Talk:Song of Songs

message: 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)
replies: text: Created disambiguation page. AnonMoos 08:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disambiguation

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: "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)
thread_title: Genre

message: 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)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Commons link 

message: 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)
thread_title: Sources

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Claim about canonization

message: 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)
replies: text: … 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Evidence of spamming

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

text: Second the motion!Dampinograaf (talk) 09:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: To be practical

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Why is this article lacking any scholarly information?

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Why I removed the "gay love poem" link. 

message: 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)
thread_title: he gave away all his wealth

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Who was Shulamit? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  End of muslim section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Structure

message: 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)
thread_title:  Racist Misinterpretations in Summary 

message: 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)
replies: text: So delete that which is unsourced and spurious... carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 17:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 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.  USchick (talk) 18:31, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: 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)
replies: text: It shouldn't. See below. — LlywelynII 00:03, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nice Job, Everybody 

message: 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)
replies: text: Biblical. — LlywelynII 00:03, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shouldn't the title be italicised? ... 

message: 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)
thread_title: Sources for future article expansion

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  This article lacks information about the various titles 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131226102115/https://wipfandstock.com/author/26612 to https://wipfandstock.com/author/26612
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051202004503/http://www.chabad.org/library/archive/LibraryArchive2.asp?AID=15780 to http://www.chabad.org/library/archive/LibraryArchive2.asp?AID=15780
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090126011141/http://wlsessays.net/node/1818 to http://www.wlsessays.net/node/1818
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Misattribution 

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

message: About  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)
replies: text: "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)
thread_title:  Edit war 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Why a Photograph of Josh 1:1 in Hebrew?