In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

  • What Esther Can Tell Us about the Bible's Purpose and Interpretation
  • Jacob L. Wright
Aaron Koller, Esther in Ancient Jewish Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014, xv + 266 pp.

Esther represents one of the three biblical outliers. Similar to Kohelet and the Song of Songs, it is devoid of the religious devotion and streams of theology that perfuse the biblical corpus. Early generations of readers sought to domesticate the work by rewriting it, transforming its protagonists into paragons of piety. The addition of prayers and descriptions of Torah-observance brought the story into conformity with religious practices that many took for granted. Similarly, the rabbis interpreted the book in keeping with their own perspectives, and in their readings we can survey the entire scope of rabbinic life and thought.

In his new book Esther in Ancient Jewish Thought, Aaron Koller pulls the rug out from under those who, from antiquity to the present, insist on viewing Esther in their own image.1 After probing the origins of the Esther traditions in the book's first half, he turns to their early reception history. In Koller's reading, one author drafted the Esther story; he was intimately acquainted with the "biblical tradition"; and his aim was to undermine this tradition. Often charting new territory, Koller examines how later interpreters came to terms with Esther's subversive teachings.

Koller's learned study raises a larger question: Why would anyone have thought to include this unorthodox book in the corpus of biblical literature? Koller points to the role of the Purim festival with which the book concludes: "Esther's inclusion in the canon should probably be explained as a result of the popularity of [End Page 314] Purim and the fact that it is a wonderful story, to which many people were drawn" (p. 156). While I would not dispute the festival's importance, I'm convinced that there's a deeper reason why Esther is part of the biblical corpus. Indeed, this canonical outsider, more than any of her biblical confrères, can help us discern what the Bible is really about.

ESTHER'S ORIGINS

The first part of Koller's study places Esther in the context of other biblical writings. Although I am not always convinced by the reconstructions and interpretations Koller champions, I find his close comparison of the book with other biblical texts to be both learned and enlightening. The discussions draw the reader deeply into the work and provoke questions about its message.

When explaining the raison d'être for the book of Esther, Koller surveys biblical writings in an attempt to lay out the "conventional wisdom" that governed thinking in Second Temple society. His presentation of this conventional view relies heavily on the biblical writings. But it was not until the late Hellenistic period that these sacred scriptures assumed centrality in Jewish society. Throughout the Persian period, the biblical writings represented a minority report, confined to small circles who stood in opposition to a host of very different views held by various segments of society. To access the long forgotten views and behaviors that reflect the mainstream, we have to rely on archeology, comparative history, and diachronic analyses of biblical texts.

Koller is writing for a broad audience of nonspecialists. His book connects the dots and tells a story to a greater degree than most academic writing does. Yet in doing so, it often reads the biblical materials as if they were primary sources:

Many in the east supported Ezra, especially since he drew his legitimacy from the exilic community. The vigorous defense of Jewish identity was also appreciated by many, who feared that as time went on and lines were blurred, Judaism itself might be lost. His strong-arm tactics likely attracted much criticism, although defenders claimed that there was no alternative given the circumstances. Certainly Ezra was wise enough [End Page 315] never to criticize those who had remained in the east, and thus did not alienate this important source of support.

(29)

Scholars largely agree that Ezra was active in the Persian period. But few would say more about him than that he was active in some way on behalf of the Temple...

pdf

Share