Professional Writing Service http://StudyHub.vip/An-Exegetical-Study-Of-Song-Of-Songs-4 👈

1. MORTHLAND COLLEGE
AN EXEGETICAL STUDY ON SONG OF SONGS 4
SUBMITTED TO DR. TOM HOBSON
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF
LNG 453 HEBREW 3
BY
PETER JAMES NORCROSS
DECEMBER 7, 2012

2. AN EXEGETICAL STUDY ON SONG OF SONGS 4
The Song of Songs is one of the most powerful works of literature that has been written within
the course of human history. Its poetically simple metaphor paralleled against its inherently
complex message has confounded the world’s chief scholars for just as long. While theories
abound on the interpretation of this song, from strictly allegorical to strictly sexual, more
research must be done into the original and simple meaning of the song. To this end, it is
important to discuss issues of canonicity, authorship, provenance, date, historical context,
grammar, word usage, and theological context. Through the study of these traits, a better picture
can be drawn of the original intent, both divine and mundane, for this, the Song of Songs.
Canonicity
What must first be discussed is the issue of canonicity. The interpretation of a text is largely
dependent on its canonicity. The value of Maccabees is not the value of Joshua. Canonicity is a
touchy subject when it comes to the Song of Songs. Song of Songs seemed to be fairly well
established as a holy book in the Jewish customs, whether or not it was considered canon. The
Mishna even set a curse against anyone who denied that the Song of Songs was a holy song1
.
In spite of this, the issue of canonicity was hotly debated as far as the Synod of Jamnia2
. Honest
1
Orr, James, M.A., D.D. ed., "Song of Songs" in ISBE, (Grand Rapids:Eerdman’s Publishing Co, 1915)
2
Ibid.

3. 2
questioning of this books canonicity, however, is rooted in one struggle: Song of Songs is
virtually unrepresented in either the New Testament or the early church fathers3
. While this is
certainly the case, it is generally assumed that the early church, like the Jews, would have
considered this book a holy scripture4
. Being referenced in the early church fathers and in the
New Testament is not the end all, be all of canonicity; several deuterocanonical books share this
honor. We must therefore treat this book with the same reference as any other book in scripture.
Authorship, Provenance and Date
The question of authorship for the Song of Songs is a difficult one. Traditional scholarship has
ascribed authorship to Solomon, as reflected in the titling of Song of Songs, which states, “The
most excellent song, which is [written by] Solomon”5
. This title, being in an entirely different
dialect of Hebrew6
, was likely added at a later date, expressing the belief of the editor on the
issue of authorship. If this is true, the book’s provenance must also be rooted in Jerusalem, where
Solomon was likely to have spent the bulk of his time. This thesis cannot easily be either
disproved or affirmed from an academic perspective, however there is value in leaning on
tradition. The author has certainly set the action of the book in Jerusalem, several times
witnessing the royal parade. He could be a contemporary author, or an author who was
intentionally archaizing his story for poetic effect, much like a modern poet speaking of King
Arthur and his round table. Whether or not the author is Solomon, there are some traits that may
3
Ibid.
4
Ibid.
5
All translations are my own unless otherwise specified.
6
SBH rather than LBH.

4. 3
be affirmed about the author, given simple literary and linguistic analysis.
The Song of Solomon is an interesting book, with one of the highest densities of
Aramaisms of any book in Old Testament cannon7
. Many of these Aramaisms are in vocabulary;
the Song of Songs is one of only two passages in scripture that uses the Aramaic relative particle
‫ש‬ to the exclusion of its Hebrew alternative, ‫ר‬‫ֲש‬ 8
. Many scholars have suggested that the density
of Aramaisms is an indication of either archaic or post-exilic origin for the Song of Songs, but
this is by no means definitive and may be easily overridden by other considerations. A more
compelling explanation for the abundance of Aramaisms is the theory of northern authorship.
The language of the Song of Songs finds its most striking parallel in the song of Deborah, which
is universally agreed to be a song written in the northern dialect of Hebrew. Therefore, it is more
likely that the Song of Songs is written in Northern Hebrew, rather than LBH, particularly given
its frequent mention of northern localities and goods9
.
Many scholars base their arguments for a late dating of the Song of Song on loanwords
from languages that interacted more with Second Temple Judaism, however, this argument is not
the most compelling. Given the high number of supposed Persian loanwords that suggest a late
date, it is valuable consider what Diversity In The Bible says about the important ‘Persian’
loanword, ‫פר‬: “This word [ ‫]פר‬ is so routinely called a Persian word that it comes as quite a
surprise that, according to our present reading of the sources, the word is not attested at all in Old
Persian, the language of the Persian conquerors of the sixth century. As we have seen in our
discussions of loanwords, the case of borrowings from Iranian is the least satisfactory.” A
7
Diversity in the bible
8
The other being the Song of Deborah . Ibid.
9
See note from “Annotated Translation” on v.1.

5. 4
simpler explanation can be divined if one considers the nature of the trade items mentioned in the
book. In this book, a number of trade items are mentioned that find their origin in East Asia, and
especially India. Most of the loanwords in this book can be traced back directly to either Sanskrit
or Tamil10
, so it is more likely that these words have come to Hebrew by means of these
languages, rather than Persian. The spelling of many of these terms would then appear to have
been updated to their second temple Persian equivalent.
It is undeniable that this book was written from the perspective of a northerner. Out of the
fourteen localities mentioned, twelve belonged to the north. However, assuming the events of the
narrative are true, the author must have been living in Jerusalem at the time of his writing. Such a
statement neither affirms nor denies Solomon’s authorship. Uriah was a Hittite, which could
explain the northern tone of the narrative. It is possible that Bathsheba raised Solomon to
appreciate his northern heritage. This could also be simply explained by Solomon’s vast wisdom
in regards to world affairs, and not demonstrative of any issue of provenance. Whatever the case
may be, the book was likely written in Jerusalem, and that, around the time of the reign of
Solomon (or, approx. 950-900BC).
Annotated Translation
This translation includes notes discussing lexical and grammatical issues, as well as notes on
translation and style. Some notes have also been included, giving cultural context and
discussions on date where appropriate. Notes that have proven too long to be included as a
footnote are included in the sections that follow.
10
Ibid., 161,162. Rezetko, Robert and Ian Yound, “Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts”
(Sheffield: Equinox Publishing, Ltd., 2008)

6. 5
The Lover to His Bride11
:
1
See! You are beautiful, my companion12
! See! You are beautiful! Your eyes are doves13
from behind your veil.14
/
Your hair is like a herd of goats descending15
from mount Gilead.16
/
2
Your teeth are like a herd of sheep, freshly shorn, and coming up17
from the washing.18
/
They all have their twins19
; Not one is missing./
3
Your lips are like a scarlet thread20
; your mouth21
is beautiful!/
Your cheeks22
are like a pomegranate, split open behind your veil. /
11
This title has been given to clarify the speaker.
12
Usually translated neighbor, ‫ר‬ occurs in the feminine only in the Song of Songs. While context would
have it to mean ‘lover/darling/bride’, a more neutral term has been chosen to better suit the word choice of the
author.
13
Some of suggested that this is a comparison of sense, meaning that the bride’s eyes indicate a character
as pure as a dove. This seems doubtful, however, as the rest of the metaphors made through verse seven are all
clearly metaphors of sight. In this case, her eyes, as commonly depicted in contemporary art, are shaped like doves
and white. Harris, W. Hall III, ed., The NET Bible, First Edition, (Richardson: Biblical Studies Press, L.L.C., 2009),
1242.
14
The LXX incorrectly translates this as, “behind your silence”, whereas Symm. has this correctly, “behind
you veil.
15
‫ש‬ appears only in Song of Songs, here and in 6:5, making it a semi-hapax. Older lexicons, such as BDB
have suggested that this means “to sit, to sit (up), to recline”, as derived from the Arabic term of the same meaning,
jls. However, modern scholarship has suggested that this verb means instead, “to flow, hop, descend”, which better
fits the context. Harris, 1242. Delitzch, F., “Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon” in Commentary on the Old
Testament, ed. F. Delitzch and C. F. Keil, trans. M. G. Easton, (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2011), 550.
16
Gilead is the first in a string of northern localities in this chapter. Others include Lebanon, Amana,
Hermon, Senir (which is what the northerly dwelling Amorites called Hermon), and the mountains of leopards,
being the northern Alps. This requires the author to be familiar with the geography of the far north. The chapter,
along with the book as a whole, makes mention of several trade goods which originate in the north as well.; This
metaphor describes the bride’s hair as unbound and flowing, and also describes the color of it. While the sheep of
the region are white, the goats are predominantly either brown or black in color. Ibid., 550, 556.
17
The relative particle ‫ש‬ has not been included here, for style in English, lit which are coming up.
18
‫ְצ‬‫ח‬‫ר‬ refers to both the washing and the watering hole. In this context, it is difficult to imagine the lover
describing his bride’s teeth as freshly watered sheep. It is more likely that the sheep are coming up from the washing
and his bride’s teeth are as white as recently washed sheep.
19
The relative particle ‫ש‬ has not been included here, for style in English, lit which all of them have twins.
20
This is a construct chain with a genitive adjective, lit, thread of scarlet. Cf. Williams §30e
21
Participle of ‫ר‬ , lit, your speaker.
22
‫ק‬‫ר‬ literally means temple (as in, of the forehead). However, the analogy is referring to the bright red
color of a pomegranate cleaved open, paralleling the bride’s red lips in verse three. Therefore, this has been
translated cheeks, the metaphor describing the color of her blush. Chavalas, Mark W., Victor H. Matthews, and John
H. Walton, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, Old Testament, (Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 2000),
578.

7. 6
4
Your neck is like the tower of David, built up with courses of stone23
/
A thousand bucklers are hung on it, all the shields of the mighty men24
./
5
Your two breasts are like two fawns, twins of the gazelle, who graze among the lilies/
6
Until the day breathes25
and the darkness flees/
I will bring myself26
to the mountain of myrrh and to the hill of frankincense./
7
You are altogether beautiful27
, my companion, and there is no blemish in you!/
8
Come with me from Lebanon, O bride! Come with me from Lebanon! Come down from
summit of Amana!/
From the summit of Senir, and Hermon, from the dens of lions, from the mountains of
leopards./
9
You have made my heart beat again and again28
, my sister, O bride! You have made my
heart beat again and again with a single glance of your eyes!29
/
With a single strand of your necklace.30
/
10
How beautiful is your love, my sister, my bride, how much better is your love than
wine,/
And the fragrance of your oils than all spices.31
/
11
Your lips drip flowing honey, O bride! Honey and milk are under your tongue,/
And the fragrance of your garment is like the fragrance of Lebanon./
12
A garden locked is my sister, O bride32
, a surging headwater all locked, a spring
sealed./
13
Your shoots are a royal garden full of pomegranates, with choice fruits, henna with
nard plants./
14
Nard and saffron, calamus and cinnamon, with all the trees of frankincense./
Myrrh and aloes with all the best spices!33
/
23
See the note on this verse in “Lexical Analysis”.
24
This can be translated a number of ways, depending on how you take the genitive. It has been taken as a
possessive genitive, meaning, all the shields of the mighty men. It may also be taken as attributive, all the mighty
shields. Williams, §39,41.
25
The relative particle ‫ש‬ has not been included here, for style in English, lit until the time when the day
breathes.
26
ְ indicating Reflexive Dative.
27
‫יפ‬ is third masculine singular, but translated second feminine singular for style in English, lit all of you
is beautiful.; The parallel this verse plays with verse one (v.1 behold you are beautiful, v.7 you are altogether
beautiful) sets the frame for a poetic description of the bride’s beauty. Harris, 1243
28
See notes on this verse in ‘Grammatical Analysis’ and ‘Lexical Analysis’.
29
Lit, with one from your eyes, understood to mean one glance.
30
‫צור‬ is a hapax legomenon, but is relatively undisputed in meaning “necklace”, from the root ‫ר‬ ‫צ‬.
31
Lit, all the balsam oils, understood to be an idiomatic way of saying all the spices.
32
This has been translated as a nominative of address. If it were a nominative of subject (as in, my sister,
my bride!), one would expect ֑‫ל‬ to carry the first common singular pronominal suffix.
33
See note on v.10.

8. 7
15
You are a garden spring34
, a well of living water, flowing waters from Lebanon/
The Bride to Her Lover35
:
16
Awake, O north wind Come, O south! Waft through my garden; Make36
its spices blow
abroad!/
May my lover come into his garden and eat its choice fruits!/
Grammatical Analysis
This section will discuss difficult and noticeable grammatical features of the text that were not
fitted for the translation’s annotations.
(v. 9) ‫ִי‬ ִ֖‫ְת‬ ‫ִב‬ is a piel perfect, which has allows for several different interpretations. The
most compelling possible interpretations of this piel are Intensive (you have made my heart beat
faster), Causative (you have given me heart), Iterative (you have made my heart beat again and
again) and Privative (you have ravished my heart)37
. A causative nuance would fit here, and is
supported by Symmachus’s translation, ἐ α συνα , or you have given me courage. This is still
difficult to apply, however, as causative verbs are typically communicated by the hiphil. The
NET footnote on this verse suggests that this phrase is parallel to a certain modern Palestinian
poem, which states, “She stood opposite me and deprived me of reason (literally, 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.”38
This is not very
34
This is an example of the Explicative Genitive, Cf. Williams §43.
35
Beginning with “May my lover”, it is clear that the voice has changed from the lover to his bride. The
rest of the verse has also been included, although some will take it otherwise. Such a view would be justified, as the
֑
֑ is sufficient to separate the two clauses.
36
While the form is imperfect (used as a jussive, lit, let my spices), the phrase is emphasizing that the winds
will cause the spices to blow abroad.
37
Williams, §140-146
38
Harris, 1244.

9. 8
compelling, as the force of this phrase is not that the bride is stealing his mental faculties, but
rather that the bride is effecting his emotion. Only the Intensive and Iterative nuances then
remain, and seem equally reasonable interpretations. The iterative has been chosen in on in order
to best carry the nuance of the text
Lexical Analysis
This section will discuss difficult and noticeable lexical features of the text that were not fitted
for the translation’s annotations.
(v.4) The term talpeyoth offers an interesting dilemma. This word is a hapax legomenon,
showing up only here in the biblical cannon. The Septuagint, as well as several others, have
suggested that this is a proper name, merely transliterating it as αλπ ω (Tal Piyoth)39
. In this
case, this name has not been recorded elsewhere. Ibn Ezra suggests this be redivided as ‫ת‬ ‫פי‬ ‫ת‬ ,
or “place for hanging up weapons.40
” 41
This fits the context well, and is therefore adopted by
several translations, notably the KJV, ASV, and RSV. Scholars have suggested other connections
to Semitic terms meaning “to perish”, “to hang up for display”, “to bow” and “to fortify”, but
none of these meanings, nor the arguments behind them, are terribly compelling.42
The best
solution is suggested by Honeyman, who suggests that it is a noun derived from the root ‫פי‬ , “to
arrange in courses”.43
Such a translation would not require emendation of the text, and fits the
39
Ibid., 1242.
40
Lit, for suspending mouths. “Mouths” is understood to be an idiomatic term for blades.
41
Ibid.
42
Ibid.
43
Honeyman, A.M., “Two Contributions to Canaanite Typonomy” in The Journal of Theological Studies,
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1949), 51.

10. 9
context well. In this case, the analogy refers to the studded necklace given her by the king. This
finds its parallel in Egyptian art such as the Bust of Nefertiti, which depicts a necklace made up
of layered strands.44
(v. 9) appears only three other times in the bible as “to become wise (Job 11:12)” and
“to make cakes (2Sam 13:θ,8). Of these three, those in 2 Samuel must clearly be disregarded as
derived from separate roots. The usage in Job, although less clearly, does seem to be derived
from , rather than , but this is primarily a contextual discovery. Nahum M. Waldman has
suggested that ‫ִי‬ ִ֖‫ְת‬ ‫ִב‬ is derived from the Akkadian lababu, meaning “to rage”. The implication is
then, “you have aroused me sexually” with a single glance of your eyes.45
However, this seems
unlikely. Such a spelling would undoubtedly be read in relation to the Hebrew , and serves,
therefore, as an unnecessarily confusing word choice, where other terms would more easily carry
such a nuance. It seems clear, therefore, that is in fact is merely a verbal form of ,
meaning “to perform the function of a heart” or “to beat”.
Theological Context and Application
Finally, a theological and hermeneutical framework must be applied to the Song of
Songs. Many have suggested that the song is merely a collection of love poems, while others,
and notably, the church fathers, believed that this was an allegorical song about Christ’s love for
the church. Jonathan Edwards has written:
“The name by which Solomon calls this song confirms to me that it is more than an
ordinary love song and that it was designed for a divine song and of divine authority for
we read in 1 Kings 4:32 that Solomon's songs were ‘a thousand and five’. This he called
44
Chavalas, 578.
45
Harris, 1242.

11. 10
the’Song of Songs’ (Canticles 1:1). That is the most excellent of his songs which seems
very probable to me to be upon that account because it was a song of the most excellent
subject, treating of the love, union and communion between Christ and His spouse of
which marriage and conjugal love was but a shadow. These are the most excellent lovers
and their love the most excellent love.46
”
While this is a noble and eloquent statement, it is by no means exegetically sound. There must be
come further evidence. Neither the allegorical argument, as it lacks an exegetical foundation, nor
the love poetry thesis, as it does not explain the book’s place in canon, are sufficiently justified.
Reasonable exegesis cannot take an “either/or” approach to these theories, but instead,
must take a “both/and” approach. The Song of Songs is about a simple human marriage,
however, simple human marriage is not ultimately a mundane project, but a divine one. It is as
Paul states in Ephesians 5:31,31, “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be
united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’ This is a profound mystery—but I am
talking about Christ and the church. (NIV1984)” It is likely that the statement, “You have made
my heart beat again and again with a single glance of your eyes,” was originally written for one
woman, however, what was canonized into scripture was no accident. It is therefore just as true,
that as we cut our eyes towards heaven, the heart that belongs to the maker of the universe beats
again and again, such is the overpowering nature of his great love for us. We can both sing with
the modern scholars, and delight in God’s love with the fathers, learning about the love that God
has for us, to whom be praise for ever and ever.
46
Edwards, Jonathan, “The Works of Jonathan Edwards Vol 2”, ed. Edward Hickman, (London: Ball,
Arnold and Co., 1840), 753.

12. 11
Works Cited
Chavalas, Mark W., Victor H. Matthews, and John H. Walton, The IVP Bible Background
Commentary, Old Testament, (Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 2000)
Delitzch, F., “Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon” in Commentary on the Old Testament,
ed. F. Delitzch and C. F. Keil, trans. M. G. Easton, (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers,
2011)
Edwards, Jonathan, “The Works of Jonathan Edwards Vol 2”, ed. Edward Hickman, (London:
Ball, Arnold and Co., 1840)
Harris, W. Hall III, ed., The NET Bible, First Edition, (Richardson: Biblical Studies Press,
L.L.C., 2009)
Honeyman, A.M., “Two Contributions to Canaanite Typonomy” in The Journal of Theological
Studies, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1949)
O’Connor, M., Bruce K. Waltke, “An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax”, (Winona Lake:
Eisenbrauns, 1990)
Orr, James, M.A., D.D. ed., "Song of Songs" in ISBE, (Grand Rapids: Eerdman’s Publishing Co,
1915)
Rezetko, Robert and Ian Yound, “Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts” (Sheffield: Equinox
Publishing, Ltd., 2008)
Williams, Ronald J., “Williams Hebrew Syntax, Third Edition” (Toronto: University of Toronto
Press, 2007)