song of solomon

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

chariots_of_iron
Student
Posts: 17
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 9:32 am

song of solomon

Post #1

Post by chariots_of_iron »

I am always amused when I hear fundies say the Song of Solomon is a "beautiful love story". It is smut. Personally, I dont see anything wrong with that but since fundies are always railing against porn, why do they say nothing about this?

"Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth: for thy love is better than wine."

"I sat down under his shadow with great delight, and his fruit was sweet to my taste"

"My beloved put in his hand by the hole of the door, and my bowels were moved for him"

There are several others like this. It's certainly not something you would teach Sunday school kids

User avatar
Miles
Savant
Posts: 5179
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 434 times
Been thanked: 1614 times

Re: song of solomon

Post #21

Post by Miles »

tam wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 1:14 am The Psalms (of/from David) were written more than 2000 years ago as well. But that does not mean they are not about Christ (the Messiah).
Nor does it mean they were.


.

User avatar
Goose
Guru
Posts: 1707
Joined: Wed Oct 02, 2013 6:49 pm
Location: The Great White North
Has thanked: 79 times
Been thanked: 68 times

Re: song of solomon

Post #22

Post by Goose »

Difflugia wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 8:12 pm A lot of the Hebrew words seem to be archaic, poetic, and only present in the Song of Songs, allowing translators a bit of leeway and the translators of English, Christian Bibles have historically been prudes. Glance through the NRSV and note how many verses have "Meaning of Heb uncertain" as a footnote. An example where this matters is in 7:2, "your navel is a rounded bowl." Most modern scholars think that "navel" should instead be translated as "vulva."
Which modern scholars are those? Because so far I can only find a handful who hold that view (e.g. G. Lloyd Carr, Pope, Lys). I’m wondering if the claim "Most modern scholars" hold this view is somewhat, if not badly, overstated.

NET Bible has provided a nice synopsis of the debate.

The noun שֹׁרֶר (shorer) is a hapax legomenon, appearing in the OT only here. There is debate whether it means “navel” or “vulva”: (1) Lys and Pope suggest that שֹׁרֶר is related to Arabic srr (“secret place, pudenda, coition, fornication”). They suggest that this is contextually supported by three factors: (a) His descriptive praise of her is in ascending order, beginning with her feet and concluding with her hair. The movement from her thighs (7:1b), to her vulva (7:2a), and then to her waist (7:2b) would fit this. (b) The descriptive comparison to a glass of wine would be grotesque if her navel were in view – her navel was moist or filled with liquid? – but appropriate if her vulva were in view. (c) The navel would be a somewhat synonymous reference to the belly which is already denoted by בִּטְנֵךְ (bitnekh, “belly”) in the following line. Because 7:1-7 does not use synonymous parallelism, the term שֹׁרֶר would have to refer to something other than the belly. (2) The term שֹׁרֶר denotes “navel”: (a) It may be related to the bi-consonantal noun שֹׁר (shor, “navel, umbilical cord”) (Prov 3:8; Ezek 16:4). (b) Mishnaic Hebrew שָׁרָר (sharar) denotes “navel, umbilical cord” (Jastrow 1634 s.v. שָׁרָר). For example, in a midrash on the Book of Numbers, the noun שֹׁרֶר appears in an allusion to Song 7:3 to justify the seating of the Sanhedrin in the middle of the synagogue: “As the navel (שֹׁרֶר) is placed in the centre of the body, so are the Sanhedrin…” (Num. Rab. 1:4). On the other hand, the meaning “vulva” never appears in Mishnaic Hebrew. Therefore, apart from this disputed usage there is no evidence that this term was ever used in this manner in Hebrew. (c) Rather than שֹׁרֶר being related to Arabic sirr (“pudenda”), it could just as easily be related to the Arabic noun surr “navel.” It is methodologically more sound to define שֹׁרֶר as “navel” than as “vulva.” (d) The nuance “navel” is not as out of line contextually as Lys and Pope suggest. The navel would not be out of place in the ascending order of praise because the בִּטְנֵךְ (“abdomen”) which follows may be viewed as both above and below the navel. The figurative association of the שֹׁרֶר as a mixing bowl filled with wine does not imply that this bodily part must actually be moist or filled with liquid as Pope suggests. The point of comparison is not physical or visual but one of function, i.e., it is intoxicating. The comparison of the navel to a mixing bowl of wine is no more out of line than the comparison of the belly to a heap of wheat in the next line. In fact, the two go together – she is both the “drink” and “food” for Solomon. The shape of the navel is as congruent with the metaphor of the “round bowl” as the vulva; both are round and receding. (3) Since both terms are derived from the same geminate root – Hebrew שֹׁרֶר and Arabic srr – it is more prudent to take the term as a synecdoche of whole (lower region) for the parts (including navel and vulva). The attempt to decide between these two options may be illegitimately splitting hairs. See K&D 18:123; J. S. Deere, “Song of Solomon,” BKCOT, 199-200; D. Lys, “Notes sur de Cantique,” VTSup 17 (1969): 171-78; M. H. Pope, Song of Songs (AB), 617; G. L. Carr, Song of Solomon (TOTC), 157.


A few addtitonal points I might add.

1. Not one of the available English translations I can find renders it “vulva”. They must all be wrong then.

Even the translators of the Septuagint rendered שֹׁרֶר (shorer) as ὀμφᾰλός (navel). So I don’t think you can simply chalk this up to the prudishness of English Christian translators. Or were the translators of the Septuagint prudes as well?

2. As mentioned above the related שֹׁר (šōr) implies a navel (see especially Eze 16:4).

3. A vulva is not, strictly speaking, round like a bowl whereas a navel is.

4. Finally, the argument for “vulva” hinges on a false premise.

(a) His descriptive praise of her is in ascending order, beginning with her feet and concluding with her hair.


Verse 7:4 ascends from the neck to the eyes. Then descends to the nose before ascending to the hair (v. 5).

Your neck is like a tower of ivory,
Your eyes like the pools in Heshbon
By the gate of Bath-rabbim;
Your nose is like the tower of Lebanon,
Which looks toward Damascus.

It's up to you to decide the differences between erotic, salacious, and pornographic, but it's at least erotic.
Pornographic? That’s a stretch. Unless it was written to arouse those who have a thing for fruit it doesn’t seem to meet the criteria of being written for the purpose of sexual arousal. Erotic? Perhaps, if by erotic you mean the story implies sexual desire. But that’s not surprising in and of itself. The Bible explicitly addresses sexual desire at numerous points.
Things atheists say:

"Is it the case [that torturing and killing babies for fun is immoral]? Prove it." - Bust Nak

"For the record...I think the Gospels are intentional fiction and Jesus wasn't a real guy." – Difflugia

"Julius Caesar and Jesus both didn't exist." - brunumb

"...most atheists have no arguments or evidence to disprove God." – unknown soldier (a.k.a. the banned member Jagella)

User avatar
Difflugia
Prodigy
Posts: 3017
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 3247 times
Been thanked: 1997 times

Re: song of solomon

Post #23

Post by Difflugia »

Goose wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 5:16 pmWhich modern scholars are those? Because so far I can only find a handful who hold that view (e.g. G. Lloyd Carr, Pope, Lys). I’m wondering if the claim "Most modern scholars" hold this view is somewhat, if not badly, overstated.
Perhaps. I'll accept that maybe my survey is skewed, giving me an improper impression of majority. I'm also not looking to digress into an argument about who is or isn't properly a scholar. Go ahead and mentally strike "most," replacing it with this specific set of scholars:

The one that I'm primarily basing the opinion on is Marvin H. Pope (who you mentioned), the author of the Song of Songs Anchor Bible volume. Pope translates 7:2 (7:3 as numbered in the MT) as:
Your vulva a rounded crater;
May it never lack punch!
Your belly a mound of wheat
Hedged with lotuses.
He supports it with this analysis:
The word (šōr<šurr) occurs elsewhere in Ezek 16:4 and Prov 3:8. In Ezek 16:4 it clearly refers to the umbilical cord which is cut. In Prov 3:8 it is probably an error for šĕ'ēr, "flesh," since a healthy navel seems a rather insignificant reward for piety. The form šĕrîrê in Job 40:16 is rendered "navel" by KJ, but is usually taken to mean "muscles"; cf. AB 15, ad loc. The Arabic cognate surr denotes properly the umbilical cord and then the scar or navel. The similar word sirr, however, in Arabic has the meanings "secret" and "pudenda," as well as "coition," "fornication," and the like, and a number of critics have taken the term here as a euphemism for vulva, related to Arabic sirr. Robert characterized this as pure fantasy, since šēr does not exist in Hebrew and the image which one tries to find does not accord with the context. Robert, however, had preconceived notions of the context which predisposed him to favor the navel over the vulva. To those who understood the "navel" as metonymy for "belly," Robert properly pointed out that belly is mentioned in the succeeding verse and that in this description the mention of each part of the body is accompanied by a single comparison. Since the movement of the description of the lady's charms is from the feet upward, the locus of the evermoist receptacle between the thighs and the belly would seem to favor the lower aperture. The liquid, too, would seem to make the navel unlikely since navels are not notable for their capacity to store or dispense moisture, despite the Arabian Nights' notion that an ideal female navel is like the bottom of a tiny coffee cup with a capacity of perhaps an ounce of oil.
Additional specific sources that agree with Pope:

Athalya Brenner ("'Come Back, Come Back the Shulammite' (Song of Songs 7:1-10): A Parody of the wasf Genre" in A Feminist Companion to the Song of Songs [Brenner, ed.]):
And here, at this point exactly, the masking of the love object's body by items of clothing or comparison to artefacts ends, for the dancer's vulva is boldly introduced (7.3a)
Michael Goulder (The Song of Fourteen Songs):
LXX renders 'navel', perhaps from the cup simile; but there is no basis for this in Heb., or any other Semitic language, while sirr(i) in Arabic means 'secret', and is used for venereal (diseases). It may be an equivalent for me'im in Prov. 3, and, as Lys says about Ezek. 16, the navel-string goes to the womb as well as the navel. This is clearly the meaning here. The entrance to the womb is shaped like a rounded cup, the vagina being at first like the thin stem, and then broadening out into a hemispherical bowl round the cervix ('pomegranate').
Jerry Gladson (The Five Exotic Scrolls of the Hebrew Bible):
“Navel” in this line is translated from שָׁרְרֵךְ, used in two other places in the HB for navel (Ezek 16:4; Prov 3:8), but here, in conjunction with the parallel (“your belly is a heap of wheat, encircled with lilies”) refers to the vulva. “Lilies” is an agricultural image placed upon an erotic image. Elsewhere lilies are associated with pubic hair (2:16; 4:5; 5:13; 6:2-3).
A number of other commentators suggest that "navel" is a proper literal translation, but still treat it as a euphemism. Edwin M. Good strikes this level of compromise in The Song of Songs: Codes of Love:
The word is rare and uncertain. Exum notes an Arabic cognate, for which vulva is one meaning, but, like other translators, she uses “navel,” which looks like an effort to avoid “vulva.” But “navel” intrudes on “belly” in the next couplet. I conclude to translate with an expression that proposes the vulva but for reasons set out below, does not use the word.
and
Some translators read “vulva” for “navel,” but Exum finds an Arabic cognate to the Hebrew word used here (see n. 33). I find “vulva” inappropriately specific. English sexual terms tend to be either explicitly technical and often Latinate words, such as “vulva” or “penis,” or more casual words that are hardly more than pornographic slang, with few if any possible choices between the two types. I have stepped away from the defining words of either kind and prefer, after the line about thighs, “between them,” i.e., the thighs, which seems to me accurate enough that we know what body part is meant and also less than objectionably precise, allowing the metaphor of the bowl of mixed wine full force. And it frees us from fussing about the precise meaning of the word that is there, even if we are quite sure what that meaning is, or ought to be. I don’t think that turns me into a prissy Victorian.
Goose wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 5:16 pmA few addtitonal points I might add.

1. Not one of the available English translations I can find renders it “vulva”. They must all be wrong then.
I'll point out that you mentioned Pope yourself and each volume of the Anchor Bible, including Pope's Song of Songs, includes the author's translation. That oversight aside, I'm apparently far less incredulous at the possibility of the others being wrong than you are.
Goose wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 5:16 pmEven the translators of the Septuagint rendered שֹׁרֶר (shorer) as ὀμφᾰλός (navel). So I don’t think you can simply chalk this up to the prudishness of English Christian translators. Or were the translators of the Septuagint prudes as well?
Since I did acknowledge that the Hebrew meaning is "uncertain," it's hyperbole to reduce my statement to being "simply" based on prudishness. That said, I have no problem accepting that prudishness was a factor in the Greek translation, despite, once again, your incredulity.
Goose wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 5:16 pm
It's up to you to decide the differences between erotic, salacious, and pornographic, but it's at least erotic.
Pornographic? That’s a stretch. Unless it was written to arouse those who have a thing for fruit it doesn’t seem to meet the criteria of being written for the purpose of sexual arousal. Erotic? Perhaps, if by erotic you mean the story implies sexual desire. But that’s not surprising in and of itself. The Bible explicitly addresses sexual desire at numerous points.
My statement was intended in a similar spirit to your objection. I was responding to Miles, who mentioned not seeing anything "pornographic, smutty, or even salacious." I assume that was meant in general rather than merely degree, but was unsure enough that I added the disclaimer. Though I don't think it's quite the stretch you do, I'm nonetheless uncomfortable describing Song of Songs as "pornographic" or "smutty" other than in jest and "salacious" seems a bit pejorative. I couched my analysis by calling it "erotic" and explicitly left it to Miles and other readers to decide if my "erotic" is what they might mean by any of the other descriptions.
My pronouns are he, him, and his.

User avatar
Goose
Guru
Posts: 1707
Joined: Wed Oct 02, 2013 6:49 pm
Location: The Great White North
Has thanked: 79 times
Been thanked: 68 times

Re: song of solomon

Post #24

Post by Goose »

Difflugia wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 10:42 pm
Goose wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 5:16 pmWhich modern scholars are those? Because so far I can only find a handful who hold that view (e.g. G. Lloyd Carr, Pope, Lys). I’m wondering if the claim "Most modern scholars" hold this view is somewhat, if not badly, overstated.
Perhaps. I'll accept that maybe my survey is skewed, giving me an improper impression of majority. I'm also not looking to digress into an argument about who is or isn't properly a scholar. Go ahead and mentally strike "most," replacing it with this specific set of scholars:
Consider it stricken. But this specific set of scholars you’ve given is still quite small which greatly undermines the weight of your initial argument. One that seemed to be grounded in an appeal to a consensus among scholars. Since a consensus for “vulva” doesn’t seem to be the case (in reality the view may be a minority position among scholars if not nearly fringe), the weight of your argument now hinges on the supporting arguments themselves.

As for those arguments they are quite weak given they primarily hinge on 1) a false premise of ascending order, 2) an interpretation of “vulva” with no external evidence in Jewish literature the word was ever used in that context whereas the word is used elsewhere in Jewish literature to mean “navel” and 3) the similarity to an Arabic word sirr meaning "secret, pudenda, coition, fornication" while there is an Arabic word surr which is equally similar that means “navel.”

1. Pope’s analysis was addressed in the NET Bible quote I gave.

2. The quote from Athalya Brenner provides no argument for the “vulva” interpretation. It’s a pure assertion. I will note she writes from the perspective of a feminist. She may have her own idealogical motivations for holding the “vulva” view.

3. Michael Goulder’s quote doesn’t seem to commit to either “navel” or “vulva.” I’m not sure why you would include him. But I will get to why I’m glad you did include him in a moment.

4. Jerry Gladson concludes it means “vulva” despite having acknowledged the two other places (Ezek 16:4; Prov 3:8) where the word means “navel.”

5. Edwin M. Good’s interpretation suffers the same problems as Pope’s. Although he seems sure it refers to a “vulva” he’s reluctant to use the word.

Of course one can find sexual imagery in many things if one wants to find sexual imagery.
Image
I'm sure some people see phallic symbolry in grain silos.

The view that Song of Solomon is permeated with erotic sexual imagery is highly strained. We need look no further than Michael Goulder’s interpretation to see just how strained. He thinks “lilies are associated with pubic hair (2:16; 4:5; 5:13; 6:2-3).” If we follow through with Goulder’s interpretation we have the bride’s breasts grazing in pubic hair (4:5), the bridegroom’s lips are pubic hair (5:13), and the bridegroom gathering pubic hair (6:2-3). Eww!

Goose wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 5:16 pmA few addtitonal points I might add.

1. Not one of the available English translations I can find renders it “vulva”. They must all be wrong then.
I'll point out that you mentioned Pope yourself and each volume of the Anchor Bible, including Pope's Song of Songs, includes the author's translation. That oversight aside, I'm apparently far less incredulous at the possibility of the others being wrong than you are.
I’m not incredulous at the possibility all the others are wrong. It’s the prior probability that all the others are wrong and that the small handful you’ve noted are correct which causes me to be initially incredulous towards the notion. Let’s not forget each translation in the link I gave has scholarship standing behind it as well. Some translations have had teams of scholars standing behind them such as, say, in the case of the NRSV which has a team of 30 scholars from across a fairly diverse range of denominational backgrounds. The New King James Version apparently had 130 scholars working on it. That’s not to say every one of these scholars would have agreed with the “navel” interpretation but it is suggestive that the consensus among those scholars is for “navel.” This is particularly noteworthy when we consider that, if I’m not mistaken, Marvin Pope was one of the scholars involved with the NRSV translation. Yet it still reads “navel.”
Goose wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 5:16 pmEven the translators of the Septuagint rendered שֹׁרֶר (shorer) as ὀμφᾰλός (navel). So I don’t think you can simply chalk this up to the prudishness of English Christian translators. Or were the translators of the Septuagint prudes as well?
Since I did acknowledge that the Hebrew meaning is "uncertain," it's hyperbole to reduce my statement to being "simply" based on prudishness.
But prudishness appeared to be the only discernible justification you gave for thinking English, Christian translations would use “navel” instead of “vulva.”
That said, I have no problem accepting that prudishness was a factor in the Greek translation, despite, once again, your incredulity.
But that circularly assumes the author of the Song of Solomon meant something lewd. Given the author of the Song of Solomon was a Jew and the restrained attitude towards sexuality in Jewish culture, one wonders why you would not extend that same uninhibited willingness to accept the probable prudishness of the author of Song of Solomon if you so easily accept it for the translators of the Septuagint? Put another way, the “vulva” argument assumes the author of the Song of Solomon would have been comfortable expressing lewdness when the surrounding evidence from his culture suggests otherwise.
Goose wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 5:16 pm
It's up to you to decide the differences between erotic, salacious, and pornographic, but it's at least erotic.
Pornographic? That’s a stretch. Unless it was written to arouse those who have a thing for fruit it doesn’t seem to meet the criteria of being written for the purpose of sexual arousal. Erotic? Perhaps, if by erotic you mean the story implies sexual desire. But that’s not surprising in and of itself. The Bible explicitly addresses sexual desire at numerous points.
My statement was intended in a similar spirit to your objection. I was responding to Miles, who mentioned not seeing anything "pornographic, smutty, or even salacious." I assume that was meant in general rather than merely degree, but was unsure enough that I added the disclaimer
Miles presumably read Song of Solomon and “didn't see a thing that was pornographic, smutty, or even salacious.” And that’s because, taken at face value, Song of Solomon doesn’t stand out as any of those. In response to Miles you felt compelled to make several arguments for the lewd use of “vulva”, “various levels of carnality”, “allegorical double entendre as sexual imagery”, “Recurring themes for female sexuality”, and so on finally concluding “The whole poem's full of that kind of thing.” Presumably in an attempt to “clue [him] in” on why the text is “pornographic, smutty, or even salacious.”
Though I don't think it's quite the stretch you do, I'm nonetheless uncomfortable describing Song of Songs as "pornographic" or "smutty" other than in jest and "salacious" seems a bit pejorative.
And yet you seemed comfortable leaving “pornographic” and “salacious” on the table for Miles (and readers) as viable options to describe the Song of Solomon when you said to him...

”It's up to you to decide the differences between erotic, salacious, and pornographic, but it's at least erotic.”

I couched my analysis by calling it "erotic" and explicitly left it to Miles and other readers to decide if my "erotic" is what they might mean by any of the other descriptions.
Yes, you made a bit of a fuss about it being at least erotic (you took the time to italicize at least after all). Thereby implying if it isn’t pornography it is at least some kind of erotica. No option for anything less sexualized such as a poem celebrating the romantic love between and man and a women and all that such romantic love entails. Nope, the genre spectrum falls somewhere between erotica and pornography.
Things atheists say:

"Is it the case [that torturing and killing babies for fun is immoral]? Prove it." - Bust Nak

"For the record...I think the Gospels are intentional fiction and Jesus wasn't a real guy." – Difflugia

"Julius Caesar and Jesus both didn't exist." - brunumb

"...most atheists have no arguments or evidence to disprove God." – unknown soldier (a.k.a. the banned member Jagella)

User avatar
Difflugia
Prodigy
Posts: 3017
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 3247 times
Been thanked: 1997 times

Re: song of solomon

Post #25

Post by Difflugia »

Goose wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 12:18 pmConsider it stricken. But this specific set of scholars you’ve given is still quite small which greatly undermines the weight of your initial argument.
Does it, though? "Small" compared to what? How many scholars of the Old Testament can you find that have voiced an opinion on the translation of Song of Songs 7:2 at all?
Goose wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 12:18 pmOne that seemed to be grounded in an appeal to a consensus among scholars.
You're once again trying to stretch my argument into something that it's not. Miles said that he didn't see anything in Song of Songs that was "pornographic, smutty, or even salacious" and I offered examples that I considered eroticism, backed by the opinion of scholars. Since my reply was all of that whether or not my claim of "most scholars" was accurate, it didn't seem worth the effort of a tally.
Goose wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 12:18 pmSince a consensus for “vulva” doesn’t seem to be the case
You haven't actually established that. You were correct that I didn't establish a consensus and I didn't bother contesting that because it wasn't important to my response to Miles. On the other hand, you're now in the position of making the same kind of assertion that you just called me out on. That's either sloppy or disingenuous.
Goose wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 12:18 pm(in reality the view may be a minority position among scholars if not nearly fringe), the weight of your argument now hinges on the supporting arguments themselves.
"Nearly fringe?" Do you have any justification for that statement, or is forcing me to defend against hyperbole part of your debate strategy? While not taking a stance one way or the other, The Oxford Annotated Bible notes that "perhaps navel is a euphemism for “vulva.”" If mainstream academic commentary acknowledges the opinion, then we've moved away from "fringe" by definition.
Goose wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 12:18 pmAs for those arguments they are quite weak given they primarily hinge on 1) a false premise of ascending order, 2) an interpretation of “vulva” with no external evidence in Jewish literature the word was ever used in that context whereas the word is used elsewhere in Jewish literature to mean “navel” and 3) the similarity to an Arabic word sirr meaning "secret, pudenda, coition, fornication" while there is an Arabic word surr which is equally similar that means “navel.”
I'm sorry that you find the arguments personally unpersuasive. Even my amended argument is only that a number of modern scholars find erotic imagery in the Song of Songs. That you agree with more narrow and traditional interpretations is neither a surprise to me nor does it affect my response to Miles.
Goose wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 12:18 pm1. Pope’s analysis was addressed in the NET Bible quote I gave.
The question I answered of yours was only which scholars were included in my "most." That someone disagrees with any of those scholars' analyses is not a refutation of my answer.
Goose wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 12:18 pm2. The quote from Athalya Brenner provides no argument for the “vulva” interpretation. It’s a pure assertion.
The quote I provided was to establish that Brenner does, indeed, support my statement, which is what you asked for before you began moving goalposts.
Goose wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 12:18 pmI will note she writes from the perspective of a feminist. She may have her own idealogical motivations for holding the “vulva” view.
Perhaps. I suspect that being a feminist Bible scholar is much less of an ideological burden than being a Christian Bible scholar, however. If you were to actually list scholars that explicitly disagree with Pope, I'd be curious to note how many of them publish with Baker, B&H, or IVP rather than, say, Oxford, Brill, or T&T Clark.
Goose wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 12:18 pm3. Michael Goulder’s quote doesn’t seem to commit to either “navel” or “vulva.” I’m not sure why you would include him.
Then one of us is misunderstanding the quotation. Do you believe that Goulder intends "entrance to the womb" to mean something other than "vulva" in a way that affects your thesis?
Goose wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 12:18 pm4. Jerry Gladson concludes it means “vulva” despite having acknowledged the two other places (Ezek 16:4; Prov 3:8) where the word means “navel.”
Yes. Academics habitually try to be fair and acknowledge potential objections to accepting their opinions. That is one way that they differ from apologists.
Goose wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 12:18 pm5. Edwin M. Good’s interpretation suffers the same problems as Pope’s. Although he seems sure it refers to a “vulva” he’s reluctant to use the word.
Yes, and not because he's a prissy Victorian, apparently.
Goose wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 12:18 pmOf course one can find sexual imagery in many things if one wants to find sexual imagery.
One may also steadfastly deny its presence where one wishes not to have seen it.
Goose wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 12:18 pmThe view that Song of Solomon is permeated with erotic sexual imagery is highly strained. We need look no further than Michael Goulder’s interpretation to see just how strained. He thinks “lilies are associated with pubic hair (2:16; 4:5; 5:13; 6:2-3).” If we follow through with Goulder’s interpretation we have the bride’s breasts grazing in pubic hair (4:5), the bridegroom’s lips are pubic hair (5:13), and the bridegroom gathering pubic hair (6:2-3). Eww!
Neither your unsupported assertion nor incredulity are particularly persuasive, especially given that every commentary that I consulted affirms that the poem is erotic and sexually charged. Even devotional commentary and study Bibles, though they invest a bit of ink to remind readers not to get too many ideas, nevertheless acknowledge the inescapable: "The book is rich in metaphors, chiefly of sexual love."—NIV Zondervan Study Bible; "We cannot ignore the sexual content of the book, but we can appreciate the context in which it is placed—a godly marriage."—NKJV Study Bible.
My pronouns are he, him, and his.

User avatar
Goose
Guru
Posts: 1707
Joined: Wed Oct 02, 2013 6:49 pm
Location: The Great White North
Has thanked: 79 times
Been thanked: 68 times

Re: song of solomon

Post #26

Post by Goose »

Difflugia wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 3:43 pm
Goose wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 12:18 pmConsider it stricken. But this specific set of scholars you’ve given is still quite small which greatly undermines the weight of your initial argument.
Does it, though?
Absolutely it does. Since the five or so scholars you noted is hardly a large enough number in the world of Biblical scholarship to establish a majority or even suggest a majority and the weight of your initial argument was grounded in an appeal to a majority of experts. You did not want to establish a majority instead opting for the weaker argument that some scholars think X. That’s fine. But that isn’t much of an argument and easily countered by pointing to some scholars who think not X.

For example, we need look no further than the quotes you provided from Edwin M. Good.

Exum notes an Arabic cognate, for which vulva is one meaning, but, like other translators, she uses “navel,” which looks like an effort to avoid “vulva.”

Edwin M. Good is referring to the feminist Biblical scholar J. Cheryl Exum who is also one of the scholars on the committee for the NRSV translation. So there you go, your argument that some scholars hold the “vulva” view is now locked in a stalemate with the “navel” view since there are scholars such as Exum who render 7:2 as “navel” by Edwin Good’s own admission.
"Small" compared to what?
Small compared to the size of the total set of all Biblical scholars.
How many scholars of the Old Testament can you find that have voiced an opinion on the translation of Song of Songs 7:2 at all?
Scholars have voiced their opinions on the translation of 7:2 in every single published version of the Bible. The translations of 7:2 in these versions are in and of themselves implicit expressions of scholarly opinion on the matter.
Goose wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 12:18 pmOne that seemed to be grounded in an appeal to a consensus among scholars.
You're once again trying to stretch my argument into something that it's not.
Frankly, I’m not clear on what your argument even is and what it proves that is meaningful. And I’m getting the impression neither do you.
Miles said that he didn't see anything in Song of Songs that was "pornographic, smutty, or even salacious" and I offered examples that I considered eroticism, backed by the opinion of scholars.
So you were equating your understanding of eroticism with "pornographic, smutty, or even salacious". Okay, glad we cleared that up.

Look, the implied question posed by Miles (and the OP for that matter) was, Does the Song of Solomon contain "pornographic, smutty, or even salacious" material? You didn’t take the negative position to that implied question. Rather, you felt compelled to argue for examples of what you consider “eroticism” without clearly defining what you mean by erotic thereby implying your view of Song of Solomon is that it is "pornographic, smutty, or even salacious". If you did not mean to imply that, one wonders why you bothered to attempt to answer the question in the way you did. One further wonders why you left “pornographic” on the table for Miles (and readers) to choose as a viable descriptor of the Song of Solomon. One wonders why you don’t think it’s quite the stretch I do to describe it as pornography.
Goose wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 12:18 pmSince a consensus for “vulva” doesn’t seem to be the case
You haven't actually established that. You were correct that I didn't establish a consensus and I didn't bother contesting that because it wasn't important to my response to Miles. On the other hand, you're now in the position of making the same kind of assertion that you just called me out on. That's either sloppy or disingenuous.
Classic shifting of the burden here. You’ve gone from asserting a majority view to demanding that I prove a majority view because I said your claim doesn’t seem to be the case.

A consensus for “vulva” didn’t seem to be the case to me because not a single version of the Bible I linked to renders 7:2 as “vulva.” Each version in that link has at the very least one scholar standing behind it. And in the case of several versions such as the NRSV there was a committee of 30 scholars from Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Greek Orthodox backgrounds involved in the translation. One of which was your main man, Marvin Pope. The English Standard Version had over 50 scholars working on it. The New King James Version a team of 130. The Common English Bible 120 scholars. The NASB1995 20 scholars.The NIV over 100 scholars. The NET Bible 25 scholars. All versions that render 7:2 as “navel.” This doesn’t prove a majority. But it is suggestive and certainly prima facie evidence of a majority view against “vulva.”
Goose wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 12:18 pm(in reality the view may be a minority position among scholars if not nearly fringe), the weight of your argument now hinges on the supporting arguments themselves.
"Nearly fringe?" Do you have any justification for that statement, or is forcing me to defend against hyperbole part of your debate strategy?
The debate strategy, if there is one, is to systematically demolish your arguments using evidence, reason, and logic. If you were to pay a little closer attention to what is being said to you, you’d have realized this was a conditional If statement tempered with “may be.” You’re under no obligation to defend against it, just as I’m under no obligation to justify it.
While not taking a stance one way or the other, The Oxford Annotated Bible notes that "perhaps navel is a euphemism for “vulva.”" If mainstream academic commentary acknowledges the opinion, then we've moved away from "fringe" by definition.
The New Oxford Annotated Bible also renders 7:2 as “navel.” Mainstream scholarship acknowledging an opinion does not by definition move that opinion away from fringe. But I’m happy to withdraw the suggestion the “vulva” view may be fringe.
Goose wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 12:18 pmAs for those arguments they are quite weak given they primarily hinge on 1) a false premise of ascending order, 2) an interpretation of “vulva” with no external evidence in Jewish literature the word was ever used in that context whereas the word is used elsewhere in Jewish literature to mean “navel” and 3) the similarity to an Arabic word sirr meaning "secret, pudenda, coition, fornication" while there is an Arabic word surr which is equally similar that means “navel.”
I'm sorry that you find the arguments personally unpersuasive. Even my amended argument is only that a number of modern scholars find erotic imagery in the Song of Songs.
Well what does your amended argument prove that’s meaningful? That the Song of Solomon implies erotic love and sexual desire is not in dispute. If that’s the end game of your argument, I guess we are all done as your position is virtually indistinguishable from mine. But then one wonders why you didn’t answer Miles in the negative and kept pornography on the table. I can’t help but think it’s because you wanted to smuggle in the premise that eroticism -> pornography.
That you agree with more narrow and traditional interpretations is neither a surprise to me nor does it affect my response to Miles.
I didn’t merely find the arguments for “vulva” unpersuasive and merely agree with the traditional interpretations. I supplied numerous arguments and evidence that show the “vulva” view to be at best highly problematic and at worst false. You’ve not even attempted to counter those arguments and left them standing. And that does affect your initial response to Miles despite your claim to the contrary. How on earth you think it doesn’t is beyond me.
Goose wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 12:18 pm1. Pope’s analysis was addressed in the NET Bible quote I gave.
The question I answered of yours was only which scholars were included in my "most." That someone disagrees with any of those scholars' analyses is not a refutation of my answer.
The question asked, though, was in context to challenging the claim of a majority of scholars. You didn’t answer that question. Rather you chose to abandon that claim. And by the way, someone did not merely express disagreement. Someone provided arguments and evidence refuting the “vulva” view.
Goose wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 12:18 pmOf course one can find sexual imagery in many things if one wants to find sexual imagery.
One may also steadfastly deny its presence where one wishes not to have seen it.
But I would not deny its presence if I had, in fact, seen it. I just don’t see the kind of sexual imagery you do where the text, for example, is lewdly describing a vagina. And you are a long way from establishing that it does. A long way, indeed.
Goose wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 12:18 pmThe view that Song of Solomon is permeated with erotic sexual imagery is highly strained. We need look no further than Michael Goulder’s interpretation to see just how strained. He thinks “lilies are associated with pubic hair (2:16; 4:5; 5:13; 6:2-3).” If we follow through with Goulder’s interpretation we have the bride’s breasts grazing in pubic hair (4:5), the bridegroom’s lips are pubic hair (5:13), and the bridegroom gathering pubic hair (6:2-3). Eww!
Neither your unsupported assertion nor incredulity are particularly persuasive, especially given that every commentary that I consulted affirms that the poem is erotic and sexually charged. Even devotional commentary and study Bibles, though they invest a bit of ink to remind readers not to get too many ideas, nevertheless acknowledge the inescapable: "The book is rich in metaphors, chiefly of sexual love."—NIV Zondervan Study Bible; "We cannot ignore the sexual content of the book, but we can appreciate the context in which it is placed—a godly marriage."—NKJV Study Bible.
Is there a meaningful point that advances your argument here? Because I also acknowledged as much in my first post.
Goose wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 5:16 pmPerhaps, if by erotic you mean the story implies sexual desire.
By the way, the NIV Study Bible also says...

No one who reads the Song with care can question the artistry of the poet. The subtle delicacy with which he evokes intense sensuous awareness while avoiding crude titillation is one of the chief marks of his achievement. This he accomplishes largely by indirection, by analogy and by bringing to the foreground the sensuous in the world of nature (or in food, drink, cosmetics and jewelry). To liken a lover’s enjoyment of his beloved to a gazelle “browsing among lilies” (2:16), or her breasts to “twin fawns of a gazelle that browse among the lilies” (4:5), or the beloved herself to a garden filled with choice fruits inviting the lover to feast (4:12–16)—these combine exquisite artistry and fine sensitivity.

So where are you going with this erotic argument? Because at this point it’s stalled out to, well so what? How are you getting from erotic to pornography? If you are not trying to get to pornography from erotic then what’s the point of the erotic argument and why is that point meaningful? If you are not trying to get to pornography why on earth did you leave it on the table as a viable option? If you are not trying to get to pornography from erotic why did you say you don’t think it’s quite the stretch that I do? If you don’t think it’s quite the stretch I do, then you think the stretch to pornography can be made. How exactly are you making that stretch? If you don’t think it can be described as pornography then why did you say you are only “uncomfortable” describing it as that rather than just explicitly denying it can be?
Things atheists say:

"Is it the case [that torturing and killing babies for fun is immoral]? Prove it." - Bust Nak

"For the record...I think the Gospels are intentional fiction and Jesus wasn't a real guy." – Difflugia

"Julius Caesar and Jesus both didn't exist." - brunumb

"...most atheists have no arguments or evidence to disprove God." – unknown soldier (a.k.a. the banned member Jagella)

User avatar
Difflugia
Prodigy
Posts: 3017
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 3247 times
Been thanked: 1997 times

Re: song of solomon

Post #27

Post by Difflugia »

Goose wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 9:01 pm
Difflugia wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 3:43 pm
Goose wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 12:18 pmConsider it stricken. But this specific set of scholars you’ve given is still quite small which greatly undermines the weight of your initial argument.
Does it, though?
Absolutely it does. Since the five or so scholars you noted is hardly a large enough number in the world of Biblical scholarship to establish a majority or even suggest a majority and the weight of your initial argument was grounded in an appeal to a majority of experts. You did not want to establish a majority instead opting for the weaker argument that some scholars think X.
Since you still seem to be fixated on the idea that too few quoted scholars somehow renders my point invalid, I did a little library spelunking. Here's another ten quotes from scholarly commentaries that accept "vulva" as either the preferred reading over "navel" or at least acknowledge it as reasonable. Apologetics being what it is, I'm sure that this still won't be enough, but I found the exercise entertaining enough in itself to be worth the time.

Note that Exum opines as well that "most commentators" think that genitals are being referred to euphemistically, even if not a literal reading. I put them in alphabetical order.

Gianni Barbiero, Song of Songs: A Close Reading
Probably with the ‘navel’, the intention is to allude discreetly to the entire genital area, to which the metaphor of the wine is better suited.
Fiona Black, The Artifice of Love: Grotesque Bodies in the Song of Songs:
Wine and the grape draw together a provocative, perhaps disturbing, combination of body-parts, seen already in 4.9-16: breasts, vulva and mouth. In 7.3, the woman’s שׁר is described as a bowl (אגן) that never lacks wine. With Pope and others, I take the word to mean ‘vulva’, even though its usage elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible denotes umbilical cord or navel (Prov.3.8; Ezek.16.4; Pope1977:617).
Iain M. Duguid, The Song of Songs: Introduction and Commentary (published by IVP Academic, to whose academic integrity I was apparently unfair)
This probably does not refer strictly to her navel, which we would expect to come after the belly as the description moves upwards along the woman’s body, but is rather a discreet reference to the entire genital area and the intoxicating pleasures that it contains for her lover.
J. Cheryl Exum, Song of Songs: A Commentary
Hebrew šōr (here translated "navel") occurs elsewhere in Ezek 16:4, where it refers to the umbilical cord, and Prov 3:8 in parallelism with "your bones," where either its meaning is more inclusive than "navel" (like mēʿîm for the internal organs; see under 5:4 and 5:14) or it is a mistake for šĕʾēr, "flesh." It could refer to the navel, but, because the bowl to which it is compared is said to contain wine, most commentators take it as a euphemism for the vagina.
Brian P. Gault, Body as Landscape, Love as Intoxication: Conceptual Metaphors in the Song of Songs
Some contend that שר refers to the vulva, based on etymology (Arb. sirr “pudenda”), position (thigh-belly), and description (Pope, Song of Songs, 618). While שר describes the unbiblical cord in Ezek 16:4 (see also Prov 3:8), and the waṣf order is not always exact (7:4–5), an erotic double entendre is not impossible.
Paul J. Griffiths, Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible: Song of Songs
He begins by addressing her as “prince’s daughter,” and then for twenty-two lines (7:2–7) he praises her and her body, addressing her in the second person (“your . . . you”) with the occasional interjected epithet (“O my dearest”). He begins with her “sandaled feet,” moves up to her “thighs like necklaces,” to her “vulva like a lathe-turned bowl,” to her “belly like a heap of wheat,” her “breasts like two fawns,” her “neck like an ivory tower,” her “eyes like fishpools,” her “nose like the tower of Lebanon,” and her “head like Carmel.”
Patrick Hunt, Poetry in the Song of Songs: A Literary Analysis
Her navel (from שׁרר shorer) is an intimate place usually hidden from view to everyone else; a word very close to שׁר shor “navel string” which can also be interpreted, according to Gesenius, as “secret part” or even vulva, i.e., secret to all but him).
Othmar Keel, The Song of Songs: A Continental Commentary
The unusual wish added in v. 2b (3b) ("may it never lack mixed wine") is an unambiguous metaphor requiring "navel" to be understood here as a euphemism for vulva.
Andre LaCoque, Romance, She Wrote: A Hermeneutical Essay on Song of Songs
About 7.2 [3], Daniel Lys says that šôrér, generally translated by "umbilicus" (cf. Ezek 16.4), designates either "navel" or "valley" in Arabic, the root meaning "to be firm." Here, however, he continues, "[T]he comparison is better fitting for the pubis, the sex . . . [and], facing it, the pubic hair has the shape of a crescent" (sahar seems to mean "moon-shaped").
Scott B. Noegel and Gary A. Rendsburg, Solomon's Vineyard: Literary and Linguistic Studies in the Song of Songs
The word šōr (its usual form), šōrer (its form here), normally means “navel,” as in Ezek 16:4 and in postbiblical Hebrew and Aramaic. In Prov 3:8 the word stands for the entire body via synecdoche. In Song 7:3, however, we take the word as a euphemism for “vulva,” especially since the b-line refers to its serving as a container of moisture, indeed, the most delectable of liquids, mixed-wine.
My pronouns are he, him, and his.

User avatar
Difflugia
Prodigy
Posts: 3017
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 3247 times
Been thanked: 1997 times

Re: song of solomon

Post #28

Post by Difflugia »

Goose wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 9:01 pm
Goose wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 12:18 pmSince a consensus for “vulva” doesn’t seem to be the case
You haven't actually established that. You were correct that I didn't establish a consensus and I didn't bother contesting that because it wasn't important to my response to Miles. On the other hand, you're now in the position of making the same kind of assertion that you just called me out on. That's either sloppy or disingenuous.
Classic shifting of the burden here.
Exactly. That's why I said you were at least sloppy, because I'd expect you to know better.
Goose wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 9:01 pmYou’ve gone from asserting a majority view to demanding that I prove a majority view because I said your claim doesn’t seem to be the case.
I accepted my burden and backed off the claim that I hadn't at that point demonstrated. That I hadn't demonstrated a majority, though, isn't evidence that the opposing view has a majority. Your insistence that it does is you attempting to shift your burden onto me.
Goose wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 9:01 pmA consensus for “vulva” didn’t seem to be the case to me because not a single version of the Bible I linked to renders 7:2 as “vulva.”
This is certainly evidence for your view, but at best, it's still just a proxy for the opinions of the scholars themselves. Even when translations have a goal of accuracy in an academic sense, Bibles are also expected to be used liturgically and must sell to Christians. Even the NRSV renders the tetragrammaton as LORD, despite that being less accurate than Yahweh, YHWH, or even Jehovah. Modern translations that toyed with it have reverted (the HCSB and New Jerusalem Bible used Yahweh, their respective, recent revisions don't). As long as there are translation pressures that compete with accuracy, the final form of a Christian Bible isn't more definitive than the stated opinions of the scholars themselves.
Goose wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 9:01 pmThe debate strategy, if there is one, is to systematically demolish your arguments using evidence, reason, and logic. If you were to pay a little closer attention to what is being said to you, you’d have realized this was a conditional If statement tempered with “may be.” You’re under no obligation to defend against it, just as I’m under no obligation to justify it.
I'll look forward to the logical demolition of my arguments. Does that start after you're done with the unsupported polemic, however tempered?
Goose wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 9:01 pmI can’t help but think it’s because you wanted to smuggle in the premise that eroticism -> pornography.
I'm sure you can't, but it's actually because the definitions of the various descriptive words are notoriously slippery. The statement Miles made didn't seem to hinge on an exact definition or bright line and I wasn't looking to debate such.
Goose wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 9:01 pmI didn’t merely find the arguments for “vulva” unpersuasive and merely agree with the traditional interpretations. I supplied numerous arguments and evidence that show the “vulva” view to be at best highly problematic and at worst false. You’ve not even attempted to counter those arguments and left them standing. And that does affect your initial response to Miles despite your claim to the contrary. How on earth you think it doesn’t is beyond me.
My response pointed out that the Song of Songs is a poem predominantly about sex and I offered a concrete example that I didn't just make up. You challenged my characterization of "most scholars" and asked specifically which ones I relied on. I had no desire to argue the former and provided the latter. Whether the scholars actually represent a majority or even if they're wrong doesn't affect what I said to Miles and the straw man you created out of my statement wasn't one that I cared to defend.
My pronouns are he, him, and his.

Post Reply