Robert D. Miller II. <i>Finding Beauty in the Bible: An Aesthetic Commentary on the Song of Songs</i>

Miller’s commentary is a thoroughly informative and insightful study of the Song of Songs. In the introduction (pp. 1–20), Miller outlines the aesthetic methodology he employs for the Song of Songs. Miller seeks to read poetry as a linguistic enactment of sensations, emotions, or thoughts, while striking a balance between form and content. To an extent, there is a necessary reader-response element in the Song, but Miller is careful to nuance this within a cognitive scientific framework (pp. 5–6). Miller further elaborates and defines how he will pursue rhythmic analysis and intertextuality throughout the commentary, and he gives a Hellenistic era (mostly third century BC) date for the Song, though he also provides a reasonable explanation for the Song’s relationship with Egyptian and Akkadian love poetry (pp. 8–20). Miller also asserts that the Song is to be read metaphorically, rather than literally, with the possibility for allegorical interpretation; however, he is not convinced that the Song is about any specific allegory. This balanced approach is something the reader will find throughout the book.Following the introduction, Miller provides an unannotated translation of Song of Songs (pp. 21–28), with annotated sections of translation also provided within the commentary units according to the Song’s fifteen cantos. In each canto, Miller discusses several aesthetic features, with greater attention given to those more prevalent in a given canto. These features include: phonology and rhyming, contextual or material elements, the various sense experiences appealed to by the Song, and intertextuality and cognate literature (both ancient and modern). Miller’s analysis of the final canto ends with a page or two of summary for the entire commentary. To whet the appetite of the reader, I provide some examples of the different aesthetic features discussed in the commentary.An example of phonological discussion is canto one (Song 1:1–4), where Miller considers the heavy use of rhyme, both on initial and final syllables, which helps to bring a semblance of interpretive significance to an otherwise syntactically problematic section (pp. 29–34). Miller resolves a similarly syntactically complex canto five (Song 2:8–17) by suggesting that the wobbly structure might be aesthetically intended as dance-like (pp. 49–54). Examples of his analysis of material elements can be found throughout the commentary, but one in particular is his discussion of canto seven (Song 4:8–5:1). Here, he explains the context of the passage in wild space (rather than countryside or city), and he provides a thorough explanation for the exotic origins and flavors of the plants and spices mentioned in the canto (pp. 62–69). On sense experiences, a good example is Miller’s discussion of canto three (Song 1:9–14). Here he emphasizes the aromatic appeal of the various elements mentioned in the section, along with a thorough discussion of the material culture for the origins of different fragrances (pp. 38–42). On intertextuality, a good example is Miller’s discussion of canto two (Song 1:5–8), where he highlights connections with the Shema in Deut 6 and themes of the temple and Yhwh’s vineyard (pp. 34–38). As a final example, mention might be made of his discussion of canto fourteen (Song 7:11–8:4), where he identifies a reversal of the Gen 3 curse (the woman’s desire for her husband) with the man’s desire for the woman in the Song. This supports Miller’s interpretive stance about the Song as a reversal of Eden, rather than a return to it; a stance that I find compelling (pp. 90–93).I find the commentary to be quite enjoyable, sufficiently critical, and appropriate to the book it was written for. Miller’s analysis provides a certain clarity to the form of the Song and to its metaphors, which I had been seeking. I appreciate that the content of each canto, while organized, is not forced into a specific set of topics or outline, but, rather, it follows naturally from the most relevant topics. Miller’s analysis is likewise insightful throughout, attempting to be reasonably comprehensive without being exhaustive. I especially appreciate that Miller holds himself to a high standard of critical transparency in his own conclusions. For instance, in canto thirteen (Song 7:1–10), Miller surveys several proposals for the meaning of the bowl-shaped object in 7:3 but ultimately states that he is agnostic about the true anatomical identification of this metaphorical object (pp. 83–90).I suspect the question that most potential readers of this text might have, considering the content of Song of Songs, is “Just how adult is this aesthetic commentary?” In short, I describe it as sincere and well-informed, rather than gratuitous or provocative. Miller responsibly distinguishes anatomy, physiology, and reproductivity from erotica in a way that maintains an appropriate balance, rather than veering into extremes of interpretation (e.g., reading the entire text as erotica or as allegory). Miller’s commentary on the Song might make the reader blush here and there, but it is always responsible and respectful of the intent of the text. A wonderful example of this is in canto seven (Song 4:8–5:1). Miller acknowledges that the garden scene is erotica, with the metaphors describing exploration of secret parts, fluids, and scents, but is resolved with the turn to the chorus, which brings the audience back outside of the garden—a place that allows the couple of the Song to act in private—instead of standing as a voyeuristic audience to the couple’s love (pp. 62–69).For the price, length, and content, I highly recommend this aesthetic commentary on Song of Songs.