One result of the triumph of the allegorical interpretation, and of the extravagant estimate of the book (so well illustrated by the above words of K. Akilia), was the introduction of the liturgical use of the Song into the Jewish Church. Canticles, along witli Until, Lamentations, Kcclesiastes, and Esther, made up the five Mi:;fill6th (' rolls') which were read to the congregation at certain festivals. The liturgical use of Canticles deserves all the more careful consideration, because it heljis us to decide what view of its contents was entertained by the .Jewish congregation in the earliest times. For un(h)ubtedly the contents of each book were intcndiil to be brought into close connexion with the fcsliv.tl at which it was read. Now, Canticles was a])))ointed to be read on the 8th day of the ye.ost of the Passover.t But this feast com- • See Aboth 0/ R. Nathan, c. 1.: 'At first they said that Proverbs, Cantideji, and Ecclesiastes were apocryphal. They said they were parabolic writings an<l not of the lIagiograj>hft . . . till the men of the Great Svnagnguo canio and explained them' (cf. W. R. Smith, OTJC^ 181, note 1).
t Ruth Is read on the 2n<l day of the Feast of Weeks or Pentecost, Lamentations on the 9th Ab (i.e. the anniversary of the burning of the temple by the Chaldieans), Ecclesiastes on the 3rd day of the Feast of Tabernacles, and Esther on the ISth Adar (the opening day of the Feast of Purim).
590
SONG OF SOXGS
SONG OF SOXGS
meniorated the time when J" delivered His people from the oppression of a stran»^e lord in order to unite them to Himself jit Sinai by an everlasting covenant. J" then is the belovud, and the people of God or the congregation of Israel are His loved one.
According to the paraphrase of the Targuni, the poem por- trays the history of Israel from the Exodus to its redemption and glorification in Messianic times, when the full and tinal union of J" with His people shall be realized. This is certainty a profound interpretation, and one, too, wliich could 6nd its roots in the Prophetic literature (cf. Hos 1-3, Jer 2i«" S'"', Ezk 16, Is 501 54r.ir. etc.). But this explanation puts difficulties in the way of the plain natural understandinj^r as soon as it is sought toapply it to individual features of the poetical repre- seutation. These everywhere indicate too strongly that what we have to do with is really earthly love and a product of erotic poetry.* The consciousness of this had certainly not been lost even by the Jews. It was felt that one required ripe- ness of relipioua and moral insight and streng'th in order to understand the Song not in a false and morally pernicious fashion, but according to its hidden deeper meaning. Thus we must explain the Jewish regulation, reported to us by Origen and Jerome, that no one was to read the book till he was 30 years of age (the age, according to Nu 43, at which the Levite is ready to enter upon his sacred duties).
The allegorical interpretation, which had been adopted by the Jews, gained acceptance also in the Christian Church, chiedy through Ori^en's exposi- tion of the Song, and all through the Middle Ages this continued to be the prevailing interpretation. Nay, until quite recently it has maintained its supremacy in the Roman Catholic Church, and has found defenders even in the Churches of the Refor- mation. The allegorical interpretation, indeed, speedily assumed here a mystical character. It was supposed that one could discover in the poem a (proplietical) description beforehand of the loving relation between Christ and His people or between Him and the individual believing soul, and of the yearning desire of the latter for loving union with the Lord. The most notable witness to this alle- gorico-mystical view is to be found in the 86 sermons of St, Bernard, which, however, do not extend be- yond Ca 3^ Of course there are particular features in the poem which give abundant scope for nij'stical fancies. It was only with tlie Reformation that an era dawned which created the conditions neces- sarj- for a more correct understanding of the Song. It should not, indeed, be forgotten that Theodore of Mopsuestia, who belonged to the exegetic school of Autioch, had long before sought to do justice to the literal sense of the Song, by teaching that it treats simply of earthly love. But he stood alone with his interpretation over against the prevailing allegorical view, and was anathematized for holding it at the fifth (Ecumenical Council atConstantinople {A.D. 553). Even in the Churches of the Reforma- tion a more natural understanding of the Song made its way at first very slowly. In general the allegorical interpretation, borrowed from the Jews, and subjected to Christian modifications, continued to reign : especially within the Reformed Church was there a tendency to adhere closely to the ex- planation of the synagogue, and to see in the Song a prophetical pre-description of the development of the history of the Church.f
A unique view, which deservedly gained no adherents, was put forward by Luther : 'Solomon intends by these discourses of the lover and his beloved to show that, where obedience and cood government are, God dwells and kisses and embraces His Bride by His word ; in short, he means to sing the praises of obedience as a gift of Ood.'t— It was still a dangerous thing,