Ruth/Esther. By Frederic W. Bush. WBC 9. Dallas: Word,
1996, 514 pp., $29.99.
Bush, professor of ancient Near Eastern
Studies at Fuller Seminary, follows the format for his studies of Ruth and
Esther contained in this volume that has come to be associated with the widely
acclaimed Word Biblical Commentary series. The study begins with a lengthy
introduction dealing with questions of canonical status, text, unity, date and
authorship, genre and theology. Bush introduces each of his studies with an
outline of the book that he uses as the basis for a study of individual
pericopes. Each pericope is introduced by an impressive bibliography of
relevant studies. Then the author offers his original translation, followed by
notes containing the literal Hebrew when it differs from his translation. His
notes also include textual variants found in other ancient versions. Next is an
excellent technical analysis that will be most helpful to those interested in
the structure of each pericope under consideration. It includes detailed
diagrams that reveal the carefully composed literary structure, especially the
chiastic structure found in both books.
The heart of each study are the comments,
verse-by-verse discussions, including explanations of Hebrew words and
expressions that clarify their grammatical signi ficance. His comments interact
with a wide range of English- and German-language commentaries and scholarly
articles that confirm his meticulous homework before attempting his own
commentary.
Bush is not reluctant to agree with other
scholars’ interpretations but argues persuasively when he disagrees with them.
As an indication of the thoroughness of his comments, his discussion of a
single verse or part of a verse may occupy four, five or more pages. He does
not like to read speculative ideas into the narratives (a favorite pursuit of
some scholars) that are more than the text can legitimately support.
The final section of Bush’s study of each
pericope, entitled “Explanation,” appears to be a less technical summary of the
passage he has just analyzed in detail. For those without the patience or
background to benefit from his detailed analysis, his summary will be
appreciated and may serve as a reminder that it is easy to lose sight of the
forest (the overall picture) by intense focus on the individual trees (detailed
critical studies). There is a place for both emphases in a well-balanced study,
and Bush has succeeded admirably in maintaining both perspectives.
Bush
deals with Ruth and Esther in separate studies, though he occasionally makes
comparisons between them (e.g. see pp. 311, 325). In the introduction to the book
of Ruth, he concludes that Ruth was written at the beginning of the post-exilic
period (p. 30). He wastes few words on the question of the book’s authorship
because he rightly calls such speculation an “exercise in futility” (p. 17), as
no amount of guessing can yield a single valid clue as to the identity of
Ruth’s author.
Bush is
convinced that the determination of genre is “unmistakably of critical
importance for the interpretation of the book of Ruth” (p. 32), but at the same
time he admits the difficulty of determining genre. He provides an extensive
discussion of the genre of Ruth (pp. 30–47), concluding that it could best be
called “an edifying short story” (p. 46), rather than a novella, idyll, legend
or other designations preferred by some scholars.
Bush
deals carefully and responsibly with the three questions that are most often raised
in connection with the book of Ruth. (1) He argues that the marriage of Ruth and
Boaz was not an example of levirate marriage by pointing out the differences between
them (pp. 223–227). (2) He denies the sexually implicit interpretations held by
some scholars of the events between Ruth and Boaz at the threshing floor,
stating that seducing Boaz would be “totally incompatible” with the character
of Ruth and Naomi (p. 165). (3) He argues that 4:18–22 is not a “contradictory
and clumsy secondary appendage as it is often interpreted” (p. 267). By affirming
the genealogy of 4:18–22 as an integral part of Ruth, rather than a later
appendage, Bush concludes that “the book is brought into relationship with the
Bible’s main theme of redemptive history” (p. 268).
He offers
the interesting observation that Naomi, not Ruth, is the central figure in the
book of Ruth (p. 252), “the person whose ‘trial’ really holds the whole story together”
(quoting E. F. Campbell, AB 7, p. 168). I am not quite persuaded, however, to
abandon Ruth as the central character around whom the events of the book
largely revolve.
The same
overall commendation that I give to Bush’s treatment of the book of Ruth is
also appropriate for his study of the book of Esther. Using the same format,
Bush first deals with the critical questions associated with Esther. His
extensive bibliography is followed by a detailed study of the problem of
Esther’s acceptance into the canon that continued at least until the end of the
third century AD, though he believes Esther had achieved
canonicity in the second century BC (p. 276). Although it may have
received canonical status early in the Jewish community, early acceptance was
withheld among Christians. Bush observes that none of the church fathers wrote
a commentary on Esther. It was not until the 9th century that a commentary was
devoted to Esther, written by Rhabanus Maurus, Archbishop of Mainz (p. 277).
Bush does
not accept Esther as a unity, as he does Ruth. He acknowledges a redactional history
for the book and concludes that the final product was the work of two anonymous
authors (pp. 294–295). He dates the redactional process that resulted in MT
Esther from the late 4th century to the early 3rd century BC.
Bush
believes that the providence of God is implicit in the book of Esther, though God
is never mentioned by name. Others have argued that the absence of reference to
God may show his disapproval of his people because they had not learned their
lessons from the punishment they had recently experienced that the prophets had
warned them for centuries was coming. The book of Malachi makes it clear that
the post-exilic people were no diˆerent from the pre-exilic people in regard to
their faithlessness to God. Were the exiles in Persia any diˆerent from those
Jews in Judah? Would God’s absence in Esther be better explained as his
hiddenness? The Scriptures often speak of the hiddenness of God because of the
people’s sins (cf. Isa 59:2).
The most
troubling aspect of Bush’s study of Esther is his glossing over the moral and
ethical misdeeds of both Mordecai and Esther, a kind of “the means justifies
the end” ethics. He is uncritical of Esther’s deliberate lying to hide her
Jewish identity. He is not troubled by her willingness to marry a Gentile
unbeliever at the risk of becoming one of his concubines if she did not win his
beauty contest that was based solely on physical attributes. He does not
recognize that Mordecai’s stubborn pride in refusing to bow before Haman
resulted in all the tragic events that followed. He prefers to soften
Mordecai’s stubbornness by calling it “ethnic pride” (p. 385). Bush seems not
to be bothered by the excessive vengeance exacted on the Jews’ enemies,
including the hanging of Haman’s ten sons after they had already been executed.
Two
questions should be considered before concluding that God’s providence is the guiding
force behind the decisions made by Mordecai and Esther to save their people. (1)
Would God have found a way to deliver his people apart from the questionable
ethical means employed by Mordecai and Esther? (2) Can immoral and unethical
means used to achieve a worthy goal be justified as examples of God’s
providence? The acts of Mordecai and Esther may be typical of those today who
work out their own problems without consulting God and then later claim his
approval.
Bush’s
commentary on the book of Esther is not as thorough as his commentary on the
book of Ruth. He devotes 266 pages to the 85 verses of Ruth and only 227 pages
to the 167 verses of Esther. In his verse-by-verse comments on Ruth, he only omits
comments on 1:3, 2:17a, 3:6, and 4:22, whereas he omits comments on 56 verses of
Esther. Quantitative analysis alone should not be the only criterion for
evaluating a commentary, but the diˆerence in the treatment of the two books is
noticeable.
This
commentary on two Biblical books that are not often given such in-depth, scholarly
treatment as other OT books measures up to the high standards already
established by this series of Biblical commentaries. If it were rated according
to designations used for hotels and restaurants, this reviewer would give it a
“Five-Star” rating. It will certainly take its place as an important commentary
for years to come for anyone making a careful study of the books of Ruth and
Esther.
F. B. Huey, Jr.
Southwestern Baptist Theological
Seminary, Fort Worth, TX
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten