quote:^It is almost reminiscent of the famous line in the Bible (often attributed to the Queen of Sheba) where she states: I am black, but comely
Sappho refers to herself indirectly as being black in her address to Phaon by comparing herself to the daughter of Cepheus (an Ethiopian) and a black dove..
In addition to this, Maximus of Tyre also described Sappho as being 'small and dark'.. I don't know whether to take this with a grain of salt or not, but the descriptions are clear.
Nefar:
Thank You
But I thought That phrase goes "I am black, AND I am comely"
quote:
Sundiata: Well.. Supposedly it can be translated either way and I've read arguments opposed to the translation of "but", but this translation, when put into context actually makes more sense than a translation to "and".. As you can see, in the very next verse, Song of Solomon 1:6, she says:
Look not upon me, because I am black, because the sun hath looked upon me: my mother's children were angry with me; they made me the keeper of the vineyards; but mine own vineyard have I not kept
^So "black" indeed did seem to be somewhat of a stigma.
quote:
alTakruri: No it can't be either way. The Jews of Yemen pristine Hebrew speakers say its Black n Beautiful So do all Jews when they sing it on Friday night.
Black may be a stigma in white world (where Sappho lived) but not in black world.
quote:
Sundiata: ^I'm not fluent in Hebrew so I cannot confirm definitively either way, and if Hebrews in Yemen (or in general) choose that particular translation, I certainly have no stake in what they do. The primary phrase from the textual sources reads:
shekhorah ani VE na'vah benot yerushala'im ke ahalei kedar kiri'ot shlomo: al-tir'uni she'ani shekharkhoret sheshezafatni hashemesh - Source
With "Ve" being of notable interest. Apparently there is no distinction between "and" and "but" (in Hebrew as it concerns the '"ve" conjunction) in the absence of context. What I wondered is how do we draw a context, and the very next verse is the first thing that comes to mind, which to me actually does indicate a stigma or there would have been no reason why she should have made note of her blackness in order to be excused for it. That merely makes sense to me personally that 'but' isn't an implausible translation, but when you have a conjunction or word like that with varied meaning then of course confusion and/or diversity in opinion is expected. If what you say is true however, that most Hebrews translate it in the way you've described, then I'm not qualified to object and would have to remain neutral in my opinion (since I can't be sure)..
quote:
alTakruri: One must keep in mind what The Song of Songs which is Solomon's is all about and where it came from as well as shade variants among dark skinned peoples and why most expect an upper class female's complexion to be a shade or two lighter than the female norm instead of a shade or two darker.
As for why "and" instead of "but," when the popular Yemenite Jewish singer Shimi Tavori recorded his version of Shehhora w*Na'wa, he had the English release translated Black n Beautiful.
Now how white Jews, who's antecedents haven't uninterruptedly spoken Hebrew the last 3,300 years (as have Yemenite Jews, some Syrian Jews, etc.,Jews) translate the phrase is something I don't really don't much depend on. And, by the way, Hebrew was one of the languages Cleopatra attained to fluency.
I'll close with this. When white people deride a white person's paler than average skin is that taken to be a stigma against white/light skin and if not then in your way of thinking there should've been no reason to make note of such a person's whiteness. [Wink]
quote:
Queen Sheeba Translation Confuses Me Because back then it wasnt "bad" to be Black.
I am black BUT comely?
Posts: 229 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good thing you've made a separate thread about this so it wouldn't drag out into a more or less long conversation concerning an irrelevant (to Cleopatra) topic. Well again, I'm not fluent in Hebrew and as alTakruri indicated, seemingly those most fluent in the language seem to prefer 'AND' as an accurate interpretation.. I merely gave my opinion based on the concept and perceived meaning of the conjunction, but again, my opinion wasn't based on linguistic familiarity with the language its self, so that was more of a thought-provoking inquiry rather than an experienced assessment that should be relied on. I'd agree with alTakruri that one has to take into consideration the historical context of the time and seek out primary sources in the form of those most accustomed to speaking the ancient Hebrew language of the biblical text. In that case, this would be the Asiatic and Southern Yemenite Jews of today.
I wasn't aware of the way that a lot of near eastern scholars translate this phrase (naively taking for granted the various standardized English versions in reference to the context), but seemingly I am now. In which case I see nothing wrong then with the 'AND' translation. I'd guess that there's no real argument against it and supposedly the GWT also translates it in this wayPosts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Matter-of-factly, a closer examination of the said grammatical context within the verse alone further supports this notion for an 'AND' translation.
Makeda/Pharaoh's Daughter/Israelite girl, whoever the person is again, says:
I am black, but comely, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, as the tents of Kedar, as the curtains of Solomon. - King James Version
^Now the bold print is in reference to a simile. The only way obviously for this simile to coincide perfectly with the initial description, an 'AND' translation would have to serve as the most sufficient conjunction. Taking into consideration that we rightfully assume that both the "curtains of Solomon" and "the tents of Kedar" are implied by this woman to have been black AND beautiful as opposed to them both being seen as 'black BUT beautiful', it makes a great case that this (AND) is exactly what she meant in her own self-description..
I am dark and lovely like Kedar's tents, like Solomon's curtains. - NWT ("GOD'S WORD®")
^^Even though I'm puzzled as to why they'd omit the references to both "Black and comely/beautiful", as can be easily observed, this makes for a much easier transition and makes better sense semantically.
"I am black BUT beautiful, like the petals of a succulent black rose"
or
"I am black AND beautiful, like the petals of a succulent black rose"
^I now think that it can be confidently stated that what the lady quite possibly meant in this reference was that in addition to having been of dark complexion, she was also beautiful.. The subsequent verse may in fact be inconsequential to the previous. Still somewhat confusing tho when you have limited means by which to discern.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The conjunction "ve/we/wa" can mean "and" as well as "but," and even "while" in Arabic and Hebrew. I think context would be the best way to translate it here. If "black" is treated as something bad earlier in the text (only considering the parts written by the same hand), then the "but" meaning is probably the best translation. If it has neither positive nor negative connotations, then the "and" meaning is best (the "while" meaning would be identical to the "and" one in this case).
Posts: 1024 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Obelisk_18 it's Shulamit and it is a feminization of the Shlomo. That's Solomon in Hebrew.
Some Orthodox Ashkenazi Siddurim (prayerbooks) use "but" instead of "and" with a negative explanation based on Rashi's commentary.
Posts: 1115 | From: GOD Bless the USA | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Black isnt a physical description in this passage or in any other passage of the bible. In this passage, I am black yet comely means simply that the person is tainted by sin and corruption but is still beautiful and worth of redemption by god.
Scouring thru the bible and looking for the word black does nothing.
In most cases it proves that the person is not using the bible as intended...you are obvioulsy not living by it or tis teachings and it also proves that you have no idea what the real maeanings are that the bible is trying to get across.
this isnt even about a person, its about the church itself...but of course nobody here actually reads and studies the bible. You are just looking for color descriptions.
The bible is all symobolism. Color is rarely used to describe a physical reality. It is used to describe a condition.
Posts: 3 | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^hitchcock, though I agree the Bible was about sybolism (though it is also a historical text, I highly doubt that black in the Hebrew world represented sin, as it did in Islamic texts.
posted
That is a dialogue between the bride and young girls. The bride didn't say she is black, but beautiful. She said " am black" and the young girls said but beautiful.
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sudiata: atter-of-factly, a closer examination of the said grammatical context within the verse alone further supports this notion for an 'AND' translation.
Makeda/Pharaoh's Daughter/Israelite girl, whoever the person is again, says:
I am black, but comely, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, as the tents of Kedar, as the curtains of Solomon. - King James Version
^Now the bold print is in reference to a simile. The only way obviously for this simile to coincide perfectly with the initial description, an 'AND' translation would have to serve as the most sufficient conjunction. Taking into consideration that we rightfully assume that both the "curtains of Solomon" and "the tents of Kedar" are implied by this woman to have been black AND beautiful as opposed to them both being seen as 'black BUT beautiful', it makes a great case that this (AND) is exactly what she meant in her own self-description..
I am dark and lovely like Kedar's tents, like Solomon's curtains. - NWT ("GOD'S WORD®")
^^Even though I'm puzzled as to why they'd omit the references to both "Black and comely/beautiful", as can be easily observed, this makes for a much easier transition and makes better sense semantically.
"I am black BUT beautiful, like the petals of a succulent black rose"
or
"I am black AND beautiful, like the petals of a succulent black rose
quote:
"
Hitcock:Black isnt a physical description in this passage or in any other passage of the bible. In this passage, I am black yet comely means simply that the person is tainted by sin and corruption but is still beautiful and worth of redemption by god.
Scouring thru the bible and looking for the word black does nothing.
quote:
Bettyboo:That is a dialogue between the bride and young girls. The bride didn't say she is black, but beautiful. She said " am black" and the young girls said but beautiful.
quote:
Ive Done Alot Of research(google) And found that There are different meanings.Now Im Trying to figure out which one would make sense..
Posts: 229 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:I am black yet comely means simply that the person is tainted by sin and corruption but is still beautiful and worth of redemption by god.
^ ....as the tents of Kedar, as the curtains of Solomon,
Right, the laughable extremes that people go to to justify their anti-Black prejudice.
quote: Trying to figure out which one would make sense..
Frankly, these conversations tell us more about the level of intelligence of the people doing, and adjudging the interpretations.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Indeed. The racism is obvious and blatant to translate the color black into all of a sudden sinful and wicked.
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: Wow, a multitude of interpretations of the same text?
LOL I know, right. A multitude of interpretations over one little sentence of text! What a tangled web they weave. Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This veered into an entirely different direction. I can understand why someone would be confused about the meaning of a conjunction in a different language, but "Black = Sinful"? Now that is just disgusting and this is the first time I've seen it represented as a conversation between two women, instead of one. Namely the queen of Sheba or Pharaoh's daughter, the two interpretations I'm accustomed to hearing. Some of this simply defies standard logic imho..
-------------------- mr.writer.asa@gmail.com Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Where are you all seeing the Queen of Sheba or even some Pharaoh's Daughter in The Song of Songs which is Solomon's? Is it because, true to your eurocentric education, you cannot come to grips with ancient Israelites being one of the world's people of colour?
Yes, that is why you parrot eurocentric postulations of the Queen of Sheba or Pharaoh's Daughter because heaven forfend that the Israelites were for the most part honey coloured darkies.
No commentary made by the People of the Book knows the female protagonist to be anyone more than an Israelite woman of non-royal background and status, the Shulamiyth.
You are taking your own religious, non-Hebrew/non-Israelite imaginations and interpolating them into a text composed long before any other people jealously attempted to make it their own and misrepresent it in the name of their newly sprung up religions instead of inkeeping with Israelite/Judahite tribal law norms and customs.
Who would ever base an interpretation of a Kemetic poem or song on another peoples co-opted and deliberately misuse in distortion of the song or poem's origins and original significance? Yet you feel free to do so with this Hebrew material. You sound like and make about as much sense as Carl Sagan when he assuredly proposed the Dogon learned their astronomy from a traveling European and then built elaborate rites incorporating knowledge they couldn't possibly have had centuries before Europe had any idea of its existance.
Anyway, those who've noticed an "antiphonal chorus" in the Daughters of Jerusalem are entirely correct in their proposal and are keeping true to verses' passage context within this song's collective bound overall contextual design.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Where are you all seeing the Queen of Sheba or even some Pharaoh's Daughter in The Song of Songs which is Solomon's? Is it because, true to your eurocentric education, you cannot come to grips with ancient Israelites being one of the world's people of colour?
Yes, that is why you parrot eurocentric postulations of the Queen of Sheba or Pharaoh's Daughter because heaven forfend that the Israelites were for the most part honey coloured darkies.
No commentary made by the People of the Book knows the female protagonist to be anyone more than an Israelite woman of non-royal background and status, the Shulamiyth.
You are taking your own religious, non-Hebrew/non-Israelite imaginations and interpolating them into a text composed long before any other people jealously attempted to make it their own and misrepresent it in the name of their newly sprung up religions instead of inkeeping with Israelite/Judahite tribal law norms and customs.
Who would ever base an interpretation of a Kemetic poem or song on another peoples co-opted and deliberately misuse in distortion of the song or poem's origins and original significance? Yet you feel free to do so with this Hebrew material. You sound like and make about as much sense as Carl Sagan when he assuredly proposed the Dogon learned their astronomy from a traveling European and then built elaborate rites incorporating knowledge they couldn't possibly have had centuries before Europe had any idea of its existance.
Anyway, those who've noticed an "antiphonal chorus" in the Daughters of Jerusalem are entirely correct in their proposal and are keeping true to verses' passage context within this song's collective bound overall contextual design.
I'll say this much.. The person in question with whom you attribute the observation apparently did not make the same observation as you.
She said " am black" and the young girls said but beautiful. - Bettyboo
^She uses an entirely different translation than the one proposed by yourself in the form of BUT, and interprets a transition before the perceived antiphonal chorus and made the inference that multiple women were present, as opposed to your initial suggestion that this was a reference to an individual, recited by the said individual (an Israelite girl from Shulam).
Apparently your assessment is a lone one (with the exception of Red,White, and Blue + Christian , if I read him correctly) and of course, with all do respect your assertion that any interpretation contrary to yours is rooted in "Eurocentric education" (blanket term) certainly and fallaciously undermines the vast variability of opinion and is an insult to all free-thinkers. The very fact that Pharaoh's daughter (an Egyptian) is even entertained, contradicts such a charge. This is ideological-based reasoning and provides nothing by way of argumentation. I'm also not sure that a lack of elaboration and a somewhat bounderish tone will help plead your case to the effect that it would be seen as an authoritative perspective. I hope that we can all RESPECTFULLY disagree with out drawing such hasty conclusions based on practically nothing but a difference in opinion.
Now, as far as the woman in question bearing an identity as a common Israelite, I don't believe it can be stated confidently that this view is implausible, or incorrect. But We are aware of relationships that Solomon seemingly had with Queen Makeda and his marriage to Pharaoh's daughter, both of whom were undeniably black.
Solomon has taken a wife not of his color, who is moreover black, for he has married the daughter of Pharaoh - Kebra Negast
Taking into consideration your provided extrapolation, befitting to say that it makes sense given the general context of the subsequent verse. It is indeed indicative of non-royalty as she was made "keeper of the vineyards", to the extent that she couldn't even tend to her own. This suggests labor.. Tho at the end of the day, each interpretation will make sense to somebody; personally I have no stake in the issue and am indifferent, but did indeed at least have some of my own preconceived assumptions..
^Given that, I'm quite sure that a lot of people in this thread are open-minded and willing to be persuaded, but the most effective way to persuade in my opinion, is to omit as much redundancy as possible and merely draw attention to what others may be confused about.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Miriam became leprous, white as snow."-2 Kings 5:27
It just means she was pure, and untainted by sin.
^LOL, nice.. This line was in response to the criticism she apparently gave Moses for marrying a Black woman from upper Egypt. As punishment for her criticism against God's servant, she was turned white, which was a PUNISHMENT, in no way attributable to "purity" of any sort, lol..
And Mariam and Aaron spoke against Moses, because of the Ethiopian woman whom Moses took; for he had taken an Ethiopian woman. And they said, Has the Lord spoken to Moses only? has he not also spoken to us? and the Lord heard it. And the man Moses was very meek beyond all the men that were upon the earth. And the Lord said immediately to Moses and Aaron and Mariam, Come forth all three of you to the tabernacle of witness. And the three came forth to the tabernacle of witness; and the Lord descended in a pillar of a cloud, and stood at the door of the tabernacle of witness; and Aaron and Mariam were called; and both came forth. And he said to them, Hear my words: If there should be of you a prophet to the Lord, I will be made known to him in a vision, and in sleep will I speak to him. My servant Moses is not so; he is faithful in all my house. I will speak to him mouth to mouth apparently, and not in dark speeches; and he has seen the glory of the Lord; and why were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses? And the great anger of the Lord was upon them, and he departed. And the cloud departed from the tabernacle; and, behold, Mariam was leprous, white as snow; and Aaron looked upon Mariam, and, behold, she was leprous. - Numbers 12:1-9
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
We have all undergone eurocentric education since our very beginnings in the schooling system. It is unavoidable and at times prevents expansion of our mental horizons. Yet we struggle to attain to an independent vision of our own African culture and history as well as that of fellow related Africans differing in culture from us and cast off eurocentric educational baggage once we recognize we are still toting it around.
I tend to try to respect the one as much as the others and don't think I've been other than respectful to you in this exchange. If you think otherwise then accept my humblest apology.
I think you have mistaken what I meant when fingering eurocentric education for seeking non-Israelite identity for the protagonist of an Israelite poem about physical love. emotional attachment, and legally married wedding bliss simply because of the colour of that female protagonist.
You have also made assumptions about how many people I know of to be characters/speakers in Shir haShiriym.
One unassailable fact remains. Am Yisra'el knows of no Abyssinian, Sudani, Egyptian, or Yemeni woman in the Song of Songs which is Solomon's.
Sure anyone is free to interpolate what they will into a primary documentation. We call that falsifying a text. Making something of it its authors never intended.
Fact: Shir haShiriym has different speakers in it. It's not all written from any one character or group in it. Its author(s) intentionally composed/compiled it that way.
If you prefer interpretations and interpolations of non-Israel over that of Israel, who are the owners of this song, well, fine. I need not try to bring their understanding of their own to you but maybe other forum members will appreciate the point of view of the originators over that of the assimilators.
Unless I can add something new to the discussion I'm signing out, as my position has been presented three times now and I hope it is understood on and in its own terms.
One can further peruse the writings of Marcia Falk or Chana Bloch for modern Jewish interpretations and English translations of Shir haShiriym. Remember its Jews who have been chantig this (some every Sabbath) for the last couple of thousand years.
Make the Shulamiyth into Makeda, Bilqis, Anonymous Daughter of Pharaoh, or anyone else who fits your needs, it's your right of self-determination to do so and I have no business dampering that right.
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata: I'll say this much.. The person in question with whom you attribute the observation apparently did not make the same observation as you.
She said " am black" and the young girls said but beautiful. - Bettyboo
^She uses an entirely different translation than the one proposed by yourself in the form of BUT, and interprets a transition before the perceived antiphonal chorus and made the inference that multiple women were present, as opposed to your initial suggestion that this was a reference to an individual, recited by the said individual (an Israelite girl from Shulam).
Apparently your assessment is a lone one (with the exception of Red,White, and Blue + Christian , if I read him correctly) and of course, with all do respect your assertion that any interpretation contrary to yours is rooted in "Eurocentric education" (blanket term) certainly and fallaciously undermines the vast variability of opinion and is an insult to all free-thinkers. The very fact that Pharaoh's daughter (an Egyptian) is even entertained, contradicts such a charge. This is ideological-based reasoning and provides nothing by way of argumentation. I'm also not sure that a lack of elaboration and a somewhat bounderish tone will help plead your case to the effect that it would be seen as an authoritative perspective. I hope that we can all RESPECTFULLY disagree with out drawing such hasty conclusions based on practically nothing but a difference in opinion.
Now, as far as the woman in question bearing an identity as a common Israelite, I don't believe it can be stated confidently that this view is implausible, or incorrect. But We are aware of relationships that Solomon seemingly had with Queen Makeda and his marriage to Pharaoh's daughter, both of whom were undeniably black.
Solomon has taken a wife not of his color, who is moreover black, for he has married the daughter of Pharaoh - Kebra Negast
Taking into consideration your provided extrapolation, befitting to say that it makes sense given the general context of the subsequent verse. It is indeed indicative of non-royalty as she was made "keeper of the vineyards", to the extent that she couldn't even tend to her own. This suggests labor.. Tho at the end of the day, each interpretation will make sense to somebody; personally I have no stake in the issue and am indifferent, but did indeed at least have some of my own preconceived assumptions..
^Given that, I'm quite sure that a lot of people in this thread are open-minded and willing to be persuaded, but the most effective way to persuade in my opinion, is to omit as much redundancy as possible and merely draw attention to what others may be confused about.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Miriam didn't criticse Moses for marrying a black woman. She criticised him for being so colour struck as to refrain from fulfilling his conjugal obligations with her now that he was back with his people who had a greater variance in complexion than did the Midianites.
Moses and Miriam were blacks as was Ssiporah. In the Americas you can find plenty of blacks who chose their lovers by colour and hair texture.
This is the phenomena Miriam was speaking out against, as well as challenging Moses rank as a prophet superior to herself.
In Hokhmei Yisra'el leprosy is the punishment par excellance for bad mouthing people (lashon hara).
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: [QB] We have all undergone eurocentric education since our very beginnings in the schooling system. It is unavoidable and at times prevents expansion of our mental horizons. Yet we struggle to attain to an independent vision of our own African culture and history as well as that of fellow related Africans differing in culture from us and cast off eurocentric educational baggage once we recognize we are still toting it around.
I tend to try to respect the one as much as the others and don't think I've been other than respectful to you in this exchange. If you think otherwise then accept my humblest apology.
I think you have mistaken what I meant when fingering eurocentric education for seeking non-Israelite identity for the protagonist of an Israelite poem about physical love. emotional attachment, and legally married wedding bliss simply because of the colour of that female protagonist.
You have also made assumptions about how many people I know of to be characters/speakers in Shir haShiriym.
One unassailable fact remains. Am Yisra'el knows of no Abyssinian, Sudani, Egyptian, or Yemeni woman in the Song of Songs which is Solomon's.
Sure anyone is free to interpolate what they will into a primary documentation. We call that falsifying a text. Making something of it its authors never intended.
Fact: Shir haShiriym has different speakers in it. It's not all written from any one character or group in it. Its author(s) intentionally composed/compiled it that way.
If you prefer interpretations and interpolations of non-Israel over that of Israel, who are the owners of this song, well, fine. I need not try to bring their understanding of their own to you but maybe other forum members will appreciate the point of view of the originators over that of the assimilators.
Unless I can add something new to the discussion I'm signing out, as my position has been presented three times now and I hope it is understood on and in its own terms.
One can further peruse the writings of Marcia Falk or Chana Bloch for modern Jewish interpretations and English translations of Shir haShiriym. Remember its Jews who have been chantig this (some every Sabbath) for the last couple of thousand years.
Make the Shulamiyth into Makeda, Bilqis, Anonymous Daughter of Pharaoh, or anyone else who fits your needs, it's your right of self-determination to do so and I have no business dampering that right.
^No problem whatsoever and contrary to perception, your commentary is no where near overlooked and actually valued in that your rationale is extremely sound and practically irrefutable. My approach is to not be restricted to any dogma, rather it be a Eurocentric or Afrocentric one, and I try to avoid the "us against them" type of polarization usually associated with picking either, or. It is only fair that I give all interpretation the benefit of the doubt in the face of controversy until more elaborative methods of persuasion, in favor of one position is presented that leads the previously ignorant into the right direction.
The points you bring up here are thought-provoking and it should be taken into consideration that others may not be as well informed as you may be in reference to the primary sources of interpretation (Jewish scholars). Tho you benefit us all by pointing them out, especially specific personalities. So no harm done at all and I thank you for elaborating on the topic and what exactly you meant, as to not leave your intentions open to any confusion.
In fact, your emphasis was previously stated but you actually did add something new, in the form of expansion and presentation of name sources/suggested reading (Marcia Falk and Chana Bloch). Indeed, the best that you can do is put fourth the said information and only hope that people take heed, shedding themselves of any previous bias or stubbornness attributed to their formal education, which I will personally refrain from labeling as "Eurocentric", which is sometimes a matter of subjectivity and based on insatiable suspicion (maybe not in your case).
In any event, you have enlightened me at least to something that you probably took for granted and that I must further investigate. I know personally that I'm not set in any one belief so if what you say is true (and there is a high probability that it is), I have no reason in not accepting it once I come to terms with the facts concerning my own investigation, in double checking the various sources, including yours.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Where are you all seeing the Queen of Sheba or even some Pharaoh's Daughter in The Song of Songs which is Solomon's? Is it because, true to your eurocentric education, you cannot come to grips with ancient Israelites being one of the world's people of colour?
Yes, that is why you parrot eurocentric postulations of the Queen of Sheba or Pharaoh's Daughter because heaven forfend that the Israelites were for the most part honey coloured darkies.
No commentary made by the People of the Book knows the female protagonist to be anyone more than an Israelite woman of non-royal background and status, the Shulamiyth.
You are taking your own religious, non-Hebrew/non-Israelite imaginations and interpolating them into a text composed long before any other people jealously attempted to make it their own and misrepresent it in the name of their newly sprung up religions instead of inkeeping with Israelite/Judahite tribal law norms and customs.
Who would ever base an interpretation of a Kemetic poem or song on another peoples co-opted and deliberately misuse in distortion of the song or poem's origins and original significance? Yet you feel free to do so with this Hebrew material. You sound like and make about as much sense as Carl Sagan when he assuredly proposed the Dogon learned their astronomy from a traveling European and then built elaborate rites incorporating knowledge they couldn't possibly have had centuries before Europe had any idea of its existance.
Anyway, those who've noticed an "antiphonal chorus" in the Daughters of Jerusalem are entirely correct in their proposal and are keeping true to verses' passage context within this song's collective bound overall contextual design.
There just isn't any evidence of Isrealites being black during this time. It is NOT racism jeeesh.
Posts: 336 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: We have all undergone eurocentric education since our very beginnings in the schooling system. It is unavoidable and at times prevents expansion of our mental horizons. Yet we struggle to attain to an independent vision of our own African culture and history as well as that of fellow related Africans differing in culture from us and cast off eurocentric educational baggage once we recognize we are still toting it around.
I tend to try to respect the one as much as the others and don't think I've been other than respectful to you in this exchange. If you think otherwise then accept my humblest apology.
I think you have mistaken what I meant when fingering eurocentric education for seeking non-Israelite identity for the protagonist of an Israelite poem about physical love. emotional attachment, and legally married wedding bliss simply because of the colour of that female protagonist.
You have also made assumptions about how many people I know of to be characters/speakers in Shir haShiriym.
One unassailable fact remains. Am Yisra'el knows of no Abyssinian, Sudani, Egyptian, or Yemeni woman in the Song of Songs which is Solomon's.
Sure anyone is free to interpolate what they will into a primary documentation. We call that falsifying a text. Making something of it its authors never intended.
Fact: Shir haShiriym has different speakers in it. It's not all written from any one character or group in it. Its author(s) intentionally composed/compiled it that way.
If you prefer interpretations and interpolations of non-Israel over that of Israel, who are the owners of this song, well, fine. I need not try to bring their understanding of their own to you but maybe other forum members will appreciate the point of view of the originators over that of the assimilators.
Unless I can add something new to the discussion I'm signing out, as my position has been presented three times now and I hope it is understood on and in its own terms.
One can further peruse the writings of Marcia Falk or Chana Bloch for modern Jewish interpretations and English translations of Shir haShiriym. Remember its Jews who have been chantig this (some every Sabbath) for the last couple of thousand years.
Make the Shulamiyth into Makeda, Bilqis, Anonymous Daughter of Pharaoh, or anyone else who fits your needs, it's your right of self-determination to do so and I have no business dampering that right.
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata: I'll say this much.. The person in question with whom you attribute the observation apparently did not make the same observation as you.
She said " am black" and the young girls said but beautiful. - Bettyboo
^She uses an entirely different translation than the one proposed by yourself in the form of BUT, and interprets a transition before the perceived antiphonal chorus and made the inference that multiple women were present, as opposed to your initial suggestion that this was a reference to an individual, recited by the said individual (an Israelite girl from Shulam).
Apparently your assessment is a lone one (with the exception of Red,White, and Blue + Christian , if I read him correctly) and of course, with all do respect your assertion that any interpretation contrary to yours is rooted in "Eurocentric education" (blanket term) certainly and fallaciously undermines the vast variability of opinion and is an insult to all free-thinkers. The very fact that Pharaoh's daughter (an Egyptian) is even entertained, contradicts such a charge. This is ideological-based reasoning and provides nothing by way of argumentation. I'm also not sure that a lack of elaboration and a somewhat bounderish tone will help plead your case to the effect that it would be seen as an authoritative perspective. I hope that we can all RESPECTFULLY disagree with out drawing such hasty conclusions based on practically nothing but a difference in opinion.
Now, as far as the woman in question bearing an identity as a common Israelite, I don't believe it can be stated confidently that this view is implausible, or incorrect. But We are aware of relationships that Solomon seemingly had with Queen Makeda and his marriage to Pharaoh's daughter, both of whom were undeniably black.
Solomon has taken a wife not of his color, who is moreover black, for he has married the daughter of Pharaoh - Kebra Negast
Taking into consideration your provided extrapolation, befitting to say that it makes sense given the general context of the subsequent verse. It is indeed indicative of non-royalty as she was made "keeper of the vineyards", to the extent that she couldn't even tend to her own. This suggests labor.. Tho at the end of the day, each interpretation will make sense to somebody; personally I have no stake in the issue and am indifferent, but did indeed at least have some of my own preconceived assumptions..
^Given that, I'm quite sure that a lot of people in this thread are open-minded and willing to be persuaded, but the most effective way to persuade in my opinion, is to omit as much redundancy as possible and merely draw attention to what others may be confused about.
I think it's hard to say either way. The relationship between Solomon and an African Queen is well documented and corroborated by several sources. But does this "Black and comely" quote refer to the same person? Hard to tell...but I'd like to see your evidence that it's refering to an Israelite female.
Posts: 1219 | From: North Carolina, USA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can tell you've never read the poem but have only focused on its dark and lovely passage. So we are on uneven ground.
Go read the entire Shir haShiriym from start to finish making a list of all the characters in it and how things are described about them such as their looks, their feelings, their social rank or occupation, where they come from, etc.
After you read and analyze the poem like you were taught to do in secondary school with any piece of literature come back and then we can talk.
There is absolutely no internal evidence that any player in Shir haShiriym is anything other than Israelite.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sundiata: I'll say this much.. The person in question with whom you attribute the observation apparently did not make the same observation as you.
She said " am black" and the young girls said but beautiful. - Bettyboo
^She uses an entirely different translation than the one proposed by yourself in the form of BUT, and interprets a transition before the perceived antiphonal chorus and made the inference that multiple women were present, as opposed to your initial suggestion that this was a reference to an individual, recited by the said individual (an Israelite girl from Shulam).
The point is that verse is a dialogue. It is not the bride answering herself, but conversing with the young girls. The bride says "I am black like the goats of Kedar" and it was the young girls that responded "yet beautiful like the curtains of Solomon. I don't have my bible with me, but the bride didn't say she is "black, yet beautiful". And the bride is literally speaking of the color black not "dark brown". The goats of Kedar were the goats that had black hair and she describe herself as being as black as their hair. So that verse has nothing to do with being brown, it is literally speaking of the color black.
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Okay, thank you Betty Boo.. There's so many differences of opinion over so many inane details of the correct interpretation that I'd rather not indulge. I understand what you mean, but don't necessarily agree or disagree..
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
The point is that verse is a dialogue. It is not the bride answering herself, but conversing with the young girls. The bride says "I am black like the goats of Kedar" and it was the young girls that responded "yet beautiful like the curtains of Solomon. I don't have my bible with me, but the bride didn't say she is "black, yet beautiful". And the bride is literally speaking of the color black not "dark brown". The goats of Kedar were the goats that had black hair and she describe herself as being as black as their hair. So that verse has nothing to do with being brown, it is literally speaking of the color black.
quote:
What the hell? thats even more confusing.. Posts: 229 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why? It's literary analysis and the topic has come up here at least twice before. If you're not in to it then why not skip over it and follow other threads.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The tents were spun out the shearings of the goats. BTW the people of Kedar were also noted as being rather on the dark side complexionwise themselves.
Kedar was a son of Ishmael who was the son of Abraham by the Egyptian princess Hagar. Hagar in turn saw to it that Ishmael married an Egyptian wife who mothered Kedar.
We see that Kedar's ascendency was 3/4 Egyptian and one 1/4 Aramaean and so quite naturally of rich colour.
Kedar's territory was adjacent to Levantine and Arabian Kushites whom his progeny most likely took their wives from, possibly further darkening their complexions.
Note that in the Hebrew language tent is used as an euphamism for the vulva/pudenda. Another indication that Kedar's people spring from very dark mothers (black as the "tents" [womanhood] of Kedar).
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
The point is that verse is a dialogue. It is not the bride answering herself, but conversing with the young girls. The bride says "I am black like the goats of Kedar" and it was the young girls that responded "yet beautiful like the curtains of Solomon. I don't have my bible with me, but the bride didn't say she is "black, yet beautiful". And the bride is literally speaking of the color black not "dark brown". The goats of Kedar were the goats that had black hair and she describe herself as being as black as their hair. So that verse has nothing to do with being brown, it is literally speaking of the color black.
quote:
What the hell? thats even more confusing..
Seriously, do you really think that is confusing? It is quite plain and clear in the scriptures. The whole book of Song of Solomon is made up of dialogue and "Trilogues". No one in Song of Solomon is talking to themselves. It is either narrative or a dialogue. Read it and study it and it is plain and simple just like your ABCs and 123s. There is nothing confusing about it unless you want it to be.
Bride: I am black Young Girls: Yet, Comely Bride: As the goats of Kedar (I am black as the goats of kedar) Young Girls: As the curtains of Solomon (Yet comely (beautiful) as the curtains of Solomon).
The bride describes herself as being black as the goats of Kedar. I suppose you never seen a black goat before. There are goats that have straight jet black hair that is found in that region. It is not an interpretation, but what the scriptures read and teaches. Check it out yourself.
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: The tents were spun out the shearings of the goats. BTW the people of Kedar were also noted as being rather on the dark side complexionwise themselves.
Kedar was a son of Ishmael who was the son of Abraham by the Egyptian princess Hagar. Hagar in turn saw to it that Ishmael married an Egyptian wife who mothered Kedar.
We see that Kedar's ascendency was 3/4 Egyptian and one 1/4 Aramaean and so quite naturally of rich colour.
Kedar's territory was adjacent to Levantine and Arabian Kushites whom his progeny most likely took their wives from, possibly further darkening their complexions.
Note that in the Hebrew language tent is used as an euphamism for the vulva/pudenda. Another indication that Kedar's people spring from very dark mothers (black as the "tents" [womanhood] of Kedar).
Can you show us a map of the Kedar territory? And what modern-day people are descended from them? I am just curious.
I think the main problem with the topic of this thread, is that many people are oblivious to the darker-skinned, let alone black, populations of Arabia and other parts of Southwest Asia. Just as with India, most of the people you see especially in the media are all light-skinned but if you see more rural folks from the countryside such as the nomads of the Thar Desert you see much darker-skinned/black folks. I think this is the problem with Arabia and Levant also.
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ^ Ah, I see. Excellent.
Abraham, Isaac, Ishmael and Kedar and Hagar are just as mythical as Moses just to let you know
And?
I think the goal is to properly contextualise the passages correleation of Black and beautiful, not to treat as and anthroplogical text with accurate phenotypical discriptions of historical personage.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not you Djehuti, but if people could just look at this like any other text from the ancient world without belief being affected I'd go deeper into this.
But if I give you a map of the time period with the Tents of Kedar half the forum's gonna go religious bonkers over it like they never would when exploring say the Greek mythos for eponymous ethnonyms and implied geneaolgical relationships.
I'm not into this here on this forum to present "the word of god." That's not what this forum is about. I just want it seen that the Israels are just another African people (in their case from the far northeast extention of Africa misnomered southwest Asia) who grew from an extended family into a tribal nation in Egypt and spoke an African language. The physical anthropology follows easy enough from the Levant as a family of 70 to Egypt as tribal nation of 100,000's back to the Levant where there were marriages and trysts/sexual laisons with every people around them they could coax to lay down for the night (maybe after drinking wine and singing certain lyrics from Shir haShiriym, the ones Wally was so excited about not too long ago. Wally really understood what poem was all about on its literal level.)
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: The tents were spun out the shearings of the goats. BTW the people of Kedar were also noted as being rather on the dark side complexionwise themselves.
Kedar was a son of Ishmael who was the son of Abraham by the Egyptian princess Hagar. Hagar in turn saw to it that Ishmael married an Egyptian wife who mothered Kedar.
We see that Kedar's ascendency was 3/4 Egyptian and one 1/4 Aramaean and so quite naturally of rich colour.
Kedar's territory was adjacent to Levantine and Arabian Kushites whom his progeny most likely took their wives from, possibly further darkening their complexions.
Note that in the Hebrew language tent is used as an euphamism for the vulva/pudenda. Another indication that Kedar's people spring from very dark mothers (black as the "tents" [womanhood] of Kedar).
Can you show us a map of the Kedar territory? And what modern-day people are descended from them? I am just curious.
I think the main problem with the topic of this thread, is that many people are oblivious to the darker-skinned, let alone black, populations of Arabia and other parts of Southwest Asia. Just as with India, most of the people you see especially in the media are all light-skinned but if you see more rural folks from the countryside such as the nomads of the Thar Desert you see much darker-skinned/black folks. I think this is the problem with Arabia and Levant also.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
al Takruri, do you mind my asking whether you are Jewish? You seem very passionate about this culture.
Posts: 140 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Miriam became leprous, white as snow."-2 Kings 5:27
It just means she was pure, and untainted by sin.
^LOL, nice.. This line was in response to the criticism she apparently gave Moses for marrying a Black woman from upper Egypt. As punishment for her criticism against God's servant, she was turned white, which was a PUNISHMENT, in no way attributable to "purity" of any sort, lol..
And Mariam and Aaron spoke against Moses, because of the Ethiopian woman whom Moses took; for he had taken an Ethiopian woman. And they said, Has the Lord spoken to Moses only? has he not also spoken to us? and the Lord heard it. And the man Moses was very meek beyond all the men that were upon the earth. And the Lord said immediately to Moses and Aaron and Mariam, Come forth all three of you to the tabernacle of witness. And the three came forth to the tabernacle of witness; and the Lord descended in a pillar of a cloud, and stood at the door of the tabernacle of witness; and Aaron and Mariam were called; and both came forth. And he said to them, Hear my words: If there should be of you a prophet to the Lord, I will be made known to him in a vision, and in sleep will I speak to him. My servant Moses is not so; he is faithful in all my house. I will speak to him mouth to mouth apparently, and not in dark speeches; and he has seen the glory of the Lord; and why were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses? And the great anger of the Lord was upon them, and he departed. And the cloud departed from the tabernacle; and, behold, Mariam was leprous, white as snow; and Aaron looked upon Mariam, and, behold, she was leprous. - Numbers 12:1-9
Different culture ... Mose sisters anger wasn't based on color so to use this as an indicator of color is useless.
They didn't have the same mind set as Europeans do today ... They were supposed to be rebuilding their culture which means, she was scared that this Ethiopian woman would push her culture on the Israelites.
This is the theme throughout the Tanakh ... Israelites were always messing with women from different cultures which lead them to follow different deities.
Turning white was alway consider a cure in the Tanakh, because the color represented death (to the Egyptians, and Hebrews alike)as oppose to black being the representation of death today.
Europeans simple reversed the meaning of colors.
Posts: 951 | From: where rules end and freedom begins | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Wisdom of Israel says the passage is about an incident that happened just after Moses appointed 70 "prophets."
Ssiporah the Kushitess from Midian sighed to her sister-in-law Miriam: "Woe to their wives."
Miriam queired: "Whatever do you mean?"
"Ever since your brother my husband speaks regularly to the Eternal he no longer plays husband to me in night." was Ssiporah's response.
"What?" exclaimed Miriam, "Me and Aaron still have relations with our spouses and the Eternal speaks to us."
Miriam told Aaron then approached Moses wagging her finger saying "So, you tell your wife you can't sleep with her because you have to talk to the Eternal, do you?"
"You're just colour struck my dear brother. You don't touch her because she's so black!"
Moses didn't answer at all.
Come nightfall when Aaron and Miriam were in the embraces of their respective mates, the Eternal summoned Moses, Aaron, and Miriam, all three of them at once.
Moses answered the call immediately. But Miriam and Aaron called out "Water! Water!" for the necessary ablutions from ritual impurity contracted through sex before they dare approach the Eternal.
The Eternal called them a second time berating them as in the passage and afflicting Miriam with ssaarath the standard divine punishment for bad mouthing people.
Miriam now understood that Moses stopped having relations with his wife only because of his superior prophet status and that she Miriam was wrong to challenge his status by presuming to a prophet of the same status as close to the Eternal as was her baby brother.
The incident had nothing to do with any suspision about Ssiporah introducing any Midianite culture to Moses. Moses had already spent 40 years in Midian in Ssiporah's father Yithro's household. What was she going to bring up that her father the high priest of Midian hadn't already discussed with her father?
And if Moses didn't practice Midianite culture all those years of their marriage while they were both residing in Midian how was she going to get him to do so now that he was the number one prophet of his own people and residing in their very midst?
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^Whoa, thank you for that very valuable elaboration alTakruri. I am still learning and the most important thing I've learned is to not take these verses at face value, with out any accompanying professional commentary. Of course the way I perceived it has been repeated elsewhere, but not explained. I wasn't sure at first how to take your initial explanation since I couldn't contextualize it, but this dialogue between them definitely brought home the point. Informative.. I see that this is your arena so I take heed to your contributions concerning it. You seem like the most trustworthy source out of all the opinions in here, which was littered with so many points of view that it got a bit distracting. .
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by hitchcock: Black isnt a physical description in this passage or in any other passage of the bible. In this passage, I am black yet comely means simply that the person is tainted by sin and corruption but is still beautiful and worth of redemption by god.
Actually much Christian teaching sees the comments as a reflection of her mood, the give and take of romantic love, rather than skin color. In the book her mood alternates between despair and joy, and uncertainity but finally happiness in the end as she finds her beloved. It has nothing to do with "black" and "sin." The book makes it clear that the female is precious. She doesnt carry any sins. She makes mistakes like wandering inthe city to findher beloved, and the watchmen smite her, but no "black" and "sin" is involved.
Posts: 13 | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry. It's not a Christian thing. The Song of Songs which is Solomon's predates Christianity a good 500 years or more. It can't be fathomed by Christianity. It's meaning lies in the world of the ancient Levant with its Canaanitish and Hebrew mores.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Such books of the Bible do indeed have similarity to traditions that predate Christianity, but what tradition is it that the Song of Songs relates to?
Posts: 8890 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In the book of Song of Solomon the girl is indeed speaking of the color black. She was literally black [color].
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic