Journal of Hebrew Scriptures - Volume 4 (2002-2003) - Review
Dianne Bergant, Song of
Songs. (Berit Olam, Studies in
Hebrew Narrative and Poetry; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2001),
Pp.xvi, 123. ISBN 0-8146-5069-4. $29.95
In the last few years, the Liturgical Press has produced a steady stream
of Bible commentaries in its Berit Olam series. Like the other volumes
in the series, this latest on the Song of Songs analyzes the book based on its
final form, i.e., the Masoretic Text. Necessarily then, the commentary
primarily stresses the poem's multifarious interpretive dimensions and its literary
unity (the author treats the Song as a delicately interconnected collection of
individual poems). Therefore, one also will find no discussion as to when the
text might have been written, or how it came to be collected in the form that
we now have it.
Given this rather specific, if not canonical, approach to the poem, one
might with reason ask what is new or different about this commentary that
cannot be found elsewhere. After all, there are many fine commentaries and
textual studies of the Song already in existence, some of them thoroughly
comprehensive in their treatment of the Song's many fascinating features. The
book's jacket addresses this point by locating the commentary's uniqueness in
the author's attention "to the obvious feminine perspective of the poems
and to their ecosensitive character." Thus, this book attempts to carve
out its niche by focusing on the female character's dominant perspective in the
Song, and on the Song's reliance on the natural world as a source for metaphors
and other poetic images. Unfortunately, however, a close reading of the book
and even a brief perusal of other publications on the Song demonstrate that
neither of these features can be said to be unique. There are indeed many works
already available that underscore the female's dominant perspective in the Song
and that underscore the use of natural imagery. Moreover, a number of features
of the book make it rather disappointing as a resource for study.
One of the most pronounced difficulties with using the book is that it
often introduces subjects and themes that remain under-developed. For example,
in her treatment of the erotic features of the poem, Bergant is careful not to
rule out other historical interpretive possibilities.
We can conclude... that the
poems that constitute the Song of Songs may have been secular in origin, but
they have clear links with both the cultic and sapiential traditions of Israel,
thus conferring religious significance on their erotic content (p. ix).
Yet, the relationship between the various interpretive strategies is left
unexplained, and Bergant does not offer readers any model for understanding the
social and historical processes by which any religious significance could be
conferred on erotic material.
Similarly, Bergant contextualizes the Song by stressing its relationship
to Israelite wisdom traditions. She maintains that since it is a part of this
literary tradition the Song "...must be more than a report of the romantic
escapades of the king. It must contain insights beneficial for right living,
insights that will enhance human life" (p. 5). Having offered readers this
tantalizing perspective, Bergant then never returns to demonstrate what these
insights might be, or how they are played out in the Song.
Bergant is particularly strong, however, at spotting the poem's
sophisticated literary devices. She frequently points out examples of enallage,
chiasmus, alliteration, paronomasia, repetition, and parallelism, to name just
a few. Nevertheless, here too the treatment is often brief, and with the
exception of a few cases of onomatopoeia (e.g., p. 15), often constitutes a
mere cataloguing of devices without attention to their function in the poem.
Another, perhaps more serious disappointment, however, is the book's
method of citation which is often incomplete and sometimes even misleading.
While a desire to reduce footnotes must be considered admirable in such a
series (the bibliography too barely exceeds two pages), one would expect the
footnotes that are included to cite the original observations of others, and
not point to secondary or even tertiary works. One is pleased, for example, to
find Bergant drawing attention to the use of polysemy in Song 2:12 (the word zamir
means both "pruning" and "singing," p. 29, n. 2), but one
is rather surprised to find no reference to the original source of the
discovery.(1) In fact, overall Bergant's
treatment of polysemy in the Song ignores a great deal of previous research.(2) One could make a similar observation
concerning Bergant's treatment of the Song as a dramatic performance, which
makes no mention of the foundational work of Leroy Waterman.(3) Note also that when discussing the possible meaning
"leather" for the word
Bergant similarly makes frequent reference to the Arabic wasf
(with dotted s) poetic genre when discussing the various physical descriptions
of the lovers in the Song. Yet here too footnotes are sparse, and when they do
appear, they do not reference the original contribution, but tertiary sources
that cite the original observations. In fact, a great deal of well-known
literature on the wasf and its application to the Song appears to have
been ignored.(6) Moreover, throughout the
book, Bergant's treatment of the wasf betrays a lack of familiarity with
the Arabic genre and its Sitz im Leben. She remarks, for example, that
"The wasf is an example of the Ancient Near Eastern custom of
portraying favored features of a person in the guise of the strength or beauty
of the surrounding world" (p. 43). But the wasf's origins lie in
Syrian wedding songs, and according to wasf poets (e.g., Ibn al-Rumi),
they do have a specific typology that Bergant nowhere describes. Indeed,
Bergant's statement leaves unclear whether she is classifying the wasf as a literary or social custom, or both.
Compounding these infelicities and general lack of depth is a number of
general claims and assertions that often stand in place of argumentation
and evidence. When explaining the role of wisdom and "wisdom
teachers" in ancient Israel, Bergant asserts:
Although wise women and men
believed that there was a proper way of behaving, they did not insist on a
rigid standard that would fit every circumstance. They acknowledged that
varying circumstances made each case unique. In fact, only those who were able
to evaluate the situation and decide on the best course of action were
considered wise. The truly sagacious person was the one who could draw on a
store of wisdom gained from personal experience, social custom or religious
tradition, and then would choose a course of action that seemed to fit the
situation (p. 5).
One would like to see here a demonstration of how Bergant knows what
"wise women and men believed" and what allows us access to the
ancients' reasoning in terms of courses of action, appeals to wisdom
traditions, and what qualities characterized one as "wise."
Similarly, when discussing the difficult word (otyah
Some believe that this veil
suggests the covering of prostitutes who often frequented the fields seeking a
liaison. While such a disguise could put the woman at risk, it would probably
not jeopardize the man's position, because such encounters were quite common in
certain societies (p. 18).
Again, a lack of argumentation and specific reference to sources, coupled
with a rather assuming epistemology makes such statements difficult to accept.
In sum, this is a rather disappointing commentary. It contains little
that cannot be found elsewhere with greater depth. Its methodological gaps,
lack of straightforward citation, and its epistemological, as well as
philological shortcomings(7) and typographical
infelicities(8), make it difficult to recommend.
Scott B. Noegel
University of Washington
Footnotes
1. See already C. H. Gordon, "New Directions," Bulletin
of the American Society of Papyrologists 15 (1978), pp. 59-66. Back
2. For a convenient treatment of polysemes in the
Song, see S. B. Noegel, Janus Parallelism in the Book of Job (JSOTS,
223; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), pp. 11-12, 30, 33-34, 154.Back
3. Leroy Waterman, The Song of Songs: Translated
and Interpreted as a Dramatic Poem (Ann Arbor, MI.: University of Michigan
Press, 1948).Back
4. Timothea M. Elliott, The Literary Unity of the Canticle
(European University Series, 23; Bern: Peter Lang, 1989), p. 302, n. 97.Back
5. G. R. Driver, "Supposed Arabisms in the Old Testament," Journal
of Biblical Literature 55 (1936), 101-120.Back
6. At a minimum one would expect to find references to J. G. Wetztein,
"Die Syrische Dreschtafel," Zeitschrift für Ethnologie 5
(1873), 270-302, and Robert Gordis, "A Wedding Song for Solomon," Journal
of Biblical Literature 63 (1944), pp. 263-270.Back
7. In her treatment of Song 2:7, Bergant remarks that here "the
woman substitutes a similar-sounding phrase for the names of God" (p. 26)
by employing "gazelles"
(cf. Ugaritic napshu "appetite").Back
8. Just to cite three examples: On p. 26 The word "does"
is incorrectly transliterated as (ay(lot
(that is, with two