Song of Songs: A Commentary (review)

The Song of Songs expresses the various emotions associated with love in subtle poetry with vivid and often provocative metaphors. A proper interpretation of the book for an academic commentary requires all the usual skills of a Hebrew linguist, since the book is full of rare words and constructions, as well as first-hand knowledge of ancient Near Eastern love poems and culture. In addition, since the Song is poetry, the commentator must be sensitive to the ancient conventions of the poet. Even further, the Song is lyric poetry, and thus necessitates an ability to understand and describe the intense human emotions expressed by the work. The Song is also a love poem that involves the interplay of a male and female voice, so the reader must be attuned to the potential differences in perspectives of gender. Fortunately for the reader, the editors of the Old Testament Library wisely turned to Cheryl Exum, an interpreter whose previous work has demonstrated the requisite skills and abilities, to write the commentary on the Song. She has not disappointed our expectations and has produced a wonderfully illuminating and even moving interpretation of the Song.

Exum presents the Song of Songs as a single poem (p. 28), though she began with the supposition that the book was a collection that showed unity yet diversity (p. 37). As an advocate of the perspective that she abandoned (see Longman, Song of Songs [NICOT; Eerdmans, 2001]), I really have no quarrel with her emphasis on unity. She does not go to great lengths to create connections between passages that I would recognize as separate poems. She rather unpacks the metaphors and explores the feelings expressed by the poet through the personae of the man and the woman. After all, the Song is a Song of Songs, a title that is not only a superlative, but an indicator of unity and diversity or what D. Grossberg called centripetal and centrifugal forces (Centripetal and Centrifugal Structures in Hebrew Poetry [Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989]). The real interpretive culprits are those who want to impose a narrative unity on the book (most recently I. Provan [Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs (NIVAC; Zondervan, 2001)] and Y. Mazor, “The Song of Songs or the Story of Stories?” SJOT 1 [1990]: 1–29).

Among the highpoints of the commentary is Exum’s exploration of gender differences in the male and female voices of the Song. She may well be right that she is the first to do so “systematically” (p. 81). She then appropriately discerns that the female tells stories to express her love, while the male observes her and talks about how he feels about her. “He is awestruck; she is lovesick” (p. 15). These are just a few of the insightful comments she makes in this regard.

We can be thankful that she also guides us away from the accusation (see D. J. A. Clines, “Why is There a Song of Songs and What Does It Do to You If You Read It?” Jian Dao 1 [1994]: 1–27) that the Song is a voyeuristic book and toward the appreciation of its eroticism (pp. 22–24). The former is objectifying and controlling; the latter better labels the mutuality of the desire expressed by the Song.

Much more could be said by way of appreciation of this fine commentary, but I will just add one more. Exum is a compelling writer. Her prose is often artful and thoughtful. As evidence, note her first comments on 4:12–5:1: “The Song reaches its most sensual pitch in these verses. Through an extended metaphor, the man describes his lover as a luscious pleasure garden with sinuous rills, where blossoms many an incense-bearing tree, and where he will feed on honeycomb and drink the milk of paradise. Her body is mellifluous, dripping with fragrant unguents and tasty comestibles” (pp. 173–74). Of course, it is rare to praise a commentary for its writing, but her style is certainly appropriate for as well-turned a...