What evidence supports Solomon as the author of Song of Solomon 5, and if lacking, why attribute these verses to him at all?

Traditional Understanding of Solomonic Authorship

Song of Solomon (also referred to as Canticles or the Song of Songs) has historically been attributed to King Solomon, noted as “the beloved of the LORD” (cf. 2 Samuel 12:24–25). Traditional Jewish and Christian views have long identified Solomon as the human author of the entire book, including chapter 5. This attribution is partly drawn from the opening verse of the Song: “This is Solomon’s Song of Songs” (Song of Solomon 1:1). While not every modern scholar agrees with this position, it remains the standard view across many centuries of commentary.

Early rabbinic sources, such as those recorded in the Talmud, reflect a unanimous belief that Solomon composed the Book of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Solomon. Early Christian writers followed suit, with Church Fathers such as Origen affirming this stance. This recognition placed Solomon’s compositions among the wisdom literature most revered by the Jewish and early Christian communities.

Internal Evidence From the Song’s Text

1. References to Royalty and Wealth

Multiple passages in the Song of Solomon point to the resources and setting of an opulent royal court. Song of Solomon 3:6–11 speaks of a royal carriage, guarded by warriors, built by Solomon himself. While these sections do not mention chapter 5 directly, they establish continuity with a kingly figure.

2. Connection to 1 Kings 4:32

According to 1 Kings 4:32, Solomon authored “3,000 proverbs and 1,005 songs.” Many conservative commentators see the Song of Solomon—called “the greatest of songs”—as likely among the 1,005 noted in Scripture. This connection underscores an internal biblical framework linking an extensive songwriting tradition to Solomon, thereby lending weight to the claim that chapter 5 is part of that same Solomonic corpus.

3. Shared Language With Other Solomonic Writings

Linguistic similarities with Ecclesiastes and Proverbs, such as the exaltation of wisdom, the depiction of human relationships, and occasional references to nature, bolster the argument for Solomonic authorship. Although the Song is poetic and romantic, certain Hebrew turns of phrase are consistent with forms found in Proverbs, which traditionally ascribe authorship to Solomon.

External Evidence From Jewish and Christian Tradition

1. Jewish Tradition (Targum and Mishnah)

Early Aramaic Targums interpret the Song allegorically, often explicitly naming Solomon as the symbolic figure. While these are not original-language texts, they reflect an unbroken interpretational history that places Solomon as primary author and subject.

2. Church Fathers and Historical Creeds

Christian writers like Jerome, who produced the Vulgate in the late fourth century AD, accepted the Solomonic authorship of the Song. Likewise, later Protestant confessions—although they did not always produce a precise authorship statement—tended to maintain that Solomon wrote the book.

3. Archaeological Confirmations

While archaeology does not directly confirm which passages Solomon wrote, sites such as the Temple Mount area in Jerusalem and the administrative cities (Hazor, Megiddo, Gezer) indicate the grandeur of Solomon’s era (1 Kings 9:15). This aligns well with the luxurious setting portrayed in the Song, providing circumstantial support that the poem belongs to Solomon’s time rather than a later era of diminished national prosperity.

Linguistic and Stylistic Considerations

1. Hebrew Poetic Forms

The Song of Solomon is written in a highly poetic and often metaphorical style. Some argue that this style might point to multiple authors or scribes enlarging the text. However, ancient Hebrew poetry routinely employed metaphors drawn from nature, human love, and pastoral imagery. King Solomon, celebrated for “largeness of heart” and knowledge of natural history (1 Kings 4:29–34), suits the poetic genius of the book.

2. Dialect and Vocabulary

Scholars note minor dialect variations in the Song that deviate from standard Classical Hebrew. Some interpret these as evidence of a later or post-exilic composition. Others counter that Solomon, with his broad exposure to foreign influences and alliances (1 Kings 11:1–3), could have easily incorporated nonstandard loanwords or expressions. Therefore, these vocabulary variations do not necessarily refute Solomonic authorship.

Addressing Potential Objections

1. Absence of a Direct Name in Chapter 5

Song of Solomon 5 does not overtly mention “Solomon.” Critics observe that the female speaker references “my beloved” (Song of Solomon 5:2: “Open to me, my sister, my darling…”). The absence of a clear “Solomon” reference here leads some to propose a different poet. Nevertheless, the repeated theme of a kingly figure (Song of Solomon 1:4; 3:9,11) who is intimately adored suggests that chapter 5 continues the same storyline, identified elsewhere as Solomon.

2. Allegorical vs. Literal Reading

Jewish commentators, especially post-Temple expositors, interpreted the Song as an allegory of Yahweh’s love for Israel. Early Christians later paralleled this as a depiction of Christ’s love for the Church. These allegorical readings can overshadow the straightforward, literal sense of a romantic exchange. Regardless of allegorical or literal interpretations, the consensus on Solomon as the named author is historically consistent across both Jewish and Christian exegetes.

3. Questions of Multiple Authors

Higher-critical scholars, particularly in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, proposed minor redactions or multiple poetic contributors to the Song. However, no manuscript tradition or ancient commentary presents documentary evidence of editorial layers. The earliest extant manuscripts, such as portions found at Qumran (though fragmentary and not complete for every chapter), do not verify any widespread expansions.

Why Attribute These Verses to Solomon?

1. Continuous Literary Unity

The Song of Solomon presents an organic, cohesive unity—each chapter flows from the same poetic structure of bride and bridegroom dialogue. Chapter 5’s content naturally extends the intimate expressions begun earlier, typically assigned to Solomon and his bride (Song of Solomon 1:1; 3:11).

2. Consistency With the Book’s Self-Description

Since the opening verse states this is “Solomon’s Song of Songs” (Song of Solomon 1:1), the conservative approach extends that authorship note across all eight chapters, including chapter 5. Without clear textual divisions or alternative attributions within the text, the simplest conclusion is to treat the entire collection of songs as the product of the same author.

3. Historical and Theological Continuity

The unified message of love and covenant resonates with the biblical depiction of Solomon’s reign as a time of peace and abundant blessing (1 Kings 4:21–25). Chapter 5 fits into the broader context of Israel’s golden age, strengthening the notion of a Solomonic framework. If the Song was believed to reflect covenant imagery, its basis in the wisdom tradition championed by Solomon further reinforces his authorship.

Conclusion

While the direct mention of Solomon’s name in Song of Solomon 5 is lacking, the evidence—biblical references to his songwriting, early Jewish and Christian acceptance of his authorship, archaeological insights into the wealth and culture of his day, and the consistent internal portrayal of a royal figure—makes a strong case for Solomon as the composer of the entire book, including chapter 5.

For those who acknowledge the Scriptures as fully consistent and authoritative, the simplest reading of the Song’s opening, combined with historical consensus, confirms Solomon’s authorship. Even where direct naming is absent, the unity of style, flow, and structure points toward Solomon’s hand. Thus, attributing all verses of Song of Solomon, including chapter 5, to King Solomon has remained the predominant and coherent stance across centuries of commentary and scholarly study.