A Commentary in Simple English on Song of Songs

Notes

[0.1] So Athalya Brenner, ‘The Song of Songs’ in the O.T. Guides Series, J.S.O.T. Press Sheffield, 1989. In her Jewish home as a girl, she knew the whole book before she realised it was Scripture. It seems right to listen to a woman’s voice when dealing with this book!

[0.2] This would go some way to explaining the presence of foreign words, some of which are often used to argue a late date for the book. There are fifty words in the book which do not occur elsewhere. The widespread knowledge of places and plants could point the same way. We have no other Jewish love poetry to compare with the song. Peculiarities of diction may only be poetic style, or ‘northern’. Down the ages, the Jews have always had a distinctive culture. It is not derived from their neighbours, and has various aspects.

[0.3] For example J.T.Bunn, in the Broadman Bible Commentary Volume 5, Marshall Morgan and Scott London 1971.

[0.4] At least a series of ‘flashbacks’ are required, if we want a ‘happy ending’!

[0.5] There is an article in the Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 46 (JSOT Press, Sheffield, 1990) at page 81 by D A Dorsey which develops work by Exum and Shea. This provides the outline of the chiastic structure in the Song of Songs, which I adopt. ‘The conventional division into eight chapters is useful only for text reference’. (Quoted by Brenner from Pope.) Much of the detail cannot be covered here.

The weakness of the article is that it does not allow any place for Solomon. If the central section of the book is understood to relate to Solomon and his bride, the remainder of the book speaks of the shepherd and his love. (But see note [5.1] below). The references to Solomon in 1:5 and 8:11 are no problem. Solomon is not in the ‘storyline’ there. However, the references to the ‘king’ - which need not be Solomon! in 1:4 and 1:12 are still a problem. If there was agreement about the poems, the significance of style and language might become clearer.

[0.6] I have used the Commentaries of Matthew Henry and Dr Gill in the past. We may mention Sibbes’ ‘Bowels Opened’ in Volume 2 of his works and his sermon ‘The Church’s Blackness’ on 1:5 and 6 (Volume 7). There are the verse passages in Hannah Hurnard’s ‘Hinds feet on high places’.

James Durham’s commentary is full of spiritual truth, but his consistent treatment of the book leads him into forced applications which could not be explained in such a work as I am attempting. His teaching is experimental and is not sufficiently balanced by teaching about Christ’s person and work.

[1.1] (1:5) I find Brenner a little too optimistic at this point when she says: ‘The daughters of Jerusalem are probably girls of high breeding and status, whose life is leisurely enough to afford indulging in love affairs’. There is also the question whether the ‘daughters of Zion’ in 3:11 are different from the ‘daughters of Jerusalem’.

[1.2] ( 1:5) I find the reference to ‘the curtains of Solomon’ a little difficult because Solomon would hardly have lived in tents on his travels round his empire. The curtains of his temple may be intended.

The last part of the comment here is based on Durham p. 90, which I found very wise.

[1.3] (1:6) In a polygamous society, mother’s sons may be closer relatives than some brothers. In Chapter 8 it is the girl’s mother who is mentioned several times. Father is missing! But then would David or Solomon have time for their sons’ upbringing? In the marriage arrangements of their sisters, brothers play a part in Genesis 24 (Rebekah) and Genesis 34 (Dinah).

[1.4] (1:6) In O.T. times vines were not supported. They grew on terraces and the grapes hung down against the retaining walls. Wood for supports was too scarce. See article in Biblical Archaeology Review, August 1998 at page 43. The practice in the New Testament period seems less certain. John 15:2 probably refers to supporting vine branches.

[1.5] (1:7) Goulder thinks the girl is upset because instead of becoming the king’s favourite, she is palmed off on a noble. NEB finds a rather tasteless reference to ‘picking lice’ here, which is a little out of keeping with the atmosphere of the book.

[1.6] (1:14) There is a note about En Gedi in Biblical Archaeology Review, September 1996 at page 18.

[1.7] (1:17) Brenner p. 36 ‘The theme: love out of doors’. She may well be right in thinking that both lovers speak together in verse 17.

[2.1] (2:4) Should we really think of a ‘house of wine’? Or is the happy couple still out-of-doors? I am ready to be persuaded on this point! - but not perhaps by Brenner - ‘There are wine houses to which young people may go’!

[2.2] (2:12) ‘The singing of birds’ seems more likely than ‘pruning’, because of the contrast between the many tuneful migrant birds and the tuneless dove.

[2.3] (2:13) Durham p 144.

[3.1] (3:6) The Pharaoh is often thought to be Siamun 978-959 B.C. Rohl has suggested Haremheb, who was a soldier and not of royal blood. He argues that the princess’s villa was north of Jerusalem, near the Garden Tomb. The reference to ‘soldiers of ‘Israel’ in verse 7 is evidence of a date before the disruption of the kingdom at Solomon’s death.

Gabriel Barkay has now published an artical in Biblical Archaeology Review, May 2000 at p. 48 in which he reviews the same material that Rohl refers to. He agrees that the material is late Bronze Age, probably 19th Dynasty, but because he is working with the conventional chronology, he arrives at a date about 1200BC. and well before the time of Solomon.

Rohl’s view has at least one advantage. We cannot be sure that the platform of Solomon’s temple took up the whole area of Herod’s temple. Further, the original city of Jerusalem up to the time of David may have extended north and may in part be buried in the temple platform. In any case, on Rohl;s view, the ‘villa’ was not far north of Solomon’s temple. On Barkay’s view the ‘temple’ must have been separated from the old city by some distance, perhaps a kilometre. This is not impossible, of course, but does not seem likely.

[3.2] (3:9) Durham notes the sequence ‘Solomon’ (verse 7) King Solomon (verse 9); Solomon crowned (verse 11).

[3.3] (3:11) The presence of Bathsheba in verse 11 is no doubt significant. ‘Your father had problems with women. Do not get yourself into a worse mess!’ A hint Solomon did not take! Another indication of a date early in Solomon’s reign.

[5.1] (5:2) So if the girl is Abishag, this explains why she has more freedom than Solomon’s assorted women would have. 6:1 and 6:4 speak of her beauty. But then surely we know who her lover is. It is Adonijah! His love was ‘strong as death’ - it cost him his life!

[5.2] (5:10) I find the idea that he is like a standard bearer (as in 2:4) attractive but not convincing.

[5.3] (5:14) Despite the fairly modern consensus that Tarshish is South Spain, I still feel Carthage in Tunisia is more likely.

[6.1] (6:4) RSV rightly uses the same translation in verses 4 and 10 although it came up with ‘terrible as an army with banners’. Lloyd Carr in the Tyndale Commentary points to the idea of a city here, although he would translate ‘splendid to look upon’. Goulder’s argument may be weak at points, and his translation ‘the Milky Way’ seems a bit feeble (p.48) as the outcome of the case he has made. Yet at this point he is on the right track!

The function of ‘triplets’ in the poetry of the Song seems to deserve more study. They do not always point to a climax. The third members of 4:15 and 7:5 are not.

[7.1] (7:5) Commentators also suggest that perhaps the picture may be of the hair like weaver’s thread fastened to a weaver’s beam. The idea of the king being fastened in this way seems out of keeping with the atmosphere of the song. Yet another idea is that the curls are like links in a chain.

[7.2] (7:13) But Dr Gill thought bananas were meant! They were exotic and rare in his day, no doubt.

[8.1] ( 8:11) Suggested by Goulder p.69. For once Snaith (p.127) approves of Goulder!

[8.2] (8:14) Lloyd Carr seems to understand that the girl is already up on the mountains and calls her lover to join her.