The Book of Esther: "Opus non gratum" in the Christian Canon -- By: Frederic W. Bush

Journal: Bulletin for Biblical Research
Volume: BBR 08:1 (NA 1998)
Article: The Book of Esther: "Opus non gratum" in the Christian Canon
Author: Frederic W. Bush


The Book of Esther: Opus non gratum
in the Christian Canon

Frederic W. Bush

Fuller Theological Seminary

The book of Esther tends to be an unaccepted book in Christendom. Indeed, Martin Luther expressed contempt for Esther, claiming that it is spoiled by too much “pagan impropriety.” Such denigration, however, is ultimately based on a serious misreading of this OT book. Esther offers readers an insightful satire of the pagan world and yet at the same time provides a glimpse of the dangers the Jewish people have faced in the diaspora.

Key Words: Esther, Jewish diaspora, Mordecai, Haman, Purim

It is an unfortunate fact that in the Christian world at large the book of Esther has not found acceptance.1 It is indeed an opus non gratum, an unacceptable work. True, when the church took over the Bible of the Jews as part of its canon, it did embrace the book of Esther. But for the most part it has been a cold embrace indeed. Often cited is Luther’s statement, “I am so hostile to this book [2 Maccabees] and Esther that I could wish that they did not exist at all, for they judaize too greatly and have much pagan impropriety.”2 To this Eissfeldt, after voicing the opinion “Christianity … has neither occasion nor justification for holding on to Esther,” adds the comment “for Christianity Luther’s remark should be determinative.”3 C. H. Cornill could write, “All the worst and most unpleasing features of Judaism are here displayed without disguise; and only in Alexandria was it felt absolutely necessary to cover up the ugliest bare places with a few religious patches.”4 It is claimed by many that the book espouses an intense nationalistic spirit and virulent hostility to Gentiles. It is

“inspired by a fierce nationalism and unblushing vindictiveness,” “a witness to the fact that Israel, in pride, … made nationalism a religion”;5 “the product of a nationalistic spirit, seeking revenge upon those who persecute the Jews, which has lost all understanding of the demands and obligations of Yahwism”;6 “a memorial to the nationalistic spirit of Judaism which had become fanatical.”7 Similar sentiments could be quoted from Bewer, Driver, Pfeiffer, and others.8 And as Clines observes,You must have a subscription and be logged in to read the entire article.
Click here to subscribe

visitor : : uid: ()