Kidung Agung 1:7

The Shepherd and the Shepherdess

The Beloved to Her Lover:

1:7 Tell me, O you whom my heart ¹  loves,

where do you pasture your sheep?

Where do you rest your sheep during the midday heat?

Tell me lest ²  I wander around ³ 

beside the flocks of your companions!

Kidung Agung 5:8

The Triumph of Love: The Beloved Praises Her Lover

The Beloved to the Maidens:

5:8 O maidens of Jerusalem, I command you –

If you find my beloved, what will you tell him?

Tell him that I am lovesick! ⁴ 

Yohanes 21:17

21:17 Jesus ⁵  said ⁶  a third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was distressed ⁷  that Jesus ⁸  asked ⁹  him a third time, “Do you love me?” and said, ¹⁰  “Lord, you know everything. You know that I love you.” Jesus ¹¹  replied, ¹²  “Feed my sheep.

Yohanes 21:1

Jesus’ Appearance to the Disciples in Galilee

21:1 After this ¹³  Jesus revealed himself again to the disciples by the Sea of Tiberias. ¹⁴  Now this is how he did so. ¹⁵ 

Pengkhotbah 1:8

1:8 All this ¹⁶  monotony ¹⁷  is tiresome; no one can bear ¹⁸  to describe it: ¹⁹ 

The eye is never satisfied with seeing, nor is the ear ever content ²⁰  with hearing.

[1:7]  ¹ tn Heb “soul.”

[1:7]  ² tn The causal relative pronoun שֶׁ (she, “because”; BDB 980 s.v. שֶׁ 3.b) is prefixed to the interrogative particle לָמָה (lamah, “why?”; BDB 554 s.v. מַה 4.d) to form the idiom שַׁלָּמָה (shallamah, “lest”; BDB 554 s.v. מַה 4.d.β; 980 s.v. שֶׁ 3b). BDB notes that לָמָה is used with an imperfect – as is the case here with אֶהְיֶה (’ehyeh, Qal imperfect 1st person common singular from הָיָה, haya, “to be”) – to deprecate a situation and for rhetorical emphasis to introduce the reason why something should, or should not, be done: “Why should?” (e.g., Gen 27:45; 47:19; Exod 32:12; 1 Sam 19:5, 17; 20:8, 32; 2 Sam 2:22; 13:26; 16:9; 20:19; 2 Kgs 14:10; 2 Chr 25:16; Neh 6:3; Pss 79:10; 115:2; Eccl 5:5; 7:16-17; Jer 40:15; Joel 2:17) (BDB 554 s.v. מַה 4.d.β). When connected with a foregoing sentence by the causal relative pronouns שֶׁ “because,” the idiom שַׁלָּמָה connotes “lest” (literally, “Because why should?”) (BDB 554 s.v. 4.d.β). The meaning of שַׁלָּמָה is identical to the parallel constructions אֲשֶׁר לָמָּה (’asher lammah, “lest”; Dan 1:10) and דִּי לְמָה (di lÿmah, “lest”; Ezra 7:23). In Song 1:6[7] the causal relative pronoun שֶׁ connects it to the preceding lines, and our idiom assumes the elided phrase לִי הַגִּידָהּ (haggidah li, “Tell me!”) which occurred earlier: “Tell me lest I …!” or “Tell me! For why should I…?”

[1:7]  ³ tn The meaning of MT עֹטְיָה (’otÿyah, Qal active participle fs from עָטָה, ’atah, “to veil oneself”) is debated; several options have been proposed: (1) Some scholars attempt to explain this in light of ancient Israelite culture or customs. The term עָטָה describes a person wrapping oneself in a garment or with a veil (HALOT 813 s.v. I עטה) as (a) a sign of grief or mourning (Ezek 24:17, 22), uncleanness (Lev 13:45), or shame (Mic 3:7), and as (b) the clothing of the deceased (1 Sam 28:14) and veiled cult-prostitutes (Gen 28:14). The term is rendered “one who veils herself” (NASB), “one who is veiled” (NRSV, KJV margin) and “like a veiled woman” (ASV, NIV). BDB suggests that she veiled herself in mourning (BDB 741 s.v. I עָטָה). Rashi suggested that she veiled herself in mourning because she did not know where to find her beloved (Canticles Rabbah 1:6). Many commentators connect this with the veiled cult-prostitute soliciting business among shepherds. She wished to avoid what Tamar tried to do: to be mistaken as a harlot looking for business among the shepherds (Gen 38:14-23). If her beloved would not declare his whereabouts, she would be reduced to looking for him among the shepherds – an action that could be easily misunderstood. This is reflected in the CEV paraphrase: “Don’t let the other shepherds think badly of me.” R. E. Murphy (Song of Songs [Hermeneia], 131) writes: “Commentators have interpreted the covering as a sign of mourning (2 Sam 15:30) or as the sign of a harlot (Gen 38:14-15). These references are not helpful in explaining the context of v 7, and in neither of the instances is the word עָטָה used. She seems rather to refer to some kind of covering or disguise she will be forced to use unless she knows where to find him. One can infer that the disguise will enable her to avoid being identified by his ‘companions,’ but no reason is given (perhaps she does not want them to know about the rendezvous?)” (2) Other scholars resort to comparative lexicography. For example, S. R. Driver suggested that עֹטְיָה is not derived from עָטָה I (“to veil”), but from the Arabic root gth that came into Hebrew as the homonymic root עָטָה “to pick lice” (Isa 22:17; Jer 43:12) (HALOT 814 s.v. II עטה). Driver renders the line, “lest I be left picking lice,” that is, while away the siesta-time grooming herself. Most scholars reject this proposal; it seems strange in the context and unnecessarily creates a homonym for a well-known term that makes adequate sense contextually. Nevertheless, Driver’s proposal was adopted by the NEB: “that I may not be left picking lice.” See D. R. Driver, “Lice in the Old Testament,” PEQ 106 (1974): 159-160. (3) Still other scholars emend the text. MT reads כְּעֹטְיָה (kÿ’otÿyah, “like one who is veiled”) (preposition כְּ + Qal active participle fs עָטָה I “to veil”) which is also reflected in the LXX’s ὠ περιβαλλομενη (w periballomenh, “like one who is covered”; fs passive participle from περιβάλλω, periballw, “to cover”). However, several ancient versions (Greek: Symmachus, Syriac Peshitta, Vulgate) reflect a Hebrew Vorlage with metathesis of the first two consonants: כְּטֹעִיָּה (kÿto’iyyah) from טָעָה (ta’ah, “to wander about, to stray”; e.g., Ezek 13:10). The root טָעָה would be an Aramaizing form of Hebrew תָּעָה (“to wander”). This emendation is suggested by the BHS editors and the lexicons (HALOT 377 s.v. טעה; 814; BDB 742 s.v.); It is adopted by many translations: “like one who wanders” (RSV, AV, JB, NAB, NJV), “like one who strays” (JPS, NJPS) and “as one that turneth aside” (KJV). This would make nice sense contextually: she begs her beloved to tell her where to find him because she does not want to wander around like someone who is lost.

[5:8]  ⁴ tn The genitive construct חוֹלַת אַהֲבָה (kholat ’ahavah, “sick of love”) denotes “lovesick.” This is an example of a genitive of cause, that is, the Beloved was (physically/emotionally) sick because of her unrequited love for him. See study note on Song 2:5.

[21:17]  ⁵ tn Grk “He”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[21:17]  ⁶ tn Grk “said to him.” The words “to him” are clear from the context and slightly redundant in English.

[21:17]  ⁷ tn Or “was sad.”

[21:17]  ⁸ tn Grk “he”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[21:17]  ⁹ tn Grk “said to.”

[21:17]  ¹⁰ tn Grk “and said to him.” The words “to him” are clear from the context and slightly redundant in English.

[21:17]  ¹¹ tc ‡ Most witnesses, especially later ones (A Θ Ψ Ë¹³ Ï), read ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς (Jo Ihsou", “Jesus”) here, while B C have ᾿Ιησοῦς without the article and א D W ˹ 33 565 al lat lack both. Because of the rapid verbal exchange in this pericope, “Jesus” is virtually required for clarity, providing a temptation to scribes to add the name. Further, the name normally occurs with the article. Although it is possible that B C accidentally omitted the article with the name, it is just as likely that they added the simple name to the text for clarity’s sake, while other witnesses added the article as well. The omission of ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς thus seems most likely to be authentic. NA²⁷ includes the words in brackets, indicating some doubts as to their authenticity.

[21:17]  tn Grk “he”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[21:17]  ¹² tn Grk “Jesus said to him.”

[21:1]  ¹³ tn The time reference indicated by μετὰ ταῦτα (meta tauta) is indefinite, in comparison with the specific “after eight days” (μεθ᾿ ἡμέρας ὀκτώ, meq’ Jhmera" oktw) between the two postresurrection appearances of Jesus in 20:26.

[21:1]  ¹⁴ sn The Sea of Tiberias is another name for the Sea of Galilee (see 6:1).

[21:1]  ¹⁵ tn Grk “how he revealed himself.”

[1:8]  ¹⁶ tn The word “this” is not in Hebrew, but is supplied in the translation for clarity.

[1:8]  ¹⁷ tn Heb “the things.” The Hebrew term דְּבָרִים (dÿvarim, masculine plural noun from דָּבָר, davar) is often used to denote “words,” but it can also refer to actions and events (HALOT 211 s.v. דָּבָר 3.a; BDB 183 s.v. דָּבָר IV.4). Here, it means “things,” as is clear from the context: “What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done” (1:9). Here דְּבָרִים can be nuanced “occurrences” or even “[natural] phenomena.”

[1:8]  ¹⁸ tn Heb “is able.”

[1:8]  ¹⁹ tn The Hebrew text has no stated object. The translation supplies “it” for stylistic reasons and clarification.

[1:8]  sn The statement no one can bear to describe it probably means that Qoheleth could have multiplied examples (beyond the sun, the wind, and the streams) of the endless cycle of futile events in nature. However, no tongue could ever tell, no eye could ever see, no ear could ever hear all the examples of this continual and futile activity.

[1:8]  ²⁰ tn The term מָלֵא (male’, “to be filled, to be satisfied”) is repeated in 1:7-8 to draw a comparison between the futility in the cycle of nature and human secular accomplishments: lots of action, but no lasting effects. In 1:7 אֵינֶנּוּ מָלֵא (’enennu male’, “it is never filled”) describes the futility of the water cycle: “All the rivers flow into the sea, yet the sea is never filled.” In 1:8 וְלֹא־תִמָּלֵא (vÿlo-timmale’, “it is never satisfied”) describes the futility of human labor: “the ear is never satisfied with hearing.”