Talk:Song of Songs

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Disambiguation[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Interpretation[edit]

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)[reply]

)  : )  : (  : )  : (

Genre[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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

"Sister" (I don't recall "brother" being used) is not being used literally in SoS (and in many other parts of the Bible, "brother" is frequently used figuratively). The Song of Songs makes it clear that not only do they have different parents, but they are also of very different ethnicities. — al-Shimoni (talk) 22:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Commons link[edit]

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)[reply]

Interpretation[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

I am not a regular Wikipedia editor but noticed that this article is the focus of improvement efforts. I did not edit the article because of my uncertainty about process and standards. I was bothered by the Canonisation and interpretation, Christianity section. Evangelical interpretation, in the U.S. at least, does not resort to allegory, which is what is portrayed as the way that Christians have interpreted the book. From what I see, evangelicals accept the description of the book in the 2nd paragraph of the introduction section of this article. The NIV Study Bible Introduction to the book states "the description of love in 8:6-7 (cf. the descriptions of wisdom found in Pr 1-9 and Job 28) seems to confirm that the Song belongs to Biblical wisdom literature and that it is wisdom's description of an amorous relationship." The NIV Study Bible is very important to the theological understanding of Evangelical Christians. Chuck Swindoll is also an important source of theological understanding for Evangelical Christians [1] He says "This book remains singular within the Old Testament for at least two reasons: its character as a single poem and its subject matter, particularly the frank discussion of love between a married couple." [2]

I mentioned Chuck Swindoll to emphasize my point, but if a change to the article is warranted, it can be a small change to the 3rd paragraph of the introduction and a small addition to the Christianity section of Canonisation and interpretation referencing the NIV Study Bible Introduction. The NIV Study Bible has at least as much practical relevance within Christianity as feminist biblical scholarship, and likely more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.138.11 (talk) 17:13, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Swindoll
  2. ^ https://www.insight.org/resources/bible/the-wisdom-books/song-of-solomon

Sources[edit]

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)[reply]

Claim about canonization[edit]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

Unexpurgated version[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Evidence of spamming[edit]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

name of this article[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

To be practical[edit]

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)[reply]

That makes sense; I would just go ahead and do it. Carl.bunderson (talk) 06:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Second the motion!Dampinograaf (talk) 09:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

New Testament allusions[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Question[edit]

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?[edit]

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)[reply]

  • Agreed. It's practically sycophantic, quoting the Song of Songs as a reference for an unadulterated religious interpretation. Monado (talk) 00:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some discussion of possible authorship dates[edit]

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

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)[reply]

Why I removed the "gay love poem" link.[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

he gave away all his wealth[edit]

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)[reply]

Name of Muhammad[edit]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

According to this, Song of songs 5:16, the Hebrew text is "חִכּוֹ, מַמְתַקִּים, וְכֻלּוֹ, מַחֲמַדִּים; זֶה דוֹדִי וְזֶה רֵעִי, בְּנוֹת יְרוּשָׁלִָם." The word מַחֲמַדִּים is what my question about -as you probably gussed. מַחֲמַדִּים in Hebrew is actually מַחֲמַדִּ and ם which is used as a plural of respect, as everyone know. Anyways, The word מַחֲמַדִּ is translated in the SDL free Translation service and World Lingo Translator as Muhammad! I know English, but I never know that "he is altogether lovely" could ever be any related to Muhammad! And why does Jew's Rabbis pronounce it as Muhammad?! I think the article should mention to this part, or at least should mention to our claims as Muslims. --عمرو (talk) 11:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First off, due to errors made in Unicode Hebrew diacritic "combining class" assignments back in the 1990's, as well as technical limitations with the way that my browser handles Hebrew fonts, I find it rather difficult to try to read the pointed Hebrew text that you've cut-and-pasted above. But all the points I made previously still stand -- in Hebrew the root root ħ-m-d means "to desire" (not to praise), in Song of Songs 5:16 the word which occurs is maħamadim a plural noun, whose basic meaning is "things which are precious or desired", and this word occurs in the middle of love poetry which borders on the erotic... AnonMoos (talk) 02:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First off, if you can't see the Hebrew text and want to see it, in case of you don't know what I'm talking about, Let me know so I'll take you a snapshot of the text from my screen. Anyways, there was no vowels in the old Hebrew, Native speakers most of time don't need vowels, English speakers can read Bed even if it was written as BD (E is not needed since you're talking about something related to sleeping, Natives will just get it!). Again, it seems to be ħ-m-d as you said, but that with no vowels. And, Idk what love poetry your talking about, cause Christians say that such parts of the bible has Spiritual meaning. Anyways, Muslims Claims should be mentioned in the main article, even if it's not true! And let the read decide. Excuse my poor English, I hope you got my point, Thanks --عمرو (talk) 12:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, I really am not dependent on your generosity to know what the Hebrew text of the Song of Songs is (considering that I own a physical paper copy of the BHS text), nor for knowing what the meaning of the text is (since I have plenty of standard Biblical Hebrew reference works right here). However, due to various technical factors (some going back to errors made in the Unicode Hebrew diacritic "combining class" assignments back in the first half of the 1990's), Hebrew text which is "pointed" in the particular manner as that you have cut and pasted above, is displayed in my browser in a manner which makes it quite difficult to read. If you want to actually communicate, then you should pay less attention to cutting-and-pasting and more attention to the linguistic basics. In any case:
1) ħ-m-d has no vowels because it is an abstract triconsonantal root. Please click on the preceding link if you don't know what an abstract triconsonantal root is, or how such function within the grammar of the Semitic languages.
2) If there was any longstanding widespread accepted Islamic doctrine that Muhammad's name was mentioned in the Song of Songs, then the Islamic connection would certainly be notable enough to be mentioned on the article. However, the actual situation is that a few 20th-century controversialist debaters and self-appointed "defenders of Islam" (who did not necessarily have respected solid credentials in traditional Islamic legal interpretation) came up with with the Muhammad-Song-of-Songs theory, which has not been taken seriously by Biblical scholars, and has spread more like an urban legend rather than as accepted scholarship. That's why I'm not convinced that it has any place on the article.
3) There have been widespread allegorical interpretations of the Song of Songs, but the immediate literal meaning of the context of Song of Songs 5:16 is still love poetry which borders on the erotic.
4) The fact that vowels were very incompletely written before the invention of masoretic vowel diacritics doesn't change the fact that the tradition of Biblical recitation indicates the pronunciation maħamadim, nor the fact that the consonantal spelling מחמדים indicates a plural noun, and has too many letters to be a good transliteration of the name of Muhammad -- unless you spell his name in Arabic as محمديم or unless there's more than one of him! محمدين ... -- AnonMoos (talk) 17:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By looking at your user page, I have no wonder why your saying all of that. LOL :) Most of what you said is not true, but if this is the way it works on the Wiki English, then your free to do what you want. If you think that you have the right to say what should be mentioned and what should be not, then your wrong. And btw, I have enough knowledge about this to reply, but since its useless, I'm not gonna waste Wikipedia's time. Free Advice, Read About Wikipedia:NPOV in your free time! End of Discussion. --عمرو (talk) 15:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to get the Muhammad thing into the article, you know exactly what to do -- come up with a solid mainstream reliable scholarly source. In other words, NOT Youtube videos, and NOT random Ahmed Deedat wannabes. AnonMoos (talk) 03:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! I wasn't planning to reply again but you made me laugh so I'll just do it and reply again this time :) You'll not take Videos, and you'll not take Deedat wannabes! What we'll you take then? you'll take only what you like, and you'll like nothing of what I say! Ahmed Deedat has a book about this, I can use it as a reference and you'll NOT be able to do anything with that cause Wikipedia is for everyone. Anyways, I understand that this is something related to what you believe in, and most of people can't do the NPOV rule when its about beliefs. As I said, the article should mention that some Muslims claims that their great Muhammed was mentioned in the bible even if they're wrong. --عمرو (talk) 03:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you spent as much time looking for acceptable reliable sources as you do sneering and jeering and snidely laughing, it would already be on the article by now -- or it would have become crystal clear why it should not be on the article. AnonMoos (talk) 12:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not a regular Wikipedia editor so I don't really know the protocols for this and I don't have a name, but I think somebody should clean up the Muhammad section. Explaining how Muslims find a certain passage to be a prophecy relating to Islam is all fine and well, but the way it's actually written comes off as very preachy. -- 05:35, 8 October 2010 173.71.102.239

It was only re-added again in the past week, and has now been removed (see below). Sorry I wasn't keeping a closer watch on the article. AnonMoos (talk) 16:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that anyone was greatly misled by the section, just annoyed or amused.
Anyway, even though what you've written about triconsonantal roots and so on is obviously correct, it isn't really relevant to the discussion. Devotional perspectives on scriptures should be included even if they are historically rubbish (one is tempted to give an example but it might spiral into another debate -- but you'll probably know what I have in mind even without my spelling it out.) What matters is whether the devotional claims are prevalent enough to really matter. There is a difference between a historically dubious interpretation favored by a major theological tendency (or even a minor theological tendency) and a historically dubious interpretation favored by an unknown hermit scientist. The particular content in question seems to be very much in the latter category, and thus not appropriate for inclusion at all, let alone as an entire section. TiC (talk) 01:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who was Shulamit?[edit]

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)

The idea that Solomon is the author of the book is not clearly and unambiguously stated in the book itself, and is rejected by almost all modern scholarship. (Sorry I didn't see your comment before.) AnonMoos (talk) 18:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Theory? It's fanfic, a post-hoc rationalization made in the context of a fictional story to smooth over cracks and provide a background. Where is your evidence that Shulamit = Abishag? My theory is that it's an Egyptian tavern song that got mixed up with the other manuscript scrolls. --Monado (talk) 01:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, your hypothesis is even more implausible than Hellsepp's, since (among other reasons) there's no evidence that any written Egyptian text was ever translated into a written Hebrew text. That's simply not how influences passed from Egyptian culture to Canaanite cultures... AnonMoos (talk) 06:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

End of muslim section[edit]

It says 'This information is mostly hidden to the public majority of all denominations just as much as religious tolerance and equality verses of the Qoran,[27]:5:65,5:69 which promise salvation and heaven to Christians, Jews and other monotheist believers who follow the only one creator and do good in their lives, proving the authenticity of the divinity and uniqueness of the source of Islam and Qur'an just as much as older scriptures such as the Torah and the New Testament.[28]' ... but anyone can go out and buy a koran, nothing is 'hidden from the public'. This is paranoid rubbish which needs removal. The final bit about authenticity is someones personal feeling and is not fact... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.237.68 (talk) 22:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The whole section is an absurd embarrassment and cites no sources that actually demonstrate its claims. I'm removing it. TiC (talk) 02:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Structure[edit]

The Song of Songs are made up of 8 chapters, or songs. I'm curious of the exegesis of the structural composition, and its relation to practice throughout the ages. I'm interested in raising the discourse on this topic as I think it could in the future strengthen the article. My information on the topic need to be more validated to be injected in the aritcle. In my studies I find that there is rather the rule than the expection that sacred texts are connected to temporal aspects; that is they are put in context of, or brought out of the context of ritual practice related to cycles of the day, moon/month, sun/year, ascending star system and/or the approximate nine month gravidity cycle. The cosmological dimension of a sacred text does of course not exclude the importance of allegedly more mundane aspects, or the mere aesthetic dimension. It is rather the multileveled depth that make a text like this its worth as a source of profound contemplation. It is a very old tradition for dividing the mooncycle (month) into eight auspicious phases. At least it is recommendable to study the eight chapters of the Song of Songs in this light; starting with the first chapter, or song as allegorically relating the dark moon. The revolving relationship between the Moon and the Sun itself being allusions of the phases of the love between who is called the Rose of Sharon and the King of Kings, which formally is The Messiah, King of all the tribes of Israel, including Judah of course, who in this case is King Salomo.

It should also be noted that the King and the Name, HaShem, in some sense is not the same, or better: Is the becomming name of the King, as the Hiero Gamos, the sacred wedding, is at the same time the initiation in order to become the sanctified, Godly King, the incarnated God of the sacred name, HaShem. It is certainly so that the Song of Songs relates intimately to the sanctification of the true name of God, that this is not to be uttered except from in the ritual context, thus poetically indicating that the Tetragrammaton, containing merely consonants, all of which is Mothers of Reading (Mater lectionis), giving the secret instructions for how to sing the vowels of the most blessed name. The protagonist Waterlily of the Valleys, the Rose of Sharon is in the three first songs, the three phases preceding Full Moon (the original Shabbat) eagerly warning the daugthers of Jerusalem to not goad Love before Love itself wants. This goading, I believe, is related to the Name, which again may be regarded as the Song of Songs itself. I'm working on substantiating this orally deduced information, I am currently following this theoretical trace and seek information that may or may not substantiate it. --Xact (talk) 17:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it's just your new personal individual interpretation, then Wikipedia policies forbid it from being included... AnonMoos (talk) 19:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly that's why I would like to test it through the discoursive practice of publishing it at this Talkpage. I sincerly hope that this is also an aspect of the idea of the discussion pages. I am fully aware of that I could not inject the above written text into the content of the article itself. But why shouldn't such a strategy for highlighting possible overlooked aspects forming our understandments of our cultural heritage. Since lexicalisation concerns the politics of ontologization, I would like to know what is the objections to the politics inherent in my knowledge-strategy? --Xact (talk) 20:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Racist Misinterpretations in Summary[edit]

The Song of Salomon is frequently being used by racist 'Afrocentrists' and 'Black Hebrew Israelites' to "prove" via misinterpreting the text that Characters in scripture were 'Black Africans'. I changed the summary to what the text actually says: The woman was 'black' because she got burned by the sun while working in the vineyards, which she had to do because her brothers were angry with her. It also says that "she had not kept her own vineyard", which in my opinion is an allegory towards adultry (which is another reason why she is "black" now.). 6 Look not upon me, because I am black, because the sun hath looked upon me: my mother's children were angry with me; they made me the keeper of the vineyards; but mine own vineyard have I not kept. Rittmeester (talk) 01:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


References[edit]

The claims are rather full and the references rather scant.... for example: "Song of songs" is a Hebrew grammatical construction denoting the superlative; that is, the title attests to the greatness of the song, similar to "the lord of lords", "the king of kings" or "holy of holies" (used of the inner sanctuary of the Jerusalem temple). Source?

"Some people translate the first clause of the title as "which is of Solomon", meaning that the book is authored by Solomon. Rabbi Hiyya the Great said Solomon first wrote Book of Proverbs, then Song of Songs, and afterward Ecclesiastes. Rabbi Jonathan said Solomon first wrote Song of Songs, then Proverbs, then Ecclesiastes. The Talmud, however, states the order of the canon, listing Proverbs first, then Ecclesiastes, and then Song of Songs." The Talmud (Where? Bava Bathra 14b?, Megilla 15?) Very sloppy....

According to Jewish tradition (Where, which?) in the Midrash and the Targum (Where, which?), the book is an allegory of God's love for the Children of Israel (This is Rashi's view). In keeping with this understanding, it is read by Sephardic and Mizrahi Jews on Shabbat eve (Also Ashkenazim - Cf. Artscroll Siddur, which cites the Siddur Arugas HaBosem), to symbolize the love between the Jewish People and God that is also represented by Shabbat. Italian Jews read it on the eve of the first Yom Tov and Yom Tov Sheni of Passover, just before Arvit. Most traditional Jews also read the Song on Shabbat Chol HaMoed of Passover, or on the seventh day of the holiday, when the Song of the sea is also read. (Source?)

The citations of sources is sloppy, and quite frankly the statements made are useless without sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.151.59.59 (talk) 21:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So delete that which is unsourced and spurious... carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 17:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is a source from Grace Theological Seminary that claims there was no allegorical interpretation at the time the song was written and should be taken literally, just like all the other Jewish texts should be taken literally. It also explains when the allegorical interpretation was adopted. [1] USchick (talk) 18:31, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice Job, Everybody[edit]

As of today, this (the main) article is fantastic. Clear, concise, well formulated and structured, with not even a single typo that I could catch. Usually when I read a WP article at least one thing pokes out, hangnail-like, that I'm compelled to fix, but I just read the whole thing and wasn't distracted by errors or anything out of encyclopedic context. It seems also a very gentle and fair description of a potentially controversial subject. A good article makes me so happy. :) Sugarbat (talk) 23:20, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't. See below. — LlywelynII 00:03, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the title be italicised? ...[edit]

Dear fellow editors,
... since this is a major work, as per MOS:ITALICS?
Thank you.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 11:39, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Biblical. — LlywelynII 00:03, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for future article expansion[edit]

I know the editor just above was patting everyone on the back for a job well done but this treatment is actually a gutted faceplant compared to the Britannica treatment it started with. Yes, we need modernizing and mention of modern contexts like feminist critique. No, we should not remove all of the EB material on the history of Jewish and Christian criticism concerning this work. Pages of historical information with specific citations of the source material has been reduced to "early Christians" and "Christian exegetes", which is just ridiculous. Editors interested in this topic, kindly begin restoring the lost information from the EB9 and EB11 articles linked in the Bibliography and mentioning the sources it mentions there. — LlywelynII 00:03, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article lacks information about the various titles[edit]

This article does not explain why there are so many differing titles (Song of Songs, Song of Solomon, Canticles, Canticle of Canticles); nor when these various titles first came about, nor why; nor which religions (or which sects of which religions, as the case may be) prefer this title over that, nor why.  Help improve the article by adding such information.  allixpeeke (talk) 14:07, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the original Hebrew Bible, the titles were not part of the books themselves. The titles were in fact added long after the texts of the books were first written, so that different groups supplied titled in different ways. "Song of Songs" and "Song of Solomon" are shortened versions of the phrase "song of songs which is Solomon's" found in the first verse, while "canticle" is a Latin-derived equivalent to the word "song" which was traditionally favored by Catholics in some contexts. AnonMoos (talk) 01:38, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Song of Songs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Misattribution[edit]

I clicked a link on the citation "Loprieno 2005" and was led to an article that seems germane but is by Joan Burton. Omphaloscope talk 18:07, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"sunflare-born blackness"[edit]

What is "sunflare-born blackness"? "sunburnt"? "darkened by the sun"? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 17:57, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war[edit]

About Removed unnecessary and inappropriate obscene (erotic) subjective interpretations of the Song of Songs. This is a sacred text. Please respect and leave your fantasies to yourself. Hey, friend, that's not how it works. Literally interpreted the Song of Songs is an obscene erotic text. Only a subjective (i.e. symbolic) interpretation does away with its blatant eroticism. So, what you say is the world upside down. All theologians that did not went bananas acknowledge this, even the pious and prude ones. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:12, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"is an obscene erotic text" I thought it was merely an example of pornography. Does it have any other significance? Dimadick (talk) 10:59, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tschirch art[edit]

Speaking of inappropriate, the main art for the article should be changed to not be a work by Egon Tschirch. While he eventually became a critic of the nazi regime, it does not change the fact that he was a nazi for several years and using his art as the main art for a piece of literature from the Hebrew Scriptures is massively insensitive. There are other far less controversial artists that can be used, many showcased elsewhere in this very article. 1historycritic (talk) 10:01, 18 December 2022 (UTC)— 1historycritic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
What do the personal views of the artist have to do with the artistic merit of the art, especially considering he was giving a favorable treatment of a very Jewish subject? Elizium23 (talk) 11:39, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Artistic merit is judged by several points including “meaning of work”. When art is made in the context of multiple cultures, whether something is viewed as favorable or not can vary. From a German perspective the treatment is favorable. From a Jewish perspective, whose culture at the time banned religious depictions of humans as “graven images”, it’s blasphemous. When taken in the context of the nazis promoting a form of Christianity stripped of Jewish influences, with many Jewish practices and events that could not be stripped out being reinterpreted to be more “aryan”, the works possibly fall into a tradition called Supersessionism, also called replacement theology. 1historycritic (talk) 17:54, 18 December 2022 (UTC)— 1historycritic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I would like to also point out that Tschirch’s art as the main art for this article is a recent addition in the last two months and has already been attempted to be removed by at least two other people. I actually took a look at this article after reading a discussion debating if the art’s promotion to main art was a form of vandalism. 1historycritic (talk) 18:26, 18 December 2022 (UTC)— 1historycritic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Do you have reliable secondary sources which analyse this piece by Tschirch as all those horrible things you accuse him of? Elizium23 (talk) 19:20, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please note I am not personally accusing him of being anything other than controversial and that there are multiple viewpoints on his work. His Wikipedia page has several citations already listed in regards to the controversial nature of his work, but the ones most relevant to this discussion are the ones listing his joining of the nazi party and his subsequent leaving of it.
Archiv der Hansestadt Rostock, January 15, 1948, 1.2.0-1388 p. 285: Personalfragebogen
Werner Tschirch: Egon Tschirch, sein Leben. Eigenverlag, Berlin, 1974, p. 42
To quote the editing guidelines “If an edit is challenged, or is likely to be challenged, editors should use talk pages to explain why an addition, change, or removal improves the article, and hence the encyclopedia.” Rather than have the image removed or reverted multiple times as it has been in the last few months, a consensus should be reached before more edits are done to this article. 1historycritic (talk) 20:20, 18 December 2022 (UTC)— 1historycritic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Regardless of the personal views/controversy of the artist, I think that it would be more representative of the topic if an image such as File:Aharon April Song of Songs-Last.jpg, a painting by the late Jewish artist Aharon April, was used as the main image of the article. This would provide an artistic perspective on the subject from a member of the community that this subject is pertinent to. Azurewindowpanes (talk) 09:59, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Egon Tschirch art is in no way appropriate for the lead illustration this article, which is a historical work of poetry. Tschirch's artwork clearly riffs on the idea of the Song of Songs, but obviously one of the many ancient manuscripts of the actual poem would be more appropriate here, probably the Rothschild piece already featured. This immediately tells you that the article is about something: ancient, written, Hebrew. Egon Tschirch's work would be more appropriate illustrating the 'in popular culture' section. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:17, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, I looked through some of the edit history of this page and it seems that the previous lead illustration of this article was [File:Gustave Moreau - Song of Songs (Cantique des Cantiques) - Google Art Project.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gustave_Moreau_-_Song_of_Songs_(Cantique_des_Cantiques)_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg] (which is currently in the "In popular culture" section). It seems that the current Tschirch piece came to be the lead illustration though the following series of edits:
After this, the article has gone back and forth twice from having no main image and having the Tschirch piece as the main image. Given these facts, the Tschirch piece should not continue to be the main image, as the second editor's argument seems to still hold true and the first editor never provided sufficient justification for their claims.
In addition to your comment, I think that either the Rothschild piece or the piece used by the second editor, which is also an illustrated manuscript and has the Wikimedia description "Illustration from Sefer Ot haBrit, an 1824 gift from a certain Jonah Quo, rabbi, to Ezekiel Treich, mohel of Lipník nad Bečvou", would be way more appropriate main images than the Tschirch piece. Azurewindowpanes (talk) 23:05, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As it has been over a week since this discussion was last replied to, I will be editing the article to have the previous lede image (which I brought up in my last reply) to reflect what appears to be the unanimous opinion here (as the dissenting individual seems to be indefinitely unable to continue to contribute to this discussion). Azurewindowpanes (talk) 23:54, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why a Photograph of Josh 1:1 in Hebrew?[edit]

Why does the image of the Hebrew text for this article on שיר השירים show the wording found in Josh 1:1? What does Josh 1:1 have to do with the Song of Songs? This situation gives the impression that the editor responsible does not really know Hebrew and so has selected an inappropriate text for the main illustration of this article. David H. Warren (talk) 05:42, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is the image used in the Tanakh infobox, and as such it appears on all Tanakh pages. There should be another image above it which relates specifically to this page, but months of dispute over what that image should be has left it blank instead. I encourage you to decide what image should go there and propose it here. GordonGlottal (talk) 13:22, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Song_of_Songs&oldid=1194882568"