Abstract
Paul Griffiths is the Warren Professor of Catholic Theology at Duke Divinity School, a post he has held since 2008. In line with the rest of the Brazos series, Griffiths is a trained Christian theologian, rather than a trained biblical scholar in the modern sense. The interpretive approach of the commentary is an integration of the Song through the whole Christian canon and Christian interpretive tradition. Thus, Griffiths’ commentary is aimed at those interested in theological readings of the biblical text both non-scholars and scholars alike.
Griffiths does not discuss customary introductory issues but begins by defending the value of translations (pp. xxiii-xxxiv) and his choosing to comment on the New Latin Vulgate (pp. xxxii). He argues that there is no single authoritative text in Christian tradition because the Christian church assumes that God speaks as clearly through a translation as he does through the original language. A theological commentator, therefore, must choose what version to comment on. Griffiths’ choice of the New Latin Vulgate is because: the Song was the perhaps the most commentated book from the 5th-16th centuries, the New Vulgate translation is close to both Jerome’s translation and the Hebrew text, and he hopes to contribute to Catholic reception history of the Song. The commentary on the biblical text contains analysis of the ‘surface features’ of the text, discussion of the theology in question, and lastly Griffiths writes directly to the reader about the most important emerging issues.
Griffiths should be commended for a well written, engaging, and imaginative commentary on the Song of Songs. There are a few things that should be noted. In his scriptural model, Griffiths maintains two different types of scriptural authority, critical and juridicial. Critical authority revolves around the original languages and texts in the original languages. A translation has juridical authority because of its prolonged use within the life of the church. Non-Catholics will most likely find these distinctions to be artificial and unnecessary. It also raises further theological questions regarding the relationship between doctrines of Scripture and Church. However, Griffiths’ main thrust of the value of translations should not be lost.
A second area that may prove unsatisfactory is Griffiths’ identifying Israel, the church, Mary, and the individual reader each as the ‘beloved’ in the Song. He acknowledges that each of these ‘candidates’ have been suggested in Jewish and Christian interpretive tradition but for him to maintain that the ‘beloved’ in the Song can be all of these needs a more thorough hermeneutical discussion.
These areas should not distract from his overall project. Griffiths’ commentary will find great acceptance among those interested in theological interpretation of the Song of Songs. They will find thorough reflection on the Song as Christian Scripture, with due treatment of its reception history. Those looking for more modern treatments of historical questions should consult elsewhere.