Board index ‹ Specific Bible verses, texts, and passages ‹ Song of Solomon

[RyanS]

Hello:

My question pertains to two verses within the Song of Solomon that are translated identically (in the ESV, NIV, NKJV, RSV, VULGATE, most RVR versions, and I am sure in other languages, too), but have minute differences in Hebrew. The verses in question, 2:6 and 8:3, are nearly identical, with character differences between the third word and only diacritical differences in the fourth word (assuming the Hebrew interlinear version I am referencing is accurate). To what differences would these variations amount? That is, are there nuanced semantic differences between these verses, or do they result in other kinds of grammatical differences? Moreover, what would the translation philosophy be that would support translating these verses identically in English? Some versions (KJV, most notably, which uses a present indicative for 2:6 and a conditional for 8:3) do translate these verses differently, and that choice is also a cause for interest. Since I have no experience in biblical Hebrew, any explanation would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you,
-Ryan S

[jimwalton]

Thanks for writing. Glad to converse.

Regarding the 3rd word in each verse ("head"), it is already in prepositional form. The fact that 2.6 adds an additional preposition ( לְ, which means "to" or "for," is superfluous, and so most translators ignore it.) In English, it might be something like "under my head" vs. "under to my head." Like, why would we bother with the additional do-nothing preposition?

As far as the diacriticals, I don't see any difference in the MT I have between the renditions of the 4th word ("right arm"). If it matters, you'll have to specify. In any case, even if there were a different marking on one of the words, it wouldn't change the verb tense.

The only verb in each verse is the last word, "embraces," which is a piel imperfect 3rd feminine singular. Hebrew imperfects are used for a variety of modal forms in translation (hypothetic situations, conditional, optative, subjunctive). This could explain why the KJV gave a slightly different nuance in 8.3, bowing to the context for their determination. Chapter 8 is contextually set in modal terms (optative and subjunctive hypothetical situations), so the translators of the KJV obviously chose a slightly different rendering to try to capture that. It's not necessary, or possibly not even helpful, but certainly within the rights of the translator to try to capture that effect. Other translations have treated the two verses as part of a repeating refrain and therefore kept the verb in the same mode so that people see the "refrain" aspect. Again, it's within their interpretive right to do that. The meaning is not substantially changed no matter which way you go.

Hope that helps.