Sunday, August 30, 2009
Esther 9: 1 Postscript
First of all, the "Jew" who "got the mastery" over the Persians was the rebel, disobedient, secular, worldly Jew, represented by Esther and Mordecai, who did not return from the exile with the godly and faithful "Jew," to Jerusalem, per the words of the prophets. Their obtaining this small victory over a Persian anti-Semitic conspiracy, was not by some miraculous intervention by God, but by the political machinations of Mordecai. His "mastery" was to exact unjust cruelty on his enemies. His political mastery came by intrigue, cunning craftiness, deceit, and worldly means. He represents Apostate Jewry, secular Judaism, the kind associated with godless, money and power hungry Jews. In the feast of Purim today (which is not an ordained feast of God) we see the non-religious nature of the feast, the carnival atmosphere, and intemperance, and the "we are superior" attitude that prevails in the participants during the reading of Esther, during Purim, and is thus quite unlike the ordained feasts of God as given by Moses.
Esther Spoke of Jesus?
In a blog posting at John Piper's "Desiring God" web site, David Mathis posts a short article titled Esther & Jesus: "The Reverse Occurred" in which he tries to demonstrate, from one verse in the Book of Esther, that Jesus' death was foretold in the Book of Esther. Those who are familiar with the Gadfly blog know that I have challenged others to demonstrate where Esther was inspired scripture, and how it meets one of the "canonical rules" by testifying of Jesus. See the Mathis posting here
Mathis wrote:
"The Hebrew Scriptures point to Jesus in a myriad of ways. One way is narrative patterns, like the one in Esther 9:1:
On the very day when the enemies of the Jews hoped to gain the mastery over them, the reverse occurred: the Jews gained mastery over those who hated them.
And so it happened at the cross. At the very moment when the Enemy of the True Jew hoped to gain the mastery over Jesus, the reverse occurred: Jesus gained mastery over the one who hated him.
God has innumerable ways of pointing us to his Son—after all, according to Colossians 1:16-17, all the universe is in Jesus, through Jesus, and for Jesus.
If all the universe, then how much more the Scriptures."
This is that testimony of Christ that is essential to being "scripture"? (See John 5: 39) If a man can make Esther 9: 1 "point to Jesus," he can find Jesus anywhere. Is this not eisogesus? Is this not the thing that brother Piper ought to be against?
Mathis wrote:
"The Hebrew Scriptures point to Jesus in a myriad of ways. One way is narrative patterns, like the one in Esther 9:1:
On the very day when the enemies of the Jews hoped to gain the mastery over them, the reverse occurred: the Jews gained mastery over those who hated them.
And so it happened at the cross. At the very moment when the Enemy of the True Jew hoped to gain the mastery over Jesus, the reverse occurred: Jesus gained mastery over the one who hated him.
God has innumerable ways of pointing us to his Son—after all, according to Colossians 1:16-17, all the universe is in Jesus, through Jesus, and for Jesus.
If all the universe, then how much more the Scriptures."
This is that testimony of Christ that is essential to being "scripture"? (See John 5: 39) If a man can make Esther 9: 1 "point to Jesus," he can find Jesus anywhere. Is this not eisogesus? Is this not the thing that brother Piper ought to be against?
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Book of Esther & Canonicity
This blog will be dedicated to research and debate regarding the Hebrew "Book of Esther," and regarding whether it is inspired and part of canonical scripture.
On Esther & Canonicity I
Recently I left a comment on Kent Brandenburg's blog wherein I doubted the inspiration and canonicity of the Book of Esther. Tom Ross, a well known Baptist pastor and writer, took issue with me and we have exchanged comments on the subject, which is still ongoing.
See here
I will begin posting some of my notes and comments on this topic.
"The story of Esther is built predominantly upon action, not character development or theological reflection. A major feature of the story is the motif of reversal of fortunes (Berg, 103-13; Fox, "Structure"). By the end of the book, Mordechai, Esther, and the Jews all have been exalted and delivered from their enemies through dramatic turns of events."
"An important motif that emerges from the book is the nature and significance of the festival of "Purim" ("lots") (Berg, 31-57). The lottery itself is not a major component of the book, but it is a part of the reversal motif (cf. 3:7; 9:26), and one of the book's appendices (9:20-32) gives formal instruction for the festival's celebration (B. S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture, 603-5)."
Prepared for the NIDOTT, July 5, 1990
by David M. Howard, Jr., Ph.D.
http://www.bethel.edu/~dhoward/articles/ESTHNID.pdf
"Although the events of the Book of Esther show little correlation with those of the actual reign of Xerxes I, the story does reveal considerable knowledge of Persian customs, and it may be based on the deliverance of Jews from a local persecution in Persia. In its present form, however, it is essentially a secular historical romance, expressing a strong concern for Jewish patriotism and national survival. God is not mentioned, and religious practices are scarcely mentioned."
"Recent scholarship indicates that the Book of Esther was composed in the 2nd century bc. Because of its vindictive tone and secular character, early Jewish commentators were reluctant to include it in the Hebrew canon, but it was finally accepted in response to popular demand and because it offered an account of the origin of the feast of Purim. The Greek version of the Book of Esther contains 107 additional verses that are not found in the Hebrew original. They were composed in Greek, probably in the 1st century bc, with the intention of making the story more religious in character and more relevant to the situation of the Jewish people. In Protestant Bibles, these passages are included as a separate book in the Old Testament Apocrypha. In most editions of the Bible used by Roman Catholics they are included with the original version of the book." (encarta)
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761570696/esther.html
"Other books‚ Ezekiel, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, and Esther‚ were hotly contested before finally being admitted to the canon. So even though these books were all in existence during the time of Jesus, not all Jews would have accepted them as authoritative Scripture at that time."
"As we have seen, before about the end of the first century, the actual contents of the Old Testament were up for grabs, even among Jews in Eretz Israel. The situation is even more complicated than that, however. Alongside the books that would eventually become the Scriptures of Judaism were other texts, some of which had been included in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament."
"Furthermore, Athanasius discussed the biblical canon in his Paschal letter of AD 367. After discussing the contents of both testaments, the bishop of Alexandria states,
For the sake of greater accuracy I must needs, as I write, add this: there are other books outside these, which are not indeed included in the canon, but have been appointed from the time of the fathers to be read to those who are recent converts to our company and wish to be instructed in the word of the true religion. These are the Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith and Tobit, the so-called “Teaching of the Apostles” [The Didache] and the “Shepherd” [The Shepherd of Hermas]. But while the former are included in the canon and the latter are read, no mention is to be made of the apocryphal works."
http://pursiful.com/?p=796
"Now it may be true that Protestants share the same OT canon as Jews today; however, the situation was a little different during the time of Jesus. The Jews before the 2nd century A.D. did not appear to have a rigidly defined OT canon. In the words of James King West, a Protestant Bible scholar:
The Scriptures of Judaism were not, therefore, a precisely defined body of literature absolutely set apart from all other literature, but a central body of material, the Torah (i.e. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers & Deut.), which from the time of Ezra had remained fixed as... the Scriptures par excellence, surrounded by other interpretive material of varying degrees of importance and authority. [S&W, p. OT 432]
By the time of Christ, all Jews accepted the five Books of Moses - the Torah - as Scripture; however, Books, like Esther and Ecclesiastes, were debated. From the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Jews at Qumran apparently read and copied Tobit, The Letter of Jeremiah (Baruch 6) and Sirach as Scripture, while Esther is missing from the scrolls. [JBC, pp. 522 & 565] Unfortunately we can only speculate on what Jesus thought on this issue. No where in the New Testament (NT) does Jesus or His Apostles present a complete list of the OT Books or even discuss this issue.
Others like Gregory Nazianzen also excluded Esther from the Bible [JBC, p. 522].
The Councils of Hippo and Carthage in the late-4th century were the first real attempts by the Church to end the confusion over the OT canon.
http://users.binary.net/polycarp/apocry.html
"In the year 367 an influential bishop named Athanasius published a list of books to be read in the churches under his care, which included precisely those books we have in our Bibles (with this exception — he admitted Baruch and omitted Esther in the Old Testament). Other such lists had been published by others, as early as the year 170, although they did not all agree."
"Then we must ask, how did the elders of the churches decide which writings should be read in church as authoritative? The answer is simple: They received the writings of the apostles and their closest companions, and the writings endorsed by them. The entire Old Testament was received by the implicit endorsement of the apostles."
Today we have no good reason for doubting the canon of the New Testament. It would be wrong for me to suggest that everyone needs to investigate these matters and decide for himself which books he will receive as Scripture, without any respect for the decisions of the early churches. We are not in such a position to judge as the early church was, and we are bound to respect the well-nigh unanimous opinion of so many Christians of the past.
Apostolic use of the Septuagint. The quotations of the Old Testament in the New show that the apostles often used the Septuagint, because it was generally known to those in the Church and usually adequate for their purposes. Some people in looking at these quotations have been troubled by the fact that they are sometimes not very accurate translations of the Hebrew. Did the apostles not know their business? Of course they did. They did not concern themselves with corrections when the translation served well enough for their purpose, but when it did not they quietly offered their own translation of the Hebrew. Then they usually offered a better translation. The apostles did not see fit to produce a complete version of the Old Testament in Greek for the use of the churches."
(Michael Marlowe - "Our Reception of the Bible")
http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon1.html
"If a genuine apostolic writing were rediscovered in our day, this principle would demand the writing’s immediate acceptance in the canon. Yet God evidently did not intend all inspired utterances to be included in the canon (John 21:25; 2 Cor 2:3–4[?]; Col 4:16), and it would seem strange that he would permit the Church to function for some 1900 years without a book that would have been inspired and written in the first century.
This criterion tends to circular reasoning. Orthodoxy must be defined by the canon, and here it seems that the canon is defined by orthodoxy.
This appears to be a vicious circle. We were asking: “How do we recognize an inspired book so as to include it in the canon?” It is tautological to say, “We recognize it because it is inspired.” In other words this criterion does not advance us by even one inch in our search.
We know a book to be inspired because it is canonical. We do not know how to recognize infallibly inspired books so as to assign them a place in the canon.
If this principle were as simple as it is thought to be by its advocates it is difficult to understand why it took the Church some 300 years to make up its mind on the exact list of NT books and why the problem of the OT Apocrypha still plagues some of us to this day."
("The Canon Of The New Testamentby" Dr. Roger Nicole, Th.D, Ph.D)
http://www.apuritansmind.com/Apologetics/NicoleRogerCanonNT.htm
See here
I will begin posting some of my notes and comments on this topic.
"The story of Esther is built predominantly upon action, not character development or theological reflection. A major feature of the story is the motif of reversal of fortunes (Berg, 103-13; Fox, "Structure"). By the end of the book, Mordechai, Esther, and the Jews all have been exalted and delivered from their enemies through dramatic turns of events."
"An important motif that emerges from the book is the nature and significance of the festival of "Purim" ("lots") (Berg, 31-57). The lottery itself is not a major component of the book, but it is a part of the reversal motif (cf. 3:7; 9:26), and one of the book's appendices (9:20-32) gives formal instruction for the festival's celebration (B. S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture, 603-5)."
Prepared for the NIDOTT, July 5, 1990
by David M. Howard, Jr., Ph.D.
http://www.bethel.edu/~dhoward/articles/ESTHNID.pdf
"Although the events of the Book of Esther show little correlation with those of the actual reign of Xerxes I, the story does reveal considerable knowledge of Persian customs, and it may be based on the deliverance of Jews from a local persecution in Persia. In its present form, however, it is essentially a secular historical romance, expressing a strong concern for Jewish patriotism and national survival. God is not mentioned, and religious practices are scarcely mentioned."
"Recent scholarship indicates that the Book of Esther was composed in the 2nd century bc. Because of its vindictive tone and secular character, early Jewish commentators were reluctant to include it in the Hebrew canon, but it was finally accepted in response to popular demand and because it offered an account of the origin of the feast of Purim. The Greek version of the Book of Esther contains 107 additional verses that are not found in the Hebrew original. They were composed in Greek, probably in the 1st century bc, with the intention of making the story more religious in character and more relevant to the situation of the Jewish people. In Protestant Bibles, these passages are included as a separate book in the Old Testament Apocrypha. In most editions of the Bible used by Roman Catholics they are included with the original version of the book." (encarta)
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761570696/esther.html
"Other books‚ Ezekiel, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, and Esther‚ were hotly contested before finally being admitted to the canon. So even though these books were all in existence during the time of Jesus, not all Jews would have accepted them as authoritative Scripture at that time."
"As we have seen, before about the end of the first century, the actual contents of the Old Testament were up for grabs, even among Jews in Eretz Israel. The situation is even more complicated than that, however. Alongside the books that would eventually become the Scriptures of Judaism were other texts, some of which had been included in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament."
"Furthermore, Athanasius discussed the biblical canon in his Paschal letter of AD 367. After discussing the contents of both testaments, the bishop of Alexandria states,
For the sake of greater accuracy I must needs, as I write, add this: there are other books outside these, which are not indeed included in the canon, but have been appointed from the time of the fathers to be read to those who are recent converts to our company and wish to be instructed in the word of the true religion. These are the Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith and Tobit, the so-called “Teaching of the Apostles” [The Didache] and the “Shepherd” [The Shepherd of Hermas]. But while the former are included in the canon and the latter are read, no mention is to be made of the apocryphal works."
http://pursiful.com/?p=796
"Now it may be true that Protestants share the same OT canon as Jews today; however, the situation was a little different during the time of Jesus. The Jews before the 2nd century A.D. did not appear to have a rigidly defined OT canon. In the words of James King West, a Protestant Bible scholar:
The Scriptures of Judaism were not, therefore, a precisely defined body of literature absolutely set apart from all other literature, but a central body of material, the Torah (i.e. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers & Deut.), which from the time of Ezra had remained fixed as... the Scriptures par excellence, surrounded by other interpretive material of varying degrees of importance and authority. [S&W, p. OT 432]
By the time of Christ, all Jews accepted the five Books of Moses - the Torah - as Scripture; however, Books, like Esther and Ecclesiastes, were debated. From the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Jews at Qumran apparently read and copied Tobit, The Letter of Jeremiah (Baruch 6) and Sirach as Scripture, while Esther is missing from the scrolls. [JBC, pp. 522 & 565] Unfortunately we can only speculate on what Jesus thought on this issue. No where in the New Testament (NT) does Jesus or His Apostles present a complete list of the OT Books or even discuss this issue.
Others like Gregory Nazianzen also excluded Esther from the Bible [JBC, p. 522].
The Councils of Hippo and Carthage in the late-4th century were the first real attempts by the Church to end the confusion over the OT canon.
http://users.binary.net/polycarp/apocry.html
"In the year 367 an influential bishop named Athanasius published a list of books to be read in the churches under his care, which included precisely those books we have in our Bibles (with this exception — he admitted Baruch and omitted Esther in the Old Testament). Other such lists had been published by others, as early as the year 170, although they did not all agree."
"Then we must ask, how did the elders of the churches decide which writings should be read in church as authoritative? The answer is simple: They received the writings of the apostles and their closest companions, and the writings endorsed by them. The entire Old Testament was received by the implicit endorsement of the apostles."
Today we have no good reason for doubting the canon of the New Testament. It would be wrong for me to suggest that everyone needs to investigate these matters and decide for himself which books he will receive as Scripture, without any respect for the decisions of the early churches. We are not in such a position to judge as the early church was, and we are bound to respect the well-nigh unanimous opinion of so many Christians of the past.
Apostolic use of the Septuagint. The quotations of the Old Testament in the New show that the apostles often used the Septuagint, because it was generally known to those in the Church and usually adequate for their purposes. Some people in looking at these quotations have been troubled by the fact that they are sometimes not very accurate translations of the Hebrew. Did the apostles not know their business? Of course they did. They did not concern themselves with corrections when the translation served well enough for their purpose, but when it did not they quietly offered their own translation of the Hebrew. Then they usually offered a better translation. The apostles did not see fit to produce a complete version of the Old Testament in Greek for the use of the churches."
(Michael Marlowe - "Our Reception of the Bible")
http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon1.html
"If a genuine apostolic writing were rediscovered in our day, this principle would demand the writing’s immediate acceptance in the canon. Yet God evidently did not intend all inspired utterances to be included in the canon (John 21:25; 2 Cor 2:3–4[?]; Col 4:16), and it would seem strange that he would permit the Church to function for some 1900 years without a book that would have been inspired and written in the first century.
This criterion tends to circular reasoning. Orthodoxy must be defined by the canon, and here it seems that the canon is defined by orthodoxy.
This appears to be a vicious circle. We were asking: “How do we recognize an inspired book so as to include it in the canon?” It is tautological to say, “We recognize it because it is inspired.” In other words this criterion does not advance us by even one inch in our search.
We know a book to be inspired because it is canonical. We do not know how to recognize infallibly inspired books so as to assign them a place in the canon.
If this principle were as simple as it is thought to be by its advocates it is difficult to understand why it took the Church some 300 years to make up its mind on the exact list of NT books and why the problem of the OT Apocrypha still plagues some of us to this day."
("The Canon Of The New Testamentby" Dr. Roger Nicole, Th.D, Ph.D)
http://www.apuritansmind.com/Apologetics/NicoleRogerCanonNT.htm
Canonical Rule #1
Does the scroll (book) speak of Christ? Is it prophetic?
"And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself...And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. " (Luke 24: 27, 44 KJV)
"Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me." (John 8: 39 KJV)
Which books of the Old Testament did NOT speak of the Messiah?
Clearly Esther does not. Some have doubted the inspiration of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs (Solomon) for the same reason.
Levels of Inspiration or Canonicity
Think of a circle with clearly defined rings (boundaries). In the "inner circle" of "inspiration," for the Old Testament, are the five books of Moses, the Penteteuch, or Torah, or "law of Moses."
In the second circle, we would have "the prophets." What books would this include? And, let not our answer be based upon some "canon" that was supposedly being used by Christ, and universally recognized and codified, but solely upon the descriptive title given by Christ.
What books can we put safely into the category of "the prophets"? Surely the ones known as the "twelve." The only questionable ones, besides the ones named above, would be Judges, Kings, Chronicles, Ruth, Daniel, Job, Ezra, and Nehemiah.
First, it is easy to put Daniel and Job into the category of "the prophets," is it not? Jesus called Daniel a prophet (Matthew 24: 15) and certainly Job prophesied of the coming Redeemer (Goel) who would redeem him from death. (Job 19: 23-27)
Next, we can place Judges and Ruth with Samuel, who no doubt authored these books. Further, we can also put Samuel's stamp of approval, along with David's and Solomon's, upon the inspiration of the books of the Kings and Chronicles. Many of these books, in many Jewish collections, were viewed as one book. Further, one can find allusions to the Messiah in the above books.
The book of Joshua could also be placed among the books of the prophets, for he was certainly a prophet and his writings contain both law and prophecy, as well as history.
Also we find their veracity verified by New Testament writers.
Christ, though he put the Psalms in a category all by itself, in the above passage, yet could have placed it in the category of "the prophets," for David is also identified, in scripture, as being a "prophet." Christ no doubt had a reason or reasons, for so doing.
First, not all the Psalms were written by David, but included those written by Moses and Solomon, the former being a prophet, while the latter was not. Also, not all the Psalms were messianic or prophetic. Since Christ put the Psalms into a category all its own, so, we will make the Psalms to be the third circle of inspiration.
This leaves only Ezra and Nehemiah, which were often viewed as one book (as did Josephus, who, like many Jews, believed that there was to be only 22 books, for there are only 22 letters to the Hebrew alphabet).
This really brings us to the fourth circle of inspiration, which we will call "the holy writings," or the "other writings," or sometimes as simply "the writings." These would include the inspired historical books of Kings and Chronicles, and of Ezra and Nehemiah, but they will also include what may be appropriately called the "Wisdom" and Romance books.
The Wisdom literature takes in two of the writings of Solomon, excepting his psalm writing, which are the books of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes. His contribution to the "Romance" category would be, of course, his "Song of Songs." Some would put Ruth and Judges into the category of either historical or romance, but I think they should be placed into the prophetic, into the messianic, being properly part of the entire prophetic writings of Samuel.
None of these historical books can be strictly called "messianic." They are much like the books of Kings and Chronicles, and properly called "historical." They are to be seen as accurate and trustworthy histories and are in this sense "inspired" or "of God," but still not of the kind or level of inspiration as the prophetic books which all speak of the Messiah. The same is true for the "Wisdom" and "Romance" writings. These historical books, together with the "Wisdom" and "Romance" books, are to be received as composing the fourth circle.
Then where would we put the book of Esther? Is it historical? Is it an inspired novel? Certainly it is not messanic and therefore would not pass the first test of canonicity, given by Jesus above. Would we put it in the same circle with the other historical and romance writings?
There are those who have, historically, sought to place other books into these various circles of inspiration. These would include books called "Apocryphal."
How can we judge the inspiration, truthfulness, correctness, and reliability of these books? How do they stand up to the first rule of inspiration and canonicity? The messianic rule?
We will look upon these questions in a future posting.
"And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself...And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. " (Luke 24: 27, 44 KJV)
"Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me." (John 8: 39 KJV)
Which books of the Old Testament did NOT speak of the Messiah?
Clearly Esther does not. Some have doubted the inspiration of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs (Solomon) for the same reason.
Levels of Inspiration or Canonicity
Think of a circle with clearly defined rings (boundaries). In the "inner circle" of "inspiration," for the Old Testament, are the five books of Moses, the Penteteuch, or Torah, or "law of Moses."
In the second circle, we would have "the prophets." What books would this include? And, let not our answer be based upon some "canon" that was supposedly being used by Christ, and universally recognized and codified, but solely upon the descriptive title given by Christ.
What books can we put safely into the category of "the prophets"? Surely the ones known as the "twelve." The only questionable ones, besides the ones named above, would be Judges, Kings, Chronicles, Ruth, Daniel, Job, Ezra, and Nehemiah.
First, it is easy to put Daniel and Job into the category of "the prophets," is it not? Jesus called Daniel a prophet (Matthew 24: 15) and certainly Job prophesied of the coming Redeemer (Goel) who would redeem him from death. (Job 19: 23-27)
Next, we can place Judges and Ruth with Samuel, who no doubt authored these books. Further, we can also put Samuel's stamp of approval, along with David's and Solomon's, upon the inspiration of the books of the Kings and Chronicles. Many of these books, in many Jewish collections, were viewed as one book. Further, one can find allusions to the Messiah in the above books.
The book of Joshua could also be placed among the books of the prophets, for he was certainly a prophet and his writings contain both law and prophecy, as well as history.
Also we find their veracity verified by New Testament writers.
Christ, though he put the Psalms in a category all by itself, in the above passage, yet could have placed it in the category of "the prophets," for David is also identified, in scripture, as being a "prophet." Christ no doubt had a reason or reasons, for so doing.
First, not all the Psalms were written by David, but included those written by Moses and Solomon, the former being a prophet, while the latter was not. Also, not all the Psalms were messianic or prophetic. Since Christ put the Psalms into a category all its own, so, we will make the Psalms to be the third circle of inspiration.
This leaves only Ezra and Nehemiah, which were often viewed as one book (as did Josephus, who, like many Jews, believed that there was to be only 22 books, for there are only 22 letters to the Hebrew alphabet).
This really brings us to the fourth circle of inspiration, which we will call "the holy writings," or the "other writings," or sometimes as simply "the writings." These would include the inspired historical books of Kings and Chronicles, and of Ezra and Nehemiah, but they will also include what may be appropriately called the "Wisdom" and Romance books.
The Wisdom literature takes in two of the writings of Solomon, excepting his psalm writing, which are the books of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes. His contribution to the "Romance" category would be, of course, his "Song of Songs." Some would put Ruth and Judges into the category of either historical or romance, but I think they should be placed into the prophetic, into the messianic, being properly part of the entire prophetic writings of Samuel.
None of these historical books can be strictly called "messianic." They are much like the books of Kings and Chronicles, and properly called "historical." They are to be seen as accurate and trustworthy histories and are in this sense "inspired" or "of God," but still not of the kind or level of inspiration as the prophetic books which all speak of the Messiah. The same is true for the "Wisdom" and "Romance" writings. These historical books, together with the "Wisdom" and "Romance" books, are to be received as composing the fourth circle.
Then where would we put the book of Esther? Is it historical? Is it an inspired novel? Certainly it is not messanic and therefore would not pass the first test of canonicity, given by Jesus above. Would we put it in the same circle with the other historical and romance writings?
There are those who have, historically, sought to place other books into these various circles of inspiration. These would include books called "Apocryphal."
How can we judge the inspiration, truthfulness, correctness, and reliability of these books? How do they stand up to the first rule of inspiration and canonicity? The messianic rule?
We will look upon these questions in a future posting.
Canonical Rule 1 (cont.)
What is the first criterion for deciding full inspiration or canonicity? It is the Messianic criterion (which would include what some called the "prophetic" test or criterion).
Does the book speak of Christ? In my previous chapter, I showed from Luke 24: 27, 44 that Christ made this a rule for calling something "scripture."
In this chapter I will enlarge upon the "messianic test (rule)" and show that "the scriptures" are defined by this rule.
"But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?...But all this was done, that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled." (Matthew 26: 54, 56 KJV)
"Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem." (Luke 24: 45-47 KJV)
"Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me." (John 5: 39 KJV)
"And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ." (Acts 17: 2, 3 KJV)
"For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publicly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ." (Acts 18: 28 KJV)
"For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures." (I Corinthians 15: 3, 4 KJV)
"Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith: To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen." (Romans 16: 25-27 KJV)
From these verses we are given a further description and definition of what constitutes "scripture."
Scripture testifies of Christ. Whatever does not testify of Christ is not "scripture." It discusses repentance and remission of sins. Thus, "content" or "theme" is a sub category within the "messianic rule."
From "the scriptures" one may learn of Christ and the gospel. None of this, however, can be learned from the Book of Esther.
We also learn that "scripture" may be "fulfilled." This makes "scripture," by biblical definition, "prophetic," whether outright or by way of symbolism and analogy. Strictly "historical" and "romance" books of Hebrew literature, are not capable of being "fulfilled."
Does the book speak of Christ? In my previous chapter, I showed from Luke 24: 27, 44 that Christ made this a rule for calling something "scripture."
In this chapter I will enlarge upon the "messianic test (rule)" and show that "the scriptures" are defined by this rule.
"But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?...But all this was done, that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled." (Matthew 26: 54, 56 KJV)
"Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem." (Luke 24: 45-47 KJV)
"Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me." (John 5: 39 KJV)
"And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ." (Acts 17: 2, 3 KJV)
"For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publicly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ." (Acts 18: 28 KJV)
"For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures." (I Corinthians 15: 3, 4 KJV)
"Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith: To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen." (Romans 16: 25-27 KJV)
From these verses we are given a further description and definition of what constitutes "scripture."
Scripture testifies of Christ. Whatever does not testify of Christ is not "scripture." It discusses repentance and remission of sins. Thus, "content" or "theme" is a sub category within the "messianic rule."
From "the scriptures" one may learn of Christ and the gospel. None of this, however, can be learned from the Book of Esther.
We also learn that "scripture" may be "fulfilled." This makes "scripture," by biblical definition, "prophetic," whether outright or by way of symbolism and analogy. Strictly "historical" and "romance" books of Hebrew literature, are not capable of being "fulfilled."
Canonical Rule 2
Canonical Rule 2 - The Profitability Test (criterion)
"For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope." (Romans 15: 4 KJV)
"And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." (II Timothy 3: 15-17 KJV)
1) Does the book produce a "hope" of salvation through Christ?
2) Does the book "instruct in righteousness," being "profitable" thereunto?
3) Does the book "correct" errors in doctrine and righteousness?
4) Is the book "profitable for doctrine"? If so, what doctrines?
5) Is the book "profitable for reproof"? If so, how or in what way?
6) Does the book "perfect" the faith of the "man of God"?
7) Does the book "make one wise unto salvation"?
Scripture here is defined as what makes one wise unto salvation in Christ. Does the Book of Esther do this? Does it pass the test of "profitability"?
"For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope." (Romans 15: 4 KJV)
"And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." (II Timothy 3: 15-17 KJV)
1) Does the book produce a "hope" of salvation through Christ?
2) Does the book "instruct in righteousness," being "profitable" thereunto?
3) Does the book "correct" errors in doctrine and righteousness?
4) Is the book "profitable for doctrine"? If so, what doctrines?
5) Is the book "profitable for reproof"? If so, how or in what way?
6) Does the book "perfect" the faith of the "man of God"?
7) Does the book "make one wise unto salvation"?
Scripture here is defined as what makes one wise unto salvation in Christ. Does the Book of Esther do this? Does it pass the test of "profitability"?
Canonical Rule # 3
Thus far we have given the first two paramount rules of judging inspiration and canonicity, the "Messianic Rule Test," and the "Profitability Test." In this chapter I introduce the next rule, the "no private interpretation rule," or the --
Privacy or Origination Test
This rule would include the issue of divine "authority."
Those who wrote scripture were not self authorized men, or men who were authorized by groups of uninspired men, but men who were chosen and appointed by God, men who were sent and authorized by him, and taught by him what to say and teach.
"We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." (II Peter 1: 19-21 KJV)
In discerning inspiration and canonicity, we should ask such questions as these:
Who authored the book?
What was the content, subject, or main teachings of the book?
How did the book come into being?
What of its origination?
Is it "prophetic"?
Does it reveal the nature and workings of God and Christ?
Does it instruct in righteousness and doctrine?
All Apocryphal books are in the category of books that arose from the "will of man," being an artful and cunning device, meant to deceive. The books of genuine inspiration, however, arise from the "will of God," by the working of his Spirit.
The phrase, "private interpretation," translates the Greek phrase, idios epilupsis. Idios is defined as, “pertaining to one’s own self” or “personal.” Epilupsis is defined as an unloosing and is used metaphorically in this verse to mean interpretation, as in loosening the meaning of the verse.
"Who is as the wise man? and who knoweth the interpretation of a thing? a man's wisdom maketh his face to shine, and the boldness of his face shall be changed." (Ecclesiastes 8: 1 KJV)
Wise ones, or "scientists," are those who are able to "explain a thing," to "make sense of things," to "interpret" things in nature.
Scripture is not like other books of knowledge. It is not like a book on Mathematics or Physics or Chemistry. These latter books owe their immediate origin, their "interpretations" or "explanations" of things, to the will and learning of a man, to his own initiative in education and learning, and to his own skillful advances in it.
But, the things the prophets and holy men wrote about were not truths that they "figured out" by the use of reason, logic, and scientific discovery and investigation.
Thus, an inspired book is not only a "prophetic" book, but a book that is "revelation," that which is directly imparted to the mind and understanding of the chosen seer, and which is truth that he could not have "figured out" or "discovered" by ordinary methods of learning.
The books of inspiration are not like works of secular knowledge.
Books of secular knowledge are produced by self willed authors who made a choice to learn all about a topic and then write something profound about it. They are therefore the results of a man's will and efforts, of his own scheming and planning, of his own efforts at discovery.
Can we read the books of Scripture, the books of the Apocrypha, and all the other many books professing inspiration, and discern whether they originated with the will of man, versus the will of God? And discern whether it is knowledge given miraculously by revelation, or knowledged acquired by the efforts of human discovery?
Did the Book of Esther originate with the will of an uninspired Jewish man or with the will of God? Did the Book of Esther give a man's uninspired views of things, or the views of God? We might ask the same of the writings of Solomon.
Look at how Paul the apostle and prophet received his revelation and inspiration. He wrote:
"But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." (Galatians 1: 11, 12 KJV)
Here Paul argues against his prophetic writings being a violation of Peter's rule about "private interpretation," about "self production." What was the "source" of Paul's gospel knowledge and revelation? Was it at the feet of Gamaliel? Was it in the schools of the Rabbis? No, no. It was the gift of miraculous revelation of truth.
To know that a book is thus a "revelation" from God, and not a self production, requires that we know something about the author and how he received his revelation.
Are there any books of the Bible where we do not know who are the authors and the manner in which they received their divine communications?
Peter says that the authors of the inspired prophecies were "holy men." Do we know that the author of the Book of Esther was a "holy man" who was "moved by the Holy Ghost"?
No "private interpretation" probably includes the idea that no particular prophecy, or book of prophecy and inspiration, is to stand by itself, but should show harmony, if not direct stated support, with other prophets and inspired books.
Paul gave us the rule of "comparing spiritual things with spiritual," which would include the hermenuetic rule to "compare scripture with scripture." (I Cor. 2: 13 KJV)
Does the book lack authenticity?
Does it have faulty historical information?
Does it contradict other more authoratative works of inspiration?
Does it contradict itself?
What is the "spirit" and "tenor" of the writing?
What is in the heart and mind of the writer as he writes?
Who is his audience?
What does he hope to effect by the publishing of his writing?
Does the book "breathe" inspiration and divinity?
Can you sense the divine profoundness and style of the writings?
"And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, I the LORD will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream." (Numbers 12: 6 KJV)
The authors of inspiration meet this test. Does the author of Esther?
"Then the LORD said unto me, The prophets prophesy lies in my name: I sent them not, neither have I commanded them, neither spake unto them: they prophesy unto you a false vision and divination, and a thing of nought, and the deceit of their heart." (Jeremiah 14: 14 KJV)
The false prophets are the uninspired ones. They spoke not by the Lord and Holy Spirit, were not "moved" and "inspired" by him, but spoke by their own moving and by their own authority and wisdom. Their teachings originated in their evil hearts and minds, not with God's inspiration.
"Thus saith the LORD of hosts, Hearken not unto the words of the prophets that prophesy unto you: they make you vain: they speak a vision of their own heart, and not out of the mouth of the LORD...How long shall this be in the heart of the prophets that prophesy lies? yea, they are prophets of the deceit of their own heart." (Jeremiah 23: 16, 26 KJV)
Notice how the words of the false prophets, and false writers of "scripture," are they whose message comes "from" their own selves, not "from" the Lord. Lack of a valid source to the revelation is a reason to reject the pretended revelation.
"For thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Let not your prophets and your diviners, that be in the midst of you, deceive you, neither hearken to your dreams which ye cause to be dreamed." (Jeremiah 29: 8 KJV)
This is a clear example of "private interpretation" and of what it means for a "prophecy (revelation) of scripture" to "come by" the "will of man," and not "by" the "will of God."
"Son of man, prophesy against the prophets of Israel that prophesy, and say thou unto them that prophesy out of their own hearts, Hear ye the word of the LORD; Thus saith the Lord GOD; Woe unto the foolish prophets, that follow their own spirit, and have seen nothing!" (Ezekiel 13: 2, 3 KJV)
Here again is a picture of an "uninspired" prophet and of his prophecy and pretended revelations, and of his presumed authority and inspiration, of his "private interpretation" and "self revelation."
"Then answered Amos, and said to Amaziah, I was no prophet, neither was I a prophet's son; but I was an herdman, and a gatherer of sycomore fruit: And the LORD took me as I followed the flock, and the LORD said unto me, Go, prophesy unto my people Israel." (Amos 7: 14, 15 KJV)
Here we see how Amos did arrive at the knowledge of God, as expressed in his writings, in his divine "interpretations" or "explanations" of things, and see how it was not what originated in his own heart, by his own will, and by his own moving of himself, and how it rather originated with God, being that which God gave it to him in a miraculous manner, by revelation, and so not the result of Amos' own self ambitions and educational achievements.
"For they that dwell at Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they knew him not, nor yet the voices of the prophets which are read every sabbath day, they have fulfilled them in condemning him." (Acts 13: 27 KJV)
Here "scripture" is defined as being part of the collection of writings which the Jews ready weekly and which were messianic. Also, "scripture" is defined as being the production of "prophets." Every Old Testament book is the "voice" of a "prophet" of God. Was the author of Esther a prophet of God?
"But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets." (Acts 24: 14 KJV)
Notice how Paul believes only those books that are either of Moses or of a prophet are authoratative and inspired.
"To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins." (Acts 10: 43 KJV)
What a canonical rule for judging inspiration! What does the book, claiming inspiration, speak about? Does it speak of God and Christ? Of the forgiveness of sins? Of faith?
Privacy or Origination Test
This rule would include the issue of divine "authority."
Those who wrote scripture were not self authorized men, or men who were authorized by groups of uninspired men, but men who were chosen and appointed by God, men who were sent and authorized by him, and taught by him what to say and teach.
"We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." (II Peter 1: 19-21 KJV)
In discerning inspiration and canonicity, we should ask such questions as these:
Who authored the book?
What was the content, subject, or main teachings of the book?
How did the book come into being?
What of its origination?
Is it "prophetic"?
Does it reveal the nature and workings of God and Christ?
Does it instruct in righteousness and doctrine?
All Apocryphal books are in the category of books that arose from the "will of man," being an artful and cunning device, meant to deceive. The books of genuine inspiration, however, arise from the "will of God," by the working of his Spirit.
The phrase, "private interpretation," translates the Greek phrase, idios epilupsis. Idios is defined as, “pertaining to one’s own self” or “personal.” Epilupsis is defined as an unloosing and is used metaphorically in this verse to mean interpretation, as in loosening the meaning of the verse.
"Who is as the wise man? and who knoweth the interpretation of a thing? a man's wisdom maketh his face to shine, and the boldness of his face shall be changed." (Ecclesiastes 8: 1 KJV)
Wise ones, or "scientists," are those who are able to "explain a thing," to "make sense of things," to "interpret" things in nature.
Scripture is not like other books of knowledge. It is not like a book on Mathematics or Physics or Chemistry. These latter books owe their immediate origin, their "interpretations" or "explanations" of things, to the will and learning of a man, to his own initiative in education and learning, and to his own skillful advances in it.
But, the things the prophets and holy men wrote about were not truths that they "figured out" by the use of reason, logic, and scientific discovery and investigation.
Thus, an inspired book is not only a "prophetic" book, but a book that is "revelation," that which is directly imparted to the mind and understanding of the chosen seer, and which is truth that he could not have "figured out" or "discovered" by ordinary methods of learning.
The books of inspiration are not like works of secular knowledge.
Books of secular knowledge are produced by self willed authors who made a choice to learn all about a topic and then write something profound about it. They are therefore the results of a man's will and efforts, of his own scheming and planning, of his own efforts at discovery.
Can we read the books of Scripture, the books of the Apocrypha, and all the other many books professing inspiration, and discern whether they originated with the will of man, versus the will of God? And discern whether it is knowledge given miraculously by revelation, or knowledged acquired by the efforts of human discovery?
Did the Book of Esther originate with the will of an uninspired Jewish man or with the will of God? Did the Book of Esther give a man's uninspired views of things, or the views of God? We might ask the same of the writings of Solomon.
Look at how Paul the apostle and prophet received his revelation and inspiration. He wrote:
"But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." (Galatians 1: 11, 12 KJV)
Here Paul argues against his prophetic writings being a violation of Peter's rule about "private interpretation," about "self production." What was the "source" of Paul's gospel knowledge and revelation? Was it at the feet of Gamaliel? Was it in the schools of the Rabbis? No, no. It was the gift of miraculous revelation of truth.
To know that a book is thus a "revelation" from God, and not a self production, requires that we know something about the author and how he received his revelation.
Are there any books of the Bible where we do not know who are the authors and the manner in which they received their divine communications?
Peter says that the authors of the inspired prophecies were "holy men." Do we know that the author of the Book of Esther was a "holy man" who was "moved by the Holy Ghost"?
No "private interpretation" probably includes the idea that no particular prophecy, or book of prophecy and inspiration, is to stand by itself, but should show harmony, if not direct stated support, with other prophets and inspired books.
Paul gave us the rule of "comparing spiritual things with spiritual," which would include the hermenuetic rule to "compare scripture with scripture." (I Cor. 2: 13 KJV)
Does the book lack authenticity?
Does it have faulty historical information?
Does it contradict other more authoratative works of inspiration?
Does it contradict itself?
What is the "spirit" and "tenor" of the writing?
What is in the heart and mind of the writer as he writes?
Who is his audience?
What does he hope to effect by the publishing of his writing?
Does the book "breathe" inspiration and divinity?
Can you sense the divine profoundness and style of the writings?
"And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, I the LORD will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream." (Numbers 12: 6 KJV)
The authors of inspiration meet this test. Does the author of Esther?
"Then the LORD said unto me, The prophets prophesy lies in my name: I sent them not, neither have I commanded them, neither spake unto them: they prophesy unto you a false vision and divination, and a thing of nought, and the deceit of their heart." (Jeremiah 14: 14 KJV)
The false prophets are the uninspired ones. They spoke not by the Lord and Holy Spirit, were not "moved" and "inspired" by him, but spoke by their own moving and by their own authority and wisdom. Their teachings originated in their evil hearts and minds, not with God's inspiration.
"Thus saith the LORD of hosts, Hearken not unto the words of the prophets that prophesy unto you: they make you vain: they speak a vision of their own heart, and not out of the mouth of the LORD...How long shall this be in the heart of the prophets that prophesy lies? yea, they are prophets of the deceit of their own heart." (Jeremiah 23: 16, 26 KJV)
Notice how the words of the false prophets, and false writers of "scripture," are they whose message comes "from" their own selves, not "from" the Lord. Lack of a valid source to the revelation is a reason to reject the pretended revelation.
"For thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Let not your prophets and your diviners, that be in the midst of you, deceive you, neither hearken to your dreams which ye cause to be dreamed." (Jeremiah 29: 8 KJV)
This is a clear example of "private interpretation" and of what it means for a "prophecy (revelation) of scripture" to "come by" the "will of man," and not "by" the "will of God."
"Son of man, prophesy against the prophets of Israel that prophesy, and say thou unto them that prophesy out of their own hearts, Hear ye the word of the LORD; Thus saith the Lord GOD; Woe unto the foolish prophets, that follow their own spirit, and have seen nothing!" (Ezekiel 13: 2, 3 KJV)
Here again is a picture of an "uninspired" prophet and of his prophecy and pretended revelations, and of his presumed authority and inspiration, of his "private interpretation" and "self revelation."
"Then answered Amos, and said to Amaziah, I was no prophet, neither was I a prophet's son; but I was an herdman, and a gatherer of sycomore fruit: And the LORD took me as I followed the flock, and the LORD said unto me, Go, prophesy unto my people Israel." (Amos 7: 14, 15 KJV)
Here we see how Amos did arrive at the knowledge of God, as expressed in his writings, in his divine "interpretations" or "explanations" of things, and see how it was not what originated in his own heart, by his own will, and by his own moving of himself, and how it rather originated with God, being that which God gave it to him in a miraculous manner, by revelation, and so not the result of Amos' own self ambitions and educational achievements.
"For they that dwell at Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they knew him not, nor yet the voices of the prophets which are read every sabbath day, they have fulfilled them in condemning him." (Acts 13: 27 KJV)
Here "scripture" is defined as being part of the collection of writings which the Jews ready weekly and which were messianic. Also, "scripture" is defined as being the production of "prophets." Every Old Testament book is the "voice" of a "prophet" of God. Was the author of Esther a prophet of God?
"But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets." (Acts 24: 14 KJV)
Notice how Paul believes only those books that are either of Moses or of a prophet are authoratative and inspired.
"To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins." (Acts 10: 43 KJV)
What a canonical rule for judging inspiration! What does the book, claiming inspiration, speak about? Does it speak of God and Christ? Of the forgiveness of sins? Of faith?
Canonical Rule # 3 (cont.)
Three rules have been given thus far for determining inspiration and canonicity.
1) The Messianic rule (test)
2) The Profitability rule (test)
3) The Privacy rule (test)
A popular conservantive web site gives these rules for "Tests of Canonicity."
"Specific tests to consider canonicity may be recognized."
(1) Did the book indicate God was speaking through the writer and that it was considered authoritative?
(2) Was the human author recognized as a spokesman of God, that is, was he a prophet or did he have the prophetic gift?
(3) Was the book historically accurate? Did it reflect a record of actual facts?
There are some 250 quotes from Old Testament books in the New Testament. None are from the Apocrypha. All Old Testament books are quoted except Esther, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon."
http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=697
Citations from another bible writer, particularly from a prophet, apostle, or from Christ, is included under canon rule #3, under Peter's rule that said no inspired prophetic work was of any "private interpretation." This will then be an enlargement upon that rule.
No inspired writing (or verbal message) by a prophet (or apostle, but really, all the apostles were prophets too) was capable of self production but was immediate revelation of God. It had to have "come by" the "will of God" and not "come by" the "will of man." The writing must have "come by" the "moving" of God's "Spirit," and not "come by" a self "moving" spirit of man.
Inspiration connects with authority and authority with revelation. A "scripture" or "inspired writing" must have God and his miraculous working as the sole cause of the revelation in order for the "source" to be valid.
According to Peter, if the source be not with God and his will and moving, then it is what is a "personal interpretation," a mere scruple that has no substance of truth to it, and what has arisen from a man's own spirit and imagination.
This third rule for judging canonicity and inspiration, or divine authority for written works of professed revelation, includes the confirmatory "interpretations" and "attestations" given by the prophets themselves to other fellow prophets and to their writings, and of Christ and his apostles, and of those who were companions of the apostles, and recgonized leaders among the apostles.
This third rule for inspiration and canonicity, as I have said, includes the "prophetic rule."
Peter referred to all of Old Testament scripture as being prophetic, being revelation from a God sent prophet.
Hebrews 1:1 says, "God, who at various times and in different ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets. . . ."
Did God speak to the fathers by Mordecai (the supposed author of Esther)? Can we call Esther the prophecy of Mordecai?
What prophecy or revelation is in the Book of Esther?
"To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins." (Acts 10: 43 KJV)
What a canonical rule for judging inspiration! What does the book, claiming inspiration, speak about? Does it speak of God and Christ? Of the forgiveness of sins? Of faith?
Does the Book of Esther give this "witness" that all the prophets give? Is Esther a "prophetic" book?
"...unto them were committed the oracles of God." (Romans 3: 2 KJV)
What are the "oracles" of God? Are all books of a particular "bible" the "oracles" of God? Can we call a particular book, claiming inspiration and canonicity, the "oracles" of God?
Can the Book of Esther be properly called the "oracles" or God? When it has no utterances of God in it?
The three rules I have presented thus far are a trinity that, when taken together and applied, leads one to a correct faith knowledge of inspiration.
1) The Messianic rule (test)
2) The Profitability rule (test)
3) The Privacy rule (test)
A popular conservantive web site gives these rules for "Tests of Canonicity."
"Specific tests to consider canonicity may be recognized."
(1) Did the book indicate God was speaking through the writer and that it was considered authoritative?
(2) Was the human author recognized as a spokesman of God, that is, was he a prophet or did he have the prophetic gift?
(3) Was the book historically accurate? Did it reflect a record of actual facts?
There are some 250 quotes from Old Testament books in the New Testament. None are from the Apocrypha. All Old Testament books are quoted except Esther, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon."
http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=697
Citations from another bible writer, particularly from a prophet, apostle, or from Christ, is included under canon rule #3, under Peter's rule that said no inspired prophetic work was of any "private interpretation." This will then be an enlargement upon that rule.
No inspired writing (or verbal message) by a prophet (or apostle, but really, all the apostles were prophets too) was capable of self production but was immediate revelation of God. It had to have "come by" the "will of God" and not "come by" the "will of man." The writing must have "come by" the "moving" of God's "Spirit," and not "come by" a self "moving" spirit of man.
Inspiration connects with authority and authority with revelation. A "scripture" or "inspired writing" must have God and his miraculous working as the sole cause of the revelation in order for the "source" to be valid.
According to Peter, if the source be not with God and his will and moving, then it is what is a "personal interpretation," a mere scruple that has no substance of truth to it, and what has arisen from a man's own spirit and imagination.
This third rule for judging canonicity and inspiration, or divine authority for written works of professed revelation, includes the confirmatory "interpretations" and "attestations" given by the prophets themselves to other fellow prophets and to their writings, and of Christ and his apostles, and of those who were companions of the apostles, and recgonized leaders among the apostles.
This third rule for inspiration and canonicity, as I have said, includes the "prophetic rule."
Peter referred to all of Old Testament scripture as being prophetic, being revelation from a God sent prophet.
Hebrews 1:1 says, "God, who at various times and in different ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets. . . ."
Did God speak to the fathers by Mordecai (the supposed author of Esther)? Can we call Esther the prophecy of Mordecai?
What prophecy or revelation is in the Book of Esther?
"To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins." (Acts 10: 43 KJV)
What a canonical rule for judging inspiration! What does the book, claiming inspiration, speak about? Does it speak of God and Christ? Of the forgiveness of sins? Of faith?
Does the Book of Esther give this "witness" that all the prophets give? Is Esther a "prophetic" book?
"...unto them were committed the oracles of God." (Romans 3: 2 KJV)
What are the "oracles" of God? Are all books of a particular "bible" the "oracles" of God? Can we call a particular book, claiming inspiration and canonicity, the "oracles" of God?
Can the Book of Esther be properly called the "oracles" or God? When it has no utterances of God in it?
The three rules I have presented thus far are a trinity that, when taken together and applied, leads one to a correct faith knowledge of inspiration.
Canonical Rule # 4
Does the professed sacred scroll contradict itself? Does it have errors? Doctrinal, theological, historical, grammatical, etc.?
Jesus said "the scripture cannot be broken." (John 10: 35 KJV)
"The scripture(s)" is synonymous with "word(s) of God." And, the "word of God" is the same as "word of truth." (II Timothy 2: 15 KJV)
"And now, O Lord GOD, thou art that God, and thy words be true, and thou hast promised this goodness unto thy servant." (II Samuel 7: 28 KJV)
"Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever." (Psalm 119: 160 KJV)
"But as God is true, our word toward you was not yea and nay." (II Corinthians 1: 18 KJV)
"And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful." (Revelation 21: 5 KJV)
"As for God, his way is perfect; the word of the LORD is flawless." (II Samuel 22: 31 NIV)
"The word of the Lord is flawless." (Psalms 12:6 NIV)
"As for God, his way is perfect; the word of the LORD is flawless." (Psalm 18: 30 NIV)
"Every word of God is flawless." (Proverbs 30: 5 NIV)
"For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe." (I Thessalonians 2: 13 KJV)
The inspired books are infallible and without error. They are inerrant. Though there are seeming contradictions in the holy books, yet these are not real, but may be shown to harmonize.
Not only must an inspired scroll not contradict other sacred books, but it must not contradict itself or contain other verifiable errors in fact. Though the bible is no history or geography book, yet the things it says about these subjects are truthful and errorless.
Jesus said "the scripture cannot be broken." (John 10: 35 KJV)
"The scripture(s)" is synonymous with "word(s) of God." And, the "word of God" is the same as "word of truth." (II Timothy 2: 15 KJV)
"And now, O Lord GOD, thou art that God, and thy words be true, and thou hast promised this goodness unto thy servant." (II Samuel 7: 28 KJV)
"Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever." (Psalm 119: 160 KJV)
"But as God is true, our word toward you was not yea and nay." (II Corinthians 1: 18 KJV)
"And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful." (Revelation 21: 5 KJV)
"As for God, his way is perfect; the word of the LORD is flawless." (II Samuel 22: 31 NIV)
"The word of the Lord is flawless." (Psalms 12:6 NIV)
"As for God, his way is perfect; the word of the LORD is flawless." (Psalm 18: 30 NIV)
"Every word of God is flawless." (Proverbs 30: 5 NIV)
"For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe." (I Thessalonians 2: 13 KJV)
The inspired books are infallible and without error. They are inerrant. Though there are seeming contradictions in the holy books, yet these are not real, but may be shown to harmonize.
Not only must an inspired scroll not contradict other sacred books, but it must not contradict itself or contain other verifiable errors in fact. Though the bible is no history or geography book, yet the things it says about these subjects are truthful and errorless.
Canonical Rule # 5
Thus far we have discovered four cardinal rules that determine inspiration and canonicity.
1. Messianic Test - does it witness to Christ per John 5: 39, Luke 24: 27, 44?
2. Profitability Test - Does it do the things scripture is said to do per II Tim. 3: 15, 16?
3. Origination Test - Did it originate by divine initiative and revelation? Is it cited by other scripture writers and consistent with other scripture? Is it from a prophetic or apostolic source? (Per II Peter 1: 20?)
4. Consistency or Truth Test - is it free of error and contradiction? (Per John 10: 35?)
The "oracles" of God
5. Does it contain the oracles or utterances of God per Rom. 3: 2?
"This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us." (Acts 7: 38 KJV)
"What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God." (Romans 3: 1, 2 KJV)
"For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God..." (Hebrews 5: 12 KJV)
"If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God..." (I Peter 4: 11 KJV)
Strictly speaking, no accepted inspired book of the Bible contains only the oracles of God. For instance, all of the Book of Genesis is not the direct verbal utterances of God, or his "oracles." It does contain God's verbal utterances. Yea, the very first oracle is the one given to Adam and Eve, which announced to them the coming "seed of the woman" and his victory over the "seed of the serpent." But, the other parts of Genesis are the words of Moses in commentary, explanantion, and narration. Yes, these are true and inspired, but they are not the utterances of God.
Genesis is inspired because it contains the oracles or very words of God spoken to a prophet by the mouth of God. Thus the prophets were often recorded as saying, "the word of the Lord came unto me" or "thus says the Lord," or "these be the words God has given me," etc.; And, where these divine utterances are recorded, they become his written oracles. But, strictly speaking, they are different from other parts that are not the express utterances of God. Can we say that the chronologies and genealogies in the Old Testament books are the utterances or oracles of God? We can say they are truthful and accurate, as a result of God's providence, but can we say they are the "oracles" of God? No, clearly not.
But, if a book contain an "oracle" or "thus says the Lord," or other such markers of inspiration and revelation, then it passes this test of inspiration and canonicity.
Does the Book of Esther contain any oracle of God?
1. Messianic Test - does it witness to Christ per John 5: 39, Luke 24: 27, 44?
2. Profitability Test - Does it do the things scripture is said to do per II Tim. 3: 15, 16?
3. Origination Test - Did it originate by divine initiative and revelation? Is it cited by other scripture writers and consistent with other scripture? Is it from a prophetic or apostolic source? (Per II Peter 1: 20?)
4. Consistency or Truth Test - is it free of error and contradiction? (Per John 10: 35?)
The "oracles" of God
5. Does it contain the oracles or utterances of God per Rom. 3: 2?
"This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us." (Acts 7: 38 KJV)
"What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God." (Romans 3: 1, 2 KJV)
"For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God..." (Hebrews 5: 12 KJV)
"If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God..." (I Peter 4: 11 KJV)
Strictly speaking, no accepted inspired book of the Bible contains only the oracles of God. For instance, all of the Book of Genesis is not the direct verbal utterances of God, or his "oracles." It does contain God's verbal utterances. Yea, the very first oracle is the one given to Adam and Eve, which announced to them the coming "seed of the woman" and his victory over the "seed of the serpent." But, the other parts of Genesis are the words of Moses in commentary, explanantion, and narration. Yes, these are true and inspired, but they are not the utterances of God.
Genesis is inspired because it contains the oracles or very words of God spoken to a prophet by the mouth of God. Thus the prophets were often recorded as saying, "the word of the Lord came unto me" or "thus says the Lord," or "these be the words God has given me," etc.; And, where these divine utterances are recorded, they become his written oracles. But, strictly speaking, they are different from other parts that are not the express utterances of God. Can we say that the chronologies and genealogies in the Old Testament books are the utterances or oracles of God? We can say they are truthful and accurate, as a result of God's providence, but can we say they are the "oracles" of God? No, clearly not.
But, if a book contain an "oracle" or "thus says the Lord," or other such markers of inspiration and revelation, then it passes this test of inspiration and canonicity.
Does the Book of Esther contain any oracle of God?
Athanasius Canon List
Athanasius on the Canon
Or, more particularly, "Concerning the Divine Scriptures."
"In proceeding to make mention of these things, I shall adopt, to commend my undertaking, the pattern of Luke the evangelist, saying on my own account, Forasmuch as some have taken in hand to reduce into order for themselves the books termed Apocryphal, and to mix them up with the divinely inspired Scripture, concerning which we have been fully persuaded, as they who from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word, delivered to the Fathers; it seemed good to me also, having been urged thereto by true brethren, and having learned from the beginning, to set before you the books included in the Canon, and handed down, and accredited as divine; to the end that anyone who has fallen into error may condemn those who have led them astray; and that he who has continued steadfast in purity may again rejoice, having these things brought to his remembrance."
"There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews; their respective order and names being as follows. The first is Genesis, then Exodus, next Leviticus, after that Numbers, and then Deuteronomy. Following these there is Joshua the son of Nun, then Judges, then Ruth. And again, after these four books of Kings, the first and second being reckoned as one book, and so likewise the third and fourth as one book. And again, the first and second of the Chronicles are reckoned as one book. Again Ezra, the first and second are similarly one book. After these there is the book of Psalms, then the Proverbs, next Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. Job follows, then the Prophets, the Twelve [minor prophets] being reckoned as one book. Then Isaiah, one book, then Jeremiah with Baruch, Lamentations and the Epistle, one book; afterwards Ezekiel and Daniel, each one book. Thus far constitutes the Old Testament."
See here for the above citation
Notice how the "canon" of Athanasius excludes the Book of Esther and all the Apocryphal books, except for Baruch and "the Epistle" of Jeremiah, which he adds to the one book of Jeremiah and Lamentations.
Notice that Athanasius shows how his "canon" had great authority in the Christian world at the time of his writing it (A.D. 367), being what had a long tradition, and what must have been the majority opinion during his time. It is as much a snapshot of his times as is his "creed" on the Trinity ("Athanasian creed").
Thus, it is false to say that the Book of Esther has always been accepted by Christians (or Jews for that matter) for the first centuries!
Or, more particularly, "Concerning the Divine Scriptures."
"In proceeding to make mention of these things, I shall adopt, to commend my undertaking, the pattern of Luke the evangelist, saying on my own account, Forasmuch as some have taken in hand to reduce into order for themselves the books termed Apocryphal, and to mix them up with the divinely inspired Scripture, concerning which we have been fully persuaded, as they who from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word, delivered to the Fathers; it seemed good to me also, having been urged thereto by true brethren, and having learned from the beginning, to set before you the books included in the Canon, and handed down, and accredited as divine; to the end that anyone who has fallen into error may condemn those who have led them astray; and that he who has continued steadfast in purity may again rejoice, having these things brought to his remembrance."
"There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews; their respective order and names being as follows. The first is Genesis, then Exodus, next Leviticus, after that Numbers, and then Deuteronomy. Following these there is Joshua the son of Nun, then Judges, then Ruth. And again, after these four books of Kings, the first and second being reckoned as one book, and so likewise the third and fourth as one book. And again, the first and second of the Chronicles are reckoned as one book. Again Ezra, the first and second are similarly one book. After these there is the book of Psalms, then the Proverbs, next Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. Job follows, then the Prophets, the Twelve [minor prophets] being reckoned as one book. Then Isaiah, one book, then Jeremiah with Baruch, Lamentations and the Epistle, one book; afterwards Ezekiel and Daniel, each one book. Thus far constitutes the Old Testament."
See here for the above citation
Notice how the "canon" of Athanasius excludes the Book of Esther and all the Apocryphal books, except for Baruch and "the Epistle" of Jeremiah, which he adds to the one book of Jeremiah and Lamentations.
Notice that Athanasius shows how his "canon" had great authority in the Christian world at the time of his writing it (A.D. 367), being what had a long tradition, and what must have been the majority opinion during his time. It is as much a snapshot of his times as is his "creed" on the Trinity ("Athanasian creed").
Thus, it is false to say that the Book of Esther has always been accepted by Christians (or Jews for that matter) for the first centuries!
Luther & Calvin on the Canon
Luther's final principle for canonicity: "That which does not teach Christ is still not apostolic..."
"The French Confession of 1559, which Calvin helped write, noted: "We know these books to be canonical, and the sure rule of our faith, not so much by the common accord and consent of the Church as by the testimony and inward illumination of the Holy Spirit, which enables us to distinguish them from other ecclesiastical books."
("THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE" by Curt Daniel)
here
"The French Confession of 1559, which Calvin helped write, noted: "We know these books to be canonical, and the sure rule of our faith, not so much by the common accord and consent of the Church as by the testimony and inward illumination of the Holy Spirit, which enables us to distinguish them from other ecclesiastical books."
("THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE" by Curt Daniel)
here
Calvin on Esther
A writer correctly affirmed:
"Luther and Calvin left no commentaries on Esther..."
here
Another writer says:
"John Calvin to never have preached the book."
See here
Another writer, a Reformed writer, wrote:
"As far as we can tell, there were no commentaries written on the book of Esther for the first seven centuries of the Church. And John Calvin, as far as we know, never preached on Esther or wrote a commentary on it. So it seems that people did have a problem with what to make of Esther."
See here
We know Luther rejected the inspiration and canonicity of the Book of Esther. Wrote one author:
"In his correspondence with Erasmus on the issue of free choice, Luther expressed his rejection on the canonicity of Esther. He grouped Esther with Ecclesiasticus, Judith, two books of Esdras (1 Esdras and 2 Esdras), Susanna and (Bel and) Dragon.
The first is that from Ecclesiasticus 15[:14-17]: “God made man from the beginning, and left him in the hand of his own counsel. He added his commandments and precepts. If thou wilt observe the commandments and keep acceptable fidelity forever, they shall preserve thee. He hath set water and fire before thee; stretch forth thine hand for which thou wilt. Before man is life and death, good and evil; that which he shall choose shall be given him.” Although I could rightly reject this book, for the time being I accept it so as not to waste time by getting involved in a dispute about the books received in the Hebrew canon. For you [Erasmus] poke more than a little sarcastic fun at this when you compare Proverbs and The Song of Solomon (which with a sneering innuendo you call the “Love Song”) with the two books of Esdras, Judith, the story of Susanna and the Dragon, and Esther (which despite their inclusion of it in the canon deserves more than all the rest in my judgment to be regarded as noncanonical)." (Luther’s Works, Vol. 33, page 110)
"In one of his Table Talk, Luther was reported of saying: ‘I hate Esther and 2 Maccabees so much that I wish they did not exist; they contain too much Judaism and no little heathen vice." (quoted from F.F. Bruce: The Canon of Scripture, page 101)."
See here
The French Confession of 1559 lists the book of Esther. This confession was not objected to by Calvin. It appears that Calvin had his doubts about the book, but did not feel that it was an issue that demanded his thunderous writings.
"Luther and Calvin left no commentaries on Esther..."
here
Another writer says:
"John Calvin to never have preached the book."
See here
Another writer, a Reformed writer, wrote:
"As far as we can tell, there were no commentaries written on the book of Esther for the first seven centuries of the Church. And John Calvin, as far as we know, never preached on Esther or wrote a commentary on it. So it seems that people did have a problem with what to make of Esther."
See here
We know Luther rejected the inspiration and canonicity of the Book of Esther. Wrote one author:
"In his correspondence with Erasmus on the issue of free choice, Luther expressed his rejection on the canonicity of Esther. He grouped Esther with Ecclesiasticus, Judith, two books of Esdras (1 Esdras and 2 Esdras), Susanna and (Bel and) Dragon.
The first is that from Ecclesiasticus 15[:14-17]: “God made man from the beginning, and left him in the hand of his own counsel. He added his commandments and precepts. If thou wilt observe the commandments and keep acceptable fidelity forever, they shall preserve thee. He hath set water and fire before thee; stretch forth thine hand for which thou wilt. Before man is life and death, good and evil; that which he shall choose shall be given him.” Although I could rightly reject this book, for the time being I accept it so as not to waste time by getting involved in a dispute about the books received in the Hebrew canon. For you [Erasmus] poke more than a little sarcastic fun at this when you compare Proverbs and The Song of Solomon (which with a sneering innuendo you call the “Love Song”) with the two books of Esdras, Judith, the story of Susanna and the Dragon, and Esther (which despite their inclusion of it in the canon deserves more than all the rest in my judgment to be regarded as noncanonical)." (Luther’s Works, Vol. 33, page 110)
"In one of his Table Talk, Luther was reported of saying: ‘I hate Esther and 2 Maccabees so much that I wish they did not exist; they contain too much Judaism and no little heathen vice." (quoted from F.F. Bruce: The Canon of Scripture, page 101)."
See here
The French Confession of 1559 lists the book of Esther. This confession was not objected to by Calvin. It appears that Calvin had his doubts about the book, but did not feel that it was an issue that demanded his thunderous writings.
Edersheim on Esther
"The other objections to canonicity apply exclusively to the third division of the Old Testament, the Kethubhim or Hagiographa. Here even the Book of Proverbs seems at one time to have been called in question (Ab. R. Nathan 1), partly on the ground of its secular contents, and partly as containing 'supposed contradictory statements' (Shabb. 30 b). Very strong doubts were raised on the Book of Ecclesiastes (Yad. iii. 5; Eduy. v. 3), first, on that ground of its contradiction to some of the Psalms (Shabb. 30 a); secondly, on that of its inconsistencies (Shabb. 30 b); and thirdly, because it seemed to countenance the denial of another life, and, as in Eccl. xi 1, 3, 9, other heretical views (Vayyikra R. 28, at the beginning). But these objections were finally answered by great ingenuity, while an appeal to Eccl. xii. 12, 13, was regarded as removing the difficulty about another life and future rewards and punishments. And as the contradictions in Ecclesiastes had been conciliated, it hopefully argued deeper study would equally remove those in the Book of Proverbs (Shabb. 30 b). Still, the controversy about the canonicity of Ecclesiastes continue so late as the second century of our era (comp. Yad. iii. 5). That grave doubts also existed about the Song of Solomon, appears even from the terms in which its canonicity is insisted upon (Yad. u. s.), not to speak of express statements in opposition to it (Ab. de. R. Nathan 1). Even when by an allegorical interpretation it was shown to be the 'wisdom of all wisdom,' the most precious gem, the holy of holies, tradition still ascribed its composition to the early years of Solomon (Shir haSh. R. 1). It had been his first work, and was followed by Proverbs, and finally by Ecclesiastes. But perhaps the greatest objections were those taken to the Book of Esther (Meg. 7 a). It excited the enmity of other nations against Israel, and it was outside the canon. Grave doubts prevailed whether it was canonical or inspired by the Holy Spirit (Meg. u. s.; Yoma 29 a)." (Appendix V)
See here for citation
See here for citation
Esther - History or Fiction?
Improbabilities of the Story
"1. It is now generally recognized that the Ahasuerus, mentioned in Esther, in Ezra iv. 6, and in Dan. ix. 1, is identical with the Persian king known as Xerxes (Ξέρζης, "Khshayarha"), who reigned from 485 to 464 B.C.; but it is impossible to find any historical parallel for a Jewish consort to this king. Some critics formerly identified Esther with Amastris (Ionic, "Amestris"), who is mentioned by Herodotus (viii. 114, ix. 110; compare Ctesias, 20) as the queen of Xerxes at the time when Esther, according to Esth. ii. 6, became the wife of Ahasuerus. Amastris, however, was the daughter of a Persian general and, therefore, not a Jewess. Furthermore, the facts of Amastris' reign do not agree with the Biblical story of Esther. Besides all this, it is impossible to connect the two names etymologically. M'Clymont (Hastings, "Dict. Bible," i. 772) thinks it possible that Esther and Vashti may have been merely the chief favorites of the harem, and are consequently not mentioned in parallel historical accounts.
It is very doubtful whether the haughty Persian aristocracy, always highly influential with the monarch, would have tolerated the choice of a Jewish queen and a Jewish prime minister (Mordecai), to the exclusion of their own class—not to speak of the improbability of the prime ministry of Haman the Agagite, who preceded Mordecai. "Agagite" can only be interpreted here as synonymous with "Amalekite" (compare "Agag," king of the Amalekites, the foe of Saul, I Sam. xv. 8, 20, 32; Num. xxiv. 7; see Agag). Oppert's attempt to connect the term "Agagite" with "Agaz," a Median tribe mentioned by Sargon, can not be taken seriously. The term, as applied to Haman, is a gross anachronism; and the author of Esther no doubt used it intentionally as a fitting name for an enemy of Israel. In the Greek version of Esther, Haman is called a Macedonian.
2. Perhaps the most striking point against the historical value of the Book of Esther is the remarkable decree permitting the Jews to massacre their enemies and fellow subjects during a period of two days. If such an extraordinary event had actually taken place, should not some confirmation of the Biblical account have been found in other records? Again, could the king have withstood the attitude of the native nobles, who would hardly have looked upon such an occurrence without offering armed resistance to their feeble and capricious sovereign? A similar objection may be made against the probability of the first edict permitting Haman the Amalekite to massacre all the Jews. Would there not be some confirmation of it in parallel records? This whole section bears the stamp of free invention.
3. Extraordinary also is the statement that Esther did not reveal her Jewish origin when she was chosen queen (ii. 10), although it was known that she came from the house of Mordecai, who was a professing Jew (iii. 4), and that she maintained a constant communication with him from the harem (iv. 4-17).
4. Hardly less striking is the description of the Jews by Haman as being "dispersed among the people in all provinces of thy kingdom" and as disobedient "to the king's laws" (iii. 8). This certainly applies more to the Greek than to the Persian period, in which the Diaspora had not yet begun and during which there is no record of rebellious tendencies on the part of the Jews against the royal authority.
5. Finally, in this connection, the author's knowledge of Persian customs is not in keeping with contemporary records. The chief conflicting points are as follows:
(a) Mordecai was permitted free access to his cousin in the harem, a state of affairs wholly at variance with Oriental usage, both ancient and modern.
(b) The queen could not send a message to her own husband (!).
(c) The division of the empire into 127 provinces contrasts strangely with the twenty historical Persian satrapies.
(d) The fact that Haman tolerated for a long time Mordecai's refusal to do obeisance is hardly in accordance with the customs of the East. Any native venturing to stand in the presence of a Turkish grand vizier would certainly be severely dealt with without delay.
(e) This very refusal of Mordecai to prostrate himself belongs rather to the Greek than to the earlier Oriental period, when such an act would have involved no personal degradation (compare Gen. xxiii. 7, xxxiii. 3; Herodotus, vii. 136).
(f) Most of the proper names in Esther which are given as Persian appear to be rather of Semitic than of Iranian origin, in spite of Oppert's attempt to explain many of them from the Persian (compare, however, Scheftelowitz, "Arisches im Alten Testament," 1901, i.)."
Probable Date
"In view of all the evidence the authority of the Book of Esther as a historical record must be definitely rejected. Its position in the canon among the Hagiographa or "Ketubim" is the only thing which has induced Orthodox scholars to defend its historical character at all. Even the Jews of the first and second centuries of the common era questioned its right to be included among the canonical books of the Bible (compare Meg. 7a). The author makes no mention whatever of God, to whom, in all the other books of the Old Testament, the deliverance of Israel is ascribed. The only allusion in Esther to religion is the mention of fasting (iv. 16, ix. 31). All this agrees with the theory of a late origin for the book, as it is known, for example, from Ecclesiastes, that the religious spirit had degenerated even in Judea in the Greek period, to which Esther, like Daniel, in all probability belongs."
"Esther could hardly have been written by a contemporary of the Persian empire, because (1) of the exaggerated way in which not only the splendor of the court, but all the events described, are treated (compare the twelve months spent by the maidens in adorning themselves for the king; the feasts of 187 days, etc., all of which point rather to the past than to a contemporary state of affairs); (2) the uncomplimentary details given about a great Persian king, who is mentioned by name, would not have appeared during his dynasty."
From Jewish Encyclopedia
See here
"1. It is now generally recognized that the Ahasuerus, mentioned in Esther, in Ezra iv. 6, and in Dan. ix. 1, is identical with the Persian king known as Xerxes (Ξέρζης, "Khshayarha"), who reigned from 485 to 464 B.C.; but it is impossible to find any historical parallel for a Jewish consort to this king. Some critics formerly identified Esther with Amastris (Ionic, "Amestris"), who is mentioned by Herodotus (viii. 114, ix. 110; compare Ctesias, 20) as the queen of Xerxes at the time when Esther, according to Esth. ii. 6, became the wife of Ahasuerus. Amastris, however, was the daughter of a Persian general and, therefore, not a Jewess. Furthermore, the facts of Amastris' reign do not agree with the Biblical story of Esther. Besides all this, it is impossible to connect the two names etymologically. M'Clymont (Hastings, "Dict. Bible," i. 772) thinks it possible that Esther and Vashti may have been merely the chief favorites of the harem, and are consequently not mentioned in parallel historical accounts.
It is very doubtful whether the haughty Persian aristocracy, always highly influential with the monarch, would have tolerated the choice of a Jewish queen and a Jewish prime minister (Mordecai), to the exclusion of their own class—not to speak of the improbability of the prime ministry of Haman the Agagite, who preceded Mordecai. "Agagite" can only be interpreted here as synonymous with "Amalekite" (compare "Agag," king of the Amalekites, the foe of Saul, I Sam. xv. 8, 20, 32; Num. xxiv. 7; see Agag). Oppert's attempt to connect the term "Agagite" with "Agaz," a Median tribe mentioned by Sargon, can not be taken seriously. The term, as applied to Haman, is a gross anachronism; and the author of Esther no doubt used it intentionally as a fitting name for an enemy of Israel. In the Greek version of Esther, Haman is called a Macedonian.
2. Perhaps the most striking point against the historical value of the Book of Esther is the remarkable decree permitting the Jews to massacre their enemies and fellow subjects during a period of two days. If such an extraordinary event had actually taken place, should not some confirmation of the Biblical account have been found in other records? Again, could the king have withstood the attitude of the native nobles, who would hardly have looked upon such an occurrence without offering armed resistance to their feeble and capricious sovereign? A similar objection may be made against the probability of the first edict permitting Haman the Amalekite to massacre all the Jews. Would there not be some confirmation of it in parallel records? This whole section bears the stamp of free invention.
3. Extraordinary also is the statement that Esther did not reveal her Jewish origin when she was chosen queen (ii. 10), although it was known that she came from the house of Mordecai, who was a professing Jew (iii. 4), and that she maintained a constant communication with him from the harem (iv. 4-17).
4. Hardly less striking is the description of the Jews by Haman as being "dispersed among the people in all provinces of thy kingdom" and as disobedient "to the king's laws" (iii. 8). This certainly applies more to the Greek than to the Persian period, in which the Diaspora had not yet begun and during which there is no record of rebellious tendencies on the part of the Jews against the royal authority.
5. Finally, in this connection, the author's knowledge of Persian customs is not in keeping with contemporary records. The chief conflicting points are as follows:
(a) Mordecai was permitted free access to his cousin in the harem, a state of affairs wholly at variance with Oriental usage, both ancient and modern.
(b) The queen could not send a message to her own husband (!).
(c) The division of the empire into 127 provinces contrasts strangely with the twenty historical Persian satrapies.
(d) The fact that Haman tolerated for a long time Mordecai's refusal to do obeisance is hardly in accordance with the customs of the East. Any native venturing to stand in the presence of a Turkish grand vizier would certainly be severely dealt with without delay.
(e) This very refusal of Mordecai to prostrate himself belongs rather to the Greek than to the earlier Oriental period, when such an act would have involved no personal degradation (compare Gen. xxiii. 7, xxxiii. 3; Herodotus, vii. 136).
(f) Most of the proper names in Esther which are given as Persian appear to be rather of Semitic than of Iranian origin, in spite of Oppert's attempt to explain many of them from the Persian (compare, however, Scheftelowitz, "Arisches im Alten Testament," 1901, i.)."
Probable Date
"In view of all the evidence the authority of the Book of Esther as a historical record must be definitely rejected. Its position in the canon among the Hagiographa or "Ketubim" is the only thing which has induced Orthodox scholars to defend its historical character at all. Even the Jews of the first and second centuries of the common era questioned its right to be included among the canonical books of the Bible (compare Meg. 7a). The author makes no mention whatever of God, to whom, in all the other books of the Old Testament, the deliverance of Israel is ascribed. The only allusion in Esther to religion is the mention of fasting (iv. 16, ix. 31). All this agrees with the theory of a late origin for the book, as it is known, for example, from Ecclesiastes, that the religious spirit had degenerated even in Judea in the Greek period, to which Esther, like Daniel, in all probability belongs."
"Esther could hardly have been written by a contemporary of the Persian empire, because (1) of the exaggerated way in which not only the splendor of the court, but all the events described, are treated (compare the twelve months spent by the maidens in adorning themselves for the king; the feasts of 187 days, etc., all of which point rather to the past than to a contemporary state of affairs); (2) the uncomplimentary details given about a great Persian king, who is mentioned by name, would not have appeared during his dynasty."
From Jewish Encyclopedia
See here
Esther as Comedy
Of prime importance in understanding the Book of Esther is to understand its genre. To understand the genre will aid us in understanding the author, his personage and purpose in writing.
Is the author writing as an historian?
Is the author writing as a prophet?
Is the writer a poet?
Is Esther to be interpreted literally? As a record of historical events?
What is the snapshot of history, or the novella (if that is what it is), relative to the Jews in Persia (after the formal ending of the exile), given by the narrator, intended to accomplish in the readers (or hearers)?
Is the Book of Esther a history of some kind? A historical romance or novella? A "historical narrative"?
Some say that "the book of Esther represents a unique genre in the Hebrew Bible."
The following are some of my notes from sources, all which support the view that the Book of Esther is of the comedy genre.
A writer wrote (emphasis mine):
"Modern biblical scholars recognize in Esther, not an historical event, accurate in every respect, but a kind of historical novel that reflects a historical context, perhaps containing a historical nucleus, or at least describing accurately many characteristics of the Persian empire, 538- 333 B.C. (“a Jewish novella,” NISB Introduction; “a pseudo-historical tale,” JSB; see JB Introduction, which points out how Tobit, Judith and Esther deal quite freely with historical and geographical facts)."
"Adele Berlin adds that Esther is a “comedy” that reflects a carnival atmosphere, where the threat of extermination alternates with scenes of grotesque humor and ferocious irony (2001:XVI-XXII). The carnival atmosphere is evident in the continuous contrasts between extermination threats and the ten banquets/festivals: (1) 1:1-4; (2) 1:5 -8, 10-22; (3) 1:9; (4) 2:18; (5) 5:4-8; (6) 5:7-8 + 6:14-7:10; (7) 8:15-17; (8) 9:16-17,19, the rural banquet; (9) 9:18, the urban banquet in Susa; (10) 9:19, 20-32, the later annual festivals of Purim. David Pleins concludes that Esther tries to “deflate the Persian government’s pretenses.” But, in addition to “provincial/ colonial” Jewish humor directed against the Persian Empire, Esther and Vashti mock vain masculine pretenses of superiority, while the eunuchs, along with confirmed bachelor Mordecai, vindicate the honor of the sexual minorities against heterosexism and the “family values” of the anti-Semitic Haman. Esther is thus a highly subversive book."
"When certain Christians insist that the Scriptures attest to Jesus Christ (John 5:39) but deny that Esther contains evangelical teachings, logically they should advocate for the elimination of Esther from the canon."
http://www.fundotrasovejas.org.ar/ingles/Libros/Subersibe%20hebrew%20bible/Esther.pdf
In her book "Esther as Comedy - Can a book of the Bible be funny?" - By Adele Berlin, the comedic genre of the Book of Esther is well founded.
"Despite the recognition of Esther's comic nature by many scholars, some readers may be surprised or even shocked by this idea. That is because the inclusion of a book in the biblical canon affects the way we perceive the book, or certainly the way it was perceived in premodern times and may still be perceived in traditional circles."
"The very fact that Esther is part of the Bible--a holy book with religious authority and religious teachings--forces us to make it fit the expectations we have about what the Bible is and what kinds of writing it contains. We expect a biblical book to be serious and its message to be congruent with the messages of other biblical books as they have been interpreted by the tradition."
"The comic aspects of the book are not incidental, merely to provide comic relief; they are the essence of the book. They define the genre of the book, and thus set the parameters according to which we should read it. We cannot appreciate the story fully unless we realize that it is meant to be funny."
Defining Humor
"To be sure, it is not always easy to agree on what is funny, especially in an ancient or foreign work. Nonetheless, humor of various types is well-documented in ancient Near Eastern literature, including the Bible. Most readers recognize the humor in Esther 6, when Haman realizes that he must honor the very person whom he wishes to disgrace, and in Esther 7, when the king reacts to seeing Haman fallen on Esther's couch. These scenes are not isolated touches of humor, but are among the most obvious in a book where comedy is the dominant tone."
Esther as Burlesque
"Farce is a type of comedy designed to provoke the audience to simple, hearty laughter. To do so, it employs highly exaggerated or caricatured character types, puts men into impossible and ludicrous situations, and makes free use of broad verbal humor and physical horseplay (M. H. Abrams, A Glossary of Literary Terms, p. 26)."
"We will return to farce, for it best describes Esther, but first another term, burlesque, should be introduced. Burlesque is defined as "an artistic composition... that, for the sake of laughter, vulgarizes lofty material or treats ordinary material with mock dignity" (Random House Dictionary of the English Language, 1987)."
"The lofty material that Esther vulgarizes is the Persian empire and the Persian court. The normally sedate affairs of state, the carefully organized and controlled government structure, the legal system, the efficient postal system, the impressive accumulation of wealth indicative of a successful empire--all of the achievements most praiseworthy in the Persian empire are turned into a burlesque of Persian court life, caricatured by ludicrous edicts delivered by speeding messengers, a foppish royal court with an endless hierarchy of officials, and a wooden adherence to nonsensical laws. A major policy decision, the annihilation of the Jews, is made casually, but a small domestic incident, Vashti's nonappearance at a party, becomes a crisis of state, with all the bureaucratic trappings that can be mustered."
"The term satire has also been applied to Esther, most recently by Ze'ev Weisman (Political Satire in the Bible, pp. 139-163). The line between farce and satire is hard to draw, and there are certainly elements of satire in the book, especially those directed at Persian court life. However, these elements are incidental. The book is not primarily aimed at criticizing the Persian empire or its lifestyle. After all, Ahasuerus emerges stronger at the end of the story than he was at the beginning, and Mordecai and Esther benefit handsomely from all that the Persian court has to offer and become two of its most elite members."
"It is better to understand the description of the Persian court as burlesque rather than as satire; its purpose is comedy, not critique. The burlesque of the Persian court provides the setting for the farce. Burlesque also has the connotation of bawdiness, and as we shall see, the Book of Esther does not lack bawdiness, especially in chapter 1, the chapter in which court life is most on display."
Comic Styles in the Book of Esther
"The style associated with burlesque, farce, and other types of low comedy uses exaggeration, caricature, ludicrous situations, practical jokes, coincidences, improbabilities, and verbal humor. Farce often employs repetition--of scenes, events, and phrases--and inversions or reversals. Most of these features are prominent in Esther and have been identified in the commentaries, but without the realization that they are characteristic of comedy or farce."
"Another characteristic of farce is a misunderstanding in which two characters interpret the same event in different ways (J. M. Davis, Farce, p. 62). Classic examples of this type of misunderstanding occur in chapter six, when Haman mistakenly assumes that the king is planning to honor him, not Mordecai, and in chapter seven, when Ahasuerus misunderstands or pretends to misunderstand why Haman has fallen on Esther's couch. The effect in both cases is extremely comic."
"In farce there is little concern with the subtlety of characterization. Farce tends to use exaggerated or caricatured character types. In Esther, all the characters are types: Ahasuerus is a caricature of a pampered and bumbling monarch, a ruler ruled by his advisors; Esther is a paragon of feminine heroism; Mordecai is the model of a wise courtier; Haman is the archetypal comic villain--a knave, but, in keeping with farce, not darkly evil. We are not meant to feel threatened by the comic villain--not even children are afraid of Haman--nor are we meant to sympathize with him when he meets his deserved end. He is doomed from the start and we enjoy watching his downfall."
"While some of these characters show growth as the story progresses, and their various traits can be probed and described in a manner that makes them seem almost full-fledged characters (Fox has done this very successfully), they nevertheless remain types rather than full-fledged characters. This is not a defect in the narrative technique."
"The characterization in the book is intentional, cleverly done, and adds to the farcical humor. In fact, there is a striking resemblance to the stock characters in Greek comedy: the alazon, an imposter or self-deceiving braggart (Haman); the eiron, the self-deprecatory and understating character whose contest with the alazon is central to the comic plot (Mordecai); and the bomolochos, the buffoon whose antics add an extra comic element (Ahasuerus)."
Unconvincing Plot
"The plot is often unconvincing because one of the characteristics of farce is the rejection of rationality. "Farce enshrines the element of unreason" (J. M. Davis, Farce, p. 23). So the logical impossibility that looms largest--that Mordecai's Jewish identity is publicly known while Esther's remains secret--suddenly ceases to be problematic and becomes one more piece in the highly improbable plot. In fact, the entire plot turns on a succession of unlikely events, like the selection of a queen in a beauty contest and a series of ridiculous but irrevocable edicts."
"The largest interpretive problems melt away if the story is taken as a farce or a comedy associated with a carnival-like festival. The book sets out a threat to the Jews so that the Jewish audience can watch with glee and laugh with relief as it is overcome. The mad and threatening world of the beginning of the story fades into a happy ending where, for a brief moment, the Jews, through their two representatives, can play at wielding the highest power in the great empire to which they were in reality subservient and in which they were an insignificant minority."
"The story, like its accompanying festival, does what comedy and carnival are supposed to do. It confirms the belief that the power at work in the universe favors life and favors the success of the Jews. The Book of Esther affirms that all is right with the world and with the place of the Jews in it."
"Adele Berlin is Professor of Hebrew Bible at the University of Maryland. Copyright 2001 by the Jewish Publication Society."
http://www.myjewishlearning.com/holidays/Purim/TO_Purim_History/Esther_830/Comedy_1455.htm
The Comic Style
"Another successful rhetorical strategy is the combination of a serious theme and a comic style. The threat of the destruction of the Jews is no laughing matter, but the Book of Esther is hilariously funny. The raucous Persian court, with its lavish display of luxury, and its pervasive drinking parties, is not the setting we expect for the impending annihilation of the Jewish people. The plot glories in revelry, and bawdiness (and this may be the primary reason for the absence of God's name). The frivolity of the book's style--with its hyperbole, mockery, and comic misunderstandings and reversals--undercuts the gravity of its theme."
"Yet, for the Purim festival this setting, plot, and style are natural and fitting, part and parcel of the celebration of Purim. The tone of the book fits its purpose: a comic story for a carnivalesque holiday. I find in this comic style additional evidence that the purpose of the Megillah was to model and to authenticate the celebration of Purim. In the Greek versions of Esther, which deemphasize Purim, the comic elements are diminished. The Hebrew Esther and the festival of Purim bring us a uniquely irreverent and joyously optimistic celebration of Jewish identity and Jewish continuity."
The Ancient Link Between Comedy and Carnival
"It is generally accepted that there is a strong link between comedy and carnival going back to the origin of dramatic comedy, ancient Greece. Comic performances have been associated with popular carnival-like celebrations in medieval and Renaissance Europe. In fact, the Greek word komos, whence "comedy," comes, signifies a riotous celebration."
"Certainly, the celebration of Purim is carnival ‑like, with its drinking, costumes, Purim plays, and Purim carnivals. The Megillah itself sets the parameters for the celebration, and its later manifestations are completely congruent with the tone and genre of the book as well as with carnival celebrations known from many cultures."
"Carnival celebrations, best known from the Greek Dionysia, the Roman Saturnalia, and the English May Day (and in modern times Mardi Gras, Halloween, and New Year's Day), often contain elements such as eating, drinking, carousing, masks and disguises, parades and processions, and combat and mock battles."
"There is an air of wildness, boisterousness, and violence that is made acceptable, perhaps only barely acceptable, because it is done within the bounds of a socially sanctioned festive occasion. Carnival permits the release of one's urge for violence and revenge in a way that channels the violence so that it is not actually destructive."
Hilarity, Mock Destruction and a Happy Ending
"It is not a huge leap to see the Book of Esther as a festive comedy--that is, a comedy relating to the celebration of the carnival-like holiday of Purim--for the link with Purim is inherent in the book. I do not mean to suggest that the book was a script for a performance. Clearly, it is a narrative. It may be no accident, however, that the story has been acted out in generations of Purim plays. There is something about the book that lends itself to comic dramatization. (Perhaps it is the large amount of "stage direction" in terms of the positioning of characters.)"
"Esther may not be a play but it is surely carnivalesque literature. Its secret identities, gross indulgences, sexual innuendoes, and nefarious plot against the Jews are part and parcel of the carnivalesque world of madness, hilarity, violence, and mock destruction. Indeed, violence is very much a part of this world, and it is in this framework that we should understand the slaughter of the enemies of the Jews in chapter 9. The killing is no more real than anything eIse in the plot, and is completely in character with the story's carnivalesque nature."
"It is in this light that we should understand Esther. The largest interpretive problems melt away if the story is taken as a farce or a comedy, associated with a carnival-like festival. The book sets out a threat to the Jews so that the Jewish audience can watch with glee and laugh with relief as it is overcome. The mad and threatening world of the beginning of the story fades into a happy ending where, for a brief moment, the Jews, through their two representatives, can play at wielding the highest power in the great empire to which they were in reality subservient and in which they were an insignificant minority."
"The story, like its accompanying festival, does what comedy and carnival are supposed to do: it confirms the belief that the power at work in the universe favors life and favors the success of the Jews. The Book of Esther affirms that all is right with the world and with the place of the Jews in it." (Same author)
http://www.myjewishlearning.com/texts/bible/TO_Writings_2140/EstherBerlin.htm
"I have found Fox's nuanced discussion of the author's deliberate absenting of God in the story and the message of that silence particularly thought-provoking. As he says in his response to Levenson's argument that God is to be understood as implicitly present, "The author's silences too must be interpreted. In my view they leave us with a maybe-a 'maybe' that demands an even bolder faith than plain statement would" (italics his, p. 290)."
"Readers will also benefit from pondering the "incongruous" humor and irony of Esther that Fox highlights. Genocide is no laughing matter, and many readers of Esther have therefore been uncomfortable with appreciating its humor. Fox's explanation of the function of humor in the story from a Jewish perspective gives us permission to appreciate it. "Humor, especially the humor of ridicule, is a device for defusing fear. The author teaches us to make fun of the very forces that once threatened-and will again threaten-our existence, and thereby makes us recognize their triviality as well as their power. `If I laugh at any mortal thing,' said Byron, `t'is that I may not weep.' Jews have learned that kind of laughter. The book of Esther begins a tradition of Jewish humor" (p. 253).
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3817/is_/ai_n9151967
A Comic View of Esther
"During the public reading of the Scroll of Esther in synagogues on Purim, the readers (like myself) may feel that we are reenacting the events of the story. When the Jews are in danger – we almost cry. When the Jews are saved – we feel relieved. But dramatizing the scroll is usually very difficult in the carnivalesque atmosphere of Purim: most of the congregants are busy making noise when Haman’s name is mentioned, even at the most dramatic points in the story! Although most Jewish commentators have read Esther as a book about a very serious event, popular tradition has always seen it as terribly funny."
"Adele Berlin’s new commentary on Esther gives scholarly support to this tradition. True, she is definitely not the first to notice comic elements in the Scroll. Many modern readers have categorized Esther as satire, comedy meant as critique, directed against the Persian court. Berlin, however, views it as farce and as burlesque, and I believe she is the first to write a commentary along these lines. Farce and burlesque are forms of comedy for its own sake. As farce, the Scroll uses exaggerated character-types and absurd situations. As burlesque, it uses vulgar language for important matters, and dignified language for the ordinary. Esther is a book written about Purim, but also for Purim, with both book and holiday celebrating Jewish survival in the Diaspora:
“Certainly the celebration of Purim is carnival-like, with its drinking, costumes, Purim plays and Purim carnivals. The Megillah itself sets the parameters for the celebration…” (p. xxi)
"This view of Esther solves a number of exegetical problems in the Scroll, some of which we will mention here. First, the royal decree in chapter 1, removing Vashti from the throne, but also prescribing male dominance in households throughout the empire:
“The danger that Memucan sees in Vashti’s refusal is preposterous. How will it provoke a rebellion by all the wives in the empire against their husbands?” (p. 17)
"Second, the Scroll – as opposed to other books in the Bible – does not see any problem in violence, intermarriage, or eating non-kosher food. Third, it is impossible to believe that everyone knew Esther was related to Mordecai the Jew, but that her own Jewish identity could be kept hidden. Fourth, Haman’s ability to convince Ahasuerus to annihilate the Jews without even mentioning their name seems absurd, as do the irrevocability of royal decrees and the large number of enemies killed by the Jews in battle (75,800). Fifth, we must consider the absence of God’s name in Esther, a book that in many aspects is modeled after other Biblical texts."
"When viewing the book as a farce, however, these absurdities, exaggerations and moral/religious problems become irrelevant. The problems faced by characters in a farce, as well as their ways of solving them, are absurd, exaggerated and over-violent by generic convention. Thus there is no reason why Vashti’s refusal to show herself at the banquet would provoke a women’s rebellion:
“The burlesque of the great Persian empire, drowning in luxury, wine, courtiers, and incompetent management, reaches one of its high points here, with a touch of male sexual anxiety added for good measure.” (p. 17)
"The book has no opinion whatsoever on intermarriage or kosher food. (Mock) violence has a place of its own in carnival, as it “symbolize[s] both the aura of make-believe and the permissible reversing of the rules of society.” (p. xlviii)
"Haman could not have convinced the king to annihilate the Jews. Royal decrees were indeed revocable. The Jews could not have killed so many enemies in such a short time. There is no way Esther could have kept her Jewishness hidden. But in this type of story, these things are irrelevant.
"The absence of God’s name is also due to the book’s genre:
“…the absence of religious language in the Masoretic Text is completely appropriate, if not absolutely necessary, given that it is a farce associated with a carnivalesque occasion.” (p. xlix)
"Here, the theological problem that many readers would see in the book’s fictionality is addressed as well:
“The distinction between history and story, which is such an important issue for us, would not have engaged readers in the Persian period in the same way it does us. To the ancient reader an imaginative story was just as worthy, or even as holy, as a historically accurate one, so to declare Esther to be imaginative does not in any way detract from its value. The message of the Book of Esther and the significance of Purim remain the same whether or not the events of the book were actual.” (Ibid.)
"The religious importance of the book, in Berlin’s eyes, is the establishment of a new Jewish holiday, Purim, whose history is intertwined with that of the Scroll of Esther. Both book and holiday celebrate the Jews’ ability to survive in the Diaspora, against all odds."
"Although some of these arguments may not sound convincing to many readers, myself included, Berlin’s comic reading is an important development in Esther studies, on three accounts. First, she adopts an extreme viewpoint on the question of comedy in Esther, an argument which previously had only one extreme opinion, that which rejected the idea altogether. Berlin’s overall comic reading will provide an alternative hypothesis for dealing with the Scroll in general. This will enable us to come to more balanced conclusions than previously, when dealing with various exegetical matters."
Second, her commentary has shown us that not all questions have answers. Not every genre of literature pays the same amount of attention to every detail, and there may be matters considered important in some genres, but irrelevant in others.
Third is the issue of Greek parallels. As Esther was written at approximately the same time as Herodotus’ Histories and other early Greek historical works, such a comparison is warranted. Also, viewing Esther as a comedy warrants comparison to Greek comedies. However, until now, no other scholar has undertaken a systematic study in this direction. Berlin’s verse-by-verse commentary is filled with Greek parallels to Esther, from historical texts and comedies, with comments on both the similarities and the differences between the texts. For example, the Jews’ battle against their enemies in chapter 9 is compared to the killing of the Magi in Herodotus 3:79:
“The death of the Magi… has often been compared to Esther because it, too, tells of a festival arising from a victory against an enemy; and like Esther it is violent and bloodthirsty.” (p. 82)
But the differences are even more important than the similarities for understanding Esther:
“Here, as elsewhere, the biblical account is less graphic than the Greek, with much less blood and guts… It is not important how the Jews killed their enemies, only that they did so, that they had been authorized to do so (by royal decree and by the rightness of their cause), and that they were amazingly successful in their undertaking. Another difference between the Greek and the Hebrew accounts is that the author of Esther is describing Jewish actions for a Jewish audience, while Herodotus is describing Persian actions for a Greek audience. For the Greeks… the narrator is… reporting unsympathetically about the practice of a strange tribe. The biblical narrator… approves of the Jews’ acts and is cheering them on and enjoying their success.” (pp. 82-83)
In short, Berlin’s commentary is remarkable for her view of Esther as farce, and for her systematic use of Greek parallels. Although in farce, not every detail has meaning, Berlin offers us an excellent close reading, making maximal use of the language and style of the scroll, with comparisons to both Greek parallels, and those from the Hebrew Bible and the Apocrypha.
Greek versions of Esther are mentioned, and a few pages of the introduction are devoted to them (xlix-lii), but they are not used as systematically as in other commentaries, and the Greek additions to Esther are not treated as part of the story. This is a specifically Jewish commentary, so the basic text is the MT, although Berlin does make use of textual criticism.
The commentary to each chapter is preceded by an introduction, giving the readers an overview of its events and major themes, while contributing to our ability to read the commentary fluently.
So all in all, Berlin’s commentary is original and engaging, with plenty of new ideas for the expert, and easy enough to read for the layperson. Especially with regards to the issues of comedy and Greek parallels, this should be considered a major work in Esther studies for years to come.
Reviewed for JBS by
Baruch Alster
Bar Ilan University
http://journalofbiblicalstudies.org/Issue4/Book%20Review/Jps_Commentary_on_Esther_Book_Review.htm
"Esther of late has received considerable attention as a comic work of first rank. Several scholars have made the case for a comic interpretation, offering valuable insight into the variety of dynamics that combine to render Esther as a magnificent illustration of the comic vision in ancient Israel. Indeed, in a most stimulating study of Esther, Michael Fox makes the striking claim: "The book of Esther begins a tradition of Jewish humor." I would agree that Esther contains a rich vein of "Jewish humor..."
"In my judgment, Esther emerges as perhaps the clearest embodiment of the comic vision among all the biblical narratives, representing a brilliantly conceived story in which plot-line, characterization of major figures, and rhetorical strategies combine to produce a finely told comedy.
"The story opens up with an opulent description of the greatness of the Persian Empire as illustrated by the wondrous wealth of the royal court in Susa. As Berg and others have argued, banquets bracket the major episodes of the narrative, focusing the theme of festivity at beginning, middle, and end, and crating the setting for the significant actions. Already the exaggerated representation found in the opening scene one discerns comic hyperbole. The vast extent of the empire stretching "from India to Ethiopia" is highlighted by the sheer number of provinces: one hundred and twenty-seven (in contrast to the twenty satrapies Herodotus mentions). The citadel of Susa becomes a microcosm that mirrors the grandeur of the huge empire: the kind "displayed the great wealth" (1: 4). No less than three banquets are given (two by the king, one by the queen), the first and most sumptuous feast lasting no less than one hundred and eighty days. On the seventh day of the second banquet, the kind "was merry with wine" (to echo a quaint, euphemistic translation), thus setting a good (or bad) example at a party (page 174)
The Bible and the Comic Vision By J. William Whedbee
("Esther As Comedy")
"If Fox has given readers permission to see the humor in the Esther story, Berlin goes so far as to identify the genre of Esther as burlesque, making it "a comic story for a carnivalesque holiday" (p. xvi). In Berlin's view, Esther is imaginative storytelling that "historicizes" the Jewishness of Purim, although she sees no authentically historical material in the Esther story."
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3817/is_/ai_n9151967
Is the author writing as an historian?
Is the author writing as a prophet?
Is the writer a poet?
Is Esther to be interpreted literally? As a record of historical events?
What is the snapshot of history, or the novella (if that is what it is), relative to the Jews in Persia (after the formal ending of the exile), given by the narrator, intended to accomplish in the readers (or hearers)?
Is the Book of Esther a history of some kind? A historical romance or novella? A "historical narrative"?
Some say that "the book of Esther represents a unique genre in the Hebrew Bible."
The following are some of my notes from sources, all which support the view that the Book of Esther is of the comedy genre.
A writer wrote (emphasis mine):
"Modern biblical scholars recognize in Esther, not an historical event, accurate in every respect, but a kind of historical novel that reflects a historical context, perhaps containing a historical nucleus, or at least describing accurately many characteristics of the Persian empire, 538- 333 B.C. (“a Jewish novella,” NISB Introduction; “a pseudo-historical tale,” JSB; see JB Introduction, which points out how Tobit, Judith and Esther deal quite freely with historical and geographical facts)."
"Adele Berlin adds that Esther is a “comedy” that reflects a carnival atmosphere, where the threat of extermination alternates with scenes of grotesque humor and ferocious irony (2001:XVI-XXII). The carnival atmosphere is evident in the continuous contrasts between extermination threats and the ten banquets/festivals: (1) 1:1-4; (2) 1:5 -8, 10-22; (3) 1:9; (4) 2:18; (5) 5:4-8; (6) 5:7-8 + 6:14-7:10; (7) 8:15-17; (8) 9:16-17,19, the rural banquet; (9) 9:18, the urban banquet in Susa; (10) 9:19, 20-32, the later annual festivals of Purim. David Pleins concludes that Esther tries to “deflate the Persian government’s pretenses.” But, in addition to “provincial/ colonial” Jewish humor directed against the Persian Empire, Esther and Vashti mock vain masculine pretenses of superiority, while the eunuchs, along with confirmed bachelor Mordecai, vindicate the honor of the sexual minorities against heterosexism and the “family values” of the anti-Semitic Haman. Esther is thus a highly subversive book."
"When certain Christians insist that the Scriptures attest to Jesus Christ (John 5:39) but deny that Esther contains evangelical teachings, logically they should advocate for the elimination of Esther from the canon."
http://www.fundotrasovejas.org.ar/ingles/Libros/Subersibe%20hebrew%20bible/Esther.pdf
In her book "Esther as Comedy - Can a book of the Bible be funny?" - By Adele Berlin, the comedic genre of the Book of Esther is well founded.
"Despite the recognition of Esther's comic nature by many scholars, some readers may be surprised or even shocked by this idea. That is because the inclusion of a book in the biblical canon affects the way we perceive the book, or certainly the way it was perceived in premodern times and may still be perceived in traditional circles."
"The very fact that Esther is part of the Bible--a holy book with religious authority and religious teachings--forces us to make it fit the expectations we have about what the Bible is and what kinds of writing it contains. We expect a biblical book to be serious and its message to be congruent with the messages of other biblical books as they have been interpreted by the tradition."
"The comic aspects of the book are not incidental, merely to provide comic relief; they are the essence of the book. They define the genre of the book, and thus set the parameters according to which we should read it. We cannot appreciate the story fully unless we realize that it is meant to be funny."
Defining Humor
"To be sure, it is not always easy to agree on what is funny, especially in an ancient or foreign work. Nonetheless, humor of various types is well-documented in ancient Near Eastern literature, including the Bible. Most readers recognize the humor in Esther 6, when Haman realizes that he must honor the very person whom he wishes to disgrace, and in Esther 7, when the king reacts to seeing Haman fallen on Esther's couch. These scenes are not isolated touches of humor, but are among the most obvious in a book where comedy is the dominant tone."
Esther as Burlesque
"Farce is a type of comedy designed to provoke the audience to simple, hearty laughter. To do so, it employs highly exaggerated or caricatured character types, puts men into impossible and ludicrous situations, and makes free use of broad verbal humor and physical horseplay (M. H. Abrams, A Glossary of Literary Terms, p. 26)."
"We will return to farce, for it best describes Esther, but first another term, burlesque, should be introduced. Burlesque is defined as "an artistic composition... that, for the sake of laughter, vulgarizes lofty material or treats ordinary material with mock dignity" (Random House Dictionary of the English Language, 1987)."
"The lofty material that Esther vulgarizes is the Persian empire and the Persian court. The normally sedate affairs of state, the carefully organized and controlled government structure, the legal system, the efficient postal system, the impressive accumulation of wealth indicative of a successful empire--all of the achievements most praiseworthy in the Persian empire are turned into a burlesque of Persian court life, caricatured by ludicrous edicts delivered by speeding messengers, a foppish royal court with an endless hierarchy of officials, and a wooden adherence to nonsensical laws. A major policy decision, the annihilation of the Jews, is made casually, but a small domestic incident, Vashti's nonappearance at a party, becomes a crisis of state, with all the bureaucratic trappings that can be mustered."
"The term satire has also been applied to Esther, most recently by Ze'ev Weisman (Political Satire in the Bible, pp. 139-163). The line between farce and satire is hard to draw, and there are certainly elements of satire in the book, especially those directed at Persian court life. However, these elements are incidental. The book is not primarily aimed at criticizing the Persian empire or its lifestyle. After all, Ahasuerus emerges stronger at the end of the story than he was at the beginning, and Mordecai and Esther benefit handsomely from all that the Persian court has to offer and become two of its most elite members."
"It is better to understand the description of the Persian court as burlesque rather than as satire; its purpose is comedy, not critique. The burlesque of the Persian court provides the setting for the farce. Burlesque also has the connotation of bawdiness, and as we shall see, the Book of Esther does not lack bawdiness, especially in chapter 1, the chapter in which court life is most on display."
Comic Styles in the Book of Esther
"The style associated with burlesque, farce, and other types of low comedy uses exaggeration, caricature, ludicrous situations, practical jokes, coincidences, improbabilities, and verbal humor. Farce often employs repetition--of scenes, events, and phrases--and inversions or reversals. Most of these features are prominent in Esther and have been identified in the commentaries, but without the realization that they are characteristic of comedy or farce."
"Another characteristic of farce is a misunderstanding in which two characters interpret the same event in different ways (J. M. Davis, Farce, p. 62). Classic examples of this type of misunderstanding occur in chapter six, when Haman mistakenly assumes that the king is planning to honor him, not Mordecai, and in chapter seven, when Ahasuerus misunderstands or pretends to misunderstand why Haman has fallen on Esther's couch. The effect in both cases is extremely comic."
"In farce there is little concern with the subtlety of characterization. Farce tends to use exaggerated or caricatured character types. In Esther, all the characters are types: Ahasuerus is a caricature of a pampered and bumbling monarch, a ruler ruled by his advisors; Esther is a paragon of feminine heroism; Mordecai is the model of a wise courtier; Haman is the archetypal comic villain--a knave, but, in keeping with farce, not darkly evil. We are not meant to feel threatened by the comic villain--not even children are afraid of Haman--nor are we meant to sympathize with him when he meets his deserved end. He is doomed from the start and we enjoy watching his downfall."
"While some of these characters show growth as the story progresses, and their various traits can be probed and described in a manner that makes them seem almost full-fledged characters (Fox has done this very successfully), they nevertheless remain types rather than full-fledged characters. This is not a defect in the narrative technique."
"The characterization in the book is intentional, cleverly done, and adds to the farcical humor. In fact, there is a striking resemblance to the stock characters in Greek comedy: the alazon, an imposter or self-deceiving braggart (Haman); the eiron, the self-deprecatory and understating character whose contest with the alazon is central to the comic plot (Mordecai); and the bomolochos, the buffoon whose antics add an extra comic element (Ahasuerus)."
Unconvincing Plot
"The plot is often unconvincing because one of the characteristics of farce is the rejection of rationality. "Farce enshrines the element of unreason" (J. M. Davis, Farce, p. 23). So the logical impossibility that looms largest--that Mordecai's Jewish identity is publicly known while Esther's remains secret--suddenly ceases to be problematic and becomes one more piece in the highly improbable plot. In fact, the entire plot turns on a succession of unlikely events, like the selection of a queen in a beauty contest and a series of ridiculous but irrevocable edicts."
"The largest interpretive problems melt away if the story is taken as a farce or a comedy associated with a carnival-like festival. The book sets out a threat to the Jews so that the Jewish audience can watch with glee and laugh with relief as it is overcome. The mad and threatening world of the beginning of the story fades into a happy ending where, for a brief moment, the Jews, through their two representatives, can play at wielding the highest power in the great empire to which they were in reality subservient and in which they were an insignificant minority."
"The story, like its accompanying festival, does what comedy and carnival are supposed to do. It confirms the belief that the power at work in the universe favors life and favors the success of the Jews. The Book of Esther affirms that all is right with the world and with the place of the Jews in it."
"Adele Berlin is Professor of Hebrew Bible at the University of Maryland. Copyright 2001 by the Jewish Publication Society."
http://www.myjewishlearning.com/holidays/Purim/TO_Purim_History/Esther_830/Comedy_1455.htm
The Comic Style
"Another successful rhetorical strategy is the combination of a serious theme and a comic style. The threat of the destruction of the Jews is no laughing matter, but the Book of Esther is hilariously funny. The raucous Persian court, with its lavish display of luxury, and its pervasive drinking parties, is not the setting we expect for the impending annihilation of the Jewish people. The plot glories in revelry, and bawdiness (and this may be the primary reason for the absence of God's name). The frivolity of the book's style--with its hyperbole, mockery, and comic misunderstandings and reversals--undercuts the gravity of its theme."
"Yet, for the Purim festival this setting, plot, and style are natural and fitting, part and parcel of the celebration of Purim. The tone of the book fits its purpose: a comic story for a carnivalesque holiday. I find in this comic style additional evidence that the purpose of the Megillah was to model and to authenticate the celebration of Purim. In the Greek versions of Esther, which deemphasize Purim, the comic elements are diminished. The Hebrew Esther and the festival of Purim bring us a uniquely irreverent and joyously optimistic celebration of Jewish identity and Jewish continuity."
The Ancient Link Between Comedy and Carnival
"It is generally accepted that there is a strong link between comedy and carnival going back to the origin of dramatic comedy, ancient Greece. Comic performances have been associated with popular carnival-like celebrations in medieval and Renaissance Europe. In fact, the Greek word komos, whence "comedy," comes, signifies a riotous celebration."
"Certainly, the celebration of Purim is carnival ‑like, with its drinking, costumes, Purim plays, and Purim carnivals. The Megillah itself sets the parameters for the celebration, and its later manifestations are completely congruent with the tone and genre of the book as well as with carnival celebrations known from many cultures."
"Carnival celebrations, best known from the Greek Dionysia, the Roman Saturnalia, and the English May Day (and in modern times Mardi Gras, Halloween, and New Year's Day), often contain elements such as eating, drinking, carousing, masks and disguises, parades and processions, and combat and mock battles."
"There is an air of wildness, boisterousness, and violence that is made acceptable, perhaps only barely acceptable, because it is done within the bounds of a socially sanctioned festive occasion. Carnival permits the release of one's urge for violence and revenge in a way that channels the violence so that it is not actually destructive."
Hilarity, Mock Destruction and a Happy Ending
"It is not a huge leap to see the Book of Esther as a festive comedy--that is, a comedy relating to the celebration of the carnival-like holiday of Purim--for the link with Purim is inherent in the book. I do not mean to suggest that the book was a script for a performance. Clearly, it is a narrative. It may be no accident, however, that the story has been acted out in generations of Purim plays. There is something about the book that lends itself to comic dramatization. (Perhaps it is the large amount of "stage direction" in terms of the positioning of characters.)"
"Esther may not be a play but it is surely carnivalesque literature. Its secret identities, gross indulgences, sexual innuendoes, and nefarious plot against the Jews are part and parcel of the carnivalesque world of madness, hilarity, violence, and mock destruction. Indeed, violence is very much a part of this world, and it is in this framework that we should understand the slaughter of the enemies of the Jews in chapter 9. The killing is no more real than anything eIse in the plot, and is completely in character with the story's carnivalesque nature."
"It is in this light that we should understand Esther. The largest interpretive problems melt away if the story is taken as a farce or a comedy, associated with a carnival-like festival. The book sets out a threat to the Jews so that the Jewish audience can watch with glee and laugh with relief as it is overcome. The mad and threatening world of the beginning of the story fades into a happy ending where, for a brief moment, the Jews, through their two representatives, can play at wielding the highest power in the great empire to which they were in reality subservient and in which they were an insignificant minority."
"The story, like its accompanying festival, does what comedy and carnival are supposed to do: it confirms the belief that the power at work in the universe favors life and favors the success of the Jews. The Book of Esther affirms that all is right with the world and with the place of the Jews in it." (Same author)
http://www.myjewishlearning.com/texts/bible/TO_Writings_2140/EstherBerlin.htm
"I have found Fox's nuanced discussion of the author's deliberate absenting of God in the story and the message of that silence particularly thought-provoking. As he says in his response to Levenson's argument that God is to be understood as implicitly present, "The author's silences too must be interpreted. In my view they leave us with a maybe-a 'maybe' that demands an even bolder faith than plain statement would" (italics his, p. 290)."
"Readers will also benefit from pondering the "incongruous" humor and irony of Esther that Fox highlights. Genocide is no laughing matter, and many readers of Esther have therefore been uncomfortable with appreciating its humor. Fox's explanation of the function of humor in the story from a Jewish perspective gives us permission to appreciate it. "Humor, especially the humor of ridicule, is a device for defusing fear. The author teaches us to make fun of the very forces that once threatened-and will again threaten-our existence, and thereby makes us recognize their triviality as well as their power. `If I laugh at any mortal thing,' said Byron, `t'is that I may not weep.' Jews have learned that kind of laughter. The book of Esther begins a tradition of Jewish humor" (p. 253).
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3817/is_/ai_n9151967
A Comic View of Esther
"During the public reading of the Scroll of Esther in synagogues on Purim, the readers (like myself) may feel that we are reenacting the events of the story. When the Jews are in danger – we almost cry. When the Jews are saved – we feel relieved. But dramatizing the scroll is usually very difficult in the carnivalesque atmosphere of Purim: most of the congregants are busy making noise when Haman’s name is mentioned, even at the most dramatic points in the story! Although most Jewish commentators have read Esther as a book about a very serious event, popular tradition has always seen it as terribly funny."
"Adele Berlin’s new commentary on Esther gives scholarly support to this tradition. True, she is definitely not the first to notice comic elements in the Scroll. Many modern readers have categorized Esther as satire, comedy meant as critique, directed against the Persian court. Berlin, however, views it as farce and as burlesque, and I believe she is the first to write a commentary along these lines. Farce and burlesque are forms of comedy for its own sake. As farce, the Scroll uses exaggerated character-types and absurd situations. As burlesque, it uses vulgar language for important matters, and dignified language for the ordinary. Esther is a book written about Purim, but also for Purim, with both book and holiday celebrating Jewish survival in the Diaspora:
“Certainly the celebration of Purim is carnival-like, with its drinking, costumes, Purim plays and Purim carnivals. The Megillah itself sets the parameters for the celebration…” (p. xxi)
"This view of Esther solves a number of exegetical problems in the Scroll, some of which we will mention here. First, the royal decree in chapter 1, removing Vashti from the throne, but also prescribing male dominance in households throughout the empire:
“The danger that Memucan sees in Vashti’s refusal is preposterous. How will it provoke a rebellion by all the wives in the empire against their husbands?” (p. 17)
"Second, the Scroll – as opposed to other books in the Bible – does not see any problem in violence, intermarriage, or eating non-kosher food. Third, it is impossible to believe that everyone knew Esther was related to Mordecai the Jew, but that her own Jewish identity could be kept hidden. Fourth, Haman’s ability to convince Ahasuerus to annihilate the Jews without even mentioning their name seems absurd, as do the irrevocability of royal decrees and the large number of enemies killed by the Jews in battle (75,800). Fifth, we must consider the absence of God’s name in Esther, a book that in many aspects is modeled after other Biblical texts."
"When viewing the book as a farce, however, these absurdities, exaggerations and moral/religious problems become irrelevant. The problems faced by characters in a farce, as well as their ways of solving them, are absurd, exaggerated and over-violent by generic convention. Thus there is no reason why Vashti’s refusal to show herself at the banquet would provoke a women’s rebellion:
“The burlesque of the great Persian empire, drowning in luxury, wine, courtiers, and incompetent management, reaches one of its high points here, with a touch of male sexual anxiety added for good measure.” (p. 17)
"The book has no opinion whatsoever on intermarriage or kosher food. (Mock) violence has a place of its own in carnival, as it “symbolize[s] both the aura of make-believe and the permissible reversing of the rules of society.” (p. xlviii)
"Haman could not have convinced the king to annihilate the Jews. Royal decrees were indeed revocable. The Jews could not have killed so many enemies in such a short time. There is no way Esther could have kept her Jewishness hidden. But in this type of story, these things are irrelevant.
"The absence of God’s name is also due to the book’s genre:
“…the absence of religious language in the Masoretic Text is completely appropriate, if not absolutely necessary, given that it is a farce associated with a carnivalesque occasion.” (p. xlix)
"Here, the theological problem that many readers would see in the book’s fictionality is addressed as well:
“The distinction between history and story, which is such an important issue for us, would not have engaged readers in the Persian period in the same way it does us. To the ancient reader an imaginative story was just as worthy, or even as holy, as a historically accurate one, so to declare Esther to be imaginative does not in any way detract from its value. The message of the Book of Esther and the significance of Purim remain the same whether or not the events of the book were actual.” (Ibid.)
"The religious importance of the book, in Berlin’s eyes, is the establishment of a new Jewish holiday, Purim, whose history is intertwined with that of the Scroll of Esther. Both book and holiday celebrate the Jews’ ability to survive in the Diaspora, against all odds."
"Although some of these arguments may not sound convincing to many readers, myself included, Berlin’s comic reading is an important development in Esther studies, on three accounts. First, she adopts an extreme viewpoint on the question of comedy in Esther, an argument which previously had only one extreme opinion, that which rejected the idea altogether. Berlin’s overall comic reading will provide an alternative hypothesis for dealing with the Scroll in general. This will enable us to come to more balanced conclusions than previously, when dealing with various exegetical matters."
Second, her commentary has shown us that not all questions have answers. Not every genre of literature pays the same amount of attention to every detail, and there may be matters considered important in some genres, but irrelevant in others.
Third is the issue of Greek parallels. As Esther was written at approximately the same time as Herodotus’ Histories and other early Greek historical works, such a comparison is warranted. Also, viewing Esther as a comedy warrants comparison to Greek comedies. However, until now, no other scholar has undertaken a systematic study in this direction. Berlin’s verse-by-verse commentary is filled with Greek parallels to Esther, from historical texts and comedies, with comments on both the similarities and the differences between the texts. For example, the Jews’ battle against their enemies in chapter 9 is compared to the killing of the Magi in Herodotus 3:79:
“The death of the Magi… has often been compared to Esther because it, too, tells of a festival arising from a victory against an enemy; and like Esther it is violent and bloodthirsty.” (p. 82)
But the differences are even more important than the similarities for understanding Esther:
“Here, as elsewhere, the biblical account is less graphic than the Greek, with much less blood and guts… It is not important how the Jews killed their enemies, only that they did so, that they had been authorized to do so (by royal decree and by the rightness of their cause), and that they were amazingly successful in their undertaking. Another difference between the Greek and the Hebrew accounts is that the author of Esther is describing Jewish actions for a Jewish audience, while Herodotus is describing Persian actions for a Greek audience. For the Greeks… the narrator is… reporting unsympathetically about the practice of a strange tribe. The biblical narrator… approves of the Jews’ acts and is cheering them on and enjoying their success.” (pp. 82-83)
In short, Berlin’s commentary is remarkable for her view of Esther as farce, and for her systematic use of Greek parallels. Although in farce, not every detail has meaning, Berlin offers us an excellent close reading, making maximal use of the language and style of the scroll, with comparisons to both Greek parallels, and those from the Hebrew Bible and the Apocrypha.
Greek versions of Esther are mentioned, and a few pages of the introduction are devoted to them (xlix-lii), but they are not used as systematically as in other commentaries, and the Greek additions to Esther are not treated as part of the story. This is a specifically Jewish commentary, so the basic text is the MT, although Berlin does make use of textual criticism.
The commentary to each chapter is preceded by an introduction, giving the readers an overview of its events and major themes, while contributing to our ability to read the commentary fluently.
So all in all, Berlin’s commentary is original and engaging, with plenty of new ideas for the expert, and easy enough to read for the layperson. Especially with regards to the issues of comedy and Greek parallels, this should be considered a major work in Esther studies for years to come.
Reviewed for JBS by
Baruch Alster
Bar Ilan University
http://journalofbiblicalstudies.org/Issue4/Book%20Review/Jps_Commentary_on_Esther_Book_Review.htm
"Esther of late has received considerable attention as a comic work of first rank. Several scholars have made the case for a comic interpretation, offering valuable insight into the variety of dynamics that combine to render Esther as a magnificent illustration of the comic vision in ancient Israel. Indeed, in a most stimulating study of Esther, Michael Fox makes the striking claim: "The book of Esther begins a tradition of Jewish humor." I would agree that Esther contains a rich vein of "Jewish humor..."
"In my judgment, Esther emerges as perhaps the clearest embodiment of the comic vision among all the biblical narratives, representing a brilliantly conceived story in which plot-line, characterization of major figures, and rhetorical strategies combine to produce a finely told comedy.
"The story opens up with an opulent description of the greatness of the Persian Empire as illustrated by the wondrous wealth of the royal court in Susa. As Berg and others have argued, banquets bracket the major episodes of the narrative, focusing the theme of festivity at beginning, middle, and end, and crating the setting for the significant actions. Already the exaggerated representation found in the opening scene one discerns comic hyperbole. The vast extent of the empire stretching "from India to Ethiopia" is highlighted by the sheer number of provinces: one hundred and twenty-seven (in contrast to the twenty satrapies Herodotus mentions). The citadel of Susa becomes a microcosm that mirrors the grandeur of the huge empire: the kind "displayed the great wealth" (1: 4). No less than three banquets are given (two by the king, one by the queen), the first and most sumptuous feast lasting no less than one hundred and eighty days. On the seventh day of the second banquet, the kind "was merry with wine" (to echo a quaint, euphemistic translation), thus setting a good (or bad) example at a party (page 174)
The Bible and the Comic Vision By J. William Whedbee
("Esther As Comedy")
"If Fox has given readers permission to see the humor in the Esther story, Berlin goes so far as to identify the genre of Esther as burlesque, making it "a comic story for a carnivalesque holiday" (p. xvi). In Berlin's view, Esther is imaginative storytelling that "historicizes" the Jewishness of Purim, although she sees no authentically historical material in the Esther story."
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3817/is_/ai_n9151967
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
