The inscription Shir ha‑shirim asher l‑Shlomo (שיר השירים אשר לשלמה) can be translated literally “Song of Songs, which is to/for/of Solomon,” and its grammatical force is ambiguous: the preposition l‑ (ל) may indicate possession (belonging to Solomon), dedication (for Solomon), authorship, or association. Ancient Jewish and Christian reception understood the phrase as an attribution to Solomon; the book was received in the canon under his name and early interpreters treated Solomon either as the author or as the royal figure to whom the book belongs. The title therefore functions as a canonical claim of Solomonic connection that the biblical community accepted long before modern literary-critical debates arose. Modern critical scholarship has advanced reasons for caution about straightforward autobiographical authorship. Linguistic and stylistic features, thematic affinities with broader wisdom literature, and perceived late‑Hebrew elements have led many critical scholars to favor a later date or a Solomonic persona rather than direct composition by Solomon himself. These arguments do not falsify the book’s traditional designation, but they problematize a simple one‑to‑one identification of the historical Solomon as the immediate author. Equally, the book’s internal setting—references to a royal figure called “Solomon” (e.g. narrative scenes set in orchards and royal processions)—is better explained if the title names the courtly context or the celebrated Davidic king as the book’s patronal figure, whether the poems are autobiographical, dramatic, or anthological. Weighing the evidence from internal title, ancient reception, and modern criticism, the most defensible exegetical claim is that the book bears a genuine Solomonic attribution in the canonical sense: it is “Solomon’s” either because Solomon composed it, because it was collected in his name, or because it deliberately places its love‑poetry in a Solomonic/royal milieu. The title should therefore be taken seriously as the book’s claim of connection with Solomon, while also recognizing that historical authorship cannot be proven with absolute certainty on the basis of the text and that later composition under a Solomonic rubric remains a coherent minority hypothesis.