Gary Millar is a fantastic guy - humble, interesting, funny, and passionate about the same OT books as me. How could you not like him? His talks on the Song of Songs were good. I appreciated his approach but wasn't convinced by a few things.
Millar's approach to the Song rests on his reading of chapter 8. Solomon is the author and the book is a critique of his own ... experience... in matters of love and marriage. This is Solomon's wisdom on the topic. He realises that contentment, peace, shalom, lie in exclusive, committed relationships like the characters in this book enjoy and not in his own ridiculously polygamous lifestyle. Millar deduces this from 8:11-12.
The woman says:
Solomon had a vineyard in Baal Hamon;
he let out his vineyard to tenants.
Each was to bring for its fruit
a thousand shekels of silver.
But my own vineyard is mine to give;
the thousand shekels are for you, O Solomon,
and two hundred are for those who tend its fruit. (8:11-12 NIV)
Solomon's vineyard is his harem and the tennants are his harem staff.
I don't mind Millar's approach, but I think it's made stronger if you imagine it is the lover (male) speaking in 8:11-12 (the text doesn't specify). Miller thinks the speaker is female on the basis of the vineyard reference from 1:6 ('my own vineyard I have neglected'). I disagree. In 8:12, I think the vineyard may well be referring to the woman's body (as in 1:6) - but the point is that her body is his to enjoy. Another translation renders it this way:
King Solomon had a vineyard
on the hill of plenty
He gave that vineyard to watchmen
and each would earn for tis fruit
one thousand pieces of silver.
My vineyard is all my own.
Keep your thousand, Solomon! And pay
two hundred to those
who must guard the fruit.
I'm no Hebrew scholar so I don't know if its a good translation, but it works for me poetically. The lover is comparing his lot to Solomon's and concluding that he has it better. It is better to be an ordinary man in love with one woman than to be a king married to 1000.
Millar pointed out that the Song is much vaguer than some big-time speakers would have us think. The images are suggestive and enticing but not explicit. They mostly cannot be tied down to particular things. Furthermore, many specific application points that have been made in talks on the Song of Songs come more from the speaker's head than from the text! This was refreshing to hear.
It was interesting to hear Millar say the Song is more about love than sex. In this context, the two are hard to separate. But worth considering.
His ideas about how to take a talk on the Song to Jesus are what I think might be his most tenuous - though in the big scheme of things, not unhelpful. NASB has the Lord appearing in 8:6
6"Put me like a seal over your heart,
Like a seal on your arm
For love is as strong as death,
Jealousy is as severe as Sheol;
Its flashes are flashes of fire,
The very flame of the LORD.
From this, Millar argues that the strength of our love is a reflection of the Lord's.
Trouble is, the -Yah in verse 8 could just be an emphatic -yah, rather than a reference to Yahweh. NIV renders it that way: "It burns like blazing fire, like a mighty flame." I'm not a Hebrew scholar, so I don't know. And I'm not a preacher, so I don't care.
It was an interesting evening. If you are in Brisbane you should get along and hear Gary speak on Deuteronony at QTC in the next couple of days. I'll be there if I don't have to work (which is unlikely because it's raining.).
I agree with your interpretation.
ReplyDeleteBut I'm not at all convinced that Solomon is the lover.
Millar says the characters might be real people but are probably just poetic invention. I'm good with that.
ReplyDeleteProbably further than I'd go. But I'm ok with it.
ReplyDeleteI'd be surprised if Solomon wrote it.
'I'd be surprised if Solomon wrote it.'
ReplyDeleteMe too.
And I'm not a preacher, so I don't care.
ReplyDeletedreadful;)
Very interested to read your comments! Think linguistically it is much more likely that the woman says 8:11ff than the man (in the same way that I think that on balance, the unusual -Yah suffix is a divine reference, although the other is possible). The problem with this elusive book (as the history of interpretation shows) that certainty always seems just beyond our grasp...
ReplyDeleteTo be honest, I'm unsure as to why people think they have to make a decision in interpreting the 'yah'. Of course, in translation you have to make a decision, but in interpretation?
ReplyDeleteThe use of 'yah' as an intensification has come only from its use as a diminutive of Yhwh. So, it's like the use of 'god' in godspeed. The use is for intensification, but the deliberate choice was still made to use that particular phrase for that intensification. The Hebrew writer could have used 'gdl' or some other adjective instead, if they so wished.
For me, therefore, there is an implicit reference to God as the ultimate standard, but you have to balance that with a similar reference to sheol 2 lines earlier. I don't think the interpretive work has to be done with reference to the Hebrew, but with reference to the context.
And yes, therefore that means you have to make an interpretive decision. I know, I know. It's just not a straight decision between a 'secular big' and a 'highly religious Yhwh'.