Esther. Abingdon Old Testament Commentaries

Book Reviews / Horizons in Biblical Theology 29 (2007) 223-253 235 Esther. Abingdon Old Testament Commentaries by Linda M. Day. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2005. xi. Pp. 177. $24. The challenge for a commentary in this series is to provide biblical insight that is both perspicacious for scholars and accessible for clergy, students, and interested laity. Day meets this goal admirably by synthesizing recent scholarship on Esther in a consistently academic and engaging style. The result is a commentary that is fresh and erudite, while remaining eminently readable. This commentary builds on Day’s dissertation at Princeton Theological Seminary (Three Faces of a Queen: Characterization in the Books of Esther, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995) and reflects her intimate knowledge of the text. After an introductory overview in which she lays out the literary aspects, original context, and theological concerns of the book, Day breaks down Esther into episodes. Each segment is titled then summarized briefly, and followed by a literary analysis (of a page or two), a more extensive exegetical analysis, and concludes with a relatively succinct theological and exegetical discussion. The bibliography includes works cited, ending with a brief annotated list of commentaries and selected studies. (Throughout her commentary, Day draws most heavily from the sources found on these last two pages.) No indices are provided. The twenty-two pages of the introduction present the foundation for further under- standing. Day stresses the complexity of characters and the pairing relationships that play off of each other throughout the story. She highlights the themes of power, space, honor, shame, and reversals of fate, while characterizing the book as a fictitious Jewish novel reflecting diasporan life. After weighing various options between the mid-fifth century B.C.E. and the early first century B.C.E. Day seems to (cautiously) favor Hellenistic dating (pp. 16-17). She maintains that despite its early questionable canonical status, Esther clearly belongs in the Bible because of its intertextuality with the rest of the biblical tradition (for example, Day fruitfully compares Esther to Moses at various points in her discussion). Little attention is given to the strikingly altered Greek versions of Esther (pp.13-14); instead Day refers her readers to other sources and focuses her own attention on the Hebrew text. Hebrew words are transliterated with diacritics, rendering them intelligible, yet slightly mysterious, to the uninitiated. Day is upfront about her intentions, and she steadily works to fulfill them. She wants us to read Esther as highly relevant to the personal and political concerns of our modern lives. In particular, she focuses on questions of identity (sexual and ethnic), gender and the power of women, and the perils of indifference in a post-Shoah world (a term whose use she advo- cates [p. 21] without explaining why). These issues are raised throughout the commentary, usually in the section of theological and exegetical analysis. While Day’s biases are evi- dent—support for gays, lesbians and transgendered people, empathy for foreigners seeking to survive amidst dominant cultures, concern about women’s access to power, and dogged defiance of those who would want to read Esther anti-semitically—they probably reflect those of many of her readers. At points it seems that she may be trying just a little too hard, as on p. 61 when she suggests that Mordecai, as a childless bachelor in his society, “repre- sents an ambiguous sexual identity.” Overall, however, Day’s treatment is solidly grounded © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2007 DOI: 10.1163/187122007X244165 HBTH 29,2_f7_223-253.indd 235 11/5/07 10:47:48 AM  236 Book Reviews / Horizons in Biblical Theology 29 (2007) 223-253 in the text and even those who disagree with her interpretation will need to grapple with her fair arguments. What is most refreshing about this commentary is its tone. Day seems conversational about a subject dear to her, and the reader wants the conversation to continue. As a result of this style, Day’s analyses often blend into each other. For example, on p. 94 the repetition of Esther’s name nine times in the span of eight verses is observed in the section on Literary Analysis, but the use of the term mālak twenty-one times in the same passage is noted in the Exegetical Analysis. Her writing may be a tad informal at points (e.g., Esther was the “sexiest young thing in the palace” p. 89) or even border on hackneyed (“after all, no man is an island” p. 128), but such colloquialisms are far better than the ineluctable abstruse verbiage too often favored by scholars. I hope this commentary finds wide readership. Because of its accessibility (and affordability), Day’s study can be used in many ways beyond the usual venues of academic research, sermon preparation, or congregational Bible study. Communities could profitably use it as a resource for a Jewish-Christian interfaith Bible study series. Clergy might draw on themes in the text to broach issues in their denominations. Julie Faith Parker Yale University HBTH 29,2_f7_223-253.indd 236 11/5/07 10:47:48 AM