Levenson, Jon D.
John Levenson’s commentary on the book of Esther, which is part of The Old Testament Library series, contributes to Esther studies by providing an engaging commentary that attempts to trace the history of the Esther tradition while providing an ecumenical presentation of that tradition. The Westminster Press is to be commended for publishing this work that approaches the disparate traditions and organizes them in a single, seamless presentation. Levenson is obviously widely read and provides a substantial framework for understanding the current status of Esther studies. This commentary is highly commended and will stand the test of time as a standard in Esther studies.
Like other commentaries in this series, The Old Testament Library, Levenson attempts to discuss the customary issues of biblical commentaries: plot, structure and style, messages, historicity and date of composition, and versions. Here he follows the work of Michael V. Fox. Recently, the genre of Esther has received much attention Levenson continues that trend. Many within the evangelical community read Esther has a historical work, while Levenson understands it to be a novella, that is, a piece of short prose historical fiction. Because of his understanding of Esther he spends a significant amount of time on the literary structure – pointing out, rightly so that the novella of Esther is structured around the banquet motif. In reality there is not a significant amount of new information in this section, he simply surveys the terrain and provides a framework within which he will proceed.
The underlying premise of this work is that Esther is a multifaceted work that should be looked at from many different angles and perspectives to fully grasp the impact of this work. This commitment is seen throughout the entire commentary. Incorporating the banquet motif as the unifying literary structure Levenson discerns, again following Fox, an envelope structure with the rise of Mordecai and the fall of Haman in chapter 6 as the central scene of the work. Seeing chapter 6 as the pivotal scene provides the impetus for discerning a bilateral chiastic structure where the negative examples in the story are compared to positive examples of the same action later on in the story. These two concepts, taken together, make a compelling case for the structural unity of the scroll of Esther.
The comic angle is not lost on this author. He is well aware of the comedic elements in the story and he points them out, following the work of Radday’s Esther with Humor, even though he does not mention the book in his bibliography. Unlike many stodgy commentaries of days gone by, Levenson keeps the reader interested by his appropriate use of humor. He speculates concerning Ahasuerus’s decree concerning the gathering of the virgins for his harem, "celibacy not being Ahasuerus’s forte…" (p. 2). He correctly calls 7:8 the "funniest scene in the whole book of Esther." (p. 104). Levenson’s sense of humor and command of the English language makes this commentary thoroughly enjoyable to read. How many commentaries are described in those terms? Not many.
He emphasizes the reversals that are present throughout the entire story of Esther. The reversal from grief to joy is the great theme of Esther. The angles so far include: the banquets, and the reversal of status between Mordecai and Haman in chapter 6. Levenson also points out that other structural elements are semantic in nature, these include: keywords, verbal dyads, legal language, and chains of synonyms. At this point he reveals his lack of commitment to the historicity of the Esther story, "Here, too, the motive may be to imitate an archivistic or annalistic style in order to endow a most unlikely tale with an air of historical veracity." (p. 11). This reviewer finds it interesting that he suggests that the vocabulary that is used was meant to make the story sound historical. This appears, however to beg the question. He adroitly brings the reader back to the comic and hyperbolic nature of the story and shifts attention to the important and complicated area of the messages of story.
Levenson rightly recognizes that Esther is a multi-message work containing both implicit and explicit messages. He provides a thorough description of the diverse messages implicit in Esther and then provides a cogent summary of the implied messages, "In a world in which arrogant regimes seek a control of events that they have not been granted, and in which the differentness of the Jews provokes murderous hostility, the Jews can, through their own wisdom and courage and with lucky happenstances ordained by a sovereign and favoring providence, defeat their would-be murderers, secure their position, rise to eminence, and even benefit Gentile kings in the process." (p. 22). One could quibble with the subjectivity of the implicit messages that Levenson presents, however the highly persuasive manner in which he writes obscures some of the inherent weaknesses of this multifaceted approach to the implicit messages of Esther. He is on much firmer ground as he establishes the explicit message of Esther, a message that most other commentators agree, that is, Esther, in all its forms was written to explain the establishment and origin of the Feast of Purim.
The introduction continues with a very well written section on the historicity and date of Esther. He shows a keen grasp of the issues while arguing for the standard view of non-historicity. He argues that the historical problems relate to chronology and a lack of corroborating evidence for the events of the work including the 127 satrapies, Esther, Vashti, Mordecai, the irrevocability of the law of the Persians, and other minor details of the story which leads him to conclude that Esther is a historical novella. One must be reminded, however he is not saying the story is a fabrication, he is simply pointing out that the genre of the work requires a different set of assumptions and questions versus an historical annual, for example. This conclusion seems to attempt to traverse the middle ground, that is be ecumenical, which is one of the goals of this commentary. He is attempting not to alienate segments of his potential audience and herein lays the problem. He probably did not go far enough for the minimalists while at the same time alienating the maximalists. This reveals the difficulty of the multi-angle approach. Not every reader will agree with his reconstructions, however his arguments are plausible and are not outside the boundaries of scholarly discourse, a point he makes by marshalling support for his position by footnoting those who agree with him. (p. 23). Levenson’s approach to the dating is clearly critical, and is difficult to follow because of the assumptions concerning the final form versus the earlier form of the work, however, he offers his view as sometime "in the fourth or third century B.C.E. This view follows that of Fox, as well as others. It is interesting to note that there is a significant lack of literary evidence from this period, with which one may compare Esther. Therefore, Levenson rightly points out that the dating for Esther is "unknown." (p. 25).
The overwhelming strength of this commentary is his section on the versions of Esther. Levenson’s approach is first of all concerned with establishing the history of the text of Esther, while maintaining his ecumenical approach. The discussion of the versions of Esther is where his purpose for writing will be most challenged. He proceeds to demonstrate the differences between the Masoretic Text (MT), the Septuagint (LXX), and the Greek Alpha Text (AT). His conclusion is: Proto-Esther was written in Hebrew, and then a redactor reworked Proto-Esther into what is today the Masoretic Text. Proto-Esther originally in Hebrew was similarly translated into Greek and thus became the Proto-Alpha Text. The Masoretic Text is translated into Greek, which becomes the Septuagint, which has the additions included. The final Alpha Text is a byproduct of the Proto-Alpha Text (a Greek translation of the original Hebrew Proto-Esther), redactional material and the Septuagint. Even though one may disagree with Levenson’s approach, he makes a number of excellent observations concerning the versions of Esther and he finds himself in agreement with a number of Esther scholars today.
His commentary proceeds according to an outline build around the banquet motif. Each unit contains Levenson’s personal translation, textual criticism notes, and an exposition of the text that includes the six additions from the Septuagint in their position in that translation. There are relatively few footnotes, only a selected bibliography and an index of ancient sources. It may have been better to include more extensive footnotes, a topically organized and more extensive bibliography, and finally, indices of subjects and modern authors. The table of contents serves as an outline for the book, while helpful; the lack of detail is somewhat disappointing and does not offer the reader a clear direction for the framework of the commentary.
The many angle approach of Levenson is somewhat tenuous as he comments of the text of the MT with the LXX material in its appropriate place within the text. It actually takes away from the impact of the literary structure and becomes rather confusing when trying to locate the additions in the larger literary framework. It appears that the optimal solution would have been to deal with each separately, however, incorporating the LXX material in the main body of the commentary fits nicely within his larger purpose of developing an ecumenical commentary, since a portion of his audience considers the LXX to be authoritative.
Levenson’s commentary is marked by clarity, careful argument and penetrating logic. The material on the rabbinic sources is particularly valuable. It is amazing how an understanding of the rabbinic sources provides another angle from which to look at the work that may not at first be evident. It is also worth noting that many of the idiosyncratic suggestions of critical scholars today have already been made by the Rabbis. The intra-faith comparison, however adds to the usefulness of this commentary. Concerning Vashti, Levenson skillfully points out that the Jewish and Christian sources; both have considered her to be a negative character (p. 49). Levenson’s use of rabbinic sources however is not without criticism. The Rabbis assume historicity while Levenson does not. This may lead to a disparity in character development, though Levenson does point out the disparity when it is appropriate. This notwithstanding Liz Fried opines, "I think his book serves as an excellent reminder that we ought to consider the rabbis when we write biblical commentaries. Levinson shows us how to do it."
Perhaps the most useful feature of this volume is the methodological analysis of the structure of the differing textual traditions. Throughout the commentary, Levenson qualifies statements of the literary structure by specifying the text to which he is referring (Hebrew text the way we have it, the LXX or the Alpha Text). He shows mastery of the literary structure on multiple levels, this provides a logical rationale for the six additions, for example. Levenson’s breadth of understanding of the structure can be distracting, however, he often points out conjectural interpolations and emendations that, if followed to their logical conclusion, may weaken his argument for the bilateral chiastic structure of the work, unless one conjectures a later final redactor in the mid second century B.C.E. - a possibility that he conceives of in attempting to ascertain the date of the work. (p. 24).
Levenson’s work has many other notable strengths. First, the charts that dot the introductory material assist the reader in visualizing the material under discussion. This is particularly helpful when one is attempting to "weed through" the discussion concerning the versions of Esther. He also transliterates the Hebrew and Greek throughout the work. His penchant for relevance is seen in his connections of Esther to the Holocaust, "Whereas the first edict seemed absurd and unenforceable, the second seems, in this post-Holocaust era, frighteningly realistic." (p. 73). Levenson provides the proper hermeneutical rubric under which to properly interpret Esther, "one can wonder whether a narrative so full of intrigue, comedy, and farce should be interpreted with such high seriousness." (p. 106). This handling of the work permeates the entire commentary, which shows a proper respect for the text while not losing sight of the need for an unmoralistic reading of the story. His ability of contextualize this story for a modern audience is manifest as he remarks, concerning the present desire of Jewish communities of the Diaspora, which includes, "living in harmony and mutual goodwill with the Gentile majority, under Jewish leaders who are respected and admired by the rulers, yet who are openly identified with the Jewish community and unashamed to advance its interests and to speak out in its defense." (pp. 133-134).
Having highlighted these positive aspects of Levenson’s work, there are a few minor concerns that should be registered. He shows a propensity to accept the dependence of Esther upon earlier biblical stories, i.e. Joseph, Moses, Daniel and Judith. The author of Esther, in Levenson’s view, following the work of Berg and Gerleman, modeled his yarn around these earlier stories in the history of Israel. The parallels are instructive and interesting, however, they do not rise to the level of conscious imitation by the author of Esther. The parallels are dissimilar in places one would expect to see imitation, i.e. the royal reward and investiture (Esther 6:7-11 and Genesis 41:42-43). The parallels with Moses are more dissimilar and this issue begs the question when one considers the multiple versions of the scroll of Esther. Levenson is aware of the differences, however, he remarks concerning the lack of the name of God, "including the obviously comparable tales of Joseph, Moses, Daniel, and Judith, no name of God appears in the surviving Hebrew form of the book of Esther." It would be an interesting study to compare the versions of Esther and see if the semantic parallels remain, or if they are limited to the MT.
Levenson appears to be a part of a long line of commentators who attempt to view Esther and Mordecai’s actions in a positive light. He understands their roles as symbolic of other Jews, "the book of Esther can be read as the story of the transformation of the exile into the Diaspora…both figures also personify the transformation of the Jews that the narrative in its larger outline reflects...and that Mordecai and Esther, for all their particular character, are also allegorizations of Israel’s national destiny." (pp. 16-17). This appears to be an attempt to justify the unethical behavior in which Esther and Mordecai engaged. This is understandable, however, it may dilute the original point of the story. The author has chosen not to reveal why they would compromise their Jewish religious principles, in that it was such an important issue for those in the Eastern Diaspora. The decisions of Esther and Mordecai, however, move events in such a way that God’s providence is reaffirmed. It is interesting to note that Levenson and the majority of Esther scholars understand Mordecai’s edict (8:11) to include the possibility of killing women and children of the attackers. (pp. 110-11). This is predicated on the theme of reversal and the literary symmetry with the first edict in 3:13. This becomes a moot point, however, if one contemplates the essential lack of historical veracity of the entire story.
The absence of the name of God is an issue that Levenson interacts with from a number of different angles. He assumes that the MT had access to the AT. This assumption, supported by Fox, intimates that the theology of the AT was much more explicit, in that the AT says, "God will be their aid and their deliverance…(AT 5:9). Levenson’s argument is that the MT contains a more implicit theology and that "relief and deliverance will arise for the Jews from another quarter." (4:14). He appears to be suggesting that the theological bias of the MT was to remove the name of God from the text, however, the exact opposite occurs with the LXX. While this is true, one could argue that the LXX was attempting to restore the original form of the story. There is no convincing argument why the surviving Hebrew Esther does not contain the name of God, except that it was not there originally. The present reviewer recognizes that the MT is often problematic but it appears more reliable than reconstructions.
Levenson is sensitive to structural concerns throughout his work, however his approach to historicity, while in line with the majority of Esther scholars, alienates a rather large portion of his audience. This is significant, in that he was attempting to write an ecumenical commentary, which is almost an overwhelming task when one attempts to bridge the gap between the divergent views on historicity. His tenor is rather restrained throughout the entire book, except for this one statement, "the historical problems with Esther are so massive as to persuade anyone who is not already obligated by religious dogma to believe in the historicity of biblical narrative to doubt the veracity of the narrative." (p. 22). There are a number of highly respected scholars (Edwin Yamauchi, Karen Jobes, Mervin Breneman and Joyce Baldwin) who believe in the historicity of Esther, a belief that is based on research not "religious dogma." It appears this type of invective is out of place in an ecumenical commentary. One does not see Levenson casting that level of dispersion on the Eastern Christians who accept the LXX as authoritative over the MT. In reality, nothing in the story has been shown, unequivocally to be untrue, though a number of legitimate questions have been raised concerning the historical verisimilitude of Esther. It also feels disingenuous to engage in the body of the commentary, the story just as if it were historical, but all the while realizing the author considers the story to be symbolic. He concludes, "The multiple difficulties in squaring the historical information in Esther with the evidence from ancient historiography and the presence in the book of symbolic figures suggest that Esther is seriously misinterpreted if it is taken as literal historical reportage." (p. 43). Levenson suggests that historicity does not really matter because of the beauty of the literature and that beauty transcends the mundane facts of history and rests on its genre, in this case a "historical novella." (p. 25). This establishment of literary work versus historicity creates a false dichotomy, which actually does not answer the question of historicity. The historicity of an event is not connected to the genre employed. The author of Esther was wise to employ the genre she did; it most effectively communicated the story, which was the goal. The question of historicity is best answered by one’s attitude towards the Bible and ancient historiography not "religious dogma" alone.
In conclusion, for all the strengths of Levenson’s commentary (which far outweigh my quibbles) one must realize that one is participating in a conversation with an author that has a vast range of experiences and insight that is normally ignored. Most people choose conversation partners that already agree with them so much that they are never stretched by their conversation. Jon Levenson has provided an apt conversation partner that will enrich one’s understanding of the book of Esther, and respectfully challenge one’s assumptions about this story while providing a fresh angle from which to view the scroll of Esther.
Hudson College, Riverview, MI
