tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2865491821256460232.post5883751513194212080..comments2024-03-23T07:33:56.741+11:00Comments on Dr. Andrew Corbett: EROTICA IN THE BIBLE?The weekly pastoral blog of Dr. Andrew Corbetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05649631138124231214noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2865491821256460232.post-18944236665857642292008-09-24T13:27:00.000+10:002008-09-24T13:27:00.000+10:00Interesting. Is this a reaction to Mark Driscoll's...Interesting. Is this a reaction to Mark Driscoll's teaching on the subject?<BR/><BR/>You may be right. I have never been comfortable identifying Solomon as the lover. However, if you are right, I think some of your analysis may need tweaking. The identification of 6:4-12 fits the bucolic lover better than it does Solomon "trying yet again to seduce his reluctant "bride"..." The agricultural similes and metaphors used by the speaker of the Shulammite would sound more natural coming from the lover than from the city dwelling Solomon. Moreover, he does not just praise her among the other queens and concubines, but says that she is "the only one" - which in the case of the lover is simply literally true - she IS his only betrothed. In the light of your comments on 8:1-3, probably 4:1-16 ought also to be ascribed to the lover, not Solomon, since he calls her sister. In no sense could she have been 'sister' to Solomon, yet, as you point out, she grew up in the vilage with her lover as though they were brother and sister.<BR/><BR/>Is it coincidental that Dave Bish has just blogged today on the same subject? (http://thebluefish.org/2008/09/which-way-to-go-with-song-of-songs.html)The Pookhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14348286180688900647noreply@blogger.com