Psalm 119

Psalm 119
1 Happy are people of integrity,[a] who follow the law of the LORD.
2 Happy are those who obey his decrees and search for him with all their hearts.
3 They do not compromise with evil, and they walk only in his paths.
4 You have charged us to keep your commandments carefully.
5 Oh, that my actions would consistently reflect your principles!
6 Then I will not be disgraced when I compare my life with your commands.
7 When I learn your righteous laws, I will thank you by living as I should!
8 I will obey your principles. Please don't give up on me!
9 How can a young person stay pure? By obeying your word and following its rules.
10 I have tried my best to find you-- don't let me wander from your commands.
11 I have hidden your word in my heart, that I might not sin against you.
12 Blessed are you, O LORD; teach me your principles.
13 I have recited aloud all the laws you have given us.
14 I have rejoiced in your decrees as much as in riches.
15 I will study your commandments and reflect on your ways.
16 I will delight in your principles and not forget your word.
17 Be good to your servant, that I may live and obey your word.
18 Open my eyes to see the wonderful truths in your law.
19 I am but a foreigner here on earth; I need the guidance of your commands. Don't hide them from me!
20 I am overwhelmed continually with a desire for your laws.
21 You rebuke those cursed proud ones who wander from your commands.
22 Don't let them scorn and insult me, for I have obeyed your decrees.
23 Even princes sit and speak against me, but I will meditate on your principles.
24 Your decrees please me; they give me wise advice.
25 I lie in the dust, completely discouraged; revive me by your word.
26 I told you my plans, and you answered. Now teach me your principles.
27 Help me understand the meaning of your commandments, and I will meditate on your wonderful miracles.
28 I weep with grief; encourage me by your word.
29 Keep me from lying to myself; give me the privilege of knowing your law.
30 I have chosen to be faithful; I have determined to live by your laws.
31 I cling to your decrees. LORD, don't let me be put to shame!
32 If you will help me, I will run to follow your commands.
33 Teach me, O LORD, to follow every one of your principles.
34 Give me understanding and I will obey your law; I will put it into practice with all my heart.
35 Make me walk along the path of your commands, for that is where my happiness is found.
36 Give me an eagerness for your decrees; do not inflict me with love for money!
37 Turn my eyes from worthless things, and give me life through your word.[b]
38 Reassure me of your promise, which is for those who honor you.
39 Help me abandon my shameful ways; your laws are all I want in life.
40 I long to obey your commandments! Renew my life with your goodness.
41 LORD, give to me your unfailing love, the salvation that you promised me.
42 Then I will have an answer for those who taunt me, for I trust in your word.
43 Do not snatch your word of truth from me, for my only hope is in your laws.
44 I will keep on obeying your law forever and forever.
45 I will walk in freedom, for I have devoted myself to your commandments.
46 I will speak to kings about your decrees, and I will not be ashamed.
47 How I delight in your commands! How I love them!
48 I honor and love your commands. I meditate on your principles.
49 Remember your promise to me, for it is my only hope.
50 Your promise revives me; it comforts me in all my troubles.
51 The proud hold me in utter contempt, but I do not turn away from your law.
52 I meditate on your age-old laws; O LORD, they comfort me.
53 I am furious with the wicked, those who reject your law.
54 Your principles have been the music of my life throughout the years of my pilgrimage.
55 I reflect at night on who you are, O LORD, and I obey your law because of this.
56 This is my happy way of life: obeying your commandments.
57 LORD, you are mine! I promise to obey your words!
58 With all my heart I want your blessings. Be merciful just as you promised.
59 I pondered the direction of my life, and I turned to follow your statutes.
60 I will hurry, without lingering, to obey your commands.
61 Evil people try to drag me into sin, but I am firmly anchored to your law.
62 At midnight I rise to thank you for your just laws.
63 Anyone who fears you is my friend-- anyone who obeys your commandments.
64 O LORD, the earth is full of your unfailing love; teach me your principles.
65 You have done many good things for me, LORD, just as you promised.
66 I believe in your commands; now teach me good judgment and knowledge.
67 I used to wander off until you disciplined me; but now I closely follow your word.
68 You are good and do only good; teach me your principles.
69 Arrogant people have made up lies about me, but in truth I obey your commandments with all my heart.
70 Their hearts are dull and stupid, but I delight in your law.
71 The suffering you sent was good for me, for it taught me to pay attention to your principles.
72 Your law is more valuable to me than millions in gold and silver!
73 You made me; you created me. Now give me the sense to follow your commands.
74 May all who fear you find in me a cause for joy, for I have put my hope in your word.
75 I know, O LORD, that your decisions are fair; you disciplined me because I needed it.
76 Now let your unfailing love comfort me, just as you promised me, your servant.
77 Surround me with your tender mercies so I may live, for your law is my delight.
78 Bring disgrace upon the arrogant people who lied about me; meanwhile, I will concentrate on your commandments.
79 Let me be reconciled with all who fear you and know your decrees.
80 May I be blameless in keeping your principles; then I will never have to be ashamed.
81 I faint with longing for your salvation; but I have put my hope in your word.
82 My eyes are straining to see your promises come true. When will you comfort me?
83 I am shriveled like a wineskin in the smoke, exhausted with waiting. But I cling to your principles and obey them.
84 How long must I wait? When will you punish those who persecute me?
85 These arrogant people who hate your law have dug deep pits for me to fall into.
86 All your commands are trustworthy. Protect me from those who hunt me down without cause.
87 They almost finished me off, but I refused to abandon your commandments.
88 In your unfailing love, spare my life; then I can continue to obey your decrees.
89 Forever, O LORD, your word stands firm in heaven.
90 Your faithfulness extends to every generation, as enduring as the earth you created.
91 Your laws remain true today, for everything serves your plans.
92 If your law hadn't sustained me with joy, I would have died in my misery.
93 I will never forget your commandments, for you have used them to restore my joy and health.
94 I am yours; save me! For I have applied myself to obey your commandments.
95 Though the wicked hide along the way to kill me, I will quietly keep my mind on your decrees.
96 Even perfection has its limits, but your commands have no limit.
97 Oh, how I love your law! I think about it all day long.
98 Your commands make me wiser than my enemies, for your commands are my constant guide.
99 Yes, I have more insight than my teachers, for I am always thinking of your decrees.
100 I am even wiser than my elders, for I have kept your commandments.
101 I have refused to walk on any path of evil, that I may remain obedient to your word.
102 I haven't turned away from your laws, for you have taught me well.
103 How sweet are your words to my taste; they are sweeter than honey.
104 Your commandments give me understanding; no wonder I hate every false way of life.
105 Your word is a lamp for my feet and a light for my path.
106 I've promised it once, and I'll promise again: I will obey your wonderful laws.
107 I have suffered much, O LORD; restore my life again, just as you promised.
108 LORD, accept my grateful thanks and teach me your laws.
109 My life constantly hangs in the balance, but I will not stop obeying your law.
110 The wicked have set their traps for me along your path, but I will not turn from your commandments.
111 Your decrees are my treasure; they are truly my heart's delight.
112 I am determined to keep your principles, even forever, to the very end.
113 I hate those who are undecided about you, but my choice is clear--I love your law.
114 You are my refuge and my shield; your word is my only source of hope.
115 Get out of my life, you evil-minded people, for I intend to obey the commands of my God.
116 LORD, sustain me as you promised, that I may live! Do not let my hope be crushed.
117 Sustain me, and I will be saved; then I will meditate on your principles continually.
118 But you have rejected all who stray from your principles. They are only fooling themselves.
119 All the wicked of the earth are the scum you skim off; no wonder I love to obey your decrees!
120 I tremble in fear of you; I fear your judgments.
121 Don't leave me to the mercy of my enemies, for I have done what is just and right.
122 Please guarantee a blessing for me. Don't let those who are arrogant oppress me!
123 My eyes strain to see your deliverance, to see the truth of your promise fulfilled.
124 I am your servant; deal with me in unfailing love, and teach me your principles.
125 Give discernment to me, your servant; then I will understand your decrees.
126 LORD, it is time for you to act, for these evil people have broken your law.
127 Truly, I love your commands more than gold, even the finest gold.
128 Truly, each of your commandments is right. That is why I hate every false way.
129 Your decrees are wonderful. No wonder I obey them!
130 As your words are taught, they give light; even the simple can understand them.
131 I open my mouth, panting expectantly, longing for your commands.
132 Come and show me your mercy, as you do for all who love your name.
133 Guide my steps by your word, so I will not be overcome by any evil.
134 Rescue me from the oppression of evil people; then I can obey your commandments.
135 Look down on me with love; teach me all your principles.
136 Rivers of tears gush from my eyes because people disobey your law.
137 O LORD, you are righteous, and your decisions are fair.
138 Your decrees are perfect; they are entirely worthy of our trust.
139 I am overwhelmed with rage, for my enemies have disregarded your words.
140 Your promises have been thoroughly tested; that is why I love them so much.
141 I am insignificant and despised, but I don't forget your commandments.
142 Your justice is eternal, and your law is perfectly true.
143 As pressure and stress bear down on me, I find joy in your commands.
144 Your decrees are always fair; help me to understand them, that I may live.
145 I pray with all my heart; answer me, LORD! I will obey your principles.
146 I cry out to you; save me, that I may obey your decrees.
147 I rise early, before the sun is up; I cry out for help and put my hope in your words.
148 I stay awake through the night, thinking about your promise.
149 In your faithful love, O LORD, hear my cry; in your justice, save my life.
150 Those lawless people are coming near to attack me; they live far from your law.
151 But you are near, O LORD, and all your commands are true.
152 I have known from my earliest days that your decrees never change.
153 Look down upon my sorrows and rescue me, for I have not forgotten your law.
154 Argue my case; take my side! Protect my life as you promised.
155 The wicked are far from salvation, for they do not bother with your principles.
156 LORD, how great is your mercy; in your justice, give me back my life.
157 Many persecute and trouble me, yet I have not swerved from your decrees.
158 I hate these traitors because they care nothing for your word.
159 See how I love your commandments, LORD. Give back my life because of your unfailing love.
160 All your words are true; all your just laws will stand forever.
161 Powerful people harass me without cause, but my heart trembles only at your word.
162 I rejoice in your word like one who finds a great treasure.
163 I hate and abhor all falsehood, but I love your law.
164 I will praise you seven times a day because all your laws are just.
165 Those who love your law have great peace and do not stumble.
166 I long for your salvation, LORD, so I have obeyed your commands.
167 I have obeyed your decrees, and I love them very much.
168 Yes, I obey your commandments and decrees, because you know everything I do.
169 O LORD, listen to my cry; give me the discerning mind you promised.
170 Listen to my prayer; rescue me as you promised.
171 Let my lips burst forth with praise, for you have taught me your principles.
172 Let my tongue sing about your word, for all your commands are right.
173 Stand ready to help me, for I have chosen to follow your commandments.
174 O LORD, I have longed for your salvation, and your law is my delight.
175 Let me live so I can praise you, and may your laws sustain me.
176 I have wandered away like a lost sheep; come and find me, for I have not forgotten your commands.

Solomon's Most Wonderful Song - Song of Songs 1:1-8:14

Song of Solomon 1
1 This is Solomon's song of songs, more wonderful than any other.

Young Woman:[a]
2Kiss me again and again, for your love is sweeter than wine. 3How fragrant your cologne, and how pleasing your name! No wonder all the young women love you! 4Take me with you. Come, lets run! Bring me into your bedroom, O my king.[b]

Young Women of Jerusalem:
How happy we are for him! We praise his love even more than wine.

Young Woman:
How right that the young women love you!
5"I am dark and beautiful, O women of Jerusalem, tanned as the dark tents of Kedar. Yes, even as the tents of Solomon!
6"Don't look down on me, you fair city girls, just because my complexion is so dark. The sun has burned my skin. My brothers were angry with me and sent me out to tend the vineyards in the hot sun. Now see what it has done to me![c]
7"Tell me, O my love, where are you leading your flock today? Where will you rest your sheep at noon? For why should I wander like a prostitute[d] among the flocks of your companions?"

Young Man:
8If you dont know, O most beautiful woman, follow the trail of my flock to the shepherds tents, and there feed your young goats. 9What a lovely filly you are, my beloved one![e] 10How lovely are your cheeks, with your earrings setting them afire! How stately is your neck, accented with a long string of jewels. 11We will make earrings of gold for you and beads of silver.

Young Woman:
12 The king is lying on his couch, enchanted by the fragrance of my perfume. 13My lover is like a sachet of myrrh lying between my breasts. 14He is like a bouquet of flowers in the gardens of En-gedi.

Young Man:
15How beautiful you are, my beloved, how beautiful! Your eyes are soft like doves.

Young Woman:
16What a lovely, pleasant sight you are, my love, as we lie here on the grass, 17shaded by cedar trees and spreading firs.

Song of Solomon 2
Young Woman:
1 I am the rose of Sharon, the lily of the valley.

Young Man:
2Yes, compared to other women, my beloved is like a lily among thorns.

Young Woman:
3And compared to other youths, my lover is like the finest apple tree in the orchard. I am seated in his delightful shade, and his fruit is delicious to eat. 4He brings me to the banquet hall, so everyone can see how much he loves me. 5Oh, feed me with your love--your `raisins and your `apples--for I am utterly lovesick! 6His left hand is under my head, and his right hand embraces me.
7"Promise me, O women of Jerusalem, by the swift gazelles and the deer of the wild, not to awaken love until the time is right.[a]
8"Ah, I hear him--my lover! Here he comes, leaping on the mountains and bounding over the hills. 9My lover is like a swift gazelle or a young deer. Look, there he is behind the wall! Now he is looking in through the window, gazing into the room.
10"My lover said to me, `Rise up, my beloved, my fair one, and come away. 11For the winter is past, and the rain is over and gone. 12The flowers are springing up, and the time of singing birds has come, even the cooing of turtledoves. 13The fig trees are budding, and the grapevines are in blossom. How delicious they smell! Yes, spring is here! Arise, my beloved, my fair one, and come away.' "

Young Man:
14My dove is hiding behind some rocks, behind an outcrop on the cliff. Let me see you; let me hear your voice. For your voice is pleasant, and you are lovely.

Young Women of Jerusalem:
15Quick! Catch all the little foxes before they ruin the vineyard of your love, for the grapevines are all in blossom.

Young Woman:
16My lover is mine, and I am his. He feeds among the lilies! 17Before the dawn comes and the shadows flee away, come back to me, my love. Run like a gazelle or a young stag on the rugged mountains.[b]

Song of Solomon 3
Young Woman:
1 One night as I lay in bed, I yearned deeply for my lover, but he did not come. 2So I said to myself, `I will get up now and roam the city, searching for him in all its streets and squares. But my search was in vain. 3The watchmen stopped me as they made their rounds, and I said to them, `Have you seen him anywhere, this one I love so much? 4A little while later I found him and held him. I didnt let him go until I had brought him to my childhood home, into my mothers bedroom, where I had been conceived.
5"Promise me, O women of Jerusalem, by the swift gazelles and the deer of the wild, not to awaken love until the time is right.[a]"

Young Women of Jerusalem:
6Who is this sweeping in from the deserts like a cloud of smoke along the ground? Who is it that smells of myrrh and frankincense and every other spice? 7Look, it is Solomons carriage, with sixty of Israels mightiest men surrounding it. 8They are all skilled swordsmen and experienced warriors. Each one wears a sword on his thigh, ready to defend the king against an attack during the night.
9"King Solomon has built a carriage for himself from wood imported from Lebanon's forests. 10Its posts are of silver, its canopy is gold, and its seat is upholstered in purple cloth. Its interior was a gift of love from the young women of Jerusalem."

Young Woman:
11Go out to look upon King Solomon, O young women of Jerusalem.[b] See the crown with which his mother crowned him on his wedding day, the day of his gladness.

Song of Solomon 4
Young Man:
1 How beautiful you are, my beloved, how beautiful! Your eyes behind your veil are like doves. Your hair falls in waves, like a flock of goats frisking down the slopes of Gilead. 2Your teeth are as white as sheep, newly shorn and washed. They are perfectly matched; not one is missing. 3Your lips are like a ribbon of scarlet. Oh, how beautiful your mouth! Your cheeks behind your veil are like pomegranate halves--lovely and delicious. 4Your neck is as stately as the tower of David, jeweled with the shields of a thousand heroes. 5Your breasts are like twin fawns of a gazelle, feeding among the lilies. 6Before the dawn comes and the shadows flee away, I will go to the mountain of myrrh and to the hill of frankincense. 7You are so beautiful, my beloved, so perfect in every part.
8"Come with me from Lebanon, my bride. Come down[a] from the top of Mount Amana, from Mount Senir and Mount Hermon, where lions have their dens and panthers prowl. 9You have ravished my heart, my treasure, my bride. I am overcome by one glance of your eyes, by a single bead of your necklace. 10How sweet is your love, my treasure, my bride! How much better it is than wine! Your perfume is more fragrant than the richest of spices. 11Your lips, my bride, are as sweet as honey. Yes, honey and cream are under your tongue. The scent of your clothing is like that of the mountains and the cedars of Lebanon.
12"You are like a private garden, my treasure, my bride! You are like a spring that no one else can drink from, a fountain of my own. 13You are like a lovely orchard bearing precious fruit, with the rarest of perfumes: 14nard and saffron, calamus and cinnamon, myrrh and aloes, perfume from every incense tree, and every other lovely spice. 15You are a garden fountain, a well of living water, as refreshing as the streams from the Lebanon mountains."

Young Woman:
16Awake, north wind! Come, south wind! Blow on my garden and waft its lovely perfume to my lover. Let him come into his garden and eat its choicest fruits.

Song of Solomon 5
Young Man:
1 I am here in my garden, my treasure, my bride! I gather my myrrh with my spices and eat my honeycomb with my honey. I drink my wine with my milk.

Young Women of Jerusalem:
Oh, lover and beloved, eat and drink! Yes, drink deeply of this love!

Young Woman:
3One night as I was sleeping, my heart awakened in a dream. I heard the voice of my lover. He was knocking at my bedroom door. `Open to me, my darling, my treasure, my lovely dove, he said, `for I have been out in the night. My head is soaked with dew, my hair with the wetness of the night.
3"But I said, `I have taken off my robe. Should I get dressed again? I have washed my feet. Should I get them soiled?'
4"My lover tried to unlatch the door, and my heart thrilled within me. 5I jumped up to open it. My hands dripped with perfume, my fingers with lovely myrrh, as I pulled back the bolt. 6I opened to my lover, but he was gone. I yearned for even his voice! I searched for him, but I couldn't find him anywhere. I called to him, but there was no reply. 7The watchmen found me as they were making their rounds; they struck and wounded me. The watchman on the wall tore off my veil.
8"Make this promise to me, O women of Jerusalem! If you find my beloved one, tell him that I am sick with love."

Young Women of Jerusalem:
9O woman of rare beauty, what is it about your loved one that brings you to tell us this?

Young Woman:
10My lover is dark and dazzling, better than ten thousand others! 11His head is the finest gold, and his hair is wavy and black. 12His eyes are like doves beside brooks of water; they are set like jewels. 13His cheeks are like sweetly scented beds of spices. His lips are like perfumed lilies. His breath is like myrrh. 14His arms are like round bars of gold, set with chrysolite. His body is like bright ivory, aglow with sapphires. 15His legs are like pillars of marble set in sockets of the finest gold, strong as the cedars of Lebanon. None can rival him. 16His mouth is altogether sweet; he is lovely in every way. Such, O women of Jerusalem, is my lover, my friend.

Song of Solomon 6
Young Women of Jerusalem:
1 O rarest of beautiful women, where has your lover gone? We will help you find him.

Young Woman:
2He has gone down to his garden, to his spice beds, to graze and to gather the lilies. 3I am my lovers, and my lover is mine. He grazes among the lilies!

Young Man:
4O my beloved, you are as beautiful as the lovely town of Tirzah. Yes, as beautiful as Jerusalem! You are as majestic as an army with banners! 5Look away, for your eyes overcome me! Your hair falls in waves, like a flock of goats frisking down the slopes of Gilead. 6Your teeth are as white as newly washed sheep. They are perfectly matched; not one is missing. 7Your cheeks behind your veil are like pomegranate halves--lovely and delicious. 8There may be sixty wives, all queens, and eighty concubines and unnumbered virgins available to me. 9But I would still choose my dove, my perfect one, the only beloved daughter of her mother! The young women are delighted when they see her; even queens and concubines sing her praises! 10`Who is this, they ask, `arising like the dawn, as fair as the moon, as bright as the sun, as majestic as an army with banners?
11"I went down into the grove of nut trees and out to the valley to see the new growth brought on by spring. I wanted to see whether the grapevines were budding yet, or whether the pomegranates were blossoming. 12Before I realized it, I found myself in my princely bed with my beloved one.[a]"

Young Women of Jerusalem:
13Return, return to us, O maid of Shulam. Come back, come back, that we may see you once again.

Young Man:
Why do you gaze so intently at this young woman of Shulam, as she moves so gracefully between two lines of dancers?[b]

Song of Solomon 7
Young Man:
1 How beautiful are your sandaled feet, O queenly maiden. Your rounded thighs are like jewels, the work of a skilled craftsman. 2Your navel is as delicious as a goblet filled with wine. Your belly is lovely, like a heap of wheat set about with lilies. 3Your breasts are like twin fawns of a gazelle. 4Your neck is as stately as an ivory tower. Your eyes are like the sparkling pools in Heshbon by the gate of Bath-rabbim. Your nose is as fine as the tower of Lebanon overlooking Damascus. 5Your head is as majestic as Mount Carmel, and the sheen of your hair radiates royalty. A king is held captive in your queenly tresses.
6"Oh, how delightful you are, my beloved; how pleasant for utter delight! 7You are tall and slim like a palm tree, and your breasts are like its clusters of dates. 8I said, `I will climb up into the palm tree and take hold of its branches.' Now may your breasts be like grape clusters, and the scent of your breath like apples. 9May your kisses be as exciting as the best wine, smooth and sweet, flowing gently over lips and teeth.[a]"

Young Woman:
10I am my lovers, the one he desires. 11Come, my love, let us go out into the fields and spend the night among the wildflowers.[b] 12Let us get up early and go out to the vineyards. Let us see whether the vines have budded, whether the blossoms have opened, and whether the pomegranates are in flower. And there I will give you my love. 12There the mandrakes give forth their fragrance, and the rarest fruits are at our doors, the new as well as old, for I have stored them up for you, my lover.

Song of Solomon 8
Young Woman:
1 Oh, if only you were my brother, who nursed at my mothers breast. Then I could kiss you no matter who was watching, and no one would criticize me. 2I would bring you to my childhood home, and there you would teach me. I would give you spiced wine to drink, my sweet pomegranate wine. 3Your left hand would be under my head and your right hand would embrace me.
4"I want you to promise, O women of Jerusalem, not to awaken love until the time is right.[a]"

Young Women of Jerusalem:
5Who is this coming up from the desert, leaning on her lover?

Young Woman:
I aroused you under the apple tree, where your mother gave you birth, where in great pain she delivered you. 6Place me like a seal over your heart, or like a seal on your arm. For love is as strong as death, and its jealousy is as enduring as the grave. Love flashes like fire, the brightest kind of flame. 7Many waters cannot quench love; neither can rivers drown it. If a man tried to buy love with everything he owned, his offer would be utterly despised.

The Young Womans Brothers:
8We have a little sister too young for breasts. What will we do if someone asks to marry her? 9If she is chaste, we will strengthen and encourage her. But if she is promiscuous, we will shut her off from men.[b]

Young Woman:
10I am chaste, and I am now full breasted. And my lover is content with me.
11"Solomon has a vineyard at Baal-hamon, which he rents to some farmers there. Each of them pays one thousand pieces of silver[c] for its use. 12But as for my own vineyard, O Solomon, you can take my thousand pieces of silver. And I will give two hundred pieces of silver[d] to those who care for its vines."

Young Man:
13O my beloved, lingering in the gardens, how wonderful that your companions can listen to your voice. Let me hear it, too!

Young Woman:
14Come quickly, my love! Move like a swift gazelle or a young deer on the mountains of spices.

Gender and the shaping of desire in the song of songs and its interpretation

Gender and the shaping of desire in the song of songs and its interpretation
David Carr. Journal of Biblical Literature. Atlanta: Summer 2000.Vol.119, Iss. 2; pg. 233, 16 pgs

The work lives to the extent it has influence. Included within the influence of a work is that which is accomplished in the consumption of the work as well as in the work itself That which happens with the work is an expression of what the work is.
-Karl Kosik'
Take a look at introductions to commentaries on the Song of Songs or at recent essays on the book, and you will often find a common tale concerning the Song and its readers. This tale of reading and misreading can be summarized as follows:
Long ago, in ancient Israel a poet wrote passionate poetry about human love that we now find in the Song of Songs. Somehow this poetry found its way into the Hebrew Scriptures. Then, in the early centuries of the common era, Jews and then Christians, confronted with such erotic material in the heart of the canon, reread the Song as a song of love between God and God's people. This misreading was then perpetuated through various grotesque elaborations through the centuries. Those who read the Song correctly as a song of love were brutally persecuted. Only in recent years was the Song liberated from the dark ages of its misinterpretation. Using the tools of biblical criticism, scholars uncovered the original focus of the Song on human love and unmasked the repressive interpretations of the past as the misreadings that they were.
Although this tale is not universal, it is remarkably pervasive. For example, the key element of attack on earlier readings is evident in the following comments by Marvin Pope in the introduction to his commentary on the Song of Songs:
The flexibility and adaptability of the allegorical method, the ingenuity and imagination with which it could be, and was, applied, the difficulty and virtual impossibility of imposing objective controls, the astounding and bewildering results of almost two millennia of application to the Canticle, have all contributed to its progressive discredit and almost complete desertion.2
Lest we see this understanding as isolated, I include a second quotation, this time from one of the most able German commentators on the Song, Othmar Keel:
... zu welch willkurlichen unbefriedigenden and haufig himmelschreiend grotesken Rusultaten das "tiefere" Verstandnis der Allegoristen fiirhte, ist in jeder Geschichte der Auslegung des Hohelied nachzulesen.3
One can read in any history of exegesis of the Song of Songs what arbitrary, unsatisfactory, and revoltingly grotesque results were produced by an allegorical search for a "deeper meaning." (My translation)
These are but fragments of a broader perspective found in most critical work on the Song of Songs.4
In sum, this tale of reading and misreading of the Song of Songs has an almost mythic power. One reason for this may be that this tale resonates with the "myth of repression" that Michel Foucault has documented in modern discourse about sex. This myth tells us that we are in a time of liberation from a long process of sexual repression in the Western world. Yet Foucault and others have pointed out that the very discourses that are used as evidence for sexual repression, say in the Victorian period, were actually shaping, naming, and even instigating the very practices and development of sexual identities that they seemed designed to suppress.5
Much critical scholarship on the Song of Songs over the last decades has unconsciously participated in this modern construction of sexualities through reproducing a mini-variant of the myth of repression discussed by Foucault. In place of general sexual repression, we have the specific story of the repression of the original erotic meaning of the Song. In place of more general sexual liberation, we have scholarly recovery of the original erotic meaning of the Song. Recent readings of the Song as promoting non-fertility-related erotic love echo the more general shift in industrialized societies toward nonreproductive sexuality.6 Only recently have some begun to reflect critically on how sexuality was shaped in ancient Israel.7 To the best of my knowledge no published works have reflected in a sustained way on how twentieth-century understandings of gender and desire have shaped modern critical readings of the Song of Songs and its interpretations.
There will not be space in this essay to execute that project, but I do intend to tell the start of a somewhat different story of the Song and its journey through history, one that begins with shapings of desire in ancient Israel.
I. Sexual Gender
In order to tell this story, we must reexamine presuppositions implicit in the modem tale of interpretation just reviewed. One of the central characteristics of the scholarly myth of the genesis and repression of the Song of Songs is the construction of maleness and femaleness that it presupposes. Most contemporary Western readers of the Song and its interpretations presuppose that the thing that makes men and women different from one another is different bodies. This is sexual difference, upon which culture builds a set of gender distinctions. Thus, according to this understanding, "sex" and "gender" are distinct.
As Thomas Laqueur points out, however, this body-focused concept of sexual difference is itself a historical phenomenon. He argues that the premodern world worked with a one-sex concept of humanity, where male and female bodies were seen as essentially the same. According to this model, what made men "men" and women "women" was not their bodies, but their place on a broader cosmic hierarchy. Depending on where they stood on that hierarchy, men and women's bodies would receive the minor bodily changes to reflect their position. And there were tales of women, for example, who might act excessively male and sprout penises, thus shifting their physical form to correspond to their new place on the hierarchy. Laqueur's best summary of this perspective comes at the outset of his discussion of the continuation of this one-sex system into the Renaissance:
Renaissance doctors understood there to be only one sex. On the other hand, there were manifestly at least two social sexes with radically different rights and obligations, somehow corresponding to ranges or bands, higher and lower, on the corporeal scale of being. Neither sort of sex-social or biological-could be viewed as foundational or primary, although gender divisions -the categories of social sex-were certainly construed as natural. More important, though, biological sex, which we generally take to serve as the basis of gender, was just as much in the domain of culture and meaning as was gender. A penis was thus a status symbol rather than a sign of some other deeply rooted ontological essence: real sex. It could be construed as a certificate of sorts, like the diploma of a doctor or lawyer today, which entitled the bearer to certain rights and privileges.8
Thus, the fundamental aspect of sexual gender in this system is not a body but where one stands on a broader cosmic hierarchy. A key threat to this system occurs when the behavioral boundaries blur, for example, when a male, who was supposed to be high in the cosmic hierarchy, plays the part of the "lower," penetrated "woman" in anal intercourse.9
Judith Butler and others have built on Laqueur's work to argue for a radical reconceptualization of the sexed and gendered subject,10 but the argument in what follows is not dependent on an endorsement of the idea of the construction of sexuality, the gendered body, or human subjects. Moreover, it remains to be seen whether Laqueur's depiction of the construction of sexual gender in the classical world can be applied to the world of the Bible,11 But the work of Foucault, Laqueur, and others can lead us to take a new look at how sexuality is shaped in ancient Israel and at the ideas of sexual gender implicit in that shaping.
II. Sexual Hierarchy and the Theological Marriage Matrix
As is well known, Israel's legal prohibitions regarding sexuality focus on (a) protection of a man's status as guardian of his wife and unmarried daughter's reproductive potential and (b) protection of his dignity as a sexually autonomous actor.12 Laws regarding adultery focus exclusively on cases where a man has sex with a woman married or engaged to another man (Deut 22:22-27; Lev 20: 10; cf. Deut 5:18//Exod 20:14 and Deut 5:2 1//Exod 20:17). The laws regarding premarital sex focus on compensation or punishment when a man has sex with another man's unmarried daughter (Exod 22:15-16; Dent 22:28-29). And the only laws concerning homosexuality focus on cases of anal intercourse, where one man has another man play the part of a woman (Lev 18:22; 20:13), a case seen as a problem in other ancient Mediterranean cultures as well. 13
Within this system men are sexually autonomous as long as they do not violate the rights of other men over their women. Both married and unmarried men may have sex with prostitutes, slaves, and war prisoners. Men sow the seed of procreation and are almost always viewed as the proper initiators of sexual activity. In contrast, women receive the seed, and wives bear children who inherit the land. 14 As a result, many biblical traditions aim to ensure that women of proper lineage be the vessels of Israelite seed. Much effort is expended to ensure women's abstinence before marriage and fidelity within it. To be sure, some women such as Tamar of Genesis 38 or Ruth are depicted positively for their sexual initiative, but these cases are each closely connected with the establishment of a male dynastic line when the male protagonists are hesitant to do their part. Outside of such special cases, women are depicted as passive participants in sex, and a woman who initiates sex is depicted as a dangerous adulterer, as in, say, the vilified "strange woman" in Proverbs 7 (see also 2:16-19; 5:3-6; 6:24-35; 22:14; 23:27-28), who seduces a foolish youth to share her perfumed bed while her husband is away.15
Major theological streams in Israel included God in this sexual system. Adapting ancient Near Eastern treaty language, the Shema of Deut 6:4-5 enjoins the people of Israel to have the kind of exclusive, all-consuming love for God that a wife was to have for her husband-to love with all her heart, life strength, and might. Other texts in the Deuteronomistic History elaborate this analogy, calling on Israel to "love," "walk after," and "cleave to" YHWH (e.g., Deut 10:12, 20; 11:1, 13, 22; 13:5; 19:9; 30:6, 16, 20; Josh 22:5; 23:8, 11 [cf. 23:12-13])16 and idealizing those who do so (1 Kgs 3:3; 2 Kgs 18:6).17 On the flip side, Deuteronomistic texts call on Israel not to "go after" (...) other gods (e.g., Deut 6:14; 28:14; Jer 25:6; cf. Deut 8:19; 11:28; 13:3; Jer 7:6, 9; 11:10; 13:10; 16:11; 35:15), much like a human wife was not to pursue other lovers. Moreover, YHWH is described as having a lover-like "jealousy" (cf Num 5:14, 29, 30) about the people's "sexual acting out" (:?)18 through worshiping other gods (Deut 31:16; cf. Judg 2:17; 8:27, 33; and Exod 34:14-15; Num 15:39),19 Indeed, as is well known, Israel was often imaged by prophets as an adulterous woman, failing to be exclusively faithful to her divine husband, and worshiping other gods (e.g., Hos 2:4-17; Jer 2:1-3:13; Ezekiel 16, 23; cf. Isa 54:4-8; 62:4-5). And just as a jealous human husband had the right to strip, starve, and beat his wife into returning to him, so also Hosea, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel depict God as promising to strip Israel in the eyes of her lovers and force her to come back to him (Hos 2:11-17; Jer 13:25-27; Ezek 16:35-42; 23:22-27).
Sometimes there is slippage between the divine and human sexual levels. For example, as Kirsten Nielson has suggested, Isaiah in his vineyard song of chapter 5 tricks his male audience into thinking that he is singing of a jilted husband.20 First we need to recall how often in the Near East a wife is spoken of as a field or vineyard, into which a man plants his seed that will bring forth children.21 In Isaiah's "love song" (1717 MIi 5:1a), the husband cared for his wife, his "vineyard," and planted his good seed in her, but she yielded "wild grapes," easily understood as the children of another man (5:lb-2). After stating this accusation, the male audience is called on to endorse this husband's intention to treat his wife as unfaithful, stripping his "vineyard" and punishing her (5:3-). Yet the men soon hear that the very female they proclaimed judgment on is themselves: "for the vineyard of YHWH of armies is the house of Israel. . ." (5:7). These men thought they were enforcing the honor system on a fellow man's wife, but in fact they were the female vineyard, and their God was the angry husband.
I have briefly outlined a well-known set of beliefs that might be termed a "theological marriage matrix." In this matrix the believing community is depicted as the female spouse of the male god-called on to love that God with the exclusive love of a wife and punished for failure to do so. Notably, this construction of a female erotic religious subject in ancient Israel coincided with Israel's move toward henotheistic and monotheistic theology. So, where the Israelite God might have once been paired with a divine partner, say Asherah, now God is placed in relationship with a human sexual subject, and this relationship-with often highly troubling aspects-is understood to be that between a male and female.22 Thus, in henotheistic and monotheistic Israel, gender and love have become key concepts describing power differentials on multiple levels of the cosmic hierarchy.
This links with Laqueur's proposal regarding the positional character of sex in the ancient world-where one's position on a cosmic hierarchy determines one's sex. Thus, where I might be a "man" vis-h-vis a human woman in the hierarchy, we might both be "women" vis-a-vis God, who stands yet higher in that hierarchy. Within this world of essentially identical bodies and fluid boundaries between the sexes, it was a small step from seeing the man as superior to the woman in the hierarchy to seeing men and women as both in some sense actually "the woman" in a hierarchy extending upward to God. Thus, Israel as "woman" may not be "just" the metaphor that we often think it to be.23
Israel appears to have had a broad gender-hierarchical system where the .man" in a given relationship-whether human or divine-had exclusive rights to the "woman" of the relationship, whether a human woman or the people of God. The primary image of a problem in this system is that of a "woman" who acts contrary to the hierarchy and seeks out another lover. When she does so, she is not just an image of infidelity. She calls the whole hierarchy into question. A woman of unruly sexual initiative symbolizes the subordinate person getting out of control, not knowing her place. That is what makes the image of the sexually proactive "adulterous woman" so potent as a symbol of a rebellious Israel-because it accuses Israel of ignoring this broader cosmic hierarchy.
III. The Song of Songs as Alternative Discourse
Into this world of reproductively focused sexuality, hierarchies, male rights, and vilified sexually proactive women comes the Song of Songs. The Song begins with female sexual initiative in the famous opening lines, "Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth, for your lovemaking (7'7t)24 is better than wine" (Cant 1:2). This woman's voice and presence dominate the rest of the Song.25 To be sure, a man speaks his praise of her starting in 1:9-11 (also 1:15; 2:2; 4:1-7; 6:4-9; 7:2-10), and he comes to "his garden" upon being invited by her (4:16-5:1a). At the same time, she trumps his praises of her (1:16-17; 2:3); she begins and ends the Song; she is the one who speaks its refrains; and she is the one who calls on her lover to do things-draw her after him (1:4), be like a gazelle (2:17), come out to the fields with her (7:12-14), set her as a seal on his arm (8:6), and flee (8:14). Where he hovers outside and his invitations to her are mediated through her words (2:10-14; 5:2-4), her passion is directly presented to the audience26 and she energetically seeks him (1:7), "seizing" him and/or "bringing him" to the house of her mother (3:4; 8:1-2). In the middle of the Song he confesses to being driven mad by one of her glances, with but one of the strands of her necklace (4:9). By the end, the man's praise of her beauty is laced with fear before her awesome character (6:4, 10; 7:2-6).
Yet the poems of the song sometimes depict the female character as vulnerable. She is defensive about her sun-darkened skin (1:6a), put out to keep the flocks by her brothers (1:6b; cf. 8:8-9), found inside when her lover is outside (e.g., 2:9-13; 5:2-5), stripped and beaten in her second venture out to seek her lover (5:7), and prevented by fear of shame from kissing her lover in public (8:1). There is no sign throughout the Song that the lovers of the Song of Songs are married or that their love is sanctioned in any way. Their relationship is clandestine, though they wish it were otherwise (8:1-2, 13-14). And there is no talk of children, nor typical use of fertility imagery.27 However powerful the female character of the Song may appear, she is also depicted as exposed to the vulnerabilities of Israelite women, and she and her lover must still conduct their relationship amidst the obstacles presented by a society hostile to their relationship.28
That being said, this text contrasts sharply with other depictions of desire in ancient Israel.29 Where the dangerous foreign woman in Proverbs tempted the student toward death with kisses and a bed of spices, now the prominent female voice of the Song of Songs yearns for the kisses of her lover's mouth and they speak frequently of their spiced bed. Where a proactive, rule-breaking woman is the image of a disobedient, adulterous community in Hosea, now the Song of Songs features a woman who faces down the disapproval of her audience for her dark skin, seeks her lover at night, and revels in her love for him. To be sure, this otherwise untypical woman of the Song of Songs is not married, and so the Song does not celebrate extramarital sexuality. Yet it nevertheless presents an atypical view of premarital sexuality and nonreproductively focused female sexual initiative. Moreover, the often overpowering male of Israel's legal and prophetic texts is replaced here with a male passionately bound to the woman who loves him, captivated by but one of her glances, but one of the strands of her necklace.
So, we might ask, given its differences from other Israelite traditions, how was the Song of Songs received alongside the gender hierarchy mentioned earlier? Were ancient Israelites scandalized by the book? Was it some form of ancient pornography?30
An answer to these questions may lie in work done in the last twenty years by both classicists and Middle Eastern ethnographers, who have uncovered a rich world of networks and alternative discourses among the women of Mediterranean and Middle Eastern societies. Thus, Teri Joseph showed how teenage Riffian Berber girls sing influential and often daring songs in the liminal situation of wedding celebrations.31 Safa-Isfahani found Iranian women engaging in folk dramas that mocked their husbands and boldly confronted the problems of their lives.32 Such alternative women's discourses are hardly a uniquely modern phenomenon. John Winkler has found traces of similar alternative female discourses about sexuality and power in ancient Greek traditions.33
Perhaps most interestingly, in her study of West Egyptian Awlad CAli Bedouin, Lila Abu-Lughod uncovered a tradition of passionate poetry, primarily sung by women or by lovers courting each other. Like the Song of Songs, this poetry stood in sharp contrast to the honor culture of the Bedouin she studied. Whereas this culture was officially hostile to romantic attachments that might compromise marriage arrangements to the proper lineages, people-especially women-could express their deepest passions through traditional poems, poems often connected to epics told about heroes of their people. Indeed, sometimes friends or lovers would express their deepest feelings through singing such traditional poems back and forth to each other, picking poems that corresponded to the sentiments they could not express more directly. They would distance themselves from their feelings through using the words of someone else, yet express themselves nevertheless.34
According to Abu-Lughod, this was not some sort of protest discourse or a cathartic release from an emotionally oppressive system. Instead, she argues that this practice of singing intimate poetry is symbiotically related to the honor norms of the dominant culture. For example, through singing of passionate love and/or loss, the singer demonstrates an ability to channel her feelings into an acceptable medium and the fact that her-often difficult-act of doing so is a choice. On a broader societal level, the celebration of passionate poetry of feeling amidst a dominant ideology of honor reflects tensions between the anti-- structural, egalitarian ideals of the Awlad cAli and hierarchical domination structures within the community-15
There are many suggestive parallels between the poetic practices studied by Abu-Lughod and the Song of Songs.36 Like Abu-Lughod's poems, the Song of Songs is loosely connected to a national epic by way of Solomon, and its depictions of female vulnerability are but one sign that it is symbiotically related to the broader culture with which it contrasts. The sometimes disjointed and dialogical character of the Song of Songs parallels the way Awlad CAli lovers and female friends would use separate poems to communicate back and forth to one another. And just as women studied by Abu-Lughod were the most prominent singers of heartfelt poetry, so also the female voice dominates the Song of Songs.37 Most important, however, is the way Abu-Lughod's and others' work shows that multiple discourses can coexist and even reinforce each other within the same culture. Israelite culture was no monolith, just as our cultures are not. As a result, alternative poetry such as the Song of Songs or the poetry studied by Abu-Lughod may inscribe sexual subjects somewhat different from those of more public discourses, even as these alternative discourses stand in constant relation to more dominant ones.
This is not to suggest that the Song of Songs is a transcript of an actual intimate interchange between lovers. Rather it is an imaginative work that builds a poetic world based in part on discourses known to its audience, including possibly the kind of alternative, nonpublic discourses uncovered by Abu-Lughod, Winkler, and others. Originally, the Song of Songs was probably designed for entertainment, much like similar love poetry in Egypt.311 Yet the written imitation of nonpublic discourse had profound implications. For it took a depiction of what would normally be an intensely private exchange and resituated it in the public realm. Moreover, as we have seen, this public realm in ancient Israel probably did not strongly separate human male-female love from human-- divine love the way modems do. Instead, many understood divine-human love to be male-female love governed by much the same principles as male-female love on the human level.39
Given all this, it was natural for early interpreters to understand the depiction of male-female love in the Song of Songs to be relevant to the theological marriage matrix known elsewhere in Israel. Just as Hosea, the Deuteronomists, Isaiah, or Ezekiel could apply human gender categories to a picture of human infidelity to the divine, it was but a small step to take the radically different picture of love in the Song of Songs and use it to depict that same divine-human love relationship differently. What seems to be a big jump to modern readers, may have been a much smaller one to ancient ones.
The earliest audiences of the Song appear to have done just that, radically reimaging the divine-human, male-female relationship in terms of the Song of Songs. Thus in place of the shaming and stripping of Hosea, Jeremiah, Isaiah, and Ezekiel, we see images such as:
The Mekhilta and Sifre's understanding of the woman's praise of the man's body in Cant 5:10-16 to be Israel's praise of God's body at the Red Sea.40
Origen's rereading of the Song of Songs as a means of awakening within the soul the passionate, erotic love for God for which the soul was originally created.41
Bernard of Clairvaux's redescription of the opening of the Song-as the soul passionately demanding nothing less than union with God, as she refuses to settle for the divine kiss of the feet or hands and says, "I ask, I crave, I implore; let him kiss me with the kiss of his mouth."42
Mechthild of Magdeburg's vision where her divine beloved "took her in His divine arms, placed His fatherly hand on her breast, and looked into her face. Note how she was kissed there. With this kiss she was raised to the highest heights above the choirs of angels."43
In each case, the Song's description of a mutually passionate relationship is harnessed to redescribe the divine-human relationship in less violent and hierarchical terms.
To be sure, the human soul or community is still almost always the woman" in these interpretations.44 Yet the "woman" constructed in the Song of Songs is a far more powerful and unruly character than elsewhere in the Bible. She makes demands on God, even as she passionately desires him. And God is taken by his love for her, subject to her demands, "driven mad by but one of her glances, with but one of the strands of her necklace." Indeed, in parts of the Song, the challenge to the divine-human hierarchy would not be as great if we were to take God as the woman and humanity as the man.45
IV. Concluding Reflections
All this is not intended to suggest that these interpreters were recovering the originally intended meaning of the Song. Though the Song may draw on forms and/or specific cultic traditions that depicted divine love,46 the Song itself shows no clear signs of having been written to depict God's relation with God's people or the soul. Even the latest levels of the Song, such as its superscription, do not indicate a theological orientation,47 and it was neither Placed near nor explicitly coordinated with those texts (e.g., Hosea, Ezekiel) which most clearly depict the divine-human relationship as that between male and female lovers. Otherwise similar ancient Near Eastern cultic dialogues between gods and goddesses include telltale addresses to the deities by name.48 Erotic religious literature such as the Hindu Gita Govinda or Rumi's mystical poetry include asides and other indicators of their divine referents.49 The Song lacks such indicators. Moreover, though various theological interpreters have attempted to prove otherwise, the nontheological props and scenery of the Song suggest that it originally focused on human lovers.
That said, it should also be noted that the push in much modern biblical scholarship to distinguish sharply ancient theological and modern critical interpretations says more about modern interpreters than about the dynamics of the Song and its ancient interpretations. For the ancient Israelites, the jump from human male-female gender to divine-human gender was smaller than it is for us. At the same time, partly because of elements of our culture like the myth of repression, generations of biblical scholars time and again have depicted their nontheological approaches to the Song as a radical improvement over the repressed, ridiculous interpretations of their predecessors. In this respect, much critical biblical scholarship has been insufficiently critical of its own aims and categories.
In the face of this, it would be easy for specialists to renounce comment on the history of interpretation altogether. Yet to do so would be to cut biblical scholarship from a crucial dimension of the reality of the texts under study. As Kosik puts it in the quotation at the outset of this article, a "work lives to the extent it has influence" and "that which happens with the work is an expression of what the work is." In the end it was the Song of Songs read theologically and not Hosea that was preached on more often than any other OT book in the thirteenth century. It was the Song of Songs and not Jeremiah or Ezekiel that was one of the most frequently copied manuscripts of the Middle Ages.50 It was the Song of Songs and not Proverbs, that Rabbi Akiba is reported to have described as the "holy of holies" among the writings (m. Yad. 3:5). In the midst of a renaissance of study of the Song of Songs in recent years, we would do well to listen attentively to such ancient readers and let our own notions of love and subjectivity be interrogated even as we interrogate theirs.
[Footnote]
Earlier drafts of portions of this article were presented at the 1998 Congress of the International Organization for the Study of Old Testament (Oslo, Norway) and in a 1998 session of the Reading, Theory and the Bible Section of the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature (Orlando, Florida). I thank participants in both sessions for their helpful comments and questions. In addition, this essay has been enriched through conversations with former colleagues at Methodist Theological School in Ohio, particularly Colleen Conway, Assistant Professor of New Testament. I dedicate this piece to them.



[Footnote]
1 The English translation of a German rendering of Kosik's Chech original comes from Hans Robert Jauss, "Literary History as a Challenge to Literary Theory," in Toward an Aesthetic of Reception (trans. Timothy Bahti; Theory and History of Literature 2; Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1982) 15. The German rendering can be found in Karl Kosik, Die Dialektik des Konkreten: Eine Studie zur Problematik des Menschen and der Welt (trans. Marianne Hoffmann; Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1967) 138.



[Footnote]
2 Marvin Pope, The Song of Songs: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 7C; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1977) 90.
3 Othmar Keel, Das Hohelied (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1986) 16.



[Footnote]
4 Some examples of work from the 1990s include Diane Bergant, Song of Songs: The Love Poetry of Scripture (Spiritual Commentaries; New York: New City Press, 1998) 7-11; Ariel Bloch and Chana Bloch, The Song of Songs: A New Translation with an Introduction and Commentary (New York: Random House, 1995) 27-35; David Clines, "Why is There a Song of Songs and What Does It Do to You If You Read It?" in Interested Parties: The Ideology of Writers and Readers of the Hebrew Bible (JSOTSup 205; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995) 100-121 (though Clines argues that modern readings also fail to be sufficiently critical); Andr6 Lacocque, Romance She Wrote: A Hermeneutical Essay on Song of Songs (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity, 1998) esp. 168; John Snaith, Song of Songs (NCB; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993) 3-6; and Renita Weems, "The Song of Songs," in NIB, 5.370-71.



[Footnote]
Recently more works have attempted to combine a reading of the Song as human love poetry with a more sympathetic reading of the history of interpretation of the Song. Two book-length examples are Roland Murphy, The Song of Songs: A Commentary on the Book of Canticles or The Song of Songs (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990); and Nicholas Ayo [text] and Meinrad Craighead [artwork], Sacred Marriage: The Wisdom of the Song of Songs (New York: Continuum, 1997).



[Footnote]
5 Michel Foucault, History of Sexuality (3 vols; New York: Pantheon, 1978-86; French original, 1976-84).
6 On this shift, see the overview in John D'Emilio and Estelle B. Freedman, Intimate Matters: A History of Sexuality in America (New York: Harper & Row, 1988). Athalya Brenner has pointed out the existence of folk birth control traditions in the cultures surrounding Israel (The Intercourse of Knowledge: On tendering Desire and Sexuality in the Hebrew Bible [Biblical Interpretation; Leiden: Brill, 1997] 72-78). Nevertheless, the lack of reliability of such methods has meant that, up until recently, most forms of unmarried love carried the high probability of the creation of children.



[Footnote]
7 Saul Olyan, "And with a Male You Shall Not Lie the Lying Down of a Woman," Journal of the History of Sexuality 5/2 (1994) 179-206; Daniel Boyarin, "Are There Any Jews in `The History of Sexuality?" Journal of the History of Sexuality 5/3 (1995) 333-55; Brenner, Intercourse of Knowledge. See also the stimulating survey by David Biale, Eros and the Jews: From Biblical Israel to Contemporary America (New York: Basic Books, 1992) 15-32.



[Footnote]
8 Thomas Laqueur, Making Seat: Body and Gender from the Greeks to Freud (Cambridge, MA/II.ondon: Harvard University Press, 1990) 134-35.
9 Ibid., 53.
10 Judith Butler, Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity (New York: Rout



[Footnote]
ledge, 1990). Butler cites earlier work by Laqueur, among others, at the outset of her discussion (p. 152 n. 10).
" See, however, some preliminary reflections prompted in part by gender theory in Tikva Frymer-Kensky, In the Wake of the Goddesses: Women, Culture, and the Biblical Transformation of Pagan Myth (New York: Free Press, 1992) 118-43, esp. 140-43 and 262 n. 133.
12 For an overview, see Brenner, Intercourse of Knowledge, esp. 132-51.



[Footnote]
13 Olyan, "And with a Male," 179-206; Boyarin, "Are there any Jews in the History of Sexuality?" 333-55. Here I side with Boyarin's interpretation of the evidence as relating to gender hierarchy (pp. 340-48) over against Olyan's rejection of that approach (p. 199) and his proposal that the issue involves mixing of semen and other bodily fluids (pp. 199-204).
14 The latter parallels widespread imagery in modern Mediterranean societies. See Carol Delaney, "Seeds of Honor, Fields of Shame," in Honor and Shame and the Unity of the Mediterranean (ed. David Gilmore; Washington, DC: American Anthropological Association, 1987) 35-48; and Raymond Jamous, "From the Death of Men to the Peace of God: Violence and Peace-making in the Rif," in Honor and Grace in Anthropology (ed. J. G. Peristiany and J. Pitt-Rivers; Cambridge Studies in Social and Cultural Anthropology 76; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992) 168-69.



[Footnote]
1-5 The other main biblical example of this image is adulterous Israel. Since this case is on the divine-human level, it is discussed below.
16 Notably, the expression "walk after" with YHWH occurs only in 13:5 -1W '-Irt) of the texts cited above, while the other cited expressions that use the verb T usually speak of walking "in [all] his paths" -[ n; 10:12; 11:22; 19:9; 30:16; Josh 22:5; cf. 1 Kgs 3:3).



[Footnote]
17 As William Moran first observed, ancient Near Eastern treaties similarly use the language of love to describe political relations ("The Ancient Near Eastern Background of the Love of God in Deuteronomy," CBQ 25 [1963] 77-87, esp. 78-80; see also Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School [Oxford: Clarendon, 1972] 82-83). Just as a wife was to "love," "walk after," and "cleave to" her husband, so also political subjects and vassals were to "love," "walk after," and "cleave to" their lord.



[Footnote]
Is Though some routinely translate MT as referring to sex-for-hire (e.g., "whoring" or harlotry") more nuanced discussions have observed that the verb often designates any sex outside a sanctioned relationship (KB3, 1.264; S. Erlansson, m7t, TWAT, 2.613).
19 These implications were first pointed out by Gershon Cohen, "The Song of Songs and the Jewish Religious Mentality," in The Samuel Friedland Lectures, 1960-1966 (ed. L. Finkelstein; New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1966) 58. Against Cohen, Weinfeld argues that such language in Deuteronomy does not necessarily imply "the husband-wife metaphor" since there is no explicit reference to it in the Pentateuch (Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 81-82 n. 6).



[Footnote]
Frymer-Kensky notes, however, that the language of "jealousy" appears to distinguish the love language of Deuteronomy from that of the treaties on which it builds, implying a relationship analogous to that between human lovers (In the Wake of the Goddesses, 146). Further research is required to see whether and how much the use of this language was accompanied by implicit malefemale gendering of the persons involved.



[Footnote]
20 Kirsten Nielson, There Is Hope for a Tree: The Tree as Metaphor in Isaiah (JSOTSup 65; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989) 94-97.
21 Delaney, "Seeds of Honor, Fields of Shame," 35-48.
20 Generally, when this linkage has been noted before, it has been yoked to a more specific theory regarding the prophetic transformation of an ancient practice of "sacred marriage." See, e.g., E. Jacob, "L'heritage canaan6en dans le livre du prophete Osie," RHPR 43 (1963) 250-59,



[Footnote]
esp. 252 (older examples are cited by Cohen, "Song of Songs," 19 n. 6). The notes above do not depend on this specific, and ever more questionable, theory.
23 Cf nuanced discussions of the "marital metaphor in Cohen, "Song of Songs"; Frymer-- Kensky, In the Wake of the Goddesses, 144-52; and Renita Weems, Battered Love: Marriage, Sex, and Violence in the Hebrew Prophets (OBT; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995).



[Footnote]
24 Unless indicated otherwise, the translations here and in the following are my own. Though most translations render the plural of 71- here simply as "love," the word typically refers to actualized sexual relations of some sort (see Pope, Song of Songs, 299). Hence, I follow the Blochs in translating the term here as "lovemaking" (Bloch and Bloch, Song of Songs, 137). Following the MT, the possessive pronoun here is second person. Some have proposed emending the text so that it does not shift from third to second person. Nevertheless, the shift from third-person monologue to direct address anticipates the interplay between these modes throughout the rest of the Song. Moreover, there is no significant manuscript evidence for an alternative reading.
25 Here and in the following discussion I refer to a "man" and a "woman" in the singular as if



[Footnote]
they are continuous characters in a single work. To be sure, as A. Brenner observes, no one has successfully argued for a picture of the Song as a "unified sequence of love lyrics, with an ongoing linear plot" (The Song of Songs [OTG; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989] 35-40; see more recently eadem, "To See is to Assume: Whose Love is Celebrated in the Song of Songs?" BibInt 1 [1993] 266-69). Nevertheless, as Michael Fox in particular has shown, the present book coheres in a non-narrative sense (The Song of Songs and the Ancient Egyptian Love Songs [Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1985] 195-226). Moreover, Jill Munro has found elements of "narrativity" in the Song, without presupposing that the Song is unified by a "unfolding plot movement" of the sort often sought by previous interpreters (Spikenard and Saffron: The Imagery of the Song of Songs [JSOTSup 203; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995] 35-42, 110-14, 145-46).



[Footnote]
For a recent sustained attempt to find two intertwined plots in the Song of Songs, see Erich Bosshard-Nepustil, "Zu Struktur and Sachprofil des Hohenlieds," BN 81 (1996) 45-71. Though the article contains numerous intriguing observations, Bosshard-Nepustil's approach-like the dramatic theories he aims to replace-is weakened by the lack of explicit markers in the text of shifts in the hypothesized pairs of lovers being discussed.



[Footnote]
26 Building on some recent works by Clines ("Why is There a Song of Songs?") and Donald C. Polaski ("What Will Ye See in the Shulammite? Women, Power and Panopticism in the Song of Songs," BibInt 5 [1997] 64-81), Cheryl Exum cautions that the apparently unmediated quality of the woman's voice may be misleading ("Developing Strategies of Feminist Criticism/Developing Strategies for Commentating the Song of Songs, in Auguries: The Jubilee Volume of the Sheffield Department of Biblical Studies [ed. David Clines and Philip Davies; JSOTSup 269; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998] 228-30). For the purposes of comparison with other biblical texts, however, I am working with the seemingly unmediated voice of the woman as presented by the surface of the text.



[Footnote]
27 Instead, as Brenner points out (Intercourse of Knowledge, 72-78), the herbs most used in birth control in the ancient Mediterranean world also figure prominently in the Song. On the nonmarried character of the relationship, see Fox, Song of Songs, 229-43.
28 This element of overcoming social barriers to the relationship is highlighted effectively by Weems, "Song of Songs," passim.



[Footnote]
29 For some other contrasts of the female in the Song of Songs with other biblical texts, see in particular Fokkelien van Dijk-Hemmes, "The Imagination of Power and the Power of Imagination," in A Feminist Companion to the Song of Songs (ed. A. Brenner; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993) 156-70; original, 1989) and Ilana Pardes, "'I am a Wall, and My Breasts like Towers': The Song of Songs and the Question of Canonization," in her Countertraditions in the Bible: A Feminist Approach (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992) 118-43.
30 The latter suggested by Clines, "Why is There a Song of Songs?" 100-106. See also Polaski, "What Will Ye See?" 71-80, who argues that the powerful woman of the Song is only constructed as such by the assumed values of an all-powerful male gaze.



[Footnote]
31 Teri Joseph, "Poetry as a Strategy of Power: The Case of Riffian Berber Women," Signs 5 (1980) 418-34.
32 Safa-Isfahani, "Female-centered World Views in Iranian Culture: Symbolic Representations of Sexuality in Dramatic Games," Signs 6 (1981) 33-53.
33 John Winkler, The Constraints of Desire: The Anthropology of Sex and Gender in Ancient Greece (New York: Routledge, 1990).



[Footnote]
Ala Abu-Lughod, Veiled Sentiments: Honor and Poetry in a Bedouin Society (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986) esp. 171-232.
a5 Ibid., 234-59.
36 John Chance previously suggested the relevance of Abu-Lughod's work for study of the Song of Songs in his "The Anthropology of Honor and Shame: Culture, Values and Practice," in Honor and Shame in the World of the Bible (ed. Victor Matthews and Don Benjamin; Semeia 68;



[Footnote]
Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996) 143-44. Note also mention of Abu-Lughod's work in Weems, "Song of Songs," 366 n. 2.
37 Indeed, many have plausibly proposed that the Song of Songs may be one of the few biblical texts by a female author. Carol Meyers has argued persuasively that women were prominent musicians in ancient Israel ("The Drum-Dance-Song Ensemble: Women's Performance in Biblical Israel," in Rediscovering the Muses: Women's Musical Traditions [ed. Kimberly Marshall; Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1993] 49-67), and many have argued more specifically that the Song may have been written by a woman (see most recently Lacocque, Romance She Wrote, 39-53, with citations of some earlier proposals). But see the cautions of Exum, "Developing Strategies," 229-30.



[Footnote]
38 Fox, Song of Songs, 227-50 39 For discussion of some possible differences, see Frymer-Kensky, In the Wake of the Goddesses, 148-49.



[Footnote]
40 This saying is attributed to Rabbi Akiba in the Mekhilta (on Exod 15:2) and is often used as a key text for dating the beginning of an "allegorical" approach to the Song. Nevertheless, the saying is anonymous in Sifre (on Dent 33:2), and its attribution to Akiba in the Mekhilta may well be an attempt to link a famous interpretation to a sage already attested in early writings to have advocated the Song in general and nonliteral reading of it in particular. For the present purposes, it is enough to note the existence of this saying in two of the early midrashic collections.



[Footnote]
41 P. Brown, The Body and Society: Men, Women and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity (New York: Columbia University Press, 1988) 162-76; Bernard McGinn, The Foundations of Mysticism, vol. 1. of The Presence of God: A History of Western Christian Mysticism (New York: Crossroad, 1990) 108-30, esp. 117-24.
42 Bernard of Clairvaux, On the Song of Songs I (trans. Kilian Walsh; Cistercian Fathers Series 4; Spencer, MA: Cistercian Publications, 1971) 54 (Sermon 9.1).
43 Mechthild von Magdeburg, Flowing Light of Divinity (trans. Christiane Mesch Galvani; ed. with an intro. by S. Clark; Garland Library of Medieval Literature; New York/London: Garland, 1991) 60.



[Footnote]
44 There are important exceptions. Traditional Christian allegorical interpretation of the Song had given divine overtones to the woman of the Song as representative of the preexistent church; the Marian liturgy and a growing tradition of Marian commentaries took the Song as being a dialogue between a divinized Mary and Christ upon her assumption into heaven; and Hildegard of Bingen made the brief suggestion that the Song of Songs was the song of love by Solomon when he received divine Sapientia, to whom "he spoke... as to a woman in the familiar language of love" (Book of Divine Works 5.39; translation from Barbara Newman, Sister of Wisdom: St, Hildegard's Theology of the Feminine [Berkeley/Los Angeles/London: University of California Press, 1987] 65). Particularly in the late-twelfth and thirteenth centuries we see more developed interpretations of the Song as speaking of feminine divinity in such texts as the poems in stanzas by Hadewijch of Brabant (e.g., 3:44; 12:67; 25:9; etc.) or use of the Song to depict various feminine components of divinity (e.g., the Shekinah) in the Zohar.



[Footnote]
45 Brenner similarly notes the tension between the depictions of the man and woman in the Song and conceptions of God and humanity in prophetic "marriage" texts like Hosea ("To See is to Assume," 273-75). As she rightly points out, many interpreters have resolved this tension by reading the woman of the Song as more passive than she appears in the Song and the man as more powerful. Still, in reading the Song allegorically, such interpreters had to wrestle with depictions of the man and woman that did not conform with their concepts of God and humanity.
46 For a recent intriguing proposal, see Martti Nissinen, "Love Lyrics of NaM and Tasmetu: An Assyrian Song of Songs?" in "Und Mose schrieb theses Lied auf": Studien zum Alten Testament und zum Alten Orient (Festschrift Oswald Loretz; ed. Manfried Dietrich and Ingo Kottsieper; Minster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1998) 585-634.



[Footnote]
47 For suggestive speculation on some Solomonic and other elements of the Song that might have been added to the text to buttress its (already) canonical authority in early Judaism, see Magne Sebo, "On the Canonicity of the Song of Songs," in Texts, Temples, and Traditions: A Tribute to Menahem Haran (ed. Michael Fox et al.; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1996) 267-77.
The term "theological" is used here and in the following to designate readings that see God as a character in the Song. Though the term "allegorical" is often used generally to designate such readings, it is not necessarily appropriate to early rabbinic Jewish interpretations (see Daniel Boyarin, Intertextuality and the Reading of Midrash [Indiana Studies in Biblical Literature; Bloom



[Footnote]
ington/Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1990] 105-15) or to tropological and other forms of interpretation of the Song that do see God or a divine element in the Song, but do not see God's people-whether the church or people of Israel-as the other main character.
48 For example, in the dialogue of Nabu and Tasmetu linked by Nissinen to the Song of Songs ("Love Lyrics of Nabu and Tasmetu"), the gods are mentioned by name in lines 2-6, 11-12, 15, 17 and (r.) 9, 13, 15-16, 25.



[Footnote]
49 Notably, there is evidence that the twelfth-century Bengali poet Jayadeva in the Gita Govinda drew on Sanskrit courtly love poetry regarding humans to talk about devotion to Krishna, thus moving from human love poetry to divine eros. Two hundred years later, the poet Vidyapti used the spiritual love imagery of the Gita Govinda-as well as legends about Krishna and Radha in the Bhagavata Purina-as the departure point for poems about Krishna and Radha as images of ideal human eros (W. G. Archer, -Introduction," in idem, Love Songs of Vidyapati [London: Allen & Unwin, 1963] 23-36). Such shifts back and forth across the divine-human divide, along with examples of use of cultic love imagery in the Song of Songs (see Nissinen, "Love Lyrics of Nabi and Tasmetu") indicates how fluid ancient boundaries were between theological and nontheological use of erotic imagery.



[Footnote]
50 Figures are from Wilfred Cantwell Smith, What Is Scripture? A Comparative Approach (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1993) 22-23 and 248-49 n. 4.



[Author Affiliation]
DAVID CARR
dcarr@uts.columbia.edu Union Theological Seminary, New York, NY 10027

Revealing and concealing as a narrative strategy in Solomon's judgement (1 Kings 3:16-28)

Revealing and concealing as a narrative strategy in Solomon's judgement (1 Kings 3:16-28)

Garsiel, Moshe
(ProQuest Information and Learning: Foreign characters omitted.)

AT FIRST GLANCE, the rhetorical strategy of the narrative of Solomon's judgment in the Book of Kings keeps the listener/reader guessing until King Solomon proposes a nonconventional solution that indeed uncovers the true mother of the living baby. At the same time, the Bible seems to conceal which prostitute speaks the truth: the first one or the "other one." Nevertheless, a careful study of the rhetorical structure of the narrative, the dialogue, and the words of the narrator-- what he reveals and what he conceals-shows that the story does eventually reveal which of the two women is the true mother of the living child.

I. Narration

We will begin our analysis of this story by adopting the distinction made by Wayne C. Booth between the actual writer, the narrator, and the implied author. An actual writer-the composer of a particular narrative and perhaps other narratives-generally has a well- or lesser-known biography. At times he enables us to learn something about himself from his compositions or by other means. The narrator of a story is an instrument through which all information flows and through whom the narrative materials are transmitted. The implied author is a fictitious term that indicates someone responsible for the meanings, open or concealed, that can be derived from the text.1

Biblical writers are for the most part anonymous. But in J. Liver's opinion the actual, original writer responsible for the story of Solomon's Judgment, as well as for other stories that greatly extol Solomon's wisdom, was one of the wise men in King Solomon's court. The narratives that emphasize the wisdom of Solomon were apparently included in an earlier book called "The Book of the Acts of Solomon" (1 Kgs 11:41). At a later time, the stories were integrated into the Deuteronomistic edition of the Book of Kings.2

The narrator of Solomon's Judgment is responsible for the transmission of the text, whether he is recounting the series of events or citing the speeches of the characters involved. When he quotes the words of the characters, there arises an illusion that one is listening to the various dialogues spoken by the characters of the narrative. It is as if the words reflect the special point of view of those characters: fairly completely when they are presented as direct speech, or partially when they are given as indirect speech through the mediation of the narrator. Yet even the speech of a literary character is actually heard through the mouth of the narrator, from whom and by whose mediation all literary information flows, including the direct speech of the characters of the story.

It is the implied author who has enabled the characters in the story to express themselves directly or indirectly and formulate their speeches; the implied author is therefore responsible for all of these, though using an agent, the narrator.3 Thus, the position of the implied author of our story can be crystallized through a reader's analysis of all parts and aspects of the text.

II. The Significance of Solomon's Judgment according to the Narrator

At this point, let us turn to the background and story of the judgment in the biblical text. The story of the judgment is integrated into the context of the last stage of the consolidation of Solomon's rule. The narrator first tells us that Solomon goes to Gibeon, where he is favored with a divine revelation in which he is promised wisdom greater than that of any human being (1 Kgs 3:4-15). Afterwards, Solomon returns to Jerusalem, the capital of his kingdom. There, he is called upon to judge two prostitutes, both of whom claim to be the mother of the same living child. In a brilliant manner, Solomon decides the case in favor of one of them and, as a result, becomes the ruler of the entire nation. The story concludes: "When all Israel heard the decision that the king rendered, they feared the king; for they saw that he possessed divine wisdom to execute justice" (1 Kgs 3:28). The narrator then adds to this a statement of outcome: "and King Solomon ruled over all Israel" (1 Kgs 4:1).

The juxtaposition of the narratives in chap. 3 indicates stages in the evolution of Solomon's status: in his dream at Gibeon, the young king requests wisdom, primarily to do justice;4 and the Lord indeed promises him such wisdom. When he returns to Jerusalem, there occurs the trial of the two prostitutes, and in it he succeeds in demonstrating his unique divine wisdom in the realm of righteousness and justice; and so he finally establishes his status as king over all Israel, which is the conclusion of the story. The contextual links between the request for judicial wisdom, the case of the two women, and the recognition of Solomon as king over all Israel have been analyzed by early commentators and later researchers.5

The story of Solomon's trip to Gibeon and his dream is recorded also in 2 Chr 1:1-13, though with many changes in text, context, and significance. The major textual changes inform us that Solomon, in his dream at Gibeon, was promised wisdom in leadership wisdom and general wisdom. The author of Chronicles was primarily interested in linking the leadership and general wisdom granted to Solomon with the building of the temple in Jerusalem.6 This served as a special argument in his debate and that of the returnees from the Babylonian exile who settled in Jerusalem with their adversaries, the Samaritans, who built a temple on Mount Gerizim.7 Since the wisdom promised to Solomon was not limited to judicial wisdom, the narrator of Chronicles did not include the story of the two prostitutes, which mainly illustrated the king's judicial wisdom.

In the narrative of Solomon's judgment in I Kings 3, the two women appear different in status. The first woman, the plaintiff, presents the case at length: she describes how the two of them have lived in one house and how she gave birth first and her adversary gave birth the third day afterwards. She emphasizes that there was no one else in the house at the time of the incident. She relates that the son of her adversary died during the night because his mother lay on him. She then describes what happened after that: while she was still sleeping, in the middle of the night her adversary rose and exchanged her own dead son for the live one. She herself discovered the deception in the morning.

Her adversary, the defendant, neither denies nor confirms the details of the incident. She merely declares that her son is the live one and that the dead child belongs to the plaintiff. The plaintiff, for her part, once again claims the opposite. The discussion between them continues. Finally, Solomon summarizes the position of both sides and orders that the living child be cut in half, and that each woman be given half a child. One mother has compassion on her son and asks Solomon to give the infant to her adversary, whereas the adversary demands that the king's decree be carried out. Solomon changes his decision and rules in favor of the compassionate woman, who took pity on the living child.

The story contains a number of gaps: the text does not reveal .if Solomon discerned, even before he ordered the division of the child, which one was the mother of the living child according to the appearance of the women before him or according to the way they presented their arguments. Similarly, the text does not explicitly declare who the mother of the living child was: the plaintiff or the defendant. These questions, among others, have been extensively treated by traditional commentators and by modern commentators and researchers.

Josephus (A.J. 8.2.2 sec 26-34) thought that the plaintiff was the real mother but that Solomon was able to determine the truth of her claim only on the basis of the sword test. Isaac Abarbanel (1437-1508), on the other hand, thought that after listening to the arguments Solomon immediately discerned which one was the true mother and which the dissembler. The plaintiff describes the case in greater detail. She says that she gave birth first, and her adversary gave birth three days later. In this fashion, she hopes that the king will examine the children and discern who was born first and who was born later, and so reveal the truth. In contrast, the defendant speaks very briefly: she only presents the major aspects of her complaint, that the living child is hers and that the dead one belongs to her adversary. In Abarbanel's view, she was afraid to speak at length lest she err in her words. Thus, while the arguments are being presented, Solomon recognizes that the plaintiff is the real mother and that the defendant is lying. Solomon reveals his solution to his advisers, and only afterwards performs the test with the sword, so as to convince the advisers of the correctness of his decision and of his judicial ability.8

Rabbi Joseph Kara (1065-1135) maintained that it is possible to distinguish between a child who is a day old and one who is three days old. A day-old child is covered with congealed blood as a result of the pressure of the birth, whereas a three-day-old child's blood has already been absorbed into his body and the signs of congealed blood are disappearing.9

Radbaz (1480-1574) agreed with Abarbanel that Solomon had decided before the test of the sword that the plaintiff was the mother of the living child. Solomon observed that the facial characteristics of the living child were similar to those of the plaintiff, whereas the face of the dead child was similar to that of the defendant. Solomon also observed the character of the women: the first one was very careful and certainly did not kill her child by carelessness.10

Disagreeing with traditional commentators who view the plaintiff as the mother of the living child, M. L. Malbim (1809-1871) maintained that the defendant is the mother of the living child. He based his conclusion primarily on the fact that in her response to the complaint, the defendant opens her defense by stating that her child is the living one and only afterwards points out that the dead child is the son of her adversary. The plaintiff responds in the opposite manner (1 Kgs 3:22). In Malbim's view, the order in which the living child is mentioned by the two women indicates that the defendant is the true mother. She places the main point before the subsidiary one: first she notes that the living child is hers, and only then does she say that the dead child belongs to her adversary.11

To date, there are differences of opinion regarding whether or not, when the two women presented their arguments prior to the test with the sword, Solomon recognized who the true mother was, the plaintiff or the defendant. In the view of Ilya and Gila Leibowitz, as well as of Efraim Wizenberg, the defendant is the mother of the living child. Solomon could have decided this prior to the test, in accordance with the arguments of the women, because the plaintiff is able to tell precisely how the child died: his mother lay upon him. How could she know this if, according to her own words, she was asleep at the time? The answer is that she knew the cause of death inasmuch as she herself was the one who killed her son with her lack of care, and now, at the time of the trial, she tries to transfer the blame onto her companion.12 Similarly, the question of the order of reference, according to which the plaintiff mentions the dead child before the living child whereas the defendant does the opposite, reveals to Solomon that the plaintiff is the liar while the defendant is the mother of the living child. 13 In contrast, Gedalya and Josepha Rachman argue that the plaintiff is the true mother because her story is full of details that support her argument.14

Subsequent researchers transferred their interest from this question to the problem of communication and the nature of the relationship between the author and the readers. Does the author, in the manner of recounting the story, lead us to the conclusion regarding the identity of the true mother? And at which stages and by what means does the author manage to do so? Many answers have been offered to this question. According to one view, the author leads us to the conclusion that the plaintiff is speaking the truth and that she is the true mother of the living child. Indeed, she is the one who wins the case, and her son is returned to her.15 According to the opposite view, the narrator hints that it is the defendant who is the mother of the living child and that Solomon recognizes that fact by means of the test with the sword.16 Still another view maintains that the author does not support either identification. From the dramatic development of the narrative, it is impossible to determine which woman speaks the truth. The reader remains in the dark, without any knowledge, and Solomon arrives at a solution only by tactic of the test; and even after the decision, the reader cannot clearly decide who won the living child, the plaintiff or the defendant.17

III. The Narrative Structure and Strategy

As we noted at the beginning, we are convinced the reader can eventually determine, by means of detailed investigation into the rhetorical structure of the different stages of the story, the words of the narrator, and the interwoven dialogues of the characters of the narrative, that the plaintiff is the true mother of the living child whereas the defendant is the mother of the dead child.

A. Vocabulary

Let us first examine the significance of some of the vocabulary used in the story. The narration opens with an exposition by the narrator:

...

"Later two prostitutes came to the king and stood before him." (1 Kgs 3:16)

In the previous story, which relates Solomon's request at Gibeon for wisdom, he is always referred to as "Solomon." However, in our story he is referred to only by his title "the king," for he functions as the royal dispenser of justice. The two underlined verbs, "[they] came" and "and [they] stood before him," link the story of the judgment of Solomon with the conclusion of Solomon's dream in the previous verse (3:15), which concluded with those same two verbs:

...

"Then Solomon awoke: it was a dream! He went (lit. came) to Jerusalem and stood before the ark of the Lord."

Likewise, the two stories have in common the verbs from the roots ... and ... (3:9, 11, 28).18 So, too, the two narratives have in common the word ..., "and behold" (vv. 15, 21). The common terminology links the two narratives associatively19 and places them within the literary genre of dreams and their realization, which is widespread in the Bible. In Solomon's dream, the king is promised judicial wisdom, and immediately on his return to Jerusalem he is able to demonstrate that God has indeed granted him divine wisdom in order to see to it that justice is carried out.

B. The Two Adversaries

At the beginning of the story the implied author, by means of a messenger, the narrator, grants equal status and anonymity to the two women. They are defined as "women" and as "prostitutes," and they come together and stand before the king equally, neither of them being identified or characterized. This state changes quickly. The implied author lets one of them speak first; she appears as the plaintiff and presents her case before the king [and the readers] in detail and relatively at length. Thus, the plaintiff acquires a preferential status over the defendant, based on a psychological-literary convention. Within the framework of a text, whoever is granted the right to speak first and at length, and uses this right to describe the case and develop arguments in detail, has a better chance of convincing the audience of the justice of his or her claim. In contrast, the one who speaks afterwards, and whose words are curt and limited, appears less convincing.

Of course, this is not an absolute indicator that the plaintiff is speaking the truth. S. Lasine brings proof that the length of the speech of one litigant as against the short speech of the other litigant is not a guarantee that the first litigant is correct.20 In principle, he is right. Nevertheless, there is a widespread tendency among readers to use such characterizations as a means to identify the one who is telling the truth. One cannot ignore the fact that providing the plaintiff with a platform to present the case in detail counts in her favor. This occurs elsewhere in the Bible. For example, when Samuel and the people discuss appointing a king in Israel, the implied author gives preferential status to the prophet, and Samuel's advantage is emphasized in the lengthy and well-formed speech that the narrator puts into his mouth (1 Sam 8:11-18). This contrasts markedly with the short, succinct response of the people (vv. 19-20).21

a. The Plaintiffs Case

At the start of the trial, the plaintiff turns to the king. She begins with the phrase ..., "Please, my lord" (1 Kgs 3:17). This phrase denotes submission, request, and supplication; it is a formula by means of which a person of lower status addresses a ruler.22 In the course of her speech, the plaintiff refers to herself as ..., "your maidservant," as a wise woman would when addressing a ruler or king. Compare, for example, 1 Sam 25:24, 25, 28, 31; 2 Sam 14:15, 16; 20:17. These polite, submissive expressions by the prostitute, who is normally considered to be of low social status, add points in her favor in the eyes of the reader.23

The woman begins to present her case with great clarity: "I and this woman dwelt in one house, and I gave birth with her in the house" (3:17). In noting that they dwelt in the same house and that at the time of the birth the second woman was also in the house, the plaintiff wishes to emphasize that the second woman knows that the plaintiffs child was born first. Then the plaintiff describes the birth of the second child: "On the third day after I gave birth, this woman also gave birth to a child. We were alone; and there was no one else with us in the house, just the two of us in the house" (3:18). By once more emphasizing that the two of them were alone in the house for both births and that no stranger was present, the woman stresses that the incidents occurred in the presence of both of them and no one else. No other person knew anything about what happened, and thus there were no witnesses to call. Nor was there a stranger who knew about the birth and could thus be involved in the exchange of the live child for the dead one. The absence of other people in the home of the two prostitutes is not ironic and does not detract from the credibility of the story.24 Indeed, one must remember that the two women were at an advanced stage of pregnancy and afterwards gave birth, so that their physical condition kept potential clients at a distance.25 The description of the background and the events by the plaintiff creates for the reader a momentary impression of harmony between two women, since they live together in the same house and are closely associated in their lives, even in the births of their infants.

However, this harmony and association break down in the next stage of the plaintiff's discourse. She chooses her words with relative delicacy; she does not specifically say that the defendant killed her son but states that the baby died as a result of an accident, when his mother lay upon him. Indeed, this does not reflect a difference in the actual description of the act, but only the plaintiffs attempt to speak neutrally when explaining how she thinks the tragedy occurred. The plaintiff continues to describe how the defendant then rose during the night, took the son of the plaintiff, who was asleep, and placed the live baby in her own bosom. She then placed the dead son in the bosom of the plaintiff. The latter is very meticulous in her language. She herself had been very careful to place her baby nearby on the bed, so that the defendant took him ..., "from beside me" (e.g., Gen 41:3; Lev 10:12). In contrast, the defendant acted differently when she exchanged the children. She placed the living child ..., "in her [own] bosom," and the dead child ..., "in my bosom" (that is, of the plaintiff). Placing the child in the bosom means linking it to the body (e.g., 2 Sam 12:3; 1 Kgs 1:2).

This distinction, in the view of the plaintiff, shows that she herself was careful in that she customarily placed her son nearby, though not linked to her body, whereas the defendant placed the two infants joined to the body of the two mothers. Indeed, earlier that night the accident was caused because the defendant placed her child in her bosom. It is possible to claim that the defendant placed the dead child in the bosom of the plaintiff so that the plaintiff would mistakenly assume that she had suffocated or crushed the dead child in her sleep. But the defendant repeated her earlier mistake when she placed the living child, whom she had stolen, in her own bosom. Though she may have placed the living child as close as possible to herself for fear that her adversary would come and take back the living child, her deed nonetheless endangered the life of the kidnapped child.

Commentators and researchers have noted internal contradictions in the plaintiff's speech. If, as she maintains, she was asleep when the tragic event occurred as well as during its aftermath, how did she know that her adversary caused the death of her son by lying upon him, and how did she know that her adversary exchanged the children?26 It is not difficult to answer these questions. The plaintiff offers a logical deduction and an acceptable explanation as to how the son of her adversary suddenly died at night and how the children were found in the wrong mother's care. Since there was no stranger in the house during the time of the action, the plaintiff solves the riddle by accusing her neighbor, the defendant, based on where she customarily placed a baby: in the mother's bosom.27 Indeed, the implied author creates an interesting analogy between two riddle solvers: (1) the woman who solves the riddle by reconstructing the criminal act of the defendant, even though she, the plaintiff, was asleep at the time; and (2) Solomon, who adopts the arguments of the plaintiff and successfully solves the riddle to the satisfaction of the people.

The plaintiff describes the series of events step by step and clearly. After her companion exchanged the children, the plaintiff arose in the morning to nurse her son, and she was surprised to discover ..., "behold, he was dead." The word ... is an elliptical term, an abbreviation of the expression "and I saw, and behold."28 In many cases in the Bible, the word "behold" expresses the speaker's viewpoint,29 especially the speaker's surprise. The plaintiff was surprised that a dead child lay in her bosom. The plaintiff continues to describe the next stage:

...

"But when I looked closely at him in the morning, [lit., and behold] it was not the son I had borne." (v. 21)

Actually, the plaintiff waited for the light of the morning in order to view her son, and she was surprised again when she saw that the child in her bosom was not her son. This surprise finds expression once again with the use of the word ....

The survey of events, stage after stage, with attention paid to details, gives the plaintiff an advantage in the struggle for the sympathy of the listeners present at this dramatic legal event as well as of the readers. Indeed, there are those who note the plaintiff's repetitiousness and link it either to her emotional involvement or to her being a woman of low status, a commoner.30 However, repetitions in speech are characteristic of biblical literature and of early Semitic literature in general. They are an integral part of speeches of wise women such as Abigail (1 Sam 25:24-31), the wise woman of Tekoah (2 Sam 14:4-20), and the wise woman from Abel Beth-maacah (2 Sam 20:16-19).

In our view, the plaintiffs is a carefully thought out and planned speech with regard to both the vocabulary and the significance of her part of the dialogue.31 The plaintiff repeats the word "house" four times; it is a key or guiding word (LeitworT): "This woman and I live in the same house ..., and I gave birth to a child while she was in the house (...).... We were alone; and there was no one else in the house (...), just the two of us in the house" (...) (vv. 17-18). Repetition of the word "house" shows the closeness that originally existed between the women. Whenever it is mentioned, the plaintiff emphasizes the close association of the two women, which includes the fact that they gave birth at about the same time in the same house. The house is more than a roof over their heads; it symbolizes unity and linkage. Elsewhere in the Bible, the term "house" also signifies family (e.g., Exod 1:1). It is easy to comprehend why the plaintiff feels betrayed by her companion, who destroyed the close relationship between the two when she exploited the fact that the two were alone in that house to exchange the children.

One should also note that darkness is associated with the defendant but light with the plaintiff. There is a dual use of the word ..., "night," in the description of the negative actions of the defendant: "During the night this woman's child died, because she lay on it. She arose in the night and she took my son from my side" (vv. 19-20). The defendant acted at night: first, she acted with lack of care when she caused the death of the child; afterwards, under the cover of darkness, she committed a criminal act by exchanging the children.

In contrast, light is associated with the plaintiff. The word ..."in the morning," appears twice in connection with the activities of the plaintiff: "When I arose in the morning to nurse my son, there [lit., and behold] he was dead; but when I looked closely in the morning, it was not the son I had borne" (v. 21). The plaintiff woke up in the morning to nurse her son. She is pictured as a responsible woman who is devoted to her son and wants his well-being, so she arose very early in order to nurse him, even before the child began crying. She was then surprised to find him lifeless. She again examined him when there was more light, so that she could see his facial features clearly.

The structural contrast between the night, which signifies the defendant's actions, and the morning, which signifies the plaintiffs actions, emphasizes the different character of the women. Similarly, the repetition of the word CIP, "to arise," emphasizes the difference between the two of them: whereas the defendant arose in the night to exchange the children (v. 20), the plaintiff arose in the morning to nurse her son (v. 21). There can be no doubt that the plaintiff wins the interest and sympathy of the reader by reason of her manner and her detailed descriptions.

b. The Defendant's Case

Now comes the defendant's turn to reply to the plaintiffs accusations and to try to win the sympathy of the king and the others present. Will she succeed in obtaining their sympathy as well as the sympathy of the reader?

Through the narrator, the implied author presents the defendant as ... ..., "the other woman" (v. 22). I have not found among the commentators anyone who has commented on the meaning of this epithet, perhaps because they considered it a simple, technical remark. The first woman is referred to as ..., "one woman" (v. 17); afterwards, permission to speak is granted to the second woman, who is called "the other woman," rather than "the second woman." Is there any significance to the author's specific choice of the phrase "the other woman" to describe the defendant?

The phrase ..., "another woman," occurs only twice elsewhere in the Bible. The first occurrence is in Judg 11:2, where it is told that Yiftah, son of Gilead, was the son of a prostitute. When he grew up, his stepbrothers, the sons of Gilead's legitimate wife, informed Yiftah, "you will not inherit in our father's house, for you are the son of another woman." The connotation of "another woman" brings out the lack of legitimacy of that woman and of her son. They are therefore ostracized by the legitimate family and denied the rights of inheritance, in contrast to the legitimate wife and her sons.

The second occurrence of this phrase is 1 Chr 2:26, where it is said: "Jerahmeel had another woman." The text distinguishes between the legitimate sons of Jerahmeel, from his legitimate wife, and those who were born of another woman and are of lower status with regard to tribal identity and inheritance. Indeed, the lower status of Jerahmeel's family is reflected here among the families of the tribe of Judah. Apparently, the families of Jerahmeel were foreigners who joined families of the tribe of Judah but were of a lower status.32 In these two cases the term "other woman" is a derogatory description of a woman of lower social status. The derogatory description of the defendant in the story of the judgment of Solomon as "the other woman" is an additional hint from the implied author that the second woman was of lower status than the first woman. The implied author thus hints at his preference for the first one.

Now "the other woman," the defendant, responds. Again, direct speech is used, and we note the blatant difference between her words and those of her predecessor. Whereas the plaintiff opened her speech in a submissive manner and addressed the king directly, "Please, my lord," the defendant speaks directly to her rival, disregarding the king and his nobles, and making no submissive introduction. One also notices that her words are much briefer than those of her predecessor: she does not relate to or respond at all to the plaintiffs description of events. Her response is limited to the declaration that the living son is hers and the dead one is her companion's. Her unmannerly behavior lessens greatly the sympathy of the readers toward her. One scholar even compares her behavior to that of a "fishwife."33

The defendant speaks briefly, concentrating only on the ownership of the sons. Hence, her disregard for the plaintiff's detailed description of events leads one to suspect that the defendant fears her tongue will trip her up, and her mouth will give away her deceitful action.34 At this stage of the narrative, the implied author leads the reader to surmise that the plaintiff is speaking the truth whereas the defendant is lying. But in fact, there is nothing in the words of the two women thus far that absolutely proves, or is legally acceptable proof, that the first one speaks the truth and the second one is lying.35 Nevertheless, the rhetoric and the hints that are integrated into the text in both the voice of the narrator and the embedded direct speeches of the adversaries turn the sympathy of the readers in favor of the plaintiff and cause them to surmise that the defendant is guilty of exchanging the children and that she spoke falsely in a court of justice.

c. A Second Round of Arguments

In the second round of arguments, however, there is a considerable drop in the absolute sympathy that the readers feel for the plaintiff and in their readiness to guess the solution to the riddle and decide that the defendant is guilty of exchanging the children and lying before the king. This drop in sympathy results when the plaintiff loses her self-control after listening to the defendant. Now she, too, disregards the presence of the king. She responds directly to the defendant, reversing the words of her adversary in structure (which is chiastic) and content:

...

"And this one spoke, 'No, your son is the dead one, and my son is the live one.'" (v. 22)

The acrimonious exchange between the plaintiff and the defendant and their complete disregard for the king, for judicial procedure, and for conventionally obligatory manners in the presence of the king create, at this late stage, the appearance of a common or lower status for the two adversaries. The plaintiff loses part of the sympathy she had won in the opening stage, when she presented her side of the case with submission and good manners, at length and clearly, and with a thoughtful literary structure. The narrator continues: "and they spoke before the king." This summary indicates that the adversaries continued their arguments on the legal situation before the king. The short summation with which the implied author decided to end the accusatory exchanges between the rivals hints that the rivals have reached the stage where they repeat themselves or introduce irrelevant details. This enables the author to waive the need to cite their words directly or indirectly. Instead, by means of the narrator's voice, he briefly intimates that a fruitless discussion and lack of progress ensued, which increases the suspense and paves the way for Solomon's solution.

C. Solomon's Verdict

Solomon begins with a summation of the adversaries' arguments that further diminishes the reader's early sympathy toward the plaintiff. "The king said, `This one says, "this is my son, the live one, and your son is the dead one," and this one says, "No, your son is the dead one, and my son is the live one" ' " (v. 23). It is difficult to know to which of the two women Solomon refers in each of the two parts of his short summation of the adversaries' arguments. On the surface, in the first part he cites the "other woman," the defendant, the one who, in her argument, maintains that her son is the live one and that the son of her adversary is the dead one; such is, indeed, the order of Solomon's words. But it is possible that the king changes the structure of the adversaries' words and that he does not cite exactly what they said and in the same order. Instead, he may have inverted the order of their words in chiastic form, as occurs many times in biblical texts. The wording of the text is inconclusive. Moreover, it is possible that Solomon summarizes the two women's arguments in the order of their appearance at the trial. Thus, he refers to the plaintiff in the first part, because she was the one who presented the case first, whereas he summarizes the defendant's response to the charges in the second part.36

In any case, Solomon sums up the arguments in a balanced manner without revealing a preference for either one of the adversaries. This heightens the suspense. It brings the readers, who may have played with the thought that they have succeeded in discerning that the plaintiff is speaking the truth, to a stage of confusion and doubt regarding the problem of who is really speaking the truth? The situation at this stage is almost a stalemate, and the plaintiff now receives less sympathy from the readers than previously, although she still has a relative advantage over the defendant because of her impressive presentation at the beginning of the trial.

In the next stage, the narrator brings us to the climax with a description of the deed of judgment (v. 24). This stage is marked by the double use of ... "and [the king] said," related to the same speaker at the beginning of two sentences in a row-a device used frequently in the Hebrew Bible. First, the narrator presents Solomon's quotation of the similar claims of the women, preceded by "and the king said" (v. 23). When the king issues the command to bring him a sword, the formula "and the king said" is repeated despite the fact that the speaker has not changed. In many biblical texts, this technique intimates a break between one speech and another by the same speaker.37 In the case before us, it expresses a time out for thinking and a break between the summation of the arguments by Solomon and the stage of his command to bring the sword.

Moreover, the double occurrence of "and the king said" creates a dramatic pause that whets the curiosity of the reader: How will Solomon solve a case of such complexity? The dramatic tension is heightened even more when the king's brief command is heard: "Bring me a sword," and the sword is brought and placed before the king (v. 24). The observers at the trial as well as the readers do not understand why the young king suddenly needs the sword. The tension mounts and reaches a climax. At this point, the narrator does not slow down the pace. The sentences are short, followed by the command to execute the decision: "and the king said, 'Cut the living child into two and give half to one and half to the other'" (v. 25). The implied author does not permit his readers to wonder: Does the king, the young lad, really know what he is doing?

At this point the true mother breaks down. The narrator does not reveal if the true mother is the plaintiff or the defendant, but from the standpoint of an omniscient narrator and with a penetrating glance into the depths of the soul of the true mother, he characterizes her as "the woman whose son was the live one ... because she had pity on her son" (v. 26a). When the narrator reveals her identity, he describes what is happening in her soul at the same time, and even explains the motive that brought her to waive her rights to her son. Only afterwards does he describe how she addressed her request to the king and his court:

...

"and she said, 'Please my lord, give her the live child, do not kill him."' (v. 26b)

Here, too, in the two parts of v. 26, the word ..., "and she said," is repeated in reference to the true mother without the speaker being changed. According to one view, this repetition expresses the confusion of the true mother when she hears the command to kill her baby. At first she is silent, but then she manages to recover quickly and act to save her son. This moment of confusion and silence finds expression in the doubling of ..., "and she said," before she actually speaks.31 According to another explanation, the intervention of the narrator in the identification of the woman, the penetration to her soul, and the explanation of her motives creates a closed sentence that necessitates a Wiederaufnahme, that is, a return to the path and flow of the story by verbal repetition. The doubling of ... serves this purpose; it links the two parts of the dialogue that were disturbed by the narrator's parenthetical remark.39

The true mother, clearly identified by the intervention of the narrator, speaks again, reverting to her submissive, mannerly approach to the king, ..., "Please, my lord" (v. 26), which were the opening words of the plaintiffs speech at the start of the trial (v. 17a). This strengthens the conclusion that the mannerly plaintiff is the one called the merciful mother at the end of the trial, The implied author also helps the reader reach this final identification by comparing the women in the concluding stage. The true mother is mannerly, addresses the king and his court in a submissive manner, and does everything in her power not to antagonize the king and his court in order to prevent her infant from being killed. Moreover, she is prepared even to waive her complaint and to leave her son in the kidnapper's hands.

In contrast, the lying kidnapper acts grossly. She does not address the king and his court submissively, as is obligatory under the circumstances. On the contrary, she again completely disregards the presence of the king and his court. She addresses her adversary, the true mother, directly, briefly, and cruelly, without expressing humane emotions. Her speech contains six words, five consisting of one syllable, and the concluding word consisting of two:

..., "It shall be neither yours nor mine!"40

Then, with a single word, she commands that the execution be carried out: "Cut" (v. 26). The kidnapper acts as if she has the authority to approve the king's decree and to order execution of the decree.41 Indeed, this is an extremely rare case in the Bible where a person of lower social status gives a command in the presence of the king to his servants to carry out his decision.42

The readers, who already at the beginning of the trial distinguished between the different characters of the plaintiff and the defendant, are satisfied when, at the conclusion of the process, it becomes clear to them that their early impressions are proved correct. The mannerly plaintiff is indeed the mother of the living child, whereas the crass defendant, who continued even at the concluding stages to act unmannerly and cruelly, is a kidnapper and the mother of the dead child.

IV. Conclusion

There are a number of options for an author who develops a narrative that contains characteristics of a legal riddle and a detective story.43

(1) The author can formulate the story utilizing vagueness, deception, and a red herring to point the readers to the wrong solution. This method is widespread in modern detective stories in which the author deliberately directs suspicion against various characters in the story; only at the end of the narrative does it become clear to the readers that the suspicious characters are free of all wrongdoing, while the very quiet, sympathetic character is the actual criminal. By means of this narrative technique, the author teases and maintains a superior position to the readers, who toil to solve the riddle but are led astray by the author's hints. It finally becomes clear to them how much the author has teased them and led them in wrong directions. The author of the story of Solomon's Judgment did not choose to follow this path.

(2) A contrasting option is one in which the implied author, by means of an all-knowing narrator, lets the readers participate from the beginning in solving the riddle. The narrator, who points to the suspect and the latter's motives, enables the reader to be a partner in relevant knowledge from the beginning. In fact, the reader is likely to know more than the main hero, the detective, or the bright lawyer who toils to solve the riddle.

Formulating a narrative in this fashion very much diminishes the narrative tension. The reader knows the solution from the beginning and is much wiser than the hero of the story, who faces surprises in the course of solving the riddle. The author of the story of Solomon did not choose this option, either.

(3) The third option is to tell the story neutrally and objectively. The author who chooses this approach neither divulges hints that lead the reader in the direction of innocent people nor deceives the readers into thinking that the criminal is an upright and law-abiding person, as in option 1 above. Nor does this author volunteer signs or decisive proofs that point directly at the criminal already in the early stages of the story, as in option 2 above. On the contrary, the author tries to develop the story by removing all hints that will enable the reader to identify the upright character or the criminal. Even a story of this sort creates a distance between the story and the reader. The reader is interested in becoming a partner and companion to the story, always searching for hints and indications in the narrative so as to form an opinion on the characters and their true value. The author of Solomon's Judgment did not choose even this neutral manner, though many commentators and researchers feel that he did.

An author could take an integrated approach, using one technique at the beginning and shifting to another during the course of the story. In my opinion, the author of Solomon's judgment chose this combined approach. The plaintiff opens the presentation of the incident. Her manners and skill at description, which find expression in her well-thought-out opening speech and her conclusion, provide her with an advantage. In contrast, the defendant is defined as "the other woman" by the implied author, who thus hints at the lack of legitimacy of her status in comparison with the one who appeared first. In addition, the implied author has her respond only very briefly. Her presentation is not convincing. She does not address the king as is obligatory in a judicial situation, but addresses her rival directly; she does not relate or respond to the details of the event as described by her adversary, but determines absolutely that the living child is hers and that the dead one belongs to her rival. Until this stage in the narrative, the implied author inclines the readers to view the mannerly and fluent plaintiff as the true mother and the crass defendant as the kidnapper. But this stage of the story could have an unsatisfactory outcome: the readers are likely to reach a negative opinion of Solomon's solution and his wisdom since even they can guess which mother is speaking the truth and which one is the liar. Therefore, the author directs the readers not to be hasty in their enthusiasm and decision in favor of the plaintiff.

In the second round of arguments, the plaintiff is affected by her rival's manner. The latter ignores the fact that she is in the midst of a judicial proceeding before the king and his court and enters into a direct dialogue with her opponent. The king's summation of the mothers' words brings the reader to a more careful reevaluation. The plaintiff has a relative advantage, but the legal status is still complex and a creative solution is called for.

Solomon indeed arrives at a nonconventional solution to uncover the truth and reveal the identity of the true mother. It becomes clear to the reader after catching the hints, especially that of the opening formula "Please, my lord," which is used twice-at the beginning of the story and at the end-that the plaintiff is speaking the truth: she is the mother of the living child, whereas the defendant is the kidnapper.

The intelligent reader has enjoyed being a partner in the solution. Solomon solved the riddle in an unconventional manner; the reader, by means of literary analysis, can solve the additional riddle presented by the narrator: Which of the two women, the plaintiff or the defendant, gains the living child based on Solomon's decision? This narrative strategy of revealing and concealing who is the true mother and who is the guilty party activates the readers to participate in the effort of solving the riddle, and to enjoy themselves upon its solution.

1 W C. Booth, The Rhetoric of Fiction (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961) 71-76; J. Ewen, "Writer, Narrator, and Implied Author" (in Hebrew), Hasifrut 18-19 (1974) 137-63 (English

abstract, pp. vii-ix). M. Sternberg (The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading [Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1987] 74-75) prefers to refer to the narrator in his analyses of biblical storytelling, and he does not make use of the distinction between narrator and implied author; in his opinion, both merge into one in the biblical narrative.

2 J. Liver, "The Book of the Acts of Solomon," Bib 68 (1967) 75-101.

3 For a different view, see Ellen Van Wolde, "Who Guides Whom? Embeddedness and Perspective in Biblical Hebrew and in 1 Kings 3:16-28," JBL 114 (1995) 623-42.

4 J. A. Montgomery and H. S. Gehman, The Books of Kings (ICC; Edinburgh: Clark, 1967) 107; J. Gray, I & 11 Kings: A Commentary (OTL; London: SCM, 1970) 126; M. Noth, Konige (BKAT; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1968) 51; R. B. Y. Scott, "Solomon and the Beginnings of Wisdom in Israel," in Wisdom in Israel and in the Ancient Near East (ed. M. Noth and D. W. Thomas; VTSup 3; Leiden: Brill, 1955) 262-79.

5 Among earlier commentators, see R. David Kimchi (1160?-]235?) on 1 Kgs 3:16; 41; R. Joseph Kara on 1 Kgs 3:15-16; in Miqraot Gedolot-Haketer (in Hebrew; ed. M. Kohen; Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1995) 25; R. Isaac Abarbanel (1437-1508) on I Kgs 3:16; 4:1, in Commentary on Early Prophets (in Hebrew; Jerusalem: Torah and Daat edition) 481-83. Later researchers include S. Zalevsky, Solomon's Ascension to the Throne: Studies in the Books of Kings and Chronicles (in Hebrew; Jerusalem: Marcus, 1981) 188-92; M. Garsiel, "Solomon's Travel to Gibeon and his Dream," in B. Ben Yehuda Jubilee Volume (ed. B. Lourie; Tel Aviv: Society for Biblical Research, 1981) 192, 195; N. Ararat, Drama in the Bible (in Hebrew; Jerusalem: World Jewish Bible Center, 1996) 291-92, 295.

6 For an in-depth discussion of the significance of the changes in the description of the dream in the Book of Chronicles as well as the reason for the omission of the trial of the women, see Garsiel, "Solomon's Travel To Gibeon," 206-10.

7 For the anti-Samaritan tendency of the Book of Chronicles, see M. Garsiel, "The Structure and Contents of Chronicles as a Veiled Polemic against the Samaritans," in Jerusalem and the Land of Israel (ed. J. Schwartz et al.; Tel Aviv: Ingeborg Rennert Center for Jerusalem Studies & Eretz-Israel Museum, 2000) 42-60.

Abarbanel on 1 Kings 3, in Commentary on the Early Prophets, 481-82.

9 Commentary of Rabbi Joseph Qara to the Book of Kings 25 (in Hebrew).

10 R. David ibn Zimra, Responsa of the Radbaz, Part 2 (in Hebrew; ed. B. Zetzer and N. Shriftgisser; Warsaw, 1882) Responsum 634, pp. 128-29.

11 Miqraot Gedolot (in Hebrew; Beney Beraq: Hameir Le-Yisrael, 1998).

12 E. and G. Leibowitz, "Solomon's Judgment" (in Hebrew), Beth Mikra 35 (1990) 242-44; E. Y. Wizenberg, "Solomon's Judgment" (in Hebrew), Niv Hamidrashia 9-10 (1973) 41-42.

13 Ibid. This argument was raised already by Malbim (see n. 11).

14 G. and Y. Rahaman, "Solomon's Judgment" (in Hebrew), Beth Mikra 38 (1992) 91-94.

15 B. O. Long, 1 Kings: With an Introduction to Historical Literature (FOTL 9; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984) 67-70; H. C. Brichto, Toward a Grammar of Biblical Poetics: Tales of the Prophets (New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992) 47-63; Zalevsky, Solomon's Ascension to the Throne, 206.

16 G. A. Rendsburg, "The Guilty Party in I Kings III 16-28," VT 48 (1998) 534-41.

17 Stemberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative, 66-70; Van Wolde, "Who Guides Whom?" 623-42; S. Lasine, "Solomon, Daniel, and the Detective Story: The Social Functions of a Literary Genre," HAR 11 (1987) 247-51; idem, "The Riddle of Solomon's Judgment and the Riddle of Human Nature in the Hebrew Bible," JSOT 45 (1989) 61-86; A. Reinhartz, "Anonymous Women and the Collapse of the Monarchy: A Study in Narrative Technique," in A Feminist Companion to Samuel and Kings (ed. A. Brenner; The Feminist Companion to the Bible 5; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994) 53-54.

18 B. Porten, "The Structure and Theme of the Solomon Narrative (I Kings 3-11)," HUCA 38 (1967) 99-100; Zalevsky, Solomon's Ascension to the Throne, 191-92.

19 On linking sections in biblical literature by means of linguistic associations, see U. Cassuto, Biblical and Oriental Studies (2 vols.; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1973- ) 1. 1-6.

20 See Lasine, "Riddle of Solomon's Judgment," 61-69; idem, "Solomon, Daniel, and the Detective Story," 247-51.

21 See M. Garsiel, "Samuel's Speech Pertaining `the Custom of the King"' (in Hebrew), Hagut Bamikra, vol. 5 (Tel Aviv: Am Oved, 1988) 112-36.

22 See Gen 43:2; 44:18; Exod 4:10, 13; Num 12:11; Josh 7:5; Judg 6:13, 16; 1 Sam 1:26. For this expression and the various views as to its etymology, see M. J. Mulder, I Kings (Historical Commentary on the Old Testament; Leuven: Peeters, 1998- ) 1. 155.

23 Lasine ("Riddle of Solomon's Judgment," 80 n. 11), however, does not regard a mannerly and humble opening as an indicator accurate enough to identify the one who is telling the truth.

24 Contra W. A. M. Beuken, "No Wise King Without a Wise Woman (I Kings III 16-28)," in New Avenues in the Study of the Old Testament: A Collection... Published on the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Oudtestamentisch Werkgezellschap (ed. A. S. van der Woude; OTS 25; Leiden: Brill, 1989) 6; K. A. Deurloo, "The King's Wisdom in Judgment: Narration as Example (I Kings iii)," ibid., 17.

25 P. A. Bird, "The Harlot as Heroine: Narrative Art and Social Presupposition in Three Old Testament Texts," Semeia 46 (1989) 119-39, here 132.

26 Many commentators and researchers noted this contradiction. See, e.g., Wizenberg, "Solomon's Judgment," 41-42; Leibowitz, "Solomon's Judgment," 243; J. T. Walsh, "The Characterization of Solomon in First Kings 1-5," CBQ 57 (1995) 471-93, here 479. The Septuagint omits the admission of the plaintiff that she was asleep in the course of events that she describes. The translators omitted the phrase "and your maidservant was asleep," because they thought that the plaintiff was the true mother of the living child and thus they sought to eliminate the contradiction. See Lasine, "Riddle of Solomon's Judgment," 67.

27 See S. J. de Vries, I Kings (WBC; Waco, TX: Word, 1985) 59.

28 S. Kogut, "On the Meaning and Syntactical Status of i3 in Biblical Hebrew," in Studies in Bible (ed. S. Japhet; ScrHier 31; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1986) 133-54.

29 A. Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative (Sheffield: Almond, 1983) 62, 91-95.

30 B. Uffenheimer, Ancient Prophecy in Israel (in Hebrew; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1984) 253.

31 See the detailed and well-reasoned discussion by Zalevsky, Solomon's Ascension to the Throne, 195-98.

32 See J. Liver, "Yerahme'el" (in Hebrew), Encyclopaedia Biblica, vol. 3 (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1958) 861-63.

33 Brichto, Grammar of Biblical Poetics, 52.

34 Abarbanel, in the introduction to this story.

35 Lasine ("Riddle of Solomon's Judgment," 64, 68-69, 78, 80) offered many examples that show that mannerly speech and detailed, well-constructed testimony by litigants in court do not necessarily show the correctness of those who speak this way. The danger exists that smooth-talking people will deceive a court. Despite this, judges are accustomed to listening to the speeches of litigants and witnesses, to observing their character, and at times to deciding according to their impression as to who is speaking the truth and who is not. But legal standards are not the issue at hand when one is dealing with a literary analysis, as is the case here. The issue is not what constitutes admissible testimony in a court of law but what rhetorical means and literary stratagems the narrator might have used to secure the reader's sympathy and appreciation towards various characters in the story. The criteria of literary analysis for deciding truth are different from those used in ancient or modern courts.

36 Compare Rendsburg, "Guilty Party in I Kings III, 16-28," who maintains that it is possible to recognize the lying mother by means of an identity tag provided by the narrator, namely, rTI ... (... + conjunctive waw), "and this one says." The narrator attaches this tag to the lying mother in v. 26b; but before this, it was attached to the plaintiff in v. 22b, and again to the plaintiff in v. 23b, as part of the summation by the king. As we posited in body of the article, however, it is entirely possible that the king summarized the speeches of the women in the order of their appearance before him, first the plaintiff and then the defendant, and that he changed the internal order of the speeches in a chiastic manner in summarizing them. This eliminates the basis for Rendsburg's argument, which fails to buttress his view that the defendant is the mother of the living child.

37 M. Shiloah, ...(in Hebrew), in Korengreen Volume (ed. A. Wiezer and B. Lourie; Tel Aviv: Society for Biblical Research, 1964) 251-67, esp. 257, 262.

38 Ibid., 265.

39 Samuel A. Meier, Speaking of Speaking: Marking Direct Discourse in the Hebrew Bible (VTSup 46; Leiden: Brill, 1992) 70-71.

40 For a somewhat different explanation, see F. Polak, Biblical Narrative: Aspects of Art and Design (in Hebrew; Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1994) 273.

41 Indeed, there is quite a bit of irony in the command of the king and, afterwards, in the command of the kidnapper, who repeats the king's command 1"In, "cut!" The denotation is cutting the living child in two, precisely as the king commanded; but this is accompanied by an ironic connotation of ..., "deciding the case," in accordance with the use of ... in late texts (Job 22:8; Esth 2:1 ).

42 Uziel Mali, "The Language of Conversation in the Former Prophets" (in Hebrew; Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University, 1983) 162-63.

43 For an in-depth discussion of these characteristics from a sociological and anthropological standpoint, see Lasine, "Solomon, Daniel, and the Detective Story"; idem, "Riddle of Solomon's Judgment."

MOSHE GARSIEL

Bar Ilan University

Ramat Gan, Israel

Copyright Catholic Biblical Association of America Apr 2002
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved


FindArticles > Catholic Biblical Quarterly, The > Apr 2002 > Article >