{"id":1031,"date":"2017-02-27T02:11:00","date_gmt":"2017-02-27T02:11:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/fumcschenectady.org\/blog\/2017\/02\/27\/the-bibles-only-self-description-of-a-woman\/"},"modified":"2020-02-15T19:08:17","modified_gmt":"2020-02-15T19:08:17","slug":"the-bibles-only-self-description-of-a-woman","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fumcschenectady.org\/blog\/2017\/02\/27\/the-bibles-only-self-description-of-a-woman\/","title":{"rendered":"\u201cThe Bible’s Only Self-Description of a Woman\u201d based on Song of Songs 1"},"content":{"rendered":"

I
\nfind it truly exciting that the only time a woman describes herself
\nin the Bible she describes herself as \u201cblack and beautiful.\u201d1<\/sup><\/a>
\nThe joy comes from both a woman describing herself as beautiful \u2013
\nwhich I find incredibly subversive on its own \u2013 and the fantastic
\ninversion of our messed up culture that she is dark-skinned AND
\nbeautiful. \u00a0It is a lovely match for Black History Month. \u00a0And then,
\non top of all that, Song of Songs is a book of erotic poetry in the
\nBible! \u00a0 Its very existence flies in the face of the ridiculous
\nChristian prudishness that has done such great harm for so many
\ncenturies.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Thus,
\nI’ve been really excited to preach this sermon for weeks. \u00a0However, a
\nfew problems have emerged. Song of Songs has humbled my prowess as a
\nscholar. \u00a0 I’ve done some my most significant Biblical study on Song
\nof Songs. \u00a0Yet, when I came to the important questions related to
\npreaching this text I found that I had NO possible way to discover
\ntheir answers. \u00a0What I would really like to know is (1) how radical
\nit was for a woman to say \u201cI am beautiful\u201d in that time and place
\nand (2) how radical it was for a woman to express sexual desire in
\nthat time and place. \u00a0There are a few impediments to knowing. \u00a0First
\nof all, the black and beautiful woman is the only woman in the whole
\nBible describing herself AND the only woman in the Bible naming her
\nsexual desire, which means that there is no one to compare her to. \u00a0\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Secondly,
\nthere are the incredible complications of the text itself. \u00a0This book
\nis very, very difficult to make assertions about. \u00a0To begin with, you
\nmay know it as Song of Songs or Song of Solomon because its OPENING
\nLINE is difficult to translate and no one is sure which one is more
\naccurate. \u00a0That’s only the beginning of the complications. \u00a0There is
\nalso the issue of determining when it was written, and time ranges
\nare especially wide on this. \u00a0Scholars claim anything from 960 to 200
\nBCE. \u00a0That’s 760 years of difference. \u00a0It is possible that the ways
\nthat women’s voices were heard, the expectations of beauty, the
\nsexual norms of the day, and how much humility a woman was expected
\nto express might well have varied wildly over 760 years. \u00a0For
\ninstance, it might be worth considering that many of those things
\nhave drastically changed since 1257, and even since 1957<\/b>.<\/p>\n

\n<\/p>\n

\nThis level of unknowing makes it
\nhard to determine anything about how subversive this woman’s words
\nand actions really were. \u00a0I think that there have been cultures in
\nworld history where it would not have been particularly radical for a
\nwoman to claim her own beauty nor her own sexual desire. \u00a0 As a
\nwhole, Judaism has been more sex-positive than Christianity,
\nincluding in having an understanding that part of the role of the
\nSabbath was for love-making. \u00a0That may suggest that ancient Judaism
\nmay also have been more openminded than (say) medieval Christianity
\nand that, in particular, a woman’s expression of sexual desire would
\nnot have been all that surprising.<\/p>\n

\n<\/p>\n

On
\nthe contrary, though, if this were so normal we might expect to hear
\nit in other parts of the Bible. \u00a0Also, we do know a lot about
\npatriarchal cultures and we know ancient Israel was one of those for
\nall of those 760 years. \u00a0In those cultures, women’s voices aren’t
\noften heard, nor free. \u00a0Finally, if a woman expressing her desire
\nwere so normal, it would be reasonable to expect that interpreters
\nthrough the ages might have commonly interpreted the text literally
\nand not allegorically, and that’s FAR from true. \u00a0Most historical
\ninterpretations of this book have been allegorical and or
\nmetaphorical, taking the male character as God or Christ and the
\nfemale as the church, Israel, or Israelites. \u00a0\n<\/p>\n

\n<\/p>\n

It
\nis only relatively recently that this erotic text has been
\ninterpreted as being primarily about eroticism. \u00a0In the nineteenth
\ncentury, a German scholar named Johann
\nGottfried Heder
\nanalyzed the Song and
\nfound it to be, \u201ca collection of pleasingly erotic love-poetry.\u201d2<\/sup><\/a>
\n \u00a0Further research in the early twentieth century connected the Song
\nto similar Egyptian and Canaanite poetry. \u00a0In 1990, Roland Murphy (an
\nAmerican Catholic scholar who taught Biblical Studies at Duke) wrote,
\n\u201cAny broad agreement among contemporary critical scholars that the
\nliteral text of the Song marvelously portrays the passions and
\nyearnings of human lovers is a recent phenomenon.\u201d3<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

Roland Murphy himself says it is notable that Song of Songs is not
\nonly about sex, but it’s erotic and nonjudgmental about sex. (You
\nmight be amazed to note that the text does not say that the lovers
\nare married, and in fact rather suggests that they aren’t!)<\/p>\n

\n<\/p>\n

I
\nsuspect that interpretations of the book Song
\nof Songs<\/i>
\nare more reflective of the culture reading the text than they are of
\nthe book itself! \u00a0Since we don’t know how it was understood in its
\nfirst few centuries, so we lack the capacity to know how radical it
\nwas then! \u00a0It is POSSIBLE that the original meanings of the book were
\nlost along the way to allegory and metaphor. \u00a0Additionally, the book
\nSong of Songs is exceptionally difficult to interpret. \u00a0\n<\/p>\n

\n<\/p>\n

\u201cThe
\nvocabulary of the Song of Songs is also unusual in the proportion of
\nwords unique or rare elsewhere in Scripture\u2026 In the brief span of a
\nlittle more than a hundred verses there are almost fifty hapax rarely
\nfound elsewhere in Scripture.\u201d4<\/sup><\/a>
\n (A hapax is a word found only once in Scripture, making them harder
\nto translate.) Many commentators identify frequent double entendre
\nwithin the Hebrew as well, making it very difficult to render in
\nEnglish. \u00a0Furthermore, the love poetry of other parts of the Near
\nEast and the mythology of the Near East offer deepened understandings
\nof many parts of the text. \u00a0All of this serves to allow interpreters
\nand commentators a lot of leeway in their claims, and adds to the
\nvariety of understandings of the text.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

If
\nthe text is a drama, the number of speakers in the Song of Songs is
\ndebated. Claims range from man and woman; man, woman, and lecher;
\neven to man, women, and some eight other characters plus choruses.
\nOthers claim it isn’t even a drama. \u00a0It is clear the Song of Songs is
\nwritten in poetic language as opposed to prose. It is also clear that
\nthe poetry speaks about love. \u00a0However, claims have been made that it
\nis constituted by as many as 30 separate poems, yet editorial work
\nallows for the poems to form an ambiguously meaningful whole. \u00a0The
\nSong is not the only love poetry from the Ancient Near East, although
\nit does have unique elements. Murphy explains,<\/p>\n

\n\u201cAs our earlier survey of
\nEgyptian and Sumerian sources indicated, there is no reason to doubt
\nthat the biblical Song is indebted, at least indirectly, to older
\ntraditions of Near Eastern love poetry. \u00a0Nor need one quarrel with
\nthe likelihood that some of these antecedent traditions had
\nspecifically sacral significance or that they otherwise witness to
\nthe reciprocity of imagery depicting divine and human love.\u201d5<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

Thus,
\nalthough the Song of Songs is very distinctive in the Bible, it does
\nfit somewhat into the genre of Ancient Love poetry.\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

You
\nmay wonder why I’ve had to spend SO MUCH time explaining all of this
\nto you, especially given that I think you are very intelligent people
\nwith a strong grasp on the Bible and history. \u00a0In the suggested
\nreadings of the church, the three year cycle of \u201clectionary\u201d
\nreadings, only 6 verses of the book Song of Songs show up. \u00a0Then,
\nthey’re most often skipped over by clergy who find it easier to
\npreach on the Gospel (or any other part of the Bible) than on the
\nSong, despite the fact that they’re among the mildest verses one
\ncould pick from the text! \u00a0So, I don’t think most people, including
\nthose who have been attending church regularly for their whole lives,
\nhave had much exposure to this book and I’ve had to start with the
\nbasics.\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

All
\nof this brings me back to the beginning: there is very little that
\ncan be said for certain about the Song of Songs and that makes it
\nvery hard to make firm claims about it. \u00a0I would really LIKE to say
\nthat it was radical and subversive to have a heroine who speaks of
\nherself as beautiful, because it would be in our culture and I think
\nthat’s a a great thing to strive for, but I’m not CERTAIN that it
\nreally was radical then. \u00a0Perhaps in the time of the writing the
\nculture she lived in was so body-positive that most people thought
\nthey were beautiful?? \u00a0Isn’t that nice to ponder? Similarly I think
\nit is radical that she named her own desire, but I don’t KNOW.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

The
\nprojection onto this book of the Bible is non-trivial. \u00a0I’ve found
\nthat most commentators speaking of the line \u201cI am black and
\nbeautiful\u201d find it necessary to explain how such a line is
\npossible. \u00a0They seem to forget that Western Culture’s obsession with
\nlight skin is relatively new and thus doesn’t appropriately fit into
\nBiblical history. \u00a0Many, many commentators believe that the black and
\nbeautiful woman is apologetic about her skin tone. Renita Weems, a
\nwomanist theologian and author of the Song of Songs section of the
\nNew Interpreter’s Bible, responds to those assumptions with 3 pieces
\nof context:\n<\/p>\n

\n\u201c(1) The word ‘black’ appears
\nfive times in the emphatic position suggesting that the woman’s tone
\nis confident and her posture assertive \u2013 not apologetic. (2)
\nThroughout the poem the woman’s physical beauty is both praised and
\ncelebrated, not only by her lover but also by the maidens of the
\ncity, which means that others regard her as indisputably attractive.
\n(3) Although the Song of Songs and Lamentations (and other portions
\nof Scripture) suggest that a ruddy complexion was prized in men, the
\nsame does not automatically apply to women, since women were commonly
\njudged by a different standard of beauty.\u201d6<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

If
\nyou are like me, you might appreciate knowing that \u201cruddy\u201d means
\n\u201chaving a healthy reddish color.\u201d \u00a0Since the text does not say
\nwho her parents or clan are, Weems points out \u201cWe are left to take
\nheart in her bold act of self-assertion and description: She speaks
\nup for herself; she is the object of her own gaze; she is, by her own
\nestimation, black and<\/i>
\nbeautiful.\u201d7<\/sup><\/a>
\n For many cultures in many places and in many times, such a statement
\nis radical in its positivity and self-affirmation. \u00a0I wish there were
\nmore space made for people to make such comments in our time, space,
\nand culture now.\n<\/p>\n

\n<\/p>\n

Instead,
\nwe live in a society in which women are barraged with messages about
\nhow inadequate their bodies are in order for corporations and their
\nshareholders to profit off of those feelings of inadequacy. \u00a0In
\neverything from the immediately obvious clothes, shoes, make up, and
\ndiet industries to the also insidious tanning salons, self-help
\nbooks, beauty magazines, and even the wedding industry; wealth is
\nextracted from women by making them \u00a0feel inadequate and not
\nbeautiful enough. \u00a0In
\nsuch a society, it
\nseems truly subversive to LIKE yourself. \u00a0<\/b>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Throughout
\nthe Song of Songs, both lovers celebrate each other. \u00a0The woman’s
\ncapacity to find herself beautiful and her capacity to celebrate her
\nlover’s beauty are correlated. \u00a0Instead of struggling under a pile of
\nself-hatred, she was able to live freely in love. \u00a0Her ability to
\nlike and love herself enabled her to live and love another, and I
\nchoose to believe also enabled each of them to expand their circles
\nof love into the world. \u00a0Consumer culture teaches us to find
\nourselves INADEQUATE, but
\nthis ancient, dark-skinned, beautiful woman teaches us to savor the
\ngoodness of life. \u00a0<\/b>In
\nthe use of her voice, in the way she describes herself, and even in
\nher willingness to name her own desire, she offers us an alternative
\nway of life. \u00a0She offers us the freedom to ENJOY rather than wallow
\nin life. \u00a0May we follow in her lead, each of us as we are able, and
\nfind the freedom of God in beauty itself (even our own!) \u00a0Amen\n<\/p>\n

1<\/a>\u00a0Renita J. Weems \u201cThe Song of Songs: Introduction, Commentary and Reflections\u201d as found in the New Interpreter’s Bible Vol V (<\/i>Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1997), 383.<\/p>\n

2<\/a>
\n\tRoland
\n\tMurphy, The
\n\tSong of Songs: A Commentary on the Book of Canticles or The Song of
\n\tSongs<\/i>
\n\t(Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990) 39 \u00a0.<\/p>\n

3<\/a>
\n\tMurphy,
\n\t40.<\/p>\n

4<\/a>
\n\tMarvin A. Pope \u201cSong of Songs\u201d in The Anchor
\n\tYale Bible Commentaries (Doubleday: New York, etc, 1995), 34.<\/p>\n

5<\/a>
\n\tMurphy,
\n\t97.<\/p>\n

6<\/a>\u00a0Weems, 382-383.<\/p>\n

7<\/a>\u00a0Weems,
\n\t383.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Rev. Sara E. Baron<\/p>\n

First United Methodist Church of Schenectady<\/p>\n

603 State St. Schenectady, NY 12305<\/p>\n

Pronouns: she\/her\/hers<\/p>\n

http:\/\/fumcschenectady.org\/<\/a>
https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/FUMCSchenectady<\/a><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

February 26, 2017<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

I find it truly exciting that the only time a woman describes herself in the Bible she describes herself as … Continue reading \u201cThe Bible’s Only Self-Description of a Woman\u201d based on Song of Songs 1<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[11],"tags":[38,28,39,749,742,741,743,746,75,747,750,748,317,548,745,744],"class_list":["post-1031","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-sermons","tag-progressive-christianity","tag-rev-sara-e-baron","tag-thinking-church","tag-760-year-range","tag-beauty","tag-black-and-beautiful","tag-calling-out-consumerism","tag-context-is-everything","tag-fumcschenectady","tag-preachers-dont-know-much","tag-savor","tag-scholarship","tag-song-of-songs","tag-subversive-women-of-the-bible","tag-womens-sexual-desire-is-not-radical","tag-yes-you-too-wedding-industry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fumcschenectady.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1031","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fumcschenectady.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fumcschenectady.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fumcschenectady.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fumcschenectady.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1031"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/fumcschenectady.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1031\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1240,"href":"https:\/\/fumcschenectady.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1031\/revisions\/1240"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fumcschenectady.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1031"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fumcschenectady.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1031"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fumcschenectady.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1031"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}