180, B.C. Jesus Sirach, xlvii. 14–17, is next adduced as furnishing some clue to the Jewish interpretation of this book. Ecclesiasticus, according to some, is a name given to it κατ’ ἐξοχὴν, because of its being the most remarkable and useful of the ecclesiastical or apocryphal books; others say it was so called from its resemblance to Solomon’s Ecclesiastes, and others, again, with more probability, that this name was given to it by the Latins, to denote its use in the church. Its Greek name, however, Σοφία Ἰησοῦ υἱοῦ Σειράχ, wisdom of Jesus [[22]]son of Sirach, is more appropriate. It specifies at once the author, who mentions his own name in Ch. l. 27. The age given to the book here, is that which is thought most probable.[21] This apocryphal writer says in his apostrophe to Solomon,—“How wise wast thou in thy youth, and, as a flood, filled with understanding! Thy mind covered the earth, and thou filledst it with enigmatic sayings. Thy name went forth to the distant isles, and thou wast beloved for thy peace. Countries admired thee for songs, and proverbs, and enigmas, and solutions.” The 17th verse is supposed to include the whole writings of Solomon contained in the Old Testament; and it is affirmed that παραβολαὶ αἰνιγμάτων in verse 15, cannot be understood to mean the Proverbs (παροιμία) since these are separately mentioned in verse 17, hence it follows that they refer to the allegorical interpretation of this Song.[22]
Even Hengstenberg, who, though a defender of the allegorical interpretation, remarks,[23] “Sirach xlvii. 17, has wrongly been referred to in support of the allegorical interpretation. For the words ἐν ᾠδαῖς καὶ παροίμιαις καὶ παραβολαῖς καὶ ἐν ἑρμηνείαις ἀπεθαύμασάν σε χῶραι depend upon the historical narration in the Books of the Kings, and do not refer to the writings comprised in the Canon. This is evident from the mention of the ἑρμηνείαι, whereby the solutions of the enigmas in contradistinction to the enigmas themselves, can alone be meant. Comp. 1 Kings x. 1–3. Whereas in the Canon no such ἑρμηνείαι are to be found. Verse 15, in which Keil finds a special reference to the allegorical interpretation, likewise alludes to 1 Kings x., especially to verse 24.”
120, B.C. The Book of Wisdom has also been supposed to contain a clue to the interpretation of this Song. The author and the age of the Book are points of great contest. [[23]]All that can be concluded with any degree of probability is, that the author was an Alexandrian Jew, who lived after the transplanting of the Greek philosophy into Egypt, and that he seems to refer to the oppression of the later Ptolemies.[24] In ch. viii. 2, Solomon is represented as speaking to Wisdom; “Her I loved and sought from my youth, I sought to bring her home for my bride, and I became a lover of her beauty.” Because Solomon is here made to speak of Wisdom as his bride, it has been maintained to be an explanation of the Song of Songs, as though the brides were necessarily the same.[25] Let any impartial reader peruse the description of Wisdom in the chapter quoted, and that of the bride in the Song of Songs, and he will be convinced that there is no intentional resemblance whatever.
37–95, A.D. Josephus is also said to have understood this Song in an allegorical sense, although it is not in a single instance quoted by him. His arrangement of the Books of the Old Testament is the only ground of this argument. It is said, as he[26] mentions twenty-two books which are justly accredited as Divine, (τὰ δικαίως θεῖα πεπιστευμένα) and describes five as belonging to Moses, thirteen to the Prophets, and the remaining four as containing hymns to God, and rules of life for men (αἱ δὲ λοιπαὶ τέσσαρες ὕμνους εἰς τὸν Θεὸν καὶ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ὑποθήκας τοῦ βίου περιέχουσιν) viz., the Psalms, Job, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes, no place is left for this Song except among the Prophets; and if Josephus placed it there, it follows that he must have understood it allegorically.[27] But were we to admit that Josephus placed this Song among the prophetical writings, we should deny the conclusion attempted to be drawn from it. For according to the same mode of argumentation, we might infer that Josephus understood [[24]]Ruth and Esther allegorically, for he also places these books among the prophetical writings. The fact is, that this historian, as he tells us himself, reckons the historical books among the prophetical ones. But we demur to the assertion that Josephus put this Song among the prophetical writings; it is far more likely that he placed it among the four books which he describes as consisting of hymns to God and precepts for the life of men.[28]
We come now to the Talmud, in which passages from this Song are quoted and interpreted. This elaborate work, consists of what is called the Mishna, constituting the text, and the Gemara, which is a commentary upon it, derived from two sources, viz.—Jerusalem and Babylon. The Jews, from time immemorial, had an unwritten law תּוֹרָה שֶׁבַּעַל פֶּה δόγματα ἄγραφα, in addition to the written one, תּוֹרָה שֶׁבַּכְּתָב, ἔγγραφος, contained in the Pentateuch. Hillel of Babylon (born 75 B.C.), who, next to Ezra, was celebrated by posterity as the restorer of the law,[29] first arranged and divided this oral law into six parts:—1, concerning sowing; 2, women; 3, festivals; 4, the rights of property; 5, holy things; 6, pure and impure things. This, which comprises everything that appertains to the Jewish law, was called מִשְׁנָה Mishna, δευτέρωσις, or the second recension of the law. In order to reconcile the Sadducees, who denied every law not founded on Holy Writ, Hillel laid down seven hermeneutic rules, whereby the Scriptures might be interpreted in such a manner that the oral law could be deduced from it.[30] When fears were afterwards entertained lest the oral tradition should be lost, Rabbi Judah Hakkadosh (i.e. holy), in the year 220 A.D., collected everything that had been said upon the subject, preserving the division of Hillel, and probably making some additions of his [[25]]own. This he did in a manner so masterly and satisfactory, that it superseded every other previous attempt, and constitutes the present Mishna.
The Mishna became the chief object of study. The rules of Hillel were increased and much acted on; expositions were given upon the reasons that led to the decisions in the Mishna; the expounders were called אֲמוֹרָאִים Amoraim, public lecturers, and the exposition גְמָרָא Gemara.
After the death of Judah, many of his learned disciples, objecting to the appointment of his second son Gamaliel, to his father’s office, emigrated to Babylon, and having erected schools there, pursued the study of the Mishna. The academy they established in Sura rivalled the one in Tiberias. The Gemara of Tiberias, collated about 358 (A.D.) by an unknown individual, is called Talmud Jerushalmi; and the Gemara of Sura, the compilation of which was begun by R. Ashe (352–427), continued by his disciple and friend, Rabina, and finished about 525, is called Talmud Babli. The latter surpasses the former in comprehensiveness, perspicuity, and depth, is about four times as large, and fills 2947 folio pages. Both united are called The Talmud תַּלְמוּד book of instruction; and also גְמָרָא Gemara. It contains the civil and ceremonial law, debates on various branches of art and science, moral sayings, anecdotes, expositions on different passages of Scripture, &c.[31]
100–500, A.D.—In Yadaim, (Sect. iii. 5.) we find that R. Akiba, one of the greatest Rabbins who lived in the first century, and president of the Academy of Bai-Barc, said, “The whole world was not worthy of the day in which this sublime Song was given to Israel; for all the Scriptures are holy, but this sublime Song is most holy.” There can, therefore, be no doubt that the mysteries which this distinguished Rabbi found in the Song of Songs, he regarded as greater than those he discovered in any other portion of the Sacred Scriptures. [[26]]
Subsequent Rabbins quote and explain different passages. Thus, Ch. i. 2 is discussed in Abodah Sarah (Sect. 2, p. 35). It is asked, “How are the words, ‘Thy love is better than wine’ understood?” Answer: When Rabbi Dimi came to Babylon, he said, “This verse is thus understood: the Congregation of Israel said to God, ‘Lord of the Universe, the words of thy friends (namely, the sages) are more excellent than even the wine of the Law.’”
Here we see that the beloved is taken to be God, and the loved one the Congregation of Israel.