How Jewish is the Gospel of Matthew?

How Jewish is the Gospel of Matthew?

Hare, Douglas R A
Bell & Howell Information and Learning: Foreign text omitted.

IN THIS ARTICLE I oppose what some have claimed is "the growing consensus" concerning Matthew's social setting, namely, that his gospel was written for a Law-observant Jewish sect that admitted Gentiles to full participation only after they had converted to Judaism. My primary dialogue partners are Anthony Saldarini, Andrew Overman, and Amy-Jill Levine.1

It is generally agreed that the conceptual world of Matthew is primarily Jewish, and that his gospel's intense hostility toward "the scribes and Pharisees" implies a relationship of some kind with formative Judaism. The issue is whether the author and the Christians for whom he writes identify more closely with the synagogue community or with mixed churches of the Diaspora such as the Church of Antioch prior to the arrival of "some from James" (Gal 2:11-14). Or, to put the question in slightly different terms, does Matthew's community expect Gentile converts to become Jewish proselytes?2

I will consider briefly four matters relevant to the debate: (I) the use of arguments based on what is not written in the gospel (the argument from silence, (2) the self-identification of Matthew's community, (3) Matthew's perspective on observance of Torah, and (4) the significance of practices in worship. The theological significance of the debate will then be addressed.

1. The Argument from Silence

Matthean students dispute whether circumcision was required of Gentiles who wished to be full participants in Matthew's churches. One side insists that the evangelist's failure to mention the need for circumcision is insignificant; we can infer from Matt 5:17-20 that Gentiles were required to keep the whole Law, including the requirement of circumcision.3 Others counter that silence on this issue must be taken seriously, in view of the fact that the Great Commission of 28:18-20, which authorizes the mission to the Gentiles, does not specifically require observance of the Mosaic Law, requiring rather "whatever I commanded you" and calling for baptism instead of circumcision.4 On this and many other related matters, however, Jacob Neusner's valuable aphorism must rule our discussion: "What we cannot show we do not know."5 Any inference we draw regarding circumcision remains uncertain. The gospel's silence must be respected.

The same must be said concerning all estimates of the number of Gentiles in the churches for which Matthew writes. Some scholars propose that the Great Commission represents a new departure.b Where is the evidence for this hypothesis? Andrew Overman infers that there are few Gentiles in Matthew's groups, because Gentiles do not play a major role in the gospel.7 This argument is faulty on at least two counts: (1) Gentiles are more prominent in Matthew's gospel than in Mark's, which is usually assigned to the Pauline wing of the church; (2) the First Evangelist, like the Second, is writing a gospel, not a history of the early church. From Luke, who alone is careful to report the circumcision of Jesus, we would not know that in the Acts of the Apostles he would defend the right of Gentiles to admission without circumcision. Matthew's conclusion encourages us to believe that churches of Matthew's persuasion engaged in a mission to Gentiles; he is silent about when this began, how successful it was, and what was expected of Gentile converts.

Scholars on both sides agree that the intense invective of Matthew 23 suggests that the author and presumably some of his readers have had extended and negative contact with Pharisaic Judaism. Because this is not a church history, however, we cannot safely conclude that this hostile contact is continuing into the period in which Matthew is completing his gospel. Persecution by the scribes may belong to a past chapter in Matthew's life, or it may not. Nothing in the text permits certainty on this issue. According to the current scholarly consensus, the evangelist was a Jew and many, if not most, of his intended readers were Jews.8 Even when we assume the correctness of this view, no safe inferences may be drawn concerning the relationship between these Christian Jews and the synagogue community. The social control exercised by Pharisaic scribes in certain synagogues in which missionaries were flogged would not prevail everywhere. Paul was able to persist in his controversial ministry for many years without being flogged regularly by local Jewish leaders. We must assume that it was possible for Matthew and his Jewish readers to distance themselves from unfriendly Jews, just as the Jews in Paul's churches did. Whether the persecution alluded to in 10:17-23, 23:34 was continuing or not, we simply do not know.9

James, the brother of Jesus, the great hero of Jewish Christianity, receives scant attention in the First Gospel (13:55).10 Is this significant? Here, perhaps, the argument from silence has more force, since Matthew, in 16:17-19, makes such a point of elevating Peter, the patron saint of the Roman church, to a position far above that which he has in the Gospel of Mark, the gospel traditionally associated with Rome and Peter, while at the same time Matthew abstains from anti-Paulinism.11 Like every argument from silence, however, this one must remain inconclusive.

11. Self-identification

Donald Hagner proposes that although members of Matthew's community "saw their Christianity as the true fulfillment of Judaism, they were also very conscious that they had broken with their unbelieving brethren," and that "they were struggling to define and defend a Jewish-Christianity to the Jews on the one hand and to realize their identity with gentile Christians on the other."12 Similarly, John Meier suggests that Matthew's church was facing an identity crisis because of internal tension between conservative Jewish members and Gentile members; Matthew's intention was to fashion an "inclusive synthesis."13 I find both these proposals attractive, but how can they be supported from the text, apart from inconclusive arguments from silence?

Other scholars maintain that Matthew's community defined itself primarily by its opposition to formative Judaism. Saldarini argues that it was because Matthean Christians had been expelled from the synagogues that they formed their own assembly.14 As far as I know, there is no evidence for such an expulsion.15 Martyn has argued that the three passages in the Fourth Gospel on the danger of becoming aposynagogos (literally, "desynagogued'* (John 9:22; 12:42; 16:2) reflect the use of the Birkat hamminim as a means of detecting and expelling Christians.16 Greater caution is required, however. First, there is no certainty concerning the time when the Twelfth Benediction was added to the Semoneh `esreh, nor do we know when it was adopted in the diverse synagogues of Palestine and the Diaspora, none of which were under any obligation to conform with liturgical modifications originating in Yavneh.17 Second, it is now generally agreed that minim was a term broad enough to include Sadducees and others who disagreed with the positions taken in rabbinic Judaism. For this reason, as Reuven Kimelman and Steven Katz have argued, it would have been possible for Jewish Christians to lead the congregation in the benediction with a clear conscience, regarding others, not themselves, as truly minim.18

It is unlikely, however, that the passages on becoming aposynagogos have anything to do with the Birkat hamminim.19 They clearly anticipate involuntary expulsion from the synagogue, but we are left in uncertainty on several issues. First, can we be sure that they refer to an expulsion that has already taken place rather than one that is merely feared?20 John 16:2 seems to anticipate numerous deaths; our other historical sources do not support the view that this was a prophecy ex eventu.21 It is possible that these texts anticipate a general expulsion that did not in fact take place. Second, it is possible that expulsions had already occurred, but that they affected only outspoken missionaries like Paul, not ordinary Christians.22

In any event, it is not proper to conclude on the basis of these three verses that it became a general policy in all synagogues of Palestine and the Diaspora to excommunicate any and all Christians who continued to worship with their non-Christian families and neighbors. There is no other evidence of such a policy in the New Testament, other early Christian literature, or Tannaitic sources. The most that can legitimately be inferred from the three passages on being aposynagogos is that perhaps some Johannine Christians were excluded, either by formal or informal means, from worshiping in one or more synagogues. Since the verses in question are polemical, it ought not to be assumed without other evidence that a formal act of excommunication is being referred to. Informal shunning, recommended in t. ,Hul. 2.20-21, may have been interpreted by the Fourth Evangelist polemically as expulsion. It seems probable that what the crypto-Christians of John 12:42-43 fear most is not so much exclusion from synagogue worship as socioeconomic shunning.23

Whatever the background and intention of the passages on becoming aposynagogos may be, we ought not to infer from them that the Christians for whom John wrote made the local synagogue the locus of their worship. The implicit ecclesiology of John IS points to the church as the primary gathering of Johannine Christians. This must have been true from the beginning, for Christians everywhere. Exclusion from synagogue worship was probably superfluous in most cases; it is unlikely that Christian Jews continued to participate regularly in synagogue services. The local synagogue was not their spiritual home.24

Critical to the self-identification of Matthew's groups is their use of the term ekklesia ("church," Matt 16:18; 18:17). Saldarini attempts to minimize the significance of the evidence by postulating that Matthew chooses this common Greek word for "assembly" merely to distinguish Christian meetings from those of their Pharisaic opponents.25 In Matt 16:18, however, great emphasis is placed on the fact that the Messiah promised to build a new entity, his assembly (ekklesia) on the rock of Peter. Clearly, Matthew understands ekklesia in this instance as a word referring not simply to the local Christian assembly but to the whole movement. Since Matthew undoubtedly knew that the term had become the standard way of referring to congregations in the Pauline wing of the church, his use of it suggests that the Matthean groups did not rigorously disassociate themselves from Gentile Christianity Saldarini concedes that Matthew's group was part of a network that included Pauline churches.26

Saldarini's use of the sociological concept "master status" is helpful. He writes that "the members of Matthew's group find their core identity and their `master status' in being believers-in-Jesus. All other aspects of their Jewish life and worldview are filtered through this central commitment.."27 He properly insists that this did not extinguish their sense of being Jewish. But could not the same be said of Priscilla, Aquila, and many other Jews in the Pauline churches? They remained Jewish and presumably observed various ritual precepts of the Torah, but their "master status" was Christian.

III. Matthew's Perspective on Observance of Torah

Those who claim that the First Gospel was written for a Jewish sect argue on the basis of a few verses that Matthew expected strict observance of the Torah on the part of Gentile as well as Jewish members.

The primary text is Matt 5:19, "Whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven." This verse is one of a complex of four sayings which together constitute the programmatic introduction to the Sermon on the Mount. The preceding verse, which proclaims the continuing validity of every letter of the Torah, must not be interpreted as one requiring the literal observance of every precept of the Law. Such affirmations of the sanctity of Scripture were accompanied by many departures in practice in all forms of first-century Judaism known to us. Jesus himself is represented a few verses later (5:31-32) "loosing" the provisions for divorce in Deut 24:1. Like modern fundamentalists, ancient Jews and Christians could conscientiously affirm the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture while at the same time supporting significant departures from its literal requirements by means of interpretation.

What, then, is intended by Matt 5:19? It too must be taken as a general statement, not as a requirement of literal observance of all precepts, many of which had long since become dead letters or had been drastically reinterpreted. When we consider the gospel as a whole, it appears unlikely that Matthew expected his readers to be more conservative in interpretation and more rigorous in observance of the ritual requirements of the Torah than even the Pharisees and the people of Qumran. Moreover, it seems probable that Matthew represents Jesus as a person disregarding certain requirements of purity by touching a leper (8:3) and dining with people suspected of uncleanness ("tax collectors and sinners," 9:10).28 Even if Matthew regarded Jesus fully observant of the laws of purity, however, 5:19 does not exclude from the kingdom of heaven those who are not fully observant; such persons will be included even though they are described as "least." This verse, in effect, has a force similar to that of Did. 6:3, "Concerning food, bear what you can."29 Matt 5:19 is best understood as encouraging Torah observance without making full conformity (as Matthew understood it) a sine qua non of membership in the church.

A second passage of importance to the argument that Matthew's intended readers are Torah-observant Jews is 23:2-3, "The scribes and Pharisees sit on Moses' seat; therefore, do whatever they say to you and observe it; but do not do as they do, for they do not practice what they say." Whatever the origin of this saying may be, Matthew's context makes it very clear that it does not refer to Pharisaic halakah. The immediately following verses emphasize that "the scribes and Pharisees" are not to be honored as teachers (23:4, 8); Christians are not to obey their teachings (23:16-20).' Mark Powell has recently proposed that w. 2-3 refer not to the teaching authority of the religious leaders but to the public reading or recitation of Torah.31 If Powell's intriguing suggestion is accepted, these verses simply reaffirm what is said in 5:17-48: Matthean Christians are to obey "the whole Law" as it is interpreted by Jesus. In view of the latitude permitted by 5:19 (see above), the exhortation of 23:2-3 cannot be used as evidence of the orthopraxy of Matthew's community.

Similarly, 23:23 must not be taken as proof that Matthew and his readers rigorously tithed their garden herbs and expected Gentile converts to do the same. Rather than demanding such observance, the saying radically diminishes the importance of such scrupulous tithing by hyperbolically subordinating it to ethical concerns in the attached saying, "You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel!" (23:24).

Finally, 24:20, "Pray that your flight may not be in winter or on a Sabbath," does not constitute evidence that Matthean Christians were more severe sabbatarians than the Pharisees.32 The saying by no means forbids travel in winter or on a Sabbath; it suggests merely that it would be preferable if the flight could occur in more favorable circumstances. Although Matthew encourages Sabbath observance, it must not be forgotten that he elevates Jesus as "lord of the Sabbath" (12:8) and strongly rebukes those whom he considers guilty of extreme sabbatarianism by appealing in 12:7 to Hos 6:6. An evangelist who countenances hauling a sheep out of a pit in violation of the Sabbath (Matt 12:11; not in Mark!) and who reports that Jesus said, "So it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath" ( 12:12) is unlikely to have taken 24:20 as a prohibition of flight on the Sabbath.33

The pericope concerning the temple tax (17:24-27, found only in Matthew) has sometimes been taken as evidence of the Jewishness of the Matthean congregations.34 According to the current scholarly consensus, Matthew's gospel is from the time after n.n. 70 when the tax was paid not to the temple but to the imperial treasury (Josephus B.J. 7.6.6 sec218). Why does Matthew include the pericope? Certainly not as an encouragement to rigorous observance of Torah. The annual half-shekel tax was not clearly prescribed by the Torah (neither Exod 30:11-16 nor Exod 38:25-26, often appealed to, requires an annual tax). The stern rigorists of Qumran understood the Law to require a contribution only once in a lifetime.35 The force of the pericope is that Jesus and his followers do not regard the tax as one binding upon them, but they will pay it "so that we do not give offense to them" (Matt 17:27), with the same verb skandalizo used in 15:12, where Jesus is not at all reluctant about scandalizing the Pharisees. We ought to assume, therefore, that the persons who are not to be scandalized in 17:27 are not the leaders of the synagogue in Matthew's day but ordinary Jews who might perceive failure to pay the fiscus iudaicus as a sign that Christian Jews were renouncing their Jewishness and becoming fully assimilated. This does not constitute an argument in favor of the view that the Gospel of Matthew was addressed to congregations that were almost exclusively Jewish; it constitutes the very reverse. No one would have thought of suggesting that the people of Qumran were assimilating because they refused to pay the temple tax annually. Only if Christian Jews in the Matthean churches were welcoming Gentiles would the charge of assimilation be credible. Whether Matthew expected Gentile members of the Christian community to pay the Jewish tax cannot be determined from this pericope.

It should be clear that the key to the self-identification of Matthew's intended audience was not adherence to the ritual requirements of the Torah. There is no basis in the relevant texts for the assumption that Matthean Christians were more assiduous or less assiduous in matters of purity, tithing, and Sabbath observance than other non-Pharisaic Jews. Despite the few passages that appear to support rigorous observance of such precepts (5:19; 23:23), there is overwhelming evidence in Matthew's gospel that the ritual requirements have been firmly subordinated to the moral law (as was undoubtedly true of many non-Christian Jews as well). This is especially clear in 15:1-20. Scholars tend to exaggerate the significance of Matthew's omission of Mark 7:19b ("cleansing all foods"). Even without this comment, the impact of the verse is the same: Jesus is represented in Matt 15:11 as a person declaring that food does not defile. It is Matthew, not Mark, who draws attention to the astounding implications of Jesus' statement by having the disciples report that the Pharisees were scandalized by the saying ( 15:12).37

Amy-Jill Levine is confident that Matthew's church was predominantly Jewish, yet she concedes that its members would think of themselves as neither "Jew" nor "Gentile," for in the "new era of the ekklesia" those terms were "no longer operative"; she concludes that "the church is neither the new Israel nor the true Israel" and that "the new era belongs not to Israel at all, but to the ekklesia. "38

IV The Significance of Practices in Worship

It is erroneous to describe Matthew's church as a Jewish sect that differs from other Jewish groups only by proclaiming that Jesus was the Messiah. Although Matthew's christology lacks the sophisticated incarnationism of the Fourth Gospel, it far outstrips other forms of Jewish messianism. The Matthean Jesus, who claims a future place at God's right hand (26:64; cf. 22:44), declares that all authority in heaven as well as on earth has been conferred on him (28:18). In 11:27 Jesus announces that no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son reveals him. Matt 24:31 promises that at the parousia Jesus will send out his angels (cf. 16:27). Matthew presents Jesus as a person replacing the temple as the place where sin is removed (1:21; 9:6; 12:6; 20:28; 26:28).39

It has been proposed that such outlandish ideas may well have been perceived by other Jews as simply crazy, not as evidence of apostasy. What other scholars and I have ignored, however, is that these outlandish ideas probably arose in connection with the early Christian worship of Jesus. Credit must be given particularly to Bauckham, France, and Hurtado for drawing attention to this neglected factor.' Hurtado argues convincingly that this strange challenge to traditional Jewish monotheism arose not in Gentile Christianity but in the Aramaic-speaking Palestinian church prior to Paul's conversion.

Matthew, whose gospel is the most Jewish gospel, makes no attempt to oppose this practice. Indeed, there is more support for worship of Jesus here than in Mark or Luke. Although the verb proskyneo can mean simply "pay homage to" and is so used in several Matthean passages (e.g., 8:2), there are three instances in which it seems to have the meaning "worship," with Jesus as object (14:33; 28:9, 17). Luke uses the verb only once with reference to worship of Jesus (24:52),4 and Mark not at all. It is striking that both Matthew (in 4:10) and Luke (in 4:8) make the tension with traditional Jewish monotheism explicit by citing Deut 6:13, "You shall worship (proskyneseis) the Lord your God, and him only shall you serve."

It is only Matthew who reports the command of the risen Christ that new followers be baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Whatever the force of the phrase "in the name of" may be, it is significant that Jesus is placed between the Father and the Holy Spirit. Gundry observes that such a high christology "is almost bound to have fixed a great gulf between Matthew's community and Judaism."42

Further evidence that Jesus was the object of worship in the Matthean churches can be seen in the two passages in which his continuing presence is promised (18:20, "Where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there among them," and 28:20, "I am with you always, to the end of the age"). Echoes can be heard here not only of passages in the Hebrew Scriptures in which God promises to be with Israel or one of its representatives (e.g., Isa 41:10; 43:5) but also of the passage on Emmanuel (cited in Matt 1:23). In these passages Jesus is represented not merely as a human Messiah who now waits in heaven until he returns to reign but rather as a suprahuman being who shares with God the capability of being omnipresent. Exegesis of 18:20 disposed Gunther Bornkamm, who earlier described Matthew's conflict with the synagogue as a conflict intra muros, to publish a different opinion in 1970: "The church, although still very small, knows itself to be cut off from the Jewish community; gathered no longer around the Torah, but in the name of Jesus, in faith in him and in confession of him, and as such to be assured of his presence."43

Hurtado is fully justified in suggesting that early Christian worship of Jesus constituted a significant "mutation" in the monotheistic tradition of Judaism.' In our efforts to evaluate the Jewishness of the First Gospel, this factor must not be ignored or underrated.

V The Theological Significance of the Jewishness of Matthew

Underlying the passionate debate regarding the Jewishness of Matthew is the issue of anti-Semitism. Saldarini observes that Matthew has become "an embarrassment for Christians well disposed toward Judaism because of the way his polemics against his contemporaries have been used against the Jews" and expresses the hope that his book will relieve this embarrassment by demonstrating that Matthew's polemic is not anti-Jewish but anti-Pharisaic; the reflection of a conflict within Israel!5 Similarly, Harrington warns that "without attention to its historical setting Matthew becomes a dangerous text, capable of giving encouragement to anti-Semites."46 Like Saldarini, Harrington believes that the First Gospel is best protected from such horrible misuse by treating Matthew's church as a group within Judaism."

I heartily agree with Saldarini, Harrington, and others about the need to defuse the anti-Semitic threat presented by Matthew's rhetoric. Like them, I regard the author of the gospel as a Jew who vehemently opposed other Jews, especially those sympathetic to the Pharisaic movement, because they rejected the message about Jesus. I part company with Saldarini, Harrington, and others by seeing in this gospel evidence that for Matthew and his intended audience the parting of the ways had already taken place. One who holds this position by no means assumes that there were no further contacts between Matthean Jews and non-Christian Jews, or that conversions of individual Jews were no longer sought. It is a matter of emphasis. Because of the failure of Matthew's Christian Jews to win many Jewish converts (the unifying theme of the missionary chapter, Matthew 10, is pessimism concerning the mission to the lost sheep of the house of Israel), Matthew believes that the church's future is intimately bound up with the mission to the Gentiles. By dissociating himself from unbelieving Jews (28:15) and associating himself with believing Gentiles (24:14; 28:19), Matthew stakes out a middle ground between Jews and pagans (21:43).

In the continuing battle against anti-Semitism it may or may not be helpful to remind modern readers that Matthew's anti-Judaism is of Jewish, not Gentile, origin. I am not convinced, however, that the case is strengthened by insisting, as Saldarini does, that Matthew's group is simply a deviant sect within Judaism. In any event, regardless of Matthew's social setting, modern anti-Semitism must be countered with stronger ammunition. The most effective deterrent to Christian anti-Semitism remains sound teaching about the faithfulness of God revealed in the Hebrew Scriptures and in Romans 9-11.'a

VI. Conclusions

In this article I have attempted to demonstrate that the hypothesis that Matthew was written for a Law-observant Jewish sect whose members expected interested Gentiles to become Jewish proselytes is not securely founded. The argument from silence is ineffectual. Those few verses that seem to require strict conformity with the ritual requirements of the Torah can be understood in a very different way; they do not validate the hypothesis.

On the other hand, I cannot claim that I have proved the correctness of the opposing hypothesis, namely, that the First Gospel was addressed to mixed churches in which observant Jews accepted Gentile believers as brothers and sisters in Christ without requiring them to observe the ritual requirements of the Torah. (I assume that some Gentiles adopted various Jewish practices, such as Sabbath observance, without feeling bound to full compliance.) While I am still disposed to use this as my working hypothesis, I must acknowledge that it is not as clearly validated by the text as I once thought.

In any event, those on both sides of this debate can agree that for Matthean Christians Jesus has replaced Torah as the key to a right relationship with the God of Israel.

1 A. J. Saldarini, Matthew's Christian-Jewish Community (CSHJ; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994); J. A. Overman, Matthew's Gospel and Formative Judaism: The Social World of the Matthean Community (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990); A.-J. Levine, The Social and Ethnic Dimensions of Matthean Salvation History (Studies in the Bible and Early Christianity 14; Lewiston/Queenstown/Lampeter: Mellen, 1988).

2 Proposed by Saldarini (Matthew's Christian-Jewish Community, 199). Levine (Social and Ethnic Dimensions, 78) suggests that "Matthew likely expected gentile members of the new community to conform to Jewish halakhah."

3 Saldarini, Matthew's Christian-Jewish Community, 157; Levine, Social and Ethnic Dimensions, 178-85; L. M. White, "Crisis Management and Boundary Maintenance: The Social Location of the Matthean Community, in Social History of the Matthean Community: Crossdisciplinary Approaches (ed. D. L. Balch; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991) 242 n. 100; R. Mohrlang, Matthew and PauL A Comparison of Ethical Perspectives (SNTSMS 48; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984) 44-45; D. S. Sim, "The Gospel of Matthew and the Gentiles," JSNT 57 (1995) 45.

4 John P Meier, The Vision of Matthew: Christ, Church, and Morality in the First Gospel (New York: Paulist Press, 1979) 13, 213; W D. Davies and D. C. Allison, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St. Matthew (3 vols.; ICC; Edinburgh: T & T. Clark, 1988-97) 1. 493; R. H. Gundry, A Responsive Evaluation of the Social History of the Matthean Community in Roman Syria," in Social History (ed. Belch) 66 n. 21.

5 J. Neusner, "Preface," in Judaisms and Their Messiahs at the TI

6 For example, U. Luz, Matthew I-7 (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1989) 84; D. J. Harrington, The Gospel of Matthew (SacPag 1; Collegeville: Liturgical Press/ Michael Glazier, 1991 ) 416. In D. R. A. Hare, The Theme of Jewish Persecution of Christians in the Gospel according to St. Matthew (SNTSMS 6; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967) I was inclined to this view; see especially pp. 127-28.

7 Overman, Matthew's Gospel and Formative Judaism, 157.

8 G. N. Stanton ("The Origin and Purpose of Matthew's Gospel: Matthean Scholarship from 1945 to 1980," ANRW 2: Principal, 25/ 3. 1916-21) reviews the arguments for and against the hypothesis that the final redactor of the First Gospel was a Gentile and concludes that the evidence suggests that the author was a Jew. In Hare, Theme of Jewish Persecution, 165 I have argued for Jewish authorship on the basis of the intensity of Matthew's anti-Pharisaism.

9 In Hare, Theme of Jewish Persecution, 127 I argued that Matthew looks back on the persecution from a vantage point outside the synagogue community. I have not changed my opinion, but I recognize that the evidence is not as clear as I thought.

10 For James's role, see H. J. Schoeps, Jewish Christianity: Factional Disputes in the Early Church (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969) 38-46.

11 G. Luedemann, Opposition to Paul in Jewish Christianity (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989) does not include the Gospel of Matthew among Jewish-Christian texts opposed to Paul.

12 D. A. Hagner, "The Sitz im Leben of the Gospel of Matthew," SBLSP 1985, 257.

13 In R. E. Brown and J. P Meier, Antioch and Rome: New Testament Cradles of Catholic Christianity (New York: Paulist Press, 1983) 51.

14 Saldarini, Matthew's Christian-Jewish Community, 121; cf. 112.

15 I examined the available evidence in Hare, Theme of Jewish Persecution, 48-56, 125. See also G. Forkman, The Limits of the Religious Community: Expulsion from the Religious Community within the Qumran Sect, within Rabbinic Judaism, and within Primitive Christianity (ConBNT 5; Lund: Gleerup, 1972) 87-105.

16 J. Louis Martyn, History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel (2d ed.; Nashville: Abingdon, 1979) 37-62. Forkman (Limits of the Religious Community, 105) also argues that these three passages point to the Birkat hamminim.

17 For a helpful review of the evidence and the scholarly discussion of it, see S. T. Katz, "Issues in the Separation of Judaism and Christianity after 70 c.e.: A Reconsideration," JBL 103 (1984) 63-76; also J. T. Sanders, Schismatics, Sectarians, Dissidents, Deviants: The First One Hundred Years of Jewish-Christian Relations (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity 1993) 58-61. Sanders suggests that had the Twelfth Benediction been in use in Luke's day, he would surely have mentioned it in Acts.

18 R. Kimelman, "Birkat Ha-Minim and the Lack of Evidence for an Anti-Christian Jewish Prayer in Late Antiquity," in Jewish and Christian Self Definition 2: Aspects of Judaism in the Greco-Roman Period (ed. E. P Sanders, A. I. Baumgarten, and A. Mendelson; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981) 227; Katz, "Issues," 74. I concur with G. Stanton, A Gospel for a New People: Studies in Matthew (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1993) 142, that the Birkat hamminim has been a red herring in both Matthean and Johannine scholarship.

19 Cf. K, Wengst, Bedrdtngte Gemeinde and verherrlichter Christus: Ein Versuch fiber das Johannesevangelium (3d ed.; Munich: Kaiser, 1990) 89-104, esp. 100.

20 Kimelman ("Birkat Ha-Minim and the Lack of Evidence," 234-35) suggests that the passages on becoming aposynagogos were created in order to persuade Christians to stay away from the synagogue.

21 See Hare, Theme of Jewish Persecution, 20-43. Wengst (Bedriingte Gemeinde, 85) opposes the position I took; on p. 88 he concludes that the reference in John 16:2 is probably to incidents of lynching.

22 p. F Segal ("Matthew's Jewish Voice," in Social History [ed. Balch] 34) suggests that the verses on being aposynagogos refer not to any rabbinic program but to "popular expressions of dislike" used by people who found a "way of dealing with a bunch of disruptive Christians wishing to missionize Jews when they were praying in synagogue."

23 Cf. Wengst, Bedriingte Gemeinde, 101, 104.

24 Cf. Hagner, "The Sitz im Leben," 265: Jewish Christians had to some degree broken with the synagogue as soon as they came into existence." Scholars who assume that Matthean Jews persisted in synagogue worship appear to ignore the fact that members of another Jewish sect, that of Qumran, had their own assemblies and regarded other Jews as apostate.

25 Saldarini, Matthew's Christian-Jewish Community, 116-23.

26 Ibid., 87, 123, 202.

27 Ibid., 112-13. In n. 116 he defines the concept "master status": it "denotes a primary trait of a person to which all others are subordinate."

28 The Torah's regulations concerning leprosy (Leviticus 13-14) do not explicitly prohibit such contact, but the requirement that the leper warn others with the cry "unclean, unclean" (Lev 13:45) surely implies that contact is to be avoided; cf. Luke 17:12. Jesus' lack of concern about personal purity must have offended the Pharisees and others who were striving to win greater compliance with the code of purity.

29 In this connection it should be remembered that the Didache, which seems to echo Matthew at a number of points, is addressed not to Jews but "to the Gentiles."

30 Overman, Matthew's Gospel and Formative Judaism, 145, concedes that the literary context shows that w. 2-3 do not constitute an endorsement of the scribes and Pharisees, yet he maintains that Matthew is telling his readers to do whatever the scribes and Pharisees tell them to do.

31 M. A. Powell, "Do and Keep What Moses Says (Matthew 23:2-7)," JBL 114 (1995) 419-35, esp. 431.

32 An excellent survey of scholarly views of this verse is provided by Stanton, Gospel for a New People, 192-206. He sides with those who propose that flight on the Sabbath would provoke persecution.

33 C. E. Carlston, "The Things That Defile (Mark vii. 14) and the Law in Matthew and Mark," NTS 15 (1968-69) 87, notes that Matthew's omission of Mark 2:27, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath," cannot be construed as evidence of rigorous sabbatarianism, since the same verse is omitted by Luke. He argues that by including "So it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath" Matthew demonstrates that he stands in a relationship to Sabbath observance very different from that of the rabbis.

34 E.g., by Saldarini, Matthew's Christian-Jewish Community, 145.

35 Ibid., 143 with n. 90, for the evidence from Qumran.

36 Cf. Carlton, "Things That Defile," 88; T L. Donaldson, "The Law That Hangs (Matthew 22:40): Rabbinic Formulation and Matthean Social World, CBQ 57 (1995) 693.

37 Carlston ("Things That Defile," 95) correctly observes that in view of early Christian disputes over the laws of purity it is improbable that Jesus expressed himself on the issue so unambiguously. This makes it all the more significant that Matthew not only retains Mark's statement that food does not defile but underlines its importance by adding v. 12.

38 Levine, Social and Ethnic Dimensions, 10-11. I drew the same conclusion in Hare, Theme of Jewish Persecution, 157.

39 See W R. Stegner, "Breaking Away: The Conflict with Formative Judaism," BR 40 (1955) 24-27.

40 R. Bauckham, -The Worship of Jesus in Apocalyptic Christianity " NTS 27 (1981) 322-41; R. T France, "The Worship of Jesus: A Neglected Factor in Christological Debate?" in Christ the Lord: Studies in Christology Presented to Donald Guthrie (ed. H. H. Rowdon; Leicester/ Downer's Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1982) 17-36; L. W Hurtado, One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1988). See also M. A. Powell, "A Typology of Worship in the Gospel of Matthew," JSNT 57 ( 1995) 3-17, esp. 14.

41 The reading is textually dubious, however, and is given only a D rating in the UBSGNT; Codex Bezae, various Mss of the Itala, the Sinaitic Syriac, and Augustine omit the verb.

42 Gundry, "Responsive Evaluation," 64.

43 G. Bornkamm, "The Authority to `Bind' and `Loose' in the Church in Matthew's Gospel: The Problem of Sources in Matthew's Gospel," in Jesus and Man's Hope (2 vols.; Pittsburgh Festival on the Gospels, 1970; Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, 1970-71) 1. 41. For his earlier position, see G. Bornkamm, "End-Expectation and Church in Matthew," in G. Bornkamm, G. Barth, and H.-J. Held, Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew (NTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963') 22, 39. I owe these references to Stanton, "Origins and Purpose," 1912, i914.

44 Hurtado, One God, One Lord, 99. Here, I do not address Matthew's narrative of the Last Supper, since it does not clearly present evidence of the worship of Jesus. Nonetheless, it must surely be regarded as a radical "mutation of an important Jewish practice, the Passover seder.

45 Saldarini, Matthew's Christian-Jewish Community, 203.

46 Harrington, Gospel of Matthew, 22.

47 Ibid., 21.

48 R.K. Soulen (The God of Isreal and Christian Theology [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996]0 challenges the spersessionism that has vitiated the Christian perception of God's relationship to Isreal.

DOUGLAS R. A. HARE

44 Hall Quarry Road

Mount Desert, ME 04660

Copyright Catholic Biblical Association of America Apr 2000
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved

FindArticles > Catholic Biblical Quarterly, The > Apr 2000 > Article >

Judgment on Jerusalems Prostitution: Ezekiel 16:35-63

Judgment on Jerusalem's Prostitution
Ezekiel 16:35-63


35"Therefore, you prostitute, listen to this message from the LORD! 36This is what the Sovereign LORD says: Because you have exposed yourself in prostitution to all your lovers, and because you have worshiped detestable idols, and because you have slaughtered your children as sacrifices to your gods, 37this is what I am going to do. I will gather together all your allies--these lovers of yours with whom you have sinned, both those you loved and those you hated--and I will strip you naked in front of them so they can stare at you. 38I will punish you for your murder and adultery. I will cover you with blood in my jealous fury. 39Then I will give you to your lovers--these many nations--and they will destroy you. They will knock down your pagan shrines and the altars to your idols. They will strip you and take your beautiful jewels, leaving you completely naked and ashamed. 40They will band together in a mob to stone you and run you through with swords. 41They will burn your homes and punish you in front of many women. I will see to it that you stop your prostitution and end your payments to your many lovers.
42"Then at last my fury against you will be spent, and my jealous anger will subside. I will be calm and will not be angry with you anymore. 43But first, because you have not remembered your youth but have angered me by doing all these evil things, I will fully repay you for all of your sins, says the Sovereign LORD. For to all your disgusting sins, you have added these lewd acts. 44Everyone who makes up proverbs will say of you, `Like mother, like daughter.' 45For your mother loathed her husband and her children, and so do you. And you are exactly like your sisters, for they despised their husbands and their children. Truly your mother must have been a Hittite and your father an Amorite.

46"Your older sister was Samaria, who lived with her daughters in the north. Your younger sister was Sodom, who lived with her daughters in the south. 47But you have not merely sinned as they did--no, that was nothing to you. In a very short time you far surpassed them! 48As surely as I live, says the Sovereign LORD, Sodom and her daughters were never as wicked as you and your daughters. 49Sodom's sins were pride, laziness, and gluttony, while the poor and needy suffered outside her door. 50She was proud and did loathsome things, so I wiped her out, as you have seen.

51"Even Samaria did not commit half your sins. You have done far more loathsome things than your sisters ever did. They seem righteous compared to you! 52You should be deeply ashamed because your sins are so terrible. In comparison, you make your sisters seem innocent!

53"But someday I will restore the fortunes of Sodom and Samaria, and I will restore you, too. 54Then you will be truly ashamed of everything you have done, for your sins make them feel good in comparison. 55Yes, your sisters, Sodom and Samaria, and all their people will be restored, and at that time you also will be restored. 56In your proud days you held Sodom in contempt. 57But now your greater wickedness has been exposed to all the world, and you are the one who is scorned--by Edom[b] and all her neighbors and by Philistia. 58This is your punishment for all your disgusting sins, says the LORD.

59"Now this is what the Sovereign LORD says: I will give you what you deserve, for you have taken your solemn vows lightly by breaking your covenant. 60Yet I will keep the covenant I made with you when you were young, and I will establish an everlasting covenant with you. 61Then you will remember with shame all the evil you have done. I will make your sisters, Samaria and Sodom, to be your daughters, even though they are not part of our covenant. 62And I will reaffirm my covenant with you, and you will know that I am the LORD. 63You will remember your sins and cover your mouth in silence and shame when I forgive you of all that you have done, says the Sovereign LORD."



Footnotes:


Ezekiel 16:57 Many ancient manuscripts read Aram.

Psalm 119

Psalm 119
1 Happy are people of integrity,[a] who follow the law of the LORD.
2 Happy are those who obey his decrees and search for him with all their hearts.
3 They do not compromise with evil, and they walk only in his paths.
4 You have charged us to keep your commandments carefully.
5 Oh, that my actions would consistently reflect your principles!
6 Then I will not be disgraced when I compare my life with your commands.
7 When I learn your righteous laws, I will thank you by living as I should!
8 I will obey your principles. Please don't give up on me!
9 How can a young person stay pure? By obeying your word and following its rules.
10 I have tried my best to find you-- don't let me wander from your commands.
11 I have hidden your word in my heart, that I might not sin against you.
12 Blessed are you, O LORD; teach me your principles.
13 I have recited aloud all the laws you have given us.
14 I have rejoiced in your decrees as much as in riches.
15 I will study your commandments and reflect on your ways.
16 I will delight in your principles and not forget your word.
17 Be good to your servant, that I may live and obey your word.
18 Open my eyes to see the wonderful truths in your law.
19 I am but a foreigner here on earth; I need the guidance of your commands. Don't hide them from me!
20 I am overwhelmed continually with a desire for your laws.
21 You rebuke those cursed proud ones who wander from your commands.
22 Don't let them scorn and insult me, for I have obeyed your decrees.
23 Even princes sit and speak against me, but I will meditate on your principles.
24 Your decrees please me; they give me wise advice.
25 I lie in the dust, completely discouraged; revive me by your word.
26 I told you my plans, and you answered. Now teach me your principles.
27 Help me understand the meaning of your commandments, and I will meditate on your wonderful miracles.
28 I weep with grief; encourage me by your word.
29 Keep me from lying to myself; give me the privilege of knowing your law.
30 I have chosen to be faithful; I have determined to live by your laws.
31 I cling to your decrees. LORD, don't let me be put to shame!
32 If you will help me, I will run to follow your commands.
33 Teach me, O LORD, to follow every one of your principles.
34 Give me understanding and I will obey your law; I will put it into practice with all my heart.
35 Make me walk along the path of your commands, for that is where my happiness is found.
36 Give me an eagerness for your decrees; do not inflict me with love for money!
37 Turn my eyes from worthless things, and give me life through your word.[b]
38 Reassure me of your promise, which is for those who honor you.
39 Help me abandon my shameful ways; your laws are all I want in life.
40 I long to obey your commandments! Renew my life with your goodness.
41 LORD, give to me your unfailing love, the salvation that you promised me.
42 Then I will have an answer for those who taunt me, for I trust in your word.
43 Do not snatch your word of truth from me, for my only hope is in your laws.
44 I will keep on obeying your law forever and forever.
45 I will walk in freedom, for I have devoted myself to your commandments.
46 I will speak to kings about your decrees, and I will not be ashamed.
47 How I delight in your commands! How I love them!
48 I honor and love your commands. I meditate on your principles.
49 Remember your promise to me, for it is my only hope.
50 Your promise revives me; it comforts me in all my troubles.
51 The proud hold me in utter contempt, but I do not turn away from your law.
52 I meditate on your age-old laws; O LORD, they comfort me.
53 I am furious with the wicked, those who reject your law.
54 Your principles have been the music of my life throughout the years of my pilgrimage.
55 I reflect at night on who you are, O LORD, and I obey your law because of this.
56 This is my happy way of life: obeying your commandments.
57 LORD, you are mine! I promise to obey your words!
58 With all my heart I want your blessings. Be merciful just as you promised.
59 I pondered the direction of my life, and I turned to follow your statutes.
60 I will hurry, without lingering, to obey your commands.
61 Evil people try to drag me into sin, but I am firmly anchored to your law.
62 At midnight I rise to thank you for your just laws.
63 Anyone who fears you is my friend-- anyone who obeys your commandments.
64 O LORD, the earth is full of your unfailing love; teach me your principles.
65 You have done many good things for me, LORD, just as you promised.
66 I believe in your commands; now teach me good judgment and knowledge.
67 I used to wander off until you disciplined me; but now I closely follow your word.
68 You are good and do only good; teach me your principles.
69 Arrogant people have made up lies about me, but in truth I obey your commandments with all my heart.
70 Their hearts are dull and stupid, but I delight in your law.
71 The suffering you sent was good for me, for it taught me to pay attention to your principles.
72 Your law is more valuable to me than millions in gold and silver!
73 You made me; you created me. Now give me the sense to follow your commands.
74 May all who fear you find in me a cause for joy, for I have put my hope in your word.
75 I know, O LORD, that your decisions are fair; you disciplined me because I needed it.
76 Now let your unfailing love comfort me, just as you promised me, your servant.
77 Surround me with your tender mercies so I may live, for your law is my delight.
78 Bring disgrace upon the arrogant people who lied about me; meanwhile, I will concentrate on your commandments.
79 Let me be reconciled with all who fear you and know your decrees.
80 May I be blameless in keeping your principles; then I will never have to be ashamed.
81 I faint with longing for your salvation; but I have put my hope in your word.
82 My eyes are straining to see your promises come true. When will you comfort me?
83 I am shriveled like a wineskin in the smoke, exhausted with waiting. But I cling to your principles and obey them.
84 How long must I wait? When will you punish those who persecute me?
85 These arrogant people who hate your law have dug deep pits for me to fall into.
86 All your commands are trustworthy. Protect me from those who hunt me down without cause.
87 They almost finished me off, but I refused to abandon your commandments.
88 In your unfailing love, spare my life; then I can continue to obey your decrees.
89 Forever, O LORD, your word stands firm in heaven.
90 Your faithfulness extends to every generation, as enduring as the earth you created.
91 Your laws remain true today, for everything serves your plans.
92 If your law hadn't sustained me with joy, I would have died in my misery.
93 I will never forget your commandments, for you have used them to restore my joy and health.
94 I am yours; save me! For I have applied myself to obey your commandments.
95 Though the wicked hide along the way to kill me, I will quietly keep my mind on your decrees.
96 Even perfection has its limits, but your commands have no limit.
97 Oh, how I love your law! I think about it all day long.
98 Your commands make me wiser than my enemies, for your commands are my constant guide.
99 Yes, I have more insight than my teachers, for I am always thinking of your decrees.
100 I am even wiser than my elders, for I have kept your commandments.
101 I have refused to walk on any path of evil, that I may remain obedient to your word.
102 I haven't turned away from your laws, for you have taught me well.
103 How sweet are your words to my taste; they are sweeter than honey.
104 Your commandments give me understanding; no wonder I hate every false way of life.
105 Your word is a lamp for my feet and a light for my path.
106 I've promised it once, and I'll promise again: I will obey your wonderful laws.
107 I have suffered much, O LORD; restore my life again, just as you promised.
108 LORD, accept my grateful thanks and teach me your laws.
109 My life constantly hangs in the balance, but I will not stop obeying your law.
110 The wicked have set their traps for me along your path, but I will not turn from your commandments.
111 Your decrees are my treasure; they are truly my heart's delight.
112 I am determined to keep your principles, even forever, to the very end.
113 I hate those who are undecided about you, but my choice is clear--I love your law.
114 You are my refuge and my shield; your word is my only source of hope.
115 Get out of my life, you evil-minded people, for I intend to obey the commands of my God.
116 LORD, sustain me as you promised, that I may live! Do not let my hope be crushed.
117 Sustain me, and I will be saved; then I will meditate on your principles continually.
118 But you have rejected all who stray from your principles. They are only fooling themselves.
119 All the wicked of the earth are the scum you skim off; no wonder I love to obey your decrees!
120 I tremble in fear of you; I fear your judgments.
121 Don't leave me to the mercy of my enemies, for I have done what is just and right.
122 Please guarantee a blessing for me. Don't let those who are arrogant oppress me!
123 My eyes strain to see your deliverance, to see the truth of your promise fulfilled.
124 I am your servant; deal with me in unfailing love, and teach me your principles.
125 Give discernment to me, your servant; then I will understand your decrees.
126 LORD, it is time for you to act, for these evil people have broken your law.
127 Truly, I love your commands more than gold, even the finest gold.
128 Truly, each of your commandments is right. That is why I hate every false way.
129 Your decrees are wonderful. No wonder I obey them!
130 As your words are taught, they give light; even the simple can understand them.
131 I open my mouth, panting expectantly, longing for your commands.
132 Come and show me your mercy, as you do for all who love your name.
133 Guide my steps by your word, so I will not be overcome by any evil.
134 Rescue me from the oppression of evil people; then I can obey your commandments.
135 Look down on me with love; teach me all your principles.
136 Rivers of tears gush from my eyes because people disobey your law.
137 O LORD, you are righteous, and your decisions are fair.
138 Your decrees are perfect; they are entirely worthy of our trust.
139 I am overwhelmed with rage, for my enemies have disregarded your words.
140 Your promises have been thoroughly tested; that is why I love them so much.
141 I am insignificant and despised, but I don't forget your commandments.
142 Your justice is eternal, and your law is perfectly true.
143 As pressure and stress bear down on me, I find joy in your commands.
144 Your decrees are always fair; help me to understand them, that I may live.
145 I pray with all my heart; answer me, LORD! I will obey your principles.
146 I cry out to you; save me, that I may obey your decrees.
147 I rise early, before the sun is up; I cry out for help and put my hope in your words.
148 I stay awake through the night, thinking about your promise.
149 In your faithful love, O LORD, hear my cry; in your justice, save my life.
150 Those lawless people are coming near to attack me; they live far from your law.
151 But you are near, O LORD, and all your commands are true.
152 I have known from my earliest days that your decrees never change.
153 Look down upon my sorrows and rescue me, for I have not forgotten your law.
154 Argue my case; take my side! Protect my life as you promised.
155 The wicked are far from salvation, for they do not bother with your principles.
156 LORD, how great is your mercy; in your justice, give me back my life.
157 Many persecute and trouble me, yet I have not swerved from your decrees.
158 I hate these traitors because they care nothing for your word.
159 See how I love your commandments, LORD. Give back my life because of your unfailing love.
160 All your words are true; all your just laws will stand forever.
161 Powerful people harass me without cause, but my heart trembles only at your word.
162 I rejoice in your word like one who finds a great treasure.
163 I hate and abhor all falsehood, but I love your law.
164 I will praise you seven times a day because all your laws are just.
165 Those who love your law have great peace and do not stumble.
166 I long for your salvation, LORD, so I have obeyed your commands.
167 I have obeyed your decrees, and I love them very much.
168 Yes, I obey your commandments and decrees, because you know everything I do.
169 O LORD, listen to my cry; give me the discerning mind you promised.
170 Listen to my prayer; rescue me as you promised.
171 Let my lips burst forth with praise, for you have taught me your principles.
172 Let my tongue sing about your word, for all your commands are right.
173 Stand ready to help me, for I have chosen to follow your commandments.
174 O LORD, I have longed for your salvation, and your law is my delight.
175 Let me live so I can praise you, and may your laws sustain me.
176 I have wandered away like a lost sheep; come and find me, for I have not forgotten your commands.

Solomon's Most Wonderful Song - Song of Songs 1:1-8:14

Song of Solomon 1
1 This is Solomon's song of songs, more wonderful than any other.

Young Woman:[a]
2Kiss me again and again, for your love is sweeter than wine. 3How fragrant your cologne, and how pleasing your name! No wonder all the young women love you! 4Take me with you. Come, lets run! Bring me into your bedroom, O my king.[b]

Young Women of Jerusalem:
How happy we are for him! We praise his love even more than wine.

Young Woman:
How right that the young women love you!
5"I am dark and beautiful, O women of Jerusalem, tanned as the dark tents of Kedar. Yes, even as the tents of Solomon!
6"Don't look down on me, you fair city girls, just because my complexion is so dark. The sun has burned my skin. My brothers were angry with me and sent me out to tend the vineyards in the hot sun. Now see what it has done to me![c]
7"Tell me, O my love, where are you leading your flock today? Where will you rest your sheep at noon? For why should I wander like a prostitute[d] among the flocks of your companions?"

Young Man:
8If you dont know, O most beautiful woman, follow the trail of my flock to the shepherds tents, and there feed your young goats. 9What a lovely filly you are, my beloved one![e] 10How lovely are your cheeks, with your earrings setting them afire! How stately is your neck, accented with a long string of jewels. 11We will make earrings of gold for you and beads of silver.

Young Woman:
12 The king is lying on his couch, enchanted by the fragrance of my perfume. 13My lover is like a sachet of myrrh lying between my breasts. 14He is like a bouquet of flowers in the gardens of En-gedi.

Young Man:
15How beautiful you are, my beloved, how beautiful! Your eyes are soft like doves.

Young Woman:
16What a lovely, pleasant sight you are, my love, as we lie here on the grass, 17shaded by cedar trees and spreading firs.

Song of Solomon 2
Young Woman:
1 I am the rose of Sharon, the lily of the valley.

Young Man:
2Yes, compared to other women, my beloved is like a lily among thorns.

Young Woman:
3And compared to other youths, my lover is like the finest apple tree in the orchard. I am seated in his delightful shade, and his fruit is delicious to eat. 4He brings me to the banquet hall, so everyone can see how much he loves me. 5Oh, feed me with your love--your `raisins and your `apples--for I am utterly lovesick! 6His left hand is under my head, and his right hand embraces me.
7"Promise me, O women of Jerusalem, by the swift gazelles and the deer of the wild, not to awaken love until the time is right.[a]
8"Ah, I hear him--my lover! Here he comes, leaping on the mountains and bounding over the hills. 9My lover is like a swift gazelle or a young deer. Look, there he is behind the wall! Now he is looking in through the window, gazing into the room.
10"My lover said to me, `Rise up, my beloved, my fair one, and come away. 11For the winter is past, and the rain is over and gone. 12The flowers are springing up, and the time of singing birds has come, even the cooing of turtledoves. 13The fig trees are budding, and the grapevines are in blossom. How delicious they smell! Yes, spring is here! Arise, my beloved, my fair one, and come away.' "

Young Man:
14My dove is hiding behind some rocks, behind an outcrop on the cliff. Let me see you; let me hear your voice. For your voice is pleasant, and you are lovely.

Young Women of Jerusalem:
15Quick! Catch all the little foxes before they ruin the vineyard of your love, for the grapevines are all in blossom.

Young Woman:
16My lover is mine, and I am his. He feeds among the lilies! 17Before the dawn comes and the shadows flee away, come back to me, my love. Run like a gazelle or a young stag on the rugged mountains.[b]

Song of Solomon 3
Young Woman:
1 One night as I lay in bed, I yearned deeply for my lover, but he did not come. 2So I said to myself, `I will get up now and roam the city, searching for him in all its streets and squares. But my search was in vain. 3The watchmen stopped me as they made their rounds, and I said to them, `Have you seen him anywhere, this one I love so much? 4A little while later I found him and held him. I didnt let him go until I had brought him to my childhood home, into my mothers bedroom, where I had been conceived.
5"Promise me, O women of Jerusalem, by the swift gazelles and the deer of the wild, not to awaken love until the time is right.[a]"

Young Women of Jerusalem:
6Who is this sweeping in from the deserts like a cloud of smoke along the ground? Who is it that smells of myrrh and frankincense and every other spice? 7Look, it is Solomons carriage, with sixty of Israels mightiest men surrounding it. 8They are all skilled swordsmen and experienced warriors. Each one wears a sword on his thigh, ready to defend the king against an attack during the night.
9"King Solomon has built a carriage for himself from wood imported from Lebanon's forests. 10Its posts are of silver, its canopy is gold, and its seat is upholstered in purple cloth. Its interior was a gift of love from the young women of Jerusalem."

Young Woman:
11Go out to look upon King Solomon, O young women of Jerusalem.[b] See the crown with which his mother crowned him on his wedding day, the day of his gladness.

Song of Solomon 4
Young Man:
1 How beautiful you are, my beloved, how beautiful! Your eyes behind your veil are like doves. Your hair falls in waves, like a flock of goats frisking down the slopes of Gilead. 2Your teeth are as white as sheep, newly shorn and washed. They are perfectly matched; not one is missing. 3Your lips are like a ribbon of scarlet. Oh, how beautiful your mouth! Your cheeks behind your veil are like pomegranate halves--lovely and delicious. 4Your neck is as stately as the tower of David, jeweled with the shields of a thousand heroes. 5Your breasts are like twin fawns of a gazelle, feeding among the lilies. 6Before the dawn comes and the shadows flee away, I will go to the mountain of myrrh and to the hill of frankincense. 7You are so beautiful, my beloved, so perfect in every part.
8"Come with me from Lebanon, my bride. Come down[a] from the top of Mount Amana, from Mount Senir and Mount Hermon, where lions have their dens and panthers prowl. 9You have ravished my heart, my treasure, my bride. I am overcome by one glance of your eyes, by a single bead of your necklace. 10How sweet is your love, my treasure, my bride! How much better it is than wine! Your perfume is more fragrant than the richest of spices. 11Your lips, my bride, are as sweet as honey. Yes, honey and cream are under your tongue. The scent of your clothing is like that of the mountains and the cedars of Lebanon.
12"You are like a private garden, my treasure, my bride! You are like a spring that no one else can drink from, a fountain of my own. 13You are like a lovely orchard bearing precious fruit, with the rarest of perfumes: 14nard and saffron, calamus and cinnamon, myrrh and aloes, perfume from every incense tree, and every other lovely spice. 15You are a garden fountain, a well of living water, as refreshing as the streams from the Lebanon mountains."

Young Woman:
16Awake, north wind! Come, south wind! Blow on my garden and waft its lovely perfume to my lover. Let him come into his garden and eat its choicest fruits.

Song of Solomon 5
Young Man:
1 I am here in my garden, my treasure, my bride! I gather my myrrh with my spices and eat my honeycomb with my honey. I drink my wine with my milk.

Young Women of Jerusalem:
Oh, lover and beloved, eat and drink! Yes, drink deeply of this love!

Young Woman:
3One night as I was sleeping, my heart awakened in a dream. I heard the voice of my lover. He was knocking at my bedroom door. `Open to me, my darling, my treasure, my lovely dove, he said, `for I have been out in the night. My head is soaked with dew, my hair with the wetness of the night.
3"But I said, `I have taken off my robe. Should I get dressed again? I have washed my feet. Should I get them soiled?'
4"My lover tried to unlatch the door, and my heart thrilled within me. 5I jumped up to open it. My hands dripped with perfume, my fingers with lovely myrrh, as I pulled back the bolt. 6I opened to my lover, but he was gone. I yearned for even his voice! I searched for him, but I couldn't find him anywhere. I called to him, but there was no reply. 7The watchmen found me as they were making their rounds; they struck and wounded me. The watchman on the wall tore off my veil.
8"Make this promise to me, O women of Jerusalem! If you find my beloved one, tell him that I am sick with love."

Young Women of Jerusalem:
9O woman of rare beauty, what is it about your loved one that brings you to tell us this?

Young Woman:
10My lover is dark and dazzling, better than ten thousand others! 11His head is the finest gold, and his hair is wavy and black. 12His eyes are like doves beside brooks of water; they are set like jewels. 13His cheeks are like sweetly scented beds of spices. His lips are like perfumed lilies. His breath is like myrrh. 14His arms are like round bars of gold, set with chrysolite. His body is like bright ivory, aglow with sapphires. 15His legs are like pillars of marble set in sockets of the finest gold, strong as the cedars of Lebanon. None can rival him. 16His mouth is altogether sweet; he is lovely in every way. Such, O women of Jerusalem, is my lover, my friend.

Song of Solomon 6
Young Women of Jerusalem:
1 O rarest of beautiful women, where has your lover gone? We will help you find him.

Young Woman:
2He has gone down to his garden, to his spice beds, to graze and to gather the lilies. 3I am my lovers, and my lover is mine. He grazes among the lilies!

Young Man:
4O my beloved, you are as beautiful as the lovely town of Tirzah. Yes, as beautiful as Jerusalem! You are as majestic as an army with banners! 5Look away, for your eyes overcome me! Your hair falls in waves, like a flock of goats frisking down the slopes of Gilead. 6Your teeth are as white as newly washed sheep. They are perfectly matched; not one is missing. 7Your cheeks behind your veil are like pomegranate halves--lovely and delicious. 8There may be sixty wives, all queens, and eighty concubines and unnumbered virgins available to me. 9But I would still choose my dove, my perfect one, the only beloved daughter of her mother! The young women are delighted when they see her; even queens and concubines sing her praises! 10`Who is this, they ask, `arising like the dawn, as fair as the moon, as bright as the sun, as majestic as an army with banners?
11"I went down into the grove of nut trees and out to the valley to see the new growth brought on by spring. I wanted to see whether the grapevines were budding yet, or whether the pomegranates were blossoming. 12Before I realized it, I found myself in my princely bed with my beloved one.[a]"

Young Women of Jerusalem:
13Return, return to us, O maid of Shulam. Come back, come back, that we may see you once again.

Young Man:
Why do you gaze so intently at this young woman of Shulam, as she moves so gracefully between two lines of dancers?[b]

Song of Solomon 7
Young Man:
1 How beautiful are your sandaled feet, O queenly maiden. Your rounded thighs are like jewels, the work of a skilled craftsman. 2Your navel is as delicious as a goblet filled with wine. Your belly is lovely, like a heap of wheat set about with lilies. 3Your breasts are like twin fawns of a gazelle. 4Your neck is as stately as an ivory tower. Your eyes are like the sparkling pools in Heshbon by the gate of Bath-rabbim. Your nose is as fine as the tower of Lebanon overlooking Damascus. 5Your head is as majestic as Mount Carmel, and the sheen of your hair radiates royalty. A king is held captive in your queenly tresses.
6"Oh, how delightful you are, my beloved; how pleasant for utter delight! 7You are tall and slim like a palm tree, and your breasts are like its clusters of dates. 8I said, `I will climb up into the palm tree and take hold of its branches.' Now may your breasts be like grape clusters, and the scent of your breath like apples. 9May your kisses be as exciting as the best wine, smooth and sweet, flowing gently over lips and teeth.[a]"

Young Woman:
10I am my lovers, the one he desires. 11Come, my love, let us go out into the fields and spend the night among the wildflowers.[b] 12Let us get up early and go out to the vineyards. Let us see whether the vines have budded, whether the blossoms have opened, and whether the pomegranates are in flower. And there I will give you my love. 12There the mandrakes give forth their fragrance, and the rarest fruits are at our doors, the new as well as old, for I have stored them up for you, my lover.

Song of Solomon 8
Young Woman:
1 Oh, if only you were my brother, who nursed at my mothers breast. Then I could kiss you no matter who was watching, and no one would criticize me. 2I would bring you to my childhood home, and there you would teach me. I would give you spiced wine to drink, my sweet pomegranate wine. 3Your left hand would be under my head and your right hand would embrace me.
4"I want you to promise, O women of Jerusalem, not to awaken love until the time is right.[a]"

Young Women of Jerusalem:
5Who is this coming up from the desert, leaning on her lover?

Young Woman:
I aroused you under the apple tree, where your mother gave you birth, where in great pain she delivered you. 6Place me like a seal over your heart, or like a seal on your arm. For love is as strong as death, and its jealousy is as enduring as the grave. Love flashes like fire, the brightest kind of flame. 7Many waters cannot quench love; neither can rivers drown it. If a man tried to buy love with everything he owned, his offer would be utterly despised.

The Young Womans Brothers:
8We have a little sister too young for breasts. What will we do if someone asks to marry her? 9If she is chaste, we will strengthen and encourage her. But if she is promiscuous, we will shut her off from men.[b]

Young Woman:
10I am chaste, and I am now full breasted. And my lover is content with me.
11"Solomon has a vineyard at Baal-hamon, which he rents to some farmers there. Each of them pays one thousand pieces of silver[c] for its use. 12But as for my own vineyard, O Solomon, you can take my thousand pieces of silver. And I will give two hundred pieces of silver[d] to those who care for its vines."

Young Man:
13O my beloved, lingering in the gardens, how wonderful that your companions can listen to your voice. Let me hear it, too!

Young Woman:
14Come quickly, my love! Move like a swift gazelle or a young deer on the mountains of spices.

Gender and the shaping of desire in the song of songs and its interpretation

Gender and the shaping of desire in the song of songs and its interpretation
David Carr. Journal of Biblical Literature. Atlanta: Summer 2000.Vol.119, Iss. 2; pg. 233, 16 pgs

The work lives to the extent it has influence. Included within the influence of a work is that which is accomplished in the consumption of the work as well as in the work itself That which happens with the work is an expression of what the work is.
-Karl Kosik'
Take a look at introductions to commentaries on the Song of Songs or at recent essays on the book, and you will often find a common tale concerning the Song and its readers. This tale of reading and misreading can be summarized as follows:
Long ago, in ancient Israel a poet wrote passionate poetry about human love that we now find in the Song of Songs. Somehow this poetry found its way into the Hebrew Scriptures. Then, in the early centuries of the common era, Jews and then Christians, confronted with such erotic material in the heart of the canon, reread the Song as a song of love between God and God's people. This misreading was then perpetuated through various grotesque elaborations through the centuries. Those who read the Song correctly as a song of love were brutally persecuted. Only in recent years was the Song liberated from the dark ages of its misinterpretation. Using the tools of biblical criticism, scholars uncovered the original focus of the Song on human love and unmasked the repressive interpretations of the past as the misreadings that they were.
Although this tale is not universal, it is remarkably pervasive. For example, the key element of attack on earlier readings is evident in the following comments by Marvin Pope in the introduction to his commentary on the Song of Songs:
The flexibility and adaptability of the allegorical method, the ingenuity and imagination with which it could be, and was, applied, the difficulty and virtual impossibility of imposing objective controls, the astounding and bewildering results of almost two millennia of application to the Canticle, have all contributed to its progressive discredit and almost complete desertion.2
Lest we see this understanding as isolated, I include a second quotation, this time from one of the most able German commentators on the Song, Othmar Keel:
... zu welch willkurlichen unbefriedigenden and haufig himmelschreiend grotesken Rusultaten das "tiefere" Verstandnis der Allegoristen fiirhte, ist in jeder Geschichte der Auslegung des Hohelied nachzulesen.3
One can read in any history of exegesis of the Song of Songs what arbitrary, unsatisfactory, and revoltingly grotesque results were produced by an allegorical search for a "deeper meaning." (My translation)
These are but fragments of a broader perspective found in most critical work on the Song of Songs.4
In sum, this tale of reading and misreading of the Song of Songs has an almost mythic power. One reason for this may be that this tale resonates with the "myth of repression" that Michel Foucault has documented in modern discourse about sex. This myth tells us that we are in a time of liberation from a long process of sexual repression in the Western world. Yet Foucault and others have pointed out that the very discourses that are used as evidence for sexual repression, say in the Victorian period, were actually shaping, naming, and even instigating the very practices and development of sexual identities that they seemed designed to suppress.5
Much critical scholarship on the Song of Songs over the last decades has unconsciously participated in this modern construction of sexualities through reproducing a mini-variant of the myth of repression discussed by Foucault. In 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-fertility-related erotic love echo the more general shift in industrialized societies toward nonreproductive sexuality.6 Only recently have some begun to reflect critically on how sexuality was shaped in ancient Israel.7 To the best of my knowledge no published works have reflected in a sustained way on how twentieth-century understandings of gender and desire have shaped modern critical readings of the Song of Songs and its interpretations.
There will not be space in this essay to execute that project, but I do intend to tell the start of a somewhat different story of the Song and its journey through history, one that begins with shapings of desire in ancient Israel.
I. Sexual Gender
In order to tell this story, we must reexamine presuppositions implicit in the modem tale of interpretation just reviewed. One of the central characteristics of the scholarly myth of the genesis and repression of the Song of Songs is the construction of maleness and femaleness that it presupposes. Most contemporary Western readers of the Song and its interpretations presuppose that the thing that makes men and women different from one another is different bodies. This is sexual difference, upon which culture builds a set of gender distinctions. Thus, according to this understanding, "sex" and "gender" are distinct.
As Thomas Laqueur points out, however, this body-focused concept of sexual difference is itself a historical phenomenon. He argues that the premodern world worked with a one-sex concept of humanity, where male and female bodies were seen as essentially the same. According to this model, what made men "men" and women "women" was not their bodies, but their place on a broader cosmic hierarchy. Depending on where they stood on that hierarchy, men and women's bodies would receive the minor bodily changes to reflect their position. And there were tales of women, for example, who might act excessively male and sprout penises, thus shifting their physical form to correspond to their new place on the hierarchy. Laqueur's best summary of this perspective comes at the outset of his discussion of the continuation of this one-sex system into the Renaissance:
Renaissance doctors understood there to be only one sex. On the other hand, there were manifestly at least two social sexes with radically different rights and obligations, somehow corresponding to ranges or bands, higher and lower, on the corporeal scale of being. Neither sort of sex-social or biological-could be viewed as foundational or primary, although gender divisions -the categories of social sex-were certainly construed as natural. More important, though, biological sex, which we generally take to serve as the basis of gender, was just as much in the domain of culture and meaning as was gender. A penis was thus a status symbol rather than a sign of some other deeply rooted ontological essence: real sex. It could be construed as a certificate of sorts, like the diploma of a doctor or lawyer today, which entitled the bearer to certain rights and privileges.8
Thus, the fundamental aspect of sexual gender in this system is not a body but where one stands on a broader cosmic hierarchy. A key threat to this system occurs when the behavioral boundaries blur, for example, when a male, who was supposed to be high in the cosmic hierarchy, plays the part of the "lower," penetrated "woman" in anal intercourse.9
Judith Butler and others have built on Laqueur's work to argue for a radical reconceptualization of the sexed and gendered subject,10 but the argument in what follows is not dependent on an endorsement of the idea of the construction of sexuality, the gendered body, or human subjects. Moreover, it remains to be seen whether Laqueur's depiction of the construction of sexual gender in the classical world can be applied to the world of the Bible,11 But the work of Foucault, Laqueur, and others can lead us to take a new look at how sexuality is shaped in ancient Israel and at the ideas of sexual gender implicit in that shaping.
II. Sexual Hierarchy and the Theological Marriage Matrix
As is well known, Israel's legal prohibitions regarding sexuality focus on (a) protection of a man's status as guardian of his wife and unmarried daughter's reproductive potential and (b) protection of his dignity as a sexually autonomous actor.12 Laws regarding adultery focus exclusively on cases where a man has sex with a woman married or engaged to another man (Deut 22:22-27; Lev 20: 10; cf. Deut 5:18//Exod 20:14 and Deut 5:2 1//Exod 20:17). The laws regarding premarital sex focus on compensation or punishment when a man has sex with another man's unmarried daughter (Exod 22:15-16; Dent 22:28-29). And the only laws concerning homosexuality focus on cases of anal intercourse, where one man has another man play the part of a woman (Lev 18:22; 20:13), a case seen as a problem in other ancient Mediterranean cultures as well. 13
Within this system men are sexually autonomous as long as they do not violate the rights of other men over their women. Both married and unmarried men may have sex with prostitutes, slaves, and war prisoners. Men sow the seed of procreation and are almost always viewed as the proper initiators of sexual activity. In contrast, women receive the seed, and wives bear children who inherit the land. 14 As a result, many biblical traditions aim to ensure that women of proper lineage be the vessels of Israelite seed. Much effort is expended to ensure women's abstinence before marriage and fidelity within it. To be sure, some women such as Tamar of Genesis 38 or Ruth are depicted positively for their sexual initiative, but these cases are each closely connected with the establishment of a male dynastic line when the male protagonists are hesitant to do their part. Outside of such special cases, women are depicted as passive participants in sex, and a woman who initiates sex is depicted as a dangerous adulterer, as in, say, the vilified "strange woman" in Proverbs 7 (see also 2:16-19; 5:3-6; 6:24-35; 22:14; 23:27-28), who seduces a foolish youth to share her perfumed bed while her husband is away.15
Major theological streams in Israel included God in this sexual system. Adapting ancient Near Eastern treaty language, the Shema of Deut 6:4-5 enjoins the people of Israel to have the kind of exclusive, all-consuming love for God that a wife was to have for her husband-to love with all her heart, life strength, and might. Other texts in the Deuteronomistic History elaborate this analogy, calling on Israel to "love," "walk after," and "cleave to" YHWH (e.g., Deut 10:12, 20; 11:1, 13, 22; 13:5; 19:9; 30:6, 16, 20; Josh 22:5; 23:8, 11 [cf. 23:12-13])16 and idealizing those who do so (1 Kgs 3:3; 2 Kgs 18:6).17 On the flip side, Deuteronomistic texts call on Israel not to "go after" (...) other gods (e.g., Deut 6:14; 28:14; Jer 25:6; cf. Deut 8:19; 11:28; 13:3; Jer 7:6, 9; 11:10; 13:10; 16:11; 35:15), much like a human wife was not to pursue other lovers. Moreover, YHWH is described as having a lover-like "jealousy" (cf Num 5:14, 29, 30) about the people's "sexual acting out" (:?)18 through worshiping other gods (Deut 31:16; cf. Judg 2:17; 8:27, 33; and Exod 34:14-15; Num 15:39),19 Indeed, as is well known, Israel was often imaged by prophets as an adulterous woman, failing to be exclusively faithful to her divine husband, and worshiping other gods (e.g., Hos 2:4-17; Jer 2:1-3:13; Ezekiel 16, 23; cf. Isa 54:4-8; 62:4-5). And just as a jealous human husband had the right to strip, starve, and beat his wife into returning to him, so also Hosea, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel depict God as promising to strip Israel in the eyes of her lovers and force her to come back to him (Hos 2:11-17; Jer 13:25-27; Ezek 16:35-42; 23:22-27).
Sometimes there is slippage between the divine and human sexual levels. For example, as Kirsten Nielson has suggested, Isaiah in his vineyard song of chapter 5 tricks his male audience into thinking that he is singing of a jilted husband.20 First we need to recall how often in the Near East a wife is spoken of as a field or vineyard, into which a man plants his seed that will bring forth children.21 In Isaiah's "love song" (1717 MIi 5:1a), the husband cared for his wife, his "vineyard," and planted his good seed in her, but she yielded "wild grapes," easily understood as the children of another man (5:lb-2). After stating this accusation, the male audience is called on to endorse this husband's intention to treat his wife as unfaithful, stripping his "vineyard" and punishing her (5:3-). Yet the men soon hear that the very female they proclaimed judgment on is themselves: "for the vineyard of YHWH of armies is the house of Israel. . ." (5:7). These men thought they were enforcing the honor system on a fellow man's wife, but in fact they were the female vineyard, and their God was the angry husband.
I have briefly outlined a well-known set of beliefs that might be termed a "theological marriage matrix." 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. Notably, this construction of a female erotic religious subject in ancient Israel coincided with Israel's move toward henotheistic and monotheistic theology. So, where the Israelite God might have once been paired with a divine partner, say Asherah, now God is placed in relationship with a human sexual subject, and this relationship-with often highly troubling aspects-is understood to be that between a male and female.22 Thus, in henotheistic and monotheistic Israel, gender and love have become key concepts describing power differentials on multiple levels of the cosmic hierarchy.
This links with Laqueur's proposal regarding the positional character of sex in the ancient world-where one's position on a cosmic hierarchy determines one's sex. Thus, where I might be a "man" vis-h-vis a human woman in the hierarchy, we might both be "women" vis-a-vis God, who stands yet higher in that hierarchy. Within this world of essentially identical bodies and fluid boundaries between the sexes, it was a small step from seeing the man as superior to the woman in the hierarchy to seeing men and women as both in some sense actually "the woman" in a hierarchy extending upward to God. Thus, Israel as "woman" may not be "just" the metaphor that we often think it to be.23
Israel appears to have had a broad gender-hierarchical system where the .man" in a given relationship-whether human or divine-had exclusive rights to the "woman" of the relationship, whether a human woman or the people of God. The primary image of a problem in this system is that of a "woman" who acts contrary to the hierarchy and seeks out another lover. When she does so, she is not just an image of infidelity. She calls the whole hierarchy into question. A woman of unruly sexual initiative symbolizes the subordinate person getting out of control, not knowing her place. That is what makes the image of the sexually proactive "adulterous woman" so potent as a symbol of a rebellious Israel-because it accuses Israel of ignoring this broader cosmic hierarchy.
III. The Song of Songs as Alternative Discourse
Into this world of reproductively focused sexuality, hierarchies, male rights, and vilified sexually proactive women comes the Song of Songs. The Song begins with female sexual initiative in the famous opening lines, "Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth, for your lovemaking (7'7t)24 is better than wine" (Cant 1:2). This woman's voice and presence dominate the rest of the Song.25 To be sure, a man speaks his praise of her starting in 1:9-11 (also 1:15; 2:2; 4:1-7; 6:4-9; 7:2-10), and he comes to "his garden" upon being invited by her (4:16-5:1a). At the same time, she trumps his praises of her (1:16-17; 2:3); she begins and ends the Song; she is the one who speaks its refrains; and she is the one who calls on her lover to do things-draw her after him (1:4), be like a gazelle (2:17), come out to the fields with her (7:12-14), set her as a seal on his arm (8:6), and flee (8:14). Where he hovers outside and his invitations to her are mediated through her words (2:10-14; 5:2-4), her passion is directly presented to the audience26 and she energetically seeks him (1:7), "seizing" him and/or "bringing him" to the house of her mother (3:4; 8:1-2). In the middle of the Song he confesses to being driven mad by one of her glances, with but one of the strands of her necklace (4:9). By the end, the man's praise of her beauty is laced with fear before her awesome character (6:4, 10; 7:2-6).
Yet the poems of the song sometimes depict the female character as vulnerable. She is defensive about her sun-darkened skin (1:6a), put out to keep the flocks by her brothers (1:6b; cf. 8:8-9), found inside when her lover is outside (e.g., 2:9-13; 5:2-5), stripped and beaten in her second venture out to seek her lover (5:7), and prevented by fear of shame from kissing her lover in public (8:1). There is no sign throughout the Song that the lovers of the Song of Songs are married or that their love is sanctioned in any way. Their relationship is clandestine, though they wish it were otherwise (8:1-2, 13-14). And there is no talk of children, nor typical use of fertility imagery.27 However powerful the female character of the Song may appear, she is also depicted as exposed to the vulnerabilities of Israelite women, and she and her lover must still conduct their relationship amidst the obstacles presented by a society hostile to their relationship.28
That being said, this text contrasts sharply with other depictions of desire in ancient Israel.29 Where the dangerous foreign woman in Proverbs tempted the student toward death with kisses and a bed of spices, now the prominent female voice of the Song of Songs yearns for the kisses of her lover's mouth and they speak frequently of their spiced bed. Where a proactive, rule-breaking woman is the image of a disobedient, adulterous community in Hosea, now the Song of Songs features a woman who faces down the disapproval of her audience for her dark skin, seeks her lover at night, and revels in her love for him. To be sure, this otherwise untypical woman of the Song of Songs is not married, and so the Song does not celebrate extramarital sexuality. Yet it nevertheless presents an atypical view of premarital sexuality and nonreproductively focused female sexual initiative. Moreover, the often overpowering male of Israel's legal and prophetic texts is replaced here with a male passionately bound to the woman who loves him, captivated by but one of her glances, but one of the strands of her necklace.
So, we might ask, given its differences from other Israelite traditions, how was the Song of Songs received alongside the gender hierarchy mentioned earlier? Were ancient Israelites scandalized by the book? Was it some form of ancient pornography?30
An answer to these questions may lie in work done in the last twenty years by both classicists and Middle Eastern ethnographers, who have uncovered a rich world of networks and alternative discourses among the women of Mediterranean and Middle Eastern societies. Thus, Teri Joseph showed how teenage Riffian Berber girls sing influential and often daring songs in the liminal situation of wedding celebrations.31 Safa-Isfahani found Iranian women engaging in folk dramas that mocked their husbands and boldly confronted the problems of their lives.32 Such alternative women's discourses are hardly a uniquely modern phenomenon. John Winkler has found traces of similar alternative female discourses about sexuality and power in ancient Greek traditions.33
Perhaps most interestingly, in her study of West Egyptian Awlad CAli Bedouin, Lila Abu-Lughod uncovered a tradition of passionate poetry, primarily sung by women or by lovers courting each other. Like the Song of Songs, this poetry stood in sharp contrast to the honor culture of the Bedouin she studied. Whereas this culture was officially hostile to romantic attachments that might compromise marriage arrangements to the proper lineages, people-especially women-could express their deepest passions through traditional poems, poems often connected to epics told about heroes of their people. Indeed, sometimes friends or lovers would express their deepest feelings through singing such traditional poems back and forth to each other, picking poems that corresponded to the sentiments they could not express more directly. They would distance themselves from their feelings through using the words of someone else, yet express themselves nevertheless.34
According to Abu-Lughod, this was not some sort of protest discourse or a cathartic release from an emotionally oppressive system. Instead, she argues that this practice of singing intimate poetry is symbiotically related to the honor norms of the dominant culture. For example, through singing of passionate love and/or loss, the singer demonstrates an ability to channel her feelings into an acceptable medium and the fact that her-often difficult-act of doing so is a choice. On a broader societal level, the celebration of passionate poetry of feeling amidst a dominant ideology of honor reflects tensions between the anti-- structural, egalitarian ideals of the Awlad cAli and hierarchical domination structures within the community-15
There are many suggestive parallels between the poetic practices studied by Abu-Lughod and the Song of Songs.36 Like Abu-Lughod's poems, the Song of Songs is loosely connected to a national epic by way of Solomon, and its depictions of female vulnerability are but one sign that it is symbiotically related to the broader culture with which it contrasts. The sometimes disjointed and dialogical character of the Song of Songs parallels the way Awlad CAli lovers and female friends would use separate poems to communicate back and forth to one another. And just as women studied by Abu-Lughod were the most prominent singers of heartfelt poetry, so also the female voice dominates the Song of Songs.37 Most important, however, is the way Abu-Lughod's and others' work shows that multiple discourses can coexist and even reinforce each other within the same culture. Israelite culture was no monolith, just as our cultures are not. As a result, alternative poetry such as the Song of Songs or the poetry studied by Abu-Lughod may inscribe sexual subjects somewhat different from those of more public discourses, even as these alternative discourses stand in constant relation to more dominant ones.
This is not to suggest that the Song of Songs is a transcript of an actual intimate interchange between lovers. Rather it is an imaginative work that builds a poetic world based in part on discourses known to its audience, including possibly the kind of alternative, nonpublic discourses uncovered by Abu-Lughod, Winkler, and others. Originally, the Song of Songs was probably designed for entertainment, much like similar love poetry in Egypt.311 Yet the written imitation of nonpublic discourse had profound implications. For it took a depiction of what would normally be an intensely private exchange and resituated it in the public realm. Moreover, as we have seen, this public realm in ancient Israel probably did not strongly separate human male-female love from human-- divine love the way modems 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.39
Given all this, it was natural for early interpreters 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 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 differently. What seems to be a big jump to modern readers, may have been a much smaller one to ancient ones.
The earliest audiences of the Song appear to have done just that, radically reimaging the divine-human, male-female relationship in terms of the Song of Songs. Thus in place of the shaming and stripping of Hosea, Jeremiah, Isaiah, and Ezekiel, we see images such as:
The Mekhilta and Sifre's understanding of the woman's praise of the man's body in Cant 5:10-16 to be Israel's praise of God's body at the Red Sea.40
Origen's rereading of the Song of Songs as a means of awakening within the soul the passionate, erotic love for God for which the soul was originally created.41
Bernard of Clairvaux's redescription of the opening of the Song-as the soul passionately demanding nothing less than union with God, as she refuses to settle for the divine kiss of the feet or hands and says, "I ask, I crave, I implore; let him kiss me with the kiss of his mouth."42
Mechthild of Magdeburg's vision where her divine beloved "took her in His divine arms, placed His fatherly hand on her breast, and looked into her face. Note how she was kissed there. With this kiss she was raised to the highest heights above the choirs of angels."43
In each case, the Song's description of a mutually passionate relationship is harnessed to redescribe the divine-human relationship in less violent and hierarchical terms.
To be sure, the human soul or community is still almost always the woman" in these interpretations.44 Yet the "woman" constructed in the Song of Songs is a far more powerful and unruly character than elsewhere in the Bible. She makes demands on God, even as she passionately desires him. And God is taken by his love for her, subject to her demands, "driven mad by but one of her glances, with but one of the strands of her necklace." Indeed, in parts of the Song, the challenge to the divine-human hierarchy would not be as great if we were to take God as the woman and humanity as the man.45
IV. Concluding Reflections
All this is not intended to suggest that these interpreters were recovering the originally intended meaning of the Song. Though the Song may draw on forms and/or specific cultic traditions that depicted divine love,46 the Song itself shows no clear signs of having been written to depict God's relation with God's people or the soul. Even the latest levels of the Song, such as its superscription, do not indicate a theological orientation,47 and it was neither Placed near nor explicitly coordinated with those texts (e.g., Hosea, Ezekiel) which most clearly depict the divine-human relationship as that between male and female lovers. Otherwise similar ancient Near Eastern cultic dialogues between gods and goddesses include telltale addresses to the deities by name.48 Erotic religious literature such as the Hindu Gita Govinda or Rumi's mystical poetry include asides and other indicators of their divine referents.49 The Song lacks such indicators. Moreover, though various theological interpreters have attempted to prove otherwise, the nontheological props and scenery of the Song suggest that it originally focused on human lovers.
That said, it should also be noted that the push in much modern biblical scholarship to distinguish sharply ancient theological and modern critical interpretations says more about modern interpreters than about the dynamics of the Song and its ancient interpretations. For the ancient Israelites, the jump from human male-female gender to divine-human gender was smaller than it is for us. At the same time, partly 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 categories.
In the face of this, it would be easy for specialists to renounce comment on the history of interpretation altogether. Yet to do so would be to cut biblical scholarship from a crucial dimension of the reality of the texts under study. As Kosik puts it in the quotation at the outset of this article, a "work lives to the extent it has influence" and "that which happens with the work is an expression of what the work is." In the end it was the Song of Songs read theologically and not Hosea that was preached on more often than any other OT book in the thirteenth century. It was the Song of Songs and not Jeremiah or Ezekiel that was one of the most frequently copied manuscripts of the Middle Ages.50 It was the Song of Songs and not Proverbs, that Rabbi Akiba is reported to have described as the "holy of holies" among the writings (m. Yad. 3:5). In the midst of a renaissance of study of the Song of Songs in recent years, we would do well to listen attentively to such ancient readers and let our own notions of love and subjectivity be interrogated even as we interrogate theirs.
[Footnote]
Earlier drafts of portions of this article were presented at the 1998 Congress of the International Organization for the Study of Old Testament (Oslo, Norway) and in a 1998 session of the Reading, Theory and the Bible Section of the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature (Orlando, Florida). I thank participants in both sessions for their helpful comments and questions. In addition, this essay has been enriched through conversations with former colleagues at Methodist Theological School in Ohio, particularly Colleen Conway, Assistant Professor of New Testament. I dedicate this piece to them.



[Footnote]
1 The English translation of a German rendering of Kosik's Chech original comes from Hans Robert Jauss, "Literary History as a Challenge to Literary Theory," in Toward an Aesthetic of Reception (trans. Timothy Bahti; Theory and History of Literature 2; Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1982) 15. The German rendering can be found in Karl Kosik, Die Dialektik des Konkreten: Eine Studie zur Problematik des Menschen and der Welt (trans. Marianne Hoffmann; Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1967) 138.



[Footnote]
2 Marvin Pope, The Song of Songs: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 7C; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1977) 90.
3 Othmar Keel, Das Hohelied (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1986) 16.



[Footnote]
4 Some examples of work from the 1990s include Diane Bergant, Song of Songs: The Love Poetry of Scripture (Spiritual Commentaries; New York: New City Press, 1998) 7-11; Ariel Bloch and Chana Bloch, The Song of Songs: A New Translation with an Introduction and Commentary (New York: Random House, 1995) 27-35; David Clines, "Why is There a Song of Songs and What Does It Do to You If You Read It?" in Interested Parties: The Ideology of Writers and Readers of the Hebrew Bible (JSOTSup 205; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995) 100-121 (though Clines argues that modern readings also fail to be sufficiently critical); Andr6 Lacocque, Romance She Wrote: A Hermeneutical Essay on Song of Songs (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity, 1998) esp. 168; John Snaith, Song of Songs (NCB; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993) 3-6; and Renita Weems, "The Song of Songs," in NIB, 5.370-71.



[Footnote]
Recently more works have attempted to combine a reading of the Song as human love poetry with a more sympathetic reading of the history of interpretation of the Song. Two book-length examples are Roland Murphy, The Song of Songs: A Commentary on the Book of Canticles or The Song of Songs (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990); and Nicholas Ayo [text] and Meinrad Craighead [artwork], Sacred Marriage: The Wisdom of the Song of Songs (New York: Continuum, 1997).



[Footnote]
5 Michel Foucault, History of Sexuality (3 vols; New York: Pantheon, 1978-86; French original, 1976-84).
6 On this shift, see the overview in John D'Emilio and Estelle B. Freedman, Intimate Matters: A History of Sexuality in America (New York: Harper & Row, 1988). Athalya Brenner has pointed out the existence of folk birth control traditions in the cultures surrounding Israel (The Intercourse of Knowledge: On tendering Desire and Sexuality in the Hebrew Bible [Biblical Interpretation; Leiden: Brill, 1997] 72-78). Nevertheless, the lack of reliability of such methods has meant that, up until recently, most forms of unmarried love carried the high probability of the creation of children.



[Footnote]
7 Saul Olyan, "And with a Male You Shall Not Lie the Lying Down of a Woman," Journal of the History of Sexuality 5/2 (1994) 179-206; Daniel Boyarin, "Are There Any Jews in `The History of Sexuality?" Journal of the History of Sexuality 5/3 (1995) 333-55; Brenner, Intercourse of Knowledge. See also the stimulating survey by David Biale, Eros and the Jews: From Biblical Israel to Contemporary America (New York: Basic Books, 1992) 15-32.



[Footnote]
8 Thomas Laqueur, Making Seat: Body and Gender from the Greeks to Freud (Cambridge, MA/II.ondon: Harvard University Press, 1990) 134-35.
9 Ibid., 53.
10 Judith Butler, Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity (New York: Rout



[Footnote]
ledge, 1990). Butler cites earlier work by Laqueur, among others, at the outset of her discussion (p. 152 n. 10).
" See, however, some preliminary reflections prompted in part by gender theory in Tikva Frymer-Kensky, In the Wake of the Goddesses: Women, Culture, and the Biblical Transformation of Pagan Myth (New York: Free Press, 1992) 118-43, esp. 140-43 and 262 n. 133.
12 For an overview, see Brenner, Intercourse of Knowledge, esp. 132-51.



[Footnote]
13 Olyan, "And with a Male," 179-206; Boyarin, "Are there any Jews in the History of Sexuality?" 333-55. Here I side with Boyarin's interpretation of the evidence as relating to gender hierarchy (pp. 340-48) over against Olyan's rejection of that approach (p. 199) and his proposal that the issue involves mixing of semen and other bodily fluids (pp. 199-204).
14 The latter parallels widespread imagery in modern Mediterranean societies. See Carol Delaney, "Seeds of Honor, Fields of Shame," in Honor and Shame and the Unity of the Mediterranean (ed. David Gilmore; Washington, DC: American Anthropological Association, 1987) 35-48; and Raymond Jamous, "From the Death of Men to the Peace of God: Violence and Peace-making in the Rif," in Honor and Grace in Anthropology (ed. J. G. Peristiany and J. Pitt-Rivers; Cambridge Studies in Social and Cultural Anthropology 76; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992) 168-69.



[Footnote]
1-5 The other main biblical example of this image is adulterous Israel. Since this case is on the divine-human level, it is discussed below.
16 Notably, the expression "walk after" with YHWH occurs only in 13:5 -1W '-Irt) of the texts cited above, while the other cited expressions that use the verb T usually speak of walking "in [all] his paths" -[ n; 10:12; 11:22; 19:9; 30:16; Josh 22:5; cf. 1 Kgs 3:3).



[Footnote]
17 As William Moran first observed, ancient Near Eastern treaties similarly use the language of love to describe political relations ("The Ancient Near Eastern Background of the Love of God in Deuteronomy," CBQ 25 [1963] 77-87, esp. 78-80; see also Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School [Oxford: Clarendon, 1972] 82-83). Just as a wife was to "love," "walk after," and "cleave to" her husband, so also political subjects and vassals were to "love," "walk after," and "cleave to" their lord.



[Footnote]
Is Though some routinely translate MT as referring to sex-for-hire (e.g., "whoring" or harlotry") more nuanced discussions have observed that the verb often designates any sex outside a sanctioned relationship (KB3, 1.264; S. Erlansson, m7t, TWAT, 2.613).
19 These implications were first pointed out by Gershon Cohen, "The Song of Songs and the Jewish Religious Mentality," in The Samuel Friedland Lectures, 1960-1966 (ed. L. Finkelstein; New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1966) 58. Against Cohen, Weinfeld argues that such language in Deuteronomy does not necessarily imply "the husband-wife metaphor" since there is no explicit reference to it in the Pentateuch (Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 81-82 n. 6).



[Footnote]
Frymer-Kensky notes, however, that the language of "jealousy" appears to distinguish the love language of Deuteronomy from that of the treaties on which it builds, implying a relationship analogous to that between human lovers (In the Wake of the Goddesses, 146). Further research is required to see whether and how much the use of this language was accompanied by implicit malefemale gendering of the persons involved.



[Footnote]
20 Kirsten Nielson, There Is Hope for a Tree: The Tree as Metaphor in Isaiah (JSOTSup 65; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989) 94-97.
21 Delaney, "Seeds of Honor, Fields of Shame," 35-48.
20 Generally, when this linkage has been noted before, it has been yoked to a more specific theory regarding the prophetic transformation of an ancient practice of "sacred marriage." See, e.g., E. Jacob, "L'heritage canaan6en dans le livre du prophete Osie," RHPR 43 (1963) 250-59,



[Footnote]
esp. 252 (older examples are cited by Cohen, "Song of Songs," 19 n. 6). The notes above do not depend on this specific, and ever more questionable, theory.
23 Cf nuanced discussions of the "marital metaphor in Cohen, "Song of Songs"; Frymer-- Kensky, In the Wake of the Goddesses, 144-52; and Renita Weems, Battered Love: Marriage, Sex, and Violence in the Hebrew Prophets (OBT; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995).



[Footnote]
24 Unless indicated otherwise, the translations here and in the following are my own. Though most translations render the plural of 71- here simply as "love," the word typically refers to actualized sexual relations of some sort (see Pope, Song of Songs, 299). Hence, I follow the Blochs in translating the term here as "lovemaking" (Bloch and Bloch, Song of Songs, 137). Following the MT, the possessive pronoun here is second person. Some have proposed emending the text so that it does not shift from third to second person. Nevertheless, the shift from third-person monologue to direct address anticipates the interplay between these modes throughout the rest of the Song. Moreover, there is no significant manuscript evidence for an alternative reading.
25 Here and in the following discussion I refer to a "man" and a "woman" in the singular as if



[Footnote]
they are continuous characters in a single work. To be sure, as A. Brenner observes, no one has successfully argued for a picture of the Song as a "unified sequence of love lyrics, with an ongoing linear plot" (The Song of Songs [OTG; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989] 35-40; see more recently eadem, "To See is to Assume: Whose Love is Celebrated in the Song of Songs?" BibInt 1 [1993] 266-69). Nevertheless, as Michael Fox in particular has shown, the present book coheres in a non-narrative sense (The Song of Songs and the Ancient Egyptian Love Songs [Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1985] 195-226). Moreover, Jill Munro has found elements of "narrativity" in the Song, without presupposing that the Song is unified by a "unfolding plot movement" of the sort often sought by previous interpreters (Spikenard and Saffron: The Imagery of the Song of Songs [JSOTSup 203; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995] 35-42, 110-14, 145-46).



[Footnote]
For a recent sustained attempt to find two intertwined plots in the Song of Songs, see Erich Bosshard-Nepustil, "Zu Struktur and Sachprofil des Hohenlieds," BN 81 (1996) 45-71. Though the article contains numerous intriguing observations, Bosshard-Nepustil's approach-like the dramatic theories he aims to replace-is weakened by the lack of explicit markers in the text of shifts in the hypothesized pairs of lovers being discussed.



[Footnote]
26 Building on some recent works by Clines ("Why is There a Song of Songs?") and Donald C. Polaski ("What Will Ye See in the Shulammite? Women, Power and Panopticism in the Song of Songs," BibInt 5 [1997] 64-81), Cheryl Exum cautions that the apparently unmediated quality of the woman's voice may be misleading ("Developing Strategies of Feminist Criticism/Developing Strategies for Commentating the Song of Songs, in Auguries: The Jubilee Volume of the Sheffield Department of Biblical Studies [ed. David Clines and Philip Davies; JSOTSup 269; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998] 228-30). For the purposes of comparison with other biblical texts, however, I am working with the seemingly unmediated voice of the woman as presented by the surface of the text.



[Footnote]
27 Instead, as Brenner points out (Intercourse of Knowledge, 72-78), the herbs most used in birth control in the ancient Mediterranean world also figure prominently in the Song. On the nonmarried character of the relationship, see Fox, Song of Songs, 229-43.
28 This element of overcoming social barriers to the relationship is highlighted effectively by Weems, "Song of Songs," passim.



[Footnote]
29 For some other contrasts of the female in the Song of Songs with other biblical texts, see in particular Fokkelien van Dijk-Hemmes, "The Imagination of Power and the Power of Imagination," in A Feminist Companion to the Song of Songs (ed. A. Brenner; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993) 156-70; original, 1989) and Ilana Pardes, "'I am a Wall, and My Breasts like Towers': The Song of Songs and the Question of Canonization," in her Countertraditions in the Bible: A Feminist Approach (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992) 118-43.
30 The latter suggested by Clines, "Why is There a Song of Songs?" 100-106. See also Polaski, "What Will Ye See?" 71-80, who argues that the powerful woman of the Song is only constructed as such by the assumed values of an all-powerful male gaze.



[Footnote]
31 Teri Joseph, "Poetry as a Strategy of Power: The Case of Riffian Berber Women," Signs 5 (1980) 418-34.
32 Safa-Isfahani, "Female-centered World Views in Iranian Culture: Symbolic Representations of Sexuality in Dramatic Games," Signs 6 (1981) 33-53.
33 John Winkler, The Constraints of Desire: The Anthropology of Sex and Gender in Ancient Greece (New York: Routledge, 1990).



[Footnote]
Ala Abu-Lughod, Veiled Sentiments: Honor and Poetry in a Bedouin Society (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986) esp. 171-232.
a5 Ibid., 234-59.
36 John Chance previously suggested the relevance of Abu-Lughod's work for study of the Song of Songs in his "The Anthropology of Honor and Shame: Culture, Values and Practice," in Honor and Shame in the World of the Bible (ed. Victor Matthews and Don Benjamin; Semeia 68;



[Footnote]
Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996) 143-44. Note also mention of Abu-Lughod's work in Weems, "Song of Songs," 366 n. 2.
37 Indeed, many have plausibly proposed that the Song of Songs may be one of the few biblical texts by a female author. Carol Meyers has argued persuasively that women were prominent musicians in ancient Israel ("The Drum-Dance-Song Ensemble: Women's Performance in Biblical Israel," in Rediscovering the Muses: Women's Musical Traditions [ed. Kimberly Marshall; Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1993] 49-67), and many have argued more specifically that the Song may have been written by a woman (see most recently Lacocque, Romance She Wrote, 39-53, with citations of some earlier proposals). But see the cautions of Exum, "Developing Strategies," 229-30.



[Footnote]
38 Fox, Song of Songs, 227-50 39 For discussion of some possible differences, see Frymer-Kensky, In the Wake of the Goddesses, 148-49.



[Footnote]
40 This saying is attributed to Rabbi Akiba in the Mekhilta (on Exod 15:2) and is often used as a key text for dating the beginning of an "allegorical" approach to the Song. Nevertheless, the saying is anonymous in Sifre (on Dent 33:2), and its attribution to Akiba in the Mekhilta may well be an attempt to link a famous interpretation to a sage already attested in early writings to have advocated the Song in general and nonliteral reading of it in particular. For the present purposes, it is enough to note the existence of this saying in two of the early midrashic collections.



[Footnote]
41 P. Brown, The Body and Society: Men, Women and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity (New York: Columbia University Press, 1988) 162-76; Bernard McGinn, The Foundations of Mysticism, vol. 1. of The Presence of God: A History of Western Christian Mysticism (New York: Crossroad, 1990) 108-30, esp. 117-24.
42 Bernard of Clairvaux, On the Song of Songs I (trans. Kilian Walsh; Cistercian Fathers Series 4; Spencer, MA: Cistercian Publications, 1971) 54 (Sermon 9.1).
43 Mechthild von Magdeburg, Flowing Light of Divinity (trans. Christiane Mesch Galvani; ed. with an intro. by S. Clark; Garland Library of Medieval Literature; New York/London: Garland, 1991) 60.



[Footnote]
44 There are important exceptions. Traditional Christian allegorical interpretation of the Song had given divine overtones to the woman of the Song as representative of the preexistent church; the Marian liturgy and a growing tradition of Marian commentaries took the Song as being a dialogue between a divinized Mary and Christ upon her assumption into heaven; and Hildegard of Bingen made the brief suggestion that the Song of Songs was the song of love by Solomon when he received divine Sapientia, to whom "he spoke... as to a woman in the familiar language of love" (Book of Divine Works 5.39; translation from Barbara Newman, Sister of Wisdom: St, Hildegard's Theology of the Feminine [Berkeley/Los Angeles/London: University of California Press, 1987] 65). Particularly in the late-twelfth and thirteenth centuries we see more developed interpretations of the Song as speaking of feminine divinity in such texts as the poems in stanzas by Hadewijch of Brabant (e.g., 3:44; 12:67; 25:9; etc.) or use of the Song to depict various feminine components of divinity (e.g., the Shekinah) in the Zohar.



[Footnote]
45 Brenner similarly notes the tension between the depictions of the man and woman in the Song and conceptions of God and humanity in prophetic "marriage" texts like Hosea ("To See is to Assume," 273-75). As she rightly points out, many interpreters have resolved this tension by reading the woman of the Song as more passive than she appears in the Song and the man as more powerful. Still, in reading the Song allegorically, such interpreters had to wrestle with depictions of the man and woman that did not conform with their concepts of God and humanity.
46 For a recent intriguing proposal, see Martti Nissinen, "Love Lyrics of NaM and Tasmetu: An Assyrian Song of Songs?" in "Und Mose schrieb theses Lied auf": Studien zum Alten Testament und zum Alten Orient (Festschrift Oswald Loretz; ed. Manfried Dietrich and Ingo Kottsieper; Minster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1998) 585-634.



[Footnote]
47 For suggestive speculation on some Solomonic and other elements of the Song that might have been added to the text to buttress its (already) canonical authority in early Judaism, see Magne Sebo, "On the Canonicity of the Song of Songs," in Texts, Temples, and Traditions: A Tribute to Menahem Haran (ed. Michael Fox et al.; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1996) 267-77.
The term "theological" is used here and in the following to designate readings that see God as a character in the Song. Though the term "allegorical" is often used generally to designate such readings, it is not necessarily appropriate to early rabbinic Jewish interpretations (see Daniel Boyarin, Intertextuality and the Reading of Midrash [Indiana Studies in Biblical Literature; Bloom



[Footnote]
ington/Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1990] 105-15) or to tropological and other forms of interpretation of the Song that do see God or a divine element in the Song, but do not see God's people-whether the church or people of Israel-as the other main character.
48 For example, in the dialogue of Nabu and Tasmetu linked by Nissinen to the Song of Songs ("Love Lyrics of Nabu and Tasmetu"), the gods are mentioned by name in lines 2-6, 11-12, 15, 17 and (r.) 9, 13, 15-16, 25.



[Footnote]
49 Notably, there is evidence that the twelfth-century Bengali poet Jayadeva in the Gita Govinda drew on Sanskrit courtly love poetry regarding humans to talk about devotion to Krishna, thus moving from human love poetry to divine eros. Two hundred years later, the poet Vidyapti used the spiritual love imagery of the Gita Govinda-as well as legends about Krishna and Radha in the Bhagavata Purina-as the departure point for poems about Krishna and Radha as images of ideal human eros (W. G. Archer, -Introduction," in idem, Love Songs of Vidyapati [London: Allen & Unwin, 1963] 23-36). Such shifts back and forth across the divine-human divide, along with examples of use of cultic love imagery in the Song of Songs (see Nissinen, "Love Lyrics of Nabi and Tasmetu") indicates how fluid ancient boundaries were between theological and nontheological use of erotic imagery.



[Footnote]
50 Figures are from Wilfred Cantwell Smith, What Is Scripture? A Comparative Approach (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1993) 22-23 and 248-49 n. 4.



[Author Affiliation]
DAVID CARR
dcarr@uts.columbia.edu Union Theological Seminary, New York, NY 10027