THE LITTLE FOXES (SONG OF SONGS 2:15)

This verse reads (in NRSV), “Catch us the foxes, the little foxes, that ruin the vineyards – for our vineyards are in blossom.” The King James Version renders the final clause as “for our vines have tender grapes.”

Interestingly, this single verse has the distinction of supplying both the title of a play, The Little Foxes by Lillian Hellman (with the title suggested by Dorothy Parker) and a novel Our Vines Have Tender Grapes by George Victor Martin. And as another coincidence, both were made into successful movies with Hellman and Dalton Trumbo, the author of the screenplay of Our Vines, both being subsequently blacklisted during the McCarthy hearings.

I am always strangely gratified when I run across a Bible verse such as this one which I cannot understand and then find out that the experts are just as confused as I am. For example, Gledhill says, “The refrain at 2:15 concerning the little foxes, has teased commentators for millennia, and no certain conclusion can be reached. Who is mouthing these words? And to whom is the command addressed?” But let us start with what should be an even simpler question: Is “foxes” the correct translation for the respective Hebrew word in this verse.

Although most English translation go with “foxes,” some have a footnote pointing out that “jackals” is another acceptable meaning for the Hebrew word. The Dictionary of Biblical Imagery discusses this issue: “Experts debate whether the fox and jackal are strictly separated in the mind of Palestine in antiquity or not; however their imagery is quite separate.” Thus, he explains that whereas jackals are associated with desolation, “The fox (as traditionally rendered, but which may also be a jackal) is not an omen of desolation, but a very small and light carnivore...Given the common metaphor of vineyard to refer to sexual pleasures, the foxes in Song of Songs 2:15 seem to point to some unidentified, yet regrettable negative – opportunists that are difficult to catch and punish.” Zimmerli cites Nehemiah 4:3 and Ezekiel 13:4 as evidence that there was a widespread use of similar proverbial statements concerning the destructive nature of foxes.

But these are not the only two translation options for this allusive beast. “Fruit bats” is suggested as an alternative in NEB to its personal choice of “jackals,” and Robert Graves even thought it was a cryptic reference to hallucinogenic mushrooms. Longman states, “Some believe that the Hebrew word su'al refers to a jackal instead of or alongside of a wolf.” Thus, Carroll's conclusion that “Interpreters differ as to the meaning of the phrase” is seen to be an understatement. But Longman concludes, “This seems an insignificant issue in regard to the verse's meaning.” That statement is an appropriate introduction to the following subject.

The next issue to tackle is the question of who is talking and to whom. Some translations render Song of Songs as a play and assign speakers to the appropriate verses. But there is little agreement as to which verses belong on the lips of which actor. For example, NIV and TEV feel that it is the male hero of the story who is speaking while RSV, NRSV, The Living Bible and The Message assign the verse to the woman instead. And commentators are similarly divided in their opinion on this issue with some even proposing that it is the man's companions who are talking here. Of course, any subsequent interpretations of the meaning of the verse are quite dependent on the answer to this key question.

However, there are some generalities to which most people can probably agree:

    R.B.Y. Scott voices the most obvious intent of the verse when he says that is “apparently an allusion to what would spoil the luxuriance of love.”

    Daniel Akin expresses a similar thought: “Here the little foxes represent those dangers and problems that can sneak into a relationship and do untold damage almost without notice, until it is too late...A couple must be determined and tenacious in their commitment to catch the little foxes.”

Others similarly feel that the presence of foxes implies some sort of threat to the relationship but refrain from going any further in attempting to identifying the exact nature of that threat. But not all scholars are not that prudent. Let us look at some further comments, starting first with those who feel that the heroine is speaking this line.

    Dobbs-Allsopp says, “Although the Hebrew is obscure, the woman appears to answer teasingly that, far from being inaccessible, her sexuality (our vineyards) is in full bloom and in danger of being raided by others (foxes).”

    Snaith feels that the words make more sense on the girl's lips, as in RSV. “these little foxes are probably unscrupulous male admirers of the girl whom her lover must keep in check in order to protect her. The poet indulges in not a little erotic playfulness at this point.”

    “The NIV puts them on the lips of the boy, but it is more likely that the girl speaks them. The masculine plural imperative 'catch for us' is probably a rhetorical imperative, addressed to no-one in particular.” (Gledhill)

    Longman points out that the first part of the verse reads literally “'Grab for us the foxes!' The best understanding of the first person plural 'us' is as a reference to the man and woman.”

    R.E. Murphy feels that it may be a clever retort by the girl to the boy signaling that she is not totally inaccessible.

By contrast, Konkel feels that it is the male protagonist who is voicing this line. He says, “The metaphor of catching foxes in S of Songs 2:15 is unclear, as there is no obvious referent for the addressee. If the king is engaged in hunting, he might be addressing his followers, though the setting seems to be a vineyard. A more novel suggestion is that the foxes themselves are addressed, translating 'hz with the sense of hold for us, i.e., wait, but such a meaning is otherwise unattested for the vb.”

Lastly, there is the opinion that one should not read any meaning into the verse at all. Thus, Gledhill says, “The words have been thought by some to be a snatch of an ancient folk-tale, or from a nursery rhyme...Murphy speculates that this little ditty could simply be the girl's response to her lover's request to hear her voice. So she accedes to this by singing a snatch from a catchy folk-tune, whose meaning has no actual relevance to the situation.” By contrast, Longman says, “This approach seems a strategy of last resort.”

The footnote in the Jerusalem Bible says, “Cryptic verse to be understood in the light of Ho 2:14,20 and Jr 12:7f. The little foxes are malevolent neighbors, Samaritans, Ammonites, Arabs, Philistines, hostile to the restoration of Judah.”

Marvin Pope reviews a litany of different proposals for the meaning of this verse without coming to any clear conclusion himself. These include such ancient Jewish interpretations as an allegorical reference to the Amalekites (Targum), various enemies of Israel (Midrash Rabbah), and a fanciful reference to Exodus 2:3 (Talmud). Some early church leaders even felt that the little foxes represented the violation of monastic rules. Modern interpreters have been no less imaginative in applying the verse to the unhappy consequences of illicit love, a dance in which young people were dressed in fox furs, an ancient fertility rite, and a reference to the girl's brothers who want to make sure that her lover will not meet her.

As Longman aptly concludes, “This little ditty is easy to understand in isolation but difficult in context.”