Here is the first draft of a review of:  Patrick Hunt. Poetry in the Song of Songs: A Literary Analysis. (New York: Peter Lang, 2008). 368 pages. $42.95.

Patrick Hunt, director of the Stanford Alpine Archaeology Project at Stanford University in California, has written a poetic analysis cataloging the various literary devices employed by the biblical author of the Song of Songs. By his own admission Hunt’s study is not about theology or religion (1) nor is it a commentary (19).  It is an investigation concerning the poetry of this ancient love song.

Concerning introductory matters, Hunt is brief in his remarks (only nineteen pages). While he recognizes the beauty of the poem and its association with the royal Solomon, he rejects Solomonic authorship based on the perceived late dating of the book and holds to an unknown author and date of composition (18).  While he does not discuss its overall structure, he sees the Song as a “compilation of songs” (13).  The purpose of the book may have been intended to be recited at Hebrew nuptials or used “as a prelude to lovemaking, in the sense of emotional and mental foreplay” for mature lovers (10). While he recognizes the many ways the book has been interpreted over the centuries by Jews and Christians alike, he rejects its allegorical reading and chooses to recognize its simple and direct language of sexual love between a man and a woman who anyone who has loved can relate.  Although Hunt follows a literal hermeneutic, he believes “that we cannot reconstruct one meaning for this great poem” (19).

 In chapter two (pages 21-65) Hunt analyzes the “figurative language of desire” such as simile, paronomasia, chiasmus, anabasis, pleonasm, meiosis, metonymy, topographia, parallelism and others. While his investigation concerning any one device is not exhaustive, he offers enough examples of each so the reader can understand how they function within the Song.  While one may argue over Hunt’s labeling of individual literary devices, (even he questions if the ancient biblical author was intentional in his employment of each of these devices [28]) his study is a helpful one since no work in the Song to date has attempted to catalog so many different devices in one work. 

 Hunt investigates paronomasia or wordplay in chapter three (66-81). Chapter four (67-101) is given to the study of the analysis of sensory images which he numbers at over 200 (99). Chapter five (103-139) looks at the fertility imagery found in the flowers, fruits and spices and their erotic connections while chapter six (141-160) presents a study of the animal imagery found in the Song. Chapter 7 (161-180) explores the metaphor of eating and drinking in connection with the lovers’ desire for one another.

If scholars are correct that parallelism is the heart of Hebrew poetry, then chapter eight (181-243) may be the most profitable chapter of this book.  Although following his abbreviated classification of parallelism by other scholars is a tad laborious, Hunt has provided an introductory platform to discuss the various types of parallelism evident in the poem. While his study of parallelism is not exhaustive (although he analyzes over 75 examples) nor does he suggest the rhetorical function for his examples, his study lays a foundation for others to build upon based on the importance of this literary device for biblical Hebrew poetry.

Chapter nine (245-277) evaluates “the more than 70 images” which are used to convey “wealth, authority and security” (245). Chapter ten (279-319) observes the use of simile and chapter 11 (321-347) the use of metaphor as it relates to the two lovers. A twelve page bibliography and index concludes the work.

While this book is not as its back cover proclaims a “ground-breaking study,” it is a helpful reference for those who study the poetry of the Song or who have an interest in biblical poetry in general. Those without Hebrew will benefit from the book. However, those able to read Hebrew will be disappointed that extended examples were not in the original.

Although the reader may disagree with Hunt’s identification and/or labeling of various literary devices and may not see paronomasia beneath every vine as Hunt does, this work is an aid in recognizing the poetic tools the author used to craft this ancient love song. Hunt does go too far however, when he calls the Song “this Hebrew Kamasutra” (10) and his numerous comparisons between this ancient love poem and this Indian sex manual.  While the Song is not ashamed of its eroticism, it is not, nor is its purpose to be a “how-to-sex manual.”

Two items are lacking in this work.  The first (and to be fair it was not Hunt’s purpose) is a suggestion to what rhetorical function each devices plays and then what is the theological effect intended by the biblical author. This would have been an asset to those who see a rhetorical and theological purpose for the Song. While cataloging literary devices is helpful and is a necessary step in exegeting poetry, this book falls short in completing the exegetical process. The second is a lack of careful proof reading.  The presence of words running together (68, 330), inconsistent footnote number placement (68), incorrect form in the bibliography, missing articles (59), misplacement of end quotes (158, 220) and end brackets (145) to name just a few “mistakes” are distracting at best.

A new survey by The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life as reported on the blog of U.S. News & World Report (12/15/09) discovered that 37% of white evangelicals will attend multiple places of worship. It seems that the recession has not hindered “church shopping” in our local assemblies.  I wonder if this is the same 37% of white evangelical Protestants that believe that “many religions can lead to eternal life” as reported in the December issue of CTi (p. 31). (See the full Pew Survey here.  There are some interesting finds throughout this report).

 A friend (who received it from one of his friends) forwarded this modern day Song of Solomon poem to me this am. So, I cannot assign authorship for credit or blame.  That is probably a good thing!

 Behold, you are beautiful my love,
        behold, you are beautiful,

Your eyes are doves
        behind your veil

Your hair is like wholegrain pasta
         you make for the kids

Your teeth are like white alphabet tiles
         on the side with no letters
All of which have no food on them
        nor other foreign markings

Your lips are like ketchup
        with no high-fructose corn syrup
        and your mouth is lovely

Your cheeks are like cherries in 
        extra-cherry fruit cocktail
        behind your veil

Your neck is like Scurlock tower
        minus the parking lot
On it hangs Christmas decorations 
        just after Halloween

Your breasts are like two hamburgers
        from the children’s menu
        on kids eat free night

You are all together beautiful, my love,
        There is no flaw in you.

Here is the latest (and silliest) idea to promote church growth.  Such a concept would give new meaning to Psalm 22:16a: “For dogs have surrounded me….”

Although it is a slick advertisement for the new ZIBBCOT, this YouTube video shows the lighter side of those who study the OT.  Check out “John Walton Lives the OT.”

The discipline of teaching is undergoing dramatic change. Fred Putman offers a personal story of his transformation from “not a teacher” to fitting the mold of a “teacher” and finally to a “dreamer.”  If you are interested in students’ learning,  this Alpha Chi Epsilon address at PBU is worth a read.  

PS This print version is easier on the eyes.

If you ever needed motivation for understanding the OT and its proper application, this article serves the purpose.  As you read this tragic tale, it is not enough to react emotionally and declare that these pastors are terribly wrong in their application of the OT. You must be able to explain why Exodus 22:18 and Deuteronomy 18:10 are being misapplied in their churches.

I would also encourage you as you prove their exegesis (and application) unbiblical, that you test your evaluation process on your own application of another OT passage say… 2 Chronicles 7:14.  This was an interesting exercise in our Old Testament Theology PhD seminar last week.

As my students prepare for their midterm exam in first year Hebrew this week, I plan on sharing this story by Ellen Davis (see article here) to encourage them to persevere in acquiring Hebrew. Dr. Davis of Duke Divinity asked “the head of Renk Theological College in Southern Sudan to name his top priority for the school’s faculty and curriculum, he said without hesitation: ‘We need biblical language teachers.’”

For those familiar with the conditions in Sudan, this seems like an unusual priority. However, the college leaders recognize the true priority for their students:

“We live in the Old Testament. Ours is a tribal culture, like Israel’s. We are pastoralists and farmers, like the Israelites. And like them, we have suffered terribly in war and exile, and from oppressive imperial regimes. The Bible is our story, and our people must have it in their own languages. Why should we read it in English and Arabic, the languages of colonialism? Why should we translate it from those languages and not from the original? We all speak several languages; we know how much difference a translation makes.”

If the Sudanese see the need to persist in their biblical Hebrew studies, shouldn’t we?

PS Notice the attitude of Sudanese students towards Hebrew from the same article: “The students are proud that theirs is the only school in Sudan where both biblical languages are taught on a regular basis, and the pride shows in their attitude toward study. As one visiting teacher observed: ‘Hebrew without whining–this is a revelation!’”

For those who wished that God would have given his word in pictures, your wish may have come true (although this “word” is not from God).  Noted comic illustrator, Robert Crumb, has recently published an illustrated text of Genesis.  His 224 pages of comic illustrations cover all fifty chapters.  (See this NY Times article for sample pics).  His translation follows that of Robert Alter but in certain instances he retains the KJV because of familiarity. Unfortunately, the publisher does not make academic review copies available so I have to wait to buy my own.

I do wonder though if this will be the next “controversy” to hit evangelical churches.  The reason for such a reaction to a comic:  there are no strategically placed fig leaves or animals for Adam and Eve in Genesis 1-3!

Amid much hype last May, a fossil named “Ida” was touted as the “missing link” between primates and humans.  As any  creationist could guess, the supposed missing link is still missing. Read here.