The Media Desk takes a look atthe Song of Solomon

Part Three .... whatever, A Look Back.
Part One: Background and Introduction

Part Two is The Word by Word Study: Chapters 1 and 2, Chapter 3 and 4, Chapters 5 and 6, Chapters 7 and 8.

Produced by TheMediaDesk, ©2026

      It started with: The idea occurred as a question... "what is the LEAST studied book of the Old Testament?"

      Well, it did. And we found out as we went why the Song is probably the least studied book of the entire Bible.
      And we also learned something interesting, and rather disturbing when you come down to it. Which we touched on in the introduction, and will go into in some depth later here. And which some readers may find rather disturbing.

      As we mentioned in the introduction, no word for the Creator is ever used in the Song. The Jewish "Name for GOD", rendered into English as Jehovah, or the Hebrew abbreviation YHWH, or any other term for the Divine Presence is not in the text.
      Also, the Temple is never mentioned, not even a shadow of 'that place on the hill in Jerusalem'. It just isn't there.
      Nobody prays, or fasts, or makes an offering, or a sacrifice as well, it isn't even discussed as something they do. None of the Patriarchs are talked about, nor is King David or any of the Prophets. Solomon is talked about, and at least somebody is reading his part if it isn't him, but we don't think Solomon had anything to do with it (would he write a poem that makes him out to be something of a buffoon?), but still, his name is there, but he is the only identifiable person from Israel named in the book. Probably because he was the one King of Israel, even a couple of hundred years later, that everybody in Babylon would have heard of.
      Now, you'd think that that is partially explainable by the fact that the English version of the Song is just a tick over 2,500 words, depending on the translation. But you'd be hard pressed to go into any other book and go half that far without some mention of the above. As an example we turned to chapters three to five of another book that is seldom studied, Esther. They were all fasting (which in that usage also involves praying), even though there was no term for God that we saw skimming through it.
      But that look at Esther did bring up something else that isn't mentioned in Song. Although they talk about Jerusalem, you could switch the name of the city for any other important city in the region, and it would work out the same. It never mentions "the Jews", in Esther you trip over that word constantly. It isn't in the Song.

      So, we talked about what isn't in the book. Now we need to mention what is.
      Well, one, is Sex. A LOT of Sex. And booze, but mostly sex.
      Which is two things some translators and commentators have gone to great lengths to wash out of it using, to use an analogy from the Song, "all the water from the Euphrates River".

      Which brings us to the heart of the matter.
      If various translators and thinkers have gone to so much trouble to tell everybody that... well, one, the primary male and female in the book are married, which they were not, and that any passion being described is somehow not the subject of the smash hit, Grammy winning, song from 1981 by Olivia Newton John (1948 - 2022).....

verse "I'm sayin' all the things that I know you'll like, Makin' good conversation
I gotta handle you just right, You know what I mean
I took you to an intimate restaurant Then to a suggestive movie, There's nothin' left to talk about
Unless it's horizontally

chorus
Let's get physical, physical
I wanna get physical....."
(Physical lyrics by Kipner and Shaddick, album by same name, released EMI/MCA, see below)

"No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says: He is always convinced that it says what he means."
- George Bernard Shaw (1856 - 1950, Nobel Prize in Literature, 1925)

      Now, as a significant number of translations, commentaries, study guides, and so on label the woman as the bride, and the man/king as the bridegroom: are they?

      OK, let's clarify the statement and add a clause:
      Is the primary female speaker either marrying, or about to marry,or is in the process thereof, whatever, and doing so knowingly and willingly, the male speaker who is, at least supposed to be, King Solomon?
      Those two "-ly" words in the middle of that question are important.

      Remember, at the time women, and especially young women, and every indication in the poem is that the woman is probably more correctly referred to as The Girl....

      Yes, the statement by the women's chorus that her breasts are not filled out is correct. She does have the secondary female sexual characteristics, but they are just beginning to 'swell' and are still quite firm and 'upright'. Remember, she describes them as towers. So while she is 'a woman' in that she may have already begun menstruation, she is far from being a 'woman of the city' such as those in the chorus, and while her youthful beauty is obvious, she may not have all the 'street smarts' she should, as demonstrated by her encounter with the guards.
      Back to the 'marriage' discussion.

      .... 'the Girl' would be the property of her father until he married her off somewhere in her middle teens (girls as young as 12 were routinely married to men who were 'established', twenties to thirties). And if her father were no longer available, then she would be under the guardianship of her brother, especially an older brother, or an uncle, grandfather, whatever, first from her father's side of the family, and then, in turn, from her mother's family, and failing those, her mother would do the job. Whichever of them was doing the job of speaking for her, as is mentioned in chapter 8, they could decide that the Shepherd wasn't good enough for her, and, perhaps, had "taken bids" on the pretty girl, and sold her to whoever made the highest offer. And, who could outbid the king?

      That explains his repeated references to his own wealth, and the procession we have mentioned in chapter 3. He isn't in the procession as a newlywed, he's arriving to claim his property.
      It also explains why she is so lovesick for her Shepherd. She may never see him again as she is essentially under guard in the palace, and her dream of going out into the city and countryside to find her boyfriend was exactly that, a dream that will never be realized.
      So while the king is totally enamored with her (at least for now) she can barely stand the sight of him, meanwhile she pines away for her boyfriend. Until, in the end, she essentially tells him to run off and forget about her.

      Not exactly the most romantic of scenarios to be sure, but it fits both the text and the times.

      And now a question that somebody is going to ask: "was the woman/girl a virgin?"
      And the answer is simply, we don't know. She is described as being 'pure' with several rather poetic terms in verse nine of chapter six, but that doesn't definitively make the case either way. Given the relationship with the Shepherd that we do know about.... we're not going to speculate either way.
      And, to the king.... with the swarm of wives and concubines that he admits to in the middle of chapter six. From 1 Kings 11 we know he had "700 royal wives and 300 concubines", it is worth mentioning here that those round numbers mean "a lot" and that nobody really had any idea how many women there were in the palace. ... What's one more? Virgin or not?

      Which comes into play with the word "Shulammite" later in chapter six. There is a working theory that the term is a play on the name of Solomon and simply indicates that the girl is his latest favorite from a long line of similar women.
      And while she Was NOT of a royal or noble family, she was probably a 'regular wife' instead of a royal wife, and she may have been a Concubine, which was barely one step above a slave.

      And now the part that may upset some people.
      As we saw during the intense study, some of the words used in Hebrew do not mean what several translations claim they do, in some cases, the meaning is a 'shade of gray' or can mean several different things depending on the context, and the translations take the 'easy' way or perhaps 'the less offensive' way out. There's also phrases that have had the meaning altered, as well as the attributions of who is speaking that are not in the text, and that, as we saw in the introduction, which even the ancient Jewish scholars couldn't agree on.
      But it is the intentional translation of text that is not supported by the original language that is most irritating. And we have an example or two to trot out and talk about.

      In chapter three verse nine, most translations say that Solomon had made himself a chariot or carriage. The Hebrew word there is "appiryon", and while it means a mode of transport, it has nothing to do with wheels. The word means a "litter" or "sedan chair" or, in Portuguese a "palanquin", which is a very ornate sedan chair, complete with awnings to provide shade. Why did the translators repeat the error that others made before them. Let's trace the translation through history and see where it originates.
      Jerome of Stridon (342 - 420) got it right in the Vulgate. He used the word "ferculum" (litter) for what Solomon made (see link below for this and the others).

And this from the 1560 Geneva Bible:
"King Salomon made himself a palace (footnote: or chariot) of the trees of Lebanon."

And then the 1611 King James:
"King Solomon made himselfe a charet of the wood of Lebanon."

The 1946 Revised Standard says:
"King Solomon made himself a palanquin from the wood of Lebanon."

However the 1973 New International Version has it:
"King Solomon made for himself the carriage; he made it of wood from Lebanon."

      Another term that the meaning was changed dramatically was when the king invited his friends over for a weekend bender early in chapter five. The one we explained with a Jackie Gleason quote.

      That is exactly the meaning of the word "shakar". But it wouldn't do to have your Bible telling you that King Solomon wants you to come to a party and end up face down on the carpet would it?
      Do these two examples, and a handful of others that we highlighted in the study actually matter? Honestly? NO. Not in the least given the book they are in. But, then again, they do.

      Let's get to the point and end this before we have a belt and salute The Great One.

      If various translators, and the committees they belonged to, and the bosses at the denominational offices who oversaw their work.... and yes, that happened...
      If They altered the terms used in specific parts to make some scenes in The Song of Solomon, shall we say, Less Interesting and conform to what THEY think it Should Say. And, even worse, to preserve the fiction that Biblical figures were 'better' than us instead of being Real People.....

Selected Resources: all links will open in new tab/page.
All were working as of date of original posting:

The Hebrew / English Interlinear https://biblehub.com/interlinear/songs/1.htm

St Jerome's Latin Vulgate: "ferculum fecit sibi rex Salomon de lignis Libani." https://vulgate.org/ot/songofsolomon_3.htm

The one the Pilgrims read: The 1560 Geneva Bible http://www.genevabible1560.com/pdf/Old%20Testament/SONGofSALOMON.pdf

The 1611 King James Bible https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Song-of-Solomon-Chapter-3/

Revised Standard Version https://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Revised-Standard-Version-RSV-Bible/

The NIV https://biblehub.com/niv/songs/3.htm

"It is thus considered the duty of every Israelite to marry as early in life as possible."
https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/10435-marriage-laws

More about the song that spent ten weeks at Number One, and sold nearly three million copies worldwide.
Olivia's "Physical". https://www.grammy.com/news/olivia-newton-john-gets-physical/

NOTE: The Discussion presented above is posted as a reference document to begin a conversation of the topic. And that's it. Please accept it at such.