Esther

Bechtel's Esther (Interpretation, 2002) is warmly written and structurally perceptive, with helpful observations on the book's banquet structure and the theme of proportion among characters. However, several significant problems limit its usefulness. Most seriously, Bechtel applies a canoe metaphor — explicitly defined as achievable "only with a lot of exhausting effort, and even then, not always successfully" — to God's own providential working ("even God sometimes chooses to steer from the front"), producing a theologically reductive picture of divine sovereignty that no other major Esther commentary endorses; she also describes God as "notoriously elusive," an unfortunate choice of language. Her interpretive positions include a number of unsupported novelties: she floats the idea that Mordecai's refusal to bow was "a fit of pique" driven by jealousy; she reads Mordecai's urgent words to Esther in 4:13–14 as "a thinly veiled threat" to expose her identity — a reading found in no other commentary; and she treats Sandra Berg's speculative homophone theory (that Ahasuerus may have misheard "destroy" as "enslave") as a foundational interpretive key to chapters 3 and 7, when virtually no other major commentary adopts it. She also contains a chronological inaccuracy, claiming Xerxes "was off fighting the Battle of Salamis" when Esther was presented to him, when Salamis preceded Esther's arrival by some three months. Internally, her "proportionality" framework produces a logical inconsistency: she blames Mordecai for "getting the people of God into this mess" with a rash refusal, yet simultaneously celebrates his being honored "in proportion to his merits." Her governing theological framework of "critical compromise" as a model for modern Christians is applied without adequate engagement with the moral and covenantal failures of Esther and Mordecai — a dimension taken more seriously by Jobes (NIVAC), Tomasino (EEC), and Duguid (REC). Best used as a devotional supplement; serious exegetical work should rely on Levenson (OTL), Bush (WBC), or Jobes (NIVAC).

FacultØ de ThØologie, UniversitØ de GenŁve Switzerland CH 1134 Louvrage sous recension est caractØristique de la production de la collection «Interpretation». En effet, ce petit commentaire vise offrir un outil de travail pratique ceux qui souhaitent Øtudier et prŒcher le texte biblique en Øglise. Le commentaire combine des apports exØgØtiques de type historicio-critique et une discussion thØologique, afin de mettre en liens les questions dinterprØtation biblique avec les problŁmes contemporains de la vie et de la foi. Lintroduction (120) prØsente un surv ol des questions exØgØtiques historico-critiques posØes par le livre dEsther et des principaux thŁmes qui y apparaissent. Les questions textuelles sont traitØes de maniŁre si sommaire que le texte Alpha nest mŒme pas mentionnØ. Bechtel rappell e cependant lexistence du texte grec de la LXX et de ses 6 longues additions, dont elle tient compte la maniŁre de St JØrme: elle les explique en appendice au commentaire du TM (8598). erBechtel situe la rØdaction dEsther bien aprŁs lØpoque de XerxŁs 1 , probablement entre 400 et 200 av. J-C. Le genre littØraire dEsther indique quil sagit dune fictionon peut parler dun e «nouvelle» ou dun «rØcit de sagesse». [Full Review]