by Bobcat 8 Replies latest watchtower bible
The WT study 4/5/15 quotes from the New Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible. The quote is "things like plot, story, narrative development, and character are not really of prime interest." It is located in paragraph 6 on page 29.
I was wondering if anyone had access to this reference. It may be in Volume 5 which includes items that begin with "S." I am very interested in the context within which the quote is taken.
Thanks in advance
Bobcat
Bobcat:
I love your research and knowledge.
I have spent 1/2 hour trying to find this bleeding article.
What is the WT issue?
Bobcat,
I have a set mail-ordered, and may have it in a week or so. Just in case you are willing to wait, I'll be more than happy to meet your request.
Thank you all for your replies! And yes, Wonderment, I am more than willing to wait for your input.
berrygerry, the WT is the 1/15/15 study issue, page 29, paragraph 6.
The (possible) issue here is that the WT quoted from the New Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible concerning the Song of Solomon (see the OP for the exact quote and paragraph number). The WT maintains that the Song of Solomon is a drama featuring three people: Solomon (as the villain); the Shulammite woman, and her shepherd husband-to-be (who repeatedly refers to the Shulammite as his "bride."
Various references that I have point out that the Song of Solomon has the most diversified history of interpretation of any book of the Bible. It has been interpreted as an allegory of the love between God and Israel (Jewish interpretation), of Christ and his church (Christian interpretation), a two person drama (the shepherd and the Shulammite), a three person drama (the shepherd, the Shulammite, and Solomon as a foil - this is the interpretation held to in the WT study on 4/3/15).
There are numerous variations of all of these interpretations and some others not mentioned, like one having to do with a funeral for Baal (?). For example, in the allegorical interpretations, the dark skin of the Shulammite is often equated with sin.
As usual, the WT study simply presents the three character drama as if this were all settled. No mention that there are countless other interpretations. No mention that most modern references debunk all these interpretations. That in itself is a bit galling - to see such mindless drivel being passed off as 'food at the proper time.' And the audience sopping it up - although, there were a lot in the audience who admittedly couldn't wrap their heads around this - but there it is in the WT, so it must be true!
And the points made in the WT about marriage and courtship weren't bad at all. It was just strange to see them try to make Song of Solomon try to prove them. I don't think any cited text from Song of Solomon actually said what the paragraph said it was saying.
But at any rate, that aside. I had a hunch that the context of the quote from the Bible dictionary was dismissing the whole dramatic interpretation being held to in the WT. I wanted to see if they were pulling a quote right out of the middle of material that dismisses the very interpretation they were holding to. (As usual, the WT gives no page numbers. But they did give the name of the reference. That is an improvement.)
(And this interpretation in no way originates with the WT. One of my references says that the three person drama was first proposed by Ibn Ezra in the 12 century AD and then further enlarged upon in the 18th and 19th centuries. Of course, the audience was lavishing praise upon the F&DS for having deciphered such a hard to understand book.)
Wonderment, I'd also like to hear what you think of the Dictionary. CBD has the 5 volume set on sale. I was wondering if it is worth the sale price.
Thanks again in advance.
Bobcat
Bobcat:
The Watchtower, January 15, 2015 issue (p. 29, par. 6), briefly quotes The New Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible. As you know, the WT does not quote the full sentence, nor gives the context behind the quoted words. There is interestingly, a Section A with the subtitle, "Authorship, Date, Reading," which the Society did not touch.
However, the quoted words do appear on page 349, under Section "B. Poetry of Love." This is what it says (full paragraph):
The love story that is the Song is, in point of fact, not a story at all, or at least it is not told as a story--though that story, the story of the love between an unnamed boy and a girl who only belatedly gets called ‘the Shulammite’ (6:13 [Heb. 7:1]), most assuredly lies in the background of the poems that make up the Song. But the poems themselves are lyric poems, where things like plot, story, narrative development, and character are not really of prime interest, and if they occur at all are deployed, ultimately, to specifically lyric ends. The poems of the Song literally sing about love and its ‘many splendored’ affects, good and not so good, in a non-narrative kind of verse that poets East and West have been composing for millennia. Without the cohering effects of plot, character, and the like, lyric verse is dependent almost exclusively on language to carry out its fiction. Play, puns and euphony pervade the Song. Song 1:6 offers a paradigm example. The girlfriends (literally, the daughters of Jerusalem, 1:5) are implored not to ‘gaze at’ the girl's black skin that has been ‘gazed’ upon by the sun. The Shulammite explains her exposure to the hot Mediterranean sun as a consequence of her brothers' anger that prompted them to set her as a ‘guard’ in the vineyards. The phrase ‘they were angry with me’ may also be read as ‘they burned against me,’ playing on the scorching look of the sun that burns the skin. And the verse ends by playing on the literal and figurative meanings of ‘vineyard’ in the Song. The vineyard, garden or field is the conventional locale of lovemaking in the Song (and thoroughout ANE [Ancient Near East] love poetry). In the Song, however, the vineyard (or garden) is also used as a figure for the girl herself (especially 4:12--5:1; 6:2). It is the latter on which the final line in 1:6 turns: if she was set to ‘guard’ the family's literal ‘vineyards,’ her own more figurative ‘vineyard’ she has not ‘guarded’--this last bit said, no doubt, as a happy boast, which also suggests that the exclamation in 1:5 ("I am black and beautiful") is in no way demuring.
Bobcat:
I just received the 5 Volume set of The New Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible on Saturday. I haven't had time to go over it, but the cost of the set was only $80 on sale at Cokesbury.com. I found that to be a "must-buy" purchase. This set normally costs upwards of $300 as listed by book vendors.
This work is published by Abingdon Press, The United Methodist Publishing House. However, they state the following in the ‘Preface’:
"The New Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible contributors [of 8,400 entries] number approximately 900 women and men in more than 40 different countries from Australia to Africa, from the Americas to Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. Chosen for their scholarly expertise and publication in the areas of their articles, they are identified with Catholic, Orthodox, Jewish, and many different Protestant traditions; they range in personal commitment from conservative to liberal and come from many racial/ethnic and cultural backgrounds. The wide scope of the contributors' contexts reflects the global scope of biblical scholarship of the 21st cent."
This set seems to be a good addition to the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia for thorough research. If you can find it for $100 or less, the better.
Wonderment:
Thank you very much for providing the context of the quote as well as the brief synopsis of the dictionary as a whole.
And thank you for the link to Cokesbury.com. I saw it listed at CDB for $99 and thought that was great. I'm going to have to bookmark Cokesbury also.
Thanks again,
Bobcat
