WCH

Is that an oral sex reference or not? Just wondering what the opinion of the historians here is, the answer really has little bearing on criticism of the text (seeing as I personally think oral sex is great, if the Bible gives an example of it in a good context, all the better ).

One consequence if it is, in fact, referring to fellatio, is with RCC doctrine... if fellatio is okay, then clearly sex acts which don't cause reproduction aren't automatically sinful, right?

Donald_McRonald

I thought it was supposed to taste salty.

Wallener

Oral sex, anal sex, you name it, in a 'sanctified relationship', it's all good. At least as far as Judaism is concerned.

yummyfur

I guess one could argue the possibility, especially since both the Hebrew and Greek could be read as "and his fruit was pleasant in my mouth"

Also this starts out with the lover being an apple tree, in Hebrew, the word origin for apple comes from the root verb "to blow", maybe the author intended some double meaning, nudge nudge wink wink.

Are these convincing arguments? they don't seem any sillier than arguments used by various religious persons for their interpretations of Biblical texts.

Diogenes the Cynic

The whole book is filled with sexual images. Check out 4:16:

Awake, north wind,
and come, south wind!
Blow on my garden,
that its fragrance may spread abroad.
Let my lover come into his garden
and taste its choice fruits.

Cunnilingus!

And check out chapter 5:2-6

"Open to me, my sister, my darling,
my dove, my flawless one.
My head is drenched with dew, [pre-come!]
my hair with the dampness of the night."

3 I have taken off my robe—
must I put it on again?
I have washed my feet—
must I soil them again?

4 My lover thrust his hand through the latch-opening;
my heart began to pound for him.

5 I arose to open for my lover,
and my hands dripped with myrrh,
my fingers with flowing myrrh,
on the handles of the lock.

6 I opened for my lover...

It's a filthy, filthy book. I love it.

Chris Weimer

If you eat more fruits or drink more juices, she'll appreciate it more. It'll turn from salty to sweet.

Toto

And there is the Blessings of the Breast - which I do not think is a parody.

cognac

Naah. It's all about interpretation. It's probably worth pointing out that Origen viewed SoS completely as alegorical for the Church/Christ relationship. And probably the most famous alegorical view is found in the Cantica Canticorum, where Bernard of Clairvaux wrote 86 sermons just about the SoS. It's described as "an allegorical and mystical exposition" here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_of_Clairvaux

Diogenes the Cynic

Interpretation Schminterpretation. It's a dirty poem. Later attempts to read it as mytsic allegory are simply pious attempts to sanitize what was never intended to be a religious piece of literature.

All that stuff about Christ being the "groom" and the "bride" being the church is not only patently silly but obviously cannot have been the intent of the authors, who never heard of Christ.

Wallener

It's probably worth pointing out Origen wasn't getting any. The guy castrated himself(!!!) to remain 'pure', for heavens sake, when it comes to Matters Of The Loin I can't think of a less authoratative figure.

I'm with Diogenes: this is all about titillation. And good on the Rabbi's for not flushing the entire book!