Skip to main content

Song of Songs: A Plan of Attack

So I've started working through some background on Song of Songs. Hopefully within four to six weeks a post or two will start rolling out here. I thought I'd give you all a heads up on my plan of attack.

This study will probably move slowly, both because I'm sure I'll get sidetracked for various reasons and because I want to try to do a fairly detailed study. I'll be working out of the LXX for three reasons. Two of them are practical - I don't know Hebrew and I need to sharpen my Greek. Thirdly, though, in our quest to recover the 'original' reading (I'm not sure what exactly constitutes an original reading for most OT texts, Song of Songs included), we've often completely shelved the LXX in favor of the Hebrew MT. I'm not so sure that we should for several reasons, two of which I'll briefly mention. One, the LXX represents the earliest interpretation we have of the OT. Second, the LXX was an authoritative version of the early church and became the primary version of the Christian church. It would be a shame to silence that voice from continuing to speak to the church today.

As for modern commentaries I've penned in Pope, Garrett, Davis, and Exum. Longman, Bergant, and Griffiths are penciled in. For non-commentary studies, I'll utilize that of Fox and possibly Barbiero. I'll also use selected pre-modern works. For sure, I'll use the commentary of Hippolytus of Rome, and possibly the homilies Bernard of Clairvaux. My goal isn't to be exhaustive but to be representative. Are there any that I'm missing out on that I should be using, or are any of the above a waste of time? Does anyone know of a good reformation commentary or collection of homilies on the Song?

Comments

  1. I'm a huge Duane Garrett fan, one of the best profs I had. I have his shorter Song of Songs commentary (NAC series) and it's excellent.

    You might have already read this, but Pope has perhaps the finest overview of the history of interpretation of the Song in any commentary (if memory serves me right, it's been years since I've looked at it).

    Anyway, enjoy reading a bunch of crusty old Bible scholars writing about sex. That'll be fun...

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yeah, I really liked Garrett's when I looked through it at the library.

    I picked up Pope for precisely that reason. I was really impressed with his detailed interaction, particularly with the history of Jewish exegesis. I've been reading his introduction. It's fascinating how both Jews and Christians outlawed a literal interpretation of the Song.

    Yeah, we'll see how that goes. The weirdest will be reading Bernard of Clairvaux. He was a monk after all.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Commentary Series Overview

When I write commentary reviews, one of my main goals is to assess how well the commentator hit the intended audience of the commentary and utilized the format of the commentary. This often necessitates cluttering up the post discussing issues of format. To eliminate that, I thought that I would make some general remarks about the format and audience of each of the series that appear in my reviews. Terms like liberal, conservative, etc. are not used pejoratively but simply as descriptors. Many of you are familiar with Jeremy Pierce's commentary series overview. If you don't see a particular series covered here, check out his post to see if it's reviewed there. I am making no attempt at covering every series, just the series that I use. Additionally, new series (such as the NCCS) have been started in the five years since he wrote his very helpful guide, so I thought that it might not be completely out of order to have another person tackle commentary series overviews. This…

Paul's Argument in Galatians 3:15-29

15 Brothers and sisters, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. 16 The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ. 17 What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18 For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on the promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise. 19 Why, then, was the law given at all? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was given through angels and entrusted to a mediator. 20 A mediator, however, implies more than one party; but God is one. 21 Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! Fo…

Doctor Who: Rose Tyler - Traitor?

The end of season four was very, very controversial. When I first saw it, I felt cheated. I was angry. The more I think about it, the more I think I see what Russell Davies was doing. He is too good of a writer and the show is too carefully crafted for him to screw up Rose's character and the end of a four season storyline. So while the ending isn't strictly part of our series, it is tangentially related, and I've agonized over that scene in Bad Wolf Bay so much that I have to write about it. :)

To briefly set things up, near the end of the final episode of season four, there is a meta-crisis, that results in a part human. part Time Lord Doctor being generated. He has all of the Doctor's memories, and thinks and acts like the Doctor. However, importantly, he only has one heart and cannot regenerate. He only has one life to live. The meta-crisis Doctor brought full resolution to the battle fought against the Daleks, and in the process, wiped them out. Thus, the real Doc…