Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Harold R. Holmyard III" <hholmyard AT ont.com>]

Dear Samuel,

I wrote:

>> It is superficially attractive to make a holy allegory of the book,

You replied:

>This "superficially" rather ignores that the main reason the S of S's was
>accepted into the canon of scriptures was precisely BECAUSE it was taken to
>be an allegory. I very much doubt of either the Rabbis or the early

>Christian Fathers would have accepted it as a portrayal of "carnal" love. So
>we must assume that they made the RIGHT decision for the WRONG reasons?

HH: The Council of Jamnia ruled on books that they had received, ones
handed down as inspired from antiquity. Apparently the Song of Songs was
already regarded as inspired when the Council of Jamnia ruled to confirm it
in the canon. So if they saw it as having an allegorical value, and ruled
partially on that basis, their reasoning may have been flawed even though
their decision to retain the Song of Songs in the canon was correct.

>> So it is fitting that God devote a small segment of the Bible
>> to this reality.
>
>Does not this rather see "the Bible" as if it came down from heaven, ready
>packaged? It ignores that MEN selected certain books for inclusion, and for
>certain reasons.

HH: The Bible testifies that it is from God, that men were borne along by
the Holy Spirit as they wrote what they did. It testifies that its words
are God-breathed and pure. So, yes, I do believe that we have words from
God preserved providentially. God uses fallible human beings to accomplish
His will. Augustine made mistakes, Luther made mistakes, Calvin made
mistakes, and there is no reason that the Council of Jamnia could not have
made a minor mistake in their deliberations. I trust that the canon
represents what God wanted us to have as Scripture.

HH: Let me quote what F. F. Bruce says in _The Canon of Scripture_,
speaking about the Old Testament canon (p. 276):

And if questions arise about the inclusion of certain books which at one
time were disputed, such questions may best be given a comprehensive
answer. It is probable that the considerations which led to the inclusion
of the Song of Songs in the canon would be dismissed by us as quite
misguided. But with hindsight it is a matter for satisfaction that the
Christian canon does include this exuberant celebration of the joy that man
and woman find in each other's love.

                                Yours,
                                Harold Holmyard