Research Topic: "Song of Solomon" (Song of Songs, Canticles of Canticles)
Written Dec 31 2016
If you have anything to add or correct, you may do so 
. It would be appreciated!
The Song of Songs (Hebrew: שִׁיר הַשִּׁירִים, Šīr HašŠīrīm ; Greek: ᾎσμα ᾈσμάτων, Âisma Aismátōn) also known as the Song of Solomon, Canticles, or the Canticle of Canticles.
In this article I will share research which I believe casts doubt on whether "Song of Solomon" should be considered THE WORD OF GOD.
Please read through this entire article before deciding if I am incorrect.
First of all, this book Song of Solomon was NOT written by Solomon. Solomon’s name is a later addition (1)
That means that this book might fall under the catagory of Pseudepigrapha.
Historically, it has been debated numerous times whether Song of Solomon should ever have been determined to be official Hebrew canon.
The alleged Synod who determined this is disputed. And all the supposed facts regarding this issue are contradictory and obviously intentionally MUDDLED.
I consider this information to be of the utmost seriousness and DO NOT take this lightly what I am suggesting. The Bible is clear about the punishment of those who cast doubt on His Word, let alone, TAKE AWAY from His Word.
The Word of God also warns about adding to God's Word. And it is my position, and I believe GOD'S position, that Song of Solomon was ADDED to God's Word!
I will now list the verses from the Old and New Covenants about adding to or taking away from God's Word:
Deuteronomy 4:2 "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you."
Deuteronomy 12:32 "Whatever I command you, you shall be careful to do; you shall not add to nor take away from it."
Proverbs 30:5, 6 "Every word of God is tested; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him. Do not add to His words Or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar."
Matthew 5:18 The Lord Jesus Christ says "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."
Revelation 22:18 I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book;
19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.
The holy Spirit gives us a clue as to what IS inspired by God through the results of reading it and receiving it into our hearts (where Jesus is if you are Born Again)
The Apostle Paul by revelation from God explains what should be considered valid and authentic Scripture.
2 Timothy 3:16, 17
“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.”
This is what the Amplified Version says,
“All Scripture is God-breathed [given by divine inspiration] and is profitable for instruction, for conviction [of sin], for correction [of error and restoration to obedience], for training in righteousness [learning to live in conformity to God’s will, both publicly and privately—behaving honorably with personal integrity and moral courage]; so that the man of God may be complete and proficient, outfitted and thoroughly equipped for every good work.”
So how does “Song of Solomon” fit into this description of Inspired Scripture by the Apostle Paul in 2 Timothy 3:16?
Is Song of Solomon profitable for doctrine? For reproof? For Correction or instruction in righteousness? "that the man of God may be complete and proficient, outfitted and thoroughly equipped for every good work."?
Not at all! In fact it is the exact opposite!
"For the Word that God speaks is alive and full of power [making it active, operative, energizing, and effective]; it is sharper than any two-edged sword, penetrating to the dividing line of the breath of life (soul) and [the immortal] spirit, and of joints and marrow [of the deepest parts of our nature], exposing and sifting and analyzing and judging the very thoughts and purposes of the heart." Hebrews 4:12 Amplified Version
Song of Solomon DOES NOT
qualify under this beautiful explanation of God's Word either!
Neither Jesus, or any of the apostles ever refer to Song of Solomon. The only other book that DOES refer to Song of Solomon is 4 Esdras (Chapters 3–14, or the great bulk of 2 Esdras, is a Jewish apocalypse also sometimes known as 4 Ezra) which is ALSO apocrypha.
I am a born again believer in God's Word for 20 years and I've read Song of Solomon many times and it never felt like the Word of God to me. And none of the verses ever came to mind by the holy Spirit within me.
And I contend Song of Solomon is not God breathed or inspired by God. And that it is corruptible seed! (The opposite of Peter's definition of God's Word in 1 Peter 1:23)
Every other book in the bible does not strike me this way. But apocryphal books HAVE struck me this way.
When Song of Solomon was allegedly made official Hebrew canon.
There are a lot of discrepancies and contradictions regarding when Song of Solomon was officially finalized as Hebrew canon.
Most sources say it was through
the Council of Jamnia (Synod of Jabneh).
Some sources say this council happened before the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 AD.
Many say it was 90 A.D.
And some again say the Council is mostly myth.
But it is generally accepted that it was specifically Rabbi Akiva (רבי עקיבא) (Sometimes spelled "Akiba") whose full name was Akiva ben Yosef עקיבא בן יוסף, c. 40 – c. 137 CE)
who pushed through the passing of Song of Solomon as official Hebrew canon from within this Synod.
He is referred to in the Talmud as Rosh la-Hakhamim "Chief of the Sages".
The scholars of Jamnia debated the place of Song of Songs in the Hebrew canon, but Rabbi Akiva upheld its "divine inspiration" using allegorical interpretation as a means to justify its spiritual value.
Again it is written historically of "Rabbi' Akiva, that he "stoutly defended, the canonicity of the Song of Songs."
He was obviously a tare among the wheat.
And so is Song of Solomon.
The religious Jews who had just rejected their God and Messiah made sure to have this apocryphal book pushed through into Hebrew canon.
It may be strong delusion for them to think they had this love affair with the God they had forsaken and rejected when rejecting their Messiah, the Savior of the world. Very soon after, God moved the Romans to destroy the rebuilt Temple of Solomon in 70 AD and fulfilling Messiah's Words,
"And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple.
And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down." Matthew 24:1, 2.
And Rabbi Akiva was allegedly executed by the Romans in the aftermath of the Bar Kokhba revolt in c. 137 CE. Even this is disputed. Another source seems to indicate he and his students all died by "divinely ordained plague". ~Source
Now let us get to proving Song of Solomon as counterfeit through other biblical writings
These are the peculiar verses that stand out as contrary to sound doctrine taught us throughout the entire Word of God:
Song of Solomon 5:5, 6 says, “I arose to open to my beloved; And my hands dripped with myrrh, And my fingers with liquid myrrh, On the handles of the bolt. 6. “I opened to my beloved, But my beloved had turned away and had gone! My heart went out to him as he spoke. I searched for him, but I did not find him; I called him, but he did not answer me."
This passage seems to be in contradiction with the whole Bible and especially Revelation 3:20 which reads as follows,
"Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me."
Other verses that don't add up
3:1 By night on my bed I sought him whom my soul loveth: I sought him, but I found him not.
3:3 The watchmen that go about the city found me: [to whom I said], Saw ye him whom my soul loveth?
3:4 [It was] but a little that I passed from them, but I found him whom my soul loveth: I held him, and would not let him go, until I had brought him into my mother's house, and into the chamber of her that conceived me.
3:5 I charge you, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, by the roes, and by the hinds of the field, that ye stir not up, nor awake [my] love, till he please.
And
again,
8:4 I charge you, O daughters of Jerusalem, that ye stir not up, nor awake [my] love, until he please.
Someone is charging us by the beasts of the field not to stir or wake up [The Lord?] till he please? Verses 3:5 and 8:4 are unscriptural, unbiblical and both are NOT sound teaching! It is ANTI-GOD. We are all commanded to seek and love God with all our heart, mind, soul and strength! Both Older and Newer Covenants teach that it is the FIRST and GREATEST Commandment! (Matthew 22:34-40)
Another verse contrary to sound doctrine:
3:11 Go forth, O ye daughters of Zion, and behold king Solomon with the crown wherewith his mother crowned him in the day of his espousals, and in the day of the gladness of his heart.
Except Solomon's mother Bathsheba did NOT crown Solomon king of Israel with anything. Not even close!
God Almighty crowned Solomon with everything He gave him. Which was more than any other king that ever lived, beside Jesus the Messiah Himself.
And every word in between these verses are PURE PERVERTED FILTH !
And this Song of Solomon is read every Sabbath during Passover in the synagogues to this day! And no Bible believer has ever confronted the obvious fact that Song of Solomon should NOT be in the Bible?!
From the Jewish Encyclopedia:
The ancient versions follow the Hebrew; from the rendering in the Latin Vulgate, "Canticum Canticorum", comes the title "Canticles."
Date:
"The date of the Song is indicated by its literary form: the idyl is foreign to the Hebrew genius, and points to the time when the Jews imitated Greek models (Theocritus and Bion). The word V11p467001.jpg (= "palanquin" [iii. 9]) appears to be the Greek φορεῖον; V11p467002.jpg (iv. 13) was not introduced earlier than the later Persian period (for other late words see Driver, "Introduction"). The date of the book can hardly be determined precisely: it was probably composed in the period 200-100 B.C.; but some of the material may be older."
[[King Solomon's reign was from c. 970–931 BC ! Why is it that this Song of Solomon was "composed" around 200-100 B.C.??]]
"The discussions at the Synod of Jabneh (Jamnia) show that toward the end of the first Christian century the canonical authority of the Song was disputed in certain quarters (see Bible Canon, § 11). Probably the ground of opposition was its non-religious character: it does not contain the Divine Name (except "Yah" in viii. 6, Hebr., as an expression of intensity);" ... "It is quoted neither by Philo nor in the New Testament. But it appears to have gained popularity; and the probability is that at an early day it was interpreted allegorically by the sages, and that it was on the basis of such an interpretation that its canonicity was finally established. On its ritual use at Passover see Megillot, The Five."
I believe this is the proper interpretation of Song of Solomon:
“THEORIES OF INTERPRETATION”
A Collection of Pagan Fertility Cult Liturgies
1. This is a Hebrew adaptation of the Mesopotamian fertility cult liturgy
2. The word for “beloved” is thought to be a reference to the god Dod (in 5:9 at least), they Syro-Palestinian expression of Tammuz in the Sumero-Akkadian Tammuz-Ishtar cult
3. Hill and Walton write, “The annual ritual was a reenactment of the ancient myth recounting the goddess Ishtar’s search for her dead lover in the netherworld, finally restoring him to life through sexual union and thus ensuring the continued fertility of the creation. It is assumed that the cultic associations of the Song were forgotten or consciously changed to make the book acceptable to the Israelite faith”
4. But the motif of a dying and rising god is missing in the Song of Songs
5. It would be unlikely that such a piece would have been allowed to enter the canon
6. “The subtle use of erotic imagery in the biblical poem is far removed from the crass ‘explanations’ of the books’ alleged original meaning”
7. Child’s writes, “to seek to understand the Song of Songs as cultic moves the book from its place within wisdom into the context of ancient Near Eastern mythology and disregards the function which the canon has assigned it”
You can read through this link for more: https://bible.org/article/introduction-song-songs
More Bits and pieces of information regarding Song of Songs:
1. Canticum Canticorum (Latin for Song of Songs) by Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina
is a cycle of 29 motets by Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina. Originally titled Motettorum - Lieder Quartus, this Renaissance work is one of Palestrina's largest collections of Sacred motets.
Canticum Canticorum was written in the year 1584. This work, as with many of Palestrina's works around this time, was dedicated to Pope Gregory XIII.
2. "Even if the rabbis at Jabneh did have the authority to make such a canonical determination and had closed the canon, who says they had the authority from God to make such a binding determination? Why should Christians accept their determination? God had publicly turned aside from the Jews as his "prophetic voice" twenty years earlier when Jerusalem was destroyed and razed by fire. God judged them and rejected their old wineskins. The old wine and wineskin (Judaism) was now replaced by new wine (the gospel) and new wineskins (the Church). Why accept the unauthoritative rabbis’ determination rather than the Church’s? ~Source
(This is from a Catholic source and is intended to try and persuade the reader that ALL Apocrypha should be considered canon, which I wholly disagree with. However, it still raises important questions regarding the council of Jamnia and the authenticity of Song of Solomon.)
3. "The Rabbi Akiva narrative can be traced back to a single, rather ambiguous passage in the Talmud that identifies neither the timing of the event nor how the scholars died. It does, however, specify a cause—namely that Akiva’s students had made a habit of treating each other with disrespect. The Talmudic narrators reviewing the anecdote then supply more detail, placing the event chronologically between Passover and Shavuot, and attributing the mode of death to a divinely ordained plague, punishment for the pupils’ collective lapse in behavior."
"Why then would the Talmud be so sparse with detail, and why would later rabbis composing the Talmud come up with such a different explanation?" ~Source