A COMPARISON OF WISDOM LITERATURE: AMEN-EM-OPET AND PROVERBS

You can access the PDF For this post by clicking here

Structural and Thematic Parallels to Proverbs 1-9

First, Proverbs 1-9 and Amen-em-opet both have what would be considered long introductions.  They both have titles in the introduction. For example, Proverbs 1:1 states, “The proverbs of Solomon, Son of David, King of Israel:” (ESV). This first verse clearly states who the author is followed by two titles one as being the song of David, and the King of Israel.  The parallels in Amen-em-opet are a bit longer. It states,

[M]ade by the Overseer of the Grains [and PROVIDER] of foods … The triumphant one of akhimim, possessor of a tomb on the west of Panopolis, possessor of a grave in Abydos, Amen-em-Opet, the Son of Ka-nakht, the triumphant one of Abydos…(ANET,421).[1]

This is just a portion of the introduction’s title. Like Solomon, it gives Amen-em-opet’s title along with his predecessors. It is important to note that since King David was the most powerful emperor/king of Israel and Solomon the second most powerful; there was no reason for them to have a long list of predecessors. Moreover, Saul was more of a nomadic king; Solomon and David were probably the only two real kings of united Israel that we were not failures.

            Second, the prologs also have a thematic link, even though structurally Proverbs is long and Amen-em-opet is short. They both talk about hearing some type of truth or wisdom that needs to be heeded. Proverbs 1:2-7 shows where the author is imploring the hearer to take wisdom and “understand” it. This theme is strewn throughout the prolog of Proverbs.[2] This same theme is paralleled in chapter 1 of the Amen-em-opet. It states,

Give thy ears, hear what is said,

Give thy heart to understand them.     

To put them in thy heart is worth while,

(but) it is damaging to him who neglects them.

Let them rest in the casket of thy belly,

That they may be a key in thy heart. (ANET, 421).

This is an interesting passage, because first it calls for the listener to use their ears to hear. This is common language in ancient text when the author or teacher is trying to convey knowledge that he or she wanted those no only to hear but to preserve it in his or her hearer’s heart.[3] People in the old and New Testament time periods perceived a person more from the inside rather than the outside. The heart was the center of their emotions not the mind.  

            Finally, Amen-em-opet and Proverbs both have several forms of parallelism. This can be seen in the quote above. It progresses from the ears to hearing which then leads to the heart for understanding. A reason/purpose statement where the first statement is positive and the second statement is negative follows this understanding. Simply put, it has several forms of parallelism that are also found within Proverbs.

Comparison of Proverbs 22:17-24:22

            As noted in the previous section there is a thematic comparison between the prolog of Amen-em-opet Chapter 1 and specific passages in Proverbs 22:17-24:22. For example, Proverbs 22:17-18 states: “Incline your ear, and hear the words of the wise, and apply your heart to my knowledge, for it will be pleasant if you keep them within you” and Proverbs 23:15 states, “My son, if your heart is wise, my heart too will be glad.” (ESV).  This seems to introduce a new section within Proverbs as in subsections; just as Proverbs 1-9 is the prolog which introduces the book.  This is something that is not found within Amen-em-opet. While Amen-em-opet does have the prolog introduction to head the wisdom, it does not have a repetitive call to wisdom.

            Another clear theme is that both Amen-em-opet and Proverbs oppose robbing the poor. Proverbs states, “Do not rob the poor, because he is poor, or crush the afflicted at the gate. For the Lord will plead their cause and rob of life those who rob them.” (22:22-23, ESV).  Meanwhile, Amen-em-opet chapter 2 states,

Guard thyself against robbing the oppressed

And against overbearing the disabled.

Stretch not forth thy hand against the approach of an old man…(ANET, 422). 

and Amen-em-opet chapter 8 which states,

Be not greedy for the property of a poor man,

nor hunger for his bread.

As for the property of a poor man, it (is)a blocking to the throat,

it makes a vomiting to the gullet….(ANET, 423).

This is a clear parallel where both Solomon and Amen-em-opet are arguing for social justice against oppressing the poor.

            Meanwhile, another theme can be found in Amen-em-opet  chapter 23 and Proverbs 23:1-7 about sitting with rulers to eat. Proverbs 23:1-4,6-7 states,

When you sit down to eat with a ruler, observe carefully what is before you, and put a knife to your throat if you are given to appetite. Do not desire delicacies, for they are deceptive food. Do not toil to acquire wealth; be discerning enough to desist. …Do not eat the bread of a man who is stingy; do not desire his delicacies, for he is like one who is inwardly calculating. “Eat and drink!” he says to you, but his heart not with you. You will vomit up the morsels that you have eaten, (ESV).

As compared to Amen-em-opet chapter 23,

Do not eat bread before a noble,

Nor lay on thy mouth at first.

If thou art satisfied with false chewings,

They are a pastime for thy spittle.

Look at the cup which is before thee,

And let it serve thy needs.

As a noble is great in his office,  

He is as a well abounds (in) the drawing (of water),…(ANET, 424).

These two sections while parallel are not exactly the same. Both passages seem to be giving a warning. Amen-em-opet directly states not to eat with a noble, meanwhile Solomon warns the hearer to be careful. Moreover, both seem to talk about how eating with the leaders. Solomon says not to eat with one who is calculating to the point where he or she will vomit what he or she ate. While Amen-em-opet states not to even eat with a ruler because it will cause false chewing and create a pastime of spittle. In other words, both seem to be claiming that eating with rulers is not so much about fellowship but saving face and acting. Whether the servant is performing false chewing or the leader is calculating, either way neither is eating for the right reasons.

 Next, the parallel theme is the command not to move the landmarks/boundary lines. Amen-em-opet chapter 6 states,

Do not carry off the landmark at the boundaries of the arable land,

Nor disturb the position of the measuring-cord;

Be not greedy after a cubit of land,

Nor encroach upon the boundaries of a window… (ANET, 422).

This is comparable to Proverbs 22:28 which states, “Do not move the ancient landmark that your fathers have set” and in Proverbs 23:10, “Do not move the ancient landmark or enter the fields of the fatherless” (ESV). Here again we see a passage dealing with social justice for the families of widows and the children whose fathers have died. In other words, do not be so greedy as to steal again from the poor.

            In conclusion, there are many parallels found within the wisdom literature of Amen-em-opet and Proverbs both structurally and thematically. As noted above, both have introductions that provide each authors titles and positions. Moreover, both had prologs, but Proverb’s prolog is long while Amen-em-opet has only one short chapter.  Finally, both have parallelism, and both introduction and the prolog are calls for the hearers to embrace wisdom or truth.

           

---

[1] Pritchard, James Bennett. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Princeton, N. J.: Univ. Press, 1971. All other references to ANET will be with text citations.

[2] The Prolog is Proverbs 1-9. This can be seen in Proverbs 1:2-7, 2:1-2, 3:1-2, 4:1-2,10-11, and so on through chapter 9. Throughout the prolog there is a common theme linking and asking the hearer to listen to the wisdom and understand and preserve the wisdom or truth in their hearts.

[3] Specific examples can be seen in the Old testament, Proverbs 2:2;5:1;7:1-3  New Testament: Mathew 11:16;13:9, 43; Mark 4:9;23; Revelation 2:7, 11; 3:6,13; 13:9 and others just to name a few. 

Critical Chapter review of Divinization and Omens

Chapter review of Divinization and Omens[1]

In chapter 6 of John Walton’s book, “Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament,” he expounds on the concept of divinization and omens within the ancient Near Eastern culture. In contrast to today’s secular western culture, the people of the ancient near east would have had no concept of a separation of church or state within their world view (239). Rather, the sacred was an integral part of their day to day life (239).  This is most likely a result of the fact that divinization and omens played an epistemological role that was a handbook or “Guide for life” (239-240). Walton breaks down both divinization and omens down by type, practitioners and function.

Walton breaks down divinization into two forms - inspired and deductive.  Inspired divinization is where the divine entity takes the initiative to establish communication with its people through a messenger (like a prophet) or a dream (240). Moreover, Walton   divides divinizations between official prophecy and informal prophecy (240-241).  Official prophecy is where a professionally trained prophet or messenger relays a message and in many cases, served under the “sponsorship” of a king. Meanwhile, informal prophecy was more “spontaneous and occasional” (240). Unlike official prophecy whose recipient was a king, informal prophecy was addressed to commoners. In many cases, informal prophecy was experienced through the medium of dreams. Walton explains that dreams were predominantly spontaneous. With exceptions, kings and others with power at times would sleep in “sacred” places with the goal of receiving a dream from their god (241); yet “the majority of dreams … simply came to people in the normal course of their lives” (242). Walton also makes it clear that even though many of these dreamers were not communicating with any gods, they still believed that the “gods were communicating through the symbols” within the dreams (242).

At the end of the day, the inspired divinization’s cognitive environments’ main function was not to know the gods or even the future (244). Rather, prophecies were used to bolster a theological argument for the divine right of the king to rule as he saw fit. Furthermore, dreams caused many people to seek out interpretations of them, for fear of their deity’s punishment for neglecting the dream.

Next Walton explains deductive divinization. Like inspired divinization, it is “initiated from the divine realm” (249). The difference is that the divine communication is perceived through observable “events and phenomena” (249). Deductive divinization’s cognitive environment function through what Walton calls connectiveness, control and speculative observations (249 -254). First, connectiveness is the idea that the gods communicate through patterns or symbols. These patterns would be understood as the writings of the gods and the symbols/omens were just a form of divine “alphabet” and “vocabulary” (249). The second cognitive environment, control, is the idea that these signs were meant to be interpreted to help those who could interpret them so they could “exercise some…control over the events swirling around them” (254).  Now this created a culture of speculation based on observations of the symbols/omens (254).  According to Walton there are two types of omen approaches, active and passive. Then, Walton lists the practitioners: Baru, Tupsarru, Muhhu, and Apilu(264-263).

Next, Walton show how magic links magic is directly linked to the concept of divinization. As he explains divinization is about gaining knowledge, while magic is about “exercising power” over spiritual forces to enable positive or negative outcomes for individuals (264-265). Magic practitioners would use incantations and rituals to destroy the “connective thread” that bound an individual to evil spirits (265).

In conclusion, Walton explains reiterates that divinization was about getting a “glimpse” of the gods and their will through the patterns of signs (267). One must realize though that the function was not about predicting the future. Instead the function of divinization was used for legitimization, action and warning.  For example, it was used to prop up kings as being the divinely chosen ruler. Furthermore, it conveyed action because it caused kings to rule as if their choices were done on the divine entities behalf or will. Then, the warnings were more about causing people to change their ways to prevent the predicted judgment. Walton explains that divinization was not about certainty but rather to a provisional of guidelines or directions for how one should chose to live their life (269-270).  Then, Walton shows the sheer contrast the Ancient near east ideas on prophecy compared to Deuteronomy 18:20-22. First, Israel was to know the words Yahweh did not say (270). Second, unlike the diviners and their gods Yahweh did not want his people to be afraid of Him (270).

Analysis:

            Walton makes several good arguments. First, I agree with him that the main function was about legitimization of the king. His point is bolstered by the fact that the king’s prophets would have been sponsored by the king and on the king’s payroll (240). This conflict of interest also is exasperated by the fact that kings could use the prophecies to their advantage by claiming “that the Gods had put the king on the throne and supported his policies and activities” (268). Second, I thought it was very insightful when Walton explained that the divinization prophets played upon the “fears and aspirations of the people of Mesopotamia” (269). His best support was the fact that people would be seeking out dream interpreters to find out the will of the gods rather than miss out and have something bad happen to them (244). Thus it is logical for people to seek out these practitioners to help them find some form of control to enable these people who seemed to live in fear with a form of “psychological relief”(254).

Finally, I thought the comparison of Yahweh to the divinization prophets was correct. First, the fact that God’s people were to know when he was spoken and not spoken. Second, the fact is that the people of God did not have to live in fear of God other than His “oracles of Judgment” (270).

---

[1] Top of Form

Walton, John. Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament Introducing the Conceptual World of the Hebrew Bible. Grand Rapids: Baker Pub. Group, 2006.

Bottom of Form

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.