Songs of the Song:
Love's Inscription in Abrahamic Texts and Commentary
Kurt Anders Richardson
McMaster Divinity College
εγω
τω
αδεθφιδω
μου
και
αδεθφιδοϛ
μου
εμοι
ο
ποιμαινων
εν
τοιϛ
κρινοιϛ
"I am my beloved's and he is mine"
So 6:3
αγαπητοι
αγαπωμεν
αλληλουϛ
οτι
η
αγαπη
εκ
του
θεου
εστιν
και
παϛ
ο
αγαπω ν
εκ
του
θεου
γεγεννηται
και
γινωσκει
τον
θεον
"Beloved, let us love one another; for love is of God and everyone
who loves is born of God and knows God." 1Jo 4:7
"…But I cast (the garment of) love over thee from
Me…" Quran 20.39
I would first like to respond to Alon Goshen-Gottstein's 'Thinking
Of/With Scripture: Struggling for the Religious Significance of the Song
of Songs.' After offering his own account of scriptural reasoning,
including the dimension of personal reflection and religious experience,
Goshen-Gottstein proceeds to his interpretation of the Song.
Goshen-Gottstein sympathizes with the wide variety of reading the Song
has generated over the millennia. More importantly, he bears witness to
a crisis of relationship with the Song as part of scripture because of
the immensity of 'secondary' interpretations. But perhaps he makes his
own approach problematic almost immediately when he looks for an
original 'religious significance' to the Song. Equally important is
Goshen-Gottstein's rejection of situating the Song within the wisdom
tradition as, say, an elaboration of Prov. 31. What then this
celebration of eros? And is it a religious celebration? As
Goshen-Gottstein also points out, early rabbinic interpretation did not
present the Song as an allegory of love. Indeed, Goshen-Gottstein is
dubious about the entire project of interpretation that convinces us of
the Song's authenticity as an allegory of divine love. Goshen-Gottstein
becomes quite enamored with the hermeneutic of praise he finds in the
preponderance of rabbinic interpretation. Praise is the intertextual
link with the rest of scripture: anything worthy of praise, should be
praised; and so it receives its own inscriptions. Whether one can detect
a reverse trend, a rabbinic eroticizing of the rest of scripture,
Goshen-Gottstein declares will have to wait for another study. But the
great problematic of interpretation is that the religious potency of the
book so often rests with the tradition rather than with the scripture
itself. And yet, with Goshen-Gottstein, perhaps the chief lesson here is
the 'synergistic' power of the human interpreter to empower the
text.
What strikes me, as a reader of scripture intent upon hearing God's
voice, is that the canonical interstices between the Song and other
books of scripture present wider gaps than perhaps at any other point.
This intertextual factor, as well as the language and perspective of the
Song, does not find resonance quite anywhere else in
scripture—and so Goshen-Gottstein's litany of 'unique-nesses'
toward the end of his paper. That the 'secondary' readings mystically
close these gaps through allegory and anagogy at least is not a bit
surprising. The theme of love for God and love for the human in the
Psalms, their spiritual personalism, e.g., 51, 84, et.al., could be
easily transposed upon the Song. Indeed, the titles of the two books are
at least conceptually cognate with each other. So the intent to praise
the God of Abraham is equally intent upon praising this God through this
Song. And in doing so, the Song lends to this intent a whole language it
would otherwise not have used—or would it? Indeed, the nuptial
metaphors are there, actually, throughout the prophets. Instead, what
the Song is 'called' to do by its interpreters, mystical and otherwise,
is to become a set of voices of the intensest spirituality. Another
interpreter in this vein is St. John of the Cross whose Song-based
mystical poem is the inspiration for one of his greatest books of
mystical theology, Ascent of Mount Carmel. Echoing the early
verses of the Song and yet reflecting an utterly internalized mystical
bliss, a segment of the poem reads:
"I remained, lost in oblivion;
my face I reclined on the Beloved.
All ceased and I abandoned myself,
leaving my cares forgotten among the lilies."
Ellen Davis's 'Reading the Song Iconographically' also pursues a
sense of what type of reader approaches what type of text. Straightaway,
Davis indicates that she believes the canonical reason for the Song's
acceptance was as the earliest allegorical reading of a portrayal of
God's relationship with Israel. The nature of the text of the Song is
then 'iconographic'. Citing the
work of LaCocque, with whom she agrees, Davis suggests that the text,
authored by a woman, achieved its subversive insertion within the canon
as a means of healing the disruptions narrated in the early chapters of
Genesis. Referring to the principles of Gunkel, highlighting especially
the virtue of humility in interpretation, Davis reminds us that
historical interpretations are fully imaginative constructions of
'original' Sitz im Leben. Davis is pursuing a kind of balanced
hermeneutic where subjectivity and humility keep one both focused on the
text and open to the widest possible range of meanings. Appropriating
the reflection by Rabbi Akiba who referred to the Song as the 'Holy of
Holies,' Davis likens the song to the iconostasis of Orthodox churches
where image and sacrament meet and are consecrated most holy. As such,
the Song is a 'verbal analog' to the icon because for her, it is
'essentially a mystical text' by means of an otherwise 'theocentric'
hermeneutic. Through the employment of this hermeneutic, Davis resolves
what Goshen-Gottstein claimed could not be resolved, i.e., identifying
the religious function of the Song. Of course to do so, Davis does not
proceed from markers within the text, but markers within the reader.
These of course are not markers rooted in any particular experience;
they are installed and shaped by 'catholic Christianity' and a humble
devotion to scripture.
Davis turns her attention to the motif of the 'Garden of God' where
lost intimacy with God is restored according to the spiritual romance of
the Song. Indeed, the world's 'well-being' is dependent upon such
intimacy as it is translated horizontally. Indeed, the search of the
beloved for the lover in the Song is suggestive to Davis of the devotion
enjoined by the Shema of Deutermony 6, 'you shall love the Lord your God
with all…" Indeed, the nuptial imagery, which portrays God's
unrequited love in the prophets, in the Song uniquely shown now to
reflect the reciprocal desire of the beloved for the divine Lover. But
Davis returns to the hermeneutical move she made at the beginning of her
paper and throughout her commentary on the Song and confesses profound
uncertainty. This of course is part of humility, part of what the
beloved of God know all to well about themselves and God.
Omid Safi's 'On the "Path of Love" Towards the Divine: A Journey with
Muslim Mystics'chooses a completely different approach. Rather than
opening with a classic Safi introduces us to a profound contemporary
expression of devotion and witness in a poem by Hazrat Inayat Khan. As a
sufi, his poem echoes the millennium old language of personal devotion
in Islam, the madhhab-e 'ishq, or "Path of Love". Like Davis's
emphases, this tradition has focused upon those portions of scripture
which elevate expressions of intense intimacy between God and the human
in such phrases as "Infinite Tenderness, Eternal Kindness." But
immediately Safi wants to point out that Sufism's love tradition is not
a direct expression of reading and commentary on the Quran. In order to
understand Sufi reading one must become acquainted with the history of
Sufi community. This is a community bound by the synthetic thinking of
devotion as a hermeutical framework with an immensely rich tradition of
typology. In so doing, they have 'privileged passionate love
('ishq) as the foremost means of attaining to God.'(5)
By exploring 'an immersion in love's baffling aesthetics' Sufi
interpreters were furnished with the language of devotion. Safi's
recounting of Sufi history exposes the subversive nature of the
community and the movement, especially at the point of
'de-exceptionalizing' Islam, in view of devotion to God. This can be
summed up by Ahmad Ghazali's 'I was sent to remove customs'. Far from a
religious anarchy, Safi asserts that Sufism is a movement transcending
conventional Islam, that of mere 'imitationism (taqlid)' (cf. the
interesting case of Hashem Aghajari in Iran). In a very interesting
moment in the paper, Safi points out that "loving-kindness",
mahabba is used for divine love and 'ishq for human love
because the latter entails desire which should not or cannot be
attributed to the divine.
The major section of Safi's paper is dedicated to the extraordinary
work of Ahmad Ghazali and others who elaborate on the intense love that
drives the mystic to fasten all attention on relationship. Like Davis's
meditations on the Song, the theme of reciprocity in love comes to the
fore. A profound exposition of the difference between "loveliness" and
"belovedness" elaborates the relation between God and creation.
Ultimately when the lover and the beloved achieve a total reciprocity
together, one is invited virtually to become the other where needfulness
and self-sufficiency become all-encompassing. Indeed, even creation can
become part of this love since it always leads to love for the Beloved
Creator. Safi finally alludes to a key relation between scripture and
the hermeneutics of love: both are generative of the deepest religious
understanding and experience.
What all three of our presenters have indicated is a profound
comprehension of the issues presented by theologies of love. These
theologies are there and can be appropriated in different ways. Both
Goshen-Gottstein and Safi are conscious of how the tradition is hesitant
about describing the nature of God, and Goshen-Gottstein especially, how
even a text like the Song may have no direct theological meaning at all.
Davis opens up what Safi elaborates, that the intentionality of love is
vast and immensely important in the tradition. Scripture is appropriated
hermeneutically by this profoundly religious interest and indeed,
inscribes new texts appropriately.
© 2003, Society for Scriptural
Reasoning
|