The Song of Songs - An Examination of Recent Theory

8/8/2019 The Song of Songs - An Examination of Recent Theory

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-song-of-songs-an-examination-of-recent-theory 1/27

The Song of Songs: An Examination of Recent TheoryAuthor(s): H. H. RowleySource: Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, No. 2 (Apr., 1938),pp. 251-276Published by: Cambridge University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25201690 .

Accessed: 23/12/2010 00:15

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Cambridge University Press and Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland are collaborating with

JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup

http://www.jstor.org/stable/25201690?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp



http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/stable/25201690?origin=JSTOR-pdf




The Song of Songs : an Examination of

Recent TheoryBy II. 11. ROWLEY

rpHJil history of the interpretation of the Song of Songs-*- is a

fascinating, if inconclusive,1 study in the ingenuityof the interpreters. Each has but to bring to the Song what

he desires to find in it, and behold! it lies plain before him.

And hence the

pages

of the commentaries are strewn with

the strange extravagances that have been imported to becloud

its apparent meaning. The older allegorical theory has fallen

into disrepute because it is recognized that it built onsubjec

tive fancies ; tlie dramatic theories have also lost the favour

they enjoyed in the nineteenth century because it is recognized

that the edifying plots they displayedwere merely the creations

of their discoverers ; the wedding-cycle theory has lost some

thing of the impetus Budde gave it because, while its pointof departure was not an editor's fancy but an actual modern

practice, it has to be forced upon the Songacross a great

gulf of centuries rather than foimd there.

It is not wholly to be surprised at, therefore, that in

recent years a fresh attempt to solve the riddle of tlie Song

has been made. In the form in which it has achieved mostinfluence it was proposed by T. J. Meek in a paper read

before the American Society of Biblical Literature in 1920,2

and developed in further studies by the same scholar,3 with

1Cf. Westminster Assembly's Annotations upon all the Books of the Old

and New Testament, 2nd cd., 1651, i, Introduction to tho annotations on

tho Song of Solomon (the pages aro not numbered):

*'It is not unknown

to the learned, what the obscurity and darknesso of this Book hath everbeen accounted, and what great variety of Interpreters, and Interpretationshave indcavourcd to clear it, but with so ill succcssc many times, that

they have rather increased, then removed tho cloud."2

Published in AJSL., xxxix, 1922-3, pp. 1-14, under the title"

Canticles and tho Tammuz Cult ".3 "

The Song of Songs and the Fertility Cult," in The Song of Songs:a symposium (cd. W. II. SchofT), 1924, pp. 48-79 ; and

"Babylonian

Parallels to the Song of Songs," in JBL., xliii, 1924, pp. 245-252.



252 THE SONG OF SONGS

collateral support from W. H. Schoff.1 The theory is that

tho Song of Songs is a thinly disguised survival of an AdonisTammuz liturgy.

Thero had, indeed, been someanticipations of this view,

though Meek was unaware of them when he presented his

theory. For in 1906 Erbt2 had given a cultic interpretation

to the Song in terms of the astral theory of the Pan-Babylonian

school. Its association with the ideas of that school was,

however, sufficient to restrict the range of its influence, and

little was heard of it.

The next form in which the theory appeared connected

it with Egypt. This was presented in 1914 by 0. Ncuschotz

dc Jassy,3 who developed the thesis that the Song is a liturgy

of the Osiris cult. He identified the Solomon of the Song4

with Osiris,6 and Jerusalem withHor-Hetcp, holding

that the

city of peace reallymeans the city of the dead,* while the

Shulamito he found to be He topi th, or Isis.7 He regarded

the Songas concerned not with love, but with the resurrection

of Osiris, and hence he interpreted the kiss in i, 2, of the

priestly kiss of resurrection,8 and not of the kiss of lovers.

Again, however, the view commanded no attention. In

a letter to the author, Loisy expressed his doubt as to whethertho theory would immediately command acceptance, but

thought itworthy of discussion. Little discussion was given to

1 "Tho Offering Lists in the Song of Songs," in The Song of Songs :

a symposium, pp. 80-120.

%Die Hebrder : Kanaan im Zeitalter der hebrdischen Wandcrung und

hebraischer Slaatengrilndungen, 1900, pp. 196-202. Erbt's view was criticized

by V. Zaplotal, Das Hohelied, 1907, pp. 52-0.3

Le Cantique des Canliques et leMylhe d*Osiris-Hctcp.* Tho Solomon of history is dissolved by this author into mere myth

and legend (pp. 21 IT.).5

pp. 16 f.6

pp. 17 f.7

p. 21.8

p. 32. Similarly ho argues that tho kiss of Judas was not tho kiss

of betrayal, but tho kiss of resurrection, which has been wrongly changed

by tradition, and claims that tho fact that tho kiss was given in the garden

of Ccthsomano ^

D\JDl# K^3 (cf.the

part played by spicesin the

Songof Songs) supports this view (p. 34).



THE SONG OP SONGS 253

it,1 however, and it left no rippleon the waters of scholarship.

In 1919 Ebeling published an Accadian text, or series of

fragments of texts, belonging to a liturgy of the Babylonian

Tammuz cult,2 and this was not long in reopening the issue

in a fresh form, which soon achieved considerable influence

in the discussion of the Song of Songs. Many Babylonian

Tammuz liturgies had already been published3

prior to the

appearance of this text, but Meek was at once struck with

the similarities between the Song of Songs and passages here,and in 1920 presented the first formulation of his theory.

The new text has been translated in part or in whole by

Ebeling,4 Langdon,5 Meek,6 and Barton,7 and the differences

between their renderings show that there is byno means

agreementas to its meaning. The new

theory, however, in

no sense depends upon this particular text, for ourknowledge

of the Tammuz cult of Babylonia,8 and of the kindred rites1 J. Halevy devoted a few scornful pages (Revue Semilique, xxii, 1914,

pp. 248-255) to it, and concluded"

Je renonce arepondre

aux grossieretes

gratuites de l'auteur et lui souhaite une plus grande dose de bons sens et

de modestie ".2

Keilschriftlexte aus Assur religiosen Inhalts, vol. i, Heft 4, 1919, No. 158

(pp. 267-276). Cf. p. 352, where the text is described as a"

Katalog von

Hymnen Anfangen an verschiedene Gotter ".3

See S. Langdon, Babylonian Liturgies, 1913, and now, more recently,

M. Witzel, Tammuz-Liturgien und Venvandtes (Analecta Orientalia, x), 1935.4 Cf. MDOG., 58, 1917, pp. 49 f.5 "

Babylonian and Hebrew Musical Terms," in JRAS., 1921, pp. 171?

191. See especially pp. 183-190.

Cf. JBL,, xliii, 1924, pp. 245-252.7

Cf. Archseology and the Bible, 6th ed., 1933, pp. 518-520. It may

be noted here that Barton's view of the Song of Songs is not quite clear.

He quotes (pp. 515 ff.) some Egyptian parallels to the Song, and comments

that they"

make it clear that in Egypt love . . . was as warmly felt as

in Israel, and was likewise poetically and passionately expressed ". Since

the parallels adduced are not presentedas liturgies, it would seem that

Barton regarded the Song merely as amorous poetry. The Babylonian

parallel he quotes, however, he presents as a cult poem of the Tammuz

worship. But since he then defines the theme simply as two lovers' praises

for one another's charms, and the delight in love, it is not certain that

he attaches himself to the theory of Meek.8

Cf. von Baudissin, Adonis und Esmun, 1911 ; S. Langdon, Tammuz

and Ishtar, 1914 ; J. G. Frazer, Adonis, Attis, Osiris, 3rd ed., 2 vols., 1914 ;

H. Gressmann,

"

Tod und Auferstehum? des Osiris," Der Alte Orient, xxiii,

3, 1923.



254 THE SONG OP SONGS

of the Osiris cult of Egypt and the Adonis cult of Syria, is

considerable, and it is upon that knowledge, rather than uponthe text which directed Meek to it, that the theory rests.

It should perhaps be added that since Meek's theorywas

formulated the Ras Shamra texts have been published, and

ourknowledge of the North Syrian forms of the cult and

the mythologyon which it rests greatly enriched.1

It has been already observed that Mcck's presentation of

the theory exercised an altogether greater influence than

either Erbt's or Ncuschotz's kindred views. Since he first

propounded it, he has won the adhesion of Ebeling,2 Minocchi,3

Waterman,4 Wittekindt,6 Snaith,6 Graham and May,7 and

1 Cf. Ch. Virolleaud,"

Un poemo phcnicicn dc Ras Shamra : la luttc

de Mot, fils des dioux, ot d'Alein, fils do Baal," in Syria, xii, 1931, pp. 193

224 ; id.,"

Tho Gods of Phoenicia, as revealed by the Poem of Has Shamra,"

in Antiquity, v, 1931, pp. 405-414; 11.Dussaud,

"

La mythologio Phenicicnne

d'apres les tablettes do Has Shamra," in HII1L, civ, 1931, pp. 353-408;

id.,"

Lo mytho do Ba'al ot d'Aliyan d'apres des documents nouvcaux,"

ibid., cxi, 1935, pp. 5-05 ;W. C. Graham,"

Heccnt Light on tho Cultural

Origins of tho Hebrews," in Journal of Religion, xiv, 1934, pp. 300-329;

D. Nielsen, Ras Samra Mylhologie und Biblische Theologic, 1930; 11.

Dussaud, Les Dtcouverles de Ras Sliamra et VAncien Testament, 1937. Cf.

also Myth and Ritual (cd. by S. II. Hookc), 1933, for tho wide range of

tho influence of tho associated cults.a Cf.

ZDMO., lxxviii, 1924, p.lxviii f.

(brief reportof a

paperread to

tho German Orientalists at Munich).3 Le Perle della liibbia : II Ganlico dei Canlici e VEcclcsiaste, 1924. ^Cf.

pp. 22 f.:"

In questo senso il Cantico c tutto quanto pocsia mistica. K un

inno 8imbolico in cui si rapprosenta una viva realt a naturale cd umana :

la fecondata bollczza dolla terra o del ciolo, al rinasccro doiranno, cho e

poi primavera dolla vRa per la virtu dclPamore ncl rinnovarsi dello anime.

E i due amanti sono i simboli vivi della universale rinascita, non oscuramente

indicati come tali dal poota medesimo. Pero tutto il Cantico 6 un inno

aliaprimavera,

Pcsaltaziono lirica della nuova creaziono attuata dal la

potenza divina immanento nello cose ; ed 6 in pari tempo ancho un dramma,

l'espressione rituale, in forme umanc, dello inofonde potenze spirituali che

operano, palcsi insiemo o occultc, nella natura visibile. ... 11 Cantico 6

una poetica celebraziono della primavera o deH'amorc, per via di simboli

mitici, aventi valore ad un tempo naturalo o umano ; i duo amanti figuranoo sostituiscono originariamento due divinity, rapprcscntano un mito, o, per

essoro esatti, i residui lcttcrarii di un mito."

? "Tho Hole of Solomon in tho Song of Songs," in JBL., xliv, 1925,

pp.171-187.

'(For notes 5-7 boo p. 255.)



THE SONG OF SONGS 255

Oesterley.1 Not, indeed, that these scholars content themselves

merely with accepting the views of Meek, for several of them

give some distinct originality of form to their presentation

of it. Thus Waterman,' instead of holding with Meek that

the old Tammuz liturgy has been revised to bring it into

accord with Yahwism, believes that it was reduced to the level

of folk poetry, and then made into an allegory of the political

relations between the two Israelite kingdoms in the period

following the Disruption. Again Snaith analyses the Song

into alternating passages from two cycles, the one having

associations with the spring and the other with the autumn,

and brings it into connection with the stories of the rape of

the maidens of Shiloh and the sacrifice of Jcphthah's daughter,

while Oesterley finds in the Song diverse elements, some of

which arc fragments of old Tammuz liturgies, and others of

which belong to the wedding celebrations of simple peasants.

The most detailed working out of the theory in a complete

commentary on the Song has been provided by Wittekindt,

who believes it is a Jerusalem liturgy prepared for the celebra

tion of the wedding of Ishtar and Tammuz at the springnew moon.

On the other hand the critics of this view have been slow

to expose its weaknesses. Two indeed, in the persons of

Umbcrto Cassuto2 and Nathaniel Schmidt,3 appeared promptly

to enter a caveat, and to expose some of the difficulties of the

theory, and more recently Ricciotti4 has briefly criticized

it, while Diirr6 subjected Wittekindt's work to a very brief

5Das llohe Lied und seine

Beziehungcn

zum Islarkult, 1920. Cf.especially

pp. 179-217.0 "

The Song of Songs : the dances of tho virgins," in AJSL., 1, 1933-4,

pp. 129-142.7

Culture and Conscience, 1936, pp. 122 f.1 The Song of Songs, 1936.a Review of The Song of Songs : a symposium, in QSAL, N.S., i,

1925-8, pp. 166-173 (in fasc. 2, dated Jan.-Mar., 1926).3 "

Is Canticles an Adonis Litany ?"

in JAOS., xlvi, 1926, pp. 154-164.4 // Cantico dei Cantici, 1928, pp. 117-120, 289 f.

5 OLZ., xxxi, 1928, cols. 113-5.




critical review. Most of those who remain unconvinced

of the relevance of thetheory

have been content with

rejection, rather than reply.

There is, indeed, to-day agrowing tendency to find in

various parts of the Old Testament ritual survivals.

Mowinckel1 explains many of the Psalms as ritual texts,

particularly associated with magic arts; Humbert2 explains

the book of Nahum as a ritual for the autumn festival in

Jerusalem in 612 B.C., when the fall of Nineveh was

celebrated; Balla8

explains the book of Habakkuk as a ritual

text. It is therefore in full harmony with this tendency,

though preceding all these theories in its first presentation,

that the Song of Songs should be ritually interpreted.

Moreover, there is a growing recognition of the references

to the Adonis-Tammuz cult in the Old Testament. Meek 4

notes some of the passages, viz. Isa. xvii, 10 f. (" For thou

hast forgotten the God of thy salvation, And hast not remem

bered the rock of thy refuge ; Therefore thou plantcst planta

tions of Adonis, And settest vine-cuttings of an alien god ;

On the day thou plantest, thou dost make it grow,6 And in

the morning thou dost make thy seed to blossom "); Jcr. xxii,

18

(" They

shall not lament for him,saying,

Alas, my brother !

or Alas, 0 sister 1 They shall not lament for him, saying,

Alas, 0 lord ! or Alas, his glory !"); Ezek. viii, U (" There

sat the women weeping for Tammuz "); Zech. xii, 11 (" In

that day there shall be a great mourning in Jerusalem, as

1Psalmenstudien, i, 1921. In Psalmenslwlicn, iii, 1923, pp. 96-101,

Mowinckel argues that Ps. xiv, whoso similarity to the Song of Songs has

long been recognized, is a ritual Psalm of prophetic imjiort.8 "

Essai d'analyse do Nahoum, i, 2?ii, 3," in ZA W.t xliv, 1926, pp. 266

280; "La Vision do Nahoum, ii, 4-11," in Archiv f Mr Orienlforschung, v,

1928-9, pp. 14-19; and"

Lo probl6mc du livro de Nahoum," in RJIFR.,

xii, 1932, pp. 1-15.3

RQQ., 2nd ed., ii, 1928, cols. 1556 f. So also Scllin, Kinleilttng in das

Alte Testament, 7th ed., 1935, p. 119.4

AJSL., xxxix, 1022-3, p. 3.5With AV., following Kiml.ii and Ibn Ezra ; so also Duhm, Marti, and

Gray. Procksch objects that Pilpcl from a n""J root is improbable.




the mourning of Hadad-liimmon in the valley of Mcgiddo ").

To these he elsewhere x adds Joel i, 8 ff., which he regardsas a reference to the ceremonial lamentation over the death

of vegetation, while Graham,2 following a hint of Meek's,8

and claiming support from the Ras Shamra texts, regards

Isa. v, 1-7, as the prophet's reaction to a vineyard ritual

which was a feature of the popular cultus.

Most of these references to the Adonis-Tammuz cult may

bereadily recognized, though Schmidt

4is not

persuadedthat

Jcr. xxii, 18, is connected with it, and Joel i, 8 ff., is not

necessarily so connected. Indeed it may be freely admitted

that the Old Testament contains a great many more allusions

to the cult.5 But this does not of itself in any way helpto establish the idea that a Tammuz liturgy is preserved in

the Old Testament. For none of these references recognized

the cult as a legitimate one. They are merely evidence thatit was

popularly practised, and are on the samefooting

as

the innumerable references to Baal worship in the Old Testa

ment, which amply prove that that worship had a strong

hold on the people, without leadingus to expect to find a

ritual of its practice in the Canon.

That the Adonis-Tammuz cult was widely practised through

out the ancient world, including Palestine, is freely conceded

by all. In its rites someone represented the god and someone

the goddess, and the ceremony culminated in their marriageand union, a union which was thought to have correspondingeffects on the deities represented, and by sympathetic magic

1Symposium, p. 48 n.

2 Journal of Religion, xiv, 1934, p. 315.3

Symposium, p. 67.4

JAOS., xlvi, 1926, p. 157. But cf. Baudissin, Adonis und Esmun,

1911, p. 91,and Bcrtholct,"

Baudissin Festschrift" (BZAW., xxiii), 1918,

p. 52.5

Cf., e.g., H. G. May,"

The Fertility Cult in Hosea," in AJSL., xlviii,

1932, pp. 73-98 ; also II. Gressmann's important article,"

Tho Mystcriosof Adonis and the Feast of Tabernacles," in The Expositor, 9th series, iii,

1925, pp. 416-432 ; and Baudissin, op. cit., pp. 386-510.JHAS. APRIL 1938. 17




to produce fertility in the world of nature.1 The ritual dance

figured in the ceremonies, and they were accompanied by

much licentiousness, in which the temple prostitutes played

their part. Nor is this all. For Sidney Smith2 observes

that"

Fertility cults are often attended by bloodthirsty rites.

Natives of those districts where such cults have been practised

inmodern times have given only scanty information to scien

tific inquirers.. . . Those rites involved the perpetuation of

the life of the king by the god and goddess after a sacred

connubiwn, probably enacted bya man and a woman repre

senting the deities, a banquet,a setting forth as though to

war, and the final result was a number of tombs near the

gigunus outside the wall of the tcmenos, in a ditch ". The

cult involved somethingmore than the mere

joie de vivre,

and the spring rejoicing in the awakening of nature. Itwas

a ritual to achieve fertility, and the price of that achievement

had to be paid. The weeping for Tammuz was no mere

pretence, for the gods are not so easily deceived.

An important element of the rites represented the descent

of the goddess Ishtar in search of the dead Tammuz, and their

subsequent return to the upper world. It is this element

which figures largely in tho Ras Shamra text, to which referencehas already been made,3 together with the combat whereby

the goddess slew the foo of the dead god, and to this part

of the ritual, especiallyto the descent of Ishtar, many refer

ences have been found in tho Song.4

The first serious difficulty Mcek's theory has to meet is

provided by the inclusion of the Song in the Canon of Scripture.

1 Cf. Graham and May, Culture and Conscience, 1930, p. 122 :"

By the

enactment of tho accompanying drama tho worshipers felt themselves

to bo reinforcing the power of the spoken word to influence tho forces of

naturo so that tho normal seasonal cyclo might be maintained for the

preservation and enrichment of human life. Tho psychology underlying

this technique was one of coercion and manipulation."M

A Babylonian Fertility Cult," in JRAS., 1928, pp. 849-875. Seo p. 807.

8

Cf. also Myth and Ritual (ed. by Hookc), pp. 80,82-4.

4Cf. Meek, Symposium, pp. 00-03.




The Adonis-Tammuz cult wasinextricably connected with

the immoral fertility rites, which the prophets so frequentlydenounced. When, then, can this liturgy be supposed to have

been brought into the Canon ? It cannot have been broughtin in pre-exilic days, for there is no evidence for the existence

of a Canon at that time. Nor is it likely to have been received

into the sacred corpus until very late post-exilic days, for in

the first century a.d. there was still somedispute amongst

the Rabbis as to whether it was properly to be regarded as

Canonical,1 and the seriousness of the doubt may be reflected

in Rabbi Akiba's extravagant opinion2 that the world itself

was not worth the day on which this book was given to

Israel, and that while all the books of tho Kcthubhim arc

sacred, this book is the most sacred of them all.3 It may well

be,

as Meekpoints

out,4 that the reference to the Tammuz

cult in deutero-Zcchariah shows that the cult retained its

hold over the people until a late post-exilic period, but it is

highly unlikely that in the age when Judaism wasdeveloping

its cxclusivcncss, its leaders would recognizo as canonical

a work associated with the fertility cult.

This difficulty Meek faces in adiametrically opposite way

to that of Neuschotz. The latter boldly maintained

5

that the1 Zeitlin (An Historical Study of the Canonization of the Hebrew Scrip

tures, 1933, pp. 10 f.) denies that thero was any dispute as to the canonicityof tho Song of Songs.

2Mishnah, Yadaim, iii, 5 : >?> DlbtZ/l CH N^W "Dl ^DK

D-?Tn riN NDton Nbur Dnn&n tip bv bxn^D din pbn:b*ntrr?i> D-?Ttz/n tip ia ]n:ur ora ^nhd iba Dbwn ba pat?u*unp imp D"?T?n Ton imp Qiainan battf.

3Cf.

Origen (Mignc, PO., xiii, 1862,col.

37):

"

Quomododidicimus

perMoscu quacdam esse non solum sancta, sed ct Sancta sanctorum, ct alia

non tantum Sabbata, scd ct Sabbata sabbatorum; sio nunc doccmur

scribentc Salomone esso quacdam non solum cantica, sed ot Cantica canti

coruni. Bcatus quidom is qui ingreditur sancta, scd bcatior qui ingrcditurSancta sanctorum. Beatus qui sabbata sabbatizat, sed beatior qui sabbatizat

sabbatorum Sabbata. Beatus similiter ct is qui intellegit cantica ct canit

ea ; nemo quippo nisi in solemnitatibus canit: sed multo beatior ille quicanit Cantica canticorum."

4 A J SI.., loc. cit., p. 3 ; cf. SchofT, Symposium, p. 106.

6Op. cit., p. 71.




Rabbis knew full well the character of the Song, and that

this explains why they declared its sacredness. This is to

meet the difficulty by evading it. That it was sacred to one

cult could give no reason whatever why it should be incor

porated into the Canon of another, and vigorously hostile,

cult. It is true that even in the period of growing cxclusive

ness, Judaism could and did receive from Zoroastrianism

manyideas and

beliefs,because

theywere not

fundamentallyinimical to the faith of the Jews, but it is hard to suppose

that its leaders could so come to terms with the Adonis

Tammuz cult as to include its liturgy in their sacred corpus.

Meek, however, supposes that in the Song we have not

tho Tammuz liturgy in its original and offensive form, but

that it has been revised to render it innocuous, and to

harmonize itwith the Yahweh cultus. Neuschotz had expresslydenied any revision,1 and had declared that the Song has

remained what it was from the beginning. Moreover Water

man,2 while holding that we have not the liturgy in its original

form, supposes it to have undergonea

totally different revision

from that assumed by Meek. So far from that revision havingbeen undertaken in the interests of the Yahweh cult, he

believes that it secularized all the older religious elements.3

The Solomon of the Song he holds not to be Tammuz, the

hero of the liturgy, but the villain of the piece and would-be

destroyer of Tammuz, not the lover, but the would-be destroyerof love,4 striving to get the maiden into his power and make

her forget her lover.3 But in the secularization of the poem,

its religious significancewas

changed for apolitical meaning,

and the struggle between Israel and Judah depicted.51

Op. cit., p. 90:"

Lo Cantiquo des Cantiqucs est reste ce qu'il a etc

des lo debut, lo chant fun6raire d'Isis-Sulamith ouhclcjrith, cherchant son

fr6ro ot cpoux Osiris-Salom ou hctep, disparu dans les ombres do l'Amenti."2

JBL., loc. cit. 3Ibid., p. 183.

4Ibid., pp. 179 f., 187.

5Ibid., p. 182. Cf. p. 187 : "A fertility cult liturgy reduced to folk

poetry and reinterpreted by apolitical motif, that was later partly obscured

by a divergent national ideal, would seem to satisfy and explain Solomon'sconnection with the poem."




It is clear, therefore, that Meek had failed to convince even

one who was largely impressed by his theory of this alleged

revision. And in truth, we look in vain in the Song for any

real indication of the Yahweh cult. Indeed, Meek himself*

somewhat naively remarks,"

Rather strikingly Yahweh never

once appears in the book. When the liturgywas

incorporated

into the Yahweh cult, it was deemed sufficient to transfer

the titles to him without adding his name." Surely this

was a strange revision, which left traces of the rejected cult

everywhere in the book, but which left the new cult unmen

tioned. An intelligent reviser would have taken care that

the Yahwism in whose interests the work was revised would

be unequivocally displayed in the book, and not left to the

reader to supply.

Itis

truethat SchofT attempts

tosupply

Mcck'sdeficiency,

and to explain the nature of the alleged revision. The name

of David has long been connected with the divine name Dod,2

and both Meek3 and SchofT4

adopt this view, and identify

Dod with Tammuz. They also identify Shelcm, from whom

they hold Solomon to have been named, with tho same god.From this Schoff concludes that both David and Solomon

recognized the Tammuz cult, and he suggests that the abortiveeffort of Adonijah to secure the throne was part of a

puritanmove to abolish this worship. Naturally, therefore, he holds

that when the Temple was built the Tammuz cult found a

place in it. He says,5"

There is nothing intrinsically impos

sible, therefore, in the presence of tho Tammuz cult in the

temple or in the survival in some form of its ceremonial."6

1Symposium, p. 50.

2Cf. Sayce, Ilibbcrt Lectures, 1887, pp. 50 f. ; Wincklcr, in KAT., 3rd

ed., 1903,V225.

3AJSL., loc. cit., pp. 4 N. ; Symposium, pp. 54 f.

4Symposium, pp. 88 f. 6

Ibid., pp. 94 f.6

Cf. Graham and May, Culture and Conscience, 1930, p. 239 :"While

it is too daring to affirm that Solomon's temple was oriented as it was

with reference to tho enactment of some such cycle of naturo myths as

wasin

usoin tho cultus at lias Shamra, tho well-attested placo of solar

features in tiic Jerusalem cultus makes such a possibility not unreasonable,"




With all this no fault can be found. For there can bo no

doubt that many practices found a home in the Temple

though later conscience condemned them, and it is highly

probable that tho popular Tammuz rites were observed through

long periods even in the Jerusalem sanctuary. Nor would

the mere survival of a Tammuz liturgy from Jerusalem appear

at all incredible. It is its survival in the Canon of the Old

Testament which needs to be shown to be probable.

Nor does Schoff's alleged double revision succeed in this

task. For tho first revision he supposes the Song to have

undergone was merely an adaptation to the conditions of

the Temple. He has made an elaborate study of tho Offering

lists in the Song, and claims that one hundred and thirty-four

of the terms have reference to the Tammuz cult, and one

hundred andtwenty-six

to theearly

sanctuaries. Theimpres

siveness of this conclusion vanishes on examination, however.

We may take as an example his lists for chapter i, where

he finds the Tammuz cult in urine, vineyards, flock, kids, king,

vineyard, doves, and couch, and the early sanctuaries in oint

ments, cliambers, tents, curtains, veil, steed, chariot, circlets,

pearls, beads, studs, gold, silver, table, myrrh, beams, cedar,

panels, cypress. It is at once clear that, if this analysisof

the reference of the terms is justified, the revision was not

to bring the work into accord with the fundamental religious

ideas of Yahwism, but merely to adapt the still unchanged

fertility rite to the Temple venue. It was in no sense a revision

that accommodated the Tammuz ritual to Yahwism, or that

could for a moment satisfy the objections of the prophets to

the fertility cult,1 and it can hardly be supposed that sucha revision would have sufficed to win for the ritual recognition

from the later leaders of Judaism.

Nor is the case improved by the second revision which

Schoff supposes the work to have undergone, to adapt it to

1SchoPF says (Symposium, p. 98):

"It began

as an early Canaanito

ritual. It received additions as that ritualwas

adapted,under

protest

by the prophetic party,to tho tomplo services at Jerusalem."




the Second Temple. For here he finds seven terms to indicate

theextent

of the revision, butas

two of themare

duplicates,they arc reduced to five. These are spikenard, henna, palanquin,

saffron, and aloes. It is hardly fair to ascribe to the supposedreviser such complete incompetence for his task. For not one

of the five terms even points to the Second Temple at all. It

is true that SchofT adduces evidence from the Talmud and

the Jewish Prayer Book to show that amongst the ingredients

of the ceremonial incense and the anointing oil were spikenardand saffron,1 but since Mk. xiv, 3, Jn. xii, 3, show that spikenard had other uses, quite unrelated to tho Temple ritual,no necessary connection with the Temple can be established.

A reviser who wished to re-adapt this ritual to accord with

the practices of orthodox Judaism would have taken care

to use, not terms that were destined to appear centuries

later in the Talmud, but terms that pointed unmistakablyto the Law contained in the Pentateuch. For Schoff holds

that this second revision took place at a post-Alexandrine

date,2 and wc know from the Chronicler's work that when

a Jew of that age revised history he left the marks of his

revision, and the marks of the Pentatcuchal law, unmistakably

upon it. Wc have no

right

to assume that in a revision of

ritual for use in the Temple, where it was far more importantto secure accord with the sacred Law, the reviser would

proceed in someagre and

ambiguousa

way.3

Moreover, four of the five terms of this alleged revision

are found only in the Song of Songs, and while the fifth

(aloes) is indeed found in the Pentateuch, it is in the Balaam

oracles.4 But even if all five termspointed unequivocally

1Ibid., p. 85.

2Ibid., p. 82.

3Reference has been made above to Gressmann's view that the Feast of

Tabernacles goes back in its origin to Adonis rites {Expositor, 9th scries,

iii, 1925, pp. 410-432.) Its assimilation to Yahwism has, howover, been

altogethermore

thoroughgoing than this mere protonco of a rovision which

is assumed for the Song.4

Num. xxiv, 0. Tho word is also found in Prov. vii, 17, and in Ps. xiv, 9.

In tho two former passages it is masculine in form, but in Ps. xiv, 9, it is




to the Temple, they would still be quite unrelated to the

essential ideas of Yahwism. The fundamental differentiaebetween the fertility cult and Yahwism were not to be found

in these things, and a revision which consisted merely in

rubbinga little ointment on the older ritual, and which failed

to bring out the real qualities of the faith in whose interest

itwas carried through, would be left to exist in the mind of the

interpreter, rather than in the achievement of the reviser.

Nor can we be satisfied that SchoiFs analysis rests on any

substantial ground. For Meek x finds two of the five terms

which Schoff regards as marks of the second revision to

belong to the old fertility cult, viz. lienna and palanquin,

and Wittckindt2 agrees, so far as henna is concerned. And

since Schoff is himself doubtful of aloes, the marks of this

revision becomewoefully slight

to account for thestrange

acceptance of a Tammuz ritual into the Canon of Judaism.

Furthermore, in SchofFs first list are some things which

Meek3

regardsas marks of the Tammuz cult, viz., myrrh,

cedar, cypress, and several which Wittckindt holds to belong

to that cult, e.g., myrrh,* table,5 steed,6 pearls,7 wall,8 windows,9

lattice.9 The alleged revision is therefore both doubtful in

itself, and altogether inadequate to give to the Songa

definitely Yahwistic character.

Nor must we omit to observe that Meek10

says,"

To make

feminine, as in Ct. iv, 14. Since Meek and Schoff regard Ps. xiv as another

surviving fragment of fertility cult liturgy (cf. Symposium, pp. 49 n., 108),

it is surprising that this word is not emphasized as a further link between

them, associated with tho cult.1

Symposium, p.58.

2Op. cit., p. 99.

3Symposium, p. 58 ; and cf. AJSL., loc. cit., p. 9.

4Op. cit., p. 99. Cf. also Frazer, Adonis, Allis, Osiris, 3rd cd., 1914, i,

pp. 227 f.6

Ibid., p. 98.

Ibid., p. 29 ; and of. Mcok, AJSL., loc. cit., p. 11.

7Op. cit., p. 30.

8Ibid., p. 68.

Ibid.

10AJSL., loc. cit., p. 14.




it still more acceptable the panegyricon love (8: 6 f.) crept

into the text, and lo, in a generation or two tho book hadbecome canonical,

'The Song of Songs '!

"This is surely the

strangest of all the suggested revisions, and Meek abstains

from indicating how it could have helped. For he regards

viii, 6, as a definite bit of the fertility rite, and says elsewhere,1"

This in its original context was manifestly a reference to

the power of the love of the goddess to win the god back

from the netherworld despite the floods and other obstacles

that lay between this world and the next." Moreover, Schoff2

finds in viii, 6 f., one mark of the Tammuz cult, and three

marks of what he calls the first revision.3

The incompetent triviality of this alleged revision is the more

surprising, since when Hebrew writers elsewhere used material

which they had taken over from non-Yahwistic sources,they

displayed an altogether greater skill in assimilating it to their

ownreligious ideas. Thus, while there are undoubted con

nections between the Creation story in Gen. i, and the Babylonian Creation Epic, all the cruder elements have gone, and

to the whole there is given anobility which belongs to the

Hebrew writer, and not to his source. If Tiamat survives, it

is as the innocuousDlilF)*

and themajestic God is not

left to the reader's imagination to supply, but is dominant

in the story.

Again, the ingenuity with which Tammuz is imported at

every point by the advocates of this newtheory can

onlycreate grave doubts as to the soundness of the theory. If a

writer cannot mention such commonthings of experience as

sliepherd, vine, vineyard, dove, gazelle, apple, cedar, palm-tree,

garden, or hyacinth, to name somethings from Meek's list of

alleged allusions to the Tammuz cult, without being held to

be writing of that cult, the way of letters for all but devotees

of Tammuz ismade very hard, and when to these we add some

1Symposium, p. 02.

2Ibid., p. 120.

3 Cf. also Wittckindt, op. cit., p. 57, who again interprets insensu obscaeno.




further terms from Schoff's list, flock, kids, king, couch, fruit,

flowers, blossoms, bed, lions, leopard, sister, bride, honey, milk,

spring, fountain, waters, dew, maidens, moon, sun, nuts, and

dance, the poet's case becomes desperate indeed. For how

could one write a love lyric in any language if such terms must

be excluded from his vocabulary ? The fact that these terms

occur in relation to the Tammuz cult is no proof that they only

had relation to that cult, or Tammuz is everywhere.

I am not persuaded that even the word Tft points

necessarily to Adonis. That the word is derived from the divine

name may be readily granted, without any acknowledgment

that in all periods those who used the word thought of the

god. The English word jovial is etymologically connected

with the name of a pagan deity, and once denoted the dis

position of one born under the planet, Jupiter. But it has

acquireda sense which is independent of the superstition which

lies behind its etymology, and it can to-day be used without

exposing one to the charge of superstition. In the same way,

while Tft=

beloved, and D^lVl= love are doubtless

derived from the name of a god, they could be used without

necessary association with that god, justas fi)p

=death,

though etymologically connected with the name of the god

who is frequently mentioned in the Ras Shamra texts, Mot,

could be used on the lips of Hebrews without any reference

to this particular god. Love and death are normal experiences

of men and women in all ages, and it were unreasonable to

deny them the right to mention them without being charged

with idolatry.If the method of this theory should be applied to the whole

of the Old Testament with something of the energy with which

Cheyne applied his Jerachmeel theory, or the astral theorists

their ideas, there would soon be little of it left without con

nection with the Tammuz cult.1 It could quite easily be shown

by this method, for instance, that Psalm xxiii is a Tammuz

1

The process has, indeed, already begun,for

W.E.

Staplesnow resolves

tho book of Ruth into a Tammuz liturgy (AJSL., liii, 1936-7, pp. 145-157),




liturgy, which has been thinly disguised and adapted to its

position in the Psalter by the simple expedient of substitutingYahweh for Dod or Adon in the written text of the first and

last verses. Its heading proclaims it a Psalm of David, which

can be readily understood to be amispointing of the name

of the god, and rendered a Psalm ofDod. In tho first verso we

find mention of the term shepherd, which is said to be a

mark of the Tammuz cult,1 and in the second verse"

he

maketh me to lie down in green pastures " reminds us of

Ct. i, 16,"

our couch is green," while the waters again belongto Tammuz.2 In the following

verse"

he bringcth back my

soul"

might be found to point to the resurrection of Adonis

Tainmuz, while righteousness could be read as Sedcl?, the

god of Jerusalem,3 who is identified with Shelem,4 and there

fore withTammuz.5 The valley of

verse4 recalls

thevalley

of Zech. xii, 11, associated with the Tammuz cult, and the

deep darkness (E. V. shadow of death) is doubtless able to be

explained as the underworld to which Adonis went.6 The

table of verse 5 is again connected with the Tammuz cult,7

and recalls Ct. v, 1,"

Eat, 0 friends and drink; Yea drink

abundantly, 0 beloved," while the oil recalls the frequently

mentioned unguents of the Song.81 So Meek, AJSL., loc. cit., p. 0, and Symposium, p. 58.2 So Schoff, Symposium, pp. 117, 120.3 Cf. Oesterley and Robinson, Hebrew Religion, 2nd cd., 1937, p. 177.? So Winckler, KAT., 3rd cd., 1903, p. 224.6 So Meek, Symposium, p. 53.8W. C. Graham has indeed already given this explanation (Journal of

Religion, xiv, 1934, p. 328). He renders tho verse,"

Yea, though I walk

through tho valley of Mot's shadow, I will fear no evil for thou art with

me,'* and equates Mot with tho Mot of tho lias Shamra texts.7So Wittckindt, op. cit., p. 98.

8 The same word for oil is found in Ct. i, 3, and Meek (Symposium, p. 73 n.)

gives it fertility connotation, and connects it with tho cult. For tho con

nection of the table and the oil with the cult, of. Nouschotz's argument (op.

cit., pp. 34 f.) that tho Passion narratives of tho Now Testament are merelya reflection of the cult, aud that it was necessary to mako Jesus die three

times, each in a different way. Of these ono was in Gethsomanc, tho

garden of aromatic, oils, and the second was at the table of tho Last Supper.

Ncuschotz finds special significance in tho name Gothsomanc, or D^Dttf JOJ>which contains tho same word for oil as wo find in Ps. xxiii, 0, and Ct. i, 3.




Two further points made by Meek in support of his theory

havo yet to be examined. The first is his claiml

that the wordTOf in ii, 12, is an indication that wc have here a liturgy,

since this is a technical term for such aliturgy, and the second

is tho allegedly significant fact that the Song belongs to the

Passover liturgy of the Jews.

Dealing first with the claim that Yttf is a technical

term for such aliturgy

as is found in the Song, wc may note

that Schmidt2 has replied that the word had certainlya

wider use, as we find from Rabbi Akiba's oft-quoted words,

where *")J2fT)D3 would appear to mean"

as a kind

of secular song ".3 It is not, indeed, certain that the word

means song of any kind in Ct. ii, 12.4 Meek dismisses5

the suggestion of Ehrlich and others 6 that it here means

the pruning of vines, on the ground that pruning is not done

1Symposium, p. 49 f.

?JAOS., loc. cit., p. 159. Cf. Cassuto, QSAL, N.S., i, 1925-8, pp. 109 f.

3Tosephta, Sanhedrin, xii: TB7D lbip IWJ&n 1D1N N^W ^m

phn ? px nD7 |^D3 win nawi nrwon rvnn arvmn

K3T1 Dîy^f which may bo rendered"

llabbi Akiba says ho who

singstho

Song

of

Songs

with a trill at a

banquet,

and treats it as a common

ditty, has no portion in tho world to como ". With this cf. T.B. Sanhedrin,

loia: irnK nitron crT?n tip bw piDB smpn pm un

nm x-ao ijqt xba mxnttfD nâa pios x-npm not pM

Dbiyb. A. Lods (RHR., ixxxii, 1920, pp. 221 f.) objects to tho rendering

"banquet" in theso passages, and thinks tho meaning is"

tho house in

which a wedding was being celebrated ", and so seeks to find here some

.additional support for tho Wetzstcin-Buddo view of tho Song. Similarly

U. Cassuto (GSAL, N.S., i, 1925-8, p. 37).4

K.V. "singing of birds" can claim littlo justification, for, as Bloch

says (AJSL., xxxviii, 1921-2, p. 115), wherever this word is used of singing,

it refers to human singing.6

Symposium, p. 60.6 The view is, of course, very much older than Ehrlich, for it is represented

in tho LXX naipos rrjs roprjs </>0aKcv; in tho Peshitta (mJCQD> \lO)

jîO?in tho Vulgate, tempus pulationis advenil; and in the Arabic

/Jaij| -.{.j ijj ojjj*Cf. also tho comment of Ibn Ezra quoted in the

following note.




so late in the spring, and Snaithl asks

'Who ever pruned

when the flowers were in blossom ?

"

But Snaith finds in the

Song two alternating groups of passages, the one having

associations with the spring and the other with the autumn.

He believes the Song is intimately connected with the two

ritual dances of maidens and youths celebrated outside

Jerusalem in Mishnaic times, the one on the fifteenth of Ab,

and the other on the Day of Atonement.2 The former group,

he says, has associations with the spring, but its setting is in

the time of the fruits of the gardens in the height of summer.3

It may then be relevantly recalled that in the Gezer Calendar

the *yaf IflY follows the month of general harvest,

and precedes the harvest of summer fruits. Since all the other

items of this calendar arc connected with agricultural opera

tions,it is

probablethat this is

also,and that it is

rightlyrendered the month of vine-pruning, with Lidzbarski,4 Gray,5

Ronzcvallc,0 Driver,7 Gressmann,8 and Diringcr.9 The

reference is then to the second pruning.10

1AJSL., loc. cit., p. 131 n. Cf. also Ibn Ezra: VJ D^DIN BP1

iny ID^NI mD7n Kb 1D*D1 ]D Kin, i.e. "Thoro aro somo who

say that it is to bo oxplaincd by'nor prune thy vinoyard* (Lov. xxv, 4),

but it was not tho timo for it ".2

AJSL., loo. cit., p. 138.3

Ibid., p. 136. It is interesting to set this against tho view of Meek,

Schoff, and Wittckindt, discussed below, that tho Passover.reading of tho

Song is ovidenco that it was aspring ritual. For tho connection with a

later season in the year, in relation to Buddo's wedding song theory of

the origin of tho book, cf. Balman, Paldstinischer Diwan, 1901, p. xii :"

Nebenbci sci auch crwahnt, dass nicht der Fruhling, sondcrn dcr Hcrbst

in ganz Paliistina dio belicbtcstc Zcit zu Ilochzcitcn ist, wcil maim dann

aus dem Erntccrtrag das zur Hrautzahlung notigo Geld gclost hat undausserdem nach Vollendung des Dreschcns miissigo Zcit besitzt." Cf., too,

IT. Granqvist, Marriage Conditions in a Palestinian Village, ii, 1935, p. 32 :"

There is always a certain air of foolishness attached to thoso who do

not know that summer is the timo for weddings.... It is a

striking fact

that although tho summer is solong, a wedding is often postponed till

tho autumn."4

PEFQS., 1909, p. 29, and Ephcmeris filr scmitische Epigraphik, iii,

1909-1915, p. 41.6

PEFQS., 1909, p. 31.6

Ibid., p. 110.(For notes 7-10 sco p. 270.)




The other point, which ismade by both Meekx and Schoff,2

calls rather for notice than for refutation. They claim that it

is significant that the Song belongs to the Passover liturgyof the Jews, since the Passover is a

spring festival, while the

Adonis festival was also observed in the spring.3 Schoff

observes that its incorporation in the Passover liturgy clearlyindicates that it has been brought down from the primitive

spring

festival.

Meek, however,admits

4that this

practicewasonly officially adopted in the middle ages, and this

admission robs the practice of any evidential value for the

original use and purpose of the Song. Against it may be set

tho statement of Theodore of Mopsuestia6

that neither

Jews nor Christians had ever read the book in public. As

Schmidt observes,6 we canhardly suppose that Ecclesiastcs

7 Notes on the Hettrew Text of the Books of Samuel, 2nd cd., 1913, p. vii.

Altorienlalische Texte zum Alien Testament, 2nd ed., 1927, p. 444.9 Le iscrizione anlico-el>raiche palestincsi, 1934, p. 5.

10 So Dalman, PEFQS., 1909, p. 119 :"

Ziirnir can, neither hero nor in

Cant, ii, 12, mean tho first pruning of vino, which is dono in March, but

tho second pruning in June or July." It should perhaps bo noted that

Vulliaud, Le Cantique des Cantiques d'apres la tradition juive, 1925, pp.38 if.,

defends tho meaning cutting for T^t , but explains it in connection

with tho law of Lev. xix, 23 ff. (cf. Mishnah, Orlah). In this ho follows

tho interpretation of tho Cabbalists. Tho Targum also found the meaning

cutting in tho word, but interpreted it of tho cutting off of tho Egyptian

first-born?NBD X^DU qittp Jltf.1AJSL., loc. cit., p. 4, and Symposium, p. 49.

*Ibid., p. 80.

3It should, however, bo observed that Lagrange (Etudes sur les Religions

8imitiques, 1905, pp. 305 f.) and Baudissin (Adonis und Esmun, 1911,

pp. 121-133) maintain that tho Adonis rites wore eelobrated in the summer

and not in tho spring. Cf. Jastrow (Religion of Babylonia and Assryia, 1898,

p. 547):"

Tho Tammuz festival was celebrated just before the summer

solstice set in."4

AJSL., loc. cit., p. 4 n. Cf. Cassuto, GSAI, N.S., i, 1925-8, p. 109 :"

Ma occorrerebbo prima dimostrare che quaest'uso risalc a un'alta antichita,

il che non sombra probabile, non trovandosi esso ricordato prima del

Massekctli S6phorim, cho apparticno, como 6 noto, all'epoca gaonaica."6 "

Undo neo Judaois, ncc nobis publica lectio unquam cantici canti

corum facta est" (Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio,

ix, 1703, col. 227 ; cf. Migno, PO., lxvi, 1804, col. 700).8

J ACS., loc. cit., p. 150.,




was written as avintage hymn, or Ruth as a Pentecostal

story, and we are therefore scarcely bound to suppose that

the Songwas written for a

spring festival.

It should, however, be added that Wittekindt1 repeats

the argument of Meek, but disputes his admission that our

evidence for the reading of the book at Passover is only late.

He discounts the statement of Theodore of Mopsuestia, and

finds

significance

in the fact thatHippolytus expoundedCt. iii, 1-4 at Easter, and that the Targum expounds part of

the Song in relation to the first Passover and the Exodus

from Egypt. That this interpretation cannot naturally be

got out of the Song itself is held to point to the fact that

behind the Targum lies the already existing custom of reading

the book at Passover, and Wittekindt therefore concludes

that this practice may go back to the beginning of the Christianera. A very slight study of the history of the interpretationof the Song should suffice to show that innumerable meanings

which cannot naturally be got out of the Song have been

read into it, and that they arc evidence for nothing whatever

but the fancy of the interpreters, while for Hippolytus,choice of Easter for the exposition of Ct. iii, 1-4, we need

look no further than the nature of the interpretation givento the Song in the Early Church.2 Moreover, even if it were

proved conclusively that the Song was read at Passover as

early as the beginning of the Christian era, it would not

establish any community of origin between Passover and the

Song. For as Diirr 3points out, Passover was kept at the full

moon, whereas Wittekindt4 finds the origin of the Song in

the wedding of the Sun god and the Moon goddess that was

celebrated at the spring new moon. Whenever the readingof the Song of Songs at Passover began, its choice for reading

1Op. cit., p. 199 f.

2 Cf. Cyril of Alexandria's view that iii, 1, refers to the women who

sought Jesus on tho Resurrection morning (cf. Migne, PC, lxix, 1864,

col. 1285).3

OLZ., xxxi, 1928, col. 115.4

Op. cit., pp. 187 f., 191 f.




at that festival was natural, since the Song is full of the

springtime, and since the spring is not merely the season of

Adonis, but the time of love all the world over.

The case for the Adonis-Tammuz liturgy theory, therefore,

does not seem to be adequately supported, and we need not

yet regard the Song of Songs as the liturgy of a pagan cult

that was abhorred of the prophets. At the same time, itmaybe freely allowed that many of the allusions in the Song may

genuinely refer to elements of the Adonis-Tammuz cult,1

whether found in the practice of the poet's contemporaries,or

inherited in speech frgm an earlier age.2In my view the poems are no more than they appear to

be, songs which express, albeit with a boldness of physical

imagery which is alien to the manner of our age, the devoted

love oftwo

lovers. I do not hold, with Toy,3 that their unityismerely

aunity of emotion, but believe them to be the work

of asingle author. This is, of course, in no sense a new view,4

but it appears to me to be still the most probable solution

of the ever-fascinating riddle of the Song. Its songs were

not written to serve any cult, whether of Adonis or of Yahweh,

but to express the warm emotions of youthful hearts. And,

1Cf. Jcrcmias, ATLOE., 4th cd., 1930, p. 070, where Ct. iv, 8, is held

to bo an allusion to tho Tammuz. legend. Cf. Bcrtholet,"

Zur Stello Holies

Lied, iv, 8," in Baudissin Festschrift (BZA ]V., xxxiii), 1918, pp. 47-53.

Cf. Eissfeldt, Einleitung in das Alte Testament, 1934, pp. 533 f.:"

Indcs

bleibt bei genauerer Nachpriifung dicscr Thcoric (i.e. Wittckindt's) nichts

wciter iibrig als die freilich schr beachtcnswcrtc und audi sonst bedcutsamo

Wahr8cheinlichkcit, dass in Israel, wio andcrswo in dor Welt, die Spracho

der Liebendcn durch die mythisch-kultischc Diktion, insofcrn sic das

Vorhaltnis von Gott und Gottin zum Gcgcnstand hat, bccinflusst wordenist, wio auch umgokchrt der Mythus bei der crotischen Pocsie Anleihcn

gomacht hat." Cf. also Durr, OLZ., xxxi, 1928, col. 115:"

Es diirfte

sicher sein, doss mancho Ziigo der Ischtar auch auf die oricntalischc Liebes

pocsie eingewirkt haben."3 Jewish Encyclopaedia, xi, p. 407a.4 It connects with tho view advanced by Herder, Lieder der Licbe, 1778,

pp. 89-100; Rouss, Die Geschichte der Heiligen Schrifte Allen Testaments,

1881, p. 223, and many other writers. Cf. the quite recent work of

H. Wheeler Robinson, The Old Testament: its Making and Meaning1937, pp. 101 f.




therefore, quite naturally, since Adonis-Tammuz rites were

deeply imbedded in the popular superstition and speech,1

they are adorned with allusions to those rites, just as our own

lyrical poetry is adorned with innumerable allusions to the

mythology of Venus and Cupid.

As I have said elsewhere, I do not think this view means that

the Song is unworthy of aplace in the Canon of Scripture,

as was declared by Ibn Ezra,2 and as has been maintained

1 Already, in 1919, beforo Meek propounded his theory, Dussaud had

recognized this. He wrote (Le Canlique des Canliques, 1919, p. 29) :"

L'identi

fication do Tamantc avec la naturo nous placo sur un torrain familior

au mythc, on particular au mythe d'Eschmoun-Adonis. En offot, les deux

poemes du bien-aime comportcnt non sculcment 1'idcntification du jounc

hommo au printemps et dc la jcunc filio a la nature, mais encoro la

fuito de l'amant vers la montagno ot sa poursuito par l'araante. Lo

ra}>prochcment marquo a quel point la societo israclito etait encoro im

prcgneo par les eultes naturistes ; mais il n'ya pas lieu do pousscr la com

paraison plus avant. Apres avoir ccarto ces poemes des rites nuptiaux,nous no songeons nullcmcnt a y rcconnaitro l'ccho do la liturgio des Adonies."

A. Lods (RIIR., lxxxii, 1920, p. 223) says that in this viow Dussaud**

obdit

tres ccrtaincmont a un sentiment juste ".

2 Sec tho Preface to his commentary on the Song, nMuH Jlb^n

?bibi bwto -pi bv dn \d pwn nmn D^Tian tip nvnb

Unpn "UnD TIM arOJ Sk mb^D b>Ta which may bo rendered"

Abhorred, abhorred bo the idea that tho Song of Songs is in tho

categoryof love

songs,but rather has it tho charactor of a

parablo;and

were it not for tho greatness of its exccllcnco it would not havo been

incorporated in tho corpus of sacred writings." Cf. first recension (H. J.

Mathews, Abraham ibn Ezra's Commentary on Utc Canticles after the

first recension, 1874, Hebrew part, p. 9) : ^"QnZL miVlb nb^bn nb^n

woNW nbwi nb^Dn invn îbi.... bwn ym bv dx "opwnDnM NDDQ TH tob Unpn nra. Cf. also Jcphct ibn Ali (InCanticum Caniicorum commentarium arabicum, ed. by J. J. L. Barges,

1884, on i, 1) :^J}

HIITJ?\e Jy -G| .U.

^

^ j* J*J?u

Mi

nvi ^ tw Ji ula jl* Uij oUi IJUJ ji-ju Ji* r>LJiaJ* n&bp

n&s 0cj Vk-w ?>?^} yr\ wan 0*j *?*nu>>*tr̂ lûnpn,

which Barges (p. 6) renders"

No cadat in mentom corum qui illius sonsum

non capiunt, sermonem hie habcri alicujus viri mcretricem amantis; nul

latcnus enim computandus est Salomon (cui salus!) inter cos, qui talcm

januam ingrcdiuntur ; verumenimvero Spiritu Sancto afflatus istud dixit

Canticum, verba nimirum dans congrcgationi Israel, et loquontes inducons

Immaculatos viae, Fortes Israel ot germen Davidicum."

JRAS. APRIL 1938. 18




by along line of writers, including, quite recently, Dennefeld.1

For"

the Church hasalways

consecrated the union of man

and woman inmatrimony, and taught that marriage is a divine

ordinance and a sacrament, and it is not unfitting that a book

which expresses the spiritual and physical emotions on which

matrimony rests should be given aplace in the Canon of

Scripture ".a

At the same time, it is quite certain that its inclusion did

not rest on considerations such as these. It is probable, ashas long been maintained, that its inclusion rested on the

ascription of the work to Solomon, and on the allegorical

interpretation that was given to it, and it is interesting to

observe that one of the Chinese Classics, the Shih Ching, or.

Book of tlie Odes, similarly contains poems for whose pre

servation wo are indebted to the allegorical interpretation

that was given to them. Thus the ode 3 :?

u & * m * u a * m tffi m * -mm m m * & mul m n w ar z. m n i$>&

u ? b m n a a Ay.m n4ii -Hi

Jl IL

is rendered by Legge

* :"Ifyou, Sir, think kindly

ofme,

1 Introduction d VAncien Testament, 1934, p. 140 :"

Cctto conception

(i.e. that the Song is a collection of lovo songs) est cxcluo par lo scul fait

quo lo Cantique so trouve dans lo canon bibliquc." Yet on the following

page he says"

I/amour naturel, donue de toute sensualitc coupable, est

le typo le plus parfait do l'amour eurnaturel." Why, then, should it bo

regarded as a thing evil in itself, and patently unworthy of a place in tho

Canon ?*

JTS., xxxviii, 1937, p. 303.8 Part i, Book vii, Ode 13.

*The Chinese Classics, with a Translation, etc., iv, part i, 1871, p. 140.

II. A. Giles (History of Chinese Literature, 1923, p. 14) gives a spirited

abridgment:? "If you will lovo mo dear, my lord,I'll pick up my skirts and cross the ford,

But if from your heart you turn mo out?

Woll, you're not the only man about,

You silly, silly, silliest lout."

Ho comments"

Native scholars arc, of course, hidebound in tho traditions

of commentators, but European students will do well to seek tho meaning

of tho Odes within tho compass of tho Odes themselves "?a comment thatcan equally bo applied to tho Song of Songs.




I will hold up my lower garments, and cross the Tsin. If you

do not think ofme,

is there no otherperson (to

doso)

? You

foolish, foolish fellow ! If you, Sir, think kindly of me, I will

hold up my lower garments, and cross the Wci. If you do not

think of me, Is there no other gentleman (to do so) ? You

foolish, foolish fellow !"

To this Legge appends the com

ment :?" The Preface understands the pieceas the expression

of the wish of the people of Ch'ing that some great state would

interfere, to settle the struggle between the marquis Hwuh

(3?J)and his brother Tuh ($?). Hwuh succeeded to his father

in 700 B.C.; and that same year he was driven from the state

by his brother Tuh. In 696, Tuh had to flee, and Hwuh

recovered the earldom, but before the end of the year Tuh

was again master of a strong city in Ch'ing, which he held

till Hwuh was murdered in 694. The old school holds that

Tuh is ' the madman of all mad youths' in the fifth lines;

but how an interpretation of the other four lines, according to

the view of the Preface, was everthought of as the primary

idea intended in them, I cannot well conceive."

That allegorical interpretationsarc very ancient, indeed,

is clear from a passage in the Lun Yii, or Confucian Analects,1

where, however, the reference is to a poem which did not

secure admission to the Shih Ching :?

K iffi ? WiD -T-m lift % -7

ffl %s Elx Hv Hx '3\ &% #? Kel *6 m m m m * . iw

?o nr̂ & m m & m b,

This Legge translates 2:?" Tsze-hsia asked, saying,

'

What is1 Book iii, chap. viii.2 The Chinese Classics, with a Translation, etc., 2nd cd., i, 1893, p. 157.

Cf. W. E. Soothill's rendering of the Ode (The Analects of Confucius, 1910,

,.. 191):?"

As she artfully smiles

What dimples appear !

Her bewitching eyesShow their colours so clear.

Ground spotless and candid

For tracery splendid !

"




the meaning of the passage?The pretty dimples of her artfulsmile ! The well-defined black and white of her eye ! The

plain ground for the colours % The Master said,' The business

of laying on the colours follows the preparation of the plain

ground.''Ceremonies then arc a

subsequent thing ?'

The

Master said,'It is Shang who can

bring out my meaning.

Now I canbegin to talk about the odes with him \"

We are inevitably reminded by these fantastic interpreta

tions of the strange explanations of the Song of Songs that

have been offered, and if it is to the allegorizers that we owe

the preservation of these poems, we aredeeply in their debt,

and gladly acknowledge that in the Providence of God their

follies have served a purpose. To the Tammuz theorists, too,

our debt is real for the light they have shed on some things

in the Song,even though they have failed to carry conviction

in their main thesis.

356.

Documents

The Song of Songs - An Examination of Recent Theory