Esther: its historicity and the USCCB NAB commentary?

[ethereality]

I was a little surprised to see the USCCB’s NAB introduction to the book of Esther frankly state,

We are shown a Persian emperor, Ahasuerus (loosely based on Xerxes, 485–464 B.C.) …] The book is a free composition, not a historical document. Its fictional character can be illustrated by many examples of literary motifs …] there are …] contradictions between these Greek additions and the older Hebrew text

This can be contrasted with the Catholic Encyclopedia article, mirrored by newadvent.org, e.g.

Assuerus, who is identified with Xerxes (485-465 B.C.) …] what seem to be historical improbabilities are in many cases trivial. …] The seeming improbability of other passages, if not entirely explained, can be sufficiently explained to destroy the conclusion, on this ground, that the book is not historical. …] There is undoubtedly an exercise of art in the composition of the work, but no more than any historian may use in accumulating and arranging the incidents of his history. A more generally accepted opinion among contemporary critics is that the work is substantially historical. …] the opinion held by most Catholics and by some Protestants is, that the work is historical in substance and in detail.

and also with my understanding of what we believe about the inerrancy of the word of God: There are no “contradictions” in the Bible.

So which is it? Are we more correct in 1917 than in 2012? Why this shift? Are we to understand the USCCB – and hence at least a majority of the US bishops – support the commentary on its website as true?

 

[prodigalson2011]

I, personally, have found quite a few footnotes in the NAB that I either find questionable or completely disagree with. I know the footnotes themselves have been given the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur, but to the best of my knowledge, that doesn’t mean they are necessarily correct, but that they don’t contradict doctrine, so I don’t think we’re bound to the NAB interpretation of such details (for example, Behemoth in the book of Job is interpreted to be a rhinoceros. I think they are wrong as Behemoth’s tail is likened to a tree, and the rhinoceros tail is incredibly small.)

I think I would go with the Catholic Encyclopedia. In my experience, their research and explication are much more in depth.

 

[Gorgias]

I, personally, have found quite a few footnotes in the NAB that I either find questionable or completely disagree with. I know the footnotes themselves have been given the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur,

Well, if you disagree with them, I guess that makes it so!

I think I would go with the Catholic Encyclopedia. In my experience, their research and explication are much more in depth.

OK, then, let’s go with more recent scholarship (2003, not 1917)… the New Catholic Encyclopedia says:

In the past most scholars considered the story based on an event in Jewish history, a threatened pogrom in the Persian Empire from which the Jews escaped. This is the event celebrated annually at Purim. Modern scholars, however, are less willing to see even a minimal basis in history. Many elements of the narrative lack all semblance of verisimilitude, such as the complacence of King Xerxes at the slaughter of tens of thousands of his subjects (9.5–17), to give but one example. The story is possibly a fictional illustration of the firm Jewish belief that those who trust in God will be delivered in all their needs and a concrete illustration of the poetic justice so often prayed for in the Psalms, that the evil doers should perish in the very trap they had set for the innocent (see Est 9.1). Some, however, consider the story a Jewish adaptation of an already existing story of non-Jewish origin. Thus, it could be rooted in an ancient Babylonian myth and festival commemorating the victory of the gods of Babylon over the gods of Elam.

(from Esther, Book Of, New Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 5. 2nd ed. Detroit: Gale, 2003. p372-374.)

 

[ethereality]

A note about the poll: It should finish, “translation and commentary?” – how frustrating that the poll question is poorly truncated with no advance notice … I suppose the gist of the poll is clear, though.

Gorgias, regarding what you quote, why is it implausible that Xerxes wouldn’t be upset at the death of thousands of his subjects, especially when it has his sanction? The DRB has the footnote,

The Jews on this occasion, by authority from the king, were made executioners of the public justice, for punishing by death a crime worthy of death, viz., a malicious conspiracy for extirpating their whole nation.

which the text itself makes clear, cf. verse 14, “And the king commanded that it should be so done.”

Hitler, Stalin, and Obama all support killing their subjects when it’s politically expedient, to the order of millions, not simply tens of thousands (note: 1,000,000/10,000 = 100 times more people). It seems Xerxes here has reasons similar to Stalin then: For the political unity of the region, those put to death can be understood to have committed treason or some similar crime.

What you’ve quoted is thus not persuasive at all, and since the author acts as if the example’s more than sufficient, it speaks poorly of the New Catholic Encyclopedia … Perhaps sin darkens the intellect as they say, and as a culture we’re sinning much more than before …

Perhaps Xerxes’ empire was significantly smaller than the three I’ve mentioned today. Was it? If so then perhaps, as the 1917 article states, the author engaged in literary embellishment, common of the histories of the time – not pure fiction.

 

[prodigalson2011]

Well, if you disagree with them, I guess that makes it so!

I didn’t say that. At all.

My point is that there are varying interpretations of non-doctrinal elements of Scripture within the Catholic Church and that neither the NAB or the USCCB (all due respect) are the final word.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

Well, if you disagree with them, I guess that makes it so!

I didn’t say that. At all.

Well… except that, strictly speaking, you did: they have the nihil obstat and imprimatur, and you disagree with them. That’s what you said, right?

My point is that there are varying interpretations of non-doctrinal elements of Scripture within the Catholic Church and that the NAB is not the final word.

That’s fair enough. However, let me ask you: how do you weigh the relative merits of your opinion on one hand and the commentary of a Bible that has ecclesiastical approval and is considered “good enough” for use in Liturgy (the text, not the commentary, of course) on the other?

It’s true that there is room for “interpretation on non-doctrinal elements of Scripture”; how do you reach the conclusion that, “this Church-supplied document that utilizes current scholarship is wrong, and my ideas are right”? Just curious…

 

[Corki]

Well… except that, strictly speaking, you did: they have the nihil obstat and imprimatur, and you disagree with them. That’s what you said, right?

Even a work with the nihil obstat can be debated and discussed. It is not a stamp of infallibility. It means only that the work was found by at least one Bishop to not contain errors of faith. The commentary itself is not definitive or authoritative.

So, yes a work may have the NO and imprimatur and still be discussed, debated and contested by faithful Catholics.

No problem.

 

[prodigalson2011]

Well… except that, strictly speaking, you did: they have the nihil obstat and imprimatur, and you disagree with them. That’s what you said, right?

That doesn’t mean I’m right. It simply means I disagree. The Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur are not decrees of infallibility; they only give assurance that no DOCTRINAL ERROR is present.

It does NOT mean you have to agree with it.

That’s fair enough. However, let me ask you: how do you weigh the relative merits of your opinion on one hand and the commentary of a Bible that has ecclesiastical approval and is considered “good enough” for use in Liturgy (the text, not the commentary, of course) on the other?

It’s true that there is room for “interpretation on non-doctrinal elements of Scripture”; how do you reach the conclusion that, “this Church-supplied document that utilizes current scholarship is wrong, and my ideas are right”? Just curious…

Because being a Catholic doesn’t mean you can’t think for yourself on matters that don’t apply to faith and morals. Not even all bishops, theologians, cardinals, etc. agree on all these issues. I have no problem with the NAB as a whole. In fact, I own and read one almost every day. But I’m more than willing to bet there are disagreements in interpretation between various Catholic bibles, Ignatius vs. NAB for example. What gives one more weight than the other?

Again, I’m not saying they are undeniably wrong. I am saying that they are not necessarily right. The Church permits individuals to interpret the events of Genesis, to a degree, on their own. Why would it be any different for less important matters?

 

[Khalid]

The authority of the NAB annotation is ABSOLUTELY NONE. It’s the guesses of some very liberal Biblical critics, and has no more authority than your guesses, or the guesses in any other study Bible (although reason and careful scriptural study can prove them to be incorrect or unnecessarily critical much more often than other annotation in other Bibles).

That is one reason of many I refuse to use the NAB. Those are some of the more tame notes. The introduction and notes for Genesis, especially Gen 1, are worse, and are heterodox (or outright heretical). I bought an NAB as soon as I became a Catholic, figuring that with ten imprimaturs and two papal blessings it had to be the best Bible available. I was shocked when I opened it before I got two pages in. The old NAB psalms of 1991 I believe have had the imprimatur withdrawn. And then I learned that the NAB is banned from liturgical use: the “NAB” that’s used in the liturgy is no more like the NAB you can buy than a King James Bible is: it was specifically re-done by the Vatican itself in order to bring it in to compliance with the Catholic faith, but the “corrected” NAB can not be purchased as a Bible, but only as a lectionary (which can not be used like a Bible, and only contains about 1/2 of it).

(Edit: look at the introduction to the Pentateuch and the notes on the first page of Genesis, and the introduction to the Gospels: for the most egregious offenders, it does appear that the material contained within the covers is damaging or contrary to faith and morals, and in some places is even doctrinally unsound even by the most liberal Raymond Brown standards. As far as the imprimatur goes today, since the recension of the Index, it is a rubber stamp for whatever the scholars want to publish, and provides no guarantee of orthodoxy. Look at the New Jerome Commentary. A more doctrinally incorrect Catholic look at the Bible does not exist. It was given imprimatur and nihil obstat by the very same authors who wrote the book, Raymond Brown and Joseph Fitzmyer.)

The translation is poor, and in some places (Gen 1:3) is plain incorrect according to even a basic Hebrew grammar (the NABRE OT and NAB OT are equally bad, and the NTs are the same). It alternates between very dynamic and very literal, and is inconsistent in translating words. The NT translation of the NAB/RE is not horrible, like the OT, but it is not good either. However, the annotation is plainly scandalous. There is no Bible that I recommend less, except for the JW Bible, the New Oxford NRSV 4th Edition (which at least is targeted at atheists and academics and not the simple faithful) and the Skeptic’s Annotated Bible.

I suggest tossing that Bible in to the circular file and purchasing a Douay-Rheims or a Confraternity Version if you can read Early Modern English (thees and thous), or a Revised Standard Version - Second Catholic Edition (NOT the plain “Catholic Edition”, the 2nd only; the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible New Testament is this version, as are all of the ones with the Ikon of Jesus and the four evangelists on the front) if you can’t. Or an Old Jerusalem Bible (not the New Jerusalem). Or even many Protestant versions (NASB, ESV, KJV, NKJV, even NIV84) or the Orthodox Study Bible. But not the NAB/RE, RSV, RSV-CE, NRSV, REB, or NLT (none are good, some are worse, but only the NAB is forced to be printed with the scandalous notes and introductions instead of text-only). My opinion of the NAB/RE would be better if it came in text-only editions, but it still can not be recommended over any other Catholic Bible, nor over many Protestant versions.

 

[ethereality]

Sounds like we’re on the same page, Khalid …

So, about Esther …

 

[prodigalson2011]

Khalid, I was unaware! Thank you for enlightening me. I think I’ll be purchasing an Ignatius Study Bible promptly.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias, regarding what you quote, why is it implausible that Xerxes wouldn’t be upset at the death of thousands of his subjects, especially when it has his sanction? The DRB has the footnote, which the text itself makes clear, cf. verse 14, “And the king commanded that it should be so done.”

Two thoughts. First, what do you know about Persian royal decrees? Recall that they were irrevocable. If the king said it, then it had to be done, and could not be countermanded (cf Daniel 6:13). Here, we have the king promising that whatever Esther says will carry the force of decree. She, then, orders the slaughter. So, we can’t really hang our interpretation that the king’s command implies the king’s express desire. Esther’s power play succeeded, and the king was trying to react to that. You’re saying that he wanted the Jews to kill 75,000+ of his subjects, though?

Second, your footnotes says, “The Jews on this occasion, by authority from the king, were made executioners of the public justice, for punishing by death a crime worthy of death, viz., a malicious conspiracy for extirpating their whole nation”, but that’s not exactly true. Haman sets in motion a pogrom; others are in favor of it. The Jews don’t just kill those people; rather, they knock off “all their enemies” and “did to those who hated them as they pleased”. That’s hardly public justice, wouldn’t you say? No, in Esther, the king is portrayed as a fool – his ministers deceive him, and he makes wild promises (repeatedly), and never learns.

It seems Xerxes here has reasons similar to Stalin then: For the political unity of the region, those put to death can be understood to have committed treason or some similar crime.

Since you mention “treason”, you must be talking about his initial order, which was based on Haman’s assertion of treason. Sure – Xerxes is good with that. However, what’s in play here is the subsequent slaughter of thousands, based solely on his promise to Esther.

What you’ve quoted is thus not persuasive at all

Umm… really? You’re going there? It’s an encyclopedia, not a dissertation; it’s purpose isn’t to go on at length and persuade, but to simply report the facts (in this case, the facts of what current scholarship says). Go do the research, if you want to find a text that attempts to persuade…

and since the author acts as if the example’s more than sufficient, it speaks poorly of the New Catholic Encyclopedia

No, what’s becoming clear is that you’ve already decided on your conclusion; no other conclusion will be “persuasive” or “sufficient” for you. That speaks poorly, without a doubt, but not in the way you might think…

Perhaps sin darkens the intellect as they say, and as a culture we’re sinning much more than before …

Aah, yes. You disagree, and so an ad hominem attack proves your case. To use your words, “not persuasive”, and in a way that “speaks poorly”…

 

[Khalid]

That’s fair enough. However, let me ask you: how do you weigh the relative merits of your opinion on one hand and the commentary of a Bible that has ecclesiastical approval and is considered “good enough” for use in Liturgy (the text, not the commentary, of course) on the other?

It is not approved for liturgical use. The NAB that is used in the liturgy is heavily modified (I call it the “NAB-LE” in parallel to the “NAB-RE”) and is not available to the public in Biblical form (as only those parts used in the liturgy were revised), but can only be purchased as a lectionary. The parts that are present in the lectionary, while still displaying the NAB-series Bible’s deafness to good English, is a completely acceptable text, and is far better than what is pawned off as “the” Catholic Bible on the unsuspecting Catholic public.

 

[Gorgias]

That doesn’t mean I’m right. It simply means I disagree. The Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur are not decrees of infallibility; they only give assurance that no DOCTRINAL ERROR is present.

Corki:

Even a work with the nihil obstat can be debated and discussed. It is not a stamp of infallibility. It means only that the work was found by at least one Bishop to not contain errors of faith. The commentary itself is not definitive or authoritative.

So, yes a work may have the NO and imprimatur and still be discussed, debated and contested by faithful Catholics.

No problem.

Hang on a second – I’m not saying that there’s no right to disagree. However, you’re making a blanket statement (“quite a few footnotes in the NAB that I either find questionable or completely disagree with”) in order to justify throwing away current scholarship in favor of 100-year-old scholarship. Hence my question, “how do you justify this?” Note that I’m not saying, “You can’t do that!”… I’m asking how you can rationalize it…

What gives one more weight than the other?

That’s my question to you: how do you weigh one against the other – here, you’ve only stated that you “disagree” with the NAB commentary, so you prefer the explanation so of the CE.

Again, I’m not saying they are undeniably wrong. I am saying that they are not necessarily right.

I’m not asking “are you right”… I’m asking “how do you weigh the relative merits of your opinion on one hand and the commentary of a Bible that has ecclesiastical approval”…!

 

[Gorgias]

The introduction and notes for Genesis, especially Gen 1, are worse, and are heterodox (or outright heretical). …

look at the introduction to the Pentateuch and the notes on the first page of Genesis, and the introduction to the Gospels: for the most egregious offenders, it does appear that the material contained within the covers is damaging or contrary to faith and morals, and in some places is even doctrinally unsound

OK … so, prodigal and ether, here’s an answer to my question: not “what is right?”, but rather “why do you believe the NAB is wrong?”. These are assertions that are debatable. Thanks, Khalid!

The old NAB psalms of 1991 I believe have had the imprimatur withdrawn. And then I learned that the NAB is banned from liturgical use: the “NAB” that’s used in the liturgy is no more like the NAB you can buy than a King James Bible is: it was specifically re-done by the Vatican itself in order to bring it in to compliance with the Catholic faith, but the “corrected” NAB can not be purchased as a Bible, but only as a lectionary (which can not be used like a Bible, and only contains about 1/2 of it).

Do you have any citations for these assertions? I’d like to read up on this.

The translation is poor, and in some places (Gen 1:3) is plain incorrect according to even a basic Hebrew grammar (the NABRE OT and NAB OT are equally bad, and the NTs are the same). It alternates between very dynamic and very literal, and is inconsistent in translating words.

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

I suggest a Revised Standard Version - Second Catholic Edition (NOT the plain “Catholic Edition”, the 2nd only; the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible New Testament is this version

I agree that the RSV-2CE is superior in translation and more usable for serious study.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

how do you weigh the relative merits of your opinion on one hand and the commentary of a Bible that has ecclesiastical approval and is considered “good enough” for use in Liturgy (the text, not the commentary, of course) on the other?

It is not approved for liturgical use. The NAB that is used in the liturgy is heavily modified (I call it the “NAB-LE” in parallel to the “NAB-RE”) and is not available to the public in Biblical form (as only those parts used in the liturgy were revised), but can only be purchased as a lectionary. The parts that are present in the lectionary, while still displaying the NAB-series Bible’s deafness to good English, is a completely acceptable text, and is far better than what is pawned off as “the” Catholic Bible on the unsuspecting Catholic public.

And yet, the lectionary must, necessarily, be somewhat modified from the original text: at the very least, context must be provided (see today’s Gospel – Mt 7:7 does not begin with “Jesus said to his disciples”; yet, that kind of insertion is necessary in order to ground the lectionary reading). Are there other – that is, substantial – modifications to which you allude? Can you provide some examples?

Note, of course, that these changes make it nonsensical to provide a literal version of the Lectionary in strict Scriptural canonical fashion! The fact that the lectionary “is not available to the public in Biblical form” makes sense, and is not a reason to denigrate either the NAB or the Lectionary!

 

[Khalid]

Hang on a second – I’m not saying that there’s no right to disagree. However, you’re making a blanket statement (“quite a few footnotes in the NAB that I either find questionable or completely disagree with”) in order to justify throwing away current scholarship in favor of 100-year-old scholarship. Hence my question, “how do you justify this?” Note that I’m not saying, “You can’t do that!”… I’m asking how you can rationalize it…

New isn’t always better, and there is no place this is more apparent than Biblical scholarship (although, thank God, the past 10-20 years have seen a vast improvement, at least in certain quarters, over the nearly-universal excesses of the late 1800s and early-to-mid 1900s as some more traditional and less wildly speculative exegetes have “gotten in on the game”. However, the wildly speculative liberal tradition is still going strong in large branches of Catholicism, ever since Raymond Brown and Fitzmyer introduced it (ironically, the Pope praised RE Brown at the same time he denounced the excesses of historical criticism), and unchallenged in the rapidly-dying “mainstream Protestantism” and the old “divinity” schools, and has become more wildly speculative by the day.

Conclusions founded on “assured results” piled on top of assured results all the way back to the basis of a guess is not a house built on the sand, but a Castle in the Sky.

 

[Khalid]

And yet, the lectionary must, necessarily, be somewhat modified from the original text: at the very least, context must be provided (see today’s Gospel – Mt 7:7 does not begin with “Jesus said to his disciples”; yet, that kind of insertion is necessary in order to ground the lectionary reading). Are there other – that is, substantial – modifications to which you allude? Can you provide some examples?

Note, of course, that these changes make it nonsensical to provide a literal version of the Lectionary in strict Scriptural canonical fashion! The fact that the lectionary “is not available to the public in Biblical form” makes sense, and is not a reason to denigrate either the NAB or the Lectionary!

The Lectionary is acceptable, and I do not denigrate it, and far better than the NAB, which I freely denigrate as the tripe that it is.

No, I don’t have a lectionary to hand (I attend Tridentine Mass), but the Psalms have been dramatically revised (as they’re not NAB Psalms at all), and, I believe, we have reinsertions of “virgin” (and a general restoration of removed prophecy from the OT), “grace”, removal of unwarranted gender-neutering. 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.

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), and remember that it mostly passed muster (although the cacophonic, overly-literal rendering of Is 9:6 was unchanged).

 

[ethereality]

Gorgias, it’s clear you came here looking to argue … You missed some nuances and points in my post with your reply, but it seems I’m not able to clarify for you, given your attitude. But thanks for posting and contributing more information to this thread.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias, it’s clear you came here looking to argue

LOL! OK, I think I get it now – we’re allowed to disagree with the NAB, but when someone disagrees with “disagreeing with the NAB”, they’re arguing…!!!

you missed some nuances and points in my post with your reply, but it seems I’m not able to clarify for you

Hmm… and here I thought I quoted you… OK, then – please clarify: my attitude is one of attempting to make sense of your assertions, given that they appear to be closed to disagreement. Nevertheless, given that you say you’re open to disagreement, can you help me understand where my take on Esther 9 is flawed?