שְׁחוֹרָ֤ה אֲנִי֙ וְֽנָאוָ֔ה בְּנ֖וֹת יְרוּשָׁלָ֑͏ִם כְּאׇהֳלֵ֣י קֵדָ֔ר כִּירִיע֖וֹת שְׁלֹמֹֽה׃
I am black, but comely, O ye daughters of Jerusalem,
As the tents of Kedar, As the curtains of Solomon. (JPS 1917)
The first three words of the Hebrew text of this passage, שְׁחוֹרָ֤ה אֲנִי֙ וְֽנָאוָ֔ה, are rendered by the 1917 JPS translation as
•"I am black, but comely"
and by the 1985 JPS translation as
•"I am dark, but comely"
I do not suppose this change came about because the 1985 translation committee had discovered some fine shade of meaning of the Hebrew word שְׁחוֹרָ֤ה that was unknown in 1917. I expect the simple truth is that 1917 came quite a while before the civil rights movement of the 1960s, while 1985 came a couple of decades after it. "The times," as Bob Dylan put it, "they were a-changin'."
Be all that as it may, far more important than "black" versus "dark" as the translation for שְׁחוֹרָ֤ה is that both of these efforts render the whole phrase, שְׁחוֹרָ֤ה אֲנִי֙ וְֽנָאוָ֔ה, as
•"I am [black/dark], but comely"
For there is something seriously amiss with this translation. It stems from the fact that biblical Hebrew uses the same grammatical element, the letter vav, for both the additive conjunction (and) and the adversative conjunction (but, yet, etc.). Thus, the phrases
•"I am black and comely"
and
•"I am black, but comely"
could both be rendered as שְׁחוֹרָ֤ה אֲנִי֙ וְֽנָאוָ֔ה.
Conversely, anyone translating the biblical passage from Hebrew to English would have to decide whether the vav conjunction in this instance is additive or adversative. If “comely” is something that can be congruously, harmoniously, unsurprisingly added to “black,” then the conjunction is additive and the translation is
•"I am black and comely."
If on the other hand “comely” is something deemed to be in some degree incongruous with “black,” something relatively unlikely to be associated with it, then the conjunction is adversative and the translation is
•"I am black, but comely"
which is tantamount to saying
•"I am comely in spite of being black."
So, yes, there is something seriously amiss here.
Language translation in a case of this sort is something like responding to a projective test. The stimulus object (an inkblot, an ambiguous picture, etc.) is open to a range of possible interpretations, but does not objectively require any one of them over any other. So the interpretation we end up with is partly a reflection of the stimulus object and partly a reflection of the assumptions and predilections of the interpreter. This basic tendency of the human mind is no doubt the source of the Italian adage “traduttore, traditore” ~~ “the translator is a betrayer.” A bit hyperbolic, to be sure, but make no mistake about its core of truth: the substance of a translation will sometimes be tilted in one direction or another by the predilections––conscious or unconscious––of the translator.
It is worth noting that all of the English translations of Song of Songs available on Sefaria take the general form of
•"I am [black/dark], but comely"
The same is true of the translations for other languages available on Sefaria.
•German (1902): Schwarz bin ich, doch anmutig
•French (1899): Je suis noircie, ... gracieuse pourtant
•French (1831): Je suis noire, et (pourtant) belle
•Polish (1908): Śniada ja ale wdzięczna
•Yiddish (1941): שװאַרץ בין איך, אָבער שײן
There is also available on Sefaria that often quoted commentary of Rashi, which both presupposes the adversative interpretation, "black, but comely," and offers an allegorical prop for its perpetuation:
•שְׁחוֹרָה אֲנִי וְנָאוָה וגו'. ... דֻּגְמָא הִיא זוּ: אוֹמֶרֶת כְּנֶסֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל לָאֻמּוֹת: "שְׁחוֹרָה אֲנִי בְמַעֲשַׂי וְנָאָה אֲנִי בְמַעֲשֵׂה אֲבוֹתַי, וְאַף בְּמַעֲשַׂי, יֵשׁ מֵהֶם נָאִים, ...
•I am black but comely, etc. ... The allegory is: The congregation of Yisroel says to the nations, “I am black in my deeds, but I am comely by virtue of the deeds of my ancestors, and even some of my deeds are comely. ..."
Remove the assumption that "black" tends to be "uncomely," and the allegorical comparison evaporates. [The entire comment by Rashi appears at the bottom of this sheet/]
The list could be longer, though I think these few examples will suffice to make the point. Over the years, over the centuries, the tendency when translating שְׁחוֹרָ֤ה אֲנִי֙ וְֽנָאוָ֔ה has been to assume that the vav conjunction is adversative, which is tantamount to supposing that "comely" is something that occurs only in spite of being "black" or "dark" or "very dark." For reasons too obvious to need mentioning, this translation, especially at the present historical moment, is highly problematic.
By far the better translation of שְׁחוֹרָ֤ה אֲנִי֙ וְֽנָאוָ֔ה all along would have been:
•"I am black and comely."
It is simple, direct, and entirely consistent with the contextual meaning of שְׁחוֹרָ֤ה אֲנִי֙ וְֽנָאוָ֔ה. It is also far more consistent with the relationship that in fact exists between "black" and "comely." There would be much to be gained by translating the phrase this way and nothing to be lost.
As it happened, this is exactly how the first full-blown translation of Tanakh did render that phrase. The Septuagint (ca. 250-150 BCE) was said to be the effort of some 70 Jewish scholars to translate the Hebrew text into the Koine Greek of the day, chiefly for the benefit of the Hellenized Jewish community of Alexandria. The Greek language, then as now, made a clear distinction between the additive conjunction and the adversative: καὶ for "and"; ἀλλά for "but". The translators had to decide between the two, and what they decided on was
•μέλαινά εἰμι ἐγὼ καὶ καλή
•"I am black and comely."
I am aware that the Septuagint occupies a somewhat complicated place in Jewish history. Still, it was in its day a Jewish work of translation, and on this particular point, at least, it got things right. Imagine the ways the world might have turned out differently if over the centuries translations of Tanakh, both Jewish and non-Jewish, had followed the example of "black and comely" instead of inspiring, reinforcing, and perpetuating the assumptions and imagery of "black, but comely."
Posted 04/11/22
_______________
~Except as otherwise noted, the above comments pertain only to Jewish translations of Tanakh. I am aware that there are some fairly recent non-Jewish translations that use the form "black and comely."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
שְׁחוֹרָה אֲנִי וְנָאוָה וגו'. אַתֶּם רַעְיוֹתַי, אַל אֵקַל בְּעֵינֵיכֶם אַף אִם עֲזָבַנִי אִישִׁי מִפְּנֵי שַׁחֲרוּת שֶׁבִּי, כִּי שְׁחוֹרָה אֲנִי עַל יְדֵי שְׁזִיפַת הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ, וְנָאוָה אֲנִי בְחִתּוּךְ אֵבָרִים נָאִים. אִם אֲנִי שְׁחוֹרָה כְּאָהֳלֵי קֵדָר הַמַּשְׁחִירִים מִפְּנֵי הַגְּשָׁמִים, שֶׁהֵם פְּרוּסִים תָּמִיד בַּמִּדְבָּרוֹת, קַלָּה אֲנִי לְהִתְכַּבֵּס לִהְיוֹת כִּירִיעוֹת שְׁלֹמֹה. דֻּגְמָא הִיא זוּ: אוֹמֶרֶת כְּנֶסֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל לָאֻמּוֹת: "שְׁחוֹרָה אֲנִי בְמַעֲשַׂי וְנָאָה אֲנִי בְמַעֲשֵׂה אֲבוֹתַי, וְאַף בְּמַעֲשַׂי, יֵשׁ מֵהֶם נָאִים, אִם יֵשׁ בִּי עֲוֹן הָעֵגֶל, יֵשׁ בִּי כְנֶגְדּוֹ זְכוּת קַבָּלַת הַתּוֹרָה". וְקוֹרֵא לָאֻמּוֹת "בְּנוֹת יְרוּשָׁלַיִם" עַל שֵׁם שֶׁהִיא עֲתִידָה לֵעָשׂוֹת מֶטְרוֹפּוֹלִין לְכֻלָּן, כְּמוֹ שֶׁנִּבָּא יְחֶזְקֵאל "וְנָתַתִּי אֶתְהֶן לָךְ לְבָנוֹת", כְּמוֹ "עֶקְרוֹן וּבְנֹתֶיהָ":
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 tanning of the sun, but I am comely with the shape of beautiful limbs. Though I am black like the tents of Keidar, which are blackened because of the rains, for they are always spread out in the wilderness, I am easily cleansed to become like the curtains of Shlomo. The allegory is: The congregation of Yisroel says to the nations, “I am black in my deeds [i.e., sins], but I am comely by virtue of the deeds of my ancestors, and even some of my deeds are comely. If I bear the iniquity of the [golden] calf, I can offset it with the merit of the acceptance of the Torah.” [Scripture] calls the nations, “the daughters בְּנוֹת of Yerusholayim” because it is destined to become the metropolis for them all, as Yechezkeil prophesied, “I will give them to you as surrounding villages לְבָנוֹת,” and similarly, “Ekron, and its suburbs וּבְנֹתֶיהָ.”