I have spent the last several months meditating upon that which is perhaps the most poetic and beautiful book in the Bible, the Song of Songs, or Song of Solomon as it is sometimes called. I have read many different translations of it, and many commentaries, and I do not feel I could add much that has not already been said by other scholars who are much more learned in Hebrew, historical context, and theology, than I. However, I would like to share a few fruits of my labors, that may be of interest to anyone else who is seeking to study this piece of Scripture.

Point 1: Of Finding the Best Translation

 The best translation, hands down, is this Modern Library Classics by Bloch and Bloch. The layout is very user-friendly, with the original Hebrew on one side, with the English translation on the other. Anyone who knows or is studying Hebrew will appreciate this feature. Also the Song jumps between voices and narrative without the typical "he said"/"she said" obtrusions that are common to modern dialogue. Using context clues it is not too challenging to figure out if the lines belong to the Lover or the Beloved, but the translators' use of italics and bold, makes this distinction clear and renders a very smooth reading. 

What makes this translation supreme is Bloch and Bloch's great command of Biblical Hebrew combined with their artistry in maintaining the poetic beauty of this text. They took great care to translate this text as closely as possible to the original Hebrew, but still made some artistic adjustments when a too literal translation would be awkward. 

This edition includes a wonderful introduction which discusses the various historical interpretations of this text, as well as their own take. A detailed commentary follows which explains in minutiae the justifications for various translation decisions. For example the word "love" in 5:1, Bloch and Bloch argue has in Hebrew really the specific meaning of "love-making" as opposed to other Biblical terms for love such as the NT Greek "philos," or "agape," or the OT Hebrew "chesed" all of which can have meanings quite different from the act of coitus implied in "love-making." But the Blochs are careful to point out that the same Hebrew word used for love in 5:1 is used elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, and in those instances is very clearly in the context of romantic lovers spending the night together. 

The Bloch translation manages to capture the mystery, the beauty, the sensuality of the language, in a way that is fresh, readable, and true to the Hebrew.

Point 2: Of Interpreting the Scripture

So I have looked at many commentaries on this text, but have by no means exhausted them. Perhaps second only the Book of Revelations, never have so many meanings been put upon so simple a text. The Song of Songs is rich in images of landscapes, food and drink, royalty, and pastoralism, and they are interwoven in such a way that if you try to imagine the everything literally it becomes a dizzying journey as a woman becomes a garden, becomes a pleasing feast, a sealed fountain, and her parts become at different times jewels, animals, fruits, landscape features, and spices. The man in turn is her brother, her lover, her king. The language is neither allegorical, or strictly metaphorical, but rather paints a landscape, appeals to all the senses, and in the end the excitement, the allurement, the emotions and sensations recreated in the reader, are perhaps more the point, than any dry parsing of words and scholarly exegesis can convey. 

I briefly read through many of the Church father's interpretations, but found them difficult to take seriously. Not that I discount them completely, but when dear St. Ambrose writes about the line "Eat, friends, drink, and be drunk with love" (5:1) and speaks of a "sobering inebriation" one that is "one of grace, not of intoxication" and speaks of the poem as a metaphor for the "banquet of the church" it leaves something to be desired. I think that "drunk" means precisely "intoxication." Even if one is to accept the interpretation of the wedding feast as a metaphor for the joyful wedding banquet of Christ and the church, even so, to be "drunk on love" means that we are intoxicated by Christ's presence, and our senses become befuddled. We become blinded by love and see only the beloved, and our higher reasoning goes out the window, for all we can do is delight in the presence of the Beloved, living in the present moment, oblivious to all else besides. But in St. Ambrose's defense he does hint as much in saying that "Christ dines ... in us. he drinks such drink in us; with the intoxication of this drink, he challenges us to make a departure from worse things to those that are better and best." 

There is much of value in the Church Fathers' exegeses, I don't mean to discount them by any means. But their readings are often very dry and often come across as scholarly intellectual exercises, and miss out on the passion conveyed in the poem. Also by reading things too allegorically, they miss the forest for the trees. Every little symbol is parsed out for meaning, but the poem must also be read as an organic whole.  Some of the various interpretations, which all had some merit, but failed to capture the essence of the poem included interpreting the Lover and the Beloved as:

1. Christ and the Church
2. Christ and Mary
3. Christ and the soul
4. God and Israel
5. divine Wisdom and the man who seeks it
6. mystical marriage of God and the soul

Interestingly, God is never mentioned in the Song of Songs, but the poem is clearly Jewish as the Beloved's name is roughly translated as "Jerusalamite" and she speaks often to the "daughters of Jerusalem." Also much of the imagery and language has strong Jewish roots or references. But sometimes the question has been asked, is this poem about God at all, or are we injecting religious meaning simply because somehow this book wound up in the religious canon? 

After much research I had to keep returning to Bloch and Bloch's assertion that we should take the text for what it is at face value: a beautiful love poem. All other meanings are secondary. It is no crime to use a beautiful work such as this to help illustrate theological points, such as St. Louis de Montfort does in putting lines from this poem in the voice of Mary. But to read the poem as simply a prophetic work about Mary, does not make sense.

Point 3: Song of Songs in Theology of the Body

Well, JPII did it again. The man who seems to have the final say on everything, apparently discussed his interpretation on the Song of Songs in his Wednesday audiences in May of 1984. Of course I only discovered this last night in flipping through my copy of Theology of the Body. I have read Part I of TOB several times, but I have not read through the whole book. If I had I might have recalled that about 8 pages are spent discussing the pope's interpretation of this work. 

JPII says the Song speaks of "the language of the body, a singular language of love originating in the heart." He maintains that "It is not possible to reread it except along the lines of what is written in the first chapters of Genesis, as a testimony of the beginning - that beginning which Christ referred to in his decisive conversation with the Pharisees (Mt 19:4). The Song of Songs is certainly found in the wake of that sacrament in which, through the language of the body, the visible sign of man and woman's participation in the covenant of grace and love offered by God to man is constituted." 

I won't spoil it for you by attempting to convey the full 8 page discussion, but it is well worth a read. Also, there are two pages of foot-notes, which to me are just as interesting, and deal with reconciling (or even discarding!) previous Christian interpretations of this text. As one footnote says, "the Song therefore is to be taken simply for what it manifestly is: a song of human love." (J. Winandy, OSB) Also it footnotes note that "the content of the Song of Songs is at the same time sensual and sacred. When one prescinds from the second characteristics, the Song of Songs comes to be treated as a purely lay erotic composition, and when the first is ignored, one falls into allegorism. Only by putting these two aspects together is it possible to read the book in the right way." 

Who knew that the synthesis to so much of my independent research on the Song of Songs has been sitting on my shelf all these months in my copy of Theology of the Body? 

So in the end, I have nothing really original to say on the Song of Songs, that has not been already stated much more eloquently by far more authoritative sources than myself. But I enjoy dabbling in exegesis and scriptural studies and hope that this post may help direct some other lay person who has an interest in researching the Song so that they don't start completely from scratch as I did.

Labels: Bible, jewish, scripture, theology

I'm no Christian scholar, but I think that I have read more than your average person about Jesus. But nothing I have read has dealt directly with all the apparent contradictions in Jesus' character in the Gospels. You typically either find fanatical atheists waving their arms and saying, "See! It doesn't make sense! How can you believe in a God who is contradictory and ambiguous!?" Then they go on to point out how the Gospels are merely human productions, made decades after Christ's death. Or you get the fanatical Christians who have to reconcile every detail in the Bible to be literally true, they go to great lengths to explain away confusing lines and apparent contradictions. Sometimes their explanations require such great stretches of logic, and leaps of faith, that I can't help but internally cringe. Producing complex scholarly explanations I'm sure were not the intentions of son from a peasant carpenter who hung out with fishermen and street people.

Adam Gopnik lays out the conundrum of Christ in a way that is refreshingly delightful and offers readers the idea that such an elusive mystery is perhaps one of the greatest strengths of Jesus' legacy. Jesus' message cannot be nailed down, simplified, or made dogmatic. It cannot be easily written off by historical context, or even after 2,000 years of debate be put to rest as at least understood with some finality. For these reasons, Jesus is alive and well, not just among Christians, but in academic circles, in the media, and in the collective consciousness of America in particular, but also the West at large. His message is still being debated today, which means people still find Jesus interesting, relevant, and worthy of discussion, even in such circles as subscribers to The New Yorker.

The argument is the reality, and the absence of certainty the certainty. Authority and fear can circumscribe the argument, or congeal it, but can't end it... The impulse of orthodoxy has always been to suppress the wrangling as a sign of weakness; the impulse of more modern theology is to embrace it as a sign of life. The deeper question is whether the uncertainty at the center mimics the plurality of possibilities essential to liberal debate, as the more open-minded theologians like to believe, or is an antique mystery in a story open only as the tomb is open, with a mystery left inside, never to be entirely explored or explained.

Labels: scripture, theology

Sometimes reality is so strange that there's not much you can say.

Some members of the congregation may believe that, said Constance Guice-Mills, a member of the church. “But his focus on personal salvation, on the individual, was diametrically opposed to the tradition of Riverside. Here, we believe you achieve salvation by doing social justice. Out in the world. And we have people from all backgrounds. Buddhists.”

So in summary - a movement that started as a revolt against traditions on top of Scripture has now ejected a pastor for following Scripture and not the traditions of the church.

Incidentally why is it a church and not say a Rotary Club at that point. Anywho.

Labels: Bible, church, religion, scripture

Exodus 12

13
Then Moses cried to the LORD, "Please, not this! Pray, heal her!"

14
But the LORD answered Moses, "Suppose her father had spit in her face, would she not hide in shame for seven days? Let her be confined outside the camp for seven days; only then may she be brought back."

Sometimes charity demands punishment, it seems.

Labels: charity, scripture

Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., the Congressman who introduced the bill, claimed the bill posed no danger to Christian free speech, saying that it "only applies to bias-motivated violent crimes and does not impinge public speech or writing in any way." Section 10 of H.R. 1913 states: "Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of, the First Amendment to the Constitution."

. . .

The danger posed by the "hate crime" legislation to Christian ministers was confirmed when Congress considered practically identical legislation in 2007. Then, Rep. Artur Davis, D-Ala., admitted during a hearing on the measure that it could be used to prosecute pastors for preaching the biblical perspective on homosexuality, given the perception that it may have "induced" a later hate crime.

So you won't be prosecuted, unless someone feels like prosecuting you. Sounds great.

Labels: politics, religion, scripture

I heart Bishop Madden. He is the sweetest bishop I know. (Okay, so I don't know a lot of bishops, but I do know a few!) Besides the fact that he took the time to say mass with our students twice this year and used the power of his miter to give us a day off from school, he also celebrated my Operation TEACH commissioning ceremony and mass. I've bumped into him a few other times as well, and he is always full of warmth, joy, and wisdom.

This Sunday, I happened to be looking for something more about the readings and came across the above linked short video from the USCCB website with a mini-homily on the readings from him. He is just as endearing online as he is real life. Anyways, I thought I'd share. Plus I thought it was cool that the USCCB was doing this.

Of course, just my luck, they don't have a video for today. Does anyone subscribe to or know a good daily reflection or video homily for the daily Gospel readings? I've been trying to do daily reflections, but sometimes I feel I need more than my own brain to help me out, and some of the daily masses I go to, the priests don't alway offer a homily.

Anyways, let me know what the word on the street is.

Labels: bishops, scripture

they who said among themselves, thinking not aright: "Brief and troublous is our lifetime; neither is there any remedy for man's dying, nor is anyone known to have come back from the nether world. For haphazard were we born, and hereafter we shall be as though we had not been; Because the breath in our nostrils is a smoke and reason is a spark at the beating of our hearts, And when this is quenched, our body will be ashes and our spirit will be poured abroad like unresisting air. Even our name will be forgotten in time, and no one will recall our deeds. So our life will pass away like the traces of a cloud, and will be dispersed like a mist pursued by the sun's rays and overpowered by its heat. For our lifetime is the passing of a shadow; and our dying cannot be deferred because it is fixed with a seal; and no one returns. Come, therefore, let us enjoy the good things that are real, and use the freshness of creation avidly. Let us have our fill of costly wine and perfumes, and let no springtime blossom pass us by; let us crown ourselves with rosebuds ere they wither.

Labels: Old Testament, scripture

Yesterday's reading in the Byzantine-suspicious church I attended was the little bit about the Samaritan woman at the well. The priest brought up the interesting point that it was Joseph's well, a fact that I had never noticed before. It brings up a whole interesting angle about anger and forgiveness - quite fascinating.

Labels: catholic, scripture

Luckily for you, I found the tool to do it. Download the Vulgate plugin for added scriptual goodness, as well as ten or twelve Hebrew texts, and maybe French for good measure.

Labels: scripture

I was reading Mark (the Gospel according to) today, in particular the section about the feeding of the five thousand. My blood pressure has always gone up a little when someone described it as a "miracle of sharing", but I've never been able to articulate why very well. Except for the little bit where Jesus says "Don't you understand!" a few times at the tail end of the eight chapter.

Anywho, it got me to thinking what my expensive array of secondary sources had to say on the matter and I learned a few interesting things which I'd like to share.

First, the Navarre Bible's take on the issue.



Solid, as always. Summarized, it talks about how it's a prefigurment of the Eucharist (not too surprising) and also gives great importance to the fact that they pick up the leftovers afterwards. The point of that gesture is, firstly, to show that God cares about the little things that you do for him, and secondly, that the messianic era is one of abundance. Moses gives bread and you get a days worth. Jesus gives bread and you have more than you can possibly eat. I had never really considered the significance of the gathring of the leftovers, but I like this reading a lot. It also does seem a little Opus Dei, with the sanctification of the daily grind and whatnot. All the better. My day is in need of sanctification.

How about Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture (ACCS henceforth).



Lots of poetry - apparently the Church Fathers were quite keen on verse. Also a lot of interesting spiritual senses of the text that are difficult to summarize. The most intersting IMHO is a little bit from Origen on why the people eating sat down in fifties and hundreds (Mark 6:40). He states that 100 is a divine number and 50 is a number signifying the remission of debt and sin (eg the Jubilee at fifty year intervals), so here Jesus is feeding the perfect and those who are striving for perfection. Fascinating, and not something that I would have come up with.

Well, that's all I can write without going to jail for copyright violation, but if you're interested I'll lend you a volume or schedule a coffee run for further discussion.

Labels: catholic, scripture