Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Dave Washburn" <dwashbur AT nyx.net>]

> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Harold R. Holmyard III" <hholmyard AT ont.com>
> To: "Biblical Hebrew" <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
> Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2001 4:55 AM
> Subject: Song of Songs 1000/200
> 
> > It is superficially attractive to make a holy allegory of the book,
> 
> 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?

Samuel,
What are the sources for saying that allegorical interpretation of the 
book was the "main" reason it was included?  We know that both 
Jewish and Christian interpreters took allegorical approaches (e.g. 
Philo) but I'm not sure the Council of Jamnia included the book for 
this "main" reason.  Wasn't the principal criterion one of authorship?

> > 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.

If indeed this is the approach you take to the Bible, how can you 
assert above that the council made a "right" decision?  If, contrary 
to the Bible's own claims that Harold has already mentioned, it's 
simply a collection of human writings selected by men for their own 
reasons, then no decision of inclusion or exclusion was 
necessarily "right" or "wrong," so it seems to me there's a bit of 
internal inconsistency here?

Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
"You just keep thinking, Butch.  That's what you're good at."