Dark and Lovely

This is the second of two week 3 discussion questions from my Spring 2022 course Understanding the Bible as a Progressive Christian through Pathways Theological Education.

Describe how the different translations of Song of Solomon render 1:5-6. Infer what the best translation might be given the time at which the poem was written and its geographical location/setting. Discuss how such translation differences could both influence social perceptions about women of color and be influenced by social perceptions about women of color.

 These two verses describe the coloring, in particular, of the woman in Song of Solomon. All of them refer to her as dark, but with different amounts of emphasis. There are essentially two references to her complexion, verse 5 refers to how she looks / her natural coloring (which could be hair, skin coloring or a combination of both) and verse 6a refers the fact that her skin shows signs of working in the sun. Robert Alter in his notes on these verses points out that this would mark her as a peasant, not an elegant (presumably richer) urban girl like the daughters of Jerusalem. This is a class marker that still exists in modern times - women are encouraged to wear sunscreen, makeup and otherwise take care of our face, hands and arms to disguise the fact that we work and "protect" us from the aging effects of the sun and wind, rather than acknowledging them as signs of being a hard worker or just the reality of life. (Alternatively sun and wind damage can be painful, but it's still just reality for a lot of people.) I think the CEB gives the translation that best reflects the meaning of these verses in modern times:

Dark am I, and lovely, daughters of Jerusalem—
        like the black tents of the Kedar nomads,
        like the curtains of Solomon’s palace.
Don’t stare at me because I’m darkened
        by the sun’s gaze.

 A number of other translations use "but" or "yet" in place of "and" in the first line, and most start the line with "I am", both taking away from the emphasis on the darkness of the woman's complexion. So, rather than the CEB's emphasis on "Dark" and "Lovely", you get things like "I am black, but comely" (KJV), "I am black and beautiful" (NRSV), "Dark am I, yet lovely" (NIV), "I am very dark, but lovely" (ESV), "I am dark, but comely"(JPS1985) "I am dark but desirable" (Altair). I suspect that given the geographical setting in the Middle East and the beloved identifying her as a goat herder, the woman in question would have been more likely to self identify as dark and lovely and leave the "but", "yet" and despite type thoughts for the class related issue of being darkened by working in the sun. The Hebrew on Sefaria shows the first word of this is "שְׁחוֹרָ֤ה" and even my rusty prayerbook Hebrew can identify that as related to "שָׁחֹר" - black, which further shows the emphasis on her being dark or black. I think that the addition of "black" to "tents of the Kedar nomads" in the CEB is a modern addition as well, to add a piece of knowledge that would have been understood by contemporary readers. (In the notes in his translation, Alter says these tents have been made from black goat hair.) Other translations do not include Black there but I think it is a useful addition for modern readers.

While we were asked to address verses 1:5-6, I don't think this discussion would be complete without pointing out verses 1:8 and 1:15-16 where many translations have the beloved referring to her as "fair." The Merriam-Webster Dictionary has 2 definitions of "fair" that might apply here, definitions 4 "having very little color, coloring, or pigmentation : very light" and 5 "pleasing to the eye or mind especially because of fresh, charming, or flawless quality." Obviously if you pay attention to verses 5 and 6, it's clear that the later definition is the one implied here, however, since the former is a more common use, it is likely to come first to mind and reinforce any thoughts of pale or less pigmented skin as beautiful. I think the translations like the CEB, ESV, and NIV which translate this as "beautiful" do a better job of expressing meaning. (NRSV uses beautiful for 15-16 only.)

I think the de-emphasis on the darkness of this woman in most modern translations is a result of modern western social attitudes and perceptions that privilege whiteness and paleness in beauty, while at the same time, it reinforces those perceptions. This kind of cycle of disdain and invisibility is unfortunately common. The woman's acknowledgement of the lower class distinction of having skin that shows she has been working in the sun shows how intersectional issues often magnify negativity. If I, as a white woman with type 2 hair complain about my hair being tangled, that is interpreted as my being momentarily fed up. If a black woman with type 4 hair does so, it is often interpreted as her having "bad hair", not just "a bad hair day", or an issue with type 4 hair in general. While I am not naive enough to think using a translation like that in the CEB that emphasizes the woman's blackness is a solution, at least it is not increasing the damage.

Translation References:

Ruth 1:5-6 in KJV, NIV, NRSV, CEB and ESV

Ruth 1:8 in KJV, NIV, NRSV, CEB and ESV

Ruth 1:15-16 in KJV, NIV, NRSV, CEB and ESV

Ruth 1 parallel Hebrew / JPS 1983 on Sefaria

Robert Alter's The Hebrew Bible Vol. 3: The Writings, containing his translation of Ruth is not freely available online.