Talk:Song of Songs

Disambiguation

There needs to be a Song of Solomon (disambiguation) page, and more discussion of the fact that for most of the last 2,000 years a rather strictly allegorized interpretation prevailed in both mainstream "official" Judaism and Christianity, until in the 20th century a number of people tried to reclaim it to give religious validation to erotic love... AnonMoos 16:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Created disambiguation page. AnonMoos 08:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Interpretation

Kabbalists and Christian Mystics have seen it slightly differently, I believe. The esoteric interpretation of the poem is that it is an expression of teh Hieros Gamos, the Divine Marriage, which works on a host of different levels, the spiritual and the erotic. So its possibly a little more complex than you suggest. It is true, however, that mainstream 'official' Judaism and Christianity have found the eroticism of the language very hard to handle and have thus allegorised the sexuality out of it, although it is hard to see how discussion of breasts, kissing on the lips, lying in bed in the arms of one's lover has much to do with the marriage of the Christian Church with Christ. But there we go. ThePeg 17:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

)  : )  : (  : )  : (

Genre

The Song of Solomon is basically an ancient Egyptian love song between a brother and sister. Yes, this was the most common form of marriage for the Egyptians (and no, not just for the Royals) until 295 AD. The Hebrew version was added to their Bible somewhere around the first or second century BC. It would be nice if some brave soul would update the current entry which is from an 1897 source. CyranoDeWikipedia 04:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, scholars who have worked on the origins of the book are likely to date it to the Hellenistic period -- which is not really a period when there was strong Egyptian cultural influence on the Israel/Canaan area. The "sister" and "brother" stuff is more likely to be just figurative language than it is to have anything to do with Pharaonic royal incest. AnonMoos 06:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course, no-one supposes that the 'brother and sister might be Isis and Osiris. do they? The passage in which the female speaker searches in the streets for her love is so reminiscent of the story of Isis searching for her love. The Song of Solomon is one of the most beautiful books of the Bible in which all aspects of love - erotic, divine etc - come together in an evocation of the Divine Marriage. Its much more than 'basically an ancient Egyptian love song between a brother and a sister'. Its one of the most visionary of the Books of the Bible. Many Western Mystery traditions borrow images from it - the Rose, the Hieros Gamos etc. Its amazing. This must be what Akiba meant by calling it the Holy Of Holies - a term he would not have ised lightly, the Holy of Holies being the most sacred place in the Temple. He must have known that this book contains a truth which is at the heart of the universe. ThePeg 17:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

This article cites a Jewish tradition that Solomon wrote Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and Song of Solomon at different stages in his life. Does anyone have references to back that up?Efredric219

Wikipedia Commons link

This link doesn't work - it states that nothing was found in the search. Is there something wrong with it? -- 10:18, 5 June 2007 60.225.109.54

It's Wikisource, not Commons. There was a bogus space character; it should hopefully work now... AnonMoos 14:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Interpretation

A quick note on edits to the lead in. Please comment if you feel inclined.

• There are multiple interpretations regarding marital status of characters, don't think we can assume one of them in lead-in.
• There are two main interpretations of genre of the Song -- collection of songs or unified work.
• Modern commentators who read the Song as about sex, see it as a celebration of sex, not a discourse upon it. In the main, it's not a prescriptive book.

Those will do for now. Please feel free to suggest otherwise, i.e. that there is only one correct or dominant interpretation and request citation for others (Pope covers the ones I mention, but I have several hundred in my research database ;), or add to the list of possible options (especially if you can provide a citation). Cheers. Alastair Haines 07:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

That's nice; however, the more or less "official" interpretation in mainstream Christianity and Judaism for almost the last 2,000 years has been of a betrothed couple or bride and groom. Supporting this is the appearance of the Hebrew word kallah כלה defined as "bride, young married woman, daughter-in-law", not to mention the fact that a woman in ancient Israelite/Jewish society who was detected in extramarital sex was likely to suffer drastic punishment, while the love in the Song of Songs doesn't seem to be secret -- the "daughters of Jerusalem" know all about it. Alternative interpretations can be discussed in the proper place, but they shouldn't play a major role in shaping the first paragraph (above the table of contents). AnonMoos 08:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining your rationale. I completely agree with you (and so, from my reading, do most recent scholars) that kallah is significant in interpretation, though there are still dissenting voices. As I understand it, though, the dominant interpretations of the Song as a whole, for approximately 2,000 years, have been forms of allegorical interpretation, not a dialogue of bride and groom, but of the soul and God (notably Origen, but hundreds of others). Additionally, you admit that the couple can be viewed as betrothed rather than married.

The sentence you are not permitting to be changed asserts as fact that the Song is a dialogue between bride and groom. You are claiming this is the de facto "official" interpretation. Can you help me with two things, please.

1. A commentator who believes the man and woman to be married in chapter one.
2. A commentator who believes this view to be the "more or less official" view of Jews and Christians.

My own view is that the Song in no way can be used to justify extra-marital sexual relations, nor to attribute such a view to ancient Israelite culture. However, that is my view, supported by you and the vast majority of serious biblical scholars. It is a matter of application, not of interpretation or description. We should certainly cover that debate in this article. However, presenting a couple who are frequently considered engaged as being married is inaccurate and unnecessary. No commentators suggest she is a man and he a woman, for example. Man and woman describe the text neutrally -- inadequately, but neutrally, which is all that is needed for the lead-in. Alastair Haines 09:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

---

I'm not currently aware of any statement from an institutional ecclesiastical body endorsing it, but the fact remains that the bride-and-groom interpretation was the prevailing interpretation among interpreters and commentators for many centuries (even if many interpreted it as an allegorical bride-and-groom, such as "the Church as the bride of Christ", instead of a literal bride and groom) -- and this is still supported by many today, who point to such facts as the multiple occurrences of the word kallah כלה in the original Hebrew text, and certain other indications. There is no reason why alternative interpretations can't be discussed in the proper place, but that place is not in the first paragraph at the top of the article.

Also, I don't really want to debate the technical semantics of the word "married" with you. The sentence in the first paragraph now says "bridegroom and bride" instead of "husband and wife" for a reason. They're in the process of marryING, whether or not you want to call them actually married at any given point. In ancient Jewish law, there was not necessarily a simple binary contrast between being married and unmarried, since betrothals were legally binding, and a betrothed woman who had sex with another man was basically regarded as guilty of adultery (not fornication) -- see Deuteronomy 22 -- but if she had sex with the man to whom she was betrothed, this might not be regarded as illicit sex at all. AnonMoos 23:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I like and agree with your description of "process of marrying", and that is certainly a majority scholastic view. However, it actually acknowledges my point -- they are not explicitly attending their wedding, nor even unambiuously returned from it in the poem. Bridegroom and bride are inaccurate (and loaded) descriptions of the characters. Finance and fiancee would be very likely, it reads in less from interpretation, but again it is not explicit in the text. Lover and beloved are traditional descriptions of the characters.

Remember, I am very happy for "bridegroom and bride" to be used, argued for, claimed as dominant view etc. -- but alongside other interpretations in the body of the article. However, this is an encyclopedia, not a commentary, so we need to stick to presenting things as neutrally as possible.

I'm adding citation requests for the clauses that need proof. I'm also adding a quote that gives a simple, fairly neutral overview. Alastair Haines 00:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

"Bride" is a direct translation of the ancient Hebrew word kallah כלה, in addition to figuring in the traditional allegorical interpretations (in which the Church is the "bride of Christ" etc.) as well as in the traditional literal interpretations (in which what is going on in the Song of Songs is that Solomon is marrying the Shunamite woman). Furthermore, according to ancient Jewish customs, a woman who has sex with the man to whom she has been betrothed can pretty much be regarded as instantly becoming a kallah כלה for most practical purposes (as long as his family subsequently acknowledges her), so the distinction you make between "fiancee" and "bride" is not necessarily all that relevant in terms of the original text. (And the masculine of "fiancée" is "fiancé", not "finance".) Given all this, I think it's rather up to you to demonstrate why "bride" is not an appropriate word to use in the first paragraph of the article. AnonMoos 01:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

P.S. To further clarify my earlier remarks, I'm not sure that "wedding", in the sense of a formal ritual or ceremony, was really a very important concept in Old Testament times. The serious financial negotiations between the two families took place at the time of betrothal. To convert a betrothal into a marriage, the woman went to live with the family of the man to whom she had been betrothed, they accepted her as their new daughter-in-law, and she had sex with her new husband. That was the meaning of getting married. No doubt there were certain social customs often associated with getting married, but they are not described in the Old Testament, and it's extremely doubtful (acording to what appears in the Old Testament) that the legal validity of a marriage depended on such customs being followed. In any case, marriage was a private contract between two families.

It's very noticeable that your objections to the use of the word "bride" in the article haven't been based on specific concrete textual or historical concerns, but rather on abstract reasoning based on distinctions and concepts which are crystal-clear to you (such as an absolute binary dichotomy between being "married" and "unmarried", or an absolute binary dichotomy between being a "fiancée" and being a "bride", or the concept of a big public "wedding" ritual), but may not have had too much relevance to the way that the Jews of Old Testament times lived their daily lives. It would be rather unfortunate to use such speculative abstract reasonings to change the word "bride" (which directly occurs in the Hebrew text of the Song of Solomon) to the word "fiancée" or "betrothed" (which does not actually occur in the Song of Solomon, as far as I can tell). Unless you can come up with something more specific, I'll shortly add a semi-random reference to any of one numerous sources out there (maybe the Catholic Encyclopedia), and remove the cite tags. AnonMoos 07:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

"The view of the Song as a cycle of wedding poems -- a theory that arose in the nineteenth century -- ... [neutral comments]. The twentieth-century theory holding that the Song is the liturgy of an ancient fertility cult ... [neutral comments]" Marcia Falk, The Song of Songs, 1990.

Sorry, but although I have a personal opinion regarding the Song, I will certainly not be publishing it at Wiki, because the key elements have not been published by anyone else yet.

The Song fascinates me, and so do the variety of opinions a diverse multidute have offered regarding interpreting it.

Marcia is one of scores of writers who have offered literature reviews of the Song. The best "one stop shop" to research the history of interpretation, it is Marvin Pope. The Anchor Bible Series provides awesome commentaries on OT books. Cheers. Alastair Haines 12:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

You know, the purpose of linking to the Catholic Encyclopedia was not for you to make personal derogatory comments about it -- nor for you to make personal derogatory comments about the wedding of Solomon to the Shunammite woman (which is just one particular strand of traditional literal interpretation). None of that belongs in the article -- much less the first paragraph!

The purpose of linking to the Catholic Encyclopedia is that it's one conveniently-accessible source for the superabundance of marital matrimonial nuptial conjugal connubial hymeneal epithalamial symbolism in traditional allegorical interpretations (the church as "bride of Christ", etc.) AND ALSO in traditional literal interpretations (Solomon marrying the Shunammite woman, etc.) AND ALSO in historically-based interpretations which give proper weight to the fact that the Hebrew word kallah כלה appears multiple times in the original text.

Of course, this symbolism would be originally according to Old Testament laws and customs, according to which most of the "heavy lifting" is actually done at the time of betrothal (i.e. negotiations between the families, financial arrangements, entering into a legally-binding contract creating an obligation of sexual fidelity on the part of the woman, etc), while marriage often seems to have been a relatively simple ratification of the betrothal. AnonMoos 14:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

---

How about we list the view in the interpretation section of the article, alongside other views? That way no caveats need to be added?

My comments are merely neutrally pointing out that it is one interpretation among many, rather than having it look like we are biased in favour of the view, by promoting it rather than others in the lead.

Feel free to move the text and remove the caveats if you like the idea. Cheers, Alastair Haines 15:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Some of the "other views" which you previously added to the article appear to be your personal opinions, while the idea that the Song of Songs is about a bride and groom is most definitely not just my personal opinion. Among many other things, modern Jewish wedding ceremonies frequently quote from the Song of Songs... AnonMoos 21:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I've added much to this article yet. I only altered a few things so they reflect the literature in general. I think I may have mentioned there's no way I'll be adding my personal views to this article. Partly because I don't do that kind of thing, and partly because I want to publish my research. I'd be a bit silly to publish at Wiki. It'd undermine the orginality of my thesis. Anyway, if you want to claim something is my opinion, please quote the text you think is my opinion, and the line in the edit history that shows I added it. I will then provide a source that says it. Alastair Haines 22:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Sources

I agree with the tagger, the article could use more sources. Sorry about the formatting and the incompleteness but a list of sources is available at User:Alastair Haines/SongSources. I won't copy them here, because the list is already longer than the article! lol. The list will probably double in length over the next month. Also I will have nearly all the sources available in electronic form. Although I cannot distribute them without breaching local copyright laws, I should be able to consult most of them for anyone on request. Cheers. Alastair Haines 11:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Claim about canonization

I'm new here, but I'm currently working on a paper about Song of Songs. So I was thinking maybe I'd might improve this article slightly. I started with the claim that needed verification, about the canonization of the Song of Songs. The original text said SoS made it into the canon because of the allegorical interpretation. But there has by no means a concensus emerged about this point. So I quoted the Word Biblical Commentary (I consider this as a relatively authoritative source) and hope this will do. If not, please let me know. Kind regards, Penelopeia 19:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)penelopeia

That's great Penelopeia. Yes, the "chicken and egg" issue is mentioned in many sources. Did the allegorical interpretation arise due to the presence of the Song in the canons, or was the Song canonized after an allegorical interpretation arose? Answer: we don't know. Sources for both opinions are available. Alastair Haines 02:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Unexpurgated version

Removed the following:

• Unexpurgated Version There is an unexpurgated version of the relevant verses of the Song of Solomon which has the flavour of the King James version without the censorship of all the other versions

The linked document reads to me rather like a schoolboy joke – the rich vocabulary of the original all reduced to "cunt", "clit" and "cock". I'm not denying that there is a sizeable dose of euphemism in the Song's terminology, but that is in the original, not in later expurgated/censored versions. The linked document of course provides no citations to back up its claims. (Besides, the "King James" English is terrible – the author has no idea how to use -eth or -est verbal endings – the whole thing's a real dog's dinner.) Vilĉjo 16:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

ISBN 1876347708 on the last page of the document does not show up at World Cat. It is a hoax. Parts of this document resemble the KJV English text. It is not a serious attempt to translate the Hebrew, rather it is a free rendition, probably from a KJV text, into the language of pornographic English. If you want explict sexual reference in the Bible, it is at Ezekiel 23, where verse 1 says it is "the word of the LORD." The Song of Songs is suggestive, clearly and unashamedly suggestive, not explicit.

The unexperguated version is a cultural artifact it is boks in print people are buying it reading it and commenting upon it -IF THAT QUALIFY AS A CULTURAL ARTIFACT THEN NOTHING DOES and you just stand convicted as a censor

I think the link is a great example of what the Song, in Hebrew, is not. However, given that it is not actually published -- there is no other bibliographical information than a non existant ISBN -- it is an unreliable source and deletion is the correct decision. Well spotted Vilĉjo. Alastair Haines 22:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems the sole reason for deleting this version is that it is not published. You show your complete ignorance if you solely rely upon worldcat any one would surely look in books in print (global books in print) and when you do you will see IT IS PUBLISHED. AS such I will replace the link. That is unless there is some aesthetic reason you have and in which case it is not your place to comment on your artist bias or the worth of a version

There are two reasons the page should not be linked to under WP:EL. First, "Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority" are not to be linked to. This is a personal, unsourced website. Also, "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." There is nothing to suggest that the translation is scholarly and not in fact a childish joke. Carl.bunderson 02:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

You are abusing your position as wiki contributor and indulging in censorship-there is no source for the other references in the cultural section. You are changing the goal post to meet your bias. The original raeson for removing the link was that it was not published . I have shown you it is published and now you just change the goal posts.The reliable source for this link as a cultual artifact is that it is in books in print

I am not censoring you. If you look at some of my edit history, I have supported including explicit content (words and photos) on the basis that WP is not censored. That is not the issue here. I stand by the reasons I gave you in my reply above. The other references in the cultural section do not need to be referenced, because they are not ludicrous, as is this. Carl.bunderson 03:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

you are abusing your position indulging in censorship and turning wiki into a joke. You site worldcat if you look for the author you will see his books at on the Yale and Harvard library catalogue and more. You are nothing but a censor who dont like the word cunt in you beloved song of solomon that is the issue for all the world to see i will put the link back it is a cultural artifact just as kate bushs version is if you delete it you stand convicted as a censor and an insult to wiki who sit behind wiki to indulge in a bit of power to project your sexual hangups onto wiki. The unexpurgated is in book in print and is being bought read if that dont qualify it as a cultual artifact then nothing does - and you stand convicted as a censor

I looked through the beginning and end of the pdf, and I can't even find who is the author. Carl.bunderson 03:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

You calling it a joke is a value judgment and show you are not an objective wiki contributer . SO if you found kate bush version as a joke would you delete the reference You are hear to not project your bias it is not your place to bring your artistic or scholarly point hear if you do then you are abusing wiki and useing it for your own ends if you checked books in print you will see the author is colin leslie dean -who is on Yale and Harvard university library catologues and many other eastablish american university libraries

Ok I googled 'colin leslie dean' it looks like your site is 'on the up n up'. I hope you appreciate that I deal with wikivandals on a daily basis and it is hard to tell the difference at times between vandalism and legit edits. Perhaps your edit would be more palatable to other wiki editors if you included Dean's name in your reference. Carl.bunderson 04:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

ok sorry then i will include colin leslie deans name in the link-thanks for your advice

No need to be sorry. :) Carl.bunderson 04:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Why was the link removed after Carl said it was ok -i just replaced it AnonMoos is indulging in vandalism by removing the link after Carl gave the ok for it being there

Well I'm hardly the final authority on it. AnonMoos probably didn't look at the talk page when he made his edit. Carl.bunderson 03:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Carl you are most likely correct

Theo777, you know very well AnonMoos had read this discussion, or wasn't his note on your talk page explicit enough? The link cannot be included because (1) it makes bogus, indefensible claims to be "unexpurgated … without the censorship of all the other versions". There is absolutely no evidence for these assertions. (2) it is a link to a commercial, promotional website, i.e. spam. The credibility of Wikipedia is also hardly enhanced by including links to illiterate rubbish. BTW, Carl has no authority to "give approval" for the link to be included – nor did he ever claim to. His first judgement was correct: "a childish joke" … "ludicrous". Vilĉjo 08:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Evidence of spamming

Note to other users: see this, this, this, this, this, and any number of other feeble attempts at self-promotion by Dean on the web, under numerous bogus identities.

I had rather wondered why the standards of literacy exhibited by "Theo777" on this page were suspiciously similar to those of the linked masterpiece. Now we know why. Vilĉjo 09:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

(Oh, one last thing – anyone who is wondering about the credentials of Dean's publisher, Gamahucher Press, may wish to see where Gamahuche links to …) Vilĉjo 09:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Carl could you please do something about this continual deletion of the unexpurgated entry As I have shown you the book is in books in print dean is on the Yale Harvard catalogues and other leading American university libraries-which indicate deans credentials. Gamahucher press is a bona fida publisher as liSted in books in print. This continual deletion is just people useing wiki for their own bigoted ends

… as opposed to your own self-promotional ends? BTW, switching to editing as an anon isn't going to help you. Your spam link is gone, and it ain't coming back. Vilĉjo 10:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

This continual deletion is just people useing wiki for their own bigoted ends . You say the link is to a commercial website THIS IS A LIE the link is to a pdf All this is about is some bigot useing wiki for his own end when you say "His first judgement was correct: "a childish joke" … "ludicrous"." such terms as childish and ludicrous is what this is about ie you useing wiki to express your artistic and scholarly views -you are abusing wiki by doing so it is not your place to make YOUR personal views about entries

if you continual use wiki for your personal bigotry i will just keep putting the link back -so never sleep

as i say never sleep

Just for the record, it should be noted that Colin Leslie Dean, aka User:Theo777, has also (albeit not simultaneously) been editing as User:Gamahucher. Every edit of both accounts has been devoted to promoting the works of the said Colin Leslie Dean. "Theo777" has not returned from his 3RR block, but in view of his history of sockpuppetry on this as well as other sites, it might be as well to keep an eye out for suspicious edits. Vilĉjo 01:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not strictly relevant to this article, and I'm not suggesting it be included, but I read somewhere that the late Frank Zappa had noted that the Song of Songs, at least in the King James version, contains a reference to fisting, specifically 5:4: "My beloved put in his hand by the hole of the door, and my bowels were moved for him. " I've always liked that interpretation. However, I note that the JPS translation of the same verse goes "My beloved took his hand off the latch, And my heart was stirred for him." My Biblical Hebrew is beginner-level, and I have not yet been able to determine which translation is more accurate. 83.70.60.221 (talk) 11:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

name of this article

The name of this article should NOT be Song of Solomon, but "Song of Songs." That is how it is known. Song of Solomon is ambiguous. The text reads "Shir Le-shlomo" which is not necessary Song OF Solomon.--Gilabrand 14:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's widely known as all three of "Song of Songs", "Song of Solomon", and "Canticles" (though today the word Canticles, may suggest slightly old-fashioned Catholic-specific terminology). The very beginning of the Hebrew text reads shir ha-shirim asher liShlomoh --- AnonMoos 18:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I would support a move to "Song of Songs". It is an accurate rendition of שיר השירים; even taking into account the following phrase, it is doubtful whether the particle ל should be interpreted as "of"; and virtually every modern translation I know uses the name "Song of Songs" (the NRSV is a curious exception, perhaps dictated by its – increasingly remote – KJV roots). Vilĉjo 22:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with everyone (except that Canticles is actually short for the full Latin name, which is just Latin for Song of Songs). At the top of the page, between the history tab and the unwatch tab is a tab labelled move. Usual Wiki rules apply, anyone can move the page, anyone can move it back, until we get bored with fighting and work out something objectively preferable.

One thing is a "no no". We shouldn't create a new page, then cut and paste from this one to that one. That alternative means the edit history is in the wrong place. I seem to remember that a redirect from this namespace, Song of Solomon, to the new space, Song of Songs, is automatically generated with a move. What is a little more tedious is that pages that currently have links to Song of Solomon go through a double link after the move. It's nice and polite if we change some of those, but other people (and some bots) will help with that clean up.

I recommend we wait a week for further comments. Check out anything we might be missing, then ... let there be a new page!

Woops! Just remembered, we are going to need admin assistance. We need the page Song of Songs deleted so we can move this page there. Anyone care to propose this at the appropriate Wiki community discussion page? Alastair Haines 13:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

To be practical

Given that there is agreement on the name of the article being "Song of songs", could I also suggest that we adopt that term consistently within the article? (Except of course, for that section where the various titles themselves are being discussed, and for titles of derived or related art/lit works etc.) I'll wait about a week and then assume that it is OK to make consistent. Feline Hymnic (talk) 19:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense; I would just go ahead and do it. Carl.bunderson (talk) 06:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Second the motion!Dampinograaf (talk) 09:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Done it. (Where reasonably possible, simplified to "the book" which is independent of the article's title.) Feline Hymnic (talk) 23:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

New Testament allusions

Some research in recent years (Jocelyn McWhirter; Ann Roberts Winsor) has begun to re-instate some much older thoughts (Origen, Hippolytus, Bede, etc.) about John's Gospel having many echoes from the Song. Might we make mention of this? (Further expansion of such N.T. thoughts would probably be better placed in the Gospel of John article, so that this Song article remains primarily focussed on the Song itself.) Feline Hymnic (talk) 23:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Great idea! It could certainly be mentioned in the Song of Songs article. I reworked a little the section on "Interpretation and use". The proposed expansion would rather find its place there too, rather than in the Gospel of John article: as regards the latter, I don't see where to fit it.Dampinograaf (talk) 11:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

1. Structure of "Song" article: Thanks for your recent structural improvements. They look good.
2. John allusions: detail in John or Song? One should have the information; the other should be a pointer across to it (I think we would agree on that). I'm suggesting that the information would belong in John, in order to preserve the OT-focussed (i.e. "Hebrew Bible") integrity of the Song article. The allusions are primarily about an NT (John) perspective. How does that seem? Feline Hymnic (talk) 00:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. As for (2), maybe other users will weigh in the balance. I still think it would be better to handle this in "John" article.Dampinograaf (talk) 07:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Question

The aritcle says song of songs is read in ashkenazi tradition on Saturday of intermidiate days. However, this year, the Satuday of Passover is not during intermidate days. So when is it read? Smartyllama (talk)

Why is this article lacking any scholarly information?

In particular, with respect to authorship and origins? In effect, this makes the whole thing WP:POV, giving undue weight to religious interpretation. --Ibis3 (talk) 23:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Some discussion of possible authorship dates

Shouldn't there be a section outlining possible dates of the creation of the book?Hellbound Hound (talk) 03:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

To respond to both of the last two queries, hardly anything is known with certainty about the origin of the Song of Songs, so almost everything is circumstantial guesswork (often well-informed scholarly circumstantial guesswork, but still basically guesswork). This is not helped by the fact that the Song of Songs is in a very different "genre" from anything else in the Hebrew Bible, and so there's not really anything to directly compare it to. The Hebrew text has a high proportion of words not found in other books and Hapax legomena.... AnonMoos (talk) 08:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Why I removed the "gay love poem" link.

Someone posted earlier here one link with resources claiming scholars have proved one of King Solomon's sons was homosexual and this is a poem between him and his gay lover. I have no problem with the expression of love between any combination of two people, only saying many scholars from different languages and cultures over hundreds of years have satisfactorily indicated the genders of the participants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unamusable (talk • contribs) 16:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no "Asher son of Solomon" in the Hebrew Bible (only Asher son of Jacob, the eponymous tribal ancestor, and Asher a town near Shechem), while the only "asher" in the Song of Songs is the relative clause particle in the first verse or title verse (in the subsequent text of the book, the alternative prefix she- tends to be used instead). And in Hebrew, nouns such as "beloved", and second person pronouns and verb forms, all indicate gender (i.e. have distinct masculine and feminine forms), so that it's very obvious that a man and a woman are the main characters, something which might not be so clear in most English translations. AnonMoos (talk) 07:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

he gave away all his wealth

he gave away all his wealth for a scorn,and his skin darkened by the sun.I will not take away my love form him.A lily psalm 45 and an angel call God,my God your God,a noble theme.Twentythreethousand (talk) 19:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Name of Muhammad

The name Muhammad means "Praiseworthy" and occurs four times in the Qur'an. See Jean-Louis Déclais, Names of the Prophet, Encyclopedia of the Qur'an. The Hebrew word מַחְמָד machmad (IPA /maxmad/) means "desire," "object of desire," "something pleasant," or "something precious." See Strong's Concordance H4261 (Blue Letter Bible). Some suggest, without evidence, that this word this refers to Muhammad in Song of Songs 5:16 (5:16). See Answering-Islam.Org. See also http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1t7rxoKwYRo; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYf1j5Duhns; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMuB4ROHxAo; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_ibrM_Hyeo. -- 21:01, 10 March 2010 User:达伟

First of all, the name of Muhammad does NOT occur in the Song of Songs (or the Bible generally), but rather forms derived from a Semitic abstract triconsonantal root ħ-m-d occur, while the name of Muhammad also happens to be derived from a triconsonantal ħ-m-d. However, the basic meaning of root ħ-m-d in Arabic — ح م د — is "to praise", while the basic meaning of root ħ-m-d in Hebrew — חםד — is "to desire", so the meaning of words derived from the root will not be at all comparable between the two languages. The exact Arabic form Muhammad is a stem II passive participle, and so would be most closely cognate with a Pu``al participle in Hebrew -- however, the Pu``al derivation of Hebrew root ħ-m-d / חםד simply doesn't occur in the Bible. The form which does occur in Song of Songs 5:16 is maħamadim, a plural noun, which means "things which are precious, or desired". It occurs in the middle of a love poem, in which a woman says of her lover, "His mouth is sweet, and all the other parts of him are delightful". I really don't understand why Muslims would be anxious to interpret a word which occurs in the middle of erotic love poetry, used by a woman to praise a man's hot body while she seems to be contemplating kissing him, as referring to Muhammad. It certainly seems to be even more absurd than the usual "periklytos" nonsense... AnonMoos (talk) 22:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

This video (the first one cited above) seems to be the only one that appears to be by a Muslim adherent that agrees with your view...Of course, I'm not disputing your linguistic/textual analysis.--达伟 (talk) 23:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't have Shockwave Flash installed in my browser, and I didn't consult any Youtube videos. I consulted the appropriate standard reputable linguistic reference works (not including Strong's, for the reasons discussed at Talk:Alpha and Omega), as well as my edition of BHS. AnonMoos (talk) 01:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't attempting to use the Youtube "sources" in an attempt to refute what you're saying, merely to indicate what the currents of commentary that we're responding to are saying--达伟 (talk) 09:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Who was Shulamit?

I strongly support the theory that Shulamit and biblical Abishag are identical. So, the bride really existed, the lover evidently, and Salomon, with a strong incline to self-criticism, self-irony and, in this one case, self-restriction put the words in the bride's and especially in the lover's mouth, the latter being personally unknown to him. A great king and man - and be it only in this one case ...

He, Salomon, was the author, only he - later revisions are possible. If not he had been the author, who in later times, mostly more prudish ones, would have managed to create such an opus? Pretendly later-time loans are no contradiction because Salomon was, being a "multicultural" monarch, far beyond his time, and had a by far broader cultural background than e. g. his father David.

Conclusion: It' s no collection, it's one workmanship, and it is Salomon's - and it is the best love-song of the world forever.

Hellsepp 18:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)