SHUFFLING SCRIPTURE: THE SONG OF SONGS

 

Shuffling Scripture: the Song of Songs

This is the last in a series of posts beginning with “Shuffling Scripture.” In the other posts in this series the worst offender in regard to the number of textual alterations is The Jerusalem Bible. That is a modern Roman Catholic rendering into English of an earlier French version.

My problem with JB is not due to it being a modern translation which, as with many other recent translations, occasionally chooses a reading other than that found in the standard Hebrew Masoretic text. That is sometimes justified when other ancient texts such as the Dead Sea scrolls or early versions in other languages appear to have superior readings.

My objection to the JB is also not because it is a translation of a translation. The fact that this is a Roman Catholic translation does not bother me either in the least, except for the occasional footnote which will betray its theological leanings. But I do object to it being called a translation at all rather than the very loose paraphrase that it is on occasion. And even paraphrases, though they will often depart significantly from the literal wording in the Hebrew, do not actually rearrange the verse order so as to “make more sense” out of the text.

But my major problem is that the Jerusalem Bible blithely rearranges the verse order to the point where at times the reader would not recognize it as the same text found in any other English translation. And it almost always does so without a shred of manuscript evidence in any language to indicate that their “improved” order was the original one. Often they refuse to provide any reason at all for this way in which they treat the text.

With that rather critical beginning, let me turn to the Song of Songs for another case where translators felt compelled to depart from the received order of the verses. Surprisingly, the offender in this case is the New English Bible rather than the Jerusalem Bible. Without any manuscript support, comment or seeming justification, it moves 4:12 to a position after v. 14.

Since no reason was given, at this point I must make an educated guess as to why that move was made. The only rationale I can see is a literary one, namely to provide what is called an inclusio for the passage. An inclusio is simply a literary technique in which the same or similar wording appears at both the start and conclusion of a discrete passage, providing a set of bookends for it. In this case, moving v. 12 to the end of the unit would form a match with v. 8 since both contain the phrase “my sister...my bride.”

Of course, that reasoning begins with the assumption that a new unit begins with 4:15. That is where the NEB made its first mistake since most other modern translations (including JB, RSV, NIV, NRSV, TEV, AB, etc.) feel that v. 15 concludes the unit rather than beginning the next passage. And v. 15 contains the phrase “down from Lebanon” as does v. 8, the preferred start of the passage. Thus, it already had an adequate inclusio without any need for rearrangement.

Here is how passage in its the original order can be diagrammed:

Organization of Song of Songs 4:8-15

  1. “Down from Lebanon” (v. 8)

       2. “My sister, my bride” (v. 9)

             3. The “bride” is described (vv. 10-11)

       2'. “A garden, a fountain” (v. 12a)

      2''. “My sister, my bride” (v. 12b)

            3'. The garden is described (vv. 13-14)

       2'''. “A garden fountain” (v. 15a)

  1. “Down from Lebanon” (v. 15b)

This scheme is partially confirmed by Landy, who proposes that 4:8-11 and 4:12-5:1 constitute two parallel units. His proposal greatly confirms the above structure with the difference that he extends the passage through 5:1, which happens to also have the phrase “my sister, my bride” in it.

Note also how the transition point at v. 12 between the two parallel descriptions in the above diagram serves to tie the two together by the interlocking nature of the two lines in verse 12. I have purposely italicized the parallel units so that it is easier to see this literary technique. The term “janus verse” has been proposed for similar situations in the Bible where a given verse looks equally forward and backward like the Roman god Janus, pictured with two faces looking in opposite directions.

It is interesting the way this song appeals to the senses: unit 3 uses similes involving drinks while 3'' deals with fruits and spices.

By contrast, the translators of the NEB totally missed this literary structure and so simply moved all of v. 12 to the end of the section so that it would match up with v. 9 – both containing the phrase “my sister, my bride.” In the process, however, they destroyed the symmetry of the two 2-3-2 structures in the section.

We see the same sort of mistake being made time and time again from liberal scholars who do not take into account the symmetrical literary arrangement of words and ideas which characterizes almost all of the biblical writings. Thus, they see something in the text repeated and so assume that it is because the original “editor” had two versions of the same story in front of him and didn't know which one was correct. His solution, according to them, was to just include both of them in close proximity to one another and let the reader decide between them.

And at other times they deride the fact that the Bible doesn't always stick to a chronological presentation. Both of these phenomena can be easily explained by looking for the care with which the authors have carefully structured their writings so as to create better balance and flow in the books and so that the main points of a passage are best emphasized.