The New International Commentaryon the

Old Testament

General Editors

R. K. HARRISON(1968–1993)

ROBERT L. HUBBARD, JR.(1994– )

SONG OF SONGS

TREMPER LONGMAN III

William B. Eerdmans Publishing CompanyGrand Rapids, Michigan / Cambridge, U.K.

© 2001 Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.All rights reserved

Published 2001 byWm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

2140 Oak Industrial Drive N.E., Grand Rapids, Michigan 49505 /P.O. Box 163, Cambridge CB3 9PU U.K.

Printed in the United States of America

19 18 17 16 15 14 13 9 8 7 6 5 4

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Longman, Tremper.Song of songs / Tremper Longman III.

p. cm. — (The New International Commentary on the Old Testament)Includes bibliographical references and index.

ISBN 978-0-8028-2543-8 (alk. paper)1. Bible. O.T. Song of Solomon — Commentaries.

I. Title. II. Series.

BS1485.53 L66 2001223¢.9077 — dc21

2001040347

www.eerdmans.com

CONTENTS

General Editor’s Preface xi

Author’s Preface xiii

Abbreviations xv

INTRODUCTIONI. Title 1

II. Authorship 2

III. Literary Style 9

IV. Language 17

V. Date 19

VI. The Text 19

VII. History of Interpretation 20

VIII. Genre 48

IX. Ancient Near Eastern Background 49

X. Structure 54

XI. Canon 56

XII. The Significance and Theology ofthe Song of Songs 58

XIII. Bibliography 70

vii

TEXT AND COMMENTARYSuperscription (1:1) 87

Poem One: The Woman’s Pursuit (1:2-4) 89

Poem Two: Dark, but Beautiful (1:5-6) 95

Poem Three: An Invitation to a Tryst (1:7-8) 99

Poem Four: A Beautiful Mare (1:9-11) 102

Poem Five: Intimate Fragrances (1:12-14) 104

Poem Six: Outdoor Love (1:15-17) 107

Poem Seven: Flowers and Trees (2:1-7) 109

Poem Eight: A Poem of Spring (2:8-17) 116

Poem Nine: Seeking and (Not) Finding (3:1-5) 127

Poem Ten: A Royal Wedding Procession (3:6-11) 131

Poem Eleven: From Head to Breasts:The Man’s Sensuous Description of the Woman (4:1-7) 140

Poem Twelve: The Invitation (4:8-9) 148

Poem Thirteen: Eating in the Garden of Love (4:10–5:1) 152

Poem Fourteen: To Search and (Not) Find, Once Again(5:2–6:3) 160

Poem Fifteen: Awesome As an Army under Banners(6:4-10) 177

Poem Sixteen: A Surprise in the Nut Grove (6:11-12) 183

Poem Seventeen: A Description of the Dancing Shulammite(7:1-11 [English 6:13–7:10]) 188

Poem Eighteen: I Will Give You My Love(7:12-14 [English 7:11-13]) 199

Poem Nineteen: Yearning for Love (8:1-4) 203

Poem Twenty: Like a Seal (8:5-7) 206

Poem Twenty-One: Protecting the Sister (8:8-10) 215

Poem Twenty-Two: Who Owns the Vineyard? (8:11-12) 218

Poem Twenty-Three: Be Like a Gazelle (8:13-14) 220

viii

Song of Songs

INDEXESI. Subjects 223

II. Authors 225

III. Scripture References 229

IV. Foreign Words 235

ix

Contents

GENERAL EDITOR’S PREFACE

Long ago St. Paul wrote: “I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave thegrowth” (1 Cor. 3:6, NRSV). He was right: ministry indeed requires a teameffort — the collective labors of many skilled hands and minds. Someonedigs up the dirt and drops in seed, while others water the ground to nourishseedlings to growth. The same team effort over time has brought this com-mentary series to its position of prominence today. Professor E. J. Young“planted” it forty years ago, enlisting its first contributors and himself writ-ing its first published volume. Professor R. K. Harrison “watered” it, signingon other scholars and wisely editing everyone’s finished products. As Gen-eral Editor, I now tend their planting, and, true to Paul’s words, through fourdecades God has indeed graciously “[given] the growth.”

Today the New International Commentary on the Old Testament en-joys a wide readership of scholars, priests, pastors, rabbis, and other seriousBible students. Thousands of readers across the religious spectrum and incountless countries consult its volumes in their ongoing preaching, teaching,and research. They warmly welcome the publication of each new volume andeagerly await its eventual transformation from an emerging “series” into acomplete commentary “set.” But as humanity experiences a new century ofhistory, an era commonly called “postmodern,” what kind of commentary se-ries is NICOT? What distinguishes it from other similarly well-establishedseries?

Its volumes aim to publish biblical scholarship of the highest quality.Each contributor writes as an expert, both in the biblical text itself and in therelevant scholarly literature, and each commentary conveys the results ofwide reading and careful, mature reflection. Ultimately, its spirit is eclectic,each contributor gleaning interpretive insights from any useful source, what-ever its religious or philosophical viewpoint, and integrating them into his orher interpretation of a biblical book. The series draws on recent methodologi-cal innovations in biblical scholarship, e.g., canon criticism, the so-called

xi

“new literary criticism,” reader-response theories, and sensitivity to gender-based and ethnic readings. NICOT volumes also aim to be irenic in tone,summarizing and critiquing influential views with fairness while defendingtheir own. Its list of contributors includes male and female scholars from anumber of Christian faith-groups. The diversity of contributors and theirfreedom to draw on all relevant methodologies give the entire series an excit-ing and enriching variety.

What truly distinguishes this series, however, is that it speaks fromwithin that interpretive tradition known as evangelicalism. Evangelicalism isan informal movement within Protestantism that cuts across traditional de-nominational lines. Its heart and soul is the conviction that the Bible is God’sinspired Word, written by gifted human writers, through which God calls hu-manity to enjoy a loving personal relationship with its Creator and Savior.True to that tradition, NICOT volumes do not treat the Old Testament as justan ancient literary artifact on a par with the Iliad or the Gilgamesh Epic.They are not literary autopsies of ancient parchment cadavers but rigorous,reverent wrestlings with wonderfully human writings through which the liv-ing God speaks his powerful Word. NICOT delicately balances “criticism”(i.e., the use of standard critical methodologies) with humble respect, admi-ration, and even affection for the biblical text. As an evangelical commen-tary, it pays particular attention to the text’s literary features, theologicalthemes, and implications for the life of faith today.

Ultimately, NICOT aims to serve women and men of faith who desireto hear God’s voice afresh through the Old Testament. With gratitude to Godfor two marvelous gifts — the Scriptures themselves and keen-minded schol-ars to explain their message — I welcome readers of all kinds to savor thegood fruit of this series.

Robert L. Hubbard, Jr.

xii

General Editor’s Preface

AUTHOR’S PREFACE

Relationship is a wonderful, mysterious, often elusive, sometimes painfulpart of the human experience. Family, friends, colleagues, and acquaintancesare the characters that people the plot of our lives. The most intimate of allhuman relationships, according to the Bible at least, is that between a hus-band and a wife. Indeed, as the commentary will later argue, this relationshipprovides a powerful analogy to that most fundamental of all relationships —God and his people.

It is, thus, not a surprise that there is a book of the Bible that focuseson the experiences and emotions of intimate male-female relationship.Though it has had a long history of repression by interpretation, the Song ofSongs is now widely recognized as a poem celebrating human love and sexu-ality.

The late R. K. Harrison invited me to write this commentary about adozen years ago. Though it was not the sole object of my professional inter-ests, I started teaching the book regularly since that time. I would like to takethis opportunity to thank the many students I have had in courses on theSong, often coupled with Ecclesiastes, at Westminster Theological Seminary,Fuller Theological Seminary, Regent College (Vancouver), Mars Hill Gradu-ate School (Seattle), and Westmont College. Special mention should be givento a small doctoral seminar I gave a Trinity Evangelical Divinity Schoolwhere the students were both insightful and helpful. It was particularly myyears at Westminster, where I taught five doctoral seminars between 1989and 1999, the last as a Visiting Professor, that played an important role inshaping my ideas about the Song. In particular, I would like to thank three ofmy doctoral students who chose to write on the Song — George Schwab,Steve Horine, and Phil Roberts. I will show my indebtedness to their work byway of footnotes. Further, I am grateful to my two student assistants, Erik Al-len (Philadelphia) and Jake Werley (Santa Barbara), who helped me by track-ing down references.

xiii

However, my interest in the Song was piqued even before I began myteaching career. I had the distinct pleasure of studying with two teachers inmy graduate program at Yale University who also loved and studied theSong. First, my doctoral advisor W. W. Hallo was interested in the way thatMesopotamian material illuminated our understanding of Song of Songs 8:6-7. Second, though I never studied the Song with him, my three years ofUgaritic with Marvin Pope brought me into contact with this monumentalthinker about this book. One of the earliest memories of my graduate pro-gram was a party at his house celebrating the publication of his new com-mentary. Unfortunately, I cannot adopt his basic ideas about the Song, but thefact that no work is quoted more often in the following pages demonstratesthat his contribution is not dependent on his distinctive approach.

Next, I want to express my heartfelt appreciation to my editor, RobertHubbard. I benefited greatly from his comments, though of course he is notresponsible for any errors or interpretive missteps. In addition, my thanks goto Eerdmans and Allen Myers, the in-house shepherd of this series.

I dedicate this book to my gifted and beautiful wife, Alice. The Songinspires me to sing her praises, but that would only embarrass her. Here, Iwill just thank her for the love and support that inspires my life and work.

Tremper Longman IIIRobert H. Gundry Professor

of Biblical StudiesWestmont CollegeNew Year’s 2001

xiv

Author’s Preface

ABBREVIATIONS

AB Anchor BibleABD Anchor Bible DictionaryAJSL American Journal of Semitic Languages and LiteratureAJT American Journal of TheologyANET Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old TestamentATR Anglican Theological ReviewAUSS Andrews University Seminary StudiesBASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental ResearchBHS Biblia hebraica stuttgartensiaBib BiblicaBibSac Bibliotheca SacraBKAT Biblischer Kommentar: Altes TestamentBN Biblische NotizenBR Bible ReviewBST Bible Speaks TodayBTB Biblical Theology BulletinBZ Biblische ZeitschriftCBQ Catholic Biblical QuarterlyCS The Context of ScriptureEHS Europäische HochschulscriftenETL Ephemerides theologicae lovaniensesExpT Expository TimesFOTL Forms of the Old Testament LiteratureHAR Hebrew Annual ReviewHTR Harvard Theological ReviewInterp InterpretationJAAR Journal of the American Academy of ReligionJANES Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia

University

xv

JAOS Journal of the American Oriental SocietyJBL Journal of Biblical LiteratureJCS Journal of Cuneiform StudiesJETS Journal of the Evangelical Theological SocietyJNES Journal of Near Eastern StudiesJQR Jewish Quarterly ReviewJSOT Journal for the Study of the Old TestamentJSOTS Journal for the Study of the Old Testament — Supplement

SeriesJSS Journal of Semitic StudiesJTS Journal of Theological StudiesNAC New American CommentaryNICOT New International Commentary on the Old TestamentNIDOTTE New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and

ExegesisNIV New International VersionNIVAC New International Version Application CommentaryNLT New Living TranslationOTE Old Testament EssaysPEQ Palestine Exploration QuarterlyRB Revue bibliqueRTR Reformed Theological ReviewSJOT Scandinavian Journal of the Old TestamentSR Studies in Religion/Sciences ReligieusesTOTC Tyndale Old Testament CommentaryTynBul Tyndale BulletinTZ Theologische ZeitschriftVT Vetus TestamentumWTJ Westminster Theological JournalZAW Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

xvi

Abbreviations

INTRODUCTION1

I. TITLE

The title Song of Songs comes from the first two words of the first verse inthe Hebrew text (šîr haššîrîm). The most obvious meaning of this phrase fol-lows from a recognition that the syntax (the use of the same word in con-struct relationship, first in the singular and the second time in the plural) de-notes a superlative in Hebrew. This, in other words, is the best song of all.Grammatical analogies include “utterly meaningless” (Eccles. 1:2 andthroughout) and “Holy of Holies,” in reference to the most holy spot on earth(Exod. 29:37) — see other analogies in Deuteronomy 10:14 (“heaven ofheavens”) and Genesis 9:25 (“servant of servants”). Origen identified sevensongs in Scripture and argued that the Song of Songs was the best.2 This maybe compared with rabbinic assertions, stated in different ways, that the Songwas the best of the Solomonic corpus (see below under Authorship). SinceLuther, Germans have captured this sense by typically titling the bookHoheleid, “the best song.”

Though I agree that the title has this superlative sense, I believe it in-tends to convey more than simply “the best song.” When we explain thestructure of the book, we will see that there are both centrifugal and centripe-tal forces at work.3 We will argue that there is a loose unity to the Song sug-gested by an occasional refrain and a unity of persona (thus the singular

1

1. For further discussion, consult R. B. Dillard and T. Longman III, An Introduc-tion to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), pp. 257-65.

2. M. H. Pope, Song of Songs, AB 7C (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1977),p. 297.

3. The terms are D. Grossberg’s; see his Centripetal and Centrifugal Structures inHebrew Poetry (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989).

Song), but that the poems are ultimately independent of one another. Thebook is something like an erotic psalter (thus Songs).4

Though this commentary uses and encourages the title Song of Songs,two other titles are also current in the literature. First, Song of Solomon high-lights the connection that the superscription ties between the book and Da-vid’s son (see commentary on 1:1). However, inasmuch as this title impliesSolomonic authorship of the whole, it is misleading (see Authorship). Sec-ond, the term Canticles is occasionally used and derives from the name givento the book in the Latin Vulgate (Canticum canticorum, which means Songof Songs).

Song of Songs is the fourth book in the third section of the HebrewBible (the Ketubim). While in the English canon it follows Ecclesiastes, inthe Hebrew it precedes it. In the latter, as a result, we have the interesting andsurely intentional order of Proverbs, Ruth, and the Song. Proverbs, it will beremembered, concludes with the poem concerning the virtuous woman(31:10-31). Ruth and the Song, then, both present virtuous and assertivewomen for our contemplation.

The Song of Songs is also a part of the Megillot “Scrolls,” five books5

each of which were associated in postbiblical times with a particular Jewishfeast. The Song of Songs was read on the eighth day of Passover, an associa-tion that likely arose because the book was read as a historical allegory be-ginning with the Exodus and ending with the coming of the Messiah (see be-low under History of Interpretation).

II. AUTHORSHIP

The discussion over the authorship of the Song of Songs begins with the su-perscription in 1:1:

šîr haššîrîm } ašer lišlZmZh

The part of the superscription potentially relevant to the issue of authorship isthe subordinate clause formed by the last two words. As mentioned above,this verse functions something like a title page, introducing the work that fol-lows. It seems a reasonable hypothesis to suggest that the superscription wasadded after the book was composed, and the meager evidence that we have

2

Song of Songs

4. See the similar view articulated by R. Gordis, The Song of Songs and Lamenta-tions: A Study, Modern Translation, and Commentary, rev. and augmented ed. (New York:KTAV, 1974), pp. 17-18.

5. The others are Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, and Esther.

invites the conclusion that the superscription was written by someone notconnected with the composition of the poems that follow.6 Does that meanthat it claims that Solomon is its author? Not necessarily if viewed from theperspective of the grammar. The preposition le that is prefixed to Solomon’sname can theoretically be understood in more than one way in this context:

To Solomon: The book is dedicated to Solomon.By Solomon: Authorship.Concerning Solomon: Solomon is the subject matter of the book.Solomonic: which may mean something like “in the Solomonic/wis-

dom literary tradition.”

Traditionally, there is no doubt but that the book was understood to be writ-ten by Solomon, if not also about him (see History of Interpretation). TheMidrash Rabbah, for instance, talks of the three main contributions of Solo-mon — Song of Songs, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes — as belonging to threephases of his life, with the explanation that “when a man is young he com-poses songs; when he grows older he makes sententious remarks; and whenhe becomes an old man he speaks of the vanity of things.” Thus, the Song isthought to be composed by Solomon in his youth, not only when his sexualenergy was high, but also before his apostasy, which was motivated in largepart by illegitimate lust (see below). Furthermore, those who believe that theSong was authored by Solomon suggest that the popular title for the book,Song of Solomon, implicitly identifies Solomon as the author.

Even in the modern period, Solomonic authorship has found its de-fenders.7 One common line of defense has to do with the imagery of theSong, which assumes both wealth and an international trade that would makethe Israelite author and audience aware of the exotic spices that find mentionin the poems (i.e., 4:13-14).8 Others would add the argument that the mostnatural way to read the superscription is as an attribution of authorship, and,since there is no reason to question Solomon’s ability to write love poems,why should modern scholars question the tradition? In addition, it is felt bymany that the lamed preposition elsewhere indicates authorship, so why not

3

Authorship

6. Most notably the use of the relative pronoun } ašer rather than še as in the bodyof the book. However, it is conceivable that this change is determined by the prose-likegenre of the superscription and the poetic quality of the poems.

7. A. M. Harman, “Modern Discussion on the Song of Songs,” RTR 37 (1978):66, lists the following as arguing for a date during or closely associated with the time ofSolomon: M. H. Segal, G. Gerleman, and C. Rabin.

8. G. L. Archer, Jr., A Survey of Old Testament Introduction (Chicago: Moody,1974), pp. 498-99.

here? Such views, of course, have to defend against those who understand thelanguage of the book to be late (see below under Language).

Indeed, the tradition of Solomon as a writer and songster is strong inthe prose tradition of the Old Testament. The most relevant passage is thatfound in 1 Kings 4:29-34:

God gave Solomon wisdom and very great insight, and a breadth of un-derstanding as measureless as the sand on the seashore. Solomon’s wis-dom was greater than the wisdom of all the men of the East, and greaterthan all the wisdom of Egypt. He was wiser than any other man, includ-ing Ethan the Ezrahite — wiser than Heman, Calcol and Darda, the sonsof Mahol. And his fame spread to all the surrounding nations. He spokethree thousand proverbs and his songs numbered a thousand and five. Hedescribed plant life, from the cedar of Lebanon to the hyssop that growsout of walls. He also taught about animals and birds, reptiles and fish.Men of all nations came to listen to Solomon’s wisdom, sent by all thekinds of the world, who had heard of his wisdom.

In a word, Solomon was quite a prolific wisdom author. Most relevant to theSong is the statement that he wrote over a thousand songs. Could some ofthese be the songs of that book of love poetry?

It seems most natural on the basis of this evidence to conclude that thesuperscription is making the claim that Solomon wrote the Song in its en-tirety. For those who believe that the Bible speaks authoritatively in suchmatters, this seems the end of the discussion. All that is left to do is to pro-vide arguments in favor of Solomonic authorship and to answer those objec-tions that are brought against it. However, the situation is not quite so simple.There are significant reasons to question the idea that Solomon wrote the en-tirety of the Song. As we survey these reasons, we will see that some are in-deed ill-founded, while others are persuasive. We will move from the weak-est to the strongest claims.

In the first place, we have the question of language. We will deal withthe specific evidence concerning language later in the Introduction. For now, Isimply want to suggest that language is not a reliable indicator of the date of abook for two reasons. First, our knowledge of the development of the Hebrewlanguage is tenuous, particularly in terms of the influence that other languageshad on Hebrew. In the past, the discovery of Aramaisms in the text was con-sidered strong evidence of its lateness. Now, with the relatively recent discov-ery of Aramaic dated to the eleventh century b.c.9 (Tell Fekheriye Inscrip-tion), it appears that the influence of Aramaic on Hebrew occurred earlier than

4

Song of Songs

9. Though this has been questioned; cf. J. Naveh, “Aramaic Script,” ABD, vol. 1,pp. 342-45.

5

Authorship

the exilic period. There is no good reason to deny an early influence since weknow that the two language groups had contact as early as David (cf. 2 Sam.8:5-8). The supposed presence of a single Persian loanword (4:3, pard3s) ishardly enough to convince us of a late date. Second, we are ignorant concern-ing the possible linguistic updating of earlier biblical material. As a matter offact, it is hard to imagine that there was no updating during the long periodthat we believe the Bible came into existence; otherwise, later generationswould have had a hard time understanding the language. Although editorswould have tended to be more conservative with poetry in any such updatingdue to the demands of literary artifice, nonetheless we must allow for the pos-sibility that the Song of Songs was updated, which would not allow us to use(possibly) later linguistic forms to date the composition of the text.

Second, we might question an essential Solomonic role in the Songdue to Solomon’s dubious reputation in the area of love. Song extols an ex-clusive, committed relationship. To these lovers there is only one other per-son — each other.10 Yet the historical tradition concerning Solomon does notfocus on one woman but many wives and concubines. One of his wives stoodout from among others, namely, the daughter of the Pharaoh of Egypt, butthat is due to the importance of the military alliance that was formed betweenEgypt and Israel, not because of a unique love between the two. This is madeclear in 1 Kings 11:1: “King Solomon, however, loved many foreign womenbesides Pharaoh’s daughter — Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Sidoniansand Hittites.” Furthermore, the Deuteronomic historian makes no secret ofthe catastrophe that resulted from these marriages: “They were from nationsabout which the Lord had told the Israelites, ‘You must not intermarry withthem, because they will surely turn your hearts after their gods.’ Neverthe-less, Solomon held fast to them in love.” Indeed, he had seven hundred wives“of royal birth.” The results were a personal tragedy: “As Solomon grew old,his wives turned his heart after other gods, and his heart was not fully de-voted to the Lord his God, as the heart of David his father had been. He fol-lowed Ashtoreth, the goddess of the Sidonians, and Molech, the detestablegod of the Ammonites. So Solomon did evil in the eyes of the Lord; he didnot follow the Lord completely, as David his father had done” (1 Kings 4:4-6). His foreign love affairs also led to a national calamity immediately uponhis death. God judged Solomon for his apostasy by splitting the kingdom,united under his rule, into two parts. His son and those who descended fromhis line would only rule the southern kingdom of Judah, and, sure enough,when Solomon died, one of his subordinates led a rebellion against Reho-

10. True, Song of Songs 6:8 mentions sixty queens and eighty concubines, butnothing in the text indicates that these women are the man’s wives and concubines. Hemay simply be comparing his beloved to the “best” women in the land.

boam (1 Kings 12). The Deuteronomic historian, however, was interested ineven the more devastating effects of this and other acts of rebellion. The finalform of Kings should surely be dated to the exile, where the question that it(along with Samuel) grapples with is: “Why are we in exile?” In the mind ofthe historian, Solomon’s sinful marriages constitute a banner reason why Ju-dah was defeated and the temple destroyed. All of this is to query the likeli-hood of a book about romantic love being written by Solomon. It seems quitea stretch to suggest, along with the above-quoted rabbinic legend, that theSong was a product of Solomon’s pure youth. It seems a better strategy to ex-plore other options of understanding the superscription.

A third consideration that causes us to distance the Song of Songs as awhole from Solomonic authorship is the minimal role that Solomon plays inthe text. A mere three passages even mention Solomon at all, and in all threeit is clear that Solomon is the object of the poem, not its composer. Somemight respond by saying that Solomon plays a much larger role if we recog-nize that he stands behind every mention of the “king” in the text. However,most recent scholarship has rightly recognized that king, like shepherd, is anepithet of respect and endearment,11 not a reference to an actual political sov-ereign and certainly not a cipher for Solomon. Furthermore, the three pas-sages themselves refer to Solomon in different ways. A full discussion of thepassages may be found in the commentary below, but here we will offer afew guiding comments. In 1:3 Solomon — if he is mentioned at all12 — is notreferred to as a person; only the dark color of his tents is mentioned. In 3:6-11 (particularly v. 11), Solomon’s wedding is more the topic than Solomonthe person. The glory of his wedding excites those who are called upon to re-member it. It brings honor to the institution of marriage. The passage itself isnot saying that Solomon married the woman of the Song. It is simply promot-ing the wonder of marriage by focusing on all the wonderful and expensiveaccoutrements of Solomon’s wedding. Finally, 8:11-12 paints a negative pic-ture of Solomon as one who tries to buy love but is ridiculed for the attempt.It is doubtful that Solomon would characterize himself this way. In conclu-sion, we find no support for Solomonic authorship in the texts that mentionhis name. We should also mention the one passage where a woman is called aShulammite (7:1 [English 6:13]). As explained in the commentary, this ap-pears to be a feminine form of the name Solomon and suggests that perhapsboth names are used for their etymological sense of “peace.”

Fourth, important to the significance of Solomon in the superscriptionis how the name is used in the superscriptions of other books. Proverbs ex-plicitly has his name in the first verse (1:1), and Ecclesiastes strongly implies

6

Song of Songs

11. See the discussion under Song of Songs 1:4.12. It may be a reference to Salma, a nomadic tribe.

Solomon (1:1). Yet in both cases, a close examination reveals that neither im-plies that Solomon wrote the whole book. Indeed, as argued in an earlierwork, I suggest that Solomon did not write the book of Ecclesiastes but ratherprovided the fictional background for Qohelet.13 The book of Proverbs showssigns of multiple authorship, more an anthology composed of a number oftexts from different authors and time periods. Frequently, the sections aremarked by captions that indicate authorship. They cite a group called “thewise” (22:17; 24:23), Agur (30:1), King Lemuel (31:1), and Solomon (1:1;10:1; 25:1) as sources of the wisdom of the book. Only Proverbs 1:8–8:18and 31:10-31 are without an explicit authorship attribution. Proverbs 1:1-7serves as an extended superscription and introduction to the book that con-nects authorship to Solomon but does not claim it for the section itself.14

In our opinion, the lišlZmZh in the Song of Songs is most like themention of Solomon in the superscription of the book of Proverbs. Below, inthe sections on structure and genre, we will describe the Song as an anthol-ogy of love poems. There is nothing inconceivable about the idea that Solo-mon wrote one or more of the poems. However, there is also nothing that in-disputably connects the book with Solomon. Fortunately, little is at stake interms of authorship of these poems. The one thing that is clear is that it is nottelling a story about Solomon. To posit such a reading involves excessiveeisegesis to make it work. Our translation of the preposition in the super-scription (The Song of Songs, which concerns Solomon) is purposively am-biguous in terms of Solomon’s relationship to the Song.

A WOMAN POET?

One school of thought suggests that a woman poet may have written the Songof Songs. These scholars point out that the woman’s voice dominates thebook. A. Brenner, for instance, indicates that out of one hundred and seven-teen verses, the woman speaks sixty-one and a half of them.15 She is fullyaware that mere quantity does not argue the case for a woman’s authorship;indeed, a male can imitate a woman’s voice at least to a certain extent. Shealso understands that the Song is a collection and so can come from a varietyof different time periods and authors. However, Brenner still suspects that

7

Authorship

13. The argument may be found in T. Longman III, The Book of Ecclesiastes,NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), pp. 2-9.

14. For further discussion of Proverbs, see Dillard and Longman, An Introductionto the Old Testament, pp. 236-37.

15. A. Brenner, “Women Poets and Authors,” in A Feminine Companion to theSong of Songs, ed. A. Brenner (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), p. 88.

certain poems — she mentions in particular 1:2-6; 3:1-4; 5:1-7; 5:10-16 —“are so essentially feminine that a male could hardly imitate their tone andtexture successfully.”16 The thesis of J. Bekkenkamp and F. van Dijk furthersupports Brenner’s thesis. They argue that the Song is part of an extensivetradition of women who sang songs. They survey references to women sing-ing in the Bible (2 Sam. 1:20, 24; Jer. 9:17, 20; Ezek. 32:16) as well as quota-tions of their songs (Judges 5; 1 Sam. 18:6-7). From this evidence they con-clude that “it is very likely that we are dealing with women’s poetry in theSong of Songs.”17 S. D. Goiten is even more specific. Following the lead ofM. H. Segal,18 she situates the Song in the time of Solomon. Detecting awoman’s voice in the book, she posits a particular woman as the author: “TheSong was composed in honour of King Solomon by a young woman, daugh-ter of a nobleman (ndyb), who was brought to his court in order to adorn hisparties by her singing. . . . What would be more natural than for Solomon, thegreat woman-lover, to ask one of the female singers of his court to gather forhim the best of current Israelite love poetry?”19

It is not just women scholars who argue for this position; they arejoined also by F. Landy and A. LaCocque. Indeed, the latter quotes the for-mer as he states his opinion that “the author of the Song was a female poetwho intended to ‘cock a snook at all Puritans.’”20 In other words, accordingto both these commentators, the Song was written by a woman who was re-sisting social norms, including the idea that women should be receivers notinitiators of love.

Against the rising tide supporting the idea of female authorship of theSong comes D. J. A. Clines, always reading “against the grain.” In a nutshell,his opinion is that the woman of the Song is the perfect woman from a maleperspective, the ideal dream of most men, and thus a fabrication by men.21

He believes the book was written by men in order to meet the need “of a malepublic for erotic literature.”22

8

Song of Songs

16. Brenner, “Women Poets and Authors,” pp. 90-91.17. J. Bekkenkamp and F. van Dijk, “The Canon of the Old Testament and

Women’s Cultural Traditions,” in A Feminine Companion to the Song of Songs, ed.A. Brenner (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), p. 79.

18. M. H. Segal, “The Song of Songs,” VT 12 (1962): 470-90.19. S. D. Goiten, “The Song of Songs: A Female Composition,” in A Feminine

Companion to the Song of Songs, ed. A. Brenner (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), p. 65.20. A. LaCocque, Romance She Wrote: A Hermeneutical Essay on Song of Songs

(Harrisburg, PA: Trinity, 1998), p. xi, citing F. Landy, Paradoxes of Paradise: Identity andDifference in the Song of Songs (Sheffield: Almond, 1983), p. 17.

21. His views are found in D. J. A. Clines, “Why Is There a Song of Songs andWhat Does It Do to You If You Read It?” Jin Dao 1 (1994): 1-27.

22. Clines, “Why Is There a Song of Songs?” p. 6.

The discussions of the gender of the author of the Song reveals moreabout us as commentators than it does about the Song. It relies on a theory ofliterature and of gender that believes that women and men are typecast in theway that they write. The irony is that the arguments on both sides are notcoming from social conservatives, but they certainly feed the agendas ofthose conservatives. The most honest appraisal is that we do not know forcertain who wrote the songs of the Song, a man or a woman, and in any caseit is a collection of love poetry, whether by men, or women, or both. It strikesme, though, that Clines is the most egregious of these commentators since hisview relies on the supposition that no woman would have the interest in thekind of love that the beloved articulates.

III. LITERARY STYLE

READING THE POETRY OF THE SONG

The Song bears all the characteristics of what we recognize as Hebrew po-etry: terseness, parallelism, imagery, and secondary poetical devices.23 Ac-cordingly, it was one of three poetical books given special accents in theMasoretic tradition (te}amin). Unfortunately, though, we have no native de-scription of the conventions of Hebrew poetry, so we will here give a briefdescription of the major ones with an emphasis on their manifestation in theSong.

Terseness

Terseness simply describes the fact that Hebrew poetry is distinguished fromprose by the brevity of its clauses. Prose is constructed of sentences that formparagraphs that build longer discourses; poetry is made up of short cola thatform parallel lines (see below) that may build stanzas or simply longer po-ems. The colon is short, on average three major words, occasionally four, andrarely more. The second colon of a parallel line is almost always shorter thanthe first. A significant factor in this is ellipsis, which results when the second

9

Literary Style

23. For more detail on the nature of Hebrew poetry, see especially W. G. E. Wat-son, Classical Hebrew Poetry, JSOTS 26 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984); R. Alter, The Artof Biblical Poetry (New York: Basic Books, 1985); J. Kugel, The Idea of Biblical Poetry(New Haven: Yale University Press, 1981); A. Berlin, The Dynamics of Biblical Parallel-ism (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985); as well as my “Biblical Poetry,” in AComplete Literary Guide to the Bible, ed. L. Ryken and T. Longman III (Grand Rapids:Zondervan, 1993), pp. 80-91.