Commentary on the Song of Solomon

In the Hebrew Bible, the book of Song of Songs is placed in the third part of the sacred Old Testament books - among the so-called hagiographers (Hebrew ketubim), and follows immediately after the three great hagiographers - the books of Psalms, Proverbs and Job - and before the book of Ruth. In the Greek Bible, in the Latin Vulgate and in the Slavic and Russian Bibles, the book of Song of Songs occupies a place among teaching books after two other works of Solomon - the books of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes (before the non-canonical teaching books - the Wisdom of Solomon - and the Wisdom of Jesus, the son of Sirach). The inscription of the book in the Hebrew original: Shir-ha-Shirim Asher li-Shlomo is also reproduced in the Greek translation: Αισμα ασματων, δ εστι Σολομων 1. The expression “Song of Songs” (Greek ασμα ασματων, Lat. Canticum canticorum) in this case cannot be understood either in the sense of a series or collection of Solomon’s songs (as was believed in modern times by researchers who held the view of the book of Song of Songs that it is composed of many fragments - fragmentary songs, such as, for example, Kleiker, Pavlus, especially Depke and Magnus), nor in the dividing meaning that some Jewish rabbis gave it (Aben-Ezra, Kimhi): “one of the songs of Solomon.” On the contrary, according to the property of Jewish speech, in which the combination of a name in unity. number with the same name in sets. number usually expresses the superlative degree of the concept expressed by the word (cf. expressions such as “servant of slaves” Gen. 9.25, “Holy of Holies” Exodus 26.33–34, etc., “heaven of heavens” 1 Kings 8.27, “Vanity of Vanities” Eccl. 1.2, etc.). “Song of Songs” can only mean the most excellent song, the best of all other songs (in his German translation of the Bible, Luther successfully expressed the idea of this expression with the word “Hohelied”, “high song”), and such a name fully corresponds to the form and content of this sacred book: both in the grace of its poetic form and external presentation, and in its internal, ideological content, in the richness of thoughts in the development of its mysterious sublime subject, the book of Song of Songs is the most excellent work of sacred inspired wisdom and sacred poetry. An indication of the divinely sublime, doctrinal content of the book is concluded by the Syrian translation of Peshito, where this book has the inscription “Wisdom of Wisdom”. The Jewish synagogue and the ancient Christian Church agree in recognizing the immeasurably high dignity of the book of Song of Songs. The Targum on the book of Song of Songs, comparing its content with other Old Testament songs or hymns (Moses, Deborah, Anna, etc.), recognizes its superiority over all of them and brings it closer to the song of the coming Messianic time (according to Isaiah 30.29). The Midrash on the Song of Songs (Song 1:10–11, Russian Song 1:9–10) says: “by the “string of pearls” we must understand the Law, the five books of Moses; under the “cord of precious stones” - the prophets; under the “golden pendants” – hagiographers; under the “silver pendants (speckles”) - the Song of Songs itself.” In 3 Ezra 5:24, 7:26, obviously in view of the Song of Songs, God’s chosen people are called “bride” and “lily.” In the Christian Church, this sublime view of the Jewish synagogue on the book of Songs of Songs was first clearly expressed by Origen, who at the same time expanded and deepened the Jewish interpretation, giving it a Christian meaning. As a lover of the mysterious, Origen focused with special love on the wide field of the mysterious that the Song of Songs represented, and wrote ten books of interpretations on it, containing, in a number of blessings. Jerome, up to twenty thousand lines and so sublime and deep in content that in them Origen, in the words of Blessed. Jerome, outdid himself. But only two other treatises by Origen on the Song of Songs have survived to this day, translated by Blessed. Jerome into Latin and, according to his remark, more understandable for infants still feeding on milk (Russian translation of the Creation of Blessed Jerome, part 6, 2nd ed., 1906 Kyiv, pp. 136–174). Origen's sublime view of the book of Song of Songs is expressed at the very beginning of the first of these treatises. “As we,” he says here, “learned through Moses that there is not only the Holy Place, but also the Most Holy Place, and that there is not only a Sabbath, but also a Sabbath of Sabbaths; so now we learn through Solomon that there are not only songs, but also the Song of Songs. Blessed, of course, is the one who enters the Holy Place, but even more blessed is the one who enters the Holy of Holies. Blessed is he who celebrates the Sabbath, but even more blessed is he who celebrates the Sabbath of Sabbaths. Blessed, in the same way, is the one who understands and sings songs, but much more blessed is the one who sings the Song of Songs. And just as he who enters into the holy place still needs many things in order to be worthy to enter into the Most Holy Place, and as he who celebrates the Sabbath, which was established by the Lord for the people, needs many more things in order to celebrate the Sabbath of Sabbaths; in like manner, it is difficult to find one who, having gone through all the songs contained in Scripture, would be able to rise to the Song of Songs” (p. 138). Together with the Jewish synagogue, Origen establishes an allegorical understanding of the book, saying, for example: “If this (about the kisses of Songs 1.1) did not have a spiritual meaning, would it not be an empty story? If it didn’t have something mysterious in itself, wouldn’t it be unworthy of God?” (pp. 141–142). However, taking from the synagogue, and more particularly from the Targum, the general idea of ​​​​the allegorical understanding of the book of Song of Songs, Origen changes this idea as much as the speech of a Jew should have changed in the mouth of a Christian; it is in the place of the undefined Targumic Messiah that he places the Lord Jesus Christ, instead of Israel - the society of Christians or the Church, otherwise the Christian soul: thus, when explaining Chapter I. 1 tbsp. Origen notes that by the kiss mentioned here it is not enough to understand the broadcasts of Moses and the prophets, as the Targum explains, but one must seek the kisses of Christ (cf. also his explanation of v. 2). The general idea of ​​Origen’s interpretation was adopted by all the famous fathers and teachers of the Church - St. Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of Jerusalem, Epiphanius of Cyprus, Macarius of Egypt, Athanasius of Alexandria, Blessed. Theodoret and others. In revealing this interpretation, some church teachers expressed their special opinions. Thus, blessed Augustine, in agreement with the Jewish synagogue, saw in the content of the Song of Songs an allegorical depiction of the history of the ancient Jews (“On the City of God” book XVII, 8, 13, 20, Russian translation. Works of Blessed Augustus, part 5, ed. 2-e, 1907 Kyiv). St. Ambrose of Milan, on the contrary, gave a Christian allegorical interpretation of the Song of Songs, completely independent of the traditions of the synagogue: in his opinion (in his Serrno de virginitate perpetua S. Mariae), the Shulamite Song of Songs is an allegorical image of the Mother of God. This view is repeatedly expressed by the Catholic Church in its liturgical rites: when using the Song of Songs during divine services, it usually coincides readings from it with the feasts of the Mother of God (for example, on the Nativity of the Virgin Mary, the Annunciation and the Dormition, the first chapter of the Song of Songs is read). In the divine services of the Orthodox Church, readings from the book of the Song of Songs are not used, but in the canons and in general in services in honor of the Mother of God, expressions from this book are often adopted from this book (“the sealed source”, “the imprisoned helicopter city”, “all goodness art thou, and there is no vice in you”, etc.). But the general and clearly expressed Orthodox Church interpretation of the book of Song of Songs is an explanation of the relationship between the Beloved or Groom and the Beloved or Bride of the book in the sense of the grace-filled sacrament of the union of Christ-God and humanity-the-church, and, according to church understanding, the Song of Songs is the highest of all Old Testament prophecies about the Messiah, even if not a prophecy, but a historical image of Christ incarnate, becoming human and carrying out the work of saving humanity. In the “Synopsis” or Review of the Holy Books of St. Athanasius the Great about the book of Song of Songs we read: “Everything in it from beginning to end is written mysteriously, with a mysterious allegory, and the meaning of the dogmas contained in it is not contained in the letter, but is deeply hidden under it... Therefore, only intelligent people can read this book; but they, when reading it, should always have an allegory in mind, so that the ignorance of the unlearned does not ridicule what is stated in it. The Song is called the Song because it follows other songs, and that after this song one cannot expect another song... All Divine Scripture prophesies about the descent of the Word to us and His appearance in the flesh. This constitutes a special subject of the will of God, and the foreshadowing of this was the primary work of the prophets and all Divine Scripture... All these prophecies are songs, and the Song of Songs no longer prophesies or predicts, but shows Him, whom others foretold, as if he had already come and taken on human flesh. Therefore, the Song of Songs sings, as it were, a wedding song for the marriage of the Word with flesh. And although other Scriptures also speak about the Savior, they also proclaim something else, but this book glorifies the union of the Word with the flesh. In other Scriptures, as containing something other than the teaching of the Word, there are expressions of anger, rage and rebuke with fear, and this book, so glorifying the coming of the Word alone, speaks only of pleasantness, joy and gladness, for, in the presence of the bridegroom, everyone should rejoice and it is not fitting for anyone to cry, as the Lord Himself said (Matthew 9.15). Therefore, just as after the dispensation perfected by the Savior, we no longer expect a prophet, so after what is indicated in the Song of Songs, we should not expect anything else, a new signifying something. Just as the law and the prophets ceased after John the Baptist pointed out the Lamb of God, so what was sung in the Song of Songs is the end of everything that is proclaimed in all of Divine Scripture... Just as in the law there was holy things, and after the holy things there was the Holy of Holies, and behind the Holy of Holies there was no longer an internal place, so after the songs there is still the Song of Songs, and after the Song of Songs one should no longer expect internal and the newest promise: for the Word once “became flesh and did the work...” (Christ. Reading. 1841, part 4, pp. 370–374). Thus, the general view of the ancient and subsequent Christian Church on the book of Song of Songs is the recognition in it of an allegory or allegory with the highest religious meaning, just as the ancient Jewish synagogue saw in the Song of Songs precisely an allegory, a parable - mashal. The allegorical understanding of the Song of Songs was for the ancient, Jewish and Christian interpreters of it and remains to this day and always quite natural and even inevitable in view of the following circumstances and considerations. The already indicated meaning of the inscription of the book, in which the latter is recognized as superior in dignity to other sacred books, spoke by itself and always inspires interpreters and readers of the Song of Songs that the compiler of the inscription - a person probably different from the sacred writer of the book (as shown by the form of the relative pronoun already used in the inscription - usher, while in the book itself there is only an abbreviated form of this pronoun - gave a higher meaning to the content of the book and could not at all see in it - in the literal sense - a simple description of everyday sexual love; otherwise could he, like any true Israeli in general, place a secular work above many Divine psalms, the songs of Moses, Miriam, Devorah and the divinely inspired speeches of the prophets, which are all simply called songs? Then, there is no doubt that the Song of Songs owes its acceptance into the canon of the Holy Books to this? the highest religious meaning of its content, which is given only by its allegorical interpretation. Contrary to the false concept of biblical rationalism about the canon as a simple collection of ancient national Jewish literature, the compilers of the Old Testament canon set two necessary conditions for a book to be accepted into it: religious content and holiness based on Divine inspiration. The Song of Songs, thanks to its highest meaning, fully satisfied these two conditions, as can be seen from the following passage of the Mishnah (tr. Yadayim, Chapter III, §§ 4–5), where the correct canonization of two books is discussed - Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs: “Said R. Ahiba: God forbid! no one in Israel ever argued against the fact that the Song of Songs defiles hands, 2 for the whole world is not worth the day on which the Song of Songs was given to Israel, for all books are holy, and the Song of Songs is the Holy of Holies.” Finally, an allegorical or allegorical, non-literal understanding of the Song of Songs was and is inevitable in general with any integral presentation of its content; in the latter - taken literally - a number of contradictions are noticed in the position of the main characters and their mutual relations. The Beloved or Bridegroom of the Song of Songs is at the same time a shepherd (Song. 1.6; Song 6.2), and the husbandman (Song 5.1) and the crowned king (Song 1.11; Song 3.11); and the Beloved or the Bride is either a shepherdess (Song 1.7), or a guardian of the vineyard (Song 1.5), or a royal daughter and queen (Song 6.7–8), and equally in mutual relations they are either brother and sister (Song 4.12), or groom and bride, or husband and wife (Song 1.14; Song 2.7); then in the character and actions of the Beloved, many mutually contradictory features are also noticed: she is both imperfect (Song 1.4) and perfect (Song 4.1); being close to her husband's Beloved, she however does not know his whereabouts (Song 1.6) and searches for him at night along the dark streets of the city (Song 3.2–4), with the participation of a crowd of Jerusalem women (Song 5.8–17), and the city watchmen meet her, beat her and undress her (Song 5.7). All these differences and contradictions, which cannot be eliminated with a literal understanding of the content of the Song of Songs, themselves refer to another, higher or allegorical interpretation of it. True, the general concert of allegorical interpretations - both in the Jewish synagogue and already in the ancient Christian Church - was sometimes interrupted by the dissonance of individual voices trying to understand and explain the content of the Song of Songs in the literal, literal sense, but these were just individual opinions of people who, one way or another, broke the connection with the general tradition - synagogue and Christian-church, and the synagogue and the church met them with complete condemnation. Without mentioning various attempts of this kind in Judaism (which belonged mostly to anonymous people), among the Christian literalists we will name Theodore Bishop of Mopsuet, (5th century), condemned for the literal interpretation of the Song of Songs by the Fifth Ecumenical Council. In a literal understanding, the Shulamite of the book of Song of Songs was identified either with Abishai the Shunammite (1 Kings 1:1–4, 2.17–22) or with the daughter of Pharaoh, the wife of Solomon (1 Kings 3.1), or with some other bride or concubine of Solomon. In modern times, numerous supporters of the literal understanding of the book among German bibliologists, especially the famous biblical scholar Ewald, developed a new theory according to which the Song of Songs glorifies the steadfastness of pure fiery love and its triumph against all the seductions of honor and wealth; The object of the Shulamite woman’s love here is not Solomon, but a simple shepherd, her compatriot, from whom she was temporarily separated, taken to Solomon’s palace, but here she, despite all the caresses and promises, remained faithful to her lover and was finally released to him and united with him in marriage. That this hypothesis has no support in the text of the Song (precisely in the places indicated by its supporters: Song 1:3, 11, 6:11–12, 8:10) and is generally groundless is clear. The middle between the allegorical and literal interpretations is occupied by the typical interpretation, developed partly by Hugo Grotius and Bossuet, and mainly by Hoffmann and Delitzsch and here by Kossovich, according to which the love depicted in the Song of Songs is an actual fact from the story of Solomon, but the depiction of this love has no purpose in itself, but serves as an example of the highest spiritual love and man’s relationship to God. With this understanding, according to Delitzsch, the Song of Songs is a highly valuable sacred work in three respects: 1) in the religious-moral sense, as a depiction of the high idea of ​​marriage, 2) in the church-historical sense, as a depiction of the fate of the Jewish people and the church during the time of Solomon, and 3) finally, in the educational sense, since in marriage it represents the union of Christ with the church. Caused by the desire to reconcile the extremes of the first two interpretations, the typical understanding has its significance in explaining the mysterious book of Song of Songs. But complete penetration into the content and original meaning of it, according to the idea of ​​​​its sacred writer, is a difficulty that is hardly surmountable. The Jewish synagogue's view of this was well expressed by the 10th-century Jewish commentator Saadiah: “Know, my brother, that there are various explanations for this book, and it could not be otherwise, because the Song of Songs is like a lock to which the key has been lost; some claim that it refers to the kingdom of Israel, others to the law, others to the times of captivity, and still others to the Messiah.” That is why, according to the testimony of Origen and Jerome, the Jews were forbidden to read this book (as well as the beginning of the book of Genesis and the beginning and end of the book of the prophet Ezekiel) before the age of thirty. That a similar precaution is obligatory in the Christian Church, we saw from the words of St. Athanasius the Great. However, preferring the allegorical way of explaining the book of Song of Songs, as accepted by St. church, to everyone else, we must, however, avoid those extremes of groundless allegorism detached from the actual content of the book, the presence of which is very obvious in the works of many orthodox German biblical scholars (Hahn, Gengstenberg, Schaefer, etc.). Allegory should only be the principle of explanation of the book, not at all displacing the content given in the book, but only regulating the review of the latter and illuminating it with the highest light. The indispensable duty of the interpreter is to establish as accurately as possible those intermediary ideas by which the literal content of the book is connected with the higher ideas of the allegory, which in any case should be based on the data of the content of the book itself, and not borrow its material independently of the book, from outside it. Such a meaning and such an application of the allegorical principle in the explanation of the book of Song of Songs, apparently, is outlined in the “Synopsis” of St. Afanasia. “This whole book,” he says, is filled with conversations between the Old Testament Church and the Word, the entire human race with the Word, and the pagan church with Him, and again the Word with her and with the human race. Then a conversation between the pagans and Jerusalem and Jerusalem - about the pagan church and about itself. Further, the appeal of the serving Angels to people called to the faith... Adapting to such conversations in the Song of Songs, everyone, looking at the book itself, can combine incidents that are similar in meaning to each other” (Chronicle Reading, 1841, part 4, pp. 379–380). As for now the external, so to speak, literary form of the book of Song of Songs and its structure or composition, then in this respect it occupies a special, exceptional position among other Old Testament holy books. There is absolutely no narrative element in it; the sacred writer of the book does not express a single thought or a single explanatory comment on his own behalf; the entire book from the first verse to the last represents a series of emotional outpourings and, in general, speeches of the persons acting in its content, while in the book of Job, which is close to it in this respect, the historical or narrative element not only takes place in the first two and last chapters of the book, but also appears more than once in the middle of the book, sometimes interrupting the flow of speeches. This feature of the book of Song of Songs could not fail to attract the attention of its interpreters. And Origen already assessed, although hardly accurately, the significance of this circumstance. Due to the nature of the content of the book, Origen calls it a “marriage song,” epithalamium, and, moreover, such a “marriage song, according to the model of which the pagans composed their wedding song and from which they took the content for this song. For the Song of Songs is a wedding song” (p. 140); according to the form of literary presentation, Origen calls the Song a drama, fabula, drama. “Of what number of persons,” says Origen, “the society described in the Song of Songs consists, I do not know. But through your prayer and the revelation of the Lord, I seem to distinguish between them four kinds of persons: the bridegroom and the bride, with the bride a company of girls - friends, with the groom a company of comrades. One thing is said by the bride, another by the groom, something by the girls, something by the groom’s companions. For it is natural that at marriages there is a company of maidens with the bride, and a crowd of comrades with the groom. Look for all this not outside, not outside those who are saved through the preaching of the Gospel. By the groom understand Christ, by the bride without spot or wrinkle - the Church - according to Eph 5.27. In the souls of the believing maidens accompanying the bride, understand those who, although faithful to Christ, are not the same as those about whom it was said above, and seem to be to some extent only those who have received salvation, and by the husbands accompanying the groom, understand the Angels and those who have achieved perfect husbandhood” (p. 140). Recognizing the Song of Songs as a drama and indicating in it four named groups of characters, Origen in his commentary divides the book into sections - as if acts or actions, and when explaining, he always indicates which character these or other words belong to. In his view that the Song of Songs was written in modum dramatis, Origen in Christian antiquity was not alone: his point of view on this subject was shared not only by other teachers of the Alexandrian teaching school, but it is even given in the Sinaitic copy of the LXX translation, where there are divisions of the book of the Song of Songs into four acts, as well as inscriptions over the smaller sections indicating to whom this or that speech belongs (similar divisions and inscriptions have been preserved and in the Ethiopic translation of the Song of Songs, made from the text of LXX). However, all these ancient church teachers did not have the idea that the Song of Songs was written for the stage or even actually ever performed on it. Meanwhile, in modern times (in the 19th century), a number of Western scientists, in their works on the Song of Songs, developed precisely this idea about its stage purpose and actual production on the theatrical stage (Ewald, Fürst, Nöldeke, Böttcher, Renan, Kempf, etc.). But, in reality, the biblical Jews, like the Semites in general, had neither drama nor theater at all; on the contrary, they always felt an organic aversion to the former and the latter. And not a single biblical critic or supporter of the theory of drama has been able to prove the presence in the Song of Songs of all dramatic elements, dramatically sustained dialogue, action, scene location, monotonous division of the play into acts and phenomena, division of roles. The ancient divisions mentioned - in Origen, in the Codex Sinaiticus and in the Ethiopic translation, undoubtedly had nothing to do with the supposed scenic purpose of the book, but probably pointed to the homiletical or exegetical use of the book (divisions similar to our church conceptions). But if there is no real dramatic action in the book of the Song of Songs, then there is in it a complete and living, organic unity of the main idea that develops throughout its entire length: the supporters of the theory of drama thought to defend this unity of the book, by the way, against the supporters of the fragmentary theory, according to which the Song represents a series of incoherent passages or fragments of a song nature. The unity and integrity of the book is indisputably proven by the following data: 1) The unity of the characters in the song: not only the main characters - the Bride and Groom, Solomon and Shulamite, but also the secondary characters, the daughters of Jerusalem, appear in all parts of the book with the same characters, aspirations and tasks and in the same setting. For example, the name of Solomon or “king” (i.e., also Solomon) runs through the entire book (Song 1:3–4, 11, 3:7, 9, 11, 8:11–12); likewise - “the daughters of Jerusalem” (Song. 1:4, 2:7, 3:5, 5:8, 16, 8:4); the Shulamite's mother is mentioned repeatedly, but not her father (Song. 1:5, 3:4, 8:2). 2) The unity of the writer’s literary techniques in all parts of the book. Priest the writer once developed his own special expressions and scattered them throughout all parts of the book; many expressions are repeated more than once in different departments with almost literal accuracy. These are, for example, the epithets: “the most beautiful of women,” - “the one whom my soul loves”; or - a three-times repeated spell to the women of Jerusalem not to awaken love (Song. 2:7, 3:5, 8:4), or - a three-time question: “who is this” (Song. 3:6, 6:10, 8:5), etc. 3) Finally, especially - the unity and gradual development of the main content of the book and its particular details. The feeling of love of the Bride for the Groom at the beginning is, as it were, in embryo, uncertain and uncertain (Song 1.1–3, 6–7), and at the end it becomes strong, like death, a real divine flame that nothing can extinguish (Song 8.6–8); and the Bride herself, previously imperfect (Song 1.4), now reaches fullness and perfection (Song 8.10). You can observe the change of seasons in the song: winter, spring (Song 2:11–13), summer (Song 4:11, 6:11) and autumn (Song 7:8–9). If we add to what has been said about the internal unity of the book of Song of Songs that in its language there is the same unity in word usage in its different parts, then any basis for splitting the book into any pericopes or fragments, especially of different times of origin, disappears. At the same time, the denial of the origin of the book from Solomon, so widespread in the West, loses all meaning. (According to, for example, Koenig, there can be no talk about the origin of the book from Solomon due to the fact that the language and ideological content of the book indicate the beginning of the post-exilic period 3; Orthodox science, on the contrary, has no incentive to deviate in this matter from the testimony of tradition, according to which the writer of the book was the wise King Solomon. This tradition was already expressed in the very inscription of the book, as well as in the testimony of the Talmud (tr. Baba batra, fol. 14, b.) that the book of Song of Songs was written by Solomon, but collected and published by King Hezekiah. As Solomon's sacred work in Jewish synagogues, from ancient times to this day, the book of Song of Songs is read on the eighth day of the Jewish holiday of Passover. The Jewish tradition differed only in resolving the question of when and at what age Solomon wrote the Song of Songs: according to the midrash, Solomon wrote the Song in old age, while the prevailing view of the Jewish tradition was that the “Song of Songs” was written by Solomon in his youth, while “Proverbs” - in his mature age, and Ecclesiastes - in his old age. The latter view is preferable and prevails in the Christian Church. In Russian, regarding the book of the Song of Songs, there are: 1) Translation of the book from the Hebrew text - Archimandrite Macarius (Glukharev) Christ. Read 1871, I; 2) Translation of it from Greek LXX-ti - Bishop Porfiry (Uspensky) - Proceedings (Neva Theological Academy 1869, June, pp. 103–118; 3) Explanation of the Song (Song. 3 and Song 4:16) - in “Resurrection. Read." Ch. V (1841, 159–160) and ch. VII 1843), p. 64; 4) Professors from St. Petersburg. Spiritual Academy of I. S. Yakimov, “On the origin of the book of Song of Songs” - Christ. Read 1887, vol. I, p. 569 act. and 5) Professor of the Kyiv Theological Academy A. A. Olesnitsky, “The Book of Song of Songs and its newest critics” - in Works. Kyiv. Spirit. Akad." 1881–1882 and separately – Kyiv 1882, p. 387. Essay by prof. A. A. Olesnitsky is the most important scientific work on the book of the Song of Songs, not only standing on a par with the best works of Western scientific bibliological literature, but also far surpassing many of them. In this work, the author not only very thoroughly outlined these legends about the canonical nature and methods of explaining the book of Song of Songs in the Jewish synagogue and the Christian Church, and then established the relationship of the most important ancient texts of the book, especially Jewish - Masoretic and Greek - LXX; not only gave a complete overview and critical analysis of numerous views and theories of Western biblical scholars regarding the Song of Songs, but also presented in conclusion his own original and most talented experience in explaining this book - “a new way of unraveling the Song of Songs” (pp. 336–337). Dwelling on those parts of the book (Song 4.1–5; Song 6.4–7; Song 7.2–6) in which the most detailed description of the Bride is given, prof. Olesnitsky finds the following features here: firstly, anatomical detail in the listing of individual parts of the figure (mouth, palate, tongue, legs, hips, navel); secondly, the widespread, exclusive use, when describing the members of the bride’s body, of various strokes from pictures of nature, the latter decisively overshadowing purely human features (“your eyes are doves”, Song 1.14. “Your teeth are like a flock of shorn sheep coming out of the bathhouse, each of which has a pair of lambs, and there is not a barren one among them” Song 4.2; “your neck is like a pillar David, built for weapons" Song 4.4 and many others). Hence, “since in the Song of Songs the purely human image of the bride and the pictures of nature argue with each other, and since in this dispute for the primacy the pictures of nature prevail in terms of the strength and completeness of the image, the first step towards unraveling the book should consist in a new illumination of it, which is given by transferring the center of gravity from the imaginary basis of the book or the human image of the bride to the real basis or description of nature viewed by researchers” (p. 346). The possibility of comparing pictures of nature with the human figure of the bride in the mouth of the biblical poet is quite understandable. According to the special poetic worldview of the ancient Jews, the earth, as the mother and nurse of all living things, appears to be feminine; hence the name of the land, Erets, is feminine. Individual countries or states are called her daughters or maidens, brides: maiden, daughter of Egypt Jer 46.11; virgin, daughter of Sidon Isa 23.12; virgin, daughter of Babylon Isa 47.1; but especially often among biblical writers this image is attached to the Promised Land: virgin, daughter of Israel, virgin, daughter of Judah, virgin, daughter of My people (Jehovah) Jer 14.17; Isa 10:32, 37:22; Am 5.2, etc. Thus, if the Song of Songs is dedicated to the description of nature, then the introduction of the human image of a Jewish maiden into this description will be quite understandable, much more in the spirit of the Hebrew worldview than the reverse introduction of pictures of nature into the poetic depiction of human (female) beauty. (p. 348). Grouping, then, all the touches and pictures of nature connected in the book of the Song of Songs (flora, fauna, the inorganic kingdom, food products of the people, changes in the phenomena of day and night, seasons, etc.), as well as touches depicting local human culture (watch and military towers, arsenals, cities with their various accessories), Prof. Olesnitsky comes to the conclusion that St. the writer of the Song of Songs had to depict Palestine itself, which is depicted in exactly the same way in Deuteronomy (Deut. 6:10–11, 8:7–10, 11:9–12) and in the prophets. Accordingly, the bridegroom of the Song of Songs (as depicted in Songs 5.10–16) must belong to visible nature, or at least be revealed in the phenomena of visible nature. But while the paintings and strokes depicting the bride gravitate towards a low-lying earthly nature, the strokes collected in the image of the groom, although in contact with the earth, themselves belong to the highest ethereal region of light... As we peer into these paintings flooded with light, the human image of the groom becomes more and more dim and finally turns into a luminous image of the sun (p. 353). Just like Palestinian nature, the bride of the Song of Songs strives for her Palestinian sun (p. 358). But just as the bride is not only the Palestinian land, but also the Jewish people inhabiting it, so the groom is not only a physical force beneficial to the land - the sun, but also a political force - the king, poetically called the sun by the prophet (Jer 15.9); more specifically, King Solomon. But the highest power that benefited the land of Palestine and Israel was the Divine power, to which both the physical power of the sun and the political power of the king owed their existence and action. In the sun and azure, King Solomon, towering above the earth, as the beneficent genius of the country, himself evoked in the poet’s thoughts the image of the glorified Messiah, who would appear in the clouds of glory and complete all the highest, worldly benefits to the people (p. 362). This is the explanation of Prof. Olesnitsky, suggested to him, according to him, by the Jew Tayyar and by himself only developed. Like any human theory, it does not exclude objections to itself, but, in our opinion, it is based on a deep understanding of the Eastern, in particular, the biblical-Jewish worldview, on a deep penetration into the spirit and meaning of the biblical images of the sacred writers, and in any case, indicates a reliable path along which the study and explanation of the book of Song of Songs should be conducted. That natural soil on which the sacred poet and sage painted an image, incomparable in beauty and sublimity, of the most perfect fiery love of man and society of people - the Church - for God, is a powerful feeling of the joy of life, sexual love and love for nature. Gustav Karpeles is hardly wrong when he speaks about the plot of the book Song of Songs: “There, among the storms that swept through the life of the people, this song poured out from the heart, into which the cheerful atmosphere threw its brightest rays and in which lived an amazing ability to see as clearly as possible how flowers shine, how a date tree puts out its buds, how a vine rises up and how a color opens.” pomegranate trees... Neither Greece nor the rest of the East has ever produced, and could not produce such a song of love. If she rises so immeasurably above all her kindred creatures, it is thanks to the wonderful harmonious combination of passionate sensuality and purest morality, which constitutes the invisible pulse of the entire song. It is impossible to depict purely human love more deeply and truly... And next to these spells of love, it is mainly idyllic scenes from life in the lap of nature that charm us in this poem: we find here such a charming immersion in the external nature surrounding us, which we will not find in all erotic poetry. The poet introduces us to blooming, luxurious nature” (“History of Jewish Literature” vol. I, pp. 78–79). We just need to remember that the love of nature and the history of the native people, and sexual love and the aesthetic sense of beauty, and the enjoyment of the joys of life and the very desire for wisdom of the sacred writer of the book “Song of Songs”, as a true theocrat and servant of Jehovah, culminated in religious feeling and reverence for Jehovah. Although the name of God in this book (as in the book of Esther) according to the accepted Hebrew text, as well as in the ancient translations of the book, is not found, the religious spirit breathes in the entire content of the book and is clearly and forcefully expressed in those words of the Bride in Song 8.6–7, which constitute the main, main idea of the entire book: “Put me like a seal on your heart, like a ring, on your hand: for it is strong as death, love; fierce, like hell, jealousy; her arrows are arrows of fire; she is a very strong flame (according to a more accurate translation by Archim. Macarius: she is the flame of God). Great waters cannot extinguish love, and rivers cannot drown it. If anyone were to give all the wealth of his house for love, he would be rejected with contempt.” Only the sacred flame of Divine love, sanctifying with its heavenly touch every kind of earthly love (cf. James 4.4–6), elevates the “marriage song” of the book of Song of Songs to the level of a high religious hymn, and makes the book itself an immortal creation of the inspired human spirit under the influence of the Spirit of God. From countless experiences of dividing the content of our book, we accept as more natural the division of the whole picture of the entire content of the book into the following sections or particular pictures. Section One: Song 1:1 – Song 2:1–7. Section two: Song 2.8 – Song 3.5; 3) Song 3.6 – Song 5.1; 4) Song 5.2 – Song 6.3; 5) Song 6.4 – Song 7.6; 6) Canto 7.1 – Canto 8.4; 7) Song 8.5–14. In both the Hebrew and Greek texts, the inscription of a book constitutes the first verse of its first chapter; in the Vulgate, as in our Slavic and Russian Bibles, the inscription stands alone and is not part of the first chapter. According to rabbinic-Talmudic terminology, the term “to defile hands” in relation to the sacred Books meant their canonical dignity. You can read about the origin and meaning of this strange term from Prof. A. A. Olesnitsky in his “Song of Songs and its newest critics” Kyiv 1882, p. 14. Ed Konig Einleitung in das Alte Testament mit Einschluss der Apocryphen und der Pseudepigraphen Alten Testaments. Bonn 1893, s. 422 ff. Another German scholar, Gustav Karpeles, judges the time of origin of the book of Song of Songs differently and closer to the truth. Comparing the Song of Songs with the famous praise of the virtuous wife in the book of Proverbs ch. XXXI, G. Karpeles says “It cannot be assumed that this hymn in praise of a virtuous wife and the Song of Songs could have arisen at the same time. In the hymn, as in all the maxims of the Book of Proverbs regarding women and love, a completely ethical character predominates, in the Song of Songs - an aesthetic one: in the first, the mood is predominantly moral, in the second, deeply sensual. External and internal reasons force us to accept that the hymn was included in the collection of proverbs later, when more mature views on woman and her importance in public life prevailed; the composition of the Song of Songs probably followed immediately after the death of Solomon, and it was written in northern Palestine. G. Karpeles. History of Jewish Literature. Russian translation under. ed. A. Ya. Garkavi. Volume I. St. Petersburg. 1896, p. 78. But what forces the researcher to consider the “Song of Songs” to have been written only “immediately after the death of Solomon,” and not during his lifetime and not by him? There are no serious reasons for this You might be interested in: