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.
484 BlaΩej âˆtrba
lotuses were growing in ancient Palestine too and they still grow in
the coastal plains or in the Hula Reserve (48).
2. The occurrences in the OT
The lexeme ˆvwv I occurs 17 times in OT: 4 times in the narrative
books, 8 times in the Song, 4 times in the superscriptions of Psalms
and once in Hosea. Three different grammatical forms can be
distinguished:
1) ˆvWv in 1 Kgs 7,19; Ps 60,1; ˆv/v in 1 Kgs 7,22.26
2) hnvwv in Hos 14,6; Cant 2,1.2; 2 Chr 4,5
3) µynvwv in Pss 45,1; 69,1; 80,1; Cant 2,16; 4,5; 5,13; 6,2.3; 7,3
D. Michel explains the differences as follows: the feminine
singular form in Hosea and in Cant 2,1.2 designate a unique plant
(form 2), whereas the masculine plural form indicates rather a group
of plants (form 3). The singular form in 1 Kgs 7,19.22.26 indicates the
plant species (form 1). The author admits the inconsistency in his
classification because the form in 1 Kgs 7,26 (as its parallel in 2 Chr
4,5) corresponds to the feminine form (49).
——————
Brescia 1992). But G. RAVASI, Il Cantico dei Cantici. Commento e
Attualizzazione (Testi e commenti 4; Bologna 1992); D.A. GARRETT, Proverbs,
Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs (NAC 14; Nashville, TE 1993); E. FERNÃNDEZ
TEJERO, El cantar más bello. El Cantar de los cantares de Salomón (Madrid
1994); J.-F. SIX – F. VERNY, Le Chant de l’Amour. Eros dans la Bible (Paris
1995); N. DE LA CARRERA, Amor y erotismo del Cantar de los Cantares (Madrid
1997) and F. LALOU – P. CALAME, Le Grand Livre du Cantique des cantiques. Le
texte hébreu, les traductions historiques et les commentaires selon les traditions
juive et chrétienne (Paris 1999) opt for lily. A. LACOCQUE, Romance She Wrote.
A Hermeneutical Essay of Song of Songs (Harrisburg, PA 1998) does not
exclude lotus. E. Bosetti, though realizing the need of “fior di loto†translation,
opts for “giglioâ€; Cantico dei cantici. “Tu che il mio cuore amaâ€. Estasi e ricerca
(Cinisello Balsamo, MI 2001); equally D. BERGANT, The Song of Songs. Studies
in Hebrew Narrative & Poetry (Berit Olam; Collegeville, MN 2001). T.
LONGMAN III, Song of Songs (NICOT; Grand Rapids, MI – Cambridge, UK 2001)
retains “lilyâ€. The translation “lily†is no longer found in some German scholars,
after the work of O. Keel: H.-J. HEINEVETTER, „Komm nun, mein Liebster, Dein
Garten ruft Dich!“. Das Hohelied als programmatische Komposition (BBB 69;
Frankfurt am Main 1988); W. BÃœHLMANN, Das Hohelied (NSK.AT 15; Stuttgart
1997).
(48) M. ZOHARY, Plant life of Palestine. Israel and Jordan (ChBo 33; New
York 1962) 162; F. NIGEL HEPPER, Illustrated Encyclopedia of Bible Plants.
Flowers and Trees. Fruits and Vegetables. Ecology (Leicester 1992) 68-71, 74.
(49) D. MICHEL, Grundlegung einer hebräischen Syntax (Neukirchen-Vluyn
1977) I, 64-65.
FOLLOW US