INTRODUCTION 1. Position in the Canon the Song of Songs Forms

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1. Position in the Canon

The Song of Songs forms part of the canon of inspired books in both the Jewish and Christian traditions. How and when it entered into the canon is not clear. Explicit quotations of the Song are absent from the other books of the Old and New Testaments. The most ancient witness to the Song probably goes back to Josephus (c. A.D. 100): in his enumeration of the books of the Bible, after having spoken of the Pentateuch and the prophetic books, he affirms that “the remaining four books contain hymns to God and instruction for people on life”:1 he is referring to the Psalms and the three ‘Solomonic’ books, Prov- erbs, Qoheleth and the Song of Songs. Around 200 A.D., the Song of Songs is mentioned in the Mishnah in a text which reflects the prob- lematic canonical status of the book. After having established the prin- ciple that “all sacred scripture ‘defiles the hands’”, that is that they are canonical,2 the Mishnah adds: The Song of Songs and Qohelet impart uncleanness to hands. R. Judah says: “The Song of Songs imparts uncleanness to hands, but as to Qohe- let there is dispute.” Rabbi Simeon says, “Qohelet is among the lenient rulings3 of the house of Shammai and strict rulings4 of the house of Hillel.”5 Said R. Simeon b. Azzai, “I have a tradition from the testimony of the seventy-two elders, on the day on which they seated R. Eleazar b. Azariah in the session,6 that the Song of Songs and Qohelet do impart uncleanness to hands.” Said R. Aqiba, “Heaven forbid! No Israelite man ever disputed concerning Song of Songs that it imparts uncleanness to

1 Josephus, Ap 1:8, 40. 2 The sense of this expression is not at all clear. Cf. Luzarraga (2002), pp. 6–22; Goodman (1990), pp 99–107. 3 That is, it does not belong to the canon. Cf. Barthélemy (1985), p. 14. 4 In other words, normative, canonical. 5 This means, therefore, that the canonicity of the Song “was established among the Pharisees before their division into two schools at the beginning of our era” (Barthé- lemy [1985], p. 14). 6 This is the so-called Council of Jamnia in A.D. 90. 2 chapter one

hands. For the entire age is not so worthy as the day on which the Song of Songs was given to Israel. For all the scriptures (ketûbîm) are holy, but the Song of Songs is holiest of all. And if they disputed, they disputed only about 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 did they come to a decision.”7 That the Song appears alongside Qoheleth is hardly surprising. Both books are somewhat ‘heterodox’ in comparison with the other biblical books. The praise of sexual love within the Song contrasts with the reserve generally encountered in the Old Testament. R. Aqiba argued strongly against the literal interpretation of the Song. He was a firm believer in the allegorical interpretation that was to become usual in Israel and in the primitive Church: “He who warbles the Song of Songs in a banquet-hall and makes it into a kind of love-song has no portion in the world to come”.8 He is echoed by the Talmud: Our Rabbis taught: “He who recites a verse of the Song of Songs and treats it as a [secular] air, and one who recites a verse at the banqueting table unseasonably, brings evil upon the world.”9 Frequently, introductions to the Song conclude from these quotations that the book’s inclusion within the canon was tied to its allegorical interpretation. In fact, the two passages quoted above testify to the fact that beside the allegorical interpretation, the ‘literal’ one was wide- spread: so widespread that the rabbis felt bound to contest it sharply.10 The Abot de Rabbi Natan form part of this tradition: Originally, it is said, Proverbs, Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes were sup- pressed; for since they were held to be mere parables (mešalôt) and not part of the Holy Writings (ketûbîm) (the religious authorities) arose and suppressed them; (and so they remained) until the men of Hezekiah11 came and interpreted them.12

7 m.Yadayim 3:5. 8 t.San 12:10. Cf. Augustin (1988), p. 403; Urbach (1971), p. 249. 9 b.San 101a. 10 Cf. Keel (1994), pp. 5–7. 11 The translator notes: “Text erroneously, ‘Men of the Great Assembly’”. Cf.Abot de Rabbi Natan, p. 176. In this case it would be a legendary assembly held in the time of Ezra. The Tannaitic sources hover between the two attributions. Cf. Abot de Rabbi Natan, Version B, p. 27. 12 Abot de Rabbi Natan, 1d, p. 5. Cf. Abot de Rabbi Natan, Version B, 3, p. 27.