Should we interpret the Song of Songs as allegory?

"What are the strengths and weaknesses of interpreting the Song of Songs allegorically? Why is it compelling or challenging to do so?"

Few books of the Jewish Bible have had as many and diverse interpretations as has the Song of Songs. Many factors feed these expansive grounds for speculation, from the absence of the word or mention of G!d, ignoring any religious themes, the inclusion of explicitly sexual descriptions, and a very vague or even missing plot and hard to find framework and purpose for the work. Perhaps it is for these reasons that early on the Song of Songs was viewed as allegory.

Traces of the allegorical interpretation of the Song of Songs are found in the Mishnah (Ta'anith 4.8), as well as in the Targum, the Midrash Rabbah, and by the medieval Jewish commentators Saadia, Rashi, and Ibn Ezra.

Allegory certainly makes such an overtly sexual treatise more "palatable" to students of the sacred. Choosing to view this book as allegory also dispenses with the need to verify its authorship and time of writing. As allegory it need not have those two things, since the overall unity and message of the book is far more important to its interpretation and application as an allegory.

While an allegorical interpretation allows for a deeper "spiritual" meaning beyond that of its surface level of sexuality, it also breeds unlimited interpretations and understandings, and has no need for any type of historical context. Allegorical interpretations opens it to the whims of anyone, with little or no framework.

In reducing this book to an allegorical understanding, a side effect is that it can be used to reinforce the diminished view of human sexuality and procreation, especially as put forth by Christian views.

Bottom line, despite the popularity of the allegorical approach to the Song of Songs, this method suffers the most from novel and fanciful interpretations which lack objectivity and verification, and encourages a complete lack of anything close to a consensus of meaning. The mere expansive nature of allegorical symbols makes it difficult to contain the number of interpretations.

In addition, an allegorical interpretation is not necessarily supported by the work itself. Allegorical stories usually proceed with a progressive story line and build to a conclusion and "moral of the story," and this book does not have that.

As appealing as the allegorical interpretation of the Song of Songs may be, such an approach does not hold up to the grammatical, historical, or contextual framework of study, leaving it far too open to the whims and fancies of anyone. It also denies the simplicity that human sexuality is perfectly comfortable within the same sheets of paper as those things considered "more holy." Allegory simply denies or ignores these things, but makes it more palatable to those not comfortable with sexuality and spirituality being, in a word, bedmates.

Since Pesach approaches, the traditional time when we read the Song of Songs in our yearly cycle of readings, it was refreshing to be able to explore removing the allegorical approach to this book when it is studied again in a few weeks. 

In reviewing Rashi's approach, it inspired me to take another look at the Song of Songs in its plain and literal sense as an erotic song, a growing trend which can be traced back to Moses Mendelssohn. There is strong evidence that the book is not a collection of love poems from various writers, because of its structuring, repeated refrains, and common literary devices throughout that strongly suggest a single hand behind its composition.

While Jewish tradition reads it as an allegory of the relationship between G!d and Israel, perhaps the best approach to this book is one which views it literally, as an erotic love song, a love song that includes many poetic devices such as dream sequences, and contains lessons on love, sex, fidelity, and jealousy when love is betrayed. 

Perhaps we ought consider the Song of Songs in a similar way that writer Julian Barnes did when he inserted what he called a “Parenthesis” between chapters 8 and 9 of his novel A History of the World in 101⁄2 Chapters. The parenthetical half chapter asks what it means for two people to love each other and the effects that may or may not have on a “history of the world.” 

This could be the key that unlocks Song of Songs, as a parenthetical half-chapter in the sacred canon which simply asks what it means for two people to love each other and how that might impact the world.