Well, and at Temple Beth Bolshoy today we finished our discussion of the Song of Songs. We’re going through it rather faster than I am here, which is a Good Thing. Anyway, I’ve made it through two chapters, reading closely, and I found myself wondering if I should continue. It’s clearly a topic that does not generate a lot of comments, and as the calendar year draws to a close, I find myself in one of my periodic crises of confidence about this Tohu Bohu, specifically, how to generate comments. Not that I want a hundred comments a note, far from that, but the thing that I have enjoyed the most about blogging these past three nearly four years is the occasional comment thread that really tugs at disagreements over basic ideas and their corollaries. We haven’t had one in a while (the thread started off an October 25th note Watch Your Language, and before that the thread started off an August 22nd note Understanding, validating, disagreeing were good examples), so I’ve been all cranky and self-pitying. So, (a) this is a plea for people to tell me how much they love me and how stale, flat and unprofitable the world would be if I stopped writing about the Song of Songs, or my Book Reports for that matter, and (2) this is an attempt to start a discussion with a few framing questions.
The framing questions: First, does the imposition of the analogy (either the Jewish Gd-and-Israel or the Catholic Christ-and-Church or the Protestant Christ-and-You) enhance or detract from a close reading? Given that the analogy is imposed after the fact (and if you don’t think they are, that’s interesting as well), can it help us read the text as Scripture, or even if not, can it help us in our lives, to make ethical and spiritual choices? Or is it a distraction, and does the necessary eisegesis blind the reader to what is there? Can the text help us in our lives if we do reject the analogy, or does that reduce it to poetry, enjoyable perhaps in itself and a perhaps fruitful ground for literary analysis but not speaking to us with the voice of the Divine?
OK, another one: given that the text itself lacks a narrative, what narrative can you support imposing on the text in order to make sense of it? Do you see (as my Senior Rabbi sees) a triangle, where She rejects the King to cleave to her Shepherd? Or do you see only the Shepherd and the Lass, and no King, other than through the use of metaphoric images of royalty?
Third, then: Given the central figures of Bride and Groom, do you see this as an endorsement of passionate love? Are these just crazy kids with ants in their pants, or is there enough in the text to justify a sense that they will be happy together? In other words, if you put 6:3 on your ketubah, or engrave it on your wedding ring, are you affirming that the love described in the Song of Songs is, in fact, a lasting love of the kind you are aiming at? Or, in other other words, do you think that the Bride and Groom, twenty years later, are still happy—and what do you find in the text to support that?
I’m asking these questions, not entirely because I want answers to them now, as comments to this note (where, to be clear, I do want the sort of fulsome encouragement I discuss above), but because I think they are good framing questions for talking about the text itself, as I go through verse by verse. Those are some of the issues that we disagreed on around the table over the last several weeks; I would like to be, even temporarily, persuaded of another new view on them.
chazak, chazak, v’nitchazek,
-Vardibidian.
OK…
I, for one, am enjoying reading your commentary on the song of songs. You know that already from having read my comment on it earlier. FWIW, I also enjoy the book reviews. That said, my reading pattern of your blog is like this:
Or words to that effect. I do get around to reading everything, but… Not necessarily in any timely fashion. Or thoroughly.
Also: People are different one from another, and so forth, so I tend to skim the Dick Francis reviews and devour the Persistent Whoseewhatsis of Thingum type books with great gusto. I’m sure there are people who have the opposite feelings. People. Whatchagonnado.
Finally, it seems like you are opening the door to a discussion about the deity (ies, YMMV) and its/their relationship(s) with literature, about which I have opinions and beliefs. If you are indeed opening such a door, I am enthusiastic about stepping into such openings and making an ass out of everyone I find inside (including me and the deities involved).
Some people find that behavior rude and off-putting, so I don’t usually like to actually do that without a clear invitation.
peace
Matt
Sadly, I’m having a hard time keeping up with anyone’s blog these days. I always enjoy reading your entries, but I don’t always manage to read all of them. 🙁
And entries (in anyone’s blog) that ask questions that require Actual Thought are unlikely to get a response from me at this point, alas.
(…Btw, if some of your readers are skipping your “Song of Songs” entries, they may not see the plea for validation at the beginning of this one…. Then, too, combining such a request with a Serious Entry That Asks Questions may result in discussion of the metaquestions (as Matt and I are more or less doing so far) at the expense of the non-metaquestions. I’m slowly learning that if I put together a long serious discussion-with-questions in a journal entry, and throw in one light irrelevant parenthetical aside, the result is likely to be a long thread full of comments on the aside and ignoring the main issue. (More generally, I rarely successfully predict which of my entries will generate comments and which won’t.))
…But I feel like I’m being discouraging, when really what I mean to say is that I do always enjoy reading your entries, and I’m glad you’re blogging.
…I should mention that I am, at the moment, roughly half-awake and still a little sick, so no guarantees that any of the above is coherent.
I’ve an incredibly scattered mind at present, and have lost the English major’s urge to pick things apart and examine implications at a societal/political/organized religious level–but OH MY do I enjoy close readings of gorgeous text, and I’m getting more out of your exegesis because I’ve never had the original-text implications made clear to me. I’m fascinated, and thrilled to see new postings, and look forward to each new post I see. Sorry not to be able to add more at present.
Me too! Also loving these posts! Also a slacker who never comments! Also never got better than a B in English in elementary school because i was bad at Reading Comprehension! (Okay, that last one may just be me.)
Seriously, i have been very happily reading this thread, but have been more hoping that some of the mitzvah of studying the Torah will rub off if i stand around and watch, than actively participating.
I will note that i find it hard to focus on the metaphor even when it is being actively pointed out. I’m curious about the question of why this text is where it is, but i am pretty dubious of the explanation that it’s because the metaphor is really compelling at face value.
I’m more likely, as is probably already evident, to contribute to a discussion on politics than on _The Song of Songs_.
I read your exegesis with interest, but to respond meaningfully I would need to get the text in front of me, and I’m not likely to do that, partly for reasons of time and partly because _The Song of Songs_ is not a text to which I feel a profound connection. Put another way, I don’t read it well as Scripture, though perhaps I will learn from your readings.
You should continue writing these up because my mother only has a week of classes to go, and I know she’ll be interested. She might not comment within the two-week window, but I’m pretty sure she’ll enjoy them.
And because I’m feeling whimsical:
Matt wrote: deity (ies, YMMV)
In context here, It took me a while to figure out that this wasn’t meant to be a reference to the tetragrammaton.
It’s a one-month window here, and if anyone has any thoughts on anything older than that, I’d like to hear ’em in an email.
Thanks,
-V.
I read everything you write, find almost all of it uncommonly rewarding (amongst blogs, I mean), and your Song of Songs analyses uncommonly rewarding and thought-provoking (among your posts). Unfortunately, time being finite and all, thought-provoking doesn’t equal comment-provoking.
I’ve been enjoying your decision to read the text both with and without the analogy. As a historian, I value things like original context and authorial intent, but I accept, too, that meaning resides in the interaction between text and reader, and that there’s value in reading within a tradition. Let us continue both to have cake and to eat it.