Posted on 12/03/2016 9:38:00 AM PST by Salvation
Question: A friend of mine, referencing some sort of black studies program she attended, says that the opening line of the Song of Songs is racist. It says, “I am black and beautiful, Daughters of Jerusalem” (Song 1:5). She tends to be radical, but I must admit I couldn’t really give her an answer. Can you help?— Name and place withheld
Answer: The reference is more likely to economic class than to race. She is a Jewish woman, from the region of Shulem, speaking to other unspecified Jewish women about how she found love.
She speaks to her complexion but goes on to explain it: “Do not stare at me because I am so black, because the sun has burned me. The sons of my mother were angry with me; they charged me with the care of the vineyards: my own vineyard I did not take care of” (Song 1:6).
Hence, her skin was darker since she was consigned by her noble family to work outdoors in the vineyards. Spending extensive time outdoors has scorched and darkened her skin. Thus, she is explaining how she, though from a wealthy family, has the sun-scorched look of one from a poorer family. It might be like a son explaining why he was “working in the mailroom” even though his father owned the company.
But despite all this, her beloved loves her, and she loves him. The Song of Songs is about love, not race or economic class. To reduce it to race says more about us and our preoccupations than about 900 B.C.
This mention of her physical appearance is one of the rare occurrences of such descriptions in the Bible. Skin color, height, weight, etc., are seldom supplied by the text. The tendency should also encourage us to be less preoccupied with such physical descriptions and listen to what the text is really focusing on.
Monsignor Pope Ping for OSV article.
Monsignor Pope for CARDINAL!
Moses married a black woman. His relatives complained, either because she was black, or because she was not of the Israelite people. In return, God turned those relatives’ (Miriam and Aaron) skin leporous. Leprosy gives pure white patches (most white people are pink, not white).
The implication seems to be that if they wanted to be white, God could make them really, really white.
Their leprosy ended when Moses asked God to forgive them.
So much for white or black or asian racism.
As well, the bible says God made us all of “one flesh”. That was doubtless just to avoid the kind of racism and darwinian claims to superiority that exist outside the bible.
The Bible says that the race goes not to the swiftest.
In the Authorized Version, the word “race” is used only four times, and each time it’s a reference to a sporting event.
People groups are identified by their ancestry, paternal names, and geographic tribal origins.
The only direct incident of bias based on skin color that I can recollect is in Numbers chapter 12 where Moses’ brother Aaron and sister Miriam plotted against Moses for having married an Ethiopian woman.
If you read the account, it reveals that God has a very dim view of bias based on skin color.
I see that we were literally on the same page this morning.
;)
Isn’t that from the parable of the tortoise and the hare?;-)
“Moses married a black woman.”
You certainly cannot derive that from Biblical text.
The SOS explains. The woman worked in the vineyards and was darkened by the sun. This made her an exception to the fairer women in the palace, but Solomon found it rather fetching.
Please, scripture completely rejects race identity. There are nations and tribes, not races.
Miriam and Aaron began to talk against Moses because of his Cushite wife, for he had married a Cushite.
The land of Cush is generally recognized as a Nubian land, and the Nubians are dark skinned people who we would refer to as black. This is contextually supported by the translators of the Septuagint who uniformly translate "Cush" into Αἰθιοπία (Aithiopia), the Greek name for Nubia.
I have been assured by a Black Muslim (Louis Farrakhan) that the Israelites were black, and that whites were created by a renegade black scientist—something to do with incest. He was serious. That is one of their beliefs.
Why the hell is that called racist?
Anytime a White mentions race, or notices race, or thinks of race, or doesn’t think of race, he is immediately called racist.
That’s why.
Be careful.
Those waters can get rough awful fast.
If you all look at Genesis 10 the KJV Holy Bible will tell you all where Noah’s 3 Sons went to re-plentish the earth, Ham went S. and W(Africa).
Cushite = Nubian. These people are black.
Pshat interpretations without Jewish teachings and without Hebrew knowledge won't yield correct meaning.
Rashi on 1:5:
I am black but comely, etc.: You, my friends, let me not be light in your eyes even if my husband has left me because of my blackness, for I am black because of the sun’s gaze, but I am comely with the shape of beautiful limbs, and if I am black as the tents of Kedar, which are blackened by the rain, for they are constantly spread out in the deserts, I am easily cleansed to be like the curtains of Solomon.
The allegory is that the congregation of Israel says to the nations: I am black in my deeds, but I am comely in the deeds of my ancestors, and even some of my deeds are comely. If I am guilty of the iniquity of the [Golden] Calf, I can counter it with the merit of the acceptance of the Torah (Song Rabbah). He calls the nations the daughters of Jerusalem because she [Jerusalem] is destined to become the metropolis for them all, as Ezekiel prophesied (16:61): “and I shall give them to you for daughters,” like (Josh. 15:45): “Ekron, with her towns (וּבְנוֹהֶיהָ).”
http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/16445/jewish/Chapter-1.htm#v=5&showrashi=true
In other words, you are sure that after 3000 years, the population in that area has been static.
The Egyptians today are certainly not the Egyptians during Moses time.
The Greeks today are certainly not the Greeks of Homer’s time.
The Italians today are certainly not the Romans of old.
To the best of my knowledge, Nubia remained largely racially stable ---- and black -- until the Arab/Muslim invasions, which would of course been after the 6th century AD.
But of course I'd be interested in evidence to the contrary, if you can supply it. History always holds surprises for me!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.