Saturday, May 30, 2026

Adele Berlin on Song of Solomon 1:5

  

5 Black I am yet lovely. I render שחורה literally as “black,” although “dark” is also possible. Much ink has been spilled over whether the conjunctive vav means “and” or “but.” There is no question that it must be “but” because the Bible, and the ancient Near East more generally, viewed unnaturally “blackened” skin, that is, not one’s natural color, as the antithesis of good looks and good health. Ibn Ezra remarks, “Don’t think I was born black; it is only accidental, and it will pass.” In the Bible, to be “colorful” (especially bright/white and ruddy; cf. 5:10), which is essentially brightness or shininess, bespeaks vitality and beauty, and to be black or dark—to lack color or luster—is to lack attractiveness. Lamentations 4:7–8, describing the physical deterioration of the besieged population of Jerusalem, makes this contrast: “Her nobles had been brighter than snow, whiter than milk. Their bodies had been ruddier than coral, their physique was sapphire [or: lapis lazuli]. Their features grew darker than black, they were unrecognizable in the streets.” Similarly, in Job 30:30, blackened skin is among other features of Job’s weakened physical condition. One of the many curses in Esarhaddon’s Succession Treaty is, “May your flesh and the flesh of your women, your brothers, your sons, and your daughters, turn black like pitch, bitumen, and naphtha.” See also Sir 25:17: “A woman’s wickedness changes her appearance, and darkens her face like that of a bear.” Note that all these are references to complexions that were originally not “black” (it is certainly not a racial feature), but that became blackened because of adverse circumstances.

 

The idea that loss of color equals loss of beauty is also found in Euripides’s Helen, where the beautiful Helen wishes she were unattractive, which is expressed as having her color erased as one would remove the color from a painting or statue: “My life and fortunes are a monstrosity, partly because of Hera, partly because of my beauty. I wish I had been wiped clean like a painting and made plain instead of beautiful, and that the Greeks had forgotten the evil fate that I now have and remembered what is good, just as they now remember what is ill!” (Helen, lines 260–64; trans. David Kovacs, LCL 11:40–41).

 

But, to return to the biblical notion of becoming black as the result of adverse circumstances, what adverse circumstance caused our woman’s plight? It is not illness or famine or wickedness, the usual causes for the blackening of skin tone. Her blackened (or darkened) skin was the result of the sun’s glare, a suntan, from working in the vineyards. Her suntan is often explained as a sign of belonging to a lower class, a peasant, who must work outdoors (e.g., Fox and Garrett). But nowhere does the Bible suggest that outdoor work is a sign of a lower class. Alternatively, the contrast between “black” and “lovely” has been perceived as a contrast between the rural and the urban, or the primitive and the civilized, or natural beauty vs. cultured beauty (see Landy, 144). But these conjectures all posit a hierarchy of values not otherwise found in the Bible. The contrast here is between beauty and its absence.

 

Looking to the Greeks may suggest a different way to understand our woman’s suntan. In Greek culture, (upper class) women are portrayed with white or pale skin and men (specifically upper-class men) with tan skin. In early Greek art, “female figures are painted with a stark white pigment, while male figures are painted with a dark reddish pigment.” “The difference between men and women’s complexions corresponds to an old convention that had already appeared in Homer, as well as on painted scenes on the black-figure pottery of the seventh century bce.” The same white female vs. tan male occurs in Greek literature. Greek literary references to tan as a sign of male beauty include the following: Philostratus remarks that “on handsome boys tan is a flowering of their beauty” (Philostratus, Love Letters 27 [39]; trans. Allen Rogers and Francis H. Fobes; LCL 383:470–71). A suntan as a mark of an upper-class man: “In fact, many, giving up the trades that they had before, rush after the wallet and the cloak, tan their bodies in the sun to Ethiopian hue, make themselves extemporaneous philosophers out of cobblers or carpenters …” (Lucian, The Double Indictment; trans. A. M. Harmon, LCL 130:94–95). A vigorous man is described as one who has “hard muscles and a manly stride, who shows heavy tan on his body, and is bold-eyed and alert” (Lucian, A Professor of Public Speaking; trans. A. M. Harmon, LCL 162:144–45). Most interesting is the passage in Aristophanes’s Ecclesiazusae (Assemblywomen), when, seeking to disguise themselves as men, the women attempt to tan their skin: “whenever my husband went off to the agora, I oiled myself and stood in the sun all day getting a tan” (Assemblywomen, lines 62–63; trans. Jeffrey Henderson; LCL 180:252–53).

 

Our woman in the Song is not trying to pass herself off as a man; on the contrary, through no fault of her own, she has become suntanned, that is, in Greek culture, manlike, defeminized. (One wonders whether this poem is serious or jesting.)

 

So, has our woman lost her color/beauty (as Jewish literature expresses it), or has she taken on the tan coloring of a man (as in Greek culture)? In either case, she is complaining about a perceived loss of her natural (feminine) beauty. I lean toward seeing this as the biblical trope wherein the loss of color indicates the loss of beauty, but, in light of the Greek influence on the Song, we may consider that the woman’s suntan is a refashioned Grecism, signaling the antithesis of femininity. (Adele Berlin, Song of Songs: A Commentary [Hermeneia—A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2025], 41-43)

 

 

Blog Archive