Skip to main content

Song of Songs: Contrasting Two Approaches

I've almost finished my preliminary reading on the Song of Songs before I dive into serious study verse by verse. I wanted to take this post to contrast some approaches to the Song. The two primary approaches under discussion will be that of Exum and Garrett, though, towards the end I will also incorporate Longman's. The question is, what is the Song of Songs? The answer given by most everyone now is that it is erotic love poetry. Upon probing deeper, a variety of approaches emerge.

Once upon a time, it was common to read the Song as a dramatic poem. One variety saw it as a story of a love triangle between Solomon, the woman, and a shepherd. There aren't many proponents of these views anymore, however, the question of plot is still discussed. Does the Song (if it is a single poem) have any plot? If so to what degree? Garrett is one of the most vocal critics of the dramatic theories (80-1 in fact Garrett's introduction is one of the most negative towards other views that I've ever read in a commentary). That's why I found it so interesting that he sees a fair amount of plot in the Song. It's a poem about two lovers leading up to their wedding, and consummating it (111-3). He uses terms like 'protagonist' (for the woman) and 'quest' in his descriptions. The Song, to Garrett, is a poem about the woman's transformation from virgin and bound to wife and free. While perhaps less ambitious than the dramatic theories, I think it still falls into the same traps. There's not enough warrant in the text (at least based on my preliminary readings) to support this theory. More on this later.

Exum takes a much more restrained approach. There is a very strong stress throughout her introduction that the Song is lyric poetry. In effect, structure gets mistaken for plot. There arguably is an overarching structure to the Song, and there are repeated motifs and key words, but poetic development should not be mistaken for plot. There are stories told on the micro level, but there is no larger 'story' as far as we can tell (44).

I think that Exum is assuredly right here. This would be especially true if the suggestion of Longman (among others) is true (54-6). Do we have only one poem present here (as Exum thinks)? I am not so sure. We clearly have one poet, but this could be either one very long poem or a collection of multiple poems with an intentional arrangement. I write love poetry for my wife. You could take a selection of poems that I have written for her over the past decade and find a way, with minimal editing, to arrange them into a coherent whole. Since the characters remain constant, you could probably string together a basic plot (some of my poems clearly refer to key events like engagement, the birth of our child, etc.). It would seem as if there was a plot. But that would be a misreading of the poems as poems.

Is the Song a unity? I'm not sure. I'll dive into that more as I study the individual units. However, reading for plot seems to be clearly a mistake, at least to me.


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…