Blaz0ej S0trba, «hn#$w#$ of the Canticle», Vol. 85 (2004) 475-502
The term hn#$w#$ is revisited
primarily in the Canticle of Solomon. The most ancient translation –– "lily" ––
of this flower though questioned in recent decades is still widely used. The
LXX’s rendering kri/non is examined and found as the
best translation for the lexeme N#$w#$ –– meaning
"lotus" –– being an Egyptian loan word. This translation fits to the OT
references better than "lily". The textual employment of
hn#$w#$ in the poetry of the Canticle is a chief and commanding proof for
"lotus". The "lily" translation for both hn#$w#$
and kri/non for the majority of the OT cases is seen
as incorrect since it does not pay due attention to the literary and historical
context of the Canticle.
hnvwv of the Canticle(*)
One of the many sayings of Jesus which will be familiar to anyone
who has read the Gospels is: “And why are you anxious about
clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they neither
toil nor spin; yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not
arrayed like one of theseâ€. (Mt 6,28-29; cf. Lk 12,27-28). Generally
these flowers ta; krivna tou' ajgrou are understood as “the lilies of the
fieldâ€, and the references to these “lilies†appear only twice in the NT,
whereas in the LXX this same lexeme krivnon occurs more often. The
dominant use is noticed in the Song of Songs where it renders the
original hnvwv. The aim of this paper is to revisit the lexeme hnvwv and
its meaning, primarily in the Hebrew text of the eight chapters-long
Canticle which is ascribed to Solomon (1,1). After a short presentation
of how the LXX manages to translate the occurrences of hnvwv (part I),
attention will be paid primarily to the term itself. The etymology is
still not unanimously accepted (part II). Searching for its meaning, we
examine the three somewhat different uses of this term, focussing
mainly on its occurrences in the Song where it features prominently
(part III). This may be regarded as a test case itself for the meaning of
hnvwv (1).
(*) I am grateful to Prof. Alviero Niccacci for careful reading of the first draft
of this essay. His and Prof. Othmar Keel’s remarks helped me to strengthen some
of the weak points.
(1) BDB, 1004, defines this noun as “usually lily, probably any kind of lily-
like flowerâ€; KBL3 IV, 1454-1455: “lilyâ€, “the flower of the lily†or “lotus
blossomâ€. E.D. Klein translates only with “lilyâ€. Klein reports that some scholars
identify the word with the Egyptian lotus sππn, sπn (Coptic πôπˇn), the others to
Ranunculus asiaticus, still others to Cyperus papyrus. According to others the
word goes back to Akkadian πuπu (six-sided); A Comprehensive Etymological
Dictionary of the Hebrew Language for Readers of English (Jerusalem 1987)
647. The Greek souson and Latin Susanna are therefore, according Klein, the
Semitic loan words. P. REYMOND, Dictionnaire d’hébreu et d’araméen bibliques
(Paris 1991) 380: “lysâ€, “lotus†(in the Temple architecture), and an unknown
musical instrument (in the Psalms); L. ALONSO SCHÖKEL, Diccionario bÃblico
hebreo-español (Madrid 1994) 755: “azucena, lirioâ€.