Saturday, December 19, 2009I can see the snow floating outside through the window next to my desk in the JANES seminar room.
I'm taking a break from my reading right now to just reflect.
I'm here in Van Pelt to work on my final paper for my Ancient Interpretations of the Bible course.
It’s on Song of Songs.
I think everybody’s questioned the relevance of Song of Songs to the Biblical story. I mean, why is it in the Bible if it makes 4th graders blush during Sunday School?
I speak from personal experience. One of my bratty guy friends back in Chinese Christian Church of Baltimore would read the really “graphic” passages of Song of Songs to me loudly during our 4th grade Sunday School class just to see me blush and squirm.
Oh, children.
But over Fall Break, my sister, who, ironically enough, also happens to be in 4th grade now, asked me. "Why is Song of Songs even in the Bible?"
Well, I'm here in the Jewish and Near Eastern Seminar room of Van Pelt to explore exactly that.
Originally, I was set to explore the differences between early Rabbinic and early Christian interpretation, but when I met with my professor a few weeks ago to discuss it, he said that midrashim, Rabbinic interpretation, on the Canticles is a hassle to read and understand. He recommended that I use my 10-page final paper to concentrate on Origen's interpretation of a specific passage in Song of Songs.
Well, that's all fine and dandy. I was straight with that if he thought it'd be fine.
The problem was that when I got here at noon after trudging through the snow and slipping in the hallway of Van Pelt, the book on Origen was nowhere to be found.
I checked again for Origen: The Song of Songs: Commentary, and Homilies.
Franklin told me: "Multiple holdings. Click for details." and then "Available. Check location."
BR60. A35 no. 26
I checked the location.
I checked the surrounding locations.
But I could not find it.
I panicked for about two seconds before walking back to my laptop and thinking about Plan B.
And God, in His goodness, had a Plan B all set up for me.
When I ran a search in Franklin for the Canticles, Ibn. Ezra's Commentary on the Canticles came up.
BS1485. I1913 1874a.
I thought, "Hey, maybe midrash is hard, but a comparison between two different rabbis'
interpretations of Song of Songs shouldn't be too bad."
I went to the BS1485s. I could not find that book.
Instead, I found the book that has engrossed me for the past hour, Volume XXVIII of the Yale Judaica Series, Gersonides on Song of Songs.
Gersonides' interpretation is fascinating.
It went against all the traditional interpretations of his time.
For him, Song of Songs obviously does not express a love between man or woman, but it doesn’t express a love between God and Israel or love between God and the individual who seeks God either.
So what is the Song of Songs to Gersonides? It’s a part of the scientific treatise that is the Torah. And it is composed of not one, but two dialogues.
The first dialogue is between the human material intellect and the Active Intellect, the conjuction by which a human being attains the highest perfection and the greatest felicity.
The second dialogue is between the faculties of the soul and the material intellect about the way in which a person can attain such elusive felicity- through science.
To Gersonides, the Song of Songs is basically an expression of "the overwhelming desire of a material intellect to approach an Active Intellect, and its attempts to enlist the (willing aid) of the other faculties of the soul in this quest."
Wowzers.
My snow day of papering has just gotten so much more interesting.
Praise God. :)
3:28 PM |
