Two further aspects of true love are listed. The first is that love is unquenchable, and the second that it cannot be bought, for it is beyond price. In the first illustration there is a direct connection with the idea of love as fire in verse 6. Both illustrations are surely familiar in most languages.

The first two lines are grammatically parallel in Hebrew:
Many waters
not

• they can quench love
And rivers
not

• they wash her away

And there are various other features that make the lines poetic. The first two lines contain repetitive l and m sounds in Hebrew, sounds often associated with flowing water. In translation we can use sounds, or ideophones, to give this effect. In the last line, four consecutive words begin with b-, including the repetitive Hebrew root for “scorn,” which follows the emphatic pattern of the final line of verse 6, “Scorn they would scorn him [or, it]!”

Many waters cannot quench love: Revised Standard Version Many waters is a literal translation of the Hebrew; waters may be a collective noun, in which case we can translate it as “much water.” New American Bible reads “deep waters,” but that is not necessarily the sense; it seems the woman is saying only that a large amount of water cannot quench love. We will want to find a poetic equivalent, however. In English “mighty oceans” is a possibility. The verb quench is a high-level word and is best rendered as “extinguish” or “put out.” As for the noun love, it may be clearer if we added the phrase “flames of [love]” to make the figure of speech complete.

Although the Hebrew is literally rendered in Revised Standard Version, we can more simply say “Not even a flood will put out the fire of [our] love” or “[The flames of our] love cannot be extinguished even by the ocean.”

Neither can floods drown it: floods is really the word for “rivers,” and the verb drown refers to its waters overflowing. “Sweep away” is more effective in English than “wash away.” Revised Standard Version drown is also appropriate. Although the Hebrew uses an imperfect verb here, we can translate it as a potential (“can…” or “able to”), following the form “cannot quench” of the previous clause. For translation we suggest “nor can rivers sweep it away” or “rivers can never sweep it away either.”

Again the translator should look for those expressions that can bring out the beauty of the passage. Bible en français courant has decided to repeat the notion of “fire” to bring out the contrast between verses 7 and 8. This gives a striking translation that serves as a very good model:

• All the water of the seas
would not be enough to quench
the fire of love.
And all the water of the rivers
would not be able to drown it.

If a man offered for love all the wealth of his house: a conditional sentence is used in the second illustration to suggest something that can never happen. We catch its meaning better by translating the conditional particle If as “Even if…” or “Even though….” In some languages If may not need to be used at all; the verb form that indicates a situation which might exist is sufficient: “A man could give all….” A man can have the general sense of “anyone,” though with the young woman speaking here it probably does mean “any man” and can be so translated. If a general meaning is desired, we can say “Someone may give…” or “a person….”

Offered for love uses the verb “give,” though it is obvious that the sense is “try to buy” or “thought he could buy.” Offering a woman money or other forms of wealth in return for her love is the possibility the young woman raises. All the wealth of his house can be rendered “all his family wealth,” or even “all his wealth,” as the husband traditionally controlled the family wealth. Wealth is broader than “money” and includes other assets as well. So the young woman is saying that, no matter how much a man wants to offer to win her love, he cannot give enough. Love is priceless, beyond all material value.

When we translate these thoughts we can say:

• Even if anyone thought he could buy love with all his family wealth….

• Even if a man wanted to buy [my] love and was willing to give all his goods for it….

More generally we can say:

• A person may try to give all he has to buy love….

It would be utterly scorned: a passive form, this is literally “they would utterly despise him [or, it].” Scorned is the same verb used in 8.1. The opening it can refer either to the man himself or to his wealth as being despised. Gordis considers it to refer back to the man himself, and this view is reflected in the New American Bible, Good News Translation, and Jerusalem Bible renderings. Fox and others agree with the Revised Standard Version view, that it is the man’s wealth that is rejected. It is our view that, as the illustration has to do more with love than the person, so it is likely that the wealth is rejected rather than the man himself. However, we always have to recognize that the author may have intended a double meaning. In fact we would not be far wrong if in translation we said “the man and his wealth would be utterly rejected.” Using an active form may be more appropriate in some languages, in which case we can suggest “nobody would accept it.” A somewhat freer translation is “Love is not for sale, even to someone offering all his wealth for it. It would be utterly rejected.” Many versions include a footnote explaining the ambiguity, and that certainly would be appropriate here.

These lines should be made to flow from verse 6, and if possible the contrast between flame and water should be drawn out:

• But streams of water cannot quench the fire of love,
Mighty rivers cannot put it out.
If a person wanted to give everything he owned to win another’s love,
The offer* would be totally rejected!
Footnote: * The Hebrew text is ambiguous. Either “the offer” or “he [the suitor]” would be rejected.

Quoted with permission from Ogden, Graham S. and Zogbo, Lynell. A Handbook on the Book of Song of Songs. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 1998. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .