A Nitpicking Lover in Song of Songs 1:7

The woman in Song of Songs wishes to know where her lover will be, asking: “Why should I be like an ʿōṭǝyâ (כְּעֹטְיָה).” Translators struggle with this phrase, and suggest meanings as disparate as “be veiled like a prostitute,” “be as a wanderer,” or even “pick at my nits.” How do scholars use ancient translation, cognate words, and content to translate a word in the Bible whose meaning is so obscure?

Prof.

Marc Zvi Brettler

Prof.

Marc Zvi Brettler

Categories:

Passover

The Song of Songs, a book full of images of the spring, is traditionally read in the synagogue on the Shabbat of Passover, the spring festival.^[1] The book is a collection of monologues and dialogues, with the main speaker alternating between a young woman and young man who desire each other. One of the earliest scenes offers a playful dialogue between the woman and her lover:

^{שיר השירים א:ז} הַגִּ֣ידָה לִּ֗י שֶׁ֤אָהֲבָה֙ נַפְשִׁ֔י אֵיכָ֣ה תִרְעֶ֔ה אֵיכָ֖ה תַּרְבִּ֣יץ בַּֽצָּהֳרָ֑יִם שַׁלָּמָ֤ה אֶֽהְיֶה֙ כְּעֹ֣טְיָ֔ה עַ֖ל עֶדְרֵ֥י חֲבֵרֶֽיךָ: ^א:ח אִם לֹ֤א תֵדְעִי֙ לָ֔ךְ הַיָּפָ֖ה בַּנָּשִׁ֑ים צְֽאִי לָ֞ךְ בְּעִקְבֵ֣י הַצֹּ֗אן וּרְעִי֙ אֶת גְּדִיֹּתַ֔יִךְ עַ֖ל מִשְׁכְּנ֥וֹת הָרֹעִֽים׃

^{Song 1:7} Tell me, you whom I love so well: Where do you pasture your sheep? Where do you rest them at noon? Let me not be ^aas one who strays^a beside the flocks of your fellows. ^1:8 If you do not know, O fairest of women, go follow the tracks of the sheep, and graze your kids by the tents of the shepherds. (NJPS)

The overall meaning of the repartee is clear: The woman is looking to find her shepherd-lover, alone, away from the other shepherds, but he brushes her off. Such playfulness, including the uncertainty of whether or not the couple successfully gets together, typifies the Song.

The Unclear Word כְּעֹטְיָה

The NJPS Tanakh translation of the word כְּעֹטְיָה “as one who strays” is surrounded on both sides by a superscript “a,” leading to the most common note found in this translation: “Meaning of Heb. uncertain.” Harry Orlinsky (1908–1992), the editor-in-chief of the NJPS Torah translation, was once asked why it has so many such notes: “Couldn’t you find anyone who knew Hebrew better?”^[2]

The questioner’s inability to appreciate the difference between translating a living language and a literary (i.e., dead) language is what makes the anecdote humorous.^[3] In reality, all of the NJPS translators knew biblical Hebrew just about as well as possible, yet they were unsure of the meaning of this word, as are many other excellent Bible scholars, have called the term “difficult,”^[4] “most difficult,”^[5] or “notoriously difficult.”^[6]

Sometimes words can be difficult because their grammatical form is anomalous; other words are uncertain because the root is poorly attested in the Bible or even unique, what scholars call a hapax legomenon.^[7] But ʿōṭǝyâ is a standard feminine singular qal active participle^[8] from the root ע.ט.י,^[9] which appears 17 times in 15 verses.^[10] What makes the term ʿōṭǝyâ unclear here is that the usual meaning of the term does not work in context.^[11]

The Problem with “Wrapped”

The standard meaning of root ע.ט.י is “to wrap or cover.” Indeed, this is how the first century C.E. Greek translation of the Song in the Septuagint^[12] understands the phrase: “lest I become like one who wraps herself up” (μήποτε γένωμαι ὡς περιβαλλομένη). But what would this mean here? Why should her not knowing where her lover grazes alone, or her meeting him in front of his friends, make her like someone covered or wrapped?

Moreover, wrapped in what? Generally, the verb ע.ט.י is followed by an object specifying what the person is wrapped in. Thus, when King Saul goes to see the necromancer of Endor, she brings up Samuel:

^{שמואל א כח:יד} וַיֹּאמֶר לָהּ מַה תָּאֳרוֹ וַתֹּאמֶר אִישׁ זָקֵן עֹלֶה וְהוּא עֹטֶה מְעִיל...

^{1 Sam 28:14} [Saul] asked her: “What does he look like?” “It is an old man coming up,” she said, “and he is wrapped in a robe”…^[13]

Often, the direct object is something other than clothing. For example, the psalmist describes his foes as wrapped in reproach and disgrace:

^{תהלים עא:יג} יֵבֹשׁוּ יִכְלוּ שֹׂטְנֵי נַפְשִׁי יַעֲטוּ חֶרְפָּה וּכְלִמָּה מְבַקְשֵׁי רָעָתִי.

^{Ps 71:13} Let my accusers perish in frustration; let those who seek my ruin be wrapped in reproach and disgrace!

Other such usages refer to the person being wrapped in “jealousy” (קִנְאָה, Isa 59:17), “shame” (בּוּשָׁה or בֹּשֶׁת, Pss 89:46; 109:29), or on the positive side, “blessings” (בְּרָכוֹת, Ps 84:7) or “light” (אוֹר, Ps 104:2).^[14] The usage in Song of Songs would be anomalous in that it does not specify, unlike all the other uses, either what is covering or what is being covered.

In theory, the use in this verse could be a case of ellipsis, a “construction in which a grammatically required element [here, the covering] is omitted by the speaker of writer, thus creating a structural hole or gap.”^[15] As noted already by the Jewish medieval exegetes, ellipsis is common in biblical discourse, especially when the elided word would have been obvious from context.^[16] The scholars who take up this position assume that she is covered with a veil,^[17] and explain her veiling in two very different ways.

1. Veiled in Modesty

Some argue that she is complaining that when she visits her beloved in the presence of these other men, she must put on a veil for reasons of modesty.^[18] A prooftext used for this is the scene in which Rebecca meets Isaac for the first time:

^{בראשית כד:סה} וַתֹּ֣אמֶר אֶל־הָעֶ֗בֶד מִֽי־הָאִ֤ישׁ הַלָּזֶה֙ הַהֹלֵ֤ךְ בַּשָּׂדֶה֙ לִקְרָאתֵ֔נוּ וַיֹּ֥אמֶר הָעֶ֖בֶד ה֣וּא אֲדֹנִ֑י וַתִּקַּ֥ח הַצָּעִ֖יף וַתִּתְכָּֽס׃

^{Gen 24:65} She said to the servant, “Who is that man walking in the field toward us?” And the servant said, “That is my master.” So she took her veil and covered herself.

Apart from this verse, however, we have no evidence that ancient Israelite women wore veils. They may have worn head coverings^[19]—these are shown for both women and young girls in the reliefs showing the exile of Judahites from Lachish in 701—but these are not veils.

Badeken: A Wedding Veil

Moreover, it is unlikely that Rebecca is depicted as veiled out of modesty. Yet, if wearing a veil was a form of modesty expected of women, it is strange that she doesn’t wear one throughout the trip, despite being with Abraham’s servant and all the other attendant men, but only puts it on when she sees Isaac.

Thus, R. David Zvi Hoffman suggests in his commentary that this is a pre-marriage ritual: בנוכחות החתן על הכלה להיות רעולה “in the presence of the groom, the bride should be veiled.” This custom, called in Yiddish badeken (literally “covering”), which is still practiced in many circles to this day, was common in the ancient world. Hoffmann even notes that the Latin term nūbēre means both “to cover/veil” and “to marry.”

One recent proposal, noting the connection between veils and marriage, suggests that Song 1:7 means that “she fears marrying a man other than her chosen lover.”^[20] Yet it seems far-fetched to read her comment as a threat that he had better tell her where he is, or she will go marry one of his shepherd-buddies.

2. Veiled Like a Prostitute

The other interpretation of her complaint using the definition “covered with a veil” is based on the assumption that sex-workers wore veils, and that “why should I be wrapped [in a veil]” means something like “why should I make myself look like a prostitute?”^[21] This assumption is based on the story of Tamar’s seduction of Judah, in which her face is covered, presumedly with a veil:

^{בראשית לח:טו} וַיִּרְאֶ֣הָ יְהוּדָ֔ה וַֽיַּחְשְׁבֶ֖הָ לְזוֹנָ֑ה כִּ֥י כִסְּתָ֖ה פָּנֶֽיהָ׃

^{Gen 38:15} When Judah saw her, he took her for a harlot; for she had covered her face.

This reading assumes that Tamar wore the veil in order to look like a prostitute. Putting aside that sex-workers tend to reveal as opposed to conceal, it seems more likely that he thinks she is a prostitute because of how she has set herself up on the roadside looking for clients, and that the comment about the veil is meant to explain why he doesn’t recognize his daughter-in-law.^[22] Thus, the explanation that the woman of the Song is threatening her male lover that he better tell her where he is, or she will end up looking like a prostitute, or “a loose woman,”^[23] is very unlikely.^[24]

A Wanderer (כטעיה)

Several ancient translations offer a very different understanding of the term that seems to have no relationship to the root ע.ט.י:

Peshitta: טעיתא (ܛܥܝ݂ܬܐ), “wanderer”^[25]
Targum: מטלטלין, “should wander”^[26]
Symmachus: ῥεμβομένη, ‎“wandering”
Aquilas: ἐκβεβλημένη, “cast out”^[27]
Vulgate: vagari incipiam,“begin to wander”^[28]

The scholarly consensus is that (at least most of) these translations are rendering the term כעטיה as if it read כטעיה, i.e., a metathesis,^[29] the switching around of two the letters ayin and tet.^[30] The root of the word would then be ט.ע.י rather than ע.ט.י.^[31]

Typically in biblical Hebrew, this root, meaning “to wander,” is spelled tʿy (תעי) rather than ṭʿy (טעי), but once in Ezekiel (13:10), and in Aramaic and later Hebrew, it is spelled טעי.^[32] Given other evidence that (parts of) the Song are late,^[33] the spelling כטעיה rather than the more usual כתעיה, is not problematic.

The metathesis could have happened at one of three levels:

1. Parallel Spelling—Several biblical Hebrew words are known in two forms which have identical meanings, though they differ in the placement of consecutive letters: כבשׂ כשׂב; שׂמלה שׂלמה; זעוה זועה; עיף יעף; מלתעות מתלעות; and בהלה בלהה exemplify this,^[34] and it is not unusual for letter order for the same word to switch between Semitic cognates. Thus, it is possible that ע.ט.י existed in biblical Hebrew as an alternate form of ט.ע.י, or at least the Greek translator may have thought it was. Such interchanges of letter-order do not follow any well-known phonological principles, but it is unusual, and should not be applied too often when explaining textual difficulties.^[35]

2. Different Vorlage—The ancient Hebrew text in front of these ancient translators (what scholars call “the Vorlage,” from German, “to lie in front of”) could have read כטעיה rather than MT’s כעטיה, with the latter version being a scribal error. This is unlikely;^[36] the only fragment we have of this section from the Dead Sea Scrolls strongly suggests that the second letter is an ע rather than a ט.

3. Translator’s Error—It is also possible that the translator transposed these letters, either unintentionally or to make sense out of an otherwise inexplicable phrase.^[37] This too is possible, but unlikely.

The meaning “wanderer” makes a great deal of sense in context;^[38] the woman is asking her male lover where he is staying, saying that she wants him, and him only, and does not want to wander about, joining any of the other shepherds.^[39] And yet, it depends on the unlikely, but not impossible metathesis, and needs to be balanced against other possibilities.^[40]

Homonyms

Homonyms, i.e., two words with different meanings, but which are spelled and sound the same way,^[41] are common in Hebrew because the inventory of Hebrew consonantal sounds is smaller than that of Proto-Semitic, the parent of all Semitic languages,^[42] and from which Hebrew is descended.^[43] I offer several examples of homonyms below:

צְבִי (tzevi)—Hebrew homonyms are created, for example, when the distinct proto-semitic sounds ṣ and ẓ, represented by ص and ظ respectively in Arabic, both merge into the single Hebrew letter tzadi (צ). This leads to the homonym צְבִי (tzevi), which most often refers to a “deer” or “gazelle,” but can also mean “beauty” or “splendor.”^[44] The first meaning is related to a word with an original ẓ sound, and the second to a word with the original ṣ sound; in Hebrew both are not spelled and pronounced identically.

Ear—The phenomenon of homonyms is not unique to Hebrew or even Semitic languages. In English, for instance, the noun “ear” may refer to the organ responsible for hearing, or, “the fruiting spike of a cereal (such as wheat or corn) including both the seeds and protective structures.”^[45] While these words have different etymologies, their spelling and pronunciation collapsed into the same word “ear” in English.^[46]

כֹּפֶר (kofer)—Biblical lexica (and many dictionaries of other, even modern languages), distinguish between homonyms by assigning different numerals to each basic meaning. The standard modern scholarly biblical lexicon, HALOT,^[47] for instance, distinguishes between four meanings of the word כֹּפֶר (kofer):

כֹּפֶר, “open village”
כֹּפֶר, “pitch”^[48]
כֹּפֶר, “henna”
כֹּפֶר, “bribe, ransom”

In some cases, scholars may dispute which homonymic root best fits a context, or may propose that the biblical author is purposely playing with homonyms.^[49] In other cases, such as with these roots, the meanings are different enough, and context will determine which is appropriate: in no context could “pitch,” “henna” “open village” or “bribe” be confused for one another.

כעטיה (keʿōṭǝyâ)—In the case of כעטיה in Song of Songs 1:7, the BDB^[50] and HALOT lexica distinguishes between two homonymic roots:

עָטָה, “wrap or envelop oneself,” connected to the Arabic غَطَو (ġṭw) “cover, conceal”
עָטָה, “grasp,” connected to Arabic عطو(ʿṭw), “take with hands”

Etymologically,^[51] these two roots are really different words, but they merged in Hebrew,^[52] because the two sounds ayin (ع) and ghayin (غ) in Proto-Semitic, which remain distinct in Arabic, are both reflected in Hebrew ayin. As noted above, the first definition does not work well in context. The second, much less common definition, however, may hold more promise.

To Pick Clean

The second definition of ע.ט.י as “grasp or pick” appears, according to some translators, in two biblical verses: Isaiah 22:17 and Jeremiah 43:12. In both of these verses, the NJPS translates according to its usual meaning, while NRSV, translates it as “to pick clean,” following most commentaries, including the LXX translation (of Jeremiah 43:12) as φθειριεῖ, “to delouse.”

	NRSV	NJPS
^{ישעיה כב:יז} הִנֵּ֤ה יְ־הוָה֙ מְטַלְטֶלְךָ֔ טַלְטֵלָ֖ה גָּ֑בֶר וְעֹטְךָ֖ עָטֹֽה׃	^{Isa 22:17} The LORD is about to hurl you away violently, my fellow. He will seize firm hold on you.	^{Isa 22:17} The LORD is about to shake you severely, fellow, and then wrap you around Himself.
^{ירמיה מג:יב}וְהִצַּ֣תִּי אֵ֗שׁ בְּבָתֵּי֙ אֱלֹהֵ֣י מִצְרַ֔יִם וּשְׂרָפָ֖ם וְשָׁבָ֑ם וְעָטָה֩ אֶת אֶ֨רֶץ מִצְרַ֜יִם כַּאֲשֶׁר יַעְטֶ֤ה הָֽרֹעֶה֙ אֶת בִּגְד֔וֹ וְיָצָ֥א מִשָּׁ֖ם בְּשָׁלֽוֹם׃	^{Jer 43:12}He shall kindle a fire in the temples of the gods of Egypt; and he shall burn them and carry them away captive; and he shall pick clean the land of Egypt, as a shepherd picks his cloak clean [of vermin]; and he shall depart from there safely.	^{Jer 43:12}And I will set fire to the temples of the gods of Egypt; he will burn them down and carry them off. He shall wrap himself up in the land of Egypt, as a shepherd wraps himself up in his garment. And he shall depart from there in safety.

Over one-hundred years ago, August Frieherr von Gall, best known for his critical edition of the Samaritan Pentateuch, wrote a detailed article on II עָטָה, and concluded that the use in Song 1:7 is related to Jeremiah 43:12, and also means “to delouse.”^[53] In context, the woman’s point is that if she doesn’t know where to meet her lover, she will be stuck sitting on her own and “left picking lice.” Engendering much controversy, this was how the phrase was translated in The New English Bible translation (1970).^[54]

This understanding has been mocked by several biblical scholars.^[55] Perhaps literal delousing of clothing was meant—what more constructive activity could there be for passing time? G. R. Driver, in defense of this reading, notes that this interpretation is contextually appropriate for antiquity: “There is always a risk that those who study and live in the urban centers of the west will fail to appreciate the actual ways of life in the lands of the Bible.”^[56]

Alternatively, this might have been an idiom for passing time, and may reflect a semantic development similar to the English phrase “wiling way,” which may have originated from the idea of “using wiles (crafts, schemes) to charm away the time,” a concept expressed in the French phrase ‘tromper le temps.’”^[57] Emerton compares it to our use of “twiddling thumbs.”^[58] Some of us pass time by nitpicking (either literally or figuratively), while others do so by casting spells, or twiddling our thumbs. But since we really know biblical Hebrew so imperfectly,^[59] it is hard to know what its idioms mean, or in some cases, even if a phrase is literal or idiomatic.

At the End of the Day (or Several Days)

This article, meant to introduce the importance of cognates, the ancient versions, and context to interpret difficult biblical words, is about only one word, and yet this took me much longer than a single day to research, think about, and to write up. Moreover, at the end of the day, or days, I am not even certain what interpretation is best.^[60] I must admit that for years I objected to “nitpicker,” but now it seems quite possible, especially now that I spend so much time in Israel, where lice are endemic.^[61] The bottom line: NJPS was wise to say “Meaning of Heb. uncertain.”

TheTorah.com is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization.
We rely on the support of readers like you. Please support us.

Published

April 13, 2022

Last Updated

March 25, 2024

Previous in the Series

Next in the Series

Footnotes

View Footnotes

Published

April 13, 2022

Last Updated

March 25, 2024

[1] I would like to thank Matthew Arakaky for his assistance with this article. While this article primarily deals with the meaning of one word, my goal is to use the approach to this question to illustrate what a day (or several days) of a biblical scholar who sits in the library and deals with texts look like. It is thus a companion piece to Zev Farber’s “Digging Archaeology – A Report from the Trenches,” TheTorah (2014).

[2] I heard this anecdote from my friend and colleague, Prof. Mark Smith of Princeton Theological Seminary.

[3] When translating a contemporary language, we can ask native speakers (linguists call these “informants”) what a word or phrase means, but we have no native speakers of biblical Hebrew.

[4] Michael Fishbane, Song of Songs, JPS Bible Commentary (Philadelphia: JPS, 2015), 38; so Yair Zakovitch, The Song of Songs: Introduction and Commentary, Miqra’ Liyisra’el (Tel-Aviv: Am Oved, 1992), 53 [Heb.] (קשׁה).

[5] Duane Garrett and Paul R. House, Song of Songs and Lamentations, WBC (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2004), 135 n. 7.b.

[6] Scott B. Noegel and Gary A. Rendsburg, Solomon's Vineyard: Literary and Linguistic Studies in the Song of Songs (Atlanta: SBL, 2009), 190 n. f. Some understate the problem; for example, Christian David Ginsburg (The Song of Songs and Coheleth [1857; repr. NY: Ktav, 1970], 135) says that it “has caused much perplexity to interpreters”; Marvin Pope, (Song of Songs, AB [Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1977], 330) notes that it “has occasioned some difficulty”; and Roland E. Murphy (The Song of Songs, Hermeneia [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990], 131) says “the meaning is not obvious in the context.”

[7] The term comes for Greek ἅπαξ λεγόμενον, “being said once.” Biblical scholars often abbreviate this as “hapax.”

[8] A participle is a form that is used verbally and nominally.

[9] The Jewish medieval grammarians typically noted the root as עטה (ʿṭh), and the modern biblical lexica follow the convention of these grammarians, which base the root on the 3ms Qal form. From a historical perspective, however, these are third yod verbs; see e.g., JM §79a, and note forms such as בָּנוּי and בוֹכִיָּה, where the original yod is preserved—as it is in the word עֹטְיָה.

[10] I am leaving aside its Aramaic use in Daniel 2:14.

[11] Note the comment of one of the great scholars of biblical style, Arnold B. Ehrlich, Randglossen zur hebräischen Bibel (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs'sche Buchhandlung, 1914), 7.3–4, after explaining all the other words in the verse writes: “כעטיה aber ist undeutbar. Das fragliche Wort is verschrieben, and das Ursprüngliche lässt sich nicht mehr ermitteln.” “כעטיה, however, is undefinable. The word in question is an error, and the original can no longer be determined.”

[12] The Torah was the first part of what became the Bible that was translated into Greek, in the third century BCE. Other books were translated later. For the likely date of the translation of the Song, see Bénédicte Lemmelijn, “Canticles,” in Textual History of the Bible, The Hebrew Bible Vol. 1C, ed. Amrin Lange and Emanuel Tov (Leiden: Brill, 2017), 323. The Septuagint (LXX) is by far the most important ancient version, both for understanding the textual history of the Bible, and its most ancient interpretations. Originally, this term referred specifically to the translation of the Torah only into Greek, but it became the term for the main Greek translation of the Old Testament. (I use this term on purpose, since it is used for the books in the OT that are not in the Hebrew Bible, the deutero-canonical or apocryphal books.)

[13] Unlike English “wrap” where the object is preceded with the preposition “with,” in Hebrew this word typically takes a direct object. Other constructs are possible, however. See, e.g., Ps 109:19, תְּהִי־ל֭וֹ כְּבֶ֣גֶד יַעְטֶ֑ה, “Let it be like the cloak he wraps around him.” And note the Hiphil use in Isaiah 59:17.

[14] The root is also used in the idiom וְעַל־שָׂפָ֖ם יַעְטֶ֑ה, he shall cover his upper lip (Lev 13:45 with variants at Ezek 24:17, 22 and Mic 3:7), where it takes an indirect object.

[15] Cynthia L. Miller-Naudé, “Ellipsis: Biblical Hebrew,” EHLL 1.807.

[16] Miller-Naudé, 807–812.

[17] See, e.g., Elie Assis, Flashes of Fire: A Literary Analysis of the Song of Songs, HLB/OTS 503 (NY: T & T Clark, 1994), 44: “The meaning of עֹטְיָה is ‘veiled.’”

[18] Adin Even-Yisrael (Steinsalz), The Tanakh Explained, The Five Scrolls (Jerusalem: Koren, 2017), 220 [Hebrew].

[19] The most extensive discussion of this is Karel van der Toorn, “The Significance of the Veil in the Ancient Near East,” in Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom, ed. David P. Wright et al. (Winona Lake, IN; Eisenbrauns, 1995), 327–39; see esp. 328: “What is normally referred to by the ancients as a veil is a piece of cloth covering the head and partially concealing the face; the eyes and the cheeks were usually left exposed.” This is not a “veil” in our current use of the word.

[20] Giszczak, “Song of Songs 1,7—What King of Wrapping?” 58–70 [p. 58].

[21] So, e.g., Pope, Song of Songs, 330–331. Note Gianni Barbiero, Song of Songs: A Close Reading, trans. Michael Tait, SVT 144 (Leiden: Brill, 20110 66, “the veil was the distinctive mark of the prostitute.”

[22] Murphy (The Song of Songs, 131) actually suggests “to disguise oneself” in keeping with this use of the veil. He is followed by Tremper Longman III, Song of Songs, NICOT (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001), 100–101.

[23] Fox, Song of Songs and the Ancient Egyptian Love Songs, 103.

[24] See Esther Marie Menn, Judah and Tamar (Genesis 38) in Ancient Jewish Sources: Studies in Literary Form and Hermeneutics, SJSJ 51 (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 72–73 and Laura Quick, Dress, Adornment, and the Body in the Hebrew Bible (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021), 98–99. See also Mark Giszczak, “Song of Songs 1,7—What King of Wrapping?” RB 122/1 (2015), 58: “Prostitution, with its many toxic associations, has no place in a love poem.” The prostitute suggestion was already trenchantly critiqued in Ginsburg, The Song of Songs and Coheleth, 135.

[25] The exact date of this translation, and whether it was originally a Jewish work, are debated. See Ignacio Carbajosa, “Peshitta,” in Textual History of the Bible, The Hebrew Bible Vol. 1C, ed. Amrin Lange and Emanuel Tov (Leiden: Brill, 2016), 263–266.

[26] It is also possible, even likely, that this Targum is understanding the word עֹ֣טְיָ֔ה from טעות, “error;” see the opinion of R. Berekhiah in Song of Songs Rabbah loc. cit., and the Targum’s למחב, “to sin.” This interpretation is also found in a Genizah fragment; see Zvi Meir Rabinovitz, Ginzé Midrash: The Oldest Forms of Rabbinic Midrashim According to Geniza Fragments (Tel-Aviv: The Chaim Rothberg School for Jewish Studies, 1976), 93, line 1, טעת. I would like to thank Dr. Tamar Kadari for taking the time to review this and other rabbinic material with me. The Targum of the Song is largely paraphrastic and extremely expansive relative to the Hebrew text of the Song, so it is more difficult to use in understanding how it understood specific words, though we can often surmise what meaning is being expanded upon. See the introductory sections of Philip S. Alexander, The Targum of Canticles (College, MN: Liturgical Press, 2003), and more briefly, Andrew W. Litke, Targum Song of Songs and Late Jewish Literary Aramaic: Language, Lexicon, Text, and Translation (Leiden: Brill, 2019), 226–228.

[27] An alternative translation, also quoted in the name of Aquilas is or ‎ἀπολελυμένη, “destroyed utterly.” See Fridericus Field, Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt (Oxford: Clarendon, 1875), 2.412, the apparatus to BHQ loc. cit., and p. 58*, and Mark Giszczak, “Song of Songs 1,7—What Kind of Wrapping?” RB 122/1 (2015), 59–60.

[28] Jerome (4^th cent. C.E.) consulted Jewish authorities while engaged in his translation; see Görge Hasselhoff, “Revising the Vulgate: Jerome and his Jewish Interlocutors,” Zeitschrift für Religions- und Geistesgeschichte 64/3 (2012), 209–221.

[29] More precisely, “a linguistic process which involves changes in the position of consonants or vowels in a word”; see Avihai Shivtiel, “Metathesis” EHLL 2.634.

[30] On metathesis in translation, without citing this case, see Emanuel Tov, The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research, Second Edition, Revised and Enlarged (Jerusalem: Simor, 1997), 142–43.

[31] In Hebrew, this phenomenon is wonderfully called שׂיכול אותיות; see Gen 48:14.

[32] HALOT; see also Fishbane, Song of Songs, 38.

[33] Fox, Song of Songs and the Ancient Egyptian Love Songs, 186–190.

[34] This list is from Shivtiel, 634.

[35] James Barr, Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament, With Additions and Corrections (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1987), 96–101.

[36] Torleif Elgvin, The Literary Growth of the Song of Songs During the Hasmonean and Early-Herodian Periods (Leuven: Peeters, 2018), 77–78; he notes that the broken part of the letter is not consistent with the word כטעיה.

[37] It is important to remember, however, that translators in antiquity did not leave us with notes like those in the NJPS: “Meaning of Heb. uncertain.” In some cases, when they were stuck, they transliterated rather than translated a Hebrew word, but more often they guessed at a likely meaning based on context. See Emanuel Tov, “Loan-Words, Homophony, and Transliterations in the Septuagint,” in The Greek and Hebrew Bible: Collected Essays on the Septuagint, SVT 72 (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 180–181 and “Did the Septuagint Translators Always Understand their Hebrew Text?” in his The Greek and Hebrew Bible: Collected Essays on the Septuagint, 204–205; Patrick Pouchelle, “Septuagint Lexicography,” in T & T Clark Handbook of Septuagint Research, ed. William A. Ross and W. Edward Glenny (London: T & T Clark, 2021), 75–76. The authors of both the LXX and the Peshitta of the Song of Songs, just like those who completed the NJPS translation, seem to have had some trouble understanding the Hebrew in places, and sometimes guessed at a word’s meaning. See Lemelijn, 323 (on the LXX) and 324 (on the Peshitta).

[38] I do not think that the image should be rejected as “perhaps too plain and prosaic,” with Garrett and House, Song of Songs and Lamentations, 137. See the similar critique in Michael V. Fox, The Song of Songs and the Ancient Egyptian Love Songs (Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 1985), 103.

[39] The word is rendered “wanderer” in the excellent and sensible commentary of J. Cheryl Exum, Song of Songs, OTL (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2005), 97 (and see 99 n. f). Among others, it is also endorsed by Robert Gordis, The Song of Songs and Lamentations: A Study, Modern Translation and Commentary, revised and augmented edition (NY: Ktav, 1974), 47, 80. See also Othmar Keel, The Song of Songs, Continental Commentary, trans. Frederick J. Gaiser (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1994), 51–52, “wandering in confusion,” though the ancient Near Eastern parallels he adduces are not compelling. And note the NJPS translation.

[40] In this essay, I have deliberately excluded how the medieval interpreters understand כעטיה. Their interpretations are completely based on context; namely, how the verb is used elsewhere, but without consideration of etymology or the versions.

[41] I am thus distinguishing between homonymy and polysemy; see Tamar Sovran, “Homonymy,” EHLL, 2.211.

[42] It is common for historical linguists to reconstruct such “proto” languages; scholars have attempted, e.g., to reconstruct Proto-Indo-European, a common ancestor of English, German, Spanish, Latin, Greek, Hittite, Sanskrit, and many other languages.

[43] See Gotthelf Bergsträsser, Introduction to the Semitic Languages: Text Specimens and Grammatical Sketches, transl. Peter T. Daniels (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983), 2–4 and Sabatino Moscati et al., An Introduction to the Comparative Grammar of the Semitic Languages: Phonology and Morphology (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrasowitz, 1964), 43–45.

[44] See, for example, in Isaiah:

^{ישעיה ד:ב} בַּיּ֣וֹם הַה֗וּא יִֽהְיֶה֙ צֶ֣מַח יְ־הוָ֔ה לִצְבִ֖י וּלְכָב֑וֹד...

^{Isa 4:2} On that day, the radiance of YHWH will lend beauty and glory…

“Deer” makes little sense in this context, and צְבִי in the sense of “beauty” fits well next to כבוד, “glory.” This example is taken from Tamar Sovran, “Homonymy,” EHLL, 2.211:

Thus, צְבִי ṣəḇī ‘deer, gazelle’ developed from a form with original /ẓ/ (IPA [ð’]) as the first consonant (see Ugaritic ẓby ‘deer’), which through normal sound shifts became /ṣ/ in Hebrew and /ṭ/ in Aramaic (see Syriac ṭabya ‘deer’, Jewish Babylonian Aramaic טַבְיָא ṭaḇya ‘deer’). צְבִי ṣəḇī ‘beauty’, however, derives from a proto-Semitic root with original /ṣ/ as the first root letter (see the Syriac and Jewish Babylonian Aramaic verb צב״י ṣ-b-y ‘wish, desire’); semantic development yielded a variety of nouns, including צְבִי ṣəḇī ‘desired thing’, hence ‘beauty’ (see also Mishnaic Hebrew צביון ṣivyon ‘will, wish’, which in modern Hebrew has come to mean ‘unique style, character’). In short, the separate origins of these two phonetically and graphically identical lexemes explain the lack of a semantic relationship between them, while at the same time they serve to illustrate the accidental nature of homonymy.

[45] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ear

[46] The Oxford English Dictionary explains their etymologies: The first, referring to the organ of hearing: Cognate with Old Frisian āre, ār, Old Dutch ōra (Middle Dutch ōre, Dutch oor), Old Saxon ōra, ōre (Middle Low German ōre, ōr), Old High German ōra (Middle High German ōre, ōr, German Ohr), Old Icelandic eyra, Old Swedish öra (Swedish öra), Old Danish øre (Danish øre), Gothic ausō < the same Indo-European base as (with various different stem-formations) ancient Greek οὖς, classical Latin auris, Early Irish ó (rare and literary), Old Church Slavonic uxo, Lithuanian ausis, all in the sense ‘ear’.

The second, referring e.g. to an ear of corn: Cognate with Old Frisian ār , Middle Dutch aer (Dutch aar ), Old Saxon ehir (Middle Low German ār , āre ), Old High German ah (rare), ahir , ehir , eher (Middle High German ach (rare), eher , äher , German Ähre ), Old Icelandic ax , Old Swedish ax (Swedish ax ), Old Danish ax (Danish aks ), Gothic ahs (genitive ahsis ) < the same Indo-European base as classical Latin acus (genitive aceris ) husk of corn, chaff.

[47] Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, 5 vols. (Leiden: Brill, 1994-2000), 813-814.

[48] In this case, the hapax “pitch,” found only in Genesis 6:14, is likely a borrowing from Akkadian (see HALOT, ad loc.). Paul V. Mankowski, Akkadian Loanwords in Biblical Hebrew (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2000), 72 is “less certain” that this is a borrowing, but given the use of the word specifically in the flood narrative and in Atra-hasis and in Gilgamesh XI, the borrowing is very likely, especially given the use of the word חֵמָר elsewhere in the Bible for “pitch.”

[49] See, e.g., the phrase from Song 2:12, עֵ֥ת הַזָּמִ֖יר הִגִּ֑יעַ, where זָמִיר may refer to pruning or singing; see Exum, Song of Songs, 121 n. i.

[50] Francis Brown, S.R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1907), 741-742. This lexicon is based on that of the great German scholar, Wilhelm Gesenius.

[51] Etymology refers to “the history of a linguistic form (such as a word) shown by tracing its development since its earliest recorded occurrence in the language where it is found, by tracing its transmission from one language to another, by analyzing it into its component parts, by identifying its cognates in other languages, or by tracing it and its cognates to a common ancestral form in an ancestral language.” https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/etymology.

[52] As Wilhelm Gesenius, Hebräisches und Aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das Alte Testament 18^th edition (Heidelberg: Springer, 2013), 950 notes ‘TY < * ĠTY/W.

[53] “Jer 43,12 und das Zeitwort עטה,” ZAW 24 (1904), 105–121. The criticism of van Gall in William McKane, Jeremiah, ICC (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1996), 2.1060, is not compelling.

[54] See G. R. Driver, “Lice in the Old Testament,” PEQ 106:2 (1974), 159–160. G. R. Driver (son of S. R. Driver) was the convener of the NEB translation committee, and its revision, The Revised English Bible (1989). This translation is further defended by another member of the committee: J. A. Emerton, “Lice or a Veil in the Song of Songs 1.7?” in Understanding Poets and Prophets: Essays in Honour of George Wishart Anderson, ed. A. Graeme Auld, JSOTSup 152 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), 127–140.

[55] See e.g., Giszczak, 68: “‘[L]ice-picking’ can be excluded as a fanciful, unlikely possibility….” But the Song is often fanciful in its imagery; the woman is twice described, e.g., as having “hair that is like a flock of goats streaming down (Mount) Gilead” (4:1; 6:5). Is passing away time while picking out lice any stranger than that?

[56] Driver, “Lice in the Old Testament,” 160.

[57] https://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-xpm-2002-10-11-0210111158-story.html ; see also OED “wile” 3.

[58] Emerton, “Lice or a Veil in the Song of Songs 1.7?” 138.

[59] This is the thesis of the brilliant article, Edward Ullendorff, “Is Biblical Hebrew a Language?” in his Is Biblical Hebrew a Language? Studies in Semitic Languages and Civilizations (Wiesbaden: Otto Harassowitz, 1977), 3–17.

[60] In this piece, it was impossible to cite all of the literature that I have read on the Song and on this verse; see Qoh 12:12, but I have done my best in this context to cite the most relevant opinions and works.

[61] Also, they are not viewed with the same disgust as in the United States: here, they are seen more as a nuisance.

[2] I heard this anecdote from my friend and colleague, Prof. Mark Smith of Princeton Theological Seminary.

[3] When translating a contemporary language, we can ask native speakers (linguists call these “informants”) what a word or phrase means, but we have no native speakers of biblical Hebrew.

[5] Duane Garrett and Paul R. House, Song of Songs and Lamentations, WBC (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2004), 135 n. 7.b.

[7] The term comes for Greek ἅπαξ λεγόμενον, “being said once.” Biblical scholars often abbreviate this as “hapax.”

[8] A participle is a form that is used verbally and nominally.

[10] I am leaving aside its Aramaic use in Daniel 2:14.

[15] Cynthia L. Miller-Naudé, “Ellipsis: Biblical Hebrew,” EHLL 1.807.

[16] Miller-Naudé, 807–812.

[17] See, e.g., Elie Assis, Flashes of Fire: A Literary Analysis of the Song of Songs, HLB/OTS 503 (NY: T & T Clark, 1994), 44: “The meaning of עֹטְיָה is ‘veiled.’”

[18] Adin Even-Yisrael (Steinsalz), The Tanakh Explained, The Five Scrolls (Jerusalem: Koren, 2017), 220 [Hebrew].

[20] Giszczak, “Song of Songs 1,7—What King of Wrapping?” 58–70 [p. 58].

[23] Fox, Song of Songs and the Ancient Egyptian Love Songs, 103.

[29] More precisely, “a linguistic process which involves changes in the position of consonants or vowels in a word”; see Avihai Shivtiel, “Metathesis” EHLL 2.634.

[31] In Hebrew, this phenomenon is wonderfully called שׂיכול אותיות; see Gen 48:14.

[32] HALOT; see also Fishbane, Song of Songs, 38.

[33] Fox, Song of Songs and the Ancient Egyptian Love Songs, 186–190.

[34] This list is from Shivtiel, 634.

[35] James Barr, Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament, With Additions and Corrections (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1987), 96–101.

[41] I am thus distinguishing between homonymy and polysemy; see Tamar Sovran, “Homonymy,” EHLL, 2.211.

[44] See, for example, in Isaiah:

^{ישעיה ד:ב} בַּיּ֣וֹם הַה֗וּא יִֽהְיֶה֙ צֶ֣מַח יְ־הוָ֔ה לִצְבִ֖י וּלְכָב֑וֹד...

^{Isa 4:2} On that day, the radiance of YHWH will lend beauty and glory…

[45] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ear

[47] Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, 5 vols. (Leiden: Brill, 1994-2000), 813-814.

[49] See, e.g., the phrase from Song 2:12, עֵ֥ת הַזָּמִ֖יר הִגִּ֑יעַ, where זָמִיר may refer to pruning or singing; see Exum, Song of Songs, 121 n. i.

[52] As Wilhelm Gesenius, Hebräisches und Aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das Alte Testament 18^th edition (Heidelberg: Springer, 2013), 950 notes ‘TY < * ĠTY/W.

[53] “Jer 43,12 und das Zeitwort עטה,” ZAW 24 (1904), 105–121. The criticism of van Gall in William McKane, Jeremiah, ICC (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1996), 2.1060, is not compelling.

[56] Driver, “Lice in the Old Testament,” 160.

[57] https://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-xpm-2002-10-11-0210111158-story.html ; see also OED “wile” 3.

[58] Emerton, “Lice or a Veil in the Song of Songs 1.7?” 138.

[61] Also, they are not viewed with the same disgust as in the United States: here, they are seen more as a nuisance.

Prof. Marc Zvi Brettler is Bernice & Morton Lerner Distinguished Professor of Judaic Studies at Duke University, and Dora Golding Professor of Biblical Studies (Emeritus) at Brandeis University. He is author of many books and articles, including How to Read the Jewish Bible (also published in Hebrew), co-editor of The Jewish Study Bible and The Jewish Annotated New Testament (with Amy-Jill Levine), and co-author of The Bible and the Believer (with Peter Enns and Daniel J. Harrington), and The Bible With and Without Jesus: How Jews and Christians Read the Same Stories Differently (with Amy-Jill Levine). Brettler is a cofounder of TheTorah.com.

Essays on Related Topics:

Symposium:More Responses