Help with article reflection

Esther

Of the thirty-nine (or twenty-four in the Hebrew canon) books in the Old Testament, two are named after women, Ruth and Esther. By contrast, twenty-three are named after men. Ruth and Esther move in opposite directions. In Ruth, a Moabite woman marries a Judean man and remains in Judah. In Esther, a Judean woman marries a Persian man and remains in Persia. Together, the two books form the beginning (Ruth) and end (Esther) of a subsection of the third section of the Hebrew Bible (the “Writings”) known as the megilloth, “scrolls.” These are books that are read at the five festivals of the Jewish year (Ruth at the harvest Feast of Weeks in the third month, Sivan [May–June]; Esther at the Feast of Purim in the twelfth month, Adar [Feb–March]). Ruth is mentioned in the New Testament (Matt. 1:5); Esther is not.

In fact, not only is the person Esther never alluded to in the New Testament, but also the book of Esther is never quoted by any New Testament writer (one of only four or five Old Testament books of which this is true). And the early Christians were slow to see much value in Esther apart from that evidenced in scattered quotations in the church fathers (e.g., Clement of Rome around a.d. 100 viewed Esther as a prototype of the Virgin Mary). The earliest extant commentary on Esther by a Christian was that done by Rambanus Marus, Abbot of Fulda and Archbishop of Mainz in southwest central Germany. He died in a.d. 856, having finished his commentary about twenty-five years earlier, around a.d. 831 (Thornton 1986: 419).

Centuries later, Luther expressed his serious misgivings about Esther: “I am so hostile to the book [2 Maccabees] and to Esther that I wish they simply did not exist, for they Judaize too much and reveal much bad pagan behavior.” The second part of this quotation focuses on the grotesque scenes of indulgence and immorality portrayed throughout Esther in the party scenes in the Persian court. The first part of the quotation (“they Judaize too much”) more than likely reflects Luther’s understanding that Esther contributes nothing substantive to Christian faith. Given Luther’s hermeneutical framework that the New Testament is hidden in the Old Testament, and the Old is revealed in the New (and Esther isn’t), and the fact that his canon criterion was whether or not the material preached Christ (and Esther doesn’t), one Jewish writer (Bickerman 1967: 212) suggests that Luther’s reading is “both logical and legitimate.”

Some evaluations of Esther by more contemporary Christian writers seem to be quite Luther-like. Thus, in an article entitled “The Place of the Book of Esther in the Christian Bible,” celebrated Old Testament scholar Bernhard Anderson (1950: 37–38) writes, “The story unveils the dark passions of the human heart: envy, hatred, fear, anger, vindictiveness, pride, all of which are fused into intense nationalism.… The church should recognize the book for what is: a witness to the fact that Israel, in pride, either made nationalism a religion in complete indifference to God or presumptuously identified God’s historical purpose with the preservation and glorification of the Hebrew people.”

Modern Jewish biblical scholars are capable of expressing sentiments about Esther that share Anderson’s perspective. Thus Sandmel (1974: 35–36, 44) writes, “On the negative side it [Esther] has a vindictive, even ferociously vengeful spirit in which retaliation becomes possible and then lamentably indiscriminate. I have no fondness for the close of the book, which describes the slaughter of foes.… I should not be grieved if the book of Esther were somehow dropped out of Scripture.”

In some early Jewish communities Esther appears to have been ignored. This is true especially in the nonmainstream, separatistic community of Qumran. It is well known that Esther is the only book in the Hebrew Bible of which not even a portion of a verse has been discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls. This could, of course, simply be an accident (all manuscripts having Esther material have perished), or maybe a text still waiting a serendipitous discovery will reverse matters. This is most unlikely. The community of Qumran must have viewed Esther as an unacceptable oddity—no mention of God anywhere, a Jewess married to a pagan, the incessant debauchery described throughout the book. Susa is not Qumran, any more than Las Vegas resembles a monastery.

The Mishnah, compiled around a.d. 200, is a written compilation of orally transmitted legal practices of Jewish law arranged in six “orders.” The orders in turn are divided into “tractates.” The tenth tractate in the order Moʾed is called Megillah, which means “scroll.” Its primary focus is on the reading of Esther on the Festival of Purim. Esther’s prominence in the Mishnah, then, suggests that the book’s somewhat bumpy journey toward canonicity in both Jewish and early Christian communities reached closure in the Jewish communities that produced the Mishnah, and eventually the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmuds.

Like many books in the Old Testament (probably the majority), Esther is an anonymous work. There is at least one mention of King Ahasuerus of Persia in every chapter of the book. Since his reign covers the years 486/85–465/64 b.c., the book could not have been written before that. The first reference to Esther (outside of the book) appears in 2 Macc. 15:36 (written near the end of the second century b.c.), where, interestingly, Purim is referred to as “the day of Mordecai,” not the “day of Esther.” So, it is unlikely that Esther was first written subsequent to that. Accordingly, Esther could have been written anytime between 486/85 b.c. and 100 b.c.

Some matters favor the earlier part of this period, that is, the Persian end. First, the presence of Persian words in Esther and the absence of Greek words suggests an earlier rather than later dating (unless the Persian words are a later author’s attempt to give the book a feigned antiquity). Second, if the book had been written toward the end of this period—the Maccabean period, one characterized by fierce loyalty to God—what are the chances that the prized publication of the era would be one that totally omits any reference to God (unless the author is a subterranean anti-Maccabean secularist who writes his tome to tone down the excesses of the religious zealots of his day)? Third, would a book whose Jewish heroine marries a Persian king be heralded in the Hasmonean period (unless, again, the author is bucking the trend of religion by coercion and exclusivism—the expression “an ecumenical Maccabean” would be an oxymoron).

Probably the major argument in favor of a later date is that the Jewish slaughter of Persians in ch. 9 and the “conversion” of some Persians to Judaism out of “fear of the Jews” (8:17) reflect the realities of the Maccabean period, when forced conversions to Judaism were the order of the day. But as we shall see later, ch. 9 is hardly a crusade or inquisition, nor is it nationalism disguised as religion.

A significant number of commentators tend to understand Esther more as a novel than a historical account. Where the expression “historical novel” is used, the emphasis still seems to be more on the word “novel” than on the word “historical.”

Why the inclination to view Esther as belletristic and not historical? For one thing, the authorities cite “the improbable elements” (Childs 1979: 601) of the story: (1) in 2:5–6 we read that “there was a Jew … whose name was Mordecai son of Jair son of Shimei son of Kish, a Benjaminite who had been carried away from Jerusalem among the captives.” Well, if Mordecai was exiled to Babylon in 597 b.c., and since the dateline for Esther 2 is the late 480s b.c. (“the third year of his reign”), Mordecai is now well over one hundred years old! Not too old for a prediluvian like Adam or Methuselah, but quite unique for Mordecai’s time—and furthermore, his cousin is the young Esther (see 2:2, 8). (2) The prospective replacements for Vashti have to undergo a whole year (two six-month periods) of cosmetic preparations before seeing the king (2:12–14). That’s a long time for facial makeovers and hair styling. (3) The Jews are said to kill seventy-five thousand Persians (9:16).

In addition, critics point out that some details in Esther clash with those in the writings of the Greek historian Herodotus (485?–425? b.c.), a near contemporary of the Esther story. Three are normally highlighted: (1) Esther 1:1 speaks of Ahasuerus’ “127 provinces,” while Herodotus (History of the Persian Wars 3.89) speaks only of the king’s “twenty satrapies”; (2) Herodotus (Persian Wars 7.14 and 9.112) says that Ahasuerus’s wife was Amestris, not Vashti or Esther; (3) Herodotus (Persian Wars 3.84) says that Persian queens could be selected from only one of seven noble Persian families, a fact at obvious variance with Ahasuerus’s selection of Esther.

None of the preceding items are, in our judgment, fatal arguments against historicity. To begin with, it is not at all clear in 2:5–6 that it was Mordecai who was exiled to Babylon in 597 b.c. Quite possibly it is Kish, the last proper name in v. 5 and the great-grandfather of Mordecai, who is the subject of the verb “had been carried away” in v. 6. (Note that the nrsv inserts “Kish” as the subject of the verb in v. 6.)

And given the Persian court’s delight in extended partying, along with all the food and drink and games, why not give the young women twelve months to beautify themselves as much as possible?

When Esther differs on a detail with Herodotus, we should not necessarily jump to the conclusion that Herodotus is correct and Esther is incorrect, as if to confer canonical status on Herodotus. Historians have noted that Herodotus was not always the thorough, check-out-the-details-first researcher. Instead, he often relied for his information on the rumor mill, tidbits he picked up here and there.

Of the three “inconsistencies” noted above between Herodotus and Esther, items (1) and (3) can be addressed easily enough. In regard to item (1), it is true that outside of Esther 1:1 there is no reference to Ahasuerus’s empire being divided into 127 “provinces.” But three other verses in Esther (3:12; 8:9; 9:3) distinguish between “satrapies” and “provinces.” The former represents the larger piece of land, possibly comparable to our “regions,” while “provinces” refer to smaller sections of lands, comparable to our “states.”

As for item (3), yes, according to law the king of Persia is supposed to take his bride from one of seven designated families, and Esther is not from one of those families. But do kings always conduct themselves according to the law? If the king thinks himself ruling either as god or for god, cannot he rationalize certain “adjustments” that work to his benefit? Cannot the king circumvent tradition with impunity?

Item (2), the name of Ahasuerus’s wife (Amestris versus Vashti or Esther), is more difficult. First of all, we have no Persian text that identifies the king’s wife as Amestris. We have only the Greek historian Herodotus. Clearly “Esther” is closer to “Amestris” than is “Vashti.” Both names share the sequence e-s-t-r. What is lacking in the biblical name is the “Am-” at the beginning. Could Esther be a shortened version of Amestris? A parallel might be “Moses,” which many scholars think originally included the name of some Egyptian deity that was subsequently deleted, thus producing an abbreviated name.

There are also some interesting “consistencies” in Herodotus and Esther. For example, both agree that Ahasuerus’s empire stretched from India to Ethiopia. The reference in 1:3 to Ahasuerus assembling his leaders for an extended banquet in Susa in the third year of his reign seems to correspond to Herodotus’ reference (Persian Wars 7.8) to Ahasuerus convening an important council in Susa to lay plans for the invasion of Greece. Again, the gap between the third year of his reign (1:3) and the seventh year of his reign (2:16; the time he first meets Esther) points to the three-year campaign that the Persian king waged against the Greeks, and of which Herodotus speaks at length.

Finally, we cannot ignore the fact that the name “Mordecai” is a well-attested name from texts of this period. A fifth-century Aramaic inscription contains the name M-r-d-k. The so-called Treasure Tablets (because they were found in the treasury) from the Persian city of Persepolis date from the thirtieth year of Darius I to the seventh year of Artaxerxes I (i.e., 492–458 b.c.). They contain names like Mar-du-kana-sir, Mar-du-uka, Mar-duk-ka. And fifty of these tablets come from the time of Ahasuerus. Now, to be sure, these names are probably not the Mordecai of Esther. If “Mordecai” is to be connected with the divinity “Marduk,” then such a name would more than likely be quite common. There is one Persian text, dating either from the last years of Darius I or the early years of Ahasuerus, that speaks of a government official in Susa named “Marduka” who served the king as an inspector throughout the city. Could this be the Mordecai of Esther? Maybe. Maybe not.

While certainly not a proof of the historicity of Esther, the nearly successful Nazi pogroms, conceived as a “final solution” to the liquidation of European Jewry in the twentieth century, place the book of Esther more in the world of historical reality than in the world of belletristic fiction.

The Text of Esther

What appears in translation in most of our Bibles is a reflection of the Esther that is present in the Hebrew Bible. However, the Septuagint translation, some versions of which were done two centuries before Christ, while fairly close to the Hebrew Esther, also includes six lengthy passages not found in Hebrew manuscripts.

We may line them up as follows:

Hebrew text

Septuagint additions A–F

A. Mordecai’s dream of impending conflict between two dragons, which leads to a discovery of a plot against King “Artaxerxes,” and for which Mordecai is rewarded (seventeen verses).

1:1–3:13

B. Artaxerxes’ first letter, ordering the massacre of the Jews (seven verses).

3:14–4:17

C. The prayers of Mordecai (eleven verses) and of Esther (nineteen verses) for God’s intervention.

D. Esther risks her life to appeal to Artaxerxes and faints before the king (sixteen verses and essentially an expansion of 5:1–2).

5:1–2 (absent from the Septuagint but expanded in Addition D)

5:3–8:12

E. Artaxerxes’ second letter, condemning Haman and praising the Jews and their God (twenty-four verses).

8:13–10:3

F. Mordecai’s dream (in A) is clarified or decoded. The plural “Purim” is explained as referring to two lots, one for God’s people and one for the nations, and both lots have been fulfilled by God’s grace. This addition ends with a colophon stating that Dositheus, a priest and Levite, brought to Egypt a Greek copy of Esther that had been translated by Lysimachus during the fourth year of the reign of Ptolemy and Cleopatra (114–113 b.c.?) (fourteen verses).

It is clear that these additions do two things. Obviously, they expand the book of Esther from 163 verses to 271 verses. But more importantly, these extra 108 verses make Esther more Jewish and more overtly religious. They do so by frequently mentioning the name of God (over fifty times). They record specific prayers (see Addition C). In her prayer, Esther, as penitent, expresses her abhorrence of her position as Persian queen (“I abhor the sign of my proud position.… I abhor it like a menstruous rag”), of her marriage to a non-Jew (“I abhor the bed of the uncircumcised and of any foreigner”), and her commitment to a Daniel-like observance of Jewish dietary laws (“Your servant has not eaten at Haman’s table, and I have not honored the king’s feast or drunk the wine of libations”).

In Bibles such as the kjv, niv, and NASB these extra passages do not appear. In some Bibles, such as the NJB and nab, they appear in the places indicated in the preceding chart. In a Bible like the nrsv, which contains the apocryphal/deuterocanonical books, the additions are included separately after the book of Judith.

Summarization of the Story

The refusal by a Persian queen (Vashti) to put in a public appearance at her husband’s banquet, for whatever reason, and her consequent dismissal open the door to the emergence of the Jew Esther. She will be chosen as Vashti’s successor, while all the time concealing her Jewish identity. Esther’s four distinguishing features are that she is Jewish, young, very attractive, and unattached. Esther is able to hide her ethnicity, but not her beauty.

An orphan, Esther is cared for and adopted by her cousin Mordecai. When she is taken into the king’s palace as his wife (much as Sarai was “taken” to be a foreign king’s wife [Gen. 12:15]), Mordecai (unlike Abram) is not far away, sitting just outside at the king’s gate. There, he chances to overhear a planned conspiracy on the king’s life. He passes this information along to Esther, who in turn transmits it to her husband. The culprits are arrested and hanged for their crime.

King Ahasuerus/Xerxes’ second-in-command is Haman. Because Mordecai refuses to bow before and honor Haman, Haman is so enraged that he determines to kill both Mordecai and his people, whom he now knows are Jews. To that end, he persuades Ahasuerus, after he casts a lot to determine the date of genocide, to authorize an edict that will call for the elimination of the Jews (whom he refers to only as “a certain people”) on the forthcoming twelfth of Adar.

Upon hearing of that edict, Mordecai implores Esther to use her position to speak as intercessor before her royal husband. At first hesitant, she subsequently agrees to get involved, even if it costs her life. Her strategy is first of all to host a banquet to which her husband and Haman are invited. Without revealing any of her agenda, Esther asks her husband to join her for a second banquet the following day.

In between these two banquets Mordecai manages to enrage Haman a second time. Haman’s wife, Zeresh, counsels him to have Mordecai hanged on a seventy-five-foot-high gallows before he attends the second banquet later that evening.

To his surprise, Ahasuerus discovers, during a bout with insomnia, that Mordecai was never honored for saving his life earlier when he found out about the conspiracy on the king’s life. How can Ahasuerus appropriately honor Mordecai for his good deed? The king even directs the question to Haman without mentioning Mordecai’s name. We can imagine Haman’s shock when he discovers that it is not he but the hated, contemptible Mordecai whom the king will honor! And Haman will assist in honoring Mordecai by leading Mordecai on horseback throughout the streets of Susa.

At this second banquet Esther reveals herself as a Jew and Haman as the villain who would mastermind the killing of the Jews, including her. Interestingly, Ahasuerus has Haman hung on the gallows that Haman built for Mordecai, not because Haman is anti-Semitic, but because Haman was observed trying “to make a move” on his beloved Esther. At least, that is the way it looked to the king.

Esther now pleads with her husband to overrule and abrogate the earlier edict. While he cannot cancel this edict, he can publish another edict allowing the Jews to fight and defend themselves.

The Jews fight and defend themselves exceedingly well, and on the very day of the very month that the earlier lot had designated for their annihilation, the grim statistics are five hundred dead Persians in Susa, the ten sons of Haman dead, three hundred more dead Persians in Susa, and seventy-five thousand dead Persians throughout the rest of the empire. But in every instance the Jews do not plunder their slain victims.

The day after the battle, the fourteenth of Adar, Jews throughout Persia celebrate the relief from their enemies. Because fighting continued a day longer in Susa, the Jews living there hold their festive celebrations on the fifteenth of Adar.

Mordecai dispatches letters to all the Jewish families calling on them to celebrate these two days, depending on where they live. These two days respectively are to be identified as “Purim.” Esther also sends a letter to her fellow Jews establishing these days of Purim.

At the beginning of the book Esther replaces Vashti as the king’s wife. By the end of the book Mordecai has replaced Haman as the king’s second-in-command. And the narrative comes to an end.

Structure

One way to ascertain the structure of a biblical book is to search for things or events or words or phrases that are repeated (such as the distribution of the phrase “these are the generations of X” throughout Genesis, or the phrase “when Jesus had finished saying these things” distributed throughout Matthew).

One event that occurs throughout Esther is a banquet/party. (The word mishteh, “banquet, feast(ing),” occurs fifty-five times in the Old Testament, twenty of which are in Esther, most often in ch. 5 [6×] and ch. 9 [4×].) In fact, there are nine of them (or ten if one splits the ninth into two feasts):

1. the king’s banquet for his officials lasting 180 days (1:3–4)

2. the king’s banquet for the locals who live in Susa lasting seven days (1:5–8)

3. Vashti’s banquet for women (1:9)

4. the king’s banquet when Esther replaces Vashti as queen (2:18)

5. the king and Haman celebrating the edict calling for the annihilation of the Jews over cocktails—“they sat down to drink” (3:15)

6. Esther’s first banquet, to which Ahasuerus and Haman are invited (5:5–8)

7. Esther’s second banquet, which she hosts with the same guest list (7:1–10)

8. The Jews’ festival at which they celebrate authorization by the king to defend themselves against attack (8:16–17)

9. Days of feasting that follow defeat of different Persian groups, the fourteenth and fifteenth of Adar (9:17–19)

So, seven of Esther’s ten chapters refer to somebody throwing a party. In several different ways there is a correspondence between these banquet/party scenes. For example, the first two feasts are for officials throughout all of Persia’s province (1) (1:3–4) or for those individuals living only in Susa (2) (1:5–8). Both feasts are vulgar and ostentatious. Similarly, the final feasts are for those Jews living all over Persia (9) (9:17, 19) and one only for the Jews who live in Susa (9) (9:18). And here, both feasts are celebratory. And certainly (3), Vashti’s last banquet, corresponds to (4), Esther’s first banquet, with Vashti as host in (3) and Esther as honoree in (4).

But perhaps the most important item about these banquet/feasting scenes is that the first five are Persian-sponsored banquets, while the last four are Jewish-sponsored banquets (Clines 1990: 37). This shift in emphasis from Persian banquets to Jewish ones points to and underscores a major theme in Esther: the shift or transition of power from Persians to Jews.

This transition of dominion is clearly the focus of the opening verse of ch. 9 (see also 9:22). It speaks of “the very day when the enemies of the Jews hoped to gain power over them, but which has been changed [wenahaphok huʾ] to a day when the Jews would gain power over their foes” (nrsv). The Hebrew could also be rendered “but now the tables were turned” (niv), or “the reverse occurred” (Levenson 1997: 118), or “and the opposite happened” (Radday 1990: 311). For the Jews in general and Mordecai in particular, it is a shift from trouble to triumph. For the Persians in general and Haman in particular, it is a shift from success to failure. For the first group (Mordecai and the Jews), life replaces death. For the second group (Haman and [some of] the Persians), death replaces life.

Such reversal in circumstances is brought out through contrasts in the book. Haman’s promotion (3:1–6) contrasts with Mordecai’s promotion (10:1–3). Both are “advanced” (3:1; 10:2) to their position by the king, but Haman turns out to be a vain (3:5) and vicious (3:6) second-in-command, while Mordecai turns out to be a beneficent second-in-command (10:3).

The gloom that hangs over the Jews in 3:7–4:17 contrasts with the euphoria that engulfs the Jews that begins with the exaltation of Mordecai in 6:1–11 and continues through Purim observances (9:20–32). So, in 3:7–4:17 the Jews fast (4:3, 16), but in ch. 9 they feast (vv. 17, 18, 19, 22). In 4:1, 2, 3, 4, Mordecai wears sackcloth, but in 6:8, 10, 11, and 8:15 he wears royal robes. In fact, 8:15 points out that the colors of Mordecai’s royal robes (“blue and white”) are the same as those in the expensive fabrics that hang in the rooms of the royal palace at Susa (“white and blue”) (1:6). There is also an interesting shift in these two parts in the use of the verb naphal, “fall.” First of all, in 3:7 (and referred to in 9:24) the Hamanic Persians “cast” (literally “caused to fall”) the Pur/lot in order to determine a date on which to launch the genocide of the Jews. But later, it is Haman’s own wife who in 6:13 speaks to Haman of the beginning of his “fall” before Mordecai (who earlier would not fall/bow before him [3:2]). Later, in an act of desperation and plea for mercy, Haman “falls” before Esther (7:8), and still later, fear of the Jews “falls” on the Persians (8:17, 9:2). Thus, in between the two references to falling (in the form of lot casting) in 3:7 and 9:24, which jeopardizes the Jews, are the other fallings, which jeopardize Haman and the Persians.

Theology

One of the unique features of Esther is the total absence of any reference to God. In that one respect the book is Godless. It is the one and only book in the Old Testament never to use any theistic language. Furthermore, as Loader (1978: 418) has observed, “Motifs that suggest a religious quality are introduced, but they are made to function in such a way that any theological significance is immediately veiled again.”

For example, Mordecai fasts (4:16), but does he pray and call out to God when he fasts? If he does, the text has not recorded it. Again, when Mordecai says to Esther, “If you keep silence at such a time as this, relief and deliverance will rise for the Jews from another quarter” (4:14), does he mean by “another quarter” that God has a backup plan to Esther should she evade the task? If that is his intention (and one version of the ancient Greek text puts such words in his mouth [“If you neglect your people … God will be their aid and deliverance”]), Mordecai could have stated that straightforwardly enough.

The absence of Yahweh’s name from such a dynamic narrative raises the following questions: Is God’s presence real even if his name is absent? Can the power and sovereignty of God be affirmed even if his name is not sounded? If God is unnamed, is he therefore uninvolved? Are people still entitled to be called “religious and devout” even if the Holy Name is not on their lips? Can one talk about God without using specific God-talk?

All commentators on Esther agree that one of its meanings is the preservation of Israel in Persia when the odds against survival are so overwhelming. But how does one explain such survival? A stroke of good luck? Coincidence? Jewish self-help and ingenuity? A quirk? An enigma? An inept Persian king? An overzealous, bigoted Haman who can keep neither his mouth shut nor his racist feelings under control? All of the above?

Or is the best answer to be found in an affirmation of divine providence that is the saving, sustaining force behind the survival of God’s elect? There are so many “what if” situations in Esther that if these are not traceable to a divine hand, then a better title for the book is “Coincidences” (defined by somebody as “miracles in which God prefers to remain anonymous”).

What if Vashti had not balked at putting in a public appearance at her husband’s banquet, as so requested (1:10–12)? Even the narrator of the story says that she was “fair to behold” (1:11c). We cannot assume that she was expected to show up nude or semi-nude (“wearing the royal crown” in v. 11a does not necessarily mean “wearing only the royal crown”), although some ancient interpreters read that into the text.

Nor does the text tell us why she rejected the invitation. It appears that for the king, Vashti is like the king’s curtains or couches or goblets, another of his gorgeous possessions to be put on display before an audience, an object for exhibition. She will not be party to this runway, Barbie-doll syndrome. (Her name, “Vashti,” bears some semblance to the verb shata, “drink,” and so her name may point to the excessive drinking of the Persians and her husband [Goldman 1990: 16].) But the fact that the text does not have her supplying a reason for nonconformity may be precisely the point. She does not need to justify her decision with a clarifying response. A decision to act or not act is adequate enough, and does not need justification.

In not jumping at the king’s behest she joins others in Scripture who made similar decisions when confronted with options:

Esther 1:12: “But Queen Vashti refused to come at the king’s command.”

Gen. 39:8, 10: “But he [Joseph] refused.… And although she spoke to Joseph day after day, he refused to lie beside her.”

Num. 22:13–14: “The Lord has refused to let me go with you.… Balaam refuses [at least initially] to come with us.”

Heb. 11:24: “By faith Moses, when he was grown up, refused to be called a son of Pharaoh’s daughter.”

Such refusals are as desirable as refusals such as “How long will you [pharaoh] refuse to humble yourself before me?” (Exod. 10:3), or “How long will they [Israel] refuse to believe in me?” (Num. 14:11), or “He [the elder brother] became angry and refused to go in” (Luke 15:28) are damnable and pathetic.

Here is another “what if.” What if some “beautiful young virgin” (2:2–3) other than Esther had first caught the eye of Hegai, the king’s eunuch in charge of the royal harem (2:9), and then the eye of Ahasuerus (2:17)? There must have been a good number of candidates, for the search for such a lady was carried out “in all the provinces of his kingdom” (2:3). And because 1:1 says that the king ruled over 127 provinces, one would think that there would be at least that number of contestants or conscriptees.

What if Mordecai had not overheard the conspiracy against Ahasuerus’s life, and thus had no such information to relay to the king via Esther (2:19–23)? It is not his guards, his secret service agents, those supposedly most loyal to him, to whom Ahasuerus owes his survival, but to Mordecai. The incident is recorded in official royal documents (2:23b), but Ahasuerus is not informed of the planned assassination, and Mordecai is not rewarded (yet).

Haman, now Ahasuerus’s second-in-command, is furious that Mordecai will not bow before him (3:2, 5). If there is one thing proud people resent, it is being upstaged. If there is one thing powerful people resent it is nonconformity. If there is one thing spineless people resent, it is convictions. Offended by one Jew, Haman wishes to annihilate all Jews (3:6). When that will happen is to be decided by lot (3:7a). The day decided on by casting the lot is almost a year later, “the thirteenth day of the twelfth month, which is the month of Adar” (3:7b). What if the lot for the Jews’ execution had been one that was dated twenty-four or forty-eight hours from the present moment? Esther had twelve months to prepare cosmetically to meet Ahasuerus (2:12), and the Jews in Persia have about twelve months before they face their executioners.

What if Esther had not agreed to put her life on the line (“If I perish, I perish”) in 4:16? To do that, she will have to divulge her Jewishness, which she will do in 7:3–4. So far, she has effectively kept her ethnicity under wraps (2:10, 20). We are not sure whether “Esther” is to be connected with the Persian stara (“star”), or with the goddess “Ishtar” (all three have the s-t-r sequence). But there is also a similarity in sound between her name and the Hebrew verb s-t-r, “conceal, hide.” But what may happen when she lets the cat out of the bag?

What if Haman’s suspicions had been aroused when Esther requests a second banquet to which Ahasuerus and Haman are both again invited (5:8)? We need not worry that Ahasuerus is suspicious. He does not know the meaning of the word. For him, a party a day keeps the business away. Esther is taking a risk with this strategy. Humphreys (1998: 341–42) states, “What might have happened had Ahasuerus slept through the night [see 6:1]? Haman could have swayed the king this time and had Mordecai impaled. Esther’s second banquet then would have the quality of a wake.”

What if during his insomnia Ahasuerus had had his servants read to him a passage from the royal annals that made no mention of Mordecai at all (6:1–2)? Presumably, Mordecai’s execution would have proceeded as planned. It is not Esther’s intercession that saves Mordecai’s life (she is mentioned only once, v. 14, in the chapter), but rather the king’s readers “chancing” upon a brief paragraph in the king’s autobiography to the effect that Mordecai had foiled an assassination attempt on his life. Why was Mordecai’s charitable act ignored and not honored? queries the king.

What if Haman had not thrown himself on the couch where Esther was reclining (7:8a)? For when Ahasuerus reenters the room and observes Haman groveling before Esther, he believes that Haman is throwing himself upon Esther rather than throwing himself upon Esther’s mercy. As the king sees it, Haman is trying to “molest” (niv) or “assault” (nrsv) his wife (7:8b), in the king’s palace no less, and right on the heels of having been villified by Esther. Or at least that is what the king said (even if he knew it was not accurate). By ordering Haman’s execution for being a rapist rather than a racist (7:9), the king may be distancing himself from any involvement in the extermination plot. And earlier, Esther was very careful to “finger” only Haman in the genocide plot (7:3–6), wisely choosing to omit any reference to the fact that the plot would never have gotten airborne in the first place without Ahasuerus’ authorization (3:11).

But if the book of Esther highlights a beneficent providence at work to preserve the Jews in Persia from obliteration, it also highlights the courage, the ingenuity, the wisdom of those Jews. It is not the case that God is active (even if behind the scenes) while his people are passive.

And such courage and ingenuity are evidenced more in the life of Esther than in that of Mordecai. Each character appears in the book about the same number of times (by our count, she fifty-six times, he fifty-nine times). There is no chapter in which only Esther appears; there are, however, two chapters in which Mordecai appears (3:2, 3, 4, 5, 6 [3×]; 10:2, 3) but Esther does not. And the fact that the last chapter of the book speaks only of him and not of her suggests maybe that this book should be called “The Book of Mordecai.” We said earlier that the first reference to this Old Testament book is in 2 Macc. 15:36, where Purim is called the “Day of Mordecai.”

But note that in the biblical book, Mordecai’s words are recorded in direct speech only once, and that is in 4:13–14. Thirty-one words in the Hebrew for him. By contrast, Esther’s direct speech has quotation marks eight times (4:11, 16; 5:4, 7–8; 7:3–4, 6a; 8:5–6; 9:13). Two hundred and thirty-two words in the Hebrew for her. All except the first two of these (where she sends a message to Mordecai) are in conversation with her royal husband. It is Mordecai who urges Esther to get involved on behalf of her people (4:14), but it is Esther who sagaciously develops the strategy of that involvement. Haman goes ballistic before Mordecai (3:5; 5:9), but he trembles before Esther (7:6). He is infuriated that Mordecai will not fall and genuflect before him (3:5), but he himself falls in front of Esther (7:8).

The banquets are Esther’s idea, nobody else’s. The decision to go before Ahasuerus is hers, nobody else’s. And the calling for a national and perpetual celebration of Purim is hers and Mordecai’s, and nobody else’s. Purim is their invention. This is unlike the calendars in the Torah that highlight the various calendrical festivals (Exod. 23:12–19; Leviticus 23; Numbers 28–29; Deut. 16:1–17). In each of those it is God who initiates the festival.

And even here it is Esther, not Mordecai, who gets in the last word. Levenson (1997: 131) has noted that in 9:20–32, the official institution of Purim, Mordecai’s role gives way to Esther’s:

9:20, 23: Mordecai alone

9:29: Esther and Mordecai

9:31: Mordecai and Esther

9:32: Esther alone

In addition to emphases on providence and human initiative, we should also note the interesting absence of any desire in the book of Esther for any of the Jews to return to Jerusalem. Apparently, Ezra and Nehemiah have not learned to “sing the song of the Lord while in a foreign land” (Ps. 137:4), but Esther and Mordecai seem to have learned how.

The book of Esther suggests that it is possible to be “in” the world, but not “of” the world, to be in Persia without being Persian. To adapt Jesus’ priestly prayer in John 17, perhaps we hear a petition like this: “My prayer is not that you take them out of Persia but that you protect them from the evil one. They are not of Persia, even as I am not of it. As you sent me into the Persias of the world, I have sent them into Persia.” To put it a bit differently, Esther is about the shift from exile as one way of life (temporary relocation outside Israel) to diaspora as another way of life (permanent relocation outside of Israel).

Some might argue that the Jews do become Persian-like when they, now with the upper hand, engage in mass slaughter of the Persians (five hundred people in Susa [9:6]; Haman’s ten sons [9:7–10]; three hundred more Persians in Susa [9:15]; seventy-five thousand Persians throughout the empire [9:16]). And on the next day they turn around and feast (9:17)!

Many commentators are particularly offended by 8:11, which might appear to suggest that the Jews are within their rights to destroy not only the adult males who might attack them, but to destroy their wives and children as well. So reads the neb: “The king granted permision to the Jews … to unite and defend themselves and to destroy, slay, exterminate the whole strength of any people … which might attack them, women and children too, and to plunder their possessions.” The NAB is similar: “The king authorized the Jews … to kill, destroy, wipe out, along with the wives and children, every armed group … which should attack them, and to seize their goods as spoil.”

But it is not at all clear that this is what 8:11 says. Gordis (1976: 49–53; 1981: 378) argues, convincingly in our judgment, that the “wives and children” are the wives and children of Hebrew men who might be attacked by the Persians. Gordis translates 8:11 as “The king permitted the Jews in every city to gather and defend themselves, to destroy, kill, and wipe out every armed force of a people or a province attacking them, their children and their wives, with their goods as booty.” Thus, the issue here is a defensive war, the right to defend oneself, one’s family and property from invaders and plunderers. And the Jews may do so only because and after they have been given written, legal permision by the Persian king (see 8:9–14). That the text states twice (9:10b, 15b) that the Jews took no plunder from those they defeated indicates that this is not a war of self-aggrandizement but simply a war of survival.

Finally, the climax in the book of Esther is the institution of Purim. It is a day for “feasting and gladness” (9:18), “gladness and feasting” (9:19), a day for exchanging gifts of food (9:19b), a day of celebration on which the Jews “gained relief from their enemies” (9:22a), a time for giving special presents to the poor among them (9:22b).

Israel’s history in the Old Testament falls between Passover and Purim. They are separated by one month in the Jewish calendar (Passover in the first month, Nisan/Abib; Purim in the twelfth month, Adar). These two festivals both dramatically reenact Israel’s deliverance (from death and annihilation at Egypt’s hands; from death and annihilation at Persia’s hands). The parallels between the Passover account in Exodus and the Purim account are obvious: (1) action in a foreign land and court; (2) threat to the existence of God’s chosen; (3) deliverance for God’s people; (4) Egypt and Persia suffer; (5) establishment of a festival to commemorate the event. (The parallels between Esther and Exodus have been probed most creatively by G. Gerleman in his German commentary Esther [Neukirchen-Vluyn: 1982]; see also Wechsler 1997.)

The appropriate response when God intervenes on behalf of his people includes the holiness that goes with Passover and the hilarity that goes with Purim. It encompasses the sobering, reflective mood on Passover, and the less-than-sober Purim, on which, according to the Babylonian Talmud (Megillah 7b), “a man is obligated to drink until he is unable to distinguish between ‘Blessed is Mordecai’ and ‘cursed is Haman.’ ” It embraces a religious celebration (Passover [conjoined with the Feast of Unleavened Bread] is one of the three festivals on which the participants are required to cease work and go to the chosen sanctuary) and a celebration at home (Purim). The two festivals unite piety and partying, raising one’s voice to God and raising the roof.

Bibliography (Esther)

Commentaries and Major Studies

Baldwin, J. G. 1984. Esther: An Introduction and Commentary. Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity.

Beal, T. 1998. The Book of Hiding: Gender, Ethnicity, Annihilation and Esther. New York: Routledge.

Berg, S. B. 1979. The Book of Esther: Motifs, Themes, and Structures. Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press.

Brenner, A., ed. 1995. A Feminist Companion to Esther, Judith and Susanna. The Feminist Companion to the Bible 7. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.

Clines, D. J. A. 1984. The Esther Scroll: The Story of the Story. JSOT Supplement 30. Sheffield: JSOT Press.

Craig, K. M. 1995. Reading Esther: A Case for the Literary Carnivalesque. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox.

Day, L. M. 1995. Three Faces of a Queen: Characterization in the Book Esther. JSOT Supplement 186. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.

Fox, M. V. 1991a. Character and Ideology in the Book of Esther. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.

———. 1991b. The Redaction of the Books of Esther: On Reading Composite Texts. SBLMS 40. Atlanta: Scholars Press.

Gordis, R. 1974. Megillat Esther: The Masoretic Text with Introduction, New Translation and Commentary. New York: Ktav.

Grossfeld, B. 1991. The Two Targums of Esther. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press.

Leniak, T. S. 1998. Shame and Honor in the Book of Esther. SBLDS 165. Atlanta: Scholars Press.

Levenson, J. D. 1997. Esther: A Commentary. Old Testament Library. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox.

Linafelt, T., and T. K. Beal. 1999. Ruth and Esther. Berit Olam. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press.

Moore, C. A. 1971. Esther. Anchor Bible 7B. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday.

Paton, L. B. 1908. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Esther. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark.

Rodriguez, A. M. 1995. Esther: A Theological Approach. Berrien Springs, Mich.: Andrews University Press.

Stedman, R. C. 1977. The Queen and I: Studies in Esther. Waco, Tex.: Word.

Swindoll, C. 1997. Esther: A Woman of Strength and Beauty. Nashville: Word.

Whitcomb, J. 1979. Esther: Triumph of God’s Sovereignty. Chicago: Moody.

Shorter Studies

Anderson, B. W. 1950. “The Place of the Book of Esther in the Christian Bible.” JR 30:32–43.

Bickerman, E. 1967. Four Strange Books in the Bible. New York: Schocken. Pp. 169–240.

Clines, D. J. A. 1990. “Reading Esther from Left to Right.” In The Bible in Three Dimensions: Essays in Celebration of Forty Years of Biblical Studies at the University of Sheffield. Ed. D. J. A. Clines et al. JSOT Supplement 87. Sheffield: JSOT Press. Pp. 31–52.

———. 1991. “In Quest of the Historical Mordecai.” VT 41:129–36.

Costas, O. E. 1988. “The Subversiveness of Faith: Esther as a Paradigm for a Liberating Theology.” Ecumenical Review 40:66–78.

Crawford, S. A. W. 1992. “Esther.” In The Women’s Bible Commentary. Ed. C. A. Newsom and S. H. Ringe. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox.

Darr, K. P. 1989. “Esther and Additions to Esther.” In The Books of the Bible. Vol. 1, The Old Testament/The Hebrew Bible. Ed. B. W. Anderson. New York: Scribner’s. Pp. 173–79.

Day, L. M. 1998. “Power, Otherness and Gender in Biblical Short Stories.” HBT 20:109–27.

Goldman, S. 1990. “Narrative and Ethical Ironies in Esther.” JSOT 47:15–31.

Gordis, R. 1976. “Studies in the Esther Narrative.” JBL 95:43–58.

———. 1981. “Religion, Wisdom and History in the Book of Esther—A New Solution to an Ancient Crux.” JBL 100:359–88.

Greenstein, E. L. 1987. “A Jewish Reading of Esther.” In Judaic Perspectives on Ancient Israel. Ed. J. Neusner et al. Philadelphia: Fortress. Pp. 225–43.

Hallo, W. W. 1983. “The First Purim.” BA 46:19–26.

House, P. R. 1998. Old Testament Theology. Downers Grove, Ill.: Inter-Varsity. Pp. 490–96.

Humphreys, W. L. 1973. “A Life-Style for Diaspora: A Study of the Tales of Esther and Daniel.” JBL 92:211–23.

———. 1985. “The Story of Esther and Mordecai: An Early Jewish Novella.” In Saga, Legend, Tale, Novella, Fable: Narrative Forms in Old Testament Literature. Ed. G. W. Coats. JSOT Supplement 35. Sheffield: JSOT Press. Pp. 97–113.

———. 1998. “The Story of Esther in Its Several Forms: Recent Studies.” RelSRev 24:335–42.

Jackowski, K. 1988–1989. “Holy Disobedience in Esther.” ThTo 45:403–14.

Jobes, K. H. 1998. “How an Assassination Changed the Greek Text of Esther.” ZAW 110:75–78.

Klaasen, M. J. 1996. “Persian/Jew/Jew/Persian: Levels of Irony in the Scroll of Esther.” Direction 25:21–28.

Lacocque, A. 1990. The Feminine Unconventional: Four Subversive Figures in Israel’s Tradition. Minneapolis: Fortress. Pp. 49–83.

Larkin, K. J. A. 1995. Ruth and Esther. Old Testament Guides. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.

Loader, J. A. 1978. “Esther as a Novel with Different Levels of Meaning.” ZAW 90:417–21.

Millard, A. R. 1977. “The Persian Names in Esther and the Reliability of the Hebrew Text.” JBL 96:481–88.

Miller, C. H. 1980. “Esther’s Levels of Meaning.” ZAW 92:145–48.

Niditch, S. 1987. Underdogs and Tricksters: A Prelude to Biblical Folklore. San Francisco: Harper & Row. Pp. 126–45.

———. 1993. War in the Hebrew Bible: A Study in the Ethics of Violence. New York: Oxford University Press. Pp. 119–22.

———. 1995. “Short Stories: The Book of Esther and the Theme of Woman as a Civilizing Force.” In Old Testament Interpretation: Past, Present, and Future: Essays in Honour of Gene M. Tucker. Ed. J. L. Mays et al. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. Pp. 195–209.

Noss, P. A. 1993. “A Footnote on Time: The Book of Esther.” BT 44:309–20.

Radday, Y. T. 1990. “Esther with Humour.” In On Humour and the Comic in the Hebrew Bible. Ed. Y. T. Radday and A. Brenner. JSOT Supplement 92; Bible and Literature Series 23. Sheffield: Almond. Pp. 295–313.

Rosenblatt, N. H. 1999. “Portraits in Heroism: Esther and Samson.” BRev 15:20–25, 47.

Sandmel, S. 1974. The Enjoyment of Scripture. New York: Oxford University Press. Pp. 35–45.

Sasson, J. M. 1987. “Esther.” In The Literary Guide to the Bible. Ed. R. Alter and F. Kermode. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap. Pp. 335–42.

Shea, W. H. 1976. “Esther and History.” Andrews University Seminary Studies 14:227–46.

Stafonovic, Z. 1994. “ ‘Go at Once!’ Thematic Reversals in the Book of Esther.” Asia Journal of Theology 8:163–71.

Sterk, J. P. 1985. “How Many Books of Esther Are There?” BT 36:440–42.

Talmon, S. 1963. “Wisdom in the Book of Esther.” VT 13:419–55.

Thornton, T. C. G. 1986. “The Crucifixion of Haman and the Scandal of the Cross.” JTS 37:419–26.

Wechsler, M. G. 1997. “Shadow and Fulfillment in the Book of Esther.” BSac 154:275–84.

———. 1998. “The Purim-Passover Connection: A Reflection of Jewish Exegetical Tradition in the Peshitta Book of Esther.” JBL 117:321–27.

Weisman, Z. 1998. Political Satire in the Bible. SBLSS 32. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Pp. 139–63.

Whedbee, J. W. 1998. The Bible and the Comic Vision. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 129–90.

Wiebe, J. M. 1991. “Esther 4:14: ‘Will Relief and Deliverance Arise for the Jews from Another Place?’ ” CBQ 53:409–15.

Wills, L. W. 1990. The Jew in the Court of the Foreign King: Ancient Jewish Court Legends. Minneapolis: Fortress. Pp. 153–91.

———. 1995. The Jewish Novel in the Ancient World. Myth and Poetics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Pp. 93–131.

Wright, J. S. 1970. “The Historicity of the Book of Esther.” In New Perspectives on the Old Testament. Ed. J. B. Payne. Waco, Tex.: Word. Pp. 37–47.

Yamauchi, E. 1980. “The Archaeological Background of Esther.” BSac 137:99–117.

———. 1992. “Mordecai, the Persepolis Tablets, and the Susa Excavations.” VT 42:272–75.

Victor P. Hamilton, Handbook on the Historical Books (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001), 529–549.