Song of Solomon 6:4

Tirzah = pleasantness, is mentioned in Joshua 12:24. It was an ancient Canaanite city, famed as its name and our passage shew for its beautiful situation. It was the royal residence of the Northern kings from the time of the abandonment of Shechem by Jeroboam I till the 6th year of Omri, who left it for Samaria, but it was apparently still of importance in the time of Menahem (2 Kings 15:14; 2 Kings 15:16). Neither the O.T. nor Josephus contains any indication as to the situation of Tirzah. But Brocardus in the 13th century, and Breydenbach in the 15th, mention a Thersa, three hours eastward of Samaria. Robinson, therefore, has identified it with the large village of Talluza, two-and-a-half hours E. of Samaria, and two hours N. of Nablous. Conder, however, has suggested that the village of Teiasirmay be Tirzah. It lies two-and-a-half hours to the N. of Talluza, and has been identified by Porter in Murray's Guide-book, 1858, with Ashera town of Manasseh, placed by Eusebius on the 15th mile from Neapolis to Scythopolis, anciently Bçthshe"ân. An objection which seems fatal is, that it lies too far from the great thoroughfare of the country for the ancient seat of the Israelite kings. From Tirzah being mentioned along with Jerusalem, this reference probably is to it as the capital of the N. kingdom. Its ancient rank as a Canaanite royal city can hardly have been in the writer's mind. Consequently, unless this be an interpolation, as Budde makes it, the Song cannot have been written by Solomon. But it does not prove that it was written during the period that Tirzah was the capital. For the name of the town at least was known up till the 15th century of our era, and the site must always have been beautiful. Therefore, if the writer of the Song was a Northern man, who knew its beauty and history, he might have inserted the reference centuries after it had become an unimportant place, or even a ruin. Tirzah may have been chosen along with Jerusalem instead of Samaria, because of the evil odour in which the latter was held after Nehemiah's day, or for its significant name and well-known beauty.

terrible asan army with banners The last four words represent the Heb. word nidhgâlôth, partic. niphal of a denominative from deghel= a banner. Cp. dâghûl, ch. Song of Solomon 6:10: literally it would be -beflagged things," if we might coin such an expression; hence companies of soldiers gathered about a flag. Rightly the LXX, θάμβος ὡς τεταγμέναι (sc. φὰλαγγες), a terror (i.e. terrible) as ranked (phalanxes). As Oettli remarks, this simile indicates that a king, not a shepherd, is speaking here. Whether the bannered hosts are terrible as overcoming, conquering, so that we have here praise of the Shulammite's beauty, or whether we have praise of her inaccessibility as frowning upon her flatterers, must be left to individual taste. The former seems simpler, but the latter agrees best with the next clause. Cheyne suspects corruption in the text (Jew. Quart. Rev. Jan. 1899). For Tirzah he would read chabhatstseleth, and for Jerusalem and the words following it, he would read keshôshannath ǎmâqîm. His translation would therefore be, -Thou art fair, my friend, as the crocus, and comely as the lily of the valleys." But this would make the verse a mere repetition of Song of Solomon 2:1.

for they have overcome me Rather, for they [i.e. thine eyes] have made me afraid. The word translated -overcome" in A.V. is found elsewhere in the O.T. only in Psalms 138:3, where it is variously translated; A.V. -thou didst strengthen," R.V. -encourage," VariorumBib. -make proud." Here also some have taken it in this sense. But against that is the last clause of Song of Solomon 6:4, and the "turn away" of Song of Solomon 6:5. Moreover Hitzig has shewn that in Syr. and Arab. the forms corresponding to that here used in Heb. mean, -to terrify." The LXX seem to favour that view, for their translation ἀνεπτέρωσάν με may mean -agitate me," probably with fear (cp. θάμβος in the previous verse). This would suit the context best. It is not probable that there is in the words any reference to the magic of the evil eye.

From here to the end of Song of Solomon 6:7 we have a mere repetition of Song of Solomon 4:1-3 b, with very slight variation. The only differences are that here we have -from Gilead" instead of -from mount Gilead," and instead of -shorn ewes," simply, -ewes." For the commentary see Song of Solomon 4:1, &c. The repetition may be intended to indicate that the words are mere stock phrases in Solomon's mouth (Oettli), but more probably they are stock phrases taken by the poet from the marriage wasfs, which must have consisted mainly of just such phrases.