The Desire of King Solomon’s Woman

Scriptural Sensuality:
Excerpt, Song of Solomon,
attributed to King Solomon

“I am the rose of Sharon, and the lily of the valleys.
As the lily among thorns, so is my love among the daughters.
As the apple tree among the trees of the wood, so is my beloved among the sons.
I sat down under his shadow with great delight, and his fruit was sweet to my taste.
He brought me to his banqueting house, and his banner over me was love.
Stay with me flagons, comfort me with apples:
for I am sick with love.
His left hand is under my head, and his right hand doth embrace me.
I charge you, O ye daughters of Jerusalem,
by the roes, and by the hinds of the field,
that ye stir not up, nor wake my love,
till he please.”

To quote Mel Brooks in "History of the World: Part I": It's good to be the king!

Lol, Bass. Very good!

HG

Hey HG,

Interesting that the song is written from the perspective of a woman, yet it's attributed to her male lover.

That's not weird at all...

Hey Bass - Good Morning...

The passage I posted above is one of many passages written from the woman’s perspective in the book of Song of Solomon, from the OT.

The entire book is like one long, intimate back-and-forth love letter between the nameless woman and King Solomon, who contributes his own fair share of poetic lovemaking throughout the story.

So while the book “Song of Solomon” is attributed to the King’s writings, it’s most definitely a compilation of both his own thoughts & desires and of the dreams & desires of the woman who loved him. Quite a story.

Enjoy your day...
HG

Good morning HG,

Thanks for the exegesis. Actually, I'd read the Song of Solomon, but it was decades ago. I don't remember much of it, except that, at the time I read it, it seemed an odd inclusion to canonical scripture. Nowadays, I read the Bible - especially the New Testament - from the perspective of an amateur historian.

The Song of Solomon is definitely an interesting read. Alhough I do remember wondering what woman's perspective was being written about, as it's my understanding that Solomon (if he actually existed) had several wives, as was the custom then.

Still, nice to know that the ancient Hebrews, though severely homophobic, weren't as hung up on sex as we unfortunately are today.

Hey Bass...

Amateur NT historian? How cool. Here’s a few names you may or may not be familiar with- all NT historical scholars:

Gary Habermas
Mike Licona
the late Dr. Nabeel Qureshi

Check out their works, at your leisure, if interested.

And yes, you’re right about the identity of the woman from Song of Solomon; we’ll probably never know her name, only the specifics we’ve been given. Solomon was prolific; she could have been one from many hundreds.

HG

Hi HG,

Thanks for the referrals. I'll have to their writings.

My study of the NT is more from a historical perspective, than theological. I've read and watched many of the books, articles and videos of Dr. Bart D. Ehrman of the Univ. of N. Carolina at Chapel Hill. I've also watched a few times the free online course taught by Dr. Dale B. Martin of Yale.

I've also read books and articles by other NT scholars and writers, such as E. P. Sanders ("The Historical Figure of Jesus") and Reza Aslan ("Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth"). And I've watched numerous documentaries on PBS and the History Channel on the subject.

I'm also an amateur historian of ancient Rome, which of course coincides with the life and death of Jesus. In the case of the Roman Empire, I've read and watched far too many works too list here, lol. In fact, the first book I ever read about Jesus and the NT was "Jesus: An Historian's View of the Gospels", by Michael Grant, a British historian of Roman history.

Anyhoo...Sorry for the lengthy reply, but I can get carried away discussing this stuff.

I'm also an avid reader of general audience-oriented books and videos on quantum physics, so...

Sorry, that emoji was supposed to be this one:

I really hate trying to type on my phone, lol.

Bass...

Just spent thirty minutes on a reply to your post regarding Ehrman and Aslan. Hit ‘Submit.’ And it was gone. Pffft.

Floating in the ether, just like that.
But somehow it did count as a submission, and this one is my 3/3, so I’ll get back to you tomorrow, re your post.

Enjoy your afternoon...
HG

HG,

Yeah, been there, done that. Really hate when that happens. The way I prevent it nowadays is, when I'm writing a long text/email/post, I save it first, before hitting the "send" or "submit" button. Then, if something happens and I lose it, I just paste the copy and send that.

Wow, 30 minutes on a reply to Ehrman and Aslan, eh? I'm thinking you take issue with them? I know that Ehrman is an agnostic (though a former evangelical), and Aslan is a Muslim (though also a former Christian). But as I stated earlier, my interest in the NT and early Christianity is from a historical perspective, rather a theological or devottional one.

But if my assumption was wrong, I apologize in advance. And yes, I know what assuming makes me! Lol

I also know that discussing religion is a slippery slope, and that really wasn't my intention. I just meant to expound a little on my love of history.

Enjoy your day as well.

Bass...

Good to see you back!

Will keep this shorter than my original reply to you -

I know of Ehrman and Aslan through Dr. Qureshi’s lectures, but haven’t read from either of them. Do want to read Aslan’s ‘Infidel,’ I believe it is?

Have watched Ehrman in a couple of debates; he’s very good. Believe he’s an atheist rather than an agnostic, but either way, I do know from reading up on him, and through Nabeel’s teachings, that he’s a top-notch scholar on the historical Yeshua.

Glad to see you!
HG

Hey HG!

Glad to be back, and gladder to see y'all again!

I've read only the one book by Aslan. Though it was a NYT bestseller when it was released, it pretty much just reiterated a lot of the things other scholars such as Ehrman and Martin have written, taught and debated extensively about. Historians weren't as impressed with Aslan's book, as his field of study is creative writing, as opposed to history.

Fun fact: quite a few scholars such as Ehrman started their academic training in theological studies as devout Christians seeking to better inform their faith. But they ended up becoming agnostic or atheist, as a result of studying religion in an acedemic historical context. One scholar even jokingly referred to theological school as the place where religion often goes to die.

One of the most interesting ides I've come across in my reading is an observation made by a well-known historian that religion was essentially the first science, in that it was humans' initial attempt to comprehend, interpret, communicate, predict and possibly alter natural phenomena. But without the use of the scientific method, of course, which itself wouldn't be discovered for several millenia.

Also interesting that you use Jesus' original Aramaic name. There are people today who actually believe that his real name was Jesus Christ.

Hi Bass...

I must admit, I laughed out loud at your closing sentence. (The emoji did me in lol.)

And yes... sad to say, some folks do believe just what you stated. The same folks, I think, who believe Yeshua (Jesus of Nazareth) taught from the New Testament.

Didn’t happen, did it?

Hope you have a great day, buddy!
HG

Hey HG,

Sorry for hijacking your post and turning it into a historical discourse. But the history of the Bible, especially the NT and early Christianity, really fascinate me, as I'm sure you could tell, lol.

And when you revealed your interest and knowledge of the subject - well, then, as the kids say, it was on!

Another of the interesting things I've learned is that the mindset of ancient Near Eastern people was vastly different than ours in certain respects. For instance, their concept of truth was much more elastic than ours is today. They saw it as perfectly fine to use fiction to tell a greater truth. And attaching the name of a renowned person to a work written by another, in order to lend that work greater authority, wasn't looked down upon then as it would be now.

Speaking of which - another fun fact: the Gospels were originally written anonymously. It was only centuries later when the figures Mark, Matthew, Luke and John were attributed to them, based on supposed clues in each gospel as to the author's identities, as well as conventional Christian thinking and belief.

Sorry, there I go again, lol.

Anyway, hope you have a great, productive, exciting and enlightening day as well.