A Review of Peter Gentry’s Sure Mercies of David

In the Article “Rethinking the ‘Sure Mercies of David’” Peter Gentry argues that Isaiah 55:3 should be understood as a subjective genitive instead of an objective genitive. Gentry states, “The ‘sure mercies” are by David rather than for David as in the consensus view”(279)[1] He introduces the topic by explaining the debate on how the phrase hasde dâwïd  should be interpreted.

            Gentry explains that Chaquot and Beuken both took the subjective interpretation of the phrase. Meanwhile, Williamson and Walter Kaiser Jr. hold to the objective interpretation, which is the traditional view of how to interpret Isaiah 55:3. The objective view is explained in four basic parts by Gentry. First, Williams argues that Isaiah 55:3 in the LXX, conveys the idea of David being an objective genitive (280), and that the Vulgate and the Targum “preserve the ambiguity of the Hebrew” (280). Essentially, Williams believes that only the Syriac Peshitta supports the subjective genitive interpretation. Second, Williams dismisses the grammatical facts that the majority of occurrences of hesed, while being “bound to a noun…virtually everywhere the free member or pronominal suffix indicates the subject or agent of the kindness” (280). Rather, Williams believes that the readers originally would have understood “every text that precedes Isaiah 55:3 chronologically”. Williams’s fourth and final point is that 2 Samuel 7 is directly linked to Isaiah 55:3 and that it is “emphasizing the faithfulness of God” (280).

            Gentry responds by affirming Beuken’s and Caquot’s position about bound phrases being the reason to “interpret David as the agent or subject” (281). Gentry states, “out of eighteen instances in the plural, only two are considered objective; and…out of 228 occurrences of the singular only six can be found that may possibly or probably be read as objective” (281). Gentry also counters Williams and Kaiser, by explaining that Isaiah 55:3 cannot be interpreted to mean “‘blessings’ or ‘faithfulness promised’ to David”…but to mean “actions that fulfill covenant obligations and stipulations.

            Meanwhile, Gentry argues that the “waw-consecutive perfect forms marking future time in the middle of v. 9 clearly marks the break between past blessings and future promises”(283).  He further argues that Samuel  7:11b,12a agree with this future tense idea because they are promises that have “be fulfilled after David’s death” (283). Gentry also brings out the fact that God will establish an eternal throne and a father son relationship. He argues that this covenant is not unconditional but requires a “faithful son” (283). This is held together by a chiastic structure that shows that both divine and human faithfulness are part of this covenant (283). Furthermore, Gentry’s theory is based on this idea of a faithful father and son.

            Gentry bolsters his argument by explaining that in Hebrew the idea of being a son consisted of holding or possessing “common characteristics” of the father. Moreover, the ancient near east Canaanite and Egyptian cultures from 1650 B.C. forward believed that the king possessed common characteristics of their local deity (284). Thus, kings were believed to be the sons of God, and the representatives of God to humanity. Gentry also argues that God, in a way, intended it to be that some would represent God on earth. He explains that God created man in his image as a mirror to him. After the fall, Israel inherited that role and also according to Exodus 4:22-23 Israel is referred to as Yahweh’s son(287).  Finally, he reasons that the king is responsible for being the leader who God holds responsible to be His representation to the people and other nations(287). 

Gentry breaks down 2 Chronicles 6. Based on his analysis, Gentry basically argues that both Yahweh and the Davidic son both have to be faithful for this covenant promise to take place, because God uses the Davidic son to pour out on everyone his covenantal blessing (291). Hence, he seems to argue for a future Davidic son who will fulfill God’s covenantal promise. This is inferred when he states, “But the oracle through Nathan makes clear that Yahweh will only keep them [faithful promises] to and through a faithful son…[and that] the promises of Yahweh await fulfillment only when the throne is occupied by an obedient son” (291). Moreover, Gentry states, “that Yahweh must …provide the obedient son if the covenant is to be maintained” (291). Gentry also believes that in the Greek (LXX) Isaiah 55:3 and its New Testament echo in Acts 13:34 is an idiomatic phrase that could convey, if not be directly translated to something like holy decrees or assurance or kindness  of a future Davidic son (298-300).

In conclusion, Gentry believes that this passage is talking about a future Davidic son. He bases this from Isaiah 55:3b where the Hebrew phrase is “expressed in the future tense” (292). Moreover, Isaiah 55:4-5 continues to express this idea about God’s planned future for a “future David” who will be a “witness to the nations,” a “leader” and a “commander” (294). This is why Gentry’s argument is that the Hebrew phrase is subjective and not objective, resulting in a future Davidic son of God who is a faithful leader of people who are in Him, and those people who are in Him are witnesses to the nations.

Analysis:

         I think Gentry is right on several points. First, I do think he is right that the phrase hasde dâwïd is subjective and not objective. He makes a sound argument based on the grammar where most occurrences of hesed, when being “bound to a noun…virtually everywhere the free member or pronominal suffix indicates the subject or agent of the kindness” (280). Moreover of the eighteen times hasde  is used in the plural, only two are in the objective case, and of the 228  times it is found in the singular case only six are possibly objective genitives(281).

            Second, Gentry’s is correct when he states that it takes both a faithful God and a faithful Son in order for the covenantal promises to take place. His argument is strong especially when one realizes that Israel and the church today are both chosen to represent God here on earth to a fallen humanity. Moreover, the Davidic Son was responsible for being faithful, otherwise the blessing would not manifest because it is predicated on the son’s faithfulness. Gentry make this clear when he references Nathan’s oracle to David about not being able to build the temple (291).  David was being punished because he was not living faithfully and the promise of the temple would have to later be fulfilled by his son Solomon ( 1 Chr. 17:4).  

Finally, he is right about claiming that Isaiah 55:3b-5 is talking about a future Davidic Son. This is shown by the fact that “Isa 55:3b is expressed in the future tense,” and that the next passage in the perfect tense conveys the idea that God has a planned future for that son (192). This seems to be referring to the Messiah Jesus Christ who is both a descendent of David and a faithful son.  Moreover, Jesus is a faithful son who is also a firstborn of many sons and daughters who bear witness of Him and a relationship with God to the rest of the world. Finally, Jesus is also on a throne at the right hand of God. Therefore, while Gentry does not come right out and say it, I think he has given a very strong defense for there being Messianic prophecies in this passage that refer to Christ.

---

[1] Peter J Gentry, “Rethinking the ‘Sure Mercies of David.” WTJ 69(2007): 279.

Inequality in America: How Wealth is Spread

A recent YouTube video, “Wealth Inequality in America,” has been steadily circulating through various internet sites and social media outlets. The viral video seeks to educate the American populace on how unjust or “skewed” the American Economic system is because it creates horrible economic inequality.  However, the video is rather vague for it seems to only emphasize the topic of the distribution of wealth, without actually explaining why they believe this inequality is ghastly and unfair. The video raised the question of whether or not CEOs are worth what they earn.  According to the video, a CEO earns in one hour what the average employee earns in one month.  The video also made the hypothetical query, “Does a CEO really work 380 times harder than his average worker?”; implying that this is immoral because  Americans do not ideally think or even perceive the value placed on CEOs as being fair distribution of wealth.  So then I pose this question, “Is this supposed unjust distribution caused by an inherently evil unjust system and do the rich like CEOs and athletes get paid an unjust amount?”. I have concluded that this is view is inaccurate as it is a misconception of how wealth is actually earned and dispersed. First, we must become aware of how wealth is actually distributed in the United States, with the exception of government contracting, bailouts, grants and loans, social security, welfare (both corporate and individual). Whereas the Federal government chooses the winners and losers, wealth distribution is based off the free market. The market is simply people - millions of people that make day to day decisions. In fact, every time you choose to shop at Wal-Mart, Target or any other store you are deciding where to distribute your wealth. There is no system or outside force that causes you to purchase goods and services at any particular store in the United States or even a particular brand. Instead, we the American people decide how to spread our wealth. Economist, Walter E. Williams clearly conveys the truth of this idea,

Look at how Wal-Mart Stores generated wealth for the Walton family of Christy ($25 billion), Jim ($21 billion), Alice ($21 billion) and Robson ($21 billion). The Walton family's wealth is not a result of ill-gotten gains, but the result of Wal-Mart's revenue, $422 billion in 2010. The blame for this unjust concentration of wealth rests with those hundreds of millions of shoppers worldwide who voluntarily enter Wal-Mart premises and leave dollars, pounds and pesos.

In other words, millions of people are freely choosing to shop and distribute their wealth as they see fit.  This can also be seen when you choose to buy a generic brand over the name brand or when you decide to eat at a chain restaurant or a local restaurant; and by the fact that store owners and managers respond to your purchases by stocking the shelves with the products you desire most. These are all actions and reactions to people’s decisions. Second, there seems to be a misconception of where people get the money to distribute the wealth they have. So where does wealth come from? Economist, Thomas Sowell explains this best,

Despite a voluminous and often fervent literature on “income distribution,” the cold fact is that most income is not distributed: It is earned. People paying each other for goods and services generate income…[M]ost wealth is not distributed at all. People create it, earn it, save it and spend it.  (Sowell, The Vision of the Anointed, 1995, pg 211)

It is crucial for one to understand Sowell’s point that most wealth is earned and created by innovation and hard work. With this earned wealth, these people then can choose to spend, save, invest or even give their money away.  Ultimately, this is an admirable thing because it demonstrates free people making free decisions based on their own family and unique life situations.  It is not some central organization or mystical entity that distributes money - if so, it clearly would be unjust. Moreover, the video’s argument that there must be something inherently wrong since the desired and perceived distribution of wealth is categorically off from the actual wealth distribution numbers, is no real argument at all! This does not make for a cogent argument, especially if a person’s perception is already based on a false understanding of how wealth is created and distributed.  Economist Walter E Williams expounds on these common misconceptions some more,

I think some of the ignorance and much of the demagoguery stems from the usage of the phrase "income distribution." It might make some people think income is distributed; in other words, there's a dealer of dollars….An alternative vision might be that there's a pile of money intended for all of us. The reason why some are rich and some are poor is that the greedy rich got to the pile first and took their unfair share. Clearly, in either case, justice would require a re-dealing, or redistribution, of the dollars, where the government takes ill-gotten gains of the few and returns them to their rightful owners.

Williams is right, although many in our culture seem to think they were given the shaft by some mythical dollar dealer or somehow they did not get their fair share as if there was a predestined share they were entitled to receive at birth. Now contrast that to the reality that wealth is created by producing goods and services that are pleasing to “one’s fellow man,” as Williams states. In other words, the only way you will obtain wealth is to earn it from your “fellow man” and to do that you need to produce goods and services that will be of use to them. Thirdly, the video poses the idea that Athletes and CEOs do not produce as much as their employees. As a reference library assistant, I get paid for the services I provide to students for the university. I am paid a wage that is on par with the value the university places on me, and thus is willing to pay me. Furthermore, I work there because I am willing to be compensated at that rate. Again, millions of people do this same process all over the nation voluntarily.  This same voluntary process happens for CEOs, athletes and other rich members of our society by getting paid based on how much their employers value them. For example, Derek Jeter the short stop for the New York Yankees is to be paid this year about $24.5 Million. Now to you and me, Jeter may not be worth 24 million dollars nor does he necessarily work as hard as you or I combined. But to the New York Yankees, he is worth every penny. According to Andrew Marhand of ESPN New York,

"He [Jeter] is the brand," said St. Louis Blues interim CEO Mike McCarthy, who ran MSG Network when it owned the rights to Yankees' games. From McCarthy's unique position as a top television executive and now as part of an ownership group in St. Louis, the 36-year-old Jeter adds premium value to the Yankees and YES -- both estimated to be worth more than a billion each, maybe much more -- as he likely becomes the first Yankee with 3,000 hits.

Kurt Badenhausen of Forbs magazine gives us even more perspective:

During his Yankees career Jeter has made $213 million in salary (with another $43 million still to come) and roughly $100 million in endorsements. Yet his value to the Yankees has been even greater. The value of the Yankees and its related enterprises has increased by nearly $5 billion during Jeter’s career. Yes other stars contributed greatly to the Yankees success, but no one quite like the Captain.

In other words, Jeter adds more to the team in value than just what he produces out on the field. This is not an unjust distribution of wealth because again it is millions of people like you and I who buy the Jeter memorabilia and watch the Yankee games on TV which adds to ratings – all of these situations are examples of wealth being distributed on account of the voluntary decisions of free individuals and not some scheming system planers.  The same goes for CEOs, for it is not  society that gets to decide how much the CEO of JPMorgan Chase, University of Phoenix, or any other company gets paid for the job they do. Society does not know the value that these positions is worth to those individual stock holders. In conclusion, we are the ones who choose how to spend our dollar votes.  Therefore, the next time you go shop at a store or buy a Derek Jeter Yankee’s jersey, realize that you are distributing your wealth. There is no system that is ideal. The video clip, “Wealth Inequality in America,” is talking about an imaginative system or idea of more equality that does not exist and never will exist. Free markets are not perfect, but compared to all other economic systems there is nothing better. If you wish for more just results, then maybe giving to charity or starting a business and employing people at a wage you believe is fair would be a start. Either way, it is up to the millions of individuals to decide how they will distribute their wealth, because they are the ones who make up the market.   Therefore, let’s looks beyond idealism and ignorant perception and seek understanding.

This post was originally posted on   Café con Leche Republicans blog. 

####

By Thomas Salazar

A REVIEW OF SOLOMON'S SONG OF LOVE

Craig Glickman in his book, Solomon's Song of Love, creates a commentary that is divided into thematic sections, making the text of Canticles become more relevant and personal as it leads the reader to an understanding of biblical love as expressed by Solomon and Shulamith. Glickman breaks down the song into several sections including pre-wedding night, wedding night and post wedding night, and he uses practical real life examples in each chapter so that the reader can see the Word of God come to life.  For Glickman, Canticles like all truly timeless love songs, has a transforming power to give the reader or hearer "a heightened awareness to the world around us and feeling of joy and wholeness"....and "oneness."[1] Song of Songs conveys, "not just what our partners should be like but what our relationships [should] feel like: the role of emotions, longing, and sexual attraction; the foundation of friendship, respect, and commitment; the experience of intimacy, certainty, and forgiveness."[2]  It is with this understanding that Glickman takes the songs and bases his chapters on the transformational and inspired love song.

            In his first chapter "When Love Breaks Through," Glickman explains the "miracles" of the fact that Solomon was both the author and the main character within the Song of Songs.[3] This is because Solomon would have come into this passionate relationship with a lot of relational presuppositions and baggage; including, but not limited to the fact that David had Solomon's mother's husband killed because of an affair he had with Solomon's mother.[4] That along with David's  deathbed  instructions that charged Solomon with killing off the enemies of the house of David, prepared Solomon to rule through power and not in love(1 Kings 2:5-12).[5] Moreover, Solomon had many wives and concubines, many whom he may have married simply because it was standard procedure of their foreign policy to forge "political alliances."[6] All of these would have been factors in why Solomon's passionate and biblical understanding of both sexual and emotional love was a miracle.

            The second chapter, "A Night to Remember", is based off Song of Songs 4:1-5:1. Glickman shows how lost and intoxicated Solomon is by his love for Shulamith. This passage begins with an inclusio that is partitioned by Solomon's proclamation of Shulamith's beauty (4:1-4:7).  The key word in this section is "blemish" in verse 7 of the fourth chapter, because the Hebrew word (מ֖וּם) conveys the idea of "inner and outer flaws."[7] This is significant because Solomon is choosing to say here that in his eyes, Shulamith has no inner or outer flaws. Glickman gives credence to this argument by showing how Solomon describes Shulamith's body. For example, Solomon compares her eyes to doves, hair to a flock of goats and teeth to newly shorn sheep. Then in verse 4, Solomon talks about her character figuratively by comparing her neck to a tower of David, one upon which mighty men hang their shields. This not only expresses "stateliness", but the mention of the shields and the mighty men convey a sense of purity and strength, a cause for respect.[8] This section ends on Solomon's wedding night where he finds his rest, his land of milk and honey in Shulamith - his perfect mate as if God had chosen him and her to be together like Adam and Eve.[9] This is an allusion to paradise (Garden of Eden).[10]

            In chapter three, "The Birth of Love," Glickman shows how Solomon gave Shulamith gifts, including the greatest of those gifts - respect (Song 1:1-1:11). Since she was a laborer in the field she had brown skin. Thus, the men of her day rejected her, causing her emotional pain. Glickman sees Shulamith's rejection because of her dark skin as an allusion to the story of Tamar.[11]  Just as people did not see Shulamith for who she was under her dark skin, neither did Judah see Tamar for who she was when she seduced him as a prostitute. The difference is that Shulamith did not "need to pretend to be someone she is not."[12] Glickman also shows that Solomon not only wanted to just have physical love for Shulamith but he wanted to be her friend. Thus, he gave her the endearing title "my darling companion."[13]

            Then in chapter four, "Hearts with Wings," Glickman talks about how Solomon and Shulamith gave each other compliments or praise (Song 1:12-2:3).  These complements and Solomon's and Shulamith's mutual praise of each other, help to nurture their relationship.[14] Meanwhile, in chapter five, "A Spring Romance," Glickman expounds on the theme of how love can "transform appearance," which is symbolized by the spring of new love in Songs of Songs 2:8-13.[15] Furthermore, Glickman points out that Solomon desired and therefore sought to know Shulamith as a "whole person"(Song 2:14).[16] Both chapters four and five show a time of nurturing and transformation.

            Now in chapter six, "A Time to Marry," Glickman shows how Solomon and Shulamith work to protect their marriage. They actively sought to prevent the foxes of "dishonesty," "selfishness," "impatience," and even "reluctance to adjust, apologize or forgive" from embedding themselves in their union (Song 2:15).[17] Glickman explains that this protection is important because it creates an environment where couples can be vulnerable and open with each other. Furthermore, the author also makes the point that being able to relate to each others' vulnerabilities is the "the foundation for a long lasting relationship"(Song 2:15).[18]

            In chapter seven, "Pain of Loss," Glickman makes the point that ingratitude erodes love.[19] The scene is set in Song of Songs 5:2-6:1 where Shulamith is tired and shows "indifference" towards Solomon, but this indifference is soon doffed and replaced by Shulamith's anxious longing for him.[20] Glickman argues that Shulamith realizes she is in a "vulnerable position" because she realizes she is wrong and needs to apologize but she is also in a "vulnerable position" because "she can't control" Solomon's response.[21] Meanwhile, in chapter eight, "A Dance with Joy," Glickman gives Solomon's gracious response. Solomon's response is one that Glickman calls a "bouquet of praise"(Song 6:4-9). Solomon ends the section in Song of Songs 6:13 by alluding to a "dance of the two camps" which is clearly an allusion to Mahanaim where Jacob and Esau met and made peace with a hug.[22] 
         Glickman, in chapter 9, "Passion and Paradise," directly links the forgiveness of Solomon to the deeper and ever growing love which is expressed in the Song of Songs 7:1-10.[23] This is not just because they are in love with each other's physical beauty, but because they actually love each other and there is a sense of belonging to each other - a safe secure intimacy. This then leads to "Freedom and Delight," chapter 10, which reveals Solomon and Shulamith's sex life. Glickman makes an interesting observation that "Shulamith was pretending to be a Goddess" or the "sex symbol" of her day.[24]        

            Chapter 11, "Devotion and Fire," expresses that one should only let true love waken when it is ready (Song 8:4-8:7).  Glickman also states that, "True love grows through hardship," and that it begins "with mutual delight". The idea is that through their devotion to each other and their mutual delight, no one - not even the rivers, can put out the fire of their love (Song 8:6-7).[25] Finally, chapter 12 of Glickman's text illustrates how Shulamith and Solomon find fulfillment.

Analysis

            First, Glickman's book has several great appendixes where he has his translation along with some semi critical notes, along with his understanding for the structure of the Song of Songs, which he seems to have acquired from David Dorsey's The Literary Structure of the Old Testament. [26]

            Second, I thought it was a good point for Glickman to convey the fact that Solomon was alluding, if not comparing, Shulamith to the sex symbols of their day - especially when he referred to Shulamith as the "Lady of the Mandrake"(Song 7:13).[27]

            Third, in the process of arguing for his very applicable understanding of the text, I think Glickman reads more into Song of Songs 4:8 than what actually is there. It states (NASB), "Come with me from Lebanon[28], my bride, may you come with me from Lebanon. Journey down from the summit of Amana, from the summit of Senir and Hermon, from the dens of lions, from the mountains of leopards."[29] He understands these verses as Solomon pleading with Shulamith to come down from her mounted perch where she is protecting her anxious/fearful heart.[30]

            The problem I saw with this is that in the previous section Solomon says to Shulamith, "Like the Tower of David is your neck, made for strength; a thousand shields hang upon it, all the shields of the mighty men" (Song 4:4, Glickman's translation). These are not terms used to describe a fearful woman; rather, it describes a majestic and strong woman who demands respect. Ironically, Glickman noted earlier that these symbols were a form of respectable boundaries.[31]Glickman himself understands this verse in this way. Therefore, his conclusion made of Songs 4:8, seems to have a flaw in the logic of his interpretation. Moreover, Glickman understands Solomon to be a man of power. Thus, Solomon marrying a woman of power is more logical than stating that he married a fearful one.  For example, Glickman even states, "Naturally then, Solomon used marriage and pleasure to serve power."[32] Rather, Othmar Keel is more on point by saying that in Songs 4:8, Solomon is pleading to "compel" Shulamith, "to come down from her godlike pedestal, a proud request of a proud woman!"[33]

            However, Glickman made a cogent argument when he explained the significance of the use of the Hebrew word for blemish, as it references both an inner and outer flaw. This Hebrew cultic language brings with it the idea that Solomon saw nothing wrong outwardly or inwardly in Shulamith, just as God would have seen a pure priest or sacrifice as holy and acceptable unto Himself. This is why Shulamith was Solomon's complete and perfect love. In conclusion, Craig Glickman's Solomon's Song of Love is an amazing book that expresses a very pastoral and exegetical explanation of true biblical aspects of love which were found in Song of Songs. Moreover, I would highly recommend this book for married couples, and for marriage/young couples Bible studies. 

To buy this book go to Amazon.com. 

---

                [1] Craig Glickman, Solomon's Song of Love: Let the Song of Songs Inspire your own romantic story (Louisiana: Howard Publishing co., 2004), 7.

                [2] Glickman, Solomon's Song of Love, 14.

                [3] Glickman, Solomon's Song of Love, 12.

                [4] Glickman, Solomon's Song of Love, 12.

                [5] Glickman, Solomon's Song of Love, 12.

                [6] Glickman, Solomon's Song of Love, 12.

                [7] Glickman, Solomon's Song of Love, 26, 210. Moreover, the Hebrew word mumo has cultic ramifications, for if a priest was to have a physical flaw he was to be excluded from "priestly service"(Lv 21:17-23) and the same went for animal sacrifices(Lv 22:20, 21, 25 Nu 19:2 Dt 15:21; 17:1)...  moreover, the word can be taken figuratively as a " moral blemish."(Dt 32:5)  Francis Brown et al., Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (electronic ed.; Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, 2000), 548. Keel translates this passage as "there is not flaw (מ֖וּם) in you...the term (מ֖וּם) is usually cultic, describing defects in priest or sacrifices.that arouse" the disapproval of God. Thus Solomon according to Keel is saying there is nothing about Shulamith that displeases him or that would "make him reject her and send her away."(Othmar Keel, The Song of Songs: A continental commentary (Minnesota: Augsburg Fortress Press, 1994)153.

                [8] Glickman, Solomon's Song of Love, 24-25.

                [9] Glickman, Solomon's Song of Love, 39-37.

                [10] Glickman, Solomon's Song of Love, 32.

                [11] Glickman, Solomon's Song of Love, 46-47.

                [12] Glickman, Solomon's Song of Love, 47.

                [13] Glickman, Solomon's Song of Love, 51.

                [14] Glickman, Solomon's Song of Love, 58, 62-63.

                [15] Glickman, Solomon's Song of Love, 72-75.

                [16] Glickman, Solomon's Song of Love, 76.

                [17] Glickman, Solomon's Song of Love, 83.

                [18] Glickman, Solomon's Song of Love, 84-85.

                [19] Glickman, Solomon's Song of Love, 93-94.

                [20] Glickman, Solomon's Song of Love, 94-97.

                [21] Glickman, Solomon's Song of Love, 98-104.

                [22] Glickman, Solomon's Song of Love, 112-114.

                [23] Glickman, Solomon's Song of Love, 123-124.

                [24] This would have been "Aphrodite, the goddess of love," and also the "Lady of the Mandrake." Glickman, Solomon's Song of Love, 133-134.

                [25] Glickman, Solomon's Song of Love, 145-152.

                [26] Glickman, Solomon's Song of Love, 145-152.

                [27] Glickman, Solomon's Song of Love, 133-134. Keel shows more links in the Song of Songs to the war goddess Ishtar (song 4:8; Keel, The Song of Songs, 154-159).  Meanwhile, Fox concludes that Ishtar "has no place in this song." Michael V. Fox, the Song of Songs and the Ancient Egyptian Love Songs (Wisconsin: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1985)157.

                [28] Lebanon in the epoch of Gilgamesh is the "abode of the gods, the throne sheet of [Ishtar](Keel, The Song of Songs, 155).

                [29]Leopards and lions are in many cases "attributes of female deities....especially to the warlike Ishtar"(Keel, The Song of Songs, 158).

                [30] Glickman, Solomon's Song of Love, 28.

                [31] Glickman, Solomon's Song of Love, 25.

                [32] Glickman, Solomon's Song of Love, 12.

                [33] Keel, The Song of Songs, 158.

________________________________________________

Bibliography

Brown, Francis et al., Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon. electronic ed.; Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, 2000.

Fox, Michael V.  The Song of Songs and the Ancient Egyptian Love Songs. Wisconsin: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1985.

Glickman, Craig. Solomon's Song of Love: Let the Song of Songs Inspire Your Own Romantic Story. Louisiana: Howard Publishing co., 2004.

Keel, Othmar. The Song of Songs: A Continental Commentary. Minnesota: Augsburg Fortress Press, 1994.

ANCIENT LOVE SONGS AND POETRY COMPARED TO SONG OF SONGS

        The Ancient Near East has a wide variety of love poems and songs - ranging from Sumerian sacred marriage texts, the Song of Songs, the Egyptian love songs, and the occasional declaration of love/passionate desire of Ugaritic poetry. Not only does each of these cultures have different styles of poetry, but they also attach different meanings to words like love and marriage. Moreover, each culture's love songs served different purposes in their culture. However, although these literary works encapsulated the norms of their cultures well, none of these works were quite as profound and passionate as the Hebraic Song of Songs. Admittedly, the Song of Songs does share some themes of love with similar literature of the Ancient Near East, yet many of these overlapping themes do not have the same meaning, usage, or context as other Ancient Near Eastern cultures.  Thus, while there are some similarities between the Song of Songs and the ancient Egyptian and Sumerian literature, the Song of Songs is still a separate piece of literary work, with certain unique attributes that make it unlike any other.

The Purpose of Love Songs in the Ancient Near East

            When reading through Egyptian and Sumerian love poetry and the Song of Songs, one thing becomes quite clear - they all served quite different functions. The Sumerian love songs were epic

Dumuzi

literature around the idea of sacred marriage. Moreover, they were not really love songs, but "Sexual lyric[s]" or "sex poetry."[1] The sacred marriage was where gods Dumuzi (Amaushumgalanna)[2] and Inanna (Ishtar[3])[4] would perform some cultic ritual through human participants - usually a king and a priestess. The pair would perform "sexual acts that were supposed to restore fertility to the sun-scorched earth."[5]   The function of this sacred marriage by Inanna and Dumuzi or Baal and Anet was to make some form of sexual bond or love connection. This love connection will directly affect the fertility of the land and of individuals. Both Egyptian love poetry and the Song of Songs do not fit this concept of Sumerian love literature.

            The Egyptian songs were secular and used for "diversions" or for individuals and groups in the form of "entertainment."[6] While fertility was an important issue for the Egyptian people, there was no connection to a sacred marriage ritual fertility cult in Egyptian literature.[7]  Like the Song of Songs, the Egyptian love songs were based on the relationship and interaction between lovers, rather than on the topic of gods and their affect on fertility.

            The Song of Songs is also a love song, with no religious overtones relating to the cultic sacred marriage. However, this has not stopped scholars from trying to link the Song of Songs to these rituals. One idea that was postulated by Theophile Meek was that the reason why the Song of Songs was not admitted into the cannon immediately and then allegorized, was because it was linked to the "Tammuz-Ishtar cult," which was then unpopular because the prophets created an unfavorable view of the cult.[8] He basically goes through the text looking for words to link to this theory. The theory is also based on the Hebrew word dod (דּוֹד), which is translated throughout the song as "my beloved." Meek argues that the word dod is not properly translated as "my beloved," but that this is a name of a god, which can be "variously rendered Dod, Dad, dodo, Dadu, and ...Addu or Adad, the Palestinian counterpart of Tammuz."[9] He would interpret these passages then as "my Dod" and that is similar to "my Damu" or "My Tammuz."[10] Furthermore, Meek interprets metaphorical language as literal. For example, he understands Song of Songs 4:8 to be the bride literally living in the mountains, or being from the mountains, rather than understanding it as the author comparing his beloved to the sex symbol of the day.[11] The inherent flaw of Meek's arguments is that he is looking for parallels[12] in the love and passions found in the sacred marriage text. This is very possible, because it is in the very nature of the literature to convey themes like love, passion desire, gardens, praise for the lover and so on. At the end of the day the "song never alludes to myth or ritual."[13]

            In general, the Song of Song seems to also be a secular song, like the love songs of the Egyptian. However, the song is a part of the inspired Word of God and is categorized in the wisdom literature. It should be translated literally within it historical context.  Thus, the Song of Songs is probably best understood to be an “instruction on and celebration of [the] physical nature of human beings…extol[ling] the God-ordained goodness and virtue of sexual love between man and woman united in matrimony.”[14] Moreover, the Song of Songs is a biblical explanation of what biblical love can and should be like, and that it is indeed biblical to enjoy both physical and emotional intimacy with one's husband/wife in marriage.

The Thematic Similarity of Longing

            In the Ancient Near East as in any other time period in history, there are passions and emotions that embody universal aspects of humanity. Love songs are perfect case studies for these specific universal emotional aspects like passion, longing and desire. Yet, just because these themes overlap does not mean that they must be conveying the same cultural, religious or even cultic understanding contained in the text. Rather, these songs, by their very genre, convey human nature; specifically, the aspect of love, which is an emotion which would be understood by today's readers just as much as readers of the past.

            They all have songs of desire or longing.  For instance, in one of the Egyptian love songs, there is a boy who wishes he was a specific girl's door keeper so that he could be closer to her. He also wishes to get her angry so that he can hear her voice. It states,

(A)The mansion of (my) sister: her entry is in the middle of her house, her double-doors are open, her latch-blot drawn back, and (my sister incensed! (B) If only I were appointed door keeper, I'd get her angry at me! Then i'd hear her voice when she was incensed--(as) a child in fear of her![15] (P Harris 500, group A: No 7)

            Then there is an Egyptian love song of a girl who misses her love and longs for him - so much that she even goes to seek him out, possibly because she is afraid she has lost him to another woman.[16] It states,

(A) My heart thought of your love, while (only) half my side-locks were done up. (B) I have come hastily to seek you, the back of my hairdo [loose]. (C) My cloths and my tresses have been ready all the while.[17] (P. Harris 500, group B: No 16)

            Out of the Sumerian love songs that were found, there seems to be only one where the main actor of the literary piece genuinely is missing or longing for a lover. This proves to be rare, since Sumerian love songs are based off cultic fertility rituals and that leaves little room to depict passionate longing. In the song "Oh That I Might Know the Way to my Beloved (DI R)" there are three fragmentary sources. Source A states,

Oh that I might know the way of the bridegroom, my milk, my cream! Oh that I might know the way to my Amausum, my milk, my cream! Oh that I might know the way to Amausumgalanna, my milk, my cream! O that I might know the way to the rushes, to my milk, my milk! Oh that I might know the way to the poplar, the cool place, (to) my milk ! Oh that I might know the way to the inus-plant, the purifying plant, (to) my milk ! Oh that I might know the way to the meadow, the freezing place, (to) my milk ! Oh that I might know the way to the pure sheepfold, my bridegroom's Sheepfold! Oh that I might know the way to the pure sheepfold, my Dumuzi's sheepfold

This passage is about Inanna longing for her bridegroom who is portrayed as the farmer and sheepherder. The problem is that the groom is missing, which is depicted in section b of this fragment of text. This portion of text alludes that the groom was handed over to the "evil ones", which might indicate a reference to the underworld.

Baal-Ugaritic  God

            This also could be a parallel to the mythological love presented in the Baal Cycle where Baal's love, Anat, longs for him after he dies and goes to the underworld. For example, this mythological poem shows the longing of the goddess Anat, who like the girl above, is seeking out her love. However, in this case, Baal has not left Anat, but he has descended into the underworld. In the Baal Cycle Anat[19] states,

[A day, two days] pass, and [Maiden Anat] seeks him. Like the heart of the c[ow] for her calf, like the heart of the ew[e] for her lamb, so is the heart of an[at] for Baal. She grabs Mo[t] by the hem of his garment, she seizes [him] by the edge of his cloak. she raises her voice and [cri]es: "You, O Mot, give up my brother, "...A day, two day pass from days to months Maiden Anat seeks him. Like the heart of a cow for her calf, like the heart of the ewe for her lamb, so is the heart of Anat for Baal. She seizes Divine Mot, with a sword and splits him, with a sieve she winnows him. With fire she burns him, with millstones she grinds him, in a field she sows him. The birds eat his flesh, fowl devour his parts, flesh to flesh cries out. [20]

This passage seeks to depict the goddess Anat, longing for her love,

Anet-Ugaritic goddes

although the passion shown is monotonous. It is not as obvious until you see how she reacts to the loss of her love Baal to Mot[21] in the underworld. Anat in response to her loss, seizes Mot and splits him in half and burns him, and feeds him to the birds, because of her longing love for Baal that is not satisfied because he is gone.

            Song of Songs 3:1-2 also depicts this powerful emotion of longing. Moreover, Othmar Keel seems to think that this passage directly parallels with the Ball cycle text above, and that this particular song was originally written to a goddess and modified. Song of Songs 3:1-2(ESV) states, "On my bed by night I sought him whom my soul loves; I sought him, but found him not. I will rise now and go about the city, in the streets and in the squares; I will seek him whom my soul loves. I sought him, but found him not." As in the previous songs, this passage also shows a passion a longing desire that the players in these works have towards the ones they loved. Furthermore, even though Keel compares Song of Song 3:1 specifically to the goddess Anet, when looking at the greater context, it is doubtful that this conclusion can be made from so few lines.  Fox, on the other hand, compares this passage to the Egyptian Text P. Harris 500 group B: No13 section c, which states, "For are you not health and life (itself)? The approach [of your face will give (me)]joy for your health, (for) my heart seeks you."[22] The key here is that her heart misses her beloved so much that she is sick without him. This concept of being sick in love also parallels Song of Songs 5:8.

Differences Among Ancient Near East Love Songs

            The first major difference was their understanding of love, as the Sumerians and Akkadians had a sense that love could be directed towards anything; thus, love can be directed at people, things, places, animals and even abstract nouns.[23] For instance, "Ishtar is said to have had an affair with her horse and Sin was in love with his cow."[24] Meanwhile, the Hebrew word for love (אַהֲבָה) is used to refer to humans or a love between a man and a woman, and to refer to Yahweh's love for his people.[25] Westenholz also makes an interesting point that the Hebrew concept of love was one that is "limited to children, spouses, and God, while parents are to be 'honored' rather than loved."[26] Meanwhile, the Egyptian view of love was "an emotion that is generally expressed" quite hierarchically - from the top down, where people were to be in reverential awe or respect for those over them - whether it be gods or kings.[27]

            Second, there is a difference in several key futures of these love songs. For instance, in the Sumerian text there is a song titled the "The Lovers' Quarrel (DI I)" where Inanna is fighting with her groom - basically belittling him because of his inferior lineage.[28] This theme is not found in either the Song of Songs or in Egyptian love poetry. This clearly contradicts the Song especially when compared to Song of Songs 6:3ab which states, “I am my beloveds and my beloved is mine.” This passage conveys a sense of humility and mutual love given by both parties.
            Moreover, the Sumerian love songs tended to be centered almost entirely on something to do with fertility - whether it is preparing for harvest, or preparing a bed for sex, or sex, itself. Egyptian literature does not fit thematically with the context of the cultic practices of the Inanna-Dumuzi cult. Nor does the Song of Songs convey the concepts found within Inanna-Dumuzi cultic practices, whether one understands the Song as an anthology or a unity. While Solomon is a king, there is no proof that Shulamith is a priestess. Rather, Shulamith was instead some princess from some nomadic people.  

            Furthermore, the Egyptian love songs also have several problematic themes. One of the clearest examples of this is the "love trap" theme.[29] It is in essence a theme where a girl ensnares her lover. This concept can also be seen in the Sumerian love song, "Love by the light of the moon (DI H)," where not only does the maiden gets seduced, but her lover then teaches her to lie to her mother.[30] This theme is clearly not found within the text of Song of Songs. In fact, just as there is no cultic theme in the Song of Songs, Egyptian love poetry does not have cultic themes either. According to Hector Patmore, "Two of the most prominent themes of canticles, the seeking of the beloved...and the invitation of the one lover to another to come away....are entirely absent in the Egyptian corpus."[31] 

            Another clearly noticeable difference is that the word "brother" is never used in reference to the male lover in the Song of Songs. On the other hand, "brother", is used many times in both Egyptian and Sumerian love literature in reference to male lovers and all three use the word, "sister" to refer to female lovers. Furthermore, Egyptian love poetry only consists of monologues; there are no examples of dialogue at all in the poetry.[32]

Conclusion

            In conclusion, the Song of Songs is a unique and individual love song that has incorporated many foreign elements into it. This can be seen by the sheer number of foreign concepts that are not even present in the ancient Sumerian or Egyptian songs, and by the manner in which the Song incorporates facets of all three cultures within its text. An example of this can be seen in Song of Songs 4:9 where the Hebrew word mumo (מוּם) meaning blemish is used, which brings with it Jewish cultic ramifications. The word deals with both inner and outer purity. For example, if a priest was to have a physical flaw, he was to be excluded from "priestly service"(Lv 21:17-23) and the same went for animal sacrifices (Lv 22:20, 21, 25 Nu 19:2 Dt 15:21; 17:1).[33] Furthermore, the word can be taken figuratively to mean a "moral blemish."(Dt 32:5).[34] The Song also incorporates aspects of Sumerian love poetry. For instance, when Solomon in Song of Songs is asking Shulamith to come down from the mountains which are in Lebanon, this is a reference to Ishtar's throne or home, which is referenced in the Epic of Gilgamesh.[35]Moreover, Solomon gives reference to leopards and lions and both are related to Inanna/Ishtar.[36] In fact, in the Sumerian love song, "She Painted Her Eyes with Kohl (DI E1)," Ishtar is actually riding a lion.[37]

       In the end, the Song of Songs is a perfect example of how Solomon utilized his knowledge of the cultural realities of his day. Solomon's incorporation of these realities into the Song shows the expansion of thought and understanding that went beyond the basic concepts found in both the Egyptian loves songs and the Sumerian sacred marriage text. Therefore, because of this incorporation and loosely fit unity strung together with dialogue, this makes the Song of Songs the most unique and distinct masterpiece of Ancient Near Eastern love literature. 

            

---

                [1]Gonzalo Rubio, "Inanna and Dumuzi: a Sumerian Love Story," JAOS 121, 2(2001):268.

                [2] Inanna originally was the goddess of date storehouses and she would then marry Amaushumgalanna, the god of date harvesters, hence why Inanna is considered the "goddess of storehouses";  Dumuzi was the god of the shepherds, eventually both Dumuzi and Amaushumgalanna became interchangeable names. Also combined the "divine pair Dumuzi-Inanna." becomes the "goddess of rain."Yiṣḥāq Sefātî, Love Songs in Sumerian Literature: Critical Edition of the Dumuzi-Inanna Songs.( Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan Univ. Press, 1998)80.

                [3] Ishtar is inanna's Akkadian Counterpart, Joan Goodinck Westenholz, "Love Lyrics from the Ancient Near East," in Civilizations of the Ancient Near East  vol 2.  (ed. J. Sasson; Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson, 2000)2471.

                [4] Inanna's original name was "queen of the date clusters" and later "Queen of heaven"( Ṣefātî, Love Songs, 79-80, or  "lady of Heaven'(nin.an.ak)"/"'Lady of the date Clusters'(nin.ana.ak)" Abusch, "Ishtar," DDD,(Liden: Brill, 1998)452.   Overall, Inanna/Ishtar is basically a goddess of love, war, sex, fertility, passion and anger.  Julye M. Bidmead, "Ishtar", in Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible ( ed. David Noel Freedman et al.; Michigan: W.B. Eerdmans, 2000), 654.

                [5] Michael V. Fox, The Song of Songs and the Ancient Egyptian Love Songs (Wisconsin: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1985) 244.

                [6] Fox, Ancient Egyptian Love Songs, 244.

                [7] Fox, Ancient Egyptian Love Songs, 239-240.

                [8] Theophile James Meek, "Canticles and the Tammuz Cult," AJSL 39,9(1922):2-3.

                [9] Meek, "Canticles," 4-5.

                [10]Meek, "Canticles," 5.

                [11] Meek, "Canticles," 7.

                [12]Others who argue for parallels that link the Song of Songs to Ugaretic text would be, Jerrold S. Copper, who links Song of Songs 5:10-16 with, "the 'second sign' of the 'Message of Ludingira," and Song of Songs 4:12-15 with "the 'third sign,' of the "Message of Ludingira." Jerrold S. Cooper, "New Cuneiform Parallels to the Song of Songs," JBL 90, 2(1971)157-162.      The problem with these comparisons is that again the comparison is scant; you are taking a song that is not meant to be an epic/mythological and comparing it to a mythological figure. 2. Again just because a passage mentions mountains, gold, ivory and so on does not mean that they are intrinsically linked.
                Then there is Loren Fisher and Brent Knutson who builds off Meek's arguments. They argued that, Text 603 (rs 24.245) is supposedly one love song mixed in with other liturgical/magical text. The gist of the argument is that there is possibly a physical depiction of Baal that uses key words like head(2), eyes, leg, mouth, and the beloved. It is because of these key words found on this Ugarit fragment that Fisher and Knutson find Baal's enthronement love song possibly  parallel to Song of Songs 5:10-16. This leads to the idea that the Song of Songs was inspired by an ancient sacred marriage text. Loren R. Fisher & F. Brent Knutson, "An Enthronement Ritual at Ugarit," JNES 28, 3 (1969):157-167.   The problem with Fisher and Knutson's argument is that 1: this is a love song to Baal supposedly given by Anet, who celebrates her love for Baal with a cannibalistic feast after slaughtering people before cleaning up and then playing love music in passionate desire for Baal. Simon B. Parker,"The Baal Cycle," in Ugaritic Narrative Poetry, (trnas. M. S. Smith vol 9 in the SBL Writings from the Ancient World Series; Georgia: Scholars Press, 1997 )107-109.  The fact is many of these text have parallels that were probably imported into Israel and possibly influenced the imagery in the Song that said, the themes in the Ugaritic text and Sumerian text predominantly are dealing with fertility cults or the mythological love between gods. Neither of these two major themes of Sumerian poetry is found in the text of Song of Songs beyond metaphorical language and that is within the context of a love song between two lovers, no more.

                [13] Fox, Ancient Egyptian Love Songs, 242.

                [14]Andrew Hill & John Walton, A survey of the Old Testament, (Michigan:Zondervan, 2009):475.

                [15] Fox, Ancient Egyptian Love Songs, 14.

                [16] Fox, Ancient Egyptian Love Songs, 25.

                [17] Fox, Ancient Egyptian Love Songs, 25.

                [18] Ṣefātî, Love Songs, 239.

                [19] Anet is a Warrior Goddess, "Daughter of El", and sister/lover of Baal (Parker, "Glosary," in Ugaritic Narrative Poetry, 246.)

                [20] Parker,"The Baal Cycle," in Ugaritic Narrative Poetry, 155-156.

                [21] Mott is the "god of death and the underworld," and is the enemy of Baal. (Parker, "Glosary," in Ugaritic Narrative Poetry, 250.)

                [22] Fox, Ancient Egyptian Love Songs, 22.

                [23] Westenholz, "Love Lyrics from Ancient Near East", in Sasson, Civilizations, 2471.

                [24] Westenholz, "Love Lyrics from Ancient Near East", in Sasson, Civilizations, 2471.

                [25] Francis Brown et al.," אַהֲבָה" , BDB (electronic ed.; Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, 2000), 13.

                [26] Westenholz, "Love Lyrics from Ancient Near East", in Sasson, Civilizations, 2472.

                [27] Westenholz, "Love Lyrics from Ancient Near East", in Sasson, Civilizations, 2472.

                [28] Ṣefātî, Love Songs, 197,201.

                [29] Fox, Ancient Egyptian Love Songs, 289-290.

                [30] Ṣefātî, Love Songs, 185-193.

                [31] Hector Patmore, "'The Plain and Literal Sense': On Contemporary Assumptions about the Song of Songs," VT 56, 2 (2006), 240.

                [32] Patmore, "The Plain and Literal Sense," 240; and: Michael Fox, "Love Passion, and Perception in Israelite and Egyptian Love Poetry," JBL 102, 2 (1983).220.

                [33] Francis Brown et al.," מוּם " , BDB, 548.

                [34] Francis Brown et al.," מוּם " , BDB, 548.

                [35] Othmar Keel, The Song of Songs: A continental commentary (Minnesota: Augsburg Fortress Press, 1994)155.

                [36]Keel, The Song of Songs, 158.

                [37] Sefātî, Love Songs ,313,316.

_________________________________

Bibliography

Abusch, T. "Ishtar," Pages 452-56. Dictionary of Demons and Deities in the Bible, Liden: Brill, 1998.

Bidmead, J. M. "Ishtar", Pages 654 in Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible.. David Noel Freedman et al. ed; Michigan: W.B. Eerdmans, 2000.

Brown, F. et al., Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon. electronic ed.; Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, 2000.

Cooper, J. S.  "New Cuneiform Parallels to the Song of Songs," Journal of Biblical Literature 90, 2(1971)157-162.

Fisher, L. and Knutson, L. "An Enthronement Ritual at Ugarit," Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 28, 3 (1969):157-67.

Fox, M. The Song of Songs and the Ancient Egyptian Love Songs . Wisconsin: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1985.

Fox, M. "Love Passion, and Perception in Israelite and Egyptian Love Poetry," Journal of Biblical Literature 102, 2 (1983):219-228.

Keel, O. The Song of Songs: A continental commentary, Minnesota: Augsburg Fortress Press, 1994.

Patmore, H. "'The Plain and Literal Sense': On Contemporary Assumptions about the Song of Songs," Vetus Testamentum 56, 2 (2006), 239-250.

Hill, H. and Walton, J. A survey of the Old Testament, Michigan: Zondervan, 2009.

Meek, T. J. "Canticles and the Tammuz Cult," The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literature 39,9(1922):1-14.

Parker, S. B. ed. "The Baal Cycle,"  Pages 87-176 in Ugaritic Narrative Poetry, Translated by M. S. Smith vol 9 in the SBL Writings from the Ancient World Series; Georgia: Scholars Press, 1997.

Rubio, G. "Inanna and Dumuzi: a Sumerian Love Story," Journal of the American Oriental Society 121, 2(2001):268-74.

Sefātî, Y. Love Songs in Sumerian Literature: Critical Edition of the Dumuzi-Inanna Songs. Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan Univ. Press, 1998.

Westenholz, J. G. "Love Lyrics from the Ancient Near East," Pages 2471-2484 in Civilizations of the Ancient Near East  vol 2.  J. Sasson ed; Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson, 2000.