/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.23271364]

How do Christians reconcile the Jamesian philosophy of "desire and temptation = death" and the fact that there's an entire book of the Bible dedicated to erotically describing in poetic language a woman's body and what the lustful author would like to do to her? No, you can't get out of this by saying, "Not everything in the Bible is meant to teach you something", or "Not everything in the Bible is promoted just by virtue of it being written", because...
1. 2 Timothy 3:16 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness"
2. This is one of the books of the Bible often lauded by Christians as being the most beautiful, most lovely, etc.; in other words, you guys always say that this IS one of the good examples from the Bible Christians should follow.

[Anonymous No.23271369]

>>23271364
there's nothing ungodly with lusting after a young girl's perky breasts AS LONG AS she's your wife

[Anonymous No.23271372]

>>23271364
The Song of Solomon is an allegory for the relationship between the servant of God and his Lord, I say this as a non christian

[Anonymous No.23271373]

>>23271364
/his/

[Anonymous No.23271378]

>>23271364
Haven't read Solomon yet, but based

[Anonymous No.23271575]

>>23271364
Jews have always been pervs
Jesus was the exception because he was only half a Jew

[Anonymous No.23271672]

>>23271364
Men are moral and correct to want to dick the woman they are soon to marry. I do not see how you perceive this to be contradictory. Christians are not Manichaens.

[Anonymous No.23271930]

>>23271364
How do you reconcile the fact that you're a prudish scold about *gasp* scandalous Bible verses about boobies with the fact that you are a dick drunk faggot who can't get through the day without paying a parade of homeless guys to gangbang you?

[Anonymous No.23271942]

>>23271364
God created sex, pseud. However, sex has an appropriate context. No reconciliation necessary.

[Anonymous No.23271958]

>>23271372
A servant of God should think about caressing God's perky breasts? What the fuck are you smoking, nigga

[Anonymous No.23271963]

>>23271364
Why ask sily surface level questions like this when there is a strong Christian tradition of reading the Song of Songs as an allegory for the love of God for man? We are the bride, Christ is the bridegroom. This is the wedding Jesus warned the ten maidens not to miss. Do a modicum of reading before making dumb threads. See St John of the Cross 'Spiritual Canticle', or the 'Divine Eros' of Saint Symeon:
https://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/03d/1542-1591,_Ioannes_a_Cruce,_A_Spiritual_Canticle_Of_The_Soul,_EN.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritual_Canticle

[Anonymous No.23271968]

>>23271958
look up the word allegory. I don't agree with it personally, but that is the intention of the author of the Song, not just random erotica like some laymen say

[Anonymous No.23271981]

>>23271575
This is a wicked, stupid thing to say. There's nothing perverted about desiring a woman. You've become detached from the actual meaning of the word perverse. A groom having sexual attraction to his betrothed is 100% normal and God intended. Do you think Adam cried out, "This is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh," because he had no attraction to Eve? Do you think God, who knew Adam inside and out, was unprepared for his reaction? It was God intended that Woman should attract and please Man, but it is also God intended that the joys and spiritual mysterires of sex should remain between a Man and his Wife. They are profound and symbolic. Sex is not a union involving two people. It is a physico-spiritual union involving three people, God, who joins the spirits of the two, being the third, and which has the power in its reflection of the person of Elohim to create life in His image.

And it might do you good to hear this as well, >>23271364.

[Anonymous No.23272001]

>>23271968
It is an adapted Canaanite love chanson, the Hebrews being another Canaanite people. But the allegorical reading ought more to prompt a literary revealing and elevation of all love poetry and eros itself, instead of merely arbitrary sacralising one, and consigning all the rest and the subject itself: eros.

[Anonymous No.23272005]

>>23272001
>the Hebrews being another Canaanite people
Hebrews aren't Canaanite

[Anonymous No.23272008]

>>23272001
Pseud nonsense. You've been brainwashed by the Rosicrucians of Academia.

[Anonymous No.23272039]

>>23272005
>>23272008
They are, the gods and languauge are all inhertied, Yahweh himself perhaps being a foreign introduction, although not El whom he merged with. The lesson of The Song of Songs is that Phoenician sensualism is laudble and productive, and that eros itself is divine.

[Anonymous No.23272047]

>>23272039
The Bible itself tells us that the Jews were a foreign people and that Adonai/El was a foreign god. All the "evidence" of El being one of the Canaanite dieties come from the period in which the Bible mentions Jews were worshiping Adonai alongside the Canaanites gods.

[Anonymous No.23272050]

>>23271364
>"desire and temptation = death"
It's not Buddhism or gnosticism. The world being on fire with desire is not a bad thing in Christianity. "For God so loved the world," etc.

[Anonymous No.23272077]

>>23272047
Adonai is a much later substitute name to avoid the real magic name of God, YHWH, because to the ancient mind the real name is the same as the thing and to say the name invokes the thing, them being one and the same. Just as 'bear' actually "brown one" and originated as an Adonai-like substitute for the real name of the bear, which is 'ursus' or something similar, because to say the real name magically invokes the bear to appear, the real name/sign being the same as the thing itself signfied. Or Unas boasting in the Pyramid Texts that not even his mother knows his real name, and hence even the gods are powerless to use magic spells against him.

The same thinking is behind the "wherever two or more are gathered *in my name* I am there" being originally meant literally in Christianity, to say the name invokes the thing, which aims to achieve the opposite effect of the wary Jew avoiding saying Yahweh.

El as a distinct diety who merges into Yahweh is much more ancient.

[Anonymous No.23272122]

>>23272050
>Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted with evil and he himself tempts no one; but each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin; and sin when it is full-grown brings forth death.

[Anonymous No.23272417]

>>23272039
>gets accused of being indoctrinated by the Rosicrucians of Academia
>attempts to refute this with his indoctrination
Kek

[Anonymous No.23272423]

>>23271364
By not being Protestant.

[Anonymous No.23272656]

>>23271369
According to Paul that's still not good, marriage is better than extramarital sex but celibacy is better.

[Anonymouṡ No.23272663]

>>23272656
This is why everyone hates Paul.

[Anonymous No.23272689]

>>23271364
It's actually insane that Christians take every convenient section of the Old Testament so that they can make it about themselves and Jesus.
Just accept that it's a pervy Jewish text that also relates to a love for the nation of Israel.

[Anonymous No.23272700]

>>23271364
Wow, Solomon sucks at metaphors.

[Anonymous No.23272741]

>>23272689
Jews themselves explain it in a very similar way to Christians. It's an allegorical text, which is very obvious due to mentions of very weird things like deer legs

[Anonymous No.23272761]

>>23272077
why are jews so afraid of god finding out what they are up to?

[Anonymous No.23272844]

Love based attraction is good, lust based attraction is bad, the sinfulness of the attraction is based on the source of the attraction because that changes how that attraction manifests.

[sage No.23272897]

>>23271372
Yeh great, it can be an allegory for whatever. The text is still clearly very sexual and horny.

[Anonymous No.23272911]

>>23272077
>to the ancient mind the real name is the same as the thing and to say the name invokes the thing, them being one and the same
Ok you sem like a knowledgeable guy so I'll ask you: Where did this bizarre idea come from? Why would any culture of people become persuaded that the word used in a sentence to describe something and the actual active thing described are pne and the same?

[Anonymous No.23273021]

>>23272689
Christianity isn't for philistines.

[Anonymous No.23273025]

>>23271963
I like it when they talk about shepherds and hills, shows you how it was a different time and pkace.

[Anonymous No.23273037]

>>23272656
Marriage isnt "better", marriage is outright good. Celibacy for the sake of ones devotion with God is even more good. But, if one cant keep it in their pants, marriage is able to keep one's relationship with God completely intact.

That being said, Solomon had issues because he married many women, and kept concubines on top of that. He is an example of why even the smartest, most wise amongst us, still fuck themselves over by neglecting their relationship with God. He is not in the bible as an example of someone to be emulated, but to instead learn from his mistakes.

[Anonymous No.23273054]

>>23273037
>I’m saying this to give you permission; it’s not a command. 7 I wish all people were like me, but each has a particular gift from God: one has this gift, and another has that one.
>I’m telling those who are single and widows that it’s good for them to stay single like me. 9 But if they can’t control themselves, they should get married, because it’s better to marry than to burn with passion.
1 Corinthians 7

[Anonymous No.23273064]

>>23272911
It's how the pre-Kantian mind works, which still lurks in peoples' thinking today, even yours. The ancient mind does not think of metaphors as symbolic, but as bodily relations of identity. When you think of Thor (or a thunder god generally) you imagine him as a god of thunder, with a thunderbolt as his symbol. To the ancient mind Thor *is* the thunder, the thunder *is* Thor. And of course the name of Thor in Old English, when he was worshipped by the English as their thunder god, is literally the word "Thunor" that is now "thunder." The nymph of a river, or the god of a mountain, isn't a god that lives in that place/topos, the river *is* the nymph, the mountain *is* the god and so on. The thunder *is* Thor's body, not a symbol of Thor, the river *is* the nymph's body, not a symbol or mere home of the nymph. The sign is the signified's body.

Ever wonder why a conspicuous brand logo has cachet and can elevate the value of a good, like clothing, above that of other materially similar goods? This cotton t-shirt has the magic power of a name above other cotton t-shirts, and the name is co-identical with the entire brand, and through that co-identity shares the same qualities as the entire brand: the sign is the signified, the logo is the body of the brand, not a symbol of the brand, or so an underlying ancient part of our mind still thinks.

[Anonymous No.23273075]

>>23273064
I wondered about this when people watch or play new releases of a franchise after all the original staff has long left. The new Star Wars has nothing to do with the first trilogy, new Blizzard has completelly different staff than old Blizzard so for me it's clear the products will be different but people see the name as something real.

[Anonymous No.23273088]

>>23272911
>>23273064
Two authors to start with are Cassirer and Vico. Cassirer's "Language and Myth" is a short and modern Neo-Kantian introduction. Vico's "New Science" is the early modern foundational work of historicism and of understanding how ancient thought began and evolved. Start with Cassirer:
https://monoskop.org/images/f/fa/Cassirer_Ernst_Language_and_Myth_1953.Pdf

[Anonymous No.23273096]

>>23272005
retard

[Anonymous No.23273098]

>>23271364
The Canticle of Canticles is about the love between God and the Soul (bride), and between Christ and his bride the Church. It works on two levels.

Jews always say it as an allegory about God's love for Israel. Only literalist Prots take one of the most mystical books and make it about two humans having sex.

[Anonymous No.23273108]

For an example of how it was generally taken, here is the text from the Glossa Ordinaria version of the Bible popular in the middle ages.

Rashi rewrote the entire thing in allegorical paraphrase precisely because thinking of sex alone was missing the point.

You might also compare how Socrates takes about eros for the good and "coupling" (having sex) with the Good in knowledge.

[Anonymous No.23273110]

>>23273098
And only the stunted and deformed would fail to learn from the Song of Songs that the eros of man and woman *is* the eros of God and man. That is the lesson of Canaan's great erotic literature.

[Anonymous No.23273122]

>>23273108
>You might also compare how Socrates
You are repeating Diotima's mistake as her student, not that of the bard of Canaan who wrote it. All Jewish or Christian interpretations that derive their spiritual interpretation at the cost of devaluing the immediate human and erotic meaning are following a late Platonic intepretation that is simply not in the original work or genre. There is not a profane eros and a sacred eros, nor a lower eros and a higher eros, that is Diotima's mistake she introduced to theology and philosophy. The love for the bride of Canaan is the love of God for man, the love of God for man is the love for the bride of Canaan.

[Anonymous No.23273132]

>>23273064
I get you probably didn't come up with this theory, but it is obviously wrong for anyone familiar with the Patristics, Classical Pagan Greeks and Romans, Platonist Jews such as Philo of Alexandria, etc. They view everything as allegory and symbol. Indeed, by the middle ages this has evolved into theories of pansemiosis akin to what you see in continental philosophy today (e.g. Poinsot theories of semiosis). If anything, they took things as far more symbolic and allegorical.

Even by St. Augustine's day, there was an established doctrine of levels to Scripture. There was the literal and bodily, which was said to "profit nothing," (John 6) and then the "spiritual" component that gave life (Origen, Erasmus, etc. on John 6). This was divided into the allegorical and anagogic meanings of Scripture.

So for example, Origen's exegesis on Numbers takes slavery in Egypt as the state of the soul when it is ruled over by instinct, circumstance, and desire (Romans 7), and each of the place names in Numbers as symbolizing steps on the ascent up to divine union.

Augustine's expressionist semiotics particularly challenge this idea as being somehow dominant "pre-Kant." The early St. Augustine doesn't think ANYTHING from material signs. They are just things to point the attention up and in, to the Logos, Christ the Teacher. The dominance of this semiotic view is why St. Aquinas has such a time merging Aristotle back into a philosophy dominated by the late Platonism of St. Augustine, St. Maximums, Eriugena, etc., or even pagan influence like Proclus and Porphery.

If anything, Kant led people to think of things in more concrete terms. People began to see things-in-themselves as the true objects of knowledge (contra Kant's actual position). Hence, we get the currently still dominant positivist "view from nowhere," of things being as "they are conceived of by no mind," existing "in themselves."

For the medievals all knowledge comes in the mode of the knower and is relational, e.g., Boethius, Aquinas.

I have no idea why your scholar decided to use Kant as the demarcation. This kind of thinking stops being dominant before Christ.

[Anonymous No.23273133]

>>23273096
>I, a modern bugman urbanite know more about ancient judaism than iron age jews

[Anonymous No.23273146]

>>23273122
You are commiting the mistake of thinking that scholarship on Canaanites and Jews going back to 800+BC is at all reliable, making claims about this era as if it isn't all supposition based on an extremely weak archeological record and like pet theories don't rise and fall with no relation to the actual evidence.

This is an area of inquiry on par with early Biblical studies, where rather than say "we really don't know," scholars launch into wild suppositions because it sells books.

There is no consensus on when it was written. We don't have older copies and it likely wasn't even written as one work. Most recent scholarship tends to place it in the third century BC, long after the culture you're claiming "definetly created this work," even existed.

What is actually verifiable is how Second Temple Era Judaism thought of the book, and it was in allegorical terms. Not much is in focus before this period, especially since we know sacred texts often went through editing and redaction.

You are simply displaying the danger when someone reads a handful of slanted books and comes to think this confers expertise in an area.

[Anonymous No.23273150]

>>23273133
I, who read a few works of mystical pseudoscholarship, know the Song of Songs was written by "iron age Jews," despite it likely being from around the classical period.

[Anonymous No.23273255]

>>23273132
Pre-Kantian in this sense doesn't mean before Kant, it means that ancient minds (not classical) do not work according to Kant's "universal" categories, but rather by forms of mythopoetical thinking different to Kant's "thinking cap," that whilst non-Kantian, still have a structure that can be understood, like the sign=signified fallacy, or undertanding of metaphor as a relation of identity and not symbol, or that strong emotions were understood not as being a product or affect of the person but as being literally possessed from the outside by a god (e.g. Helen is possessed by Aphrodite, i.e. erotic attraction, when she eloped with Paris, and therefore has no moral blame because it literally wasn't her emotion or act, it was the god's act: every strong emotion that overrides rational thought is divine possession in Homer's time) etc.

Cassirer was a Neo-Kantian, hence his interpretation of it as pre-Kantian in comparison to the Kantian mind, which Kant would argue was universal (and shared by Augustine and all the rest in how their minds worked.) Cassier instead argued for historicism, that the structures of mind and thinking develops and is different at different historical periods. Vico and Herder did the same earlier from non-Kantian perspective ("pre-Kantian" in your sense,) and Vico in particular proposed an array of structures and rules for how the ancient mind thought and developed.

[Anonymous No.23273275]

>>23273146
>Second Temple Era Judaism thought of the book
No you don't. All you have is a late Platonic interpretation by people throughly post-Plato, throughly Platonised, interpreting a work of an ancient pre-Platonic genre, by the same mistakes of Diotima that you are repeating.

[Anonymous No.23273335]

>>23273275
I'm not the anon you are arguing with. I have no knowledge of old Judaism.

But I would trust far more 2nd Temple Judaism people than modern Academics on how to interpret an Old Testament book.
Just like I would trust far more Augustine to interpret a passage of the New Testament than some modern Academic.

[Anonymous No.23273411]

>book is overtly erotic
>literally in the genre of erotic love poetry
>even has verses like 'I would lead you, I would bring you to the house of my mother, of her who taught me— I would let you drink of the spiced wine, of my pomegranate juice.'
>BUT BUT IT'S NOT EROTIC BECAUSE IT'S AN ALLEGORY
>IT'S AN ALLEGORY OKAY!?
Christians are so repressed it's not even funny. You guys do realize that something can be... an erotic allegory, right? Eros does indeed exist and if anyone is the cause of that, it's God. No clue why you guys are so historically against the very things God furnished male and female with.

[Anonymous No.23273439]

>>23273054
yeah, that's what I said. paul goes on to describe marriage as a holy matrimony. holy means good.

[Anonymous No.23273496]

>>23273411
Judaism also sees it as allegorical.

[Anonymous No.23273502]

>>23273496
Reading comprehension: 0

[Anonymous No.23273550]

>>23273064
Very interesting, thank you.

Would the ancient mind have taken token usages of the name of God, whether in individual acts of speech or writing, to function similarly to how Orthodox Christians take icon paintings to function, i.e. as manifesting the real presence of the saint depicted, through a kind of transubstantiation? Or is it more like the *idea* that token usages of the name of God elicit in the hearer or reader (akin maybe to a Platonic idea) is identical to God? Or is it that the name of God understood as the overall category, the type, of which all token usages are derivative from (as the species *dog* is the type of which all individual dogs are in a sense derivative), is identical to God?

I assume it can't be that the ancient mind thought each individual token instance of the name was identical in and of itself to God, for of course there would have been multiple such tokens, which would not have been identical to each other (e.g. two token usages of the word "God" in two different books, which I assume would not have confused the ancient mind into thinking there were two of God).

[Anonymous No.23274645]

>>23273411
I think like 75% of people posting in this thread acknowledged that the verses are erotic dumbass

[Anonymous No.23275354]

>>23273550
If you read Cassirer's very short 'Language and Myth' here>>23273088 there's another element of bodily emplacement of each god in a particular place relevant to your questions. In the ancient mind each god was always the god of a particular place, the god of x location, and this continues today with each icon and shrine often having a distinct identity and even role within the religion, despite theoretically being tokens of the same type. For example in Pausanias' Description of Greece each town and village has its own set of gods: the Zeus of X-town, the Zeus of Y-town, Dionysus of Z-town, Dionysus of A-town etc. which have different myths and histories, and different rites celebrated for them. In the earliest depiction of Yahweh yet found there is reference to two Yahweh's: the "Yahweh of Samaria" and the "Yahweh of Teman":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuntillet_Ajrud_inscriptions

One can speculate that the Samaritans worship a "Yahweh of Mt Gerizim" whilst the Jews worship a "Yahweh of Mt Zion", and that prior to a centralising effor the Mt Zion faction (perhaps as late as the Maccabeans) each Hebrew town and village had its own hilltop 'Yahweh of X-village' shrine that worshipped a different local Yahweh, amongst other Canaanite gods.

This pattern of thought still existstoday where each local shrine, icon, or statue, is a local "body" of the saint, and has different rites and uses despite being theoretically tokens of the same type. In 'The Moral Basis of a Backward Society' by Banfield, about a post-WW2 South Italian village, there are three local Marian shrines, each of which the locals use for different purposes. If you want to fall in love you have to go to Mary of A, if you want to get better from sickness you have to go to Mary of B, if you want a good harvest you have to go to Mary of C etc. If you tried to go to the wrong Marian shrine for the wrong purpose then none of your prayers would be answered and the villagers thought you an idiot.

Think of how many saints are still Saints of a Domain/Place. On one level each local shrine or icon for a saint or god are tokens of the same type as symbols of a saint in heaven, but more deeply each shrine or icon are the "bodies" of a saint or god of its own type, and not a token at all. This is the magic power of icons in use today, the believers do not understood them by intellectual sophistry as symbols or referents to something, but by their ancient pre-Kantian mythopoetic minds as the bodies of the saint/god, who is particular to that place where his body (the shrine/icon etc.) is present.

[Anonymous No.23275418]

>>23272656
Paul also admits that not everyone can handle celibacy and so encourages his fellow christians to get married

[Anonymous No.23275444]

>>23271968
>that is the intention of the author of the Song,
Do you have a single fact to back that up?

[Anonymous No.23276614]

>>23273335
There is very little from the second temple era, and most of it is overtly Platonic and from Alexandria.

[Anonymous No.23276642]

>>23276614
Well, do we have evidence of someone from that era or an earlier one with a different interpretation? This is not a rhetorical question.

[Anonymous No.23276679]

>>23276642
What sources of second temple Judaism interpretations do you propose exists? Philo is supposed to have mentioned it.

[Anonymous No.23276719]

Earliest source that I can find, which isn't from the second temple era but if you're feeling generous it may be supposed to record late Pharisaic attitutes (in reality early post-temple Rabbinic attitutes).)

Rabbi Yose was post-temple (c.135 – c.170 CE) and is writing that their was a dispute that the Song of Songs was vulgar.

[Anonymous No.23276734]

Okay here we go, we know that ordinary Jews understood the Song of Songs as a vulgar erotic song to sing at weddings and feasts in at least the early post-temple period. From here:
https://sci-hub.se/https://www.jstor.org/stable/23956590

Source given is
>Tosephta Sanhedrin xii

[Anonymous No.23276736]

>>23276679
I'm asking out of ignorance.

But if the sources from the past we have point to an interpretation and you say
"They were neo-platonic, they were not the true ones", without any evidence of the "true ones"...
I will seriously doubt your narrative. It will sound like the fanfics that New Testament atheistic scholars create about gang wars of apostolic communities in the early Christian world.

[Anonymous No.23276746]

>>23276719
I did a good search. It seems that "defile the hands" means a book is sacred, not that it is erotic.

>>23276734
Isn't it the point that people were taking a holy book out of context in order to make it seem dirty? I imagine a conservative rabbi wouldn't be amused with this.

[Anonymous No.23276751]

>>23276734
>Tosephta Sanhedrin xii
If you read Hebrew:
https://www.sefaria.org/Tosefta_Sanhedrin.7.1

Pic is an English translation, but I can't access it.

[Anonymous No.23276775]

>>23276746
Yes, and Yose is saying there was a rabbincal (or Pharisee) dispute over whether the Song of Song defiled the hands, i.e. whether it was sacred or not.

The same Rabbi Akiva (or Akiba) is in that Mishnah 3.5 as a strong defender of the sanctity of the Song of Songs, his dishonest hyperbole that "no one disputed its sanctity" is thought to be indicative of how much it was disputed (as both Yose and his own report in the Tosephta confirm) and held by the common people to be a vulgar song.

>>23276736
There is very very little from the second temple era. Philo of Alexandria is an important source writing just prior to the destruction of the temple. He is a Hellenic Jew and middle Platonist who invented allegorical reading of Jewish scripture that would be borrowed directly by Christians and indirectly by post-temple Jews. I have seen a secondary source mention that Philo thought the Song of Songs was an erotic song to be understood literally, but nothing primary.

I doubt there are any other second temple era sources on any interpretations or attitutes towards the Song of Songs, but others may know more. Otherwise all the sources begin with the early post-temple Rabbinic period.

[Anonymous No.23276810]

>>23276751
>>23276734
Found it
>R. Akiba says: He who, at a banquet, renders the Song of Songs in a sing-song way, turning it into a common ditty, has no share in the world to come.
https://archive.org/details/tractatesanhedri012027mbp/page/n123/mode/2up

From that, we know the common people in the early post-temple era thought the Song of Songs was a vulgar song to be sung at feasts. A faction of the Rabbis thought it was sacred, and in post-temple Rabbinic Judaism they came to prevail. We could assume that this faction existed amongst the earlier second temple Pharisees, and also the vulgar sentiment in the second-temple era, and that therefore a sub-faction of a Jewish faction, the Pharisees, thought the Song of Songs sacred, common people in the second temple era thought it vulgar and erotic, other sub-factions of the Pharisees agreed it was a vulgar song, and of the other second temple era Jewish factions: Sadducees, royalty, zealots etc. or anyone pre-Roman, we know almost nothing.

[Anonymous No.23276828]

>>23276775
>Philo of Alexandria
I can't find any reference from Philo to the Song of Songs, and a study of Philo's quotes from the scriptures say he made no references to the Song of Songs in any of his works:
https://archive.org/details/philoholyscriptu00ryleuoft/page/n31/mode/2up

Very strange for defenders of a second temple era allegorical interpretation of the Song of Songs as Philo is the great allegorical interpretor of Jewish scripture who more or less invents the technique.

[Anonymous No.23276849]

>>23276828
And the conclusion that study draws is that Song of Songs was not yet considered sacred when Philo wrote in the late second temple era.
https://archive.org/details/philoholyscriptu00ryleuoft/page/n35/mode/2up

[Anonymous No.23276914]

>>23271364
>>23271369
>>23271958
You can read allegorical interpretations of the two breasts here:
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/songs/4-5.htm

My favourite is John Gill's
>these "breasts" may design the two Testaments, the Old and New, which contain the whole sincere milk of the word; are like "young roes", pleasant and delightful to believers; and, as "twins", are alike, agree in their doctrines concerning Christ, and the blessings of grace through him; the types, figures, prophecies, and promises of the one, have their completion in the other; and both abound with the lilies of Gospel doctrines and promises: though rather these "breasts" may point at the two ordinances of the Gospel, baptism, and the Lord's supper; which are breasts of consolation to believers, out of which they suck, and are satisfied; and through feeding on Christ in both, they receive much nourishment and strength; and are very amiable and lovely to the saints, when they enjoy the presence of Christ in them, and have the discoveries of his love to them; and may be said to be "twins", being both instituted by Christ, and both lead unto him, and require the same subjects; and are received and submitted to by saints, comparable to lilies, as before.

[Anonymous No.23278841]

Im BOOMPING

[Anonymous No.23279034]

>>23278841
why though