¹ sn Beginning with 1:1, the verse numbers through 1:17 in the English Bible differ by one from the verse numbers in the Hebrew text (BHS), with 1:1 ET = Superscription (Title) HT, 1:2 ET = 1:1 HT, etc., through 1:17 ET = 1:16 HT. From 2:1 the versification in the English Bible and the Hebrew Bible is again the same.
²tn The Hebrew construction hmlvl rva (lit. “which is to/for Solomon”) has been taken in two different ways: (1) Authorship: “which belongs to Solomon,” that is, “Solomon’s Most Excellent Song.” (2) Dedication: “which is dedicated for Solomon,” that is, “The Most Excellent Song which is Dedicated to Solomon.” The lamed of dedication is attested in Ugaritic in psalms dedicated to Baal. The lamed of authorship is attested in the Psalms (e.g., Pss 18:1; 30:1; 34:1; 51:1; 52:1; 54:1; 56:1; 57:1; 59:1; 60:1; 63:1; 72:21). For a defense of Solomonic authorship of the Song, see Weston W. Fields, “Solomon’s Most Excellent Song: A Linguistic, Hermeneutical, Historical, and Philological Disquisition on the Hebrew Love Poetry of the Song of Solomon,” unpublished Th.D. dissertation, Grace Theological Seminary (Winona Lake: 1979), 9-125.
³tn The genitive superlative construction, “the song of songs” (<yryvh ryv), denotes par excellance, that is, this is the most excellent love song ever written by Solomon.
⁴tn Heb “he ...” The shift from 3ms forms (“he” and “his”) in 1:2a to 2ms forms (“your”) in 1:2b-4 has led some commentators to suggest that the Beloved addresses the Friends in 1:2a and then her Lover in 1:2b-4. A better solution is that the shift from the 3ms to 2ms forms is an example of heterosis of person (a common poetic device in which the grammatical person shifts from line to line). The third person is put for the second person (e.g, Gen 49:4; Deut 32:15; Ps 23:2-5; Isa 1:29; 42:20; 54:1; Jer 22:24; Amos 4:1; Micah 7:19; Lam 3:1; Song 4:2; 6:6). Similar shifts occur in ancient Near Eastern love literature. Most translations render 1:2 literally and preserve the shifts from 3ms to 2ms forms (KJV, AV, NASB, NIV); others render 1:2 with 2ms forms throughout (RSV, NJPS). Selected Bibliography: E.W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981), 524-25; Marvin H. Pope, Song of Songs, Anchor Bible 7c (Garden City: Doubleday, 1983), 297; Samuel Noah Kramer, The Sacred Marriage Rite (Bloomington: University of Indiana Press, 1969), 92, 99.
⁵tn Heb “May he kiss me with the kisses of his mouth!” The phrase “kiss me with kisses” (toqyvnm ynqvy) is a cognate accusative construction used for emphasis.
⁶tn Heb “better than.” Alternately, “more intoxicating”
⁷sn Shulammith compares Solomon’s love to the intoxicating effects of wine. A man is to be “intoxicated” with the love of his wife (Prov 5:20). Wine makes the heart glad (Deut 14:26; Judg 9:13; Ps 104:15) and revives the spirit (2 Sam 16:1-2; Prov 31:4-7). It is viewed as a gift from God, given to enable man to enjoy life (Eccl 2:24-25; 5:18). Ancient Near Eastern love literature commonly employs the imagery of wine and intoxication to describe the overwhelming effects of sexual love. For example, an ancient Egyptian love song reads: “I embrace her and her arms open wide; I am like a man in Punt, like someone overwhelmed with drugs. I kiss her and her lips open; and I am drunk without beer” (James Pritchard, ed., Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament 3^rd edition [New Haven: Princeton University Press, 1967], 467-69). Likewise, the Hebrew sage exhorts the husband to be “intoxicated” with the love of his wife (Prov 5:20).
⁸tn Heb “the scent of your oils.”
sn The term “cologne” (/mv) refers to perfumes or colognes (Eccl 7:1; 10:1; Song 4:10). In Israel odoriferous bodily oils were often expensive (1 Kgs 17:12ff; 2 Kgs 2:4ff). Possession of oils and perfumes was a sign of prosperity and luxury (Deut 32:8; 33:24; Job 29:6; Prov 21:17; Ezek 16:13,20). Wearing colognes and oils was associated with joy (Ps 45:8; Eccl 9:8; Isa 61:3) because they were worn on festive occasions (Prov 27:9).
⁹sn The term “pleasing” (<ybof) refers to what is pleasant or agreeable to the olfactory (BDB 373 1.c) (e.g., Jer 6:20).
¹⁰tn The term m;v (“your name”) may be a metonymy of association for Solomon himself. In Hebrew idiom, the name often represents the person (e.g., 1 Sam 25:25). Thus, “your very self” (AV), “thy presence” (Gordis), and “thou art oil” (Jastrow). Ginsburg renders the verse, “Sweet is the odour of thy perfumes, because thou art that perfume, by thy name diffused abroad.”
¹¹sn The similar sounding terms “name” (<v) and “perfume” (/mv) creates a word-play (paranomasia). Selected Bibliography: Wilfred W.E. Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984), 242-43; I.M. Casanowicz, “Paranomasia in the Old Testament,” JBL 12 (1893): 105-67; J.J. Gluck, “Paranomasia in Biblical Literature,” Semitics 1 (1970): 50-78; A. Guillaume, “Paranomasia in the Old Testament,” JSS 9 (1964): 282-90; J.M. Sasson, “Wordplay in the OT,” Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible: Supplement (Nashville: Abingdon, 1976): 968-70.
¹²tn Heb “Your name is oil poured out.” Alternately, “Your name is like purified perfume” or “like the finest oil.” The verb qr^WT (Hophal imperfect 3fs from qyr “to empty, pour out”) functions adjectivally, modifying /mv (“perfume, oil”). The Hophal stem, used in reference to wine (Jer 48:11) and here in reference to fine oil or perfume (Song 1:3), means “to be poured from one vessel to another” (KBL 3:1228). The related Ugaritic noun trq refers to high grade cosmetic oil (UT 145.20; 19.371).
sn In the ancient Near East the best kinds of oils, perfumes, and wines were purified by pouring them from one container to another to remove the dregs (Jer 48:11). Thus, perfume that had been poured out was the best of its kind: “Your name is like finest oil” (NJPS).
¹³tn The term “maiden” (hmlu) refers to a young woman who is sexually mature, that is, a young woman who is of marriageable age or a newly married young woman, usually before the birth of her first child (KBL 2:835-36; BDB 761c) (e.g., Gen 24:43; Exod 2:8; Ps 68:26; Prov 30:19; Song 1:3; 6:8; Isa 7:14). The only other use of the term “maidens” (tomlu) in the Song refers to the young women of Solomon’s harem (Song 6:8). The root <lu III denotes the basic idea of “youthful, strong, passionate” (KBL 2:835) or “sexually ripe, vigorous” (BDB 761). While the term hmlu (“maiden”) may be used in reference to a young woman who is a virgin, the term itself does not explicitly denote “virgin.” The Hebrew term which explicitly denotes “virgin” is hlWtB which refers to a mature young woman without any sexual experience with men (e.g., Gen 24:16; Exod 22:15-16; Lev 21:3; Deut 22:23,28; 32:25; Judg 12:12; 19:24; 2 Sam 13:2,18; 1 Kgs 1:2; 2 Chrn 36:17; Est 2:2-3,17,19; Job 31:1; Pss 45:15; 78:63; 148:12; Isa 23:4; 62:5; Jer 2:32; 31:3; 51:22; Lam 1:4,18; 2:10,21; 5:11; Ezek 9:6; Joel 1:8; Amos 9:13; Zech 9:17 (KBL 1:167; BDB 143d). The related noun <ylWtB means “state of virginity” (Lev 21:13; Judg 11:37-38; Ezek 23:3,8; Sir 42:10) and “evidence of virginity” (Deut 22:14-15,17.20) (KBL 1:167).
¹⁴Heb “love you.”
¹⁵sn The verb “draw” (Evm) is a figurative expression (hypocatastasis) which draws an implied comparison between the physical acting of leading a person with the romantic action of leading a person in love. Elsewhere it is used figuratively of a master lovingly leading an animal with leather cords (Hos 11:4) and of a military victor leading his captives (Jer 31:3). The point of comparison might be that the woman wants to be the willing captive of the love of her beloved, that is, a willing prisoner of his love.
¹⁶tn Or “O king, bring me into your chambers!” The article on the noun “king”(ElMh) may be taken in two ways: (1) the particularizing use of the article: “The king” (e.g., NIV: “The king has brought me into his chambers”) or (2) the vocative use of the article: “O king!” (NJPS margin: “O king, bring me into your chambers!”) (For the vocative use of the article, see Gesenius, Hebrew Grammar, #126e; Paul Jouon, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, #137f; Ronald Williams, Hebrew Syntax: An Outline, #89; Bruce Waltke and M. O’Connor, Biblical Hebrew Syntax, #13.5.2.c). The syntactical classification of the article is dependent upon: (1) Whether the MT reading of the 3ms suffix on wyrdj (“his chambers”) is retained or whether the text is emended to the 2ms suffix form; #rd=h^ (“your chamber”) as preserved in one Hebrew manuscript and reflected in Syiac (see textual note below). (2) Whether ynaybh (Hiphil perfect 3ms from aoB “to bring” + 1cs suffix) is classified as a perfect of past action (“The king has brought me into his chambers”) or a precative perfect (“O king, bring me into your chambers!”) (see syntactical note below). (3) Whether the consonantal form ynaybh should be vocalized as yn{ ^ayb!h$ (Hiphil perfect 3ms + 1cs suffix) as preserved in MT or as yn{ayb!h& (Hiphil imperative 2ms + 1cs suffix) as preserved in one Hebrew manuscript and reflected in Symmachus and Syriac (see textual note below).
¹⁷tn Or “has brought me.” The verb yn{ ^aybh$ (Hiphil perfect 3ms aoB “to bring” + 1cs suffix) may be classified in two ways: (1) perfect of past action: “The king has brought me into his chambers” or (2) precative perfect: “May the king bring me into his chambers!” (Jack Deere, BKC, 1012). While some older grammarians denied the existence of the precative (volitional) function of the perfect in Hebrew (e.g., S.R. Driver, Tenses in Hebrew, 25-26; GKC #106n note 2), its existence has been well championed (e.g., Moses Buttenwieser, The Psalms: Chronologically Treated with a New Translation [Chicago: University of Chicago, 1938], 18-25) and it is accepted in more recent grammars (e.g., Waltke-O’Connor, Biblical Hebrew Syntax, 30.5.4d; Jouon, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, 112k). While the perfect of past action is the more common use of the perfect, the context suggests the more rare precative. As Waltke notes, the precative can be recognized contextually by its parallelism with the other volitive forms (Waltke-O’Connor, Biblical Hebrew Syntax, 30.5.4d). The parallelism of precative yn{ ^aybh$ (“bring me!”) with the volitives in the two preceding parallel colons — ynkvm “draw me!” (Qal imperative 3ms from Evm “to draw” + 1cs suffix:) and hxWrN “let us run!” (Qal cohortative 1cpl from JWr “to run”) — favors the precative function of the perfect. The volitive function of consonantal ynaybh is reflected in Syriac, as well as the textual variant yn{ayb!h& “bring me!” (Hiphil imperative 2ms + 1cs suffix) preserved by one Hebrew manuscript. The precative function of the perfect ynaybh may explain the origin of this variant vocalization tradition as an imperative. In terms of connotation, the precative functions as a volitive as an example of the irreal modal or optative function of the perfect (Waltke-O’Connor, Biblical Hebrew Syntax, 30.5.4d; Jouon, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, 112k). In contrast to the use of the irreal perfect for situations which the speaker expresses as a wish without expectation of fulfillment (contrary-to-fact situations, hypothetical assertions, and expressions of a wish that is not expected to be realized), the precative refers to situations the speaker expresses his desire for and expects to be realized (Waltke-O’Connor, Biblical Hebrew Syntax, 30.5.4d). It is used most often in contexts of prayers to God which the speakers expect to be answered (e.g., Pss 3:8; 22:22; 31:5-6). Here, the beloved expresses her desire that her lover consummate their love in his bedroom chambers; she expects this desire to be realized one day (e.g., 4:1-5:1).
¹⁸tn The three verbs in this line are a good example of heterosis of person, that is, a shift from 2ms to 1cpl to 3ms forms: ynkvm “draw me!” (Qal imperative 3ms from Evm “to draw” + 1cs suffix:), hxWrN “let us run!” (Qal cohortative 1cpl from JWr “to run”), and ynaybh “he has brought me” or “bring me!” (Hiphil perfect 3ms aoB “to bring” + 1cs suffix). Heterosis from second to third person occurs elsewhere in the Song in 1:2-3; 4:2; 6:6 (e.g, Gen 49:4; Deut 32:15; Ps 23:2-5; Isa 1:29; 42:20; 54:1; Jer 22:24; Amos 4:1; Micah 7:19; Lam 3:1). See E.W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981), 524-25.
¹⁹tn The term “chamber” (rdj ) is used frequently in reference to a bedroom (Gen 43:30; Judg 15:1; 16:9; 2 Sam 13:10; 1 Kgs 1:15; Ps 105:30; Isa 26:20). It refers explicitly to a bedroom when used with the noun bKvm (“bed”) in the expression bKvm rdj “bedroom chamber” (Exod 7:28; 2 Sam 4:7; 2 Kgs 6:12; Eccl 10:20). The plural form “his chambers” (wyrdj) functions as a plural of extension rather than a plural or number; it refers to one bedroom composed of several parts rather than referring to several different bedrooms.
sn The expression “Bring me into your chambers” is a metonymy of cause for effect, that is, her desire is that she and her lover consummate their love through sexual intercourse in his bedroom.
²⁰tn Normally in the Song, the person/gender of the pronouns and suffixes makes the identify of the speaker or addressee clear. However, there are several places in which there is grammatical ambiguity that makes it difficult to identify either the speaker or the addressee (e.g., 6:11-13; 7:9b). This is particularly true when 1cpl or 3cpl verbs or suffixes are present (1:3[4]; 2:15; 5:1b; 8:8-9), as is the case in the three lines of 1:3b[4b]. There are four views to the identity of the speaker(s): (1) NASB attributes all three lines to the chorus, (2) NIV attributes the first two lines to the friends and the third line to the beloved (=woman), (3) NJPS attributes all three lines to the beloved, speaking throughout 1:2-4, and (4) The first line could be attributed to Solomon speaking to his beloved, and the last two lines attributed to the beloved who returns praise to him. The referents of the 1cpl cohortatives and the 2sg suffixes have been taken as: (1) the maidens of Jerusalem, mentioned in 1:4[5] and possibly referred to as the 3cpl subject of W;bha& (“they love you”) in 1:3b[4b], using the 1cpl cohortatives in reference to themselves as they address Solomon: “We (=maidens) will rejoice in you (=Solomon). (2) Shulammith using 1cpl cohortatives in a hortatory sense as she addresses Solomon: “Let us (=Solomon and Shulammith) rejoice in you (=Solomon), let us praise your love-making …” (3) Shulammith using the 1cpl cohortatives in reference to herself — there are examples in ancient Near Eastern love literature of the bride using 1cpl forms in reference to herself (S.N. Kramer, The Sacred Marriage Rite, 92, 99) - as she addresses Solomon: “We (=I) will rejoice in you (=Solomon).” Note: This problem is compounded by the ambiguity of the gender on EB* (“in you”) which appears to be 2fs but may be 2ms in pause (see note below).
²¹tn Or “Let us rejoice and delight in you.” There is debate whether the cohortatives - hl*y{ !gn` (Qal cohortative 1cpl from lyG! “to exult”), hj*m=?=n{w+ (Qal cohortative 1cpl from jm? “to rejoice”), and hr*yK!z=n~ (Hiphil cohortative 1cpl from rkz “to praise”) — should be classified as (1) cohortatives of resolve, expressing the firm resolution or determination of the speakers to adopt or accomplish a particular course of action: “We will rejoice … we will delight … we will praise” (e.g., KJV, NASB, NIV) or (2) hortatory cohortatives, exhorting others to join in doing something: “Let us rejoice … let us delight … let us praise” (e.g., NJPS).
<sup>22</sup>tn Some commentators suggest that Solomon is addressing his Beloved because E^*B appears to have a 2fs suffix. However, the suffix on E^*B is in pause (after the accent) therefore, the normal 2ms suffix; =B has reduced to shewa. The parallelism with the 2ms suffix on i*ydd) (“your love”) supports the 2ms classification. See G. Lloyd Carr, The Song of Solomon (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1984), 75; Jack S. Deere, “The Meaning of the Song of Songs: An Historical and Exegetical Inquiry,” unpublished Th.D. dissertation (Dallas: Dallas Theological Seminary, 1984), 173. A shift occurs in 1:4 from 1cs forms to 1cpl forms: “Draw me (ynkvm) ... Let us run (hxWrN) ... Bring me (yaybh) ... We will be glad (hlygn) ... We will rejoice in you (hjmvnw) ... We will remember (hryKzn) ... They love you (iWbha) ...” Several translations and many commentators end the words of the Beloved at 1:4a and begin the words of the Friends in 1:4b and revert back to the words of the Beloved in 1:4c. The subject of the 1cpl forms may be the “maidens” (tomlu) previously mentioned in 1:3. This is supported by the fact that in 1:3 the Beloved says, “The maidens love you” (iWbha tomlu) and in 1:4c she again says, “Rightly do they [the maidens] love you” (iWbha <yrvym). On the other hand, in ANE love literature the bride often uses plural pronouns to refer to herself. Selected Bibliography: Samuel Noah Kramer, The Sacred Marriage Rite (Bloomington: University of Indiana Press, 1969), 92, 99.
<sup>23</sup>tn Or “remember.” The verb hr*yK!z=n~ (Hiphil imperfect 1cpl from rkz) is traditionally rendered “we will remember” (KJV), but is better nuanced “we will extol” (NASB) or “we will praise” (NIV). The verb rkz has a wide range of meanings: “to remember, call to mind” (Gen 8:1; Deut 24:9; Judg 8:34), “to name, mention” (Jer 20:9; 23:36; 31:20; Pss 63:7; 77:4), “to summon, command” (Nah 2:6), “to swear by” (Amos 6:10; 1 Chr 16:4), and “to praise, extol” (Exod 23:13; Josh 23:7; Pss 45:18; 71:16; Isa 26:13; 48:1; 62:6). The Hiphil stem has four denotations, and “to remember” is not one of them: (1) “to take to court,” (2) “to mention,” (3) “to make known,” and (4) “to praise, profess” (KBL 1:270). NJPS offers a very poetic nuance that plays upon the wine motif: “savoring it more than wine.”
<sup>24</sup>tn Or “The righteous love you.” Scholars debate whether <yrvym should be taken as a substantive (“the righteous”), abstract noun (“righteousness”), or adverb (“rightly”). LXX eujqeuquth" hjgaphse se (“righteousness loves you”) is awkward. The adverbial sense is preferred for several reasons: (1) The verb iWbha (“they love you”) in 1:4c is repeated from 1:3c where it was used in reference to the maiden’s love for Solomon. (2) There is no group designated as “the righteous” elsewhere in the Song. (3) To introduce an additional party into this poetic unit is unnecessary when it can be easily understood as a reference to the maidens of 1:3c.
<sup>25</sup>tn Or “they love you.” Perhaps, “we love you.” The shift from the 1cpl subjects in the three cohortatives — hl*y{ !gn` (Qal cohortative 1cpl from lyG! “to exult”), hj*m=?=n{w+ (Qal cohortative 1cpl from jm? “to rejoice”), and hr*yK!z=n~ (Hiphil cohortative 1cpl from rkz “to praise”) — to the 3cpl subject in the verb W;bha& (Qal perfect 3cpl from bha “to love” + 2ms suffix) suggests to many scholars that a shift in speakers occurs at this point: the maidens praise Solomon in the first two lines, while Shulammith affirms the appropriateness of their praise in the last line (e.g., NIV). However, the shift in person might simply be another example of heterosis of person (as already seen in 1:2-4a) — this time from first person to third person. Thus, the shift in grammatical person does not necessarily indicate a shift in speakers. It is possible that the maidens(?) are speaking throughout all three lines, and that the third line should be nuanced, “How rightly we love you!”
²⁶sn The poetic structure of this tricolon is classified as an example of redistribution. The terms “black but beautiful” in the A-line are broken up — the B-line picks up on “black” and the C-line picks up on “beautiful” (Rashi, Lowth, Kugel, Watson). The Beloved was “black” like the rugged tents of Qedar woven from the wool of black goats, but “beautiful” as the decorative inner tent-curtains of King Solomon. Selected Bibliography: Robert Lowth, The Sacred Poetry of The Hebrews (Boston, 1829), 161; James L. Kugel, The Idea of Biblical Poetry (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1981), 40; Wilfred G.E. Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985), 181; Maurice Simon, The Midrash Rabbah (New York: The Soncino Press, 1977), 4:51-55.
²⁷tn Heb “O daughters of Jerusalem”
²⁸sn The comparison of her dark, outdoors appearance to the “tents of Qedar” is quite fitting for two reasons. First, the name “Qedar” refers to an ancient Arabian tribe of bedouin who lived in tents and inhabited a region in northern Arabia. Their tents were traditionally woven from the wool of black goats. They were not beautiful to look at; they were rough, rustic, rugged, and weather-beaten. Second, the terms “black” (hrojv) and “Qedar” (rdq) create a word-play because the root rdq means “dark, dirty” (KBL 3:1072). The point of the comparison is that the Beloved had dark skin and a rugged outdoors appearance because she had been forced to work outdoors, and so her skin had become dark as 1:6 states. Selected Bibliography: James M. Freeman, Manner and Customs of the Bible (Plainfield, N.J.: Logos International, 1972), 242-46.
²⁹tn There is debate whether the terms “tents” (ylha) and “tent-curtains” (touyry) are used here as synonyms or antonymns. The term “tent” (lha) is often used in reference to an overall tent assembly, with particular emphasis on the external structure (e.g., Gen 4:20; 18:1; 31:33; Exod 26:13; 40:19; Judg 4:17; Isa 54:2; Jer 37:10) (KBL 1:19). The term “tent-curtains” (houyry) is used to refer to (1) inner hanging curtains, such as decorative hangings or tapestries inside a tent (e.g., Exod 26:1-2,7; Num 4:25) and (2) a tent as a whole (e.g., 2 Sam 7:2; Jer 4:20; 10:20; Hab 3:7) (KBL 2:439). The two terms are often used in parallelism as an A-B word pair (Isa 54:2; Jer 4:20; 10:20; 49:29; Hab 3:7). Like the “tents” (<ylha) of Qedar which were made from the wool of black goats, “tent-curtains” (houyry) also were sometimes made from goat hair (Exod 26:7). If the two are synonymous, the point is that the tents of Qedar and the tent-curtains of Solomon were both black but beautiful. If the two terms are antonyms, the point is that the tents of Qedar are black but the tent-curtains of Solomon are beautiful. In either case, her point is that she is black, but nonetheless beautiful. Rabbinic midrash misses the point; it views the metaphor as contrasting her swarthy outward appearance with her inner beauty: “Just as the tents of Kedar, although from outside they look ugly, black, and ragged, yet inside contain precious stones and pearls, so the disciples of the wise, although they look repulsive and swarthy in this world, yet have within them knowledge of the Torah, Scriptures, Mishnah, Midrash, Halachoth, Talmud, Toseftas and Haggadah” (Midrash Rabbah). Selected Bibliograpy: Maurice Simon, Midrash Rabbah (London: The Soncino Press, 1968), 4:54- 55.
³⁰tn Heb “Salmah.” The Masoretic Text vocalizes hmlv as hm) )lv= (“Solomon”); however, the BHS editors suggest the vocalization hm*l=v^ (“Salmah”). Salmah is the name of an ancient Arabian tribe mentioned in Assyrian and South Arabic sources, as well as Targum Onkelos (Gen 15:19; Num 24:21; Judg 4:17). Like the tribe of Qedar, Salmah was an Arabian nomadic tribe which inhabited a region in northern Arabia and the region of Petra. Admittedly, the proposed revocalization would produce a tight parallelism between Qedar and Salmah; however, it would seem strange in a book dedicated to the love relationship between Solomon and Shulamite that hmlv would not be vocalized as hm) )lv= (“Solomon”). Selected Bibliography: Hugo Winckler, Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament (Tubingen, 1903), 152; T.H. Gaster, “What the Song of Songs Means,” Commentary 13 (1952): 322; Marvin H. Pope, Song of Songs (Garden City: Doubleday, 1977), 320.
³¹tn The relative pronoun v# on yn{a&v# “because I” (1cs independent personal pronoun yna “me” + v#) functions in a causal sense, as in the following colon (BDB 980.3b) (e.g., Song 5:2; Eccl 2:18).
³²tn The relative pronoun v# on yn{t=p^z*v$v# (Qal perfect 3fs from [zv “to stare” + 1cs suffix + v#) functions in a causal sense, as in the preceding colon (BDB 980.3b) (e.g., Song 5:2; Eccl 2:18).
³³tn Heb “the sun has stared at me.” The verb [zv means “to look at, catch sight of, glance at” (e.g., Job 20:9; 28:7) (KBL 959; BDB 1004). Shulammith personifies the sun (vm#v*h^) as having looked at Shulammith too long, that is, it burned her skin..
³⁴Heb “the sons of my father”
³⁵tn The verb rhn (“to burn in anger, to be angry”) creates an interesting word-play or pun on the preceding line: “The sun burned me (=my skin).” The sun burned her skin, because her brothers had burned (rhn) in anger against her. This is an example of a polysemantic word-play which explicits the two basic meanings of rhn (“to burn, to be angry”). Selected Bibliography: Wilfred G.E. Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984), 241-42; W. Empsom, Seven Types of Ambiguity (London: Oxford Press, 1953); Stephen Ullmann, Semantics: An Introduction to the Science of Meaning (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1977), 156-75.
³⁶tn The noun <r#K# (“vineyard”) is used figuratively in this line (see following note on the word-plays in this verse). Some suggest that her “vineyard” refers to her virginity, that is, she lost her virginity. However, this runs contrary to the moral purity accorded to Shulammith throughout the Song (e.g., 4:12; 8:8-10). It is better to take the “vineyard” imagery as a reference to her ability to take care of her physical appearance which had been thwarted by being forced to work outside where her skin had been darkened by the scorching rays of the sun, as alluded to throughout 1:4-5[5-6].
³⁷tn The repetition of the noun <r#K# (“vineyard”) and the verb rfn (“to keep, maintain”) creates a series of eloquent word-plays. The first occurrence of <r#K# (“vinyard”) and rfn (“to keep”) is literal, the second occurrence of both is figurative (hypocatastasis). Her brothers forced her work outside in the sun, taking care of the vineyards; as a result, she was not able to take care of her appearance (“my own vineyard I could not keep”).
³⁸tn Heb “soul”
³⁹tn The causal relative pronoun v# “because” (BDB 980.3b) is prefixed to the interrogative particle hm*l* “why?” (BDB 554.4d) to form the idiom hm*L*v^ “lest” (BDB 554.4d.b; 980.3d). BDB notes that hm*l* is used with an imperfect - as is the case here with hy\h=a# (Qal imperfect 1cs from hy`h* “to be”) - to deprecate a situation and for rhetorical emphasis to introduce the reason why something should, or should not, be done: “Why should?” (e.g., Gen 27:45; 47:19; Exod 32:12; 1 Sam 19:5,17; 20:8,32; 2 Sam 2:22; 13:26; 16:9; 20:19; 2 Kgs 14:10; 2 Chr 25:16; Neh 6:3; Pss 79:10; 115:2; Eccl 5:5; 7:16-17; Jer 40:15; Joel 2:17) (BDB 554.4d.b). When connected with a foregoing sentence by the causal relative pronouns v# “because,” the idiom hm*L*v^ connotes “lest” (literally, “Because why should?”) (BDB 554.4d.b). The meaning of hm*L*v^ is identical to the parallel constructions hM*l* rv#a& “lest” (Dan 1:10) and hm*l= yD! “lest” (Ezra 7:23). In Song 1:6[7] the causal relative pronoun v# connects it to the preceding lines, and our idiom assumes the ellided phrase “Tell me!”(yl! hd*yG! ^h) which occurred earlier in the verse: “Tell me lest I be mistaken for a prostitute!” or “Tell me! For why should I be mistaken for a prostitute?!?”
<sup>40</sup>tn Heb “like someone veiled.” Alternately, “Why should I wander around [like someone who is lost].” The term hy`f=u) (Qal act. ptc. fs from hfu I “to veil, wrap up, cover oneself”) has been rendered “one who veils herself” (NASB) and “like a veiled woman” (ASV, NIV). The term hfu describes a person wrapping or concealing oneself in a garment or with a veil (KBL 2:813), e.g., as a sign of grief or mourning (Ezek 24:17,22), uncleanness (Lev 13:45), or shame (Mic 3:7), and as the clothing of the deceased (1 Sam 28:14) and veiled cult-prostitutes (Gen 28:14). BDB suggests that she veiled herself in mourning (BDB 742). Rashi explained that she veiled herself in mourning because she did not know where to find her beloved. Many contemporary scholars (e.g., Marvin Pope, G. Lloyd Carr, Jack Deere, S.M. Lehrmann) connect the picture with the veiled cult-prostitute soliciting business among the shepherds. The beloved in the Song wishes to avoid what Tamar intentionally tried to do, that is, to be mistaken as a wanton woman looking for business among the shepherds (Gen 38:14-23). If her beloved would not declare his whereabouts, she would be reduced to looking for him among the shepherds - an action that could be misunderstood quite easily. Driver suggested that hy`f=u) is not derived from hfu I (“to veil”), but from the Arabic root gth that came into Hebrew as the homonymic root hfu II “to pick lice” (e.g., Isa 22:17; Jer 43:12) (BDB 742). Driver renders the line, “lest I be left picking lice,” that is, while away the siesta-time grooming herself. Most scholars reject this proposal; it is quite strange in the context, and unnecessarily creates a homonym for a well-known term that makes adequate sense contextually. Nevertheless, Driver’s radical proposal was adopted by the radical NEB translation. Selected Bibliography: G.R. Driver, “Lice in the Old Testament,” PEQ 106 (1974): 159-160.
tn MT reads hy`f=u)K= (Qal active participle fs from hfu I “to veil” with preposition K= “like”). This is reflected in LXX wj periballomenh (“like one who is covered”). On the other hand, several ancient versions (Symmachus, Syriac, and Vulgate) reflect a Hebrew reading of hY`u! )fK= from huf (“to wander about, to stray”) with metathesis of the first two consonants of MT. This emendation is suggested and/or adopted by the BHS editors, several lexicographers (KBL 2:377; 2:814; BDB 742), several scholars (Gordis, Robert), and several translations: “like one who wanders” (RSV, AV, JB) or “like one who strays” (JPS, NJPS). This would make nice sense contextually - she does not want to wander around like someone who is lost, thus she begs her beloved to tell her where to find him. However, the MT makes adequate sense as it stands, and it has the support of LXX.
<sup>41</sup>tn Heb “my mare”
sn It was common in ancient love literature, particularly Arabic and Greek literature, to compare a beautiful woman to a sleek filly. For example, Horace likened Lyde to a three year old filly: “She gambols over the spreading plains and shrinks from touch, to wedlock still a stranger, not yet ripe for eager mate” (Horace, Odes, iii. xi. 9). Theocritus compared Helen of Troy to a graceful steed harnessed to a chariot: “As towers the cypress mid the garden’s bloom, as in the chariot proud Thessalian steed, thus graceful rose-complexion’d Helen moves” (Theocritus, Idyll, xviii. 30-31).
<sup>42</sup>tn Heb “I compare you to my mare among the stallions of Pharaoh”
<sup>43</sup>tn Heb “among the chariot-horses.” Alternately, “among the chariots.” The noun bkr has a wide range of meanings: “chariots, war-chariots” (Exod 14:17-18, 23; 15:19; Deut 11:4; 20:1; Josh 11:4) “chariot crews, chariot troops” (1 Kgs 9:22; 16:9; 22:31; 2 Kg 8:21), “column of chariots, troop of warriors” (Isa 21:7, 9), “charioteer” (Ps 76:7), and “chariot-horses” (Exod 14:9; 2 Sam 8:4; 1 Chr 18:4; Ezek 39:20) (KBL 3:1233-35). Scholars have struggled with the meaning of hurp ybkrb “(? harnessed to ?) Pharaoh’s chariot” (KBL 3:1234.6.b). Marvin Pope suggests that ybkr be nuanced “chariot-horses” and the phrase rendered “among the chariot-horses of Pharaoh.” Pope offers the best explanation of this enigmatic picture: “A crucial consideration overlooked by commentators is the well-attested fact that Pharaoh’s chariots, like other chariotry in antiquity, were not drawn by a mare or mares but by stallions hitched in pairs. This bit of information radically alters the usual understanding of the verse and dispels the notion that there is a grammatical incongruity, which needs harmonizing. The juxtaposition is between a single mare and a plurality of stallions and it requires only a modicum of what is called ‘horse sense’ to appreciate the thrust of the comparison. The situation envisaged is illustrated by the famous incident in one of the campaigns of Thutmose III against Qadesh. On his tomb at Thebes, the Egyptian soldier Amenemheb relates how the Prince of Qadesh sent forth a swift mare, which entered among the army. But Amenemheb ran after her on foot and with his dagger ripped open her belly, cut off her tail, and presented it to the king, thus preventing a debacle before the excited stallions could take out after the mare” (Marvin H. Pope, Song of Songs, 338). Selected Bibliography: Marvin H. Pope, “A Mare in Pharaoh’s Chariotry,” BASOR 200 (1970): 56-61.
<sup>44</sup>tn Or perhaps “I will make….” The subject of the 1cpl verb h? #u&n~ (Qal imperfect 1cpl from h?u “to make”) might naturally be the maidens of Jerusalem mentioned in 1:4[5]. However, this might be another example of heterosis of number, that is, the 1cpl for 1cs person. In this case, Solomon - the speaker throughout the rest of 1:8-9[9-10] - would still be the speaker here. Other possible examples of heterosis of number of the plural for the singular in the Song include 1:3[4]; 2:15; 5:1b; 6:13[7:1].
<sup>45</sup>tn Or “We will make gold ornaments with your studs of silver.”
<sup>46</sup>tc The MT reading oBs!m=B! (“his banquet table”) is enigmatic: “While the king was at his banquet table, my nard gave forth its fragrance.” Rudolph suggests emending MT to yB! !sm= (“around me”); however, this produces an equally elusive idea: “While the king surrounded me, my nard gave forth its fragrance” (W. Rudolph, Ruth, Hohes Lied, Klagelieder (KAT 17:3), 27).
tn The term bsm (“banqueting table”) refers to a round banquet table (KBL 2:604) or a divan with cushions (BDB 687.2). In Mishnaic Hebrew bsm refers to a dining couch, banquet table, as well as cushions or pillows (KBL 2:604). The related noun hbsm refers to a banqueting party (KBL 2:604; Jastrow).
<sup>47</sup>sn “Nard” (drn) was an aromatic oil extracted from the Valerian Nardostachys Jatamansi which was an aromatic drug from a plant which grew in the Himalaya region of India, used for perfume (KBL 2:724). Nard was an expensive imported perfume, worn by women at banquets because of its seductive charms. It was used in the ANE as a love potent because of its erotic fragrance. Selected Bibliography: J. Low, Die Flora der Juden (Vienna 1924-34), 3:482-83; R.K. Harrison, Healing Herbs of the Bible (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1966), 48-49; K. Hummel, Mitt d. Deutschen Pharmazeutischen Gesellschaft 37 (1967): 113-115; G. Lloyd Carr, Song of Solomon (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1984), 84-85; Marvin H. Pope, Song of Songs (Garden City: Doubleday, 1983), 348-49.
<sup>48</sup>tn Or “The fragrance of my myrrh wafted forth.”
<sup>49</sup>sn The term “myrrh” (rm) refers to an aromatic gum (Commiphora abessinica resin) which exudes from the bark of the Balsmodendron myrrha tree which was native only to Arabia, Abyssinia and India (KBL 2:630). It was an expensive luxury item, which had to be imported into Israel. In liquid form it could be carried in small bottles like nard, but it was also used in solid form in which it was carried in a small cloth pouch or sachet worn next to the body. The myrrh was mixed with fat and shaped into cones and as the fat melted from the body heat, the aroma of myrrh and the anointing oil would perfume a woman’s body. Because it had a very strong aroma which would last for long periods of time women often wore it to bed to perfume them for the next day. Because of its beautiful fragrance, it is associated with romance (e.g., Isa 3:24). Selected Bibliography: R.K. Harrison, Healing Herbs of the Bible (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1966), 45-46; B. Reicke and L. Rost, Biblisch-Historisches Handworterbuch (Gottingen, 1962-66), 1263.
<sup>50</sup>tn Heb “resting between my breasts.” The verb /yl has a three-fold range of meaning in the Qal stem: (1) “to leave overnight,” e.g., meat or corpse on a tree, (2) “to spend the night, stay overnight,” and (3) “to stay, dwell” (KBL 2:529). The myrrh motif (see study note above) suggests the nuance “to spend the night” (KBL 2:529.2). This is also the most appropriate nuance of its usage in Song 7:12 (e.g., Gen 19:2; 24:23,25,54; 28:11; 31:54; 32:14,22; Num 22:8; Josh 3:1; 4:3; 6:11; 8:9; Judg 18:2; 19:4-15 (9x), 20; 20:4; 2 Sam 12:16; 17:8,16; 19:8; 1 Kgs 19:9; Isa 21:13; 65:4; Jer 14:8; Joel 1:13; Zeph 2:14; Pss 25:13; 55:8; Job 24:7; 31:32; 39:9; Prov 19:23; Song 7:12; Ruth 1:16; 3:13; Neh 4:16; 13:20; 1 Chr 9:27). Several translations follow course: “he shall lie all night betwixt my breasts” (KJV) and “which lies all night between my breasts” (NASB). Others downplay the obvious sexual connotations: “resting between my breasts” (NIV) and “lodged between my breasts” (NJPS).
sn The imperfect has been taken in two basic senses: (1) future time action: “he shall spend the night between my breasts” and (2) present characteristic or present progressive: “he spends the night between my breasts.” The latter is favored by the characteristic/progressive nature of the metaphors used through 1:12-13[13-14].
<sup>51</sup>sn The henna plant (rp#K) III “henna,” KBL 2:495) is an inflorescent shrub with upward pointing blossoms, that have sweet smelling whitish flowers that grow in thick clusters (Song 4:13; 7:12). Like myrrh, the henna plant was used to make sweet smelling perfume. Its flowers were used to dye orange hair, nails, fingers and toes. Selected Bibliography: J. Low, Die Flora der Juden (Vienna, 1924-34), 2:220, 227; Gustaf Dalman, Arbeit und Sitte in Palastina (Gutersloh, 1928-42), 2:301, 353.
<sup>52</sup>sn En-Gedi is a lush oasis in the midst of the desert wilderness on the southwestern shore of the Dead Sea region. The surrounding region is hot and bleak; its dry sands extend monotonously for miles. The Dead Sea region is a salty desert covered with a dusty haze and characterized by almost unbearable heat during most of the year. The lush oasis of En-Gedi is the only sign of greenery or life for miles around. It stands out as a surprising contrast to the bleak, dry desert wilderness around it. In the midst of this bleak desert wilderness is the lush oasis in which indescribable beauty is found. The lush oasis is formed around a towering waterfall that brings welcome relief and refreshment to the weary desert traveler.
<sup>53</sup>tn His praise begins with the exclamatory particle hnh (“behold!”). This is often used to introduce a statement in which the speaker either newly asserts or newly recognizes something (BDB 244.b.a).
<sup>54</sup>tn The term ytyur (“my darling”) is from ur II “companion, friend” in general (e.g., Job 2:11; 6:27; 12:4; Pss 35:14; 122:8; Prov 14:20; 17:17; 19:6; 27:10) and “darling, beloved” in romantic relationships (e.g., Job 30:29; Jer 3:1,20; Hos 3:1; Song 5:1,16) (KBL 3:1253-54; BDB 946.1). This is the most common term of affection to address the Beloved (Song 1:9,15; 2:2,10,13; 4:1,7; 5:2; 6:4).
<sup>55</sup>sn In the ancient Near East there was an unusual emphasis on beauty of a woman’s eyes. This was probably due to the practice of women veiling themselves and wearing long robes so that no portion of their body or face was exposed to sight except for their eyes (e.g., Gen 26:17). The only indication of a woman’s beauty was her eyes. There was no better (other?) way to praise a woman’s beauty in the ancient Near East. Selected Bibliography: G. Lloyd Carr, The Song of Solomon (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1984), 86.
<sup>56</sup>tn Heb “Your eyes are doves.”
sn The simile Your eyes are like doves! compares her eyes to doves in some manner. There is no lack of suggestions as to the point of the comparision: (1) Falk suggests that Solomon’s point is that she had sentimental eyes because in Arabic love literature doves were noted for sentimental eyes. (2) Gifford notes that in 12th century English love literature doves were associated with love imagery because they were thought to have a sweet disposition. (3) Carr suggests that the comparison has to do with the color of her eyes. (4) The comparison has to do with shape and color because Egyptian art often depicts the eyes in a shape similar to that of the shape of doves. (4) Pope suggests that the comparison has to do with the glistening color of the dove and its quick movements, that is, her eyes had a beautiful color and had lively motion. (5) Goulder suggests that the comparison has to do with the fluttering of her eyes which reminded Solomon of the fluttering of a dove’s wings. (5) Rabbinic exegesis suggests that this means that she had a beautiful character because the rabbis taught that a woman who had beautiful eyes possessed beautiful character because the eyes were an index of one’s character. (6) Deere suggests that the point is that she had a peaceful countenance and a gentle character because the eyes were viewed as the mirror of the soul. Deere notes that ancient zoologists thought that doves had no bile thus, they had had a peaceful gentle character. (7) Delitzsch suggests that the comparison has to do with gentleness and purity, as well as longing and simplicity. Selected Bibliography: Marcia Falk, Love Lyrics from the Bible (Sheffield: The Almond Press, 1982), 113; G. Lloyd Carr, Song of Solomon (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1984), 86; Marvin H. Pope, Song of Songs (Garden City: Doubleday, 1983), 356; Michael D. Goulder, The Song of Fourteen Songs (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1986), 5; A. Cohen, The Five Megilloth: The Soncino Books of the Bible (New York: Soncino Press, Ltd., 1983), 4; Jack S. Deere, “The Meaning of the Song of Songs: An Historical and Exegetical Inquiry,” Th.D. dissertation (Dallas: Dallas Theological Seminary, 1984), 81-82; Franz Delitzsch, “The Song of Songs” in Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 6:38.
<sup>57</sup>sn Solomon’s statement “How beautiful you are, my darling” (ytyur hpy Enh) in 1:15 is virtually mirrored by Shulammith’s statement in 1:16, “How handsome you are, my lover” (ydod hpy i*nh).
<sup>58</sup>tn The term [a (“how”) is used to: (1) introduce additional information; (2) to emphasize a point; (3) to enhance a statement; (4) to create an antithesis (KBL 1:76). The usage here is to enhance “how pleasant” or “certainly pleasant” (KBL 1:76). The particle [a is often used in Hebrew poetry to emphatically introduce a thought in the second colon which is a step beyond what was asserted in the first colon (e.g., Deut 33:3,20,28; 1 Sam 2:7; Pss 16:6,7,9; 18:49; 65:14; 68:9,17; 74:16; 89:28; 93:1; Prov 22:19; 23:28) (BDB 64b.1). Sometimes, [a is used to introduce a surprise or something unexpected (e.g., Job 14:3; 15:4) (BDB 65a.1). The particle [a (“Oh!”), which introduces this line, is often used in Hebrew poetry to emphatically introduce a new thought and indicates that this is an addition to the previous statement; it is something far greater.
<sup>59</sup>tn The term <yun (“pleasant, delightful”) can refer to physical attractiveness or to personal character (BDB 653; KBL 2:705-706). Deere suggests that it refers to the pleasantness of Solomon’s character and personality; however, it is better to take this as a reference to his handsome physical appearance for several reasons: (1) The terms “handsome” (hpy) and “delightful” (<yun) are probably used in synonymous rather than synthetic parallelism. (2) The emphasis in 1:15-16 is on physical beauty as the repetition of the term “beautiful, handsome” (hpy) suggests. (3) The related verb tmun (“to be delightful”) is used in Song 7:7 in synonymous parallelism with typy (“to be beautiful”) in the description of Shulammith’s physical beauty. (4) Hebrew lexicographers classify this usage of <un in Song 1:16 in terms of physical beauty rather than personal character (BDB 653.2)
<sup>60</sup>sn The term “verdant” (hnnur) refers to the color “green” and is often used in reference to luxuriant foliage or trees (Pss 37:35; 52:8; Jer 11:16; Hos 14:8). The impression 1:16c-17 gives is that Solomon and Shulammith are lying down together on the grass in the woods and that as they look around them they liken the grass below and the green leaves above to a bed with a canopy.
<sup>61</sup>tn Alternately, “our marriage couch is the lush foliage” or “The lush foliage is our marriage couch.” The term “bed” (?ru) describes a canopied bed (Pss. 6:7; 41:4; 132:2; Prov. 7:16).
<sup>1</sup>tn Or “the rose of Sharon ... the lily of the valleys.” There is debate whether the anarthrous expressions /wêr)V*h^ tl#ØX#b^j& and <y×q! *mu&h* tÙN~v^w× )are definite (“the rose of Sharon ... the lily of the valleys”) or indefinite (“a rose of Sharon ... “a lily”). Some translations adopt the definite sense (KJV, NASB); others the indefinite sense (RSV, NIV, NJPS)
<sup>2</sup>tn Or “crocus.” Traditionally, “rose.” The precise meaning of tl#ØX#b^j& is debated. It is traditionally translated “rose” (KJV, NASB, NIV, NJPS); but recent translations offer the alternate “crocus” (NIV margin, NJPS margin). Early translators knew that it referred to some kind of flower but were unsure exactly which kind of flower, so they arbitrarily chose “rose” because it was a well-known and beautiful flower. In the light of comparative Semitics, modern Hebrew lexicographers have settled on four options: “asphodel,” “meadow-saffron,” “narcissus,” or “crocus” (BDB 287; KBL 1:287; DCH 3:153). The Hebrew term is related to Syriac hamsalaita (“meadow saffron”) and Akkadian habasillatu (“flower-stalk, marsh plant, reed”). Lexicographers and botanists suggest that the Hebrew term refers to Ashodelos (lily family), Narcissus tazetta (narcissus or daffodil), or Colchicum autumnale (meadow-saffron or crocus). The location of this flower in Sharon suggests that a common wild flower would be more consonant than a rose. The term appears elsewhere only in Isa 35:1 where it refers to some kind of beautiful desert flower: “rose” (KJV, NJPS) versus “crocus” (NASB, NIV, NJPS margin). Selected Bibliography: Fauna and Flora of the Bible (New York: United Bible Society, 1980), 150-51; G.H. Dalman, “Die Blume habasselet der Bibel,” in Vom Alten Testament: Karl Marti zum siebstigen Geburtstage gewidmet (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1925), 62-68; G.H. Dalman, Arbeit und Sitte in Palastina (Gutersloh, 1928-42), 1:97-98; 361-63; J. Low, Die Flora der Juden (Vienna 1924-34), 2:156-58; Marvin H. Pope, Song of Songs, Anchor Bible 7c (Garden City: Doubleday, 1983), 367.
sn Appropriately, the rustic maiden who grew up in the simplicity of rural life compares herself to a simple, common flower of the field. Selected Bibliography: Marvin H. Pope, Song of Songs, Anchor Bible 7c (Garden City: Doubleday, 1983), 367
<sup>3</sup>sn Sharon is a low coastal plain stretching south from Mount Carmel. It is well watered due to the Kurkar ridges running parallel to the shore which trapped the water run-off from the Samaritan hills. The combination of low sandy hills and swampy lowlands produced heavy vegetation and an abundance of wild flowers in the area. Selected Bibliography: Marvin H. Pope, Song of Songs, Anchor Bible 7c (Garden City: Doubleday, 1983), 367
<sup>4</sup>tn There is debate about the referent of tÙN~v^ )(“lily”) because there are many different species of the lily family. Botanists note that among the many different species of the lily family only one grows in Palestine. Reubeni, professor of botany in Jerusalem, suggests that this one species should be identified as the Anthemis palaestina, the camomile, a white-daisy-like plant, which was indigenous to Palestine. Reubini further suggests that Jesus’s statement about the lilies of the field was not describing an especially beautiful or conspicuous flower, but rather a small and insignificant one whose beauty would be missed by all but the most observant and appreciative (Matt 6:28; Luke 12:27). Selected Bibliography: Fauna and Flora of the Bible (New York: United Bible Society, 1980), 134-36; H.N. Moldenke, Plants of the Bible (New York: Ronald Press, Co., 1952)
<sup>5</sup>tn This is an example of emblemmatic parallelism. An illustrative simile appears in the A-line and the subject of the comparison is in the B-line. The particles /@K ... K= (“like ... so”) form an emphatic comparative construction (e.g., Ps 123:2) (see B.K. Waltke and M. O’Connor, Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 38.5.a
<sup>6</sup>tn Or “thorn-bushes.” The term <yêj!ojh^ is probably derived from joj I “thorn-bush, briars, thistles, thorns” (KBL 1:296; BDB 296) rather than joj II “crevice” (KBL 1:296): “Like a lily among the thorns” rather than “Like a lily among the rock crevices.” The picture is of a beautiful flower growing in the midst of thorn bushes (1 Sam 14:11; 2 Kgs 14:9; 2 Chrn 25:18; Job 31:40; Prov 26:9; Isa 34:13; Hos 9:6) rather than a beautiful flower growing in the midst of rocky upcroppings (1 Sam 13:6; 2 Chrn 33:11). The Hebrew term is related to Akkadian hahu and haiahu “thorn” and hahinnu “thorny plants” (AHw 308) and Aramaic hahhu (KBL 1:296). The “thorn-bush” is a thistle plant (Poterium spinosum) which has prickly spines covered with thistles, but also sprouts beautiful red, small flowers. Selected Bibliography: Fauna and Flora of the Bible (New York: United Bible Society, 1980), 184-85; G.H. Dalman, Arbeit und Sitte in Palastina (Gutersloh, 1928-42), 1:339; J. Low, Die Flora der Juden (Vienna, 1924-34), 1:667; A.E. Ruthy, Die Pflanze und ihre Teile im biblisch-hebraischen Sprachgebrauche (Bern, 1942), 24.
sn The Lover accomodates her self-denigrating comparison, but heightens it to praise her: If she insisted that she was nothing more than a common flower of the field, then he insisted that all other women were like thorns by comparison. The term “thorn” (joj) is often used as a figure for utter desolation and the cause of pain; it is the antithesis of fertility and beautiful luxuriant growth (Job 31:40; Isa 34:13; Hos 9:6)
<sup>7</sup>tn Like the preceding line, this is a case of emblemmatic parallelism. An illustrative simile appears in the A-line (object of the comparison) and the subject of the comparison appears in the B-line. The particles /@K ... K= (“like ... so”) form an emphatic comparative construction (e.g., Ps 123:2) (Waltke-O’Connor, Biblical Hebrew Syntax), 38.5.a
<sup>8</sup>sn Apple trees were not native to Palestine and had to be imported and cultivated. To find a cultivated apple tree growing in the forest among other wild trees would be quite unusual; the apple tree would stand out and be a delightful surprise. Like a cultivated apple tree, the Lover was unique and stood out among all other men. In ancient Near Eastern love literature, the apple tree was a common symbol for romantic love and sexual fertility. The “apple tree” motif is used in the Song in a similar manner (e.g., Song 2:3; 8:5). Likewise, the motif of “apples” is used as a symbol of fertility (Joel 1:12) and sexual desire (Song 2:5,7,9). Selected Bibliography: Samuel Noah Kramer, Sacred Marriage Rites (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1969), 100-101
<sup>9</sup>tn Or “I desired” or “I took delight in.” The meaning of this use of the verb dmj (“delight, desire”) is debated. The root has a basic two-fold range of meanings: (1) “to take pleasure in, delight in” (Job 20:20; Pss 39:12; 68:17; Prov 1:22; Isa 1:29; 44:9; 53:2) and (2) “to desire passionately, to desire illicitly” (Exod 20:17; 34:24; Deut 5:21; 7:25; Josh 7:21; Prov 1:22; 6:25; 12:12; Mic 2:2) (KBL 1:325; BDB 326; BL 290d). The related noun hdmj describes objects which are “delightful, precious, desirable” (KBL 1:325). Commentators who adopt the hyper-erotic view of the extended metaphor in 2:3 opt for the sexual desire nuance: “I desired (sexually”). Those who adopt the less erotic approach favor the more general connotation: “I took delight in” or “I delight in.” The latter seems to fit the imagery and context better.
<sup>10</sup>tn Heb “I delighted and I sat down.” Alternately, “I sat down with delight ...” The verbs yT!b=êv^æyºw yT!d=ØM^j! (lit. “I delighted and I sat down”) form a verbal hendiadys (GKC 120d): “I sat down with delight ...” or “I delight to sit ...” The sequence of a perfect followed another perfect with waw consecutive creates the coordination of the complementary verbal idea (first verb) with the idea of the main (second) verb. The main idea is indicated by the second verb; the first verb indicates the manner of action. The first verb functions adverbially while the second verb carries its full verbal sense (see Waltke-O’Connor, Biblical Hebrew Syntax, 39.2.5.
<sup>11</sup>tn The term “shade” (ülx) is used figuratively to depict protection and relief. This term is used in OT literally (physical shade from the sun) and figuratively (protection from something) (KBL 3:1024-25): (1) Literal: The physical shade of a tree offers protection from the heat of the midday sun (Judg 9:15; Ezek 17:23; 31:6,12,17; Hos 4:13; Jon 4:6; Job 7:22; 40:22). Similar protection from the sun is offered by the shade of a vine (Ps 80:11), root (Gen 19:8), mountain (Judg 9:36), rock (Isa 32:2), cloud (Isa 25:5), and hut (Jon 4:5). (2) Figurative (hypocatastasis): Just as physical shade offers protection from the sun, the Israelite could find “shade” (protection) from God or the king (e.g., Num 14:9; Isa 30:2; 49:2; 51:16; Hos 14:8; Pss 17:8; 36:8; 57:2; 63:8; 91:1; 121:5; Lam 4:20; Eccl 7:12). The association between “shade” and “protection” is seen in the related Akkadian sillu “shade, covering, protection” (AHw 1101; CAD S:189). The epithets of several Akkadian deities are sillu and sululu (“Shade, Protector”). Selected Bibliography: K.L. Tallqvist, Akkadische Gotter-Epitheta (Helsinki, 1974), 159; J.J. Stamm, Die akkadische Namengebung (Darmstadt, 1968), 211.
sn The motif of protection, rest and relief from the sun seems to be implied by the expression “I sat down” (yT!b=êv^æyºw) in 2:3b. During the summer months, the temperature often reaches 110-130<sup>0</sup> in the Negev. Those who have never personally experienced the heat of the summer sun in the Negev as they performed strenuous physical labor cannot fully appreciate the relief offered by any kind of shade! Previously, Shulamite had complained that she had been burned by the sun because she had been forced to labor in the vineyards with no shade to protect her (Song 1:5-6). She had urged Solomon to tell her where she could find relief from the sun during the hot midday hours (Song 1:7). Now she exults that she finally had found relief from the scorching sun under the “shade” which Solomon offered to her (Song 2:3). Glickman writes: “Whereas before she came to him she worked long hours on the sun (1:6), now she rests under the protective shade he brings. And although formerly she was so exhausted by her work she could not properly care for herself, now she finds time for refreshment with him” (S. Craig Glickman, A Song for Lovers [Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1976], 40)
<sup>12</sup>sn The term oyr=!)p (“his fruit”) has been taken by the hyper-erotic approach as a figurative description of Solomon’s genitals (Dillow, Solomon on Sex, 31). Although the Song features romantic and sexual imagery, this seems extreme. The term “fruit” (yrp) is used figuratively 119 times in the Old Testament. In every one of these 119 figurative usages the point of comparison is always in reference to the consequences of a person’s actions or in reference to that which a person produces from his efforts (e.g., Prov. 1:31; 11:30; 12:14; Isa. 10:12; Jer. 17:20). Just as a tree produces its fruit, so a person’s actions produce certain consequences
<sup>13</sup>sn The term “sweet” (qotm) is used literally and figuratively. When used literally, it describes pleasant tasting foods, such as honey (Judg 14:14,18; Prov 24:13; Ps 19:11) or sweet water (Num 33:28; Prov 9:17). Used figuratively, it describes what is pleasant to experience: friendship (Job 20:12; Ps 55:15; Prov 27:9), life (Eccl 11:7; Sir 40:18), sleep for the weary (Eccl 5:11), eloquence in speech (Prov 16:21,24), and Scripture (Ps 19:11). Those who adopt the “hyper-erotic” approach opt for the literal meaning: Solomon’s “fruit” tastes sweet to her palate. The non-erotic approach takes the term in its figurative sense: The experience of Solomon’s love was pleasant.
<sup>14</sup>tn Heb “my palate.” The term “my palate” (ykj) is used metonymically in reference to the sensation of taste which is associated with a person’s palate. The idea of “tasting” is used as a metaphor in the Old Testament for the experiential knowledge which is acquired through a person’s relationship with someone (e.g., Ps. 34:9). Just as a person would learn whether a fruit was ripe and delicious by tasting it, so a person could learn of the quality of a person’s character by experiencing it through personal interaction.
sn This extended metaphor compares the delights of Solomon’s love to (1) the refreshment of sitting in the shade of a tree for refuge from the desert sun, and (2) the delight of tasting a sweet apple — a fruit that was not indigenous to Palestine. This extended metaphor has been the object of abuse at the hands of commentators who adopt a “hyper-erotic” approach to the Song. For example, Dillow suggests that this metaphor depicts oral sex: the “apple tree” is a symbol for the body of her Lover; her “sitting under the shade” of the apple tree is a symbol for the Beloved kneeling down before her Lover to engage in oral sex; the “fruit” of the apple tree is a symbol for the male genitals; “tasting” the fruit is a symbol for oral copulation. Admittedly, the Song does contain sexual imagery, but it is questionable whether this kind of hyper-erotic treatment is warranted. The most appropriate way to interpret any extended metaphor is to determine the commonplace association of the figures, that is, how are the figures (“apple tree,” “shade,” “fruit,” and “taste”) commonly used and with what are they typically associated? For the commonplace assocation of each of the parts of this metaphor, see the notes on previous terms. Selected Bibliography: Joseph Dillow, Solomon on Sex (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1977), 31.
<sup>15</sup>tc The Masoretic Text vocalizes consonantal ynaybh as yn{ ^ayb!h$ (Hiphil perfect 3ms with 1cs suffix): “He has brought me.” However, LXX eijsagagete me (“Bring me!”) and Syriac reflect an alternate vocalization tradition of yn{ %ayb!h& (Hiphil imperative 2mpl with 1cs suffix): “Bring me!” This alternate vocalization tradition has several factors that make it a viable option: (1) It respects the consonantal text; (2) It is supported by LXX and Syriac; (3) It provides a tighter parallelism with the two identical imperatival forms in 2:5a (both 2mpl imperatives with 1cs suffixes); and (4) It provides thematic unity to the entire poetic unit of 2:4-5; and (5) It helps make better sense of an enigmatic unit. This approach is strengthened if MT olg=d!w+ (“and his banner”) is revocalized to the imperative Wlg=d!w+ (“and feed [me]”) (see footnote below). In this case, the parallelism throughout 2:4-5 would be very tight. It would feature four parallel imperatives of request, all revolving around the theme of love-sickness: “Bring me into the banquet hall, feed me with love; sustain me with raisin-cakes, refresh me with apples, because I am faint with love.” The weakness with the revocalization to yn{ %ayb!h& (“Bring me!”) is that it demands, due to the dictates of synonymous parallelism, the questionable revocalization of MT olg=d!w+ (“and his banner”) to the imperative Wlg=d!w+ (“and feed [me]”) (see textual note below).
tn Heb “Bring me!”
<sup>16</sup>tn Heb “house of wine.” Alternately, “place of wine.” The expression /yyh tyb (lit. “house of wine” or “place of wine”) refers to a banquet house where wine is drunk (KBL 2:409) or a vineyard where grapes to produce wine are grown (BDB 406). Carr favors the vineyard view due to the agricultural metaphors in 2:1-5. However, most commentators favor the banquet house view because of the reference to “raisin-cakes” and “apples” (2:4) which were served at banquets in the ancient Near East. Moreover, the expression “house of wine” (/yyh tyb) in Song 2:4 may be equivalent to “house of the drinking of wine” (/yyh htvm tyb) in Esther 7:8 (KBL 2:409). Second, raisin cakes are mentioned in this context in 2:5 and they were often eaten to celebrate festive occasions (2 Sam. 6:19; Isa. 16:7; Hos. 3:1) therefore, the banquet motif finds support. Selected Bibliography: Ernst Wurthwein, Theologische Rundschau 32:205; G. Lloyd Carr, The Song of Solomon (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1983), 90-91
<sup>17</sup>tc The consonantal form of ynaybh and wlgd in 2:4 have been vocalized in two different ways: (1) The Masoretic tradition vocalizes ynaybh as Hiphil perfect 3ms with 1cs suffix: yn{ ^ayb!h$ (“He has brought me [into the house of wine]”), and wlgd as a noun with 3ms suffix: olg=d! (“His banner [over me is love]”). (2) Several other Hebrew manuscripts, as well as LXX and Syriac, preserve an alternate vocalization tradition which vocalizes both forms as verbs. It vocalizes ynaybh as Hiphil 2mpl imperative with 1cs suffix: yn{ %ayb!h& (“Bring me [into the house of wine]”), and wlgd as Qal mpl imperative: Wlg=d!w+ (“Set [love before me]”). The LXX reading eisagagete me eij oikon tou oinou, tacate ep’ eme agaphn (“Bring me into the wine house, and set love before me”) reflects hbha ylu Wlg=d!w+ /yyh tyb-la yn{ %ayb!h& (“Bring me into the house of wine, and set love before me”).
tn Traditionally, “His banner over me was love” or “His banner of love was over me.” Alternative renderings include: “His glance toward me was loving,” “He looked at me lovingly,” “His desire was to make love to me.” “His intent toward me was love.” The meaning of wlgd is debated. Five basic views have emerged: (1) BDB relates olg=d! to the noun lgd I “standard, banner” (BDB 186) which refers to (1) banners, standards (Num 1:52; 2:2) and (2) battalion, company of troops, or division of a tribe signalled by a banner or standard (Num 2:3,10,17-18,25,31,34; 10:14,18,22,25). Thus, most translations render olgd as “his banner” (KJV, NASB, NIV, NJPS). However, the expression “His banner over me was love” is enigmatic. (2) Delitzsch revocalized the noun olg=d!w+ (“his banner”) as an imperative Wlg=d!w+ (“serve [me]”) from the root lgd III (“to serve food”) which is related to Akkadian dagalu II (“to serve food”). Delitzsch renders the passage: “Bring me into the banquet hall and serve me love ... for I am faint with love.” This is supported by LXX which reads: eisagagete me ei" oikon tou oinou, tacate ep’ eme agaphn (“Bring me into the wine house, and set love before me”). However, Gordis points out the difficulties with Delitzsch’s proposal: (a) the meaning “serve” for lgd is unparalleled in Hebrew thus, it would create a homonymic hapax legomena; (b) We would expect the preposition yl! (“to me”) rather than yl^u* (“over me”) after the imperative; and (c) The Akkadian parallel is uncertain. (3) KBL relates olg=d! to the Akkadian noun diglu (“eyesight, view, look, gaze”) and proposes the nuance “sign of an inn,” such as a flag placed over taverns (KBL 1:213). This approach renders the line: “He has brought me to the banquet hall, and its banner above me is love.” (4) Gesenius (HAW) and Clines (DCH) relate olg=d! to the homonymic root lgd II “look, glance” (DCH 2:415). The Hebrew noun degel II is related to the Akkadian noun diglu “eyesight, view, look, gaze” (CAD 3:21; Ahw 1:14). Likewise, the Hebrew verb dagal II “to look, behold” (Song 5:10; 6:4,10; Eccl 9:13; Ps 20:6) (BDB 186; KBL 1:213; DCH 2:414) is related to the Akkadian verb dagalu I “to look upon, to gaze, to look with astonishment, to look at with admiration” (CAD 3:21; AHw 1:14). Those who adopt this approach render the line: “His glance upon me is love” (Gesenius, Clines); “His look upon me was loving” (Gordis, Fields); or “He looked upon me with love” (Rudolph). (5) Pope notes that the Assyrian noun diglu may denote “wish,” i.e., desire or intent (CAD 3:136). He renders the line: “His wish regarding me was love-making” or “His intentions were to make love.” Pope’s suggestion has been adopted by several recent commentators (e.g., Carr). Selected Bibliography: Robert Gordis, “The Root dgl in the Song of Songs,” JBL 88 (1969): 203-204; idem, The Song of Songs and Lamentations (New York: KTAV, 1974), 81-82; Wilhelm Rudolph, Zolli Bibl 21:273-74; Weston Fields, “Solomon’s Most Excellent Song,” unpublished Th.D. dissertation (Winona Lake: Grace Theological Seminary, 1979), 336; Marvin H. Pope, Song of Songs, Anchor Bible 7c (Garden City: Doubleday, 1983), 376-77; G. Lloyd Carr, The Song of Solomon (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1984), 91; David J.A. Clines, editor, The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), 2:414
<sup>18</sup>tn The syntax of the noun hbha (“love”) has been taken as: (1) predicate nominative: “His banner over me [was] love” or “His intention toward me [was] love-making” (Pope, Carr); (2) genitive of attribute/content: “His banner of love [was] over me,” and (3) adverbial or adjectival accusative: “His look upon me was loving” or “He looked upon me lovingly” (Gordis, Fields). Examples of adverbial or adjectival accusatives, e.g., “I am peace” = “I am peaceful” (Ps 120:7); “I will love them as a free gift” = “I will love them freely” (Hos 14:5). Selected Bibliography: Robert Gordis, The Song of Songs and Lamentations (New York: KTAV, 1974), 81-82; Weston Fields, “Solomon’s Most Excellent Song,” unpublished Th.D. dissertation (Winona Lake: Grace Theological Seminary, 1979), 336; Marvin H. Pope, Song of Songs, Anchor Bible 7c (Garden City: Doubleday, 1983), 376-77; G. Lloyd Carr, The Song of Solomon (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1984), 91
<sup>19</sup>tn The imperatives ynWkms (“sustain me”) and ynWdpr (“revive me”) are both plural in address (Piel 2mpl imperatives with 1cs suffixes). Thus, some commentators suggest that the woman is speaking to a large audience, perhaps the banquet guests implied in 2:4 or the maidens mentioned in 2:7 (Gordis). However, the Hebrew plural can be used in reference to a single individual when functioning in an intensive sense (Waltke-O’Connor, Biblical Hebrew Syntax, 7.4.3a). Thus, the woman may be speaking to her beloved, as in the rest of 2:3-6, but with intense passion. Similarly, in Sumerian love literature the bride sometimes uses plural verbs in reference to herself or her bridegroom. Selected Bibliography: Robert Gordis, The Song of Songs and Lamentations (New York: KTAV, 1974), 82; Samuel Noah Kramer, The Sacred Marriage Rite (Bloomington: University of Indiana Press, 1969), 92, 99
<sup>20</sup>sn The term “raisin-cakes” (tovyva from vyva) refers to an expensive delicacy made of dried compressed grapes (KBL 1:95; BDB 84; Jastrow 1:128). Raisin-cakes were used as cultic offerings by many ancient Near Easterns, especially prominent in ancient Near Eastern fertility rites (e.g., Isa 16:7; Hos 3:1). In ancient Israel they were eaten during festive celebrations, being viewed as enhancing sexual fertility (2 Sam 6:19; 1 Chrn 16:3). Scholars regard the “raisin-cakes” as (1) literal food viewed as an aphrodisiac to “cure” her love-sickness; (2) a figurative expression (hypocatastasis) for sexual passion or love-making; or (3) double entendre referring to the literal food as an aphrodisiac and her desire for love-making. Selected Bibliography: Weston Fields, “Solomon’s Most Excellent Song,” unpublished Th.D. dissertation (Winona Lake: Grace Theological Seminary, 1979), 337; Wilhelm Rudolph, Hosee KAT, 84; Robert Gordis, The Song of Songs and Lamentations (New York: KTAV, 1974), 82.
<sup>21</sup>tn Or “apricots.” The term “apples” (<yjwpt from jwpt) occurs four times in the book (Song 2:3,5; 7:9; 8:5) and twice outside (Prov 25:4; Joel 1:12). It is usually defined as “apples” (KBL 1037; BDB 656); however, some argue for “apricots” (FFB 92-93). The Hebrew noun jwpt (“apple”) is derived from the Hebrew root jpn (“scent, breath”) which is related to the Arabic root nafahu “fragrant scent” (KBL 2:708). Hence, the term refers to a fruit with a fragrant scent. This may explain why the mere scent of this fruit was thought to have medicinal powers in the ancient Near East. See George F. Post, Flora of Syria, Palestine and Sinai (London: Oxford University Press, 1932), 128.
sn This imagery draws upon two motifs associated with apples. First, apples were viewed as medicinal in ancient Syro-Palestinian customs; the sick were given apples to eat or smell in order to revive them. Similarly, the Mishnah and Talmud refer to apples as a medication like wine and grapes. Second, apples were considered an aphrodisiac in the ancient Near East. Both motifs are combined here because the beloved is “love-sick” and only the embrace of her beloved can cure her, as 2:6 indicates. Selected Bibliography: George E. Post, Flora of Syria, Palestine and Sinai (London: Oxford University Press, 1932), 128; T.H. Gaster, Myth, Legend, and Custom in the Old Testament (New York: Harper & Row, 1969), 811; Yehudah Ratzaby, “A Motif in Hebrew Love Poetry: In Praise of the Apple,” Ariel 40 (1976): 14
<sup>22</sup>tn Heb “sick of love.” The expression hbha tloj (lit. “sick of love”) is an example of the causative use of the genitive construct: “I am sick because of love,” that is, “I am love-sick.”
sn The expression “faint with love” (hbha tloj) is a figure which compares physical or medical illness caused by a physically draining disease to sexual desire which is so intense that a person is so physically drained that they feel as if they could faint. The term “sick” (loj) refers to the physical weakness which consumes a person who is suffering from a medical illness (Gen 48:1; 1 Sam 19:14). It is used figuratively as a hyperbolic hypocatastasis for being so consumed with sexual desire that it saps one of this physical and emotional strength (BDB 317.2). This is commonly referred to as “love-sickness.” It was associated with such deep longing for physical and sexual fulfillment that it weighed so heavily upon a person that he/she was physically and emotionally drained (2 Sam 13:2)
<sup>23</sup>tn Heb “His left hand is under my head.”
sn Ultimately, the only cure for her love-sickness is the caress of her beloved. The ancient Near Eastern love songs frequently portray the embrace of the lover as the only cure for the speaker’s love-sickness. For example, one Egyptian love song reads: “She will make the doctors unnecessary, because she knows my sickness” (Papyrus Harris 4:11). Similarly, “My salvation is her coming in from outside; when I see her, I will be healthy. When she opens her eye, my body is young; when she speaks, I will be strong. When I embrace her, she exorcises evil from me” (Papyrus Chester Beatty, C5:1-2)
<sup>24</sup>tn Heb “embraces.”Alternately, “May his left hand be under my head, and [may] his right hand embrace me.” The verb qbj has a two-fold range of meanings in the Piel stem: (1) to embrace or hug someone (Gen 29:13; 33:4; 48:10; Job 24:8; Prov 4:8; Eccl 3:5; Lam 4:5) and (2) to fondle or sexual stimulate a lover (Prov 5:20; Song 2:6; 8:3) (KBL 1:287; BDB 287). The verb designates an expression of love by the position or action of one’s hands (TWOT 1:259). The term is probably used here as a euphemism for sexual stimulation. The function of the imperfect form of ynqbjt (“embrace me”) may be classified several ways: (1) ingressive: “His right hand is beginning to stimulate me,” (2) instantaneous: “His right hand is stimulating me [right now],” (3) progressive: “His right hand stimulates me,” (4) desire: “May his right hand stimulate me!” (5) injunction: “Let his right hand stimulate me!” or (6) permission: “His right hand may stimulate me.” Based upon their view that the couple is not yet married, Glickman and Deere argue for an imperfect of desire (“May his right hand stimulate/embrace me!”). Other scholars suggest that the couple is already engaged or married, allowing for a progressive imperfect (“His right hand stimulates me”) (Gordis, Pope, Carr). Selected Bibliography: Robert Gordis, The Song of Songs and Lamentations (New York: KTAV, 1974), 51; Weston Fields, “Solomon’s Most Excellent Song,” unpublished Th.D. dissertation (Winona Lake: Grace Theological Seminary, 1979), 338-39; Marvin H. Pope, Song of Songs, Anchor Bible 7c (Garden City: Doubleday, 1983), 384; G. Lloyd Carr, The Song of Solomon (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1984), 93; Jack S. Deere, “The Meaning of the Song of Songs,” unpublished Th.D. dissertation (Dallas: Dallas Theological Seminary, 1985), .
sn A strikingly similar expression occurs in the Sumerian love song of Sumuzi-Inanna in which the woman says, “Your right hand you have placed on my vulva, your left hand stroked my head” (SMR 105). Likewise, Song 2:6 seems to depict a couple lying side by side in the normal position for foreplay to sexual intercourse with the man stimulating the woman’s clitoris. Selected Bibliography: Samuel Noah Kramer, The Sacred Marriage Rite (Bloomington: University of Indiana Press, 1969), 105; Weston Fields, “Solomon’s Most Excellent Song,” unpublished Th.D. dissertation (Winona Lake: Grace Theological Seminary, 1979), 339.
<sup>25</sup>sn Frequently, when oaths were taken in the ancient world, witnesses were invoked in order to solemize the vow and to act as jurists should the oath someday be broken. Cosmic forces such as the “heavens and earth” were often personified to act as witnesses to an oath (e.g., Deut. 32:1; Isa. 1:2; Mic. 1:2; 6:1-2; Ps. 50:2). In this case, the “witnesses” are the “gazelles and stags of the field” (2:7; 3:5). These animals were frequently used as symbols of romantic love in the Old Testament (Prov. 5:19). And in Egyptian and Mesopotamian love literature and Ugaritic poetry the gazelle was often associated with sexual fertility. For instance, in the following excerpt from a Mesopotamian incantation text the stag is referred to in the context of sexual potency in which a woman urges an ailing male: “With the love-[making of the mountain goat] six times, with the love-making of a stag seven times, with the love-making of a partridge twelve times, make love to me! Make love to me because I am young! And the love-making of a stag…Make love to me! (Robert D. Biggs, Ancient Mesopotamian Potency Incantations. Texts from Cunieform Sources II (1967), 26, lines 4-8)
<sup>26</sup>sn The “gazelles” and “stags of the fields” are probably zoomorphisms for love personified. In other words, the witness of this oath is “love” itself. Should the daughters violate this vow which they are asked to make, “love” itself would hold them accountable. Gazelles were often figures in Hebrew, Akkadian, and Ugaritic literature for mighty warriors or virile young men (e.g., 2 Sam. 1:19; 2:18; Isa. 14:9; Zech. 10:3). Selected Bibliography: David Marcus, “Animal Similes in Assyrian Royal Inscriptions,” Orientalia 46 (1977): 86-106; Patrick D. Miller, “Animal Names as Designations in Ugaritic and Hebrew,” Ugarit-Forschungen 2 (2970): 177-86; Peter Machinist, “Assyria and Its Image in the First Isaiah,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 103 (1983): 728, 735-36
<sup>27</sup>tn Or “arouse ... awaken ...” The root rwu is repeated twice in 2:7 for rhetorical emphasis. The first is the Hiphil imperative (“do not awake/excite ...”) and the second is the Polel imperative (“do not awake/start to move ...”). The Hiphil depicts a causative action (causing love to initially awaken) and the Polel depicts an intensive action (repeated efforts to awaken love or to set love into motion). On the other hand, Carr writes: “The meaning is not stir up, i.e., a repetition of the same act, but is rather first the act of awakening or summoning something, and then doing what is necessary to sustain the activity already begun, i.e., being so fully awakened that sleep becomes impossible (e.g., 5:2)” (Carr 94). Selected Bibliography: G. Lloyd Carr, The Song of Solomon (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1984), 94. The terms “arouse” (WryuT Hiphil imperative from rwu) and “awaken” (WrrouT Polel imperative from rwu) are probably figurative expressions (hypocatastasis) rather than literal, because the object does not refer to a person (Solomon) but to an emotional state (“love”). The Hebrew root rwu has a basic two-fold range of meanings: (1) to wake up and (2) to excite (KBL 2:802). These two nuances are paralleled in the related Semitic roots: Ugaritic `r and `rr “to be excited” (Gordon, 19.1849; 19.1926; Aistleitner, 2092) and Akkadian eru “to awake” (AHw 247) (KBL 2:802). The Hiphil stem has a four-fold range of meanings: (1) to wake up someone/something, (2) to excite, put into motion, start to work, (3) to summons, (4) to disturb (KBL 2:802-803). When used literally, the Hiphil describes waking up a sleeper (Zech 4:1) or stirring up a fire (Hos 7:4). When used figuratively, it describes stirring up (Isa 50:4; Pss 57:9; 108:3), strength (Dan 11:25), anger/wrath (Ps 78:38), jealous/zeal (Isa 42:13), and love/sexual passion (Song 2:7; 3:5; 8:4). The Polel stem has a three-fold range of meanings: (1) to awake, start to move, (2) to agitate, disturb, (3) to set in motion (KBL 2:802-803). What does it mean to “arouse or awaken love”? There are three major views: (1) to force a love relationship to develop prematurely rather than to allow it to develop naturally (Glickman, Deere, Bettan); (2) to interfere with the experience of passionate love (Gordis); or (3) to stir up sexual passion, that is, to become sexually active (Ginsburg). The latter option is the most contextually congruent (e.g., 2:4-5). As noted above, “love” (hbha) probably denotes “sexual passion” (DCH 1:141; KBL 1:18) and “awaken ... arouse” (rwu) probably denote “to stir up, excite” (KBL 2:802-803). Likewise, the verb “awake” (rwu) is used in Song 4:16 and Hosea 7:4 in reference to stirring up sexual passion to excitement.
sn The expression “arouse or awaken love” is figurative (hypocatastasis). It draws an implied comparison between the literal action of arousing a person from sleep and stirring him/her up to excited action, with the figurative picture of a lover sexually stirring up, arousing and exciting the sexual passions of his beloved.
<sup>28</sup>tn The syntactical function of the article on hbhah (“love”) is debated. Most commentators (e.g., Delitzsch, Pope, Glickman, Carr) and translations view this as an example of the article denoting an abstract concept. However, a few commentators (Roberts, Renan) and translations (KJV, AV, JB, NEB) view it as an abstract use of the article for the concrete (abstractum pro concreto), and render it as “my love” as referring either to the woman’s own feelings or the feelings of her lover. Gordis freely renders the term as “our love.” Throughout the Song, the term “love” (hbha) is not used as a term for endearment in reference to one of the lovers; it typically refers to sexual passion (Song 2:4,5,7; 3:5; 5:4; 8:4,6,7). When used of the man/woman relationship, the term hbha (“love”) may refer to emotional love (Eccl. 9:1,6; Prov. 15:17; Ps. 109:4-5) or sexual love/desire (Gen 29:20; 2 Sam 1:26; 13:4,15; Prov. 5:19-20; 7:18; Jer 2:33; Prov 5:19-20; 7:18; Song 2:4,5,7; 3:5; 5:4; 8:4,6,7) (DCH 1:141; KBL 1:18). The reference to sexual desire in 2:4-5 and “love-sickness” (hbha tlwj) in 2:5 suggests that the use of hbha (“love”) in 2:7 is sexual desire. Love is personified in this picture
<sup>29</sup>tn Heb “If you arouse or if you awaken love before it pleases ...” Paraphrase: “Promise that you will not arouse or awaken love until it pleases!” This line is a typical Hebrew negative oath formula in which the speaker urges his/her audience to take a vow to not do something that would have destructive consequences: (1) The expression “I adjure you” (ytubvh) is used when a speaker urges his audience to take an oath. (2) The conditional clause “If you arouse or awaken love ...” (hbhah-ta Wrrwu-<aw Wryu-<a) reflects the typical construction of a negative oath formula which consists of two parts: (1) protasis: the warning introduced by the conditional particle <a! (“if”) and (2) apodosis: the description of the disaster or penalty which would befall the person who broke the vow and violated the condition of the oath. (3) If the consequences of violating the oath were extremely severe, they would not even be spoken; the statement of the consequences would be omitted for emphasis — as is the case here, that is, the apodosis is omitted for rhetorical emphasis. As is typical in negative oath formulae, the sanction or curse on the violation of the condition is suppressed for rhetorical emphasis. The curse was so awful that one could not or dare not speak of them. In other words, the consequences of arousing sexual passion before the proper time (marriage) are so devastating that one cannot even begin to describe them. Selected Bibliography: Marvin H. Pope, “Oaths,” in Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, 3:575-577.
<sup>30</sup>tn Heb “The voice of my beloved!” The exclamation “Listen!” (loq) is an introductory exclamatory particle used to emphasize excitement and the element of surprise
<sup>31</sup>tn The exclamation “Look!” (hz-hnh) is the phrase which is used of excited speech when someone is seen approaching (Isa 21:9).
<sup>32</sup>sn The gazelle imagery is appropriate because gazelles are often associated with sensuality and masculine virility in ancient Near Eastern love literature (e.g., Prov 5:19). Gazelles were often figures in Hebrew, Akkadian, and Ugaritic literature for mighty warriors or virile young men (e.g., 2 Sam. 1:19; 2:18; Isa. 14:9; Zech. 10:3). In ancient Near Eastern love literature gazelles often symbolize the excitement and swiftness of the lover coming to see his beloved, as in an ancient Egyptian love song: “O that you came to your sister swiftly like a bounding gazelle! Its feet reel, its limbs are weary, terror has entered its body. A hunter pursues it with his hounds, they do not see it in its dust; It sees a resting place as a trap, it takes the river as its road. May you find her hiding-place before your hand is kissed four times. Pursue your sister’s love, the Golden gives her to you, my friend!” (“Three Poems” in the Papyrus Chester Beatty 1 collection). Selected Bibliography: David Marcus, “Animal Similes in Assyrian Royal Inscriptions,” Orientalia 46 (1977): 86-106; Patrick D. Miller, “Animal Names as Designations in Ugaritic and Hebrew,” Ugarit-Forschungen 2 (2970): 177-86; Peter Machinist, “Assyria and Its Image in the First Isaiah,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 103 (1983): 728, 735-36
<sup>33</sup>tn Or “the time of singing” or “the time of pruning.” The term rymzh (“singing” or “pruning”) is a homonym, that is, the consonants represent two distinct and entirely separate roots. The homonymic root rymz I means “song, singing” (KBL 1:273a; DCH 3:117a), while rymz II means “pruning, trimming” (KBL 2:273b; DCH 3:117b). The intended root is debated among the ancient versions (LXX, Aquilla, Symmachus, Vulgate, Targum), Hebrew lexicographers (KBL 2:273; DCH 3:117), Jewish interpreters (Rashi, Qimhi, Ibn Ezra, Rashbam), Christian interpreters (Luther, Meek, Delitzsch, Pope, Carr), and translations: “singing” (KJV, NIV, NASB margin, NJPS margin), “pruning” (NASB, NJPS). However, rather than choosing between these two roots, it is likely that this is an example of intentional ambiguity. The preceding line draws out the meaning of rymz I (“trimming, pruning”): “The pomegranates are seen in the land, the timing of pruning has come.” The following line draws out the meaning of rymz II (“singing”): “The time of singing has come, the voice of the turtledove is heard in the land.” This homonymic word-play creates an example of “janus parallelism” between the three poetic lines which play off of both root meanings of the intentionally ambiguous homonym. This elegant word-play and the AB:BA “janus parallelism” may be represented thus: “The pomegranates are seen in the land, the timing has coming for pruning //singing, the voice of the turtledove is heard in the land.”
<sup>34</sup>sn The dove was a common figure for romantic love in ancient Near Eastern love literature. This emphasis seems to be suggested by his use of the term “my dove.” Just as Solomon heard the voice of the turtledove in 2:12, so now Solomon wants to hear Shulamite’s voice. Doves were often associated with timidity in the ancient world. Being virtually defenseless, they would often take refuge in crevices and cliffs for safety (Jer. 48:28). The emphasis on timidity and the need for security is undoubtedly the emphasis here because of the explicit description of this “dove” hiding in the “clefts of the rock” and in “the hiding-places of the mountain crevice.” Fortresses were sometimes built in the clefts of the rocks on mountainsides because they were inaccessible and therefore, in a secure place of safety (Jer. 49:16; Obad. 3). The point of comparison here seems to be that Solomon realized that it might be intimidating for Shulamite to join him and to communicate with him freely and in a transparent manner. She would have to feel secure and safe in his love in order to do this. It would be easy for her to hide from such emotionally exposing experiences
<sup>35</sup>tn The imperative Wzj$a$ (“catch”) is plural in form (Qal imperative 2mpl from zja). Some commentators suggest that the woman is speaking to a large audience, perhaps the maidens of Jerusalem mentioned in 2:7. However, the Hebrew plural can function in an intensive sense when used in reference to a single individual (Waltke-O’Connor, Biblical Hebrew Syntax, 7.4.3.a). As noted previously, the bride often uses the plural in reference to herself or to her bridegroom in Sumerian love literature. Thus, the woman simply may be speaking to her beloved, as in 2:16-17, but with particularly intense passion
<sup>36</sup>sn The term “foxes” is used metaphorically. Foxes are always spoken of in a negative light in the Old Testament and in the ancient world were particularly associated with their destructive tendencies of vineyards (Judg. 15:4; Neh. 4:3; Ps. 63:10; Lam. 5:18; Ezek. 13:4). The description of these foxes as being destructive here seems to confirm that this is the point of comparison in mind; the “foxes” represent something that threatens to destroy their relationship.
<sup>37</sup>sn In ancient Near Eastern love literature it was common to use wild animals to symbolize potential problems which could separate lovers and destroy their love. For instance, in Egyptian love song it is the crocodile, rather than the foxes, which were used as figures for obstacles which might threaten a couple’s love. Here the “foxes” are probably used figuratively to represent potentially destructive problems which could destroy their romantic relationship and which could hinder it from ripening into marriage
<sup>38</sup>sn The term “vineyard” is also a figure. In 1:6 Shulamite used the vineyard motif as a metaphor for her physical appearance, but here it is “our vineyards” which is probably a figure for their romantic relationship. The phrase “in bloom” makes the metaphor more specific, so that the phrase “our vineyards are in bloom” means that their romantic love relationship was in its initial stages, that is, before it had ripened into marriage
<sup>39</sup>sn This line may be translated either as “the one who grazes among the lilies” or as “the one who feeds (his flock) among the lilies.” The latter would picture Solomon as a shepherd pasturing his flock among a bed of flowers which they were eating, while the former would be picturing him as a gazelle feeding among a bed of flowers. Because of the occurrence of the gazelle motif in the following verse, it is most likely that this motif is present in this verse as well. That gazelles actually did feed among lilies in the ancient Near East, W.M. Thomson writes on the basis of personal observation, “Gazelles still delight to feed among them (i.e., lilies), and you can scarcely ride through the woods north of Tabor, where the lilies abound, without frightening them from their flowery pastures.” Although it seems likely that Solomon is therefore being pictured as a gazelle eating these flowers, it is far from clear as to what this figurative picture denotes. It is possible that it conveys the peaceful nature of his relationship with her because she was earlier portrayed as a lily (e.g., 2:1)
<sup>40</sup>sn The phrase “until the day breathes” is figurative (personification) for the morning, that is, the time when the day begin its “life” (e.g., Song 4:6). Likewise, “the shadows flee” is figurative (personification) for the dawn, i.e., the time when the dark shadows of the night disappear. Either the fleeting shadows of morning, or the shadows of the evening which lengthen and ae just as fleeting (KBL 3:1025). Selected Bibliography: G. Gerleman, Biblischer Kommentar (Neukirchen), 18:128
<sup>41</sup>tn The exact meaning of bs) (Qal imperative 2ms from bbs “to turn”) in this context is uncertain. The imperatival form may be classified as an invitation. KBL note that bbs (“to turn”) occasionally denotes “to sit (lie) at a table” (1 Sam 16:11; Sir 9:9), and suggest that this is a figurative use of this nuance (KBL 2:739,2c). Shulammith would be issuing an invitation to Solomon to “turn aside to sit” at her table, that is, to enjoy the delights of her love. On the other hand, bs) (“Turn!”) may simply be a synonym for the following parallel imperative hmD= (“Be like!”), that is, “turn, change” (KBL 2:739.1). In keeping with the extended simile in which Shulammith compares Solomon to a gazelle or stag leaping upon the mountains, the term bs) may simply denote “turn oneself around, change direction” (KBL 2:739.1). Rather than leaping somewhere else, so to speak, she invites him to leaping upon the “mountain gorges.
<sup>42</sup>tn The expression “mountains of Bethar” (rtb yrh) is difficult because there is no known mountain-range which was ever called by this name. The meaning of the noun rtb is uncertain. DCH distinguishes between three homonymic nouns: (1) rtb I noun “part, piece” (Gen 15:10; Jer 34:19) related to the verb rtb “to cut in two” (Gen 15:10); (2) rtb II noun “gorge” (Song 2:17); and (3) rtb III place name “Bether” in Judah and 11 kms SW of Jerusalem (Josh 15:59; 1 Chrn 6:44; perhaps Song 2:17) (DCH 2:291). Thus, rtb yrh might mean “mountains of gorge(s)” or “mountains of Bether” (DCH 2:291). The Hebrew root rtb “cut in pieces, cut in half” is related to Arabic batara “to cut off” (KBL 1:167; BDB 144). The word does not appear in Ugaritic, Akkadian, or Syriac. Aramaic artb (“after, behind”) was used frequently in Northwest Semitic (DISO 45-46) and Late Hebrew (Jastrow 1:201); however, it offers little to this problem. Many scholars take rtb as a genitive of description functioning as an attributive adjective. For example, BDB suggests that rtb means “mountains of cutting,” that is, “cleft mountains” (BDB 144), while Koehler posits “ravine,” that is, mountains with a ravine (KBL 1:167). This is reflected in LXX koilwmatwn (“hollow places, basin, cavity”): orh koilwmatwn “mountains with many ravines.” This approach is adopted by several translations: “rugged mountains” (NIV). On the other hand, Vulgate, Aquilla, and Symmachus took it as a place name referring to the town of Bether (LXX Baiqhr = Mishnaic Hebrew rtyb) located 11 kilometers southwest of Jerusalem (Josh 15:59; 1 Chrn 6:44). This approach is adopted by several translations: “mountains of Bether” (AV, RSV, NASB, NIV margin). Theodotion takes it as a figurative expression, reading qumiamatwn (“incense”) which reflects a variant Hebrew reading of <ym?b (“balsam, perfume”) which also appears in Song 8:14. This approach is taken in a Jewish-English translation: “hills of spice” (NJPS). The botanist Low connects Hebrew rtb to Greek malabaqron which was an Indian spice plant imported to Judah. Selected Bibliography: J. Low, Die Flora der Juden (Vienna 1924-34), 2:117-118.
sn The expression “cleft mountains” (rtb yrh) might refer simply to a rugged and jagged mountain-range (NIV “rugged mountains”). However, this may be a figurative description of the woman’s cleavage because similar imagery is used in Song 4:6 to describe her breasts. The name “Tihamah” (literally “the Great Deep”) was applied to the low-lying coastland between the mountains of Yemen and the Red Sea as well as to the depression of Djauf (Dumah) because of fresh-water springs which oozed up from below (Hebrew Tehom and Tehomot, Ugaritic Tihamaten or Tahamatum, Akkadian Tiamat). And it appears that in an Ammonite inscription that an area near the mountainous region of Rabbath-Amman is referred to by the name “Tymtn” (literally “The Two Depressions”), rather than by its real name. Selected Bibliography: William F. Albright, “Some Comments on the `Amman Citadel Inscription,” BASOR 198 (April 1978): 38-39. Scholars offer three interpretations of her figurative request: (1) The Beloved desires her Lover to embrace her breasts, like a gazelle romping over mountains (mountains are figurative); (2) The Beloved entreats her Lover to leave and go back over the hills from whence he had journeyed (mountains are literal); and (3) As her Lover prepares to leave her country village, the Beloved asks him to return to her again in the same way he arrived, like a gazelle bounding over the mountains in 2:8-10 (mountains are literal).
¹tn Or “at night” or “night after night.” The noun tolylb (plural of “night”) functions as an adverbial accusation of time. The plural form tolylb from hlyl (“night”) can be classified in several ways: (1) plural of number: “night after night” (NASB, NEB); (2) plural of extension: “all night long” (NIV); (3) plural of composition: “by night” (KJV) and “at night” (NJPS); or (4) plural of intensity: “during the blackest night” (Deere). The plural of extension (“all night long”) is supported by (1) the four-fold repetition of the verb vqb (“to seek”) in 3:1-2 which emphasizes that Shulammith was continually looking for her lover all night long, (2) her decision to finally arise in the middle of the night to look for Solomon in 3:2-4, and (3) her request in the immediately preceding verse (2:17) that Solomon make love to her all night long: “until the day breathes and the shadows flee ...” One should note, however, that the plural tolylb occurs in 3:8 where it is a plural of composition: “by night” (NJPS) or “of the night” (NASB, NIV) or “in the night” (KJV). Selected Bibliography: G. Lloyd Carr, The Song of Solomon (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1984), 105; Jack S. Deere, “The Meaning of the Song of Songs,” unpublished Th.D. dissertation (Dallas: Dallas Theological Seminary, 1981), 111-13; Marvin H. Pope, Song of Songs, The Anchor Bible 7C (Garden City: Doubleday, 1982), 415. The use of the term “night” (tolylb) in 3:1 stands in striking contrast to the use of the term “day” (<oyh) in 2:17 which is the preceding verse. In 2:17 the woman invited her beloved to make love to her all night long; however, in 3:1 she recounts a nightmarish experience in which she was unable to find her beloved next to her in bed.
sn Scholars debate whether 3:1-4 recounts a nightmare-like dream sequence or a real-life experience. There are striking parallels between 3:1-4 and 5:2-8 which also raises the possibility of a nightmare-like dream sequence
²tn The term “bed” (bkvm) in 3:1 is the common term for marriage bed (KBL 2:646; BDB 1012) in distinction from the common term for “couch” (?ru) in 1:16. Several uses of the term “bed” (bkvm) have overt sexual connotations, denoting the place of copulation (Gen 49:4; Lev 18:22; 20:13; Num 31:17,35; Judg 21:11,12; Prov 7:17; Isa 57:7-8). The noun is used in the expression “love-bed” (<ydod bkvm) with obvious sexual connotations (Ezek 23:17). Selected Bibliography: James R. Battenfield, “Hebrew Stylistic Development in Archaic Hebrew Poetry: A Text-Critical and Exegetical Study of the Blessing of Jacob, Genesis 49:1-27,” Unpublished Th.D. dissertation (Winona Lake: Grace Theological Seminary, 1976), 198-202
³tn Heb “I sought …” The verb vqb (“to seek”) denotes the attempt to physically find someone (e.g., 1 Sam 13:14; 16:16; 28:7; 1 Kgs 1:2-3; Isa 40:20; Ezek 22:30; Est 2:2; Job 10:6; Prov 18:1) (KBL 1:152). However, it is clear in 3:1 that this “search” took place upon her bed. It does not make sense in the context that Shulammith was looking around in her bed to find her lover - how big could her bed be that she had lost Solomon?!? Rather, vqb (“to seek”) is used metonymically to reference to her longing for her absent lover, that is, seeking in the sense of anticipation. The perfect tense should be classified as a past constantive action, describing a past action which covered an extended period of time, as indicated by the phrase “all night long” (tolylb plural of extension) in 3:1. This continual action is emphasized by the four-fold repetition of vqb (“seek”) in 3:1-2. of the woman to find her absent lover.
⁴tn Heb “the one whom my soul loves.” The expression “my soul” (yvpn) is a synecdoche of part for the whole (=the woman). The expression “my soul” (yvpn) is often used as independent personal pronoun. It often expresses personal preference, such as love or hatred (e.g., Gen 27:4,25; Lev 26:11,30; Judg 5:24; Isa 1:14) (KBL 2:712). The term “soul” (vpn) is used over 150 times in OT to refer to the seat of a person’s emotions and passions (BDB 660c.6a) (e.g., Deut 12:15,20,21; 14:26; 18:6; 21:14; 24:15; 1 Sam 3:21; 23:30; 2 Sam 14:14; 1 Kgs 11:37; Isa 26:8; Jer 2:24; 22:27; 34:16; 44:14; Ezek 16:27; Hos 4:8; Mic 7:1; Pss 10:3; 24:4; 25:1; 35:25; 78:18; 86:4; 105:22; 143:8; Prov 13:4; 19:8; 21:10; Job 23:13; Song 5:6). It is often refers to the seat of love (BDB 660d.6e) (e.g., Gen 34:3,8; Jer 12:7; Ps 63:9; Song 1:7; 3:1-4).
sn The expression yvpn hbhav-ta “the one whom I love” (lit., “the one whom my soul loves”) is repeated four times in 3:1-4. The repetition emphasizes her intense love for her beloved. The noun “love” (hbha) is often used in reference to the love between a man and woman, particularly in reference to emotional, romantic or sexual love (2 Sam 1:26; 13:15; Prov 5:19; 7:18; Song 2:4-5,7; 3:5; 5:8; 8:4,6-7; Jer 2:2,33). Likewise, the verb “to love” (bha) often refers to emotional, romantic or sexual love between a man and woman (e.g., Gen 24:67; 29:20,30,32; 34: 3; Deut 21:15,16; Judg 14:16; 16:4,15; 1 Sam 1:5; 18:20; 2 Sam 13:1,4,15; 1 Kgs 11:1; 2 Chrn 11:21; Neh 13:26; Est 2:17; Eccl 9:9; Song 1:3,4,7; 3:1-4; Jer 22:20,22; Ezek 16:33,36-37; 23:5,9,22; Hos 2:7-15; 3:1; Lam 1:19)
⁵tn Heb “I searched for him” or “I sought him” (see note on “longed for” earlier in this verse).
⁶tc LXX adds “I called him but he did not answer me” (ekalesa auton kai oux uphkousen mou) to 3:2d on the basis of its appearance in the parallel expressions in Song 5:6. There is no textual support for its inclusion here.
tn Heb “but I did not find him.”
sn The verb axm (“to find”) normally describes discovering the whereabouts of something/someone who is lost or whose presence is not known. It is clear in 3:1 that Shulammith was not taking a physically active role in looking all around for Solomon, because she stayed in her bed all night long during this time. Therefore, the verb axm (“to find”) must be nuanced metonymically in terms of Solomon appearing to her. It does not denote “finding” Solomon physically, but visually; that is, if and when Solomon would arrive at her bedside, she would “find” him. This might allude to her request in 2:17 for Solomon to rendevous with her to make love to her all night long (“until the day breathes and the shadows flee”). Despite the fact that she was waiting for him all night long, he never appeared (3:1). The verb axm (“to find”) is repeated four times in 3:1-4, paralleling the four-fold repetition of vqb (“to seek”). This antithetical word-pair creates a strong and dramatic constrast.
⁷tn Three 1 cs cohortatives appear in v. 2: hm*Wqa* (“I will arise”), hb*b=osa& (“I will go about”), and hv*q=b^a& (“I will seek”). These cohortatives have been taken in two basic senses: (1) resolve: “I will arise ... I will go about ... I will seek” (KJV, NIV) or (2) necessity: “I must arise ... I must go about ... I must seek” (NASB, NJPS). There is no ethical or moral obligation/necessity, but the context emphasizes her intense determination (e.g., 3:4b). Therefore, they should be classified as cohortatives of resolve, expressing the speaker’s determination to pursue a course of action (e.g., Waltke-O’Connor, Biblical Hebrew Syntax, 34.5.1). The three-fold repetition of the cohortative form emphasizes the intensity of her determination. The emphatic particle of exhortation an appears in the expression aN` hm*Wqa* (“I will arise ...). This particle is used with 1 cs cohortatives to emphasize self-deliberation and a determined resolve to act (BDB 609b.3a) (e.g., Gen 18:21; Exod 3:3; 2 Sam 14:15; Isa 5:1; Job 32:21)
<sup>8</sup>tn The root bbs in the Qal stem means “to go around, to do a circuit” (1 Sam 7:16; 2 Chrn 17:9; 23:2; Eccl 12:5; Song 3:3; Isa 23:16; Hab 2:16), while the Polel stem means “to prowl around” (Ps 59:7,15; Song 3:2) (KBL 2:739-740). The idea here is that Shulammith is determined to “look all around” until she finds her beloved
<sup>9</sup>tn There is a consonantal word-play in 3:2 between the roots vqb and qvb, that is, between hvqba (“I will seek [him]”) and <yqwvb (“streets”). The word-play emphasizes that she searched in every nook and cranny
<sup>10</sup>tn The statement “I sought him but I did not find him” (wytaxm alw wytvqb) is repeated twice in 3:1-2. In both cases it concludes a set of cola. The repetition depicts her mounting disappointment in her failure to locate her beloved. It stands in strong contrast with 3:4
<sup>11</sup>tn Heb “those who go around the city” or “those who go around in the city.” The expression “those who go around the city” (ryub <ybbsh) probably refer to the watchmen of the city walls rather than night city street patrol (e.g., Ps 127:1; Song 5:7; Isa 21:11; 62:6). The Israelite night watchmen of the walls is paralleled by the Akkadian sahir duri (“one who goes around the wall”) which appears in a lexical text as the equivalent of ma-sar musi (“night watchman”) (CAD 4:192). Selected Bibliography: Marvin H. Pope, Song of Songs (Garden City: Doubleday, 1982), 419.
sn There is a word-play in 3:2-3 between the verb hbbosaw (“I will go about”) and <ybbsh (“those who go around”). This word-play draws attention to the ironic similarity between the woman’s action and the action of the city’s watchmen. Ironically, she failed to find her beloved as she went around in the city, but the city watchmen found her. Rather than finding the one she was looking for, she was found.
<sup>12</sup>tn Heb “the one whom my soul loves - have you seen [him]?” The normal Hebrew word-order (verb-subject-direct object) is reversed in 3:3 (direct object-verb-subject) to emphasize the object of her search: <tyar yvpn hbhav at “The one whom my soul loves — have you seen [him]?
<sup>13</sup>tn The term fumk (literally, “like a little”), which is composed of the comparative preposition K= prefixed to the noun fum (“the small, the little, the few”), is an idiom that means “within a little” and here means “scarcely (had I passed them by)” (BDB 590b.2a)
<sup>14</sup>tn Heb “I held him” (wytzja). Here, the 3ms suffix (him) is a synecdoche of whole for the part. While Shulammith was intent on not losing Solomon himself, it was his hand that she held onto tightly
<sup>15</sup>tn The term “grasp” (zja) denotes to forcefully seize someone to avoid losing hold of him (BDB 28b)
<sup>16</sup>tn The verb hpr (“to let go”) means to relax one’s grip on an object or a person (KBL 3:1276-77; BDB 952.2). The Hiphil stem means “to let loose” (Job 7:19; 27:6; Song 3:4; Sir 6:27) or “to release from one’s hands” (Deut 9:14; Josh 10:6; Ps 37:8). The negative expression “to not let [someone or something] go” (hpr al) denotes an intense desire or effort to not lose possession of someone or something (Job 27:6; Prov 4:13). Here the expression “I would not let him go” (WNPra alw) pictures her determination to hold on to him so she not lose him again. The shift from a suffix-conjugation (perfect) wyTzja (“I grasped him”) to a prefix-conjugation (imperfect) WNPra (“I would [not] let him go”) depicts a shift from a completed/consummative action (perfect: she took hold of his hand) to an ongoing/progressive action (imperfect: she would not let go of it). A basic distinction between the perfect and imperfect tenses is that of consummative versus progressive action. The literary/syntactical structure of WNPra alw wyTzja (“I grasped him and I would not let him go”) in 3:4 mirrors that of wytaxm alw wyTvqb (“I searched for him but I could not find him”) in 3:1-2. This parallelism in the literary and syntactical structure emphasizes the fortunate reversal of situation.
<sup>17</sup>sn There is debate about the reason that the woman brought her beloved to her mother’s house. Campbell notes that the mother’s house is sometimes referred to as the place where marital plans were made (Gen 24:28; Ruth 1:8). Campbell suggests, then, that the woman here was unusually bold and took the lead in proposing marriage plans with her beloved. This approach emphasizes that the marriage plans in 3:4 are followed by the royal wedding procession (3:6-11) and the wedding night (4:1-5:1). On the other hand, Fields suggests that the parallelism of “house of my mother” and “chamber of she who conceived me” focuses on the bedroom of her mother’s house. Fields suggests that her desire was to make love to her beloved in the very bedroom chambers where she herself was conceived, to complete the cycle of life/love. If this is the idea, it would provide a striking parallel to a similar picture in 8:5 in which the woman exults that they had made love in the very location where her beloved had been conceived: “Under the appled tree I aroused you; it was there your mother conceived you, there she who bore you conceived you.” Selected Bibliography: Edward F. Campbell, Jr. Ruth: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible 7 (Garden City: Doubleday & Company, 1975), 64; Weston Fields, “Solomon’s Most Excellent Song,” unpublished Th.D. dissertation (Winona Lake: Grace Theological Seminary, 1979), 360
<sup>18</sup>tn The term “chamber” (rdj II) literally means “dark room” (KBL 1:293) and often refers to a bedroom (Gen 43:30; Exod 7:28; Judg 3:24; 15:1; 16:9,12; 2 Sam 4:7; 13:10; 1Kgs 1:15; 2 Kgs 6:12; 9:2; Eccl 10:20; Isa 26:20; Joel 2:16; Prov 24:4; Song 1:4; 3:4).
<sup>19</sup>tn The proper nuance of tr#F#q%m= (Pual participle fs from rfq “to make a sacrifice, go up in smoke”) is illusive. The lexicons take the participle adjectivally and translate rom tr#F#q%m= as “completely filled with fragrance or incense” (KBL 3:1094) or “fumigated with myrrh” (BDB 883). Most translations take it adjectivally: “perfumed with myrrh” (KJV, NASB, NIV); however, NJPS takes it as a substantive: “clouds of myrrh.” It is better to take the participle as a substantive and to nuance rom tr#F#q%m= as “billow of myrrh,” as suggested by its parallelism with /v^u* torm&yt!K= “like a column of smoke.” While this is the only usage of the Pual stem of the verb, the root rfq appears frequently in other stems, all of which connote smoke, e.g., Piel: “to make a sacrifice, to go up in smoke” and Hiphil: “to cause to go up in smoke” (KBL 3:1094-95). In Middle Hebrew the root arfq meant “to steam, smell” (Qal) and “to smoke” (Hiphil). The Hebrew root is related to Ugaritic qtr “smoke, incense” (Gordon 19.2220; Aistleitner 1404); Akkadian qataru “to billow (of smoke)” (AHW 907; CAD Q:166); Old South Arabic mqtr “incense” (Contri 231a); Ethiopic qetare “fragrance, spice” (Dillmann 442); Arabic qatara “to smell, smoke” and Syriac `etar “vapour, fume, incense” (KBL 3:1094). Due to the rarity of the Pual stem of this root, Targum mistakenly vocalized the form as Piel participle tr##)fQ=m! (“going up in smoke”).
²⁰sn The term “frankincense” (hnwbl) refers to fragrant incense (Exod 30:34; Lev 2:1,15; 5:11; 6:8; 24:7; Num 5:15; Isa 43:23; 66:3; Jer 6:20; 17:26; 41:5; Neh 13:5,9; 1 Chrn 9:29; Song 3:6; 4:6,14). It is composed of the white (sometimes yellow) resin of Boswellia Carteri and Frereana from Hadramawt and Somaliland (KBL 2:518).
²¹tn The term “fragrant-powder” (tqba) means “scent-powders” (KBL 1:9) or “ground spice” (KBL 3:1237). The noun hba is from the root qba (“dust, powder”) (KBL 1:9)
²²tn The singular form of lkor (“merchant”) may be classified as a generic singular, representing the genus of the merchant guild of which there are many. The term lkor means “trader, vendor,” as small retailer (KBL 3:1237) distinct from rts “shopkeeper, dealer” as large wholesaler (KBL 2:750). It may refer to a travelling merchant, as in Middle Hebrew hlkwr “traveling merchant” and Old South Arabic rkl “to go about as a trader” (Conti 242a). The general nuance appears in Judean Aramaic alkwr “hawker, peddler” and Syriac rakkala “merchant” (Brockelmann 731) (see Gillis Gerleman, Das Hohelied. Biblischer Kommentar Altes Testament 18 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1965), 134)
²³tn Or “litter.” This use of the term hf*m! refers to a “royal portable couch” spread with covers, cloth and pillows (KBL 2:573; BDB 641). The Hebrew noun is related to Ugaritic mtt “bed” (Gordon 1465; Aistleitner 1776). The term hf*m! (“bed, couch”) itself can refer to a number of similar but different kinds of pieces of reclining furniture: (1) the bed of a common person, found in the bedchamber for reposing and sleeping at night (Gen 47:31; 48:2; 49:33; Exod 8:3[7:28]; 2 Sam 4:7; 1 Kgs 17:19; 2 Kgs 4:10, 21, 32; Ps 6:6[7]; Prov 26:14); (2) the royal bed of the king or nobility, often elevated and made of expensive materials (1 Kgs 21:4; 2 Kgs 1:4,6,16; 2 Chr 24:25; Est 7:8; Amos 6:4; Ezek 23:41); (3) the couch of a common person for reclining or sitting during the day (1 Sam 28:23); (4) a royal banqueting couch for reclining at feasts or carousing (Ezek 23:41; Amos 3:12; 6:4; Est 1:6; 7:8); (5) a portable light-weight bed for transporting the sick (1 Sam 19:15); (6) a portable bed, such as a funeral bier for transporting the dead (2 Sam 3:31); and (7) a portable royal couch for transporting the king (Song 3:7). The royal couch was often made of expensive materials, such as ivory, silver, and gold (Ezek 23:41; Amos 6:4; Song 3:9-10; Est 1:6)
²⁴tn Heb “trained of sword” or “girded of sword.” Alternately, “girded with swords.” The genitive construct phrase rb#j# yzj%a& (Qal passive participle mpl construct from zja + feminine singular genitive noun brj “sword”) is interpreted in two ways: (1) Most interpret it with the assumption that zja denotes “to physically grasp, hold” (KBL 1:31-32; BDB 28). Most translations adopt this approach, although differing on whether the participle functions substantivally (NASB), verbally (KJV, NIV), or adjectivally (RSV), they all are heading in the same direction: “(all) hold swords” (KJV), “girded with sword” (RSV), “wielders of the sword” (NASB), and “wearing the sword” (NIV). This, however, provides only a vague parallel with the following colon: “trained in warfare” (hm*j*l=m! ydM=l%m=). (2) Others, however, suggest taking zja in its rare metaphorical sense of “to learn” (=mentally grasp, take hold of): “learned, skillful” (Gordis, The Song of Songs, 85; Lewy HUCA 11-12:98-99; Bertholet, Driver Feschrift, 145-46). This nuance is much more common in the related Akkadian verb ahazu “to learn,” as Koehler-Baumgartner note (KBL 1:31). Likewise, JB renders it “skilled swordsmen,” and NJPS suggests “trained in warfare” for Song 3:8, citing Akkadian ahazu “to learn.” The Akkadian verb ahazu has a broad range of meanings including: (1) to seize, hold a person, (2) to take a wife, to marry, (3) to hold, possess, take over, grasp something, to take to (a region), and (4) to learn, to understand (CAD 1:1:173). The concrete, physical sense of grasping or taking an object in one’s hands lent itself to the metaphorical sense of mentally grasping something, that is, learning or understanding. The category ahazu 4 (“to learn, to understand”) is used in reference to general learning, as well to specialized knowledge involving a special skill, professional craft or ability acquired through instruction and experience (CAD 1:1:177). The causative form suhuzu means “to teach, educate, train” someone to become a skilled craftsman in a professional trade (CAD 1:1:180). This provides a tight parallelism with the following colon: “skillful in swordsmanship” (rb#j# yzj%a&) precisely parallels “well-trained in [the art of] warfare” (hm*j*l=m! ydM=l%m=). The AB:AB parallelism between the two lines is exact: (1) yzj%a& “learned, skillful” (Qal passive participle mpl construct from zja “to learn, be skillful”) parallels ydM=l%m= “trained, instructed” (Pual participle mpl construct from dml “to train, instruct”), and (2) rb#j# “in respect to swordsmanship” (genitive of specification or limitation) exactly parallels hm*j*l=m! “in regard to [the art of] warfare” (genitive of specification or limitation). The term rb#j# (“sword”) may be nuanced metonymically as “swordsmanship” in the light of (1) its collocation with terms for professional expertise: ydM=l%m= (“trained”) and yzj%a& (“skilled”), and (2) the connotation “swordsmanship” can be sustained in a few cases, e.g., “It was not by their swordsmanship that they won the land, nor did their arm bring them victory” (Ps 44:3). In the genitive construct phrase rb#j# yzj%a&, the genitive noun rb#j# (“sword”) may be classified either as (1) a genitive of specification; “[skilled] in respect to swordsmanship” or (2) a genitive of instrument; “[skilled] with a sword.
²⁵tn Heb “trained of war.” In the genitive construct hm*j*l=m! ydM=l%m= (“trained of war”) the noun hm*j*l=m! (“war, battle”) is a genitive of specification or limitation, that is, it specifies the extent to which the expertise of the subjects applies: “in regard to warfare.” The term hm*j*l=m! (“warfare”) may be nuanced metonymically as “the art of warfare” in the light of (1) its collocation with terms for professional expertise: ydM=l%m= (“trained”) and yzj%a& (“skilled”), and (2) its parallelism with rb#j# (“sword, swordsmanship”)
²⁶tn Or “bridal-litter.” The term /oyr=P! ^a is a hapax legomena variously rendered “sedan-chair” (KBL 1:80) and “sedan, litter, palanquin” (BDB 68). It occurs in Mishnaic Hebrew /wyrpa and Judean Aramaic anwyrpa “bridal-litter” (Jastrow 1:108) and Syriac pwrywn/purya “litter” (Brockelmann 569). The Mishnah used /wyrpa in reference to a bridal-litter: “In the last war it was decreed that a bride should not pass through the town in an /wyrpa but our Rabbis later sanctioned it” (Sotah 9:14). There are several views of the origin of the term: (1) LXX Greek foreion “bridal-litter” is a loanword from Hebrew; the term is not used in Greek until the Koine period (Liddell-Scott, Greek-English Lexicon, 1950-51); (2) Sanskrit paryanka and palki “palanquin, sedan-chair” (Monier-Williams, Sanskrit-English Dictionary [Oxford: Clarendon, 1884], 554); (3) Old Persian upariyana “litter-bed” (Robert Gordis, “A Wedding Song for Solomon,” JBL 63 (1944): 263-70; Geo Widengren, Sakrales Konigtum im Alten Testament und im Judentum [Stuttgart, 1955], 122); (4) less likely is Ugaritic apn “two-wheeled cart” (Gordon 305); and (5) Egyptian pr “house” with the prefix ua and suffix yn meaning “palace” (Gillis Gerleman, “Die Bildsprache des Hohenliedes und die altegyptische Kunst,” ASTI 1 (1962): 24-30).
sn A sedan-chair or palanquin was a riding vehicle upon which a royal person sat and which was carried by servants who lifted it up by its staffs. Royalty and members of the aristocracy only rode in palanquins. McKenzie describes what the typical royal palanquin was made of and looked like in the ancient world: “Only the aristocracy appear to have made use of litters in Israel. At a later period, in Greece, and even more so in Rome, distinguished citizens were carried through the city streets in splendid palanquins. In Egypt the litter was known as early as the third millennium BC, as is testified by the one belonging to Queen Hetepheres, the mother of the Pharaoh Khufu (Cheops), which was found at Gaza. This litter is made of wood and inlaid in various places with gold decorations. Its total length is 6 ft. 10 in., and the length of the seat inside is 3 ft. 3 in. An inscription on the litter, of gold set in ebony, lists the queen’s titles” (John L. McKenzie, “Song of Solomon,” in The Illustrated Encyclopedia of the Living Bible (Chicago: San Francisco Productions, Inc., 1967), 55)
²⁷tn Heb “with trees of Lebanon.” In the genitive construct phrase /onb*L=h^ yxu&m (“the wood of Lebanon”) the genitive functions as a genitive of place of origin: “wood from Lebanon.” The plural construct noun yxu& (literally, “trees, woods” from Ju “tree, wood”) is a plural of composition: the plural is used to indicate composition, that is, what the sedan-chair was made out of. The plural is used because the sedan-chair was constructed from the wood from several trees or it was constructed from several pieces of wood (see Waltke-O’Connor, Biblical Hebrew Syntax, 7.4.1b; Williams, Hebrew Syntax: An Outline, 9; Jouon, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, 136.b)
²⁸tn Heb “He made its posts of silver
²⁹sn The nouns [s#k# (“silver”), bh*z* (“gold”), and /m*G*r=a^ (“purple”) all function as genitives of material out of which their respective parts of the palanquin were made: the posts, base, and seat. The elaborate and expensive nature of the procession is emphasized in this description. This litter was constructed out of the finest and most expensive materials. The litter itself was made out of the very best wood, that is, cedar and cypress from Lebanon, which were the same woods which Solomon used in constructing the temple (1 Kgs 5:13-28). Silver was overlaid over the “posts,” which were either the legs of the litter or the uprights which supported its canopy, and the “back” of the litter was overlaid with gold. The seat was made out of purple material, which was an emblem of royalty and which was used in the tabernacle (Exod 26:1f; 27:16; 28:5-6) and in the temple (2 Chrn 3:14). Thus, the litter was made of the very best which Solomon could offer. Such extravange reflected his love for Shulammith who rode upon it and would be seen upon it by all the Jerusalemites as she came into the city.
³⁰tn The noun hd*yp!r= is a hapax legomena whose meaning is uncertain. It may be related to the masculine noun dpr “camping place, station” referring to a stopping point in the wilderness march of Israel (Exod 17:1,8; 19:2; Num 33:14); however, what any semantic connection might be is difficult to discern. The versions have translated hd*yp!r= variously: LXX anakliton (“chair for reclining”), Vulgate reclinatorium (“support, back-rest of a chair”) Peshitta teshwiteh dahba (“golden cover, throne sheathed in gold leaf”). Modern translators have taken three basic approaches: (1) Following LXX and Vulgate (“support, rest, back of a chair”), BDB suggests “support,” referring to the back or arm of the chair of palanquin (BDB 951). Several translations take this view, e.g., NRSV: “its back,” NEB/REB: “its headrest,” and NJPS: “its back.” (2) Koehler-Baumgartner suggest “base, foundation of a saddle, litter” (KBL 905). Several translations follow this approach, e.g., KJV: “the bottom,” NASB: “its base” (margin: “its support,” and NIV: “its base.” (3) Gerleman suggests the meaning “cover,” as proposed by Peshitta. The first two approaches are more likely than the third. Thus, it probably refers either to (1) the back of the sedan-chair of the palanquin or (2) the foundation/base of the saddle/litter upon which the palanquin rested (KBL 3:1278)
³¹tn The Hebrew noun /mgra (“purple fabric”) is a loanword from Hittite argaman “tribute,” which is reflected in Akkadian argamannu “purple” (also “tribute” under Hittite influence), Ugaritic argmn “tax, purple,” and Aramaic argwn “purple” (KBL 1:84). The Hebrew term refers to wool dyed with red purple (BRL 153; KBL 1:84). It is used in reference to purple threads (Exod 35:25; 39:3; Est 1:9) or purple cloth (Num 4:13; Judg 8:26; Est 8:15; Prov 31:22; Jer 10:9; Song 3:10). Purple cloth and fabrics were costly (Ezek 27:7,16), and commonly worn by kings as a mark of their royal position (Judg 8:26). Thus, this was a sedan-chair fit for a king. KJV and NIV render it simply as “purple,” NASB as “purple fabric,” and NJPS “purple wool.”
³²tn The participle [Wxr* (Qal passive participle ms from [xr “to fit together, fit out”) probably functions verbally: “Its interior was fitted out with love/lovingly.” Taking it adjectivally would demand that hbha (“love”) function as a predicate nominative and given an unusual metonymical connotation: “Its inlaid interior [was] a [gift of] love.”
³³tn The accusative noun hbha “love” or “leather” (see study note below) functions either as an accusative of material out of which the interior was made (“inlaid with leather”) or an accusative of manner describing how the interior was made (“inlaid lovingly,” that is, “inlaid with love”). The term hbha is a homonymic noun therefore, there is an interesting little debate whether hbha in 3:10 is from the root hbha I “love” (BDB 13; DCH 1:141) or hbha II “leather” (KBL 1:18). The homonymic root hbha II “leather” is related to Arabic `ihab “leather” or “untanned skin” (Driver, Loewenstamm). It probably occurs in Hos 11:4 and may also appear in Song 3:10 (KBL 1:18). Traditionally, scholars and translations have rendered this term as “love” or “lovingly.” The reference to the “daughters of Jerusalem” suggests “love” because they had “loved” Solomon (1:4). However, the context describes the materials out of which the palanquin was made (3:9-10) thus, an interior made out of leather would certainly make sense. Perhaps the best solution is to see this as an example of intentional ambiguity in a homonymic word-play: “Its interior was inlaid with leather//love by the maidens of Jerusalem.” Selected Bibliography on hbha II: G.R. Driver, “Supposed Arabisms in the Old Testament,” JBL 55 (1936): 111; Canaanite Myths and Legends (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1978), 133); Samuel E. Loewenstamm, Thesaurus of the Language of the Bible (Magnus Press: Jerusalem, 1957-59), 1:39; Daniel Grossberg, “Canticles 3:10 in the Light of a Homeric Analogue and Biblical Poetics,” Biblical Theology Bulletin 11 (1981): 75-76. Selected Bibliography on Homonymic Word-Plays: Wilfred G.E. Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984), 237-38; Stephen Ullmann, Semantics: An Introduction to the Science of Meaning (London: Basil Blackwell, 1977), 176-92; J. Brown, “Eight Types of Puns,” Proceedings of the Modern Language Association of America 71 (1956): 14-26; James Barr, Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament (London: Oxford Press, 1968), 151-55.
<sup>34</sup>tn Heb “daughters”
<sup>35</sup>tn Heb “daughters”
<sup>36</sup>tn Heb “the day of the joy of his heart.” In the genitive construct phrase tj^m=?! <oyb=W (“the day of joy”) the noun jm? (“joy”) functions as a descriptive genitive of attribute (attributive genitive), that is, the genitive identifies the outstanding quality of the construct noun: “the joyous day” or “the day characterized by joy.” In the second genitive construct phrase obl! tj^m=?! (“joy of his heart”) the noun obl! (“his heart”) is a subjective genitive: “his heart rejoices.” The term “heart” (bl) is a synecdoche of part for the whole (=Solomon himself), that is, “the day Solomon greatly rejoiced” or “the day of Solomon’s great joy.”
<sup>37</sup>sn Song 4:1-7 is often compared to ancient Near Eastern wasfs songs sung by the groom to his new bride, praising her beauty from head to foot. Examples have been found in Egyptian, Syrian, Sumerian and Arabic love literature. The wasfs song is a poetic celebration by the groom of his bride’s physical beauty. The typical form has three parts: (1) introductory words by the wedding guests, (2) invitation by the bride to the groom to celebrate her physical beauty, and (3) the groom’s poetic comparative praise of his bride’s beauty from head to foot — comprising the bulk of the song. The groom’s praise typically is characterized by three movements: (1) introductory summary praise of his bride’s beauty, (2) lengthy and detailed figurative description of her physical beauty, and (3) concluding summary praise which reiterates the introductory words of the song. Although the introductory words of the wedding guests and the invitation by the bride are absent, the form of the Lover’s praise of his bride is identical, as are the types of comparative praise. Solomon’s song falls into the same three movements: (1) introductory summary praise of his bride’s beauty in 4:1a, (2) lengthy and detailed figurative description of her beauty in 4:1b-6 and (3) concluding summary praise in 4:7. Selected Bibliography: Franz Delitzsch, “Song of Solomon,” in Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 6:174-76; Samuel Krauss, “The Archaeological Background of Some Passages in the Song of Songs,” JQR 32 (1941-42): 125.
<sup>1</sup>tn The introductory demonstrative particle inh (“Behold!”) is repeated for rhetorical effect. This particle is often used with verbs of seeing or discovering, making the narrative graphic and vivid. It enables the reader to enter into the surprise, wonder and delight of the speaker (BDB 243.c).
<sup>2</sup>sn The repetition of “You are beautiful, my darling” (ytyur hpy) in 4:1 and 4:7 forms an inclusion, marking off the song of descriptive praise in 4:1-7.
<sup>3</sup>sn The expression “your eyes (are) doves” is a metaphor (implied comparison). Like most of the other metaphors in 4:1-7, this is probably a comparison of sight rather than sense: (1) the shape of a woman’s eyes, especially in Egyptian art, resemble the shape of a dove, and (2) the white color the eyeballs resemble the white color of a dove’s body. On the other hand, many Jewish and Christian interpreters have suggested that this is a comparison of sense, usually suggesting that the dove is a symbol for purity and that the eyes of a person are the windows of their soul or character, that is, the bride has a pure character as seen through her eyes.
<sup>4</sup>tn Heb “flowing” or “hopping.” Alternately, “descending.” The verb “flowing down” (WvlGv) may be nuanced “descending.” The most recent lexicons define vlG as “to flow, leap” (DCH 1:357); “to hop, move down” (KBL 1:195); and “to go down, glide down” (EDHL 102). Earlier lexicons suggested the meanings “to sit, sit up, recline” (BDB 167). The Hebrew root is probably related to Arabic jalasa “to go up, to go down, sit up” (KBL 1:195; EDHL 102).
<sup>5</sup>tn Or “the watering-hole” or “watering-place.” The noun hxjr may be nuanced “washing-place” (BDB 934) or “watering-hole, watering-place” (KBL 3:1221). The related verb Jjr means “to wash, bathe, rinse off” (BDB 934; KBL 3:1220-21). The metaphor describing the beautiful teeth of the bride probably pictures freshly washed sheep rather than freshly watered sheep.
sn Solomon praises his bride’s teeth by comparing them to freshly washed sheep. In the ancient Near East it was customary to wash sheep before shearing them. The picture of freshly washed sheep depicts the whiteness of the bride’s teeth.
<sup>6</sup>tn ynvh fWj (“thread of scarlet”) is a genitive construct with the genitive functioning adjectivally. This phrase is used three times in classical Hebrew to denote a scarlet colored “thread” or “cord” (Josh 2:18; Song 4:3; 11 QT 49:3) (KBL 1:296-97; DCH 3:170-71). This is a comparison of sight, describing the color and shape of her lips.
<sup>7</sup>sn The term “tower” (ldgm) refers to a military structure, such as a stronghold, arsenal or defensive tower on the walls of a city (e.g., Judg 8:9, 17; 9:51; 2 Kgs 9:17; 17:9; 18:8; 2 Chrn 14:6; 26:15; 27:4; 32:5).
<sup>8</sup>tn The feminine noun twypltl is a hapax legomena of uncertain etymology. Various attempts have been made to find the origin of this word, but they are all uncertain. LXX eij qalpiwq simply transliterated the word, taking it as a proper name of a locality (Tel Pivoth). Similarly, Dom Calmet treated twyplt as a compound word (“hill” lt and “mouths” twyp) as a reference to a tower built by David on a height in the valleys of Lebanon. The Talmud suggests that the term refers to Jerusalem as the hill (lt) to which all mouths (twyp) turn (Babylonian Talmud: Berakot 30a). Aquilla reads eij epalceij and Symmachus eij uph, while Vulgate has cum propugnaculis. Ibn Ezra redivided twypltl as twyp lt l “for suspending weapons” by taking twyp (“mouths” = edge of swords) as a reference to weaponry. This is reflected in several translations: “armoury” (KJV, AV, ASV), “arsenal” (RSV), and “fortress” (JB). The noun may be related to the Arabic root tlp (“to perish”) in a metonymical sense: “a cause of perishing,” i.e., a weapon. The Hebrew Piel root [lt means “to hang up for display,” thus NEB suggests that it is derived from lpy which means “to arrange in courses,” i.e., “layered,” as a reference to the Bride’s layered necklace she wears. NIV nuances it as “with elegance” and NEB “winding courses.” Perles connects twyplt to Akkadian tilpanu (“bow”), while Haupt connects the word with the Shaphel stem of the Akkadian labu (“to fortify”). Honeyman suggests that twypltl is a feminine plural noun of the taqtilat nominal pattern from the root ypl which means “to arrange in courses.” KBL notes that the phrase twypltl ywnb has been rendered in several ways: (1) “built with turrets,” (2) “built with siege-towers” (3) “built in rows (of stones)” or “built in terraces.” Haupt and Krauss suggest that twypltl ywnb denotes “constructed for siege-towers” or “built for an armory.” Honeyman suggests that twyplt is a feminine plural noun with a standard nominative prefix t and is derived from the verbal root hpl (“to arrange in stones”). This Hebrew root is related to Akkadian lapu (“to surround, enclose”), Arabic laffa or lifafah (“to envelope”), and Aramaic lpp and lp’ (“to interlace, entwine, plait”). This is the simplest solution and does not demand emending the text as in the first option. The preposition l could denote “in respect to” and the colon twypltl ywnb could be translated “built in rows (of stones)” or “built in terraces.” Thus, the phrase “built in rows of stones” refers to the outer walls of a tower built in spiraling rows of stones or built in terraces. This is a comparison of sight: (1) her neck was long and symmetrical or (2) she was wearing a strand of beads or necklaces wrapped around her neck like a tower built in spiraling rows of stones. Selected Bibliography: Samuel Krauss, “The Archaeological Background of Some Passages in the Song of Songs,” JQR 32 (1941-42): 126-28; A.M. Honeyman, “Two Contributions to Canaanite Toponymy,” JTS 50 (1949): 52; B.S.J. Isserlin, “Song of Songs IV, 4: An Archaeological Note,” PEQ 90 (1958): 59-61; Keith Crim, “‘Your Neck is Like the Tower of David’ (The Meaning of a Simile in Song of Solomon 4:4)” BT 22:2 (1977): 72-74; Paul Haupt, “Heb. talpi’ot, Siege-Towers,” JBL 38 (1919): 186-86; Samuel Krauss, “The Archaeological Background of Some Passages in the Song of Songs,” JQR 32 (1941-42): 125-29; A.M. Honeyman, “Two Contributions to Canaanite Toponymy,” JTS 50 (1949): 51-52; B.S.J. Isserlin, “Song of Songs IV, 4: An Archaeological Note,” PEQ 90 (1958): 59-61; Keith Crim, “‘Your Neck is Like the Tower of David’ (The Meaning of a Simile in Song of Solomon 4:4)” BT 22:2 (April 1977): 72-74; Ernest Klein, A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of The Hebrew Language (New York: Macmillan, 1987), 704.
<sup>9</sup>sn Scholars debate whether this refers to (1) the interior walls of a tower upon which warriors would hang their shields when not in use or (2) the external upper wall of a military fortress upon which warriors would hang their shields to add to their protection during battle. A few scholars who suggest that what is pictured here are the internal walls of the tower and, on the basis of Ezek. 27:10-11, posit that in the ancient world there was a practice in which mercenaries, who had joined themselves to a king, would hang their shields upon his fortress wall as a sign of their allegiance. Following Crim, Deere suggests, “the custom of hanging shields on the tower was symbolic of the warriors’ allegiance to and valor for a particular king”. Crim suggests that the point of comparison of Solomon’s praise would be something similiar to what follows: “Just as the fame of Tyre in Ezek. 27:11 attracted mercenaries, the fame of the tower of David has attracted soldiers to come and enter its service. The shields hanging there show that they have given their allegiance to the tower. Your neck is like that tower. It is so beautiful that it could win the allegiance of a thousand heroic soldiers.” We would then translate something like this: “Your neck attracts men as the tower of David attracts warriors. A thousand heroic soldiers would swear allegiance to your beauty.” Deere suggests that the point of the comparison is that the bride’s neck was so beautiful and majestic that mighty warriors from near and far would have given their allegiance to her ... It is as if he were saying that these soldiers would be willing to surrender their shields to her beauty. On the other hand, most scholars suggest that it refers to the common practice in the ancient Near East of lining the top wall of a military fortress tower with shields, behind which the soldiers could stand for protection leaving both hands free for bow and arrows (Note: It is possible to view Ezek. 27:10-11 and 2 Chrn. 32:5 in this manner). This is supported by ancient Near Eastern art which pictures such a practice, especially by the relief of Sennacherib’s siege of Lachish which shows the top wall of Lachish lined with shields. McKenzie notes: “The art of the ancient East often shows us the shields that were, in time of war, set in position on the towers of the city walls, so that defenders could safely fire arrows and hurl stones while standing upright behind them.” Those who see this as the imagery all agree that the point of comparison is to jeweled necklaces with pendants which could be compared to shields, as in 1:10-11 (Andre Robert, T.J. Meek, Gilles Gerlemann, A.M. Honeyman, B.S.J. Isserlin, John McKenzie). McKenzie expresses this view when he posits that she was wearing jewelry around her neck and that this was being compared to the shields hung around this military tower: “One of the many physical charms that the beloved finds in his mistress (Song of Sol. 4:1-4) is her long neck which, with its stately poise, reminds him of the lofty tower of David. Just as this tower is hung all round with shields placed there by mighty men of valour, so is his mistress’ neck adorned with chains and strings of jewels (McKenzie, ibid). This is supported by the fact that 4:9 explicitly mentions a necklace with a multitude of jewels in it which Shulamite was wearing at this time. And Isserlin suggests that the complete image in view fits the evidence of both ancient Near Eastern military towers and jewelry which has been recovered archaeologically: “It seems to the present writer that a reading of the verse ... can be taken to refer to the presence not of one, but two elements on the tower: there is the coursed masonry, and on top of it there are the shields. If we keep the idea that a multiple necklace is alluded to, then this should be made up of two kinds of elements: on top there should be a series of beads resembling round shields; below we should find something resembling either the short or the long side of building stones (according to whether the masonry is laid in headers or stretchers). Can necklaces of this type be found in the ancient Near East? It seems to the writer that the well-known sculpture from Arsos in Cyprus (Pl. VI) represents just this type of necklace. The upper beads do look like a row of round shields, as shown on the tower in the relief slab representing Sennacherib’s siege of Lachish, while the lower elements do evoke roughly bossed headers, as found in ancient Palestinian defence works” (B.S.J. Isserlin, 59 and pl. VI). Composite necklaces such as this one might be referred to in Prov 1:9. In any case, it is quite unlikely that the point of comparison was that she had a large, muscular neck, as some have suggested (Morris Jastrow, Leroy Waterman, and Robert Gordis). Selected Bibliography: Keith R. Crim, “Your Neck is Like the Tower of David (The Meaning of a Simile in the Song of Solomon 4:4),” The Bible Translator 22:2 (April 1977): 70-74; Jack S. Deere, “The Song of Songs” in Bible Knowledge Commentary (Wheaton: Victor Books, 1984), 1018; A.M. Honeyman, “Two Contributions to Canaanite Toponymy,” Journal of Theological Studies 50 (1949): 51; B.S.J. Isserlin, “Song of Songs IV, 4: An Archaeological Note,” Palestinian Quarterly Review 90 (1958): 59-61; John L. McKenzie, et. al. Encyclopedia of the Living Bible, vol. 10 (Chicago: San Francisco Productions, Inc., 1967), 56.
<sup>10</sup>tn Heb “until the day breathes”
<sup>11</sup>tn The Piel denominative verb bbl is derived from the noun bbl (“heart”), and occurs only here. Its meaning is debated: (1) metonymical sense: “you have encouraged me,” that is, given me heart (BDB 525) (AV, RSV); (2) intensive sense: “you have made my heart beat faster” (KBL<sup>2</sup> 471); and (3) privative sense: “you have ravished my heart” or “you have stolen my heart” (KBL<sup>3</sup> 2:515; GKC 52h) (NIV). While the Niphal stem has a metonymical nuance (cause for effect): to get heart, that is, to get understanding (Job 11:12), the Piel stem may have a private nuance: to take away heart, that is, to take away the senses. Her beauty was so overwhelming that it robbed him of his senses (e.g., Hos 4:11). This is paralleled by a modern Palestinian love song: “She stood opposite me and deprived me of reason (lit. “took my heart”), your dark eyes slew me while I was singing, your eyebrows drove shame from me ... the darkness of your eyes have slain me; O one clad in purple clothes, it is worthwhile falling in love with you, for your eyes are black and sparkle, and have slain me indeed.” Less likely is the proposal of Waldeman who relates this to Akkadian lababu (“to rage, be aroused to fury”), suggesting that Song 4:9 means “to become passionately aroused” or “to be aroused sexually.” Selected Bibliography: S.H. Stephan, “Modern Palestinian Parallels to the Song of Songs,” JPOS 2 (1922): 13; Robert Gordis, The Song of Songs (New York: KTAV, 1964), 85-86; Nahum M. Waldman, “A Note on Canticles 4:9,” JBL 89 (1970): 215-17; Hans Walter Wolff, Anthropology of the Old Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974), 40-58.
<sup>12</sup>sn It is clear from Song 8:1 that Solomon and his bride were not physical brother and sister; yet, Solomon addresses his bride as “my sister” (yta) several times (4:9,10,12; 5:1). This probably reflects any one of several ancient Near Eastern customs: (1) The appelatives “my sister” and “my brother” were both commonly used in ancient Near Eastern love literature as figurative descriptions of two lovers. For instance, in a Ugaritic poem when Anat tried to seduce Aqhat, she says, “Hear, O hero Aqhat, you are my brother and I your sister” (Aqhat 18 i. 24). In the Apocraypha husband and wife are referred to several times as “brother” and “sister” (Esth 15:9; Tobit 5:20; 7:16). This “sister-wife” motif might be behind Paul’s perplexing statement about a “sister-wife” (1 Cor 9:5). (2) In several Mesopotamian societies husbands actually could legally adopted their wives for a variety of reasons. For instance, in Hurrian society husbands in the upper classes sometimes adopted their wives as “sisters” in order to form the strongest of all possible marriage bonds; a man could divorce his wife but he could not divorce his “sister” because she was “family.” At Nuzi a husband could adopt his wife to give her a higher status in society. Selected Bibliography: Moshe Held, “A Faithful Lover in Old Babylonian Dialogue,” JCS 15 (1961): 1-26 and Samuel S. Kramer, “Cunieform Studies and the History of Literature: The Sumerian Sacred Marriage Texts,” PAPS 107 (1963): 485-527; idem, The Sacred Marriage Rite (Bloomington: University of Indiana Press, 1969), 103-105; Thorkild Jacobsen, “The Sister’s Message,” JANES 5 (1973): 199-212; E.A. Speiser, “The Wife-Sister Motif in the Patriarchal Narratives,” in Biblical and Other Studies (Boston: Harvard University Press, 1963), 15- 28; J.C.L. Gibson, Canaanite Myths and Legends (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1978), 111.
<sup>13</sup>tn Or “eye-stone (of your necklace)”
sn The term “eye” (Eynyu) probably refers to her physical eyes (e.g., 4:1). However, in Sumero-Akkadian literature the term “eye” sometimes refers to the eye-stone of a necklace. Agate-stones were cut so that white stripes appeared around the black or brown core to look like the pupil on the eye. Pope suggests that the parallelism between the A and B lines suggests the following: “with one of your eye-stones” and “with one jewel of your necklace.” Selected Bibliography: W.G. Lambert, “An Eye Stone of Esarhaddon’s Queen and Other Similar Gems,” RA 63 (1969): 65-71; Marvin H. Pope, Song of Songs (Garden City: Doubleday, 1977), 482-83.
<sup>14</sup>sn The twin themes of the enclosed garden and sealed spring are highlighted by the word-play (paranomasia) between the Hebrew expressions lWun /G (“a garden locked up”) and lWun lG (“an enclosed spring”).
<sup>15</sup>sn The noun sdrp (“garden, parkland, forest”) is a foreign loanword that occurs only 3x in the Hebrew Bible (Song 4:13; Eccl 2:5; Neh 2:8). The original Old Persian (Avestan) term pairidaeza designated the enclosed parks and pleasure-grounds which were the exclusive domain of the Persian kings and nobility in the Achaemenid period (KBL 3:963; Liddell-Scott 1308). The Babylonian term pardesu means “marvelous garden,” in reference to the enclosed parks of the kings (AHw 833a and 1582a). The term passed into Greek as paradeiso" (“enclosed park, pleasure-ground”), referring to the enclosed parks and gardens of the Persian kings (Liddell-Scott 1308). The Greek term was transliterated into English as “paradise.”
<sup>16</sup>tn Heb “a fountain of gardens” or “a headwaters for gardens.” The term “fountain” (/yum) denotes “source, headwaters” as the place of origin of water streams (KBL 2:612). The term does not refer to a water fountain such as commonly found in modern cultivated gardens or park; rather, it refers to the headwaters of streams and rivers, such as Banyas as the headwaters of the Jordan. The genitive construct <yNG /yum (“a fountain of gardens”) is an unusual expression that has been treated in various ways: (1) “a garden fountain,” that is, a fountain located in a garden (KBL 1:198); (2) “a fountain of gardens,” that is, the headwaters of many spring watered gardens (DCH 2:366). The latter is preferred. In Song 4:12-14 the bride is figuratively described as a garden with exotic plants; however, in 4:15 the metaphor shifts to the source of the water for the garden: “headwaters” (/yum) and “well” (raB) of fresh water flowing down from Lebanon.
<sup>17</sup>tn Heb “a watering place” or “well of underground water.”
sn The term “well” (raB) refers to an underground well that is dug in the ground to provide fresh water for humans and beasts (e.g., Gen 21:19,25,30; 26:15,18,19,22,32) (KBL 1:106; DCH 2:87). The term is often used in parallelism with “cistern” (roB), “spring” (/yu), and “water-hole” (hjWv).
<sup>18</sup>tn Heb “living water.”
sn The phrase “living water” (<yyj <ym) refers to flowing, fresh water in contrast to standing, stagnant water (Gen 26:19; Lev 14:5-6, 50-52; 15:13; Num 19:17; Jer 2:13; 17:13; Zech 14:8; Song 4:15; 1QH 8:7,16; 4Q418 103.2:6; 4QDibHam<sup>a</sup> 1.5:2; 11QT 45:16) (DCH 2:202.1; KBL 1:308.1; BDB 312.f). The adjective <yyj (“living”) frequently refers to what is fresh (Gen 26:19), healthy (Sir 30:14), or thriving (Gen 43:7,27). Fresh, flowing water is pictured as pure (Lev 14:5-6, 50-52; 15:13) and a source of refreshment (Gen 26:19). Selected Bibliography: P. Reymond, L’eau, sa vie, et sa signification dans l’Ancien Testament, Vetus Testamentum Supplement 6 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1958), 136.
<sup>1</sup>sn There is no little debate about the identity of the speaker(s) and the audience addressed in 5:1b. There are five options: (1) Solomon is addressing his bride, (2) the bride is addressing Solomon, (3) the wedding guests are addressing Solomon and his bride, (4) Solomon and his bride are addressing the wedding guests, or (5) the poet is addressing Solomon and his bride. When dealing with this issue, the following factors should be considered: (1) the form of both the exhortations and the addressees are plural. This makes it unlikely that Solomon is addressing his bride or that his bride is addressing him. (2) The exhortation has an implicitly sexual connotation because the motif of “eating” and “drinking” refers to sexual consummation in 5:1a. This makes it unlikely that Solomon or his bride are addressing the wedding guests — an orgy is quite out of the question! (3) The poet could be in view because as the writer who created the Song, only he could have been with them — in a poetic sense — in the bridal chamber as a “guest” on their wedding night. (4) The wedding guests could be in view through the figurative use of apostrophe (addressing an audience that is not in the physical presence of the speaker). While the couple was alone in their wedding chambers, the wedding guests wished them all the joys and marital bliss of the honeymoon. This is supported by several factors: (a) Wedding feasts in the ancient Near East frequently lasted several days and after the couple had consummated their marriage, they would appear again to celebrate a feast with their wedding guests. (b) The structure of the Song is composed of paired-dialogues which either begin or conclude with the words of the friends or daughters of Jerusalem (1:2-4, 5-11; 3:6-11; 5:9-16; 6:1-3, 4-13; 7:1-10) or which conclude with an exhortation addressed to them (2:1-7; 3:1-5; 8:1-4). In this case, the poetic unit of 4:1-5:1 would conclude with an exhortation by the friends in 5:1b.
<sup>2</sup>sn The physical love between Solomon and Shulamite is compared to eating and drinking at a wedding feast. This is an appropriate figure of comparison because it would have been issued during the feast which followed the wedding and the consummation. The term “drink” refers to intoxication, that is, it compares becoming drunk on wine with enjoying the physical love of one’s spouse (e.g., Prov. 5:19-20).
<sup>3</sup>tn Heb “my heart”
sn The term ybl (“my heart”) is a metonymy of association for emotions (e.g., Prov 15:13; Song 3:11) or thoughts (e.g., Ps 90:12; Prov 18:15) or a synecdoche of part for the whole. If this verse is introducing a dream sequence in 5:2-8, this is a metonymy for Shulammith’s thoughts in her dream: “I was sleeping but my mind was dreaming.” If this verse depicts Shulammith beginning to doze off to sleep — only to be awakened by Solomon’s knocking at her door - then it is a synecdoche of part for the whole: “I was about to fall asleep when I was suddenly awakened.”
<sup>4</sup>tn Heb “but my heart was awake.” Scholars have interpreted 5:2a in two basic ways: (1) Shulammith had been asleep or was just about to fall asleep when she was awakened by the sound of Solomon knocking on the door of her bedroom chambers. The term ybl (“my heart”) is a synecdoche of part for the whole: “my heart” = “I.” The participle ru (Qal active participle ms from rWu I “to rouse oneself, wake up”) functions verbally, describing a past ingressive state: “was awakened.” The line would be rendered: “I was sleeping when I (=my heart) was awakened.” (2) Shulammith was sleeping, but her mind was dreaming (in her dream she heard Solomon knocking on her door). In this case, ybl (“my heart”) is a metonymy of association for the thoughts (e.g., Ps 90:12; Prov 18:15) and emotions (e.g., Prov 15:13; Song 3:11) she experienced during her dream: “my heart” = “my mind.” The participle ru functions verbally, describing a past progressive state: “was awake.” The line could be nuanced, “I was asleep, but my mind was dreaming.” Many translations adopt this approach: “I was asleep but my heart waketh” (KJV), “I was asleep but my heart was awake” (NASB, NIV) and “I was asleep, but my heart was wakeful” (NJPS).
<sup>5</sup>sn The noun loq (literally, “sound, noise, voice”) is used as an exclamation: “Listen!” or “Hark!” (e.g., Gen. 4:10; Isa. 13:4; 40:3; 52:8; Jer. 3:21; 4:15; 10:22; 31:51; 50:28; 51:54; Mic 6:9; Zeph 1:14; 2:14; Song 2:8; 5:2) (KBL 3:1085.8b; BDB 877.1f; THAT 2:631; TWNT 9:275; Jouon, #162e; GKC #146b). The term often refers to a loud or unexpected sound that arrests the attention of a character in a narrative. The speaker/writer uses it as a rhetorical device to dramatically portray his/her own startled reaction to an unexpected sound that called his/her attention. Shulammith is startled from her sleep by the unexpected sound of Solomon loudly knocking at her bedroom door late at night.
<sup>6</sup>sn The phrase yd!oD loq (“Listen! My lover …!”) that introduces this scene in 5:2-8 is the exact same phrase used in 2:8 to introduce the courtship section 2:8-11. In 2:8-11, Shulammith was excited about Solomon’s unexpected arrival; however, in 5:2-8 she is apathetic about his unexpected approach. One should not miss the dramatic contrast between Shulammith’s eagerness to see Solomon in 2:8-11 and her apathy about his approach on this evening in 5:2-8. The repetition of yd!oD loq (“Listen! My lover …!”) in 2:8 and 5:2 is designed to draw out the parallels and contrasts between 2:8-11 and 5:2-8.
<sup>7</sup>tn The participle qpod (Qal active participle ms from qpd “to knock, pound”) connotes present progressive or iterative action. The verb qpd (“to knock, pound, beat”) occurs only three times in BH, twice in reference to knocking at a door (Judg 19:22; Song 5:2) and once of beating cattle in order to drive them along (Gen 33:13). The Qal stem depicts the normal action of knocking at a door, while the Hithpael a more intensive pounding, e.g., Qal: “to knock at the door” (Song 5:2) and Hithpael: “to beat violently against the door” (Judg 19:22) (KBL 1:229; BDB 200). The same connotations are seen in Mishnaic Hebrew, e.g., the verbs qp^D* and qp^D= “to knock at the door” (Jastrow 317), and the nouns qpoD “door frame (=what someone knocks on), movable tomb stone” and /yn{ *qp=oD “knockers” (Jastrow 287). The collocation of the verb jtP “to open” a door (KBL 3:986-87; BDB 835) clearly suggests that Solomon is at Shulammith’s bedroom door.
<sup>8</sup>tn Heb “Open to me!” Alternately, “Let me in!” The imperatival form of yj!t=P! (Qal imperative 2ms from jtP “to open”) connotes a polite, but earnest request (e.g., Waltke-O’Connor, Biblical Hebrew Syntax, 34.4b). The verb jt^P* refers to the action of opening various objects, e.g., sack (Gen 42:27), skin-bottle (Judg 4:19), hamper (Exod 2:6), pit (Exod 21:33), mouth of cave (Josh 10:22), grave (Ezek 37:12,13), city-gates (Neh 13:19; Isa 45:1), gate of land (Nah 3:13), window (2 Kgs 13:17). When used with the accusative tl#D# (“door”), it refers to opening a door (e.g., Judg 3:25; 19:27; 1 Sam 3:15; 2 Kgs 9:3,10; 2 Chr 29:3; Job 31:32) (KBL 3:986-89; BDB 835). Although the object tl#D# (“door”) is here omitted, a bedroom door is clearly in mind in 5:2, as indicated by the collocated verb qpD (“to knock on a door”) in the preceding line. Translators have often rendered this line woodenly: “Open to me!” (KJV, NASB, NIV); however, NJPS nuances it well: “Let me in!”
sn The three-fold repetition of the verb jtP (“to open”) (Song 5:2,5,6) indicates that it is a key word (Leitwort) in this section. While it is clear that the verb describes the action of Shulammite opening the door of her bedroom chamber in 5:2, some suggest that in 5:5-6 it is used figuratively (hypocatastasis: implied comparison) of Shulammith “opening” her female genitalia for sexual intercourse (but see study notes below).
<sup>9</sup>tn Possibly a euphemism (double entendre). The term dy` (“hand”) normally refers simply to the physical hand (KBL 2:386.1; BDB 388.1). There are, however, at least three occasions when dy` refers to tall stone pillars (translated “monument” or “pillar”), such as those used in Canaanite fertiliy-cults in the form of phallic representations (1 Sam 15:12; 2 Sam 18:18; Isa 56:5). There are also three times when it is clearly used as a euphemism for the male copulative organ (Isa 57:8,10; Jer 5:31; 50:15). It is now an established fact that yad is sometimes used as a euphemism for the male sexual organ in Ugaritic literature (e.g., text no. 52:33-35) (Cyrus Gordon, Ugaritic Textbook: Glossary, #1072; Joseph Aistleitner, Worterbuch der Ugaritischen Sprache, #1139). The noun dy is also used in the Qumran literature in this sense in a list of penalties for indecent exposure (Manual of Discipline 7:12-15). Thus, several scholars suggest that a subtle double entendre might be present in 5:4-6. The imagery of Solomon thrusting his “hand” through the “hole” in the door, and Shulammith “opening” to her lover, while her fingers dripped with “myrrh” on the “handles of the lock,” might have a double reference to the literal attempt of Solomon to gain entry to her bedroom and his desire to make love to her. Selected Bibliography: M. Delcour, “Two Special Meanings of the Word yd in Biblical Hebrew,” JSS 12 (1967): 230-40.
<sup>10</sup>tn Heb “sent his hand from.” The phrase /jh-/m ody jlv (literally, “he sent his hand from the hole”) is awkward, and its meaning is debated. Two basic approaches are taken: (1) Most scholars suggest that it denotes “to send through,” that is, “to thrust through” or “to extend through.” For example, BDB proposes that /m + ljv means “to stretch out (his hand) from the outside, inward” (BDB 1018.3a). Solomon was attempting to open the door from the outside by extending his hand inside the door through some kind of latch-opening: “he put in his hand by the opening of the door” (KJV), “he extended his hand through the opening” (NASB), “he thrust his hand through the latch-opening” (NIV). (2) Others, however, suggests that the construction /m + jlv denotes “to withdraw from” (e.g., 1 Kings 13:4). The preposition /m! is taken to mean, not “through,” but “away from.” Thus, Solomon was withdrawing his hand from the latch-opening, that is, he had given up and was leaving. This approach is adopted by NJPS: “My beloved took his hand off the latch.” Solomon’s departure is clearly stated in 5:6, “I opened [the door] for my beloved, but my beloved had already turned and gone away; my heart sank at his departure!” (see study notes below on 5:6).
<sup>11</sup>tn Heb “hole.” Probably “latch-hole” or “key-hole,” but possibly a euphemism (double entendre). The noun rj) (“hole”) is used in OT in a literal and metaphorical sense: (1) literal sense: hole bored in the lid of a chest (2 Kgs 12:10); hole in a wall (Ezek 8:7); hole in the ground or cave used as hiding-places for men (1 Sam 13:6; 14:11; Isa 42:23); hole in the ground, as the dwelling place of an asp (Isa 11:8); and a hole in a mountain, as the den of lions (Nah 2:13); and (2) figurative sense: hole of an eye (metonomy of assocation), that is, eye-socket (Zech 14:12) (KBL 1:348; BDB 359). While the meaning of rj) in Song 5:4 is clear - “hole” - there is a debate whether it is used in a literal or figurative sense. (1) Literal sense: The lexicons suggest that it denotes “hole of a door, that is, key-hole or latch-opening” (KBL 1:348; BDB 359). Most commentators suggest that it refers to a hole bored through the bedroom door to provide access to the latch or lock (Ginsburg, Gordis, Deere). The mention in 5:5 of “latches of the door-bolt” (lWun+M^h toPK^) suggests that the term refers to some kind of opening associated with the latch of the bedroom door. This approach is followed by most translations: “the hole in the door” (JB), “the latch-hole” (NEB), “the latch-opening” (NIV), “the latch-hole” (NEB), “the latch” (NJPS), “the latch” (RSV), and “the opening of the door” (KJV). The assumption that the hole in question was a latch-hole in the door is reflected in Midrash Rabbah: Rabbi Abba ben Kahana said, “Why is the hole of the door mentioned here, seeing that it is a place where vermin swarm?” The situation envisaged by Solomon’s actions are often depicted thus: In ancient Near Eastern villages, the bolting systems of doors utilized door-bolts and keys made of wood. The keys were often stored either on the outside (!) or inside of the door. If the key was placed on the inside of the door, a small hole was bored through the door so that a person could reach through the hole with the key to unlock the door. The key was often over a foot in length, and the keyhole large enough for a man’s hand. Apparently, Solomon extended his hand through the hole from the outside to try to unbolt the door latch on the inside. He could put his hand through the hole, but could not open the door without the key. (2) Figurative sense: Because of the presence of several erotic motifs in 5:2-8 and the possibility that a double entendre is present (see notes below), several scholars suggest that the term is a euphemism for the female vagina (KBL 1:348). They suggest that rj) (“hole”) is the female counterpart for the euphemistic usage of dy` (“hand”) in 5:4 (see A.S. Cook, The Root of the Thing: A Study of Job and the Song of Songs (Indiana University Press, 1968), 110, 123; Cheryl Exum, “A Literary and Structural Analysis of the Song of Songs,” ZAW 85 (1973): 50-51; Marvin H. Pope, Song of Songs (Garden City: Doubleday, 1977), 518-19.
¹²tn Heb “my inward parts,” “my intensities,” or “my bowls.” Alternately, “my feelings” or “my emotions.” The term hum is used of the internal organs in general (“inward parts”) (e.g., 2 Sam 20:10; 2 Chr 21:15,18; Pss 22:14; 40:9) or the digestive organs in particular (“intestines, bowls, stomach”) (e.g., Num 5:22; Job 20:14; Ezek 3:3; 7:19; Jon 2:1-2). It is frequently used as a metonymy of adjunct for the emotions which Hebrew psychology associated with these internal organs (see Hans Walter Wolff, Anthropology of the Old Testament [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981], 63-66). These include pity (Isa 16:11), lamentation (Jer 48:36), distress (Jer 4:19; Lam 1:20; 2:11), and compassion (Isa 63:15; Jer 31:20) (KBL 2:610.3; BDB 589.5). Most scholars suggest that Shulammith’s feelings of love were revived - a reversal of her feelings of indifference and apathy in 5:3. This is reflected in many translations which use equivalent English idioms: “the core of my being” (JB) and “my heart” (NIV, NJPS) over the woodenly literal “my bowels” (KJV, NEB, AV). On the other hand, the term is also used to refer the procreative organs, both male (e.g., Gen 15:4; 2 Sam 7:12; 16:11; Isa 48:19; 2 Chr 32:21) and female (e.g., Gen 25:23; Ruth 1:11; Ps 71:6; Isa 49:1). NASB well renders the line, “my feelings were aroused for him” (NASB).
¹³tn The exact meaning of the Hebrew verb Wmh* (Qal perfect 3cpl from hm*h*) in 5:4 is debated. The verb hm*h* (“to murmur, growl, roar, be boisterous”) is related to the noun /omh* (“sound, murmur, roar, noisy crowd”), hy`m=h# (“sound, music”), and perhaps even hl*m%h* (“noise, noisy crowd, crowd”). The Hebrew root hmh is related to Aramaic amh (“to roar, be agitated”). The Hebrew verb hm*h* has a basic two-fold range of meanings: (1) literal: “to make a noise” of some kind and (2) figurative: “to be in commotion, uproar” (e.g., often associated with noise or a noisy crowd). The lexicons suggest six distinct categories: (1) “to make a noise” or “to be in commotion,” particularly by a tumultuous crowd (1 Kgs 1:41; Pss 39:7; 46:7; Prov 1:21; Is 22:2; Mic 2:12); (2) “to roar,” of the sea and sea-waves (Isa 17:12; 51:15; Jer 5:22; 6:23; 31:35; 50:42; 51:55; Ps 46:4); (3) “to make a sound,” e.g., bear growling (Isa 59:11), dog barking (Ps 59:7,15), bird cheeping (Ps 102:8), dove cooing (Ezek 7:16); (4) “to moan,” (Ps 39:7; 55:18; Prov 1:21; Lam 2:18; Ezek 7:16; Zech 9:15), (5) “to be turbulent, boisterous” (Prov 7:11; 9:13; 20:1; Zech 9:5); and (6) figuratively of the internal organs: “to murmur, be restless, be turbulent,” used in reference to pity (Isa 16:11; Jer 4:19; 31:20; 48:36), discouragement (Ps 42:6,12; 43:5), and murmuring in prayer (Pss 55:18; 77:4) (KBL 1:250; BDB 242). KBL suggests “to be turbulent” for Song 5:4 (KBL 1:250.4), while BDB suggests “the thrill of deep-felt compassion or sympathy” (BDB 242.2). Commentators offer a spectrum of opinions from Shulammith feeling agitation, pity and compassion, sexual arousal, or a revival of her love for him. A survey of the translations reveals the same lack of consensus: “my bowels were moved for him” (KJV), “my bowels stirred within me” (NEB), “my heart yearned for him” (AT), “my heart was thrilled within me” (RSV), “I trembled to the core of my being” (JB), “my heart trembled within me” (NAB), “my heart was stirred for him” (JPS, NJPS), “my feelings were aroused for him” (NASB), and “my heart began to pound for him” (NIV). While the precise meaning may never be agreed upon, whatever she was feeling roused herself from her indifferent apathetic inactivity to arise and open for her beloved in 5:5. The phrase is used similarly elsewhere in OT, rousing the subject to irresistible action (Jer 4:19). The simplest course of action is to nuance this term metonymically (cause for effect), e.g., “my feelings were stirred up for him.”
<sup>14</sup>tn The verb qm^j* occurs only in Song 5:6 (Qal: “to turn away, go leave”) and in Jer 31:22 (Hithpael: “to turn hither and thither”) (KBL 1:330; BDB 330). It is related to the noun qWmj* (“curve, curved lines” of a woman’s hips) which only appears in Song 7:2 (KBL 1:327; BDB 330). This root does not appear in Mishnaic Hebrew nor has it yet been attested in any cognate language. However, it was understood in this sense by LXX parhlqen (“he turned aside”), and also handled in a similar manner in Aquilla, Symmachus, Peshitta, and Vulgate.
<sup>15</sup>tn The verbs rb*u* qm^j* (“he turned away, he went away”) may form a verbal hendiadys. Normally, the first verb will function as an adverb modifying the second which functions in its full verbal sense. Each functions as a perfect of recent past perfect action, describing a past event that took place shortly before another past event: “I opened (past action) for my beloved, but my lover had already turned and gone away (past perfect action).”
<sup>16</sup>tn Heb “my soul went out.” The term yv!p=n~ (“my soul”) is a synecdoche of part for the whole person. The term vpn (“soul”) is used over 150 times as a metonymy of association with feelings: sorrow and distress, joy, love, desire, passion, hatred, loathing, avarice (KBL 2:713.8; BDB 660.6). The phrase ha*x=y` yv!p=n~ (literally, “my soul went out”) is a Hebrew idiom connoting great despair (e.g., Gen. 35:18; Jer. 15:9). The phrase is well rendered by NIV: “my heart sank in despair.” Vv. 6-7 clearly indicate that Shulammith fell into despair when Solomon had departed: she searched desperately for him, but could not find him; she called for him, but he did not answer.
¹⁷tn Or “spoke.” Traditionally, the term orB=d^b= (Piel infinitive construct from rbd + 3ms suffix + b preposition) has been related to the common root rbD II (“to speak”) which occurs nearly 1150 times in verbal forms and nearly 1500 times as a noun. This approach is seen as early as LXX (although LXX treated rbd as a noun rather than an infinitive construct because it was working with an unpointed text): ejn logw aujtou (“in his word”). Although they differ on whether the preposition b is temporal (“when”) or respect (“at”), many translations adopt the same basic approach as LXX: “when he spake” (KJV), “as he spoke” (NASB), “when he spoke” (NIV margin), “at what he said” (JPS, NJPS). However, many recent scholars relate wrBdb to the homonymic root rbd I (“to turn away, depart”) which is related to Akkadian dabaru D “to go away,” Dt “to drive away, push back” (CAD 3:186ff) and Arabic dabara “to turn one’s back, be behind, depart, retreat” (KBL 1:209). Several examples of this root have been found (Pss 18:48; 47:4; 56:6; 75:6; 116:10; 127:5; 2 Chr 22:10; Job 19:18; Song 5:6; Isa 32:7) (KBL 1:209-10). Several recent translations take this approach: “when he turned his back” (NEB), “at his flight” (JB), and “at his departure” (NIV). This makes better sense contextually (Solomon did not say anything after 5:2a), and it provides a tighter parallelism with the preceding line that also describes his departure: “My beloved had turned away (qm^j*); he was gone (rb^u*)” (NIV).
¹⁸tn The genitive construct hb*h&a^ tl^oj (literally, “sick of love”) denotes “love-sick.” This is an example of a genitive of cause, that is, Shulammith was (physically/emotionally) sick because of her unrequited love for Solomon. See study note on Song 2:5.
¹⁹tn Heb “How is your beloved [better] than [another] lover?”
²⁰sn Shulammith’s praise of Solomon’s appearance follows the typical literary structure of the typical ancient Near Eastern wasfs song: (1) introductory summary praise (5:10), (2) detailed descriptive praise from head to foot (5:11-16a), and (3) concluding summary praise (5:16b). There are several striking features about this song that is unique from the typical wasfs. (1) The ordinary setting of the ancient Near Eastern wasfs songs was the wedding night. (2) They were ordinarily sung only by a man in praise of his bride. (3) Normally, the wasfs song will conclude with the feet after the legs; however, Shulammith concludes by praising his mouth after his legs.
²¹sn The term jx^ (“dazzling”) is ordinarily used to describe the shining surface of jewelry or of smoothed rocks (Ezek. 24:7-8; 26:4,14; Neh. 4:7). Likewise, <da (“ruddy”) can describe the redness of rubies (Lam 4:7). Throughout 5:11-15 Shulammite compares Solomon’s appearance to valuable jewels, gems, and precious metals.
²²tn The adjective <da denotes either “manly” or “ruddy,” depending upon whether it is derived from <da I (“man”) or <da II (“red”). If it is “manly,” the idea is that he is the epitome of masculinity and virility. On the other hand, the emphasis would be upon his health and virility, evidenced by his ruddy complexion, or it could be a comparison between his ruddy coloring and the redness of rubies (Lam. 4:7).
²³tn Heb “outstanding.” The term lWgD* (!Qal passive participle ms from lgD) functions as a predicate adjective: “My beloved is … outstanding among ten thousand.” The verb lg^D* is relatively rare, being derived from the noun lg#D# (“banner”) which often refers to a military standard which, when lifted up, was conspicuous for all to see (Num. 2:3-4; 10:14-15). The verb lg^D* only occurs three other times, all referring to raising military banners for all to see (Ps 20:6; Song 6:4,10). Song 5:10 uses the term figuratively (hypocatastasis) to denote “outstanding” (KBL 1:213). This sense is closely related to the cognate Akkadian verb dagalu “to look, contemplate” and the noun diglu “eyesight, view (what is looked at).” Like a banner lifted high, Solomon attracted the attention of all who looked at him.
²⁴tn Heb “among.” The preposition /m prefixed to hb*b*r= (“ten thousand”) is taken in a locative sense: “outstanding among ten thousand” (e.g., KJV, RSV, NASB, NIV, NJPS).
²⁵tn Heb “among ten thousand.”
sn The numeral “ten thousand” is the highest number used in comparisons in Hebrew poetry (1 Sam. 18:7-8; 21:12; 29:5; Ps. 91:7). It is not used to mark out a specific number, but to denote an indefinite number of persons of the largest possible proportions (Gen 24:60; Num 10:36; Deut 33:2; Ps 3:7). Her point is simply this: no other man could possibly compare to Solomon in appearance, even if he were in a group of an infinite number of men.
²⁶tn Heb “his head is gold of pure gold.” In the genitive construct phrase z#P <tK (literally, “gold of pure gold”) the genitive noun zP (“pure gold”) functions as an adjectival genitive modifying <tK (“gold”), that is, “pure gold.” The repetition of two different words for “gold” suggest that the phrase should be nuanced “the most pure gold.” This phrase is a predicate nominate in a metaphorical statement: “his head is (like) the most pure gold.”
sn In the OT gold is frequently used in comparisons to emphasize the idea of beauty, value or rarity (Job 28:12-19; Pss. 19:11; 119:127; Prov. 8:19; Isa. 13:12; Lam. 4:2). Palestine had no known sources of gold, but had to import it, making it a rare and precious commodity (Ruth V. Wright and Robert L. Chadbourne, The Gems and Minerals of the Bible [New York: Harper and Row, 1970], 65). In an Egyptian love song the comparison with gold is also used to emphasize the beauty and value of the appearance of the beloved, “Her arm surpasses gold.” See Alan A. Gardiner, A Description of a Hieratic Papyrus with a Mythological Story, Love Songs, and Other Miscellaneous Texts (London: Emery Walker, 1931), 30.
²⁷tn Or “his locks [of hair] are curls.” The Hebrew adjective lT*l=T^ is a hapax legomena whose meaning is somewhat unclear. BDB suggests that lTlT is from the root llT I “mound, heap” (BDB 1068) which is related to Arabic tl “mound, hill, top” (Lane, Arabic-English Dictionary, 311) and Akkadian tilu “hill, mound” (AHw 3:1358). On the other hand, KBL suggests that lTlT means “date-panicle” and that it is related to the Akkadian noun taltallu “pollen of date-panicle” (KBL 1031). The term occurs in Mishnaic Hebrew as lTlT “curls, locks” (Jastrow, 1674b). It is used in the same in the Song. The form tltl is a reduplicated pattern used for adjectives denoting an intense characteristic (Waltke-O’Connor, Biblical Hebrew Grammar, 5.5; Moscati, Comparative Semitic Grammar, 12,9-13). It functions as a predicate adjective to the subjective nominative wyt*oxWq (“his locks of hair”).
²⁸tn In the genitive construct phrase <?Bh tgWru (literally, “beds of balsam”) the term <?B is a genitive of composition, identifying what these gardens were composed of. The term tgWru (“garden-beds”) refers to a private garden terrace or garden bed, a rare luxury in Palestine and very expensive to own (Ezek 17:7,10) (BDB 788). The term <?B (“balsam”) refers to balsam trees which yielded sweet-smelling oils from which perfumes were produced. The balsam trees should be identified either as Astragalus tragacantha which grew everywhere in Palestine and exude resin from its thorns, or as Commiphora opobalsamum which was not native to Israel but of South Arabia from whence it had to be imported at great cost (2 Chr 9:1). Shulamite is comparing the beautiful scent of Solomon’s cologned cheeks to fragrant beds of spice. See Fauna and Flora of the Bible (New York: United Bible Societies, 1980), 177-78.
²⁹tc Or “towers of perfume.” The MT reads tolD=g=m! (feminine plural construct noun from lD*g=m! “tower”) which yields the awkward “towers of perfume.” The term lDgm “tower” is normally used in reference to (1) watch-towers, defended towers along the city wall, and individual towers in the countryside to protect the borders, (2) storehouses, and (3) tower in a vineyard (KBL 2:543-44). It is never used in OT in association with a flower garden. On the other hand, LXX reads fuousai (“yielding”) which reflects an alternate vocalization tradition of tolD=g^m= (Piel participle fpl from ld^G* I “to increase, produce”). This makes good sense contextually because the Piel stem of ldg I means “to grow” plants and trees (Isa 44:14; Ezek 31:4; Jon 4:10) (KBL 1:179.2) This revocalization is suggested by BHS editors, as well as the Hebrew lexicographers (KBL 2:544.2; 1:179.2; BDB 152.1). Several translations follow LXX and revocalize the text (RSV, NIV, NJPS margin): “His cheeks are like beds of spice yielding perfume” (NIV) and “His cheeks are like beds of spice producing perfume” (NJPS margin). The other translations struggle to make sense of MT, but are forced to abandon a literal rendering of tolD=g=m! (“towers”): “banks sweet herbs” (ASV), “banks sweetly scented” (JB), “treasure-chambers full of perfume” (NEB), “banks of sweet scented herbs” (NASB), and “banks of perfume” (JPS, NJPS).
³⁰tn The term hum is used in reference to several things in the Old Testament: (1) the womb of a woman (Gen. 25:23; Isa. 49:1; Ps. 71:6; Ruth 1:11), (2) a man’s loins (Gen. 15:4; 2 Sam. 7:12; Isa. 48:19; 2 Chrn. 32:21), (3) the “inward parts” of a person, such as the stomach or intestines which are used to digest food (Num. 5:22; Job 20:14; Ezek. 3:3; Jon. 2:1-2), and (4) the external stomach or abdominal muscles: “abdomen” (Song 5:14).
³¹tn Heb “sweetnesses.” Alternately, “very delicious.” The term <yQ! ^tm=m^ (“sweetness”) (KBL 2:596; BDB 609) is the plural form of the noun qtm (“sweetness”). This may be an example of the plural of intensity, that is, “very sweet” (e.g., Waltke-O’Connor, Biblical Hebrew Syntax, 7.4.3a). The rhetorical use of the plural is indicated by the fact that <yQ! ^tm=m^ (“sweetness”) is functioning as a predicate nominative relative to the singular subjective nominative oKj! (“his mouth”).
³²tn The term <yD! ^mj&m^ (“desirable”) is the plural form of the noun dm^j=m^ (“desire, desirable thing, precious object”) (KBL 2:570.1; BDB 326). Like the plural <yQ! ^tm=m^ (“sweetness”) in the preceding parallel line, this use of the plural is probably an example of the plural of intensity: “very desirable.”
¹tn Heb “And we may seek him with you.” The waw-consecutive on WNvqbnW (lit. “and we may seek him with you”) denotes purpose/result.
²sn The term “garden” (/g) is used six other times in the Song. In five cases, it is used figuratively (hypocatastasis) to describe Shulamith’s body or the sexual love of the couple (4:12,15,16a,16b; 5:1). There is only one usage in which it might refer to a real garden (8:13). Thus, this usage of “garden” might be figuratively or literal. Options: (1) Solomon went to a real garden for repose. Solomon did, in fact, own a great many gardens (Eccl 2:4-7; 1 Chr 27:27). (2) The “garden” is a figurative description referring either to: (a) Shulamith, (b) their sexual love, or (c) Solomon’s harem.
³ sn The phrase “flower-beds of balsam” (<?bh tgWruk) is used elsewhere in the Song only in 5:13 where it is a simile comparing Solomon’s cheeks to a flower-bed of balsam yielding perfumed spices. The term “balsam-spice” (<?bh) by itself appears five times in the Song, each time as a figure for sexual love (4:10,14,16; 5:1; 8:14). Thus, the two options are: (1) the term refers to a real flower-bed of balsam to which Solomon had gone or (2) this term is a figure for sexual love.
⁴tn The verb tourl (“to browse” NIV) is from the root hur (“to feed, graze”) which is used seven times in the Song (1:7,8a,8b; 2:16; 4:5; 6:2,3). All its uses appear to be either literal or figurative descriptions of sheep grazing. The verb is used twice in reference to sheep “grazing” in a pasture (1:7,8). The participle is used once to designate “shepherds” (1:8), once in reference to two fawns which “which browse among the lilies” as a figurative description of her breasts (4:5), and twice as a figurative description of Solomon as “the one who browses among the lilies” which is probably also a comparison of Solomon to a grazing sheep (2:16; 6:3). Therefore, it is likely that the usage of the term tourl (“to browse”) in 6:2 is also a figurative comparison of Solomon to a sheep grazing among garden flowers. Thus, there are two options: (1) nuance the term tourl as “to browse” and take this as a literal action of Solomon walking through a real garden or (2) nuance the term tourl as “to graze” and take this as a figure in which Solomon is pictured as a gazelle grazing on the flowers in a garden.
⁵sn The term “lily” (hnvov) or “lilies” (<ynvov) appears eight times in the Song (2:1,2,16; 4:5; 5:13; 6:2,3; 7:2). Of these five are unequivocally used figuratively as descriptions of a woman or women (2:1,2), the color and softness of Shulamite’s breasts (4:5), the attractiveness of Solomon’s lips (5:13), and Shulamite’s waist (7:2). The closest parallel to 6:2 is the description “the one who grazes among the lilies” (2:16; 6:3) which is a figurative expression comparing Solomon’s romancing of Shulamite with a sheep feeding on lilies. However, this still leaves a question as to what the lilies represent in 2:16; 6:2,3. The phrase “to gather lilies” itself appears only here in the Song. However, the synonymous phrase “to gather myrrh and balsam spice” is used in 5:1 as a figure (euphemistic hypocatastasis) for sexual consummation by the man of the woman. There are three basic options as to how “lilies” may be taken: (1) The lilies are real flowers; Solomon has gone to a real garden in which to repose and she is picking real lilies. (2) The term “lilies” is a figure for Shulamite; Solomon is romancing Shulamite just as he had in 2:16 and 5:1. Solomon is kissing Shulamite’s mouth just as a sheep would graze among lilies. (3) The term “lilies” is a figure expression referring to other women, such as his harem (e.g., 6:8-9). Several factors support the “harem” interpretation: (1) Solomon had recently departed from Shulamite and she was desperate to find him after she refused him. (2) Solomon’s harem is mentioned explicitly in 6:8-9. However, several other factors support the “Shulamite” interpretation: (1) Shulamite expresses her confidence in 6:3 that Solomon is devoted to her. (2) The immediately following use of “lilies” in 6:3 appears to refer to Shulamite, as in 2:16 and 5:1. (3) Solomon praises Shulamite in 6:4-7, suggesting that he was romancing her in 6:2-3. (4) Although Solomon’s harem is mentioned in 6:8-10, all these women acknowledge that Solomon is disinterested in them and only loves Shulamite. (5) Shulamite’s exultation “I am my beloved’s and my beloved is mine; the one who browses among the lilies” (6:3) is a statement of assurance in their relationship and this would seem quite strange if Solomon was cavorting with his harem while she said this.
⁶sn This is the second occurrence of the poetic refrain that occurs elsewhere in 2:16 and 7:11. The order of the first two cola are reversed from 2:16: “My beloved is mine and I am his” (2:16) but “I am my beloved’s and he is mine” (6:3). The significance of this shift depends on whether the parallelism is synonymous or climactic. This might merely be a literary variation with no rhetorical significance. On the other hand, it might signal a shift in her view of their relationship: Originally, she focused on her possession of him, now she focused on his possession of her..
⁷tn Or “I belong to my beloved, and my lover belongs to me.” Alternately, “I am devoted to my beloved, and my lover is devoted to me.”
⁸sn Solomon compares Shulamite’s beauty to two of the most beautiful and important cities in the united kingdom of Judah and Israel, namely, Jerusalem and Tirzah. The beauty of Jerusalem was legendary; it is twice called “the perfection of beauty” (Ps. 50:2; Lam. 2:15). Tirzah was beautiful as well — in fact, the name means “pleasure, beauty” (BDB 953c). So beautiful was Tirzah that it would be chosen by Jeroboam as the original capital of the northern kingdom (1 Kings 15:33; 16:8,15,23). The ancient city Tirzah has been identified as Tel el-Far`ah near Nablus: B.S.J. Isserlin, “Song of Songs IV, 4: An Archaeological Note,” PEQ 90 (1958): 60; Roland de Vaux, “Le premiere campagne de fouilles a Tell el-Far`ah,” RB 54 (1947): 394-433.
⁹sn The literary unity of 6:4-10 and boundaries of Solomon’s praise are indicated by the repetition of the phrase “majestic as bannered armies/stars in procession ... “ (tolgdnk hmya) in 6:4 and 6:10 which creates an inclusion. His praise includes his own personal statements (6:4-9a) as well as his report of the praise given to her by the maidens, queens, and concubines (6:9b-10). His praise indicates that he had forgiven any ingratitude on her part.
¹⁰tn The verb bhr should be nuanced “overwhelm” or “arouse” rather than “storm against,” “make proud,” “confuse,” “dazzle” or “overcome.” See Jack S. Deere, “The Meaning of the Song of Songs,” unpublished Th.D. dissertation (Dallas Theological Seminary, 1985)
¹¹tn Or “your cheeks”
¹²tn The sequence “sixty ... eighty ... beyond number” is an example of a graded numerical sequence and is not intended to be an exact numeration. See: W.M.W. Roth, Numerical Sayings in the Old Testament: A Form-Critical Study. VTS 13 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1965); “The Numerical Sequence x/x+1 in the Old Testament,” VT 12 (1962): 300-11; Menahem Haran, “The Graded Numerical Sequence and the Phenomenon of ‘Automatism’ in Biblical Poetry,” VT 22 (1971): 238-67; P.J. Nel, “The Genres of Biblical Wisdom Literature,” JNWSL 9 (1981): 134-35; Wilfred G.E. Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry: A Guide to its Techniques JSOT Supplement Series, 26 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984), 144-50.
¹³tn The term “maiden” (hmlu) refers to a young woman who is sexually mature, that is, a young woman who is of marriageable age or a newly married young woman, usually before the birth of her first child (KBL 2:835-36; BDB 761c) (e.g., Gen 24:43; Exod 2:8; Ps 68:26; Prov 30:19; Song 1:3; 6:8; Isa 7:14). This use of the term “maidens” (tomlu) refers to the young women of Solomon’s harem, possibly virgins and not yet concubines. The root <lu III denotes the basic idea of “youthful, strong, passionate” (KBL 2:835) or “sexually ripe, vigorous” (BDB 761). While the term hmlu (“maiden”) may be used in reference to a young woman who is a virgin, the term itself does not explicitly denote “virgin.” The Hebrew term which explicitly denotes “virgin” is hlWtB which refers to a mature young woman without any sexual experience with men (e.g., Gen 24:16; Exod 22:15-16; Lev 21:3; Deut 22:23,28; 32:25; Judg 12:12; 19:24; 2 Sam 13:2,18; 1 Kgs 1:2; 2 Chrn 36:17; Est 2:2-3,17,19; Job 31:1; Pss 45:15; 78:63; 148:12; Isa 23:4; 62:5; Jer 2:32; 31:3; 51:22; Lam 1:4,18; 2:10,21; 5:11; Ezek 9:6; Joel 1:8; Amos 9:13; Zech 9:17 (KBL 1:167; BDB 143d). The related noun <ylWtB means “state of virginity” (Lev 21:13; Judg 11:37-38; Ezek 23:3,8; Sir 42:10) and “evidence of virginity” (Deut 22:14-15,17.20) (KBL 1:167).
¹⁴tn Or “She alone is my dove, my perfect one.” The term tja is used here as an adjective of quality: “unique, singular, the only one” (DCH 1:180). The masculine form is used elsewhere to describe YHWH as the “only” or “unique” God of Israel who demands exclusive love and loyalty (Deut 6:4; Zech 14:9). Although Solomon possessed a large harem, Shulamite was the only woman for him.
¹⁵sn There is a strong contrast between the “sixty queens ... eighty concubines ... virgins beyond number” and Shulamite as the “one” for Solomon. Although he could have any woman whom he could want, she was the only one he wanted.
¹⁶tn Heb “the only daughter of her mother.” The phrase Hmal tja is sometimes translated as “the only daughter of her mother” (NIV, NASB) or “the only one of her mother” (KJV). Delitzsch suggests that Shulamite was not her mother’s only daughter, but her most special daughter (Franz Delitzsch, “The Song of Solomon,” in Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 112). This is supported by the parallelism with hrb (“favorite”) in the following line. Similarly, Gen 22:2 and Prov 4:3 use the masculine term dja (“the only one”) to refer to the specially favored son, that is, the heir.
¹⁷tn The term hrb is sometimes nuanced “pure” (NASB) because the root rrb I denotes “to purify, purge out” (BDB 140-141). However, the root rrb II denotes “to choose, select” (BDB 141) (Neh. 5:18; 1 Chrn. 7:40; 9:22; 16:41). Most translations adopt the second root, e.g., “the choice one” (KJV), “the favorite” (NIV), “favorite” (JB). This is supported by the exegetical tradition of LXX, which translates hrb as ejklekth (“the chosen one”).
¹⁸tn Heb “daughters
¹⁹tn The verb “to call blessed” (rva) is used of people whom others consider fortunate because they have prospered or are to be commended (Gen 30:13; Ps 72:17; Mal 3:12,15). Likewise, the verb “to praise” (llh) is used elsewhere of people who are held in high esteem by others either due to a commendable moral quality (Prov 31:28,31) or due to one’s physical beauty (Gen 12:15; 2 Sam 14:25). The actual content of their praise of Shulamite appears in Song 6:10 in which they compare Shulamite’s beauty to that of the dawn, moon, sun, and stars.
²⁰sn For the use of rhetorical questions in Hebrew see: Robert Gordis, “A Rhetorical Use of Interrogative Questions in Biblical Hebrew,” AJSL 49 (1932-33): 212-17; Moshe Held, “Rhetorical Questions in Ugaritic and Hebrew,” Eretz-Israel 9 (1969): 71-79; Walter Brueggemann, “Jeremiah’s Use of Rhetorical Questions,” JBL 92 (1973): 358-74; Wilfred G.E. Watson, “Rhetorical Questions,” in Classical Hebrew Poetry: A Guide to Its Techniques (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984), 338-42. This rhetorical question emphasizes her position among women (e.g., Micah 2:7; Joel 2:1)
²¹tn “rises” or “looks forth.” Delitzsch renders hpqvnh as “who rises,” while NIV opts for “who appears.” The verb means “to look down upon (something) from a height”, and is derived from the related noun “ceiling, roof, sky” (BDB 1054; KBL 1009). The verb is used of looking down over a plain or valley from the vantage point of a mountain-top (Num 21:20; 23:28; 1 Sam 13:18); of God looking down from heaven (Ps 14:2); or of a person looking down below out of an upper window (Judg 5:28; 2 Sam 6:16; Prov 7:6). Pope suggests that this verb implies the idea of Shulamite’s superiority over the other women (Marvin H. Pope, The Song of Songs, The Anchor Bible, 7C (Garden City: Doubleday & Co., 1977), pp. 571-72). That is, she occupies a “higher” position over them due to Solomon’s choice of her. Carr questions whether such an intimation is actually present. The verb creates personification (i.e., the dawn is attributed with the human action of looking). Just as the dawn is the focus of attention during the morning hours and looks down upon the earth, so too Shulamite is the focus of Solomon’s attention and is in the privileged position over all the other women.
²²sn The common point in these four comparisons is that all are luminaries. In all four cases, each respective luminary is the focus or center of attention at the hour at hand because it dwarfs its celestial surroundings in majesty and in sheer brilliance. All other celestial objects pale into insignificance in their presence. This would be an appropriate description of Shulamite because she alone was the center and focus of Solomon’s attention. All the other women paled into the background when she was present. Her beauty captured the attention of all that saw her, especially Solomon..
²³tn The term hnbl literally means “the white one” (BDB 526) and is always used in reference to the moon. It is only used elsewhere in the OT in parallelism with the term which is used to designate the sun (Isa. 24:23; 30:26), which likewise is not the ordinary term, but literally means “the hot one,” which emphasizes the heat of the sun (Job 30:28; Ps. 19:6). Both of these terms, “the white one” and “the hot one,” are metonymies of adjunct in which an attribute (i.e., color and heat) are substituted for the subject itself. The white moon in contrast to the dark night sky captures one’s attention, just as the red-hot sun in the afternoon sky is the center of attention during the day.
sn The use of the figurative comparisons of Shulamite’s beauty to that of the dawn, sun, moon, and stars is strikingly similar to the Hebrews’ figurative comparison of Simon the high priest coming out of the sanctuary to the morning star, moon, sun, and rainbow: “How glorious he was when the people gathered round him as he came out of the inner sanctuary! Like the morning star among the clouds, like the moon when it is full; like the sun shining upon the temple of the Most High, and like the rainbow gleaming in glorious clouds” (See Gillis Gerleman, Das Hohelied (2nd Auflage) BKAT 18 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1981), 171.
²⁴tn Heb “pure as the sun
²⁵tn The adjective hmya has been nuanced “terrible” (KJV, RSV), “frightful, fear-inspiring” (Delitzsch), “majestic” (NIV), “awesome” (NASB). In the light of its parallelism with hpy (“beautiful”) and hwan (“lovely”) in 6:4, and hpy (“fair”) and hrb (“bright”) in 6:10, it should be nuanced “awe-inspiring” or “unnervingly beautiful.”
²⁶tn Heb “as bannered armies.” The term tolgdnk (lit. “as bannered armies”) is used figuratively (hypoctastasis) in reference to stars which are often compared to the heavenly armies. This nuance is clear in the light of the parallelism with the dawn, moon, and sun.
²⁷sn It is difficult to determine whether the speaker in 6:11-12 is Solomon (Gordis) or Shulammith (Delitzsch, Glickman, Deere, Carr).
²⁸sn The term zoga (“nut”) probably refers to the “walnut” or “walnut tree” (juglans regia) (DCH 1:116). The singular form is used collectively here to refer to a grove of walnut trees.
²⁹sn It is not clear whether the “valley” in 6:12 is a physical valley (Jezreel Valley?), a figurative description of their love relationship, or a double entendre.
³⁰tc MT vocalizes and divides the text as bydn-ymu (“my princely people”?); however, several other manuscripts read bydnymu (“Amminadab”). This alternate textual tradition is also reflected in LXX Aminadab and Vulgate.
tn Alternately “Before I realized it...” or “I did not know that….” Most scholars agree that the Hebrew text of 6:12 is the most elusive in the entire Song. The syntax is enigmatic and the textual reading is uncertain. Roland Murphy laments, “[It] has resisted all attempts at translation,” while Pope simply says “[It is] completely incomprehensible.” For various approaches, see N.H. Tur-Sinai, The Tongue and the Book (Ha-Lashon WeHa-Sepher) (Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1951), 2:385-86; idem, Peshuto shel Miqra (Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1968), 4:2:130-31; R. Gordis, “The Song of Songs,” in Mordecai M. Kaplan Jubilee Volume (New York: KTAV, 1953), 373-74; idem, The Song of Songs and Lamentations (New York: KTAV, 1974), 95; R. Tournay, “Les Chariots d’Aminadab (Cant. VI 12): Israel, Peuple Theophore,” VT 9 (1959): 288-309; M.H. Pope, Song of Songs, Anchor Bible 7C (Garden City: Doubleday, 1977), 584-92; Roland Murphy, “Towards a Commentary on the Song of Songs,” CBQ 39 (1977): 491-92; S.M. Paul, “An Unrecognized Medical Idiom in Canticles 6,12 and Job 9,21,” Biblica 59 (1978): 545-47; G. Lloyd Carr, The Song of Solomon, Tyndale Commentary (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1984), 151-53; Weston Fields, “Solomon’s Most Excellent Song,” unpublished Th.D. dissertation (Winona Lake: Grace Theological Seminary, 1979), 408-09; Jack S. Deere, “The Meaning of the Song of Songs,” unpublished Th.D. dissertation (Dallas: Dallas Theological Seminary, 1984), 194-96. The difficulty of this verse has generated a plethora of different approaches: “Or ever I was aware, my soul made me [like] the chariots of Ammi-nadib” (KJV), “Before I knew it, my soul made me like the chariots of Ammi-nadib” (AV), “Before I knew it, my fancy set me in a chariot beside my prince” (AT), “Before I knew ... my desire hurled me on the chariots of my people, as their prince” (JB), “Before I knew it, my desire set me mid the chariots of Ammi-nadib” (JPSV), “I did not know myself, she made me feel more than a prince reigning over the myriads of his people” (NEB), “Before I knew it, my heart had made me the blessed one of my kins-women” (NAB), “Before I was aware, my soul set me [over] the chariots of my noble people” (NASB), “Before I realized it, my desire set me among the royal chariots of my people” (NIV), “... among the chariots of Amminadab” (NIV margin), “... among the chariots of the people of the prince” (NIV margin), and “Before I realized it, I was stricken with a terrible homesickness and wanted to be back among my own people” (Living Bible). Traditionally, ytudy al (“I did not know that …” or “Before I realized it …”) is seen as introducing indirect discourse: bydn-ymu twmrm yn{t=m^?* yv!p=n~ (e.g., “… my soul set me among the chariots of my princely people”). The fs noun yvpn (“my soul”) is taken as the subject of yn{t=m^?* (Qal perfect 3fs from <y? ! + 1cs suffix “to put”) because it is the only explicit fs noun in the verse (KJV, NASB, AV, AT, JB, JPSV, NAB, NIV). In this approach bydn-ymu twmrm yntmv yvpn is enigmatic. This line is elusiveness in meaning, and it has spawned various translations: (1) “My soul made me [like] the chariots of Ammi-nadib” (KJV, AV); (2) “My fancy set me [in] a chariot beside my prince” (AT); (3) “My soul set me [over] the chariots of my noble people” (NASB); (4) “My desire set me [among] the chariots of Amminadab” (JPS, NJPS, NIV margin); (5) “My desire set me [among] the royal chariots of my people” (NIV); (6) “My desire set me [among] the chariots of the people of the prince” (NIV margin); (7) “My desire hurled me [on] the chariots of my people, [as their] prince” (JB); (8) “She made me feel more than a prince reigning over the myriads of his people” (NEB); (9) “My heart had made me the blessed one of my kins-women” (NAB); (10) “I was stricken with a terrible homesickness and wanted to be back among my own people” (Living Bible). Some Hebrew manuscripts add the locative preposition b or comparative particle k before tobkrm (“in/on/among/like the chariots”). Most translations supply an elided preposition: “My soul made me [like] the chariots of Ammi-nadib” (KJV, AV); “My fancy set me [in] a chariot beside my prince” (AT); “My soul set me [over] the chariots of my noble people” (NASB); “My desire set me [among] the chariots of Amminadab” (JPS, NJPS, NIV margin); “My desire set me [among] the royal chariots of my people” (NIV); “My desire set me [among] the chariots of the people of the prince” (NIV margin); “My desire hurled me [on] the chariots of my people, [as their] prince” (JB). LXX takes yvpn (“my soul” = “I”) as the subject of ytudy al and renders the line, “My soul (=I) did not know.” NEB follows suit, taking yvpn as the subject of ytudy al and renders the line: “I did not know myself” (NEB). Similarly, Robert Gordis and Shalom Paul posit that yvpn ytudy al (literally “I did not know myself”) is an idiom describing the emotional state of the speaker, either joy or anguish: “I was beside myself” (e.g., Job 9:21; Prov 19:2). Shalom Paul notes that the semantic equivalent of this Hebrew phrase is found in the Akkadian expression ramansu la ude (“he did not know himself”) which is a medical idiom describing the loss of composure, lucidity or partial loss of consciousness. Here in the Song, the speaker is beside himself/herself with anguish or joy. Selected Bibliography: Shalom M. Paul, “An Unrecognized Medical Idiom in Canticles 6,12 and Job 9,21,” Biblica 59 (1978): 545-47; Robert Gordis, The Song of Songs and Lamentations (New York: KTAV, 1974), 95. Gordis and Tur-Sinai offer a creative solution to the enigma of 6:12 thus: (1) They redivide MT yntmv (“it placed me”) into two words ynt <v (“There, give me”). (2) They redivide MT tobkrm (“chariots”) into tb irm (“your myrrh, O daughter”). (3) They revocalize the redivided consonantal text to bydn-ymu tb irm ynt <v and render the line, “There you will give me your myrrh, O noble kinsman’s daughter!” This approach is supported somewhat by LXX, which had a difficult time with the line: “There I will give my breasts to you!” The approach of Gordis and Tur-Sinai is explained and supported by several factors: (1) They take irm (“your myrrh”) as a figure (hypocatasis) for Shulamite’s love (e.g., 4:6,14; 5:1,5,13). (2) The word-division of bydn-ymu tb (“O noble kinsman’s daughter”) is paralleled by the nearly identical descriptive bydn-tb (“O nobleman’s daughter”) in 7:2. (3) Arabs referred to a girl as bint el akbar (“nobleman’s daughter”). (4) The referent of <v (“there”) is the garden/valley mentioned in 6:11. (5) This fits into the other literary parallels between 6:11-12 and 7:12- 14, listed as follows: (a) “I went down to the nut grove” (6:11a) and “Let us go to the vineyards” (7:12a). (b) “to look for new growth in the valley, to see if the vines had budded, or if the pomegranates were in bloom” (6:11b) and “Let us see if the vines have budded, if the blossoms have opened, if the pomegranates are in bloom” (7:13a). (c) “There ... give me your myrrh=love” (6:12b) and “There I will give you my love” (7:13b). Selected Bibliography: N.H. Tur-Sinai, The Tongue and the Book [Ha-Lashon WeHa-Sepher] (Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1951), 2:385-86; idem, Peshuto shel Miqra (Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1968), 4:2:130- 31; Robert Gordis, The Song of Songs and Lamentations (New York: KTAV Publishers, 1974), 95.
³¹sn Beginning with 6:13, the verse numbers through 7:13 in the English Bible differ by one from the verse numbers in the Hebrew text (BHS), with 6:13 ET = 7:1 HT, 7:1 ET = 7:2 HT, etc., through 7:13 ET = 7:14 HT. From 8:1 the versification in the English Bible and the Hebrew Bible is again the same.
³²tn Or “Return ... Return ...!” There are two basic interpretations to the meaning/referent of the imperative ybWv (“Turn!”): (1) The villagers of Shunem are beckoning Shulamite to return to the garden mentioned in 6:11-12: “Come back! Return!” Gordis nuances these uses of ybWv as “halt” or “stay.” (2) In the light of the allusion to Shulamite dancing in 7:1 (Heb 7:2), several scholars see a reference to an Arabic bridal dance. Budde emends MT ybWv to ybos (“revolve, spin”) from bbs (“to turn around”). Pope also emends the MT to the Hebrew verbal root bsy (“to leap, spin around”) which he connects to Arabic yasaba (“to leap”). These emendations are unnecessary to make the connection with some kind of dance because ybWv has a wide range of meanings from “turn” to “return.” Selected Bibliography: Robert Gordis, “Some Hitherto Unrecognized Meanings of the Verb SHUB,” JBL 52 (1933): 153-62; Marvin H. Pope, Song of Songs (Garden City: Doubleday, 1983), 595-96.
sn The imperative ybWv (“Turn!”) is repeated four times for emphasis.
³³tn The article on tymlWvh functions as a vocative (“O Shulammite”) rather than in a definite sense (“the Shulammite”). The article is often used to mark a definite addressee who is addressed in the vocative (e.g., 1 Sam 17:55,58; 24:9; 2 Kgs 6:26; 9:5; Prov 6:6; Eccl 11:9; Zech 3:8). For the vocative use of the article, see Gesenius, Hebrew Grammar, #126e; Paul Jouon, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, #137f; Ronald Williams, Hebrew Syntax: An Outline, #89; Bruce Waltke and M. O’Connor, Biblical Hebrew Syntax, #13.5.2.c.
³⁴tn Or “O Shunammite,” “O Solomoness,” or “O perfect one.” tn The term tymlWvh has been variously translated: “Shulammite maiden” (NEB); “maiden of Shulam” (JB); “O maid of Shulem” (NJPS); “the Shulammite” (KJV; NASB; NIV). The meaning of the name tymlWvh is enigmatic and debated. LXX renders it h Soulamitij (“O Shulamite”) and Vulgate renders it Sulamitis (“O Shulamite”). A few Hebrew manuscripts read the plural tomlWvh but the Masoretic tradition reads tymlWvh as the versions confirm. Eight major views have emerged in the history of interpretation of the Song. They are arranged, as follows, in order from most likely (Views 1-3), plausible (Views 4-5), unlikely (View 6), to bizarre (Views 7-8): (1) tymlWv is alternate form of the Gentilic name “Shunammite” (tymnWv) used to refer to inhabitants of Shunem (1 Kgs 1:15; 2 Kgs 4:12). This is reflected in LXX h Soulamitij (“O Shunamite”). This is supported by several factors: (a) Gentilic names are formed by the suffix ty- and the prefixed article to a place-name, e.g., tyml?Wryh (“the Jerusalemite”) is from <l?Wry (“Jerusalem”); (b) the interchange between lateral dental /l/ and nasal dental /n/ is common in the Semitic languages (Sabatino Moscati, Comparative Semitic Grammar, #8.26); (c) the town of Shunem was also known as Shulem, due to the common interchange between /n/ and /l/ in Hebrew (Aharoni, 123), as seen in Eusebius’s Onomasticon in which Shunem=Shulem; and (d) later revisions of the LXX read Õ Sounamwtij (“the Shunamite”) instead of the Old Greek Õ Soulamwtij (“the Shulamite”). (2) tymlWv is the feminine form of the masculine name hmlv (“Solomon”), just as Judith is the feminine of Judah: “Shulamith” or “Solomonette” or “Solomoness” (Lowth, Goodspeed, Rowley). The feminine ending ty- may be suffixed to masculine personal names to transform them into feminine names. A similar form occurs in the Ugaritic designation of Daniel’s wife is Lady Daniel (e.g., mtt dnty). An anonymous Jewish commentator of the 12th century wrote: “The Shulammite was beloved of Solomon, for she was called after the name of her beloved.” The 16th century commentator Joseph Ibn Yahya wrote: “And the calling of her ‘Shulammite’ was determined by reason of her devotion to the Holy One (Blessed be He) who is called Shelomoh.” (3) As a combination of views 1-2, tymlWv is a word-play formed by the combination of the feminine name tymlv (“Shelomite”) from hmlv (“Solomon”) and the Gentilic name tymnWvh (“the Shunammite”) denoting a woman from Shunem: “Solomoness/Shunammite.” (4) tymlWv is Qal passive participle with the feminine adjectival suffix ty- from the root <lv (“peace”): “the peaceful one” or “the pacified one” (Andr‚ Robert, Paul Jouon). This is reflected in Vulgate pacificus (“the pacified one”), and Aquilla and Quinta Õehruneousa “the peaceful one” (Andr‚ Robert, Paul Jouon). (5) tymlWv is a substantival use of the adjectival form qutal <lWv (“perfection”) with the Gentilic suffix ty- from the root <lv (“to be complete, perfect”): “the perfect, unblemished one” (Fox). This approach is reflected in rabbinic exegesis of the 12th century: “The meaning of the Shulammite is ‘perfect, without spot’” (Midrash Rabbah). (6) tymlWv is related to the Arabic root salama “consummation gift” (given to a bride the morning after the wedding): “O Consummated One” or “O Bride” (Hirschberg). (7) Those espousing a cultic interpretation of Canticles take tymlWv as the name or epithet of the Canaanite moon goddess Ishtar, designated by the feminine form of the name Shelem, the name of her lover Tammuz, called Dod or Shelem (T.J. Meek). (8) An alternate cultic interpretation takes tymlWv as a conflation of the name of the Assyrian war-goddess “Shulmanith” (Ishtar) and the Gentilic name “the Shunammite” for a woman from Shunem (Albright). For further discussion see: Andr‚ Robert, “La paix eschatologique dans le Cantique des Cantiques,” in Actas del XXXV Congresso Eucaristico Internacional (Paris: Cerf, 1954), 1:335-37; Paul Jouon, Le Cantique des Cantiques: Commentaire philogique et exegetique (Paris: Cerf, 1909), 274; Michael V. Fox, The Song of Songs and the Egyptian Love Songs (Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1985), 157-58); T.J. Meek, “Canticles and the Tammuz Cult,”AJSL 39 (1922-23): 1-14; E.J. Goodspeed, “The Shulammite,” AJSL 50 (1933): 102-104; H.H. Rowley, “The Meaning of ‘The Shulammite’,”AJSL 56 (1938): 84-91; W.F. Albright, “The Syro-Mesopotamian God Sulman-Esmun and Related Figures,” AfO 7 (1931- 32): 164-69; idem, “Archaic Survivals in the Text of Canticles,” in Hebrew and Semitic Studies Presented to Geoffrey Rolles Driver, edited by D. Winton Thomas and W.D. McHardy (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963), 5; H.H. Hirschberg, “Some Additional Arabic Etymologies in Old Testament Lexicography,” VT 11 (1961): 373-85; Marvin H. Pope, Song of Songs (Garden City: Doubleday, 1982), 596-600.
sn Shunem was a town in the Jezreel Valley at the foot of Mount Moreh near Mount Tabor and situated about nine miles east of Megiddo, fifteen miles northwest of Beth-shean, and five miles north of Jezreel (Josh 19:18; 1 Sam 28:4; 2 Kgs 4:8). During the Roman period, the town was called Shulem. See Yohanan Aharoni, The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1979), 24, 152, 172, 442, 308. Some scholars suggest that “Shulammite/Shunammite” refers to Abishag, the beautiful virgin from the village of Shunem who warmed elderly King David and was sought by Adonijah (1 Kgs 2:13- 25). Other scholars argue that Abishag has been imported in the Song on too slender grounds. In 6:11-12 the Beloved states that she journeyed to a valley, which could have been the Valley of Jezreel in which Shunem was located, while in 6:13 the inhabitants of the valley (the inhabitants of Shunem?) urge her to return again and address her as tymlWv (“O Shulammite”).
³⁵tn Heb “we.”
sn In ancient Near Eastern love literature, plural verbs and plural pronouns are often used in reference to singular individuals. See note on Song 2:15.
³⁶tn Or “What do you see in the Shulammith?” or “Why should you look upon the Shulammith?” The interrogative pronoun hm normally denotes “what?” or “why?” (BDB 552; KBL 2:550-52). However, Gesenius suggests that the phrase WzjT-hm is the idiom “Look now!” on the analogy of Arabic ma tara (“Look now!”) (GKC 137b n1).
³⁷tc The Masoretic Text reads tljmk (“like the dance”), while other Hebrew manuscripts read toljmb (“in the dances”). LXX wj coroi (“like the dances”) reflects toljmk and Symmachus ejn trwsesin (“in the injury”) reflects the locative preposition but a confusion of the noun.
tn Or “like a dance of two camps” or “like a dance in two lines.” The phrase <ynjmh tljmk is difficult to translate: “as it were the company of two armies” (KJV), “as at the dance of the two campanies” (NASB), “as at the dance of Mahanaim” (NIV), “in the Mahanaim dance” (NJPS). The meaning of the individual terms is clear: The noun hljm denotes “dance in a ring” (Exod 15:20; 32:19; Judg 11:34; 21:21; 1 Sam 21:12; 29:5) (KBL 2:569). The noun hnjm denotes “encampment, camp, army” and the dual form probably means “two armies” (KBL 2:570). However, the meaning of the genitive-construct <ynjmh tljm is unclear: “dance of the two camps/armies”(?). Rudolph suggests “dance in two lines,” while Albright proposed “the dance of the Mahanaim” (Driver Festschrift 5:4). LXX translates wj coroi twn parembolwn (“like the dances before the camps”).
¹sn Solomon calls attention to the sandles the “noble daughter” was wearing. While it was common for women in aristocratic circles in the ancient Near East to wear sandals, women of the lower classes usually went barefoot (e.g., Ezek 16:10). Selected Bibliography: John L. McKenzie, Encyclopedia of the Living Bible (Chicago: San Francisco Productions, 1967), 10:59.
²tn Or “noble daugther” or “magnificient daughter.” The title bydn-tb “princely daugther” or “daugther of the prince” (KBL 2:674; BDB 622a) suggests to some that this woman is not the Israelite country maiden of chapters 1-4 and 8, but the daughter of Pharaoh whom Solomon later married (1 Kings 11:1). While the term bydn often denotes nobility of position (“nobleman”), it can also denote nobility of character (“noble, willing, magnificient”) (e.g., Prov 17:26; Isa 32;5,8) (KBL 2:673-74; BDB 622a). For further discussion, see Franz Delitzsch, “The Song of Songs,” Commentary on the Old Testament, 122; Jack Deere, “The Meaning of the Song of Songs,” 198.
³tn The term qWmj (“curve”) describes the shapely curvature of her legs (KBL 2:327; BDB 330b) rather than a curving, dancing motion (Arabic bridal dance view). Although the verb qmj (“turn”) appears twice (Song 5:6; Jer 31:22), the noun qWmj is a hapax legomena. In post-biblical Hebrew it refers to “rundles” (Jastrow, 476). The term here has been translated in various ways: “(thigh) joints” (KJV), “rounded (thighs)” (RSV), “curves (of thighs)” (NASB), “graceful (thighs)” (NIV)
⁴tn The term “thigh” (iry) may refer to (1) the fleshly upper part of the thigh where the leg joins the pelvis (Gen 32:25-32; 46:26; Exod 1:5; Judg 8:30) or (2) the outside of the thigh from the hip down (Exod 32:27; Judg 3:16,21; Ps 45:4; Song 3:8). The first usage is usually restricted to a figure for the male loins, the source of male procreation (Gen 46:26; Exod 1:5) and the locus of an oath (Gen 24:2,9; 47:29).
⁵tn Less likely, “vulva.” The noun rrv is a hapax legomena, appearing in the OT only here. There is debate whether it means “navel” or “vulva.” Options: (1) Lys and Pope suggest that rrv is related to Arabic srr (“secret place, pedunda, coition, fornication”). They argue that this is contextually supported by three factors: (a) Solomon’s descriptive praise of Shulamite is in ascending order, beginning with her feet and concluding with her hair. The movement from her thighs (7:1b), to her vulva (7:2a), and then to her waist (7:2b) would fit this. (b) The descriptive comparison to a glass of wine would be grotesque if her navel were in view — her navel was moist or filled with liquid?!? — but appropriate if her vulva were in view. (c) The navel would be a somewhat synonymous reference to the belly which is already denoted by infb (“belly”) in the following line. Because 7:1-7 does not use synonymous parallelism, the term rrv would have to refer to something other than the belly. (2) There are three lines of evidence that suggest rrv denotes “navel”: (a) It may be related to the bi-consonantal noun rv (“navel, umbilical cord”) (Prov 3:8; Ezek 16:4). (b) Mishnaic Hebrew rrv denotes “navel, umbilical cord” (Jastrow, 1634). For example, in a midrash on the Book of Numbers, the noun rrv appears in an allusion to Song 7:3 to justify the seating of the Sanhedrin in the middle of the synagogue: “As the navel (rrv) is placed in the centre of the body, so are the Sanhedrin ...” (Numbers Rabbah 1:4). On the other hand, the meaning “vulva” never appears in Mishnaic Hebrew. Therefore, apart from this disputed usage there is no evidence that this term was ever used in this manner in Hebrew. (c) Rather than being related rrv to Arabic sirr (“pedunda”), it could just as easily be related to the Arabic noun surr “navel.” It is methodologically more sound to define rrv as “navel” than as “vulva.” (d) The nuance “navel” is not as out of line contextually as Lys and Pope suggest. The navel would not be out of place in the ascending order of praise because the “abdomen” (infb) which follows may be viewed as both above and below the navel. The figurative association of the rrv as a mixing bowl filled with wine does not imply that this bodily part must actually be moist or filled with liquid as Pope suggests. The point of comparison is not physical or visual but one of function, i.e., it is intoxicating. The comparison of the navel to a mixing bowl of wine is no more out of line than the comparison of the belly to a heap of wheat in the next line. In fact, the two go together — she is both the “drink” and “food” for Solomon. The shape of the navel is more congruent with the metaphor of the “round bowl” than the vulva, that is, it is round and receeding. In conclusion, the meaning “navel” is the most appropriate, while “vulva” is unnecessarily hyper-erotic. Selected Bibliography: Delitzsch, 123; Deere, 199-200; Daniel Lys, “Notes sur de Cantique,” Vetus Testamentum Supplement 17 (1969): 171-78; Marvin H. Pope, ibid, 617; Carr, 157.
⁶sn The expression “round mixing bowl” (rhsh /ga) refers to a vessel used for mixing wine. Archaeologists have recovered examples of such large, deep, two handled, ring-based round bowls. The Hebrew term /ga (“mixing bowl”) came into Greek usage as aggoj which designates vessels used for mixing wine (e.g., Homer, Odyssey xvi 16) (Liddell-Scott 7). This is consistent with the figurative references to wine which follows: “it never lacks mixed wine.” Selected Bibliography: J.P. Brown, “The Mediterranean Vocabulary for Wine,” Vetus Testamentum 19 (1969): 158; A.M. Honeyman, “The Pottery Vessels of the Old Testament,” Palestinian Exploration Quarterly 80 (1939): 79; J.T. Milik, Dedicacaes faites par des dieux (Paris: Bibliotheque archaeologique et historique, 1972), 108-109. The comparison of her navel to a “round mixing bowl” is visually appropriate in that both are round and receeding. The primary point of comparison to the round bowl is one of sense, as the following clause makes clear: “which never lacks mixed wine.” Deere suggests that the point of comparison is that of taste, desirability, and function (Deere, ibid., 202). More specifically, it probably refers to the source of intoxication, that is, just as a bowl used to mix wine was the source of physical intoxication, so Shulammite was the source of Solomon’s sexual intoxication. She intoxicated Solomon with her love in the same way that wine intoxicates a person.
⁷tn Or “May it never lack mixed wine!” The phrase rsjy-la has traditionally been taken as an imperfect: “it never lacks mixed wine” (Pope, Song of Songs, 619): “which wanteth not liquor” (KJV), “in which liquor is never lacking” (RSV), “that never lacks mixed wine” (JB), “with no lack of wine” (NEB), “that shall never want for spiced wine” (NEB), “that never lacks blended wine” (NIV). This is also how LXX understood it: mh usteroumenoj krama (“not lacking liquor”). However, it can also be taken as a jussive expressing a wish or request: “May it never lack mixed wine!” (Deere, 202), e.g., “that should never lack for mixed wine” (NASB) and “Let mixed wine not be lacking!” (NJPS).
⁸sn The term “mixed wine” (gzm) does not refer to wine mixed with water to water-down its potency, but to strong wine mixed with weaker wine. The practice of mixing wine with water is not attested in the Hebrew Bible. Both gzm and ism refer to strong wine mixed with weaker wine. The rabbis later distinguished between the two, stating that gzm was strong wine mixed with weak wine, while ism was wine mixed with water (Aboda Zara 58b). However, both types of wine were intoxicating. Mixed wine was the the most intoxicating type of wine. In a midrash on the Book of Numbers a comment is made about the practice of mixing strong wine with weaker wine (e.g., Isa 5:22; Prov. 23:30), stating its purpose: “They used to mix strong wine with weak wine so as to get drunk with it” (Numbers Rabbah 10:8). Selected Bibliography: J. Pairman Brown, “The Mediterranean Vocabulary of Wine,” Vetus Testamentum 19 (1969): 154. The comparison of a wife’s sexual love to intoxicating wine is common in ancient Near Eastern love literature. Parallel in thought is the words of the Hebrew sage, “May your fountain be blessed and may you rejoice in the wife of your youth. A loving doe, a graceful deer — may her breasts always intoxicate you, may you ever stagger like a drunkard in her love” (Prov 5:18-19).
⁹tn Or “your waist.” The term infb probably refers to the woman’s “belly” rather than “waist.” It is associated with a woman’s abdominal/stomach region rather than her hips (Prov 13:25; 18:20; Ezek 3:3).
sn The comparison of her belly to a heap of wheat is visually appropriate because of the similarity of their symmetrical shape and tannish color. The primary point of comparison, however, is based upon the commonplace association of wheat in Israel, namely, wheat was the main staple of the typical Israelite meal (Deut 32:14; 2 Sam 4:6; 17:28; 1 Kgs 5:25; Pss 81:14; 147:14). Just as wheat satisfied an Israelite’s physical hunger, Shulamite satisfied Solomon’s sexual hunger. Deere makes this point in the following manner: “The most obvious commonplace of wheat was its function, that is, it served as one of the main food sources in ancient Palestine. The Beloved was both the “food” (wheat) and “drink” (wine) of the Lover. Her physical expression of love nourished and satisfied him. His satisfaction was great for the “mixed wine” is intoxicating and the “heap of wheat” was capable of feeding many. The “heap of wheat” also suggests the harvest, an association which contributes to the emotional quality of the metaphor. The harvest was accompanied with a joyous celebration over the bounty yielded up by the land. So also, the Beloved is bountiful and submissive in giving of herself, and the source of great joy” (Deere, 203-204).
¹⁰tn Heb “fenced around by”
¹¹tn Or “the ivory tower.” The noun /vh (“ivory”) is a genitive of composition, that is, a tower made out of ivory.
sn Solomon had previously compared her neck to a tower (Song 4:4). In both cases the most obvious point of comparison has to do with size and shape, that is, her neck was long and symmetrical. Archaeology has never found a tower overlaid with ivory in the ancient Near East and it is doubtful that there ever was an actual tower overlaid with ivory. The point of comparison might simply be that the shape of her neck looks like a tower, while the color and smoothness of her neck was like ivory. Solomon is mixing metaphors: her neck was long and symmetrical like a tower; but also elegant, smooth and beautiful as ivory. The beauty, elegance, and smoothness of a woman’s neck is commonly compared to ivory in ancient love literature. For example, in a piece of Greek love literature, Anacron compared the beauty of the neck of his beloved Bathyllus to ivory (Ode xxxix 28-29).
¹²sn It is impossible at the present time to determine the exact significance of the comparison of her eyes to the “gate of Bath-Rabbim” because this site has not yet been identified by archaeologists.
¹³tn Heb “your head [is] upon you”
¹⁴sn The Carmel mountain range is a majestic sight. The mountain range borders the southern edge of the plain of Esdraelon, dividing the Palestinian coastal plain into the Plain of Accho to the north and the Plains of Sharon and Philistia to the south. Its luxuriant foliage was legendary (Isa 33;9; Amos 1:2; Nah 1:4). Rising to a height of approximately 1750 feet, it extends southeast from the Mediterranean for thirteen miles. Due to its greatness and fertility, it was often associated with majesty and power (Isa 35:2; Jer 46:18). The point of the comparison is that Shulamite’s head crowns her body just as the majestic Mount Carmel rested over the landscape, rising above it in majestic and fertile beauty. Selected Bibliography: W.H. Mare, “Carmel,” Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974), 1:755; Charles F. Pfeiffer and Howard F. Vos, Wycliffe Historical Geography of Bible Lands (Chicago, Moody Press, 1974), 100.
¹⁵tn The term hld (“locks, hair”) refers to dangling curls or loose hair that hangs down from one’s head (KBL 1:222-23). The Hebrew term is from a common Semitic root meaning “to hang down,” and is related to Arabic tadaldala “dangle” and Ethiopic delul “dangling curls” (KBL 222-23).
¹⁶tn Heb “like purple” or “like purple fabric.” The term /mgra (“purple fabric”) refers to wool dyed with red purple (BRL 153; KBL 1:84). It is used in reference to purple threads (Exod 35:25; 39:3; Est 1:9) or purple cloth (Num 4:13; Judg 8:26; Est 8:15; Prov 31:22; Jer 10:9; Song 3:10). NASB translates it as “purple threads,” while NIV nuances this term as “royal tapestry.” Pope adduces several ancient Near Eastern texts and suggests that it refers to purple hair-dye (Pope, 629-30). The comparison is between hair which entangles Solomon like binding cords and therefore, it seems most likely that the idea here must be purple threads. The Hebrew noun is a loanword from Hittite argaman “tribute,” which is reflected in Akkadian argamannu “purple” (also “tribute” under Hittite influence), Ugaritic argmn “tax, purple,” Aramaic argwn “purple” (KBL 1:84). Purple cloth and threads were considered very valuable (Ezek 27:7,16) and were commonly worn by kings as a mark of their royal position (Judg 8:26).
¹⁷tn Or “captivated.” The verb rsa (“to bind, capture, hold captive, put in prison”) is commonly used of binding a prisoner with cords and fetters (Gen 42:34; Judg 15:10-13; 16:5-12; 2 Kgs 17:4; 23:33; 25:7; 2 Chr 33:11) (KBL 1:75). It is frequently used as a figure to depict absolute authority over a person (Ps 105:22). The passive participle rWsa means “to be bound, held captive, imprisoned” (2 Sam 3:34; Jer 40:1; Job 36:8). Like a prisoner bond in cords and fetters and held under the complete control and authority of his captor, Solomon was captivated by the spellbinding power of her hair. In a word, he was the prisoner of love and she was his captor. Similar imagery appears in an ancient Egyptian love song: “With her hair she throws lassoes at me, with her eyes she catches me, with her necklace she entangles me, and with her seal ring she brands me” (Song 43 in the Chester Beatty Cycle, translated by William Kelly Simpson, The Literature of Ancient Egypt [New Haven: Yale University Press, 1972], 324). Deere suggests, “The concluding part of the metaphor, ‘The king is held captive by your tresses,’ is a beautiful expression of the powerful effect of love. A strong monarch was held prisoner by the beauty of his Beloved” (Deere, 206-207). This is a startling statement because Solomon emphasizes that the one who was being held captive like a prisoner in bonds was the “king”! At this point in world history, Solomon was the ruler of the most powerful and wealthy nation in the world (1 Kings 3:13; 10:23-29). And yet he was held totally captive and subject to the beauty of this country maiden!
¹⁸tc Or “O beloved one.” Consonantal hbha is vocalized by the Masoretes as hb*h&a^ (“love”). However, a variant Hebrew manuscript tradition preserves the vocalization of the passive form hb*h%a& (“beloved one, one who is loved”), as is also reflected in the Latin Vulgate and Syriac.
sn The term “love” (hbha) usually refers to sexual love between a man and his wife (2 Sam 13:15; Prov 5:19) or emotional love between a man and a woman (2 Sam 1:26; Song 8:6-7) (KBL 1:18).
¹⁹tc Or “daughter of delights” or “delightful daughter.” Perhaps “delight of love.” The MT preserves a syntactically difficult reading <ygWnutb (“in/with delights”). A variant Hebrew textual tradition preserves the alternate reading <ygWnut tb (“daughter of delights” or “delightful daughter”). The textual variant is either due to haplography (mistakenly writing t once instead of twice) or dittography (mistakenly writing t twice instead of once). The alternate textual tradition is reflected in Aquilla qugathr trufwn (“daughter of delights”). However, the MT reading <ygWnutb hbha (“O love, in your delights”) is supported by LXX (Old Greek) ajgaph, ejn trufaij sou (“O love, in your delights”).
sn The term gWnuT (“luxury, daintiness, exquisite delight”) is used in reference to: (1) tender love (Mic 1:16); (2) the object of pleasure (Micah 2:9); (3) erotic pleasures (Eccl 2:8); (4) luxury befitting a king (Prov 19:10). The term may have sexual connotations, as when it is used in reference to a harem of women who are described as “the delights” of the heart of a man (Eccl 2:8) (BDB 772).
²⁰tn The term “stature” (itmoq) indicates the height of an object, e.g., tall person (1 Sam 16:7; Ezek 13:8), tall tree (2 Kgs 19:23; Isa 10:33; Ezek 31:3-5,10-14), a towering vine (Ezek 19:11).
²¹sn The term rmt (“palm tree”) refers to the date palm tree (Phoenix dactyliferia) that can reach a height of eighty feet. It flourished in warm moist areas and oases from Egypt to India. Ancient Iraq was the leading grower of date palms and dates in the ancient world, as today (Pope, Song of Songs, 633). There is also a hint of eroticism in this palm tree metaphor because the palm tree was often associated with fertility in the ancient world. The point of comparison is that she is a tall, slender, fertile young woman. The comparison of a tall and slender lady to a palm tree is not uncommon in love literature: “O you, whose height is that of a palm tree in a serail” (Homer, Odyssey vi 162-63). Selected Bibliography: S.H. Stephan, “Modern Palestinian Parallels to the Song of Songs,” Journal of the Palestinian Oriental Society 2 (1922): 76; Helmer Ringgren, “Die Volksdichtung und das Hohe Lied,” Uppsala universitetsarsskrift 5 (1952): 92-97; Wilhelm Wittekindt, Das Hohelied und seine Beziehungen zum Istarkult (Hannover: Heinz Lafaire, 1935), 49-53.
²²tn Or “clusters of figs.” The term tolkva (“clusters”) usually refers to (1) clusters of grapes, that is, the stalk on which the bunch of grapes grow and the bunch of grapes themselves (Gen 40:10; Num 13:23-24; Deut 32:32; Isa 65:8; Mic 7:1) or (2) the berry on a cluster of henna-bush (Song 1:14) (KBL 1:95). It is possible that this is an anomolous usage in reference to a cluster of dates rather than to a cluster of grapes for three reasons: (1) the “palm tree” (rmt) referred to in 7:7 is a date-palm, (2) the term “fruit-stalks” (/sns) in 7:8a refers to the fruit-stalk of dates (rademus dactylorum), being related to Akkadian sissinnu (“part of the date-palm”), and (3) the reference to climbing the palm-tree in 7:8a is best understood if it is a date-palm and its fruit are dates. The comparison between her breasts and clusters of dates probably has to do with shape and multiplicity, as well as taste, as the rest of this extended metaphor intimates. Pope notes: “The comparison of the breasts to date clusters presumably intended a pair of clusters to match the dual form of the word for ‘breasts.’ A single cluster of dates may carry over a thousand single fruits and weigh twenty pounds or more. It may be noted that the multiple breasts of the representations of Artemis of Ephesus look very much like a cluster of large dates, and it might be that the date clusters here were intended to suggest a similar condition of polymasty” (Pope, 634).
²³tn Heb “I said, ‘I will climb …’” The verb rma (“to say”) is often used metonymically in reference to the thought process, emphasizing the spontaneity of a decision or of an idea which has just entered the mind of the speaker moments before he speaks (Gen. 20:11; 26:9; 44:28; Exod. 2:14; Num. 24:11; Ruth 4:4; 1 Sam. 20:4,26; 2 Sam. 5:6; 12:22; 2 Kings 5:11). Pope renders it appropriately: “Methinks” (Pope, Song of Songs, 635).
²⁴sn A Palestinian palm tree grower would climb a palm tree for two reasons: (1) to pluck the fruit and (2) to pollinate the female palm trees. Because of their heigth and because the dates would not naturally fall off the tree, the only way to harvest dates from a palm tree is to climb the tree and pluck the fruit off of the stalks. This seems to be the primary imagery behind this figurative expression. The point of comparison here would be that just as one would climb a palm tree to pluck its fruit so that it might be eaten and enjoyed, so too Solomon wanted to embrace Shulammith closely so that he might embrace and enjoy her breasts. It is also possible that the process of pollination is also behind this figure. A palm tree is climbed to pick its fruit or to dust the female flowers with pollen from the male flowers (the female and male flowers were on separate trees). To obtain a better yield and accelerate the process of pollination, the date-grower would transfer pollen from the male trees to the flowers on the female trees. This method of artifical pollination is depicted in ancient Near Eastern art. For example, a relief from Gozan (Tel Halaf) dating to the 9th century BC depicts a man climbing a palm-tree on a wooden ladder with his hands stretched out to take hold of its top branches to pollinate the flowers or to pick the fruit from the tree. The point of this playful comparison is clear: Just as a palm-tree grower would climb a female tree to pick its fruit and to pollinate it with a male flower, Solomon wanted to grasp her breasts and to make love to her. Selected Bibliography: John L. McKenzie, ed. Encyclopedia of the Living Bible (Chicago: San Francisco Productions, Inc., 1974), 10:60.
²⁵sn The Hebrew noun jpt has been traditionally been translated as “apple,” but modern botanists and the most recent lexicographers now identify jpt with the “apricot” (BDB 656b). This might better explain the association with the sweet smelling scent, especially since the term is derived from a Semitic root denoting “aromatic scent.” Apricots were often associated with their sweet scent in the ancient world. Selected Bibliography: Fauna and Flora of the Bible (New York: United Bible Societies, 1980), 92-93.
²⁶sn The term ij (“palate, mouth”) is often used as a metonymy for what the mouth produces, e.g., the mouth is the organ of taste (Ps 119:103; Job 12:11; 20:13; 34:3; Prov 24:13; Song 2:3), speech (Job 6:30; 31:30; 33:2; Prov 5:3; 8:7), sound (Hos 8:1), and kisses (Song 5:16; 7:10) (KBL 1:313; BDB 335). The metonymical association of her palate/mouth and her kisses is made explicit by RSV which translated the term as “kisses.”
²⁷tn Or “his lips as he falls asleep.” Literally, “the lips of sleepers.” Alternately, “over lips and teeth.” The MT reads <ynvy ytpv (“lips of those who sleep”). However, an alternate Hebrew reading of ynvw ytp? (“my lips and my teeth”) is suggested by the Greek tradition (LXX, Aquilla, Symmachus): ceilesin mou kai odousin (“my lips and teeth”)
²⁸tn Heb “his desire is for me”
²⁹sn In the ancient Near East the mandrake was a widely used symbol of erotic love because it was thought to be an aphrodisiac and therefore, it was used as a fertility drug. The unusual shape of the large forked roots of the mandrake resembles the human body with extended arms and legs. This similarity gave rise to the popular superstition that the mandrake could induce conception and it was therefore, used as a fertility drug. It was so thoroughly associated with erotic love that its name is derived from the Hebrew root dod (“love”), that is, <yadWd denotes “love-apples.” Arabs used its fruit and roots as an aphrodisiac and referred to it as abd al- sal’m (“servant of love”). See R.K. Harrison, “The Mandrake and the Ancient World,” Expositor Quarterly 28 (1956): 188-89; Fauna and Flora of the Bible (New York: United Bible Societies, 1980), 138-39.
³⁰sn Her comparison of their love to fruit stored “over our door” reflects an ancient Near Eastern practice of storing fruit on a shelf above the door of a house. In the ancient Near East, fruits were stored away on shelves or cupboards above doorways where they were out of reach and left to dry until they became every sweet and delectable. The point of comparison in this figurative expression seems to be two-fold: (1) She was treasuring up special expressions of her sexual love to give to him, and (2) All these good things were for him alone to enjoy. Selected Bibliography: Franz Delitzsch, 136-37; Marvin H. Pope, 650.
¹tn The imperfect inty (Qal imperfect 3ms with 2ms suffix from /tn “to give”) may denote a desire or wish of the subject, e.g., Gen 24:58; Exod 21:36; 1 Sam 21:10 (Waltke-O’Connor, 31.4.h). The optative particle ym with an imperfect expresses an unreal wish, e.g., Judg 9:29; 2 Sam 15:4; Mal 1:10 (Brockelmann, Hebraische Syntax, 9). The construction /T! !y y{ !m is an idiom expressing an unreal wish in the optative mood (KBL 2:575), e.g., “Would that it were evening…Would that it were morning!” (KJV) or “If only it were evening…If only it were morning!” (NIV) (Deut 28:67); “Oh that I knew where I might find him” (KJV, NASB, NJPS), “I wish I had known” (KBL 2:575), “If only I knew where to find him; if only I could go to his dwelling!” (NIV) (Job 23:3); “I wish that all the LORD’s people were prophets!” (NIV), “Would that all the LORD’s people were prophets” (NASB) (Num 11:29). Evidently, LXX did not understand the idiom; it rendered the line in wooden literalness: Tij dwh se adelfidon mou (“Who might give/make you as my brother?”).
²tn Heb “you were to me like a brother.”
³tn Heb “found” or “met.” The juxtaposition of the two imperfects without an adjoining waw forms a conditional clause denoting a real condition (GKC 159.b). The first imperfect is the protasis; the second is the apodosis: “If I found you (iaxma) outside, I would kiss you (iqva).” The imperfects are used to express a condition and consequence which are regarded as being capable of fulfillment in the present or future time (GKC 159.b). The simple juxtaposition of two verbal clauses without any grammatical indicator, such as waw or a conditional particle, is rather rare: “If you rebel (Wlu*m=T!), I will disperse you (Jyp! *a) among the nations” (Neh 1:8); “If I counted them (hr*p=s=a#), they would be more numerous (/WBr=y{) than the sand!” (Ps 139:18); “If a man has found a wife (ax*m*), he has found (ax*m*) a good thing” (Prov 18:22) (Paul Jouon, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, 167.a.1). On the other hand, LXX treated the imperfects as denoting future temporal sequence: eujrousa se ejxw, filhsw se (“I will find you outside, I will kiss you”). Ordinarily, however, waw or a temporal particle introduces a temporal clause (Jouon,167; GKC 164). The English translation tradition generally adopts the conditional nuance: “If I found you outdoors, I would kiss you” (NASB), “Then, if I found you outside, I would kiss you” (NIV). However, a few translations adopt the temporal nuance: “When I should find thee without, I would kiss thee” (KJV), “Then I could kiss you when I met you in the street” (NJPS).
⁴tn The particle <G^ (“surely”) is used with al) (“no one”) for emphasis: “yea, none” (KBL 1:195). Similar examples: dj*a# <G^ … al) “not even one” (2 Sam 17:12); /ya … <G^ “yet there is no one” (Eccl 4:8).
⁵sn Song 8:1-2 may be classified as a “a lover’s wish song” that is similar in content and structure to an ancient Egyptian love song in which the lover longs for greater intimacy with his beloved: “I wish I were her Negro maid who follows at her feet; then the skin of all her limbs would be revealed to me. I wish I were her washerman, if only for a month; then I would be [entranced], washing out the Moringa oils in her diaphanous garments. I wish I were the seal ring, the guardian of her [fingers]; then [ ... ]” (The Cairo Love Songs, 25-27, in William Kelly Simpson, ed., The Literature of Ancient Egypt [New Haven: Yale University Press, 1972], 311). The Egyptian and Hebrew parallels display a similar structure: (1) introductory expression of the lover’s wish to be something/someone in a position of physical closeness with the beloved; (2) description of the person/thing that is physically close to the beloved; and (3) concluding description of the resultant greater degree of intimacy with the beloved. In the Egyptian parallel it is the man who longs for greater closeness; in the Hebrew song it is the woman. The Egyptian love song borders on the sensual; the Hebrew love song is simply romantic. Shulammith expresses her desire for greater freedom to display her affection for Solomon. In ancient Near Easterm cultures the public display of affection between a man and woman was frowned upon — sometimes even punished. For example, in Assyrian laws the punishment for a man kissing a woman in public was to cut off his upper lips. On the other hand, public displays of affection between children and between family members were allowed. Accordingly, Shulammith hyperbolically wished that she and Solomon were children from the same family so she could kiss him anytime she wished without fear of punishment or censure.
⁶tc MT reads yndmlt yma tyb-la ighna (“I would bring you to the house of my mother who taught me”). On the other hand, LXX reads eijsazw se eij oijkon mhtro" mou kai eij tamieion th" sullaboush" me which reflects a Hebrew reading of ytrwh rdj law yma tyb-la ighna (“I would bring you to the house of my mother, to the chamber of the one who bore me”). The LXX variant probably arose due to: (1) the syntactical awkwardness of yndmlt (“she taught me” or “she will teach me”), (2) the perceived need for a parallel to yma tyb-la (“to the house of my mother”), and (3) the influence of Song 3:4 which reads: ytrwh rdj law yma tyb-la wytaybhv-du (“until I brought him to the house of my mother, to the chamber of the one who bore me”). The MT reading should be adopted because (1) it is the most difficult reading, (2) it best explains the origin of the LXX variant, and (3) the origin of the LXX variant is easily understood in the light of Song 3:4.
tn The verb yndmlt (Piel imperfect 3fs with 1cs suffix from dml “to teach”) may be rendered in two basic ways: (1) future action: “she will teach me” or more likely as (2) past customary action: “who would instruct me” (KJV), “who used to instruct me” (NASB), “she who has taught me” (NIV), “she who taught me” (NJPS). This is an example of casus pendus in which the subject of the verb serves as a relative pronoun to the antecedant noun (“my mother”). The JPS parses yndmlt as 2ms (“that you might instruct me”) rather than 3fs (“she would teach me”). However, this would obscure the imagery: Shulammith wished that Solomon was her little brother still nursing on her mother’s breast. Shulammith, who had learned from her mother’s example, would bring him inside their home and she would give him her breast: “I would give you spiced wine to drink, the nectar of my pomegranates.”
⁷sn Continuing the little brother/older sister imagery of 8:1, Shulammith suggests that if she had been an older sister and he had been her little brother, she would have been able to nurse Solomon. This is a euphemism for her sensual desire to offer her breasts to Solomon in marital lovemaking.
⁸tc Or “wine, that is, spiced mixture.” The Masoretic vocalization of jq^r#h* /y{ ^Ym! suggests that jq^r#h* (“spiced mixture”) stands in apposition to /y{ ^Ym! (“wine”): “wine, that is, spiced mixture.” However, several Hebrew manuscripts read the genitive-construct vocalization jq^r#h* /yYm! (“spiced wine”). This alternate vocalization tradition is reflected in the Aramaic Targum and other versions, such as LXX. The genitive noun jqrh (“spices, spiced mixture”) functions as an adjective modifying the preceding construct noun /yy (“wine”).
sn The term jqr (“spice mixture, spices”) refers to ground herbs that were tasty additives to wine (KBL 3:1290). Selected Bibliography: E. Konig, Religionswissenschaftliches Worterbuch (Freiburg, 1956), 455; G. Dalman, Arbeit und Sitte in Palastina (Gutersloh, 1928-42), 4:375-76.
⁹sn There is a phonetic word-play (paranomasia) between iqva (“I would kiss you” from qvn “to kiss”) in 8:1 and iqva (“I would cause you to drink” from hqv “to drink”) in 8:2. This word-play draws attention to the unity of her “wish song” in 8:1-2. In 8:1 Shulammith expresses her desire to kiss Solomon on the lips when they are outdoors; while in 8:2 she expresses her desire for Solomon to kiss her breasts when they are in the privacy of her home indoors.
¹⁰tc The Masoretic Text reads the singular noun with 1cs suffix ynmr (“my pomegranate”). However, many Hebrew manuscripts preserve an alternate textual tradition of a plural noun without the 1cs suffix <ynmr (“pomegranates”), which is also reflected in the Aramaic Targum. However, LXX rown mou (“the nectar of my pomegranates”) reflects both the plural noun and the 1cs suffix. Therefore, Gordis suggests that MT ynmr is an apocopated plural with a 1cs suffix: “my pomegranates.”
tn Or “the nectar of my pomegranate.”
sn This statement is a euphemism: Shulammith wished to give her breasts to Solomon, like a mother would give her breast to her nursing baby. This is the climactic point of the “lover’s wish song” of Song 8:1-2. Shulammith wished that Solomon was her little brother still nursing on her mother’s breast. Shulammith, who had learned from her mother’s example, would bring him inside their home and she would give him her breast: “I would give you spiced wine to drink, the nectar of my pomegranates.” The phrase “my pomegranates” is a euphemism for her breasts. Rather than providing milk from her breasts for a nursing baby, Shulammith’s breasts would provide the sensual delight of “spiced wine” and “nectar” for her lover.
¹¹tn Heb “daughters of Jerusalem”
¹²tn Heb “Why arouse or awaken…?” Although the particle hm* is used most often as an interrogative pronoun (“What?” “Why?”), it also can be used as a particle of negation, similar to Arabic ma (“Do not!”) (Brockelmann, Hebraische Syntax [Neukirchen, 1956], 52bd, 55c). For example, “How (hm*) could I look at a girl?” means “I have not looked at a girl!” (Job 31:1); “What (hm^) do we have to drink?”means “We have nothing to drink” (Exod 15:24); “What (hm^) part do we have?”means “We have no part” (1 Kings 12:16); and “Why (hm*) arouse or awaken love?” means “Do not arouse or awaken love!” (Song 8:4) (KBL 2:551.C).
¹³sn The imagery of v. 6 is romantic: (1) Solomon’s mother originally conceived him with his father under the apple tree, (2) Solomon’s mother gave birth to him under the apple tree, and (3) Shulammith had now awakened him to love under the same apple tree. The cycle of life and love had come around full circle under the apple tree. While Solomon’s mother had awakened his eyes to life, Shulammith had awakened him to love. Solomon’s parents had made love under the apple tree to conceive him in love, and now Solomon and Shulammith were making love under the same apple tree of love.
¹⁴tn Or “went into child-labor.” The root lbj IV (“become pregnant”) is repeated in 8:6b and 8:6c. The verb lbj IV has a two-fold range of meanings: (1) transitive: “to conceive (a child)” and (2) intransitive: “to be in travail (of child-birth)” (KBL 1:286). In 8:6b it denotes “to conceive,” and in 8:6c it is “to be in travail (of child-birth).”
¹⁵sn In the ancient Near East a “seal” (<toj) used to denote ownership and were thus, very valuable (Jer 22:24; Hag 2:23; Eccles 17:22). Seals were used to make a stamp impression to identify the object as the property of the seal’s owner (KBL 1:300). Seals were made of semi-precious stone upon which was engraved a unique design and an inscription, e.g., LMLK [PN] “belonging to king [ ].” The impression could be placed upon wet clay of a jar or on a writing tablet by rolling the seal across the clay. Because it was a valuable possession its owner would take careful precautions to not lose it and would keep it close to him at all times. Seals were often hung by cap or pin eyes from bracelets or necklaces. Shulammith’s figurative request draws on two actions associated with the seal. First, just as a seal was rolled upon wet clay in order to leave its impression to identify the identity of the person to whom the object belonged, so Shulammith wanted to be impressed upon Solomon’s heart. Second, just as a seal was attached to one’s arm in order not to lose it, she was asking that Solomon keep her in a close relationship, which would never be lost.
¹⁶tn The term “heart”(bbl) is used figuratively here as (1) a metonymy (container for the thing contained) for Solomon’s chest over which the cylinder seal was hung or (2) a metonymy (concrete bodily part for the abstract emotions with which it is associated) for his emotions, such as love and loyalty to Shulammith (e.g., Judg 16:25; Ruth 3:7; 1 Sam 25:36; 2 Sam 13:28; 1 Kgs 8:66) (KBL 2:514-15). Selected Bibliography: Hans Walter Wolff, Anthropology of the Old Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974), 40-58.
sn There were two kinds of cylinder seals in the ancient Near East, namely, those worn around one’s neck and those worn around one’s wrist. The typical Mesopotamian seal was mounted on a pin and hung on a string or necklace around one’s neck. The cylinder-seal hung around one’s neck would, figuratively speaking, rest over the heart (metonymy of association). Shulammith wished to be to Solomon like a cylinder-seal worn over his heart. She wanted to be as intimate with her lover as the seal worn by him. Selected Bibliography: William W. Hallo, “‘As the Seal Upon Thy Heart’: Glyptic Roles in the Biblical World,” Bible Review 2 (1985): 26.
¹⁷tn Heb “cylinder-seal” or “seal”
sn The term <toj (“cylinder-seal”) is repeated twice in 8:6 for emphasis. The translation above uses the terms “cylinder-seal” and “signet” simply for the sake of poetic variation. Shulammith wanted to be as safe and secure as a cylinder-seal worn on the arm and hung around the hung down over the heart. She also wanted to be placed on his heart (emotions), like the impression of a cylinder-seal is written on a document. She wanted to be “written” on Solomon’s heart like the impression of a cylinder-seal, and kept secure in his love as a signet ring is worn around his arm/hand to keep it safe.
¹⁸tn Or “wrist”
sn In Palestine cylinder seals were often hung on a bracelet worn around one’s wrist. The cylinder seal was mounted on a pin hanging from a bracelet. The cylinder seal in view in Song 8:6 could be a stamp-seal hung from a bracelet of a type known from excavations in Israel. Selected Bibliography: William W. Hallo, “‘As the Seal Upon Thy Heart’: Glyptic Roles in the Biblical World,” Bible Review 2 (1985): 26.
¹⁹ sn It was a common practice in the ancient world to compare intense feelings to death. The point of the expression “love is as strong as death” means that love is extremely strong. The expression “love is as cruel as Sheol” may simply mean that love can be profoundly cruel. For example: “His soul was vexed to death,” means that he could not stand it any longer (Judg 16:16). “I do well to be angry to death,” means that he was extremely angry (Jonah 4:9). “My soul is sorrowful to death,” means that He was exceedingly sorrowful (Matt 26:38=Mark 14:34). Selected Bibliography: D. Winton Thomas, “A Consideration of Some Unusual Ways of Expressing the Superlative in Hebrew,” VT 3 (1953): 220- 21.
²⁰tn Or “jealousy.” The noun hanq has a wide range of meanings: “jealousy” (Prov 6:34; 14:30; 27:4), “competitiveness” (Eccl 4:4; 9:6), “anger” (Num 5:14,30), “zeal” (2 Kgs 10:16; Pss 69:10; 119:139; Job 5:2; Sir 30:24), and “passion” (Song 8:6). the Hebrew noun is related to the Akkadian and Arabic roots that mean “to become intensely red” or “become red with passion,” suggesting that the root denotes strong emotion. Although hanq is traditionally rendered “jealousy” (KJV, RSV, NASB, NIV), the parallelism with hbha (“love”) suggests the nuance “passion” (NJPS). Coppes notes, “This word is translated in the KJV in a bad sense in Song 8:6, ‘jealousy is as cruel as the grave,’ but it could be taken in a good sense in parallel with the preceding, ‘ardent zeal is as strong as the grave’” (TWOT 2:803).
²¹tn Heb “harsh” or “severe”
²²tn Heb “Its flames are flames of fire”
²³tn The noun hy`t=b#h#l=v^ (“mighty flame”) is related to the nouns tb#h#l=v^ (“flame”), hb*h*l# (“flame”), and bh^l^ (“flame”), all of which are derived from the root bhl “to burn, blaze, flame up” (KBL 2:521). The form hy`t=b#h#l=v^ is an unusual noun pattern with (1) a prefix v- that is common in Akkadian but rare in Hebrew; it has an intensive adjective meaning, (2) a feminine t- ending, and (3) a suffix hy`- whose meaning is debated. The suffix hy`- has been taken in three ways by scholars and translators: (1) hy` is an abbreviated form of the divine name hwhy (“YHWH”), functioning as a genitive of source: “the flame of the LORD” (NASB). The abbreviated form Hy` is used only in poetic texts as a poetic variation of hwhy (e.g., Exod 15:2; 17:16; Pss 68:5,19; 77:12; 89:9; 94:7,12; 102:19; 104:35; 105:45; 106:1,48; 111:1; 112:1; 113:1,9; 115:17,18; 116:19; 117:2; 118:5,14,17-19; 122:4; 130:3; 135:1,3,4,21; 146:1,10; 147:1,20; 148:1,14; 149:1,9; 150:1,6; Isa 12:2; 26:4; 38:11). However, the Masoretes did not point the text as Hy`-tb#h#l=v^ with maqqep and daghes in the H, as would be the case with the divine name. (2) Thomas suggests that, just as <yhla and la are sometimes used to express superlatives or intensive ideas, so hy` expresses the superlative/intensive: “a mighty flame.” Examples of <yhla: “a mighty wind” (Gen. 1:2), “a mighty prince” (Gen. 23:6), “a great struggle” (Gen. 30:8), “a great fire” (Job 1:16), “an exceeding great city” (Jon. 3:3). Examples of la: la-yrrh “the mighty mountains” (Ps. 36:7) and la-yzra “the mighty cedars” (Ps. 80:11). Examples of hy` suffixed: hy`l=Pam “darkest gloom” (Jer. 2:31), hY`lyluh “mighty deeds” (Jer. 32:19), and Hy`-yllum “mighty deeds” (Ps. 77:12). (3) The most likely view is that hy` is an intensive adjectival suffix, similar to -iy and -ay and -awi in Aramaic, Akkadian, and Arabic: “a most vehement flame” (KJV), “a mighty flame” (RSV, NIV), and “a blazing flame” (NJPS). This also best explains hy`l=Pam “darkest gloom” (Jer. 2:31), and hY`lyluh “mighty deeds” (Jer. 32:19). Selected Bibliography: Sabatino Moscati, Compartive Grammar of the Semitic Languages (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1980), 12.18 and 12.23; D. Winton Thomas, “A Consideration of Some Unusual Ways of Expressing the Superlative in Hebrew,” VT 3 (1953): 209-24.
<sup>24</sup>tn Heb “rivers.”
<sup>25</sup>tn Heb “all the wealth of his house.”
<sup>26</sup>tn Heb “for love.” The preposition B= on hbhaB* (“for love”) indicates the price or exchange in trading (KBL 1:105.17), e.g., “Give me your vineyard in exchange for silver ([s#k#B=)” (1 Kgs 21:6).
<sup>27</sup>tn The root zWB (“to despise”) is repeated for emphasis: WZWby` zoB (Qal infinitive absolute followed by Qal imperfect 3mpl). The infinitive absolute frequently is used with the imperfect of the same root for emphasis. The point is simply that love can not be purchased; it is infinitely more valuable than any and all wealth. Love such as this is priceless; no price tag can be put on love.
²⁸sn Her brothers knew that once a couple is betrothed that sexual temptations are at their greatest. Thus, in v. 9 they devise a plan to protect the purity of their sister: If she is a virtuous young woman, they would reward her; however, if she is wanton, they will restrain her and guard her from promiscuity.
²⁹sn The simile “if she is a wall” draws a comparison between the impregnability of a city fortified with a strong outer wall and a virtuous young woman who successfully resists any assaults against her virginity. The term hm*oj (“wall”) often refers to an outside fortress wall that protects the city from enemy military attacks (e.g., Lev 25:29-30; Josh 6:5; 1 Kgs 3:1; Neh 2:8; 12:27; Jer 1:8; 15:20).
³⁰sn The term hryf (“battlement, turret”) refers to the row of stones along the top of a fortress wall, set for the defense and stability of the wall (Ezek 46:23) (KBL 2:374). This structure is connected with military operations set in defense of a siege.
³¹sn The verb rWx II (“to surround, encircle, enclose”) is often used in military contexts in reference to the siege or defense of a fortress city: (1) setting up military positions (siege-walls) to surround a besieged city (e.g., Isa 29:3); (2) encircling and and laying siege to a city (e.g., Deut 20:12,19; 2 Sam 11:1; 1 Kgs 15:27; 16:17; 20:1; 2 Kgs 6:24-25; 17:5; 19:9; 24:11; 1 Chr 20:1; Isa 21:2; 29:3; Jer 21:4,9; 32:2; 37:5; 39:1; Ezek 4:3; Dan 1:1); (3) enclosing a city with sentries (e.g., Isa 29:3); (4) shutting a person within a city (1 Sam 23:8; 2 Sam 20:15; 2 Kgs 16:5); and (5) barricading a city door shut to prevent the city from being broken into and conquered (e.g., Song 8:7) (KBL 3:1015). See W. Rudolph KAT 17:1-3, 182.
³²tn Heb “a board.” The singular noun jWl (“board, plank”) may denote a singular of number or a collective.
³³sn An interesting semantic parallel involving the “door/bar” motif in ancient Near Eastern texts comes from an Assyrian charm against an enemy: “If he is a door, I will open your mouth; but if he is a bar, I will open your tongue.” Obviously, the line in the Song is not an incantation; the formula is used in a love motif. Cited by J. Ebeling, “Aus dem Tagewerk eines assyrischen Zauberpriesters, MAOG 5 (1931): 19.
³⁴sn The noun ldgm (“tower”) can refer to the watchtowers of a fortified city (2 Kgs 17:9; 18:8; 2 Chr 26:9), projecting median towers along the fortified city wall which were crucial to the defense of the city (2 Chr 14:6; 26:15; 32:5), or fortress towers in the countryside set for the defense of the land (Judg 9:52; 2 Chr 27:4; Ezek 27:11) (KBL 2:544). Shulammith mixes metaphors by describing her breasts with a comparison of sense and a comparison of sight: (1) Comparison of sense: She successfully defended her virginity and sexual purity from seduction, as fortress towers defended the city. (2) Comparison of sight: Just as the fortress towers along a city wall protected out at the corners of the wall, Shulammith’s breasts finally developed into beautiful “towers” (see 8:8 when she had no breasts as a young girl).
³⁵tn Heb “peace.”
sn An eloquent word-play is created by the use of the noun <olv* (“peace, favor”) in 8:10b and the name hm) )lv= (“Solomon”) in 8:11a. Shulammith found “favor” (<olv*) in the eyes of Solomon (hm) )lv=). She won his heart because she was not only a beautiful young woman (“my breasts were like fortress-towers”), but a virtuous woman (“I was a wall”).
³⁶tn Heb “Then I became in his eyes as one who finds peace.”
³⁷tn Heb “gave.”
³⁸sn The term “vineyard” (<rk) is used literally in 8:11 in reference to Solomon’s physical vineyard, but in 8:12 it is used figuratively (hypocatastasis) in reference to Shulammith: “my vineyard” (ymrk). Throughout the Song, the term “vineyard” ((<rk) is used figuratively (Song 1:6; 2:15; 8:12). In 8:12 it is used in reference to either (1) herself, (2) her choice of whom to give herself to in love, or (3) her physical body. In contrast to Solomon’s physical vineyard, whose fruit can be bought and sold (8:11), Shulammith is not for sale: She will only give herself freely to the one whom she chooses to love.
³⁹tn Each of the three terms in this line has the 1cs suffix which is repeated three times for emphasis: ym!r=K^ (“my vineyard”), yL! #v (“which belongs to me”), and yn`p*l= (“at my disposal”).
sn In contrast to King Solomon, who owns the vineyard at Baal-Hamon and who can buy and sell anything in the vineyard that he wishes, Shulammith proclaims that her “vineyard” (=herself or her body) belongs to her alone. In contrast to the vineyard, which can be leased out, and its fruit, which can be bought or sold, her “vineyard”is not for sale. Her love must and is to be freely given.
<sup>40</sup>tn Heb “[it is] at my disposal [alone].” The particle ynpl can denote “at the disposal of” (e.g., Gen 13:9; 20:15; 24:51; 34:10; 47:6; Jer 40:4; 2 Chr 14:6 (KBL 3:924.4.f; BDB 817.4.a.f). Similar to Akkadian ana pan “at the disposal of” (AHw 821a paragraph 20), the term is used in reference to a sovereign (usually a land-owner or king) who has full power over his property to dispose of as he wishes, e.g., “The whole country is at your disposal (y;npl)” (Gen 13:9). In Song 8:12 the form yn`p*l= has the 1cs suffix: “My vineyard, which belongs to me, is at my disposal.”
⁴¹tn The term <ybyvqm (Hiphil participle mpl from bvq “to listen”) is in the Hiphil stem which denotes an intense desire to hear someone’s voice, that is, to eagerly listen for someone’s voice (e.g., Jer 6:17) (KBL 3:1151.1). The participle functions verbally, and denotes a continual, ongoing, durative action.
⁴²tc The editors of BHS suggests that yn{ *a <g^ (“me also”) should be inserted. Although there is no textual evidence for the insertion, it seems clear that the 1cs referent is emphatic in MT ynyuymvh (“Let me hear it!”).
⁴³tn The imperative ynyuymvh (Hiphil imperative 2fs with 1cs suffix from umv “to hear”) is taken as a request (e.g., Waltke-O’Connor, Biblical Hebrew Syntax, 34.4.b). The male suitor is asking his beloved to let him hear her beautiful voice (e.g., Song 2:14).