Esther (International Exegetical Commentary on the Old Testament) 9783170207530, 9783170310278, 9783170310285, 9783170310292, 3170207539

Citation preview

International Exegetical Commentary on the Old Testament (IECOT) Edited by: Walter Dietrich, David M. Carr, Adele Berlin, Erhard Blum, Irmtraud Fischer, Shimon Gesundheit, Walter Groß, Gary Knoppers, Bernard M. Levinson, Ed Noort, Helmut Utzschneider and Beate Ego (Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical books)

Cover: Top: Panel from a four-part relief on the “Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III” (859–824 BCE) depicting the Israelite king Jehu (845–817 BCE; 2 Kings 9f) paying obeisance to the Assyrian “King of Kings.” The vassal has thrown himself to the ground in front of his overlord. Royal servants are standing behind the Assyrian king whereas Assyrian officers are standing behind Jehu. The remaining picture panels portray thirteen Israelite tribute bearers carrying heavy and precious gifts. Photo © Z.Radovan/BibleLandPictures.com Bottom left: One of ten reliefs on the bronze doors that constitute the eastern portal (the so-called “Gates of Paradise”) of the Baptistery of St. John of Florence, created 1424–1452 by Lorenzo Ghiberti (c. 1378–1455). Detail from the picture “Adam and Eve”; in the center is the creation of Eve: “And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.” (Gen 2:22) Photograph by George Reader Bottom right: Detail of the Menorah in front of the Knesset in Jerusalem, created by Benno Elkan (1877–1960): Ezra reads the Law of Moses to the assembled nation (Neh 8). The bronze Menorah was created in London in 1956 and in the same year was given by the British as a gift to the State of Israel. A total of 29 reliefs portray scenes from the Hebrew bible and the history of the Jewish people.

Jean-Daniel Macchi

Esther

Verlag W. Kohlhammer

Translated from French by Carmen Palmer.

1. Edition 2018 All rights reserved © W. Kohlhammer GmbH, Stuttgart Production: W. Kohlhammer GmbH, Stuttgart Print: ISBN 978-3-17-020753-0 E-Book-Formats: pdf: ISBN 978-3-17-031027-8 epub: ISBN 978-3-17-031028-5 mobi: ISBN 978-3-17-031029-2 W. Kohlhammer bears no responsibility fort he accuracy, legality or content of any external website that is linked or cited, or for that of subsequent links.

Content Editors’ Foreword

..........................................

11

Author’s Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15

A. Textual Forms and Editorial Stages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Accounting for the Textual Diversity of Esther in this Commentary 2. The Textual Witnesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1. The Hebrew Masoretic Text (MT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2. Esther at Qumran? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3. The Majority Greek Text of the LXX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4. The Minority Greek Text, the Alpha Text (AT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5. Flavius Josephus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6. The Old Latin (OL) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.7. The Vulgate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.8. Other Ancient Versions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. The Work’s Editorial Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1. The Alpha Text (AT), a Late Revision Dependant upon the LXX and/or the MT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2. The Alpha Text Reflects a Pre-Masoretic Hebrew Proto-Esther . . . . 3.3. Narrative Source Divisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4. The Additions in the LXX and the AT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5. The Place of the Old Latin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. Synthesis and the Proposal Defended in the Present Commentary 4.1. From Proto-Esther to the Masoretic Text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2. Emergence of the Two Primary Greek Witnesses (AT and LXX) and the Other Textual Witnesses of Esther . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B. Historical and Intellectual Context of the Book’s Production . . . . . . . . 1. The Persian Era: The Setting of the Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. The Hellenistic Era: The Context of the Work’s Production . . . . . . . 2.1. Fictive Character of the Narrative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2. Different Textual Forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3. Linguistic Arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4. Knowledge of Biblical Texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5. Esther and Hellenistic Literature about Persia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6. Esther and Maccabean Conflicts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.7. The Context of Proto-Esther’s Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.8. The Context of Production of the Proto-Masoretic Edition of Esther 2.9. The Contexts of Production of the Additions and Other Textual Forms of the Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Purim’s Mysterious Origin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C. Literary and Thematic Characteristics Developed in Esther’s Masoretic Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Organization of the Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Novel-Like Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16 17 17 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 24 24 25 28 29 30 31 31 35 38 38 38 39 40 40 40 41 44 44 46 49 50 52 52 55

6

Content

3. Language and Style . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. Allusions and References to Other Biblical Texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1. Esther, Mordecai, and the Kings of Israel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2. The Joseph Story and the Book of Esther . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3. Esther and Moses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4. Daniel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5. The Book of Esther and the Books of Maccabees and Judith . . . . . . 4.6. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. Themes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1. View of the Empire and Relationship with It . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2. Facing a Foreign Empire as a Jew . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3. God’s Presence and Absence in the MT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D. Literary and Thematic Characteristics of Other Textual Forms of Esther 1. Proto-Esther: Structure and Themes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. The Greek Versions: Structure and Themes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E. Perspectives on Space and Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Spatial Organization of the Palace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Schema of Palace Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. The Chronological System in the Book of Esther . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1. The Chronological System of the Masoretic Text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2. The Chronological System in the LXX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3. Diachronic Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F. Canonization, Use, and Reception of the Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. An Anthoritative Book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1. Canonicity in Judaism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2. Canonicity in Christianity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. A Book for the Festival of Purim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. An Inspiring Book (Esther’s Reception) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1. Esther in Judaism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2. Esther in Christianity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G. How to Use This Commentary on Esther’s Masoretic Form . . . . . . . . . .

56 58 58 59 60 61 62 64 64 64 68 71 72 72 74 75 75 75 76 76 78 79 79 79 80 82 84 86 86 87 89

Chapter 1. The Fall of Queen Vashti

90

............................

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Banquets of the Persian King (1:1-9) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Notes on Text and Translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Synchronic Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vashti’s Refusal (1:10-12) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Notes on Text and Translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Synchronic Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Consequences of Vashti’s Refusal (1:13-22) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Notes on Text and Translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Synchronic Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Diachronic Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Proto-Esther . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Proto-Masoretic Editing and the Emergence of the MT . . . . . The Greek Translations and the Late Modifications of the MT Synthesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

90 90 91 91 98 98 98 101 102 103 109 110 111 113 114

7

Content

Chapter 2. Esther’s Accession and Royal Installation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Esther 2:1-18. Appointment of a New Queen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Notes on Text and Translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Synchronic Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Esther 2:19-23. Events at the Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Notes on Text and Translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Synchronic Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Diachronic Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Proto-Esther . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Proto-Masoretic Editing and the Emergence of the MT . . . . . The Greek Translations and the Late Modifications of the MT Synthesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . ..

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

115 115 116 118 131 131 132 132 136 136 138 141 142

Chapter 3. Haman’s Plot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 Notes on Text and Translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Synchronic Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Diachronic Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Proto-Esther . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Proto-Masoretic Editing and the Emergence of the MT . . . . . The Greek Translations and the Late Modifications of the MT Synthesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . . . ..

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

144 144 159 160 161 164 165

Chapter 4. Mordecai Solicits Esther’s Help . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 Notes on Text and Translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Synchronic Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Diachronic Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Proto-Esther . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Proto-Masoretic Editing and the Emergence of the MT . . . . . The Greek Translations and the Late Modifications of the MT Synthesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . . . ..

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

167 167 177 178 179 181 182

Chapter 5. Haman’s Honors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Esther’s First Banquet (5:1-8) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Notes on Text and Translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Synchronic Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Reasons for the Double Invitation to the Banquet . . . . . . . . Haman at Home with His Friends (5:9-14) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Notes on Text and Translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Synchronic Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Diachronic Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Proto-Esther . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Proto-Masoretic Editing and the Emergence of the MT . . . . . The Greek Translations and the Late Modifications of the MT

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

183 184 184 185 189 192 192 192 197 197 200 201

8

Content

Synthesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202 Chapter 6. Mordecai’s Honors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Haman Honors Mordecai (6:1-11) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Notes on Text and Translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Synchronic Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Haman Returns Home (6:12-14) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Notes on Text and Translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Synchronic Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Diachronic Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Proto-Esther . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Proto-Masoretic Editing and the Emergence of the MT . . . . . The Greek Translations and the Late Modifications of the MT Synthesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . ..

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

203 203 204 205 211 211 212 214 214 218 220 220

Chapter 7. The Death of Haman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221 Notes on Text and Translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Synchronic Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Diachronic Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Proto-Esther . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Proto-Masoretic Editing and the Emergence of the MT . . . . . The Greek Translations and the Late Modifications of the MT Synthesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . . . ..

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

221 222 230 230 232 234 234

Chapters 8–10. Triumph, Massacre, and Festivities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A Plot Difficult to Unravel (8:1-17) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Notes on Text and Translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Synchronic Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The War (9:1-19) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Notes on Text and Translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Synchronic Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Letters Instituting the Festivals (9:20-32) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Notes on Text and Translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Synchronic Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The King, Mordecai, the Jews, and the Empire (10:1-3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Notes on Text and Translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Synchronic Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Diachronic Analysis. Chapters 8-10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Proto-Esther . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Original Conclusion of Proto-Esther and Late Sections of the AT Proto-Masoretic Editing and the Emergence of the MT . . . . . . . . . . . Proto-Masoretic Themes and Formulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Proto-Masoretic Editing of Chapter 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Proto-Masoretic Editing of 9:1-19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Proto-Masoretic Editing of 9:20-28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

235 236 237 238 253 254 255 267 268 269 281 282 282 285 285 286 290 291 291 293 294

9

Content

Editorial Process and Textual History of 9:29-32 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Proto-Masoretic Editing of 10:1-3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Greek Translations and the Late Modifications of the MT . . Corrections to the MT Subsequent to the Translation of the LXX The Outcome of the Greek Translations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Synthesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

295 296 297 297 298 298

The Additions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299 Addition A,1-11. Mordecai’s Dream . . . . . . . . . . . . . Addition A,12-17. The Eunuchs’ First Plot . . . . . . . . Addition B,1-7. The Edict of Annihilation . . . . . . . . Addition C,1-30. Mordecai’s and Esther’s Prayers . . Addition D,1-16. Esther’s Arrival before the King . . Addition E,1-24. The Counter-Edict . . . . . . . . . . . . . Addition F,1-10. Interpretation of Mordecai’s Dream Addition F,11. The Colophon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

299 302 304 307 314 317 322 325

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 326 Esther Texts. Editions and Translations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hebrew . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Greek (LXX and AT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Old Latin (OL) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vulgate (Vulg.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Peshitta (Pesh. or Syr.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Patristic Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bible Translations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mesopotamian and Persian Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ancient Aramaic and Hebrew Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Elephantine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Megillat Ta’anit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Targum Esther I and Targum Esther II (Tg. Esth. I and Tg. Esth. II) Midrash Rabbah (Mid. Rabbah) and Other Midrashic Texts . . . . Talmud (Babylonian (b.) and Jerusalem (y.)) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Greek and Roman Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Encyclopedias, Dictionaries, Grammars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Commentaries on the Book of Esther . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Articles and Monographs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

326 326 326 326 326 327 327 327 327 327 327 328 328 328 328 328 330 330 332

Indexes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 344 Index of Hebrew Words . . . . . . . Index of Key Words . . . . . . . . . . Index of Biblical Citations . . . . . Index of Other Ancient Literature

.... .... .... ...

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

344 345 348 356

Plan of volumes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 360

Editors’ Foreword The International Exegetical Commentary on the Old Testament (IECOT) offers a multi-perspectival interpretation of the books of the Old Testament to a broad, international audience of scholars, laypeople and pastors. Biblical commentaries too often reflect the fragmented character of contemporary biblical scholarship, where different geographical or methodological sub-groups of scholars pursue specific methodologies and/or theories with little engagement of alternative approaches. This series, published in English and German editions, brings together editors and authors from North America, Europe, and Israel with multiple exegetical perspectives. From the outset the goal has been to publish a series that was “international, ecumenical and contemporary.” The international character is reflected in the composition of an editorial board with members from six countries and commentators representing a yet broader diversity of scholarly contexts. The ecumenical dimension is reflected in at least two ways. First, both the editorial board and the list of authors includes scholars with a variety of religious perspectives, both Christian and Jewish. Second, the commentary series not only includes volumes on books in the Jewish Tanach/Protestant Old Testament, but also other books recognized as canonical parts of the Old Testament by diverse Christian confessions (thus including the Deuterocanonical Old Testament books). When it comes to “contemporary,” one central distinguishing feature of this series is its attempt to bring together two broad families of perspectives in analysis of biblical books, perspectives often described as “synchronic” and “diachronic” and all too often understood as incompatible with each other. Historically, diachronic studies arose in Europe, while some of the better known early synchronic studies originated in North America and Israel. Nevertheless, historical studies have continued to be pursued around the world, and focused synchronic work has been done in an ever greater variety of settings. Building on these developments, we aim in this series to bring synchronic and diachronic methods into closer alignment, allowing these approaches to work in a complementary and mutuallyinformative rather than antagonistic manner. Since these terms are used in varying ways within biblical studies, it makes sense to specify how they are understood in this series. Within IECOT we understand “synchronic” to embrace a variety of types of study of a biblical text in one given stage of its development, particularly its final stage(s) of development in existing manuscripts. “Synchronic” studies embrace non-historical narratological, reader-response and other approaches along with historically-informed exegesis of a particular stage of a biblical text. In contrast, we understand “diachronic” to embrace the full variety of modes of study of a biblical text over time. This diachronic analysis may include use of manuscript evidence (where available) to identify documented pre-stages of a biblical text, judicious use of clues within the biblical text to reconstruct its formation over time, and also an examination of the ways in which a biblical text may be in dialogue with earlier biblical (and non-biblical) motifs, traditions, themes, etc. In other words, diachronic study focuses on what might be termed a “depth dimension” of a given text – how a

12

Editors’ Foreword

text (and its parts) has journeyed over time up to its present form, making the text part of a broader history of traditions, motifs and/or prior compositions. Synchronic analysis focuses on a particular moment (or moments) of that journey, with a particular focus on the final, canonized form (or forms) of the text. Together they represent, in our view, complementary ways of building a textual interpretation. Of course, each biblical book is different, and each author or team of authors has different ideas of how to incorporate these perspectives into the commentary. The authors will present their ideas in the introduction to each volume. In addition, each author or team of authors will highlight specific contemporary methodological and hermeneutical perspectives – e.g. gender-critical, liberation-theological, reception-historical, social-historical – appropriate to their own strengths and to the biblical book being interpreted. The result, we hope and expect, will be a series of volumes that display a range of ways that various methodologies and discourses can be integrated into the interpretation of the diverse books of the Old Testament. Fall 2012

The Editors

Author’s Preface In my first article on the topic of this commentary, I compared the chapter 4 of Esther’s Masoretic text with the Greek Alpha text. I already argued that MT resultes from a major rewriting of a shorter Hebrew text similar to AT. One year later, following observations made by other scholars, I argued that the way in which the book of Esther describes the Persian empire is very similar to the one we found in Greek authors like Herodotus or Ctesias1. These basic arguments laid the foundations on which this commentary has been built during more than 10 years of research. When Adele Berlin, the editor of this commentary, asked me to write the commentary on Esther for the new IECOT series I was really proud to receive such an offer from the author of one of the best commentaries on Esther2. However I had already started to write, in French, a commentary for the CAT series of Labor et Fides3. We decided to adapt the CAT commentary to the IECOT series and to translate it. I would like to address a warm thank you to Adele Berlin for the long editorial work she did. She helped me very much to adapt the commentary. Carmen Palmer did high level work as the English translator. Furthermore, I would like to thank others. My colleagues and my students of the Faculty of Theology of the University of Geneva, my colleagues from the Institut des sciences bibliques of the University of Lausanne. They all gave me many opportunities to have many interesting discussions on Esther. My assistants Georgette Gribi, Claire Sybille Andrey, Chen Bergot and Axel Bühler helped during the writing of the commentary. Finally, I thank my wife Claire and my two children Matthieu and Jérémie for their constant support and affection. Jean-Daniel Macchi Geneva January, 2018

1 2 3

MACCHI, “Dieu” in 2004 and “regard” in 2005. BERLIN, Esther MACCHI, Esther.

Introduction While for Jews, the Esther scroll is a veritable best seller, read every year on the carnivalesque festival of Purim, in Christian circles this work is relatively unfamiliar. We can see the book, first of all, as a short historical novel with a wellconstructed plot that clearly distinguishes good and bad. The characters are types, serving a “psychological” function that sometimes plays out in a delicious manner. Suspense, humor, and irony are not lacking, and neither are sex and violence. But beyond this first simple glance, this work raises interesting and challenging questions: Why do such different versions of Esther exist? In what historical context was it composed and what does it say about ideas circulating at that time? How can we understand themes that, despite their fictionalized treatment, are in reality tragic and raise questions that still seem very contemporary? The book of Esther, like most biblical books, is not the work of a single author, The Text but the result of authors and successive editors over the course of time. They sought to transmit the traditions and foundational narratives of their community by reworking, correcting, and contemporizing them. We have several different forms of the book of Esther: the Hebrew Masoretic Text (MT), which is part of the Jewish and Protestant Bibles, and two ancient Greek translations that are considerably longer. One of these, the LXX, is canonical in Catholic and Orthodox Bibles. This commentary considers the textual diversity of the work and highlights how it was produced. It first discusses the editorial process that resulted in the Masoretic form of the work. According to the hypothesis developed here, one of the Greek textual forms – the Alpha Text (AT) – is the translation of a Hebrew Proto-Esther which, reworked mainly by proto-Masoretic editors, became the MT. Then, after the commentary on the Hebrew text, the commentary presents the supplemental sections that are part of the Greek texts. The book of Esther provides fascinating information on the thought of ancient History of Judaism. It emanated from Jewish groups profoundly marked by the dominant Ideas culture of the Hellenistic world. According to our hypothesis, the oldest literary stratum was developed by diaspora Jews living in an urban Hellenistic context in Ptolemaic Egypt in the third century BCE. The main proto-massoretic editing reworked this text in the 2nd century in Judea after the Maccabean conflict between traditional Jewish circles and Hellenistic tyrants. The book of Esther is sensitive to Hellenistic culture and in dialogue with it. The authors and the editors put into play a novelesque plot situated in the ancient Persian Empire. They describe this empire in a fashion very similar to the way the Greeks represented this distant and powerful oriental empire. At a moment when the Greek world took pleasure in composing narratives set in Persia, whether “Persica” or large historiographies, the Jews composed their book of Esther by using the same codes as Greek literature about Persia. The Jews who conceived Esther show simultaneously their profound cultural similarity to the Greeks, as well as the tensions opposing them. This “dialogue”

16

A. Textual Forms and Editorial Stages

with Hellenistic culture is often benevolent, notably when the book shows that the Jews share with the Greeks the ideals of liberty, courage, and fidelity to their god(s). It is also sometimes very harsh, in particular when it denounces the tyranical diversions of Hellenistic sovereigns of whom Antiochus IV is the archetype, in ironizing upon the functioning of the Persian Empire. Themes The book of Esther evokes problems of identity that may seem familiar to immigrants or their descendants, to people within marginalized communities, or simply to those whose convictions are different from a “majority” from which they feel foreign. Indeed, this narrative stages characters who, in a world marked by a culture different from their own, are at first tempted to conceal their identity before being obliged to reveal and defend it. The oppression of minorities in general, and of Jews in particular, probably constitutes the central theme of this work, which in view of European history in the twentieth century seems prophetic. In just a few verses placed on the lips of the wretched Haman (3:8-9), the narrative denounces a discriminatory and terrifying rhetoric, consisting of a critique of the so-called harmful nature of the customs of people who have been dehumanized, and who are presented as dangerous “foreigners.” Then the consequences of the almost light and naive approval by the royal power of this discourse of exclusion are put into action over a long period, showing how difficult it is to stop the mechanics of genocidal horror once they have been engaged. Without doubt it was, it is, and always shall be urgent to combat from its inception any exclusionary discourse. Through the different attitudes of its heroes, the narrative also evokes strategies of resistance. Mordecai first faces his enemy with dignity and pacifism: he does not attack him, but instead has the courage to remain loyal to himself and to refuse obstinately to prostrate himself. Esther uses with cunning courage and intelligence the few powers at her disposal to convince the sovereign to enforce justice and to not let horror persist. Finally – and it is here that one aspect of the work offends the sensibilities of certain readers – when justice and legal action are unable to stop the terror, it seems that war must ensue. The authors of the work assuredly knew quite well that war is always terrible. They only legitimate the one at the end of the book because it is a matter of self-defense against genocidal aggressors and because there are no other solutions. Though allusions to divine action as well as to Jewish rituals are hinted at in the book of Esther, God is not directly mentioned. The editors wish to address a theological message. They seem to invite the readers to ponder whether to identify divine intervention behind this or that event and especially whether God works through the actions of women and men.

A. Textual Forms and Editorial Stages The book of Esther is attested in very different textual forms. The content of the Hebrew Masoretic Text (MT) differs considerably from the ancient Greek and Latin translations, which contain six long supplemental sections – henceforth, “Additions A to F.” These additions add a dream of Mordecai, prayers, and the contents of decrees. Additionally, two fairly different ancient Greek translations coexist, the

2. The Textual Witnesses

17

LXX and the Alpha Text (AT). In the parts of the narrative that they share with the Masoretic Text – henceforth the “common narrative” – the Greek version of the LXX is fairly close to the MT while the Alpha Text is much shorter. The Latin translations also present certain distinctive features. The Old Latin (OL) differs from the Hebrew and Greek texts of Esther in both the “common narrative” as well as the additions. The Vulgate starts with a Latin text fairly loyal to the MT, but ends by appending the six additions.

1.

Accounting for the Textual Diversity of Esther in this Commentary

In a critical commentary on the book of Esther, the diversity of the textual witnesses raises two questions: what textual form is the object of the commentary? And, how can one account for the textual diversity and the complex writing process of the work? The Hebrew Masoretic Text as the Primary Form Discussed The non-Masoretic textual forms of Esther, particularly the two primary Greek ver- The Other Texsions, merit attention. The LXX reflects the text of Esther privileged within the Cath- tual Forms The Hebrew Masoretic Text (MT) is the basis of this commentary. It is the only textual form attested in the original language. The other ancient textual forms of the work are direct or indirect translations from Hebrew originals, with more or fewer variants from the MT.

olic world. As for the AT, it gives us a better understanding of the editorial steps of the MT, since outside of the six additions, it probably constitutes the translation of a Hebrew text – the Proto-Esther – more ancient than the Masoretic Text. This commentary will integrate the non-Masoretic textual forms in the following fashion. In the “common narrative,” the most significant variants in the LXX – as in the OL and the Vulgate – will be analyzed in the textual notes on the MT. In addition, after the main commentary, a separate chapter will be dedicated to the six additions in the LXX, the AT, and other versions. The AT will be discussed in sections dedicated to the editorial process of the work, at the end of the commentary on each chapter. A translation and an analysis of Proto-Esther, based on the AT, will be presented before comparing the content of this proto-Masoretic text to the MT, in order to highlight the work of the editors who rework it to produce the text of the Masoretic family.

2.

The Textual Witnesses

2.1. The Hebrew Masoretic Text (MT) The MT of Esther appears in several large codices from the Middle Ages. Since the beginning of the twentieth century, the critical editions of the Hebrew Bible reproduce the text of the Codex Leningradensis (B 19a Russian National Library) which dates to 1009 CE. BHS and BHQ do likewise.1 The limited number of textual

1

BHS, the critical edition (1975) is credited to F. MAASS; BHQ (2004), the critical edition is credited to M. SAEBØ.

18

A. Textual Forms and Editorial Stages

variants in Leningradensis and in other large Masoretic manuscripts show that the Tiberian text of this book is well stabilized. The Masoretic Text presents a fairly ironic view of the Persian world. It introduces the unusual feature of not explicitly mentioning divine action.

2.2. Esther at Qumran? The manuscripts found at Qumran do not contain any fragments from the book of Esther.2 This surprising observation must be nuanced insofar as several passages in Qumran manuscripts contain phraseology that seems reminiscent of Esther.3 The absence of citations of Esther at Qumran could indicate that this book was set aside4 or could simply result from the chance nature of the discoveries.5 Although the Masoretic textual form is not attested at Qumran and the oldest Masoretic manuscripts date to the Middle Ages, it is evident that the Masoretic text type was widely known in antiquity, as shown by the midrashic and targumic materials, as well as the Greek, Syriac, and Latin translations.

2

3

4

5

Eugene Charles ULRICH, The Biblical Qumran Scrolls: Transcriptions and Textual Variants (VTSup 134), Leiden/Boston, 2010, does not mention any fragment from Esther. Józef Tadeusz MILIK, “Les modèles araméens du livre d’Esther dans la grotte 4 de Qoumrân,” RdQ 59/15 (1992), 321-399 incorrectly identifies a Proto-Esther in 4Q550 = 4QpEsth (see the critiques John Joseph COLLINS and Deborah A. GREEN, “The Tales from the Persian Court (4Q550a-e),” in Antikes Judentum und Frühes Christentum: Festschrift für Hartmut Stegemann zum 65. Geburtstag (BZNW 97), B. KOLLMANN, W. REINBOLD and A. STEUDEL (eds.), Berlin, 1999, 39-50; Sidnie WHITE CRAWFORD, “Has Esther been found at Qumran? 4QProto-Esther and the Esther Corpus,” RdQ 17 (1996), 307-325; KOSSMANN, Esthernovelle, 257-291; Kristin DE TROYER, “Once more, the So-called Esther Fragments of Cave 4,” RdQ 19 (2000), 401-422; Michael G. WECHSLER, “Two Para-Biblical Novellae from Qumran Cave 4: A Reevaluation of 4Q550,” DSD 7 (2000), 130-172. Joshua FINKEL, “The Author of the Genesis Apocryphon Knew the Book of Esther (Hebrew),” in Essays on the Dead Sea Scrolls, in Memory of E.L. Sukenik, Y. YADIN and C. RABIN (eds.), Jerusalem, 1962, 163-182, estimates that the pericope of Sarah with Pharaoh in 1QapGen 20 is reminiscent of Esther. Other resemblances to Esther at Qumran have been identified by TALMON, “Qumran.” Esther could have seemed too violent or not very theological, or could have been unacceptable for liturgical reasons. The Qumran community’s rejection of Purim might be because the origins of the festival do not derive from the Torah (MOORE, Additions, 160), because in the Qumran calendar the fourteenth of Adar was always on Sabbath (BECKWITH, Canon, 290-294; Roger T. BECKWITH, Calendar, Chronology, and Worship: Studies in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, Leiden/Boston, 2005, 28-29; BERLIN, Esther xlivxlv; John JARICK, “The Bible’s ‘Festival Scrolls’ among the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in The Scrolls and the Scriptures. Qumran Fifty Years after (JSPE.S 26), S. E. PORTER and C. A. EVANS (eds.), Sheffield, 170-182, 181), or because this festival was celebrated within Hasmonean circles (Hanan ESHEL, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Hasmonean State (SDSSRL), Grand Rapids, Jerusalem, 2008 and MIMOUNI, judaïsme, 240). See TALMON, “Qumran,” 249-250. In addition, KALIMI, “Fear,” 231-232 rightly notes that the small community at Qumran cannot be considered representative of the entirety of Judaism in that era.

2. The Textual Witnesses

19

2.3. The Majority Greek Text of the LXX The LXX of Esther appears in the large uncials, in a fragmentary fashion in Papyrus 967 (third century CE) and in about thirty minuscule manuscripts. The edition of R. Hanhart6 uses the sign ο’ for the majority Greek text. The manuscript tradition of the LXX of Esther is not entirely homogeneous. It is generally considered7 that Vaticanus and Pap. 967 present the oldest text, that the primary minuscules give evidence of two minor revisions, and that a Hexaplaric revision is attested by someone correcting Sinaiticus as well as by some additional witnesses.8 In the sections that parallel the Hebrew text, it is generally agreed that the LXX constitutes a relatively free translation of a Hebrew substratum that is close to the MT.9 That said, several variants between the MT and the LXX imply that the Hebrew substratum used by the LXX translators was not completely identical to the Hebrew that gave rise to the consonants of the MT. Glosses were also made on a Hebrew text after the LXX had been translated.10 The presence of the six additions (A to F) is the most significant difference between the Masoretic tradition and the LXX. These additions almost always appear in the Greek versions of Esther and in versions dependent upon them.11 They contain a total 105 verses that add to 167 verses with parallels in the MT. The six additions introduce a whole series of elements absent from the MT. By means of the narrative of Mordecai’s dream (Add. A1) and its interpretation (Add. F), the description of Esther’s and Mordecai’s prayers (Add. C), and the development of the episode of Esther’s arrival before the king (Add. D), they stress the theological dimension of the events, explicitly evoking divine action and the piety of the Jewish protagonists. Moreover, the contents of the decree of annihilation of the Jews and the counter-decree (Additions B and E) aim to denounce an anti-Semitic discourse. Furthermore, they demonstrate the loyalty of the Jews to the empire, found in the narrative of the first scheme to be carried out by the eunuchs, and unravelled by Mordecai (Add. A2). A colophon (F,11) specifies the identity of the author of the manuscript and its date.

6 7 8 9

HANHART (ed.), Esther. This edition introduces in synopsis the LXX and the AT. HANHART (ed.), Esther, 45-87 and CAVALIER, Esther, 25. One part of the text of Alexandrinus and four minuscules. This is the common opinion (cf. CLINES, Scroll, 69; MOORE, Additions, 162-163; SPOTTORNO, “Beyond,” 53; DE TROYER and WACKER, “Esther,” 1265; BOYD-TAYLOR, “Esther,” 204, 208210; KAHANA, Esther, 441). 10 Among the late corrections of the Hebrew text, the most patent is the identification of Haman as Agagite (cf. the commentary on 3:1). 11 LXX, AT, and all the versions dependant upon the LXX (Latin, Coptic, etc.) present the additions. Jerome knew the additions that he rejected at the end of his Vulgate. Josephus knew some of the additions. At the opposite end of the spectrum, the additions are absent from the targumic texts, the Peshitta, and the Jewish interpretive traditions (Midrash, Mishnah, Talmud). Some elements introduced in the additions are, however, passed over in Midrash Rabbah, and some connections can be traced between Targum Esther II and Addition E (cf. CAVALIER, Esther, 39-41).

20

A. Textual Forms and Editorial Stages

2.4. The Minority Greek Text, the Alpha Text (AT) The Alpha Text, a Greek version very different from the LXX, is preserved in four manuscripts dating between the eleventh and thirteenth centuries CE.12 This minority text was sometimes described as “Lucianic.”13 Hanhart’s critical edition and several others14 thus use the siglum L. The title “Alpha Text,” used more frequently by recent authors, is preferable. The numbering of the verses in the AT varies according to different authors.15 The present commentary will use the following system adapted from Hanhart.

MT

ø

1:1-3:13

ø

3:14-4:17 ø

5:1-2

5:3-7:10

8:1-12

ø

8:13-10:3 ø

8:1-12

E

8:13-10:3 F

E

7:33-52

LXX A 1:1-3:13

B 3:14-4:17 C D

5:3-7:10

AT

B 3:19-4:12 C D

5:13-7:14 7:15-21

A 1:1-3:13

F

In 1:1-3:13 + 3:19-4:12 + 5:13-7:14 the AT corresponds fairly well to the Masoretic narrative of 1:1-7:10 and to its translation in the LXX (1:1-3:13 + 3:14-4:17 + 5:37:10LXX). One can thus speak of a “common narrative” since these three texts recount approximately the same story. However, although the AT’s narrative sequence is very similar to the MT/LXX, it is a little shorter. Sentences and parts of sentences in the Hebrew MT have no equivalent in the AT, while in the rest of the cases the AT seems to be a literal translation of the MT. Besides the numerous parts of verses absent from the AT,16 the totality of vv. 1:17-18, 22; 2:10-16, 19-23; 3:12-14; 4:5-8a from the MT have no equivalent in the AT. Outside of the additions, passages in the AT without equivalent in the MT are rare, appearing only in Chapters 6 and 7 (6:4-6a, 13-18; 7:2, 4b-7, 14). Between 1:1 and 7:14, the AT is approximately twenty-five percent shorter than its parallel in the MT, and several motifs in the MT are absent from it. The necessity to conceal one’s Jewishness

12 Manuscripts 19, 93, 108 and 319; presented in HANHART (ed.), Esther, 15, JOBES, AlphaText, Appendice 2 and HAELEWYCK, Hester, 71. Manuscripts 93 and 108 present simultaneously the AT and the LXX and Manuscript 392 has a composite text blending the AT with the LXX. 13 This term was imposed in the nineteeth century following the work of DE LAGARDE, Librorum and B. JACOB, “Das Buch Esther bei den LXX,” ZAW 10 (1890), 241-298, 258-262. 14 HANHART (ed.), Esther. This addition presents in synopsis the majority text of the LXX (= o’) and the Alpha Text (=L). For the other printed editions of the AT, cf. CLINES, Scroll, 70-71. The designation L for the AT also appears in BARDTKE, Esther; CAVALIER, Esther; PATON, Esther, and others. 15 The system adopted by CLINES, Scroll and by the Cambridge edition (BROOKE, Esther) for the AT make Chapter 1 into Addition A and thus shift [reassign] the following chapters accordingly. Where RALPHS, Septuaginta, is concerned, who only publishes the LXX, he does not write of Additions A to F, but indicates them with a system of letters (Add. A is numbered 1:a-s; Add. B 3:13a-g etc.). See the table in DE TROYER, Alpha Text, 13. 16 For details of the elements absent from the AT, see the Lists of Masoretic “Pluses” throughout the commentary.

2. The Textual Witnesses

21

from the foreign court (vv. 2:10-11, 19-20MT) does not figure in the AT, and the absurd character of certain customs and of the functioning of the court is much less accentuated. It should also be noted that the verses or parts of verses in the AT that present a strict parallel with the MT are reproduced in a very different manner than in the LXX, so that a direct dependence in these sections of one Greek text upon the other is difficult to defend.17 Contrary to what appears in the common narrative, the AT presents Additions A-F in a Greek form close to that of the LXX, which implies that in these sections, the Greek texts depend directly upon one another.18 The conclusion of the AT does not introduce the same special features as those in the “common narrative.” In 7:15-21, 33-52AT the events in Chapters 8 to 10 of the MT are recounted in a much briefer and fairly different fashion (the irrevocability of the laws does not explain the massacre of the enemies). Several doublets appear.19 Concerning parallels with the other textual witnesses, one can see that only vv. 7:15-16 and 33-34 present constructions similar to the MT (8:12, 5, 8, 10) and that it is only thematic similarities that bring 7:17-21AT close to 9:6-15MT and 10:1-3MT. Finally, the rest of the conclusion of the AT presents Greek phraseology very close to that of the LXX. 7:35-38AT is close to E,17-19LXX and 7:39-52 presents a text that is shorter than 8:15-10:3LXX, but contains Greek constructions that are very close. To summarize, in the “common narrative” in 1:1-7:14AT, the AT corresponds to the general order of the MT, while presenting a shorter text, in which the Greek does not seem to have a direct connection to the LXX. With regard to the six additions, the AT is close to the LXX. Where the conclusion of 7:15-21, 33-52AT is concerned, it is heterogeneous: some verses (15-16, 33-34) recall what takes place in the common narrative; others are connected very indirectely with what appears in the MT-LXX (7:17-21); and what remains (7:35-52) is briefer than the text of the LXX of E,17-19 and 8:15-10:3LXX, but the Greek within it contains phraseological connections to the LXX.

2.5. Flavius Josephus In his Antiquities (11.184-296) Flavius Josephus reports the episodes described in the book of Esther.20 His narrative corresponds in large part to the contents of the MT/LXX. The additions are only partially found in Josephus. Additions B, D, and E are present in a form close to the LXX/AT, the contents of Addition C are only briefly reported, and Additions A and F are absent.

17 The analysis of JOBES, Alpha-Text, 147-157 shows that the syntactic identities between the Greek of Chs. 1-7 of the LXX and of the AT are very limited (generally not more than ten percent), see also FOX, Redaction, 17-34. 18 The comparison by JOBES, Alpha-Text, (149-150, 165 and App. 1) of the six additions in the LXX and the AT shows a strict formal agreement in almost half of the cases. 19 Mordecai obtains power in 7:17AT and 7:39-41AT, the massacre of enemies appears in 7:21AT and in 7:44-46AT and the festival is instituted in 7:34AT and then in 7:47-49AT. 20 For a presentation of the textual witnesses of Antiquities 11 and their possible connections, see Nodet: FLAVIUS JOSÈPHE, Antiquités, Vol. 5 p. viii-xix, xxiv-xxxii.

22

A. Textual Forms and Editorial Stages

It is not clear which biblical text Josephus relied upon for his recounting of Esther.21 His paraphrasing and rewriting of biblical sources seem to depend upon a Vorlage that corresponds to either the LXX or the MT or both of these witnesses.22 The primary elements that distinguish the AT from other textual witnesses are not evident in Josephus.23 Josephus’s rewriting has several characteristics.24 Esther and Mordecai live in Babylon, and Esther comes from royal origins (Ant. 11.185, 198, 204). Vashti’s refusal is explained by a Persian prohibition (Ant. 11.191, 205-206). The king remains very much in love with Vashti after having repudiated her (Ant. 11.195). The gathering of the young women only involves four hundred women (Ant. 11.200). Mordecai reacts with panache when Haman comes seeking him (Ant. 11.257-258). The eunuch sees and finds out about the gallows (Ant. 11.261). The drawing of lots is omitted as well as the thirty days of Esther’s lack of summons. Finally, Josephus, as in the LXX, presents the motif of divine action and emphasizes the Jews’ piety (Ant. 11.227-233, 237, 268). Josephus’s account shows that the textual complexity of Esther and its traditions were still important at the end of the first century CE.

2.6. The Old Latin (OL) The Old Latin (OL) text of Esther is attested in approximately twenty manuscripts from the end of the eighth to the fifteenth centuries CE.25 Haelewyck’s critical edition26 shows three primary families, of which the closest to the original OL, (R), is attested in MS 151. Like the LXX and AT, the OL differs from the MT by the presence of “additions.” There are an entire series of relatively minor differences in Additions B, D, E, and F between the OL and the Greek witnesses. OL does not present the second part of Addition A, thus avoiding the doubling of the description of the

21 A comparison between JOSEPHUS, Ant. 11.184-296 and the other Esther witnesses (MT/ LXX/AT), to my knowledge, has never been systematically made, although some information is in HANHART (ed.), Esther, 36-38 and in Nodet: FLAVIUS JOSÈPHE, Antiquités, Vol. 5, lxvi-lxvii and in the notes in his translation. 22 In the common narrative, JOSEPHUS is sometimes closer to the MT and sometimes to the LXX. In Antiquities 11.209, 211 Haman is an “Amalekite,” which presupposes the MT (LXX speaks of “Bougaios”), but the king is identified by Josephus as Artaxerxes, as in the LXX. The Hebrew spelling ‫ אחשׁורושׁ‬corresponds to the Persian name of Xerxes (not Artaxerxes). 23 The primary “pluses” of the MT and the LXX in relation to the AT appear in Josephus (Ant. 11.194 // 1:17-18MT/LXX; Ant. 11.200-204 // 2:10-16, 19-23MT/LXX; Ant. 11.228-229 // 4:17MT/LXX). The distinctive features of AT’s conclusion are not present in Josephus. On the other hand, however, the few “pluses” of the AT (esp. 6:4-6a, 13-18; 7:2, 4b-7, 14 in the AT) are not present in Josephus. The convergences of Josephus with the AT, emphasized by DOROTHY, Books, 335 and PATON, Esther, 39, remain rare and minor. 24 See Louis H. FELDMAN, “Esther,” in Studies in Josephus’ Rewritten Bible (JSJSup 58), Leiden/ Boston/Köln, 1998, 513-538 and Nodet: FLAVIUS JOSÈPHE, Antiquités, Vol. 5 p. lxiv-lxv. 25 See the presentation of HAELEWYCK (ed.), Hester, 11-17. 26 HAELEWYCK (ed.), Hester. An annotated French translation of the OL also appears in the appendix of CAVALIER, Esther, 243-266.

2. The Textual Witnesses

23

eunuchs’ plot in 2:21-23. The prayers of Esther and Mordecai in Addition C are shorter. And, a prayer of the Jews (Addition H) which introduces themes figuring in the parts of prayers of Esther and Mordecai, absent from the OL (C,3-5 and 1721), appears at the end of Chapter 3 in the OL.27 Aside from the additions, the text of the OL is much more akin to the LXX/ MT than to the AT. The sections of the LXX/MT without parallel in the AT are most often attested by the OL, while practically none of the distinctive features of the AT appear it in.28 Moreover, the OL insists upon certain theological themes. In Chapter 4, it reports in detail the fasting ritual, and in Chapter 6, it emphasizes even more than the LXX that God is at work behind the salvific events reported.29 The most significant difference between the LXX and the OL concerns the vindictiveness of the work’s conclusion, which is largely absent from the OL. The massacre of the enemies of the Jews is not reported at all. The OL does not contain an equivalent to 9:5-19 in the LXX/MT. In the OL, Haman’s missives are annulled by the decree sent by Esther and Mordecai (8:8ff.), whose contents are reported in Addition E. To know whether the OL constitutes a translation that revises a Greek text close to the LXX, or whether it translates a lost Greek text, remains under discussion. But it is clear that the OL does not have the characteristics of the AT and that it must therefore be close to the lineage of the LXX.

2.7. The Vulgate At the start of the fifth century CE, the Vulgate, Jerome’s Latin translation, undergoes a radical change in relation to the Old Latin text. The content of Chapters 1:110:3 in the Vulgate corresponds closely to some liberties taken in the MT.30 The six additions are relegated to the end of the text appearing in the chapters between 10:4 to 16:24 (Add. F = 10:4-11:1; A = 11:2-12:6; B = 13:1-7; C = 13:8-14:19; D = 15:4-19; E = 16:1-24). In the Vulgate, the Latin translation of the additions seems to have been based upon a form close to the LXX.31 The Vulgate thus introduces a “hybrid” text that depends upon the MT for 1:1-10:3, but upon the LXX for the additions.

27 HAELEWYCK (ed.), Hester, 90-91 clearly shows this point. He considers that the translator of the LXX integrated the content of Addition H into the prayer of Esther and Mordecai in Addition C. The inverse (the translator of the OL moves part of the contents of Addition C to create Addition H) seems a priori just as likely. 28 The large “pluses” of the LXX/MT, with respect to the AT (1:17-18, 22; 2:10-16, 19-23; 3:12-14; 8:1-17) do not appear in the OL. In contrast, the content of some “pluses” in the AT (esp. 6:4-6a, 13-18; 7:2, 4b-7, 14 in the AT) does not appear in the original OL. The conclusion of the OL (Chs. 9-10) is quite different from the LXX/MT but does not introduce the characteristics of the AT. 29 4:16-17OL describes at length the fasting practices of the Jews. In Chapter 6 of the OL, divine intervention is mentioned on four occasions (6:1, 2, 6, 12). 30 The manuscript tradition of the Vulgate is complex. See HAELEWYCK (ed.), Hester, 19-20, 64-67 and the line H-O of his edition of the OL. For an edition of the Vulgate of Esther cf. Libri Hester. 31 HAELEWYCK (ed.), Hester, 64; HANHART (ed.), Esther, 24.

24

A. Textual Forms and Editorial Stages

2.8. Other Ancient Versions The textual tradition of the Syriac version of the Peshitta is relatively homogeneous and deviates little from the MT.32 The Aramaic textual tradition preserved two targumic texts (Tg. Esth. I and II), both dependent on a textual form close to the MT that is largely paraphrased and developed in a midrashic way. The CopticSahidic, the Ethiopic, and the Armenian versions depend in large part upon the Greek text of the LXX.33

3.

The Work’s Editorial Process

The major differences between the MT, the two Greek translations (LXX and AT), and the Latin translations call for an inquiry into the origin of these textual forms and their dependents. Some points seem certain. Outside of the six additions, the LXX constitutes the translation of a Hebrew original very close to the MT,34 and must be dated based upon its colophon to the end of the second or beginning of the first century BCE.35 The six additions absent from the MT did not comprise part of the original narrative but were introduced at a late stage in the work’s evolution. Other points are debated (see below): the relationship between the Alpha Text (AT) on the one hand, and the MT and the LXX on the other hand; whether the original form of the narrative contained the narrative thread that we know; the origins of the additions; and, the origins of the Old Latin (OL).

3.1. The Alpha Text (AT), a Late Revision Dependant upon the LXX and/or the MT One current within Esther studies considers that the AT results from rewriting from within the majority tradition reflected by the LXX and the MT. In the “common narrative,” the AT is significantly shorter than the LXX and the MT, which implies that the editor of the AT abbreviated the work.

32 See Olivier MUNNICH, “La Peshitta d’Esther: ses relations textuelles avec le texte massorétique et la Septante,” in L’Ancien Testament en syriaque (Etudes syriaques 5), F. BRIQUEL CHATONNET and P. LE MOIGNE (eds.), Paris, 2008, 75-90, and PATON, Esther, 16-18. For the Peshitta editions of Esther, see CERIANI (ed.), Translatio. 33 See HANHART (ed.), Esther, 26-36 and C. CAVALIER, Esther, p. 28. 34 This large consensus was unconvincingly contested by Paul CARBONARO, “Que pourraiton ajouter contre un si fieffé menteur? (Contre Apion I,320): Lysimaque et le livre d’Esther,” RB 118 (2011), 5-37 who thinks that Esther of the LXX would have been translated into Hebrew late. 35 The mention of the “fourth year of the reign of Ptolemy and Cleopatra” in F,11LXX would permit a dating in 142, 114-113, 78-77 or 49-48 BCE. See MILLER, Versions, 113119; MOORE, “Additions,” 632 and Elias J. BICKERMAN, “The Colophon of the Greek Book of Esther,” JBL 63 (1944), 339-362; LIEBOWITZ, “Esther,” 2-3. This dating was contested by Claudine CAVALIER, “Le ‘colophon’ d’Esther,” RB 110 (2003), 167-177 and “Histoire reconstituée d’une transmission: Pourim de Moïse à Dosithée selon Esther F,11,” RB 110 (2003), 487-496 who thinks that this colophon makes up a part of the literary fiction of the work.

3. The Work’s Editorial Process

25

The first research on the AT deemed it the fruit of a Lucianic revision from the Greek Old Testament.36 Today this opinion is largely rejected, since the characteristic traits of the Lucianic revision are absent from the AT.37 The differences between the AT and the LXX go well beyond a simple revision, so that the scholars who think that the AT depends upon the LXX generally see in it a heavy reworking.38 K. de Troyer, in an important monograph,39 analyzes the final part of the AT and its parallels in the MT and the LXX, and concludes that the AT of 7:14-41 constitutes a rewriting based exclusively upon the LXX of 8:1-17. De Troyer dates this rewriting to 40-41 CE in the era of Agrippa.40 In her conclusions, de Troyer extrapolates deductions from the comparison between 7:14-41AT and 8:1-17LXX onto the remainder of these two texts of Esther to make the ensemble of the AT into a rewriting of the LXX. This extrapolation poses a problem, as it explains poorly the fact that, in the conclusion of the text and the additions, the AT often uses Greek formulations identical to those in the LXX, but in the rest of the book, the AT does not seem to take its Greek formulations from the LXX. Consequently, some scholars think that the AT is a new translation of a Hebrew text that is close to the one used by the translators of the LXX, thus of the MT in the “common narrative.” A. Lacocque41 reckons that the primary differences between the AT and the contents of the MT – primarily the “minuses” of the AT – can be explained by an apologetic desire of the AT translator to correct a textual form that is close to the MT, to render the narrative more acceptable to a nonJewish readership. His argument, based primarily on the different themes accented in the AT and the MT, does not explain why the LXX and the AT do not seem to show a mutual dependence, apart from in the conclusion of the work and in the additions. According to E. Tov,42 the AT is a revision of the LXX, produced by using a Hebrew text different from the MT. This text would have remained relatively close to the MT in the “common narrative,” but a Hebrew form of Additions A, C, D, and F would have been added to it and its conclusion would have been abridged.

3.2. The Alpha Text Reflects a Pre-Masoretic Hebrew ProtoEsther A major current within Esther studies considers the AT to be a translation of a Hebrew text older than the MT, a text which we will call henceforth “Proto-Esther.” This Proto-Esther would have been significantly shorter than the MT in the body of the narrative (Chs. 1-7) and lacking the conclusion describing the massacre of

36 Following DE LAGARDE, Librorum. 37 See BICKERMAN, “Notes,” 103 n. 6; HANHART (ed.), Esther, 92-95; HAELEWYCK (ed.), Hester, 71; MOORE, “Witness,” 352-353; TOV, “Lucianic,” 535. 38 Especially BICKERMAN, “Notes,” 102-113; HANHART (ed.), Esther, 87. 39 DE TROYER, End. 40 DE TROYER, End, 401-403; DE TROYER and WACKER, “Esther,” p. 1265. MILLER, Versions, 7594, 150-171 arrived at the same conclusions from Esth 4:14. 41 LACOCQUE, “versions,” 316-321. 42 TOV, “Lucianic.” WACKER, “Three,” argued in favor of Tov’s thesis.

26

A. Textual Forms and Editorial Stages

the enemies of the Jews and the institution of Purim. It would not have contained the additions. The MT would have resulted from editorial work based upon this Proto-Esther. This is the model that we favor. Since the middle of the twentieth century, several scholars have made primary observations in support of this model, to wit that outside of the additions and the conclusion, these two Greek witnesses are too different to constitute recensions, one directly dependant upon the other. It is thus a matter of independent translations of two Hebrew Vorlagen similar only in part. Torrey43 considers that Chapters 1-7 of the AT translate a Semitic text that constitutes the oldest known form of the narrative.44 Moore45 emphasizes that the few “pluses”46 and the numerous “minuses” of the AT, in relation to the MT/LXX, presuppose a Hebrew ancestor that is older than the MT. Cook47 extends Moore’s reflections, but prefers to conclude that the translator of the AT of Chapters 1-7 would have worked with a Hebrew text close to the MT, from which he would have omitted a series of sections.48 Clines49 takes up these various observations and develops a model in which the Hebrew Vorlage of Chs. 1:1-7:16 of the AT was a text close to the oldest text of Esther pre-MT (the “Proto-Esther” in our terminology). The pre-MT would have developed in two stages before reaching a form close to the MT. First, the body of the text would have been restructured, in particular with the insertion of a whole series of “pluses,” and then Chapters 9 to 10 would have been added to them. The LXX would have translated the textual form close to the MT, while the AT would have translated a textual form close to the pre-MT. Fox50 extends the work of Clines, resulting in a similar model. The proto-AT, a Greek text extending from Ch. 1:1 to 7:38AT, would have translated, by making a few changes, an original Hebrew described as “Proto-Esther.” Editors would have reworked this Proto-Esther to create the MT. As for the proto-AT, it would also have been reworked from the LXX, the six additions in particular being added to it to become the AT. The theses

43 According to TORREY, “Older,” Aramaic forms distinct from the book of Esther would have been the basis of the primary textual forms attested. The LXX would have been translated from the most successful Aramaic form containing Additions A, C, D, and F. As for the text of the MT, it would have been developed from an Aramaic text containing the additions, but abridged to avoid any mention of God. 44 For Torrey, the Vorlage of the AT is in Aramaic. This hypothesis has rarely been followed (although with nuance TOV, “Lucianic,” n. 23 p. 25). 45 MOORE, “Witness.” 46 In this article, Moore does not address the question of the additions. 47 COOK, “A Text.” 48 According to Cook, the Masoretic “pluses” of 1:17b-18, 22; 2:10-12, 19-20 would have been removed by the translator of the AT. Contrary to Moore, Cook insists upon the difference between the characteristics of the AT Chapters 1-7 and those of its conclusion. 49 CLINES, Scroll. 50 See the analysis in FOX, Redaction and “The Alpha Text of the Greek Esther,” Textus 15 (1990), 27-54 and the reminder of the conclusions in Character, 254-273 and “Three Esthers,” in The Book of Esther in Modern Research (JSOTSup 380), S. W. CRAWFORD and L. J. GREENSPOON (eds.), London/New York, 2003, 50-60.

3. The Work’s Editorial Process

27

of Clines and Fox are globally accepted and followed by several commentaries, articles, and monographs.51 Jobes,52 based on statistical data, deviates slightly from Clines and Fox. She thinks that, outside of the six additions, the AT is the translation of a Hebrew text fairly close to the MT53 even regarding the conclusion of Chapters 8 to 10. According to her, after the first translation underlying the AT, at the end of the Persian era, this Greek text would have developed autonomously and the six additions would have been added to it. In parallel, the Hebrew text would have evolved a little. The LXX would have been produced during the Hasmonean era: a Greek translation conforming more closely to the Hebrew would have been developed and the six additions would have been added to it from the AT. According to Kossmann’s model of the editorial history,54 the MT is a rewriting of a Hebrew text – Kossmann writes of a proto A – of which the AT of Addition A,11-16 and Chs. 1:1-7:41 (without the other additions) is the Greek translation. The rewriting that resulted in the MT would have emphasized the themes associated with Judaism – by introducting, notably, the motif of a counter-decree permitting the Jews to defend themselves – and introduced Purim, its date, and the festivities associated with it. This aspect of Kossmann’s model is fairly close to Clines and Fox. Dorothy’s editorial model is not incompatible with the existence of a protoAT (called proto-L by Dorothy). This proto-L is, however, situated within a model that supposes a secular Semitic Vorlage would have been the source for what became the MT and that a reworking aiming to introduce religious “motifs” would have served as Vorlage to the Greek texts of Esther.55 The model imagined by Fried56 is fairly close; it supposes that the Vorlage of the AT, called “proto-AT,” was lightly reworked from an older text of Esther called “pre-proto A.” The references to God would have been added in the Vorlage of the AT, and the original conclusion corresponding to the MT of 9:1-5, 20, 21a, and 22 would have been removed. Haag also reconstructs a pre-Masoretic layer, without relying on the contents of the AT. He also reconstructs three subsequent editions.57 The arguments developed in the present commentary favor a model close to Fox’s. Contra Jobes, this commentary considers that a Proto-Esther close to the MT is unlikely. Finally, in our opinion, reconstructing a Proto-Esther different from the Vorlage of the AT and the MT makes the model needlessly complex.

51 In particular BUSH, Esther, 278-293; LEVENSON, Esther, 32-34, HALVORSON-TAYLOR, “Secrets,” 469-475 and DAY, Faces, 18. CANDIDO, testi, 220-225 deviates from the model of Clines and Fox by supposing that Proto-Esther would have been anterior to both a proto-MT and a proto-AT. 52 JOBES, Alpha-Text. 53 JOBES, Alpha-Text, 223. 54 KOSSMANN, Esthernovelle. 55 DOROTHY, Books, 332-334, 346-348 56 Lisbeth S. FRIED, “Towards the Ur-Text of Esther,” JSOT 88 (2000), 49-57. 57 Ernst HAAG, Das hellenistische Zeitalter: Israel und die Bibel im 4. bis 1. Jahrhundert v. Chr. (Biblische Enzyklopädie 9), Stuttgart, 2003, 118-127.

28

A. Textual Forms and Editorial Stages

3.3. Narrative Source Divisions The complexity of the Esther narrative can give the impression that several independent plots were generated. Indeed, Haman seeks, on the one hand, to eliminate the Jewish people by decree, and, on the other hand, to have Mordecai hanged. He faces two distinct opponents who vanquish him in different manners: Esther, during the banquets, and Mordecai, because the king remembers that he had denounced a plot. The narrative of Vashti’s eviction could seem loosely attached to the narrative thread of the chapters that follow it and seems in any case to be unnecessary for their logic. These observations led several exegetes to defend the opinion that Esther is a blend of initially independent narratives. Cazelles58 distinguishes between a liturgical source associated with Purim and a narrative about political problems that treats Mordecai’s victory over Haman. Lebram59 situates in the Maccabean era the fusion of an ancient Persian legend about a Jew who saves her people and a narrative of Palestinian origins about Mordecai and Haman. Bickerman60 considers the book of Esther as the combination of two court narratives, one setting the queen against a courtier and the other placing two courtiers in conflict with one another. Bardtke61 identifies three anterior traditions, one containing the narrative of Vashti, another playing out a conflict between the Jew Mordecai and the Persian official Haman, and a final one about Esther’s defense of her persecuted people. The debate about the history of the texts of Esther necessarily intersects with the debate about antecedent source texts. Indeed, if the MT is the fruit of an editorial reworking based on a Proto-Esther, the identification of different prior narratives must be made on the basis of a Proto-Esther. Quite logically, Clines thus reworks Cazelles’s proposal and admits its relevance to the proto-AT (= Proto-Esther) that he reconstructs.62 Kossmann goes even further.63 After having defended, as does Clines, the existence of a pre-Masoretic proto-AT, she supposes that this text is also the fruit of a re-elaboration of a “pre-Esther.” According to Kossmann, this preEsther would have been conceived on the basis of three brief earlier narratives: a history of Vashti (the nucleus of Chs. 1-2 in the AT); a narrative involving Haman and Mordecai (the nucleus of Add. A and of Ch. 6 in the AT); and a narrative involving Haman, Mordecai, and the queen (nucleus of Chs. 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the AT). This hypothetical pre-Esther, without links to Judaism, would have been reworked by an editor wishing to situate this ancient narrative within the Jewish diaspora.64

58 59 60 61 62 63 64

CAZELLES, “composition,” 23-29. LEBRAM, “Purimfest.” BICKERMAN, Strange, 171-188. BARDTKE, Esther, 248-252. Also RINGGREN, “Buch,” 390. CLINES, Scroll, 115-138. KOSSMANN, Esthernovelle. Similarly, with prudence, DOROTHY, Books (cf. esp. p. 329-332, 340-341) supposes that a non-Jewish “Rescue Novella,” the fruit of prior traditions, would be the ancestor of different Esther texts.

3. The Work’s Editorial Process

29

In sum, though the identification of prior sources for the plot remains hypothetical, it is clear that in all the textual forms attested for Esther the plots involving Esther, Mordecai, and even Vashti come together in a coherent fashion. It is the blend of these plots and the new developments that they generate that make the work into a delicious and well-told narrative.

3.4. The Additions in the LXX and the AT In both the LXX and the AT, Additions A to F introduce themes absent from the rest of the narrative (a dream [Add. A and F], prayers [Add. C], detailed contents of the decrees [Add. B and E]) that are not necessary to the narrative. There is little doubt that they were inserted late into a narrative that corresponds grosso modo to the “common narrative” that the MT, LXX, and AT share. How the six Additions A-F were written and inserted into the Greek texts is much debated.65 Certain of these additions could have first circulated independently before being introduced into the narrative. Mordecai’s dream (Adds. A and F) presents logical tensions with the narrative, suggesting that a prior work was adapted to be inserted into the narrative.66 Moreover, Esther’s prayers and the contents of the decrees (Adds. C, B, and E) could have first circulated as independent works that made allusions and references to the Esther narrative.67 The original language of the additions has been discussed. Additions A, C, D, and F contain Semitisms, suggesting that they were translated into Greek, while the Greek of Additions B and E is more literary, implying that they were composed in Greek.68 In the LXX and the AT, the textual forms of the additions are very close.69 One can thus think that they were inserted from one of these texts into the other. For Bickerman, Moore, Clines, and Fox70 the additions were added into the AT from the LXX. However, Jobes71 and especially Andrey72 show that an insertion of the additions in the LXX from the AT is more likely. If a number of the additions in the LXX came from the AT, the opposite hypothesis is more likely for Addition E, since 7:35-38AT already presupposes the knowledge of Addition E in the LXX before it was introduced into 7:22-32AT. The different types of Greek used in the

65 See the relevant chapter in ANDREY, mineur. 66 Notably LEVENSON, Esther, 135; MOORE, Additions, 179-180; WHITE CRAWFORD, “Additions,” 969. In an opposing vein, JOBES, Alpha-Text, 183-184. 67 The “Prayer of Manasseh” or the “Letter of Jeremiah” show that literary works alluding to biblical texts (in the occurrences of Chronicles and Jeremiah) could have been produced without being immediately introduced into these books. 68 See MCDOWELL, Prayers, 35; MOORE, “Origins”; Raymond A. MARTIN, “Syntax Criticism of the LXX Additions to the Book of Esther,” JBL 94 (1975), 65-72 and JOBES, Alpha-Text, 747 and App. 3. 69 The Greek of the AT and the LXX differs much less in the additions than in the common narrative. 70 BICKERMAN, “Notes”; CLINES, Scroll, 140; FOX, Redaction, 34-36; MOORE, Additions, 165. For Addition A, CANDIDO, testi, 220-225 and for Addition E, DE TROYER, End, 377. 71 JOBES, Alpha-Text, 157-193. 72 ANDREY, mineur.

30

A. Textual Forms and Editorial Stages

additions and the varied problems that are developed imply that the insertion of the six additions is the result of a long and complex process.73

3.5. The Place of the Old Latin The Old Latin (OL) is only marginally taken into account in the discussion of Esther’s redactional process, undoubtedly because it is considered a priori a daughter version of the LXX. J.-C. Haelewyck74 contested this opinion. He developed the hypothesis that the OL is the translation of a (lost) Greek text that preceded both the LXX and the AT. He calls this text La-Greek III. According to him, the La-Greek III would have been expanded from a Hebrew text close to the MT. This text would have been revised by the deletion of the conclusion describing the massacre of the enemies of the Jews and by the inclusion of the additions. Haelewyck’s argument rests on the fact that the text of the Old Latin is more logical and coherent than those of the LXX and AT, and that the additions are integrated more harmoniously.75 According to him, the LXX would have been expanded from the LaGreek III, which would have, however, been reworked to better conform to the MT. The reintroduction of the narrative of the massacre of the enemies of the Jews would have generated certain tensions figuring in the LXX.

73 According to DOROTHY, Books, 332-334, Adds. C and D and then B and E are first introduced before A and F in the AT. For ANDREY, mineur Additions D, C, A, and F enter into the Hebrew Proto-Esther which is translated into Greek to become the proto-AT. The LXX takes up these four additions from the AT. Additions B and E enter first into the LXX before an editor completes the conclusion of proto-AT and inserts Additions B and E into it. KOTTSIEPER, “Zusätze,” 121-131 develops a model that is even more complex. Additions A1, F, and C would have emanated from a Jerusalem tradition; Additions A2, B, D, and E, would have been inserted into the proto-AT in the Egyptian diaspora; the LXX would have resulted from an Egyptian edition revised under the influence of the Jerusalem tradition (first century BCE), and a later revision would have been made to produce the final form of the AT (second century CE). 74 See HAELEWYCK (ed.), Hester, 84-94; “La version latine” and “La version latine du livre d’Esther dans la première Bible d’Alcalá,” in Lectures et relectures de la Bible. FS P.-M. Bogaert (BEThL 144), J.-M. AUWERS and A. WÉNIN (eds.), Leuven, 1999, 165-193. This theory was very well received among Francophone exegetes, especially Pierre-Marie BOGAERT, “Les formes anciennes du livre d’Esther. Réflexions sur les livres bibliques à traditions multiples à l’occasion de la publication du texte de l’ancienne version latine,” RTL 40 (2009), 66-77; CAVALIER, Esther, 31, 35-36; “La quatrième face de l’histoire d’Esther,” in La Septante en Allemagne et en France: textes de la Septante à traduction double ou à traduction très littérale. Septuaginta Deutsch und Bible d’Alexandrie: Texte der Septuaginta in Doppelüberlieferung oder in wörtlicher Übersetzung (OBO 238), W. KRAUS and O. MUNNICH (eds.), Fribourg/Göttingen, 2009, 90-99; VIALLE, analyse, liv-lvi. 75 Additions B and E and Addition A1OL seem to fit better into a narrative that does not end with a massacre; the absence in the OL of Addition A2 avoids tensions with Ch. 6; changing the date foreseen for the massacre, which becomes the fourteenth of Adar in the OL, could be explained as the consequence of the omission of the final conflict.

4. Synthesis and the Proposal Defended in the Present Commentary

31

This thesis suffers from several difficulties:76 the existence of a Greek Vorlage for the OL that is different from the LXX remains hypothetical; in the LXX the tensions between the primary narrative and the additions remain minor and can be explained by the awkward integration of additions that were initially independent; and, finally, a Vorlage for the OL that precedes the other texts does not explain the special features of the AT in the common narrative. Consequently, it is still more likely that the translator of the Old Latin worked from a text close to the LXX. He would have wanted to erase the vindictiveness of the work by deleting the part of Chapter 9 about the massacre of the enemies of the Jews in order to avoid the animosity of non-Jews.77 This translator would have modified Additions A1, B, and E and corrected the date from the thirteenth to the fourteenth of Adar in order to better correspond to the book’s new conclusion. Doublets would have been deleted, notably A2, to render the text more fluid.

4.

Synthesis and the Proposal Defended in the Present Commentary

4.1. From Proto-Esther to the Masoretic Text78 It seems too speculative to reconstruct sources or independent traditions that would have been fused together to produce the canvas for the narrative that we know. The oldest form of the Esther narrative that can be reconstructed contains the following plot elements: Queen Vashti’s fall, Esther’s ascension, followed by the conflicts led by herself and Mordecai to save their people from the threat weighing upon them from Haman. We will call henceforth this oldest state of the Esther narrative “Proto-Esther.” Even though we do not have a Hebrew textual witness of Proto-Esther, a Greek translation of this text figures in the oldest parts of the Alpha Text, namely the AT without the six additions nor the conclusion mentioning the massacre of the enemies of the Jews and the institution of commemorative festivities. Proto-Esther corresponds to the Hebrew Vorlage of vv. 1:121; 2:1-18; 3:1-13, 15; 4:1-4, 6-12; 5:1-2,79 13-24; 6:1-23; 7:1-16, 21bβ, 33b, 34a in the AT. The Hebrew Proto-Esther contains, in most cases, unvocalized consonantal phrases found in the MT. Nevertheless, Proto-Esther is much shorter (approximately twice as short), since it was reworked and completed by the editors who created the textual form of Esther that became the MT. The work of these “proto-Masoretic editors” can be characterized by the addition of a whole series of “pluses” to Proto-Esther. These “pluses” are formed from numerous selective glosses inserted throughout the text, as well as editorial sections extending from a few verses

76 See the critique of Haelewyck’s thesis in the history of research ANDREY, mineur. 77 HAELEWYCK (ed.), Hester, 93-94 attributes this desire to the author of his La-Greek III. 78 Our reconstruction of Proto-Esther rests to a large degree upon the works of CLINES, Scroll, and FOX, Redaction, presented above. 79 The original content of these two verses is lacking in the AT since they were omitted during the insertion of Addition D.

32

A. Textual Forms and Editorial Stages

to several chapters. Among them, the longest “pluses” introduced by the protoMasoretic editors can be found in the content of MT 1:17-18, 22; 2:10-16, 19-23; 3:12-14; 4:5-8a; 5:9, 11; 7:7 and practically all of Chapters 8-10.80 More rarely did proto-Masoretic editors omit elements of Proto-Esther. The most significant omissions are vv. 5:23a; 6:4-6a, 13-18; 7:2, 4b-7, 14 of Proto-Esther, removed for theological reasons. The identification of numerous “pluses” (as well as a few “minuses”) added (or, resp., subtracted) by the proto-Masoretic editors to Proto-Esther permit us to distinguish between what belongs to the original frame of the narrative and what the editors introduced, and to better understand the proto-Masoretic editing, its literary techniques, the emphases found within it, and the themes that are developed.

4.1.1. Reconstructing Proto-Esther and Identifying the Proto-Masoretic Editorial Sections For Chapters 1-7, a comparison between the AT and MT permits the reconstruction of the Hebrew contents of Proto-Esther and the identification of proto-Masoretic editorial sections. In most cases, the Greek text of the AT can be explained as a translation of a Hebrew source corresponding to the consonantal contents of the MT, lacking a number of “pluses.” Proto-Esther thus corresponds to sections of the MT of which the AT seems to be the translation, while the content introduced by the proto-Masoretic editors corresponds to the “pluses” present in the MT, but absent from the AT. Two examples will illustrate. Esther 1:4

Esther 2:18

The AT Greek εἰς τὸ ἐπιδειχθῆναι τὸν πλοῦτον τῆς δόξης τοῦ βασιλέως καὶ τὴν τιμὴν τῆς καυχήσεως αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ ὀγδοήκοντα καὶ ἑκατὸν ἡμέρας (= so that the king’s glorious wealth and honor of his glorification could be shown for a period of 180 days) constitutes a translation of a Hebrew Proto-Esther ‫בהראתו את־עשׁר כבוד מלכותו ואת־יקר תפארת‬ ‫ =( שׁמונים ומאת יום‬He exhibited the glorious wealth of his monarchy and the precious splendor 180 days), a phrase that corresponds to the consonantal Masoretic text of this verse, without mention of ‫“ גדולתו ימים רבים‬of his majesty for many days.” Consequently, the MT of Esther 1:4 ‫בהראתו את־עשׁר כבוד מלכותו ואת־יקר תפארת גדולתו ימים רבים‬ ‫ שׁמונים ומאת יום‬that has been translated here as “He exhibited the glorious wealth of his monarchy and the precious splendor of his majesty, for many days, 180 days” results from the resumption of the Hebrew Proto-Esther completed by the proto-Masoretic editors from the mention “of his majesty” then later glossed with “for many days” absent from the LXX. Finally, let us remember that the text was vocalized in the Middle Ages. The AT Greek καὶ ἤγαγεν ὁ βασιλεὺς τὸν γάμον τῆς Εσθηρ ἐπιφανῶς καὶ ἐποίησεν ἀφέσεις πάσαις ταῖς χώραις. (= And the king celebrated Esther’s marriage in a splendid fashion, and he granted an amnesty to all the provinces) can be a translation of a Hebrew Proto-Esther ‫=( ויעשׂ המלך משׁתה גדול לאסתר והנחה למדינות עשׂה‬ The king held a great banquet for Esther and he granted an amnesty to the provinces). This translation is somewhat freely rendered since it interprets “Esther’s banquet” as a “marriage.” This phrase corresponds to the consonantal MT

80 A list of proto-Masoretic “pluses” figures in the sections on Editorial Process that are in the commentary of each chapter.

4. Synthesis and the Proposal Defended in the Present Commentary

33

of this verse, without the underlined editorial additions: ‫ויעשׂ המלך משׁתה גדול‬ ‫ =( לכל־שׂריו ועבדיו את משׁתה אסתר והנחה למדינות עשׂה ויתן משׂאת כיד המלך‬The king held a great banquet for all his officials and servants, Esther’s banquet. He granted an amnesty to the provinces and he offered a donation befitting the king). These editorial additions emphasize the pomp of the Persian court which the protoMasoretic editorial section of 2:12-14MT also witnesses.

The resumption of the content of Proto-Esther completed by the editorial sections (1:17-18, 22; 2:10-16, 19-23; 3:12-14; 4:5-8a; 5:9, 11; 7:7; and Chapters 810) and the addition of numerous supplements, in almost every verse, is the trademark of the proto-Masoretic editors. It also happens that the contents of the source are not totally preserved. Certain insertions require the correction of the original text and the removal of certain elements. The following example illustrates: The AT here is much shorter than the MT. The AT Greek: ὁ δὲ Αμαν εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὸν Esther 5:10-12 οἶκον αὐτοῦ καὶ συνήγαγε τοὺς φίλους αὐτοῦ καὶ τοὺς υἱοὺς αὐτοῦ καὶ Ζωσάραν τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐκαυχᾶτο λέγων ὡς οὐδένα κέκληκεν ἡ βασίλισσα ἐν ἐπισήμῳ ἡμέρᾳ αὐτῆς εἰ μὴ τὸν βασιλέα καὶ ἐμὲ μόνον καὶ αὔριον κέκλημαι constitutes the translation of a Hebrew Proto-Esther that can be reconstructed from the MT 5:10 and 12: ‫ויבוא המן‬ ‫אל־ביתו וישׁלח ויבא את־אהביו ואת־בניו ואת־זרשׁ אשׁתו ויתגדל המן ויאמר אף לא־הביאה אסתר המלכה‬ ‫ =( עם־המלך אל־המשׁתה אשׁר־עשׂתה כי אם־אותי וגם־למחר אני קרוא‬Haman went into his house. He sent for and summoned his friends, his sons, and Zeresh, his wife. Haman boasted and said: furthermore, aside from myself, Queen Esther did not have anyone come with the king to the banquet she held. Also tomorrow I have been summoned). While almost all this section of Proto-Esther figures in the MT, the terms ‫“ ואת־בניו‬his sons” and ‫“ ויתגדל‬he boasted” are absent from it. They were probably removed by the editors when they inserted 5:11: “Haman recounted to them his glorious wealth and the number of his sons, all about how the king had promoted him and about how he had advanced him above the king’s ministers and servants.” Indeed, this section constitutes a commentary developing the mention that Haman “boasted,” which falls away logically at the moment of the insertion. Moreover, “sons” falls away for equally logical reasons, since if they had been present, the mention of their number in Haman’s speech in 5:11 would not have made sense, because all the people present would have seen them.

There remain a few cases where passages in the AT and its Vorlage of Proto-Esther were not taken up by proto-Masoretic editors because they did not correspond to what they hoped to have happen. The primary cases are in Chapters 6-7 (5:23a; 6:4-6a, 13-18; 7:2, 4b-7, 14). Some editorial omissions in briefer passages also appear, for example in the following: In the parallels to MT 6:6, 9, 11, in the AT (6:9, 11, 19) the words uttered in honor of Esther 6:6, 9, Mordecai are the following: Κατὰ τάδε ποιηθήσεται τῷ ἀνδρὶ τῷ τὸν βασιλἐα τιμῶντι, 11 ὃν ὁ βασιλεὺς βούλεται δοξάσαι (= Thus it must be done for a man who honors the king and whom the king wishes to glorify 6:19AT). The MT is shorter: ‫ככה יעשׂה לאישׁ‬ ‫ =( אשׁר המלך חפץ ביקרו‬Thus it is done for this man whom the king desires to honor). The Hebrew equivalent of the Greek formula τὸν βασιλἐα τιμῶντι (who honors the king) was doubtlessly removed by the proto-Masoretic editors, who were reticent to see the affirmation according to which Mordecai would have honored a foreign king who, in their eyes, is to be pitied and is dysfunctional.

The question of Proto-Esther’s original conclusion and the sections figuring in Chapter 7:15-52 at the end of the AT is discussed at length in the commentary. An

34

A. Textual Forms and Editorial Stages

important part of this section of the AT seems to depend directly upon the LXX and was thus introduced late.

4.1.2. Presentation of the Editorial Process of the Proto-Masoretic Hebrew Text of Esther in the Present Commentary

Proto-Esther

The Proto-Masoretic Edition

The MT

The commentary on each chapter of the MT ends with a section entitled “Diachronic Analysis.” This analysis starts with a paragraph entitled “Proto-Esther.” It comprises a brief presentation of the general meaning of this first textual state as well as its primary differences from the MT. Next, there is a translation of this Proto-Esther based upon the AT.81 The textual details of Proto-Esther are then briefly analyzed in comparison with the MT. Finally, important questions regarding the Proto-Esther of the chapter are discussed.82 The section titled “Proto-Masoretic Editing and the Emergence of the MT” is very important for the understanding of the MT. It opens with the list of primary “pluses” and the variants between the MT and Proto-Esther. These differences enable a better understanding of the editors’ literary techniques, as well as the motifs they develop. In these paragraphs, we consider the intertextual games played by the editors, how they emphasize the weightiness and the responsibilities of the court and the Persian royal system, how they highlight the issues raised by the unveiling of the identity of the Jewish protagonists, how they problematize the absence of any mention of God, and how they highlight Haman’s status. The literary techniques used and the different themes brought to the fore by the proto-Masoretic editors recur in the editorial sections of Chapters 1-7, as well as in the conclusion of Chapters 8-10. These observations thus show that a unique editorial process transformed all of the chapters of Proto-Esther and added to them the conclusion of Chapters 8 to 10. The proto-Masoretic text (proto-MT) probably constitutes the primary Hebrew source used by the translators of the LXX. That said, the comparison between the LXX* and the MT shows that the LXX does not correspond exactly to the consonantal Masoretic text of the major Hebrew codices of the Middle Ages.83 The primary differences between the proto-MT used by the translator of the LXX and

81 A detailed analysis of the AT to reconstruct the precise Hebrew contents of ProtoEsther would be superfluous. The excellent synopsis (AT/MT) in Jobes permits the easy identification of the elements of the MT that correspond to what is in the AT, thus in Proto-Esther. As the AT is a translation, it could have modified the Hebrew contents of Proto-Esther. It gives, nevertheless, a fairly accurate idea of Proto-Esther and so permits the identification of the proto-Masoretic editorial elements. 82 Chapter 2 will ask whether the plot of the eunuchs was present in Proto-Esther. Chapter 5 will ask what appeared in Proto-Esther instead of Addition D. Chapter 6 asks whether the primary sections of the AT absent from the MT that are 6:4-6a, 13-18; 7:2, 4b-7, 14 were originally present in Proto-Esther, or were inserted late into the Greek. Finally, Chapters 8-10 will question the original contents of the conclusion of ProtoEsther. 83 The glosses making Haman into an “Agagite” are the most significant insertions introduced late into the Hebrew text. See the commentary on 3:1.

4. Synthesis and the Proposal Defended in the Present Commentary

35

the MT are discussed in the textual notes that follow the translation of the MT as well as at the end of the diachronic analysis of each chapter.

4.2. Emergence of the Two Primary Greek Witnesses (AT and LXX) and the Other Textual Witnesses of Esther 4.2.1. The AT and the LXX The two primary Greek versions – the AT and the LXX – each have a complex textual history. These are independent translations based on partly distinct Hebrew texts. We have seen that the sections of the AT that are a part of the “common The Proto-AT narrative” (1:1-21; 2:1-18; 3:1-13, 15; 4:1-4, 6-12; 5:1-2*, 13-24; 6:1-23; 7:1-16, 21bβ, 33b, 34a) translated Proto-Esther in a fairly literal fashion. The translators of the proto-LXX, that is, the LXX before the insertion of the Proto-LXX six additions, do not seem to have had direct knowledge of the proto-AT. They worked in a fairly free manner from the proto-Masoretic Hebrew text that was a revision of Proto-Esther. The comparison of Esther 2:18AT with 2:18LXX shows that these two translations do not directly depend one upon the other, and that they presuppose a different Hebrew Vorlage. As seen above, the AT Greek: καὶ ἤγαγεν ὁ βασιλεὺς τὸν γάμον τῆς Εσθηρ ἐπιφανῶς Esther 2:18ATκαὶ ἐποίησεν ἀφέσεις πάσαις ταῖς χώραις (= And the king celebrated Esther’s marriage LXX in a splendid fashion, and he granted an amnesty to all the provinces) translates the Hebrew text of Proto-Esther devoid of the proto-Masoretic editorial additions: ‫ויעשׂ המלך‬ ‫ =( משׁתה גדול לאסתר והנחה למדינות עשׂה‬The king held a great banquet for Esther and he granted an amnesty to the provinces). The LXX of this verse: καὶ ἐποίησεν ὁ βασιλεὺς πότον πᾶσιν τοῖς φίλοις αὐτοῦ καὶ ταῖς δυνάμεσιν ἐπὶ ἡμέρας ἑπτὰ καὶ ὕψωσεν τοὺς γάμους Εσθηρ καὶ ἄφεσιν ἐποίησεν τοῖς ὑπὸ τὴν βασιλείαν αὐτοῦ (= And the king gave a party for all his friends and for the armed forces for seven days and he celebrated Esther’s wedding and he gave an amnesty to those who were in his kingdom) translates a Hebrew very close to the consonantal MT: ‫ויעשׂ המלך משׁתה גדול לכל־שׂריו ועבדיו את משׁתה אסתר והנחה למדינות עשׂה ויתן משׂאת‬ ‫“( כיד המלך‬The king held a great banquet for all his ministers and servants, Esther’s banquet. He granted an amnesty to the provinces and he offered a donation befitting the king”). The LXX presupposes the underlined proto-Masoretic editorial additions (πᾶσιν τοῖς φίλοις αὐτοῦ καὶ ταῖς δυνάμεσιν correspond to ‫ כל־שׂריו ועבדיו‬and καὶ ἄφεσιν ἐποίησεν τοῖς ὑπὸ τὴν βασιλείαν αὐτοῦ corresponds to ‫והנחה למדינות עשׂה ויתן משׂאת כיד‬ ‫)המלך‬. Furthermore, in the parallel passages between the LXX and AT, the vocabulary and Greek syntax are not the same. Thus, even if the translators of the AT and the LXX each understand that when their source speaks of Esther’s banquet, it is referring to her marriage banquet, they do not use the same expressions: compare the AT ἤγαγεν … τὸν γάμον τῆς Εσθηρ ἐπιφανῶς with the LXX ὕψωσεν τοὺς γάμους Εσθηρ. Similarly, in the conclusion the AT mentions the amnesty with the phrase καὶ ἐποίησεν ἀφέσεις … while the LXX has καὶ ἄφεσιν ἐποίησεν …

The two Greek texts, distinct and not directly dependent one upon the other, coexisted from early on. The Proto-AT probably circulated early in Greek-speaking Jewish communities of the Egyptian diaspora. The Proto-LXX probably goes back to the Hasmonean era.

36

A. Textual Forms and Editorial Stages

Additions in While the Proto-AT and Proto-LXX were originally independent translations, the the AT and insertion of the six additions within both shows a direct literary dependence, the LXX since the Greek forms of Additions A-F in the AT and the LXX are quite close.

Additions B and E were probably first added to the LXX. On the other hand, Esther and Mordecai’s prayers (Add. C), Esther’s encounter with the king (Add. D), Mordecai’s dream and its interpretation (Adds. A and F) were first introduced into Proto-AT.84 Copyists or editors then integrated the additions into the other textual family, probably in order to establish a text that collated all the traditions associated with Esther and Mordecai. The ConcluFinally, the analysis of the conclusion of Proto-Esther85 shows that 7:17-21, 33a, AT sion of the AT 34b were added late to the Hebrew Proto-Esther or to the Proto-AT to summarize the primary motifs of Chapters 8-10 in the MT/LXX and that, later still, vv. 7:3538AT and 7:39-52AT were added to the Proto-AT in direct connection with the Greek text of the LXX.

4.2.2. The Other Textual Witnesses. The other textual witnesses of Esther are daughter versions of one or the other of three primary textual witnesses. Flavius Josephus depends primarily upon texts close to the LXX. However, he does not seem to know Additions A and F and he uses motifs present only in the AT. The Old Latin text also constitutes a largely reworked daughter version of the LXX. The Vulgate, on the other hand, introduces a Latin hybrid text. Outside of the additions, it consists of a translation of the Hebrew Masoretic text, while the additions, placed at the end of the text, derive from a translation dependent upon the LXX. The Peshitta and targumic texts depend upon the MT, while the Coptic-Sahidic, Ethiopic, and Armenian translations are descendants of the LXX.

84 For the manner and order in which these additions were introduced, see above § The Additions Present in the LXX and the AT. 85 See the commentary on the editorial process of Chapters 8-10.

4. Synthesis and the Proposal Defended in the Present Commentary

4.2.3. Schema of the History of the Texts of Esther

37

38

B. Historical and Intellectual Context of the Book’s Production

B. Historical and Intellectual Context of the Book’s Production 1.

The Persian Era: The Setting of the Action86

In 539 BCE the Persian King Cyrus the Great (550-529 BCE.) took the capital of the Babylonian Empire. Earlier, the Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar had conquered Jerusalem and deported a portion of its inhabitants to Mesopotamia (587 BCE). Cyrus established the domination of the Achaemenid Persian Empire over most of the ancient Near East that would last for more than two centuries. The MT of Esther sets the narrative in the court of the Persian Emperor Xerxes I (486 to 465 BCE) in Susa and actualizes the life of Jewish deportee descendants living in the heart of the empire. Xerxes campaigned against Greece between 480 and 479. After a victory in Thermopyles, the Persian flottila was defeated at Salamis. The Persian troops remained in Greece during the winter of 480-479 before being defeated in Plataea and in Mycale. Although Xerxes left Asia Minor without massive territorial losses, his expedition was a failure that put an end to the Europe-bound Persian expansion.

2.

The Hellenistic Era: The Context of the Work’s Production

The book of Esther is not a product of the Persian era. This commentary sees it as a product of the Hellenistic era. Like many other works, in the Bible and elsewhere, it need not have been written in the period in which its action is set, nor are the events it recounts necessarily historically accurate. Ascertaining when the work was produced is fundamental for understanding the intellectual baggage of its authors, the questions that preoccupied them, and consequently the contents of the work. Possible Dates Possible dates for the composition of Esther extend from the fifth to the first centuries BCE. Since the book refers to Xerxes I (the usual identification of the king), it cannot be earlier than 486 BCE.87 It could not be later than the middle of the first century BCE since 2 Maccabees 15:36 knew of Mordecai and probably the narrative connected to him, and the colophon of the LXX (F,11) dates the translation of the book to the end of the second century, or to the first century BCE. Most exegetes therefore date Esther to the Persian or Hellenistic eras. Those who prefer the Persian era most often situate the editorial work during the second

86 See notably: BRIANT, Histoire, 531-585; Philip HUYSE, La Perse antique (GBLC), Paris, 2005, 31-39; Amélie KUHRT, The Ancient Near East c. 3000-330 BC. Volume Two (Routledge History of the Ancient World), London/New York, 1995, 656-689; LENFANT, Perses; TUPLIN, Achaemenid, 132-177; Josef WIESEHÖFER, Ancient Persia from 550 BC to 650 AD, London/New York, 2001, 7-66; Sources: Amélie KUHRT, The Persian Empire. A Corpus of Sources from the Achaemenid Period, 2 volumes, London/New York, 2007, vol. 1, 238-309. 87 The identification by Stephanie DALLEY, Esther’s Revenge at Susa: from Sennacherib to Ahasuerus, Oxford & New York, 2007, of elements explained by the neo-Assyrian context remains very speculative.

2. The Hellenistic Era: The Context of the Work’s Production

39

part of this era (fourth or beginning of third century), the narrative thus being much later than Xerxes.88 Increasingly, scholars are dating the book to the Hellenistic era, between the third century and the time of the Hasmonean kingdom.89 Before specifying when Proto-Esther, the MT, and the Greek texts were produced, we need to see arguments for a dating at various moments in the Hellenistic era for these different literary stages of the work. Two primary observations: all the editors of the book of Esther seem to know Greek culture well, but only the proto-Masoretic editorial stage alludes to Maccabean problems.

2.1. Fictive Character of the Narrative The narrative of Esther is like a “historical novel” insofar as it is a work of fiction whose plot is set in the historical past. By its nature, the “historical novel” is ambiguous about its historicity since for such a “novel” to function, it must describe the historical background in a sufficiently reliable manner for its reader to find the past recognizable. The book’s presentation of the Persian era, which often conforms to what is known of this world in Greek antiquity, does just that. Nevertheless, the fictive nature of the narrative is quite evident.90 The text situates the narrative in a past that is distant from the reader, in the days of Ahasuerus (1:1). Moreover, alongside the elements that ring fairly true are an entire series of historical implausibilities. In Persian history there is no evidence

88 BERLIN, Esther, xli-xliii; CHYUTIN, Hagiographies, 51-52; CRAGHAN, Esther, 10; GERLEMAN, Esther, 38-39; GUNKEL, Esther, 87; HELTZER, Province, 147; Sara Raup JOHNSON, “Novelistic Elements in Esther: Persian or Hellenistic, Jewish or Greek?”, CBQ 67 (2005), 571-589, esp. 578-585; LEVENSON, Esther, 26; MEINHOLD, Esther, 20; MILLER, Versions, 24-32, 39-40; MOORE, Esther, lvii-lx; WINN LEITH, “Esther,” 255; WHITE CRAWFORD, “Book,” 860. Several authors such as BUSH, Esther, 295-297; CLINES, Esther, 271-272; STARK, “Esther,” 1178-1180 fluctuate between the end of the Persian era and the very beginning of the Hellenistic era. A dating in the fifth century – close to the time of Xerxes – remains rare, although FRIEDBERG, “Clue” and FRIEDBERG DECAEN, “Dating,” 449; TALMON, “Wisdom”; Edwin M. YAMAUCHI, Persia and the Bible, Grand Rapids, 1990, 226-228. 89 Hellenistic datings can extend up to the Hasmonean era. The common traditional dating is most often pre-Maccabean. Cf. BARDTKE, Esther, 252-255; DOMMERHAUSEN, Ester, 5; EGO, “Hellenistic”; Fox, Character, 139-141; STRIEDL, “Syntax,” 203-213; ZENGER, “Buch,” 271; for a dating in the Maccabean-Hasmonean era, BROWNE, “Esther,” 381; GRÄTZ, “Hintergrund”; HAUPT, Purim; Clarisse HERRENSCHMIDT, “Le rouleau d’Esther: un voyage au bout de l’exil,” MoBi 106 (1997), 74-75; Tal ILAN, Integrating Women into Second Temple History (TSAJ 76), Tübingen, 1999, 133-135, 151-153; LEBRAM, “Purimfest”; PATON, Esther, 60-62; RIEHL (ed.), Bible, vol.7, 68-69; Hedwige ROUILLARD-BONRAISIN, “Les livres bibliques d’époque perse,” in La Palestine à l’époque perse (EABJ), E.-M. LAPERROUSAZ and A. LEMAIRE (eds.), Paris, 1994, 157-188, esp. 168-169; Anouk TROYON, “Esther 4: Sois belle et taistoi !”, LeDiv 75 (2008), 13-23, esp. 14; WILLS, Novel, 99-100. A dating to the end of the Seleucid era or to the Maccabean-Hasmonean era for only the conclusion of the work (esp. Ch. 9) is sometimes proposed (WAHL, Esther, 45-47, 178-180, 203-25). 90 Most critics agree (see ABADIE, reine, 69-82; BERLIN, “Storytelling”; Fox, Character, 131139; MOORE, Esther, xlv-xlvi; WILLS, Novel, 95 ff. WINN LEITH, “Esther,” 254-255, etc.). Historicity is rarely supported (however GORDIS, “Studies”; SHEA, “History”; John STAFFORD WRIGHT, “The Historicity of the Book of Esther,” in New Perspectives on the Old Testament: Bible History, J. BARTON PAYNE (ed.), Waco, 1970, 37-47).

40

B. Historical and Intellectual Context of the Book’s Production

of queens named Esther or Vashti. The principal wife of Xerxes I is well known and is called Amestris.91 Furthermore, no mention of a civil war implicating Jews in the Persian Empire is to be found. One can also note certain implausibilities such as a governor stupid enough to announce a pogrom eleven months in advance, as though to permit the targeted group to prepare its defense (9:3).92 Finally, the “novelesque” character of the narrative invites one to see it as a literary fiction. The plot is perfectly coherent, the sequences are well prepared, and one finds new developments, caricature, exaggeration, and humor. One does not find ruptures in events, the presence of unrelated episodes, and the necessarily complex and little-structured narration that characterizes descriptions of what happens in reality and what one generally finds in historiographic narratives, such as Ezra–Nehemiah or 2 Maccabees.

2.2. Different Textual Forms Discussion of the dating is complicated by the existence of different textual forms. These forms (the AT, MT, LXX, at least) must be dated individually, just like the different editorial stages and strata. The MT, having been written in several stages, was produced in several historical periods.

2.3. Linguistic Arguments The language in the book of Esther could help in dating (see below, § Language and Style of the MT) but unfortunately the interpretation of this data remains uncertain. On the one hand, the presence of Aramaisms and Persianisms means that a date at the end of the Persian era cannot be excluded, but on the other hand, the similarity between the Hebrew of Esther and Mishnaic Hebrew argues in favor of a later dating, from the Hellenistic or Roman eras.

2.4. Knowledge of Biblical Texts Biblical texts cited or referred to by the book of Esther, along with texts that allude to Esther, are important clues to dating. We shall see below (§ Allusion and References to Other Biblical Texts) that Esther alludes to or cites passages in the books of Samuel and Kings, in the Joseph story (Gen 37-46), in the book of Exodus, in Chapters 2 to 6 of Daniel, and in Neh 8:10-12. These citations and allusions primarily apear in the sections of Esther developed by the proto-Masoretic editors. These editors thus worked when the majority of biblical literature was already familiar; the monarchic literature and the late stratas of the Pentateuch were finalized in the Persian era, and the book of Daniel does not predate the Hellenistic

91 HERODOTUS, Hist. 7.61, 114; 9.108-113; CTESIAS, Persica F13(24), F14(34.39-46). The identification of Esther or of Vashti with Amestris is totally speculative (ARNOLD, Esther, 63-67; GORDIS, “Religion,” 384; SHEA, “History”; SCHILDENBERGER, Esther, 26 ff. More nuanced, Robert L. HUBBARD, “Vashti, Amestris and Esther 1:9,” ZAW 119 (2007), 259-271 is content with not excluding the identification of Esther with Amestris. 92 ABADIE, reine, 77.

2. The Hellenistic Era: The Context of the Work’s Production

41

era.93 Although Esther’s proto-Masoretic editors knew the biblical texts well, the rest of the Bible did not know Esther, since one does not find any allusion or reference to either the book of Esther or to any of its characters in the TaNaK. Moreover, Sirach, in his hymn to the ancestors, mentions neither Esther nor Mordecai while numerous other biblical characters are mentioned. One must await the Hasmonean and Roman eras before the text of Esther is clearly attested.94 These observations do not permit a precise dating but point in the direction of the Hellenistic era for the proto-Masoretic editing of the book.

2.5. Esther and Hellenistic Literature about Persia One of the primary indications that place Esther’s editorial process in a period strongly influenced by Hellenistic culture is the fact that this book presupposes a whole series of Greek “clichés” and motifs about Achaemenid Persia. The book also knows several narratives about events in the Persian world, attested in Greek literature.95 The authors of Esther thus knew Greek literature or at least its clichés. To support this hypothesis, we will show that the Persian world constitutes a major preoccupation in Greek literature, that the manner in which the book of Esther presents this world is compatible with Greek representations of Persia, and that the narratives in Esther are similar to some Greek narratives on Persia. We will conclude that the book of Esther is comparable to the “Persica” of Greek literature.

2.5.1. Persian History and Its Sources There are archives and royal inscriptions from the Persian world,96 along with a few Babylonian and Egyptian documents, but actually it is the Greek and Latin sources that provide the most information about the history of Achaemenid Persia.97 From the end of the sixth century BCE in the Medic wars, Greek cities were massively confronted by the Persian Empire, which consequently would become a much-discussed subject. In the fifth and fourth centuries BCE, Persia is very much present in the work of the historians Herodotus, Thucydides, and Xenophon.98 Ctesias of Cnidus, a Greek doctor who lived in the court of Artaxerxes II,

93 The Aramaic sections of Daniel are a little older than the Hebrew sections that presuppose the Maccabean crisis. 94 2 Macc 15:36 probably knew the Esther narrative and Flavius JOSEPHUS rewrites it in his Antiquities. 95 This section summarizes the argument in MACCHI, “regard” and MACCHI, “écrire”. The argument was followed and completed by ABADIE, reine, 14-18; EGO, “Hellenistic,” 283285; H.-P. MATHYS, “Achämenidenhof.” The similarity between Greek stereotypes of Persia and those in the book of Esther were already revealed by BERLIN, “Storytelling,” 10. Ziad ABOU ABSI, “Esther as a Greek Tragedy,” ThRev 24 (2003), 32-40, raises possible links with Greek tragedies. 96 See LECOQ, inscriptions. 97 See LENFANT, Perses; BRIANT, Histoire, 14-18, 531-534; Heleen SANCISI-WEERDENBURG and Amélie KUHRT, Achaemenid History II. The Greek Sources. Proceedings of the Gronongen 1984 Achaemenid History Workshop, Leiden, 1987. 98 HERODOTUS, Hist. ; THUCYDIDES, War; XENOPHON, Anab.; XENOPHON, Cyr. A tragedy by Aeschylus takes place in the time period of Xerxes (AESCHYLUS, Pers.).

42

B. Historical and Intellectual Context of the Book’s Production

wrote a very successful Persica99 and several other Persicas circulated in the Greek world: those of Dionysius of Miletus, Hellanicus of Lesbos, Charon of Lampsacus, Heracleides of Cyme, and Dinon.100 Persia is equally present in the work of philosophers such as Plato or (Pseudo-)Aristotle.101 Despite the disappearance of the Persian Empire, Persia continued to play a considerable role in Greek, and then Roman, historiographic literature. One finds references to it in Diodorus of Sicily, Plutarch, and Strabo, as well as in Latin literature such as in the Historiae of Quintus Curtius Rufus or Justin. In the third century CE, Persia appears again in Athenaeus and Aelian.102 In Greco-Roman literature, representations of Persia are not devoid of “stereotypes” or “ideological motifs” that do not always correspond to historical reality.103 However, Greek representations of Persia are fairly detailed.104

2.5.2. Links between Esther and Greek Literature105 The world of the Persian court in Esther is described in a manner comparable and compatible with that in Greek literature, so that a reader influenced by Hellenistic culture would not find any anachronisms. The association of “Persia and Media” when speaking of the nucleus of the empire (cf. Esth 1:3 also 1:14, 18, 19; 10:2) is typical of Greek representations of the Achaemenid Empire, while the mention of “127 provinces” of an empire extending from “India to Cush” (cf. Esth 1:2) calls to mind Herodotus’s description of the Persian Empire’s taxation. The description of the architecture of the royal palace, of the luxury of the materials in it and in its gardens, resembles that of certain Greek texts (cf. Esth 1:5-8). Similarly, the efficient Persian postal system, the multilingual royal decrees, or the large administrative divisions qualified as “satrapies” (cf. 3:12-15 also 1:22; 8:8-10) are found in the works of Greek authors. The types of characters in the court of Ahasuerus correspond well to the Greek presentations of the Persian court. Eunuchs manage the harem and the royal wives (Esth 1:10, 12, 15; 2:3-15; 4:1-5) and plot against the sovereign (2:21-23; 6:2). The topos of groups of seven functionaries of high status (Esth 1:13-15 also 1:10; 2:9) is known in Greek literature. Finally, the practices of the court are comparable to Greek descriptions: the king benefits from the favors of numerous concu-

99 The edition and the translation of Dominique LENFANT (CTESIAS, Persica) , reworks the reference edition of JACOBY, Fragmente, n°688. 100 JACOBY, Fragmente, n°687-690; LENFANT, Histoires. 101 PLATO, Leg.; (PSEUDO-)ARISTOTLE, De Mundo. 102 See DIODORUS OF SICILY, Bibliotheca, esp. Books 11 to 17; PLUTARCH, Parallel Lives (for Persia, esp. The Life of Artaxerxes and The Life of Themistocles); STRABO, Geogr.; QUINTUS CURTIUS RUFUS, Historiae; JUSTIN, Historiae. ATHENAEUS, Deipn.; AELIAN, Var. hist. 103 On the stereotyped character of the view of Greek writers on the Persian world see TUPLIN, Achaemenid, 164-177 and LENFANT, Perses. 104 For our purposes, the question of historical accuracy of the Greek vision of the Persian world is secondary, since it is the view of Greeks of the Persian world, and not the reality of the Persian world, that must be compared with the view of Persia in the book of Esther. 105 These points are developed in MACCHI, “écrire,” 200-214 and MACCHI, “regard,” 101-132. They are discussed in the relevant places of the commentary.

2. The Hellenistic Era: The Context of the Work’s Production

43

bines and an enormous harem. As for private banquets or ceremony where drunkenness play a large role, they remind us of the table customs of the Greek world as well as Greek portrayals of the practices of royal Persian banquets (cf. Esth 1:3-9).106 In addition, several episodes in Esther resemble situations and behaviors attested in Greek literature about Persia. The refusal of Queen Vashti to be exhibited at the banquet can probably be explained by the fact that legitimate spouses are not expected to participate in the second part of banquets (cf. Esth 1:10-12). A college of specialists discussing the matrimonial life of Ahasuerus is similar to a famous episode in Herodotus regarding the marriage of Cambyses (cf. Esth 1:1322). Esther’s ascension and the beauty contest she wins call to mind the meeting between Aspasia and Cyrus the Younger, attested in Aelian (cf. Esth 2:2-18). Mordecai’s refusal to prostrate before Haman can be explained in a Greek intellectual context where prostration before individuals of high status is seen as a typically Persian custom of servitude (cf. Esth 3:2). The episode where Haman hopes to obtain gifts from the king is a reminder that according to Greek literature, the Persian king possesses a registry of benefactors, that he readily dispenses horses and clothing as gifts, and that his subjects are often driven by hubris (cf. Esth 6:111). Esther’s risky arrival before the king calls to mind a similar episode in Herodotus involving the royal spouse Phaidime. Finally, Esther’s manipulation of the king and Haman during the banquets and getting revenge is reminiscent of several episodes mentioned by Herodotus and Ctesias concerning princesses and Persian queens (cf. Esth 5:1-8 also 7:1-10).

2.5.3. The Book of Esther, a Persica The similarities between the representations of the Persian world in Greek literature and in the book of Esther are striking. The general portrayal of the Persian Empire is similar, and many of the biblical narrative’s episodes resemble episodes in Greek texts. These types of parallels with Greek literature are very rare in the rest of biblical literature.107 To explain them, some scholars postulate the existence of a cultural foundation of oriental narratives that the authors of Esther and the Greek authors drew upon independently.108 This opinion preserves their dating of Esther in the Persian era but the existence of a foundation of oriental narratives is very unlikely, as such a foundation of narratives is not attested, and the desire to document and preserve such information in literary works are Greek cultural “inventions.” Consequently, it is likely that the authors of the book of Esther knew Greek literature and used its motifs to create a text that conforms to the canons of Greek literature on Persia. Esther could thus be understood as the Jewish counterpart of the Persicas of classical historiographers.

106 See also MACCHI, “identité.” 107 The rare examples are from a late time period. The modes of writing of Ezra–Nehemiah and of the Maccabees are comparable to those of Hellenistic historiography. Judges 11, 13-16 could be compared to the myth of Iphigenia and Heracles, and Holofernes’s speech in Judith 5 evokes that of the queen in Aeschylus’s Persae. These points are developed in MACCHI, “écrire,” 215-220. 108 See BERLIN, “Storytelling” and MOMIGLIANO, “Historiography”; “Eléments.”

44

B. Historical and Intellectual Context of the Book’s Production

2.6. Esther and Maccabean Conflicts The MT of Esther alludes to the conflicts between the Jews and the Hellenistic Empire of the Maccabean-Hasmonean era. These allusions will be discussed below. Let us note here the most important points. The battle opposing the Jews against their enemies in Esth 9:1-19 presents numerous analogies to the battle of Judas Maccabeus against the general Nicanor (1 Macc 7:39-50 and 2 Macc 15). The triumph of the Jews results in both cases in a large number of enemy deaths, with the exhibition of the corpse of the vanquished leader, and dates of the thirteenth of Adar. Moreover, in the image of several nationalistic Maccabean-Hasmonean victories, the celebration described in Esther 9 is instituted as an annual festival for all Jews (Esth 9:20-32). Several other motifs are typical of the Maccabean era. Imperial legislative measures aim to call into question Jewish customs (Esth 3:8-9; 1 Macc 1:41-64; 2 Macc 6-7). Identifying oneself as Jewish was considered dangerous (Esth 2:11, 20; 2 Macc 6:6). And the sale of the Jews is envisaged to replenish the coffers of the empire (Esth 7:4; 2 Macc 8:10). Esther 8:17 evokes the problem of Judaizing non-Jews, a practice attested especially under Hyrcanus who Judaizes the Idumeans. Moreover, the proto-Masoretic editing of Esther Chapters 1 and 2 describes quite ironically the functioning of the empire, presented as weighty and absurd. In Esth 8:8 the irony reaches its climax when the Persian system cannot annul a decree recognized as harmful. Such a presentation of the empire makes sense in the context of strong tensions between the Jews and a foreign empire that characterizes the Maccabean era. With the exception of the criticisms of Jewish customs in 3:8-9, the primary allusions to Maccabean problems are absent from Proto-Esther and only appear in proto-Masoretic editorial sections (Chapter 9 and the edited passages of Chs. 1-2; 8:17, etc.).

2.7. The Context of Proto-Esther’s Production The first textual form of the book, Proto-Esther,109 was produced largely after the events it relates. Since its authors have an intimate knowledge of literature in Greek about Persia, the work was probably produced in a milieu strongly influenced by Greek culture. Proto-Esther showcases Jewish characters living in the diaspora, the problems that confront them, and their relationships with the foreign world in which they live. This text presupposes the existence of Jewish communities in large cities in the empire. The actions of Esther and Mordecai cohere with the values and the strategies expected of a social group in a diaspora, a minority in a position of weakness. By refusing to prostrate himself, Mordecai does not submit to the demands of the majority, but finds himself in a delicate situation; he has little support within the majority group (3:3-4) and thus must seek help from a person from his people (Ch. 4). As for Esther, she also acts as someone in a position of

109 Proto-Esther corresponds to the Hebrew Vorlage of vv. 1:1-21; 2:1-18; 3:1-13, 15; 4:1-4, 612; 5:1-2, 13-24; 6:1-23; 7:1-16, 21bβ, 33b, 34a of the Alpha Text.

2. The Hellenistic Era: The Context of the Work’s Production

45

social weakness, since she must resort to cunning to obtain the support of the king (Chs. 5 and 7).110 Proto-Esther does not present the proto-Masoretic conclusion (Chs. 8-10) in which the Jews end up defending themselves with arms to subdue their enemies. It is the emperor who thwarts Haman’s projects, saving the Jews. The view of the empire is much more benevolent than in the MT. Proto-Esther provides the impression that it is possible for Jews to live harmoniously within an empire whose system in general, and the emperor in particular, are not malevolent. In ProtoEsther a discourse critical of Jewish particularism is already staged (3:8-9) as the threat of a pogrom against the Jews. But in Proto-Esther, as in the Joseph story, if dangerous individuals such as Haman could threaten the Jews, the recourse to justice and to the laws of the empire permit Jews close to power to counter these threats. These observations suggest that Proto-Esther was written in a Jewish diaspora community in a Hellenized urban milieu. By using the codes and the motifs of Hellenistic culture to create a Persica for the Jews, the authors of Proto-Esther seek to integrate and assimilate the dominant culture. Mirroring the characters of the narrative, the editors are part of the elite, cultivated from the urban society of their time and with access to circles of imperial power. In this context they happen, nevertheless, to be confronted by malevolent discourses, questioning their particular customs.

2.7.1. Jewish Diasporas in the Hellenistic Era. Important Jewish groups lived outside the area of “Israel” from the era of Babylonian (597-540) and Persian (539-333) imperial domination. Biblical texts evoke the deportation of the Jews and the constitution of a Jewish community in Mesopotamia (2 Kgs 25; Ezek 1; 24; 33; Jer 24-29, etc.), as well as in Egypt (Jer 40-44). Archaeological discoveries reflecting the Achaemenid era have confirmed this.111 From the Hellenistic era, the number and size of diaspora Jewish communities reached an unprecedented level112 and continued to grow during the Roman era.113

110 For WHITE, “Esther,” Esther is a model for the diaspora because she develops strategies adapted to a position of social weakness. See also Jeffrey Kah-Jin KUAN, “Diasporic Reading of a Diasporic Text: Identity Politics and Race Relations and the Book of Esther,” in Interpreting Beyond Borders, The Bible and Postcolonialism (BiPostcol 3), F. SEGOVIA (ed.), Sheffield, 2000, 161-173, esp. 167-172 and MACCHI, “refus,” 199-202. 111 For Achaemenid Babylon see the tablets of Al-Yahudu (Kathleen ABRAHAM, “The Reconstruction of Jewish Communities in the Persian Empire: The Āl-Yahūdu Clay Tablets,” in Light and Shadows – The Catalog – The Story of Iran and the Jews, H. SEGEV and A. SCHOR (eds.), Tel Aviv, 2011, 264-261; Laurie E. PEARCE, “New Evidence for Judeans in Babylonia,” in Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period, O. LIPSCHITS and M. OEMING (ed.), Winona Lake, 2006, 399-411). For Egypt, the Elephantine documents inform us about the Jews who lived there during the Persian era (cf. A. COWLEY, Papyri; P. GRELOT, Documents; B. PORTEN and A. YARDENI, Textbook). 112 See the synthesis of MIMOUNI, judaïsme, 599-827. 113 The spread of the Jewish diaspora is mentioned by STRABO (cited by FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS, Ant. 14.115); PHILO OF ALEXANDRIA (Legat., 281-282) and Luke (Acts 2:5-11) cf. S. MIMOUNI, judaïsme, 607-608.

46

B. Historical and Intellectual Context of the Book’s Production

After the conquest of the Achaemenid Empire by Alexander the Great, Hellenistic domination was established throughout the Mediterranean basin, the Near and Middle East. At Alexander’s death, competing kingdoms were formed. Judea and more broadly the southern Levant, from 320/301 BCE, fell under the administration of the Egyptian Lagides who maintain control until 200 BCE. During the fifth Syrian war, Antiochus III took possession of Judea which then passed into the hands of the Seleucids who controlled Syria and parts of Asia Minor and Mesopotamia.114 During the Lagide and the beginning of the Seleucid eras, Hellenistic administration of Judea did not provoke any major tension. During this period, diaspora Jewish communities developed in Egypt, in particular in Alexandria, which became one of the most important Jewish communities outside of Judea; in Cyrenaica; in Syria, especially in Antioch and Damascus; and in Asia Minor.115 Jews in large urban centers tended to integrate into Hellenistic culture. Greek language was necessary and a dialogue between Hellenistic and Jewish culture emerged. Jews participated in the social and political life of the cities. But the process of integration did not result in a complete assimilation. Jews did not become systematically “citizens” of the city in which they resided, but remained most often identifiable as ethno-religious groups. Finally, tensions with other groups sometimes emerged, and a polemical discourse with regard to the Jews began to appear, in particular in Lagide Egypt.116

2.7.2. Synthesis Proto-Esther a Product of the Alexandrian Diaspora

Proto-Esther was probably produced within the Jewish community in Alexandria in the Lagide era, between the middle of the third century and the beginning of the second century BCE.117 Indications in the text suggest that it was produced in a Jewish diaspora marked by Hellenism before the Maccabean crisis, and Alexandria seems likely. In Alexandrian Judaism, Hellenism was firmly established. It is also a locale where, during the Lagide era, polemics appeared concerning Jewish particularism. Moreover, it is in Egypt that 3 Maccabees was written, a text whose problems are very close to those of Esther.

2.8. The Context of Production of the Proto-Masoretic Edition of Esther The proto-Masoretic editors largely reworked and completed Proto-Esther, arriving at a textual form very close to the MT.118 The proto-Masoretic revisions paint a much harsher and ironic picture of the empire, which becomes profoundly dys-

114 See MIMOUNI, judaïsme, 282-293; Maurice SARTRE, D’Alexandre à Zénobie, Paris, 2001, 303332; SAULNIER and PERROT, Histoire, 61-104; SOGGIN, Histoire, 351-355; WILL, Histoire. 115 MIMOUNI, judaïsme, 673-827. 116 See the commentary on 3:8-11. 117 That Proto-Esther was written in Hebrew could argue for an earlier dating (middle or end of the third century BCE), before Greek becomes the quasi-exclusive language of the Jews of Alexandria. 118 As a reminder, vv. 1:17-18, 22; 2:10-16, 19-23; 3:12-14; 4:5-8a; 5:9, 11; 7:7; Chs. 8-10 of the MT constitutes the most important proto-Masoretic editorial “pluses.”

2. The Hellenistic Era: The Context of the Work’s Production

47

functional. In this revised text, the deliverance of the Jews cannot be assured by relying on the institutions of the empire, it is useless for a Jew to hide his or her identity, and acting with intelligence by keeping in close proximity to the king does not guarantee the deliverance of the Jews. The addition of Chapters 8 and 9 suggests that in such a dysfunctional empire, the taking up of arms is the only option for the survival of the Jews. Such reflections would hardly make sense when Jews lived in harmony within a foreign empire, and would seem suicidal in a diaspora context. They assume a radical rupture in confidence regarding imperial institutions, which, in Jewish history, occurred during the Maccabean crisis. The similarities between the themes of the proto-Masoretic editing and those of Maccabean literature are striking. The conflict described in Esther 9 calls to mind especially the victory of Judas Maccabeus against Nicanor.119 It therefore seems likely that Proto-Esther, first put forward in the diaspora, was reworked by editors living in Judea during the Maccabean-Hasmonean era.

2.8.1. Judea in the Maccabean and Hasmonean Eras120 Judea was under the domination of the Egyptian Lagides during all of the third century BCE, but it passed into the control of the Seleucid sovereign Antiochus III in 200 BCE. The Syrian Seleucid domination did not bring significant tensions prior to the end of the reign of Seleucus IV (187-175). The people of Judea, organized around the Temple in Jerusalem, apparently continued to benefit from the Seleucids by having some autonomy, the protection of their cult and priesthood, the possibility of respecting their own law, and favorable taxation.121 Under Antiochus IV (175-164) an explosive atmosphere developed in Judea that led to the Maccabean insurrection. The causes of tension were manifold. Conflicts about the succession to the position of High Priest occurred. Financial difficulties of the Seleucids, now debtors of Rome, led them to increase levies on the Temple treasury. Moreover, in a Judean society that was now multicultural, Hellenism tended to influence the

119 The themes of anti-Jewish legislative measures, of the risk of identifying as Jewish, of the sale of the Jews, and of the Judaizing of non-Jews also have parallels in the books of the Maccabees. 120 On the Seleucid, Maccabean, and Hasmonean eras, see MIMOUNI, judaïsme, 289-386; Philippe ABADIE, Lecture des Livres des Maccabées. Etudes historique et littéraire sur la crise maccabéenne, Lyon, 1996, 5-66; John H. HAYES and Sara R. MANDELL, The Jewish People in Classical Antiquity, Louisville, 1998, 38-100; Etienne NODET, La crise maccabéenne. Historiographie juive et traditions bibliques (Collection Josèphe et son temps 6), Paris, 2005; Dominique PRÉVOT, “La Judée sous les Séleucides: de la révolte maccabéenne à l’Etat hasmonéen,” in Royaumes et cités hellénistiques des années 323-55 av. J.-C. (Regards sur l’histoire), O. PICARD (ed.), Paris, 2003, 201-217; REGEV, Hasmoneans; SAULNIER and PERROT, Histoire, 93-161; Peter SCHÄFER, Histoire des Juifs dans l’Antiquité (Patrimoines judaïsme), Paris, 1989, 44-99; A. SÉRANDOUR, “Histoire du judaïsme aux époques perse, hellénistique et romaine. De Cyrus à Bar Kokhba,” in Introduction à l’Ancien Testament (MdB 49), T. RÖMER, J.-D. MACCHI and C. NIHAN (eds.), Genève, 2009, 83-121, 103-112. 121 The edict of Antiochus III (cf. Flavius JOSEPHUS, Ant. 12.138-146) is characteristic. For taxation matters see HONIGMAN, Tales, 316-344.

48

B. Historical and Intellectual Context of the Book’s Production

social and cultural practices122 and important divisions appeared. Elite Jews, including priests, were influenced by Hellenism, which generated strong resistance from more traditionalist groups. Between 168 and 167 BCE, Antiochus IV led repressive operations. He had a fortress built (Akra) at Jerusalem and installed a garrison (1 Macc 1:29-40). With the support of local elites, the Jerusalem cult was Hellenized and traditional Jewish rites such as circumcision and the Sabbath were prohibited (1 Macc 1:41-64; 2 Macc 6:1-11). Under the leadership of a family from Modein, the Maccabees, the originators of the Hasmonean dynasty, a revolt in 164 resulted in a first victory. The Temple was reconsecrated and the traditional cult reinstalled. This event is commemorated by the festival of Hanukkah (1 Macc 4:36-59; 2 Macc 10:1-8). However, tensions did not subside. In 161 Judas Maccabeus won a new victory over Seleucid troops, led by General Nicanor. Nicanor died in battle and his head was exhibited in Jerusalem (1 Macc 7:39-50; 2 Macc 15:17-36). Fighting continued and shortly afterwards Judas Maccabeus lost his life in the defeat against the Seleucid army led by Bacchides (1 Macc 9:1-57). Nevertheless, the victory of 161 occupied a central place in the memory of the Maccabean era. It was celebrated for a long time on the thirteenth of Adar as the “Day of Nicanor.” Jonathan Maccabeus (160-143) succeeded his brother Judah. After his victory over Bacchides in 157, there is a period of relative calm. In 152, Jonathan was named High Priest (1 Macc 10, especially v. 12). This nomination to the priesthood was a recognition by the Seleucids of the power of the Hasmoneans in Judea. It provoked tensions with several Jewish groups, the Qumran community, certain priestly groups, and the Hasidim. During the period when Jonathan administered Judea, he increased the areas under his control, especially in the coastal plain and in Samaria. Simon Maccabeus (143-134), Jonathan’s successor, reinforced his power in Judea. He obtained the departure of the garrison from the citadel in Jerusalem (1 Macc 13:49-53). According to 1 Macc 14:25-49, a decree of the great Jewish assembly granted the high priesthood to the Hasmoneans. Simon was succeeded by his son John Hyrcanus (134-104). Hyrcanus benefited from the weakening of the Seleucids and the support of Rome, and led an independent polity. The Hasmoneans started to mint their own currency.123 Hyrcanus led several military campaigns and extended the Judean territories to the north and to the south. In Samaria, he destroyed the Temple at Gerizim (128). In Idumea (112), he imposed Jewish rituals, circumcision in particular, on the local populations, also leading a policy of Judaizing the populations under his control.124 Finally, he conquered important cities (Samaria, Scythopolis, and Beersheba). Unlike their predecessors, the Hasmoneans Aristobulus I (104-103) and Alexander Jannaeus (103-76) took the title of king.125 Alexander led a polity independ-

122 See 1 Macc 1:10-15 and 2 Macc 4:7-20. 123 HENDIN and KREINDLER, Guide, 160-189; REGEV, Hasmoneans, 175-179. 124 See JOSEPHUS, Ant. 13.257-258, 318, 397. MIMOUNI, judaïsme, 385-386; REGEV, Hasmoneans, 274-278; WILL and ORRIEUX, Ioudaïsmos, p. 194-196; Steven WEITZMAN, “Forced Circumcision and the Shifting Role of Gentiles in Hasmonean Ideology,” HTR 92 (1999), 37-59. 125 JOSEPHUS, Ant. 13.301; B.J., 1.70 Under Alexander Jannaeus, reference to royalty appears on coins. (HENDIN and KREINDLER, Guide, 190-201).

2. The Hellenistic Era: The Context of the Work’s Production

49

ent of the Hellenistic kingdoms. The Judean kingdom thus achieved its zenith. Alexander Jannaeus controled all of the southern Levant, Idumea, Philistia, Samaria, Galilee, and the Transjordan.126 Under his reign, internal conflicts between the Hasmonean monarchy, reliant on the Sadducees, and other Jewish groups were frequent.127 At his death, his wife Salome Alexandra reigned in his place (76-67). Finally, the accession of Roman domination (from 63) followed by the Herodian dynasty (from 37 BCE) precipitated the end of the Hasmoneans.

2.8.2. Synthesis Thematic links between the Masoretic Esther and Maccabean literature suggest that the proto-Masoretic editors worked during the Maccabean-Hasmonean era. The MT book of Esther presupposes the Maccabean crisis but is subsequent to it. Indeed, it ends by saying that the empire persists, all the while delegating to Jews power over themselves, a situation that is accepted (10:3). Historically, a comparable situation would occur, at the earliest, starting from Jonathan Maccabeus. Moreover, the MT of Esther mentions the Judaizing of large groups of non-Jews (8:17), a theme that evokes the Hasmonean political expansionism of Simon and Hyrcanus. Finally, the willingness of diaspora Jews to celebrate a high military achievement (Esth 9:20-32) may allude to a Hasmonean victory at the time of Hyrcanus – the day of Nicanor celebrated on the thirteenth of Adar – that can be found in the festal letters of 2 Maccabees that seek to promote the celebration of Hanukkah in the diaspora. This can be explained by the Hasmoneans seeking to promote their preeminence over all Jews. The proto-Masoretic rewriting cannot date after the reign of Hyrcanus. Indeed, there is no allusion to the willingness of the Hasmoneans, from Aristobulus, to present themselves as independent monarchs, nor to the internal Jewish conflicts that seem to have hardened from the reign of Alexander Jannaeus. In addition, this editing is necessarily prior to the production of the LXX of Esther, at the latest in the middle of the first century BCE. Consequently, it is probably during the second half of the second century BCE, during the time of Simon or John Hyrcanus that the old Proto-Esther, written in the diaspora, was reworked in Judea within a Hasmonean context, in the same intellectual milieu in which other literary works such as the first two books of the Maccabees emerged.

2.9. The Contexts of Production of the Additions and Other Textual Forms of the Work Between the second century BCE and the first century CE, “Judaism” is not homogenous.128 In Judea, groups with very different preoccupations and conceptions develop and coexist. Some are close to the Hasmonean sovereigns, some to the

126 JOSEPHUS, Ant. 13.382. 127 On tensions between Hasmoneans and other Jewish groups, especially the Pharisees beginning with Hyrcanus I, see MIMOUNI, judaïsme, 372-376. For this theme in JOSEPHUS: Ant. 13.288-298 and 372-376). 128 For Judaism of this period, see especially MIMOUNI, judaïsme and Lester L. GRABBE, An Introduction to Second Temple Judaism. History and Religion of the Jews in the Time of Nehemiah, the Maccabees, Hillel and Jesus, London/New York, 2010.

ProtoMasoretic Hasmonean Editing

50

B. Historical and Intellectual Context of the Book’s Production

Temple hierarchy, and others to the Hasidim, the Pharisees, or the Essenes. Some groups are marked by Hellenism and others reject it. Moreover, diverse theologies, ranging from apocalyptic thought to a theology close to what will later become the rabbinic tradition, characterize the Judaism of this period. Added to the sociological diversity is a geographic diversity; Jews are found not only in Judea, but also in Samaria and in Galilee, as well as in several diasporas. Starting from the second century BCE, different forms of the Esther narrative began circulating in Egypt and Judea.129 The emergence of the additions can be explained by the willingness of different contexts to rework and to disseminate this narrative. Apocalyptic groups seem to have interpreted Esther traditions by developing the narrative of Mordecai’s premonitory dream (Additions A1 and F), traditionally pious groups, perhaps of a Pharisaic type, developed the prayers of Esther and Mordecai (Addition C), while Greek-speaking diaspora groups, probably directly confronted by Judeophobic discourses, developed the text of the decrees in Additions B and E.

3.

Esther and Ancient Mythology

Purim, a “Judaized” Festival

Purim’s Mysterious Origin

The celebration of the fourteenth and fifteen of Adar that the book of Esther institutes is called “Purim.” The date and the enigmatic name of this festival provoked much debate between the end of the nineteenth century and the middle of the twentieth century.130 It was thought that the Esther narrative might have been written to historicize and Judaize ancient myths. Indeed, the names of Esther, Mordecai, Haman, Vashti, and Zeresh can evoke the names of the deities Ishtar, Marduk, Humman, Mashti, and Geresh,131 and certain aspects of the narrative call to mind themes of the Gilgamesh epic, of the Babylonian creation myth, or the descent of Tammuz into the underworld.132 These hypotheses must be abandoned because they are based upon very vague similarities with the biblical narrative and their etymological links are not convincing.133 It has been suggested that the biblical presentation of Purim could have aimed to attribute a Jewish origin to an originally non-Jewish end-of-winter festival (Adar is in February–March). Purim was associated with the Persian or Babylonian New

129 See above § Emergence of the Two Primary Greek Witnesses (AT and LXX) and other textual witnesses of Esther. Greek translations of distinct textual forms coexisted. A Greek form close to Proto-Esther – the proto-AT – and another close to the MT – the proto-LXX – are produced and completed by the additions. 130 See PATON, Esther, 77-94; BARDTKE, Esther, 243-248; KOSSMANN, Esthernovelle, 9-15; LARKIN, Esther, 76-78; MOORE, Esther, xlvi-xlix. For more details concerning the discussion about the Origin of Purim, see MACCHI, Esther, 77-81. 131 For these etymologies, see the commentary. 132 See PATON, Esther, 89-91; ZIMMERN, “Frage”; Adam SILVERSTEIN, “The Book of Esther and the Enūma Elish,” BSOAS 69 (2006), 209-223; Hugo WINCKLER, “Esther,” in Altorientalische Forschungen vol. 3, Amsterdam, 1972, 1-66. 133 Since Esther and Mordecai are presented as Jews assimilted into the “Persian” world, it is not surprising that they have names evoking foreign gods. MATHYS, “Personennamen,” 226, 245-246 shows that “artificial” name pairs occur frequently in the Bible.

3. Purim’s Mysterious Origin

51

Year.134 The etymology of Purim135 could be explained by the Akkadian puḫru “assembly,” or pūru “lot,” “destiny” (Esth 3:7), since the New Year marks entry into office of those designated by lot.136 The existence at the end of the Neo-Assyrian era of an Aramaic term PR, designating the eponym of a high functionary, supports an association with the Akkadian pūru.137 Purim is sometimes also associated with the Persian festival of the dead Frawardīgān due to the proximity in date and a similarity to the Greek orthography φρουραι / φουρδια of “Purim.”138 Finally, due to practices similar to those of Purim, the association with other festivals has also been made, especially the bacchanals of Sakaea,139 the Persian Magophony,140 “the opening of the barrels” called πιθοιγία by the Greeks and Vinalia by the Romans,141 or the Roman Lupercalia.142 The more proposals that are put forth, the more speculative they become. Since in Esther we find allusions to the Maccabean-Hasmonean context, one may imagine – and this is the opinion defended in this commentary143 – that the festival of the fourteenth and fifteenth of Adar was, from the outset, created to commemorate a (fictive) victory of the Jews of the Persian Empire described by the fictional narrative in the book of Esther. The Maccabean-Hasmonean editors

134 See PATON, Esther, 84-85; CAZELLES, “composition,” 18-19, 28; GASTER, Purim, 18; RINGGREN, “Purim”; MEINHOLD, Esther, 13-14; ZIMMERN, “Frage.” 135 The etymological question is complex because the orthography of the MT ‫ פורים‬corresponds poorly to that suggested by ancient Greek translations (see the commentary on 9:26). The diversity of the Greek name of the festival is difficult to explain (cf. LACOCQUE, “versions,” 313). 136 See the presentation of PATON, Esther, 94. 137 André LEMAIRE, “PR en Araméen ancien et les origines de la fête de Pûrim,” in Samaritan, Hebrew and Aramaic Studies Presented to Professor Abraham Tal, M. BAR-ASHER and M. FLORENTIN (eds.), Jerusalem, 2005, 25*-30*; André LEMAIRE, “Evolution de trois fêtes juives: sabbat, Pourim, offrande du bois,” in Herméneutique et bricolage. Territoires et frontières de la tradition dans le judaïsme. Actes du colloque de Bucarest, 27-28 octobre 2006, M. VÂRTEJANU-JOUBERT (ed.), Bern Berlin et al., 2008, 13-22. For the Babylonian pūru see William W. HALLO, “The First Purim,” BA 46 (1983), 19-26; WINITZER, “Reversal,” 196-198. 138 In particular Paul DE LAGARDE, Purim: ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Religion (Abhandlungen der Historish-philologischen Classe der königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen 34), Göttingen, 1887; HINTZE, “Greek”; LEWY, “Feast.” 139 Bruno MEISSNER, “Zur Entstehungsgeschichte des Purimfestes,” ZDMG 50 (1896), 296301; James George FRAZER, The Golden Bough: A Study of Magic and Religion, London, 19513, 138-200 (PATON, Esther, 92-93); Daniel F. POLISH, “Aspects of Esther: a Phenomenological Exploration of the Megillah of Esther and the Origins of Purim,” JSOT 85 (1999), 85106. 140 HERODOTUS, Hist. 8.5. Cf. GUNKEL, Esther, 115. 141 GRÄTZ, “Hintergrund” (cf. PATON, Esther, 83) connects the etymology of Purim to the Hebrew ‫“ פורה‬wine press.” 142 Henri E. DEL MEDICO, “Le cadre historique des fêtes de Hanukkah et de Purîm,” VT 15 (1965), 238-270, esp. 255-263. He also envisages an association with the Latin festival Feralia / Fornicalia (Greek Φουρνικάλια). 143 See the commentary on 9:20-32 and MACCHI, “Lettres.” On the association of Purim with Maccabean festivals see PATON, Esther, 77-83; ERBT, Purimsage; Eduard REUSS, Die Geschichte der heiligen Schriften Alten Testaments, Braunschweig, 1890, 616; HAUPT, Purim.

Purim, a Maccabean-Hasmonean Festival

52

C. Literary and Thematic Characteristics Developed in Esther’s Masoretic Form

responsible for the proto-Masoretic editing of Esth 9:20-32 would have thus actually instituted the festivals they describe. The date of the conflict opposing the Jews to their enemies is fixed at the thirteenth of Adar to allude to the victory of Judas Maccabeus before the general Nicanor. The festivities are to take place on the two following days in order to avoid fusing the celebration of the “Day of Nicanor” (Adar 13) with the “Day of Mordecai” / “Purim” (Adar 14 [and 15]; cf. 2 Macc 15:36). These two “Days” are celebrated consecutively as festivals commemorating the victories of the Jews in Judea and in the diaspora. This still does not explain why the term “Purim” was associated with the festival of the fourteenth and fifteenth of Adar. The late introduction of the name remains mysterious.144 Perhaps someone adding a gloss wanted to characterize these Maccabean festivities by naming them with a term linked to the root ‫“ פרר‬to destroy,”145 or he wanted to join an unknown Jewish or pagan festival with the festival instituted in the book of Esther.

C. Literary and Thematic Characteristics Developed in Esther’s Masoretic Form 1.

Organization of the Work

The Masoretic form of the book of Esther creates a well-organized narrative. The plot is punctuated with suspense and twists. Reversals, the elevating and debasing of characters, and banquets are structural motifs. Episodic OrgaThe present commentary is divided into sixteen episodic segments that nization only partially correspond to the segments in the MT.146 Each episode is unified thematically, geographically, temporally, or is linked to characters who are involved. 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7)

Chapter 1. The Fall of Queen Vashti The Banquets of the Persian King (1:1-9) Vashti’s Refusal (1:10-12) The Consequenses of Vashti’s Refusal (1:13-22) Chapter 2. Esther’s Accession and Royal Installation Appointment of a New Queen (2:1-18) Events at the Court (2:19-23) Chapter 3. Haman’s Plot Chapter 4. Mordecai Solicits Esther’s Help

144 See the commentary on 9:26a. In the MT, “Pur” and “Purim” are late glosses. 145 Certain Greek transcriptions of the term in 9:26 etc. (φρουραι, φρουριν, etc.) suggest an etymology ‫פרר‬. It could thus be a wordplay on the surname “Maccabeus” with a provenance probably from “hammer” (cf. Uriel RAPPAPORT and Paul L. REDDITT, “Maccabeus,” in ABD, vol. 4, 454). 146 These divisions are debatable. The division into twelve acts proposed by Fox, Character, 155-156 regroups my episodes 1-3, 4-5 and 9-11, and breaks up my episode 13 into two. The division into ten acts by BUSH, Esther, 336-337 regroups episodes 1 to 5 and 9 to 11 into two acts of three scenes. Furthermore, he makes 9:1-5 into an autonomous act.

1. Organization of the Work

8) 9) 10) 11) 12) 13) 14) 15) 16)

53

Chapter 5. Haman’s Honors Esther’s First Banquet (5:1-8) Haman at Home with His Friends (5:9-14) Chapter 6. Mordecai’s Honors Haman Honors Mordecai (6:1-11) Haman Returns Home (6:12-14) Chapter 7. Haman’s Death at Esther’s Second Banquet Chapters 8-10. Triumph of the Jews, Massacre of the Enemies, and Festivities Haman’s Plot Difficult to Defeat (8:1-17) War (9:1-19) Letters Instituting Festivals (9:20-32) Epilogue: The King, Mordecai, the Jews, and the Empire (10:1-3)

The plot is resolved by the action of the heroes which causes Haman’s plan to A Novel-Like fail. The plot’s structure may be analyzed as a five-part schema: the opening Plot situation, followed by the “exposition,” which is upset by a “complication,” that concludes, thanks to “transformative action” of the heroes, by a “denouement” leading to a “concluding situation.”147 That said, in Esther, as in most good novels, the narrative thread is complex. Plots intermingle and twists occur.148 The first two chapters form the opening situation. They introduce the world of the court and the situation of the two heroes, Esther and Mordecai. From Chapter 3, two plots intermingle. The first is a conflict to the death between two courtiers, Mordecai and Haman. Mordecai refuses to prostrate himself and Haman wants to have him hanged (3:1-6; 5:9-14). The conflict unravels thanks to royal insomnia and Haman’s awkwardness (Ch. 6), and results in Haman’s hanging (Ch. 7). In the concluding situation, Mordecai is elevated and takes Haman’s place (8:1-2). A second plot concerns all the Jews. The complication is linked to the proclamation of a decree of annihilation (3:7-12). The resolution involves two heroes. Mordecai first invites Esther to intervene (Ch. 4), and she subsequently invites the king to two banquets and asks him to save her and her people (5:1-8; 7). A first denouement takes place with Haman’s execution (7:5-10). The plot takes another twist when the king declares that the decree cannot be revoked (8:3-8). The final denouement only takes place with the writing of a counter-decree (8:9-14) and the massacre of the Jews’ enemies (9:1-19). In the concluding situation, the Jews’ victory is celebrated (9:20-32) and Mordecai administers the empire (10:1-3). These two plots are tightly intermingled. The conflict between Haman and Mordecai (the first plot) generates the decree of the annihilation of the Jews (the second plot), and in attempting to save her people (the second plot) Esther provokes Haman’s hanging (denouement of the first plot). The combination of these two plots shows that a conflict between two characters can have dramatic consequences for an entire social group. Consequently, the work’s plot must be understood as a whole. After the “opening situation” (Chs. 1-2), the “complication” is formed by a conflict between two characters, degenerating into the threat of a pogrom (Chs. 3 and 5:9-14). The transformative actions of Mordecai (Ch. 4), Esther (5:1-8 and 7:1-4), as well as

147 Concerning plot: MARGUERAT BOURQUIN, lire, 55-81 and their bibliography 243-252. 148 On the plot in Esther: BUSH, Esther, 297-309; DOROTHY, Books, 226-273; VIALLE, analyse, 314; Forrest S. WEILAND, “Plot Structure in the Book of Esther,” Bibliotheca Sacra 159 (2002), 277-287.

54

C. Literary and Thematic Characteristics Developed in Esther’s Masoretic Form

chance (Ch. 6) leads to a first “denouement”: Haman’s execution (7:5-10). In Chapter 8, the “complication” takes a new twist and other “transformative actions” are accomplished: a counter-decree is proclaimed and a war is undertaken (8–9:19). The concluding situation institutes Purim (9:20-32) and Mordecai’s administration of the empire (Ch. 10). The Banquets The ten banquets mentioned in Esther function in pairs and provide structure to the narrative.149 ⎧ King’s banquet for the elites of the empire (1:2-4) ⎩ King’s banquet for the inhabitants of Susa (1:5-8) ⎧Women’s banquet – Vashti (1:9) ⎩Enthronement banquet – Esther (2:18) ⎧Banquet celebrating the decree – Haman (3:15) ⎧First banquet organized by Esther (5:1-8) ⎩Second banquet organized by Esther (7:1-9) ⎩Banquet celebrating the counter-decree – Mordecai (8:17) ⎧Banquet of the Jews of the empire (9:17, 19) ⎩Banquet of the Jews of Susa (9:18)

These banquets mark the height of the protagonists’ social status. The first two exhibit the honor of the king before his humiliation by Vashti (1:12). During the banquets of 1:9; 2:18; and 3:15 Vashti, Esther, and Haman are at the height of their social status. This status will then be questioned in 1:13-22; 4:16; and 7:1-10, respectively. The last three banquets (8:15-17; 9:17-19) celebrate the Jews’ triumph. The invitations to the two banquets arranged by Esther (Chs. 5:1-8 and 7:1-10) honor the king and Haman. While the king was humiliated by Vashti’s refusal of his invitation, Esther honors him with a spontaneous double invitation. Haman understands Esther’s invitation as an honor (5:12) while it is merely a trap. Finally, the motif of the fast in Chapter 4 (4:3, 16) marks the moment opposite to that of the banquets, when the Jewish characters are at their nadir. Reversals, AdReversals structure the narrative. The king is honored at the banquet and vancements then humiliated by Vashti. The Jews are put into danger by a decree but and Debasings triumph after the publication of a counter-decree. Mordecai is threatened with death by Haman but ends up as the chief minister. Haman follows the reverse course of action: he is first chief minister but ends up being executed. The episode where Haman wants to request Mordecai’s death but obtains his advancement (6:1-11) is a pivot and foreshadows what will happen in the rest of the narrative, namely, the inversion of every aspect of Haman’s situation and his disastrous actions.150

149 ABADIE, reine, 63-67; BERG, Book, 31-31,106-113; Fox, Character, 156-158; LEVENSON, Esther, 5-6; Ronald W. PIERCE, “The Politics of Esther and Mordecai: Courage or Compromise?”, BBR 2 (1992), 75-89, esp. 78-81; PLIETZSCH, “Eating,” 33-35. 150 LEVENSON, Esther, 6-9, shows the pivotal character of Ch. 6 well, even if his structure into five sections for the whole book is somewhat debatable. Fox, Character, 159-162 and WINITZER, “Reversal,” 173-185 show reversals that are clearly present. For other proposals of chiastic structure: RADDAY, “Chiasm”, 9-10; BERG, Book, 106-113; ARNOLD, Esther, 41-42; GROSSMAN, Esther, 13-16. For the motif of reversal see also WACKER, “Gewalt” and EGO, “Hellenistic,” 291-292.

2. Novel-Like Characteristics

55

3:1-2, 10-11, 15 Haman’s Elevation 3:12-15 Decree predicting the extermination of the Jews 5:1-8 Esther’s first banquet, Haman appears honored 5:9-14 Haman honored at home 6:1-11 Situational reveral: Haman honors Mordecai 6:12-14 Haman humiliated at home 7:1-10 Esther’s second banquet, Haman is executed 8:9-14 Decree permitting self-defense to the Jews 8:2, 15 Mordecai’s elevation

2.

Novel-Like Characteristics

Though Esther is neither a novel in the modern sense, nor even a classical Greek novel,151 its traits are novel-like (in this case a historical novel), including its plot structure and its many reversals. It is written in prose. The plot is fluid and well structured (exposition, complication, transformative action, final situation). The narrative is set in a historical context that conforms to representations of the world of the Persian court in antiquity, and the actions of the characters are plausible within that context. Suspense, unannounced events, and new developments are important techniques of a novel that one finds in Esther. Vashti’s refusal comes as a theatrical twist followed by a long suspense concerning the consequences of this act (1:13-22). After the promulgation of the decree of annihilation, the characters’ actions hold the reader in much suspense. Mordecai contacts the queen with difficulty (Ch. 4). The vital risk she runs if she intervenes with the king raises the level of suspense. The reader does not easily understand Esther’s strategy, especially when she invites the king to a second banquet instead of making her request immediately (5:6-8). The new threat to Mordecai that occurs between the two banquets (5:14) also raises the suspense. The situation becomes so tense that a double resolution is necessary: the king’s insomnia first saves Mordecai (Ch. 6), before Esther denounces Haman (Ch. 7). Finally, the impossibility of cancelling a decree (8:8) brings the plot back to life and raises the suspense once more. The heroes are well characterized. They do not have extraordinary powers, but their “moral” qualities are exceptional. Mordecai is simultaneously courageous, when he opposes the powerful Haman, and intelligent, when he writes an effective counter-decree. Esther also demonstrates courage, in approaching the king, and cunning, in her ability to manipulate the king. The text brings out

151 The modern novel appeared in the sixteenth century. Greek and Roman novels are known starting from the first century. On the Greek novel see: Pierre GRIMAL (ed.), Romans grecs et latins (Pléiade 134), Paris, 1976; Gareth L. SCHMELING, The Novel in the Ancient World, Leiden, 1996; Henri TONNET, Histoire du roman grec des origines à 1960 (Etudes grecques), Paris Montréal, 1996. It is unlikely that direct links between the Greek novel and Esther existed (cf. CAZELLES, “composition,” 20-21 and EGO, “Hellenistic,” 288-289) even if comparable topoi sometimes appear (see for example the motif of the beautiful stranger in the Persian court in De Chaerea et Callirhoe of CHARITON of Aphrodisias cf. MOYER, “Outsider”).

Suspense, Theatrical Twists, New Developments

Novelesque Characters

56

C. Literary and Thematic Characteristics Developed in Esther’s Masoretic Form

the characters’ psychology, their actions as well as their motivations. Chapter 1 introduces a discussion at the limits of the absurd between drunk men. Chapter 4 describes the queen’s conflict of conscience. Chapters 5 and 7 show how a woman can manipulate men. Between 5:9 and 6:11, Haman’s pride is demonstrated in an amusing fashion (5:9ff. and 6:6). Humor and In spite of its profoundly dramatic theme of a power attempting to Irony annihilate a people, this book is full of humor and irony.152 One smiles at a king who spends six months showing off his prestige and fails to summon his wife (1:4-12). The text ironizes the contrast between the power and the wealth of the imperial court and the stupid and ridiculous politics that are manifest. The king legislates about the private life of all his subjects (1:22), he empties the empire of all its young women (2:3), and a young woman must have a year’s worth of preparations before she can approach the king (2:12-14). Moreover, the king does not really manage the empire; he must submit to jurists before making decisions (1:13), he is manipulated by his counsellors (Ch. 3), and he is incapable of cancelling a bad decree (8:8). Haman’s attitude is also ridiculous. Incapable of deciding on the date for the persecution, he draws lots and thus leaves a year of delay for his enemies to react. He is so proud of himself that he cannot imagine that the king would want to honor someone else (6:6). Finally, even his death is ridiculous: he is accused of violating the queen while he pleads for mercy from her, and he ends up hanging upon the gibbet he had planned for Mordecai. The burlesque treatment of a dramatic subject is not shocking when, as is the case here, it serves to denounce oppression.

3.

Language and Style

The style and language of the MT of Esther are distinctive.153 The style is heavy, emphatic, and marked by repetitions, redundancies, and hyperbole. This evokes the formal, pompous nature of the Persian court and the world-wide power that it exercises. Our editorial analyses show that an important part of these stylistic traits appears in the MT “pluses” and thus are a result of the proto-Masoretic editing. Some striking features can be noted. Formal PhraseThe dialogues between the king and his interlocutors contains very formal ology phraseology: “What is your request? It shall be granted you (…)” (variants in 5:3, 6; 7:2; 9:12); “If it pleases the king (…)” (variants in 1:19; 3:9; 5:4, 8; 7:3; 8:5; 9:13). Phrases introduced with ‫“( כל‬the whole kingdom,” “all the provinces,” “all the peoples,” “all the men / women / servants”) and phraseology such as ‫מדינה ומדינה‬ “every province” (1:22; 3:12, 14; 4:3; 8:9, 13, 17; 9:28) ‫“ עם ועם‬every people” (1:22; 3:12; 8:9) emphasize the universal pretentions of the empire.

152 BERLIN, Esther, xvii; CHAN, “Ira Regis,” 17-20; DU TOIT, “Satirical”; GOLDMAN, “Narrative”; GRUEN, “Persia,” 68-69; JACKSON, Comedy, 198-220; O’CONNOR, “Humour”; SHARP, Irony, 6583; STERN, “Esther”; A. WÉNIN, “Pourquoi.” 153 BERLIN, Esther, xxvii-xxviii; LEVENSON, Esther, 10-12; REID, p. 40-41; STRIEDL, “Syntax”; WAHL, “Sprache”; WAHL, Esther, 15-22.

3. Language and Style

57

The diverse functions of the courtiers underline the complexity and hierarchical organization of the court. The expression “King Ahasuerus” occurs fifteen times, “Queen Esther” fourteen times, “Queen Vashti” four times, “Mordecai the Jew” six times, “Haman (…) the Agagite” five times. In 1:3 the guests are “ministers,” “servants,” “army,” and “nobles”; in 1:13-14 the counsellors are not only “sages” who know “the times,” but also “ministers … who could see the face of the king” and occupy “the first place”; the recipients of the edicts are “satraps,” “governors,” and “ministers”; and the functionaries who produce and transmit them are “scribes” and “couriers” (3:12; 8:9; 9:3). The functions of certain protagonists are described in detail: “the king’s eunuchs who were guardians of the threshold” (2:21; 6:2) “the king’s servants who were at the king’s gate” (3:2-3), “Hathach, one of the king’s eunuchs whom he had appointed to her” (4:5), the “horse couriers, riding imperial horses (…)” (8:10). Finally, the MT provides lists of proper names of functionaries (1:10, 14; 9:6-9), which produce the effect of realism and underline the rigor of the organization of the empire. The presence of word pairs (“people / parentage” [8:6]) or the accumulation of close terms (“utterly destroy, kill, and eliminate” [3:13; 7:4; 8:11]) makes the style heavy and gives the impression of annalistic accuracy.154 One also notes formulas that specify the scope of any given term such as “all the Jews, from young to old, children and women” (3:13).155 Finally, numerous “chronological notes” in Esther’s MT also show a desire to construct a precise narrative comparable to annals. The MT bears the trace of sophisticated scribal techniques. Phrases establish intertextual links,156 several “word games” (cf. Vashti in 1:8 and Abihail in 2:14) or vocabulary appears together with, possibly, a cryptic process that makes it possible to evoke the name of YHWH (5:8). The lexicon is not very varied; one often finds the vocabulary of royalty (‫)מלך‬, drink (‫)שׁתה‬, or province (‫)מדינה‬. However, fairly rare terms appear, and borrowings from other languages (Persian, Akkadian, Egyptian, Aramaic, etc.) are present. Terms absent from classical Hebrew vocabulary have mainly an Aramaic provenance. However, some terms such as nobles ‫פרתמים‬, satraps ‫ אחשׁדרפן‬or the name of Ahasuerus are “Persianisms.”157 These Persian terms are part of an editorial desire to “make it seem Persian,” which is also known elsewhere in Hellenistic literature.158

154 See also: “fasting / tears / lamenting / sackcloth” (4:3); “light / joy / jubilation / honor / banquets / day of celebration” (8:16-17); “script / language” and “province / people” (1:22; 3:12; 8:9); “adversary / enemy” (7:6); “commemorate / celebrate” (9:28). Jack M. SASSON, “Esther,” in The Literary Guide to the Bible, R. ALTER and F. KERMODE (eds.), Harvard University Press, 1990, 335-342, esp. 335 emphasizes the similarities between the style of Esther and that of an archive (also the discussion in BERLIN, Esther, xxvii). 155 See also “in the royal house of King Ahasuerus” (1:9); “all the peoples who are in all the provinces of King Ahasuerus” (1:16); “fast for me. Do not eat or drink …” (4:16). 156 See the commentary on 7:8b-10 (compare 3:15; 6:12; 7:8). Concerning recurring terms or roots that form intertextual links (cf. Wilfried WARNING, “Terminological Patterns and the Book of Esther,” OTE 15 (2002), 489-503). 157 EGO, “Hellenistic,” 296; GEHMAN, “Notes,” 321-328; HUTTER, “Elemente”; HELTZER, Province, 19-21; PICARD, “clous.” The etymology of proper names is uncertain. 158 For this phenomenon in Greek literature, see TUPLIN, Achaemenid, 134-136. The interpretation of Persianisms in this fashion: ABADIE, reine, 80; MACCHI, “regard,” 217.

Titles and Functions

Accumulation of Synonyms

Scribal Techniques

Lexicon

58

C. Literary and Thematic Characteristics Developed in Esther’s Masoretic Form

Late Hebrew The Hebrew of Esther is a late form of biblical Hebrew.159 Aramaisms and several fea-

tures close to mishnaic and midrashic Hebrew occur in the vocabulary and syntax of Esther. The interchangeable use of the prepositions ‫ אל‬/ ‫( על‬cf. 1:17; 2:3; 4:5, etc.) shows the influence of Aramaic; the term ‫“ דת‬edict,” of Persian origin, is often found in Aramaic sections of the Bible (Dan 2; 6; Ezra 7), followed by post-biblical Hebrew; the term ‫“ מאמר‬command” (1:15; 2:20; 9:32) is an Aramaism (cf. Dan 4:14; Ezra 6:9); the Mishnah uses ‫ גזר‬meaning “to decree” (2:1)160; the root ‫ קום‬/ ‫ קים‬in piel instead of hiphil in (9:21, 27, 29, 31 (3x), 32) is a feature of late Hebrew161; the verb ‫ ישׁט‬in hif., “to extend” (4:11; 5:2; 8:4), is typical in the Mishnah. Finally, the “infinitive absolute” + ‫ו‬ taking the temporal value of the preceding verbal form characterizes late Hebrew162 (2:3; 3:13; 6:9; 9:1, 6, 12, 16-18).

4.

Allusions and References to Other Biblical Texts

As we have seen, the parallels in Esther with Hellenistic literature are part of the cultural baggage of the authors. At the same time, these authors are equally at home in the cultural world of Judaism, as shown by the allusions and references to Jewish texts, particularly the Bible. While the identification of allusions and references may sometimes be subjective, repeated allusions to the same biblical text supports the view that the authors of Esther truly wanted to make references to it.163 Specific allusions and references are discussed in the commentary.

4.1. Esther, Mordecai, and the Kings of Israel The book of Esther refers to foundational figures of the Israelite monarchy, Saul, David, and Solomon, described in the books of Samuel and Kings. Esther is likened to King David and his wives. In 1:19 Esther’s arrival is preceded by the phrase “give her royal position to another, who is better than she,” similar to the phrase announcing the replacement of Saul with David (1 Sam 15:28).164 Esther’s accession to royalty in Chapter 2 and her encounters with the king in Chapters 5 and 7 evoke the choice of the Shunammite for King David (1 Kgs 1:2-4) and the unsolicited arrival of Bathsheba to Solomon (1 Kgs 2:1925).165 Finally, the manner in which Abigail saves her household from David’s anger (1 Sam 25) equally evokes Esther’s action.166

159 See BERGEY, Book; PATON, Esther, 62-63; COHEN, Verbal; STERN, “Esther”, 26; STRIEDL, “Syntax”; WAHL, “Sprache”; WAHL, Esther, 15-22. 160 BERGEY, Book ; 100-101; 109-110. 161 BERGEY, Book; 40-42. 162 JOÜON § 123x; WALTKE-O’CONNOR § 35.5.2b; COHEN, Verbal, 253 ff. 163 GROSSMAN, Esther, correctly finds abundant use of biblical citations in Esther. 164 For the parallel between Vashti and Saul, Sabine VAN DEN EYNDE, “The Replacement of a Queen: Vashti and Saul Compared,” BN 118 (2003), 58-61. 165 See the commentary on 2:2-4. 166 See the commentary on 2:15-17. The links between Esther’s action Saul’s in 1 Sam 9– 10 defended by BERGER, “Esther,” 628-631 are not very convincing.

4. Allusions and References to Other Biblical Texts

59

The present analysis shows that, in Proto-Esther, allusions to these biblical episodes remain vague and it is the proto-Masoretic editors who emphasized more explicitly the allusions to the life of David and introduced formulations drawn from source texts.167 These references to the origins of the Israelite monarchy give a “biblical” feel to the narrative. They anchor Esther in the large Judean monarchic tradition, even if they sometimes allude to rather dark episodes (esp. Bathsheba in 1 Kgs 2:19-25). Mordecai is explicitly attached to the group accompanying the king of Judah into exile (2:6). The MT likens him to Saul.168 He is of Benjaminite origins and his ancestors have names with Saulide connotations (2:5). His enemy Haman is an Agagite in the MT, referring to King Agag of Amalek, whom Saul combats in 1 Samuel 15.169 This reference is reinforced by the Masoretic motif of the booty upon which the Jews do not lay a hand (Esth 9:10, 15, 16). Indeed, they do not repeat the error committed by Saul, who does not subject Amalek to the ban and loses divine favor (1 Sam 15:18ff.). These references to Saul suggest that Esther and Mordecai pursue, with more success than the first king of Israel, the battle against Amalek, the age-old enemy of Israel.170 They make it possible to understand the threat to the Jews of Susa as the continuation of a millennial combat against the enemies of the Jews.171 The link with the conflict between Israel and Amalek is absent from ProtoEsther as well as the Hebrew Vorlage of the LXX. It was introduced late, following a scribal confusion172 and constitutes a late reinterpretation of the narrative that is not a major interpretative factor.

4.2. The Joseph Story and the Book of Esther The book of Esther makes many allusions to the Joseph story (Genesis 37-45).173 At the heart of a foreign kingdom, Jewish heroes are put in danger, attain a

167 See the diachronic analysis in Chapter 2. 168 HINTZE, “Greek,” 119-123 also draws a parallel between Mordecai’s ascension to Haman’s detriment, and the ascension of David to the throne of Saul, as well as that of Joash on that of Athaliah. 169 See the commentary on 3:1. 170 See the commentaries of PATON, Esther; BERLIN, Esther; MOORE, Esther; BARDTKE, Esther and ABADIE, reine, 166-170; KESHET, Say, 73-76; LACOCQUE, Esther, 65-80; PICARD, “clous.” 171 This is the majority opinion of the authors mentioned in the previous note. BERGER, “Esther” suggests that Esther and Mordecai’s presentation as Saul’s successors could aim to rehabilitate the royal Benjaminite line. If that is so, this might make sense in the Hasmonean context where the non-Davidic nature of the leaders could have caused problems. It has also been suggested that Esther is a figure opposite to Jezebel, another problematic royal figure (Helena ZLOTNICK, “From Jezebel to Esther: Fashioning Images of Queenship in the Hebrew Bible,” Bib 82 (2001), 477-495). The similarities between the narratives about Esther and Jezebel remain unclear. 172 Confusion between “the proud” ‫ הגאי‬and “the Agagite” ‫ האגגי‬see the commentary on 3:1. 173 In addition to most commentaries, see ABADIE, reine, 99-101; BERG, Book, 123 ff.; BUTTING, “Esther”; KESHET, Say, 71-73; HUMPHREYS, “Life-Style”; Arndt MEINHOLD, “Die Gattung der

60

C. Literary and Thematic Characteristics Developed in Esther’s Masoretic Form

dominant position, and save their people. In both stories, divine action is mentioned rarely or not at all and they share several motifs: concealed identity (2:10, 20; Gen 42:7, etc.); clothing as a sign of social status (Esth 4:1-4; 6:10; 8:15; Gen 37:23-35; 39:10-20; 41:42), the sale of individuals (Esth 7:4; Gen 37:27-28); and, favor obtained from non-Jews (Esth 2:9, 15, 17; 5:2; Gen 39:4, 21). Several aspects of the book of Esther refer to episodes in the Joseph story (for details see the commentary). Esth 2:2-4 uses expressions from Gen 41:34-37 to emphasize the contrast between the wise counsel that a Jew like Joseph is able to give to a sovereign and the futile advice of the Persian counsellors. Esth 2:21-23 describes the plot of the two eunuchs and their destiny by evoking the episode of the cupbearer and the baker of Genesis 40. The honors that Pharaoh grants to Joseph (Gen 41:42-43) inspired Esther’s editors when they describe the honors granted to Mordecai (6:8-11; 8:15) and the gift of the ring by Ahasuerus (8:2). Several other expressions in Esther are taken up from the Joseph story.174 The Joseph story is clearly part of the intellectual baggage of the authors of Esther. Like references to the Davidic monarchy, allusions to episodes in the life of Joseph were made explicit by proto-Masoretic editors who introduced expressions drawn from the source text.175 These references to episodes from the Joseph story inscribe Esther and Mordecai into the lineage of great biblical heroes. However, Esther and Mordecai face a Persian world that functions more absurdly and uncontrollably than Egypt in the Joseph story. Moreover, the presence in a foreign land of determined enemies of the Jews is a motif absent from Genesis 37 to 45. The view held of the foreign world by the book of Esther is thus much harsher than that of the Genesis narrative.

4.3. Esther and Moses There are several similarities between the book of Esther and Exodus.176 Like the child Moses, Esther is adopted and lives in a foreign court. The expression “Mordecai had taken her as a daughter” (Esth 2:7) resembles the wording of Moses’s adoption by the daughter of Pharaoh (Exod 2:10). Mordecai’s seeking to “learn (…) what would happen to her” (Esth 2:11) evokes Moses’s sister’s concern in Exod 2:4. The massacre of the Jews instead of their sale as slaves (Esth 3:9 and 7:4) suggests that Haman foresees measures worse than those of Pharaoh in Exod 1:8-14. Esther’s hesitations in Chap-

Josephsgeschichte und des Estherbuches: Diasporanovelle I, II,” ZAW 87-88 (1975-1976), 306-324, 72-93; ROSENTHAL, “Josephsgeschichte” and “Nochmals”. G. S. GOERING, “Intersecting Identities,” compares Judah’s argument before Pharaoh with that of Esther before Ahasuerus from a rhetorical point of view and highlights similar strategies. 174 Esth 3:4 takes up terms from Gen 39:10; Esth 4:16 “and if I must die, then I will die” calls to mind the formula of Jacob in Gen 43:14 “as for me, if I must be bereaved, I will be bereaved” and the phrase “see the upset that will find my people” (Esth 8:6) evokes that of Judah in Gen 44:34. 175 See the diachronic analysis of the passages concerned. 176 See GERLEMAN, Esther, 11-23 and LOADER, Esther, 220-221. Also GERLEMAN, Studien; James A. LOADER, “Intertextuality in Multi-Layered Texts of the Old Testament,” OTE 21 (2008), 391-403, esp. 399-400 and HINTZE, “Greek,” 119-120.

4. Allusions and References to Other Biblical Texts

61

ter 4 call to mind those of Moses in Exodus 3 and 4.177 In the MT, the dates of events resulting in the deliverance of the Jews in Esther 4 to 8 allude to the exodus since they occurred from 13-16 Nisan during the Passover festival.178 Moreover, as in Exod 1314, the deliverance of the Jews occurs at the price of the death of numerous enemies. Finally, a festival is instituted to celebrate the deliverance of the Jews during the exodus (Passover), and during the events described in Esther (Purim). The Exodus narrative was part of the intellectual baggage of the different editors of Esther. As in the case of the Joseph story and the allusions to the Davidic monarchy, it is the proto-Masoretic editors who contributed the most to emphasize the references to the exodus.179 These allusions place the events in Esther in the major biblical tradition of Israel’s deliverance.

4.4. Daniel Daniel 1-6 sets the action in the court of Babylonian and Persian kings and portrays the life of diaspora Jews. Several motifs appear in both Esther and Daniel:180 the heroes accompany the king of Judah into deportation (Dan 1:2ff.; Esth 2:5); the Jews have double names (Dan 1:7; Esth 2:7); “eunuchs” ‫ סריס‬are present (Dan 1); the heroes obtain the favor of non-Jews (Dan 1:9; Esth 2:9, 15, 17; 5:2); the Persian kings grant portions (Dan 1:5ff.; Esth 2:9); the king’s drunkenness can be catastrophic (Dan 5:1-2; Esth 1:10-11); the king elevates a Jewish courtier (Dan 2:48; 5:29; Esth 6:8-11; 8:2, 15; 10:3); non-Jews recognize the preeminence of the Jews (Dan 2:46-47; 3:28-33; Esth 6:14); Jews refuse to prostrate themselves (Dan 3; Esth 3:2 ff.);181 and, the hero is “sitting at the king’s gate” (Dan 2:49; Esth 2:19, 21, etc.). The episode in the lion’s den (Daniel 6) introduces important similarities with the book of Esther: a Jewish character of high status (Daniel – Mordecai) is put in danger by one or many Persian functionaries of high status (the ministers and the satraps – Haman); the king is led to proclaim a decree that he cannot revoke; Jews are reproached for disrespecting Persian laws; the decree in Daniel 6 orders the sole veneration of the king, an unaccepable obligation for a Jew, as is prostrating before Haman; the enemies of the Jews end up being killed. Even though Daniel is written in Aramaic, terms and expressions close to the MT of Esther figure in Daniel 6; the irrevocability of Persian laws is formulated in a similar manner (Esth 1:19; 8:8; Dan 6:9, 13, 16);182 the expression “the edicts of Persia and

177 See the commentary on 4:10-12. 178 Events begin on the thirteenth of Nisan (3:12; 4:1), Esther’s fast takes place between the thirteenth to the fifteenth of Nisan (4:16), and Haman dies on the sixteenth of Nisan (5:8; 7:2). See below § The Chronological System in the Masoretic Text, the commentary on 3:12-15, 4:15-17, and the Diachronic Analysis in Chapter 4. 179 These allusions figure in the proto-Masoretic “pluses” (Esth 2:10-11, Chapter 9, and the chronological notes in the MT). 180 See ABADIE, reine, 98-99; BERLIN, Esther, xl; HUMPHREYS, “Life-Style”; ROSENTHAL, “Josephsgeschichte” and “Nochmals”; WAHL, “Motiv,” 67-70. 181 In Daniel 3, the question is explicitly related to the deification of the sovereign, a more elusive point in Esther 3. 182 The expression “it will not pass over” ‫( ולא יעבור‬Esth 1:19) is equivalent to the Aramaic ‫( לא תעדא‬Dan 6:9, 13) and the expression “that cannot be turned back” ‫( אין להשׁיב‬Esth 8:8) is equivalent to the Aramaic ‫( לא להשׁניה‬Dan 6:9, 16).

62

C. Literary and Thematic Characteristics Developed in Esther’s Masoretic Form

Media” is similar in Dan 6:9, 13, 16 and in Esth 1:19; and the expression “sleep escaped the king” is similar in Dan 6:19 and Esth 6:1.183 Moreover, like Esther and the Jews (Esth 4:16), Darius fasts (Dan 6:19) while awaiting the denouement of the story. That said, the narrative of Daniel 6 also introduces significant differences from Esther. The supernatural is present explicitly when God saves Daniel. The king is better perceived in Daniel: from the start he is well-disposed toward Daniel, and ends up converting and decreeing the fear of God in all his kingdom (Dan 6:27-28). Moreover, Daniel 6 addresses the theme of Jewish religious practices (Dan 6:11), which is less explicitly present in Esther. Even if the connections between Esther and Daniel are less striking that those with the Joseph story,184 it is likely that Daniel was known by the authors of Esther. The proto-Masoretic editors seem to have been inspired by it when they introduced the themes of the irrevocability of Persian laws and Esther’s fast.

4.5. The Book of Esther and the Books of Maccabees and Judith References in Esther to Maccabean literature has often been neglected.185 1 and 2 MaccaThe narratives of 1 and 2 Maccabees that describe the oppression and resistbees ance of the Jews introduce numerous parallels with the book of Esther. In Esther and 1 and 2 Maccabees, the Jews suffer comparable aggressions. As in Esth 3:8-9, the Maccabean conflict stems from imperial legislation rejecting Jewish customs (1 Macc 1:41-64; 2 Macc 6:1-11, etc.) and is accompanied by the willingness to annihilate all Jews (1 Macc 7:26; 2 Macc 8:9). In addition, in 2 Macc 6:6 it is prohibited to “confess to one’s Jewishness,” a motif close to the danger of identifying as Jewish implied in Esth 2:10, 20MT. The conflict of the Jews with their enemies in Esth 9:1-19 introduces numerous similarities to the description of the Maccabean battles, in particular that of the Day of Nicanor (1 Macc 7:39-50; 2 Macc 15).186 The Jews are attacked, but triumph while causing numerous deaths (2 Macc 15:27; Esth 9:16) on the thirteenth of Adar (1 Macc 7:43, 49; 2 Macc 15:36). The bodies of Nicanor and Haman are displayed (2 Macc 15:3235; Esth 7:10). The theme of booty plays an important role in Esther, as in the Maccabean wars (Esth 9:10, 15, 16; 1 Macc 3:12; 4:18, etc. and 2 Macc 8:27-28). Moreover, the idea of selling Jews into slavery to fill the state coffers is attributed to Nicanor and to Haman (2 Macc 8:10; Esth 7:4). Furthermore, like Judas Maccabeus in 1 Macc 3:25, Mordecai inspires worry in Esth 9:3. Concerning the massive “Judaizing” of Esth 8:17, it can be seen as the inverse of the “de-Judaizing” evoked by the books of the Maccabees. The parallel between the institution and the commemoration of Purim and Maccabean festivals is striking. For Purim, as for the Day of Nicanor, the people celebrate the event before a decision establishes the commemoration (Esth 9:23, 27; 1 Macc 7:48-49; 2 Macc 15:36). As for Hanukkah, its implementation occurs, like Purim

183 Aramaic ‫( ושׁנתה נדת עלוהי‬Dan 6:19) / Hebrew ‫( נדדה שׁנת המלך‬Esth 6:1). 184 The late date of the composition of Daniel does not exclude the possibility that Daniel could be alluding to Esther (especially in Chapter 1). 185 Among the authors who mention these parallels: EGO, “Hellenistic,” 285-287; LEBRAM, “Purimfest”; HAUPT, Purim; PATON, Esther, 60-62. 186 See also the commentary on Esther 9:1-19.

4. Allusions and References to Other Biblical Texts

63

(Esth 9:20-21), thanks to a decree sent to all Jews (cf. 2 Macc 10:8 and the two festal letters that open 2 Maccabees). References and allusions to 1 and 2 Maccabees appear only in the sections attributed to the proto-Masoretic editing of Esther (in particular Ch. 9). These references assume that the proto-Masoretic editors knew a narrative of the Maccabean crisis, although we do not know which text of the Maccabees they had at their disposal.187 3 Maccabees evokes the era of Ptolemy IV Philopator (220-205 BCE). It re- 3 Maccabees counts the failed pogrom attempt against the Jews of Alexandria.188 This narrative introduces several similarities to Esther.189 The additions reinforce the similarity of the two texts. Prayers provoke deliverance (Esther Add. C; 3 Macc 2:2-20; 6:215) and two royal decrees are cited (Esther Add. B and E; 3 Macc 3:12-29 and 7:19). It is unlikely that the MT of Esther depends upon 3 Maccabees.190 On the other hand, the similarities between Additions B and E of Esther and the royal decrees of 3 Maccabees imply a direct dependence.191 Like Esther, the book of Judith is about a Jewish heroine who saves the Jews Judith by intervening during a foreign banquet (Jdt 12:10-13:10) and who launches a military conflict (Jdt 13:11-15:7). Judith’s arrival before Holophernes resembles Additions C and D.192 Before arriving, she wears sackcloth, fasts (8:6; 9:1) and prays, making arguments comparable to those in Addition C (esp. Jdt 9:8-14). She

187 It is hard to compare the expressions of 1 and 2 Maccabees with those of the MT of Esther since the books of the Maccabees are preserved only in Greek. Moreover, other now lost textual forms of the Maccabean narratives undoubtedly existed during the Hasmonean era. 2 Maccabees summarizes a lost text of Jason of Cyrene and 1 Maccabees is a translation of a Hebrew text from the Hasmonean era (ABADIE, “Maccabées”; VON DOBBELER, Makkabäer, 46, 161-164; WILLIAMS, “1 Maccabees” and “2 Maccabees”; GOLDSTEIN, II Maccabees, 71-83). 188 The editing of 3 Maccabees occurred between the beginning of the first century BCE and the middle of the first century CE (see MÉLÈZE MODRZEJEWSKI, Troisième, 118-123; Sara Raup JOHNSON, Historical Fictions and Hellenistic Jewish Identity. Third Maccabees in Its Cultural Context (HellCSJPICL 43), Berkeley/Los Angeles/London, 2004, 129-141). 189 As in Esther, a plot exists against the king (1:3), a reproach is addressed to the Jews for not respecting royal law (3:2, 19), there is a narrative of the Jews massacring their enemies followed by the celebration of that act (7:10-19), cf. MÉLÈZE MODRZEJEWSKI, Troisième, 36. 190 To the contrary, ALEXANDER, “3 Maccabees,” reckons that it is 3 Maccabees that depends on the common narrative of Esther MT and LXX. 191 For a dependence of Greek Esther vis-à-vis 3 Maccabees: Raimondo Bacchisio MOTZO, “Il rifacimento greco di Ester e il III Maccabei,” in Ricerche sulla letteratura e la storia giudaico-ellenistica, R. B. MOTZO et F. PARENTE (eds.), Roma, 1977, 283-301. Johannes MAGLIANO-TROMP, “The Relations between Egyptian Judaism and Jerusalem in Light of 3 Maccabees and the Greek Book of Esther,” in Feasts and Festivals, Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology (CBET 53), C. TUCKETT (ed.), Leuven et al., 2009, 57-76, esp. 63-67 nuances and reckons that the parallels between Greek Esther and 3 Maccabees could be explained by a dependence upon the same tradition. He recognizes, however, that HACHAM, “Third” seems to confirm the dependence of Additions B and E of Esther visà-vis 3 Maccabees (for a dependence of Additions B and E only vis-à-vis 3 Maccabees also MOORE, “Origins,” 384-385). 192 See MOORE, “Additions,” 220-222.

64

C. Literary and Thematic Characteristics Developed in Esther’s Masoretic Form

reclothes herself in beautiful garments (Jdt 10:1-5; Esther Add. D,1-5) and the narrative of her encounter with Holophernes (Jdt 10:22-11:4) is constructed like Esther’s arrival before the king in D,6-16. Finally, as in Addition C,28, dietary restrictions play an important role in the book of Judith.193

4.6. Conclusions The editors of Esther, particularly those responsible for the proto-Masoretic “pluses” of the work, have an excellent grasp of biblical culture. They make numerous allusions and references to biblical literature.194 When they treat Esther’s destiny, they refer to female figures connected to foundational kings of Israel; when they speak of life in the diaspora, they allude to other diaspora narratives, Joseph and Daniel; when the narrative addresses the theme of the people’s deliverance, they refer to the exodus; and finally, when they speak of an armed conflict, they use the example of the Maccabean conflict.

5.

Themes

Several themes emerge in Esther’s MT. They provide a better understanding of the point of view of the proto-Masoretic editors, which, as the diachronic analysis shows, heavily influenced the content and the form of the MT.

5.1. View of the Empire and Relationship with It The Esther narrative can be read as a reflection on the sociopolitical conditions that Jews face in a foreign empire and the desirable action they should take. The very critical and ironic description of the Persian Empire aims, in reality, to denounce the functioning of Hellenistic royalty confronting the editors of the work during the Maccabean-Hasmonean era. The empire and the court are presented as extremely rich and powerful.195 Its pomposity is mocked.

5.1.1 The Banquets196 The description of court banquets blends the Greek literary topoi of royal Persian banquets and the particular features of banquets offered within the cities by imperial elites or major euergetes of the Hellenistic era.

193 The relationship between the books of Esther and Judith is difficult to define with certainty. The two works were probably composed about the same time (Judith dates to the Maccabean-Hasmonean era, like Esther’s proto-Masoretic edition), which can explain the global thematic similarities without there being direct dependence. However, it is also possible that Additions C and D were influenced by the book of Judith (cf. especially WHITE CRAWFORD, “Additions,” 962). 194 Additional intertextual links may be present: Esth 9:30 possibly alludes to Zech 8:19 and the banquet of Esth 9:22 probably alludes to Neh 8:10-12. 195 See above § Language and Style. 196 This discussion was developed in MACCHI, “identité.” See also the commentary on 1:39 and 9:21, 22b.

5. Themes

65

The view of these table practices is critical and ironic. The royal banquets of Esth 1:3-8 display the excesses of imperial power. They last 187 days. The luxury and number of guests are impressive. The honorific function of the banquet for the host (1:3-8) or the primary invitee (5:11-12) is emphasized. However, not without irony, this honorific function is not always successful: the king is humiliated by Vashti during a banquet, and Haman declares himself honored by an invitation to a banquet at which he will be executed (5:11-12; 7:9-10). The consumption of wine is poorly controlled at Ahasuerus’s banquets. Wine consumption is limitless in 1:8 to the point that the king and his drunken advisors behave poorly, exaggerating problems and proposing inadequate solutions (1:10-22). The excess of wine allows, moreover, for Esther to manipulate the king and Haman during the banquets that she arranges (Chs. 5 and 7). In addition to these elements, typical of Greek representations of Persian banquets, the invitation addressed to the whole city (1:5), the exclusion of wives from the banquet, and the organization of a specific banquet (1:9) are typical of banquets in Hellenistic cities. Although the MT of Esther looks critically on these table practices, contrary to what one observes in Judith (Ch. 12) and Daniel (Ch. 1), the Jews here participate and even benefit from them. During the time when Esther was produced, table practices raised fundamental questions for the Jewish elite in non-Jewish towns as well as in a Hellenized city like Jerusalem at the end of the third and the beginning of the second century BCE. The official city banquet was an important locus of social life and abstaining from participation would risk exclusion from public life. Some Jews of this era refused to participate in Greco-Roman banquets,197 while others participated but questioned the conditions for such participation.198 The MT of Esther is ambiguous on this point. The heroine participates in royal banquets but those table practices are ridiculous. Moreover, the text does not mention the presence of ritual elements or solid food.199 In the banquets on the fourteenth and fifteenth of Adar (Esth 9:21, 22b), the proto-Masoretic editors conclude with a definition of a Jewish banquet. It consists of joyous festive practices that are radically different from those of royal banquets. The host is not placed

197 2 Macc 6-7 illustrates the radical refusal of city banquets. 198 For this questioning in rabbinic tradition see Sandra R. SHIMOFF, “Banquets: The Limits of Hellenization,” JSJ 27 (1996), 440-452; Francis SCHMIDT, “Viandes sacrificielles et organisation de l’espace dans le judaïsme du second temple,” in Food and identity in the ancient world (History of the ancient Near East. Studies 9), L. MILANO and C. GROTTANELLI (eds.), Padova, 2004, 15-47; Claude TASSIN, “Repas gréco-romains et juifs dans l’Antiquité,” Cahiers Évangile. Supplément 140 (2007), 13-20. In addition, Philo of Alexandria polemicizes against pagan tables at which certain Judeo-Alexandrians participated, the Letter of Aristeas shows that the translators of the LXX participate at the table of Ptolemy, and Sir 31:12-32:13 seeks to codify the participation of the Jews at city banquets (Patrick W. SKEHAN and Alexander A. DI LELLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira: a New Translation with notes (AB 39), New York, 1987, 384-392; Georg SAUER, Jesus Sirach / Ben Sira (ATD. Apokryphen 1), Göttingen, 2000, 221-228). 199 For the proto-Masoretic editors, the dedication to pagan gods and the consumption of non-kosher meat was likely deemed problematic. Since the presence of Jews at the banquets could not be eliminated from the narrative they were reworking (Proto-Esther), these editors avoided all mention of meat or ritual at the Persian banquets.

66

C. Literary and Thematic Characteristics Developed in Esther’s Masoretic Form

in a predominant position. The mutual exchange of portions defines a practice of egalitarian giving and receiving that preserves the specifics of the participants’ dietary restrictions. The giving of gifts to the poor demonstrates an obligation for all participants to uphold the weak. For Esther’s editors during the MaccabeanHasmonean era, it may be that only such a banquet was legitimate in Jewish cities and territories.

5.1.2. Law and Edicts200 The royal edicts (‫ ; דת‬also ‫ פתגם‬or ‫ )ספרים‬play an important role in the narrative. Three edicts are mentioned briefly (1:8; 2:8, 12; 4:11). The initiation and the consequences of the three edicts are described at length: after Vashti’s refusal, an edict repudiates her and obliges women to honor their husbands (Ch. 1); after Mordecai’s refusal to prostrate himself, an edict orders the annihilation of the Jews (Ch. 3); finally, the impossibility of revoking the edict of destruction results in the issuance of an edict authorizing Jews to defend themselves (Ch. 8). These legislative processes are described in a fairly similar manner. In all three cases, the process begins in response to a difficulty. After discussion, the edict is written and validated by the king before being distributed widely by the powerful administration of the empire. The Masoretic description of this process shows the empire to be dysfunctional. The decree aiming to force women to honor their husbands circulates information concerning the king’s humiliation and necessitates a tedious process to select a new queen. Moreover, it is conceived by a group of drunken men (1:8, 14) who imagine an unlikely general threat (1:17) from fear of remarks from their wives (1:18). The decree of annihilation of the Jews is proclaimed after the king has been manipulated by a vexed high functionary. In 3:8-9 Haman does not say that he is concerned and utters half-truths about a people whom he does not name. In addition, the argument regarding particular laws does not make sense in the Persian and Hellenistic intellectual context where the coexistence of local laws with imperial law was customary. Finally, the decree of Ch. 8 that leads to a civil war results from the dysfunction of the imperial system unable to avoid the negative consequences of its own legislative acts.201 The way Ahasuerus makes laws contrasts with the major biblical and ancient Near Eastern law collections. Although royal, Ahasuerus’s legislation is not presented as an expression of the will of the gods or as respect for world order.202 On the other hand, the fact that the production of these laws responds to circumstances and occurs in the context of a debate between men corresponds to Greek practices. In the Greek world, legislative reforms are numerous and the causes,

200 This paragraph recalls the argument in MACCHI, “droit” as well as that develped in the commentary on the chapters concerned. 201 See the commentary on 8:7-8. 202 Associating royalty with the promulgation of law is a standard motif. The legal collections of Ur-Nammu, Lipit-Ishtar, and Hammurabi are placed under the patronage of the king. In the Bible, the legislator Moses has royal traits. Concerning King Josiah, 2 Kgs 22-23 makes him into a legislator par excellence. The prologues of Mesopotamian law collections inscribe the laws in the context of world order and will of the gods. In the Bible, the affirmation of God’s gift of the Law of Moses is recurrent.

5. Themes

67

mechanisms, and the merits of legislative practices constitute an important domain of reflection.203 In Jewish literature, reflections on the relevance of laws and their contextualization do not appear until the Hellenistic era, as in the books of the Maccabees where the combatants question the observance of the Sabbath in the event of war (1 Macc 2:41). In the Maccabean-Hasmonean context, the description of Ahasuerus’s legislative practices can be read as an indirect criticism of Seleucid legislative procedures. The mode of governing by decree evoked in Esther is typical of the practices of Hellenistic sovereigns.204 Moreover, the critical presentation of imperial politics in Esther parallels several strong criticisms of Seleucid decisions, in particular those of Antiochus IV, figuring in the books of the Maccabees. As in Esther 3, the king rejects local Jewish law (1 Macc 1:41), ambitious characters of high standing – Simon and Jason – play a role in the deleterious measures taken by the king (2 Macc 3:4-7; 4:7-9), and, in addition, financial questions play an important role in their discourse. Finally, one notes that in Esther 8 and 9, as in the books of the Maccabees, it is recourse to force that allows a favorable outcome.

5.1.3. Non-Jewish Characters The MT’s view of non-Jewish characters is not homogeneous. There are dark individuals but not all non-Jews are enemies of the Jews. At the top of the ladder, the king is concerned about his honor (1:4, etc.). He The King has at his disposal an administration capable of enforcing his irrevocable decisions. He seems worried about the well-being of his wife and governing with justice (5:2-3; 6:3; 7:3-8). However, he gets angry and makes decisions under poor influence and counsel (1:13ff.; 2:2ff.; 3:8ff.). Esther manages to manipulate him.205 Haman, the chief minister, is the most negatively portrayed character. The Haman text ironizes his pride (6:6) and depicts him as extremely dangerous. Knowledgeable of the functionings of the court, he gets angry and does not hestitate to act with terrifying measures (3:6 etc.). Even if the “imperial system” plays an important role in the misfortune of the Jews, it is Haman who is at the root of the dramatic events. The late glosses of the MT make a member of the Amalekite people into the enemy par excellence of the Jews.206 Other characters are presented in an ironic and critical manner. Memucan is The Servants the drunken author of an absurd speech (1:16-20), the youths suggest an excessive procedure (2:2), and servants of the king pressure Mordecai to conform to custom

203 See GAUDEMET, Institutions, 53-117 and Alain FOUCHARD, “Légiférer en Grèce ancienne,” in Le législateur et la loi dans l’Antiquité. Hommage à Françoise Ruzé, P. SINEUX (ed.), Caen, 2005, 13-26. In Resp. and Leg., Plato develops a reflection on ideal laws and their production (see Marcel PIÉRART, “Retour sur les Lois de Platon,” in Le législateur et la loi dans l’Antiquité. Hommage à Françoise Ruzé, P. SINEUX (ed.), Caen, 2005, 37-48). The circumstantial character of the emergence of laws appears in Aristotle’s description (Ath. pol. 5:1) of Solon’s reforms. 204 See the Lagide (MODRZEJEWSKI, “Note”; LENGER, Corpus) and Seleucid decrees (CAPDETREY, pouvoir, 335-344). 205 Despite having a good side, Ahasuerus is neither an “Ideal Prince” nor a “humanist” (contra CAZEAUX, guerre, 235-237, 241, 244, 247 and DICKSON BOTHA, “Role”). 206 See § Haman the Agagite according to the MT in the commentary on 3:1.

68

C. Literary and Thematic Characteristics Developed in Esther’s Masoretic Form

Zeresh before denouncing him (3:3-4). Haman’s wife Zeresh upholds Haman’s abject atti-

tude (5:14), but ends by affirming the inescapable success of the Jews (6:13). Hegai Hathach Several non-Jews support the Jews: the eunuch Hegai (2:9ff.), the servants of Harbona Esther, Hathach (4:4, 6, 9, 16), and Harbona (7:9). Vashti One may think that the portrayal of Vashti places her in the good camp. Like The People

Mordecai, she opposes a royal order and like him is reprimanded. The majority of the people of Susa are portrayed favorably. They are consternated to learn of the misfortune of the Jews (3:15b), but rejoice in the success of Mordecai (8:15b). The true “enemies of the Jews” in Susa and in the empire remain in the minority compared to the population of the empire (800 in Susa 9:12, 15, and 75,000 elsewhere 9:16). The large majority of the inhabitants of the empire are not fierce anti-Semites. Some among them even Judaize (8:17b).

5.2. Facing a Foreign Empire as a Jew The book of Esther uses the term “Jew” ‫ יהודי‬fifty-eight times to designate the people of the two heroes.

5.2.1. Being Jewish according to the Book of Esther

Jew – Judean

People

Legal System

Ethnos

In the MT, the people of Mordecai are one of a number of dispersed peoples in the empire (3:8, 13; 4:3; 8:5, 9). The dispersion of the Jews did not prevent them from being considered an ethnic group linked to a geographic place. In Hebrew, the term ‫ יהודי‬can be translated as “Jew” or as a citizen of Judean, “Judean.” The connection with the kingdom of Judah is explicit in 2:6 where Mordecai is a descendant of deported Judeans. Moreover, the Jews are linked by a common genealogy: they are a “people” ‫( עם‬cf. 2:10; 3:6, 8; 10:3) and a “descendant” ‫( זרע‬cf. 6:13; 9:27, 28, 31; 10:3). This does not exclude non-Jews from joining: “many among the peoples of the land Judaized themselves” ‫( מתיהדים‬cf. 8:17) and during the rites of Purim, “all those who joined them ‫ – ”הנלוים‬the converts – participate (9:27). Finally, the “Jews” are associated with a proper legal system: “their edicts are different from those of all the peoples” (3:8). Even though the book of Esther does not mention the Sabbath, circumcision, worship of YHWH or kashrut, several elements of the book evoke Jewish laws. As a Jew, Mordecai applies a prohibition linked to prostration (3:2, 4), and the rites of Purim are specific to Jews (9:20-23, 27-28). Finally, the MT alludes to the rites of Passover by means of its chronological system that situates the events of Chs. 3-8 at the moment when Passover should be observed. Consequently, being Jewish according to the book of Esther corresponds to what, during the Greek era, is called an ethnos: an ethnic group connected to a territory and characterized by customs, specific rules linked to social relations and to religion. When settled outside of their territory, the members of an ethnos continue to be considered as members of their local ethnic group. Moreover, individuals may voluntarily attach themselves to this group.207

207 In Greco-Roman antiquity, to be Jewish is to be a member of the Judean ethnos with ethnic distinctiveness and the social and ritual rules that this implies, see MASON, “Jews.” Moreover, as shown by WETTER, “How,” the many markers (geographic, sociocultural, religious, etc.) that define ethnicity appear in Esther (see also BAILEY, “Why,” 228-233).

5. Themes

69

5.2.2. To Conceal or Reveal One’s Identity At the beginning of the narrative, the MT underlines that Esther and Mordecai hide their Jewish identity. On two occasions, Morcedai orders Esther to conceal her identity (2:10, 20). This indication, a product of the proto-Masoretic editors, suggests that to call oneself a Jew – or to make known one’s ethnic distinctiveness – in a foreign empire can be dangerous. At the beginning of the narrative, hiding one’s identity can thus seem astute, to assure one’s security and prosperity. When the work was edited, this attitude corresponds to the attitude of Jewish groups tempted by Hellenization. Even if the risk was real, the way the Jewish heroes comport themselves in the remainder of the narrative shows that for the editors, concealing one’s Jewish identity is not tenable. Mordecai refuses to prostrate himself while revealing his Jewishness to the king’s servants (3:4). Once the decree to massacre the Jews is promulgated, he urges Esther to act on behalf of her people (Ch. 4), which results in her revealing to the king to which people she belongs (7:4). During the final chapters, all the Jews unite, adopt a celebration of their victory, and their reputation largely inspires respect (8:17). Their identity is no longer hidden.

5.2.3. Mordecai: Refusing Norms Imposed by Imperial Power208 The first strategy of resistance to imperial power is developed by Mordecai. He declines to obey a foreign power’s unacceptable injunctions. Mordecai refuses to prostrate himself at the feet of the chief minister in the name of his Jewish identity (3:2-4). This declining to prostrate before a human characterizes traditional Greek culture. It is presented in Esther as typical of Judaism.209 For the editors, Mordecai refuses to prostrate himself for the same reasons that the faithful in the books of the Maccabees refuse to renounce their traditional practices in the face of the requirements of the Hellenistic Empire (2 Macc 6-7, etc.). In the narrative, this legitimate refusal provokes terrible repression. Confronted by a power disrespectful of ethnic differences and violently repressive, it is necessary to affirm one’s identity and refuse to conform to practices incompatible with Jewish culture. Nevertheless, this refusal leads the entire Jewish people to be threatened with annihilation by the empire’s repressive machine.

5.2.4. Esther: Acting with Charm, Courage, and Cunning Esther reveals her identity and acts on behalf of her people differently from Mordecai. Esther is presented as beautiful and able to win the favor of those around her (2:7, 8, 15, 17). However, her action before the king goes much further than just the use of feminine charms.210 After deciding to risk her life (4:16), she acts independently and becomes master of her destiny. Contrary to her earlier action (2:10, 15, 20), she takes no further orders from the men around her. Her mode of action becomes simultaneously original, unexpected, and astute. She obtains a favorable royal decision through

208 See the commentary and MACCHI, “refus” and “héroïne.” 209 See the commentary on 3:2, MACCHI, “regard,” 122-123, and “book,” 117-119. 210 Esther’s action does not lack sexual aspects but corresponds poorly to the motif of the dangerous seductress (contra BAILEY, “Why,” 239-241).

70

C. Literary and Thematic Characteristics Developed in Esther’s Masoretic Form

trickery. When Esther arrives without summons before the king to invite him to a banquet (5:1-8), she does exactly the opposite of what Vashti had done by refusing to come to the king’s banquet. She thus, as it were, reverses the humiliation that the king suffered from Vashti. Esther is wise and masters the social codes of the court. The banquet is a milieu of theatrical power negotiations and decision making. By inviting the king, she positions herself well for obtaining a favor. Moreover, when she invites the king (and Haman) a second time (5:4-6, 8), instead of stating her request right away, she acts wisely by strengthening her closeness to him. When she formulates her request, in 7:3-4, she uses subtle rhetoric. Terms of deference211 are followed by valorizing the king and his needs.212 In addition, by inviting Haman to the banquet, alone with the king, she indirectly denounces his hubris by treating him as an equal to her royal spouse.213 The editors show that during her two banquets, Esther manipulates the men.214 Thanks to Esther’s action, the king has Haman executed and entrusts his goods and his duties to Esther and Mordecai (8:1-2). With cunning and courage Esther used the empire’s customs to resist oppression.215 Through the figure of Esther, the book invites its readers to use methods comparable to those of women who, even though occupying a lower place than men in society, succeed in defending themselves with cunning, trickery, charm, and courage. It is thus not without reason that Sidnie Ann White speaks of Esther as a model of action for the diaspora.216

5.2.5. The Use of Force by the Jews The use of force is the last way to resist the empire. While the situation seemed resolved, Haman having been executed, 8:8 indicates that the edict for the annihilation of the Jews could not be revoked. Incapable of acting, the king invites Esther and Mordecai to address a royal decree to the Jews. This “counter-edict” (8:11-13) authorizes the Jews to defend themselves and to destroy those who may oppress them (8:11). Confronted by the inability of Persian power to regulate its proper law, a resistance army establishes itself and the book ends with the description of the blood-bath marking the triumph of the Jews over their enemies (9:1-19), followed by the institution of the celebration commemorating these events (9:20-32). This enactment of the use of force might seem scandalous. However, it is not an apologetic for violence and Jewish nationalism.217 The narrative does not

211 A protocol formula similar to “if I found favor in your eyes, O King” and “if it pleases the king” is found in Esther’s other dialogues (5:4, 8; 8:5; 9:13). 212 Esther signals – not without obvious exaggeration – that if her people were only sold into slavery she would not have deemed it proper to bother the king. Moreover, she keeps silent about the fact that the decree was very much approved by the king. 213 5:11-12 suggests that Haman understands the invitation as a royal honor. 214 In one perspective of genre studies, DURAN, “Having” shows that in manipulating the men at the banquet, Esther uses them as a weapon. 215 In the MT, Esther’s action is only a partial success and in desperation she must again plead with the king to annul the decree (8:3-6) and participate in the actions that follow. 216 WHITE, “Esther.” This idea is especially used by DU TOIT, “Satirical,” 84. HANCOCK, Negotiations, seeks to show that in Esther, the weight of women in public life is more important than is generally thought. 217 See the commentary on 9:1-19 and 8:11-12, 13b.

5. Themes

71

apologize for the violence but reflects on the legitimacy of resorting to force. Violence is presented as a necessary act of defense. The act of war is only legitimate as a final recourse and only strikes those who seek to destroy the Jews. One might worry that the annual celebration of this violence promotes a violent and nationalistic culture.218 But this symbolic reminder of a victory could also be understood as a way for Judaism to entertain hope and courage in difficult circumstances.219

5.3. God’s Presence and Absence in the MT The MT of Esther makes no explicit references to God or to God’s actions. Also apparently absent are the application by the protagonists of ritual principles prescribed by the Torah. One could see the book of Esther as a secular work, lacking theological thought. However, a whole series of clues suggests that the editors of the narrative wanted to allude to theological and ritual issues.220 The coincidences that occur in the narrative suggest that the authors are alluding to divine action. There are multiple favorable circumstances that do not result from the action of the protagonists. For the destruction of the Jews to be avoided the following must happen: a Jewish woman must be enthroned (Ch. 2); Mordecai must show his loyalty by learning of the existence of a plot (2:21-23); and, the drawing of lots must leave a delay sufficient for the Jews to react (3:7). In Chapter 6, Haman’s first reversal results in a series of coincidences: there must be a royal bout of insomnia, the reading of the proper passage from the annals, and, Haman’s arrival at the right moment. Moreover, the words of certain characters suggest that they envision that favorable circumstances could be explained by divine action. In 4:14b Mordecai suggests that Esther has become queen for the deliverance of the people and in 6:14 Zeresh interprets the disappointments sustained by Haman as a sign of his future downfall before the Jews. Finally, the Judaization of non-Jews upon whom the “terror of the Jews” has fallen (8:17) suggests that these foreigners discerned in the triumph of the Jews the effect of the power of their God.221 Despite the numerous clues that suggest God is within the work, the MT never makes this explicit. This observation may surprise because Proto-Esther clearly mentions God and Jewish rituals.222 Since the MT results from a reworking of

218 During the Hasmonean era, Purim was probably part of nationalistic festivities. HOROWITZ, Reckless, thinks that during the course of history the celebration of Purim contributed to the emergence of forms of violence within Judaism. 219 See KALIMI, “Fear,” and others. 220 Most exegetes consider Esther marked by theological problems. See Fox, Character, 235247; VIALLE, analyse, 148-155; KALIMI, “Fear,” 243-245; WETTER, “Speaking.” 221 See the commentary on 8:17. 222 In 4:14 (4:9AT) where in the MT, Mordecai speaks of “another place,” in Proto-Esther he assures that, “it will be God who will serve as help and salvation for them.” In the parallel from 6:13MT (6:22AT) Haman’s wife affirms that “God is among them.” See also the parallels of 3:7; 4:8, 16; 6:1; 7:3. Moreover, in the “common narrative,” the LXX also makes mention of God (in 2:20; 6:1; 6:13). These are discussed by SPOTTORNO, “Beyond,” 56-57 and MIDDLEMAS, “Greek,” 152-155.

72

D. Literary and Thematic Characteristics of Other Textual Forms of Esther

Proto-Esther, it is thus the proto-Masoretic editors who removed explicit references to divine action from the narrative.223 This veiling of divine presence and action does not make Esther into a profane text.224 By not making explicit mention of divine action, the MT uses a literary technique that aims to direct the reader to discern divine will and action behind events and human actions. An analogous process is found in the Joseph story (Gen 37-45).225 Practically no action of God is mentioned explicitly. Yet, the fortuitous things that happen to Joseph are reported, and his dreams can be understood as the expression of an act of God. It is only at the end of the narrative that Joseph addresses his brothers, and explicitly interprets what has happened as a result of divine will “Do not be tormented over having sold me here, for it is God who sent me …” (Gen 45:5). Hinting at, rather than overtly mentioning divine action is astute, for this forces the reader to interpret the significance of the narrative and its theological meaning. Moreover, even if “happy coincidences” arise, in the narrative God does not act alone. The courage and action of Esther and Mordecai remain central. In this narrative that does not mention God, two theological ideas are suggested: first, deliverance requires the collaboration of humanity, Esther and Mordecai cannot content themselves by hoping for divine intervention, but must take action; and second, divine action and will are not outwardly apparent, but must be discerned through circumstances.

D. Literary and Thematic Characteristics of Other Textual Forms of Esther 1.

Proto-Esther: Structure and Themes226

As we have seen, Proto-Esther presents a text close to Chapters 1:1 to 8:2 in the MT, but is a little shorter. The organization of the episodes corresponds in large part to the parallel sections of the MT. The primary difference is that Proto-Esther does not know any reversals after Haman’s execution so that the edict to annihi-

223 One could imagine, however, that Proto-Esther would not have contained references to God, but that these references would have been inserted by the first translator of the AT. The arguments below render this explanation unlikely. 224 The absence of references to God has sometimes been explained by the concern to avoid all blasphemies during the reading of the scroll (Rivon KRYGIER, “L’éclipse de la Face: exil et rédemption dans le rouleau d’Esther …”, in Gueoula. Délivrance, Salut, Rédemption (Pardès 24), Paris, 1998, 149-164, esp. 154-156). 225 The parallel between Esther and Gen 37-44 is not surprising since the MT of Esther knows and cites the Joseph story. 226 For the detailed analysis of Proto-Esther, see the diachronic analysis sections at the end of each part of the commentary.

1. Proto-Esther: Structure and Themes

73

late the Jews is simply revoked.227 Thus, neither the sending of a counter-decree nor a military conflict with the enemies of the Jews nor the institution of a festival celebrating the victory of the Jews is present. In Proto-Esther, the Persian Empire is wealthy, powerful, and well organized. Inheritors of Greek representations of the Persian world, the editors of ProtoEsther report surprising functions: luxurious banquets are organized and some uncustomary laws, such as that prohibiting spontaneous arrival before the king, prevail. However, Proto-Esther stresses much less than the MT the weightiness and absurdities of imperial court functioning: the speech of the advisors neither shows personal interests nor burlesques traits concerning a revolt of wives (Ch. 1); the approach taken to find a new queen remains reasonable, there is no need to summon all young women and for them to undergo a year of preparations (Ch. 2); and, Mordecai can contact Esther directly (Ch. 4). Proto-Esther does not suggest that the dysfunctions of imperial administration play a dominant role in the process leading to the decree attacking the Jews. In Proto-Esther, responsibility rests essentially on Haman who, once denounced before the king, is rapidly neutralized and his decree annulled. The king is not always the toy of a rigid system. His character is even presented favorably. In Chapters 6 and 7 his dialogue is thoughtful and favorable toward Esther and Mordecai.228 In Proto-Esther, Mordecai is not a royal functionary. At the beginning of the narrative, Mordecai and Esther do not hide their Jewish identity. In this presentation of the Esther narrative, the Jews do not seem to be threatened at the outset because of their Jewish origins, and the theme of voluntary assimilation of Jews close to power is not problematized. Indeed, before they are threatened (Ch. 3), Esther and Mordecai behave like other members of Persian society. Proto-Esther does not emphasize the durability of connections that unite Esther to Mordecai after she becomes queen. Mordecai does not seem preoccupied by Esther’s fate at court and no one denounces any plot. In Proto-Esther, Esther and Mordecai seem a little less determined and “heroic” than in the MT. Proto-Esther takes account of their emotions and their fears on numerous occasions. Mordecai and Esther are frightened when they must confront Haman (4:16 and 7:2) and the queen proscrastinates before denouncing the king (7:6). Proto-Esther does not stress divine action and Jewish rituals, but is nevertheless more explicit than the MT. Haman turns toward his gods during the drawing of lots (3:7) and his wife tells him that God is against him (6:22). Mordecai tells Esther that God will support her people (4:9), and she asks him to pray and to proclaim a worship service (4:11). The Powerful One causes the king to have insomnia (6:1), Mordecai turns toward the LORD (6:16-17), and God grants courage to Esther. Finally, in Proto-Esther, chronology plays little part, but the date of the thirteenth of Nisan, chosen as the massacre of the Jews (3:7), nevertheless alludes to Passover.

227 See the discussion on the original conclusion of Proto-Esther in the diachronic analysis of Chapters 8-10. 228 See 6:4-6a; 7:4b-7, 14 in Proto-Esther.

74

2.

D. Literary and Thematic Characteristics of Other Textual Forms of Esther

The Greek Versions: Structure and Themes

As mentioned above,229 in the “common narrative,” the LXX shares the structure and themes of the MT upon which it largely depends. The presence in the LXX of Additions A to F modifies the general organization, but also influences how the narrative can be interpreted. The “theological” dimension of the narrative that was more or less marginal in the “common narrative” is underlined by Additions A1, C, D, and F. In their prayers, Esther and Mordecai confess divine sovereignty over history (C,1-4, 23b) and affirm that the Jews are God’s inheritance (C,8a, 9, 16). Esther even specifies that the sad situation of deportees can be explained by God’s sanctions (C,17-18). The prayer of the two heroes (C,10, 22-25, 30b) suggests that God is at work when the Jews are rescued. Mordecai’s premonitory dream (A1) and its interpretation (F) presuppose that God is the master of events (F,6-9). The additions also clarify the motivations of the protagonists and the meaning of their actions. The common narrative (3:2-4) does not say why Mordecai refuses to prostrate himself, but his prayer explains that it is out of concern to prostrate only before God (C,7). While the idea of a Jewish woman becoming queen of Persia is neither positive nor negative in the common narrative, Esther’s prayer (C,2629) mentions that she is disgusted to be the wife of a foreign king and that she does not participate in the meals of Gentiles. Finally, Addition D introduces the first visit of the queen before the king in a much more theatrical fashion than the MT. The precariousness of her position and her dependence upon God, both elements that transform the heart of the king (D,8), are emphasized. In A1, C, D, and F, the non-Jewish world is pictured very badly and Jewish life is almost impossible. The prayers of Esther and Mordecai suggest that the life of a pious Jew within a Gentile world is simultaneously complicated and painful. The view of non-Jews is less critical in Additions A2, B, and E. The two royal decrees emphasize Haman’s responsibility (E,5-6, 10-14). On the other hand, the emperor is introduced as a wise and benevolent ruler deceived by a bad advisor (E,5-9). Moreover, as in the narrative of the plot of the eunuchs in A,12-17, the Jewish protagonists are presented as loyal subjects of the king (E,13) and Jewish laws are judged in a positive light (E,15, 19). Finally, in his decree, the Persian king affirms that the God of the Jews is all powerful (E,16, 21). The Greek additions influence the undestanding of the Esther narrative by making it a story in which the Almighty God forcefully protects the faithful Jews (A1, C, D, and F), in an empire governed by a wise king (A2, B, E).

229 See above § The Majority Greek Text of the LXX.

75

1. Spatial Organization of the Palace

E. Perspectives on Space and Time 1.

Spatial Organization of the Palace

Susa and its palace are described the same way an oriental capital was represented in antiquity and the various spaces are organized coherently. The architecture consists of numerous buildings, courts, (5:1; 6:4), gardens, pavillions (1:5; 7:7-8), gates (3:3; 4:2), and apartments, some reserved for women (2:14). Communications between the different spaces can be complex; according to the MT, to enter the palace, correct attire is required (4:4); from the harem, the royal apartments cannot be easily accessed since one must pass through the inner court (2:14; 4:11; 5:1), while access does not pose a problem from the outer court (6:4).

Schema of Palace Organization

Susa The City Square (4:6; 6:9, 11) The King’s Gate (2:19, 21; 3:2–3; 4:2, 6; 5:9, 13; 6:10, 12) The King’s House (4:13; 2:8, 9, 13)

The King’s House (5:1) The Outer Court of the King’s House (6:4) The House of Royalty (5:1; 2:16; 1:9) The Inner Court of the King’s House (5:1)

The Court of the Wo me n’s House (2:11)

The Wo me n’s House (2:3, 9-14)

The Courtyard of the Garden of the King’s Pavillion (1:5)

The Garden of the Pavillion (7:7-8)

The House of the Banquet of Wi ne (7:8)

This description of Ahasuerus’s palace corresponds to descriptions of oriental palaces in Greek literature. The royal apartments, with areas reserved for women, are presented as vast mazes. A succession of spaces, courts, and gates leads from

76

E. Perspectives on Space and Time

the exterior to the most private areas. Communication from one area to another may necessitate mediation, and the courts can serve as waiting areas.230

2.

The Chronological System in the Book of Esther

The dates mentioned permit a reconstruction of a coherent sequence and situate certain events at symbolic moments. Proto-Esther takes little interest in the chronology of events,231 but the numerous chronological notices in the MT and the LXX testify to a much more developed editorial construction. The notices organize and give meaning to the narrative by connecting certain events to the liturgical calendar, and by creating standard durations that permit different events to occur in parallel.

2.1. The Chronological System of the Masoretic Text Events occur between the third and the twelfth year of Ahasuerus. Absolute chronological notices mention the year, the month, and the day. The year is always year X of the reign of Ahasuerus. The month is identified by a combination of its number and its Hebraicized Babylonian name: “In the first month, which is the month of Nisan” (Esth 3:7). In addition, the text indicates the duration of certain events:232 either events that occurred one after the other (2:1; 3:1) or in immediate succession (5:4; 6:1, 10, 14; 8:1). The chronological system of the Esther MT is perfectly coherent. In order to understand the logic and thus the way the editors developed their chronological system, three things must be accepted. When a notice does not indicate a month or day, it must be understood to be on the first month of the year or on the first day of the month. Something that took place “after these things” (2:1; 3:1), took place the following day. Finally, the text assumes a year of twelve months of thirty days, an erroneous calculation, but one that is found in the narrative of the flood where five months corresponds to 150 days.233 Chronological System of the Esther MT

Narrative opening, the king sits upon his throne in Year 3 / Month 1 / Day 1 Susa (1:1-3) First banquet lasting 180 days (1:4)

Year 3 / Months 1-6

Second banquet lasting seven days (1:5)

Year 3 / Month 7 / Days 1-7

Vashti’s refusal, procedure and edict of revocation

Year 3 / Month 7 / Day 7

230 See the episodes situated in oriental palaces in HERODOTUS, Hist., 1.98; 3.68; 3.77; and 3.130; CTESIAS, Persica, F1b(7-9); PSEUDO-ARISTOTLE, De Mundo, 398a. For a more developed analysis see also MACCHI, Esther, 125. 231 The only temporal notice in Proto-Esther is in 3:7. 232 A banquet lasting 180 days and another seven (1:4-5), thirty days in which Esther does not approach the king (4:11), 3 days of fasts (4:16). As Vashti’s banquet lasts seven days (1:5), that of Esther should have the same duration (2:18). The text indicates that Mordecai does not prostrate himself for several days (3:4). 233 See Gen 7:11, 24; 8:3-4. See VANDERKAM, “Calendars,” 816.

77

2. The Chronological System in the Book of Esther

Beauty contest, beginning with the first gathering of Year 3 / Month 7 / Day 8 young women Esther’s arrival before the king and her enthrone- Year 7 / Month 10 / Day 1 ment (2:16) This took place four years, two months, and twenty-three days after the first gathering of young women (2:3, 8). Esther’s enthronement banquet (2:18). Duration of Year 7 / Month 10 / Days 1-7 seven days (// 1:5, 9) Beginning of the second gathering of young women Year 7 / Month 10 / Day 8 (2:19) Esther’s final arrival before the king (4:11)

Year 11 / Month 12 / Day 13

This took place during the denunciation of the plot (2:21-23), the thirteenth of Adar, one year before the massacre of the enemies of the Jews. Haman’s inauguration, seated upon his throne (3:1)

Year 11 / Month 12 / Day 14

Drawing of lots for the catastrophic destiny of the Year 12 / Month 1 / Day 1 Jews (3:7) This took place four years, two months, and twenty-three days after the second gathering of young women in 2:19. Issuance of the edict against the Jews (3:12)

Year 12 / Month 1 / Day 13

Esther’s fast (4:16). Duration of three days

Year 12 / Month 1 / Days 13-15

Esther’s arrival before the king and her first banquet Year 12 / Month 1 / Day 15 (5:1-8) Esther’s second banquet, death of Haman, Mordecai Year 12 / Month 1 / Day 16 (7:1-8:2) Esther’s arrival before the king and the counter-edict Year 12 / Month 3 / Day 23 (8:3-17, esp. 8:9) This took place seventy days after the edict against the Jews. Massacre of the enemies of the Jews (9:1, 17-19).

Year 12 / Month 12 / Days 13-14

Festival of Purim celebrating the massacre (9:17-19, Year 12 / Month 12 / Days 14-15 21)

Most striking is that the MT parallels the primary events of the narrative (3:12 to 8:2) with the exodus from Egypt since they occur during the period of Passover. In the MT of Esth 3:12, Haman’s decree is issued on the thirteenth of Nisan (the first month). Events subsequently follow without breaks so the dialogue between Mordecai and Esther occurs on the same day. The three-day fast lasts from the thirteenth to the fifteenth of Nisan and Esther’s intervention before the king is on the fifteenth of Nisan (the third day, cf. 5:1). The fast thus replaces the preparatory rituals of Passover, emphasizing the radical threat that weighs upon Judaism. Moreover, Esther’s arrival before the king that initiates the deliverance of the

78

E. Perspectives on Space and Time

fifteenth of Nisan parallels the exodus from Egypt that took place on the same date (Exod 12).234 Haman’s death occurs the following day (5:8; 7:2). The second key date is the thirteenth of Adar, which places the triumph of the Jews over their enemies on the same date as the triumph of the Maccabees over Nicanor (1 Macc 7:39-50; 2 Macc 15:1-36). Sidelining Esther (4:11) evokes this same dramatic date. Since prior to 4:11, Esther’s last arrival before the king is mentioned in 2:22, one can deduce that since the denunciation of the plot of the eunuchs, Esther had not been summoned. Since Haman’s accession took place “after these things” (3:1), it took place on the fourteenth of Adar. Mordecai thus has sixteen days to not prostrate himself (3:4) before the casting of lots takes place on the first of Nisan in the twelfth year (3:7). Two enigmatic dates remain: Esther’s enthronement (2:16), and the issuing of Mordecai’s decree (8:9). Esther’s enthronement the (first day of the) tenth month of the seventh year (Esth 2:16MT) contrasts two dates: Esther’s accession, which suggests that a destiny favorable to the Jews is emerging, and Haman’s casting of lots for the catastrophic destiny of the Jews. Indeed, a gathering of young women starts the eighth day of the seventh month of the third year (the gathering begins “after these things” of Ch. 1) and results four years, two months, and twentythree days later in Esther’s accession (2:16). Now, a second gathering of young women is mentioned in 2:19, which begins on the eighth day of the tenth month of the seventh year235 and is thus separated from the date of casting of lots in Esth 3:7 by an equal span of four years, two months, and twenty-three days. Finally, the date when Mordecai’s decree is issued, the twenty-third day of the third month of the twelfth year, can also be explained by theological reasons. Seventy days separate the decree announcing the misfortume of the Jews and the decree preparing their deliverance; the number seventy is frequently associated with periods of tribulation.236

2.2. The Chronological System in the LXX The chronological system in the LXX differs from the Hebrew text on only two points. In 2:16, Esther arrives before the king in the month of Adar (twelfth month) of the seventh year, instead of Tebeth (tenth month) and in 8:9 the second decree

234 That the date of Esther’s fast corresponds to the Passover period is found in the Jewish tradition Tg. Esth. I (5:1), midrashic texts, Panim Aḥerim 70-71 and Rashi (see the analysis of SEGAL, midrash, vol. 2, 260-263). Among contemporary scholars, CLINES, Esther, 303; CHYUTIN, Hagiographies, 42; LEVENSON, Esther, 89; WHITE CRAWFORD, “Book,” 905. 235 The gathering of 2:19 is mentioned after the banquet that follows Esther’s enthronement (2:18). Logically, this banquet lasts seven days since it marks the reestablishment of the king’s honor after his humiliation by Vashti during the seven-day banquet in 1:5-12. 236 According to Jer 25:11-12; 29:10, the exile lasts for seventy years. The motif is reused by Ezra 1:1; Zech 1:12; 7:5; Dan 9:2 and is associated by Dan 9:24-27 with the great tribulation of the era of Antiochus IV. On the reception in the Bible of the seventy years in Jeremiah, cf. John APPLEGATE, “Jeremiah and the Seventy Years in the Hebrew Bible. Inner-Biblical Reflections on the Prophet and His Prophecy,” in The Book of Jeremiah and Its Reception. Le livre de Jérémie et sa réception (BEThL 128), T. RÖMER and A.H.W. CURTIS (ed.), Leuven, 1997, 91-110.

1. An Anthoritative Book

79

is promulgated on the twenty-third of Nisan instead of the twenty-third of Sivan. The resulting chronology is significant. Esther’s accession in the month of Adar in the seventh year connects her first triumph, five years after the start of the narrative, with the triumph of the Jews five years later. The dating of Mordecai’s decree on the twenty-third of Nisan implies clearly that Esther’s fast takes place during Passover. Indeed, the decree is promugated on the first possible day after the eight days of Passover, which in the diaspora ended on the twenty-second of Nisan.

2.3. Diachronic Implications The system of dates discussed here is absent in Proto-Esther. It was in large part introduced by the proto-Masoretic editors during the Hasmonean era. A similar literary process that correlates events of a novel with the liturgical calendar is found in the book of Judith.237 Most of the chronological additions are found in both the MT and the LXX which depends upon it. The variations in 2:16 and 8:9 can be explained as late touch-ups following the translation of the LXX. These touch-ups were made for relatively subtle scribal reasons that tended to complicate the prior logic by playing with the motif of the second gathering of young women (2:19) and of the seventy years of Jeremiah (8:9).

F.

Canonization, Use, and Reception of the Work

1.

An Anthoritative Book238

The book of Esther today is canonical in Judaism and in the different streams of Christianity: Protestant; Catholic; and Orthodox. In Hebrew Bibles, it is in the ketuvim, the third part of the TaNaK. Its placement is not uniform. The oldest ordering (b. B. Bat. 14b-15a) places Esther between Daniel and Ezra, but in the codex manuscripts and printed Bibles, Esther always appears at the end of the five scrolls, the Megilloth.239 In Christian Bibles, the book of Esther is generally found among the “historical books”; at the end of them in Protestant Bibles and between Judith and 1 Maccabees in Catholic and Orthodox Bibles.

237 In Judith, the end of the festival celebrating victory corresponds to Hanukkah, and the calendrical system leads to the Sabbath being respected by the Jews in a time of war. See Christophe BATSCH, “Temps de la guerre et respect du sabbat dans Judith,” in GRAPPE and INGELAERE, Temps, 125-135 and Pierre-Marie BOGAERT, “Le calendrier du livre de Judith et la fête de Hanukka,” RTL 15 (1984), 67-72. 238 On Esther’s canonicity see ABADIE, reine, 127-135; BERLIN, Esther, xliii-xlv; BUSH, Esther, 273-277; CAVALIER, Esther, p. 115-121; CAVALIER, “canonicité”; Philip R. DAVIES, “How to Get Into the Canon and Stay There Or: The Philosophy of an Acquisitive Society,” in The Canon of Scripture in Jewish and Christian Tradition. Le canon des Écritures dans les traditions juive et chrétienne (PIRSB 4), Prahins, 2007, 11-25; LARKIN, Esther, 61-63; MILLER, Versions, 33-40; VIALLE, analyse, 397-405; WINN LEITH, “Esther,” 252-253. 239 See STONE, Compilational, 148-159.

80

F. Canonization, Use, and Reception of the Work

Judaism reads Esther in the MT textual form, as does Protestantism, while in Catholic and Orthodox traditions, the long form of the book, which includes the six additions, is retained. The book’s scriptural status was the result of a complex process. Jewish sources in the first centuries provided few reasons for its acceptance or rejection. Perhaps the book’s close connection to the festival of Purim led to its acceptance. Moreover, its portrayal of Jews who triumph in a hostile world could have contributed to its reception by Jews confronted by comparable situations. From an opposite perspective, the absence of God’s name and the fact that the heroes do not seem to conform to Torah practices could explain some Jewish reticence about this work. In early Christianity, Esther plays a very minor role. The motif of Judaism triumphing violently over anti-Semitism was perhaps a factor in its difficult reception among Christians. Evidently, the fact that this book was part of the canon of Jewish scriptures, transmitted by the LXX, was the primary reason for its acceptance within the Christian canon in the fourth century.

1.1. Canonicity in Judaism The question of “canon” is complex. The circumstances resulting in the stabilization of a set of normative books forming the Jewish Bible is not well-understood.240 Nor do we know in all cases which books were canonical or why.241 Before the end of the first century the boundary demarcating sacred scriptures was not uniform. For certain groups, such as the Samaritans, who consider

240 In certain times and places, certain books of the Ketuvim could not have been in use, while other texts (e.g., Sirach, Enochic literature, Tobit, etc.) could have been. The LXX and the Qumran manuscripts demonstrate the diversity of texts that could have been normative for different groups. From the end of the first century CE onward, with the exception of Sirach, only the texts of so-called canonical literature are mentioned in rabbinic discussions on the canon. For the establishment of the Jewish canon, ALEXANDER, “formation”; Eve-Marie BECKER and Stefan SCHOLZ (eds.), Kanon in Konstruktion und Dekonstruktion: Kanonisierungsprozesse religiöser Texte von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart. Ein Handbuch, Berlin Boston, 2012; BECKWITH, Canon; Peter BRANDT, Endgestalten des Kanons. Das Arrangement der Schriften Israels in der jüdischen und christlichen Bibel (BBB 131), Berlin, 2001, 43-170; Stephen B. CHAPMAN, The Law and the Prophets: a Study in Old Testament Canon Formation (FzAT 27), Tübingen, 2000; Stephen G. DEMPSTER, “Torah, Torah, Torah. The Emergence of the Tripartite Canon,” in Exploring the Origins of the Bible. Canon Formation in Historical, Literary, and Theological Perspective (Acadia studies in Bible and theology), C. A. EVANS and E. TOV (eds.), Grand Rapids, 2008, 87-127; DORIVAL, “formation”; LEIMAN, Canonization; KAESTLI and WERMELINGER (ed.), Canon, 7-102; Lee Martin MCDONALD, The Biblical Canon. Its Origin, Transmission, and Authority, Peabody, 2007; DE PURY, “canon”; Konrad SCHMID, “The Canon and the Cult: The Emergence of Book Religion in Ancient Israel and the Gradual Sublimation of the Temple Cult,” JBL 131 (2012), 289-305; STEMBERGER, “formation”). 241 Indicators of the possible “canonicity” of a book are: explicit mention of it in a closed ensemble of authoritative writings; comments on its status in rabbinic literature (these comments may concern the inspiration of the text, the fact that it “renders hands impure,” or the person and the circumstances that presided at its writing); the fact that precautions are required for its production or use; or, that it is commented upon or serves as a basis for theological arguments.

1. An Anthoritative Book

81

only the Torah to be canonical, and the Sadducees,242 Esther was not authoritative. Other groups did not attribute large importance to Esther: the Qumran community, Philo of Alexandria, and the New Testament.243 On the other hand, starting from the end of the first century CE, an important part of rabbinic Judaism included Esther among the twenty-two or twenty-four authoritative books, although that did not preclude questions about the book’s authority or inspired character until the fourth century CE. Esther is probably part of the twenty-two inspired books mentioned by Flavius Josephus.244 Rabbinic traditions consider Esther and Mordecai as prophets (b. Meg. 14a-b and 15a). At the end of the first century, the author of 4 Esdras (14:37-47) probably includes Esther among the twentyfour sacred books intended for public reading.245 Finally, the book of Esther is in the LXX, and the Hebrew canon that Origen describes246 contains twenty-two books (as in Josephus), among which Esther is explicitly mentioned. Rabbinical literature – the Mishnah, midrashic texts, and Talmud – make the case overall for the inspired and sacred character of Esther. At the end of the second century, the Mishnah devotes a comprehensive treatise – Megillah – primarily on the rules of Purim based on the book of Esther. Later, b. Baba Batra 14b15a which mentions and comments upon the biblical canon, includes Esther among the twenty-four holy books. However, several passages in the Talmud mention discussions of certain rabbis until the fifth century concerning the status of the book of Esther.247 One question is whether the Esther scroll “renders the hands impure,” in other words, whether the scroll is a sacred object whose handling requires ritual precautions.248 The Mishnah argues in the positive since Es-

242 The position of the Samaritans persists until today. For the Sadducees cf. Josephus (Ant. 13.297 [XIII. 10.6]) and the New Testament where Jesus only argues against the Sadducees on the basis of the Torah (Mark 12:26). Most scholars read Josephus as saying that the Sadducees accepted the written law (the entire Hebrew Bible) but not the oral law. 243 Esther is not attested at Qumran. The Biblia Patristica supplement only mentions one reference to Esther in Philo, and in the NT, Mark 6:23 probably refers to Esth 5:3, 6; 7:2, and Rev 4:5 to Add. A,4 (cf. Naomi G. COHEN, Philo’s Scriptures: Citations from the Prophets and Writings: Evidence for a Haftarah Cycle in Second Temple Judaism (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism Series), Leiden, 2007; LEIMAN, Canonization, 31, 40-41; Myles NOLAN, “Esther in the New Testament,” PIBA 15 (1992), 60-65; Nestle-Aland editions). 244 In Contra Apion 1.38-41 Josephus mentions the twenty-two books of which thirteen are attributed to prophets from Moses to Artaxerxes. As Josephus dates Esther to the period of Artaxerxes, it is often thought that this book is part of his canon (see LEIMAN, Canonization, 30-34; CAVALIER, Esther, 116-117 in an opposite vein DORIVAL, “formation,” 101-102). In support of the canonical status of Esther for Josephus, see his very precise paraphrase in Ant. 11.184-296. 245 Josephus mentions twenty-two books while 4 Ezra has twenty-four for the same canon, because Ruth is separate from Judges, and Lamentations from Jeremiah. 246 Preface to the commentaries on the Psalms, cited by EUSEBIUS, Hist. eccl. 6.25.1-2. 247 These discussions that conclude most often in favor of the authority of Esther are well analyzed by CAVALIER, “canonicité.” The most elaborate passage is in b. Meg. 7a-7b. 248 Even the rabbis who contest that the Esther scroll renders the hands impure (b. Meg. 7a-b) accept the inspiration of Esther. See below the note on the argument of R. Samuel.

82

F. Canonization, Use, and Reception of the Work

ther is not mentioned among the books contested in Yadayim 3.5, and Megillah 2.1 insists that the reading of Esther must take place from a written text. Moreover, the fact that Esther renders the hands impure is primarily admitted by the Talmud.249 The ritual regulations linked to the public reading of the Esther scroll on Purim imply that the Esther scrolls had the status of sacred objects.250 However, two views in b. Meg. indicate that the sacred status of the Esther scroll was contested. Megillah 7a reports a remark of Samuel contesting that Esther “renders the hands impure” yet without questioning its inspiration.251 Sanhedrin 100a reports that two rabbis question whether the Esther scroll in their synagogue must contain a cover but contest this infringement on its sacredness. The fact that, unlike other Jewish festivals, Purim was not instituted during the time of Moses did not lead the rabbis to reject the authority of the book of Esther. Rather, it led them to associate the commandments regarding Purim with those of the Torah and to thus plead in favor of their particularly elevated status.252

1.2. Canonicity in Christianity Ancient Christianity developed primarily in a Hellenic context and thus primarily uses the Greek Bible of the LXX as its “Old Testament.” The LXX contains the Greek translation of the books of the Hebrew Bible, but also other books that circulated in Jewish circles during the first centuries but were not ultimately retained by rabbinic Judaism.253 A certain vagueness exists about which texts make up the Christian “Old Testament.” Citations or allusions in ancient Christian literature are not confined to the books deemed canonical in rabbinical writings.254 In

249 R. Simeon b. Johai in b. Meg. 7a explicitly admits that Esther “renders the hands impure” while in several other passages Esther simply does not figure among the books discussed (Yadayim 3.5) 250 See m. Meg. 2.2; b. Meg. 16b; 18b-19a. 251 To understand this, one must distinguish between the original production of the text that does or does not emanate from a prophetic spirit, and the scroll itself that constitutes a copy and that is not necessarily a sacred object that defiles the hands. On the remark of Samuel in b. Meg. 7a-b see STEMBERGER, “formation,” 121-122; ALEXANDER, “formation,” 58-60. Perhaps the sacredness of the Esther scroll was questioned because the Tetragrammaton is not present or because it had already come into such popular use that ritual rules could not be applied to it; cf. Michael J. BROYDE, “Defilement of the Hands, Canonization of the Bible, and the Special Status of Esther, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs,” Judaism 44 (1995), 65-79. 252 Y. Meg. 1.5; b. Meg. 7b; 14a; Mak. 23b; Šebu. 38b. The famous rabbinical remark that the regulations of the Esther scroll will never pass away corroborates the special importance attributed to Esther. The perennial nature of the commandments of Purim is already present in Esth 9:28 (b. Meg. 7b). The Jerusalem Talmud (y. Meg. 1.5) emphasizes that this places Esther and the Torah in parallel (see on this point KALIMI, “Fear,” 234-235). For other rabbinical arguments in favor of Esther see b. Meg. 7a, Yoma 29a, and y. Meg. 1.5. See CAVALIER, “canonicité,” 10-13, 16-18. 253 1-4 Maccabees, Baruch, 1 Esdras, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Tobit. 254 The New Testament and Patristic literature cite or allude to Maccabean literature, Sirach, Judith, and Wisdom of Solomon, and even to Jewish texts outside the LXX, such as Jubilees, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, Enoch, or the Assumption of Moses (see the critical editions of the NT and the Biblia Patristica).

1. An Anthoritative Book

83

Christianity, starting from the second century, the definition of the OT canon was raised and distinctions were made between the texts accepted by Jews and those that only appear in the LXX. The first category was judged to be more central but the second, the deuterocanonical literature, was only rarely completely rejected. In this context, the book of Esther stands on the borderline. It is part of the “canonical” Jewish books, which should place it firmly in the Christian canon, but since the additions in the LXX greatly transform the text, Greek Esther could be perceived as deuterocanonical. In any case, Esther was neglected by Christians and its canonical status was not obvious. During the first three centuries, Esther was cited very rarely.255 Esther does not figure in the canonical list of Melito of Sardis, a second-century Christian (approx. 170) who refers to the contents of the Bible within a Jewish or Judeo-Christian community in Palestine.256 Origen’s point of view is ambiguous; he cites Esther in the list of canonical texts in his Commentarius in Canticum, but in his Homiliae in Numeros 27:1, he writes that Esther belongs to literature destined for novice Christians.257 Sources concerning the Christian canon are more abundant from the fourth century, when Constantinian communities begin to assemble biblical writings in a single codex. Some oriental authors do not mention Esther. Such is the case for Gregory of Nazianzus258 and Amphilocius of Iconium, who mentions nevertheless that Esther is sometimes added.259 Athanasius, Epistulae festales 39, does not place Esther among the twenty-two canonical books of the Old Testament, but among those that can be read to novices to the faith. Among Christian authors between the fourth and the beginning of the fifth centuries who judge Esther to be canonical, one can differentiate between those who accepted only the books of the Jewish Bible as canonical, and those whose canon is larger. Cyril of Jerusalem (approx. 380),260 Epiphanius of Salamis (375 and 392),261 the Council of Laodicia (approx. 360),262 the Apostolic Canons,263 and Rufinus of Aquileia264 include Esther in a short canonical list. Esther appears in a large canon that integrates the texts of the LXX in the major Greek codices of the Bible (Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus). In the Latin world,265 the canons of the churches of North Africa and Rome –

255 The Biblia Patristica Vols. 1-7 only mention one hundred references to Esther, primarily in Origen, Eusebius, and Ambrose of Milan. 256 EUSEBIUS Hist. eccl. 4.26.14. Does the absence of Esther in Melito indicate that the Jewish community that he knew did not include Esther in its canon? That Esther was rejected by the Christian milieu to which Melito refers? Or that it is simply the matter of an accidental lacuna? (CAVALIER, Esther, 117). 257 The preface for the commentary on Psalms is cited by EUSEBIUS Hist. eccl., 6.25.1-2. 258 Poem 1.12. 259 Epistula Iambica ad Seleucum 251-319. 260 Catechetical Lecture 4.33-36. 261 On Measures and Weights 4 and Pan. 8.6.1-4. 262 Canon 59 and 60. 263 Canon 85. 264 Symb. 34-36. 265 On Rufinus, Augustine, and Jerome see especially O. WERMELINGER, “Le canon des latins au temps de Jérôme et d’Augustin,” in Le Canon de l’Ancien Testament. Sa formation et son histoire, J.-D. KAESTLI and O. WERMELINGER (eds.), Genève, 1984, 153-210.

84

F. Canonization, Use, and Reception of the Work

Councils of Hippo (393), Carthage (397 and 418),266 Saint Augustine267 – present a major canon that does not distinguish between the texts of the Jewish canon and those that appear only in the LXX. At the turn of the fifth century, in the Latin churches, Jerome is the primary promoter of the adoption of a short canon. He does not question the canonicity of Esther, but places the six LXX additions in appendices. Since the status of texts absent from the Hebrew canon had not been definitively established in early Christianity, the debate resurfaced during the Reformation.268 Following Luther, Protestantism considers that the Old Testament corresponds to the Jewish Bible. Consequently, Protestant Bibles most frequently group together the deuterocanonical texts between the Old and New Testaments. These texts, which include the Greek additions of Esther, are no longer considered canonical, properly speaking, although reading them is still considered useful. Not until the nineteenth century did Christian biblical societies published Bibles without the “deuterocanonical” materials, for their use tended to disappear within Reformed churches. Catholicism makes no distinction between the books of the Old Testament included in the Jewish canon and those absent from it.269 In the sixteenth century, during the Council of Trent, the Counter-Reformation did not distinguish between the different levels of canonicity. For the book of Esther, this means that in traditional Catholic Bibles, and in accord with the Vulgate, the six additions are appended to the book in Chapters 10 (from v. 4) to 16. Within Orthodox churches, a debate comparable to what occurred in the Occidental churches unfolded in the seventeenth century. In addition to the books of the Hebrew canon, the category of “books authorized for reading” is defined and regroups an even larger number of books270 than in the Catholic canon.

2.

A Book for the Festival of Purim271

It is likely that starting from when the book of Esther reached the form it has in the MT and the LXX – at the latest, the beginning of the first century BCE – it was perceived as the founding document of Purim festivities. Esther 9:20-32 emphasizes the importance of making permanent the festival celebrating the victory described in the narrative. The colophon of Esther in the LXX (Add. F,11) seems to identify the whole book with the letter mentioned in

266 Breviarium Hipponense, Canon 47. 267 Doctr. chr. 2.8.12-13. 268 For the history of Christian canons between the sixteenth to twentieth centuries, see TOB 2010 (integrated edition), 1643-1647. 269 Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Baruch, Letter of Jeremiah, 1-2 Maccabees, the additions to Daniel and to Esther. 270 3 and 4 Ezra; 3 and 4 Maccabees, Prayer of Manasseh. 271 For the traditions and practices of Purim, see the relevant articles in Encyclopaedia Judaica; BERLIN (ed.), Oxford Dictionary; EISENBERG (ed.), JPS guide; SINGER (ed.), Jewish Encyclopedia; WIGODER (ed.), Judaïsme and Dan JAFFÉ, “Pourim, ou la tragédie comme paradigme. L’identité juive entre résistance et préservation,” L&V 260 (2003), 19-32.

2. A Book for the Festival of Purim

85

9:20-32. Moreover, from the end of the first century CE onward, rabbinic traditions about Purim derive from points explicitly or potentially found in the book of Esther itself. According to the book, the festival was celebrated by the victorious Jews on the fifteenth of Adar in Susa, but on the fourteenth of Adar everywhere else. The Mishnah and the Talmud specify that Purim must henceforth be celebrated on the fifteenth of Adar in cities fortified during the time of Joshua – this is called ‫ פורים שושן‬Purim of Susa – and on the fourteenth of Adar elsewhere. Moreover, rabbinic traditions say that in a leap year, when there are two months of Adar, a ‫“ פורים קטן‬Little Purim” (a semi-festive day) is held on the fourteenth of Adar I and the regular Purim is celebrated on the fourteenth of Adar II. The public reading of the Esther scroll is the primary practice associated with Purim, as legislated in the Mishnah and Talmud. There are a series of prescriptions about the type of scroll to be used, the time the reading must occur, and details about how it is to be read.272 Based on Esth 9:21-22, a joyous festival meal is held. Portions of food are exchanged between neighbors and friends and charity is given to the poor. A festive, even carnivalesque atmosphere characterizes Purim. The Babylonian Talmud invites merrymaking and imbibing during Purim.273 Various festive customs are associated with Purim. During the reading of the scroll in synagogues today, the congregation makes noise when Haman’s name is mentioned, to drown it out, in accordance with the commandment to erase the memory of Amalek (Deut 25:19).274 Several types of exuberant and carnivalesque festivities are attested starting from the end of the Middle Ages. In the fifteenth century, the custom of disguising oneself at Purim appeared. In Ashkenazi Judaism, the Purim spiel began in the sixteenth century. The tradition began as poetic monologues, which subsequently became actual burlesque theatre pieces on various topics, often biblical. Certain Jewish communities had specific customs such as burning an effigy of Haman, throwing pebbles marked with Haman’s name, or exploding firecrackers on the eve of Purim. Christian practices of an end-of-winter carnival probably influenced the development of Purim practices. However, the ironic view of powerful individuals, the theme of the excess of wine, as well as the upheaval of the social order that appears in Esther explains why carnivalesque practices could be easily associated with Purim. It would nevertheless be an exaggeration to read the book of Esther as a specifically carnivalesque text.275

272 See the Megillah treatise of the Mishnah and the Talmud. The reading must be done from a handwritten scroll, a special cantillation must be used, certain verses must be emphasized and others must be read in one breath (9:7-9), and the reading must not be interrupted. 273 According to b. Meg. 7b, one should no longer be able to distinguish between “cursed be Haman” and “blessed be Mordecai.” 274 The MT calls Haman an Agagite, making him an Amalekite. 275 The Esther narrative has certain “carnivalesque” features. However, it develops a political program of resistance to imperial power which is efficient and also supports claims of a powerful political movement (the Maccabees and the Hasmoneans). Esther differs

86

F. Canonization, Use, and Reception of the Work

Finally, by analogy to the celebration of the deliverance of the Jews during the time of Ahasuerus, certain Jewish communities celebrate “special Purims” on dates commemorating events when Jews were saved from particular dangers.

3.

An Inspiring Book (Esther’s Reception)

A detailed treatment of Esther’s reception history is beyond the scope of this commentary.276 It is, however, useful to trace a number of major lines of Esther’s reception leading up to the eighteenth century.

3.1. Esther in Judaism Because Esther is used in the Purim liturgy, and because its themes correspond to Jewish concerns, the book of Esther echoed considerably within Judaism.277 Esther appears in the oldest iconographic Jewish representations from the third century, in the frescos of the synagogue of Dura-Europos.278 On the literary front, Esther plays an important role in the two primary types of rabbinical exegesis, halakah and haggadah. As it institutes the rites of Purim, the Esther scroll logically occupies a significant place in halakah – rabbinical jurisprudence. The Mishnaic treatise Megillah (tenth treatise of the order Moʿed) is dedicated to the rites of Purim. Like the Mishnah, the Tosefta contains the treatise Megillah. The Gemara of the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds (sixth century CE) develop the contents of the Mishnaic treatise Megillah. Moreover, in the haggadah – the non-legal material of the Talmud and Midrashim – the book of Esther opened the gates to an impressive literature of legendary narrative developments that complement various episodes of the narrative, as well as to exegetical and homiletical commentaries on the book. In a way, the six “additions” in the AT, the LXX, and the Latin texts could also be considered as ancient midrashic developments. Despite the success of these traditions among

from popular carnival practices that mime a temporary reversal of societal values without leading to a perennial upheaval of social order. In addition, Esth 9:21-22 seeks more to describe an actual Jewish banquet than to institute an unbridled festival. Consequently, a purely carnivalesque reading of the work is reductionist so that reading the book of Esther uniquely from the grid provided by works of Bakhtin (CRAIG, Reading; GAMBAIANA WHEELOCK, Drunk; GROSSMAN, Esther; LACOCQUE, Esther) remains strongly disputable. 276 Other works dedicated to this topic: CARRUTHERS, Esther; LIMARDO DATURI, Représentations; and PATON, Esther, 97-118. 277 On Jewish literature concerning Esther, see KOLLER, Esther; TRELOAR, Esther, 293-389 as well as the relevant articles in BERLIN (ed.), Oxford Dictionary; KALIMI, “Fear,” 232-235; SKOLNIK and BERENBAUM (eds.), Encyclopaedia Judaica; SINGER (ed.), Jewish Encyclopedia, etc. 278 The Esther narrative is represented on the lower register of the central panel of the assembly hall of the second synagogue, to the left of the niche (Panel WC2). See Carl Hermann KRAELING, et al., The Synagogue (The excavations at Dura-Europos; final report VIII, part. I), New Haven, 1956, 151-164 and Joseph GUTMANN (ed.), The Dura-Europos Synagogue: A Re-evaluation (1932–1992), Atlanta, 1992.

3. An Inspiring Book (Esther’s Reception)

87

Greek-speaking Jews at the beginning of the first century CE, they were taken up very little by classical Jewish midrashic literature.279 An abundance of midrashic literature linked to Esther280 developed in Judaism since the first centuries CE. The Megillah treatise of the Babylonian Talmud contains a midrashic commentary on Esther (b. Meg. 10b-17a).281 The first part of the midrash on Esther Rabbah282 probably also goes back to the Talmudic era. The two Esther Targums283 go well beyond a simple Aramaic translation; they constitute actual midrashim on the book of Esther that date from the 7th-9th centuries CE. A considerable number of midrashic texts on Esther were still being written between the ninth and the fourteenth centuries, such as the small midrash on Esther in Pirqe Rabbi Eliezer (Chs. 49-50), the completion of Midrash Rabbah Esther characterized by the addition of the commentary on Esther Chapters 3 to 8, several midrashic texts dedicated to Esther such as Midrash Abba Gorion, and Midrash Panim Aḥerim. Moreover, Midrash Leqaḥ Tov as well as Josippon contain a long section on the book of Esther. The book of Esther is widely commented upon by medieval Jewish authors, especially Rashi, Rashbam, Maimonides, Ibn Ezra, and Gersonides as well as the kabbalists Baḥya ben Asher and Abraham Saba.284 The book was still extensively commented upon later, as in the eighteenth and nineteeth century works of the Vilna Gaon and of Pontrémoli (Me’am Lo’ez).

3.2. Esther in Christianity Within Christianity, the book of Esther has played a more marginal role. It has played and continues to play only a slight role in Christian liturgical practices.285

279 Certain midrashic texts in the Middle Ages attest to traditions that are close to the additions. A narrative of the meeting between Esther and the king close to Addition D figures in the second part of Esther Rabbah. Josippon knows the dream of Mordecai and the prayers of Esther and Mordecai. The First and Second Targumim of Esther present a prayer of Esther that nevertheless has only a few connections to that of Addition C. 280 This literature was translated into German by BÖRNER-KLEIN and HOLLENDER, Kommentare. GINZBERG, Legends of the Jews, and ZLOTOWITZ, Esther allow easy access to this literature. 281 See the critical analysis of SEGAL, Midrash. 282 It consists of the six first sections of the midrash on Rabbah Esther which comments on Esther Chapters 1 and 2. Translation: NEUSNER, Esther Rabbah I; SIMON, “Esther,” and MERGUI, Rabba. 283 See GROSSFELD, Two Targums; GROSSFELD, First Targum; EGO, Targum Scheni. 284 On Jewish exegesis of Esther in the eleventh to the fifteenth centuries, see WALFISH, Esther; LIMARDO DATURI, Représentations, 65-74. KALIMI, “Fear,” 234-235 mentions other more recent authors. 285 According to the lectionary, only two passages from Esther are read during the cycle of scriptural readings (Esth 8 and the prayers of Esther and Mordecai). Within Protestantism, where the choice of biblical readings is left to the discretion of congregational ministers, the book is rarely used.

88

F. Canonization, Use, and Reception of the Work

As mentioned before, Esther was cited relatively rarely in ancient Christian literature.286 The few Christian commentators on the book in the Middle Ages – among them Rabanus Maurus and Walafrid Strabo in the ninth century, and Rupert of Deutz in the twelfth century287 – present an allegorical reading of the work. Esther is presented as a figure of the Virgin or of the Church, placed in opposition to the synagogue (Vashti) or the devil (Haman). Since the sixteenth century, with the advent of the printing press and the Reformation, studies on the book of Esther became more abundant in both Protestant and Catholic environments.288 On the other hand, the Esther narrative achieved considerable success in European art throughout the Renaissance and into the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.289 Among the most well-known paintings representing scenes from the life of Esther are Botticelli / Lippi, Scenes from the Life of Esther (1475, Louvre Museum, Paris), Veronese, the ceilings in the Church of San Sebastiano (1556 – Venice), and Rembrandt, Ahasuerus and Haman at the Feast of Esther (1662 – Pushkin Museum, Moscow). In French theatre of the sixteenth and seventeeth centuries, the Esther narrative occupies a considerable place. One may mention Aman, tragédie sainte by André de Rivaudeau (1566), Esther by Pierre Mathieu (1583), Aman ou la Vanité by Antoine de Montchrestien (1601), Esther by Pierre Du Ryer (1643) and obviously Racine’s Esther (1689). The recurrence of the Esther theme in theatrical productions of this period can be explained especially in the context of the polemic between Catholicism, Protestantism, and Jansenism, and the violence between communities linked to the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes.290 With regard to music, one may consider Handel’s oratorio on Esther (HWV50 – 1732). For obvious reasons of space, the reception of Esther in modern literature and cinema cannot be discussed here.

286 Regarding Esther in Patristics, see Agnethe SIQUANS, “Esther in der Interpretation der Kirchenväter: Königin, Vorbild der Tapferkeit oder Typus der Kirche?”, ZAC 12 (2008), 414-432. 287 For Medieval Christian commentaries on Esther, see LIMARDO DATURI, Représentations, 5564; PATON, Esther, 107. Cf. RABAN MAUR, Expositio In Librum Esther; WALAFRID STRABON, Liber Esther; RUPERT DE DEUTZ, De Victoria Verbi Dei, Ch. 8. 288 See the lists of these commentaries in PATON, Esther, 107-109. 289 The motif can be found in abundance in Northern Italy, in France, and in the Netherlands (for the beginning of the period in the Netherlands Brigit FRANKE, Assuerus und Esther am Burgunderhof: zur Rezeption des Buches Esther in den Niederlanden [1450 bis 1530], Berlin, 1998). To explain this contemporary trend as the influence of Jews forcibly converted to Christianity (LIMARDO DATURI, Représentations) is somewhat reductionist. The work undoubtedly gained its success from the echoes of contemporary political events that artists observed in both the Protestant and Catholic worlds. 290 On the interpretation of these different adaptations of Esther see ABADIE, reine, 175186, and Michel LE GUERN, “Sur l’Esther de Racine,” L&V 260 (2003), 49-56, ID, “Esther sur les planches,” Biblia 76 (2009), 39-41. Abadie shows that Rivaudeau and de Montchrestien seek to plead in favor of the causes of the Reformation.

G. How to Use This Commentary on Esther’s Masoretic Form

89

G. How to Use This Commentary on Esther’s Masoretic Form The commentary that follows is organized in the following fashion. At the beginning of the commentary on each chapter,291 the MT’s primary themes and issues are presented. Then, pericope by pericope, a fairly literal translation of the Masoretic Hebrew text (MT) based on the Leningradensis Codex (B 19a) is offered, followed by notes on the text and the translation. Then each pericope is commented upon (Synchronic Analysis). Each chapter ends with a Diachronic Analysis containing three parts. In the first part, the contents of Proto-Esther that reflect the Alpha Text are translated and discussed. In the second part, the manner in which proto-Masoretic editing reworked its source is studied. The different proto-Masoretic “pluses” are listed and the specific stylistic and thematic details of this Maccabean-Hasmonean editorial phase are discussed. Finally, the later modifications of the Hebrew text and the emergence of the translations are briefly mentioned. The six additions in the Greek and Latin texts of Esther are discussed in a separate chapter at the end of the volume.

291 Chapters 8 to 10 are treated together in order to address the editorial problem of the conclusion of Proto-Esther at one time.

Chapter 1. The Fall of Queen Vashti Introduction The first chapter of the book provides the backdrop and sets the scene for the plot. It describes the luxurious world of the Persian court and the sumptuous banquets to honor King Ahasuerus. Now drunk at the close of a banquet, the king rashly invites his wife to be put on display. Everything falls apart when she refuses to come. The heavy hand of the Persian administration is galvanized into action. Specialists are called in to analyze the situation and suggest remedies. Memucan imagines a scenario in which all women revolt and suggests the promulgation of an edict dismissing Queen Vashti from her royal position. The text is ironic. A king, apparently all-powerful, is incapable of making his wife appear before him. As for Memucan, he is drunk and proposes macho arguments and simplistic solutions. However, behind its rather humoristic appearance, this first chapter foreshadows and sets the stage for the intricacies that will soon emerge. The edict against the queen resembles the one that Haman will pronounce against the Jews in Chapter 3. The difficulties that Vashti faces in her matrimonial relationship resemble those that Esther will confront in Chapter 5, where she will, however, adopt an attitude opposite to Vashti’s. As elsewhere in the book, Chapter 1 views the Persian imperial system, its size, its wealth, its banquets, and its administration, in a way reminiscent of classical Greek literature. In addition, the queen’s refusal can be explained by the traditional place of women at banquets, while the treatment of the king’s matrimonial difficulty calls to mind Herodotus’s account of an episode of the life of Cambyses.

The Banquets of the Persian King (1:1-9) 1 It was in the days of Ahasuerus, that Ahasuerus ruled over 127a provinces from India to Cush. 2 In those days, when King Ahasuerus sat on his royal throne in the citadela of Susa, 3 in the third year of his reign, he gave a banquet afor all his ministers and servants. The armya of Persia and Media, the nobles and the ministers of the provinces were before him. 4 He exhibited the glorious wealth of his monarchy and the precious splendor of his majesty, afor many daysa, 180 days. 5 When these daysa came to an end, the king gave for the people who were in the citadel of Susa, both great and small, a banquet lasting sevenb days in the court of the garden of the king’s pavillion. 6 Lace, linen, and purple cloth were suspended by byssus and crimson cords to silver rings and alabaster columns. Couches of gold and silver were on pavement of jade, alabaster, amother-of-pearl, and jeta. 7 Drinks were served in golden goblets, and in all sorts of goblets, and the wine of the kingdom was abundant aaccording to the king’s standarda 8 and the drinka

Synchronic Analysis

91

was, according to the edict, without restraint, for the king had ordered all of his household officials to act according to each individual’s desires. 9 Queen Vashtia also gave a banquet for the women in the royal house of King Ahasuerus.

Notes on Text and Translation 1a 2a

Syr. has here “120” probably by assimilation with MT from Dan 6:2. ‫ הבירה‬in apposition to Susa designates the acropolis. LXX translates the Hebrew more generally with Σούσοις τῇ πόλει “the city of Susa.” 3a-a LXX generalizes. The banquet is given τοῖς φίλοις καὶ τοῖς λοιποῖς ἔθνεσιν “for his friends and for all the other nations.” 4a-a A gloss absent from AT and LXX. 5a LXX + τοῦ γάμου “of marriage.” This variant is either an exegetical addition or a change from an original τοῦ ποτου “of drink.” b LXX corrects here to “six days,” perhaps to avoid having Susa’s Jewish inhabitants participate in festivities on the Sabbath. 6 The versions present numerous variants due to the presence of rare terms and difficult Hebrew syntax. For the LXX, see Ken CHAN, “An Alternative Translation of Esther 1.6-7 in the Septuagint,” Bible Translator 62 (2011), 165-171. a-a LXX and AT end this verse with “roses circling around.” This translation depends upon an original ‫( ורדי סחרת‬with an inversion of ‫ ר‬and ‫ ד‬in the first word). ‫ ורד‬signifies “rose” (in postbiblical Hebrew and Aramic) and ‫“ סחר‬to turn” (Aram.). 7a-a Lit.: “like the king’s hand.” LXX (and AT) “which the king drank” understands the Hebrew expression as denoting a type of wine the king consumed. 8a The MT opens with the hapax ‫“ והשתיה‬and the drink.” LXX and AT translate the first word of the verse with πότος “banquet,” a term which elsewhere translates ‫משׁתה‬ (Esth 1:5; 2:18; 5, 6, etc.). The original ‫ משׁתה‬had been a later correction to create a play on words with “Vashti.” 9a The LXX spells the name of the queen Αστιν. The orthography Ουαστιν from AT and Josephus is closer to that of MT.

Synchronic Analysis The book opens with the description of three royal banquets, letting the reader enter the luxurious world of the Persian imperial court. The setting is a far away oriental place characterized by excess, luxury, and foreign customs. The king rules over a territory that extends over the known world, and the banquets that showcase the glory of the king last for months, gathering together all the people in charge throughout the empire, and are given with impressive luxury, including much wine. As for women, they remain in the background. This first section sets up the geographic, temporal, and sociocultural context of the narrative. This type of descriptive introduction is entirely uncommon in biblical Hebrew literature.1 It instead calls to mind certain Hellenistic Jewish texts.

1

There are some descriptions (for example the Temple of Solomon or Ezekiel), but these are not used as introductions to contextualize the narrative.

92

The Banquets of the Persian King (1:1-9)

The closest parallel is the book of Judith, which opens with a long description of Nebuchadnezzar’s architectural, military, and festival practices. Verses 1-2 present the general context of the narrative – the reigning monarch, the expanse of his kingdom, as well as the location where he sits and thus where the plot will unfold. Then a series of three banquets is described: a banquet for the nobles lasting 180 days (vv. 3-4); a banquet for the people of Susa lasting seven days (vv. 5-8); and a banquet for women (v. 9). The two principal banquets are presented in a similar fashion and work as a pair. As each scene opens, the narrative describes the beginning of the banquet, the guests, the location, and the duration (vv. 3 and 5), before any actions occur (vv. 4 and 6-8). As time and space become more focused, the descriptions become more and more concrete. At the first banquet, only the general principles of the banquet are in evidence, and the narrative’s purpose is to convey the royal glory in general, while at the second banquet, the focus shifts to the practical details of this glorification. The luxurious furniture is described at length (v. 6), before the interest turns to the wine (vv. 7-8) and the manner in which it is consumed. The insistence upon the abundance of wine is significant because it emphasizes the wealth of the king, but also because it points to the state of mind of the guests and what will follow. The women’s banquet (v. 9), rather than serving as a third banquet, looks like an appendix to the men’s banquet. Its time and contents are not precise, implying simultaneity and similitude with the principal banquet. Only the type of guests and the location change. While the men are in the garden, the women are inside the palace. Thus the context and the necessary ingredients for the narrative that follows are set, the king is glorified, the elites and the people are present in the luxury of power, all the men are drunk and behave as they please, while the women are separated from the men. 1:1 The king is generally identified as Xerxes I (486–465). The Hebrew “Ahasuerus” ‫ אחשׁורושׁ‬is a good transcription of the Persian name Ḫšajāršā (Akkadian Ḫiši ʾarši), which in Greek texts is rendered as Xerxes (Ξέρξης). The LXX identifies him as Artaxerxes, probably because of the similarity between the Hebrew ‫ אחשׁורושׁ‬and the Greek Ἀρταξέρξης.2 The AT and the Vulgate transcribe the Hebrew name as Ἀσσυῆρος and Assuerus. Well known from Greek writings, Xerxes I is one of the greatest Persian rulers, under whose reign the empire reached its maximum extension westward. In any case, the king’s identification is not central to the interpretation of the book of Esther, which plays skillfully with representations of the Persian world, but does not describe historical events. The repetition of the name of the king, “that Ahasuerus,” underlines the impor127 Provinces tance of the details of his empire that figure in the digression of v. 1b and immediately show this king as one who is extremely powerful. His empire extends from “India to Cush” which, in antiquity, would be all the known world to the east and to the south. If

2

JOBES, Alpha-Text, 127, thinks that in speaking of Artaxerxes, the translator of the LXX wanted to allude to Artaxerxes III, assassinated in 338 by Bagoas. This suggestion is too speculative. Under the influence of the LXX, JOSEPHUS (Ant. 11.184 ff.) identified the king of Esther as Artaxerxes I (465-425).

Synchronic Analysis

93

the number “127 provinces” has a symbolic function,3 the number is not exaggerated.4 Herodotus (Hist. 3.89-117) mentions twenty satrapies, but knows that the subdivisions of the Persian world are much more numerous than that. As for the book of Esther (3:12), it clearly distinguishes the satrapies governed by the “satraps of the king” from the “provinces” that are run by governors. After the digression of 1b, v. 2 opens with “in those days,” which returns to 1:2 the opening phrase, “in the days of Ahasuerus.” The narrative specifies that the king “sat on his royal throne” in Susa during the “third year of his reign” (v. 3). Several commentators suggest that the passage alludes to a royal enthronement ritual. Its delay may be explained by the fact that due to rebellions in Egypt and Babylon, Xerxes’s throne was not immediately assured.5 That said, this note could also signify that at the moment when the narrative begins, the king is reinstating his throne in Susa after one of his trips.6 The note thus suggests that the following events reflect the habitual splendor of the Persian court, and that these festivities mark an unspecified anniversary – as mentioned by Herodotus (Hist. 9.110) – or an inauguration. The “citatel of Susa” ‫ שׁושׁן הבירה‬designates the acropolis of the complex where the palace is located. The book of Esther distinguishes the upper city from the lower city; the latter is ‫ שׁושׁן‬or ‫“ העיר שׁושׁן‬the city of Susa” (cf. Esth 3:15; 4:16; 6:11; 8:15; 9:13-18). The description of the ceremonial royal banquets contains elements found in 1:3-9 the descriptions of royal Persian banquets in Greek literature, as well as banqueting practices from the Hellenistic world. The Persian king’s enormous and luxurious banquets, with a large number of guests in magnificent surroundings, draw on a well-known motif within Greek literature.7 The same holds for the very hierarchical organization of royal Persian banquets that aim to show the superiority and the honor of the king. Moreover, as in Esther, conspiracies, punishments, and vengeances often appear in the Greek descriptions of royal Persian banquets.

3

4

5 6 7

In the biblical world, the number 120 represents completion. Gen 6:3 makes 120 years a human’s maximum lifespan, and there are twelve tribes of Israel. The number seven represents totality. Cf. LEVENSON, Esther, 43; MEINHOLD, Esther, 23. This point is emphasized in Thomas B. Dozeman’s comparison between the geography of Herodotus and that of Ezra-Nehemiah. See Thomas B. DOZEMAN, “Geography and History in Herodotus and in Ezra-Nehemiah,” JBL 122 (2003), 449-466. The number of 120 Persian satrapies figures in Dan 6:1-2 and that of 127 in 1 Esd (3:2). Some see here, erroneously, an exaggerated figure (recently, DU TOIT, “Satirical,” 87). Already b. Meg. 11b. Among modern scholars: PATON, Esther, 124-125; MOORE, Esther, 5; BARDTKE, “Esther”, 278. XENOPHON (Cyr. 8.6.22) explains that the Persian king used his palaces in Ecbatana, Susa, and Babylon, according to the seasons. On Greek and Persian banquets, see especially VÖSSING, Mensa Regia; SCHMITT PANTEL, banquet; ID. “Manger” and MACCHI, “identité.” On the luxury of Persian banquets, see HERODOTUS (Hist. 9.80-82) and ATHENAEUS (Deipn. 14; 67). XENOPHON emphasizes the fact that the king feeds his court as well as the people that he appreciates and honors with the best dishes (Cyr. 8.2.2-4; 8.6.11; Anab. 1.9.25-26), he stages public banquets (Cyr. 8.4.1-5). As for the size of the royal meals, CTESIAS, speaks of daily seatings for 15,000 people (Persica F39). Judith (1:16) also mentions an enormous eastern banquet at which the king resides for 120 days with his army.

94

The Banquets of the Persian King (1:1-9)

On the other hand, aristocratic wives do seem able to participate.8 The ceremonial banquets in Esther also contain several typical features of Hellenistic table practices. While the meals of the archaic Greek cities were relatively egalitarian and frugal, the banquets of Hellenistic kings, or those offered to cities by important euergetai, resembled Persian banquets.9 Luxury, the desire to honor the host, and the importance of protocol characterized these meals that tended to take place in public spaces (agora stadiums, etc.). Moreover, if women seem to be excluded, sometimes, as in Esth 1:9, meals were sent to them separately.10 However, contrary to what takes place in Esther, Greek banquets are fundamentally ritual and sacrificial, while these characteristics are never mentioned concerning Persian banquets. 1:3-4 The first banquet is colossal, both in its duration and in the number, the provenance, and the status of the guests. It lasts “180 days.” The guest list implies that everyone who was anyone in the empire is present. The term ‫ חיל‬designates “the army” rather then the aristocracy since in Esth 8:11 this term is clearly militaristic.11 The term ‫“ פרתמים‬nobles” derives from the Persian fratama “first,”12 and designates a type of Persian aristocracy. The “provincial ministers” are the local administration of the imperial territory. Even if the presence of the Persian army and administation in Susa for a period of six months posed evident organizational difficulties, there is no reason to suppose that they would have arrived in successive delegations. In fact, the story aims not to be plausible, but rather to turn the Persian king and his empire into figures so powerful that there is never a concern with matters of governance. The first chapter brings together “Persia and Media” (1:3, 14, 18, 19). Labelling the Persian world by associating it with Media does not happen in the Old Testament apart from the books of Daniel and the Maccabees,13 but is well attested in Greek literature that often uses “Media” to speak of Persians. This is because Media was part of the heart of the Persian Empire, and because of the ethnic and cultural ties between the two peoples.14 Exhibiting According to v. 4, the banquets aim to “exhibit” the glory of the person who Glory hosts them. In vv. 6-8 the concrete description of material wealth, displayed and

8 HERODOTUS, Hist. 1.118-119; 3.32; 5.18; 9.110; PLUTARCH, Art. 5.5. 9 Cf. the detailed study of SCHMITT PANTEL, banquet, 255-420. 10 See SCHMITT PANTEL, banquet, 397-399. During the banquet offered by Epaminondas to Akraiphia, his wife Kotila offers a banquet for the women (DITTENBERGER (ed.), Inscriptiones 7.2712; SARTRE, Histoires, 341). 11 The interpretation of ‫ חיל‬in an aristocratic sense applies notably to Ruth 2:1. See BERLIN, Esther, 8; GERLEMAN, Esther, 54-55; BUSH, Esther, 347. The term “army” could also be understood as various designated representatives (leaders). 12 See the discussion in GERLEMAN, Esther, 55, HAL etc. The term is found in 6:9 and in Dan 1:3. 13 Dan 5:28; 6:9, 13, 16; 8:20. 1 Macc 1:1; 6:56; 14:2. 14 P. BRIANT notes that “The Greeks and the peoples of Middle East frequently referred to the Persians under the name of Medes” (BRIANT, Histoire, 35). See for example HÉRODOTUS, Hist. 5.103-104; 7.136, 138-139; 9.43-46 and THUCYDIDES, War 1.89. Concerning cultural ties, see PLATO, Leg. 694c-695a and STRABO, Geogr. 11.13.5 and 8-9. Greek historiography promulgates the idea that the Persian Empire falls within Median succession, cf. HÉRODOTUS, Hist. 1.96-106 then 107-130. One finds this idea in the succession of the four empires in the book of Daniel (Assyrians; Medes; Persians; Greeks).

Synchronic Analysis

95

offered to the guests, highlights the status of the person who provided it. The two parallel phrases in v. 4 blend the semantic range of “material” wealth with that of honor.15 “Wealth” is associated with “the glory of his monarchy.” In addition, the terms “precious” ‫ יקר‬and “splendor” ‫ תפארת‬contain a double meaning, and can designate not only that which is materially precious, but also honor in general (cf. Esth 6). In the first festive episodes of Chapter 1, glory and wealth are the essential attributes for Persian royalty, so everything is “royal”: the throne (1:2); the wine (1:7); the palace (1:9); and the crown (1:11). The phrases in v. 4a anticipate several subsequent episodes. Thus, the willingness to be on display explains the reason that Queen Vashti will be summoned (1:11). Furthermore, when the narrative’s principal characters are honored, the terms used call to mind supreme royal honor, deployed during the banquets of Chapter 1. Thus, in 5:11, Haman speaks of “the glory of his wealth.” To describe the honor granted Mordecai in Chapters 6 and 10, one finds recurring terms of “honor” (6:3, 6, 7, 9, 11; 10:2) and “greatness” (6:3; 10:2). Likewise, honor toward Jews and husbands is described in terms of “honor” (8:16 and 1:20). The second banquet lasts only “seven days.” The guests are distinct from 1:5-8 those of the first banquet. While the first banquet involved the intelligentsia of all the empire, as is known in Greek cities, “all the people” of the city are gathered at the second banquet. The mention of “both great and small” underlines the universality of the royal invitation. “Pavillion” ‫ ביתן‬is rare. It derives from the Akkadian bītānu and denotes a Garden of the small architectural structure.16 Gardens, tied closely to the king’s status, are well Pavillion known in Persian palaces.17 When Esther reveals Haman’s plot (7:7-8), the king takes refuge there. Verse 6 contains two nominal clauses that describe the hangings, the furniture, and the flooring. The mention of many items of material luxury underscores the wealth of the palace. Several terms are rare and their meaning uncertain.18 When Mordecai goes out triumphantly from before the king (8:15), his royal garments are described by this same vocabulary. The opening of v. 7 stresses yet another sign of royal wealth, the luxurious and diverse serving dishes. The furnishings of Ahasuerus’s banquet, with their hangings, couches of gold, and luxurious dishes, evoke the description of royal Persian banquets in Herotodus19 and the wealth and luxury of oriental palaces well known from Greek literature.20

15 Concerning honor and its characterization in the motif of royalty and royal banquets in Esther, see LANIAK, Shame, 38-59; KLEIN, “Honor,” 153, 156. 16 Cf. A. Leo OPPENHEIM, “On Royal Gardens in Mesopotamia,” JNES 24 (1965), 328-333. 17 The theme of paradise where Cyrus is simultaneously both architect and laborer XÉNOPHON, Oec. 4.13-14.20-25 (see also Anab. 1.4.10 and 2.4.14). 18 The first two terms and the last three of v. 6 are hapax. ‫שׁשׁ‬-II “alabaster” occurs only twice in the Bible. For the etymology and the meaning of these various terms cf. BUSH, Esther, 347-348, GERLEMAN, Esther, 58-59 and HAL. These terms are not borrowed from Persian. 19 Cf. Hist. 7.119 and 9.80-82. 20 Persian wealth is sung by AESCHYLUS, Pers. 3-5, 249-251 and is described by PSEUDOARISTOTLE (De Mundo, 398a) and ATHÉNAEUS (Deipn. 12.512-514). According to DIODORUS OF SICILY, Alexander the Great is dazzled by Persian luxury (Bibliotheca, 17.77.4). On the splendor of Persian kings, see also BRIANT, Histoire, 311-313.

96

The Banquets of the Persian King (1:1-9)

Verses 7-8 end the description of the banquets by mentioning what is consumed. No solid food appears and the drunken character of the banquet is repeatedly stressed. Wine and drunkenness will play an essential role in the narrative that follows.21 Wine Banquet

The term “banquet” ‫משׁתה‬, used often in Esther, derives from the root “to drink”‫; שׁתה‬ those banquets organized by Esther in Chapters 5 and 7 are even called “wine banquets” (5:6; 7:2, 7, 8). In 1:10, the king summons the queen because he is drunk, and several important decisions are taken in a state of drunkenness during banquets: the edict against Vashti; and Haman’s condemnation. In biblical literature, wine and drunkenness can be be associated positively with wealth and celebration (Judg 9:13; 2 Kgs 18:32; Job 1; Ps 104:15) but can also be perceived as dangerous (Noah; 1 Sam 1:15; Prov 20:1; 21:17). Greek literature knows well the motif of Persian royal drinking parties. Herotodus explains that Persians make important decisions while inebriated,22 and Persian drunkenness appears in several episodes where it leads to harmful consequences.23 That said, for the Greeks, associations with wine and meals are not specifically Persian. Wine consumption also characterizes the traditional Greek banquet, where men drink to entertain themselves and discuss political or philosophical subjects.24

The King’s The expression ‫“ כיד המלך‬according to the king’s standard” signifies that the wine Standard is offered to the full extent of the Persian king’s ability, that is, an extraordinary

quality and quantity (also in 1 Kgs 10:13; Esth 2:18). The expression “the drink was, according to the edict, without restraint” Without Restraint ‫והשׁתיה כדת אין אנס‬, signifies that each person could drink as much as desired.25 The abundance of drink sets the scene for the negative turn of events to follow when the queen will be summoned and dismissed by the drunken men. An amusing play on words26 imparts irony, for the word ‫“ והשׁתיה‬and the drink”27 is strikingly assonant with the proper name Vashti, so that in 1:8 the mention of “the drink (wehashtiya) according to the edict ‫ ”כדת‬sets the scene for the question that the king will ask in 1:15, “as edict, ‫ כדת‬what should be done to Queen Vashti (Washti)?” Edicts

The term “edict” ‫ דת‬designates an official decree. This term, of Persian origin, appears twenty times in Esther, where it characterizes the Persian manner of goverance. In

21 On wine in Esther see MACCHI, “regard,” 114-116 and MACCHI, “identité,” 237-238.248249. 22 HÉRODOTUS, Hist. 1.133. See also STRABO, Geogr. 15.3.20; ATHÉNAEUS, Deipn. 4.144b. 23 Cambyses’s madness is explained by wine abuse (HÉRODOTUS, Hist. 3.34). Xerxes II is assassinated at the close of a banquet while he is drunk [CTÉSIAS, Persica F15(48)]. HÉRODOTUS (Hist. 1.133) mentions the Persian penchant for wine and XÉNOPHON attributes the decline of the Persian Empire to growing alcoholism (Cyr. 8.8.18). 24 For a general overview, cf. SCHMITT PANTEL, “Manger.” The nature of the dialogue exchanged has been the subject of study such as PLATO or XÉNOPHON’s Symposium or PLUTARCH’s Quaestionum convivialum libri IX. Reflections on drinking at banquets appears throughout this literature. Chapters 8 to 10 of book 7 of PLUTARCH’s Quaest. conv. wonder whether wine troubles reasoning and ponder the nature of the Greek or Persian custom of banquet drinking. 25 The root ‫אנס‬, current in Late Biblical Hebrew and in Aramaic (cf. Dan 4:9), signifies “to compel” in the sense of imposed interdiction. Cf. HAUPT, “Critical,” 106 and HAL. 26 BERG, Book, 35-36. 27 This hapax in the Bible is used in postbiblical Hebrew, cf. BERGEY, Book, 29-30.

Synchronic Analysis

97

biblical Aramaic, it denotes royal Babylonian (Dan 2:9, 13, 15) and Persian edicts (Dan 6:6, 9, 13, 16; 7:21, 25, 26).

In 1:8, the edict, surprisingly, neither proscribes nor prohibits. On the contrary, it permits the guests to act as they please, which is exactly what would be lawful in the absence of an edict. By associating an edict with an absence of restraint, the text introduces irony, suggesting that the Persian system is oppressive to the extent that an edict must be promulgated to restrict lawmaking.28 The freedom of this edict contrasts with the severe restraining of Vashti when she takes the liberty of not obeying the king. The personnel of the royal court appear for the first time with “all of his household officials ‫רב‬.” In the Hebrew Bible, the term ‫ רב‬typically denotes a type of foreigner of high office.29 Here, it probably creates a word play with the term “abundant” ‫רב‬, (end of v. 7), as though the abundance of court personnel matched that of the wine. No Persian queen named “Vashti” is attested in any extrabiblical sources. They 1:9 Vashti do know the name and much of the biography of the wife of Xerxes, Amestris.30 It is useless to try to identify Amestris with Vashti or Esther.31 The authors of the book of Esther certainly did not want to push the historical fiction to the point of staging the famous Amestris. As for the name of Vashti ‫ושׁתי‬, it is not directly attested in other languages. Its etymology could approach that of Vištā – present in the old Persian proper name Vištāspa – rather than the old Persian terms vahišta “the best” or uštī “that which is desired.”32 The women’s banquet takes place in “the royal house” ‫בית המלכות‬, a location The Royal associated specifically with the person of the king, meaning his private quarters House and throne room that even the queen cannot access without summons (cf. 2:16 and 5:1).33 The sexes are clearly separated, with men outside and in the garden court (v. 5), while the women are inside in the most central part of the palace. Such a separation between the women and the men at the banquet, and a parallel banquet for women, is not unusual within a Hellenistic context. This separation between men and women is necessary for the plot, since Vashti must be outside the presence of the king in order to be summoned (1:10-12), and must be surrounded by women so that Memucan’s argument makes sense (1:17).

28 CLINES, Esther, 278; BERG, Book, 36. 29 This term ‫ רב‬denotes types of Assyrio-Babylonian high officials in the expressions ‫“ רב־טבחים‬chief of the guards” (2 Kgs 25; Jer 39-43; Jer 52), ‫“ רב־שׁקה‬chief aid” (2 Kgs 18-19; Isa 36-37), ‫“ רב־מג‬chief astrologer?” (Jer 39:3, 13), ‫“ רב־סריס‬chief of the eunuchs” (2 Kgs 18:17; Jer 39:3, 13; Dan 1:3). 30 HÉRODOTUS, Hist. 7.61.114; 9.108-113; CTÉSIAS, Persica, F13(24) . 31 As do ARNOLD, Esther, 63-67; GORDIS, “Religion”, 384; SCHILDENBERGER, Esther, 26 ff. 32 See ZADOK, “Notes,” 109-110; GEHMAN, “Notes,” 322-323; MOORE, Esther, 8; GERLEMAN, Esther, 60. Connecting Vashti to an Elamite deity Mašti is etymologically improbable. However, it is a supporting argument in JENSEN, “Elamistische”; ZIMMERN, “Frage” and LEWY, “Feast,” according to which the narrative’s protagonists represent historicized eastern divinities. 33 In Esther, in general, the palace is called ‫ בית המלך‬and not ‫בית המלכות‬.

98

Vashti’s Refusal (1:10-12)

Vashti’s Refusal (1:10-12) 10 On the seventh day, when the king’s heart was merry with wine, he called upon Mehumana, bBiztha, Harbona, Bigtha and Abaghta, Zethar and Carkas,bc the seven eunuchs attending before King Ahasuerus, 11 to summon Queen Vashti before the king with a royal diadem, to display to the people and the ministers her magnificence, because she was beautiful to behold. 12 But Queen Vashti refused to come according to the king’s command, conveyed by the eunuchs. The king became enraged and his anger burned within him.

Notes on Text and Translation 10a LXX identifies the first eunuch as Haman (Αμαν). The confusion is due to the ending of the Hebrew for Mehuman ‫מהומן‬. MS 93 (LXX) reads μαουμαν. Peshitta has the title “eunuch” ‫למהימנא‬. b-b In the different versions, there are numerous variants for the spelling of proper names, with a number of differences between manuscripts. The AT gives no proper names. c Having read the first name as a title, the Peshitta adds a seventh name to the end of the list.

Synchronic Analysis After nine verses describing the splendors of the banquets glorifying the power of the Persian king, the celebration turns catastrophic when Queen Vashti refuses to appear. Vashti is the grain of sand that disturbs the well-oiled machine of the Persian court. For the first time, someone calls into question the king’s power and humiliates him publicly. The Reasons The biblical text does not explain the reason for Vashti’s insubordination. This for Vashti’s Re- “lacuna” has given rise to various explanations. fusal The Jewish interpretive tradition describes Vasthi as Nebuchadnezzar’s granddaughter or great-granddaughter and her eviction is presented as a divine punishment or the consequence of her pride.34 Moreover, her refusal is often explained by the fact that the drunken king wanted her to appear naked, wearing only the crown (since that is the only article of clothing mentioned).35 Christian tradition sometimes parallels Vashti’s rejection with that of the synagogue, for the benefit of the Christian church, represented by Esther.36 Contemporary feminist exegesis often casts a positive image

34 Tg. Esth. I criticizes Vashti for supposedly originating a ban on rebuilding the Temple of Jerusalem and commanding her Jewish servants to work in the nude and on the Sabbath (also b. Meg. 12b). Cf. also BRONNER, “Esther,” 188-190. 35 Cf. Tg. Esth. I. Tg. Esth. II and Mid. Rabbah explain this naked summons as due to a debate among the king’s guests to identify the most beautiful woman in the world. 36 Cf. Marie-Louise TRÉNEL, “L’origine du thème de la ‘synagogue répudiée’,” Scriptorium 25 (1971), 288-289.

Synchronic Analysis

99

of Vashti, whose refusal is seen as an act of resistance in the face of oppression in a male-dominated society.37

These diverse interpretations are not dependent upon anything explicit in the text. Consequently, several exegetes feel that Vashti’s refusal aims only to free up the queen’s position in order to advance the plot.38 But for a reader immersed in a Hellenistic cultural context, the reasons for the queen’s refusal, though not explicit, are likely evident. In the Greek world, wives do not take part in meals with their husbands. In addition, the lustful nature of drunk Persians is well known – as well as the disinhibiting nature of alcohol – so much so that the sexual connotation associated with the presence of women at a drinking-party is enough to explain that a king’s wife could not decently present herself at the end of a banquet, and be treated as anything more than a simple concubine.39 In this context, Vashti’s refusal to be put on display at the banquet seems legitimate. Her summons requires her to choose between two contradictory obligations: the rules of etiquette prevent her from appearing, but the king’s order compels her to go.40 Several other indicators corroborate that Vashti’s refusal is legitimate and Vashti Parallels understandable and that her character is not viewed negatively.41 Vashti’s charac- Esther and ter is parallel to that of Mordecai in Chapiter 3. Like Vashti, Mordecai disobeys a Mordecai royal order (3:3) in refusing to pay homage to an individual whose functions are similar to those of the king (3:1-2); like her, he cannot preserve his dignity without opposing the law of the empire. Finally, as in Vashti’s refusal, that of Mordecai leads to the promulgation of an edict to attack the offender’s entire group, women or Jews. Furthermore, the text presents the figure of Esther and her strategy against Ahasuerus as a reflection of that of Vashti. The two women are both beautiful wives of the king. While Vashti opposes the king and Persian law in refusing her summons to appear at the kings banquet, Esther does the exact reverse, since

37 Cf. BEAL, “Tracing,” 107; BUTTING, “Esther,” 242; CLINES, “Reading,” 31-32, 40-42; DURAN, “Marry,” 73-74; NADAR, “Gender,” 117-122; Deborah F. SAWYER, “Explorations on the Theme of Female Characterisation in the Hebrew Bible”, Rivista Biblica 56 (2008), 419431, 427-430; STANTON, Bible, vol. 2, 92; LAFFEY, Introduction, 216; SPIES, “Ester,” 5; WALSH, “Women,” 138-139. At the opposite end of the spectrum, the character of Esther seems to be integrated into the patriarchal norm and consequently appears less positive (e.g., WHITE CRAWFORD, “Judith,” 71-73). 38 In this manner BARDTKE, “Esther”; GERLEMAN, Esther; MOORE, Esther, 13; HARVEY, Morality, 20-22. 39 See HÉRODOTUS, Hist. 5.18. PLUTARCH, Mor. 140a-b reports that Persian kings summon concubines at the close of banquets for entertainment. This explanation of Vashti’s refusal is defended by BICKERMAN, Strange, 185-186 n. 10; BERLIN, Esther, 15; FOX, Character, 168-169; MCCABE, “Defending.” The episode reported by HÉRODOTUS (Hist. 1.8-13) during which King Candaules secretly arranged for the naked viewing of his wife, can hardly be seen to parallel the episode concerning Vashti, because nudity and the secretive aspect of the display are absent in the biblical narrative. 40 For background on hidden Persian women, PLUTARCH, Them. 26.5 and JOSÈPHUS, Ant. 11.6. PLUTARCH, Art. 5.6 mentions the exhibition of Artaxerxes’s queen for the pleasure of the people, but this display does not occur in the context of a banquet. 41 This interpretation of Vashti is found in FOX, Character, 164-170.

100

Vashti’s Refusal (1:10-12)

she appears without summons before the king (4:11) in order to invite him to a banquet. Vashti’s opposition to the aburdity of the royal order is just as legitimate as Mordecai’s. Sadly, the Persian system tends to crush those who oppose it. Contrary to what will happen to the Jews, no help will come for Vashti. The episode of Vashti’s expulsion thus shows what would “normally” happen when someone, however powerful, opposes the king. 1:10-11 Verse 10 situates the events on the seventh and final day of the banquet, the climax of the banquets. The circumstances that lead the king to make the catastrophic decision to summon the queen are connected to his drunkenness. Obliged to disobey him, the queen will thus humiliate him. A similar episode, a decision with similar dramatic consequences made in a state of drunkenness, occurs in Daniel 5, when King Belshazzar orders the use of the Temple utensils during a banquet. The description of Vashti’s summons emphasizes its ceremonial character. In the Persian court described in Esther, everything is full of pomp, luxury, and formality. Where the sending of one single messenger would have been sufficient, the MT has a delegation befitting an embassy, with seven eunuchs cited by name, whose important function of “attending before the king.” is again mentioned. Lists of Persian Names

Besides the principal characters Ahasuerus, Vashti, Haman, Zeresh, Esther, and Mordecai, as well as a number of eunuchs (2:8, 14, 21; 4:5), the book of Esther has three lists of names of Persians with administrative roles: the seven eunuchs in 1:10; the seven royal advisors in 1:14; and Haman’s ten sons in 9:7-9. The etymology behind these names of “Persian” characters is debated.42 They are sometimes compared with Persian names. That said, such research encounters methodological obstacles. The spelling and the pronunciation of the ancient Persian language is uncertain. Furthermore, transcription of foreign terms into Hebrew can vary. Moreover, the restitution of these names by ancient interpreters (LXX, Josephus, OL) varies widely to the point that it is not certain whether the orthography of the MT is the earliest.43 The search for a Persian “etymology” of the proper names in the book is probably useless. As in certain Greek tragedies,44 the authors of Esther could very well have fabricated names sounding Persian; the artificial and fictive nature of certain proper names is a common enough occurrence in biblical literature.45

The motif of the envoy of the seven eunuchs emphasizes the pomp of the Persian court and the complexity of communication. As with Mordecai with Esther, in Chapter 4, the king must mediate via the eunuchs in addressing Vashti. Diadem The “royal diadem” that the queen must wear signals the ceremonial character of the invitation, and that she is a member of the royalty. The term ‫כתר‬

42 DUCHESNE-GUILLEMIN, “noms”; GEHMAN, “Notes”; JENSEN, “Elamistische”; MILLARD, “The Names”; MILLER, Versions, 15-17; PATON, Esther, 67-71; John M. WIEBE, “Mehuman”, in ABD, vol. 4, p. 680-682; YAMAUCHI, “Mordecai”; ZADOK, “Background”; ID. “Notes.” 43 See the table in MOORE, Esther, xlii-xliii (for 9,7-10 also BARDTKE, “Esther,” 378 and HAUPT, “Notes,” 164). 44 For example, Xerxes’s army chiefs (AESCHYLUS, Pers. 302-330), the eunuchs mentioned by Ctesias and the members of Darius’s coalition (HÉRODOTUS, Hist. 3.70). Cf. also BERLIN, Esther, 13-14. 45 See MATHYS, “Personennamen.”

The Consequences of Vashti’s Refusal (1:13-22)

101

“diadem” is not attested in the Bible outside the book of Esther. Its prescise meaning is uncertain. As suggested by an Arabic etymology of (katara = “bump”), the term could possibly indicate a tiara, a sort of conical turban. The use of the term in postbiblical Hebrew, with a semitic root, meaning *ktr “to encircle,” as well as the use of the Greek term of the same origin κίταρις,46 nevertheless invites one to envision a crown, or rather a diadem, a type of headband signifying monarchical power in the Hellenistic period. Such a “diadem” is also placed on Esther’s head (2:17) and on the head of Mordecai’s horse (6:8) as a sign of royalty. “To display to the people and the governors her magnificence” shows that Vashti’s arrival in the narrative is meant to be the climax of the two banquets. After having “displayed” (‫ ראה‬hif inf. c.) his wealth, his glory, and his honor, the king hopes to conclude by displaying his wife before the guests at both banquets. In this context, Vashti’s refusal rings like a clap of thunder. For the king, the 1:12 situation is profoundly humiliating.47 The reader who has been impressed by the riches and the luxuries of the court of the great king, can only smile while imagining this ridiculous scene in which a king who rules over 127 provinces cannot manage to summon his wife to a celebration. The text makes much of the king’s anger: “the king became enraged and his Anger anger burned within him.” In the book of Esther, anger characterizes the emotional state of several Persian characters and explains their injudicious decisionmaking. It is in anger that Bigthan and Teresh decide to make an attempt on the king’s life (2:21), that Haman causes a decree to go out against the Jews (3:5), and decides to take on Mordecai (5:9). Lastly, it is after a fit of royal rage provoked by Esther (7:7) that Haman is condemned to death. Not without irony, the use of the anger motif turns Persians of high standing into impulsive individuals, driven by their emotions.48

The Consequences of Vashti’s Refusal (1:13-22) 13 The king consulted the sages who knew the timesa – for it was thus, that the king’s affairs were considered before all those who were familiar with edict and judgment. 14 Now, those close to him were aCarshena, Shethar, Admatha, Tarshish, Meres, Marsena, and Memucan, the seven ministers of Persia and Media who could see the face of the king and occupied the first place in the kingdom – 15 “As edicta, what should be done to Queen Vashti, since she did not fulfil King Ahasuerus’ royal command, conveyed by the hand of the eunuchs?”.

46 For a detailed discussion of this term cf. A. SALVESEN, “‫כתר‬.” This author opts resolutely for translating “diadem.” 47 LANIAK, Shame, 36 ff. demonstrates well that Vashti’s refusal affects the royal honor, so weightily deployed over the course of the banquets. 48 The irony in the motif of an angry king is emphasised by CHAN, “Ira Regis.”

102

The Consequences of Vashti’s Refusal (1:13-22)

16 Memucan said before the king and the ministers: “It is not only to the king that Queen Vashti has erred, but to all the ministers and all the peoples who are in all the provinces of King Ahasuerus, 17 for this matter concerning the queen will go out toa all women, causing them to show contempt for their husbands, and telling them: “King Ahasuerus commanded that Queen Vashti should appear before him, and she did not come.” 18 and this very day, the noble women of Persia and Media who have heard of this matter of the queen will speak in the same fashiona to all the royal ministers, which will engenderb contempt and angerc. 19 If it pleases the king, send outa a royal decree from him, and let it be writtena into the edicts of Persia and Media and never be transgressed,a that Vashti may never again come before King Ahasuerus, and let the king givea her royal position to another, who is better than she. 20 and the decreea that the king shall issue shall be heard throughout all his kingdom – bwhich is vastb – and all women will honor their husbands, chigh and low alikec”. 21 This proposal seemed good in the eyes of the king and his ministers. The king acted according to Memucan’s proposal. 22 He sent letters to all the provinces of the king, to every province according to its own script and to every people according to its own language, so that each man should govern within his own house aand speak the language of his peoplea.

Notes on Text and Translation 13a

The expression “those who know the times” is attested in 1 Chr 12:33 and makes sense in the context. There is no need to correct ‫“ עתים‬the times” to ‫“ דתים‬the edicts” (contra BHS; HARRELSON, “Textual,” 199; HALLER, “Esther,” 118; MOORE, Esther, 9). 14a-a The LXX presents only 3 names, Αρκεσαῖος, Σαρσαθαῖος and Μαλησεαρ, while the hexapla tradition [MSS 58 and 93 (LXX)] presents six names whose orthography approaches that of the MT. “Tarshish” has no equivalent even in the hexapla MSS. The AT offers no proper names here. 15a The MT makes sense and no textual correction is necessary (contra HAUPT, “Notes,” 111; BARDTKE, “Esther,” 285, who relate this term to the end of v. 14 and contra BHS; RUDOLPH, “Estherbuch,” who deletes it as a dittography). 17a Under Aramaic influence, the prepositions ‫ על‬and ‫ אל‬are interchangeable in late Hebrew (cf. JOÜON §133b). Also Esth 2:14; 4:5, 10; 7:7. 18a The conjecture ‫“ תמרינה‬they will rebel” (BHS; HALLER, “Esther,” 120; MOORE, Esther, 10) is unnecessary. b The Hebrew formulation is lapidary. ‫( כדי‬lit.: according to – sufficiency) expresses the fact that the situation described in 17-18a is of a nature that would generate contempt and anger (same usage of ‫ כדי‬in Lev 25:26 and Deut 25:2). c The Vulg. comments approvingly of the king’s indignation regis iusta est indignatio (Vincent T.M. SKEMP, “Learning by Example: Exempla in Jerome’s Translations and Revisions of Biblical Books,” VigChr 65 (2011), 257-284, 276-278). 19a These verbs should be understood as jussives. 20a The term, of Persian origin, ‫“ פתגם‬decree” is well attested in Hebrew (Qoh 8:11; and Sir 5:11; 8:9) and in Aramaic (GEHMAN, “Notes,” 325-326; GERLEMAN, Esther, 69). Here it is used in place of the usual ‫דת‬.

Synchronic Analysis

103

Gloss, absent in the Greek witnesses. ‫ כי‬is emphatic (BUSH, Esther, 351; FOX, Character, 275) rather than concessive, “although large” (HAUPT, “Notes,” 113; GERLEMAN, Esther, 69). c-c LXX and AT render “poor and rich alike” contrary to what they do in 1:5 (see JOBES, Alpha-Text, 59-60). The MT of 1:20 was probably harmonized late with 1:5. 22a-a This enigmatic ending is absent from the LXX. Several conjectured corrections have been proposed (cf. BUSH, Esther, 352). ‫“ ומדבר כל־שוח עמו‬and spoke all that pleased him” (Hitzig, cited in HAUPT, “Notes,” 113; MOORE, Esther, p. 12). ‫“ ומדביר כל־נשיו עמו‬and subjugated (‫ דבר‬in a militaristic sense) all wives under him” (BARDTKE, “Esther,” 285). ‫“ ומדבר בלשון נעם‬and speaks an agreeable language” (CLINES, Esther, 283). The suggestion made by GERLEMAN, Esther, 70 “so that each suzerain shall be addressed according to the language of his people” vocalizes ‫ מדבר‬as pual and interprets ‫ שׂרר בביתו‬in the sense of “suzerain.” b-b

Synchronic Analysis Humiliated and angry, the king will activate the Persian administrative machine to redeem his honor. The description of the consultation with the elite Persian sages is not without humor. Amid this high-class environment, one hears a macho discourse worthy of a group of drunken men. According to Memucan, the queen must be excluded from the royal court, and the event must be made into the largest possible spectacle in order to avoid a hypothetical women’s revolution and to allow each man to inspire his wife to respect him. After v. 12, which notes the king’s fury, a reaction both impulsive and violent seems logical. However, the royal response seems poised and thoughtful. The decision process involves three principal steps: the problem is revealed to advisors (vv. 13-15); one of the advisors proposes a solution; (vv. 16-20) and this solution is agreed upon by the king and implemented (vv. 21-22). Such a process does not place the decision-maker and his clever nature at the center of attention, but rather relies upon an advisor, so much so that it is the system of the Persian court, rather than the king, that makes the decision. In Esther, the process by which the Persian elite make decisions is stereotyped. Advice comes from an advisor, before any decision is made, to have a beauty contest (2:2-4), to publish an antisemitic decree (3:7-9), to make a gallows (5:14), and to have an honorary procession (6:7-9). This manner of decision-making following an advisor’s suggestions does not appear when Jews are taking part in the decision process. There, the options are evaluated over the course of a dialogue, as in Chapter 4 between Esther and Mordecai or in Chapter 8 between Esther and the king. Memucan asserts that the queen’s disobedience risks serving as an example and will engender a women’s revolt. Consequently, the decree evicting Vashti and its broadcast throughout the empire seems an adequate solution. The honor reclaimed by the king will be exemplary and will lead women to respect their husbands. Even if this argument seems coherent at first blush, several elements suggest connotations that are burlesque and polemical.49 First of all, the fact that

49 A number of commentators interpret in this sense: BECHTEL, Esther, 24-25; BERLIN, Esther, 16-17; BUSH, Esther, 354-355; DAY, Esther, 35-36; JOBES, Esther, 79-81.

Organization of the Passage

Persian Decision-Making

A Serious or Ridiculous Decree?

104

Judges and Marriage of the King

1:13-15. The Times

The Consequences of Vashti’s Refusal (1:13-22)

a marital conflict becomes a public affair and is dealt with by means of a heavy administrative instrument involving eunuchs, advisors, scribes, and a postal system lends a ridiculous character to the episode. Moreover, it is drunken guests who propose the decree, and it is such a drunken state that has often led to absurd generalizations concerning the difficulties of life and to simplistic solutions being proposed to complex problems. However, such traits are typical of Memucan’s speech. The overgeneralizing of the king’s problem is absurd, for it is hard to imagine all the women of the kingdom making fun of their husbands at the news of the queen’s refusal. Furthermore, the decree promulgated needlessly publicizes the king’s humiliation. Moreover, respect is not something that can be decreed.50 Lastly, the similiarity between the promulgation of the decree against the Jews (Ch. 3), obviously contemptible, and that against Vashti, suggests that Memucan’s decree is also considered to be illegitimate. In both cases, following the dishonoring of a man of highest rank by a subordinate (Vashti does not respond to the king’s summons and Mordecai refuses to bow before Haman), the dishonored person puts forth a decree that strikes the offender’s entire group. The decree against Vashti affects all women, while that against Mordecai affects all Jews. Note that both decrees are promulgated throughout the empire in an identical fashion (3:1214; 1:22a). In addition, Memucan's decree is approved by the king according to a formula identical to the one that ends Zeresh’s speech to Haman “it was good in the eyes of X and he did Y.” (5:14; 1:21). The consultation of specialists in the matter concerning Vashti calls to mind an episode from Herodotus that describes the marriage of the Persian king Cambyses: “having fallen in love with one of his sisters and wishing afterwards to take the illegal step of making her his wife, he summoned the royal judges and asked them if there was any law in the country which allowed a man to marry his sister if he wished to do so.”51 Herodotus goes on to explain that the judges skilled in interpreting the laws found a way to authorize the marriage. Even though the circumstances are different, in both cases a king consults a college of specialists on a matrimonial matter. The specialists engage in a legal discussion and obtain a result with which the king concurs. The Persian court is represented as functioning in a similar way, and irony seems to underlie both passages. According to Herodotus, Cambyses is half crazy, while in the book of Esther, Ahasuerus is drunk. The specialists are “sages” “who knew the times ‫עתים‬.” As indicated at the end of v. 13, which speaks of specialists in “law and judgment,” these individuals are jurists. Consequently, the most contemporary interpretation of the expression “to know the times” suggests competence in legal procedures rather than in orac-

50 Midrash Rabbah humorously calls to mind such a notion, when commenting upon Esth 1:21-22, which states that Ahasuerus “had a stupid policy. ‘Under ordinary circumstances, if someone wants to eat lentils and his wife to eat beans, can he force her? Is it not the simple fact that what she wants is what she does?’” (translation NEUSNER, Esther Rabbah I, 115). 51 HÉRODOTUS, Hist. 3.31 (Penguin Classics edition, transl. Aubrey de Sélincourt, further revised edition 2003).

Synchronic Analysis

105

ular or astrological means.52 In the context of the book of Esther, the attributions of “sages” and specialists in the “times,” set up the following narrative to be laced with irony. In fact, the Persian advisors’ notions of time management is bizarre. Memucan insists upon the immediate risk that Vashti will cause to the empire (18a “this very day”), but proposes to replace the queen by means of a process that will take more than four years (Ch. 2, esp. 2:16). In the narrative that follows, Haman – another of the king’s advisors – also manages time in a strange fashion, when he postpones the application of a decree by eleven months. In contrast, Mordecai is the only one who manages “time” wisely, when he invites Esther to intervene, by suggesting “who knows whether it is for a time ‫ עת‬such as this that you attained royal status.” (4:14b) Verses 13b-14 are an explanatory note that interrupts the king’s address to the sages (13a) and the contents of his speech (15). This note emphasizes that the king, subject to a weighty administration, is not at liberty to deal on his own with matters that concern him.53 The expression “in edict and judgment” distinguishes between general imperial law promulgated by edict, ‫דת‬, and that promulgated by judicial measures, ‫דין‬,54 and sets up the rest of the chapter, where an edict will rule between the relations of husband and wife and where a judicial decision is made concerning the queen. In v. 14, the group of seven individuals is presented as royal social elite: they “could see the face of the king” and “occupied the first place in the kingdom,” two expressions that evoke the manner in which Herodotus designates Darius’s restrictive circle of seven conspirators. These individuals benefitted from free access to the king (Hist. 3.118) and were known as first among Persians (Hist. 3.6870). The number seven plays a large role in Greek representations of Persian organization. Groups of Other than Darius’s seven conspirators,55 there are Megabazus’s embassy of seven Per- Seven sians (HERODOTUS, Hist. 5.17), the seven principal Persians of Cyrus the Younger (XENOPHON, Anab. 1.6.4), and the fourteen (two-times seven) children that Amestris had buried alive (HERODOTUS, Hist. 7.114). The same topos of seven Persian advisors also appears in Ezra 7:14. The MT editors of Esther conformed to this tradition in mentioning three groups of seven individuals: the seven eunuchs (1:10); the seven advisors (1:14); and Esther’s seven maidens (2:9).

The list naming seven characters in 1:14 underscores the heavy formality and hierarchy in the Persian court. This list was based upon a play on assonances,

52 See for this sense, BERLIN, Esther, 16; BUSH, Esther, 350; CLINES, Esther, 280; GERLEMAN, Esther, 64-65; STRIEDL, “Syntax,” 90. A similar expression may be found in 1 Chr 12:33. An understanding relating to astrology and divination could apply to the presence of such characters in eastern courts (cf. Dan 2:27; 5:15 and HÉRODOTUS, Hist. 7.19). One may also question whether opposition between oracular and legal functions are pertinent (on this topic BERG, Book, 72-73, 89). 53 Specialist consultation (vv. 13-15) is neither a sign of wisdom nor a return to calm, which does not happen until 2:1 (contra DICKSON and BOTHA, “Role”, 167). 54 Rather than a distinction between the law of the empire and that of the provinces (BERLIN, Esther, 16). See GERLEMAN, Esther, 65-66 and EISSFELDT, “Rechtskundige.” 55 See, HÉRODOTUS, Hist. 3. 71-79, 84, 118-119, 140-141, 150, 153; 4.132; 6.43; CTÉSIAS, Persica F13(16-17) ; JUSTIN, Historiae Philippicae, 1.9.

106

The Consequences of Vashti’s Refusal (1:13-22)

mirroring the list in 1:10. The first name of the list in v. 14 corresponds to the seventh of that in v. 10, the second in v. 14 to the sixth in v. 10, and so forth.56 1:10 and 1:14 in Variant Editions

Like the list of eunuchs in 1:10, that of the advisors in 1:14 varies between the MT and Greek translations. The AT does not mention any names, while the LXX has seven in 1:10 and three in 1:14. The AT likely reflects the earliest text tradition. An editor inserted the seven names in 1:10 that had been transmitted in Hebrew via the MT and translated by the LXX. In 1:14, with these three names, the LXX preserves a different text type than that of the MT. Between 1:10 and 1:14, the LXX names ten Persian administrators, in addition to Haman’s son in Ch. 9, while the MT preserves a text type with a double multiple of seven administrators.

In v. 15, the king’s question opens with the term ‫כדת‬, “as edict.” This expression does not suggest that the king consults the law in order to find the appropriate rule. In fact, Memucan’s speech does not refer to any legal precedent, and in Esther the term ‫ דת‬denotes a text produced by a particular circumstance, rather than law in general. Consequently, one must understand that Ahasuerus is asking his advisors to propose a new edict for the legally unprecedented situation confronting him. The formulation of the king’s question is pompous. The king speaks of “Queen Vashti,” describes himself as “King Ahasuerus,” and evokes the order’s ceremonial method of transmission “by the hand of the eunuchs.” This makes the king’s discourse sound very formal, as though, far from seeking to resolve his marital problem, the king wants to apply a process worthy of his kingly status. Memucan’s response, in vv. 16-20, will be fully in this vein, giving the king’s marital conflict a nearly universal impact. In the MT, it is “Memucan,” the last character in the list (v. 14) who answers 1:16-20 the royal entreaty. This ordinary Persian administrator has no other function in the narrative and only serves in this instance to represent an administrative voice. Memucan Interpreted

In spite of the absence of any explicit indicators, one rabbinic tradition identifies Memucan with Haman, probably because of his suggestion in the text to evoke an edict.57 The AT follows a similar interpretation, in calling this figure βουγαιος (proud) like Haman in 3:1AT. On the other extreme, Memucan is often identified with Jews, surely because he paves the way for Esther. Second Targum of Esther identifies him with Daniel,58 and some manuscripts from the Old Latin see him as Mordecai.

Memucan’s argument is organized into three parts. After asserting the general impact of Vashti’s disobedience (v. 16b), he explains the reasons for this generalization (v. 17-18), and he proposes a solution (19-20). Verse 16b’s assertion, whereby the act of “erring” before the king wrongs all the king’s subjects, applies a classic principal of royal ideology. An error committed against him is perceived as a crime against the people he represents. Moreover,

56 DUCHESNE-GUILLEMIN, “noms.” See the pairs: Carshena – Carkas / Shethar – Zethar / Admatha – Abagtha / Tarshish – Bigtha (no similiarity, but these names resemble those of the eunuchs in 2:21) / Meres – Harbona / Marsena – Biztha / Mehuman – Memucan. For Meres and Marsena the parallelism with 1:10 is absent. 57 b. Meg. 12b; Tg. Esth. I; GROSSFELD, First Targum, 85. 58 EGO, Targum Scheni, 205.

Synchronic Analysis

107

the opening of v. 17 insists that the thing will be known. Consequently, Memucan does not make a mountain out of a molehill, but raises a real problem.59 The large Masoretic “plus” in vv. 17 and 18 develops the reasons for the universal and catastrophic impact of Vashti’s refusal. The argument makes one smile since it is difficult to imagine all the women of the empire reacting to their husbands in such a sterotyped fashion. In ancient Greek literature, as here, the idea of a “women’s revolt” is treated in a burlesque fashion and is perceived as an impossible threat in a properly ordered society.60 The reader must acknowledge that either Memucan’s drunken male brain exaggerates the threat61 or that Persian women are particularly dangerous. In any case, the image evoked of the Persian court is ridiculous. The syntax of v. 18 is difficult because the object of the verb “they will speak” ‫ תאמרנה‬is not specified. Two solutions permit one to understand the MT without resorting to conjecture. The women’s speech could be introduced by ‫אשׁר‬, in which case one would need to translate “the noble women (…) will say that they (f.pl.) heard this business concerning the queen …”62 However, the simplest solution is that there is an ellipsis and that the noble women’s speech implied in 18a is the same as that of all the women.63 Verse 18 clarifies that what is at risk of occuring for all women and their husbands (v. 17) might happen “this very day” to noble couples present at the banquets. The term “noble women” ‫ שׂרות‬refers to the wives of the group of seven advisors, called ‫“ שׂרים‬ministers” in 1:14, 16. The passage is ironic, making clear that it is especially Memucan and his colleagues who feel under attack by a possible “women’s revolt.” The solution proposed by Memucan in 19-20 is introduced by the customary salutation, “if it pleases the king,” used when making a suggestion to the king. The suggestion to “send out a royal edict” ‫ יצא דבר־מלכות‬sets up the writing of an edict, while creating a play on words out of the expression “this matter concerning the queen will go out” ‫יצא דבר־המלכה‬, which introduced the analysis of the situation. One may think that ‫“ לא יעבור‬it will not pass over” indicates that the edict is irrevocable, and thus this expression anticipates the motif of the irrevocability of Persian laws that will play an important role in 8:5-8. However, one must reject such an interpretation,64 because the verb is not the same as in 8:5, 8 (‫ שׁוב‬in hifil “to return”): in Esther the root ‫ עבר‬means rather, “to transgress, disobey” (3:3 and 9:27). The problem is thus not that the decree must never be revoked, but that it must never be “transgressed.” Therefore, the real idea here, not without irony, sets up the king’s hesitation once he is sober (2:1). The decree has two components: Vashti’s rejection, and the nomination of a new queen. That Vashti will never again come before the king implies her royal

59 This opinion is defended by BERLIN, Esther, 16, and others. 60 See ARISTOPHANES, Women of the Assembly and Lysistrata. 61 See BECHTEL, Esther, 24-26; BERLIN, Esther, 17; LACOCQUE, Esther, 13; LEVENSON, Esther, 51; SHARP, Irony, 65-66. 62 According to this interpretation GORDIS, “Studies,” 45-47; CLINES, Esther, 281-282. 63 See, for example, Esth 2:10b. For such a reading, cf.; BERLIN, Esther, 17; BUSH, Esther, 351; FOX, Character, 274-275; LEVENSON, Esther, 49-50. 64 Cf. BERLIN, Esther, 18. See also DE TROYER, End, 130-131.

Women’s Revolt

Ministers

And Let It Never Be Transgressed

Never Again Come

108

Better than Her

Contempt and Anger

1:21-22

The Consequences of Vashti’s Refusal (1:13-22)

eviction.65 Thus she shares the destiny of the women, who, after having lived alongside of the king, tend to become forgotten within the depths of a harem (2:14 and 4:11). This sanction is ironic, because Vashti finds herself forbidden to do precisely what she refused to do in 1:12.66 From this verse onward, the MT emphasises the queen’s eviction by calling her solely “Vashti” (1:19; 2:1, 4, 17) while, until this point, she was called “Queen Vashti” (1:9, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17). The corollary to Vashti’s eviction is the need to “give her royal position to another, who is better than her.” This phrase is sometimes understood as an allusion to Saul’s rejection in favor of David in 1 Sam 15:28.67 The phrase sets the scene for Esther’s arrival and hints that she is superior to Vashti. The expression ‫ טובה‬+ ‫“ מן‬better than” can have an aesthetic sense of “more beautiful,” or an ethical one, “better.” The narrative that follows plays on this double meaning. At the beauty pageant in Chapter 2, the choice of Esther is clearly made on aesthetic criteria. However, already in Memucan’s speech, the ideal woman must be respectful toward men. This more ethical aspect is definitely present in Esther’s character, who, in Chapter 2, obeys the orders given to her by her male superiors, Mordecai (2:10) and Hegai (2:15), and then acts exactly the opposite of Vashti, honoring her husband, by inviting him to two banquets. Lastly, Esther’s rhetoric during her conversations with the king shows great respect (see the commentary on 5:4). The notion of honor plays a considerable role in Memucan’s speech. He concludes in 20b that the decree aims to compel all women to grant “honor” ‫ יקר‬to their husbands. This notion lies at the heart of the chapter.68 In 1:4 the banquets aim to exhibit the king’s honor, which is put into question by the queen who refuses to come. The decree thus aims to reestablish this honor for him and for all husbands of the kingdom. The notion of honor is the opposite of “contempt” (17b and 18b, root ‫)בזה‬, the dishonoring of husbands. The presence, at the end of v. 18, of “anger” ‫ קצף‬alongside of contempt is not surprising. The problem of the royal couple having been generalized by Memucan, the anger of the king (1:12) corresponds to that of all husbands (1:18).69 Finally, the envisioned universal significance of the decree is emphasized in v. 20 by its publication in a kingdom “which is vast” and by the phrase “high and low alike,” which stresses that, just as the invitation to the banquet of shame was universal, so too will be the remedy. After v. 21, which offers approval of Memucan’s proposition in a phrase that recurs in 2:4 and 5:14, v. 22 emphasizes the dispersion and function of the decree. The first part of v. 22 clarifies the edict’s methods of distribution. The same wording appears during the issuing of Haman’s edict (3:12-14) and counter-edict

65 There is no textual indication of a death sentence, which is nevertheless an interpretation in Tg. Esth. I 2.1; Mid. Rabbah 5.2. 66 Recently WALSH, “Women,” 139. 67 This connection is already found within rabbinical texts (esp. Mid. Rabbah 4.9 cf. KOLLER, Esther, 87), and has emerged again recently in BERLIN, Esther, xxxvii; BERGER, “Esther,” 628; VIALLE, analyse, 18. The formulation in 1 Sam 15:28 is very close : “YHWH has this day torn the royalty of Israel away from you and he will give it to another who is better than you.” 68 This notion is found anew in Chapter 6, where Mordecai’s “honor” ‫ר‬ is exhibited. 69 See DAY, Esther, 36; BERLIN, Esther, 17; FOX, Character, 22.

Diachronic Analysis

109

(8:9-14). The wording emphasizses the power and universality of the Persian administrative system when decisions are made public: “Letters were sent” (3:13; 8:10) “to all the king’s provinces” (3:13; 8:12), “to every province according to its own script and to every people according to its own language” (3:12; 8:9). In 22b, ‫להיות כל־אישׁ שׂרר בביתו‬, translated here as “so that each man should govern within his own house” indicates the outcome that the edict is intended to have upon its recipients. Similar phraseology with the same function appears in 3:14b and 8:13b, where “to be” ‫יוֹת‬ is followed by an expression specifying the outcome of the decree’s reception.70 Consequently, 22bα is in perfect agreement with the programme defined by Memucan in v. 20: the decree does not order men to be master of their own homes, but the publicity about the queen’s eviction is intended to serve as an example to them, so that they will be so.71 The end of the verse adds that each man is supposed to “speak the language of his people” (22bβ). This enigmatic comment could suggest that the husband – having heard the edict in his own language – would be in a position to tell it to his wife in his language.72 However, it is more likely that this notice refers to the linguistic difficulty between spouses of different origins, where the wife’s language is different from her husband’s. The end of the verse says, therefore, that a man who controls his own home speaks there (in his home) the language of his people. As shown in Neh 13:23-24, the question of family language is of considerable importance for certain Jewish communities during the Hellenistic era.73 One could object to this interpretation because the theme of familial language is absent from the rest of Esther. This objection is not, however, convincing since, as suggested by its absence from the LXX, 1:22bβ is a gloss inserted at a later time. The editor who added the gloss may have wished to introduce into Esther a reference to linguistic problems related to intermarriages.

Diachronic Analysis The Alpha Text (excluding the six additions) is a fairly literal Greek translation of chapters 1-7 of Proto-Esther. This first Hebrew version of Esther was largely reworked during the Maccabean-Hasmonean era. By their editorial work, the protoMasoretic editors created a consonantal textual form of the work that, after being transmitted and subsequently vocalized, became the Masoretic Text.74 Chapter 1 presents nearly a textbook case of textual criticism. In fact, it is relatively simple to reconstruct a Hebrew text of which the AT could constitute the translation from the Hebrew Masoretic Text, devoid of the editorial elements.

70 In 3:14 and 8:13 read: “so that they would be ready for that day.” 71 See, for this interpretation, BERLIN, Esther, 20. The opinion that 22b specifies the contents of the edict that consequently differ from the queen’s eviction is, however, often maintained (BUSH, Esther, 352; WHITE CRAWFORD, “Esther,” 883 and others). 72 This interpretation is proposed by BERLIN, Esther, 21. 73 See Tg. Esth. I and Tg. Esth. II; R. GORDIS, “Studies,” p. 53; FOX, Character, 23. 74 See the Introduction, A. Textual Forms and Editorial Stages.

Each Man Should Govern

Language of His People

110

Diachronic Analysis

Proto-Esther The general progression of the Proto-Esther narrative is very close to the MT, and most of the literary formulations are identical to those in the MT. Proto-Esther differs significantly from the MT in the absence of the names of the eunuchs and the king’s advisors (vv. 10, 14), in a scene at the end of the banquet where the women are not partying off on their own (vv. 9-12), and in a speech from the advisor (vv. 16-19) that is much briefer and lacks the ironic character of the MT. The translation below is based upon the Alpha Text of the Book of Esther Chapter 1 (HANHART (ed.), Esther, 135-142).

[ Addition A is later inserted at this point ] 1 After these things it came to pass in the days of Assuerus, the mighty king, for whom 127 regions, from India to Ethiopia, were his subjects. 2 When Assuerus was seated in his royal throne, 3 the king held a banquet for the ministers of the Persian and Median courts, and the regional ministers who were before him, 4 so that the king’s glorious wealth and honor of his glorification could be shown for a period of 180 days, 5 until the full extent of these days was reached that the king had set aside for everyone who resided within the city of Susa, both great and small, a banquet of seven days, indoors, in the king’s court to celebrate his well-being. 6 There were hangings of linen, lace, crimson, and scarlet, encircled with flowers, and a tent was hung with linen and crimson cords, on silver blocks and marble columns and plated gold, and beds of gold were on an emerald pavement with roses circling around, 7 and there were different cups of gold, each uniquely designed, and the wine was the royal wine from which the king drank, 8 and the banquet was held according to the law, because the king had ordered to act according to everyone’s desires. 9 And Queen Vashti held a great banquet for all the women in the king’s court. 10 On the seventh day, when the king was merry with wine, the king instructed his servants 11 to summon Queen Vashti to the assembled banquet, with her royal diadem, before his army. 12 But Vashti did not wish to do the king’s bidding, by the hand of his eunuchs. When the king heard that Vashti refused his order, he was pained and anger burned within him. 13 And the king consulted all the sages who knew law and judgment. 15 “What should be done to the queen because she did not want to do the king’s bidding?”. 14 And the rulers of Persia and Media and those who saw the face of the king and those who were seated in the palace all approached him 16 and the proud one urged him, saying, “It is not only to the king that Queen Vashti has caused harm, but also to the rulers of Persia and Media; to all the peoples, 17 her injustice of having disregarded the king’s order has been reported. 18 If it pleases our lord and it is pleasing to his mind, let it be written in all countries and to all peoples, and let it be known that Vashti refused the king’s order, and let the royal position be given to another, who is better than she, 20 and let her be seen to obey the voice of the king and she will benefit

Proto-Masoretic Editing and the Emergence of the MT

111

all the kingdoms, and all wives will give honor and glory to their husbands, poor and rich alike.” 21 And the proposal pleased the king’s heart and he acted in exact accordance with this proposal. In this chapter, the AT translates into Greek a Hebrew Proto-Esther approximately one third shorter than the MT and that – if one disregards the “pluses” in the MT – corresponds to a large extent with the literary content of the consonantal Masoretic Text. Without getting into a detailed analysis,75 certain passages that, in the Hebrew Proto-Esther, were probably identical to the MT, appear as slight variants (compare the translation above with that of the MT in the primary commentary of this chapter). Indeed, the change in language would require taking certain liberties in syntax and vocabulary,76 even of some interpretations. In addition, certain passages could have been altered during the process of manuscript transmission.77 Finally, while Proto-Esther is clearly shorter than the MT, some of its significant textual elements are absent from the MT.78 They were probably removed by the editor who reworked Proto-Esther and inserted different “pluses” into the MT. Significant editorial work – such as changing the contents of a speech – can rarely occur without suppressing certain elements of the source text.

Proto-Masoretic Editing and the Emergence of the MT The “pluses” in the MT, in relation to Proto-Esther, show evidence of significant editorial work during the Maccabean-Hasmonean era. While the MT follows fairly closely the order of events in Proto-Esther and remains in large part faithful to its source, it slightly modifies the meaning of the text by insertions ranging from a gloss of a few words to the addition of longer passages of several verses. 1bα “that Ahasuerus”; 2a “In those days, when the king” bβ “in the citadel of Susa”; The MT 3aα “the third year of his reign,” in 3aγ-b “all his servants, the army” “the nobles”; in “Pluses” in 4 “of his majesty, for many days”; 5 “in the garden of the pavillion”; 6 the second Ch. 1 occurrence of “silver” and “alabaster”; 7b “abundant”; 8a “without restraint” 8bα “all of his household officials”; 9b “the royal house of King Ahasuerus”; the second part of 10b starting from “Mehuman…”; 11a “before the king” and all of 11b starting from “to display…”; 12a “the queen”; 13 all of the passage from “the times” until “those who were familiar with”; 14 the list of proper names; 15a “As edict” “Vashti” the end of 15b starting from “Ahasuerus”; 16a “Memucan before the king and the ministers,” the end of 16bβ starting from “who are in all the provinces…”; the entirety of 17 and 18; 19 “send out a royal decree from him,” “into the edicts of Persia and Media and never be transgressed,” “will never again come before King Ahasuerus, and let the king”; 20aβ “which is vast”; 21 “and his ministers,” “according to Memucan’s proposal”; all

75 See the synopsis of JOBES, Alpha-Text. 76 Such a case is striking with the rare technical vocabulary of v. 6. 77 In v. 6 “and scarlet, encircled with flowers, and a tent was hung” could have accidentally fallen into the Hebrew text. V. 1 “after these things” and v. 5 “to celebrate his well-being” create the link with Addition A added later on. 78 Thus, in v. 3 “the king” and “courts”; between 9 and 12 “great,” “all,” “the court,” “to the banquet,” “before his army,” “When the king heard that Vashti refused his order”; v. 16 “the proud one”, “of Persia and Media”; the entirety of 17 and 18 until “the king’s order.”

112

Diachronic Analysis of 22. Moreover, the proto-Masoretic editor seems to have reversed the contents of vv. 14 and 15.

Word Games and Intertextuality

Chronology Court Oppressiveness

Banquet Scenarios

In this chapter, the Masoretic “pluses” show a well-orchestrated editorial strategy that weighs down the style and introduces various intertextual references. In addition, the passage’s theology has been profoundly transformed. The play on words and the amendment of certain words or phrases are made by proto-Masoretic editors. For example, the list of names in v. 14 is fabricated as an echo of that in 1:10. The “abundant” wine ‫( רב‬v. 7) establishes the title for those who serve it: his “household officials ‫( ”רב‬v. 8). The expression to “send out a royal decree” (v. 19) alludes to the formula “this business concerning the queen will go out” (v. 17 and 18).79 In v. 18, the play on words between “ministers” and their wives, called “noble women” is specifically Masoretic. Finally, the location of the second banquet in the “garden of the pavillion” sets the scene for 7:7-8. The chronological system of the proto-Masoretic edition does not appear in Chapter 1 until v. 3 with the mention of “the third year of his reign.”80 Throughout the chapter, the Masoretic “pluses” underscore the oppressiveness and the pomp of the Persian court. Pompous royal titles, often absent from Proto-Esther, are present: “King Ahasuerus” (vv. 2, 9, 10, 15, 16, 17, 19) and “Queen Vashti” (vv. 12, 15, 16, 17). The court’s formal ambiance is evoked by means of editorial wording that is both pompous and redundant: “by the hand of the eunuchs” in v. 15 recapitulates the mode of the queen’s summons in v. 10, and “according to Memucan’s proposal” in v. 21 reminds readers who authored the proposal. The diversity of Persian personnel is emphasized by the lists of names in vv. 10 and 14, as well as by the terminology of the royal personnel, added by the proto-Masoretic edition: “his servants,” “the army,” “nobles” (v. 3), “all of his household officials” (v. 8), the “eunuchs attending” (v. 10) and “those who occupied the first place in the kingdom” (v. 14). Finally, in v. 8, the editors added “without restraint,” bringing irony to an administration that gives out a decree to enable everyone to act in a natural manner. In Proto-Esther, the men’s and women’s banquets take place in the same location, “in the king’s court” (v. 5 and 9AT). In v. 11, the queen is summoned “into (or during) the banquet” “before the face of his army,” probably for some reason according to protocol. In Proto-Esther, the reason for Vashti’s refusal is not explained, and in vv. 16 and 19 it is simply for refusing the king’s order that Vashti’s attitude is called into question. With the insertion of a series of “pluses,” the MT presents a scenario that is somewhat different and more precise. The location of the women’s banquet is separate

79 In 18 and 19 the formulas are completely integrated into the MT “pluses.” In 17a, Proto-Esther probably contained an expression, similar in meaning, that the editor likely restructured. 80 This note, absent from the AT, was probably also absent from Proto-Esther. Even if one cannot exclude the possibility that the chronological note of 1:3 was deleted from the AT, when Addition A – which already has such a note upon opening – was inserted (cf. JOBES, Alpha-Text, 246). Because the date in 1:3 is not identical to that of A1 its suppression when A1 was introduced would be useless. The absence of the chronological note in Proto-Esther suggests that the banquets occur at the time of the king’s enthronement (cf. 1:2).

The Greek Translations and the Late Modifications of the MT

113

from that of the men, the separation of the sexes being apparent right from the start. The women are inside the palace (v. 9), while the men are in the garden (v. 5). In a Greek cultural context, the addition of the proto-Masoretic motif of the separation of the sexes at a banquet, lets one understand the queen’s refusal for reasons of social conventions and her as a victim of the system and the king’s drunkenness. Moreover, the MT emphasizes the affront to which the king is subjected, since in v. 11 it is “before the king” that she refuses to appear, and to “display to the people and the governors her magnificence, because she was beautiful to behold,” which emphasizes the tail end of a banquet, intended to display the king’s splendor. The institutional character of the episode that follows Vashti’s refusal is heav- Speech and ily underlined by the MT, which makes the king into a sort of toy of the system. Decree In verse 13MT, it is no longer the king who decides to seek counsel, but he is instead compelled to do so. Moreover, while in Proto-Esther the advisor addresses himself solely to the king (v. 16), who approves the advisor’s words on his own (v. 21), in the MT the ministers are also implicated on each occasion. In addition, the proto-Masoretic editor significantly modified the advisor’s speech (vv. 16-20). In Proto-Esther, the advisor contents himself with asserting the dramatic range of Vashti’s refusal and proposes replacing her, specifying that the example of an obedient queen will lead women to honor their husbands. The proto-Masoretic edition introduces several new intricacies. The long protoMasoretic “plus” of vv. 17 and 18 introduces the motif that caricatures the women’s revolt and the irony of the so-called universal risk (v. 17). This “risk” especially preoccupies the speaker’s own group (v. 18). The “pluses” of v. 19 add even further to the ridiculousness of the situation by pointing out that “Vashti will never again come before the king,” which is what she did not want to do to begin with. As for the decree, while Proto-Esther briefly mentions the king’s order, the MT emphasizes that it is transmitted like a major edict, comparable to those in Chs. 3 and 8. This particular edict must be codified into Persian law (v. 19) and published in several languages via a far-reaching administration in a very diverse empire (v. 22).

The Greek Translations and the Late Modifications of the MT Examining the way that the proto-Masoretic editor modified the Hebrew ProtoEsther, translated by the AT, raises a few questions connected to the Greek translations. The LXX translates a Hebrew text which is a version very similar to the MT; however, certain differences between the MT and the LXX demonstrate that the LXX translates a version of the Hebrew text which is slightly earlier than the consonantal form used by the MT. Moreover, some rare agreements between the AT and the LXX, and certain elements that appear only in the MT, suggest later textual alterations to these two Greek translations. Lastly, the insertion of the Additions in both the AT and the LXX led to a number of textual corrections even within preexisting Greek texts. In Chapter 1, the MT presents a number of glosses subsequent to the transla- Late Modification of the LXX: in v. 4 the note “for many days,” in v. 20 the exclamation “which tions to the is vast” and the last part of v. 22, which is a late gloss influenced by Nehemiah MT

114

Synthesis

13. Certain agreements between the AT and the LXX are also explained by textual alterations that happened subsequent to the translation.81 Lastly, the spelling of the proper names in v. 10, and especially the fact that the characters appear in numbers of three in v. 14, suggests that the LXX transmits a different text tradition from that of the MT. Late Greek In Chapter 1, two elements are linked to the insertion of the Additions in the Modifications AT and the LXX. The expression “after these things” at the beginning of v. 1 was introduced into the LXX and the AT at the same time as Addition A, to forge a connection to the addition. The note “to celebrate his well-being” which ends v. 5AT was probably also added to the Greek text after the insertion of Addition A, in reference to A,12-17, where Mordecai saves the king.

Synthesis This analysis has shown that this first chapter describes the practices of the Persian court in a manner largely drawn from the model used by Greek authors. The proto-Masoretic editors from the Hasmonean-Maccabean era did not significantly change the plot of the chapter, but provided a darker and more ironic impression of the empire and how it functions than Proto-Esther. The resultant MT emphasizes pompous aspects of this court, as well as the ridiculous and absurd character of its functioning. This editorial intervention separates women from men at the banquet and suggests that Vashti’s refusal to approach the king can be explained by a legitimate reticence to appear where wives have no place being. Ironic traits are added to the advisor’s speech, who imagines a universal women’s revolt, and implies there is risk that the wives of the king’s advisors will mock them (vv. 17 and 18). Moreover, the editors emphasize the enormous implication of the empire’s administrative machinery in the treatment of Vashti’s refusal. All royal business must be treated by jurists (v. 13b), and Vashti’s refusal is censured with the issuing of a very formal imperial edict (vv. 21 and 22). In so doing, the protoMasoretic edition traces a strong literary parallel between, on the one hand, Vashti’s refusal and the ensuing repression against women, and, on the other hand, Mordecai’s refusal and the ensuing consequences for the Jews.

81 Textual notes 6 a-a; 8a; 20 c-c.

Chapter 2. Esther’s Accession and Royal Installation Introduction Chapter 2 describes the accession and installation of a new Persian queen. The oppressive, luxurious, and pompous character of the court exhibits a good dose of irony. All the beautiful young women of the empire are brought to the palace for an enormous beauty contest. After a year of cosmetic treatments, one by one they spend a night with the king. After this one night, most of them share Vashti’s fate, excluded from all contact with the king. The contest results are surprising. It is not the daughter of a good Persian family who triumphs, but rather an orphan adopted by a Jew. Esther’s exceptional beauty (7), her charming character (9, 15, 17), as well as a measure of wisdom underscored by her inclination to follow the judicious advice of her entourage (10, 15, 20), explain this first victory of the heroine. Esther and Mordecai are part of an exiled people (5-7), a motif that sets the stage for Haman’s argument in 3:8-9. In spite of Esther’s ascent to royalty, a perpetual bond remains between the two Jewish heroes (10, 11, 20). Esther and Mordecai seem well-integrated into the imperial court. Their uncovering of a plot against the king in vv. 21-23 also demonstrates their deep loyalty to the empire. Nevertheless, Mordecai does not reveal his Jewish identity (until Chapter 3), and twice encourages Esther to do likewise (10, 20). This suggests that announcing one’s Jewishness could be unsafe. However, for the book’s editors, hiding one’s identity is not a judicious way to protect oneself, since the rest of the narrative will show that the public revelation of Esther’s and Mordecai’s identity will prove necessary.

Esther 2:1-18. Appointment of a New Queen 1 After these things, since the anger of King Ahasuerus had abated, he remembereda Vashti and what she had done, and what had been decreed against her. 2 The king’s youths, his attendants, said: “Let young virgins beautiful to behold be sought for the king. 3 Let the king appoint commissioners in all the provinces of his kingdom to gather all the young virgins beautiful to behold, to the women’s house in the citadel of Susa, aunder the authoritya of Hegeb, the king’s eunuch who is guardian of the women, and let them receive cosmetic treatments, 4 and the young woman who appeals to the king will reign instead of Vashti.” These words pleased the king, and he acted accordingly. 5 There was in the citadel of Susa a Jewish man named Mordecai ason of Jair son of Shimei son of Kisha, a Benjaminiteb 6 awho had been exiled from Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar King of Babylonia, exiled with the group of Jeconiah, King of Judah.a 7 He was the tutor of Hadassaha – that is, Esther – daughter of

116

Esther 2:1-18. Appointment of a New Queen

his uncleb, for she had neither father nor mother. The young woman was attractive in appearance and beautiful to behold. Upon the death of her father and her mother, Mordecai had taken her as a daughterc. 8 When the king’s words and his edict were proclaimed and when numerous young women were brought to the citadel of Susa under the authority of Hegaia, Esther was brought into the king’s house under the authority of Hegai, the guardian of the women. 9 The young woman was appealing to him, she won his affection, and he hastened to provide her with her cosmetic treatments and her portions and to provide her with the seven most select maidens of the king’s house. He aadvanced her, along with her young maidens, to the best place within the women’s housea. 10 Esther had not informed anyone of her people or her parentage, for Mordecai had ordered her not to tell. 11 Moreover, every day Mordecai would walk back and forth in front of the court of the women’s house to learn of Esther’s well-being and what would happena to her. 12 Each young woman’s turn came to approach King Ahasuerus after a period of – aaccording to the women’s edicta – twelve months. Thus were the days of their preparation, six months with oil of myrrh and six months with ointments and feminine cosmetics. 13 The young girl would approach the king in the following manner: all that she asked for was given to her to take with her from the women’s house to the king’s house. 14 She went in the evening and returned in the morning to the women’s house a second timea, under the authority of Shaashgazb the king’s eunuch who was guardian of the concubines. She never approached the king again unless the king desired her and she was summoned by name. 15 When the turn came for Esther, daughter of Abihaila the uncle of Mordecai b who had taken her as a daughterb, to approach the king, she sought nothing except what Hegai, the king’s eunuch who was guardian of the women, had suggested. Esther won the favor of all who saw her. 16 Esther was brought to King Ahasuerus in his royal house in the atenth month – which is the month of Tebetha – in the seventh year of his reign. 17 The king loved Esther more than all the other women, she won his favor and affection over all the virgins, ahe put a royal diadem upon her head, and he made her queen instead of Vashtia. 18 The king held a great banquet for all his ministers and servants, Esther’s banqueta. He granted an amnesty to the provinces band he offered a donation befitting the kingb.

Notes on Text and Translation 1a 3a-a b

LXX and AT have the opposite (LXX “he no longer remembered …”). ‫ אל־יד‬literally “by the hand of,” also in 2:8 and 2:14. The Masoretic spelling of this name, also in 2:8, 15, varies (here ‫ הגא‬and ‫ הגי‬in 2:8, 15). LXX does not mention the proper name here. AT offers the name Γωγαίου. See the commentary on 2:8-9.

Notes on Text and Translation 5a-a

117

The names of Mordecai’s ancestors are rendered in Greek by ὁ τοῦ Ιαΐρου (υἱὸς Ἰαείρου AT) τοῦ Σεμεΐου τοῦ Κισαίου, which does not correspond to the usual Greek transcription of these Hebrew proper names. b “Benjaminite” ‫ אישׁ ימיני‬could refer to Mordecai or to Kish. 6a-a The heavy Hebrew syntax that uses the root ‫“ גלה‬to exile” four times is translated freely. 7a The Greek translations (LXX, AT) and Josephus do not have Esther’s Hebrew name (Hadassah), in contrast to the targumic texts and the Peshitta. “Hadassah” was certainly a late insertion into the MT (FOX, Redaction, 36). b MT, AT, and VL do not mention the name of Esther’s father, in contrast to LXX which harmonizes with 2:15 and 9:29 and adds the name Aminadab (Αμιναδαβ). c LXX introduces Esther as Mordecai’s wife (or fiancée). LXX probably freely interpreted a Hebrew text close to MT. 8a LXX renders ‫ הגי‬with Γαι and the VL with oggeo. AT provides the term βουγαῖος “proud.” See the commentary. 9a-a ‫ שׁנה‬piel is sometimes understood to mean “to transfer” (PATON, Esther, 175; BERGEY, Book, 113-114; TOB; ASV). Here, the solution adopted understands ‫ שׁנה‬piel, meaning “to elevate” (see David WINTON THOMAS, “Mitteilungen,” ZAW 52 (1934), 236-238.; John A. EMERTON, “The Meaning of šēnā’ in Psalm CXXVII 2,” VT 24 (1974), 16-30, esp. 2730; James L. CRENSHAW, “The Expression mî yôdēa‘ in the Hebrew Bible,” VT 36 (1986), 274-288, esp. 279 n. 13), which better corresponds to LXX’s understanding of this verse ending (cf. also Tg. Esth. I and Tg. Esth. II). 11a The verb ‫( יעשׂה‬yiqtol niphal) must be understood as a future, cf. LXX and the formulation of Exod 2:4. 12a-a Absent in LXX. The formulation was either inserted in the MT after the Greek translation or was deleted by the translator (BUSH, Esther, 358; KAHANA, Esther, 100; BHQ). 14a ‫“ שׁני‬second” is often understood to refer to the “women’s house” (already the LXX and several others NRSV; TOB; NBS). Such an interpretation is difficult because it would require a definite article in front of ‫ שׁני‬as in 7:2 (MOORE, Esther, 23-24; GERLEMAN, Esther, 72-73; and others propose correcting the MT to ‫)השׁני‬. The present translation “a second time” presupposes that ‫ שׁני‬relates to the verb “to return” (cf. 1 Kgs 19:7). One must read an abbreviated form of the normal ‫ ;שׁנית‬with this understanding GORDIS, “Studies,” 53-54; FOX, Character, 276; BUSH, Esther, 365-366. b LXX does not distinguish two separate eunuchs who are the guardians of the women, the same name as in 2:8 appears. See the commentary on 2:8-9. 15a The name of Esther’s father, absent from the AT, is reproduced differently by the MT (Abihail ‫ )אביחיל‬and the LXX (Aminadab Αμιναδαβ = in Hebrew probably ‫)עמינדב‬. VL and Vulg. approach that of MT. The LXX reflects perhaps an older textual state that was corrected by a Masoretic gloss in order to allude to 1 Sam 25. The masculine name ‫ אביחיל‬has strong similarities with the name of the heroine in 1 Sam 25 ‫אביגיל‬. b-b Absent in LXX. The phrase was either inserted into the MT after the Greek translation (a harmonization with 2:7 cf. MOORE, Esther, 16) or deleted by the translator (BUSH, Esther, 358). 16a-a LXX dates the event to “the twelfth month, that of Adar.” A late Masoretic gloss corrected this date (see the diachronic analysis). 17a-a LXX has a shorter text at the end of this verse: “he placed the diadem of his spouse upon her” which also implies that Esther becomes queen. 18a LXX and AT freely render the Hebrew ‫“ משׁתה‬banquet” with the Greek γάμος “wedding feast,” as in LXX of 9:22. b-b End of verse absent in LXX. It could have been inserted into the MT after the Greek translation or deleted by the translator (BHQ and KAHANA, Esther, 112).

118

Esther 2:1-18. Appointment of a New Queen

Synchronic Analysis After Vashti is deposed, her replacement must be found. Chapter 2 shows the complexities of implementing such a task, whose result will prove to be surprising, since a woman of Jewish origins will replace Vashti. Passage OrgaAfter the king has calmed down (v. 1) and is now sober, he finds himself facing nization the consequences of the episode of Chapter 1, and will decide to have a contest for the position of Persian queen.1 As often in the book, this decision is based upon an advisor’s counsel (2-4a), which the king approves (4b) and which is set in motion after the public pronouncement of a decree (8a). The introduction of the Jewish protagonists (5-7) is inserted parenthetically between the royal decision (v. 4) and its application (v. 8 ff.). After the brief mention of the gathering of young women (8a), the narrative focuses on Esther’s installation into the harem, the support she quickly receives, and the loyalty between her and Mordecai (811), their Jewish identity as yet undisclosed. The tragic-comedic conditions of the seduction contest are explained next (1214). Each young woman benefits from a year of luxurious beauty treatments and can have whatever she requests, before being, in most cases, kept away from the king after spending a single night with him. The episode continues with Esther’s visit with the king (15-17) that results in her triumph. The king loves her, places the royal diadem upon her head, and gives a banquet in her honor (18). In assembling the same guests as those mentioned in Chapter 1, this banquet marks the conclusion of the episode that began with Queen Vashti’s refusal to attend the king’s banquet. The Eunuchs The “eunuchs” ‫ סריס‬play an important role in the court. They are connected to the “harem,” they convey orders to Vashti (1:10, 12, 15) and serve the king’s wives (2:3, 14, 15; 4:4-5; 6:14). Moreover, they can be dangerous and capable of plotting against the king (2:21-23; 6:2). The fact that they are staged next to the royal wives in a heavily sexualized context (2:8-15) indicates that they are castrated servants. This presentation of the ‫ סריס‬is relatively rare in biblical literature. Apart from Daniel 1, there are no court scenes in which eunuchs play an active role, and no ‫ סריס‬is related to a court plot.2 On the other hand, the eunuch as a court character linked to the harem and liable to devise plots is often found in Greek literature about the Persian world.3 The Greek term εὐνοῦχος “guardian of the harem” indicates the connection between these individuals and the king’s private life, his

1

2

3

The present study ends the pericope at v. 18 since Esther’s accession marks a major transition in the narrative. That said, the parallel between vv. 10-11 and 19-20 could suggest that the primary transition is at the end of v. 20. JACOBS, “Characterizing,” 35, identifies a structure of type a-b-c/a’-b’-c’ in 2:1-20. The Hebrew ‫סריס‬, like Akkadian ša rēši, can designate court servants who are probably castrated (2 Kgs 9:32; 8:6; 24:15; 41:16; in Isa 56:3-4 the castration is implied) but also others who were surely not castrated (functionaries of very high status, men of war; Gen 37:36; 39; 1 Kgs 22:9; 2 Kgs 18:17; 25:19; Jer 52:25). See Benjamin KEDAR-KOPFSTEIN, “sarîs” in ThWAT, vol. 5, 948-954; Luis R. SIDDALL, “A Re-Examination of the Title ša reši in the Neo-Assyrian Period,” in Gilgameš and the World of Assyria (ANES.S 21), J. AZIZE and N. WEEKS (eds.), Leuven/Paris/Dudley, 2007, 225-240. See also MACCHI, “regard,” 112-114 and Dominique LENFANT, “Ctesias and his Eunuchs: a Challenge for Modern Historians,” Histos 6 (2012), 257-297.

Synchronic Analysis

119

wives and his concubines. When Greek authors describe the Persian court, they do not hesitate to incorporate such eunuch servants. Herodotus stresses the importance of eunuchs in the Persian court.4 Several court plots and schemes implicate eunuchs and sometimes royal wives are also involved, notably in the work of Ctesias where Semiramis, the usurper Magus, Xerxes I, and Xerxes II are all victims of eunuch plots.5 Under Darius II, the author mentions that “Artoxares the eunuch, who was very influential with the King, plotted against the King because he wished to rule himself. As he was a eunuch he ordered a woman to procure a moustache and beard for him so he could look like a man. She informed against him and he was arrested and handed over to Parysatis. And he was killed.”6 The description of Esther’s appointment as queen represents marriage practices and royal Persian sexuality in a manner very similar to classical Greek literature. That the Persian king would bring into his harem and enjoy the favors of a large number of concubines from throughout the empire typifies the Greek impression of Persia. Greek literature describes an unusual Persian sexual appetite, concubines of the Persian king who are attractive and as numerous as the days of the year, as well as a harem provided for with provincial tributes and the spoils of war.7 Moreover, the idea that in the Orient a beauty contest could be the means of a matrimonial choice is attested in Herodotus.8 One particular episode in Greek literature is strikingly similar to Chapter 2 of Esther, namely the encounter between the young Greek woman Aspasia and the Persian prince Cyrus the Younger. The most detailed account appears in Aelian.9 He recounts that Aspasia, a beautiful Phoenician orphan, falls into the hands of the Persians. She is subsequently presented before Cyrus, along with three other young women. In Aelian’s account, Aspasia incarnates the Greek virtues of reservation, dignity, modesty, and simplicity. Consequently, her fierce refusal to comport herself as a courtesan drives Cyrus to fall madly in love with her. The motif of a young foreign orphan’s accession to a high status in the Persian court brings together the characters of Aspasia and Esther.10 Even their unostentatious way of

4 5 6 7

HERODOTUS, Hist., 3.77-78, 92, 130; 6.32; 8.104-106. See also ATHENAEUS, Deipn., 12.515e. CTESIAS, Persica, F1b(20); F13(16); F13(33); F15(48). CTESIAS, Persica, F15(54) (translation LENFANT, 139). On Persian sexual appetite see AELIAN, Nat. an., 1.14; ATHENAEUS, Deipn. 12.545 ff. ; DIODORUS OF SICILY, Bibliotheca, 17.77.7; concerning the king’s numerous concubines HERACLEIDES OF CYME cited by ATHENAEUS (LENFANT, Histoires, 267-273); concerning the 360 concubines of the Persian king DIODORUS OF SICILY, Bibliotheca, 17.77.6; ATHENAEUS, Deipn., 13.557b; PLUTARCH, Art., 27.2; concerning tributes of women and war captives HERODOTUS, Hist., 3.97, 134; 6.19; 6.32; 9.76. On the wives and concubines of the Persian king see BROSIUS, Women, 13-31. 8 HERODOTUS, Hist., 1.196 with regard to Babylon. 9 AELIAN, Var. hist., 12.1. See also PLUTARCH, Art., 26.5-9; XENOPHON, Anab., 1.10.2 and JUSTIN, Historiae Philippicae, 10.2. This parallel has often been noted: KOSSMANN, Esthernovelle, 56-60; MACCHI, “écrire,” 206-208; WAEGEMAN, “Motifs.” 10 Without a direct link to Esther, the motif of the beautiful foreigner seducing the king in the Persian court also appears in CHARITON of Aphrodisias’s Greek novel Chaereas and Callirhoe (see Clinton J. MOYER, “The Beautiful Outsider Replaces the Queen: A “Compound Topos” in Esther 1-2 and Books 5 and 6 of Chariton’s Chaereas and Callirhoe,” VT 60 (2010), 601-620).

Sexuality of the Persian King

Aspasia

120

Esther 2:1-18. Appointment of a New Queen

seducing the king and winning out over the other women is similar: Esther asks only for what is necessary before going to the king (2:15), and Aspasia refuses to dress up in finery. However, there are certain differences between the two narratives: Aspasia’s story insists on the couple’s passionate love, while in Esther there is greater distance between the royal couple.11 2:1-4 Even though we are not told precisely how much time was needed for the king to regain his composure, the episode of 2:2-4 seems to occur immediately after Vashti’s eviction.12 In fact, according to 1:19, the queen must be replaced immediately after the decree to evict Vashti. Moreover, the calming of the king’s rage in 7:10 demonstrates that he tends to calm down quickly after sanctions have been applied. The infrequent verbal root ‫“ שׁכך‬to calm down”13 used here and in 7:10 underscores the parallel between Vashti’s punishment and Haman’s. In both cases, the punishment calms the king but it does not completely resolve the problems, since in Chapter 8 the antisemitic decree remains problematic and a long process is required to designate the new queen. The quieting of the king’s rage is associated with the recollection of the preceHe Remembered ding events. The sequence, “he remembered Vashti and what she had done,” followed in the MT with, “and what had been decreed against her,” calls to mind the events in Chapter 1. The passive formulation, “what had been decreed,” shows that the king is not alone in decision-making and that once a decision is decreed it has prescriptive legal force. One imagines that v. 1 evokes a difficult day following the drunken parties, when the king remembers with regret what happened, but is trapped by the unavoidable consequences of his actions.14 In 1:19, Memucan envisioned the need to replace the queen, but did not specify how a new queen should be found. A new decision is thus made in 2:2-4. As in 1:13-22, the king himself does not propose the solution, but approves a suggestion put forward by his entourage (v. 4). The suggestion does not come from the juridicial advisors and official ministers mentioned in 1:13ff. Rather, it stems from those who manage the king’s private life: “the king’s youths, his attendants.” In Esther one finds ‫“ משׁרתים‬attendants” when the king’s wife must be sought (1:10) and during the night in his room (6:3). The term “youths”, ‫נערי־‬, evokes personnel connected to the private life of the king’s chamber.15 This change of advisors

11 Esther’s lack of summons in 4:11 and the very formal language used by the couple to address one another in Chapters 5 and 7 are significant. 12 So FOX, Character, 26. LEVENSON, Esther, 54 suggests, to the contrary, that a longer period of sustained anger adds a comedic tone to the passage. 13 Of the five biblical occurrences (Gen 8:1; Num 17:20; Jer 5:26; Esth 2:1; 7:10), two appear in the MT of Esther. 14 See this interpretation in BUSH, Esther, 366-367; CLINES, Esther, 284-5; LEVENSON, Esther, 54 and targumic and midrashic texts. R. ALTHANN, “Ellipsis in Psalm 9:19, Qohelet 11:5 and Esther 2:1,” in Horizonte biblischer Texte. Festschrift für Josef M. Oesch zum 60. Geburtstag (OBO 196), A. VONACH and G. FISCHER (eds.) Fribourg/ Göttingen, 2003, 91-98.94-96 translates, “when the anger of the king Ahasuerus had faded (when had faded) his memory of Vashti…” but the ellipsis he implies poses more problems than it resolves. 15 The feminine form (‫ )נערות‬is used for the queen’s personal servants (2:9; 4:4, 16).

Synchronic Analysis

121

underscores the organizational complexity of the Persian court, and the rigidity of the positions everyone occupies.16 “Young woman”, ‫ נערה‬and “virgin” ‫בתולה‬, are terms for young women of mar- Young Virgins riageable age.17 Like Vashti (1:11), they should be “a beauty to behold.” As in 1:17, 22, the consequences of the royal marital problem will be felt throughout the empire. The procedure envisioned is exaggerated and comic: all the beautiful virgins from all the provinces are to be found and brought to the harem. One can imagine the large cohorts of young women such a procedure implies, and the future shortage of marriageable girls it would generate in the empire. The farfetched idea of a massive beauty contest allows the improbable accession of a Jewish orphan to Persian royalty, instead of a woman from the nobility.18 The wording of the proposal to assemble all the young women of the empire Allusion to most certainly alludes to the episode in which Joseph counsels Pharaoh to collect Genesis 41 provisions from throughout his kingdom in order to avoid famine. The wise measures recommended by Joseph, who is Jewish, seem thus to contrast with that surprising recommendation offered by the Persian king’s advisors. The expression in Esth 2:3, “let him (the king) appoint commissioners” ‫ויפקד פקידים‬, appears in Gen 41:34. Moreover, in both cases, the commissioners “gather all…” ‫ויקבצו את־כל‬ the beautiful ‫טובת‬, Persian young women (Esth 2:3) and the provisions from good ‫ טובת‬years (Gen 41:35). Finally, the same royal approval “these words pleased the king” occurs in both Esth 2:4 and Gen 41:37. The narrative describing Esther’s dealings with the king (Chapters 2, 5, and 7) evoke David, the two episodes connected to King David’s succession. The search for young women in Shunammite, Esther 2:2-4 resembles that of the Shunammite. The beginning of Esth 2:2-4 takes up and Bathsheba the formulation of 1 Kgs 1:2 “His servants said to him: let us search for my lord the king a young virgin,” and in 1 Kgs 1:3-4 one finds a “attractive young woman” ‫נערה יפה‬ (this expression applies to Esther in 2:7) “in all” his territory in order to resolve the lack of a woman for the king (1 Kgs 1:3 // Esth 2:4). Moreover, that the Shunammite is a royal spouse is implied by Solomon’s reaction to Bathsheba’s request to permit Adonijah to marry her (1 Kgs 2:19-25), a scene which functions as a mirror image of Esther’s two approaches to Ahasuerus (Esth 5:1-8 and 7:1-10). In both cases, a queen enters without having been invited into the king’s presence, and the king welcomes her with a solemn gesture (1 Kgs 2:19; Esth 5:2). Before a petition is even formulated, its acceptance is demanded (1 Kgs 2:20) or promised (Esth 5:3, 6; 7:2). Finally, both episodes end with the king’s anger and a condemnation to death (Adonijah and Haman). By all evidence, the book’s editors allude to the stormy episodes of David’s succession, though their reasoning is obscure.19

16 This change in personnel explains the ancient tradition that says that the king executed the “sages” in 1:13. See Tg. Esth. I and Tg. Esth. II. 17 Virginity is implied, even if the term ‫ בתולה‬does not emphasize it. See Gordon J. WENHAM, “Betûlah, A Girl of Marriageable Age,” VT 22 (1972), 326-248, John J. SCHMITT, “Virgin,” in ABD, vol. 6, 853-854 and Tikva FRYMER-KENSKY, “Virginity in the Bible,” in Gender and Law in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East (JSOTSup 262), V.H. MATTHEWS, B.M. LEVINSON and T. FRYMER-KENSKY (ed.), Sheffield, 1998, pp. 79-96. 18 HERODOTUS, Hist., 3.84 reports that the conspirators who permitted Darius’s ascension had granted their families the exclusive right to offer a queen to Persia. 19 See the Introduction § Esther, Mordecai, and the Kings of Israel.

122

Esther 2:1-18. Appointment of a New Queen

2:5-7 Verses 5 to 7 pause the narrative to introduce the Jewish heroes, Mordecai and

Esther. Mordecai is located in “the citadel of Susa” – the acropolis – suggesting that he serves as a palace functionary, which explains why he can move about freely (2:11) and can overhear the plot underway (2:21-23). A Jewish Man Mordecai is immediately described as a “Jewish man” ‫ אישׁ יהודי‬which plays a considerable role throughout the plot. ‫יהודי‬, “Jewish,” could be understood as “Judean.” “Judean” does not mean from the tribe of Judah (Mordecai is a Benjaminite) but from the country of Judah, from which he was exiled; he is now part of the Judean or Jewish diaspora.20 Mordecai The name “Mordecai” is based on the name of the Babylonian god Marduk.21 It is clearly an “artificial” name that functions as a pair with “Esther,” which is similar to the deity Ishtar.22 In the book of Esther, the attribution of foreign names to Jewish heroes is not surprising, since they are presented as integrated into the Persian world. Individuals named Mordecai are attested in several Aramaic and cuneiform documents.23 To defend the plausibility of the narrative “Marduka the sipîr of Ushtannu”, a character in a text from Borsippa was sometimes identified as Mordecai in the book of Esther.24 However, this identification is unlikely, because this Marduka is an official of the Babylonian satrap (Ushtannu) and not a functionary from Susa.25 Moreover, several Jews bore the name Mordecai during the Persian and Hellenistic periods.26 A Sauline Ge- Mordecai’s genealogy and “Benjaminite” origins mentioned in 2:5MT draw a connealogy nection between him and King Saul.27 The names of Mordecai’s ancestors recall

the Sauline dynasty: the Benjaminite “Shimei” of Saul’s clan is a famous opponent of David (2 Sam 16:5-13; 19:16-23; 1 Kgs 2:36-46) and “Kish” ‫ קישׁ‬is the name of Saul’s father (1 Sam 9).28 Moreover, the MT reinforces the parallel between Mordecai and Saul by making Haman an “Agagite.” Mordecai’s principal enemy is thus

20 See the Introduction § Jewishness according to the Book of Esther. 21 This point is hardly contested, with the exception of R. LEMOSÍN, “Estudios filológicosderásicos acerca de Ester y el Irán antiguo (II) El nombre Mordekay,” Aula Orientalis 1 (1983), 209-213, who sees the name as deriving from an Elamite expression meaning “man par excellence.” 22 MATHYS, “Personennamen,” 226, 245-246 shows that such pairings of artificial names are not rare in biblical literature. 23 See BUSH, Esther, 361-362. The name appears in Aramaic (DELAPORTE, Epigraphes, 59; DRIVER, documents, 28-29.56; GORDIS, “Religion,” 384), in the archives of Murašu (STOLPER, Entrepreneurs, 294) and in Elamite texts (YAMAUCHI, “Mordecai,” 272-273; MILLER, Versions, 13; WAHL, Esther, 74). 24 See UNGNAD, “Beiträge”; GORDIS, “Studies”; BERG, Book, 2.20; MOORE, Esther; YAMAUCHI, “Background,” 106-107, 110. 25 See CLINES, “Quest”; FIRTH, “Quest”; WAHL, “Forschung,” 122-123. 26 See Ezra 2:2 and Neh 7:7; 1 Esd 5:8 and the tomb inscription from the Ptolemaic period described by William HORBURY, “The Name Mardochaeus in a Ptolemaic Inscription,” VT 41 (1991), p. 220-226. 27 This interpretation is already found in Tg. Esth. I and Tg. Esth. II. It is taken up, for example, in ABADIE, reine, 166-170; CHYUTIN, Hagiographies, 36; LACOCQUE, Esther, 65-80; MOORE, Esther, 19-20; PATON, Esther, 167-168; PICARD, “clous.” 28 The name “Jair” does not, however, have any connections with Saul.

Synchronic Analysis

123

related to King Agag, Saul’s enemy in 1 Sam 15.29 Nevertheless, the editors are too attentive to chronology and to the biblical text to consider Shimei and Kish as Mordecai’s grandfather and great-grandfather. They simply want to evoke the figure of Saul. The allusion to Saul is absent from Greek translations of Esther where Haman is not Agagite and where the spelling of the names of Mordecai’s ancestors does not correspond to the two Saulides of the MT.30 The spelling of the names of Mordecai’s ancestors was probably modified during the transmission of the MT by a copyist emphasizing the similarities between Mordecai and Saul.

In Chronicles, the pair “Judah/Jew” and “Benjamin” define the Davidic kingdom (2 Chr 11:1; 15:2, etc.), and, in Ezra, the exiled community upon their return (Ezra 1:5; 4:1; 10:9, etc.). Consequently, Mordecai’s presentation as an exiled “Benjaminite” Jew yields a representative from a legitimate Jewish diaspora from the point of view of Hebrew literature in the Persian and Hellenistic eras. As the syntax permits,31 the mention in v. 6 of “exiled from Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar” does not refer to Mordecai but to his great-grandfather, Kish.32 It is unlikely that the editors, capable of complex chronological calculations, think that someone deported under Nebuchadnezzar would still be alive under Xerxes more than one hundred years later.33 Whatever the case may be, v. 6 highlights the exile; the root ‫“ גלה‬to exile” appears four times. These references to Jerusalem’s destruction and the exile continue to loom large in the book of Esther, as they signal the precariousness and suffering of dispersed Jews, by setting them in the context of Israelite history. “Jeconiah” is a variant of the name of King Jehoiachin.34 The mention of this king draws Mordecai closer to the first generation of deportees, which, from the biblical point of view, is the most authentic.35 The heroine has two names, Hadassah and Esther. The use of two names by Jews in antiquity – one typically Hebrew (Hadassah) and the other with pagan connotations (Esther) – is especially attested in the book of Daniel (1:7) and 1 Mac-

29 See the commentary on 9:10, 15, 16. 30 While the LXX systematically reproduces the Hebrew names ‫ שׁמעי‬with Σεμεϊ and ‫קישׁ‬ with Κις, Esther 2:5LXX spells them differently: Σεμεϊου = ‫( שׁמעיה‬Neh 12:18, 42) and Κισαιου = ‫( קושׁיהו‬1 Chr 15:17). 31 See Aaron J. KOLLER, “The Exile of Kish: Syntax and History in Esther 2.5–6,” JSOT 37 (2012), 45-56, 53-55. 32 Such is the opinion of HOSCHANDER, Book, 16-19, BERG, Book, 64-66, CLINES, “Mordecai,” 902; GERLEMAN, Esther. See also the discussion in Diana V. EDELMAN, “Kish (person),” in ABD, vol. 4, 85-87. 33 For example, in the note concerning the chronology of 8:9, the editors allude to the seventy years of the deportation. DU TOIT, “Satirical,” 86 is incorrect to see a “satirical” feature in the mention of a deportation chronologically too old for Mordecai. 34 ‫ יכניה‬figures in Jer 27-29 and 1 Chr 3 while ‫ יהויכן‬appears in 2 Kgs 24, Jer 52 and 2 Chr 36. 35 According to 2 Kgs 25:27-29, Jehoiachin, among the first deportation in 597, remained king in exile. Jeremiah 29:10 counts the beginning of the seventy years of the exile from that king’s deportation. Ezekiel makes this group of initial deportees the authentic one. The prophet addresses them (1:1-3), and the glory of God leaves the sanctuary to head east, to these first exiles (Ezek 11:22 ff.).

JudahBenjamin

Exile

Hadassah

124

Esther 2:1-18. Appointment of a New Queen

cabees (2:2-5). “Hadassah” (appearing only in 2:7) is a feminine form of the Hebrew word for myrtle, ‫הדס‬.36 This little fruit shrub is a positive symbol; it appears in the description of nature’s renewal in Isa 41:19 and 55:13.37 Esther Esther’s name is not attested in biblical literature outside the book of Esther. As with Vashti, no Persian queen named Esther is found in extrabiblical texts. The authors of the book did not extend the literary fiction to the point of naming their heroine after the well-known Amestris, the wife of Xerxes. However, they did not hesitate to attribute to their heroine an Oriental-sounding “fabricated” name, advertising that the protagonist is an integrated Jew. Consequently, it is very probable that “Esther” is an “artificial” name chosen to allude or refer to the deity Ishtar – associated with the morning star – and consort of Marduk.38 Esther’s Name and Tradition

Rabbinic tradition often associates Esther’s name with the morning star (in Aramaic, ‫)אסתהר‬, according to b. Meg. 13a (R. Nehemiah) and Tg. Esth. I and Tg. Esth. II. Apart from a popular etymology, another interpretive tradition39 associates the name Esther with the Hebrew term “to hide” (‫)סתר‬, which makes sense in the context of a narrative where Esther initially hides her identity (2:10, 20).

Low Social Verse 7 attributes three characteristics to Esther: she was raised by her cousin Status Mordecai; she is an orphan; and she is a great beauty. The verse is structured with

the pattern a-b-c // c’-b’-a’. The beauty motif is at the center and is framed by adoption and being an orphan. The verse emphasizes the heroine’s low social standing, as an orphan raised by a deportee, all the while indicating that her beauty will enable her rise in status.

36 Like most exegetes, LACHS, “Hadassah” considers Hadassah to mean “myrtle,” an attribute of the deity Venus. JENSEN, “Elamistische,” 210-211 and LEWY, “Feast,” 128-129 associate this name with the Akkadian ḫadaššatu “young woman,” a title sometimes associated with Ishtar. This uncertain etymology is rarely accepted today (cf. Frederic W. BUSH, “Hadassah,” in ABD, vol 3, 13-14; GERLEMAN, Esther, 79; MOORE, Esther, 20). Even more rarely (ERBT, Purimsage), Hadassah was associated with the locale (Αδασα) of the battle marking the Maccabean victory (1 Macc 7:40, 45). 37 Tg. Esth. I, Tg. Esth. II, and midrashic texts draw on this reference to myrtle by emphasizing that myrtle is analogous to Queen Esther, in that it can be bittersweet and does not lose its leaves in winter. R. Meir, in b. Meg. 13a, finds in it a reference to Esther’s justice, citing Zech 1:8. 38 Associating Esther’s name with Ishtar is widely accepted (CLINES, Esther, 287; FOX, Character, 30; LACHS, “Hadassah,” 219). Deriving “Esther” ‫ אסתר‬from the Semitic name Ishtar is entirely possible (LEWY, “Feast,” 128; JENSEN, “Elamistische,” 70; Tzvi ABUSCH, “Ishtar,” in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, 452-456.456). R. ZADOK, “Notes,” 107, derives Esther from a root star- “star,” which would also associate the name “Esther” with the major deity connected to the morning star. The views held by Abraham S. YAHUDA, “The Meaning of the Name Esther,” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (1946), 174-178, that the name Esther is from a Persian term signifying myrtle (*astra), or according to FRÖHLICH, Time, 139-140 from Old Persian strī (woman), are unlikely. 39 This interpretation, defended by ABADIE, reine, 154; ANDREY, “Esther 5,1-8,” 15; BEAL, Hiding, 116-117, 139; LACOCQUE, Esther, 152 n. 32; MILLER, Versions, 13 n. 44; S. VAN DEN EYNDE, “Esther,” 148-149, remains marginal in traditional Jewish exegesis. See, however, texts that allude to Deut 31:17-18 in connection with the name Esther, reflected in BEAL (b. Hul. 139b, R. Judah in b. Meg. 13b) and KOLLER, Esther, 98.

Synchronic Analysis

125

The queen’s beauty plays a considerable role. Beauty is the only characteristic Beauty attributed to Vashti in 1:11 and is the sole criterion in the selection of the young women for the king in 2:2, 3. That the young girl was attractive and beautiful to behold suggests that Esther’s beauty surpasses the norm. This formulation calls to mind descriptions elsewhere in the Bible of the most beautiful women and the most handsome men, such as Sarah, Rachel, Rebecca, Bathsheba, the Shunammite, Abigail, Judith, Joseph, David, and Daniel.40 This exceptional beauty constitutes a major reason for Esther’s ascent that, like a motif associated with Sarah in Gen 12, Rachel in Gen 29, Joseph in Gen 39, Bathsheba in 2 Sam 11, and Judith, provokes the desire of the powerful (2:17). The phrase ‫“ לקחה מרדכי לו לבת‬Mordecai had taken her as a daughter” is an Adoption adoption formula. A parallel is found notably in Exod 2:10 when Moses is adopted by Pharaoh’s daughter. Adoption was practiced both in Mesopotamia and in the Greco-Roman world but few biblical texts refer to it. The LXX introduces Esther as Mordecai’s fiancée. R. Meir in b. Meg. 13a follows a Esther, Mordesimilar notion and suggests not to read “he took her as a daughter ‫לבת‬,” but rather cai’s Fiancée “he took her as a house ‫לבית‬,” meaning as a wife, ‫ בית‬sometimes having this meaning in rabbinic literature.41 This is not likely the original meaning of the passage since there is no other allusion to such a marital union in the book of Esther.42 The reasons that the LXX and R. Meir make Esther into Mordecai’s wife are a matter of speculation.43 It is likely that they are independently correcting what they perceive to be an oddity of the MT, that she is adopted by her cousin, a celibate man who could have married her instead.44

After the parenthesis of 2:5-7, the narrative resumes with a summary of the gath- 2:8-9 ering of the young women envisioned in 2:2-4. From 2:8b, Esther’s new situation becomes the focus of attention. The verb She Was “to take” ‫ לקח‬has a passive sense of “being taken” = “brought,” and demonstrates Brought that the young woman submits to royal decision-making. Moreover, the same verb was already used in 2:7 to speak of Esther’s adoption: “Mordecai took ‫ לקח‬her as a daughter.” Esther appears to thus leave her filial relationship to Mordecai, to enter the sphere of the royal spouse. However, what follows demonstrates that the filial liaison persists despite the marital one. Esther continues to obey her adoptive father, who continues to worry about her (2:10-11, 20) before she risks her life for the sake of filial piety (Ch. 4).

40 Cf. ‫( יפת־מראה‬Gen 12:11; 1 Sam 16:12; 17:42; 2 Sam 14:27); ‫( יפת־תאר ויפת מראה‬Gen 29:17; 39:6) ‫( טבת מראה‬Gen 24:16; 26:7; 2 Sam 11:2; Dan 1:4); ‫( יפת תאר‬1 Sam 25:3); ‫( יפה‬1 Kgs 1:3, 4, Song 1:8, etc.). Judith 8:7 probably translates a similar Semitic text. 41 Cf. SEGAL, Midrash, vol. 2, 48-52 and WALFISH, “Kosher.” 42 Here LXX probably did not translate a text different from the MT (contra HAUPT, “Notes,” 116; and Moshe A. ZIPOR, “When Midrash Met Septuagint: The Case of Esther 2:7*,” ZAW 118 (2006), p. 82-92). Cf. also KAHANA, Esther, 84-85 concerning such a reading (‫)לאשה‬. 43 LEVENSON, Esther, 58 suggests that editors wanted to attribute a Jewish marriage to Esther, while BOYD-TAYLOR, “adventure,” supposes that the LXX wanted to emphasize the despotic character of a royal power tearing wives away from their husbands. 44 See BOYD-TAYLOR, “adventure,” 95; FOX, Character, 276.

126

Esther 2:1-18. Appointment of a New Queen

Like all the young women who enter the king’s house, Esther comes under the authority of “Hegai,” the “guardian of the women.” Eunuchs, Guardians of Women

The names of the eunuchs who serve as guardians of the women pose a complex textual problem. In the MT of 2:3, 8, 15 Hege – Hegai (‫הגא–הגי‬, two variant orthographies for the same proper name), designate the eunuch responsible for assisting the young women in their preparations, a different name from Shaashgaz (2:14) who takes them in after their time spent with the king. The LXX mentions only one eunuch (2:8, 14) named Γαι, an acceptable transliteration of something close to the name in Hebrew in the MT. If the absence of the eunuch’s name in 2:3LXX and 2:15LXX can be explained as liberties taken by the translator, the Shaashgaz of 2:14MT was likely absent from the Hebrew Vorlage of the LXX and added later into the Hebrew as a gloss. The AT, which translates using Proto-Esther, only introduces one eunuch whose proper name (Γωγαίου, probably in Hebrew ‫ )גוגי‬appears in 2:3. This eunuch is described as “proud” (βουγαῖος, probably in Hebrew ‫ )הגאי‬in 2:8. In Proto-Esther, this qualifier parallels the eunuch with Haman, who himself is qualified similarly in 3:1. At the time of the work of the proto-Masoretic editors, the distinction between the proper name ‫ גוגי‬and the qualifier is omitted, and the form ‫ הגאי‬in 2:8 is understood as a proper name.45

Esther, Fa- Already in Chapter 1, the Persian king was manipulated by his entourage and only vored of Hegai adopted the points of view that were suggested to him, a motif that recurs here.

Indeed, while the future queen is supposed to be appealing in the eyes of the king (2:4), it is first to Hegai whom she “was appealing” (2:9). He hurries to prepare his own favorite to be also the favorite of the king, by providing her with more Portions than what is planned in v. 4. “Portions”46 ‫ מנה‬are added to the “cosmetic treatments” planned at the end of v. 3. As in Daniel 1, this term refers to food offered by the imperial administration to enable the empire’s subjects to prosper. Contrary to Daniel 1, the book of Judith, and the addition C,28, the text does not signal that eating this imperial food would pose a conflict with Jewish dietary practices. In addition, Hegai gives Esther, “the seven most select maidens among the Seven Servants king’s house.” This suggests that he is already in the process of obtaining royal attributes for her, since benefitting from seven servers or servants constitutes, in the book of Esther (1:10, 14) as in representations of the Persian world promulgated in Hellenistic literature, a Persian royal attribute.47 The end of the verse draws this connection to Hegai’s attitude, as he places Esther on a pedestal within the harem: he “advanced her (…) to be the best within the women’s house.” While in 2:8b Esther seemed to passively submit to her arrival at the harem, starting from 2:9 successes are attributed to her. Indeed, the verb in the expression, “she won his affection,” implicates Esther actively charming her entourage. A verb in the active (‫ ותשׂא‬qal root ‫“ נשׂא‬to lift” or “to take”), associated with the

45 See the argument in MACCHI, “Haman,” 207-213. On the textual problem of Haman the Agagite in 3:1, see the commentary. 46 This term plays an important role in the description of the Jewish banquet practices in 9:20-28. 47 See the commentary on 1:14. Contra PATON, Esther, 175 and others, it is unlikely that each candidate had at her disposal seven maidens, since this motif is neither established in 2:2-4 nor acted upon in 2:12-14.

Synchronic Analysis

127

vocabulary of “affection” ‫ חסד‬and “favor” ‫חן‬, characterizes Esther’s action vis-àvis her Persian entourage in what follows. Stereotypical phraseology demonstrates that Esther charms her entourage. Hegai is Esther Wins Afcharmed first (2:9), then everyone in the court (2:15), then the king himself (2:17 and fection and 5:2). On the other hand, on the occasions that Esther addresses the king in 5:4, 8; 7:3, Favor and 8:5, her subtle rhetoric and deference are indicated by a passive or indirect expression, “if I have found ‫ מצא‬favor.”

Even if, according to the redactors of the work, Hegai contributes to Esther’s success, it is she who sets the wheels in motion resulting in her triumph. The motif of the Jewish individual who quickly gains the favor of the powerful in a foreign court is also fairly classic within the Bible, as in the cases of Joseph (Gen 39:4, 21) and Daniel (Dan 1:8-9). Verse 10 mentions that under Mordecai’s order, Esther did not inform the court that she was Jewish. From the perspective of the proto-Masoretic version, this information is essential for the plot. The two heroes each must reveal the fact that they are Jewish, Mordecai in 3:4 and Esther in 7:3ff. Moreover, this element likens Esther to Joseph and Moses, two other biblical figures whose Jewish identity is concealed from the foreign court and to whom the narrative alludes on several occasions. This verse does not use the term “Jewish,” but rather “her people” and “her parentage.” The reader, having just read 2:5, understands very well that Esther is Jewish. The term “people” returns on numerous occasions within the book of Esther both to emphasize the diversity in the empire’s population (1:16, 22; 3:12, 14; 8:9, 11, etc.) and also to insist on a Jewish peoplehood (3:4, 6, 8; 7:3; 8:6). The term “parentage” ‫ מולדת‬appears in parallel with that of “people” in Esther 2:20 and 8:6. This term, which also has the meaning of “homeland,”48 emphasizes, as in 2:5-6, the particular connection between the Jewish people and their homeland. It is ironic that, in concealing her identity, Esther is following Mordecai’s orders.49 For by being loyal to her father she denies her parentage. Moreover, this point presupposes the belief that confirming a Jewish identity could affect the smooth progress of one’s social life, or even be dangerous in a world dominated by a foreign empire.50 Verse 11 reports on Mordecai’s daily promenade “in front of the court of the women’s house” so that he can learn of her well-being, underlining the strong rapport between the two protagonists. Moreover, “to know (…) what would happen to her” makes Esther’s precarious situation parallel with that of the young Moses, since in Exod 2:4 the same sentiment is present in Moses’s sister. Mordecai’s daily movements inside the royal palace would only be possible if he were well-placed within the Persian administrative system, as confirmed in

48 ‫ מולדת‬derives from the root ‫“ ילד‬to bear.” It can also mean “country” or “homeland” even apart from the expression ‫ארץ מולדת‬. See Gen 12:1; 24:4; 31:3; 32:9; Num 10:30 (H. HAAG, “‫ת‬‫ מוֹ‬môleḏeṯ,” TDOT, vol. 8, 162-167.165). 49 See HALVORSON-TAYLOR, “Secrets,” 480-483. 50 The allusion in 2:10, 20 to a form of ambient anti-Judaism is widely accepted. See BUSH, Esther, 368; CLINES, Esther, 288; FOX, Character, 32; VAN WIJK-BOS, Esther, 116 etc. (on the other hand, JACOBS “Characterizing,” 10-11).

Esth 2:10-11. Concealed Judaism

People and Parentage

128

2:12-14

Sexual Encounter

Codified Process

Esther 2:1-18. Appointment of a New Queen

2:19b. However, Mordecai could not enter the harem or obtain visiting rights.51 He walks “in front of ”, ‫ לפני‬and not “into” ‫ ב‬the court of the women’s house. Consequently, Mordecai learns of Esther’s welfare and communicates with her, as in Chapter 4, via the harem’s personnel.52 Such daily promenades would not go unnoticed. The parentage between Esther and Mordecai is thus known to the court. The motif of the future queen’s hidden Jewishness in 2:10 would only make sense if, at this stage of the narrative, Mordecai’s Jewish identity was also concealed.53 Verses 12 to 14 interrupt the narrative flow to inform readers of the conditions of the seduction contest. As in Chapter 1, this passage underlines the pomp and wealth of the Persian court. The young women benefit from preparation with cosmetic treatments using a variety of beauty products, which could have been applied by topical massage (‫“ תמרוק‬cosmetic” derives from a root meaning to scrub) or by aromatic steam.54 The duration of the beauty treatments – two six-month periods – ironizes on the disproportionate luxury of the Persian court. Even though the text speaks euphemistically, it is evident that the young women’s visits to the king are sexual in nature. The expression “to approach …” ‫ בוא אל‬clearly has a sexual connotation when used to describe a “nocturnal” visit with a person of the opposite sex.55 In addition, after their visit with the king, the “young women” ‫ נערה‬become “concubines” ‫פילגשׁי‬, which marks their change in status. The twelve months of beauty preparations are according to the “women’s edict” ‫ דת הנשׁים‬which records this process in a long series of royal edicts prescribed by the Persian administration.56 The precise description of the process emphasizes the formality and wealth of the court. Just as the guests of Ahasuerus could drink without limit (1:7-8), so also the young woman visiting the king could obtain “all that she asked for.” After having been brought from the women’s house to spend a night with the king, she is brought back “a second time” into the women’s palatial area.57 According to the MT, as a concubine from this point forward, she finds herself in the custody of a different eunuch from Hegai: “Shaashgaz.” As in Chapter 1, the specific task attributed to each functionary, designated by his name, underscores the Persian court’s extreme level of codified organization.

51 See PATON, Esther, 176. 52 This is the opinion of, notably, HAUPT, “Notes,” 117; WAHL, Esther, 79. 53 Commentators who suppose that Mordecai’s Judaism is common knowledge see here a problem with coherence (PATON, Esther, 176; GERLEMAN, Esther, 80-81; LEVENSON, Esther, 61). 54 William F. ALBRIGHT, “The Lachish Cosmetic Burner and Esther 2:12,” in A Light unto My Path: Old Testament Studies in Honor of Jacob M. Myers, H. N. BREAM, R. D. HEIM and C. A. MOORE (eds.), Philadelphia, 1974, 25-32 supposes that the balms ‫ בשׂמים‬or spices are used in the same fashion as at Lachish for various types of fumigation. 55 Gen 16:4; 29:21; 30:4; 38:18; 39:14; 2 Sam 11:4; 12:24; 16:21; Ruth 4:13 1 Chr 7:23, etc. 56 See the commentary on 1:7-8. 57 And not in a “second women’s house.” See the textual note for 2:14a.

Synchronic Analysis

129

Beyond the splendor, this process of selecting young women is tragic. Indeed, before being introduced to the sovereign, each young woman is treated with the utmost care. However, in the majority of cases, after passing through his room, these women are henceforth kept away from the royal presence, which constitutes from all appearances a terrible sanction since they share the same fate as the disobedient Vashti.58 The only ones to escape this disastrous destiny are those whom the king “desires” to be “called by name,” as are, in the MT, the important functionaries of the king’s entourage. This motif sets the stage for the passage in which Esther, having become queen, declares that she has not been summoned and thus may not approach the king (4:11). Her status as queen does not free her from the same constraints as the concubines. Following the digressions of 2:10-11 and 2:12-14, the main narrative resumes. The phrase “when the turn came for Esther (…) to approach the king” recaps the terminology describing the conditions of the beauty contest in 12a. Moreover, Esther’s status as an orphan is called to mind. Contrary to 2:7, in 2:15 as in 9:29 the name of Esther’s “biological” father, “Abihail,” is mentioned.

Never to Return

2:15-17. Esther with the King

As in other narratives linked to the emergence of the Israelite monarchy and the wives Allusions to of David,59 the MT of Esther seems to draw numerous allusions to the story of Abigail David and Abi(1 Sam 25). Like Esther, Abigail is informed regarding a threat of demise (1 Sam 25:13, gail 14-17, 22), she presents herself before a sovereign (David), and pleads a case reminiscent of Esther in 7:3-4. The drunken banquet is also a part of the plot (Nabal dies; cf. 1 Sam 25:36-38). Several rare phrases are found in both texts: Abigail is “clever and beautiful” ‫ טובת־שׂכל ויפת תאר‬in 1 Sam 25:3 (compare to Esth 2:7 and Esther’s intelligence); ‫ יום טוב‬designates a festival day in 1 Sam 25:8 and in Esth 8:17; 9:19, 22; “heart was merry” ‫ טוב לב‬describes drunkenness in 1 Sam 25:36, in Esth 1:10 and 5:9; Abigail avails herself of the “maids” assigned to her ‫ נערותיה‬in the harem (1 Sam 25:42; Esth 2:9; 4:4, 16); the expression “YHWH has returned the evil-doing of Nabal upon his own head” in 1 Sam 25:39 evokes Esth 9:25.60

While each young woman can ask for whatever she wants before visiting the king, Moderation Esther “sought nothing apart from what Hegai had suggested” (2:15). She does and Wisdom not profit from the opportunity to acquire jewels or clothing, but accepts the opinion of the eunuch in charge of the women’s preparations. This wise and intelligent attitude characterizes Esther throughout the narrative. Moreover, by only asking for the essentials, she distances herself from the ostentatious luxury that typifies the Persian court. Like Aspasia of Aelien,61 she conforms to the values of modesty and discretion of a woman from modest means, in contrast to the courtesans’ attitude.62 Such a moderate and reserved attitude is typically sapien-

58 Compare 2:14: “she never approached the king again” ‫ לא־תבוא עוד אל־המלך‬with 1:19: “Vashti will never again come before the King” ‫לא־תבוא ושׁתי לפני המלך‬. 59 The episode concerning David, the Shunammite and Bathsheba in 2:1-4, and Saul’s genealogy in 2:7. 60 See BERGER, “Esther,” 640-641. 61 See the introductory section of this chapter. 62 JACOBS, “Characterizing,” 9-10 emphasizes the contrast between Esther and the courtesans. BERLIN, Esther, 28 however calls attention to the fact that contrary to Dan 1:8 and Tob 1:10-11, the book of Esther does not suggest a rejection against the principal of wealthy Gentiles.

130

To Be Brought and to Win

His Royal House

Dating

2:18. Enthronement Banquet

Esther 2:1-18. Appointment of a New Queen

tial,63 just like submitting to the instructions of Hegai, an expert in the upbringing of young women.64 Verse 15 ends by generalizing that “Esther won favor” of all who saw her, the outcome of 2:9. In v. 16, the MT evokes Esther’s arrival to the king’s quarters using a passive construction, “she was brought to” ‫ותלקח אל‬, instead of “to approach” ‫ בוא אל‬used for the young women in 2:12-15. As in 2:8, this passive construction suggests that Esther had no choice. This presentation of Esther’s attitude might seem strange: in 16a (and 8b) the passive formula suggests that she is compelled to go, while in 15b (and 17aβ) she actively gains the favor of both the court and the sovereign. That said, it is not absurd to describe Esther as attempting to win a contest in which she was compelled to participate, since it is natural for people to manage their circumstances in life as best they can, even if these circumstances were neither desired nor chosen. Setting the episode in “his royal house” ‫בית מלכותו‬, in the private royal apartments, situates the arrival of the future queen before the king in the same location where Vashti was when she refused the king’s summons to attend the royal banquet (cf. 1:9, 11) and where Esther must later go and risk her life (5:1). The Masoretic chronological comment “in the tenth month – which is the month of Tebeth – in the seventh year of his reign” combines the numbered month along with its Babylonian name. This comment emphasizes the length of time it took to search for a queen. In fact, since Vashti’s removal from the queenship, four years two months and twenty-three days have passed. The editors have chosen that date so that the span of time between the beginning of the first gathering of women (following the removal of Vashti) and the enthronement of Esther is the same as the span of time between the second gathering of women (2:19) and the drawing of lots for the destruction of the Jews (3:7).65 The end of v. 17 marks Esther’s appointment as queen by her donning a “royal diadem,” a sign of royalty previously associated with Vashti (1:11). Esther’s enthronement is celebrated with a royal banquet, suggesting that the Vashti crisis is now over. Once again, the king arranges a banquet for his entire

63 Respect for convention and the ability to be comfortable with one’s position in life when confronted by wealth are fundamental principles of court wisdom (cf. the wisdom of Amenemope and Prov 22:17-24:22 [esp. 23:1-5] which depend on such notions: see Michael V. FOX, “From Amenemope to Proverbs. Editorial Art in Proverbs 22:17– 23:11,” ZAW 126 (2014), 76-91; Magne SÆBØ, Sprüche (ATD 16,1), Göttingen, 2012, 275304 and Bruce K. WALTKE, The Book of Proverbs. Chapters 15-31 (NICOT), Grand Rapids/ Cambridge, 2005, 217-288). The sapiential motif can also be found in Chapters 5 and 7, where Esther does not act to profit from the king’s offer of half the kingdom. 64 LEVENSON, Esther, 62 stresses a sapiential orientation for Esther in light of this verse, contrary to DE TROYER, “Beauty,” 54, who criticizes this submission to norms made into edict by males. 65 See The Book of Esther’s Chronological System in the Introduction. The first gathering starts on the eighth day of the seventh month in the third year of Ahasuerus’s reign (Esth 2:3-5) and ends on the first day of the tenth month of the seventh year of his reign (2:16). The second starts on the eighth day of the tenth month of the seventh year and ends on the first of the first month of year twelve. The period for both gatherings is thus four years, two months, and twenty-three days.

Translation

131

administration, as at Ahasuerus’s first banquet (1:3). The phrase “Esther’s banquet” suggests that this time the queen is present. Although not explicit, the marriage of the king and Esther is implied. Nothing in the MT signals that marriage with a non-Jew poses a problem (although the rabbis did find it problematic). Such is not the case for the Greek editor of Esther’s prayer (LXX addition C,26-27), who places upon Esther’s lips the words: “the bed of Gentiles and all foreigners disgusts me.” The last part of the verse mentions an “amnesty” ‫הנחה‬, a hapax in biblical Amnesty Hebrew from the root ‫“( נוח‬to leave, to rest”), that probably indicates a tax or corvée release.66 “He offered a donation ‫ משׂאת‬befitting the king” suggests a gift offered by the Royal Contriking. This expression alludes to the episode of the banquet for the habitants of bution Susa, where the wine was “according to the king’s standard.” The similarity between ‫“ משׁתה‬banquet” and ‫“ משׂאת‬donation” emphasizes the parallel between the wine of the banquet in 1:7 and the gift in 2:18bβ, signalling that the prior royal excesses before the crisis provoked by Vashti’s refusal have now returned. Practices of fiscal exemption are known in Greek texts about Persia.67 Moreover, during Taxation and the period when the book was edited, Hellenistic imperial power used tax exemptions Royal Gifts and royal donations as a political strategy to maintain good relations with Judea. 1 Macc 11:28-37 mentions an exemption of Demetrius II, 2 Macc 3:1-3 royal donations to the Jerusalem sanctuary, and 2 Macc 4:11 and 9:16 show that under Antiochus IV the suppression of the Judean tax exemption and the royal donations made to the sanctuary played a significant role in the Maccabean crisis.68

Esther 2:19-23. Events at the Court Translation 19 aWhen the virgins were gathered together a second timeab, Mordecai was sitting at the king’s gate. 20a Esther had not told of her parentage and her people, as Mordecai had instructed her. Esther did all that Mordecai prescribed, just as she had when under his tutelage.b 21 aIn those days, Mordecai was sitting at the king’s gate.a bBigthan and Tereshb, the king’s two eunuchs, guardians of the threshold, became angry.c They sought to extend their hand against King Ahasuerus. 22 The matter became known to Mordecai. He informed Queen Esther. Esther spoke of it to the king a in the name of Mordecaia. 23 aThe matter was investigated and found to be truea, both the men were hanged on a tree, it was recorded in the book of annals before the king.

66 See HAL; FOX, Character, 276. LXX translates the term as ἄφεσις “released.” 67 For example, the provinces are freed from the taxation of the Magus after the death of Cambyses (HERODOTUS, Hist., 3.67; JUSTIN, Historiae Philippicae, 1.9). 68 Cf. HONIGMAN, Tales, 297-404 esp. 316-344.

132

Esther 2:19-23. Events at the Court

Notes on Text and Translation 19a-a The beginning of the sentence is absent from the LXX. The translation perhaps abridged the comment (KAHANA, Esther, 115). b ‫“ שׁנית‬a second time”: see the commentary. 20a LXX offers a fairly liberal and moralizing translation in which Esther fears God and continues to follow her customs (CAVALIER, Esther, 157; MOORE, Esther, 30). b The translation “under his tutelage” suggests that ‫ אמנה‬is a noun signifying “tutelage.” The suggestion to read an infinitive construct from the root ‫ אמן‬followed by a 3fs sfx (minus mappiq) is not necessary (FOX, Character, 277; DRIVER, “Problems,” 235). 21a-a Redundant with 19a, omitted in LXX. b-b The names of the two eunuchs here are lacking in LXX. However, AT and LXX mention them, notably in Addition A,12. FROLOV, “Eunuchs,” 311, thinks that the translator of the LXX omitted the name of the eunuchs to avoid the plot of Addition A from appearing as a doublet of 2:21-23. HACHAM, “Bigthan,” concludes that because of Addition A, the names are voluntarily absent from the Greek of 2:21LXX. The names of the two eunuchs could also have been added into the Hebrew after the translation of the LXX text was complete and could have influenced the creation of the additions. c Influenced by Addition A,16, LXX adds that the eunuchs are angered by Mordecai’s promotion (DE TROYER, “Esther,” 41, 44). 22a-a Lacking in LXX. 23a-a The LXX offers a different text here which corresponds to A,14 “the king questioned the two eunuchs.”

Synchronic Analysis After Esther’s accession to royalty, vv. 19-23 describe what happens subsequently at the court. Esther and Mordecai remain loyal to one another in the concealment of their Jewish identity and outwit a plot aimed at the king. 2:19-20 Esther and Mordecai’s situation at the court, as well as their relationship during the period between Esther’s arrival and Haman’s promotion, are described. Similar information has already appeared in 2:10-11. This redundancy shows the sustained connection between Esther and Mordecai despite Esther’s accession to royalty. Moreover, these verses introduce the episode of 2:21-23 where Esther will execute Mordecai’s instructions (20b) following the receipt of information obtained by virtue of his position at the “king’s gate”(19b). Second GathVerse 19 opens with an enigmatic temporal comment: “when the virgins were ering gathered together a second time, ‫שׁנית‬.” No explanation is offered for the reasons and the nature of this gathering. As the same terms are used in 2:3 and 2:8, the passage appears to suggest that a second gathering of young women, analogous to that leading up to Esther’s enthronement, would have followed. This interpretation of 2:19 seems implied by the calculation by the editors of 2:16 to fix the date of Esther’s enthronement. Such a second gathering pushes to the extreme the absurdity of Persian court functioning; after the new queen has been named, a new contingent of young women is furnished for this insatiable king.69 That said,

69 The sarcastic character of the comment is noted by BUSH, Esther, 372. Elizabeth GROVES, “Double Take: Another Look at the Second Gathering of Virgins in Esther 2.19A,” in

Synchronic Analysis

133

this interpretation of a “second gathering” remains relatively poorly integrated into the narrative; the gathering is neither recommended by an advisor nor ordered by the king, it is not necessary to the rest of the narrative, and it is in tension with the king’s satisfaction as described in 2:17. Consequently, numerous exegetes suggest that v. 19a does not signify an additional gathering of young women. The “second” gathering could refer to the transfer of the young women to the second women’s house (2:14).70 This syntactically acceptable solution71 could also imply a gathering of all Esther’s unsuccessful competitors for a parade or to go to Esther’s banquet.72 Whichever interpretation one prefers, the function of this passage remains unclear and superfluous. The term ‫ שׁנית‬could also be taken to mean “secondly.” In that case, the verse would introduce supplemental specifications concerning the unique period of the girls’ gathering. The Masoretic punctuation would be corrected to read “When the virgins were gathered, secondly (implied: “one must say that”) Mordecai was sitting… ”73 This interpretation is improbable, however. Such a use of ‫ שׁנית‬occurs rarely in Hebrew (only attested in 2 Sam 16:19) and this adverb should be placed at the beginning of the verse. The difficulties in v. 19a suggest a problem in textual transmission, arising very early in the process of textual development.74 A copyist could have accidentally changed an original ‫ שׁנות‬into ‫( שׁנית‬changing the ‫ ו‬into ‫)י‬.75 If the original featured the participle ‫“ שׁנות‬varied” or “different,”76 one would need to translate “when the different virgins were gathered.” It would thus evoke the gathering of young women preceding Esther’s enthronement. “Mordecai was sitting at the king’s gate” indicates a geographic location and Sitting at the a social status. In antiquity, city gates and palace areas were important locations Gate in the administrative and social life of the city,77 and the episodes that take place there (elaboration of plots 2:21, parades 3:2; 5:9) confirm that it functions as a strategic locale for palace administration. That Mordecai is sitting there suggests

70 71

72 73 74 75 76 77

The Book of Esther in Modern Research (JSOTSup 380), S.W. CRAWFORD and L.J. GREENSPOON (ed.), London/New York, 2003, 91-110 and SNYMAN, “maidens,” 500 insist upon an unstable situation for Esther, suggested by this comment. This solution is often defended. See FOX, Character, 276-277; DAY, Esther, 57. In that case, one would have to translate: “when the young women were gathered the second time.” The determination of the terms ‫“ בתולות‬virgins” and ‫“ שׁנית‬a second time” would certainly be preferable, but not necessary. Moreover, the use of the term ‫“ בתולות‬virgins” could seem inappropriate after having already spent time in the king’s chambers, but the term could also be applied to young women who have not yet had children. See BARDTKE, Esther, 293, 306; GORDIS, “Studies,” 47, LEVENSON, Esther, 63; MOORE, Esther, 30; PATON, Esther, 186-187. This solution is proposed by GERLEMAN, Esther, 83. Similarly, RUDOLPH, “Estherbuch,” 8990 suggests a marginal gloss indicating that v. 20 is a doublet of 2:10. It took place before 2:16bMT was edited, a phrase which implies the existence of two distinct gatherings of young women. EHRLICH, Randglossen, 114; MOORE, Esther, 29-30; SNYMAN, “Maidens.” The same term in Esth 1:7 and 3:8. See Deut 21:19; Amos 5:12; Prov 31:23; Ruth 4; HERODOTUS, Hist., 3.120; XENOPHON, Cyr. 8.1.6. etc.

134

Esther 2:19-23. Events at the Court

that he serves as a functionary.78 That a Jew occupies a position in the administration of a foreign empire is not surprising. During the Hellenistic era, Jewish imperial functionaries were not rare and several biblical characters hold such positions (Joseph and Daniel; Daniel is “at the king’s gate” [Dan 2:49]). The King’s Gate

Mordecai’s Prescriptions

2:21-23. The Plot

The “king’s gate” plays an important role in the development of Mordecai’s character. His presence there is mentioned ten times in the book (2:19, 21; 3:2, 3; 4:2, 6; 5:9, 13; 6:10, 12). Mordecai’s presence or absence from the gate chart his movements both upward and downward in social mobility. Moreover, the recurring mention of the location of Mordecai’s activities reminds readers that the Persian imperial system defines a precise place for all functionaries.79

Verse 2:20a repeats the entreaty to Esther not to reveal that she is Jewish (in 2:10).80 This repetition underscores this point and clarifies that it holds true after Esther’s enthronement. In mentioning that, having become queen, Esther continues to fulfill ‫עשׂה‬ “Mordecai’s prescriptions ‫מאמר‬,” 2:20 introduces information that sets the stage for the episodes of 2:21-23 and Chapter 4. The rare term ‫( מאמר‬Esth 1:15 and 9:32) draws a contrast between the figures of Esther and Vashti, since the primary grievance against Vashti in 1:15 is precisely that she did not “fulfil (‫ )עשׂה‬the command (‫ר‬) of the king.” Esther’s submission to certain “prescriptions” makes her a counter-model to the prior rebellious queen, all the while ironic, because it is not her husband the king, but rather her adoptive father, to whom she submits. A plot fomented against the king is a frequent motif in Hellenistic literature’s presentation of the Persian court.81 The denunciation of the plot is recounted at the beginning of the episode of Mordecai’s promotion in 6:1-3, where one finds a quasi-identical vocabulary. In 6:1-3 the king reads the report of this denunciation; the report that was written into the annals in 2:23. Over the course of this episode, Mordecai “informs” (‫נגד‬ hiphil 2:22//6:2) concerning “Bigthan and Teresh, the two eunuchs, guardians of the threshold” who had “sought to extend their hand against King Ahasuerus” (6:2//2:21). As 6:3 notes, vv. 2:21-23 do not indicate any compensation given to Mordecai. In addition to setting the stage for Chapter 6, this episode adds to the effect of the narrative in three ways. The absence of recompense for Mordecai when he saves the king is all the more shocking, coming as it does just before a promotion for someone else: Haman (3:1). The strange and unjust functioning of the Persian court is thereby emphasized. Moreover, here Esther does not seem to have any

78 See GORDIS, “Studies,” 47-48; BERLIN, Esther, 31; Hans WEHR, “Das ‘Tor des Königs’ im Buche Esther und verwandte Ausdrücke,” Der Islam 39 (1964), 247-260; WAHL, Esther, 8485. Hans Peter RÜGER, “Das Tor des Königs – des königliche Hof,” Bib. 50 (1969), 247250, suggests that the “king’s gate” designates the ensemble of the royal court. 79 The motif is attested in Greek literature: “men had their appointed place, some being the king’s personal servants, his bodyguard and attendants, others the guardians of each of the enclosing walls, the so-called janitors and ‘listeners’” PSEUDO-ARISTOTLE, De Mundo, 398a (translation TRICOT, 196). 80 See commentary on 2:10. 81 See commentary on 2:1-18.

Synchronic Analysis

135

difficulty in approaching the king; she is regularly invited to be by his side. However, later, matters take a turn for the worse, since according to 4:11 she is not summoned for a period of thirty days,82 which suggests that Esther’s beneficial intervention provoked the king’s ingratitude toward her. Finally, this episode demonstrates that the Jewish heroes act loyally toward the king, and thus Haman’s allegations that the king would benefit from ridding himself of the Jews (3:8-9) are unfounded. Several similarities between Esther 2:21-23 and the narrative of the cupbearer and the Allusions to baker of the Joseph story (Genesis 40) suggest that the editors of Esther – as already Genesis 40 seen in 2:3 – wanted to allude to the Joseph story to draw a parallel between Esther and Mordecai and other famous Jewish heroes of the Diaspora.83 In both episodes, the individuals guilty towards their suzerain are ‫“ שׁני סריסים‬two eunuchs” (Gen 40:2 // Esth 2:21). The episode results in a “hanging upon a tree” ‫ תלה‬... ‫( על־עץ‬Gen 40:19 // Esth 2:23). The word anger ‫ קצף‬occurs in both episodes: in Gen 40:2 and Esth 1:12 the king is the object of the anger, and in Esth 2:21 it is the eunuchs.

As in 2:4 and 2:14, the mention of the function of the “guardians of the threshold” and the proper names of the two eunuchs emphasize the precise and codified character of the organization of the Persian court. These guardians of the threshold were conducting their activities at the gate of the palace grounds, where Mordecai was sitting.84 The reasons that led the eunuchs to become angry and to seek to harm the king are not specified.85 In Esther, the angry nature of Persians appears frequently. The king becomes angry with Vashti (1:12), the ministers with their spouses (1:18), Haman with Mordecai (3:5; 5:9), and the king with Haman (7:7).86 As in Chapter 4, Esther serves as an intermediary between her adoptive father and the king, conveying information “in the name of Mordecai.” That the king knows that Mordecai is the source of the information is understood by the narrative that follows where Mordecai’s name appears in the royal annals (6:2). Thus, the closeness between Esther and Mordecai seems known to the king. Since, according to 8:1, it is not until after Haman’s execution that the queen reveals to the king that Mordecai is her relative, the narrative implies that Esther conveys Mordecai’s information without identifying herself as his adoptive daughter.87 The eunuchs receive the same treatment planned for Mordecai (5:14; 6:4) and suffered by Haman and his sons (7:9-10; 8:7; 9:13, 25). Finally, the chapter ends with the recording of the events in the royal “annals.”88

82 Between 2:22 and 4:11 no summons of the queen is mentioned. 83 See already b. Meg. 13b which draws together the two events, also LEVENSON, Esther, 65. 84 CLINES, Esther, 292 is mistaken to situate these two characters within the king’s direct personal entourage as guards to his private apartments. 85 Tg. Esth. I as well as Midrash Rabbah and the LXX attribute this anger to jealousy. 86 To indicate anger, ‫ קצף‬is used in 1:12, 18; 2:21, while ‫ה‬ appears in 1:12; 2:1; 3:5; 5:9; 7:7, and 10. 87 This point does not constitute a rupture in the narrative’s logic, contrary to FOX, Character, 40; LEVENSON, Esther, 64; DAY, Esther, 64-65. 88 See the commentary on Chapter 6.

Guardians of the Threshold

Angering

In the Name of Mordecai

Hanged on a Tree

136

Diachronic Analysis

Diachronic Analysis The analysis of Chapter 2 corroborates the hypothesis that a large part of the Alpha Text constitutes a fairly literal Greek translation of Proto-Esther, the Hebrew text which would have served as a base for an edited work – of the MaccabeanHasmonean era – leading grosso modo to the consonantal form of the MT.89

Proto-Esther The broad strokes of the Masoretic narrative are present in Proto-Esther and certain wording from Proto-Esther is also found in the parallel passages of the MT. However, Chapter 2 of Proto-Esther, being clearly shorter than the MT, differs in several regards. The beauty contest is only briefly mentioned. The fact that Esther and Mordecai are Jews does not seem to pose any difficulties, since they do not conceal their identity. After Esther’s arrival at the harem, the influence of her Jewish family is not mentioned. The proud eunuch is the only one to support Esther before her selection by the sovereign. Lastly, no eunuchs’ plot is mentioned. The translation below is based upon the Alpha Text of the Book of Esther Chapter 2 (HANHART (ed.), Esther, 142-147).

1 And thus Vashti’s memory and what she had done to King Assuerus was forgotten. 2 And those who served the king said: “let us seek virgins beautiful in appearance and let them be given to be placed under the authority of Gogaios the eunuch, the women’s guardian. 4 And the girl who is pleasing to the king will be appointed in place of Vashti.” They acted accordingly quickly. 5 And there was a Jewish man in the city of Susa whose name was Mordecai son of Iaeiros, son of Semeias, son of Kisaios of the tribe of Benjamin. 7 And he had faithfully raised Esther the daughter of his father’s brother. And the young girl was very attractive in appearance and beautiful to behold. 8 And the young girl was taken into the king’s house. And a proud individual [βουγαῖος], the eunuch in charge, saw the young girl and she was more pleasing to him than all the women. 9 And Esther found favor and grace before him, and he hastened to take charge of her, and gave her, in addition to the seven young girls, her own servants. And when Esther was brought before the king, she pleased him very much. 14 And when the evening came, she was brought and in the morning she was sent back. 17 When the king had assessed all the virgins, Esther seemed the most splendid. And she found favor and grace before him, and he placed the royal diadem upon her head. 18 And the king celebrated Esther’s wedding in a splendid fashion, and he granted an amnesty to all the provinces. The AT translates into Greek a Hebrew Proto-Esther approximately two and a half times shorter than the MT and that – if one ignores the “pluses” present in the MT –

89 See the Introduction, A. Textual Forms and Editorial Stages.

Proto-Esther

137

corresponds in large part to the literal content of the consonantal MT. Without going into a detailed analysis,90 one notes that certain passages which, in the Hebrew ProtoEsther were probably identical to the MT, appear as slight variants compared to the translation of the MT offered earlier in this chapter. Changing from Hebrew to Greek require taking certain liberties in syntax and vocabulary, and even in some interpretations.91 In addition, some passages could have been altered during the editing process92 or manuscript transmission.93 Finally, while Proto-Esther is clearly shorter than the MT, some textual elements that were present in the source vary in the MT or are absent.94 They were probably omitted or corrected by the editor who reworked Proto-Esther and inserted the different “pluses” present in the MT. Major redactional work – such as inserting a long development of a beauty contest – cannot readily be done without removing or altering certain details of the source text.95

The episode in which Mordecai unravels the eunuchs’ plot poses a particular textual Scheming in problem. The MT describes the episode in 2:21-23. The two Greek versions – LXX Proto-Esther? and AT – report a plot by eunuchs at the opening of the narratives (Addition A,1217). In the LXX, the plot of Addition A seems to create a doublet with that of 2:2123. In the AT, on the other hand, the passage parallel to 2:21-23MT/LXX is absent. As the AT only reports a plot by eunuchs in a late addition (A,12-17), one may ask whether Proto-Esther contained such an episode and where it would have been located in the narrative. Was the plot by eunuchs present in Chapter 2 of ProtoEsther from the beginning, but was removed upon the insertion of Addition A,12 ff.?96 Did Addition A,12 ff. of the AT reflect the narrative of the eunuchs’ plot which was original to Proto-Esther?97 Is it possible that Proto-Esther did not contain the narrative of the plot at all?98

90 See the synopsis in JOBES, The Alpha-Text. 91 In v. 18 the mention of marriage (γάμος) is a free reproduction of the Hebrew “banquet.” 92 When the proto-Masoretic version adds certain elements, various changes to the source text become necessary. For example, in 2:1, adding the term “anger” ‫ חמת‬and attributing it to the king necessitates moving the mention of “King Ahasuerus” from the beginning of the sentence. The Proto-Esther, which here has been translated from the Greek AT “and thus Vashti’s memory and what she had done to King Assuerus was forgotten” (in Hebrew possibly: ‫)כשׁך זכר ושׁתי ואת אשׁר־עשׂתה למלך אחשׁורושׁ‬, is altered and becomes in the MT “since the anger of King Ahasuerus had abated, he remembered Vashti and what she had done” (Hebrew: ‫)כשׁך חמת המלך אחשׁורושׁ זכר את־ושׁתי ואת אשׁר־עשׂתה‬. 93 This is the case for the eunuch’s name in vv. 3 and 8, see the commentary on 2:8-9. 94 In 2:2 the passive phrase “and let them be given to be placed” (Greek: καὶ δοθήτωσαν προστατεῖσθαι possibly in Hebrew ‫ ויפקדו‬pual or hophal) becomes active in 2:3MT since the king appoints commissioners. Similarly, the turns of phrase in 2:17AT indicating that the king “had examined” the girls and that Esther “seemed the most splendid” are dropped in the MT, the examination of the young women being developed at length (2:12-14MT). 95 The phenomenon is apparent if one compares vv. 8, 14 and 17 of Proto-Esther with the Masoretic parallels. In Proto-Esther, v. 14 concerns Esther alone; in the parallel verse in the MT, all the young women are included. The phrase “more … than all the women,” which concerned the eunuch’s affection (v. 8), is attributed to the king in the MT (v. 17). 96 TOV, “Lucianic”; DE TROYER, “Esther”; HACHAM, “Bigthan,” 329. 97 KOSSMANN, Esthernovelle, 76-104. 98 CLINES, Scroll, 104-107.

138

Diachronic Analysis

It is unlikely that Addition A of the AT constitutes the original narrative of the plot. Indeed, it is hard to understand why an editor would have wished to abridge the narrative of the addition before inserting it into 2:21-23MT. Moreover, the narrative of Addition A is not a good introduction to the episode of the reading of the king’s annals (6:1-3) since Mordecai is rewarded (A,16b).99 Finally, if Addition A had opened Proto-Esther, Mordecai’s introduction in 2:5 would seem strangely placed at a point in the narrative where the reader already knows this protagonist by means of the addition. A,12-17 was therefore surely included as a late insertion into the Greek translations,100 as a rewriting aiming to clarify the episode of 2:21-23.101 It is not impossible that a narrative of the eunuchs’ plot, present from the beginning in Chapter 2 of Proto-Esther, was removed by the AT during the insertion of Addition A,12-17. That said, the original contents of this ancient narrative cannot be identical to what is described in 2:21-23MT. In reality, 2:21-23MT is designed to prepare for the Masoretic version of Chapter 6 whose turns of phrase it uses. However, Chapter 6 of Proto-Esther differs considerably from the Masoretic parallel. Consequently, if the narrative of the plot existed in Chapter 2 of Proto-Esther, one would have to assume that the proto-Masoretic editor who reworked 6:1-3 did the same with 2:21-23. The simplest hypothesis102 is thus that Proto-Esther did not contain an account of the eunuchs’ plot in Chapter 2. The phrase in Proto-Esther “And there was a eunuchs’ conspiracy and a service rendered by Mordecai to the king” (6:3AT) does not indicate the presence of an earlier narrative that spelled out the action of this conspiracy. This could be an ellipsis, with 6:3 informing the reader for the first time of the existence of a plot. It is thus not at all surprising that the proto-Masoretic editors introduced a narrative of this plot into their work in order to develop and clarify the contents of the episode that was only alluded to in their source.103

Proto-Masoretic Editing and the Emergence of the MT The series of “pluses” in the MT compared with Proto-Esther testify to important redactional work during the Maccabean-Hasmonean era. If the MT follows fairly closely the sequence of events as they appear in Proto-Esther and remains loyal to its source, hardly removing anything, it nevertheless modifies the contents with

99 In 6:3 the king realizes that he has not rewarded Mordecai. This explains why Kossmann considers that in Addition A, only vv. 12 to 16a are original. The criticism that DE TROYER, “Esther,” directs against KOSSMANN is justified. 100 Whether Addition A,12-17AT was taken from A,12-17LXX (DE TROYER, “Esther,” 46-47; FOX, Redaction, 76-78;) or whether the inverse is true (DOROTHY, Books, 300-302; KOSSMANN, Esthernovelle, 94-97) remains a topic of debate. S. FROLOV, “Eunuchs”; suggests that the two additions would have been independently translated from a common Hebrew text (subsequent to 2:21-23MT). 101 Addition A specifies how Mordecai overheard the plot and mentions that he investigated. The addition describes the judicial process put in place and indicates that Mordecai occupies an important position in the court, because of this episode. For more, see S. FROLOV, “Eunuchs,” 317-323 and the commentary on this addition. 102 CLINES, Scroll, 104-107. 103 See below our remarks about Chapter 6.

Proto-Masoretic Editing and the Emergence of the MT

139

a series of complementary glosses and several long editorial passages, in particular vv. 6, 10-16 and 19-23. In 1 “After these things” (aα); “anger”; “what had been decreed against her” (bβ). In 2 The MT “youths”; “for the king young.” All of v. 3 except bα. In 4 “These words pleased the “Pluses” in king.” Verse 6. In 7 “Hadassah,” “for she had neither father nor mother,” and the end Ch. 2 of the verse “Upon the death of her father and her mother, Mordecai had taken her as a daughter.” Verse 8a is a “plus” as well as the phrases “under the authority” and “the women” of 8b. In v. 9, the mention of the cosmetic treatments and the portions, the quality of the servants, as well as the final phrase “to be the best within the women’s house.” Verses 10 to 16 are practically entirely proto-Masoretic “pluses,” apart from the opening of v. 14 “she went in the evening and returned in the morning,” and that of v. 16 “Esther was brought to the king,” which seem to have been taken from Proto-Esther. Verse 17 of the MT uses the substance of Proto-Esther. It differs however in the mention of the king’s love, that he “loved Esther more than all the other women,” phrasing attributed to Hegai by Proto-Esther (v. 8), and in the final specifying “he made her queen instead of Vashti.” In 18 “all his ministers and servants” and “he offered a donation befitting the king.” The entirety of vv. 19 to 23 are a Masoretic “plus.”

The Masoretic “pluses” demonstrate an editorial strategy that results in a heavy style and numerous intertextual links. In addition, the long editorial passages emphasize the excess of imperial practices and the prudence of concealing one’s Jewish identity. Moreover, the “pluses” highlight the solidarity between Esther and Mordecai and their favorable attitude toward the king. Proto-Masoretic editing establishes or emphasizes the connections between the Intertextual book’s heroes and other famous biblical characters by reusing wording from other References biblical texts. Esth 2:3-4MT discreetly alludes to the Joseph story by using phrases from Gen 41:34-37. In so doing, this editorial process prepares the Masoretic narrative of the eunuchs’ plot (vv. 21-23) that, in turn, alludes to an episode from the Joseph story (Gen 40). The proto-Masoretic editors also emphasize the similarities between the narrative of Esther and the episodes of David’s succession implicating the Shunammite and Bathsheba. 2:2-3 is reworked on the model of 1 Kgs 1:2-3.104 Lastly, in the protoMasoretic editorial passage of 2:11 the phrase “to learn what would happen to her” evokes the episode of Moses saved from the Nile (Exod 2:4). In addition, numerous editorial constructions establish intertextual connections within the book of Esther. The “royal house” (2:16) links with 1:9 and 5:1; the wording from 2:10-11 is reworked in 2:19-20 to underline the similarities between Esther’s situation before and after her accession. The wording in the episode of the eunuchs’ plot (2:21-23) recurs during the reading of the annals to the king (6:2MT) and in passages about other executions (“hanged from a tree” 5:14; 7:9-10; 8:7; 9:13, 25). The proto-Masoretic edition develops a chronological system absent in Proto- Chronology Esther. This system appears in 2:16 which precisely dates Esther’s arrival before the king. The date originally occurring in the proto-Masoretic text was the month of Adar of the seventh year of Ahasuerus, a date which draws together Esther’s arrival and the Jewish victory also occurring during the month of Adar.105

104 See the commentary on 2:2-4. 105 A late correction probably modified this date. See the textual note on 2:16a and below on The Greek Translations and the Late Modifications of the MT.

140

Diachronic Analysis

Functioning of All throughout Chapter 2 the proto-Masoretic “pluses” add pompous and redunthe Court dant stylistic wording that underlines the oppressive procedures of the Persian

Contest Scenario

Jewishness of the Protagonists

court. The passive phrase, “what had been decreed against her” (2:1), calls to mind the oppressive process which resulted in the decree against Vashti. The phrase, “these words pleased the king,” in 2:4 insists, as in 1:22, on royal approbation. 2:8a repeats the program planned in vv. 2-4 to signal its accomplishment. The “pluses” of 2:18 draw on expressions taken from the description of the king’s first banquets to emphasize that Esther’s enthronement banquet marks the return to festive normality. The phrase, “the king’s youths, his attendants” (2:2), shows the proto-Masoretic desire for precision in the complex nomenclature of the court personnel. In the case of Esther, the proto-Masoretic editors are anxious to mention anew in 2:15 her family history. Furthermore, proto-Masoretic editors tend to bring out the dysfunction of the empire. While in 2:1, Proto-Esther indicates the end of remembering Vashti and her actions, demonstrating that the decree from Chapter 1 was successful, the MT inserts the subsiding “anger” and reignites Vashti’s memory. In so doing, the narrative suggests that the king is trapped: even if his anger is calmed, he is obliged to implement the decision made. Finally, in 2:21-23MT the description of the plot illustrates the dangers of court life and the injustice of what is taking place, since Mordecai is not thanked as this episode draws to a close. While Proto-Esther briefly mentions that some beautiful young women are entrusted to the eunuch who is the guardian of the women, proto-Masoretic editors elaborate with a contest scenario in the same vein as the oppressive and powerful functioning of the empire. 2:3a, bβ, 8a, 12-15 mention a formal decree proclaimed in order to bring all the beautiful young women of the kingdom to the palace to undergo a long process of luxurious preparations. The classic clichés of an extraordinarily ostentatious Persian court are once again taken up and the impression given of this contest is very ironic. It is not merely a number of young women, but “all” the beautiful young women of the empire, who are brought to the harem before the majority of them are subsequently forgotten. Whereas Proto-Esther contented itself with briefly mentioning Mordecai’s Jewish origins (2:5), the proto-Masoretic version stresses that these origins are problematic for individuals close to foreign imperial power. The proto-Masoretic supplements make Mordecai into a palace functionary, who is “sitting at the king’s gate.” His situation, as that of Esther having become queen, seems therefore stable and solid. However, the proto-Masoretic “pluses” emphasize that the situation of Jews is precarious. 2:6 connects Mordecai’s origins to the drama of the destruction of Jerusalem. In 2:7, as well, edited passages emphasize the heroine’s weakness by asserting that she is an orphan. In addition, the precarious situation of the Jews is emphasized by the “pluses” of 2:10 and 2:20a that indicate that the protagonists prefer to keep silent about their Jewish origins.106 This sombre outlook on an empire where Jews feel sufficiently menaced to hide their background, sets the stage for the problems that will follow in Chapter 3.

106 HALVORSON-TAYLOR, “Secrets,” has recently argued this point.

The Greek Translations and the Late Modifications of the MT

141

In this difficult context, the editors suggest that internal group solidarity is important. Indeed, 2:11 and 2:20b mention that the filial solidarity established between Esther and Mordecai by her adoption (7bβMT) persists in spite of Esther’s promotion to queenship. The Jewish heroes act in concert in particular to denounce the plot against the king, and in so doing, they show themselves to be in solidarity with Persian power. In Chapter 2 of the MT, Esther and Mordecai greatly resemble Jews of the Hellenistic period, so often criticized in the books of Maccabees, who tended to adopt Greek culture and values in order to prosper in an imperial system.

The Greek Translations and the Late Modifications of the MT Certain differences between the MT and the LXX imply that the LXX translators used a Hebrew text only slightly different from the MT that we now have. Different glosses were thus inserted into the proto-Masoretic Hebrew text after its translation into the LXX. Thus, late Masoretic glosses played on the names of characters. Esther’s “Jewish” name (Hadassah) is absent from Greek witnesses but present in the targumic texts. It was probably inserted into the MT in the second century CE at the earliest by an editor anxious to stress Esther’s Jewish identity. The editors who added the glosses were anxious to distinguish between the various functions of the members of the Persian court by emphasizing the difference between the eunuch who was the guardian of the women (Hegai 2:8) and the one who was guardian of the concubines (Shaashgaz 2:14). In addition, a copyist possibly wanted to emphasize the parallel between the narrative concerning Esther and that of 1 Sam 25, by correcting the name of Esther’s “biological” father, Aminadab ‫עמינדב‬, which figured in the proto-Masoretic Vorlage of the LXX, to Abihail.107 As will be seen in 3:1 in the MT, a late copyist error resulted in Haman’s being called an Agagite. Allusions to the royal personnage of Saul in the final Masoretic form of the book resulted from this error, following which several late corrections were made. This accounts for the names of Mordecai’s ancestors in 2:5, which, while first named ‫ שׁמעיה‬and ‫( קושיהו‬cf. LXX), were corrected to ‫שׁמעי‬ and ‫ קישׁ‬to evoke the names of the people who were close to the first king of Israel. The careful work of late Masoretic glossators is also apparent in the recalculation of the date of Esther’s arrival before the king in 2:16. This date changes from the month of Adar (cf. LXX) to the month of Tebeth so that the duration of the “second” gathering of women mentioned in 2:19, ending in the drawing of lots for the fate of the Jews, occurs in same period of time as the beginning of the first gathering of women until Esther’s arrival.108

107 See the textual note on 2:15a and the commentary. 108 See the Introduction § The Chronological System of the Masoretic Text. The mention of a “second” gathering results in a textual error (‫ שנות‬becomes ‫ ;)שנית‬see commentary on 2:19.

142

Synthesis

Other phrases absent from the LXX might possibly be glosses inserted into the MT after the completion of the translation into Greek.109 But, casting doubt on this possibility is the fact that these phrases resemble the proto-Masoretic text and the fact that the LXX translator worked freely.

Synthesis The analysis of this chapter, which stages the rise of a Jewish queen into the Persian court, showed that the proto-Masoretic editors heavily reworked ProtoEsther. As in Chapter 1, they accentuate the formality, the diverse personnel, and the splendors of the imperial court. The sumptuousness of the treatment of the many young women presented to the king contrasts with the pitiful destiny that awaits most of them after their visit with him. For the first time, the theme of Judaism appears. By having the heroes conceal their Jewishness, the editors suggest that it is not easy to admit one’s Jewish identity in the imperial court. The plot that the editors introduce at the end of the chapter demonstrates simultaneously that the court is a dangerous place and also that Jews are not enemies of the king.

109 Cf. “the women’s edict” (v. 12) which emphasizes the oppressive procedures in the Persian court; in 2:16-17 the redundant indications that Esther was taken “in his royal house” and that the king loved her “more than all the other women”; the end of v. 18, which alludes to the banquet of 1:7-8 in its use of the expression ‫כיד המלך‬, lit.: “according to the king’s hand” and by making a play on the words ‫“ משׁתה‬banquet” and ‫משׂאת‬ “donation.”

Chapter 3. Haman’s Plot

1 After these things, King Ahasuerus promoted Haman, son of Hammedatha the Agagitea, and advanced him; he placed his throne above that of the ministers who were with him. 2 And all athe king’s servants who were at the king’s gatea bowed down and prostrated themselves before Haman, for the king had ordered thus concerning him. But Mordecai neither bowed down nor prostrated himself. 3 aThe king’s servants who were at the king’s gatea said to Mordecai: “why do you transgress the king’s order?” 4 While they spoke to him each day, he did not listen to them. They informed Haman to see whether Mordecai’s words would stand, indeed, he had informed them that he was a Jew. 5 Haman saw that Mordecai did not bow down and did not prostrate himself before him. aHaman was filled with rage.a 6 a It was contemptible in his eyes to extend his hand against Mordecai alone, for they had informed him concerning Mordecai’s peoplea. Haman sought to destroy all the Jews who were in Ahasuerus’s kingdom, bMordecai’s peopleb. 7 aIn the first month, which is the month of Nisana, of the twelfth year of King Ahasuerus, they cast “Pur”b, meaning the lot, before Haman, cday by day and month by month, [and it fell on] twelve, that is the month of Adarc. 8 Haman said to King Ahasuerus: “There is one people dispersed and separated among the peoples in all the provinces of your kingdom, their edicts are different from those of all the peoples and they do not uphold the king’s edicts. It is not fair for the king to let them be. 9 If it pleases the king, let it be written to eliminate them and I will pay ten thousand talents of money, into the hands of the functionariesa, to deposit into the king’s treasury.” 10 The king removed his ring from his hand, he gave it to Haman, ason of Hammedatha the Agagite, the oppressor of the Jewsab. 11 The king said to Haman: “the money is given to you to do to this people whatever seems good in your eyes.” 12 The king’s scribes were summoned on the thirteenth day of the first month. All that Haman had ordered was written to the king’s satraps, to the governors of every province, and to the ministers of every people, to every province according to its own script and to every people according to its own language. This was written in the name of King Ahasuerus aand sealed with the king’s ringa. 13 Letters were sent by the hand of the couriers to all the king’s provinces ain order to destroy, to kill, and to eliminatea all the Jews, from young to old, children and women, in one day, bthe thirteenthb of the twelfth month, which is the month of Adar, and plunder their possessions as bootyc. 14 Thus a copy of the written document was proclaimed as edict in every province and was revealed to all the peoples so that they would be ready for that day. 15 The couriers went out hastily according to the king’s order. The edict was proclaimed in the citadel of Susa. The king and Haman sat down to drink,a and the city of Susa was thrown into consternation.

144

Chapter 3. Haman’s Plot

Notes on Text and Translation Instead of the Hebrew ‎‫האגגי‬, the LXX and the AT have βουγαῖος. See the commentary. LXX mentions simply οἱ ἐν τῇ αὐλῇ, “those who were in the court.” Idem 2a-a. The AT contains the redundant phrase “he was enraged at Mordecai and anger burned within him,” abridged in the MT. 6a-a Absent from LXX. Gloss inserted late into the MT (KAHANA, Esther, 139), or abbreviated by the translator (BHQ; BUSH, Esther, 377). b-b Absent from LXX. It could be a late gloss, an accidental repetition of the same expression occurring above (LEVENSON, Esther, 66), or an abbreviation by the translator. MOORE, Esther, 37 corrects the vocalization as ‫ם מרדכי‬ “with Mordecai” (contra BUSH, Esther, 377). 7a-a The indication of the month is missing in LXX. It was perhaps considered superfluous (3:12). b The Greek versions do not have an equivalent for the term ‫“ פור‬Pur.” JOSEPHUS, Ant. 11.212 does not mention casting lots. c-c The end of this verse in the MT is difficult; if the twelfth month indicates the result of casting lots, one wonders why the day is not mentioned. Probably the part of the verse mentioning that the lot falls on the thirteenth day of the twelfth month has accidentally fallen out (see BUSH, Esther, 381; FOX, Character, 278; HAUPT, “Notes,” 129; LEVENSON, Esther, 69-70; WAHL, Esther, 95; BHS; and NRSV; etc.). Such a conjecture could be supported by the LXX which mentions here “so that Mordecai’s race would perish in one day, and the lot fell on the fourteenth day of the month which is Adar.” Strangely the LXX and the OL mention the fourteenth and not the thirteenth day (contra 3:7AT and 3:13MT). This particularity of the LXX could be explained by a translator’s confusion with the date for the festival of Purim, influenced by Addition B,6 (DE TROYER, End, 372-373) or by a hypothetical Greek text upon which the OL would depend (HAELEWYCK [ed.], Hester, 86-88). 9a Lit.: “those who do the work.” 10a-a Absent from LXX and AT. See the commentary on 3:1. b LXX does not mention the sealing of the writings in v. 12 but ends this verse with “in order to seal the letters concerning the Jews.” 12a-a Missing in LXX cf. 10b. 13a-a LXX has only one verb here (“to eliminate,” ἀφανίσαι). The translator probably simplified the phrase. b-b Contrary to 3:7, the LXX does not mention the day. c Lit.: “and their booty of plunder” ‫ושׁללם לבוז‬. The booty refers to the possessions of the Jews. 15a Rather than “to feast” as in 7:1a. 1a 2a-a 3a-a 5a-a

Synchronic Analysis Introduction Esther and Mordecai seem to benefit from a comfortable situation in the court, until

Mordecai refuses to prostrate himself before the new “chief minister” Haman. Issues more fundamental than a simple interpersonal quarrel take shape. Mordecai explains to the members of the court that he does not conform to the empire’s customs because he is Jewish (3:4). In an intellectual context where Jewish and Greek cultures meet, the act of prostrating before someone is presented as incompatible with the ideals of freedom, as well as with the religious customs of Greeks and Jews alike. Mordecai thus

145

Synchronic Analysis

chooses to conform to the customs associated with the freedom of his Jewish identity, rather than to continue to integrate within the empire. Haman’s extreme reaction is proportionate to the ethnic issues that arise: he seeks to eliminate his opponent’s entire people. As with the edict against women (1:16-20), the edict of Chapter 3 aims to wipe away the affront by attacking the opponent’s entire group. Haman’s speech to convince the king to promulgate a destructive decree against the Jews (3:8-9) contains diabolically subtle rhetoric. He does not indicate the identity of the people, but accuses them of being dispersed and of following laws that are different from those of the authority in power. He describes, moreover, financial matters associated with the destruction of the Jews. Haman’s speech is embellished with half-truths and indicates an abject rejection of particularistic interests. In the period when the book was edited, the speech that the editors ascribed to Haman seemed no doubt realistic, and such critiques of the Jews existed. In this chapter, the powerful imperial machine becomes a terrifying force and directs its enormous power toward the destruction of the Jews (12-15a). Ironically, the decree was issued eleven months before it was to be carried out, as if the leading power was so sure of its omnipotence that it could permit the Jews time to prepare, or as if the lots had given absurd advice to Haman (3:7). The date of the edict’s dispatch and that of the pogrom are symbolic. They allude, respectively, to the festival of Passover and to the celebration of one of the largest Maccabean victories, the day of Nicanor. At the end of the episode, the king and Haman celebrate, while the people of Susa, out of concern for the Jews, are thrown into consternation (3:15b). This chapter is structured in a similar manner to the fall of Vashti. It opens Passage Orgawith the promotion of a character – Haman – to a status that is almost royal (vv. 1- nization 2a), which is put into question by Mordecai’s refusal (vv. 2b-4). This refusal provokes the anger of Haman, who, like the king in Chapter 1, does not act immediately (vv. 5-6) but consults – by means of casting lots (v. 7). Haman addresses the king with an argument aimed at cleansing himself of his humiliation, with an edict to destroy the entire people of his enemy (vv. 8-9). This edict calls to mind the desire to put all the wives of the empire in their place, in response to the attitude of the king’s wife. The king ratifies Haman’s speech and authorizes his plan (3:10-11). The edict is published and circulated (3:12-15a). The passage ends with the reactions of the king, Haman, and the people of Susa at the publication of the edict.

1:1-9

Advancement and honoring of 3:1-2a the king

Advancement and honoring of Haman

1:10-12a

Vashti’s refusal of allegiance

3:2b-4

Mordecai’s refusal of allegiance

1:12b

King’s anger

3:5-6

Haman’s anger

1:13-15

Consultation of specialists

3:7

Consultation of lots

1:16-20

Speech addressed to the king

3:8-9

Speech addressed to the king

1:21

King’s approval

3:10-11

King’s approval

1:22

Publication of an edict

3:12-15a

Publication of an edict

15b

Reactions

Parallel of Chapters 1 and 3

146

Chapter 3. Haman’s Plot

A point of difference from Chapter 1 is that Haman is the one who is wronged, as well as the one who addresses the king with a speech suggesting a solution. Moreover, Haman consults lots, while the king consults specialists. 3:1 Chapter 3 opens by introducing the primary opponent of the Jews, and his promotion to a high position. After These The phrase “after these things” suggests a quick succession of events and a Things direct connection between Mordecai’s denunciation of the plot against the king (2:21-23) and Haman’s promotion (3:1). Indeed, in Esther, the only other use of “after these things” occurs between two events, one arising from the other (2:1), and the denunciation of a project of regicide (2:21-23) requiring that someone be honored.1 The fact that it is not Mordecai who is promoted illustrates the oddity and injustice of imperial power. Chronologically, Haman’s promotion falls exactly one year before the first celebration of Purim, the fourteenth of Adar in the eleventh year. Indeed, it precedes by some days the casting of lots in 3:7 (1 Nisan of the twelfth year)2 and follows immediately after the denunciation of the eunuchs’ plot (13 Adar of the twelfth year).3 In the MT the promotion of the malicious “Haman” is neither explained nor introduced by a prior mention of this character. Haman’s Past Interpreted

According to several traditions, Haman did not enter the story so abruptly. He is sometimes likened to Memucan (Tg. Esth. I 1.16),4 to a character who profited from the fall of Jerusalem to enrich himself (Mid. Rabbah 7:5 with regard to Esth 3:1), or to a former slave of Mordecai (Tg. Esth. I 3.2, 4 and b. Meg. 15a-b).5 In Addition A, Haman’s hatred is related to the failed conspiracy of the eunuchs, in which he would have taken part.

The wording emphasizes the honorary nature of the promotion and the extremely privileged official status that this character acquires: the king “promoted ‫ גדל‬Haman,” he “advanced him ‫”נשׂא‬, and “he placed his throne ‫ כסא‬above that of the ministers ‫שׂרים‬.” His position is almost royal since he dominates the elites of the court and sits upon a “throne,” a term that elsewhere in Esther is only applied to the royal seat (1:2; 5:1). Further on, the narrative will ironize the hubris of this character, who will vaunt the honor accorded him by the king (5:11), and who will desire even other quasi-royal honors (Ch. 6). After the situation’s reversal, these same terms will be applied to the Jews and to Mordecai, who will replace Haman as the kingdom’s second in command (9:3-4).6

1 2 3

4 5 6

In Chapter 6 the king is astonished that Mordecai was not honored. The refusal to prostrate, described in 3:2-6, would not be tolerated for a period of several months. In 2:22, Esther appears before the king, and then is not summoned for thirty days (4:11), until 13 Nisan of the twelfth year, the date of the events taking place in 3:124:17. See the commentary on 1:16. For HACHAM, “Haman,” this tradition reappears in the conclusion of Addition A of the AT. ‫ נשׂא‬,‫ גדל‬and ‫ שׂרים‬occur in 9:3-4. According to XENOPHON, Cyr. 8.4.5, the honorary positions offered by the Persian king (Cyrus) are frequently questioned, which also happens in the destiny reserved for Haman. See BERLIN, Esther, 34.

Synchronic Analysis

147

“Haman” and his father “Hammedatha” are never mentioned elsewhere in the Bible. No Persian functionary attested in other sources bears these names, the etymologies of which remain uncertain. Haman’s name is sometimes likened to the Elamite divinity Humman / Humban.7 The Etymology of likeness to the Sanskrit heman designating winter, with the proper name Eumenes/ Haman and Omanes or with the Persian term Humajun “respected,” have also been considered.8 Hammedatha The proposed etymologies for Hammedatha derive sometimes from the same ones as those for Haman.9

In the MT Haman is labeled as “Agagite,” refering to the infamous conflict between Israel and Amalek.10 This label is applied to Haman when confrontation with him affects the destiny of the Jews (edicts and counter-edict), and is paralleled with ‫“ צרר היהודים‬oppressor of the Jews” (3:10; 8:1; 9:10, 24).

3:1

Haman, son of Hammedatha the Agagite

3:10

Haman, son of Hammedatha the Agagite, the oppressor of the Jews

8:1

Haman the oppressor of the Jews

8:3

Haman the Agagite

8:5

Haman, son of Hammedatha the Agagite

9:10

Haman, son of Hammedatha, the oppressor of the Jews

9:24

Haman, son of Hammedatha the Agagite, the oppressor of all the Jews

This parallelism between “Agagite” and “enemy of the Jews” makes sense in reference to biblical traditions that make the Amalekite people and their king “Agag” into the archetypal enemy of Israel. The Amalekites combat Israel in the desert (Exod 17:8-16), and this conflict is destined to endure forever (Exod 17:16). According to the oracles of Balaam, Agag and Amalek are enemies of Israel (Num 24:7,

7 CAZELLES, “Note,” 28; HAUPT, “Notes,” 123; JENSEN, “Elamistische,” 58; ZIMMERN, “Frage”; HUTTER, “Elemente,” 52, Frans VAN KOPPEN and Karel VAN DER TOORN, “Humban,” in DDD, 1999, 432-434. This deity, attested in STRABO, Geogr. 11.8.4, is perhaps a Greek recreation of Vohu Mana (Albert DE JONG, Traditions of the Magi: Zoroastrianism in Greek and Latin Literature, Leiden et. al., 1997, 150-152). 8 PATON, Esther, 69, 85-88; MILLER, Versions, 12-14; MOORE, Esther, 35; John M. WIEBE, “Haman,” in ABD, vol. 3, 33; GERLEMAN, Esther, 90. 9 Cf. GEHMAN, “Notes,” 326; MILLARD, “Names,” 484; PATON, Esther, 69; ZADOK, “Notes,” 107; Jean KELLENS, “Haoma,” in DDD, 384-385. 10 The allusions to the confrontation between Israel and Amalek in Esther were identified by JOSEPHUS, Ant. 11.209-214 and Tg. Esth. I and II. Most exegetes note the allusion (see notably Jesus ASURMENDI, “La construction d’Haman dans le livre d’Esther,” in Flores Florentino, Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Early Jewish Studies in Honour of Florentino García Martínez (JSJ.S 122), A. HILHORST, E. PUECH and E. TIGCHELAAR (eds.), Leiden; Boston, 2007, 421-431, esp. 425-427; BERLIN, Esther, 33-34; BUSH, Esther, 383-384; CHYUTIN, Hagiographies, 36-37; FOX, Character, 42; MACCHI, “Haman,” 201-203; MILLER, Versions, 62-65; PATON, Esther, 194, etc.), some even make it a major key to interpreting the work (LACOCQUE, Esther, 65-80; ABADIE, reine, 166-170; PICARD, “clous”).

Haman the Agagite according to the MT

148

Chapter 3. Haman’s Plot

20). Finally, King Saul loses God’s support after taking booty instead of destroying King Agag and his people (1 Sam 15). In the MT, the allusion to the conflict between Saul and Agag is emphasized by Mordecai’s Benjaminite origins and by the Sauline names of two of his ancestors (cf. 2:5, Kish and Shimei). The allusion seems, moreover, reinforced in Esth. 9:10, 15, 16, when the Jews do not take any booty, thus avoiding Saul’s error.11 Although it is clear that the qualities recurring in Haman as an Agagite, enemy of the Jews, allude to the conflict between Israel and Amalek,12 they do not constitute the central point in the Esther narrative. They simply show a late editorial desire to evoke or create ties between the Esther narrative and other biblical traditions. As we shall see below, the motif of “Agagite, the enemy of the Jews” was introduced late in the course of the literary production of the work, following a copyist error in 3:1. The Proud Pre-Masoretic Haman

The recurring descriptions of Haman’s “Agagite” origins in the MT are absent from the oldest Greek translations of Esther (AT and LXX).13 Sometimes Haman is instead called a Bougean βουγαῖος.14

LXX

AT

3:1

Haman of Hamadathos, a Bougean Haman of Hamadathos, a Bougean

3:10

Haman

8:1

Haman the adversary (τῷ διαβολῳ) (=7:15) Haman

8:3

Haman

ø

8:5

Haman

ø

9:10

Haman of Hamadathos, a Bougean, (=7:44) Haman of Hamadathos, a the enemy of the Jews Bougean, the enemy of the Jews

9:24

Haman of Hamadathos, the Mace- ø donian

Haman

In addition, the proper names of Mordecai’s ancestors, Kish and Shimei, who, in the MT, call to mind members of Saul’s family, do not correspond in the LXX and the AT to the usual Greek forms of these names.15 As for the term Bougean, the AT applies it not only to Haman, but also to two other characters: the individuals who, respectively,

11 See the commentary below on Esth 9:10, 15, 16. 12 Since “Agagite” alludes to the king of Amalek, it is futile to search for its origin in an ancient Elamite name, in a honorary title, in a surname given to Haman, or in an alteration of the name of the Gagéen people (See ZADOK, “Background”; KEIL, Kommentar, 632; Jan Jozef SIMONS, The Geographical and Topographical Texts of the Old Testament, Leiden, 1959, 485; HAUPT, “Notes,” 123, and more globally FRETZ, “Agagite”; MOORE, Esther, 35). 13 See MACCHI, “Haman.” 14 In the additions, “Haman of Hamadathos, a Bougean” appears in A,17LXX and E,10AT, and “Haman of Hamadathos, the Macedonian” appears in A,17AT and E,10LXX. Some rare manuscripts (esp. MS 93LXX) qualify Haman as γωγαιου. 15 See above the commentary on Esther 2:5.

Synchronic Analysis

149

propose the edict against Vashti and welcome Esther into the harem. Clearly, these Greek witnesses of Esther do not allude to the Israelite-Amalekite conflict. Some scholars think that the “Bougean” of the Greek translations points to a revision of an earlier text that would have contained the name “Agagite.” For Cavalier, the Greek editors would have wanted to avoid any allusion to the conflict with Amalek, in order to favor a messianic reading of Esther, or to promote canonization.16 For Jobes,17 in making Haman into a “Bougean,” the translators would have sought to clarify for their Greek-speaking audience the status of villain for Haman’s character, by likening him to Bagoas, the assassin of Artaxerxes III, while for Wechsler18 the title would have referred to the warlike “Beja” people. These hypotheses are not convincing. Cavalier’s reasons are too speculative. Jobes and Wechsler do not explain why the translators would have used the orthography “Bougaios,” nor why the replacement of “Agagite” with “Bougean” only took place starting from 3:1, while “Agagite” also occurs in 3:10; 8:3, 5; and 9:24MT. Moreover, it is not clear why it would have been necessary to clarify the description of “Agagite” for the audience of the LXX, who were Greek-speaking Jews. The most probable explanation for these differences between the Greek texts and the MT is that the pre-Masoretic texts, which were translated by the AT and the LXX, labeled Haman with the Hebrew equivalent to the Greek “Bougean,” and that in 3:1 only.19 A late Masoretic copyist would have replaced this term with “Agagite.” Once this first replacement occurred in 3:1, the introduction of the term “Agagite” in 3:10; 8:3, 5, and 9:24, as well as its parallel with the notion of being the enemy of the Jews, can be easily explained by an even later scribal desire to emphasize the symbolic importance of Haman’s Amalekite origins. All that remains to be understood is how the copyist error occurred, which led to the the transformation into “Agagite” of the Hebrew equivalent to the Greek βουγαῖος.20 The Greek term βουγαῖος can mean “proud” or “boastful”21 so that in Esth 3:1LXX/AT, Αμαν Αμαδαθου βουγαῖον could mean “Haman of Hamadathos, the proud.”22 The existence, in archaic Hebrew, of the form ‫ גאי‬meaning “proud” seems likely,23 since Hebrew terms that can be translated as “proud” often derive from the root ‫גאה‬.24 The pre-Masoretic Hebrew of Esth 3:1 could thus have been the following: ‫המן בן המדתא הגאי‬. If ‫“ הגאי‬proud”25 was present in Proto-

16 17 18 19 20

21

22 23 24 25

CAVALIER, Esther, 90. JOBES, Alpha-Text, 124-128; JOBES, “Assassination.” WECHSLER, “Appellation.” In 9:10LXX the description of βουγαῖος is a late harmonization with 3:1. The MT does not contain the description of Agagite at this location. It has also been suggested that a Hebrew term ‫בוגי‬, designating a people or deriving from the name of the deity Baga (see HOSCHANDER, Book, 21-29; LEWY, “Feast,” 134-135), would have described Haman in a pre-Masoretic text. This term would have been transcribed as βουγαῖος by the Greek witnesses, and then been deliberately corrected into “Agagite” by late Masoretic editors who wanted to “Judaize” the narrative. This rarely defended hypothesis is unlikely. The term appears in HOMER (Il. 13.824; Od. 18.79; PLUTARCH, Mor., Αἴτια Ἑλληνικά 299B) . This point has been observed already, cf. FRETZ, “Agagite”; JOBES, Alpha-Text, 125; TOB Greek Esther note on A,17. CAVALIER, Esther, 90-91, 158-159 renders the text in this fashion. For nominal forms from ‫ ה”ל‬roots, compare ‫ פרי‬from the root ‫פרה‬. ‫( גא‬proud); ‫( גאה‬pride); ‫( גאה‬proud); ‫( גאוה‬arrogance); ‫( גאון‬pride); ‫( גאות‬pride, proud); etc. In MT 2:3 and 8 this term is the proper name of the eunuch (‫הגי‬/‫)הגא‬.

150

Chapter 3. Haman’s Plot Esther and the Vorlage of the LXX, its transformation into ‫“ האגגי‬Agagite” can be explained easily by a copyist accident: the inversion of ‫ א‬and of ‫ג‬, transforms ‫ הגאי‬into ‫האגי‬, a term evoking the name of the king of Amalek ‫ אגג‬and leads the copyist to double the ‫ ג‬to produce the Masoretic ‫האגגי‬.26 This copyist error occurred after the protoMasoretic Hebrew text was translated by the LXX, but before Josephus’s Antiquities, which assumes Haman’s Agagite origins.27

3:2a The obligation to bow to Haman constitutes the final note regarding his promo-

tion and launches the narrative’s plot. The verbs ‫“ כרע‬to bow down” and ‫( חוה‬hishtaphel) “to prostrate” denote the act of proskynesis. In the Bible, this act occurs most often before the God of Israel and is rejected if performed before other gods.28 Moreover, one may bow to important individuals where it constitutes a legitimate mark of respect.29 Contrary to Proto-Esther, in the MT prostration before Haman is not required by everyone but only by “the servants who were at the king’s gate.” This important redactional note implies that it is because Mordecai is part of the imperial administration, “at the king’s gate,”30that the problem arises. Reasons for The text does not explain why Mordecai refuses to bow before Haman. Only the Refusal to in 3:4 is it related to Mordecai’s Jewishness. Prostrate It is not likely that the editors only mentioned Mordecai’s refusal in order for the plot to unfold.31 Consequently, several explanations have been proposed.32 One idea was a boastful or frustrated reaction from Mordecai in response to Haman’s promotion, since it was Mordecai who saved the king.33 However, this interpretation is incompatible with Mordecai’s positive image in the book. Another explanation is that Haman’s Agagite origins would deter Mordecai from bowing to him, an Amalekite enemy.34 However, this could not be the primary reason, since allusions to Israelite-Amalekite conflict remain marginal in Esther and were inserted at a later time.35 Consequently, it has been suggested that, for religious reasons, Mordecai is supposed to prostrate himself before God Proskynesis

26 One can also imagine that a late copyist voluntarily corrected ‫ הגאי‬into ‫האגגי‬, to make, by means of assonance, a boastful individual out of an “Agagite.” A similar phenomenon appears is 1:8 where ‫“ משׁתה‬banquet” was replaced with ‫“ והשׁתיה‬the drink” to evoke Vashti ‫ושׁתי‬. 27 JOSEPHUS, Ant. 11.209. 28 Prostration rituals before YHWH: Exod 24:1; Deut 26:10; 2 Sam 12:20; Isa 66:23; Neh 8:6, and multiple mentions in Psalms 5:8, etc. Prohibition of prostration before other gods, cf. Exod 20:5; 23:24; 32:8; Num 25:2; Deut 4:1; Josh 23:7; 1 Kgs 16:31; Dan 3; etc. 29 Gen 23:7, 12; 33:3; 37:9; 43:26, 28; Exod 18:7; 1 Sam 24:9; 25:23; 2 Sam 1:2; 1 Kgs 1:53; and Ruth 2:10. See Horst Dietrich PREUSS, “‫ חוה‬ḥwh,” in ThWAT, vol. 2, 785-794. 30 See the commentary on 2:19. 31 See LEVENSON, Esther, 68; PATON, Esther, 197. 32 See WHITE CRAWFORD, “Book,” 894-895; FOX, Character, 43-45. 33 PATON, Esther, 197 and 213, and BICKERMAN, Strange, 179-180. LANIAK, Shame, 80, recalls that prostration shows recognition of the superiority of the individual to whom one performs the act. 34 See BERLIN, Esther, 34-35; BUSH, Esther, 379.384-385; CLINES, Esther, 294; FOX, Character, 4445; GROSSMAN, Esther, 90; STERN, “Esther,” 50-51; LANIAK, Shame, 70; MOORE, Esther, 35-37. 35 See the commentary on 3:1.

Synchronic Analysis

151

only.36 But this explanation goes against biblical tradition, in which prostration before individuals of high status is acceptable.37 The reasons for the refusal to bow, as understood by the editors of Esther, lie in the intellectual context of Judaism marked by the Hellenistic culture within which it existed.38 Greek texts attest that prostration before high ranking individuals, in particular the king, is required in the Persian world.39 However, such prostration would never be performed by a Greek. Such a Greek refusal is mentioned, for example, in Herodotus when two Spartans present themselves before Xerxes to atone for the death of Darius’s messengers: “the men of the royal bodyguard ordered – and, indeed, attempted to compel – them to bow down to the ground in the act of worship. The two Spartans, however, declared that they would never do such a thing, even if the guards would push their heads down onto the floor. It was not, they said, the custom in Sparta to worship a mere man like themselves, and it was not for that purpose that they had come to Persia.”40 This refusal to prostrate can be explained for religious reasons: a Greek only prostrates before gods.41 However, the refusal can also be explained as defending Greek identity and values of independence and of liberty. The two Spartans explain this to the Persian Hydarnes, who had suggested to them to submit for the sake of obtaining a high position: “You understand well enough what slavery is, but freedom you have never experienced, so you do not know if it tastes sweet or bitter. If you ever did come to experience it, you would advise for us to fight for it not with spears only, but with axes too.”42 In refusing to prostrate, Mordecai comports himself like a Greek. In so doing, Esther’s editors suggest that Jews and Greeks share the ideals of liberty as well as certain religious values. Logically the consequences of Mordecai’s refusal affect the entire Jewish population as if, in the same fashion that the Persian king could not hope for the prostration of the Greeks, only the eradication of the Jews could prevent Haman from seeing them refuse prostration.

36 This explanation is already found in ancient traditions, see Addition C,5-7 where Mordecai refuses to “place human glory above that of God”; JOSEPHUS, Ant. 11.210; Tg. Esth. II 3:2. 37 To connect Mordecai’s refusal to the rejection of idols, certain ancient traditions (Tg. Esth. I; Mid. Rabbah 7:5, etc.) specify that Haman wore a religious symbol. 38 The observations below are developed in MACCHI, “Regard,” 122-123; “Book”, 117-119. Greek parallels have been observed by ACHENBACH, “Genocide,” 98-99; BERLIN, Esther, 3435; EGO, “Proskynesis,” 19-24; LOKEN, Esther, 77-78; WAHL, Esther, 92-93. 39 HERODOTUS, Hist., 1.119; 1.134; XENOPHON, Anab., 1.6.10; 1.8.21; Cyr., 8.3.14; ATHENAEUS, Deipn., 13.556b; AELIAN, Var. hist., 6.14. On the subject of Persian proskynesis, see BRIANT, Histoire, 234-235. Persian prostration is well known among ancient Athenian authors (TUPLIN, Achaemenid, 134-135, 157-158). 40 HERODOTUS, Hist., 7.136 (translation A. BARGUET, 507). See also PLUTARCH, Them., 27.4; AELIAN, Var. hist., 1.21. 41 EGO, “Hellenistic,” 290-291 emphasizes the importance for interpretating Esther 3 the episode recounted by Arrian in which Alexander the Great, wishing that all would prostrate before him, finds himself facing the refusal of his scribe Callisthenes, who refuses to dispense to people what is required for the gods (ARRIAN, Anab. 4.4). 42 HERODOTUS, Hist. 7.135 (translation A. BARGUET, 507).

152

Chapter 3. Haman’s Plot

3:3-4 Before Haman reacts, the “king’s servants” do. They ask Mordecai continually why

Haman’s Blindness

They Spoke to Him Each Day

To Call Oneself a Jew

3:5-6. Anger

he refuses the royal order, and then bring the case to Haman’s attention. The wording of the courtiers’ question underlines that Mordecai transgresses an “order of the king” (3:2: “for the king had ordered thus”), something that, like Vashti’s refusal and eviction, will expose the offender to a very harsh reaction. Haman is not himself aware that Mordecai refuses to prostrate. This blindness is surprising since Mordecai is installed “at the king’s gate” (2:19, 21) where all are prostrating (3:2). The text ironizes the fact that Haman, who at first does not even see that Mordecai refuses to honor him (3:2-4), reacts disproportionately when he becomes aware of the situation (3:5-14), and who, in the end, sees nothing but his opponent when he passes through the king’s gate (5:13). The pressures that Mordecai endures are linked to the fact that he is a member of the imperial court and is positioned “at the king’s gate.” According to 3:4, the servants question persistently. Ironically, the wording “while they spoke to him each day, he did not listen to them” parallels the attitude of the servants with that of Potiphar’s unfaithful wife, who insists that Joseph sleep with her.43 Beyond its amusing character, the use of the same expression in the two episodes implies that the king’s functionaries exercise real pressure on Mordecai. In reporting this episode, the editors evoke the pressures upon their contemporary Jews, engaging in political and social activities within Hellenistic empires, to conform to the practices of the dominant culture.44 According to 3:4 the case is brought directly to Haman. “To see whether Mordecai’s words would stand” means to know whether Mordecai’s argument would be considered legally valid.45 Syntactically, the phrase “indeed, he had informed them that he was a Jew” could be “Mordecai’s words,” meaning that Mordecai explains his refusal by the fact that he is Jewish, an explanation brought to Haman for evaluation. This phrase could also relate to: “they informed Haman.” An ambient anti-Judaism could explain why the king’s servants would denounce him.46 Whatever the case may be, in alerting others to his Jewish identity, Mordecai does exactly what he ordered Esther not to do in 2:10 and 20, thus illustrating that for a Jew participating in the imperial government system, it is impossible to hide one’s identity without violating the values of one’s people. Learning that Mordecai does not bow to him, “Haman was filled with rage,” a typical reaction of Persian officials (1:12, 18; 2:21; 7:7). Contrary to the king, who calms down after repressive measures have been put in place (2:1; 7:10), Haman’s

43 Compare Esth 3:4 with “Although she spoke to Joseph every day, he did not listen to her.” (Gen 39:10). 44 The books of Maccabees explain the tensions with the Hellenistic world due to the obligation placed upon Jews to participate in the Hellenistic royal cult and to violate Jewish dietary and calendrical regulations. 45 The phrase ‫“ עמד דבר‬a word stands” is synonymous to ‫“ קום דבר‬a word is (legally) valid” (cf. Deut 19:15; Isa 44:26; Jer 44:29; Ezek 13:6). 46 This understanding of the end of v. 4 focuses attention on the servants’ motivations to denounce Mordecai, without excluding the fact that he would have told them he was Jewish. See the discussion of these two options in FOX, Character, 45-46.

Synchronic Analysis

153

forthcoming edict to eradicate the Jews does not calm him. He is still angry when meeting Mordecai in 5:9. Verse 3:6 emphasizes that Mordecai’s people are the Jews by an A-B-A construction: “informed him concerning Mordecai’s people – destroy all the Jews – Mordecai’s people.” Just as the edict of Chapter 1 aims to avoid Vashti’s rebellion from extending to all wives (1:17-18), this edict against the Jews prevents other members of this free people from repeating Mordecai’s refusal. The phrase “he thought it contemptible ‫ בזה‬to extend his hand against ‫שׁלח יד‬ ‫ ”ב‬establishes connections with other episodes in the book. It calls to mind the wording of the contemptuous attitude ‫ בזה‬of women in 1:17, underlining that matters relating to Haman’s honor are at play here. In addition, “to extend one’s hand against” draws a parallel between Haman’s attack against the Jews (3:6; 8:7) and that of the eunuchs against the king (2:21; 6:2). Verse 3:7 describes an enigmatic casting of lots in the “first month, which is the month of Nisan.” Here the purpose of casting lots is not mentioned. However, 3:12-13 implies that it fixes the date for the destruction of the Jews. Following a copyist accident, the date “twelve was the month of Adar” is formulated in a strange manner.47 In Proto-Esther, the casting of lots occurs after the king’s approval of the edict. By moving this episode, the proto-Masoretic editors perhaps wanted to introduce a sort of specialist consultation – by means of the lots – as in 1:13-15; 5:9-13; and 6:6. According to the MT, this casting of lots, intended to establish the destiny of the Jews, is situated right at the beginning of the terrible twelfth year of Ahasuerus, four years, two months, and twenty three days after the second gathering of young women (2:19).48 The idea of casting lots in order to find the favorable moment for performing an action – in this case an act of destruction – is not preposterous. The Bible has numerous examples of casting lots for decision-making (Lev 16:8-10; Num 26:56; Joel 4:3 [Eng.: 3:3]; Jonah 1:7; 1 Chr 25:8 ff.).49 The MT does not mention the mantic and theological character of casting lots. However, in the intellectual context of antiquity, this action permitted supernatural forces to express themselves. Here, without speaking explicitly of the God of Israel, the MT seems to allude to God’s favorable action, because the result of the casting of lots opportunely leaves eleven months for the Jews to react to the threat weighing on them. The mention of “pur” was without doubt inserted into 3:7 after 9:24-26 had been inserted, in order to introduce the name of the festival attached to the narrative. In making ‫ פור‬into a synonym of ‫“ גורל‬lot,” the MT invites a correlation with the Akkadian pūru “lot,” “destiny.”50 Haman’s speech to the king uses clever rhetoric. Just as Memucan did before him, he proposes solving the specific problem of the refusal of one individual, by suggesting a general principal and by recommending global action. This sinister

47 See textual note on 3:7c-c. 48 See commentary on 2:16. 49 Casting lots is a well-attested mode of decision-making throughout the ancient Near East. See A. TAGGAR-COHEN, “The Casting of Lots among the Hittites in Light of Ancient Near Eastern Parallels,” JANES 29 (2002), 97-103; HERODOTUS, Hist., 3.128; XENOPHON, Cyr., 1.6.46; 4.5.55; PLATO, Resp., 8. 557a. 50 See in the Introduction § The Mysterious Origins of Purim.

Mordecai’s People

3:7. Casting Lots

Pur

3:8-11 Tricking the King

154

Half-Truths

Dispersed and Separated

They Do Not Uphold the Edicts

Chapter 3. Haman’s Plot

character masks his true motivations. He does not mention concern for a refusal to bow to himself, nor the exact identity of the people in question, always referred to as “one people,” or “a people.” As Memucan does in 1:18,51 Haman hides his true concern by evoking a global problem. He thus tricks the sovereign who authorizes an action that will strike the people of one of his most loyal servants (2:2123) to whom he is grateful (6:3). Ironically, Haman will himself be tricked by the same means of concealing a conversation’s true motive, when the king asks him how to honor someone, without revealing that the honoree is Mordecai (6:6). Haman characterizes the people in question as a people who is dispersed, who has its own laws, and who does not follow the king’s edicts. These criticisms levied against the Jews are in part true, but their generalization is inexact and the conclusions drawn by Haman are erroneous and provoke abusive stigmatization of the Jewish people.52 The affirmation that there is a people “dispersed and separated among the peoples in all the provinces” is coherent enough with the motif of the exile of the Jews underlined in 2:5-7. “Dispersion” and “separation” are two consequences of deportation. The Jews are separated from one another by their dispersion throughout the empire. Moreover, although they are “dispersed” among other peoples, they remain “separate,” not fully blended into the broader population.53 From the point of view of Esther’s proto-Masoretic editors, these affirmations are only partially true. By mentioning that Esther and Mordecai hide their Jewish identity (2:10, 20), they imply that assimilation did occur on occasion. In addition, they certainly know the biblical texts which attest that during the Persian era, Jews were reinstalled in their homeland and thus were not all “dispersed.” Law plays a major role in Haman’s argument: “their edicts are different from those of all the peoples and they do not uphold the king’s edicts.” This passage seems to criticize Jewish practices and customs, supposedly incompatible with those of the empire.54 The events reported in 3:1-6 seem to confirm Haman’s assertion. Mordecai does not uphold the royal edict to bow (3:2-3) in the name of a particular ethnicity (3:4b). However, Haman abusively generalizes his rationale. The fact that Mordecai refuses to obey a royal order does not imply that the Jews always refuse

51 1:18 implies that the “ministers” of whom Memucan speaks fear that their wives will revolt. 52 FOX, Character, 47-50 (also BERLIN, Esther, 38; WHITE CRAWFORD, “Book”, 897) developed the idea that Haman starts by affirming something true (the Jews are dispersed and separated), connects it to a half-truth (their laws are different), and concludes with a lie (they do not follow imperial laws). The remarks below demonstrate that all of Haman’s statements are half-truths. 53 See BUSH, Esther, 381. The wording ‫“ מפרד בין העמים‬being separated among the peoples” assumes the separation of the Jews from among the other peoples, because after the verb ‫ פרד‬the term ‫ בין‬introduces the group from whom they are separated (2 Kgs 2:11; Ruth 1:17). 54 Traditional Jewish exegesis understands the passage this way (cf. Joshua BERMAN, “Aggadah and Anti-Semitism: The Midrashim to Esther 3:8,” Judaism 38 (1989), 185-196, Tg. Esth. II, and the midrashic texts on this verse that offer a list of practices that Jews are accused of performing). Joseph FLEISHMAN, “Why Did Ahasuerus Consent to Annihilate the Jews?”, JNWSL 25/2 (1999), 41-58 and the majority of modern commentators also observe here a reference to Jewish customs.

Synchronic Analysis

155

to uphold royal laws. In addition, the coexistence of local and ethnic laws along with imperial law is common in the Persian and then Hellenistic eras.55 Even if imperial law takes precedence over local law, it is clear that the resolution of a litigation between these two types of law, by the destruction of the people involved, constitutes an extremely exaggerated solution. The rhetoric deployed in the books of the Maccabees attributes such a deleterious political desire to the iniquitous Antiochus IV. He abolishes local Jewish practices (1 Macc 1:41-64; 2 Macc 6:1-11) and attempts to destroy the people in their entirety (1 Macc 7:26; 2 Macc 8:9). Criticisms and polemics against the particularities of Jewish law in the context of a nonJewish society are largely attested in Greek literature starting from the second half of the second century BCE.56 The most difficult texts in this regard date to the Roman era, but there is no doubt that such polemics appeared earlier. The emergence of these criticisms can be explained within a context of co-existence of Judaism with specific rituals and practices and a Hellenistic world where different customs tend to be generalized. Now, on the one hand, the development of important Jewish communities in Hellenistic cities, notably Alexandria, and, on the other hand, Hellenism’s growing influence even in Palestine inevitably led to the cohabitation or even the confrontation between different communities: some Jews practicing according to tradition; some Jews assimilating into Hellenistic ways; and non-Jews. By all evidence, the book of Esther presupposes an understanding of these polemics, projects them onto representations of a Persian world, and shows its absurdity by making it clear that Jews do not behave as enemies of the king.

History on the Criticism of Jewish Particularism

In just a few sentences placed on the lips of Haman, the editors manage to synthesize a discourse, already circulating within antiquity, that stigmatized a particular population. This type of discourse is full of half-truths, depersonalizes the victims, describes them as different from the majority, and presents them as dangerous. The conclusion to Haman’s speech is terrible. He affirms that, “it is not fair It Is Not Fair for the king to let them be,” and that he will obliterate them. Ironically, the phrasing “let them be” (lit: “leave to rest”, root ‫ )נוח‬will be taken up in 9:16-18,

55 It is normal for local and imperial laws to coexist. See HERODOTUS Hist., 1.135 for the Persian era. Concerning the Ptolemaic and Seleucid eras, see Jean GAUDEMET, Institutions de l’Antiquité, Paris, 1994, 116; MODRZEJEWSKI, “Note,” 366 ff.; Philippe RODRIGUEZ, “Les élites égyptiennes et Ptolémée, fils de Lagos, au début de son gouvernement,” in Le barbare, l’étranger: images de l’autre. Actes du colloque organisé par le CERHI (Saint-Etienne, 14-15 mai 2004), D. NOURRISSON and Y. PERRIN (eds.), Saint-Etienne, 2005, 33-66, 45-49; WOLFF, “political,” 313-318; Aude CASSAYRE, La justice dans les cités grecques de la formation des royaumes hellénistiques au legs d’Attale (Collection histoire), Rennes, 2010, 48-56. 56 The ensemble of texts is well known: REINACH, Textes; STERN, Greek, and an overview of these sources and themes in MIMOUNI, judaïsme, 646-656. The theme appears as early as the beginning of the third century BCE in Ptolemaic Egypt in Hecataeus of Abdera and Manetho. However, as these texts have only survived through their reuse in later authors (Manetho via JOSEPHUS, C. Ap., 1.73-91; 1.228-252 and Hecataeus via PHOTIUS citing DIODORUS OF SICILY, Bibliotheca, 40.3.1-3), it is often considered that at its origins, the connection between legends of foreigners in Egypt and the exodus of the Jews appeared in neither Hecataeus nor Manetho (GRUEN, Heritage, 50-72; John G. GAGER, Moses in Greco-Roman Paganism (SBL.MS 16), Nashville; New York, 1972, 113-133). AntiJewish works in antiquity are numerous, see notably SCHÄFER, Judéophobie and John G. GAGER, The Origins of Anti-Semitism: Attitudes toward Judaism in Pagan and Christian Antiquity, New York et al., 1985.

156

To Eliminate

Ten Thousand Talents I Will Pay…

The Money Is Given to You

Chapter 3. Haman’s Plot

and 22 when the enemies of the Jews attempt to destroy them and when it will be the Jews who obtain rest. In 3:9, after a terse salutation,57 Haman suggests to the king to solve the problem by issuing an imperial decree, whose contents and nature will be developed in 3:12-15a. Haman’s proposition contains two parts: to obliterate all the Jews, and to pay an enormous financial contribution to the king’s treasury. The term ‫אבד‬, piel, “to eliminate,” casts a certain ambiguity on the nature of the measures envisioned, because it does not necessarily imply a physical destruction, but could also suggest a geographic dislocation (cf. Deut 26:5; Jer 23:1; Isa 27:13).58 This term, less explicitly cruel than those in the actual wording of the edict (3:13), suggests that to convince the king, Haman conceals from him the horrible consequences of his future decision. The sum of “ten thousand talents”59 is excessive for the empire at this time. According to Herodotus (Hist., 3.95), during that era, annual taxation amounts for Persian satrapies barely surpassed such a sum. The wording signifies that Haman promises to deposit a payment destined for the treasury and to give the amount in question to the royal functionaries, and not that this money will be obtained through pillaging at the time of the destruction of the Jews.60 This promise of financial payment supposes that Haman is extremely wealthy, a point confirmed by his description of himself in 5:11.61 The reason that Haman adds a proposed financial contribution after having stated that the Jews constitute a danger is provided later in the narrative. According to Esther’s dialogue in 7:4, the people could have been sold as “slaves;” it is therefore logical that a compensation be proposed to the king. This financial theme makes sense at the time the MT was edited. Indeed, financial attainment is a major preoccupation of Hellenistic royalty.62 The motif of the financial benefit which would have been obtained had the Jews been sold as opposed to killed is explicitly mentioned in the Maccabean era: in 2 Macc 8:9-11 and 36 Nicanor decides to sell the Jews to the Romans instead of to massacre them. The king’s reply, “the money is given to you to do to this people what seems good in your eyes…,” probably signifies that the king accepts the payment.63 See the references to the sale of the Jews (7:4) and Haman’s wealth (5:11). However, it

57 See the commentary on 5:4. 58 BERG, Book, 100-102 emphasizes this point. 59 See BUSH, Esther, 381-382; WAHL, Esther, 103 and BIVAR, “Achaemenids” and Albert T. OLMSTEAD, History of the Persian Empire, Chicago, 1948, 291-299. 60 The expression “to pay into the hand of ” ‫ שׁקל על־יד‬always signifies that the item paid is placed “into the hand of ” and not “by the hand of ” (cf. 1 Sam 18:12; Ezra 8:26, 33). This point is confirmed by Esther’s speech to the king in 7:4 which mentions that the Jews were sold ‫ מכר‬and not pillaged. 61 “His glorious wealth” describes the king’s fortune in 1:4. For the motif of Haman’s wealth cf. Mid. Rabbah Esth. 7:5 regarding 3:1 (other references GINZBERG, Legends of the Jews, vol. 4, 393 and vol. 6, 462 n. 93). 62 See APERGHIS, Seleukid; CAPDETREY, pouvoir; HONIGMAN, Tales; LE RIDER and DE CALLATAŸ, Séleucides; MARTINEZ-SÈVE, “fiscalité.” 63 Cf. BUSH, Esther, 387; CLINES, Esther, 297; LEVENSON, Esther, 72; MOORE, Esther, 40; S. WHITE CRAWFORD, “Book,” 897.

Synchronic Analysis

157

may be that the sovereign renounces the payment by leaving the money to Haman,64 a possible reading, in accord with the motif of the Persian king’s generosity for those near him (5:7; 7:2). HERODOTUS (Hist., 7.27-29) reports a comparable episode in which the Lydian Pythius The King’s receives in a very generous manner Xerxes’s army and offers him a large sum of money Generosity to help in his military campaign. The king, thankful for such generosity, thanks Pythius and returns the money to him.

After having agreed to Haman’s proposition, the king delegates to him the power to do “what seems good in your eyes.” Contrary to what he does when the matter concerns himself directly (1:21), here the king does not take care of the edict himself but leaves it to his chief minister. In so doing, he appears as a weak character and little involved in the affairs of his kingdom. By removing his ring and giving it to Haman, the king delegates royal power to Haman. The edicts are sealed with this ring (3:12; 8:8, 10). Haman’s possession of the ring emphasizes his prominent social status at this stage of the narrative. After his downfall, this ring will be given to the new leader of the country, Mordecai (8:2). The motif of the gift of the “royal signet” probably alludes to Joseph, who also receives a ring from Pharaoh, the phrasing of Gen 41:42 being practically identical to that of Esth 3:10 and of 8:2.65 The editors contrast Jews such as Joseph or Mordecai who are capable of wisely administering an empire (see Gen 47:14-26 and Esth 10:1) to Haman, who is only capable of making damaging and stupid decisions. Verse 3:10 underlines what is about to unfold by adding for the first time the label “oppressor of the Jews” to Haman’s introduction as “son of Hammedatha the Agagite.” Verses 12-15a describe the establishment of the procedure to destroy the Jews by the oppressive and powerful imperial administration. The passage is well constructed: verse 13, which indicates the goal and the content of Haman’s orders, is framed by the description of the procedure to circulate these orders. Moreover, the general sense and the vocabulary of 12-13aα can be paralleled with those of verses 14-15aα; the royal orders are specially written for each province and people (12 // 14) and are transmitted to them by couriers (13aα // 15aα). Finally, the description of the dispatch of the edict ends by reporting events taking place in the same location that they began: the scribes are summoned to Susa in 12aα, and in 15aβ the edict is proclaimed there. The passage emphasizes, on the one hand, that Haman is the one directly responsible for the order of destruction: “All that Haman had ordered was written,” and, on the other hand, that imperial responsibility is heavily engaged: the edict is “sealed with the king’s ring” and sent throughout the empire “according to the king’s order.” The personnel involved in disseminating the edict is varied. “Scribes” write “copies” ‫ פתשׁגן‬of the edict in the different languages of the provinces and the people of

64 This line of interpretation is taken in Tg. Esth. II and by modern interpreters such as BERLIN, Esther, 42. 65 Compare Gen 41:42: “Pharaoh lifted his ring from his hand, he placed it upon Joseph’s hand,” with Esth 3:10: “The king lifted his ring from his hand, he gave it to Haman…” See also 8:2.

The Ring

3:12-15a

Responsibilities

Functionaries

158

Chapter 3. Haman’s Plot

this vast and diverse empire. They are addressed to “satraps” ‫אחשׁדרפן‬, the governors of the largest Persian administrative divisions,66 to “governors” ‫ פחות‬of “provinces,” an administrative division distinct from the satrapies, as well as to “ministers” ‫שׂרים‬ of “peoples.” Finally, “couriers” go out to quickly diffuse the edict. Passive verbal forms (“they were summoned,” “it was written,” “they were sent,” etc.) underline the impersonal nature of the imperial machine. Administration and Circulation of the Edicts

The description of Persian administration, composed of secretaries, a royal postal system, multilingual edicts, administrative divisions with satraps at their head (Esth 1:22; 3:12-15; 8:8-10), corresponds to Greek sources concerning the great king’s imperial organization. The existence of an efficient Persian postal system is well-attested,67 and the multilingual character of the edicts is not surprising in a Persian world that is not linguistically monolithic.68

Elsewhere, the manner of legislating and governing by imperial decree presented in Esther is similar to the governmental style of Hellenistic sovereigns from the era of the work’s editorial process.69 13 Nisan According to the MT, the edict was written and issued on the “thirteenth day of the first month” (“Nisan”; 3:7), a temporal indication that emphasizes the dramatic character of events unfolding here. The Jews are threatened with extinction at the moment when they should be preparing to celebrate Passover.70 13 Adar The “thirteenth of the twelfth month, which is the month of Adar” is the anticipated date of the destruction of the Jews. Naming the thirteenth of Adar provokes two different meanings. On the one hand, it evokes the threat faced by Jews during the Maccabean era in confronting the troops of the Greek general Nicanor on the thirteenth of Adar in 161 BCE.71 On the other hand, this date leaves a strange delay of eleven months between the issuing of the order for destruction and its application. Such a delay has a novel and ironic function, since it is absurd to announce a planned massacre, as the victims can prepare their defense, can hide, or can flee. The absurdity of the procedures used by Haman and the extreme confidence in the capacity to apply his decisions which he credits the imperial system are thus emphasized.72

66 Concerning satrapies in Greek texts: XENOPHON, Cyr., 7.4.2; HERODOTUS, Hist. 3.89, who mentions twenty satrapies in his description of the extent of the Persian Empire. For the Persian descriptions see LECOQ, inscriptions, 58, 201-202, 203-204. 67 XENOPHON, Cyr., 8.6.17-18 and HERODOTUS, Hist., 8.98. See BRIANT, Histoire, 382-383; David F. GRAF, “The Persian Royal Road System,” in Achaemenid History VIII. Continuity and Change, H. SANCISI-WEERDENBURG et al. (ed.), Leiden, 1994, 167-189. 68 See BRIANT, Histoire, 524-526 and the trilingual inscriptions (Babylonian versions) of Xerxes to Persepolis with the formula: “I am Xerxes, the great king, the king of kings, king of countries of all languages, king of this great, vast, land” (cf. XPa; XPb; XPc; XP, quoted and translated from LECOQ, inscriptions, 253 ff.). 69 See notably the decrees promulgated by the Ptolemies (MODRZEJEWSKI, “Note”; LENGER, Corpus) and the Seleucids (CAPDETREY, pouvoir, 335-344). 70 See 4:15-17, and the Introduction § The Chronological System. 71 See the commentary on Chapter 9. 72 Explanations of the necessity to prepare for the attack or to ensure the longevity of the suffering of the Jews (see PATON, Esther, 209) are not necessary.

Diachronic Analysis

159

Verse 3:13 describes the contents and the goal of the edict. Contrary to the fairly muffled phraseology used when Haman addressed the king (vv. 8-9), here the horrors to be committed are described in very crude fashion. The three verbs “to destroy” ‫שׁמד‬, “to kill” ‫הרג‬, and “to eliminate” ‫ אבד‬stress the violence and radical nature of the order (same sequence in 7:4 and 8:11). The identity of the people in question is explicit on this occasion: they are “all the Jews.” Moreover, the phrase “both young and old, children and women” emphasizes the abomination of the acts foreseen. Added to the massacre is the pillaging of “possessions as booty.” Nothing indicates that the profit might enrich Haman or the king’s treasury. It is rather those charged with carrying out the attack who would benefit. The series of informulations in 3:12-15a are taken up in 8:9-14, the issuing of the counter-edict. The editors thus establish a parallel between the oppressive actions against the Jews, and those that grant them the right to proceed against their oppressors. The publication of the edict in Susa provokes two very different reactions. The king and Haman celebrate the occasion with a drinking session. It is not a large ceremonial banquet as in 1:2-9 and 2:18, but rather a private banquet analogous to those that Esther organizes in Chapters 5 and 7. This underscores the privileged position of Haman, who, in drinking alone with the king, is portrayed as being close to the king. Later, Esther will interfere in and break up this relationship between Haman and the king (5:1-8, 12 and 7:1-9). The reaction of the “city of Susa” – the lower city as opposed to the palatial citadel – is radically different: it is “thrown into consternation”; ‫ בוך‬indicates profound agitation.73 The editors note that the city’s population immediately becomes aware of the horrors being planned and deplores such actions. The impression given of the majority of non-Jews here is positive.74 Contrary to Haman and other palace functionaries (3:4), they do not behave as enemies of the Jews. In Chapters 8 and 9, a similar favorable attitude toward the Jewish people will characterize the majority of non-Jews who will even rejoice in the triumph of the Jews (8:15-17; 9:1-3).

Diachronic Analysis The diachronic analysis of Chapter 3 corroborates the hypothesis that the Alpha Text (minus the additions) is a fairly literal Greek translation of Proto-Esther, the Hebrew text that served as a base text for proto-Masoretic editing – in the Maccabean-Hasmonean era – resulting in a text close to the consonantal form of the MT.75

73 ‫ בוך‬appears three times in the Bible, always in niphal, and always describing a reaction to a desperate situation (Exod 14:3; Joel 1:18). See BUSH, Esther, 383. 74 See LEVENSON, Esther, 76-77; BUSH, Esther, 388; FOX, Character, 55. BERLIN, Esther, 43 is more nuanced. 75 See the Introduction, A. Textual Forms and Editorial Stages.

To Destroy, to Kill, and to Eliminate

3:15b They Sat Down to Drink

The City Thrown into Consternation

160

Diachronic Analysis

Proto-Esther Proto-Esther, although it is a little shorter and the imperial administrative processes are less complex and the court personnel is more limited, already contains the broad strokes of the Masoretic narrative. Haman appears more hot-tempered and impulsive (3:6), and his speech to the king (3:8) tarnishes the reputation of the Jews more than in the MT. In Proto-Esther, the drawing of lots to establish the date of the Jews’ destruction takes place after the king has authorized the request. Moreover, the date of the issuing of the edict is not specified, only that of the attack (probably in the month of Nisan) appears. The translation below is based on the Alpha Text of the book of Esther Chapter 3 (HANHART (ed.), Esther, 148-152, 156).

1 It came to pass after these things that King Assuerus promoted Haman of Hamadathos, the proud one, he advanced him and placed his throne above that of his friends, so that everyone bowed down and prostrated themselves to the ground before him. 2 While everyone prostrated themselves before him according to the king’s edict, Mordecai did not prostrate himself before him. 3 The king’s servants saw that Mordecai did not prostrate himself before Haman. The king’s servants said to Mordecai: “Why do you disobey the king and not prostrate yourself before Haman?” 4 He informed them that he was a Jew. They informed Haman concerning him. 5 When Haman heard it, he became angry with Mordecai and anger burned within him. He sought to destroy Mordecai and all his people in one day. 6 Haman, completely annoyed and disturbed, reddened and expelled him from his sight. Then with a spiteful heart, he spoke badly of Israel to the king, 8 saying: “There is a people dispersed throughout all the kingdoms, a warring and rebellious people, with different laws to your own laws, O King, they are not loyal. They are known among all the peoples as wicked, and they violate your edicts to undermine your glory. 9 Consequently, if it pleases the king and if this judgment is good in his heart, give me the people for destruction; and I will place ten thousand talents of silver in the treasury.” 11 The king said to him: “Keep the silver and do to the people as you see fit.” 10 Then the king took off the ring from his hand and gave it to Haman, saying: “Write to all the countries, and seal it with the king’s signet, because there is no one who will reject the seal.” 7 Then Haman went to his gods to know the day of their death, and he drew lots for the thirteenth of the month of [Adar-]Nisan to kill all the Jews, male and female, and pillage the children. 13 He hurried and delivered it into the hands of couriers on horseback. [Addition B is later inserted at this point.] 15 And in Susa the decree was publicized. In Hanhart’s volume, the numbering is confusing. It is based not on the order of the Alpha Text but on what are supposed to be the parallel verses of the MT. Verse 7AT is placed between vv. 10AT and 13AT, and v. 11AT appears before 9AT. This numbering

Proto-Masoretic Editing and the Emergence of the MT

161

system is misleading because it does not take into account all the parallels between the MT and the AT (10bAT is the parallel to 12MT and 7bAT that of 13aMT). The AT translates a Proto-Esther approximately one quarter shorter than the MT. The protoMasoretic editors took up a large portion of Proto-Esther, and added “pluses.” In the sections where Proto-Esther is parallel to the MT, the Hebrew text corresponds grosso modo to its consonantal content.76 With few exceptions,77 the synopsis of Jobes shows the places where the Masoretic Hebrew corresponds to the Vorlage of the AT. Finally, some elements in the source text are not taken up by the proto-Masoretic editors.

Proto-Masoretic Editing and the Emergence of the MT As in Chapters 1 and 2, the proto-Masoretic editors from the Maccabean-Hasmonean era inserted an entire series of “pluses” on a canvas corresponding to the contents of Proto-Esther. However, they also modified the order of certain verses and suppressed some aspects of their source. Sometimes the insertion of “pluses” obliged them to suppress source elements,78 and other times, the suppressions can be explained by the editors’ desire to correct the meaning of the prior narrative. In 2, “the king’s servants who were at the king’s gate.” In 3, “who were at the king’s The MT gate.” In 4, “while they spoke to him each day, he did not listen to them,” “to see “Pluses” whether Mordecai’s words would stand.” In 5, phraseology from the MT is taken up from vv. 1b and 5a of Proto-Esther. Verse 6 in the MT is almost entirely a “plus,” whose construction begins from the phrase in v. 5b of Proto-Esther “he sought to destroy Mordecai and all his people.” Verse 7 constitutes a MT “plus” that develops and corrects the brief mention that the lots fall on the month of [Adar-]Nisan, occurring in Proto-Esther at the end of the chapter. In 8, “Ahasuerus,” “and separated among the peoples in all the provinces,” and the end of 8bβ. In 9, “let it be written,” “into the hands of the functionaries, to deposit,” “the king’s.” In 10, “son of Hammedatha the Agagite, the oppressor of the Jews.” 12-13aα (until “… king’s provinces”) constitute a development of the second part of v. 10 of Proto-Esther: the brief note in Proto-Esther indicating the royal command, “write to all the countries, and seal it with the king’s signet, because there is no one who will reject the seal,” is rewritten and expanded here with mention of the oppressive procedure of the envoy of the royal edict. 13aβ13bMT completes and reorganizes v. 7 of Proto-Esther with the “pluses” being the follow-

76 See the synopsis of JOBES, Alpha-Text. Certain passages that in the Hebrew Proto-Esther were probably identical to the MT sometimes appear as variants if one compares the translation above with that of the MT. The change in language could lead to taking certain liberties. For example, in v. 1AT the expression τῶν φίλων αὐτοῦ “his friends” probably translated the Hebrew ‫ השרים אשר אתו‬which here has been translated as “the ministers who were with him.” 77 Due to differences in ordering and numbering, certain parallels do not appear clearly enough in Jobes. For example, the first part of 3:10AT corresponds to 3:10MT but the second part of 3:10AT corresponds to the core of 3:12MT. 3:7bAT corresponds to 13aβ13bMT, lightly corrected by the editors. Where the phrase in 3:1b is concerned, “so that everyone bowed down and prostrated themselves,” it corresponds to the phrasing appearing in 3:2aβMT. 78 In the opening of 3:3, Proto-Esther indicates that the servants see that Mordecai does not prostrate himself, a superfluous point of precision in the MT, where he is one of the king’s servants at the gate.

162

Diachronic Analysis ing: “to destroy, to kill,” “twelfth month, which is,” “their possessions as booty.” 14 is entirely a MT “plus.” In 15 “according to the king’s order,” “the citadel… The king and Haman sat down to drink.” The most significant sections of Proto-Esther that are not used in the MT are the following: the opening of v. 3; v. 6 and its description of Haman’s reaction; the references to the reputation of the Jews (“a warring and rebellious people” and 8b); Haman’s explicit request to “give me the people for destruction” in v. 9 and the opening of v. 7 with the mention of the gods. The MT places the consultation of the lots before Haman goes to the king: 7a ProtoEsther is moved by the Masoretic editors to after their v. 6. The order to keep the silver is given before the handing over of the ring: 10a Proto-Esther was placed before v. 11 by the editors. 3:15bβMT is taken up from the second part of 4:1 Proto-Esther.

Sections of Proto-Esther Absent from the MT Changes in Organization of the Narrative

AT

1 2 3 4 5

MT

1 2 3 4 56

6

6bβ 8 7 8

9 11-10a 10b 9 10-11

12-13a

7a 7b

13

15

4,1

13b14 15aα 15aβ 15bβ

The redactional elements modify somewhat the meaning of the episode and introduce into it several themes and motifs that are absent from Proto-Esther. The proto-Masoretic tendency to use phraseology that establishes intertextual Intertextual References connections between the different episodes of the book of Esther, as well as with other texts from the biblical corpus, can be found here. In 3:8bβ, the mention of “letting be ‫ ”נוח‬introduces the motif of “rest” obtained by the Jews in 9:16-18 and 22. The “pluses” of 3:12-15a can be found in 8:9-1479 to emphasize the perfect reversal of the situation that takes place with the counter-edict. The editorial addition, “while they spoke to him each day, he did not listen to them,” (3:4) creates an allusion to the Joseph story.80 The date selected by lots for the destruction of the Jews (3:7b) is the only Chronology chronological note in Proto-Esther: the thirteenth of Nisan.81 The proto-Masoretic editors heavily reworked the chronology. They date the casting of lots to the first day of the twelfth year (3:7aMT). To introduce the recurring allusions to the Maccabean conflict in 9:1-19, they make the results of the lots (3:7b, 13MT) fall on the thirteenth of Adar, the same date as the “day of Nicanor.” Finally, the proto-Masoretic “pluses” make the publication of the decree to be the thirteenth of Nisan (3:12MT) so that the introductory events that occur immediately after (Chs. 4-7) take place from the thirteenth to the sixteenth of Nisan, the time of Passover.

79 In 3:13, “pillage the children” is corrected by the editors to “plunder their possessions as booty,” in order to introduce the theme of booty that will be treated in Ch. 9. 80 Proto-Esther seems to evoke the Joseph story already in 3:10. 81 The AT has the strange construction “Adar-Nisan” that resulted from a late correction in the Greek AT. A Greek copyist completed the original reading “Nisan” with “Adar” under the influence of texts that, following the proto-Masoretic editorial work, place the carrying out of the edict in the month of “Adar” (MT, LXX Additions B and E, the end of 7:21-52AT, the other versions). “Adar-Nisan” did not seem absurd because it can be understood as a designation for Adar II. In any case, it is not clear why, if the AT originally had “Adar,” it would have added “Nisan.”

Proto-Masoretic Editing and the Emergence of the MT

163

As in the preceding chapters, the editors present the Persian imperial system as powerful, oppressive, complex, unpredictable, and sometimes absurd. Solemn details are inserted.82 The Masoretic “pluses” underline the complexity of the procedures to prepare for the edict (3:12-14). Involved are scribes, couriers, satraps, governors, and ministers. As in MT 1:22, the edict is disseminated throughout the empire in many languages. This edict obliges all peoples to participate in the attack. The king’s involvement in issuing the edict is underscored by the “pluses” of 3:15: see the comments “according to the king’s order” and “the king and Haman sat down to drink.” In Proto-Esther (3:6AT), Haman is excessively angry, he is “completely disturbed,” he “reddened,” and he “expelled” Mordecai. He reacts without delay and with a “spiteful heart.” His desire to punish all of Mordecai’s people is clearly the product of a deranged mind. The proto-Masoretic rewriting of 3:5-7 erases Haman’s impulsive character. He remains angry (3:5MT), but comports himself like a clever manipulator, capable of using the Persian administrative system to his advantage. To describe his willingness to cause harm, the editors suppress the mention of his hysterical reaction in 3:6AT, which they replace with the solemn detail, “he thought it contemptible to extend his hand against… only.” They move the episode of the casting of lots83 to before Haman goes to the king, to suggest that he takes the time to polish his plan, and in 3:12-14 they make Haman knowledgeable about the functions of power. Certain proto-Masoretic elements of v. 13 also make Haman into a cunning man who, after having given a smooth speech for the sake of the king, gives orders that emphasize his violence (by adding the terms “destroy” and “kill” to “eliminate” of 3:9.) Haman’s speech to the king in 3:8 concerning the people in question is less critical in the MT. The comments that the Jews would be “known among all the peoples as wicked”; are aggressive (“a warring and rebellious people”); and are particularly opposed to the king (“they violate your edicts to undermine your glory”) are absent from the MT. The proto-Masoretic editors, very critical of the empire, have suppressed the most serious accusations in order to place upon Haman’s lips a speech in which the simple mention of the refusal to obey imperial laws suffices to condemn a people. It is possible that they also suppressed the accusations of violence in 3:8AT in order to avoid the impression that the attacks of Chapter 9 express a warlike character of the Jews.84 While in Proto-Esther Mordecai was a simple resident of Susa, proto-Masoretic editors turn him into a royal functionary, “at the king’s gate” (2:19, 21). The editorial corrections of Chapter 3 suggest that this constitutes a major cause of

82 Addition of the king’s proper name (3:8); precision concerning the “king’s” treasury that is transmitted via functionaries (3:9); addition of “according to the king’s order” (3:15). 83 The casting of lots was moved by the proto-Masoretic editors from its original placement following the royal approval (cf. Proto-Esther). In the MT, the result of the casting of lots is retained in its logical original placement following the royal decision (3:13MT), while the casting of lots itself is situated before it (3:7MT). 3:13MT is the parallel to 3:7bAT, while 3:7MT is the parallel to 3:7aAT. 84 In Chapters 8 and 9 the proto-Masoretic editors show that the Jews have recourse to force due to the inability of the empire to cancel its edicts.

Imperial Administration and Attack

Haman’s Attitude

The Reputation of the Jews

Mordecai, King’s Functionary

164

Diachronic Analysis

Mordecai’s problems. The Masoretic “pluses” locate the refusal to prostrate at “the king’s gate” and implicate the personnel who are there (3:2-3). The wording of the MT lets one imagine that if Mordecai had not been a member of the personnel at the royal gate he would not have had to prostrate himself. In 3:4MT two proto-Masoretic “pluses” introduce pressures endured by Mordecai from his court colleagues, resulting in his denunciation (cf. “While they spoke to him each day, he did not listen to them” and “to see whether Mordecai’s words would stand”). These “pluses” seem to put into play certain intricacies that arose for Jews who participated in the social life of Hellenistic cities, forced to choose between Jewish customs and those of the dominant empire. Mention of In Chapter 4, the MT never explicitly mentions divine action. The editors seem God to have omitted the deities occurring in Proto-Esther. Omitting “Then Haman went to his gods to know the day of their death,” present in Proto-Esther (3:7), may possibly be part of this editorial strategy.

The Greek Translations and the Late Modifications of the MT Late Correc- Even if the LXX translator worked relatively freely, and the elements of the MT tions to the that are lacking can often be explained by choices in translation,85 certain differMT ences between the MT and the LXX suggest that the Greek translators had at their

disposal a Hebrew Vorlage that was slightly different from the consonantal MT.86 It is possible that 3:6MT was developed, as a gloss subsequent to the translation of the LXX, by an editor anxious to explain Haman’s point of view.87 The mention of “pur,” absent from the LXX, was probably inserted into 3:7MT by an editorial gloss following 9:26. Finally, in the MT, the most important corrections subsequent to the LXX translation are connected to Haman’s identification as an Agagite. These corrections, following the copyist error that occurred in 3:1 when the “proud one” became the “Agagite,” appear in the various references to Haman’s Agagite origins and his connection with the oppression of the Jews (3:10; 8:1, 3, 5; 9:10, 24).88 Late Greek The insertion at the end of Chapter 3 of Addition B, which introduces the Corrections contents of the edict against the Jews, probably led to a light alteration of earlier Greek contents of v. 13 in the AT. This verse probably ended with the term “an edict,” which became superfluous once the sentence introducing Addition B was introduced “and he signed the following letter.”

85 One thinks notably of the “minuses” and the “pluses” of the LXX mentioned in the textual notes for vv. 2a-a, 3a-a, 10b, 12b-b, 13a-a and b-b. 86 For example, the end of v. 7MT was accidentally truncated after the translation of the LXX. See the textual note for 3:7c-c. 87 In this case, the Hebrew “pluses,” “He thought it contemptible to extend his hand against Mordecai only, for they had informed him concerning Mordecai’s people”; “all the Jews who were in Ahasuerus’s kingdom” would not have been introduced by protoMasoretic editors, but by subsequent glossators. 88 See the commentary on 3:1.

Synthesis

165

Synthesis This episode describes the terrifying preparations for the annihilation of the Jews. An abominable and stigmatizing speech is placed upon Haman’s lips. The analysis has shown that even if the proto-Masoretic editors do not radically transform the plot of Chapter 3, they modify several aspects. In Proto-Esther, Haman’s disproportionately angry reaction upon learning about a Jew’s refusal to prostrate himself triggers the problem. In the MT, things are more complicated. It is because Mordecai is a part of the imperial administration that the willingness of a Jew to respect his principles, in refusing to prostrate himself, poses a problem. According to the editors, attempting to integrate oneself within the administration without making known one’s origins seems to constitute a dead end that the hero is compelled to abandon. On a socio-historical level, the text seems to ask under what conditions it is possible for a Jew to become integrated into the administration of a foreign empire, and whether it is desirable to hide one’s identity, questions which were asked of the Jewish readership during the Hellenistic period of the editorial process. Furthermore, the proto-Masoretic editing transforms Haman into a less impulsive character. He appears as a clever manipulator of the king and knowledgeable about an imperial system presented as dangerous and wide-reaching.

Chapter 4. Mordecai Solicits Esther’s Help 1 Now Mordecai had learned all that had been done, and Mordecai tore his clothes, and clothed himself in sackcloth and ashes, and went out into the midst of the city, and let out a loud and bitter crya. 2 He went up to the entrance of the king’s gate, for no one could enter the king’s gate clothed in sackcloth. 3a In every province, in every place where the king’s word and his decree reached, there was a great mourning among the Jews, with fasting and tears and lamenting, sackcloth and ashes spread over many. 4 Esther’s maidens as well as her eunuchs came and informed her. The queen trembleda greatly. She sent clothing to dress Mordecai so that he would take off his sackcloth. However, he did not consent. 5 Esther summoned Hathacha, one of the king’s eunuchs whom he had appointedb for her. She sent him to Mordecai to learn what [had happened] and why. 6a Hathach went out to Mordecai in the city square, in front of the king’s gate. 7 Mordecai informed him concerning all that had happened to him, and the sum of money that Haman had proposed to pay into the king’s treasury for the Jewsa, in order to eliminate them. 8 He gave him a copy of the text of the edict that had been proclaimed in Susa for their destruction, in order to show it to Esther, to inform her, and to charge her to go to the king to request his mercy and to plead on behalf of her peoplea. 9 Hathach came and informed Esther of Mordecai’s words. 10 Esther spoke to Hathach and sent him to Mordecai: 11 “All the king’s servants and the people of the king’s provinces know that any man or woman who approaches the king through the inner court without being summoned, there is a standing edict to kill them, unless the king extends the golden sceptre to them, so that they may live. Now I myself have not been summoned to approach the king for thirty daysa.” 12 Mordecai was informeda of Esther’s words. 13 Mordecai said in reply to Esther: “Do not think that you, ain the king’s housea, will be saved as opposed to all the Jews, 14a for if you keep silent during this time, will respite and deliverance present themselves for the Jews from another place? You and the house of your father will perish. Who knows whether it is for a time such as this that you have attained royal status?” 15 Esther said in reply to Mordecai: 16 “Go and gather all the Jews to be found in Susa and fast for me. Do not eat or drink for three days, night and day. In the same fashion I, as well as my maidens, will also fast, and I will then go to the king, despite the edict, and if I must die, then I will die.” 17 Mordecai withdrew and did all that Esther had ordered him.

Synchronic Analysis

167

Notes on Text and Translation 1a 3a

The LXX expands the contents of Mordecai’s speech: “a nation innocent and ruined.” Even if it interrupts the sequence between vv. 2 and 4, this verse should not be moved to follow 3:15 (contra BHS; EHRLICH, Randglossen, 116). Describing the mourning of the Jews after that of Mordecai is logical (BUSH, Esther, 390; FOX, Character, 58). 4a ‫ ותתחלחל‬is a hithpalpel from the root ‫ חול‬/ ‫חיל‬. 5a LXX Αχραθαῖον. JOSEPHUS, Ant., 11.223 Αχράθεον. ‫ העמיד‬in the MT implies that the king is the subject of the verb ‫ עמד‬hiphil “to place,” b “to establish.” Conjecturing a qal ‫“ עמד‬to stand up” (cf. LXX) makes the eunuch the subject of the verb (BHS; DRIVER, “Problems,” 235; KAHANA, Esther, 186). 6a This redundant verse is absent from the LXX, but present in the Vulgate. 7a The orthography of the ketiv ‫ יהודיים‬instead of the usual ‫ יהודים‬also appears in Esth 8:1, 7, 13; 9:15, and 18. 8a LXX and AT (cf. Vulg. 15:1-3) have a long supplement here. See below the section § The Greek Translations and the Late Modifications of the MT. 11a AT, OL, and Vulgate observe that Esther asks how she could enter under these circumstances. The phraseology and the placement of the “plus” varies between these three witnesses that probably derive from a pre-Masoretic Hebrew reading. 12a The 3rd person plural verb must be understood as indefinite/impersonal. The LXX clarifies the passage: “and Hathach reported to Mordecai.” 13a-a The term ‫“ בית‬house” is in the accusative position, which does not require the preposition ‫( ב‬Joüon, §126h). The LXX freely renders the Hebrew phrase as “alone in the kingdom.” 14a This verse constitutes one of the major difficulties in the book’s interpretation. The LXX translates a Hebrew text identical to the MT, understanding the first part of the verse as an assertion.

Synchronic Analysis After the edict of destruction is issued, a dialogue between Esther and Mordecai Introduction results in the heroine’s decision to risk her life to plead the case of her people to the king.1 During this episode, Esther ceases to be a dependant woman who wisely follows the advice of her entourage (2:10, 15, 20) and who ignores the real matters underway (4:4). She enters into solidarity with her people, takes charge of her destiny, and becomes a truely autonomous and independent heroine. At the chapter’s conclusion, it is she who orders a fast in the community (4:16-17), after which it is she who develops, alone and without anyone’s counsel, a clever strategy aimed at securing Haman’s condemnation (5:1-8; 7:1-10). Mordecai convinces Esther to intervene by treating her as an independent person. He begins by first informing her of the situation (4:7-8), then responding to her objections (4:11) by shedding light on what is at stake in the choice she must make (4:13-14). He suggests that values such as familial and ethnic solidarity justify violating social customs and imperial laws and risking one’s life.

1

This chapter draws on MACCHI, “Dieu.”

168

Passage Organization

The Queen Risks Her Life

Chapter 4. Mordecai Solicits Esther’s Help

The MT remains oblique about divine activity. The Jewish protagonists are not certain that God will save them. They fast and lament (4:1-3, 16-17) as if imploring divine protection or preparing themselves for an ineluctable tragedy. Their fast, occurring at the moment when Passover rituals should have been taking place (13-16 Nisan), suggests that the drama underway risks leading to the destruction of Judaism and its practices. Finally, Mordecai’s argument (4:13-14) does not affirm that God will protect the Jews. It only suggests that the risks and actions taken by Esther could contribute to their deliverance. 4:1-3 describes the reaction of the Jews to the edict’s publication. Mordecai’s own reaction that cuts him off from the palace (vv. 1-2) is followed by that of all the Jews in the empire (v. 3). Verses 4 to 16 report the long-distance dialogue between Esther and Mordecai. It is organized into four parts and shows the relationship between these two protagonists emerging progressively from formal mediations provided by the court functionaries to an exchange that is very close and personal. First of all, news concerning Mordecai that Esther’s maidens and eunuchs brought her drives her to react and send clothing that Mordecai refuses (v. 4). Then, in a second interaction, Esther sends the functionary Hathach, to whom Mordecai conveys the situation, the edict, and the ensuing instructions (vv. 5-9). In a third interaction, Esther replies that she must break the law and risk her life if she were to obey these instructions. As if this response could not be transmitted by a Persian official, the MT no longer mentions Hathach, but says simply that the response was transmitted to Mordecai (vv. 10-12). Finally, the interaction between Esther and Mordecai is described as a direct dialogue without mediator (vv. 13-16). Mordecai lets her know that she must become involved for the sake of her people (vv. 13-14), which she agrees to do by ordering a fast (vv. 15-16). The passage ends with Esther’s instructions being accomplished (v. 17). Esther’s risking her life to approach her royal husband, at the request of her adoptive father, presents striking similarities with a narrative reported by Herodotus.2 Upon the death of Cambyses, a Magus with ears cut off usurped power. As he never showed himself in public, Otanes, a Persian aristocrat, suspected an impostor. Investigating by means of a series of messages to his daughter Phaidime, the royal spouse, he learns that she has never seen the king and cannot make enquiries, as she lives in forced isolation. He thus sends her a message ordering her, in the name of her “good birth,” to verify, while the king is sleeping, whether he has ears or not. Phaidime follows through with the verification in spite of the mortal risk that she incurs. As in Esther 4, the communication between Otanes and Phaidime happens through an exchange in which the father demands his daughter follow extremely risky instructions, out of familial loyalty. In both cases, Persian power functions

2

HERODOTUS, Hist., 3.68-69. Cf. also JUSTIN, Historiae Philippicae, 1.9. The parallel with Esther 4 was noted especially by Jacques SCHWARTZ, “Récits bibliques et mœurs perses,” in Hellenica et Judaica. Hommage à Valentin Nikiprowetzky, A. CAQUOT, M. HADAS-LEBEL and J. RIAUD (eds.), Leuven Paris, 1986, 267-277, 274-275; MOMIGLIANO, “Eléments,” 93; MOMIGLIANO, “Historiography,” 15. See also Jack Martin BALCER, A Prosopographical Study of the Ancient Persians Royal and Noble C. 550-450 B.C., Lewiston, 1993, 276-278.

Synchronic Analysis

169

strangely: in Herodotus, an usurper can govern without being seen, and in Esther, a law prohibiting free access to the king, along with absurd edicts, are invoked. In Esther 4, as in Herodotus, the dysfunctional Persian system is opposed by courageous women. Mordecai’s reaction (4:1-2) in light of the forthcoming drama, precedes the reaction of all the Jews, which will be presented in a similar fashion (4:3). As no chronological rupture is indicated between 3:15 and 4:1, Mordecai’s request to the queen for her intervention occurs the same day as the edict’s publication in Susa, the 13th of Nisan. “When Mordecai learned all that had been done.” As with every resident in Susa, Mordecai could read the edict. However, the MT goes further and suggests that as a well-informed courtier (cf. 2:11, 21-23), he knows other aspects of the affair, notably its financial implications (cf. 4:7). Mordecai reacts like a person in mourning: he tore his clothes, clothed himself in sackcloth and ashes, and let out a loud and bitter cry. This reaction is similar to that of other Jews in 4:3: “there was a great mourning among the Jews, with fasting and tears and lamenting, many laying in sackcloth and ashes.” The fact that Mordecai is the first to react defines him as the leader of the Jews.3 The response of the Jews consists of three components: a disheveled outfit of “sackcloth,” a garment made from rough canvas, and ashes; public (in the center of town) vocal complaints, cries, and lamentation. And finally, 4:3 describes a fasting ritual established at Esther’s instigation in 4:16.4 In the Bible, such public manifestations often characterize mourning or the response to catastrophe. Verse 4:3 observes explicitly that there was “a great mourning among the Jews” ‫אבל גדול ליהודים‬. The vocabulary “sackcloth,” “ashes,” “bitter cry,” and “lamentation,” can also be found in narratives about individuals in mourning (Gen 37:34; 2 Sam 3:31) as well as during collective catastrophes (Isa 15:3; 22:12; Jer 6:26; 48:37; Ezek 27:30-31; etc.). In addition, at the announcement of a forthcoming crisis, such mourning practices can serve as appeals addressed to God (2 Kgs 19:1-2; Jonah 3:5-8; etc.). Consequently, there is some ambiguity in our text: are these gestures simply expressions of angst, or are they a call for help? The reader is invited to understand that even if the attitude of the Jews does not exclude the hope for divine assistance, it certainly manifests a profound sense of uncertainty about the future. Mordecai’s public change of clothing indicates an important step in the narrative. As in other biblical narratives,5 Mordecai’s costume changes signal modifications in social status. In 4:1, he clothes himself in a garment that marks his social decline, while in 6:8-11 and then in 8:15-16, royal robes emphasize the reestablish-

3 4

5

LEVENSON, Esther, 78. Leadership is also attributed to him in 4:16 and then in Chapters 8 to 10. In 4:1 this rite is not described for Mordecai since he is not ordered to do so until 4:16. On the other hand, since 4:3 is a sort of summary of the attitude of the Jews, its anticipated mention is not problematic. Joseph loses his tunic when he is thrown into the pit (Gen 37:23-35) and becomes a slave, and he loses an outfit for a second time when he flees from Potiphar’s wife and ends up in prison (Gen 39:10-20). Finally, it is only when he becomes Pharaoh’s chief minister that new clothes are given to him, demonstrating his social ascent (Gen 41:42).

4:1-3

Mordecai Learned All…

A Response of Mourning

A Change of Clothes

170

4:4

She Trembled

Sending Clothing

Chapter 4. Mordecai Solicits Esther’s Help

ment of his social position.6 Moreover, Mordecai’s “going out” into the city to publicly make a “loud cry” also links his decline with his re-instatement. In 6:811 Mordecai is paraded about in the same location while Haman “proclaims” his honor. In 8:15-16, the city of Susa cries out in his honor7 while he “goes out” ‫יצא‬. According to 4:2, palace customs now prevent Mordecai from entering the king’s gate where he conducts his business (2:19). This rule emphasizes the discrepancy between the luxurious court life where wearing mourning apparel is prohibited, and the preoccupations of the general population (3:15a; 4:3). The communication with Esther that permits Mordecai to give her his instructions (2:20) during palace promenades (2:11) is now no longer possible. Contrary to what occurs in Proto-Esther, in the MT, Mordecai cannot take the initiative to contact the queen, but simply remains in front of the palace. Moreover, Esther is isolated in the court and is ignorant of everything concerning the tragic destiny of her people. Consequently, the MT describes a complex procedure that leads her to learn of the situation and to commit herself to helping her people. The long-distance contact between Esther and Mordecai begins with information concerning Mordecai being transmitted to Esther by her maidens and her eunuchs. Abundant and complex court personnel are also found within the queen’s entourage and play an important role. One of the eunuchs permits Esther to communicate with Mordecai (4:5, 6, 9, 10) and her maidens fast along with her (4:16). On this first occasion, the information provided to Esther only concerns Mordecai’s physical appearance. Esther’s reaction is also uniquely physical. The verb ‫“ ותתחלחל‬she trembled,” from a root ‫ חיל‬/ ‫חול‬, can describe intense or animated movements accompanying occasions from joy to grief (Jer 4:19), or terror (Deut 2:25).8 In Esther’s case, the context suggests that this trembling relates to worry and confusion. While in Proto-Esther, sending clothing to Mordecai is done in an explicit attempt to make him come inside, the MT is more ambiguous. Does Esther want to speak with him? Or, is she seeking to bring an end to an embarrassing situation by re-clothing this individual known for his connection to her (2:22)?9 Mordecai’s refusal shows that hidden behind the matter of clothing are more fundamental concerns. After having revealed that he is Jewish (3:4), Mordecai seems to no longer desire to conceal his Jewishness behind handsome outfits. On the other hand, Esther seems so distraught that she encourages him to renounce the use of mourning clothes, while she ignores the reason that he wears them.

6 7 8 9

The derivatives of ‫“ לבשׁ‬to clothe,” “clothing” ‫בוּשׁ‬ are found three times in 4:1-2 and 4; seven times in 6:8-11 and one time in 8:15. The terms for the vocalizations in 4:1 ‫ ;זעק‬in 6:9, 11 ‫ קרא‬and in 8:15 ‫ צהל‬differ because the type of cry (suffering, announcement, joy) changes. The verb is also used for the reactions of a woman in child-birth, Isa 26:17; 51:2. HARVEY, Morality, 27, n. 40. This question is discussed by BUSH, Esther, 394-395; HARVEY, Morality, 27-28; LEVENSON, Esther, 78-79; MACCHI, “Dieu,” 62-63; Jopie SIEBERT-HOMMES, “On the third day Esther put on her queen’s robes (Esther 5:1). The Symbolic Function of Clothing in the Book of Esther,” lectio difficilior 3/1 (2002) http://www.lectio.unibe.ch/; WHITE, “Esther,” 169.

Synchronic Analysis

171

Esther, cloistered in the palace, makes a second attempt to contact Mordecai. The 4:5-9 proto-Masoretic editors emphasize the situation’s weightiness. They describe the mediation of “one of the king’s eunuchs whom he had appointed to her” named “Hathach,” which underscores that the queen is obligated to pass through the institutional filter of a royal functionary in order to contact anyone outside of the palace. The etymology of the name “Hathach” is uncertain. It has been linked to an Avestan Hathach term meaning “the good”10 or to the ancient Persian *ẖantaka “the one who runs.”11 Classical Jewish interpretation has connected this character with Daniel (Tg. Esth. I from 4:5; Mid. Rabbah 8:4; b. Meg. 15a).

Hathach goes out to the city square located in front of the king’s gate. This location is mentioned again in 6:9 and 11; with literary care, the location of Mordecai’s humiliation is connected to that of his triumph. The purpose of Esther’s approach is explicit this time: to learn “what had happened and why.” This suggests that she does not yet know anything about the situation. In vv. 7-8a Mordecai dispels her ignorance by first informing her, and then (8b) by giving her instructions. Mordecai’s report contains three elements that correspond well to the details in Chapter 3. He describes first what happened to him (4:7a) and then Haman’s actions (4:7b). Instead of the argument that Jewish laws are different (3:8), the issue of the sum of money that Haman had proposed to pay into the king’s treasury for the Jews is mentioned (same formula as in 3:9). Mordecai provides confidential information that only functionaries close to the king could know, and of which Esther will make use when she accuses Haman of having bought the Jews in order to destroy them (7:4MT). Verse 4:8a adds that Mordecai provided a copy of the text of the edict. Accordingly, Esther becomes aware of information available to the public outside the palace (3:14-15 insists upon the general circulation of the edict.) In the phrase “in order to show it to Esther, to inform her, and to charge her,” the three verbs indicate three aspects of what Hathach must transmit. The direct objects of the verbs “to show” ‫ ראה‬hiphil and “to inform” ‫ נגד‬hiphil are not mentioned, but the context suggests that it is the edict that must be shown to her, and the oral information contained in v. 7 that is supposed to inform her.12 That the edict is “shown” to Esther, and not “read” ‫ קרא‬as the annals will be (6:1), leads one to believe that in the Hellenistic era when the passage was edited, it was not surprising that a woman from high society could read.13 Finally, the verb

10 GEHMAN, “Notes,” 327. 11 Isaak SCHEFTELOWITZ, “Zur Kritik des griechischen und massoretischen Buches Esther,” MGWJ 47 (1903), 315. 12 ‫“ נגד‬he informed” introduces v. 7, and thus the verb ‫“ נתן‬he gave” concerns the edict in 8a. See the argument of BUSH, Esther, 395 and FOX, Character, 60, contra CLINES, Esther, 301 and PATON Esther, 218. 13 FOX, Character, 60. On literate women in antiquity, see Meir BAR-ILAN, Some Jewish Women in Antiquity (BJS 317), Atlanta, 1998, 31-50; Susan Guettel COLE, “Could Greek women read and write?,” in Reflections of Women in Antiquity, H.P. FOLEY (ed.), Abingdon, 1981, 219-246; Richard Leo ENOS and Terry Shannon PETERMAN, “Writing Instruction for the “Young Ladies” of Teos: A Note on Women and Literacy in Antiquity,” Rhetoric Review 33 (2014), 1-20; Sarah B. POMEROY, Spartan Women, Oxford, 2002, 4-11.

City Square

Information Obtained

Show, Inform, Order

172

To Go and Request Mercy

4:10-12 Entering without Summons

Extend the Sceptre

…for thirty days

Chapter 4. Mordecai Solicits Esther’s Help

“to charge” ‫ צוה‬concerns the contents of the end of v. 8, and has to do with the last time that Esther received an order from Mordecai (2:10, 20). After this, it will be Esther who will give him instructions instead (4:17), thus marking her passage from a submissive daughter to an autonomous heroine. The charge that Mordecai gives Esther, to go the king to plead on behalf of her people, resumes the big picture of what Esther does next. As announced in 4:16, she approaches the king in 5:1-2 and obtains his mercy14 for herself (5:2, 8) and then for her people (7:3-4, 6 and 8:3-6). That said, as shall be seen, she does not simply fulfill Mordecai’s order by going and pleading directly, but develops a real strategy of manipulating the king (cf. 5:3-8; 7:1-6). Ironically, the expression “to plead on behalf of her people” ‫( לבקשׁ מלפניו על־עמה‏‬literally, “to seek before his face concerning her people”) introduces a usage of the verb ‫ בקשׁ‬+ ‫ על‬that reappears when Haman tries to plead for his own life (7:7). Esther’s response once more passes through Hathach. She objects that she would need to risk her life in order to go and plead the case of her people. Surprisingly, Esther does not mention that in going to plead on behalf of the Jews, she risks seeing the edict of destruction applied to herself. She justifies her hesitation with a Persian rule that prohibits approaching the king without summons. In view of classical Greek literature, this is not surprising, since the Persian king is seen as very difficult to access.15 Moreover, Herodotus reports that unrestricted access to the king constitutes a privilege held only by members of the conspiracy who brought Darius to power.16 Such a distance between the sovereign and his people was no doubt perceived negatively in the Greek world, which subscribed to more egalitarian practices. The book of Esther’s use of the theme of the king’s inaccessibility also works to ironize the grotesque organization of Persian politics. After the refusals of Vashti (1:12) and then Mordecai (3:2-3), Esther now prepares to violate a court rule. Happily, the edict in question provides an exception, “unless the king extends the golden sceptre to that person,” which will be applied in 5:2 and 8:4. The wording is evidence of the lateness of the language of the book of Esther.17 That Esther has not been summoned to the king for thirty days, offers a somber view of her situation. Even though queen, she is subject to the same rules as the concubines, who must be summoned by name in order to approach the king (2:14). Moreover, the span of thirty days suggests a distant relationship between the royal couple, making it very uncertain if the king would summon her quickly, extend his sceptre to her, or receive her request favorably.

14 In Esther the verb ‫ חנן‬only appears in 8:3. The noun ‫ חן‬from the same root appears frequently. 15 See the topos of weighty ceremony to access the Persian king as well as that of his inaccessibility in HERODOTUS, Hist., 1.99; THUCYDIDES, War, 1.130; JUSTIN, Historiae Philippicae, 1.9; CTESIAS, Persica, F1b(21:2); and during the episode of the usurper Magus, discussed in the introductory section to the commentary on this chapter (HERODOTUS, Hist., 3.68-69). 16 HERODOTUS, Hist., 3.84 and 3.118. 17 The use of ‫“ ישׁט‬to extend” in the hiphil, instead of ‫ שׁלך‬or ‫ נטה‬is typical of Mishnaic Hebrew. Likewise, ‫“ שׁרביט‬sceptre” instead of ‫( שׁבט‬BERGEY, Book, 123-124 and 50-51).

Synchronic Analysis

173

The chronology of the MT ironizes this situation. Indeed, the last time the queen appeared before the king was to save him by denouncing a plot against him (2:22), an action that did not seem to earn her any of the king’s favors. Moreover, the events of Chapter 4 occur on the thirteenth of Nisan. This dating means that Esther’s last summons, thirty days prior, was the thirteenth of Adar, the date that marked one year until the massacre of the Jews. The proto-Masoretic edition adds the following detail to the prohibition of presenting oneself without summons: “via the inner court.” One understands, therefore, that access to the king is only problematic for those who, like Esther, live in the king’s house and gain access to him by the “inner” court. For those who live outside the palace and who, like Haman in 6:4, arrive by the “outer” court, no summons is necessary. From all evidence, this indication mocks the edict mentioned in 4:11 and imperial protocol. The impression of absurdity is reinforced by the proto-Masoretic indication that “all the king’s servants and the people of the king’s provinces” know this rule. The empire is so particular that it informs all its inhabitants of a rule that only applies to the inhabitants of the palace. According to the MT, one might imagine that the queen will wait to be summoned, since the massacre of the Jews is not planned to occur until eleven months later (3:12-13). The editors did not find it useful to provide that option since the objection that is raises is, in reality, secondary. To plead the case of her people, she must forcefully acknowledge her Jewishness, and thus risks having the edict of destruction applied to herself anyway. In the same fashion as the great biblical heroes Moses, Jeremiah, or Gideon, Esther thus begins by refusing her mission for minor reasons.18 Finally, while in 4:10 Esther ordered Hathach to convey her response, when in 4:12 this response is given, the eunuch so frequently mentioned (4:5-6, 9) now disappears, replaced by an impersonal construction: “Mordecai was informed of Esther’s words.” This impersonal construction marks the transition between the indirect dialogue between Esther and Mordecai in vv. 5 to 9, and the direct dialogue in vv. 13-16.19 Mordecai’s response to Esther constitutes one of the critical passages in the book. He explains the reasons that would persuade an assimilated Jew within the court to reveal her identity and risk her life for the deliverance of her people. The conversation between Esther and Mordecai from this point forward is presented as if the two protagonists are face to face, speaking directly to one another: “X said in reply to Y” (4:13a, 15), and the addresses made in the second person singular replace the indirect constructions and the reported statements. This suggests that the court’s formality is abandoned from this point forward, for the benefit of a direct relationship and a heart-to-heart conversation. Mordecai’s argument opens by denouncing what Esther might have hoped, that as queen she would be spared the fate of the Jews. If the concealment of Jewish identity that marked Esther up to this point (2:10, 20) were to continue,

18 Moses evokes his lack of eloquence (Exod 4:10), Jeremiah his young age (Jer 1:6), and Gideon his poverty and small stature (Judg 6:15). 19 See BUSH, Esther, 395; GROSSMAN, “Vanishing,” 567-569 and the organization of the passage above. The impersonal construction is not the result of a copyist accident (contra MOORE, Esther, 50 and PATON, Esther, 222).

13 Adar – 13 Nisan

Through the Inner Court

Waiting to be Summoned?

Hathach’s Disappearance

4:13-14

A Heart-toHeart Conversation

To Be Saved

174

Chapter 4. Mordecai Solicits Esther’s Help

the terrifying result would be the protection of only one privileged individual, and all the other Jews would be massacred. That said, the reason that Mordecai discourages Esther from adopting this point of view is not clear. Is such a lack of solidarity with the fate of the Jewish people morally unacceptable? Could Esther really be saved? Would not her Jewish identity become known in the end, in any case? Could Providence or the Jews not seek vengeance against her? 4:14a The problems raised in v. 13 remaining unsettled, v. 14 opens logically with the explanatory particle “for.” Mordecai’s words could be understood in three different ways. Examining them helps to understand the reasons that, according to the proto-Masoretic editors, Mordecai warns Esther. ‫כי אם־החרשׁ תחרישׁי בעת הזאת רוח והצלה יעמוד ליהודים ממקום אחר ואת ובית־אביך תאבדו‬ 1) Deliverance Most translations and commentaries20 think that Mordecai confirms that the Will Come deliverance of the Jews will come and that if Esther does not approach the king she will perish: “for if you keep silent during this time, respite and deliverance will present themselves for the Jews from another place, and you and the house of your father will perish.” Two consequences are added to the possibility of Esther keeping quiet: deliverance will come ‫ יעמוד‬from elsewhere, and she, as well as her father’s house, will perish ‫תאבדו‬. Read this way, the passage remains allusive concerning divine activity, but suggests that God acts within history. “Another place” seems to allude to a kind of Providence that, by other means of action than Esther, will save the Jews.21 This does not imply that the term “place” is a divine appellation,22 nor that it is an allusion to a particular person.23 This classic understanding of the passage must be abandoned. It raises too great a problem for the rest of the verse, the death of Esther and her father’s house.24 Why could not Esther survive with her people? One could imagine eventually that the Jews would take vengeance on her, or that Providence would punish her refusal to intervene. However, this poses a difficult logic due to the mention of the “house of her father.” Indeed, in the MT, this includes Mordecai himself, for Esther is his adoptive daughter (2:7, 15). Yet, if the deliverance of the Jews

20 See LXX, the AT, JOSEPHUS, Ant. 11.227 and the two targumic texts; the translations TOB; NBS; BJ; NRSV and the commentaries of BERLIN, Esther, 49; CLINES, Esther, 302; DAY, Esther, 83-85; FOX, Character, 62-63; GERLEMAN, Esther, 106-107; WAHL, Esther, 120 WHITE CRAWFORD, “Book,” 904-905. 21 See notably ABADIE, “travestissement,” 300-301; ACKROYD, “Hebrew”; BERG, Book, 76; GERLEMAN, Esther, 106-107; HAUPT, “Notes,” 137; PATON, Esther, 222; TALMON, “Wisdom,” 428429; Anouk TROYON, “Esther 4: Sois belle et tais-toi !”, LeDiv 75 (2008), 13-23, 17. 22 The idea can be explained by the fact that God is sometimes called “the place” in midrashic literature (cf. MOORE, Esther, 50; A. SPANIER, “Die Gottesbezeichnungen ‫המקום‬ und ‫ הקדוש ברוך הוא‬in der frühtalmudischen Literatur,” MGWJ 66 (1922), 309-314). This proposition must be abandoned because the construction “another place” excludes the possibility of a divine appellation (see the refutations of ACKROYD, “Hebrew,” 82-84; BUSH, Esther, 396; FOX, Character, 63). 23 Although there is no indication to suggest that the editors wanted to allude to a particular individual, a high Jewish functionary or a powerful stranger has often been considered (MOORE, Esther, 50 and CLINES, Esther, 302; PONTRÉMOLI, Meam), or a member of the Davidic dynasty (BERGER, “Esther,” 632-635). 24 These difficulties are mentioned by WIEBE, “Esther 4:14,” followed notably by HARVEY, Morality, 29-35 and MACCHI, “Dieu,” 65-71.

Synchronic Analysis

175

would arrive from elsewhere, it is hard to understand why Mordecai would need to perish.25 Moreover, if Mordecai’s words are positive concerning the destiny of the Jews, one cannot understand why he says, “who knows whether it is for a time such as this that you have attained royal status?” as a question instead of an assertion. Evidently, Mordecai is not certain of the Jews’ deliverance and the success of Esther’s approach, an impression confirmed by Esther’s fatalistic acceptance in 4:16 “I will then go (…) and if I must die, then I will die.” Finally, Mordecai’s assertion of faith in divine intervention does not agree with the overall thinking of this biblical book that does not introduce divine intervention as something certain and foreseeable, but rather as something to recognize behind the events described. A second possible interpretation is that Mordecai is making two vows. First, if Esther does not intervene, he calls upon an improbable rescue from elsewhere. This first vow is completed by a second which contains a curse: if she does nothing, he wishes Esther to perish at the same time as her family (“house of your father”).26 One must translate, in that case, as: “for if you keep silent during this time, may respite and deliverance present themselves for the Jews from another place! And may you and your father’s house perish!” The verbs ‫“ יעמוד‬to present oneself ” and ‫“ תאבדו‬to perish” would then be jussives expressing desires.27 This reading fits logically with the argument of the book of Esther, where one of the issues is to show that the Jews, whether or not they are integrated into a foreign imperial power, must maintain solidarity within their group. Esther is faced with a real choice: will she join in solidarity with her people, or will she continue to hide behind her appearance as Persian queen? In the first case, she takes a huge risk, but who knows whether she is there precisely for that reason? In the second case, she acts as a traitor and Mordecai expresses the wish that she might perish. This commentary chooses a third possible interpretation of 4:14a.28 Mordecai raises a rhetorical question: if Esther does nothing, will deliverance come from elsewhere? This question leads to the assertion that Esther will probably die: “for if you keep silent during this time, will respite and deliverance present themselves for the Jews from another place? You and your father’s house will perish.” In late Hebrew, interrogative sentences can omit an interrogative particle.29 Such a rhetorical question presupposes that it is highly unlikely that someone else will intervene instead of Esther. The assertion that Esther, like all of her father’s house, cannot escape, logically connects with the beginning of the verse. The speech attributed to Mordecai suggests that any hope of personal deliverance

25 To get around this difficulty one could argue that “you and the house of your father will perish” is rhetorical and not to be taken literally (BERLIN, Esther, 49), or that the Jews will extract vengeance upon Esther’s entire family. 26 This hypothesis was formulated by MACCHI, “Dieu,” 67-68, 70. 27 If another element is placed in emphatic position, the jussive will not necessarily be placed at the head of the sentence. See the usage of ‫ יעבר‬in 2 Sam 19:38-39. 28 This interpretation, first formulated by WIEBE, “Esther 4:14,” is followed notably by BUSH, Esther, 396-397; HARVEY, Morality, 29-35; MACCHI, “Dieu,” 65-71; NGANGURA MANYANYA, Figures, 197; ROSSIER, intercession, 270. 29 See WALTKE-O’CONNOR § 18.1.c n. 1 and JOÜON § 161a.

2) May You Die!

3) Will Deliverance Come from Elsewhere?

176

Who Knows Whether

4:15-17

Esther’s Fast

Passover and Fasting

Chapter 4. Mordecai Solicits Esther’s Help

entertained by Esther (v. 13) is absurd, since without her intervention, no other salvific act will occur. Furthermore, as a Jew, she will be consumed by the tragic destiny of her people. According to the logic of the MT, once Mordecai made his own Jewishness known, he indirectly unveiled Esther’s Jewishness. Mordecai’s closeness to the queen is public knowledge, as suggested by his concern with her well-being (2:11), and information that he provides the king through her (2:2123). Moreover, Esther’s attendants seem to know about their closeness (4:4). According to this understanding of the verse, even as queen integrated into the Persian court, Esther cannot escape the doom that awaits the Jews. She is thus constrained to perform an action that she alone can accomplish. “Who knows whether it is for a time such as this that you have attained royal status?” formulates a hypothesis that the position Esther occupies could help to save the Jews. The interrogative “Who knows?” introduces a hypothesis and invites an action whose outcome is uncertain.30 The narrative that follows suggests, however, that it is good for a “time (‫ )עת‬such as this” that Esther has become queen. Consequently, Mordecai interprets the “times” in a manner that is wiser and clever than Memucan (1:13ff.) and Haman (3:7-13). Esther’s answer shows that she accepts the risk to her life (16b) and takes her destiny and that of her community into her own hands.31 Esther orders a threeday fast for all the Jews of Susa, in which she participates with her maidens. She organizes a ritual for her people with whom hereafter she will be in solidarity and with whom she connects by means of the shared rite.32 The fasting is introduced by the proto-Masoretic editors instead of cultic practice and prayer that appears in Proto-Esther. The fast practiced henceforth by the Jews, menaced with the threat of destruction, contrasts with the numerous banquets for those who benefit from the empire’s kindness and glory (1:2-9; 2:18; 3:15; 8:17; 9:17-18). The MT’s date for this fast makes sense. It lasts from the thirteenth to the fifteenth of Nisan,33 that is, during the Passover festival. For a Jewish reader, these chronological indications are immediately understood as an allusion to Passover.34 In making Passover during the twelfth year of Ahasuerus’s reign into a period of fasting, the editor signals that the very existence of Judaism is put into question. The commemoration of deliverance thus transforms into a rite of mourning and fasting.

30 See the usage in 2 Sam 12:22; Joel 2:14; Jonah 3:9; Ps 90:11. CRENSHAW, “Expression,” 274-278. 31 Until here, she followed the instructions of the men who surrounded her (2:10, 15, 20) or to the customs of the Persian court. From this point, she becomes an independent actor (DAY, Esther, 88-90). 32 See WETTER, “Unexpected,” 327-332. 33 The edict is proclaimed on the thirteenth of Nisan (Esth 3:12-13), and the events of Chapter 4 unfold without interruption immediately after. 34 See Tg. Esth. I. 5:1; Mid. Panim Aḥerim 70-71; b. Meg. 15a and Rashi (cf. SEGAL, Babylonian, vol. 2, 260-263), and among modern exegetes: BERLIN, Esther, xxxvii-xxxviii; CLINES, Esther, 303; LEVENSON, Esther, 89; WHITE CRAWFORD, “Book,” 905. Christianity rarely uses the motif (cf. Catherine Brown TKACZ, “Esther as a Type of Christ and the Jewish Celebration of Purim,” StPatr 44 (2010), 183-187, 184-185).

Diachronic Analysis

177

The circumstances and functions of fasting are not the same throughout ancient Is- Fasting in Anrael.35 Fasting appears occasionally in the context of mourning (1 Sam 31:13; 2 Sam cient Israel 1:12; 3:35-36; 1 Chr 10:12). More frequently, it is practiced during collective crises and serves as plea for deliverance or divine intervention (Judg 20:26; Jer 14:12; Jdt 4:9-14). Moreover, it can also express repentance (1 Kgs 21:27; Jonah 3:5-8; Neh 1:4; 9:1; Dan 9:1-2; Joel 2:12-13). Finally, fasting can sometimes act as a rite of contrition, permitting prayer, communion with the divine, and preparation for ordeals (Isa 58:3-6; Joel 1:14; Ps 35:15; Ezra 8:21-23; Dan 9:1; Sir 34:31; T. Jos. 3; 4; 8; 9:2; T. Mos. 9:6). Days of institutional fasting increased toward the end of the Persian period and also the Hellenistic period (Zech 7-8; Jer 36:6, 9). The scroll of fasts, Megillat Ta’anit, specifies the days on which fasting is prohibited.36

Esther requests that everyone “fast for me.” Even if the exact function of this fast is not explicit, after the rhetorical question, “who knows whether it is for a time such as this that you have attained royal status?” it is clearly preparatory to taking a vital risk. This fast seems connected to the uncertainty of the human condition. It could serve as preparation for loss and mourning, but also constitute a gesture that signals an expected rescue from God.37 The result of such an expectation remains uncertain, however, as in the episode where David fasts in the hope of receiving a pardon which never comes (2 Sam 12:16-23). The queen subsequently confirms that she will go to the king despite the If I Must Die edict. She accepts that her obligations to her people are more important than the rules and edicts of the court. The construction “and if I must die, then I will die” ‫ וכאשׁר אבדתי אבדתי‬indicates a form of resignation and acceptance of risk,38 for there is neither certainty of rescue nor misfortune, but only the acceptance of a risk to take. Mordecai carries out Esther’s instructions, emphasizing Esther’s change in Esther’s Leadstatus. Henceforth she is a leader of the Jewish community. The phrase “Mordecai ership (…) did ‫ עשׂה‬all that Esther had ordered ‫ צוה‬him” inverts 2:20, where she did what Mordecai ordered.

Diachronic Analysis The diachronic analysis of Chapter 4 corroborates the hypothesis that the Alpha Text (without the additions) is a translation of Proto-Esther, the Hebrew text under-

35 On fasting in ancient Israel, see Thomas PODELLA, Ṣôm-Fasten: Kollektive Trauer um den verborgene Gott im Alten Testament (AOAT 224), Kevelaer Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1989; David LAMBERT, “Fasting as Penitential Rite: A Biblical Phenomenon?,” HTR 96 (2003), 477-512; John MUDDIMAN, “Fast, Fasting,” in ABD, vol 2, 773-776; and Veronika E. GRIMM, From Feasting to Fasting, the Evolution of a Sin: Attitudes to Food in Late Antiquity, London et al., 1996, 20-33. 36 Megillat Ta’anit dates to the first or second century CE. See NOAM, Taanit. 37 See VIALLE, analyse, 39-41 and ROSSIER, intercession, 264. 38 For a similar construction in comparable circumstances see Gen 43:14 “if I must be bereaved, I will be bereaved” ‫כאשׁר שׁכלתי שׁכלתי‬.

178

Diachronic Analysis

lying the proto-Masoretic redaction – from the Maccabean-Hasmonean era – that resulted in a textual form close to the consonantal form of the MT.39

Proto-Esther The broad strokes of the Masoretic narrative are already present in Proto-Esther, which nevertheless is practically half as long. The mourning of the Jews is described succinctly and follows directly after the mention of the consternation in Susa. The long-distance relationship between Esther and Mordecai is described more briefly in Proto-Esther where the return trip of the eunuch (vv. 5-8MT) is not mentioned. It is Mordecai who takes the initiative to contact the queen, who in turn requests the removal of the sackcloth explicitly to permit him to come inside. The weighty procedures of the Persian court are much less present in ProtoEsther than in the MT. Starting from 4:7AT (//11MT) the dialogue’s construction is close to that of the MT. The queen’s reticence is followed by a confirmation of Mordecai’s request and an order requesting the establishment of a ritual. As ProtoEsther does not mention that Esther hides the fact that she is Jewish, Mordecai does not mention that she might hope to be saved herself alone (4:13bMT has no parallel).40 Moreover, Proto-Esther mentions divine action. Mordecai confirms that God could intervene, and Esther orders that he pray to God and establish a religious service. The translation below is based upon the Alpha Text of the book of Esther Chapter 4 (HANHART, ed., Esther, 156-161).

1 Mordecai learned all that had happened, the city of Susa was in distress concerning what had happened, and all the Jews undertook a great and cruel mourning throughout the city. 2 Mordecai, having gone into his house, removed his clothes and clothed himself in sackcloth; then having covered himself in ashes, he went out as far as the outer court and stopped, for no one could enter into the royal palace dressed in sackcloth. 3 He called a eunuch and sent him to Esther. The queen said: “Take off his sackcloth and make him come in.” 4 However, he did not want to, and said: “Thus go and say to her: ‘Do not shy away from going to the king and charming him for me and for the people.’” [Placement of the first verse of Addition C41]. 6 He also informed her about Israel’s hardship. 7 She sent to him the following reply: “You yourself know, as does everybody, that whoever goes to the king without summons, and to whom he does not extend his golden scepter, may be punished by death. 8 Yet, I have not been called to him for thirty days, so how can I enter now without summons?” 9 And Mordecai sent word to her: “If you neglect your people by not coming to their aid, then it will be God who will serve as

39 See Introduction, A. Textual Forms and Editorial Stages. 40 HALVORSON-TAYLOR, “Secrets,” 479. 41 The first part of Addition C is found here in the AT (cf. below § Greek Textual Corrections and Additions).

179

Proto-Masoretic Editing and the Emergence of the MT

help and deliverance for them; but you and the house of your father will be destroyed. 10 Who knows if you have reigned for this time?” 11 The queen sent word to him: “Proclaim a service of worship and pray to God with fervor, and I and my maidens will do the same. Then I will go to the king without summons, even if I must die.” 12 And Mordecai did thus. [Additions C and D are inserted later at this point.] The numbering of the verses in HANHART’s AT does not correspond to that of the MT.

AT/Pr.Esth

1

2

3

MT

1a+3+3:15 1b+2 4

4

6

7

8

8b

9

10+11a 11b

9

10

13-14a 14b

11

12

15-16 17

The AT translates a Proto-Esther approximately half as long as the MT. The editors of the proto-Masoretic text were not content to merely add “pluses” to Proto-Esther; they also changed the organization of the passage. In the sections where Proto-Esther is parallel to the MT, the Hebrew text corresponds grosso modo to its consonantal content. In the majority of cases, the synopsis of Jobes shows the places where the Masoretic Hebrew corresponds to the Vorlage of the AT.42 The substantial transformations by the proto-Masoretic editors led to the suppression or to the replacement of elements in Proto-Esther. In 4:2, the “outer court” is replaced with “the king’s gate”; in v. 3 the elements “he called a eunuch and sent him to Esther” and “make him come in” were removed, when the editors inserted 4-8aMT; in v. 6, “Israel’s hardship” is dropped, at the time of the addition 4:7-8MT; the mention “your people by not coming to their aid, then it will be God who will serve… for them” (v. 9) drops when this section is reorganized (cf. 14MT); in 11 the “service of worship” is replaced by a fast.

Proto-Masoretic Editing and the Emergence of the MT The proto-Masoretic editors from the Maccabean-Hasmonean era inserted an entire series of “pluses” and corrected several aspects of Proto-Esther. Verses 3 to 10 are almost entirely editorial. In 1, “into the midst of the city, he let out a loud and bitter cry.” In 2, the mention of The MT “the entrance of the king’s gate.” In 3, “In every province, in every place where the “Pluses” king’s command and his decree reached” and “with fasting and tears and lamenting, many laying in sackcloth and ashes.” Verse 4, except for “to take off his sackcloth. However, he did not consent.” The entirety of vv. 5-8a (until “…to inform her”). In 8b, “to request his mercy.” In 9 and 10, the MT largely reformats Proto-Esther by emphasizing Hathach’s presence and by indicating the names of Esther and Mordecai. In 11, “all the king’s servants and the people of the king’s provinces” and “through the inner court.” Verse 12 is an MT “plus.” In 13, “Do not think that you, in the king’s house,

42 See the synopsis of JOBES, Alpha-Text. The translation above, having been made from a Greek translation of Proto-Esther – and not the Hebrew Proto-Esther itself – may vary slightly in the precise construction of the parallel passages.

180

Changes in Organization of the Narrative

Functioning of the Court

All the Jews in Danger

Judaism that Remains Hidden

Diachronic Analysis will be saved as opposed to all the Jews.” In 14, “during this time” and “for the Jews from another place.” In 16, “Go and gather all the Jews to be found in Susa and fast for me. Do not eat or drink for three days, night and day” and “I … will also fast.” In 17, “withdrew” and “all that Esther had ordered him.” The sequence of events appearing in vv. 1-2 of Proto-Esther is corrected in the MT: Susa is thrown into consternation (3:15MT // 4:1bAT), Mordecai learns of events (4:1aαMT // 4:1aAT), Mordecai clothes himself for mourning and appears before the palace (4:1aβ4:2MT // 4:2AT), the Jews mourn (4:3MT // 4:1cAT).

The editorial elements slightly modify the meaning of the episode and introduce several themes and motifs absent from Proto-Esther. The formality of court practices is emphasized in the proto-Masoretic redaction of Chapter 4. In Proto-Esther, communication between Mordecai and Esther is easy enough even though they are in different locations. In the MT, their dialogue is much more complex. Thus 4:3-10MT, almost entirely editorial, insists on the difficulty of communicating between inside and outside the palace. This communication is facilitated by the queen’s court personnel, first by her maidens and then by Hathach. In 4:4MT Mordecai cannot contact Esther himself; however, she must be informed of the situation by those close to her. As for vv. 4:5-10MT, these verses emphasize Hathach’s function as the go-between between the heroes. It is not until 4:13MT, after Esther has agreed to be in solidarity with her people, that the dialogue between her and Mordecai seems to become direct, as though the heavyhandedness of the Persian court has finally disappeared. In 4:7-8aMT the weighty procedure of issuing the edict targeting the Jews is called to mind. Finally, in 4:11MT the proto-Masoretic reworking ironizes the weightiness of the imperial system. The administration seems so onerous that it informs all the inhabitants of the empire of a procedure that only concerns the capital, and so absurd that it prohibits anyone living inside the palace to approach the king “through the inner court.” While Proto-Esther mentions only the reaction of the Jews of Susa, proto-Masoretic editing emphasizes that all the Jews of the empire are concerned. As well as the general character of the menace, v. 3 stresses the bereaved reaction of all Jews. These additions are consistent with those that, in Chapter 3, stress the wide circulation of the decree and set the stage for Chapters 8-9 in which all the Jews of the empire are involved. Moreover, the first two verses of the chapter are rearranged to move Mordecai’s reaction prior to that of all the Jews, in order to underline his position as leader of the Jews. In this chapter, the editors continue to show that, for a Jew, assimilation within a foreign world by hiding one’s identity is unacceptable. The “plus,” “in the midst of the city, and he let out a loud and bitter cry” (4:1), underlines that, after having revealed his identity, from that moment forward Mordecai participates in the destiny of his people in a public fashion. The editors call to mind the ambiguity of Mordecai’s previous situation. He can no longer gain access to “the king’s gate” (4:2, 6) where he worked, and where, therefore, he had refused to prostrate himself like the other functionaries (3:2-3MT). However, thanks to his former position in the court, he could share confidential information with Esther concerning the sale of the Jews (v. 7MT). As for Esther, the episode shows that as Persian queen, she is a recluse and cut off from her people. She does not know anything at first about the situation of the Jews (v. 4MT) and must rely upon communication via the court institution in order to know more (v. 5-

The Greek Translations and the Late Modifications of the MT

181

10MT). Finally, the insertion of the “plus,” “do not think that you, in the king’s house, will be saved as opposed to all the Jews” (v. 13) denounces the false sense of security of Jews who believed they were protected by their assimilation within the empire. In vv. 14 and 16, proto-Masoretic editing modifies Mordecai’s argument and Es- Absence of ther’s response. Contrary to what the Proto-Esther translation assumes (“then it will be God and Rites God who will serve as help and deliverance for them” [9AT])43, v. 14MT mentions neither God nor God’s deliverance to come. The MT invokes only an uncertain aid that will come “for the Jews from another place.” Furthermore, the editors changed the nature of the rite requested by Esther. An address to the divine is no longer necessarily present, since the rite no longer concerns a service of worship, but rather a “fast,” a rite that can of course aim to obtain divine protection, but that can also be associated with situations without outcome, such as periods of mourning. These modifications are part of a global editorial strategy aimed at not making explicit reference to divine action. The editors do not deny the possibility of divine intervention; the narrative even suggests it. Yet, they want to make readers think about the forms of divine action and the theological issues that are hidden behind the narrated events. Esther cannot simply wait with confidence, she must take action. The question, “who knows whether it is for a time such as this that you have attained royal status?” indicates that there is no certainty that Esther can interpret what has happened as an intervention willed from a higher power and hope that her actions as wife correspond to this will. Finally, by avoiding any reference to worship and prayer, the editors do not want to de-Judaize the narrative, but to emphasize the dramatic character of the situation. Esther proclaims a day of fasting at the moment when the Passover meal should have been celebrated.

The Greek Translations and the Late Modifications of the MT The translator of the LXX worked in a free style, which can account for numerous variants.44 In certain cases, however, differences are the result of glosses inserted into the MT after the LXX had been translated. Such is the case in v. 6, a late explanatory gloss. A lengthy “plus“ figures in a form almost identical in 4:8LXX and in 4:4b-5AT: “remember the days of your humble condition, as you were fed from my hand, for Haman who is the second in command spoke to the king against us to put us to death. Call upon the Lord! Speak of us to the king and save us from death! (LXX).” Passages absent from the MT, but present in both the LXX and the AT, primarily only appear in Additions A-F.45 As with the additions, this passage was

43 The wording of Proto-Esther is uncertain. The AT Ἐὰν ὐπερίδῃς τὸ ἔθνος σου τοῦ μὴ βοηθῆσαι αὐτοῖς, ἀλλ᾽ ὁ θεὸς ἔσται αὐτοῖς βοηθὸς καὶ σωτηρία “If you neglect your people by not coming to their aid, then it will be God who will serve as help and deliverance for them” could translate from a Hebrew text ‫כי אם־תחרישׁי להושיע עמך רוח‬ ‫והצלה יעמוד מאלהים‬. 44 See notably the elements mentioned in the textual notes 1a; 12a; 13a-a. 45 This particularity was used to defend the dependence of the AT upon the LXX: TOV, “Lucianic,” 537-538, 44. CLINES, Scroll, 110-111; and FOX, Redaction, 120 see a specific influence of the LXX on the AT.

Late Corrections to the MT Late Greek Corrections

182

Synthesis

probably inserted late into both the AT and the LXX. It could even serve as the first part of the original form of Addition C which would have contained three parts: a request from Mordecai to Esther (4:8LXX//4:4b-5AT); a prayer of Mordecai (C,1-11); and then Esther’s own prayer (C,12-30). The numerous evocations of Greek vocabulary in 4:8bLXX//4:4b-5AT in the rest of Addition C support this hypothesis.46

Synthesis This episode describes Esther’s decision to risk her life. The analysis showed that the proto-Masoretic editors organized the earlier content of Proto-Esther to emphasize the weightiness of the imperial court and the necessity for the Jewish queen to free herself from it, to fully show solidarity with her people. The staging of Esther’s situation, torn between her comfortable position in the court and the call to reveal her Jewish identity at the risk of dramatic consequences, calls to mind the situation of Jews under Hellenistic power and who, during the Maccabean era, had to choose their sides when imperial politics and law suppressed traditional Jewish life. Regarding theological discourse, the proto-Masoretic editing avoids explicit mention of divine action, but underlines the importance of the action of the heroes.

46 See the vocabulary for death θάνατος (C,11-12); deliverance ῥῦσαι (C,25, 30); humiliation ταπείνωσις ταπεινόω (C,13); memory μιμνῄσκομαι μνημονεύω (C,1, 23); etc. The idea that the “plus” of 4:8bLXX is a late exegetical addition seems unlikely (contra KAHANA, Esther, 195; MOORE, additions, 202).

Chapter 5. Haman’s Honors Introduction Chapter 5 first recounts how Esther approaches the king and invites both him and Haman to two separate banquets (1-8). Next, the chapter describes Haman’s reaction following the first banquet (9-14). While Chapter 4 portrayed a hestitant Esther who displayed a crisis of conscience, from 5:1-8 she behaves like a heroine, influencing the course of events with determination and cunning. Accepting the risk to her life in order to plead the case of her people, she serves as an example for Jews assimilated within the Hellenistic world who might have been tempted to make different choices. Her audience before the king and the invitiations that she extends to him are presented as the fruits of a well-developed and elaborate strategy. She approaches the sovereign with charm (1-2), just as she did when she became his wife (2:15-17). When the king asks her to make her request (vv. 3, 6) she invites him to dine, and in so doing acts in a manner opposite to Vashti, who humiliated Ahasuerus by refusing his invitation to a banquet (1:10-12). In addition, she manipulates men. She reinforces her connection with her spouse in a drunken setting, proper for the reversal of the situation. As for Haman, she leads him to become vain (12), by inviting him into the intimate setting of the royal couple’s banquets, without his realizing that he is being trapped. Finally, her wording of the invitation to the second banquet (8) reinforces the royal promise to fulfill Esther’s future request. After leaving the banquet, Haman encounters Mordecai, whose attitude annoys him afresh (9). Most of the following scene (10-14) takes place at Haman’s house where he consults his wife and his friends, just as the king consulted his specialists before ousting Vashti. His behavior brings to light the real motivations for his actions against the Jews. Contrary to what he tells the king in Chapter 3, he is not worried about state security, but rather seeks revenge against Mordecai. The passage ultimately ridicules him. Haman presents his situation to the court (11-12) with such pride that one gets the impression that he believes himself to be the king. Moreover, the disparity between his powerful position and his inability to bear the thought that the person he condemned to death – along with his people – does not stand up before him, makes him ridiculous. Finally, Haman’s wife takes control of matters: so that he will attain total honor, she suggests that he erect an enormous gallows to expose the body of his enemy. Albeit indirectly, the procedure envisaged by Zeresh puts Haman back into his true place: as a simple subject of the king, he must go and request authorization to proceed. This passage cleverly sets the scene for Chapter 6, where he who almost believes himself to be king must honor the one whom he wanted to humiliate.

184

Esther’s First Banquet (5:1-8)

Esther’s First Banquet (5:1-8) a

1 The third day, Esther bclothed herself royallyb; she stood in the inner court of the king’s house, facing the king’s house. The king was sitting on his royal throne in the house of royalty, facing the entrance of the house. 2 When the king saw Queen Esther standing in the court, she gained favor in his eyes. The king held out to Esther the golden scepter that he had in his hand. Esther approached, and touched the tip of the scepter.a 3 The king said to her: “What is it, Queen Esther? What is your request? Even to half of the kingdom, it shall be granted youa.” 4 Esther said: a“If it pleases the king, let the king come with Hamanb todayc to the banquet that I have prepared for him.” 5 The king said: “Urge Haman to carry out Esther’s words.” The king came with Haman to the banquet that Esther had prepared. 6 During the wine banquet, the king said to Esther: “What is your wish? it shall be granted youa. What is your request? bEven to half of the kingdom, it shall be done.b” 7 Esther replied and said: “aMy wish and my request…a 8 if I have found favor in the eyes of the king, and if it pleases the king to grant my wish and to do my request, let the king come with Haman to the banquet that I will prepare for thema and tomorrow I will do according to the king’s words.”

Notes on Text and Translation 1-2a-a Instead of these two verses, LXX and AT introduce Addition D here. 1b-b ‫ מלכות‬functions as an adverb “royally” or genetive “of royalty.” Contra RUDOLPH, “Estherbuch,” 89; MOORE, Esther, 55 and BARDTKE, “Esther,” 336 there is no need to correct the MT by adding ‫“ לבושׁ‬vestment” before ‫( מלכות‬BERLIN, Esther, 52 and BUSH, Esther, 402). 3a The verb is impersonal (cf. below n. 6a). 4a LXX and AT introduce a passage absent from the MT: “for me, today (AT tomorrow) is a remarkable day.” The substance of this passage may have figured in the protoMasoretic Hebrew text. b AT, JOSEPHUS, Ant. 11.242 and OL mention here “your friend.” This variant is perhaps original and may have been deleted in order to harmonize with vv. 5 and 8. c Missing from some MSS of the MT and in the Peshitta. The AT has “tomorrow” (cf. also 4a). 6a As opposed to the parallel sentence in 7:2 and to the verb ‫ עשׂה‬at the end of this verse, which are feminine as expected, to accord with ‫“ שׁאלה‬wish”, the verb ‫ נתן‬here is in the masculine impersonal “it shall be granted you.” See BERLIN, Esther, 54. b-b The LXX removed the end of the verse, which is redundant with v. 3. 7a-a Anacoluthon. See textual note 6:7a-a. 8a The MT does not specificy that the second banquet takes place the next day. The other versions specify the point perhaps for clarification (BUSH, Esther, 402), unless in the MT, ‫ מחר‬had been situated before ‫ ומחר‬and fell away by haplography (BHK; MOORE, Esther, 54, 57; BARDTKE, “Esther,” 336).

Synchronic Analysis

185

Synchronic Analysis Chapter 5:1-8 describes the first steps of Esther’s intervention. The first part of the passage (vv. 1-2) describes the initial trial that the heroine overcomes:1 her arrival before the king without losing her life (cf. 4:11). The chronological note is followed by the specific locations of both Esther and the king (v. 1), then v. 2 describes the king’s reaction to save her by extending the golden scepter to her. The second part of the passage (vv. 3-8) describes Esther’s first banquet in three steps. In the course of a dialogue with the king, Esther extends an invitation to both him and Haman (vv. 3-4). The king arrives at the banquet (v. 5). In a new dialogue between Esther and the king, when she is again asked for her request (v. 6), Esther replies that she will make it during the banquet that she will arrange for the following day (vv. 7-8). Esther arrives on “the third day” of the fast ordered in 4:16. According to the chronology of the MT, the date is the fifteenth of Nisan, a date with symbolic importance, since it evokes God’s deliverance of the Israelites from Egypt following the first Passover (Exodus 12). While in Chapter 4, Esther’s hesitations and worries were expressed at length (4:4, 11), here, she seems to risk her life with determination, without emotion. This attitude logically introduces the narrative of the two banquets that she arranges, during which she takes the upper hand over the other characters with cunning and without showing her feelings.2 Esther comports herself as she did during her first encounter with the king (Ch. 2),3 and in the opposite manner as Vashti when she lost royal status. As in the beauty contest scene, preparation for appearing before the king is mentioned: “Esther clothed herself royally.” It has been suggested that she may have removed a mourning garment, donned at the time of fasting.4 However, as the MT does not associate Esther’s fast with wearing mourning apparel (4:16), and implies that sackcloth cannot be worn in the palace (4:2), it means that she disgards her usual attire to dress herself in ceremonial apparel. In 5:1, the term “royalty” also applies to the throne and to the house, which shows that, as in 2:15, Esther knows to dress for the occasion. Moreover, the mention of Esther’s royal attire perhaps alludes to a “royal diadem” that she dons when becoming queen (2:17) and that Vashti should have worn had she obeyed the king (1:11). As anticipated in 4:11, as royal spouse she must present herself through “the inner court.” As if to prolong the suspense, the passage describes very precisely the placement of the characters – the queen, standing in the court, and the king sitting on his throne facing the entrance, from where he sees her.

1

2 3 4

The organization of the passage implies that for Esther, arriving in the king’s presence constitutes a trial distinct from those that will permit her to obtain a favorable royal decision (5:3-8 and Ch. 7). VIALLE, analyse, 42, instead separates the passage into two parallel phases (1-5a / 5b-8), each containing a narrative introduction (1-2 / 5b) and a dialogue (3-5a / 6-8). The editors of Addition D lessened Esther’s determination by attributing to her procrastination and worries. This point is emphasized by DAY, Esther, 96; WHITE CRAWFORD, “Book,” 908. This point is implied by Addition C,12-14 and D,1; also JOSEPHUS, Ant. 11.231-234.

Passage Organization

5:1-2

Clothing Oneself Royally

186

Esther’s First Banquet (5:1-8)

House of Roy- The royal throne is “in the house of royalty,” an expression that designates the alty heart of the palace: the private chamber of the throne room.5 There, Vasthi orga-

She Gained Favor

5:3-8 What Is It?

Even to Half of the Kingdom

nized the women’s banquet (1:9) and the king fell in love with Esther (2:16). The mention of this location suggests that by arriving without summons in the “house of royalty,” Esther acts in a fashion opposite to Vashti, who had declined to leave from there (1:11-12) by refusing a summons. Moreover, as in 2:9, 15, and 17, Esther charms her entourage: She “gained favor” in the king’s eyes.6 Finally, 5:2 ends by mentioning that the king holds out the “golden scepter”7 to Esther, a procedure the formality of which MT accentuates, mentioning that Esther touches the tip of the sceptre. The king’s question in v. 3 follows the logical sequence of the narrative. As Esther has risked her life to present herself before him, she must have an important request to address to him. The expression ‫ מה־לך‬can be understood in two ways. It could imply a question concerning Esther’s state of mind, “What is your problem?” Or, it could imply an invitation to formulate a request “What can I do for you?” Both meanings are attested,8 and the present context does not indicate which is preferred. On the other hand, the second part of the royal question “what is your request?” (3bα) clearly invites her to formulate a request. In any case, in response to the king’s two questions, Esther addresses a request to him, but she does not speak about her problem straightaway.9 As in the rest of the dialogue, Ahasuerus addresses his wife with the protocol of her title: “Queen Esther.” The king promises in advance to accept her request, “even to half of the kingdom.” The motif of the Persian king’s extreme generosity for his subjects already appeared during the two banquets in Chapter 1 (1:7-8) and during the beauty contest (2:13). The motif recurs frequently in Greek literature.10 The offer that, according to Herodotus, Xerxes extends to his mistress Artaÿnte, has often been compared to the present situation.11 He “told her to ask for anything she

5 As especially emphasized by MOORE, Esther, 55. 6 The fact that this event occured during the time of Passover could lead one to think that this expression alludes to Exod 12:36, where the Israelites obtain God’s favor in the sight of the Egyptians (LEVENSON, Esther, 89). 7 The sexual connotation of the expression “to extend the scepter” is hardly supported by the text (contra ALTER, World, 32). b. Meg. 15b mentions that an angel holds out the king’s scepter (Samuel T. LACHS, “Sexual Imagery in Three Rabbinic Passages,” JSJ 23 (1992), 244-248, 245-246, seen mistakenly as a sexual connotation cf. SEGAL, Midrash, Vol. 3 9). 8 For the meaning of “What is your problem?” cf. Gen 21:17; Ps 114:5; for the meaning “What can I do for you?” cf. Josh 15:18 or 1 Kgs 1:16. See the debate in FOX, Character, 68, 281; BERLIN, Esther, 53; and BUSH, Esther, 404. 9 It is only in 7:4 that the queen explains her problem to the king, after having formulated her true request in 7:3. 10 Hydarnes associates submission to the king with obtaining wealth (HERODOTUS, Hist. 7.135; see also 7.29). 11 This classic parallel is often raised. See PATON, Esther, 232; BARDTKE, “Esther,” 337-338; BERLIN, Esther, 50-51; CLINES, Esther, 304; FOX, Character, 68; GERLEMAN, Esther, 109-110; WAHL, Esther, 128; etc.

187

Synchronic Analysis

fancied as a reward for her favours, and he would assuredly grant it,”12 before being put in a delicate situation by Artaÿnte, who insisted upon receiving the robe that his wife had given him.13 In Esther, the heroine does not force Ahasuerus to keep his promise, but the wording of her invitation to the second banquet (5:8) aims to push him to honor his promise. In 5:4, Esther replies to the king by inviting him to an initial banquet. The If It Pleases expression, “if it pleases the king,” skillfully conveys deference for the sovereign. the King Esther thus appears as a wise courtesan adept in the art of addressing the king. In the remainder of the narrative, the queen’s honorific formulations will become more and more developed, as will the importance of her requests. The formulaic expressions that open each speech play an important rhetorical role. Salutations They show the hierarchy between the speaker and the addressee. The expression “if it pleases the king” ‫ אם־על־המלך טוב‬almost always opens requests or propositions addressed to Ahasuerus, and underlines the preeminence of the king in the decisionmaking process.14 The same form of the expression appears in 5:4 as it does on the lips of Memucan (1:19), Haman (3:9), and Esther (9:13). When Esther addresses the king, this expression is most frequently associated with other honorific formulations that display increasing deference linked to the growing importance of the issue, and make Esther into a clever rhetorician.

5:4

(a) If it pleases the king…

5:8

(b) If I found favor in the eyes of the king (a) and if it pleases the king…

7:3

(b) If I found favor in your eyes, O King

8:5

(a) and if it pleases the king… (a) If it pleases the king

(b) and if I found favor before him

(c) and if the matter suits the king and I am good in his eyes…

In 5:4, a short formulation opens the invitation to the first banquet. In 5:8, the invitation to the banquet where Esther will explain her true request, along with the request for deliverance in 7:3, are introduced by more developed formulations. Finally, in 8:5 the request to annul the decree is introduced in an even further developed fashion. Esther’s rhetorical subtlety, “If I have found favor,” also attributes to the king the merit of offering his favor (in an active manner), while in reality the narrator relates that it is Esther who “won his favor” (in 2:9, 15, 17; 5:2 the action verb “to lift” is used). In two cases only, no honorary formula opens a speech addressed to the king: in 2:2-4, when the attendants suggest a beauty contest, and in 6:7-8, where Haman’s hubris (6:6) is emphasized by the absence of deference.

12 HERODOTUS, Hist. 9.109, (translation A. BARGUET, 649). 13 The motif of the thoughtless promise to give whatever is requested is also found elsewhere in ancient literature. See the offer that Phoebus makes Phaton in Ovid (according to Catherine Brown TKACZ, “Ovid, Jerome and the Vulgate,” StPatr 33 (1997), 378-382, Jerome saw a parallel in Metamorphoses 2.44), or the one made by Herod to the daughter of Herodias (cf. Mark 6:17-29; Matt 14:3-12). 14 Similar expressions appear in speeches addressed to the Persian king in Neh 2:5, 7 and Ezra 5:17, and in Aramaic literature (cf. GERLEMAN, Esther, 68, COWLEY, papyri 27:19, 21; 30:23).

188

Esther’s First Banquet (5:1-8)

Let the King The wording of Esther’s invitation, ‫יבוא המלך והמן היום‬, possibly alludes to the Come with Ha- Tetragrammaton since the first letter of each word spells out the name of God man Today “YHWH” ‫יהוה‬15. Upon reading the verse, no one is fooled. The invitation does

For Him / For Them

Urge Haman

My Wish and My Request…

not constitute the queen’s true request. It is thus logical that during the course of the banquet, the king will reiterate his offer for her to make a request (5:6; 7:2). Unlike the public banquets of 1:3-4, 5-8, 9; 2:18; 8:17; and 9:17-19, the invitation here is only for the king and Haman. Haman’s presence at a banquet that the queen arranges for her husband may surprise. Haman’s association with the royal couple’s banquet will grow between Esther’s first and second banquet. In 5:4 the banquet is for the king (“for him” ‫ )לו‬while in 5:8 it is “for them” ‫להם‬, which suggests that the king shares the place of honor with Haman. If Esther’s invitation seems to constitute an immense honor for Haman, who rejoices over this fact (5:9, 12), the phrase “the banquet that I will prepare for them” in 5:8 is not lacking in irony, since the banquet of Chapter 7 is for the purpose of arranging for his death. In 5:4 the king immediately accepts Esther’s invitation. He then orders: “Urge Haman to do what Esther has spoken.” In Esther, several actions are undertaken willingly. Two terms are used: ‫“ בהל‬to hurry” (2:9; 6:14; 8:14), and ‫“ מהר‬to urge” (5:5; 6:10). Here, “to urge” indicates that the king is impatient to honor the queen’s invitation and that he has authority over Haman. A series of cases now unfold where, by the king’s order, events occur quickly for Haman (cf. 6:10, 14). The phrase, “to carry out Esther’s words,” shows that her authority increases. After the Jews fulfilled her orders (4:17), her speech becomes henceforth royal exigency. In 5:6, the king again invites the queen to make her request. The invitation is more developed than in 5:3. In 5:6, the two parallel components provide the opening to formulate a request (“What is your wish?” “What is your request?”) and the promise to follow through with said request (“It shall be granted you,” “Even to half …”).16 In 5:7-8, the queen’s discourse is also more developed than in v. 4. Her rhetoric is more elaborate.17 The phrase, “my wish and my request…” should introduce her request. However, she is abruptly interrupted. From a rhetorical point of view,

15 It is difficult to know whether this observation, identified in certain codices, results from an editorial desire. Even though its intentionality is rarely defended (apart from ABADIE, “travestissement,” 302; ANDREY, “Esther 5:1-8”, 16), it cannot be totally excluded. The MT of Esther contains certain word games testifying to sophisticated scribal practices (cf. ‫ והשׁתיה‬and ‫ ושׁתי‬in 1:8, Abihail in 2:14), and cryptic processes appear in certain late texts (Sheshach ‫ בבל = ששך‬in Jer 25:26 and 51:41). That said, the three letters ‫י ה ו‬ are common and the phenomenon could also be by chance. 16 VIALLE, analyse, 42 asserts that, “les termes de la demande du roi sont amplifiés – chaque terme est doublé”, which is not completely true, since the construct, “what is it, Queen Esther?” in 5:3 is meant as a sort of introductory opening and not the first part of the king’s question to Esther. 17 The subtle rhetoric of vv. 7-8 has been well documented by CLINES, Esther, 305 and CLINES, Scroll, 37, which has been widely followed; cf. BUSH, Esther, 407-408; FOX, Character, 73; WHITE CRAWFORD, “Book,” 909.

Reasons for the Double Invitation to the Banquet

189

this anacoluthon provides expectation and surprise that emphasize the importance of what will follow.18 Verse 8 connects, while differing in its formulation, to the invitation to the next banquet. The phrase, “if it pleases the king to grant my request, let the king come with Haman to the banquet,” is a clever rhetorical construction because it implies that, by coming to the banquet, the king demonstrates simultaneously his intention to follow through on the request that will be made. Moreover, by concluding with, “tomorrow I will do according to what the king has said,” Esther cleverly transforms her request into an act of obedience to the royal will.

If It Pleases the King to Grant My Request

Reasons for the Double Invitation to the Banquet It is clear that Esther seeks to obtain from the king deliverance for the Jews. It is, moreover, what she asks of him during the second banquet (Ch. 7). That said, as in the case of Vashti’s refusal (1:12) and Mordecai’s (3:4), the editors do not make explicit the reasons that lead Esther to act as she does: for what reason does Esther invite the king to a banquet on two separate occasions, and why does she include Haman in these invitations? A Talmudic passage19 offers several explanations for Haman’s presence at the banquet. It could be that it served to trap him in accordance with Ps 69:23 (“let their table be a trap for them”); to respect the command to feed one’s enemy (Prov 25:21); to prevent Haman from conspiring or discovering that she is Jewish; to prevent the Jews becoming too confident in their deliverance; to have Haman at her disposal; to guard against an eventual royal change in mind; to make the king and other courtesans jealous; to make Haman full of himself before ruining him (Prov 16:18).

Modern exegetes have explained the queen’s enigmatic action in a variety of ways that are not necessarily mutually exclusive. We will investigate first the literary techniques of the doubling of the banquet and their effects; and then how Esther’s attitude can be explained in the world of the narrative. Finally, we will compare Esther’s attitude with the actions of Persian queens and princesses in Greek literature. The banquet repetition fits logically with the editorial design of the narrative. The fact that in 5:7-8 the queen does not make her request, but invites the king to dine anew, heightens the dramatic tension and the suspense. Moreover, the report of Esther’s request permits the introduction of a reversal sustained by Haman in his confrontation with Mordecai.20 Esther’s two banquets thus form the exterior frame (5:1-8 / 7:1-10) of a structure whose interior frame is formed from two episodes located at Haman’s home (5:9-14 / 6:12-14), and central within that is the episode when Mordecai is honored (6:1-11).21 In addition, having two banquets arranged by the queen corresponds to a recurring motif of this work, where ban-

18 BARDTKE, “Esther,” 339; BUSH, Esther, 404; CAZEAUX, guerre, 245. A similar construction is in 6:7. 19 b. Meg. 15b 20 Cf. BARDTKE, “Esther,” 339; BERLIN, Esther, 54; LEVENSON, Esther, 91; MOORE, Esther, 56-58; PATON, Esther, 236. 21 According to Y.T. RADDAY, “Chiasm,” 9-10; LEVENSON, Esther, 7-8. Chapter 6 is located centrally within the structure of the entire work.

Rabbinic Explanations for Haman’s Presence

Literary Techniques and Narrative Necessities

190

Esther’s Attitude in the World Described

Esther’s First Banquet (5:1-8)

quets always appear in pairs.22 Finally, one can also suppose that the two consecutive days of banqueting resulting in victory over Haman (Chs. 5 and 7) parallel the two days of fighting necessary to overcome the enemies of the Jews (Ch. 9).23 The organization of the work in itself does not explain Esther’s two banquets. It is probable that by describing a queen who arranges two banquets, the editors are suggesting that she is developing a strategy. It is unlikely that the narrative’s authors wanted to suggest that the second banquet invitation betrays fear or hesitation on Esther’s part.24 Indeed, after having reported Esther’s decision to intervene (4:16), the MT no longer attributes any hesitation to her. She overcomes without flinching a first mortal risk in 5:1-2, and her subsequent actions are all marked by a faultless determination.25 Consequently, Esther’s strategy can be explained in a number of ways. Inviting the king to a banquet to obtain a favorable decision seems to be simply good sense, since it establishes an agreeable situation with good rapport. In antiquity, banquets were a locale favored for negotiating, with the host taking a dominant position.26 The double invitation to the banquet prolongs the motifs of shrewdness and wisdom in Esther’s character that appear elsewhere in the narrative.27 The motifs show that she does not hurry to profit from the king’s alluring words (5:3, 6), but comports herself with patience, preferring to secure her position before taking action. In speaking of “wine banquets” (5:6; 7:2, 7-8) the editors suggest that Esther places Haman in a delicate situation. Indeed, it has become public knowledge since Vashti’s eviction (Ch. 1) that a drunken banquet is good for demoting a person of high status, which Chapter 7 will confirm.28 The king’s anger could be exacerbated (1:12; 7:7), men could commit blunders (the king summons the queen at the moment when only the concubines may be present 1:10-12 / Haman implores Esther while on her couch 7:7-8) and irrevocable decisions can be made, following in the wake of the words of a courtesan (1:16-20; 7:3-4, 6). Finally, Esther seems to play with the honor of her guests. She honors the king with two invitations as if to erase the humiliation he suffered from his former spouse who had refused his invitation. Moreover, she plays with Haman’s honor.

22 See the following on the banquet repetition and the strategic placement of Esther’s two banquets between those in 1:3-2:18 and in 8:17-9:22, ABADIE, reine, 63-67; BERG, Book, 31-31, 106-113; FOX, Character, 156-158; KOSSMANN, Esthernovelle, 60-65; WAHL, Esther, 131. 23 See BERMAN, “Days.” Contra GERLEMAN, Esther, 110, it is unlikely that the two banquets allude to Moses’s appearances before Pharaoh. In Exodus 7-10, Moses’s appearances are clearly more numerous than Esther’s. 24 In particular, this opinion is held by GUNKEL, Esther, 28-29 and P. HAUPT, “Notes,” 140. 25 MACCHI, “héroïne,” 282-283. 26 On the function of banquets see MACCHI, “identité,” 242-243. The point that Esther places herself in the dominant position simply by being the host is also raised by Joshua BERMAN, “Hadassah Bat Abihail: The Evolution from Object to Subject in the Character of Esther,” JBL 120 (2001), 647-669, 659. 27 She only requests necessary items in 2:13, 15. She defers her arrival in order to prepare by fasting in 4:16-17. 28 For Joshua Joel SPOELSTRA, “The function of the ‫ משתה יין‬in the Book of Esther,” OTE 27 (2014), 285-301 the invitation to a second banquet aims to heighten drunkenness.

Reasons for the Double Invitation to the Banquet

191

By inviting him along with the king she validates him (5:4, 8) and plays to his hubris (5:11-12). She contributes to his fall by leading him to commit poorly considered actions that backfire against him (5:13-14 and 6:1-11). In addition, by inviting Haman with the king to private banquets, Esther places him upon a pedestal and puts his excessive ambitions into full view of the sovereign.29 These explanations for the double invitation are not incompatible.30 Indeed, in such an uncertain situation it is logical that a shrewd heroine will adopt simultaneously different strategies. Her action permits the king to be proximate, honored, and drunk, to feel compelled to fulfill her request, and to understand that Haman is dangerous. The presentation of Esther’s character here has changed from the beginning of the narrative, where she followed the orders given to her by those around her (2:10, 15, 20) and hesitates to risk her life (4:4-11). Henceforth, it is she who gives the orders (4:16-17) and chooses the strategy (5:1-8). She takes charge of her own destiny, and of those whom she will help to save, in an independent manner.31 The motif of the double banquet invitation portrays Esther as a queen who Persian masters court functioning, capable of manipulating men, their pride, their tend- Queens in ency to make promises and to drink, in order to obtain the head of someone in Greek Texts high office. This image of Esther corresponds well to the way that women of Persian aristocracy are described in Greek texts. Artaÿnte profits from an unconditional royal promise.32 Amestris takes revenge by profiting cleverly from the occasion offered by a royal banquet.33 Ctesias often recounts tales of Persian queens managing to have their enemies tortured.34 Esther’s actions seem a lot like those of Parysatis, who takes revenge on those close to Artaxerxes, responsible for the death of Cyrus the Younger.35 She takes vengeance on Mithridates by exploiting his vanity during a banquet when, drunk, he brags about authoring the death of Cyrus. She takes vengeance on Masabates the eunuch who had mutilated Cyrus by arranging to spend time with the king in order to manipulate him. Contrary to Ctesias and Plutarch, the book of Esther does not present the Persian queen as a cruel woman who does not back down for any reason to achieve her goals. Instead, this narrative is about a victim who defends her people. However, she

29 See especially ROSSIER, intercession, 278. In 7:8 Ahasuerus seems to become aware that Haman is not far from imagining himself as king. 30 Regarding a plurality of strategies, see already b. Meg. 15b (similarly, DAY, Esther, 100). Several authors emphasize the editors’ desire to construct a suspenseful narrative (LEVENSON, Esther, 90-91 and others). 31 The fact that Esther’s character undergoes changes, beginning in Chapter 5, has been raised by BUSH, Esther, 319-321; BUTTING, “Esther,” 245-247; FOX, Character, 199-202; HARVEY, Morality, 35-36; Kevin MCGEOUGH, “Esther the Hero: Going beyond ‘Wisdom’ in Heroic Narratives,” CBQ 70 (2008), 44-65, 62-64; ROSSIER, intercession, 274; VIALLE, “reine;” VIALLE, analyse, 98-99; WHITE CRAWFORD, “Book,” 872-873, 905-906. 32 HERODOTUS, Hist., 9.109. See the commentary on 5:3. 33 HERODOTUS, Hist., 9.110-112. 34 Parysatis had Artoxares executed, Amytis has Petesacas skinned and crucified. Amestris had Inaros crucified and decapitated fifty Greeks, buried a doctor alive, and crucified one of Caunos’s men [CTESIAS, Persica, F9a; F15(54); F14(39.44.45)]. 35 PLUTARCH, Art. In Photius, the episodes are recounted more succinctly, cf. CTESIAS, Persica, F16(67).

192

Haman at Home with His Friends (5:9-14)

utilizes the same means as the Persian queens and princesses in Greek literature to manipulate men and to have Haman condemned: profitting from drunkenness, vanity, and awkward promises, and also being as close to the king as possible.

Haman at Home with His Friends (5:9-14) 9 Haman went out that day happy and with a rejoicing heart. But when Haman saw Mordecai at the king’s gate, aand he neither rose nor trembledb before hima, Haman was filled with rage against Mordecai. 10 aHaman controlled himselfa and went into his house. He sent for and summoned his friends and Zeresh,b his wife. 11 Haman recounted to them his glorious wealth and the number of his sons, aall about howa the king had promoted him band about howb he had advanced him above the king’s ministers and servants. 12 Haman said: “Furthermore, aside from myself, Queen Esther did not have anyone come with the king to the banquet she held. Also tomorrow I have been summoned by her, along with the king. 13 But all this is worthless to me every time that I see Mordecai the Jew sitting at the king’s gate”. 14 Zeresh his wife and all of his friends said to him: “let a wooden pole fifty cubits high be made, and in the morning speak to the king so that Mordecai may be hanged upon it, then go happily with the king to the banquet.” This suggestion seemed good beforea Haman. He made the wooden pole.

Notes on Text and Translation 9a-a

Missing from the LXX, but presupposed by the OL, Vulgate, JOSEPHUS, Ant. 11.244 and targumic texts. b See the use of the root ‫ זוע‬in Eccl 12:3; Sir 48:12; Dan 5:19 and 6:27 (cf. HAL). To interpret “to part” is unlikely (contra DRIVER, “Problems,” 236). 10a-a Missing from the LXX, but presupposed by the Vulgate. b This name varies according to the various witnesses. LXX Ζωσάραν σωσαραν (MS 93 ζωραν), AT Ζωσάραν, OL Zosarram; but JOSEPHUS, Ant. 11.245 Ζαράσαν and Vulg. Zares as in the MT. 11a-a and b-b The two constructions are similar. ‫ אשׁר‬introduces the proposition that follows: in b-b ‫“ ואת אשׁר‬and that he…” or “and how he” and in a-a ‫את כל־אשׁר‬ a longer construction translated as “all about how.” One must not omit ‫( כל‬contra BHS) nor understand ‫ את כל‬as “together with that” (contra GORDIS, “Studies,” 54-55), see BUSH, Esther, 414 and FOX, Character, 281. 14a Under the influence of 1:21 and 2:4, ‫ לפני‬was changed to “in the eyes of ” ‫ בעיני‬by some MSS (also Syriac).

Synchronic Analysis The narrative continues at Haman’s home, where a plan is developed to have Mordecai hanged (5:9-14).

193

Synchronic Analysis

This episode is structured like the scene when the king decides to decree the Passage Orgaeviction of Vashti. Haman leaves Esther’s banquet in high spirits (9a), but his nization satisfaction diminishes when Mordecai does not show him respect during an ensuing encounter (9b). Arriving at home, he gathers his friends and his wife (10). In 5:11-13 he describes everything that should render him happy – wealth, children, promotion, and invitation by the queen (11-12) – then concludes by saying that the sight of Mordecai spoils his pleasure (13). His wife suggests that he build a gallows, ask the king to hang Mordecai, and go joyfully to the banquet (14a). Haman approved this plan (14bα), and begins to put it into action (14bβ).

10a

The king is joyous at banquet’s end 9a

Haman is joyous at banquet’s end

10b-12 Humiliation: Vashti’s refusal

9bα

Humiliation: Mordecai’s refusal

12b

9bβ

Haman angers

10

Assembling friends36

The king angers

ø 13-15

The king addresses the sages and de- 11-13 scribes the problem.

Haman addresses his wife and describes the problem.

16-20

Memucan proposes a plan.

14a

Zeresh proposes a plan.

21a

The king approves.

14bα

Haman approves.

21b

The king does ‫ עשׂה‬according to the 14bβ recommendation…

Parallels between Chapters 1 and 5

Haman makes ‫ עשׂה‬the wooden pole

5:9 emphasized that Haman left Esther’s banquet ‫“ שׂמח‬happy” and with a ‫טוב לב‬ “joyous heart.” This happiness evaporates when Haman encounters Mordecai, and Zeresh’s suggested resolution aims to restore his happiness: “then go happily (‫ )שׂמח‬with the king to the banquet” (5:14). “Joyous heart” alludes to the fact that he is drunk. The expression describes the drunken state in 1:10 (cf. Judg 16:25; 1 Sam 25:36; 2 Sam 13:28) and does not appear on Zeresh’s lips in 5:14 because, by the time Haman goes to the second banquet, he will have become sober. Haman’s joy upon leaving the banquet reminds readers that he is ignorant of the queen’s Jewish origins and thus of the menace that weighs upon her. The presence of Mordecai at the king’s gate assumes that he removed his mourning garments that prevented him from accessing this location (4:2, 6).37 By establishing the mourning period for three days, Esther thus enables Mordecai’s return to his place of business. While in 3:2, 5, Mordecai did not “bow down” or “prostrate himself,” here, he “neither rose nor trembled before him.” The refusal to stand up is often considered evidence of a progression in Mordecai’s defiant attitude, who refuses to even

36 5:10 has no parallel because in Ch. 1 the king’s advisors are already present at the banquet. 37 As in 2:19-21; 3:2, 3, in 5:9 Mordecai is once again at (‫ )ב‬the king’s gate and no longer ‫ לפני‬in front of it as in 4:2, 6.

5:9-10. Haman’s Change of Mood

At the King’s Gate

He Did Not Rise

194

Haman at Home with His Friends (5:9-14)

salute Haman standing.38 Commenting on a refusal to stand up may even be ironic. Indeed, in 3:5 Haman becomes aggravated because Mordecai refuses to bow down and becomes angry anew in 5:9 over a refusal to perform the opposite action. Whatever the case may be, Mordecai continues to defy his enemy and displays no fear before him, he did not “tremble” before him. This calm constitutes a heroic trait that contrasts with Haman’s attitude that the encounter with Mordecai upsets: “Haman was filled with rage.” In Esther, the angry reactions in the Persian court are pejorative and lead to rash actions. After 3:5, Haman has the Jews condemned; after 1:12, the king dethrones Vashti; and in anger, the eunuchs devise a plot (2:21-23). For whatever reason, Haman’s action during his first confrontation with Mordecai did not calm him. Even after obtaining the decree that Mordecai’s entire people would be massacred, the sight of his enemy remains intolerable for him. Like the king at the time of Vashti’s eviction, he will seek advice on what to do, in this case from his friends and his wife. Zeresh

The origins of the name Zeresh are uncertain, and the Greek translations cast doubt upon its original spelling. A derivative of the Avestic word zairiči “blond” or zarš (Sanscrit hṛṣ) “disheveled” has been contemplated, similar to the Mede name Zarišu or with the Elamite Ammaziráš. An association with the Elamite deity Kiriša has also been proposed.39

5:11-13. Ha- Haman’s speech to his friends and to his wife shines a light on his excessive man’s Speech ambitions and his disproportionate sense of self. He feels honored by what has

Wealth, Sons, Honors

Aside from Myself…

happened to him and is close to considering himself the king’s equal. The scene ridicules this character who reminds those close to him about his wealth, his numerous children, and the honors which have been granted him. His hubris also explains that he cannot tolerate the presence of someone who does not show him respect (5:13) and that he asks for royal honors (6:8-9) without imagining that they do not befit him (6:6). Haman first mentions his extreme wealth, already presupposed by the ten thousand talents that he promises to pay in 3:9. “His glorious wealth” evokes a royal fortune since the same phrase describes the king’s wealth (1:4). The “number of his sons” also indicates his fortunate situation since, in antiquity, numerous descendants are considered a blessing.40 Haman then mentions his promotion by the king. The same vocabulary describes his promotion (3:1-2). In the MT, all aspects of this happy situation of Haman’s are withdrawn at his downfall: his possessions are given away (8:1-2); his children are hanged (9:6-10, 13-16); and his position above the other functionaries is handed over to Mordecai (9:3-4; 10:1-3). The climax of all Haman’s honors is that he alone, along with the king, was invited to Esther’s banquet. It is not only the queen’s invitation that he finds honorable, but the fact that he was invited alone with the king. The construction,

38 See BARDTKE, “Esther,” 340-341; BERLIN, Esther, 54; BUSH, Esther, 417-418; LEVENSON, Esther, 92; MOORE, Esther, 60. 39 On these different solutions see WIEBE, “Zeresh”; PATON, Esther, 70; GUNKEL, Esther, 90; GEHMAN, “Notes,” 327; Ran ZADOK, “On Five Biblical Names,” ZAW 89 (1977), 266-268; JENSEN, “Elamistische,” 64, 70; WILDEBOER, “Esther,” 173, 183. 40 See Gen 15:5; 17:16, 20; Job 1; 42:13; Eccl 2:7. HERODOTUS, Hist. 1.136 concerning the Persians. In Esth 9:10 Haman has ten sons.

Synchronic Analysis

195

“I have been summoned… along with the king” (5:12), demonstrates hallucinatory pride, for it reverses the order of proceedings. In 5:4 and 8 the queen invites the king with Haman, not Haman along with the king. Haman’s speech is followed by a complaint about Mordecai; when he sees Mordecai his honor seems worthless to him. The disparity between the enormity of Haman’s honor (5:11-12) and the futile annoyance he endures ridicules his disproportionate pride. Haman’s proud speech contrasts with Esther’s during the second banquet. She also uses the phrase “is not ‫ אין‬worth ‫”שׁוה‬, but to say humbly to the king that her servitude and that of her people are not worth bothering him about (7:4). Haman describes his problem laconically: “I see Mordecai the Jew sitting at the king’s gate.” The conflict that turns Mordecai against him is not mentioned; Haman only mentions Mordecai’s Jewish origins and his position at the king’s gate. To those close to him, Haman contents himself with the despicable argument that someone of Jewish origins does not belong among power circles. As in 1:16-22, a member of the entourage, this time Zeresh, proposes a procedure, supported by the other people present41 and approved by the person to whom it is addressed. The phrase “this suggestion seemed good before Haman” is almost identical to when the king approved Memucan’s suggestion (1:21a). Zeresh’s speech is laconic. Contrary to Memucan, she offers no explanation or justification for the measures envisaged. The formulation is in the jussive: “let a wooden pole… be made… Mordecai may be hanged.” Twenty-five meters (82 feet).42 In the book’s literary context of emphasizing the immoderation of Persian court practices (1:3-8; 3:9), it seems almost normal that Haman would erect a gallows the height of a seven story building upon which to make a spectacle of his enemy. Ironically, despite his status and his pride, Haman cannot lay a finger on Mordecai without first referring the matter to the real sovereign. This is not easy to do. Since in 3:8-9 Haman concealed the personal conflict for which he resented Mordecai, he must now either speak about Mordecai’s refusal to prostrate, or once again argue deceitfully. Mordecai could then be hanged and Haman could obey his wife’s final order and go “happily with the king to the banquet.” Zeresh’s speech portrays a woman who is determined, brutal, and devoid of scruples. She proposes to coldly get rid of an undesirable, and explains how to proceed.43 Since in 5:11-13, Haman says nothing of his conflict with Mordecai, presumably the only thing that Zeresh knows about him is that he is Jewish. By proposing the elimination of a Jew and displaying him on the gallows, she thus places herself in the camp of enemies of the Jews to be fought in Chapter 9, rather

41 In 5:14, the friends’ approval relies upon the fact that they join in Zeresh’s speech. In 1:21, approval of the other characters occurs after that of the king. 42 A cubit measures about forty-five to fifty centimeters. See BIVAR, “Achaemenid,” 637; Jacques BRIEND and Michel QUESNEL, “Les poids et les mesures,” MoBi 105 (1997), 57-58; Marvin A. POWELL, “Weights and Measures,” in ABD, vol. 6, 897-908, esp. 899; Robert Balgarnie Young SCOTT, “The Hebrew Cubit,” JBL 77 (1958), 205-214. 43 Zeresh’s attitude corresponds to the motif of Persian princesses in Greek literature who are capable of making their enemies suffer cruelly (cf. 5:1-8). A similar attitude is attributed to Jezebel (1 Kgs 21); GROSSMAN, Esther emphasizes this parallel.

But All This Is Worthless to Me…

Mordecai the Jew

5:14: Zeresh’s Reply

Fifty Cubits

Speak to the King

Zeresh’s Brutality

196

Haman Ridiculed

Goal of the Hanging

Haman at Home with His Friends (5:9-14)

than among the majority of the population of Susa who exhibit consternation at the anti-Semitic decree (3:15bβ). In this passage, Haman looks ridiculous. In his eyes, his first tentative attempt to extract vengeance on Mordecai in Chapter 3 is a failure. He thus consults his wife, who orders him what to do, even though in 1:22 a decree was aimed to prevent womens’ domination of their husbands. Nevertheless, at the end of the passage, Haman starts to follow through on Zeresh’s plan: “He made the wooden pole.” The suspense is at its height: Mordecai is at risk of suffering cruelly even before Esther’s second banquet, upon which rests the hope for the deliverance of the Jews. It might seem surprising that Zeresh suggests hanging Mordecai, even though he is already condemned to death, along with all his people. Actually, hanging is different and even worse than “simply” putting to death.44 The book of Esther mentions hanging ‫ תלה‬a condemned individual on a wooden pole nine times (see 2:23; 5:14; 6:4; 7:9-10; 8:7; 9:13-14, 25). It is not certain whether the editors were thinking of a hanging, a crucifixion, or an impalement. Hebrew ‫ תלה‬mostly means “to suspend,” but “to impale” is not excluded with the preposition “upon” ‫על‬. Whatever its meaning, it is clearly not a banal mode of execution. Several biblical passages show that hanging humiliates the victim by the exposure of the corpse and constitutes a terrible addition to the death sentence, as it aims to destroy the body of the deceased, devoured by animals. Funerary rites can no longer be performed and peaceful access to the afterlife for the deceased thus becomes impossible.45 The aversion of disrespecting the corpse is strong within the biblical world. Deuteronomy (Deut 21:22-23) prohibits leaving even a criminal’s body hanging for more than a day. The narratives of Saul’s death emphasize the importance of burying corpses. A dangerous expedition is mounted to recover Saul’s body, hung on the wall of Beth-shan (1 Sam 31:8-13) before David recovered the bones to place them in a family grave (2 Sam 21:10-14). In proposing to hang Mordecai,

44 See Martin ROSE, “Le cadavre du pendu (Deut 21,22-23),” in “Maudit quiconque est pendu au bois”. La crucifixion dans la loi et dans la foi (PIRSB 2), F. BILLE, A. DETTWILER and M. ROSE (eds.), Lausanne, 2002, 9-29. T.C.G. THORNTON, “The Crucifixion of Haman and the Scandal of the Cross,” JThS 37 (1986), 419-426; VIALLE, analyse, p.110 n.108; WAHL, Esther, 154-155. 45 For death in the Judeo-Israelite and Mesopotamian worlds, see Angelika BERLEJUNG and Bernd JANOWSKI (eds.), Tod und Jenseits im alten Israel und in seiner Umwelt. Theologische, religionsgeschichtliche, archäologische und ikonographische Aspekte (FAT 64), Tübingen, 2009; Joseph BLENKINSOPP, “Post-Mortem Existence in the Old Testament,” in Lebendige Hoffnung – ewiger Tod?! Jenseitsvorstellungen im Hellenismus, Judentum und Christentum (Arbeiten zur Bibel und ihrer Geschichte 24), M. LABAHN and M. LANG (eds.), Leipzig, 2007, 3351; Jean-Daniel MACCHI, “Perspectives sur l’au-delà et sur la mort dans le monde judéoisraélite ancien,” in Mort, résurrection et au-delà dans la Bible hébraïque et dans le judaïsme ancien (Bulletin du CPE 62/1-2), J.-D. MACCHI and C. NIHAN (eds.), Genève, 2010, 5-30; J.D. MACCHI, “Empêcher l’inhumation. Quelques exemples bibliques du refus de ce châtiment redoutable,” in La faute et sa punition dans les sociétés orientales (Publications de l’Institut du Proche-Orient ancien du Collège de France 1), J.-M. DURAND, T. RÖMER and J.-P. MAHÉ (eds.), Leuven et al., 2012, 73-84; Hélène NUTKOWICZ, L’homme face à la mort au royaume de Juda. Rites, pratiques et représentations (Patrimoines Judaïsme), Paris, 2006; Véronique VAN DER STEDE, Mourir au pays des deux fleuves. L’au-delà mésopotamien d’après les sources sumériennes et akkadiennes (Lettres Orientales 12), Leuven, 2007.

Proto-Esther

197

Zeresh aims not only to anticipate his death, but to worsen his sentence. At the end of the narrative, the situation is reversed and it is Haman and his sons who will be hanged (7:9-10; 9:5-14).

Diachronic Analysis The diachronic analysis of Chapter 5 corroborates the hypothesis that the Alpha Text (without the six additions) is a fairly literal Greek translation of Proto-Esther, the Hebrew text that was a basis for Proto-Masoretic editing – from the Maccabean-Hasmonean era – leading to a textual form close to the consonantal MT.46

Proto-Esther The portrayal of the first banquet in Proto-Esther is fairly close to its portrayal in the MT. Three significant differences appear, however: the queen’s approach to the king is described briefly and without mention of the inner court; the thematic constructions used by the king are less formal; and the queen’s first banquet, to which she invites the king during her visit to him, is scheduled for the following day. The episode of Haman’s return home differs from the MT. Haman does not encounter Mordecai upon his departure from the banquet. In his speech, he is not as ostensibly proud as in the MT, and he explains his hostility by remembering Mordecai’s repeated refusals to prostrate himself (5:22AT). The mean-spirited attitude of Haman’s wife toward the Jews is emphasized less than in the MT: she knows that Mordecai refuses to prostrate himself, and the measures she proposes rely on the fact that the king and the gods seem to authorize the annihilation of the Jews. The translation below is based upon the Alpha Text of the book of Esther Chapter 5 (HANHART (ed.), Esther, 171-175) for 5:13-24 (// MT 5:3-14). For 5:1-2, this reconstruction is based upon the MT (see below § Proto-Esther of 5:1-2 and Addition D).

[Addition D is later inserted at this point in the AT instead of vv. 1-2] 1 On the third day, Esther changed into her royal garments; she went and faced the king. The king was sitting upon his royal throne in the royal palace. 2 When the king saw Esther the queen, she gained favor in his eyes. The king held out to Esther the golden scepter which he had in his hand. 13 And the king said: “What is it, Esther? Tell me and I will act on your behalf, as far as half of my kingdom.” 14 And Esther said: “For me, tomorrow is a remarkable day; thus if it pleases the king, come, along with Haman your friend, to the banquet that I will hold tomorrow.” 15 And the king said: “Urge Haman so that we may carry out Esther’s words.” 16 The two of them went to the ban-

46 See the Introduction, A. Textual Forms and Editorial Stages.

198

Diachronic Analysis

quet that Esther held, a sumptuous feast. 17 And the king said to Esther: “Oh Queen, what is your desire? Ask as far as half of my kingdom and you will have as much as you want.” 18 And Esther said: “My wish and my request: if I found favor before you, oh King, and if it pleases the king to grant my wish and fulfill my request, that the king come with Haman to the banquet that I will hold for them also tomorrow, and tomorrow I will do the same.” 19 And the king said: “Do as you wish.” 20 And this was also reported to Haman and he was amazed. And the king left and retired. 21 Haman went into his house and assembled his friends, his sons, and Zosara his wife. He boasted, saying: “So the queen invited no one to her remarkable day except for the king and me alone. And tomorrow I have also been invited. 22 Just one thing distresses me: every time I see Mordecai the Jew sitting in the king’s court, he does not prostrate himself before me.” 23 And Zosara his wife said to him: “He is from the Jewish race; since the king permitted you to annihilate the Jews and the gods gave you a fateful day to take revenge on them, have a tree-trunk of fifty cubits cut and put up, and hang him on the trunk; early in the morning, speak to the king about it. But now, go and rejoice next to the king. 24 This pleased Haman and he did accordingly. The numbering of the verses in the AT according to HANHART does not correspond to that of the MT.

AT / Pr.-Esth

13

14

15-16

17

18

19-20

21

22

23-24

MT

3

4

5

6

7–8

9

10–12

13

14

The AT translates a Proto-Esther that is about equal in length to the MT, and thus the contents correspond for the most part to the consonantal MT.47 The proto-Masoretic editors replaced a few elements of Proto-Esther. They omitted the following: the phraseology lacking in protocol spoken between the king and Esther (“Tell me and I will act on your behalf ”; “Ask!”; “Come, along with Haman your friend”); the term “tomorrow” (5:16); the mention of the “sumptuous feast” (5:16); and “her remarkable day” (5:21).48 The proto-Masoretic editors did not take up the contents of Proto-Esther vv. 19-20, which were probably judged to be superfluous. The omissions “he does not prostrate himself before me” (v. 22) and “his sons” (v. 21) are required due to the insertion of 5:9 and 11MT.49 In v. 21, the words “he boasted” are removed, replaced with the long

47 See the synopsis of JOBES, Alpha-Text. The translation above is derived from a translation in Greek of Proto-Esther – and not from a Hebrew Proto-Esther. The exact wording of parallel passages sometimes varies somewhat from the MT. 48 Replacing “tomorrow” with “today” is linked to the chronology of the MT; the omission of “sumptuous feast” and the replacement of “her remarkable day” with “to the banquet she held” permit the editors to stress the importance of the banquet and its drunken character. 49 Indeed, 5:9MT does not mention a refusal to prostrate, but to stand up. Moreover, since in 5:11MT Haman speaks about his sons, they would not be present.

Proto-Esther

199

development of v. 11MT. In v. 22 the phrase “Just one thing distresses me” is replaced with the more ironic and developed phrase of 5:13aMT. One can imagine that the first part of Zeresh’s speech (23a), which creates a more sympathetic character than in the MT, was omitted by the proto-Masoretic editors. In v. 23b the few differences with the MT can be explained by the reorganization of this somewhat confused verse in ProtoEsther. Finally, some “pluses” present in the AT can be explained by late coypist accidents in the MT: “For me, tomorrow is a remarkable day” (v. 14); or stylistic corrections (v. 18 “also… tomorrow”).50

The beginning of Chapter 5 presents a particular difficulty: instead of 5:1-2MT, the Proto-Esther AT and the LXX have Addition D, which describes a version of Esther’s arrival to of 5:1-2 and Addition D the king that is five times longer. It is not very likely that this addition was part of Proto-Esther. Indeed, it recounts the sudden and spectacular transformation, by the hand of God, of the terrifying Persian king into a gentle character, which stands in tension with the rest of Proto-Esther.51 Moreover, after such a radical change in the king, one no longer understands why Esther does not immediately make her request for the deliverance of her people to a king who has become so benevolent. Finally, if Addition D had been part of Proto-Esther, one would have to assume that it had been omitted by the proto-Masoretic editors, which does not correspond to their editorial processes. Consequently, along with most exegetes, we assume that Addition D is a midrashic development that stresses the dependence of the protagonists on God and that Proto-Esther contained only a brief description of Esther’s arrival at the king. This Proto-Esther of 5:1-2 was probably a little shorter than the MT. It could not have contained the references to “in the inner court of the king’s house”; “the house”; “facing the entrance of the house”; and “standing in the court” of 5:12MT, which presuppose the proto-Masoretic editorial “plus” of 4:11 that indicates a death penalty specifically for anyone entering through “the inner court.”52 In 5:2bβ Esther’s approach to touch the scepter is probably also a product of the proto-Masoretic editors, who tended to emphasize the formality of the Persian court. If the above reconstruction is accurate, one can deduce that Addition D had been designed from the outset to complete what appeared in Esth 5:1-2* of ProtoEsther53 and that it was developed in order to be inserted within the AT. If the author of the addition had presupposed the text of 4:11LXX instead of that of the AT, he would have spoken in D,6 of the “inner court” and not of gates.

50 FOX, Redaction, 42-43, 48-49 considers wrongly 5:13-18AT as a particular case where the AT would have been heavily influenced by the translation of the LXX after the insertion of Addition D. 51 In Proto-Esther God never radically changes the heart of the protagonists, but always acts in a discreet fashion – distancing sleep in 6:1, and giving courage in 7:2. 52 In 5:1, “in the royal house” is probably also redactional since it is a construction that is specifically proto-Masoretic (cf. 1:9; 2:16). 53 Contrary to redactional elements, the wording of the shorter text of 5:1-2 (Proto-Esther) reoccurs almost exactly the same in Addition D (LXX and AT).

200

Diachronic Analysis

Proto-Masoretic Editing and the Emergence of the MT The proto-Masoretic editors from the Maccabean-Hasmonean era intervened more in vv. 9-14 than in 5:1-8. They did not significantly modify the organization, but nevertheless introduced a few variants and a few “pluses” of which vv. 9 and 11 are the most significant. “Pluses” and MT Variants

Intertextual References

Formality of the Court

Wine and Banquet

In 1-2: “in the inner court of the king’s house”; “the house”; “in the house of royalty, facing the entrance of the house”; “standing in the court”; and probably also “Esther approached, and touched the tip of the scepter.” In 3: “Queen”; “What is your request?”; and “it shall be granted you.” In 4: “today” (2x);54“I have prepared for him.” In 6: “During the wine banquet”; “It shall be granted you. What is your request?” In 8: “according to what the king has said.” Verse 9 is a “plus” as well as in 10a “he controlled himself.” Verse 11 is entirely a “plus.” In 12: “to the banquet she held”; “by her, along with the king.” In 13: “But I do not care about any of this”; “gate.” In 14 “as well as all of his friends”; furthermore, the contents of Zeresh’s Masoretic speech take up what is in Proto-Esther by clarifying, however, the order of events, and by placing more clearly the hanging after the discussion with the king.

A series of classical features of proto-Masoretic editorial work reappear in Chapter 5 (intertextuality, pompous wording, etc.). Moreover, the editors introduce still other elements that are absent from Proto-Esther. The proto-Masoretic editors establish here several intertextual connections. In 5:1, the placement of the royal throne “in the house of royalty” alludes to 1:9 and 2:16.55 In addition, 5:9, 11MT allude and refer to previous episodes in the narrative. In 5:9 Haman’s anger is reminiscent of prior references to this emotion (1:12 and 3:5); and as for the beginning of Haman’s speech in 5:11, it picks up on the contents of 1:4 and 3:1-2. The proto-Masoretic “pluses” underline the absurd weightiness of the court. In 5:1-2, they specify that the queen arrives at the entrance of the king’s house by the “inner court” in response to proto-Masoretic alterations to 4:11, which ironized the rules of a royal court where only those who access the king from within the palace (through the “inner court”) risk penalty of death. In 5:3 and 6, the proto-Masoretic editing solemnizes the construction of the requests the king posed to the queen. In 5:3, the familiar expression, “tell me and I will act on your behalf,” is replaced with “What is your request?” and “it shall be granted you,” and in 5:6 the wording of Proto-Esther is corrected to create two parallel hemistiches. Finally, in 5:8 at the end of Esther’s response, the expression “according to what the king has said” underscores the formal character of the dialogue between the royal couple.56 The wine banquet introduced in 5:6 and not seen again until Chapter 7, shows that drunkenness brought on by wine is clearly part of Esther’s strategy. The

54 In Proto-Esther the queen’s speech begins “for me, tomorrow is a remarkable day.” The proto-Masoretic edition retained this phrase by correcting “tomorrow” to “today.” Later, this sentence was omitted from the MT by a copyist. The LXX, however, preserved it. 55 The other “pluses” of the MT for 5:1 refer back to 4:11MT. 56 In 5:4 the replacement of “come, along with Haman your friend” with “let the king come with Haman” is part of a similar redactional strategy.

The Greek Translations and the Late Modifications of the MT

201

insistence on the drunken character of the banquets also perhaps explains the removal of the mention of the “sumptuous feast” at the end of 5:5; Esther did not invite the king and Haman in order to feed them. The dating of events plays hardly any role in Proto-Esther, while a complex chronological system appears in the MT. In Ch. 5, the proto-Masoretic dating system is the reason that the queen invited the king to the first banquet not on the day following her visit (5:14 Proto-Esther), but on that very same day (“today,” cf. 5:6MT). Thus the first banquet occured on the fifteenth of Nisan, the day marking the beginning of the liberation of the Israelites from Egypt. By inserting 5:9 and 11, the proto-Masoretic editors modify Haman’s portrayal. In Proto-Esther Haman’s grudge against Mordecai persists without any particular event motivating it (v. 22). The proto-Masoretic editors mention in 5:9 a new meeting with Mordecai, who refuses to stand up. By introducing this new episode, the editors from the Hasmonean-Maccabean era probably wanted to ironize Haman’s reaction57 and show that, in spite of adversity, a dignified and resistant attitude of the Jews should not cease, even if it could provoke the ire of enemies. In 5:10a, the editors emphasize that Haman does not express his anger publicly: he controlled himself and went home to seek counsel. Finally, the proto-Masoretic addition of the first part of Haman’s speech (v. 11) underlines the immense desire of a person wanting to be honored, who behaves like the king, seeking maximum honor during the banquets of Chapter 1. While Proto-Esther suggests that Haman’s temperamental personality is the primary cause of the misfortune of the Jews, the addition of the second part of v. 11 emphasizes the responsibility of the Persian system and that Haman occupies a place of privilege within the administration because the king conferred it upon him. Furthermore, the proto-Masoretic editors emphasize the hatred of the Jews that prevails in Haman’s entourage. The proto-Masoretic omission of “he does not prostrate himself before me” (5:22 in Proto-Esther) in Haman’s speech turns it into a statement wherein he is content to merely confirm that Mordecai is Jewish. Those close to him, in 5:14MT, thus condemn Mordecai solely because he is Jewish. In addition, the omission of the first part of Zeresh’s speech (v. 23a in Proto-Esther) in which she reasons that the king and the gods seemed to have desired to annihilate the Jews, transforms her into an anti-Semite as devoid of scruples as her cruel husband. Through their editorial work, the editors characterize all those close to Haman as “enemies of the Jews,” a group against whom the Jews will take up arms in Chapter 9.

The Greek Translations and the Late Modifications of the MT The phrase “for me today (or ‘tomorrow’ AT) is a remarkable day” occuring in 5:4LXX and 5:14AT was probably omitted by a late copyist anxious that Esther not expose her Jewish origins. In saying that this day is important, she testifies indi-

57 He becomes angry to see Mordecai refusing to stand up, while in 3:5 he becomes aggravated to see him refuse to prostrate himself.

Chronology

Haman before the Jews

Responsibility of the Enemies of the Jews

202

Synthesis

rectly to her Judaism, since according to the chronology of the MT, the day in question, the fifteenth of Nisan, is during the Passover festival. The reference in 5:9 (a-a) to Mordecai’s attitude is absent from the LXX. It is unlikely that the LXX preserves here a proto-Masoretic text that is shorter than the MT. Indeed, the rest of the ancient manuscript tradition follows the MT. Consequently, it seems that the translator of the LXX omitted this remark to prevent Mordecai’s attitude from seeming provocative.58

Synthesis Chapter 5 describes the first steps of Esther’s action to save her people, followed by Haman’s prideful reaction after the drunken banquet to which she invited him. The analysis showed that the proto-Masoretic edition did not rework Proto-Esther very heavily. However, as in the preceding chapters, this edition introduced several intertextual links and underlined the formality and the absurd rules of the Persian court. Moreover, it emphasizes yet again Haman’s pride and ironizes his attitude. Finally, the view taken toward Haman’s family and friends, described as violently anti-Semitic, is even heavier than in Proto-Esther.

58 The note concerning Haman’s self-control (5:10a-a) was probably omitted by the translator at the same time as the reference to Mordecai’s attitude in 5:9a-a that it presupposes.

Chapter 6. Mordecai’s Honors Introduction The reversal finally begins. Haman loses face before Mordecai (6:1-11), he hears the announcement of his own decline (6:13), and he is pressed to attend the banquet where he will be executed (6:14-7:10). Haman’s arrival before the king to ask him to have his enemy hanged (6:111) ridicules this sinister character, so full of himself that he cannot imagine that someone else could receive royal honors. Numerous and opportune coincidences hint that divine action hides behind chance happenings. But these chance happenings are not sufficient on their own to save the Jews; victory will only be realized thanks to the astute and courageous actions of Esther, Mordecai, and all the Jews. It will involve pleading a case before the king (7:3-6; 8:3-6), decreeing a clever counter-edict (8:9-15), and doing battle (9:1-2, 5-11, 15-16). At the end of the chapter (vv. 12-14) Haman, upon returning home, again finds the people who had suggested that he have Mordecai hanged (5:9-14). The words of his friends and his wife confirm that the situation is reversing itself and that his humiliation is the warning sign of his downfall, of his death, and of the triumph of the Jews.

Haman Honors Mordecai (6:1-11) 1 During that night, sleep eludeda the king. He ordered to have brought bthe book of records, the annalsb. They were read before the king. 2 It was found written that Mordecai had informed regarding aBigthana and Teresha, the king’s two eunuchs, guardians of the threshold, who had sought to extend their hand against King Ahasuerus. 3 The king said: “What honor and what greatness were bestowed upon Mordecai for this?” The king’s youths, his attendants said: “Nothing has been bestowed upon him.” 4 The king said: “Who is in the court?” Now, Haman had arrived aatb the outer court of the king’s housea to tell the king to hang Mordecai upon the wooden pole that he had erected for him. 5 The king’s youths told him: “Here is Haman, standing in the court.” The king said: “Have him enter.” 6 Haman entered. The king said to him: “What should be done for aa man whom the king desires to honor?” Haman said in his heart: “Whom would the king desire to honor more than me?” 7 Haman said to the king: “aa man whom the king desires to honor…a 8 let royal garmentsa that the king has worn be brought, and a horse that the king has ridden b and upon whose headc a royal diademb was placed, 9 and have the garments and the horse given into the hands of a man among the king’s ministers, the nobles. Let them clothea the man whom the king desires to honor and leada the horse

204

Haman Honors Mordecai (6:1-11)

through the city square and proclaima before him: ‘Thus should be done for the man whom the king desires to honor.’” 10 The king said to Haman: “aHurry, take the garments and the horsea as you said, and do thus for Mordecai the Jew who is sitting at the king’s gate. Do not leave out anything from all that you have said.” 11 Haman took the garments and the horse, he clothed Mordecai, he led the horse through the city square and he proclaimed before him: “Thus should be done for the man whom the king desires to honor.”

Notes on Text and Translation 1a

Ancient translations interpret the king’s sleeplessness in theological fashion by explicitly attributing it to God (LXX ὁ κύριος “the Lord” / AT ὁ δυνατὸς “the Powerful One”). See also Tg. Esth. I; F. JOSEPHUS, Ant. 11.247 and OL. b-b The phrase ‫ ספר הזכרנות דברי הימים‬seems to fuse the expression ‫“ ספר הזכרנות‬the book of records” (cf. Mal 3:16 and Ezra 4:15) probably present in Proto-Esther (cf. AT τὸ βιβλίον τῶν μνημοσυνῶν) with ‫“ ספר דברי הימים‬the book of annals” in 2:23MT; 10:2MT and thirty-seven times elsewhere in the HB. LXX translates the MT. 2a-a The names of the eunuchs are absent in LXX and AT, cf. note in 2:21b-b. The Hebrew orthography of the name of ‫ בגתנא‬varies from 2:21 (‫)בגתן‬. 4a-a This section is missing in the LXX. b The ‫ א‬of the preposition ‫( אל‬idem Esth 4:11 etc.) has perhaps fallen away (BHK; BHS; BARDTKE, “Esther,” 344; GERLEMAN, Esther, 114; HAUPT, “Notes,” 143). The preposition ‫ל‬ can mean “at” when following ‫( בוא‬Josh 2:3; Ps 96:8). 6a The Masoretes vocalized ‫ישׁ‬ with the article, but the resumption of the question in 6:7 presupposes indefiniteness. In 6:9 and 11 definiteness is required. 7a-a This is an anacoluthic ending in a syntactic break (with BUSH, Esther, 414-415; BERLIN, Esther, 58; CLINES, Esther, 308; LEVENSON, Esther, 97-98). It may also be seen as a rhetorical question (NBS; TOB; BJ; MOORE, Esther, 64). 8a The LXX translates “linen garment,” perhaps influenced by Gen 41:42. b-b Missing in LXX, AT, and OL. It is, however, known in the targumic texts and the Vulgate. It is probably a late addition, after the Greek translations of the passage (KAHANA, Esther, 256 hesitates and suggests, as do BHS and BHQ, that the translator could have omitted the passage). c The versions that contain b-b place the crown upon the head of the rider (Vulg. and Tg. Esth. II). These versions aim to simplify. There is no need to correct the MT (see BHQ commentary, 144; BUSH, Esther, 415. Contra the suppression of ‫ אשׁר‬cf. BHS, HAUPT, “Notes,” 144 or its reading as temporal cf. CLINES, Esther, 308; GERLEMAN, Esther, 116118). 9a The verbs to clothe, to lead (the horse), and to proclaim are plural, while the subject is singular. BHK; BHS; BARDTKE, “Esther,” 344; HAUPT, “Notes,” 144-145 correct to the singular. This correction is not necessary. These verbs could be taken as impersonal (one will clothe… cf. BUSH, Esther, 415-416) or imply that the actions of the character of high status are performed by his retinue (FOX, Character, 282; PATON, Esther, 249). 10a-a Missing in the LXX which translates freely and avoids the recurrence with v. 11.

205

Synchronic Analysis

Synchronic Analysis Here again, in five steps, is the stereotyped presentation of the decision-making Passage Orgaof Persian high officials (cf. Chs. 1; 3; 5:9-14). The sovereign notices a problem of nization honor (1-3): at the reading of the annals, he becomes aware that Mordecai was not honored after having saved him. He asks for the opinion of an advisor, who happens to be Haman (4-6a). Reflecting upon it, Haman misunderstands the person to be honored (6b), and he proposes a procedure to honor the person (7-9). Finally, the king approves this procedure and has Haman implement it (10-11).

1:10-12

3:1-6

5:9

6:1-3

Description of a problem of honor

1:13-15

3:7

5:10-13

6:4-6a

(Summoning and) consulting an advisor

1:16-20

3:8-9

5:14a

6:6b-9

Advisor’s speech

1:21

3:10-11

5:14bα

6:10

Approval

1:22

3:12-15

5:14bβ

6:11

Implementation of the measures proposed

The episode is humorous and draws on misunderstanding.1 It ridicules the powerful Haman. Haman misunderstands the king’s question, thinking incorrectly that he is the recipient of the honors. The comic effect also derives from the psychology of Haman’s character, too full of himself. He addresses the king without respect for honorifics, and is trapped by his own hubris. The episode is also amusing because it mocks an odious character. On the principle of the waterer who becomes wet: the wicked one comes to ask for the head of an innocent, but must honor him instead. The ridicule of Haman shows who is the foolish one in the narrative. Moreover, for communities feeling threatened by dangerous oppressors, the staging of such a reversal of situation is liberating. This passage is where divine causality is the most suggested.2 Several coincidences, unprovoked by the characters, enable Mordecai’s triumph. The king must not be able to fall sleep and must decide to have the kingdom’s annals read. The part to be read must be the one where Mordecai helps to save the king. The king must also ask whether Mordecai was thanked at the very moment Haman arrives in the court. Finally, the king must not specify the individual he hopes to honor, so that Haman may imagine himself to be the honoree. Perhaps the editors simply introduced these coincidences to create a comic effect. But this “secular” interpretation of these coincidences is unlikely. Indeed, the interpretation of the episode by Haman’s wife (6:13) suggests that superior forces are at work. In addition, in antiquity’s intellectual context, the actions of the gods are not perceived as surprising – they may even be expected – and the

1 2

BERLIN, Esther, 56; LEVENSON, Esther, 94-96; CRAGHAN, Esther, 39; O’CONNOR, “Humour,” 5354; WÉNIN, “Pourquoi.” See BECHTEL, Esther, 57-58; BUSH, Esther, 418-419; CLINES, Esther, 307; LEVENSON, Esther, 95; VIALLE, analyse, 44-45, 149. Nuancing the importance of coincidences, BERG, Book, 178179; FOX, Character, 240-242.

The King and Haman’s Decision-Making Procedures

Irony and Humor

Divine Coincidences

206

Haman Honors Mordecai (6:1-11)

rapport between the gods and their peoples is very important for identity. So, it seems logical that the authors would have wanted their readers to interpret the events of Chapter 6 as signs of the action of the God of Israel. However, as Mordecai implies in 4:13-14, divine intervention does not exempt humans from taking action. Chapter 6 suggests that, thanks to God, Mordecai escapes hanging, but the Jews are still threatened with annihilation. Esther’s intervention during the second banquet, and that of Mordecai within the politics of the Persian Empire, thus remain necessary. Moreover, this episode contains the premises of what follows in the narrative and possibly even constitutes its theological interpretation. Haman’s mourning in 6:12 prepares for his execution in 7:810 and Mordecai’s triumph in Chapter 6 anticipates his future triumph in Susa (8:15-17) after the issuing of the counter-edict. The Persian Several Greek literary topoi about the relationships between the Persian king and King and Gifts his subjects are used in this episode.3 The recording of Mordecai’s good actions in to Benefactors the annals calls to mind the recording of benefactors in the Persian royal register, mentioned by Herodotus and Thucydides.4 Moreover, it is well known that the Persian king dispenses gifts and honors that motivate his subjects.5 In several cases, Persian “benefactors” receive recompense: such as when the king remembers Coes6 or when Syloson7 remembers his good deed. In Esther 6, as in the case of Coes, the king remembers Mordecai, and, as in the case of Syloson, Haman finds logic in claiming honors. Clothing, horse, and a parade in the city (see 6:8-11 and 8:15-16) are typical royal gifts and honors.8 Finally, in asking for the honors of royal garments and a royal parade, Haman displays ambitions close to the usurpation of power that call to mind two narratives reported by Plutarch.9 During a hunt, Artaxerxes agrees to give his torn clothing to Tiribazus, but prohibits him from wearing them; his disobedience is interpreted as madness.10 As for Demaratus, he will enter “Sardis and ride through it in state, wearing on his head the tiara as the Persian kings do,” a usupation of the royal prerogatives of which he is accused.11 These two episodes were possibly known

3 See MACCHI, “regard,” 123-126; MATHYS, “Achämenidenhof,” 262-265. The generosity of the king is already attested in Achaemenid inscriptions (DNb and Xpl cf. LECOQ, inscriptions, 221-224, 259-261, cit. 260). 4 HERODOTUS, Hist., 8.85 and 90; THUCYDIDES, War 1.129. 5 Cf. BRIANT, Histoire, 314-335. The generosity of the Persian king is mentioned in HERODOTUS, Hist., 8.5 and 7.135. See also the royal gifts in Hist., 3.84; 3.160; 7.8; 9.109. For Xenophon the honors and the gifts made to the king’s subjects characterize Persia’s governmental art (Anab., 1.9.14-28; Cyr., 8.2.1-2; Oec. 4.7-8). 6 HERODOTUS, Hist., 4.97 and 5.11. 7 HERODOTUS, Hist., 3.139-140. 8 For the gifts of royal garments, see XENOPHON, Cyr., 8.2.8; 8.3.1-4, HERODOTUS, Hist., 3.84; 9.109; PLUTARCH, Art., 15. On the role of horses in Persian royal honors: XENOPHON, Cyr., 8.3.23 and Anab., 1.2.27. 9 The parallel between the episodes of Tiribazus, Demaratus, and Esther 6 have been identified by BERLIN, Esther, 11-13, Michael HELTZER, “Mordekhai and Demaratos and the Question of Historicity,” Archaeologische Mitteilungen aus Iran 27 (1994), 119-121; Cristiano GROTTANELLI, “Honour, Women and Sanctuary at the Persian Court [Plutarc. Themist. 29-31 and Esther 6-8],” Dialighi di Archeologia 3e ser. 6 (1988), 135-138. 10 PLUTARCH, Art., 5.3-4. 11 PLUTARCH, Them., 29.6-8.

Synchronic Analysis

207

to Esther’s proto-Masoretic editors, who presented Haman’s request as the expression of his crazy desire to be king. The temporal indicator, “during that night,” situates the royal insomnia between Esther’s first and second banquets, and before Haman’s arrival, “in the morning” (5:14). The cause of the king’s insomnia is not specified. It has been assumed that the king endured a bad night of drunkenness or was preoccupied by Esther’s invitation.12 The parallel with Dan 6:19, when the king is not able to sleep while his friend Daniel is in the lions’ den, suggests that a strong distraction could explain the king’s insomnia. That said, in ancient translations,13 Ahasuerus’s insomnia is often understood to be God’s doing. That is what the proto-Masoretic editors probably wanted to suggest since this insomnia is only the first step in a series of opportunistic coincidences.14 After the description of royal nights in 2:12-15, one would expect that the insomniac king would have a concubine or wife brought to him.15 Instead, he asks for the annals. After the banquet offered by Esther, no other woman occupies his mind. The “book of records, the annals” corresponds to the “book of annals” in 2:23.16 These annals “were read before the king,” for in antiquity reading was usually done aloud by specialists. During the reading “it was found written” that Mordecai saved the king from a plot (2:21-23). The careful literary techniques of the proto-Masoretic editors, with numerous intertextual references, are evident here. In the same way that Esther “finds” ‫ מצא‬the king’s favor (5:8; 7:3; 8:5), Mordecai’s action is “found” ‫מצא‬ by the king.17 Moreover, 6:2 repeats the wording of 2:21-23: Mordecai had “informed” (2:22/6:2) regarding “Bigthana and Teresh, the king’s two eunuchs, guardians of the threshold, who had sought to extend their hand against King Ahasuerus” (6:2/2:21). The chance reading of the annals leads the king to consider rewarding the person who had saved his life. By placing the question “What honor and what greatness were bestowed upon Mordecai?” upon his lips the editors, on the one hand, follow up on the episode of the eunuchs’ plot when Mordecai was not rewarded, while Haman was “elevated” (3:1). And, on the other hand, they prepare for the reversal to come by emphasizing that Haman benefitted from royal honors that were owed to Mordecai. “Honor” ‫ יקר‬and “greatness” ‫גדולה‬18 refer to the wealth and honor that the king possesses and that he dispenses. In Esth 1:4 these two terms describe royal glory. Now, ‫ גדל‬and ‫ גדולה‬refer to the promotion that the

12 See BARDTKE, “Esther,” 344; GROSSMAN, Esther, 129-131. The Talmud imagines that the king worried that a plot was being planned (b. Meg. 15b), see BEAL, “Esther,” 78-79. 13 Textual note 1a. 14 Most commentators go in this direction. For WAHL, Esther, 138 this insomnia gives a theophanic character to the revelation that the king has when the annals were read. 15 The phrase “he ordered to have brought” is found concerning Vashti in 1:10-11. 16 Here, the proto-Masoretic editors probably completed the term “the book of remembrances” ‫ ספר הזכרנות‬from Proto-Esther with the term “book of annals” ‫ספר דברי הימים‬ that they usually use (2:23 and 10:2). Cf. above, textual note 6:1 b-b. 17 In 2:23, ‫ מצא‬also indicates that the situation denounced by Mordecai is proven. 18 ‫ גדולה‬appears in 6:3 and ‫ יקר‬serves as a leitmotif in 6:3, 6, 7, 9, 11.

6:1-3. Mordecai Was Not Honored The King’s Sleep

The Book of Records, the Annals

Honor, Greatness

208

The King’s Youths

6:4-6a Haman’s Consultation The Outer Court

To Hang

What Should Be Done for a Man…

Haman Honors Mordecai (6:1-11)

king offered to Haman (3:1; 5:11)19 and to Mordecai’s ascent to the head of the empire (9:4; 10:2). The term “honor” ‫ יקר‬occurs during Mordecai’s glorification in 6:3, 6, 7, 9, 11 and then reappears in 8:16 to evoke the triumph of the Jews. The king’s youths, present at night, are associated with the king’s “private” life. They are only found again in 2:2 when they suggest a beauty contest. As in 2:2, they are knowledgeable about what happens at the court; they know that “nothing has been bestowed” upon Mordecai. In v. 3, the sovereign realizes that a problem of honor has arisen since the one who helped to save the king had not been appreciated. This problem will be resolved thanks to the recommendations of an advisor. The sign that the reversal of the situation has begun is Haman counselling the king. He arrives at the court at that exact moment to ask for the authorization to have Mordecai hanged. Two opposing wills: the king hopes to honor Mordecai, while Haman wishes to hang him. The phraseology associated with Esther’s arrival before the king in 5:1-2 is repeated in 6:4-5. Haman and Esther find themselves in an analogous situation. Like Esther, Haman presents himself before the king in a court: the phrase “Haman, standing in the court” (6:5) corresponds to “Queen Esther standing in the court” (5:2). However, Haman presents himself in the “outer court” while Esther enters by the “inner” court, which changes things greatly. Indeed, in 5:2 the king saw Esther in the inner court and had to extend his scepter to her for her to survive. Just the opposite in 6:4-5, the king does not see Haman in the outer court and he was not prohibited from entering without a summons. While Esther came at the risk of her own life (4:11) to save her people, here Haman arrives without immediate risk to finalize his project of annihilation. Ironically, Esther will survive her approach before the king, while Haman will lose his life. The phrase “to tell the king to hang Mordecai upon the wooden pole that he had erected for him” contains Zeresh’s suggestion in 5:14.20 But with a slight difference: Zeresh suggests that Haman present himself “in the morning” (5:14), not at night (6:1). One may therefore see this as a sign of haste.21 Contrary to what happened in Chapter 5, after inviting Haman to enter, the king does not ask him why he has come, but asks him “What should be done for a man whom the king desires to honor?” This sentence recurs as a leitmotif throughout the passage (6:7, 9, 11). So that Haman’s misunderstanding can come about, the name of the person to be honored cannot be mentioned. As it happens, the king does not specify the particular case to which the general ruling he is seeking will be applied.22 Ironically, in 3:8-9 Haman did the same by not specifying to the king for whom his decree was intended. After having hidden his true intentions, Haman will be trapped because the king does not mention to him his own intentions.

19 When Haman describes his wealth, he takes up the expression “his glorious wealth” from 1:4 (5:11). 20 See the commentary on 5:14. 21 BERLIN, Esther, 58; CLINES, Esther, 307; PATON, Esther, 246-247. 22 Establishing a general principle for treating a particular case is already found in Memucan’s dialogue in Chapter 1, which specifies that Vashti’s case has a general impact.

Synchronic Analysis

209

The change from the king’s prior ungrateful attitude towards Mordecai (2:21-23), is radical. This unexplained shift suggests that Ahasuerus is an inconstant and unreliable character. In addition, the editors undoubtedly wanted to show that Esther’s banquet played a role in this royal change. In 2:22 they specify that Esther informs the king “in the name of Mordecai.” Now, after a banquet at which Esther won the king’s favor (5:1-8), it seems logical that he would be very eager to honor the person whose message she relayed. If so, two conclusions can be drawn. On the one hand, it is not only happy coincidences that allow Mordecai’s triumph, but also Esther’s action: the actions of individuals must thus be paired with those of God. On the other hand, the king is weak and driven by events and circumstances: he is drunk; he was charmed by his wife; and a particular event from the annals is read to him. A brief note explains Haman’s reasoning: “Haman said in his heart.” This literary technique of expressing a character’s thoughts to clarify clever or malicious strategies appears elsewhere in the Bible.23 This clarification of Haman’s maneuvering contrasts with the heroine Esther, who acts cleverly, but without the reader being informed of her strategy.24 Haman’s reasoning that the king would want to honor him is not baseless. He received numerous royal honors (5:11-12), a predominant position (3:1), and the royal ring (3:10-12). In addition, the queen extended an invitation to him along with the king. However, to assume that the king could not desire to honor anyone else is extremely arrogant. The irony rests on this arrogance that prevents Haman from understanding that the honors are not intended for him. A misunderstanding appears in Nathan’s fable that provokes David’s judgment of his very own attitude (2 Sam 12).25 Esther 6 possibly alludes to that episode,26 even if the misunderstanding in Esther 6 is not exactly the same as that in the fable. Contrary to 2 Samuel 12, where Nathan intentionally traps David, King Ahasuerus does not seek to trap Haman. The text does not suggest that the opposition between Haman and Mordecai is known to the king. Haman is thus not trapped by an astute character, but rather is a victim of his own arrogance. Haman opens by repeating the king’s question “a man whom the king desires to honor…” This statement is abruptly interrupted so that in 6:8-9 the expected response is formulated by an independent sentence. This anacoluthon provokes a sense of waiting, which suggests the pleasure Haman experiences at the king’s question27 and underlines the importance of what will follow. A similar turn of

23 In narrative analysis this is “internal focus.” The reader knows more than an external observer would see. See Gen 17:17; 20:11; 32:21; 38:11; 1 Sam 15:32; 18:17, 21. Internal focus also appears in certain Psalms (10:6, 11, 13) and wisdom texts (Eccl 2:1, 15). On focus in biblical narratology see MARGUERAT and BOURQUIN, lire, 101-107. 24 The mysterious nature of the heroine’s action places her in a dominant position with respect to the readers. See the commentary on 5:3-8. 25 An analogous procedure is in 2 Samuel 14. 26 On several occasions the book refers to narratives of the monarchy’s origins. It is not impossible that the editors wanted to allude to this episode. The similarity between Esther 6 and 2 Samuel 12 is discussed by CLINES, Esther, 307; LEVENSON, Esther, 96; WHITE CRAWFORD, “Book,” 914. 27 See BUSH, Esther, 414-415 and FOX, Character, 76.

6:6b-9 Haman’s Speech

Who Would the King Desire to Honor?

Misunderstanding

6:7

210

6:8-9

Garments

Horse

A Man among the Ministers

Parallel between Gen 41:42-43, Esth 6:8-11, and Esth 8:15

Haman Honors Mordecai (6:1-11)

phrase repeating the king’s question and being brusquely interrupted already appeared in the opening to Esther’s answer to the king (5:7). No honorific salutation, always present when addressing King Ahasuerus, appears at the opening of Haman’s speech. Even the formula “if it pleases the king” (1:19; 3:9; 5:4, 8; 7:3; 8:5; 9:13) is lacking. Hubris characterizes Haman’s attitude: the suggestion that he makes to the king takes on the form of an order. Moreover, as during the episodes of Tiribazus and Demaratus mentioned earlier, the request for a garment and a royal horse demonstrates a disproportionate ambition close to the usurpation of power. The insistence upon the royal nature of the trappings requested by Haman work to this end: “royal garments… that the king has worn,” “a horse that the king has ridden and upon whose head a royal diadem was placed.”28 As in the Joseph story, a change in clothing indicates a change in social status.29 A major situational reversal has clearly begun when Mordecai receives the royal garments that Haman destined for himself. The symbolism of the royal horse is quite strong since it takes the place of a throne when the king is on the move.30 The royal status of the horse is underlined in an almost burlesque fashion. It must have been ridden by the king and must wear a “royal diadem,” the ceremonial insignia worn also by royal spouses (1:11; 2:17).31 The decoration of a ceremonial horse is not rare.32 The parade must be organized by a functionary of high status.33 While in 3:1 the king elevated Haman’s throne above the “ministers,” when he asks him to arrange the ceremony he brings him down from his pedestal and treats him as no more than “a man among the ministers.” The parade takes place in “the city square,” before “the king’s gate” (4:6). There, where Mordecai cried over his humiliation in mourning garments, he will be clothed royally and Haman will proclaim that the king is honoring him. How amusing that the person to whom everyone prostrated at “the king’s gate” must arrange for his enemy the ceremony that he dreamed for himself. A parallel is drawn between Mordecai’s triumph and Joseph’s (Gen 41:42-43).34 Mordecai is thus connected with the major patriarch of Egypt, which underlines the glory of the hero of Susa and by contrast the hubris of Haman. In Gen 41:42-43, Joseph receives a ring ‫ טבעת‬from Pharaoh, like Haman (3:10) and Mordecai (8:2). During his triumph, Joseph is clothed in a “linen robe” and Mordecai in “royal garments” (6:8, 9, 11; 8:15). Joseph sits in the “second chariot” after that of

28 The root ‫“ מלך‬king” – “royal” appears seven times in 6:8-9. 29 On the clothing of Mordecai and Joseph (Gen 37-50), see the commentary on 4:1-3. 30 1 Kgs 1:32-49 emphasizes the symbolic value of the fact that it is David’s mule that leads Solomon to his enthronement (esp. vv. 33, 38, 44). 31 It is not necessary to correct the MT so that the diadem is on the head of the rider (note 6:8c). 32 The decoration of horses’ heads appears in Persian iconography: MOORE, Esther, Plate 4. If Haman had asked for the diadem to be placed upon the rider’s head, the ceremony would have explicitly resembled a coronation. Contra LEVENSON, Esther, 97 and BERLIN, Esther, 60, the passage does not suggest that Haman attempts a state coup, something that would also imply the king’s assassination. 33 The term “official” ‫ שׂר‬recurs frequently in Esther, while “noble” ‫ פרתמים‬only appears in 1:3. 34 This point is raised by LANIAK, Shame, 101; FOX, Character, 76-77.

Notes on Text and Translation

211

the king, but Haman asks for the king’s horse. Finally, during Joseph’s triumph the exclamation “Abrek” is proclaimed while a longer and more explicit proclamation appears during Mordecai’s triumph (6:9, 11).

The denouement of this episode clinches the situational reversal. The honoree’s identity is revealed and, ironically, it is Haman who must arrange the ceremony honoring the person whom he wanted to have hanged. Since the king always follows his advisors’ suggestions, it is not surprising that Ahasuerus accepts Haman’s proposal and asks him to implement it. The king’s description of Mordecai as “the Jew who is sitting at the king’s gate” emphasizes Haman’s humiliation. He must honor a member of the people whom he wanted to annihilate and a man who, sitting at the king’s gate, drove him to distraction (5:13). The king knows that Mordecai can be found at the king’s gate since that is where he performs his service.35 As for his Jewishness, in Chapter 2 Mordecai seemed to hide it, but after his refusal to prostrate himself, it became public (3:4). That being a Jew makes Mordecai a condemned individual is not in tension with the king’s desire to honor him. Indeed, in Esther, Persian power commits astonishing actions. Adding to the irony: the identity of the condemned people had not been mentioned to him (3:8-9).36 The episode ends in v. 11 when Haman is told to carry out his own exact words, now authorized as a royal order. In 4:4 Mordecai refused to change his clothes, thereby refusing to hide his mourning. At this stage, however, the time for mourning is past, the reversal has begun, and putting on new clothes does not pose a problem.

Haman Returns Home (6:12-14) 12 Mordecai returned to the king’s gate and Haman hurried home, in mourning and with a covered head. 13 Haman recounted to Zeresha his wife and to all his friends all that had happened to him. His sagesb and Zeresh his wife hold him: “If Mordecai, before whom you have started to fall, is of Jewish descent, you can do nothing against him, for you will certainly fall before him.”c 14 They were still speaking with him when the king’s eunuchs arrived. They hurried to have Haman brought to the banquet that Esther had prepared.

Notes on Text and Translation 13a b

On Zeresh’s name in the different versions, see 5:10 note b. The descriptor “sages” ‫ חכמיו‬differs from “friends” at the beginning of the verse and in 5:10, 14. This reading is in the MT, Vulg. and targumic texts and is supported in the AT. The LXX harmonized οἱ φίλοι. The MT has the original reading (BHQ com-

35 See the commentary on 2:19. 36 In 4:8 Mordecai must obtain for Esther a copy of the edict, which suggests that those inside the palace do not know about a decree known to those outside.

6:10-11. Approval and Procedural Application The Jew Sitting at the Gate

End of Mourning

212

c

Haman Returns Home (6:12-14) mentary; BUSH, Esther, 412 and GERLEMAN, Esther, 114-115) and the corrections in BHK and BHS should be rejected. The LXX ends the verse with an explanatory note “for a living God is with him.” A similar remark is in JOSEPHUS, Ant. 11.259 and OL “for he is a prophet (of God).”

Synchronic Analysis

Mordecai Returned to the King’s Gate

Haman Drawn Up by Events

In Mourning and with a Covered Head

Interpretation of Haman’s Anticipated Mourning

Haman returns home and again finds those who, in 5:9-14, advised him to have Mordecai hanged. Two episodes located at Haman’s house thus frame 6:1-11. The passage is organized in three steps: after the parade, Haman and Mordecai return to where they were previously located (12); words are addressed to Haman by those who are at his home (13); and, Haman leaves hurriedly for Esther’s second banquet (14). This passage holds the interpretive key to the episode of Mordecai’s elevation. Haman’s public humiliation in the city square marks the beginning of this definitive downfall. The passage indicates laconically that “Mordecai returned to the king’s gate.” The return is part of the progressive change to Mordecai’s situation. First a simple royal functionary at the palace gate (2:19-20), he loses his status in the court by no longer being able to go to his place of work (4:1-6). After the three days of fasting set by Esther (4:16) he returns to the king’s gate (5:9), implying that he removed his sackcloth and is once again serving as a functionary. At this point, Mordecai’s situation improves and he is henceforth royally dressed. Finally, the king puts the finishing touches on Mordecai’s social elevation by naming him second in the kingdom and giving him Haman’s ring and property (8:1-15). Mordecai’s reaction to this reversal is not mentioned. The description of Haman’s pitiable return home shows that the situation is in the process of reversing and preparing for his execution. His trip home is very brief. It is as though he is sucked into a succession of unfavorable events now under the constraints of the Persian court. After the king pressed him to act (5:5; 6:10), in 6:12 “he hurried” home.37 He has just enough time to describe what has happened to him and to hear the words of the people present, before he must go to the banquet. In 6:14 “They were still speaking with him…” indicates the haste of the eunuchs who interrupt Haman’s friends.38 Finally, the eunuchs “hurried”; the same root, ‫בהל‬, describes the agitation of the royal functionaries in 2:9; 8:14. This emphasizes Haman’s sadness and prefigures his death. “With a covered head” (root ‫ )חפה‬indicates an act associated with extreme sadness.39 Moreover, in the MT of Esther, the expression also foreshadows Haman’s death, when his face is covered at the moment of his condemnation (7:8). Finally, “in mourning” anticipates his impending death. He adopts the same attitude as the Jews stricken by his decree of annihilation (4:3; 9:22). Midrashic and targumic texts associate this episode with a tradition that, during the parade, Haman’s daughter throws the contents of a chamber pot on her father’s head,

37 The same root ‫ דחף‬is used for the speed of the couriers (3:15; 8:14). 38 ‫ עוֹד‬+ pronoun/noun + √‫ דבר‬in a participal form (+ ‫ם‬ + pronoun/noun) has a similar meaning in Gen 29:9; 1 Kgs 1:14, 22, 42; Isa 65:24; Job 1:16-17; Dan 9:21. 39 Same expression in 2 Sam 15:30 and Jer 14:3-4.

Synchronic Analysis

213

thinking that she is aiming for Mordecai, before falling off the roof and being killed. Haman is literally simultaneously in mourning and with a covered head.40

Arriving home “Haman recounted… all that had happened to him.” The formulation underlines the reversal of the situation, for he finds himself in the same situation as Mordecai addressing Esther during the issuing of the edict. He is in mourning and turns to a woman to report on the situation.41 The same people as in 5:10 are present at Haman’s house: “Zeresh, his wife” and “his friends.” “His friends” (13aα) become “his sages” (13bα) when they address him. Through this change, the editors signal that the friends correctly interpret the situation. The wisdom of the friends is nevertheless ironic since these are the same individuals who, shortly before, had proposed cruel and foolish measures (5:14). Evidently, like other Persian “sages” (1:13 ff.), Haman’s friends do not always speak wisely. Verses 1-11 suggest that Haman’s decline is inevitable, a view confirmed by Haman’s friends. The sentence “If Mordecai, before whom you have started to fall, is of Jewish descent, you can do nothing against him, for you will certainly fall before him” clearly announces Haman’s fall. “If ” does not indicate a hypothesis but introduces the conclusion they draw from the episode, namely that Haman’s downfall will follow. Haman’s friends know the same things as the readers. They know what has just occurred (6:13a), they know that Mordecai is Jewish (5:13), and like everyone in Susa, they know that the Jews have been stricken with an edict (3:15). The friends’ speech give two indications why they assume that Haman’s downfall will follow. First, the downfall has already begun, “if… you have started to fall… you can do nothing.” As in Proto-Esther, this can suffice to guide the friends’ conclusions. The coincidences in 6:1-11 suggest that a fateful destiny has been announced for Haman and that the reestablishment of justice and world order is in the process of unfolding.42 A second point is: “if Mordecai… is of Jewish descent.” In the MT, this mention of Mordecai’s ethnicity prepares for the confrontations between the Jews and their enemies at the end of the narrative, where “Jewish descent” reappears (9:27, 28, 31; 10:2). In the wise friends’ speech two principles blend, one sapiential and general that assumes that the wicked will suffer misfortune, and the other more nationalistic and ethnic that assumes the Jews will triumph over their enemies. The fact that non-Jews affirm that both the events at hand and also the direction of history inescapably favor the Jews corresponds to the point of view of the proto-Masoretic editors. The triumph of the Jews must be apparent to everyone. Moreover, that the enemies of the Jews43 are convinced of the future

40 In particular b. Meg. 16a; and Tg. Esth. I. See SEGAL, Midrash, Vol. 3, 88-90. 41 The same phrase “all that had happened to him” ‫ כל־אשׁר קרהו‬in 4:7 and here. 42 Retributive sapiential thinking postulates that the righteous are supposed to benefit (Prov 13:21). Haman’s failure (Esth 6:1-11) seems to confirm this wisdom principle and thus finds a logical place on the lips of Haman’s friends who are “sages” (TALMON, “Wisdom,” 427 notes the proverbial aspect of the expression in 6:13). 43 Haman’s friends and wife devise the plan to kill “Mordecai the Jew” (5:13); these individuals are thus enemies of the Jews.

Haman Recounted

Zeresh, His Friends, His Sages

If Mordecai Is Jewish

214

Diachronic Analysis

success of the Jews is a motif attested in Jewish literature, especially in the Hellenistic era. Non-Jews Recognizing the Success of Jews

Non-Jewish recognition of the success of the Jews appears in the Joseph story (Gen 39:3; 41:38-39), as well as in the narrative of the plagues in Egypt (Exod 9:20; 10:7). In Daniel, Nebuchadnezzar confesses the preeminence of the God of Israel (Dan 2:46-47; 3:28-33) and in Numbers the foreign prophet Balaam supports the Israelites (Num 2224). In the book of Judith, the Ammonite Achior affirms that if the Jews do not sin they are protected (Jdt 5:5-21). Finally, the second book of Maccabees (9:11-27) puts on the lips of Antiochus IV the confession that his opposition against the Jews is the cause of his illness.44

Even if, as elsewhere in the MT, divine action is not explicitly mentioned by Haman’s wise friends, the change in the direction of history that they express implies that the God of the Jews is at work. This point is so clear that most ancient translations introduced glosses explaining the action of the God of Israel.45

Diachronic Analysis According to the hypothesis defended in this commentary, the Alpha Text of Chapters 1 to 7 (without the additions) translates Proto-Esther, an initial Hebrew form of Esther, fairly literally. It is largely reworked by the editors of the proto-Masoretic consonantal textual form that is close to the MT.46

Proto-Esther Chapter 6 of Proto-Esther is a little longer than the MT due to the presence of two more developed episodes (6:4-6b; 6:13-18). Within them can be found the general plot with the nocturnal reading of records, the misunderstanding, the parade, and Haman’s return home where he hears a negative announcement. Several differences appear nevertheless. Divine action is clearly indicated (6:1 and 22) and the reading of the records does not imply that a eunuchs’ plot was previously recounted (6:3). ProtoEsther portrays the king’s character in a different manner by emphasizing that he reflects wisely upon his own mistakes and upon the attitude of his subjects (6:4-5). The meeting between Mordecai and Haman is described more dramatically. The state of mind of the two protagonists is reported at length (6:13-18). While in the MT the parade is simply mentioned, Proto-Esther reports that Mordecai believes he is on the verge of death and turns to God. The words of Haman’s wife and the sages are different, since in Proto-Esther no ethnic criteria are evoked. The translation below is based upon the Alpha Text of the book of Esther Chapter 6 (HANHART (ed.), Esther, 175-181).

44 See also the involuntary confessions of the King Philopator in 3 Macc (5:31; 6:24-28; 7:1-9). 45 See the textual note 6:13c. 46 See the Introduction, Textual Forms and Editorial Stages.

215

Proto-Esther

1 But the Powerful One kept sleep away from the king that night, and he stayed awake 2 and the readers were called, and the book of records was read to him. 3 And there was a conspiracy of the eunuchs and a service rendered by Mordecai to the king. 4 And the king paid close attention, saying: “Mordecai is a loyal man for protecting my life, since he has kept me alive until now, and I am sitting today upon my throne, and I have done nothing for him, I have not acted justly. 5 And the king said to his servants: “What should we do for Mordecai, the savior in these matters?” And having reflected the youths envied him, for the fear of Haman was in their bowels. 6 The king reflected and dawn came. And the king asked: “Who is outside?” and it was Haman. 7 Haman had arrived early to speak to the king so that he could hang Mordecai. 8 And the king said to have him enter. 9 When he had entered, the king said to him: “What should we do to a man who honors the king and whom the king wishes to glorify?” 10 And Haman reflected inwardly, saying: “Whom would the king want to glorify if it is not me?” 11 And Haman said: “A man that the king wishes to glorify… have a royal robe taken as well as a royal horse upon which the king has ridden. And have one of the nobles, the king’s friends, take that and dress him and have him mount the horse and go around the city before him while proclaiming: ‘Thus it must be done for he who honors the king and whom the king wishes to glorify’” 12 And the king said to Haman: “Run quickly and take the horse and the robe as you said, and do thus for Mordecai the Jew who is sitting at the gate, and do not let fall your word.” 13 When Haman understood that it was not he who would be glorified, but Mordecai, his heart was totally broken and his spirit became weak. 14 Haman took the robe and the horse, showing respect for Mordecai, the very day he had planned to hang him 15 And he said to Mordecai, “remove your sackcloth” 16 And Mordecai was perturbed like someone dying and he removed the sackcloth with anguish and donned the garments of glory. 17 And Mordecai thought he saw a sign, and his heart was toward the Lord, and he fell silent. 18 And Haman hurried to mount him upon the horse. 19 And Haman led the horse outside and led him proclaiming: “Thus it must be done for a man who honors the king and whom the king wishes to glorify” 20 And Haman returned home sad, while Mordecai went to his home. 21 And Haman described to his wife all that had happened to him. 22 And his wife said to him, as well as his sages: “Since you spoke evil about him, evil has approached you; be quiet, because God is among them.” 23a And while they were speaking, someone arrived to hurry him to the banquet. And thus he was cheered up. The numbering of the verses in the AT of HANHART does not correspond to that of the MT.

AT / Pr- 1–2 3 Esth MT

1

2

4

5 3

6a 6b-7 8 4

5

9-10 11 6

12 13-18

7-9 10 11a

19

20-21

11b 12-13a

22-23a 13b–14

216

Diachronic Analysis The AT translates a Hebrew text (Proto-Esther) a little longer than the MT. Where the contents of the AT coincide with the MT, the Hebrew translated by the AT corresponds grosso modo to the consonantal text of the MT.47 In most cases, the synopsis of Jobes shows where the Masoretic Hebrew takes up the text of Proto-Esther , meaning the Vorlage of the AT.48 In this chapter, the proto-Masoretic editors not only added “pluses” to Proto-Esther but also rewrote certain passages and deleted others. They deleted vv. 46a; and they only very briefly took up the content of 13-18, cf. 3MT (=5aAT) 11aMT (= 14a≈16bAT). They also rewrote Zeresh’s speech, replacing 22bAT with 13bMT. The deletion of other elements of Proto-Esther can be explained by the theology of the protoMasoretic editors. Such is the case for the explicit references to God (vv. 1 and 22), the indications of “honoring” the king placed upon the lips of the king (vv. 9, 11, and 19), and describing Mordecai as “savior” (v. 6). These final omissions prevent the king’s attitude from seeming too favorable. The indication of Haman’s joy (v. 23b) contradicts the proto-Masoretic desire to show his rapid decline. Certain omissions can be explained by the introduction of proto-Masoretic “pluses”: v. 3 falls away because of the introduction of the narrative of the eunuchs’ plot in 2:21-23 and references that are made to it in 6:2MT. The references to “outside,” “outside and led him” (v. 19) and “into his home” (v. 20) were deleted because of the editorial desire to situate Haman’s arrival at the court and the parade in the city square in front of the royal gate. The note “sad” (v. 20) is replaced with the proto-Masoretic “plus” about mourning and Haman’s covered head. Finally, some minor differences can be explained by the omission of redundant passages or by problems in translation.49

Are the “Pluses” of 6:46a, 13-18; 7:2, 4b-7, 14AT Part of Proto-Esther?

Chapters 6 to 7 in the AT contain several long “pluses” absent from both the LXX and the MT (6:4-6a, 13-18; 7:2, 4b-7). The presentation of characters and their function contrasts with the MT. Nevertheless they do not create any significant tension within AT/Proto-Esther.50 These “pluses” present a more positive image of the king than in the MT and show hesitations and worries that drive the Jewish heroes to rely on God: in 6:4-6a the king reflects upon the injustice done to Mordecai; in 6:13-18 Mordecai believes he is dying and turns to God; in 7:2 Esther worries about confronting Haman and prays; in 7:4b-7 the king declares that attacking the

47 The contents of the AT corresponds to the MT in 1, 2, 5a, 6b-12, 19-22a, 23aAT (parallel 1, 3a, 4-10, 11b-13a, 14MT [excluding the proto-Masoretic “pluses” in these verses]). Because the translation above is made from a translation into Greek of Proto-Esther – and not the Hebrew Proto-Esther – the exact formulation of the parallel passages may vary slightly. 48 The parallels do not all appear clearly in the synopsis of JOBES, Alpha-Text, due to differences in ordering. In v. 1 ‫ בלילה ההוא‬is translated τὴν νύκτα ἐκείνην but is placed at the end of the verse; in v. 19, αὶ ἐξήγαγεν Αμαν τὸν ἴππον renders ‫( וירכיבהו‬v. 11MT); in v. 20 Mordecai’s return comes before Haman’s. 49 In v. 1, “and he stayed awake,” and in v. 11, “royal” describing the horse are both redundant. In v. 5, “to his servants” was not taken up by the MT, which introduces indications concerning the recipients of the royal speech in v. 3bMT. Verse 2AT may be a Greek translation close to 1bMT (without the “plus” “the annals”). 50 Proto-Esther never attributes unreasonable actions to the king. The Jews (Ch. 4 ProtoEsther) invoke God’s support. Moreover, CLINES, Scroll, 104-107, is incorrect that 6:4-6 is in tension with the rest of the narrative: it is logical that the servants do not reply to the king, because of their enmity to Mordecai and their fear of Haman (cf. 3:3-4). In addition, TOV, “Lucianic,” 538-539, showed that 6:4, 5, 13, 17; 7:2AT rests on a Hebrew original.

Proto-Esther

217

queen is a crime; and in 7:14 he underlines the gravity of Haman’s attack against Mordecai. The AT’s long “pluses” in Chapter 6 have hardly any equivalences in Chapters 1-5. If the AT reflects a Proto-Esther that served as a base for the editorial process resulting in the MT, these “pluses” can be explained in two ways. According to the model adopted in this commentary,51 these “pluses” were deleted by the proto-Masoretic editors. If these passages figured in Proto-Esther, their deletion can be explained by the theological choices of the proto-Masoretic editors that were reconstructed from the MT and from the editorial practices observed in comparing the AT and the MT of Chapters 1-5. Thus, we know that the editors cast a critical view on the sovereign and the imperial system, which contradicts the favorable view of the king in the “pluses” of 6:4-6a; 7:4b-7, 14. We also know that in the MT, Esther and Mordecai are heroes who defend their people and fight against their enemies with extreme determination. Contrary to the procrastination of the queen and Mordecai’s worries in the AT “pluses” (6:15-17; 7:2), elsewhere the MT does not describe any hesitation or “state of mind” of the Jewish heroes once their identity is revealed (cf. Chs. 3; 5; 8-9). Finally, divine action is never explicitly mentioned by the proto-Masoretic editors, which is not the case in the “pluses.” One could also imagine that the “pluses” were inserted late into the AT as editorial glosses by someone wanting to make the narrative more theological and less polemical against the Persian king. Consequently, he would have inserted explicit mentions of divine action, underlined the dependence of the Jewish characters on God (6:17; 7:2AT), and made the king into a wise governor (6:4-6a; 7:4b7, 14AT).52 This hypothesis cannot be excluded, but it complicates the model. One must thus imagine that the “pluses” of Chapters 6 and 7 would have been inserted at the same time as the additions. The theology of these “pluses” does not completely correspond, however, to that of one or another of the additions. Whatever the case may be, the MT is the subject of comment, so whether the proto-Masoretic editors deleted the “pluses” of the AT, or whether they simply did not have them in their source, remains a secondary question.

51 Cf. the Introduction § Synthesis and Proposal Defended in the Present Commentary. This commentary’s list of pertinent “pluses” in the AT/Proto-Esther is not entirely identical to Clines’s list (compare with CLINES, Scroll, 107-112). Moreover, contrary to Clines, this commentary does not think that only a desire to delete religious problems explains the editorial suppression of “pluses.” Fox thinks that the source of the proto-Masoretic editor cannot be easily identified in Chapters 1-7 of the AT (without the additions) especially because he does not think that a desire to omit religious problems can explain the removal of “pluses.” Fox (and also Clines) did not take into account that the content of the “pluses” is not solely related to religious questions (cf. FOX, Redaction, 18, 97, 120-121 and cf. below). 52 So TOV, “Lucianic,” 543-544, who attributes these additions to the influence of perspectives that are close to those of Additions B, C, and E. For a similar interpretation of 6:12-18AT, see WACKER, “Three,” 77-89. CLINES, Scroll, 106-107, discusses 6:4-6 and attributes the responsibility to the translator. He does not comment on 6:13-18 and 7:2 (cf. p. 112).

Editorial Deletion of “Pluses”

“Pluses” Inserted Late into the AT

218

Diachronic Analysis

Proto-Masoretic Editing and the Emergence of the MT Proto-Masoretic editors intervened in a fairly heavy fashion in this crucial episode. Their substantial re-working probably led them to delete some of their source’s content. In any case, as in Chapters 1 to 5, the majority of the passage is taken up from the Proto-Esther whose main lines are preserved. MT “Pluses” and Variants

Clarification of Wording, Intertextual Links

Weightiness of the Court

The MT “pluses”: in v. 1 “the annals”; the entirety of v. 2 is a “plus” that is substituted for v. 3 in Proto-Esther; in v. 3, “honor and greatness”; “The king’s youths, his officiants, said: ‘Nothing has been bestowed upon him’”; in v. 4, “in the court”; “at the outer court of the king’s house”; “upon the wooden pole that he had erected for him”; in v. 5, “The king’s youth’s told him: ‘Here is Haman, standing in the court’”; in v. 7. “to the king”; in v. 8, “that the king has worn”; “and upon whose head a royal diadem was placed”; in v. 9, “and have the garments and the horse given”; and the first occasion of “whom the king desires to honor”; in v. 11, “through the city square”; in v. 12, “the king’s gate”; “in mourning and with a covered head.” In v. 13, “Zeresh” and “and to all his friends” are proto-Masoretic “pluses” and the entire speech of the wife and friends is rewritten. Finally, in v. 14, “the king’s eunuchs”; and “to have Haman brought to the banquet that Esther had prepared” are “pluses.” The proto-Masoretic editors probably also deleted vv. 6: 4-6a and 13-18 of Proto-Esther and only preserved the notices of vv. 3a and 11a of the MT.

In Chapter 6, a whole series of traits characteristic of proto-Masoretic editing is found. The MT “pluses” standardize the wording and establish intertextual links emphasizing the relationships between the different episodes of the narrative. Thus, 6:2MT takes up the wording of 2:21-23, and the addition of the “annals” in v. 1 underlines the link between the end of Chapter 2 and the beginning of Chapter 6. In v. 4, “in the court” and “at the outer court of the king’s house” ironically forge the link between Haman’s arrival before the king and Esther’s in Chapter 5. In v. 4, “upon the wooden pole that he had erected for him” refers to 5:14. In vv. 11 and 12, “through the city square” and “the king’s gate” emphasize the reversal of the situation by situating the parade in the same location as Mordecai’s mourning (Ch. 4) and by showing that he returns to the place where he was at the beginning of the narrative (Ch. 2). Finally, the mention of Haman’s “covered head” prepares Haman’s execution (7:8) and “Jewish descent” prepares for the general triumph of the Jews (Chs. 8-9). The proto-Masoretic tendency to emphasize the weightiness of life at court is found once again in Chapter 6. In vv. 8-9 the proto-Masoretic “pluses” make Haman’s speech more formal and pompous: “that the king has worn”; “have the garments and the horse given”; and the first occurence of the phrase “whom the king desires to honor” in v. 9. The tendency of the editors to provide the names of individuals of the court with their titles53 is found in v. 13, where the name of Haman’s wife is finally added in order to obtain the formula “Zeresh his wife.” Finally, in v. 14 it is “the king’s eunuchs” who arrive ceremoniously to “have Haman brought to the banquet Esther had prepared,” instead of simply “to the banquet” of Proto-Esther (v. 23).

53 See for example the recurrence of “Queen Vashti,” “King Ahasuerus” (Ch. 1).

Proto-Masoretic Editing and the Emergence of the MT

219

In Proto-Esther (6:3) the reading of the records made reference to a prior event that had probably not been previously recounted54 and that had been followed by ethical reflections on the part of the king (Proto-Esther 6:4-6b). The proto-Masoretic editors have a very ironic and critical view of the imperial power and its sovereign. The omission of positive comment about the king in Proto-Esther 6:4-6a is thus probable.55 Moreover, based on v. 6:3 of Proto-Esther that evokes an earlier episode that has not been recounted, the editors constructed a narrative about a plot in 2:21-23 to which they referred in the “plus” of 6:2MT. They emphasize that Mordecai was loyal to the king who thus appears profoundly ungrateful.56 Mordecai sets the stakes of the episode, but the MT mentions no particular reaction on his part (cf. 11a). On the other hand, in Proto-Esther his fear of dying and his need to turn toward God are mentioned (vv. 13-18AT). The editors probably omitted this aspect of Proto-Esther to avoid mentioning a fear that is not typical of a hero. As elsewhere, in the MT of Esther, references to divine action in ProtoEsther (in addition to 6:17AT; “The Powerful One” in 6:1AT and “because God is among them” in 6:22AT) seem to also have been erased by the proto-Masoretic editors. The absence of explicit mention of divine action does not necessarily contest its existence, but rather constitutes a literary technique that turns the reader into an interpreter invited to discern the work of God behind the happy coincidences, but also behind the action of the Jewish protagonists.57 Proto-Esther does not immediately make Mordecai into a functionary of the king, installed at the palace gate. Consequently, in 4:2AT, Mordecai leaves his home, and in 6:20AT he returns. In Proto-Esther Chapter 5, Haman does not meet Mordecai anew, but in his speech to his wife, he simply recalls prior encounters. Consequently, it is logical that Mordecai is still in mourning attire when Haman prepares him for the parade. It is thus Haman himself who makes him take off his sackcloth in 6:13-18AT. The proto-Masoretic editors modify this scenario. For them, Mordecai is a royal functionary who can no longer access the king’s gate (Ch. 4). His reclothing and his reestablishment are progressive. After the three days of mourning Mordecai returns of his own accord to the king’s gate (5:9) which implies that, like Esther in 5:1-2, he has changed his clothing in order to be able to return to this venue. When Haman gives him royal garments in 6:11MT, he goes above and beyond the simple reestablishment of his prior situation, permitting him to attain, at the gate where he returns in 6:12MT, a superior status. Mordecai thus obtains in 6:10-11 the clothing that he will wear in 8:15MT and that the king will complete with the ring in 8:2MT.

54 In 6:3AT, “And there was a conspiracy of the eunuchs and a service rendered by Mordecai for the king” alludes neither to the content of Add. A nor to that of 2:21-23MT, the wording of which it does not take up. Following CLINES, Scroll, 104-107, one may think that no prior narrative appeared in Proto-Esther. Such a narrative is not required by 6:3-6aAT. 55 The deletions of “who honors the king” vv. 9, 11, and 19 of Proto-Esther and “savior” (v. 5AT) emphasizing Mordecai’s great respect for the king are in a similar vein. 56 The episode of 2:21-23 leads to Haman’s elevation at the point when Mordecai’s elevation would be expected. 57 Cf. above § Divine Coincidences and § Presence and Absence of God in the MT in the Introduction.

Eunuchs’ Plot, King’s Attitude, and the Responsibility of the System

Mordecai and the Work of God

Mordecai, His Clothing, and His Social Status

220

Synthesis

Haman and The proto-Masoretic rewriting of the speech by Zeresh and Haman’s wise friends the Enemies in 13MT (// 22AT) shifts the focus. In Proto-Esther Haman’s woes are explained by of the Jews God’s punishing him because of his negative attitude toward Mordecai. His wife

(and advisors), then, suggest to him to cease doing evil and stay calm. The protoMasoretic editors, on the other hand, present a speech that puts the conflict more explicitly on an ethnic level. In doing so, they show that Haman, the archetypal enemy of the Jews, lost the match and they prepare the long development for the triumph of the Jews over their enemies in Chapters 8 and 9.

The Greek Translations and the Late Modifications of the MT Late Modifica- Some elements of the MT seem to have been inserted late, after the LXX was tions of the translated. For example, the names of the two eunuchs, Bigthana and Teresh, seem MT to have been added late in 6:2 as well as in 2:21. The mention of the diadem

placed on the horse’s head in 6:8, absent from the LXX, probably also constitutes a late addition. Mentions of As we discussed, the explicit mentions of divine action in Proto-Esther were God by the removed in the proto-Masoretic rewriting of the passage. In this part of the narraTranslators tive, the Greek and Aramaic translators of the MT reintroduced explicit mentions of divine action undoubtedly out of a concern for clarification (cf. LXX and targumim on 6:1 and 13).

Synthesis This passage establishes a reversal of situation. Although not explicit, the divine support received by Mordecai is clearly evoked. In the Hasmonean-Maccabean context in which the proto-Masoretic editors worked, this passage illustrates the merits of the heroes’ resistance against the enemies of the Jews and testifies to the conviction that led them to triumph. By putting the affirmation of the inevitable triumph of the Jews on the lips of those close to Haman, the enemy of the Jews par excellence, the editors emphasize that the favorable destiny of the Jews can impose respect upon all.

Chapter 7. The Death of Haman 1 The king came with Haman to drinka with Queen Esther. 2 The second day during the wine banquet, the king also said to Esther: “What is your wish Queen Esther? It shall be granted you.a What is your request? Even to half of the kingdom, it shall be done.” 3 Queen Esther answered and said: “If I have found favor in your eyes, O King, and if it pleases the king, let my life be given me for my wish and my people for my request, 4 for we have been sold, I and my people, to be destroyed, killed, and eliminated. But if it was to be menservants and maidservants that we were sold, I would have kept quiet, for athis adversityb would not be equal toc the king’s trouble.a 5 King Ahasuerus asaid, he saida to Queen Esther: “Who is it and where is he,b who has filled his heart to do that?” 6 Esther said: “The adversarya and the enemy is this wicked Haman.” Haman was terrifiedb before the king and the queen. 7 In his anger the king rose from the wine banquet toward the garden of the pavillion. Haman stood to beg for his life from Queen Esther, afor he saw that as far as the king was concerned, his misfortune was decided.a 8 The king returned from the garden of the pavillion to the house of the wine banquet while Haman had fallen upon the bed upon which Esther was (lying). The king said: “Is it also to violatea the queen with me in the house?” The word went out from the king’s mouth and they coveredb Haman’s face. 9 Harbonaa, one of the eunuchs before the king, said: “What’s more, here is the wooden pole that Haman made for Mordecai, who had spoken well to the king, set up in Haman’s house, fifty cubits high.” The king said: “Hang him on it.” 10 They hanged Haman on the gallows that he had erected for Mordecai. The king’s anger subsided.

Notes on Text and Translation 1a

2a

4a-a

b

One could understand ‫“ שתה‬to drink” as “to banquet” or “to feast.” (TOB, NBS, NRSV, KJV, etc.). However, such a translation weakens the drunken nature of the banquet (cf. 7:2, 7, 8). Contrary to the parallel in 5:6 (cf. note a) the verb agrees with the feminine “wish” ‫( שׁאלה‬the agreement in the feminine does not allude to the fact that the queen will ask for her life ‫ נפשׁ‬f.s. contra LEVENSON, Esther, 101). This remark is absent from the LXX, which reproduced the sentence loosely. The difficult Hebrew of this passage is the reason that different versions render it loosely. The LXX translated “for such an enemy is not worthy of the king’s court” (see KAHANA, Esther, 281). The Vulgate renders “but now we have an enemy concerning whose cruelty falls back upon the king.” Despite the difficult text, one must not correct ‫ הצר‬as sometimes conjectured (GINSBERG, “Notes,” 81 reads ‫ חצר‬and likens the term to the Aramaic ḥiṣṣar “little finger” and ḥeṣṣra “small amount.” BHK; BHS; WILDEBOER, Esther, 191; HALLER, “Esther,” 130 corrects to ‫“ הצלה‬deliverance”).

222 c

5a-a

b

6a b

7a-a 8a b

9a

Chapter 7. The Death of Haman In Prov 3:15 and 8:11, ‫ שׁוה‬followed by ‫ ב‬signifies “to be equal to (something).” In Esth 3:8 and 5:13 ‫ שׁוה‬followed by ‫ ל‬signifies “to be suitable for (someone or doing something).” The doubling of ‫ ויאמר‬expresses the solemnness of the royal speech (see the commentary). There is no need to delete the first ‫ ויאמר‬as dittography (BHK; BHS; MOORE, Esther, 71) or to correct it as ‫“ וימהר‬he hurried” (BHK; BHS; EHRLICH, Randglossen, 120; HALLER, “Esther,” 130). The LXX translates: “The king said:” (FOX, Character, 283; KAHANA, Esther, 282). The expression ‫ אי־זה‬is understood as a question about location: “Where is?” This meaning of ‫ אי‬is the most common. The meaning “what is?” is also possible (Qoh 2:3; 11:6 cf. HAL; BERLIN, Esther, 68). ‫ אישׁ צר‬literally “adversary man” or “man of adversity” depending upon whether ‫צר‬ is interpreted as concrete or abstract. ‫ בעת‬in the niphal means “to be terrified” rather than “to be surprised” (Dan 8:17; 1 Chr 21:30), cf. HAL; BARDTKE, “Esther,” 355; BUSH, Esther, 423; contra HAUPT, “NOTES,” 150 and MOORE, Esther, 71. The LXX renders with the verb ταράσσω “to worry.” The LXX reproduces freely: “for he saw himself in a bad situation.” The general meaning of ‫ כבשׁ‬is “to subdue.” The context suggests a sexual aggression. In the MT, the form ‫ חפו‬makes sense as “they covered.” It is not useful to correct into ‫“ חפרו‬he was ashamed” (BHS; FOX, Character, 283-284. cf. Albert CONDAMIN, “La disgrâce d’Aman (Esth. vii, 8),” RB 7 (1898), 258-261, esp. 260), into ‫“ חפוי‬being covered” (GORDIS, “Studies,” 56), or into ‫“ חורו‬paled” (BHS; RUDOLPH, “Estherbuch,” 90). The LXX has “he was confused in the head” or “he turned his head away.” The eunuch is called Αγαθας in the AT, Βουγαθαν in the LXX, Buzatas/Bagutas in the OL. In the MT, his name was corrected late under the influence of 1:10.

Synchronic Analysis Introduction The banquet of Chapter 7 follows the one in 5:3-8 in which Esther invited the king

and Haman to a second banquet. At the beginning of the banquet in Chapter 7, the king reiterates his promise to Esther (5:8) to respond favorably to her future request. She then asks him to save her life and the lives of her people (vv. 3-4). She thereby takes a vital risk and fully commits herself in favor of her people. By revealing her familial and ethnic identity that was hidden until this point (2:10, 20), she enters into solidarity with the Jews. She acts within the Persian court in a determined and skillful manner by using, in particular, a court rhetoric that is very respectful of the king. From v. 5, Haman’s situation begins to be reversed. The king asks Esther to identify the guilty person (v. 5) and she reveals him (v. 6). The abject Haman finds himself in a situation similar to the one to which he had wanted to subject the Jews. Ironically, in v. 7 Haman tries to plead for deliverance from Esther. While he had hoped to become like the king (5:9-6:9) he falls upon Esther’s bed to entreat her and is accused of wanting to violate her. For Haman, his hanging (vv. 9-10) marks the definitive reversal of his situation. He undergoes the punishment he foresaw for Mordecai. Just as for the Persian princesses described by Ctesias,1 Esther’s strategy at the banquet worked well. Drawing near to the king, exploiting his promises, the

1

See the commentary on 5:1-8 § Persian Queens in Greek Texts.

223

Synchronic Analysis

vanity of the protagonists, and their drunkenness, she triumphs and leads her enemy to execution. The passage is organized2 in three parts: after the arrival of the king and Haman to the banquet (1), a dialogue takes place between the king and Esther (26a). This is followed by the reactions of Haman and of the king (6b-8a), and then Haman’s execution (8b-10). The presentation of the arrival of the king and Haman is revelatory concerning what is about to unfold. The two protagonists are there “to drink,” a formulation that underlines the drunken character of the episode.3 Since Chapter 1 showed that the drunken banquet environment exacerbates royal anger (1:12), influences inconsiderate and unpredictable behaviors (1:10-12, 16-20), and can lead important characters such as Vashti to be removed from power, one understands that the queen drew together conducive ways to manipulate the men whom she hosts with wine.4 In addition, the honorific title “Queen Esther” signals the predominant position she occupies. The constant reminder of her royal position plays an important role in the way her relations with the king and Haman are described. Haman perceives his invitation from “the queen” (5:12) as an honor. Furthermore, the king emphasizes in his choice of formulaic protocols that his interactions with her are connected to her royal status. Moreover, throughout the episode, Haman loses his life when he appears to take possession of “the queen.” The dialogue thus unfolds on “the second day” during the second banquet organized by the queen. At the end of the first banquet, the king had invited the queen to pose a request and she had promised to do so during this second banquet (5:7-8). The king opens his speech by inviting Esther to pose her request. The grandiose phraseology of 5:6b and of 5:3 are reused and further developed.

5:3

5:6

7:2

“What is it, Queen Esther?

“What is your wish?

“What is your wish Queen Esther?

It shall be granted you.

It shall be granted you.

What is your request?

What is your request?

What is your request?

Even to half of the kingdom, Even to half of the kingdom, Even to half of the kingdom, it shall be granted you.”

it shall be done.”

it shall be done.”

Esther replies by stating her request. Her words aim to cancel the edict proclaimed in 3:12-15 and to call into question the measures advocated by Haman in his speech in 3:8-9. The phraseology5 and the themes reuse those in Chapter 3. This phraseology coheres with Chapter 4 when Mordecai informs Esther of the con-

2 3 4 5

The structure of the passage is complicated. Other divisions can be found in BARDTKE, “Esther,” 351-360; BUSH, Esther, 424-426; DOROTHY, Books, 252-254; PATON, Esther, 257-267. In Ch. 7, ‫“ משׁתה היין‬the wine banquet” (7:2, 7, 8) is found three times. See the commentary on 5:1-8 § Esther’s Attitude in the World Described. Compare the wording: “if it pleases the king” (3:9; 7:3); ‫“ להשׁמיד להרוג ולאבד‬to destroy, to kill, and to eliminate” (3:13; 7:4); ‫“ שׁוה‬to be fair/equal” (3:8; 7:4).

Passage Organization

7:1. The Arrival at the Banquet

7:2-6a. Dialogue between the King and the Queen

What is your request?

224

If I Have Found Favor

My Life / My People

The Sale

Destroy, Kill, Eliminate

To Be Menservants and Maidservants

Chapter 7. The Death of Haman

tents of the edict and gives her confidential information about the financial transactions between Haman and the king (4:7-8). The queen’s request opens with a polite formula “If I have found favor in your eyes, O King,” which is more deferential than the formula in 5:4 and 5:8, and especially more than Haman’s in 3:9.6 It is known through 2:17 and 5:2 that during her other visits before the king, she already won this favor and that it will be repeated here. In 7:3b, Esther’s request reuses the parallel construction – the ‫שׁאלה‬ “wish” and the ‫“ בקשׁה‬request” – that characterized the king’s offer, and she requests two complementary things: ‫“ נפשׁי‬my life” and ‫“ עמי‬my people.” By connecting her life to that of her people, Esther shows her solidarity with others in accordance with what Mordecai told her in 4:13-14. In 3b, Esther requests her life before that of her people, probably to suggest that if the king saves the Jews it is more to save his wife than to bring justice to a people within his kingdom. In the book of Esther, the king is more concerned with his own well-being and with his relationship with the queen than with the peoples that he governs.7 The problem announced in 3b is explained in v. 4. The expression “for we have been sold I and my people” calls to mind the enormous sum of money offered by Haman in 3:9. The use of the passive of the verb “to sell” makes Esther into an astute rhetoritician who avoids explicitly declaring that it is the king who sold the people to Haman. The use of ‫“ מכר‬to sell,” which designates most often a financial transaction, tends to show that in 3:11 the king accepted the ten thousand talents offered by Haman.8 Considering the numerous connections between Esther and the Joseph story in which the hero is sold (Gen 37:27-28, 36; 45:4-5) and between Esther and the book of Exodus in which Pharaoh enslaves the Israelites (Exod 1:8-14), one may think that the motif of the sale of the Jews by Haman aims to draw a parallel between Esther and the Jews of Susa on the one hand, and the famous hero of the Egyptian diaspora and the Israelites oppressed in Egypt, on the other. Esther next uses the three very harsh and violent verbs – “destroy” ‫שׁמד‬, “kill” ‫הרג‬, “eliminate” ‫ – אבד‬that appear in Haman’s edict (3:13). She thus emphasizes the horror that is underway, about which the king is not entirely aware, since in 3:8-9 Haman addressed him in veiled speech suggesting only to “eliminate” the Jews and to not “let them be” as a people. The sale to “eliminate” (root ‫ )אבד‬is set in opposition with a sale that would have merely made the Jews servants (root ‫)עבד‬. The alliteration between the roots ‫ אבד‬and ‫עבד‬9 shows the editors’ careful scribal techniques. The argument empha-

6 7 8

9

See the commentary on 5:3-8. 7:3 is more personal than 5:8 but the level of protocol remains high. The only edicts whose writing and signing the king delegates – by giving the royal ring to others – are those concerning affairs beyond the palace (3:10ff.; 8:8ff.). Contra this interpretation, one could argue that ‫ מכר‬is sometimes used for deliveries that are not accompanied by payments. One could then translate here ‫ מכר‬with “to deliver” and understand that the king would not have accepted the money offered by Haman in 3:11 (cf. BERLIN, Esther, 66; OMANSON and NOSS, Handbook, 175-176; PATON, Esther, 258; BJ; NAB). That said, in the Bible, ‫ מכר‬can mean “to deliver” especially with YHWH as subject (cf. Judg 2:14; 3:8; 10:7; 1 Sam 12:9; Ezek 30:12). BERG, Book, 102.

Synchronic Analysis

225

sizes the extreme gravity of what is about to unfold: it is not merely a matter of slavery, but of death. In saying: “I would have kept quiet” if there were only the threat of servitude, Esther pretends to show consideration for the king; it appears she wants to disturb him as little as possible. The Hebrew “for this adversity ‫ צר‬would not be equal to the king’s trouble This Adversity ‫ ”נזק‬is difficult. The two primary terms are ambiguous. ‫ צר‬can have the abstract Would Not Be meaning of “distress,” or “adversity” (Ps 4:2; 119:143; Job 15:24; etc.) or the con- Equal crete meaning of “adversary,” or “enemy” (Num 10:9; Josh 5:13; Isa 1:24; etc.). With regard to ‫נזק‬, it can have the concrete meaning of material “damage,” a common usage in Mishnaic Hebrew, or the abstract meaning of “boredom,” “trouble,” or “irritation,” a meaning attested in biblical Aramaic (Dan 6:3).10 Several interpretations are possible.11 Taking ‫ צר‬in its concrete sense of “adversary” is difficult, because the rest of the passage then becomes elliptic and unclear.12 If one takes ‫ נזק‬in the abstract sense of “trouble” for the phrase “for the adversary would not be equal to the king’s trouble,” the meaning is strange because it would signify that having the head of an enemy would not justify troubling the king. If one takes ‫ נזק‬in the sense of material damage, one would have to translate “but the adversary would not be equal to the damage done to the king,” and understand that if the Jews were destroyed, the adversary could not compensate for the financial loss that such an act would cause the king. The passage would then seem to refer to the payment of ten thousand talents promised in 3:9 but would be very elliptical and raise more questions than it would answer. It would not be clear why the ten thousand talents would not be sufficient to compensate the damage done to the king nor how the sale into slavery would damage the sovereign. Consequently, the best solution is to take ‫ צר‬and ‫ נזק‬in their abstract meanings13 and translate: “for this adversity would not be equal to the king’s trouble.” The notice then signifies that if the Jews had only been sold as slaves, this adversity would not have justified disturbing the king. The formulation plays on two levels. It concludes the queen’s speech in a particularly obsequious manner by emphasizing the extreme value that she attributes to the king’s tranquility. Moreover, it relies on irony in suggesting that in the court, law and justice are rarely considered since one does not disturb the king merely to save a population from slavery. Finally, this formulation at the end of v. 4 is part of a clever literary construction that progressively reveals Haman’s guilt. Esther first takes account of the nature of the “adversity” ‫ צר‬that justifies disturbing the king’s tranquility (7:4). She then names the individual responsible for this “adversity” and describes him as ‫“ אישׁ צר‬the adversary man” / “the man of adversity” (7:6). The allusion to

10 See HAUPT, “Notes,” 147. In Ezra 4:13, 15, 22 ‫ נזק‬can be understood either as “damage” or “boredom.” 11 Nevertheless, the passage is sometimes considered to be incomprehensible or ambiguous (PATON, Esther, 261-262; OMANSON and NOSS, Handbook, 176-177; BERG, Book, 100-101; BERLIN, Esther, 67-68). 12 Such is the solution adopted by DOMMERSHAUSEN, Ester, 37; FOX, Character, 282; LEVENSON, Esther, 100; ROSSIER, intercession, 285-286; BJ; NBS, NEB and NRSV. 13 C. BARDTKE, “Esther,” 354; BUSH, Esther, 427-428; GERLEMAN, Esther, 122-123; GORDIS, “Studies,” 55-56; MOORE, Esther, 70-71; TOB.

226

The Rhetoric of 7:3-4

The King Said, He Said…

Who Is It and Where Is He?

The One Who Has Filled His Heart

Anger and Astonishment

Chapter 7. The Death of Haman

the recurring descriptor of Haman as the “oppressor ‫ צרר‬of the Jews” (3:10; 8:1; 9:10, 24) thus becomes apparent. The wording of Esther’s entire request in 7:3-4 shows her to be a clever rhetorician. She mentions the tragedy by using the terminology and the contents of Haman’s decree. She associates her own fate with that of her people all the while showing deference toward the king. At the end of v. 4, the issues surrounding the request are perfectly clear: they concern saving the Jews from death. The continuation of the passage in 7:5-6 will address the issue of responsibility for what might happen. The king’s reply to Esther is introduced by the phrase: “King Ahasuerus said, he said to Queen Esther” which contains the verb “to say” twice. This manner of introducing a speech appears in other biblical passages (cf. Gen 22:7; Ezra 10:2; Neh 3:34; 2 Chr 31:10) and underscores the solemnity of the interaction between these two protagonists.14 The king interrogates Esther about the identity of the one responsible. The sentence opens with a double question: “Who is it and where is he?” The meaning of the first question is clear while the second could be understood as either a repetition of the first question regarding the identity of the guilty one, or as a question about his location.15 The situation is comical since the king is asking where to find someone who is right beside him. What follows clarifies the blame bestowed upon the individual: he “filled his heart to do that.” The king is not asking who condemned the queen and the people, for in that case he would have needed to say “who has done that.” In reality, the request relates to the person who planned the condemnation. This point is not purely anecdotal. Indeed, Chapter 3 reports that it is the king himself who condemns the Jews since the edict is issued in his name, but that it is Haman who is the intellectual initiator of the project. The formulation of 7:5 is lapidary and gives the impression of a hasty speech that contrasts with the very pompous and reasoned style at the beginning of the exchange with the queen (7:2-4). The wording suggests that the king explodes in anger, which is mentioned explicitly in 7:7. In addition, his astonishment is complete. He does not doubt the connection between his decision to obliterate a people in Chapter 3 and the present episode.16 The royal reaction shows that Esther’s strategy is working. Drunk at the end of the banquet, the king reacts in an impulsive manner and only wants there to be a designated individual responsible. As in Chapter 3 when he delegated the writing of an important decree, the irresponsible nature of the king appears here. One would expect from a competent sovereign that he would ask the identity and the reasons for the condemnation of a people and seek to understand the mechanisms that could have led to the

14 It is not to express hesitation by the king (MEINHOLD, Esther, 65) or to show narrative tension (cf. BARDTKE, “Esther,” 356; BUSH, Esther, 429). 15 The present translation assumes this second interpretation, see textual note 5b. 16 According to the present analysis, in the MT the king ignores that Esther is Jewish and that this people is condemned. Esther hides her identity (2:10, 20) and after 2:21-23, the king knows only that she knows Mordecai. In 3:8-9 Haman does not tell the king the name of the people, and the edict that he publishes is not known to the palace (4:8).

Synchronic Analysis

227

condemnation to death of the queen, which he does not do. Whatever the case may be, the trap closes in on Haman who, facing the king’s anger, can no longer even plead his case. The queen responds with a lapidary formula, constructed in a similar manner to the king’s question; two parallel hemistiches “the adversary and the enemy” are followed by a brief development “…is this wicked Haman.” For the first time, Haman is directly accused. Pejorative descriptors that, in the book of Esther, are always applied to the enemies of the Jews, are now applied to him. The expression ‫“ אישׁ צר‬adversary” makes a connection to “adversity” ‫ צר‬in 7:4. In addition, “oppressor” ‫ צרר‬of the Jews (3:10; 8:1; 9:10, 24) and “enemy” ‫ אויב‬globally describe the opponents of the Jews (8:13; 9:1, 5, 16, 22). Finally, Esther says nothing of the king’s responsibility and of the Persian system and blames a single individual. A similar shift between the narrator’s description of events and the protagonists’ accounts of them is reflected in the speeches of Memucan (Ch. 1) and Haman (Ch. 3), and in the edict issued by Mordecai (9:24-25). The king must face a harsh reality: the two people closest to him, namely the head minister whom he glorified (3:1, 10-11) and the queen who has his favor (2:17; 5:2), are ferocious enemies. He will have to choose between them. After Haman is denounced, his fate seems sealed. However, before the royal sanction can be formulated, the narrative is prolonged by the action of Haman’s falling onto Esther’s bed. Haman understands that the royal couple now form a unified front; he is “terrified before the king and the queen” (7:6b) and he saw “that with regard to the king, his misfortune was decided” (7:7). Note the use of the same root when the queen accuses Haman of being ‫“ הרע‬wicked” (v. 6aβ) and the ‫“ הרעה‬misfortune” decided concerning him (v. 7bβ). The formulation of his plea for mercy to the queen shows the reversal of the situation: “Haman stood ‫ עמד‬to beg ‫ בקשׁ‬for his life ‫ נפש‬of Queen Esther.” He finds himself in a situation similar to the one that Esther has just faced. Threatened with death, he “stood” before the queen just as she “stood” before the king in 5:1-2. Like Esther four verses prior (7:3), he begs for his life ‫נפש‬.17 Haman’s falling upon the bed where Esther was lying is an act of supplication.18 At the moment he understands that the situation has been reversed, this sad individual attempts to save his life by bowing down to the person whose people he had wanted to eliminate. The irony is scathing and falling upon the bed of Mordecai’s adoptive daughter is part of the process of abasement announced by Zeresh in 6:13. Even as Haman’s fate seems sealed, the angry king rose from the wine banquet toward the garden of the pavillion. He then returns to the “house of the wine banquet.” This episode allows for a face to face between Haman and Esther (7:7b) and creates an inclusio with the beginning of the book, where the king is humiliated by Vashti in the “garden of the pavillion” (1:5) at the end of the seven day banquet. The reasons for this brief trip to the garden are not clear. Did Ahasuerus

17 In 7:3 Esther asks (root ‫ )בקשׁתי‬the king for her “life” ‫נפש‬. “To ask” ‫ בקשׁ‬also appears when Mordecai invites Esther to plead the case of her people (4:8). 18 Proto-Esther is clear on this point. Here ‫ נפל‬describes an act of prostration as in Gen 17:3; 44:14; Jer 36:7; 38:26; Job 1:20; Ruth 2:10 ; etc. Same usage of ‫ נפל‬in Esth 8:3.

This Wicked Haman

7:6b-8a. The Reactions of Haman and the King Haman Terrified

Asking for Mercy

The King’s Comings and Goings

228

Is It Also to Violate the Queen?

Esther’s Passivity

Chapter 7. The Death of Haman

want solitude to reflect or to become sober, was he hesitant to condemn his head minister, or did he react in disgust or anger related to his drunkenness?19 Two clues suggest that the editors wanted to describe an ill-considered reaction related to the loss of self-control. The passage relates this reaction to the king’s anger. In fact, elsewhere in the Esther MT, anger always drives Persian characters of high status to ill-considered impulsive reactions (1:12; 2:21-23; 3:5; 5:9). Moreover, the king is generally presented as being weak, little inclined to take responsibility (3:11) and showing little reason in a drunken context (1:10 ff.). Now, leaving his wife alone with her enemy is irresponsible, especially as the presence of women at Persian wine banquets may have an inappropriate sexual connotation.20 Consequently, the misunderstanding that took place when the king interpreted Haman’s presence on Esther’s bed as a sexual advance is logical. Haman’s posture is ambiguous and awkward. Moreover, the king’s remark shows that he understands it as a desire to seize the queen and thus usurp his power. To appropriate royal spouses as a sign of taking power is found in several biblical episodes and in Greek literature about Persia.21 By interpreting Haman’s approach to Esther as sexual, the king accuses him of royal ambitions. He does it for the wrong reasons since Haman is in the process of pleading to the queen. However, the reader knows that Haman’s hubris has few limits, that he wanted everyone to bow to him (3:1-6), that he bragged about his glory (5:11-13), and that he sought royal honors (6:6-9). This situation is thus ironic since Haman is undone by a crime he did not commit, but that his ambitions could have led him to commit. It is sometimes thought that the king would accuse Haman of violating his wife in order to find a pretext to condemn him22 because, since he had authorized him to issue the edict condemning the queen and her people, he could not condemn him for this reason. However, the book of Esther is a novel filled with irony in which it is not surprising for a sovereign to condemn a subject for an act that he himself authorized. Moreover, in 8:7 he says that it is because Haman attemped to kill the Jews that he was condemned.23 Finally, the theme of the drunken banquet makes it possible to imagine that the king had confused a gesture of supplication with an attempt at a sexual advance. Over the course of the episode, the queen is reclining passively on her bed ‫מטה‬24. Reclining is standard for banquets in the Persian and Hellenistic worlds;25 it is implied by the mention of beds ‫ מטות‬in 1:6. That Esther did not have compassion on Haman and did not intervene when he was condemned to death is some-

19 See BERLIN, Esther, 69; LEVENSON, Esther, 104; PATON, Esther, 262-263. 20 See the commentary on 1:10-12. 21 See Absalom and David’s harem (2 Sam 16:21-22), Adonijah and Abishag (1 Kgs 2:1325). In Plutarch (Art., 26.2), Ochus seeks to approach the royal spouse Atossa with a view to succession. See also Xenophon (Cyr., 5.2.28) . 22 BERLIN, Esther, 64-65, 70-71; FOX, Character, 87; WHITE CRAWFORD, “Book,” 919. 23 See VIALLE, analyse, 51. 24 Nothing suggests that she provokes Haman (contra LANIAK, Shame, 151). 25 See Jean-Marie DENTZER, Le motif du banquet couché dans le Proche-Orient et le monde grec du VIIe au IVe siècle avant J.-C (BEFAR 246), Roma, Paris, 1982. On reclining at Persian banquets cf. HERODOTUS, Hist., 9.80-82; XENOPHON, Cyr., 8.8.16.

Synchronic Analysis

229

times negatively perceived.26 However, no negative indication appears in the MT; indeed, if Esther had saved such a dangerous character, she would have been acting foolishly.27 From the point of view of the editors of the Hasmonean-Maccabean era, the combat in which she is engaged is a just struggle, but a struggle to the death against terrifying enemies. By scheming at the banquet, she leads a real combat with the weapons of a Persian queen.28 Moreover, later in the narrative, the struggle to save the Jews is carried out with violence and Esther continues to participate in it (8:8; 9:12-15). 7:8 ends laconically: “The word went out from the king’s mouth and they covered Haman’s face.” After the royal remark about violating the queen, this is undoubtedly a death sentence. Covering the face of someone condemned to death is well-attested in the Greco-Roman world.29 In this passage, the propensity of the editors to create links between the different episodes of the narrative is pushed to the extreme. The same vocabulary appears in the conclusion of the three episodes implicating Haman (3:15; 6:12; and 7:8) and relates them one to the other.30 In 3:15, the word ‫ דבר‬of the king is confused with that of Haman and emerges as a royal decree. In 7:8, speech leaves the mouth of the king but condemns Haman. While in 6:12, Haman’s face was covered as a sign of sadness, here it is for death.31 Finally, the mention of “Haman’s face” ‫פני המן‬, now veiled, attests to his decline, since the book of Esther emphasizes that being before the “face of the king” ‫ לפני המלך‬is to be close to power (1:11, 14, 16), and to be distanced from it marks decline (1:19). Haman’s condemnation ends with the intervention of a eunuch named “Harbona” present “before the king.” Mentioning this character alludes to the episode of Vashti’s downfall where he is listed among eunuchs present “before the king” (1:10) who were sent to summon Vashti. Like the youths in 2:2-4, Harbona intervenes without being asked. He provides information that the reader knows from Chapters 5 and 6 but about which the king is still ignorant: outside his house, Haman had erected “the wooden pole… fifty cubits high” destined for “Mordecai, the one who spoke well to the king.” In mentioning that Haman wanted to attack the person who “spoke well” by informing the king of the eunuchs’ plot (2:21-23), he gives the king an additional reason to condemn him. Ironically, while Haman had made “a wooden pole fifty cubits high” to hang Mordecai (5:14; 6:4), the king orders: “Hang him on it.” The hanging augments

26 Especially PATON, Esther, 264. 27 ARNOLD, Esther, 148; BUSH, Esther, 434; MOORE, Esther, 74; LEVENSON, Esther, 105-106. 28 See the commentary on 5:1-8 § Reasons for the Double Invitation to the Banquet: Persian Queens in Greek Texts. 29 See QUINTE CURCE, 6.8.22; TITUS LIVIUS, Ab Urbe Condita Libri, 1.26.6-11. 30 In 3:15, Haman’s success results in the couriers going out ‫ יצא‬quickly ‫ דחף‬according to the word ‫ דבר‬of the king. Haman drinks ‫ שׁתה‬with the king while, in 4:3, the Jews are in mourning ‫אבל‬. In 6:12, after Haman’s first reversal, he hurries ‫ דחף‬to his house, in mourning ‫ אבל‬and with a covered ‫ חפה‬head. Finally, in 7:8, at the end of a banquet where he has come to drink ‫שׁתה‬, a word ‫ דבר‬goes out ‫ יצא‬from the king’s mouth and his face is covered ‫חפה‬. 31 The rare verb ‫ חפה‬emphasizes the connection between 6:12 and 7:8 (VIALLE, analyse, 4950).

7:8b-10. Haman is Condemned

Harbona

230

Diachronic Analysis

the death penalty by exhibiting the corpse of the condemned.32 This bellicose practice is attested in the Maccabean era when Nicanor, the enemy of the Jews, has his head exhibited in Jerusalem (1 Macc 7:47; 2 Macc 15:36). Haman is subjected to the punishment to which he had wanted to subject Mordecai and to which his sons will be subjected after their death (9:12-14). Just as the king’s anger subsided after measures against Vashti were instituted (2:1), so also after the measures against Haman were instituted “the king’s anger subsided.”

Diachronic Analysis According to this commentary’s hypothesis, the Alpha Text of Chapters 1 to 7 (without the six additions) translates fairly literally Proto-Esther, a first Hebrew form of Esther largely reworked by the editors of the consonantal proto-Masoretic textual form that is close to the MT.33

Proto-Esther Chapter 7 of Proto-Esther is a little longer than the MT, given the presence of three additional passages (vv. 2; 4b-7 and 14), but the general framework remains. The dialogue between the king and Esther ends with Haman’s denunciation; the king exits; Haman pleads with Esther, an action seen as an attempt to violate the queen; Haman is condemned and hanged upon the advice of a servant. Several differences appear, however. In Proto-Esther, the dialogue between the king and Esther is less formal than in the MT, and some events are implied.34 The king, the queen, and their actions are presented fairly differently. In Proto-Esther, the king is presented as a man more active and favorable toward the queen’s cause. He declares vehemently that attacking the queen constitutes a grave crime and insists that the queen denounce the guilty party (5, 7, 11a and 14b). In 14a he declares that Haman’s attitude regarding Mordecai is an attack againt the monarchy. Esther is less determined than in the MT. She worries about confronting Haman, prays (2), and seems to want to postpone the confrontation by arguing of her desire to calm the king and of the reversal suffered by Haman (4b and 6). Finally, certain tensions appear in the queen’s speech: in v. 3 she asks strangely for “my nation for my life” and in v. 4 she mentions slavery and not the massacre nevertheless clearly foreseen in Proto-Esther Chapter 3.

32 On the nature of this punishment see the commentary on 5:14. The theme of the crucifixion of the wicked was used in the Jewish polemic against Christianity at the beginning of the Middle Ages (see Catherine Brown TKACZ, “Esther, Jesus, and Psalm 22,” CBQ 70 (2008), p. 709-728). 33 See the Introduction, Textual Forms and Editorial Stages. 34 The king’s arrival at the banquet, the location of the king’s walk, and Haman’s hanging are not reported.

231

Proto-Esther

The translation below is based upon the Alpha Text of the book of Esther Chapter 7:114 (HANHART (ed.), Esther, 181-185).

6:23b Having arrived he reclined with them on time. 7:1 As the drink advanced, the king said to Esther: “What is the danger and what is your wish? Even to half of my kingdom.” 2 Esther was perturbed to report, for the adversary was before her eyes, but God gave her courage, for she called to him. 3 Esther said: “If it pleases the king and if the decision seems good in his heart, let my people be given for my wish and my nation for my life, 4 for we have been sold, I and my people, into slavery and their children as booty. I did not want to report so as not to sadden my lord. Indeed, the man who has caused us harm was upset.” 5 The king became angry and said: “Who is it, who dared to humiliate the sign of my royalty by disregarding fear of you?” 6 When the queen saw that it seemed terrible to the king and that he detested evil, she said: “Do not become irritated, lord, for it is sufficient that I have found your clemency. Regale yourself, O King. Tomorrow I will act according to your word.” 7 The king swore that she must tell him who was proud enough to act in this way, and by oath he pledged to do for her what she wanted. 8 With courage, Esther said: “Haman your friend, is this deceiver, this evil man.” 9 The king, angry and filled with rage, jumped up and began to pace around. 10 Haman was terrifed and fell at the feet of Queen Esther who was still reclined upon the couch. 11 The king returned to the banquet and seeing this he said: “The crime against the monarchy is not sufficient for you? You attack my wife in front of me. Let Haman be taken away and let him live no longer.” 12 And thus he was taken away. Agathas, one of his servants, said: “Look, there is a tree trunk in his court of fifty cubits, that which Haman cut to hang Mordecai, the one who said good things for the king. Therefore order, lord, that he be hanged upon it. 13 The king said: “Let him be hanged upon it.” Moreover, the king removed the ring from his hand and thus his life was sealed. 14 And the king said to Esther: “Did he not plan to hang Mordecai who had saved me from the hand of the eunuchs? Did he not know that Esther is of his race?” The numbering of the verses in HANHART’S AT does not correspond to the MT numbering.

AT / ProtoEsther

6:23b 1

MT

1

2

2

3

4

5

3

4

5a

6

7

8

5b 6a

9–11 12

13a

6b-8 9a

9b

13b

14

10 (10)+8:1-2

The AT translates a Hebrew (Proto-Esther) text that is a little longer than the MT. Where the contents of the AT coincide with those of the MT, the Hebrew translated by the AT corresponds grosso modo to the consonantal text of the MT. In most cases, the synopsis of

232

Diachronic Analysis Jobes shows where the Masoretic Hebrew reuses Proto-Esther exactly, that is to say, the Vorlage of the AT.35 In this chapter, the editors of the proto-Masoretic text intervened in a manner comparable with what they did in Chapter 6. They not only added “pluses” to Proto-Esther, but also changed the order of certain passages (9-11AT // 6b-8MT) and replaced certain elements from their source. They probably omitted two passages from their source (vv. 2, 4b-7 and 14, see the diachronic analysis of Chapter 6). 6:23bAT is totally reformulated by the proto-Masoretic editors. In vv. 1, 3-4a, 8-13, the proto-Masoretic editors omitted some brief passages present in Proto-Esther. The words “What is the danger” (1) and “if the decision seems good in his heart” (3) fell away when the MT introduced wording that conforms more to the style of the court. In vv. 3 and 4, the reformulation of Esther’s speech to make it conform better to the logic of Chapter 3 led to the displacement of “my life,” to the omission of “and their children as booty,” and of “so as not to sadden my lord.” The geographical descriptions of the MT explain the disappearance of “and began to pace around.” The editorial organization of the description of Haman’s death (8b; 10MT) explains the disappearance of “let Haman be taken away and live no longer. And thus he was taken away”; “therefore order, lord, that he be hung upon it”; as well as “and thus his life was sealed.” The removal of the ring (v. 13) is reused by the editors in 8:2MT.36 The words “with courage” (8) and “the crime against royalty is not sufficient for you?” (11) were removed by the editors for the same ideological reasons as the “pluses” of vv. 2, 4b-7 (see the diachronic analysis of Chapter 6). In the MT a parallel to this long section only exists for “The king said: ‘Who is it’ (…) ‘who was proud enough to act in this way’” (7:5MT).

Proto-Masoretic Editing and the Emergence of the MT The editors intervened heavily in this episode that leads to the conclusion of Chapters 8-10, which they rewrote almost entirely. This work led them to often deviate from the content of their source. An important part of the passage is nevertheless taken up from Proto-Esther whose main lines are preserved. MT “Pluses” and Variants

The MT “pluses”: the whole of v. 1 (replace 6:23bAT); in v. 2, “the second day during the wine banquet… also,” “what is your wish Queen Esther? It shall be granted you,” and “it shall be done”; in v. 3, “Queen… answered,” “if I have found favor in your eyes, O King,” and “for my request”; in v. 4, “to destroy, to kill, and to eliminate. But if it was,” “and maidservants that we were sold,” “for this adversity would not be equal to the king’s trouble”; in v. 5, “Ahasuerus said… to Queen Esther,” “and where is he”; in v. 6, “the adversary,” “before the king and the queen”; all of v. 7 except “in his anger the king rose”; in v. 8, “from the garden of the pavillion to the house,” “of… wine,” “the king,” “the queen,” “in the house,” “the word went out from the king’s mouth and they covered Haman’s face”; in v. 9, “being before the king,” “erected in… the house”; all of v. 10. Vocabulary variations: in v. 5MT, “filled his heart” replaces “proud” (7AT); v. 6MT “the enemy” replaces “deceiver,” and in v. 9MT Harbona changes his name

35 The different order of the episodes in 9-11AT prevents the parallels from appearing clearly in JOBES. ἔκθυμος δὲ γενόμενος ὁ βασιλεὺς ἀνεπήδησε (7:9AT) corresponds to ‫( והמלך קם בחמתו‬7:7MT); the parallel of 7:10AT καὶ ὁ Αμαν ἐταράχθη is 7:6MT ‫;והמן נבעת‬ the fall upon the couch appears in 7:10AT καὶ προσέπεσεν ἐπὶ τοὺς πόδας Εσθηρ τῆς βασιλίσσης ἐπὶ τὴν κοίτην ἔτι ἀνακειμένης and in 7:8MT ‫נפל על־המטה אשׁר אסתר עליה‬. 36 Some differences can also be explained by the deletion of redundant passages (v. 9 “and filled with rage”) or by problems in translation (in v. 12AT the imperative “look, there is a tree trunk” can be explained by the free reconstruction of the phrase “here is the wooden pole” ‫( גם הנה העץ‬7:9MT).

Proto-Masoretic Editing and the Emergence of the MT

233

and becomes a eunuch rather than a servant. In v. 3, the term “my life” is moved. The order of the episodes from 9-11AT is slightly changed in 6b-8MT,37 but the content is almost identical. The editors probably deleted verses 7:2, 7:4b-7, and 7:14 of which only the core of the comments in vv. 4b and 5 of the MT preserve any trace.38

In Chapter 7, one finds the characteristic traits of the proto-Masoretic editing. The MT “pluses” standardize the wording in the work and establish the intertextual links emphasizing the relationship between the different episodes of the narrative. The dialogue between the king and the queen (vv. 2 and 3) reuses the wording of 5:3-8. In v. 4, the queen uses the same phrases concerning the massacre as in 3:13. In 7:7, the king goes out and, to allude to 1:6MT, the editors specify that he goes to the “garden of the pavillion.” In the same verse, the editors explain that Haman “stood” before the queen to “beg” for his “life,” alluding to 5:1-8 and 7:1-4, in which Esther must do the same thing. The vocabulary used by the editors to speak of Haman’s condemnation: “The word went out from the king’s mouth and they covered Haman’s face” (v. 8) establishes a parallel with 3:15 and 6:12. Concerning the “plus” “the king’s anger subsided” (v. 10b), it calls to mind the episode of 1:12-22 that also ends with the king’s appeasement (2:1). Finally, the editors clarify certain aspects of the narrative: vv. 1 and 10a explain the arrival of the king and Haman at the banquet and Haman’s execution. The mention of the “second day” indicates the chronological succession of the banquets. The proto-Masoretic tendency to emphasize the weightiness of life at court is quite apparent in Chapter 7. The arrival of the king and Haman at the banquet is more ceremonial, “the king came with Haman to drink with Queen Esther,” than in Proto-Esther 6:23. The proto-Masoretic “pluses” add formal titles and pompous phraseologies.39 The statement that Haman is terrified “before the king and the queen” (v. 6) underlines that he is now confronted by royal power. The dialogues of the king and the queen become more solemn and conform to what appears previously in the MT.40 A comparison between the attitude and the words of Esther in vv. 2, 3, 4 and 6 in Proto-Esther, and the parallel of 3-4MT testifies to fairly different perspectives. In Proto-Esther, Esther shilly-shallies and does not intervene until after having been encouraged by God (2AT) and the king (5, 7AT). The proto-Masoretic edition omits these hesitations41 so that the queen may be presented as a resolute and deter-

37 In Proto-Esther the king goes out for a stroll, and Haman, terrified, falls at the feet of Esther. The king returns, sees him, and condemns him. In the MT, Haman is terrified first, then the king goes out for a stroll, and it is after his return that it is mentioned that Haman fell down. 38 See the discussion on the diachronic analysis of Chapter 6. 39 See the “pluses” of v. 3; “King Ahasuerus said, he said to Queen Esther” (v. 5); the references to “the king” and “the queen” (v. 8); and the indication that the eunuch is “before the king” (v. 9). 40 In v. 2, the “pluses” in the king’s speech create a pompous formulation in two hemistiches that are identical to 5:6b. In v. 3a, Esther’s words are rearranged to be formal and respectful, as what occurs elsewhere on her lips (a phrase that is close to “if I have found favor in your eyes, O King” in 7:3MT figures in 5:4 and 5:8). 41 To do this vv. 2 and 5 to 7 of Proto-Esther are deleted and vv. 3b to 4 are moderately rearranged by the editors.

Clarification of Wording, Intertextual Links

Weightiness of the Court

Argument and Attitude of the Queen

234

Synthesis

mined heroic character who gets involved on behalf of her people without any scruples. Moreover, the queen’s rhetoric is clearer, more precise, and more astute than in Proto-Esther. The phrase “let my people be given for my wish and my nation for my life” (3bAT) is reworked and clarified.42 While in Proto-Esther the queen hesitated and minimized the gravity of the threat by only speaking of the sale into slavery and by confirming a desire to keep quiet due to Haman’s humiliation in Chapter 6 (vv. 4b, 6AT), the editors of 4MT emphasize the radical nature of the threatened tragedy by reusing the phrase “to destroy, to kill, and to eliminate” of 3:13 and by reworking the end of the verse to make an eventual silence of the queen into a simple rhetorical hypothesis. Dialogue and The editors present the king in a less favorable light than in Proto-Esther. In the Attitude of the MT, remarks mentioning a sympathetic and benevolent king are omitted.43 Under the King pen of the proto-Masoretic editors who repeatedly introduce the term “wine banquet” (vv. 2, 7, 8), Haman’s condemnation seems due to an impulsive reaction of the king linked to his drunkenness. Finally, the king’s speech aiming to convince Esther to denounce the guilty individual (vv. 5, 7AT) becomes a laconic and angry reaction, “who is it and where is he, who has filled his heart to do that?” (v. 5MT).

The Greek Translations and the Late Modifications of the MT The translator of the LXX worked relatively freely, and the LXX-MT variants can be explained most often by the freedom of the translator.44 In certain cases, however, the differences can be better explained by corrections introduced into the MT after the LXX was translated. Such is the case in 7:9 regarding the change in name of the eunuch “Harbona” that aims to establish an intertextual link with 1:10.

Synthesis Contrary to what appears in Proto-Esther, in the MT the queen’s action develops without any hesitation or scruple. For the proto-Masoretic editors, once Esther made the decision to support her people, there is absolutely no hestitation in the face of risk, or pity for the enemy. Esther’s determination is flawless and calls to mind great Jewish heroines in literature from the Maccabean and Hasmonean eras such as Judith or the mother of the seven martyrs in the second book of Maccabees (2 Macc 7). This chapter could draw the plot to a close: Esther unveiled her willingness to save her people and the enemy of the Jews is vanquished. Nevertheless, Chapter 8 will show that, for the proto-Masoretic editors, things are not as simple as that.

42 Reconstruction in two parallel hemistiches (“wish”/“request”) and parallel placement of “my life” and “my people” to emphasize that Esther joins in solidarity with her people’s destiny: “let my life be given me for my wish and my people for my request.” 43 Deletion of the mention that the king hates evil (v. 6AT) and the phrases in which he firmly supports Esther and Mordecai (vv. 5, 11, 14AT). 44 See textual notes 2a, 4a-a, 6b, 7a-a, 8b and probably also 5a-a.

Chapters 8–10. Triumph, Massacre, and Festivities Introduction After Haman is condemned to death, the triumph of the two Jewish heroes seems complete and the novel could end in 8:1-2, when the king hands over Haman’s possessions and power to Esther and to Mordecai.1 Nevertheless, in the MT the functioning of the empire defies common sense, so the king asserts his inability to revoke the edict of the destruction of his people (8:8b). Even if the king is willing and the queen’s request is justified, the imperial system cannot guarantee justice and the security of the Jews. The king suggests that Esther and Mordecai write an edict themselves. Constructed on the model of Haman’s, this edict authorizes the Jews to use force to defend themselves (8:9-14). The book of Esther does not make an apology for violence but shows that because of the profound dysfunctioning of imperial power the use of force cannot be avoided. The distribution of an edict announcing that the Jews will defend themselves reinforces their position. Mordecai triumphs and inspires fear (8:15; 9:3b-4) and numerous individuals Judaize (8:17). When the conflict commences on the thirteenth of Adar (Ch. 9), even the imperial authorities take the side of the Jews (9:3, 12). The limited number of those killed, compared to the size of the empire, indicates that the true enemies of the Jews form no more than a small group. The triumph of the Jews who defend themselves leads to peace. The description of the empire’s government in the epiologue (10:1-3) shows that the emperor’s behavior has changed and that the Jewish leader who is henceforth in power assures the well-being of his people. The book ends with the institution of the festival commemorating victory (9:20-32). The practices of this celebration are typically Jewish and different from those of imperial banquets. They are more egalitarian and less tyrannical. The setting of this festival evokes major festivals celebrating Maccabean-Hasmonean Jewish military victories, in particular the thirteenth of Adar over the general Nicanor (1 Macc 7:48-49; 2 Macc 15:36). By instituting a festival commemorating the deliverance of the Jews in the diaspora on the two days that follow the “Day of Nicanor,” Esther’s proto-Masoretic editors seem to set up a three-day nationalistic festival uniting the Jews of Judea and of all the diasporas.

1

In Proto-Esther, the narrative concludes after the king has authorized the revocation of the decree against the Jews.

236

A Plot Difficult to Unravel (8:1-17)

A Plot Difficult to Unravel (8:1-17) 1 That day, King Ahasuerus gave to Queen Esther the house of Haman, athe oppressor of the Jews,ab and Mordecai went before the king, for Esther had told c what he was for her.c 2 The king took off his ring which he had removed from Haman, he gave it to Mordecai. Esther set Mordecai over the house of Haman. 3 Esther continued, she spoke before the king, she fell at his feet, she cried, and she asked for grace to remove the misfortune from Haman the Agagitea and his machination that he had planned against the Jews. 4 The king extended the golden scepter to Esther, she rose and stood before the king. 5 She said: “If it pleases the king and if I have found favor before him aand the thing suitsb the king and I am good in his eyes,a let it be written to revoke the letters, the machination of Haman cson of Hammedatha the Agagite,c that he wrote to eliminate the Jews who are in all of the king’s provinces. 6 For how a can I seea the misfortune that will find my people? How can I seeb the elimination of my kindred?” 7 King Ahasuerus said to Queen Esther aand to Mordecai the Jewa: “Here, I have given to Esther the house of Haman, and him, they hanged him on the wooden pole since he had extended his hand against the Jews. 8 You, write concerning thea Jews whatever seems good in your eyes in the name of the king! And seal it with the king’s ring! For a writing that is written in the name of the king and sealed with the king’s ring cannot be revoked.” 9 The king’s scribes were summoned at that time, aon the twenty-third day of the third month, which is the month of Sivan.a All that Mordecai had ordered was written tob the Jews and the satraps, governors and ministers of the provinces that are from India to Cush, 127 provinces; to every province according to its own script and to every people according its own language cand to the Jews according to their script and their language.c 10 He wrote in the name of King Ahasuerus, and he sealed with the king’s ring, he sent writings by the hand of mounted couriers ariding on imperial steeds born of performance mares,a 11a that the king authorized the Jews in every city to gather together and to defend their lives, to destroy, to kill, and to eliminate every barmy of a people or of a provinceb that would oppress them, cchildren and women, and pillage their belongings as bootyc 12 in one day, in all the provinces of King Ahasuerus, on the thirteenth of the twelfth month, which is the month of Adar. 13 A copy of the writing was proclaimed as edict in every province and was revealed to all peoples so that the Jews would be ready for that day to take revenge upon their enemies. 14 The couriers ariding on imperial steedsa went out quickly and hurriedly according to the king’s word. The edict was proclaimed in the citadel of Susa. 15 Mordecai went out from before the king dressed royally ain purple and lacea with a great golden crown and a coatb of byssus and crimson. The city of Susa cried out and rejoiced. 16 For the Jews there was light and joy, ajubilation and honora. 17 In every province and every city wherever the king’s word and his

Notes on Text and Translation

237

edict reached, there was joy and jubilation for the Jews, banquet and festival day. Many among the peoples of the land aJudaized themselves,a for the terror of the Jews fell upon them.

Notes on Text and Translation 1a-a

The LXX has τῷ διαβόλῳ “the adversary” instead of “the oppressor of the Jews.” LXX probably translated a Hebrew ‫( הצר‬cf. 7:4). The MT was possibly corrected late in order to harmonize with the recurring expression “oppressor of the Jews.” b “The Jews”: See the textual note on 4:7a. c-c The Hebrew formula ‫ מה הוא־לה‬lit.: “what he was for her” was translated freely as “that he was related to her” in the LXX. Liberal translation referring to the kinship of Esther and of Mordecai also in JOSEPHUS, Ant. 11.269, OL and Vulgate. 3a Missing in the LXX. See the commentary on 3:1: The Proud Pre-Masoretic Haman. 5a-a Missing in the LXX. It could refer to either a late gloss emphasizing Esther’s politeness or an abbreviation of the translator (cf. KAHANA, Esther, 315-316). b The verb ‫ כשׁר‬is rare in biblical Hebrew (in Eccl 10:10 and 11:6 it signifies “to succeed”). Here the meaning of “to suit,” “to be agreeable,” attested in post-biblical Hebrew, is preferable (cf. BUSH, Esther, 444-445; HAL). c-c Missing in the LXX. See the commentary on 3:1: The Proud Pre-Masoretic Haman. 6a-a The phrase ‫( אוכל וראיתי‬yiqtol + we-qatal) is unusual. After ‫ אוכל‬a verb in the infinitive construct is expected. The phrase with two conjugated verbs is nevertheless possible. See JOÜON, § 177h; GESENIUS – KAUTZSCH § 112p. b Here, the LXX interprets by translating ‫ וראיתי‬with σωθῆναι “to be saved.” 7a-a The expression is missing in the LXX, the OL, and the Peshitta. It is probably a detail introduced late into the MT. The presence of Mordecai is assumed by vv. 2 and 8 where the verbs are in the plural. 8a Even if ‫ על‬and ‫ אל‬are often equivalents in Esther (cf. 1:17; etc), one must render the expression ‫“ על־היהודים‬concerning the Jews” and not “to the Jews” (with BUSH, Esther, 436; BERLIN, Esther, 75; BJ; NRSV; NIV; NBS; contra ASV; NASB; TOB). In v. 9 the preposition ‫ אל‬is used where it is specified to whom the writings are addressed. 9a-a LXX dates the event to the twenty-third of Nisan, therefore the first available day after Passover celebrations. The Greek note is probably anterior to that of the MT. A copyist probably wanted to allude to seventy years of tribulation in Jeremiah. See the commentary and the Introduction § E.2. The Chronological System in the Book of Esther. b The preposition ‫ אל‬should not be corrected to ‫על‬. The Jews also receive Mordecai’s instructions (contra HAUPT, “Notes,” 155-156). c-c Section absent from the LXX and the OL. It is either a late gloss or a section cut by the translator (KAHANA, Esther, 332). 10a-a Missing in the LXX and the OL. Probably a late gloss. The Hebrew phrase is difficult to reproduce. See the commentary. 11a The LXX has a free translation and softens this verse. The Codex Sinaiticus presents a text close to the MT (Thomas R. ELSSNER, “Eine problematische Übersetzung von Ester 8,11 und der Codex Sinaiticus,” BN 142 (2009), 53-61). b-b Vulg. and Syr. do not have an equivalent for ‫חיל עם ומדינה‬. These texts possibly depend on an original short “all those who would oppress them” (cf. BHQ, 146*–147*; for HAUPT, “Notes,” 159 only ‫ חיל‬is secondary). c-c It is not clear if “children and women” are those of oppressors or of Jews, see the commentary. 14a-a Missing in the LXX and the OL. Cf. note 8:10a-a.

238

A Plot Difficult to Unravel (8:1-17)

15a-a Missing in the LXX and the OL. Perhaps a glossator of the MT wanted to emphasize the parallel with 1:6. b ‫ תכריך‬is a hapax. The meaning “coat” implies a derivation of ‫“ כרך‬to wrap” in Mishnaic and Judeo-Aramaic Hebrew (clothing wrapped around the body, shroud), cf. Vulg. and targumic texts. LXX translates “diadem” διάδημα (OL diadema) possibly due to the meaning of the root ‫( כרך‬compare BERGEY, Book, 139; BHQ, 147* and KAHANA, Esther, 348-349; DE TROYER, “Crowns,” 360-361). 16a-a Absent from LXX and OL. Possibly from a late scribal insertion into the Hebrew. 17a-a LXX (also JOSEPHUS, Ant. 11.285 and OL) translates “circumcized and Judaized themselves” and 7:41AT mentions the circumcision of the Jews. See the commentary.

Synchronic Analysis This chapter reverses the episodes that had led to the condemnation of the Jews. The organization and terminology of the episodes reuses those in Chapter 3. Chapter 8:1-2 mentions the social ascent of Mordecai who benefits from the attributes that Haman had in 3:1 and 10 (access to the king, ring, possessions). While in 3:89 Haman asked the king to write concerning destruction, 8:3-6 reports the queen’s request to revoke Haman’s letters. As in Chapter 3, the king responds by inviting the petitioners to act in his place (8:7-8 // 3:10-11). An edict is then distributed in 8:9-14. The phraseology of 8:9-14 reuses that of 3:12-15a regarding the sending of the edict of destruction. In 8:15-17, the issuing of the edict leads to several events that reverse the perspectives opened by the end of Chapter 3. Special feaThe acts of Esther, Mordecai, and the king are different, however, from what tures of the happened in Chapter 3. Haman’s elevation constituted a royal decision that Episode breaks with the logic of the preceding narrative in which Mordecai had just saved the king. On the other hand, in Chapter 8, Mordecai’s elevation takes place logically after the episodes where he is honored (Ch. 6) and where his adoptive daughter regains a preeminent place before the king (Ch. 7). Esther’s pleadings differ greatly from the parallel in Chapter 3. Contrary to Haman, who masked his personal motivations, Esther argues in a transparent manner. She says clearly that she wants the revocation of Haman’s edict because he is threatening her own people. Moreover, she addresses the king in a very different manner than Haman did: she implores the sovereign (8:3) and addresses him with the highest deference (8:5a). While Haman suggested writing an edict, which the king accepted (3:9-10), in 8:5-8 Esther asks for the revocation of this edict, which the king does not accept. He gives, rather, a clean slate to write another edict. The formulation of the new edict (8:9-14) is very close to the edict threatening the Jews (3:12-15). However, contrary to Haman’s edict, Mordecai’s edict promotes a defensive strategy. The Jews are authorized to defend themselves against those who sought to carry out the edict of destruction. Mordecai’s edict is expedited by the same imperial administration, but simultaneously addresses the Jews and other citizens of the empire. This is done so that the enemies of the Jews who would be tempted to engage in combat would be made aware of the risks. Mordecai’s edict does not target innocents, but individuals who would attack the Jews. The conclusion of the passage marks the reversal of the situation. The triumphant exit of Mordecai, dressed royally, reverses his exit in mourning garments (4:1). The reaction of the city of Susa (8:15b) is joyous and not consternated

Synchronic Analysis

239

(3:15b), and the Jews rejoice (8:16-17) instead of mourning (4:3). Finally, the “Judaizing” of non-Jews indicates that Jewish culture and practices are therefore no longer judged negatively (3:8-9). 8:1-2 could be the end of the narrative. The two Jewish heroes attain wealth and power and their solidarity is now fully assured. Esther regains her privileged position of 2:17, and Mordecai now also has a privileged social position. The reversal of their earlier situation seems complete. They have at their disposal all that their oppressor had in Chapter 3. That said, in the MT, 8:1-2 constitutes the beginning of a new step in the narrative.2 Esther and Mordecai occupy a position that will permit them to remove the threat that, as will be understood in 8:3-8, still weighs upon the Jews. “Mordecai the Jew” is no longer an obscure functionary, but a powerful man, and Esther is no longer a hidden Jew, but assumes her origins. The brief chronological note “that day” situates the action immediately following Mordecai’s morning triumph (Ch. 6) and Haman’s execution. As in 5:9, this note also marks the start of a new episode. The proto-Masoretic editors underline the formality of the court by citing the titles of the characters: “King” Ahasuerus; “Queen” Esther; and Haman “the oppressor of the Jews.” The king gives Esther “Haman’s house,” meaning his possessions, which is logical since it is she who had him condemned. The confiscation of a condemned person’s property is a known motif in Greek literature.3 Mordecai’s going before the king emphasizes his ascent. From 1:14 we know that the most important individuals of the kingdom see the “face of the king.” In fact, this is the first time in the narrative that Mordecai gains direct access to the king. In 2:21-23 he communicated with the king only through Esther as intermediary. Contrary to Ch. 6, Mordecai’s ascension is not explained by his exploits, but because the queen “had informed concerning what he was for her.” In so doing, she reveals her close relationship to the person who embodies Jewish identity.4 The solidarity between these two characters already mentioned in 2:11, 20 is now fully assumed, and they will now systematically act in concert. Mordecai receives the king’s ring that the king had removed from Haman. This ring, as we know from 3:10, is the royal instrument of power that permits the sealing of edicts. After the execution of his chief minister, the king does not take power into his own hands, but quickly entrusts it to a replacement. This gives the impression of a king incapable of taking the destiny of the kingdom into his own hands. This image of the king already appeared in 1:13-19 and in 3:8-9,

2

3 4

BUSH, Esther, 439-40 emphasizes the introductory nature of 8:1-2: the presence of a new character (Mordecai) and of a chronological note seem to introduce a new step, and no break separates 8:1-2 from 8:3-8 (also WAHL, Esther, 162; DAY, Faces, 134 ff.; CLINES, Esther, 314; FOX, Character, 91-92). From the opposite perspective VIALLE, analyse, 48-52 considers 8:1-2 the closing situation of 7:1-8:2 (also GERLEMAN, Esther, 121, 127; RINGGREN, “Esther,” 413) while WHITE CRAWFORD, “Book,” 920-921 and BARDTKE, “Esther,” 361-362 consider Ch. 7 and 8:3ff. to be independent episodes. HERODOTUS, Hist. 3.128-129 mentions this practice in the Persian world. See also JOSEPHUS, Ant. 11.17; Ezra 6:11. Mordecai is described as “the Jew” in 5:13; 6:10; 8:7. See also 2:5-7; 3:4ff.; 4:1-3; etc.

8:1-2. Mordecai Placed in Power

That Day

Titles

Haman’s House …before the King

His Ring

240

Set over the House of Haman

8:3-8. Dramatic Moment

8:3. First Formulation of the Request Supplication

A Plot Difficult to Unravel (8:1-17)

and is found again in 8:8ff., where he is not capable of saving the queen’s people, but leaves her to manage with Mordecai with the use of the ring. That “Esther set Mordecai over the house of Haman” does not mean that she gives him Haman’s possessions, but that she entrusts him with the administration. If she had given him possessions, the verb ‫ נתן‬would have been used as in 8:1-2a where the king gives Haman’s goods to Esther and the ring to Mordecai. Thus, during this episode the king and the queen entrust Mordecai to administer their possessions. Mordecai serves for them the same functions as Joseph for Potiphar (Gen 39:4) and Pharaoh (Gen 41:33ff.). At this stage in the narrative, Mordecai has taken the place occupied by Haman in Chapter 3. He has control of Haman’s possessions and has at his disposal the ring of the primary servant of the state. He becomes the main character: he will take salvific measures for his people, he will be feared by imperial authorities, and he will be the leader of the Jews in both politics and ritual. In 8:3-8 an unexpected dramatic moment occurs; the reader only gradually perceives its scope and stakes. While in 8:1-2 Esther and Mordecai wanted their enemy to be executed and they obtained wealth and power, one problem remains unresolved: the king has not spoken of saving the Jews, which was central to Esther’s request (7:3-4), and the edict was not annulled. However, Mordecai’s ascent to the head of the empire leads one to think that the problem should be resolved easily.5 The conclusion that the proto-Masoretic editors skillfully compose puts a reversal into play. The reader only gradually becomes aware of the complications. Esther’s imploring attitude indicates first of all that the Jewish people are still threatened (3). The king once again extends the sceptre to Esther and she asks him to revoke the edict (5). A priori this seems the most logical way to save the Jews, since nothing lets one predict that a Persian edict cannot be revoked (8b). Once again the editors’ profoundly critical view of the imperial administration appears. The king is well disposed toward Esther, but is incapable of satisfying her request because of the dysfunctional governmental system in which an official edict cannot be revoked, even if it emanated from a criminal and its inappropriateness was made evident. The action in 8:3 follows directly from 8:1-2. There is no chronological gap and the expression “Esther continued, she spoke” indicates that she addresses the king without pause. Moreover, Mordecai is present in 8:7 because he was summoned to this meeting in 8:1. Falling ‫ נפל‬at one’s feet evokes supplication like Haman’s when he fell upon Esther’s bed (7:8).6 It is the first mention of a physical reaction by Esther since she had “trembled” ‫( ותתחלחל‬4:4a). This reaction contrasts with her action in Chapters 5 to 7,

5 6

In Proto-Esther, Haman’s edict is simply cancelled after Mordecai’s installation. See the discussion in the diachronic analysis of Chs. 8-10. This is not the same type of action that Mordecai refuses to perform in Chapter 3. The verbs are not the same (3:2, 5, ‫“ כרע‬to bow down” and ‫“ חוה‬to prostrate” ≠ ‫“ נפל‬to fall”). Mordecai refused to pay homage whereas “falling at the feet” is petitioning. See BUSH, Esther, 440; CLINES, Esther, 314; MOORE, Esther, 77-78; however WHITE CRAWFORD, “Book,” 923.

Synchronic Analysis

241

where, dominant and manipulating, she does not show her feelings. This verse gives the impression that Esther has gone back to square one and that the subtle process she put into place to save her people was not successful. In 8:3 her asking for grace ‫ חנן‬from the king corresponds to Mordecai’s request to Esther to plead (root: ‫ )חנן‬before the king in 4:8. The contents of the request bring one back to Chapter 3 and imply that the edict continues to have legal force. She is astute (as in 7:3-4) to place the responsibility for planning the destruction of the Jews upon Haman without evoking the king’s responsibility. The request to remove the misfortune is very general. The expression plays with the following words: after the king “removed” ‫ עבר‬from Haman the ring that had provoked the misfortune (3:10, 12), Esther asks him to “remove” ‫ עבר‬the threat itself. The term ‫ עבר‬does not allude to the irrevocability of Persian laws.7 The root ‫ שׁוב‬in hiphil is used for the law’s irrevocability (8:5, 8).8 Verse 4 makes a transition between Esther’s supplication and her dialogue with the king (8:5-8). The king’s extending the golden scepter to Esther evokes the scene in which he did the same when she entered his presence without summons (4:11; 5:1-2). But here Esther is already before the king. Since in 5:2 the queen gained “favor” before the king extended the scepter, it is often thought that in 8:4 this gesture marks the king’s benevolence and his willingness to listen in an obliging manner.9 One could also understand that this gesture opens an official audience. Indeed, in 8:4b, the queen moves from an exuberant supplication to a formal approach. She thus adopts the posture of an official audience, as after 5:2: she “rose” and “stood before the king” and moves to a court rhetoric (8:5-6). Extending the scepter could thus emphasize the formality of the court, as if the king could only reply to his wife on the condition that she follow the rules of protocol. Esther’s request is much more formal than in 8:3. It has the stylistic traits of preceding addresses to the king. The phrases denoting politeness are the most developed in the book. The editors present Esther once more as an astute courtesan. The expression “If it pleases the king and if I have found favor before him” that opened the queen’s speeches in 5:4, 8; and 7:3 is taken up once more and completed with “and the thing suits the king and I am good in his eyes.”10 Esther conditions her request upon the king’s approval and upon his good rapport with her. She then proposes a legal solution to counteract the legislation proposed and issued by Haman in 3:9 and 12-15. She employs some of the same wording. In the expression “the machination of Haman son of Hammedatha the Agagite,” the term “machination” is repeated from 8:3 and “son of Hammedatha the

7 Contrary to FOX, Character, 92; LEVENSON, Esther, 108. 8 In 1:19; 3:3; and 9:27, the legal meaning of ‫ עבר‬is “to transgress.” To transgress or disobey a law is completely different from “revoking” or cancelling it. On ‫ שׁוב‬in hiphil meaning “to annul, revoke” see Amos 1:3, cf. HAL. 9 See CLINES, Esther, 315; FOX, Character, 92; MOORE, Esther, 78; WAHL, Esther, 163-164; WHITE CRAWFORD, “Book,” 923. 10 See § Salutations in the commentary on 5:3-8. This second part of the expression is perhaps a late gloss (see the textual note on 8:5a-a). The ensemble reveals a form of type A-B-A’-B’ (LEVENSON, Esther, 104).

Remove the Misfortune

8:4. Extending the Scepter

8:5-6. Reformulation of the Queen’s Request

242

How Can I See?

8:7-8. The King’s Response The Jew

A Plot Difficult to Unravel (8:1-17)

Agagite” is a late addition that alludes to the conflict between Israel and Amalek.11 Finally, as in 8:3, Esther astutely silently passes over the king’s responsibility for issuing the decree. This request is justified with a poetic formulation in two parallel hemistiches: “For how can I see the misfortune that will find my people?” and “How can I see the disappearance of my kindred?” The first expression alludes to the Joseph story where Judah concludes his request to take the place of Benjamin with similar words “so that I may not see the misfortune that will find my father” (Gen 44:34).12 The two terms “people” ‫ עם‬and “kindred” ‫מולדת‬, already appeared when Mordecai suggested that Esther hide her Jewish identity (2:10, 20). In fact, here, as in 7:3-4, the public unveiling of the connection between Esther and the Jewish people is the primary argument to save the people. In staging Esther’s change in attitude, the editors show that masking one’s identity is not a responsible stance for a Jew. In arguing that she cannot see the misfortune of her people (she does not mention the threat to her own life, as in 7:3-4), Esther shows that her whole being is concerned with the deliverance of her people.13 Whether she is directly threatened or not by the edict of the thirteenth of Adar does not change matters.14 Esther asks for the deliverance of the Jews with the sole motivation that they are her people. She does not refute the fallacious arguments used by Haman in 3:8-9, nor invoke the good governance of the empire that would have an interest in keeping alive a people so benevolent. That she requests the deliverance of the Jews as a gift, rather than as the reestablishment of justice, emphasizes that for the MT editors, the empire is so profoundly dysfunctional that the emperor could not be persuaded by either a political or legal argument. What plays out here will have major consequences. As in 8:1-2, the MT emphasizes, by stating the titles of the protagonists – “King” Ahasuerus, “Queen” Esther, and Mordecai “the Jew,” – that the king’s response observes protocol. The descriptor “the Jew” referring to Mordecai is present in 5:13 and 6:10, and prepares for what follows when he will become the leader of the Jews of the empire. The king replies to Esther along with Mordecai who, according to 8:1-2, is present. Mordecai’s character, essentially passive since the end of Chapter 4, now becomes active again while Esther’s role tends to be reduced. The implication of the now weaker figure of the queen responds to a narrative necessity. From 8:9 the plot takes place outside the palace and is marked by the management of a political and military crisis, a domain that, in antiquity, is classically masculine.15 However, even in this

11 See the commentary on 3:1 § Haman the Agagite according to the MT. 12 The allusion to Gen 44:34 perhaps explains why the MT of Esth 8:6 presents a verb in the masculine ‫ ימצא‬although the subject ‫ רעה‬is feminine, contrary to Gen 44:34 with ‫רע‬. BARDTKE, “Esther,” 363; FOX, Character, 284; GERLEMAN, Esther, 126; MOORE, Esther, 78 (for the connection between the two texts ROSENTHAL, “Josephsgeschichte,” 280-281). 13 This is also what Judah does in Gen 44:34, the passage to which Esther’s speech alludes. 14 There is no need to explain this difference by a narrative necessity or an astute rhetoric aiming to avoid using the same argument twice (contra BUSH, Esther, 451 and FOX, Character, 93-94). 15 It would be difficult to understand the queen intervening in such a preponderant manner in politics as in court intrigues. Contrary to HANCOCK, Negotiation, the distinction between public and private spheres remains in operation in Esther.

Synchronic Analysis

243

context Esther remains important, as she supports the actions of the Jews and of Mordecai in 9:11-15 and in 9:27-30. The king remembers what he did in favor of Esther and to punish Haman: “Here, I have given to Esther the house of Haman, and him, they hanged him on the wooden pole.” He says that Haman’s punishment was because he had “extended his hand against the Jews.” This explanation presents the events of Chapter 7 in a somewhat tendentious manner. In Chapter 7 Haman was not hanged for wanting to kill the Jews, but rather for the attempt at a sexual advance (7:8) and for attacking the man who saved the king, Mordecai (7:9). Evidently, the text suggests somewhat ironically that the king values his action more than recounting the facts. This first part of the king’s response can be understood in two ways. It could emphasize the benevolence of the king for the Jews in suggesting that Mordecai write in his name (8:8a) like the rest of his generosity.16 On the other hand, 8:7b could also be showing the king’s irritation, declaring that he had done enough. In 8:8a, he would then invite Esther and Mordecai to stop annoying him and to figure things out on their own.17 Even though it is difficult to decide between these two interpretations,18 the royal remark is probably benevolent. Indeed, previously in the narrative, Esther never causes the king’s exasperation. And, in the remainder of the text, the king continues to be benevolent, especially in 9:12, when he takes the initiative to act in favor of Esther and of the Jews. Moreover, the MT always explicitly mentions when the king gets angry (1:12; 2:1; 7:7; 7:10). The king will not act himself, but delegates the power to act on behalf of the government to Esther and to Mordecai by writing a notice sealed with the royal seal. He behaves as in 3:10-15 when he leaves Haman to write the notice. Verse 8:8 reuses word for word the phraseology of Chapter 3.19 Evidently, the king once again appears as a weak character: in an important moment he does not conceive of a plan himself, but delegates this task, giving a blank slate to subordinates. At this stage, one can still imagine that Esther and Mordecai “revoke” the letters of Haman by applying the queen’s proposal of 8:5. However, the end of the king’s speech reveals the extent of the problem: “a writing that is written in the name of the king and sealed with the king’s ring cannot be revoked ‫”להשׁיב‬. On one hand, this sentence20 emphasizes that the edict that Esther and Mordecai will issue will weigh heavily. But, on the other hand, it raises a big problem since it indicates that the edict of destruction of the Jews is also irrevocable. It was written in the name of the king and sealed (3:12).21 The dramatic coup is impressive. All

16 GUNKEL, Esther, 39; GERLEMAN, Esther, 128; MOORE, Esther, 79. 17 BUSH, Esther, 445; FOX, Character, 94. 18 Among authors hesitating between the two interpretations: CLINES, Esther, 315. The LXX adds to the end of the verse “that you are still seeking,” nevertheless without suggesting the king’s annoyance (DAY, Faces, 144 contra MOORE, Additions, 229). 19 “Write” (3:9, 12) “whatever seems good in your eyes” (3:11); “in the name of the king” (3:12); “sealed with the king’s ring” (3:12). 20 It cannot be a gloss or a remark of the narrator (contra MOORE, Esther, 79), since the narrative’s logic necessitates that the queen be informed of this rule. 21 Discussion regarding whether it is Haman’s or Mordecai’s edict that is irrevocable within this verse does not make sense. The two have the same legal status. See BUSH, Esther, 445; CLINES, Scroll, 192; DE TROYER, End, 128-133.

Recalling Haman’s Punishment

You, Write!

To Revoke

244

A Plot Difficult to Unravel (8:1-17)

the solutions envisaged until here by the Jewish protagonists result in an impass. The queen’s manipulations have, certainly, resulted in Haman’s execution, but his edict continues to have legal force. The request for royal grace envisaged by Mordecai (4:8) and formulated by Esther (8:3, 5) prove to be inoperable. Once more the editors show that the imperial system is unpredictable and profoundly dysfunctional. No one can cancel an edict with notoriously harmful consequences and promulgated iniquitously. Even the generous offer that the king made to the queen and to Mordecai does not make it easy to find a solution. Irrevocability of Persian Laws

The irrevocability of Persian laws is not introduced previously in the MT of Esther.22 It does not play a role in either Proto-Esther or in the AT. Moreover, this irrevocability does not seem attested in Greek literature about Persia.23 Even if, in antiquity, the immutability of laws could have been considered in theory, numerous clues, in both the Semitic and Greek worlds, show that there was an awareness that legislative modifications, or even abrogations of laws, could occur.24 In Esther, the dysfunction of the Persian legislative system is pushed to absurdity since the king understood that an inadequate decision was made, but that he could not nullify its effects. In reality, such an ironic motif only appears in the book of Daniel (6:9, 13, 16) in which an irrevocable edict with harmful consequences is attributed to Darius. The MT of Esther alludes several times to this narrative.25

The rest of MT Esther draws on the consequences of the irrevocability of Haman’s edict. Since the order to execute the Jews cannot be revoked, its application must be avoided. The only possible solutions are to flee – but how would one flee from such a vast empire? – or to employ force. 8:9-14. The The procedure aiming to protect the Jews is very close to the one in 3:12-15a Counter-Edict that aimed to destroy them. The organization of the two passages is similar. The description of the goal and the contents of the orders sent throughout the empire (8:11-12 // 3:13) is framed with the description of the procedures of distributing these orders (8:9-10, 13-14 // 3:12-13aα, 14-15a). Moreover, the meaning and the vocabulary of 8:9-10 (3:12-13aα) is parallel to that of 8:13-14 (3:14-15a); the orders are written especially for every province and people (8:9-10a [3:12]) // 8:13 [3:14]) and are transmitted by couriers (8:10b [3:13aα] // 8:14a [3:15aα]). Finally, the envoy of the edict ends where it had begun, in Susa. In 8:9aα (3:12aα), the scribes are convened there and in 8:14b (3:15aβ), the edict is proclaimed there. Many of the same formulations in 3:12-15a can be found in 8:9-14.26

22 The term ‫ עבר‬in 1:19 and 8:3 does not allude to this. 23 See FOX, Character, 22. 24 The different biblical codes often present contradictory points of view. In ancient Israel, innovations and legislative changes were thus accepted. Compare, for example, the law connected to conditions of freeing slaves in Exod 21:2-6; Deut 15:12-18; and Lev 25:39-46. In the Greek world, theorical reflection on the perpetuity of laws does not prevent awareness of the evolution of law and of legislative changes that occur, especially during city legislative reforms. See Giorgio CAMASSA, “Du changement des lois,” in Le législateur et la loi dans l’Antiquité. Hommage à Françoise Ruzé, P. SINEUX (ed.), Caen, 2005, 29-36; MACCHI, “droit,” 96-97. 25 See the Introduction § C.4.4 Allusions and References to Other Biblical Texts: Daniel. 26 For the philological discussion of the parts that 8:9-14 share with 3:12-15a, see the commentary on this first part of the text. Only the elements specific to 8:9-14 are commented upon below.

Synchronic Analysis

245

In Roman characters, the parts that are common to 3:12-15a and 8:9-14; in bold what Elements of 8:9-14 Identibelongs to 8:9-14; in italics elements pulled from Esth. 1:1. 9 The king’s scribes were summoned during that time, on the twenty-third day of cal to 3:12-15a the third month, which is the month of Sivan. All that Mordecai had ordered was written to the Jews and the satraps, governors and ministers of the provinces that are from India to Cush, 127 provinces; to every province according to its own script and to every people according its own language and to the Jews according to their script and their language. 10 He wrote in the name of King Ahasuerus, and he sealed with the king’s ring, he sent writings by the hand of horse couriers riding on imperial steeds issued from performance mares, 11 that the king authorized the Jews who were in all cities to gather together and to defend their lives, to destroy, to kill, and to eliminate every army of a people or of a province that would oppress them, children and women, and pillage their belongings like booty 12 in one day, in all the provinces of King Ahasuerus, on the thirteenth of the twelfth month, which is the month of Adar. 13 One copy of the writing was proclaimed as edict in every province and was revealed to all peoples so that the Jews would be ready for that day to take revenge upon their enemies. 14 The couriers riding upon imperial steeds went out quickly and hurriedly according to the king’s word. The edict was proclaimed in the citadel of Susa.

The similarities between 8:9-14 and 3:12-15a show, first, the powerful royal administrative machine: scribes and couriers write and distribute the sealed royal edicts in different languages to all the administration of the empire. Mordecai’s message also exhibits an extreme violence: destroying, killing, and eliminating during the same day, the thirteenth of Adar, that was foreseen for the massacre of the Jews by Haman. Several elements distinguish the two passages. The senders and the recipients of the royal mail change, as do the contents and the approach envisaged. Moreover, certain formulations emphasize different points. In Chapter 8, the sender of the decree is no longer Haman, but Mordecai, who, unlike Haman, primarily addresses the Jews (8:9). This address is logical since it is the Jews who will want to apply the edict to defend themselves. In 8:9, the importance of these primary recipients is emphasized by having them frame the list of other recipients (the “Jews” are mentioned in 9aβ and in 9b). The final note in 8:9 reports that, as with the other peoples and provinces, the Jews receive Mordecai’s orders “according to their script and their language” ‫ככתבם וכלשׁונם‬. The authors thus indicate that the Jews form an independent entity within the empire: as a “people” they have a “language,” and like a “province” they have a “script.” This may refer to characteristics of the Jews of antiquity, dispersed within the diaspora, but who are attached to a region comparable to a province: Judea. It is the authors of the editorial glosses, who completed the protoMasoretic text after it was translated into Greek, who included the theme of the language of the Jews (1:22bβ; 8:9b),27 which undoubtedly constituted for them a strong feature of identity. As with Haman’s edict, Mordecai’s also addresses different peoples and provinces through their governing bodies; as in 3:12, the orders are sent to “the satraps, governors and ministers of the provinces.” The formulations used, however, are

27 See the textual notes 8:9c-c and 1:22a-a.

8:9-10, 13a, 14. Sender, Recipient, and Publication According to Their Script and Their Language

Address to the Ministers

246

Twenty-Third of Sivan

8:11-12, 13b. Contents of the Edict

A Plot Difficult to Unravel (8:1-17)

more condensed.28 “That are from India to Cush, 127 provinces,” is taken from 1:1. It reminds of the immensity of the empire wherein the Jewish diaspora is located. The date when the edict is written and the manner in which it is distributed both differ from that of Haman. In the MT, the issuing and the sending of Mordecai’s edict is dated to the “twenty-third day of the third month, which is the month of Sivan.” As elsewhere in Esther, the numbering of months is correlated with the Babylonian system of month names. This date, which is fairly distant from that of Haman’s execution of the Jews, was not chosen at random. It leaves seventy days (two months and ten days) between the publication of Haman’s edict (thirteenth of Adar) and Mordecai’s (twenty-third of Sivan). This choice of date can be explained by the desire of a copyist to associate the number “seventy,” often connected to Jewish tribulations (Jer 25:11-12; Dan 9:2, 24-25), with the period in which the edict to destroy the Jews was not yet thwarted.29 In any case, almost nine months remain between the sending of the edict and the day it should take effect.30 As for how the edict is expedited, the MT of 8:10 and 14 is more developed than in 3:13 and 15. An editorial gloss was added in 8:10 and 14: ‫רכבי הרכשׁ‬ ‫“ האחשׁתרנים בני הרמכים‬riding on imperial steeds issued from performance mares.”31 The translation of this phrase is uncertain. “Steed” ‫ רכשׁ‬elsewhere only appears in Mic 1:13 and 1 Kgs 5:8 and 11. It possibly designates a particular type of horse destined for postal traffic.32 “Imperial” ‫ אחשׁתרנים‬derives from a Persian term linked to the notion of government or of royalty.33 The hapax ‫רמך‬, probably designates a type of mare.34 This gloss emphasizes again that the distribution of the edict authorizing the Jews to defend themselves is carried out quickly by the efficient imperial post.35 Since Haman’s edict is irrevocable, Mordecai’s aims to limit its consequences in two ways. Authorization is given to the Jews to defend themselves. At the same time, the information serves to deter those who would apply Haman’s edict from

28 With BUSH, Esther, 452-453 one can compare the following formulas of 3:12: “to the king’s satraps, to the governors of every province, and to the ministers of every people” and of 8:9: “to the … satraps, governors and ministers of the provinces…” 29 For the anterior chronological system see the textual note on 8:9a-a and in the Introduction § E.2.2 The Chronological System in the LXX. 30 In antiquity, such a period is easily sufficient to distribute a message throughout the entire empire. HERODOTUS, Hist., 5.52-53 estimates that the trip from Sardis to Susa takes three months. 31 See the textual notes on 8:10a-a and 8:14a-a. 32 The term appears in Aramaic (cf. HAL; DNWSI). Gerald A. KLINGBEIL, “‫ רכש‬and Esther 8:10, 14: A Semantic Note,” ZAW 107 (1995), 301-303 lends support from an ostracon in Arad that could characterize a type of postal system (cf. BARDTKE, “Esther,” 366; BUSH, Esther, 445-446). 33 Like “satrap” ‫ אחשׁדרפן‬the term ‫ אחשׁתרן‬derives from the Persian ḫšaça (HAL). 34 A meaning supported by close terms in postbiblical Hebrew, in Judeo-Aramaic, and in Arabic (BARDTKE, “Esther,” 366; MOORE, Esther, 80; HAL). A derivation of a Syriac term meaning “herd” ‫ בני הרמכים‬could yield the translation “issued from a stud.” GERLEMAN, Esther, 129, suggests a reference to postal relay stations. 35 See the commentary on 3:12-15a § Administration and Circulation of the Edicts.

Synchronic Analysis

247

engaging in combat. The text emphasizes that the edict is made legitimate by its royal nature. Mordecai writes in the name of the king, who also authorizes it. In addition, elements such as the sealing with a ring and the proclamation “as edict” indicate its official nature. The action of the Jews is defensive above all else. The authorization to set up troops (“to gather together”) allows military confrontation of those who would seek to apply Haman’s edict. Furthermore, “to defend their lives” ‫לעמד על־נפשׁם‬ emphasizes the defensive posture of the Jews.36 The verb “to gather together” ‫קהל‬ describes the establishment of military troops;37 the verb is also in Esth 9:2, 15, 16, and 18. This aims to counter aggressors described as “every army of a people or of a province.” This “army” ‫ חיל‬does not represent the entire Persian army, but only some factions linked to such and such “people” or “province” who want to apply Haman’s edict.38 Consequently, one can expect that certain residents of the empire will fight the Jews while others will not. This point is coherent with the rest of the book of Esther in which many non-Jews are benevolent toward Jews (3:15; 8:15), but others are opposed to them. The expression “that would oppress them (ptc. ‫ ”)צור‬in 8:11 suggests that those who would want to carry out the edict of destruction of the Jews are being placed in the same camp as the infamous Haman. Indeed, this expression calls to mind “oppressor (ptc. ‫ )צרר‬of the Jews” (3:10; 8:1 and 9:10) labelling Haman as well as the “adversity” ‫ צר‬represented by his actions (7:4, 6). 8:12 specifies that the Jews can defend themselves anywhere they would be attacked, but only on the day that their destruction is lawful: “on the thirteenth of the twelfth month, which is the month of Adar.” The aim of the edict is that “the Jews would be ready for that day to take revenge upon their enemies” (8:13b). To be “ready ‫( עתידים‬ketib ‫ )עתודים‬for that day” already appears in 3:14. The peoples and the provinces had to prepare themselves to destroy the Jews. Unlike what 8:11 suggested, here the action of the Jews does not seem strictly defensive, but sounds vindictive. Here, ‫“ נקם‬to take revenge” designates a punitive action that does not apply after the crime, but at the moment when it is about to be committed. As for “enemy” ‫ איב‬in 8:13, it reappears a lot in Chapter 9 to designate the aggressors of the Jews.39 The end of 8:11 speaks of massacring “children and women” ‫ טף ונשׁים‬and of “pillag[ing] their belongings as booty.” This phraseology already appeared in 3:13 when Haman’s edict foresaw that the massacre of the Jews would include their families and the pillaging of their possessions. In 8:11, the syntax is ambiguous. Verse 8:11 could be understood as an invitation to the Jews to defend themselves against those who would attack them, their families, and their possessions. However, it could also mean that the Jews have the right to defend themselves against those who attack them and to attack their attackers’ families and possessions.

36 Same usage of ‫ עמד על‬followed by the object to be defended in Dan 12:1. MILLER, Versions, 53-55 emphasizes the defensive character implied by this expression. 37 Same meaning in Josh 22:12; Judg 20:1; 2 Sam 20:14; 1 Kgs 12:21. 38 In Esth 1:3, “army” ‫ חיל‬designates the entire Persian army. 39 Esth 9:1, 5, 16, and 22. In 7:6, ‫ אויב‬is parallel with adversity/oppression ‫צר‬.

Defensive Action

To Take Revenge

Massacre of Women and Children

248

A Plot Difficult to Unravel (8:1-17)

Most commentators40 understand that the children and women of the enemies of the Jews must be killed and their possessions pillaged. This would make a complete reversal of Haman’s edict. According to the principle of retaliation, those who wanted to destroy the Jews along with their families would be struck along with their own families. The fact that 8:13b describes the action ordered by Mordecai as “revenge” and the motif of “terror of the Jews” that strikes those tempted to oppose them (8:17; 9:2, 3) pleads in favor of this interpretation. Although it may seem disturbing that the authors would have attributed to Mordecai the desire to subject the enemies of the Jews to unnecessary violence, this possibility cannot be excluded. In the ancient Near East, the massacre of civilians and the pillaging of possessions is normal in war, and the announcement of a terrible punishment could serve a preventative function. That said, several commentators think that the children and women and the pillaging of belongings relates to the Jews and calls to mind that in 3:13 the attack on the Jews also involves their families and possessions.41 The narrative of the carrying out of Mordecai’s edict in Chapter 9 favors this meaning. Indeed, it does not mention any massacre of women and children42 and says three times that the Jews should not take any booty (9:10, 15, 16). Moreover, the book of Esther does not envision a case where Mordecai would have given an order that the Jews would not have followed.43 In any case, the presentation of Mordecai’s decree legitimates recourse to violence in a context of legitimate defense made necessary by the inability of Persian imperial administration to assure justice.

40 ‫ לאבד את־כל־חי ‏ל )…( הצרים אתם טף ונשׁים ושׁללם לבוז‬must thus be understood in the following manner: “destroy as well as their children and their wives, every army (…) who would oppress the Jews and, moreover, pillage the belongings of these armies as booty.” “Children and women” function like one of the direct objects of the infinitive “to destroy” ‫לאבד‬. The phrase “and pillage their belongings like booty” ‫ ושׁללם לבוז‬makes the pillaging into an action that is complementary to that of “destroy[ing].” See BUSH, Esther, 447; HARVEY, Morality, 52-55; FOX, Character, 99-100, 284-285; LEVENSON, Esther, 110111; WAHL, Esther, 158, 167-168 and translations BJ, NAB, NBS, NRSV, etc. 41 ‫ לאבד את־כל־חיל )…( הצרים אתם טף ונשׁים ושׁללם לבו ‏ז‬would thus be understood as follows: “to destroy every army (…) who would oppress the Jews as well as the children and women (of the Jews) and who would pillage their belongings like booty.” “Children and women” follows the direct object “them” ‫ אתם‬that follows the participle ‫“ צרים‬who would oppress them.” The phrase “and pillage their belongings as booty” makes the pillage into an action that is complementary to the oppression suffered by the Jews. This thesis was made popular by GORDIS, “Studies,” 49-53, see also BALDWIN, Esther, 9798; CLINES, Esther, 317; Thomas R. ELSSNER, “Eine problematische Übersetzung von Ester 8,11 und der Codex Sinaiticus,” BN 142 (2009), 53-61; KESSLER, “Juden”; and DE TROYER, End, 145-156 and the NIV. 42 9:6, 10 has “sons” of Haman and not children (‫)טף‬, a term for young and fragile children. As for women, even the death of Zeresh is not reported. 43 The favorable image of Mordecai throughout the work makes it difficult to accept the proposal by VIALLE, analyse, 79, 128 for whom Mordecai went too far here. The suggestion by FOX, Character, 100 for whom Mordecai’s edict would permit the Jews to refuse to take the booty, is hardly convincing.

Synchronic Analysis

249

The last part of Chapter 8 describes the first results of the publication of the edict and emphasizes that a profound situational reversal has begun. The text emphasizes quite definitely the royal characteristics of Mordecai’s clothes. They are “purple” ‫תכלת‬, “lace” ‫חור‬, “byssus” ‫ בוץ‬and “crimson” ‫ארגמן‬. The use of these terms creates an inclusio with the beginning of the work where they describe the decor of the royal banquet location in 1:6. Moreover, he wears a “great golden crown” ‫עטרת זהב גדולה‬, common terminology to describe prestigious headgear.44 After having removed his sackcloth (4:1), paraded in “royal garments” when the situation started to turn in his favor (6:8ff.), then having obtained the royal ring (8:2), the royal garments that he sports publicly in 8:15a emphasize that he has arrived at the height of his career. He is no longer the functionary “sitting at the king’s gate” that he had been previously (2:19, 21; 3:2; 5:13; 6:10), but one of the highest figures in the empire for whom prestige will continue to grow (9:4; 10:2-3).

8:15-17. The Triumph of Mordecai and the Jews Dressed Royally

Clothing shows Mordecai’s position of power. A similar motif occurs in Xenophon who Clothing and reports that Cyrus clothed the members of his entourage in luxurious clothes, and in Power Herodotus, for whom the obtainment of garments from the Persian king contitutes a privilege.45 Biblical stories about Joseph and Daniel also associate obtaining clothing with the moment when the Jewish heroes attain positions of power in foreign kingdoms (Gen 41:42; Dan 5:29).

Verses 8:15b-17a describe the joyful reactions to Mordecai’s edict by different groups. These contrast with the reactions to the publication of the edict of destruction of the Jews. While Susa was consternated during the proclamation of Haman’s edict (3:15b), here “the city of Susa cried out and rejoiced,”46 indicating that an important number of non-Jews regard the Jews with empathy. 8:16 to 17a stress the joyful reaction of the Jews. The redundance between 8:16 and 8:17a emphasizes that the reaction of the Jews of the entire empire (8:17a) completes that of the Jews of Susa (8:16). Verse 17a skillfully contrasts the reaction of the Jews to Mordecai’s edict with that of the edict of destruction. “In the place of every province and of every city where the king’s word and his edict reached” reuses almost word for word 4:3. Moreover, the formulations in 4:3 to describe sadness [“a great mourning” ‫אבל‬ ‫“ גדול‬fasting” ‫“ צום‬tears” ‫“ בכי‬lamenting” ‫ ]מספד‬and in 8:17 to describe joy [“joy” ‫“ שׂמחה‬jubilation” ‫“ שׂשׂון‬banquet” ‫“ משׁתה‬day of festival” ‫ ]יום טוב‬answer one another in a pattern a-b-c-d / d’-c’-b’-a’. “Joy” (d’) and “jubilation” (c’) answer “tears” (c) and “lamenting” (d). “Banquet” (b’) responds to “fasting” (b). Finally, two celebrations frame everything: that of mourning (a) contrasts against the “day of festival” (a’) of 8:17. The expression ‫יום טוב‬, literally “good day,” here takes

44 See Prov 4:9 and 16:31. In 2 Sam 12:30; 1 Chr 20:2; Song 3:11 this adornment is royal, and in Zech 6:11 and 14 it is priestly. It is not the same word as the “royal diadem” in 1:11; 2:17; and 6:8. 45 XENOPHON, Cyr., 8.2.8 and 8.3.1-4; HERODOTUS, Hist., 3.84 and 9.109. See also PLUTARCH, Art., 15. 46 For contrasting reactions of the city of Susa to the reception of the royal messages see also HERODOTUS, Hist., 8.99. The capture of Athens is greeted with enthusiasm while the defeat of Salamis brings consternation.

Joyful Reactions …to Susa

…for the Jews

250

Joy and Jubilation

8:17b. Judaizing

The Terror of the Jews

A Plot Difficult to Unravel (8:1-17)

on the meaning “day of festival.” ‫ יום טוב‬commonly designates an established festival in post-biblical Hebrew. Here, as in 1 Sam 25:8, this expression probably indicates only the festive character of the day.47 “Joy” ‫ שׂמחה‬is found frequently in the rest of the book of Esther (8:17; 9:17, 18, 19, 22) but “jubilation” ‫ שׂשׂון‬śāśôn only appears here. This term can be possibly explained as an assonance with the name of the city “Susa” ‫ שׁושׁן‬Šûšān, now joyous. In 8:16, “joy and jubilation” are framed by two terms associated with happiness and glory. “Light” ‫ אורה‬is often placed in parallel with joy48 and “honor” ‫ יקר‬corresponds to the semantic range describing the honor that the king renders upon his benefactor in Chapter 6. As in 4:3, where the announcement of the destruction of the Jews is greeted with mourning, in 8:16-17a the proclamation of the right of the Jews to defend themselves is celebrated as though the battle has already been won. The joy at the announcement of the edict prepares for what will come when the battle is over. The terms “joy,” “jubilation,” “banquet,” and “day of festival” are found in 9:17-19, 22 in the description of the days of victory. After the joyful reaction of Susa in 8:15b and then of the Jews in 8:16-17a, the text reports that “Many among the peoples of the land Judaized themselves.” While in 4:3 “many” Jews were in mourning, here it is “many” non-Jews who become close to them. Here, “peoples of the land” ‫ עמי הארץ‬designates non-Israelite populations and is well-attested in biblical texts in the Persian and Hellenistic eras.49 The term ‫“ מתיהדים‬Judaized themselves” is a hapax. It is a hithpael participle from the root ‫יהד‬.50 The hithpael is a reflexive that can have a declarative connotation. One may translate “became Jewish,” “Judaized themselves,” or “declared themselves to be Jewish.” To understand this enigmatic “Judaization,” we should consider the manner in which this episode is presented and examine the bringing together of non-Jews with Jews in antiquity. The reason for moving closer to the Jews is that “the terror of the Jews fell upon them.” Did these non-Jews recognize divine action in what is happening and are thus seized with a sacred respect, or did they fear the military capabilities of the Jews?51 The two things are not incompatible, since in antiquity political and

47 For the mishnaic usage cf. BERGEY, Book, 163-164. 48 ‫ אור‬is parallel with ‫ שׂמחה‬in Jer 25:10 and Ps 97:11, with ‫ שׂשׂון‬in Jer 25:10, and with ‫יקר‬ in Job 31:26. 49 See Deut 28:10; Josh 4:24; 1 Kgs 8:43, 60; Zeph 3:20; 2 Chr 13:9; 32:13, 19; Ezra 9:1-2, 11; 10:2, 11. For discussion on the meaning of ‫עמי הארץ‬, see Jean-Daniel MACCHI, “’Am haArets I. Hebrew Bible/Old Testament,” in The Encyclopedia of the Bible and its Reception, vol. 1, H.-J. KLAUCK, et al. (eds.), Berlin/New York, 2009, 912-914. 50 On the meaning of this form, see Moshe BAR-ASHER, “‫איש יהודי היה בשושן הבירה‬. Il y avait à Suse un homme juif,” REJ 161 (2002), 227-231, esp. 229-231; BARDTKE, “Esther,” 376377; BUSH, Esther, 448; FOX, Character, 105; GESENIUS – KAUTZSCH – COWLEY § 54e; HAL; LEVENSON, Esther, 117; WALTKE-O’CONNOR § 26.2f. 51 CLINES, Esther, 318-319; CLINES, Scroll, 40-42; DOMMERSHAUSEN, Ester, 43-44; HOSCHANDER, Book, 247-248; and LOADER, “Ester,” 268 think that it is a matter of a fear of the sacred while BERLIN, Esther, 81; BUSH, Esther, 448-449; FOX, Character, 105-106; LEVENSON, Esther, 117; MOORE, Esther, 82; and DE TROYER, End, 168; opt for an essentially political reading.

Synchronic Analysis

251

military domination are often understood as the expression of power of tutelary divinities. In the book of Esther, political and military dimensions of the terror inspired by the Jews is evident since expressions close to those of 8:17b appear in such a context in 9:2 and 9:3. On the other hand, the connection between the terror of the Jews and divine action is not explicit. However, as the editors of the work seem to prefer to allude to divine action rather than to mention it52 and they often refer to biblical texts, one may think that in using the expression “terror ‫ פחד‬of the Jews” they are evoking the motif of the divine dimension of military “terror” that inspired the Israelites.53 There is no reason to think that this Judaizing is illegitimate or that the editors wanted to ironize on the sincerity of those who did so. The sincerity of this group of foreigners is never criticized. It seems, on the contrary, to contribute to the deliverance of the Jews. Moreover, in 9:27 the presence of those close to the Jews at the victory celebrations is not questioned. The question is what the proto-Masoretic editors wanted to refer to when they evoked the “Judaization” of non-Jews. In antiquity, the term “Jew” ‫ יהודי‬designates a person connected to an ethnic and national group whose geographic origins are in Judea and that is deemed to have a specific culture, customs, and rituals, and depends upon a particular deity.54 In this context, a non-Jew who “Judaizes” is assumed to adopt all or part of Jewish culture and rituals. We do not know what practices were included for the editors of Esther. The formulation of 8:17b is too laconic, and these editors only allude to Jewish rituals: Haman mentions legislative features (3:8); dates refer to different festivals;55 and 3:4 presupposes a Jewish prohibition to prostrate oneself. It is remarkable that non-Israelites close to the Jews participate in Purim, the only ritual explicitly mentioned by the MT (9:27). The LXX, JOSEPHUS, Antiquities, 11.285, and the OL mention circumcision, which seems to constitute a minimal practice of integration into Judaism (cf. Exod 12:43-49). The targumic texts use the technical term “to become a proselyte” and the Vulgate offers clarification by reproducing as “they were integrated in their religion and ceremonies.” The AT of 7:41 presents an interesting variant. It is not non-Jews but “many among the Jews” who become circumcised. This variant is not absurd and testifies to a correction of the perspective present in both the MT and the LXX.56

Mentioning this “Judaizing” on a large scale offers clues to the context in which the passage was written. Pre-Hellenistic Jewish literature rarely addresses questions of voluntary association with the Jewish community by non-Israelite per-

52 See the Introduction § C.5.3. Presence and Absence of God in the MT. 53 For the connection between God’s actions and the terror inspired by the Israelites’ strength, compare the use of terror in Deut 2:25; 11:25; Ps 105:38; 2 Chr 14:13; 17:10; and 20:29. 54 See the Introduction § C.5.2.1 Being Jewish according to the Book of Esther. 55 See the Introduction § E.2.1. The Chronological System of the Masoretic Text. 56 The practice of circumcision was not universal in Jewish circles in the Hellenistic and Roman eras, and pressures against its practice are well attested (1 Macc 1:15, 48, 60-6; 2 Macc 6:10; 1 Cor 7:18; Jub. 15:33). See Robert G. HALL, “Circumcision,” in ABD, vol. 1, 1025-1031; SCHÄFER, Judéophobie, 159-181; MIDDLEMAS, “Greek,” 160.

Judaizing according to Ancient Translations

252

Individual Judaizing

Judaizing of Groups

A Plot Difficult to Unravel (8:1-17)

sons, and this only pertains to individuals who settle in the land of Israel.57 On the other hand, closer parallels with what is described in Esther 8:17 are found in the Hellenistic era: the motif of “Judaizing” appears for individuals without any connection to settling in Judea and especially that of “Judaizing” of entire population groupings. The willingness to attach oneself to the Jewish community is positively reported for the Ammonite commander Achior in Judith 14:10: “Achior having seen all that the God of Israel had done, he believed firmly in God and he had the flesh of his foreskin circumcised and he became integrated into the house of Israel until this day.” In a more ironic fashion, during the episode of Bel and the Dragon, the Babylonian officials reproach the king for having “become Jewish” (Dan 14:28) and in 2 Macc 9:17 the ill Antiochus IV considers “becoming Jewish” in order to become well. The “Judaizing” of entire groups associated, as in Esth 8:17, with military domination can be connected with two historical circumstances that marked the second and first centuries BCE. The first case concerns the forced “Judaizing” of groups within populations in the context of the expansionist politics of the Hasmonean sovereigns Hyrcanus, Aristobulus, and Alexander Jannaeus, who in a manner more or less forcibly “Judaized” populations, in particular the Idumeans.58 As in Esther 8, it is the dominating force of the Jews that leads to the Judaizing of non-Jews. The second case concerns the question of “de-Judaizing.” The books of the Maccabees mention the introduction of practices typical of Hellenistic cities into Jerusalem (1 Macc 1:12-15; 2 Macc 4:14-15; 6:7), of the prohibition of Jewish rituals such as the Sabbath and circumcision, and the massive Hellenization of the Temple cult (1 Macc 1:41-64; 2 Macc 6:1-11). The implementation of Hellenistic culture and practices in cities was a strong tendency throughout the ancient world. With regard to Judea, the books of the Maccabees present this “Hellenization” as a form of “de-Judaizing” and explain the Maccabean revolt as resulting from the rejection of Hellenism. Consequently, one may think that during the Maccabean-Hasmonean era, when Esther’s proto-Masoretic editors mention a vast “Judaizing” of the empire, they do so with irony. The episode reverses what happens during the period of Greek domination in which the Hellenization of non-Greeks is massive. In the literary fiction of the book of Esther, the motivations of those who “Judaize” themselves out of fear of the Jews resembles those motivations of the Jews who, in Judea during the Hellenistic era, choose to adopt the practices and the culture of powerful Hellenistic sovereigns. The global “Judaizing” of the empire imagined by the authors of Esth 8:17 would correspond to a Jewish sociopolitical expansion even more extensive than that of the Hasmoneans. Whatever the case may be, on a literary level, the reversal of what prevailed at the beginning of the narrative, when the Jews hid their identity (2:10, 20), is

57 See the book of Ruth, the conditions of ritual participation for immigrants (Exod 12:4349; Deut 23:4-9). With regard to Ezra–Nehemiah (esp. Ezra 9–10) they reject integration – especially by means of marriage – of non-Israelites into the Judean community. 58 JOSEPHUS, Ant. 13.257-258 concerning Idumea and 13.318 for Iturea by Aristobulus. See in the Introduction § B.2.8.1. Judea in the Maccabean and Hasmonean Eras.

The War (9:1-19)

253

complete. After having described the necessary unveiling of Mordecai’s and Esther’s Jewish identity, here the editors proclaim that this identity can be attractive.

The War (9:1-19) 1a In the twelfth month, which is the month of Adar, on the thirteenth day, when the king’s word and his edict bwere to be carried out,b the day when the enemies of the Jews had hoped to dominate them, this had changed,c so that the Jews would dominate those who hated them. 2 The Jews gathered in their cities in all the provinces of King Ahasuerus to extend a hand against those who sought their misfortune. No one stood before them, for their terror fell on the peoplesa 3 all the ministers of the provinces, the satraps, the governors, and the king’s functionaries supporteda the Jews, for the terror of Mordecai fell upon them. 4 Certainly, Mordecai was important in the house of the king and his reputation went into all the provinces; certainly, this man Mordecai becoming more important. 5a The Jews struck their enemies, bsword strike, killing, and elimination.b They did to those who hated them according to their own discretion. 6 At the citadel of Susa, the Jews killed and eliminated 500 men 7 and a Parshandatha and Dalphon and Aspatha 8 and Poratha and Adalia and Aridatha 9 and Parmashta and Arisai and Aridai and a Vaizatha. 10 The ten sons of Haman son of Hammedathaa oppressor of the Jews they killed, but upon the booty they did not extend their hands.b 11 That day, the number of those killed in the citadel of Susa came before the king 12 The King said to Queen Esther: “In the citadel of Susa the Jews have killed and eliminated five hundred men and the ten sons of Haman, what have they done in the rest of the king’s provinces? What is your wish? It shall be granted you.a What is yet your request? It shall be done.” 13 Esther said: “If it pleases the king, let tomorrow also be given to the Jews of Susa to act according to today’s edict and let them hang the ten sons of Haman upon the wooden pole.” 14 The king said that it should be done thus. It was proclaimed as edict in Susa and they hangeda the ten sons of Haman. 15 The Jewsa of Susa also gathered together on the fourteenth day of the month of Adar. They

254

The War (9:1-19)

killed three hundred men in Susa, but they did not extend their hands upon the booty. 16 And the rest of the Jews of the provinces of the king gathered together and defendeda their lives and obtained restab from their enemies and killeda those who hated them, seventy-five thousand,c but they did not extend their hands upon the booty, 17 on the thirteenth day of the month of Adar; and they obtained rest on the fourteenth day and they made it into a day of banquet and of joy. 18a And the Jews of Susa gathered together on the thirteenth and on the fourteenth day; and they obtained rest on the fifteenth day and they made it into a day of banquet and of joy. 19 This is why the Jews far off,a those who live in the far off towns, make the fourteenth day of the month of Adar into a day of joy, of banquet, a day of festival and of mutual sending of portions.b

Notes on Text and Translation 1-2a-a The two verses are missing from the AT and the OL. LXX presents a shorter text: “1 Now in the twelfth month, on the thirteenth day of the month that is Adar, the letter written by the king arrived. 2 On that same day the opponents of the Judeans perished, for no one resisted, because they feared them” (translation NETS). The LXX translator probably had a Hebrew text that was shorter than the MT, which probably results in the late insertion of 9:1b-2a. Strangely, KAHANA, Esther, 361-363 thinks that 1b was not a part of the text at the translator’s disposal, but that 2a was omitted by the translator. 1b-b ‫ הגיע )…( להעשׂות‬literally: “it had achieved (…) the fact of being done.” c We understand ‫( ונהפוך‬an infinitive absolute + ‫ )ו‬as the equivalent of a conjugated verb that then constitute the rest of the verb “they had hoped” ‫( שׂברו‬with BUSH, Esther, 455, 461; NRSV, etc.). It could also be the equivalent of a name, and one must understand ‫“ נהפוך הוא‬there was a change in situation” [an English translation upholding the sentiment of TOB; NBS]. 3a ‫ נשׂא‬piel means “to glorify” or “to elevate” in 3:1 and 5:11 (with this meaning, see the ancient translations LXX, OL, and Vulg.) Here one must understand instead “to support” (BARDTKE, “Esther,” 377; BUSH, Esther, 455; MOORE, Esther, 84; TOB; NBS; NRSV). 5a Verse absent from the LXX, AT, and OL. It was probably inserted late. b-b The Masoretic punctuation indicates a caesura after “enemies” confirmed by the absence of a preposition before ‫מכת־חרב‬. This sequence is in apposition. The nouns ‫“ הרג‬killing” and ‫“ אבדן‬elimination” derive from roots that are found in the annoucements of the massacre in 3:13 and 8:11. 7-9a-a Numerous orthographic variants are present in the versions. LXX orthography for names: Φαρσαννεσταιν, Δελφων, Φασγα, Φαρδαθα, Βαρεα, Σαρβαχα, Μαρμασιμ, Αρουφαῖον, Αρσαῖον, Ζαβουθαῖον. Moreover, variants exist among the manuscripts of the LXX. The AT only presents five proper names, Φαρσαν, Φαρνα, Γαγαφαρδαθα, Μαρμασαιμα Ιζαθουθ, to which is added the “brother” (ἀδελφὸν) for the first on the list, a note that can be explained by a confusion with the Δελφων of the LXX. The present commentary presents this list of names according to the orthographic convention of most Esther manuscripts. 10a The LXX adds here βουγαίου, which is a late harmonization with 3:1. See the commentary on 3:1: The Proud Pre-Masoretic Haman. b Here, the Jews pillage according to the LXX and the AT. On the other hand, in 9:15 and 16 the Greek texts indicate that they do not pillage. This peculiarity undoubtedly

Synchronic Analysis

12a 14a

15a 16a

b

c 18a 19a

b

255

can be explained by a corruption of the Greek text, either due to an assimilation of the translator with 3:13 (BHQ, 147*-148*) or due to the accidental drop of the negation (KAHANA, Esther, 375). Contrary to HARVEY, Morality, 127, HARRELSON, “Textual,” 202, thinks that the pillage in the LXX only concerns Haman’s house. See the textual note on 5:6a. Some Greek and Syriac manuscripts as well as Targum Esther II harmonize with the formulation of 2:23; 6:4; 7:10; 8:7; and 9:13 by specifying that they were hanged “on the wooden pole.” See the textual note on 4:7a. These inf. abs. + ‫ ו‬have the temporal value of the form that precedes here ‫נקהלו‬ (JOÜON § 123x; WALTKE-O’CONNOR § 35.5.2b). Same case 2:3; 3:13; 6:9; 9:1, 6, 12, 17, and 18. In this series of violent actions, the verb ‫“ נוח‬to obtain rest” is surprising. Corrections have been proposed: ‫ ונוח מאיביהם‏‬could be a gloss (BHS; HAUPT, “Notes,” 167) or ‫ ונוח‬could be a corruption from an original ‫“ ונחום‬they found relief ” or “they avenged themselves” (‫( )נחם‬the ‫ מ‬may have fallen by means of haplography, cf. RUDOLPH, “Estherbuch,” 90; DRIVER, “Problems,” 237; BARDTKE, “Esther,” 237; FOX, Character, 285). That said, the MT – supported by the LXX – makes sense and can be maintained, ‫ נוח‬then expresses the result of victory (BHQ, 148*; BUSH, Esther, 467; CLINES, Esther, 324). In the versions, the numbers vary: JOSEPHUS, Ant. 11.292 to 75,000; LXX 15,000; AT 70,100. The verse has fallen out by homeoteleuton in the manuscripts of the LXX and the Peshitta. For ‫ פרז‬meaning “outside” see the commentary. The qere ‫ הפרזים‬resembles the form ‫“ ערי הפרזות‬the outlying citites.” The ketiv ‫ הפרוזים‬was sometimes explained by a desire to create an assonance with “the Jews” ‫( היהודים‬STRIEDL, “Untersuchung,” 9091; BARDTKE, “Esther,” 386.389). It could also be explained by the influence of Mishnaic Hebrew ‫ פרוז‬that designates someone dwelling in an open city. In any case, ‫ הפרזים‬is redundant with “those who live in the outlying cities” ‫ הישׁבים בערי הפרזות‬that was often held to be a explanatory gloss (PATON, Esther, 292; CLINES, Scroll, 182 n. 12). Perhaps the most ancient text of this passage contained the term ‫“ הפזורים‬those dispersed” (root ‫ )פזר‬that would have been accidentally modified in the MT under the influence of ‫ הפרזות‬that follows (KAHANA, Esther, 397). This conjecture is supported by the LXX which translates “dispersed.” The LXX ends this verse with a “plus”: “But those living in the large cities also celebrate the fifteenth of Adar as a joyful holiday, sending portions to those nearby” (transl. NETS). This “plus” is absent from other textual traditions. This “plus” could be a precision made by the translator. (BARDTKE, “Esther,” 389; BERLIN, Esther, 87-88; MOORE, Esther, 89). However, it is also possible that the LXX preserves the original text. The loss of the conclusion in the Hebrew would be explained by a homeoteleuton (the end of the part of the verse that would have fallen away ends in the same way as the part of 9:19 preserved by the MT).

Synchronic Analysis The narrative continues with the description of the war produced by the simultaneous implementation of the edict ordering the massacre of the Jews and the edict authorizing their self-defense. An introductory note mentions the date of the implementation of the edict, Passage Orgathe hopes of the enemies, and the reversal of the situation (v. 1). The events are nization

256

The War (9:1-19)

then presented briefly (vv. 2-4). The Jews combat their enemies who cannot resist (v. 2) and are supported by the imperial functionaries (v. 3). Verse 9:4 calls to mind Mordecai’s preeminent place in the empire (already 8:15). Verses 9:2bβ and 3b justify the domination of the Jews and of Mordecai by means of the terror they inspire. A new summary of events opens the description of the location and dates of the different bellicose episodes (v. 5).59 Verses 9:6-10 report the events of Adar 13 in Susa. Verses 9:11-15 report a dialogue between the king and the queen (vv. 12-13) that results, in Susa, in prolonging the conflict and the hanging of Haman’s sons to the fourteenth of Adar (vv. 14-15). Verses 9:16-17a describe the conflict outside of Susa on the thirteenth of Adar. The days of rest and of celebration that follow the fighting are evoked in 9:17b-18. Jews outside of Susa celebrate on the fourteenth of Adar (v. 17b) and those in Susa on the fifteenth of Adar (v. 18b). An explanatory gloss on one of these two dates concludes everything (v. 19). The Violence The Jews massacre their enemies throughout the empire. The vocabulary in Question (“dominate” enemies, “extend a hand against,” “struck,” “killing,” “elimination”) shows that the actions of the Jews are true acts of war. The number of those killed is mentioned several times and the episode ends with the commemoration of this triumph (9:17-19 then 20-32). Although the violent character of the episode may seem troubling from an ethical point of view,60 it would be incorrect to minimize the scope either by claiming that it is a secondary literary passage,61 or by invoking the fictive and ironic, even carnivalesque, character of the narrative.62 Indeed, the narrative of war is probably not secondary in relation to the proto-Masoretic editing of the work. Moreover, the passage does not seem ironic, especially because all throughout the narrative, the actions of the Jewish heroes are presented as pertinent and well-founded. The narrative’s carnivalesque nature is hardly evident. One may, certainly, suppose it in light of the actual practices of the festival of Purim, but

59 BUSH, Esther, 456-457 says that this verse creates an inclusio with 9:1 and closes the introductory sequence of 9:1-5. 60 This violence offends numerous readers and contributed to the sometimes difficult reception of this book. See Bernhard W. ANDERSON, “The Place of the Book of Esther in the Christian Bible,” JR 30 (1950), 32-43; BICKERMAN, Strange, 211-219; CARRUTHERS, Esther, 9-10; GEVARYAHU, “Defense,” 5-7; Gerrie SNYMAN, “Narrative Rationality, Morality and Readers’ Identification,” OTE 15 (2002), 179-199; STONE, Compilational, 141-142; Marvin A. SWEENEY, “Absence of G-d and Human Responsibility in the Book of Esther,” in Reading the Hebrew Bible for a New Millennium: Form, Concept, and Theological Perspective (Studies in Antiquity and Christianity 2: Exegetical and Theological Studies), W. KIM, et al. (eds.), Harrisburg, 2000, 264-275, esp. 267-269 and the critical remarks about violence in the text especially in BROWNE, “Esther,” 381-382; MÉROZ, Esther, 35-39; PATON, Esther, 96. 61 The distinction established by CLINES, Scroll, 39-49 between 9:1-19 – regarding which he has a negative view and he attributes to a secondary layer – and Chs. 1-8 is characteristic. 62 See DOROTHY, Books, 354; GOLDMAN, “Narrative,” 24-27; JONES, “Misconceptions,” 171-172, 177-181; Matthew J. KLAASSEN, “Persian/Jew/Jew/Persian: Levels of Irony in the Scroll of Esther,” Direction 25 (1996), 21-28, esp. 24-27 and insisting on the side of the carnival, BERLIN, Esther, 81-82; WILLS, Novel, 95-98.

Synchronic Analysis

257

the manner in which the narrative institutes this festival (9:20-32) does not make it a carnival. Excessive drunkenness and a momentary reversal of values that characterize a carnival are not themes in the Masoretic presentation of the banquets of Purim. These banquets are even presented as counter-models with respect to the excess of Persian banquets of Chapters 1-7. Consequently,63 one must not minimize the scope of the violence. The editors undoubtedly considerd the bellicose attitude of the Jews as justified. They describe this outbreak of violence in a context in which the survival of the Jews is directly threatened and where the empire does not guarantee justice. Moreover, “defend their lives” in 8:11, taken up again in 9:16, emphasizes that the Jews’ action was defensive. The narrative of Esther 9:1-19 presents a “just” war. The violence of the Jews only strikes their enemies who sought to do them harm.64 Moreover, the recurrent motif of the absence of taking any booty (9:10, 15, 16) indicates that this war is not for personal enrichment. Finally, the large number of deaths (more than seventy-five thousand) suggests that the enemies of the Jews are numerous and dangerous, but remain limited if put in perspective with the colossal size of the Persian Empire.65 The rhetoric of violence shows the capacity of the Jews to act in a military fashion, all the while emphasizing that these bellicose actions occur out of necessity and in response to an aggression.66 The protagonists change strategy in relation to the preceding chapters. Esther had succeeded with cunning to obtain the king’s support, but the king showed himself incapable of saving the Jews, so the use of force constitutes the last recourse of the Jews who must then defend themselves on their own.67 Greek literature presents numerous violent episodes in the Persian world comparable to what is found in Esther. The massacre of a dangerous character followed by all his acolytes (in this case the enemies of the Jews), followed by the institution of festivities known in Esther, could be compared to the end of the story of the plot of the Magus described by Herodotus after the death of Cambyses. After the death of the Magus, Herodotus says: “The other Persians, once they had learnt of the exploit of the seven confederates, and understood the hoax which the Magi had practised on them, were soon ready to follow their example: they, too, drew their daggers and killed every Magi they could find – so that if darkness had not put an end to the slaughter, the whole tribe would have been exterminated. The anniversary of this day has become a red-letter day in the Persian calendar, marked by an important festival known as the Magophonia.”68 The analogies with

63 With DAY, Esther, 146-147; GROSSMAN, Esther, 191; HARVEY, Morality, 63-66; RIEHL, Bible, 91. 64 MILLER, Versions, 53-62 shows how convincingly the MT of 8:11, 13; 9:2, 5, 16 emphasizes the defensive character of the military action of the Jews (see also among many others, GEVARYAHU, “Defense”; GROSSMAN, Esther, 191-192. 65 For the editors, most non-Jews are not anti-Semites. For the most part, they support the Jews (8:15b, 17b) and abstain from implementing the edict of destruction. 66 ACHENBACH, “Genocide” considers that the book of Esther legitimates the right to resist genocidal plans and to punish those who envision genocidal actions. 67 See MACCHI, “refus.” 68 HERODOTUS, Hist., 3.79, (translation A. BARGUET, 254). This festival is also attested in CTESIAS, Persica, F13(11-18).

Violence and Massacre in Persia according to Hellenistic Literature

258

The War (9:1-19)

the book of Esther include the general massacre as well as the festival that commemorates it.69 Moreover, Esther’s cruelty, demanding the hanging of Haman’s sons and an extra day of massacre, corresponds to a classic theme in Greek literature, in which the enemies of Persian queens often end by undergoing horrible punishments.70 9:1-19 and Even if Herodotus’s history could have inspired Esther’s editors, it is mainly Maccabean later problems that explain this final part of the narrative. Conflicts Within biblical literature, the description of conflicts that are truly comparable to Esther 9 are only found in the books of the Maccabees. As in Esther, in 1 and 2 Maccabees, wars pitting the Jews against their enemies are caused by legislative measures taken to deny the identity of the Jews and to annihilate them.71 Moreover, the conflict of Esther 9 presents numerous similarities with the two occurrences of the narrative of the famous defeat of the Syrian general Nicanor against Judas Maccabeus (1 Macc 7:39-50; 2 Macc 15). Despite the absence in Esther of “pious” language and rhetoric of the Maccabean narratives,72 numerous parallels are evident. These two events are both dated to the thirteenth of Adar (1 Macc 7:43, 49; 2 Macc 15:36).73 In both cases, the Jews are attacked by their enemies, who undertook very violent measures against them (1 Macc 7:26, 35, 39; 2 Macc 15:1-5, 25 // Esth 3:9, 13). The families of the combattants are threatened (2 Macc 15:18 // Esth 3:13). Numerous defeated individuals are massacred (seventy-five thousand in Esth 9 // thirty-five thousand in 2 Macc 15:27 [1 Macc 7:40 and 2 Macc 15:22 call to mind a previous one hundred and eighty thousand deaths]).74 Haman and the Nicanor of the books of the Maccabees have several traits in common: like Haman, Nicanor is presented as the archetypal enemy of the Jews;75 exposing Nicanor’s head in Jerusalem (2 Macc 15:35; 1 Macc 7:47) evokes the treatment of Haman’s corpse and of his sons in Susa. “Rest” is the main benefit of the Jews in the war in Esther 9:16-19, 22 and in the victory over Nicanor (1 Macc 7:50; 2 Macc 15:37). Finally, the victory of the Maccabees ends with the establishment of festivities that are reminiscent of what takes place in Esther 9.76 The proto-Masoretic editors of the book of Esther clearly wanted to place these episodes in parallel. Even if the narratives of the Day of Nicanor in 1 and 2 Maccabees contain some stereotypical fictive aspects and the sources upon

69 The massacre perpetrated by Median power against the Scythians (HERODOTUS, Hist., 1.106) also presents some analogies with the Esther narrative. 70 In HERODOTUS and CTESIAS (see the commentary on 5:3-8, Reasons for the Double Invitation to the Banquet § Persian Queens in Greek Texts). 71 See the anti-Jewish measures of Antiochus IV in 1 Macc 1:41-64 and 2 Macc 6:1-11. 72 The combatants pray and God’s help is mentioned in 1 Macc 7 and 2 Macc 15. 73 The editor of 2 Macc 15:36 already seems to establish this connection. 74 The theme of booty is present three times in Esther 9:10-15, 16 without any being taken, while 1 Macc 7:47 and other passages report the taking of booty by the Maccabees. 75 Nicanor is presented by 2 Macc as a sort of second Antiochus IV. Thus, while the death of Antiochus closes the first part of 2 Maccabees (Ch. 10), that of Nicanor concludes the second. 76 See below the commentary on 9:20-32.

Synchronic Analysis

259

which they are dependent are later than the events described,77 the substance of these narratives reflects an historic reality. Now, as the Esther narrative is probably fictive, it is more likely that the editors of Esther wrote their narrative to allude to the series of historical events of the battle of Judas Maccabeus against Nicanor, rather than the opposite. It is as if by alluding to the battle of Judas Maccabeus against Nicanor, the editors of the last part of the book of Esther wanted to stage a Maccabean battle within the Jewish diaspora of Susa. The chronological note of 9:1 situates the episode in the twelfth month, which is the month of Adar, on the thirteenth day. This date corresponds to that planned for the implementation of the two concurrent edicts (3:13 and 8:12) proclaimed the thirteenth of Nisan (3:7, 12) and the twenty-third of Sivan (8:9). This is the culmination of all the literary construction of the Esther narrative and the denouement of the crisis generated by Mordecai’s publication of an edict that is concurrent with that of Haman. However, here, “edict” and “the king’s word” are in the singular, referring to the edict that anticipates the destruction of the Jews. Indeed, immediately following, the text specifies that it is on this day when “the enemies of the Jews had hoped to dominate them,” (9:1bα).78 This remark indicates the malicious desire of those who will attempt to carry out Haman’s edict. The use of the verb “had hoped” foreshadows a hope for domination that will be defeated.79 9:1bβ opens with “this had changed” and turns the Jews into the subject of the verb “to dominate” ‫שׁלט‬: “so that the Jews would dominate those who hated them.” It emphasizes that the attitude of the Jews is a response to the edict ordering their massacre. The domination of the Jews over their enemies (1bβ) corresponds to the expectation of the enemies to dominate the Jews (1bα).80 The phrase “this had changed” implies the victory of the Jews described in the rest of the passage. However, this victory is not the necessary outcome of the edict of Chapter 8 where the Jews obtained authorization to defend themselves (8:11), but without a guarantee of success. The rest of Chapter 9 is thus a new situational reversal. 9:2-5 gives the circumstances and the reasons for the triumph of the Jews. The adversaries (v. 2, 5) will be destroyed and the Persian authorities (vv. 3-4) will support the Jews. As with the Judaizing of non-Jews (8:17b), the defeat of adversa-

77 2 Maccabees is the summary of a text of Jason of Cyrene that could have been written shortly after the death of Judas Maccabeus (161) or a little later in the Hasmonean era. The scribe who abbreviates the text works in the Hasmonean era. 1 Maccabees is the Greek translation of a Hebrew text from the Hasmonean era. On the origin and dating of the books of the Maccabees see ABADIE, “1 et 2 Maccabées”; VON DOBBELER, Makkabäer, 46, 161-164; WILLIAMS, “1 Maccabees”; GOLDSTEIN, II Maccabees, 71-83. 78 CLINES, Esther, 320-321 is incorrect that in the MT this singular designates Mordecai’s edict. On the other hand, in the short text that the LXX translated (cf. the textual note in the present commentary on 9:1-2a-a) the edict designates, rather, that of Mordecai. In both the LXX and the MT, the simultaneous existence of the two edicts is presupposed. 79 The verbs “to hope” ‫ שׂבר‬and “to dominate” ‫ שׁלט‬are rare and are not found elsewhere in Esther. They are characteristic of late biblical Hebrew (Ezra and Ecclesiastes). 80 The motif of the consequence of the actions in this verse is shown by WACKER, “Gewalt,” 614 and EGO, “Hellenistic,” 291-292.

9:1-5. The Conflict

The Jews Will Dominate

This Had Changed

Terror

260

9:2a, 5. Action against Enemies To Gather

To Kill, to Strike

Triumph

…against Those Who Are Hostile

9:3-4. Action of Persian Authorities

The War (9:1-19)

ries and the support of imperial authorities are explained by the “terror” ‫ פחד‬that the Jews (v. 2) and Mordecai (v. 3) inspire. This “terror” that the Jews inspire indicates that in the Maccabean-Hasmonean era when the text was edited, the power of domination was perceived as an important element in relations that the Jews entertained with those around them. 9:2a and 9:5 resume the action of the Jews against their enemies described in 9:6-18. The wording and themes correspond to the edict authorizing them to defend themselves (8:11-12). The action of “gathering” ‫ קהל‬niphal is found in 8:11 and in 9:15, 16, 18, and supposes the use of military action that requires that troops be assembled.81 Following Mordecai in 3:4 and Esther in Chapter 7, this time it is all the Jews who act courageously in the name of and for the defense of their identity. “Their cities,” does not imply the existence of cities that are specifically Jewish, but rather that the gathering occurs in all cities where there are Jews.82 The violence of the action is heavily emphasized. In 9:2 “to extend a hand against” ‫ שׁלח יד ב‬signifies “to kill” (idem in 2:21; 3:6; 6:2) and in 9:5 a series of violent terms are found: “The Jews struck” ‫“ נכה‬sword strike, killing, and elimination” ‫מכת־חרב והרג ואבדן‬. In this sequence, once again one finds the roots “to kill” ‫ הרג‬and “to eliminate” ‫ אבד‬that already occurred in 8:11. On the other hand, the terms “to strike” and “sword” only appear in this verse. “No one stood before them” (9:2) and “they did to those who hated them according to their own discretion” (9:5) indicate a triumphant victory. The phrase “according to their own discretion” ‫ עשׂה כרצון‬creates an inclusio with the beginning of the book where everyone at the royal banquet did “according to each individual’s desires” (1:8). In a way, the power that the Jews take over their enemies (9:5) corresponds to the demonstration of royal power in 1:8. The passage stresses that the Jews strike individuals who are hostile to them and who want to annihilate them. A negative wording characterizes the adversaries. These are “enemies” (Esth 9:1, 5, 16, 22), a descriptor applied to Haman in 7:6 and to “those who hated them” (Esth 9:1, 5, 16). The expression “extend a hand against those who sought ‫ בקשׁ‬their misfortune” (9:2) emphasizes malicious intentions by evoking the action of the eunuchs who “sought ‫ בקשׁ‬to extend their hand” against the king (2:21; 6:2). Haman is clearly not the only malicious individual in the empire. While 9:2 and 5 speak of the enemies of the Jews, 9:3-4 indicates that, like the people in 8:17, the authorities and the functionaries of the provinces take the side of the Jews and support the implementation of Mordecai’s edict. While the imperial administrative system takes the side of the Jews, its power, its diversity, and its complexity are emphasized. In 9:3 the various types of Persian authorities “ministers,” “satraps,” “governors,” and “functionaries” correspond to those that occur before (3:9, 12; 8:9). But the order in which the authorities are mentioned varies, without explanation.83

81 On the military sense of ‫ קהל‬see the commentary on 8:11. 82 Cf. 8:11. BUSH, Esther, 461; BERLIN, Esther, 83; on the other hand CLINES, Scroll, 46. 83 BARDTKE, “Esther”, 381 and BUSH, Esther, 462 think that 9:3 deviates from the order of importance (satraps – governors – ministers) in order to highlight the authorities who

Synchronic Analysis

261

9:4 stresses the dominant position of Mordecai, which explains the support of the authorities. A syntactic construction A-B-B’-A’ signals that Mordecai obtained an important position, “Mordecai was important ‫ גדל‬in the house of the king” (4aα) / “Mordecai (…) was important” ‫( גדל‬4bβ), and that his prestige went out throughout the empire “his reputation went ‫ הלך‬into all the provinces” (4aβ) / “Mordecai went ‫( ”הלך‬4bα). This verse completes what was recounted in Chapter 8 where Mordecai obtained power (8:1-2) and exercised it throughout the empire (8:9ff.). The phrase “this man Mordecai” ‫ האישׁ מרדכי‬emphasizes his prestige84 and refers to other episodes where “man” is used: Mordecai is described as a “Jewish man” (2:5), he is the “man” whom the king honors (6:6, 7, 9, 11) and in contrast, Haman is described as a man of adversity (7:6). The vocabulary emphasizes the situational reversal. While in 3:1, Haman was “promoted” (root ‫ )גדל‬and “advanced” (root ‫ )נשׂא‬by the king above the “ministers,” in 9:3-4 the “ministers” “support” (root ‫ )נשׂא‬the Jews and it is Mordecai who is “important” (root ‫ )גדל‬in the house of the king.” The number of “five hundred” enemies killed in the citadel of Susa is not only a hyperbole that emphasizes the triumph of the Jews, but also calls to mind the extent of the hostility toward them in the court. For the proto-Masoretic editors, this mention of numerous enemies corroborates the ambiant anti-Judaism that is suggested by the request not to make one’s Jewish origins known in the palace (2:10 and 20). The ten sons of Haman are listed by name. The listing of names is a literary technique already present in 1:10 and 1:14, and emphasizes the formality of imperial organization.

Mordecai Was Important

9:6-10. Massacre in Susa, Haman’s Ten Sons

As with the Persian names in 1:10 and 1:14, the Persian-sounding names of Haman’s Names of Hasons are probably fictive. Their original orthography is difficult to establish since major man’s Sons differences exist between the textual witnesses.85 In the Hebrew manuscripts, the graphic presentation of the list is distinctive. Each name is written at the beginning of a new line and the ‫ ואת‬that follow are written at the end of the line. This graphic scribal convention is called in Talmudic tradition86 “brick over brick.” The Talmud also notes that the oral recitation of these names should be done in one breath to indicate that the spirits of the sons of Haman all departed simultaneously.

are closest to the people, the ministers, whose actions would be more important for the Jews. CLINES, Scroll, 46-47 sees the indication of different redactional hands in these differences in order. However, the lists of 3:12 and 8:9 are not perfectly standardized (cf. ministers “of the provinces” in 8:9 versus “every people” 3:12, etc.), consequently the desire to integrate the “functionaries,” a category pulled from 3:9, can also explain the relative disorder of the list of 9:3. 84 This term is applied to powerful men such as Moses (Exod 11:3; Num 12:3), Micah (Judg 17:5), Elkanah (1 Sam 1:21) and Jeroboam (1 Kgs 11:28). 85 See the textual note 9:7-9a-a and the commentary on 1:10-11. In 9:7-9, the LXX does not present a good transliteration of the Masoretic form of the names [compare: ‫ פרשׁנדתא‬and Φαρσαννεσταιν (‫ ≠ ד‬σ); ‫ אספתא‬and Φασγα (inversion ‫פ‬-‫ ס‬and ‫ ≠ ת‬γ); ‫אדליא‬ and Βαρεα (no relationship); ‫ פרמשׁתא‬and Μαρμασιμα (‫ פ‬and ‫ ≠ ת‬μ), etc.]. The names were probably spelled differently in the pre-Masoretic Vorlage of the LXX. 86 See b. Meg. 16b (cf. the analysis of SEGAL, Midrash, vol. 3, 152-165).

262

9:10, 15, 16. The Jews Do Not Seize Any Booty

The War (9:1-19)

Insisting upon the death of Haman’s sons does not necessarily mean that these individuals would have taken over from their father in the fight against the Jews.87 Actually, this massacre completes and emphasizes Haman’s decline. In 5:11 he boasted of his wealth, of his social position, and of “the number of his sons.” Now, after his death, his wealth is given to Esther (8:1), his social position is offered to Mordecai (8:2), and his sons are killed (9:7-10). In antiquity, the lack of descendants is one of the greatest tragedies of life. 8:11MT attributes an ambiguous phrase to Mordecai that does not clarify whether he authorized the Jews to seize booty or not. Chapter 9 stresses at every step of the combat (9:10, 15, 16) that the Jews do not pillage. The reasons for this refusal to pillage are enigmatic. There are a few possible interpretations. In the context of the Maccabean wars to which the authors of the MT of Esther refer, the taking of booty marks absolute triumph over a city or an army.88 In Esther, the refusal to pillage could then mean that the Jews triumph over their enemies, but do not really take any cities and must continue to coexist with nonJews. The victory of the Jews of the diaspora thus does not have the same status of domination as that of the Maccabees in Judea. One could also think that the financial argument used by Haman to convince the king to destroy the Jews, and the fact that booty played an important role in his approach, explains that the editors did not want to attribute such practices to the Jews. For these editors, taking spoil from enemies has no place in a defensive war. Finally, certain commentators see this absence of booty as an allusion to 1 Sam 15 where Saul is rejected by God after having diverted some of the goods of the Amalekites that were supposed to be banned.89 The Jews in the era of Esther would thus not have repeated Saul’s error. However, it is unlikely that the mentions of the non-taking of booty had been originally introduced with reference to 1 Sam 15. Indeed, it is only because Haman is placed in parallel with the Amalekites that the allusion to the episode of 1 Sam 15 makes sense. In fact, this rapprochement is introduced by late glosses into the MT of Esther.90 Moreover, the treatment of the motif of booty is very different in Esther than in 1 Sam 15. In Esther, no clear prohibition is made regarding the taking of booty. The war of the Persian Jews is not justified by divine instructions of conquest of the land of Israel, but responds to necessities of defense.91 Finally, Saul should not have abstained from touching the booty, but should have destroyed it by dedicating it to the ban.92

87 This interpretation had some success undoubtedly because it renders their death more acceptable. See FOX, Character, 110; WHITE CRAWFORD, “Book,” 932. 88 See 1 Macc 3:12; 4:18; 5:3, 22, 28, 35, 51, 68; 6:6; 7:47; 9:40, etc. and 2 Macc 8:27-28. 89 See BERLIN, Esther, 85; FOX, Character, 115; LACOCQUE, Esther, 77; LEVENSON, Esther, 122; VIALLE, analyse, 128-129. 90 Haman is described as Agagite late in 3:1, 10; 8:3, 5; 9:24. See the commentary on 3:1 § Haman the Agagite according to the MT. 91 HARVEY, Morality, 54-55. See also BUSH, Esther, 476-477. 92 This is especially the argument of William MCKANE, “A Note on Esther IX and 1 Samuel XV,” JTS 12 (1961), 260-261. Moreover, in biblical texts writing of the ban ‫חרם‬, the destruction of goods is not always present (see Deut 2:34-35; 3:6-7).

Synchronic Analysis

263

Consequently, the refusal to seize any booty can be explained better by the desire to emphasize the defensive character of the conflict than by reference to the Amalekites. This does not exclude that after the textual accident that makes Haman into an Agagite (3:1), the renouncing of booty was perceived as an allusion to the episode of 1 Sam 15. The dialogue between the king and the queen after the massacre on the thirteenth of Adar leads to a second day of massacre that does not seem required by the logic of the narrative. Indeed, according to Chapter 8, the denouement of the plot should come after the Jews were able to oppose the implementation of the decree of destruction on the thirteenth of Adar. That said, even if this episode was not required by what precedes it, it does not produce any tension with it, but develops three themes. It specifies the king’s point of view on the outcome of events, it shows that Esther takes full part in the violence exercised by the Jews, and it prepares the motif of the two dates of Purim. After having learned of the extent of the massacre at the citadel of Susa, the king addresses Esther. He recalls the death of five hundred men and the ten sons of Haman, evokes the extent of the massacre in the rest of the kingdom, then asks Esther what she “still” desires. The reasons for this royal reaction are not clearly expressed. One could imagine that the authors of the passage suggest that the king reacts with astonishment, annoyance, or even anger by noting the extent of the damage,93 or, on the contrary, that he marks his approval, his support, and his admiration for the Jews,94 seeing his joy in learning of their success.95 In reality, the royal reaction of 9:12 corresponds well to the way the king is described in the preceding episodes. Ahasuerus is easily influenced and indecisive. He needs advice and accepts requests addressed to him and has his decisions enforced by edict.96 Consequently, after the massacre at Susa, it is logical that this indecisive king looks to his entourage – in this case Esther – to know what to do. Moreover, the wording he uses is very close to the other speeches that he addresses to her. The only real difference is that he no longer mentions the limit of “half of the kingdom” (cf. 5:3, 6; 7:2). After rallying the peoples (8:17) then the ministers (9:3), it is logical that the full adherence of the king to the cause of the Jews should now become a theme. In asking his Jewish wife what she desires, he takes up the cause of the Jews. The editors thus show that the situational reversal in favor of the Jews is complete. After Esther coaxed the king to side with her in Chapters 5-7, here, he takes action on her behalf on his own initiative. Esther’s answer is part of the move leading the Jews to fight their enemies soundly. Here Esther once again rouses the king’s support for her cause. She has

93 See in this sense b. Meg. 16b. CLINES, Scroll, 47 sees in it a sign of astonishment. 94 BUSH, Esther, 476; DAY, Esther, 150; DOMMERSHAUSEN, Estherrolle, 118; FOX, Character, 112; VIALLE, analyse, 109; PATON, Esther, 286. 95 Certain exegetes discern an ironic trait behind this joyous reaction (JONES, “Misconceptions,” 180-181; BERLIN, Esther, 86). 96 In 1:13-22, he asks advice, then has the edict proclaimed that was proposed by Memucan; in Chapter 6, he asks for Haman’s advice and delegates the implementation of the decision to him; in 3:8-11, he follows Haman’s advice and approves his proposition of a decree; in 8:3-8, he gives a blank slate to Esther and Mordecai to produce an edict.

9:11-15. Esther’s New Request

What Is Still Your Request?

Full Rallying of the King

264

Esther’s Request A Second Massacre

Hanging Haman’s Sons

Approval

The War (9:1-19)

therefore not disappeared from the political scene, contrary to what it may seem in 8:9, 15 and 9:3-4, where only Mordecai is mentioned. The salutation that opens Esther’s request: “If it pleases the king” is laconic compared to those in 5:4, 8; 7:3; and 8:5,97 which shows that she sees herself in a position of strength. The first part of the request concerns the continuation of the massacre on the next day. It is accomplished in 9:15, where on Adar 14 three hundred men are killed. The reasons for this second phase of the massacre are diverse. This motif allows the explicit implication of Esther in the military actions of the Jews and the emphasis that the leadership of this heroine persists.98 Moreover, as the conflict of 9:6-10 takes place in “the citadel of Susa,” one may imagine that the Jews only strike the palace elites. Consequently, one expects that a battle then took place “in Susa” against the enemies in the lower city. The number “three hundred men” killed in Susa corresponds to the number of deaths in the other provinces. This number could thus corroborate the more favorable view attributed to the majority of Susa’s inhabitants (see 3:15 and 8:15).99 Finally, the request for a second day of massacre explains why the festivities of Purim take place on the fourteenth and fifteenth of Adar. In fact, this double celebration of Purim plays an important role in the structure of the book of Esther. Indeed, the narrative is framed by the two banquets of the Jews (9:17-19) that correspond to the two banquets of the king (1:2-8).100 Finally, by introducing the motif of the two days of massacre, the editors may have wanted to adapt the narrative to a liturgical practice in which the festive rituals of “Purim” take place over the course of two days.101 The queen also requests the hanging of Haman’s ten sons, who had previously been killed. As in 5:14, exposing the corpse by hanging – clearly post mortem – is a penalty added to death.102 This second request reuses the motif of hanging already frequent in the book of Esther (2:23; 5:14 and 6:4; 7:9-10; 8:7) and emphasizes Haman’s decline. In 9:14, the royal approval and the emitting of the edict are laconic. The formulations correspond to those elsewhere in Esther MT. The phrase “to thus do/ to be thus done” is uttered by the king in 2:4; 6:10 and 7:5, and “it was proclaimed as edict” occurs in 3:14 and 15, in 4:8, and in 8:13 and 14. It is clear that the hangings are carried out under the king’s authority, but the identity of the executioners is not clear: the subject of “they hanged” could be either the staff of the empire or the Jews.

97 See § Salutations in the commentary on 5:3-8. 98 The same desire to emphasize Esther’s participation occurs in 9:29-32. 99 Six hundred men are killed in each of the provinces (see the commentary on 9:16). That said, one may also understand that the text suggests that half of the massacre in Susa would take place on the thirteenth of Adar and that the other half would take place on the fourteenth of Adar, six hundred men would thus have been killed in Susa. 100 Banquets always appear in pairs in the book of Esther. See the Introduction § C.1 Organization of the Work: The Banquets. 101 The narrative has possibly been influenced by a practice in which Purim was a two day festival (PATON, Esther, 288 suggests that it is thus the narrative that emerges from the custom). 102 See the commentary on 5:14, § Goal of the Hanging.

Synchronic Analysis

265

In 9:15 the conflict of the fourteenth of Adar in Susa is described on the model of what occurs in other confrontations. The two verbs “they gathered together” (also in 8:11; 9:2, 16, 19) and “they killed” (8:11; 9:6, 10, 11, 12, 16) also describe the other military actions of the Jews and, as in 9:10 and 16, the absence of booty concludes it all. 9:16-17 describes the combat of the Jews of the provinces, then the rest they obtain, and 9:18 returns to the action of the Jews in Susa. These two units are constructed in parallel.103 The gathering is mentioned (vv. 16aα and 18aα), and the date of the conflict is indicated (17a and v. 18a) before a phrase indicating that rest is obtained concludes the unit (17b and 18b104). The second part of 9:16 (from “defended their lives”) develops the conflict for the rest of the Jews of the empire. It is the only part of 9:16-17 without parallel in 9:18. This is because the conflict of the Jews of the rest of the empire is only evoked at the beginning of the chapter (9:1-5), while that of Susa has just been described (9:615) and thus does not need to be repeated in 9:18. Verse 9:16 describes the events about which the king inquired in 9:12, “what have they done in the rest of the king’s provinces?” Conforming to 8:11ff., the edict is implemented on Adar 13 and warlike actions are presented as essentially defensive. In 9:16 the Jews “gathered together” (8:11; 9:2, 15, 18 ‫ )קהל‬and “defended their lives” (‫ עמד על־נפשׁם‬8:11) from before “their enemies” (8:13; 9:1, 5 ‫ )איביהם‬and “those who hated them” (9:1, 5 ‫)שׂנאיהם‬. The absence of booty appears here once again (9:10, 15, 16). The number killed, 75,000, is considerable. It emphasizes the magnitude of the victory. Such a number would not necessarily surprise an ancient reader. It is comparable to the number of victims in the Maccabean wars (1 Macc 7:40; 2 Macc 15:22, 27) and remains limited compared to the size of the Persian Empire (127 provinces according to Esth 1:1) and to the size of its army according to Herodotus.105 The tendency for erudite calculations of the proto-Masoretic editors reappears here. This number arises from a calculation supposing that six hundred men per province die on the thirteenth of Adar.106 According to this verse, the enemies of the Jews are certainly numerous, but do not represent the majority of the empire’s inhabitants who, for the most part, are benevolent (cf. 3:15; 8:17; and 9:3-4). The motif of “rest” ‫ נוח‬by the Jews is a new feature in 9:16-18 that emphasizes the failure of Haman’s destructive project, the goal of which was to not “let them be ‫( ”נוח‬cf. 3:8). It is not the victory day that is celebrated, but the day of rest that follows it. This might seem strange since generally,107 commemorations are

103 See BUSH, Esther, 472-474. 104 “They obtained rest on its fourteenth [fifteenth] day and they made it into a day of banquet and of joy” ‫ונוח בארבעה ]בחמשׁה[ עשׂר בו ועשׂה אתו יום משׁתה ושׂמחה‬ 105 According to HERODOTUS, Hist. 7.60 the army of Xerxes contains 1,700,000 troops. 106 The system of dates in the MT also arises from clever calculations. The calculation of the deaths on Adar 13 is elaborated in the following manner: two provinces are removed (Susa and the citadel of Susa) from the 127 provinces mentioned in 1:1; 125 administrative divisions remain. Seventy-five thousand correspond to six hundred deaths per province (125 x 600 = 75,000). 107 See for example the immediate celebration in the case of the Day of Nicanor in 1 Macc 7:48-49.

9:16-18. Two Days of Combat and Two Days of Rest The Combat among the Rest of the Jews

Rest

266

The War (9:1-19)

held on the day of the victory. Perhaps this aims to nuance the impression of violence by associating the celebration with the day of a return to peace. Moreover, the fact that the celebration took place on the days that follow the thirteenth of Adar can perhaps also be explained by a liturgical necessity, the editors not wanting Purim to replace the nationalistic festival of the Day of Nicanor, but to complement it.108 9:19. Etiologi9:19 mentions that the Jews from the outskirts celebrate on Adar 14. The cal Gloss etiological formulation ‫“ על־כן‬this is why” as well as the participle ‫ עשׂים‬used as a present-tense verb, “make,” indicate that the practice is now perpetual. Outlying The expression “the Jews outside ‫פרז‬, those who live in the outlying cities ‫ ”פרז‬could be interpreted in two ways. This phrase could designate the inhabitants of the non-fortified cities, meaning rural regions.109 Indeed, terms deriving from ‫ פרז‬sometimes designate locations that are distinguised from fortified cities (‫פרזי‬ in Deut 3:5; 1 Sam 6:18; and ‫ פרזות‬in Ezek 38:11). However, this understanding of the passage is in tension with the logic of the narrative in which the fourteenth of Adar is celebrated in all locations, fortified or not, outside Susa (9:16-17).110 That said, one may also argue that ‫ פרז‬assumes here the meaning of “periphery” or “exterior.”111 In this case, the central location would be the capital “Susa” and the periphery would designate all the rest of the empire. Whatever the case may be, a discrepancy remains between 9:19 and the narrative. It anticipates the institutionalization of the festivals reported in 9:20-32, provoking a rupture between 9:18 and 9:20. Moreover, one would expect it to occur after 9:17, which mentions the banquet of the fourteenth of Adar, rather than after 9:18 which speaks of that of the fifteenth of Adar. Consequently, it is probable that this verse constitutes an erudite gloss inserted late112 to explain particular liturgical practices. It specifies that, contrary to what could be inferred in 9:2122, for certain Jews, the festival only takes place on the fourteenth of Adar. The Two Festival Days of Purim

9:16-19 and 9:21-22 imply the existence of two days of “Purim” celebrating the victory of the Jews, on the fourteenth and fifteenth of Adar, while 2 Macc 15:36 only presupposes one “Day of Mordecai.” Moreover, the book of Esther does not present these two days clearly. 9:17-19 (MT and LXX) imply that the celebrations take place either on the fourteenth or on the fifteenth of Adar, depending on the location of the celebrants.

108 See the commentary on 9:20ff. 109 HAL; BARDTKE, “Esther,” 385; BERLIN, Esther, 87-88; FOX, Character, 113; GERLEMAN, Esther, 130-131; MOORE, Esther, 85; WAHL, Esther, 178. Cf. also the rabbinic tradition that Purim is celebrated on Adar 15 in all fortified cities and on Adar 14 in other locations. 110 That said, if a liturgical practice is imposed that is slightly shifted in relation to the narrative, one cannot exlude that an etiological gloss sought to justify this practice with a somewhat forced explanation. 111 See Hermann Michael NIEMANN, “Das Ende des Volkes der Perizziter – Über soziale Wandlungen Israels im Spiegel einer Begriffsgruppe,” ZAW 105 (1993), 233-257, esp. 242-243 followed by BUSH, Esther, 477-478. In Deut 3:5 the zones designated by ‫ פרז‬are outside cities and are thus “peripheral.” 112 So CLINES, Esther, 325 and MOORE, Esther, 89. BUSH, Esther, 477-478 and FOX, Character, 113114 maintain that this verse belongs to the same edition; they argue that it must be understood as a parenthesis that explains the customs of its time. This does not explain that v. 19 anticipates the institution of Purim in 9:20-32.

The Letters Instituting the Festivals (9:20-32)

267

9:21-22 implies that both the fourteenth and fifteenth of Adar must be celebrated by everyone. The rabbinic tradition established that Purim is celebrated on the fifteenth of Adar in fortified cities (those that had been fortified since the time of Joshua) and on the fourteenth elsewhere (Meg. 1:1-3; 2:3; b. Meg. 2b 19a). The LXX for 9:19 also suggests this practice.

The Letters Instituting the Festivals (9:20-32) 20 Mordecai wrote these things.a He sent letters to all Jews who are in all the provinces of King Ahasuerus, to those near and far, 21 to institute for them ato celebratea on the fourteenth day of the month of Adar and on its fifteenth day, each year 22a – as in the days when the Jews rested from their enemies and the month when it changed for them, affliction into joy and mourning into day of festival –a, to make them days of banquet and of joy and of mutual sending of portions and gifts for the poor.b 23 The Jews accepteda bwhat they had started to do andb what Mordecai had written to them. 24 Certainly, Haman son of Hammedatha athe Agagite, oppressor of all the Jews,a had planned against the Jews to have them eliminated. He had cast “pur” meaning lots, to have them collapseb and have them eliminated. 25 But when ita went before the king, he instructed in conformity with the book that his wicked machination, that he had planned against the Jews, should return upon his own head and that they should hang him as well as his sons upon the wooden pole. 26 This is why these days are called “Purim,a” from the name “Pur.b” This is why, due to all the words of this missive and of what they saw con this subjectc and of what happened to them, 27 the Jews intituted and accepteda for themselves, their descendants, and for all those who joined them – band this shall not be transgressedb – to celebrate these two days according to their writing and according to their fixed time, each year. 28 And these days shall be commemorated and celebrated by every generation, by every family, in every province and in every city. These days of “Purima” shall not be transgressed among the Jews and their commemoration shall not cease among their descendants. 29 Queen Esther daughter of Abihaila band Mordecai the Jew wroteb – with all authority to institute – this secondc missive of “Purim.d” a30 Letters were sentb to all Jews in the 127 provinces of King Ahasuerus, they were words of peace and of stability, 31 to institute these days of “Purim” in their fixed times, conforming to what was institutedb for them by Mordecai the Jew cand Queen Estherc and conforming to what they instituted for themselves and for their descendants, they were words of fasting and their lamentations.a 32 And Esther’s command instituted these words of “Purim.” It was written in the book.a

268

The Letters Instituting the Festivals (9:20-32)

Notes on Text and Translation Two Heb MSS have “all (‫ )כל‬these things.” The LXX translates: “Mordecai wrote these things in a book;” cf. also OL. These variants interpret the MT and associate Mordecai’s writing with the entire book of Esther, not only the decree about Purim. 21a-a Lit: “to be done” (same expression in 9:27). 22a-a This section is an explanatory parenthesis. The infinitive “to do” of 9:22b follows the order of institution of 9:21. b The OL completes by adding priests, orphans, and widows. 23a The MT vocalizes this verb as the third person sing. piel qatal, which is possible even if the subject is plural. Many Heb MSS and the qere of 27a correct to a pl. ‫לוּ‬:, in the same way, targumic texts, LXX. The MT consonants could also be vocalized as an inf. abs. ‫ל‬, which would be the equivalent of a conjugated form; cf. in 9:27a. BHS; BHQ, 149*; PATON, Esther, 299. b-b Missing from the LXX. The translator possibly thought the note superfluous (KAHANA, Esther, 407), or he wanted to avoid having the Jews performing the rituals before Mordecai had instituted them (CAVALIER, Esther, 231). 24a-a The LXX identifies Haman as Macedonian (ὁ Μακεδὼν). This ironic description was introduced late by attraction with Addition E,10 and 14. ‫ המם‬has a military connotation. In the MT this verb in the inf. const. (‫ם‬) creates b an assonance with Haman’s name (BERLIN, Esther, 90; BUSH, Esther, 468; HAUPT, “Notes,” 170, FOX, Character, 120; LEVENSON, Esther, 127). The term does not have an equivalent in the LXX. It possibly results from a late correction of the MT. 25a The text is not clear about the referrent of the feminine suffix. It is probably the machination (see the commentary). The LXX, which renders the first part of the verse as “how he came to the king to tell him to hang Mordecai,” understood the verse in this way. Other versions (Vulg., Peshitta, targumic texts) see it as a reference to Esther. 26a The Greek manuscripts reproduce the term in variable ways. LXX manuscripts have φρουραι, φρουριν, φρουριμ, φουρουρειμ, φουρειν and φουριμ. In the MSS of the AT one finds φουραια, φουρδια, φαραια and φουρμαια. JOSEPHUS Ant. 11.295 has φρουραιους. One may wonder what orthography was present in the Vorlage of the Greek texts (‫ פורים‬or an orthography based on the root ‫)פרר‬. The equivalent Aramaic term is ‫פוריא‬. b The Peshitta presents the variant pěṣḥā here, possibly aiming to connect Purim to Passover (Michael G. WECHSLER, “The Purim-Passover Connection: A Reflection of Jewish Exegetical Tradition in the Peshitta Book of Esther,” JBL 117 (1998), 321-327). c-c The expression ‫ על ככה‬is attested in postbibical Hebrew (cf. BERGEY, Book, 165). 27a See the note 9:23a. b-b Same expression as in 1:19. It refers here to the celebration. It is not necessary for the MT to have been corrected (either into the plural or by placing the expression at the end of the verse contra BHS, HAUPT, “Notes,” 172 etc.). 28a For the Greek texts, see 9:26a. OL reproduces vigilias, “old ones,” here, undoubtedly out of confusion between the Greek name of the festival (φρουραι) and the term φρουρά “guard.” 29a As in 2:15 the name of Esther’s father is reproduced differently in the MT (Abihail ‫ )אביחיל‬and in the LXX (Aminadab Αμιναδαβ). The OL here follows the LXX while the Vulg. is closer to the MT. See the textual note 2:15a. b-b The verb “wrote” ‫ ותכתב‬is in the third p. fem. sing. It is possible to understand that Mordecai wrote with Esther, for it is not unusual for a verb to be conjugated in the singular even if it has several subjects. Commentators think that “and Mordecai the Jew” is a gloss (BARDTKE, “Esther,” 397-399; BUSH, Esther, 471; FOX, Character, 124-125; 20a

Synchronic Analysis

269

GERLEMAN, Esther, 137; MOORE, Esther, 95; WAHL, Esther, 191) or that the mention of Mordecai should have originally occurred after “all authority” (BHS; HAUPT, “Notes,” 172). These conjectures are superfluous. The proposition by BERG, Book, 54, in understanding the formulation of the MT as the reminder that Esther has a biological father and an adoptive father, is not satisfactory, for it would require a second ‫בת‬ between ‫ ו‬and ‫מרדכי‬. c ‫“ השׁנית‬the second” is absent from the most ancient versions of the LXX, OL, and Syr. It is a gloss (cf. most commentators BUSH, Esther, 469-470; FOX, Character, 123-125). Only the two targumic texts and the Vulgate support the MT. This gloss is not an accidental corruption (contra RUDOLPH, “Estherbuch,” 90), but can be explained by the desire to emphasize that, after Mordecai’s letter in 9:20-28, a second letter is sent. See the commentary. d For the Greek texts, see 9:26a. 30-31a-a 9:30 and 31 are absent from the AT and the OL. The LXX rests on a Hebrew substrata that is shorter than the MT and that seems to indicate that Esther and Mordecai institute for everyone, themselves included, the “letters of Phrourai”: “Mordecai and Esther instituted by themselves and for them, thus instituting them for their health and according to their desire.” The Hebrew substrata of the LXX could correspond to the kernel of v. 31 of the MT (maybe ‫ וכאשר קים עליהם מרדכי ואסתר המלכה קימו על נפשם‬translated freely by the translator). After the translation of the LXX, scribes heavily reworked this sentence (cf. below § Editorial Process and Textual History of 9:29-32). 30b The subject of the verb ‫ וישׁלח‬in the masculine singular is impersonal here, “were sent”; it is the administration that sends the text in the name of Esther (and of Mordecai). 31b Even if “was instituted” ‫ קים‬is in the third person masc. sing., it is possible to understand that Mordecai institutes with Esther. c-c Contra BHS; BARDTKE, “Esther,” 399; BUSH, Esther, 469-470; FOX, Character, 125; GERLEMAN, Esther, 137; MOORE, Esther, 96, the mention “and Queen Esther” is not a gloss. Esther’s presence is attested in this verse by the textual witnesses and adds meaning (see the commentary). 32a The LXX freely reconstructs the Hebrew “in the book” with “in memorial.”

Synchronic Analysis The final major episode of the MT mentions the sending of letters perpetuating the celebration, on the fourteenth and fifteenth of Adar, of the events that led to the deliverance of the Jews. The description of these messages addressed from Mordecai to the Jews and to those who join them fit well within the rest of the narrative. The passage shows that relations among the Jews are not the same as those prevailing in the imperial court. Moreover, the description of these festivities aims to establish specifically Jewish banquet practices. Such nationalistic celebrations can be explained well in the Maccabean-Hasmonean context, when the passage was written, since festivities commemorating important events were common at that time. The importance of instituting these festivities celebrating the deliverance of the Jews is emphasized by the sending of letters first by Mordecai and then by Esther and Mordecai. The passage is organized in two parts. In 9:20-28 Mordecai sends letters to Passage Orgainstitute the festivities, while in 9:29-32 Esther and Mordecai send letters to reiter- nization ate the process.

270 9:20-32 and MaccabeanHasmonean Festivals

The Letters Instituting the Festivals (9:20-32)

The presentation of the festival of the fourteenth and fifteenth of Adar in 9:20-32 corroborates that the proto-Masoretic edition of Esther was made in the Maccabean-Hasmonean era.113 In addition to the fact that the conflict described in 9:119 resembles the conflict of Judas Maccabeus against Nicanor, other elements in 9:20-28 support this parallelism. As in Esther 9:23, 27, both 1 Macc 7:48-49 as well as 2 Macc 15:36 report that the victorious people spontaneously celebrate the day of the victory and not until afterwards is the festival instituted. That the date of one of the most famous Maccabean festivals, the “Day of Nicanor” on the thirteenth of Adar, agrees with the date of the festival established by the book of Esther, is striking. 2 Maccabees 15:36 also directly relates the two festivals when it says that after the victory over Nicanor, the Jews: “all decreed by public vote never to let this day go unobserved, but to celebrate the thirteenth day of the twelfth month – which is called Adar in the Aramaic language – the day before Mordecai’s day.”114 The thirteenth of Adar, when the Day of Nicanor is celebrated, is the date that this battle took place. The perpetuation of this festival in Maccabean-Hasmonean circles can be explained by the emphasis on Jewish nationalism in this period.115 Establishing festivities commemorating important military achievements seems to have been relatively common in Judaism in the second and first centuries BCE, as evidenced in Megillat Ta’anit – the scroll of Fasts116 – as well as 1 Macc 13:49-52. In the book of Esther, the date of 13 Adar does not have an obvious function. The conflict could have taken place at any other time. The interval of eleven months between when Haman’s decree on the thirteenth of Nisan was promulgated and when it was thwarted is surprising. Moreover, this problem of dating is not easily resolved by supposing that the date of the Jewish Purim corresponded to a non-Jewish festival. Indeed, the association of Purim with the theme of casting lots as well as with the festival of the fourteenth and fifteenth of Adar does not play much of a role.117 The search for a non-Jewish festival from which it could have originated remains speculative.118 Consequently, it is most probable that Esther’s editors set the war between the Jews and their enemies on Adar 13 to allude to the famous Maccabean victory.

113 This section repeats the conclusions of MACCHI, “Lettres.” 114 Translation NRSV. This mention of “Mordecai’s day” in 2 Macc does not presuppose that this day was already celebrated during the time of the Maccabean conflict (contra GOLDSTEIN, II Maccabees, 502-3). Indeed, 2 Macc 15:36 eminates from the book’s Hasmonean era abbreviator. This verse could thus very well allude to the conclusion of Esther, itself constructed to allude to the Maccabean conflict. 115 For this context of nationalism: see 1 and 2 Maccabees, Judith, Doron MENDELS, The Rise and Fall of Jewish Nationalism, Grand Rapids, 1997 and Lester L. GRABBE, Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian, London, 1994, 221-311. 116 Megillat Ta’anit dates to the first or second century BCE. It mentions the days of the Jewish military victories of the Hellenistic era on which fasting is prohibited. The taking of Akra (the twenty-third of Iyyar), the taking of Beit-Shean (the fifteenthsixteenth of Sivan), the destruction of Gerizim (the twenty-first of Kislev), etc. This text also mentions the Day of Nicanor and of Purim. See NOAM, ‫ תענית‬and “Taanit.” 117 See the commentary on 9:26a. “Purim,” the Name of the Festival. 118 See the Introduction § B.3 Mysterious Origin of Purim.

Synchronic Analysis

271

The fact that the commemoration takes place on Adar 14 and 15, the day following the victory, prevents the commemoration of the victory over Nicanor and that of the Jews in the book of Esther from taking place at the same time, even if the victories celebrated are placed in parallel by having occurred on the same day. It is probable that Esther’s editors wanted to complement the festival of Palestinian origin, the Day of Nicanor, with festivities of the day (or days) of Mordecai supposedly emanating from the diaspora, and thus constitute a festival of two to three consecutive days of nationalistic festivals known at the end of the second century by the abbreviator of 2 Macc (cf. 2 Macc 15:36). The question that remains is: why, during the Maccabean or Hasmonean era, was a festival such as Purim, based on a literary fiction, instituted? One may think that the institutionalizing of festivals commemorating important Maccabean-Hasmonean military events had no currency for diaspora Jews. Indeed, these festivals only very indirectly concerned diaspora groups and their legitimacy was not based on the Torah. Consequently, there were several attempts to impose on the diaspora festivals that originated in Palestinian Judaism in order to establish the predominance of the groups living in Judea. Promulgating and sending decrees to the diaspora urging the practice of Maccabean festivals are well-attested in the Hasmonean era. The best known example is the festival of the rededication of the Jerusalem Temple (on the twenty-fifth of Kislev), known as Hanukkah.119 The narrative of the institutionalization of this festival in 1 Macc 4:52-59 and 2 Macc 10:1-8 shares several features with Esther 9 and 2 Macc 15. In 1 Macc 4:59 and 2 Macc 10:8. The institutionalization of the festival of rededication occurs through a decree published and transmitted in order to emphasize that all Judeans must celebrate the rededication of the Jerusalem Temple. The perpetuation of this festival is legitimized by the fact that the decree emanates from the victorious community, described as “all the assembly of Israel” (1 Macc 4:59). The desire to spread the festival of rededication to the diaspora is also called to mind by the two festal letters that introduce 2 Maccabees.120 These letters invite Egyptian localities, to which the narrative is addressed, to celebrate the rededication. Moreover, they show that the editors developed an entire argument to legitimize the Maccabean-Hasmonean Temple of Jerusalem by attaching several earlier traditions to its rededication.121 Finally, in the second and first centuries, the debate about the legitimacy of festivals celebrating Jewish exploits during the Greco-Roman era does

119 James C. VANDERKAM, “Hanukkah: Its Timing and Significance According to 1 and 2 Maccabees,” in From Revelation to Canon. Studies in the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Literature (JSJ.Sup. 62), J.C. VANDERKAM (ed.), Leiden, 2000, 128-144. 120 The first festal letter (2 Macc 1:1-10) probably dates to 124/125 and the second (2 Macc 1:10–2:18) between 103 and 76 BCE (see John R. BARTLETT, “2 Maccabees,” in Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible, J. D. G. DUNN and J. W. ROGERSON [eds.], Grand Rapids, 2003, 831-850, esp. 832-833; Robert DORAN, 2 Maccabees. A Critical Commentary [Hermeneia], Minneapolis, 2012, 14-15, 33. Daniel R. SCHWARTZ, 2 Maccabees [CEJL], Berlin/New York, 2008, 11-15, 519-529 defends a later dating for the two letters 143/142). See also WHITTERS, “New,” 279-282. 121 2 Macc 2:8-12 evokes the dedication of the first Temple by Solomon, 2 Macc 1:19-2:7, 13-15 the preservation of the ark by Jeremiah and the reestablishment of the second Temple. Moreover, the twenty-fifth of Kislev is supposed to take place “like Sukkot” (2 Macc 1:9, 18; and 2 Macc 10:6) in order to give something like Torah support to the rededication. Esther’s editors use a similar process in alluding to the celebration of the Torah (9:21, 22b).

272

9:20, 27. Address, Distribution, and Recipients of the Letters These Things

9:21, 22b. Nature of Festive Customs

Gifts to the Poor

The Letters Instituting the Festivals (9:20-32)

not emanate solely from Hasmonean circles, since 3 Maccabees testifies that the Egyptian diaspora wanted to legimitize its own festivals.122 By attributing to Mordecai the writing of a document destined to promote the celebration of a fictive victory of the Jews of the Persian Empire, Esther’s editors use a classic procedure from Maccabean-Hasmonean Judaism. They are seeking to promote a celebration for the Jews of the diaspora and, by means of the similarities of this festival to Maccabean-Hasmonean festivals, to associate them to the festive calendar of Hellenistic Jerusalem. In 9:20, “these things” is ambiguous. It could refer to events that have just occurred or to the festival customs. In fact, in both the summary of the contents of the letters (9:21-22) and also the development of their contents (9:24-28), both elements are present. In these letters, Mordecai puts in writing a reminder of the events that led to the triumph of the Jews and specifies the nature and the dates of the practices now institutionalized. The broad distribution of letters reminds one of imperial practices but Mordecai’s letters are different. While the other letters and edicts are sent by or in the name of the king (1:21-22), and sealed with the ring (3:12b; 8:10) no implication or royal validation appears in the case of the letters instituting Purim. These letters are thus strictly an internal affair to the Jewish community. The recipients of these letters, unlike the royal decrees, are only Jews. That said, the text insists on the fact that this envoy concerns all Jews. Verse 9:20 mentions the Jews “near” and “far” and 9:27 specifies that all generations must apply the contents of the letters. The table practices promoted for the Jews by Mordecai’s letters are different from those in the Persian court.123 The banquets of Adar 14 and 15 make a counter-model to non-Jewish banquets.124 Though the notion of “banquet” calls to mind Chapters 1 to 8, two practices are added: the mutual sending of portions and giving gifts for the poor. These practices are the opposite of those very unegalitarian Persian and Hellenistic royal banquets to which the banquets of Ahasuerus correspond.125 The requirement for everyone to give to the poor institutes a system that makes all members of the community responsible for supporting those in need, while in the Hellenistic banquet, only the host dis-

122 From traditions on the persecutions under Ptolemy Philopator, the author of 3 Maccabees shows that the Jews of Alexandria can be as loyal to Torah and ready for martyrdom as those of Jerusalem. It seeks to promote a local festival from the seventh to the thirteenth of Epeiph within Egyptian Judaism. For this interpretation of 3 Macc, see ALEXANDER, “3 Maccabees,” for whom 3 Macc presupposes 2 Macc as well as Esther. For alternative interpretations of this book: Hugh ANDERSON, “Third Maccabees,” in ABD, vol. 4, 450-452; MÉLÈZE MODRZEJEWSKI, Troisième and MAGLIANO-TROMP, “Relations.” WHITTERS, “New,” 285-288 estimates that 2 Baruch 78-87 is also a festal letter. 123 See also MACCHI, “Lettres,” 58-61. 124 The following paragraph relies on MACCHI, “identité” and “Pratiques.” See also the commentary on 1:3-9. 125 Persian royal banquets were studied by VÖSSING, Mensa Regia, 38-51; BRIANT, Histoire, 297-309; Heleen SANCISI-WEERDENBURG, “Persian Food: Stereotypes and Political Identity,” in Food in Antiquity, J. WILKINS, D. HARVEY and M. DOBSON (eds.), Exeter, 1995, 286-302. For the evolution of the traditional Greek banquet to the Hellenistic royal banquet, see SCHMITT PANTEL, banquet, especially 349-355, and VÖSSING, Mensa Regia, 51-186. In the Persian banquet, the king can send portions to absentees.

Synchronic Analysis

273

penses gifts. Moreover, the mutual sending of “portions” is a counter model to the sharing of food in Persian and Hellenistic banquets. There, too, the distribution of food plays an important role, but the sending and the gift of portions is always the prerogative of the host who thereby benefits from a superior position. “Portion” and “offering portions”126 ‫ מנה‬are used elsewhere with a similar meaning, in Esth 2:9 and in Daniel (1:5; etc.), where they refer to the food that the imperial system offers its subjects. Now, in Esther 9:19, 22 the “mutual” sending is a fundamentally egalitarian practice based upon the gift and the counter gift. The commensality of the banquet of Adar 14 and 15 thus aligns more closely to the traditional Greek meal where the host is not placed in a dominant position127 as in Persian and Hellenistic banquets. Moreover, Esther 9 presents the table practices of Adar 14 and 15 as specifically and positively Jewish. It may allow for the preservation of the dietary requirements of the Jewish community. On the other hand, Esth 9:22 probably alludes to the fundamentally Judean celebration of the Torah described in Nehemiah 8. Indeed, the closest parallel to the Judean banquet in Esther 9 is in Neh 8:10-12. In this passage, after having read the Torah to the people of Jerusalem, Ezra invites them to organize a banquet: “And all the people went their way to eat and drink and to send portions and to make great rejoicing” (Neh 8:12a). The vocabulary of Neh 8:12 is very close to that of Esth 9:22. The banquet is associated with drinking ‫שׁתה – משׁתה‬, and the “sending of portions” and “joy” are also present. Moreover, like Esther 9, the banquet of Neh 8:10-12 marks the reversal of a sad situation into one of joy (compare Neh 8:9 and 10-12).128 In addition, the same literary procedure of alluding to a Judean ritual is already present in Esther 4, where the heroine orders a fast on Passover.129 In instituting its festival banquets, Esth 9:22 defines in its way the nature of a real Judean banquet: joyous and egalitarian, not like a Persian or Hellenistic royal banquet, but like the festival of Neh 8. The events that led to the deliverance of the Jews are recalled on two occasions, in 9:22a and in 9:24-25.130 The summary of the victory in 9:22a conforms to the preceding narrative. The designation of the fourteenth and fifteenth of Adar, like the days on which the Jews “rested” from their enemies, corresponds well to 9:16-19, where the root “to rest” ‫נוח‬ functions like a leitmotif ironizing on Haman’s speech in 3:8. Moreover, the happy reversal conforms to the global contents of the book. The vocabulary of the change from

126 In addition to the particular usage of ‫ מנה‬discussed below, in the Hebrew Bible it classically designates the share of the priest or of the participant during the sacrifice. See J. CONRAD, “‫ מנה‬manâ ‫ מנת‬menat ‫ מני‬menî,” in TDOT, vol. 8, 396-401. 127 Even if the traditional Greek meal is presented as egalitarian, its evolution into the meal of Hellenistic cities constitutes a rupture. 128 Neh 8 also sometimes was linked with 2 Kgs 22:11; 23:21 [horrified reaction to the reading of the Torah ending with a meal (cf. Joseph BLENKINSOPP, Ezra-Nehemiah: a Commentary (OTL), London, 1989, 288-289)]. Moreover, Juha PAKKALA, Ezra the scribe: the development of Ezra 7-10 and Nehemiah 8 (BZAW 347), Berlin, 2004, 145-179, attributes Neh 8:9b, 10, 12a to his Ezra Source, the most ancient literary strata of the book. 129 See the commentary on 4:15-17. 130 See also MACCHI, “Lettres,” 56-58.

Mutual Sending of Portions

Nehemiah 8:10-12

9:22a, 24-25. Historical Summary of Events

274

The Letters Instituting the Festivals (9:20-32)

“affliction” ‫ יגון‬to “joy” ‫ שׂמחה‬and “mourning” ‫ אבל‬to “day of festival” ‫ יום טוב‬is found Returnees of elsewhere in the book of Esther.131 Moreover, one can ask whether this description of Zion the change alludes to prophecies of the return to Zion, since the vocabulary of Esth

Haman’s Responsibility

Machination Return

9:22a is very close to Jer 31:13, Isa 35:10; 51:11, and 61:1-7.132 Esther 9:22a could thus have been written in order to suggest the parallelism between the deliverance of the Jews of the diaspora in the era of Esther and the experience of the returnees of Zion claimed by the Jews who lived on Judean land during the era of the work’s editors. As elsewhere in MT, Esth 9:24-25 plays on the difference between the speeches and the actual deeds. Mordecai is an astute courtier who prefers to make the king appear to be the primary instigator of the deliverance of the Jews, rather than reccount events accurately. 9:24 resumes Chapter 3 by emphasizing Haman’s responsibility and by attributing all fault to him, but without mentioning that the king had authorized the publication of the decree against the Jews. The expression “had planned against the Jews” already appeared in Esther’s speech to the king (8:3) and “have them eliminated” (piel of ‫ )אבד‬reuses a term in Esth 3:9, 13; 4:7; 7:4; and 8:5 regarding the decree. The fact that Haman cast lots with the goal of “having collapse” evidently alludes to the fixing of the day of the massacre (3:7, 13). The term ‫ = להמם‬lehoumam “to have them collapse” created an assonance with the name of Haman,133 a stylistic procedure already present in 1:8 where the term “and the drink” ‫ = והשׁתיה‬wehashtiya sounds like Vashti’s name. The feminine singular subject of “it went” in 9:25 probably does not refer to Esther, who is totally absent from the direct literary context, but rather to Haman’s “machination” ‫ מחשׁבה‬evoked just after.134 Consequently, this verse resumes the episode of Chapter 6 rather than Esther’s intervention (Chs. 5 and 7). One must understand that when Haman comes with his “machination” aiming to have Mordecai killed, the reversal comes about because the king “instructed in conformity with the book,” for it is the reading of the annals that leads to the happy conclusion (6:1-3). The machination thus “return” ‫ שׁוב‬against him, which results in his hanging and that of his sons (7:9-10; 9:7-10). The brief summary of Haman’s fall in 9:25 presents events in a way that attributes all the prestige to the king and is silent about Esther’s intervention and the cunning of the counter-edict written by Mordecai. In accentuating Haman’s culpability by minimizing the role of the Jewish protagonists in order to enhance the king’s role, this passage conforms to the way that courtiers are supposed to behave in the court of the Persian king, where their speeches only partially correspond to events in order to manipulate the king or to conform to his desires.135 This passage thus fits the logic of the whole book

131 The change (Esth 9:1) from mourning (Esth 4:3; 6:12) into joy and day of festival (Esth 8:16, 17; 9:17-19). Only ‫ יגון‬is absent from the rest of the book of Esther. 132 ‫ הפך‬Jer 31:13; ‫ יגון‬Isa 31:10; 51:11; ‫ שׂמחה‬Jer 31:13; Isa 35:10; 51:11; 61:7; ‫ אבל‬Jer 31:13; Isa 61:2, 3. 133 See the textual note on 9:24b. 134 CLINES, Scroll, 53; LEVENSON, Esther, 127, BUSH, Esther, 482. On the other hand Vulgate, targumic texts; BARDTKE, “Esther,” 390; MOORE, Esther, 94. 135 In Ch. 1, Memucan portrays the king as the victim of womanly nature; in Ch. 3 Haman presents the Jews as opponents by avoiding naming them; in Ch. 7 Esther says that she would have preferred to become a slave rather than to inconvenience her husband; in 8:3-6 she avoids mentioning royal responsibility.

Synchronic Analysis

275

and is perfectly coherent with the proto-Masoretic editing to which it could be attributed. Mordecai institutes the practices of Adar 14 and 15 in a much less authoritarian manner than what happens within the Persian administration.136 9:23 – like 9:27 – says: “The Jews accepted what they had started to do and what Mordecai had written to them.” The contrast with the other decrees issued during the course of the narrative is striking. The decree suggested by Memucan (1:13-22) is received without mention of its approval and Haman’s decree ordering the massacre of the Jews is received with consternation (3:15). Thus, interactions among the Jewish people do not happen in the authoritarian way prevailing in the empire. Mordecai only institutes something that his people have already been practicing since their victory. It is the only time in the book of Esther that those who receive a decree “accept” ‫ קבל‬its contents. In Esther, the freedom to accept or to refuse an order differentiates the Jews from the Persians. Thus while Vashti does not have the chance to freely choose to come to the king or not, in 4:4, Mordecai “did not accept” ‫ לא קבל‬the clothing sent to him by the queen. Likewise, the discussion that follows between the two Jewish protagonists is a dialogue rather than a monologue that would impose Mordecai’s desires upon Esther.137 This passage shows that even after Mordecai attained a power comparable to that of the Persian king, his relationship with his people is not the same as that of a Persian – or Greek – tyrant. Mordecai acts, rather, like the leader of a group in which decisions are made and legitimated by everyone. The name “Purim” is connected to the narrative in an artificial manner. Esther 3:7 and 9:24 must specify that the term ‫ פור‬corresponds to the usual Hebrew ‫גורל‬ “lots,” so that the reader will understand that the etiology of this name comes from the casting of lots (3:7, 13); thus 9:26a can assert that “This is why these days are called “Purim,” from the name “Pur.” The word “Purim” probably constitutes a later insertion into the proto-Masoretic edition of Esther. Indeed, the motif of “lots” is not central to the narrative.138 Moreover, all the occurrences of “Pur” and “Purim” are glosses.139 The fact that the name “Purim” does not appear in the versions in a form that presupposes the Masoretic orthography also indicates its secondary character.140 Finally, the oldest mention of the festival of the fourteenth of Adar does not seem to know the name “Purim,” since it calls it the “Day

136 See also MACCHI, “Lettres,” 58-61. 137 Even the formulation in 4:14 – which seems quite imperative – aims to make the queen face her own responbilities, obliging her not out of constraint, but out of persuasion to intervene for her people (MACCHI, “Dieu,” 65-69). 138 See BUSH, Esther, 482-484; SCHELLEKENS, “Accession,” 130-131. 139 In 3:7 and 9:24 ‫ פור‬is an erudite remark that interrupts the phrase “he had cast lots” ‫ הפיל הגורל‬with the insertion of “it is Pur” ‫פור הוא‬. The explanation of the name Purim in 9:26a, introduced by “this is why” ‫על־כן‬, interrupts the logical sequence between verses 24-25 and 26b-28. Verses 24 to 25 call to mind events that led to the deliverance of the Jews and 26b-28 shows that the institutionalization of the celebration is the consequence (like 26a, 26b is introduced by ‫)על־כן‬. Finally, the mention of “Pur” in 9:28 is clearly superfluous, and in 9:29-32 it is part of a late textual component. 140 See above the textual note on 9:26a.

9:23, 27. Mode of Adoption of Customs

9:26a. “Purim” the Name of the Festival

276

9:26b-28. Perpetuating and Universalizing the Festival

According to Their Writing

Perpetuation and Universalization

Those Who Joined Them

9:29-32. Letters of Confirmation

The Letters Instituting the Festivals (9:20-32)

of Mordecai” (2 Macc 15:36). One may thus think that the name “Purim” was introduced afterwards, based on an ill-fitting etiology in order to, perhaps, Judaize non-Jewish festivities called “Purim.”141 9:26b to 28 reuses and emphasizes aspects already present in the preceding verses. The fact that 9:26 writes of a “missive” ‫ אגרת‬instead of “letters” ‫ ספרים‬in 9:20 does not pose any logical difficulty, because several times in the book of Esther, letters (in the plural) are sent to circulate a differently named document (in the singular).142 The written character of the document is emphasized in 9:27; the commemoration happens “according to their writing” ‫ככתבם‬. This formulation corresponds to those that occur during the issuing of the decrees in the different provinces (1:22; 3:12; 8:9). It emphasizes the official character of Mordecai’s communication, but since the writing is no longer addressed to each province, but rather to the Jews, it is understood that the Jews now have a jurisdiction of their own. Verses 9:26b to 28 stress the perpetuation and the universal character of the festivities for the Jews. This universality applies to the “two days,” which shows that, contrary to 9:19, this passage does not presuppose distinct local practices. Verses 9:27-28 reuse the verb “to institute” ‫ קום‬already mentioned in v. 21143 and add the verbs “to celebrate” ‫ עשׁה‬and “to commemorate” ‫זכר‬. The days are now to be observed “according to their fixed time, each year,” the fourteenth and fifteenth of Adar thus becoming a regular festival. These verses emphasize that the annual celebration applies to the “Jews” of every place and time – “every family, in every province and in every city” and “their descendants” and “every generation.” 9:27 adds that “all those who joined them” are also included. This terminology, which in Isa 56:3, 6 and Zech 2:15 probably designates proselytes,144 calls to mind the episode when peoples of the land Judaized themselves (Esth 8:17). Finally, the binding nature of the decree is emphasized by the statement that these days “shall not be transgressed” ‫לא יעבור‬, a formula that appeared in 1:19 to say that the decree regarding Vashti should be applied rigorously. The textual and literary difficulties here give an impression of confusion. It is not certain whether the letter written by Esther and Mordecai in 9:29 corresponds to what they each instituted according to 9:31. Moreover, it is poorly understood why only Esther prescribes something apparently distinct from that referred to in 9:29.

Solutions to the Textual Problem of 9:29-32

Several exegetes correct the text by removing in 9:29 “and Mordecai the Jew” as well as “second,” and by omitting from 9:31b the phrase “and Queen Esther.” The text then seems clearer. Esther sends letters in order to confirm what Mordecai had previously

141 142 143 144

See the Introduction § B.3 Mysterious Origin of Purim. The “decrees” (3:14, 15; 8:14, 17) are distributed in the form of “letters” (3:13; 8:10). On the meaning of this verb in the piel see the commentary on 9:29-32. See Walter BRUEGGEMANN, Isaiah 40-66 (WBC), Westminster, 1998, 170; Claus WESTERMANN, Isaiah 40-66: A Commentary (OTL), Philadelphia, 1969, 312; Samuel AMSLER, “Zacharie 18” in Aggée Zacharie Malachie (CAT 11c), S. AMSLER, A. LACOCQUE and R. VUILLEUMIER, Genève, 1988, 76; Carol L. MEYERS and Eric M. MEYERS, Haggai, Zechariah 1-8. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 25B), Garden City, NY, 1988, 169. In Isa 14:1, the nifal of ‫ לוה‬is also used with this meaning for immigrants (‫)גר‬.

Synchronic Analysis

277

instituted in 9:20-22.145 This solution is not satisfying at the level of textual criticism. No witness supports the secondary character of the mentions of Mordecai in 9:29 and of Esther in 9:31146 and it is not clear why these verses would have been glossed in such a way at a later time. In truth, the textual history of these verses must be reconstruted by comparing the MT with the LXX which shows that 9:30-31 underwent a major overhaul after the translation into Greek.147

Whatever the case, the MT makes sense. Verse 9:29 refers to a missive written by Esther and Mordecai to institute Purim a second time. Verse 9:30a indicates that the letters were sent to all Jews. Verses 9:30b and 31 indicate that the contents of these letters correspond to those of Esther’s and Mordecai’s missive in 9:29. Verse 9:32 concludes either by emphasizing that Esther also instituted Purim or by evoking the existence of a command specifically attributed to her. Verses 29 to 32 prolong the motif of instituting the celebration and reinforcing its obligatory nature by associating Queen Esther with the process of promulgation. Complementary letters confirming the contents of letters sent previously are attributed to her. The verb ‫ קום‬in the piel, “to institute,” indicates the establishment of a practice. It is used five times in these verses and already appeared in 9:21 and 27. The use of this verb in the piel is considered an Aramaism.148 It is used in slightly different ways. In 9:21, 27, 31aβγ, it is followed by the preposition ‫ על‬that introduces the individuals who should practice the rituals: “them” (21, 27, 31aβ); “their descendants” (27, 31aγ); “those who joined them;” (27) and “for themselves” (31aγ). In 9:29, 31aα, and 32, on the contrary, the verbal form is not followed by the individuals concerned. In 31aα and in 32, the verb is followed by the accusative particle introducing what is instituted: “these days of Purim” (31aα) and “these words of Purim” (32). The last occurrence in v. 29 will be discussed below. Verse 9:29 reports the production of a document that is distinct from the one in 9:20-28. The names of the two characters who write it are accompanied by the title that the editors attribute to them in general. “Queen Esther” (fourteen occurrences in the book) and “Mordecai the Jew” (six occurrences in the book). These titles thus emphasizes the authoritative position over the empire and over the Jews, held by the people who write the letter. Describing Esther as the “daughter of Abihail” takes up a motif associated with her Jewish family ancestry in 2:15. The expression ‫ את־כל־תקף‬is not easy to understand. The term ‫ תקף‬is rare (Esth 10:2; Dan 11:17). It means “authority” or “force”149 and should be introduced by

145 See FOX, Character, 123-125; BARDTKE, “Esther,” 397-399; BUSH, Esther, 468-471; CLINES, Scroll, 56; MOORE, Esther, 95-96; PATON, Esther, 300-301; WHITE CRAWFORD, “Book,” 939-949. 146 The LXX does not support the envisioned corrections. Even though the Greek does not have “second” in 9:29, Esther and Mordecai both appear in v. 29 as well as 31. See the textual notes. 147 See below the diachronic analysis § Editorial Process and Textual History of 9:29-32. 148 Cf. HAL. The use of this verb in the piel instead of the hifil is a sign of late Hebrew, see BERGEY, Book, 40-42; BUSH, Esther, 27. 149 The proposal by LOEWENSTAMM, “9:29-32,” 119-120 who takes ‫ תקף‬to mean “valid contract” is not satisfactory. It relies upon questionable Nabatean parallels and supposes the omission of the term ‫ לקים‬that follows ‫תקף‬.

Instituting

9:29

With All Authority

278

The Letters Instituting the Festivals (9:20-32)

the preposition ‫ב‬150 but in light of the idiosyncrasies of the Hebrew in Esther, the use of the preposition ‫ את‬in “with all authority” is acceptable.151 To Institute The word ‫ לקים‬that follows “with all authority” is at the heart of the problem of interpreting the end of this verse. It is often thought that the ‫ את‬that follows ‫ לקים‬introduces the direct object;152 the verse would then need to be translated as “Esther (…) and Mordecai (…) wrote with all authority, in order to institute (or rather “validate” or “confirm”) this second missive of Purim.” The “missive” mentioned in 29b cannot designate the text that Esther and Mordecai are in the process of writing, for in that case they would be instituting or confirming it themselves. The missive should thus refer to the one that Mordecai sends in 9:2028 (“missive” ‫ אגרת‬is already found in 9:26), but since it is called a “second” one, it is not certain what the first letter of Purim would be.153 Second

The term “second” ‫ השׁנית‬is probably a late gloss that follows the proto-Masoretic edition. Without this gloss, the text poses no difficulty; the missive unambiguously refers to the one sent by Mordecai in 9:20-28.154

Even if “second” ‫ השׁנית‬is a gloss, the MT should make sense. Perhaps for the author of the gloss, the “second missive of Purim” refers to the text that Esther and Mordecai write in 9:29. This author perhaps took the ‫ את‬that follows ‫ לקים‬as the introduction of the direct object of the verb ‫“ ותכתב‬they wrote.” ‫“ לקים‬to institute” must then be attached to the expression “with all authority.” It thus indicates that the writers have all the necessary authority. The resultant translation is: “Esther (…) and Mordecai (…) wrote – with all authority to institute – this second missive of Purim.”155 The beginning of 9:30 to 31 says that the text of the second missive written 9:30-31 by Esther and Mordecai in 9:29 is distributed among the Jews. The contents and the function of this missive are developed by 9:30b-31. The sequence between the writing of a missive, its general distribution by letter, and the mention of its contents aiming to “institute,” are parallel to 9:2021 regarding the first missive sent by Mordecai.

Comparison of 9:20-21 with 9:29-31

20a “Mordecai wrote

29 “Esther… and Mordecai… wrote

these things (the missive of 9:26)”

…this second missive of Purim.

9:20b He sent letters to all Jews

9:30 Letters were sent to all Jews

9:21a to institute for them

9:31to institute these days of Purim

150 HAUPT, “Notes,” 172-173 (followed by BUSH, Esther, 485; LOEWENSTAMM, “9:29-32,” 119) uses the example of “with all your might” in Deut 6:5. 151 FOX, Character, 286 understands ‫ תקף‬in the figurative sense “authoritative speech.” 152 The Masoretic punctuation with atnaḥ under ‫ תקף‬invites such a reading. 153 LEVENSON, Esther, 130 notes that it could not mean the decree of Chapter 8, which is never called “letter of Purim.” 154 See the textual note 9:29c and the diachronic analysis § Editorial Process and Textual History of 9:29-32. 155 The present commentary advocates this solution along with GERLEMAN, Esther, 141 and CLINES, Scroll, 56.

Synchronic Analysis

279

The phrase “letters were sent to all Jews in the 127 provinces of King Ahasuerus” varies slightly from 9:20, which has instead “…Jews who are in all the provinces… ” The meaning is probably the same and indicates that only the Jews receive these letters.156 Two brief nominal propositions [clauses] introduced by “they were words of…” (30b and 31b) characterize the contents of the letters and frame a sentence that defines the function of these letters (31a). The central part is introduced by “to institute” ‫ לקים‬followed by a double affirmation opened each time with “conforming to” ‫ כאשׁר‬followed by the verb “to institute” ‫קום‬. There is no doubt that the phrase “they were words of peace and of stability” ‫ דברי שׁלום ואמת‬characterizes the contents of the letters. It cannot be a polite salutation opening the letters.157 The term ‫ אמת‬never appears in such formulas and if the introductory formula of the letters had been literally cited by 9:30b, their contents should have also been by 9:31. In fact, evidently 9:31 summarizes the contents of these texts.158 Certain exegetes think that “they were words of fasting and their lamentations” (9:31b) define the contents of “what they instituted” (31a). If this were so, the phrase would be very enigmatic since it implies that a fast mentioned during the narrative would now be instituted.159 In fact, in the book of Esther, the only fast observed is the one in 4:3 and 4:16; it is specific and cannot be perpetuated since it occurs during Passover.160

Contents of the Letters

Peace and Stability

Fasting and Lamentations

“Esther’s fast” ‫תענית אסתר‬, observed on Adar 13 in contemporary times, does not have Esther’s Fast a direct connection to the biblical text where the fast by the Jews (4:16) occurs during the month of Nisan. The tradition of fasting on Adar 13 was introduced late – probably in the Middle Ages in Jewish communities. Esther’s fast is not attested in sources preceding the eighth century CE.161 The talmudic treatise Megillah does not report it, and Megillat Ta’anit even prohibits fasting on Adar 13.

156 The “letters” in the plural that distribute a “missive” in the singular is not problematic. See above the commentary on 9:26b. 157 The thesis of GORDIS, “Studies,” 57-58 that takes this perspective was rejected by CLINES, Esther, 330; BUSH, Esther, 486; etc. 158 The expression “likeable ‫ שׁלום‬and sincere (or firm) ‫ ”אמת‬could also characterize the tone of the authors of the letter (so CLINES, Esther, 330; GERLEMAN, Esther, 141-142 and MOORE, Esther, 96). Such specifications on the tone of the missives never occur elsewhere in the book of Esther and seem superfluous here. 159 BARDTKE, “Esther,” 401; BERG, Book, 37-38, 44; PATON, Esther, 301; WHITTERS, “New,” 276. 160 It may be appealing to think that Esth 9:31aγ-31b (‫וכאשׁר קימו על־נפשׁם ועל־זרעם דברי הצמות‬ ‫וזעקתם‬: “according to what they instituted for themselves and for their descendants in the matter of fasts and their lamentations”) refers to fasting customs instituted within Judaism (cf. BUSH, Esther, 486-487; CLINES, Esther, 330; FOX, Character, 127). However, this does not resolve the problems of logic and syntax raised by the fact that the subject of the verb “to institute” and the suffixes “their” refer necessarily to Mordecai, Esther, and their contemporaries. 161 For the oldest references to Esther’s fast (She’iltot of R. Aḥa of Shabḥa; Maimonides, Yad, Ta’anit 5.5; Soferim 14.4; 21.1) see LOEWENSTAMM, “9:29-32,” 122-123; Isaac NEWMAN, “Esther, Fast of,” in Encyclopaedia Judaica, vol. 6, M. BERENBAUM and F. SKOLNIK (eds.), Detroit, 2007, 519.

280

The Letters Instituting the Festivals (9:20-32)

To understand the phrases “they were words of peace and of stability” (9:30b) and “they were words of fasting and their lamentations” (9:31b) they must be taken together. Placed side by side they contrast two positive elements and two negative elements of the contents of the letters of Esther and Mordecai. This contrast corrresponds well to the argument that led to Purim’s institution, in the first missive of 9:20-28. Indeed, by instituting Purim, 9:20-28 emphasizes the ambiguity of the birth of this festival that commemorates the reversal of a tragic situation into a joyous one (9:22, 24-25). If 9:30b and 9:31b are understood as a laconic summary of the narrative of Esther, one sees that these verses use a similar rhetoric to 9:20-28. Verse 9:30b mentions the establishment of “peace” ‫ שׁלום‬and of “stability” ‫ אמת‬that calls to mind the rest that the Jews find at the end of the narrative. 9:31b mentions the “fast” ‫ צום‬and the “lamentation” ‫ זעקה‬that echo the reaction of the Jews and of Mordecai to the decree of destruction (4:1, 3). Esther 9:30-31 Allusion to Zechariah 8:19?

One may question whether, by choice of vocabulary, the scribe who edited these two short phrases also wanted to evoke the prophecy of Zechariah 8:19. Indeed, this passage evokes the four fasts (‫ )צום‬that are supposed to be transformed into festival days. Now, Zech 8:19 ends like Esth 9:30b with the terms “peace” ‫ שׁלום‬and “stability” ‫אמת‬. One may thus imagine that the erudite scribe responsible for Esth 9:30b wanted to suggest that the book of Esther reports the transformation announced by Zechariah of fasts into festivals.162

To Institute “To institute these days of Purim in their fixed times” of 9:31a defines the goal of These Days of the second missive which is the same as the first, meaning to inscribe on the Purim calendar the festival of Purim. The words “fixed times” ‫ זמן‬and “days of Purim”

are found in 9:27 and 28. The phrase “conforming to ‫ כאשׁר‬what was instituted ‫ קום‬for them by Mordecai the Jew and Queen Esther and conforming to ‫ כאשׁר‬what they instituted ‫ קום‬for themselves and for their descendants” specifies the double authority that institutes Purim. In the first part, “was instituted” ‫ קום‬is in the third person masculine singular.163 The action of instituting probably refers simultaneously to the letters of Mordecai in 9:20-28 and to those of Esther in 9:29. In the second part of the verse, the verb “to institute” ‫ קום‬is in the third person plural and is followed by the mention “for themselves and for their descendants.” The text this time is referring to the fact that the Jews accepted to institute the festivities after they had started to practice them (9:23, 26b-27). The expression “the Jews institued… for themselves and for their descendants” in 9:27 is very close to that in 9:31. Consequently, 9:30b-31 reports on the contents of the texts sent by Esther and Mordecai in a manner very similar to what appeared in the letters issued by Mordecai in 9:20-28. They contain a historical reminder (9:30b, 31b // 9:22a, 2425). They also intimate the order of instituting Purim on fixed dates (9:31aα // 9:21, 27b-28) under the authority of the authors of the missive (9:31aβ // 9:20a, 26aβ) and the Jews in general (9:31aγ // 9:27a). 9:32a. Esther’s This last verse attributes the origin of the institution of Purim to Esther: “And Prescription Esther’s prescription instituted these words of Purim.”

Conforming To

162 The allusion to Zechariah 8:19 was seen by IBN EZRA who was recently followed by BERLIN, Esther, 93; BUSH, Esther, 486-487; FOX, Character, 126; LEVENSON, Esther, 130-131. 163 Mordecai and Esther are nevertheless the subjects of this verb. In Hebrew, the subject of a verb in the singular could be one character accompanied by another.

The King, Mordecai, the Jews, and the Empire (10:1-3)

281

The “command” could designate the missive of v. 29. The exegetes who correct 9:29 so that Esther is the only author of the missive see their correction confirmed in 9:32.164 However, it is not because Esther alone is mentioned in 9:32 that they must correct 9:29. Indeed, 9:32 could constitute the logical conclusion to 9:2931MT. Knowing that 9:20-31 highlights Mordecai more, the note of 9:32a could very well reflect a desire to stress Esther’s involvement in instituting Purim. 9:32a could also indicate that after the first and the second missives, a third document was issued by Esther. This reading would then highlight a skillful literary construction of the whole of 9:20-32. Indeed, understood in this way, this text would testify to successive messages involving the two heroes. After a first missive by Mordecai (9:20-28), a second is written by the two heroes (9:29-31) before Esther writes the third command alone (9:32a).165 The progression also appears between how to describe the content of the documents in question. The first missive is largely described (9:21-28), the second is more quickly evoked (9:30b-31) while taking up the main argument of the first. With regard to the last document (9:23a), its contents are even more briefly presented. However, it also takes up the contents of the one preceding it. The expression “these words of Purim” which closes 32a indeed constitutes a neat summary of the manner in which the preceding text is presented, since in 30b and 31b the missive regarding Purim is characterized as “words of…” It should be noted, finally, that the usage of the vocabulary of the “prescription” ‫ מאמר‬is skillful. Indeed, this term only appears three times in Esther: Vashti does not follow a “command” (1:15), she is replaced by Esther who at the beginning of her tenure follows the “prescription” of Mordecai (2:20). When in 9:32 Esther’s final action consists of giving a “prescription” to all the Jews it is understood that her preeminent status is now fully achieved. “It was written in the book” signifies that the instructions of Purim are in- 9:32b. It Was scribed in the royal Persian annals. In Esther, the term for “book” ‫ ספר‬in the Written singular always designates the royal annals (2:23; 6:1; 9:25; 10:2). This last note thus introduces something new: the words of Purim are not only sent to the Jews, but they appear in a text with imperial authority. In 9:20-32, the instructions regarding Purim are reiterated and placed under the patronage of the primary heroes of the narrative. The recurrent writing of these instructions for distribution, then for inscription in the annals, testifies to the willingness of the editors to emphasize the binding and definitive character of the Purim festivals.

The King, Mordecai, the Jews, and the Empire (10:1-3) 1a King Ahasuerusb cplaced a corvéecd on the land and the islands of the sea. 2 All the work of his authority and of his might as well as the accounta of the greatness ofb Mordecai, to which the king had promoted him, are they notb

164 See the textual note on 9:29b-b and at the beginning of the commentary on 9:29-32 § Solutions to the Textual Problem of 9:29-32. 165 LEVENSON, Esther, 131 highlights this progression of people implicated.

282

The King, Mordecai, the Jews, and the Empire (10:1-3)

written in the book of the annals of the kings of Media and of Persia? 3 Certainly, Mordecai the Jew was second to King Ahasuerus and agreat among the Jews,a being approved by the multitude of his brothers, seeking the good of his people and speaking of peaceb to all his descendants.

Notes on Text and Translation 1a b

c-c

d

2a b-b

3a-a

b

Verse absent from the OL. The king’s action seems to have been erased by the translator. The name of the king is absent from the LXX and the AT. The ketiv ‫ אחשׁרשׁ‬differs from the usual spelling, probably due to an error of the scribe who added the name of the king late. Most of the witnesses of the LXX and the AT indicate that the king “wrote the taxes τέλη.” Only Vaticanus presents the form without τέλη (translate “The king legislated for the kingdom…”). HANHART also chose this variant in his edition of the LXX (CAVALIER, Esther, 234). In biblical Hebrew the term ‫ מס‬designates forced labor. The meaning of “tax” appears in postbiblical Hebrew. The reconstruction of the LXX-AT with τέλος evokes this second meaning. In the Hebrew Bible, the term ‫ פרשׁה‬only appears in Esther (4:7; 10:2). It designates what is determined or proclaimed (DRIVER, “Problems,” 237-238; HAL). In the Greek witnesses, LXX (and AT), it is only the glory of the king and his kingdom that is written in the annals: “his might, his bravery, the wealth and the glory of his kingdom, it is written in the book of the kings of Persia and of Media, in memory.” The LXX probably translates a text that corresponds grosso modo to the MT where instead of b-b the Hebrew equivalent of τῆς βασιλείας αὐτοῦ appeared. After the first translation into Greek, a copyist possibly added b-b to have Mordecai appear in the annals. Correcting the MT by transferring ‫ ופרשת גדלת מרדכי‬to the beginning of the verse has no textual support (contra HAUPT, “Notes,” 174 and BHS). The phrase ‫ גדול ליהודים‬is strange. One could also understand it “great for the Jews.” Correcting to ‫ גדול ביהודים‬is not necessary (GERLEMAN, Esther, 143 contra BARDTKE, “Esther,” 401; HAUPT, “Notes,” 174, BHS; etc.). One could also translate “speaking well” or “preoccupied with the well-being.”

Synchronic Analysis The three last verses of the book treat events that occur after the main narrative in the form of an “epilogue” (comparable epilogues are known in texts of this period: Jdt 16:21-25; Tob 14:12-15) that tells what happened to the king, his empire, and to Mordecai. Compared to the situation at the beginning of the narrative, the change is considerable. In Esth 1:1-8, the king already dominated the world, but now he imposes corvées and inscribes his authority and his might in the annals. The situation of the Jews has changed considerably: Mordecai no longer hides his Jewish identity and, unlike Esther previously, can become involved for his people without risk or hesitation. 10:1. Corvée – The king imposed “a corvée on the land and on the islands of the sea.” The Taxes term ‫“ מס‬corvée” could mean forced labor or “taxation.” In any case, it concerns

Synchronic Analysis

283

labor or revenue from which the royal system profits and that marks its domination over the areas under control. The “land” ‫ ארץ‬and the “islands of the sea” ‫ איי הים‬together designate the whole of the immense empire. In Isa 24:15-16 the two terms represent the known world. The expression in Esth 10:1b may seem synonymous with 1:1 where the empire extends “over 127 provinces from India to Cush.” Or, perhaps by “islands of the sea,” the editor wanted to specifically designate the northwest limit of the Persian Empire: the Agean world. Indeed, Herodotus evokes obtaining tribute as the pinnacle of the empire’s domination over “islands and from the peoples in Europe.”166 The motif of “corvée” or “taxes” impacting all of the empire fits into the general context of the work. The introduction of corvée marks a radical change from the beginning of the narrative where the king offered goods to his subjects. In 1:7-8, he offers drink to everyone and in 2:18 he offers a fiscal “amnesty.”167 In fact, the narrative turned this royal generosity upside down: the banquets offered in Chapter 1 turn into catastrophe (1:10-12); the fiscal generosity of the king does not bring him the loyalty of his subjects (2:21-23); and the measures proposed by Haman to replenish the royal treasury are presented as unfair (3:9; 7:4).168 Consequently, the change in fiscal practices in 10:1 marks the beginning of the wise management of the kingdom. This interpretation of the fiscal motif in 10:1 is corroborated by numerous allusions in Esther to Genesis 41 where Pharaoh places Joseph as second in the kingdom and invites him to organize the storage of a part of the crops for Egypt’s survival.169 Verse 10:1 shows that Ahasuerus and Mordecai apply a general fiscal plan that is comparable to Joseph’s. This general taxation testifies to a fair and powerful state that does not use an unequal taxation plan as a political tool.170 This fair taxation plan idealizes the conclusion of the Esther narrative. The king, finally well counselled, is in a position to put a powerful governmental system into place, fair and universal, in which the Jews are not taxed more than others. This motif makes perfect sense

166 HERODOTUS, Hist. 3.96. With Herodotus, this taxation is associated with the reign of Darius. 167 On the inversion of 2:18 with 10:1, see EHRLICH, Randglossen, 125; LEVENSON, Esther, 132; FOX, Character, 129. 168 Even if the sale of the Jews is a one time financial plan that is different from the regular financial plan evoked in 10:1, both cases are fiscal practices (D. DAUBE, “The Last chapter of Esther,” JQR 37 (1946-1947), 139-147, is not incorrect to contrast 3:9 with 10:1). On the other hand, it would be an exaggeration to think that this fiscal change is a punishment of the empire (contra DAY, Esther, 264). 169 See the Introduction § C.4.2. The Joseph Story and the Book of Esther. Cf. Esth 3:10 and 8:2 // Gen 41:42; Esth 6:8-11; 8:15 // Gen 41:42-43; Esth 2:3-4 // Gen 41:34-37. Moreover, Mordecai as second in the kingdom in 10:3 evokes Gen 41. By referring to Joseph, the narrator is not being critical of Mordecai (contra GROSSMAN, Esther). 170 The tax exemption for particular groups has political purposes, just as the establishment of contributions that particularly affect certain categories are well attested in the Hellenistic and Roman worlds. See regarding Hellenistic fiscal plans (APERGHIS, Seleukid; CAPDETREY, pouvoir; LE RIDER and DE CALLATAŸ, Séleucides; MARTINEZ-SÈVE, “fiscalité”; Jean-Manuel ROUBINEAU, “La fiscalité des cités grecques aux époques classique et hellénistique,” Pallas 74 (2007), 179-200; HONIGMAN, Tales).

Land and Islands

A Fair Fiscal Plan

284

10:2. The Power of the King

Mordecai’s Greatness

The Annals

The King, Mordecai, the Jews, and the Empire (10:1-3)

in the Maccabean-Hasmonean era. Indeed, the books of the Maccabees claim fairer fiscal practices for the Jews on the part of the Hellenistic Empire.171 “All the work of his authority and of his might” refers to the king’s actions.172 The descriptors applied to him are continuous with 10:1 and portray the attributes of royal power positively. The term “authority” ‫תקף‬, already used in 9:29 for Esther’s and Mordecai’s ability to institute Purim, here evokes the king’s ability to legislate the application of the tax (10:1). The term “might” ‫ גבורה‬signals Ahasuerus’s aptitude to impose his decision. This evocation of the power of the great king recalls his glory, his wealth, and his splendor emphasized in the introduction (1:4), giving the impression that all loose ends are tied up. At the end of a narrative where the king’s power is often questioned,173 this power is once again fully operative. Now, aided by Mordecai the Jew, he no longer needs to exhibit his power and his prestige to a ridiculous extent as in Chapter 1: it is sufficient for him to make use of it and to write about it in the annals. “As well as the account of the greatness of Mordecai, to which the king had promoted him” signals that Mordecai, henceforth associated with royalty, is also inscribed in the annals. The formulations allude to the preceding narrative. The “greatness” ‫ גדולה‬sends the reader back to the greatness of the king in 1:4 and the greatness that Mordecai receives in 6:3.174 The phrase “to which the king had promoted him” indicates ironically Haman’s promotion in 5:11 and emphasizes anew the reversal of Mordecai’s situation vis à vis that of his enemy. The “book of the annals” corresponds to the one mentioned in 2:23 and 6:1 in which a great deed of Mordecai’s already appears. The official writings of imperial power appear one last time to show the final status of the protagonists. This reference to the annals could also be intended to produce an “effect of realism” and emphasize the veracity of the narrative.175 Finally, the interrogative construction “are they not written in the book of the annals of the kings of Media and of Persia?” is not insignificant. It appears twenty-eight times in a similar fashion in the books of Kings in reference to Judeo-Israelite annals.176 By using this syntactic construction, the scribes responsible for the last touchups of the Hebrew text177 wanted to emphasize that with Mordecai’s arrival at the head of the empire, the characteristics of an Israelite kingdom are adopted.

171 The books of the Maccabees often mention unequal levies of the empire (2 Macc 3:112; 4:7-9; etc.). On the other hand, they idealize the fiscal practices of Antiochus III (2 Macc 4:11 refers to privileges obtained from Antiochus III by the Jews cf. JOSEPHUS, Ant. 12.138-144). 172 The referent of the third person singular pronoun occurs in the preceding verse. 173 Cf. Vashti’s refusal, the eunuchs’ plot, and the manipulations of various advisors. 174 In 9:4, ‫ גדול‬appears twice to emphasize Mordecai’s new status in the empire. 175 As is rightly pointed out by BERLIN, Esther, 95, this “effect of realism” does not retract from the fictive character of the book. 176 See 1 Kgs 14:29; 15:7, 23, 31; 16:5, 14, 20, 27; 22:39, 46; 2 Kgs 1:18; 8:23; 10:34; 12:20; 13:8, 12; 14:15, 18, 28; 15:6, 21, 36; 16:19; 20:20; 21:17, 25; 23:28; 24:5. 177 The proto-Masoretic text to which the LXX attests does not have the same construction. See the textual note on 10:2b-b and in the diachronic analysis § MT Corrections that Follow the Greek Translations.

Proto-Esther

285

The last verse emphasizes that Mordecai is simultaneously fully involved in imperial power while maintaining a privileged relationship with his people. Mordecai is “second” to King Ahasuerus. In Chapter 8, he receives the attributes of the primary functionary of the kingdom (3:1, 10; 8:1-2, 15). This term evokes Gen 41:43 where it describes Joseph’s position in relation to Pharaoh.178 Mordecai has a privileged relationship with his people. He is not only great within the empire, but also “among the Jews.” That Mordecai was approved by the multitude of his brothers signals that the Jews accept Mordecai’s authority. Like 9:23 and 27 where the Jews freely accepted the practices initiated by their leader, 10:3 emphasizes that Mordecai’s leadership is not imposed on his compatriots, but is freely accepted. Finally, Mordecai’s goodwill for his people is emphasized by the double expression “seeking the good of his people and speaking of peace to all his descendants.” For the Jews, the ideal of a life within an empire of goodwill – with one of their own in power – ends the book on a positive note. During the MaccabeanHasmonean era, the milieus that produced the work certainly did not expect to achieve such an ideal by a foreign sovereign such as a Seleucid king. On the other hand, the arrival of a powerful monarchy in Judea dominating a large part of the Levant and partially independent of Hellenistic sovereigns could have raised such hopes.

Diachronic Analysis. Chapters 8-10 According to the hypothesis of this commentary, the Alpha Text of Chapters 1 to 7 (without the six additions) translates Proto-Esther fairly literally, which is a first Hebrew form of Esther that was largely reworked by editors of the proto-Masoretic consonantal textual form close to the MT.179 From Chapter 8 onward of the MT, the situation is very different.

Proto-Esther In most of this section, the Alpha Text (7:15-52AT) is not the translation of ProtoEsther. Actually, only 7:15-16AT and 33b-34aAT translate the original conclusion of Proto-Esther. The rest of the end of the AT (7:17-33a, 35-52) was added late to complete the first Greek translation of Proto-Esther (the proto-AT). The original conclusion of Proto-Esther reconstructed here does not mention the impossibility of revoking Haman’s edict, the war against the enemies, or the institution of a commemorative festival. Mordecai is summoned by the king, who gives him Haman’s possessions and accepts the revocation of Haman’s letter by entrusting

178 A comparable usage of the term “second to” to represent a “right arm” of the king is in 1 Sam 23:17; 2 Chr 28:7; Jdt 2:4 (cf. also 1 Esd 3:7). See Hans VOLKMANN, “Der Zweite nach dem König,” Philologus 92 (1937), 285-316 and WAHL, Esther, 207-208. 179 See the Introduction, Textual Forms and Editorial Stages.

10:3 Second

Mordecai and the Jews

286

Diachronic Analysis. Chapters 8-10

Mordecai with the task of writing to that effect. Compared to the MT, Proto-Esther presents a less dysfunctional empire. After Haman’s death, the threat weighing upon the Jews is easily lifted. This version, does not evoke an ambient anti-Judaism; there is no group of enemies of the Jews to combat. The translation below is based upon the Alpha Text of Chapter 7:15-16, 21, 33-34 from the book of Esther (HANHART (ed.), Esther, 185-186, 188, 195).

15 The king called Mordecai and awarded him all that had been Haman’s. 16 He said to him: “What do you want? And I will act for you.” And Mordecai said: “That you revoke Haman’s letter.” 21bβ And so it came to be. 33b And the king entrusted Mordecai to write what he wanted. 34a Mordecai sent writings and sealed them with the king’s ring. The contents of 7:15AT coincide with the kernel of the MT 8:1MT, which nevertheless transformed its source so that Esther gives Haman’s possessions to Mordecai. “That you revoke Haman’s letter” (7:16bAT) corresponds to the kernel of Esther’s request to the king in 8:5bMT. The beginning of v. 16 of Proto-Esther disappeared during the proto-Masoretic redevelopment of the episode (8:3-8MT) perhaps because, for the editors, the king was presented too favorably, considering the courteous proposal he addresses to Mordecai.180 The contents of the rest of the conclusion of Proto-Esther are discussed below. As we will see, 7:33b and 34a correspond almost completely to 8:8aMT and 8:10aMT.

The Original Conclusion of Proto-Esther and Late Sections of the AT The original end of Proto-Esther is much debated. Verses 7:15-16AT are part of the logical sequence of verses 7:1-14AT. The Hebrew substratum of these two verses undoubtedly makes up part of Proto-Esther. Largely reworked by the proto-Masoretic editors, this substratum can be found in 8:1-2MT and 8:5MT. That said, 7:16 cannot constitute the end of Proto-Esther, because it presupposes a reaction to Mordecai’s request. The end of Proto-Esther is thus necessarily farther on. The scholars who defend the existence of a Proto-Esther situate its conclusion at different points. Clines, Cook, and Torrey locate it in 7:17, Fox in 7:38, and Kossmann in 7:41.181 Some remarks about the last section of the AT make it possible to specify the original end of Proto-Esther. The Last (Late) Translation of the text published by HANHART (ed.), Esther, 186-188, 195-206. Section of the AT 17 And the king entrusted him with the affairs of the kingdom.

18 And Esther said to the king the next day: “Allow me to punish my enemies by massacre.” 19 Queen Esther also spoke with the king concerning Haman’s sons, so that they would die with their father. And the king said: “May it be so.” 20 And she

180 The wording in 7:16a is similar to the king’s in 5:13 of Proto-Esther. 181 See CLINES, Scroll, 71-114; COOK, “A Text”; TORREY, “Older” (for this last one 1:1-7:21AT derives from an Aramaic original , but 7:18-21 was modified to introduce the conclusion of the AT drawn from the LXX); FOX, Redaction, 38-42 (BUSH, Esther, 284-285 follows in part Fox, but adds 7:39-40); KOSSMANN, Esthernovelle, 313-353.

Proto-Esther

287

struck the enemies en masse. 21 At Susa, the king made an accord with the queen to kill men and he said: “Here I allow you to hang them.” And it was thus. [Add. E ] 33 The edict concerning these things was also exhibited in Susa. And the king entrusted Mordecai to write what he wanted. 34 Mordecai sent writings and sealed them with the king’s ring, that his people would stay each one in their own place and keep God’s festival. 35 And the letter that Mordecai sent contained these things: 36 “Haman sent you writings containing the following: “hurry to send me the disobedient nation of the Jews for destruction.” 37 But, I, Mordecai inform you that the one who did these things was hanged at the gates of Susa and his house was reduced to rubble. 38 This was done because he wanted to kill us on the thirteenth of the month that is Adar. 39 Mordecai then went out dressed in a royal garment and with a diadem of purple linen. 40 When those who were in Susa saw him, they rejoiced. And for the Jews there was light, drinking, and banquet. 41 And many Jews were circumcised,182 and no one opposed them; for they feared them. 42 The ministers, the tyrants, the satraps, and the royal scribes had regard for the Jews; for the fear of Mordecai had fallen upon them. 43 And in Susa Haman’s name and that of the opponents was spread throughout the kingdom. 44 And in Susa the Jews killed seven hundred men as well as Pharsan and his brother and Pharna and Gagaphardatha and Marmasaima and Izathouth and the ten sons of Haman of Hamadathos the proud, the enemy of the Jews, and they pillaged all that belonged to them. 45 The king then said to Esther: “How did your people fare here and in the surrounding areas.” 46 And Esther said: “Let us permit the Jews to destroy and to take booty from whomever they want.” And he accepted. They killed seventy thousand one hundred men. 47 Mordecai wrote these things in a book and sent it to the Jews who were in the kingdom of Assyeros, to those far and near, to maintain these days for hymns and rejoicing instead of pain and grief, on the fourteenth and the fifteenth. 48 And he sent portions to the poor and they accepted them. 49 This is why these days were called Phourdaia because of the lots that fell on these days as a memorial. 50 The king recorded the tributes of the land and the sea and his strength, the wealth and the glory of his kingdom, 51 and Mordecai glorified and wrote in the books of the Persians and Medians as a memorial. 52 And Mordecai succeeded King Assyeros. He was great in the kingdom and liked by all Jews. He led them and glorified all his nation. Most of the motifs in Chapters 8 to 10 of the MT also appear in this section of the AT: Mordecai’s elevation, requests addressed to the king, proclamation of decrees, suppressions of the enemies accomplished by the Jews, and proclamation of festivities. However, they do not appear in the same order and are formulated in a very different manner. In the AT, the Persian laws are not irrevocable. To justify the non-application of the edict of destruction of the Jews, Mordecai of the AT announces to the Persian

182 Regarding this note on the circumcision of the Jews, see the commentary on 8:17b.

288

Diachronic Analysis. Chapters 8-10

elites the failure of Haman’s plan. The massacres of enemies result from requests made to the king by Esther, and not from a form of legitimate defense. Furthermore, the festivities receive shorter treatment. Moreover, there are several doublets. Massacres of the enemies of the Jews appear in 7:18-21 and in 7:44-46, the institution of a festival is in 7:34b and in 7:47-49, Mordecai’s obtaining power is found in 7:17 (39-41) and in 50-52. Finally, the similarities between the sections of the AT of 7:17-21, 33-52 and the parallels in the MT and the LXX vary enormously. Certain sections of the AT present only themes similar to those in the MT-LXX, while others present content and wording almost identical to parallel sections of the LXX.

Parallels between AT 7:17-21, 33-52 and MT-LXX Chs. 8-10

AT

Contents

Parallel Text

7:17

Mordecai installed to power. MT-LXX 10:1-3

Nature of the Parallelism Thematic similarities.

7:18-21 Esther asks for punishment. MT-LXX 9:13-15 + Thematic similarities. Massacre in mass. ≈ 9:6-10, 16 7:33b34a

Proclamation of decrees by MT-LXX 8:8, 10 Mordecai.

Similar wording and content.

7:34b

Mordecai sends a festival de- MT-LXX 9:20-28 cree.

Thematic similarities.

7:35-38 Mordecai sends a letter LXX Add. E,17-19 Wording and content close to against the massacre of the the Greek of the LXX. Jews. 7:39-41 Mordecai’s triumphant exit. MT-LXX 8:15-17

Wording and content close to the Greek of the LXX.

7:42-43 The authorities support the MT-LXX 9:3-4 Jews.

Wording and content close to the Greek of the LXX.

7:44-46 Double Jews.

massacre

by

the MT-LXX 9:6-10, Wording and content close to 12-13, 15-16. the Greek of the LXX. Shorter AT.

7:47-49 Text of institution of festivi- MT-LXX 9:20-23, Wording and content close to ties. 26 the Greek of the LXX. Shorter AT. 7:50-52 The king and Mordecai at MT-LXX 10:1-3 the head of the Persian Empire.

7:39-52AT

Wording and content close to the Greek of the LXX.

Evidently, the last part of the AT of Esther results from a complex textual history and its different parts are not the products of a homogeneous work. The last part of the AT closely follows the organization of the episodes in the LXX-MT. The numerous identical Greek formulations in 7:39-52AT and 8:15-10:3LXX indicate that these two texts directly depend one upon the other, not that an underlying Hebrew text was translated independently by the AT and the LXX.183

183 This is totally different from the relationship between 1:1 and 7:16 in which the Greek formulations from the AT and the LXX vary too much for direct dependence.

Proto-Esther

289

The verses from the AT probably come from a work deriving from the LXX.184 The introduction of 7:39-52 in the AT was probably done in order to complete a first Greek translation of Proto-Esther (the proto-AT), based on the conclusion of the LXX. The scribe responsible for this insertion corrected and shortened his source somewhat, especially the episode of the double massacre of the Jews and the institution of the festival of Purim. The secondary character of 7:39-52 and its dependence on the LXX are widely accepted.185 A direct relationship between the LXX and the AT can also be observed in the 7:35-38AT wording of the letter sent by Mordecai to the Persian satraps (7:35-38AT). Here the argument and the wording are not taken from a section of the LXX parallel with the MT, but from Addition E. Verses 7:35-38AT are a brief summary of the part of Addition E where Mordecai informs the satraps of the failure of Haman’s plan to incite them to take sides for the Jews. The wording in 7:36-37 is found in vv. 13, 17, 18, and 20 of Addition E.186 Moreover, in the AT, Addition E creates a doublet with 7:35-38.187 One may thus imagine that the proto-AT was influenced by the LXX in two steps. Addition E was first summarized in 7:35-38AT before being inserted a little clumsily in the AT since the doublet between 7:35-38AT and Add. EAT was not omitted. The contents of vv. 17, 18-21, and 33-34 are fairly confused and connect poorly 7:17-34AT with the preceding chapters. 7:17, in which Mordecai gains control of the affairs of the kingdom, is not a satisfying response to his request for revocation of the edict of 7:16.188 As for Esther’s request to massacre her enemies (7:18-21), it happens in an abrupt manner at the end of Proto-Esther where, apart from Haman, no other enemy of Esther is mentioned. Moreover, 7:18-21AT are confused. Strangely, the queen addresses the king twice, first, to ask him to strike her enemies in general, then to kill Haman’s sons. Furthermore, the scenario of the royal response

184 CLINES, Scroll, 86-87 shows that in 7:44AT, “and his brother” καὶ τόν ἀδελφὸν is a corruption of the proper name “and Delphon” καὶ Δελφων from the LXX. FOX, Redaction, 7879 gives other examples of reinterpretations of the LXX by the conclusion of the AT, especially the suppression of the circumcision of non-Jews. 185 Most exegetes who defend the existence of a Proto-Esther admit this (Clines, Fox). Kossmann distinguishes 39-41 from 42-52 and thinks that only this last section is secondary. The exegetes who consider the AT a rewriting of the LXX use this section to argue their case (see TOV, “Lucianic,” 536-537 and DE TROYER, End; “Crowns”). 186 Compare “the one who did these things was hanged at the gates of Susa and his house was reduced to rubble” (τὸν ταῦτα ἐργασάμενον πρὸς ταῖς Σούσων πύλαις κεκρεμάσθαι καὶ τὸν οἶκον αὐτοῦ διακεχειρίσθαι) 7:37AT with “their author was crucified at the entrance of Susa with all his family” from Add. E,18LXX (τὸν ταῦτα ἐξεργασάμενον πρὸς ταῖς Σούσων πύλαις ἐσταυρῶσθαι σὺν τῇ πανοικίᾳ). Moreoever, the expression “sent letters” (ἀποστέλλω – γράμματα) is found in Add. E,17 and 7:36AT; a “nation for destruction” (Ἔθνος – εἰς ἀπώλειαν) is found in Add. E,13 and 7:36AT; the vocabulary to hurry (τάχος) is found in Add. E,18 and 7:36AT; finally, the dates in 7:38AT are found in Add. E,20. 187 See MOORE, Additions, 165; HAELEWYCK, “Lucianique,” 8; KOSSMANN, Esthernovelle, 353; on the other hand, DE TROYER, End, 359-360. 188 Even CLINES, Scroll, who thinks that this verse is the last of the AT that is part of ProtoEsther, recognizes that it is not an acceptable conclusion for the narrative and postulates a conclusion that disappeared (cf. his note 25, p. 189).

290

Diachronic Analysis. Chapters 8-10

is unclear.189 The contents of the letters sent by Mordecai in 34b, make little sense at the end of Proto-Esther. It is not clear which “festival of God” is meant, nor is the order to remain in place. Indeed, only 7:33b-34a190 occurs logically at the end of Proto-Esther. These verses connect well after Mordecai’s request in 7:16 and echo the royal authorization given to Haman in 3:10 and 13AT. Perhaps 7:17, 18-21, and 34b were inserted late by one more glossators who were anxious to insert a summary of the primary motifs of Esther’s Masoretic conclusion. They add to Proto-Esther – or to its first Greek translation (proto-AT) Mordecai’s ascension (7:17), the death of the enemies of the Jews (7:18-21), and the institution of a festival (34b). These insertions are too brief and cause tensions with the prior text. Moreover, the contents of 7:17-21, and 34b summarize poorly and do not use the formulations of Chapters 8-10MT, which implies that those making the glosses did not have direct access to the conclusion of the MT, but had only vaguely heard of it. This is not surprising if, as thought here, Proto-Esther was created in the diaspora. Access to the traditions added by the proto-Masoretic editors from Hasmonean-Maccabean Judea was progressive. First, vv. 7:17-21 and 34bAT were added while proto-Masoretic traditions were only known by hearsay. Only later, under the direct influence of the LXX, the conclusion of proto-AT was completed with 7:35-52AT, before Addition E was finally inserted. Proto-Esther’s In light of these remarks, 33b-34a is the only part of 7:17-34 that could close Original Con- Proto-Esther without generating tension or introducing a motif without preparaclusion tion. Moreover, the formulations used in it are close to those in 8:8a, 10MT. Consequently, after 1:1-7:16AT the most probable end of Proto-Esther is formed from vv. 33b-34a, to which may be added 21bβ to make the connection.191

Proto-Masoretic Editing and the Emergence of the MT Chapters 8-10 are almost entirely a creation of proto-Masoretic editors, who wrote an entirely new ending to the narrative based on Proto-Esther’s original brief conclusion (7:15-16, 21bβ, 33b-34aAT). “Pluses” and variants of Chs. 8-10MT with regard to the end of Proto-Esther (7:15-16, 21bβ, 33b-34aAT )

8:1-2MT is written on the basis of 7:15AT and of some formulas from 7:13 (7:13AT “the king removed the ring from his hand” //8:2aMT; “The king called Mordecai” // 8:1bα; he “awarded him all that had been Haman’s” // 8:1a). 8:3-7MT is editorial, except for 8:5bα, concerning which the kernel is 7:16bAT: “That you revoke Haman’s letter.” 8:8b-9, 10bMT is an editorial “plus” from the MT. 8a and 10aMT present almost the same phraseology drawn from 7:33b-34a from Proto-Esther, heavier formulations are added in the MT in 8a “in the name of the king,” “concerning the Jews,” and “seal it with the king’s ring,” and in 10a “in the name of King Ahasuerus.” All of 8:11-10:3MT is a long editorial “plus.”

189 It is unknown whether “May it be so” from 19bβ concerns the death of Haman’s sons, requested in 19abα, or of all enemies (18). After 7:20, v. 21 seems to backtrack on the question raised in 7:19. The editorial history of these verses seems complex. One must probably distinguish two strata: one concerning the massacre of enemies (7:18, 19bβ, 20, 21aα) and the other concerning Haman’s sons (7:19a-bα, 21aβ-b). 190 7:33a is clearly connected to the insertion of Addition E. 191 That said, one cannot exclude that 33b-34a was inserted at the same time as 7:17-21, 34b. The original ending of Proto-Esther should then be 21bβ “And it was thus.”

Proto-Masoretic Editing and the Emergence of the MT

291

Proto-Masoretic Themes and Formulations The proto-Masoretic editors of Chapters 8-10 introduced three major motifs. The irrevocability of Persian laws and the counter-edict authorizing the Jews to defend themselves replace the simple revocation of the edict that appeared in Proto-Esther. By this, the editors emphasize the dysfunctioning of imperial power that is incapable of resolving problems. To this first problem is added that of the war of the Jews against their enemies. This vast conflict shows that for the editors of the MaccabeanHasmonean era, the taking up of arms is the only solution for the Jews to survive in light of the empire’s dysfunction along with the unremitting nature of the enemies of the Jews. Finally, the introduction of a commemorative festival, instituted by letters, to celebrate victory aims to create a nationalistic festival for all Jews. The establishment of this festival can be explained by the desire of Judean-Hasmonean groups in Palestine to invite the diaspora to join the nationalistic celebrations of which they are fond. The epilogue of Chapter 10 evokes the ideal situation of a kingdom where a Jew concerned for his own people is in power. The unity of Chapters 8-10 was sometimes contested, especially Chapters 910. In truth, numerous clues suggest that they were entirely written by the protoMasoretic editors responsible for Proto-Esther’s heavy revision. The editorial hand at work in Chapters 1-7 sets out the themes that are resolved in Chapters 8-10.

Proto-Masoretic Editing of Chapter 8 Chapter 8 reports an important new development since the reader becomes aware that Haman’s edict cannot be revoked, and an agressive counter-edict must be issued to contravene it. This dramatic blow is prepared by the Masoretic text of Chapters 1-7 so that the whole connects without hitch or incoherence.192 Large motifs upon which the proto-Masoretic editing of Chapters 1 to 7 insisted are followed and developed in Chapter 8. Moreover, the vocabulary and the prior proto-Masoretic editorial formulations are found in Chapter 8, which are thus probably from the same hand. The editors emphasize in Chapters 1-7 that the functioning of the Persian Empire is heavy, complex, and problematic. These different aspects are found in Chapter 8, which shows that Esther and Mordecai turn this complicated system to their advantage. The absurd formality of the relationships between the protagonists in the court is often emphasized in Chapters 1-7. The motif is found again at the beginning of Chapter 8, where the editors introduce Esther’s long and formal intervention before the king (3-6). She implores the king in 8:3, but a formal and official audience must be introduced (8:4) so that after having formulated her request according to protocol (8:5-6), she may obtain an answer (8:7-8). In the body of the Masoretic narrative (Chs. 1-7), the king is an easily-influenced character who delegates governmental responsibilities to his advisors. In

192

TROYER, End, 169-173, esp. 172 showed that 8:1-17MT is constructed like the preceding logical sequence of the MT. That said, it cannot be deduced that the MT is the work of one author alone. It is especially to passages that came from the proto-Masoretic reworking of Proto-Esther to which Ch. 8 refers. DE

The Functioning of the Empire Formality

An Easily-Influenced King

292

Dysfunction

Sending the Edict

Jewish Identity

ProtoMasoretic Literary Techniques

Diachronic Analysis. Chapters 8-10

8:3-6, Esther seeks to influence him with rhetoric similar to that which she used in Chapters 5 and 7.193 And, like Haman in Chapter 3, she gets a clean slate from the king to proclaim an edict (8:7-8). The government system is dysfunctional: a decree aims to control women, a beauty contest summons all the young women of the empire, a king’s rescuer is not thanked (2:21-3:1), and a decree aims to destroy the queen’s people. The impossibility of revoking an edict known to be unjust (8:8b) is the culmination of the dysfunction and unpredictability of the empire and its governmental system that cannot guarantee security and justice. For the editors of Chapter 8, the Jews must thus defend themselves. The final note of Proto-Esther, when the king agrees to revoke Haman’s edict and asks Mordecai (7:33b-34a) to inform the empire, is reworked in 8:9-14. The procedure is modeled on the sending of Haman’s edict in 3:12-15, which emphasized the power of an empire able to publicize its decrees on a very large scale. This time however, this powerful administration is used to publicize the authorization given to the Jews to defend themselves. At the beginning of Chapter 8, the editors emphasize that Mordecai obtains the attributes of royal power mentioned previously: the ring (3:10; 8:2) and the clothing (1:6; 8:15). Mordecai’s use of this power for the benefit of the Jews is one of the primary motifs of 8:9-10:3. In Proto-Esther (7:14-15AT), the king knew that Esther and Mordecai were kin, and took the initiative to give Haman’s possessions to Mordecai. In 8:1-2, the proto-Masoretic editors rework this aspect. It is Esther who informs the king of her kinship with Mordecai and who receives Haman’s possessions before giving them to Mordecai. Mordecai’s ascension and the deliverance of the Jews are thus possible because Esther accepts her connection and her solidarity with him and her people and reveals her Jewish identity. This important problem is prepared in Chs. 1-7 by the proto-Masoretic editors. Having wanted to mask their Jewish identity (2:10, 20), Mordecai reveals his in 3:4 and the queen in 7:3-4. Moreover, the theme of their solidarity is quite obvious in 2:11, 20 and in Chapters 4-7 where Esther risks her life for Mordecai and her people. Chapter 8 marks the resolution of the theme of the importance for Jews confronted by a foreign empire to reveal their identity and to stand in solidarity with their people. After having told of her close relationship to Mordecai the Jew (8:1), Esther reaffirms her connection to her people in 8:5-6. The chapter ends with the public triumph of a Jew (8:15a) and the call to Jews to be united (8:11, 17a), about which Jews and non-Jews rejoice (8:15b-17a).194 8:17b even affirms that this Jewish identity, now proudly accepted, provokes the envy of non-Jews to Judaize. Classic literary techniques of the proto-Masoretic editors are found in Chapter 8. As in the preceding narrative, the editors use chronological notes (8:1, 9) and remark on these dates.195 Titles like “Queen Esther,” “King Ahasuerus,” “Mordecai the Jew” in 8:1, 7 correspond to prior proto-Masoretic scribal practices (1:9-

193 The wording in 8:5-6 is close to that in 7:3-4. 194 Already in 4:3 and 3:15b, Jews and the people of Susa react with sadness at the destiny of the Jews. 195 8:9 can be explained by a reflection on the interval between the issuing of the two edicts.

Proto-Masoretic Editing and the Emergence of the MT

293

12; 5:3ff.; 7:2ff.). Finally, as in Chapters 1-7, intertextual references abound in Chapter 8. The issuing of Mordecai’s edict (Ch. 8) is parallel to Haman’s (Ch. 3), 3:15b and 4:3 are parallel to 8:15b-17, and the double expression “people” and “kindred” in 8:6 is found in 2:10, 20. Finally, there is an allusion to the Joseph story (Gen 44:34) in 8:6.

Proto-Masoretic Editing of 9:1-19 8:15-17, Mordecai’s triumph, the joy of the Jews, and the rallying of “many among the peoples” cannot be the conclusion of the book. The narrative of events occuring during the simultaneous implementation of the two edicts in 9:1-19 is required. The historical context of the editors appears clearly since the conflict between the Jews and their enemies is based on the model of the Maccabean wars. The way the empire is described derives from its pejorative presentation in the prior Masoretic narrative. Even if the imperial elites support the Jews (9:3), conforming to what was foreseen in 8:11, the Jews can only count on themselves for defense. This coheres with the first eight chapters that showed that neither hiding one’s identity nor even acting with cunning and courage within the Persian court would permit saving the Jews. The empire is too dysfunctional. For the proto-Masoretic editors of 9:1-19, only an armed resistance comparable to that of the Maccabean combatants is adequate in the extreme situation in which a dysfunctional foreign empire threatens the Jews.196 Several other aspects of Chapters 1-8 find their resolution in 9:1-19. The date of the conflict, the thirteenth of Adar, corresponds to that foreseen by the decrees of Chapters 3 and 8. The vocabulary in the edict authorizing the Jews to defend themselves (8:9-13) is found in the description of the conflict in 9:2, 5, 11, 15, 16, and 18. The authorities who support the Jews in 9:3 are the same as those who receive the edicts (3:9, 12; 8:9). Mordecai’s elevation in 8:1-2 and 15-17 explains the rallying of the elites in 9:3-4. In 5:11, Haman describes his glory and speaks of his sons; their death and their hanging (9:7-10, 13-14) is the last thing he had not yet lost in Chapters 7 and 8. The hanging of the sons (9:13-14) corresponds to that of the father (7:10). The king’s inquiry about what Esther wishes in 9:12 occurs logically after his same inquiry previously in 5:3, 6; and 7:2. The “rest” that Haman did not want to grant to the Jews in 3:8 (“it is not fair for the king to let them be”) is now granted to them (9:16-18). Finally, the pair of Jewish banquets in 9:17-18 corresponds to the pair of Persian banquets in 1:3-8. Finally, as in Chapter 8, several proto-Masoretic editorial literary techniques are found in 9:1-19. There is the list of Persian-sounding names for Haman’s ten sons (cf. the lists of proper names in 1:10 and 14). Moreover, numerical calculation of the seventy-five thousand killed in the empire197 reflects the same concern with numerical calculations by the proto-Masoretic editors regarding the dates in 2:16 and 8:9.198

196 See the commentary on 9:1-19 § The Violence in Question. 197 See the commentary on 9:16. 198 See the Introduction § E.2.1. The Chronological System of the Masoretic Text.

The Jews and the Empire

9:1-19 As the Following of Chapters 1-8MT

ProtoMasoretic Literary Techniques

294 Attribution of 9:1-19 to the Editors of 18MT

Diachronic Analysis. Chapters 8-10

We have shown above that 9:1-19 form the logical and necessary sequence of Chapters 1-8MT and that proto-Masoretic editorial techniques are found there.199 However, it is clear that the proto-Masoretic editors did not write 9:1-19 in the form that we now know it. 9:1b-2a and 5 – absent from the LXX and the OL – are probably late insertions and 9:19 is a gloss subsequent to the first elaboration of the chapter.200 The proto-Masoretic text of this section thus only contained 9:1a, 3-4, 6-18.

Proto-Masoretic Editing of 9:20-28

ProtoMasoretic Literary Techniques Attributing 9:20-28 to the Editors of 19:18MT

After having described the combat between the Jews and their enemies in a way that evokes the battle of the Maccabees against the general Nicanor (9:1-18), 9:20-28 institutes festivities. This “innovation” can be explained by the desire of the editors to promote the Hasmonean nationalistic festival of the Day of Nicanor in the Jewish diaspora. To do this, they rely on Proto-Esther, a narrative known in diaspora circles, and complete it so that it ends with a battle resembling the Maccabean wars. They also complete it by instituting a ceremony commemorating these events on the fourteenth and fifteenth of Adar, the two days that follow the celebration of the Day of Nicanor (Adar 13). Thus they create a three day nationalistic festival that calls to mind warlike episodes concerning both the Jews of Palestine and of the diaspora. The goal resembles that of the editors of the festal letters that open 2 Maccabees, inviting the diaspora to celebrate the Maccabean rededication of the Jerusalem Temple. It is a matter of promoting Hasmonean rituals within the diaspora. Paradoxically, the festival of Purim “constructed” to spread the spirit of the Day of Nicanor within the diaspora is such a success after the fall of the Second Temple, that it eclipsed the celebration it was supposed to promote, which lost its importance. Proto-Masoretic literary techniques are found in 9:20-28. In 9:22 one finds allusions to Nehemiah 8 and to the prophecies of glorious return of the exiles to Zion, which shows that the editors support their remarks by referring to the era of the rebuilders of post-exilic Jerusalem. They use an editorial technique often present in Masoretic Esther – numerous allusions to the history of Israel.201 Several commentators consider Esth 9:20-28 to be secondary and a late appendix to the body of the work.202 This opinion is supported by the fact that 9:17-19, which suggests that the fourteenth and fifteenth of Adar are annual festival days,

199 The attribution of this section to the same editors has been contested, however, especially by Clines. See CLINES, Scroll, 39-49, followed by DOROTHY, Books, 315-320, 336-338, WAHL, Esther, 178 ff., and, with caution, that by BEAL, “Esther,” 107-108. The method of “Chi-square” of Cornelius B. HOUK, “Syllable-Word Patterns in Esther,” ZAW 115 (2003), 578-585 seems to support Clines. MEINHOLD, Esther, 13 situates the beginning of the appendices in 9:5. The argument of Clines was refuted by FOX, Redaction, 110-115 and BUSH, Esther, 458-460. 200 This insertion explains the special Purim practices of certain Jewish groups. 201 See the Introduction § C.4. Allusions and References to Other Biblical Texts and BERLIN, Esther, xxxvi-xli. 202 This hypothesis, defended since the eighteenth century (cf. DE TROYER, End, 20-22), is accepted by CLINES, Scroll, 50-63; FOX, Redaction, 100; MEINHOLD, Esther, 12-14 and WAHL, Esther, 178 ff. Arguing the opposite: Bruce William JONES, “The So-Called Appendix to the Book of Esther,” Semitics 6 (1978), 36-43; GERLEMAN, Esther, 137; FOX, Redaction, 99105; PATON, Esther, 60.

Proto-Masoretic Editing and the Emergence of the MT

295

is an acceptable ending to the narrative and that 9:20-28 develops a new problem concerning the manner in which the festivities are instituted. Moreover, tensions seem to appear between verses 20-28 and their context. In 9:20, 21, 27, and 28 all Jews seem called upon to celebrate both the fourteenth and fifteenth of Adar, while in 17-19, they only celebrate one of these two days, depending on their location. Sending gifts to the poor is mentioned in 9:22, but not in 9:19. Finally, the historical summary of vv. 24-25 can seem contradictory to the narrative that it is supposed to be summarizing. These tensions are not significant and these verses share in the dynamics of the proto-Masoretic form of the work. It is true that Esth 9:20-28 institutes for all Jews both festival days on Adar 14 and 15, which is in tension with the Purim practices codified later in rabbinic texts. However, at the end of Esther’s protoMasoretic text, it is perfectly comprehensible that a two-day festival celebrates simultaneously the deliverance that took place in Susa (9:18) and that which took place elsewhere in the empire (9:17).203 On the other hand, the analysis of 9:2425 shows that there is no tension with the earlier narrative. These verses simply attribute to Mordecai a presentation of events highlighting the action of the king, which is perfectly logical in the proto-Masoretic literary context.

Editorial Process and Textual History of 9:29-32 The editorial process of verses mentioning the confirmation of the Purim letters of 9:29-32 is complex and uncertain. They are often considered a secondary addition.204 Several clues lead in this direction. 9:28 is a satisfying conclusion to the book and 9:29-32 only confirm in a redundant fashion the instructions given previously. Moreover, unlike the rest of the MT, this passage is syntactically very difficult. Finally, 9:29-32 is absent in Josephus and in the OL, while in the LXX it varies considerably. That said, the secondary nature of the first editorial step of 9:29-32 can be contested.205 Indeed, the confirmation by 9:29-32 of the letters of 9:20-28 can be explained by a desire to stress the importance of the application of these letters. Moreover, 9:29-32 indicates that Esther intervenes in their publication, which is not surprising. The characters of Esther and Mordecai are complementary and in the preceding verses, she already complemented Mordecai’s work by adding one day of massacre to the one he had instituted (9:12-15). Finally, the textual question is not determinative. Josephus and the OL perhaps omitted a passage judged to be superfluous and the difficulties connected to the significance of the passage can be explained by its complex textual history. The LXX thus perhaps reflects the contents originally written by Esther’s proto-Masoretic editors. 29 Queen Esther daughter of Aminadab and Mordecai the Jew wrote, with all authority, Prototo confirm this missive of “Purim.” 31 What had been instituted upon them [the Jews, Masoretic Text of 9:29-32

203 9:19 is a late gloss (see the commentary). 204 BERLIN, Esther, 91-92; CLINES, Scroll, 55-56, 166-7; HAUPT, “Notes,” 172; LOEWENSTAMM, “9:2932,” 117; MEINHOLD, Esther, 93; MOORE, Esther, 95. 205 See BARDTKE, “Esther,” 397-401; BUSH, Esther, 469-472; FOX, Redaction, 105-107; STRIEDL, “Syntax,” 101-102.

296

Diachronic Analysis. Chapters 8-10 in 9:20-28], Mordecai and Queen Esther instituted [again] upon their lives. 32 And Esther’s command confirmed these words. It was written in the book.206

This text has a relatively clear argument. It opens in 9:29 with the assertion that Esther and Mordecai write to confirm Mordecai’s missive; in 9:29b, the expression “this missive of Purim” refers to 9:20-28. 9:31 follows by specifying that what Mordecai had sent to the Jews, the two had instituted together. Finally, 9:32 concludes by emphasizing that Esther thus also instituted Purim. A secondary scribal intervention produced the form of the MT that we know. The term “second” was added in 9:29 to stress that Esther and Mordecai compose a second document. 9:30 and 31MT reuse the contents in the Vorlage of the LXX by adding to it elements that also underline that it concerns a second text instituting Purim. 9:30a introduces the motif of the sending the document and 9:30b and 31b indicate that this second missive contains “words of peace and of stability” and “words of fasting and their lamentations.” The beginning of 9:31aMT has to do with a detail on the function of this second missive that consists of (re-) “institut[ing] these days of Purim in their fixed times.”

Proto-Masoretic Editing of 10:1-3 This last episode logically concludes the narrative. It depicts an ideal imperial world in which the dysfunctions denounced throughout the narrative have disappeared. The king practices a policy of resource acquisition that is coherent and just. Instead of squandering the resources of the empire, he collects taxes. He does not envisage financing his kingdom to the detriment of a particular group, such as the Jews. Mordecai, who had saved the king (2:21-23; 6:2-3), has gained the position he merits. Finally, all desire to hide one’s Jewish origins has now disappeared; “Mordecai the Jew” is installed to power and governs openly in favor of his people. This picture of an empire with a Jewish leader in a governmental position corresponds to the ambition of circles close to Esther’s proto-Masoretic editors. The development of a powerful Hasmonean kingdom in Judea in the second century BCE, benevolent toward the Jews and in control of a large territory, corresponds to the program described by Esth 10:1-3 so that the power of the Maccabean-Hasmonean leaders in Jerusalem can be understood as the heir to that of Mordecai. 10:1-3 is a logical conclusion to the narrative. Even if this episode is situated after the primary plot, there is no need for a late addition to the proto-Masoretic narrative.207 During the era of the proto-Masoretic editing of Esther, comparable epilogues are found in Judith or Tobit. Closing a narrative with an epilogue in which the story leads to an ideal situation is a classic literary technique.

206 For the textual state implied by the LXX, see the textual notes. 207 Contra CLINES, Scroll, 57-60, the general taxation and the protection of the Jews by Mordecai are neither unexpected nor incoherent with regard to the earlier narrative.

The Greek Translations and the Late Modifications of the MT

297

The Greek Translations and the Late Modifications of the MT Corrections to the MT Subsequent to the Translation of the LXX The LXX translator worked freely and several differences from the MT can be explained by choices in translation.208 Several modifications took place following scribal interventions on the Hebrew text subsequent to the translation of the LXX.209 In 8:1, “oppressor of the Jews” was introduced, replacing the term “adversary” in the LXX with the equivalent Hebrew, to harmonize Haman’s designations. In 8:7, a note signals the presence of Mordecai and in 8:10a-a and 14a-a erudite information about horse teams is introduced. In 8:15 “purple and lace” are added to emphasize the parallelism between Mordecai’s clothing and the decor described in 1:6. A copyist probably corrected the chronological note attested by 8:9LXX so that the period of tribulations of the Jews connected to Haman’s edict would last seventy days.210 Other later corrections to the Greek translations are connected to Haman’s identification as an Amalekite, following a copyist accident in 3:1 when the “proud” becomes the “Agagite.”211 9:1-5MT testifies to editing in two-steps. Verses 1b-2a and 5, absent from the LXX and the OL, are late insertions that clarify points from Chapter 8 without changing the overall sense of the text: the Jews were to be attacked on that day (9:1b); they gathered together to defend themselves (9:2a); and they acted violently against those who wanted to harm them (9:5).212 In 9:24 the verb ‫ המם‬hummam “to collapse,” absent from the LXX (textual note 9:24b) could be a late scribal correction to create a word play on Haman’s name. A similar phenomenon appears in 1:8a with ‫והשׁתיה‬. The proper names often differ between the MT and the versions. In the case of “Purim,” the orthography of the term in the Hebrew text underlying the versions is uncertain (textual notes 9:26a; 9:28a). As in 2:15, in 9:29 a copyist perhaps wanted to emphasize the parallelism between the Esther narrative and that of David and Abigail (1 Sam 25) by correcting the name of Esther’s “biological” father.213 Verses 9:29-32 underwent profound rearrangements after the proto-Masoretic editing to which the LXX testifies.214 These rearrangements

208 A part of variant choices in translation of the LXX are mentioned in the textual notes of verses 8:5a-a(?); 8:6b; 8:9c-c(?); 8:11a; 9:10a; 9:10b; 9:23b-b, 24a-a; 9:25a; 10:1b, c-c. For other variants see KAHANA, Esther. 209 For other scribal interventions post-LXX see 8:5a-a(?); 8:9c-c (?); 8:16a-a. 210 See the textual note 8:9a-a and the Introduction § E.2.1. The Chronological System of the Masoretic Text. 211 It concerns mentions of Haman’s Agagite origins and of his connection with the oppression of the Jews in 8:1, 3, 5; 9:10, and 24. See the commentary on 3:1 § Haman the Agagite according to the MT. 212 The vocabulary presents some unique peculiarities in the book of Esther: ‫ שׁלט‬,‫ שׂבר‬in 9:1b ‫ מבקשׁי רעתם‬in 9:2a and ‫ נכה‬, ‫חרב‬, ‫ הרג‬, ‫ אבדן‬in 9:5. 213 He changes the original Amminadab (or Abinadab) to Abihail. See the textual note on 2:15a and the commentary on this verse. The same type of textual correction is in 1:8 to make a play on words with Vashti. 214 Addition of “second” in 9:29 and reworking of 9:30-31. See § Editorial Process and Textual History of 9:29-32.

298

Synthesis

aimed to emphasize the contents of the letters. The allusions to Zech 8:19 correspond well to the literary techniques of late scribes, who knew the biblical text well and who were eager to establish intertextual links. Finally, 10:2215 underwent a late expansion. It points out that, like the king’s glory, the glory of Mordecai appeared in the annals. Moreover, reference is made to the Persian annals by a formula typically used to designate the annals of Judah and Israel in the books of Kings.

The Outcome of the Greek Translations The Alpha Text According to the model defended here,216 the Greek translation of Proto-Esther of which the AT preserves a trace in its chapters 1:1–7:16, 21bβ, 33b-34 (without Additions A-F), would have been completed in several steps. First, vv. 7:17-21, 34bAT would have been composed on the basis of an imprecise knowledge of the contents of the proto-Masoretic conclusion of the work. Second, under the direct influence of the LXX of 8:15-10:3, 7:39-52AT would have been added. In addition, under the influence of Addition E, vv. 7:35-38AT would have been written. And only finally, Addition E would have been added into the AT between 7:21 and 7:33AT. Addition F also would have been added late into this Greek Text.

The LXX The case of the LXX text is simpler, since it is the result of the proto-Masoretic Hebrew text of Esther, to which Additions E and F were added.

Synthesis The proto-Masoretic editors of Esther rework the brief kernel that originally ended Proto-Esther (7:15-16, 21bβ, 33b-34AT). They write practically all of Chapters 8 to 10. Only a few verses were inserted afterwards (primarily 9:1b-2a, 5, 19, 3031*). The way these editors present the denouement of the narrative – the military triumph of the Jews against their enemies and the festivities that follow – undoubtedly shows their conviction that, in the face of an oppressive foreign empire, recourse to an army capable of inspiring fear in one’s enemies may be desirable. In the intellectual context in which these editors reworked the narrative of Esther, this conviction is not purely theoretical or theological. Indeed, the insurrection of Maccabean groups during the second century BCE brought several important successes against the Seleucid Empire. In one sense, the last part of the book of Esther presents Mordecai as a precursor of Maccabean-Hasmonean heroes, and the narrative of the conflict against the enemies of the Jews in Esther 9 evokes those of the books of the Maccabees.

215 Textual note 10:2b-b. 216 See above § The Original Conclusion of Proto-Esther and Late Sections of the AT.

The Additions In light of the importance of the six additions in the Greek and Latin translations, a brief presentation and analysis of them is appropriate.1 Questions about the introduction of the additions, their insertion into the Greek texts of Esther, dating, and editorial context are addressed in the general introduction of the commentary.2 Recall that these additions were inserted late and they already constitute a commentary to the Esther narrative. They probably date at the earliest from the second century BCE and do not all emanate from the same locale. Their views on the situation of Jews in a foreign court, on the theological significance of the narrative, and on its characters often diverge from the MT. The additions are discussed in some biblical commentaries and monographs.3

Addition A,1-11. Mordecai’s Dream Translation of the Greek Text from the LXX (English translation of TOB). Other enumerations: 1:1a-1:1l LXX according to RALPHS and 11:2-12 in the Vulg.

1 The second year of the reign of Artaxerxes the Great, the first day of Nisan, Mordecai had a dream. Descendant of Iairos, of Semeias, of Kisaios, born of the tribe of Benjamin, 2 Mordecai was a Jew residing in Susa; he was an important person serving in the court of the king. 3 Now, he was among those whom Nabouchodonosor, King of Babylon, had deported from Jerusalem with Iechonias, the king of Judea. 4 Mordecai had this dream: Here are clamors and tumult, rumblings and earthquake, upheaval upon the earth. 5 Here are two great dragons, they advance, both ready to fight. They let out a loud cry; 6 at their cry, every nation prepares for combat, so as to wage war against a nation of righteous ones. 7 Here is a day of darkness and obscurity, distress and anxiety, oppression and great upheaval upon the earth. 8 It is disrupted, the righteous nation in its entirety, frightened of its misfor-

1

2

3

Presented here is an English translation of TOB with some corrections. The differences between the LXX, the AT, and the Latin translations are only briefly discussed (for translations of the different textual versions see CAVALIER, Esther; NETS; KRAUS / KARRER, Septuaginta. For a comparison with LXX/AT see JOBES, Alpha-Text). See in particular the following: A.2. The Textual Witnesses; A.3.4. The Additions in the LXX and the AT; B.2.9. The Contexts of Production of the Additions and Other Textual Forms of the Work; and D.2. The Greek Versions, Structure and Themes. Commentaries: BARDTKE, “Esther”; BECHTEL, Esther; JARICK, “Greek”; KOTTSIEPER, “Zusätze”; LEVENSON, Esther; MITTMANN-RICHERT, “Zusätze”; MOORE, Additions; PATON, Esther; SCHILDENBERGER, Esther; DE TROYER / WACKER, “Esther”; WHITE CRAWFORD, “Additions.” Other works: BOYD-TAYLOR, “additions”; CLINES, Scroll; CAVALIER, Esther; DOROTHY, Books; FOX, Redaction; JOBES, Alpha-Text; KOSSMANN, Esthernovelle; MOORE, “Origins”; DE TROYER, End; VIALLE, analyse.

300

Addition A,1-11. Mordecai’s Dream

tunes; it readied to be annihilated, 9 it cries out to God. Now, from this cry, comes forth, as from a small spring, a great river, abundant water. 10 A light rises in addition to the sun. Then the humble are exalted and devour the nobles. 11 Once he was awake, Mordecai, who had seen this dream and what God had decided to do, kept this in his heart and, until night, he desired to understand it by all means. The Alpha Text

In the AT, the text of Addition A,1-11 is very close to the LXX. Most of the formulations are identical. However, in v. 1, the AT indicates the date of events differently, and in v. 2 there is no mention that Mordecai resides at the citadel of Susa and serves the king. Moreover, in vv. 6 and 8 the righteous nation and the hostility of other nations toward it are not mentioned. The general sense of v. 11LXX is close to that of 9-11AT; the latter is more developed, however, and the Greek syntax differs significantly between the two texts.

Dream and In- In the Greek versions, the book of Esther is framed by a dream and its interpretaterpretation tion. At the opening, Addition A,1-11 reports that Mordecai has a dream whose

Divine Action

Mordecai

A,1-3

Artaxerxes

Double Genealogy

meaning escapes him. At the end of the book, Addition F,1-10 reports that he remembers this dream and interprets it as premonitory, that it had announced the events described during the narrative. This premonitory dream narrative affects the understanding of the primary narrative. While the primary narrative only discreetly refers to divine action and to the piety of the protagonists,4 the dream adds a theological dimension to the events. Indeed, this dream, which A,11 specifies as “what God had decided to do,” assumes that the favorable events over the course of the narrative are part of a plan that is foreseen and determined in advance by God.5 The presence of this first episode at the opening of the narrative emphasizes Mordecai’s dominant position. He is presented from the start and acts even before Esther is mentioned. In addition, he receives a dream like other great biblical figures such as Joseph and Daniel. Verses 1 to 3 date the beginning of the narrative and introduce Mordecai. The episode takes place at the beginning of the month of Nisan in the second year of the Persian king Artaxerxes, one year before the “common narrative” begins. In the biblical context, Nisan, the first month of the year, calls to mind the salvific events of the exodus. While the MT situates the narrative under Ahasuerus – that is, under Xerxes – the Greek translation of the LXX always writes Artaxerxes Ἀρταξέρξης, the Greek name of three other Persian kings, while the AT calls the king Ἀσσυήρος, undoubtedly on the basis of the transliteration of the Hebrew name. In the Greek texts, Mordecai’s genealogy and his connection to the deportation are found in A,1-3 and in 2:5-6. This doublet is strange, because usually such information is given only at the first appearance of a character. One may think that after the insertion of Addition A, the information in 2:5-6 has become useless,

4 5

The MT does not mention God, but the Greek texts do: in 2:20; 4:8; 6:1, 13 in the LXX and in 4:14; 4:16; 6:1, 22; 7:2 in the AT. This point is emphasized by LEVENSON, Esther, 40 and MIDDLEMAS, “Greek,” 156.

Addition A,1-11. Mordecai’s Dream

301

but the text of the “common narrative” was too stable for what now was the second occurrence of Mordecai’s genealogy to be omitted. It is unlikely that Mordecai was actually deported by Nabuchodonosor, for, if so, he would have been at least one hundred and thirty years old by the time of Artaxerxes. The Greek formulation can nevertheless mean that Mordecai is a member of the community of deportees.6 Verse 2 mentions two things that are not explicitly indicated when Mordecai is presented in Chapter 2. He is a functionary in the king’s court, a social locale that, in the “common narrative,” is implied by his strolls to the palace (2:11) and which is mentioned in 2:19LXX. Moreover, he is described as an “important person,”7 a point not presumed by the common narrative in which Mordecai only joins the social elite in Chapter 8. Mordecai’s dream is structured in three parts separated by the phrase καὶ A,4-11 ἰδοὺ “here”: a cosmic upheaval takes place (4), followed by two dragons who prepare for battle by leading nations (5-6). Finally, distress comes and then leads to prospects of deliverance (7-10). This dream has obvious apocalyptic characteristics. The scenario reports the Apocalyptic coming of a period of cosmic crisis and chaos marked by the presence of monstrous Characteristics figures (the dragons). A general conflict among nations is added to the motif of cosmic chaos, evoked by the noise, the quaking of the earth (4), and obscurity (7). In Addition A of the LXX, the mention of military conflict is more precise than in the AT and indicates that all nations prepare to attack a righteous nation. The final situational reversal is associated with God’s intervention (9a): this beneficial action is described symbolically with the image of a spring, a river, light, and sun. The whole results in the affirmation of the triumph of the humble over the powerful (nobles) assuming the happy ending of the crisis evoked by the dream. This narrative evokes several prophetic and apocalyptic biblical texts. In particular, the vocabulary describing the upheavals, the noises, the obscurity, and the quaking of the earth in vv. 4-7 is found in texts such as Isa 24:17-20; Joel 2:10-11; and Zeph 1:15.8 Mordecai’s dream also calls to mind the visions of Daniel (Dan 7-12) that describe conflicts implicating monstrous figures and nations. Moreover, as in the case of Additions A and F, in the book of Daniel the apocalyptic visions are grafted onto a narrative (Dan 1-6) taking place in a foreign court. Where the dragons are concerned, in the LXX, they are always harmful and dangerous figures.9 The symbols of the spring, the stream, and the light here seem absolutely positive, although the “great river” of abundant water could also evoke a powerful and dangerous force. The people’s cry to God is a classical biblical motif that often leads to divine intervention, especially in the book of Exodus and Judges when the Israelites cry out to God (Exod 2:23-25; Judg 3:9).

6 7 8 9

A,3: ἦν δὲ ἐκ τῆς αἰχμαλωσίας ἧς ᾐχμαλώτευσεν Ναβουχοδονοσορ could be rendered “He was among the captives that Nebuchadnezzar had captured.” The expression ἄνθρωπος μέγας appears to designate Nabal as wealthy (1 Sam 25:2LXX). See BECHTEL, Esther, 89; MOORE, Additions, 176-177. The term sometimes designates dangerous animals such as snakes (Exod 7:9; Deut 32:33), but most often it represents monstrous and mythical creatures (Isa 27:1; Ps 73:13-14). They sometimes symbolize foreign sovereigns (Ezek 29:3), or even evil (2 Bar 29:3-8; Rev 12:3). Cf. MOORE, Additions, 176 and WHITE CRAWFORD, “Additions,” 948.

302

Addition A,12-17. The Eunuchs’ First Plot

The symbolic elements and the vocabulary, as well as the global scenario of the crisis, do not correspond to a particular situation. They could fit other literary contexts besides the book of Esther.10 Consequently, the need to interpret visions that characterizes most apocalyptic texts is mentioned in A,11. Mordecai wonders about the significance of this dream and it will not be until the end of the narrative, in Addition F, that he interprets it. Mordecai’s behavior draws him close to the two great biblical figures of Joseph and Daniel. Like Daniel, he wonders about the meaning of his dream (Dan 7:15, 28). And, like Daniel and Joseph, he is able to interpret a dream (Dan 2 and 4; Gen 40-41). The self-interpretation of the dream is, however, unique to Mordecai. At this stage in the narrative, thanks to this addition, the reader has a key to the reading of the book: that God is at work behind the events.

Addition A,12-17. The Eunuchs’ First Plot Translation of the Greek text from the LXX (translation TOB lightly modified and translated into English). Other enumerations of the passage: 1:1m-1:1r LXX according to RALPHS and 12:1-6 in the Vulg.

12 Then Mordecai had a rest in the court in the company of Gabatha and Tharra, the two royal eunuchs who guarded the court. 13 He then heard them speak of their machinations and sought to know what they were planning: he learned that they were preparing to lay hands upon King Artaxerxes. He denounced them to the king. 14 The king interrogated the two eunuchs who, after having confessed, were arrested. 15 The king had these things written down so that they would be remembered; Mordecai also wrote them down. 16 Then the king gave orders to Mordecai to remain in the service of the court, and he rewarded him with gifts for what he had accomplished. 17 There was also Haman son of Hammedatha, the proud, a noble of the king. For the affair of the two royal eunuchs, he sought to injure Mordecai and his people. The Alpha Text

In the AT, the general meaning and the organization of Addition A,12-17 are close to the LXX. However, several significant differences appear. In v. 13, the AT does not mention that Mordecai conducts an investigation, but indicates explicitly that he is benevolent. In 16AT Mordecai becomes the guardian of the gate and in 17AT he receives Haman, identified as a Macedonian, as recompense.11 Moreover, the syntax and the

10 For example, one could imagine such a vision within the book of Daniel (Ch. 7 ff.) in which monstrous beasts symbolize empires and in which a war is waged on a group assimilated to Israel. 11 Noah HACHAM, “Haman, Mordekhai’s Slave,” ZAW 122 (2010), 96-101 points out that this tradition is attested in rabbinic literature.

Addition A,12-17. The Eunuchs’ First Plot

303

Greek terminology vary much more than in the rest of the additions, so that a direct dependence between the Greek of the two traditions is uncertain.12

Addition A,12-17 describes an episode similar to the one that, in the “common narrative,” appears after Esther’s enthronement in 2:21-23. Mordecai learns about a plot against the king fomented by two eunuchs and denounces it. The king verifies the information, sanctions the eunuchs, and records the events. The proper names of the eunuchs in the Greek texts of this addition resemble the Hebrew names of the eunuchs in 2:21-23MT.13 In the LXX, even though this episode is a doublet with 2:21-23, it could be understood as a separate event implicating other eunuchs. Indeed, the names of the eunuchs implicated in the “second” plot are mentioned neither in Chapter 2 nor in Chapter 6 of the LXX. Evidently, when Addition A was inserted, the presence of the similar episode that now appears two chapters later was not considered so troublesome for the “second” plot to be pulled from the Greek text.14 Addition A was probably composed as a form of midrashic rewriting of the episode in Chapter 2.15 Indeed, this episode develops, clarifies, and specifies several aspects about which 2:21-23 remained silent. Verses 12 and 13 provide the circumstances that drive Mordecai to discover the plot; he is in the court in the company of the two conspirators and hears their machinations. His intervention is more active than in Chapter 2 since it is by conducting an inquiry (he “sought to know” ἐξηρεύνησεν) that he learns about the plot. Addition A is placed before Esther’s enthronement. Consequently, contrary to what happens in 2:21-23 where Mordecai informs the king of the threat through Esther’s intervention, in A,13b he does it himself. This implies that at the beginning of the narrative, Mordecai is already a courtier important enough to have direct access to the sovereign. The king questions the eunuchs, condemns them, and records the events in writing (14). However, contrary to Chapter 2, the king rewards Mordecai with gifts and strengthens his position in the court (16). The motif of royal ingratitude that in the MT prepares for Mordecai’s elevation in Chapter 6 is thus absent from

12 See FROLOV, “Eunuchs,” for whom A,12-17LXX and A,12-17AT translate (and rework) a common Hebrew original, itself constructed on the content of the MT of 2:21-23. This part of Addition A is absent from the Antiquities of JOSEPHUS and from the OL. 13 Γαβαθα and Θαρρα from the LXX seem to constitute a deformation of the Hebrew ‫בגתן‬ Bigthan and ‫ תרשׁ‬Teresh. In the AT the names Αστάος and Θεδεύτος are less similar to the Hebrew names. 14 On the other hand, in the AT, no eunuchs’ plot is mentioned in Chapter 2. The question whether in the proto-AT (or the Proto-Esther) a narrative regarding a plot was present in Chapter 2 before being removed during the addition or whether, on the other hand, no narrative regarding a plot was present in it is discussed in the commentary on Chapter 2. 15 This is the majority opinion; cf. FROLOV, “Eunuchs”; LEVENSON, Esther, 41; MOORE, Additions, 180; WHITE CRAWFORD, “Additions,” 950-951. The proposal by HACHAM, “Bigthan,” for whom an episode regarding a plot appearing in 2:21-23 would have been moved and reworked to be inserted at the beginning of the Greek book before being reintroduced (and reworked) in 2:21-23LXX, does not deviate radically from the majority opinion. On the other hand, KOSSMANN, Esthernovelle, 76-104 defends the anteriority of Add. A,12-16AT based on the other occurrences of the narrative of the plot.

A,12-17LXX and 2:21-23LXX

Presents for Mordecai

304

Addition B,1-7. The Edict of Annihilation

Addition A. Strangely, in A,15b Mordecai behaves like the king and also takes note of events. Haman The end of the passage introduces Haman. As elsewhere in the LXX, he is described as the son of Hammedatha, the proud.16 Moreover, he is immediately presented as a “noble of the king,” an important character in the Persian court. The second part of v. 17 introduces information without equivalent in the narrative and in tension with it. Indeed, A,17 presents an alternative explanation for Haman’s willingness to harm Mordecai. Contrary to Chapter 3, where Haman’s hatred is explained by Mordecai’s refusal to prostrate before him, in Addition A Haman begins to detest him because Mordecai saves the king from the eunuchs’ plot. This suggests that Haman knows of the plot, or, at least, that he is among those who would agree with the king’s assassination. Loyalty to the The rewriting in Addition A of the episode of the eunuchs’ plot underlines King Mordecai’s loyalty toward the Persian king and makes Haman’s character darker; he represents seditious people who hate the Jews because of their loyalty to the king. Such a presentation of Mordecai’s loyalty to the king and of the danger of Haman corresponds well enough to the implicit message in the “common narrative.”17 Moreover, Addition E shows that the Jews are, contrary to their enemies, loyal servants of the ruler. Such a reworking of the narrative of Esther could be explained by a Jewish diaspora context where Jews were loyal to a foreign imperial power and suffered criticism for it.18

Addition B,1-7. The Edict of Annihilation Translation of the Greek text from the LXX (translation TOB lightly modified and translated into English). Other enumerations of the passage: 3:13a-3:13g LXX according to RALPHS and 13:1-7 in the Vulg.

1 Concerning this letter, here is the copy: “The Greak King Artaxerxes, to the ministers and subordinate prefects of the hundred twenty-seven provinces from India to Ethiopia, writes the following: 2 I who extend my empire over many nations and my power over the entire earth, I wanted – without being intoxicated with the pride of power, but on the contrary always governing in a measured fashion and with benevolence – to maintain for all time without

16 On Βουγαῖος see the commentary on 3:1. In the AT, his description as Macedonian suggests that he is an enemy of the Persian king in reference to Add. E,14. 17 In the “common narrative” Mordecai saves the king (2:21-23) and Esther is presented as being very concerned about his wellbeing (Ch. 7). Only Haman presents the Jews as dangerous, and he does this in a fallacious speech (3:8-9). As for Haman, the narrative forges a character whose hubris seems to drive him to see himself as the king (see his attitudes in 5:9-14; 6:6-9; and ironically in 7:7-8). 18 HACHAM, “Bigthan,” 352-356 situates this in the Alexandrian diaspora. He envisages a dating in the Roman era, but considers a dating in the last part of the Ptolemaic era in the first century BCE more likely.

Addition B,1-7. The Edict of Annihilation

305

upheaval the life of my subjects, to make the kingdom civilized and feasible to the borders, to restore the peace to which all persons aspire. 3 When I consulted my counselors to know how to achieve these goals, the one who, among us, is distinguished by wisdom, who constantly gave evidence of his good offices and of a certain loyalty, who obtained the title of second in the kingdom, Haman, 4 showed us that, among all the tribes spread over the earth, there is mingled a kind of malicious people, opposed in their laws to every nation, people who continually reject royal ordinances so that the common government that we are leading with righteousness and in irreproachable fashion cannot be established. 5 Having thus grasped that this nation is the only one to place itself in continual opposition to all people, that it sets itself apart by behaving according to foreign laws, and that, hostile to our affairs, it commits the worst misdeeds – and that, so that the kingdom will not find stability: 6 consequently, we order that what Haman indicates to you in writing, attendant of affairs and for us a second father, that all those be radically annihilated, including women and children, by the sword of their enemies, without any pity or regard, the fourteenth day of the twelth month (Adar) of the present year, 7 so that the opposers of yesterday and today, rushed violently to the underworld, in a single day, assure us for the time to come of affairs that are completely stable and without upheaval.” In the AT, the text of Addition B is very close to the LXX. The majority of the Greek The Alpha formulations are identical. The primary differences in vocabulary and syntax occur at Text the end of vv. 4 and 7.19

In the Greek versions, after the sending of an edict ordering the destruction of the Jews of the empire (3:13), Addition B reports its contents. An identical phenomenon occurs during the sending of the counter-edict in Addition E. These two additions were designed to correspond to one another. The Greek style in these two additions is more literary than the Greek transla- Greek Syntax tion in the remainder of the Greek texts of Esther.20 Moreover, numerous phrases in Addition B are taken from the Greek text of the “common narrative.”21 This implies that these passages were from the outset composed in reference to the Greek translation of Esther.22 Addition B presents a well-organized speech against the Jews that develops a clever rhetoric. The “quality” of the sender of the edict and of his advisor, as well

19 Moreover, in v. 1, the “subordinate prefects” τοπάρχαις in the LXX are “satraps” σατράπαις in the AT. 20 This linguistic analysis finds consensus. See MOORE, “Origins”; MARTIN, “Syntax.” However, JOBES, Alpha-Text, 7-47 and App. 3 remain prudent considering the brevity of the passages. 21 B,1 uses the constructions from 1:1; 3:12; 8:9; B,4 from 3:8; B,6 from 3:13. Cf. MOORE, Additions, 193-194. 22 These passages could have been designed from the outset to be introduced into a translation of Esther or may have been circulated independently as “annexes” of the narrative.

306

B,1

B,2-3. Praise for the King and for Haman

B,4-5. Harmful Presentation

Addition B,1-7. The Edict of Annihilation

as their willingness to maintain harmony in the empire, are presented first (2-3). The harmful character of the people in question is emphasized next (4-5), before the decision for annihilation is presented as necessary for the preservation of harmony (6-7). The address indicates that the sender of the decree is the Persian king and its recipients are the ministers and the prefects of the empire. The empire’s size corresponds to that in 1:1 and 3:12. Verses 2 and 3 present the two primary individuals responsible for sending the edict, the king and Haman. Verse 2 contains an idealized presentation of the king and his policy. This enlightened sovereign describes himself as exercising his universal power “in a measured fashion” and with “benevolence” to ensure security and “peace” εἰρήνη in the kingdom. This speech, typical of royal ideology, seems paradoxical since, to attain this objective, the king prepares to order an appalling massacre (6-7). Verse 3 follows by indicating that the king consulted his advisors and that the best among them, Haman, stands out. He has the characteristics of an ideal advisor, competent and loyal toward the king, and is portrayed as “second in the kingdom” δεύτερον τῶν βασιλειῶν. This presentation of Haman and of the decision-making process seems in part contradictory to the narrative. Haman is certainly presented as second in the kingdom, but in the episode of the issuing of the edict, the king does not consult any advisors. Moreover, as the narrative suggests, Haman is not very loyal toward the king.23 That said, these tensions are easily resolved; according to the narrative, it is Haman himself who writes the king’s edict (3:10). The reader understands thus that Haman presents himself in a more flattering light than he is. Verses 4 to 5 are at the heart of the passage’s argument. These verses partially reproduce the content of Haman’s speech concerning Mordecai’s people in 3:89MT/LXX/AT: the Jews are dispersed in the empire and are distinguished from other peoples, their laws are different, and they do not fulfill royal law. However, the argument in B,4-5 is very much hardened, strongly underlining the “harmfulness” of the Jews. These verses confirm that their foreign laws set them against “every nation,” and that their rejection of royal ordinances is permanent and aims to obstruct a common righteous government and the establishment of stability in the empire. Moreover, the theme of Jewish misanthropy, absent from 3:8-9, is present in B,5: “continual opposition to all people” ἀντιπαραγωγῇ παντὶ διὰ παντὸς ἀνθρώπῳ. This motif, like that of harmful laws, is well-attested in the polemic against the Jews in the Greco-Roman era.24 The Greek text shows that the arguments used against the Jews are in large part unfounded. The Jews certainly have specific customs (Add. C) but they are loyal to the king (Add. A,12-17; 2:21-23; etc.). As for hostility vis-à-vis nations, it is nations, or rather, some among them, who are hostile to the Jews (Add. A,1-11/ F; 3:15b; 8:17; 9:2)

23 Addition A,17 implies that Haman supports the conspiratorial eunuchs, and in 3:8-9 he seems to manipulate the king to take revenge against someone who saved the king (2:21-23). 24 The theme of Jewish misanthropy is already found in Manetho (also Tacitus, etc.), see the synthesis SCHÄFER, Judéophobie, 38-42, 60-61.

Addition C,1-30. Mordecai’s and Esther’s Prayers

307

Verses 6 to 7 conclude the passage with the condemnation of the Jews. The ex- B,6-7. Contreme violence of the destruction forseen by B,6 takes up the terminology in 3:13. demnation The hastening of the enemies to the underworld (Hades ᾅδης), a typically Greek term, is specific to B,7. The argument used to condemn is dramatically classic of exclusionary speeches: the violent rejection of the people concerned is supposed to preserve the common good and assure “for the time to come of affairs that are completely stable and without upheaval.”25 One notes that in all of Addition B, as already in the speech that Haman addresses to the king in 3:8-9, the name of the people in question does not appear. In B,6a, the decree delegates to Haman the task of signalling the identity of the condemned people. Moreover, the apology of this sinister character is even more strongly supported than in v. 3, since he is presented as the “second father” of the king. Finally, the date of destruction of the fourteenth of Adar is in tension with the chronology of the “common narrative.” This date is generally thought to be the result of a confusion between the day of the massacre and that of the festival of Purim.26 Additions B and E insert excerpts from so-called imperial documents. Such insertions are found on several occasions in the book of Ezra.27 But the closest parallel with Esther’s Addition B appears in the third book of Maccabees, a text whose themes are very close to those of the book of Esther.28 3 Macc 3:12-29 also presents the text of a so-called imperial letter aiming to oppress the Jews. This document, attributed to Ptolemy Philopator, presents simultaneously themes, structure, and vocabulary that are close to those in Esther’s Addition B.29 This parallel suggests that Addition B reflects, as does 3 Maccabees, polemic discourses suffered by the Egyptian Jewish diaspora in the first century. The clever but fallacious rhetoric developed in the addition will be carefully dismantled by the decree in favor of the Jews in Addition E.

Addition C,1-30. Mordecai’s and Esther’s Prayers Translation of the Greek text from the LXX (translation TOB lightly modified and translated into English). Other enumerations of the passage: 4:17a-4:17b LXX according to RALPHS; 13:8-14:19 in the Vulg.; 4:13-29 AT according to HANHART.

25 The AT differs: “may in the time hereafter be in a state of tranquility and not ever again furnish us with matters for concern” (traduction CAVALIER, Esther, 167). 26 See MOORE, Additions, 191-193; DE TROYER / WACKER, “Esther,” 1275; WHITE CRAWFORD, “Additions,” 953. 27 See especially Cyrus’s edict in Ezra 1:2-4 and Artaxerxes’s royal decree in 7:11-26. 28 See regarding the possible dependence between Esther and 3 Maccabees and concerning the dating of 3 Maccabees in the introduction C.4.5 The Book of Esther and the Books of Maccabees and Judith. 29 See the comparison presented by MOORE, Additions, 195-199. B,2a // 3 Macc 3:14; B,2b // 3 Macc 3:15; B,4 // 3 Macc 3:19; B,5 // 3 Macc 3:22-24; B,6 // 3 Macc 3:25; B,7 // 3 Macc 3:26.

308

Addition C,1-30. Mordecai’s and Esther’s Prayers [Verse 4:8bLXX // 4:4b-5AT possibly originally opened the prayer cycle30]

1 He prayed to the Lord, remembering all the works of the Lord, 2 and he said: “Lord, Lord, King over all powers: Since the universe is in your power, then you have no opponents when you desire to save Israel; 3 since it is you who made the sky and the earth and all marvels that it contains under the sky, 4 then you are the Lord of all and there is no one who will resist you, the Lord. 5 You, you know all. You, you know well, Lord, that it is not by excess nor by pride nor by ambition that I have done this: not bowing down before Haman the proud. 6 For I would have consented to licking the soles of his feet for the deliverance of Israel. 7 But I did this to not place glory in a man above the glory of God; I will not prostrate myself before anything except before you, my Lord; and it will not be in pride. 8 And now Lord God, King, God of Abraham, spare your people, for eyes are cast upon us to destroy us, they put their ardor to annihilate what has been your inheritance from the beginning. 9 Do not despise your portion, that you redeemed for yourself out of the land of Egypt. 10 Lend your ear to my prayer. Be favorable to what is at your disposal and turn our mourning into rejoicing so that, living, we may sing hymns to your name, Lord, and do not let be destroyed those whose mouth praises you.” 11 All Israel cried with all their might, for they saw that they were going to die. 12 Queen Esther, taken prey to a deadly battle, sought refuge in the Lord. 13 After removing her garments of glory, she put on garments of distress and mourning; instead of luxury perfumes, she covered her head in ashes and dung; she harshly humiliated her body and, all that she showed joyfully, she covered with her tangled hair. 14 She prayed to the Lord God of Israel saying: “My Lord, our King, You, you are the only One! Help me, I who am alone and have no other help than you; 15 for I will play with danger. 16 I, since my birth, have heard it said in the tribe of my fathers that you, Lord, you took Israel from among all the nations and our fathers from among all their ancestors so that they would become a perpetual inheritance, that you also realized for them all that you had said. 17 And now, we have sinned before you and you have delivered us into the hands of our enemies 18 because we glorified their gods. You are righteous, Lord! 19 But now, the harshness of our slavery is not sufficient to them; on the contrary, they made a pact with their idols 20 to abolish what your mouth decreed, to destroy your inheritance, to close the mouth of those who praise you, to extinguish the glory of your House as well as your Altar, 21 to open the mouth of the nations to praise emptiness and venerate a king of flesh in perpetuity. 22 Do not surrender your scepter, Lord, to those who do not exist; may they not laugh at our downfall. But turn against them their plan and, he who headed the operations against us, inflict upon him an exemplary

30 “Remember the days of your humble condition, as you were nourished from my hand, for Haman who is the second has spoken to the king against us for death. Call upon the Lord! speak of us to the king and save us from death!,” see the commentary on Chapter 4.

Addition C,1-30. Mordecai’s and Esther’s Prayers

309

punishment. 23 Remember, Lord; make yourself known in the moment of our distress. As for me, give me courage, King of the gods and Master of all authority. 24 Put in my mouth melodious language in the presence of the lion and turn his heart so that he detests him who wars against us, so that this one as well as his supporters come to an end. 25 Wrest us from them with your hand and help me, I who am alone and who have only you, Lord. You have knowledge of all: 26 you know that I detested the glory of the Lawless, that the bed of the uncircumcised and of every foreigner disgusts me. 27 You know the constraint I endure: it disgusts me, the proud insignia that I have on my head on the days when I am presenting myself; it disgusts me like a menstrual rag, and I do not wear it on the days when I am at rest. 28 Your servant has not eaten at Haman’s table, and I have not honored the banquet of the king, nor drunk the wine of libations. 29 Your servant has not found happiness from the time I changed station until now, except near you, Lord, God of Abraham. 30 God, who has power over all, listen to the voice of the despairing, wrest us from the hand of the perverted and wrest me from my fear.” In the AT, the text of Addition C is very close to the LXX. Most of the Greek formula- The Alpha tions are identical. Some differences occur in divine names: the LXX privileges in Text particular “Lord” κύριος and “God” θεός over “Master” δεσπότης in the AT (2, 7, 28). The LXX equally presents some explanatory “pluses” (8bα), completing the narrative (11) or accentuating the theological character of the prayers (4b, 23b, 25bα). The AT equally contains some elements that are absent from the LXX, in particular regarding the covenant (esp. in v. 8:16b).31

In the Greek versions, after Mordecai asks Esther to plead the case of her people to the king (4:1-17), Addition C reports the contents of the prayers of each of the two heroes. The insertion of these two prayers influences considerably the understanding of the narrative and aims to remove several ambiguities in it. The two prayers are similar. First, they both mention the all-powerfulness of the sole sovereign God of the universe and the privileged historical relationship between God and his people. The two prayers invite God to intervene as a deliverer. These passages, with their numerous evocations of biblical and postbiblical Jewish prayers,32 make explicit what is implicit in the Masoretic form of the narrative: it is the Lord who, in the continuation of the narrative, rescues his people whether it be by his own action (D,8; 6:1LXX) or by that of the heroes that God inspires and supports. Second, the prayers of both Mordecai and Esther remove ambiguities concerning the motivations, the piety, and the manner in which the

31 A long “plus” with seven examples of deliverance is in v. 16 of the OL. Otherwise, vv. 17 to 23 are absent from the OL. Medieval manuscripts present Aramaic prayers attributed to Mordecai and to Esther. Their themes are close to those of Add. C without, however, any similar phraseology (on these Aramaic fragments see MOORE, Additions, 154, 205207, 214-15). This textual diversity suggests a complex history of the composition and transmission of this addition. 32 Dan 9:3-19 (esp. 3-5) // C,14-17 is the most striking case. Texts such as Ps 79; 2 Chr 20:6-12; 2 Macc 1:24-29; Sir 36:1-22; and Jdt 9:1-14 are equally often mentioned (MOORE, Additions, 205, 214; JARICK, “Greek,” 760; MCDOWELL, Prayers, 37-41; etc.).

310

C,2-10. Mordecai’s Prayer C,2-4. Invocation

C,5-7. Protestation of Innocence

Refusal of Idolatry

Addition C,1-30. Mordecai’s and Esther’s Prayers

heroes perceive their situation. In so doing, these passages avoid criticisms that readers may have of the heroes, concerning their practice of strict monotheism and all traditional Jewish laws. Thus Mordecai confirms that he refused to prostrate himself before Haman not out of pride, but out of a rejection of idolatry. Esther says she suffered to live among Gentiles, all the while seeking to preserve a pious life that conforms to Jewish practices. After the introduction in v. 1, Mordecai’s prayer is organized into three parts. An invocation addressed to God (2-4) is followed by a protestation of innocence (5-7), and it concludes with a request for deliverance (8-10). The invocation of vv. 2 to 4 opens with a double address to the “Lord.” The term κύριος is generally used by the LXX to translate YHWH, the proper name of the God of Israel. This divine name is very much present in the two prayers33 which emphasizes the anchoring of the two supplicants in the faith of Israel. In addition, as in Esther’s prayer (C,14, 23), God is identified as “king.” The rest of the invocation presents the Lord as the creator (3) absolute master of the universe, whom no one can resist (4). As shown in v. 2b, “you have no opponents when you desire to save Israel,” it is the supplicant’s belief in divine omnipotence that is the foundation of the hope that the request for deliverance expressed in vv. 8-10 can be accomplished. The continuation of the prayer, vv. 5 to 7, invokes Mordecai’s prior action when he refused to prostrate himself, to show that he did not cause his people’s misfortune out of a misplaced pride, but out of a concern for piety. Mordecai’s speech opens by asserting divine omniscience “You, you know all. You, you know well, Lord, that…” which implies that, according to Addition C, the explanation Mordecai provides in his prayer is sincere.34 Then, v. 5 emphasizes, through contrasting the absence of “pride” ὑπερηφανίᾳ in Mordecai with the descriptor of “Haman the proud” τὸν ὑπερήφανον Αμαν, that his refusal is not due to a reaction stemming from pride. Moreover, in v. 6, Mordecai asserts that he would be ready to lick the soles of his enemy’s feet to save Israel, an act of submission that would go well beyond the simple act of prostration.35 Verse 7 ends by specifying that Mordecai’s refusal can be explained by religious reasons since it is not a matter of devaluing divine “glory” by placing that of a human above it. The narrative in 3:1-6 does not explain the reason for Mordecai’s refusal to prostrate himself, and traditional Jewish practice does not proscribe prostration before important individuals. However, the commentary on the MT has shown that the narrative implicitly suggests that it is for cultural and religious reasons that Mordecai acts in accordance with Greek custom to prostrate only before the gods.36 The author of Addition C interprets the narrative in a fairly close manner.

33 In the LXX, the term is found seven times in Mordecai’s prayer and nine times in Esther’s. 34 In the literary fiction of a prayer to an omniscient God, it would not be understood that the author would make the supplicant lie. This observation makes it difficult to maintain the hypothesis that Additions A and F would call into question Mordecai’s sincerity by making him into a proud individual and opponent of Haman, if Addition C is presupposed by A and F (contra SEEMAN, “Dragon,” 5, 13). 35 A similar expression is in Isa 49:23 “lick the dust of your feet.” 36 See the commentary on 3:2.

Addition C,1-30. Mordecai’s and Esther’s Prayers

311

He goes, however, a little farther in attributing to Mordecai the phrase “I will not prostrate myself before anything except before you, my Lord.” This phrase places Mordecai’s attitude in the context of the general rejection by “monotheistic” Judaism of all forms of idolatry, since it asserts a desire to venerate nothing nor anyone other than his God. Addition C therefore writes as though prostration before the man Haman would constitute a form of idolatry comparable to religious homage rendered to Greek kings or within the Roman imperial cult. Mordecai thus adopts an attitude that is comparable to that of Daniel, who refuses to address his prayers to the king (Dan 6). Mordecai’s loyalty to the worship of the Lord alone instructs the argument of the request for deliverance in vv. 8 to 10. Indeed, Mordecai requests the God of Israel to not abandon his people on the grounds that the request’s function is precisely to offer him a service of hymns and praise (10b).37 In his request, he evokes God’s past salvific actions for Israel: the covenant with Abraham and the exodus from Egypt. The assertion that Israel is the “inheritance” κληρονομία of the Lord corresponds to the biblical notion of an elected people and is explicitly asserted at the end of the Torah (Deut 32:9). In many respects, Mordecai’s supplication (8-10) calls to mind that of Moses, who, after the episode of the golden calf (Exod 32:11-13), asked God to not destroy the people that he had brought out of Egypt. Here, however, the danger does not arise directly from divine anger, but from the fervor of humans who want to destroy this people. Verse 11 makes the transition between the prayers of Mordecai and of Esther by mentioning the prayer of desperation of all Israel. Esther’s prayer is almost twice as long as Mordecai’s. The primary themes in Mordecai’s prayer are taken up again, but their treatment is adapted and their sequence differs. The invocation addressed to the all-powerful God (2-4) is only briefly presented in Esther’s prayer (14bα, 23bβ, 30a). The request for deliverance evoking Israel’s past experience in the present crisis situation (8-10) is, on the other hand, much more developed and elaborated (14bβ-25bα, 30b). Finally, a protestation of innocence adapted to Esther’s situation (25bβ-29) is in line with Mordecai’s (5-7). Verses 12 to 14a open with a presentation of the action that follows as a way for Esther to seek “refuge in the Lord,” to face the “deadly battle” that she confronts. Contrary to the MT, Esther’s Jewish piety and her internal struggle in light of the risk she is about to take are strongly emphasized here. Esther’s attitude, introduced in a theatrical manner, corresponds in the extreme to mourning practices performed previously by Mordecai and the Jews (4:1, 3). In Addition C, “garments of distress and mourning” ἱμάτια στενοχωρίας καὶ πένθους makes explicit the function of the “sackcloth” σάκκος in 4:1, 3. Moreover, to the ashes covering her head he adds “dung” κοπρία, covering attractiveness with tangled hair and the humiliation of the body. Addition C makes clear that, at this moment, Esther makes the mourning of the Jews of the empire fully her own by behaving as they do. However, contrary to what Mordecai did in 4:1, one can deduce that her action is not public, but, rather, private and hidden, since according to 4:2b the “sack-

37 A similar argument that the dead do not praise the Lord appears in Isa 38:18-19; Ps 30:10; and Bar 2:17-18.

C,8-10. Request for Deliverance

C,11 C,12-30. Esther’s Prayer

C,12-14a. Narrative Introduction

312

C,14bα. Invocation, Divine Attributions

You Are the Only One

C,14bβ-25bα, 30b. Request for Salvation

C,16-22a. The Deliverance of the People

Addition C,1-30. Mordecai’s and Esther’s Prayers

cloth” is prohibited within the palace. Addition C thus stages Esther’s prayer as a private act of piety. Such personal prayers are attested in Judaism starting in the Hellenistic era; they are especially associated with Daniel and Judith (Dan 6:11; Jdt 8:36-9:1). “My Lord, our King, You, you are the only One!” (14bα) assigns three attributes to God that are important in the argument developed in Esther’s prayer. The attributes include describing Esther’s personal God as “Lord,” a classic designation for the God of Israel that here suggests that the supplicant does not recognize any other lords except God. Furthermore, God is “our King” βασιλεὺς ἡμῶν. In Esther’s prayer, this descriptor indicates that it is not the sovereign of the empire who is the real king of the people of Israel, but God. The King of 14bα is placed in opposition to the “king of flesh” βασιλέα σάρκινον evoked by v. 21, who risks being eternally “admired” or more likely “venerated”38 if God does not intervene. The theme of God’s royalty appears also in v. 23bβ where God is described as the “God of gods,” the supreme divinity. In Esther’s prayer, “you are the only One” μόνος constitutes a word game that makes God’s situation parallel to that of Esther’s, who declares herself to be “alone” and who has consequently no other possible help than God (14bβ and 25a). In 14bα the adjective “only” can be understood in two ways: either God is presented as the only king of Israel,39 or, more likely, he is described as being alone, because in a monotheistic context there is no other God besides him.40 The request for help is argued at length in vv.14bβ to 25bα and 30b. The developments of 4:8-16 show that Esther’s action is central for the deliverance of the Jews, the reason being that in her prayer, the request for help is linked to Esther’s personal action. After the mention of her “solitude,” v. 15 mentions that she will take risks. In 23b and 24, Esther asks for courage and to address the king with adequate rhetoric. The king is described as a “lion,” a classic attribute of royalty in the ancient Near East that corresponds well to the context of the narrative, since the lion is a dangerous and powerful animal. Esther asks God to change the heart of the king so that he will “detest” the one who “wars” against the Jews. Even if v. 24 does not mention Haman by name,41 the reference to him is clear. The request of v. 24 thus invites the reader to interpret the situational reversal that takes place in Chapter 7 as the work of God, when the king sanctions Haman after a speech given by Esther (v. 22b works in the same way). The essence of Esther’s request concerns the deliverance of her people. Verses 16 to 22a develop an argument intended to convince God to come to Israel’s aid. Verse 16 starts by using the contents of Mordecai’s prayer (8-9) with the assertion that Israel constitutes the “inheritance” κληρονομία of the Lord. This assertion is based upon

38 The verb θαυμάζω can take on a meaning that is profane or related to cult. After the mention of the eventuality of the suppression of the Temple cult in v. 20, the cultrelated meaning seems preferable in v. 21. 39 MOORE, Additions, 208-210, translates “only you are our king” (also NETS). 40 The translations of the TOB, the NRSV, and of the Septuaginta Deutsch suggest this interpretation along with CAVALIER, Esther, 179-180 and DE TROYER / WACKER, “Esther,” 1278. The Greek clearly distinguishes the mention of the royalty from that of the solo ὁ βασιλεὺς ἡμῶν, σὺ εἶ μόνος “our king, you are alone.” 41 In Esther’s prayer, Haman’s name only appears in v. 28.

Addition C,1-30. Mordecai’s and Esther’s Prayers

313

the tradition that Esther heard within the tribe of her ancestors.42 Verses 17 to 18 follow with the classic Deuteronomistic motif that the sufferings of the exile will constitute divine sanction for Israel’s faults – worshipping other gods during the monarchic era (Deut 30:17-18; Josh 23:16; 1 Kgs 8:46-53; 2 Kgs 17:6-23; 23:26-27). Esther’s prayer asks for divine deliverance not by contesting the pertinence of the exilic divine sanctions, but by arguing that Gentiles and their idols now want to go further and totally destroy the people (19-20a). Such an action would have the same consequence as that envisaged in Mordecai’s prayer (10b), namely to suppress all those likely to praise the Lord (20bα). The last part of v. 20 then clearly refers to the Temple and its altar. By introducing this unique and explicit reference to the Temple of Jerusalem in the Greek narrative of Esther, the author of Addition C obviously seeks to connect this narrative to the cult problems faced by Jewish readers in the Hellenistic and Roman eras. The argument ends in vv. 21-22a by contrasting the worship of the true God with the empty worship that emanates from the “mouth of the nations” during the worship of royals or idols who “do not exist.” According to this section of Addition C, the conflict that in the book of Esther is set against the Jews, in reality represents an attack against the true God. Esther’s prayer ends with a protestation of innocence aiming to counteract reproaches of impiety that Jewish readers, worried about orthodox ritual practices, could make against a Persian queen of Jewish origins.43 Such problems are not at all evoked in the MT of Esther. As in Mordecai’s prayer (5a), the justification of Esther’s attitude opens with the assertion of divine omniscience (25bβ). The queen then admits that she finds herself in a situation that is ritually regrettable. She asserts that this disgusts her profoundly and deprives her of “happiness” εὐφραίνω (29), except when she finds herself “near you, Lord” ἐπὶ σοί, κύριε, meaning during private rites of piety such as prayer. Recall that Esther’s prayer was presented as a way to find refuge “in the Lord” ἐπὶ τὸν κύριον (12). Verses 26 to 27 use extremely violent terminology regarding non-Jews. Esther hates “the glory of the Lawless” δόξαν ἀνόμων. This “glory” δόξα describes what Esther clothes herself in when she appears as Persian queen (C,13; D,1; etc.). “Lawless” concerns an attack on the pertinence of imperial law in response to 3:8LXX, in which Jewish laws were judged contrary to the laws of the king. With regard to the disgust of the bed of the “uncircumcised,” it evidently alludes to Esther’s marriage with the king, contrary to endogamous Jews rules (Deut 7:3; Ezra 10:2ff.; Neh 13:23-27). Finally, the “proud insignia” worn by the queen on her head refers to the royal crown. This attribute that Esther receives in 2:17 is critiqued violently, probably due to the association, for a reader in antiquity, between the imperial crown and the royal cult. This crown is consequently compared to an object associated with ritual impurity: the menstrual rag collecting menstrual blood (Lev 15:19ff.). The text admits, of course, that Esther participates in non-Jewish ceremonies and sleeps with the king, but signals, however, that she detests this. In v. 28, it is

42 The AT presents an interesting variant in which Esther mentions the “book” of her ancestors, probably a reference to the Torah. 43 Concerning the willingness to emphasize Esther’s piety see KOTTSIEPER, “Zusätze,” 175; MIDDLEMAS, “Greek,” 155; LIEBOWITZ, “Esther,” 4; PLIETZSCH, “Eating,” 39-40.

C,25bβ-29. Protestation of Innocence

C,26-27. The Lawless

314

Addition D,1-16. Esther’s Arrival before the King

not the same for the queen’s dietary practices that, in spite of the situation, remain in conformity with Jewish practices. She therefore does not participate in banquets or libations. Synthesis Addition C reports on individual prayer practices and places introspective reflections within them concerning the motivations and the actions of the Jewish protagonists in the context of national crisis.44 Parallels to this type of prayer are found in Jewish texts in the Greco-Roman era such as Judith 9 or Tobit 3. The editors of Addition C are knowledgeable about the Jewish Bible and traditional ritual practices. Their editing of the heroes’ prayers reveals a theology that is very critical of non-Jews. For them, the non-Jewish world in which Esther lives is perceived as profoundly bad, and the episode is a sort of combat between the true God and idols. From this point of view, Addition C has a perspective very different from both that of the Masoretic narrative and that of Addition E. It probably emanates from first century (proto)rabbinic Pharisaic circles.

Addition D,1-16. Esther’s Arrival before the King Translation of the Greek text from the LXX (English translation of TOB). Other enumerations of the passage: 5:1a-5:2b LXX according to RALPHS; 15:4-19 in the Vulg.; 5:1-14 AT according to HANHART.

1 After three days, here is what happened. When she ceased praying, she took off her penitential garments to drape herself in her glory. 2 Then, in all her solemn brilliance, after invoking God who sees all and who saves, she took with her the two maids of honor. 3 On one, she leaned as though languid, 4 while the other followed carrying her train. 5 She was all blushing, at the height of her beauty, she was all smiles, like one in love, but her heart was tight with fear. 6 After passing through all the doors, she stood before the king. As for him, he was sitting upon his royal throne, dressed in all the attire of his solemn apparitions, all covered in gold and precious stones; he inspired a great terror. 7 He then lifted his face that was inflamed in glory, and, at the height of his anger, he threw her a glance. The queen collapsed; in her weakened state, she changed color and inclined her head upon that of the maid of honor who was in front of her. 8 Now God changed the spirit of the king to bring him to gentleness. Worried, he leaped from his throne and took her in his arms until she was recovered. He comforted her with soothing words: 9 “What is it, Esther? I am your brother: have confidence!” he told her. 10 “You will not die; our ordinances concern commoners. 11 Come near!” 12 He then raised the golden scepter, rested it upon her neck, then he embraced her and said: “Speak to me.” 13 She an-

44 For this type of prayer, cf. MCDOWELL, Prayers, 37-41.

Addition D,1-16. Esther’s Arrival before the King

315

swered him: “I saw you, Lord, like an angel of God, and my heart was distressed from fear of your glory; 14 for you are admirable, Lord, and your face is full of grace.” 15 But, while she was speaking, she collapsed from weakness. 16 The king was distressed and all his entourage comforted her. In the AT, the text of Addition D is very close to that of the LXX. The Greek formula- The Alpha tions are mostly identical. The primary differences occur in v. 5 where the AT describes Text the king as a bull;45 in v. 8 where the AT is more concise regarding the king’s action; and in v. 11 where the king’s speech is more developed. Verses 14 and 15 are absent from the AT which mentions, however, the presence of sweat on Esther’s face.

Addition D immediately follows the prayers of Addition C and replaces, in the Greek versions, the laconic description of Esther’s arrival before the king (5:12MT). This addition develops the contents of the two Masoretic verses considerably. In 5:1-2MT Esther’s arrival in royal garments is sufficient to provoke the king’s benevolence and the state of mind of the heroine, who seems perfectly in control of the situation, is not mentioned. Addition D develops the Masoretic episode and introduces a much more romantic plot into it, in which the threat that weighs on the queen, due to the prohibition to come before the king without summons, is greatly emphasized. This narrative changes considerably the reader’s perception of Esther’s character; she appears very weak and vulnerable before a king who initially seems very ill-disposed toward her. Moreover, divine intervention to save her is reported, making God into the true hero of the narrative. As in Additions A, C, and F an evident willingness to explain the theological character of the narrative is present. Verse 1 indicates that this episode starts after the “three days” of fasting mentioned in 4:16 and after the prayers of which Addition C writes. The removal of “penitential garments” refers to the fact that, like Mordecai and the Jews (4:1, 3), Esther had put on such a garment (cf. C,13). Verses 2 to 6a describe at length the queen’s arrival. Her formal attire is described in very strong terms of “glory” δόξα (1b) and “solemn brilliance” ἐπιφανής (2a). The presence of a servant carrying the train (4) also emphasizes the prestige of the clothing. Moreover, v. 5 presents Esther as at the height of her beauty and specifies that she appears to be happy. Beside this positive appearance, the text emphasizes that, truthfully, the queen finds herself in great difficulty and in a position of weakness. Even though she has just finished praying in v. 1a, she invokes anew the God “who sees and all who saves” in 2a. In v. 3 she leans on a servant.46 Finally, the passage explicitly mentions that despite her apparent happiness, in reality “her heart was tight with fear” (5b) when she arrives before the king. The tension between Esther’s state of mind and what she lets him see is already understood in Addition C when she speaks of her disgust of the king’s bed and the insignia of Gentile royalty.

45 The OL adds that the king intends to kill the queen. 46 The Greek term τρυφερεύομαι, translated as “languid,” can designate weakness or softness, but also sensuality or something delicate (BAILLY; CAVALIER, Esther, 187; MOORE, “Additions,” 217-218).

D,1

D,2-6a. Queen’s Entrance

316

Addition D,1-16. Esther’s Arrival before the King

D,6b-7. Face Verses 6b to 7 take the dramatic tension to its height. The king’s attributes seem to Face to respond to those of the queen, his rich formal attire is also “solemn” ἐπιφάνεια

D,8. Divine Intervention

D,9-11

D,13-14. Esther’s Speech

(6 // 2a) and the term “glory” δόξα is associated with his face (7 // 1b). Unfortunately, the king does not greet his magnificent spouse in a favorable manner, but instead becomes angry. The end of v. 7 describes Esther’s collapse in the face of this violent reaction; she becomes pale and rests her head upon her servant. The weakness of the female heroine thus appears in broad daylight. Seeing the disastrous effects of royal anger described in 1:12-22, all seems lost. This addition both uses and modifies romantic codes that require men to be sensitive to feminine charm and seek to protect beautiful women in situations of weakness. This stereotype is found in Greco-Roman fictive literature47 as well as the Jewish novel Judith.48 Indeed, in Addition D, in order for charm to work and for the powerful Artaxerxes to come to the rescue of the beautiful and weak Esther, the divine intervention of v. 8 is necessary. Contrary to the Esther of the MT (2:9, 15b, 17; 5:1-2), whose charm operates easily and is used as an effective tool by the heroine, in D,6-7 Esther fails and is rejected by her husband. Consequently, God (8a) becomes the true hero of the narrative in Addition D. This divine intervention marks a major turning point in the plot, that from here on will lead to the triumph of the Jews. The transformation of the heart of the foreign king is a topos prepared by C,24,49 also found in other biblical texts, especially Ezra 7:27 and 3 Macc 6:16-23.50 Next, the king has the reaction expected of a man protecting his beautiful wife. He descends from his throne, takes Esther in his arms, and addresses comforting words to her. He invites her into his confidence as though the obvious risk that she ran did not really exist. The king presents himself as her “brother,” a term of affection found in a matrimonial context in Song 4:9-10 and 5:1-2. He asserts that the rule outlining the death of whomever enters without summons only applies to “commoners,” but he extends the scepter to her all the same, thereby removing the sanction (4:11). Esther, mute until here, addresses a speech to the king that flatters with skillful rhetoric. The qualifications applied to the king are dithyrambic: he is “admirable,” and his face is “full of grace.” The king is even described as an “angel of God,” an expression that, in the Bible, is found in two other flattering speeches addressed to a king to obtain his support: that of the woman of Tekoa who wants

47 See especially a novel such as De Chaerea et Callirhoe by CHARITON OF APHRODISIAS (esp. in 8.1 with the episode of Callirhoe’s rescue in a state of weakness: LEVENSON, Esther, 272; JORDAAN, “Pendulum,” 181 etc.) or Ninus (Lawrence M. WILLS, “Jewish Novellas in a Greek and Roman Age: Fiction and Identity,” JSJ 42 (2011), 141-165, esp.161, identifies a parallel in A.IV.20-V.4 between Esther’s incapacity to speak when arriving before Artaxerxes and that of the young woman before the eloquent Ninus). 48 See Judith’s entry before Holofernes (10:1-11:4). 49 VIALLE, analyse, 219-220 rightly observes, however, that what happens in D,8 does not truly constitute the fulfillment of the request for God’s intervention in the king’s heart from C,24. Esther had asked that the king’s heart be changed so that he would hate Haman, and not that he would love Esther. 50 Divine intervention to change Pharaoh’s heart also appears during the exodus (Exod 4:21; 7:3; 9:12; etc.), where it is negative since it hardens Pharaoh’s heart.

Addition E,1-24. The Counter-Edict

317

David to reconcile with Absalom (2 Sam 14:17MT/LXX) and that of Achish who wants him to leave the region without taking offense (1 Sam 29:9MT). In the mouth of the pious Esther in the Greek texts (C,26-29; D,1-2), this last construction seems exaggerated. However, it makes sense in the context of a speech that is not only flattering, but also deceiving: the heroine does all that she can to present herself as close to the king and to conceal her true feelings. Here, the queen suggests that she was not afraid of being condemned, but that she was struck with terror in seeing the king’s “glory” δόξα, with a positive connotation. In fact, in this context, the argument is manifestly deceptive, and corroborates the impression that Esther does not express her true emotions. Indeed, the narrative indicates that she was afraid well before seeing the king (5) and that the king’s “glory” that made her collapse is not connected to a “face full of grace” (14), but rather an extreme fury (7). The passage ends with another collapse by Esther, which this time immedi- D,15-16 ately provokes the results counted upon: the king is “distressed” and his entire entourage comforts her. Addition D, like Addition C, presents Esther as an ideal Jewish woman. She is Synthesis pious, beautiful, and ready to take on anything for her people, despite the fact that she lives in a problematic situation in a foreign context. Contrary to the Esther of the MT, her dependence upon God is largely emphasized by her prayers (Add. C and D,1-2) as well as the direct support she obtains from God at the moment when her own actions fail (D,8a). Moreover, in this addition the king is presented as more menacing than in the MT and in Addition E. Without the intervention of God, the true deliverer of the Jews, the king would not even be beneficient toward his wife.

Addition E,1-24. The Counter-Edict Translation of the Greek text from the LXX (translation TOB lightly modified and translated into English). Other enumerations of the passage: 8:12a-8:12x LXX according to RALPHS and 16:1-24 in the Vulg.; 7:22-32 AT according to HANHART.

1 The text below is a copy of the letter: “The Great King Artaxerxes to the ministers of the provinces of the one hundred twenty-seven regions from India to Ethiopia, to all our supporters, greetings! 2 Many people, too often honored by the extreme generosity of their benefactors, have fueled too much ambition; 3 not only do they seek to harm our subjects, but, incapable of supporting what should content them, they undertake plotting against their own benefactors. 4 Not only do they abolish gratitude from among people, but in addition, exalted by the boasting of those who have no experience of the good, they assume that they will escape a justice that is the enemy of evil, that of God which incessantly discerns all. 5 Also in numerous cases, a number of people placed in power, under the pressure of friends in whom they put their confidence for taking responsibility of affairs, were made accomplices of innocent blood and led in irremediable catastrophes: 6 it is that these friends, by the false deceivers of malice, had deceived the entire good

318

Addition E,1-24. The Counter-Edict

faith of sovereigns. 7 Now it is possible to see, without going back to the ancient accounts that we have transmitted, by examining what is happening before your eyes, all the profanations committed by vicious individuals who indignantly exercise their power. 8 In the future, we will endeavor to bring the kingdom to stability peacefully in the interest of all, 9 by effecting changes and by always judging the affairs that will be submitted to our examination, with an approach sufficiently equitable. 10 Indeed, it is thus that Haman, son of Hammedatha, a Macedonian, in reality a foreigner of Persian blood, well distanced from our beneficence, benefited from our hospitality; 11 he encountered the friendship that we bring to every nation, to the point of being proclaimed our “father” and of becoming the person second to the royal throne, before whom all prostrated themselves. 12 But he did not contain his pride, he undertook to deprive us of power and of life; 13 with a fabric of fraudulent lies, he requested to annihilate them, our own savior and constant benefactor, Mordecai, and Esther, irreproachable companion to our kingdom, as well as their entire nation. 14 By these means, indeed, he imagined, holding us isolated, to transfer the empire of the Persians to the Macedonians. 15 But we ourselves have found that the Jews, handed over to disappearance by this triple scoundrel, are not evildoers; on the contrary, they govern themselves with very righteous laws; 16 moreover, they are children of the living God, the Most High, the Most Great, who governs the kingdom with uprightness for us as for our ancestors in the best conditions. 17 You will therefore do well to not use the letters sent by Haman, the son of Hammedatha, 18 since their author was crucified at the entrance of Susa with all his family. God, sovereign of all things, rendered to him without delay the verdict that he deserved. 19 After publication of this letter in every place, grant freedom to the Jews to follow their own customs; 20 lend them aid so that they can fend off those who attack them in a moment of distress, on the thirteenth of the twelfth month (Adar), the same day. 21 For God who exercises his power over the entire universe transformed that day for them into jubilation instead of the destruction of the elected people. 22 Therefore you also, among your commemorative festivals, will celebrate this great day with rejoicing of all sorts, 23 so that, now and in the future, this will be deliverance for us and for loyal Persians, but for those who conspire against us it will be a reminder of destruction. 24 Every city or province, without exception, that does not conform to these prescriptions will be ravaged furiously by spear and fire; it will become not only banned for humans, but also permanently detestable to wild animals and birds. The Alpha Text

In the AT, the text of Addition E is very close to that of the LXX. The majority of Greek formulations are identical. The most important differences occur in the last part of the passage. In E,20AT, the date mentioned is that of the festival (fourteenth and fifteenth of Adar).51 E,22 is absent from the AT. Divine intervention is less heavily emphasized by the AT.

51 The AT has “And it has been decided by the Judeans throughout the kingdom to observe the fourteenth day of the month, which is Adar, and to hold a feast on the fifteenth” (translation CAVALIER, Esther, 221).

Addition E,1-24. The Counter-Edict

319

In the Greek versions, after the sending of the counter-edict authorizing the Jews to defend themselves (8:10-12), Addition E reports its contents. This addition was conceived as a counterpart to Addition B that reports the contents of the edict ordering the destruction of the Jews. The literary Greek of these two texts probably emanates from the same author. Addition E is, however, much longer than Addition B. Like Addition B, Addition E develops a cleverly constructed rhetoric. After the introduction (1) the text is organized in three parts. Verses 2 to 6 present generalities regarding harmful courtiers who trick sovereigns. Verses 7 to 14 follow by interpreting the narrative on this basis (7): the king, who in the future will seek to avoid such a situation repeating itself (8-9), was tricked by Haman who wanted to harm him by annihilating his allies (10-14). Finally, the end of the passage (1524) presents the orders given to remedy the situation. After praising the Jews (1516) the king asks that the writings of Haman not be applied (17-18), that the Jews be left in peace (19), that they be helped (20), and that God’s act of deliverance be celebrated with them (21-23). The passage ends with a sanction for those who are recalcitrant (24). E,1 presents the sender of the decree and its recipients in terms similar to B,1. The king is presented as the author of the text even though, according to 8:9 ff., it is the Jewish heroes who write in his name. “All our supporters” τοῖς τὰ ἡμέτερα φρονοῦσι suggests that this decree addresses everyone who, contrary to Haman and his accomplices, are loyal to the king. This group of loyal partisans is added to the “ministers,” who could represent either the majority of the king’s subjects – among whom the Jews could thus be a part – or only the loyal members of the Persian intelligentsia.52 Verses 2 to 6 develop the idea that numerous high functionaries can be dangerous. Several reproaches are addressed to them, concerning pride associated with the attainment of power (2a, 4a), harm toward the king’s subjects and the provoking of catastrophes for the innocent (3a, 5b), as well as a desire to trick the sovereign and to plot against him (3b, 6). Verse 5a is unclear; it evokes the installation by “friends” φίλοι of harmful individuals to positions of power. These “friends” represent perhaps the harmful high functionaries that install their accomplices into powerful positions. Or, the verse ironizes the fact that the king names those he thinks are his “friends” to high positions. Whatever the case, the reproaches addressed to high functionaries correspond well to the way the entire book of Esther characterizes the figure of Haman. His pride is abundantly emphasized (3:1-6; 5:9-13), he seeks to harm the king’s Jewish subjects (3:6-15), and he tricks and plots against the sovereign (3:8-9; Add. A,17). Here, kings are presented in a favorable light and appear as victims of their bad subordinates. They are described as “euergetai” εὐεργέται (2-3), that is, as “benefactors,” a Greek term of praise often applied to Hellenistic kings. The passage concludes with the assertion that sovereigns act in good faith. Moreover, in the LXX, the passage places on the lips of the king a reference to divine justice from which no individual can escape (4b).

52 MOORE, Additions, 234 defends the first option in opposition to CAVALIER, Esther, 213. See also WHITE CRAWFORD, “Additions,” 966.

E,1

E,2-6. The Wicked Functionaries…

…And the Good King

320 E,7-14. The King Deceived by Haman

E,15-24. Instructions Upright and Loyal Jews

Addition E,1-24. The Counter-Edict

In what follows in the royal speech, vv. 7 to 14 directly and explicitly forge a connection between the preceding danger of the bad functionaries and the situation reported in the narrative. The speech first specifies (7) that it is not necessary to look far into the past for examples of such a danger; it is enough to see what is happening here and now. “Ancient accounts” could allude either to monumental royal inscriptions or more simply to the annals mentioned in the narrative (2:23; 6:1). The text continues with a mea culpa during which the king asserts that he will seek, “in the future,” to direct his kingdom better (9). Verse 8 calls to mind the governmental program in the edict of Addition B: to bring about “peace” εἰρήνη (B,2 // E,8) and “stability” ἀτάραχος (B,7 // E,8) in the kingdom, a program that evidently has not been carried out until then. Verses 10 to 14 place the responsibility of disorder upon Haman’s shoulders, described as a “triple scoundrel” in E,1553 and accused of having betrayed the sovereign. Following from vv. 2 and 4, the passage explains Haman’s harmful intentions by the pride provoked from his rise to an important position, thanks to the “beneficence” εὐεργετέω of the king (10b-12a). Proclaiming him as father of the king (v. 11) refers to the expression “a second father” in the decree of destruction (B,6). Moreover, this passage introduces several pieces of information without equivalent in the narrative and in the other additions. On the one hand, Haman plots against the king (12b, 14), a characterization of Haman that is never made explicit elsewhere54 and that contradicts the contents of the first edict (B,3). On the other hand, Haman is a “foreigner of Persian blood” (10a), who profited from the king’s friendship with “every nation” (11a), with the intention of transferring the Persian Empire into the hands of the nation of his origin, the “Macedonians” (14).55 For the author of Addition E, Haman’s association with the Macedonians very likely alludes to the fact that the Macedonian Alexander the Great caused the Persian Empire to disappear.56 V. 13 presents the Jews as loyal allies of the king. Mordecai is a “savior” σωτήρ and a “benefactor” εὐεργέτης of the king, and Esther is an ideal companion. The final part of the addition, vv. 15 to 24, underlines that the Jews are an important people for the empire. Haman’s arguments (3:8 and B,4-5) about their infidelity to the king and their “allegedly” bad laws are deconstructed. After the loyalty of the Jews was maintained in v. 13, 15b emphasizes that they are not evildoers and that their laws are just. V. 16 asserts the specific connection between the Jews and the God of the universe who governs the Persian kingdom. This theological assertion reappears in v. 21, which even describes the Jews as an “elected people” ἐκλεκτός γένος,

53 Elsewhere in the LXX, “triple scoundrel” τρισαλιτήριος is only applied to Nicanor (2 Macc 8:34; 15:3). One can therefore see in E,15 an allusion to this figure. 54 The presentation of Haman as someone plotting against the king is suggested, however, by A,17 and envisaged by the king in 7:8. 55 The rare mentions of Haman as “Macedonian” in the LXX (9:24) and the AT (Add. A,17) probably depend on this motif belonging to Addition E. 56 See Hans BARDTKE, “Zusätze zu Esther,” in Jüdische Schriften aus hellenistisch-römischer Zeit. Bd. 1, Historische und legendarische Erzählungen, W. G. KÜMMEL (ed.), Gütersloh, 1973, 15-62, esp. 36; DE TROYER / WACKER, “Esther,” 1284; JOBES, Alpha-Text, 127.

Addition E,1-24. The Counter-Edict

321

and in vv. 4 and 18, which attribute the universal exercise of justice to God. The attribution of such “confessions of faith” to foreign emperors appears in several other biblical texts, such as Ezra-Nehemiah, Daniel, and 3 Maccabees.57 The instructions given to the recipients (17-23) contain four parts. Verses 17 to 18 invite the non-implementation of Haman’s letters, which would avoid the massacre of the Jews along with the need for them to defend themselves and kill their adversaries. Upon first inspection, this aspect of Addition E seems to contradict the impossibility of revoking a royal edict asserted in 8:8, and the order given to the Jews to defend themselves in 8:11-13. However, this apparent contradiction is resolved by the third part of the royal instructions in v. 20 that asks the recipients of the decree to “lend… aid” to the Jews to fend off those who would still attack them on the thirteenth of Adar. This thus signifies that v. 17 does not imply the simple suppression of the edict of destruction threatening the Jews, but rather addresses the advice to not implement it in light of the royal willingness to counter, with the force of his administration, those who would attack the Jews.58 The mention of the hanging/crucifixion of Haman with his family at Susa’s gate (18a) seems to be in tension with the narrative in which Haman is hanged in the court of his own house a few months before his sons.59 Verse 19 contains the second royal instruction of this addition. Situated between the invitation to not implement Haman’s decree (17-18) and the order to support the Jews (20), it is a more general order permitting the Jews to live according to their customs from now on, a fundamental right that was often contested for the Jews in the Greco-Roman world.60 In v. 21, the decree of Addition E anticipates the triumph of the Jews on the thirteenth of Adar and the joy that will be associated with it. Moreover, it explains theologically this future triumph by God’s intervention on behalf of his people. Verses 22 to 23 continue by ordering all the recipients of the edict to celebrate the festivities associated with these events. It is not only the Jews who are to commemorate these events, but all the subjects of the Persian king. Consequently, the victory of the Jews is the victory of all Persian supporters.61 The expectation that Jews and non-Jews will live together harmoniously is evident. Verse 24 closes the decree with extremely violent curse formulas against those who do not follow the royal instructions. As in Addition B, a very close parallel to Addition E appears in the third book of Maccabees with the imperial letter of Ptolemy Philopator sent to the strategists

57 See especially Ezra 1:2-4; 6:10, 12; Dan 2:47; 4:34; 6:26-28; 3 Macc 7:6 (MIDDLEMAS, “Greek,” 160-161). 58 VIALLE, analyse, 232 is right to emphasize that the king does not cancel the prior decree. 59 The AT of 7:35-38 assumes this aspect of Addition E, but the tension with the narrative of Haman’s death remains in this version (see for the discussion of the relationship between the conclusion of the AT and Addition E § 7:35-38AT in the section on the diachrony of Chapters 8-10. 60 See especially the situation in Judea described in the books of Maccabees and more generally the Greco-Roman texts involving Jewish particularism; cf. the subsection History on the Criticism of Jewish Particularism in the commentary on 3:8-11. 61 MOORE, Additions, 237, LEVENSON, Esther, 114 and others wonder whether this aspect of the passage does not constitute an echo of the non-Jewish origins of Purim.

E,17-18. The Non-Implementation of the Decree

E,19-20. To Support the Jews and Let Them Live E,21-23. Celebrate

E,24. Cursing 3 Maccabees

322

Addition F,1-10. Interpretation of Mordecai’s Dream

of Egypt after the deliverance of the Jews (3 Macc 7:1-9). This document presents a theme, a structure, and a vocabulary close to those in Addition E. The probable dependance among Additions B and E and 3 Maccabees suggests that these additions were produced in the diaspora close to the Jewish community in Egypt responsible for the production of 3 Maccabees.62 Synthesis Addition E describes the contents of the decree differently from what would be expected from the reading of the common narrative. The insistence upon the authorization given to the Jews to defend themselves (8:11) is absent from it. In addition, the imperial sovereign, about whom the narrative frequently ironizes, is presented here in a largely favorable light. He is concerned about the well-being of his subjects and of his kingdom, all the while knowing that within his administration dangerous individuals might be present, in particular Haman. Moreover, he is presented as a pious man, conscious of the privileged relationship between God and his people. The Jews, as in Addition A, are presented as loyal subjects of the emperor. In their entirety, Additions B and E thus criticize discourses against the Jews by relying on the authority of the emperor and by asserting the loyalty of the Jews toward him. According to Addition E, those who attack the Jews are thus, in reality, just like Haman the Macedonian in the time of Artaxerxes, the enemies of the emperor.

Addition F,1-10. Interpretation of Mordecai’s Dream Translation of the Greek text from the LXX (translation TOB lightly modified and translated into English). Other enumerations of the passage: 10:3a-10:3k LXX according to RALPHS and 10:4-13 in the Vulg.

1 And Mordecai said: “These events have come from God. 2 I remember indeed the dream that I saw concerning this matter; and, in fact, nothing was omitted from it: 3 “The little spring, which became a river; then there was a light in addition to the sun, and abundant water. The river, it is Esther, whom the king married and made queen. 4 The two dragons, they are Haman and myself. 5 The nations are those who gathered together to annihilate the name of the Jews. 6 The nation that is mine, it is Israel, who cried out to God and who were saved. The Lord has saved his people! The Lord has wrested us from all these misfortunes! God has accomplished magnificent signs and wonders, that have not happened for the Gentiles! 7 This is why he made two lots, one for the people of God, another for all the nations. 8 Now these two lots occurred on time, on the time and the day of judgment before God and for all the nations. 9 God remembered his people and rendered justice to his own inheritance. 10 So these days, in the month of Adar, the fourteenth and the fifteenth of that month, will

62 See for an Alexandrian origin and the dependence of Additions B and E on 3 Maccabees A. PASSONI DELL’ACQUA, “The Liberation Decree”; N. HACHAM, “Third Maccabees and Esther.”

Addition F,1-10. Interpretation of Mordecai’s Dream

323

be an assembly for them, with joy and jubiliation before God, for each generation, forever, among his people, Israel.” In the AT, the text of Addition F,1-10 is very close throughout to that of the LXX. The The Alpha majority of Greek formulations are identical. However, the AT of F,3 does not identify Text Queen Esther with the large river – which corresponds to the nations – but only to the spring. Instead of F,6aLXX, the AT mentions that the light and the sun are manifestations of God. Finally, between F,9 and F,10 the AT presents a liturgical proclamation attributed to the people.

Addition F closes the entire Greek book of Esther by reporting the interpretation of Mordecai’s dream described at the beginning of the narrative (Add. A,1-11). Verses 1-2 introduce this interpretation with a theological assertion already present in A,11: God is at the origin of events that occurred throughout the narrative. The dream is therefore premonitory. Verses 3-10 present Mordecai’s interpretive speech in three stages. The decryption of the dream’s symbolism (3-6a) is followed by a series of liturgical proclamations regarding the salvific actions of God for the people (6b). The passage – and the book – conclude finally with an alternative explanation of the festivities on the fourteenth and fifteenth of Adar. The dream described in Addition A uses symbolism and presents a classic scenario of apocalyptic crisis. The interpretation given in Addition F correponds more or less to events that occurred during the narrative. However, tensions between the dream and its interpretation are evident so that perhaps the dream was not originally designed to be placed in the book of Esther, but was an apocalyptic vision of independent origin that was used and adapted in the work as it is today. The salvific symbolism of the dream is not completely elucidated by the interpretation. In the LXX, Esther is identified as the “little spring that became a river,” which corresponds well to the narrative of Chapters 2 to 9 where the character of Esther, at first weak and insignificant, provokes large effects. On the other hand, the “light” and the “sun” are not decrypted.63 Surprisingly in the AT, the interpretation of these elements varies considerably but a more coherent panorama than in the LXX does not emerge. The light and the sun are interpreted as the manifestation of divine action. The river is identified as the nations but without connecting it with the spring that is Esther. There are several tensions between the narrative and the dream’s interpretation. In the “common narrative” the nations are not presented as universally hostile to the Jews, numerous non-Jews are described positively (3:15b; 8:15b; 8:17b; 9:3), and only one group of enemies of the Jews eventually leads the combat (9:1ff.). Mordecai’s dream and its interpretation therefore radicalize the matter. In a combat presented as cosmic, “all the nations” prepare to do battle against “a nation of righteous ones,” evidently referring to the Jews (A,6; F,5). Moreover, the

63 LEVENSON, Esther, 135 observes that in view of the text of the common narrative, these two symbols could be easily decrypted, however. In 8:16 the Jews benefit explicitly from light after the decree of deliverance is issued and Mordecai exits with a “golden crown” in 8:15 that could evoke the sun.

F,1-2

F,3-10

Decrypting the Dream

324

Addition F,1-10. Interpretation of Mordecai’s Dream

second part (F,7-8) distinguishes the disastrous lot of “all the nations” and that of the “people of God,” his inheritance, who benefit from his justice (F,9). In the common narrative, the term “lot” κλῆρος is used for the choice of the date of destruction of the Jews (3:7; 9:14), while in Addition F,7-8, it is used in another manner. It designates the different destinies for the nations and for the Jews on the day of divine judgment. Consequently, in F,10 the festivities of the fourteenth and fifteenth of Adar can be understood as the celebration of this difference in destinies. The dream and its interpretation testify to a very harsh view of the nations. This point of view can be explained within the context of very sharp tensions with Gentiles in certain contexts of Palestinian Judaism from the second century BCE onward.64 The Dragons The two dragons ready for battle are explicitly identified as Haman and Mordecai (F,4). This is obviously a reference to the episode leading to the misfortune of the Jews after Mordecai had refused to prostrate before Haman (3:1-6). The symbolism poses a problem, however, since in ancient Jewish literature the dragon is systematically presented as a negative figure, dangerous and opposed to God.65 However, in the book of Esther, Mordecai is a positive heroic figure, and his association with a dragon is strange. As with the other tensions between the dream and its interpretation, this difficulty is often explained as the sign that the editor of Additions A and F used a narrative of an apocalyptic vision that was originally independent, and forced the interpretation in it in order to make it correspond as best he could to the narrative of Esther.66 Two other explanations have been proposed. For Seeman, the manner in which the dragons’ combat is presented conforms to the narratives of Greek sports matches in which honor plays an important role.67 Consequently, he feels that in drawing together the conflict between Haman and Mordecai in a combat of this type, the narrative presents Mordecai’s refusal to prostrate himself as a proud reaction with negative connotations, especially because it leads to the misfortune of the Jews. Jobes feels that the dream is constructed not to correspond to the different episodes in the Esther narrative, but to allude to the oracle of Jeremiah 28LXX in which Babylon is compared to a dragon.68 The situational reversal in favor of the Jews would thus mark the fulfillment of the oracle against Babylon, responsible for the exile of the Jews. These two explanations seem a bit forced. They explain poorly why an author would have wanted to sully the figure of Mordecai or make the narrative of Esther into the fulfillment of a Jeremian oracle against Babylon. Synthesis The dream and its interpretation frame the narrative of the crisis taking place among Jews during Esther’s time to suggest that this crisis must be understood through an apocalyptic lens. God controls the destiny of humans and of the cosmos. In adversity the righteous nation can therefore cry to God with confidence, because God will protect it from a world that is fundamentally hostile and dangerous and to be sanctioned.

64 See MOORE, Additions, 249. 65 See the commentary on Addition A,1-11. 66 LEVENSON, Esther, 135; MOORE, Additions, 246, 248-249; and WHITE CRAWFORD, “Additions,” 969; etc. 67 SEEMAN, “Dragon.” A similar thesis appears in JORDAAN, “Pendulum,” 181. 68 JOBES, Alpha-Text, 183-193.

Addition F,11. The Colophon

325

Addition F,11. The Colophon Translation of the Greek text from the LXX (translation TOB lightly modified and translated into English). Other enumerations of the passage: 10:3l LXX according to RALPHS and 11:1 in the Vulg.

11 In the fourth year of the reign of Ptolemy and Cleopatra, Dositheus, declaring himself priest and Levite, as well as his son Ptolemy, brought the letter above. They asserted that this was the letter of Purim and that it was translated by Lysimachus, son of Ptolemy, one of those from Jerusalem. The Alpha Text does not contain this note.

This last verse is most often considered a colophon that aims to authenticate the Date manuscript and the Greek translation of Esther at the time of its publication. It indicates the date when this text would have been produced, a date in the Hasmonean era.69 However, the mention of the fourth year of the reign of Ptolemy and of Cleopatra does not permit an unambiguous dating, since several Ptolemies had wives named Cleopatra.70 The passage aims to present the manuscript as an authorized version of the An Authorized book of Esther. The dating of the text under a Ptolemy implies that the recipients Translation of the text are probably members of the Egyptian Jewish diaspora. The final note “of those from Jerusalem,” suggests that the text comes from the Jews of Palestine. The two messengers, Dositheus and his son Ptolemy, as well as the translator of the work, Lysimachus, are obviously Hellenized Jews since they have contemporary Greek names. The fact that Dositheus is presented as a priest probably intends to lend weight to the work of which he is the bearer. Moreover, “the letter of Purim” here designates the entire story of Esther,71 while indicating its primary function, to promote the festival of the fourteenth and fifteenth of Adar (9:20-32; F,10). Various indications in the colophon corroborate the idea that the LXX of Esther constituted an “authorized” translation produced by the Jewish circles of Jerusalem for the Alexandrian diaspora. Following the Masoretic editorial work now translated, and after having added all or part of the additions, this translation aimed to replace other possible translations of the work and to promote the story of Esther and the celebration of the festival of Purim within all of Judaism.

69 Some authors contest the historicity of the note. C. CAVALIER, “Le ‘colophon’” and “Histoire reconstituée,” feels that this “colophon” is part of the literary fiction of the work and would not therefore require dating the LXX of Esther to the Ptolemaic period. 70 The dates most currently envisioned are 114-113, 78-77 or 49-48 BCE. See the remarks on § A.3. regarding the editorial process of the work, in the introduction. 71 The colophon was probably inserted in a manuscript containing the entire LXX of Esther. But one could imagine that it was, in the beginning, used in a text of the LXX that lacked this or that addition.

Bibliography This bibliography indicates works cited at least two times in the commentary. For other references, see Edith LUBETSKI and Meir LUBETSKI, The Book of Esther: A Classified Bibliography (Bible Bibliographies), Sheffield, 2008; ATLA Religion Database; Bulletin de Bibliographie biblique, Lausanne, Institut romand des sciences bibliques (online: bibil.unil.ch); Elenchus of Biblica, Roma; Elenchus Bibliographicus, Louvain; Old Testament Abstracts, Washington. The most important abbreviations are listed below, for the rest see SBL Handbook of Style.

Esther Texts. Editions and Translations Hebrew A. SCHENKER, et al. (eds.), Biblia Hebraica Quinta, fasc. 18. General Introduction and Megilloth. Ruth, Canticles, Qoheleth, Lamentations, Esther, Stuttgart, 2004 (= BHQ). K. ELLIGER and W. RUDOLPH (eds.), Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, Stuttgart, 1968-1976 (= BHS). R. KITTEL (ed.), Biblia Hebraica, Stuttgart, 1937 (= BHK).

Greek (LXX and AT) R. HANHART (ed.), Septuaginta. Vetus Testamentum Graecum, Vol. VIII, 3, Esther, Göttingen, 1983. A.E. BROOKE, N. MCLEAN, and H.StJ. THACKERAY (eds.), Esther, Judith, Tobit (The Old Testament in Greek III,1), Cambridge, 1940. A. RALPHS, Septuaginta, Stuttgart, 1979 [LXX exclusively]. Claudine CAVALIER, Esther (La Bible d’Alexandrie 12), Paris, 2012. W. KRAUS and M. KARRER, Septuaginta Deutsch. Das griechische Alte Testament in deutscher Übersetzung, Stuttgart, 2009. A. PIETERSMA and B. G. WRIGHT, A New English Translation of the Septuagint, New York, 2007 (= NETS).

Old Latin (OL) J.-C. HAELEWYCK (ed.), Hester (Vetus Latina. Die Reste der altlateinischen Bibel 7/3), Freiburg, 2003-2008.

Vulgate (Vulg.) Libri Hester et Job ex interpretatione sancti Hieronymi cum praefationibus et variis capitulorum seriebus (Biblia sacra iuxta latinam Vulgatam versionem 9), Rome, 1951.

Elephantine

327

Peshitta (Pesh. or Syr.) A. M. CERIANI (ed.), Translatio syra Pescitto veteris Testamenti ex codice Ambrosiano, Milan, 1876-1883. [Esther was not yet published in the collection Old Testament in Syriac according to the Peshiṭta Version, Leiden].

Patristic Literature Biblia patristica: index des citations et allusions bibliques dans la littérature patristique (vol. 1-7), Paris, 1975-2000.

Bible Translations Bible translations are abbreviated as follows ASV: American Standard Version (1901) BJ: Bible de Jérusalem (1998) NAB: New American Bible TOB: Traduction Oecuménique de la Bible NASB: New American Standard Bible NBS: Nouvelle Bible Segond NETS: New English Translation of the Septuagint NIV: New International Version NRSV: New Revised Standard Version

Mesopotamian and Persian Literature Jean-Jacques GLASSNER, Chroniques mésopotamiennes (La roue à livres), Paris, 1993. Pierre LECOQ, Les inscriptions de la Perse achéménide. Traduit du vieux perse, de l’élamite, du babylonien et de l’araméen, présenté et annoté par Pierre Lecoq (L’aube des peuples), Paris, 1997. Matthew W. STOLPER, Entrepreneurs and Empire: The Murašû Archive, the Murašû Firm, and Persian Rule in Babylonia (Uitgaven van het Nederlands historisch-archaeologisch instituut te Istanbul 54), Istanbul, 1985.

Ancient Aramaic and Hebrew Sources Elephantine B. PORTEN and A. YARDENI, Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt (3 vols.), Jerusalem et al., 1986-1993. Arthur Ernest COWLEY, Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C., Oxford, 1923. Godrey Rolles DRIVER, Aramaic Documents of the Fifth Century, Oxford, 1957. Louis DELAPORTE, Epigraphes araméens, Paris, 1912. P. GRELOT, Documents araméens d’Egypte (LAPO 5), Paris, 1972.

328

Greek and Roman Literature

Megillat Ta’anit Vered NOAM, “Megillat Taanit – The Scroll of Fasting,” in The Literature of the Sages, S. SAFRAI, et al. (eds.), Minneapolis Assen, 2006, p. 339-362. Vered NOAM, ‫מגילת תענית‬, Jerusalem, 2003

Targum Esther I and Targum Esther II (Tg. Esth. I and Tg. Esth. II) Bernard GROSSFELD, The Two Targums of Esther. Translated, with Apparatus and Notes (The Aramaic Bible 18), Edinburgh, 1991. Bernard GROSSFELD, The First Targum to Esther. According to the MS Hebrew 110 of the Bibliothèque Nationale. Translated and Annotated by Bernard Grossfeld, New York, 1983. Beate EGO, Targum Scheni zu Ester. Übersetzung, Kommentar und theologische Deutung (TSAJ 54), Tübingen, 1996.

Midrash Rabbah (Mid. Rabbah) and Other Midrashic Texts Maurice MERGUI, Le Midrash Rabba sur Esther: Esther Rabba (Textes fondateurs de la tradition juive), Paris, 2004. Maurice SIMON, “Esther,” in Midrash Rabbah, vol. 9, H. FREEDMAN and M. SIMON (eds.), London, 1961, p. 1-124. Jacob NEUSNER, Esther Rabbah I: an Analytical Translation (BJS 182), Atlanta, 1989. D. BÖRNER-KLEIN and E. HOLLENDER, Rabbinische Kommentare zum Buch Ester Band 2. Die Midraschim zu Ester, Leiden, 2000. E. SEGAL, The Babylonian Esther Midrash: a Critical Commentary (BJS 291-3), Atlanta, 1994.

Talmud (Babylonian (b.) and Jerusalem (y.)) I. EPSTEIN (ed.), The Babylonian Talmud, London, 1978. M. SCHWAB, Le Talmud de Jérusalem, Paris, 1977.

Greek and Roman Literature (PSEUDO-)ARISTOTE, Traité du ciel suivi du traité Pseudo-aristotélicien Du Monde. Traduction et notes par J. Tricot (Bibliothèque des textes philosophiques), Paris, 1998. [PSEUDO-ARISTOTLE, De Mundo] ARRIEN, Histoire d’Alexandre. L’Anabase d’Alexandre le Grand – L’Inde. Traduit du grec par Pierre Savinel suivi de “Flavius Arrien entre deux mondes” par Pierre Vidal-Naquet (Arguments), Paris, 1984. [ARRIAN, Anab.] ATHENAEUS, The Deipnophistes. With an English Translation by Charle Burton Gulick, 7 vol. (LCL), London et al., 1927-1941. [ATHENAEUS, Deipn.] CTÉSIAS, “Histoire des Perses,” in Histoires de l’Orient, traduction J. Auberger (La roue à livres), Paris, 1991, p. 29-103. CTÉSIAS DE CNIDE, La Perse; L’Inde; Autres fragments. Texte établi, traduit et commenté par Dominique Lenfant (CUF), Paris, 2004 [Citation from this edition from Jacoby]. [CTESIAS, Persica] DIODORE DE SICILE, Bibliothèque historique (CUF), Paris, 1972–. [DIODORUS OF SICILY, Bibliotheca]

Greek and Roman Literature

329

W. DITTENBERGER (ed.), Inscriptiones Megaridis et Boeotiae (Inscriptiones graecae 7), Berlin, 1892. AELIAN, On the Characteristics of Animals. With an English Translation by A.F. Scholfield, 3 vol. (LCL), London et al., 1958-1959. [Nat. an.] ELIEN, Histoire variée. Traduit et commenté par Alessandra Lukinovich et Anne-France Morand (La roue à livres), Paris, 1991. AELIAN, Historical Miscellany (LCL), London et al., 1997. [AELIAN, Var. hist.] ESCHYLE, Les suppliantes – Les Perses – Les sept contre Thèbes – Prométhée enchaîné. Texte établi et traduit par Paul Mason (CUF), Paris, 19952. [AESCHYLUS, Pers.] EUSÈBE DE CÉSARÉE, Histoire ecclésiastique. Texte grec, trad. et notes par Gustave Bardy (Sources chrétiennes), Paris, 1952-1971. [EUSEBIUS, Hist. eccl.] JUSTIN, Abrégé des Histoires philippiques de Trogue Pompée et Prologues de Trogue Pompée; texte latin et traduction E. Chambry et al., Paris, 1936; J. PIERROT et E. BOITARD, Histoire universelle de Justin extraite de Trogue Pompée, 2 vol., Paris, 1833. [JUSTIN, Historiae Philippicae] HÉRODOTE, Histoires. Texte établi et traduit par Ph.-E. Legrand (CUF), Paris, 1930-1954. / “L’enquête d’Hérodote, texte présenté, traduit et annoté par A. Barguet,” in HÉRODOTE et THUCYDIDE, Oeuvres complètes (Pleiade 176), Paris, 1964. [HERODOTUS, Hist.] FLAVIUS JOSÈPHE, Les Antiquités juives. Etablissement du texte, trad. et notes par Etienne Nodet, vol. 1, Paris, 1990. [JOSEPHUS, Ant.] FLAVIUS JOSÈPHE, Guerre des Juifs. Texte établi et traduit par André Pelletier (CUF), Paris, 1975-1982. [JOSEPHUS, J.W.] FLAVIUS JOSÈPHE, Oeuvres complètes, Paris, 1900-1932. [JOSEPHUS] F. JACOBY, Die Fragmente der Griechischen Historiker, Leiden, 1958. Dominique LENFANT, Les Histoires perses de Dinon et d’Héraclide. Fragments édités, traduits et commentés par Dominique Lenfant (Persika 13), Paris, 2009. M.-T. LENGER, Corpus des ordonnances des Ptolémées, Brussels, 1980. PLATON, Le Banquet. Oeuvres complètes vol. 4 (CUF), Paris, 1989. [PLATO, Resp.] PLATON, Les Lois. Oeuvres complètes vol. 11-12 (CUF), Paris, 1975-1976. [PLATO, Leg.] PLUTARQUE, Vies. Vol. 2. Solon – Publicola – Thémistocle – Camille. Texte établi et traduit par R. Flacelière, E. Chambry et M. Juneaux (CUF), Paris, 1961. PLUTARQUE, Vies. Vol. 15. Artaxerxès – Aratos – Galba – Othon. Texte établi et traduit par R. Flacelière et E. Chambry (CUF), Paris, 1979. [PLUTARCH, Parallel Lives.] PLUTARQUE, Propos de table. Oeuvres morales, vol. 9, 1-3 (CUF), Paris, 1972-1996. [PLUTARCH, Quaest. conv.] PLUTARQUE, Oeuvres morales. Tome 2. Texte établi et traduit par J. Defradas, J. Hani et R. Klaerr (CUF), Paris, 1985. [PLUTARCH, Mor.] QUINTE-CURCE, Histoires. Texte établi et traduit par H. Bardon, 2 vol. (CUF), Paris, 1948-1961. [QUINTUS CURTIUS RUFUS, Historiae] T. REINACH, Textes d’auteurs grecs et romains relatifs au Judaïsme (éd. originale 1895), Hildesheim et al., 1983. M. STERN, Greek and Latin authors on Jews and Judaism, Jerusalem, 1974-1984. STRABON, Géographie. Texte établi et traduit par G. Aujac, F. Lasserre, R. Baladié, 9 vol. (CUF), Paris, 1969. STRABO, The Geography of Strabo, 8 vol. (LCL), London et al., 19171932. [Geogr.] THUCYDIDE, La guerre du Péloponnèse. Texte établi et traduit par J. de Romilly, L. Bodin, R. Weil (CUF), Paris, 1953-1972. [THUCYDIDES, War.] XÉNOPHON, Anabase. Texte établi et trad. par Paul Masqueray (CUF), Paris, 1967-1970 [XENOPHON, Anab.] XÉNOPHON, Cyropédie. Texte établi et traduit par M. Bizos (1-2) et E. Delebecque (3), 3 vol. (CUF), Paris, 1972-1978. [XENOPHON, Cyr.]

330

Commentaries on the Book of Esther

XÉNOPHON, Economique. Texte établi et traduit par P. Chantraine (CUF), Paris, 1971. [XENOPHON, Oec.] XÉNOPHON, Constitution des Lacédémoniens; Agésilas; Hiéron; suivi de Pseudo-Xénophon Constitution des Athéniens. Trad. et annoté par Michel Casevitz (La roue à livres), Paris, 2008. XÉNOPHON, La république des Lacédémoniens. Texte et trad. avec une introd. et un commentaire par François Ollier, Lyon, 1934. [XENOPHON, Lac.]

Encyclopedias, Dictionaries, Grammars A. BAILLY, Dictionnaire grec-français. Edition revue par L. Séchan et P. Chantraine, Paris, 1996 (= BAILLY). Adele BERLIN (ed.), The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion, New York et al., 2011. G.J. BOTTERWECK and Helmer RINGGREN (eds.), Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament, 6 vol., Stuttgart et al., 1973-1993 (= ThWAT). Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, Grand Rapids, 1974-2012 (= TDOT). A.C. DALE et al. (eds.), The Encyclopedia of the Bible and its Reception, Berlin et al., 2009–. Ronald L. EISENBERG (ed.), The JPS guide to Jewish traditions, Philadelphia, 2004. D.N. FREEDMANN (ed.), Anchor Bible Dictionary, New York et al., 1992 (= ABD). W. GESENIUS and E. KAUTZSCH, Hebräische Grammatik, Leipzig, 1889 (= GESENIUS – KAUTZSCH). J. HOFTIJZER and K. JONGELING, Dictionary of the North-West Semitic Inscriptions (HO. Erste Abteilung, Der Nahe und Mittlere Osten, 21), Leiden et al., 1995 (= DNWSI). P. JOÜON, Grammaire de l’hébreu biblique, Rome, 1923 (= JOÜON). L. KOEHLER, W. BAUMGARTNER and J.J. STAMM, Hebräisches und aramäisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament, 4 vol., Leiden, 1967-1990 (= HAL). J. NEUSNER, A.J. AVERY-PECK and W.S. GREEN (eds.), The Encyclopaedia of Judaism. 3 vol., Leiden et al., 2000. Isidore SINGER (ed.), The Jewish Encyclopedia, New York et al., 1902-1907. Fred SKOLNIK and Michael BERENBAUM (ed.), Encyclopaedia Judaica, Detroit, 20072. K. VAN DER TOORN, B. BECKING and P. VAN DER HORST (eds.), Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, Leiden et al., 1999 (=DDD) B.K. WALTKE and M. O’CONNOR, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, Winona Lake, 1990 (= WALTKE-O’CONNOR). Geoffrey WIGODER (ed.), Dictionnaire Encyclopédique du Judaïsme, Paris, 1993.

Commentaries on the Book of Esther Daniel ARNOLD, Esther. Survivre dans un monde hostile. Une approche globale du livre d’Esther, Saint-Légier, 2000. Joyce G. BALDWIN, Esther: an Introduction and Commentary (TOTC 12), Leiceister, 1984. Hans BARDTKE, “Das Buch Esther,” in Hans Wilhelm Hertzberg, Der Prediger / Hans Bardtke, Das Buch Esther (KAT XVII/4-5), Gütersloh, 1963, p. 239-408. Timothy K. BEAL, “Esther,” in Ruth and Esther (Berit Olam), T.K. BEAL and T.A. LINAFELT, Collegeville, MN, 1999. Carol M. BECHTEL, Esther (IBC), Louisville, 2002. Adele BERLIN, Esther (JPS Bible Commentary), Philadelphia, 2001. Frederic W. BUSH, Ruth, Esther (WBC 9), Dallas, 1996.

Commentaries on the Book of Esther

331

David J.A. CLINES, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther (NCBC), Grand Rapids et al., 1984. Linda M. DAY, Esther (AOTC), Nashville, 2005. Werner DOMMERSHAUSEN, Ester (NEchtB), Würzburg, 1980. Wesley J. FUERST, “Esther,” in The Books of Ruth, Esther, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, Lamentations: the Five Scrolls (CBC), Cambridge, 1975, p. 32-90. Gillis GERLEMAN, Esther (BK.AT XXI/1), Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1970-1973. S. GOLDMAN, “‫ אסתר‬Esther Introduction and Commentary,” in The Five Megilloth. Hebrew Text, English Translation and Commentary, A. COHEN (ed.), Hindhead, 1946, p. 192-243. Robert GORDIS, Megillat Esther: the Masoretic Hebrew text with introd., new transl. and comment, New York, 1974. Hermann GUNKEL, Esther (Religionsgeschichtliche Volksbücher 2 – 19/20), Tübingen, 1916. Max HALLER, “Esther” in Die fünf Megilloth. Ruth, Hoheslied, Prediger, Klagelieder, Esther (HAT 1.18), M. HALLER and K. GALLING, Tübingen, 1940, p. 114-136. Karen H. JOBES, Esther (NIV Application Commentary), Grand Rapids, 1999. Carl Friedrich KEIL, Biblischer Kommentar über die nachexilischen Geschichtsbücher: Chronik, Esra, Nehemia und Esther (BKAT Theil 5), Leipzig, 1870. Carl Friedrich KEIL, The Books of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther, Edinburgh, 1873. John D. LEVENSON, Esther. A Commetary (OTL), London, 1997. James A. LOADER, “Das Buch Ester,” in Das Hohelied / Klagelieder / Das Buch Ester. Übersetzt und erklärt von Hans-Peter Müller, Otto Kaiser und James Alfred Loader (ATD 16/2), Göttingen, 1992, p. 199-280. Israel P. LOKEN, Esther (Loken Expositional Commentary), Xulon, 2007. Jean-Daniel MACCHI, Le livre d’Esther (CAT 14e), Geneva, Labor et Fides, 2016. Arndt MEINHOLD, Das Buch Esther (ZBK), Zurich, 1983. Carey A. MOORE, Esther. Introduction, Translation, and Notes (AB 7B), New York, 1971. Lewis Bayles PATON, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Esther (ICC), Edinburgh, 1908. Debra REID, Esther: an Introduction and Commentary (TOTC 13), Nottingham, 2008. Helmer RINGGREN, “Das Buch Esther,” in Das Hohe Lied, Klagelieder, das Buch Esther (ATD 16/ 2), H. RINGGREN and O. KAISER, Göttingen, 1981, p. 387-421. Johannes SCHILDENBERGER, Das Buch Esther übersetzt und erklärt (Die Heilige Schrift des Alten Testamentes 4/3), Bonn, 1941. D.C. SIEGFRIED, “Das Buch Esther,” in Esra, Nehemia und Esther (HAT 1/6.2), Göttingen, 1901, p. 144-175. Christine STARK, “Esther,” in Erklärt – Der Kommentar zur Zürcher Bibel. Band 2, M. KRIEG and K. SCHMID (eds.), Zurich, 2010, p. 1078-1097. Johanna W.H. VAN WIJK-BOS, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther (Westminster Bible Companion), Louisville, 1998. Harald Martin WAHL, Das Buch Esther. Übersetzung und Kommentar, Berlin et al., 2009. Mona WEST, “Esther,” in The Queer Bible Commentary, D. GUEST, et al. (eds.), London, 2006, p. 278-285. Sidnie WHITE CRAWFORD, “The Book of Esther,” in The New Interpreter’s Bible. Vol. 3, L.E. KECK et al. (eds.), Nashville, 1999, p. 855-941. Sidnie WHITE CRAWFORD, “The Additions to Esther,” in The New Interpreter’s Bible. Vol. 3, L.E. KECK et al. (eds.), Nashville, 1999, p. 945-971. Sidnie WHITE CRAWFORD, “Esther,” in Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible, J. D. G. DUNN and J. W. ROGERSON (eds.), Grand Rapids et al., 2003, p. 329-336. Gerrit WILDEBOER, “Das Buch Esther,” in Die fünf Megillot, K. BUDDE, A. BERTHOLET and G. WILDEBOER, Leipzig et al., 1898, p. 169-197. Ernst WÜRTHWEIN, “Esther,” in Die fünf Megilloth. Ruth, Hoheslied, Prediger, Klagelieder, Esther (HAT 2.18), K. GALLING, O. PLÖGER and E. WÜRTHWEIN, Tübingen, 1969, p. 165-196.

332

Articles and Monographs

Articles and Monographs Philippe ABADIE, “1 et 2 Maccabées,” in Introduction à l’Ancien Testament (MdB 49), T. RÖMER, J.-D. MACCHI and C. NIHAN (eds.), Geneva, 2004, p. 643-654. Philippe ABADIE, “Le livre d’Esther comme lieu du travestissement masqué,” Théophilyon 14 (2009), p. 285-308. Philippe ABADIE, La reine masquée. Lecture du livre d’Esther, Lyon, 2011. Reinhard ACHENBACH, “‘Genocide’ in the Book of Esther: Cultural Integration and the Right of Resistance against Pogroms,” in Between Cooperation and Hostility. Multiple Identities in Ancient Judaism and the Interaction with Foreign Powers (Journal of Ancient Judaism. Sup. 11), R. ALBERTZ and J. WÖHRLE (eds.), Göttingen, 2013, p. 89-114. Peter ACKROYD, “Two Hebrew Notes,” ASTI 5 (1967), 82-85. Philip S. ALEXANDER, “3 Maccabees, Hanukkah and Purim,” in Biblical Hebrews, Biblical Texts. Essays in Memory of Michael P. Weitzman (JSOTSup 333), A. RAPOPORT-ALBERT and G. GREENBERG (eds.), Sheffield, 2001, p. 321-339. Philip S. ALEXANDER, “The Formation of the Biblical Canon in Rabbinic Judaism,” in The Canon of Scripture in Jewish and Christian Tradition = Le canon des Écritures dans les traditions juive et chrétienne (PIRSB 4), P. S. ALEXANDER and J.-D. KAESTLI (eds.), Prahins, 2007, p. 57-80. Robert ALTER, The World of Biblical Literature, New York, 1992. Claire-Sybille ANDREY, “Esther 5,1-8: Le ‘hasard’ fait si bien les choses…”, LeD 81 (2009), p. 15-24. Claire-Sybille ANDREY, Esther en mineur et majeur, Doctoral Thesis, Faculté de théologie de l’Université de Genève, 2017. G.G. APERGHIS, The Seleukid Royal Economy. The Finances and Financial Administration of the Seleukid Empire, Cambridge, 2004. J.M. AUWERS and H. J. DE JONGE, The Biblical Canons (BEThL 163), Leuven, 2003. Randall C. BAILEY, “That’s Why They Didn’t Call the Book Hadassah!”: The Interse(ct)/ (x)ionality of Race/Ethnicity, Gender, and Sexuality in the Book of Esther,” in They Were All Together in One Place? Toward Minority Biblical Criticism (SBL.SS 57), R.C. BAILEY, T.-S.B. LIEW and F. SEGOVIA (eds.), Leiden et al., 2009, p. 227-250. Timothy K. BEAL, “Tracing Esther’s Beginnings,” in A Feminist Companion to Esther, Judith and Susanna (FCB 7), A. BRENNER (ed.), Sheffield, 1995, p. 87-110. Timothy K. BEAL, The Book of Hiding Gender, Ethnicity, Annihilation, and Esther (BibLim), London et al., 1997. Roger T. BECKWITH, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and its Background in Early Judaism, Grand Rapids, 1985. Sandra Beth BERG, The Book of Esther: Motifs, Themes and Structure (SBLDS 44), Missoula, 1978. Yitzhak BERGER, “Esther and Benjaminite Royalty: A Study in Inner-Biblical Allusion,” JBL 129 (2010), 625-644. Ronald L. BERGEY, The Book of Esther: Its Place in the Linguistic Milieu of Post-Exilic Biblical Hebrew Prose: A Study in late Biblical Hebrew, Ann Arbor, 1983. Adele BERLIN, “The Book of Esther and Ancient Storytelling,” JBL 120 (2001), 3-14. Joshua BERMAN, “Two Days of Feasting (Esth 5:1-8) and Two Days of Fighting (Esth 9:1-16) in the Book of Esther,” in Narrative analogy in the Hebrew Bible: Battle Stories and their Equivalent non-Battle Narratives (VTSup 103), Leiden et al., 2004, p. 115-146. Elias J. BICKERMAN, “Notes on the Greek Book of Esther,” Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 20 (1950), p. 101-133 (= C.A. MOORE (ed.), Studies, p. 488-520 = E.J. BICKERMAN, Studies, p. 238-265). Elias J. BICKERMAN, Four Strange Books of the Bible, New York, 1967.

Articles and Monographs

333

Adrian D.H. BIVAR, “Achaemenid Coins, Weights and Measures,” in The Cambridge History of Iran, vol 2. The Median and Achaemenian Periods, I. GERSHEVITCH (ed.), Cambridge, 1985, p. 610-638. Cameron BOYD-TAYLOR, “Esther’s Great Adventure: Reading the LXX Version of the Book of Esther in Light of Its Assimilation to the Conventions of the Greek Romantic Novel,” BIOSCS 30 (1997), 81-113. Cameron BOYD-TAYLOR, “Esther and Additions to Esther,” in T&T Clark Companion to the Septuagint, J. K. AITKEN (ed.), Edinburgh, 2015, p. 203-221. Athalya BRENNER, A Feminist Companion to Esther, Judith and Susanna (FCB 7), Sheffield, 1995. Pierre BRIANT, Histoire de l’Empire perse de Cyrus à Alexandre, Paris, 1996. Leila Leah BRONNER, “Esther Revisited: An Aggadic Approach,” in A Feminist Companion to Esther, Judith and Susanna (FCB 7), A. BRENNER (ed.), Sheffield, 1995, p. 176-197. Maria BROSIUS, Women in Ancient Persia, 559-331 B.C. (OCM), Oxford, 1996. L.E. BROWNE, “Esther,” in Peake’s Commentary on the Bible, M. BLACK and H. H. ROWLEY (eds.), Nairobi et al., 1962, p. 381-385. Klara BUTTING, “Esther: A New Interpretation of the Joseph Story in the Fight against Anti-Semitism and Sexism,” in Ruth and Esther (FCB SS 3), A. BRENNER (ed.), Sheffield, 1999, p. 239-248. Dionisio CANDIDO, I testi del libro di Ester. Il caso dell’Introitus TM 1.1-22 – LXX A1-17; 1,1-22 – Ta A1-18; 1,1-21 (AnBib 160), Rome 2005. Laurent CAPDETREY, Le pouvoir séleucide territoire, administration, finances d’un royaume hellénistique (312-129 avant J.-C.) (Collection histoire), Rennes, 2007. Jo CARRUTHERS, Esther through the Centuries (BwBC), Oxford, 2008. Claudine CAVALIER, “La canonicité d’Esther dans le judaïsme rabbinique: les documents talmudiques,” REJ 163 (2004), 5-23. Jacques CAZEAUX, La guerre sainte n’aura pas lieu (LeDiv 185), Paris, 2001. Henri CAZELLES, “Note sur la composition du rouleau d’Esther,” in Lex tua veritas: Festschrift für Hubert Junker, H. GROSS et F. MUSSNER (eds.), Trier, 1961, p. 17-29. Michael J. CHAN, “Ira Regis: Comedic Inflections of Royal Rage in Jewish Court Tales,” JQR 103 (2013), 1-25. Michael CHYUTIN, Tendentious Hagiographies. Jewish Propagandist Fiction BCE (LSTS 77), London et al., 2011. David J.A. CLINES, The Esther Scroll. The Story of the Story (JSOTSup 30), Sheffield, 1984. David J.A. CLINES, “Reading Esther from Left to Right. Contemporary Strategies for Reading a Biblical Text,” in The Bible in Three Dimensions. Essays in Celebration of Forty Years of Biblical Studies in the University of Sheffield (JSOTSup 87), D.J.A. CLINES, S.E. FOWL and S.E. PORTER (eds.), Sheffield, 1990, p. 31-52. David J.A. CLINES, “In Quest of the Historical Mordechai”, VT 41 (1991), 129-136. David J.A. CLINES, “Mordecai,” in ABD, vol. 4, p. 902-904. Ohad COHEN, The Verbal Tense System in late Biblical Hebrew Prose (HSS 63), Winona Lake, 2013. Herbert J. COOK, “The A Text of the Greek Versions of the Book of Esther,” ZAW 81 (1969), 369-376. John CRAGHAN, Esther, Judith, Tobit, Jonah, Ruth (Old Testament Message 16), Wilmington, 1982. Kenneth M. CRAIG, Reading Esther: a Case for the Literary Carnivalesque (LCBI), Louisville, 1995. James L. CRENSHAW, “The Expression mî yôdēa‘ in the Hebrew Bible,” VT 36 (1986), 274-288. Linda DAY, Three Faces of a Queen. Characterization in the Books of Esther (JSOTSup 186), Sheffield, 1995. C.R. DICKSON and Peter J.J. BOTHA, “The Role and Portrayal of the King in Esther,” OTE 13 (2000), 156-173.

334

Articles and Monographs

Stéphanie VON DOBBELER, Die Bücher 1/2 Makkabäer (NSK.AT 11), Stuttgart, 1997. Werner DOMMERSHAUSEN, Die Estherrolle. Stil und Ziel einer alttestamentlichen Schrift (SBM 6), Stuttgart, 1968. Gilles DORIVAL, “La formation du canon biblique de l’Ancien Testament,” in Recueils normatifs et canons dans l’Antiquité : perspectives nouvelles sur la formation des canons juif et chrétien dans leur contexte culturel (PIRSB 3), E. NORELLI (ed.), Prahins, 2004, p. 83-112. Charles V. DOROTHY, The Books of Esther. Structure, Genre and Textual Integrity (JSOTSup 187), Sheffield, 1997. Godrey Rolles DRIVER, “Problems and Solutions,” VT 4 (1954), 225-245. M. DU TOIT, “The LXX Book of Esther as a Satirical Drama,” Journal for Semitics 17 (2008), 77-95. Jacques DUCHESNE-GUILLEMIN, “Les noms des eunuques d’Assuerus,” Le Muséon 66, 1953, 105-108. Nuran DURAN, “Who Wants to Marry a Persian King? Gender Games and Wars and the Book of Esther,” in Pregnant Passion. Gender, Sex, and Violence in the Bible (SBL.SSt 44), C. A. KIRK-DUGGAN (ed.), Atlanta, 2003, p. 71-84. Nicole DURAN, “Having Men for Dinner: Deadly Banquets and Biblical Women,” BTB 35 (2005), 117-124. Beate EGO, “Mordecai’s Refusal of Proskynesis Before Haman According to the Septuagint Traditio-historical and Literal Aspects,” in Deuterocanonical Additions of the Old Testament Books: Selected Studies (Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Studies 5), G. G. XERAVITS and J. ZSENGELLÉR (eds.), Berlin et al., 2010, p. 16-29. Beate EGO, “Mordechais Verweigerung der Proskynese vor Haman im Kontext der religiösen Vorstellungswelt des Esterbuches,” in Die Septuaginta – Texte, Theologien, Einflüsse, 2. Internationale Fachtagung veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX.D), Wuppertal 23.-27.7.2008 (WUNT.1 252), W. KRAUS and M. KARRER (eds.), Tübingen, 2010, p. 506-522. Beate EGO, “The Book of Esther: A Hellenistic Book,” Journal of Ancient Judaism 1 (2010), 279-302. Otto EISSFELDT, “Rechtskundige und Richter in Esther 1,13-22,” in Festschrift für Wilhelm Eilers: ein Dokument der internationalen Forschung zum 27. September 1967, G. WIESSNER (ed.), Wiesbaden, 1967, p. 164-167. Arnold B. EHRLICH, Randglossen zur hebräischen Bibel. Textkritisches, sprachliches und sachliches. Vol. 7. Hohes Lied, Ruth, Klagelieder, Koheleth, Esther, Daniel, Esra, Nehemia, Könige, Chronik, Nachträge und Gesamtregister, Leipzig, 1914. Wilhelm ERBT, Die Purimsage in der Bibel: Untersuchungen über das Buch Ester und der Estersage verwandte Sagen des spateren Judentums: ein Beitrag zur vergleichenden Religionsgeschichte, Berlin, 1900. David G. FIRTH, “The Third Quest for the Historical Mordecai and the Genre of the Book of Esther,” OTE 16/2, 2003, 233-243. Allison Kay FOUNTAIN, Literary and Empirical Readings of the Books of Esther (Studies in Biblical Literature 43), New York et al., 2002. Michael V. FOX, Character and Ideology in the Book of Esther (Studies on Personalities of the Old Testament), University of South Carolina, 1991. Michael V. FOX, The Redaction of the Books of Esther (SBL.MS 40), Atlanta, 1991. Michael V. FOX, “Three Esthers,” in The Book of Esther in Modern Research (JSOTSup 380), S. W. CRAWFORD and L. J. GREENSPOON (eds.), London et al., 2003, p. 50-60. Mark J. FRETZ, “Agagite,” in ABD, vol 1, p. 89-90. Albert D. FRIEDBERG, “A New Clue in the Dating of the Composition of the Book of Esther”, VT 50 (2000), 561-565. Albert D. FRIEDBERG and Vincent DECAEN, “Dating the Composition of the Book of Esther. A Response to Larsson,” VT 53 (2003), 427-429.

Articles and Monographs

335

Ida FRÖHLICH, ‘Time and Times and Half a Time’ Historical Consciousness in the Jewish Literature of the Persian and Hellenistic Eras (JSP.S 19), Sheffield, 1996. Serge FROLOV, “Two Eunuchs, Two Conspiracies, and One Loyal Jew: The Narrative of Botched Regicide in Esther as Text- and Redaction-Critical Test Case,” VT 52 (2002), 304-325. Trisha M. GAMBAIANA WHEELOCK, Drunk and Disorderly: A Bakhtinian Reading of the Banquet Scenes in the Book of Esther, PhD, Baylor University, 2008. Theodor Herzel GASTER, Purim and Hanukkah in Custom and Tradition, New York, 1950. Jean GAUDEMET, Institutions de l’Antiquité, Paris, 1994. Henry S. GEHMAN, “Notes on the Persian Words in the Book of Esther,” JBL 43 (1924), 321328. Gillis GERLEMAN, Studien zu Esther. Stoff – Struktur – Stil – Sinn (Biblische Studien 48), Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1966. Haim M. I. GEVARYAHU, “Esther is a Story of Jewish Defense not a Story of Jewish Revenge,” JBQ 21 (1993), 3-12. Harold Louis GINSBERG, “Lexicographical Notes,” in Hebräische Wortforschung. Festschrift zum 80. Geburtstag von Walter Baumgartner (VTSup 16), B. HARTMANN, et al. (eds.), Leiden, 1967, p. 71-82. Louis GINZBERG, Les légendes des Juifs. 6, Juda et Israël, Elie, Elisée et Jonas, les rois de Juda des périodes tardives, l’exil, le retour de captivité, Esther (Patrimoine Judaïsme), Paris, 2006. Greg SCHMIDT GOERING, “Intersecting Identities and Persuasive Speech. The Cases of Judah and Esther,” BibInt 23 (2015), 340-368. S. GOLDMAN, “Narrative and Ethical Ironies in Esther,” JSOT 47 (1990), 15-31. Jonathan A. GOLDSTEIN, II Maccabees, Garden City, N.Y., 1983. Robert GORDIS, “Studies in the Esther Narrative,” JBL 95 (1976), 43-58. Robert GORDIS, “Religion, Wisdom and History in the Book of Esther – A New Solution to an Ancient Crux,” JBL 100 (1981), 359-388. H. GRÄTZ, “Der historische Hintergrund und die Abfassung des Buches Esther und der Ursprung des Purimfestes”, MGWJ 35 (1886), 425-442, 473-503, 521-542. Christian GRAPPE and Jean-Claude INGELAERE, Le Temps et les Temps dans les littératures juives et chrétiennes au tournant de notre ère (JSJSup 112), Leiden et al., 2006. Jonathan GROSSMAN, “‘Dynamic Analogies’ in the Book of Esther,” VT 59 (2009), 394-414. Jonathan GROSSMAN, Esther: The Outer Narrative and the Hidden Reading (Siphrut. Literature and Theology of the Hebrew Scriptures 6), Winona Lake, 2011. Jonathan GROSSMAN, “The Vanishing Character in Biblical Narrative: The Role of Hathach in Esther 4,” VT 62 (2012), 561-571. Ehrich Stephen GRUEN, Heritage and Hellenism. The Reinvention of Jewish Tradition (Hellenistic culture and society 30), Berkeley et al., 1998. Ehrich Stephen GRUEN, “Persia through the Jewish Looking-Glass,” in Jewish Perspectives on Hellenistic Rulers, Hellenistic Culture and Society (HellCS 50), T. RAJAK, et al. (eds.), Berkeley et al., 2007, p. 53-75. Hermann GUNKEL, Schöpfung und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit, Göttingen, 1921. Noah HACHAM, “Third Maccabees and Esther: Parallels, Intertextuality, and Diaspora Identity,” JBL 126 (2007), 765-785. Noah HACHAM, “Bigthan and Teresh and the Reason Gentiles Hate Jews,” VT 62 (2012), 318-356. Jean-Claude HAELEWYCK, “Le texte dit ‘Lucianique’ du livre d’Esther. Son étendue et sa cohérence,” Le Muséon 98 (1985), 5-44. Martien A. HALVORSON-TAYLOR, “Secrets and Lies: Secrecy Notices (Esther 2:10, 20) and Diasporic Identity in the Book of Esther,” JBL 131 (2012), 467-485. Rebecca S. HANCOCK, Esther and the Politics of Negotiation: Public and Private Spaces and the Figure of the Female Royal Counselor (Emerging Scholars), Minneapolis, 2013.

336

Articles and Monographs

Walter HARRELSON, “Textual and Translation Problems in the Book of Esther,” Perspectives in Religious Studies 17 (1990), 197-208. Charles D. HARVEY, Finding Morality in the Diaspora? Moral Ambiguity and Transformated Morality in the Books of Esther (BZAW 328), Berlin et al., 2003. Paul HAUPT, Purim, Leipzig et al., 1906. Paul HAUPT, “Critical Notes on Esther,” AJSL 24 (1907-1908), 97-186. Michael HELTZER, The Province Judah and Jews in Persian Times, Tel Aviv, 2008. David HENDIN and Herbert KREINDLER, Guide to Biblical Coins, New York, 2010. Almut HINTZE, “The Greek and Hebrew Versions of the Book of Esther and Its Iranian Background,” in Irano-Judaica III, S. SHAKED (ed.), Jerusalem, 1994, p. 34-39. Sylvie HONIGMAN, Tales of High Priests and Taxes. The Books of the Maccabees and the Judean Rebellion against Antiochos IV, Oakland, 2014. Elliot HOROWITZ, Reckless Rites. Purim and the Legacy of Jewish Violence, Princeton et al., 2008. Jacob HOSCHANDER, The Book of Esther in the light of history, Philadelphia, 1923. W. Lee HUMPHREYS, “A Life-Style for Diaspora: A Study of the Tales of Esther and Daniel,” JBL 92 (1973), 211-223. Manfred HUTTER, “Iranische Elemente im Buch Esther,” in Kulturkontakte und ihre bedeutung in Geschichte und Gegenwart des Orients, H. D. GALTER (ed.), Graz, 1986, p. 51-66. Jonathan JACOBS, “Characterizing Esther from the Outset: The Contribution of the Story in Esther 2:1–20,” JHS 8/16 (2008), 2-13. Melissa A. JACKSON, Comedy and Feminist Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible: A Subversive Collaboration, Oxford, 2012. John JARICK, “Greek Esther,” in Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible, J. D. G. DUNN and J. W. ROGERSON (eds.), Grand Rapids et al., 2003, p. 758-762. Peter JENSEN, “Elamistische Eigennamen. Ein Beitrag zur Erklärung der elamitischen Inschriften,” WZKM 6 (1892), 47-70, 209-226. Karen H. JOBES, The Alpha-Text of Esther. Its Character and Relationship to the Masoretic Text (SBL.DS 153), Atlanta, 1996. Karen H. JOBES, “How an Assassination Changed the Greek Text of Esther,” ZAW 110 (1998), 75-78. Bruce William JONES, “Two Misconceptions about the Book of Esther,” CBQ 39 (1977), 171181 (= C.A. MOORE [ed.], Studies, p. 437-447). Pierre JORDAAN, “The Pendulum Is Never Static. Jesus Sira to Jesus Christ on Women in the Light of Judith, Susanna and LXX Esther,” HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 65 (2009), 178-183. Jean-Daniel KAESTLI and Otto WERMELINGER (ed.), Le Canon de l’Ancien Testament. Sa formation et son histoire (MdB 10), Geneva, 1984. Hanna KAHANA, Esther: Juxtaposition of the Septuagint Translation with the Hebrew Text (CBET), Leuven et al., 2005. Isaac KALIMI, “The Book of Esther and the Dead Sea Scrolls’ Community,” ThZ 60 (2004), 101-106. Isaac KALIMI, “Fear of Annihilation and Eternal Covenant: The Book of Esther in Judaism and Jewish Theology,” in Jewish Bible Theology. Perspectives and Case Studies, I. KALIMI (ed.), Winona Lake, 2012, p. 231-247. Shula KESHET, ‘Say you are my sister’. Danger, Seduction and the Foreign in Biblical Literature and Beyond (BMW 53), Sheffield, 2013. Rainer KESSLER, “Die Juden als Kindes- und Frauenmörder? Zu Est 8,11,” in Die Hebräische Bibel und ihre zweifache Nachgeschichte. Festschrift für Rolf Rendtorff zum 65. Geburtstag, E. BLUM, C. MACHOLZ and E. W. STEGEMANN (eds.), Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1990, p. 337-345. = R. KESSLER, “Die Juden als Kindes- und Frauenmörder? Zu Est 8,11,” in Gotteserdung, Beiträge zur Hermeneutik und Exegese der Hebräischen Bibel (BWANT 170), R. KESSLER (ed.), Stuttgart, 2006, p. 221-227.

Articles and Monographs

337

Lillian R. KLEIN, “Honor and Shame in Esther,” in A Feminist Companion to Esther, Judith and Susanna (FCB 7), A. BRENNER (ed.), Sheffield, 1995, p. 149-175. René KOCHMANN, “Rouleau d’Esther et genre épistolaire,” in Epistulae antiquae II, Actes du IIe colloque international “Le genre épistolaire antique et ses prolongements européens” (Université François-Rabelais, Tours, 28-30 septembre 2000), L. NADJO and E. GAVOILLE (eds.), Louvain et al., 2002, p. 27-50. Aaron J. KOLLER, Esther in Ancient Jewish Thought, Cambridge et al., 2014. Ruth KOSSMANN, Die Esthernovelle vom Erzählten zur Erzählung. Studien zu Traditions- und Redaktionsgeschichte des Estherbuches (VTSup 79), Leiden et al., 2000. Ingo KOTTSIEPER, “Zusätze zu Ester,” in Das Buch Baruch. Der Brief des Jeremia. Zusätze zu Ester und Daniel, I. KOTTSIEPER, R. G. KRATZ and O. H. STECK (eds.), 1998, 109-210. Samuel T. LACHS, “Hadassah that is Esther,” JSJ 10 (1979), 219-220. André LACOCQUE, Subversives ou un Pentateuque de femmes (LeDiv 148), Paris, 1992. André LACOCQUE, “The different versions of Esther,” BibInt 7 (1999), 301-322. André LACOCQUE, Esther Regina: a Bakhtinian reading (Rethinking Theory), Evanston, IL, 2008. Alice L. LAFFEY, An Introduction to the Old Testament: a Feminist Perspective, Philadelphia, 1988. Paul DE LAGARDE, Librorum Veteris Testamenti Canonicorum Pars Prior Graece, Göttingen, 1883. Timothy S. LANIAK, Shame and Honor in the Book of Esther (SBL.DS 165), Atlanta, 1998. Katrina J. A. LARKIN, Ruth and Esther (OTGu), Sheffield, 1996. G. LE RIDER and F. DE CALLATAŸ, Les Séleucides et les Ptolémées. L’héritage monétaire et financier d’Alexandre le Grand (Champollion), Monaco, 2006. Jürgen-Christian H. LEBRAM, “Purimfest und Estherbuch,” VT 22 (1972), 208-222 (= C.A. MOORE [ed.], Studies, p. 205-219). Shnayer Z. LEIMAN, The Canonization of Hebrew Scripture: the Talmudic and Midrashic Evidence, Hamden, CN, 1976. Dominique LENFANT, Les Perses vus par les Grecs. Lire les sources classiques sur l’Empire achéménide (Collection U – Histoire), Paris, 2011. Julius LEWY, “The Feast of the 14th Day of Adar”, HUCA 14 (1939), 127-151 (= C.A. MOORE [ed.], Studies, p. 160-184). Etka LIEBOWITZ, “Esther and Alexandra. Paradigms of Queenship in the Septuagint and in Josephus’ Writings,” Lectio Difficilior 13 (2012), 1-15. Elisabetta LIMARDO DATURI, Représentations d’Esther entre écritures et images (Liminaires - passages interculturels italo-ibériques 3), Bern et al., 2004. Samuel E. LOEWENSTAMM, “Esther 9:29-32: the Genesis of a Late Addition,” HUCA 42 (1971), 117-124. Jean-Daniel MACCHI, “Dieu, la Perse et le courage d’être Juive. Réflexions sur Esther 4,” Foi et Vie 103, CB 43 (2004), 59-77. Jean-Daniel MACCHI, “Haman l’orgueilleux dans les livres d’Esther,” in L’Ecrit et l’Esprit. Etudes d’histoire du texte et de théologie biblique en hommage à Adrian Schenker (OBO 214), D. BÖHLER, I. HIMBAZA and P. HUGO (ed.), Fribourg et al., 2005, p. 198-214. Jean-Daniel MACCHI, “Le livre d’Esther: regard hellénistique sur le pouvoir et le monde perses,” Transeu 30 (2005), 97-135. Jean-Daniel MACCHI, “Le livre d’Esther: écrire une histoire perse comme un Grec,” in Comment la Bible saisit-elle l’histoire? XXIe congrès de l’Association catholique française pour l’étude de la Bible (Issy-le-Moulineaux, 2005) (LeDiv 215), D. DORÉ (ed.), Paris, 2007, p. 197-226. Jean-Daniel MACCHI, “The Book of Esther: A Persian story in Greek style,” in A Palimpsest: Rhetoric, Ideology, Stylistics, and Language Relating to Persian Israel (Perspectives on Hebrew Scriptures and its Contexts 5), E. BEN ZVI, D. EDELMAN and F. POLAK (eds.), Piscataway, N.J., 2009, p. 109-127.

338

Articles and Monographs

Jean-Daniel MACCHI, “L’identité judéenne au banquet. Le défi de la commensalité à l’époque hellénistique selon le livre d’Esther,” in L’Identité dans l’Écriture. Hommage au professeur Jacques Briend (LeDiv 228), O. ARTUS and J. FERRY (eds.), Paris, 2009, p. 227260. Jean-Daniel MACCHI, “Une héroïne judéenne à la cour. Enjeux et moyens de l’action héroïque féminine selon le livre d’Esther,” in Le jeune héros recherches sur la formation et la diffusion d’un thème littéraire au Proche-Orient ancien actes du colloque organisé par les Chaires d’Assyriologie et des Milieux bibliques du Collège de France, Paris, les 6 et 7 avril 2009 (OBO 250), J.-M. DURAND, T. RÖMER and M. LANGLOIS (eds.), Fribourg et al., 2011, p. 273285. Jean-Daniel MACCHI, “Le refus, la ruse ou la force: le rapport au pouvoir dans le livre d’Esther,” in Le Pouvoir. Enquêtes dans l’un et l’autre Testament (LeDiv 248), D. LUCIANI and A. WÉNIN (eds.), Paris, 2012, p. 195-206. Jean-Daniel MACCHI, “Lettres de fête et réécriture. Esther 9,20-28 et la construction d’une instance textuelle d’autorité,” in Ecritures et réécritures. La reprise interprétative des traditions fondatrices par la littérature biblique et extra-biblique. Cinquième Colloque International du RRENAB, Universités de Genève et Lausanne, 10-12 juin 2010 (BEThL 248), C. CLIVAZ, et al. (eds.), Leuven et al., 2012, p. 51-64. Jean-Daniel MACCHI, “Denial, Deception, or Force: How to Deal with Powerful Others in the Book of Esther,” in Imagining the Other and Constructing Israelite Identity in the Early Second Temple Period (LHBOTS 456), E. BEN ZVI and D. V. EDELMAN (eds.), London et al., 2014, p. 219-229. Jean-Daniel MACCHI, “Le droit impérial selon le livre d’Esther,” Transversalités 132 (2015), 85-101. Jean-Daniel MACCHI, “Pratiques et tabous alimentaires selon le livre d’Esther,” in Tabou et transgressions. Actes du colloque organisé par le Collège de France, Paris, les 11-12 avril 2012 (OBO 274), J.-M. DURAND, M. GUICHARD and T. RÖMER (eds.), Fribourg et al., 2015, p. 229241. Johannes MAGLIANO-TROMP, “The Relations between Egyptian Judaism and Jerusalem in Light of 3 Maccabees and the Greek Book of Esther,” in Feasts and Festivals, Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology (CBET 53), C. TUCKETT (ed.), Leuven et al., 2009, p. 57-76. Daniel MARGUERAT and Yvan BOURQUIN, Pour lire les récits bibliques. Initiation à l’analyse narrative, Paris et al., 2009. Raymond A. MARTIN, “Syntax Criticism of the LXX Additions to the Book of Esther,” JBL 94 (1975), 65-72. Laurianne MARTINEZ-SÈVE, “La fiscalité séleucide: bilan et perspectives de recherche,” in Le roi et l’économie: autonomies locales et structures royales dans l’économie de l’empire séleucide: actes des rencontres de Lille, 23 juin 2003, et d’Orléans, 29-30 janvier 2004, V. CHANKOWSKI and F. DUYRAT (eds.), Paris, 2004, p. 81-104. Steve MASON, “Jews, Judaeans, Judaizing, Judaism: Problems of Categorization in Ancient History,” JSJ 38 (2007), 457-512. Hans-Peter MATHYS, ““Künstliche” Personennamen im Alten Testament,” in “… der seine Lust hat am Wort des Herrn!” Ferstschrift für Ernst Jenni (AOAT 336), J. LUCHSINGER, H.-P. MATHYS and S. MARKUS (ed.), Münster, 2007, p. 218-249. Hans-Peter MATHYS, “Der Achämenidenhof im Alten Testament,” in Der Achämenidenhof / The Achaemenid Court. Akten des 2. Internationalen Kolloquiums zum Thema” Vorderasien im Spannungsfeld klassischer und altorientalischer Überlieferungen“Landgut Castelen bei Basel, 23.–25. Mai 2007, B. JACOBS and R. ROLLINGER (eds.), Wiesbaden, 2010, p. 231-308. Elizabeth A. MCCABE, “Defending Queen Vashti in Esther 1:10-12: What Her Attorney Might Say,” in Women in the Biblical World, A Survey of Old and New Testament Perspectives. Vol. 2, E.A. MCCABE (ed.), Lanham et al., 2011, p. 35-51.

Articles and Monographs

339

Markus MCDOWELL, Prayers of Jewish Women. Studies of Patterns of Prayer in the Second Temple Period (WUNT.2 211), Tübingen, 2006. Joseph MÉLÈZE MODRZEJEWSKI, Troisième Livre des Maccabées. Traduction du texte grec de la Septante; introduction et notes (La Bible d’Alexandrie 15/3), Paris, 2008. Christiane MÉROZ, Esther en exil. Pour une spiritualité de la différence, Aubonne, 1995. Jill MIDDLEMAS, “The Greek Esthers and the Search for History: Some Preliminary Observations,” in Between Evidence and Ideology, Essays on the History of Ancient Israel Read at the Joint Meeting of the Society for Old Testament Study and the Oud Testamentisch Werkgezelschap. Lincoln, July 2009 (OTS 59), B. BECKING and L. L. GRABBE (eds.), Leiden et al., 2011, p. 145-163. Alan R. MILLARD, “The Persian Names in Esther and the Reliability of the Hebrew Text,” JBL 96 (1977), 481-488. Tricia MILLER, Three Versions of Esther. Their Relationship to Anti-Semitic and Feminist Critique of the Story (CBET 74), Leuven et al., 2014. Simon C. MIMOUNI, Le judaïsme ancien du VIe siècle avant notre ère au IIIe siècle de notre ère: des prêtres aux rabbins (Nouvelle Clio), Paris, 2012. Ulrike MITTMANN-RICHERT, “Zusätze zu Esther,” in Einführung zu den Jüdischen Schriften aus hellenistisch-römischer Zeit. Historische und legendarische Erzählungen (JSHRZ 6,1,1), Gütersloh, 2000, p. 97-113. Joseph MODRZEJEWSKI, “Note sur la législation royale des Lagides,” in Mélanges d’histoire ancienne offerts à William Seston, Paris, 1974, p. 365-380. Arnaldo MOMIGLIANO, “Eléments orientaux dans l’historiographie juive postérieure à l’Exil et dans l’historiographie grecque,” in Problèmes d’historiographie ancienne et moderne, Paris, 1983, p. 91-103. Arnaldo MOMIGLIANO, “Persian Historiography, Greek Historiography, and Jewish Historiography,” in The Classical Foundations of Modern Historiography (Sather Classical Lectures 54), Berkeley, 1990, p. 5-28. Carey A. MOORE, “A Greek Witness to a Different Hebrew Text of Esther,” ZAW 79 (1967), 351-358. Carey A. MOORE, “On the Origins of the LXX Additions to the Book of Esther,” JBL 92 (1973), 382-393. Carey A. MOORE (ed.), Studies in the Book of Esther (Library of Biblical Studies), New York, 1982. Carey A. MOORE, Daniel, Esther and Jeremiah: the Additions (AB 44), New York, 1984. Carey A. MOORE, “Book of Esther,” in ABD, vol. 2, p. 633-643. Carey A. MOORE, “Additions to Esther,” in ABD, vol. 2, p. 626-633. Clinton J. MOYER, “The Beautiful Outsider Replaces the Queen: A ‘Compound Topos’ in Esther 1-2 and Books 5 and 6 of Chariton’s Chaereas and Callirhoe,” VT 60 (2010), 601620. Sarojini NADAR, “Gender, Power, Sexuality and Suffering Bodies in the Book of Esther: Reading the Characters of Esther and Vashti for the Purpose of Social Transformation,” OTE 15 (2002), 113-130. Lévi NGANGURA MANYANYA, Figures de femmes dans l’Ancien Testament et Traditions africaines (Eglises d’Afrique), Paris, 2011. Kathleen M. O’CONNOR, “Humour, Turnabouts and Survival in the Book of Esther,” in Are We Amused? Humour about Women in the Biblical Worlds (JSOTSup 383), A. BRENNER (ed.), London et al., 2003, p. 54-64. Roger L. OMANSON and Philip A. NOSS, A Handbook on the Book of Esther: the Hebrew and Greek texts (UBS Handbook Series), New York, 1997. Anna PASSONI DELL’ACQUA, “The Liberation Decree of ‘Addition’ E in Esther LXX. Some Lexical Observations Starting from a New Papyrus (POxy LXVI, 4443): New Evidence for the ‘Egyptian Flavour’ of this ‘Addition’”, Adamantius 10 (2004), 72-88.

340

Articles and Monographs

Robert H. PFEIFFER, Introduction to the Old Testament, New York et al., 1941. Jean-Claude PICARD, “Les “clous” d’Esther. L’historiographie juive de l’époque perse et le Rouleau d’Esther,” in Le continent apocryphe: essai sur les littératures apocryphes juive et chrétienne (Instrumenta Patristica 36), Turnhout, 1999, p. 165-193. Susanne PLIETZSCH, “Eating and Living. The Banquets in the Esther Narratives,” in Decisive Meals, Table Politics in Biblical Literature (LNTS 449), N. MACDONALD, L. SUTTER REHMANN and K. EHRENSPERGER (eds.), London et al., 2012, p. 27-41. Rafael Hiya PONTRÉMOLI, Meam Loez: Livre d’Esther. Traduit du ladino par Albert Benveniste (DixPar), Paris, 1997. Albert DE PURY, “Le canon de l’Ancien Testament,” in Introduction à l’Ancien Testament (MdB 49), T. RÖMER, J.-D. MACCHI and C. NIHAN (eds.), Geneva, 2009, p. 19-41. Yehuda T. RADDAY, “Chiasm in Joshua, Judges and Others,” Linguistica Biblica 27/28 (1973), 6-13. Eyal REGEV, The Hasmoneans. Ideology, Archaeology, Identity (Journal of Ancient Judaism Supplement 10), Göttingen, 2013. Christian RIEHL (ed.), Bible 2000 vol. 7, Tobie, Judith, Esther, Maccabées, Strasbourg, 1997 Helmer RINGGREN, “Esther and Purim,” Svensk Exegetisk Ärsbok 20 (1956), 5-24 (= C.A. MOORE [ed.], Studies, p. 185-204). Thomas RÖMER, Jean-Daniel MACCHI and Christophe NIHAN (eds.), Introduction à l’Ancien Testament (MdB 49), Geneva, 2009. Ludwig A. ROSENTHAL, “Die Josephsgeschichte mit den Büchern Ester und Daniel verglichen,” ZAW 15 (1895), 278-284. Ludwig A. ROSENTHAL, “Nochmals der Vergleich Ester, Joseph-Daniel,” ZAW 17 (1897), 125128. François ROSSIER, L’intercession entre les hommes dans la Bible hébraïque: l’intercession entre les hommes aux origines de l’intercession auprès de Dieu (OBO 152), Fribourg et al., 1996. Wilhelm RUDOLPH, “Textkritisches zum Estherbuch,” VT 4 (1954), 89-90. A. SALVESEN, “‫( כתר‬Esther 1:11; 2:17; 6:8) ‘Something to do with a Camel?’”, JSS 44 (1999), 35-46. Maurice SARTRE, Histoires grecques (L’Univers historique), Paris, 2006. Christiane SAULNIER and Charles PERROT, Histoire d’Israël. 3, De la conquête d’Alexandre à la destruction du temple : (331 a.C. – 135 a.D.), Paris, 1985. Peter SCHÄFER, Judéophobie: attitudes à l’égard des Juifs dans le monde antique (Patrimoines judaïsme), Paris, 2003. Jona SCHELLEKENS, “Accession Days and Holidays: The Origins of the Jewish Festival of Purim,” JBL 128 (2009), 115-134. Pauline SCHMITT PANTEL, La cité au banquet. Histoire des repas publics dans les cités grecques, Paris, 1992. Pauline SCHMITT PANTEL, “Manger entre citoyens. Les repas dans les cités grecques antiques,” in Tables d’hier, tables d’ailleurs. Histoire et ethnologie du repas, J.-L. FLANDRIN and J. COBBI (ed.), Paris, 1999, p. 39-57. Chris SEEMAN, “Enter the Dragon: Mordecai as Agonistic Combatant in Greek Esther,” BTB 41 (2011), 3-15. Carolyn J. SHARP, Irony and Meaning in the Hebrew Bible, Bloomington, 2009. William H. SHEA, “Esther and History,” Andrews University Seminary Studies 14 (1976), 227246. Gerrie SNYMAN, “‘When the Maidens Were Gathered for a Second Time’ – Some Notes on the Text of Esther 2:19a,” JSem 22 (2013), 480-501. Jan Alberto SOGGIN, Histoire d’Israël et de Juda. Introduction à l’histoire d’Israël et de Juda des origines à la révolte de Bar Kokhba (LivRoul 19), Brussels, 2004. Lina SPIES, “Ester. Vroulike durf binne ’n manlike bestel,” HTS Teologiese Studies / Theological Studies 67 (2011), 1-10.

Articles and Monographs

341

Victoria SPOTTORNO, “Beyond Genre and Style: Notes on the Greek Esther,” in XIV Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Helsinki, 2010 (SBL.SCS 59), M. K. H. PETERS (ed.), Atlanta, 2013, p. 51-58. Elizabeth Cady STANTON et al., The woman’s Bible, 2 vol. New York, 1895-1898. Günter STEMBERGER, “La formation et la conception du canon dans la pensée rabbinique,” in Recueils normatifs et canons dans l’Antiquité: perspectives nouvelles sur la formation des canons juif et chrétien dans leur contexte culturel (PIRSB 3), E. NORELLI (ed.), Prahins, 2004, p. 113-131. Elsie R. STERN, “Esther and the Politics of Diaspora,” JQR 100 (2010), 25-53. Timothy J. STONE, The Compilational History of the Megilloth. Canon, Contoured Intertextuality and Meaning in the Writings (FAT.2 59), Tübingen, 2013. Hans STRIEDL, “Untersuchung zur Syntax und Stilistik des hebräischen Buches Esther,” ZAW 55 (1937), 73-108. Shemaryahu TALMON, “‘Wisdom’ in the Book of Esther,” VT 13 (1963), 419-455. Shemaryahu TALMON, “Was the Book of Esther Known at Qumran?”, DSD 2 (1995), 249-267. Charles C. TORREY, “The Older Book of Esther,” HTR 37 (1944), 1-40. Emanuel TOV, “The ‘Lucianic’ Text of the Canonical and Apocryphal Sections of Esther: A Rewritten Biblical Book,” Textus 10 (1982), 1-25. Emanuel TOV, “The ‘Lucianic’ Text of the Canonical and Apocryphal Sections of Esther: A Rewritten Biblical Book,” in The Greek and Hebrew Bible. Collected Essays on the Septuagint (VTSup 72), E. TOV (ed.), Leiden, 1999, p. 535-548. Richard TRELOAR, Esther and the End of ‘Final Solutions’. Theodicy and Hebrew Biblical Narrative (ATF.DS. 3), Adelaide, 2008. Kristin DE TROYER, “An Oriental Beauty Parlour: An Analysis of Esther 2.8-18 in the Hebrew, the Septuagint and the Second Greek Text,” in A Feminist Companion to Esther, Judith and Susanna (FCB 7), A. BRENNER (ed.), Sheffield, 1995, p. 47-70. Kristin DE TROYER, “On Crowns and Diadems from Kings, Queens, Horses and Men,” in IX Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies. Cambridge, 1995 (SBL.SCS 45), B. A. TAYLOR (ed.), Atlanta, 1997, p. 355-367. Kristin DE TROYER, The End of the Alpha Text of Esther. Translation and Narrative Technique in MT 8:1-17, LXX 8:1-17, and AT 7:14-41 (SBL.SCS 48), Atlanta, 2000. Kristin DE TROYER, “Esther in Text- and Literary-Critical Paradise,” in The Book of Esther in Modern Research (JSOTSup 380), L. J. GREENSPOON and S. W. CRAWFORD (eds.), London et al., 2003, p. 31-49. Kristin DE TROYER and M.-T. WACKER, “Esther / Das Buch Ester (LXX und A-Text),” in Septuaginta Deutsch. Erläuterungen und Kommentare zum griechischen Alten Testament, Band I. Genesis bis Makkabäer, Stuttgart, 2011, p. 1253-1296. Christopher TUPLIN, Achaemenid Studies (Historia 99), Stuttgart, 1996. Arthur UNGNAD, “Keilinschriftliche Beiträge zum Buch Esra und Ester,” ZAW 17 (19401941), 240-244. Sabine VAN DEN EYNDE, “If Esther Had Not Been That Beautiful: Dealing with a Hidden God in the (Hebrew) Book of Esther,” BTB 31 (2001), 145-150. James C. VANDERKAM, “Calendars. Ancient Israelite and Early Jewish,” in ABD, vol. 1, 814820. Catherine VIALLE, “L’ombre de la reine Vashti. La fonction du chapitre 1 du Livre d’Esther dans le Texte Massorétique,” in Analyse narrative et Bible, Deuxième colloque international du RRENAB, Louvain-la-Neuve, avril 2004 (BEThL 191), C. FOCANT and A. WÉNIN (eds.), Leuven et al., 2005, p. 517-525. Catherine VIALLE, “La reine Esther. Caractérisation du personnage d’Esther dans le Texte Massorétique,” in Et vous, qui dites-vous que je suis?: la gestion des personnages dans les récits bibliques, P. LÉTOURNEAU and M. TALBOT (eds.), Montréal, 2006, p. 229-244.

342

Articles and Monographs

Catherine VIALLE, Une analyse comparée d’Esther TM et LXX. Regard sur deux récits d’une même histoire (BEThL 233), Leuven et al., 2010. Konrad VÖSSING, Mensa Regia. Das Bankett beim hellenistischen König und beim römischen Kaiser (Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 193), München et al., 2004. Marie-Theres WACKER, “Tödliche Gewalt des Judenhasses – mit tödlicher Gewalt gegen Judenhass? Hermeneutische Überlegungen zu Est 9,” in Das Manna fällt auch heute noch. Beiträge zur Geschichte und Theologie des Alten, Ersten Testaments: Festschrift für Erich Zenger (HBS 44), F.-L. HOSSFELD and L. SCHWIENHORST-SCHÖNBERGER (eds.), Freiburg et al, 2004, p. 609-637. Marie-Theres WACKER, “‘Three Faces of a story’ Septuagintagriechisches und pseudolukanisches Estherbuch als Refigurationen der Esther-Erzählung,” in La Septante en Allemagne et en France: textes de la Septante à traduction double ou à traduction très littérale. Septuaginta Deutsch und Bible d’Alexandrie: Texte der Septuaginta in Doppelüberlieferung oder in wörtlicher Übersetzung (OBO 238), W. KRAUS and O. MUNNICH (eds.), Fribourg et al., 2009, p. 64-89. Maryse WAEGEMAN, “Motifs and Structure in the Book of Esther,” in “Wünschet Jerusalem Frieden”; Collected Communications to the XIIth Congress of the International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament, Jerusalem, 1986, M. AUGUSTIN and K.-D. SCHUNK (eds.), Frankfurt a.M, 1988, p. 371-384. Harald Martin WAHL, “Die Sprache des hebräischen Esterbuches,” ZAH 12 (1999), 21-47. Harald Martin WAHL, “Das Motiv des ‘Aufstiegs’ in der Hofgeschichte. Am Beispiel von Joseph, Esther und Daniel,” ZAW 112 (2000), 59-74. Harald Martin WAHL, “Esther-Forschung,” TRu 66 (2001), 103-130. Harald Martin WAHL, “‘Glaube ohne Gott?’ Zur Rede vom Gott Israels im hebräischen Buch Esther,” BZ 45 (2001), 37-54. Barry WALFISH, Esther in Medieval Garb: Jewish Interpretation of the Book of Esther in the Middle Ages (SUNY Series in Judaica), Albany, 1993. Barry WALFISH, “Kosher Adultery? The Mordecai-Esther-Ahasuerus Triangle in Talmudic, Medieval and Sixteenth-Century Exegesis,” in The Book of Esther in Modern Research (JSOTSup 380), S. W. CRAWFORD and L. J. GREENSPOON (eds.), London et al., 2003, p. 111136. Carey WALSH, “Women on the Edge,” in Imagining the Other and Constructing Israelite Identity in the Early Second Temple Period (LHBOTS 456), E. BEN ZVI and D. V. EDELMAN (eds.), London et al., 2014, p. 122-143. Michael G. WECHSLER, “The Appellation βουγαῖος and Ethic Contextualization in the Greek Text of Esther,” VT 51 (2001), 109-114. André WÉNIN, “Pourquoi le lecteur rit-il d’Haman en Esther 6 TM ?”, VT 60 (2010), 465473. Anne-Mareike WETTER, “How Jewish is Esther? Or: How is Esther Jewish? Tracing Ethnic and Religious Identity in a Diaspora Narrative,” ZAW 123 (2011), 596-603. Anne-Mareike WETTER, “In Unexpected Places: Ritual and Religious Belonging in the Book of Esther,” JSOT 36 (2012), 321-332. Anne-Mareike WETTER, “Speaking from the Gaps. The Eloquent Silence of God in Esther,” in Reflections on the Silence of God, A Discussion with Marjo Korpel and Johannes de Moor (OTSt 62), B. BECKING (ed.), Leiden et al., 2013, p. 153-167. Sidnie A. WHITE, “Esther: A Feminine Model for Jewish Diaspora,” in Gender and Difference in Ancient Israel, P.L. DAY (ed.), Minneapolis, 1989, p. 161-177. Sidnie WHITE CRAWFORD, “Esther and Judith: Contrasts in Character,” in The Book of Esther in Modern Research (JSOTSup 380), S. W. CRAWFORD and L. J. GREENSPOON (eds.), London et al., 2003, p. 61-76. Mark F. WHITTERS, “Some New Observations about Jewish Festal Letters,” JSJ 32 (2001), 272-288.

Articles and Monographs

343

John M. WIEBE, “Esther 4:14: Will Relief and Delivrance Arise for the Jews from Another Place ?”, CBQ 53 (1991), 409-415. John M. WIEBE, “Zeresh,” in ABD, vol. 6, p. 1083. Edouard WILL, Histoire politique du monde hellénistique 323-30 av. J.-C. Volumes 1 et 2 (Annales de l’Est 30.32), Nancy, 1979 and 1982. Edouard WILL et Claude ORRIEUX, Ioudaïsmos – hellènismos: essai sur le judaïsme judéen à l’époque hellénistique, Nancy, 1986. David S. WILLIAMS, “Recent Research in 1 Maccabees,” Currents in Research: Biblical Studies 9 (2001), 169-184. David S. WILLIAMS, “Recent Research in 2 Maccabees,” Currents in Biblical Research 2 (2003), 69-84. Hugo WILLRICH, Judaica: Forschungen zur hellenistisch-jüdischen Geschichte und Litteratur, Göttingen, 1900. Lawrence M. WILLS, The Jewish Novel in Ancient World, Ithaca, 1995. Abraham WINITZER, “The Reversal of Fortune Theme in Esther: Israelite Historiography in Its Ancient Near Eastern Context,” JANER 11 (2011), 170-218. Mary Joan WINN LEITH, “Esther and the Additions to Esther,” in The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Books of the Bible, M. D. COOGAN (ed.), New York, 2011, p. 252-261. Hans Julius WOLFF, “The Political Background of the Plurality of Laws in Ptolemaic Egypt,” in Proceedings of the Sixteenth International Congress of Papyrology: New-York, 24-31 July 1980, R.S. BAGNALL, et al. (eds.), Atlanta, 1981, p. 313-318. Edwin M. YAMAUCHI, “The Archaeological Background of Esther: Archaeological Backgrounds of the Exilic and Postexilic Era,” BSac 137 (1980), 99-117. Edwin M. YAMAUCHI, “Mordecai, the Persepolis Tablets, and the Susa Excavations,” VT 42 (1992), 272-275. Ran ZADOK, “On the Historical Background of the Book of Esther,” BN 24 (1984), 18-23. Ran ZADOK, “Notes on Esther,” ZAW 98 (1986), 105-110. Erich ZENGER et al. (eds.), Einleitung in das Alte Testament (Kohlhammer Studienbücher Theologie 1.1), Stuttgart, 1995. Erich ZENGER, “Das Buch Ester,” in Einleitung in das Alte Testament (Kohlhammer Studienbücher Theologie 1.1), E. ZENGER et al. (eds.), Stuttgart, 1995, p. 266-275. Heinrich ZIMMERN, “Zur Frage nach dem Ursprunge des Purimfestes,” ZAW 11 (1891), 157169 (= C.A. MOORE [ed.], Studies, p. 147-169). Meir ZLOTOWITZ, Esther. Traduction et commentaires fondés sur les sources talmudiques, midrachiques et rabbiniques (La Bible commentées), Paris, 1989.

‫‪Indexes‬‬ ‫‪Index of Hebrew Words‬‬ ‫‪ 247‬טף‬ ‫‪ 116, 142, 153, 156, 260‬יד‬ ‫‪ 68, 122, 147, 167, 169, 237, 251, 255,‬יהודי‬ ‫‪282‬‬ ‫‪ 129, 249 f., 274‬יום טוב‬ ‫‪ 174 f.‬יעמוד‬ ‫‪ 95, 108, 207, 250‬יקר‬ ‫‪ 58, 172‬ישׁט‬ ‫‪ 222‬כבשׁ‬ ‫‪ 146‬כסא‬ ‫‪ 238‬כרך‬ ‫‪ 150, 240‬כרע‬ ‫‪ 237‬כשׁר‬ ‫‪ 245, 268, 276, 278‬כתב‬ ‫‪ 101‬כתר‬ ‫‪ 184‬לבושׁ‬ ‫‪ 170‬לבשׁ‬ ‫‪ 274‬להמם‬ ‫‪ 61, 243‬להשׁיב‬ ‫‪ 125‬לקח‬ ‫‪ 278 f.‬לקים‬ ‫‪ 58, 134, 281‬מאמר‬ ‫‪ 56 f., 237‬מדינה‬ ‫‪ 188‬מהר‬ ‫‪ 127, 242‬מולדת‬ ‫‪ 184‬מחר‬ ‫‪ 274‬מחשׁבה‬ ‫‪ 228‬מטה‬ ‫‪ 156, 224‬מכר‬ ‫‪ 97, 130, 184‬מלכות‬ ‫‪ 126, 273‬מנה‬ ‫‪ 282‬מס‬ ‫‪ 127, 207, 242‬מצא‬ ‫‪ 91, 96, 117, 131, 142, 150, 223, 249,‬משׁתה‬ ‫‪273‬‬ ‫‪ 68, 250‬מתיהדים‬ ‫‪ 134, 171‬נגד‬ ‫‪ 131, 155, 162, 255, 265, 273‬נוח‬ ‫‪ 225 f.‬נזק‬ ‫‪ 260, 297‬נכה‬ ‫‪ 121, 128‬נערה‬ ‫‪ 227, 240‬נפל‬ ‫‪ 221, 224, 227, 265‬נפשׁ‬ ‫‪ 247‬נקם‬ ‫‪ 126, 146, 254, 261‬נשׂא‬ ‫‪ 171, 184, 240‬נתן‬

‫‪ 156, 159, 174 f., 224, 254, 260, 274‬אבד‬ ‫‪ 169, 229, 249, 274‬אבל‬ ‫‪ 59, 144, 150‬אגגי‬ ‫‪ 276, 278‬אגרת‬ ‫‪ 227, 247, 255, 265‬אויב‬ ‫‪ 57, 158, 246‬אחשׁדרפן‬ ‫‪ 22, 92‬אחשׁורושׁ‬ ‫‪ 279 f.‬אמת‬ ‫‪ 96‬אנס‬ ‫‪ 124‬אסתר‬ ‫‪ 249‬ארגמן‬ ‫‪ 188, 212‬בהל‬ ‫‪ 159‬בוך‬ ‫‪ 249‬בוץ‬ ‫‪ 108, 153‬בזה‬ ‫‪ 125, 130, 167‬בית‬ ‫‪ 95‬ביתן‬ ‫‪ 222‬בעת‬ ‫‪ 172, 224, 227, 260‬בקשׁ‬ ‫‪ 121‬בתולה‬ ‫‪ 146, 207, 261, 284‬גדל‬ ‫‪ 153, 275‬גורל‬ ‫‪ 117, 123‬גלה‬ ‫‪ 212, 229‬דחף‬ ‫‪ 105‬דין‬ ‫‪ 58, 66, 96, 102, 105 f., 128‬דת‬ ‫‪ 126, 149 f.‬הגאי‬ ‫‪ 116 f., 126, 149‬הגי‬ ‫‪ 124‬הדס‬ ‫‪ 268, 297‬המם‬ ‫‪ 131‬הנחה‬ ‫‪ 159, 224, 254, 260‬הרג‬ ‫‪ 96, 150, 188, 274, 297‬והשׁתיה‬ ‫‪ 91‬ורד‬ ‫‪ 167, 170, 240‬ותתחלחל‬ ‫‪ 276‬זכר‬ ‫‪ 280‬זמן‬ ‫‪ 280‬זעקה‬ ‫‪ 68‬זרע‬ ‫‪ 150, 240‬חוה‬ ‫‪ 249‬חור‬ ‫‪ 94, 170, 237, 247‬חיל‬ ‫‪ 127, 172‬חן‬ ‫‪ 172, 241‬חנן‬ ‫‪ 127‬חסד‬ ‫‪ 212, 229‬חפה‬

345

Index of Key Words ‫ סחר‬91 ‫ ספר‬66, 204, 207, 276, 281 ‫ סריס‬61, 118 f. ‫ סתר‬124 ‫ עבר‬107, 175, 241, 244 ‫ עם‬56, 68, 224, 237, 242 ‫ עמד‬152, 167, 227, 247, 265 ‫ עת‬102, 104 f., 176 ‫ פור‬51, 85, 144, 153, 268, 275 ‫ פחד‬251, 260 ‫ פרז‬255, 266 ‫ פרר‬52 ‫ פרשׁה‬282 ‫ פרתמים‬57, 94, 210 ‫ פתגם‬66, 102 ‫ פתשׁגן‬157 ‫ צוה‬172, 177 ‫ צום‬249, 280 ‫ צר‬221 f., 226 f., 237 ‫ צרר‬147, 226 f., 247 ‫ קבל‬268, 275 ‫ קהל‬247, 255, 260, 265 ‫ קום‬58, 276 f., 279 f. ‫ קצף‬135 ‫ ראה‬101, 171 ‫ רב‬97, 112

‫ רמך‬246 ‫ רע‬227 ‫ שׂבר‬254, 259, 297 ‫ שׂמח‬193, 249 f., 274 ‫ שׂר‬210 ‫ שׂרים‬107, 146 ‫ שׂשׂון‬250 ‫ שׁאלה‬184, 221, 224 ‫ שׁוב‬107, 241, 274 ‫ שׁוה‬195, 222 f. ‫ שׁכך‬120 ‫ שׁלום‬279 f. ‫ שׁלח‬153, 260, 269 ‫ שׁלט‬259, 297 ‫ שׁלל‬144, 247 f. ‫ שׁמד‬159, 224 ‫ שׁנה‬117 ‫ שׁנית‬117, 132 f., 269, 278 ‫ שׁרביט‬172 ‫ שׁשׁ‬95 ‫ שׁתה‬57, 96, 229, 273 ‫ תכלת‬249 ‫ תלה‬135, 196 ‫ תפארת‬95 ‫ תקף‬277, 284

Index of Key Words Abigail 58, 125, 129, 297 Abihail 57, 117, 129, 141, 188, 268, 277 Abraham 87, 311 Achior 214, 252 Additions to Esther 19, 21–23, 25, 30, 36, 299, 325 Adoption 60, 125, 141 Agagite 19, 59, 122 f., 141, 147 f., 150, 157, 161, 164, 241, 263 Agrippa 25 Alexander Jannaeus 48 f., 252 Alexander the Great 46, 95, 151, 320 Alexandria 46, 63, 155, 325 Alpha Text 27 Alpha Text's Manuscripts 20 Lucianic 20 Amalek 22, 59, 67, 85, 150, 242, 263, 297 Amestris 40, 97, 105, 124, 191 Aminadab 117, 141, 268, 295 Anacoluthon 184, 189, 204, 209

Antiochus III 46 f., 284 Antiochus IV 16, 47 f., 67, 78, 131, 155, 214, 252, 258 Apocalyptic 50, 301, 323 f. Aramaic/Aramaism 26, 40 f., 57 f., 61, 96 f., 102, 122, 221, 225, 246, 268, 270, 277, 286, 309 Aristobulus 48 f., 252 Artaÿnte 186, 191 Artaxerxes 22, 41, 81, 92, 99, 149, 191, 206, 300 f., 307, 316 Aspasia 43, 119 f., 129 Assimilation 45 f., 73, 154 f., 173, 180 f., 183, 302 Bagoas 92, 149 Banquet 54, 66, 90, 97, 114, 192, 200, 223, 235, 250, 257, 272 Bathsheba 58, 121, 125, 129, 139 Benefactor 43, 206, 250, 319 f. Benjamin/Benjaminite 59, 117, 122 f., 242

346 Biblical Allusions 54–58 Booty 59, 62, 144, 148, 159, 162, 248, 257, 263, 265 Booty ‫ ושׁללם לבוז‬247 Bougean/βουγαῖος/Proud 117, 126, 144, 150, 164, 254, 304 Cambyses 43, 90, 104, 168, 257 Canon 84 Carnival 85 f., 256 f. Casting lots 78, 144–146, 153, 162 f., 270, 274 f. Chronology 79, 139, 162, 201, 246 Circumcision 48, 68, 238, 251 f., 287, 289, 313 Clothes/Garments 64, 95, 169 f., 180, 193, 206, 210 f., 218 f., 238, 249, 311, 313, 315 Common narrative 17, 20 f., 24 f., 29, 31, 35, 74, 300, 303–305, 307, 322 f. Cyrus 38, 43, 95, 105, 119, 146, 191, 249, 307 Daniel 79, 171, 300 Darius 62, 100, 105, 119, 121, 151, 172, 244, 283 David 58, 60 f., 108, 121–123, 125, 129, 139, 177, 196, 209, 228, 297, 317 Demaratus 206, 210 Diaspora 35, 45–47, 49 f., 52, 64, 70, 122 f., 224, 235, 245 f., 259, 262, 271 f., 274, 290 f., 294, 304, 307, 325 Essenes 50 Eunuch 119 Fast 23, 54, 62 f., 77, 79, 167–170, 177, 179, 181, 185, 212, 249, 273, 279 f., 296, 315 Frawardīgān 51 Gentiles 74, 131, 310, 313, 315, 324 Geresh 50 Gerizim 48, 270 Gilgamesh 50 God 16, 71 f., 74, 150, 153, 164, 168 f., 174, 177 f., 181, 188, 201, 204, 206 f., 214, 216 f., 219 f., 251, 300–302, 314–316, 319 f., 322, 324 Greco-Persian Wars 41 Hadassah 117, 123, 141 Haman 146 f., 189, 304 Hammurabi 66 Hanging 53, 56, 135, 196 f., 200, 206, 222, 229, 256, 258, 264, 274, 293, 321 Hanukkah 48 f., 62, 79, 271, 295 Harbona 68, 229, 232, 234 Hasidim 48, 50

Index of Key Words Hasmonean 18, 35, 39, 41, 44, 48 f., 51, 67, 79, 89, 111, 114, 136, 159, 178, 197, 229, 234 f., 252, 260, 269, 284 f., 291, 294, 296, 298, 325 Hathach 68, 168, 171–173, 179 f. Hegai 68, 108, 126–130, 139, 141 Hellenistic Era 15, 41–49, 214, 252, 272 Hellenization 69, 252, 325 History of Reception 84–86 Humman 50, 147 Hydarnes 151, 186 Hyrcanus 44, 48 f., 252 Identity 16, 69, 115, 118, 136, 139, 141, 145, 152, 182, 242, 252, 292 Idolatry 310 f. Idumea 44, 48, 252 Imperial law 66, 105, 154 f., 163, 167, 306, 313 Irony 15 f., 40, 44, 46, 56, 65, 73, 90, 96 f., 101, 103–105, 107, 112–115, 118, 121, 128, 140, 145, 152, 158, 172 f., 183, 188, 194–196, 200–202, 205, 208–211, 222, 225–229, 244, 251 f., 256, 304, 319 Irrevocability of Persian laws 21, 61 f., 107, 244, 276, 287, 291 f. Ishtar 50, 122, 124 Jehoiachin 123 Jewish/Judaism 16, 68–70, 80, 115, 121 f., 124, 127 f., 136, 139–141, 145, 150, 152, 155, 159, 163, 168, 170, 173 f., 176, 180, 202, 211, 213 f., 242, 270, 292, 305 f., 324 f. Jonathan Maccabeus 48 f. Joseph 72, 121, 125, 127, 134 f., 139, 152, 157, 162, 210, 214, 224, 240, 242, 249, 283, 285, 293, 300, 302 Josiah 66 Judaizing 44, 48 f., 62, 68, 71, 235, 239, 250–253, 259, 276, 292 Judas Maccabeus 44, 47 f., 52, 62, 258 f., 270 Kish 117, 122 f., 148 Lagide/Ptolemaic 15, 46 f., 67, 122, 155, 158, 272, 304, 321, 325 La-Greek III 30 f. Language 29, 40, 46, 58, 100, 109, 172, 245 Leningradensis 18, 89 Liberty 16, 144, 151, 275, 285 Lucianic 25 Maccabean 15, 39, 44, 51, 67, 89, 111, 114, 136, 158 f., 162, 178, 182, 197, 229,

Index of Key Words 234 f., 252, 259 f., 269, 284 f., 291, 293, 298 Macedonian 148, 268, 302, 320, 322 Magophony 51, 257 Magus 119, 131, 168, 172, 257 Marduk 50, 122, 124 Marriage 32, 35, 43, 91, 104, 109, 117, 119, 125, 131, 137, 313 Mashti 50 Masoretic ‘pluses’ 32 f., 111, 139, 161, 179, 200, 216, 218, 232, 290 Memucan 67, 90, 109, 120, 146, 153, 176, 187, 195, 227, 275 Mithridates 191 Mordecai 122, 261, 300, 304 Mordecai’s Prayer 311 Mordecai’s Refusal 43, 66, 114, 145, 151, 153 f., 170, 193, 195, 304, 310, 324 Moses 60 f., 66, 81 f., 125, 127, 139, 173, 190, 261, 311 Nabouchodonosor 301 Nebuchadnezzar 38, 92, 98, 123, 214, 301 Nicanor 44, 47–49, 52, 62, 78, 145, 156, 158, 162, 230, 235, 258 f., 266, 270–272, 294 Novel 15, 39, 54–56, 228, 316 Old Latin 31 Oppressor/Enemy of the Jews 16, 23, 26, 30 f., 53, 59–61, 67 f., 73, 77, 147–149, 156 f., 159, 190, 195, 201, 205, 213, 220, 226 f., 230, 234 f., 237–239, 247 f., 257– 260, 265, 286, 288, 290 f., 297 f., 323 Palace 75 Parysatis 119, 191 Passover 61, 68, 73, 77–79, 145, 158, 162, 168, 176, 181, 185 f., 202, 237, 268, 273, 279 Persia and Media 94 Persian Era 38, 41, 43 Persianism 40, 57, 100 Persica 41–43, 45 Phaidime 43, 168 Pharisees 49 f., 314 Postal 42, 104, 158, 246 Prostration 16, 43 f., 53, 61, 66, 68 f., 74, 78, 144, 151 f., 164 f., 180, 193, 195, 197, 201, 210, 251, 304, 310 f., 324 Proto-AT 27 f., 36 f. Proto-Esther 15, 17, 25, 27 f., 32, 35, 37, 46, 71, 73, 110 f., 136, 138, 160 f., 178 f., 197, 199, 214, 217, 230, 232, 285–290, 298

347 Proto-L 27 Proto-LXX 35–37, 50 Proto-Masoretic Editing 32, 34 f., 37, 39, 49, 51, 56, 63, 79, 89, 111, 113, 138, 141, 161, 164 f., 179, 181 f., 200 f., 218, 220, 232, 234, 275, 290 f., 293 f., 296 f. Ptolemy IV Philopator 63, 307, 321 Purim 15, 18, 26–28, 50, 52, 61 f., 80–82, 86, 144, 146, 251, 256, 263 f., 266, 268, 272, 275–278, 280 f., 294–297, 307, 325 Qumran 18, 48 Reversal 52, 54, 222, 248, 259, 263, 274, 324 Rhetoric 16, 70, 108, 127, 145, 153, 155, 175, 177, 187–189, 222, 226, 234, 241, 257 f., 280, 292, 305, 307, 312, 316, 319 Sabbath 48, 67 f., 91, 98, 252 Sadducee 49, 81 Salome Alexandra 49 Samaritan 80 f. Saul 58 f., 108, 122, 141, 148, 196, 262 Seleucid 39, 46–48, 67, 155, 158, 285, 298 Semiramis 119 Sexuality 69, 119, 128, 186, 222, 228, 243 Shimei 122 f., 148 Shunammite 58, 121, 125, 129, 139 Simon Maccabeus 48 f., 67 Sinaiticus 19, 83, 237 Solomon 58, 121, 210, 271 Source Divisions 28 f., 31 Temple 47 f., 50, 100, 252, 271, 294, 313 Textual Witnesses 15 Alpha Text 20 f., 36 f. Flavius Josephus 21 f., 36 f. LXX 19, 37 Masoretic Text 17 f., 37 Old Latin 22 f., 36 f. Other Ancient Versions 24, 36 Vulgate 23, 36 f. Tiribazus 206, 210 Vashti 97 Vashti’s Refusal 22, 52, 54 f., 66, 76, 98–101, 107, 112–114, 118, 129, 131, 145, 152, 189, 193 Vaticanus 19, 83, 282 Violence 16, 69–71, 229, 235, 245, 247 f., 252, 258, 263, 266 War 16, 235, 242, 248, 250, 256 f., 267, 293 f., 312 Wine 65, 85, 91 f., 95–97, 112, 131, 190, 200, 223, 227 f., 234 Wisdom 115, 129 f., 190, 213

348

Index of Biblical Citations

Women’s Revolt 103, 107, 113 f. Word Games 57, 112, 188, 312 Xerxes 22, 38–41, 92 f., 96 f., 119, 123 f., 151, 157 f., 186, 265, 300

Yhwh 188, 310 Zeresh 50, 68, 71, 100, 183, 193–197, 199– 201, 208, 213, 216, 218, 220, 227

Index of Biblical Citations Genesis 6:3 93 7:11 76 7:24 76 8:1 120 8:3-4 76 12 125 12:11 125 15:5 194 16:4 128 17:3 227 17:16 194 17:17 209 20:11 209 21:17 186 22:7 226 23:7 150 24:16 125 26:7 125 29 125 29:9 212 29:17 125 29:21 128 30:4 128 32:21 209 33:3 150 37-45 59 f., 72 37-46 40 37:9 150 37:23-35 60, 169 37:27-28 224 37:34 169 38:11 209 38:18 128 39 125 39:3 214 39:4 60, 127, 240 39:6 125 39:10 152 39:10-20 60, 169 39:14 128 39:21 60 40-41 302

40:2 135 40:19 135 41:33 240 41:34 121 41:34-37 60, 139, 283 41:35 121 41:37 121 41:38-39 214 41:42 60, 157, 169, 204, 249 41:42-43 60, 210, 283 41:43 285 42:7 60 43:26 150 44:14 227 44:34 242, 293 45:4-5 224 45:5 72 47:14-26 157 Exodus 1:8-14 60, 224 2:4 60, 127, 139 2:10 60 2:23-25 301 4:10 173 7-10 190 7:9 301 9:20 214 10:7 214 11:3 261 12 78, 185 12:36 186 12:43-49 251 13-14 61 17:8-16 147 18:7 150 20:5 150 23:24 150 24:1 150 32:8 150 32:11-13 311

Leviticus 15:19 313 16:8-10 153 25:26 102 Numbers 10:9 225 12:3 261 17:20 120 22-24 214 24:7-20 148 25:2 150 26:56 153 Deuteronomy 2:24-35 262 2:25 170, 251 3:5 266 3:6-7 262 4:1 150 7:3 313 11:25 251 19:15 152 21:19 133 21:22-23 196 25:2 102 25:19 85 26:5 156 26:10 150 28:10 250 30:17-18 313 31:17-18 124 32:9 311 32:33 301 Josh 4:24 5:13 15:18 22:12 23:7 23:16

250 225 186 247 150 313

349

Index of Biblical Citations Judg 2:14 224 3:8 224 3:9 301 6:15 173 9:13 96 10:7 224 11 43 13-16 43 16:25 193 17:5 261 20:1 247 20:26 177 Ruth 1:17 154 2:1 94 2:10 150, 227 4 133 4:13 128 1 Samuel 1:15 96 1:21 261 6:18 266 9 122 12:9 224 15 59, 123, 148, 262 f. 15:18 59 15:28 58, 108 15:32 209 16:12 125 17:42 125 18:12 156 18:17 209 24:9 150 25 58, 117, 129, 141, 297 25:3 125 25:23 150 25:36 193 29:9 317 31:8-13 196 31:13 177 2 Samuel 1:2 150 1:12 177 3:31 169 3:35-36 177 11 125 11:2 125 11:4 128 12 209

12:16-23 177 12:20 150 12:22 176 12:24 128 12:30 249 13:28 193 14 209 14:17 317 14:27 125 16:5 122 16 :19 133 16:21-22 228 16:21 128 19:16-23 122 19:38-39 175 20:14 247 21:10-14 196 1 Kings 1:2-4 58 1:2-3 139 1:3-4 121, 125 1:14-42 212 1:16 186 1:53 150 2:13-25 228 2:19-25 58 f., 121 2:36-46 122 5:8 246 8:43 250 8:46-53 313 10:13 96 11:28 261 12:21 247 16:33 150 19:7 117 21 195 21:27 177 2 Kings 2:11 154 17:6-23 313 18-19 97 18:17 97 18:32 96 19:1-2 169 22-23 66 23:26-27 313 24 123 25 45, 97 25:27-29 123

1 Chronicles 3 123 3:2 93 5:8 122 7:23 128 10:12 177 12:33 102, 105 15:17 123 20:2 249 21:30 222 25:8 153 2 Chronicles 11:1 123 13:9 250 14:13 251 15:2 123 17:10 251 20:29 251 20:6-12 309 31:10 226 32:13 250 36 123 Ezra 1:1 78 1:2-4 321 1:5 123 2:2 122 4:1 123 4:13 225 4:15 204 5:17 187 6:9 58 6:10 321 6:11 239 7 58 7:14 105 7:27 316 8:21-23 177 8:26 156 9:1-2 250 10:2 226, 250, 313 10:9 123 Nehemiah 1:4 177 2:5 187 3:34 226 7:7 122 8 294 8:6 150 8:9-12 40

350 8:10-12 273 9:1 177 12:18 123 13 114 13:23-27 313 13:23-24 109 Tobit 80, 82, 84, 296 3 314 10-11 129 14:12-15 282 Judith 64, 79, 82, 84, 92, 125 f., 214, 296, 316 1:16 93 4:9-14 177 5 43 5:5-21 214 8:6 63 8:7 125 8:36-9:1 312 9 314 9:1-14 309 9:1 63 9:8-14 63 10:1-11:4 316 10:1-5 64 10:22-11:4 64 12 65 12:10-13:10 63 13:11-15:7 63 14:10 252 16:21-25 282 Esther 20 f., 26 f., 31, 35, 44 1 66, 73, 90–114 1:1 92, 246, 265, 305 f. 1:1-3 76 1:1-8 282 1:1-9 52, 97, 145 1:2 42, 93, 146 1:2-4 54 1:2-8 264 1:2-9 159, 176 1:3 42, 57, 131, 247 1:3-2:18 190 1:3-4 94 f., 188 1:3-8 65, 195, 293 1:3-9 43, 94–97 1:4 32, 67, 76, 156, 194, 200, 207, 284 1:4-5 76 1:4-12 56

Index of Biblical Citations 1:5 75 f., 103, 227 1:5-8 42, 54, 188 1:6 233, 249, 292 1:7 133 1:7-8 128, 186, 283 1:8 57, 66, 188, 260, 274 1:9 54, 65, 97, 130, 139, 186, 188, 199 f. 1:10 42, 57, 106, 118, 120, 126, 228 f., 234, 261, 293 1:10-11 61, 98, 101 1:10-12 43, 52, 101, 145, 183, 190, 223, 283 1:10-21 193 1:10-22 65, 205 1:11 121, 125, 130, 185, 210, 229, 249 1:11-12 186 1:12 42, 101, 118, 135, 152, 172, 189 f., 194, 200, 228, 243 1:12-22 233, 316 1:13 56, 67, 176, 213 1:13-14 57 1:13-15 42, 104–106, 145, 153 1:13-19 239 1:13-22 43, 52, 55, 104–106, 108 f., 120, 263, 275 1:14 42, 57, 66, 126, 229, 239, 261, 293 1:15 42, 58, 118, 134, 281 1:16 127, 229 1:16-20 67, 108, 145, 190, 223 1:16-22 195 1:17 58, 66, 121, 237 1:17-18 22, 26, 153 1:17-18, 22; 2:10-16, 19-23; 3:12-14; 4:5-8a 20 1:17-18, 22; 2:10-16, 19-23; 3:12-14; 4:5-8a; 5:9, 11; 7:7; 8-10 32 f., 46 1:17-18, 22; 2:10-16, 19-23; 3:12-14; 8:1-17 23 1:18 42, 66, 135, 152, 154 1:19 42, 56, 58, 62, 120, 187, 210, 229, 276 1:20 95 1:21 104, 145 1:21-22 108 f., 272

1:22 26, 42, 56, 104, 121, 140, 145, 158, 163, 196, 245 2 71, 73, 115, 142, 185, 211, 218 2:1 58, 76, 107, 146, 152, 230, 233, 243 2:1-4 60, 120 f. 2:1-18 52, 115, 131 2:1-23 115–131, 142 2:2 67, 208 2:2-4 103, 187 2:2-18 43 2:3 56, 58, 255 2:3-4 283 2:3-15 42 2:4 108, 264 2:5 59, 61, 148, 261 2:5-7 125, 154 2:6 59, 68 2:7 60 f., 69, 174 2:8 66, 69, 100 2:8-9 127 2:9 42, 60 f., 68, 105, 186– 188, 273, 316 2:10 60, 62, 68 f., 107 f., 152, 154, 167, 172 f., 191, 222, 226, 242, 252, 261, 292 2:10-11 21, 128, 132 2:10-12 26 2:10-16 22 2:11 44, 60, 169 f., 176, 239, 292, 301 2:12 66 2:12-14 33, 56, 129 2:12-15 207 2:13 186 2:14 57, 75, 100, 102, 108, 172, 188 2:15 60 f., 69, 108, 167, 174, 186 f., 191, 277, 297, 316 2:15-17 129 f., 183 2:16 77–79, 97, 105, 186, 199 f., 293 2:17 60 f., 69, 101, 108, 185– 187, 210, 224, 227, 239, 249, 313, 316 2:18 32, 35, 54, 76 f., 95 f., 131, 159, 176, 188, 283 2:19 61, 77–79, 150, 152 f., 170, 249, 301 2:19-20 21, 26, 134, 212

351

Index of Biblical Citations 2:19-21 193 2:19-23 22, 52, 132, 135 2:20 44, 58, 60, 62, 69, 71, 152, 154, 167, 170, 172 f., 191, 222, 226, 239, 242, 252, 261, 281, 292 2:21 57, 100 f., 152, 204, 220, 249, 260 2:21-23 23, 42, 60, 71, 118, 122, 134 f., 146, 154, 169, 176, 194, 207, 209, 218 f., 226, 228 f., 239, 283, 296, 303 f., 306 2:21-3:1 292 2:22 78, 173 2:23 196, 255, 264, 281, 284, 320 3 52, 66, 73, 143, 165, 180, 217, 226, 274, 292 3-8 68 3:1 76–78, 106, 134, 146– 150, 207–210, 227, 237 f., 254, 262 f., 285, 297 3:1-2 55, 99, 194, 200 3:1-6 53, 228, 310, 319, 324 3:1-15 143–165, 205 3:2 61, 68, 133, 193, 249, 310 3:2-3 57, 172 3:2-4 69, 74, 150, 152 3:3 75, 99, 107 3:3-4 44, 68 3:4 68 f., 76, 78, 127, 189, 211, 260, 292 3:5 101, 135, 193, 200, 228 3:5-6 153 3:6 67 f. 3:6-15 319 3:7 71, 73, 76–78, 130, 153, 259, 274 3:7-12 53 3:7-13 176 3:7-9 103 3:8 67 f., 127, 133, 171, 222, 273, 293, 320 3:8-9 16, 44 f., 62, 66, 115, 135, 195, 208, 211, 223 f., 226, 238 f., 242, 304, 306 f., 319 3:8-11 46, 153 f., 156 f., 263, 321

3:9 56, 60, 171, 187, 194 f., 210, 224 f., 241, 258, 260, 274, 283, 293 3:10 227, 239, 241, 247, 262, 283, 285, 292, 306 3:10-11 227, 238 3:10-12 209 3:10-15 243 3:11 224, 228 3:12 56 f., 77, 127, 241, 243, 245, 259 f., 272, 293, 305 f. 3:12-13 173, 176 3:12-14 104, 108 3:12-15 42, 55, 157–159, 223, 238, 241, 245 f., 292 3:12-4:17 146 3:13 57 f., 68, 224, 233, 246 f., 255, 258 f., 274, 305, 307 3:14 56, 264 3:14-15 171 3:15 54, 68, 93, 169, 176, 196, 213, 229, 233, 246 f., 249, 264 f., 275, 293, 306, 323 4 44, 52 f., 55, 69, 73, 125, 135, 166, 182, 218, 273 4:1 249, 311 4:1-3 169 f. 4:1-4 60 4:1-5 42 4:1-6 212 4:1-17 166–182, 309 4:2 75, 185, 193, 219 4:3 56, 68, 212, 239, 249 f., 293, 311 4:4 68, 75, 120, 129, 170, 211, 240, 275 4:4-5 118 4:5 57 f., 100, 102 4:5-9 171 f. 4:6 68, 193, 210 4:7 213, 237, 255, 274, 282 4:7-8 224 4:8 71, 226, 241, 264 4:8-16 312 4:9 68, 73 4:10 102 4:10-12 172 f.

4:11 58, 66, 73, 75–78, 100, 108, 129, 135, 146, 185, 199 f., 204, 208, 241, 316 4:13-14 173, 176, 206 4:14 25, 71 4:15-17 158, 176 f. 4:16 62, 68 f., 71, 73, 76 f., 93, 120, 129, 185, 190, 212, 279 4:16-17 23, 191 4:17 22, 188 5 45, 65, 183, 202, 217 f., 274, 292 5-7 263 5:1 75, 77, 97, 130, 139, 146 5:1-2 172, 185 f., 199, 208, 219, 241, 315 f. 5:1-8 43, 53–55, 70, 77, 121, 159, 167, 185–192, 195, 209, 229, 233 5:1-14 183–202 5:2 58, 60 f., 127, 172, 187, 224, 227 5:2-3 67 5:3 56, 81, 223, 263, 293 5:3-8 172, 186–189, 192, 222, 233, 258, 264 5:4 56, 76, 127, 156, 195, 210, 224, 241, 264 5:4-6 70 5:5 212 5:6 56, 81, 96, 221, 223, 255, 263, 293 5:6-8 55 5:7 157, 210 5:7-8 223 5:8 56 f., 70, 78, 127, 195, 207, 210, 224, 241, 264 5:9 101, 129, 133, 135, 153, 212, 219, 228, 239 5:9-10 194 5:9-13 153, 319 5:9-14 53, 55, 189, 192, 197, 203, 205, 212, 304 5:9-6:9 222 5:10 211, 213 5:10-12 33 5:11 95, 146, 156, 208, 254, 262, 284, 293 5:11-12 65, 209 5:11-13 194 f., 228 5:12 223

352 5:13 211, 213, 222, 242, 249 5:13-24 199 5:14 55, 68, 103 f., 108, 135, 139, 197, 207 f., 211, 213, 218, 229, 264 5:23a; 6:4-6a, 13-18; 7:2, 4b-7, 14 32 f. 6 53, 55, 71, 95, 146, 183, 203, 220, 238 f., 263, 274 6:1 23, 62, 71, 73, 76, 171, 199, 281, 284, 309, 320 6:1-3 134, 138, 207 f., 274 6:1-11 43, 53, 55, 189, 191, 203, 205, 211 6:1-14 203–220 6:2 23, 42, 57, 118, 135, 153, 260 6:2-3 296 6:3 67, 95, 120, 154, 284 6:4 75, 135, 173, 196, 229, 255, 264 6:4-6 208 f., 214 6:4-6a, 13-18; 7:2, 4b-7, 14 20, 22 f., 217 6:6 23, 33, 56, 67, 95, 153 f., 261 6:6-9 209, 211, 228, 304 6-7 73 6:7 95, 261 6:7-8 187 6:7-9 103 6:8 101, 249 6:8-9 194 6:8-11 60 f., 169, 283 6:9 33, 58, 95, 255, 261 6:10 60, 76, 188, 212, 242, 249, 264 6:10-11 211 6:11 33, 93, 95, 261 6:12 23, 229, 233 6:12-14 53, 55, 189, 211, 214 6:13 68, 71, 227 6:13-18 214 6:14 61, 71, 76, 118, 188 6:14-7:10 203 6:16-17 73 6:19 33 6:22 73 6:23 233 6:26-28 321 7 45, 53, 55, 65, 221, 234, 238, 260, 274, 292, 304

Index of Biblical Citations 7:1 223 7:1-4 53 7:1-6 172 7:1-8:2 77 7:1-9 54, 159 7:1-10 43, 55, 121, 167, 189, 221–229, 234 7:1-14 221–232 7:2 56, 73, 78, 81, 96, 121, 157, 188, 190, 199, 223, 263, 293 7:2-6 223 f., 227 7:3 56, 71, 127, 187, 207, 210, 241, 264 7:3-4 70, 172, 186, 190, 226, 240–242, 292 7:3-6 203 7:3-8 67 7:38 286 7:4 44, 57, 60, 62, 69, 156, 159, 171, 195, 237, 247, 274, 283 7:5 264 7:5-10 53 f. 7:6 73, 247, 261 7:6-8 227–229 7:7 96, 101 f., 135, 152, 243 7:7-8 75, 112, 190, 304 7:8 95 f., 212, 218, 229, 240, 243, 320 7:8-10 206, 229 f. 7:9 68, 243 7:9-10 65, 135, 139, 196 f., 264, 274 7:10 62, 120, 152, 243, 255, 293 7:14-15 292 7:14-41 25 7:15-16 21, 286, 298 7:15-21 21 7:15-52 33, 285, 290, 298 7:17 286 7:17-21 21, 36, 298 7:17-33 285 7:17-34 289 7:17-52 288 7:21 21, 298 7:21-52 162 7:22-32 29 7:33 36 7:33-34 21, 286, 290, 292, 298

7:33-52 21 7:34 21, 36, 298 7:35-38 21, 29, 36, 289, 298, 321 7:35-52 21, 285 7:39-41 21 7:39-52 21, 36, 288, 298 7:41 251, 286 7:44-46 21 7:47-49 21 8-10 45, 232, 298 8 66, 236, 253 8-9 67, 180, 217 f., 220 8:1 76, 135, 148, 164, 167, 227, 262, 286 8:1-2 53, 70, 194, 239 f., 261, 285 f., 293 8:1-2, 5, 8, 10 21 8:1-9:19 54 8:1-17 25, 53, 236, 253, 293 8:2 55, 60 f., 77, 157, 219, 262, 283 8:3 148 f., 164, 227, 240, 262, 274 8:3-6 172, 203 8:3-8 53, 240–242, 244, 263, 286 8:3-17 77 8:4 58, 172, 241 8:5 56, 68, 127, 148 f., 164, 187, 207, 210, 264, 274, 286 8:5-6 241 8:5-8 107 8:6 57, 127 8:7 135, 139, 153, 167, 196, 255, 264 8:7-8 242, 244 8:8 44, 55 f., 157, 229, 244, 286, 321 8:8-10 42, 158 8:9 56 f., 68, 77–79, 127, 259–261, 264, 293, 305, 319 8:9-13 293 8:9-14 53, 55, 109, 159, 162, 244–246, 248 8:9-15 203 8:10 57, 157, 272, 286 8:10-12 319 8:11 57, 94, 159, 257, 259 f., 262, 265, 293, 322

353

Index of Biblical Citations 8:11-13 70, 321 8:12 259 8:13 56, 167, 227, 264 8:14 188, 264 8:15 55, 60, 68, 93, 95, 210, 212, 219, 264, 283, 285, 323 8:15-10:3 21, 298 8:15-16 169 8:15-17 159, 206, 249–253, 293 8:16 95, 208, 323 8:17 44, 54, 56, 62, 68 f., 71, 129, 176, 188, 260, 263, 265, 276, 306, 323 8:17-9:22 190 9 31, 44, 106, 162 f., 253, 267, 281 9:1 58, 77, 227 9:1-2 203, 298 9:1-3 159 9:1-5 27, 259–261 9:1-19 44, 53, 62, 70, 162, 253, 267, 294 9:2 247 f., 306 9:3 40, 57, 62, 248, 323 9:3-4 146, 194 9:4 208, 249 9:5 227, 298 9:5-11 203 9:5-14 197 9:5-19 23 9:6 58 9:6-9 57 9:6-10 194, 261–263 9:6-15 21 9:7-9 85, 100 9:7-10 274 9:10 59, 62, 123, 148 f., 164, 227, 247 f., 257 9:11-15 243, 265 9:12 56, 68, 243 9:12-14 230 9:12-15 229 9:13 56, 135, 139, 187, 210 9:13-14 196 9:13-16 194 9:13-18 93 9:15 59, 62, 68, 123, 148, 167, 247 f., 257 9:15-16 203

9:16 59, 62, 68, 123, 148, 227, 247 f., 257 9:16-18 58, 155, 162, 265 f. 9:16-19 273 9:17 54 9:17-18 176 9:17-19 77, 188, 250, 295 9:18 54, 167, 247 9:19 54, 129, 267, 298 9:20 27, 272 9:20-21 63, 278 9:20-22 277 9:20-28 267–270, 272 f., 275 f., 280, 295 9:20-32 44, 52–54, 58, 70, 84, 256, 267, 281, 325 9:21 27, 65, 77, 273 9:21-22 85, 266 9:22 27, 65, 129, 155, 162, 212, 227, 250, 274 9:23 62, 275, 285 9:24 148 f., 164, 227, 262, 320 9:24-25 227, 275 9:24-26 153 9:25 129, 135, 139, 196, 281 9:26 164, 276 9:26-28 276 9:27 62, 68, 107, 213, 251, 272, 275, 285 9:27-30 243 9:28 56, 68, 82, 213 9:29 117, 129 9:29-32 264, 281, 296 9:30-31 298 9:31 68, 213 9:32 58, 134 10:1 157 10:1-3 21, 53, 194, 281, 285, 296 10:2 42, 95, 208, 213, 277, 281 10:2-3 249 10:3 61, 68 10:4-16:24 23 A 20, 30, 36, 315 A,1-3 301 A,1-11 19, 31, 50, 74, 299, 302, 306, 323 f. A,4-11 302 A,6 323 A,11-16 27

A,12-17 19, 31, 74, 114, 137, 302, 304, 306 A,16 132 A,17 148 f., 306, 319 f. B 19 f., 30 f., 36, 50, 63, 74, 164, 307, 319–321 B,1 306, 319 B,1-7 304–307 B,2 320 B,2-3 306 B,4-5 306, 320 B,6 144 B,6-7 307 B,7 320 C 19 f., 30, 36, 50, 63, 74, 179, 182, 306 f., 314 f. C,1-4 74 C,1-11 182 C,1-30 307–314 C,2-4 310 C,2-10 311 C,3-5 23 C,5-7 151, 310 C,7 74 C,8 74 C,9 74 C,10 74 C,11 311 C,12-14 185, 311 C,12-30 182, 311–314 C,13 313 C,14 132 C,14-25 312 C,16 74 C,16-22 312 C,17-18 74 C,17-21 23 C,22-25 74 C,25-29 313 C,26-27 131, 313 C,26-29 74, 317 C,28 64, 126 C,30 74 D 19 f., 30, 36, 63, 74, 87, 179, 185, 197, 199, 314, 317 D,1 185, 313, 315 D,1-5 64 D,1-16 314–317 D,6 199 D,6-7 316 D,6-16 64

354 D,8 74, 309, 316 D,9-11 316 D,13-14 316 D,15-16 317 E 19 f., 30 f., 36, 50, 63, 74, 287, 289, 298, 304 f., 317, 322 E,1 319 E,1-24 317–322 E,2-6 319 E,5-6 74 E,5-9 74 E,7-14 320 E,10 148, 268 E,10-14 74 E,13 74 E,14 268 E,15 74 E,15-24 320 E,16 74 E,17-18 321 E,17-19 21 E,19 74 E,19-20 321 E,21 74 E,21-23 321 E,24 321 F 19 f., 30, 36, 50, 74, 298, 315, 322, 324 F,1-2 323 F,1-10 322–324 F,3-10 323 F,6-9 74 F,11 19, 24, 38, 84, 325 1 Maccabees 1:1 94 1:10-15 48 1:12-15 252 1:29-40 48 1:41 67 1:41-64 44, 48, 62, 155, 252 2:2-5 124 2:41 67 3:12 62, 262 3:25 62 4:18 62, 262 4:36-59 48 4:52-59 271 5 262 6:6 262 6:56 94

Index of Biblical Citations 7:26 62, 155, 258 7:35 258 7:39 258 7:39-50 44, 48, 62, 78, 258 7:40 258, 265 7:40-45 124 7:43 62, 258 7:47 230, 258, 262 7:48-49 62, 235, 270 7:49 62 7:50 258 9:1-57 48 9:40 262 10:12 48 11:28-37 131 13:49-52 270 13:49-53 48 14:2 94 14:25-49 48 2 Maccabees 40 1:1-10 271 1:9 271 1:10-2:18 271 1:18 271 1:19-2:7 271 1:24-29 309 2:8-12 271 2:13-15 271 3:1-3 131 3:1-12 284 3:4-7 67 4:7-9 67, 284 4:7-20 48 4:11 131, 284 4:14-15 252 6-7 44, 69 6:1-11 48, 62, 155, 252 6:6 44, 62 6:7 252 7 234 8:9 62, 155 8:10 44, 62 8:27-28 62, 262 8:36 156 8:9-11 156 9:11-27 214 9:16 131 9:17 252 10:1-8 48, 271 10:6 271 10:8 63

15 44, 62, 258, 271 15:1-36 78 15:1-5 258 15:6 62 15:17-36 48 15:18 258 15:22 258, 265 15:27 62, 258, 265 15:32-35 62 15:35 258 15:36 38, 41, 52, 62, 230, 235, 258, 266, 270 f., 276 15:37 258 3 Maccabees 272 2:2-20 63 3:12-29 63, 307 6:2-15 63 6:16-23 316 7:1-9 63, 322 7:6 321 Job 1 96, 194 1:16-17 212 1:20 227 15:24 225 42:13 194 Psalms 4:2 225 10:6-13 209 30:10 311 35:15 177 69:23 189 73:13-14 301 79 309 90:11 176 97:11 250 104:15 96 105:38 251 114:5 186 119:143 225 Proverbs 3:15 222 4:9 249 16:18 189 16:31 249 20:1 96 21:17 96 22:17-24:22 130 23:1-5 130

355

Index of Biblical Citations 25:21 189 31:23 133 Ecclesiastes 2:1-15 209 2:7 194 8:11 102 10:10 237 11:6 237 Song of Songs 1:8 125 3:11 249 4:9-10 316 5:1-2 316 Wisdom

82, 84

Sirach 80, 82, 84 5:11 102 8:9 102 34:31 177 36:1-22 309 44-50 41 Isaiah 1:24 225 15:3 169 22:12 169 24:15-16 283 24:17-20 301 26:17 170 27:1 301 27:13 156 35:10 274 36-39 97 38:18-19 311 41:19 124 44:26 152 49:23 310 51:11 274 51:2 170 55:13 124 56:3 276 56:6 276 58:3-6 177 61:1-7 274 65:24 212 66:23 150 Jeremiah 1:6 173 4:19 170

5:26 120 6:26 169 14:12 177 23:1 156 24-29 45 25:10 250 25:11-12 78, 246 25:26 188 27-29 123 28 324 29:10 78, 123 31:13 274 36:6 177 36:7 227 38:26 227 39-43 97 39:3 97 39:13 97 40-44 45 44:29 152 48:37 169 51:41 188 52 97, 123 Baruch 82, 84 2:17-18 311 29:3-8 301 Ezekiel 1 45 1:1-3 123 11:22 123 13:6 152 24 45 27:30-31 169 29:3 301 30:24 224 33 45 38:11 266 Daniel 1 65, 126 1-6 301 1:2 61 1:3 94, 97 1:4 125 1:5 61, 273 1:7 61, 123 1:8-9 127 1:9 61 2 58, 302 2-6 40 2:13 97

2:15 97 2:27 105 2:46-47 61, 214 2:47 321 2:48 61 2:49 61, 134 2:9 97 3 61, 150 3:28-33 61, 214 4 302 4:9 96 4:14 58 4:34 321 5 100 5:1-2 61 5:15 105 5:28 94 5:29 61, 249 6 58, 61, 311 6:1-2 93 6:2 91 6:3 225 6:9 61, 94, 244 6:9-13 97 6:11 62, 312 6:13 61, 94, 244 6:16 61, 94, 244 6:19 62, 207 6:27-28 62 7 302 7-12 301 7:15 302 7:21-26 97 7:28 302 8:17 222 8:20 94 9:1 177 9:1-2 177 9:2 78, 246 9:3-19 309 9:21 212 9:24-27 78 11:17 277 14:28 252 Joel 1:14 177 2:10-11 301 2:12-13 177 2:14 176 4:3 153

356 Amos 5:12 133 Jonah 1:7 153 3:5-8 169, 177 3:9 176 Micah 1:13 246 Zephaniah 1:15 301 3:20 250

Index of Other Ancient Literature Zechariah 1:8 124 1:12 78 2:15 276 6:11 249 7-8 177 7:5 78 8:19 280, 298 Malachi 3:16 204

Mark 6:17-29 187 6:23 81 Acts of the Apostles 2:5-11 45 Revelation 4:5 81 12:3 301

Matthew 14:3-12 187

Index of Other Ancient Literature Achaemenid inscriptions 41, 158, 206 Archives of Murašu 122 Tablets of Al-Yahudu 45 Greek Aeschylus, Pers. 3-5 95 Aeschylus, Pers. 302-330 100 Aristophane, Lysistrata 107 Aristophane, Women of the Assembly 107 Aristotle, Ath. pol. 5 1 67 Athenaeus, Deipn. 42 Athenaeus, Deipn. 4.144b 96 Athenaeus, Deipn. 12.512-514 95 Athenaeus, Deipn. 12.515e 119 Athenaeus, Deipn. 12.545 119 Athenaeus, Deipn. 13.556b 151 Athenaeus, Deipn. 13.557b 119 Athenaeus, Deipn. 14 93 Chariton of Aphrodisias, Chaereas and Callirhoe 119 Ctesias, Persica 42 Ctesias, Persica F1b(7-9) 76 Ctesias, Persica F1b(20) 119 Ctesias, Persica F1b(21) 172 Ctesias, Persica F13(11-18) 257 Ctesias, Persica F13(16) 119 Ctesias, Persica F13(16-17) 105 Ctesias, Persica F13(24) 40, 97 Ctesias, Persica F13(33) 119 Ctesias, Persica F14(34.39-46) 40 Ctesias, Persica F14(39.44.45) 191

Ctesias, Persica F15(48) 96, 119 Ctesias, Persica F15(54) 119, 191 Ctesias, Persica F16(67) 191 Ctesias, Persica F9a 191 Ctesias, Persica F39 93 Diodorus of Sicily, Bibliotheca 1117 42 Diodorus of Sicily, Bibliotheca 17.77.4 95 Diodorus of Sicily, Bibliotheca 17.77.67 119 Diodorus of Sicily, Bibliotheca 40.3.13 155 Herodotus, Hist. 41–43 Herodotus, Hist. 1.8-13 99 Herodotus, Hist. 1.96-130 94 Herodotus, Hist. 1.98 76 Herodotus, Hist. 1.99 172 Herodotus, Hist. 1.106 258 Herodotus, Hist. 1.118-119 94 Herodotus, Hist. 1.119 151 Herodotus, Hist. 1.133 96 Herodotus, Hist. 1.134 151 Herodotus, Hist. 1.135 155 Herodotus, Hist. 1.136 194 Herodotus, Hist. 1.196 119 Herodotus, Hist. 3.31 104 Herodotus, Hist. 3.32 94 Herodotus, Hist. 3.34 96 Herodotus, Hist. 3.67 131 Herodotus, Hist. 3.68 76 Herodotus, Hist. 3.68-69 168, 172

Index of Other Ancient Literature Herodotus, Herodotus, Herodotus, Herodotus, Herodotus, Herodotus, Herodotus, 206, 249 Herodotus, Herodotus, Herodotus, Herodotus, Herodotus, Herodotus, Herodotus, Herodotus, Herodotus, Herodotus, Herodotus, Herodotus, Herodotus, Herodotus, Herodotus, Herodotus, Herodotus, Herodotus, Herodotus, Herodotus, Herodotus, Herodotus, Herodotus, Herodotus, Herodotus, Herodotus, Herodotus, Herodotus, Herodotus, Herodotus, Herodotus, Herodotus, Herodotus, Herodotus, Herodotus, Herodotus, Herodotus, Herodotus, Herodotus, Herodotus, Herodotus, Herodotus, Herodotus, Herodotus,

Hist. Hist. Hist. Hist. Hist. Hist. Hist.

3.68-70 105 3.70 100 3.71-79 105 3.77 76 3.77-78 119 3.79 257 3.84 105, 121, 172,

Hist. Hist. Hist. Hist. Hist. Hist. Hist. Hist. Hist. Hist. Hist. Hist. Hist. Hist. Hist. Hist. Hist. Hist. Hist. Hist. Hist. Hist. Hist. Hist. Hist. Hist. Hist. Hist. Hist. Hist. Hist. Hist. Hist. Hist. Hist. Hist. Hist. Hist. Hist. Hist. Hist. Hist. Hist. Hist.

3.89 158 3.89-117 93 3.92 119 3.95 156 3.96 283 3.97 119 3.118 105, 172 3.118-119 105 3.120 133 3.128 153 3.128-129 239 3.130 76, 119 3.134 119 3.139-140 206 3.140-141 105 3.150 105 3.153 105 4.97 206 4.132 105 5.11 206 5.17 105 5.18 94, 99 5.52-53 246 5.103-105 94 6.19 119 6.32 119 6.43 105 7.19 105 7.27-29 157 7.29 186 7.60 265 7.61 40, 97 7.114 97, 105 7.119 95 7.135 151, 186, 206 7.136 151 7.136-139 94 8.5 51, 206 8.85 206 8.90 206 8.98 158 8.99 249 8.104-106 119 9.43-46 94

357 Herodotus, Hist. 9.76 119 Herodotus, Hist. 9.80-82 93, 95, 228 Herodotus, Hist. 9.108-113 40, 97 Herodotus, Hist. 9.109 187, 191, 206, 249 Herodotus, Hist. 9.110 93 f. Herodotus, Hist. 9.110-112 191 Homer, Il. 13.824 149 Homer, Od. 18.79 149 Plato, Leg. 42, 67 Plato, Leg. 694c-695a 94 Plato, Resp. 8.557a 153 Plutarch, Art. 191 Plutarch, Art. 5.3-4 206 Plutarch, Art. 5.5 94 Plutarch, Art. 5.6 99 Plutarch, Art. 15 206, 249 Plutarch, Art. 26.2 228 Plutarch, Art. 26.5-9 119 Plutarch, Art. 27.2 119 Plutarch, Lives 42 Plutarch, Mor. 140a-b 99 Plutarch, Mor. 299B 149 Plutarch, Quaest. conv. 7.8-10 96 Plutarch, Them. 26.5 99 Plutarch, Them. 27.4 151 Plutarch, Them. 29.6-8 206 Prayer of Manasseh 84 Pseudo-Aristotle, De Mundo, 398a 76, 95, 134 Strabo, Geogr. 42 Strabo, Geogr. 11.8.4 147 Strabo, Geogr. 11.13.5 94 Strabo, Geogr. 15.3.20 96 Thucydides, War 41 Thucydides, War 1.89 94 Thucydides, War 1.129 206 Thucydides, War 1.130 172 Xenophon, Anab. 41 Xenophon, Anab. 1.2.27 206 Xenophon, Anab. 1.4.10 95 Xenophon, Anab. 1.6.4 105 Xenophon, Anab. 1.6.10 151 Xenophon, Anab. 1.8.21 151 Xenophon, Anab. 1.9.14-28 206 Xenophon, Anab. 1.9.25-26 93 Xenophon, Anab. 1.10.2 119 Xenophon, Anab. 2.4.14 95 Xenophon, Cyr. 41 Xenophon, Cyr. 1.6.46 153 Xenophon, Cyr. 4.5.55 153 Xenophon, Cyr. 5.2.28 228

358 Xenophon, Cyr. 7.4.2 158 Xenophon, Cyr. 8.1.6 133 Xenophon, Cyr. 8.2.1-2 206 Xenophon, Cyr. 8.2.2-4 93 Xenophon, Cyr. 8.2.8 206, 249 Xenophon, Cyr. 8.3.1-4 206, 249 Xenophon, Cyr. 8.3.14 151 Xenophon, Cyr. 8.3.23 206 Xenophon, Cyr. 8.4.1-5 93 Xenophon, Cyr. 8.4.5 146 Xenophon, Cyr. 8.6.11 93 Xenophon, Cyr. 8.6.17-18 158 Xenophon, Cyr. 8.6.22 93 Xenophon, Cyr. 8.8.16 228 Xenophon, Cyr. 8.8.18 96 Xenophon, Oec. 4.7-8 206 Xenophon, Oec. 4.13-14.20-25 95 Patristic Amphilocius of Iconium, Epistula Iambica ad Seleucum 251-319 83 Apostolic Canons, Canon 85 83 Athanasius, Epistulae festales 39 83 Breviarium Hipponense, Canon 47 84 Council of Laodicia, Canon 59.60 83 Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lecture 4.33-36 83 Epiphanius of Salamis, On Measures and Weights 4 83 Epiphanius of Salamis, Pan. 8.6.14 83 Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 4.26.14 83 Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 6.25.1-2 83 Gregory of Nazianzus, Poem 1.12 83 Letter of Jeremiah 29, 84 Rufinus of Aquileia, Symb. 34-36 83 Saint Augustine, Doctr. chr. 2.8.1213 84 Rabbinic and other Jewish sources b. B. Bat. 14b-15a 79, 81 b. Hul. 139b 124 b. Mak. 23b 82 b. Meg. 2b 267 b. Meg. 7a-7b 81 b. Meg. 7b 82, 85 b. Meg. 10b-17a 87 b. Meg. 11b 93 b. Meg. 12b 98, 106 b. Meg. 13a 124 f. b. Meg. 14a 82 b. Meg. 14a-b 81 b. Meg. 15a 81, 171, 176 b. Meg. 15a-b 146

Index of Other Ancient Literature b. Meg. 15b 186, 189, 191 b. Meg. 16a 213 b. Meg. 16b 82, 261, 263 b. Meg. 18b-19a 82 b. Meg. 19a 267 b. San. 100a 82 b. Šebu. 38b 82 b. Yoma 29a 82 Josephus, Ant. 11.6 99 Josephus, Ant. 11.17 239 Josephus, Ant. 11.184-296 21 f., 81 Josephus, Ant. 11.209 150 Josephus, Ant. 11.209-214 147 Josephus, Ant. 11.210 151 Josephus, Ant. 11.212 144 Josephus, Ant. 11.223 167 Josephus, Ant. 11.227 174 Josephus, Ant. 11.231-234 185 Josephus, Ant. 11.242 184 Josephus, Ant. 11.244 192 Josephus, Ant. 11.245 192 Josephus, Ant. 11.247 204 Josephus, Ant. 11.259 212 Josephus, Ant. 11.269 237 Josephus, Ant. 11.285 238, 251 Josephus, Ant. 11.292 255 Josephus, Ant. 11.295 268 Josephus, Ant. 12.138-144 284 Josephus, Ant. 13.257-258 252 Josephus, Ant. 13.297 81 Josephus, Contra Apion 1.38-41 81 Josippon 87 m. Meg. 2:1 82 m. Meg. 2:2 82 m. Yad. 3:5 82 Megillat Ta’anit 177, 270, 279 Mid. Abba Gorion 87 Mid. Leqaḥ Tov 87 Mid. Panim Aḥerim 87 Mid. Panim Aḥerim 70-71 78, 176 Mid. Rabbah 19, 87, 98, 104, 135 Mid. Rabbah 4:9 108 Mid. Rabbah 5:2 108 Mid. Rabbah 7:5 146, 151, 156 Mid. Rabbah 8:4 171 Philo of Alexandria, Legat. 281282 45 Pirqe Rabbi Eliezer 49-50 87 Prayer of Manasseh 29 T. Jos. 3; 4; 8; 9:2 177 T. Mos. 9 6 177

Index of Other Ancient Literature Targum Esther I 87, 98, 106, 109, 117, 121 f., 124, 135, 147, 213 Targum Esther I 1.16 146 Targum Esther I 2.1 108 Targum Esther I 3.2 146 Targum Esther I 5.1 78, 176 Targum Esther II 19, 87, 98, 106, 109, 117, 121 f., 124, 147, 154, 157, 255 Targum Esther II 3.2 151 y. Meg. 1:5 82 4 Ezra 14:37-47 81 4Q550 18

359 Roman Aelian, Nat. an. 1.14 119 Aelian, Var. hist. 42 Aelian, Var. hist. 1.21 151 Aelian, Var. hist. 6.14 151 Aelian, Var. hist. 12.1 119 Justin, Historiae Philippicae, 1.9 105, 131, 168, 172 Justin, Historiae Philippicae, 10.2 119 Quinte Curce, 6.8.22 229 Titus Livius, Ab Urbe Condita Libri, 1.26.6-11 229

Plan of volumes Genesis I (1–11): David Carr II–III (12–50): Konrad Schmid Exodus I–II: Helmut Utzschneider / Wolfgang Oswald Leviticus Baruch Schwartz / Naphtali Meshel Numbers I–II: NN Deuteronomy I–II: Jeffrey Stackert / Joel S. Baden Joshua I–II: Michaël N. van der Meer / Cor de Vos Judges Andreas Scherer Ruth Shimon Gesundheit 1./2. Samuel I (1. Sam 1–15): Regine HunzikerRodewald II (1. Sam 16–2. Sam 5): Johannes Klein III (2. Sam 6–24): Thomas Naumann 1./2. Kings I (1 Kgs 1–15): NN II (1 Kgs 16 – 2 Kgs 16): Steven L. McKenzie III (2 Kgs 17–25): Shūichi Hasegawa

Tobit Beate Ego Judith Barbara Schmitz Esther Jean-Daniel Macchi Job Melanie Köhlmoos Psalms I–III: NN Proverbs I–II: Jutta Krispenz Ecclesiastes Katharine Dell / Tova Forti Song of Songs Martien A. Halvorson-Taylor Wisdom Luca Mazzinghi Sirach Frank Ueberschaer Isaiah I–III: NN Jeremiah I (1–25): Christl M. Maier II (26–52): Carolyn J. Sharp Baruch NN

1./2. Chronicles I–II: Ehud Ben Zvi

Lamentations Andreas Michel

Ezra / Nehemia I–II: Richard J. Bautch

Ezekiel Michael Konkel

361

Plan of volumes

Daniel Devorah Dimant Hosea Eberhard Bons Joel/Obadiah Anselm Hagedorn Amos Rainer Kessler Jonah Irmtraud Fischer Micah Burkard M. Zapff Nahum / Habakkuk / Zephaniah Walter Dietrich

Haggai / Zechariah 1–8 Jakob Wöhrle Zechariah 9–14 Paul L. Redditt Malachi Aaron Schart 1. Maccabees Dov Gera / Jan Willem van Henten 2. Maccabees Johannes Schnocks 1 Esdras Dieter Böhler