless” her, she comes 276. See J. BRIGHT, A History of Israel, Atlanta, GA, Westminster John Knox, 2000, p. 200. 277. J.R. PORTER, The Interpretation of 2 Samuel VI and Psalm CXXXII, in Journal of Theological Studies 5 (1954) 161-173, provides a good overview of the history of interpretation. Siegmund Mowinckel in his Psalmenstudien (1922) first contended that there was in pre-exilic Israel an annual autumnal New Year festival during which YHWH, represented by the Ark, was enthroned in the Temple. Later studies have emphasized the central role of the king in this festival who as a representative of YHWH carried out in the historical and ritual sphere what the god performed in the cosmic and mythical realm. According to H.-J. KRAUS, Die Königsherrschaft Gottes im Alten Testament: Untersuchungen zu den Liedern von Jahwes Thronbesteigung (Beiträge zur historischen Theologie, 13), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 1951, pp. 51-59, 2 Samuel 6 formed together with Psalm 132 the liturgy of a particular celebration on the first day of the pre-exilic feast of Tabernacles. Porter himself has proposed that the person of David is the link between the essentially cult-mythological approach of Mowinckel and the historical approach of Kraus. David appears to have been the heir both to the Canaanite priest-kingship of Jerusalem and to the cultus of the preIsraelite god. 278. See M. DAHOOD, Psalms III: 101–150 (AncB, 17A), New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, 1974, p. 248. For the “lamp” (‫ )ניר = נר‬as a metaphor for the permanence of the dynasty, cf. 2 Sam 21,17 and 1 Kgs 11,36; 15,4; 2 Kgs 8,19 (= 2 Chr 21,7). 279. For ‫ נזר‬as a royal “circlet, crown, diadem”, see KEEL, Geschichte Jerusalems, p. 941.

SOLOMON’S WEDDING (SONG 3,6-11)

687

out of the house and refuses to receive him, even despising him, as a result of which Michal curiously remains sterile until the end of her life. She has interrupted the progression of the fertility rite. Seen from this perspective, the narrative of 2 Samuel 6 is anticlimactic. David, who should have been rewarded with the gift of an heir for his service of the Ark, neither receives a goddess in sacred marriage (as was the case with Išme-Dagan) nor is he even received by his wife (who may have ritually played this part). His service to the Ark remains, apparently, entirely infertile: void of a divine blessing on his reign. Michal’s refusal to let him enter her house breaks up the pattern, and the reader is left to wonder how the intended blessing is to come about. Against all odds, however, the pattern is fulfilled. The following chapter (2 Sam 7,11-16.2529) makes it clear that it is precisely because of David’s faithful service to the Ark that he ultimately receives – just like Šulgi and Išme-Dagan – the divine affirmation of his dynasty, in the form of Nathan’s prophecy: not only the promise of dynastic progeny, i.e. fertility, but even an unending claim to the kingship of Israel (cf. 7,13-16)280. Altogether, then, it seems clear that the narrative in 2 Samuel 6 is concerned with the definitive establishment of David as ‫“ נגיד‬shepherd-king”281 (2 Sam 6,21) over Israel and the conspicuous failure of Michal to bear him a successor (v. 23). This focus, along with the many features hinting at a fertility rite282, suggests that a central feature of the coronation rite was the celebration of a sacred marriage to secure the succession to the throne. David’s dancing and self-exposure, which Michal disproved of, was in fact ecstatic and orgiastic in character: the typical traits of a fertility rite that would have been a prelude to a sacred marriage283. David’s answer to Michal’s disapproval of his dance before the eyes of all the maids may arguably be interpreted in the following way. From those women who hold him and his service to the Ark in high regard an heir will be born; he will procure for David the royal glory he deserves. In other words, “he will consummate the climax of the rite, the sacred marriage, with them, and they will occupy the position for which Michal has shown herself unworthy”284. Regardless of whether Michal’s sterility should be interpreted as a divine punishment or simply as the end of their marital relationship, 280. See E. HAMMERSHAIMB, The Immanuel Sign, in Studia Theologica 3 (1949) 124142. 281. On the translation of ‫ נגיד‬as “shepherd-king”, see Chapter 8, VI.5, above, p. 527. 282. See the next section, III.2.c, below, p. 688. 283. See R. COUFFIGNAL, Le transfert de l’Arche d’Alliance, un récit carnavalesque?, in SémBib 103 (2001) 56-62, pp. 61-62. 284. See PORTER, Interpretation, p. 166.

688

PART III – CHAPTER 10

Michal’s disapproval of David’s service to the Ark signifies thereby the end of Saul’s dynasty and David’s link to it. In this sense, the redirection of the expected storyline ultimately serves in God’s plan to found a new and everlasting royal dynasty upon David himself. c) Sacred Marriage Reminiscences What is already evident on the narrative plane of 2 Samuel 6–7 finds confirmation and amplification when the ANE parallels are considered. It is highly significant, in the first place, that the verb ‫ מכרכר‬denoting David’s dance in 2 Sam 6,14 is also found in the Ras Shamra texts in the prelude to the sacred marriage of El and Asherah285. Although a sacred marriage is not enacted in 2 Samuel 6, this idea appears nonetheless to lie at the origins of the account286. Evidently, the event has been reinterpreted in view of the YHWH-Zion theology and Israel’s covenant with the Lord. Some elements appear to preserve the reminiscence of some primitive sacred marriage rite. When the procession is completed and David sets the Ark “in its place” (‫ )במקומו‬in the tent he had pitched for it, he offers up an unspecified number of offerings and blesses the people in the name of YHWH (2 Sam 6,17). The blessing that here forms the climax is a key Leitwort in the narrative287. Indeed, it was upon hearing news of the blessing of Obed-Edom’s house that David had decided to resume the transfer of the Ark to Jerusalem (v. 12), ostensibly in search of the same blessing upon his own house. It is significant in this connection that it is with a double act of blessing that the liturgical procession concludes (v. 18), for David finishes the ritual by going to “bless” his house. Note how the narrative is arranged around the motif of blessing. v. 12

David learns about the blessing on Obed-Edom’s house “because of the Ark”. vv. 13-17 The liturgical procession is described. v. 18 David completes the transfer of the Ark by offering offerings and blesses the people in the name of YHWH Sabaoth. v. 19 David distributes food among all the people, “the whole multitude of Israel, both men and women, to each a cake of bread, a portion of meat, and a cake of raisins. Then all the people went back to their homes” (sign of blessing). v. 20 “David returned to bless his household”. 285. See CARLSON, David, the Chosen King, p. 87; and I. ENGNELL, Studies in Divine Kingship in the Ancient Near East, London, Blackwell, 21967, p. 155. 286. See PORTER, Interpretation; CARLSON, David, the Chosen King, pp. 94-95; B. ROSENSTOCK, David’s Play: Fertility Rituals and the Glory of God in 2 Samuel 6, in JSOT 311 (2006) 63-80, p. 65. 287. See ROSENSTOCK, David’s Play, p. 65.

SOLOMON’S WEDDING (SONG 3,6-11)

689

It is apparent that the transfer of the Ark to the city of David is intended to bring blessing on both the people and the royal house. The blessing upon the people is epitomized by David distributing food “to all the people, to all the multitudes of Israel”. The text is careful to specify “to both men and women” (v. 19), a hint at the sexual nature of this ritual food. Each one gets a piece of bread, a portion of meat, and a raisin cake. The raisin cakes (‫)אשישה‬, in particular, are known from the ANE context and are considered to have been a fertility symbol. Supposedly in the form of a naked goddess, these were an offering to Ishtar, the goddess of love (cf. Hos 3,1; Song 2,5)288. It is insinuated that after this ecstatic procession the people are themselves in a state of excitation. Having received the aphrodisiacal food of raisin cakes, the men and women go “each one to his house” (2 Sam 6,19), which is to say, there they not only consume the food but consummate the sexual union it symbolizes289. The royal blessing they have received entails a promise of fertility for their families, and thereby for the whole people and the kingdom290. In a parallel manner to his people, the king also returns home “in order to bless his house” (v. 20), which is to say, to unite himself to the queen and partake of the “blessing”. The idea behind this royal coupling is the 288. See K.A.D. SMELIK, Hidden Messages in the Ark Narrative: An Analysis of I Samuel iv–vi and II Samuel vi, in Converting the Past: Studies in Ancient Israelite & Moabite Historiography (OTS, 28), Leiden, Brill, 1992, 34-58, p. 52, n. 92; and COUFFIGNAL, Arche, p. 61. 289. See COUFFIGNAL, Arche, p. 61. 290. On the sacred marriage tradition behind 2 Samuel 6, see R.A. CARLSON, David and the Ark in 2 Samuel 6, in A. LEMAIRE – B. OTZEN (eds.), History and Traditions of Early Israel: Studies Presented to Eduard Nielsen, May 8th 1993 (VT.S, 50), Leiden, Brill, 1993, 17-23, and CARLSON, David, the Chosen King, pp. 85-97, esp. 87-88, who highlights the following points. In addition to the above-mentioned six steps that serve to illustrate YHWH’s solemn processional steps, Carlson points out that the number six was a distinctive feature of sukkōt, a feast typically associated with fertility and, according to 1 Kgs 8,1, the feast on which Solomon transferred the Ark into the Temple. Six are the steps that lead up to Solomon’s throne (1 Kgs 10,19ff.); six are the years which precede the jubilee year, the year of the ‫( שמטה‬the remission) in which the land rests and debts are remitted (Exod 23,19ff.; Lev 25,1ff.; Deut 15,1ff.). Carlson calls the creation narrative in Gen 1–2,3 a “deculticized sukkōt tradition”, built on the idea of six days’ work followed by a day of rest. In the Ras Shamra texts the number six has become “a formula introducing the turning point of the seventh day”. Six is furthermore a typical fertility number in the Jewish tradition. Finally, the ‫תרועה‬, “war cry”, and the horn (‫ )שופר‬which accompany the procession in 2 Sam 6,15 are not just an expression of emotional joy. Rather, they seek to engage YHWH’s attention. “They are […] similar to other ritual performances that seek to bring a god on the ritual scene and keep him or her intent and engrossed in the ceremony”. According to Num 10 the priestly horns attract God’s salutary attention in war. When you blow them, so the text explains, “you will be remembered (‫ )נזכרתם‬before YHWH your God, and he will save you from your enemies” (Num 10,9). Similarly they function on festivals and sacrificial occasions: “they will be a memorial (‫ )זכרון‬for you before your God” (Num 10,10; Lev 23,24, “a memorial of the horn blast, ‫”)זכרון תרועה‬. See also WRIGHT, Music, p. 215.

690

PART III – CHAPTER 10

re-enactment of a sacred marriage. Just as in the ANE mythology the divinity enters his abode, the tent or the temple, to unite himself to his consort, so also, King David goes to his house to unite himself to his Queen. The people re-enact on earth what is happening in the celestial realm. As seen in the Sumerian hymns, the divine owner of the chariot would embrace his consort in the temple (or in the sacred vessel) on the day of his enthronement. There is admittedly no hint at such a theogamy in 2 Samuel 6. In light of the sacred marriage traditions viewed in Chapter 6 and Hosea’s use of the marriage symbol, which see the dwelling of YHWH in the midst of his people as the consummation of the covenant-marriage promised to Israel, it may, however, be that the Tabernacle tent set up for the Ark on Mount Zion (and precursor of the later Temple) functions as the symbolical place-holder of Israel, YHWH’s spouse. This symbolism may be hinted at lexically in the use of the verb ‫ אוב‬for the Lord’s solemn “entrance” into his Dwelling (e.g. Ezek 43,4), for one of the well-known meanings of the verb ‫בוא‬, used with either the preposition ‫ אל‬or ‫על‬, is coire cum femina291. Zechariah likely suggests just this sexual metaphor in coupling the locution of “entering” with the image of Israel as a woman crying out for joy: “Sing and rejoice, daughter Zion, for behold I will come (‫ )בוא‬and dwell in your midst, says the Lord” (Zech 2,14)292. In the narration of 2 Samuel 6, the joyful entrance of the Lord, borne upon the Ark, into his Tabernacle home, may carry some overtones of a meeting of the Lord with his consort/people (see below, III.3.b, p. 707)293. While 2 Samuel 6 has been successively purged of any overt mythological elements, it remains an essential part of the rite that David should unite himself to Michal in the hope of being granted an heir by the blessing of the Lord. Demythologized as it may be, Michal’s role as a sacred consort may nevertheless be hinted at in 2 Sam 6,16, where she is depicted in a fashion reminiscent of the ANE Frau am Fenster motif. The ivories found in Samaria testify to the fact that the “woman at the window” motif was known in Israel294, and according to this motif Michal here appears as 291. Compare Gen 16,2; 19,31; 30,3f.; 38,8; Deut 22,12; 25,5; 2 Sam 16,21; Ps 51,1. The metaphor employed is powerful: just as a man goes into a woman, so YHWH enters his spouse, the Temple, through a virginal gate which is closed to anyone but him (cf. Song 4,12 where the closed garden expresses the Beloved’s virginity). 292. I thank Adrian Schenker for this insight. 293. The Ark is so intimately connected to this spousal metaphor that the Rabbis will later felicitously see this sacred union between YHWH and his people symbolically expressed in the Cherubim embracing each other above the Ark. 294. On this widespread motif, see FAUTH, Aphrodite Parakyptusa; and O. EISSFELDT, Aphrodite Parakyptusa, in R. SELLHEIM – F. MAASS (eds.), Kleine Schriften: Fünfter Band, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 1973, 106-112.

SOLOMON’S WEDDING (SONG 3,6-11)

691

a hierodule. Whatever ritual role Michal may have originally embodied, it is emphatically clear that the hieros gamos between David and Michal is never realized, as has been seen. d) Who Is David’s Consort? In spite of the aborted attempt to consummate his marriage with Michal, David receives the same reward as the ANE kings for his faithful service to the divine chariot. In the narrative sequence immediately following the account of the Ark’s transfer to Jerusalem he is promised a son through whom the Lord will establish David’s house, kingdom, and throne forever (2 Sam 7,16). The ANE background and the discernability of the marriage motif in 2 Samuel 6 thus invites the question regarding the identity of David’s consort. Who is to David what Zion and the Temple are to YHWH? The answer appears to be twofold, for as a sacred king of Israel David has a twofold duty. On the one hand, David represents the people of Israel before God as their chief liturgist in the service of the Ark. On the other hand, he is anointed to be God’s representative for the people. This twofold relationship appears to be reflected in a twofold spousal relationship. First (i), as the representative of the people he stands in a spousal relationship to the Ark, and thereby to the Lord. Secondly (ii), as God’s representative, David is the spouse of corporate Israel. (i) David, Spouse of the Ark From the way the narrative in 2 Samuel 6 leads up to the “divorce” of David and Michal, it is clear that David’s service to the Ark was the cause for their separation. It appears as if the Ark and Michal stood in an irreconcilable rivalry to each other. The Ark seems to have taken over Michal’s role as a spouse in David’s life. Keeping in mind the erotic character of the dance and Michal’s complaint about David’s public behavior, it may be said that David can only dance with all his might (v. 14) either before the Lord (represented by the Ark) or before Michal. He opts consciously for the former, as is clear from his answer to Michal: It was before the Lord, who chose me in place of your father and all his household, to appoint me as prince over Israel, the people of the Lord, that I have danced before the Lord (2 Sam 6,21; NRSV).

There appears to be a mutual incompatibility between the Ark and women in the lives of priests and kings. The Ark narrative (1 Samuel 1–7; 2 Samuel 6),

692

PART III – CHAPTER 10

the story of David and Bathsheba (2 Samuel 11), and the removal of Pharaoh’s daughter from the house of David because the Ark had dwelt there (2 Chr 8,11) all point in this direction. The king or man of God is always depicted as having to make a choice: to serve the Ark or to serve a woman295. According to 1 Sam 2,22, the sons of Eli who were responsible for the service in the sanctuary and the guarding of the Ark were guilty of lying with the women who were serving at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting296. The identification of this sin belongs to a redaction present only in the MT and is extant neither in 4QSama nor in the LXXBL. A suggestive act of inner-biblical exegesis297, this identification creates a clear opposition between Samuel, the future successor to Eli, and Eli’s own sons in their respective relationship with the Ark. While Eli’s sons are lying (‫ )שכב‬with women at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting298, Samuel is lying (‫ )שכב‬within the temple of the Lord where the Ark dwelt (1 Sam 3,3). The image evoked and the message are clear. Those whose life should be entirely dedicated to the service of the Ark and should therefore be lying near the Ark within the Temple are lying with women instead; whereas the faithful servant Samuel refrains from lying with women and lies with the Ark instead. In the same vein, it is striking that one learns no more about David taking wives after the installation of the Ark in Zion until his capital sin with Bathsheba. In an apparently harmless remark Uriah says to David, “The Ark and Israel and Judah are dwelling in booths […] and I should go into my house, and eat and drink and lie (‫ )שכב‬with my wife?” (2 Sam 11,11). Instead of lying (‫ )שכב‬with his wife, Uriah lies (‫)שכב‬ by the door of the king’s palace (2 Sam 11,9). Knowingly or unknowingly Uriah points straight to the heart of David’s own sin. As the king of Israel he should have been lying (‫שכב‬, cf. 1 Sam 4,3) by the Ark in the 295. I thank Philippe Lefebvre for drawing my attention to Exod 18,2, according to which Moses had sent away Zipporah. It is noteworthy that Exodus makes sure to mention this before the great theophany at Sinai takes place and Moses goes about the construction of the Ark and the Tabernacle. 296. That the sons of Eli were not only responsible for the sacrificial Temple service but also for the service of the Ark is evident from 2 Sam 4,4 and the inseparable connection between their death and the captivity of the Ark. 297. This MT addition is the reflection of an inner-biblical exegesis rereading the sins of the sons of Eli in the light of Exod 38,8. See R.W. KLEIN, 1 Samuel (WBC, 10), Dallas, TX, Word Books, 1983, p. 26. 298. The reference to the women at the entry of the Tent might refer to cultic prostitution of some kind. See J.I. DURHAM, Exodus (WBC, 3), Waco, TX, Word Books, 1987, p. 477; and CROSS, Canaanite Myth, pp. 201-203.

SOLOMON’S WEDDING (SONG 3,6-11)

693

battlefield of his people. Instead he is lying (‫ )שכב‬with the wife of Uriah (2 Sam 11,4). His adultery is twofold: he is betraying the Lord by abandoning the Ark and Uriah by taking his wife. The contrasting behavior of the sons of Eli and Samuel is united in the person of David. While in 2 Samuel 6 David’s behavior corresponds to that of Samuel, in choosing the service to the Ark over Michal, he has become like the sons of Eli, lying at home with a woman, while the Ark is dwelling in a tent. 2 Chr 8,11, finally, depicts a similar rivalry between the Ark and the King’s wife. After Solomon had brought up the Ark into the Temple, he made sure not to introduce Pharaoh’s daughter into his palace, but to a special house that he had built particularly for her, for he said: My wife shall not live in the house of King David of Israel, for the places to which the Ark of the Lord has come are holy.

Apparently the Ark of the Lord and the wife of the King of Israel cannot cohabit. The King has to make a choice, and if the King is pious he will give precedence to the Ark over the rival woman. Thus a common thread runs through the biblical literature holding the seemingly disparate material together: the religious leaders of Israel owe a spousal loyalty to the divine chariot, a symbol for their undivided, spouse-like service to YHWH. In this regard one may say that the Ark is David’s symbolic spouse. (ii) David, Spouse of Israel In addition to standing in a quasi-spousal relationship to the Ark, David appears as the spouse of the people. This is implied by the narrative arrangement of 2 Samuel 5–7, and the symbolic role the maids of Jerusalem play both after the capturing of the city (5,13), the birth of a royal heir (5,14), and also in the Ark event (6,22). The women/maids of Jerusalem appear to stand pars pro toto for the people of Jerusalem/Israel. In all three episodes they have replaced Michal. The following concept is depicted in broad strokes by the narrative. David, who so far was a pretender to the throne by his marriage to Michal, now has no more need either of Michal nor a dynastic heir born of her. Because he has danced before the Ark and the maids of Jerusalem, rather than please Michal (2 Samuel 6), he is rewarded with divine blessing, a divine son and an everlasting throne (2 Samuel 7). He has provided a place for the Ark, which is to say he has enthroned YHWH on Mount Zion and YHWH has enthroned David in return. The role of David’s wife previously held by Michal is now given to the women of Jerusalem. By taking them

694

PART III – CHAPTER 10

into his harem he symbolically ratifies the covenant made with the people of Israel (2 Samuel 5). David’s royal bride is now the city of Zion, symbolized by the women of Jerusalem, who thereby represent the whole elect people of Israel. The key to this reading is the recognition of the royal harem as a symbol of kingship. In the ANE, possession of the royal harem was, in fact, a symbol of kingship299. Just as a city or a people were personified as women (see Chapter 6), so also, an individual woman (e.g. Sarah, see Chapter 7), or the wife of a king could represent an entire nation (cf. 1 Kings 3)300. In the same way the totality of a king’s harem would represent the extension of his dominion. The representative function of the royal harem for the entire people to which the king stood in a covenant relationship, like a man to his wife, is particularly evident from a number of episodes recounted in 2 Samuel–1 Kings. They show that the possession of the royal harem gave a person title to the throne301. This is first implied in Abner’s quarrel with Ishbaal (2 Sam 3,6-11)302. Abner himself explains his own symbolic act of having gone in to Saul’s concubine Rizpah, as a claim to the throne of Saul which he will give to David: God do so to Abner, and more also, if I do not accomplish for David what the Lord has sworn to him, to transfer the kingdom from the house of Saul, and set up the throne of David over Israel and over Judah, from Dan to Beersheba (2 Sam 3,9-10; RSV).

The same notion is implicit to Nathan’s oracle to David, in which YHWH marked David as the future king by giving him Saul’s wives: Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, ‘I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you out of the hand of Saul; and I gave you your master’s house, and your master’s wives into your bosom, and gave you the house of Israel and of Judah (2 Sam 12,7-8; RSV).

According to this oracle, the possession of the royal harem equals the possession of the throne. Appropriation of the predecessor’s wives assures the office for the new king303. 299. See D.V. EDELMAN, Eshbaal, in Anchor Bible Dictionary, II, New York, Doubleday, 1992, 615-616, p. 616. 300. Solomon’s marriage to Pharaoh’s daughter equals arguably a peace-treaty with Egypt. 301. See DE VAUX, Ancient Israel, 1961, pp. 115-117; and M. TSEVAT, Marriage and Monarchical Legitimacy in Ugarit and Israel, in JSSt 3 (1958) 237-243. 302. See ALTER, The David Story, p. 209. See D.V. EDELMAN, Abner, in Anchor Bible Dictionary, I, New York, Doubleday, 1992, 26-29, p. 27. 303. See TSEVAT, Marriage, p. 241.

SOLOMON’S WEDDING (SONG 3,6-11)

695

The most spectacular case is Absalom’s seizure of David’s throne. As a demonstration of who the new man in power is, Ahithophel gives Absalom the following advice: “Go in to your father’s concubines, whom he has left to keep the house; and all Israel will hear that you have made yourself odious to your father, and the hands of all who are with you will be strengthened”. So they pitched a tent for Absalom upon the roof; and Absalom went in to his father’s concubines in the sight of all Israel (2 Sam 16,21-22; RSV).

The appropriation of his father’s concubines is here equated with the seizure of David’s throne304. Moreover, it is evident from the story of Adonijah’s request for Abishag, the Shunammite (1 Kgs 2,13-25), that the possession of a royal concubine equaled the possession of the throne305. After having attempted to succeed David on the throne in vain, Adonijah asks Solomon by intermediary of Bathsheba to be given David’s concubine Abishag, the Shunammite, as a wife. The implications of this request are clear from Solomon’s answer to Bathsheba: “And why do you ask Abishag the Shunammite for Adonijah? Ask for him the kingdom also; for he is my elder brother” (1 Kgs 2,22). Abishag is in fact of a particularly strong symbolic value. Having been chosen as a beautiful virgin from among all the territories of Israel, she had been destined to lie in the King’s bosom. The text, however, hastens to add, “but the king knew her not” (1 Kgs 1,4). This information implies that David has grown impotent and was in fact no longer able to govern Israel, as is evident from the immediately following story about the successionrivalry between Adonijah and Solomon (1 Kgs 1,5-24). Having lost the fight for David’s throne in the first round, Adonijah makes a second attempt by this symbolic request and gets killed for his obstreperous demand. Just as in the case of Abner/Ishbaal so also in the rivalry Adonijah/Solomon, either the possession of or the desire to possess a former king’s woman was interpreted as a bid for the throne. Finally there is one passage in the LXX that expresses the King’s relationship to the people directly in marriage language. After the above-related episode in which Absalom went into the concubines of David, Ahithophel promises to strike down the King and bring all the people back to him “as a bride returns to her husband” (2 Sam 17,2-3 LXX). Here the entire people are directly compared to the King’s bride.

304. See ibid., p. 244. 305. See ibid., pp. 241-242.

696

PART III – CHAPTER 10

The same idea appears to be inherent to the Ark narrative of 2 Samuel 5–7. Thus, as soon as David had taken captive the Jebusite city of Jerusalem that was to become the city of David, he took concubines and wives from the women of Jerusalem into his harem. By this symbolic act he established his kingship over Jerusalem. It is those women who bore eleven sons to him, one of whom was Solomon (cf. 2 Sam 5,13-16), the son of the promise received in reward for David’s faithful service to the Ark. Interestingly the narrative sets up not only a rivalry between Michal and the Ark, but also between Michal and the maids of Jerusalem. It is as if the women of Jerusalem or its maids (2 Sam 5,13 and 2 Sam 6,22) represented the favor that David found with the entire people, and thereby his dominion. It is significant in this respect that Saul had already interpreted the women’s exceeding love for David immediately as a threat to his own throne (cf. 1 Sam 18,8). By choosing the favor of Jerusalem’s maids over that of Michal, David appears as the royal bridegroom of the city. The notion of David as standing in a spousal relationship to his people might also emerge from the language employed in 2 Sam 5,1-13. The account of David’s ascending the throne of Israel appears to view the covenant contracted with the people as a metaphorical marriage covenant. When all the tribes of Israel come to David to make him king, they approach him with the words, “behold we are your bone and your flesh” (5,1). This formula is used only five times in the Old Testament (Gen 2,23; 29,14; Judg 9,2; 1 Sam 5,1; 2 Sam 19,13-14). While it appears to be a simple expression of kinship, it must be noted that it could also be used as a covenant formula306. In fact, except for Gen 2,23a, in every incidence of its uttering there is the explicit making of a covenant involved. It has been argued, therefore, that in Gen 2,23a it also was the original expression of a covenant that the first man made with the first woman307. Gen 2,23a in this case would thereby reflect a similar tradition as the prophet’s application of the marriage symbol to covenant relationships. Moreover, 2 Sam 5,3 speaks of a “covenant” which King David made with the elders of Israel, upon which they anointed him king. The language employed implies that the covenant concluded by the people with David is to be a direct reflection of their covenant relationship with YHWH, 306. See W. BRUEGGEMANN, Of the Same Flesh and Bone (Gen 2:23b), in CBQ 32 (1970) 532-542, p. 540. The key phrase about the relationship in 2,23a is a covenantal formula that does not speak about derivation in a biological sense but means to speak about commonality of concern, loyalty, and responsibility. 307. See ibid.

SOLOMON’S WEDDING (SONG 3,6-11)

697

whereby David represents YHWH as his earthly deputy. And just as the covenant relationship between YHWH and the people is expressed by the marital metaphor, so also the covenant between David and the people. 3. The Day of King Solomon’s Wedding Against the background of this comparative ANE material and biblical evidence, it can be argued that Song 3,6-11 telescopes the whole history of Israel from Sinai to Solomon’s dedication of the Temple into a single symbolic tableau. Specifically, the passage depicts the bringing up of the Ark from the desert and its entrance into the Temple at the time of Solomon. This long-awaited entrance of the Lord into his dwelling place constitutes the high-point of both God’s presence among his people and the day of Solomon’s supreme glory, the climax of his reign. The advantage over a reductionistic, merely naturalistic reading is that this symbolic exegesis takes full account of the figure of Solomon and the extensive attention given to his litter, as well as the enthronement and the marriage motif. In particular, the argument of the following sections will focus on the identification of the litter/palanquin of Solomon as the Ark of the Covenant and the day of Solomon’s coronation and wedding as the day on which he brought the Ark into the Temple. Finally, the question of Solomon’s bride will be addressed and some conclusions will be drawn regarding implications of this reading for the interpretation of the next passage, Song 4,12–5,1. a) Solomon’s Litter: The Ark of the Covenant (i) Clues from Previous Scholarship Previous scholarship had already proposed the identification of Solomon’s litter with the Ark of the Covenant308. Rudolph had taken his cue from the Jewish tradition, that in fact recognizes the Ark in the litter, and proposed that an original verse indicating the presence of the bride in the litter must have been lost, or rather was cancelled during the process of the allegorization of the Song: Als man aber – begreiflich genug – den Tragsessel auf die Lade Jahwes deutete, die ihren Einzug in Zion hielt (vgl. T und Midrasch), konnte man kein weibliches Wesen auf ihr brauchen, und wenn Jahwe mit der Lade 308. See, e.g., JOÜON, Cantique, pp. 180-181; RUDOLPH, Hohe Lied, p. 141; LACOCQUE, Romance, p. 98.

698

PART III – CHAPTER 10

einzog, konnte er nicht gleichzeitig in der Gestalt des Bräutigams wartend dastehen. Deshalb fiel die Strophe der allegorischen Deutung zum Opfer309.

Rudolph argues that Song 3,7a, “behold his litter, which is Solomon’s”, is a gloss which allowed for a “justifiable” reinterpretation of the bride as YHWH’s Ark310. His argument shows how difficult it is to identify the litter with anything or anyone other than the Beloved. Even he cannot avoid the impression that the text – at least in its final redaction – has already acquired a symbolic meaning. Rudolph, of course, discards this reading by eliminating the “gloss” in order to restore an allegedly profane Urtext, a love song sung at a wedding. Yet, if he is right, then the redactor’s intention of identifying the bride with the Ark has to be taken as a serious witness to an early symbolic reading, which has itself become part of an inner-biblical exegesis. However, against the background of the above examined material, it can be argued that the identification of the bride with Solomon’s litter is older than the date for which Rudolph allows. Jan Holman has offered a more cogent hypothesis with the advantage of providing literary coherence within Song 3,6-11311, namely that the tension created by the grammatical inconsistency between vv. 6 and 7 (“Who is this?” / “Behold the litter of Solomon”) might have been intended, thus identifying the Beloved with the Solomon’s litter. For Holman the bride is described under the symbol of the litter/palanquin, a solution that corresponds to my own reading of Song 3,6-11. It is not unusual for the Song to compare the Beloved with objects: the bride is a vineyard (Song 1,6; 8,12), a garden (Song 4,12–5,1), a wall, and a door (Song 8,9-10), and now we might add a litter. Various examples of such a “woman-chair” or “woman-chariot” equation can be found in the symbolism and iconography of the ANE and the Bible. 309. RUDOLPH, Hohe Lied, p. 141. 310. Ibid., pp. 139, 141. 311. HOLMAN, Imagery of Canticles 3:6-11. Some scholars have come close to this solution but have not followed it through to its logical conclusion. Francis LANDY affirms that the litter “is saturated with female presence”, Paradoxes, p. 209. Günther KRINETZKI speaks of “a synecdochic representation of a person by things which surrounds him/her”, Hohelied, p. 20. Marvin POPE ventures to propose that “Solomon’s ‘bed’ would thus be or include his intended bride”, Song, p. 431. In the same way Peter B. Dirksen, after establishing that ‫ מי־זאת‬does in fact mean “who is this?” and not “what is this?”, concludes that ‫מטתו‬ ‫ שלשמה‬means: “‘it is Solomon’s litter’, which means his bride”. DIRKSEN, Song, p. 222. Nonetheless, although Dirksen states a second time that the seemingly pleonastic genitive, which is similar to the phrase ‫ כרמי שלי‬in 1,6 and 8,12, would serve to put “the emphasis on its owner: it is Solomon’s litter, his bride”. He then moderates the statement by adding “moreover, she is in the litter, hidden in veils…”. To my knowledge, among the modern commentators only Jan Holman goes so far as to identify the bride with the litter.

SOLOMON’S WEDDING (SONG 3,6-11)

699

Excursus: Woman-Chair Homology In the Sumerian text “Message of Lu-dingir-ra to his Mother”, the goddess Inana appears in the travesty of a mother. Among the many literary parallels to the Song, the following is of particular interest for the study of the present passage312. In his praise of her beauty Lu-dingir-ra compares his mother to a chariot and a litter: My mother is a palm tree with a very sweet smell, A chariot of pinewood, a litter of boxwood.

The woman-as-a-chariot motif appears prominently in the Egyptian cult of Isis. The first time the name of Isis is mentioned is in one of the Pyramid Texts (Pyr. 1153/54, second half of the third millennium) where she appears to be the personification of the royal throne, whence the hieroglyph of her name which designates the “chair”. This chair, which manifests the power of the gods and kings, will remain her specific sign till the end of the Egyptian religion313. Another historical piece of evidence for the woman-chair/chariot homology, adduced by Holman, is the Ashdoda-figurine in display at the Israel Museum of Jerusalem. It is a figurine in terra-cotta of a seated Philistine goddess who is herself the seat, “a complete, solid, hand-made figurine with a vertical back and high head, consisting of a schematic combination of woman and couch or offering table”314. While elsewhere in Israel the women-chair/chariot motif is not extant, the chariot par excellence figures as female315. Thus, in Psalm 132, for 312. Cf., e.g., line 48 “My mother is a palm tree, with a very sweet smell”, with Song 7,89a, “You are stately as a palm tree, and your breasts are like its clusters. I say I will climb the palm tree and lay hold of its branches O may your breasts be like clusters of the vine, and the scent of your breath like apples”. 313. See F. DUNAND, Isis: Mère des dieux, Paris, Éditions Errance, 2000, p. 11, who furthermore points out that because in the beginning the depictions of Isis are not yet standardized the presence of the chair is often the only way of identifying her. 314. R. HACHILI, Figurines and Kernoi, in Atiqot(E) 9-10 (1971) 125-135, pp. 129, 133: “The Ashdoda is a schematic representation of a female idol and throne […] the head and breasts are organically part of the throne”. It is very similar to the Mycenaean figurines found “throughout the Greek mainland and Cyprus”, so that it is presumed to “derive from Late Mycenaean III [Kitchen chronology: 1340-1180 B.C.] seated female figurines”. 315. DE VAUX, Ancient Israel, 1961, p. 9, draws an interesting line from the modern Arabic sacred litters back to Israel’s Ark, underscoring the female connotation of the litter: “Every Arab tribe has its war-cry and its standard. In addition, it carries into battle a decorated litter, called ’uṭfa, or, more recently, merkab or abu-Dhur. Nowadays, the litter is empty, but in days gone by the most beautiful girl in the tribe rode in it to spur on the fighting men. Israel, too, had its war-cry, the terû‘ah (Nb 10:5,9; 31:6; Jos 6:5, 20; Judg 7:20-21; 1 Sam 17:20, 52; […]). This war-cry formed part of the ritual of the Ark of the Covenant

700

PART III – CHAPTER 10

example, the Ark is referred to in female gender. Verse 6, which makes reference to the Ark’s previous sojourn in Shiloh, reads: “we heard about her in Ephratah, we found her in the fields of Jaar”. ‫ ארון‬is usually in the masculine, except for the passage here in question, in the report of its capture in the Ark narrative (1 Sam 4,17), and in 2 Chr 8,11 where the Ark is counterposed to Pharaoh’s daughter. Both of the latter are key passages of a female Ark-symbolism that cannot result from a mere coincidence. The gender of the Ark is rather carefully chosen in these particular places. The female character of the Ark results further from its spousallike claims on its religious guardians seen above (III.2.d.ii, p. 693) and from an Israel–Ark typology that will be expounded upon below (III.3.c, p. 712). In support of equating the Beloved of Song 3,6-11 with the litter, one may point to Song 6,12 which can be translated in a similar sense: “I did not know (scil. what happened to me, JH), my desire (naphšî) made me (‫ )שים‬chariots (‫ )מרכבות‬of my noble kinsman”316. ‫ שום‬is often constructed with two accusatives with the sense “to make of someone something” (cf. Song 1,6)317. This meaning is also reflected in both the LXX and the VL318. A point of discussion is the correct translation of ‫עמי־נדיב‬. Though the renderings of both BHS and BHQ allow for the translation “my noble kinsman”, there appears to be little text-critical support for this reading in the versions. All the evidence points to the fact that the reading of those consonants as the proper name ‫( עמינדב‬Amminadab) is the more ancient one319. In the present context it is noteworthy that according to 2 Sam 6,3 (1 Sam 4:5; 2 Sam 6:15), which was the palladium of Israel; its presence in battle (1 Sam 4:3-11; 2 Sam 11:11) reminds us of the sacred litter of the Arabs”. 316. HOLMAN, Imagery of Canticles 3:6-11, p. 305. This reading presupposes, of course, that Song 6,12 is uttered by the Beloved, a view which is disputed. BARBIERO, Song, pp. 350-351 attributes it to the man, the following authors to the woman: ROBERT – TOURNAY – FEUILLET, Cantique, p. 448; POPE, Song, pp. 579-591; HEINEVETTER, “Komm nun, mein Liebster”, p. 151; GARBINI, Cantico, p. 248; LACOCQUE, Romance, p. 136; M. DECKERS, The Structure of the Song of Songs and the Centrality of Nepeš (6.12), in A. BRENNER (ed.), The Song of Songs (A Feminist Companion to Bible, 1), New York, Sheffiled Academic Press, 2001, 172-197, p. 194. 317. BARTHÉLEMY, Critique V, p. 915; with reference to Gen 47,6; 1 Sam 8,1; Isa 3,7; Ps 39,9. 318. LXX: οὐκ ἔγνω ἡ ψυχή μου· ἔθετό με ἅρματα; VL: … posuit me currus. Though VL belongs to the LXX tradition it is not redundant to mention both here, since the VL often deviates from the LXX and is at times closer to the MT. 319. See BARTHÉLEMY, Critique V, pp. 914-915. Barthélemy notes that “[l]e maqqef donné par BH3 et BHS n’a pas de fondement en F [ms Firkovitch, Russian National Library, EBP B 19a], qui, comme la grande majorité des mss affecte d’une merka la syllabe ‫ ִמּיּ‬tout en écrivant les deux mots comme un seul”. This is confirmed by the ancient versions

SOLOMON’S WEDDING (SONG 3,6-11)

701

LXX the Ark had been in the house of Amminadab, and according to 1 Chr 13,7 LXX the Ark of God was put on a new chariot and taken out of the house of Amminadab. Thus, according to the Greek tradition the “chariots of Amminadab” may well be an allusion to the chariot which carried the presence of the Lord on the Ark towards Jerusalem. In that case, the Beloved would even explicitly identify herself with the chariot that carried the Ark towards Jerusalem in Song 6,12320. If this interpretation of Song 6,12 is correct, it would bolster the identification of the Beloved with the litter in Song 3,6-11. Solomon’s litter does in fact appear to be the metaphoric bride. In this line Holman reads 3,9-10 not as a “documentary report of the details of Solomon’s palanquin” but as “a description of the bride. The silver columns are the legs, the head-rest of gold refers to the head, the purple saddle her genital zone, the inner part of which is inlaid with love”321. Indeed, the Lover’s legs are referred to as columns (‫ )עמודים‬in Song 5,15, and “his head is finest gold” (5,11). Holman’s basic intuition to see in the litter a metaphor for the Beloved herself is convincing. The attempt to decipher the elements of the palanquin as a coded erotic description of the concrete body-parts of the Beloved, however, must be rejected on methodological grounds since such an approach considers “metaphors as dressing up pre-conceived ideas” (see Chapter 3, I.1.c, above, p. 114). Rather, against the background of the ANE parallels expounded above it appears a plausible suggestion that verse 9 is in fact a direct description and praise of Solomon’s palanquin, a fragmentary praise of the Ark322, ancient pre-existing material, maybe a royal hymn, reused and re-contextualized in the present composition of the

which for the great majority read ‫ עמינדב‬as referring to the proper name ‘Amminadab’ (LXX, VL, V). Of those versions which read ‫ עמינדב‬as two words, i.e. the Greek recensions ε, α, and σ, and S, none reflect a first person singular suffix. Accordingly they all translate “willing people”. According to Barthélemy (ibid, p. 915), even Rashi points out that the ḥireq of ‫ עמי‬is a simple paragogical vowel. There are thus two different ancient traditions, one that reflects a reading of ‫( עם נדיב‬MT, ε, α, σ, and S) and another one that witnesses to a reading of ‫ עמינדב‬as a proper name (LXX, VL, Vg and some MT mss). Since ε, α, σ, and S are all derivates from the MT, their reading is to be expected. However, they witness against the reading “my” people or “my” kinsman. The fact that the LXX, VL, Vg (which usually reflects the MT of the Song faithfully) and even some MT Mss concord on reading the proper name ‫עמינדב‬, there is a high probability that this is actually the more ancient reading. 320. See also R.J. TOURNAY, Les Chariots d’Aminadab (Cant. VI, 12): Israël, peuple théophore, in VT 9 (1959) 288-309. 321. HOLMAN, Imagery of Canticles 3:6-11, p. 308. 322. Incidentally this proposition has also been made by CARR, The Formation of the Hebrew Bible, pp. 433-434; ID., Writing on the Tablet of the Heart, p. 89.

702

PART III – CHAPTER 10

Song and thereby reinterpreted symbolically323. The Beloved is not a metaphorical chariot. Rather the chariot is Solomon’s symbolic bride. The whole passage must be read in a symbolic discourse.

(ii) Who Is This? A Crux Resolved If the one coming up from the desert is identified with the Ark, the seeming contradiction between the question in Song 3,6 “Who is this?”, implying the Beloved, and the answer given in Song 3,7 “Behold, the litter of Solomon” is resolved. The Ark is at once “feminine” and is a “litter” that carries a sacred royal freight. This identification of the litter with the Ark is also suggested by the above-mentioned lexical parallel to the Ark-Procession Psalm 24, where the question ‫ מי זה‬indicates the approaching of the Lord, the King of Glory riding on the Ark. 7 8 9 10

Lift up your heads, O gates! and be lifted up, O ancient doors! that the King of glory (‫ )כבוד‬may come in. Who is this (‫ )מי זה‬King of glory (‫)כבוד‬ The LORD, strong and mighty (‫)גבור‬, the LORD, mighty (‫ )גבור‬in battle (‫)מלחמה‬. Lift up your heads, O gates! and be lifted up, O ancient doors! that the King of glory (‫ )מלחמה‬may come in. Who is he this (‫ )מי הוא זה‬King of glory (‫?)הכבוד‬ The LORD of hosts (‫)יהוה צבאות‬, he is the King of glory (‫)הכבוד‬.

When YHWH comes to dwell in the Temple, his entry into the sanctuary is inextricably linked to that of the Ark. The procession of the Ark marks “the going forth of the Divine Warrior to battle and his return to his royal seat”324. In Psalm 24 YHWH is distinctly depicted as the divine warrior (vv. 8, 10) who has gone out for battle and now comes back victoriously. As in the Ark narrative (1 Samuel 1–7), the divine warrior-king is associated with ‫( כבוד‬five times the psalm calls him ‫מלך הכבוד‬, vv. 7-10), and he is called the ‫יהוה צבאות‬, the Lord of hosts (v. 10). The parallels to Song 3,6-11 are remarkable, as the following table shows:

323. A similar proposition was made by GERLEMAN, Hohelied, pp. 136-137, who thinks that the poet of Song 3,6-11 was acquainted with above-mentioned Egyptian festival processions. 324. CROSS, Canaanite Myth, p. 94.

SOLOMON’S WEDDING (SONG 3,6-11)

703

Psalm 24

Song 3,6-11

question: Who is this? indicating a super human figure: ‫( מי זה‬vv. 8, 10)

question: Who is this? indicating a super human figure: ‫( מי־זאת‬v. 6)

The King of glory approaching Jerusalem on his palanquin, the Ark

King Solomon’s litter (v. 7), palanquin (v. 9), approaching Jerusalem (Zion).

“The Lord, strong and mighty, mighty in warfare” (v. 8)

“Sixty mighty men surround her from the mighty men of Israel … trained in warfare” (vv. 7-8)

One finds the same mythological question ‫( מי זה‬Ps 24,8.10), the association with ‫ גבור‬and ‫מלחמה‬, and the image of a king’s litter or palanquin approaching mount Zion (Ps 24,3; Song 3,11). Read in this light, it makes sense why the answer given to the question “Who is this?” in Song 3,6 is a five-verse-long description of a liturgical procession in the center of which is “only” an object and neither of the two Lovers, whose focused description is so typical for the rest of the Song. The chief character of this scene is in fact Solomon’s litter, which is the Ark of the Covenant. This also helps explain the waṣf-like description of Solomon’s palanquin in Song 3,9. (iii) Solomon’s Palanquin, Ninlil’s Barge, and Enlil’s Chariot The strongest indicator for an identification of Solomon’s litter with the Ark is, however, in the similarity between the description of Solomon’s palanquin in Song 3,9-10 and the description of the chariots in the hymns discussed above. In the case of both Sumerian chariot hymns (Šulgi R and Išme-Dagan I) it is clearly not the different body-parts of a human being that are described in waṣf-like fashion but the different parts of the Götterwagen. This poetic device in the eulogy of the ANE sacred chariots is most reminiscent of Song 3,9-10325, which praises in detail the furnishing of Solomon’s palanquin: like Enlil’s chariot it is made of cedar wood (IšmeDagan I 10; Song 3,9); its pillars of silver, the backrest of gold (IšmeDagan I 64; Song 3,10) and the mount of purple (Išme-Dagan I 38-40; Song 3,10). Taking into account these parallels and the fact that the center of Song 3,6-11 (i.e. vv. 7-10) revolves around Solomon’s litter, that is, a chariot, and not around the Beloved herself, one is drawn to the conclu325. See also CARR, Writing on the Tablet of the Heart, p. 89; and ID., The Formation of the Hebrew Bible, pp. 433-434.

704

PART III – CHAPTER 10

sion that vv. 9-10 might stem from an old hymn composed in praise of the Ark, similar to the two royal Sumerian hymns seen above. This assumption is supported by the fact that the Ark constituted the central object of Israel’s cult during the monarchy and that processions with the Ark were possibly being held throughout monarchic history, of which we have the liturgical memory in Psalms 24; 132 and the narrative memory in 2 Samuel 6 and 2 Chronicles 5326. Further similarities in motifs sustain this assumption. Both in the chariot hymns and in the Song, a king’s service to a sacred chariot is rewarded with blessings on his reign/crown and followed by the marriage motif. While Išme-Dagan is granted a goddess in marriage as a reward for his holy service to the chariot, it is not immediately apparent whom Solomon weds, but the ascent of the litter climaxes clearly with “the day of his wedding, the day of the gladness of his heart”. Further the parallels between Išme-Dagan and Enlil’s Chariot and Song 3,6-11 can be noted. Išme-Dagan and Enlil’s Chariot

Song 3,6-11 Solomon’s litter

10 Your (the chariot’s) furnishings are most outstanding, like a cedar forest.

9 A litter made Solomon for himself from the trees of Lebanon.

64 [he fitted out with] silver, gold (and) [lapis-lazuli].

10 Its pillars he made of silver, its backrest of gold,

39 As to your footboard […] 40 [As to your] se[at, you are ….]

10 its mount of purple.

72 Enlil, in his lofty votive chariot emerged shining 75 The king came out from the holy […].

11 Go out and behold, Daughters of Zion, King Solomon […]

67 He em[braced] Mother Ninlil, [his] spouse.

11 Solomon with the crown with which his mother crowned him on the day of his wedding.

81

11 on the day of the joy of his heart.

“[ , to make] the heart rejoice,

326. “[I]t is widely supposed that in the Jerusalem cult of the monarchical period ‘the Ark was carried in recurring cultic processions, into Jerusalem and into the temple, a supposition for which Psalm 132 is the critical bit of evidence. This psalm, in Mowinckel’s words, is ‘the “text” of a dramatic procession [… that] is here looked upon as a repetition of Yahweh’s first entry into Jerusalem, when David laid the foundation of the cult of Yahweh there and introduced the holy Ark as the center of the cult’”. MCCARTER, II Samuel, pp. 178-179. See S. MOWINCKEL, The Psalms in Israel’s Worship: I, Oxford, Blackwell, 1962, pp. 132, 174-177; D.R. HILLERS, Ritual Procession of the Ark and Ps 132, in CBQ 30 (1968) 48-55; and CROSS, Canaanite Myth, pp. 91-111.

SOLOMON’S WEDDING (SONG 3,6-11)

705

Išme-Dagan and Enlil’s Chariot

Song 3,6-11 Solomon’s litter

68 Ninurta, [his mig]hty hero 69 (And) The Anunna-gods [of] the habitat [of Enlil proceeded] after him 70 The CHARIOT flashes like lightening, its bellowing [noise] is sweet.

7 Behold, the LITTER of Solomon, sixty mighty men surround it of the mighty men of Israel.

The parallels between the two texts are striking. The day on which IšmeDagan presents the divine chariot to his god Enlil is a day of rejoicing, a feast on which Enlil reaches a place “which gladdens the soul” and on which he “embraced Mother Ninlil” (ll. 66-81). Similarly, the day on which Solomon’s litter reaches Mount Zion is related to the emerging of King Solomon on “the day of his wedding”, “the day of the gladness of his heart”, in the presence of his mother. In Song 3,11 special attention is drawn to Solomon’s crown, “with which his mother crowned him on the day of his wedding”. This motif is reminiscent of Šulgi’s chariot hymn, where mother Ninlil, Enlil’s consort, promises to establish his throne firmly: I will prolong the nights of the crown that was placed upon your head by holy An, and I will extend the days of the holy sceptre that was given to you by Enlil. May the foundation of your throne that was bestowed on you by Enki be firm! (Šulgi R 82-88).

Though it is not evident that the Sumerian kings were crowned on the occasion of the chariot dedication, it remains evident that there is a strong link between the king’s service to the sacred chariot and the establishment of his reign and a sacred marriage motif, which is of course linked to the confirmation of his throne. As discussed in Chapter 6, the gift of a goddess in marriage allowed the king to participate in the divine realm and to exercise his office of being mediator between the celestial realm and his subjects. In the Song these mythological reminiscences are purged but the main motifs are still present: a precious litter is escorted to the holy Mount Zion, the transfer of which marks the day of the King’s wedding and coronation – not by “mother Ninlil” but his own mother. This echoes, of course, a scene the biblical reader is well familiar with: David’s liturgical transfer of the Ark into Jerusalem (2 Samuel 6). (iv) Parallels between 2 Samuel 6 and Song 3,6-11 The examination of 2 Samuel 6 has brought to light the following elements which shed considerable light on Song 3,6-11. There is a striking overlap of motifs. In both passages a royal or sacred litter is at center

706

PART III – CHAPTER 10

stage, each time surrounded by a royal escort of mighty/chosen men. In both cases the litter is escorted up a mountain towards Jerusalem/Zion in a liturgical procession. In 2 Samuel 6 this is very clear from the singing and dancing and most of all the offerings that are sacrificed upon every six steps the procession advances; in Song 3,6-11 it is equally apparent from the sacred myrrh and incense that is being burnt and the pillar of smoke, which recalls the burning of sacrifices as the procession sets out for Mount Zion. In both cases it appears further that the litter rises triumphant from a major defeat (the Philistines in 2 Samuel 5, the desert in Song 3,6, both symbols of death and chaos which threaten Israel). Apart from the carriage vehicle, both passages focus on a king: in one case King David, in the other his son Solomon, who by his construction of the Temple (1 Kings 5–8) completed what David had begun in the transfer of the Ark to Jerusalem (2 Samuel 6–7). In both cases the King is surrounded by the daughters/maids of Jerusalem. 2 Samuel 6

Song 3,6-11

vv. 2.12.16: The Ark is brought up (‫ )עלה‬to the City of David, Zion.

vv. 6.11: The Beloved goes up (‫)עלה‬ towards Jerusalem, Zion.

v. 3: The Ark is escorted by thirty thousand chosen warriors of Israel (‫)בחור בישראל‬.

v. 6: Solomon’s litter is escorted by sixty mighty men of Israel (‫גבורי‬ ‫)ישראל‬.

vv. 2.13-15.17: The Ark is brought up (‫ )עלה‬in a liturgical procession; escorted by singing and instrumental music, David vested with the priestly ephod and making sacrifices and dancing in front of the Ark.

v. 6 The litter’s ascent (‫ )עלה‬to Jerusalem is described in a language reminiscent of a liturgical procession.

David receives the Ark into his city and fertility is invoked unto the people by his blessing and distribution of bread and raisin cakes (‫( )אשישה‬19).

The procession of Solomon’s litter goes up to Jerusalem which culminates in Solomon’s wedding. He is received by the Daughters of Jerusalem.

In contrast to this Michal his wife who scorns David remains sterile until her death.

In Song 2,4 the Beloved longs for the same raisin cakes as David distributes: “Sustain me with raisin-cakes (‫)אשישות‬, refresh me with apples; for I am faint with love”.

As seen in the exegeses of Song 3,6, the verb ‫ עלה‬in relation to Jerusalem is heavy with historical allusions; it could be an allusion to Israel

SOLOMON’S WEDDING (SONG 3,6-11)

707

coming up from Egypt as well as its return from Exile, it could refer to the annual pilgrimages that go up to Jerusalem, but it could also be an allusion to the Ark that was brought up to the place where it was destined to be: the city of David, which is Zion. The Ark is brought up in a liturgical procession with music, singing, and dancing, just as Solomon’s litter is seen coming up towards Jerusalem in a liturgical procession that is indicated by the pillar of smoke, smoking with myrrh and frankincense, all elements that stem from a liturgical setting and language. Though the procession is liturgical in both cases, the escort of the vehicle is, however, more reminiscent of a battle context. The sacred chariot acquires such an importance that it stands clearly at the center of the poetic attention, to the point that in the case of Song 3,6-11 the bride is not even mentioned and in the case of 2 Samuel 6 the legitimate wife of the King is ousted. In the case of 2 Samuel 6 one would expect the consummation of the King’s marriage upon the arrival of the Ark in the Temple, which fails, however. In the case of the Song, the arrival of the King’s litter marks the day of Solomon’s wedding (the consummation of which will be described at the end of the cycle in Song 5,1). Just as the arrival of the Ark in the King’s city is marked by the specific fertility symbol of the raisin cakes (2 Sam 6,19), so also the love chanted in the Song is reminiscent of the same motif (Song 2,5) which, as known from Hos 3,1, stems ultimately from the service to a goddess like Inana, Ishtar, or Astarte, and therefore was somehow related to the idea of sacred marriage. The “Daughters of Jerusalem” recall David’s exposure before the maids of Jerusalem in 2 Sam 6,20 and the chorus of women that would hail him more than Saul, when returning from battle (cf. 1 Sam 18,6-7). Yet in spite of these strong reminiscences, Song 3,6-11 depicts an event in which Solomon and not David is the principal actor. The scene concerns Solomon’s litter and Solomon’s wedding. b) Solomon’s Wedding: The Dedication of the Temple This section will argue that Song 3,6-11 presents a telescoped history of Israel from Sinai to Zion. More concretely, the text represents a biography of the Ark in poetic form, culminating in the moment when Solomon transferred the Ark into the Temple at its dedication. The key to this reading is the recognition of Solomon’s litter/palanquin as the Ark (III.3.a). From this identification the various other images in Song 3,6-11 fall into place, for if the text indeed presents an image of the Ark, both the ANE parallels and the related biblical traditions point towards the same cultic moment: the Temple dedication.

708

PART III – CHAPTER 10

As already seen in the Mesopotamian material, a king’s service of a divine chariot should culminate in its installation in a temple, that is, in the enthronement of the divinity in his dwelling place. The Bible records only one tradition linking Solomon with the Ark: the narrative about Solomon’s transfer of the Ark into the newly constructed Temple (1 Kgs 8,1-13). This tradition appears as the sequel narrative to a story begun with Solomon’s father. The suspense generated by this incomplete Davidic “prequel” powerfully intensifies the climactic significance of Solomon’s action. Given the great importance that the Bible attributes to David, the one who unified the twelve Tribes, delivered the country from Philistine occupation, the conqueror of Jerusalem, and given his devoted service to the Ark, one would have expected the King to “complete the job” and build the Lord a dwelling place. Instead, David’s service to the Ark is aborted as he is not allowed to build a Temple for the Ark. The ANE pattern of royal glory, along with the reader’s expectation, is interrupted. The biblical tradition is aware of this flaw and openly thematizes it by giving different explanations: i.e. God never asked for a Temple (1 Sam 7,7), David was hindered by war (1 Kgs 5,17), David waged war and had blood on his hands (1 Chr 22,8; 28,3). King Solomon gloriously completes what David began, but left unfinished. He builds the house of cedar for the Ark (cf. 2 Sam 7,2; 1 Kings 5–8; 1 Chr 28,2-10; 2 Chr 3–6,2), and brings the Ark up (‫ )עלה‬from Zion to the Temple, its new resting place, thereby procuring for the Lord enthroned on the Ark “a high exalted house, a place for [him] to dwell in forever” (1 Kgs 8,13 || 2 Chr 6,2). Solomon transfers the Ark into the place where it belonged (‫במקמו‬, the interior of the Temple: 1 Kgs 8,6 || 2 Chr 5,7). According to 2 Sam 7,2, the Temple was constructed specifically to provide the Lord in the Ark a cedar house; and according to 1 Chr 28,2 and Ps 132,8 the Temple was built to be a resting place. It is clear that the Temple is constructed in view of the Ark. In linking the figure of Solomon with the Ark, rather than David, a memory of Solomon’s Temple construction and dedication is inevitably activated. However, this echo is not accessed through the unique narrative conjunction of Solomon and the Ark in 1 Kings 8. The Song itself explicitly intones Solomon’s building activity when it uses construction language in 3,9: “A palanquin made (‫ )עשה‬Solomon for himself”. As seen under II.2.c, above, this language is reminiscent of Solomon’s temple building activity. The Chronicler, specifically, depicts Solomon as having made (‫ )עשה‬the Temple and all its interior fittings by himself (cf. 2 Chr 3,8.10.14.16-17; 4,1-2.6-9). Solomon, of course, did not construct the Temple for himself, but for YHWH. There is, however, a curious parallel to the notion of

SOLOMON’S WEDDING (SONG 3,6-11)

709

Solomon having constructed the Temple for himself in 1 Kgs 6,16 where the Hebrew reads “and he built for himself (‫ )ויבן לו‬an inner sanctuary, the Holy of Holies”. According to the biblical tradition, Solomon is, of course, not associated with having built the Ark; this honor belongs to Moses. Yet as seen with the Sumerian chariot hymns, sacred chariots were conceived of as miniature temples. It would accordingly fit within the poetic repertoire of symbols to fuse these events and reimagine Solomon the builder of the Temple as Solomon the builder of the Ark. The backdrop of a cultic dedication is further reinforced by the waṣflike chariot hymns, of which Song 3,9-10 is so reminiscent. As seen, these hymns were chanted on the day of the chariot’s dedication. The fragmentary chariot hymn of Song 3,9-10 thus points us to this cultic moment, which one expects to be described in Song 3,11. Curiously, Song 3,11 describes a wedding instead, which appears to be the end point of a long procession that had begun in the desert (v. 6). The two framing verses of Song 3,6-11 are thus an ascent from the desert and a wedding scene. How do these images cohere with the hypothesis that Solomon’s Temple dedication is in view? Regarding the desert, it is critical to see that Song 3,6-11 presents a tightly condensed history of Israel. As is possible for symbolic speech, it graphically telescopes several scenes of Israel’s history into one. While the historical books have to differentiate between Israel’s time in the wilderness, followed by the conquest of the land, the pre-monarchic and finally the monarchic period in which only Jerusalem becomes the royal city and abode of the Temple, the poetry of the Song can collapse the “story-line” into one single movement. Thus, according to Song 3,6, the Beloved is coming up from the desert like a pillar of smoke. This evokes the time of Israel’s desert wandering during the Exodus and ascent towards the Promised Land. Very quickly though, the scene focuses on the Ark and how it is escorted by Israel’s mighty men up towards Jerusalem. This echoes David’s battle-like ascent of the Ark from Baal-jehuda towards the city of David. At the same time, the atmosphere that evokes Israel’s time in the desert is kept alive through the long description of the warriors who are trained in battle against the terrors of the night – demons that howl in the desert (v. 8). Verses 9-10 deliver the key to understanding the whole scene as a hymnic memory of the Ark’s transfer to the Temple. According to the priestly theology, the Deuteronomistic history, and the Chronicler, this is the high-point of the Exodus story-line. The purpose of the Exodus and of the covenant which the Lord had concluded with Israel on Mount Sinai

710

PART III – CHAPTER 10

would reach its fulfillment when the Lord would dwell in their midst (cf. Exod 29,46). This goal is realized by King Solomon, and the transfer of the Ark to “its place” (1 Kgs 8,6) was without any doubt the crowning moment of Solomon’s reign. The moment the priests had deposited the Ark, the cloud signifying the presence of the Lord filled the Temple and Solomon declared “The Lord has said that he would dwell in thick darkness. I have built you an exalted house, a place for you to dwell in forever” (1 Kgs 8,13)327.

The poetry of the Song thus depicts the history of Israel from Sinai to Zion in one compact scene. The desert motif is rightly the starting point, but the end point is the Temple Mount. This ascending movement fits well to the discursive structure (see I.4.e) and the literary motif of a royal wedding (see I.4.f). The second difficulty concerns the wedding motif. Admittedly neither of the biblical Temple dedication scenes (1 Kings 8 || 2 Chronicles 5) feature a wedding. Yet several ANE and inner-biblical parallels indicate that the Ark’s enthronement in the Temple was intimately connected with the marriage motif. As seen in Chapter 6 and above under III.1.b.iii, p. 680, temple and chariot dedications were always associated with “sacred” marriages. Moreover, there is an indication in 1 Kings 8 that Solomon dedicated the Temple on a New Year festival, a feast that was traditionally related to chariot processions and sacred marriage celebrations throughout the ANE (see Chapter 6, IV.4, above, p. 401)328. 327. See HUROWITZ, “Solomon Built the Temple and Completed It”, p. 286, who explains: “The temple is God’s house, and just as an ordinary house is initiated by the act of its owner taking up residence (see Deut 20:8//29:30), so the House of YHWH is initiated by bringing Him to the temple and installing Him in His place. This, in fact, is how temples in Mesopotamia were initiated, namely by bringing the statue of the god for whom the temple was built and placing it in its cult socle. Since the Temple of Jerusalem was devoid of a cult statue of YHWH, His presence was represented by introducing the Ark which was His sedan chair when outside and footstool when placed within the temple. The Deuteronomistic historian has added some phrases identifying the Ark as the Ark of the Covenant containing the tablets of the covenant made between YHWH and Israel on Mount Horeb. […]. The Priestly additions to the account of the initiation tell of the entry of the cloud and the Divine nimbus (‫)כבוד‬, which it hid from sight (1 Kgs 8:10-11). In addition, the Tent of Meeting and holy vessels that had been in it are also dwelling places of YHWH, which had been built and erected at the foot of Mount Sinai and brought to the Promised Land”. 328. Although according to 1 Kgs 6,38 the construction of the Temple was completed in the eighth month (Bul) of the eleventh year, Solomon is said to have dedicated the Temple only eleven months later “in the month of Etanim – during the feast – that is the seventh month” of the following year. Etanim is a Phoenician month name known as Tishri in the post-exilic Jewish calendar. “The feast” during which Solomon is said to have dedicated the Temple was – according to scholarly opinion – most likely originally a New Year festival (which after the exile became the feast of Tabernacles), very much analogous to the

SOLOMON’S WEDDING (SONG 3,6-11)

711

Finally, there is the prophetic tradition of the book of Hosea, seen in Chapter 7, I.2.b.iii, above, p. 439, which interprets YHWH’s indwelling in the Temple under the governance of a Davidic king in terms of a marital relationship between husband (YHWH) and wife (Israel) (cf. Hos 3,1-5). The fusion of God’s entrance into the Temple with the marriage symbol is thus no innovation. The ANE tradition, the David story, and the covenant as marriage theology mediated by King and Temple are the precedents that allow us to unravel the compact symbolic logic of the Song. Read in the light of the ANE material, the day of the sacred chariot procession is the day on which Solomon should consummate a sacred marriage and receive the confirmation of his reign. Read furthermore in the light of 2 Samuel 6 and David’s aborted service to the Ark, symbolized in the failure to consummate his marriage, a sequel is expected where the king’s marriage is celebrated. The failure of the narrative in 1 Kings 8 to continue this marriage sub-plot invites a poetic response, and the poetry of the Song gracefully provides a satisfying conclusion: Solomon on his wedding day. Read in the light of the prophetic tradition, the day of the Ark’s arrival in the Temple is the day on which YHWH consummates his covenant-marriage with Israel. Ultimately, the coherence of the Song’s imagery in Song 3,6-11 depends on an additive logic, which the Scriptures’ suggestively open-ended traditions frame. From all these different angles, the dedication of the Temple represents the high-point of Israel’s history and the crowning moment of Solomon’s reign, who was (at least in this connection) the greatest king of Israel. Such peerless regal status explains the final remaining image: the crowning motif in Song 3,11. In the ANE, service to a sacred chariot is rewarded by the gods with a perpetuation of the throne. David’s service to the Ark was likewise rewarded with the promise of an eternal dynasty (2 Sam 7,12. ones celebrated in Mesopotamia during the equivalent month of Tišritu (Akiti in Sumer and Akitu in Babylon). For an extensive explanation and more bibliography, see WAGENAAR, Calendar, pp. 224-228, n. 23. See also VAN DER TOORN, New Year Festival, particularly pp. 339-343. The New Year festival was intimately connected with the renewal of the cosmos through the re-enthronement of the divinity in his temple and by the same token the re-affirmation of the earthly king’s reign. See B.D. SOMMER, The Babylonian Akitu Festival: Rectifying the King or Renewing the Cosmos?, in Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 27 (2000) 81-95, pp. 81, 85. As seen in Chapter 5, Jerusalem shared the same basic features of this royal ideology. Scholars have accordingly argued that the account of Solomon’s Ark procession in 1 Kgs 8,1-9 might testify to a cultic ceremonial of annual Ark processions practiced not long before the Babylonian Exile during the Israelite Autumn/New Year festival. See VAN DER TOORN, New Year Festival, p. 341, according to whom the annual Ark processions would help explain the reference to the Autumn festival in 1 Kgs 8,2: “the writer assimilated Solomon’s procession to the annual procession in the autumn with which he was familiar”.

712

PART III – CHAPTER 10

13.16); and Solomon is promised an eternal throne for building a house for the Lord (2 Sam 7,13; 1 Chr 28,6-7). Like the chariot hymns viewed above, the Song gives poetic expression to Solomon’s full royal glory in depicting him with a crown on the day that he accomplished his service to the sacred vessel. In the context of Israelite religion, this is the day on which the Lord’s marriage with Israel was consummated when he entered to dwell enthroned in her midst in the Temple Solomon built329. c) Who Is Solomon’s Spouse? If this is Solomon’s wedding, then the question arises regarding the identity of Solomon’s spouse. On the basis of the background of the ANE material and of 2 Samuel 6, one would expect some sort of sacred marriage to be consummated. As seen in Chapters 6 and 7, Israel had crafted its own versions of sacred marriage in which Israel as a people (or Jerusalem as a city or Lady Wisdom) came to replace the divine consort. Upon entering his Temple YHWH consummates his sacred marriage not with an Asherah or any other female divinity, but with his people Israel. In this sacred marriage, the King – in accordance with the ANE royal ideology – plays the role of the Lord’s lieutenant (cf. Psalm 2). For this reason, YHWH’s marriage is Solomon’s marriage too330. Solomon is not granted a love goddess in marriage like Išme-Dagan (see III.1.b.iii, above, p. 680), but God’s own people. The Song expresses this by depicting both the Ark and the people of Israel symbolically as Solomon’s bride, a pattern already seen above in connection with David. While it was argued above that the Ark takes up the role of Solomon’s bride in this royal wedding scene, Solomon’s symbolic bride is also the people of Israel. This is suggested by several indicators. First, in its other occurrences the rhetorical question ‫( מי־זאת‬Who is this?) always indicates the approach of the Beloved. In Song 6,10 it refers (again in mythological language) metonymically to the reunited Israel, beautiful as Tirzah, lovely like Jerusalem. In 8,5 she is for the second time represented as coming up from the desert, this time leaning on her Lover331. Secondly, the Ark 329. On Temple and Tabernacle as nuptial chamber, see also A. VILLENEUVE, Nuptial Symbolism in Second Temple Writings, the New Testament and Rabbinic Literature: Divine Marriage at Key Moments of Salvation History (Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, 92), Leiden, Brill, 2016, p. 373. 330. See also SCHWIENHORST-SCHÖNBERGER, Das Hohelied, pp. 107-108. 331. If one allows for a symbolical reading according to which YHWH is the Lover, then she overcomes the desert in the first scene (3,6) because he is enthroned in her midst on the Ark. In the second scene (8,15) she is leaning on him. In both cases, it is his presence that empowers her to overcome the powers of death symbolized by the desert.

SOLOMON’S WEDDING (SONG 3,6-11)

713

procession evokes the history of Israel. By alluding to Israel’s desert wandering in the pillar of cloud and the later mention of Israel’s mighty warriors, the poet implies that the answer to the “Who is this?” refrain is the people of Israel as they come up from the Exodus, the Lord riding in their midst on his chariot throne the Ark. Seen in this perspective the people of Israel appear as an extension of the Ark. There is, in fact, a certain homogeneity between the Ark and the people in the Hebrew Bible332. This is mostly suggested by the following Ark-Israel typology in the Ark narrative of 1 Samuel 1–7333. When the Ark is taken captive by the Philistines, a woman epitomizes by her own death the fate that has struck the Ark (1 Sam 4,19-22). The woman dies just as the Ark has to succumb to a symbolic death in its captivity334. As an exegesis of the event the (nameless) dying woman gives her son the symbolic name ‫ אי־כבוד‬saying, “it has gone into Exile (‫ )גלה‬the glory from Israel, for the Ark of God has been taken captive” (1 Sam 4,22)335. This explanation establishes an Ark – woman and a captivity – death symbolism. Moreover, it construes an Ark-Israel typology, as the Ark’s lot is 332. Ultimately they are God’s chariot throne on earth. As the Ark carries YHWH’s kavod, so Israel is bearer of the Lord’s kavod among the nations (cf. Ezek 10,1-8; 43,2; Ps 22,3). 333. The Ark narrative (Ladeerzählung) has first been identified as such and delimited to 1 Samuel 4–6 by ROST, Die Überlieferung von der Thronnachfolge Davids. Yet, it has in the meantime been repeatedly noticed that the account in chapters 4–6 forms part of a narrative encompassing a much larger context. Important clues to the Ark narrative are given in 1 Samuel 1–3 without which it cannot be understood properly. In defense of unity and homogeneity of 1 Samuel 1–7, see J.T. WILLIS, An Anti-Elide Narrative Tradition from a Prophetic Circle at the Ramah Sanctuary, in JBL 90 (1971) 288-308. For inclusion of at least 2,12-17.22-25.27-36 to chapter 4 as the beginning of the Ark narrative, see P.D. MILLER, JR. – J.J.M. ROBERTS, The Hand of the Lord: A Reassessment of the “Ark Narrative” of I Samuel (The Johns Hopkins Near Eastern Studies, 8), Baltimore, MD, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1977, pp. 18-26. For a compelling defense of chapter 3 on intertextual grounds, see L.M. ESLINGER, Kingship of God in Crisis: A Close Reading of 1 Samuel 1–12 (BiLiSe, 10), Sheffield, Almond Press, 1985, p. 176. In my own view the Ark narrative cannot be understood properly without including chapters 1–3. 334. It is the news of the Ark’s captivity more than the death of her father-in-law and husband which bring the labor pains and eventually death upon her. See also POLZIN, 2 Samuel, p. 70. 335. The Ark and the glory (‫ )כבוד‬are here understood as two different entities in the line of the priestly theology, the Ark serving as God’s mobile cherubim throne. With the Ark the glory (‫)כבוד‬, which resides on the cherubim throne (1 Sam 4,4) and is the sign of God’s presence has gone into Exile. According to Mettinger this passage “proves to reflect the fully developed kābôd theology of exilic times”. METTINGER, Dethronement, p. 121. The theology is the same as in Ezek 10,18, where YHWH resides on a mobile throne borne by living cherubim. See ibid., p. 104: “what Ezekiel sees here is again a chariot throne of the Lord, which in this case has been modeled along the lines of the iconography of the Jerusalem Temple”. See also L.C. ALLEN, Ezekiel 1–19 (WBC, 28), Dallas, TX, Word Books, 1994, p. 158.

714

PART III – CHAPTER 10

here paralleled to the later fate of Israel, that is, Israel’s destiny to go into Exile (‫ ;גלה‬2 Kgs 17,23; 2 Kgs 24,14-15; 25,21). By using explicitly the verb ‫ גלה‬the Ark’s captivity is read as a prefiguration of Israel’s own destiny to undergo a symbolic death in its Babylonian captivity. In both cases the fault lies with the sins of those who had been appointed as sacred rulers over Israel336. In fact, the whole Ark narrative appears to be a carefully constructed prolepsis to the demise of the Judean kings and the consequential Exile of the people, creating an Eli-King and Ark-Israel typology337. This Ark-Israel typology is even further developed in the following two chapters. 1 Samuel 5–6 describe the Ark’s captivity in Philistine territory and its delivery from there in distinct Exodus-language, that is, by creating a clear intertextuality to the former fate of Israel in Egypt and its delivery from there through YHWH’s mighty intervention338. The narrative thereby 336. Note how the Ark narrative puts the blame clearly on Eli who had not known how to chastise his sons (1 Sam 2,29-34). 1 Sam 4,18 makes it clear that Eli “had judged Israel for forty years”. Eli’s fault is thereby given the same importance as that of the King of Israel within the Deuteronomistic history (even if, as M. Noth holds, the gloss harks back to a post-deuteronomistic hand. See NOTH, Die sammelnden und bearbeitenden Geschichtswerke im Alten Testament, pp. 22-23). 337. See R. POLZIN, Samuel and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of the Deuteronomic History. Part Two: 1 Samuel, Bloomington, IN, Indiana University Press, 1993, p. 64; G. AULD, From King to Prophet in Samuel and Kings, in J.C. DE MOOR (ed.), The Elusive Prophet: The Prophet as a Historical Person, Literary Character and Anonymous Artist (OTS, 45), Leiden, Brill, 2001, 31-44, p. 44; and B. GREEN, King Saul’s Asking, Collegeville, MN, Liturgical Press, 2003, p. 27. 338. When the Ark is brought into battle the Philistines recall the Exodus in exclaiming, “woe to us, who will deliver us from the hand of this mighty god? These are the gods who smote the Egyptians with every plague in the desert” (1 Sam 4,8). The typology is thus articulated from the mouth of the Philistines. The unconceivable happens: the God who had once delivered Israel from Egypt is himself taken captive by the Philistines. His Ark-throne, to which his presence is bound, is taken captive. Just as in the catastrophe of 587 B.C., the Heilsgeschichte that had started with the Exodus seems to have come to its irremediable end. But the miracle of the Exodus is repeated, as is evident from the manifold puns on Exodus 6–12 in 1 Samuel 4–6. The Philistines recall that this is the God who had smitten the Egyptians with every plague in the desert (1 Sam 4,8). This is exactly what happens to the Philistines in consequence of their having taken captive the Ark (1 Sam 5,6.9.12; 6,4.5). The Philistines are smitten with tumors (‫)עפלים‬. 1 Sam 6,4 brings out the parallel clearly by calling this affliction a ‫( מגפה‬plague), which is the same term used in Exod 9,14, where YHWH threatens Pharaoh with sending all his plagues (‫ )מגפים‬over Pharaoh, his officials, and the people of Egypt, if he is not willing to let the people of YHWH go (‫)שלח‬. Forced by the heaviness of this plague, the Philistines decide to send (‫ )שלח‬the Ark back to its ‫“ מקום‬place”, which appears to be an allusion to its final destination which it will eventually reach, the Temple (1 Kgs 8,6). The verb ‫ שלח‬creates yet another intertextual link with the Exodus story as it is the verb that is consistently used throughout Exodus 6–12 to designate what the scope of the plagues on the Egyptians was: that Pharaoh might send (‫ )שלח‬the Israelites out of Egypt. Moreover, when Israel is finally “sent” out of Egypt, Israel does not depart empty-handed but loaded with the gold and silver of the Egyptians

SOLOMON’S WEDDING (SONG 3,6-11)

715

establishes a similar Exile–Exodus motif as is found in the prophets. This is a direct continuation of the Sarah–Israel typology which has been discussed in Chapter 7, III (above, p. 461). The Ark thus takes its place in an array of symbols that are related to the fate of Israel, Jerusalem, and the Temple, all of which are invested with female symbolism in the Scriptures. This inner-biblical Ark-Israel typology shows how the bridal roles of both are not mutually exclusive. They both imply each other, and thus allow for a polyphonic reading of the bride of Song 3,6-11. She is simultaneously the Ark of the Covenant and the people of Israel. If there is a “woman-chair/chariot” homology in the ANE, one might speak of an “ArkIsrael” homology in the Bible. This is underscored by the prominent role which the Daughters of Jerusalem and Zion play both in the interior decoration of the Ark and the wedding scene. In the close reading above it had been postulated that the palanquin, inlaid with the love of the Daughters of Jerusalem, invites imagining the love the Daughters of Jerusalem as filling this litter, that is, to see the presence of the royal harem within the litter. The love of the King’s harem lines the interior of the litter and receives Solomon into it. Here the Ark/ Temple and Israel symbolisms merge again. As seen above (III.2.d, p. 691), the Harem represents the people, but so does the Temple of which the Ark is a miniature replica. When YHWH comes to dwell in his TempleArk, he comes to dwell in the midst of his bride Israel. Similarly, the Daughters of Zion, as the king’s harem, represent the people of Israel on the day of King Solomon’s wedding. The curious absence of the bride in the wedding scene has been frequently noted. Instead the Daughters of Zion are called to come out and behold the King. In fact, there is no bride because Israel is the bride whom the Daughters of Zion represent. As the royal harem they are the symbol of the people of the King’s domain. The whole scene of Song 3,6-11 thus gives a description (Exod 11,2; 12,35.36). Similarly, the Ark is sent back to where it belongs with a spoil of seven gold tumors and five gold mice, for the number of lords of the Philistines (1 Sam 6,4). And as if the allusions had not yet been clear enough, the Philistine priest, who had counseled to send back the Ark with a golden guilt offering, adds to his counsel, “Why should you harden your hearts as the Egyptians and Pharaoh hardened their hearts? After he had made fools of them, did they not let the people go, and they departed?” (1 Sam 6,6). In this manner the Ark returns from its captivity with the Philistine riches of gold (1 Sam 6,1016) just as Israel left Egypt with the gold and silver of the Egyptians. On the whole section see H. TIMM, Die Ladeerzählung (1. Sam. 4–6; 2. Sam. 6) und das Kerygma des deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerks, in Evangelische Theologie 26 (1966) 509-526; SMELIK, Messages, p. 49; ESLINGER, Kingship, p. 213; and K. BODNER, Ark-Eology: Shifting Emphases in “Ark Narrative” Scholarship, in Currents in Biblical Research 4 (2006) 169-197, p. 173.

716

PART III – CHAPTER 10

of the “first” wedding between YHWH and Israel, on the day of the dedication of the First Temple, in which the Lord is represented by his earthly lieutenant Solomon, whose bride is Israel, symbolically represented by the Ark and the Daughters of Zion. d) Summary Taking its cues from inconsistencies in the text and previous scholarship that had proposed a symbolic identification of the one coming up from the desert and Solomon’s litter, this section has proposed a symbolic reading of Song 3,6-11 against the background of ANE and biblical parallel material. The language and motifs hailing the “one coming up” from the desert in the opening verse of Song 3,6, who is clearly the Beloved of the Song, are reminiscent of Israel coming up from the desert towards Mount Zion (v. 11). At the same time the difficult transition from verse 6 to 7 calls for an identification of the Beloved, hailed in v. 6, with Solomon’s litter that takes center stage in the canto of vv. 7-10. The close resemblance of this litter’s description (vv. 9-10) with those found in the Sumerian chariot hymns and the royal character of Song 3,6-11 invite a recognition of Israel’s sacred chariot in this litter, that is, the Ark of the Covenant. The liturgical nature of the procession is further reminiscent of both David’s transfer of the Ark towards Mount Zion and Solomon’s transfer of the Ark into the Temple. The ANE background of such chariot processions helps explain the wedding and coronation motif in v. 11. The day of Solomon’s wedding, the day of the joy of his heart and the crowning moment of his reign, refers to the day when he dedicated the Temple by installing the Ark in its place. This is the day on which, according to the priestly theology, the covenant comes to its conclusion and according to the prophetic vision the marriage between YHWH (whose proxy is Solomon) and Israel is consummated.

IV. CONCLUSION The exegesis of this chapter proceeded in two steps. First, Song 3,6-11 was read as “literally” as possible, that is, ample room was made for reading the Song in its plain sense. When it was read as a merely human love song, the following reading emerged: a nuptial procession moving up towards Jerusalem with a litter in its midst. Following ancient custom, Solomon appears to have sent his litter to fetch his bride from a far-off

SOLOMON’S WEDDING (SONG 3,6-11)

717

country. The litter’s contents are precious, as sixty mighty men surround it in protection against the “terror in the night”, possibly a demon that threatened the marriage joys of the couple much like Asmodeus in the book of Tobit. The procession that billows with myrrh, frankincense, and costly spices reaches Jerusalem, where the Daughters of Zion are summoned to admire King Solomon in his spousal splendor on the day of his wedding, crowned by his mother. While this reading of Song 3,6-11 seems to be in perfect accord with the customs of Hellenistic times, it presents a number of inconsistencies which invite a symbolic reading according to which this scene does not concern the wedding of peasant youngsters playing king and queen for a day (as the “naturalistic reading” would have it) but represents a key moment in Israel’s history, the dedication of the Temple by Solomon on the day he transferred the Ark into the Temple. As is typical for symbolic speech, Song 3,6-11 telescopes several scenes of Israel’s history into one. While the historical books have to differentiate between Israel’s time in the wilderness, followed by the conquest of the land, the pre-monarchic period, and finally the monarchic period, in which only Jerusalem becomes the royal city and abode of the Temple, the poetry of the Song can collapse the “story-line” into one single movement. If one allows for a symbolic reading of the Beloved as the Ark of the Covenant, all the pieces of the puzzle fall into place. The seeming contradiction between verses 6 and 7 is resolved. “Who is this, coming up from the desert?” refers to an object that the Hebrew Bible treats as a female symbol. It is the people of Israel with the Ark in their midst, who after having overcome the life-threatening perils of the desert now ascend victoriously towards Jerusalem, that is, Zion. Here the procession is described in liturgical language. Very quickly the scene focuses on a litter and how it is escorted by Israel’s mighty men towards Jerusalem. This echoes David’s battle-like ascent of the Ark from Baal-jehuda towards Jerusalem. At the same time the atmosphere that evokes Israel’s time in the desert is kept alive by the extended description of the warriors. The reminiscences of ANE sacred chariot hymns in vv. 9-10 provide the key to understanding the whole scene as a hymnic memory of the Ark’s transfer to the Temple. The act of bringing up the Ark with the tent of meeting in a pompous liturgical procession from the city of Zion to the Temple, with uncountable sacrifices offered along the way, constituted the main act of the Temple’s dedication. The cloud, symbolizing the presence of the Lord, thereupon descended into the Temple, and the history of Israel (according to priestly theology) reached its climax. The purpose of the covenant was fulfilled: The Lord made his dwelling

718

PART III – CHAPTER 10

in the midst of his people. According to the theology of the book of Hosea, this was the moment in which the marriage between YHWH and Israel was consummated: the people had a king and the Lord dwelled in his Temple. Such a perspective anticipates the next chapter, for the actual descent of the Lord into his Temple is symbolized by the Lover’s descent into his garden-Beloved (cf. Song 4,12–5,1). The advantage of this symbolic reading is that it can explain the many mythological reminiscences dispersed throughout the Song. Instead of postulating an alleged “divinization” of the erotic, it shows how the Song’s erotic configuration had been divine from the very beginning. Furthermore, the ANE royal ideology helps explain the convergence of very different elements, such as a royal marriage, a liturgical procession, a sacred litter, the absence of a bride, the presence of king Solomon, and the wedding motif. There is no need to give Solomon the unlikely role of a buffoon as many commentators would have it. Instead, he is what he is in the rest of the Bible: the King whose reign marks the most important moment in the completion of the story-line that began with the Exodus. Furthermore, this reading is consistent with the later Jewish interpretation. The Targum to Song 3,6-11 attests to how the Jewish interpretation is not an alienation of the text’s original meaning, but an organic development of it339. Thus, the Targum gives a very similar interpretation of this passage to the one proposed against the background of the ANE material in this study: the Who is this? refrain is read as referring to Israel’s ascent from the desert and her entry into the Promised Land. Solomon’s litter is related to the Temple, the mighty warriors being the priests and the Levites, their swords being the words of the Torah340. The palanquin is the sanctuary that Solomon “constructed for himself” from the cedars of Lebanon. Solomon’s wedding finally is read in the light of the Temple dedication: When Solomon came to celebrate the dedication of the Temple, a herald went forth with strength and thus said: “Go forth, you who dwell in the districts of the land of Israel, and you people of Zion, and look at the diadem and the 339. According to its editor, Philip Alexander, the Targum is the work of one single author, who treats the Song holistically. In a “consistent and closely argued reading on the biblical text” it interprets the Canticle as “a hidden account of the history of Israel from Egypt to the Messianic age”. Underlying its allegory is, however, a peshat reading of the Song, with a “painstaking care for the Hebrew text” and close attention to the Song’s intertextuality with other biblical texts. See ALEXANDER, Targum of Canticles, pp. xi-xii. The dating of Targum Canticles is highly controversial. While Alexander suggests a date somewhere around the eight-ninth century A.D. (see ibid., p. 12), Frédéric Manns lists a host of convincing arguments in favor of tracing the traditions reflected in the Targum back to the third century B.C. (MANNS, Targum du Cantique, pp. 252-259). 340. The antiquity of this interpretation might be attested to in Hebr 4,12.

SOLOMON’S WEDDING (SONG 3,6-11)

719

crown with which the people of the House of Israel have crowned King Solomon on the day of the dedication of the Temple, and rejoice with the joy of the Festival of Tabernacles for fourteen days”341.

As one can see, the ANE Motivkomplex of chariot service, temple dedication, marriage, and crowning is all preserved in the Targum’s reading but purged from its mythological origins. Even the Sitz im Leben of the Targum’s interpretation, the feast of Tabernacles, corresponds to the presumed origin of Song 3,6-11. If one accepts a cult-mythological origin for the Song, the Sitz im Leben of parts of it would have been the New Year festival, which was the precursor to the Jewish feast of Sukkoth. An exegesis focusing on the multivalence of the Song’s symbols thus closes the gap between the Song’s origins and the history of its earliest interpretation. It shows how the Jewish reading is a natural development, stemming from the cantos’ first inception, and not a later eisegesis contrary to the Song’s origin.

341. See ALEXANDER, Targum of Canticles, p. 129.

CHAPTER 11

THE WEDDING OF THE GARDEN-BRIDE (SONG 4,12–5,1)

The present chapter will offer an exegesis of Song 4,12–5,1, the socalled hortus conclusus. This passage has been chosen for the following reasons. This passage and the one treated in the previous chapter, Song 3,6-11, together form both the beginning and the end of the second cycle (3,6–5,1). Both passages use marriage language and imagery and have been said to represent different stages of the same wedding. While Song 3,6-11 describes the wedding cortège and hints at a public wedding ceremony, Song 4,12–5,1 focuses on the consummation of that marriage: the Bride is described as a virginal garden into which the Lover descends. Finally, friends are metaphorically invited to participate in the joy of the Lovers by joining in the celebration of a wedding banquet (5,1). Tracing the garden symbolism used throughout different corpora of Scripture to describe the beauty of the Beloved will reveal that the Beloved carries all the traits of a woman who symbolizes at once the Promised Land, Jerusalem, the Temple, Lady Wisdom, and the Torah. This finding complements the observations about the Lover in the previous two chapters and offers a valuable key to the symbolic meaning of the Song. The chapter is organized as follows. First a translation with text-critical and philological annotations and a poetic analysis of the passage will be given (I). Thereupon a close reading of the passage will follow, giving as much room as possible to the love song dimension of the Song (II). Finally, a symbolic exegesis will be presented, developing the potency of the passages’ symbols and tracing these throughout the Scriptures (III).

I. PRELIMINARIES 1. Positioning within the Song Within the overall setting of the book the passage under study (Song 4,12–5,1) is situated in the last section of the first part of the book, as the closing poem (4,8–5,1) of cycle II (3,6–5,1). Cycle II is divided into three parts: Song 3,6-11 forms the “wedding cortège of Solomon”, also

722

PART III – CHAPTER 11

called an epithalamium1, 4,1-7 a waṣf of her beauty2, followed by 4,8– 5,1, the “Song to the Sister Bride” or the “Bride-song”3. What differentiates 4,8–5,1 from the preceding and following part is that only in 4,8–5,1, and nowhere else in the Song, is the Beloved called by the epithet “bride” (‫ )כלה‬or else “sister bride” (‫)אחתי כלה‬. It is the appellation ‫ כלה‬in particular that functions as a key word within the passage (4,8-12; 5,1)4. Furthermore, the repetition of the verb ‫ בוא‬in 4,8 (‫ )תבואי‬and 5,1 (‫)באתי‬, as well as the repeated use of imperatives in 4,8 and 5,1 (‫ תבאוי‬and ‫ תשורי‬in 4,8 corresponding to ‫ שתו‬,‫אכלו‬, and ‫ שכרו‬in 5,1), set off the unit by an inclusio5. The passage is linked to the previous section of 4,1-7 by means of the repetition of the word ‫( לבונה‬4,6d) and ‫( לבנון‬4,8)6. The demarcation at the end of the subunit is clear. Song 5,2 marks the beginning of a new section (scene). The appellation ‫ כלה‬for the Beloved is no longer used, and a new scene and theme are announced in which the lovers are again separated from each other. The circumstances described in 5,2-8 show remarkable similarities to those of the scene in 3,1-5 (search for the Lover in the night)7. Song 4,8–5,1 forms one poem that is composed of two stanzas of two strophes each: I. (i) 4,8-9, (ii) 4,10-11; II. (i) 4,12-15, (ii) 4,16–5,18. In the first stanza (4,8-11) the Lover invites his bride to come with him from Lebanon in two strophes, followed by the second stanza (4,12–5,1), the so-called “garden poem”, which again consists of two strophes (4,1215; 4,16–5,1). The division of 4,8-11 and 4,12–5,1 into two different stanzas corresponds also to the division of the Masoretes (cf. the setuma after v. 11). The antiquity of this subdivision is confirmed by 4Q107 frg. 2 ii where a vacat of a considerable size separates 4,8-11 from 4,12–5,19. 1. See ELLIOTT, Literary Unity, p. 120. 2. Song 4,1-7, generally referred to as a waṣf, builds a unit of its own. At the same time, there are numerous thematic and stylistic contacts between 4,1-7 and 4,8–5,1. Not only does the Lover speak throughout the entire passage, but also the scent of myrrh and incense in 4,6 and 4,14, the image of the wind in 4,6 and 4,16, and of pomegranate in 4,3 and 4,13 each recur in both sections. Moreover, the Hebrew ‫“ לבונה‬incense” in 4,6d forms a paronomasia with ‫“ לבנון‬Lebanon” in 4,8. Yet, given that the literary genre of 4,1-7 – that is, a waṣf – is so distinctly different from what follows, the present study opts for a bipartition of 4,1–5,1. The passage is treated as a literary unit made up of the diptych 4,1-7 and 4,8–5,1. See RAVASI, Cantico, pp. 340-341. 3. See WEBSTER, Pattern, p. 74; ELLIOTT, Literary Unity, p. 99; HEINEVETTER, “Komm nun, mein Liebster”, p. 123; MÜLLER, Hohelied, p. 49. 4. See WATSON, Hebrew Poetry, pp. 287-294. 5. See ELLIOTT, Literary Unity, p. 99. 6. See ibid. Elliott calls this “a word play typical of Part II”. Cf. ‫ לבונה‬3,6; 4,6; 4,14 and ‫ לבנון‬3,9; 4,8 (bis); 4,11; 4,15. 7. See RAVASI, Cantico, p. 341. 8. See BARBIERO, Cantico, p. 172. 9. See PUECH, Cantique, pp. 43-44.

THE WEDDING OF THE GARDEN-BRIDE (SONG 4,12–5,1)

723

The first stanza, Song 4,8-11, is set off from the following stanza by the repetition of the geographical name ‫ לבנון‬in its first (4,8) and last (4,11) verse forming thereby an inclusio. Furthermore the four verses 8-11 are given a chiastic structure formed by the differing uses of the epithet for the Beloved. Verses 8-11 form an ABBA chiasm10, reading: A ‫כלה‬, B ‫אחתי‬ ‫כלה‬, B ‫אחתי כלה‬, A ‫כלה‬. Additional features of the passage are the repetitive parallelisms that occur in nearly every line, i.e., ‫ אתי מלבנון‬twice (8a.b), ‫ מראש‬twice (8c.d), ‫ לבבתיני‬twice (9a.b); ‫ מה … דדיך‬twice (10a.b), ‫ יך…וריח‬twice (10c, 11c)11. These repetitions are proper to Song 4,8-11 and cease after the opening line of the following stanza (4,12–5,1), where in a last repetitive parallelism the Beloved is called a ‫“ גן נעול‬a garden closed” twice in 12a and b12. The image of the garden (‫)גן‬, however, is proper to the second stanza. It recurs six times as a designation for the Beloved in these six verses. Hence the name “garden poem”13. It is the use of the term ‫“ גן‬garden” that sets the limits of the second stanza. Although Song 4,8–5,1 forms a unity of one poem composed of two stanzas, each of two strophes (4,8-9.10-11.12-15; 4,16–5,1), I limit the study to the exegesis of the second stanza 4,12–5,1 (the “garden poem”) as I want to investigate the symbol of the bride as a garden14. 2. Translation 12 13

14

15

A closed garden my sister bride G,Vg,S a closed garden, a sealed spring. Your shoots, a paradise of pomegranates with choicest fruits, hennas with nards, nard and saffron, calamus and cinnamon, with all woods of incense. Myrrh and aloes with all excellence of balsams. Spring of gardens, well of living water and flowing from Lebanon.

‫גַּ ן נָ עוּל ֲאח ִֹתי ַכ ָלּה‬ ‫גַּ לּ נָ עוּל ַמ ְעיָ ן ָחתוּם‬ ‫ְשׁ ָל ַחיִ ְך ַפּ ְר ֵדּס ִרמּוֹנִ ים‬ ‫ִעם ְפּ ִרי ְמגָ ִדים‬ ‫ְכּ ָפ ִרים ִעם־נְ ָר ִדים‬ ‫נֵ ְר ְדּ וְ ַכ ְרכֹּם‬ ‫ָקנֶ ה וְ ִקנָּ מוֹן‬ ‫ל־ע ֵצי ְלבוֹנָ ה‬ ֲ ‫ִעם ָכּ‬ ‫מֹר וַ ֲא ָהלוֹת‬ ‫אשׁי ְב ָשׂ ִמים‬ ֵ ‫ל־ר‬ ָ ‫ִעם ָכּ‬ ‫ַמ ְעיַ ן גַּ נִּ ים‬ ‫ְבּ ֵאר ַמיִ ם ַחיִּ ים‬ ‫ן־ל ָבנוֹן‬ ְ ‫וְ נֹזְ ִלים ִמ‬

10. See ELLIOTT, Literary Unity, p. 99. 11. This list is meant only to exemplify; it is not exhaustive. 12. By this stylistic device a smooth transition is created from one stanza to the next. 13. Another proposal is made by HEINEVETTER, “Komm nun, mein Liebster”, p. 124: “Brunnen-/Gartenlied 4,12-15”. 14. ZAKOVITCH, Hohelied, p. 197, aptly calls the passage a “Zwiegespräch – Der verschlossene Garten”.

724

PART III – CHAPTER 11

16

Wake up North and come South Blow upon my garden, let its balsams flow. Let my Lover come into his garden and eat its choicest fruits. 5,1 I have come into my garden my sister bride I have plucked my myrrh with my balsam I have eaten my honeycomb with my honey I have drunk my wine with my milk. Eat friends, drink and be inebriate, beloved. G

brothers, Vmost beloved.

‫ימן‬ ָ ‫וּבוֹאי ֵת‬ ִ ‫עוּרי ָצפוֹן‬ ִ ‫יחי גַ נִּ י יִ זְּ לוּ ְב ָשׂ ָמיו‬ ִ ‫ָה ִפ‬ ‫דוֹדי ְלגַ נּוֹ‬ ִ ‫יָ בֹא‬ ‫ֹאכל ְפּ ִרי ְמגָ ָדיו‬ ַ ‫וְ י‬ ‫אתי ְלגַ נִּ י ֲאח ִֹתי ַכ ָלּה‬ ִ ‫ָבּ‬ ‫ם־בּ ָשׂ ִמי‬ ְ ‫מוֹרי ִע‬ ִ ‫יתי‬ ִ ‫ָא ִר‬ ‫ם־דּ ְב ִשׁי‬ ִ ‫ָא ַכ ְל ִתּי יַ ְע ִרי ִע‬ ‫ם־ח ָל ִבי‬ ֲ ‫יתי יֵ ינִ י ִע‬ ִ ‫ָשׁ ִת‬ ‫ִא ְכלוּ ֵר ִעים‬ ‫דּוֹדים‬ ִ ‫ְשׁתוּ וְ ִשׁ ְכרוּ‬

3. Text-Critical and Philological Annotations V. 12 ‫“ גַּ ל‬heap” or ‫“ גן‬garden”: This verse is one of the few cases where according Piet Dirksen, the editor of the BHQ, a textual corruption is likely15. The MT reads ‫גל‬, while all the ancient versions (LXX, Vg, S) read an equivalent to “garden” (‫)גן‬. In this study the reading of the ancient versions is adopted on the basis of their unanimity in the attestation of that reading as well as for poetic reasons. The literary device of this type of repetition is very frequent in the Song. Fox observes: “ab // ac couplets, where the word or phrase that opens the first stich begins the second as well, are frequent; see 1:15; 4:1, 8, 9, 10; 5:9; 6:1, 9; 7:1”16. Yet, eminent scholars have argued with good reason against an emendation of the text from ‫ גל‬to ‫גן‬. Their propositions will be briefly set forth, though not adopted in what follows. a) The first difficulty is that the codex leningradensis reads a dagesh in the lamed of ּ‫גל‬. If this is an error, as Dirksen proposes in the critical apparatus of BHQ, the text would have to be emended to ‫גל‬, as displayed in the BHS. The literal translation of the MT would then be “an enclosed heap”, “heap” as in heap of stones (HALOT [I]). If it is the correct reading, it is used here metonymically and has been chosen for its l-consonance: kallâ gal nā‘ûl. It could quite likely be a metonymy for “garden” as in “‘mound’ of soil”. b) It is also possible that it is being used either metonymically, or as a free variant of ‫ גֻּ ָלּה‬for “spring” instead. Because ‫ גל‬stands in parallel with ‫ מעין‬it is often given the meaning “spring” on the basis of its possible relation to ‫גֻּ ָלּה‬, whose plural ‫ גֻּ ֹלת‬in its turn, has a conjectured meaning 15. See A. SCHENKER, et al. (eds.), Biblia Hebraica Quinta: Megilloth (BHQ, 18), Stuttgart, Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2004, p. 8*: “The text of the Canticle is well preserved. There are only a few cases where textual corruption is likely, viz., 4,12 (‫”)גל‬. 16. FOX, Song, p. 137.

THE WEDDING OF THE GARDEN-BRIDE (SONG 4,12–5,1)

725

of “springs” in Judg 1,15 and Josh 15,1917. The translation as “spring”, however, is not well established18. ‫ גל‬translated as “spring” would be a hapax legomenon. Nonetheless it is widely adopted by many translations19. c) A second meaning of ‫( גל‬II) is proposed, based on a presumed cognate in Akkadian, the word gillu or gallu “waving”, which in Hebrew appears only in the plural of ‫גַּ ִלּים‬20 in higher registers of language. From this is derived a possible meaning of ‫ גל‬as “wave”21, i.e., “ ‘heap/billows’ of water”, which could again be a metonymy for the sealed spring mentioned in the second part of the same colon. d) Furthermore, the rendering of “pool” has been proposed, based again on the root ‫“ גֻּ ָלּה‬basin”, “bowl”22 derived from the Ugaritic gl and the Akkadian gullu “bowl”23. Barbiero is favorable toward this solution as it would stand in parallelism with v. 15 where the double image of spring and well is taken up again24. Eidelkind on the other hand argues that such a conjectured meaning is highly dubious. True, both words are probably cognates to the verbal root gll, “to roll, to be round”, but they differ both in vocalization and in their gender suffixes. “There are no grounds to expect more similarity of meaning between gal and gullâ than between any two derivates of this root (say, gālāl ‘dung’ and meḡillâ ‘scroll’). The only thing we can surmise is that gal is something round, rolling or revolving”25. 17. See GORDIS, Song, p. 86; MEEK, Song, p. 124; RINGGREN – WEISER, Hohelied, p. 20; JPSV. 18. See FOX, Song, p. 137. 19. See F. HITZIG, Das Hohe Lied – Die Klagelieder (KEHAT, 16), Helsingfors, S. Hirzel, 1854, p. 61; HAUPT, Biblische Liebeslieder, p. 202; GORDIS, Song, p. 86; MEEK, Song, p. 124. 20. See HALOT I, 190. 21. Ibid. Cf. Isa 48,18; 51,15; Jer 5,22; 38,36; etc. 22. See RINGGREN – WEISER, Hohelied, p. 20; POPE, Song, p. 488; RAVASI, Cantico, p. 384. POPE, Song and BARBIERO, Cantico, p. 189 read “pool”. 23. See HALOT I, 192. 24. BARBIERO, Cantico, p. 189, makes a persuasive argument against the emendation of the text to ‫גן‬: “Contro una simile correzione parla, però, il parallelismo con il v. 15, dove si suppone una dualità di ‘sorgente’ e ‘pozzo’. Il termine ma‘jān (‘sorgente’, v. 15a) è ripresa letterale del v. 12a, mentre be’ēr (‘pozzo’, v. 15) corrisponde a gal nel v. 12b. … Sia al v. 12 sia al v. 15 si distingue dunque tra la ‘sorgente’ dell’acqua (ma‘jān) e la ‘vasca’ (gal, be’ēr) in cui essa è raccolta”. For further arguments in favor of “pool”, see POPE, Song, pp. 488-489, and ROBERT – TOURNAY – FEUILLET, Cantique, pp. 179-180. However, Robert and Tournay also come to the conclusion that ‫ גן‬is the preferable reading. They explain reading ‫ גל‬not so much as a textual corruption but as a hearing mistake of the scribe, which can be explained by its vicinity to ‫ מיען‬and the influence of Josh 15,19 = Judg 1,15. 25. Y. EIDELKIND, Two Notes on Song 4:12, in L. KOGAN (ed.), Babel und Bibel 3: Annual of Ancient Near Eastern, Old Testament, and Semitic Studies, Winona Lake, IN, Eisenbrauns, 2006, 217-236, p. 219.

726

PART III – CHAPTER 11

e) Yet another proposal has been made, which is a combination of a) with b) and c), to read the word ‫ גל‬as a Janus parallelism, which is to say a “word with two entirely different meanings: one meaning in parallel with what precedes, and the other meaning with what follows”26. The word ‫ גל‬would then have to be understood as a variant phonetic reading of ‫ גן‬denoting “garden”27 and, at the same time denoting “water fountain”28. Malul argues on the model of ‫ ִל ְשׁ ָכּה‬and ‫ נִ ְשׁ ָכּה‬in Neh 13,5 and 13,7, or ‫ ָל ַחץ‬in 2 Kgs 13,4.22 and ‫ נָ ַחץ‬in 2 Sam 21,9. His comparison, however, is not entirely convincing. Malul himself admits that these examples have a variation in the beginning of the word, whereas ‫ גל‬and ‫ גן‬would vary in the ending. Also, the examples he bases his argument on include cases where the phonetic variant results in well-established synonymous meanings, while ‫ גל‬is not attested anywhere else in the Old Testament with the meaning of “garden” other than in Malul’s conjecture29. Given the absence of any other such attested reading of ‫גל‬, a mere conjecture is not sufficient to postulate a Janus parallelism in the present case. f) An interesting proposition has been made by Claus Schedl30. ML reads a dagesh in the lamed of ‫גל‬, which means we are to read ‫גלל‬, which is very unlikely. Yet it is also possible that the dagesh indicates the assimilation of the following nun, in which case we would be dealing with a form of qere-ketiv telling us to read ‫ גן‬instead of ‫גל‬. As already stated, the likelihood of the proposed solutions is not to be entirely discarded. Yet they are all based on a number of conjectures, while the ancient versions unanimously read “garden” (LXX: κῆπος; Vg: hortus; S: ÀĀçÅ = “garden”), which stands in perfect accord with the poetic style adopted elsewhere in the Song. Even S, which would have been freer to maintain a presumed metonymy in its translation, reads “garden”. Following the vast majority of commentators who argue that the MT is corrupt here31, an emendation to ‫ גַּ ן‬is preferable. Such repetition of 26. C.H. GORDON, New Directions, in Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists 15 (1978) 59-66, p. 59. 27. See M. MALUL, Janus Parallelism in Biblical Hebrew: Two More Cases (Canticles 4,9.12), in BZ 41 (1997) 246-249, p. 249. 28. See ibid. 29. EIDELKIND, Two Notes, p. 221, points out another weakness in Malul’s argument: “In at least one of his examples (liškā / niškā) it is the rare form with /n/ which must be secondary (/l/ > /n/) […] the hypothetical gal ‘garden’, on the other hand, would require /l/ < /n/”. 30. See SCHEDL, Der verschlossene Garten, p. 168. 31. See also D. BERGANT, The Song of Songs (Berit Olam), Collegeville, MN, Liturgical Press, 2001, p. 54; KEEL, Hohelied, p. 156; MÜLLER, Hohelied, p. 49; MURPHY, Song, p. 156; FOX, Song, p. 137; GERLEMAN, Hohelied, p. 157; RUDOLPH, Hohe Lied, p. 159; BUDDE, Hohelied, p. 23.

THE WEDDING OF THE GARDEN-BRIDE (SONG 4,12–5,1)

727

terms is one of the strong literary devices of the Song32. Compare just in this chapter the beginning of the following verses: ‫( אתי … אתי‬8a.b), ‫( לבבתני … לבבתיני‬9a.b), and ‫( מה … מה‬10a.b). Furthermore, there is the repetition of terms in these verses: ‫( באחד … באחד‬9b.c), ‫דדיך … דדיך‬ (10a.b), and ‫( וריח … וריח‬10c; 11c)33. V. 13 ‫ ְשׁ ָל ַחיִ ְך‬: Verse 13a-b reads: “your shoots, paradise of pomegranates with choicest fruits”. There is a discussion on how to translate the Hebrew word behind “your shoots” (‫) ְשׁ ָל ַחיִ ְך‬. This word is a “stumbling block”34 for translators and commentators. The LXX renders it ἀποστολαί σου, and Vg emissiones tuae, thus confirming the reading of the MT. S differs only in number by translating it in the singular, “your sent one/ that which you send (out)” (ÛݏÎÑÚáý). Some modern commentators have sought to emend the text either by changing the vocalization to ‫“ ִש ֻלּ ַחיִ ך‬thy gifts” in parallel to 1 Kgs 9,16 (‫) ִשׁ ֻלּ ִחים‬35, or even the consonants, reading ‫“ ְל ָחיַ יִ ְך‬thy cheeks”36. Here, neither “gifts” nor “cheeks” fit the obvious garden context better than “shoots”37. Among those who refuse an emendation and seek to interpret the word as transmitted by the MT, various possible translations are promoted. One version, in line with the ancient versions, renders ‫ ֶש ַלח‬as “shoots” or “branches”. Another one, which instead of translating literally, tries to render the interpreted meaning of the metaphor. Still another version posits “canals” or cognates of the same38, as will be explained in the following39. 32. See GERLEMAN, Hohelied, p. 159; MÜLLER, Hld 4,12–5,1, p. 193. 33. See also Song 1,13-14.15; 3,3-4; 5,3.9; 6,1.9.11; 7,1-2; 8,5. 34. POPE, Song, p. 491. 35. See JOÜON, Cantique, p. 220; ROBERT – TOURNAY – FEUILLET, Cantique, p. 181. See also POPE, Song, p. 491: “šillûḥayik” to be understood as “your kisses”. 36. See F. PERLES, Analekten zur Textkritik des Alten Testaments, Leipzig, Theodor Ackermann, 1895, p. 63: “‫ ְשׁ ָל ַחיִ ְך‬wird in der Regel erklärt: ‘Deine Schösslinge sind Granathain’. Aber ‫ שלח‬in dieser Bedeutung ist sonst nicht zu belegen, und es ist gar nicht recht verständlich, was unter Schösslingen in diesem Bilde gemeint sei. Nachdem auch in 1,10 […] die schönen Wangen der Sulamit erwähnt werden und in der Schilderung des vierten Kapitels die Wangen noch nicht erwähnt sind, wird es gerechtfertigt erscheinen, wenn ich vorschlage ‫ ְשנֵ י ְל ָחיַ יִ ְך‬für ‫ שלחיך‬zu lesen”. Perles presumes a homoioarcton, in which the scribe slipped from ‫ שלמתיך‬in v. 11 to an original ‫ שני לחייך‬in v. 13 and, by drawing the two words together, wrote ‫שלחיך‬. This solution is very unlikely. If the scribe had really slipped two lines, then v. 12 at least should be missing. Furthermore, the passage consistently describes the bride in metaphors of a garden and so a part of her body in the middle of this plant imagery would be quite misplaced. 37. RUDOLPH, Hohe Lied, p. 151, points out that ‫ ִשׁ ֻלּ ִחים‬denotes etymologically a gift given in discharge or a dowry, both of which are unsuitable to the context. Given the specific nature of poetic language, such an intrusion into the text is unnecessary. 38. See KEEL, Hohelied, p. 156: “Deine ‘Kanäle’”; FOX, Song, p. 137: “your watered fields”; POPE, Song, p. 491: “grove”; EXUM, Song, p. 13: “watercourses”. 39. For a thorough discussion see M. GÖRG, ‘Kanäle’ oder ‘Zweige’ in Hld 4,13?, in BN 72 (1994) 20-23; POPE, Song, pp. 490-491; ROBERT – TOURNAY – FEUILLET, Cantique, p. 181; JOÜON, Cantique, pp. 219-220.

728

PART III – CHAPTER 11

a) The verb ‫ שלח‬is elsewhere used of a tree spreading its roots (Jer 17,8 “He is like a tree planted by water, that sends out [‫ ]יְ ַשׁ ַלּח‬its roots by the stream”) or of a vine producing shoots (Ezek 17,6b “So it became a vine, and brought forth branches and put forth [‫ ]וַ ְתּ ַשׁ ַלּח‬foliage”) or branches (Ps 80,12 “It sent out [‫]תּ ַשׁ ַלּח‬ ְ its branches to the sea, and its shoots to the River”). Correspondingly, the word ‫ ֶש ַלח‬has, according to HALOT, a second (II) meaning with the sense of “shoots” or “plants” in the context of gardens, and trees by analogy to ‫ שלוחה‬in Isa 16,8 (branches, shoots)40. “Shoots” is the translation adopted here. Some commentators who also read “shoots, branches” for ‫ שלחיך‬still think it necessary to render obvious in their translation a presumed poetic allusion to a specific part of the female body41. JPSV translates “your limbs”; NEB “your cheeks”; Oswald Loretz proposes “javelin” as a metaphor for the female breasts42. However, it ought to be kept in mind that the entire passage never departs from the garden imagery. A word denoting “limbs” or “javelin” would seem very much out of place, as such bluntness would disrupt the poetic subtlety otherwise maintained by consistently using garden imagery. In the approach of this “second school”, there seems to lie a methodological error. In trying to determine the meaning of a word, especially in poetry, the literal or plain sense must be translated as maintaining its own reality or autonomy, which may then, in turn, have a metaphorical, deeper, connotation – not the reverse43. 40. See also ROBERT – TOURNAY – FEUILLET, Cantique, p. 181; GERLEMAN, Hohelied, p. 157: “Deine Schößlinge”; DELITZSCH, Hohelied, p. 109: “Deine Pflanzen”; LONGMAN, Song, p. 156: “shoots”. See furthermore GÖRG, ‘Kanäle’ oder ‘Zweige’, pp. 22-23, who points to extra-biblical evidence in Coptic where the cognate root denotes “branches”. 41. See ibid., p. 20: “Der Kontext verlangt nämlich eine körperliche Beschaffenheit, die für die nachfolgende und breitgefächerte Bildcharakteristik offensteht. All das, was von der üppigen Fülle eines exotischen Garten einschließlich seiner Bewässerung gesagt werden kann, müßte in dem Ausdruck angelegt und vereinigt sein”. 42. LORETZ, Das Hohelied, p. 93: “Das Lied führt das Bild des Gartens noch weiter, indem ein Körperteil, der für den Mann einen Schlüsselreiz darstellt, nämlich die beiden Brüste der Geliebten, hier ‘Wurfspieße’ genannt, mit einem Wundergarten verglichen werden”. According to Loretz the pomegranate is a symbol for the love and the breasts of the girl. 43. See also RAVASI, Cantico, pp. 386-387: “Noi restiamo dell’idea che il significato di ‘gettare’ e quindi di ‘germoglio’ sia ben adatto al passo, non solo perché la simbolica dominante è quella del giardino e il senso è sufficientemente attestato in ebraico, ma anche perché siamo costretti a questo significato dalla successiva specificazione, pardes, ‘parco, giardino, paradiso (vegetale)’, con tutto l’apparato. […] In trasparenza c’è sempre la fisionomia della donna, ma proprio per la generalità dell’applicazione nei vv. 12 e 15, è poco produttivo cercare un riferimento fisiologico ed anatomico specifico. Tutta la donna è un giardino di delizie, in particolare la sua femminilità. I suoi ‘germogli’ sono, quindi, da ricondurre alla freschezza della sua bellezza, del suo eros, della sua sessualità, della sua intimità, in senso generale”. And p. 395: “Voler marcare ulteriormente il ‘doppio senso’ del giardino come eufemismo … significa ignorare la qualità della poesia, attenta più a unire che a specificare, a ‘simboleggiare’ che a ‘metaforizzare’”.

THE WEDDING OF THE GARDEN-BRIDE (SONG 4,12–5,1)

729

b) Several commentators translate ‫ ְשׁ ָל ַחיִ ְך‬in the sense of “your canals” as a metaphor for the woman’s vagina. Haupt for example translates it with “Stollen”44 (adit, drift, drive, tunnel)45. He points out that the Hebrew word ‫ ֶשׁ ַלח‬is used in Neh 3,15 to designate the Pool of Shelah, which “in the Shiloam inscription is called nequvàh (= Lat. perforatio)”46. The latter, then, would recall the word neqēbāh (‫ נְ ֵק ָבה‬with e instead of û), i.e., Hebrew for “female”, which designates the perforata in Latin, confirmed by the Greek use of τρῆμα (piercing) for the female genitalia47. For Joüon, in turn, ‫ ֶשׁ ַלח‬is the “canal émissaire”, and the poet intends to speak of the Gihon spring in the middle of the royal gardens48. Keel follows this line of interpretation pointing to the fact that in ANE literature “garden”, “canal”, “lap”, and “vagina” are all associated. Keel’s line of argumentation, however, takes an inverted direction similar to those who give an interpretation instead of a translation. Having made the preliminary decision that the text necessarily needs to designate a part of the female body, the authors then seek to find a metaphor that can at the same time give a plausible sense to the Hebrew word in question and so fit with the intended outcome. While a meaning “water canal” based on Neh 3,15 is defensible, a translation “your water canals: a paradise of pomegranates” is meaningless. Fox argues for “water fields” on the basis of Mishnaic Hebrew, where irrigation channels are referred to as ‫שלחין‬, šlḥyn, which he wants to vocalize ‫שׁ ַל ִחין‬. ְ Here ‫ ְשׁ ַל ִחין‬would be used as a metonymy for the irrigated area. “The field (šelaḥin) that draws its sustenance from the ‘spring’ (v. 12) is an orchard. […] Šelaḥayik pardes thus combines garden and water imagery”. Fox then wants to place the pause after ‫פרדס‬, against the accents in the MT, so that the bride becomes an orchard not only of pomegranates, “but of a rich variety of fruits and spices”. Thus he aims to put the colon-division in accord “with the structure of the following lines, resulting in ‘a with b’, ‘c with d’, etc.”49. Fox thus translates, “Your watered fields are an orchard: pomegranates with luscious fruits, henna with 44. HAUPT, Biblische Liebeslieder, p. 15. 45. See ibid., p. 90. Haupt’s philological presuppositions are, to say the least, doubtful. He explains: “Die Vulgata hat emissiones tuae, d.h. deine Ausströmungen; vgl. emissorium ‘Abzugskanal’. Für Samenfluß sagt man im Englischen emission of semen”. 46. Ibid. Note that both the transcription and the vocalization of the inscription is that of Haupt. The inscription has no vocalization; the word occurs three times, twice with the article: ‫הנקבה‬. The form neqûbāh would be a singular feminine qal passive participle, thus Latin perforata. This form (the qal pass ptc fem sing), however, also forms some action nouns, like qebûrāh, “burial”. Nonetheless, other vocalizations are possible. Haupt’s proposal is not convincing. 47. See ibid. 48. See JOÜON, Cantique, p. 220. 49. See FOX, Song, p. 137.

730

PART III – CHAPTER 11

spikenard”. The translation is enticing in so far as it combines the water and the garden image of the previous verse 12 and makes the expression ‫ שלחיך פרדס‬immediately understandable. It comes at the price, however, of rearranging the cola and the punctuation of the Masoretes on no apparent grounds. One further possibility needs to be mentioned. It is well imaginable that the poet intended the double meaning of ‫שלחיך‬, as “branches” and “channels”, thus allowing him at once to refer to the branches of the paradise of pomegranates and to pun by allusion on Jerusalem’s all-important water channel Šilōaḥ (‫שלח‬, cf. Isa 8,6). In the present context, in which the Beloved is described according to the canons of an ANE royal garden, this is a significant allusion, for “the waters of Shiloah that flow gently” (Isa 8,6) “could be experienced, from the time of Solomon onward, through the ever-flowing waters of an ‘aqueduct’ which […] irrigated the gardens and parks planted in the Kidron Valley by kings of the Davidic dynasty (2 Kgs. 25:4; Jer. 39:4; 52:7; Eccl. 2:5-6; Neh. 3:15)”50. As will be seen in greater detail in the symbolic reading, there is much in the description of the Beloved that is symbolic of Jerusalem as the royal Davidic city. ‫“ ַפּ ְר ֵדּס‬paradise”: The word is an old Persian loan-word. “Technically *pairi.daiza is a Median form adopted by the Achaemenians. Like related terms in other Iranian languages (Avestan pairi.daēza, Old Persian *pairi.daida, New Persian pālēz, etc.), it designates an enclosing wall and the territory it encompasses”51 (“walled-around”, i.e., a walled garden). It was transliterated into Greek as παράδεισος, rendered paradisus in Latin, and from there entered into European languages. The word entered Semitic languages also: Akkadian pardēsu, Aramaic and Hebrew pardes (‫ ;פרדס‬Neh 2,8; Qoh 2,5; Song 4,13), and Arabic ferdaws (Koran 18,107; 23,11)52. Throughout their empire, the Achaemenians built such paradise structures “consistently selecting the most pleasant locales for their placement. Inside these walls they used techniques of irrigation to create lush gardens, in which they planted an enormous variety of exotic plants”53. In the cognate languages, in our case Hebrew, the term was transliterated and used to designate exactly such royal gardens (cf. Neh 2,8 and Qoh 2,5). In 50. See STAGER, Eden, p. 100, with further bibliography. 51. B. LINCOLN, À la recherche du Paradis Perdu, in History of Religions 43 (2003) 139-154, p. 141. See also W. FAUTH, Der königliche Gärtner und Jäger im Paradeisos: Beobachtungen zur Rolle des Herrschers in der vorderasiatischen Horitkultur, in Persica 8 (1979) 1-53; and C. TUPLIN, Achaemenid Studies (Historia – Einzelschriften, 99), Stuttgart, Steiner, 1996. 52. See Oxford English Dictionary XI, pp. 183-184; and E. YAMAUCHI, Persia and the Bible, Grand Rapids, MI, Baker Books, 1996, p. 332. 53. LINCOLN, Paradis, p. 141. See also FAUTH, Der königliche Gärtner.

THE WEDDING OF THE GARDEN-BRIDE (SONG 4,12–5,1)

731

fact, the garden described in Song 4,12–5,1 corresponds perfectly to the description of a Persian paradise54. Nonetheless, most modern translations of Song 4,13 render the Hebrew ‫ פרדס רמונים‬as “park of pomegranates”, “park that puts forth pomegranates” (NAB), “orchard of pomegranates” (KJV), “Granatapfelpark”55. The objection against rendering ‫ פרדס‬as “paradise” is that one would thereby import the religious symbolic connotation, which the word has acquired through the LXX’s rendering of ‫ גן‬as παράδεισος in Genesis 256. This is, however, exactly the connotation the word pairidaēzai already has in the Persian origin. Rather than having loaded the term with a religious idea alien to its origin, the Greek translators of the Hebrew Bible found in the Persian loan word the exact word capable of rendering the religious concept conveyed in Genesis 257. According to the Achaemenine royal ideology inspiring the plantation of such structures, the Persian paradise was “a space of re-creation in the most precise and most profound sense”58. It was “simultaneously a memory (better, a re-collection) of the world as originally intended by the Creator and a promise that its perfection will be restored”59. As Bruce Lincoln explains: “A set of themes similar to those in the passage from Genesis found expression in the Persian institution of the *parai.daiza, themes that include the original perfection of creation, the world’s fall from that enchanted state, and the possibility of recovering the paradise lost”60. Since these are precisely the connotations that the word “paradise” still carries in all the modern languages, there is no better word than “paradise” to render the Hebrew ‫ פרדס‬in Song 4,13, without losing the richness of its Persian import61. The implications of the concept will be taken up again in the course of the exegesis (II and III, below, pp. 740 and 780). 54. See LINCOLN, Paradis, p. 141. 55. MÜLLER, Hld 4,12–5,1, p. 195. 56. Whenever ‫ גן‬is used to describe the Garden of Eden or the garden of God, the LXX translates it with the Persian loan-word παράδεισος (paradise) (i.e. Genesis 2–3; Ezekiel 28 and 31). Furthermore, Sir 24,30 uses the word to speak of the gardens which the Wise irrigates by his teaching: “As for me, I was like a canal from a river, like a water channel into a garden (παράδεισον)”. 57. See LINCOLN, Paradis, p. 145. See also P.O. SKJÆRVØ, The Achemenids and the Avesta, in V. SARKOSH CURTIS – S. STEWART (eds.), Birth of the Persian Empire: The Idea of Iran I, London, Tauris, 2005, 52-84, p. 75, who understands the Achaemenid royal paradises as “imitating and anticipating the heavenly existence awaiting the followers of Order after death”. 58. LINCOLN, Paradis, p. 153 (my translation). 59. Ibid., p. 141 (my translation). 60. Ibid., p. 145 (my translation). 61. On the inadequacy of translating ‫ פרדס‬as “park” or “orchard”, see also B. LINCOLN, On Achaemenian Horticulture and Imperialism, in Happiness for Mankind: Achaemenian Religion and the Imperial Project (Acta Iranica, 53), Leuven, Peeters, 2012, 59-85, p. 63.

732

PART III – CHAPTER 11

‫“ ִרמּוֹנִ ים‬pomegranates”: The Greek equivalent for “pomegranates” (ῥοῶν) is missing in some of the most important Septuagint manuscripts (LXXB‫א‬C+min)62. Why it is missing cannot be explained. In any case, its absence from some Greek manuscripts offers no sufficient ground for dismissing it63. ‫“ ְמגָ ִדים‬choicest”64: Other than here and in Song 4,16 and 7,14, the word ‫ מגד‬appears only in Deut 33,13-16, where it refers to the choicest gifts of the land. The literal translation would be “with fruit of choice things”. It is astounding that none of the ancient versions translate ‫מגד‬ as “choice” or “delicious”, as HALOT firmly proposes. Instead the ancient versions translate “fruit trees”. The LXX reads ἀκρόδρυα (fruit trees) for ‫מגדים‬, as also in Song 4,16 and 7,14. Similarly Vg and S read “fruit trees” (Vg: cum pomorum fructibus; S: ¿çÂsx Á¾ò åï). ‫“ נְ ָר ִדים‬nards”: Nard occurs in the Old Testament only in Song 1,12; 4,13.1465. The LXX νάρδων concurs with the plural of the MT, while Vg and S have the singular “nard” (Vg: nardo; S: …{xüæ). Some want to omit the word as dittography occurring again at the beginning of the next line66. Others propose to emend the text to ‫“ וְ ָר ִדים‬roses” in order to avoid a double occurrence of the word “nard” both at the end of v. 13 and at the beginning of v. 1467. This would, according to Rudolph, also explain why the preposition ‫ עם‬is employed instead of the conjunction ‫ו‬, which is never found before a word beginning itself with the letter waf  68. As Ravasi points out, the occurrence of the word “roses” is very unlikely since this lexeme dates from the post biblical era. The rose only came to Egypt and Palestine in the Christian or perhaps the late Hellenistic period69. As already mentioned, the repetition of terms is nothing strange to the Song70. Rather it adds to the emotionally crowded style of the book71. A further reason not to emend the text is that the number of plants adds up to exactly 62. See GERLEMAN, Hohelied, p. 78. 63. See POPE, Song, p. 491. 64. HALOT II, 543: “pl. fine fruits, delicacies”; here “delicious fruits”. 65. Ibid., 723-724. 66. MÜLLER, Hohelied, p. 49: “V. 13b, dem das parallele Versglied fehlt und der die Erwähnung der Narde aus V. 14 vorwegnimmt, ist als Glosse nach 1,14; 7,12 zu streichen”. 67. See RUDOLPH, Hohe Lied, p. 151: “V. 13b, der nicht mehr Fruchtbäume, sondern Duftpflanzen nennt, gehört zum Folgenden, ist aber in 14a metrisch nicht unterzubringen, dagegen sehr gut am Anfang von 14b”. This intrusion into the MT is arbitrary and based on a “western” idea of how a poetic text should be structured. 68. See ibid. 69. RAVASI, Cantico, p. 388. 70. See also ibid., p. 389. 71. See GERLEMAN, Hohelied, pp. 157, 160.

733

THE WEDDING OF THE GARDEN-BRIDE (SONG 4,12–5,1)

twelve72. Apart from personal taste or sense of poetry of the aforementioned commentators, there are no compelling grounds for emending the text. On the contrary, it is a very common feature of the poetry of the Song to repeat the last term of the previous colon at the beginning of the next and thus to create a concatenation between cola and verses (e.g., 1,6b.c ‫ ;כרמים – כרמי‬2,15a.b ‫ ;שועלים – שועלים‬b.c ‫)וכרמינו – כרמים‬. V. 14 ‫ל־ע ֵצי‬ ֲ ‫“ ָכּ‬all trees”: The LXX, Vg, and T, agree with the MT (LXX: πάντων ξύλων; Vg: universis lignis; T: ‫)כל קיסי‬. S (¿êÚù åï) omits the translation of ‫כל‬, replacing it with ‫עם‬, and the plural of the ‫ עצים‬is rendered by the singular (“tree”). ‫“ ְלבוֹנָ ה‬incense”: The reading of S ÀĀæÎÃà is ambiguous, as according to Payne Smith, it can be rendered either as a) “incense, frankincense” or b) “Mt. Lebanon”73. T agrees with the MT in reading “incense” or “frankincense” (T: ‫)לבונתא‬. Vg and LXX read “Lebanon” via ‫( לבנוֹן‬Vg: Libani; LXX: τοῦ Λιβάνου). LXX consistently reads “Lebanon” throughout the chapter: thus, not only with the MT in vv. 6 and 8, but also in vv. 11 and 14 against the MT, which reads “frankincense”. On the other hand, Vg reads “(frank)incense” (tus, turis) in 4,11 where the MT reads “Lebanon”, while it reads “(frank)incense” with the MT in 4,6. This reading might be intended in the LXX and Vg in view of the origin of the Bride mentioned in the preceding passage 4,8-11, the significance of which will have to be considered in the exegesis of the passage. The divergence of the witnesses can be schematically presented as follows: MT

Vg

LXX

v. 6

frankincense

Lebanon

frankincense

v. 8

Lebanon (bis)

Lebanon

Lebanon

v. 11

Lebanon

Lebanon

frankincense

v. 14

frankincense

Lebanon

Lebanon

‫“ וַ ֲא ָהלוֹת‬aloe”: LXX refrains from translating and transcribes αλωθ. ‫אשׁי ְב ָשׂ ִמים‬ ֵ ‫ל־ר‬ ָ ‫“ ָכּ‬all best balsams”: See Exod 30,23 and Ezek 27,22 where ‫( ראש‬literally “head, top, chief”) has the same significance of “best” as here. 72. See BARBIERO, Cantico, pp. 195, 188, which according to Barbiero’s reading of the text makes allusion to the twelve tribes of Israel and thereby is another confirmation of the identification woman = Promised Land. 73. “ÀĀæÎÃà”, J. PAYNE SMITH, A Compendius Syriac Dictionary, Eugene, OR, Wipf & Stock, 1999, p. 234.

734

PART III – CHAPTER 11

V. 15 ‫“ גַּ נִּ ים‬garden”: Some read ‫ גנים‬as a plural of undetermined generalization74. All the ancient versions keep the plural of ‫ גנים‬in their translations (LXX: πηγὴ κήπων; Vg: fons hortorum; S: ¿çÅx èÚðã “well of gardens”). Only the LXX of the Codex Vaticanus reads “garden” in the singular genitive (κήπου). Joüon emends the text to ‫גלים‬, which he translates “bouillonnements de l’eau, eaux bouillonnantes” arguing that the lamed had been changed to nun just as in 4,12 where he, contrary to the common emendation ‫ גל‬to ‫גן‬, emends ‫ גן‬to ‫גל‬. He further argues that the attributive “garden” could hardly characterize a source and that the parallel with “living water” in 15b would confirm his correction of the text. He finds another support for his emendation in V’s reading of Ezek 47,10, where it seems to have read ‫( עין גלים‬engallim) for the Hebrew ‫עין עגלים‬. However, there is no serious challenge to reading the text as it is. The poetic image of the Bride as the “spring of gardens” is well in accord with Song 4,12 where she is called a “sealed spring”. There is no reason to change the MT against the unanimity of all the ancient versions, which read “spring of gardens” in the plural. ‫“ נֹזְ ִלים‬streams” or “flowing”: The question is whether the participle ‫( נזלים‬qal “to flow”) here modifies ‫ מים‬as its antecedent75, or whether it is to be substantivized as “streams”76. There is a waw prefixed to the word ‫נזלים‬, so that the whole clause could be rendered either “water living and flowing from Lebanon” or “living water and streams from Lebanon”77. The Masoretic punctuation might have opted for the latter possibility by placing an ᾿aṯnāḥ under ‫חיים‬, the last word of the previous colon. Thus ‫ נזלים מין־לבונן‬constitutes, together with ‫( בּאר מים חיים‬15b), a second autonomous predicate to ‫( מעין גנים‬15a), not a second attribute to ‫מים‬78. However, even though the Masoretic punctuation reflects an older oral tradition and therefore cannot simply be discarded as late, all the ancient versions (LXX, Vg, and S) are unanimous in their translation of the participle ‫ נזלים‬as modifying ‫ מים‬as its antecedent (LXX: ῥοιζοῦντος; Vg: quae fluunt; S: èÙx). The LXX reflects the waw of the MT, which it translates καί. Vg and S translate ‫ ונזלים‬as a relative clause referring back to the “water” of the previous colon (Vg quae fluunt; S èÙxx) both translating: 74. See GERLEMAN, Hohelied, p. 157, in conjunction with JOÜON-MURAOKA, §136 j. Also KRINETZKI, Hohelied, p. 149; MURPHY, Song, p. 157; RAVASI, Cantico, p. 338. 75. JOÜON, Cantique, p. 224: “qui coulent”; ROBERT – TOURNAY – FEUILLET, Cantique, p. 185; GERLEMAN, Hohelied, p. 157; MURPHY, Song, p. 154; RAVASI, Cantico, p. 392; ZAKOVITCH, Hohelied, p. 198. 76. See DELITZSCH, Hohelied, p. 110: “Gießbäche”; FOX, Song, p. 138. 77. The same problem poses itself in the translation of Prov 5,15 where both possible translations, adjectival or substantive, are also attested. 78. See MÜLLER, Poesie und Magie, p. 158.

THE WEDDING OF THE GARDEN-BRIDE (SONG 4,12–5,1)

735

“living waters which flow from Lebanon”. Even the Targum interprets “water flowing from Lebanon” (‫)מיין דנגדין מן לבנן‬. Ultimately both translations of ‫נזלים‬, either as an adjective or substantivized, are grammatically possible. However, the conjunction waw seems more likely to indicate a second adjective that together with ‫ חיים‬modifies the substantive ‫מים‬79. Furthermore, given the unanimity of the ancient versions that are likely to reflect an older tradition, and the fact that ‫ נזל‬is typically used when referring to water80, the adjectival sense of the verb “flowing” and modifying the “waters” of the previous colon is to be preferred. V. 16 ‫“ ְב ָשׂ ָמיו‬its balsams”: The LXX and S have a first person singular suffix instead of the third person singular of the MT (LXX: ἀρώματά μου, S: Ûçäê 81), thus reading “my balms”. Vg however confirms the MT by reading the plural aromata illius. In any case the meaning of the phrase is not significantly changed, for in both cases the garden and its balsams are identified with the Beloved. V. 5,1 ‫“ ַכ ָלּה‬bride”: LXX and Vg agree with the MT. In S ‫ כלה‬is followed by €ĀçÆà Āُs “I have come into my garden”, which is a literal repetition of the beginning of the phrase. This could be a simple scribal error of dittography. ‫“ ְבּ ָשׂ ִמי‬my balsam”: LXX, Vg and S read the plural, “balsams”. (LXX ἀρωμάτων μου; Vg: aromatibus meis; S: Ûçäê [my balsams]). The Vorlage of the LXX, Vg, and S was an unvocalized text. Since the consonants of ‫ בשמי‬are exactly the same both in the singular as in the plural, it is very likely that there was either an oral tradition vocalizing ‫ ְבּ ָשׂ ַמי‬or that the versions simply aligned their reading with the plural form of ‫ בשמיו‬in the preceding Song 4,16. However, the meaning of the sentence is not really altered by the plural reading. ‫ ָא ַכ ְל ִתּי … ֲח ָל ִבי‬: With regard to the apparent inversion of the word order in 4QCantb, see Chapter 4, III.1.b.iv, above, p. 219). ‫“ ְשׁתוּ‬drink”: LXX and S have the copula “and” before ‫( ְשׁתוּ‬LXX: καί; S: {Āýs{). ‫“ דודים‬beloved”: LXX and Vg translate the word as a vocative plural addressed to a group of brothers or friends (LXX: ἀδελφοί; Vg: carissimi). 79. BORGONOVO, Monogamia e monoteismo, p. 188: “wenōzelîm anche la congiunzione waw è importante, in quanto sottolinea che ci si riferisce ancora alla medesima acqua viva e ne specifica la provenienza, ovvero ancora la casa costruita con i cedri del Libano”. 80. See P. MAIBERGER, ‫נזל‬, in ThWAT, V, Stuttgart, Kohlhammer, 1987, 326-328, pp. 327328. 81. J. BLOCH, A Critical Examination of the Text of the Syriac Version of the Song of Songs, in AJSL 38 (1922) 103-139.

736

PART III – CHAPTER 11

A number of modern authors have argued that ‫ דודים‬is to be read as the direct object of the verb, and translated, “inebriate with love”82. Others concur with the LXX, Vg and S in maintaining the vocative appellation “beloved”83. Aside from the syntactical difficulties such a proposal entails, the parallelism between Song 5,1e and 5,1f would strongly persuade otherwise84. Both cola begin with verbs in the imperative followed by direct address: 5e: imperative + vocative; 5f: imperative, imperative + vocative.

eat oh friends, drink, inebriate oh beloved!

4. Poetic Analysis and Structure of Song 4,12–5,1 The “garden poem” is divided into two strophes: Song 4,12-15 and 4,16–5,1, which are linked together by the garden motif (4,12.15.16–5,1) and separated by their different literary genres. Müller classifies the first strophe, 4,12-15, within the literary genre of a Beschreibungslied 85. According to the classical form analysis of Horst this is not entirely correct as Horst calls only the waṣfs proper a Beschreibungslied86. The designation, however, is correct in so far as the poet describes the Bride in this passage before the genre changes into a vivid dialogue between the two lovers in the second strophe, which is therefore said to be a Rollengedicht87. While in the first strophe (4,12-15) only the voice of the Lover is heard, who refers to his Beloved as a garden that he describes extensively, in the second strophe (4,16–5,1) the voices of both lovers are equally heard. In the second strophe the Beloved takes the lead in the opening verse (4,16) inviting her Lover, in response to his words, to come into his garden and eat its choicest 82. See MÜLLER, Hohelied, p. 49; POPE, Song, p. 501; NAB; RUDOLPH, Hohe Lied, p. 152, explains: “Der Plural dôḏîm heißt im HL stets ‘Liebe’, nie ‘Gefährten’ […] oder ‘Geliebte’ […] ist also Akk[usativ]. […] nicht Vok[ativ]”. 83. JOÜON, Cantique, p. 228; ROBERT – TOURNAY – FEUILLET, Cantique, p. 188; RAVASI, Cantico, p. 397; BARBIERO, Cantico, p. 209. 84. See RAVASI, Cantico, p. 397; BARBIERO, Cantico, p. 208; ZAKOVITCH, Hohelied, p. 198. 85. See MÜLLER, Hld 4,12–5,1, p. 191. Eidelkind on the other hand – following Keel’s interpretation that Lover finds himself locked out of the garden – holds it to be a paraklausithyron. See EIDELKIND, Two Notes, pp. 225-227. 86. See F. HORST, Die Formen des Althebräischen Liebesliedes, in R. PARET (eds.), Orientalistische Studien: Enno Littmann zu seinem 60. Geburtstag am 16. September 1935, Überreicht von Schülern aus seiner Bonner und Tübinger Zeit, Leiden, Brill, 1935, 43-54, p. 47. 87. MÜLLER, Hld 4,12–5,1, p. 191: “Als Rollengedicht wird der Text daran kenntlich, daß der Sänger mimetisch zwischen den Rollen des Bräutigams (4,12-15 + 5,1a) und der Braut (4,16) hin- und herwechselt; in 5,1 b gibt er beide Rollen auf, um sich an sein Auditorium zu wenden”.

THE WEDDING OF THE GARDEN-BRIDE (SONG 4,12–5,1)

737

fruits. As in a duet, the Lover’s voice answers in 5,1. He accepts her invitation, comes into his garden, and rejoices in the spices, food, and drink he finds there. Surprisingly the strophe ends with an invitation to friends, whose presence in the dialogue is now mentioned for the first time. The friends of the lovers are invited to eat and drink, and even to become inebriated. The lovers wish to share the joys of love with their friends. We possibly have here an allusion to a wedding banquet. Zakovitch therefore classifies the entire passage of 4,12–5,1 as a Hochzeitsgedicht88. a) The First Strophe: Song 4,12-15 The poetic structure of the two strophes will be discussed separately. The first strophe (Song 4,12-15) follows a pattern that is typical for the poetry of the Song. It consists of four verses, with an ABBʹAʹ pattern. The poet introduces two poetic comparisons in v. 12, which are then explored in all their ramifications through vv. 13-1589. The structural organization is remarkable. In v. 12 the Lover compares the Beloved to a closed garden and a sealed spring. Verses 13 and 14 develop only the garden metaphor and describe the interior of that garden. The image of the sealed spring remains suspended until v. 15. It is not clear if the spring constitutes a second image in addition to the garden metaphor, or if there is some connection between the spring and the garden. It is only after the extensive description of the garden in vv. 13-14 that the spring metaphor is taken up again in v. 15 and identified as the spring of the gardens itself. Verse 15 is dedicated entirely to the unfolding of the spring metaphor, by which the Beloved is said to be a spring of gardens and a cistern of living water, flowing from Lebanon. The following basic structure can be made out. 12 The Beloved as a garden + A SPRING, B 13 the garden’s plants Bʹ 14 the garden’s plants Aʹ 15 The Beloved as the garden’s WATER SOURCE90. A

88. ZAKOVITCH, Hohelied, p. 39: “Der einzige Anhaltspunkt für die Verbindung zwischen Hld und Hochzeitsliedern ist der Inhalt. Bei dessen Untersuchung stellt sich heraus, dass nur zwei von den Liedern innerhalb des Werks direkt auf das Hochzeitszeremoniell Bezug nehmen. Dabei handelt es sich um den Textabschnitt 4,12–5,1, an dessen Ende der Bräutigam seine Gefährten zum Essen und Trinken auffordert, was sich vermutlich auf das Hochzeitsmahl bezieht, sowie um 3,7-11, ein Spottlied auf Salomons Hochzeit”. 89. See ALTER, The Art of Biblical Poetry, p. 194. 90. MURPHY, Wisdom Literature, p. 115, sees a ABAʹ structure that results from the repetition of the terms ‫גן‬, ‫כלה‬, ‫אחתי‬, and ‫ מעין‬in 12 and 15, two verses that compare the spouse to a garden, framing two verses that describe the fruits of the garden (13-14). But while ‫ גן‬and ‫ מעין‬are repeated in both verses, ‫ אחתי‬and ‫ כלה‬are not. Heinevetter on the

738

PART III – CHAPTER 11

As already noted, according to the form analysis of Horst, Song 4,12-15 fits the literary genre of a Beschreibungslied, for which the many nominal propositions are typical91. There is not a single finite verbal form, yet all the verses are composed of nominal sentences and the four verbs employed are all participles (v. 12 ‫ נעול‬twice, ‫חתום‬, v. 15 ‫)נזלים‬. Verses 13-14 are composed of mere enumerations92. There is no particular rhyming pattern governing both verses but each verse in itself has a rhyming pattern of its own. Verse 13 is made up of three cola of three elements each and each colon ending on the sound -îm, as they all end with a noun in the plural. Taking into account the variation of the i-sounds and including the preposition, v. 13 reads: 13a: -îm, 13b: im, -îm, 13c: -îm, im, -îm. This pattern is curiously broken in v. 14 (to which we will shortly return) and taken up again in v. 15, which has four out of eight words ending on the sound -îm, two of which – just like in v. 13 – stand at the end of the first two cola. Moreover, if one considers that in each colon of v. 15 one word begins with a mem and that in cola a and c each word is carrier of a nun, there is a certain preponderance of labials observable. What furthermore catches the eye is the regularity with which the preposition ‫ עם‬is employed (cf. 13b.c; 14c.e). As for v. 14, its cola b-c and d-e are constructed in perfect parallel manner. In each case, a colon of two words precedes a colon of four words. The first colon consists respectively of two plant names joined by the conjunction waw (b: ‫קנה וקנמון‬, d: ‫)מר ואהלות‬. The second colon, 14c and 14d, each consist of four words, displaying again the exact same construction both grammatically and on the level of content. By use of the preposition ‫ עם‬they join the aromatics mentioned in the first colon to a generic summary of aromatics summed up in the expression ‫ כל‬in the second colon. Both of these generic summaries use the grammatical form of the status constructus. Thus the following pattern is created: a b / a′ bʹ / ῾im kol + plural constr. + subst. a″ b″ / ῾im kol + plural constr. + subst. The careful parallel construction of these four cola together with the repetition of the word “nard” at the end of v. 13 and at the beginning of contrary, divides the strophe into two separate songs. The first song is split into vv. 12 and 15 in order to frame the second song, which consists of vv. 13-14; the first speaks about the Beloved (12+15) while the second one speaks to her directly (13-14). See HEINEVETTER, “Komm nun, mein Liebster”, p. 124. I do not agree with this latter view, as vv. 12-15 obviously form a content-related unity. The change of person (from third to second and back to third) is a poetic device that in this case cannot be taken as a strophe divider. 91. See HORST, Die Formen des Althebräischen Liebesliedes, p. 47; and MÜLLER, Poesie und Magie, pp. 50, 158. 92. See BARBIERO, Cantico, p. 187.

THE WEDDING OF THE GARDEN-BRIDE (SONG 4,12–5,1)

739

v. 14 prompts Müller to consider 14a a later redactional insertion93. However, the repetition of “nard” is not as disturbing as Müller thinks for the following reasons. First, the initial occurrence of “nard” is in the plural while the subsequent occurrence is in the singular; thus, a scribal error is to be excluded. Second, these repetitions are a very frequent stylistic device in the Song. Finally, the presence of colon 14a in all the ancient manuscripts makes one doubt an emendation of the text. b) The Second Strophe: Song 4,16–5,1 The second strophe (Song 4,16–5,1) has a very different dynamic. While in the first strophe there is no movement but only the contemplation of a static vision, the second strophe enters into a vivid dialogue between the spouses and describes an urgent movement towards the union of the two94. Every colon starts with a finite form of the verb. The first two and the last two cola are made up of imperatives, thereby giving the strophe its urgent tone. While each colon of the first and last bi-cola begins with an imperative; the first and last cola also contain a second imperative, which makes six imperatives in all. Song 4,16 is made up of four cola. It resounds with the voice of the Beloved who, in cola a and b, invokes the forces of nature to blow and come into her garden. This is expressed with three strong imperatives (‫הפיחי‬, ‫בואי‬, ‫ )עורי‬and one jussive (‫ )יזלי‬in cola a and b. The structure of cola a and b is similar. In colon a each imperative is followed by a vocative. In colon b both the imperative and jussive are followed by their respective direct objects. a: imperative + vocative, b: imperative + direct object,

imperative + vocative jussive + direct object

The threefold repetition of imperatives in the feminine gender (‫בואי‬, ‫עורי‬, ‫)הפיחי‬, together with one further suffix in the first person singular in colon b (‫)גני‬, makes the î-sound the dominant sound of the first bi-cola. In the next bi-cola, c and d, the urgency of the tone is maintained by another two jussives at the beginning of each colon referring to the Lover (‫יאכל‬, ‫)יבא‬. The Beloved urges her Lover to come into his garden and eat of its choicest fruits. 93. See MÜLLER, Hohelied, p. 49: “Auch die hebräischen Elemente […]‚ Narde und […] gehören nicht an den Anfang von V.14a, sondern an den von 14b (vgl. BHK). So entsteht eine genaue Entsprechung zwischen den Versteilen 14a und 14b”. Müller translates v. 14 accordingly: “Safran, Süßrohr und Zimt / mit allerlei Weihrauchhölzern, * Narde, Myrrhe und Aloe / mit allerlei Duftstoffen”. 94. See BARBIERO, Cantico, p. 187.

740

PART III – CHAPTER 11

Song 5,1 takes up the same actions in the voice of the Lover, though in a different tone. In four cola of equal length (5,1a-d) the Lover’s response resounds in rhyme. It is noteworthy how the poetry makes use of the î-sound in all four cola. With the exception of the appellation ‫כלה‬ (bride) and the preposition ‫( עם‬with), every word ends on the sound î by using the verbs in the first person singular perfect qal and the possessive suffix of the first person singular. Further, a careful construction of those four cola is observable. After the first colon (5,1a) – which is a direct response to the Beloved’s invitation, addressing her again as sister bride – follow three cola of equal construction just as in the opening line of Song 4,12. Each opens with a transitive verb in the first person singular perfect qal, followed by a pair of direct objects joined together by the preposition ‫עם‬, with each carrying a first person singular suffix. The last bi-colon (5,1e.f) changes in sound, construction, and addressee. The urgent tone that had been created by the imperatives in 4,16 arises again in these last two cola. The Lover turns to an invisible audience, of whose presence in the scene the reader was thus far not even aware. With three imperatives he invites them, whom he calls friends and beloved, also to eat and drink, even to the point of becoming inebriated. Thus the strophe finishes with an euphoric invitation to the friends to join in what seems to be a wedding banquet95.

II. PLAIN SENSE Just as in the preceding Chapter 10, the close reading will focus here on a verse-by-verse interpretation of the plain sense of the text. Attention will again be given both to the extra-biblical and intra-biblical comparative material to illuminate the sense of words and metaphors. Subsequently, a symbolic reading will follow, giving room to a more ample unfolding of the symbols uncovered in the close reading. The symbols will be traced both according to their historical anchorage within the ANE and within the literary context of the Bible. 1. The Garden-Bride (Song 4,12) 12

A closed garden my sister bride, a closed garden, a sealed spring.

95. Opinions differ as to whom this last invitation ought to be attributed. Some attribute it to the Lover, others to a choir or the poet himself. I contend it is the Lover himself who expresses this invitation. See also SHEA, Structure, p. 394, contrary to BARBIERO, Cantico, p. 200, who hears the voice of the poet himself.

THE WEDDING OF THE GARDEN-BRIDE (SONG 4,12–5,1)

741

The poem opens with the Lover admiringly describing his Beloved in the words of a strong metaphor: “A closed garden my sister bride”. Before the metaphor of the closed garden is examined, the unusual appellation “my sister bride” requires comment. a) “Bride – ‫”כלה‬ Whereas the appellation “my sister” (‫ )אחתי‬for the Beloved recurs one more time outside the poem of Song 4,8–5,1 in 5,2, the title “bride” (‫ )כלה‬is used only in the passage 4,8–5,1 and with striking frequency. Six times the woman is referred to as a ‫( כלה‬4,8.9.10.11.12; 5,1). In the present case the appellation “sister bride” (‫ )אחתי כלה‬forms the frame around the poem and stitches the two strophes together (4,12; 5,1). The word ‫ כלה‬designates both a “bride” in the sense of a woman entering into marriage and a “daughter-in-law”96. Though the word is ambiguous, it is usually easy to distinguish the intended meaning by its context. In the biblical narratives (Genesis and Ruth) and the law (Lev 18,15; 20,12), the designation is exclusively “daughter-in-law”, while it is the prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, Joel) and precisely the Song that use the word ‫ כלה‬to designate a “bride”97. Though the word ‫ כלה‬is also found twice with the meaning “daughter-in-law” in the prophets, the designation “bride” is found exclusively in the prophets and the Song98. This designation puts the Beloved of the Song in a spousal relationship towards her Lover. As Conrad points out, “the presence of the bride and the erotic pleasures she provides enchant her beloved (Song 4,9-11)”. Up to this part of the book, she had remained inviolate, but “now she shares with her beloved all the delights of love (4,12–5,1)”99. It is peculiar that the Beloved elsewhere in the book is always referred to as ‫“ רעיה‬friend, beloved”, a usage that corresponds to the appellation for the Lover as ‫“ דוד‬beloved”. The passage 4,8–5,1, however, leads up to a symbolic sexual union of the two lovers (see exegesis of 4,16 and 5,1), in which Conrad sees the reason 96. J. CONRAD, ‫כ ָלּה‬, ָ in TDOT, VII, Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 2013, 164-175, p. 165. 97. See G. LISOWSKY, Konkordanz zum hebräischen Alten Testament, Stuttgart, Württembergische Bibelanstalt, 1958, pp. 679-680. Out of the nineteen occurrences of the meaning “daughter-in-law”, only two are found in the prophets (Ezek 22,11; Mic 7,6). Maybe there are another two occurrences in Hos 4,13-14, which Lisowsky classifies under the meaning “daughter-in-law”, whereas the ancient versions unanimously give it the meaning “bride”. 98. With the one exception of the presumably corrupt MT of 2 Sam 17,3, where the LXX translates the Hebrew ‫ כל‬as νύμφη “bride”. But even if MT were to be emended to a presumed original reading of ‫כלה‬, the term would still be used as a metaphor for the people just like in the prophets. 99. See CONRAD, ‫כ ָלּה‬, ָ in TDOT, pp. 166-167.

742

PART III – CHAPTER 11

for the change of designation from ‫ רעיה‬to ‫ כלה‬for the Beloved. Conrad writes, “in short, union with the bride means unlimited fulfillment of true and total erotic desire”100. On the other hand, this is precisely the reason why some scholars here, while agreeing to the translation “bride” for ‫ כלה‬in the Song, then seek to give the word “bride” a different meaning than that of “a girl entering into marriage”. Since it is only in 4,8–5,1 that the Beloved is called ‫כלה‬. though the Lover is never referred to as a bridegroom (‫)חתן‬, it has been suggested that the term would not designate a spousal relationship but rather a free relationship between two lovers without any marital or familial obligations. According to Gerleman, “The girl is […] called ‫כלה‬, without reference to a wedding. Obviously ‫ כלה‬is not to be taken literally”101. This is due to Gerleman’s reading of the Song against the background of Egyptian love poetry (fifteenth/fourteenth century B.C.), which according to his reading deals with “free love” outside social conventions102. Though Gerleman’s view is faithfully mentioned in most of the commentaries as a possible interpretation, it has few adherents. Several reasons argue for the designation “bride” for the Beloved in the spousal sense of the word in this passage of the Song. First, the fact that ‫ כלה‬can designate a “bride” or a “daughter-in-law” shows how closely the term is linked to family relationships, notably the legal bond that is created between a girl and her future husband as well as the husband’s father or mother. Secondly, the propagation of so-called free love, which is not found anywhere else in the Bible, is inconceivable in the context of Israel, regardless of which century the Song is to be linked. Nowhere else in Scripture does ‫ כלה‬designate anything other than “bride” or “daughterin-law”. Finally, as seen in the previous chapter, the topos of marriage has already been mentioned in the opening poem of the cycle (3,6–5,1), of which Song 4,12–5,1 forms an integral part. Song 3,6-11 describes the wedding of Solomon, where in v. 11 the complementary male Hebrew root ‫( חתן‬groom) occurs103. With good reason Barbiero observes that it 100. Ibid., p. 167. 101. GERLEMAN, Hohelied, pp. 153, 155. “Die Bezeichnung ‘Braut’ hat hier offensichtlich nicht ihren prägnanten, familienrechtlichen Sinn, sondern steht gerade wie ‫ אחתי‬als eine eindringliche Zärtlichkeitsanrede … Es gibt also keinen Grund, dem Gedicht einen besonderen Sitz im Leben, etwas als Hochzeitslied, zuzuweisen. Auch hier handelt es sich um eine lyrische Verdichtung des Verhältnisses zweier Liebenden”. And further down, even leaving the level of objectivity he writes: “[…] das appositionell beigefügte ‫ כלה‬scheint seinen sonst im AT üblichen Sinn verloren zu haben und steht als eine emotional übersteigerte Zärtlichkeitsansprache”. 102. See WÜRTHWEIN, Hohelied, p. 28. 103. See also GIRARD, Symboles bibliques, p. 1665.

THE WEDDING OF THE GARDEN-BRIDE (SONG 4,12–5,1)

743

is the institutional aspect of love “which unites 4:8–5:1 to the wedding cortège (3:6-11) and the previous waṣf (4:1-7)”104. The present poem (4,12–5,1) constitutes the end of the cycle, which as will become obvious also from the exegesis of 4,16 and 5,1, celebrates the consummation of the lovers’ love as a public fact and feast. For that reason the Hebrew word ‫ כלה‬needs to be translated and interpreted as referring to a “bride” in the sense of “a woman entering into marriage”. It is noteworthy that all other references to ‫ כלה‬meaning “bride” outside the Song recur in the context of the symbolic marital relationship of God and Israel (cf. Jer 2,2; Isa 62,5), or as an abstract concept to indicate either the fullness of salvation (cf. Jer 33,11), or its opposite – the absence of God, which is signified by the absence of marital joy (cf. Jer 7,34; 16,9; 25,10; Joel 2,16). Israel’s ultimate restoration is compared to a bride (‫ )כלה‬adorning herself for her husband (Isa 48,18; 61,10; 62,5)105. Thus here is a strong indicator that the Song’s Beloved represents more than just a simple shepherd girl. In the entire Old Testament, no concrete bride other than Israel is ever called a ‫כלה‬. This is suggestive of the possibility that the ‫ כלה‬of the Song likewise refers to the people of Israel. This bride has now adorned herself for the wedding. The symbol of a virginal garden-Bride associates her with Jerusalem in “Trito-Isaiah”, the ‫ כלה‬of the Lord, who has been transformed into a garden106, and over whom God rejoices like a bridegroom over his bride (cf. Isa 62,5). This thread will be taken up again on the level of the symbolic sense (III, below, p. 780). b) “My Sister” The poet expresses the intimacy of the relationship between the two lovers further by the device of calling the bride “my sister” (‫אחתי‬, Song 4,910.12; 5,1). The term “sister” can have different connotations. Naturally, the most obvious one is that of a person’s own blood sister. It has been suggested that the appellation of the Beloved as “sister” would refer to a sibling-marriage107. However, it is clear from the context that this is not 104. See BARBIERO, Cantico, p. 178. 105. See CONRAD, ‫כ ָלּה‬, ָ in TDOT, p. 166. 106. See U. BERGES, Gottesgarten und Tempel: Die neue Schöpfung im Jesajabuch, in O. KEEL – E. ZENGER (eds.), Gottesstadt und Gottesgarten: Zur Geschichte und Theologie des Jerusalemer Tempels (QD, 119), Freiburg i.Br., Herder, 2002, 69-98. 107. WINANDY – DUBARLE, Cantique, p. 126: “On a peut-être là un vestige de l’ancienne coutume suivant laquelle l’homme devait de préférence choisir sa femme à l’intérieur de son clan”. No doubt that used to be the case, as it is still today. To assume a blood relationship between the Lover and Beloved of the Song, however, is beyond the immediate evidence

744

PART III – CHAPTER 11

the case108. At various moments the Beloved expresses his desire to bring the Lover into the house of her mother (Song 3,4; 8,2), who does not seem to be the mother of the Lover also. This is most obvious from the Beloved’s exclamation in 8,2, “O that you were like a brother to me, that nursed at my mother’s breast!”. Furthermore, it is clear that in the biblical context endogamy or its celebration has no place (Lev 18,5). The appellation “sister” in the context of a love relationship has rather the connotation of the intimacy created by love. The device of calling the beloved spouse “sister” without thereby designating one’s own blood relative is not singular to the Song. Both in the books of Tobit and Esther the term is applied to designate the wife or bride (Tob 5,21; 7,15; 8,4.7)109. Another occurrence of the designation ‫ אחות‬in the context of a love relationship stems from Prov 7,4, where Wisdom personified is called “sister” and denotes the beloved for the one exhorted to be wise110. From other biblical occurrences, where the term “brother” (‫ )אח‬is used synonymously with the term “friend” (‫( )רעה‬cf. Job 30,29), it can be deduced that the term ‫ אחות‬may in certain cases also be synonymous with ‫ רעיה‬expressing intimacy or conversance (cf. Job 17,14)111. Accordingly, the Beloved is called “friend” in most other parts of the book. In the of the text other than the fact that he calls her “sister”. LANDY, Song, p. 527, similarly sees “incestuous wishes” expressed in the Song. 108. LANDY, Paradoxes, pp. 97-98. See also BARBIERO, Cantico, p. 179: “Con la parola ‘sposa’ (kallâ) si mette in evidenza che due amanti appartengono a due diverse famiglie, che la donna è estranea alla famiglia dell’uomo. Con il termine ‘sorella mia’ (’ǎḥōtî) si esprime l’appartenenza alla stessa famiglia”. 109. One is, of course, also reminded of the “sister-wife” episodes in Genesis (cf. Gen 12,10-20; 20,1-18; 26,7-11). Yet in that context, calling the matriarch a “sister” meant denying their marital relationship, wherefore the implications of those narrations for the Song are not apparent. 110. See GILBERT, Sagesse de Salomon, p. 151, n. 23: “En Pr 7,4, le terme ‘ma sœur’ signifie aussi l’epouse: cf. Ct 4,9.10.12; 5,2.3”. H. RINGGREN, ‫אח‬, ָ in TDOT, I, Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 2011, 188-193, p. 191. Also LYS, Le plus beau chant de la création, p. 182: “Il est d’ailleurs intéressant de noter qu’à Prov. 7,4 l’expression ‘ma sœur’ est appliquée à la Sagesse dont il faut faire sa compagne (cf. Prov. 4,5-9 où le couronnement final fait songer au mariage de Cant. 3,11; Sag. 8,2, 9; Sirach 15,2; probablement Job 17,14) afin de ne pas tomber entre les mains de la courtisane, qui est réelle mais pourrait passer pour Dame Folie (Prov. 9,13; 29,3): La Sagesse appelant les hommes, l’héroïne du Cantique courant après son chéri (comme aussi Israël par rapport à Dieu selon Jer. 31,22 dont l’affirmation s’exprime d’ailleurs sur le plan général), ne font que reprendre, mais dans un sens tout autre, la conduite de la femme adultère à allure de prostituée (Prov. 6,26; 7,10) (de même Cant. 4,14 reprendra Prov. 7,17, mais autrement)!”. 111. See RINGGREN, ‫אח‬, ָ p. 191, for further reference to Lev 19,17; 2 Sam 3,8; Jer 9,3 (4); Ps 122,8; Prov 17,17. See also LYS, Le plus beau chant de la création, p. 182: “On peut ajouter que le vocabulaire amoureux de Prov. 7,4 met en parallèle ‘sœur’ et ‘parente’ (modhâ῾); et que la LXX emploi adelphidos habituellement pour dôdh, mais aussi à 8,1 pour ᾿aḥ; par contre adelphoi pour dôdhîm à 5,1”.

THE WEDDING OF THE GARDEN-BRIDE (SONG 4,12–5,1)

745

present case, however, the appellation “sister” belongs to the metaphoric language of love also known from extra-biblical sources. Already in ancient Egypt we find the custom of lovers referring to each other as brother and sister in expressions of tenderness112. The same language is employed in ANE sacred marriage myths, where the terms “my brother”, “my sister” are employed between lover-gods113. The same is the case in the Song114. By calling the Beloved “my sister bride” the Lover expresses the intimate relationship that is created by the bonds of love. The two lovers are united not simply by a legal bond, expressed by the appellation ‫כלה‬. Rather the bonds of love will make of the two “one flesh”, a union even more intimate than the blood relationship between brother and sister115. With good reason Barbiero points out that the combination of the words “bride” and “sister” is paradoxical, for “[o]n the one hand, the woman belongs to another family, she comes from the outside, from the desert or from Lebanon. On the other hand, she is ‘flesh of my flesh and bone of my bones’ (Gen 2:23)”116. In calling the Beloved “sister” the same amazement is expressed as Adam experienced at the sight of Eve. Love creates a bond between two persons that ideally goes even deeper than that of consanguinity. Lefebvre and Montalembert see a similar relationship to the first couple of Genesis: “Sœur” renvoie, non pas à la nostalgie d’une famille perdue, mais à leur commune origine dans la gloire des commencements. Un homme peut appeler une femme “sœur” quand il reconnaît par là l’égalité dans laquelle il a été créé avec elle. Les images paradisiaques employées dans le Cantique pour décrire la bien-aimée évoquent cet enracinement originaire: elle est comparée à un jardin, à un paradis (par exemple Ct 4,12-16). Le mot “épouse”, lui, est tourné vers l’avenir, la nouveauté à vivre en présence de cette femme117. 112. For a very good synthesis of the problem and valid arguments as to why a siblingmarriage is out of the question, see HERMANN, Altägyptische Liebesdichtung, pp. 76-77. Hermann points to the ambiguity of the expression and goes on to clarify, “So wurde in der treffendsten Metapher der Liebessprache irrtümlich ein Hinweis auf eine familienrechtliche Institution wie die Geschwisterehe erblickt, die selbst ja äußerst umstritten ist. Daß die Zärtlichkeitsanreden Bruder-Schwester nicht juristischen, sondern natürlich menschlichen Ursprungs sind, bestätigt das Vorkommen von Verwandtem in einer Umwelt, in der an eine Geschwisterehe gar nicht zu denken ist”. See also LYS, Le plus beau chant de la création, p. 181: “[L]a poesie égyptienne emploie ‘sœur’ pour ‘femme aimée’ sans qu’il soit question de parenté et ceci a pu influencer le langage du Cant.”. 113. See LYS, Le plus beau chant de la création, p. 182; BARBIERO, Cantico, p. 179. 114. See RINGGREN, ‫אח‬, ָ p. 191. 115. This is confirmed by the use of the term “sister” for “wife” in Tob 5,21; 7,15; 8,4.7 or “brother” for the husband in Esth 15,9 (G). See also WINANDY – DUBARLE, Cantique, p. 126: “le mariage semble avoir eu pour conséquence de créer une véritable parenté entre les conjoints”. 116. BARBIERO, Song, p. 204. 117. LEFEBVRE – MONTALEMBERT, Homme, femme, Dieu, p. 382.

746

PART III – CHAPTER 11

c) “A Closed Garden” The sister bride, the Beloved, is called “a closed garden”. It is not clear from the Hebrew if the Lover is saying: “a closed garden is my sister bride”, or whether he says: “a closed garden are you, my sister bride”. The Hebrew nominal sentence allows for both translations. Since the preceding part, Song 4,1-7, was addressed to the Beloved in direct speech, each noun carrying the second person feminine suffix, and since 4,9-11 was also addressed to the Beloved in direct speech, this direct dialogue most probably continues here even though the Beloved’s response in 4,16 is expressed in a more indirect manner (“let him come into his garden”). The whole passage 4,8–5,1 is modeled on the tone of a dialogue between the lovers118. Yet since the English permits the same ambiguity as the Hebrew, this openness to both interpretations is purposefully maintained in the translation. The garden image recurs also in Song 6,2.11 and 8,13, but it is most developed here in 4,12–5,1. It is always an image for the Beloved. The Hebrew word ‫ גן‬derives from the root ‫“ גנן‬to enclose, fence, protect”. It signifies an enclosed plot of land used for horticulture and is distinguished from the surrounding territory by the fact that it is cultivated. In a land like Palestine, which is mainly a desert country, a garden is emblematic for man’s victory over the wilderness, and therefore over death. The desert stands for the absence of all that is vital for life – water and plants – and conveys the presence of what threatens life – wild ferocious animals. A garden on the other hand symbolizes life, fertility, and safety. It stands for a place from which the forces of evil such as snakes or scorpions, hyenas, lions, or wolves have been cast out and where they cannot reenter because of the enclosure. In other words, a garden is a place where man has life in abundance without any fear. Landy gives a fitting definition of a garden: [A garden] is nature perfected by culture, enclosed also from the fields, where man cultivates for subsistence. It is an index of riches, of liberation from necessity. […] in it culture returns to nature; it is a place of retreat and relaxation. […] The garden is man’s first organization of the world, demarcating good and bad, his own and the other. He begins to cultivate nature to please his senses, to arrange it according to his taste. It is the prototype of civilization, […] of the delight in creation that distinguishes gardening from hunting and gathering119. 118. See BARBIERO, Cantico, p. 189: “Poiché tutto il canto è un discorso diretto, sembra logico supporre che un tale discorso continui anche al v. 12”. 119. LANDY, Paradoxes, p. 190.

THE WEDDING OF THE GARDEN-BRIDE (SONG 4,12–5,1)

747

The work man has to do to till and keep the garden is a work that man enjoys; it is leisure rather than labor, as gardening is typically something man does for enjoyment. A garden moreover conveys the idea that man does not need to labor because the fruit trees of the garden supply him with an abundance of food. The identification of the Beloved with a garden expresses a perception found in every culture, that is, an affinity between woman and earth, between maternity and fertility120. A garden as a space that enables life and is circled off from the surrounding areas – which by contrast are conceived of as a setting hostile to life – is also a symbol of the womb, from which all life comes forth121. The symbolic significance of the garden will be taken up again after the interpretation of its concrete description that follows. The garden is said to be closed (‫)נעול‬. Since the Hebrew name for garden itself (‫ גן‬contains the concept of enclosure), the adjective ‫( נעול‬closed) might seem redundant. However, the verb ‫ נעל‬is elsewhere employed to express the bolting of a door from the inside (Judg 3,23-24; 2 Sam 13,1718). In the context of the Song, it probably refers to a kind of a gate or some mechanism that serves to bolt the garden’s gate122. Gardens are not usually locked from the inside since they generally have no permanent inhabitants, but owners rather lock them from the outside to prevent intruders from entering. The verb ‫ נעל‬may, however, in this context allude to a barring of the garden from the inside. Since the garden is a metaphor for the Beloved herself, the bolting from the inside has generally been interpreted as an allusion to the girl’s virginity. As will become clear from v. 16, the expression “entering the garden” is used in the metaphorical sense for the sexual union of the two. No one has access to this garden, unless she herself grants it, i.e., opens the garden from inside. The fact that the Lover admires the closure of the garden expresses the beauty of a woman’s virginity, who preserves herself exclusively for her bridegroom, who – as is clear from v. 16 – will be invited to take possession of “his garden”. d) “A Sealed Spring” After the second enunciation of “a closed garden”, the poet switches to another image, that of a sealed spring (‫)מעין‬. The sister bride is called 120. See in this respect MALUL, Woman-Earth Homology. 121. See GIRARD, Les symboles dans la Bible, pp. 687-688. 122. Fruit orchards of the ANE were in fact often walled with a lockable gateway to protect them against unwelcome intruders. See D.J. WISEMAN, Palace and Temple Gardens in the Ancient Near East: 201.902 (1), in Bulletin of the Middle Eastern Culture Center in Japan 1 (1984) 37-43, p. 42.

748

PART III – CHAPTER 11

a spring of water that has been sealed (‫)חתום‬. In the context of Deut 32,34 (“Is not this laid up in store with me, sealed up in my treasuries?”) ‫חתום‬ is used to express the prevention of entry. The metaphors of garden and spring differ and yet make allusion to similar realities. Just like the garden previously, a spring of water is the embodiment of life in a desert country like Palestine. All life depends on the existence of a water source, or rather, the image of the garden and of the spring are in fact one and the same, for it is the source that makes the garden123. By calling his Beloved a “spring” the Lover compares her to the most vital element of life, thus indicating that the love of his sister bride gives life to him in a most essential way, just as the water from a source transforms a desert country into a garden. Some want to find a parallel to this image in Prov 5,15-18, where a young man is advised to be faithful to his wife in the metaphorical saying: 15 16 17 18

Drink water from your own cistern (‫)בור‬, and flowing from your own well; should124 your springs (‫ )מעין‬overflow outside, in the squares streams of water? Let them be for you alone, and not for the strangers with you. May your fountain be blessed, and rejoice in the wife of your youth.

While it is clear that the woman is designated by the metaphor of a cistern and a well, it is, however, not immediately evident who the springs (‫)מעין‬ represent in Prov 5,16, which constitute the alleged parallel to our passage. According to some they would also stand for the woman, who, betrayed by her husband, becomes the opposite of a “sealed spring”, and thus renders herself to different lovers125. However, it seems more convincing to understand the spring as a metaphor for the man’s sexual activity, meaning that if he does not drink water from his own but other’s cisterns, then his 123. BUDDE, Hohelied, p. 23: “Der Quell ist kein zweites Bild, sondern in dem Garten zu denken, als dessen notwendige Voraussetzung”. 124. The reading of M ‫יפוצו‬, here translated in the form of a question, “should …?”, is contested by LXX which reads μή (so that not …), as also by three Coptic witnesses, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen. However, as the editor of the BHQ notes, “the reading with the negation is clearly a facilitating one, presumably required by the content of verse 17”. See DE WAARD (ed.), Proverbs, p. 34*. 125. O. PLÖGER, Sprüche Salomos (Proverbia) (BKAT, I/18), Neukirchen-Vluyn, Neukirchener Verlag, 1984, p. 57: “Da […] eine Zisterne [als Bild für die Ehefrau] angelegt wird, um ein Verströmen des Wassers ins Freie zu verhindern und da ferner in V. 17 mit Nachdruck gesagt wird, sie [die Ehefrau] solle allein ihm gehören und nicht den Fremden in seiner Umgebung, wird auch in V. 16 an die Ehefrau gedacht sein”. Also: FOX, Song, p. 137; BARBIERO, Cantico, p. 192.

THE WEDDING OF THE GARDEN-BRIDE (SONG 4,12–5,1)

749

offspring will be scattered and belong to strangers instead of being counted as his own posterity126. Both the garden and the spring are said to be respectively closed and sealed. Both adjectives indicate that no unauthorized person has access to the garden or spring. The great majority of scholars consider this a metaphorical way of speaking about the virginity of the woman127. The access to her love can only be granted by herself. The breaking open of the garden or the breaking of the seal would constitute a violation, not a union in love128. Zakovitch interprets the description of his Beloved as “closed” and “sealed” as an expression of the Lover’s disappointment: “The harder the access, the more numerous the obstacles, which separate the one desiring entry from the garden and its water, the stronger his yearning, the more intense the sense, that behind bars lies something tremendously attractive”129. Yet there is no indication of the Lover’s disappointment or frustration in the text. Rather, the description of the obstacles expresses an intensity, which is throughout a tone of admiration and amazement. In calling the Beloved a closed garden and a sealed spring the Lover is affirming a property right130. He praises her virginity that is accessible to no one but himself 131. The Lover rejoices in the fact of her virginity and approves it, knowing that the garden and the sealed spring are all for himself 132.

126. Thus also L. ALONSO SCHÖKEL, Proverbios, Madrid, Cristiandad, 1984, p. 206: “[…] ella es aljibe y pozo de deleite para satisfacer la apetencia sexual de él, es fuente fecunda […] él es manantial del que brotan acequias. Así, resultan correlativos los versos 15 y 16, con la repetición quiastica de maym. Aljibe y pozo, manantial y acequias componen casi un paisaje: un jardín o huerto recogido, porque todo es exclusivo, ‘para ti solo, sin extraños’, y el agua no ha de salir ni perderse por las calles. El don mutuo y exclusivo, la fidelidad inquebrantable sellan el gozo y la fecundidad del amor”. 127. Pace KEEL, Hohelied, p. 162. 128. See FOX, Song, p. 137; S.M. PAUL, A Lover’s Garden of Verse: Literal and Metaphorical Imagery in Ancient Near Eastern Love Poetry, in Divrei Shalom: Collected Studies of Shalom M. Paul on the Bible and the Ancient Near East 1967-2005 (CHANE, 23), Leiden, Brill, 2005, 271-284, p. 278. 129. ZAKOVITCH, Hohelied, p. 201: “In diesem Vers artikuliert sich die Enttäuschung des Liebenden: Je schwieriger der Zutritt, je zahlreicher die Hindernisse, die den Garten und das darin befindliche Wasser von dem Einlassbegierigen trennen, desto stärker sein Verlangen, desto intensiver das Gefühl, dass hinter Schloss und Riegel etwas ungeheuer Attraktives liegen”. 130. See F. LANDSBERGER, Poetic Units within the Song of Songs, in JBL 73 (1954) 203-216, p. 206: “the comparison not only praises the girl’s modesty but lays stress on the property rights of the owner”; MURPHY, Song, p. 161: “The metaphor of the ‘garden closed’ is that the woman belongs to the man alone”. 131. See also ROBERT – TOURNAY – FEUILLET, Cantique, p. 181. 132. The Jewish and the Christian tradition also consistently interpret the closed garden and the sealed spring as referring to the woman’s virginity.

750

PART III – CHAPTER 11

2. “A Paradise” (Song 4,13-14) 13 a Your shoots, a paradise of pomegranates b with choicest fruits, c hennas with nards, 14 a nard and saffron b calamus with cinnamon c with all woods of incense. d Myrrh and aloes e with all excellence of balsams.

After having introduced the two main metaphors for the Bride, the closed garden and the sealed spring in the first verse of the poem, the poet now proceeds to describe the garden in detail in vv. 13-14 in order to then return to the water metaphor, which he explores more extensively in v. 15. He thus shifts the attention from the frame of reference of the metaphor, that is the Beloved, to the metaphor itself, the garden. The object of the metaphor is elegantly changed into the metaphor itself. From the Beloved as a garden, the Lover easily moves on to a real garden, with real rather than figurative trees, fruits and plants133. She is thus compared to a garden of extraordinary luxury, with exquisite fruits and exotic spices and perfumes, most of which are not even found naturally in Palestine134. a) “Your Shoots” The Lover who has called the Beloved a garden now goes on to speak about her shoots, which he subsequently specifies as various plants, as if shoots were actually growing out of her in the form of pomegranates, etc. Robert Alter calls this an “enchanting interfusion between the literal and metaphorical realms”135. The question is, however, how one understands this “interfusion” correctly. Many scholars read the garden’s metaphoric 133. See ALTER, The Art of Biblical Poetry, p. 202. 134. See GERLEMAN, Hohelied, p. 159; and I. LÖW, Die Flora der Juden. IV: Zusammenfassung, Nachträge, Berichtigungen, Indizes, Abkürzungen, Wien, R. Löwit, 1934, p. 261. While with the exception of the pomegranate, none of these plants grew naturally in Palestine, it is significant that a royal Persian paradise garden with similarly exotic plants has been excavated in Ramat Raḥel. See B. GROSS – Y. GADOT – O. LIPSCHITS, The Ancient Garden at Ramat Raḥel and Its Water Installations, in C. OHLIG – T. TSUK (eds.), Cura Aquarum in Israel. II: Water in Antiquity. In Memory of Yehuda Peleg, Ehud Netzer, David Amid. Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on the History of Water Management and Hydraulic Engineering in the Mediterranean Region Israel 14-20 October 2012 (Schriften der Deutschen Wasserhistorischen Gesellschaft, 21), Siegburg, DWhG, 2012, 93-114, pp. 93, 112; and D. LANGGUT, The Role of Pollen Analysis in Archaeology: Reconstruction of the Royal Persian Garden in Ramat Rahel, as a Case Study, in Cathedra 150 (2013) 37-50 (Hebrew with an English summary). 135. ALTER, The Art of Biblical Poetry, p. 202.

THE WEDDING OF THE GARDEN-BRIDE (SONG 4,12–5,1)

751

description as an erotic tenor that refers to the body of the Beloved. Thus Alter states, “The poetry by the end becomes a kind of self-transcendence of double entendre: the beloved’s body is, in a sense, ‘represented’ as a garden, but it also turns into a real garden”136. The Beloved’s “shoots” are interpreted as referring to parts of her body that are a “paradise of pomegranates, with choicest fruits” to the eyes of the Lover. Keel’s commentary is an outstanding example for this approach. For example, he translates ‫שלחיך‬, as “your canals” and then interprets these canals as standing for the pudenda of the Beloved, while the “paradise of pomegranates” is supposed to evoke the pubic hair137. As a proof and illustration for this – as he freely admits – somewhat disconcerting interpretation he points to the concept of the earth as a woman “from whose pudenda the vegetations grows” and then draws the attention of his readers to Ugaritic gold pendants from the fourteenth/thirteenth century B.C. on which a goddess with the pubic triangle is depicted. Her pudenda are stylized as a water canal out of which a branch grows stylized as a tree138. Keel’s argument is not unproblematic. It creates a strange mixture of metaphors in which the poem would switch from a veiled description of the Beloved’s pudenda to a series of nine cola that all bear plant names for the garden metaphor. In vv. 13-14 the poet concentrates on developing the image of a luxurious garden as a place of palatable fruits and pleasant odors, not a coded description of certain body parts of the Beloved. While “canals” or “shoots” might still refer to a distinct body part, it is apparent that the list of exotic spices and perfumes that follows resists such one-toone attributions. Moreover, Keel has to explain the plural of the channels as means of softening the “allzu drastische Eindeutigkeit der Metaphorik”139. Since the metaphor is everything but evident, it rather stands to reason that the poet intended a different connotation all together. The difficulty with Keel’s and others’ interpretations of the same type lies on the level of approach to metaphoric poetry. The question is whether the poet intends the reader to decipher the garden description as referring to different parts of the Beloved’s body. The problem lies with what has been described in the introductory chapter on methodology as the misconceived idea of the poet “dressing up his ideas”. In the concrete case, Keel et al. part with the idea that the poet first conceived the idea of describing the different body parts of the Beloved, but then, for the sake of decency 136. Ibid. 137. See KEEL, Hohelied, p. 164. Similarly, GÖRG, ‘Kanäle’ oder ‘Zweige’, p. 23; BARBIERO, Cantico, p. 193; and PEETZ, Emotionen im Hohelied, p. 200. 138. See KEEL, Hohelied, p. 165. 139. Ibid., p. 164.

752

PART III – CHAPTER 11

or simply for the sake of poetry, “dressed up this idea” by attributing a different plant to each body limb. In the present case the poet would use the term “your shoots” in order to express what he “really” has in mind to say: “your pudenda”. With Alonso Schökel (see the discussion in Chapter 3, I, above, p. 108) I contend this approach to the poetry is wrong. The concept or idea (of describing body-parts) does not come first, but a formless experience of the Beloved to which the image of a paradisiacal garden gives the closest possible expression. As Alonso Schökel states, “By means of the image the author understood what he experienced and expressed it and it is the image which he intends to put across”140. Encountering his Beloved he experiences her as a garden of utmost delight. It is the Beloved in her entirety as a person whom he experiences as such and not just members of her body, that would reduce their relationship to a mere erotic mutual desire and not a love relationship in the fullest sense of the word. On this basis the description of the garden will now be examined. b) “Paradise” The shoots of the garden are said to be “a paradise of pomegranates”. As explained above, I purposefully retain the echo of the word “paradise” in my English translation of the Hebrew word ‫פרדס‬, as also used in the LXX here and when referring to the Garden of Eden, since this reflects most closely the Persian royal ideology (or “theology”141) underlying the loan-word and associated with this kind of royal garden domain (see extensively I.3 “‫ ”פרדס‬above, p. 724). As mentioned above, the Hebrew term ‫ פרדס‬occurs only three times in the Hebrew Bible (here and in Qoh 2,5; Neh 2,8). In Neh 2,8 it refers directly to a Persian royal park, and in Qoh 2,5 the expression is used in the context of a section that numbers the “great works” accomplished by the king (Qoh 2,4-11). This section is clearly composed to put Qohelet/ Solomon on par with the most glorious of ANE Kings, the Persians in particular142. Like an Achaemenid king, so Solomon too has made gardens and paradises. 140. ALONSO SCHÖKEL, Poetics, p. 101. 141. For the use of this term, see J.M. SILVERMAN, Was There an Achaemenid ‘Theology’ of Kingship, in D. EDELMAN – A. FITZPATRICK-MCKINLEY – P. GUILLAUME (eds.), Religion in the Achaemenid Persian Empire (Orientalische Religionen in der Antike, 17), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2016, 172-196, p. 172. 142. The root ‫ עשה‬typically occurs seven times in Qoh 2,4-11, hinting thereby at the perfection of the works accomplished. Moreover, the listing of the accomplishment corresponds to similar lists in royal inscriptions elsewhere in the ANE, those of Neo-Assyrian and Persian kings in particular. C.L. SEOW, Ecclesiastes (AncB, 18C), New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, 1974, p. 128.

THE WEDDING OF THE GARDEN-BRIDE (SONG 4,12–5,1)

753

By employing the Persian loan-word ‫ פרדס‬when describing the closed garden, it is clear that the author of the Song wants to evoke this particular notion of paradise. To the Lover of the Song, the Shulammite appears as the Garden of God personified. She is much more than an a simple “orchard” or “park of pomegranates”. The enumeration of the many exotic plants listed in Song 4,13-14 insinuates that the garden-Bride of the Song is purposefully described in such a way as to remind the reader/hearer of the long-gone paradise of Eden, a paradise the poet experiences as rediscovered in the love of the Beloved. She is paradise in the double sense of the word. In her the Garden lost at the dawn of time seems to be retrieved (rediscovered). At the same time, she is the pledge of the eschatological paradise that appears to be at the Lover’s hand in entering into his garden-Beloved. The notion will be taken up again on the level of the symbolic sense. c) “Pomegranate” The first fruit that is mentioned in this paradise is the pomegranate. The pomegranate is a tree loaded with symbolic significance in the ANE and in Israel in particular. Among all the elements of the garden listed in this pericope, it is the only one which actually grows in Palestine143. Because of the many and sweet seeds of its fruits it is considered to be the symbol of fertility or an aphrodisiac throughout the entire ANE and Greco-Roman world144. However, even before the pomegranate gives its fruits, the “awakening of spring is characterized by the flowering of the pomegranate whose large blossoms are conspicuous for their beauty and fragrance”145. As the sign of the awakening of spring it is the symbol for the commencement of the time of love. Its presumed aphrodisiac powers were said to bring forth love and create potency. Its juice was therefore said to be a lover’s nectar. The goddesses of love often had a pomegranate as their attribute or received votives in the form of a pomegranate. Similarly Hera, the goddess of marriage in the Greek tradition, received votive pomegranates, and in Rome Juno was represented with the attribute of a pomegranate as a symbol of marriage. In the same way the many seeds in the pulp came to symbolize Greek and Roman goddesses concerned with fertility (i.e., Demeter and Persephone or Venus respectively). 143. It probably originated in Iran or southern Mesopotamia and then spread from Elam and Sumer through Syria and Palestine to Egypt (under Thutmose III), Cyprus (ca. 2500 B.C.), Mycene (ca. 1500-1200), Etruria, and Carthage. 144. See M.J. MULDER, ‫רמון‬, in TDOT, XIII, Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 2004, p. 505. 145. J.G. WESTENHOLZ, Sacred Bounty Sacred Land, Jerusalem, Bible Lands Museum, 1998, p. 33.

754

PART III – CHAPTER 11

Within the Bible the word “pomegranate” occurs thirty-two times. It is one of the seven fruits with which the land of Israel is blessed (Deut 8,8); it is amongst the fruits which the spies bring back to Joshua as a proof of the goodness of the Promised Land (Num 13,23); and its blooming or withering is a sign of the blessing or curse of God for Israel (cf. Hag 2,19: “Do the vine, the fig tree, the pomegranate, and the olive tree still yield nothing? From this day on I will bless you”; Joel 1,12: “The vine withers, the fig tree languishes. Pomegranate, palm and apple, all the trees of the field are withered; and gladness fails from the sons of men”). It also played a role in the cult of Israel’s Temple, being used to decorate both the priestly robes (Exod 28,33-34; 29,24-26) and the Temple itself, particularly “the capitals of the two bronze pillars Jachin and Boaz” (1 Kgs 7,20.42; 2 Kgs 25,17; 2 Chr 3,16; 4,13; Jer 52,22). It may be that the pillars were to be seen as stylized “trees of life”146. Within the Song the pomegranate as a fruit or as a tree (the Hebrew employs the same word for both) occurs six times, twice within a waṣf describing the beauty of the Beloved, most probably as a metaphor for her temples behind the veil (4,3 and 6,7: “Your temples are like halves of a pomegranate behind your veil”). In 6,11 we find the pomegranate in combination with a garden, just as in the present pericope: “I went down to the nut garden, to look at the blossoms of the valley, to see whether the vines had budded, whether the pomegranates were in bloom”. Here, in 6,11, the Song explicitly uses the above-indicated symbolism of the blossoming of the pomegranate to signify that the time of love has come. The same holds true for 7,13, where the Beloved invites the Lover to come with her into the vineyards to see “whether the pomegranates are in bloom. There I will give you my love”. In 8,2 “spiced wine” and “the juice of my pomegranate” stand in parallelism as a metaphor for the act of love147. The pomegranate, no doubt, has a connotation of love within the book as is especially clear from the last-cited verse148. Furthermore, in the context of the poet speaking of a “paradise of pomegranates” it is significant to note that in oriental iconography the pomegranate was often identified as the tree of life149. Keel gives the example of two Egyptian illustrations. On one, which is especially significant, the garden of god is personified as a mountain god, from whom four rivers go out. Two pomegranates flank the garden of god150. 146. See MULDER, ‫רמון‬, p. 507. 147. According to BARBIERO, Cantico, p. 335, it is a metaphor for his grasping of her breasts (cf. 7,9). 148. See ibid., p. 194. 149. See H.N. MOLDENKE, Plants of the Bible, New York, Ronald Press Company, 1952, p. 191. 150. See KEEL, Hohelied, p. 135.

THE WEDDING OF THE GARDEN-BRIDE (SONG 4,12–5,1)

755

In the Jewish tradition its blood-red juice came to embody the symbol of life, wherefore it became a funerary motif. According to Jewish tradition, the righteous will partake of the pomegranate in paradise151, just as there had been a wine of pomegranates prepared for the righteous in the Garden of Eden152. Later on in Judaism the tradition developed that a pomegranate holds 613 seeds, therefore becoming a symbol for the Torah and its 613 commandments. The fruit symbolizes transcendent realities such as the mystery of life as a whole and also the Law and its wisdom, which are considered to be the sources of life. On an anthropological level the pomegranate thus signifies similarly the joy and the love the woman can give, which is as delicious and fresh as the juice of the pomegranates. It also depicts her fertility and the prospect of countless posterity to the one admitted to the possession of the garden, as is signified by the many seeds of the fruit. Yet at the same time, by way of allusion to the genuine ANE motif of the tree of life, it identifies the love of the woman as a source of life for the man. d) “With Choicest Fruits” The paradise, however, contains not only pomegranates but a number of other fruits that the poet simply sums up with the hypernym “with all choicest fruits”. This expression is not to be understood as designating the fruits of the pomegranate tree. Rather, the preposition ‫ עם‬in vv. 1314 is always used to unite two different plant types153. Thus it unites here the pomegranate with all the other fruit trees of the garden, of which only the pomegranate tree is specified154. These fruits are said to be “choicest”. The word used to indicate the excellence of the fruits, ‫מגד‬, appears only in the Song (4,16; 7,14) and in Deut 33,13-16 in Moses’ blessing where it indicates the products of the land that Joseph is promised to inherit from the Lord. This feature of making allusions to the fruits of the Promised Land will figure particularly in the second strophe (4,16–5,1); it adumbrates, 151. See WESTENHOLZ, Sacred Bounty, pp. 33-34. 152. Cf. Tg. Cant. 8.6 “I will lead you, O King Messiah, and bring you up to my Temple; and you will teach me to fear the Lord, and to walk in His ways. There we will partake of the feast of Leviathan and will drink [from] old wine which has been preserved in its grape since the day that the world was created, and from the pomegranates and fruits which are prepared for the righteous in the Garden of Eden”. ALEXANDER, Targum of Canticles, pp. 190-191. 153. See BARBIERO, Cantico, p. 194, who points out that ‫ עם‬is here used like a conjunction, which is unusual for Hebrew. According to Barbiero it corresponds to the Greek hama. It is another indication of influence of Greek on the language of the Song and its consequential dating to the Hellenistic era. 154. See E. ASSIS, Flashes of Fire: A Literary Analysis of the Song of Songs (JSOTS, 503), New York – London, T&T Clark, 2009, p. 137.

756

PART III – CHAPTER 11

however, what will become more apparent as the exegesis evolves in that there is an intrinsic connection between the Beloved of the Song and the land of Israel as promised in the Pentateuch. Barbiero comments quite rightly, “Behind the garden of the Song therefore can be seen not only the Garden of Eden, but also the garden of the Promised Land”155. Whatever is savory is to be imagined in the Garden. On the anthropological level commentators read the fruits of the garden as connoting the sexual pleasures that the Beloved offers to her Lover (cf. 2,3)156. e) The Aromatic Plants of the Garden After having aroused the sense of taste with imaginary flavors, the poet goes on to evoke all kinds of fragrances. Ten aromatic plants are listed (13c-14). The olfactory sense dominates the description and attracts the Lover towards his Beloved. Henna (Lawsonia inermis) is the only one of the spices listed that actually grows in Palestine, at least in the lower parts of the country157. It is mainly used as a dye, but also as perfume, even if the latter use is much less attested. Its white, dense, clustered blossoms have a smell similar to that of roses. Keel reports that in ancient Egypt the henna bloom was called ‘anch jimi, which can be translated as “life inside”. Due to its fragrance, the plant was thought to have invigorating forces158. Noteworthy is a very late but instructive Nubian text on Henna: “This Henna, which makes beautiful the ugly, sprouts uncountable blossoms. […] But what makes it even more precious and attracts man to it is its fragrance […]. And sometimes the women hide it underneath their tresses or lay it underneath their armpit in order to cast out the smell of perspiration”159. “Which makes beautiful the ugly” refers to the custom of Nubian women, also found elsewhere from Egypt to India, to dye not only their hair but their entire bodies. This henna dye is used for any feast, in joy or in mourning. No wedding takes place without it160. Thus the paradisiacal garden in this poem contains one of the most important elements for feasting, be it as a 155. BARBIERO, Cantico, p. 194. 156. On the association of fruit and both the masculine and female sexuality in the ANE, see ibid. 157. See KEEL, Hohelied, p. 70. 158. See ibid. 159. See H. SCHÄFER, Nubische Texte im Dialekt der Kunuzi: Aus den Abhandlungen der Königlich Preuss. Wisschenschaften, Berlin, 1917, p. 29, quoted in L. KEIMER, Gartenpflanzen im alten Ägypten: Ägyptologische Studien, Hildesheim, Philipp von Zabern, 1976, p. 52. 160. See KEIMER, Gartenpflanzen, p. 53.

THE WEDDING OF THE GARDEN-BRIDE (SONG 4,12–5,1)

757

perfume or to beautify the skin. It is even said to have healing effects on skin or feet worn out by work. Within the Song, the henna plant occurs twice. The only other occurrence is in 1,14 where the Lover is compared to “a cluster of henna blossoms in the vineyards of En-gedi”. This is typical of the so-called “mirror effect”, according to which attributes, images, or metaphors used for one of the two lovers will often be attributed to the other as well. Nard (nardostachys jatamansi) is an aromatic plant from which a fragrant essential oil is extracted. The oil is processed into an ointment, which in biblical times was very precious and therefore a manifestation of great luxury. It was used as a perfume and medicine for the treatment of nervous disorders. Its origins are in Nepal and in other regions of the Himalaya mountains from whence it spread into India. It “has the Veddasian name narada or nalada”161, and would have been imported from there. It is mentioned only three times in the Old Testament, all of which occur in the Song (1,12: “while the king was on his couch, my nard gave forth its fragrance”; 4,13.14), twice in the passage under study. In Song 1,12 nard symbolizes the erotic attraction of the Beloved. The New Testament mentions it twice, in the accounts of Mark and John at the anointing of Jesus at Bethany (Mark 14,3; John 12,3)162. Continuing the list of “choicest fruits” found in the garden, v. 14 opens by taking up the aforementioned nard, this time in the singular, and adds saffron (‫כרדם‬, curcuma longa = turmeric or crocus sativus = saffron). The word is a hapax in the Old Testament. The term is used as a homonym for two different plants in different periods, that is, turmeric or saffron. According to Löw, here turmeric (curcuma longa) is intended163. It is a plant from southern Asia and East India, filled with a yellowish substance, which when crushed into powder is called curcumim (Arabic: kurkum) and used to flavor curry dishes or color clothes164. However, both the Talmudic sources and Christian tradition (LXX and V) have understood ‫ כרדם‬as saffron, crocus sativus, a plant whose dried stigmas were used also as a colorant and spice as well as for healing purposes. It is a tiny plant 161. ZOHARY, Plants, p. 205. 162. From Origen onwards many commentators have seen an allusion to Song 1,12 in these New Testament scenes in which a woman anoints Jesus with nard, while he reclines at table. 163. I. LÖW, Die Flora der Juden: I-IV, Wien, R. Löwit, 1924, II, p. 8: “Karkōm wird im Hl. 4,13 ebenso wie im Räucherwerk des jerusalemischen Heiligtums (Kerit 6a, j. Joma IV 41d29), neben indischen Gewürzen genannt und bezeichnet in diesem Zusammenhang nicht den einheimischen Safran, sondern die indische Curcuma, die Gilbwurz, auch gelber Ingwer; indischer Safran genannt (Pf. 22.; L. Löw g. S. 3, 415)”. 164. See ZOHARY, Plants, p. 206.

758

PART III – CHAPTER 11

with bluish-lilac flowers and yellow stigmas165. How precious its product is becomes evident from the fact that 150 flowers are needed for one single gram of saffron166. Next in the list is a plant called ‫קנה‬, elsewhere in the Old Testament also referred to as ‫( קנה בשם‬Exod 30,23) and usually translated as “sweet” or “aromatic cane” or simply calamus. From its mention in Jer 6,20 (“To what purpose does frankincense come to me from Sheba, or the good cane [‫ ]קנה‬from a distant land?”) it can be assumed that it was imported from afar167. It belongs to the family of perennial aromatic grasses imported into the Near East from India or its vicinity. It yields oil used for perfume, cosmetics, flavoring, and medicine168. Calamus is mentioned together with cinnamon (‫)קנמון‬, again a plant that does not originate in Palestine but the tropical parts of Asia. The most important provider in antiquity was China. Its highly valued bark was used for flavoring, incense, and perfume169. Here it appears in a pair with calamus, just as in Exod 30,23, where it is mentioned as an ingredient of the sacred anointing oil: “Take the finest spices: of liquid myrrh five hundred shekels, and sweet smelling cinnamon half as much, that is, two hundred and fifty, and of aromatic cane two hundred and fifty”. In Prov 7,17 cinnamon, calamus, and aloe are the three spices with which “Lady Folly” has perfumed her bed in order to seduce the young man. Frankincense (boswellia sacra) is listed among the Temple treasures (Neh 13,5). It is an important ingredient of incense and perfume, again of exotic origin. It grows in Arabia and East Africa (Somalia) and was imported into Palestine by the Phoenicians via the spice route, a caravan highway which came from East Africa across southern Arabia, and which was also used to import goods from India and farther east170. Other than in the above-mentioned passage of Jer 6,20 in connection with sweet cane, the importation of frankincense from afar, and therefore its costliness, is mentioned in a prophecy of eschatological abundance in Isa 60,6, “A multitude of camels shall cover you, the young camels of Midian and Ephah; all those from Sheba shall come. They shall bring gold and frankincense, and shall proclaim the praise of the Lord”.

165. See LÖW, Flora, II, p. 9. 166. See GERLEMAN, Hohelied, p. 160; ZOHARY, Plants, p. 206. 167. See also Ezek 27,19, the oracle against Tyre: “and wine from Uzal they exchanged for your wares; wrought iron, cassia, and calamus were bartered for your merchandise”. 168. See ZOHARY, Plants, p. 196, who also points out that it is impossible for us to know “which of […] three or four possible spices was intended”. 169. See ibid., p. 202. 170. See ibid., p. 197.

THE WEDDING OF THE GARDEN-BRIDE (SONG 4,12–5,1)

759

The third colon of v. 14 numbers myrrh and aloes among the plants of the exotic garden. Myrrh (commiphora abyssinica) is native to Arabia, Ethiopia, and Somalia171. It is among the most precious and popular resins mentioned in Scripture. It was again used as perfume, medicine, and incense in the Temple, and as an embellishment for the dead. Of its twelve occurrences in the Old Testament, eight are found in the Song (1,13; 3,6; 4,6.14; 5,1.5bis.13). However, the other four offer important indications for its use. Besides its already mentioned use as an ingredient for the sacred anointing oils (Exod 30,23)172, Ps 45,9 says of the royal bridegroom, “your robes are all fragrant with myrrh and aloes and cassia”; it is numbered in Prov 7,17 amongst the means of seduction of Lady Folly, and finally we find in Esth 2,12 a witness to its use as an oil for skin. Aloe (aquillaria agallocha) and myrrh often come in pairs (cf. Ps 45,9; John 19,39). Aloe is again a plant native to East Africa and northern India. A costly perfume is extracted from this plant as well as a balm made from its resin that is used for medical purposes173. “With all best balsams” (commiphora gileadensis): The question is whether ‫ בשם‬here refers to the balsam tree or its product, the resin. The same Hebrew name ‫ בשם‬is employed for both and is translated at times as “balsam tree”, “balsam oil”, or “perfume”. LXX and Vg understood it to refer to the “balsam oil” (LXX: μύρον; Vg: unguentum). However, as the rest of the description refers to the plants growing in the garden, it is to be assumed that the poet is referring to the tree from which the resin is obtained174. It originates from the southern Arabian peninsula175, but already at the time of the Romans it was dispersed into Palestine and growing in Judah. It was cultivated mainly in Jericho and En-Gedi. It had various uses: as an ingredient for the sacred anointing oil (cf. Exod 30,23), as a healing balm on wounds, or as an antidote against snake bites, and in the making of perfume176. It was considered to be the best of all fragrances and was therefore the most costly of perfumes, which is why it is often mentioned in royal contexts in the Bible (1 Kgs 10,2.10 = 2 Chr 9,1.9 with reference to the Queen of Sheba; and 1 Kgs 10,25 = 2 Chr 9,24 with reference to King Solomon). It was used in the Temple (1 Chr 9,29-39) and most importantly in the anointing of the body in preparation for burial 171. See ibid., p. 200. 172. BARBIERO, Cantico, p. 81: “conferisce perciò all’amore un aspetto sacrale”. 173. See ZOHARY, Plants, p. 204; GERLEMAN, Hohelied, p. 161. 174. See GERLEMAN, Hohelied, p. 161. HALOT, however, lists Song 4,14 under the translation of “balsam oil”. 175. See BARBIERO, Cantico, p. 183, with reference to PLINY, Naturalis historia 12.54. 111. 176. See ZOHARY, Plants, p. 198.

760

PART III – CHAPTER 11

(2 Chr 16,14; Jer 34,5). The mention of balsam here echoes its previous mention in the strophe just preceding the passage under study. In Song 4,10 the Lover had praised the love of his sister bride, telling her, “How much better is your love than wine and the fragrance of your oils than any balsam”. In the present context, it is a way of summing up all the best of spices and bringing to conclusion the enumeration of exquisite plants that grow in the metaphorical garden, making them twelve all together. To conclude this section, there are aspects about this garden that stand out as most important. Four of the plants of the garden, finest balsam, myrrh, two kinds of cinnamon, and calamus, are also used for the making of the sacred anointing oils. The vestments of the king are perfumed with myrrh and aloe for the royal wedding, and Lady Folly makes use of the same recipe to seduce her victim. The Book of Sirach will again number cinnamon, myrrh, and frankincense among the perfumes of Wisdom (Sir 24,15: “Like cinnamon, or fragrant balm, or precious myrrh, I give forth perfume … like the odor of incense in the holy place” NAB). These parallels will be taken up again in the symbolic reading of the passage below. The number of the plants listed is also significant as they amount exactly to the number twelve, the number of the tribes of Israel177. With respect to the epithet “bride” (‫ )כלה‬it had been maintained that other than in the Song in the Bible only Israel as a people bears the title “bride”. Now this bride is adorned with the symbolic number of twelve plants, which is another indicator that the Beloved of the Song stands for more than just a simple shepherd girl. Furthermore, the unusual list of exotic plants originating from China to Somalia gives the garden a paradisiacal atmosphere. The use of the word “paradise” has a connotation beyond a simple orchard. It wants to arouse the connotation of paradise in the biblical sense of the word, as is amply confirmed by the enumeration of the plants in this garden178. The early Christian tradition confirms this interpretation in the different versions of The Life of Adam and Eve (first or second century179). According to the 177. BARBIERO, Cantico, p. 188: “In tutto sono dodici piante, un numero che fa pensare alle tribù d’Israele, confermando così quell’identificazione donna = terra promessa già accennata nella terza strofa”. 178. See also ibid., p. 190: “Il termine ‘paradiso’ appare anche nel nostro testo (v.13a), con allusione (almeno nella LXX) al racconto di Gn 2. Al rapporto tra il Cantico e la situazione dell’uomo prima del peccato originale, si è già accennato: il giardino del paradiso e il giardino del Cantico esprimono la stessa nostalgia per un amore incontaminato”. 179. See A.-M. DENIS – J.-C. HAELEWYCK, Introduction à la littérature religieuse judéo-hellénistique. I-II: Pseudépigraphes de l’Ancient Testament, Turnhout, Brepols, 2000, I, p. 28. There is a possibility that the work was written during the time of Herod’s temple,

THE WEDDING OF THE GARDEN-BRIDE (SONG 4,12–5,1)

761

Greek Life of Adam and Eve, Adam was granted permission to take four kinds of aromatic fragrances with him from paradise before his expulsion to use as earthly incense offerings to ensure that God would hear him and answer him: nard, crocus, calamus, and cinnamon180. In the later Latin version of The Life of Adam and Eve we read that when Seth and Eve came near the gates of paradise to beg the Lord for some oil from the tree of mercy as a remedy for Adam’s pains of old age, they were denied the oil, but left with sweet-smelling herbs181. It is the case of the very same fragrances as in the Greek version182. 3. “Spring of Gardens” (Song 4,15) 15

Spring of gardens, well of living water, and flowing from Lebanon.

In v. 15 the same Hebrew word for “spring” (‫ )מעים‬that had been used for the metaphor of the sealed spring in v. 12b is taken up again. The Lover now addresses his Beloved as a “spring of gardens”. With this designation v. 15 combines the two metaphors of v. 12, the garden and the spring, into one expression and thereby brings the Beschreibungslied of vv. 12-15 to its end on the model of a ring composition (see poetic analysis above)183. The Beloved is both the garden and the spring of the garden. After the two verses (13-14) which elaborate the garden image, the poet develops the water image in v. 15. The figure of the “spring of gardens” is expanded by an apposition. The spring is said to be a “well of living waters” (15b) that are “flowing from Lebanon” (15c). The different images will be treated one by one. i.e., between 11 B.C. and 70 A.D., though that is uncertain. “En tout cas”, Denis affirms, “l’écrit semble antérieur au rabbinisme et ne présente aucune polémique antichrétienne”. 180. See L.S.A. WELLS, The Life of Adam and Eve, in H.F.D. SPARKS (ed.), The Apocryphal Old Testament, Oxford, Clarendon, 1984, 141-167, app., 29.3-7; R. NIR, The Aromatic Fragrances of Paradise in the Greek Life of Adam and Eve and the Christian Origin of the Composition, in NT 46 (2004) 20-46, pp. 20-21. 181. See WELLS, Life of Adam and Eve, app., 36.2, 43.3. 182. See NIR, Fragrances, p. 24. The fact that paradise is a place overflowing with fragrances is preserved in many traditions. An Armenian tradition from the Middle Ages which is recorded in Lives of the Desert Fathers tells the story of six Egyptian monks who set out to find paradise. After a journey of six years and numerous trials they came to “the terrible mountain”, which they circumvented “until they came to a place where the perfumes of Eden became noticeable” (Preserved in the Kaffa Lives of the Desert Fathers [Jerusalem, Armenian Patriachate 285 of the year 1430]). See N. STONE, The Kaffa Lives of the Desert Fathers (Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium. Subsidia, 94), Leuven, Peeters, 1997; ID., The Four Rivers That Flowed from Eden, in K. SCHMID – C. RIEDWEG (eds.), Beyond Eden: The Biblical Story of Paradise (Genesis 2–3) (FAT, II/34), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2008, 227-250, esp. p. 228. 183. See also MÜLLER, Hld 4,12–5,1, p. 199.

762

PART III – CHAPTER 11

By calling his Beloved “spring of gardens”, the Lover avows that she is not only a garden of delicacy for him, but even the spring of the garden itself. Much more than a general need for water is being affirmed; for a garden water is the conditio sine qua non. The very existence of a garden expresses the abundance of water and therefore in a symbolic way life in abundance. More than in other regions of the world where gardens can exist by relying also only on rain water, in a desert country like Palestine, where rain is solely assured during winter, a garden can only come into existence and be maintained if it has a water-source of its own. For the Lover of the Song, the love that the Beloved sister bride promises to him has its spring in herself, and is to him a source of sustenance. Yet, the water comes “flowing from Lebanon”. It seems that the Beloved herself draws the waters of love that she gives from a source higher than herself. However, the Beloved is the spring not only of her own garden but of a plurality of gardens, which appear to surround her. Here an aspect of love is expressed in a poetic image that will also return in Song 5,1. Love by nature is never generated in measure but in overflowing abundance. This aspect of the “self-sharing” of love will be even clearer in the exegesis of 5,1. At the same time, the image of a “spring of gardens” reinforces the echo of the garden of Genesis 2–3, which was said to have been the origin of a river that watered the entire garden and from there separated into four branches flowing towards the four corners of the world (Gen 2,1014)184. a) “Well of Water” The image of the “spring of gardens” is amplified in the next colon (15b) by calling her a “well of living waters” (‫)באר מים חיים‬. The image of the “well” will be examined first before turning explicitly to the examination of the symbol of “living water”. A well (‫)באר‬, though it is a manmade hewn shaft, is, contrary to a cistern, not dependent on the collection of rain water (cf. 2 Kgs 18,31), but is a self-sustaining provider of water drawn from an aquifer. In contrast to a spring, however, a well does not release its water into a stream or a river but collects its fresh water supply for the persons or animals that come to draw from it. The same expression “well of living water” recurs also in Gen 26,19: “Isaac’s servants dug in the valley and found there a well of living water (‫”)באר מים חיים‬. Often a well is at the origin of a human settlement. Because of their eminent 184. See STONE, Four Rivers, p. 229: “The assertion that a spring of living water existed in the Garden of Eden is readily understandable to us today. In mythical terms we would say that these are waters of life, drinking water, water of purification and so forth”.

THE WEDDING OF THE GARDEN-BRIDE (SONG 4,12–5,1)

763

importance for human life in a desert country, wells soon took on a figurative or religious connotation within the Old Testament. In Prov 5,15, just as in the present passage, the term “well” is employed for one’s own wife as a source of sexual pleasures. In Jer 2,13, the word ‫ באר‬is, however, used in the sense of “cistern” as a designation for the idols to which the people turn for their own destruction instead of turning to God, the “fountain (‫ )מקור‬of living water”. It is interesting that the LXX makes, however, a clear distinction in the translation of ‫באר‬. In Jer 2,13 where ‫ באר‬does not designate a well but a cistern, the LXX renders it with the term λάκκος (cistern) and not, as in the Song, with the term πηγή. Instead, Jeremiah reproaches the people for having forsaken God, the πηγὴν ὕδατος ζωῆς “spring of living water”, a term which recalls the double designation of the Beloved in the Song as πηγὴ κήπων (spring of gardens) and φρέαρ ὕδατος ζῶντος (well of living water). In the exegesis of Song 4,12, a possible affinity with Prov 5,15-18 has been briefly considered but rejected for the reason that in Prov 5,16-17 the metaphoric ‫ מעין‬applies to the man and not the woman. Here, however, there is an allusion to the aforesaid passage, as both compare the woman to a well (‫)באר‬: Song 4,12.15 12 A closed garden, my sister bride; a closed garden, a sealed spring (‫)מעין‬. 15 Spring (‫ )מעין‬of gardens, well (‫)באר‬ of living water (‫)מים‬, and flowing (‫ )ונזלים‬from Lebanon.

Prov 5,15-16.18 (my translation) 15 Drink water from your own cistern (‫)בור‬, and streams (‫ )ונזלים‬from your own well (‫)באר‬. 16 Should your spring (‫ )מעין‬scatter outside, in the squares the streams of water (‫?)מים‬ 18 May your fountain be blessed, rejoice in the woman of your youth.

As apparent from the two texts, there is a remarkable overlap of terms (well, water, flowing, spring) and metaphors (water, well) between Song 4,12. 15 and Prov 5,15-18. Prov 5,18 clearly indicates that drinking water from one’s own cistern or streams of one’s own well (5,15) means to rejoice in the love of one’s own wife (Prov 5,18). The metaphor of water is here a symbol for the pleasures of the sexual encounter, while the source of this pleasure of love, the well from which the water flows, is a symbol for the woman herself. The garden poem of Song 4,12-15 is not so obvious in the decryption of its metaphors, but Prov 5,15-18 sheds light on the meaning of this figure of speech, which appears to have been commonly comprehensible.

764

PART III – CHAPTER 11

b) “Living Water” The water coming from the well, which is the Beloved, is said to be “living water”. The symbol of “living water” is of major importance within the Old Testament. Water is per se the symbol of life185. Overall the term “living water” occurs nine times, four of which refer to fresh water which is to be used in the purification rites (Lev 14,5.50; 15,13; Num 19,17). Of the remaining five, one refers to the well dug by the servants of Jacob (Gen 26,19), two refer to God as the “fountain of living water” (Jer 2,13; 17,13), one to the Bride of the Song (4,15), and one to the living water that will go forth from the eschatological Jerusalem according to the prophecy of Zechariah (Zech 14,8). Of importance to this study, however, is the symbolic use the Old Testament makes of the motif of the source (variously called ‫מקור‬, ‫מעין‬, or ‫ )עין‬of living or life-giving water. For the Old Testament God is the fountain of living water186. The God of Israel is the giver of life, that is, the one who out of his omnipotence makes water spring forth in the desert (Ps 74,15; Isa 41,18) and gives Israel a land with hewn cisterns that they did not hew (Deut 6,11)187. In the biblical worldview, natural springs are ultimately “the bounty of the Lord, the supernatural source of sustenance and salvation”188. The reference to the Beloved as a “well of living water” thus associates her to God the only true “fountain of living water” and puts her in a divine perspective189. Moreover, the Temple of Jerusalem, the place where God has made his dwelling, is a source of life-giving waters, a theologoumenon clearly expressed in the prayer of Ps 36,8-10: 8 9 10

How precious is thy steadfast love, O God! The children of men take refuge in the shadow of thy wings. They feast on the abundance of thy house, and thou givest them drink from the river of thy delights. For with thee is the fountain of life (‫;)מקוֹר ַחיִּ ים‬ ְ in thy light we see the light.

185. See also BARBIERO, Cantico, p. 199. ְ in ThWAT, I, Stuttgart, Kohlhammer, 1973, 500-503, p. 503. 186. See J.-G. HEINTZ, ‫ב ֵאר‬, In the NT this same concept will be transferred to Jesus (John 4,14; Rev 21,6). ַ in ThWAT, IV, Stuttgart, Kohlhammer, 187. See R.E. CLEMENTS – H.-J. FABRY, ‫מיִ ם‬, 1984, 843-866, p. 860: “Gott gilt als die Quelle lebendigen Wassers, eine sinnenfällige Metapher für die lebensspendende Kraft JHWHs, sowohl als Geber von Fruchtbarkeit als auch von Heil und Gerechtigkeit (Jer 17,13). JHWH ist die Quelle des Lebens und des Segens für sein Volk”. 188. M. FISHBANE, The Well of Living Water: A Biblical Motif and Its Ancient Transformations, in “Sha’arei Talmon”, Winona Lake, IN, Eisenbrauns, 1992, 3-16, p. 5. 189. See BARBIERO, Song, p. 229.

THE WEDDING OF THE GARDEN-BRIDE (SONG 4,12–5,1)

765

It is immediately apparent how the image of a natural spring is being used in a figurative way on “two planes: the first the concrete temple, which is portrayed here in terms of a stream of spiritual renewal; while the second is God himself, who is presented as the fountain of all life and light”190. Furthermore, the well and water motif in connection to the Temple is a motif that will figure prominently in eschatological promises. The prophet Isaiah speaks of water that the people of Israel will draw with joy “from the wells of salvation” (Isa 12,3). Joel announces that “On that day […] a spring shall come forth from the house of the Lord and water the valley of Shittim” (Joel 4,18, a prophecy we will encounter again in the exegesis of Song 5,1). Zechariah speaks of the “living water” flowing forth from Jerusalem (Zech 14,8). Though Ezekiel does not employ the word “well” or “fountain” he does, however, depict the Temple as the source of healing waters that will gush forth from it towards the east, changing the stagnant waters of the Dead Sea into fresh water “so everything will live where the river goes” (Ezek 47,1-12). All these eschatological prophecies have the common topos of the house of the Lord, the Temple, being the source of life by means of being a source of water. Finally, in the wisdom literature one finds the association of wells with wisdom. The motif of a well, spring, or fountain is found in connection with the teaching of the wise in several places: “The mouth of the righteous is a fountain of life (‫)מקור חיים‬, but the mouth of the wicked conceals violence” (Prov 10,11). Similarly, “The teaching of the wise is a fountain of life (‫)מקור חיים‬, that one may avoid the snares of death” (Prov 13,14), and “The words of a man’s mouth are deep waters; the fountain of wisdom (‫ )מקור חכמה‬is a gushing stream” (Prov 18,4). The teaching of the sages of Israel was considered a living source of help and guidance (cf. Sir 24,30-33). It is significant that the LXX employs the term πηγὴ ζωῆς in its translation of all three occurrences. What has become apparent from this brief overview of the use of the well of water motif in the Old Testament is that the motif is used on several levels that are still connected to each other. On the one hand, God is the only true “fount of living water”. On the other hand, this fountain is communicated to man by two different means: God’s presence in the worship 190. FISHBANE, Living Water, p. 5. Noteworthy too is the synonymous parallelism that is created between “thy house” and “the river of thy delights”. “Thy delights” reads in Hebrew ‫עדניך‬, which has the same root as the Hebrew word for “Eden”. B. KEDAR-KOPFSTEIN, ‫עדן‬, in ThWAT, V, Stuttgart, Kohlhammer, 1987, 1094-1103, p. 1096, perceptively observes, “In dem Bach vom sättigenden Haus und dem erquickenden Bach mag man den Umriß der auf Jerusalem übertragenen Paradiesvorstellung von Fülle und dem Segensstrom entdecken, der durch die Wahl der an Eden anklingenden Vokabel noch unterstrichen wird”.

766

PART III – CHAPTER 11

of the Temple, and the teaching of the sages of Israel. The reference to the Beloved as a “well of living water” that stands in association to God as a “fountain of living water” is therefore significant, for it puts the Beloved of the Song into a divine perspective191. A similar concept stands behind the affirmation of Song 8,6: “[S]trong as death is love, hard as Sheol is jealousy, its flashes are flashes of fire, flame of YH”. The final syllable of the expression “flame of YH” (‫)להבתיה‬ is arguably a short form of the ineffable name of God, ‫ יה‬instead of ‫יהוה‬. This verse constitutes the only place in the entire Song where the name of God appears, however allusively192. The composition of a substantive with the divine name is a Hebrew way of creating a superlative193, thus expressing simultaneously that there are no flames conceivably hotter than the flames of love, and on a metaphorical level, that human love is itself an experience of divine love. Thus on the one hand, in describing his Beloved by what is elsewhere only said of God, that she is a “well of living water”, the poet puts the Beloved in a divine perspective. On the other hand, it may be surmised that the poet intentionally gives attributes to the Beloved that are elsewhere in Scripture found in association with the city of Jerusalem and its Temple, or the Torah and divine Wisdom. c) “Flowing from Lebanon” The living water of the well is said to be “flowing from Lebanon” (‫נזלים‬, 15c). At first sight this seems to be an oxymoron since the fresh water of a well comes ipso facto from the ground and does not come running down mountains. Otherwise, we are not speaking of a well. Some have proposed that the well might be said to be fed by a source that is channeled underground from the Lebanon mountains. However, the image evoked is important. The poet uses an image well known to the people of Palestine to illustrate the freshness of the water. In ancient Israel, the epitome of fresh running waters was precisely the water gushing down from the Lebanon mountains. Nowhere else in the country was the water supply as sure and as abundant as in the region called Anti-Lebanon, where the snowmelt of 191. See BARBIERO, Cantico, p. 199: “Frequentemente la metafora dell’acqua è applicata a JHWH: egli è la ‘fonte di acqua viva’ (Ger 2,13; 17,13). Nel nostro brano l’acqua è simbolo dell’amore che la donna può dare al suo uomo. L’amore occupa, dunque, il posto che Geremia attribuisce a Dio”. 192. To those commentators who want to deny any link with the divine name, BEAUCHAMP, L’un et l’autre Testament. Tome 2, p. 180, responds rightly: “Les commentateurs ont raison de respecter la discrétion du texte. Mais supposer que ‘YAH’ venant ici, ne veuille à peu près rien dire, c’est faire peu de cas de ce qui est poème”. 193. See KEEL, Hohelied, p. 250.

THE WEDDING OF THE GARDEN-BRIDE (SONG 4,12–5,1)

767

Mount Hermon came cascading down the rocks194. As a contrast to the infidelity of the people of Israel, the prophet Jeremiah uses the same image of water flowing from Lebanon: “Does the snow of Lebanon leave the rock of the field? (Or) will the foreign cold flowing (‫ )נוזלים‬water(s) be plucked out?” (Jer 18,14). In the same way, the love of the Beloved will never be exhausted. As the waters of Lebanon cannot be plucked out, so her love will always flow195. The Beloved is said to be the source of “living water” and yet this water comes from a place higher than herself. It is the place from which she herself originated, but she is not the place itself. There is something numinous about Lebanon in the entire poem, something divine, which is the ultimate source of the living water196. As seen above (I.1, p. 721), the passage under study encompasses two strophes of a longer poem, “the poem of the sister bride” (4,8–5,1). Lebanon figures prominently in the broader poem. It is the place from which the Lover calls his bride, it is a numinous and divine abode (4,8), the scent of her gowns is like the fragrance of Lebanon, and now the water from the garden’s well is said to come flowing from Lebanon. The water thus has in a figurative sense the same origin as the bride herself. On the literal level Lebanon is meant to indicate that the Beloved comes from a far-away, exotic place197. It is a region that used to be home to lions and panthers (4,8). In the book of Hosea, the fragrance of Lebanon, which is considered to be exquisite, is employed in an eschatological prophecy as a symbol for the restored Israel in the time of salvation: “They shall blossom as the vine, their fragrance shall be like that of Lebanon” (Hos 14,7). Lebanon is in fact loaded with symbolic meaning. It is a paradise to the Hebrew imagination and considered the epitome of earthly glory. Every 194. The mountains mentioned in Song 4,8 (Amana, Seir, and Hermon) specify that the poet has the mountain range in mind which today is referred to as the so-called AntiLebanon. Zakovitch identifies Amana with the mountain Jebel Zabadani, where the Amana River has its source. See ZAKOVITCH, Hohelied, p. 192. 195. See BARBIERO, Cantico, p. 199: “Il ‘Libano’ ha qui chiaramente un significato simbolico, non realistico, conforme a tutto il contesto”. 196. See also ibid.: “La simbologia del Libano è molteplice: al v. 8 esso è luogo di provenienza della donna, e quindi dell’amore. Al v. 11cd il Libano è la donna stessa, secondo la metafora introdotta al v. 6. Nel nostro versetto il Libano è posto in connessione con l’acqua. […] Le nevi perenne del Libano garantiscono la perennità delle sue sorgenti. Nel brano di Geremia il Libano diviene simbolo di JHWH (cfr. v. 15 ‘Il mio popolo mi ha dimenticato’). Una simile valenza è percepibile anche nel testo del Cantico. Se l’acqua proviene da una parte dalla donna, dall’altra dalle nevi del monte, è segno che l’amore, presente nella donna, proviene da qualcosa più in alto di lei, cioè da Dio. Per questo è perenne, non si esaurisce mai (‘Le grandi acque non possono spegnere l’amore’, Ct 8,6)”. 197. See ZAKOVITCH, Hohelied, p. 192.

768

PART III – CHAPTER 11

aspect of Lebanon echoes its supreme beauty and the embodiment of fertility: its wine (Hos 14,7), its water, its cedars, which Solomon requested in order to build the Temple of Jerusalem (1 Kgs 5,20); to the Psalmist the region serves as a metaphor for abundance and fertility in the land of the messianic king (Ps 72,16: “May there be abundance of grain in the land […] may its fruit be like Lebanon”). Lebanon symbolizes an echo of Eden198. In the allegory of Ezekiel 31 on Egypt, Pharaoh is called a cedar of Lebanon, which the “cedars in the garden of God could not rival” with (v. 8) “and all the trees of Eden envied it, that were in the garden of God” (v. 9). Here Lebanon is implicitly equated to both the garden of God and Eden. The waters flowing from Lebanon are thus waters that have their origin in the divine abode, that is in paradise. According to the Targum, the living waters flowing from Lebanon in Song 4,15 symbolize here the living waters flowing forth from the Temple199. According to the Targum, the “well of living water” stands for the “words of the Torah” and Lebanon stands for the Temple Jerusalem. A direct relation between Lebanon and the eschatological Temple of Jerusalem is also implied in Isa 60,13: The glory of Lebanon shall come to you: the cypress, the plane and the pine, to beautify the place of my sanctuary; and I will make the place of my feet glorious.

And Ps 92,13-14 reads: The righteous flourish like the palm tree, and grow like a cedar in Lebanon. They are planted in the house of the Lord, they flourish in the courts of our God.

According to Vermes, the late Second Temple tradition that equates Lebanon and the Temple has been fixed somewhere between the fifth and the second century B.C., and has its roots in the Song of Songs200. Read in the light of this Lebanon–Temple equation, the spring of living waters that 198. See L. RYKEN – J.C. WILHOIT – T. LONGMAN, Lebanon, in Dictionary of Biblical Imagery, Downers Grove, IL, IVP Academic, 1998, 498-499, p. 499. 199. See also ALEXANDER, Targum of Canticles, p. 144, n. 60, where he explains: “In keeping with the close association between study and worship in Rabbinic thought, Tg. sees the Temple not only as a place of sacrifice but also as a place for the study of the Torah. It is the seat of the Sanhedrin and a school for instruction in the Law […]. For the general sentiment here cf. m. ᾿Abot 1:2, ‘On three things the world stands: on Torah (= study of Torah), on the Temple service, and on deeds of loving kindness’”. 200. VERMES, Scripture and Tradition, pp. 37-38: “It must a priori, be supposed that during the centuries in question some new factor came into force to fix, make known, and impose this exegetical tradition. The intermediary appears to have been the Song of Songs”. Vermes’ argument is easy to follow: (a) the Song of Songs was composed somewhere during this period; (b) it is the only post-exilic book that gives special importance to Lebanon;

THE WEDDING OF THE GARDEN-BRIDE (SONG 4,12–5,1)

769

flows from Lebanon indicates that the Beloved of the Song is equated to the Temple of Jerusalem, which will be a source of living waters to the Land and people of Israel, waters that are ultimately of divine origin. With its many exotic plants and the extraordinary irrigation with living waters that originate from Lebanon, the garden described in Song 4,1214 is not an ordinary “kitchen-garden” or the kind of allotment the ordinary man would have (nor even dream of having) in his backyard. Rather, this garden corresponds in every detail to the description of an ANE (both Assyrian and Persian) pleasure garden (see below, III.1.b and III.1.c, pp. 790 and 794). The Hebrew Bible records the existence of such royal gardens in Jerusalem (2 Kgs 21,18.26; 25,4) and the book of Qohelet expressly associates King Solomon with the construction of such gardens and paradises. During the time of the Persian occupation a garden of this very sort was to be found in Ramat Raḥel, the Persian administrative center just a few kilometers to the south of Jerusalem201. On the anthropological level of the Song then, the Lover perceives and describes his Beloved as a luxurious paradisiacal pleasure garden. He thereby expresses that her whole being evokes in him the idea of absolute bliss, primordial happiness, and the sense of being in an ideal environment where man, free from necessities, lives to enjoy and all his desires are satiated. 4. Invocation of the Winds and the Lover (Song 4,16) a Wake up North and come South b blow upon my garden, let its balsams flow. c Let my Lover come into his garden d and eat its choicest fruits.

In response to the Lover’s admiration of his sister bride, the Beloved now raises her voice. It has been suggested that v. 16 should be split into two voices, attributing cola 16a.b to the Lover’s voice and 16c.d to the Beloved’s voice202. Thus the Lover would say: “Wake up North and come South, blow upon my garden, let its balsams flow” (16a.b) and the Beloved answer: “Let my Lover come into his garden and eat its choicest fruits” (16c.d). This suggestion is based on the expression ‫( גני‬my garden). The (c) he presumes that the Song of Songs was inserted into the canon on the basis of its symbolical significance. 201. See O. LIPSCHITS – Y. GADOT – D. LANGGUT, The Riddle of Ramat Raḥel: The Archaeology of a Royal Persian Period Edifice, in Transeuphratène 41 (2012) 57-79; and GROSS – GADOT – LIPSCHITS, Ramat Raḥel. 202. See POPE, Song, p. 498; KEEL, Hohelied, p. 169.

770

PART III – CHAPTER 11

garden of the Song is elsewhere said to belong to the Lover (cf. 5,1 the Lover speaking, “I have come into my garden”; 6,2 the Beloved speaking about the Lover, “My Lover has gone down to his garden”), which could indicate that here, in 16a.b, the Lover continues to speak. On the other hand, there are also passages in which the Beloved refers to herself and precisely her body with the first person personal pronoun, e.g., “my vineyard” (1,5)203. The carefully constructed poetry of the verse, with two cola of four words each opened by an imperative (16a: ‫ ;עורי‬16b: ‫ )הפיחי‬followed by two cola with three words each introduced by a jussive (16c: ‫ ;יבא‬16d: ‫)יאכל‬, suggest continuity in voice204. This voice is the Beloved’s, as is clear from the injunction in 16c: “Let my Lover come into his garden”. The Lover’s voice, on the other hand, is heard again in 5,1 where he proclaims, “I have come into my garden my sister bride […]”, a sentence characterized by its consistent use of perfects. a) “Wake up North” “Wake up”: the Hebrew verb employed to arouse the North wind ‫עור‬ has the basic meaning of “to excite, stir up” in the sense of becoming active from a formerly passive stage and causing the addressee to remain in that state of alertness. In a number of occurrences, the situation of sleep is presupposed. However, ‫ עור‬does not refer to a mere awakening from sleep, for which the root ‫ יקץ‬would be employed, but rather “a condition of being stirred into action, i.e., to a kind of second stage of awakening or of being awake after the actual activity of waking up”205. This is precisely the case two verses later in Song 5,2: “I slept, but my heart was awake”. Here in 4,16 the invocation “awake North” is to be understood in a figurative way, “with the wind sleeping in the language of poetry”206. The garden had so far been described as a kind of a literary still-life. Now the image comes to life. By the poetic device of pathetic fallacy the winds are being personified as if they were sleeping heroes207. The reader/hearer sees the powers of nature awake before his inner eye, which enter into the garden so as to bring life and motion into the plants of the garden. “North” and “South” refer to the typical winds of Israel. Though this is the only time in the Old Testament that ‫ צפון‬alone refers to the north 203. 204. 205. 1185. 206. 207.

See ROBERT – TOURNAY – FEUILLET, Cantique, p. 187. See also GERLEMAN, Hohelied, p. 157. J. SCHREINER, ‫עור‬, in ThWAT, V, Stuttgart, Kohlhammer, 1987, 1184-1190, pp. 1184Ibid. See RAVASI, Cantico, p. 393.

THE WEDDING OF THE GARDEN-BRIDE (SONG 4,12–5,1)

771

wind and not simply to the geographical direction north, the meaning is evident from the following invocation of the south wind (‫)תימן‬, an expression that recurs also elsewhere to indicate the south wind208. This is further apparent from the request to “north” and “south” to cause the garden to waft and from the fact that the imperatives ‫ באי‬,‫ עורי‬, and ‫ הפיח‬stand in the second person feminine which implies a supposed ‫( רוח‬wind)209. The north wind is a particularly cold wind, while the south wind brings hot air from the desert. They constitute a merism, which seems to concentrate the entire universe around its navel, the garden210. The winds are invoked to blow (‫ פוח‬hifil) on the garden. According to Friedrich Reiterer, the basic meaning of ‫ פוח‬is found in Song 4,16 “where the quality of the blowing wind is intended to elucidate the nature of what is expressed figuratively in a lyrical context”211. The Beloved desires the coming of her Lover into his garden, which is his coming to her. Before she expresses this desire explicitly in 16c.d, she calls on the winds to rise up (‫עור‬, cf. Jer 25,32: “[B]ehold a great evil is going forth from nation to nation, a great tempest is stirring [‫ ]עור‬from the farthest parts”) and to come (‫בוא‬, cf. Hos 13,15: “[T]he east wind, the wind of the Lord, shall come [‫]בוא‬, rising from the wilderness”) and blow (‫)פוח‬. As the parallels in Jer 25,32 and Hos 13,5 show, the choice of words indicates a strong wind, as is also implied from a parallel image in Sir 43,16-17: “At his [the Lord’s] appearing the mountains are shaken; at his will the south wind blows. The voice of his thunder rebukes the earth, so do the tempests from the north and the whirlwind”. As is clear for anyone living in Palestine, the north and south winds are forces whose blowing cannot be compared to a gentle wafting abroad of fragrances212. The winds are to effect the flowing (‫ )נזל‬of the garden’s balms. The verb ‫ נזל‬is used in Hebrew, contrary to other Semitic languages, mainly in reference to water in the widest sense of “to flow”213. Otherwise, in poetic text it is several times used in a figurative sense. Its basic meaning is most clearly expressed in connection with water pouring down from heaven (cf. Job 36,27-28: “For he [God] draws up the drops of water, he 208. Ps 78,26 “He caused the east wind to blow in the heavens, and by his power he led out the south wind (‫ ;”)תימן‬Zech 9,14: “Then the LORD will appear over them, and his arrow go forth like lightning; the Lord GOD will sound the trumpet, and march forth in the whirlwinds of the south (‫”)תימן‬. 209. See LYS, Le plus beau chant de la création, p. 197: “comme ces deux termes (‫צפון‬ and ‫ )תימן‬sont normalement masculins, mais sont féminins ici et à Es 43,6, on pourrait penser à rûaḥ sous entendu”. 210. See RAVASI, Cantico, p. 393. 211. F. REITERER, ‫פוח‬, in ThWAT, VI, Stuttgart, Kohlhammer, 1989, 538-543, p. 540. 212. See ibid. 213. See MAIBERGER, ‫נזל‬, pp. 327-328.

772

PART III – CHAPTER 11

distills his mist in rain, which the skies pour down [‫ ]נזל‬and drop upon man abundantly”). Here the balsam-plants are to let their balsam flow, which is an aromatic resinous substance which exudes from the plant214. Usually the balsam exudes in drops that accumulate in clumps. However, by employing the expression “let flow”, it is understood that those balsams are to be poured out in great quantities in order to attract the Lover by their aromatic fragrances. In the direction of a reversio, the Beloved takes up the elements of the garden previously mentioned by the Lover. While he had first mentioned the choicest fruits (v. 13) and then summed up all the plants of the garden in the expression “and all excellence of balsams” (v. 14), she names the latter first, commands the balms of her garden to flow, and then invites the Lover to come and eat its choicest fruits. The balms of the garden serve to evoke in a summary fashion all the aromatic plants previously enumerated in vv. 13-14. The blowing of the winds is to cause them to spread out their fragrance, far beyond the walls of the garden, and thereby attract the Lover to his garden, which is the Beloved. She wants her Lover to be attracted to her physically. b) “Let My Lover Come” Now for the first time in the poem we learn about the Beloved’s desire for intimacy with the Lover. Though her speech remains figurative, the meaning behind it is unmistakable. The verb ‫( בוא‬to come) can have a sexual connotation (cf. Gen 6,4; 16,2.4; Deut 22,13; Ps 51,2b). This is especially true for the Song, where the verb ‫ בוא‬is employed several times to express the union of the two lovers (cf. 2,4; 3,4; 8,2). Here, however, it is used as a double entendre. The Beloved is literally calling her Lover into the metaphorical garden and thereby invites him to join himself to her, who is his garden. The same image of descending into the garden is also used in Song 6,2.11. The meaning of the metaphor becomes even clearer in the Beloved’s explicit invitation for him to eat from the garden’s choicest fruits in the following colon (16d). As Barbiero points out, eating and drinking are the archetypical metaphors for sexual union in the Old Testament215. Lady Folly thus seduces the one without sense into the adulterous act in Prov 9,17, 214. See ZOHARY, Plants, p. 199. 215. See BARBIERO, Cantico, p. 204. See also MÜLLER, Hld 4,12–5,1, p. 193: “Essen und Trinken (sind) […] eine Metapher für den geschlechtlichen Umgang”. For a general study on the topic see A. BRENNER, The Food of Love: Gendered Food and Food Imagery in the Song of Songs, in Semeia 86 (1999) 101-112.

THE WEDDING OF THE GARDEN-BRIDE (SONG 4,12–5,1)

773

by saying “Stolen water is sweet, and bread eaten in secret is pleasant”. Prov 30,20 then asserts, “This is the way of an adulteress: she eats and wipes her mouth and says, ‘I have done nothing wrong’”. However, eating and drinking as a metaphor for the sexual act occurs not only in connection with an illicit sexual act, as might be inferred from the passages cited. The fact that every marriage is celebrated with a meal symbolizes the sharing of the community in the act of love, which is a mutual self-gift of the lovers. The same metaphor of eating choice fruits as a reference to the sexual union of the lovers occurs once more and even more explicitly in Song 7,12-14, where the Beloved invites the Lover to come out into the fields and vineyards with her promise: “[T]here I will give you my love”. The giving of love is then made explicit in the words, “The mandrakes give forth fragrance, and over our doors are all choice fruits, new as well as old, which I have laid up for you, O my beloved” (NRSV). The question arises whether there is an allusion to the fruits of paradise in the choice fruits of Song 4,16. The term “fruit” (‫ )פרי‬appears in Gen 3,2.3.6, and following Müller216, Barbiero sees an erotic background in the Genesis story, analogous to that of the Song. In both cases there is talk of eating a fruit and in both cases the woman offers the fruit to the man217. However, as Barbiero also notes, the remarkable difference is that while the eating of the fruit is forbidden in Genesis 2–3, there is not a shadow of evil or sin attached to the eating of the fruit of the garden in the Song. It is rather as if the Song were to represent the perfect love relationship between man and woman, not in a “prelapsarian” world like Genesis 2, but in an ideal world where the original harmony between the two is not only restored but even raised to a new realm, where the eating of fruits implies no danger, but rather the realization of maximal joy and unity. The same idea is conveyed in Song 7,11, which sounds like an inversion of the postlapsarian curse of Gen 3,16, “Your desire shall be for your husband and he shall rule over you”; in Song 7,11 on the other hand the Beloved can rejoice, “I am my beloved’s, and his desire is for me”. 5. The Union of the Lovers (Song 5,1a-d) a I have come into my garden my sister bride b I have plucked my myrrh with my balsam c I have eaten my honeycomb with my honey d I have drunk my wine with my milk. 216. See H.P. MÜLLER, Erkenntnis und Verfehlung: Prototypen und Antitypen zu Gen 2–3 in der altorientalischen Literatur, in T. RENDTORFF (ed.), Glaube und Toleranz: Das theologische Erbe der Aufklärung, Gütersloh, Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1982, 191-210. 217. See BARBIERO, Cantico, p. 204.

774

PART III – CHAPTER 11

Taking up the Beloved’s invitation from Song 4,16c the Lover responds, “I have come into my garden, my sister bride”. The appellation “my sister bride” is already familiar to the reader from v. 12a. “Bride” is the appellation from which the entire poem 4,8–5,1 derives its name and which is mentioned here for the last time, thus bringing the poem to an end. The Lover confirms that the garden is now his and that he has come to take possession of it. There is no more talk of it being closed or sealed. There need not be, for she herself has invited him to come in and thereby opened up the imaginary gates of the garden. The Lover’s coming into the garden is a metaphor for their sexual union, as is typically expressed by the Hebrew verb ‫( אוב‬to come). The Lover then goes on to describe the pleasures that the possession of his Beloved offers him. Under the metaphor of plucking myrrh and balsam, from among all the different plants mentioned in vv. 13-14, he describes his boundless enjoyment in the scents of his garden-Beloved. The physical consummation of their love is then described in 5,1 in the metaphor of eating and drinking honey and milk (5,1c.d). This is the only time in the entire Song where the verbs for drinking (‫ )שתה‬and eating (‫ )אכל‬are employed in the same verse218. This is significant as, according to nearly all studies on the structure of the Song, 5,1 constitutes the center and peak of the book. The center of the book is found in the intimate union of the two Lovers in the image of eating honey and drinking wine and milk followed by an invitation to join in what appears to be a wedding feast. As often happens in poetry, different metaphors have been superimposed that demand to be treated separately in the exegesis of the passage. It is to be noted that the poet did not choose just any random products of the land, but two that are loaded with Old Testament significance. Whereas the allusions to the paradisiacal garden of Genesis 2–3 have thus far been in the foreground of the garden (the Beloved), this garden now yields fruits, characteristic not of the primordial garden but of the Promised Land. The fruits of enjoyment that the Lover mentions are “honeycomb with honey”, which he has eaten, and “wine and milk”, which he has drunk. Yet it is not the first time that these fruits of the land are brought into connection with the Beloved. Already in Song 4,11 the Lover had exclaimed in admiration: “your lips drip with honey (‫)נוף‬219, honey (‫ )דבש‬and milk (‫ )חלב‬are under your lips”. 218. Though allusions to drinks like wine and pomegranate juice occur elsewhere (2,4; 8,1), the verb ‫ שתה‬occurs only here. ‫ אכל‬occurs only here and in 4,16. 219. Hebrew distinguishes between “honey in the comb” ‫ נוף‬and “honey” as such ‫דבש‬. This distinction cannot be rendered adequately in the English translation.

THE WEDDING OF THE GARDEN-BRIDE (SONG 4,12–5,1)

775

According to the Pentateuch, the Promised Land is a land that “flows with milk and honey” (‫)חלב ודבש‬220. Even though there are other products that characterize the land – wheat, barley, vine, fig trees, pomegranate, and olive trees (cf. Deut 8,8) – none of them epitomize the Promised Land in the same way as do milk and honey221. These two stand parallel at the end of each colon (5,1c and 5,1d) so as to signify that they belong together as a pair. At this point it becomes clear that the poet breaks with the garden image that he had maintained since Song 4,12. While honey might be found in a garden, the milk would imply the presence of milk-producing animals, of which there has been no hint at all. On the contrary, so far all foodstuffs mentioned have been purely vegetarian. By evoking the honey and the milk the poet now takes the mind of the reader/hearer away from the reminiscence of the primordial paradise and towards a land, the secure possession of which is still pending222. Or, as Lefebvre and Montalembert remark, “aller à sa rencontre (la bien-aimé), c’est s’avancer vers un nouveau pays, riche de promesse”223. Yet another fruit is combined with the pair of honey and milk. The Lover says: “I have drunk my wine and my milk”. Wine is, of course, the symbol par excellence for the ecstatic nature of sexual pleasure. Thus within the Song the love and caresses of both the Lovers is said to be better than wine (1,2: “O that you would kiss me with the kisses of your mouth! For your love is better than wine”; 1,4: “we will extoll your love more than wine”; 4,10: “How sweet is your love, my sister, my bride! how much better is your love than wine”). And the kisses of the Beloved 220. Cf. Exod 3,8.17; 13,5; 33,3; Lev 20,24; Num 13,27; Deut 6,3; 11,9; 26,9.15; 31,20. 221. On the symbolism of “milk” and “honey” see F.C. FENSHAM, An Ancient Tradition of the Fertility of Palestine, in PEQ 98 (1966) 166-167. 222. Cf. Exod 3,8.17; 13,5; 33,3; Lev 20,24; Num 13,27; 14,8; 16,13; Deut 6,3; 11,9; 26,9.15; 27,3; 31,20; Josh 5,6; Jer 11,5; 32,22; Ezek 20,5.6; Sir 39,26; 46,8; Bar 1,20. In an exhaustive study on the foodstuffs in the Song, Athalya Brenner observes a similar resemblance between the garden of the Song, the Garden of Eden, and the Land of Israel: “In the biblical context, it is worth noting … that the garden of the SoS is a therapeutic reflection of the primordial garden and the primeval order of things (Genesis 1–3) […] Quantitatively ‘wine’ heads the list, with ‘pomegranates’ in second place. This is in keeping with the stereotypical conception of the ‘Promised Land’ as an idyllic garden in which vines, pomegranates and fig trees grow [wild?] and bring forth fruit in abundance (Num 13:23) […] Of the sixteen foodstuffs mentioned, six are fruits (nut, raisins, pomegranates, figs, dates, peaches/apricots). If we add to these date, honey, and pomegranate juice, the fruit list would make half of the whole foodstuff list. Indeed, of the seven types of food that typify the land: ‘a land of wheat and barley, of vines and fig trees and pomegranates, a land of olive trees and honey’ (Deut 8:8; cf. the slightly different formulations in 2 Kgs 18:32 and 2 Chron 31:5), only barley is missing”. BRENNER, Food of Love, p. 105. 223. LEFEBVRE – MONTALEMBERT, Homme, femme, Dieu, p. 382.

776

PART III – CHAPTER 11

are compared to exquisite wine metaphorically going down smoothly and “gliding over lips and teeth”224. In the Bible, the combination of wine and milk stands in surplus to what is essential for life, namely water and bread (cf. Isa 55,1)225. Wine and milk constitute a merism, which expresses the totality of agricultural and dairy products and thereby the abundance of the fruits of man’s work. Wine in the Bible is the epitome of pleasure. It “cheers gods and men” (Judg 9,13226); it is to “gladden the heart of men” (Ps 104,15); it “gladdens life” (Qoh 10,19), and is said to have “been created to make man glad” (Sir 31,27). Through the metaphors of eating and drinking milk, honey, and wine, the Lover expresses the total fulfillment of all the desires a human being could possibly have, from the most essential to the abundance of that which is unnecessary, but makes for the ecstatic joy of life. The combination of milk, wine, and honey is not only a biblical idea. It appears as a known grouping in the ancient Mediterranean world. In Euripides, Bacchae I 143, for example, a plain “flows with milk, it flows with wine, it flows with the nectar of bees”. In this context, it designates the abundance that comes to the Phrygian land through the rites of the mother goddess Rhea, and the dances in honor of Dionysus (I 129-165). Religious ritual thus adopts these archetypal images as an expression of ecstatic delight. Just like honey and milk, the fruit of the vine is also a symbol of the Promised Land, and, in fact, together with the fig and pomegranate, it is the emblematic fruit for the Promised Land (cf. Num 13,23). Wine is frequently used in the figurative language of the Bible. Amongst the positive elements that are of interest in the present context, wine is a sign of God’s blessing and of eschatological salvation, when those returning from the Babylonian Exile will be able to buy “wine and milk” without money (Isa 55,1). In the paradisiacal time to come, at the end of days (‫באחרית‬ ‫הימים‬, a term of prophetic eschatology227), which is to say in the messianic times, wine will be available in abundance (Gen 49,10-11), “the vats will overflow with wine” (Joel 2,24) and “the Lord of hosts will make for all peoples a feast of fat things, a feast of wine on the lees, […] of wine on the lees well refined” (Isa 25,6). 224. For an in-depth study of the metaphorical use of wine in the Old Testament, see W. DOMMERSHAUSEN, ‫יַ יִ ן‬, in ThWAT, III, Stuttgart, Kohlhammer, 1982, 614-620, pp. 619620. 225. See WESTERMANN, Isaiah 40–66, p. 282. 226. Though here the word for new wine is employed, ‫תירוש‬, it is still the fruit of the vine stock ‫ גפן‬which is said to cheer gods and men. 227. See C. WESTERMANN, Genesis 37–50 (BKAT, I/3), Neukirchen-Vluyn, Neukirchener Verlag, 1982, p. 253.

THE WEDDING OF THE GARDEN-BRIDE (SONG 4,12–5,1)

777

It is of particular interest that the combination of wine and milk, the good taste of which is not at all evident, occurs – apart from Song 5,1 – only in eschatological contexts: in Gen 49,12 as a sign of beauty of the promised rulers (“his eyes shall be red with wine and his teeth white with milk”) and in the prophecy of Isa 55,1 (“come and buy wine and milk without money and without price”) where gratuitous wine and milk are promised in the context of an everlasting covenant (Isa 55,3). The promise in Isa 55,1 is issued as a divine oracle, on the model of Prov 9,1-5, Lady Wisdom inviting to participate in the banquet she has prepared228. In Isaiah wine and milk serve as metaphors for the condition of salvation, which the people will experience if they harken God’s saving word (Isa 55,2-3)229. The combination of these fruits, then, all point to the identification of the Beloved with the Promised Land as depicted in eschatological visions, which truly resemble paradise lost. Finally, an interesting parallel from the Quran bears witness to the paradisiacal imagery evoked by the poet. Islamic Eden, like that of the Israelites, is the primordial garden. Sura 47 describes it with the exact same elemental “ingredients” as the garden-Beloved of the Song: This is the similitude of Paradise which the godfearing have been promised; therein are rivers of water unstaling, rivers of milk unchanging in flavour, and rivers of wine – a delight to the drinkers, rivers, too, of honey purified; and therein for them is every fruit and forgiveness from their Lord …. (Sura 47,15)230. 228. “Eine Einladung der Weisheit zum Gastmahl ist der Form nach 55,1-5. Sie beginnt mit der bezeichnenden allgemeinen Einladung an Hungrige und Durstige, zu kommen und Speise und Trank bei ihr zu nehmen, wo man beides ohne Geld empfangen könne. Genau wie Sir 24,19-22 dann vom Bild des Mahles übergeht zur gemeinten Sache, dem Hören der Weisheit, genau so fährt Jes 55,2 fort: ‘höret mich und esset Gutes, eure Seele labe sich an Fett! Neigt euer Ohr und kommt zu mir, höret, und eure Seele lebe!’ Man beachte, daß diese Einladung wie Prov 9,11 gipfelt in der Verheißung von Leben”. What YHWH wants to give in Isa 55,1-5, however, is different from Wisdom’s invitation. He is not offering a teaching but “Was er geben will an Gütern ist eine ewige ‫ברית‬, die inhaltlich als die unwandelbaren Gnaden Davids gekennzeichnet wird. Das heißt also, daß, was einst dem David geschenkt wurde, dem ganzen Volk gelten soll”. J. BEGRICH, Studien zu Deuterojesaja, Stuttgart, Kohlhammer, 1938, pp. 53-54. 229. See WESTERMANN, Isaiah 40–66, p. 281. See also J.N. OSWALT, The Book of Isaiah 40–66 (NICOT), Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 1998, p. 436, according to whom “this is not Israelite food as opposed to Babylonian food, but the spiritual vitality that springs from obedience to God as opposed to the blandishments of a world built on rebellion against him”. 230. Sūrat Muḥammad 47,15. Translation by A.J. ARBERRY. Cited in STAGER, Eden, p. 113.

778

PART III – CHAPTER 11

Note the overlap with Song 4,12–5,1. The Islamic Garden of Eden does not only echo the four rivers flowing out of paradise from Gen 2,10-14 as could be expected. It is also characterized by rivers of milk, rivers of wine, purified honey (cf. Song 5,1), and every fruit (cf. Song 4,13). The parallels are particularly significant if one considers that Islam imagines paradise – among other things – in terms of sexual fulfillment and thus describes the sexual joys with exactly the same metaphors of access to fresh waters, milk, wine, honey, and every fruit. 6. The Wedding Banquet (Song 5,1e.f) e Eat friends, f drink and inebriate, beloved

The description of the Lover’s union in the flesh is followed by an invitation to join into what appears to be a wedding feast. As often happens in poetry, different metaphors have been superimposed. Abruptly and most surprisingly the Lover now turns to his friends, of whose presence in the scene the reader was so far unaware, and invites them to eat and drink as well, indeed even to become inebriated. The reader is thus drawn into the presence of a wedding feast with an abundance of wine and food. The double vocative, “friends” (1e) and “beloved” (1f), serves to invite the reader to identify with the addressees of the invitation and thereby become a participant in the scene. Here one and the same metaphor, the act of eating and drinking, is used to refer to two different actions. In Song 5,1b.c, the act of eating and drinking refers to the sexual union between the Lover and his Beloved. However, by inviting the friends to participate in the eating and drinking, the image is, without any previous warning, taken to imply something in which a plurality of people can participate. Unlike sexual union, participation in a wedding feast is possible for others. Whereas so far the act of drinking wine and milk and eating honey was to be understood on a metaphorical level for the enjoyment of love between the two, the same metaphor is now employed to refer to the act of eating and drinking as guests in a wedding feast231. The poet appears intentionally to use one and the same metaphor for two different practical realities. In the life of a couple and their friends, 231. See ZAKOVITCH, Hohelied, p. 208, who confirms my understanding of the passage: “[Ein] abrupter Übergang von der Intimität des Zwiegespräches zur Atmosphäre des Hochzeitsgelages. Anscheinend redet der Bräutigam hier seine Hochzeitsgeleiter an (wie bereits R. Samuel b. Meïr z.St. bemerkt hat). […] Die Begriffe aus der ersten Vershälfte verändern ihre Bedeutung beim Übergang zur zweiten: Beim Essen der Freunde handelt es sich um Nahrungsaufnahme, nicht um den Liebesakt”. See also BEAUCHAMP, L’un et l’autre Testament.

THE WEDDING OF THE GARDEN-BRIDE (SONG 4,12–5,1)

779

the union of the two and the celebration with friends are two happenings that have to take place subsequently. In reality, though, they always celebrate one and the same reality: the mutual love between the two, which is of such ecstatic nature, that it is like overflowing wine that wants to be shared with a community of people. Thus while the friends of the Lovers are invited to eat and drink, understood as an invitation to a wedding feast, they are also called to become metaphorically inebriated, understood or expressly – as some would translate – “with love”232. Marital love is considered to be inebriating for the Lovers (cf. Prov 5,19, where the same motif, not the same verb, is used: “Let her affection fill you at all times with delight, be infatuated always with her love”). As stated before, the lovers want to share the joys of love. Here we have the implication of a wedding banquet, which gives their love a public character and is at the same time a symbol for the transcending character of love. True love never remains a private possession of two people, but adopts a social dimension through which others are invited to enjoy the self-diffusing character of love. As Paul Beauchamp puts it, when commenting on the first verses of the Song, “D’emblée l’amour selon le Cantique nous apparaît comme concernant et l’individu et le corps social, inséparablement”233. 7. Some Conclusions The one image that has emerged most clearly is that of the Belovedbride as a garden. She is described in this poem as a paradisiacal garden, with a well of living water in its midst that nourishes the garden abundantly, with fruit trees, and maybe with a particular tree that has connotations of a sacred tree signifying fruitfulness and life. Nothing in the description of this garden evokes a kitchen garden or a simple orchard. Rather, the plants that grow in the garden are exceptionally precious, exotic, and most of all pleasing, for they all produce magnificent fragrances used for the production of oils and perfumes. These latter plants stand for royalty, luxuriant attractiveness, and abundance of earthly goods, and hence for the exceptional beauty and attractiveness of the Beloved. They also stand for physical Tome 2, p. 161: 5,1 “est l’invitation, lacée à une assemblée, comme pour des noces: ‘Mangez, amis, buvez’”. 232. “‫ ”דודים‬can be understood, as here, as an appellation of the friends “beloved”, or as the object with which to become inebriated: with love. See MÜLLER, Hohelied, p. 49; POPE, Song, p. 501; RUDOLPH, Hohe Lied, p. 152. 233. BEAUCHAMP, L’un et l’autre Testament. Tome 2, p. 161. And in the same sense on p. 170: “L’amour ne peut se dérouler à l’écart du corps social bien qu’il n’ait pas en lui son origine”.

780

PART III – CHAPTER 11

well-being and for the curing aspects of love, as many of these plants are also used in the pharmaceutical industry for the production of medicines. Having extensively described the plants of the garden, the poet dedicates an entire verse to develop the image of the bride as a source of living water. This latter image, though part of the garden image, receives a certain autonomy, with the effect that the twofold image of the bride as a garden and as a source of living water rests impressed on the mind of the reader. The insistence on “living water” once again conjures the life-giving powers of the Beloved’s love for the Lover. She herself is the source of the abundance of life in the garden, she is the source of everything that is desirable to the Lover, and she quenches his thirst for love, that is, she quenches his every desire. The consummation of their love is finally described in the metaphor of the Lover entering into and eating of the fruits of the garden. The fruits of sexual enjoyment are epitomized by honey, milk, and wine that give expression to the fulfillment of every imaginable desire and the utmost ecstasy the Lover finds in the physical possession of his sister bride. At the same time, honey, milk, and wine evoke the Promised Land. In fact, all the metaphors employed in the description of the Beloved convey the idea that for the Lover the possession of his Beloved equals a return to paradise or the conquest of the Promised Land234. It is as if the poet were saying, the primordial bliss and happiness that man has lost is found again in the physical union with the woman. This shows how closely human and divine eros are related. Man’s aspirations for love and for the divine are related. He searches for ultimate fulfillment both in human love and in God’s promises, the eros driving him being apparently the same force in both fields. In light of Song 3,6-11, treated in the preceding chapter, it appears that Song 4,12–5,1 describes the consummation of Solomon’s wedding, into the joys of which – at the end of the passage and in the center of the book – all the friends of the Lovers are invited to share by joining a huge wedding banquet at which they are to become inebriated with love.

III. SYMBOLIC SENSE: WHO IS

THE

BRIDE?

The final hermeneutical task in the symbolic interpretation of the Song is to enable “a post-critical equivalent to pre-critical hierophany” (Ricœur)235. In practice, this attainment of second naïveté requires understanding how 234. See also ibid., p. 168. 235. See RICŒUR, Symbole, p. 72.

THE WEDDING OF THE GARDEN-BRIDE (SONG 4,12–5,1)

781

the symbols at work in the poetic metaphors of the text functioned in their generative context. A helpful starting point appears in a comment made by Hans-Peter Müller. In his article on Song 4,12–5,1 he rightly identifies the hermeneutical crux. The language model supporting our poem is the metaphor, more precisely, the identification of what is designated with a number of significant items that stand “metaphorically” for what is meant. Despite the redundancy of the images here the comparison of the woman with a garden and its fruits dominates, a variant of her popular identification with land and earth in the wider context of a magical understanding of reality236.

While Müller’s observation that the poem is structured around the use of metaphor, notably the garden metaphor, is perfectly valid, his conclusions, nevertheless, have a flaw that must be addressed. According to Müller, the comparison of the woman to the fruitful garden has its roots in the “magical understanding of reality” (magisches Wirklichkeitsverständnis) prevailing at the time of the composition of the poem. In his opinion, the problem for the modern reader is, accordingly, that since such a magical understanding of reality has become obsolete, the unilateral identification has lost its original significance: “Women and garden have nothing in common according to their nature (Wesen); an identification made by the language of metaphor, then, is exposed to the danger of misunderstanding”237. In Müller’s view, the signified, i.e. the Beloved, and the signifier, i.e. the garden, when metaphorically fused together form an oxymoron for the modern reader, which only the specific power of poetry can make meaningful238. It is true that metaphors supply the signified with a surplus of meaning, which cannot be expressed in prosaic language. In this sense, Müller’s definition of metaphor coincides with the one adopted in Chapter 2. Yet, Müller misconceives the force of the metaphors in the present case, for he has failed to recognize their function on the symbolic order, mistaking symbolic meaning for a mythopoeic “magical understanding of reality”. Above all, he misses the eloquent, archaic, and timeless significance of 236. MÜLLER, Poesie und Magie, p. 160: “Das tragende Sprachmodell unseres Gedichtes ist die Metapher, genauer: die Identifikation des Bezeichneten mit einer Reihe von bezeichnenden Gegenständen, die ‘metaphorisch’ für das Gemeinte eintreten. Trotz der Redundanz der Bilder dominiert dabei der Vergleich der Frau mit einem Garten und dessen Früchten, einer Variante ihrer weit verbreiteten Identifikation mit Acker und Erde im umfassenderen Zusammenhang des magischen Wirklichkeitsverständnisses”. 237. “Frau und Garten haben ihrem Wesen nach nichts mehr gemein; eine Identifikation der Metaphersprache ist dann aber der Gefahr des Unverständnisses ausgesetzt” (ibid.). 238. See ibid.

782

PART III – CHAPTER 11

the woman-earth homology239. Thus, it is not the language of poetry that creates “an affinity between the irreconcilable”, but rather the innate symbolic potential of both the female and the garden, the created analogy linking the two on the order of their real being, which anchors the affinity and is immediately evident to the reader/hearer. The Beloved-Garden metaphor, or better cluster of metaphors, like any functional symbolic system, does not derive its significance from an instant innovation on some merely linguistic level, but from an affinity between the signified and the signifier rooted in the configuration of the cosmos240. It pertains to the universal patrimony of all cultures to have ever seen an affinity between the female, the earth (wherefore, for example, the expression “mother earth”), and water sources; and it is precisely this common symbolic inheritance that the poet of the Song employs. What we are really dealing with is not simply some more or less successful poetic technique, but an accumulation of what Ricœur calls “radical metaphors”, which in their ensemble form a symbol241. The question of interest at this point is therefore: What surplus meaning does the poem gain if one takes into account the specific significance of its symbols? Two main symbols have emerged from the above exegesis: (1) a paradisiacal well-watered garden and (2) a wedding. The multivalence and density of meaning proper to these symbols derives from the specific accumulation of associations gained from their ANE context and their occurrence in various other passages of the Bible (“weight with freight”). Because of the principal of contextualism, that is, because a symbol is thus determined by its literary and cultural context, both the garden and marriage images import into the poetry of the Song those significations acquired in these other contexts. This multivalence now needs to be explored. By way of example, I chose here the central symbol of the passage, that of the garden with a water source, in order to illustrate how this symbol imports a host of surplus meanings into the Song. The figure of the gardenBride represents, in fact, an extraordinary condensation of genuine ANE and biblical topoi or motifs that run like a golden thread through the entire Old Testament and beyond into the New Testament, knitting different traditions together. A synoptic look will expose how the symbol of a luxurious royal garden is used first in the royal ideologies of Mesopotamia and Persia 239. See MALUL, Woman-Earth Homology. 240. On the question whether the symbol exists in the cosmos itself or whether it is rather a creation of the human mind, I follow Ricœur who situates the foundations of the symbol in cosmos: “Dans l’univers sacré, la capacité de dire est fondée dans la capacité du cosmos de signifier. La logique du sens, dès lors, procède de la structure même de l’univers sacré”. RICŒUR, Parole, p. 155. 241. See ibid., p. 157.

THE WEDDING OF THE GARDEN-BRIDE (SONG 4,12–5,1)

783

and then in various contexts in the Old Testament, where it is employed to signify at the same time man’s original state of happiness in “paradise” (Genesis 2), the land of Israel (both as promised in the Pentateuch and as promised by the prophets for an eschatological future), the city of Jerusalem and its Temple, in both realized as well as eschatological terms, the people of Israel themselves, and finally the Wisdom figure or the Torah. This extraordinary abundance of symbolic meaning is not simply the extrinsic Wirkungsgeschichte of a common motif. It is a reservoir of intrinsic possibilities available to the author and original audience; and it is the essential heuristic for accessing the full, innate “hierophanic” significance of the Song. 1. The Garden Symbol in the ANE One must resist the romantic anachronism of thinking of gardens merely as loci amoeni. In the ANE landscaped royal palace gardens did “not express any sentimental and romantic attachment to nature, as was the mainspring of the development of the same type of garden in Europe in the eighteenth century”242. Rather, they served first and foremost a religious and political role that was intimately related to the royal ideology of the time. The description of the closed garden of Song 4,12–5,1 with its “paradise of pomegranates” corresponds perfectly to the ideal royal paradisiacal garden of the Persian Achaemenid Empire, of the kind that have been found in Ramat Raḥel (mentioned above, II, pp. 750 and 769). While the significance of gardens in the Persian royal ideology has of course its own religious inflection243, it stands also in continuation with the Assyrian and Babylonian ideologies and the role that royal gardens played therein244. Their politico-religious symbolic significance shall therefore first be expounded, as it undergirds also the theological import of the royal gardens in Jerusalem. 242. See A.L. OPPENHEIM, On Royal Gardens in Mesopotamia, in JNES 24 (1965) 328-333, p. 333, with further note to A.O. LOVEJOY, The Chinese Origin of a Romanticism, in Essays in the History of Ideas, New York, George Braziller, 1955, 99-135. 243. On the debate whether the Achaemenians were Zoroastrians or not, see M. BOYCE, A History of Zoroastrianism. Vol. 2: Under the Achaemenians (Handbuch der Orientalistik, 8/2), Leiden, Brill, 1982; M. SCHWARTZ, The Religion of Achaemenian Iran, in I. GERSHEVITCH (ed.), The Cambridge History of Iran. Vol. 2: The Median and Achaemenian Periods, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1985, 664-697; YAMAUCHI, Persia. 244. See D.J. WISEMAN, Mesopotamian Gardens, in Anatolian Studies 33 (1983) 137-144, pp. 137-138, who speaks about a “continued tradition of similar palace-gardens and parklands” from the gardens from Sargon II to the garden arrangements in Persia at Pasargadae, Persepolis, and possibly Susa.

784

PART III – CHAPTER 11

a) Entering Temple Gardens In the ANE gardens have always been a complement to the temple, serving both for outdoor rituals, as a place where a god could “walk abroad”245, and in representation of the god to whom the temple and its garden belonged246. Temples were understood to be mythopoeic re-presentations of the divine abode247, the earthly replica of the cosmic mountain and/or the “garden of god”, that is, paradise. The conception of the temple as the divinity’s heavenly throne on earth from whence it reigns and establishes order in creation led to the understanding of the temple as paradise on earth248. In fact, as god’s dwelling place, the temple was a miniature of the entire cosmos249. This temple ideology was mainly expressed in its architecture, iconography and cultic vessels250. Three are the most important symbolisms, which recreated the “garden of god” within the temples: the cosmic mountain, the waters of life, and the tree of life. The temple was understood to be “the architectural embodiment of the cosmic mountain”, which in turn “represents the primordial hillock, the 245. “For the joys of an early garden frequented by Enki, the god of wisdom and learning”, see D. STRONACH, The Garden as a Political Statement: Some Case Studies from the Near East in the First Millennium B.C., in Bulletin of the Asia Institute NS 4 (1990) 171-180, p. 171, who refers to A. AL-FOUADI, Enki’s Journey to Nippur: The Journey of the Gods (Pd.D. Diss., University of Pennsylvania; Philadelphia, PA, 1969), p. 51. 246. Since the hortus conclusus of Song 4,12–5,1 is so obviously Persian in character, the Egyptian comparative material can be neglected here. On Egyptian gardens see M.-F. MOENS, The Ancient Egyptian Garden in the New Kingdom: A Study of Representations, in Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica 15 (1984) 11-53; J.-C. HUGONOT, Ägyptische Gärten, in M. CARROLLSPILLECKE (ed.), Der Garten von der Antike bis zum Mittelalter, Mainz, Philipp von Zabern, 1993, 9-44; C.E. LOEBEN, Der Garten im und am Grab – Götter in Gärten und Gärten für Götter: Reale und dargestellte Gärten im Alten Ägypten, in K. COLEMAN (ed.), Le Jardin dans l’Antiquité (Entretiens sur l’Antiquité classique, 60), Vandœuvres, Fondation Hardt, 2014, 27-52. 247. See Chapter 5, III.2.a, with nn. 104, 125-127 above, pp. 303 and 307. 248. See KEEL, Symbolism, 1978, p. 118, who relates further that in Mesopotamian creation myths, the foundation of the temple replaces in fact the creation of paradise. See further LEVENSON, Creation and the Persistence of Evil, p. 93, who notes “that Ezekiel can refer to the same locality as ‘Eden’, ‘God’s holy mountain’ and ‘the mountain of God’, all of them simply variant names for the original home of the primordial man (the Urmensch) ‘seal of perfection/Full of wisdom and flawless in beauty’ (Ezek 28:12-13, 14, 16)”. 249. See LEVENSON, Creation and the Persistence of Evil, p. 90; H.E.W. TURNER, From Temple to Meeting House: The Phenomenology and Theology of Places of Worship (Religion and Society, 16), Den Haag, Mouton, 1979, p. 173: “[A temple] is part of the world which shares most fully in the heavenly realm and must be fit for the gods’ presence. It is, as it were, a little piece of heaven on earth, or at least it corresponds to the heavenly original as an earthly replica, a mirror of its model or a microcosm of the cosmos as a whole”. 250. See STAGER, Eden; BLOCH-SMITH, ‘Who Is the King of Glory?’; LEVENSON, The Temple and the World.

THE WEDDING OF THE GARDEN-BRIDE (SONG 4,12–5,1)

785

place which first emerged from the waters that covered the earth during the creative process”251. As such, the cosmic mountain was “situated above the primordial waters (the ‘deep’)”252. These waters “were perceived as the primeval waters of creation, Nun in Egypt, abzu in Mesopotamia, těhôm in Israel”253. The Temple was thus built as a bastion against the ever-threatening forces of chaos. Evil and disorder were represented by the primordial, subterranean water of the great, deep waters that had to be driven back before creation could be established. The Temple blocked these forces of evil and prevented their eruption. In an orderly cosmos, however, the primordial waters “become the source of sacred rivers, which then water the four quarters of the earth”254. Thus, these waters carried “the dual symbolism of the chaotic waters that were organized during the creation and of the life-giving, saving nature of the waters of life”255. For that reason, temples were associated with the waters of life that flow from an actual or symbolic spring. Inside the temple buildings an arboreal decoration was dominant. In imitation of the god’s wooded abode, actual trees are to be found in temple courts. It was a wide-spread idea that the mountain range of Lebanon was the sacred abode of the gods, probably because of its cedar afforestation. The gardens of the Neo-Assyrian kings, which were related in some way to cultic and ceremonial activities, were thus landscaped and arranged in such a way as to create them in “the image of Mt. Amanus” (tamǐl Hamāni; i.e. the abode of the gods)256. In the same way the arboreal decoration of the temple interior appears to have been interpreted as a manner of transporting a “mythopoeic reality” from the “‘cedar mountains’ of the West to the regal-ritual centers of Assyria”257. Temples were further associated with the tree of life. The tree symbolism pointed to the temple as “the cosmic center of the universe, at the place where heaven and earth converge and thus from where God’s control over the universe is effected”258. The symbol is that of a huge tree on 251. LUNDQUIST, Temple Ideology, pp. 52-53. 252. STAGER, Eden, p. 100. 253. LUNDQUIST, Temple Ideology, p. 67. 254. STAGER, Eden, p. 100. 255. LUNDQUIST, Temple Ideology, p. 67. 256. OPPENHEIM, Royal Gardens, pp. 332-333. “For a garden as a sacred locality”, Oppenheim refers further (ibid., n. 6) to “the unique inscription of Ibiq-Igtar of Malgium, VAS 1 32”. See also W. ANDRAE, Der kultische Garten, in WdO 6 (1952) 485-495. 257. STAGER, Eden, p. 103. 258. BEALE, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, p. 50. See also C.L. MEYERS, The Tabernacle Menorah: A Synthetic Study of a Symbol from the Biblical Cult (American Schools of Oriental Research Dissertation Series, 2), Missoula, MT, Scholars, 1976, pp. 169172, 177, 180.

786

PART III – CHAPTER 11

a cosmic mountain that reaches high into heaven, with branches encompassing the earth, and roots sinking down to the lowest parts of the earth. This tree was understood to be “the central life-giving force for the entire creation”259. This understanding is represented in the iconographical program of every ancient temple in the Levant and continued outside in the temple gardens. Thus, for example, the mud brick façades of several major city temples of early second millennium B.C. Mesopotamia were decorated with imitations of palm trees to give the impression of the temple standing within a sacred grove, while the ziggurat tower of the temple itself was to represent the cosmic mountain260. The effect for the worshipper when approaching the temple, was that “of entering, or looking up to, a forest or date-palm grove over which the ziggurat towered like a mountain peak”. The temple had become the visible cosmic mountain and the garden of god, or the garden of plenty/Eden. To symbolize this more powerfully the temples were provided with luxurious gardens, continuing into the world – and thereby the empire – the fossilized, stone-carved plants of the temple world. A temple was, in fact, “never complete without its garden, the portal through which kings converse with the gods”261. Because gardening is such a powerful metaphor for civilization, ANE kings were often depicted as gardeners262. The royal ideology attached to these gardens is well expressed in the Gilgamesh epic. Gilgamesh, being the prototype of the Sumerian kings, adventures into paradise locations, occupied with finding the plant of immortality and recovering Inana’s huluppu tree. In the undertakings of Gilgamesh, the epic “seems to promote the idea of gardens as a politico-religious space, a gateway of communicating with the divine, which was typically understood as a royal privilege”263. 259. BEALE, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, p. 53, points to the portrayal of such trees in Dan 4; Ezek 17; 19; 31. 260. See S. DALLEY, From Mesopotamian Temples as Sacred Groves to the Date-Palm Motif in Greek Art and Architecture, in K. COLEMAN (ed.), Le Jardin dans l’Antiquité (Entretiens sur l’Antiquité classique, 60), Vandœuvres, Fondation Hardt, 2014, 53-86. 261. See ANAGNOSTOU-LAOUTIDES, Garden, p. 45. 262. On the general ANE metaphor of the king as gardener, which is as old as the Sumerian royal ideology, see FAUTH, Der königliche Gärtner; M. HUTTER, Adam als Gärtner und König (Gen 2,8-15), in BZ 30 (1986) 258-262; K. STÄHLER, Der Gärtner als Herrscher, in R. ALBERTZ (ed.), Religion und Gesellschaft: Studien zu ihrer Wechselbeziehung in den Kulturen des Antiken Vorderen Orients (AOAT, 248), Münster, Ugarit-Verlag, 1997, 109-114; R.A. STUCKY, Le ‘prince jardinier’: L’avènement d’abdalonymos de Sidon. Valeurs cosmiques de la royauté orientale, méconnus par les Grecs, in H. DRIDI – D. WIELAND-LEIBUNDGUT – J. KRAESE (eds.), Phéniciens et Puniques en Méditerranée: L’apport de la recherche suisse = Phönizier und Punier im Mittelmeerraum: Ein Beitrag der Schweizer Forschung (Philainos: études d’antiquités méditerranéennes publiées par la chaire d’archéologie de la Méditerranée antique de l’Université de Neuchâtel, 2), Rome, BraDypUS, 2017, 15-22. 263. ANAGNOSTOU-LAOUTIDES, Garden, p. 43.

THE WEDDING OF THE GARDEN-BRIDE (SONG 4,12–5,1)

787

Similarly, Gudea of Lagash is reported to have planted gardens for cultic use. The consciousness of such royal/cultic gardens as a symbol for the fertility of the country seems to have been wide-spread264. This royal ideology seems also to have been reflected in the epithets of the Sumerian and Akkadian rules: “engkar/ikkaru (Landmann), nu-kiri6/nukaribu (Gärtner)”265. The king’s metaphorical role as a gardener-ruler is additionally expressed in legends such as that of Sargon. His stepfather Akki, who had saved Sargon after finding him abandoned at the river, made him a gardener. And while he was gardener Ishtar loved him and made him king266. This title and metaphor that is given to the king is not just an image or a metaphor, but is ritually enacted. In the sacred marriage the king plays the role of the fecundating force of the nation: he “inseminates it” through the mediating agency of the goddess. It is in this context that the king’s role as gardener is yoked with the archetypal homology of a woman as garden. Eva Anagnostou-Laoutides gives a compelling example from a sacred marriage celebrated between Inana and Dumuzi. Therein Inana refers to her vulva as “uncultivated land” and passionately asks: “who will plow it?”. These genitals, …, like a horn, … a great wagon, this moored Boat of Heaven … of mine, clothed in beauty like the new crescent moon, this waste land abandoned in the desert …, this field of ducks where my ducks sit, this high well-watered field of mine: my own genitals, the maiden’s, a well-watered opened-up mound – who will be their ploughman? My genitals, the lady’s, the moist and well-watered ground – who will put an ox there? (DI P, lines 1828)267.

Dumuzi naturally offers himself for the job268. As Anagnostou-Laoutides explains, Metaphorically, then, the fertile grove is the goddess herself, and the king (who also poses as farmer or shepherd in royal hymns) shares her responsibility for establishing the laws that rule civilized life. […] From this point of view, the garden becomes an important politico-religious symbol which exemplifies an ideal state of harmonious communication with the gods, typically achieved through a successful ruler269. 264. See HUTTER, Adam, p. 259, with reference to G. WIDENGREN, Religionsphänomenologie, Berlin, 1969, pp. 332-334. 265. See HUTTER, Adam, p. 259. 266. For this and other examples see ibid., p. 260. 267. Translation taken from http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/etcsl.cgi?text=t.4.08.16# (accessed 26 May 2017). 268. See Inanna the Watered Field: Who Will Plow Her? (DI P), in SEFATI, Love Songs, pp. 224-225. 269. ANAGNOSTOU-LAOUTIDES, Garden, p. 44.

788

PART III – CHAPTER 11

This identification of the goddesses’ intimate parts and the garden-land that the king is called to cultivate casts a powerful light on the symbolic identification of the feminine with gardens and vineyards (same symbolic function) in the ANE love poetry. As women are “fertile soil” to their husbands, so too are countries symbolized by their tutelary goddesses, who again are “fertile wives” to the kings. In Mesopotamia the “going into the garden” terminology encountered above in Song 4,15–5,1, belongs to the terminology of ritual processions to the royal gardens that were also ceremonial centers270. Thus it is striking to find a very similar conglomeration of metaphors as in the Song in the Love Lyrics (see Chapter 6, III) where the same language of “going into the garden” and the “plucking of fruits” appears to refer at the same time to Nabû’s ritual descent into the akitu garden, and his love-making with Tashmetu271. Chorus 14 Thither, ask, ask (m.), question, question! Nabû + Tashmetu 15 For what, for what, are you adorned, my Tashmetu? 16 So that I may [go] to the garden with you, my Nabû Tashmetu 17 Let me go to the garden, to the garden and [to the lord!] 18 Let me go alone to the beautiful garden! 19 They did not place my throne among the counsellors. 20 May my eyes see the plucking of your fruit! 21 May my ears hear the twittering of your birds! Chorus 22 Bind and harness (yourselve[s]) 23 Bind (your) days to the garden and to the lord! 24 Bind (your) nights to the beautiful garden! Nabû 25 Let my Tashmetu come with me to the garden! 26 Among the counsellors, her throne is foremost! (Break of 3 lines) 30e May her eyes see the plucking of my [fruit] 31e May her ears hear the twittering of my birds! 32e May her eyes behold, may her ears listen! 270. See NISSINEN, Love Lyrics, p. 617. 271. See S. DALLEY, Ancient Mesopotamian Gardens and the Identification of the Hanging Gardens of Babylon Resolved, in Garden History 21 (1993) 1-13, p. 6.

THE WEDDING OF THE GARDEN-BRIDE (SONG 4,12–5,1)

789

This last and longest part of the Love Lyrics is, so to speak, the climax in which the sacred marriage is consummated. Reverse line 15 informs us that Tashmetu is all adorned in order to go into the garden with Nabû, which will be the place of their lovemaking, expressed in the metaphors of Nabû plucking fruits. This shows that, just like in the Song, the garden is at once a location and also a metaphor for Tashmetu herself. This conforms, in fact, to a topos already found in the sacred marriage hymns. In addition to the reminiscences to Song 4,12–5,1 contained in this text, one should also note the similarities with Song 6,2 and 6,11. 6,2

My Beloved has gone down to his garden, to the beds of balsam to pasture in the gardens and to gather lilies.

6,11 To the garden of nuts I have gone down to look for the blossoms of the valley to see if the vine had budded if the pomegranates were blooming.

Both in the Love Lyrics and in the Song (also in Egypt)272, “the garden is not only a place where erotic encounters take place, it is a multi-layered metaphor for luxury, love-making, a woman, and her genitals273. The sign of readiness for love are the budding and blooming of wine and pomegranates (Song 6,11); the sexual pleasures are in both poems euphemistically described as plucking and eating fruits (Song 4,16; 5,1). And just as in the Love Lyrics, the Song depicts the joy of hearing the voice of the Lover in the metaphor of a bird’s (i.e., dove’s) voice (cf. Song 2,14). To this, a very pertinent observation by Mark Hamilton must be added. With respect to the placing of divine statues in the gardens of temple precincts, he explains that this was a way of ritually vivifying these gardens. For as Hamilton states, “The garden became a model of the cosmos itself, and the placement of the statue there signifies the location of the deity in the universe”274. This idea appears to be retained in the sequence of 272. The garden can serve as the locus amoenus of the lovers, as for example in the Papyrus Turin, where the different trees of the garden glory in giving shelter to the lovers. But, just like in the Mesopotamian songs, so also in Egypt, the garden can designate not only the place but also the beloved woman herself. See KEEL, Hohelied, pp. 160-161, and HERMANN, Altägyptische Liebesdichtung, p. 121. 273. See NISSINEN, Love Lyrics, p. 618. See also FOX, Song, p. 26, and PAUL, Lover’s Garden, p. 272, and the comparison of Lu-dingir-ra’s description of his “mother” with Song 4,12-15, in COOPER, New Cuneiform Parallels, p. 161. 274. HAMILTON, The Body Royal, p. 59, with reference to D.M. BRENNAN, Born in Heaven, Made on Earth: The Making of the Cult Image in the Ancient Near East, Winona Lake, IN, Eisenbrauns, 1999.

790

PART III – CHAPTER 11

Song 5,10–6,2. As already mentioned in Chapter 6, III.2.b.ii, above, p. 367, the waṣf describing the Lover in Song 5,10-16 corresponds perfectly to an ANE god-description text. No common mortal, with the exception of the king, would have been possibly described in this way. When claiming in Song 6,2 that the statue-like lover “has gone down to his garden (‫דודי ירד‬ ‫ ”)לגנו‬the image of the placing of a divine statue into the cosmic garden is evoked. In other words, in the mythological language of the ancient world, the Song might be alluding to the vivifying descent of YHWH into his garden Temple, or else the presence of the anointed king in his paradisiacal empire. b) The “Garden of Abundance” in Assyrian Royal Ideology Initially gardens were associated primarily with temples, yet from the ninth century onwards275 luxuriously landscaped gardens began to play an eminent role in the royal ideologies of the Neo-Assyrian, Babylonian276, and Persian277 empires. The rulers of these empires planted gardens in cities, palace courtyards, and temples, all of which “were prominent for re-creating their concept of Paradise”278. The ideology undergirding the Assyrian royal gardens will first be expounded (III.1.b), then the Persian, which is similar but adds a distinctive theological note (III.1.c). The Assyrian and West Semitic royal inscriptions often conform to a stereotypical pattern, according to which the king’s submission of the enemies is followed by domestic accomplishments through which he turns his empire into “a sort of Eden”279. These domestic achievements consist of the king’s installing a higher order by rendering the land fertile and of undertaking impressive constructions. The king’s role therein is expressed in two “root metaphors”: the king as gardener, and the king as builder280. 275. For an overview of references to important royal gardens preceding the first millennium, see WISEMAN, Mesopotamian Gardens, pp. 137-138. 276. On Assyrian and Babylonian gardens, see OPPENHEIM, Royal Gardens; E. LIPIŃSKI, Garden of Abundance, in ZAW 85 (1973) 358-359; WISEMAN, Mesopotamian Gardens; ID., Temple Gardens; STRONACH, Garden; J.C. MARGUERON, Die Gärten im Vorderen Orient, in M. CARROLL-SPILLECKE (ed.), Der Garten von der Antike bis zum Mittelalter, Mainz, Philipp von Zabern, 1993, 45-80; DALLEY, Ancient Mesopotamian Gardens. 277. On Persian gardens see D. STRONACH, The Royal Garden at Pasargadae: Evolution and Legacy, in V.B. LOUIS (ed.), Archaeologia iranica et orientalis: Miscellanea in honorem Louis Vanden Berghe, Leuven, Peeters, 1989, 475-502; LINCOLN, Paradis; ID., Horticulture; SILVERMAN, Kingship, pp. 172-196. 278. DALLEY, Ancient Mesopotamian Gardens, p. 1. 279. See D.J. GREEN, I Undertook Great Works: The Ideology of Domestic Achievements in West Semitic Royal Inscriptions (FAT, II/41), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2010, p. 40. 280. See ibid., p. 45.

THE WEDDING OF THE GARDEN-BRIDE (SONG 4,12–5,1)

791

Building, particularly temples, has already been discussed at length (see Chapter 5). Relevant for the present context is only the metaphor of the king as gardener. Douglas Green gives a helpful outline of the Assyrian royal ideology that undergirds the royal garden constructions281. From the king’s palace and his pleasure garden – the fertile epicenter ideological focus of the paradisiacal space that is the empire – water overflows into the entire Assyrian territory, turning it too into an ordered and fertile space. The king’s gardens therefore play a foremost symbolical role. [They are] the quintessence of the heightened order that the Assyrian kings create. They do more than merely restore the order; they create a better order than existed previously, and this “better” includes the creation of the world as it is meant to be, even if it only exists in the small spaces of palace-gardens and in short passages of royal inscriptions282.

The king’s pleasure gardens were thus a condensed and visible expression of the entire empire, which under his salutary reign had been turned into an idealized pleasure garden. The Assyrian kings, Tiglath Pileser I (1115-1077), Ashurbanipal II (883859), Sargon II (721-705), Sennacherib (704-681), Assarhaddon (680669), and Ashurbanipal (669-630) all glory in their garden plantations. On the one hand, these gardens were “a potent vehicle for royal propaganda”283. “The exotic botany transplanted from the four quarters of the empire to the capital gardens signified the ecumenic sovereignty of the ruler”284. At the same time, however, and more importantly so, the fruitfulness of the royal garden, and the king’s association with it, underlined an important “aspect of the monarch’s persona: namely, his cosmic rule in assuring the fertility and fruitfulness of the land as a whole”285. The annals of the Middle-Assyrian king Tiglath Pileser I mark “the first full blown example of a genre of historical narrative” that also heavily influenced the later Neo-Assyrian kings and their insistence on royal luxury garden plantations. Among other accomplishments, Tiglath Pileser boasted of the luxurious gardens and orchards which he had planted outside the city, saying: “Cedar, boxwood, Kanish-oak from the lands over which I 281. For this summary, see ibid., pp. 61-63. 282. Ibid., p. 63. 283. STRONACH, Garden, p. 171. 284. STAGER, Eden, p. 102. 285. STRONACH, Garden, pp. 171-172, who illustrates this point with reference to Assurnasirpal’s investment reliefs at Nimrud, “in each of which the king is shown standing, twice represented, on either side of the sacred tree and beneath the winged bust of the god Assur”. See M.E.L. MALLOWAN, Nimrud and Its Remains, I, London, Collins, 1966, pl. 43.

792

PART III – CHAPTER 11

gained control – those trees which none of the previous kings, my forefathers had planted – I took and planted them in the orchards of my lands. Rare orchard fruits, which did not exist in my land, I took and filled the orchards of Assyria (with them)”286. The trees and plants listed here were foreign to Assyria and even rare in the lands of their origin. The description creates an edenic imagery that hints at a “symbolic geography” undergirding the royal annals. As Green explains, “Assyrian kings do not merely make their land productive; they create something akin to paradise”287. In stressing the king’s horticultural achievements, Assyria, under his reign, is depicted as paradise restored. This aspect is quintessentially expressed in the creation of “pleasure gardens”, also referred to as “garden of abundance” or “garden of plenty” (kirî nuḫši), “garden of delights” (kirû ṣīḫāte), and “garden of rejoicing, celebration” (kirû rišāte)288. It is here that the king finds rest and pleasure, symbolizing the peace that his reign has brought to all his subjects by dominion over his enemies289. It is noteworthy, that “garden of plenty” (kirî nuḫši) is the semantic equivalent to the biblical “garden of Eden” (gan ῾ēden)290. To make this life in abundance possible the Assyrian kings boast further in the irrigation systems they constructed that turn the country into the image of Eden: a well-watered garden, that “defines the king as the giver of life and prosperity”291. Thus the Neo-Assyrian king Ashurnasirpal II (883859 B.C.) recorded his accomplishments at Calah (Nimrud) ca. 876 B.C. and proclaimed: “I dug out a canal from the Upper Zab (River), cutting through a mountain at its peak (and) called it ‘Canal of Abundance’. I irrigated the meadows of the Tigris (and) planted orchards with all kinds of fruit trees in its environs”292. The inscription proceeds to relate the planting of a royal garden, near the citadel and the River Tigris, and gives a list of fortyone species that the king had collected during his travels, the following of which have been identified: “cedar, cyprus, box, juniper, oxycecedrus and 286. RIMA 2, A.0.87.1, col. vii, lines 17-27 (p. 27); for the English translation, see GREEN, Great Works, p. 50. 287. GREEN, Great Works, p. 50. 288. See LIPIŃSKI, Garden. 289. See J.-J. GLASSNER, À Propos des jardins mésopotamiens, in R. GYSELEN (ed.), Jardins d’Orient (Res Orientales, 3), Bures-sur-Yvette, Groupe pour l’Étude de la Civilisation du Moyen-Orient, 1991, 9-17, p. 14; GREEN, Great Works, p. 51. 290. See STAGER, Eden, p. 104. On the etymology of Eden, see also, J.C. GREENFIELD, A Touch of Eden, in Orientalia J. Duchesne-Guillemin emerito oblata (Acta Iranica. Deuxième série: Hommages et opera minora, 9), Leiden, Brill, 1984, 219-224; A.R. MILLARD, The Etymology of Eden, in VT 34 (1984) 103-105; R.S. HESS, Eden – A Well-Watered Place, in BibRev 7/6 (1991) 28-33. 291. GREEN, Great Works, p. 52. 292. RIMA 2, A.0.101.30, lines 36-39 (p. 290).

THE WEDDING OF THE GARDEN-BRIDE (SONG 4,12–5,1)

793

dupracea, myrtle, date-palms, ebony, mulberry, olive, tamarisk, oak, terebinth, laurel, fir, willow, pomegranate, plum, loquat, pear, quince, medlar, fig, grape-vine and, less certainly, swamp-apple, ricinus, Persian lilac, walnut and various nut-bearing trees and aromatics”293. According to the king himself, the effect was the following: “The canal cascades from above into the gardens. Fragrance pervades the walkways. Streams of water (as numerous) as the stars of heaven flow in the pleasure garden. Pomegranates which are bedecked with clusters like grape vines … in the garden … [I] Ashurnasirpal, in the delightful garden pick fruit like … […]”294. The picture drawn in this inscription is that of the royal gardens as “an Assyrian Eden, the paradise at the center of the cosmos, a recreation of the plant life of the whole world, in miniature”295. Ashurnasirpal, in claiming responsibility for all these accomplishments, presents himself as “nothing less than a creator of paradise”296. The vivid description of Ashurnasirpal’s garden is in many ways reminiscent of Song 4,12–5,1. The delight taken in the well-irrigated garden plot is characteristic of the royal boasts, while the water flowing down from above recall the waters flowing from Lebanon. Moreover, the garden of the Song abounds in scents and the pomegranate tree is singled out as in the text above; while the king gathers fruits in his garden of joys, just like the Lover of the Song297. The Song’s luxuriant enumeration of plant species non-native to Palestine – nard, saffron, calamus, cinnamon, incense, myrrh, aloes, and balsams – all mirror the exotic botanical microcosm collected by the Assyrian kings. Read in this light the paradise garden of the Song becomes Israel’s version of a royal garden, that is, Solomon’s royal garden. The mythic king even (typically) boasts of planting just such gardens in Qoh 2,5-6. I made myself gardens and parks, and planted in them all kinds of fruit trees. I made myself pools from which to water the forest of growing trees.

Against this royal backdrop, the garden of the Song is a symbolic microcosmic replica of the macrocosm that is Solomon’s dominion, that is the ideal land of Israel as promised to the Fathers and possessed by Israel solely under Solomon (see Chapter 9). The cosmic participation of the king in the ongoing maintenance and promotion of creation is particularly expressed in the royal ideology 293. 294. 295. 296. 297. provide

See WISEMAN, Temple Gardens, p. 138. RIMA 2.A.O. 101.30, lines 48-52 (p. 290). GREEN, Great Works, p. 56; see also STAGER, Eden, p. 101. GREEN, Great Works, p. 59. According to WISEMAN, Mesopotamian Gardens, p. 142, these gardens were to fruits and vines for the temple.

794

PART III – CHAPTER 11

undergirding the reigns of Sargon II and the three kings following him (Sennacherib 704-681; Esarhaddon 680-669; Ashurbanipal 669-627 B.C.). The imperial palace gardens they planted symbolized the renewal of the cosmos under the governance of a wise and sacred king. They were archetypal sanctuaries and sacred places, which re-created paradise by transplanting the mythopoeic reality of the divine abode to the center of the Assyrian empire298. An inscription from Sargon II at Khorsabad reads: “I laid out all around it [the city Dūr-Šarru-ukīn] a pleasure-garden – a perfect copy of Mount Amanus – in which were planted all the spice trees of the Hittite land (and) all the fruit trees of every mountain”299. This is a powerful statement expressing that the abode of the gods, which was located on Mount Amanus, was transported to the cultic and political center of the realm300. The mention of Mount Amanus in the garden propaganda of Sargon II corresponds to an ANE worldview centered in Lebanon, and this explains the direct identification of the royal gardens with that land: “ ‘the Garden of Plenty, the image of Lebanon’ (epēš akīt ṣēri elleti ša kirî nuḫši tamšil Labnana)301. The same religio-mythic geographical associations significantly contour the imagery of Song 4,8–5,1 as well. Come with me from Lebanon, my bride; come with me from Lebanon. Depart from the peak of Amana, from the peak of Senir and Hermon (4,8). A garden fountain, a well of living water, and flowing streams from Lebanon (4,15).

The mythic weight of these topographical allusions should not be underestimated. Just as the Neo-Assyrian kings sought to transport Lebanon to their royal capitals, so the Lover of the Song seeks to carry his Beloved, a divine dwelling place and edenic garden, away from the North – to be planted in his capital, Jerusalem. c) The “Paradise” Gardens in the Persian Royal Ideology The political and ideological importance of luxury gardens was even more enhanced in the Persian Empire, where their construction was not limited to the royal capitals but purposefully spread out all over the empire. 298. See STAGER, Eden, p. 103. 299. A. FUCHS, Die Inschriften Sargons II aus Khorsabad, Göttingen, Cuvillier, 1993, p. 304, 13c (lines 39-43) (my translation). 300. See STAGER, Eden, p. 103. This is further emphasized in lines 46-49 of Sargon’s inscription: “Tag und Nacht war mein Sinnen und Trachten darauf gerichtet, diese Stadt anzusiedeln und ein Heiligtum als Kultsitz der großen Götter wie auch Paläste als Sitz meiner Herrschaft aufzuführen, und so befahl ich den Bau”. FUCHS, Die Inschriften Sargons II, p. 304, 13c. For similar inscriptions of the following three kings, see the bibliography given by GREEN, Great Works, p. 59. 301. LIPIŃSKI, Garden, p. 358; ANET, pp. 109-110.

THE WEDDING OF THE GARDEN-BRIDE (SONG 4,12–5,1)

795

As explained above (I.3, p. 724), these gardens were called “paradises” and served as a powerful tool of the royal propaganda. Though they resemble in many ways the Assyrian gardens, they also have their own ideological inflection playing an even more explicit role in the Persian creation mythology, its ideals of kingship, and the expansion of imperial power302. In fact, the idea of “paradise” “as a place and state of primordial perfection, tragically lost through the manifestation of evil”303 but recuperated through the gift of a divinely appointed king, occurs first in the Persian royal ideology. The desire to recover the primordial perfection of the world motivated the Persian imperial project and was symbolically expressed in the plantation of paradise-gardens. Throughout their empire the Achaemenians built huge walled royal luxury gardens, for which they consistently selected the most pleasant locations304. These were sophistically irrigated so as to create lush gardens, in which they planted every exotic plant obtainable305. Fruit trees played an important role in such gardens, since they created the much-needed shade both for other plants to flourish in the park and also for man to enjoy. Some of those “paradises” even contained animals for hunting, “but in all cases the intent seems to have been to create an exquisite space, in which the king and nobility could disport themselves, rest and enjoy exquisite pleasure”306. Aside from the practical aspects of the garden, however, and the pleasure they offered to the kings and their courts, royal gardens also incorporated political, philosophical, and religious symbolism. The idea of the king creating a fertile garden out of barren land, bringing symmetry and order out of chaos, and duplicating the divine paradise on earth, constituted a powerful statement symbolizing authority, fertility, and legitimacy307.

The office of the king, according to this royal ideology, to “duplicate the divine paradise on earth”, was thus powerfully symbolized through the construction of paradise gardens throughout his empire. 302. See B. LINCOLN, Happiness for Mankind: Achaemenian Religion and the Imperial Project (Acta Iranica, 53), Leuven, Peeters, 2012, p. XX. 303. LINCOLN, Paradis, p. 144. 304. Xenophon (Oeconomicus 4.13) reports “In all the districts he [the king] resides in and visits he takes care that there are ‘paradises’, as they call them, full of all the good and beautiful things that the soil will produce, and in this he himself spends most of his time, except when the season precludes it”. XENOPHON, Xenophon IV: Oeconomicus (LCL, 168), Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1992, pp. 395-397. 305. See LINCOLN, Paradis, p. 141. 306. Ibid. 307. M. FAKOUR, Garden i. Achaemenid Period, in Encyclopedia Iranica, X/3, 297-298, available online at http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/garden-i (accessed 11 November 2016). See also, STRONACH, Garden, pp. 171-180; and SILVERMAN, Kingship, p. 179.

796

PART III – CHAPTER 11

Very much like in the book of Genesis, the Persians believed that in the beginning the “Wise Lord” (Ahura Mazdāh) had created the world as a garden-like place in which “happiness for mankind” reigned, but which had been lost when Lie entered the world. “Happiness” expresses the Iranian concept of šiyāti which “signifies an ideal state of peace, tranquility, abundance, pleasure, and well-being that typifies the world as it was originally created and as it will be at the end of time”308. In positive terms [šiyāti can be defined] as the peace of sleep and the pleasure of sex, or in negative terms as the absence of three dangers, which entered the world at some time after the cosmogony, spoiling its original perfection. The most important of these dangers is the Lie (drauga; cf. Avestan druj-, Sanskrit druḫ, German Trug, English be-tray), which other inscriptions depict as the necessary prerequisite for all disorder and conflict. The second danger is the enemy army … and the third is famine309.

After Lie – “something emphatically not created by Ahura Mazdā, nor part of his original good creation”310 – had entered the world, the primordial paradisiacal state of Ahura Mazdāh’s creation was lost. It was then that the same “Wise Lord” gave the Achaemenian kings to mankind, in order to re-establish “happiness” by restoring order to the empire. By casting out the enemy he was to turn the empire once again into the reflection of that original garden in which “happiness” reigned, represented by the presence of water, plants, and animals (food). The idea is magnificently expressed in a text on the tomb of Darius the Great at Naqš-ī Rustan, and found also at Susa, Suez, and Elvend: “A great god is the Wise Lord, who created this earth, who created that sky, who created mankind, who created happiness for mankind, who made Darius king: one king over many, one commander over many”311. As Bruce Lincoln explains, this brief cosmogony relates four actions of creation (“created”), that the Wise Lord undertook at “the dawn of time”. The fifth action has another ontological status and is therefore expressed by a different verb, which has “never any other subject than Ahura Mazdāh”312. After “happiness of mankind” had been lost, through the entrance of Lie into creation, the Wise Lord “made Darius king”. Though Darius was an usurper who had seized power after having killed his predecessors, the 308. LINCOLN, Paradis, p. 148. 309. Ibid. 310. Ibid. 311. Ibid., pp. 145-146. For an exhaustive study of the text and the variants found in the inscriptions of later Achaemenian monarchs, see C. HERRENSCHMIDT, Les créations d’Ahuramazda, in Studia Iranica 6 (1977) 17-58. 312. LINCOLN, Paradis, p. 146.

THE WEDDING OF THE GARDEN-BRIDE (SONG 4,12–5,1)

797

later royal propaganda cast the whole event in the light of a mythological narrative according to which Darius’ enthronement “was the Wise Lord’s response to the Lie’s entrance into the world”313. As king, Darius became God’s chosen instrument to redress a crisis simultaneously historical, cosmic, political, and moral; also to rescue human happiness from the Lie and the rebels who are its agents. In his own royal propaganda, Darius does not appear as an ambitious and competent man in search of power, but as the world’s savior, who will reestablish the original divine order314.

This view reflects the creation myth of the Achaemenians, which is related in twenty-three inscriptions of Darius’ reign. Though they differ in details, they all have one feature in common, that is, that the Wise Lord created “happiness for mankind” as “his culminating gift to the world”, which was tragically lost when Lie entered but restored when the Wise Lord made Darius king315. The king’s salvific role in re-establishing the original cosmic order was powerfully represented in the royal paradises. They were “a kind of microcosm or model of the good world”, that is, of the Persian Empire, “with the intimate relationship between the king and paradise paralleling the king and the empire”316. The equation between Ahura Mazdāh’s creation and the king’s empire is well reflected in another Old Persian inscription that refers to both using the identical word būmi: “A great god is Ahuramazda, who created this būmi, who created yonder sky, who created man, who created happiness for man, who made Darius king, one king of many, one lord of many. I am Darius the Great King, King of countries containing all kinds of men, King in this great būmi far and wide”317. According to this inscription the Persian empire corresponds to the cosmos that Ahura Mazdā has created (būmi) and over which he has made Darius king. In the framework of this ideology, the Persian paradise-gardens represented a visual imitation of the original garden of creation and at once an anticipation of the eschatological garden, which the Achaemenian kings pretended to establish in their empire. They were “simultaneously a memory (better, a re-collection) of the world as originally intended by the Creator and a promise that its perfection will be restored”318. The abundance of 313. 314. 315. 316. Cyrus à 317. 318.

Ibid., p. 150. Ibid. See LINCOLN, Happiness, p. 477. SILVERMAN, Kingship, p. 181. See also P. BRIANT, Histoire de l’Empire Perse: De Alexandre, Paris, Arthème Fayard, 1996, p. 69. See SILVERMAN, Kingship, p. 181. LINCOLN, Paradis, p. 153.

798

PART III – CHAPTER 11

life and leisure provided by these gardens powerfully symbolized the “happiness of mankind, as is signified by the name of paradeisos attested in two of the Persepolis Treasury texts: Old Persian vispa-šiyātiš, ‘All Happiness’”319. In their paradisal gardens, “the Achaemenian kings pursued a religious goal and a mythic vision”. Within them, “they sought to reconstitute the happiness and perfection that the Wise Lord originally intended for mankind, thereby putting an end to all evil, conflict, and history”320. Overall, the Persian gardens represent an extension and development of the earlier Neo-Assyrian perspective. Nevertheless, the ideology is here inscribed in a more explicit theological narrative, with obvious links, both protological and eschatological (Endzeit als Urzeit), to the biblical worldview. As such, the symbolism of Solomon’s royal garden in the Song acquires a yet greater surfeit of meaning. Above all, the “Adamic” character of the king, a role attributed to Solomon in 1 Kings 3–10 and in the writings of the Chronicler as seen in Chapter 9, is implicitly triggered by his association with a “paradise”. It is very important here to allow the full symbolic force of this Persian loan-word in Song 4,13 to be felt. On the one hand, this allows the protological myth of a garden existing before the Lie/Fall to import a theological freight, helping plot the Song with its “paradise” in a kind of ANE salvation history. The biblical echoes to be explored below will anchor this event solidly within the Israelite story. On the other hand, an eschatological trajectory is simultaneously activated by the Persian parallels. Above all, the ideal and robust “happiness” (siyati) that figures so strongly within the Persian pardes construct has a significant echo, it seems, in the Song’s climactic notion of shalom (Song 8,10). As the notion of divine well-being intimately associated with the whole reign of Solomon in Israel’s tradition (1 Chr 22,9) and as the end to which the whole scriptural text is straining, the way is paved with the restored garden image for a savior king, a biblical version of Darius, to recover this lost happiness for his land and for his people. d) Royal Gardens in Jerusalem Historically the royal gardens of Jerusalem played a similar symbolic role as that seen across the ANE (2 Kgs 21,18.26; 25,4; Qoh 2,4-6)321. In 319. Ibid. 320. LINCOLN, Horticulture, p. 79. 321. See also Neh 3,15; Jer 39,4; 52,7. This fact needs to be taken into account when it comes to the study of the NT references to the Song: John 20,11-18 is generally held to be composed on the foil of Song 3,1-5. It is thereby of significance that Jesus not only encounters Mary Magdalene in a garden, but has also previously received a royal burial

THE WEDDING OF THE GARDEN-BRIDE (SONG 4,12–5,1)

799

a seminal article Lawrence Stager has shown how a royal ideology very similar to the Mesopotamian one undergirded the topological and architectonical landscaping of Jerusalem. Solomon’s Temple and, indeed, all of Jerusalem was a symbol as well as a reality, a mythopoeic realization of heaven on earth, that is, paradise, the Garden of Eden322. The presence of the Temple in conjunction with Jerusalem’s royal topography, i.e. the king’s palace and gardens, made the regal city a miniature mythopoeic cosmos. This was made possible by the iconographic transference of Lebanon’s mythic mountain to Jerusalem. As Stager explains: “Thus by careful landscaping and transplanting, El’s abode in the cedar mountains of the Amanus, in the far north – i.e. Mt. Saphon – could be transferred and identified with Yahweh’s abode on Mt. Zion, so long as a similitude of the holy mount was present through cultic imagery, representation, and enactment”323. This transfer of Amanus to Mount Zion radiated outward in diminishing concentric rings to encompass the royal city, Jerusalem, and the entire realm of Israel. The Temple was thus the source of living waters, which flowed forth to irrigate the kingdom, turning it all ideally into paradise (cf. Ezekiel 47). Jerusalem’s Temple source was the Gihon, the waters of which were conducted by an aqueduct (or channel) called šilōaḥ to irrigate the lower slopes of the City of David, particularly the royal gardens planted in the Kidron Valley by the kings of Judah (2 Kgs 25,4; Jer 39,4; 52,7; Qoh 2,56; Neh 3,15). As Stager explains, “the whole valley was a cascade of terraced gardens and parks (referred to as šadmôt qidrôn in 2 Kgs. 23:4 and Jer. 31:40)”, that served much the same purpose as the above-seen Mesopotamian and Persian capital gardens324. The gardens were in a way an extension of the paradisiacal reality that was already present in the Temple. in the same garden. As typical for John, there is a confluence of a number of Old Testament images in chapters 19–20. The risen Christ meets Mary as the New Adam meets the New Eve in a spousal encounter in a paradisal garden. For details see F. MANNS, Le symbolisme du Jardin dans le récit de la Passion selon St Jean, in LA 37 (1987) 53-80. 322. “After the conquest of Jerusalem by King David, the ‘City of David’ became not only the patrimony of the king and his household but also the sacred center where Yahweh established his house and household. By the time of Solomon both the deity’s house (Temple) and the king’s house (Palace) were situated side by side on the acropolis, or sacred mountain, known as Mt. Zion. There Yahweh met with his council of holy ones and promulgated decrees to the human community constituted under him and his ‘son’ the king (Ps. 2:6-8; 89:26). From this cosmic mountain, linking heaven and earth (as axis mundi), order was established at creation and continually renewed and maintained through rituals and ceremonies”. STAGER, Eden, p. 99. 323. Ibid., p. 105. 324. See ibid., p. 99; with reference to L.E. STAGER, The Archaeology of the East Slope of Jerusalem and the Terraces of the Kidron, in JNES 41 (1982) 111-121.

800

PART III – CHAPTER 11

The Temple of Mt. Zion (based on the celestial archetype) was the house of Yahweh, where the invisible deity dwelt, enthroned upon the cherubim. That the Temple replicated paradise is clear from its iconography (1 Kgs. 6), replete with palmette trees, lilies, rosettes […], and cherubim […] It would not have taken much effort for Yahweh to rise from his throne in the Holy of Holies and stroll down into the nearby gardens of the Kidron Valley325.

The “topography, hydrology, architecture, iconography, parks and gardens” of Solomonic Jerusalem were thus “all part of the sacred center patterned after the celestial archetypes”326. The presence of characteristically ANE royal gardens in Jerusalem historically validates the ideological parallels to Song 4,8–5,1 noted in the two previous sections. Archaeologically we see here the Sitz im Leben by which the poem’s garden image should be decoded. Theologically, the rich mythic symbolism entailed in the ANE garden trope frames the text with an imaginative space inhabited by kings and divinities, equipping readers to hear in the Song the concrete accents of Israelite religion. As the king could descend from his palace abode to stroll in his pleasure garden below, so could and did the Lord YHWH also descend from his cosmic dwelling place on high to enter the garden Solomon constructed for him in the Temple. And as entering the garden was also a trope belonging to the love language of a hieros gamos, so is the Lord’s entrance into this specific “garden” in Jerusalem apt to be depicted in the dress of a Solomonic king entering in to his bride. 2. The Garden Symbol in Biblical Literature The similarity of Israel to its ANE neighbors in the use of religious kingship motifs, including the highly charged symbol of the king’s royal gardens, provides a kind of generic conceptual scaffolding upon which the specifics of her own tradition could develop their peculiar shape. As described in Chapter 3, symbols do not change their essential function as they are variously reengaged in different settings, but they are progressively enriched, acquiring ever more “weight with freight” (Eliade). The highly contextualized socio-religious and literary culture of ancient Israel accordingly invest the ANE garden symbol with a considerable depth of newfound meaning (“density”; cf. Chapter 3, III.2.c, above, p. 145).

325. STAGER, Eden, p. 108. 326. Ibid.

THE WEDDING OF THE GARDEN-BRIDE (SONG 4,12–5,1)

801

For Israel, the entire narrative of events defining YHWH’s relation to his people is focused in a special way on the climax of his arrival to dwell in their midst within the Temple. As seen in Chapter 10, the arrival of the Ark of the Covenant into the Temple is depicted as a moment of nuptial celebration in Song 3,6-11. The same allusion to Israel’s covenant history remains in play in 4,12–5,1. Instead of the Ark, however, the Bride is now guised in the figure of “paradise”, while YHWH’s entrance into his Temple has morphed into the king’s descent into his royal pleasure garden, which is at the same time a symbolic depiction of the consummation of his marriage. In order to discern this remapping of the Lord’s hieros gamos in Song 4,12–5,1, it is important to see that the Song was by no means the only text to engage the garden symbol to speak of Israel’s salvation history and the Lord’s chosen dwelling. The scriptural appropriation of this potent image is deployed across multiple literary sources (e.g. narrative, wisdom, prophecy) and operates on a variety of temporal registers (e.g. glorified past, realized present, anticipated future). In order to rightly hear the Song’s poetry of the Lover entering his garden-Bride in all its symbolic fullness, as a contemporary Israelite would have heard it – namely, as the Lord’s coming to his people – it is thus essential to allow the concrete intra-biblical echoes that cling to this garden image to sound out with all their force. The pardes symbol, so central to Song 4,12–5,1, is inescapably bound up with the echoes of Eden (Genesis 2), which traverse the Scriptures. Surveyed in a synoptic fashion, these echoes can, nevertheless, be plotted along a dynamic trajectory from the reminiscence of “paradise lost” (III.2.a), to the expectation of a new Eden (III.2.b), to the theology of possession connected especially with Torah devotion and the figure of Solomon (III.2.c). The adherence of such echoes to the garden of the Song are not simply arbitrary associations invited by a later canonical anthology. They represent the most proximate record of the precise symbolic scope operative within the historical context that produced the Song of Songs. Since the composition of this book took the rolling form described in detail in Chapter 4, attaining its final form very late in the biblical period, the Song is uniquely well positioned to be enriched with the emerging canon’s snowballing symbolic “weight with freight”. a) Paradise in the Past: Echoes of a Lost Eden Taking its origin in the ANE royal ideology, notably in its Persian form, the pleasure garden (“paradise”) became in biblical literature the prime symbol for man’s primordial happiness and his originally unbroken

802

PART III – CHAPTER 11

relationship with God and his fellow human beings as well as with nature (Gen 2,8-16)327. The first garden of the world that God planted for man to rest, work, and keep was also referred to as the “Garden of Eden” (Gen 2,15; 3,23.24; Ezek 36,35; Joel 2,3), the “garden of YHWH” (Gen 13,10), or the “garden of God” and as such identified with the “Garden of Eden” (Ezek 28,13; 31,9)328. From here the paradisiacal garden takes on the connotation of primordial happiness and an abode where God dwelt with man329. The geographical location of this divine paradise shifts between three different loci: Jerusalem, the Temple, and the Land. (1) Jerusalem’s sacred topography appears to have at some point inspired a redactor330 of Genesis 2 and led to the location of the primordial paradise on Mount Zion331. Apparently, the redactor responsible for the insertion of Gen 2,10-14 was already identifying “the Garden of Eden (meaning ‘abundant, luxuriant, fertile’) with the Garden of God in 327. Ibid., p. 108. 328. See STORDALEN, Eden, who shows in an in-depth study on the symbolism of the Garden of Eden in biblical literature that the ‫ גן־עדן‬hovers behind at least thirty biblical passages. 329. For the paradisiacal connotation of the Garden of Eden, see particularly LINCOLN, Paradis. See also B. JACOBS-HORNIG, ‫גַּ ן‬, in TDOT, III, Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 2015, 34-39, p. 37, and M. GÖRG, Wo lag das Paradies? Einige Beobachtungen zu einer alten Frage, in BN 2 (1977) 23-32, p. 24: “[Es] muß doch […] eine bloß geographische Perspektive als unzureichend empfunden werden: ‫ עדן‬kann bereits in [Gen] 2,8 als geographisch nicht beschreibbare, mythologische Bezeichnung für ein ‘Wonneland’ dienen”. Pace WESTERMANN, Genesis 1–11, pp. 284-285. 330. Gen 2,10-14 seems to be a later insertion. The redaction history of Genesis 2 may, however, be left out of consideration, as our focus is on the symbolic repercussion of “paradise” within the Bible. 331. While Genesis 2–3 was once referred to as the Yahwist account and dated as the oldest layer of Israel’s primordial history, at least older than the so-called priestly account of Genesis 1, it is now presumed to date to the late Persian period and must therefore be much younger than the aforementioned passages. With a growing number of other scholars, Jean-Louis Ska argues that there exists enough evidence “to affirm, with a sufficient degree of certainty” that Genesis 2–3 is a late redaction that dates “probably toward the end of the Persian period, because the text is known only in the Hellenistic period”. J.-L. SKA, Genesis 2–3: Some Fundamental Questions, in K. SCHMID – C. RIEDWEG (eds.), Beyond Eden: The Biblical Story of Paradise (Genesis 2–3) and Its Reception History (FAT, II/34), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2008, 1-27, pp. 19-20. Ska bases this conclusion mainly on the following arguments: the many sapiential motifs in the narrative; the idea of a creation from ‫( עפר‬dust) which recalls again sapiential topics (Job 10,9b; 34,15; Ps 90,3; 103,14; 104,29); the tree of life known otherwise only to the book of Proverbs (Prov 3,18; 11,30; 13,12; 15,4); the garden of God and the Garden of Eden, a topic which occurs only in late prophecy (Isa 51,3; Ezek 28,13; 31,9; 36,35; Joel 2,3); and last but not least the fact that clear references to the account of the Fall are only found in the very late books of Sirach and Wisdom of Solomon (Sir 17,1, “The Lord has created man from earth, and again he returns to it” referring to Gen 2,7; 3,19; and 25,24: “From a woman sin had its beginning and because of her we all die”; Wis 2,24: “God created man in a state of incorruption, and made him the image of his own eternity, but by the devil’s envy death entered the world, and those who belong to his lot experience it” (my translation).

THE WEDDING OF THE GARDEN-BRIDE (SONG 4,12–5,1)

803

Jerusalem”332. One of the four rivers of paradise into which the primordial source (v. 6) divided is identified as the Gihon (v. 13), precisely the water source that irrigated the paradisiacal gardens of royal Jerusalem. The intention behind Gen 2,10-14 is thus to identify Jerusalem as the center of the cosmos333. Ultimately the “garden” from which all the rivers of this world and the ends of the earth are fed is in Jerusalem. The geographical conception is compressed into a metaphorical one, which is to say the royal city of Jerusalem is somehow paradise334. (2) By identifying the garden source with the Gihon spring, the sanctuary symbolism underlying the garden’s description is applied to the Temple of Jerusalem. As Gordon Wenham has shown, The garden of Eden is not viewed by the author of Genesis simply as a piece of Mesopotamian farmland but as an archetypal sanctuary, that is, a place where God dwells and where man should worship him. Many of the features of the garden may also be found in later sanctuaries, particularly the Tabernacle or Jerusalem’s Temple. These parallels suggest that the garden itself is understood as a sort of sanctuary335.

Some exemplary features may be listed. God is said to be “walking” (‫הלך‬ hithpael) in the garden (Gen 3,8), just as the divine presence is described in the later tent sanctuaries (Lev 26,12; Deut 23,15; 2 Sam 7,6-7). Similar to both the tabernacle and the Temple in Jerusalem, the garden is entered from the east and the entry is guarded by cherubim, the traditional ANE guardians of holy places (cf. 1 Kgs 6,23-28). The Tree of Life in Eden, some scholars hold, corresponds to the Temple’s Menorah, a stylized tree of life. Adam is told to “till and keep” (‫ ;)לעבד ולשמר‬and as Wenham notes: “The only other passages in the Pentateuch where these verbs appear together are to be found in Num 3:7-8, 8:26, 18:5-6; of the Levites’ duties in guarding and ministering in the sanctuary. If Eden is seen then as an ideal sanctuary, then perhaps Adam should be described as an archetypal Levite”336. The same idea seems to stand behind Ezekiel 28, where the Prince of Tyre appears adorned with the priestly robes of the high priest of the Jerusalem Temple, ministering in the symbolic sanctuary of the Garden of Eden337. Finally, the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, “pleasant to the sight, good for food and to be desired to make one wise” (Gen 3,6), is echoed in descriptions of the law (cf. Ps 19,8-9) which was kept by the 332. 333. 334. 335. 336. 337.

STAGER, Eden, p. 108. See also BERG, Israels Land, der Garten Gottes, p. 50. See BERG, Israels Land, der Garten Gottes, p. 50. See GÖRG, Wo lag das Paradies?, p. 32. See WENHAM, Sanctuary, p. 19. Ibid., p. 21. See STORDALEN, Eden, pp. 331-356.

804

PART III – CHAPTER 11

ark inside the holy of holies (Exod 25,16; Deut 31,26). Just as eating from the tree was death-incurring, so also touching the ark or even seeing it brought death (2 Sam 6,7; Num 4,20)338. (3) The Garden of Eden Genesis is also the Ursymbol, the archetype, for the Land of Israel, that is, the Promised Land339. As illustrated in Chapter 9, II.2.d, above, p. 582, the narrative of Genesis 2–3 appears to follow the classical pattern of Israel’s salvation history340. The story told in Gen 2,5–3,24 is like a prolepsis of Israel’s own covenant history with YHWH341. According to Alonso Schökel, the narrative presents itself as a sapiential reflection on the origins of sin and evil in an originally perfect world, which is lost, but at the same time constitutes the final goal of salvation history342. In fact, even though the land of Israel is always described in the terms of a most ideal garden, the reality of the land never corresponded to that description, neither at the moment of its greatest expansion and moment of peace nor after the return from the exile343. For the faith of Israel, the possession of the Promised Land equals a return to Eden, “paradise lost”. The land of Israel is the gift of YHWH to his people; a good land, for the right hand of God has planted (‫ )נטע‬it (Ps 80,16); it is a garden-land into which God has led his people (Jer 2,7; 338. See WENHAM, Sanctuary, pp. 164-165. 339. See BERG, Israels Land, der Garten Gottes, pp. 48-49: “Die Erschaffung der bäuerlichen, gärtnerischen Umwelt des Menschen in Genesis 2 hat das Land Israel im Blick. Nach dem Sieben-Tage-Schöpfungswerk von Gen 1,2–2,4a erzählt Gen 2,5-25 u.a. die [Erschaffung der Welt als] Erschaffung des Landes Israel”. 340. See the seminal articles by LOHFINK, Siegeslied, and ALONSO SCHÖKEL, Sapiential and Covenant Themes in Genesis 2–3. This view is now generally accepted by scholarship. See BERG, Israels Land, der Garten Gottes; VAN SETERS, Prologue to History; BLENKINSOPP, The Pentateuch; OTTO, Paradieserzählung. 341. See ALONSO SCHÖKEL, Motivos sapienciales y de alianza en Gn 2–3. For English see his slightly abbreviated version, Sapiential and Covenant Themes in Genesis 2–3. 342. ALONSO SCHÖKEL, Sapiential and Covenant Themes in Genesis 2–3, p. 476: “The divine initiative first confers benefits. Man is created in a neutral terrain; then God plants a garden and brings man in. ‘He picked him up and put him’ reflects the twofold movement with which the Israelites expressed redemption. He took them from Egypt and brought them to the Promised Land. Moreover, Palestine as the land of God is a kind of paradise. The tasks imposed upon Adam in the second half of Gen 2,15, nowhere earlier identified, are to cultivate and keep the land. These tasks seem out of place in this divine garden, but are understandable as terms of covenant and sacred history. These verbs are technical terms used frequently for the service of [‫ ]עבד‬and observance of the commandments [‫]שמר‬. They express responsibility, the burden of man faced with the divine initiative. The vocabulary of this verse is thus of great theological weight. God’s gifts and his demand reflect the minor or covenant pattern”. 343. BERG, Israels Land, der Garten Gottes, p. 39: “Was ist hier geschehen, dass die Verfasser das Land Israel schildern, wie es nie war? Denn solche Beschreibungen stellen eine Fruchtbarkeit dar, wie sie den wirklichen agrarischen und ökonomischen Verhältnissen des zu keiner Zeit entsprochen hat, wenn auch zur Zeit des AT das Land sicher noch nicht so verkarstet wie heute, sondern stärker bewaldet war”.

THE WEDDING OF THE GARDEN-BRIDE (SONG 4,12–5,1)

805

4,26); it is a “pleasant land, […] most beauteous of all nations” (Jer 3,19), a land that God himself has searched out for his people, “a land flowing with milk and honey, the most glorious of all lands” (Ezek 20,6); it is solely a gift of salvation for which Israel did not labor, with cities it did not build, with fruits of vineyards and olive groves which it did not plant (Josh 24,13)344. According to the Prophet Joel, the Land of Israel is like the Garden of Eden before the invasion of the Babylonian armies: “Fire devours before them, and behind them a flame burns. The land is like the Garden of Eden before them, but after them a desolate wilderness, and nothing can escape them” (Joel 2,3). From an exilic perspective, the once promised and now lost Land thus takes on the robes of paradise lost, a garden-land from which the people has been cast out, significantly towards the east. b) Expectation of a New Eden: Echoes of a Promised Eden Having lost the Land of primordial bliss, the recuperation of paradise is promised to the Fathers under the form of the Land of Israel. This promise, including God’s dwelling with his people, appears as realized under the reign of King Solomon (1 Kings 3–10) and particularly in the Temple of Jerusalem. After the destruction of the Temple and Israel’s expulsion from the Promised garden-land (cf. Joel 2,3), however, the paradisiacal garden and its source of living waters became the image for the future Temple (Ezek 47,1-12) and the ultimate eschatological well-being of Israel as a whole (cf., e.g., Isa 35,1-10; 51,3); and of man individually (cf. Isa 58,11; Jer 31,12). From the perspective of the Exile (and of the ongoing foreign occupation during the Second Temple period), it is comprehensible that the hope of restoring the Temple, the city, and the land is expressed in garden imagery. There is, in fact, a common motif in the major prophetic traditions that describe the Endzeit of Israel in the imagery of the paradisiacal Urzeit. The idea of the eschatological Temple as being the source of a new Eden is particularly expressed in Ezekiel’s Temple vision (Ezek 47,1-12). Ezekiel envisions the river of paradise to be flowing out from the Temple of Jerusalem, eastward down through the Kidron Valley towards the Dead Sea restoring life and fertility wherever it passes. It thus describes the transformation of the land into primeval paradise, starting from the Temple source: 344. Ibid., p. 40.

806

PART III – CHAPTER 11

On both sides of the river, there will grow all kinds of trees for food. Their leaves will not wither nor their fruit fail, but they will bear fresh fruit every month, because the water for them flows from the sanctuary. Their fruit will be for food, and their leaves for healing (Ezek 47,12).

This vision of the future Temple appears to have its blueprint in the equation of Zion with the Garden of Eden with its rivers345. The same applies to the prophetic visions of the eschatological Jerusalem where paradise will again be transplanted to Mount Zion. The holiness of the Temple will be expanded to encompass the entire city346, and the water flowing forth from the Temple source shall make God’s holy mountain abound in fertility and irrigate even the most remote landscapes, turning them into a paradisiacal garden-land (Joel 4,17-18; Zech 14,8; Ezek 47,1-12). This transformation of Zion/Jerusalem into the Garden of God (cf. Isa 51,3) is a key motif of Isaiah 40–66347. Thus Isaiah uses the term “Eden” to symbolize the paradisiacal state unto which the Lord will restore the wilderness surrounding Zion: “The Lord will comfort Zion; he will comfort all her waste places, and will make her wilderness like Eden, her desert like the garden of the Lord; joy and gladness will be found in her, thanksgiving and the voice of song” (Isa 51,3)348. A similar vision of Zion as a new paradise is depicted in Isa 65,17-25 where the Lord prophesies the creation of a “new heavens and a new earth” in which weeping, disease, and premature death will be no more. Rather, in this new creation paradise will be restored, as The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, the lion shall eat straw like the ox; but the serpent – its food shall be dust! They shall not hurt or destroy on all my holy mountain, says the LORD (Isa 65,25; cf. 11,6-9).

Commentators have long been startled by the fact that the new heaven and the new earth that God is about to create, apply apparently only to Jerusalem (cf. Isa 65,18-19.25)349. Levenson, however, has cogently argued that the inconsistency disappears in light of the ANE idea that temples are miniature cosmoi. By announcing the creation of a new heaven and a new world, the Lord is announcing the creation of a new cosmic Temple, that is a new Jerusalem Temple (Isa 65,17-19). On the basis of Eliade’s 345. See STAGER, Eden, p. 108. 346. According to Mircea Eliade city and temple are in fact universally homologized. See ELIADE, Patterns, pp. 373-385. 347. See extensively BERGES, Gottesgarten. 348. See STORDALEN, Eden, pp. 321-324. 349. See, e.g., WESTERMANN, Isaiah 40–66, p. 408.

THE WEDDING OF THE GARDEN-BRIDE (SONG 4,12–5,1)

807

observation, that Temples and cities “are universally homologized”, the description of this new Temple (“heaven and earth”) concerns the creation of a new Jerusalem Temple-City, that is a paradisiacal Mount Zion (Isa 65,18-25)350. This idea is further enhanced in the following chapter, Isaiah 66, where the entire world is identified as a Temple (Isa 66,1), which is then in turn identified with Jerusalem and the Temple Mount. The peoples will come from the ends of the earth to worship the Lord on Mount Zion, which has been entirely transformed into the Temple of the Lord, where they will see his glory. There will be no more Temple in that city, for the world in its fullness will have become a Temple, that is a new Garden of Eden realized on Mount Zion (cf. Rev 21,22-27)351. A proleptic vision of this edenic Zion is already found in Isaiah 12, where the motif of the salvific water source also occurs. Finally the restoration of the once promised, inherited, lost, and now again Promised Land of Israel is compared to the Garden of Eden by the prophet Ezekiel: “And they will say: ‘This land that was desolate has become like the Garden of Eden; and the waste and desolate and ruined cities are now inhabited and fortified’” (Ezek 36,35). Though not explicitly but similarly symbolizing a paradisiacal garden, the image of sitting in peace under one’s vine or fig tree (Mic 4,4 and Zech 3,10) pictures life in the Promised Land as life in the Garden of Eden. From the perspective of the Exile yet another Eden passage takes on particular significance. Far from Jerusalem, the Temple, and the Land, the people of Israel as a whole is seen as a garden in the prophetic vision and blessing of Balaam in Num 24,5-7. “How fair are your tents (‫)אהליך‬, O Jacob, your encampments (‫)משכנותיך‬, O Israel! Like palm-groves that stretch far away, like gardens (‫ )גנות‬beside a river, like aloes that the Lord has planted, like cedar trees beside the waters. Water shall flow from his buckets, and his seed shall have abundant water, his king shall be higher than Agag, and his kingdom shall be exalted”.

This passage clearly employs Eden imagery352. Yet this imagery is not spatially applied, but is applied rather to the people of Israel as it is camping in the desert on its way towards the Promised Land. The tents (‫)אהלים‬ 350. See LEVENSON, The Temple and the World, pp. 284-295. 351. See ibid., p. 296: “One might say that where P sees the sanctuary as a world, Third Isaiah sees the world as a sanctuary”. 352. See H.-J. ZOBEL, Bileam-Lieder und Bileam-Erzählung, in E. BLUM (ed.), Die Hebräische Bibel und ihre zweifache Nachgeschichte: Festschrift für Rolf Rendtorff zum 65. Geburtstag, Neukirchen-Vluyn, Neukirchener Verlag, 1990, 141-154, p. 147; STORDALEN, Eden, p. 442.

808

PART III – CHAPTER 11

and dwellings (‫ )משכנות‬relate to the habitat of Israel353. However, ‫משכן‬ in the singular means “tabernacle” or “temple” and even in the plural may still poetically refer to the Temple (cf. Ps 43,3; 46,5; 84,2; 132,5.7). The presence of both ‫ משכנות‬and ‫ אהלים‬in Num 24,5 is therefore suggestive of the tabernacle and its surrounding camp354. Balaam sees Israel in edenic imagery because the Lord thus dwells in her midst355. Not only has the Lord planted it (v. 7; cf. Isaiah 5; Ps 80,9-15), “the view of water flowing from the ‘bucket’ of Israel pairs with the visions of water from Zion in Ezek 47:1-12 or Psalm 36:8-10”356. The exaltation of the king over Israel’s enemies cements this prophetic vision of God’s blessing of and presence to his people. c) Solomon’s Union with Lady Wisdom Grafted upon its historical ANE setting, the symbolic significance of the garden in the Bible conjures up a state of either primordial or eschatological happiness. It evokes a concrete place where man lives in cosmic harmony in the life-giving presence of Israel’s Lord. For “the time in between”, however, that is the time “between paradise lost and the Promised Land”, Israel experienced herself gifted with wisdom, materialized in the Torah. This realized form of divine presence, planted even now in Israel’s midst (Sirach 24), thus naturally attracts the garden imagery proper to paradise. It is here that we find the strongest contact and interaction between the Song and the biblical symbol system. The description of the sister bride in Song 4,12–5,1 is strongly reminiscent of the very prominent and highly developed garden passage in Sir 24,13-21. The well-known poem is spoken in the first person by Wisdom personified. There are twenty-six words (in italics) in these eight verses that also occur in the Greek version of the Song357. The attentive reader of both books will have the echo of the other resounding in his ear. 353. See ZOBEL, Bileam-Lieder und Bileam-Erzählung, p. 150. 354. See STORDALEN, Eden, p. 443. 355. STORDALEN (ibid.) points to the parallel in Jer 30,18 where “the phrase ‫אהלי יעקוב‬ ‫ ומשכנתיו‬refers to the city of Jerusalem. 356. Ibid. 357. See KINGSMILL, Eros, p. 51, who numbers the following words “‘Cedars’; ‘Lebanon’; ‘cypress’; ‘mountain’; ‘Hermon’; ‘palm tree’; ‘En-gedi’; ‘field’; ‘cinnamon’; ‘spice’; ‘scent’; ‘myrrh’; ‘chosen’; ‘graceful’; ‘stacte’ [sweet spices]; ‘frankincense’; two similar words for ‘tent’ or ‘tabernacle’ the first in Sirach, the second in the Song; ‘vine’; ‘young bud’ or flower’; ‘fruit’; ‘desire’; ‘product’ or ‘fruit’; ‘honey’; ‘sweet’; ‘honeycomb’; ‘to eat’; ‘to drink’”. Since I could not verify the occurrence of “graceful” in the Song, I changed the number to twenty-six.

THE WEDDING OF THE GARDEN-BRIDE (SONG 4,12–5,1)

13 14

15

16 17 19 20 21

809

I grew tall like a cedar in Lebanon, and like a cypress on in the mountains of Hermon I grew tall like a palm tree in En-gedi, and like rose-plants in Jericho, like a beautiful olive tree in the field, and like a plane tree I grew tall. Like cinnamon and camel’s thorn I gave forth the aroma of spices, and like choice myrrh I spread a pleasant odor, like galbanu, onycha and stacte, and like the fragrance of frankincense in the tabernacle. Like a terebinth I spread out my branches, and my branches are glorious and graceful. Like the vine I caused loveliness to bud, and my blossoms become glorious and abundant fruit. Come to me, you who desire me, and eat your fill of my produce. For the remembrance of me is sweeter than honey, and my inheritance sweeter than honeycomb. Those who eat me will hunger for more,

and those who drink me will thirst for more.

Wisdom presents herself in the guise of verdant and exotic specimens of plant life. The many toponyms recall various descriptions of the Beloved in the Song358. As in the description of the Bride in Song 4,1214, so the description of Wisdom in Sir 24,13-21, with its magnificent trees recalls the Garden of Eden, in which “the Lord God made to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food” (Gen 2,9)359. Much like the language employed to describe the Bride of the Song, so too the imagery in Sir 24,15 uses the constituents of the holy anointing oil from Exod 30,23-25 in Wisdom’s self-description360. Sirach, next, goes on to reveal the identity of Wisdom specifically as the Torah. In the same breath Wisdom is identified with the four rivers flowing forth from the Garden of Eden: 23 25

All these are the book of the covenant of the Most High, the law which Moses commanded us as an inheritance for the congregations of Jacob. It fills men with wisdom, like the Pishon and like the Tigris at the time of the first fruits.

358. Cf. Lebanon (Song 4,8.11.15; 5,15); Hermon (Song 4,8); En-Gedi (Song 1,14). 359. See KINGSMILL, Eros, p. 50. 360. It is also a reference to the ingredients for the holy incense, Exod 30,34 καὶ εἶπεν κύριος πρὸς Μωυσῆν Λαβὲ σεαυτῷ ἡδύσματα, στακτήν, ὄνυχα, χαλβάνην ἡδυσμοῦ καὶ λίβανον διαφανῆ; cf. Sir 24,15: ὡς χαλβάνη καὶ ὄνυξ καὶ στακτὴ καὶ ὡς λιβάνου ἀτμὶς ἐν σκηνῇ.

810

PART III – CHAPTER 11

26 27

It makes them full of understanding like the Euphrates, and like the Jordan at harvest time. It makes instruction shine forth like light, like the Gihon at the time of vintage.

Two rivers have been added to the four that are familiar from Genesis 2. It has been suggested that these two, the Jordan and the Nile, have been added in order to both identify and elaborate upon the otherwise un-located and unknown river from Genesis, the Gihon, and thus to give it a geographical connotation361. Of essential importance for the present study, however, is the identification of Lady Wisdom with “the book of the Most High’s covenant, the law which Moses commanded” and the metaphorical identification of both, Wisdom and the Torah, with the source of the Garden of Eden. This corresponds to a similar idea, present in Israel’s wisdom traditions: the teaching of the wise is a fountain of life. Thus, “[t]he mouth of the righteous is a fountain of life (‫)מקור חיים‬, but the mouth of the wicked conceals violence” (Prov 10,11). Similarly, “The teaching of the wise is a fountain of life (‫)מקור חיים‬, that one may avoid the snares of death” (Prov 13,14); and “The words of a man’s mouth are deep waters; the fountain of wisdom (‫ )מקור חכמה‬is a gushing stream” (Prov 18,4). It is significant that the LXX employs the term πηγὴ ζωῆς in its translation of all three of these texts, the same phrase is found in Song 4,15 LXX. The personification of the Torah as the source of living water had developed into a mature motif by the turn of the era: As an earthly expression of divine truth, the Torah functions as a well of instruction through the exegesis of teachers who have attained divine enlightenment. The sources of divine truth are themselves portrayed as […] founts from which heavenly wisdom flows. The wisdom is concretized in the Torah and absorbed by teachers and students362.

This sapiential concept of the Torah as a source of living water became part of the common understanding of the biblical image. 361. See STORDALEN, Eden, p. 423: “The fourth, fifth and final similes in Sir 24:25-27 could be elaborating one and the same river, producing an enhanced Gihon symbolism at the conclusion of this passage. This would explain why Gihon was removed from its original sequence in Gen 2:10 and placed at the end. (The other three rivers in Sir 24:26f occur in the original sequence)”. This hypothesis is interesting and noteworthy, as a progressive effort can be traced in the literary development of the Eden motif to identify one of the Genesis rivers with the Gihon source in Jerusalem and, therefore, to equate Eden and Jerusalem. 362. FISHBANE, Living Water, p. 9. Fishbane gives a number of further examples from 1 Enoch (Ethiopic) 48,1; 1QS 11,6-8; 4 Ezra 14,47; 2 Ezra (Syriac) 59,7.

THE WEDDING OF THE GARDEN-BRIDE (SONG 4,12–5,1)

811

The plurisignation of the garden motif also opened up in other symbolic directions. In particular, the woman-garden homology invited the imagery of an enticing eros. The union of the sage with God, through the study of Torah, is thus cast in the language of man-woman desire. As the Bride in Song 4,16–5,1 invites her Lover to come into his garden and eat its choicest fruits, so Wisdom in Sir 24,19-21 similarly invites those who desire her to come and eat and drink of her produce. Furthermore, just as Wisdom’s remembrance is sweeter than honey and better than honeycomb, so the Lover finds honey and the honeycomb among the food of the garden (Song 5,1). To summarize with Gerald Sheppard, in the Song: […] a young woman appears in a garden (4:12,15, 5:1) rich with the same kinds of vegetation like that in Sirach 24 (5:15; 6:10, 7:8,13). The garden is filled with costly perfumes and spices (4:6,14; 5:1); in its center a fountain is fed by the plentiful streams of Lebanon (4:12b,15). Either at the close or periodically within the different garden scenarios of the Song of Songs the lover offers a summons to partake of the produce of her garden (e.g., 4:16). Sir has these same motifs of flora (vv. 13-14, 15-17), spices (v. 15), garden rivers (vv. 25-27) and a call to indulge in the lavish fruits of the garden (vv. 19-22)363.

At this point another similarity between the Song and the search for Wisdom in Sirach is noteworthy, even if not on the realm of the garden symbol. In the Song, the Beloved describes her Lover as standing behind the wall of her house “gazing in at the windows, looking through the lattice” (Song 2,9). In Sir 14,22-24 the man who seeks Wisdom is told to behave just like the Lover in the paraklausithyron of the Song: 22 23 24

Pursue wisdom like a hunter, and lie in wait on her paths. He who peers through her windows will also listen at her doors; he who encamps near her house will also fasten his tent peg to her walls.

The similarities between Wisdom personified and the Bride of the Song are too many to be insignificant. These parallels appear to be intended by Ben Sira. Indeed, we confront here almost certainly the most primitive reception of the Song. The importance of such an interpretative monument should not be overlooked. That such allusions are powerfully contoured to serve the sapiential purposes and interests of the book of Sirach is not in doubt. Nevertheless, such an appropriation and application of the imagery 363. SHEPPARD, Wisdom as a Hermeneutical Construct, p. 53.

812

PART III – CHAPTER 11

and motifs of the Song indicates the native theological orientation of the symbolic system. Thus, even when read through the scholarly anachronism of “wisdom literature”, the Solomonic Bride of the Song of Songs emerges as more than a beautiful young Israelite girl. In bearing some of the same traits as Lady Wisdom in Proverbs, Sirach, and Wisdom, the Bride inhabits the same symbolic world used to express the “significant mystery” of wisdom in Israel, i.e., the Torah (cf. Sir 24,23; see Chapter 3, III.2.e, above, p. 150). While the step of identifying the Bride with the inviting Lady Wisdom belongs to a species of Torah devotion not evident in the Song, the gardenBride nonetheless presents a symbolic typology continuous with the introduction of such an isomorphic content. Wisdom is to be loved and sought after with the same passion and love with which the Bridegroom of the Song seeks his Beloved; at the same time, the search for Wisdom will be as gratifying as the love which the Bride offers to her Lover, by letting him into her garden364. 3. The Wedding of the Garden-Bride, Song 4,12–5,1 The story-line of the Solomon narrative as expounded in 1 Kings 3–10 casts an interesting light on the poetic description of Song 4,12–5,1. It is only after Solomon had transformed the land of Israel into an ideal paradise that the Lord descended into his Temple and came to dwell in the midst of his garden-Bride Israel. In retrospect Song 4,12–5,1 gives a poetic symbolic description of the consummation of the “first” covenant, under Solomon’s reign. This wedding between the Lord and Israel, is referred to as “Solomon’s” because, as a king, he represents YHWH to the people, the true bridegroom of his people (see Chapter 10, III.3.b, above, p. 707). While Song 3,11 had identified Solomon as the bridegroom of the wedding described in the entire cycle of Song 3,6–5,1, Song 4,12–5,1 focuses on the description of the Bride. In the previous chapters, we have already 364. Even by applying a totally different exegetical method, SCHEDL, Der verschlossene Garten, p. 176, comes to the same conclusion: “Die symbolische Deutung des Hohenliedes ist demnach nicht etwas, das ihm von außen aufgezwungen wurde. Die Symbolik durchdringt das ganze Lied bis ins Knochenmark. Diese Symbolik ist leicht durchschaubar. Die Braut des Liedes ist eigentlich die Torah, von der belebende Ströme ausgehen, die alle Bäume bewässern. Der Geliebte, der aufgerufen wird, die Früchte zu pflücken, den Honig zu essen, den Wein zu trinken, ist der fromme Schriftgelehrte, der auch seine ‘Freunde’ zu gleichem Tun auffordert. Ein nüchterner Aufruf, Torah zu studieren, hätte nur den Verstand erreicht; das Bild von der Torah/Braut aber löst den ganzen emotionalen Komplex von existentieller Liebe aus und mußte daher viel wirksamer sein als lehrhafte Meinungen”.

THE WEDDING OF THE GARDEN-BRIDE (SONG 4,12–5,1)

813

seen that the Song associates the Beloved with the city of Jerusalem and the Promised Land (Chapter 4, III.3.4; Chapter 8, III, above, pp. 228, 236, and 502). The description of the Beloved as a paradisiacal garden in Song 4,1215 reinforces these echoes and evokes the Temple in addition. The garden-Bride is here explicitly called a pardes (cf. Song 4,13), that is, she is a paradise from which life-giving waters flow forth. According to the above-traced biblical symbolism, the following realities are contenders for an identification with this symbolic garden-Bride. There is paradise, as it was lost in Genesis 2, but promised again in the land of Israel. There is, furthermore, the Temple with its life-giving waters, as once constructed under Solomon (1 Kings 5–8), and now hoped for as in the vision of Ezekiel 47. Then, there is the promise of the restoration of Jerusalem as a paradisiacal Temple-city from which life-giving waters will go forth and transform the cosmos into the Garden of Eden (Isaiah 40–66). Because of symbols’ capacity to be at once “regressive and progressive” (Ricœur, Chapter 3, III.2.e, above, p. 139), the symbols of this paradisiacal garden-Bride in combination with her Solomonic bridegroom evoke at once the garden of “the Beginning” and the garden of “the End”. Solomon, as we have seen in Chapter 9, is not only a royal figure and the figure par excellence for the expected son of David yet to come, but he is also quite simply an Adamic figure. The particular configuration of symbols in Song 4,12–5,1 is therefore “regressive” or “archeological” in the way it makes allusion to man and woman’s original bliss in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 2), and at the same time to Israel’s bliss with the Lord under the reign of King Solomon in the garden-land of Israel (cf. 1 Kings 8, see Chapter 10). At the same time, it is “progressive” in that it points towards an eschatological fulfillment, inasmuch as Israel is waiting for a covenant renewal as the prophets have announced it, when YHWH will once again consummate his marriage with Israel, imagined as another descent into his cosmic garden-Bride under the reign of a new Solomon, the expected son of David (cf. Hos 3,1-5; Ezek 37,25-28; Chapter 7, II.2, above, p. 451; Chapter 9). This is the “teleological” aspect of symbol. While the “archeological” and “teleological” aspects of the symbol point towards the past and the future, a third moment in time is also captured by this powerful symbol of Solomon embracing his garden-Bride. This moment is the present time of Israel, in which both paradise and the “Promised Land” seem to be irretrievably lost and the prophetic promises not yet fulfilled. In this state between paradise lost and the (now newly) Promised Land, Israel is gifted with the Second Temple and its liturgy, in which the high priest reigns like a new Solomon and with the Torah,

814

PART III – CHAPTER 11

which in the famous words of Heinrich Heine is a “portable fatherland” (tragbare Vaterland). In the Temple and the Torah Israel experiences the presence of the Lord, like a Bride the embrace of her Bridegroom.

IV. CONCLUSION As in the previous chapter, the exegesis has proceeded in two steps. At a first stage ample room was given to reading the Song’s plain sense. It was read as a “mere love song”. The content of the passage is easily grasped. The Lover describes his Beloved as a most luxurious and walled royal garden with its own, yet sealed, water source. The wall and the seal symbolize the virginity of the Beloved. She is called a sister bride. While the term “sister” has been identified as a term of endearment, the term “bride” was interpreted in its most obvious sense, that of a woman entering into marriage. The passage culminates in the consummation of the wedding already described in the preceding passage of Song 3,6-11, the opening poem of the cycle which Song 4,12–5,1 closes. The concrete description of the garden is reminiscent of “paradise” as understood in the Persian period and concretely expressed in Genesis 2. Everything about the Beloved, the satiating character of physical love, and also her female fertility, seems to pledge a return to paradise to the Lover. She answers to his exaltation of her attractions by the invocation of all the powers of nature to let make her “perfumes” flow, so that the Lover would come into his garden. In other words, she invites him to take possession of this garden, which is her body and self, and to consummate the marriage. The Lover’s response then intimates that their love has been consummated, the sexual union being expressed in the metaphors of eating and drinking. The concrete fruits which the Lover has found in his garden-Beloved are milk, honey, and wine. These indicate, on the one hand, total satiation of all human desires and the ecstatic character of their sexual union. At the same time, for a Hebrew audience of the Second Temple period, these fruits cannot but evoke the image of the Promised Land. The Lover’s entering into his Beloved in the sexual act is thus compared to the divine gift of the Land of Israel, the fulfillment of all religious hopes. This is to say, the love experienced by the two Lovers of the Song is granting them something like a pre-taste of eschatological fulfillment. Human love is a foretaste of eternal salvation breaking into the still finite life of those who experience it.

THE WEDDING OF THE GARDEN-BRIDE (SONG 4,12–5,1)

815

Finally and suddenly, the scene opens up to an invisible audience in the invitation to the friends of the bridal couple to come and join in the joy of their love. The poem thus closes with an invitation to join in a banquet in which one may drink on the metaphorical wine of their love. In a second step, a symbolic reading of the passage was undertaken. I have argued that the garden described in Song 4,12–5,1 has to be read and understood against the background of the Mesopotamian and Persian concept of paradise gardens and the royal ideology that undergirded those plantations (“the phenomenology of the symbol system”). First, gardens were always associated with temples, as a symbol for the divine abode and the “as the portal through which kings converse with the gods”365. In the context of sacred marriage celebrations, gardens could also symbolize the king’s consort, the goddess, who also represented the land that the king pretended to plow and turn into a paradisiacal garden through his wise governance. The king as a gardener was for that reason a common ANE metaphor. The same royal ideology undergirded the construction of exotic luxury gardens by the Assyrian and Neo-Assyrian kings. Their gardens were symbolic, microcosmic replicas of the supposed paradise that the Assyrian kings pretended to create through their wise and sacred kingship. This pretension was quintessentially expressed in the creation of pleasure gardens, also referred to as “garden of plenty” (the semantic equivalent to the Garden of Eden). The Persian Emperors extended the garden symbolism in a new mythological direction. Through the creation and fall account of Ahura Mazdā and the Lie, the program of constructing royal gardens acquired a new eschatological significance. Thus, kings like Darius were appointed not merely to instantiate and preserve cosmic order in their realms, but to restore and recreate a lost paradise throughout the empire. Thus alongside the Persian pardes appears the concept of šiyāti, an overflowing of happiness and peace, which captures the well-being realized in these gardens, a peace at once proto- and eschatological. The presence in Israel of similar royal gardens is attested to both in the Bible and by archaeology (e.g. Ramat Raḥel). It is, thus, easily conceivable how the royal ideology undergirding the Bible’s literary description of Solomon’s reign resembles both to the Neo-Assyrian and the Persian royal ideology. On par with his ANE neighbors, Solomon is described as a sacred king whose rule has led to the recreation of paradise within the borders of Israel, which appear to encompass the then-known world, i.e. 365. See ANAGNOSTOU-LAOUTIDES, Garden, p. 45.

816

PART III – CHAPTER 11

the cosmos. The Solomon traditions do not refrain from picturing him as a full-blown Neo-Assyrian king providing God with a perfect replica of his divine abode, or an Achaemenid emperor, who has re-created paradise in his domain (see Chapter 9). It is against this background, in fact, that Solomon’s characterization as a New Adam becomes historically intelligible. The insistence on the peace (‫ )שלום‬that Solomon provided for Israel through his wise governance is very reminiscent of the “happiness for mankind” that the Persian emperors restored to their subjects and thereby to the cosmos. This motif permits the Solomonic New Adam figure to stand in a special relation with his people, as a kind of “New Eve”, whom, like any ANE king, he makes fruitful as a living conduit of divine blessing. The tight associations of Solomon’s Temple both with the mythic divine abode and garden-land of Israel give powerful expressive force to the image of entering a garden. If we read through this symbolic lens, we perceive how the Lord YHWH himself could be understood to descend from his cosmic abode on high to enter the Temple/garden that Solomon had constructed for him in Jerusalem. Colored as the garden descent motif also was by the fertility tropes of a hieros gamos, it is not difficult to see how the climactic salvation historical moment of the Lord’s numinous entrance into Israel’s midst could be dressed in the vesture of a Solomonic king entering into his bride. To this already immensely rich symbolic meaning of Song 4,12–5,1, an astonishing surplus of significance is added when the biblical literature is considered. In calling his Beloved a garden with a source of living water, the Beloved takes on the symbolic value of the primeval garden, the Promised Land (in all its facets), Lady Wisdom and the Torah at the same time. One could say that the image of the Bride as a garden encompasses three moments of time: it refers to the past, or better to the origins, the garden of Genesis 2–3; it also points to the future in images evoking the Promised Land and the eschatological prophecies for Jerusalem to become again like the Garden of Eden; and while describing the Bride in the “robes” of Lady Wisdom, the present is captured. On its journey between “paradise lost” and the (always anew) Promised Land, Israel is gifted with the Torah, whom the sage is advised to call his “sister” (Prov 7,2) and take into his home as a bride, as did the wisest of all, King Solomon (Wis 8,2) – since according to the theology of Deuteronomy, possession of the Torah equals possession of the land366. 366. F. CRÜSEMANN, Das “portative Vaterland”: Struktur und Genese des alttestamentlichen Kanons, in A. ASSMANN – J. ASSMANN (eds.), Kanon und Zensur: Beiträge zur Archäologie der literarischen Kommunikation II, München, Fink, 1987, 63-78, p. 63;

THE WEDDING OF THE GARDEN-BRIDE (SONG 4,12–5,1)

817

The advantage of this symbolic reading is once again its capacity to show a coherent trajectory of symbolic interpretations from the book’s mythic origins and the various biblical reinterpretations to the later Jewish and Christian reception of the Song. Thus, the same multivalence of the garden symbol as paradise, Temple, Torah, and Promised Land continues to inform the Jewish tradition. The Targum of Canticles367, for instance, interprets the “locked garden” as an allusion to the Garden of Eden. Keeping with that imagery, but moving in an allegorizing direction, it takes the “sealed spring” to be “the spring of living water” in Gen 2,10, the source of paradise “that issues from beneath the roots of the Tree of Life, and that divides into four heads of rivers”368. The Targum goes on to say that if it “were not sealed by the Great and Holy name, it would gush out and inundate the whole world”369. As Philip Alexander explains, the Targum might here be alluding to a Jewish tradition according to which the “waters of the abyss” were sealed with the ᾿eben shetiyyah, a capstone that had come to replace the Ark of the Covenant in the Temple after the Exile. The Targum appears to “link paradise with the Temple, and would fit with the context here, which is focused on Jerusalem and the Temple”370. Similarly in accordance with our own exegesis, the Targum hears an echo of the recipe for the anointing oil of Exod 30,23-25 in Song 4,13-14, and relates the “spring of gardens, well of living waters” (Song 4,15) to the waters of Shiloah [that] are led gently with the rest of the waters which flow from Lebanon, to irrigate the land of Israel, because they engage in the study of the words of the Torah, which are likened to a well of living waters, and in virtue, of the libation of water which is poured upon the altar in the Temple built in Jerusalem, which is called Lebanon371.

The Targum reflects here the above-mentioned Second Temple equation of Lebanon as standing for the Temple of Jerusalem, from where the living waters flow forth that irrigate the land of Israel according to the famous visions of Ezekiel (47,1-12) and Zechariah (14,8). Moreover, the “well of living water” stands also for the “words of the Torah”372. J.-L. SKA, Alla scuola della Torah, in A. FILIPPI (ed.), Maestro – discepolo (Parola, Spirito e Vita, 61), Bologna, EDB, 2010, 11-23, p. 23; ID., “La sagesse est bonne comme un héritage” (Qo 7,11), in Christus 233 (2012) 17-24, p. 23. 367. For the historical information concerning Targum Canticles, see Chapter 10, IV, n. 339 above, p. 718. 368. Tg. Cant. 4.12; ALEXANDER, Targum of Canticles, pp. 141-142. 369. Tg. Cant. 4.12; ibid., p. 142. 370. Ibid., p. 142, n. 50. 371. Tg. Cant. 4.15; ibid., p. 144. 372. See n. 199.

818

PART III – CHAPTER 11

Just as our own exegesis identifies the moment of the Lover’s descent into the garden as alluding to the climactic moment in Israel’s history when God took possession of his Temple and came to dwell in the midst of his people, so also the Targum interprets the Beloved’s invitation to her Lover to come into the garden as the assembly of Israel saying: Let my God, my Beloved, come into His Temple, and receive with favor the offerings of His people373.

The offerings refer to the flowing balsams and the choicest fruits that the Lover is invited to eat in his garden Temple. Accordingly the Lover’s answer in Song 5,1 is interpreted as referring to this high-point of salvation history when God came to take possession of his Temple (cf. 1 Kings 8), which is here equated to the garden-Bride of Song 4,12–5,1: The Holy One, blessed be He, said to His people, the House of Israel: I have come into My Temple, which you have built for Me, My Sister, Assembly of Israel, who is likened to a chaste bride. I have caused My Shekhinah to reside among you. I have received with favor the incense of your spices which you have offered for My name’s sake. I have sent fire from heaven and it has consumed the burnt offerings and the sacrifices of holy things374.

The invitation to the friends to join into the marriage banquet is then interpreted as an invitation to the priests to “eat what is left of the offerings, and enjoy the bounty that has been prepared” for them.

373. Tg. Cant. 4.16; ibid., p. 145. 374. Tg. Cant. 5.1; ibid., pp. 146-147.

CHAPTER 12

SYNTHETIC RETROSPECT

I. THE CONTEMPORARY DEBATE: EFFORTS ONE-SIDED EXEGESIS

TO

OVERTURN

After successfully toppling the long-standing allegorical interpretation of the Song and enshrining a single profane, erotic sense in place of a two-tiered and ultimately religious meaning, modern scholarship has begun to face increasing resistance. Sensitive to an imbalance in the consensus school, a variety of contemporary efforts seek to reaffirm the theological value of the text. This is attempted with some form of a both-and affirmation, characteristically based upon a reader-response or synchroniccanonical approach. An evident failure of such hermeneutical paradigms to grapple adequately with the literal sense, however, prevents these efforts from posing a genuine challenge to the naturalistic reading. 1. Naturalistic Consensus While the entire Jewish and Christian tradition has an unbroken record of understanding the Song of Songs as a poem about the covenant love between God and his people, expressed in the symbol of nuptial love, modern historical-critical exegesis has forcefully contested this assumption. A powerfully entrenched consensus among Song scholars holds that the Song in its original meaning is about nothing but the erotic desire and love between a man and a woman. Gillis Gerleman, one of the outstanding exponents of this theory, has labeled this reading of the Song as naturalistic. The arguments of the Swiss scholar Othmar Keel exemplify well why, according to the consensus, the literal sense cannot be an “allegory” about the covenant love between God and Israel. While the prophets, in his estimation, admittedly make use of the literary device of “allegory” to speak about the covenant, they do so explicitly. The necessary code to decipher the allegory is always given to the reader. The Song, on the other hand, gives * This chapter has appeared in a slightly different version with an additional set of notes as Recuperating the Song of Songs as Religious Poetry: Building a Bridge from Composition to Canon, in P. VAN HECKE (ed.), The Song of Songs in Its Context: Words for Love, Love for Words (BETL, 310), Leuven – Paris – Bristol, CT, Peeters, 2020, 217-268.

820

CHAPTER 12

no indication of its intention to convey a double-layered meaning. Moreover, Keel contends that the use of the marriage “metaphor” is strictly limited to the prophetic corpus and used there solely to denounce the infidelity of Israel. For the prophets, marriage is understood in strictly patriarchal terms, as a legal obligation of faithfulness on behalf of the female, lacking any notion of romantic love. The Song’s emphasis on romantic love would thus be totally alien to the characteristically prophetic use of the marital metaphor for the covenant. Other scholars argue in addition that the Song’s positioning among Israel’s wisdom literature commands its interpretation as an exclusively human love song, for per definitionem wisdom literature does not treat covenant matters, but is concerned exclusively with creation-theology. The whole trend of this naturalistic school of scholarship has been to replace the traditional interpretation of the Song with a single, erotic, plain-sense level of meaning. The energetic emphasis laid here upon the themes of human sexuality present in the text corresponds to a wide perception that contemptuous Rabbinic/ecclesial views of the body and sexual activity prevailing in late antiquity are responsible for occluding the original secular sense of the love poetry and generating in its place the “safer” religious reading. This manufacture of a sanitized double meaning arose during the process of canonization and remains artificial and extrinsic to the proper poetics of the Song. Responsible historical exegesis of the text thus requires rejecting assertions of any religious order of meaning. 2. Discontented Voices Not all scholars have been content with an all-out rejection of the Song’s religious message. In effect, a massive disconnect has now been established between the evident plain sense and the book’s entire reception history. For after successfully winning the consensus of the guild and discrediting the traditional allegorical level of meaning, the naturalistic school has struggled to provide a convincing explanation for the Song’s presence in the canon. A late hermeneutical fiction foisted upon a scandalous piece of erotica in order to confer upon it some theological utility appears highly improbable. Indeed, the interest that Rabbinic and patristic authors show in the text already supposes some antecedent perception of its religious value. If the Song had originally been conceived as a profane love poem, it is hardly explicable that it came to be regarded as one of Israel’s most sacred books. As can be seen from contemporary experience, reduction of the text’s meaning to a purely erotic level promptly “killed the influence of the Song on communities of faith”1. 1. CARR, Erotic Word, p. 4.

SYNTHETIC RETROSPECT

821

Exegetes have sought in various manners to respond to this widespread dissatisfaction with the naturalistic reading. Above all, the case has been made to read the Song within the context of its reception history. Childs’ canonical criticism, for instance, stresses the importance of the Song’s (supposed) classification as wisdom literature in order to validate a message about the beauty of married love between a man and a woman. Pelletier accordingly finds it useful to re-conceive the “naturalistic” as an “anthropological” perspective, thereby permitting more space for theological reflection. Although Childs ultimately resists adopting the prophetic use of the marriage motif in re-contextualizing the Song, for what he sees as diachronic and form-critical reasons, the effort has more commonly been to uphold that both an originally erotic and a subsequently divinehuman significance are somehow proper to the Song. In this way, scholars essentially seek to save the text’s theological significance through a reader-response theory of interpretation. Walsh, for instance, argues that the book’s ultimate inclusion in the Bible allows a new religious meaning to emerge for the reader; while Carr similarly observes that “when read as a part of the broader Hebrew scriptural corpus, the love language […] gain(s) new resonance”2. Barbiero adopts a form of the same basic argument. If the both-and approach remains content to consign the original meaning to a theologically insignificant profane level, approving the later religious reading as a venerable tradition, a second, more daring line of argument has sought to rescue “allegory” from the open disdain of modern scholarship. Gerhards, for instance, uncovering the Enlightenment and Romantic ideals that undergird the modern rejection of allegory – ideals quite contrary to ancient artistic canons and expressions of religious experience – exposes the modern project as suffering from a fundamental anachronism. Kingsmill similarly defends the thesis that the Song was intended as an allegory (“metaphor”) of God’s love for his people from the outset. The earlier work of Davis supports such a thesis with its keen attention to the Song’s intended biblical intertextuality, particularly its interaction with the prophets. The Song, in other words, is not somehow co-opted by an extrinsic and subsequent canonical reading, but already takes shape within some primitive context of “canonical consciousness”. It is thus wrong to view the religious meaning as simply an arbitrary reception. Zakovitch in a related, but distinct and more circumscribed, manner brings forward evidence that an “allegorizing” interpretation of the Song was already current before the final fixation of the text. For him, however, this 2. CARR, For the Love of Christ, pp. 31-32.

822

CHAPTER 12

is not evidence that the “original” meaning was something other than profane. A reconstructed Urtext remains the hermeneutically privileged point of interest, measuring the distance from a naturalistic meaning to the subsequent theological “allegorization”. Recent efforts such as these to recuperate the Song’s theological sense and to close the gap separating the text’s “original” and “canonical” meanings have exposed the dissatisfaction of many scholars with the narrow position of the naturalistic school. At the same time, it is evident that no convincing alternative has yet managed to challenge or qualify the hegemony of the consensus. Interrogated at the level of diachronic exegesis, the Song remains a text concerned exclusively with human eros. 3. “Contempt” of the Literal Sense? Keel has famously labeled the traditional theological reading of the Song an “elegantly fashioned contempt of the literal sense”. Together with the naturalistic school he is certainly right in his endeavor to establish the literal sense of the Song. He is also right to suspect that many arguments in defense of a theological reading fail to reckon adequately with the exegetical challenge posed by the naturalistic school. While Childs has made an effort to assimilate the insights of this exegesis into a biblical sapiential perspective, this comes at the cost of the traditional poetry of divine love. The Song is perhaps theological, but not as classically thought. To this extent, a choice has been made for the plain sense, to the contempt of any “allegorical” meaning. The opposite form of “contempt” signaled by Keel is more subtle, for the both-and perspective is content simply to juxtapose two unrelated and incommensurate orders of meaning, i.e. the “original” erotic and a later “canonical” interpretation. Such reader-response efforts to validate the message of God’s love for his people, however, fail to ground themselves convincingly in the results of historical-critical exegesis and integrate its stress on human love. As such, they indulge an unexplained exegetical jump and invite the unsettling suspicion that the tradition is guilty of a titanic act of eisegesis. One may also note the resemblance of these efforts to a rejected “subsequent approbation” theory of inspiration3. A sign of the failure of these alternative approaches to respond adequately 3. Vatican I, Dei Filius 2: “These [books] the Church holds to be sacred and canonical, not because, having been composed by simple human industry, they were later approved by her own authority; nor merely because they contain revelation without error; but because, having been written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God for their author and were delivered as such to the Church”. See also A. DULLES, Magisterium:

SYNTHETIC RETROSPECT

823

to the consensus is the still-obvious inability to bridge two all-important and interrelated interpretative gaps. (1) The first gap is hermeneutical. Scholars have not managed to articulate a single interpretative paradigm that might function equally for both the erotic and the divine-human orders of meaning. One is simply forced to shift violently from a text-centered (“original”) to a reader-centered (“spiritual/ecclesial/mystical”) affirmation of meaning. Significantly, the attempt to rehabilitate “allegory” as an intended authorial artistic device remains insufficient in binding these two orders of meaning; for allegory is an arbitrary convention, not ultimately capable of keeping the anthropological and theological dimension of the text intrinsically united. An ontological discontinuity thus informs the hermeneutical challenge facing interpreters of the Song. (2) There is secondly a chronological gap still waiting to be spanned. Said another way, two separate histories are still waiting to be merged: the history of composition and the history of canonization. The persistent perception that a reconstructed Urtext controls the Song’s literal sense exposes the degree to which this is the case. It is simply taken as an axiom that even the most primitive acts of inner-biblical interpretation are not constitutive of actual textual meaning, but belong instead to a separate and subsequent history of reception. Synchronic canonical readings (to be distinguished from Childs’ diachronic method) effectively accept this curious assumption and surrender any search for continuity between the Song’s production and its reception by the believing community. In the end, neither “allegory” as an authorial technique nor a synchronic reader-based method suffices to establish a fully convincing both-and exegesis of the Song.

II. A NEW APPROACH: THE SYMBOLIC-DIACHRONIC BRIDGE FROM COMPOSITION TO CANON The failure of previous both-and challenges to confront the naturalistic school on the level of the literal sense invites the new approach and argument offered in this thesis. Compelled to affirm the importance of and make a direct claim about the literal sense, it thus becomes necessary to introduce a degree of hermeneutical precision heretofore missing from Song scholarship and debate. This precision includes careful attention to Teacher and Guardian of the Faith, Naples, FL, Sapientia Press of Ave Maria University, 2007, pp. 102-104.

824

CHAPTER 12

different modes of figurative meaning, all proper to the sensus literalis, as well as a choice in favor of symbolic, rather than metaphorical or allegorical meaning. While symbol provides an integrating category capable of bridging the hermeneutical gap created by previous reader-response theories, the chronological gap opened between the composition and canonization of the Song is covered by diachronic attention to the “author” and the theory of Solomonic redaction(s). By collapsing the Song’s redaction and reception into a continuous developmental paradigm of “sacralization”, the way is paved for a new and more balanced understanding of the text’s literal meaning. 1. In Defense of the Sensus Literalis Faced with the postmodern assumption that there is an infinite number of possible meanings to a text, this thesis remains decidedly “modern” in aligning with the naturalistic school in its search for the literal sense of the Song. Indeed, as Childs sees, it is imperative to bind the text’s theological significance to its historical-critical exposition. Contrary to the naturalistic school, however, this thesis has sought to demonstrate that the Song speaks of God and not merely of human eros precisely in its literal sense. In order to substantiate this form of a both-and interpretation it was necessary to introduce a new level of hermeneutical refinement into the debate. In particular, the manifold orders of intended figurative meaning had to be analyzed and affirmed as belonging to the literal sense. Surprising as it is, the polemics of the naturalistic school against the traditional interpretation have failed to make a whole range of fundamental hermeneutical distinctions. Even defenders of “allegory” have proven insensitive to certain relevant categories of possible meaning. Recent work on hermeneutics, however, has helpfully articulated the distinct structures proper to metaphor, allegory, and symbol. Though these concepts are routinely conflated in the context of scholarship on the Song – to the misfortune and confusion of all involved – a clear apprehension contributes enormously to the work of exegesis. All three modes of figurative speech introduce distinct types of second-order meaning into the author’s intended literal sense. Metaphor, however, evacuates the significance of the plain sense, while allegory, though upholding it, introduces an ultimately arbitrary double meaning. Symbolic discourse, by contrast, preserves intact a twofold structure of meaning, like allegory, but binds the two orders more intimately together through a more intuitive and open, less rationalistic, mode of intention than allegory. It is symbolic meaning so understood that offers the best avenue of approach for apprehending the full significance of the sensus literalis of the Song.

SYNTHETIC RETROSPECT

825

In addition to the operation of such figurative meaning at the text’s literal level, a further clarification was also necessary in plotting the present project. The position was accordingly taken that, despite warnings of the “intentionalist fallacy”, the text-immanent structures of the so-called intentio operis must not monopolize claims to bear the sensus literalis. There exists as well a historically contextualized intentio auctoris that must also be kept in play. Our notion of the Song’s “author” must, of course, avoid obvious anachronism, and the distinct stages of a “rolling composition” must be recognized. The demonstrably redactional character of the Song’s authorship is of eminent importance, however, for certain of the text’s “authors” were also among its earliest readers. In this way, so defined and understood, the sensus literalis provides the locus where the histories of composition and reception can be seen to merge. 2. Symbol Not Allegory Attention to contemporary hermeneutics invites an important insight. The Song is neither an “allegory” of nor a “metaphor” for divine love. Its poetry functions, rather, in the manner of a “symbol”. It is not only proallegory scholars who have not seen this, however. One of the supreme ironies of the consensus position is that naturalistic scholars, insensitive to these figurative distinctions, also operate as unwitting allegorizers of the text. They commonly portray the Song’s poetry as an extended sequence of coded sexual meanings, dressed under the cover of metaphor. In effect, this corresponds to a discredited theory of metaphor as “word-allegories” and re-inscribes an approach they have otherwise rightly rejected. These scholars thus perpetuate, in spite of themselves, a misapprehension of the literal sense and redundantly reduplicate the text’s poetics of human love. An informed decision for symbol rather than for allegory, as best describing the figurative character of the Song, would have served the naturalistic viewpoint’s own interests better, for symbolic discourse permits the affirmation of the plain sense. Like allegory, a symbol points to a meaning beyond itself, but that surplus meaning does not rely on a pre-established code. Rather, it has its roots in the ontological order of creation and depends entirely on the symbol’s perceivable material representation, which is in itself a carrier of a plurality of meanings. Contrary to allegory, the plain sense of symbolic speech can thus never be superseded without thereby also losing the second-order meaning(s). Symbol therefore shifts us away from an overly rationalized understanding of the act of poetic creation and the author’s intention. Symbol is not rationalized and creative in the manner that allegory is. Rather, it is the experience of reality that gives rise to symbolic expression. It is

826

CHAPTER 12

responsive rather than rationally creative. By choosing symbol, our vision of the artistry changes as well as our approach to its interpretation. Rather than relying on text-extrinsic keys to the allegory’s code, a symbolic text invites the exegete to deploy all the possible meanings that are inherent to the text’s symbols. Allegory is text bound and text immanent. Its meaning is bound to and exhausted in the concrete text. Symbol, on the other hand, breaks out of a text-immanent system because it is both ontological and historical. Having its roots in the profound structures of the cosmos, its meaning is not established but discovered by the author. Being a carrier of multiple surplus meanings, the significance of symbolic speech will always surpass the intentions of its author. This excess in meaning, however, is never arbitrary but is always “bound” to the ontology of the world. At the same time, symbols are historical and increase in meaning (or deploy more meanings) as they become “weight with freight” in the course of history. The phenomenology of symbol therefore invites a diachronic and not only text-immanent approach. While laden with a whole range of historically acquired meanings, symbols always remain open towards a greater revelation of their full scope of possible significances. By allowing the symbols of the Song to deploy their possible meanings, one attains an order of meanings that is ontologically grounded, text based, and contextualized. Symbol gives us a hermeneutical category that applies equally to the text and its Wirkungsgeschichte. Rather than having to juxtapose a “literal” and a canonical or spiritual reading, a symbolic reading allows one to see the organic growth and interrelation of a plurality of meanings that are all grounded in the symbols of the text’s plain sense. 3. Solomonic Redaction(s) Rightly characterizing the sensus literalis to include a historically embedded authorial intention (intentio auctoris) helps one to close the chronological gap axiomatically assumed to separate the composition and the canonization of the Song. Authorial activity in the ancient world is, of course, a much more complex and communal affair than modern text production. Yet this fact permits a more nuanced apprehension of the convergence and merger of the supposedly separate histories of redaction and reception. Thus I offered a sketch of the basic stages of the growth of the Song, which allowed both the religious (not profane) origin and the decisive (salvation historical) hermeneutical key to come into view. Four major stages were identified in the gestation of the text. (1) First, an ancient cultic origin was proposed: an extended period, rooted in ANE

SYNTHETIC RETROSPECT

827

sacred marriage contexts and marking the transition from oral hymnody to the first textual forms, a process resembling in many ways the gathering of the first proto-collections of the Psalter. (2) A “Solomonic-Jerusalem” redaction was proposed, which represents the next and in many ways alldecisive stage. Here the infusion of a specific Israelite royal ideology enters and substantially re-orients the text, as center stage is given to King Solomon’s marriage and the city of Jerusalem (e.g. 3,6-11). Hermeneutically, this is the compositional moment par excellence. (3) A period of textual pluriformity followed this determinative authorial event, as the text’s established Solomonic trajectory was advanced in a conglomerate history of discrete redactional interventions. (4) Finally, the pluriform text of the Song was reduced to a stabilized and uniform (MT) configuration. The symmetrical unity of the book (“mirror effect”) belongs to this broad scribal undertaking, as does the addition of the Solomonic adscription. The interest here in fixing the text already belongs to an initial stage of canonization and the comprehensive classification of the text as Solomonic does not merely seal the book with the aegis of royal authority, but also signals the heuristic by which access is gained to the book’s accepted symbolic meaning. The very special attention paid to Stage Three and the intricate evidence from Qumran stemmed from the fact that this material reveals a period of textual maturation in which the Solomonic royal ideology is increasingly, incrementally developed. The striking absence in 4Q107 of material with marked allusions to Jerusalem, the Temple, and Mount Moriah (Song 3,5; 4,4-7), for instance, is highly significant; for these motifs bind the Song explicitly to the history of Israel and supply the theological profile of an empirically preserved moment in the Song’s redaction. The presence of multiple copies of the text at Qumran, moreover, confirms the Song’s significance within the religious patrimony of Israel during this period, even in variant forms that still lack a fully developed theological shape. Although a new perception of the Song as a textual artifact commences with the scribal work of stabilization in Stage Four, the adscription to Solomon confirms the essential interpretative continuity characteristic of this transition. It is no major jump, accordingly, at least on the order of a theological meaning, from the compositional activity still alive in the texts of Qumran to this final freezing of the text and incipient act of canonization. The evidence of the LXX version of the Song is situated around this moment of transition and is itself a witness to the emergent status of the book (one step beyond the activity of copying witnessed from Qumran). Notable for a restrained literalism and attention to the

828

CHAPTER 12

Hebrew Vorlage, but also by certain suggestive renderings (e.g. toponyms; Song 1,2.4; 2,7; 3,5; 4,10; 7,6.13; 8,4), the LXX conforms to the Song’s theological trajectory more than has been often appreciated. Indeed, in the manner of other precursors of Aquila, the translation appears oriented to serve a “proto-Rabbinic/derash” type of interpretation and offers no grounds for attributing an erotic reading to the translator. Moreover, a re-reading of the widely misconstrued Rabbinic evidence, above all the tradition of Rabbi Akiva’s view of the Song in m. Yad. 3.5, confirms the suspicion that no reductively secular interpretation was in circulation during this period. It thus proves impossible to pry apart some hypothesized profane “original” from a subsequent theological reception. The overlap between the Song’s extended process of production and its gradual canonization – including its ultimate circulation in the company of other sacred texts – represents one single, complex, but coherent history of “sacralization” (Sæbø). From its origins in the cult to its final place in the canon, the text of the Song has grown along with its central symbol of the royal bridegroom.

III. OVERTURNING OBJECTIONS: PUTTING KING SOLOMON AT THE CENTER The central importance of Solomon, uncovered in the diachronic profile of the Song, provides the key to answering one of the first and primary objections to the thesis that the text literally speaks about Israel’s covenant with the Lord. It is contended, namely, that the book must be severed from the covenant-based nuptial religiosity of the prophetic corpus, since it belongs to an exclusively creation-based (i.e. profane) perspective proper to wisdom literature. In fact, however, the book is Solomonic (at both the compositional and canonical levels) before it can be considered in any way sapiential (pace Childs). Against this background the text imports a highly evocative and profoundly religious ANE royal ideology, attuned in the person of King Solomon to the scriptural story of Israel. The centrality of the king symbol to understanding the text in its historical setting thus emerges and expands in a phenomenology highlighting the mythic importance of temple building and sacred marriage motifs. As an example of ANE love literature, the Song’s generic Sitz im Leben here finds its proper cultic place, an anachronistic secular-religious dichotomy in Song scholarship is denied, and new grounds are found in support of a refined version of the cult hypothesis of Theophile Meek and his school. The living link to the nuptial symbol (not “metaphor”) used by the prophets is also uncovered,

SYNTHETIC RETROSPECT

829

for this material is likewise grounded in a different but related way to the sacred marriage cults that were influencing ancient Israel. 1. Solomon, the Perfect ANE King One of the common arguments against reading the Song as symbolic of the covenant is that the Song’s place among the sapiential writings supports understanding the text as being about the natural love between man and woman. The underlying assumption of this argument is Walther Zimmerli’s influential and categorical affirmation that “wisdom thinks resolutely within the framework of creation”, lacking any concern for the history of salvation. The problem with this argument is twofold. First, it is based on a confusion between the complex phenomenon abstractly labeled by modern scholars as “wisdom literature” and the ancient canonical entity of Solomonic books. The Song is a Solomonic book, but it does not – according to the criteria of form criticism – belong to wisdom literature, to which alone Zimmerli’s wisdom-creation theology equation might apply. Second, the simplistic equation has been forcefully contested in recent years. Not a single biblical wisdom book conforms to this categorical conceit. Not only late books like Ben Sira and the Wisdom of Solomon, but even those books which are traditionally considered genuine wisdom books, that is, Job, Proverbs, and Qohelet, all display in their final shape a hybrid form of a sapiential reflection, read in the light of the Law and Prophets and hence of Israel’s history with God. Significant parallels between the Song’s erotic language and the search for Wisdom in the sapiential literature have been observed. These parallels, however, do not turn the Song’s genre into wisdom literature according to the criteria of form criticism. Rather, they show that Israel’s sages were familiar with the use of the love metaphor for expressing religious concepts. Similarly, signs of a sapiential redaction (e.g. Song 7,11; 8,6-7) do not remake the genre of the Song into wisdom either. The parallels that do indeed exist between the Song and genuine wisdom literature must be subordinated to and viewed within a more fundamental and fertile complex of ideas: ANE royal ideology. Generically the Song belongs to ANE love literature, which, like wisdom literature is an integral part of ANE royal ideology. It is in precisely this specific context that the Song’s relation to wisdom emerges most clearly, integrating both sapiential elements and ultimately an evocative sacred marriage paradigm. In particular, it is the persona of King Solomon who, qua ideal ANE king, combines both the love lyric genre and the sapiential mode of the Song. Kingship in the ANE is structured by a religiously charged cosmogenic

830

CHAPTER 12

myth, in which the king’s participation in divine wisdom is inseparable from the enthronement of God within the Temple. The mythic character of kingship in both the ANE and in the Scriptures invites a religiously oriented perspective on creation, contrary to the anachronistically secular form-critical elaboration of wisdom theology. At the same time, a historicizing movement within the context of ancient Israel suffuses this grounding ANE myth with a specifically covenantal content. Solomon’s status as that king who erects the Lord’s dwelling place in Jerusalem contextualizes and informs the biblical memory of his wisdom. King Solomon the wise is not a mere patron of sapiential reflection on “secular” matters. Rather, the first and foremost expression of his wisdom was the erection of the Temple in Jerusalem, which made him inescapably a central figure in the history of the Lord’s relation to Israel, his people. It is in this context that the Song’s many allusions to the Temple find their proper context. Moreover, according to the common ANE royal ideology the king enjoyed a privileged relationship with his god’s consort. In the “pagan” configuration of this “sacred marriage”, the goddess would mediate divine wisdom to the king. In the orthodox constellation of Israel’s faith, Solomon receives not a goddess, but the female (formerly divine) Wisdom figure as his consort and from her the wisdom necessary for his sacred rulership. 2. Love Lyrics and the Cult Hypothesis Identifying the Song as a generic instance of love lyrics permits focused inquiry into the text’s Sitz im Leben. Scholars were long led to see in the Song a collection of ancient Israelite wedding songs. The theory was based on Wetzstein’s description of nineteenth-century Syrian wedding customs. While the Syrian wedding customs are certainly much older than their nineteenth-century recording, the time gap between them and the Song’s composition is simply too great to support a common lineage. It seems quite anachronistic to propose a Sitz im Leben for the Song on customs that have no parallels prior to the Byzantine period. Moreover, the wedding-song theory fails to explain how songs whose popular character would have been commonly known came to be canonized and interpreted religiously within such a short period of time. A refined version of the cult school of the mid-twentieth century offers a better hypothesis. According to this view, a specifically cultic ANE rite ultimately stands behind the love motifs of the Song. Such a background, shaped by the myth of a sacred marriage and centered upon the union of a human community with a god (through the person of the king), supplies

SYNTHETIC RETROSPECT

831

an explanation for the book’s canonization and later allegorical interpretation. While the cult hypothesis had been abandoned on account of some inherent weaknesses and a general scholarly preference for “profane” rather than religiously oriented sex (i.e. Egypt vs. Mesopotamia), a number of factors have made the use of “sacred marriage” discourse in the study of Song exegesis once more viable. The cult hypothesis was originally based on the restricted application of the term “sacred marriage” to the Sumerian Inana-Dumuzi material, where it was understood as a materially enacted, cultic sexual act between a king and a cult prostitute for the sake of procuring fertility for the country. In contrast to this Sumerian tradition, the Song does not allow for the reconstitution of such a cultic rite. Nowhere does it describe a ritual marriage between deities, something that is obvious in the Sumerian texts. Moreover, it lacks the explicit description of sexual contact, a feature so typical for the Inana-Dumuzi material. There is no mention of fertility, a feature which the cult-mythological school held to be at the center of sacred marriage. Finally, the assessment of many Assyriologists that no such sexually realized “sacred marriage” ever existed undermined the cult hypothesis that had been built on the presumed existence of this rite. In recent years Assyriologists have developed a more sociological and symbolic, cross-cultural paradigm of “sacred marriage”, reaching from Sumerian through Akkadian down to Greek and Demotic texts. The usage of the term is no longer reduced to the description of an allegedly sexually enacted ritual with the purpose of procuring national fertility. Instead, the term “sacred marriage(s)” is used in contemporary scholarship as an umbrella term for the widespread shared poetics of both divine and divine-human love relationships (i.e. theogamy and hierogamy). Sexual intercourse is no longer considered to have been essential to the celebration. Rather, it is assumed that a symbolic enactment might have transpired, or that, in treating these texts as literature, the “sacred marriages” should be taken “as metaphors for the divine human relationship” (Nissinen). Furthermore, the aspect of fertility, while present, was secondary. Today scholars stress either the political dimension of sacred marriage, which was a way for the king “to establish personal and social ties to the gods” (Jerrold Cooper), or they put emphasis on the transferal of divine wisdom necessary to fulfill the duties of his royal office (Beate Pongratz-Leisten). This communication could happen either non-verbally through sacred marriage or verbally through prophecy. In both cases the love goddess Inana/Ishtar played a central role as intercessor, mediator, and transferrer of divine knowledge.

832

CHAPTER 12

This more expansive understanding of “sacred marriage”, embracing a wide range of religiously oriented ANE love lyrics, opens up a larger comparative panorama for the study of the religious grounding of the Song. In particular, Nissinen’s fruitful comparison to the more recently published Neo-Assyrian The Love Lyrics of Nabû and Tashmetu, which provide both a geographical and temporal point of contact with the Song, lends new credence to the hypothesis that the biblical book belongs to an “erotic-lyric tradition that is firmly, though not exclusively, connected with the idea of sacred marriage in the ancient Near East” (Nissinen). In addition, the comparative enterprise had been significantly distorted by a forced choice between the “secular nature” of the Egyptian love literature and the “religious” character of the Mesopotamian. Out of a general preference for “profane sex”, scholarship after the late 1960s turned nearly exclusively to Egypt. The New Kingdom love poetry was adduced as proof for the existence of non-religious parallel material, allegedly composed exclusively for entertainment purposes and celebrating “free love” outside of marriage. The unilateral reading of the Song solely against the background of Egyptian comparative material was widely embraced in favor of asserting an originally non-religious, “secular” setting of the Song’s cantos, dispensing scholars from the consideration of a religious (cultic) origin. Today, scholarship is more aware of a false dichotomy between “entertainment” and “cult”. In fact, most of the ritual celebrations of the ANE, the existence of which are attested well into the second century B.C., were perceived as entertainment by the participating people. In addition, the purely secular nature of the Egyptian material is no longer undisputed. Scholars have become more aware that a distinction between profane and sacred is entirely modern and cannot be projected retroactively onto ancient texts. In view of the time lapse separating the New Kingdom love literature from the presumably Persian setting of the Song, John Darnell argues for a “common festival background for parallel corpora of texts celebrating divine and human love”4. In fact, Darnell postulates participatory worship as a Sitz im Leben for the Egyptian love poetry, in which human lovers act out and reflect the loving embrace of their divine prototypes. His description of the festivities undergirding the performance of the love lyrics resembles in many ways the description of a classical ANE marriage celebration (e.g. worship through imitation, ritual drunkenness, sexual activity in the presence of the ruler). In other words, Darnell posits a thoroughly royal and religious festival as a background for the Egyptian material. With regard to the similarities between the Song and the 4. DARNELL, Rituals of Love, p. 22.

SYNTHETIC RETROSPECT

833

Egyptian love poetry, Darnell infers that a similar festival background celebrating divine and human love might have provided a template for the performance setting of the Song. If recent scholarship thus favors seeing “sacred marriage” as a viable ANE background to biblical love lyrics, the incompatibility of Israelite religion with such idolatrous practices has been a standing objection to the cult hypothesis. However, Israel was never perfectly successful at keeping unauthorized idolatrous practices at bay. Rather, faint echoes of sacred marriage rites in Israel can be heard in the prophets’ strident protest against the worship of Asherah, the Queen of Heaven, and other related cults. While the prophets fought against such syncretistic aberrations, the practice of worshipping a goddess extended apparently not only to the northern Israelite community, but even to the court of the Judean kings (1 Kgs 15,13; 16,33; 18,19; 2 Kgs 13,2; Jer 44,17; cf. 2 Kgs 23,4). Though it remains disputed just how deeply and in what precise form an Asherah cult may have penetrated Israelite worship, it seems beyond dispute that real fertility rites linked with sacred marriage myths colored and formed the background to the prophetic protests. Had no such incursions of neighboring religious thought and praxis touched Israel, it would be nearly impossible to explain the rhetoric of figures like Hosea, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel. Possibly these incursions reached so far, in certain times and places, as to depict the God of Israel in a union with the love goddess, a cult myth certainly attended by adapted rituals. The Song’s many mythological reminiscences that have been frequently highlighted by exegetes (e.g. Pope, Müller, Keel) suggest that the Song fits within a trajectory defined by the common ANE sacred marriage myth. The syncretistic belief that YHWH had a consort provides the template not only for the Song’s interpretation but also for its composition. The prophets provide the best light for understanding how these practices penetrated Israel, providing the “orthodox” protest with new metaphoric resources to articulate Yahwistic faith. Though fertility rites were severely denounced, the concept of a hieros gamos was not banned from Israel, but transformed and adapted to YHWH’s relationship to Israel (Hos 2,4-24; Jeremiah 2–3; Ezekiel 16) or the city of Jerusalem/Zion (i.e. Isa 49,14-18; 54,1-10; 62,15). The moment the prophets took up the marriage symbol to describe Israel’s relationship with YHWH as Israel wedded to her God, “they created a discursive world in which Israel had taken upon itself/herself the usual role that in the ancient Near East was assigned to a goddess”5. In this way the prophets paved the way for the author of the Song to transform and 5. BEN ZVI, Observations on the Marital Metaphor of YHWH and Israel, p. 375.

834

CHAPTER 12

reinterpret the syncretistic and mythic material in the light of Israel’s singular marriage relationship to YHWH, comparable to the way in which sacred marriage and goddess material was recast and “monotheized” (Mark Smith) in the feminine Wisdom figure and spouse of the sage/King Solomon (Proverbs 7–8; Wisdom 7–9). In conjunction with the mythic incursion of “sacred marriage” motifs into Israel, a hypothesis concerning the origin of the Song’s cantos in the cult was offered. Of the ancient feasts of Israel, the New Year festival presents itself as the prime candidate. It was – if celebrated in autumn – a harvest feast, the festival of the new wine, inaugurating the new cultic and agricultural year. The feast was presided over by the king and typically related to the god’s enthronement in the temple, most likely associated with sacred marriage celebrations. The descriptions of this feast accord well with the royal and viticultural character of the Song. It would help to accommodate the Song’s many mythological features, the divine complexion of the royal lover, the reminiscences of ANE goddesses in the description of the Beloved, the allusions to different times of the agricultural year, the many allusions to the Temple, and the liturgical coloring of the language. The perplexing focus on the royal chariot (Song 3,6-11; 6,12) might also recall Ark processions on the occasion of YHWH’s (re-)enthronement on the New Year festival. Finally, the Mishnah’s reference to Israelite girls citing the Song while dancing in the fields on Yom Kippur (post-exilic version of the pre-exilic New Year festival) is strongly reminiscent of the oldest biblical description of an Autumn festival (Judg 21,19.21). Such a cultic origin in a New Year festival would intelligibly explain the trajectory leading from the Song’s original Sitz im Leben to its later place in the Pesah liturgy, the date of which was merged under Babylonian influence with the spring New Year festival. While connection to a New Year festival must remain a hypothesis, the Song’s royal and agricultural character, the divine aspects of the lovers, the allusions to the Temple and the Ark, the mythological reminiscences, and the local coloring are all suggestive of the Song’s origin in a royal cult associated with wine banquets, temples, and sacred marriages. 3. Rethinking the Prophetic Connection The appropriation of sacred marriage symbolism by the Song was prominently prepared by the prophetic books. Yet any connection between the prophets’ use of the nuptial symbol and the Song is generally denied. It is argued (1) that “the whole tradition [of using marriage imagery] is

SYNTHETIC RETROSPECT

835

typical of the prophetic literature and limited strictly to it”, and (2) that the prophets limit the comparison to the legal aspects of marriage, especially to the question of faithfulness. The positive notion of love, so evident in the Song, would be absent from the prophets. The first argument is partially based on the artificial segregation of prophetic literature from other scriptural corpora addressed in Chapter 5. Even if prophetic and sapiential theological currents might have developed separately before the Exile, in the Second Temple period the whole wisdom tradition was no longer hermetically sealed off from other scriptural currents. Earlier sapiential traditions were re-conceived and redacted in light of the texts’ recording of Israel’s covenant and history. In a similar way, the prophets’ use of covenant marriage symbolism likely had a decisive impact on the composition of the Song. In fact, contrary to the claim of previous scholarship that covenant marriage symbolism had fallen into oblivion after the Exile, a recent study on the redaction history of Jeremiah 2–3 has shown that the “marriage” between YHWH and Israel was by no means a marginal or forgotten motif in the Second Temple period. Rather, the symbol enjoyed high currency and remained theologically productive up to the end of the Second Temple period. Indeed, as the study demonstrates, the marriage symbolism entered the book of Jeremiah at a very late stage of its redaction, possibly only in the first century B.C. This finding affirms the presupposition that the Song of Songs is yet another witness to the theological productivity engendered by the marriage symbol originally conceived by the prophets. Secondly, a strong remonstration was made against limiting the prophets’ use of marriage imagery to the denunciation of Israel’s infidelity. By locating the prophets’ use of marriage imagery on the level of metaphorical discourse, the objection fails to see that marriage is an archetypal symbol, so deeply rooted in reality that the prophets’ own marriage relationships serve as living symbols of the covenant relationship between YHWH and Israel (cf. Hosea 1–3; Ezek 24,15-27; Jeremiah 16). Contrary to understanding the covenant as a contract between a sovereign and a subordinate vassal, that is, an essentially static and immutable relationship, the marriage symbol allows one to depict the covenant as a dynamic relationship, motivated by love and aimed at establishing an equality in love between the partners. Israel is elevated from being a subordinate vassal to being a spouse courted by her divine bridegroom. As a symbol it encompasses all the dimensions of human love, from courtship to marriage, divorce, and reconciliation. It does not halt at exposing the present broken state of the marriage. It at once evokes the former state of perfect love (e.g. Jer 2,2) and targets the future restoration and

836

CHAPTER 12

completion of the originally intended ideal state of love (Hos 2,16-25 [E: 2,14-23]; Isa 54,1-10; 62,1-5; Jeremiah 3; Ezek 16,60-63). The marriage symbol is thus most apt to give expression to the historical dimension of Israel’s relationship with God: a history that has an origin and, most importantly, a glorious future and destiny. It is the latter that the prophets seek to stress in their adoption of this symbol. The unrestricted positive depiction of love in the Song is therefore not contradictory to the prophets’ use of the marriage symbol, but prepared and facilitated by the latter. These more general observations concerning the marriage symbol in the prophets are illustrated by the book of Hosea. By way of a subtle intertextuality with the so-called “covenant formula”, it depicts the final fulfillment of YHWH’s covenant with Israel as a perfect marital union. Specifically, this restored marriage will be consummated when Israel will again have a Temple cult and be re-united under one Davidic king. These eschatological strands of the book of Hosea demonstrate how two originally distinct traditions have been skillfully joined: that is, the historybased concept of a covenant relationship always expressed in relational metaphors and the creation-based concept according to which King and Temple are the binding forces between Israel and the Lord. The book of Hosea thereby prepared the way for reading the royal love poems of the Song in view of the more historically informed covenant relationship between YHWH and Israel, and the relationship between Israel and the legendary King Solomon, son of David and constructor of the Temple. On account of its genre the Song is deeply rooted in the royal traditions of the Temple milieu in Jerusalem. At the same time, through its subtle allusions to the books of Hosea, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, it attunes the dynamics of the love between Solomon and the Shulammite to the historical dimension of God’s covenant story with Israel. All the elements that characterize the fulfillment of the covenant history in the prophets, that is, the reunification of Israel and Judah, the return of a Davidic king, the restoration of the Land to a paradisiacal state and the gift of an allencompassing Shalom, are powerfully echoed in the Song and allow thereby for the reading of the Song in precisely this eschatological perspective. Finally, while it is true that the prophets’ application of the marriage symbol to the covenant is quite explicit, it is not true that this tradition is strictly limited to the prophetic corpus alone, nor that it always needs to be explicit. The prominent example of Psalm 45 was chosen to show how marriage imagery is used both implicitly and outside the prophetic corpus (i.e. in the Ketuvim), yet, similar to the prophet Isaiah, with regard

SYNTHETIC RETROSPECT

837

to a renewal of the covenant relationship between Zion and her divine King YHWH, or his appointed messianic king.

IV. ON

THE

OFFENSIVE: THE MESSIANIC KING AND ISRAEL AS BRIDE

One of the commonly repeated assertions undergirding the naturalistic position is that the Song itself gives no indications that it should be understood in a figurative manner. This claim must be rejected; for a series of impressive internal clues orient the reader to the book’s symbolic level of meaning. Puns and plays with proper names function as indicators in this direction. The Song’s simultaneous alignment of the Beloved with Jerusalem and the Land of Israel, through the use of an architectural woman-city topos, mention of characteristic flora of the Land, and carefully chosen geographical place names point to her reciprocal identity as an image of the people. The idealized borders personified in her person expose the union of the two Lovers as the fulfillment of Israel’s expectation. With the recognizable biblical personage of the shepherd-king, symbolic space is opened for both YHWH and one of Israel’s chosen leaders to occupy the role of the book’s protagonist. However, it is the explicit Solomonic superscription of the text, reminiscent at multiple points of Psalm 72, which ultimately secures the book’s association of its Lover with a protomessianic idealized king. 1. Symbolic Personifications While Psalm 45 was adduced to show that biblical allegories need not always to be explicit, attention was drawn to yet another biblical literary device, namely symbolic personifications, which was frequently used during the Second Temple period and which prepared the readers of the Song for the recognition of implicit signals of multi-tiered text-meanings. From the post-exilic time onwards, biblical figures were frequently constructed as symbolic personifications of Israel. The examples of Sarai (Genesis 12), Joseph (Genesis 37), Tamar (2 Samuel 13), Jonah, Esther, and Sarah (Book of Tobit) were given. A more elaborate exemplification of this phenomena was provided adducing three recent studies of Susanna, Jephthah’s daughter, and Judith. All these narratives demonstrate a highly developed “canon consciousness” by which they enable the reader to recognize the symbolic personification of the people of Israel/Judah in these feminine heroines. Since the Song is also a product of the Second Temple (probably Hellenistic) period, it is to be expected that its author reckoned with an audience

838

CHAPTER 12

well capable of grasping sophisticated scriptural allusions. His audience would not only have been attentive to symbolic personifications; it would have probably even been expecting such literary devices. Contrary to our modern taste, which demands that meaning lie on the surface of the plain sense, ancient audiences expected the plain sense to be the carrier of yet another, implicit, meaning, be it symbolic or allegoric. 2. Mapping the Shulammite as Israel The Song offers a number of impressive clues that orient its reader to the book’s symbolic level of meaning. Among these are the choice of names and epithets. The appellation ‫ דוד‬for the Lover is reminiscent of David, and evocative also of Solomon the ‫ ידידיה‬of the Lord (2 Sam 12,25; Ps 127,2). Moreover, it is reminiscent of YHWH himself, who in some theophoric names is referred to as a ‫ דוד‬and whom Isaiah calls explicitly his ‫ דודי‬in his Song of the vineyard (Isa 5,1). The latter is a key inter-text for the identification of the Song’s ‫ דוד‬with YHWH and of its vineyard-Beloved (cf. Song 1,5) with Israel. The Song, moreover, purposefully relates the names of Solomon, Shulammite, and Jerusalem by punning on the consonants shin, lamed, mem. In their own way, each of these names is a powerful pun on “peace” (‫)שלום‬. Solomon is the king of peace (cf. 1 Chr 22,9), Jerusalem is the city of peace (cf. Psalm 122), and the Shulammite is the one who eventually finds peace in her Lover’s eyes (cf. Song 8,11). There is a suggestive kinship between Israel’s royal city and the Shulammite. This kinship is buttressed by two passages, Song 4,4-7 and 8,8-10, which describe her with urban architectural metaphors. Looking at the Beloved, one is reminded of an ANE royal city with a magnificently decorated wall crown. These are strong hints to the fact that the Beloved is a personification of Israel’s royal and holy city, Jerusalem. The strong presence of Jerusalem in the Song naturally evokes the Davidic dynasty, alluded to both in the epithet ‫ דוד‬and by the name of Solomon. David and Solomon in turn evoke the land of Israel, which is in fact represented through the many geographical place names that serve to describe the beauty of the Beloved. While the use of waṣfs in the description of women is common in the ANE, the Song is unique in its employment of toponyms. In thus describing the Beloved, it creates a “sacred geography” that is reminiscent of the ideal borders of a reunited Israel. The land depicted here corresponds to the dimensions it supposedly once had under David and Solomon and which it is hoped to regain in future days under the reign of an ideal Solomon.

SYNTHETIC RETROSPECT

839

Another clue to a symbolic meaning of the Song is the carefully calculated distribution of certain terms. Among these is the sevenfold occurrence of seven key terms (“mother”, “my soul”, “sister”, “Lebanon”, “Solomon”, “wine”, and the “Daughters of Jerusalem”). The term ‫ דוד‬without personal suffix also occurs seven times, and the waṣf of the Beloved in Song 4,1-7 lists seven body parts. There appears to be an intended heptadic structure to the Song. While the number seven symbolizes completeness, wholeness, and perfection in the ANE and is associated with the divine and royal domain, it is noteworthy that in the Bible it particularly marks the creation narrative, the construction of the Temple, the description of the Promised Land, and the Torah. This is in perfect consonance with the Song’s many symbolic allusions to these same realities. Finally, the longstanding tradition of recognizing YHWH in the Lover of the Song is confirmed by the twenty-six occurrences of the appellation ‫דודי‬. This word usage corresponds to a typical technique of late biblical writers to interweave the divine name, the numerical value of which is twenty-six, into the biblical text. Finally, the concurrent presence of a shepherd and a king must be interpreted in harmony with the genuine ANE and biblical usage of shepherd imagery for kingship, which the Bible adopts for YHWH and the rulers of Israel, particularly for the expected divinely appointed Davidic king. A late Second Temple audience would have easily identified the Song’s shepherdking with either of them. From the time of the Exile to the first century B.C. there was a growing expectation that YHWH would save his people and restore Israel by means of a Davidic shepherd-king (cf. Mic 2,12; 4,14–5,1; Jer 23,1-8; Ezekiel 34; 37; Zech 9,9-10; Psalms of Solomon 17). According to the unanimous expectation of the prophets he would gather the exiles “like sheep in his flock” and bring them back to the land, reunite Israel and Judah, and bring about an everlasting peace (‫ )שלום‬or security. Specifically, he himself was expected to be YHWH’s shepherding presence among his people. He would bring about YHWH’s renewed dwelling among them. The royal Lover of the Song blends in well with these Davidic expectations. He is himself a Davidic shepherd who pastures his flock and makes it lie down (Song 1,7; cf. Ezekiel 34; 37). His Beloved, who has to come out (that is, of Babylon) so as to follow his flock, has the silhouette of Israel restored, North and South united, as the “sacred geography” implies. The shepherd-king has/will come to consummate/renew the covenant-marriage with his Bride Zion/Israel (3,11), descending into his garden, which is the Temple city, and bringing her the long-desired peace (8,11). This identification of the Lover with the expected Davidic shepherd-king is further buttressed by the attribution of the Song to the paradigmatic son of David, king Solomon.

840

CHAPTER 12

3. Solomonic Adscription and the Shepherd-King The title of a book is a critical hermeneutical key to the text that follows. Though the ascription of the Song to Solomon may have entered the book at a late stage, it cannot be treated as an insignificant gloss. Instead it raises a set of expectations and assumptions that are meant to guide the reader’s approach to the book. Current scholarship proposes that the Song was ascribed to Solomon either because he is the prototype of a Lover, or in order to mark the Song as wisdom literature to attain acceptance into the cannon. Both propositions were rejected as historically improbable. Instead it was proposed to recognize the generic similarity of the Song with the Psalms as songs, and the formulaic use of the superscript ‫לשלמה‬ both in Song 1,1; Ps 72,1; and Ps 127,1 as a lamed of dedication, rather than a lamed auctoris. Such a dedicative meaning is particularly evident in Psalm 72, which is identified by its subscript (v. 20) as a prayer “for” or “concerning” Solomon. Noting also that Solomon features as a character within the Song, it was claimed that the title ‫שיר השירים אשר לשלמה‬ should be interpreted as meaning “Song of Songs concerning Solomon”. To understand this ascription properly, Chapter 9 was dedicated to establishing the possible connotations that a late Second Temple audience would have associated with King Solomon. A distinction was made between the historical Solomon and the biblical figure who emerges over the centuries and whose contours surpass the historical persona by far. In tracing the development of this figure from 1 Kings to the Psalms of Solomon, the following features were observed. First, there is a biblical tradition of depicting Solomon as a man with two faces. One is glorious: Solomon, the king of peace, sovereign over a united monarchy in the largest possible extension, the wisest of all kings, the constructor of the Temple, who provided a place of rest for the Ark of the Covenant, under whose reign the divine presence came to dwell in the midst of Israel. In short, he is the one king under whom all the covenant promises made to the fathers came to fulfillment. The other face of Solomon is dark. He is Solomon the lover of many foreign women, depicted as the arch-sinner, a type of Adam who committed the “royal original sin” by indulging pagan cults that eventually caused the loss of “paradise” (1 Kings 3–11; Neh 13,26; Sir 47,12-21). The Adam typology surrounding the Solomon of 1 Kings 3–11 is expressive of the ambiguity of the king, and captures more than just the king’s darker side. The various echoes of Genesis laced through the text serve to present Solomon as the one who restores paradise and rules over the “garden state” of Israel. Indeed, the entrance of the Ark into the Temple in 1 Kings 8 appears as the final climax of a story begun in Genesis 1–2.

SYNTHETIC RETROSPECT

841

Significantly, the glorification of Solomon in this “two-face” tradition can be traced largely to a Persian era redaction. At this time, Solomon was transformed into the image of an ideal ANE monarch, with Jerusalem, his magnificent Temple-state and royal capital, transformed into the center of the world. All the extremities of the earth, from north to south, the Queen of Sheba to the King of Tyre, were drawn to marvel at Solomon’s wealth and wisdom. The significance of this Persian era imprint on the Solomon tradition is particularly important since the same influence explains the royal garden/paradise motif so central to the exegesis of Song 4,12– 5,1. Another tradition developed alongside the post-deuteronomistic redactional glorification of Solomon’s character in 1 Kings 3–11. These texts, above all 1–2 Chronicles, focused exclusively on Solomon’s glorious facets and turned him into a veritable prototype of the expected messianic son of David (cf. also Psalms 72; 127; 1 Macc 14,4-5; Psalms of Solomon 17). Of special note here was the fact that Solomon, for the Chronicler, sits upon the “Throne of YHWH”. This perspective allowed the king’s regency to profoundly fuse together monarchy and theocracy, so that Solomon became so strong a placeholder for the Lord in his divine rule that a kind of identification could come to expression. By completely ignoring Solomon’s sin, the Chronicler stylizes Solomon into the prototypical prefiguration of the expected future king who would restore Israel and the Temple to its former glory. Though the Temple had been reconstructed in the days of the Chronicler, the most important vessels, the Ark and the Desert Tent, had not been returned to their rightful place. Accordingly, the expectation was that the glory of the Lord would only return if the vessels were brought back; and this expectation centered around a New Solomon, son of David, figure. This also is the background that informs the poetics of the Lover’s descent into his garden-Beloved as described in Song 4,12–5,1. The more distant in time that messianic expectations became from the historical Solomon, the more glorious he is depicted and the more he informs the imagination of messianic expectations. Thus, particularly on account of the Song’s late dating, and the formulaic similarity of its Solomonic attribution with Psalms 72 and 127, it was argued that the Solomon to whom the Song was attributed corresponds to the idealized figure depicted in the traditions of the Chronicler, Psalms 72 and 127, 1 Maccabees, and the Psalms of Solomon. For a late Second Temple audience this attribution would have roused “messianic” expectations in approaching the book. They would probably not have read it as a book concerning the historical Solomon but rather concerning the expected son of David yet to come, of whom the historical one was but an anticipation.

842

CHAPTER 12

V. SECOND NAÏVETÉ: REENCOUNTERING THE SYMBOLS OF SOLOMON’S WEDDING AND THE ROYAL GARDEN Engaging the Song as a text with an intended, two-fold literal meaning permits a renewed experience of the book’s multivalent symbolic poetics. The recovery of this symbolic idiom, moreover, points the way to a lost interpretative key. To demonstrate this, two illustrative passages – corresponding to two landmarks within the symbolic system of Solomonic royal ideology and together framing a complete poetic cycle within the Song – were probed and shown to stand in essential continuity with the history of interpretation. The description of the day of Solomon’s wedding in Song 3,6-11 was thus understood, not only to describe the magnificent nuptial procession of a royal pair, but also to encode references to Israel’s Exodus journey through the desert and Solomon’s introduction of the Ark into the Temple. The incongruence of the “Who is this?” refrain approached at the level of the plain sense, along with various echoes of ANE Götterwagen texts, help direct the reader to the poem’s symbolic meaning. In a similar way, the entrance of the Lover into his Garden in Song 4,12–5,1, was, through its interaction with an ANE royal pardes motif, pushed to a second order of meaning beyond its jubilant affirmation of the ecstasy of human love. At this symbolic level, the text speaks of the Promised Land as a paradise lost but now regained in the indwelling presence of Israel’s Beloved within her midst. 1. Solomon’s Wedding Song 3,6-11 describes a procession going up from the desert towards Jerusalem, where King Solomon is depicted standing on top of Mount Zion, crowned by his mother on the day of his wedding. From this last scene (v. 11) it is conjectured that this scene describes the movement of a heavily guarded litter that must be a nuptial procession. The opening “Who is this?” refrain indicates that the Beloved of the Song is the one going up from the desert towards Jerusalem, where Solomon, her spouse, is waiting for her. This scene is not an ordinary peasant wedding, staged in the travesty of royal garments, as a great majority of commentators would have it. Rather, the whole episode coheres with the otherwise royal character of the Song. The “Who is this?” refrain identifies the Beloved as a more-than-human being. Like the divine warrior in Isa 63,1, she is addressed as a goddess, one who has overcome the powers of death in the desert and is now ascending the holy mountain in a liturgical procession, as the pillar billowing with myrrh and frankincense and other costly resins indicates.

SYNTHETIC RETROSPECT

843

The “going up” (‫ )עלה‬language is reminiscent of both Israel going up from the desert of the Exodus towards the Promised Land, and towards Jerusalem after the Exile. While the bride herself is never mentioned, Solomon’s litter and its elaborate description take up center stage in the poem. Sixty mighty men of Israel, girded with swords and trained in warfare, flank the litter, protecting it against some sort of evil spirits howling in the night. The mention of Israel’s mighty men wrests the scene from its allegedly profane and folkloric moorings. The whole scene echoes David’s transfer of the Ark to its holy abode. The elaborate description of a palanquin that King Solomon made of cedars, silver, gold, and purple is reminiscent of Solomon’s heavy building activity, notably the Temple that was similarly made of cedars and covered with gold from within. The fact that the palanquin’s interior is inlaid with love of the Daughters of Jerusalem is a detail that resists a literal interpretation and invites a symbolic interpretation instead. Finally, the depiction of King Solomon crowned by his mother on the day of his wedding also resists an interpretation on the level of the plain sense tout court. While the crowning mother might be an allusion to Bathsheba’s role in procuring the royal crown for Solomon, there is not one attestation in antiquity of a King’s wedding coinciding with the day of his enthronement, except in sacred marriage myths. The various inconsistencies with the description of an ordinary wedding on the level of the plain sense direct the reader to the poem’s symbolic meaning. A clue from earlier scholarship was taken up, according to which the opening question “Who is this?” serves to identify the Beloved of the Song and bride of King Solomon with the litter/palanquin that notably takes up the center stage of the poem. Solomon’s litter in this context inevitably evokes the image of the Ark of the Covenant. The comparison with other ANE Götterwagen texts revealed a common cluster of motifs with Israel’s Ark narrative. In the ANE, the king’s dedicated service to a divine chariot was regularly rewarded with a sacred marriage and the establishment of his crown, i.e. dynasty. The same motifs were recognized in David’s dedicated service to YHWH’s chariot, the Ark of the Covenant, as related in 2 Samuel 6– 7, which constitutes an important inter-text with Song 3,6-11. David’s enthronement of the Ark in its rightful place is rewarded with the establishment of an everlasting dynasty. Though the marriage with Michal is aborted, the motif remains in the foreground of the narrative. The rivalry between Michal and the Ark is set up in such a way as to make the Ark herself appear as the object of David’s undivided spousal love. In fact, according to a recurring scriptural motif, a leader/king of Israel stands in a spousal relationship to the Ark. At the same time the king also stands in a spousal relationship to the people, represented by the royal harem. This

844

CHAPTER 12

twofold spousal relationship is illuminated by the observation of a certain Ark-Israel homology, according to which the Ark is also a symbol of the people of Israel, as the carrier of the divine presence amongst the nations. The king’s undivided service of the Ark thus symbolizes not only his wholehearted service of the Lord but also of the Lord’s people. As God’s deputy he represents YHWH as a bridegroom towards the people. This background helped to illuminate the poetic symbolism of Song 3,611. The scene telescopes the history of Israel, centered around the Ark, from the Exodus to its installation in “its place”, the Temple of Jerusalem, by King Solomon. In mythic language alluding to Ishtar returning from the netherworld, Israel is described as having overcome the perils of the desert, now victoriously ascending in a both martial and liturgical procession that guides the Ark to her (female in the Hebrew) final abode (Song 3,6-8). The waṣf-like description of the palanquin in Song 3,9-10 is reminiscent of the hymns that were sung in praise of the Götterwagen on the day of their dedications. Just as such events were accompanied by a sacred marriage and the establishment of the king’s crown (in one case through the mother-goddess) in the mythic configuration of the ANE, so also Solomon is depicted as being crowned and celebrating his wedding on the day of the Ark’s dedication. While the mother was explained as alluding to Bathsheba’s role in making Solomon king, it remains enigmatic just who Solomon’s bride is. According to Israel’s understanding of its divinely appointed kingship, Solomon is YHWH’s proxy in the consummation of his covenant marriage with Israel on the day of the Ark’s installation. Solomon’s wedding is, in fact, YHWH’s wedding with Israel as he enters into his Temple (as the divine presence takes possession of his Temple). While the Lord takes possession of his Temple, his symbolic bride, Solomon receives Israel in marriage; that is, he receives the crown by which his kingship is established. 2. The Royal Garden-Bride Chapter 11 was dedicated to the exegesis of Song 4,12–5,1, the center and climax of the Song. This passage gives yet another description of the Beloved’s beauty, describing her in the image of a well-watered, Persian, royal luxury garden. The garden is locked from the inside, a symbol of the Beloved’s virginity. The fruits and spices growing in the garden-Beloved are at once reminiscent of paradise and of the Promised Land. Through these allusions, the Lover expresses that he experiences the love of his Bride as a return to paradise, which according to the biblical mindset is the same as the gift of the Promised Land. The Beloved answers the Lover’s

SYNTHETIC RETROSPECT

845

admiration by inviting him to come into his garden and to “eat its choicest fruits”, that is, to consummate their love. To this the Lover replies that he has already come into his garden and has eaten his honey and drunk his wine and his milk. The marriage staged in Song 3,6-11 has been consummated and now the friends of the Lovers are invited to share in the joy of the couple in a metaphorical wedding banquet. In its plain sense, Song 4,12–5,1 thus describes the love between the two protagonists in religious metaphors that imply an intrinsic relationship between humanity’s thirst for the love of another human person and humanity’s thirst for God expressed in the aspiration of a return to paradise. The exegesis of the plain sense brought to light the powerful symbol of a paradisiacal garden. Exploration of the symbolic system to which this image belonged uncovered a massively rich and evocative religio-regal background. In the ANE, Temples were conceived as the visible gardens of the gods, an earthly replica of the garden of plenty/Eden. The pleasure gardens regularly located outside of temples were meant to be the extension of the divine garden into the world. Temple gardens were broadly conceived as an instantiation of cosmic victory and peace, an embodiment of order established by the deity through the reigning king. In the Neo-Assyrian and Persian eras these cult-mythic associations of the garden were expanded in service of an increasingly pronounced royal ideology and propaganda. The Assyrians sought, for instance, to express the ecumenic scope of royal rule through the gathering of all exotic plant species. The Persian period in its turn, in a very particular and important way, invested this symbolic complex with a new accent on the king as agent of eschatological restoration. Here the key role was played by the Persian cosmogonical myth in which the original happiness and peace (šiyāti) given to mankind in paradise was lost through the Lie and waiting to be regained. Within this symbolic system, kings were characterized as metaphoric (and literal) gardeners. Most significantly, they served this role by sowing their seed in a hieros gamos (perhaps only poetically and never in ritual deed), through which the order and well-being of the realm were liturgically secured. The female partner in this union was the goddess, cast in the guise of a garden-land, a poetic identity built on the widespread womangarden homology. Of supreme significance in this context is that “descent into the garden” language was developed to speak of the king’s peacebringing union with his lover in the sacred marriage. The impressive resemblance of native Israelite traditions to this neighboring ANE garden symbolism is well attested. Royal Temple gardens were an integral part of the Solomonic project, as remembered, above all, in

846

CHAPTER 12

the Persian period (cf. Qoh 2,5). Both archaeologically and theologically, the elements are here put in place for comprehending Solomon as a gardener king and a New Adam figure (see Chapter 9). It is accordingly not merely sound, but only right to let this historical background inform the Solomonic garden tradition we find in Song 4,12–5,1. Although the Song’s garden imagery has typically been reduced to the description of a locus amoenus, appearing as it does in the context of a love poetry charged with royal ideology, the “descent into the garden” topos inevitably recalls the hieros gamos texts. In the Song, of course, the constellation is new, and the king’s role as mediator of the deity is accentuated. Just as the ritual entrance of a god’s statue into an ANE garden may have an echo in the Song’s application of god-description waṣfs to the Lover, so the entrance here of the Solomonic king protagonist into his Garden carries a strong aura of the entrance of a divine presence. This reading of the Lover is further enabled by the Beloved’s characterization as the Land. The woman/garden homology is, specifically, Israel’s covenantally promised terrain and Solomon’s Temple, simultaneously. One thus sees in these verses, the consummation of a sacred marriage somehow uniting Israel’s Lord with his people. Through the King, the Lord himself descends from on high to abide within his people’s midst. In effect, read in this way, the Song has reconfigured the symbolic elements of an ANE garden myth to give poetic expression to an eschatological event entirely proper to Israel. The Lord here marries his people, perfecting his covenant, by descending to dwell within the garden of Solomon’s Temple. Finally the garden-Bride as described in Song 4,12–5,1 is strongly reminiscent of Wisdom personified planted as a garden “in the midst of her people” in Sir 24,13-21. Similar to the Beloved in the Song, the description of Wisdom in Ben Sira recalls the garden of Eden, now planted in Zion. Wisdom invites those who desire her to come and eat from her produce (Sir 24,19-21) and is identified with the Torah as the four rivers flowing forth from paradise (cf. 24,23-27). Torah, in fact, is a source of living water transforming Israel into a new paradise. The many parallels between the description of the Beloved of the Song and that of Wisdom appear to be clearly intended by Ben Sira. While the step of identifying the Bride with the inviting Lady Wisdom belongs to a species of Torah devotion not evident in the Song, the garden-Bride nonetheless presents a symbolic typology continuous with the introduction of such an isomorphic content. Wisdom is to be loved and sought after with the same passion and love with which the Bridegroom of the Song seeks his Beloved; at the same time, the search for Wisdom will be as gratifying as the love that the Bride offers to her Lover by letting him into the garden.

SYNTHETIC RETROSPECT

847

VI. THE COMMUNITY OF READERS: MESSIANIC WIRKUNGSGESCHICHTE AND THE MEANING OF THE SONG In the limited scope of this study, my focus has been on the intersection of the intentio auctoris and the intentio operis. The latter allowed me to include the new dimensions of meaning that the Song acquired by its insertion into the then-still-growing literary framework of Israel’s corpus of Sacred Scriptures. A full hermeneutical theory, however, must also focus on the reader who participates in the construction of meaning. It requires taking into account the diverse communities of readers that construct and elaborate these symbolic trajectories in distinctly concrete ways. I have done so tangentially in pointing out how the Targumic interpretation of the Song’s symbols represents a coherent development of their mythic and biblical potential (see Chapter 10, IV; 11, IV). The same can be shown for the Christian tradition. The two traditions do not contradict each other. Rather, with the parting of ways, the Jewish tradition continued to develop a formal Messianism that the Christian community filled with a concrete Christological content. It became the transition to the Christian tradition of reading the Song as a love song between Jesus and his Bride the Church, the individual soul, or Mary. Neither tradition simply holds an extrinsic eisegesis, even if allegorizing elements also entered in. The heuristic core in both traditions evolves coherently from the Song’s literal sense. The two trajectories and their mutual coherence may be hinted at at this point. 1. Messianic Expectation in the Targum For the Jewish tradition I chose the Targum, as its narrative interpretation is closest to our modern-day intertextual reading approaches to a text like the Song. Furthermore, though possibly a seventh- or eighth-century composition6, Targum Canticles conserves ancient traditions of Jewish interpretation going back to the Tannaitic period7 and reflecting thirdcentury polemics between the Christian and the Rabbinic interpretation of the Song8. The Targumist reads the Song from the perspective of the destruction of the Second Temple and the following dispersion of the Jewish people 6. See ALEXANDER, Targum of Canticles, p. 55. For a host of arguments in favor of a third-century dating, see MANNS, Targum du Cantique, pp. 252-259. 7. See ALEXANDER, Targum of Canticles, pp. 39-45, 55, and MANNS, Targum du Cantique, p. 258. 8. See MANNS, Targum du Cantique, p. 259.

848

CHAPTER 12

among the nations. According to him, the Song is an allegory of the history of God’s relationship with Israel beginning in Egypt until the coming of the Messiah9. This history is divided into three similarly structured periods. Each begins with an exile, leads to an exodus, and culminates with (re-)entrance into the land. The latter comprises the establishment of the monarchy, the (re-)construction of the Temple and the dwelling of the divine presence, i.e. the Shekhinah, in the midst of the people of Israel10. The first period, spanning from “the exile in Egypt, the Exodus, the wilderness wanderings, the giving of the Torah on Sinai, the entry into the Land, and climaxing with the building of the Temple under Solomon and the descent of the Shekinah”11 is recounted in Song 1,1–5,1. The separation of the Lovers in Song 5,2-7 is identified as the conquest of Jerusalem by the Babylonians, 5,8–6,1 refers to Israel’s Exile in Babylon, 6,2-6 to the second Exodus under Cyrus, and 6,7–7,11 to the restoration of the ideal polity and the glories of the Hasmonean age12. The remaining verses of Song 7,11–8,14 refer to the time between the “exile of Edom (Rome and its successor Christianity)”, that is the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 A.D., until the coming of the Messiah. The symbolic system is easily recognizable and corresponds in large part to our own. God is the Lover and Israel the Beloved. Any separation of the Lovers is a symbol for an exile, while the Lover’s descent into the/a garden, as well as the refrain of mutual belonging alluding to their sexual union, is a symbol for the presence of the divine Lover among his people, i.e. the presence of the Shekhina in the desert tent (cf. 2,7), in the First Temple (4,16–5,1), and in the Second Temple (6,3; 6,11; 7,11). This is best expressed in his commentary to the last refrain of mutual belonging, Song 7,11: “Jerusalem says: ‘So long as I walk in the ways of the Lord of the World, He causes his Shekhina to dwell among me, and His desire is toward me. But when I deviate from His ways He removes His Shekhina from me, and makes me wander among the nations’”13. For the Targumist the Solomonic state represented the “pinnacle” of Israel’s Heilsgeschichte14. Similar to the dynamic at work in the Book of Chronicles, it looks back 9. Alexander explains that even though the Rabbis tried to repress Messianism from the mid-second century A.D. onwards, they were never perfectly successful at keeping it at bay. Particularly with the beginning of the sixth or seventh century A.D. “there was an upsurge of Messianism in Judaism. It was accompanied by a rediscovery of the apocalyptic genre of writing and the recovery of ‘lost’ Second-Temple-period apocalyptic traditions”. ALEXANDER, Targum of Canticles, p. 56. 10. See ibid., p. 13. 11. Ibid. 12. See ibid., p. 15. 13. Ibid., p. 185. 14. Ibid., p. 18.

SYNTHETIC RETROSPECT

849

“with nostalgia to the period of Solomon as the time when Israel achieved full political maturity”15. Thus he envisions the messianic age as a restoration of the Solomonic reign16. It will bring about the in-gathering of the exiles whom the Messiah will lead back up to Jerusalem (cf. the echo to 3,6 in 8,5, “who is this coming up from the desert”?), the restoration of the Temple, and the messianic banquet (Song 8,1-5). Until the ideal Solomonic polity is restored in the Messianic Age, Israel is forced to endure the decrees of the nations. Far from her homeland and the Temple, Israel is bereft of the in-dwelling presence of the Shekhina. However, she is not bereft of protection, for she has the words of the Torah. For as Alexander notes, “Study of the Torah comes close to the experience of the Shekhinah. It too protects […] and it hastens the coming of the Messiah and the restoration of the Temple. It is a foretaste of the Messianic Age”17. It is noteworthy that the Targum’s reading of the Song is in continuity with the symbolic exegesis of this thesis and the intertextual readings of modern-day scholars. Specifically, the key moments of the Lovers’ embrace in the flesh, identified in the refrain of mutual belonging and the Lover’s descent into his garden, corresponds in all these readings to the climactic moment of the Lord’s descent into the Tabernacle or the Temple. Similarly, the separation of the Lovers symbolizes a moment of alienation, an experience of exile from the land during which the Beloved “sought for him, but found him not” (Song 3,1; 5,6; cf. Hos 5,6.15). The reunification between the Lovers signifies redemption, that is, return to the land, restoration of the Davidic monarchy, the rebuilding of the Temple, and the restoration of the Shekhina to the Temple. While Solomon may stand at times for the Lord himself, “the king to whom peace belongs [‫המלך‬ ‫”]ששלום שלו‬18, at times for the historical Solomon, and at times for the prototype of the Messiah, the Beloved can be the People, the Temple, the Land. The Torah plays a similar role as identified in Chapter 11; however, it does not appear in the vestments of the Beloved but of the Lover (particularly in the description of the Lover in Tg. Cant. 5.10-16). It is a gift for the time “in between”, that is, the time before the restoration of Israel’s religio-political institutions. It facilitates an intimacy with the Lord similar to the presence of the Shekhina. In fact, when the Messiah comes he will teach her (Israel) the Torah in the house of her mother, that is, the Temple (cf. Tg. Cant. 8.2). 15. 16. 17. 18.

Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., Ibid.,

p. p. p. p.

19. 18. 20. 201, n. 50; cf. Num. Rab. 11.3.

850

CHAPTER 12

The Targum’s strong messianic coloring is in perfect concordance with the Solomonic shepherd-king symbol as developed in this thesis. It looks back at the time of King Solomon as a prototypical depiction of the expected messianic eschaton. This corresponds to the dyadic structure of the Song, which depicts only one moment of perfect unity between the Lovers, which is the consummation of their wedding as described in Song 4,12–5,1. Though the second part makes allusions to the Lover’s presence in his garden (e.g., Song 6,1) and expresses their mutual belonging (e.g. 7,11), it is more stamped by their mutual longing for each other, lacking such a climactic “happy ending” as we have it at the end of the first part in Song 5,1. Rather, the second part ends in the separation of the two, which is a hint that the ultimate union of the two is still outstanding: a hint towards an outstanding eschatological fulfillment. 2. Messianic Fulfillment in the New Testament While the Jewish messianic interpretation of the Song remains formal and undefined, it receives a unique Christological interpretation in the Gospels19, which then became the transition to the tradition of reading the Song as a love song between Christ and his Church, the individual soul, or Mary. The allusions to the Song in the NT are not infrequent20. The Christological interpretation of the Song’s nuptial symbolism is particularly salient in the Johannine literature. It can only be sketched out in this closing section. However, it is a precious witness to an already-established messianic reading of the Song in the first century A.D., which the Johannine 19. A. FEUILLET, Les épousailles messianiques et les références au Cantique des cantiques dans les évangiles synoptiques, in RThom 84 (1984) 399-424. Also M. HENGEL, Die ‘auserwählte Herrin’, die ‘Braut’, die ‘Mutter’ und die ‘Gottesstadt’, in ID. – S. MITTMANN – A.M. SCHWEMER (eds.), La Cité de Dieu – Die Stadt Gottes (WUNT, 129), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2000, 245-280, pp. 251-252: “Der Liebe zwischen Salomon und Sulamit, König und königlicher Braut, im Hohenlied entspricht in der allegorischen Deutung im Judentum die zwischen dem Herrn und seinem auserwählten Volk und im frühen Christentum die zwischen Christus und seiner Gemeinde. Dabei ist auffallend, daß im Urchristentum diese Liebe ohne Schwierigkeit von Gott auf Christus übertragen werden konnte. Der Vater und der Sohn können im eschatologischen Offenbarungsvollzug als Einheit gesehen werden”. 20. Among numerous studies, cf. CAMBE, Influence; J. WINANDY, Le Cantique des cantiques et le Nouveau Testament, in RB 71 (1964) 161-190; A. FEUILLET, La recherche du Christ dans la nouvelle alliance d’après la christophanie de Jo. 20,11-18: Comparaison avec Cant. 3,1-4 et l’épisode des Pélerins d’Emmaüs, in L’homme devant Dieu: Mélanges offerts au Père Henri de Lubac, Paris, Aubier, 1963, 93-112; ID., Le Cantique des cantiques et l’Apocalypse; A.R. WINSOR, A King Is Bound in the Tresses: Allusions to the Song of Songs in the Fourth Gospel (Studies in Biblical Literature, 6), New York, Lang, 1999; and TOMSON, The Song of Songs in the Teachings of Jesus.

SYNTHETIC RETROSPECT

851

author could presuppose on the part of his audience and provide a concrete Christological content21. In the gospel of John, Jesus is introduced as the shepherd-king (cf. John 10; 1,49; 6,15; 12,12-16; 18,33–19,22) and messianic Bridegroom who has come to celebrate the eschatological wedding with his people Israel. Thus John the Baptist, while eschewing the title of Christ for himself, testifies about Jesus in John 3,29: “He who has the bride is the bridegroom; the friend of the bridegroom, who stands and hears him, rejoices greatly at the bridegroom’s voice; therefore this joy of mine is now full”. By alluding to Jeremiah’s “refrain” of the “voice of the bridegroom” (φωνὴ νυμφίου; 33,11 MT = 40,11 LXX) that will not be heard until the time of the “new covenant” (cf. Jer 31,31 = 38,31 LXX) the gospel takes up the motif of God’s covenant marriage with Israel (cf. Hosea 1–3; Jer 2,2; Ezekiel 16; Isa 62,1-12) and transfers it to the Messiah who has come to wed his people Israel22. It thereby implicitly alludes to the “voice of my Lover” of Song 2,8 and 5,2, whom the gospel identifies with Jesus23. Some exegetes see here also an allusion to Song 8,13 LXX where the Beloved tells her Lover, “Oh you who dwell in the gardens, my companions are listening for your voice; let me hear it”24. John is the companion who hears the voice of the Messiah bridegroom and rejoices25. 21. See in particular the recent contributions by TASCHL-ERBER, Bräutigam; J. MCWHIRTER, The Bridegroom Messiah and the People of God: Marriage in the Fourth Gospel (Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series, 138), Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2008; and WINSOR, King. 22. On John’s use of the covenant motif, see C.K. BARRETT, The Gospel according to St. John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text, London, SPCK, 1955, pp. 185-186; W. BAUER, Das Johannesevangelium (Handbuch zum Neuen Testament, 6), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 31933, p. 63; M.-É. BOISMARD, L’ami de l’époux (Jo., III, 29), in A. GELIN (ed.), À la rencontre de Dieu, Le Puy, Xavier Mappus, 1961, 289-295, p. 291; R.E. BROWN, The Gospel according to John I–XII (AncB, 29), New York, Doubleday, 1966, p. 156; and HENGEL, Die ‘auserwählte Herrin’, pp. 260-262: “Der christologische Sinn von Joh 3,25-30 geht dahin, daß Jesus als der Messias und Gottessohn (oder im Bild gesprochen der ‘Bräutigam’) die wahre endzeitliche Gottesgemeinde als ‘Braut’ sammelt und sich mit ihr vereint”. On the allusion to Jer 33,11, see CAMBE, Influence, p. 14; J. JEREMIAS, Jesus als Weltvollender (Beiträge zur Förderung christlicher Theologie, 33), Gütersloh, Bertelsman, 1930, pp. 28-29; BAUER, Das Johannesevangelium, p. 63; WINANDY, Cantique, p. 168; M. HENGEL, The Interpretation of the Wine Miracle at Cana: John 2:1-11, in L.D. HURST (ed.), The Glory of Christ in the New Testament, London, Oxford University Press, 1987, 83-112, pp. 101-102; M. ZIMMERMANN – R. ZIMMERMANN, Der Freund des Bräutigams (Joh 3,29): Deflorations- oder Christuszeuge?, in ZNW 90 (1999) 123-130, p. 126. 23. Though this identification is much more evident in Rev 3,20 (see below), given the further allusions to the Song in the gospel of John it stands to reason that the same echo is intended here. See CAMBE, Influence, p. 13; FEUILLET, Le symbolisme de la colombe, p. 540; ID., Le Cantique des cantiques et l’Apocalypse, p. 334, n. 8; ID., La recherche du Christ, p. 106. 24. See CAMBE, Influence, p. 15; JOÜON, Cantique, pp. 331-332; WINANDY, Cantique, p. 167; BROWN, The Gospel according to John I–XII, pp. 101-102. 25. For a critical discussion of this instance, see MCWHIRTER, Marriage, p. 52.

852

CHAPTER 12

In presenting Jesus as the Messiah bridegroom in John 3,29, the author of the gospel builds on the marriage motif that he had already introduced in John 2,1-12 and now confirms what had already been hinted at in the narration itself: Jesus, the Messiah, is the symbolic bridegroom of the wedding of Cana26. The strategic placement of the wedding of Cana at the beginning of Jesus’ public ministry (John 2,1-12) functions as a proleptic interpretation of Christ’s hour on the cross as the hour in which the divine Messiah will consummate the covenant wedding with his Bride, the people of Israel27. This vision of Christ’s passion on the cross as the consummation of the messianic wedding is underpinned by an allusion to the Song that has been seen by manifold authors ever since the time of Origen28. It is the description of the so-called anointing at Bethany in John 12,3, were Jesus is depicted as the king reclining at table while Mary in the symbolic figure of the Bride lets the house be filled with the fragrance of her nard29. This 26. See also BARRETT, John, p. 186; J. MARSH, Saint John (Westminster Pelican Commentaries), Philadelphia, PA, Westminster Press, 1968, p. 196; S.M. SCHNEIDERS, The Revelatory Text: Interpreting the New Testament as Sacred Scripture, San Francisco, CA, Harper, 1991, p. 187; M.W.G. STIBBE, John (Readings: A New Biblical Commentary), Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press, 1993, pp. 60-61: “In 2.1-11, the symbolic import of the Cana miracle is that the eschatological wedding, along with the messianic banquet, has now begun. […] Thus, the eschatological marriage between Yahweh and his people takes place in Jesus-history”. See further MCWHIRTER, Marriage, pp. 47-50; TASCHL-ERBER, Bräutigam, pp. 329-323. 27. See L. ALONSO SCHÖKEL, La lettura simbolica del Nuovo Testamento, in W. EGGER (ed.), Per una lettura molteplice della Bibbia: Atti del Convegno tenuto a Trento il 2324 maggio 1979, Bologna, EDB, 1981, 47-79, p. 63: “La collocazione dell’episodio delle nozze di Cana, all’inizio dell’evangelo mentre Gesù inizia la sua vita pubblica, è assai significativa. Una grande tradizione ha visto in questo racconto – oltre al suo ovvio significato – un simbolo anticipato delle nozze messianiche di Gesù (l’Ap parlerà delle nozze dell’Agnello)”. See also X. LÉON-DUFOUR, Le signe de Cana ou les noces de Dieu avec Israël, in P. GRELOT (ed.), La vie de la Parole: De l’Ancien au Nouveau Testament. Études d’exégèse et d’herméneutique bibliques offertes à Pierre Grelot professeur à l’Institut Catholique de Paris, Paris, Desclée, 1987, 229-239, p. 234; I. DE LA POTTERIE, Le mystère des noces, in Marie dans le Mystère de l’Alliance, Paris, Desclée, 1988, 183-231; M. GIRARD, Cana ou l’“heure” de la vraie noce (Jean 2,1-12), in A. PASSONI DELL’ACQUA (ed.), “Il vostro frutto rimanga” (Gv 16,16): Miscellanea per il LXX compleanno di Giuseppe Ghiberti, Bologna, EDB, 2005, 99-109, pp. 105, 107: “Dès le début du v. 3 commence la préparation de l’eau de la noce, de la plus-que-noce […]. Les deux tourtereaux de Cana, dans l’ordre des événements observables, servent simplement au dévoilement d’épousailles plus mystérieuses et éternelles, celles du Christ avec l’humanité, par le don entier de lui même du haut de la croix”. 28. See ORIGEN, The Song of Songs: Commentary and Homilies (Ancient Christian Writers, 26), Westminster, MD, Newman, 1957, Com. Cant. 2.9, pp. 160-161 and Hom. Cant. 2.2, pp. 285-286. 29. In the Bible the word “nard” appears solely in the Song and the two accounts of the anointing at Bethany (Mark 14,3; John 12,3). For an in-depth study on the relationship between John 12,3 and the Song, see WINSOR, King. See also F. MANNS, Lecture symbolique de Jean 12,1-11, in LA 36 (1986) 85-110.

SYNTHETIC RETROSPECT

853

echoes the words of the Beloved in Song 1,12: “While the king was on his couch, my nard gave forth its fragrance”30. This frequently mentioned parallel is the nocturnal search of the Bride of the Song for her spouse (Song 3,1-4), which seems to have served John as a matrix in his account of Mary Magdalen’s search for the body of Jesus in the garden on the morning of the resurrection31. It is striking that in both cases a woman searches in the dark and asks a third party where a longedfor man has disappeared to, before unexpectedly discovering him. John’s noli me tangere is also an evident play on the Beloved’s holding the Lover and not letting him go32. This complex parallel had already been identified in the early Church, notably by Hippolytus, presumably the first Christian commentator on the Song, slightly earlier than Origen33. It features in the commentaries of Venerable Bede (673-735) and St. John of the Cross (154291) and even in Bach’s Easter Oratorio34. By means of this allusion to the Song, John presents Mary Magdalene as the Beloved of the Song, “the spouse of the New Covenant … representative figure of the New Israel which emerges from the New Creation”35. Jesus, conversely, is identified with the Lover of the Song and the divine bridegroom of the prophetic expectations who has come to institute the New Covenant of a marriage with his people through his death and resurrection36. The Book of Revelation further contributes to this Johannine interaction with the Song. As discussed in Chapter 4, IV.2, there is a clear allusion to Song 5,2 in Rev 3,20. The conclusion of the book must also be mentioned, for with a grand nuptial image it brings to a climax the entire New Testament canon. The final eschatological vision of the Christian Bible thus presents us with the New Jerusalem “prepared as a bride adorned for her husband” (Rev 21,2; Isa 49,18; 61,10). This same city, the New Jerusalem, will then be described in garden imagery, in which “a river of living waters” flows (cf. Rev 22,1; Song 4,15). 30. See TASCHL-ERBER, Bräutigam, pp. 345-353. 31. See CAMBE, Influence, pp. 17-19; WINANDY, Cantique, p. 161; FEUILLET, La recherche du Christ, pp. 102-112; WINSOR, King, pp. 35-48; MCWHIRTER, Marriage, pp. 79-105; and TASCHL-ERBER, Bräutigam, pp. 353-365. 32. See TASCHL-ERBER, Bräutigam, p. 363. 33. HIPPOLYTUS, Εἰς τὸ ᾆσμα, Frag. 15: G.N. BONWETSCH – H. ACHELIS (eds.), Hippolytus Werke – Erster Band. Exegetische und Homiletische Schriften, Erste Hälfte: Die Kommentare zu Daniel und zum Hohenliede (GCS, 1), Leipzig, Hinrichs, 1897, pp. 350-352. 34. THE VENERABLE BEDE, On the Song of Songs and Selected Writings (The Classics of Western Spirituality), New York, Paulist Press, 2011, pp. 91-92. ST. JOHN OF THE CROSS, Dark Night of the Soul 2.13.6, New York, Doubleday, 1990, pp. 140-142. 35. S.M. SCHNEIDERS, John 20:11-18: The Encounter of the Easter Jesus with Mary Magdalene – A Transformative Feminist Reading, in F.F. SEGOVIA (ed.), “What Is John?”: Readers and Readings of the Fourth Gospel (SBL Symposium Series, 3), Atlanta, GA, Scholars, 1996, 155-168, p. 162. 36. See also TASCHL-ERBER, Bräutigam, p. 365.

854

CHAPTER 12

Just as in Song 5,1, Revelation also employs the symbol of a wedding feast (δεῖπνον τοῦ γάμου Rev 19,9). Though after the makarism of Rev 19,9, the feast is not mentioned again, the reader knows what it implies. We know from Rev 2,7 that the victor will be given to eat from the tree of life, and from Rev 2,17 that he will be given the hidden manna. The tree of life is the tree growing in the city-garden-Bride of Revelation. Thus those who are called to participate in the wedding feast will eat the fruits brought forth from the garden-Bride. We encountered the very same concept in Song 5,1 where the Bridegroom had eaten from the fruits of his garden-Bride and then invited his friends to join in the act of eating and drinking. In the context of an erotic relationship between a man and a woman, this invitation was startling, leading to the presumption that the poetry uses the imagery of eating and drinking on two levels, first for the enjoyment of the sexual union and then in the sense of a wedding feast. Here in Revelation, both levels merge into one and the same act. In fact, in the eschatological wedding of the Lamb there is only one Bridegroom but many invitees who in their entirety make up the one Bride of the Lamb. Thus the union of the spouses, to remain in the imagery employed in Revelation 19–22, is never a union of two singular beings, but always a union between the Lamb of God and a multitude of people, who inasmuch as they belong to the eschatological community are “the Bride of the Lamb”. And whoever is thirsty is invited to come: “let him who desires take the water of life without price” (Rev 22,17; Isa 55,1). This explains why a multitude can participate in the union, expressed in the act of eating and drinking37. The Old Testament symbols alluded to in the metaphors of Song 4,12– 5,1 all find their fulfillment in the wedding of the Lamb. At the same time the eschatological fulfillment of Scripture sheds light onto its prefiguration. What becomes surprisingly apparent when rereading this passage of the Song in light of its fulfillment intoned in Revelation 19–21 is that the joy of the Bride and the Groom is mutual. Not only is there joy in the eschatological salvation of mankind and its unheard-of elevation to the likeness to God in becoming the Lamb’s Bride, but what is inconceivable for “the God of the philosophers” is possible for “the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob”: there is tremendous joy for God in the fulfillment of 37. On this topic Philippe Lefebvre observes: “L’union – la communion – ne concerne pas que la conjugalité mais tous ceux qui, par l’Esprit, constituent le Corps du Christ dans son entier. Le prêtre au cours de l’Eucharistie, appelant l’Esprit sur l’assemblée, prie ainsi: ‘Accorde à tous ceux qui vont partager ce pain et boire à cette coupe d’être rassemblé par l’Esprit-Saint en un seul corps, pour qu’ils soient eux-mêmes, dans le Christ, une vivante offrande à la louange de ta gloire’ (prière eucharistique IV)”. LEFEBVRE – MONTALEMBERT, Homme, femme, Dieu, p. 260.

SYNTHETIC RETROSPECT

855

salvation history. As Isaiah prophesies, God himself rejoices in the unity established with saved humanity, which Scripture expresses in the images of marital joy. What Isaiah states explicitly: “As the bridegroom rejoices in the bride, so shall your God rejoice over you” (Isa 62,5), the Song clothes in metaphors for the union of man and woman in the flesh: “I come into my garden, my sister, my bride, I gather my myrrh with my spice, I eat my honeycomb with my honey, I drink my wine with my milk” (Song 5,1). The Christian reading of the Song does not destroy the Jewish reading. On the contrary, it builds upon it. At the same time, it goes beyond it in ways the Christian community would understand as a fulfillment. It is here that the properly spiritual sense, in its medieval tripartite form, can perhaps be most profitably approached. Specifically, the Song’s spiritual level of meaning is actualized in a range of distinctly contoured contextualized readings. (i) The realized theology of possession, which in the Jewish (Rabbinic) context took the shape of Torah spirituality, is oriented towards an individual soul in its nuptial pursuit of the divine, as the Christian monastic tradition especially emphasized. This is the moral meaning. (ii) The Song’s symbolic engagement with the events of Israel’s past was plotted in two parallel allegorical meanings. In the Jewish tradition, the book retold the well-known biblical story, while in the Christian context this same aspect of the text allowed the book to speak in a specifically Christological (and ecclesiological) idiom. What had already happened for Israel, typologically signified for Christians what had similarly already transpired in Christ. (iii) Finally, the trajectory of messianic expectation invited by the Song actives an anagogical/future sense. For evident theological reasons, Jewish readers continued to locate the eschatological pressure of the book in a still-unrealized future, while Christians were naturally inclined to take another approach. Nevertheless, a Second Coming expectation kept this reading option open also for the Church. Thus, here more than anywhere, in the notes of still-unfulfilled desire so deeply inscribed in the Song, Jewish and Christians readings align in a common anticipation: “The Bride says, ‘Come!’”. 3. Paths for Future Research Many excellent commentaries have offered intertextual readings of the Song that show a highly developed “canon consciousness” at work in the Song’s composition38. What remains to be done, however, is to study 38. See FEUILLET, Cantique; ROBERT – TOURNAY – FEUILLET, Cantique; TOURNAY, Dieu; LACOCQUE, Romance; DAVIS, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs; BARBIERO, Cantico; ID., Song; SCHWIENHORST-SCHÖNBERGER, Das Hohelied.

856

CHAPTER 12

if these intertextual allusions follow a certain pattern. It has been my repeated impression that the author responsible for the Song’s final composition was already acquainted with and followed a certain set of “proto-Rabbinic” rules of exegesis. It was not possible to pursue these hints in a systematic way, but it is possible to formulate some questions related to the “pre-existence” or nascent development of such approaches during the late Second Temple period. For example: How early can we reckon with the application of gemmatria in the composition of texts? That is, what is the significance of the carefully calculated distribution of key terms? Does the Song testify to the use of Gezerah Shewa on the level of its composition, thereby interpreting established scriptural texts? Broadly, in what ways are later codified rules of interpretation simply the inverse and echo of earlier modes of composition? Hints at the operation of proto-Rabbinic rules of exegesis in the composition of the Song might, for example, be found in the many allusions to the book of Genesis, the former and the latter prophets. I will adduce only one example: in Song 7,11 the Song famously quotes and inverts the curse against the woman in Gen 3,16. Now woman’s “desire” (‫)תשופה‬ for man’s love finds an echo, “his desire” is finally also for her. The term “desire” however, also evokes Gen 4,7 (the only other occurrence of ‫תשופה‬ in the Hebrew Bible) and “sin’s” desire for Cain. In the immediately following verse of the Song, 7,12, the Beloved again alludes to Cain in quoting Gen 4,8 (an instance lost in the MT but preserved in Gen 4,8 LXX) and 1 Sam 20,11, when she summons her Lover, “let us go forth into the fields”. By recalling at once an instance of fratricide and another of self-sacrifice for the sake of the beloved brother, the Song insinuates the restoration not only of male-female love (as hinted at in Song 7,10), but also of fraternal love that is just as much in need of healing39. If indeed a proto-Rabbinic mentality was operative already in the final stages of the Song’s composition, this mentality must also illuminate the way we read texts like the New Testament. In such a light, new allusions may possibly be found, where the symbolic system of the Song perhaps stands as a lost inter-text unlocking the specific Christian symbolism. The story of the Samaritan woman at the well, notably, evokes a complex cluster of images, partly preserved only in Rabbinic literature and centered on a Song-like spring of living water, a spousal encounter, and the Temple. If the symbolic logic of Song 4,12–5,1 is thus brought to bear on this passage, a number of curiosities might be very helpfully illuminated, including 39. See also BÖHLER, Tochter Zion, p. 155.

SYNTHETIC RETROSPECT

857

the significance of the multiply married woman40. A second possibility from the Gospel of John also invites particular attention: the crowning of Jesus with thorns before the people. The Greek text seems, in fact, to allude to the day of Solomon’s wedding, which would powerfully invest the moment with a profound new depth of theological drama. The two passages thus chosen as illustrations of the Song of Song’s symbolic reading key may thus, in the end, also prove to hold the keys for unlocking the New Testament’s message about Jesus.

40. See also TASCHL-ERBER, Bräutigam, p. 344.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

AARTUN, K., Textüberlieferung und vermeintliche Belege der Konjunktion pV im Alten Testament, in UF 10 (1978) 1-13. ABADIE, P., La figure de David dans les livres des Chroniques: De la figure historique à la figure symbolique. Contribution à l’étude de l’historiographie juive à l’époque postexilique, Paris, Institut Catholique de Paris, 1990. ABMA, R., Bonds of Love: Methodic Studies of Prophetic Texts with Marriage Imagery (Isaiah 50:1-3 and 54:1-10, Hosea 1–3, Jeremiah 2–3) (Studia Semitica Neerlandica, 40), Assen, Royal Van Gorcum, 1999. ABRAHAMS, I., Numbers, Typical and Important, in Encyclopedia Judaica, XII, 1971, 1254-1261. ACKERMAN, S., Under Every Green Tree: Popular Religion in Sixth-Century Judah (HSM, 46), Atlanta, GA, Scholars, 1992. ACKROYD, P.R., The Chronicler in His Age (JSOTS, 101), Sheffield, JSOT, 1991. —, Exile and Restoration: A Study of Hebrew Thought of the Sixth Century BC (OTL), London, SCM, 1968. —, The Meaning of Hebrew ‫ דור‬Considered, in JSSt 13 (1968) 3-10. ADLER, E.J., The Background for the Metaphor of Covenant as Marriage in the Hebrew Bible (Diss. University of California; Berkeley, CA, 1990). ALBERTZ, R., A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament: Volume I (OTL), Louisville, KY, Westminster John Knox, 1994. ALBERTZ, R. – SCHMITT, R., Family and Household Religion in Ancient Israel and the Levant, Winona Lake, IN, Eisenbrauns, 2012. ALBRIGHT, W.F., Archaic Survivals in the Text of Canticles, in G.R. DRIVER (ed.), Hebrew and Semitic Studies, Oxford, Clarendon, 1963, 1-7. —, Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan: A Historical Analysis of Two Contrasting Faiths (Jordan Lectures in Comparative Religion, 7), London, Athlone, 1968. ALEXANDER, P.S., The Targum of Canticles: Translated, with a Critical Introduction, Apparatus, and Notes (ArBib, 17A), Collegeville, MN, Liturgical Press, 2003. ALLEN, L.C., Ezekiel 1–19 (WBC, 28), Dallas, TX, Word Books, 1994. ALONSO SCHÖKEL, L., El Cantar de los Cantares: O la dignidad del amor, Estella, Verbo Divino, 1990. —, La lettura simbolica del Nuovo Testamento, in W. EGGER (ed.), Per una lettura molteplice della Bibbia: Atti del Convegno tenuto a Trento il 2324 maggio 1979, Bologna, EDB, 1981, 47-79. —, A Manual of Hebrew Poetics (Subsidia Biblica, 11), Roma, Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1988. —, Motivos sapienciales y de alianza en Gn 2–3, in Bib 43 (1962) 295-316. —, I Nomi dell’Amore: Simboli matrimoniali nella Bibbia, Casale Monferrato, Piemme, 1997. —, Proverbios, Madrid, Cristiandad, 1984. —, Sapiential and Covenant Themes in Genesis 2–3, in J.L. CRENSHAW (ed.), Studies in Ancient Israelite Wisdom, Hoboken, NJ, KTAV, 1976, 468-480.

860

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ALONSO SCHÖKEL, L. – SICRE DÍAZ, J.L., Profetas. I: Isaias, Jeremias. I: Commentario, Madrid, Cristiandad, 1980. ALSTER, B., Tammuz, in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, Leiden, Brill, 21999, 828-834. ALTER, R., The Art of Biblical Poetry, New York, Basic Books, 1985. —, The David Story: A Translation with Commentary of 1 and 2 Samuel, New York, W.W. Norton & Company, 1999. —, The Five Books of Moses: A Translation with Commentary, New York, W.W. Norton & Company, 2004. AMSLER, S., Les prophètes et la communication par les actes, in A. RAINER (ed.), Werden und Wirken des Alten Testaments, Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980, 194-201. ANAGNOSTOU-LAOUTIDES, E., Ancient Ritual and the Search for Arcadia: From Vergil to Poussin, in Transcultural Studies 2-3 (2007) 19-53. —, In the Garden of the Gods: Models of Kingship from the Sumerians to the Seleucids, London, Routledge, 2016. ANAGNOSTOU-LAOUTIDES, E. – KONSTAN, D., Daphnis and Aphrodite: A Love Affair in Theocritus Idyll 1, in The American Journal of Philology 129 (2008) 497-527. ANDERSEN, F.I. – FREEDMAN, D.N., Hosea (AncB, 24), New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, 1974. ANDERSON, A.A., 2 Samuel (WBC, 11), Dallas, TX, Word Books, 1989. ANDERSON, G., The Origins of Daphnis: Vergil’s Eclogues and the Ancient Near East, in Proceedings of the Virgil Society 21 (1993) 65-79. ANDRAE, W., Der kultische Garten, in WdO 6 (1952) 485-495. ANGÉNIEUX, J., Le Cantique des cantiques en huit chants à refrains alternants, in ETL 44 (1968) 87-95. —, Note sur les trois portraits du Cantique des cantiques, Louvain, Publications Universitaires de Louvain, 1966. —, Structure du Cantique des cantiques en chants encadrés par des refrains alternants, in ETL 41 (1965) 96-142. ARNETH, M., “Sonne der Gerechtigkeit”: Studien zur Solarisierung der JahweReligion im Lichte von Psalm 72 (BZAR, 1), Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz, 2000. ASSIS, E., Flashes of Fire: A Literary Analysis of the Song of Songs (JSOTS, 503), New York – London, T&T Clark, 2009. ASSMANN, J., Ma’at: Gerechtigkeit und Unsterblichkeit im alten Ägypten, München, Beck, 1995. —, Die Zeugung des Sohnes: Bild, Spiel, Erzählung und das Problem des ägyptischen Mythos, in Funktionen und Leistungen des Mythos: Drei altorientalische Beispiele (OBO, 48), Freiburg/CH, Universitätsverlag, 1982, 13-61. AUDET, J.-P., Le sens du Cantique des cantiques, in RB 62 (1955) 197-221. AUERBACH, E., Figura, in Scenes from the Drama of European Literature (Theory and History of Literature, 9), Minneapolis, MN, University of Minnesota Press, 1984, 11-76. AULD, G., From King to Prophet in Samuel and Kings, in J.C. DE MOOR (ed.), The Elusive Prophet: The Prophet as a Historical Person, Literary Character and Anonymous Artist (OTS, 45), Leiden, Brill, 2001, 31-44. AUNE, D., Revelation 6–16 (WBC, 52B), Grand Rapids, MI, Zondervan, 1998.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

861

AUSLOOS, H. – LEMMELIJN, B., Canticles as Allegory? Textual Criticism and Literary Criticism in Dialogue, in H. AUSLOOS – B. LEMMELIJN – M. VERVENNE (eds.), Florilegium Lovaniense: Studies in Septuagint and Textual Criticism in Honour of Florentino García Martínez (BETL, 224), Leuven – Paris – Dudley, MA, Peeters, 2008, 35-48. —, Praising God or Singing of Love? From Theological to Erotic Allegorisation in the Interpretation of Canticles, in Acta Theologica 30 (2010) 1-18. —, Rendering Love: Hapax Legomena and the Characterization of the Translation Technique of Song of Songs, in H. AUSLOOS et al. (eds.), Translating a Translation: The LXX and Its Modern Translations in the Context of Early Judaism (BETL, 213), Leuven, Peeters, 2008, 43-61. AUWERS, J.-M., Anciens et modernes face au Cantique des cantiques: Un impossible dialogue?, in A. LEMAIRE (ed.), Congress Volume – Leiden 2004 (VT.S, 109), Leiden, Brill, 2006, 235-253. —, Canticles (Song of Songs), in J.K. AITKEN (ed.), T&T Clark Companion to the Septuagint, London – New York, Bloomsbury, 2015, 370-384. —, Le Cantique des cantiques (La Bible d’Alexandrie, 9), Paris, Cerf, 2019. —, L’interprétation du Cantique des cantiques à travers les chaînes exégétiques grecques (Instrumenta Patristica et Mediaevalia, 56), Turnhout, Brepols, 2011. —, Les Psaumes 70–72: Essai de lecture canonique, in RB 101 (1994) 242-257. —, Les Septantes, Lecteurs du Cantique des cantiques, in Graphè 8 (1999) 3347. —, Le traducteur grec a-t-il allégorisé ou érotisé le Cantique des cantiques?, in M.K.H. PETERS (ed.), XII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies Leiden, 2004 (SBL Septuagint and Cognate Studies, 54), Atlanta, GA, Society of Biblical Literature, 2006, 161-168. AVISHUR, Y., Motifs and Phrases Common to the Literature of Ugarit and the Bible, in R. DEUTSCH (ed.), Shlomo: Studies in Epigraphy, Iconography, History and Archaeology in Honor of Shlomo Moussaieff, Tel Aviv, Archaeological Center, 2003, 11-22. —, Le-Ziqah ha-Signonit ben Shir-ha-Shirim ve-Sifrut ‘Ugarit’, in Beit Mikra 59 (1974) 508-525. AVI-YONAH, M., Palästina, in Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, Supplementband XIII, Stuttgart, Metzler, 1973, 322-323. BAETHGEN, F., Die Psalmen (HkAT, 2/2), Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1891, 1891. BAILLET, M., Cantique des cantiques, in ID. – J.T. MILIK – R. DE VAUX (eds.), Les ‘Petites Grottes’ de Qumran: Exploration de la falaise. Les grottes 2Q, 3Q, 5Q, 6Q, 7Q, à 10Q. Le rouleau de cuivre (DJD, 3), Oxford, Clarendon, 1962, 112-114. BALTHASAR, H.U. VON, Glaubhaft ist nur die Liebe, Einsiedeln, Johannes Verlag, 1963. BARBIERO, G., Cantico dei cantici (I Libri Biblici. Primo Testamento, 24), Milano, Paoline, 2004. —, Die Liebe der Töchter Jerusalems: Hld 3,10b MT im Kontext von 3,6-11, in BZ 39 (1995) 96-104. —, The Risks of a Fragmented Reading of the Psalms: Psalm 72 as a Case in Point, in ZAW 120 (2008) 67-91.

862

BIBLIOGRAPHY

—, Il secondo e il terzo libro dei Salmi (Sal 42–89): Due libri paralleli, in RivBib 58 (2010) 145-175. —, Song of Songs: A Close Reading (VT.S, 144), Leiden – Boston, MA, Brill, 2011. BARBOUR, J., The Story of Israel in the Book of Qohelet, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2012. BARKER, M., The Gate of Heaven, Sheffield, Phoenix, 2008. BARRETT, C.K., The Gospel according to St. John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text, London, SPCK, 1955. BARRICK, W.B. – RINGGREN, H., ‫ר ַכב‬,ָ in TDOT, XIII, Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 2004, 485-491. BARTELMUS, R., Von jungfräulichen Huris zu “pflückreifen Trauben” (C. Luxenberg) oder Vom myrrhegetränkten Venushügel (Hld 4,6) zur Kirche als Braut Gottes: Überlegungen zur Möglichkeit einer theologischen Lesung des Hohenlieds – ausgehend vom Phänomen der Polyvalenz semitischer Lexeme, in F. HARTENSTEIN – M. PIETSCH (eds.), Sieben Augen auf einem Stein (Sach 3:9): Studien zur Literatur des Zweiten Tempels. FS I. Willi-Plein, Neukirchen-Vluyn, Neukirchener Verlag, 2007, 21-41. BARTH, K., Die Kirchliche Dogmatik. Dritter Band: Die Lehre von der Schöpfung, Zürich, Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 1957. BARTHÉLEMY, D., Comment le Cantique des cantiques est-il devenu canonique?, in A. CAQUOT – S. LÉGASSE – M. TARDIEU (eds.), Mélanges bibliques et orientaux en l’honneur de M. Mathias Delcor (AOAT, 215), Kevelaer, Butzon & Bercker, 1985, 13-22. —, Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament (OBO, 50/5), Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015. —, Les devanciers d’Aquila (VT.S, 10), Leiden, Brill, 1963. BARTON, J., The Canonicity of the Song of Songs, in A.C. HAGEDORN (ed.), Perspectives on the Song of Songs / Perspektiven der Hoheliedauslegung (BZAW, 346), Berlin – New York, De Gruyter, 2005, 1-7. BAUER, W., Das Johannesevangelium (Handbuch zum Neuen Testament, 6), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 31933. BAUMANN, G., Liebe und Gewalt: Die Ehe als Metapher für das Verhältnis JHWH – Israel in den Prophetenbüchern (SBS, 185), Stuttgart, Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2000. —, Die Weisheitsgestalt in Proverbien 1–9: Traditionsgeschichtliche und theologische Studien (FAT, 16), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 1996. BEA, A., Canticum canticorum, Roma, Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1952. BEALE, G.K., The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text (The New International Greek Testament Commentary), Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 1999. —, The Temple and the Church’s Mission (New Studies in Biblical Theology, 17), Downers Grove, IL, Inter Varsity, 2004. BEATTIE, D.R.G. – MCIVOR, J.S., The Targum of Canticles – The Targum of Chronicles: Translated with Introduction, Apparatus, and Notes (ArBib, 19), Collegeville, MN, Liturgical Press, 1994. BEAUCHAMP, P., Épouser la Sagesse – ou n’épouser qu’elle? Une énigme du Livre de la Sagesse, in M. GILBERT (ed.), La Sagesse de l’Ancien Testament (BETL, 51), Leuven, Peeters, 1990, 347-369.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

863

—, L’un et l’autre Testament. Tome 1: Essai de lecture, Paris, Seuil, 1976. —, L’un et l’autre Testament. Tome 2: Accomplir les Écritures, Paris, Seuil, 1990. BECKER, J., Israel deutet seine Psalmen (SBS, 18), Stuttgart, Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1966. —, Messiaserwartung im Alten Testament (SBS, 83), Stuttgart, Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1977. BEDE THE VENERABLE, On the Song of Songs and Selected Writings (The Classics of Western Spirituality), New York, Paulist Press, 2011. BEGRICH, J., Studien zu Deuterojesaja, Stuttgart, Kohlhammer, 1938. BENOIT, P. et al. (eds.), Les Grottes de Murabbaꜥât: Texte – Planches (DJD, 2), London, Oxford University Press, 2 vols., 1961. BENTZEN, A., The Cultic Use of the Story of the Ark in Samuel, in JBL 67 (1948) 37-53. BEN ZVI, E., Hosea (FOTL, 21A/1), Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 2005. —, Observations on the Marital Metaphor of YHWH and Israel in Its Ancient Israelite Context: General Considerations and Particular Images in Hosea 1.2, in JSOT 28 (2004) 363-384. BERG, S.B., The Book of Esther: Motifs, Themes and Structure (SBLDS, 44), Missoula, MT, Scholars, 1979. BERG, W., Israels Land, der Garten Gottes: Der Garten als Bild des Heiles im Alten Testament, in BN 32 (1988) 35-51. BERG, W.J., Early Vergil, London, Athlone, 1974. BERGANT, D., Il Cantico dei cantici (Guide Spirituali all’Antico Testamento), Roma, Città Nuova, 1998. —, The Song of Songs (Berit Olam), Collegeville, MN, Liturgical Press, 2001. BERGES, U., Gottesgarten und Tempel: Die neue Schöpfung im Jesajabuch, in O. KEEL – E. ZENGER (eds.), Gottesstadt und Gottesgarten: Zur Geschichte und Theologie des Jerusalemer Tempels (QD, 119), Freiburg i.Br., Herder, 2002, 69-98. —, Jesaja: Der Prophet und das Buch (BibG, 22), Leipzig, Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2010. —, Jesaja 49–54 (HThKAT), Freiburg i.Br., Herder, 2015. —, Klagelieder (HThKAT), Freiburg i.Br., Herder, 2002. BERLIN, A., The Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism, Bloomington, IN, Indiana University Press, 1985. BERTHEAU, E., Das Buch der Richter und Rut (KEHAT, 6), Leipzig, S. Hirzel, 1845. BEUKEN, W.A.M., Jesaja 1–12 (HThKAT), Freiburg i.Br., Herder, 2003. —, Jesaja 13–27 (HThKAT), Freiburg i.Br., Herder, 2007. BIDDLE, M.E., The Figure of Lady Jerusalem: Identification, Deification and Personification of Cities in the Ancient Near East, in J. YOUNGER – W.W. HALLO – B.F. BATTO (eds.), The Biblical Canon in Comparative Perspective (Ancient Near Eastern Texts and Studies, 11), Lewiston, NY – Queenston, Edwin Mellen, 1991, 173-194. BIRNBAUM, E., “Just Call Me Salomo?”: Hld 3,6-11 und 8,11-12 als Fallbeispiele der Hoheliedinterpretation, in L. SCHWIENHORST-SCHÖNBERGER (ed.), Das Hohelied im Konflikt der Interpretationen (ÖBS, 47), Frankfurt a.M., Lang, 2017, 233-264.

864

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIRNBAUM, E. – SCHWIENHORST-SCHÖNBERGER, L., Das Buch Kohelet (Neuer Stuttgarter Kommentar. Altes Testament, 14/2), Stuttgart, Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2012. BJØRNDALEN, J.A., Untersuchungen zur allegorischen Rede der Propheten Amos und Jesaja (BZAW, 165), Berlin, De Gruyter, 1986. BLACK, M., Models and Metaphors: Studies in Language and Philosophy, Ithaca, NY, Cornell University Press, 1962. BLENKINSOPP, J., Isaiah 1–39 (AncB, 19), New York, Doubleday, 2000. —, Isaiah 56–66 (AncB, 19B), New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, 1974. —, The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible (ABRL), New York, Doubleday, 1992. —, The Structure of P, in CBQ 38 (1976) 275-292. —, Theme and Motif in the Succession History (2 Sam. xi 2 ff) and the Yahwist Corpus, in G.W. ANDERSON (ed.), Volume du Congrès – Genève 1965 (VT.S, 15), Leiden, Brill, 1966, 44-57. BLOCH, C. – BLOCH, A., The Song of Songs: The World’s First Great Love Poem (Modern Library Classics), New York, The Modern Library, 1995. BLOCH, J., A Critical Examination of the Text of the Syriac Version of the Song of Songs, in AJSL 38 (1922) 103-139. BLOCH-SMITH, E., Solomon’s Temple: The Politics of Ritual Space, in B.M. GITTLEN (ed.), Sacred Time, Sacred Place, Winona Lake, IN, Eisenbrauns, 2002, 83-94. —, ‘Who Is the King of Glory?’ Solomon’s Temple and Its Symbolism, in M.D. COOGAN – J.C. EXUM – L.E. STAGER (eds.), Scripture and Other Artifacts: Essays on the Bible and Archaeology in Honor of Philip J. King, Louisville, KY, Westminster John Knox, 1994, 18-31. BLOCK, D.I., Bringing Back David: Ezechiel’s Messianic Hope, in P.E. SATTERTHWAITE (ed.), The Lord’s Anointed: Interpretation of Old Testament Messianic Texts, Carlisle, Paternoster, 1995, 167-188. BOCCACINI, G., Tigranes the Great as ‘Nebuchadnezzar’ in the Book of Judith, in G. XERAVITIS (ed.), A Pious Seductress: Studies in the Book of Judith (DCLS), Berlin, De Gruyter, 2012, 55-69. BODNER, K., Ark-Eology: Shifting Emphases in “Ark Narrative” Scholarship, in Currents in Biblical Research 4 (2006) 169-197. BÖHLER, D., Das Hohelied und die Tochter Zion, in L. SCHWIENHORST-SCHÖNBERGER (ed.), Das Hohelied im Konflikt der Interpretationen (ÖBS, 47), Frankfurt a.M., Lang, 2017, 141-159. —, Jiftach und die Tora: Eine intertextuelle Auslegung von Ri 10,6–12,7 (ÖBS, 34), Frankfurt a.M., Lang, 2008. BOEHMER, J., Zu Psalm 72, in ZAW 26 (1906) 147-158. BOISMARD, M.-É., L’ami de l’époux (Jo., III, 29), in A. GELIN (ed.), À la rencontre de Dieu, Le Puy, Xavier Mappus, 1961, 289-295. BONWETSCH, G.N. – ACHELIS, H. (eds.), Hippolytus Werke – Erster Band. Exegetische und Homiletische Schriften, Erste Hälfte: Die Kommentare zu Daniel und zum Hohenliede (GCS, 1), Leipzig, Hinrichs, 1897. BORDREUIL, P. – PARDEE, D., Le combat de Ba  ̓ lu avec Yammu d’après les textes ougaritiques, in Mari: Annales de recherches interdisciplinaires 7 (1993) 63-70.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

865

BORGER, R., Die Inschriften Asarhaddons Königs von Assyrien (Archiv für Orientforschung. Beiheft, 9), Graz, Ernst F. Weidner, 1956. BORGONOVO, G., Dodi li waani lo: Monogamia e monoteismo alla radice del simbolo dell’amore sponsale nella tradizione dello Jahvismo, in G. ANGELINI et al. (eds.), Maschio e femmina li creò (Disputatio, 20), Milano, Glossa, 2008, 151-232. BOSHOFF, W., Yahweh as God of Nature: Elements of the Concept of God in the Book of Hosea, in JNSL 18 (1992) 13-24. BOSSHARD-NEPUSTIL, E., Zu Struktur und Sachprofil des Hohenlieds, in BN 81 (1996) 45-71. BOSTRÖM, G., Proverbiastudien: Die Weisheit und das Fremde Weib in Spr. 1–9, Lund, Gleerup, 1935. BOTTÉRO, J., Mésopotamie – l’écriture, la raison et les dieux, Paris, Gallimard, 1987. BOYCE, M., A History of Zoroastrianism. Vol. 2: Under the Achaemenians (Handbuch der Orientalistik, 8/2), Leiden, Brill, 1982. BRAULIK, G., Die Ablehnung der Göttin Aschera in Israel, in M.-T. WACKER – E. ZENGER (eds.), Der eine Gott und die Göttin: Gottesvorstellungen des biblischen Israel im Horizont feministischer Theologie (QD, 135), Freiburg i.Br., Herder, 1991, 106-136. —, Das Deuteronomium und die Bücher Ijob, Sprichwörter, Rut: Zur Frage früher Kanonizität des Deuteronomiums, in E. ZENGER (ed.), Die Tora als Kanon für Juden und Christen (HBS, 10), Freiburg i.Br., Herder, 1996, 61138. BREASTED, J.H., Ancient Records of Egypt. II: The Eighteenth Dynasty, Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press, 1927. —, Ancient Records of Egypt. III: The Nineteenth Dynasty, Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press, 1927. —, Ancient Records of Egypt. IV: The Twentieth to the Twenty-Sixth Dynasty, Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press, 1927. BRENNAN, D.M., Born in Heaven, Made on Earth: The Making of the Cult Image in the Ancient Near East, Winona Lake, IN, Eisenbrauns, 1999. BRENNER, A., The Food of Love: Gendered Food and Food Imagery in the Song of Songs, in Semeia 86 (1999) 101-112. —, A Note on Bat-Rabbîm (Song of Songs VII 5), in VT 42 (1992) 113-115. BRIANT, P., Histoire de l’Empire Perse: De Cyrus à Alexandre, Paris, Arthème Fayard, 1996. BRIGGS, C.-A. – BRIGGS, E.G., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Psalms (ICC), Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1906. BRIGHT, J., A History of Israel, Atlanta, GA, Westminster John Knox, 2000. BROWN, R.E., The Gospel according to John I–XII (AncB, 29), New York, Doubleday, 1966. BROYDE, M.J., Defilement of the Hands, Canonization of the Bible, and the Special Status of Esther, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs, in Judaism 44 (1995) 65-79. BRUEGGEMANN, W., David and His Theologian, in CBQ 30 (1968) 156-181. —, David and His Theologian: Literary, Social, and Theological Investigations of the Early Monarchy, Eugene, OR, Cascade Books, 2011.

866

BIBLIOGRAPHY

—, First and Second Samuel (Interpretation), Louisville, KY, Westminster John Knox, 1990. —, An Introduction to the Old Testament: The Canon and Christian Imagination, London, Westminster John Knox, 2003. —, Of the Same Flesh and Bone (Gen 2:23b), in CBQ 32 (1970) 532-542. —, Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy, Minneapolis, MN, Fortress, 1997. BRUNET, A.-M., Théodore de Mopsueste et le Cantique des cantiques, in Études et recherches 9 (1955) 155-170. —, La théologie du chroniste: Théocratie et messianisme, in J. COPPENS – A.-L. DESCAMPS – É. MASSAUX (eds.), Sacra Pagina. Miscellanea Biblica Congressus Internationalis Catholici de Re Biblica. Volumen primum: Actes du Congrès International Catholique des Sciences Bibliques (Bruxelles-Louvain, 1958) = Handelingen van het Internationaal Katholiek Bijbelcongres (BrusselLeuven, 1958) (BETL, 12), Gembloux, Duculot, 1959, 384-397. BRYAN, B.M., Hatshepsut and Cultic Revelries in the New Kingdom, in J.M. GALÁN – B.M. BRYAN – P. DORMANN (eds.), Creativity and Innovation in the Reign of Hatshepsut (Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization, 69), Chicago, IL, Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 2014, 93-123. BUBER, S. (ed.), ‫ וקהלת‬, ‫ איכה‬,‫ רות‬,‫ על שיר השירים‬:‫מדרש זוטא‬, Berlin, H. Itzkowski, 1894. BUCHANAN, G.W., Midrashim pré-tannaites: À propos Prov. I–IX, in RB 72 (1965) 227-239. BUDDE, K., Das Hohelied, in ID. – A. BERTHOLET – G. WILDEBOER (eds.), Die Fünf Megillot: Das Hohelied, Das Buch Ruth, Die Klagelieder, Der Prediger, Das Buch Esther (Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 1897, 1-48. BUZY, D., L’allégorie matrimoniale de Jahvé et d’Israël et le Cantique des cantiques, in Vivre et penser 3 (1945) 77-90. —, Le Cantique des cantiques, Paris, Letouzey & Ané, 1950. —, Le Cantique des cantiques: Exégèse allégorique ou parabolique, in RSR 39 (1951) 99-114. —, La composition littéraire du Cantique des cantiques, in RB 49 (1940) 169194. CAHN, Y.T., Links beyond Time: The Book of Esther in the Light of the Life of Yoseph, Southfield, MI, Targum Press, 1995. CAMBE, M., L’influence du Cantique des cantiques sur le Nouveau Testament, in RThom 62 (1962) 5-25. CAMP, C.V., Wisdom and the Feminine in the Book of Proverbs (BiLiSe, 11; LHB/ OTS, 591), Sheffield, JSOT, 1985. CAQUOT, A., Peut-on parler de messianisme dans l’œuvre du Chroniste?, in RTP 99 (1966) 110-120. CARLSON, A., ‫דוִ ד‬,ָ in TDOT, III, Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 2015, 157-163. CARLSON, R.A., David and the Ark in 2 Samuel 6, in A. LEMAIRE – B. OTZEN (eds.), History and Traditions of Early Israel: Studies Presented to Eduard Nielsen, May 8th 1993 (VT.S, 50), Leiden, Brill, 1993, 17-23. —, David, the Chosen King: A Traditio-Historical Approach to the Second Book of Samuel, Stockholm, Almqvist & Wiksell, 1964.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

867

CARMIGNAC, J. – COTHENET, É. – LIGNÉE, H. (eds.), Les textes de Qumran. II: Règle de la congrégation, Recueil des bénédictions, Interprétations de Prophètes et de Psaumes, Document de Damas, Apocryphe de la Genèse, Fragments des grottes 1 et 4; traduits et annotés, Paris, Letouzey & Ané, 1963. CARR, D.M., The Erotic Word: Sexuality, Spirituality, and the Bible, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2003. —, The Formation of the Hebrew Bible: A New Reconstruction, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2011. —, Gender and the Shaping of Desire in the Song of Songs and Its Interpretation, in JBL 119 (2000) 233-248. —, For the Love of Christ: Generic and Unique Elements in Christian Theological Readings of the Song of Songs, in C. HELMER (ed.), The Multivalence of Biblical Texts and Theological Meanings (SBL Symposium Series, 37), Atlanta, GA, Society of Biblical Literature, 2006, 11-35. —, Writing on the Tablet of the Heart: Origins of Scripture and Literature, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2005. CARRIÈRE, J.-M., Le Ps 72 est-il un psaume messianique?, in Bib 72 (1991) 4969. CARROLL, R.P., Jeremiah: A Commentary (OTL), Philadelphia, PA, Fortress; London, SCM, 1986. CARY, P., Jonah (Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible), Grand Rapids, MI, Brazos, 2008. CASSIRER, E., Philosophie der Symbolischen Formen (I-IV), Darmstadt, Primus Verlag, 101994. CASSUTO, U.M.D., A Commentary on the Book of Exodus, Jerusalem, Magnes Press, 1967. —, Commentary on the Book of Genesis. Part I: From Adam to Noah: Genesis I–VI.8, Jerusalem, Magnes Press, 1961. —, Commentary on the Book of Genesis. Part II: From Noah to Abraham: Genesis VI.9–XI.32. With an Appendix: A Fragment of Part III, Jerusalem, Magnes Press, 1964. —, Il significato originario del Cantico dei cantici, in Giornale della società asiatica italiana n.s. 1 (1925) 32-52. CAZEAUX, J., Le partage de minuit: Essai sur la Genèse (LeDiv, 208), Paris, Cerf, 2006. —, Saül, David, Salomon: La royauté et le destin d’Israël (LeDiv, 193), Paris, Cerf, 2003. CERSOY, P., L’apologue de la vigne au chapitre Ve d’Isaïe (versets 1-7), in RB 8 (1899) 40-49. CHAE, Y.S., Jesus as the Eschatological Davidic Shepherd: Studies in the Old Testament, Second Temple Judaism, and in the Gospel of Matthew (WUNT, II/216), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2006. CHAPMAN, C.R., The Gendered Language of Warfare in the Israelite-Assyrian Encounter (HSM, 62), Winona Lake, IN, Eisenbrauns, 2004. CHARLES, R.H., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Revelation of St. John (ICC), Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1920. CHARLESWORTH, J.H., The Earliest Christian Hymnbook: The Odes of Solomon, Eugene, OR, Cascade Books, 2009.

868

BIBLIOGRAPHY

CHILDS, B.S., Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture, Philadelphia, PA, Fortress, 1979. —, Isaiah (OTL), Louisville, KY, Westminster John Knox, 2001. —, Psalm Titles and Midrashich Exegesis, in JSSt 16 (1971) 137-150. —, The Sensus Literalis of Scripture: An Ancient and Modern Problem, in W. ZIMMERLI et al. (eds.), Beiträge zur Alttestamentlichen Theologie, Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977, 80-93. CIVIL, M., Išme-dagan and Enlil’s Chariot, in JAOS 88 (1968) 3-14. —, The ‘Message of Lu-dingir-ra to His Mother’ and a Group of Akkado-Hittite ‘Proverbs’, in JNES 23 (1964) 1-11. CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA, Stromata V (SC, 278), Paris, Cerf, 1981. CLEMENTS, R.E., Abraham and David: Genesis XV and Its Meaning for Israelite Tradition (Studies in Biblical Theology, 5), London, SCM, 1967. CLEMENTS, R.E. – FABRY, H.-J., ‫מיִ ם‬, ַ in ThWAT, IV, Stuttgart, Kohlhammer, 1984, 843-866. CLIFFORD, R.J., The Cosmic Mountain in Canaan and the Old Testament (HSM, 4), Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1972. —, Proverbs IX: A Suggested Ugaritic Parallel, in VT 25 (1975) 298-306. COHEN, G.D., The Song of Songs and the Jewish Religious Mentality, in ID., Studies in the Variety of Rabbinic Cultures, Philadelphia, PA – New York, The Jewish Publication Society, 1991, 3-17. COHEN, M., The Cultic Calendars of the Ancient Near East, Bethesda, MD, CDL Press, 1993. —, Métaphores et figures littéraires dans le Cantique des cantiques, in Graphè 8 (1999) 11-31. COLE, S.W. – MACHINIST, P. (eds.), Letters from Priests to the Kings Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal (SAA, 13), Helsinki, Helsinki University Press, 1998. COLLINS, J.J., The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature (The Biblical Resource Series), Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 1998. —, The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Ancient Literature (ABRL), New York, Doubleday, 1995. ָ in TDOT, VII, Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 2013, 164-175. CONRAD, J., ‫כ ָלּה‬, COOGAN, M.D., The Goddess Wisdom – “Where Can She Be Found?”: Literary Reflexes of Popular Religion, in R. CHAZAN – W.W. HALLO – L.H. SCHIFFMAN (eds.), Ki Baruch Hu: Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical and Judaic Studies in Honor of Baruch A. Levine, Winona Lake, IN, Eisenbrauns, 1999, 203209. COONTZ, S., Marriage, A History: From Obedience to Intimacy, or How Love Conquered Marriage, New York, Viking, 2005. COOPER, J., New Cuneiform Parallels to the Song of Songs, in JBL 90 (1971) 157162. —, Sacred Marriage and Popular Cult in Early Mesopotamia, in E. MATSUSHIMA (ed.), Official Cult and Popular Religion in the Ancient Near East: Papers of the First Colloquium on the Ancient Near East – The City and Its Life Held at the Middle Eastern Culture Center in Japan (Mitaka, Tokyo), Heidelberg, Winter, 1993, 81-96. COUFFIGNAL, R., Le glaive et la couronne, in RThom 84 (1984) 607-617. —, Le transfert de l’Arche d’Alliance, un récit carnavalesque?, in Sémiotique et Bible 103 (2001) 56-62.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

869

COWLEY, A., Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century BC, Oxford, Clarendon, 1923. CRENSHAW, J.L., Old Testament Wisdom: An Introduction. Revised and Enlarged, Louisville, KY, Westminster John Knox, 1998. CROSS, F.M., Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1973. —, The Development of the Jewish Script, in G.E. WRIGHT (ed.), The Bible and the Ancient Near East, New York, Doubleday, 1961, 133-202. —, From Epic to Canon: History and Literature in Ancient Israel, Baltimore, MD, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998. CRÜSEMANN, F., ‘… für Salomo’? Salomo und die Interpretation des Hohenliedes, in F.-L. HOSSFELD – L. SCHWIENHORST-SCHÖNBERGER (eds.), Das Manna fällt auch heute noch: Beiträge zur Geschichte und Theologie des Alten, Ersten Testaments (Festschrift für Erich Zenger) (HBS, 44), Freiburg i.Br., Herder, 2004, 141-157. —, Das “portative Vaterland”: Struktur und Genese des alttestamentlichen Kanons, in A. ASSMANN – J. ASSMANN (eds.), Kanon und Zensur: Beiträge zur Archäologie der literarischen Kommunikation II, München, Fink, 1987, 63-78. DAHOOD, M., Psalms I: 1–50 (AncB, 16), New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, 1974. —, Psalms II: 51–100 (AncB, 17), New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, 1974. —, Psalms III: 101–150 (AncB, 17A), New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, 1974. DALLEY, S., Ancient Mesopotamian Gardens and the Identification of the Hanging Gardens of Babylon Resolved, in Garden History 21 (1993) 1-13. —, From Mesopotamian Temples as Sacred Groves to the Date-Palm Motif in Greek Art and Architecture, in K. COLEMAN (ed.), Le Jardin dans l’Antiquité (Entretiens sur l’Antiquité classique, 60), Vandœuvres, Fondation Hardt, 2014, 53-86. —, Myths from Mesopotamia: Creation, the Flood, Gilgamesh, and Others (The World’s Classics), Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2008. DALMAN, G.H., Aramäisch-Neuhebräisches Handwörterbuch zu Targum, Talmud und Midrasch, Göttingen, Pfeiffer, 1938. —, Palästinensischer Diwan: Als Beitrag zur Volkskunde Palästinas, Leipzig, Hinrichs, 1901. DARNELL, J.C., A Midsummer Night’s Succubus, in S.C. MELVILLE – A.L. SLOTSKY (eds.), Opening the Tablet Box: Near Eastern Studies in Honor of Benjamin R. Foster (CHANE, 42), Leiden – Boston, MA, Brill, 2010, 99-140. —, The Rituals of Love in Ancient Egypt: Festival Songs of the Eighteenth Dynasty and the Ramesside Love Poetry, in WdO 46 (2016) 22-61. DAVIS, E.F., Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs (Westminster Bible Companion), Louisville, KY, Westminster John Knox, 2000. —, Reading the Song Iconographically, in Journal of Scriptural Reasoning 3 (2003) 172-184. —, Review of E. KINGSMILL, The Song of Songs and the Eros of God (OTM; Oxford – New York, 2009), in Review of Biblical Literature 13 (2011) 234237. DAVIS, V.L., Remarks on Michael V. Fox’s ‘The Cairo Love Songs’, in JAOS 100 (1980) 111-114.

870

BIBLIOGRAPHY

DAY, J., God’s Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea: Echoes of a Canaanite Myth in the Old Testament (UCOP, 35), Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1985. DEARMAN, J.A., The Book of Hosea (NICOT), Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 2010. DE AMBROGGI, P., Il Cantico dei cantici, Roma, Paoline, 1952. DE BRUYNE, D., Les anciennes versions latines du Cantique des cantiques, in Revue Bénédictine 38 (1926) 97-122. DECKERS, M., The Structure of the Song of Songs and the Centrality of Nepeš (6.12), in A. BRENNER (ed.), The Song of Songs (A Feminist Companion to the Bible, 1), New York, Sheffield Academic Press, 2001, 172-197. DE ENA, J.-E., Sens et interprétations du Cantique des cantiques: Sens textuel, sens directionnels et cadre du texte, Paris, Cerf, 2004. DEISSLER, A., Die Psalmen: Ps 42–89 (Welt der Bibel, 1/2), Düsseldorf, Patmos, 1964. DE LA POTTERIE, I., Le mystère des noces, in Marie dans le Mystère de l’Alliance, Paris, Desclée, 1988, 183-231. DELCOR, M., La paix et le messie juif, nouveau Salomon, en Zach 9,10, in XXV congreso eucaristico internacional 1952: La eucaristia y la paz – Sesiones de estudio, Barcelona, Huecograbado Planas, 1953, I, 331-334. DELITZSCH, F., Biblischer Commentar über die Poetischen Bücher des Alten Testaments. IV/3: Das Salomonische Spruchbuch, Helsingfors, Dörffling und Franke, 1872. —, Das Hohelied, Leipzig, Dörffling und Franke, 1851. DELL, K.J., Does the Song of Songs Have Any Connection with Wisdom?, in A.C. HAGEDORN (ed.), Perspectives on the Song of Songs / Perspektiven der Hoheliedauslegung (BZAW, 346), Berlin – New York, De Gruyter, 2005, 8-26. —, Get Wisdom, Get Insight: An Introduction to Israel’s Wisdom Literature, Macon, GA, Smyth & Helwys, 2000. DELLER, K., STT 366: Deutungsversuch 1982, in Assur 3-4 (1983) 3-17. DE LUBAC, H., History and Spirit: The Understanding of Scripture according to Origen, San Francisco, CA, Ignatius, 2007. DE MOOR, J.C., An Anthology of Religious Texts from Ugarit (Religious Texts Translation Series. Nisaba, 16), Leiden, Brill, 1987. —, New Year with Canaanites and Israelites. Part One: Description; Part Two: The Canaanite Sources (Kamper Cahiers, 21-22), Kampen, Kok, 1972. DENIS, A.-M. – HAELEWYCK, J.-C., Introduction à la littérature religieuse judéohellénistique. I-II: Pseudépigraphes de l’Ancient Testament, Turnhout, Brepols, 2000. DE PURY, A., Qohélet et le canon des Ketubim, in RTP 131 (1999) 163-198. —, Salomon et la Reine de Saba: L’analyse narrative peut-elle se dispenser de poser la question du contexte historique?, in D. MARGUERAT (ed.), La Bible en récits: L’exégèse biblique à l’heure du lecteur, Genève, Labor et Fides, 2003, 213-238. DE SPINOZA, B., A Theologico-Political Treatise and A Political Treatise, New York, Dover Books, 1951, reprinted, New York, Dover Books, 2004. DEUTSCH, R. – LEMAIRE, A., Biblical Period Personal Seals in the Shlomo Moussaieff Collection, Tel Aviv, Archaeological Center, 2000.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

871

VAUX, R., Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions, New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1961. —, Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions, Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 1997. DEVER, W.G., Did God Have a Wife? Archaeology and Folk Religion in Ancient Israel, Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 2005. DEVREESSE, R., Le commentaire de Théodore de Mopsueste sur les Psaumes (I– LXXX) (Studi e Testi, 93), Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1939. DEVRIES, S.J., 1 Kings (WBC, 12), Nashville, TN, Word Books, 2003. DE WAARD, J. (ed.), Proverbs (BHQ, 17), Stuttgart, Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2008. DIETRICH, M. – LORETZ, O., “Jahwe und seine Aschera”: Anthropomorphes Kultbild in Mesopotamien, Ugarit und Israel. Das biblische Bilderverbot (UBL, 9), Münster, Ugarit-Verlag, 1992. DIJKSTRA, M., El, YHWH and Their Asherah: On Continuity and Discontinuity in Canaanite and Ancient Israelite Religion, in M. DIETRICH – O. LORETZ (eds.), Ugarit – Ein ostmediterranes Kulturzentrum im Alten Orient. 1: Ugarit und seine altorientalische Umwelt (Abhandlungen zur Literatur Alt-SyrienPalästinas, 7), Wiesbaden, Ugarit-Verlag, 1995, 43-73. DILLARD, R.D., 2 Chronicles (WBC, 15), Waco, TX, Word Books, 1987. DI LUCCIO, P., Shulamìt e la Samaritana, in La Civiltà Cattolica 3914 (2013) 123-134. DIRKSEN, P.B., Canticles, in A. SCHENKER et al. (eds.), Megilloth (BHQ, 18), Stuttgart, Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2004, 11-24. —, Song of Songs III 6-7, in VT 39 (1989) 219-225. DOBBS-ALLSOPP, F.W., Daughter Zion, in J.J. AHN – S.L. COOK (eds.), Thus Says the Lord: Essays on the Former and Latter Prophets in Honor of Robert R. Wilson, New York, T&T Clark, 2009, 125-134. —, Late Linguistic Features in the Song of Songs, in A.C. HAGEDORN (ed.), Perspectives on the Song of Songs / Perspektiven der Hoheliedauslegung (BZAW, 346), Berlin – New York, De Gruyter, 2005, 27-77. —, The Syntagma of bat Followed by a Geographical Name in the Hebrew Bible: A Reconsideration of Its Meaning and Grammar, in CBQ 57 (1995) 451-470. —, Weep, O Daughter of Zion: A Study of the City-Lament Genre in the Hebrew Bible (Biblica et Orientalia, 44), Roma, Biblical Institute Press, 1993. DOHMEN, C., Vom Sinai nach Galiläa: Psalm 103 als Brücke zwischen Juden und Christen, in R. SCORALICK (ed.), Das Drama der Barmherzigkeit Gottes, Stuttgart, Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2000, 92-106. DOMMERSHAUSEN, W., ‫יַ יִ ן‬, in ThWAT, III, Stuttgart, Kohlhammer, 1982, 614-620. DORNSEIFF, F., Ägyptische Liebeslieder, Hoheslied, Sappho, Theokrit, in ZDMG 90 (1936) 589-601. DORSEY, D.A., Literary Structuring in the Song of Songs, in JSOT 46 (1990) 8196. DRIVER, S.R., An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament, Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 51894. DUBARLE, A.-M., L’amour humain dans le Cantique des cantiques, in RB 61 (1954) 67-86. DUBOVSKY, P., The Building of the First Temple: A Study in Redactional, Textcritical and Historical Perspective (FAT, 103), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2015. DE

872

BIBLIOGRAPHY

DUCHEMIN, J., La houlette et la lyre: Recherche sur les origines pastorales de la poésie. Vol. I: Hermès et Apollon, Paris, Les Belles Lettres, 1960. DUESBERG, H., Les scribes inspirés. I: Le Livre des Proverbes. II: Job et L’Ecclésiaste – L’Ecclésiastique – La Sagesse, Paris, Desclée de Brouwer, 1939. DULLES, A.R., Magisterium: Teacher and Guardian of the Faith, Naples, FL, Sapientia Press of Ave Maria University, 2007. —, Symbol, Myth, and Biblical Revelation, in TS 27 (1966) 1-26. DUNAND, F., Isis: Mère des dieux, Paris, Éditions Errance, 2000. DURAND, G., Les Structures anthropologiques de l’imaginaire: Introduction à l’archétypologie générale, Paris, Bordas, 1969. DURHAM, J.I., Exodus (WBC, 3), Waco, TX, Word Books, 1987. EBELING, E., Ein Hymnen-Katalog aus Assur (Berliner Beiträge zur Keilschriftforschung, 1/3), Berlin, Selbstverlag, 1922. —, Keilschrifttexte aus Assur religiösen Inhalts: Erster Band (Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen der deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft, 28), Helsingfors, Hinrichs, 1919. ECO, U., Interpretation and History, in S. COLLINI (ed.), Interpretation and Overinterpretation: Umberto Eco with Richard Rorty, Jonathan Culler, Christine Brooke-Rose, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1992, 23-43. —, Overinterpreting Texts, ibid., 45-66. —, Between Author and Text, ibid., 67-88. EDELMAN, D.V., Abner, in Anchor Bible Dictionary, I, New York, Doubleday, 1992, 26-29. —, Eshbaal, in Anchor Bible Dictionary, II, New York, Doubleday, 1992, 615616. —, The Meaning of Qiṭṭēr, in VT 35 (1985) 395-404. EDZARD, D.O., Gudea and His Dynasty (Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia. Early Periods, 3/1), Toronto, University of Toronto Press, 1997. EICHRODT, W., Theologie des Alten Testaments. Teil I: Gott und Volk, Stuttgart, Ehrenfried Klotz, 71962. EIDELKIND, Y., Two Notes on Song 4:12, in L. KOGAN (ed.), Babel und Bibel 3: Annual of Ancient Near Eastern, Old Testament, and Semitic Studies, Winona Lake, IN, Eisenbrauns, 2006, 217-236. EIRE, C.M.N., Reformations: The Early Modern World, 1450-1650, New Haven, CT – London, Yale Universtiy Press, 2016. EISSFELDT, O., Aphrodite Parakyptusa, in R. SELLHEIM – F. MAASS (eds.), Kleine Schriften: Fünfter Band, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 1973, 106-112. ELGVIN, T., The Literary Growth of the Song of Songs during the Hasmonean and Early-Herodian Periods (Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology, 89), Leuven, Peeters, 2018. —, Nytt fra de siste års Qumranforskning: Hva har hule 4 åpenbart?, in B. OLSSON – T. KRONHOLM (eds.), Qumranlitteraturen: Fynden och forskningsresultaten (Konferenser, 35), Stockholm, Kungl. Vitterhets, 1996, 147-163. ELIADE, M., Images and Symbols, New York, Sheed, Andrews and McMeel, 1969. —, Methodological Remarks on the Study of Religious Symbolism, in ID. – J.M. KITAGAWA (eds.), The History of Religions: Essays in Methodology, Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press, 1959, 86-107. —, Patterns in Comparative Religion, New York, Sheed & Ward, 1958.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

873

ELLIGER, K., Ein Zeugnis aus der jüdischen Gemeinde im Alexanderjahr 332 v. Chr, in ZAW 62 (1950) 63-115. ELLIOTT, M.T., The Literary Unity of the Canticle (Europäische Hochschulschriften. Theologie, 371), Frankfurt a.M., Lang, 1989. EMERTON, J.A., New Light on Israelite Religion: The Implications of the Inscriptions from Kuntillet ꜤAjrud, in ZAW (1982) 2-20. —, “Yahweh and His Asherah”: The Goddess or Her Symbol?, in VT 49 (1999) 315-337. ENGEL, H., Die Susanna-Erzählung: Einleitung, Übersetzung und Kommentar zum Septuaginta-Text und zur Theodotion-Bearbeitung (OBO, 61), Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1985. ENGNELL, I., Studies in Divine Kingship in the Ancient Near East, London, Blackwell, 21967. ESLINGER, L.M., Kingship of God in Crisis: A Close Reading of 1 Samuel 1–12 (BiLiSe, 10), Sheffield, Almond Press, 1985. EUSEBIUS, Onomasticon: The Place Names of Divine Scripture / Including the Latin Edition of Jerome Translated into English and with Topographical Commentary (Jewish and Christian Perspectives, 9), Leiden, Brill, 2005. EWALD, H., Die Salomonischen Schriften, Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1867. EXUM, J.C., A Literary and Structural Analysis of the Song of Songs, in ZAW 85 (1973) 47-79. —, Seeing Solomon’s Palaquin (Song of Songs 3:6-11), in Biblical Interpretation 11 (2003) 301-316. —, Song of Songs (OTL), Louisville, KY, Westminster John Knox, 2005. —, On the Unity and Structure of the Song of Songs, in M. BAR-ASHER (ed.), Shai le-Sara Japhet: Studies in the Bible, Its Exegesis and Its Language, Jerusalem, The Bialik Institute, 2007, 305-316. FABRY, H.-J., ‫מנְ ָחה‬, ִ in TDOT, VIII, Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 1996, 407-421. FAKOUR, M., Garden i. Achaemenid Period, in Encyclopaedia Iranica, X/3, 297-298, available online at http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/garden-i (accessed 11 November 2016). FALK, M., Love Lyrics from the Bible: A Translation and Literary Study of the Song of Songs (BiLiSe, 4), Sheffield, Almond Press, 1982. —, The Waṣf, in A. BRENNER (ed.), A Feminist Companion to the Song of Songs (Modern Critical Interpretations), Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press, 1993, 225-233. FARKASFALVY, D., Inspiration & Interpretation, Washington, DC, Catholic University of America Press, 2010. FAUTH, W., Aphrodite Parakyptusa: Untersuchungen zum Erscheinungsbild der vorderasiatischen Dea Prospiciens, in Jahrbuch der Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur 6 (1966) 331-437. —, Der königliche Gärtner und Jäger im Paradeisos: Beobachtungen zur Rolle des Herrschers in der vorderasiatischen Horitkultur, in Persica 8 (1979) 1-53. FEHRIBACH, A., The Women in the Life of the Bridegroom: A Feminist HistoricalLiterary Analysis of the Female Characters in the Fourth Gospel, Collegeville, MN, Liturgical Press, 1998. FELDMAN, S., Biblical Motives and Sources, in JNES 22 (1963) 73-103. FENSHAM, F.C., An Ancient Tradition of the Fertility of Palestine, in PEQ 98 (1966) 166-167.

874

BIBLIOGRAPHY

FEUILLET, A., Le Cantique des cantiques: Étude de théologie biblique et réflexions sur une méthode d’exégèse, Paris, Cerf, 1953. —, Le Cantique des cantiques et l’Apocalypse: Étude de deux réminiscences du Cantique dans l’Apocalypse johannique, in ID. (ed.), Études d’exégèse et de théologie biblique, Paris, Gabalda, 1975, 333-361. —, Comment lire le Cantique des cantiques: Étude de théologie biblique et réflexions sur une méthode d’exégèse, Paris, Pierre Téqui, 21999. —, Les épousailles messianiques et les références au Cantique des cantiques dans les évangiles synoptiques, in RThom 84 (1984) 399-424. —, La formule d’appartenance mutuelle (II, 16) et les interprétations divergentes du Cantique des cantiques, in RB 68 (1961) 3-38. —, La recherche du Christ dans la nouvelle alliance d’après la christophanie de Jo. 20,11-18: Comparaison avec Cant. 3,1-4 et l’épisode des Pélerins d’Emmaüs, in L’homme devant Dieu: Mélanges offerts au Père Henri de Lubac, Paris, Aubier, 1963, 93-112. —, Le symbolisme de la colombe dans les récits évangéliques du baptême, in RSR 46 (1958) 524-544. FICHTNER, J., Die altorientalische Weisheit in ihrer israelitisch-jüdischen Ausprägung: Eine Studie zur Nationalisierung der Weisheit in Israel (BZAW, 62), Giessen, Töpelmann, 1933. FINK, U.B., Joseph und Aseneth: Revision des griechischen Textes und Edition der zweiten lateinischen Übersetzung (Fontes et Subsidia, 5), Berlin, De Gruyter, 2008. FINKELSTEIN, I., Jerusalem in the Persian (and Early Hellenistic) Period and the Wall of Nehemiah, in JSOT 32 (2008) 501-520. —, The Territorial Extent and Demography of Yehud/Judea in the Persian and Early Hellenistic Periods, in RB 117 (2010) 39-54. FINKELSTEIN, I. – MAZAR, A., The Quest for the Historical Israel: Debating Archaeology and the Early History of Israel, ed. B.B. SCHMIDT (SBL Archaeology and Biblical Studies, 17), Leiden, Brill, 2007. FINKELSTEIN, I. – SILBERMAN, N.A., The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts, New York, The Free Press, 2001. FINNESTAD, R.B., Image of the World and Symbol of the Creator (Studies in Oriental Religion, 10), Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz, 1985. FISCHER, A.A., Von Hebron nach Jerusalem: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Studie zur Erzählung von König David in II Sam 1–5 (BZAW, 335), Berlin –– New York, De Gruyter, 2004. —, Die Saul-Überlieferung im deuteronomistischen Samuelbuch (am Beispiel von 1 Samuel 9–10), in M. WITTE et al. (eds.), Die deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerke: Redaktions- und religionsgeschichtliche Perspektiven zur “Deuteronomismus”-Diskussion in Tora und Vorderen Propheten (BZAW, 365), Berlin, De Gruyter, 2006, 163-181. FISCHER, I., Rut (HThKAT), Freiburg i.Br., Herder, 2001. —, Von der Vorgeschichte zur Nachgeschichte, in ZAW 125 (2013) 143-160. FISCHER, J., Hohes Lied – Rut – Weisheit (Echter-Bibel), Würzburg, Echter, 1950. FISCHER, S., Das Hohelied Salomos zwischen Poesie und Erzählung: Erzähltextanalyse eines poetischen Textes (FAT, 72), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2010. FISHBANE, M., Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, Oxford, Clarendon, 1985.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

875

—, The ‘Eden’ Motif: The Landscape of Spatial Renewal, in ID., Text and Texture: Close Readings of Selected Biblical Texts, New York, Schocken Books, 1979, 111-120. —, The Sacred Center: The Symbolic Structure of the Bible, in ID. – P.R. FLOHR (eds.), Texts and Responses: Studies Presented to Nahum N. Glatzer on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday by His Students, Leiden, Brill, 1975, 6-27. —, Song of Songs = ‫השירים שיר‬: The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation (JPS Bible Commentary), Philadelphia, PA, The Jewish Publication Society, 2015. —, Text and Texture: Close Readings of Selected Biblical Texts, New York, Schocken Books, 1979. —, Torah and Tradition, in D.A. KNIGHT (ed.), Tradition and Theology in the Old Testament, Philadelphia, PA, Fortress, 1977, 275-300. —, The Well of Living Water: A Biblical Motif and Its Ancient Transformations, in “Sha’arei Talmon”, Winona Lake, IN, Eisenbrauns, 1992, 3-16. FITZGERALD, A., BTWLT and BT as Titles for Capital Cities, in CBQ (1975) 167-183. —, The Mythological Background for the Presentation of Jerusalem as a Queen and False Worship as Adultery in the OT, in CBQ 34 (1972) 403-416. FLEMING, D.E., The Installation of Baal’s High Priestess at Emar: A Window on Ancient Syrian Religion (HSS, 42), Atlanta, GA, Scholars, 1992. FLINT, P.W., The Book of Canticles (Song of Songs) in the Dead Sea Scrolls, in A.C. HAGEDORN (ed.), Perspectives on the Song of Songs / Perspektiven der Hoheliedauslegung (BZAW, 346), Berlin – New York, De Gruyter, 2005, 96-104. FLOYD, M.H., Minor Prophets (FOTL, 22), Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 2000. FOWLER, A., Kinds of Literature: An Introduction to the Theory of Genres and Modes, Oxford, Clarendon, 1982. FOX, M.V., The Cairo Love Songs, in JAOS 100 (1980) 101-109. —, Proverbs 1–9 (AncB, 18), New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, 1974. —, Proverbs 1–9: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AncB, 18A), New York, Doubleday, 2000. —, Proverbs 10–31: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AncB, 18B), New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, 2009. —, Rereading the Song of Songs and the Ancient Egyptian Love Songs Thirty Years Later, in WdO 46 (2016) 8-21. —, The Song of Songs and the Ancient Egyptian Love Songs, Madison, WI, University of Wisconsin Press, 1985. —, Three Theses on Wisdom, in M. SNEED (ed.), Was There a Wisdom Tradition? New Prospects in Israelite Wisdom Studies (SBLAIL, 23), Atlanta, GA, SBL Press, 2015, 69-86. FRAHM, E., Review of T.N.D. METTINGER, The Riddle of Resurrection: ‘Dying and Rising Gods’ in the Ancient Near East (CB.OT 50). Stockholm 2001, in Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 93 (2003) 294-300. FRAISSE, O., Moses Ign Tibbons Kommentar zum Hohenlied und sein poetologischphilosophisches Programm: Synoptische Edition, Übersetzung und Analyse (Studia Judaica, 25), Berlin, De Gruyter, 2004. FRANKENBERG, W. – SIEGFRIED, C., Prediger und Hoheslied (HkAT, 2/3,2), Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1898.

876

BIBLIOGRAPHY

FRANKFORT, H., Kingship and the Gods: A Study of Ancient Near Eastern Religion as the Integration of Society & Nature, Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press, 1948. FREEDMAN, H. – SIMON, M., Midrash Rabbah: Esther – Song of Songs, London, Soncino Press, 1961. —, Midrash Rabbah: Genesis I, London, Soncino Press, 1961. FREVEL, C., Aschera und der Ausschließlichkeitsanspruch YHWHs. Band 1: Beiträge zu literarischen, religionsgeschichtlichen und ikonographischen Aspekten der Ascheradiskussion (BBB, 94/1-2), Meisenheim am Glan, Athenäum, 2 vols., 1995. FRIEDLÄNDER, G. (ed.), Pirkê de Rabbi Eliezer: (The Chapters of Rabbi Eliezer the Great) according to the Text of the Manuscript Belonging to Abraham Epstein of Vienna, New York, Sepher-Hermon Press, 41981. FROW, J., Genre: The New Critical Idiom, London, Routledge, 2006. FRYE, N., Anatomy of Criticism, Toronto, University of Toronto Press, 2006. FRYMER-KENSKY, T., In the Wake of the Goddesses: Women, Culture, and the Biblical Transformation of Pagan Myth, New York, The Free Press, 1992. FUCHS, A., Die Inschriften Sargons II aus Khorsabad, Göttingen, Cuvillier, 1993. GADAMER, H.-G., Hermeneutik I: Wahrheit und Methode. Grundzüge einer philosophischen Hermeneutik, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 61990. —, Symbol und Allegorie, in Archivio di Filosofia 2/3 (1958) 23-28. —, Truth and Method, London, Continuum, 22006. GALAMBUSH, J., Jerusalem in the Book of Ezekiel: The City as Yahweh’s Wife (SBLDS, 130), Atlanta, GA, Scholars, 1992. GARBINI, G., Cantico dei cantici (Biblica. Testi e studi, 2), Brescia, Paideia, 1992. —, La Datazione del “Cantico dei cantici”, in Rivista degli Studi Orientali 56 (1982) 39-46. GARCÍA MARTÍNEZ, F. – TIGCHELAAR, E.J.C. (eds.), The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition: I, Leiden, Brill, 1997. GARRETT, D.A., Song of Songs. Lamentations (WBC, 23B), Nashville, TN, Thomas Nelson, 2004. GARSIEL, M., Biblical Names: A Literary Study of Midrashic Derivations and Puns, Jerusalem, Bar-Ilan University Press, 1991. —, The First Book of Samuel: A Literary Study of Comparative Structures, Analogies and Parallels, Ramat-Gan, Revivim Publishing House, 1985. GASPARRO, L., La parola, il gesto e il segno: Le azioni simboliche di Geremia e dei profeti, Bologna, EDB, 2015. GAULT, B.P., The Fragments of Canticles from Qumran: Implications and Limitations for Interpretation, in Revue de Qumran 95 (2010) 351-371. GEE, J., Love and Marriage in the Ancient World: An Historical Corrective, in Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities 35 (2008) 83-103. GELSTON, A. – SPREY, T., The Old Testament in Syriac according to the Peshitta Version. Part III, fascicle 4: Dodekapropheton – Daniel-Bel-Draco, Leiden, Brill, 1980. GERHARDS, M., Das Hohelied: Studien zu seiner literarischen Gestalt und theologischen Bedeutung (ABG, 35), Leipzig, Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2010. GERLEMAN, G., Ruth – Das Hohelied (BKAT, 18), Neukirchen-Vluyn, Neukirchener Verlag, 1965.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

877

GERSTENBERGER, E.S., Psalms. Part 1. With an Introduction to Cultic Poetry (FOTL, 14), Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 1988. —, Psalms. Part 2; and Lamentations (FOTL, 15), Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 2001. GIBSON, J.C.L., Myth, Legend and Folk-Lore in the Ugaritic Keret and Aqhat Texts, in G.W. ANDERSON – P.A.H. DE BOER – H. CAZELLES (eds.), Congress Volume – Edinburgh 1974 (VT.S, 28), Leiden, Brill, 1975, 60-68. GILBERT, M., L’Antique Sagesse d’Israël: Études sur Proverbes, Job, Qohélet et leur prolongements (ÉB, NS 68), Pendé, Gabalda, 2015. —, Les cinq livres des Sages: Proverbes – Job – Qohélet – Ben Sira – Sagesse (Lire la Bible, 129), Paris, Cerf, 2003. —, La Sagesse de Salomon: The Wisdom of Solomon (AnBib, 189), Roma, Gregorian Biblical Press, 2011. GINSBERG, H.L., Some Emendations in Isaiah, in JBL 69 (1950) 51-60. GIRARD, M., Cana ou l’“heure” de la vraie noce (Jean 2,1-12), in A. PASSONI DELL’ACQUA (ed.), “Il vostro frutto rimanga” (Gv 16,16): Miscellanea per il LXX compleanno di Giuseppe Ghiberti, Bologna, EDB, 2005, 99-109. —, Symboles bibliques, langage universel: Pour une théologie des deux Testaments ancrée dans les sciences humaines, Montréal, Médiaspaul, 2016. —, Les symboles dans la Bible (Recherches, NS 26), Paris, Bellarmin, 1991. GISZACZAK, M., The Canonical Status of Song of Songs in m. Yadayim 3.5, in JSOT 41 (2016) 205-220. GLASSNER, J.-J., À Propos des jardins mésopotamiens, in R. GYSELEN (ed.), Jardins d’Orient (Res Orientales, 3), Bures-sur-Yvette, Groupe pour l’Étude de la Civilisation du Moyen-Orient, 1991, 9-17. GÖRG, M., ‘Kanäle’ oder ‘Zweige’ in Hld 4,13?, in BN 72 (1994) 20-23. —, Die ‘Sänfte Salomos’ nach HL 3,9f., in BN 18 (1982) 15-25. —, “Travestie” im Hohen Lied: Eine kritische Betrachtung am Beispiel von HL 1,5f., in BN 21 (1983) 101-115. —, Wo lag das Paradies? Einige Beobachtungen zu einer alten Frage, in BN 2 (1977) 23-32. GOETHE, J.W. VON, Noten und Abhandlungen zum West-östlichen Divan (Goethes Sämtliche Werke, 5), Stuttgart – Berlin, J.G. Cotta’sche Buchhandlung, 1902. GONÇALVÈS, F.J., Deux systèmes religieux dans l’Ancien Testament: De la concurrence à la convergence, in Annuaire de l’École pratique des hautes études. Sciences religieuses 115 (2007) 117-122. —, Enjeux et possibilités de la quête du sens historique originaire. Est-ce la même chose que le sens littéral?, in O.T. VENARD (ed.), Le sens littéral des Écritures (LeDiv HS), Paris, Cerf, 2009, 47-74. —, Fondements du message social des prophètes, in A. LEMAIRE (ed.), Congress Volume – Ljubljana 2007 (VT.S, 133), Leiden, Brill, 2010, 597-620. —, Iavé, Deus de justiça e de bênção, Deus de amor e de salvação, in Cadernos Instituto S. Tomás de Aquino 14 (2009) 107-152. GOPPELT, L., Typos: Die typologische Deutung des Alten Testaments im Neuen, Darmstadt, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1939. GORDIS, R., The Song of Songs (Texts and Studies of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 20), New York, The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1954. —, A Wedding Song for Solomon, in JBL 63 (1944) 261-270.

878

BIBLIOGRAPHY

GORDON, C.H., New Directions, in Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists 15 (1978) 59-66. GORDON, R.P. – DIRKSEN, P.B. (eds.), Chronicles (The Old Testamen in Syriac according to the Peshitta Version, IV/2), Leiden, Brill, 1998. GOSSE, B., Structuration des grands ensembles bibliques et intertextualité à l’époque perse: De la rédaction sacerdotale du livre d’Isaïe à la contestation de la Sagesse (BZAW, 246), Berlin, De Gruyter, 1997. GOTTWALD, N., Song of Songs, in IDB, IV, New York, Abingdon, 1962, 420-426. GRABBE, L. (ed.), The Seleucid and Hasmonean Periods and the Apocalyptic Worldview: The First Enoch Seminar Nangeroni Meeting, Villa Cagnola, Gazzada (June 25-28, 2012), London, T&T Clark, 2016. GRAETZ, H., Geschichte der Juden: Vom Aufblühen der jüdisch-spanischen Kultur (1027) bis zu Maimunis Tod (Von den Ältesten Zeiten bis auf die Gegenwart, 6), Leipzig, Leiner, 1896. —, Schir Ha-Schirim, oder: Das salomonische Hohelied, Wien, Wilhelm Braumüller, 1871; Breslau, Wilh. Jacobsohn & Co, 1885. GRANADOS, C., Un enigma sapiencial: El camino del varón por la doncella (Pr 30,1819), in Estudios Bíblicos 71 (2013) 21-35. —, Monogamia y monoteísmo: Claves para una lectura de Ml 2,10-1, in Estudios Bíblicos 68 (2010) 9-29. GRAY, G.B., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Isaiah: Introduction and Commentary on I–XXVII (ICC), Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1912. GRAY, J., I & II Kings (OTL), London, SCM, 31977. GREEN, B., King Saul’s Asking, Collegeville, MN, Liturgical Press, 2003. GREEN, D.J., I Undertook Great Works: The Ideology of Domestic Achievements in West Semitic Royal Inscriptions (FAT, II/41), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2010. GREENBERG, M., Ezekiel 1–20 (AncB, 22), New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, 1974. —, Ezekiel 21–37 (AncB, 22A), New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, 1974. —, The Hebrew Oath Particle Hay/He, in JBL 76 (1957) 34-39. GREENFIELD, J.C., Hadad, in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, Leiden, Brill, 21999, 377-382. —, A Touch of Eden, in Orientalia J. Duchesne-Guillemin emerito oblata (Acta Iranica. Deuxième série: Hommages et opera minora, 9), Leiden, Brill, 1984, 219-224. GREENSTEIN, E.L., The Formation of the Biblical Narrative Corpus, in Association for Jewish Studies Review 15 (1990) 151-178. GREENUP, A.W. (ed.), The Commentary of Rabbi Tobia ben Elieser on Canticles, London, [np], 1909. GRESSMANN, H., Die Lade Jahves und das Allerheiligste des Salomonischen Tempels (Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten Testament, 1), Stuttgart, Kohlhammer, 1920. GRONEBERG, B., Searching for Akkadian Lyrics: From Old Babylonian to the “Liederkatalog” KAR 158, in JCS 55 (2003) 55-74. GROSS, B. – GADOT, Y. – LIPSCHITS, O., The Ancient Garden at Ramat Raḥel and Its Water Installations, in C. OHLIG – T. TSUK (eds.), Cura Aquarum in Israel. II: Water in Antiquity. In Memory of Yehuda Peleg, Ehud Netzer, David Amid. Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on the History of

BIBLIOGRAPHY

879

Water Management and Hydraulic Engineering in the Mediterranean Region Israel 14-20 October 2012 (Schriften der Deutschen Wasserhistorischen Gesellschaft, 21), Siegburg, DWhG, 2012, 93-114. GROSSMAN, J., Esther: The Outer Narrative and the Hidden Reading (Siphrut, 6), Winona Lake, IN, Eisenbrauns, 2011. GUARDINI, R., Religion und Offenbarung, Würzburg, Werkbund-Verlag, 1958. GUNKEL, H., Introduction to the Psalms: The Genres of the Religious Lyrics of Israel (Mercer Library of Biblical Studies), Macon, GA, Mercer University Press, 1998. —, Schöpfung und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit: Eine religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung über Gen 1 und Ap Joh 12. Mit Beiträgen von Heinrich Zimmern, Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1895. GUNKEL, H. – BEGRICH, J., Einleitung in die Psalmen (HkAT, 2), Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1933. GWALTNEY, W.C., The Biblical Book of Lamentations in the Context of Near Eastern Lament Literature, in W.W. HALLO (ed.), Scripture in Context II, Winona Lake, IN, Eisenbrauns, 1993, 191-211. HAAG, H., Das Heutige Verständnis des Hohenliedes in der Katholischen Kirche, in A. CAQUOT – S. LÉGASSE – M. TARDIEU (eds.), Mélanges bibliques et orientaux en l’honneur de M. Mathias Delcor (AOAT, 215), Kevelaer, Butzon & Bercker, 1985, 209-219. HAAS, V., Babylonischer Liebesgarten: Erotik und Sexualität im Alten Orient, München, Beck, 1999. HACHILI, R., Figurines and Kernoi, in Atiqot(E) 9-10 (1971) 125-135. HADLEY, J.M., The Cult of Asherah in Ancient Israel and Judah: Evidence for a Hebrew Goddess (UCOP, 57), Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2000. —, The Khirbet el-Qom Inscription, in VT 37 (1987) 50-62. —, Some Drawings and Inscriptions on Two Pithoi from Kuntillet ꜤAjrud, in VT 37 (1987) 180-213. HÄNEL, J. – ROTHSTEIN, J.W., Kommentar zum ersten Buch der Chronik (KAT, 18/2), Helsingfors, Scholl, 1927. HÄNER, T., Salomo und das Lied der Lieder: Die Überschrift des Hoheliedes in kanonisch-intertextueller Perspektive, in BN 172 (2017) 13-42. HAGEDORN, A.C., Of Foxes and Vineyards: Greek Perspectives on the Song of Songs, in VT 53 (2003) 337-352. —, Die Frau des Hohenlieds zwischen babylonisch-assyrischer Morphoskopie und Jacques Lacan, in ZAW 122 (2010) 417-430. —, What Kind of Love Is It? Egyptian, Hebrew, or Greek?, in WdO 46 (2016) 90-106. HALLER, M., Die Fünf Megilloth: Ruth, Hoheslied, Klagelieder, Esther (HAT, 18), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 1940. HALLO, W.W. et al., The Context of Scripture. I: Canonical Compositions from the Biblical World, Leiden, Brill, 1997. HALMI, N., The Genealogy of the Romantic Symbol, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2007. HALPERIN, D., Before Pastoral: Theocritus and the Ancient Tradition of Bucolic Poetry, New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, 1983. HAMILTON, M.W., The Body Royal: The Social Poetics of Kingship in Ancient Israel (BIS, 78), Atlanta, GA, Society of Biblical Literature, 2005.

880

BIBLIOGRAPHY

HAMMERSHAIMB, E., The Immanuel Sign, in Studia Theologica 3 (1949) 124-142. HAMP, V., Das Hirtenmotiv im Alten Testament, in Festschrift Kardinal Faulhaber zum achtzigsten Geburtstag: Dargebracht vom Professorenkollegium der Philosophisch-theologischen Hochschule Freising, München, Pfeiffer, 1949, 7-20. HANHART, R. (ed.), Septuaginta Vetus Testamentum Graecum. VII/2: Paralipomenon Liber II, Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2014. HANSON, P.D., The Dawn of Apocalyptic: The Historical and Sociological Roots of Jewish Apocalyptic Eschatology, Philadelphia, PA, Fortress, 1979. HARAN, M., The Uses of Incense in the Ancient Israelite Ritual, in VT 10 (1960) 113-129. HARL, M., La version LXX du Cantique des cantiques et le groupe Kaige-Theodotion – Quelques remarques lexicales, in Text 18 (1995) 101-120. HARRINGTON, D.J., Wisdom Texts from Qumran (The Literature of the Dead Sea Scrolls), London, Routledge, 1996. HARRINGTON, W.J., Revelation (Sacra Pagina, 16), Collegeville, MN, Liturgical Press, 1993. HARRIS, S.L., Proverbs 1:8-19, 20-33 as “Introduction”, in RB 107 (2000) 205-231. —, Proverbs 1–9: A Study of Inner-biblical Interpretation (SBLDS, 150), Atlanta, GA, Scholars, 1995. HAUPT, P., Biblische Liebeslieder, Helsingfors – Baltimore, MD, Hinrichs, 1907. —, The Book of Canticles, in AJSL 18 (1902) 193-245. HAURET, C., Cantique des cantiques, 1, 3: Introduxit me re in cellaria sua, in RevScRel 38 (1964) 60-70. HAYS, R.B., Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul, New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, 1989. HEALY, J.F., MOT ‫מות‬, in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, Leiden, Brill, 1995, 1122-1132. HECKL, R., Hiob – vom Gottesfürchtigen zum Repräsentanten Israels: Studien zur Buchwerdung des Hiobbuches und zu seinen Quellen (FAT, 70), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2010. —, How Wisdom Texts Became Part of the Canon of the Hebrew Bible, in M. SNEED (ed.), Was There a Wisdom Tradition? New Prospects in Israelite Wisdom Traditions (SBLAIL, 23), Atlanta, GA, SBL Press, 2015, 221-240. HEEREMAN, N.S., “Behold King Solomon!”: Symbolic Inner-biblical Interpretation in Song 3:6-11, in A. SCHELLENBERG – L. SCHWIENHORST-SCHÖNBERGER (eds.), Interpreting the Song of Songs: Literal or Allegorical? (BiTS, 26), Leuven, Peeters, 2016, 181-219. HEHN, J., Zur Bedeutung der Siebenzahl, in K. BUDDE (ed.), Vom Alten Testament (BZAW, 41), Giessen, Töpelmann, 1925, 128-136. —, Siebenzahl und Sabbat bei den Babyloniern und im Alten Testament: Eine religionsgeschichtliche Studie (Leipziger semitische Studien, 2/5), Helsingfors, Hinrichs, 1907. HEINEVETTER, H.-J., “Komm nun, mein Liebster, dein Garten ruft dich!”: Das Hohelied als programmatische Komposition (BBB, 69), Frankfurt a.M., Athenäum, 1988. HEINTZ, J.-G., ‫ב ֵאר‬, ְ in ThWAT, I, Stuttgart, Kohlhammer, 1973, 500-503. HENGEL, M., Die ‘auserwählte Herrin’, die ‘Braut’, die ‘Mutter’ und die ‘Gottesstadt’, in ID. – S. MITTMANN – A.M. SCHWEMER (eds.), La Cité de Dieu – Die Stadt Gottes (WUNT, 129), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2000, 245-280.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

881

—, The Interpretation of the Wine Miracle at Cana: John 2:1-11, in L.D. HURST (ed.), The Glory of Christ in the New Testament, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1987, 83-112. —, Judaism and Hellenism. I: Studies in Their Encounter in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic Period, London, SCM, 1974. HERDER, J.G., Salomon’s Lieder der Liebe: Die ältesten und schönsten aus Morgenlande. Nebst vierundvierzig alten Minneliedern, Leipzig, Weygand, 1778. HERMANN, A., Altägyptische Liebesdichtung, Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz, 1959. HERMISSON, H.-J., Weisheit und Geschichte, in H.W. WOLFF (ed.), Probleme biblischer Theologie: Gerhard von Rad zum 70. Geburtstag, München, Kaiser, 1971, 137-148. HERRENSCHMIDT, C., Les créations d’Ahuramazda, in Studia Iranica 6 (1977) 1758. HERRMANN, S., Die Königsnovelle in Ägypten und Israel: Gesellschafts- und Sprachwissenschaftliche Reihe, 1, in Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der KarlMarx-Universität Leipzig 3 (1953) 51-62. HERZER, J. – MAIER, C.M., Asma Canticum Canticorum / Das Hohelied, in M. KARRER – W. KRAUS (eds.), Septuaginta Deutsch: Erläuterungen und Kommentare zum griechischen Alten Testament, Stuttgart, Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2011, 2029-2040. HERZOG, Z., The Date of the Temple at Arad: Reassessment of the Stratigraphy and the Implications for the History of Religion in Juda, in A. MAZAR (ed.), Studies in the Archaeology of the Iron Age in Israel and Jordan (JSOTS, 331), Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press, 2001, 156-178. HESS, R.S., Eden – A Well-Watered Place, in BibRev 7/6 (1991) 28-33. HILL, A.E., Malachi (AncB, 25D), New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, 1974. HILLERS, D.R., Lamentations (AncB, 7), New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, 1992. —, Ritual Procession of the Ark and Ps 132, in CBQ 30 (1968) 48-55. HIMBAZA, I., Malachie parmi les prophètes, in J.-D. MACCHI et al. (eds.), Les recueils prophétiques de la Bible: Origines, milieux, et contexte procheoriental, Genève, Labor et Fides, 2012, 435-461. HIRSCH, E.D., JR., The Aims of Interpretation, Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press, 1976. HITZIG, F., Das Hohe Lied – Die Klagelieder (KEHAT, 16), Helsingfors, S. Hirzel, 1854. HÖFFKEN, P., Das Hohelied und die Salomonliteratur, in “Fürchte Dich nicht, denn ich bin mit dir! (Jes 41,10): Gesammelte Aufsätze zu Grundsätzen des Alten Testaments (Beiträge zum Verstehen der Bibel, 14), Münster, LIT, 2005, 267-278. HÖRIG, M., Dea Syria (AOAT, 208), Neukirchen-Vluyn, Neukirchener Verlag, 1979. HOLLADAY, W.L., A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah: Chapters 1–25 (Hermeneia, 24A), Minneapolis, MN, Fortress, 1986. —, On Every High Hill and under Every Green Tree, in VT 11 (1961) 170-176. HOLLOWAY, S.W., Aššur Is King! Aššur Is King! Religion in the Exercise of Power in the Neo-Assyrian Empire (Culture and History of the Ancient Near East, 10), Leiden, Brill, 2002. HOLMAN, J., A Fresh Attempt at Understanding the Imagery of Canticles 3:611, in K.D. SCHUNK – A. MATTHIAS (eds.), “Lasset uns Brücken bauen”:

882

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Communications to the XVth Congress of the International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament, Cambridge 1995 (BEAT, 42), Frankfurt a.M., Lang, 1998, 303-309. HOOKE, S.H. (ed.), Myth and Ritual: Essays on the Myth and Ritual of the Hebrews in Relation to the Culture Pattern of the Ancient East, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1933. HORNUNG, E., Der Eine und die Vielen: Ägyptische Gottesvorstellungen, Darmstadt, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1973. HORST, F., Die Formen des Althebräischen Liebesliedes, in R. PARET (ed.), Orientalistische Studien: Enno Littmann zu seinem 60. Geburtstag am 16. September 1935, Überreicht von Schülern aus seiner Bonner und Tübinger Zeit, Leiden, Brill, 1935, 43-54. HOSSFELD, F.-L., Messianische Texte des Psalters, in I.Z. DIMITROV et al. (eds.), Das Alte Testament als christliche Bibel in orthodoxer und westlicher Sicht (WUNT, 174), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2004, 307-324. HOSSFELD, F.-L. – ZENGER, E., Die Psalmen: Psalm 1–50 (NEB.AT, 1), Würzburg, Echter, 1993. —, Psalmen 51–100 (HThKAT), Freiburg i.Br., Herder, 2000. HUGENBERGER, G.P., Marriage as Covenant: A Study of Biblical Law and Ethics Governing Marriage Developed from the Perspective of Malachi (VT.S, 52), Leiden, Brill, 1994. HUGONOT, J.-C., Ägyptische Gärten, in M. CARROLL-SPILLECKE (ed.), Der Garten von der Antike bis zum Mittelalter, Mainz, Philipp von Zabern, 1993, 9-44. HUNGER, H., Babylonische und assyrische Kolophone (AOAT, 2), Kevelaer, Butzon & Bercker, 1968. HUNTER, R., Theocritus: A Selection, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1999. HUNZIKER-RODEWALD, R., Hirt und Herde: Ein Beitrag zum alttestamentlichen Gottesverständnis (BWANT, 155), Stuttgart, Kohlhammer, 2001. —, Hirte aus Barmherzigkeit: Zu einer als Symbol wahrgenommenen Metapher, in P. VAN HECKE (ed.), Metaphor in the Hebrew Bible (BETL, 187), Leuven, Peeters, 2005, 233-247. HUROWITZ, V.A., I Have Built You an Exalted House: Temple Building in the Bible in Light of Mesopotamian and Northwest Semitic Writings (JSOTS, 115), Sheffield, JSOT, 1992. —, The Priestly Account of Building the Tabernacle, in JAOS 105 (1985) 21-30. —, “Solomon Built the Temple and Completed It”: Building the First Temple according to the Book of Kings, in M.J. BODA – J. NOVOTNY (eds.), From the Foundations to the Crenellations (AOAT, 366), Münster, Ugarit-Verlag, 2010, 281-302. —, YHWH’s Exalted House: Aspects of the Design and Symbolism of Solomon’s Temple, in J. DAY (ed.), Temple and Worship in Biblical Israel: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar (LHB/OTS, ‘22), London, T&T Clark, 2005, 63-110. HURSCHMANN, R., Sänfte, in H. CANCIK – S. HELMUTH (eds.), Der Neue Pauly. Enzyklopädie der Antike, X, Stuttgart, Metzler, 2001, 1210-1211. HUSSER, J.-M., Adonis et le chasseur tué: Chasse et érotisme dans les mythes ougaritiques, in J.-M. MICHAUD (ed.), Le royaume d’Ougarit de la Crète à l’Euphrate (Proche-Orient et Littérature Ougaritique, 2), Sherbrooke – Québec, Éditions GGC, 2007, 545-565.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

883

—, La typologie comme procédé de composition dans les textes de l’Ancien Testament, in R. KUNTZMAN (ed.), Typologie biblique de quelques figures vives, Paris, Cerf, 2002, 11-34. HUTTER, M., Adam als Gärtner und König (Gen 2,8-15), in BZ 30 (1986) 258262. IKEDA, Y., Because Their Shade Is Good – Asherah in the Early Israelite Religion, in E. MATSUSHIMA (ed.), Official Cult and Popular Religion in the Ancient Near East: Papers of the First Colloquium on the Ancient Near East – The City and Its Life Held at the Middle Eastern Culture Center in Japan (Mitaka, Tokyo), Heidelberg, Winter, 1993, 56-80. ILAN, T., Silencing the Queen: The Literary Histories of Shelamazion and Other Jewish Women (Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism, 115), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2006. ISER, W., The Act of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic Response, Baltimore, MD, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1980. JACOB, E., L’héritage cananéen dans le livre du prophète Osée, in RHPhR 43 (1963) 250-259. —, Traits féminins dans la figure du Dieu d’Israël, in A. CAQUOT – S. LÉGASSE – M. TARDIEU (eds.), Mélanges bibliques et orientaux en l’honneur de M. Mathias Delcor (AOAT, 215), Kevelaer, Butzon & Bercker, 1985, 221-230. JACOBS-HORNIG, B., ‫גַּ ן‬, in TDOT, III, Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 2015, 34-39. JACOBSEN, T., Religious Drama in Ancient Mesopotamia, in H. GOEDICKE – J.J.M. ROBERTS (eds.), Unity and Diversity: Essays in the History, Literature, and Religion of the Ancient Near East, Baltimore, MD, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1975, 65-97. —, The Treasures of Darkness: A History of Mesopotamian Religion, New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, 1976. JANOWSKI, B., Die Frucht der Gerechtigkeit: Psalm 72 und die judäische Königsideologie, in E. OTTO – E. ZENGER (eds.), “Mein Sohn bist Du” (Ps 2,7): Studien zu den Königspsalmen (SBS, 192), Stuttgart, Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2002, 94-134. —, Der Himmel auf Erden: Zur kosmologischen Bedeutung des Tempels in Israel und in seiner Umwelt, in M. EBNER et al. (eds.), Der Himmel (JBTh, 20), Neukirchen-Vluyn, Neukirchener Verlag, 2005, 85-110. —, JHWH und der Sonnengott: Aspekte der Solarisierung JHWHs in vorexilischer Zeit, in ID., Die rettende Gerechtigkeit (Beiträge zur Theologie des Alten Testaments, 2), Neukirchen-Vluyn, Neukirchener Verlag, 1999, 192-219. —, Stellvertretung: Alttestamentliche Studien zu einem theologischen Begriff (SBS, 165), Stuttgart, Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1997. JAPHET, S., I & II Chronicles (OTL), Louisville, KY, Westminster John Knox, 1993. —, 1 Chronik (HThKAT), Freiburg i.Br., Herder, 2002. —, 2 Chronik (HThKAT), Freiburg i.Br., Herder, 2002. —, The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and Its Place in Biblical Thought (BEAT, 9), Frankfurt a.M., Lang, 1989. JAROS, K., Die Motive der Heiligen Bäume und der Schlange in Gen 2–3, in ZAW 92 (1980) 204-215. JASTROW, M., A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature, New York, Pardes, 1950.

884

BIBLIOGRAPHY

JEREMIAS, J., Jesus als Weltvollender (Beiträge zur Förderung christlicher Theologie, 33), Gütersloh, Bertelsman, 1930. JERICKE, D., Toponyme im Hohenlied, in Zeitschrift des Deutschen PalästinaVereins 121 (2005) 39-58. JERO, C., Mother-Child Narratives and the Kingdom of God: Authorial Use of Typology as an Interpretive Device in Samuel-Kings, in Bulletin for Biblical Research 25 (2015) 155-169. JÉRÔME, Commentaires de Jérôme sur le Prophète Isaïe. Livres I-IV (Vetus Latina, 23), Freiburg i.Br., Herder, 1993. JOHN PAUL II, Man and Woman He Created Them: A Theology of the Body, Boston, MA, Pauline Books & Media, 2006. JOHNSON, A.R., Hebrew Conceptions of Kingship, in S.H. HOOKE (ed.), Myth, Ritual, and Kingship: Essays on the Theory and Practice of Kingship in the Ancient Near East and in Israel, Oxford, Clarendon, 1958, 204-235. JOLLES, A., Die literarischen Travestien: Ritter – Hirt – Schelm, in Blätter für Deutsche Philosophie 6 (1931) 281-294. JONES, P., Embracing Inana: Legitimation and Mediation in the Ancient Mesopotamian Sacred Marriage Hymn Iddin-Dagan A, in JAOS 123 (2003) 291302. JOOSTEN, J., Abram and Sarai in Egypt (Genesis 12:10-20), in L. KOGAN – N. KOSLOVA – S. LOESOV (eds.), Babel und Bibel 6: Annual of Ancient Near Eastern, Old Testament, and Semitic Studies (Orientalia et Classica: Papers of the Institute of Oriental and Classical Studies, 43), Winona Lake, IN, Eisenbrauns, 2013, 369-381. JOÜON, P., Le Cantique des cantiques: Commentaire philologique et exégétique, Lyon, Beauchesne, 1909. JUNG, F., Habt Ihr den gesehen, den meine Seele liebt? (Hld 3,3): Das Hohelied Salomos und seine Auslegung in Geschichte und Gegenwart, in E. DÜSING – H.D. KLEIN (eds.), Geist, Eros und Agape: Untersuchungen zu Liebesdarstellungen in Philosophie, Religion und Kunst, Würzburg, Königshausen & Neumann, 2009, 121-166. JUNG-MERKER, L. (ed.), Symbole der Wandlung: Analyse des Vorspiels zu einer Schizophrenie, Zürich, Rascher, 1973. KAISER, O., Das Laubhüttenfest als Nachfolger des altisraelitischen Neujahrsfestes, in Der Gott des Alten Testaments: Theologie des Alten Testaments. I: Grundlegung (Uni-Taschenbücher), Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993, 321-323. —, Die mythische Bedeutung des Meeres in Ägypten, Ugarit und Israel (BZAW, 78), Berlin, Töpelmann, 1959. KALIMI, I., The Rise of Solomon in the Ancient Israelite Historiography, in J. VERHEYDEN (ed.), The Figure of Solomon in Jewish, Christian and Islamic Tradition: King, Sage and Architect (Themes in Biblical Narrative, 16), Leiden, Brill, 2013, 7-44. KALUGILA, L., The Wise King: Studies in Royal Wisdom as Divine Revelation in the Old Testament and Its Environment (CB.OT, 15), Lund, Gleerup, 1980. KAMIONKOWSKI, T.S., Gender Reversal and Cosmic Chaos: A Study on the Book of Ezekiel (JSOTS, 368), London, Sheffield Academic Press, 2003. KAPELRUD, A.S., The Number Seven in Ugaritic Texts, in VT 18 (1968) 494-499.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

885

KAPLAN, J., A Divine Love Song: The Origins of the Theo-erotic Interpretation of the Song of Songs in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity (Diss. Harvard University; Cambridge, MA, 2010). —, My Perfect One: Typology and Early Rabbinic Interpretation of Song of Songs, Oxford – New York, Oxford University Press, 2015. —, The Song of Songs: From the Bible to the Mishnah, in HUCA 81 (2013) 43-66. KAUFMANN, Y., History of the Religion of Israel. IV: The Babylonian Captivity, New York, Union of American Hebrew Congregations, 1970. KAYATZ, C., Studien zu Proverbien 1–9 (WMANT, 22), Neukirchen-Vluyn, Neukirchener Verlag, 1966. KEDAR-KOPFSTEIN, B., ‫עדן‬, in ThWAT, V, Stuttgart, Kohlhammer, 1987, 1094-1103. KEEL, O., Deine Blicke sind Tauben: Zur Metaphorik des Hohen Liedes (SBS, 114/ 115), Stuttgart, Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1984. —, Die Geschichte Jerusalems und die Entstehung des Monotheismus (Orte und Landschaften der Bibel, 4/1), Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007. —, Goddesses and Trees, New Moon and Yahweh: Ancient Near Eastern Art and the Hebrew Bible (JSOTS, 261), Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press, 1998. —, Das Hohelied (Zürcher Bibelkommentare. Altes Testament, 18), Zürich, Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 1986. —, Der salomonische Tempelweihspruch: Beobachtungen zum religionsgeschichtlichen Kontext des Ersten Jerusalemer Tempels, in ID. – E. ZENGER (eds.), Gottesstadt und Gottesgarten: Zur Geschichte und Theologie des Jerusalemer Tempels (QD, 119), Freiburg i.Br., Herder, 2002, 9-23. —, The Song of Songs: A Continental Commentary, Minneapolis, MN, Fortress, 1994. —, The Symbolism of the Biblical World: Ancient Near Eastern Iconography and the Book of Psalms, New York, Seabury Book Service, 1978. —, The Symbolism of the Biblical World: Ancient Near Eastern Iconography and the Book of Psalms, Winona Lake, IN, Eisenbrauns, 1997. KEEL, O. – UEHLINGER, C., Gods, Goddesses and Images of God in Ancient Israel, Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1998. KEIMER, L., Gartenpflanzen im alten Ägypten: Ägyptologische Studien, Hildesheim, Philipp von Zabern, 1976. KELLE, B.E., Writing and Reading War: Rhetoric, Gender, and Ethics in Biblical and Modern Contexts (SBL Symposium Series), Atlanta, GA, Society of Biblical Literature, 2008. KENNICOTT, B. (ed.), Vetus Testamentum Hebraicum (II), Oxford, Clarendon, 1780. KESSLER, R., Some Poetical and Structural Features of the Song of Songs, Leeds, Leeds University Oriental Society, 1965. KINGSMILL, E., “Love” or “Breasts” at Song of Songs 1:2 and 4? The PreMasoretic Evidence, in E.A. LIVINGSTONE (ed.), Papers Presented at the Twelfth International Conference on Patristic Studies Held in Oxford 1995: Biblica et Apocrypha, Ascetica, Liturgica (Studia Patristica, 30), Leuven, Peeters, 1997, 8-11. —, The Song of Songs and the Eros of God (OTM), Oxford – New York, Oxford University Press, 2009. KLAUCK, H.-J., Allegorie und Allegorese in Synoptischen Gleichnistexten (Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen, 26), Münster, Aschendorff, 1978.

886

BIBLIOGRAPHY

KLEER, M., Der liebliche Sänger der Psalmen Israels: Untersuchungen zu David als Dichter und Beter der Psalmen (BBB, 108), Amsterdam, Athenäum; Bodenheim, Philo, 1996. KLEIN, J., Building and Dedication Hymns in Sumerian Literature, in Acta Sumerologica 11 (1989) 27-67. —, Sacred Marriage, in Anchor Bible Dictionary, V, New York, Doubleday, 1992, 866-870. —, Šulgi and Ismedagan: Originality and Dependency in Sumerian Royal Hymnology, in ID. – A. SKAIST (eds.), Bar-Ilan Studies in Assyriology Dedicated to Pinhas Artzi (Bar-Ilan Studies in Near Eastern Languages and Culture), Ramat Gan, Bar-Ilan University Press, 1990, 65-136. —, Three Šulgi Hymns: Sumerian Royal Hymns Glorifying King Šulgi of Ur, Ramat-Gan, Bar-Ilan University Press, 1981. KLEIN, J. – SEFATI, Y., ‘Secular’ Love Songs in Mesopotamian Literature, in C. COHEN et al. (eds.), Birkat Shalom: Studies in the Bible, Ancient Near Eastern Literature, and Postbiblical Judaism. Presented to Shalom M. Paul on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday, Vol. 2, Winona Lake, IN, Eisenbrauns, 2008, 613-626. KLEIN, R.W., 1 Samuel (WBC, 10), Dallas, TX, Word Books, 1983. KLETTER, R., Between Archaeology and Theology: The Pillar Figurines from Judah and the Asherah, in A. MAZAR (ed.), Studies in the Archaeology of the Iron Age in Israel and Jordan (JSOTS, 331), Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press, 2001, 179-216. —, The Judean Pillar-Figurines and the Archaeology of Asherah (British Archaeological Reports. International Series, 636), London, Tempus Reparatum, 1996. KLOOS, C., Yhwh’s Combat with the Sea: A Canaanite Tradition in the Religion of Ancient Israel, Leiden, Brill, 1986. KLOPPENBORG, J.S., Isis and Sophia in the Book of Wisdom, in HTR 75 (1982) 57-84. KLOTZ, D., Caesar in the City of Amun: Egyptian Temple Construction and Theology in Roman Thebes (Monographies Reine Elisabeth, 15), Turnhout, Brepols, 2012. KNIBB, M.A., The Exile in the Literature of the Intertestamental Period, in The Heythrop Journal 17 (1976) 253-272. KOCH, K., Aschera als Himmelskönigin in Jerusalem, in UF 20 (1988) 97-120. —, Das Hohe Lied unter kanonischer Perspektive: Beobachtungen zur Rezeptionsgeschichte anhand von Targum und Midrasch, in M. ALBANI (ed.), Gottes Ehre erzählen: Festschrift für Hans Seidel zum 65. Geburtstag, Helsingfors, Thomas-Verlag, 1994, 11-23. KÖHLMOOS, M., Das Auge Gottes: Textstrategie im Hiobbuch (FAT, 25), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 1999. KÖNIG, J., L’herméneutique analogique du judaïsme antique d’après les témoins textuels d’Isaïe (VT.S, 33), Leiden, Brill, 1982. KOSMALA, H., ‫גִּ בּוֹר‬, in TDOT, II, Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 1975, 373-377. KOTTSIEPER, I., Über die Macht der Liebe: Erwägungen zur Lehre des Hoheliedes in seiner Endgestalt, in L. HIEPEL – M.-T. WACKER (eds.), Zwischen Zion und Zaphon: Studien im Gedenken an den Theologen Oswald Loretz (14.01.1928– 12.04.2014) (AOAT, 438), Münster, Ugarit-Verlag, 2016, 103-144.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

887

KRAMER, S.N., The Biblical “Song of Songs” and the Sumerian Love Songs, in Expedition Magazine 5 (1962). —, The Dumuzi-Inanna Sacred Marriage Rite: Origin, Development, Character, in Actes de la XVIIe Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale. Université Libre de Bruxelles, 30 juin – 4 juillet 1969 (1970) 135-141. —, Dumuzi’s Annual Resurrection: An Important Correction to ‘Inanna’s Descent’, in Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 183 (1966) 31. —, Inanna and Sulgi: A Sumerian Fertility Song, in Iraq 31 (1969) 18-23. —, From the Poetry of Sumer: Creation, Glorification, Adoration, Berkeley, CA, University of California Press, 1967. —, The Sacred Marriage Rite: Aspects of Faith, Myth, and Ritual in Ancient Sumer, Bloomington, IN, Indiana University Press, 1969. —, Sumerian Literature and the Bible (AnBib, 12; Studia Biblica et Orientalia, 3), Roma, Biblical Institute Press, 1959. —, Sumerian Sacred Marriage Songs and the Biblical ‘Song of Songs’, in Mitteilungen des Instituts für Orientforschung 15 (1969) 262-274. —, The Weeping Goddess: Sumerian Prototypes of the Mater Dolorosa, in The Biblical Archaeologist 46 (1983) 69-81. KRATZ, R., Die Komposition der erzählenden Bücher des Alten Testaments, Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000. KRAUS, H.-J., Die Königsherrschaft Gottes im Alten Testament: Untersuchungen zu den Liedern von Jahwes Thronbesteigung (Beiträge zur historischen Theologie, 13), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 1951. —, Psalmen. Teilband 1: Psalmen 1–59 (BKAT, 15.1), Neukirchen-Vluyn, Neukirchener Verlag, 1978. —, Psalms 1–59: A Continental Commentary, Minneapolis, MN, Fortress, 1993. KRAUSS, S., Der richtige Sinn von “Schrecken in der Nacht” HL III. 8., in B. SCHINDLER (ed.), Gaster Anniversary Volume: Being Studies in Semitic Philology and Literature, Jewish History and Philosophy and Folklore in the Widest Sense. In Honour of Haham Dr. M. Gaster’s 80th Birthday, London, Taylor’s Foreign Press, 1936, 323-330. —, Talmudische Archäologie (Vol. 2), Hildesheim, Olms, 1966. KREMSER, K., Die Hochzeit des Königs: Exegetisch Theologische Untersuchungen zu Psalm 45 (ÖBS, 51), Berlin – Bern, Peter Lang, 2019. KRINETZKI, G., Hoheslied, in W. DOMMERSHAUSEN – G. KRINETZKI (eds.), Esther, Hoheslied: Kommentar zum Alten Testament mit der Einheitsübersetzung (NEB.AT, 2), Würzburg, Echter, 1980, 1-31. —, Kommentar zum Hohenlied (Beiträge zur biblischen Exegese und Theologie, 16), Meisenheim am Glan, Lang, 1981. KRISTEVA, J., Semeiotikè: Recherches pour une sémanalyse, Paris, Seuil, 1979. KRONHOLM, T., ‫נָ ַעם‬, in ThWAT, IX, Stuttgart, Kohlhammer, 2016, 467-474. KÜCHLER, M., Schweigen, Schmuck und Schleier: Drei neutestamentliche Vorschriften zur Verdrängung der Frauen auf dem Hintergrund einer frauenfeindlichen Exegese des Alten Testaments im antiken Judentum (NTOA, 1), Freiburg/CH, Universitätsverlag; Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986. KÜGLER, J., Gold und Weihrauch und Myrrhe: Eine Notiz zu Mt 2,11, in BN 87 (1997) 24-33. KUHN, G., Erklärung des Hohen Liedes, in Neue Kirchliche Zeitschrift 37 (1926) 501-510; 521-578.

888

BIBLIOGRAPHY

KUNZ-LÜBCKE, A., Ablehnung des Krieges: Untersuchungen zu Sacharja 9 und 10 (HBS, 17), Freiburg i.Br., Herder, 1998. —, Salomo: Von der Weisheit eines Frauenliebhabers (BibG, 8), Leipzig, Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2004. KURZ, G., Metapher, Allegorie, Symbol, Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 6 2009. KYNES, W., The Modern Scholarly Wisdom Tradition and the Threat of PanSapientialism: A Case Report, in M. SNEED (ed.), Was There a Wisdom Tradition? New Prospects in Israelite Wisdom Traditions (SBLAIL, 23), Atlanta, GA, SBL Press, 2015, 11-38. —, The Nineteenth-Century Beginnings of ‘Wisdom Literature’, and Its TwentyFirst-Century End?, in J. JARICK (ed.), Perspectives on Israelite Wisdom: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar (LHB/OTS, 618), New York, T&T Clark, 2015, 83-108. LABUSCHAGNE, C.J., Numerical Secrets of the Bible: Rediscovering the Bible Codes, North Richland Hills, TX, BIBAL Press, 2000. LACOCQUE, A., Romance, She Wrote: A Hermeneutical Essay on Song of Songs, Harrisburg, PA, Trinity Press International, 1998. LACOCQUE, A. – RICŒUR, P., Thinking Biblically: Biblical and Exegetical Studies, Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press, 1998. LAGRANGE, M.-J., Notes sur le Messianisme dans les Psaumes, in RB (1905) 3957. LAKOFF, G. – JOHNSON, M., Metaphors We Live By, Chicago, IL, The University of Chicago Press, 2003. LALOU, F. – CALAME, P., Le Grand livre du Cantique des cantiques: Le texte hébreu, les traductions historiques et les commentaires selon les traditions juive et chrétienne (Spiritualités Vivantes), Paris, Albin Michel, 1999. LAMBERT, W.G., Devotion: The Languages of Religion and Love, in M. MINDLIN – M.J. GELLER – J.E. WANSBROUGH (eds.), Figurative Language in the Ancient Near East, London, School of Oriental and African Studies, 1987, 25-39. —, The Problem of the Love Lyrics, in H. GOEDICKE – J.J.M. ROBERTS (eds.), Unity and Diversity: Essays in the History, Literature, and Religion of the Ancient Near East, Baltimore, MD, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1975, 98-135. LANDSBERGER, F., Poetic Units within the Song of Songs, in JBL 73 (1954) 203216. LANDY, F., Paradoxes of Paradise (BiLiSe, 7), Sheffield, Almond Press, 1983. —, The Song of Songs and the Garden of Eden, in JBL 98 (1979) 513-528. LANG, B., Frau Weisheit: Deutung einer biblischen Gestalt, Düsseldorf, Patmos, 1975. —, Wisdom and the Book of Proverbs: An Israelite Goddess Redefined, New York, Pilgrim, 1986. LANGE, A., The Hebrew Bible: Overview Articles (Textual History of the Bible, 1A), Leiden, Brill, 2016. LANGE, A. – WEIGOLD, M., Biblical Quotations and Allusions in Second Temple Jewish Literature (Journal of Ancient Judaism Supplements, 5), Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011. LANGER, B., Gott als “Licht” in Israel und Mesopotamien (ÖBS, 7), Klosterneuburg, Österreichisches Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1989.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

889

LANGGUT, D., The Role of Pollen Analysis in Archaeology: Reconstruction of the Royal Persian Garden in Ramat Rahel, as a Case Study, in Cathedra 150 (2013) 37-50. LANGLAMET, F., Pour ou contre Salomon? La rédaction prosalomonienne de I Rois, I-II, in RB 83 (1976) 321-379; 481-528. LAPINKIVI, P., The Sumerian Sacred Marriage: In the Light of Comparative Evidence (SAA, 15), Helsinki, Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 2004. LEFEBVRE, P. – MONTALEMBERT, V., Un homme, une femme et Dieu: Pour une théologie biblique de l’identité sexuée, Paris, Cerf, 2007. LEHMANN, R.G. – REICHEL, M., Dod und Asima in Tell Dan, in BN 77 (1995) 29-31. LEICK, G., Sex and Eroticism in Mesopotamian Literature, London, Routledge, 1994. LEIMAN, S.Z., The Canonization of Hebrew Scripture: The Talmudic and Midrashic Evidence (Transactions, 47), Hamden, CT, The Shoe String Press, 1976. LEMAIRE, A., Naissance du Monothéisme: Point de vue d’un historien, Paris, Bayard, 2003. —, Nouveaux sceaux nord-ouest sémitiques: A. Sceaux et bulle hébraïques – B. Sceaux ammonites – C. Sceaux moabites – D. Sceau araméen – E. Sceau phénicien, in Semitica 33 (1983) 17-31. —, Zāmīr dans la Tablette de Gezer et le Cantique des cantiques, in VT (2013) 87-98. LÉON-DUFOUR, X., Le signe de Cana ou les noces de Dieu avec Israël, in P. GRELOT (ed.), La vie de la Parole: De l’Ancien au Nouveau Testament. Études d’exégèse et d’herméneutique bibliques offertes à Pierre Grelot professeur à l’Institut Catholique de Paris, Paris, Desclée, 1987, 229-239. LEPROUX, A., Un discours de sagesse: Étude exégétique de Sg 7–8 (AnBib, 167), Roma, Biblical Institute Press, 2007. LEVENSON, J.D., Creation and the Persistence of Evil: The Jewish Drama of Divine Omnipotence, San Francisco, CA, Harper & Row, 1988. —, The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son: The Transformation of Child Sacrifice in Judaism and Christianity, New Haven, CT – London, Yale University Press, 1993. —, Esther (OTL), Louisville, KY, Westminster John Knox, 1997. —, Sinai and Zion: An Entry into the Jewish Bible (New Voices in Biblical Studies), Minneapolis, MN, Winston, 1985. —, The Temple and the World, in The Journal of Religion 64 (1984) 275-298. —, Theology of the Program of Restoration of Ezekiel 40–48 (HSM, 10), Atlanta, GA, Scholars, 1976. LEVINE, A.-J., Sacrifice and Salvation: Otherness and Domestication in the Book of Judith, in J.C. VANDERKAM (ed.), “No One Spoke Ill of Her”: Essays on Judith (SBLEJL, 2), Atlanta, GA, Scholars, 1992, 17-30. LEVY, J., Wörterbuch über die Talmudim und Midraschim: Nebste Beiträgen von Heinrich Leberecht Fleischer (IV), Berlin – Wien, Benjamin Harz, 21924. LEWIS, C.S., The Allegory of Love, New York, Oxford University Press, 1958. —, Essay Collection and Other Short Pieces, London, HarperCollins, 2000. —, (ed.), George Macdonald: An Anthology, 365 Readings, New York, Geoffrey Bles, 1946.

890

BIBLIOGRAPHY

LEWIS, J.P., Jamnia Revisited, in L.M. MCDONALD – J.A. SANDERS (eds.), The Canon Debate, Peabody, MA, Hendrickson, 2002, 146-162. —, What Do We Mean by Jabneh?, in JAAR 32 (1965) 125-132. LIEBER, L.S., A Vocabulary of Desire: The Song of Songs in the Early Synagogue (Brill Reference Library of Judaism, 40), Leiden, Brill, 2014. LIM, T.H., The Formation of the Jewish Canon (ABRL), New Haven, CT, Yale Universtiy Press, 2013. LIMET, H., Le texte KAR 158, in H. GASCHE – B. HROUDA (eds.), Collectanea Orientalia: Histoire, arts de l’espace et industrie de la terre. Études offertes en hommage à Agnès Spycket (Civilisations du Proche-Orient. Serie I: Archéologie et Environnement, 3), Neuchâtel, Recherches et publications, 1996, 151-158. LINCOLN, B., Happiness for Mankind: Achaemenian Religion and the Imperial Project (Acta Iranica, 53), Leuven, Peeters, 2012. —, On Achaemenian Horticulture and Imperialism, in Happiness for Mankind: Achaemenian Religion and the Imperial Project (Acta Iranica, 53), Leuven, Peeters, 2012, 59-85. —, À la recherche du Paradis Perdu, in History of Religions 43 (2003) 139-154. LIPIŃSKI, E., Fertility Cult in Ancient Ugarit, in A. BONANNO (ed.), Archaeology and Fertility Cult in the Ancient Mediterranean: Papers Presented at the First International Conference on Archeology of the Ancient Mediterranean, the University of Malta, 2-5 September 1985, Amsterdam, Grüner, 1986, 207-216. —, Garden of Abundance, in ZAW 85 (1973) 358-359. —, ‘Leadership’: The Roots DBR and NGD, in M. DIETRICH et al. (eds.), “Und Mose schrieb dieses Lied auf”: Studien zum Alten Testament und zum Alten Orient. Festschrift für Oswald Loretz zur Vollendung seines 70. Lebensjahres mit Beiträgen von Freunden, Schülern und Kollegen (AOAT, 250), Münster, Ugarit-Verlag, 1998, 501-514. LIPSCHITS, O. – GADOT, Y. – LANGGUT, D., The Riddle of Ramat Raḥel: The Archaeology of a Royal Persian Period Edifice, in Transeuphratène 41 (2012) 57-79. LISOWSKY, G., Konkordanz zum hebräischen Alten Testament, Stuttgart, Württembergische Bibelanstalt, 1958. LIVERANI, M., Oltre la Bibbia: Storia Antica di Israele, Roma – Bari, Laterza, 2005. LIVINGSTONE, A., Mystical and Mythological Explanatory Works of Assyrian and Babylonian Scholars, Oxford, Clarendon, 1986. LIVINGSTONE, A. – READE, J., Court Poetry and Literary Miscellanea (SAA, 3), Helsinki, Helsinki University Press, 1989. LOEBEN, C.E., Der Garten im und am Grab – Götter in Gärten und Gärten für Götter: Reale und dargestellte Gärten im Alten Ägypten, in K. COLEMAN (ed.), Le Jardin dans l’Antiquité (Entretiens sur l’Antiquité classique, 60), Vandœuvres, Fondation Hardt, 2014, 27-52. LÖW, I., Die Flora der Juden: I-IV, Wien, R. Löwit, 1924. —, Die Flora der Juden. IV: Zusammenfassung, Nachträge, Berichtigungen, Indizes, Abkürzungen, Wien, R. Löwit, 1934. LOHFINK, N., Dt 26,17-19 und die “Bundesformel” (1969), in Studien zum Deuteronomium und zur deuteronomistischen Literatur I, Stuttgart, Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1990, 211-261.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

891

—, Das Siegeslied am Schilfmeer: Christliche Auseinandersetzungen mit dem Alten Testament, Meisenheim am Glan, Knecht, 1965. LONGENECKER, B.W., 2 Esdras (Guides to Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha), Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press, 1995. LONGMAN III, T., Song of Songs (NICOT), Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 2001. LOPASSO, V., Unicità di Dio e matrimonio in Malachia 2,10-16, in Vivarium NS 21 (2013) 125-133. LOPRIENO, A., Searching for a Common Background: Egyptian Love Poetry and the Biblical Song of Songs, in A.C. HAGEDORN (ed.), Perspectives on the Song of Songs / Perspektiven der Hoheliedauslegung (BZAW, 346), Berlin – New York, De Gruyter, 2005, 105-135. LORD, A.B., The Singer of Tales (Harvard Studies in Comparative Literature, 24), Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1964. LORENTZ, F. VON, Mosaik, in W. KROLL (ed.), Paulys Real-Encyclopädie der Classischen Altertumswissenschaft, XVI/1, Stuttgart, Metzler, 1933, 328-343. LORETZ, O., Ägyptisierende, mesopotamisierende und ugaritisierende Interpretationen der Götter Môt und Eros in Canticum 8,6-7: ‘Die Liebe ist so stark wie Môt’, in UF 36 (2004) 235-282. —, Vom Baal-Epitheton adn zu Adonis und Adonaj, in UF 12 (1980) 287-292. —, Enjambement, Versus und ‘salomonische’ Königstravestie im Abschnitt Canticum canticorum 3,6-11, in M. WITTE (ed.), Gott und Mensch im Dialog: Festschrift für Otto Kaiser zum 80. Geburtstag (BZAW, 345/1-2), Berlin, De Gruyter, 2004, II, 805-816. —, Entstehung des Judentums: Ein Paradigmenwechsel (AOAT, 422), Münster, Ugarit-Verlag, 2015. —, Freude durch Wein und Bier im Alten Orient: Kultische Wein-Bankette mit Taumel, Gespei und Exkrementen in Ugarit und Israel beim Neujahrsfest und Theoxenien (KTU 1.114:20-22a; 1.17 I 30-31a; Jes 28,7-8 und KTU 1.6 IV 1819; Jes 28,1), in ID., Entstehung des Judentums: Ein Paradigmenwechsel (AOAT, 422), Münster, Ugarit-Verlag, 2015, 512-535. —, Hebräisch *tymrh “Palmettensäule” in der Liebesdichtung (Cant 3,6), in UF 35 (2003) 385-389. —, Das Hohelied, in Gotteswort und menschliche Erfahrung, Freiburg i.Br., Herder, 1963, 70-112. —, Nachklänge des ugaritischen Baal-Mythos in Hld 8,6-7, in Studi storicoreligiosi 5 (1981) 197-207. —, Das Neujahrsfest im syrisch-palästinischen Regenbaugebiet: Der Beitrag der Ugarit- und Emar-Texte zum Verständnis biblischer Neujahrstradition, in E. BLUM – R. LUX (eds.), Festtraditionen in Israel und im Alten Orient (Veröffentlichungen der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft für Theologie, 28), München, Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2006, 81-110. —, Zum Problem des Eros im Hohenlied, in BZ 8 (1964) 191-216. —, Psalm 29: Kanaanäische El- und Baaltraditionen in jüdischer Sicht (UBL, 2), Altenberge, CIS-Verlag, 1984. —, ‘Sättigung’ mit Wein bis zur ‘Trunkenheit’ beim ‘Angesicht’ und zur ‘Rechten’ einer Kultstatue während eines Banketts nach ugaritischen und biblischen Texten: Die Entwicklung gegensätzlicher Darstellungen der Anwesenheit Gottes/ Jahwes in Israel und im Judentum, in ID., Entstehung des Judentums: Ein Paradigmenwechsel (AOAT, 422), Münster, Ugarit-Verlag, 2015, 363-496.

892

BIBLIOGRAPHY

—, Studien zur althebräischen Poesie. 1: Das althebräische Liebeslied: Untersuchungen zur Stichometrie und Redaktionsgeschichte des Hohenliedes und des 45. Psalms (AOAT, 14/1), Neukirchen-Vluyn, Butzon & Bercker, 1971. —, Die theologische Bedeutung des Hohenliedes, in BZ 10 (1966) 29-43. —, Die Umdeutung des vorexilischen Neujahrsfestes im Herbst in nachexilischeschatologischen Thronbesteigungsliedern: Die Vereinigung des Jerusalemer Jahwe-Thrones mit dem himmlischen Gottesthron, in ID., Die Entstehung des Judentums: Ein Paradigmenwechsel (AOAT, 422), Münster, Ugarit-Verlag, 2015, 237-247. LOVEJOY, A.O., The Chinese Origin of a Romanticism, in Essays in the History of Ideas, New York, George Braziller, 1955, 99-135. LUNDBOM, J.R.J., Jeremiah 37–52 (AncB, 21B), New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, 1974. LUNDQUIST, J.M., The Common Temple Ideology of the Ancient Near East, in G.M. TRUMAN (ed.), The Temple in Antiquity: Ancient Records and Modern Perspectives (The Religious Studies Monograph Series), Salt Lake City, UT, Deseret Book, 1984, 49-67. —, What Is a Temple? A Preliminary Typology, in H.B. HUFFMAN – F.A. SPINA – A.R.W. GREEN (eds.), The Quest for the Kingdom of God: Studies in Honor of George E. Mendenhall, Winona Lake, IN, Eisenbrauns, 1983, 205-219. LURKER, M., The Gods and Symbols of Ancient Egypt: An Illustrated Dictionary, London, Thames & Hudson, 1980. LUZ, U., Die Bedeutung der Kirchenväter für die Auslegung der Bibel, in J.D.G. DUNN et al. (eds.), Auslegung der Bibel in orthodoxer und westlicher Perspektive: Akten des west-östlichen Neutestamentler/innen-Symposiums von Neamț vom 4.-11. September 1998 (WUNT, 30), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2000, 29-52. LUZARRAGA, J., Cantar de los cantares: Sendas del amor (Nueva Biblia Española), Estella, Verbo Divino, 2005. LYKE, L.L., I Will Espouse You Forever: The Song of Songs and the Theology of Love in the Hebrew Bible, Nashville, TN, Abingdon, 2007. —, The Song of Songs, Proverbs, and the Theology of Love, in C.R. SEITZ – K. GREENE-MCCREIGHT (eds.), Theological Exegesis: Essays in Honor of Brevard S. Childs, Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 1999, 208-223. LYS, D., Le plus beau chant de la création: Commentaire du Cantique des cantiques (LeDiv, 51), Paris, Cerf, 1968. MAAG, V., Text, Wortschatz und Begriffswelt des Buches Amos, Leiden, Brill, 1951. MAAS, P., Hymenaios, in W. KROLL (ed.), Paulys Real-Encyclopädie der Classischen Altertumswissenschaft, IX/1, Stuttgart, Metzler, 1914, 130-134. MACHIELA, D.A., The Dead Sea Genesis Apocryphon: A New Text and Translation with Introduction and Special Treatment of Columns 13-17, Leiden, Brill, 2009. MACK, B.L., Logos und Sophia: Untersuchungen zur Weisheitstheologie im hellenistischen Judentum (Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments, 10), Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1973. MAHAL, G., Travestie, in G. SCHWEIKLE – I. SCHWEIKLE (eds.), Metzler Literatur Lexikon: Begriffe und Definitionen, Stuttgart, Metzler, 21990, 450-451. MAIBERGER, P., ‫נזל‬, in ThWAT, V, Stuttgart, Kohlhammer, 1987, 326-328. MAIER, C.M., Die “fremde Frau” in Proverbien 1–9: Eine exegetische und sozialgeschichtliche Studie (OBO, 144), Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1995.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

893

MALLOWAN, M.E.L., Nimrud and Its Remains, I, London, Collins, 1966. MALUL, M., Janus Parallelism in Biblical Hebrew: Two More Cases (Canticles 4,9.12), in BZ 41 (1997) 246-249. —, Knowledge, Control and Sex: Studies in Biblical Thought, Culture and Worldview, Tel Aviv, Archaeological Center Publication, 2002. —, Terror of the Night ‫לילה פחד‬, in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, Leiden, Brill, 21999, 851-854. —, Woman-Earth Homology in Biblical Weltanschauung, in UF 32 (2000) 339363. MANNATI, M., Les Psaumes: Tome I, Paris, Desclée de Brouwer, 1966. MANNS, F., Jewish Interpretations of the Song of Songs, in LA 58 (2008) 277295. —, Lecture symbolique de Jean 12,1-11, in LA 36 (1986) 85-110. —, Le symbolisme du Jardin dans le récit de la Passion selon St Jean, in LA 37 (1987) 53-80. —, Le Targum du Cantique des cantiques: Introduction et traduction, in LA 41 (1991) 223-301. MARCHESE, A., Dizionario di retorica e di stilistica, Milano, Mondadori, 1979. MARE, H.W., Zion (Place), in Anchor Bible Dictionary, VI, New York, Doubleday, 1992, 1096-1097. MARGALIT, B., The Meaning and Significance of Asherah, in VT 40 (1990) 264297. MARGUERON, J.C., Die Gärten im Vorderen Orient, in M. CARROLL-SPILLECKE (ed.), Der Garten von der Antike bis zum Mittelalter, Mainz, Philipp von Zabern, 1993, 45-80. MARSH, J., Saint John (Westminster Pelican Commentaries), Philadelphia, PA, Westminster Press, 1968. MARSMAN, H.J., Women in Ugarit and Israel: Their Social and Religious Position in the Context of the Ancient Near East (OTS, 49), Leiden, Brill, 2003. MARTI, K., Geschichte der israelitischen Religion, Strassburg, Friedrich Bull, 4 1903. MARTIN, D.G., Multiple Originals: New Approaches to Hebrew Bible Textual Criticism (SBL Text-critical Studies, 7), Atlanta, GA, Society of Biblical Literature, 2010. MASON, R., The Messiah in the Postexilic Old Testament Literature, in J. DAY (ed.), King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar (JSOTS, 270), Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press, 1998, 338-364. MASTIN, B.A., A Note on Some Inscriptions and Drawings from Kuntillet ꜤAjrud, in PEQ 137 (2005) 31-32. MATHIEU, B., La poésie amoureuse de l’Égypte ancienne: Recherches sur un genre littéraire au Nouvel Empire (Bibliothèque d’étude, 115), Cairo, Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale du Caire, 1996. MATSUSHIMA, E., Le “lit” de Samas et le rituel du mariage à l’Ebabbar, in Acta Sumerologica 7 (1985) 129-137. —, Problèmes des déesses Tasmetum et Nanaia, in Orient 16 (1980) 133-148. —, Le rituel hiérogamique de Nabû, in Acta Sumerologica 9 (1987) 131-175. —, Les rituels du mariage divin dans les documents accadiens, in Acta Sumerologica 10 (1988) 95-128.

894

BIBLIOGRAPHY

MAYER, W.R., Ein Mythos von der Erschaffung des Menschen und des Königs, in Orientalia 56 (1987) 55-68. MAYER-OPIFICIUS, R., Götterprozessionen, in J.-W. MEYER – M. NOVÁK – A. PRUSS (eds.), Beiträge zur vorderasiatischen Archäologie: Festschrift für Orthmann Winfried, Frankfurt a.M., Johann Wolfgang Goethe Universität – Archäologisches Institut, 2001, 282-291. MAYS, J.L., Micah: A Commentary (OTL), London, SCM, 1976. MAZAR, A., The Divided Monarchy: Comments on Some Archaeological Issues, in I. FINKELSTEIN – A. MAZAR – B.B. SCHMIDT (eds.), The Quest for the Historical Israel: Debating Archaeology and the History of Early Israel (SBL Archaeology and Biblical Studies, 17), Atlanta, GA, Society of Biblical Literature, 2007, 159-180. MAZAR, B., The Military Elite of King David, in VT 13 (1963) 310-320. MAZZINGHI, L., Review of Jennie BARBOUR, The Story of Israel in the Book of Qohelet: Ecclesiastes as Cultural Memory (Oxford Theological Monographs). Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2012. xv-225 p. 16 × 24., in Bib 95 (2014) 450-454. MCCARTER, P.K., II Samuel (AncB, 9), New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, 1974. MCCARTHY, C., Moving from the Margins: Issues of Text and Context in Deuteronomy, in A. LEMAIRE (ed.), Congress Volume – Basel 2001 (VT.S, 92), Leiden, Brill, 2002, 109-137. MCCARTHY, C. (ed.), Deuteronomy (BHQ, 5), Stuttgart, Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2007. MCCREESH, T.P., Wisdom as Wife: Proverbs 31:10-31, in R.B. ZUCK (ed.), Learning from the Sages, Grand Rapids, MI, Baker Book House, 1995, 391-410. MCWHIRTER, J., The Bridegroom Messiah and the People of God: Marriage in the Fourth Gospel (Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series, 138), Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2008. MEADE, D.G., Pseudonymity and Canon: An Investigation into the Relationship of Authorship and Authority in Jewish and Earliest Christian Tradition (WUNT, 39), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 1986. MEEK, R.L., Intertextuality, Inner-biblical Exegesis, and Inner-biblical Allusion: The Ethics of a Methodology, in Bib 95 (2014) 280-291. MEEK, T.J., Babylonian Parallels to the Song of Songs, in JBL 43 (1924) 245252. —, Canticles and the Tammuz Cult, in AJSL 39 (1922) 1-14. —, The Song of Songs, in The Interpreter’s Bible, V, New York – Nashville, TN, Abingdon, 1956, 89-148. MEINHOLD, A., Die Gattung der Josephsgeschichte und des Estherbuches: Diasporanovelle, I, in ZAW 87 (1975) 306-324. —, Die Gattung der Josephsgeschichte und des Estherbuches: Diasporanovelle, II, in ZAW 88 (1976) 72-93. MEINHOLD, H., Die Weisheit Israels: In Spruch, Sage und Dichtung, Leipzig, Quelle & Meyer, 1908. MENZEL, B., Assyrische Tempel. Band I: Untersuchungen zu Kult, Administration und Personal. Band II: Anmerkungen, Textbuch, Tabellen und Indices (Studia Pohl: Series Maior, 10), Roma, Biblical Institute Press, 1981.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

895

MERLO, P., La dea Asratum – Atiratu – Asera: Un contributo alla storia della religione semitica del nord, Roma, Pontificia Università Lateranense, 1998. MESHEL, Z., Kuntillet ꜤAjrud (Ḥorvat Teman): An Iron Age II Religious Site on the Judah-Sinai Border, Jerusalem, Israel Exploration Society, 2012. METTINGER, T.N.D., The Dethronement of Sabaoth: Studies in the Shem and Kabod Theologies (CB.OT, 18), Lund, Gleerup, 1982. —, The Riddle of Resurrection: “Dying and Rising Gods” in the Ancient Near East (CB.OT, 50), Stockholm, Almqvist & Wiksell, 2001. —, Yhwh Sabaoth – The Heavenly King on the Cherubim Throne, in I. TOMOO (ed.), Studies in the Period of David and Solomon and Other Essays: Papers Read at the International Symposium for Biblical Studies, Tokyo, 5-7 December, 1979, Winona Lake, IN, Eisenbrauns, 1982, 109-138. METZGER, M., Königsthron und Gottesthron: Text. Thronformen und Throndarstellungen in Ägypten und im Vorderen Orient im dritten und zweiten Jahrtausend vor Christus und deren Bedeutung für das Verständnis von Aussagen über den Thron im Alten Testament (AOAT, 15), Neukirchen-Vluyn, Butzon & Bercker, 1985. MEYERS, C.L., The Tabernacle Menorah: A Synthetic Study of a Symbol from the Biblical Cult (American Schools of Oriental Research Dissertation Series, 2), Missoula, MT, Scholars, 1976. MEYERS, C.L. – MEYERS, E.M., Haggai, Zecchariah 1–8 (AncB, 25B), New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, 1974. MILLAN, A.M.L., The Desert in the Tradition of Israel: An Analysis of Passages from Hosea, Amos, Isaiah, Jeremias, Ezekiel, and the Psalms; Extracto de la tesis doctoral presentada en la Facultad de Teología de la Universidad de Navarra, in Excerpta e Dissertationibus in Sacra Theologia 32 (1997) 9-69. MILLARD, A.R., The Etymology of Eden, in VT 34 (1984) 103-105. —, Nabû, in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, Leiden, Brill, 21999, 607-610. MILLER, G.D., “I Am My Father’s Only Daughter”: Sarah’s Unbalanced Relationship with Her Parents in the Book of Tobit, in A. PASSARO (ed.), Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook: Family and Kinship in the Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature, Berlin – Boston, MA, De Gruyter, 2013, 87-106. MILLER, P.D., JR. – ROBERTS, J.J.M., The Hand of the Lord: A Reassessment of the “Ark Narrative” of I Samuel (The Johns Hopkins Near Eastern Studies, 8), Baltimore, MD, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1977. MIROSCHENDJI, P., At the Origin of Canaanite Cult and Religion, in Eretz-Israel: Amnon Ben Tor Volume (Eretz-Israel, 30), Jerusalem, Israel Exploration Society, 2011, 74*-103*. MITCHELL, D.C., The Message of the Psalter: An Eschatological Programme in the Book of Psalms (JSOTS, 252), Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. MOENS, M.-F., The Ancient Egyptian Garden in the New Kingdom: A Study of Representations, in Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica 15 (1984) 11-53. MOLDENKE, H.N., Plants of the Bible, New York, Ronald Press Company, 1952. MOORTGAT, A., Tammuz: Der Unsterblichkeitsglaube in der altorientalischen Bildkunst, Berlin, De Gruyter, 1949.

896

BIBLIOGRAPHY

MORAN, W., The Ancient Near Eastern Background of the Love of God in Deuteronomy, in CBQ 25 (1963) 77-87. MORGENSTERN, J., The Three Calendars of Israel, in HUCA 1 (1924) 13-78. MOSIS, R., Untersuchungen zur Theologie des chronistischen Geschichtswerkes (Freiburger Theologische Studien, 92), Freiburg i.Br., Herder, 1973. MOUGHTIN-MUMBY, S., Sexual and Marital Metaphors in Hosea, Jeremia, and Ezekiel (OTM), Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2008. MOVERS, F.C., Die Phönizier: Untersuchungen über die Religion der Phönizier, mit Rücksicht auf die verwandten Götterdienste der heidnischen Israeliten, der Carthager, Syrer, Babylonier und Aegypter (I), Bonn, Eduard Weber’s Verlag, 1841. MOWINCKEL, S., The Psalms in Israel’s Worship: I, Oxford, Blackwell, 1962. MÜLLER, H.-P., Adonis und Adonisgärtchen, in ZDMG 154 (2004) 265-284. —, Das Hohelied, in ID. – O. KAISER – J.A. LOADER (eds.), Das Hohelied – Klagelieder – Das Buch Ester (ATD, 16/2), Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992, 3-90. —, Erkenntnis und Verfehlung: Prototypen und Antitypen zu Gen 2–3 in der altorientalischen Literatur, in T. RENDTORFF (ed.), Glaube und Toleranz: Das theologische Erbe der Aufklärung, Gütersloh, Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1982, 191-210. —, Die lyrische Reproduktion des Mythischen im Hohenlied, in ZTK 73 (1976) 23-41. —, Miszellen zu Einzeltexten: Hld 4,12–5,1: Ein althebräisches Paradigma poetischer Sprache, in ZAH 1 (1988) 191-201. —, Neige der althebräischen ‘Weisheit’: Zum Denken Qohäläts, in ZAW 90 (1978) 238-264. —, Poesie und Magie in Cant. 4,12–5,1, in W. VOIGT (ed.), XIX. Deutscher Orientalistentag: Vom 28. September bis 4. Oktober 1975 in Freiburg im Breisgau Vorträge, Wiesbaden, Steiner, 1977, 157-164. —, Travestien und geistige Landschaften: Zum Hintergrund einiger Motive bei Kohelet und im Hohenlied, in ZAW 109 (1997) 555-574. MULDER, J.S., Studies on Psalm 45, Oss, Offsetdrukkerij Witsiers, 1972. MULDER, M.J., ‫רמון‬, in TDOT, XIII, Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 2004, 505507. MURPHY, R.E., Recent Literature on the Canticle of Canticles, in CBQ 16 (1954) 1-11. —, The Song of Songs (Hermeneia), Minneapolis, MN, Fortress, 1990. —, The Structure of the Canticle of Canticles, in CBQ 11 (1949) 381-391. —, Tree of Life: An Exploration of Biblical Wisdom Literature, Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 21996. —, The Unity of the Song of Songs, in VT 29 (1979) 436-443. —, Wisdom Literature: Job, Proverbs, Ruth, Canticles, Ecclesiastes, and Esther (FOTL, 13), Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 1981. MURRAY, R., Der Dichter als Exeget: Der hl. Ephräm und die heutige Exegese, in Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie 100 (1978) 484-494. NAJMAN, H., Wilderness in Ancient Judaism, in P.W. FLINT – J. DUHAIME – K.S. BAEK (eds.), Celebrating the Dead Sea Scrolls: A Canadian Collection (SBLEJL, 30), Atlanta, GA, Society of Biblical Literature, 2011, 447466.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

897

NEBE, W., Qumranica I: Zu unveröffentlichten Handschriften aus Höhle 4 von Qumran, in ZAW 106 (1994) 307-322. NEHER, A., L’essence du prophétisme (Épiméthée), Paris, Presses universitaires de France, 1955. —, Le symbolisme conjugal: Expression de l’histoire dans l’Ancien Testament, in RHPhR 34 (1954) 30-49. NEUBERG, F.J., An Unrecognized Meaning of Hebrew Dôr, in JNES 9 (1950) 215-217. NEUSNER, J., The Mishnah: A New Translation, New Haven, CT – London, Yale University Press, 1988. NICCACCI, A., Cantico dei cantici e canti d’amore egiziani, in LA 41 (1991) 6185. —, Il libro della Sapienza: Introduzione e commento, Padova, Messaggero, 2007. NIELSEN, K., There Is Hope for a Tree: The Tree as a Metaphor in Isaiah (JSOTS, 65), Sheffield, JSOT, 1989. NIEUVIARTS, P. – DEBERGÉ, P. (eds.), Les nouvelles voies de l’exégèse: En lisant le Cantique des cantiques (LeDiv, 190), Paris, Cerf, 2002. NIR, R., The Aromatic Fragrances of Paradise in the Greek Life of Adam and Eve and the Christian Origin of the Composition, in NT 46 (2004) 20-46. NISSINEN, M., Akkadian Rituals and Poetry of Divine Love, in R.M. WHITING (ed.), Mythology and Mythologies: Methodological Approaches to Intercultural Influences, Helsinki, Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 2001, 93-136. —, Love Lyrics of Nabû and Tasmetu: An Assyrian Song of Songs?, in M. DIETRICH et al. (eds.), “Und Mose schrieb dieses Lied auf”: Studien zum Alten Testament. Festschrift für Oswald Loretz zur Vollendung seines 70. Lebensjahres mit Beiträgen von Freunden, Schülern und Kollegen (AOAT, 250), Münster, Ugarit-Verlag, 1998, 585-634. —, Song of Songs and Sacred Marriage, in ID. – R. URO (eds.), Sacred Marriages: The Divine-Human Sexual Metaphor from Sumer to Early Christianity, Winona Lake, IN, Eisenbrauns, 2008, 173-218. NOEGEL, S.B. – RENDSBURG, G.A., Solomon’s Vineyard: Literary and Linguistic Studies in the Song of Songs (SBLAIL, 1), Atlanta, GA, Society of Biblical Literature, 2009. NOLLI, G., Cantico dei cantici (La Sacra Bibbia), Torino, Marietti, 1968. NOORDTZIJ, A., Les intentions du Chroniste, in RB 49 (1940) 161-168. NORTH, R., Theology of the Chronicler, in JBL 82 (1963) 369-381. NOTH, M., Die israelitischen Personennamen im Rahmen der gemeinsemitischen Namengebung (BWANT, 10), Stuttgart, Kohlhammer, 1928. —, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien. I: Die sammelnden und bearbeitenden Geschichtswerke im Alten Testament (Schriften der Königsberger Gelehrten Gesellschaft, 2), Halle a. d. Saale, Max Niemeyer, 1943. NYBERG, H.S., Deuteronomion 33,2-3, in ZDMG 92 (1938) 320-344. O’DOWD, R., The Wisdom of Torah: Epistemology in Deuteronomy and the Wisdom Literature (FRLANT, 225), Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009. OHLY, F., Hohelied-Studien: Grundzüge einer Geschichte der Hoheliedauslegung des Abendlandes bis um 1200, Wiesbaden, Steiner, 1958. OLDENBURG, U., The Conflict between El and Ba’al in Canaanite Religion (Supplementa ad Numen, Altera Series. Dissertationes ad historiam religionum pertinentes, 3), Leiden, Brill, 1969.

898

BIBLIOGRAPHY

OLLENBURGER, B.C., Zion, the City of the Great King: A Theological Symbol of the Jerusalem Cult (JSOTS, 41), Sheffield, JSOT, 1987. OLYAN, S.M., Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh in Israel (SBL Monograph Series, 34), Atlanta, GA, Scholars, 1988. —, The Oaths of Amos 8.14, in Priesthood and Cult in Ancient Israel, Sheffield, Academic Press, 1991, 128-149. OPPENHEIM, A.L., On Royal Gardens in Mesopotamia, in JNES 24 (1965) 328333. ORIGEN, On First Principles: Volume II (Oxford Early Christian Texts), Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2017. —, The Song of Songs: Commentary and Homilies (Ancient Christian Writers, 26), Westminster, MD, Newman, 1957. ORIGÈNE, Commentaire sur le Cantique des cantiques. Tomes I-II: Version latine de Rufin (SC, 375-376), Paris, Cerf, 1991. —, Philocalie, 1-20 sur les Écritures – La lettre à Africanus sur l’histoire de Suzanne (SC, 302), Paris, Cerf, 1983. OSWALT, J.N., The Book of Isaiah 40–66 (NICOT), Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 1998. OTTO, E., Die Paradieserzählung Genesis 2–3: Eine nachpriesterliche Lehrerzählung in ihrem religionshistorischen Kontext, in A.A. DIESEL et al. (eds.), “Jedes Ding hat seine Zeit”: Studien zur israelitischen und altorientalischen Weisheit. Diethelm Michel zum 65. Geburtstag (BZAW, 241), Berlin, De Gruyter, 1996, 167-192. PARK, S.J., The Cultic Identity of Asherah in Deuteronomistic Ideology of Israel, in ZAW 123 (2011) 553-564. PARKER, S.B., Shahar ‫שׁחר‬, in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, Leiden, Brill, 1995, 1424-1427. PARPOLA, S., The Assyrian Tree of Life: Tracing the Origins of Jewish Monotheism and Greek Philosophy, in JNES 52 (1993) 161-208. PASZTHORY, E., Salben, Schminken, und Parfüme im Altertum, Mainz, Philipp von Zabern, 1992. PATERSON, C.G., The Milk of Salvation: Redemption by the Mother in Late Antiquity and Early Christianity, in HTR 82 (1989) 393-420. PAUL, S.M., A Commentary on the Book of Amos (Hermeneia), Minneapolis, MN, Fortress, 1991. —, Euphemistically ‘Speaking’ and a Covetous Eye, in Hebrew Annual Review 14 (1994) 193-204. —, A Lover’s Garden of Verse: Literal and Metaphorical Imagery in Ancient Near Eastern Love Poetry, in Divrei Shalom: Collected Studies of Shalom M. Paul on the Bible and the Ancient Near East 1967-2005 (CHANE, 23), Leiden, Brill, 2005, 271-284. —, The ‘Plural of Ecstasy’ in Mesopotamian and Biblical Love Poetry, in Divrei Shalom: Collected Studies of Shalom M. Paul on the Bible and the Ancient Near East 1967-2005 (CHANE, 23), Leiden, Brill, 2005, 239-252. PAYNE SMITH, J., A Compendius Syriac Dictionary, Eugene, OR, Wipf & Stock, 1999 PEETZ, M., Emotionen im Hohelied: Eine literaturwissenschaftliche Analyse hebräischer Liebeslyrik unter Berücksichtigung geistlich-allegorischer Auslegungsversuche (HBS, 81), Freiburg i.Br., Herder, 2015.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

899

PELLETIER, A.-M., Lectures du Cantique des cantiques: De l’énigme du sens aux figures du lecteur (AnBib, 121), Roma, Biblical Institute Press, 1989. —, Petit bilan herméneutique de l’histoire du Cantique, in J.-M. AUWERS et al. (eds.), Regards croisés sur le Cantique des cantiques (Le Livre et le Rouleau, 22), Bruxelles, Lessius, 2005, 130-147. PENGLASE, C., Greek Myths and Mesopotamia: Parallels and Influence in the Homeric Hymns and Hesiod, London, Routledge, 1994. PENTIUC, E.J., West Semitic Vocabulary in the Akkadian Texts from Emar (HSS, 49), Winona Lake, IN, Eisenbrauns, 2001. PÉPIN, J., Mythe et allégorie: Les origines grecques et les contestations judéochrétiennes, Paris, Aubier-Montaigne, 1958. PERDUE, L.G., The Sword and the Stylus: An Introduction to Wisdom in the Age of the Empires, Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 2008. PÉREZ FERNÁNDEZ, M., An Introductory Grammar of Rabbinic Hebrew, Leiden, Brill, 1999. PERLES, F., Analekten zur Textkritik des Alten Testaments, Leipzig, Theodor Ackermann, 1895. PERRONE, L., The Bride at the Crossroads: Origen’s Dramatic Interpretation of the Song of Songs, in ETL 82 (2006) 69-102. PLÖGER, O., Sprüche Salomos (Proverbia) (BKAT, I/18), Neukirchen-Vluyn, Neukirchener Verlag, 1984. —, Theokratie und Eschatologie (WMANT, 2), Neukirchen-Vluyn, Neukirchener Verlag, 1959. PODELLA, T., Das Lichtkleid JHWHs: Untersuchungen zur Gestalthaftigkeit Gottes im Alten Testament und seiner altorientalischen Umwelt (FAT, 15), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 1996. POLZIN, R., David and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of the Deuteronomic History. Part Three: 2 Samuel, Bloomington, IN, Indiana University Press, 1993. —, Samuel and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of the Deuteronomic History. Part Two: 1 Samuel, Bloomington, IN, Indiana University Press, 1993. POMPONIO, F., Nabû: Il culto e la figura di un dio del Pantheon babilonese ed assiro (Studi Semitici, 51), Roma, Istituto di studi del Vicino Oriente, 1978. PONGRATZ-LEISTEN, B., Ina Sulmi Irub: Die kulttopographische und ideologische Programmatik der akitu-Prozession in Babylonien und Assyrien im I. Jahrtausend v. Chr. (Baghdader Forschungen, 16), Mainz, Philipp von Zabern, 1994. —, Sacred Marriage and the Transfer of Divine Knowledge: Alliances between the Gods and the King in Ancient Mesopotamia, in M. NISSINEN – R. URO (eds.), Sacred Marriages: The Divine-Human Sexual Metaphor from Sumer to Early Christianity, Winona Lake, IN, Eisenbrauns, 2008, 43-73. PONTIFICAL BIBLICAL COMMISSION, The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church, Città del Vaticano, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1993. POPE, M.H., Number, in IDB, III, New York, Abingdon, 1962, 561-567. —, Seven, Seventh, Seventy, in IDB, IV, New York, Abingdon, 1962, 294-295. —, Song of Songs (AncB, 7C), New York, Doubleday, 1977. POPKO, Ł., Marriage Metaphor and Feminine Imagery in Jer 2,1–4,2: A Diachronic Study Based on the MT and LXX (ÉB, NS 70), Leuven, Peeters, 2015.

900

BIBLIOGRAPHY

PORADA, E., Battlements in the Military Architecture and in the Symbolism of the Ancient Near East, in D. FRASER – H. HIBBARD – M.J. LEWINE (eds.), Essays in the History of Architecture Presented to Rudolph Wittkower, London, Phaidon Press, 1967, 1-12. PORTER, J.R., The Interpretation of 2 Samuel VI and Psalm CXXXII, in Journal of Theological Studies 5 (1954) 161-173. PORZIG, P., Die Lade Jahwes im Alten Testament und in den Texten vom Toten Meer (BZAW, 397), Berlin, De Gruyter, 2009. POSENER, G., Catalogue des ostraca hiératiques littéraires de Deir el Médineh: II (ns. 1109-1266) (Documents de fouilles de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale du Caire, 18), Cairo, Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale du Caire, 1972. POSTGATE, J.N., The bit akiti in Assyrian Nabu Temples, in Sumer 30 (1974) 5174. PREUSS, H.D., Einführung in die alttestamentliche Weisheitsliteratur, Stuttgart, Kohlhammer, 1987. PRITCHARD, J.B. (ed.), Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press, 31969. PROPP, W.H.C., Exodus 1–18 (AncB, 2A), New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, 1999. PUECH, E., Le Cantique des cantiques, in RB 123 (2016) 29-53. —, L’inscription 3 de Khirbet el-Qôm revisitée et l’’ashérah, in RB 122 (2015) 5-25. QUACK, J.F., “Ich bin Isis, Herrin der beiden Länder”: Versuch zum demotischen Hintergrund der memphitischen Isisaretologie, in S. MEYER (ed.), Egypt, Temple of the Whole World / Ägypten, Tempel der gesamten Welt: Studies in Honor of Jan Assmann (Studies in the History of Religions, 97), Leiden, Brill, 2003, 319-365. —, Where Once Was Love, Love Is No More? What Happens to Expressions of Love in Late Period Egypt?, in WdO 46 (2016) 62-89. QUINTILIAN, The Orator’s Education (LCL, 126), Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 2001. RABIN, C., The Song of Songs and Tamil Poetry, in Studies in Religion/Sciences religieuses 3 (1973) 205-219. RAD, G. VON, ‫ ָשׁלוֹם‬in the OT, in TDNT, II, Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 1965, 402-404. —, Erwägungen zu den Königspsalmen, 1940-1941, in ZAW 58 (1941) 216-228. —, Es ist noch eine Ruhe vorhanden dem Volke Gottes, in Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament (TBü, 8), München, Kaiser, 1958, 101-108. —, Das Geschichtsbild des Chronistischen Werkes, Stuttgart, Kohlhammer, 1930. —, Theologie des Alten Testaments. Band II: Die Theologie der prophetischen Überlieferungen Israels, München, Kaiser, 1987. —, Wisdom in Israel, London, Trinity Press International, 1972. RAHNER, K., Realsymbol, in Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche, VIII, Freiburg i.Br., Herder, 21999, 867-868. RAINBOW, J., Male μαστοί in Revelation 1.12, in Journal for the Study of the New Testament 30 (2008) 249-253. RATZINGER, J., Milestones: Memoires 1927-1977, San Francisco, CA, Ignatius, 1998.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

901

RAVASI, G., Il Cantico dei cantici: Commento e attualizzazione (Testi e commenti, 4), Bologna, EDB, 1992. —, Il rapporto uomo-donna simbolo dell’alleanza nei Profeti, in Lo sposo e la sposa (Parole Spirito e Vita, 13), Bologna, EDB, 1986, 41-56. REESE, J.M., Hellenistic Influence on the Book of Wisdom and Its Consequences (AnBib, 41), Roma, Biblical Institute Press, 1970. REICHENBACH, G., Gültige Verbindungen: Eine Untersuchung zur kanonischen Bedeutung der innerbiblischen Traditionsbezüge in Sprüche 1 bis 9 (ABG, 37), Leipzig, Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2011. REISER, M., Bibelkritik und Auslegung der Heiligen Schrift (WUNT, 217), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2007. REISMAN, D.D., Iddin-Dagan’s Sacred Marriage Hymn, in JCS 25 (1973) 185202. REITERER, F., ‫פוח‬, in ThWAT, VI, Stuttgart, Kohlhammer, 1989, 538-543. RENAN, E., Le Cantique des cantiques, Paris, Calmann-Lévy, 1860. RENAUD, B., De la bénédiction du roi à la bénédiction de Dieu (Ps 72), in Bib 70 (1989) 305-326. —, Salomon, figure du messie, in RevScRel 68 (1994) 409-426. RENDSBURG, G.A., Additional Notes on “The Last Words of David” (2 Sam 23,17), in Bib 70 (1989) 403-408. —, David and His Circle in Genesis XXXVIII, in VT 36 (1986) 438-446. —, Israelian Hebrew in the Song of Songs, in S. FASSBERG – A. HURVITZ (eds.), Biblical Hebrew in Its Northwest Semitic Setting, Jerusalem, The Hebrew University – Magnes Press, 2006, 315-323. RENDTORFF, R., Die Bundesformel (SBS, 160), Stuttgart, Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1995. —, The Canonical Hebrew Bible: A Theology of the Old Testament, Leiden, Deo Publishing, 2005. —, The Covenant Formula: An Exegetical and Theological Investigation (Old Testament Studies), Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1998. RENGER, J., Heilige Hochzeit: A. Philologisch, in Reallexikon der Assyriologie, IV, Berlin, De Gruyter, 1975, 251-259. RICCIOTTI, G., Il Cantico dei cantici, Torino, Società Editrice Internazionale, 1928. RICHARDS, I.A., The Philosophy of Rhetoric (The Mary Flexner Lectures on the Humanities, 3), New York, Oxford University Press, 1936. —, Practical Criticism: A Study of Literary Judgement [1929], London, Routledge, 2011. RICŒUR, P., Essays on Biblical Interpretation, Philadelphia, PA, Fortress, 1980. —, Freud and Philosophy: An Essay on Interpretation, New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, 1970. —, Parole et symbole, in RevScRel 49 (1975) 142-161. —, Le Symbole donne à penser, in Esprit 27 (1959) 60-76. RICŒUR, P. – JÜNGEL, E., Metapher: Zur Hermeneutik religiöser Sprache. Mit einer Einführung von Pierre Gisel, München, Kaiser, 1974. RICŒUR, P. – LACOCQUE, A., Penser la Bible, Paris, Seuil, 1998. RIKALA, M., Sacred Marriage in the New Kingdom of Ancient Egypt: Circumstantial Evidence for a Ritual Interpretation, in M. NISSINEN – R. URO (eds.), Sacred Marriages: The Divine-Human Sexual Metaphor from Sumer to Early Christianity, Winona Lake, IN, Eisenbrauns, 2008, 115-144.

902

BIBLIOGRAPHY

RILEY, W., King and Cultus in Chronicles: Worship and the Reinterpretation of History (JSOTS, 160), Sheffield, JSOT, 1993. ָ in TDOT, I, Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 2011, 188-193. RINGGREN, H., ‫אח‬, —, Das Hohe Lied, in ID. – O. KAISER (eds.), Das Hohe Lied, Klagelieder, Das Buch Esther (ATD, 16/2), Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 31981, 1-37. —, Israelitische Religion (Die Religionen der Menscheit, 26), Stuttgart, Kohlhammer, 1963. —, The Marriage Motif in Israelite Religion, in P.D. MILLER – P.D. HANSON – S.D. MCBRIDE (eds.), Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross, Philadelphia, PA, Fortress, 1987, 421-428. —, Word and Wisdom: Studies in the Hypostatization of Divine Qualities and Functions in the Ancient Near East, Lund, Håkan Ohlssons Boktryckeri, 1947. RINGGREN, H. – WEISER, A., Das Hohelied – Klagelieder – Das Buch Esther (ATD, 16/2), Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1958. RIVA, R., Simbolo, in P. ROSSANO – G. RAVASI – A. GIRLANDA (eds.), Nuovo Dizionario di Teologia Biblica, Cinisello Balsamo, Paoline, 1991, 1472-1490. ROBERT, A., Les appendices du Cantique des cantiques (VIII, 8-14), in RB 55 (1948) 161-183. —, Les attaches littéraires bibliques de Prov. I-IX, in RB 43 (1934) 42-68; 172204; 374-386; 44 (1935) 344-365; 502-525. ROBERT, A. – TOURNAY, R. – FEUILLET, A., Le Cantique des cantiques (ÉB, 48), Paris, Lecoffre, 1963. ROBERTS, D., Let Me See Your Form: Seeking Poetic Structure in the Song of Songs, Lanham, MD, University Press of America, 2007. ROBERTS, J.J.M., The King of Glory, in ID., The Bible and the Ancient Near East: Collected Essays, Winona Lake, IN, Eisenbrauns, 2002, 104-109. —, Zion in the Theology of the Davidic-Solomonic Empire, in ID., The Bible and the Ancient Near East: Collected Essays, Winona Lake, IN, Eisenbrauns, 2002, 331-347. ROCCA, S. The Book of Judith, Queen Shelamzion and King Tigranes of Armenia: A Sadducee Appraisal, in Materia Giudaica 10/1 (2005) 1-14. RÖMER, T., L’invention de Dieu (Les livres du nouveau monde), Paris, Seuil, 2014. —, ‘L’invention de Dieu’ – les origines et l’évolution du dieu d’Israël, in Angelicum 92 (2015) 519-536. —, Origines des messianismes juif et chrétien: Transformations de l’idéologie royale, in J.-C. ATTIAS – P. GISEL – L. KAENNEL (eds.), Messianismes: Variations sur une figure juive, Genève, Labor et Fides, 2000, 13-29. —, Salomon d’après les deutéronomistes: Un roi ambigu, in C. LICHTERT – D. NOCQUET (eds.), Le Roi Salomon, un héritage en question: Hommage à Jacques Vermeylen (Le Livre et le Rouleau, 33), Bruxelles, Lessius, 2008, 98-130. —, Why Would the Deuteronomist Tell about the Sacrifice of Jephthah’s Daughter?, in JSOT 77 (1998) 27-38. RÖMER, W.H.P., Ein Lied zum Ritus der Heiligen Hochzeit der Göttin Inanna mit König Iddindagān von Isin (ca. 1974/1954 v.Chr.), in Orakel, Rituale Bauund Votivinschriften, Lieder und Gebete (Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testaments, II/2), Gütersloh, Mohn, 1989, 659-673.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

903

—, Sumerische ‘Königshymnen’ der Isin-Zeit (Documenta et monumenta Orientis Antiqui, 13), Leiden, Brill, 1965. RÖSEL, C., Die messianische Redaktion des Psalters (Calwer Theologische Monographien. Reihe A: Bibelwissenschaften, 19), Stuttgart, Calwer, 1999. ROSCHER, W.H., Die Sieben und Neunzahl im Kultus und Mythus der Griechen, in Abhandlungen der philologisch-historischen Klasse der königl. Sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften 24 (1904) 3-114. ROSENBERG, J., King and Kin: Political Allegory in the Bible, Bloomington, IN, Indiana University Press, 1986. ROSENMEYER, T.G., The Green Cabinet: Theocritus and the European Pastoral Lyric, Berkeley, CA, University of California Press, 1969. ROSENSTOCK, B., David’s Play: Fertility Rituals and the Glory of God in 2 Samuel 6, in JSOT 311 (2006) 63-80. ROSKOP, A.R., The Wilderness Itineraries: Genre, Geography, and the Growth of Torah, in History, Archaeology, and Culture of the Levant 3 (2011) 204215. ROSKOP ERISMAN, A., Transjordan in Deuteronomy: The Promised Land in the Formation of the Pentateuch, in JBL 132 (2013) 769-789. ROST, L., Die Überlieferung von der Thronnachfolge Davids (BWANT, 6), Stuttgart, Kohlhammer, 1926. RUDNIG-ZELT, S., Hoseastudien: Redaktionskritische Untersuchungen zur Genese des Hoseabuches (FRLANT, 13), Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2006. RUDOLPH, W., Das Buch Ruth – Das Hohe Lied – Die Klagelieder (KAT, 17/1-3), Gütersloh, Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1962. RUNDGREN, F., Tragsessel, Sänfte ‫אפריון‬, in ZAW 74 (1962) 70-72. RUZER, S., From Man as Locus of God’s Indwelling to Death as Temple’s Destruction, in RB 119 (2012) 383-402. RYKEN, L. – WILHOIT, J.C. – LONGMAN, T., Lebanon, in Dictionary of Biblical Imagery, Downers Grove, IL, IVP Academic, 1998, 498-499. SADGROVE, M., The Song of Songs as Wisdom Literature, in E.A. LIVINGSTONE (ed.), Studia Biblica 1978. I: Papers on Old Testament and Related Themes. Sixth International Congress on Biblical Studies, Oxford 3-7 April 1978 (JSOTS, 11), Sheffield, JSOT, 1979, 245-248. SAEBØ, M., On the Canonicity of the Song of Songs, in M.V. FOX et al. (eds.), Texts, Temples, and Traditions: A Tribute to Menahem Haran, Winona Lake, IN, Eisenbrauns, 1996, 267-277. SÄRKIÖ, P., Solomon in History and Tradition, in J. VERHEYDEN (ed.), The Figure of Solomon in Jewish, Christian and Islamic Tradition: King, Sage and Architect (Themes in Biblical Narrative, 16), Leiden, Brill, 2013, 45-56. SALFELD, S., Das Hohelied Salomo’s bei den jüdischen Erklärern des Mittelalters, Berlin, Benzian, 1878. SANMARTIN-ASCASO, J., ‫דּוֹד‬, in TDOT, III, Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 2004, 143-156. SASSON, J.M., Jonah: A New Translation with Introduction, Commentary, and Interpretation (AncB, 24B), New York, Doubleday, 1990. —, On M. H. Pope’s Song of Songs (AB 7c), in Maarav 1 (1978) 177-196. SATLOW, M.L., The Metaphor of Marriage in Early Judaism, in J.W. VAN HENTEN – A. BRENNER (eds.), Families and Family Relations as Represented in Early

904

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Judaisms and Early Christianities: Texts and Fictions. Papers Read at a NOSTER Colloquium in Amsterdam, June 9-11, 1998 (Studies in Theology and Religion, 2), Leiden, Deo Publishing, 2000, 13-42. SAUR, M., Einführung in die alttestamentliche Weisheitsliteratur, Darmstadt, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2012. —, Königspsalmen (BZAW, 340), Berlin, De Gruyter, 2004. SAVRAN, G., 1 and 2 Kings, in R. ALTER – F. KERMODE (eds.), The Literary Guide to the Bible, London, Collins, 1987, 146-164. SAYDON, P.P., A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, London, Nelson, 1953. SCHÄFER, B., Das Hohe Lied, Münster, Theissing, 1876. SCHAEFER, K.R., Psalms (Berit Olam), Collegeville, MN, Liturgical Press, 2001. SCHÄFER, P., Diversity and Interaction: Messiahs in Early Judaism, in M. COHEN – P. SCHÄFER (eds.), Toward the Millennium: Messianic Expectations from the Bible to Waco, Leiden, Brill, 1998, 15-36. SCHEDL, C., Baupläne des Wortes: Einführung in die biblische Logotechnik, Berlin, Herder, 1974. —, Psalmen: Im Rhythmus des Urtextes. Eine Auswahl, Klosterneuburg, Klosterneuburger Buch- und Kunstverlag, 1964. —, Der verschlossene Garten: Logotechnische Untersuchungen zum Hohenlied (4,12–5,1), in W. VOIGT (ed.), XIX. Deutscher Orientalistentag: Vom 28. September bis 4. Oktober 1975 in Freiburg im Breisgau: Vorträge, Wiesbaden, Steiner, 1977, 165-177. SCHELLENBERG, A., Questioning the Trend of Classifying the Song of Songs as Sapiential, in H. JENNI – M. SAUR (eds.), Nächstenliebe und Gottesfurcht: Beiträge aus alttestamentlicher, semitischer und altorientalistischer Wissenschaft für Hans-Peter Mathys zum 65. Geburtstag (AOAT, 439), Münster, Ugarit-Verlag, 2016, 393-408. SCHENKER, A., et al. (eds.), Biblia Hebraica Quinta: Megilloth (BHQ, 18), Stuttgart, Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2004. —, Septante et texte massorétique dans l’histoire la plus ancienne du texte de 1 Rois 2–14 (Cahiers de la RB, 48), Paris, Gabalda, 2000. SCHIPPER, B.U., Das Proverbienbuch und die Toratradition, in ZTK 108 (2011) 381-404. —, Proverbs (Hermeneia), Minneapolis, MN, Fortress, 2019 SCHIPPER, B.U. – TEETER, D.A. (eds.), Wisdom and Torah: The Reception of “Torah” in the Wisdom Literature of the Second Temple Period (JSJSup, 163), Leiden, Brill, 2013. SCHLEGEL, F., Ästhetische und politische Schriften, München, Carl Hanser, 2013. SCHLEUSNER, J.F., Novus thesaurus philologico-criticus sive lexicon in LXX et reliquos interpretes Graecos ac scriptores apocryphos veteris testamenti: IV, Leipzig, Weidmann, 1821. SCHLOTTMANN, D., Der Brautzug des Hohen Liedes 3,6-11, in Theologische Studien und Kritiken 40 (1867) 209-243. SCHMID, K., The Canon and the Cult: The Emergence of Book Religion in Ancient Israel and the Gradual Sublimation of the Temple Cult, in JBL 131 (2012) 289-305. —, Hiob als biblisches und antikes Buch: Historische und intellektuelle Kontexte seiner Theologie (SBS, 219), Stuttgart, Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2010.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

905

SCHMIDT, B.B., Moon, in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, Leiden, Brill, 1995, 1098-1113. SCHMIDT, H., Die großen Propheten (Die Schriften des Alten Testaments), Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1923. SCHMITT, J.J., The Motherhood of God and Zion as Mother, in RB 92 (1985) 557-569. —, Yahweh’s Divorce in Hosea 2 – Who Is That Woman?, in SJOT 9 (1995) 119-132. SCHMITT, R., Zelt und Lade als Thema Alttestamentlicher Wissenschaft: Eine kritische forschungsgeschichtliche Deutung, Gütersloh, Gütersloher Verlagshaus Mohn, 1972. SCHMITT PANTEL, P. – GROSS, W.H., Kline (κλίνη, Bett), in H. CANCIK – S. HELMUTH (eds.), Der Neue Pauly: Enzyklopädie der Antike, VI, Stuttgart, Metzler, 604605, p. 604. SCHMITZ, B. – ENGEL, H., Judit (HThKAT), Freiburg i.Br., Herder, 2014. SCHMÖKEL, H., Heilige Hochzeit und Hoheslied (Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes, 32/1), Wiesbaden, Steiner, 1956. —, Zur kultischen Deutung des Hohenliedes, in ZAW 64 (1952) 148-155. SCHNABEL, E.J., Law and Wisdom from Ben Sira to Paul: A Tradition Historical Enquiry into the Relation of Law, Wisdom, and Ethics (WUNT, II/16), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 1985. SCHNEIDERS, S.M., John 20:11-18: The Encounter of the Easter Jesus with Mary Magdalene – A Transformative Feminist Reading, in F.F. SEGOVIA (ed.), “What Is John?”: Readers and Readings of the Fourth Gospel (SBL Symposium Series, 3), Atlanta, GA, Scholars, 1996, 155-168. —, The Revelatory Text: Interpreting the New Testament as Sacred Scripture, San Francisco, CA, Harper, 1991. SCHOTT, S., Les chants d’amour de l’Égypte ancienne, Paris, Maisonneuve, 1956. —, Das schöne Fest vom Wüstentale: Festbräuche einer Totenstadt (Akademie der Wissenschaft und der Literatur in Mainz. Abhandlungen der geistes- und sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse, Jahrg. 1952, 11), Wiesbaden, Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur, 1953. SCHREIBER, S., Gesalbter und König: Titel und Konzeptionen der königlichen Gesalbtenerwartung in frühjüdischen und urchristlichen Schriften (BZNW, 105), Berlin, De Gruyter, 2000. SCHREINER, J., ‫עור‬, in ThWAT, V, Stuttgart, Kohlhammer, 1987, 1184-1190. SCHROEDER, C., “A Love Song”: Psalm 45 in the Light of Ancient Near Eastern Marriage Texts, in CBQ 58 (1996) 417-432. SCHROER, S., Die Ikonographie Palästinas/Israels und der Alte Orient: Eine Religionsgeschichte in Bildern. Band 2: Die Mittelbronzezeit, Freiburg/CH, Academic Press, 2008. —, Die Ikonographie Palästinas/Israels und der Alte Orient: Eine Religionsgeschichte in Bildern. Band 3: Die Spätbronzezeit, Freiburg/CH, Academic Press, 2011. SCHÜRER, E., The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ: (175 B.C.A.D. 135), I, Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1973. SCHWARTZ, M., The Religion of Achaemenian Iran, in I. GERSHEVITCH (ed.), The Cambridge History of Iran. Vol. 2: The Median and Achaemenian Periods, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1985, 664-697.

906

BIBLIOGRAPHY

SCHWEIKLE, G., Allegorese, in ID. – I. SCHWEIKLE (eds.), Metzler Literatur Lexikon: Begriffe und Definitionen, Stuttgart, Metzler, 21990, 9. SCHWIENHORST-SCHÖNBERGER, L., Alttestamentliche Weisheit im Diskurs, in ZAW 125 (2013) 118-142. —, Das Hohelied als Allegorie, in ID. (ed.), Das Hohelied im Konflikt der Interpretationen (ÖBS, 47), Frankfurt a.M., Lang, 2017, 11-56. —, Das Hohelied der Liebe, Freiburg i.Br., Herder, 2015. —, Das Hohelied und die Kontextualität des Verstehens, in D.J.A. CLINES – H. LICHTENBERGER – H.-P. MÜLLER (eds.), Weisheit in Israel: Beiträge des Symposiums “Das Alte Testament und die Kultur der Moderne”, anlässlich des 100. Geburtstags Gerhard von Rads (1901-1971), Heidelberg, 18.-21. Oktober 2001 (Altes Testament und Moderne, 12), Münster, Lit, 2003, 81-91. —, The Song of Songs as Allegory: Methodological and Hermeneutical Considerations, in A. SCHELLENBERG – L. SCHWIENHORST-SCHÖNBERGER (eds.), Interpreting the Song of Songs: Literal or Allegorical? (BiTS, 26), Leuven, Peeters, 2016, 1-50. —, Die theologische Bedeutung des Hohenliedes: Ein Gespräch mit Oswald Loretz, in L. HIEPEL – M.-T. WACKER (eds.), Zwischen Zion und Zaphon: Studien im Gedenken an den Theologen Oswald Loretz (14.01.1928– 12.04.2014) (AOAT, 438), Münster, Ugarit-Verlag, 2016, 171-187. —, Traces of an Original Allegorical Meaning of the Song of Songs, in S.C. JONES – C. ROY YODER (eds.), “When the Morning Stars Sang”: Essays in Honor of Choon Leong Seow on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday, Berlin, De Gruyter, 2018, 317-330. SEEBASS, H., Herrscherverheißungen im Alten Testament, Neukirchen-Vluyn, Neukirchener Verlag, 1992. SEFATI, Y., Love Songs in Sumerian Literature, Jerusalem, Bar-Ilan University Press, 1998. SEGAL, J.B., Numerals in the Old Testament, in JSSt 10 (1965) 2-20. SEGAL, M.H., A Grammar of Mishnaic Hebrew, Oxford, Clarendon, 1927. —, The Song of Songs, in VT 12 (1962) 470-490. SEIBERT, I., Hirt, Herde, König: Zur Herausbildung des Königtums in Mesopotamien (Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaft zu Berlin: Schriften der Sektion für Altertumswissenschaft, 53), Berlin, Akademie Verlag, 1969. SEOW, C.-L., Ark of the Covenant, in Anchor Bible Dictionary, I, New York, Doubleday, 1992, 386-393. —, Ecclesiastes (AncB, 18C), New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, 1974. —, Myth, Drama, and the Politics of David’s Dance (HSM, 44), Atlanta, GA, Scholars, 1989. —, The Syro-Palestinian Context of Solomon’s Dream, in HTR 77 (1984) 141-152. SEYBOLD, K., Die Psalmen (HAT, I/15), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 1996. SHEA, W.H., The Chiastic Structure of the Song of Songs, in ZAW 92 (1980) 378396. SHEPPARD, G.T., Biblical Wisdom Literature at the End of the Modern Age, in A. LEMAIRE (ed.), Congress Volume – Oslo 1998 (VT.S, 80), Leiden, Brill, 2000, 369-398. —, Wisdom as a Hermeneutical Construct: A Study in the Sapientializing of the Old Testament (BZAW, 151), Berlin, De Gruyter, 1980.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

907

SILVERMAN, J.M., Was There an Achaemenid ‘Theology’ of Kingship, in D. EDELMAN – A. FITZPATRICK-MCKINLEY – P. GUILLAUME (eds.), Religion in the Achaemenid Persian Empire (Orientalische Religionen in der Antike, 17), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2016, 172-196. SKA, J.-L., Il Cantico di Mosè (Es 15,1-21) e la regalità di YHWH, Dio d’Israele: Riflessione sulla poetica ebraica, in G. BORTONE (ed.), Il bello della Bibbia: Visione poliedrica del “bello ideale”, L’Aquila, Edizioni ISSRA, 2005, 334. —, The Exegesis of the Pentateuch: Exegetical Studies and Basic Questions (FAT, 66), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2009. —, Genesis 2–3: Some Fundamental Questions, in K. SCHMID – C. RIEDWEG (eds.), Beyond Eden: The Biblical Story of Paradise (Genesis 2–3) and Its Reception History (FAT, II/34), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2008, 1-27. —, La place d’Ex 6,2-8 dans la narration de l’exode, in ZAW 94 (1982) 530-548. —, Quelques remarques sur Pg et la dernière rédaction du Pentateuque, in A. DE PURY – T.C. RÖMER (eds.), Le Pentateuque en question: Les origines et la composition des cinq premiers livres de la Bible à la lumière des recherches récentes (Le Monde de la Bible, 19), Genève, Labor et Fides, 2002, 95-125. —, “La sagesse est bonne comme un héritage” (Qo 7,11), in Christus 233 (2012) 17-24. —, Salomon et la naissance du royaume du nord: Fact or Fiction?, in C. LICHTERT – D. NOCQUET (eds.), Le Roi Salomon, un héritage en question: Hommage à Jacques Vermeylen (Le Livre et le Rouleau, 33), Bruxelles, Lessius, 2008, 36-56. —, Alla scuola della Torah, in A. FILIPPI (ed.), Maestro – discepolo (Parola Spirito e Vita, 61), Bologna, EDB, 2010, 11-23. SKEHAN, P.W., The Acrostic Poem in Sirach 51:13-30, in HTR 64 (1971) 387400. SKEHAN, P.W. – DI LELLA, A., The Wisdom of Ben Sira: A New Translation with Notes (AncB, 39), New York, Doubleday, 1987. SKJÆRVØ, P.O., The Achemenids and the Avesta, in V. SARKOSH CURTIS – S. STEWART (eds.), Birth of the Persian Empire: The Idea of Iran I, London, Tauris, 2005, 52-84. SMELIK, K.A.D., Hidden Messages in the Ark Narrative: An Analysis of I Samuel iv–vi and II Samuel vi, in Converting the Past: Studies in Ancient Israelite & Moabite Historiography (OTS, 28), Leiden, Brill, 1992, 34-58. SMEND, R., Die Bundesformel (Theologische Studien, 68), Zürich, EVZ, 1963. SMITH, J.Z., Dying and Rising Gods, in M. ELIADE (ed.), Encyclopedia of Religion: A Comprehensive Guide to the History, Beliefs, Concepts, Practices, and Major Figures of Religions Past and Present (vol. 4), New York, McMillan, 1987, 521-527. SMITH, M.S., The Death of ‘Dying and Rising Gods’ in the Biblical World: An Update with Special Reference to Baal in the Baal Cycle, in SJOT 12 (1998) 257-313. —, The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel, San Francisco, CA, Harper, 1990. —, The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel (The Biblical Resource Series), Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 22002.

908

BIBLIOGRAPHY

—, God Male and Female in the Old Testament: Yahweh and His “Asherah”, in TS 48 (1987) 333-340. —, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2001. —, Sacred Marriage in the Ugaritic Texts? The Case of KTU/CAT 1.23 (Rituals and Myths of the Goodly Gods), in M. NISSINEN – R. URO (eds.), Sacred Marriages: The Divine-Human Sexual Metaphor from Sumer to Early Christianity, Winona Lake, IN, Eisenbrauns, 2008, 93-113. —, The Ugaritic Baal Cycle. I: Introduction with Text, Translation & Commentary of KTU I.I – I.2 (VT.S, 55), Leiden, Brill, 1994. SMITH, R.L., Micah – Malachi (WBC, 32), Waco, TX, Word Books, 1984. SNAITH, J., The Song of Songs: Based on the Revised Standard Version (New Century Bible Commentary), London, Marshall Pickering, 1993. SNEED, M., Is the “Wisdom Tradition” a Tradition?, in CBQ 73 (2011) 50-71. SNEED, M. (ed.), Was There a Wisdom Tradition? New Prospects in Israelite Wisdom Traditions (SBLAIL, 23), Atlanta, GA, SBL Press, 2015. SOKOLOFF, M., A Syriac Lexicon: A Translation from the Latin, Correction, Expansion, and Update of C. Brockelmann’s Lexicon Syriacum, Winona Lake, IN, Eisenbrauns, 2009. SOMMER, B.D., The Babylonian Akitu Festival: Rectifying the King or Renewing the Cosmos?, in Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 27 (2000) 8195. —, Exegesis, Allusion and Intertextuality in the Hebrew Bible: A Response to Lyle Eslinger, in VT 46 (1996) 479-489. SONNET, J.-P., Côté cour, côté jardin: Salomon, l’Adam royal, in C. LICHTERT – D. NOCQUET (eds.), Le Roi Salomon, un héritage en question: Hommage à Jacques Vermeylen (Le Livre et le Rouleau, 33), Bruxelles, Lessius, 2008, 247-260. SOULEN, R.N., The Waṣf of the Song of Songs and Hermeneutic, in A. BRENNER (ed.), The Song of Songs (A Feminist Companion to the Bible, 1), New York, Sheffield Academic Press, 2001, 214-233. SOULEN, R.N. – SOULEN, K.R., Handbook of Biblical Criticism, Louisville, KY, Westminster John Knox, 32001. SPANS, A., Die Stadtfrau Zion im Zentrum der Welt: Exegese und Theologie von Jes 60–62 (BBB, 175), Bonn, Bonn University Press, 2015. SPARKS, K.L., The Song of Songs: Wisdom for Young Jewish Women, in CBQ 70 (2008) 277-299. SPERBER, A., The Bible in Aramaic. Vol. III: The Latter Prophets according to Targum Jonathan = ‫כרך ג‬: ‫אהרונים לנביאים יונתן תרגום‬, Leiden, Brill, 1962. —, The Bible in Aramaic. Vol. IV.A: The Hagiographa: Transition from Translation to Midrash = ‫א ד כרך‬: ‫ לכתובים תרגום‬, Leiden, Brill, 1968. STACEY, D., Prophetic Drama in the Old Testament, London, Epworth, 1990. STADE, B., Zu Jes. 3,1.17.24. 5,1.8,1f.12-14.16. 9,7-20. 10,26, in ZAW 26 (1906) 129-141. STÄHLER, K., Der Gärtner als Herrscher, in R. ALBERTZ (ed.), Religion und Gesellschaft: Studien zu ihrer Wechselbeziehung in den Kulturen des Antiken Vorderen Orients (AOAT, 248), Münster, Ugarit-Verlag, 1997, 109-114. STÄHLIN, W., Symbolon: Vom gleichnishaften Denken, Stuttgart, Evangelisches Verlagswerk, 1958.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

909

—, Zur Psychologie und Statistik der Metaphern, in Archiv f.d. gesamte Psychologie 31 (1924) 297-425. STAGER, L.E., The Archaeology of the East Slope of Jerusalem and the Terraces of the Kidron, in JNES 41 (1982) 111-121. —, Jerusalem and the Garden of Eden, in Frank Moore Cross Festschrift (Eretz-Israel, 26), Jerusalem, Israel Exploration Society – Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, 1999, 183*-194*. —, Jerusalem and the Garden of Eden, in M.L. MORALES (ed.), Cult and Cosmos: Tilting toward a Temple-centered Theology (BiTS, 18), Leuven, Peeters, 2014, 99-116. STAUBLI, T., Love Poetry from the House of the Mother: Arguments for a Literal Understanding of Song of Songs and against Its Neo-Allegorical Interpretation, in A. SCHELLENBERG – L. SCHWIENHORST-SCHÖNBERGER (eds.), Interpreting the Song of Songs: Literal or Allegorical? (BiTS, 26), Leuven, Peeters, 2016, 79-101. STEC, D.M., The Targum of Psalms: Translated, with a Critical Introduction, Apparatus, and Notes (ArBib, 16), London – New York, T&T Clark, 2004. STECK, O.H., Zion als Gelände und Gestalt: Überlegungen zur Wahrnehmung Jerusalems als Stadt und Frau im Alten Testament, in ID. (ed.), Gottesknecht und Zion: Gesammelte Aufsätze zu Deuterojesaja (FAT, 4), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 1992, 126-145. STEINBERG, J., Das Hohelied – ein integrativer Ansatz, in S. RIECKER – J. STEINBERG (eds.), Das heilige Herz der Tora: Festschrift für Hendrik Koorevaar zu seinem 65. Geburtstag (Theologische Studien), Aachen, Shaker, 2011, 167181. —, Die Ketuvim – ihr Aufbau und ihre Botschaft (BBB, 152), Hamburg, Philo, 2006. STEINER, R.C., The Aramaic Text in Demotic Script: The Liturgy of a New Year’s Festival Imported from Bethel to Syene by Exiles from Rash, in JAOS 111 (1991) 362-363. STEINKELLER, P., On Rulers, Priests and Sacred Marriage: Tracing the Evolution of Early Sumerian Kingship, in K. WATANABE (ed.), Priests and Officials in the Ancient Near East, Heidelberg, Winter, 1999, 103-137. STEMBERGER, G., Einleitung in Talmud und Midrash, München, Beck, 92011. STIBBE, M.W.G., John (Readings: A New Biblical Commentary), Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press, 1993. STINESPRING, W.F., Eschatology in Chronicles, in JBL 80 (1961) 209-219. ST. JOHN OF THE CROSS, Dark Night of the Soul, New York, Doubleday, 1990. STONE, M.E., Fourth Ezra: A Commentary on the Book of Fourth Ezra (Hermeneia), Minneapolis, MN, Fortress, 1990. —, The Interpretation of Song of Songs in 4 Ezra, in Journal for the Study of Judaism 38 (2007) 226-233. STONE, N., The Four Rivers That Flowed from Eden, in K. SCHMID – C. RIEDWEG (eds.), Beyond Eden (FAT, II/34), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2008, 227-250. —, The Kaffa Lives of the Desert Fathers (Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium. Subsidia, 94), Leuven, Peeters, 1997. STORDALEN, T., Echoes of Eden: Gen 2–3 and Symbolism of the Eden Garden in Biblical Hebrew Literature (Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology, 25), Leuven, Peeters, 2000.

910

BIBLIOGRAPHY

STRACK, H.L. – BILLERBECK, P., Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch. I: Das Evangelium nach Matthäus, München, Beck, 1922. —, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch. III: Die Briefe des Neuen Testaments und die Offenbarung Johannis, München, Beck, 1926. STRONACH, D., The Garden as a Political Statement: Some Case Studies from the Near East in the First Millennium B.C., in Bulletin of the Asia Institute NS 4 (1990) 171-180. —, The Royal Garden at Pasargadae: Evolution and Legacy, in V.B. LOUIS (ed.), Archaeologia iranica et orientalis: Miscellanea in honorem Louis Vanden Berghe, Leuven, Peeters, 1989, 475-502. STUART, D., Hosea–Jona (WBC, 31), Waco, TX, Word Books, 1987. STUCKY, R.A., Le ‘prince jardinier’ : L’avènement d’abdalonymos de Sidon. Valeurs cosmiques de la royauté orientale, méconnus par les Grecs, in H. DRIDI – D. WIELAND-LEIBUNDGUT – J. KRAESE (eds.), Phéniciens et Puniques en Méditerranée : L’apport de la recherche suisse = Phönizier und Punier im Mittelmeerraum : Ein Beitrag der Schweizer Forschung (Philainos: Études d’antiquités méditerranéennes publiées par la chaire d’archéologie de la Méditerranée antique de l’Université de Neuchâtel, 2), Rome, BraDypUS, 2017, 15-22. SUDERMAN, W.D., Modest or Magnificent? Lotus versus Lily in Canticles, in CBQ 67 (2005) 42-58. SWETE, H.B., An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 21914. TAIT, M., Jesus, the Divine Bridegroom, in Mark 2:18-22: Mark’s Christology Upgraded (AnBib, 185), Roma, Gregorian & Biblical Press, 2010. TALMON, S., Har and Midbar: An Antithetical Pair of Biblical Motifs, in M. MINDLIN – M.J. GELLER – J.E. WANSBROUGH (eds.), Figurative Language in the Ancient Near East, London, University of London, 1987, 117-142. TASCHL-ERBER, A., Maria von Magdala – erste Apostolin? Joh 20,1-18: Tradition und Relecture (HBS, 51), Freiburg i.Br., Herder, 2007. —, Der messianische Bräutigam: Zur Hohelied Rezeption im Johannesevangelium, in L. SCHWIENHORST-SCHÖNBERGER (ed.), Das Hohelied im Konflikt der Interpretationen (ÖBS, 47), Frankfurt a.M., Lang, 2017, 323-375. TATE, M.E., Psalms 51–100 (WBC, 20), Waco, TX, Word Books, 1990. TAWIL, H., Paved with Love (Cant 3,10d): A New Interpretation, in ZAW 115 (2003) 266-271. —, Two Biblical Architectural Images in Light of Cuneiform Sources: A Lexicographical Note XI, in A.J. BERKOVITZ (ed.), Lexical Studies in the Bible and Ancient Near Eastern Inscriptions: The Collected Essays of Hayim Tawil, New York, The Michael Scharf Publication Trust of the Yeshiva University Press, 2012, 123-142. THIRTLE, J.W., The Titles of the Psalms: Their Nature and Meaning Explained, London, Henry Frowde, 1904. THÖNE, Y., Liebe zwischen Stadt und Feld: Raum und Geschlecht im Hohelied, Berlin, Lit, 2012. TIGAY, J.H., The Evolution of the Gilgamesh Epic, Philadelphia, PA, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1982. TILLICH, P., Symbol und Wirklichkeit (Kleine Vandenhoeck-Reihe, 151), Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

911

TILLY, M., 1 Makkabäer (HThKAT), Freiburg i.Br., Herder, 2015. TIMM, H., Die Ladeerzählung (1. Sam. 4–6; 2. Sam. 6) und das Kerygma des deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerks, in Evangelische Theologie 26 (1966) 509-526. TODOROV, T., Théorie du symbole, Paris, Seuil, 1977. TOMSON, P.J., The Song of Songs in the Teachings of Jesus and the Development of the Exposition on the Song, in New Testament Studies 61 (2015) 429-447. TORIJANO, P.A., Solomon the Esoteric King (JSJSup, 73), Leiden, Brill, 2002. TOSATO, A., Il matrimonio israelitico (AnBib, 100), Roma, Biblical Institute Press, 1982. TOURNAY, R.J., Abraham et le Cantique des cantiques, in VT 25 (1975) 544552. —, Les affinités du Ps. xlv avec le Cantique des cantiques et leur interprétation messianique, in A.W. GEORGE (ed.), Congress Volume – Bonn 1962 (VT.S, 9), Leiden, Brill, 1963, 168-212. —, Les Chariots d’Aminadab (Cant. VI, 12): Israël, peuple théophore, in VT 9 (1959) 288-309. —, Quand Dieu parle aux hommes le langage de l’amour: Études sur Le Cantique des cantiques, Paris, Gabalda, 21995. —, Word of God, Song of Love: A Commentary on the Song of Songs, Mahwah, NJ, Paulist, 1988. TOV, E., Canticles, in E.C. ULRICH et al. (eds.), Qumran Cave 4 XI: Psalms to Chronicles (DJD, 16), Oxford, Clarendon, 2000, 195-219. —, A Didactic Approach to the Biblical Dead Sea Scrolls, in P.W. FLINT – J. DUHAIME – K.S. BAEK (eds.), Celebrating the Dead Sea Scrolls: A Canadian Collection (SBLEJL, 30), Atlanta, GA, Society of Biblical Literature, 2011, 173-198. —, Three Manuscripts (Abbreviated Texts?) of Canticles from Qumran Cave 4, in Journal of Jewish Studies 46 (1995) 88-111. —, Transliterations of Hebrew Words in the Greek Versions of the Old Testament: A Further Characteristic of the Kaige-Th. Revision?, in Text 8 (1973) 78-92. TREBOLLE BARRERA, J., ‘Antiguo’ y ‘Nuevo’ Testamento: Las identidades judía y cristiana. Líneas de continuidad y de divergencia, in RivBib 60 (2012) 161188. —, Division Markers as Empirical Evidence for the Editorial Growth of Biblical Books, in R.F. PERSON – R. REZETKO (eds.), Empirical Models Challenging Biblical Criticism, Atlanta, GA, SBL Press, 2016, 163-213. —, The Jewish Bible and the Christian Bible: An Introduction to the History of the Bible, Leiden, Brill, 1998. —, Paralelismos de género en la poesía hebrea: La mujer del Cantar de los cantares y el hombre del libro de Job, in ‘Ilu. Revista de Ciencias de las Religiones 10 (2005) 225-247. TRENCSÉNYI-WALDAPFEL, I., Werden und Wesen der bukolischen Poesie, in Acta Antiqua 14 (1966) 1-31. TRIBLE, P., Depatriarchalizing in Biblical Interpretation, in JAAR 41 (1973) 3048. —, Love’s Lyrics Redeemed, in A. BRENNER (ed.), The Song of Songs (A Feminist Companion to the Bible, 1), New York, Sheffield Academic Press, 2001, cop. 1993, 100-120.

912

BIBLIOGRAPHY

TROMP, N.J., Wisdom and the Canticle, in M. GILBERT (ed.), La Sagesse de l’Ancien Testament (BETL, 51), Leuven, Peeters, 1990, 88-95. TRUBLET, J., Le corpus sapientiel et le Psautier, in La Sagesse Biblique (LeDiv, 160), Paris, Cerf, 1995, 139-174. TRUJILLO, J.I., The Ugaritic Ritual for a Sacrificial Meal Honoring the Good Gods (Diss., Johns Hopkins University; Baltimore, MD, 1973). TSEVAT, M., Marriage and Monarchical Legitimacy in Ugarit and Israel, in JSSt 3 (1958) 237-243. TSUMURA, D.T., Kings and Cults in Ancient Ugarit, in K. WATANABE (ed.), Priests and Officials in the Ancient Near East, Heidelberg, Winter, 1999, 234-236. TUPLIN, C., Achaemenid Studies (Historia – Einzelschriften, 99), Stuttgart, Steiner, 1996. TURNER, D., Eros and Allegory: Medieval Exegesis of the Song of Songs (Cistercian Studies, 156), Kalamazoo, MI, Cistercian Publications, 1995. TURNER, H.E.W., From Temple to Meeting House: The Phenomenology and Theology of Places of Worship (Religion and Society, 16), Den Haag, Mouton, 1979. UEHLINGER, C., Cantique des cantiques, in T. RÖMER – J.-D. MACCHI – C. NIHAN (eds.), Introduction à l’Ancien Testament (Le Monde de la Bible, 49), Genève, Labor et Fides, 2004, 530-543. —, ‘Zeichne eine Stadt … und belagere sie!’: Bild und Wort in einer Zeichenhandlung Ezechiels gegen Jerusalem (Ez 4f), in M. KÜCHLER (ed.), Jerusalem (NTOA, 6), Freiburg/CH, Universtitätsverlag; Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1987, 111-200. ULRICH, E.C., The Biblical Qumran Scrolls: Transcriptions and Textual Variants (VT.S, 134), Leiden, Brill, 2010. —, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Delevopmental Composition of the Bible (VT.S, 169), Leiden – Boston, MA, Brill, 2015. —, The Notion and Definition of Canon, in L.M. MCDONALD – J.A. SANDERS (eds.), The Canon Debate, Peabody, MA, Hendrickson, 2002, 21-35. —, Our Sharper Focus on the Bible and Theology Thanks to the Dead Sea Scrolls, in CBQ 66 (2004) 1-24. —, The Text of the Hebrew Scriptures at the Time of Hillel and Jesus, in A. LEMAIRE (ed.), Congress Volume – Basel 2001 (VT.S, 92), Leiden, Brill, 2002, 85108. URBACH, E.E., The Homiletical Interpretations of the Sages and the Expositions of Origen on Canticles and the Jewish-Christian Disputation, in J. HEINEMANN – D. NOY (eds.), Studies in Aggadah and Folk-Literature (Scripta Hierosolymitana, 22), Jerusalem, Magnes Press, 1971, 247-275. VAN DER TOORN, K., The Babylonian New Year Festival: New Insights from the Cuneiform Texts and Their Bearing on Old Testament Study, in J.A. EMERTON (ed.), Congress Volume – Leuven 1989 (VT.S, 43), Leiden, Brill, 1991, 331344. VAN DE SANDE, A., ‘Amour’ ou ‘Seins’ dans le Cantique des cantiques (TM-LXX), in RB 118 (2011) 515-532. VAN DIJK, J., Le motif cosmique dans la pensée sumérienne, in Acta Orientalia 28 (1964) 1-59. VAN DIJK-HEMMES, F., The Imagination of Power and the Power of Imagination: An Intertextual Analysis of Two Biblical Love Songs: The Song of Songs

BIBLIOGRAPHY

913

and Hosea 2, in A. BRENNER (ed.), The Song of Songs (A Feminist Companion to the Bible, 1), New York, Sheffield Academic Press, 2001, 156-170. VAN HECKE, P.J.P., Pastoral Metaphors in the Hebrew Bible and in Its Ancient Near Eastern Context, in R.P. GORDON – J.C. DE MOOR (eds.), The Old Testament in Its World (OTS, 52), Leiden, Brill, 2005, 200-217. VAN LEEUWEN, R.C., Proverbs, in The New Interpreter’s Bible, V, Nashville, TN, Abingdon, 1997, 19-264. VAN LOON, M.N., The Naked Rain Goddess, in A. BOUNNI et al. (eds.), Resurrecting the Past (Publications de l’Institut historique et archéologique néerlandais de Stamboul, 67), Leiden, Nederlands Historisch-Archeologisch Instituut te Istanbul, 1990, 363-378. VAN SETERS, J., Prologue to History: The Yahwist as Historian in Genesis, Louisville, KY, Westminster John Knox, 1992. VEIJOLA, T., Salomo – Der Erstgeborene Bathshebas, in J.A. EMERTON (ed.), Studies in the Historical Books of the Old Testament, Leiden, Brill, 1979, 230-250. VENARD, O.T. (ed.), Le sens littéral des Écritures (LeDiv HS), Paris, Cerf, 2009. —, Les deux asymptotes du sens littéral des Écritures, ibid., 9-24. —, Problématique du sens littéral, ibid., 193-353. VERMES, G., Scripture and Tradition in Judaism: Haggadic Studies (Studia PostBiblica, 4), Leiden, Brill, 1961. VERMEYLEN, J., Le récit du Paradis et la question des origines du Pentateuque, in Bijdragen 41 (1980) 230-250. VERNUS, P., Le Cantique des cantiques et l’Égypte pharaonique, in A.C. HAGEDORN (ed.), Perspectives on the Song of Songs / Perspektiven der Hoheliedauslegung (BZAW, 346), Berlin – New York, De Gruyter, 2005, 150-162. VILLENEUVE, A., Nuptial Symbolism in Second Temple Writings, the New Testament and Rabbinic Literature: Divine Marriage at Key Moments of Salvation History (Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, 92), Leiden, Brill, 2016. VINCENT, J.M., Hoheslied III/2, in Theologische Realenzyklopädie 15 (1986) 513514. WACKER, M.-T., Figurationen des Weiblichen im Hosea-Buch (HBS, 8), Freiburg i.Br., Herder, 1996. WÄLCHLI, S., Der weise König Salomo: Eine Studie zu den Erzählungen von der Weisheit Salomos in ihrem alttestamentlichen und altorientalischen Kontext (BWANT, 141), Stuttgart, Kohlhammer, 1999. WAGENAAR, J.A., The Priestly Festival Calendar and the Babylonian New Year Festivals: Origin and Transformation of the Ancient Israelite Festival Year, in R.P. GORDON – J.C. DE MOOR (eds.), The Old Testament in Its World (OTS, 52), Leiden, Brill, 2005, 218-252. WAGNER, A., Das Hohe Lied – theologische Implikationen seines literarischen Charakters als Sammlung von Liebesliedern, in ZAW 19 (2007) 539-555. WALSH, C.E., Exquisite Desire: Religion, the Erotic, and the Song of Songs, Minneapolis, MN, Fortress, 2000. WARNING, W., Literary Artistry in Leviticus (BIS, 35), Leiden, Brill, 1999. WASCHKE, E.J., Die Frage nach dem Messias im Alten Testament als Problem alttestamentlicher Theologie und biblischer Hermeneutik, in Theologische Literaturzeitung 113 (1988) 321-332.

914

BIBLIOGRAPHY

WATERMAN, L., The Role of Solomon in the Song of Songs, in JBL 44 (1925) 171187. WATSON, P.A., Paraklausithyron, in Oxford Classical Dictionary: The Ultimate Reference Work on the Classical World, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 3 2005, 1112. WATSON, W.G.E., Classical Hebrew Poetry: A Guide to Its Techniques (JSOTS, 26), Sheffield, JSOT, 1984. —, Gender-Matched Synonymous Parallelism in the OT, in JBL 99 (1980) 321341. —, Some Ancient Near Eastern Parallels to the Song of Songs, in J. DAVIES et al. (eds.), Words Remembered, Texts Renewed (JSOTS, 195), Sheffield, JSOT, 1995, 253-271. —, Unit Delimitation in the Old Testament: An Appraisal, in M.C.A. KORPEL – J.M. OESCH – S. PORTER (eds.), Method in Unit Delimitation (Pericope, 6), Leiden, Brill, 2007, 162-184. WEBER, J.-J., Le Livre des Proverbes, Le livre de la Sagesse, Le Cantique des cantiques, Paris, Société de Saint Jean l’Évangéliste, 1949. WEBSTER, E.C., Pattern in the Song of Songs, in JSOT 22 (1982) 73-93. WEEMS, R., The Song of Songs, in The New Interpreter’s Bible, V, Nashville, TN, Abingdon, 1997, 370-371. WEIDER, A., Ehemetaphorik in prophetischer Verkündigung: Hos 1–3 und seine Wirkungsgeschichte im Jeremiabuch. Ein Beitrag zum alttestamentlichen Gottes-Bild, Würzburg, Echter, 1991. WEINFELD, M., Deuteronomy 1–11 (AncB, 5), New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, 1974. —, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, Oxford, Clarendon, 1972. —, Feminine Features in the Imagery of God in Israel: The Sacred Marriage and the Sacred Tree, in VT 46 (1996) 515-529. —, Kuntillet ꜤAjrud Inscriptions and Their Significance, in Studi Epigrafici e Linguistici sul Vicino Oriente Antico 1 (1984) 121-130. —, Sabbath, Temple and the Enthronement of the Lord – The Problem of the Sitz im Leben of Genesis 1:1–2:3, in A. CAQUOT – M. DELCOR (eds.), Mélanges bibliques et orientaux en l’honneur de M. Henri Cazelles (AOAT, 212), Kevelaer, Butzon & Bercker; Neukirchen-Vluyn, Neukirchener Verlag, 1981, 501-512. WEINRICH, H., Semantik der kühnen Metapher, in Deutsche Vierteljahresschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Geistesgeschichte 37 (1963) 324-344. —, Sprache in Texten, Stuttgart, Klett, 1976. WEIPPERT, M., Libanon, in Reallexikon der Assyriologie und vorderasiatischen Archäologie VI, Berlin – New York, De Gruyter, 1980, 641-650. —, ‘Veni de Libano, sponsa!’ Hoheslied 4:8, in UF 48 (2016) 343-369. WEISER, A., Das Buch der zwölf kleinen Propheten. I: Die Propheten, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadja, Jona, Micha (ATD, 24), Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1949. —, Die Psalmen (ATD, 14-15), Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1950. WEISSFLOG, K., Zeichen und Sinnbilder: Die Kinder der Propheten Jesaja und Hosea (ABG, 36), Leipzig, Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2011. WELLHAUSEN, J., Die Kleinen Propheten, Berlin, De Gruyter, 41963. WELLS, L.S.A., The Life of Adam and Eve, in H.F.D. SPARKS (ed.), The Apocryphal Old Testament, Oxford, Clarendon, 1984, 141-167.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

915

WENHAM, G.J., Genesis 1–15 (WBC, 1), Dallas, TX, Word Books, 1987. —, Sanctuary Symbolism in the Garden of Eden, in Proceedings of the Ninth World Congress of Jewish Studies. Division A: The Period of the Bible, Jerusalem, World Union of Jewish Studies, 1986, 19-25. WESTENHOLZ, J.A.A., A Forgotten Love Song, in F. ROCHBERG-HALTON (ed.), Language, Literature and History, Winona Lake, IN, American Oriental Society, 1987, 415-425. —, Help for Rejected Suitors. The Old Akkadian Love Incantation MAD V 8, in Orientalia 46 (1977) 198-219. WESTENHOLZ, J.G., Genesis 1–11 (BKAT, I/1), Neukirchen-Vluyn, Neukirchener Verlag, 1974. —, Love Lyrics from the Ancient East, in J.M. SASSON et al. (eds.), Civilizations of the Ancient Near East: IV, New York, Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1995, 24712482. —, Metaphorical Language in the Poetry of Love in the Ancient Near East, in D. CHARPIN – F. JOANNÈS (eds.), La circulation des biens, des personnes et des idées dans le Proche-Orient ancien: Actes de la XXXVIIe Rencontre Assyriologue Internationale (Paris, 8-10 juillet 1991), Paris, Recherche sur les civilisations, 1992, 381-387. —, Sacred Bounty Sacred Land, Jerusalem, Bible Lands Museum, 1998. WESTERMANN, C., Genesis 1–11 (BKAT, I/1), Neukirchen-Vluyn, Neukirchener Verlag, 1974. —, Genesis 37–50 (BKAT, I/3), Neukirchen-Vluyn, Neukirchener Verlag, 1982. —, Isaiah 40–66: A Commentary (OTL), Philadelphia, PA, Westminster, 1969. —, Die Klagelieder: Forschungsgeschichte und Auslegung, Neukirchen-Vluyn, Neukirchener Verlag, 1990. WETZSTEIN, J.G., Die syrische Dreschtafel, in Zeitschrift für Ethnologie 5 (1873) 271-302. WEYERING, S., Der Messias Israels als Bräutigam der Nationen: Radaks Deutung von Psalm 45 entfaltet, in H. HOFER (ed.), Vernunft und Glauben: Gottessuche heute, Salzburg, Anton Pustet, 2016, 138-155. WHEELWRIGHT, P., The Burning Fountain, Bloomington, IN, Indiana University Press, 1959. —, Metaphor and Reality, Bloomington, IN, Indiana University Press, 1973. WHITE, J.B., A Study of the Language of Love in the Song of Songs and Ancient Egyptian Poetry (SBLDS, 38), Missoula, MT, Scholars, 1978. WHYBRAY, R.N., Ben Sira and History, in N. CALDUCH-BENAGES – J. VERMEYLEN (eds.), Treasures of Wisdom: Studies in Ben Sira and the Book of Wisdom. Festschrift M. Gilbert (BETL, 143), Leuven, Leuven University Press – Peeters, 1999, 137-145. —, The Intellectual Tradition in the Old Testament (BZAW, 135), Berlin, De Gruyter, 1974. —, The Succession Narrative: A Study of II Samuel 9–20; I Kings 1 and 2 (Studies in Biblical Theology. Second Series, 9), London, SCM, 1968. WIDENGREN, G., Hieros gamos och underjordsvistelse: Studier till det sakrala kungadömet i Israel, in Religion och Bibel 7 (1948) 17-46. —, Konungsens vistelse i dödsriket, in Svensk Exegetisk Årsbok 10 (1945) 6681. —, Sakrales Königtum im Alten Testament und im Judentum: Franz Delitzsch Vorlesungen 1952, Stuttgart, Kohlhammer, 1955.

916

BIBLIOGRAPHY

WIGGINS, S.A., Asherah Again: Binger’s Asherah and the State of Asherah Studies, in JNSL 24 (1998) 231-240. —, The Myth of Asherah: Lion Lady and Serpent Goddess, in UF 23 (1991) 383394. WILDBERGER, H., Jesaja: Teilband 2 (BKAT, 10/2), Neukirchen-Vluyn, Neukirchener Verlag, 1978. WILLI, T., Die Chronik als Auslegung: Untersuchungen zur literarischen Gestaltung der historischen Überlieferung Israels (FRLANT, 106), Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1972. WILLIAMS, J.G., Number Symbolism and Joseph as Symbol of Completion, in JBL 98 (1979) 86-87. WILLIAMSON, H.G.M., The Book Called Isaiah: Deutero-Isaiah’s Role in Composition and Redaction, Oxford, Clarendon, 1994. —, Eschatology in Chronicles, in Tyndale Bulletin 28 (1977) 115-154. WILLIS, J.T., An Anti-Elide Narrative Tradition from a Prophetic Circle at the Ramah Sanctuary, in JBL 90 (1971) 288-308. WILLITTS, J., Matthew’s Messianic Shepherd-King: In Search of ‘The Lost Sheep of the House of Israel’ (BZNW, 147), Berlin, De Gruyter, 2007. WILSON, G.H., The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter (SBLDS, 67), Atlanta, GA, Scholars, 1985. —, ‘The Words of the Wise’: The Intent and Significance of Qohelet 12:9-14, in JBL 103 (1984) 175-192. WILSON-WRIGHT, A.M., Love Conquers All: Song of Songs 8:6b-7a as a Reflex of the Northwest Semitic Combat Myth, in JBL 134 (2015) 333-345. WINANDY, J., Le Cantique des cantiques et le Nouveau Testament, in RB 71 (1964) 161-190. —, La litière de Salomon (CT.III 9-10), in VT 15 (1965) 103-110. WINANDY, J. – DUBARLE, A.-M., Le Cantique des cantiques (Bible et Vie Chrétienne), Tournai – Paris, Casterman, 1960. WINCKLER, H., Salomos Sänfte: HL 3,9-10, in ID. (ed.), Altorientalische Forschungen (1901), Helsingfors, Eduard Pfeiffer, 1902, 236-238. —, Zum Alten Testament: Marduk-‫?דרך‬, in ID. (ed.), Altorientalische Forschungen, Helsingfors, Verlag von Eduard Pfeiffer, 1897, 191-196. WINSOR, A.R., A King Is Bound in the Tresses: Allusions to the Song of Songs in the Fourth Gospel (Studies in Biblical Literature, 6), New York, Lang, 1999. WISEMAN, D.J., Mesopotamian Gardens, in Anatolian Studies 33 (1983) 137-144. —, Palace and Temple Gardens in the Ancient Near East, in Bulletin of the Middle Eastern Culture Center in Japan 1 (1984) 37-43. WOLFF, H.W., Hosea: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Hosea (Hermeneia, 28), Philadelphia, PA, Fortress, 1974. WOLFF, W., Das schöne Fest von Opet: Die Festzugsdarstellung im großen Säulengang des Tempels von Luksor (Veröffentlichungen der Ernst von SieglinExpedition in Ägypten, 5), Leipzig, Hinrichs, 1931. WRESZINSKI, W., Atlas zur altägyptischen Kulturgeschichte. Teil II (Tafel 100-202), Leipzig, Hinrichs, 1935. WRIGHT, D.P., Music and Dance in 2 Samuel 6, in JBL 121 (2002) 201-225. WRIGHT, R.B., The Psalms of Solomon: A Critical Edition of the Greek Text (Jewish and Christian Texts, 1), London, T&T Clark, 2007.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

917

WÜRTHWEIN, E., Die Bücher der Könige: 1 Könige 1–16 (ATD, 11/1), Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977. —, Das Hohelied, in ID. – K. GALLING – O. PLÖGER (eds.), Die Fünf Megilloth – Der Prediger – Die Klagelieder (HAT, 18), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 1969, 21-71. WYATT, N., Religious Texts from Ugarit: The Words of Ilimilku and His Colleagues (The Biblical Seminar, 53), Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press, 1998. XELLA, P., Resheph ‫רשף‬, in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, Leiden, Brill, 1995, 1324-1330. XENOPHON, Xenophon IV: Oeconomicus (LCL, 168), Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1992. YAMAUCHI, E., Persia and the Bible, Grand Rapids, MI, Baker Books, 1996. YANNARAS, C., Variations on the Song of Songs, Brooklyn, MA, Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2005. YOUNG, I., Diversity in Pre-Exilic Hebrew (FAT, 5), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 1993. ZAKOVITCH, Y., Assimilation in Biblical Narratives, in J.H. TIGAY (ed.), Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism, Philadelphia, PA, Pennsylvania State University Press, 1985, 175-196. —, Das Buch Rut: Ein jüdischer Kommentar (SBS, 177), Stuttgart, Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1999. —, Das Hohelied (HThKAT), Freiburg i.Br., Herder, 2004. ZAPLETAL, V., Das Hohelied: Kritisch und metrisch untersucht, Freiburg/CH, Universitätsbuchhandlung, 1907. ZENGER, E., Einleitung in das Alte Testament (Studienbücher Theologie, 1), Stuttgart, Kohlhammer, 42001; 82012. —, ‘Es sollen sich niederwerfen vor ihm alle Könige’ (Ps 72,11): Redaktionsgeschichtliche Beobachtungen zu Psalm 72 und zum Programm des messianischen Psalters Ps 2–89, in E. OTTO – E. ZENGER (eds.), “Mein Sohn bist Du” (Ps 2,7): Studien zu den Königspsalmen (SBS, 192), Stuttgart, Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2002, 66-93. —, Jesus von Nazaret und die messianischen Hoffnung des alttestamentlichen Israel, in U. STRUPPE (ed.), Studien zum Messiasbild im Alten Testament, Stuttgart, Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1989, 23-66. —, Psalm 72, in F.-L. HOSSFELD – E. ZENGER (eds.), Psalmen 51–100 (HThKAT), Freiburg i.Br., Herder, 2000, 302-330. —, Psalm 127, in F.-L. HOSSFELD – E. ZENGER (eds.), Psalmen 101–150 (HThKAT), Freiburg i.Br., Herder, 2008, 512-534. —, ‘So betete David für seinen Sohn Salomo und für den König Messias’: Überlegungen zur holistischen und kanonischen Lektüre des 72. Psalms, in I. BALDERMANN (ed.), Der Messias (JBTh, 8), Neukirchen-Vluyn, Neukirchener Verlag, 1993, 57-72. ZENGER, E. – HOSSFELD, F.-L., Psalms 2: A Commentary on Psalms 51–100 (Hermeneia, 19B), Minneapolis, MN, Fortress, 2005. ZIEGLER, J., Duodecim Prophetae (Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum, 13), Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 31984. —, Beiträge zum griechischen Iob (Mitteilungen des Septuaginta-Unternehmens, 18), Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1985.

918

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ZIMMERLI, W., Ezekiel 2: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, Chapters 25–48 (Hermeneia, 26B), Philadelphia, PA, Fortress, 1983. —, Ich bin Jahwe (1953), in ID., Gottes Offenbarung: Gesammelte Aufsätze zum Alten Testament (TBü, 19), München, Kaiser, 1963, 11-40. —, The Place and Limit of Wisdom in the Framework of the Old Testament Theology, in Scottish Journal of Theology 17 (1964) 146-158. ZIMMERMANN, M. – ZIMMERMANN, R., Der Freund des Bräutigams (Joh 3,29): Deflorations- oder Christuszeuge?, in ZNW 90 (1999) 123-130. ZIMMERMANN, R., ‘Bräutigam’ als frühjüdisches Messias-Prädikat? Zur Traditionsgeschichte einer urchristlichen Metapher, in BN 103 (2000) 85-100. —, Geschlechtermetaphorik und Gottesverhältnis: Traditionsgeschichte und Theologie eines Bildfeldes in Urchristentum und antiker Umwelt (WUNT, II/122), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2001. —, The Love Triangle of Lady Wisdom, in M. NISSINEN – R. URO (eds.), Sacred Marriages: The Divine-Human Sexual Metaphor from Sumer to Early Christianity, Winona Lake, IN, Eisenbrauns, 2008, 243-258. ZLOTOWITZ, R.M., Shir haShirim / Song of Songs: An Allegorical Translation Based upon Rashi with a Commentary Anthologized from Talmudic Midrashic and Rabbinic Sources (ArtScroll Tanach Series), New York, Mesorah Publications, 1977. ZOBEL, H.-J., Bileam-Lieder und Bileam-Erzählung, in E. BLUM (ed.), Die Hebräische Bibel und ihre zweifache Nachgeschichte: Festschrift für Rolf Rendtorff zum 65. Geburtstag, Neukirchen-Vluyn, Neukirchener Verlag, 1990, 141154. ZOHARY, M., Plants of the Bible, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1982. ZWICKEL, W., Der Tempel Salomos im Kontext der Ikonographie und der Archäologischen Funde, in J. VERHEYDEN (ed.), The Figure of Solomon in Jewish, Christian and Islamic Tradition: King, Sage and Architect (Themes in Biblical Narrative, 16), Leiden, Brill, 2013, 57-84.

INDEX OF AUTHORS

AARTUN, K. 631 ABADIE, P. 593 ABMA, R. 411 413 427-429 436 ABRAHAMS, I. 512 ACHELIS, H. 853 ACKERMAN, S. 380-381 ACKROYD, P.R. 44 483 492 592 ADLER, E.J. 386 411 413 423 AHN, J.J. 395 AITKEN, J.K. 239 ALBANI, M. 561 ALBERTZ, R. 381 786 ALBRIGHT, W.F. 185 218 ALEXANDER, P.S. 247 251 259 513 718-719 755 768 817 847-849 AL-FOUADI, A. 784 ALLEN, L.C. 713 ALONSO SCHÖKEL, L. 20 111 115117 147 149 421 437-438 464 470 497 517 584 586 589 591 646 749 752 804 852 ALSTER, B. 379 ALTER, R. 108 317 356 463 570 694 737 750-751 AMSLER, S. 418 ANAGNOSTOU-LAOUTIDES, E. 335336 401 403-404 541-543 786-787 815 ANDERSEN, F.I. 380 439-440 ANDERSON, A.A. 185 ANDERSON, G. 543 ANDERSON, G.A. 258 481 ANDERSON, G.W. 306 464 ANDRAE, W. 785 ANGELINI, G. 14 ANGÉNIEUX, J. 170 ARBERRY, A.J. 777 ARNETH, M. 608 ASSIS, E. 755 ASSMANN, A. 816 ASSMANN, J. 307 350 816 ATTIAS, J.-C. 561 AUDET, J.-P. 279 297

AUERBACH, E. 81 AULD, G. 714 AUNE, D. 272 AUSLOOS, H. 115 238 240-241 254 296 553 AUWERS, J.-M. 6 238-242 244 251252 256-261 557 AVISHUR, Y. 184 191 AVI-YONAH, M. 189-190 BAEK, K.S. 223 559 BAETHGEN, F. 609 BAILLET, M. 202 BALDERMANN, I. 609 BALTHASAR, H.U. VON 169 BAR-ASHER, M. 167 BARBIERO, G. 13-14 17 26-28 41-42 62 66 93 96 101 167-168 173 175 178 192-193 206-207 240-241 259 267 279 283 321 351 362 365 460 479 516 520 522-523 540-543 546 552-553 556-557 608 612-613 624 631-638 643-644 652 657 659 661 666 700 722 725 733 736 738-740 742-746 748 751 754-756 759-760 764 766-767 772-773 821 855 BARBOUR, J. 47 289 295-296 BARKER, M. 587 BARRETT, C.K. 851-852 BARRICK, W.B. 629 BARTELMUS, R. 30-31 33-34 36 59 BARTH, K. 20-21 BARTHÉLEMY, D. 217-218 228 239241 251 258 264-265 489 634 700701 BARTON, J. 262-266 273 BATTO, B.F. 232 BAUER, W. 851 BAUMANN, G. 292-293 411 420 426 BEA, A. 8 BEALE, G.K. 271-272 310 586-587 606 785-786 BEATTIE, D.R.G. 484

920

INDEX OF AUTHORS

BEAUCHAMP, P. 20 298 585 588 766 778-779 BECKER, J. 453-454 460 564 592 BEGRICH, J. 564 777 BENJAMIN, W. 121-122 128 BENOIT, P. 482 BENTZEN, A. 684 BEN ZVI, E. 386 389 391 412-413 421 423-424 426-429 436 439-442 551 650 833 BERG, S.B. 45 BERG, W. 517 589 803-804 BERG, W.J. 543 BERGANT, D. 5 726 BERGES, U. 232 394-396 464 493 645 743 806 BERKOVITZ, A.J. 498 BERLIN, A. 356 BERNHART, J. 48 BERTHEAU, E. 98 BERTHOLET, A. 4 BEUKEN, W.A.M. 366 379 480 666 BICKELL, G. 526 BIDDLE, M.E. 232 393 395-396 413 BILLERBECK, P. 328 451 492 BIRNBAUM, E. 44 541 BJØRNDALEN, J.A. 481 BLACK, M. 111 BLENKINSOPP, J. 366 464 583-584 586 606 646 804 BLOCH, A. 5 351 365 BLOCH, C. 5 351 365 BLOCH, J. 735 BLOCH-SMITH, E. 302 587 784 BLOCK, D.I. 442 BLUM, E. 404 807 BOCCACINI, G. 470 BODA, M.J. 312 BODMER, J.J. 126 BODNER, K. 715 BÖHLER, D. 449 465 468-471 493 856 BOEHMER, J. 609 BÖTTCHER, F. 51 BOISMARD, M.-É. 851 BONANNO, A. 349 BONWETSCH, G.N. 853 BORDREUIL, P. 305 BORGER, R. 533 BORGONOVO, G. 14 65 555 735

BORTONE, G. 308 BOSHOFF, W. 388 BOSSHARD-NEPUSTIL, E. 167 171 BOSTRÖM, G. 398 BOTTÉRO, J. 585 BOUNNI, A. 491 BOYCE, M. 783 BRAULIK, G. 293 381-382 392 BREASTED, J.H. 307 658 BRECHT, B. 130 BRENNAN, D.M. 789 BRENNER, A. 155 244 351 363 414 505 679 700 772 775 BRIANT, P. 796 BRIGGS, C.-A. 450 643 BRIGGS, E.G. 450 643 BRIGHT, J. 686 BROWN, R.E. 851 BROYDE, M.J. 266 BRUEGGEMANN, W. 286 531 564 583-584 696 BRUNET, A.-M. 6 592 BRYAN, B.M. 374 BUBER, S. 257 259 503 633-634 BUCHANAN, G.W. 292 BUDDE, K. 4-5 11 15 95 167 170 236 325-327 362-363 490 504 511 519 526 625 633 649 726 748 BUNYAN, J. 35 128 130 BUTTENWIESER, M. 643 BUZY, D. 8 35 170 631 633-634 CACQUOT, A. 9 CAHN, Y.T. 45 CALAME, P. 64 CALDUCH-BENAGES, N. 46 CALVIN, J. 7 49-50 CAMBE, M. 271-272 850-851 853 CAMP, C.V. 398-399 CANCIK, H. 627 630 CANNON, W.W. 329 CAQUOT, A. 241 301 390 592 597600 CARLSON, A. 486 CARLSON, R.A. 685 688-689 CARMIGNAC, J. 181 CARR, D.M. 18-19 22 24-25 30 36 41-42 55-56 59-60 96 187 190 297 325 351 421 470 701 703 820-821

921

INDEX OF AUTHORS

CARRIÈRE, J.-M. 612 CARROLL, R.P. 647 CARROLL-SPILLECKE, M. 784 790 CARY, P. 464 492 CASSIRER, E. 134 CASSUTO, U.M.D. 5 262 325-329 331 462 511-512 680 CASTELLIO, S. 7 CAZEAUX, J. 574 583-586 CAZELLES, H. 306 CERSOY, P. 480 CHAE, Y.S. 528-531 534 536 CHAPMAN, C.R. 464 CHARLES, R.H. 271 CHARLESWORTH, J.H. 257 CHARPIN, D. 54 CHAZAN, R. 398 CHILDS, B.S. 13-14 25-27 62 75-76 80 82 84 88 101 274 279 281-283 286-287 291 300 320 552-553 564565 821-824 828 CIVIL, M. 182 676 CLEMENTS, R.E. 583 764 CLIFFORD, R.J. 322 362 398-399 CLINES, D.J.A. 18 COHEN, C. 346 COHEN, G.D. 16-17 49 154 160 201 COHEN, M. 11 331 408 560 COLE, S.W. 353 COLEMAN, K. 784 786 COLERIDGE, S.T. 134 COLLINI, S. 83 COLLINS, J.J. 268 560 562-563 567 CONRAD, J. 741 743 COOGAN, M.D. 302 398 401 COOK, S.L. 395 COONTZ, S. 420 COOPER, J. 54 180 182 333-335 337 348 789 831 COPPENS, J. 592 COTHENET, É. 181 COUFFIGNAL, R. 636 639-642 687 689 COWLEY, A. 431 CRENSHAW, J.L. 284-285 296 303 517 CROSS, F.M. 301 305-306 309 484485 508 575 583 673-674 692 702 704

CRÜSEMANN, F.

552 556 816

DAHOOD, M. 309-310 686 DALLEY, S. 361 786 788 790 DALMAN, G.H. 182 626 630 DARNELL, J.C. 179 350 372-377 544 832-833 DAVIES, J. 352 DAVIS, E.F. 9-10 16 29-30 37 41-42 59 61 63 96 299 391 444 511 821 855 DAVIS, V.L. 347 373 DAY, J. 307 322 593 DE AMBROGGI, P. 4 8-9 DEARMAN, J.A. 386-387 428-429 440 DEBERGÉ, P. 56 DE BOER, P.A.H. 306 DE BRUYNE, D. 207 DECKERS, M. 700 DE ENA, J.E. 56 DEISSLER, A. 453 DE LA POTTERIE, I. 852 DELCOR, M. 301 612-613 DE LEON, L. 646 DELITZSCH, F. 4 7 166-167 170 192 292 643 728 734 DELL, K.J. 284-287 297 299 552 DELLER, K. 675 DE LUBAC, H. 39 77 850 DE MOOR, J.C. 349 402-405 407 529 714 DENIS, A.-M. 760-761 DENZINGER, H. 283 DE PURY, A. 287 432 577-579 620 DE SAUSSURE, F. 117 134 143 DESCAMPS, A.-L. 592 DEUTSCH, R. 184 366 485 DE VAUX, R. 202 330 453 664 694 699 DEVER, W.G. 381-383 391 399 DEVREESSE, R. 611 DEVRIES, S.J. 489 DE WAARD, JAN 253 748 DIESEL, A.A. 584 DIETRICH, M. 31 381 532 DIJKSTRA, M. 381-382 DI LELLA, A. 553 580 DILLARD, R.D. 592 599

922

INDEX OF AUTHORS

DI LUCCIO, P. 516 DIMITROV, I.Z. 565 DIRKSEN, P.B. 212 485 625 698 724 DOBBS-ALLSOPP, F.W. 178 191-193 394-395 DOHMEN, C. 429 DOMMERSHAUSEN, W. 64 776 DORMANN, P. 374 DORNSEIFF, F. 190 DORSEY, D.A. 171 176 DRIDI, H. 786 DRIVER, S.R. 167 192 218 DUBARLE, A.-M. 6 271 279 297 743 745 DUBOVSKY, P. 311 DUCHEMIN, J. 543 DUESBERG, H. 285 DÜSING, E. 51 DUHAIME, J. 223 559 DULLES, A.R. 133-134 823 DUNAND, F. 699 DUNN, J.D.G. 63 DURAND, G. 642 DURHAM, J.I. 692 DUSSAUD, R. 236 633 EBELING, E. 183 338 EBNER, M. 586 ECO, U. 83-86 EDELMAN, D.V. 627 694 752 EDZARD, D.O. 304 311 397 EGGER, W. 852 EICHRODT, W. 423 EIDELKIND, Y. 725-726 736 EIRE, C.M.N. 50-51 EISSFELDT, O. 690 ELGVIN, T. 187 189 202-203 212-213 224 227-229 ELIADE, M. 107 132 134-140 156 160-161 380 800 806 ELIOT, T.S. 85 ELLIGER, K. 612 ELLIOTT, M.T. 13 96 170-171 175 279 283 632 722-723 EMERTON, J.A. 382 402 569 ENGEL, H. 44 323 465-468 470-471 ENGNELL, I. 688 ESLINGER, L.M. 713 715 EWALD, H. 4 51 169 518

EXUM, J.C. 6 10 167-168 170-172 175-176 213 302 351 372 540 625 631 727 FABRY, H.-J. 457 764 FAKOUR, M. 795 FALK, M. 166 351 FARKASFALVY, D. 77-78 FASSBERG, S. 192 FAUTH, W. 730 648 690 786 FEHRIBACH, A. 472 FELDMAN, S. 583 FENSHAM, F.C. 775 FEUILLET, A. 8 18 35 37 42 61 63 94 96 103 213 237 271-272 299 362 391 444 447 492 506-507 545-546 628 630-631 663 700 725 727-728 734 736 749 770 850-851 853 855 FICHTNER, J. 291 FILIPPI, A. 817 FINK, U.B. 181 FINKELSTEIN, I. 189-190 383 569 FINNESTAD, R.B. 375 FISCHER, A.A. 532-534 FISCHER, I. 97-98 293 525 FISCHER, J. 8 53 FISCHER, S. 521 556 FISHBANE, M. 15 46 61 66 93 96-97 100-101 103-104 169 179 191-192 242 262 266-267 292 420 461 463 527 583-584 588 764-765 810 FITZGERALD, A. 393-395 413 FITZPATRICK-MCKINLEY, A. 752 FLEMING, D.E. 361 FLINT, P.W. 202-203 223-224 559 FLOHR, P.R. 583 FLOYD, M.H. 554 FOSTER, B.R. 303 FOUCAULT, M. 56 FOWLER, A. 285 FOX, M.V. 12-13 99 178-179 181 187 283 290-291 346-347 372-374 376 522 555 632 654 724-727 729 734 748-749 789 FRAHM, E. 334 FRAISSE, O. 242 FRANKENBERG, W. 625 FRANKFORT, H. 306 334 FRASER, D. 499

INDEX OF AUTHORS

FRAZER, J. 333-334 337 342 FREEDMAN, D.N. 380 439-440 FREEDMAN, H. 235 247 249 251 257 265 FREUD, S. 57 134 FREVEL, C. 382 FRIEDLÄNDER, G. 328 FROW, J. 285 FRYE, N. 74-75 83-86 105 108 128131 FRYMER-KENSKY, T. 394 FUCHS, A. 794 GADAMER, H.-G. 56 124-125 132133 GADOT, Y. 750 769 GALAMBUSH, J. 413 GALÁN, J.M. 374 GALLING, K. 497 GARBINI, G. 15 18 178 186 190 193 201 499-501 503 633 661 700 GARCÍA MARTÍNEZ, F. 256 GARRETT, D.A. 168-169 179 250 366 346-347 366 372 508 GARSIEL, M. 477 490 501 583 GASCHE, H. 338 GASPARRO, L. 419 425 445 GAULT, B.P. 226 GEE, J. 420 423 GEIGER, A. 96 GELIN, A. 851 GELLER, M.J. 55 650 GELSTON, A. 482 GEORGE, A.W. 449 GERHARDS, M. 4 31 36-37 42 44 51 61 63 124 167-169 178 189-191 193 264 299 358 449 508 551 553554 629 657 821 GERLEMAN, G. 32 43 50 52 67 166 179 187 192 215 217 239-241 243 252 254 260 262-263 342 520-523 525 629-630 633-634 636-637 643644 662 674-675 702 726-728 732 734 742 750 758-759 770 819 GERSHEVITCH, I. 783 GERSTENBERGER, E.S. 404 612 GIBSON, J.C.L. 306 GILBERT, M. 279-280 284 289 291 298 744

923

GINSBERG, H.L. 367 GINSBURG, C.D. 634 GIRARD, M. 14-15 149 262 742 747 852 GIRLANDO, A. 142 GISEL, P. 65 561 GISZACZAK, M. 266 GITTLEN, B.M. 587 GLASSNER, J.-J. 792 GOEDICKE, H. 182 334 GÖRG, M. 524-525 629 727-728 751 802-803 GOETHE, J.W. VON 7 16 90 124-125 134 147 525 542 GONÇALVÈS, F.J. 77 83 280 310 442 GOPPELT, L. 81 GORDIS, R. 95 166 170 187 250 479 553 628-629 633-634 643-644 725 GORDON, C.H. 726 GORDON, R.P. 402 485 529 GOSSE, B. 604 GOTTWALD, N. 15 GRABBE, L. 185 GRAETZ, H. 4 7 523 541-542 633 GRAF, K.H. 591 GRANADOS, C. 554 GRAY, G.B. 480 GRAY, J. 489 GREEN, A.R.W. 302 GREEN, B. 714 GREEN, D.J. 790-794 GREENBERG, M. 337 339 380 457 482 584 GREENE-MCCREIGHT, K. 26 GREENFIELD, J.C. 485 792 GREENSTEIN, E.L. 464 582-583 GREENUP, A.W. 244-245 GRELOT, P. 852 GRESSMANN, H. 673-674 GRONEBERG, B. 346 GROSS, B. 750 769 GROSS, W.H. 627 GROSSMAN, J. 43 45 465 GUARDINI, R. 134 GUILLAUME, P. 752 GULICK, C.B. 662 GUNKEL, H. 283 289 307 452 564 GWALTNEY, W.C. 394 GYSELEN, R. 792

924

INDEX OF AUTHORS

HAAG, H. 9-10 HAAS, V. 179 HACHILI, R. 699 HADLEY, J.M. 382 HAELEWYCK, J.-C. 760 HÄNEL, J. 592 603 HÄNER, T. 591 HAGEDORN, A.C. 166 178 190-191 201-202 262 284 347 373 HALLER, M. 236 627 633 HALLO, W.W. 232 303 334 394 398 HALMI, N. 134 HALPERIN, D. 543 HAMANN, J.G. 118 HAMILTON, M.W. 182-183 290 370 404-406 540 547 789 HAMMERSHAIMB, E. 687 HAMP, V. 528 HANHART, R. 485 HANSON, P.D. 5 367 HARAN, M. 627 HARL, M. 38 239-240 243 248-249 260 HARRINGTON, D.J. 54 HARRINGTON, W.J. 271 HARRIS, S.L. 292 HARTENSTEIN, F. 31 HAUPT, P. 5 115 170 236 542 633 649 725 729 HAURET, C. 560 599 HAYS, R.B. 61 201 HEALY, J.F. 183 HECKL, R. 47 290 294-295 HEEREMAN, N.S. 518 HEGEL, G.W.F. 134 HEHN, J. 510-512 HEINE, H. 814 HEINEMANN, J. 263 HEINEVETTER, H.-J. 20 171 173 175 213 215-216 231-232 234-235 299 521 523 540 552-553 556 633 638 643 661 663 700 722-723 737-738 HEINTZ, J.-G. 764 HELMER, C. 25 HELMUTH, S. 627 630 HENGEL, M. 47 291 850-851 HERDER, J.G. 4 7 50 90 118 166 HERMANN, A. 346 520-522 542 745 789

HERMISSON, H.-J. 289 HERRENSCHMIDT, C. 796 HERRMANN, S. 314 HERZER, J. 634 HERZOG, Z. 383 HESS, R.S. 792 HIBBARD, H. 499 HIEPEL, L. 12 17 HILL, A.E. 554 HILLERS, D.R. 394 704 HIMBAZA, I. 554 HIRSCH, E.D. 84-86 105 HITZIG, F. 51 643 725 HÖFFKEN, P. 554 HÖRIG, M. 393 HOFER, H. 455 HOLLADAY, W.L. 367 419 HOLLOWAY, S.W. 302 HOLMAN, J. 632 698-701 HOLZ, A. 542 HOOKE, S.H. 451 HORNUNG, E. 369-370 653-654 HORST, F. 526 628 633 736 738 HOSSFELD, F.-L. 310 449 454-455 458-459 552 556 559 565-566 607610 660 HROUDA, B. 338 HUFFMAN, H.B. 302 HUGENBERGER, G.P. 386 HUGONOT, J.-C. 784 HUNGER, H. 354 HUNTER, R. 543 HUNZIKER-RODEWALD, R. 528 531 HUROWITZ, V.A. 309 312-314 322323 362 586-588 673 676-678 680 710 HURSCHMANN, R. 630 HURST, L.D. 851 HURVITZ, A. 192 HUSSER, J.-M. 379 583 589-590 HUTTER, M. 786-787 IKEDA, Y. 391 ILAN, T. 470 ISER, W. 63 JACOB, E. 359 387 389 392 JACOBI, J.F. 4 51 518 JACOBSEN, T. 334 337 379

INDEX OF AUTHORS

JACOBS-HORNIG, B. 802 JACOBSON, R. 134 JANOWSKI, B. 586 608-609 JAPHET, S. 591-593 597 599 601-603 605-606 JARICK, J. 283 JAROS, K. 590 JASTROW, M. 630-631 JENNI, H. 285 JEREMIAS, J. 628 851 JERICKE, D. 189 199 504-505 JERO, C. 463-464 JOANNÈS, F. 54 JOHNSON, A.R. 451 JOHNSON, M. 109 JOLLES, A. 520 522-524 JONES, P. 334 JONES, S.C. 31 JOOSTEN, J. 461-462 JOÜON, P. 7 193 260 552 625-628 631 633-635 670 697 727 729 734 736 851 JÜNGEL, E. 65 75 JUNG, C.G. 134 136 JUNG, F. 51 JUNG-MERKER, L. 134 KAENNEL, L. 561 KAFKA, F. 128 KAISER, O. 9 307 338 402 KALIMI, I. 599 603 KALUGILA, L. 301-303 305-306 311 KAMIONKOWSKI, T.S. 464 KANT, I. 50 KAPELRUD, A.S. 511-512 KAPLAN, J. 263 268 270-273 KARRER, M. 634 KAUFMANN, Y. 592-593 KAUTZSCH, E. 633 KAYATZ, C. 398 KEDAR-KOPFSTEIN, B. 765 KEEL, O. 10-13 15-16 19 39 45 50 57 64 95 113-114 122-123 166 179 186-189 233-234 239-241 250 254 260 262 264 267 279 283 301 303 306-307 346 351 369 371 376-377 381-385 391 393 411 417 450 467 491 495 502 507-508 570 575 587 626 629 631 633 637 639 648 655

925

658 662 686 726-727 729 736 743 749 751 754 756 766 769 784 789 819-820 822 833 KEIMER, L. 756 KELLE, B.E. 464 KENNICOTT, B. 485 KERMODE, F. 317 KESSLER, R. 172 KINGSMILL, E. 31 35 42 57 61 63-64 178 201 253 255 269 299 447 545 808-809 821 KIRKPATRICK, A.F. 643 KITAGAWA, J.M. 136 KLAUCK, H.-J. 36 38 KLEER, M. 553 556 558 KLEIN, H.D. 51 KLEIN, J. 42 312 344 346 349-351 676-678 682 KLEIN, R.W. 692 KLETTER, R. 383 KLOOS, C. 307 KLOPPENBORG, J.S. 400-401 KLOTZ, D. 374 KNIBB, M.A. 559 KNIGHT, D.A. 97 KOCH, K. 380-382 561 KÖHLMOOS, M. 294 KÖNIG, J. 242 KOGAN, L. 461 725 KONSTAN, D. 541-543 KORPEL, M.C.A. 205 KOSLOVA, N. 461 KOSMALA, H. 659 KOTTSIEPER, I. 12 238 266 KRAESE, J. 786 KRAMER, S.N. 5 9 334 338 341-342 344 354 380 388 394 KRATZ, R. 469 KRAUS, H.-J. 452-453 553 686 KRAUS, W. 634 KRAUSS, S. 328 660-661 KREMSER, K. 449 KRINETZKI, G. 13 64 166 171 262263 279 552-553 631 637 698 734 KRISTEVA, J. 64 92-93 KROLL, W. 633 643 KRONHOLM, T. 185 227 KÜCHLER, M. 298 394 654 656 KUHN, G. 279

926

INDEX OF AUTHORS

KUNTZMAN, R. 583 KUNZ-LÜBCKE, A. 314 612 KURZ, G. 109 111-113 117 124 126128 130 132 147 KYNES, W. 283 287 290 LABUSCHAGNE, C.J. 511-516 LACOCQUE, A. 6 11 16 48 56 61 75 94 96 207 236 248 250 283 299 325 329-330 365 390-391 444 446-447 487 509 519 544-546 554-555 663 670 697 700 855 LAGRANGE, M.-J. 453 LAKOFF, G. 109 LALOU, F. 64 LAMBERT, W.G. 54-55 182 352 LANDSBERGER, F. 749 LANDY, F. 155 283 299 698 744 746 LANG, B. 398-399 LANGE, A. 94 266 LANGER, B. 207 LANGGUT, D. 750 769 LANGLAMET, F. 570-571 LAPINKIVI, P. 30-31 33 59-60 67 334335 351 353 364 LEFEBVRE, P. 18 57-59 531 692 745 775 854 LÉGASSE, S. 9 241 390 LEHMANN, R.G. 483 LEIBNIZ, G.W. 118 LEICK, G. 179 182 335 350 353 LEIMAN, S. 228 LEMAIRE, A. 56 99 184 261 366 382383 405 443 485 569 689 LEMMELIJN, B. 115 238 240-241 254 296 553 LÉON-DUFOUR, X. 852 LEPROUX, A. 298 LEVENSON, J.D. 26 279-280 302 309 322 402 462 464 512 530-531 537 586-588 784 807 LEVINE, A.-J. 470 LEVY, J. 626 630 LEWINE, M.J. 499 LEWIS, C.S. 50 116 125 128 130 477 LEWIS, J.P. 262 LICHTENBERGER, H. 18 LICHTERT, C. 314 316 575 LIEBER, L.S. 201 267 273

LIGNÉE, H. 181 LIM, T.H. 262-263 265-266 LIMET, H. 338 LINCOLN, B. 730-731 790 795-798 802 LIPIŃSKI, E. 349 532 790 792 794 LIPSCHITS, O. 750 769 LISOWSKY, G. 741 LIVERANI, M. 570 LIVINGSTONE, A. 183 352-353 367369 371 379 LIVINGSTONE, E.A. 255 279 LOADER, J.A. 9 LOEBEN, C.E. 784 LOESOV, S. 461 LÖW, I. 750 757-758 LOHFINK, N. 431 584 589 804 LONGENECKER, B.W. 268 LONGMAN, T., III 10 12 347 728 768 LOPASSO, V. 554 LOPRIENO, A. 347 LORD, A.B. 90 LORENTZ, F. VON 633 LORENZ, K. 134 LORETZ, O. 12 17 57 67 99-103 184185 191 196 200 366 370 381-382 402-404 406-407 486 526 553 652 728 LOUIS, V.B. 790 LOVEJOY, A.O. 783 LUNDBOM, R.J. 647 LUNDQUIST, J.M. 302 785 LURKER, M. 369 653 LUTHER, M. 49 634 LUX, R. 404 LUZ, U. 63 77 LUZARRAGA, J. 636 646 LYKE, L.L. 26 52 59 LYS, D. 20 744-745 667 771 MAAG, V. 483 MAAS, P. 643 MAASS, F. 690 MACCHI, J.-D. 12 554 MACHIELA, D.A. 180 MACHINIST, P. 353 MACK, B.L. 400 MAHAL, G. 524 MAIBERGER, P. 735 771

INDEX OF AUTHORS

MAIER, C.M. 292 386 634 MALLOWAN, M.E.L. 791 MALUL, M. 388-389 660 726 747 782 MANFRIED, D. 382 MANN, K. 130 MANNATI, M. 454 456 MANNS, F. 3 718 799 847 852 MARCHESE, A. 659 MARE, H.W. 238 MARGALIT, B. 389 413 421 424 MARGUERAT, D. 577 MARGUERON, J.C. 790 MARQUIS, G. 249 MARSH, J. 852 MARSMAN, H.J. 348-350 361 MARTEL, Y. 128-129 MARTI, K. 289 MARTIN, D.G. 252 254-256 MASON, R. 593 MASSAUX, É. 592 MASTIN, B.A. 382 MATHIEU, B. 179-180 346 350 375 MATSUSHIMA, E. 333 349 352-354 360 391 MATTHIAS, A. 632 MAYER, W.R. 304 MAYER-OPIFICIUS, R. 671 674 MAYS, J.L. 545 MAZAR, A. 383 569 MAZAR, B. 659 MAZZINGHI, L. 295-296 MCBRIDE, S.D. 5 MCCARTER, P.K. 685 704 MCCARTHY, C. 383 MCCREESH, T.P. 399 MCDONALD, L.M. 262 MCIVOR, S. 484 MCWHIRTER, J. 851-853 MEADE, D.G. 290-291 298 306 311 555 MEEK, R.L. 92-93 527 MEEK, T.J. 5 191 325 332 334 337342 366 408 519 725 828 MEINHOLD, A. 45 462 MEINHOLD, H. 285 MELVILLE, H. 128 MELVILLE, S.C. 374 MENZEL, B. 353

927

MERLO, P. 382 MESHEL, Z. 381-382 METTINGER, T.N.D. 334 380 672-673 713 METZGER, M. 672 MEYER, J.-W. 671 MEYER, S. 399 MEYERS, C.L. 435 612-613 785 MEYERS, E.M. 435 612-613 MICHAUD, J.-M. 379 MILIK, J.T. 202 482 MILLAN, A.M.L. 650 MILLARD, A.R. 353 792 MILLER, A. 633 MILLER, G.D. 464 MILLER, P.D. 5 713 MINDLIN, M. 55 650 MIROSCHENDJI, S.P. 349 361 384 397 403 MITCHELL, D.C. 449 456 565-566 612 665 MITTMANN, S. 850 MOENS, M.-F. 784 MOLDENKE, H.N. 754 MONTALEMBERT, V. 18 57-59 745 775 854 MOORTGAT, A. 334 MORALES, M.L. 302 MORAN, W. 46 420 MORGENSTERN, J. 402 MOSIS, R. 592-594 597-600 604605 MOUGHTIN-MUMBY, S. 418 428 MOVERS, F.C. 486 MOWINCKEL, S. 686 704 MÜLLER, H.-P. 9 11 18 166 178 184185 193 351 365 371 379 384 521 523-524 540 627 633 643-644 649 651 661 722 726-727 731-732 734 736 738-739 761 772-773 779 781 833 MULDER, J.S. 452 MULDER, M.J. 753-754 MURAOKA, T. 552 625-627 635 734 MURPHY, R.E. 4 6 8-9 12 18 22 167168 170-174 217 250 279-280 283285 296-297 299 347 497 552-553 633-634 726 734 737 749 MURRAY, R. 66

928

INDEX OF AUTHORS

NAJMAN, H. 559 NEBE, W. 204 NEHER, A. 420 422 424-426 438 NEUBERG, F.J. 483 NEUSNER, J. 263 267 NICCACCI, A. 179 283 NICCUM, C. 204 NIELSEN, K. 55 NIEUVIARTS, P. 56 NIHAN, C. 12 NIR, R. 761 NISSINEN, M. 30-33 36 42 52 54 59 179 183 185 331 333 336-337 340 343 346-355 357 360 362 365 369 392 788-789 831-832 NOCQUET, D. 314 316 575 NOEGEL, S.B. 187 190 192 NOLLER, G. 633 NOLLI, G. 264 628 NOORDTZIJ, A. 592 NORTH, R. 592 NOTH, M. 484 574-575 592 714 NOVÁK, M. 671 NOVOTNY, J. 312 NOY, D. 263 NYBERG, H.S. 383 NYGREN, A. 51 O’DOWD, R. 280 291-292 OESCH, J.M. 205 OESTERLEY, W.O.E. 685 OHLIG, C. 750 OHLY, F. 18-19 OLDENBURG, U. 485 OLLENBURGER, B.C. 95 OLSSON, B. 227 OLYAN, S.M. 381-382 481-482 OPPENHEIM, A.L. 783 785 790 ORWELL, G. 128 130 OSWALT, J.N. 777 OTTO, E. 565 584 589 609 804 OTZEN, B. 689 PARDEE, D. 305 PARET, R. 736 PARK, S.J. 381-382 PARKER, S.B. 385 648 PARPOLA, S. 539 PASSARO, A. 464 PASSONI DELL’ACQUA, A.

PASZTHORY, E. 653 PATERSON, C.G. 257 397 PAUL, S.M. 364 388 422 749 789 PAYNE SMITH, J. 733 PEETZ, M. 114 751 PEIRCE, C.S. 134 144 PELLETIER, A.-M. 6 23 56 821 PENGLASE, C. 543 PENTIUC, E.J. 361 PÉPIN, J. 39 PERDUE, L.G. 285 PÉREZ FERNÁNDEZ, M. 194 PERLES, F. 727 PERRONE, L. 77 PERSON, R.F. 205 PETERS, M.K.H. 239 PIETSCH, M. 31 PLÖGER, O. 497 592 748 PODELLA, T. 547 POLZIN, R. 463 713-714 POMPONIO, F. 353 PONGRATZ-LEISTEN, B. 333 335-336 353 389 397 831 POPE, M.H. 6 115 170 174 182 186 191 263 325 329 342 345 351 369370 497 499 512 520 552 556 626627 630 633-634 650 652 658 698 700 725 727 732 736 769 779 833 POPKO, Ł. 411 414-417 424-425 464 PORADA, E. 499 PORTER, J.R. 686-688 PORTER, S. 205 PORZIG, P. 403 POSENER, G. 655 POSTGATE, J.N. 353 PREUSS, H.D. VON 289 PRITCHARD, J.B. 528 PROPP, W.H.C. 307 PRUSS, A. 671 PUECH, É. 202-204 207 209 211-214 216-218 220-223 227-229 237 382 635 637 722 QUACK, J.F.

852

179 372-373 399

RABIN, C. 187 RAD, G. VON 13 46 62 284 289 385 398 413 420 447 453 589 592 603605 RAHLFS, A. 484 489

INDEX OF AUTHORS

RAHNER, K. 132 RAINBOW, J. 258 RAINER, A. 418 RATZINGER, J. 89-90 RAVASI, G. 22 66 142 170 420 424 444 495 633-634 636-638 661 663 667 722 725 728 732 734 736 770771 READE, J. 183 352 367 REESE, J.M. 400 REICHEL, M. 483 REICHENBACH, G. 47 293-294 REISER, M. 38-40 48-49 66 77-78 148-149 REISMAN, D.D. 334 REITERER, F. 771 RENAN, E. 4 51 632 RENAUD, B. 559 567 599 609-613 RENDSBURG, G.A. 185 187 190 192 464 583-584 RENDTORFF, R. 10 18-19 430 432435 RENDTORFF, T. 773 RENGER, J. 333-335 337 REZETKO, R. 205 RICCIOTTI, G. 6-8 63 628 633 667 RICHARDS, I.A. 65 111-112 RICŒUR, P. 11 56 65 68 75 85 107 109 111-114 132 134 139-141 143145 147-149 152-153 155-157 160 162 418 554 780 782 813 RIECKER, S. 285 RIEDWEG, C. 761 802 RIKALA, M. 350 378 397 RILEY, W. 593 RINGGREN, H. 5 338 342-343 345 370-371 385 398 481 483 625 629 725 744-745 RIVA, R. 142 146 ROBERT, A. 8 37 42 47 53 61 63 94 103 173 213 237 292 299 362 391 444 447 453 506 545-546 628 630631 654 663 700 725 727-728 734 736 749 770 855 ROBERTS, D. 171 ROBERTS, J.J.M. 182 308 334 713 ROCCA, S. 470 ROCHBERG-HALTON, F. 183 RÖMER, T. 12 76 314 382 398 432 468 561-564 567 572 574-579 612

929

RÖMER, W.H.P. 333 344 RÖSEL, C. 561 565-566 608-609 RÖSLER, C. 561 ROSCHER, W.H. 510 ROSENBERG, J. 38 125 131 583-584 ROSENMEYER, T.G. 542-543 ROSENSTOCK, B. 688 ROSKOP ERISMAN, A. 219 504 ROSKOP, A.R. 219 504 ROSSANO, P. 142 ROST, L. 570 713 ROTHSTEIN, J.W. 592 603 ROY YODER, C. 31 RUDNIG-ZELT, S. 386 RUDOLPH, W. 4 6-7 13 102 166 235 262-263 345 362 497 517 526 552553 592 625 627-628 630 633 637638 651 657-658 670 697-698 726727 732 736 779 RUNDGREN, F. 629-630 661 RUZER, S. 513-514 RYKEN, L. 768 SADGROVE, M. 279 298-299 SAEBØ, M. 99 264-266 274-275 287 325 828 SÄRKIÖ, P. 570 SALFELD, S. 241 243 SANDERS, J.A. 262 SANMARTIN-ASCASO, J. 9 254 479481 SARKOSH CURTIS, V. 731 SASSON, J.M. 54 330 492 SATLOW, M.L. 414 SATTERTHWAITE, P.E. 442 SAUR, M. 284-285 289-290 455 565 SAVRAN, G. 317 SAYDON, P.P. 8 SCHÄFER, B. 65 SCHÄFER, H. 756 SCHAEFER, K.R. 529 SCHÄFER, P. 560-561 SCHEDL, C. 178 450 511 515 726 812 SCHELLENBERG, A. 31 44 285 299 SCHELLING, F.W.J. 134 SCHENKER, A. 212 575 690 724 SCHIFFMAN, L.H. 398 SCHILLER, F. 134 SCHINDLER, B. 660

930

INDEX OF AUTHORS

SCHIPPER, B.U. 47 294 399 SCHLEGEL, A.W. 134 SCHLEGEL, F. 130 SCHLEUSNER, J.F. 626 SCHLOTTMANN, D. 7 629 638 646 653 SCHMID, K. 294-295 513 761 802 SCHMIDT, B.B. 383 569 649 SCHMIDT, H. 480 SCHMITT PANTEL, P. 627 SCHMITT, J.J. 396 413 SCHMITT, R. 381 680 SCHMITZ, B. 470-471 SCHMÖKEL, H. 5 95 168 179-180 182 186 331 338 340-342 344-345 371 520 SCHNABEL, E.J. 279 SCHNEIDERS, S.M. 852-853 SCHOTT, S. 179 674 SCHREIBER, S. 538 SCHREINER, J. 770 SCHROEDER, C. 458 SCHROEDER, O. 339 SCHROER, S. 233-234 SCHULZ FLÜGEL, E. 239-240 SCHUNK, K.D. 632 SCHWARTZ, M. 783 SCHWEIKLE, G. 38 524 SCHWEIKLE, I. 38 524 SCHWEMER, A.M. 850 S CHWIENHORST -S CHÖNBERGER , L. 17-18 31 37-38 42 44 48 53 61 96 237 288-289 444 449 472 518 541 544-546 552 619 645 655 712 855 SCORALICK, R. 429 SEEBASS, H. 612 SEFATI, Y. 179 334 346 350 359 364 388 SEGAL, J.B. 511-512 SEGAL, M.H. 194 SEGOVIA, F.F. 853 SEIBERT, I. 528 SEITZ, C.R. 26 SELLHEIM, R. 690 SEOW, C.-L. 309 314 397 673 683684 752 SEYBOLD, K. 452 SHEA, W.H. 170-171 175 658 740 SHEPPARD, G.T. 56 295 811

SICRE DÍAZ, J.L. 646 SIEGFRIED, C. 236 625 633 SILBERMAN, N.A. 569 SILVERMAN, J.M. 752 790 795 797 SIMON, M. 235 247 249 251 257 265 SKA, J.-L. 88-90 195 308-309 432 527 575 802 817 SKAIST, A. 676 SKEHAN, P.W. 299 553 580-581 SKJÆRVØ, P.O. 731 SLOTSKY, A.L. 374 SMELIK, K.A.D. 689 715 SMEND, R. 430 434 SMITH, J.Z. 380 SMITH, M.S. 5 183-184 191 334 349 354 361 371 380-382 384 388 398399 485 834 SMITH, R.L. 315 554 SNAITH, J. 5 SNEED, M. 283 285 290 295 SOKOLOFF, M. 630 SOMMER, B.D. 93 711 SONNET, J.-P. 316 554 574 582 584585 588 590-591 SOULEN, K.R. 76 SOULEN, R.N. 76 679 SPANS, A. 207 SPARKS, H.F.D. 761 SPARKS, K.L. 279 SPENSER, E. 128 130 SPERBER, A. 482 484 SPINA, F.A. 302 SPINOZA, B. DE 582 SPREY, T. 482 SPYCKET, A. 338 STACEY, D. 418 STADE, B. 480-481 STÄHLER, K. 786 STÄHLIN, W. 112 142 147 STAERK, W. 236 STAGER, L.E. 302 361 586-587 730 777 784-785 791-792 794 799-800 803 806 STAUBLI, T. 44 233-234 511 540 542 STEC, D.M. 450 STECK, O.H. 413 STEINBERG, J. 285 459 STEINER, R.C. 378 403

INDEX OF AUTHORS

STEINKELLER, P. 334-335 337 378 397 403 585 STEMBERGER, G. 244 STEWART, S. 731 STIBBE, M.W.G. 852 STICKEL, J.G. 51 STINESPRING, W.F. 592 STONE, M.E. 264-265 268-270 494 559 STONE, N. 761-762 STORDALEN, T. 94 147 517 802-803 806-808 810 STRACK, H.L. 328 451 492 STRONACH, D. 784 790-791 795 STRUPPE, U. 561 STUART, D. 364 651 STUCKY, R.A. 786 SUDERMAN, W.D. 233 467 SULZER, J.G. 37 SWETE, H.B. 286 484 TAIT, M. 414 TALMON, S. 650 TARDIEU, M. 9 241 390 TASCHL-ERBER, A. 472 851-853 857 TATE, M.E. 310 TAWIL, H. 498-500 632 634-635 TEETER, D.A. 47 294 THIRTLE, J.W. 450 THÖNE, Y.S. 28 62 TIGAY, J.H. 90 584 TIGCHELAAR, E.J.C. 256 TILLICH, P. 134 148 418 TILLY, M. 613 615 TIMM, H. 715 TODOROV, T. 132 134 146-148 TOMOO, I. 672 TOMSON, P.J. 272-273 850 TORIJANO, P.A. 648 TOSATO, A. 624 TOURNAY, R.J. 8 37 42 61 63 94 103 181 213 237 248 299 362 391 444 449-450 452-454 479 487-488 506 509 545-546 560 628 630-631 655 663 700-701 725 727-728 734 736 749 770 855 TOV, E. 202-205 207 209 211-214 218 220-227 229 236 243 635 TREBOLLE BARRERA, J. 97-98 205

931

236 238-239 255 265-266 274 647648 527 646 649 TRENCSÉNYI-WALDAPFEL, I. 543 TRIBLE, P. 155 351 516 TROMP, N.J. 279 297 TRUBLET, J. 287 TRUJILLO, J.I. 349 TRUMAN, G.M. 302 TSEVAT, M. 694 TSUK, T. 750 TSUMURA, D.T. 349 TUPLIN, C. 730 TURNER, D. 3 18 79-81 TURNER, H.E.W. 784 UEHLINGER, C. 12 381-384 394 ULRICH, E.C. 89 99 102 202-203 223 226-228 262-263 274 526 UMBREIT, F.W.C. 51 URBACH, E.E. 263 URO, R. 31 54 333 349-350 VANDERKAM, J.C. 470 VAN DER TOORN, K. 402-403 673 711 VAN DE SANDE, A. 252 254 VAN DIJK, J. 389 VAN DIJK-HEMMES, F. 363 391 VAN HECKE, P. 528-529 819 VAN HENTEN, J.W. 414 VAN LEEUWEN, R.C. 280 VAN LOON, M.N. 491 VAN SETERS, J. 584 804 VEIJOLA, T. 569 VENARD, O.T. 75 77 83 85 VERHEYDEN, J. 570 575 599 VERMES, G. 16 507 513 768 VERMEYLEN, J. 46 584 589 VERNUS, P. 373 VERVENNE, M. 238 VILLEMAIN, A.-F. 118 VILLENEUVE, A. 712 VINCENT, J.M. 51 VOIGT, W. 178 193 WACKER, M.-T. 12 17 45 381 392 WÄLCHLI, S. 579 WAGENAAR, J.A. 402-403 405 407408 711 WAGNER, A. 166

932

INDEX OF AUTHORS

WALSH, C.E. 23-25 41 62 821 WALTON, B. 628 WANSBROUGH, J.E. 55 650 WARNING, W. 512 WASCHKE, E.J. 561 WATANABE, K. 334 349 WATERMAN, L. 4 WATSON, P.A. 190 WATSON, W.G.E. 171-172 205 352 356 649 722 WEBER, J.-J. 8 WEBSTER, E.C. 170-171 722 WEEKS, S. 290 WEEMS, R. 5 WEIDER, A. 411 WEIGOLD, M. 94 WEINFELD, M. 46 219 301 308 380 382-383 388-389 504 513 586 591 WEINRICH, H. 36 109 111 114 117119 121-122 127-128 159 WEIPPERT, M. 218 322 356 362 371 624 WEISER, A. 370 452 483 725 WEISSFLOG, K. 428-430 WELLHAUSEN, J. 288 392 487 591 WELLS, L.S.A. 761 WENHAM, G.J. 491 586-587 803-804 WESTENHOLZ, J.A.A. 182-183 364 675 WESTENHOLZ, J.G. 54 179 376 753 755 WESTERMANN, C. 394 562 564 590 776-777 802 806 WETTE, W.M.L. 591 WETZSTEIN, J.G. 4 167 182 325-326 329 519 644 648 830 WEYERING, S. 455 WHEELWRIGHT, P. 111 142 144 150 152 WHITE, J.B. 166 179 342 346 WHITING, R.M. 31 WHYBRAY, R.N. 46 286 291 296 WIDENGREN, G. 5 334 337-338 340342 402 452 629 787 WIELAND-LEIBUNDGUT, D. 786 WIGGINS, S.A. 382 WILDBERGER, H. 185 366 WILDEBOER, G. 4 WILHOIT, J.C. 768

WILLI, T. 593 WILLIAMS, J.G. 511 WILLIAMSON, H.G.M. 564 592-593 WILLIS, J.T. 713 WILLITTS, J. 442 529 531 533 536 538 WILSON, G.H. 292-293 565 WILSON-WRIGHT, A.M. 184 407 WINANDY, J. 271 279 297 628 634 636 743 745 850-851 853 WINCKLER, H. 483 487 628 WINSOR, A.R. 850-853 WISEMAN, D.J. 747 783 790 793 WITTE, M. 103 532 WITTEKIND, W. 236 633 WOLFF, H.W. 185 289 363 386 392 413 425 439-441 655 WOLFF, W. 675 WRESZINSKI, W. 675 WRIGHT, D.P. 683-684 689 WRIGHT, G.E. 484 WRIGHT, R.B. 615-616 WÜRTHWEIN, E. 497 577 625 627 742 WYATT, N. 349 XELLA, P. 183 XERAVITS, G. 470 YAMAUCHI, E. 730 783 YANNARAS, C. 336 YARDENI, A. 203 211 YOUNG, I. 187 YOUNGER, J. 232 ZAKOVITCH, Y. 28-29 42-43 60-61 67 93-94 98-99 173 193 218 224 231 235 248 267 347 392 489-493 495 517 525-526 540 544 584 618 626627 630-632 637 648 655 664-665 667 670 723 734 736-737 749 767 778 821 ZAPLETAL, V. 235 487 ZENGER, E. 43 293 310 381 449 454455 458-459 552 556 559 561 565566 575 592 606-612 660 743 ZIEGLER, J. 240 482 ZIMMERLI, W. 13 46 75 96 279-280 284 289-290 295 432 434 829

INDEX OF AUTHORS

ZIMMERMANN, M. 851 ZIMMERMANN, R. 45 52 54 120 123 144-145 298 386 397-398-400 420 426 455 460 851 ZLOTOWITZ, R.M. 245 247 250-251

933

ZOBEL, H.-J. 807-808 ZOHARY, M. 653 656 757-759 771 ZUCK, R.B. 399 ZWICKEL, W. 575

INDEX OF BIBLICAL REFERENCES

OLD TESTAMENT Genesis 1–3 1–2 1–2,3 1 1,2–2,4 1,2 1,5 1,8 1,10 1,26-27 1,26 1,28 2–3 2

2,1-4 2,1-3 2,2-3 2,5–3,24 2,5-25 2,6 2,7 2,8-16 2,8-9 2,8 2,9 2,10-14 2,10 2,11-12 2,13 2,15 2,17 2,20 2,23-25 2,23-24

26 78 284 292-293 741 48 775 840 603 689 284 511-512 583 585 606 802 804 303 585 585 585 13 28 583 585 583 284 584 589 731 762 773-774 802 804 816 19-20 22 135 145 162 517 731 760 773 783 801-802 804 810 813814 586 512 604 606 589 804 804 803 589 802 802 587 589 802 587 809 586-587 762 778 802803 588 810 817 585 803 589 802 804 589 585 19-20 13

2,23 2,24 3 3,2 3,3 3,5 3,6 3,8 3,16 3,19 3,21 3,22 3,23-24 3,23 3,24 4,1 4,7 4,8 4,22 6,4 6,14 7,13 9,13-17 11,17-32 12 12,1-3 12,1 12,3 12,10-20 12,10 12,16 13,1 13,2 13,10 13,15 13,17 14 14,18 15 15,6

422 696 745 591 590 773 773 585 773 803 803 58 155 173 299 773 856 802 322 464 399 589 802 587 802 387 856 856 185 658 772 463 514 514 546 461 837 610 446 456 610 68 181 461 581 744 461 462 650 462 145 802 259 259 491 491 174 244

936 15,7-21 15,10 15,18 16,2 16,4 17 17,7 17,8 17,12-14 17,17 18,1-2 19,8 19,31 20,1-18 20,11 22,2 22,17 22,18 22,20-24 24 24,7 24,35 24,67 25,20 25,24 26,7-11 26,8 26,19 28,1-9 28,14 29,13 29,14 29,20 29,27-28 29,27 30,3-4 30,38 31,55 32 32,1-12 32,3 32,7 32,10-11 32,13 32,29 34,3-8 34,3 34,6-17 35,11

INDEX OF BIBLICAL REFERENCES

235 248 508 503 586 609 690 772 772 432 431 431 514 432 544 438 690 581 744 280 235 237 655 436 572 610 546 658 589 464 420 546 802 744 648 762 764 546 610 399 696 421 327 519 690 249-250 503 446 503 503 503 506 436 640 421 437 496 531

35,22 37–50 37 37,1-9 37,2 37,3 37,9 37,12-36 37,15 37,16 37,23 37,31 38 38,8 39,6 41,40-44 41,47-49 41,53-57 43,16 45,25 47,4 47,6 47,13-26 48,15 49 49,4 49,9 49,10-11 49,12 49,24 50,20 50,24

581 45 837 272 530 464 272 292 544 544 464 464 464 690 584 462 462 462 218 650 461 700 462 29 529-530 234 581 630 776 777 529-530 462 650

Exodus 1–12 1–4 1,7 1,22 2 2,3 2,5 2,16-17 2,16 2,22 3,1-14 3,1 3,8 3,14 3,15

431 434 43 462 463 463 461 463 463 437 249 463 463 530 649 678 510 650 775 429 515 439

INDEX OF BIBLICAL REFERENCES

3,17 4,6 4,7 4,8 4,21 4,22 4,23 5–19 6–12 6,2-8 6,2-7 6,6-8 6,6 6,7-8 6,7 7,3 7,9 7,28 9,3 9,9 9,14 11,1 11,2 12,2 12,35 12,36 12,38 13,5 13,18 13,19 13,21 13,22 14,16-30 14,19 14,24 15 15,1-12 15,4 15,13 15,17 15,18 15,27 17,3 17,8-16 18,2 18,3 19 19,6 19,12

510 650 775 218 650 650 652 462 650 463 714 432 387 433-434 436 546 432 429-430 432-433 438 652 652 362 183 657 714 462 715 408 462 715 715 650 510 775 650 530 535 651-652 652 463 652 652 308 470 555 309 463 309 309 589 309 626 650 43 692 463 463 121 587

19,16 22,15 23,19ff. 23,31 25–40 25–31 25,6 25,10-22 25,13-15 25,16 26 26,1-13 26,1 26,4 26,31 26,32 26,33 26,37 28,4-35 28,4 28,13 28,14 28,15-22 28,25 28,33-34 28,33 28,34 28,39 29,5-8 29,5 29,8 29,24-26 29,45-46 29,45 29,46 30,7-8 30,22-33 30,22-29 30,23-29 30,23-25 30,23 30,26 30,34-37 30,34 31 31,3 31,12-17 31,21

937 142 437 689 586 317 564 313 512 509 678 680 680 804 487 321 663 663 598 663 598 552 598 663 322 464 458 458 584 458 754 323 323 322 464 322 464 464 754 433 442 537 431-432 438 710 656 322 656 653 809 817 168 451 509 733 758759 656 656 663 809 597 318 512 23

938

INDEX OF BIBLICAL REFERENCES

32–34 32,1 32,4 32,7 32,8 32,10 32,23 32,27 33,1 33,3 33,14 33,19 34,6 34,7 34,24 35–40 35–39 35 35,28 35,31 36 36,1-2 36,8–39,1 36,8-17 36,35 36,36 37,1-10 37,1-9 37,4-5 38,8 39,3 39,6 39,24-26 39,27 39,32 39,42 40,1-34 40,2 40,14 40,33 40,34

429 433 437 650 650 650 650 429 650 660 650 510 775 589 429 436 429 436 615 651 312 512 313 597 509 318 678 487 598 678 663 321 598 598 680 678 680 692 631 458 323 322 464 586 586 313 405 322 464 586 598

Leviticus 1,1 2,1-2 2,15-16 4,3 4,5 4,16

431 434 313 656 663 656 663 564 564 564

5,11 6,15 8–10 8,7 8,13 9,4 9,6 9,23 9,24 10,5 10,18 11,45 14,5 14,50 15,9 15,13 16,4 17,9 18,5 18,15 19,17 20,12 20,20 20,24 22,12-16 22,33 23,24 23,39 24,7 25,1ff. 25,38 25,49 26,11-12 26,11 26,12-13 26,12 26,15 26,44-45 26,45

656 564 656 313 322 464 322 464 313 313 313 598 313 322 464 457 431-432 764 764 629-630 764 322 464 630 744 741 744 741 479 510 775 415 431-432 689 407 656 689 431-432 479 433 537 514 442 430 432 438 444 803 433 433 431-432

Numbers 3,7-8 3,12 4,20 4,25 7 7,89 8,26 10

803 589 804 321 313 313 803 689

939

INDEX OF BIBLICAL REFERENCES

10,5 10,9 10,10 10,33-36 10,35 11,12 11,45 12,3 12,7 13,23 13,27 14,4 14,8 14,29-31 14,42 14,44-45 15,41 16,3 16,13 16,14 18,5-6 19,17 20–22 20,5 21 21,1 21,2 21,5 21,7 21,21-35 24,5-7 24,5 24,7 26,29-30 27,16-17 27,17 31,6 31,17 32 32,11 33,9 34,7

699 689 699 689 671-672 671 256 432 564 564 510 754-776 510 775 436 510 775 650 605 671 431 650 510 650 775 510 803 764 468 323 510 650 469 496 469 496 650 496 504 506 517 807 808 808 504 535 529 533 536 699 438 504 650 626 245

Deuteronomy

12 47 200 291-292 431-432 443 549 575-576 219 503-504 586 650 504

1,7 2,7 2,24–3,17

2,24-37 2,36 3,8-16 3,8 3,9 3,20 3,25 4,20 4,29 4,34 5,5 5,6-21 5,7 6,2 6,3 6,4-9 6,4-6 6,5 6,11 6,14 7,1-5 7,1 7,3-4 7,3 7,4 7,5 7,6 7,7 7,8 7,13 8 8,1 8,7-10 8,7-9 8,8 10,12 10,17 10,20 11,1 11,9 11,13 11,16 11,18-22 11,22 11,24 11,28 12 12,2-4 12,2

504 504 504 219 238 503-504 219 245 504 589 219 503-504 431 589 445 652 546 292 440 590 589 25 510 775 292 46 293 29 544 591 764 440 576 512 573 581 440 581 573 36 431 424 431 380 589 121 589 512 512 323 510 754 775 29 46 552 46 46 25 510 775 46 440 292 46 586 440 572 576 367

940 12,9-10 12,9 12,20 13,3 13,5 13,7-14 13,10 14,1-2 14,2 14,22-27 15,1ff. 16–18 16,21 17,3 17,14-20 17,16-17 17,17 18,20 19,8 19,9 20,1 20,8 22,12 22,13-30 22,13-29 22,13 22,15-17 22,21 23,15 24,1-4 24,1 24,5 25,5 25,17-19 25,19 26,8 26,9 26,15 26,17 26,19 27,3 27,9 28,4 28,9 28,14 28,15-68 28,18 28,24 28,35

INDEX OF BIBLICAL REFERENCES

568 586 604-605 589 673 615 440 46 440 517 431 431 402 689 564 381 440 564 576 590 188 573 664 440 615 46 650 710 690 330 520 423 772 326 295 803 414 416 426 554 500 667 690 43 604 546 510 775 25 385 510 775 430 430 775 431 380 431 440 445 380 657 295

28,36 28,51 28,63-68 28,64 28,66 29 29,1-14 29,12 29,25 29,30 30,6 30,15-20 30,16 30,20 31,1 31,20 31,26 31,30 32,10 32,20 32,34 33,2-3 33,12 33,13-16 33,14-16 34,1-4 34,11

440 380 589 440 295 432 432 430 432 440 710 46 544 293 46 46 506 775 804 25 650 660 43 748 383 450 168 510 732 755 193 504 506 652

Joshua 1,4 1,13 1,15 3,3-17 4,4-21 5,6 5,13-15 6 6,1-21 6,1-20 6,5 6,20 7,15 8,3 10,1 12,1-6 13,8-32 13,26 13,30 15,19

658 586 589 589 680 680 510 775 684 671 672 671 699 699 295 659 491 504 504 503 506 503 506 725

941

INDEX OF BIBLICAL REFERENCES

17,1-6 19,18 19,22 21,23 21,36-37 21,43 22 22,5 23,8 24,13 24,32

504 490 490 506 504 604 504 46 46 805 650

Judges 1,15 3,16 3,23-24 5 5,4 5,7 5,12 5,21 5,28 6,8 6,13 7,20-21 8,23 8,28 9,2 9,8-15 9,13 9,15 9,16 9,27 9,52-53 10,1 10,4 10,6–12,7 11,13 11,16 11,19-24 11,30 11,31 11,37 11,39 12,9 14,3 14,10-18 14,11 14,12-14

469 658 725 660 747 555 684 174 191 211 174 385 648 650 650 699 603 663 696 539 776 447 539 453 402 648 484 659 465 468-469 472 650 650 504 469 469 168 438 659 421 327 327 659 553

14,12 14,18 14,20 15,2 15,5 19,3 19,23 19,30 20,6 20,10 20,40 21,19-21 21,19 21,21

519 327 327 327 327 437 295 650 295 295 626 267 340 402 407 834 406-407 834

Ruth 1 1,2 2,2 2,10 4 4,5-10

159 464 525 741 464 506 185 500 500 644 399

1–2 Samuel 1 Samuel 1–7 1–3 1–2 1 1,3 1,17 1,20 1,27-28 1,27 2,12-17 2,20 2,22-25 2,22 2,27-36 2,29-34 3 3,3 4–6 4 4,3-11 4,3 4,4 4,5 4,6

479 571 599 603 658 691 702 713 713 463 402 651 463 463 463 463 713 463 713 692 713 714 713 692 671 673 684 713-714 713 700 692 672 713 700 673

942 4,8 4,17 4,18 4,19-22 4,22 5–6 5,1 5,6 5,9 5,12 6,2 6,4 6,5 6,6 6,10-16 7,7 8,1 8,8 8,20 9,16 9,22 10,1 10,3 10,19 12,6 12,12 12,30 13,14 14,2 15,2 15,26 16,11-13 16,12 16,13 16,18 17 17,12 17,20 17,28 17,42 17,52 17,58 18,6-7 18,7 18,8 19,13 19,15 19,16 20,11

INDEX OF BIBLICAL REFERENCES

714 700 714 713 713 714 696 714 714 714 684 714-715 714 715 715 708 700 650 463 532 659 532-533 651 650 650 529 463 532 323 650 447 531 535 404 584 532 562 404 535 641 535 699 649 404 699 535 707 667 684 696 627 627 627 856

21,8 22,2 22,14 25 25,30 25,39 28,4 28,6 2 Samuel 3,3 3,6-11 3,8 3,9-10 3,31 4,4 4,7 5–7 5 5,1-13 5,1 5,2 5,3 5,4-5 5,4 5,5 5,6-7 5,9 5,13-16 5,13 5,14 5,17-25 5,20 5,23-24 5,24 5,25 6–7 6 6,1-23 6,1-11 6,1 6,2 6,3 6,5 6,6-11 6,7 6,11 6,12

529 650 564 659 421 532 496 490 314 570 694 744 694 627 692 362 693 696 694 706 696 696 529 531-533 696 479 479 486 614 614 696 693 696 693 309 683 683 683 683 683 686 688 706 843 309 340 563 671 682697 704-707 711-712 674 682 684 672 706 700 706 684 684 804 686 603 684 688 706

INDEX OF BIBLICAL REFERENCES

6,13-23 6,13-17 6,13-15 6,13-14 6,13 6,14 6,15 6,16 6,17 6,18 6,19 6,20 6,21 6,22 6,23 7 7,1 7,2-3 7,2 7,6-7 7,6 7,7-8 7,8 7,11-16 7,11-13 7,11 7,12-16 7,12 7,13-16 7,13-15 7,13 7,14 7,16 7,24 7,25-29 8,1-14 8,7 9–20 11–12 11 11,4 11,9 11,11 11,27 12 12,7-8 12,8-9

682 688 685 706 686 652 685 688 691 673 689 700 385 648 685 690 706 684 686 688 706 686 688 185 403 688-689 706707 688-689 707 532 687 691 693 696 687 283 559-560 600-602 686 693 586 604 311 321 365 708 803 650 529 529 532-533 589 687 311 604 614 529 456 711 687 450 600 712 431 585 600 602 691 712 430-431 687 503 231 296 600 692 693 692 671 692 700 569 569 694 664

12,24-25 12,24 12,25 12,29 12,30 13 13,10 13,12 13,15 13,17-18 13,18 13,20 13,32 14,25 16,21-22 16,21 17,2-3 17,3 17,24–19,40 17,24 17,27 17,28 19,13-14 19,25-26 19,27 20,7 21,9 21,17 23,8 23,9 23,13 23,23 23,24 23,39 1–2 Kings

943 601 486 569 450 486 559 580 838 505 668 464 837 362 295 634 747 322 496 496 404 584 489 695 690 695 489 741 506 503 503 630 696 501 311 658 726 562 686 659 484 659 659 484 659 659

188 365 479 575 606 658 1 Kings/3 Kingdoms 188 568 599 615 617 619 621 840 1–11 572 574 578 601 296 314 317 5701–2 571 600-601 1,1-4 488 1,3 490 1,4 489 695 1,5-24 695 1,11-40 667 1,11-21 570

944 1,11 1,15 1,17-22 1,28-32 1,30 1,35 1,39 2,3 2,11 2,13-25 2,15 2,17 2,19-22 2,22 2,24 2,35 LXX 2,36-46 2,46 3–11 3–10 3–8 3 3,1–8,66 3,1–5,14 3,1 3,2-15 3,3 3,4-15 3,5-9 3,7-9 3,9 3,12 3,13 3,14 3,16-28 3,28 4,1–5,14 4,1-19 4,1 4,2-6 4,20 5–8 5,1-8 5,1-4 5,1 [ET 4,21]

INDEX OF BIBLICAL REFERENCES

667 489 554 570 571 532 534 532 576 479 695 601 529 489 489 695 601 575 667 575 312-314 316 319 571579 582 591 317 573 580 610-611 798 805 812 840-841 572 314 555 694 572 317 317 553-554 575 614 667 317 559 572 576 572 557 610 311 315 557 585 610-611 616 311 315 579 611 557 610-611 315 317 572 577 315 317 572 578 575 315 572 517 706 708 813 315 610 314-315 559 567-568 572 586 611 615-616

5,4-5 [ET 4,24-25] 5,4 5,5-6 5,5 5,6 5,9-14 5,9-10 5,10 5,12 5,13 [ET 4,33] 5,14 LXX 5,15–9,28 5,15–9,27 5,15–9,25 5,15–8 5,15–6,38 5,15-26 5,15-19 5,16–9,66 5,17 5,18 5,20-26 5,20 5,21 [ET 5,7] 5,26 [ET 5,12] 5,27-32 5,27-28 5,27 6–8 6–7 6 6,1-8 6,9 6,10 6,13 6,15-19 6,15 6,16 6,18 6,21 6,23-28 6,29-35 6,29 6,30 6,32 6,35 6,38

559 573 314-315 488 537 568 572 578 585 611 613 315 188 586 615 616 629-630 187 311 314-316 572 555 572 553 585 311 585 575 616 317 312-313 312 573 317 322 557 610 313-314 317 586 599 708 614 314 662 768 318 318 314 317 572 135 568 313-314 322 598 800 145 365 367 365 323 587 365-367 709 457 457 587 803 587 626 457 626 626 710

INDEX OF BIBLICAL REFERENCES

7,1-51 7,1-12 7,2 7,6 7,7 7,8 7,13–9,66 7,13 7,14 7,15-22 7,18 7,19 7,20 7,22 7,26 7,27-39 7,29 7,42 7,45 LXX 7,48 7,51 8 8,1-13 8,1-11 8,1-9 8,1 8,2 8,5 8,6-8 8,6 8,10-11 8,13 8,15-16 8,19-21 8,19-20 8,19 8,20-21 8,22-40 8,27 8,56 9–14 9,1-43 9,1-9 9,1 9,2-9 9,4-9 9,9 9,10-14 9,15-22

615 317 614 662 662 662 575 662 317 597 318 587 323 233 323 467 323 754 233 323 467 323 467 588 588 323 754 575 322 322 314 402 563 588 708 710-711 813 818 840 322 674 708 313 651 711 674 689 405 711 652 680 684 708 710 714 598 710 708 710 403 600 601 562 403 313 312 589 604-605 673 316 572 572-573 576 313 573 576 557 573 610 317

9,16-17 9,16 9,20-22 9,24 10 10,1-29 10,1-25 10,1-13 10,1-12 10,1-10 10,2 10,6-9 10,8-9 10,9 10,10 10,14-29 10,14 10,17 10,18-20 10,19ff. 10,21 10,23-25 10,23-24 10,23 10,25 10,28-29 11 11,1-13 11,1-4 11,1-3 11,1-2 11,1 11,2-8 11,2 11,3-8 11,3 11,4 11,5 11,7-8 11,7 11,8 11,9-13 11,11-13 11,36 11,37 12,28 14,7 14,17

945 573 575 727 576 575 317 573 577 315 317 317 557 572 610 579 554 759 579 311 29 610 759 317 577 495 662 628 689 662 572 573 315 759 455 317 573-574 581 590 600 617 188 508 554 664 187 590 573 575-576 554 576 591 573 488 508 554-555 573 576 619 664 573 576 591 619 340 576 590 568 576 576 554 568 576 573 581 562 686 589 650 532 187

946

INDEX OF BIBLICAL REFERENCES

14,21 14,23 14,25 14,32 15,4 15,13 15,18 16,1 16,23 16,33 18,19 18,28 22,17 22,19-23

185 367 495 185 562 686 381 833 485 532 187 381 833 381 833 380 532 534 307

2 Kings 4,8-37 4,8 4,12 5,1 5,18 6,12 8,19 9,30-32 11,10 13,2 13,4 13,22 14,9 16,4 17,7-18 17,7 17,10 17,16 17,23 17,36 18,2 18,31 18,32 19,21 20,5 21,3 21,7 21,18 21,26 22,2 23,4 23,12 23,15

464 488 488 185 366 485 362 686 648 231 381 833 726 726 539 367 554 650 367 382 714 650 590 762 775 665 532 534 382 382 769 798 769 798 563 381-382 799 833 380 382

24,14-15 24,15 25 25,4 25,17 25,21

714 251 469 561 730 769 798-799 323 754 714

1–2 Chronicles 188 196 287 365 455 479 507 564 568 578 591-606 617 658-659 841 1 Chronicles 2,3–4,23 593 3,1 509 3,2 570 4,5 323 5,1 630 5,27–6,15 593 9,20 663 9,29-39 759 10–29 593 10 593-594 10,1-7 594 10,13-14 594 11–16 595 11,2 531 11,8 595 11,10-15 659 11,12 484 11,26 484 11,42 659 12,4 659 12,19 659 13,7 701 15,23-24 673 15,25 603 15,28 673 15,29 385 16,3 185 17–29 596 17 604 17,1 321 17,4-5 605 17,9-10 604 17,9 604 17,11-15 600 17,11 600 17,12 600 17,14 593 600 602-603 605

947

INDEX OF BIBLICAL REFERENCES

18,1-13 18,7 20,1 20,2 21,1-17 21,29-30 22 22,2-4 22,6-16 22,8 22,9-12 22,9-10 22,9 22,14-16 23–26 27,4 28 28,2-10 28,2 28,3 28,4 28,5-7 28,5 28,6-7 28,6 28,7 28,11 28,18 29,3 29,22 29,23

504 231 505 667 599 596 571 599 601 599 708 318 597 601 601 487 488 490 500 595 599-600 604 798 838 599 599 484 571 599 708 600 605 672 708 599 708 534 601 599 602-603 602 712 601 456 362 673 456 534 603

2 Chronicles 1–9 1,5 1,6-13 2,3–5,1 2,3 2,5 2,6 2,7 2,11 2,12-13 3–6,2 3,1 3,4–5,1 3,4 3,7

593 596 597 662 365 606 597 365 662 318 597 708 235 655 598 457 322

3,8 3,9 3,10 3,14 3,16-17 3,16 3,23 4,1-2 4,5 4,6-9 4,13 4,18-19 5 5,2–6,2 5,7 5,8-9 5,13-14 6,2 6,18 6,41-42 6,41 7,1-3 7,1 7,2 7,3 7,12-22 8,11 9,1 9,8 9,9 9,16 9,24 9,25 10,1-19 11,21 12,1 12,9 12,13 12,14 13,3-19 13,5-8 13,8 14,4-6 14,7-14 16,14 18,16 20,1-30 20,10-12 20,30

708 598 708 708 708 323 754 604 708 467 708 323 754 662 704 710 596 708 680 605 708 606 593 605 599 604-606 598 597 597 631 593 692-693 700 759 603 759 495 759 455 600 664 600 495 185 600 593 593 603 604 593 760 534 593 204 604

948

INDEX OF BIBLICAL REFERENCES

20,37 21,7 21,11 23,3 23,9 26,6-8 27,5 28,2 28,4 29,16 29,18 31,5 34,21 35,3 35,14-15 36,22

484 593 686 366 593 231 593 593 673 367 457 457 775 594 403 594 579 592

Ezra–Nehemiah Ezra 1,3 1,11 2,1 2,59 2,69 3,7 3,12-13 4,2 7,6 7,7 7,12 7,28 8,1 9,2 9,10

479 593 650 650 650 650 322 464 662 559 650 650 650 552 650 650 581 576

Nehemiah 2,8 3,15 3,16 4,18 7,5 7,6 7,61 7,69 7,71 9,12 9,19 10,39 12,1

514 621 730 752 729-730 798-799 659 660 650 650 650 322 464 322 464 652 652 366 650

12,46 13 13,5 13,7 13,9 13,26

535 568 576 656 663 726 758 726 663 571 579-582 617 619 840

Tobit

159 201 284 464 470 507 717 837 661 464 661 284 744-745 661 661 744-745 661 744-745 421 744-745 464 327 519 396 493 284

3,8 3,10-15 3,17 4,3-19 5,21 6,8 6,17 7,15 8,2-3 8,4 8,7 10,10 11,19 13 14,8-11 Judith 4,3 4,12 8,3 8,6-8 Esther

26 465-466 470-472 837 470 470 243 508 470

1,6 2,5-6 2,12 2,17 3,1-6 8,15 10,3 15,9

43 45 192 201 266 464 466 744 837 631 465 168 654 759 500 465 663 465 745

1–2 Maccabees 1 Maccabees 3,1-9 4,52-58 4,57

564 613 841 613 614 232 496

949

INDEX OF BIBLICAL REFERENCES

9,37-41 9,37 9,39 10,63 10,64 13,49-52 14,4-15 14,4-5 14,14-15 14,44

327 658 327 663 663 614 613-615 841 615 663

2 Maccabees 1,13-15 1,14 2,1ff. 2,1-10 2,4-9 2,10 3,28 4,7-8 14

323 403 568 598 596 598 249 596 617

Job 1–2 1,1–3,1 1,6 2,1 2,7 3,8 3,25 7,12 9,13 10,9 16,12-14 17,13 17,14 19,9 20,25 26,12 28 30,29 34,15 36,27-28 38,2-3 38,12 38,26 40,15-25

6 47 280 284-285 290-291 294-296 320 443 829 647 515 307 307 295 308 295 308 308 802 295 630 744 668 142 308 586 744 802 771 647-648 184 649 308

40,25–41,26 41,22 42,3 42,7-17 42,8

308 630 647 515 295

Psalms

6 47 101 223 284-285 290 466 479 558 292 284 565 565-566 608 454 479 565-566 611 712 565-566 529 563 799 562 640 585 609 529 565 539 583 390 385 363 363-364 565 565 207 284 803 565 565 565 363 668 713 251 121 150 529 544 29 544 403 646 673 702-704 672-673 702-703 647 647 185

1–72 1–2 1 2–89 2 2,1-9 2,2-3 2,2 2,6-8 2,6-7 2,6 2,7 2,8 2,9 LXX 3–41 4,12-16 8 9,3 14,2 14,7 16,9 18 18,51 19 19,8-9 20 20,7 21 21,2 21,3 22,3 22,20 23 23,1-2 23,2 24 24,7-10 24,8 24,10 27,4

950 28,8 28,9 29 31,8 32,11 33,12 34,16 36,8-10 37 39,9 42–89 42–48 42,5 42,9 43,1 43,3 43,4 43,5 44 44,5 44,10 44,12-15 44,19-20 44,24 45

45,1-10 45,1 45,2-10 45,3-10 45,3 45,5 45,6 45,7-9 45,7-8 45,7 45,8 45,9 45,10 45,11-16 45,11-13 45,11-12 45,11 45,12 45,13 45,14-16

INDEX OF BIBLICAL REFERENCES

565 529 142 308 672 363 363-364 35 546 764 808 284 700 565 459 459 557 546 459 808 458 459 459 459 529 459 459 459 459 46 68 195 323 396 412 442 446 449-461 472 555 565 618 636 643 645 654 836-837 454 467 480 454 472 454 211 404 451 455 539 560 585 455 460 654 451 450 455-456 460 562 451 455 168 451 759 451 455 664 669 454 472 565 454 119 454-455 450-451 454 456 459 456 459 452 456 454

45,15-16 45,15 45,16 45,17-18 45,17 45,18 46–48 46 46,2 46,4 46,5 46,7 46,10 47 47,4 47,6 47,8-9 47,8 47,9-10 48 48,1 48,2-3 48,3 48,5-7 48,8-9 48,9 48,12 48,59 49 50,10 51–72 51,1 51,2 53,7 58,2 60 60,1 60,7 61,7-8 63,7 63,12 65–68 65,8 65,9 65,10-11 65,12 68 68,8

460 451 458 460 451 458 454 454 459 366 451 459 456 459 555 308 308 459-460 145 546 808 308 460 613 121 403 459 460 403 651 673 403 460 459-460 460 121 153 456 459 514 555 459 309 478 308 458 478 363 460 284 496 565 606 608 690 772 363 366 323 467 450 565 630 565 555 308 207 388 649 673 684

INDEX OF BIBLICAL REFERENCES

68,23-24 68,25 69 69,1 69,2-3 69,31 71 71,16 72

72,1-7 72,1-4 72,1-2 72,1 72,2-4 72,2 72,5-7 72,5 72,7 72,8-11 72,8 72,9 72,10-11 72,10 72,11 72,12-14 72,15 72,16-17 72,16 72,17 72,18-19 72,20 73 74,1 74,12-17 74,12 74,15 74,19 75,3 75,5-6 75,26 76 76,3 76,6-8 77,12

403 685 323 467 116 557 606 608 366 285 311 315 454-455 552 556-559 563 565-566 568 578 606-612 615-617 619-620 837 841 606 609 310 188 557 606 608 610612 616 840 607 315 557 610-611 557 607 610 611-612 609 608-611 537 609 612-613 609 557 610 616 457 578 609-611 609-610 606-607 608 610-611 606-607 768 608 610-611 616 610 612 556 606 608 840 284 529 308 529 764 270 492 366 310 310 385 491 640 491 501 308 366

77,17 77,20 78 78,26 78,52-55 78,65-71 78,70-72 78,71 79,13 80

951

308 529-530 310 771 529 309-310 529 531 310 531 529 121 150 323 513 517 546 80,1-8 546 80,1 467 80,2 29 529 80,4 168 80,8 168 80,9-15 808 80,12 728 80,16 589 804 80,20 168 81,11 650 82,1 307 84,2 450 546 808 84,9-10 565 85,2 390 85,12 385 86,9 609 308 310 565-566 611 89 89,4 566 89,5-19 308 89,7 307 89,10-11 308 89,20 314 566 89,21-28 310 89,22 310 89,26 609 799 89,27-28 310 89,27 565 89,29-30 566 89,34-38 566 89,39-45 566 89,50 566 90 284 90,3 802 90,17 185 91,5 660 92,9 174 92,13-14 768 92,15 [ET 92,14] 366

952 93 93,1 93,3-4 95,7 96,7-9 96,11 97,7 98,6 99,5 100,2 101,20 [102,20 LXX] 103,14 104,2 104,7 104,15 104,26 104,29 107,29 108,7 110 110,1 111–118 112 118,24 119 120–134 122 122,2-8 122,4 122,6-8 122,8 127 127,1 127,2 127,3-5 127,7 128,5-6 132

132,3-5 132,5 132,6 132,7-8

INDEX OF BIBLICAL REFERENCES

308 29 308 310 529 609 363 609 29 529 672 609 272 385 802 322 308 776 308 802 308 450 454 491 565 611 562 565 284 363 284 651 488 501 838 487 651 501 744 285 552 556559 568 578 619-620 841 188 559 840 486 559 838 559 450 501 310 403 559 565 611 673 682 685-686 699 704 311 546 686 808 674 700 672

132,7 132,8-10 132,8 132,11-18 132,13-14 132,13 132,15 135,3 137,8 139 145,1 147,1 147,12 147,14 148,7 149,2

546 672 808 605 673 708 403 674 674 403 185 295 284 529 185 501 501 308 363

Proverbs

47 254 279-280 284 290-292 296-297 320 410 443 553 556-557 559 812 829 47-48 281 284 291294 398-399 47 292 188 292 314 560 292 48 292 399 294 399 423 292 47 294 26 399 298 399 399 802 292 456 399 744 26 668 456 456 744 298

1–9 1–8 1,1-8 1,1 1,8-19 1,20-33 1,28 2 2,4 2,17 2,27–7,3 2,30 3,5 3,9 3,13-18 3,13 3,18 3,19 4,1 4,4-8 4,5-9 4,5 4,9 4,10 5,1 5,15-20

953

INDEX OF BIBLICAL REFERENCES

5,15-18 5,15 5,16-17 5,16 5,18-19 5,19 5,20 6,20-35 6,26 7–8 7,2 7,4 7,6-23 7,10-15 7,10 7,16-18 7,17 7,18 8 8,1 8,15-16 8,17 8,18 8,21 8,22-31 8,22-30 8,22 8,30 8,35-36 8,35 9,1-6 9,1-5 9,11 9,13 9,17 10–29 10,1 10,11 10,14 11,30 12,4 13,12 13,14 15,4 17,17 18,4 18,22

26 748 763 734 749 763 763 748-749 258 252-254 423 779 399 292 744 834 816 298 397 744 648 298 744 298 168 654 744 758-759 168 252-253 298 479480 294 398-399 744 311 298 399 311 311 292 399 26 399 684 293 298 399 397 654 777 777 744 773 293 188 314 765 810 79 399 802 668 802 765 810 399 802 744 765 810 298 399

25,1 25,11 29,3 30–31 30 30,18-19 30,20 31 31,1-31 31,1 31,2 31,10 31,30 31,31

188 311 314 168 744 293 294 27 321 773 281 8 311 581 298 399 267 267

Ecclesiastes/Qohelet 8 47 188 266 279-280 284 290-291 295-297 320 553 556-557 559 769 829 1,1 188 314 560 2,4-11 752 2,4-6 798 2,5-6 730 793 799 2,5 730 752 846 7,2 328 331 9,1 634 9,6 634 10,19 776 10,20 362 12,1-7 8 12,3-4 44 12,9-14 292 12,9-12 295 12,13-14 295 12,13 280 Song of Songs 1,1–5,1 1,1–2,7 1,1-7 1,1-4 1,1-2 1,1 1,2–2,6 1,2–2,2

848 170 172 175 199 203 404 544 548 552 620 487 101 196 275 316 321 326 487 511 552 556557 617 840 175-176 175

954 1,2-8 1,2-4 1,2-3 1,2 1,3 1,4-5 1,4

1,5-6 1,5

1,6-7 1,6

1,7

1,8 1,9–2,7 1,9-11 1,9 1,12 1,13-16 1,13-14 1,13 1,14 1,15-17 1,15-16 1,15

INDEX OF BIBLICAL REFERENCES

170 177 194 253 539 552 194 253 552 50 103 168 239 252253 255-256 258 406 478 511 775 828 102-103 168 399 451 487 510 518 101-103 168 239 252253 255 257-259 275 326 362-364 384 399 406 451 478 511 517 666 775 828 330 487 517 546 58 100-101 169 196 199 206 243 269 275 287 321 327 371 481 487 492 502 511 553 556 560 577 617-618 665 770 838 177 58 168 174 192 194 237 256 321 480 496 511 516-517 521 541 698 700 733 169-170 177 215 327 399 451 477 509 511 517 521 536 540 544545 547 560 839 177 193 517 521 545546 170 191 168-169 177 216 516 539 541 553 626 101 168-169 193 275 326 517 732 757 853 177 727 168 184 252 322 653655 759 168 174 184 188 199 242 299 502-503 516 732 757 809 356-357 365-366 392 404 451 113 168-169 177 180181 216 231 269 364 516 724 727

1,16-17 1,16 1,17 2,1-2 2,1 2,2-3 2,2 2,3-17 2,3 2,4 2,5 2,6-7 2,6 2,7–3,5 2,7

2,8–5,1 2,8–3,5 2,8-17 2,8-15 2,8-13 2,8-10 2,8 2,9–5,1 2,9–3,2 2,9 2,10-13 2,10 2,11-15 2,11 2,12 2,13

191 391 644 168 184-185 364 366 539 541 185 193 249 322 364366 404 539 620 626 44 29 168-169 199 323 450 467 502-503 391 168-169 174 177 180 269 323 450 467 492 516 175 168 177 391-392 509 539 560 756 406 511 516 634 706 772 774 168 174 185 378 380 385 509 516 630 634 689 707 173 100 172 399 172 175 100 170 172 192 199 237 250-251 270 274 298 327 384 444-445 477 492 502 511 514 516 634 636 665 828 848 175 170 172 175 170 174 176-177 229 236 445 176 174 177 168 174 181 212 446 851 203 211 236 203 212 100 168 193 236 298 384 626 648 811 174 446 168-169 177 445-446 516 405 193 212 405 168-169 177 193 212 445-446 509-510 516

INDEX OF BIBLICAL REFERENCES

2,14 2,15 2,16-17 2,16

2,17–3,4 2,17

3,1–4,16 3,1-6 3,1-5 3,1-4 3,1-2 3,1 3,2–7,7 3,2-5 3,2-3 3,2 3,3-5 3,3-4 3,3 3,4-6 3,4-5 3,4 3,5

3,6–8,4 3,6–5,1

44 169 177 212 269 384 446 491 516 626 789 58 168 174 193 206 212 222 330 405 446 480 516 541 733 177 20 100 115 168 173174 232 323 430 444 450 467 509 517 521 540 177 100 168 173-174 212213 222 232 234-237 242 244 248 384 502503 508-509 620 626 175 120 170 173 176 224-225 229 236 636 668 722 798 174 177 186 199 205 215 298 330 358 378 390 399 444 544 853 214-215 358 445 169 174 177 213-215 362 511 849 203 205 203-204 169 177 203 212-215 222 399 511 198 214 222 236-237 215 223 727 169 177 205 215 237 399 511 203 174 169 177 204-205 211 214-215 236-237 321 362 511 744 772 100 170 172 192 198199 205 213-214 237 250-251 270 274 327 384 477 492 502 511 514 516 634 636 665 827-828 172 68 170 175-176 618 623 643 721 742 812

3,6–4,1 3,6-11

3,6-10 3,6-8 3,6-7 3,6

3,7–4,6 3,7-11 3,7-10 3,7-8 3,7

3,8 3,9–4,1 3,9-11 3,9-10

3,9

3,10–4,2 3,10-11 3,10

955 213 2 68 170 177 196 203 213 237 275 327 330 384 406 421 446 517 553 556 617 623-719 721 742-743 780 801 814 827 834 842-845 625 637-638 642 669 224 229 231 235 637 844 716-717 23 102 168 173 194 212 214 229 235 298 322 331 371 384 407 517 539 620 625-626 633 636-639 641 643 646-658 669-671 698 702 706 709 712 716 722 759 849 203 205 173 637 737 493 540 639 669 703 716 203 231-232 638 640 657 661 101 184 229 287 321322 326 511 517 556 560 617 625 627-628 630 633 637 639 644645 657-660 670 698 702 229 633 637 639-640 659-661 709 213 627 637 188 322 329 620 628 635 637-640 642 644-645 661-666 701 703 709 716-717 844 101-102 192-193 199 242 287 321-322 326-327 404 511 517 556 560 617 627-628 630-631 633 637 658 670 703 708 722 177 637 668 170 199 206 211 327 477 492 502 511 514 516 625 630-632

956

3,11

4,1–5,1 4,1-7

4,1-5 4,1-3 4,1-2 4,1

4,2 4,3-4 4,3 4,4-7

4,4 4,5 4,6

4,7

INDEX OF BIBLICAL REFERENCES

634-635 659 662 664-665 703 101 200 205 209 211 229 236 238 267 273 287 321 326 328 330 399 407 455 489 492494 502 511 517 520 540 546 556 560 617618 620 633 635-644 651 655 659 665-670 705-706 709 711 716 742 744 812 839 842 170 722 174 177 180 209-210 216-217 224 229-231 235-236 327 511 514 618 621 624 636 643644 648 722 743 746 839 369 174 203 216 224-225 230-232 235-236 504 208-209 211 217 168-169 177 180-181 193 199 205 208-209 216 224 231 235 242 377 384 502-503 516 636 724 207-208 211 541 208 193 207 209 211 217 222 224-225 231 323 509 722 754 196 198 210 212 216217 222-225 228 230-231 235-237 494 496 549 827 838 224 229 231-232 237 417 478 494-496 507 620 115 168 174 181 208 224-225 232 236 252 323 384 450 467 100 168 174 177 198 209 212 232 234-235 237 248 322 399 444 509 620 653 655-656 722 733 759 767 811 168-169 177 203 209210 235 514 516 636

4,8–6,10 4,8–5,2 4,8–5,1

4,8-16 4,8-12 4,8-11 4,8-9 4,8

4,9–5,1 4,9-11 4,9-10 4,9 4,10-11 4,10

4,11–5,1 4,11-14 4,11

4,12–5,1

4,12-16 4,12-15 4,12-14 4,12-13

198 210-211 215 224 236 169 177 298 176 195 198 210 421 623 643 668 721-723 741-743 746 767 774 794 800 299 722 177 194-195 203 216 223 225 228-229 253 722-723 733 722-723 174 186 191-192 194 199 209 217-218 222 236-238 240 242 244-245 356 371 399 496-497 502 504 511 516 624 643 722-724 727 733 741 767 794 809 120 624 741 746 743 180-181 356 511 516 724 727 741 744 722-723 168 194 225 239 252253 255 322 406 451 478 497 510-511 516 724 727 741 744 760 775 828 219 223 203 223 24 180 193-194 199 377 391 451 502 510511 516 722-723 727 733 741 767 774 809 2 68 145 177 195 221 225 228-229 237 376 417 516 588 618 623 671 697-698 718 721-818 841-842 844-846 850 854 856 161-162 355 547 745 68 540 620-621 624 722-723 736-739 761 763 789 813 517 769 809 114 628

INDEX OF BIBLICAL REFERENCES

4,12

4,13-15 4,13-14 4,13 4,14–5,1 4,14

4,15–5,1 4,15

4,16–5,1 4,16

4,17 5 5,1–7,10 5,1–6,10 5,1

5,2–7,10 5,2–6,10 5,2–6,9 5,2–6,3 5,2-9 5,2-8 5,2-7 5,2-6

149 298 322 356 497 511 516 521 690 723730 734 737-738 740-749 761 763 774-775 811 448 656 737-738 750-761 772 774 817 168 193 240 322-323 722 727-733 757 760 772 778 798 813 203 168 193 220 298 322 451 653 655-656 722 732-733 739 744 757 759 772 811 788 199 298 502 511 722 725 728 734-735 737-738 750 761-769 794 809-811 817 853 376 722-723 736 739740 755 811 848 168 174 177 182-183 193 322 510 521 548 624 722 732 735-736 741 743 746-748 755 769-773 774 789 811 748 35 175 198 100 114 154 168 174175 183 198-199 205 212 215 220-222 225 229 236 252 322 478 510-511 516 521 623-624 643 653 655 707 721-722 735-737 741 743 759 762 765 770 773-779 789 811 818 850 854 855 176 196 223 237 170 170 175 229 445 174 176 224-225 378 722 172 199 390 444 848 58

5,2-5 5,2-4 5,2

5,3 5,4-6 5,4 5,5-7 5,5 5,6-8 5,6-7 5,6 5,7 5,8–6,1 5,8-9 5,8

5,9–8,4 5,9–6,3 5,9-10 5,9 5,10–6,2 5,10-16

5,10 5,11 5,12 5,13-14 5,13 5,14 5,15 5,16–6,3 5,16 6 6,1-3

957 229 362 358 44 168-169 174 177 186 269 271-272 384 445-446 511 516 722 741 744 770 851 853 322 359 491 727 744 177 299 168 446 330 168 191 322 626 653 759 205 215 229 168 174 298-299 399 445 511 849 215 237 299 552 848 177 100 168 170 172 174 181 192 199 299 327 477 492 502 511 514 516 634 665 172 172 177 168 177 331 357 478 621 701 724 727 790 14 29 48 176-177 180 182-183 225 229 369-371 404-405 540 546-548 621 790 168 180 206 357 370 560 168 191 193 206 255 377 701 180-181 516 377 168 193 322-323 450 653 656 759 180-181 206 377 181 199 206 502 507 511 701 809 811 177 100 168 170 177 199 322 327 370 477 492 502 511 514 665 35 225

958 6,1 6,2-6 6,2-3 6,2

6,3 6,4–8,4 6,4–8,3 6,4-10 6,4-9 6,4-7 6,4-6 6,4

6,5-7 6,5-6 6,5 6,7–7,11 6,7 6,8-10 6,8-9 6,8 6,9 6,10

6,11–7,7 6,11-12 6,11

6,12 7,1-7 7,1-6 7,1-2

INDEX OF BIBLICAL REFERENCES

168 177 331 467 478 724 727 850 848 323 517 521 540 145 168 174 183 229 322 450 517 521 541 548 621 626 746 770 772 789-790 20 100 168 173-174 430 444 450 467 848 175 175 173 229 506 170 173 648 327 621 168-169 177 187 199 225 242 244-245 327 377 444 478 492 502503 507 514 516 174 180 209 224-225 230-231 369 504 177 236 20 180-181 192-193 199 207 242 377 502503 848 323 509 754 225 102 451 187 193 664 44 169 177 180 192 237 269 321 377 384 491 511 516 664 724 727 173 180 184 186 193 209-210 271-272 331 371 377 384 407 539 625 636 639 646 648649 712 811 203 209 236 210 518 29 145 174 183 193 209-210 2 229 323 405 509 521 646 727 746 754 772 789 848 243 511 700-701 834 225 444 504 506 621 727

7,1

7,2-7 7,2-6 7,2 7,3 7,4-5 7,4 7,5

7,6 7,7 7,8-9 7,8 7,9 7,10-12 7,10 7,11–8,14 7,11–8,5 7,11–8,4 7,11-13 7,11 7,12-14 7,12-13 7,12 7,13

7,14 8,1-5 8,1-2 8,1 8,2

177 191 211 243 331 340 356 417 477 488489 503 505-506 509 724 180 327 176 208-209 369 417 495 168 177 211 243 246 327 407 446-447 503 507 517 539 174 181 193 224 3 448 450 467 510 496 168 174 211 224-225 232 236 252 384 34 180-181 187 192 199 224 242-243 246247 377 495 502-505 507 511 101 199 242 249 275 326 448 502-503 517 828 181 211 516 539 634 299 464 699 252 811 168 252 509 754 177 168 406 511 856 848 175 176 176 58 100 155 168 173 299-300 430 444 773 829 848 850 856 773 174 191 405 522 168 174 253 732 856 168 174 193 239 252253 255 298 323 405 478 509 516 732 754 811 828 168 177 193 253 405 448 510 626 732 755 849 237 252 298 321 511 774 174 182 321 323 406 511 517 744 754 772

INDEX OF BIBLICAL REFERENCES

8,3-4 8,3 8,4-14 8,4

8,5-14 8,5-7 8,5-6 8,5

8,6-14 8,6-7 8,6 8,7-14 8,7 8,8-14 8,8-11 8,8-10 8,8 8,9-10 8,9 8,10-11 8,10 8,11-14 8,11-12 8,11

8,12 8,13 8,14 8,15

173 100 172 399 175 100 170 172-173 192 199 237 250 270 274 327 478 492 502 511 514 516 634 636 665 828 170 172-176 665 170 186 168 173 177 321 331 371 384 407 478 509 511 518 546 625 636 639 646 648 712 727 849 175 184 200 297-298 407 518 829 20 23 173 184 186 385 516 634 766767 173 516 626 632 634 170 196 196 199 237 417 487 494 496-501 549 620 838 177 252 498 511 698 322 498-499 487 102-103 252 447-448 477 487 490 495-496 499 507 621 798 200 488 29 174 287 488 555556 560 619 621 168 188 193 238 243 269 275 321 480 502 508 511 516-517 521 548-549 665 838-839 168 177 194 243 508 511 516 555 619 698 145 327 446 746 851 100 168 170 174 177 212 234 236 322 384 509 712

959

Wisdom of Solomon 14 161 188 196 279280 284 291 296 400 410 553 556 812 829 2,24 802 3,9 634 3,16-19 581 6–9 298 400-401 6–8 397 6,17 634 6,18-19 400 6,18 634 6,20-21 400 6,21 400 7–9 834 7,10 298 7,11-12 311 7,15-21 316 7,17-22 400 7,22–8,1 400 7,22-23 400 7,22 400 7,23 400 8,1 400 8,2-18 400 8,2 298 398 400 744 816 8,3 401 8,9-18 48 298 8,9 398 400-401 744 8,10 400 8,12-15 400 8,13 400 8,17 400 8,18 398 400 9 315 319 9,1-12 311 9,4 48 400-401 9,7-12 319 9,10-12 400 10,1-21 400 11–19 283 Sirach

1,14 4,11-19 6,18-37

46-47 54 88 178 194 201 238 279-280 284285 291 296 470 507 554 621 812 829 292 397 397

960 7,14–8,2 14,22-27 14,22-24 14,23 15,1-6 15,2-3 15,2 15,3 17,1 24 24,3 24,10 24,13-21 24,13-14 24,15-17 24,15 24,19-22 24,19-21 24,23-27 24,23 24,25-29 24,25-27 24,26-27 24,30-33 24,30 24,31 31,27 39,26 40,20 43,16-17 44–50 44,19 45,8 45,10 46,8 47 47,1-17 47,12-21 47,12-18 47,12-14 LXX 47,13 47,15 47,17 47,18 47,19-23 47,19-21 47,19-20 47,19

INDEX OF BIBLICAL REFERENCES

298 298 811 648 298 397 744 397 802 14 26 145 162 400 507 654 808 811 654 654 299 808-809 846 811 811 654 656 760 809 811 777 811 811 846 846 809 812 397 809-811 810 765 731 293 776 775 479 771 283 581 322 464 663 775 568 571 617 619 314 580 840 319 582 319 560 553 553 580 582 554 568 664 619 581

47,20-21 47,20 47,21 50,8 51 51,13-30 51,13-21 51,19-21 51,22 51,27

581 581 581 168 298-299 54 298-299 299 193 88

Isaiah

12 47 120 200 380 384 393 395 410 412413 443 493-494 561 741 645 29 493 665 200 578 367 651 700 12 666 666 666 650 12 23 40 55 413 449450 481 513 517 546 555 808 517 8 29 168 479 481 619 838 55 453 480 659 657 307 140 529 561 563 630 730 561 563 454 364 613 563 311 413 437 561 563 454

1–55 1,8 1,21 2,2-4 2,2 2,3 3,7 3,16-17 3,16 3,17 4,4 4,5-6 5 5,1ff. 5,1-7 5,1 5,7 5,22 5,24 6,1-9 6,5 7 7,14 8,6 9 9,1-6 9,2 9,3-6 9,5 9,6 11 11,1-9

INDEX OF BIBLICAL REFERENCES

11,1-5 11,2 11,6-9 11,10 11,11 12 12,3 14,12-15 14,12 16,7 16,8 17,10-11 17,12-14 22,2 23,12 24,21-23 24,23 25,6-8 25,6 25,9 26,3 26,15 27,2-6 27,2-3 30,25 30,26 33,17 34,14 35,1-10 37,22 40–66 40,3 40,5 40,10-11 40,11 41,18 41,21 42,19 43,3 43,6 43,15 44,6 44,28 45,1 45,8 45,13 45,15 47,8-9 47,8

514 311 806 442 650 807 765 184 385 648 185 728 185 341 366 379 308 247 394 407 193 407 649 407 776 364 501 615 546 480 517 367 193 407 649 404 650 660 153 805 29 493 665 153 806 813 650 650 121 529 436 545-546 764 529 447 663 771 529 529 529 579 579 388 579 609 424 425

47,9 47,11 48,18 49,7 49,8 49,9-13 49,9 49,14-18 49,15 49,16-19 49,18 49,19 49,20-21 49,21-23 49,21 49,23 50,1-4 50,1-3 50,1 51,3 51,9-10 51,15 51,17 51,22 52,1-6 52,1-2 52,7-12 52,7 52,12 54–55 54 54,1-10 54,1-3 54,1 54,2 54,4-10 54,4-8 54,4 54,5 54,6 54,10 54,11-13 54,13 55,1-5 55,1 55,10-11 55,2-3 55,2

961 425 394 725 743 609 464 529 545-546 395 833 396 500 395 853 464 425-426 455 396 609 424 425 396 445-446 517 802 805-806 308 725 446 456 478 446 446 446 650 493 12 465 395 411 413 424 426 455 833 836 396 426 615 322 546 45 665 119 424 395 500 423-424 447 395 396 564 777 776-777 854 388 777 777

962 55,3 56–66 56,3 56,6 56,7 56,11 57,3-13 57,5 57,6-10 57,7-8 58,11 59,11 60–62 60 60,3 60,4 60,5-9 60,6 60,8 60,9-10 60,9 60,13 60,14 60,16 60,17 61,4 61,10 62 62,1-12 62,1-6 62,1-5 62,1 62,2 62,3 62,4-5 62,4 62,5 62,6 62,9 63,1 63,7 63,11 64,9 65,1 65,17-25 65,17-19

INDEX OF BIBLICAL REFERENCES

777 645 435 435 435 529 367 380 367 654 367 517 805 270 493 578 458 396 578 610 656 758 626 609-610 396 768 609-610 256 615 464 119 328 455 500 743 853 414 119 411 413 416 424 426 455 668 851 493 395 665 833 836 668 458 668 45-46 396 459 500 395-396 416 668 395-396 421 668 743 855 198 668 402 646-649 657 684 842 366 529-530 546 678 464 442 445-446 161 806 806

65,18-25 65,18-19 65,25 66 66,1 66,6 66,7-14 66,8-13 66,10-12 66,18

807 806 806 121 493 513 807 672 807 458 396 464 256 501 458

Jeremiah

12 26 30 47 226 292 294 363 380 384 395 412 419 425 431-433 443 445 448 493 529 536 549 628 741 836 413-414 12 45 119 393 411 416 418 833 835 12 416 517 415-416 424 417 415 386 414-415 425 650 387 416 421 424 634 649-650 670 743 835 851 425 414 650 121 145 804 529 763-764 766 367 415 836 414 425 453 426 200 414 416 424-425 414-415 425 367 414 415 426 446 506 367 529 532 414 805 394 322 145 805

2–4 2–3 2 2,1–4,2 2,1–3,5 2,1-4 2,2–4,2 2,2-3 2,2 2,4–3,13 2,4-37 2,6 2,7 2,8 2,13 2,20 3 3,1-5 3,1-4 3,1 3,6-11 3,6 3,12-13 3,12 3,13 3,15 3,19 4–10 4,20 4,26

INDEX OF BIBLICAL REFERENCES

5,22 6,3 6,20 7,1-34 7,16-20 7,16-18 7,18 7,23 7,28 7,34 9,4 [9,3 LXX] 10,9 10,17 10,20 11,4 11,5 11,7 11,15 12,10 12,15 13,18 13,24-27 13,26-27 16 16,1-9 16,2 16,5 16,8 16,9 16,14 17,8 17,13 18,13 18,14 21,5 21,6 21,10 22,18 22,20 22,22 22,23 23,1-8 23,1-4 23,2 23,3-8 23,3-4 23,3 23,4-6 23,4

725 529 656 663 758 292 380 380 195 339 440 431 431 329 445 743 744 663 394 322 431 510 775 650 450 480 580 480 529 546 446 506 668 464 424 425 835 419 418 328 447 328 331 329 445 743 650 728 764 766 206 767 546 183 546 341 341 529 532 534 394 507 529 535-536 538 839 529 529 532 534 547 535 535 545-546 532 532 534

23,5-6 23,5 23,7-8 23,7 23,8-9 23,15-17 24,5 24,7 25,10 25,32 25,34-36 26,21 29,13 29,20 30,5 30,9-10 30,9 30,18 30,22 31–34 31,1-22 31,1 31,2-3 31,3 31,4 31,6 31,8-10 31,9 31,10-12 31,10

963

536 563 567 311 536 546 650 534 501 589 431 433 329 445 743 771 529 658 442 445-446 589 447 442 442 808 431 424 547 431 435 500 200 424 426 206 394 507 684 651 436 545 431 547 121 529 535 545-546 31,12 805 31,13 507 31,15-16 425 31,16-18 446 506 31,17 538 31,20 446 31,21 206 394 426 446 506 31,22 45 396 744 31,31-34 433 31,31 [38,31 LXX] 445 851 31,33 431-433 435 31,34 433 438 31,40 799 32,7-8 [39,7-8 LXX] 479 32,22 775 32,28 435 32,38-40 433

964

INDEX OF BIBLICAL REFERENCES

32,38 33,11 [40,11 LXX] 33,14-22 34,5 34,18-19 34,18 38,36 39,4 44,15-19 44,17-19 44,17 44,19 44,25 46,7 46,8 46,10 46,18 48,19 49,3 49,19 49,29 50,4 50,6 50,19 50,42-43 50,44 51,5 51,11 51,35 51,57 52,7 52,22-23 52,22

431 329 445 743 851 567 760 235 248 174 509 725 730 798-799 340 380 195 195 340 381 833 440 195 380 647 647 647 529 394 505 529 322 413 442 507 529 505 529 546 212 529 424 231 394 529 730 798-799 323 754

Lamentations

26 394-395 410 466 493 513 247 464 464 464 394 672 419 206 394 665 665 513 464 295

1–2 1,1 1,4 1,13 1,15 2,1 2,4 2,10 2,13 2,15 3 3,11 3,12-13

3,50 4,1-2 4,5 4,7-8 4,7 4,8 4,20 4,21 5,16 5,18

385 206 464 546 206 446 206 539 394 546 668 206 464

Baruch 1,20 3,9–4,4 4–5 4,1 4,5–5,9 5,5-9

279 284 493 775 284 493 293 396 513 493

Ezekiel

12 26 30 130 254 379380 384 386 412-413 415-416 419 421 425 431-434 438-439 443 448 466 529 537 549 741 836 579 768 768 588 464 367 362 195 339 343 379 672 713 672 713 672 294 431 433 435 672 464 431 435 8 12 34 40 45-46 52 59 119 200 393 411 413 415 418 456 458 470 833 851 453 546

1,2 3,8 3,9 5 6,6 6,13 8,12 8,14 9,3 10,1-8 10,4 10,18 10,19 11 11,20 11,22 12,19 14,11 16

16,1-3 16,3

INDEX OF BIBLICAL REFERENCES

16,4-44 16,4 16,8 16,10 16,12-13 16,13 16,15-58 16,18 16,19 16,20 16,23 16,39 16,45 16,59-62 16,60-63 16,60 17 17,3 17,6 19 19,7 20 20,5 20,6 20,28 20,34 20,35 22,11 23 23,3 23,8 23,17 23,21 23,23 24,15-27 25,12-14 26–27 26,19 27 27,3 27,10-11 27,11 27,15 27,19 27,20 27,22

45 436 168 252 386 424-425 444 479-480 458 328 458 539 424-425 458 437 424 26 436 546 386 424 836 426 11 786 539 728 786 464 12 775 145 775 805 367 546 650 741 8 11 13 34 45 52 59 200 394 411 413 415 418 252 252 168 252 479-480 252 252 419 835 546 457 657 12 657 232 495 231 609 633 758 657 733

27,23 28 28,2 28,3-5 28,3 28,4-5 28,7 28,12-13 28,12 28,13-16 28,13 28,14 28,15 28,16 31 31,9 31,15 33,28 34 34,5-10 34,6 34,7 34,11-22 34,11-16 34,11-14 34,11-13 34,13 34,14-15 34,15 34,2-10 34,2 34,23-31 34,23-30 34,23-24 34,23 34,24-28 34,24 34,25 34,27 34,31 35,12 35,15 36 36,26-28 36,28 36,35 37 37,15-28

965 657 584 731 803 584 584 584 584 584 784 584 587 584 802 585 784 585 585 784 584 588 731 768 786 802 184 464 121 534 536 538 545 839 536 367 532 534 536 529 536 436 535 538 545 536 545 529 532 534 424 547 563 436 529 532 536 567 442 479 413 431 442 447 547 529 464 464 294 433 431 435 135 153 517 802 807 11 536 538 839 413 507 537

966 37,21-28 37,21-27 37,21 37,22-25 37,22 37,23 37,24-25 37,24 37,25-28 37,25 37,26-28 37,26-27 37,26 37,27 37,28 40,3 40,16 40,17-18 41,3 42,3 43,2 43,4 45,18-25 47 47,1-12

INDEX OF BIBLICAL REFERENCES

47,10 47,12 48,35

430 547 433 434 538 529 434 436 431 434-435 567 532 536 813 434 436 567 434 537 548 514 536 447 548 431 435 548 438 367 457 631 457 631 713 690 408 799 813 121 135 145 153 517 588 765 805-806 808 817 734 806 536

Daniel 2,31-32 2,32 2,37 3,26 4 4,1 [ET 4,4] 4,7-23 4,23 7,9 8,26 10,5-6 11,37 11,45 12,4 12,9

44-45 197 227 29 182 552 627 584 588 786 366 539 627 48 584 29 341 628 584 584

Susanna

44 201 465-469 471472 837

5 7 9 12-18 13 15-18 22 28–29 28 29 41 50-51 57

466 466 468 466 466 466 466 467 466 467 467 467 466

Hosea

8 12 26 30 120 130 379-380 384-386 410 412-413 416 419-420 426-427 429-430 438-439 443-444 448 466 537 718 741 836 45 418 426-448 835 851 200 440 386 428 435-436 427 427 439 427-430 453 418 428 430 440 428 429 437 425 429-431 12 154 12 386 411 424 435 439 517 427 430 435-437 427 436 413 427 436 427 436 393 427 436-439 833 386 420 425 427 437 424 425 430-431 436 493 655 427 436 425 429 436-437 185

1–3 1–2 1 1,1 1,2–2,3 1,2-9 1,2-7 1,2 1,4 1,6 1,9 2–3 2 2,1-3 2,1 2,2 2,3 2,4-25 2,4-24 2,4-15 2,4-7 2,4 2,5-25 2,5 2,6-7 2,6 2,7

INDEX OF BIBLICAL REFERENCES

2,8-9 2,8 2,9 2,10-11 2,10 2,11-15 2,11 2,14 2,16-25 2,16-22 2,16-17 2,16 2,17 2,18-25 2,18-22 2,18 2,19 2,20-25 2,20-22 2,20 2,21-25 2,21-22 2,21 2,22 2,23-25 2,23-24 2,25 3 3,1-5 3,1-4 3,1 3,2-3 3,3-5 3,3-4 3,3 3,4-5 3,4 3,5 4,5 4,13-14 4,13 4,14 5,4 5,6 5,13 5,15

441 390 436-437 436-437 436 427 437 437 185 385-390 427 430 436437 441 836 45 119 387 427 437 441 45 387 424 436 650 424 650 386 426 437 387 437 386 437 439 387 438 387 437 339 390 424 437-439 441 422 424 427 438 441 388 438 388 438 429 431 438-439 441 386 428 435 439 441 427 439-443 453 537 548 711 813 427 29 185 340 380 385 406 440 689 707 440 427 441 440-441 440-441 440-441 413 426 427 430 436 441-442 445 449 472 493 12 741 367 387 387 438 390 442 445-446 849 340 445-446 849

967

6,1-2 6,2 6,3 6,7 7,10 7,14 7,16 8–9 8,1 8,5-6 8,13 9,1 9,3 9,6 9,10 10,5 10,8 11 11,1-4 11,2 11,4 11,8 11,11 12,14 13,1-3 13,5 13,15 14,5-9 14,5-8 14,5-7 14,5 14,6-9 14,6-8 14,6 14,7 14,8 14,9 14,10

390 341 207 422 438 386 442 380 386 441 386 387 387 363 387 390 387 386 387 387 12 256 386 256 426 270 650 387 424 640 771 119 390 45 634 185 390-392 29 168 269 323 391 467-468 391 767-768 391 387 391-392 48

Joel 1,8 1,12 1,16 2,3 2,16 2,18–3,5 2,21 2,22 2,23 2,24

741 423 168 323 509 754 458 145 153 517 802 805 743 651 364 510 649 364 776

968

INDEX OF BIBLICAL REFERENCES

3,1 3,3 3,5 4,17-18 4,18

651 626 651 651 806 145 765

Amos 2,10 3,2 4,9 5,2 6,10 7,15 8,14 9,7 9,11

363 443 650 422 509 206 394 479 589 481-484 650 479 535 563

Obadaiah 1,1-15

546

Jonah

44 201 464 466 470 492 837

Micah 1,11 1,12 1,15 2,12-13 2,12 3,8 4,1-5 4,1 4,3-4 4,4 4,6–5,4 4,6-8 4,6 4,8 4,14–5,1 5,1-5 5,1-4 5,1-3 [ET 5,2-4] 5,2 5,3 5,4 5,9-10 6,4 7,6

363 529 536 394 394 394 529 534 535 547 839 468 578 367 613 315 510 573 586 807 535 529 535 665 839 529 535 563 535 532 535 535 535 613 650 741

7,12 7,14-17 7,14-15 7,14 7,16-17 7,17

609 609 529 546 610 609-610

Nahum 1,3 3,8 3,18

26 470 657 394 529

Habakkuk 3,5 3,7 3,12 3,13

183 322 684 684

Zephaniah 1,6 2,3 3,1 LXX 3,14-17 3,14 3,15

442 442 492 455 396 665 121

Haggai 2,8 2,19

615 323 754

Zechariah 1,5 1,17 2,14-15 2,14 2,15 3,10 5,5-11 6,11 7–8 8,1-8 8,8 8,10-12 8,19 8,21-22 9–14 9,9-17

435 439 448 479 529 549 514 439 434 514 29 493 665 690 238 435 510 807 466 668 469 434 431 501 469 442 445-446 529 537-538 609

969

INDEX OF BIBLICAL REFERENCES

9,9-10 9,9 9,10 9,14 9,16 10,2-3 10,6 10,10 11,1-17 11,3-17 11,5-8 11,15 12,8 12,11

534 537 547 560 609 612-613 839 29 449 455 493 609 665 609 612 771 538 545-546 529 538 545-546 507 505 535 545-546 538 529 439 535 195 339 380 486

13,7-9 13,7 14 14,3 14,8

545-546 532 145 684 517 764-765 806 817

Malachi 2,10-16 2,10-12 2,13-16 2,14-15 2,14 2,15 2,16 3,1 3,23-24

386 554 554 554 423 423 554 581 554 442 561

NEW TESTAMENT Matthew 2,11 9,15 13,24-30 13,36-43 25

656 327 40 40 154

12,29 18,33–19,22 19–20 19,39 20,11-18

142 851 799 759 798

Acts 7,30

463

Mark 2,19 4,3-8 14,3

327 40 757 852

Galatians 4,26

493

Luke 5,34 8,2 12,54-55

327 467 142

Hebrews 1,5-13 1,8-9 4,12

565 451 453 718

John 1,49 2 2,1-12 3,25-30 3,29 4,14 6,15 10 12,3 12,12-16

851 328 852 851 327 851-852 764 851 533 851 757 852 851

1 Peter 1,11 2,2

39 258

Revelation 1,13 2,1–3,22 2,7 2,17 3,20 12,1

268 273 258 271 399 854 854 271-272 851 853 271-272

970 12,2-6 12,2 18,12 19–21 19,9 21–22 21 21,1

INDEX OF BIBLICAL REFERENCES

271 272 663 854 854 396 395 162

21,2 21,6 21,19-20 21,22-27 22 22,1 22,17

853 764 585 807 135 150 154 161-162 493 514 853 854

INDEX OF OTHER REFERENCES

OLD TESTAMENT APOCRYPHA AND PSEUDEPIGRAPHA 2 Baruch 3,1 10,6

493 493

1 Enoch 48,1 2 Ezra (Syriac) 59,7

264 810

4 Ezra (2 Esdras) 3–14 4,36-37 4,37 5,23-28 5,23-20 5,24 5,26 9,26–10,59 9,34–10,54 9,47–10 10 10,1 10,44-48 10,46 10,48-49 11–12 11,55 14,47

268-270 273 494 268 270 270 269 269 269 269 492 396 558 494 494 661 494 558 661 268 397 810

Joseph and Aseneth 18,9

176 181

Jubilees

264

Life of Adam and Eve

760-761

Odes of Solomon 8,14 19,1-5

188 314 257 257

Psalms of Solomon

188 285 314 560 564 840841 396 396 534 538-539 615 617 839 841 538 615 615-616 616 616 616 538 616 538 538 529 615

810

1,1ff. 2,5 17 17,1 17,4-6 17,21-26 17,29 17,30-31 17,30 17,32 17,33 17,34 17,40-42 17,40-41 18

Testament of Solomon 188 314 648

DEAD SEA SCROLLS 1QapGen 20,1-8 1QapGen 20,2-8 1QapGen 22,13 1QHa 1QM 11,7 1QS 9,2

176 180 491 256 560 560

1QS 11,6-8 4Q106=4QCanta

810 196-199 201205 207-212 215 223-236 238 273 276 493 635-637

972 4Q107=4QCantb

4Q108=4QCantc 4Q504 4QBirth of Noahb.c 4QCal. 4QDane 4QJerb.d 4QJosha 4QJudga

INDEX OF OTHER REFERENCES

191 196-199 201205 207-213 215217 219 221-237 273 276 504 635637 722 735 827 202-203 226 529 ar 226 226 226 224 226-227 224 227 224 227

4QMMTc.f 4QPsJuba 4QSama 4QToh A 4QZodiology and

226 226 224 227 692 226 Brontology 226 199 202-203 226 6Q6=6QCantd 255-256 11Q 54 11Q5 298 529 11QMelchizedek 560 648 11QPsApa CD 2,9 560 Mur 88, VIII, 5 482

FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS Antiquities 1.10.2

Jewish War 6.1.8 6.3.1

491

631 631

RABBINICA m. ’Abot 1.2 m. Ed. 1.11 m. Kel. 22.4 m. Kel. 23.4 m. Sanh. 6.4 m. Soṭah 9.14-15 m. Soṭah 9.14 m. Ta‘an. 4.8 m. Yad. 3.5

768 328 328 328 201 329 668 327-328 658 266 273 407 262-263 265-266 273 828 t. Meg. 4 (3), 15 328 t. Sanh. 12.10 263-265 273 331 t. Soṭah 15.9 327 b. Ber. 57a 397 b. Ketub. 16b-17a 331 b. Ketub. 17a 328 b. Ketub. 111b 626 b. Pesaḥ 26a 626 b. Sanh. 109b[31] 628 b. Yoma 38a 626 653 y. Soṭah 110 327 Genesis Rabbah 33.3

272

50.7 55.7 95.5

235 655 544

Numbers Rabbah 10.4 11.3

397 849

Shir ha-Shirim Rabbah 244 I.2 §1 257 I.2 §2 257 I.8 265 I.12 §1 265 II.2 328, 331 II.14 §4 265 III.10 §3 628 IV.4 §2 246-247 IV.4 §9 496 IV.8 §3 244 V.2 §2 272 VII.2 §1 265 VII.5 247 VIII.6 §1 249

973

INDEX OF OTHER REFERENCES

Shir ha-Shirim Zuta I.2 I.4

257 257 257 259

Avot de-Rabbi Nathan 1.20 Mekhilta Exod 12,11 Mekhilta Exod 19,1 Midrash Leqaḥ Tov LeqT 1.2 LeqT 1.4 LeqT 4.8 Midrash Psalm 72 Midrash Esther Rabbah 1.6 PesK 5.6-9, 24.12 PesR 15.6 Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer XII XVI Semaḥot 11 (Ebel Rabbati)

265 265 265 244 259 257 259 245 611 631 272 272 328-330 661 328 328

Sifra

246

Targum Psalms 45.3 45.11

451 451

Targum Proverbs 2.3

397

Targum Song 1.2 1.4 3.4 3.6-11 4.12 4.15 4.16 5.1 5.10-16 8.2 8.6

847 257 257 513 718 817 817 818 818 849 513 849 755

OTHER ANCIENT AND MEDIEVAL WRITINGS Aischylos frg. 43

642

Herodotos Histories 2,92

233

Hippolytus ComCt fr. 15

853 853

Athenaeus Deipnosophists 5.195 5.212

662 662

Bede On the Song of Songs

853

Clement of Alexandria Stromata V, 4,21.4

748 130

John of the Cross 19 138 853 Dark Night of the Soul 2.13.6 853 Spiritual Canticle 169

Euripides Bacchae I 143

776

Origen

Eusebius Onomasticon

490 489-490

Gregory the Great

3 63 75 79-80 79 79 63 75

ComCt 2.3-5 ComCt 4.19-29 Hom. in Ezek. I, VII, 8

Homer 39 90 258 Hymn to Aphrodite 543 Od. 5.125-128 333

ComCt 2.9 HomCt 2.2 De Principiis IV.2.9 IV.3.1 IV.3.15

3-6 38 40 63 73 76-79 253 255 748 757 852853 852 852 76 78 78 78 130

974 Phaedrus IV,3

INDEX OF OTHER REFERENCES

VIII.6.47-53

126

Theocritus

36 125-128 131

Idylls 1 1,25 1,46-47 5,111-112 7,133-136 10,26 15 15,22 18 18,30-31

190 523-524 540 542 643 190 541-542 543 541 541 541 541 541 542 543 642 541

126 125-126

Xenophon Oeconomicus 4.13

795

405

Pliny Naturalis historia 12.54.111 759 Plutarch de aud. Poet. 19e

133

Polybius Hist. 31.9

403

Quintilian Institutio oratoria VIII.6.1 VIII.6.44

ANCIENT NEAR EASTERN SOURCES ABL 65, 113, 366 Ahiqar lines 94f.

353 303

Bānītu Text (STT 2,366) 675

Enuma Elish 5.77-114 5.122-124 6.112 6.113

303 354 583 303 303 310 303

FLP 1674: 3-8

336

Gilgamesh Epic Vi

786 361 302 304-305 311 319 397 677

Barton Cylinder i-ii 10 389 BM 41005 obv. vii. 9 182 CAD G 1 a b CAD N/II 144b top

498 498

Gudea Hymn

Chester Beatty Papyri Chester Beatty I

176 180-182 373 376-377

Hermopolis-Papyrus 4 380

CT 53 60 r. 4-5

362

Dumuzid Inana DI C, lines 1-8 359 DI D1, col. iii, lines 65-68 388 DI P 18-28 787

Iddin-Dagan A, line 181 344 IM 3233 = TIM 9 54 = SAA 3 14 352 Inana’s Descent to the Netherworld 338

975

INDEX OF OTHER REFERENCES

Išme-Dagan and Enlil’s Chariot 676 678 680-681 (Išme-Dagan I) 703 I 1-8 678 I 1-65 676 I 9-64 679-680 I 10 703-704 I 11 680 I 19 680 I 33 680 I 38-40 703 I 39 704 I 40 704 I 64 703-704 I 66-81 681 I 66-88 705 I 67-97 677 I 67 704 I 68 705 I 69 705 I 70 705 I 72 704 I 75 704 I 81 704 I 82-87 681 I 88-92 677 I 88-95 682 KAR 158 KAR 158 7. 26 KAR IV, 158

341 346 183 338

The Love Lyrics of Nabû 347 352-378 409and Tashmetu 410 675 788-789 832 MAD V. 8.6-11

182

Message of Lu-dingir-ra to his Mother 699 O. Borchardt 1 + O. CGT 57367 recto 375 P. Harris 500, Group A: No. 6 (2,10-11) 181 Papyrus Turin

789

Pyr. 1153/54 RIMA 2 A.0.101.30 RIMA 2 A.0.87.1

699 792-793 792

The Rites of Egašankalama 368-369 Šulgi R 1-39 1-9 10-39 40-82 41-47 64-70 82-90 82-88

676 678-681 703 676 678 679 676 681 681 681 705

Šulgi X 28-30

336 344

Ugaritic Texts Emar 369.73 361 KTU 1.1 III 17 191 KTU 1.3 III 13-31 388 KTU 1.5 I–1.6 VI 186 KTU 1.5 VI 5f. 185 366 KTU 1.6 II 14-17 185 366 KTU 1.6 VI 17-20 184 KTU 1.14 I 40 366 KTU 1.18 IV 14 366 KTU 1.53,11-13 184 KTU 1.100,70-72 349 KTU 1.132 361 KTU/CAT 1.14 III 38-54 349 KTU/CAT 1.23 349 354 KTU/CAT 1.24,3-13 349 UT 49 IV, 25-27 192 UT 51 IV, 50ff. 302 UT 51 V 1 ff. 302 UT 68 IV, 8-9 192 UT 127.32-38, 45-53 306 VAT 10434 (KAV No. 145), Rev. 6 = VAT 13034 (KAV No. 73), 7 339 VAT 17019 (BE 13383), Vs. 30ʹ-40ʹ 304

BIBLIOTHECA EPHEMERIDUM THEOLOGICARUM LOVANIENSIUM

SERIES III 131. C.M. TUCKETT (ed.), The Scriptures in the Gospels, 1997. 132. 133. 134. 135. 136. 137. 138. 139. 140. 141. 142. 143. 144. 145. 146. 147. 148. 149.

XXIV-721

p. 60 € J. VAN RUITEN & M. VERVENNE (eds.), Studies in the Book of Isaiah. 75 € Festschrift Willem A.M. Beuken, 1997. XX-540 p. M. VERVENNE & J. LUST (eds.), Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature. 75 € Festschrift C.H.W. Brekelmans, 1997. XI-637 p. G. VAN BELLE (ed.), Index Generalis ETL / BETL 1982-1997, 1999. IX337 p. 40 € G. DE SCHRIJVER, Liberation Theologies on Shifting Grounds. A Clash of 53 € Socio-Economic and Cultural Paradigms, 1998. XI-453 p. A. SCHOORS (ed.), Qohelet in the Context of Wisdom, 1998. XI-528 p. 60 € W.A. BIENERT & U. KÜHNEWEG (eds.), Origeniana Septima. Origenes in 95 € den Auseinandersetzungen des 4. Jahrhunderts, 1999. XXV-848 p. É. GAZIAUX, L’autonomie en morale: au croisement de la philosophie et 75 € de la théologie, 1998. XVI-760 p. 75 € J. GROOTAERS, Actes et acteurs à Vatican II, 1998. XXIV-602 p. F. NEIRYNCK, J. VERHEYDEN & R. CORSTJENS, The Gospel of Matthew and the Sayings Source Q: A Cumulative Bibliography 1950-1995, 1998. 2 vols., VII-1000-420* p. 95 € 90 € E. BRITO, Heidegger et l’hymne du sacré, 1999. XV-800 p. 60 € J. VERHEYDEN (ed.), The Unity of Luke-Acts, 1999. XXV-828 p. N. CALDUCH-BENAGES & J. VERMEYLEN (eds.), Treasures of Wisdom. Studies in Ben Sira and the Book of Wisdom. Festschrift M. Gilbert, 1999. XXVII-463 p. 75 € J.-M. AUWERS & A. WÉNIN (eds.), Lectures et relectures de la Bible. Festschrift P.-M. Bogaert, 1999. XLII-482 p. 75 € C. BEGG, Josephus’ Story of the Later Monarchy (AJ 9,1–10,185), 2000. X-650 p. 75 € J.M. ASGEIRSSON, K. DE TROYER & M.W. MEYER (eds.), From Quest to Q. Festschrift James M. Robinson, 2000. XLIV-346 p. 60 € T. ROMER (ed.), The Future of the Deuteronomistic History, 2000. XII265 p. 75 € F.D. VANSINA, Paul Ricœur: Bibliographie primaire et secondaire - Primary and Secondary Bibliography 1935-2000, 2000. XXVI-544 p. 75 € G.J. BROOKE & J.-D. KAESTLI (eds.), Narrativity in Biblical and Related 75 € Texts, 2000. XXI-307 p.

[2]

BETL

150. F. NEIRYNCK, Evangelica III: 1992-2000. Collected Essays, 2001. XVII666 p. 60 € 151. B. DOYLE, The Apocalypse of Isaiah Metaphorically Speaking. A Study of the Use, Function and Significance of Metaphors in Isaiah 24-27, 2000. XII-453 p. 75 € 152. T. MERRIGAN & J. HAERS (eds.), The Myriad Christ. Plurality and the Quest 75 € for Unity in Contemporary Christology, 2000. XIV-593 p. 153. M. SIMON, Le catéchisme de Jean-Paul II. Genèse et évaluation de son 75 € commentaire du Symbole des apôtres, 2000. XVI-688 p. 154. J. VERMEYLEN, La loi du plus fort. Histoire de la rédaction des récits 80 € davidiques de 1 Samuel 8 à 1 Rois 2, 2000. XIII-746 p. 155. A. WÉNIN (ed.), Studies in the Book of Genesis. Literature, Redaction and 60 € History, 2001. XXX-643 p. 156. F. LEDEGANG, Mysterium Ecclesiae. Images of the Church and its Members 84 € in Origen, 2001. XVII-848 p. 157. J.S. BOSWELL, F.P. MCHUGH & J. VERSTRAETEN (eds.), Catholic Social 60 € Thought: Twilight of Renaissance, 2000. XXII-307 p. 158. A. LINDEMANN (ed.), The Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus, 2001. XXII-776 p. 60 € 159. C. HEMPEL, A. LANGE & H. LICHTENBERGER (eds.), The Wisdom Texts from Qumran and the Development of Sapiential Thought, 2002. XII-502 p. 80 € 160. L. BOEVE & L. LEIJSSEN (eds.), Sacramental Presence in a Postmodern 60 € Context, 2001. XVI-382 p. 161. A. DENAUX (ed.), New Testament Textual Criticism and Exegesis. Festschrift 60 € J. Delobel, 2002. XVIII-391 p. 162. U. BUSSE, Das Johannesevangelium. Bildlichkeit, Diskurs und Ritual. Mit einer Bibliographie über den Zeitraum 1986-1998, 2002. XIII-572 p. 70 € 163. J.-M. AUWERS & H.J. DE JONGE (eds.), The Biblical Canons, 2003. LXXXVIII-718 p. 60 € 164. L. PERRONE (ed.), Origeniana Octava. Origen and the Alexandrian Tradition, 180 € 2003. XXV-X-1406 p. 165. R. BIERINGER, V. KOPERSKI & B. LATAIRE (eds.), Resurrection in the New 70 € Testament. Festschrift J. Lambrecht, 2002. XXXI-551 p. 166. M. LAMBERIGTS & L. KENIS (eds.), Vatican II and Its Legacy, 2002. XII-512 p. 65 € 167. P. DIEUDONNÉ, La Paix clémentine. Défaite et victoire du premier jansénisme français sous le pontificat de Clément IX (1667-1669), 2003. XXXIX302 p. 70 € 168. F. GARCIA MARTINEZ, Wisdom and Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Biblical Tradition, 2003. XXXIV-491 p. 60 € 169. D. OGLIARI, Gratia et Certamen: The Relationship between Grace and Free Will in the Discussion of Augustine with the So-Called Semipelagians, 75 € 2003. LVII-468 p. 170. G. COOMAN, M. VAN STIPHOUT & B. WAUTERS (eds.), Zeger-Bernard Van Espen at the Crossroads of Canon Law, History, Theology and Church80 € State Relations, 2003. XX-530 p. 171. B. BOURGINE, L’herméneutique théologique de Karl Barth. Exégèse et dogmatique dans le quatrième volume de la Kirchliche Dogmatik, 2003. XXII-548 p. 75 €

BETL

[3]

172. J. HAERS & P. DE MEY (eds.), Theology and Conversation: Towards a 90 € Relational Theology, 2003. XIII-923 p. 173. M.J.J. MENKEN, Matthew’s Bible: The Old Testament Text of the Evangelist, 60 € 2004. XII-336 p. 174. J.-P. DELVILLE, L’Europe de l’exégèse au XVIe siècle. Interprétations de la parabole des ouvriers à la vigne (Matthieu 20,1-16), 2004. XLII-775 p. 70 € 175. E. BRITO, J.G. Fichte et la transformation du christianisme, 2004. XVI808 p. 90 € 176. J. SCHLOSSER (ed.), The Catholic Epistles and the Tradition, 2004. XXIV569 p. 60 € 177. R. FAESEN (ed.), Albert Deblaere, S.J. (1916-1994): Essays on Mystical Literature – Essais sur la littérature mystique – Saggi sulla letteratura 70 € mistica, 2004. XX-473 p. 178. J. LUST, Messianism and the Septuagint: Collected Essays. Edited by 60 € K. HAUSPIE, 2004. XIV-247 p. 179. H. GIESEN, Jesu Heilsbotschaft und die Kirche. Studien zur Eschatologie und Ekklesiologie bei den Synoptikern und im ersten Petrusbrief, 2004. XX578 p. 70 € 180. H. LOMBAERTS & D. POLLEFEYT (eds.), Hermeneutics and Religious 70 € Education, 2004. XIII-427 p. 181. D. DONNELLY, A. DENAUX & J. FAMERÉE (eds.), The Holy Spirit, the Church, and Christian Unity. Proceedings of the Consultation Held at the Monastery 70 € of Bose, Italy (14-20 October 2002), 2005. XII-417 p. 182. R. BIERINGER, G. VAN BELLE & J. VERHEYDEN (eds.), Luke and His Readers. 65 € Festschrift A. Denaux, 2005. XXVIII-470 p. 183. D.F. PILARIO, Back to the Rough Grounds of Praxis: Exploring Theological 80 € Method with Pierre Bourdieu, 2005. XXXII-584 p. 184. G. VAN BELLE, J.G. VAN DER WATT & P. MARITZ (eds.), Theology and Christology in the Fourth Gospel: Essays by the Members of the SNTS 70 € Johannine Writings Seminar, 2005. XII-561 p. 185. D. LUCIANI, Sainteté et pardon. Vol. 1: Structure littéraire du Lévitique. 120 € Vol. 2: Guide technique, 2005. XIV-VII-656 p. 186. R.A. DERRENBACKER, JR., Ancient Compositional Practices and the Synoptic 80 € Problem, 2005. XXVIII-290 p. 187. P. VAN HECKE (ed.), Metaphor in the Hebrew Bible, 2005. X-308 p. 65 € 188. L. BOEVE, Y. DEMAESENEER & S. VAN DEN BOSSCHE (eds.), Religious Experience and Contemporary Theological Epistemology, 2005. X-335 p. 50 € 189. J.M. ROBINSON, The Sayings Gospel Q. Collected Essays, 2005. XVIII888 p. 90 € 190. C.W. STRUDER, Paulus und die Gesinnung Christi. Identität und Entschei80 € dungsfindung aus der Mitte von 1Kor 1-4, 2005. LII-522 p. 191. C. FOCANT & A. WÉNIN (eds.), Analyse narrative et Bible. Deuxième colloque international du RRENAB, Louvain-la-Neuve, avril 2004, 2005. XVI-593 p. 75 € 192. F. GARCIA MARTINEZ & M. VERVENNE (eds.), in collaboration with B. DOYLE, Interpreting Translation: Studies on the LXX and Ezekiel in Honour of 70 € Johan Lust, 2005. XVI-464 p. 87 € 193. F. MIES, L’espérance de Job, 2006. XXIV-653 p.

[4]

BETL

194. C. FOCANT, Marc, un évangile étonnant, 2006. XV-402 p. 60 € 195. M.A. KNIBB (ed.), The Septuagint and Messianism, 2006. XXXI-560 p. 60 € 196. M. SIMON, La célébration du mystère chrétien dans le catéchisme de Jean85 € Paul II, 2006. XIV-638 p. 197. A.Y. THOMASSET, L’ecclésiologie de J.H. Newman Anglican, 2006. XXX748 p. 80 € 198. M. LAMBERIGTS – A.A. DEN HOLLANDER (eds.), Lay Bibles in Europe 145079 € 1800, 2006. XI-360 p. 199. J.Z. SKIRA – M.S. ATTRIDGE, In God’s Hands. Essays on the Church and 90 € Ecumenism in Honour of Michael A. Fahey S.J., 2006. XXX-314 p. 200. G. VAN BELLE (ed.), The Death of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel, 2007. XXXI1003 p. 70 € 80 € 201. D. POLLEFEYT (ed.), Interreligious Learning, 2007. XXV-340 p. 202. M. LAMBERIGTS – L. BOEVE – T. MERRIGAN, in collaboration with D. CLAES (eds.), Theology and the Quest for Truth: Historical- and Systematic55 € Theological Studies, 2007. X-305 p. 203. T. RÖMER – K. SCHMID (eds.), Les dernières rédactions du Pentateuque, 65 € de l’Hexateuque et de l’Ennéateuque, 2007. X-276 p. 204. J.-M. VAN CANGH, Les sources judaïques du Nouveau Testament, 2008. XIV718 p. 84 € 205. B. DEHANDSCHUTTER, Polycarpiana: Studies on Martyrdom and Persecution in Early Christianity. Collected Essays. Edited by J. LEEMANS, 2007. XVI286 p. 74 € 206. É. GAZIAUX, Philosophie et Théologie. Festschrift Emilio Brito, 2007. LVIII-588 p. 84 € 207. G.J. BROOKE – T. RÖMER (eds.), Ancient and Modern Scriptural Historiography. L’historiographie biblique, ancienne et moderne, 2007. XXXVIII372 p. 75 € 208. J. VERSTRAETEN, Scrutinizing the Signs of the Times in the Light of the 74 € Gospel, 2007. X-334 p. 209. H. GEYBELS, Cognitio Dei experimentalis. A Theological Genealogy of 80 € Christian Religious Experience, 2007. LII-457 p. 210. A.A. DEN HOLLANDER, Virtuelle Vergangenheit: Die Textrekonstruktion einer verlorenen mittelniederländischen Evangelienharmonie. Die Hand58 € schrift Utrecht Universitätsbibliothek 1009, 2007. XII-168 p. 211. R. GRYSON, Scientiam Salutis: Quarante années de recherches sur l’Antiquité 88 € Chrétienne. Recueil d’essais, 2008. XLVI-879 p. 212. T. VAN DEN DRIESSCHE, L’altérité, fondement de la personne humaine dans 85 € l’œuvre d’Edith Stein, 2008. XXII-626 p. 213. H. AUSLOOS – J. COOK – F. GARCIA MARTINEZ – B. LEMMELIJN – M. VERVENNE (eds.), Translating a Translation: The LXX and its Modern Translations in 80 € the Context of Early Judaism, 2008. X-317 p. 214. A.C. OSUJI, Where is the Truth? Narrative Exegesis and the Question of 76 € True and False Prophecy in Jer 26–29 (MT), 2010. XX-465 p. 215. T. RÖMER, The Books of Leviticus and Numbers, 2008. XXVII-742 p. 85 € 216. D. DONNELLY – J. FAMERÉE – M. LAMBERIGTS – K. SCHELKENS (eds.), The Belgian Contribution to the Second Vatican Council: International Research Conference at Mechelen, Leuven and Louvain-la-Neuve 85 € (September 12-16, 2005), 2008. XII-716 p.

BETL

[5]

217. J. DE TAVERNIER – J.A. SELLING – J. VERSTRAETEN – P. SCHOTSMANS (eds.), Responsibility, God and Society. Theological Ethics in Dialogue. 75 € Festschrift Roger Burggraeve, 2008. XLVI-413 p. 218. G. VAN BELLE – J.G. VAN DER WATT – J. VERHEYDEN (eds.), Miracles and Imagery in Luke and John. Festschrift Ulrich Busse, 2008. XVIII-287 p. 78 € 219. L. BOEVE – M. LAMBERIGTS – M. WISSE (eds.), Augustine and Postmodern 80 € Thought: A New Alliance against Modernity?, 2009. XVIII-277 p. 220. T. VICTORIA, Un livre de feu dans un siècle de fer: Les lectures de l’Apocalypse 85 € dans la littérature française de la Renaissance, 2009. XXX-609 p. 221. A.A. DEN HOLLANDER – W. FRANÇOIS (eds.), Infant Milk or Hardy Nourishment? The Bible for Lay People and Theologians in the Early Modern 80 € Period, 2009. XVIII-488 p. 222. F.D. VANSINA, Paul Ricœur. Bibliographie primaire et secondaire. Primary and Secundary Bibliography 1935-2008, Compiled and updated in colla80 € boration with P. VANDECASTEELE, 2008. XXX-621 p. 223. G. VAN BELLE – M. LABAHN – P. MARITZ (eds.), Repetitions and Variations 85 € in the Fourth Gospel: Style, Text, Interpretation, 2009. XII-712 p. 224. H. AUSLOOS – B. LEMMELIJN – M. VERVENNE (eds.), Florilegium Lovaniense: Studies in Septuagint and Textual Criticism in Honour of Florentino García 80 € Martínez, 2008. XVI-564 p. 225. E. BRITO, Philosophie moderne et christianisme, 2010. 2 vol., VIII-1514 p. 130 € 85 € 226. U. SCHNELLE (ed.), The Letter to the Romans, 2009. XVIII-894 p. 227. M. LAMBERIGTS – L. BOEVE – T. MERRIGAN in collaboration with D. CLAES – 74 € M. WISSE (eds.), Orthodoxy, Process and Product, 2009. X-416 p. 228. G. HEIDL – R. SOMOS (eds.), Origeniana Nona: Origen and the Religious 95 € Practice of His Time, 2009. XIV-752 p. 229. D. MARGUERAT (ed.), Reception of Paulinism in Acts – Réception du 74 € paulinisme dans les Actes des Apôtres, 2009. VIII-340 p. 230. A. DILLEN – D. POLLEFEYT (eds.), Children’s Voices: Children’s Perspectives in Ethics, Theology and Religious Education, 2010. x-450 p. 72 € 231. P. VAN HECKE – A. LABAHN (eds.), Metaphors in the Psalms, 2010. XXXIV363 p. 76 € 232. G. AULD – E. EYNIKEL (eds.), For and Against David: Story and History in the Books of Samuel, 2010. x-397 p. 76 € 233. C. VIALLE, Une analyse comparée d’Esther TM et LXX: Regard sur deux 76 € récits d’une même histoire, 2010. LVIII-406 p. 234. T. MERRIGAN – F. GLORIEUX (eds.), “Godhead Here in Hiding”: Incarnation and the History of Human Suffering, 2012. x-327 p. 76 € 235. M. SIMON, La vie dans le Christ dans le catéchisme de Jean-Paul II, 2010. xx-651 p. 84 € 236. G. DE SCHRIJVER, The Political Ethics of Jean-François Lyotard and Jacques Derrida, 2010. xxx-422 p. 80 € 237. A. PASQUIER – D. MARGUERAT – A. WÉNIN (eds.), L’intrigue dans le récit biblique. Quatrième colloque international du RRENAB, Université Laval, 68 € Québec, 29 mai – 1er juin 2008, 2010. xxx-479 p. 238. E. ZENGER (ed.), The Composition of the Book of Psalms, 2010. XII-826 p. 90 €

[6]

BETL

239. P. FOSTER – A. GREGORY – J.S. KLOPPENBORG – J. VERHEYDEN (eds.), New Studies in the Synoptic Problem: Oxford Conference, April 2008, 2011. XXIV-828 p. 85 € 240. J. VERHEYDEN – T.L. HETTEMA – P. VANDECASTEELE (eds.), Paul Ricœur: 79 € Poetics and Religion, 2011. XX-534 p. 241. J. LEEMANS (ed.), Martyrdom and Persecution in Late Ancient Christianity. 78 € Festschrift Boudewijn Dehandschutter, 2010. XXXIV-430 p. 242. C. CLIVAZ – J. ZUMSTEIN (eds.), Reading New Testament Papyri in Context – Lire les papyrus du Nouveau Testament dans leur contexte, 2011. XIV-446 p. 80 € 243. D. SENIOR (ed.), The Gospel of Matthew at the Crossroads of Early 88 € Christianity, 2011. XXVIII-781 p. 244. H. PIETRAS – S. KACZMAREK (eds.), Origeniana Decima: Origen as Writer, 105 € 2011. XVIII-1039 p. 245. M. SIMON, La prière chrétienne dans le catéchisme de Jean-Paul II, 2012. XVI-290 p. 70 € 246. H. AUSLOOS – B. LEMMELIJN – J. TREBOLLE-BARRERA (eds.), After Qumran: Old and Modern Editions of the Biblical Texts – The Historical Books, 84 € 2012. XIV-319 p. 247. G. VAN OYEN – A. WÉNIN (eds.), La surprise dans la Bible. Festschrift 80 € Camille Focant, 2012. XLII-474 p. 248. C. CLIVAZ – C. COMBET-GALLAND – J.-D. MACCHI – C. NIHAN (eds.), Écritures et réécritures: la reprise interprétative des traditions fondatrices par la littérature biblique et extra-biblique. Cinquième colloque international du RRENAB, Universités de Genève et Lausanne, 10-12 juin 2010, 2012. XXIV-648 p. 90 € 249. G. VAN OYEN – T. SHEPHERD (eds.), Resurrection of the Dead: Biblical 85 € Traditions in Dialogue, 2012. XVI-632 p. 90 € 250. E. NOORT (ed.), The Book of Joshua, 2012. XIV-698 p. 251. R. FAESEN – L. KENIS (eds.), The Jesuits of the Low Countries: Identity and Impact (1540-1773). Proceedings of the International Congress at the Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies, KU Leuven (3-5 December 2009), 65 € 2012. X-295 p. 252. A. DAMM, Ancient Rhetoric and the Synoptic Problem: Clarifying Markan 85 € Priority, 2013. XXXVIII-396 p. 253. A. DENAUX – P. DE MEY (eds.), The Ecumenical Legacy of Johannes Cardinal Willebrands (1909-2006), 2012. XIV-376 p. 79 € 254. T. KNIEPS-PORT LE ROI – G. MANNION – P. DE MEY (eds.), The Household of God and Local Households: Revisiting the Domestic Church, 2013. XI-407 p. 82 € 255. L. KENIS – E. VAN DER WALL (eds.), Religious Modernism of the Low Coun75 € tries, 2013. X-271 p. 256. P. IDE, Une Théo-logique du Don: Le Don dans la Trilogie de Hans Urs von 98 € Balthasar, 2013. XXX-759 p. 257. W. FRANÇOIS – A. DEN HOLLANDER (eds.), “Wading Lambs and Swimming Elephants”: The Bible for the Laity and Theologians in the Late Medieval 84 € and Early Modern Era, 2012. XVI-406 p. 258. A. LIÉGOIS – R. BURGGRAEVE – M. RIEMSLAGH – J. CORVELEYN (eds.), “After You!”: Dialogical Ethics and the Pastoral Counselling Process, 79 € 2013. XXII-279 p.

BETL

[7]

259. C. KALONJI NKOKESHA, Penser la tradition avec Walter Kasper: Pertinence d’une catholicité historiquement et culturellement ouverte, 2013. XXIV320 p. 79 € 260. J. SCHRÖTER (ed.), The Apocryphal Gospels within the Context of Early 90 € Christian Theology, 2013. XII-804 p. 261. P. DE MEY – P. DE WITTE – G. MANNION (eds.), Believing in Community: 90 € Ecumenical Reflections on the Church, 2013. XIV-608 p. 262. F. DEPOORTERE – J. HAERS (eds.), To Discern Creation in a Scattering 90 € World, 2013. XII-597 p. 263. L. BOEVE – T. MERRIGAN, in collaboration with C. DICKINSON (eds.), Tradi55 € tion and the Normativity of History, 2013. X-215 p. 264. M. GILBERT, Ben Sira. Recueil d’études – Collected Essays, 2014. XIV-402 p. 87 € 265. J. VERHEYDEN – G. VAN OYEN – M. LABAHN – R. BIERINGER (eds.), Studies in the Gospel of John and Its Christology. Festschrift Gilbert Van Belle, 94 € 2014. XXXVI-656 p. 266. W. DE PRIL, Theological Renewal and the Resurgence of Integrism: The 85 € René Draguet Case (1942) in Its Context, 2016. XLIV-333 p. 267. L.O. JIMÉNEZ-RODRÍGUEZ, The Articulation between Natural Sciences and Systematic Theology: A Philosophical Mediation Based on Contributions 94 € of Jean Ladrière and Xavier Zubiri, 2015. XXIV-541 p. 268. E. BIRNBAUM – L. SCHWIENHORST-SCHÖNBERGER (eds.), Hieronymus als Exeget und Theologe: Interdisziplinäre Zugänge zum Koheletkommentar 80 € des Hieronymus, 2014. XVIII-333 p. 269. H. AUSLOOS – B. LEMMELIJN (eds.), A Pillar of Cloud to Guide: Text-critical, Redactional, and Linguistic Perspectives on the Old Testament in Honour of Marc Vervenne, 2014. XXVIII-636 p. 90 € 270. E. TIGCHELAAR (ed.), Old Testament Pseudepigrapha and the Scriptures, 95 € 2014. XXVI-526 p. 271. E. BRITO, Sur l’homme: Une traversée de la question anthropologique, 2015. XVI-2045 p. (2 vol.) 215 € 272. P. WATINE CHRISTORY, Dialogue et Communion: L’itinéraire œcuménique 98 € de Jean-Marie R. Tillard, 2015. XXIV-773 p. 273. R. BURNET – D. LUCIANI – G. VAN OYEN (eds.), Le lecteur: Sixième Colloque International du RRENAB, Université Catholique de Louvain, 85 € 24-26 mai 2012, 2015. XIV-530 p. 274. G.B. BAZZANA, Kingdom of Bureaucracy: The Political Theology of Village 85 € Scribes in the Sayings Gospel Q, 2015. XII-383 p. 275. J.-P. GALLEZ, La théologie comme science herméneutique de la tradition de foi: Une lecture de «Dieu qui vient à l’homme» de Joseph Moingt, 2015. XIX-476 p. 94 € 276. J. VERMEYLEN, Métamorphoses: Les rédactions successives du livre de Job, 84 € 2015. XVI-410 p. 277. C. BREYTENBACH (ed.), Paul’s Graeco-Roman Context, 2015. XXII-751 p. 94 € 278. J. GELDHOF (ed.), Mediating Mysteries, Understanding Liturgies: On Bridging the Gap between Liturgy and Systematic Theology, 2015. X-256 p. 78 € 279. A.-C. JACOBSEN (ed.), Origeniana Undecima: Origen and Origenism in the 125 € History of Western Thought, 2016. XVI-978 p.

[8]

BETL

280. F. WILK – P. GEMEINHARDT (eds.), Transmission and Interpretation of the Book of Isaiah in the Context of Intra- and Interreligious Debates, 2016. XII-490 p. 95 € 281. J.-M. SEVRIN, Le quatrième évangile. Recueil d’études. Édité par G. VAN 86 € BELLE, 2016. XIV-281 p. 282. L. BOEVE – M. LAMBERIGTS – T. MERRIGAN (eds.), The Normativity of History: Theological Truth and Tradition in the Tension between Church 78 € History and Systematic Theology, 2016. XII-273 p. 283. R. BIERINGER – B. BAERT – K. DEMASURE (eds.), Noli me tangere in Interdisciplinary Perspective: Textual, Iconographic and Contemporary Inter89 € pretations, 2016. XXII-508 p. 284. W. DIETRICH (ed.), The Books of Samuel: Stories – History – Reception 96 € History, 2016. XXIV-650 p. 285. W.E. ARNAL – R.S. ASCOUGH – R.A. DERRENBACKER, JR. – P.A. HARLAND (eds.), Scribal Practices and Social Structures among Jesus Adherents: 115 € Essays in Honour of John S. Kloppenborg, 2016. XXIV-630 p. 286. C.E. WOLFTEICH – A. DILLEN (eds.), Catholic Approaches in Practical Theology: International and Interdisciplinary Perspectives, 2016. X-290 p. 85 € 287. W. FRANÇOIS – A.A. DEN HOLLANDER (eds.), Vernacular Bible and Religious Reform in the Middle Ages and Early Modern Era, 2017. VIII-305 p. 94 € 288. P. RODRIGUES, C’est ta face que je cherche … La rationalité de la théologie 92 € selon Jean Ladrière, 2017. XIV-453 p. 289. J. FAMERÉE, Ecclésiologie et œcuménisme. Recueil d’études, 2017. XVIII668 p. 94 € 290. P. COOPER – S. KIKUCHI (eds.), Commitments to Medieval Mysticism within 79 € Contemporary Contexts, 2017. XVI-382 p. 291. A. YARBRO COLLINS (ed.), New Perspectives on the Book of Revelation, 98 € 2017. X-644 p. 292. J. FAMERÉE – P. RODRIGUES (eds.), The Genesis of Concepts and the 78 € Confrontation of Rationalities, 2018. XIV-245 p. 293. E. DI PEDE – O. FLICHY – D. LUCIANI (eds.), Le Récit: Thèmes bibliques et 95 € variations, 2018. XIV-412 p. 294. J. ARBLASTER – R. FAESEN (eds.), Theosis/Deification: Christian Doctrines 84 € of Divinization East and West, 2018. VII-262 p. 295. H.-J. FABRY (ed.), The Books of the Twelve Prophets: Minor Prophets – 105 € Major Theologies, 2018. XXIV-557 p. 296. H. AUSLOOS – D. LUCIANI (eds.), Temporalité et intrigue. Hommage à 95 € André Wénin, 2018. XL-362 p. 297. A.C. MAYER (ed.), The Letter and the Spirit: On the Forgotten Documents 85 € of Vatican II, 2018. X-296 p. 298. A. BEGASSE DE DHAEM – E. GALLI – M. MALAGUTI – C. SALTO SOLÁ (eds.), Deus summe cognoscibilis: The Current Theological Relevance of Saint Bonaventure International Congress, Rome, November 15-17, 2017, 2018. XII-716 p. 85 € 299. M. LAMBERIGTS – W. DE PRIL (eds.), Louvain, Belgium and Beyond: Studies in Religious History in Honour of Leo Kenis, 2018. XVIII-517 p. 95 € 300. E. BRITO, De Dieu. Connaissance et inconnaissance, 2018. LVIII-634 + 635-1255 p. 155 €

BETL

[9]

301. G. VAN OYEN (ed.), Reading the Gospel of Mark in the Twenty-first Century: Method and Meaning, 2019. XXIV-933 p. 105 € 302. B. BITTON-ASHKELONY – O. IRSHAI – A. KOFSKY – H. NEWMAN – L. PERRONE (eds.), Origeniana Duodecima: Origen’s Legacy in the Holy Land – A Tale of Three Cities: Jerusalem, Caesarea and Bethlehem, 2019. XIV-893 p. 125 € 303. D. BOSSCHAERT, The Anthropological Turn, Christian Humanism, and Vatican II: Louvain Theologians Preparing the Path for Gaudium et Spes 89 € (1942-1965), 2019. LXVIII-432 p. 304. I. KOCH – T. RÖMER – O. SERGI (eds.), Writing, Rewriting, and Overwriting in the Books of Deuteronomy and the Former Prophets. Essays in Honour 85 € of Cynthia Edenburg, 2019. XVI-401 p. 305. W.A.M. BEUKEN, From Servant of YHWH to Being Considerate of the Wretched: The Figure David in the Reading Perspective of Psalms 35–41 69 € MT, 2020. XIV-173 p. 306. P. DE MEY – W. FRANÇOIS (eds.), Ecclesia semper reformanda: Renewal 94 € and Reform beyond Polemics, 2020. X-477 p. 307. D. HÉTIER, Éléments d’une théologie fondamentale de la création artistique: Les écrits théologiques sur l’art chez Karl Rahner (1954-1983), 2020. XXIV-492 p. 94 € 308. P.-M. BOGAERT, Le livre de Jérémie en perspective: Les deux rédactions conservées et l’addition du supplément sous le nom de Baruch. Recueil de ses travaux réunis par J.-C. HAELEWYCK – B. KINDT, 2020. LVIII-536 p. 95 € 309. D. VERDE – A. LABAHN (eds.), Networks of Metaphors in the Hebrew Bible, 85 € 2020. X-395 p. 310. P. VAN HECKE (ed.), The Song of Songs in Its Context: Words for Love, 95 € Love for Words, 2020. XXXIV-643 p. 311. A. WÉNIN (ed.), La contribution du discours à la caractérisation des personnages bibliques. Neuvième colloque international du RRENAB, Louvain95 € la-Neuve, 31 mai – 2 juin 2018, 2020. XX-424 p. 312. J. VERHEYDEN – D.A.T. MÜLLER (eds.), Imagining Paganism through the Ages: Studies on the Use of the Labels “Pagan” and “Paganism” in 95 € Controversies, 2020. XIV-343 p. 165 € 313. E. BRITO, Accès au Christ, 2020. XVI-1164 p. 314. B. BOURGINE (ed.), Le souci de toutes les Églises: Hommage à Joseph 93 € Famerée, 2020. XLIV-399 p. 315. C.C. APINTILIESEI, La structure ontologique-communionnelle de la personne: Aux sources théologiques et philosophiques du père Dumitru Staniloae, 90 € 2020. XXII-441 p. 316. A. DUPONT – W. FRANÇOIS – J. LEEMANS (eds.), Nos sumus tempora: Studies on Augustine and His Reception Offered to Mathijs Lamberigts, 98 € 2020. XX-577 p. 317. D. BOSSCHAERT – J. LEEMANS (eds.), Res opportunae nostrae aetatis: Studies on the Second Vatican Council Offered to Mathijs Lamberigts, 2020. XII578 p. 98 € 318. B. OIRY, Le Temps qui compte: Construction et qualification du temps de l’histoire dans le récit des livres de Samuel (1 S 1 – 1 R 2) forthcoming

[10]

BETL

319. J. VERHEYDEN – J. SCHRÖTER – T. NICKLAS (eds), Texts in Context: Essays on Dating and Contextualising Christian Writings from the Second and Early Third Centuries, 2021. VIII-319 p. 98 €

PRINTED ON PERMANENT PAPER

• IMPRIME

SUR PAPIER PERMANENT

N.V. PEETERS S.A., WAROTSTRAAT

• GEDRUKT

OP DUURZAAM PAPIER

50, B-3020 HERENT

- ISO 9706