Esther: its historicity and the USCCB NAB commentary?

[prodigalson2011]

Gorgias, if you reread my first post, I already cited one example of a disagreement I have and the reason for it. Although, I just realized, I mistakenly said “rhinoceros.” It’s actually a hippopotamus. But my objection stands: the hippopotamus’ tail is very thin, stringy andnowhere approaching impressive.

And I weigh the value of my opinion against the NAB the only reasonable way to do so: through careful analysis and research.

 

[Gorgias]

No, I don’t have a lectionary to hand (I attend Tridentine Mass)

Sure you do! Go to usccb.org/bible, and click on the link for the daily readings. Ta-da! Lectionary!

the Psalms have been dramatically revised (as they’re not NAB Psalms at all)

RIght – the psalms come from a different translation. I believe that this proceeds from their liturgical usage, and therefore, a translation more in line with poetic considerations was deemed more appropriate. However, if you have any references to suggest that the Psalms of the NAB were deemed heterodox, I’d be interested in reading them…!

and, I believe, we have reinsertions of “virgin” (and a general restoration of removed prophecy from the OT), “grace”, removal of unwarranted gender-neutering.

These should be reasonably easy to track down, with simple Google searches. When I get a chance (perhaps, over the next week?) I’ll attempt to track some down, and we can do some side-by-side comparison. However, given that this thread is dealing with the book of Esther, and in particular, chapter 9, is there anything there in the NAB that warrants concern?

I’m not sure how Gen 1:1-3 reads (in the NAB/RE, it reads as God is co-eternal with matter and not a creator, but a Mormon-like organizer of matter). The fact that it required Vatican intervention (I believe I read that at Adoremus) should be a sign that it’s not only the standard changes such as you mention.

Can you recall any details about the assertions you think you read at Adoremus? A reference, perhaps? An author or publication details?

Since you assert that the NAB mangles syntax, it is interesting to note that the commentary on Gen 1:1 in the NAB directly mentions how the traditional version is a poor translation, syntactically:

Until modern times the first line was always translated, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Several comparable ancient cosmogonies, discovered in recent times, have a “when…then” construction, confirming the translation “when…then” here as well. “When” introduces the pre-creation state and “then” introduces the creative act affecting that state. The traditional translation, “In the beginning,” does not reflect the Hebrew syntax of the clause.

I do know that I have seen the NAB-LE, and have checked a few of the most terrible verses (although not Gen 1:1-3, that I remember: I’m not sure it’s even read in the Catholic liturgy, but I’m used to hearing it in the Byzantine rite and Orthodox church)

Yes, it’s the first reading at the Easter Vigil.

The Lectionary:

In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless wasteland, and darkness covered the abyss, while a mighty wind swept over the waters.

The NAB:

In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth—and the earth was without form or shape, with darkness over the abyss and a mighty wind sweeping over the waters—

So… what’s your concern with the NAB version, again?

 

[Khalid]

Wasn’t this the accepted translation style of the period in which the NAB was assembled?

Sadly, I believe so. I think the NAB was the first in 1970, either it or the NJPS: based on the bandwagon effect after either the liberal Catholics’ erroneous interpretation or the Jews’ erroneous interpretation of it in the NJPS Tanakh (I’m not sure which one had Genesis released first).

Then, in 1989, the REB and NRSV followed suit, cementing it as the new rendering for liberal Christianity.

The only at the time to buck the trend was the very conservative NKJV, if I remember. I don’t believe any after that time have (not even the NET Bible, notorious for other liberal/non-traditional OT renderings). Similar to the same bandwagon effect when “valley of the shadow of death” was being translated as “deep gloom”, because one Hebrew linguist made one argument why the compound of the Hebrew words for “shadow” and “death” (tsalmveth) shouldn’t be translated as such, but instead as “gloom” based on some “assured result” of a supposed cognate in ancient Babylonian or Akkadian or pre-Arabic or Assyrian or Sanskrit or Parsi or seal-script Mandarin or something… and then the new “assured results” support the traditional etymology. It reminds me of the “tehom” - “Tiamat” “assured results” of the older literature (which has held on in the hands of secular critics, much like Alexander Hislop’s The Two Babylons always hangs on in the hands of anti-religionists and anti-Catholics).

Walter Brueggemann, writing in the 1980s, Interpretation of Genesis, (p.29) says:

“The familiar statement of verse 1 admits more of more than one rendering. The conventional translation (supported by Isa 46:10) makes a claim for creation as an absolute and decisive act of God. But it may be a dependent temporal clause (‘when God began to create’): it then relates closely to what follows, and creation is understood to be an ongoing work which God has begun and continues. The evidence of the grammar is not decisive.”

Newer work has swung away from that again, and even at its worst, the best exegetes in the world believed it was “not decisive” - pure bandwagon effect.

 

[Khalid]

Until modern times the first line was always translated, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Several comparable ancient cosmogonies, discovered in recent times, have a “when…then” construction, confirming the translation “when…then” here as well. “When” introduces the pre-creation state and “then” introduces the creative act affecting that state. The traditional translation, “In the beginning,” does not reflect the Hebrew syntax of the clause.

Pulled directly from the New Jerome commentary and a baseless assertion according to Wenham (WBC), Mathews (NAC), Waltke, Westermann (Continental), von Rad (OTL), Brueggemann, Keil and Delitzsche, Cotter (Berit Olam), Hamilton (NICOT, and several other excellent exegetes, who at most admit that it is “inconclusive” (John Walton is the only one that I know of who states conclusively, besides NJBC, that it can not mean ex nihilo, and he believes it’s nothing but a plagiarism of heathen myths). I think Nahum Sarna has a position similar to Brueggemann’s, but he may lean more towards non-ex-nihilo. I can’t recall where Robert Alter stands.

I think it’s been amply demonstrated that supposed plagiarisms from Atrahasis and Enuma Elis and the Sumerian Kings List are not grounds for valid exegesis of the Hebrew text (see the “tehom”-“tiamat” debate), on linguistic grounds alone, not to even consider that it relies on so many other unsupported “assured results” about the dating and redaction of the text for it to even be possible, nor to mention that it requires one to approach the text as uninspired and equivalent to heathen creation myths, to approach it with a thoroughgoing methodological (if not worse) naturalism.

It seems that ancient translations would be, and to my knowledge, the only one to handle it in such a way is the Peshitta (I think, my Aramaic is terrible, so I’m going based on Lamsa, who isn’t always the most honest or reliable). The LXX clearly renders, “In the beginning God”, as does the Vulgate, which was 600 years later but equal in time to most of the Peshitta.

Stating opinion or possibility as gospel fact is one of the main problems I have with the NAB (such as Markan-priority two-source hypothesis is treated in the Gospels). It’s not presented as an opinion or a possibility, let alone a far from traditional one (that, indeed, if true, destroys virtually the entire Christian religion and conception of God, and introduces several contradictions in to the Bible where God is stated categorically to have created ex nihilo (even using that very phrase in 1 Maccabees).

Also, if the NAB-LE renders Gen 1:1-3 that way (especially if it includes “mighty wind”, “elohim” can mean “mighty”, but not adjectivally, and in that case, is rendered in that way solely to “de-Christianize” the OT by removing as much typology as possible, when better renderings are available), I will denigrate it freely. I’ll have to look through the online version.

Here is the rejection of the 1991 NAB Psalter for liturgical use (with further refs and links) adoremus.org/0502InclusivePsalms.html

 

[Bible_Reader]

There are clearly literary compositions in the Bible – for example, I think that most readers would consider Song of Songs to be a literary composition. Further, the traditional interpretation of Song of Songs is that it is a metaphor (rather than being, for example, erotic poetry.) One can see that it is not heretical to view a biblical book as being a literary composition that is meant to be instructive or interpreted metaphorically.

Throughout the Bible there are idioms and expressions – thus when the Bible speaks of the “hand of God” we understand it as a metaphor and not a literal statement. We do not, for example, attempt to determine God’s ring size or the weight of fingernail clippers for God.

Similarly, Ezekiel’s vision of the Chariot (Ezekiel 1) is usually understood as being a prophetic vision that must be interpreted symbolically, rather than being a photographic description of what God looks like when he travels around in his warrior chariot.

My point here is that some Biblical passages are interpreted as symbolic or metaphorical or literary, and have been for centuries.​

Turning now to the interpretation of Genesis 1:1-3, there are grammatical reasons for interpreting this passage as “When God began to create…” While Khalid said that this first started in 1970, in fact, it has a much longer history.

The 1952 RSV (and RSV-CE) had this as an alternative translation.

The 1911 translation of Skinner (for the International Critical Commentary) chose this as his primary translation, which influenced most 20th century translations.

The German commentaries of Gunkel (1902), Holzinger (1898), Dillman (1892), and Ewald (1870) favored this reading.

The medieval commentator Rashi (who died in 1105) favored this reading.

This was not a sudden fashion that started in the 1970s – this reading has been seriously debated by scholars for well over a century. However, if you want a clear and unambiguous statement of creatio ex nihilo, I am certain you will find it in your Bible: at 2 Maccabees 7:28.

 

[Khalid]

To disbelieve the Bible’s inspiration is heresy.
Plagiarized fiction is not inspired.
Some of these notes claim that the Bible is full of plagiarized fiction.

Finish the syllogism for 10 points.

Those Germans of over 100 years ago were the kind of speculative liberal excesses that I was speaking of (and Germany has long been notorious for them), I am certain - I am willing to assert it without having read them by mere comparison to the International Critical Commentary, which is more aptly named the German Critical Deconstruction.

 

[Gorgias]

To disbelieve the Bible’s inspiration is heresy.
Plagiarized fiction is not inspired.
Some of these notes claim that the Bible is full of plagiarized fiction.

Finish the syllogism for 10 points.

Substantiate the middle term, first.

How is “plagiarized fiction” not inspired, when, if it’s in the Bible, it’s clearly inspired text in the form that makes it into the Scriptures?!?

 

[Bible_Reader]

To be clear, none of those authors were talking about the question of the literal truth of Genesis, and they weren’t comparing (for the purpose of the question of this translation) Genesis with other Ancient Near Eastern texts.

Rather, they were considering the grammar of the Hebrew. I’m not sure if you read Hebrew, but the grammatical question is on the very first word of the Bible: bereishit. It is grammatically in construct form, which means it must be joined to a genitive form to be meaningful, leading to the translation When God began.

Those who argue that it should be rendered as In the beginning are arguing that the word should be read in the absolute form – or that there is a missing (implied) word in the text, e.g., bereishit hakol (in the beginning of everything).

I’m not sure how the question of fiction or non-fiction or parallels to other Ancient Near Eastern texts figures into this particular point. I also fail to understand how efforts to understand ancient Hebrew grammar are “liberal excesses” – I would not describe them as “liberal” or “conservative.”

---

For the question of the parallels between Esther and Mordechai to Ishtar and Marduk: there are unique features to the Esther story that allow us to say that the Hebrew version (and the Greek version) are not merely plagiarized fiction, even if they have a large number of similarities. I’m not sure what your concern here is – are you claiming that the Babylonian story of Ishtar and Marduk does not exist?

 

[Khalid]

Substantiate the middle term, first.

How is “plagiarized fiction” not inspired, when, if it’s in the Bible, it’s clearly inspired text in the form that makes it into the Scriptures?!?

It was not plagiarized, nor is it fiction. If it was, it wouldn’t be an inspired text - it would be a collection of re-told heathen fairy tales. I have never heard of the story of Ishtar and Marduk, but any coincidence is that - a coincidence - not a sign of literary dependency. Or, as Josephus, Philo, and some of the Fathers, argued, that Plato had read Moses in order to write the Timaeus, the opposite dependency of what is commonly posited. Or the Rabbinic legend, which I happen to like and find reasonable, that YHWH declared the truth to all nations in all tongues on Mt Sinai, but only the Jews listened; that all of the other stuff was seen as in a mirror, darkly. The hermeneutic of suspicion is such, that if something is in the Bible, it is automatically on the losing end of any possible literary criticism, dependency, or debate.

Granted, most of the parallels require presupposing the truth of the “assured results” of the higher criticism of liberals, but I can give credit to at least the Enuma Elis for not, as it was earlier than Moses (although I don’t doubt that many, in that self-same hermeneutic of suspicion, will take every decision-fork and make every assumption to lessen the Bible’s antiquity, while doing the opposite, to increase the antiquity, of heathen texts: if this is, and one looks at the far range of dates for both the Enuma Elis in Babylonian (not Akkadian) and Genesis, they were contemporaneous, both composed in the middle 15th century BC).

Just as there are hymns in the Rig Veda that are a lot like the creation of the world as faithfully recorded in the first chapter of Genesis - and there’s no way they could have influenced each other due to geographic distance; there’s no evidence there was ever any intercourse between the races, and some of the Vedic hymns are far more similar to Genesis than, “When nothing had yet been named”.

My Hebrew is awful. I can read the script, but most of my grammar comes from “Basic Biblical Hebrew” and Arabic cognates.

The point of those authors is directly related: does Genesis speak of creation ex nihilo with the word “bara” or not? If it does, then it can not be “When [In the beginning] God began to create”, as something was co-eternal with God, even if it was only time. The matter is with the first three words in English (as you stated, bereishith), and bara. They both have bearing on each other, and for the question of creation ex nihilo. Wouldn’t the “most correct” translation be, “In the beginning of [God’s creating]”? I don’t believe it to be accurate, but, unlike, “When”, does not present insurmountable doctrinal difficulties that disprove Biblical inspiration.

If Genesis teaches not creation ex nihilo, irreconcilable contradictions are introduced in to the Bible, and, since God can not deceive nor be deceived, at least part of the Bible is not inspired. Either 2 Maccabees 7 and Isaiah 46 or Genesis 1 are inspired; both sides can not be. At the same time, the traditional conception of God - and that which is demonstrated by philosophy or natural theology - is contradicted by the Bible - the Book of Genesis, in this case. To admit that Genesis teaches other than creation ex nihilo is to deny the inspiration of Genesis. And, if Genesis isn’t inspired, what else isn’t? As, if it isn’t, the Church obviously can’t tell fake from not.

It’s much like if Adam and Eve didn’t exist (or at least Adam), Christianity is false, because without original sin, there was no need for a redeemer, so on and so forth. Many deny Adam and Eve without realizing the implications of that denial (or they turn in to Spongians, followers of the other gospel preached by John Spong).

That reminds me of something funny - how can anyone buy in to Mormonism? The Apostle says, “anathema be on he who preaches another gospel, even if he be an angel of heaven”, and the Book of Mormon says, “ANOTHER GOSPEL” in bold letters, right on the cover.

 

[Crumpy]

The Jewish Publication Society has a commentary on Esther. The essence of that agrees with the point of view of the Jewish Study Bible–

to wit: Esther is fictionalized account of the origin of the Jewish feast of Purim. They describe 'Esther" as a rollicking comedy. The sudden reversals from calamity to victory bring the instantaneous theme of comedy.

It’s not known in pre-Biblical times, for example, that a Persian king could not reverse a decree, as is assumed in Esther.

Like in a roadrunner cartoon, there are moments of tension and impending calamity when the wolf’s plot goes awry, like the plot to exterminate the Jews in Esther, and, in fact, Haman ends up in the gallows.

the Jewish saying goes, that if you’re not having a good time on Purim, then you’ve not had enough wine to drink.

The Book of Esther is so bawdy (in the beginning) that you can understand that the holy and revered name of God does not appear in the Jewish (Masoretic) version of the story. The book ends up, nonetheless, in the list of canonized texts because ti shows the origin of a Jewish day of celebration that originated outside of the Torah (Pentateuch), the first of other such days in the Jewish calendar.

 

[Gorgias]

It was not plagiarized, nor is it fiction. If it was, it wouldn’t be an inspired text - it would be a collection of re-told heathen fairy tales.

On the other hand, then, what do you do with Proverbs 22:20 (the source of Origen’s theological assertions) and the later discovery of correspondences with Egyptian wisdom literature?

You’re stuck with an assertion that starts off somewhat strong, but gets weaker each time you’re forced to use it: that is, the notion that all correspondences are actually other traditions that copy the Scriptural texts.

I’m not as worried about it as you appear to be: if we believe, as we do, that God inspired the authors of Scripture to write His message of Salvation History in the human way of their choosing, and some chose to refashion other tales, then it’s still true, still authentic Scripture, and still inspired. You do a disservice to God when you place these other arbitrary restrictions on His ability to reveal Himself to us in manners of His own choosing.

In a way, you’re telling us that Elijah should’ve rejected God’s presence in the “small, still voice”: after all, God can only reveal Himself to us in earthquakes and fire – that is, ways of great ferocious grandeur – ways that we expect Him to be present…

 

[Khalid]

the Jewish saying goes, that if you’re not having a good time on Purim, then you’ve not had enough wine to drink.

Doesn’t it have something to do with drinking enough Manischewitz so that you can’t tell the difference between “blessed be Mordechai” and “cursed be Haman” when they’re read from a scroll?

 

[Khalid]

On the other hand, then, what do you do with Proverbs 22:20 (the source of Origen’s theological assertions) and the later discovery of correspondences with Egyptian wisdom literature?

You’re stuck with an assertion that starts off somewhat strong, but gets weaker each time you’re forced to use it: that is, the notion that all correspondences are actually other traditions that copy the Scriptural texts.

I’m not as worried about it as you appear to be: if we believe, as we do, that God inspired the authors of Scripture to write His message of Salvation History in the human way of their choosing, and some chose to refashion other tales, then it’s still true, still authentic Scripture, and still inspired. You do a disservice to God when you place these other arbitrary restrictions on His ability to reveal Himself to us in manners of His own choosing.

In a way, you’re telling us that Elijah should’ve rejected God’s presence in the “small, still voice”: after all, God can only reveal Himself to us in earthquakes and fire – that is, ways of great ferocious grandeur – ways that we expect Him to be present…

I’m not claiming that all parallels come from scripture to heathen, only that none go the other way around. Some of the Fathers, as I mentioned, believed that Plato had read Moses; I highly doubt it.

Two people - one inspired by God, and one not - can come up with similar truth completely independently from each other with no literary relation at all, in either direction, as “the law of God is written in the hearts of all men”. The only difference is the inspired account is guaranteed to be free from all error and teach nothing but the truth, whereas the non-inspired account may teach some of the truth, but it is not guaranteed to be free from error.

Compare Genesis 1 to Hymn 129 of the Rig Veda. There’s obviously no literary dependency, but the parallels in fact are just as pronounced - in some places, more so - than between Enuma Elis and Gen 1.

I was thinking on my assertion the other night, and figured, if indeed I was wrong about creation ex nihilo, a literal Adam, etc. there would be a way to overcome it and preserve the Christian faith in most of its essence (maybe not God, though), but not to preserve the infallibility of the Church (which is enough to prove that it can’t be so, as the Church is infallible, as Jesus promised): to return to Origen’s semi-Gnostic/dualist views of the pre-existence of souls and to allegorize away Genesis 1-3; to wit, to remove “Adam and Eve” as people and “the Garden of Eden”, and make it a metaphor for pre-existent (or even co-eternal) souls who fall from the spirit realm (cf Plotinus’ Enneads) to become imprisoned in a body. That’s the only way we’d still need to be redeemed, if we don’t have original sin (and original sin must have entered the world at some time - that of Adam - and not have been created with it, or God created evil, which tears down all Judaeo-Christian religion).

That’s the option. Not one I’m willing to take, nor even consider.