The beloved shepherd isn't Solomon?

Question

The woman says "my beloved" and "I love" when she talks about a shepherd:

Tell me, O you whom I love, Where you feed your flock, Where you make it rest at noon. For why should I be as one who veils herself By the flocks of your companions? (1/7)

My beloved is mine, and I am his. He feeds his flock among the lilies (2/16)

My beloved has gone to his garden, To the beds of spices, To feed his flock in the gardens, And to gather lilies (6/2)

I am my beloveds, And my beloved is mine. He feeds his flock among the lilies (6/3)

But when she mentions Solomon, she doesn't say "beloved" or "I love"

Draw me away! We will run after you. The king has brought me into his chambers. We will be glad and rejoice in you. We will remember yyour love more than wine. Rightly do they love you (1/4)

I am dark, but lovely, O daughters of Jerusalem, Like the tents of Kedar, Like the curtains of Solomon (1/5)

While the king is at his table, My spikenard sends forth its fragrance (1/12)

Behold, it is Solomońs couch, With sixty valiant men around it, Of the valiant of Israel. They all hold swords, Being expert in war. Every man has his sword on his thigh Because of fear in the night. Of the wood of Lebanon Solomon the King Made himself a palanquin: He made its pillars of silver, Its support of gold, Its seat of purple, Its interior paved with love By the daughters of Jerusalem. Go forth, O daughters of Zion, And see King Solomon with the crown With which his mother crowned him On the day of his wedding, The day of the gladness of his heart (3/7-11)

Solomon had a vineyard at Baal Hamon; He leased the vineyard to keepers; Everyone was to bring for its fruit A thousand silver coins (8/11)

My own vineyard is before me. You, O Solomon, may have a thousand, And those who tend its fruit two hundred (8/12)

Also, if the beloved was the king Solomon, daughters of Jerusalem wouldn't ask "what is your beloved more than another beloved?". The question implies the beloved is a simple man rather than a king

Also, it seems to me that here she is differentiating between the beloved (second person) and the king (third person):

Draw me away! We will run after you. The king has brought me into his chambers

It seems she is asking him to take her away from the king's harem

In Chapter 3, we see that she brings her beloved to her home and then Solomon's couch arrives which also suggests that they are different people. The beloved is at her home while Solomon is on his couch at the time:

By night on my bed I sought the one I love; I sought him, but I did not find him. «I will rise now,» I said, «And go about the city; In the streets and in the squares I will seek the one I love.» I sought him, but I did not find him. The watchmen who go about the city found me; I said, «Have you seen the one I love?» Scarcely had I passed by them, When I found the one I love. I held him and would not let him go, Until I had brought him to the house of my mother, And into the chamber of her who conceived me. I charge you, O daughters of Jerusalem, By the gazelles or by the does of the field, Do not stir up nor awaken love Until it pleases. Who is this coming out of the wilderness Like pillars of smoke, Perfumed with myrrh and frankincense, With all the merchant́s fragrant powders? Behold, it is Solomońs couch, With sixty valiant men around it, Of the valiant of Israel. They all hold swords, Being expert in war. Every man has his sword on his thigh Because of fear in the night. Of the wood of Lebanon Solomon the King Made himself a palanquin: He made its pillars of silver, Its support of gold, Its seat of purple, Its interior paved with love By the daughters of Jerusalem. Go forth, O daughters of Zion, And see King Solomon with the crown With which his mother crowned him On the day of his wedding, The day of the gladness of his heart (3:1-11)

Answer 1

The shepherd and the king may or may not be the same character. If they are the same character they're different aspects or life-stages of him.

Either way, it might be too disrespectful to call a king your boiler-uncle.

Seeing "love" in the translation the OP may have assumed it's standing for a neutral word. But what has probably happened is the translators have encountered a truly peculiar idiom of Ancient Hebrew erotic poetry (which is a genre we have about one surviving example of!) and chosen the safest option.

We can tell from the context it's a term of endearment. Outside love poetry, we can tell it means uncle. So it's male gendered.

We know from our own love songs that terms of endearment - like 'Baby' 'Angel' or 'Pumpkin' - have hugely complicated registers and link listeners' minds in to different stages and footings of relationship negotiations - in different social and cultural milieux - and with this continuously shifting due to youth fashion.

For some reason, in this one poem that could date from anywhere between 300BC and 1000BC, "boiler-uncle" is the term that nails a relationship like this.

But since we aren't the teenagers of 2000 to 3000 years ago, we can't tell which historic relationship, or even which sort of relationship, this song is about - or to what extent it's also being wisdom-literature. If it's a love-song that's really about holy wisdom then any of the pet-names and images might be ironic. And when they are it would probably go right over our heads.

The LXX's translators probably had an easier time of it than we do, being culturally, linguistically, and historically closer:-

---

Song of Solomon 1:7 - - שֶׁ֤אָהֲבָה֙ - - ὃν ἠγάπησεν ἡ ψυχή μου [different word!]

Song of Solomon 2:16 - - דּוֹדִ֥י - - ἀδελφιδός μου

Song of Solomon 6:2 - - דּוֹדִי֙ - - Ἀδελφός μου κατέβη (some MSS have Ἀδελφιδός)

Song of Solomon 6:3 - - לְדוֹדִי֙ וְדוֹדִ֣י - - τῷ ἀδελφιδῷ μου καὶ ἀδελφιδός

---

But their gloss word - ἀδελφιδός - has the same problem, the only example in Lidell & Scott is the LXX's translation of the Song of Songs. "ιδ" usually indicates sons, so this might be a nephew. Or it might have sounded close to the diminutive form: ἀδελφιδιόν (=little brother).

https://archive.org/details/greekenglishlex00lidduoft/page/20/mode/2up

So that doesn't tell us much more, except that the LXX's translators:-

• didn't take "uncle" literally

• replaced it with another derived-sense family relationship

• replaced it with (something like) a little brother or nephew (so it's not age-specific or implying an age-gap)

• didn't make any use of the Hebrew root word 'to boil' or worry about δελφύς='a womb' coming in with ἀδελφιδός

Which is reassuring, since it shows they thought the Hebrew word was quite flexible - like our "baby". It's not bringing in specific and complicated allusions, such that they needed more words to explain it.

If it's at all colloquial, then it's not surprising it falls away in the shift from shepherd to king. We might sense other things doing too. And being replaced with courtly, ladylike spikenards.

Answer 2

It would not be hard to reconcile if they are the same person:

Different ways of speaking reflect different aspects of their relationship.

Love and admiration can take many forms. Such is the beauty and dynamics of a relationship. Our relationships have different ways of showing love depending on the context.

She speaks of her beloved.

You noted that she uses intimate and affectionate language, referring to him as “my beloved” and describing him as a shepherd who goes and cares for his flock. Here we see a personal and emotional aspect of their relationship. There's care.

The King

On the other hand, when she speaks of King Solomon, her language is more formal. She speaks of his wealth, power, and majesty. There are no terms of personal affection like “my beloved” or “I love”. Perhaps, this is the more public, formal, and societal aspects of their relationship. There is admiration and respect for his status as king, but perhaps without the same level of personal intimacy and emotional connection that one would have in private.

Answer 3

• The OP says: "it seems to me that here she is differentiating between the beloved (second person) and the king (third person)."

That is a fact and has been noticed by many commentators. One way of understanding it is that the woman speaks both to her beloved and to herself. When she addresses him, she uses the second person. When she speaks to herself (or to the audience if the Song is thought of as a play) she refers to him in the third person.

• It seems she is asking him to take her away from the king's harem.

That is an interesting interpretation of "Draw me away! We will run after you," but it depends on the translation. Others translate this as "Draw me after you! Let us run!" and the next line as "O that the king would bring me to his chambers," etc. Indeed, this particular verse results in many and varied interpretations - with translations to fit accordingly.

One way of reading the Song (this is my personal preference) is as a kind of play, in which the main characters are the girl, her beloved king, and a choir. The issue of her relation to the king (does she want to be released from him in order to be her beloved?) can be understood better with the following stage direction, borrowed from the TLB.

The Girl 3 How fragrant your cologne, and how great your name! No wonder all the young girls love you! 4 Take me with you; come, let’s run!”

The Girl: “The king has brought me into his palace. How happy we will be! Your love is better than wine. No wonder all the young girls love you!”

In other words, verse 4a is the girl's invitation to the king to be her lover. Verse 4b begins a new scene or thought, a small soliloquy in which girl reflects on the consummation of her desire. In verse 3 she knows him by his name and his perfume; in verse 4, she knows him the 'biblical' sense. "No wonder all the young girls love you!" Far from wanting to escape the supposed harem, she is overjoyed at the king's attention.