Part 32
(Esth 1:8; 9:5; Dan 8:4; 11:3, 16, 36). w. 32-4, 'hardship' or weariness is telcfd (Ex 18:8; Num 20:14; of exile, Lam 3:5; Mai 1:13). The use of'Assyria' implies, even if not stated explicitly, 'that there was not much to choose between the Assyrians and their imperial successors: the Babylonians and Persians'
(Blenkinsopp 1988: 307). These events, including Persian rule, are seen as punishment, w. 36—7, the central point is this: 'we are slaves' followed by 'the land'. The people and the land are in slavery. The rich yield (Lev 25:20; Prov 10:16; 14:4; 15:6; 16:8) goes to foreign kings. As one might expect in a prayer of confession, the central theology here is Deuteronomic 'God's punishment' theology. There is a possible wordplay on rason, the king's 'pleasure', and the sard (difficulty) of the Jews—in other words, their 'pleasure' is our 'pain'. Blenkinsopp (1988: 30) reminds us, 'One of the worst aspects of imperial policy under the Achaemenids was the draining away of local resources from the provinces to finance the imperial court, the building of magnificent palaces, and the interminable succession of campaigns of pacification or conquest.' (10:1-39) Crisis Resolved; People's Covenant w. 1-27, the list interrupts a narrative beginning with v. i, and continuing with w. 29—30. Note that Nehemiah is called 'tirshata'. Nehemiah may have carried such a title, v. 28, the people are referred to as 'the rest', or remnant, but this includes 'all who have separated themselves from the peoples of the lands'. Presumably these are people from the groups that did not go into exile, or from earlier returns, w. 29-31, the movement of females is stressed here (lit. 'our daughters not to them; their daughters not to us'). Foreign daughters coming into the group may result in inheritance passing out of the community on the death of the male. Both directions, however, are an economic threat.
admonition to give to those who are poor may not be simply an obligatory piety, but speak to actual conditions among the returning community (cf. Neh 5). As is the pattern, the command is followed by the description of its fulfilment, w. 17—18, the reference to Joshua lends further nationalist overtones to the celebrations. (9:1-38) Ezra's Confessional Prayer; Mixed Marriage Crisis w. 1-3, the people stand and proclaim their sins and iniquities, and those of the fathers—as in v. 3—'making confession' (see Lev 5:5; 16:21; 26:40; Num 5:7; 2 Chr 30:22; Ezra 10:1; Neh 1:6; Dan 9:4, 20). w. 4-6, the general prayer of confession follows set patterns established throughout the late biblical material. The theme of God as Creator is a theme that is typical of post-exilic theological reflection (Isa 40—8; although Amos 4:13; 5:8-9; 9:5-6, see Blenkinsopp 1988: 3 03). God as Creator effectively trumps the claims of universal rule of the Persian emperors as well—note the same theme in the face of Babylonian claims in Daniel (Dan 9; cf. Baruch 1:15-3:8; i Kings 8; Ezra 9: all post-exilic confessional prayers), v. 7, the historical events are certainly not chosen arbitrarily. The Persians are presumed to be listening. God is identified as Creator, who exercises the military-political tactic of namechanging—the privilege of the conquerer. w. 8-n, note that the beginning of this prayer makes these strong statements: (i) The land is given outside Persian authority (i.e. by God); (2) The claim is based on God's sanction, not Persia's; (3) The claim is prior to Persian claims. Also, note the reference to sinking 'like a stone' (Ex 15:15)—God's defeat of Pharaoh.
v. 33, the rows of shewbread are noted in Lev 24:5; i Chr 9:32; 23:29; 2 Chr 2:4, n; 29:18. The regular burnt-offerings
EZRA-NEHEMIAH 322
372). v. 30, t-h-r (purify), predominately used in P (Lev 13:6, 34, 58). Purification, of course, has been a central concern throughout the exile (Smith 1989: 49—65,139—51).
for priests are noted in Num 15:1-10. The breakdown of the following suggests the divisions of 'holy time': sabbaths (weekly); new moons (monthly); and festivals (annually), v. 35, the casting of lots is clearly to seek fair distribution (i Chr 24:5,31; 25:8; 26:13, Z4; PS I25:3) of the wood-offering—by ancestral houses. Cf. the emphasis on fair distribution in Ezek 40—8 on land, weights, and finances, w. 39—40, the term 'chambers' of 'storehouses' (NRSV: storerooms) is found in previous texts: i Chr 9:26, 33; 23:28; 28:11, 12; see also Deut 28:12; 2 Kings 20:13,15! 2 ^r 32:28; Job 38:22; Ps 33:7; 135:7; Jer 38:11; Mai 3:10. Fensham (1982: 241) suggests that we may have a picture of Persian tax collecting policies, with the temple at the centre. The people will not 'neglect' f-z-fc) the house of God, because God has not neglected them.
v. 31, two or three people abreast could walk on top of Jerusalem's walls, according to Kenyon's excavations (Avigad 1983: 23—63). v. 36, 'the scribe Ezra' is almost certainly a later addition to the text. w. 38—9, the places named are confusing: Tower of the Ovens; Broad Wall; Gate of Ephraim; Old Gate; Fish Gate; Tower of Hananel; Tower of the Hundred; Sheep Gate; Gate of the Guard. The number of gates around Jerusalem has always been in flux, and named for either direction, particular event, or destination of those who travel from that gate (e.g. Ephraim Gate—cf. the modern Damascus Gate). In the light of the weakness of gates (n.2) this variation in names and locations for gates and towers is rational, v. 43, of joy in Jerusalem, cf. 2 Chr 20:27; 3O:26; Esth 8:16, 17; Ps 35:37; 105:43; Tob 13:10, 17; esp. Isa 65:18. The hearing of joyful celebration, especially at a distance by enemies, is an interesting theme (Isa 15:4; i Sam 4:6; Ruth 1:6; enemies hearing in Ezra 3:13; Neh 2:10,19; 4:1, 7,15; 6:16; and 9:9, 27, 28; of God hearing, see Isa 66:19; Jer 40:11; 49:21; 50:46; i Mace 14).
(11:1—36) Repopulating Jerusalem v. i, the military overtones of this entire episode, surely resulting from Nehemiah's Persian commission, have been noted in the literature (Kellermann 1967; Wright 1990; Hoglund 1992). The unusual term for Jerusalem this early (lit. holy city), is found in various forms in 19 other places in the HB, and alluded to in the NT. v. 12, volunteering to live in Jerusalem continues the military theme (cf Judg 5:2, 9, and esp. i Chr 29:5-6). v. 4, 'Judahites and... Benjaminites' become symbolic of the majority, rather than exclusive of those from other tribal backgrounds, w. 4/7-36, the sources of this list are usually considered early, given that gatekeepers and singers are not yet listed with levitical status (so Williamson 1985: 347; Blenkinsopp 1988: 325—7). The listing of persons follows the order: (i) w. 4—6, Judahites; (2) w. 7-9, Benjaminites; (3) w. 10-14, priests; (4) w. 15-18, Levites; (5) v. 19, gatekeepers; (6) w. 20-1, 'the rest of Israel', those who live each on nahdlato 'his inheritance'. Special mention is made ofnettnim (temple servants) (Weinberg 1992: 75-91).
(13:1—31) Nehemiah's Second Visit: Further Reforms It has often been observed that ch. 13 seems an afterthought—a collection of issues that a later editor considered to be loose ends that required tying up. The chapter easily breaks up into separate episodes: w. 1—9, the presence of Tobiah in the temple; w. 10—14, levitical duties; w. 15—22, concerning trade and commercial activities on the sabbath ('In those days I saw...'); w. 23-9, further concerns on mixed marriage issues (Tn those days I saw...'); w. 30—1, summary of entire chapter. It is possible, furthermore, that w. 6—7 provide the reason— they seem to point to an addition from a second term of Nehemiah's responsibilities in Judah.
v. 25, there is an unusual combination of terms used here: 'villages' and 'fields' (hdserim, bisedotam). Generally, Williamson (1985: 350) considers the role of villages to be a Utopian view of post-exilic geography, although we have noted that this list is taken from Josh 15, and thus intended to mimic the conquest of the land (Simons 1959: 393; Blenkinsopp 1988: 330). v. 36, the term used for 'divisions' is typical of the Chronicler (i Chr 23:6; 24:1; 26:1, 12, 19) and almost always of priests and Levites (see, however, Josh 11:23; I2:7> 18:10). (12:1-47) Processional Dedication of the Wall w. 1-21, the first half of this chapter consists of a record of priestly and levitical families, including a record of high priests that, although incomplete, takes us down to the time of Alexander the Great (Jaddua, v. 22; see Jos. Ant. 11.302). Nehemiah is mentioned as if the narrator is writing from beyond his time (note the two historical figures David and Nehemiah in v. 46). The chapter shows considerable editorial activity, in the late additions found in w. 6,19,2 2, and 2 3. v. 2 3, the importance of records read to the king further supports the view that the lists throughout Ezra—Nehemiah are evidence of the constant watch of the authorities, v. 26, Joiakim could hardly be Jehoiachim, king after 605 BCE in Judah. v. 27, the term hanukkd (dedication) is only late, of dedications in P and other later biblical books. All the instruments must have been carried during the procession, which may affect how we imagine the size of the various specific instruments (Williamson 1985:
v. i, the introduction to the reading of the books of Moses leads to the emphasis on the Ammonites and Moabites (Gen 19:38; Deut 23:3; Neh 4:7; Amos 1:13; Zeph 2:8; Jdt 6:5—a racial slur?). Note, however, that Ruth is a Moabite, and Isa 56:6—8 looked to an era when foreigners would be welcome in the 'house of prayer', v. 2, Balak and Balaam are recalled here
(Num 22—3; cf. Isa 15—16; Jer 48). The tradition becomes a code to speak of issues of contemporary economic and political tension, v. 4, Tobiah was 'close' (qarob) in the sense of related by family ties (cf. Lev 21:2, 3; 25:25; 2 Sam 19:43). v. 5, Tobiah's storehouse was a base of operation. Commentators compare the commercial problems in w. 15-22, concluding that Tobiah was using a privileged position in the temple economy to pursue advantageous business arrangements (Blenkinsopp 1988: 354; Williamson 1985: 386). v. 6, notably, Nehemiah is not present, and Artaxerxes is called 'King... of Babylon', w. 8-9, Nehemiah states that he threw out 'vessels [NRSV: household furniture] of the house of Tobiah'. The possibility of rendering the term 'vessels' suggests that Tobiah had religious utensils in the temple. There are suggestions here of Josiah's (and Hezekiah's) cleansing of the temple
(again implying royal activities for Nehemiah). They 'cleansed [t-h-r] the chambers' (for Holiness Code see Lev 15:13, 28; 22:4; 13:6). The implication is to make clean from idolatry (Jer 13:27; Ezek 24:13). v. 14, Nehemiah's phrase, 'Remember me, O my God' is helpfully noted by Eskenazi (1988), who reminds us to
323 EZRA-NEHEMIAH
Berquist, J. (1995), Judaism in Persia's Shadow: A Social and Historical
contrast this first-person request to be honoured, with the editor's third-person report that God, in fact, honoured Ezra.
Approach (Minneapolis: Fortress). Betylon, J. W. (1992), 'Weights and Measures', ABD vi: 897-908. Bickermann, E. (1976), 'The Edict of Cyrus in Ezra i', Studies in Jewish
v. 16, the Tyrians (Phoenicians), of course, were renowned tradesmen in the ancient Near East. w. 17-18, regarding the sabbath, economic activity is considered polluting in the ritual sense. There is an interesting interrelationship of ritual profanation and economic social issues, here. We must guard against the stereotype that priestly concerns are often 'empty ritualism' without connection to justice issues, v. 21, Nehemiah's threat is to lay hands on' these sellers! (cf Esth 3:6; 9:2; Add Esth 6:2; 12:2.) v. 22, Levites must purify themselves. Once again, terms of ritual, purity, 'purify' and 'holy' are used in the arena of finance and economics, v. 23, there is considerable discussion about the relation of Josephus, Ant. 11:306—12, to these events. Some have suggested that Josephus is speaking of another event entirely, or at the very least a garbled version of these events. It is now rare for modern commentators to argue that Neh 13 has garbled events of which Josephus has more accurately written.
and Christian History, i (Leiden: Brill). Blenkinsopp, J. (1988), Ezra-Nehemiah, OTL (London: SCM). Boyce, M. (1975—82), A History of Zoroastrianism, Handbuch der Or-
ientalistik (Leiden: Brill), i, ii. Carroll, R. (1992), 'Coopting the Prophets: Nehemiah and Noadiah',
in J. Wright, R. Carroll, and P. Davies (eds.), Priests, Prophets and Scribes (FestschriftforJ. Blenkinsopp), JSOTSup 149 (Sheffield: Sheffield University Press). Carter, C. (1991), A Social and Demographic Study of Post-Exilic
Judah', diss., Duke University, NC. Clines, D. (1984), Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther, NCB (Basingstoke:
Marshall, Morgan, & Scott). Cook, J. M. (1983), The Persian Empire (New York: Schocken). Cozer, L. (1972), The Alien as Servant of Power: Court Jews and
Christian Renegades', American Sociological Review, 37: 574-81. Dandamaev, M. (1989), A Political History oftheAchaemenid Empire, tr.
W. J. Vogel (Leiden: Brill).
and Lukonin, V. G. (1989), The Culture and Social Institutions of Ancient Iran, tr. P. L. Kohl (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Davies, G. (1994), A History of Money (Cardiff: University of Wales
v. 24, what was the language of Ashdod? Some have suggested that it simply means 'foreign language' and not a specific, known dialect at all, while others argue for an Aramaic or Philistine (orGk.?) dialect. Blenkinsopp (1988: 363) is surely correct, however, in stating that the real issue is the inability to speak Hebrew, not the specific language they did speak! Political considerations seem predominant in Nehemiah, giving the impression of treacherous power-grabbing in both temple and government through strategic marriages. The example that Nehemiah chooses to illustrate the problems of foreign marriage is an example of political leadership:
Press). Demke, A. (1996), 'Who Returned First: Ezra or Nehemiah?', Bible
Review (Apr.), 28-33, 46-8. Depuydt, L. (1995), 'Murder in Memphis: The Story of Cambyses's
Mortal Wounding of the Apis Bull', JNES 54/2:119-26. Ehrlich, A. B. (1914), Randglossen zur hebrdischen Bibel (Leipzig: J. C.
Hinrichs). Eskenazi, T (1988), In an Age of Prose: A Literary Approach to Ezra-
Nehemiah, SBLMS 36 (Atlanta: Scholars Press).
Solomon. From Nehemiah, much more clearly than from Ezra, we gain the strong impression that the problem of foreign marriages is centrally a political problem, involving the Jewish aristocracy and local governmental leadership. The politics of associating with the descendants of Ammon and Moab is also much more explicitly a reference to local leadership than is the case with Ezra, where the ethnic categories in use seem more pejorative than informative. In the Nehemiah case, the guilty are males who are presumably attempting to 'marry up' to exchange their low status of'exiles' for participation in aristocratic society. Sociological inferences lead one to conclude that the mixed marriages are built on the presupposition that the exile community was the relatively disadvantaged one of the two (or more) groups involved in the marriages (cf. Smith-Christopher 1994: 243-65). v. 31, the final word regards provisions for the temple's wood-offering (cf. Gen 22; Lev i; 6:12; Jos 9:21-7; Ezek 39:10). With the final words, 'Remember me!', this additional word about wood supplies must surely qualify as among the least conclusive final sentences of the Bible.
and Judd, E. (1994), 'Marriage to a Stranger in Ezra 9-10', in T. Eskenazi and K. Richards (eds.), Temple and Community in the Persian Period, Second Temple Studies, 2 (Sheffield: Sheffield University Press), 266-85. Fanon, F. (1963), The Wretched of the Earth (New York: Grove). Fensham, F. C. (1982), The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah (Grand
Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans). Firmage, E. (1992), 'Zoology of the Bible', ABD vi: 1109—67. Galling, K. (1951), The "Gola List" According to Ezra 2 Neh. 7', JBL 70.
(1961), 'Serubbabel und der Wiederaufbau des Tempels in Jerusalem', Verbannung und Heimkehr: Beitrdge zur Geschichte und Theologie Israels im 6. und j. Jahrhundert v. Chr. (Festschrift fur W. Rudolph) (Tubingen: Mohr).
(1964) Studien zur Geschichte Israels im persischen Zeitalter (Tubingen: Mohr). Georges, P. (1994), Barbarian Asia and the Greek Experience (Balti-
more: Johns Hopkins University Press). Hallock, R. T. (1960), A New Look at the Persepolis Tablets', JNES 19. Hasel, G. (1972), The Remnant (Berrian Springs: Andrews University
Press). Hirsch, S. (1985), The Friendship of the Barbarians (London: Tufts
University Press). Hoglund, K. (1992), Achaeminid Imperial Administration in Syria-Pa-
lestine and the Missions of Ezra and Nehemiah, SBLDS 125 (Atlanta: Scholars Press). Ivry, A. L. (1972), 'Nehemiah 6:10: Politics and the Temple', JSJ 3: 35-
Avigad, N. (1983), Discovering Jerusalem (Nashville: Nelson). Balch, S. (1985), The Neutered Civil Servant: Eunuchs, Celibates,
45Japhet, S. (1968), The Supposed Common Authorship of Chronicles
Abductees, and the Maintenance of Organizational Loyalty', Journal of Social and Behavioural Structures, 8/4: 313—28. Baskauskas, L. (1981), 'The Lithuanian Refugee Experience and
and Ezra-Nehemiah Investigated Anew', VTi8: 330-71.
(1993), ^ an& II Chronicles (London: Westminster). Kapelrud,A. S. (1944), The Question of Authorship in the Ezra Narrative:
Grief, International Migration Review, 15/1: 276-91.
A Lexical Investigation (Oslo: Dybwad).
ESTHER 324
Kellermann, U. (1967), Nehemia: Quellen, Uberlieferung und Geschichte, BZAW 102 (Berlin: Topelmann). Kippenburg, H. (1982), Religion und Klassenbildung im antikenjudaa
Smith-Christopher, D. L. (1993), 'Hebrew Satyagraha: The Politics of
Biblical Fasting in the Post-Exilic Period', Food and Foodways, 5/3: 269-92. (1994), The Mixed Marriage Crisis in Ezra 9-10 and Nehemiah 13: A Study ofthe Sociology ofthe Post-Exilic Judean Community', in T. Eskenazi and K. Richards (eds.), Temple and Community in the Persian Period, Second Temple Studies, 2 (Sheffield: Sheffield University Press), 243—65.
(Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht). Kraeling, E. G. (1953) (ed.), The Brooklyn Museum Aramaic Papyri (New
Haven: Yale University Press). Lanternari, Vittorio (1963), The Religions of the Oppressed, tr. L. Sergio
(New York: New American Library of World Literature). Lapp, P. W, and Lapp, N. L. (1974), Discoveries in the Wadi el Daliyeh,
(1996), 'Between Ezra and Isaiah: Exclusion, Transformation, and Inclusion ofthe "Foreigner" in Post-Exilic Biblical Theology', in M. Brett (ed.), Ethnicity and the Bible (Leiden: Brill), 117-42. Smitten, W. in der (1972—4), 'Historische Probleme zum Kyrosedikt
AASOR 41:81. Lind, M. (1980), Yahweh is a Warrior (Scottdale, Pa.: Herald). McEvenue, S. (1981), The Political Structure in Judah from Cyrus to
Nehemiah', 03(343/4: 353-64. Memmi, A. (1965), The Colonizer and the Colonized (New York:
und zum Jerusalemer Tempelbau von 515', Persica, 6: 171.
(1973), Esra: QueUen, Uberlieferung und Geschichte, SSN 15 (Assen: Van Gorcum). Stern, E. (1982), Material Culture of the Land of the Bible in the
Beacon). Morkholm, O. (1991), Early Hellenistic Coinage (Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press). Mumford, L. (1961), The City in History (New York: Harcourt Brace
Persian Period 538—332 BC (Warminster: Aris & Phillips; Jerusalem: IBS). Torrey, C. C. (1970), Ezra Studies (New York: Ktav). Original edn. 1910. Waterman, L. (1954), The Camouflaged Purge of Three Messianic
Jovanovich). Myers, J. M. (1974), I and II Esdras, AB 42 (New York: Doubleday). Nakasone, S. (1993), Josiah's Passover: Sociology and the Liberating Bible
Conspirators', JNES 13: 73—8. Weinberg, J. (1992), The Citizen-Temple Community, JSOTSup 151
(Maryknoll, NY: Orbis). Neufeld, E. (1953-4), 'The Rate of Interest and the Text of Nehemiah
(Sheffield: Sheffield University Press). Weinfeld, M. (1995), Social Justice in Ancient Israel and in the Ancient
5.11', JQR NS 44:194—204. Oded, B. (1979), Mass Deportations and Deportees in the Neo-Assyrian
Near East (Minneapolis: Fortress). White, R. (1983), Roots of Dependency (Lincoln, Nebr.: University of
Empire (Weisbaden: Reichert). Olmstead, A. T. (1933), 'A Persian Letter in Thucydides', A/SI 49:
Nebraska Press). Williamson, H. G. M. (1985), Ezra, Nehemiah, WBC (Waco, Tex.:
154-61. Raboteau, A. (1978), Slave Religion (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Rad, G. von (1991), Holy War in Ancient Israel, tr. M. Dawn (Grand
Word). Wiseman, D. J. (1956), Chronicles of Chaldean Kings (626—556 B.C.) in
Rapids: Eerdmans). Richards, R. (forthcoming), The Role ofthe Imperial Decrees in Ezra-
the British Museum (London: British Museum). Wright, J. (1990), 'A Tale of Three Cities: Urban Gates, Squares, and
Nehemiah', diss., University of Cape Town. Rosenthal, F. (1974), A Grammar of Biblical Aramaic (Wiesbaden:
Power in Iron Age II, Neo-Babylonian, and Achaemenid Israel', unpub. essay read at Society for Biblical Literature, Chicago. Yadin, Y. (1963), The Art of Warfare in Biblical Lands (New York:
Harrassowitz). Rudolph, W. (1949), Esra und Nehemia, HAT 20 (Tubingen: Mohr). Sauer, G. (1967), 'Serubbabel in der Sicht Haggais und Sacharjas', Dos
McGraw Hill). Yamauchi, E. (1990), Persia and the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker Book
feme und nahe Wort, BZAW 105 (Berlin: Topelmann). Scott, J. C. (1985), Weapons ofthe Weak: Everyday Forms of Peasant
House). Zograph, A. N. (1977), Ancient Coinage, Br. Arch. Rep. Sup. Ser. 33/1
(Oxford: British Archaeological Reports). Zucker, H. (1936), Studien zur jiidischen Selbstvenvaltung im Altertum
Resistance (New Haven: Yale University Press). Simons, J. (1959), The Geographical and Topographical Texts ofthe Old
(New York: Schocken).
Testament (Leiden: Brill). Smith, D. L. (1989), The Religion ofthe Landless: The Sociology ofthe
Babylonian Exile (Bloomington, Ind.: Meyer-Stone).
16. Esther CAROL MEYERS
A. Overview. 1. The Book of Esther, or Scroll of Esther as it is called in Jewish tradition, is part of the third major section, known as the Writings, of the Hebrew Bible (OT). One of the two books in Hebrew Scripture to bear the name of a woman, its title is the name of the book's heroine. The name is not Hebrew, but its origin is uncertain. It may come from Persian stara ('star'), Akkadian istar (the goddess of love), or even a hypothetical Median word astra ('myrtle'). The last possibility is related to the fact that Esther also has a Hebrew name (see 2:7), Hadassah, which means 'myrtle'. 2. That the leading character has two names is indicative of the cultural situation that determines the setting and the plot of this exciting and fast-moving tale. The book of Esther is concerned with the often precarious situation of any minority
people within a dominant majority culture. In this case, the Jews are dispersed within the Persian empire and face almost certain annihilation through the whim of a power-mongering bureaucrat (Haman). Only through the courageous and creative deeds of a Jewish woman, Esther, along with her mentor, Mordecai, do they escape harm and actually improve their status, though still remaining a subject people. The two names and identities of Esther—as both Jew and Persian— represent the political and ethnic problems facing people who live simultaneously in two cultures.
3. The ostensible reason for the inclusion of this book in the canon of the HB is that it purports to provide the historical origins for a festival known as Purim ('Lots'), a popular and raucous Jewish celebration held on the I4th and I5th of Adar
325 ESTHER
(Mar.-Apr.). Yet the book's historicity, as well as its legitimacy as a part of both the Jewish and Christian canon, have been the subject of serious disagreement since antiquity.
status in early Judiasm; and the fact that the Western Fathers merely mention it while the Eastern Church did not accept it as part of the canon until the eighth century CE is indicative of its controversial nature in early Christianity. For both Jews and Christians, the most prominent reason for its disputed status is its lack of explicit religiosity. God is never once mentioned, nor are basic biblical concepts such as covenant, Torah, and temple. Also absent are standard elements of Jewish piety such as dietary laws, sacrifice, and prayer; and virtues such as mercy and forgiveness are not present. The reasons for such omissions are only speculative (see the summary in Moore 1992: 636-7), but the fact that many of these 'missing' elements appear prominently in the Additions to Esther demonstrates clearly how deficient the canonical Esther seemed. Not only are its deficiencies troubling but so also are some of its features, such as the apparent vindictiveness with which the Jews avenge those who would have destroyed them, although that particular aspect may be part of the peripety (unexpected reversal of fortunes) that characterizes the literary structure of the book.
B. Ancient Versions. 1. The ancient concerns about the legitimacy of what appears in the received Hebrew text of Esther gave rise to a series of six midrashic supplements to the book that appear in the Septuagint version of the late second or early first century BCE. Those Greek Additions, lettered A to F, are interspersed throughout the book (see ch. 42, Esther (Greek)). They were placed together at the end of the canonical book, however, in the fourth century CE by Jerome in his revision of the Old Latin translation. English translations today place those Additions in the Apocrypha, although recent Roman Catholic editions integrate them with the Hebrew E sther.
2. The Septuagint text of Esther, with its additions as well as its omission of the many repetitive words and phrases of the MT, is probably the final stage in a complex process of tradition formation in which two component tales (one about Mordecai, another about Esther) were gradually brought together and elaborated in three successive stages of the Hebrew text (the latest being virtually identical with the present MT), and then the Septuagint stage. This last stage is faithful to the content of the Hebrew butless so to the wording (Moore 1971: Ixi—bdv; see also Clines 1984 and Fox 1990). Esther also exists in another ancient Greek version (the Lucianic recension, or A-text). The Vulgate and Syriac translations are both based on the Hebrew and are quite close to it, although Jerome's translation is a little freer than in most other parts of his work. Two Aramaic translations are quite expansive.
2. Controversy has also surrounded the value of Esther and her deeds as a female role model. Some biblical scholars have downplayed her activities, making Mordecai into the true hero of the tale (see Moore 1971: Hi) and questioning Esther's sexual ethics (as Paton 1908: 96). Some radical feminist critics would rather make Vashti the heroine (Gendler 1976); they object to Esther's use of sexuality and food to achieve her ends (as Fuchs 1982). Others writing with a feminist perspective (e.g. LaCocque 1990; White 1989; 1992) are respectful of such tactics of indirection, which serve as models for the powerless, whether individuals or communities, who struggle to establish and maintain a semblance of agency in their lives. For those who view her positively, Esther becomes a sage in her own right: she dominates the action, surpassing Mordecai and subordinating the king to her will (Hallo 1983: 24—5). The characterization of Esther in postbiblical Jewish tradition, such as the Additions (see Day 1995) and rabbinic literature (as Bronner 1994), is another aspect of feminist interest in this biblical book.
C. Provenance and Date. 1. The tale's focus on the Jewish community in Persia, along with its intimate knowledge of Persian customs and its total lack of interest in Judean life and institutions, indicates that Esther was composed in the eastern Diaspora. Jews who lived as a minority near the locus of power in the post-exilic period would have been the natural audience for this tale of Jewish accommodations and accomplishments in a foreign setting.
2. Extensive textual analysis in the last decade has established that the final Hebrew stage of the book would have been formed by the second century BCE. That it lacks any Greek words or evidence of Greek culture pushes it back to the preHellenistic period for most scholars, although that absence is possibly the result of deliberate archaizing (so Berg 1979: 170-1). The earliest date would be that of the only identifiable historical figure in the book, the Persian ruler Ahasuerus, or Xerxes I (486—465 BCE). Some late fifth-century elements are possible, but the story shows some distance from Xerxes and probably did not reach its present form until some time in the fourth century. In vocabulary and syntax, its Hebrew has much in common with that of the Chronicler (£.400 BCE); and its sense of Jews widely and comfortably—though not necessarily securely—settled throughout the empire suits the Persian II period (see Hoglund 1992).
E. Genre and Purpose. 1. The blatant historical difficulties, the internal inconsistencies, the pronounced symmetry of themes and events, the plenitude of quoted dialogue, and the gross exaggeration in the reporting of numbers (involving time, money, and people) all point to Esther as a work of fiction, its vivid characters (except for Xerxes) being the product of the author's creative imagination. Recognizing that it is not historical, although it reflects actual conditions and problems of the post-exilic Jewish Diaspora, has allowed scholars to appreciate many of its literary features and to compare its thematic aspects with those of certain other canonical, deuterocanonical, and extracanonical pieces.
2. Esther has long been called a 'Diaspora novella' (Meinhold 1969; 1975-6). Like the Joseph story in Genesis and the book of Daniel, it is a fictional piece of prose writing involving the interaction between foreigners and Hebrews/ Jews. In all these works, the Jews have low status, are threatened, and at the end achieve success and a rise in status. The plots of these tales depict only one series of events, all occurring within a limited time period. Esther's similarity to Daniel
D. Interpretative Problems and Canonicity. 1. Esther is the only book in the Hebrew canon for which no fragments have been discovered at Qumran. Its absence from the corpus of Dead Sea scrolls attests to the difficulty it had in reaching canonical
ESTHER 326
and to the Joseph tale, especially with many lexical connections to the latter, may be the result of all three of these novellas also being 'royal courtier tales' (see Humphreys 1973). That such tales contain many elements of wisdom literature is also a compelling consideration (Talmon 1963).
Persian ruler Ahasuerus (Xerxes), the only historical figure in the book. The exaggerated vastness of the kingdom ('over one hundred and twenty-seven provinces from India to Ethiopia', v. i) and of the initial banquet, which lasts for the improbably long period of 180 days, emphasizes imperial power and thus prepares the way for the enormity of the reversal that will take place at the end of the book, when Persian political privilege becomes accessible to a subject people. The Hebrew root m-l-k
3. An important dimension to the wise-courtier aspect of Esther and other biblical pieces is added by noting its folkloristic features (Niditch and Doran 1977). Recognizing the presence of certain elements that are known cross-culturally, outside biblical tradition, broadens the consideration of literary traits and genres to include awareness of the social setting. The type of folk-tale exemplified by Esther involves status difference as a critical element. The interplay and tension between highand low-status persons and/or groups, with the lower-status character or community prevailing, constitute a kind of resistance literature (Smith 1989: 162-4). The creation of such tales in many cultures uses similar themes and elements because those features, whereby a minority hero/heroine rises above and achieves some sort of victory over the dominant power, allow the oppressed group to maintain identity, self-respect, and hope. Through her cleverness and patience, Esther thwarts a superpower. The official culture's dominance is thereby contested, and traits (wisdom, piety, cleverness) available to even the powerless are shown to have empowering value.
('to rule') appears for the first time in the first verse in designating the king's rule; except for the introductory term 'happened', 'ruled' is the first verb in the book and establishes a major theme. The word appears in various noun and verbal forms some 250 times in Esther, thereby emphasizing the royalty of the governing power, a dominant motif in the book (Berg 1979: 59-72).
The initial use of the term 'banquet' also appears at the beginning of the book (w. 3, 5, 9). That word (misteh) appears 20 times in Esther but only 24 times in the entire rest of the HB. The importance of official feasts, of which there are eight altogether in Esther (three called by the king, one by Vashti, two by Esther, and two by the Jews), is thus introduced. The symmetry of the book, with feasts at the beginning, middle, and end, is also thereby established. The two feasts called by the king at the outset, with the second one (w. 5-8) described in exceptionally lavish detail, are mirrored at the end by the two Jewish feasts. In the first instance the imperial power indulged its wealth; and in the second instance, after a series of breathtaking reversals, the Jews in all 127 provinces celebrate their survival.
4. In the case of the Book of Esther, as in many other such folk-tales, the outcome does not mean that the dominant power is toppled. Rather, the achievement of the hero/heroine is to establish the integrity of the minority group within the larger culture. That is, Judaism cannot and thus will not overtly oppose its imperial masters; but it can maintain its core identity while subscribing to most of the Persian regulations and structures. More broadly, Jews can be loyal to two masters; they can live successfully in the Diaspora.
Another important feature of Esther emerges in the language ofthe first chapter. The importance oflaw and the related issue of obedience versus disobedience is obvious from the repeated use ofthe term dat (w. 13,15, etc.). This Persian word, meaning 'law' or 'decree', appears about 20 times in Esther (elsewhere only twice in the H B). Other words for edicts, orders, customs, commands, and proclamations abound. The frequent use of dat and other such terms introduces the problem of Jews adhering to an external legal and cultural system while remaining faithful to Jewish tradition. The recurrent vocabulary of governance highlights the continual tension experienced by any subject group, with its own codes of behaviour, struggling to survive in a land not its own, in a culture with codes and procedures at variance with its own.
F. Outline. I.Asa well-constructed narrative tale, Esther has a clearly demarcated beginning ('exposition', chs. 1-2), middle ('complication', chs. 3—9), and end ('resolution', chs. 9—10), with these three parts each having a number of discrete sections (Clines 1988).
Introducing the Setting (1:1-2:23)
The Vashti Incident (1:1-22) Esther's Accession to the Throne (2:1-23) The Plot Unfolds (3:1-8:17)
Although the king's royal power and palace munificence are important introductory themes of the first chapter, the book's plot is initiated by an incident involving the queen, Vashti, who gave her own banquet at the same time as the king's second one. The announcement (v. 9) ofthe queen's feast, which appears almost as an aside, establishes the legitimacy of official banquets being offered by the queen of the realm and anticipates the meals to be hosted later by Esther at a critical point in the tale. Certainly the fact of Vashti hosting a banquet for women does not seem essential for the incident that next occurs—except that it may indicate that Vashti was too busy to respond to her husband's request that his beautiful queen be paraded before the king, his officials, and all the people in attendance at the king's second banquet. She survives her disobedience by losing only her position (v. 19). The calm assertion of autonomy by Vashti results in royal rage and then a ridiculous royal decree—that all men should be master
Struggle between Haman and Mordecai (3:1—4:3) Esther Becomes Involved (4:5-5:8) The Mordecai—Haman Problem Escalates (5:9—6:14) Haman is Overcome and Replaced (7:1—8:17) The Crisis is Resolved (9:1—10:3)
Events of the I3th of Adar (9:1-19) Purim Becomes a Festival (9:20—32) Conclusion (10:1—3)
Exposition (1:1-2:23)
(1:1—22) The Vashti Incident The opening four verses provide the setting for most of the book: the sumptuous court of the
327 ESTHER
The Plot Unfolds (3:1-8:17)
in their own homes—which adds a comic touch in that it could hardly be enforced, and indicates that men were not actually dominant in their households.
(3:1-4:3) Struggle between Mordecai and Haman The only major character not yet on the scene appears in the first verse of this section: Haman the Agagite, linked by his genealogy to Israel's archetypal enemy and historical foe of King Saul, from whose father, Kish, was descended Mordecai (see 2:5-6), who will be his opponent and nemesis in this tale. The issue of obedience is immediately raised, this time in relation to Mordecai. Having elevated Haman to a lofty position in the court, the king has ordered everyone to bow down to him. Mordecai refuses to do so (3:2). This act of defiance is not directly explained, but the servants who witness it and who fail to convince Mordecai to honour Haman then inform Haman of Mordecai's Jewish identity. Perhaps it is implied, as Jewish commentaries from the rabbinical period onwards have suggested, that Jews would bow down only to their God (cf. Dan 3). If so, the tension of binational loyalty, i.e. the problem of diaspora Jewry, appears directly in the story, and a religious dimension is indirectly introduced.
(2:1-23) Esther's Accession to the Throne When Ahasuerus' anger abates, he again takes action, authorizing the search for a new queen. The idea of his ire dissipating occurs once more, using the same verb (s-fe-fe), in 7:10, when the king is calmed after another royal order is carried out. In both cases his wrath emerges from a spouse problem; in the first case the queen (Vashti) threatens his authority, whereas in the second case, his chief officer threatens the queen (Esther). The king apparently experiences intense anger only in matters of the heart.
In introducing Esther, the narrator informs us of her relationship to Mordecai, her cousin, adoptive father, and mentor. Mordecai's name, which is probably a Hebraized form of a Babylonian name with the theophoric element Marduk, contains an idolatrous element; but he may have had (as did Esther) a true Hebrew name as well (Moore 1971: 19). If his name is suspect, his lineage is not. The genealogical information in w. 5—6 puts him in the family of Saul, the first Israelite ruler. This brief genealogy accomplishes three things. First, it gives Mordecai a royal identity, fitting his eventual high position in the Persian court (8:2, 8, 10, 15; 9:4). Yet, as a Saulide rather than a Davidide, his royal heritage poses no threat to Persian dominance; it is the Davidic line and not the Saulide one that is expected one day to regain power. Second, it sets up the opposition between Mordecai and his nemesis Haman, the king's chief official. Haman is an Agagite (3:1), a descendant of the Amalekite king who opposed King Saul (i Sam 15:32). Mordecai and Haman thus echo the historic confrontation between Saul and Agag. Third, it gives a sense of Jewish continuity in presenting Mordecai's family as having survived since the days of Saul. Saul the Benjaminite preceded David the Judahite, and his descendant Mordecai now outlasts Davidic rule.
Even if Mordecai's Judaism is not the cause of his refusal to do obeisance, it becomes the reason for Haman's response: a monumental overreaction to a snub. His revenge would be the destruction not simply of Mordecai but of his entire people (3:8). The vastness of Haman's plan to relieve his malice towards Mordecai in some ways recapitulates the outrageous scale of Ahasuerus' response to Vashti's snub, whereby he subordinates all women to their husbands. The parallel between Jews and women is clear. They both must be dealt with in their entirety to rectify the impropriety of one of them towards the royal power. Perhaps, too, both women and Jews have greater potential power than their apparently subordinate status would indicate.
Haman then casts a lot, or pur—an act well-documented as a tool of ancient imperial decision science (see Hallo 1983)— to select the day for this genocide. This procedure is to become the raison d'etre for the festival of Purim (9:24—6). That the date selected—the thirteenth day of the twelfth month, Adar (3:7, 13)—involves the number 13 (thought to be unlucky already in biblical antiquity) perhaps prefigures the fateful turn of events when that day finally arrives. Haman's plan is approved, at least in part because he makes a donation to the king's treasury of 10,000 talents of silver, a highly inflated sum indicative of the fictive quality of the tale.
The beautiful Esther is chosen for the king's harem and receives special food and seven serving maids. These two benefits anticipate an important reversal at the turning-point of the story, when Esther and her maids fast for three days (4:15). Obeying Mordecai's charge, though later she will disobey even the king, Esther does not reveal her Jewish identity (w. 10, 20). It is not that her identity would have disqualified her from the harem; rather it would preclude the plot development that will enable her to act on behalf of her people. The king must not know her national or ethnic origins ('her people or kindred').
Ahasuerus then acts in equally grandiose fashion, allowing Haman to use his signet ring, the ultimate instrument of authority. Because of this preposterous if temporary transfer of royal power to Haman, the ultimate death of the villain will mean that the subject people will have overcome the 'ruler', who is not the actual ruler; and Ahasuerus, the somewhat bumbling good-hearted monarch, will maintain the respect and loyalty of his subjects. The Jews will reverse their subordinate status by disposing of their oppressor while remaining loyal subjects to the real king.
Esther's beauty wins the approval of the king, who crowns her queen (v. 17) even though she requests no special attire or adornment (see w. 13, 15) when she first enters the king's presence. Her role in saving the king's life in this opening section of the book is just as important as is her beauty in sealing her favoured position. Through her informant Mordecai, she learns of a plan to assassinate the king and warns him of it (w. 21-2). The would-be assassins die on the gallows, and the motif of the hanging of the king's enemies enters the narrative. All the elements necessary for the central problem of the story are now in place, and the plot begins to unfold in ch.3.
Now it is time for reactions to the evil decree. First the city of Susa itself is 'thrown into confusion' (3:15; cf. the reversal of this situation in 8:15). Then, upon hearing the news, Mordecai and all the Jews throughout the empire go into mourning by donning 'sackcloth and ashes', by crying out, and by fasting (4:1-3). This last act, fasting, is mentioned twice more, when
ESTHER 328
becomes intensely distressed when Mordecai once more refuses to do obeisance. At the bidding of his wife Zeresh, he erects monumental gallows intended for Mordecai; only then can Haman feel relaxed enough to look forward to Esther's second banquet. Meanwhile, to pass the hours of a sleepless night, Ahasuerus makes the unlikely but fortuitous move of having his court annals read aloud, thereby discovering that he had failed to reward Mordecai for passing on the information about the assassination plot. In a marvellously ironic scene (6:4—11), as the tale moves inexorably to its ultimate reversal, Haman appears on the scene and is asked what a king should do to honour someone. With his arrogance and egomania, Haman believes he is the one deserving such honour and constructs a reward—parading the honoured man, on horseback and in royal garb, to the city square— that is then given to Mordecai. Haman must lead the horse and proclaim the king's favour for Mordecai. Understandably devastated, Haman is now the one who exhibits mourning behaviour. Once more his wife takes note, this time with the pessimistic notion that Haman's intent to destroy Mordecai may end up with the opposite result. The reason for this? Mordecai is Jewish (6:13). Zeresh's response conveys a powerful notion underlying the book—that the Jews are ultimately inviolable and will somehow survive.
Esther and her maids fast (4:16), and again in the proclamation of future fasts (9:31). The emphasis on abstention from food as a reflection of and response to the impending death sentence provides a stark contrast to the joyous consumption of food at the various banquets and feasts that punctuate the tale. At the same time, the appearance of fasting may be the one possible example of Jewish religious observance in the entire, rather secular, book of Esther. Fasting together with weeping has good biblical precedent as an individual intercessory attempt to plead with God and thus save a life; the story of David's actions on behalf of his first son by Bathsheba is notable in this regard (2 Sam 12:15-17). Also, as a community-wide response to disaster, the events surrounding the sixth century BCE destruction of Jerusalem and the temple apparently produced several fast days (see Zech 7:4; 8:19).
(4:5—5:9) Esther Becomes Involved The story at last turns towards Esther's response, which will ultimately lead to a reversal. She sends the eunuch Hathach, who is one of her attendants, to Mordecai to find out about Haman's decree. Replying through this messenger, Mordecai charges her to approach Ahasuerus, in order 'to make supplication to him and entreat him for her people' (4:8). Now we hear Esther's voice directly for the first time (4:11—12). This first instance of reported speech for her, followed soon by a second (4:16) as she informs her cousin that no one can approach the king unbidden under threat of death, signals two important shifts. First, Esther has her own voice and is now acting in her own right, no longer under her mentor's direction. Second, her words mark her explicit involvement in her people's dilemma and in the rescue she will orchestrate. Esther's two statements in ch. 4 provide the turning point of the tale; they draw attention to her potential power evident in her astute reading of the palace rules.
(7:1-8:17) Haman is Overcome and Replaced At the queen's second banquet, when the king is determined to grant her any request, Esther speaks to Ahasuerus in a way that signals her readiness to take advantage of his goodwill. In 7:3 she addresses him for the first time in the second person, saying 'If I have won your favour', rather than using the third person, 'If I have won the king's favour', as in 5:8. She is now ready to be direct in her petitions as well as in her identity. In 7:4 she paraphrases Haman's edict, written in the name of Ahasuerus, to destroy the Jews (3:13). In so doing she identifies herself for the first time as a member of the people to be killed and then requests that the lives of all this group be spared. Incredibly, the king seems ignorant of the decree. Perhaps, because Esther mentions an alternative scenario— that the order might have been to enslave the Jews rather than annihilate them—he had thought he was authorizing a servitude plan. In any case, when Esther identifies Haman as the perpetrator of the projected genocide, the king stomps out to his garden in a rage but says nothing about reversing Haman's edict.
In learning of Esther's response, Mordecai presses her further: she will ultimately die anyway, and she must go to the king. Mordecai's words suggest that help may come 'from another quarter'. The Hebrewterm here, maqom ('place'), is sometimes a euphemism for the divine presence; if so, the word provides a hint of religiosity and of the salvific working of divine providence. Similarly, the fact that E sther proclaims a fast for herself bespeaks a supplicatory or prayerful attitude, perhaps an indication of the queen's Jewish piety. In any case, Mordecai's immediate obedience to Esther's command (4:17) is an explicit reversal of her earlier acquiescence to his instructions.
In accordance with the information she sent to Mordecai, Esther takes the courageous step of approaching the king unbidden at the end of the three-day fast. She disobeys royal law in appearing before him, yet her risky behaviour is richly rewarded, for he generously offers to give her whatever she wants, 'even to the half of my kingdom' (5:3). But Esther cleverly asks for nothing more than an opportunity to entertain her husband and his chief officer. They are both pleased at her hospitality; and the king again offers her half the empire. This time she requests only a second banquet, thereby demonstrating to the king that her requests are easy and pleasant to fulfil. Her strategy of making the king eager to agree to whatever she wishes is in place. (5:9-6:14) The Mordecai-Haman Problem Escalates Happy as Haman was to have been entertained by the queen, he
Left alone with Esther, the terrified Haman falls upon the couch where she is reclining to plead for mercy. At that moment the king returns and sees what appears to him to be a sexual assault on his queen. This at last precipitates the climactic reversal of the tale. But it occurs on a personal level. Even with the knowledge that all the Jews were to be slaughtered, the king does not act until his own wife's sexuality is apparently threatened by Haman, just as his proclamation that all men are to be masters in their homes (1:22) is the result of the defiance of his own wife. Now his orders are first to hang Haman—with delicious irony, on the very gallows intended for Mordecai—rather than to reverse Haman's edict. The immediate threat to his wife having been removed, the king's anger is abated (7:10, as in 2:1 when he dealt with Vashti).
329 ESTHER
Jewish female (cf. 2:17) in wearing the kind of royal headgear so coveted by Haman (6:7). This vivid reversal is accompanied by a similar sea-change in the response of the people. The citizens of Susa had been 'thrown into confusion' (3:15) by Haman's decree; in contrast they respond with great joy to Mordecai's edict (8:16). The Jews are similarly ecstatic and initiate festive activities. This whole turn of events, in which certain Jewish annihilation has been replaced with greatly elevated Jewish status along with royal power placed in the hands of a Jewish official, leads to the astonishing statement that many of the peoples in the empire 'professed to be Jews, because the fear of the Jews had fallen upon them' (8:17). Whether or not this is to be taken as a description of the conversion of some groups to Judaism, the statement does convey the fact that people are inexorably drawn to the security of siding with those in power and that concepts of ethnicity are complicated by the dynamics of political privilege.
Yet the ultimate reversal has still not been accomplished; Haman has been hanged, but his order to destroy the Jews has not been revoked. The next two acts of the king do nothing to change this situation. He continues to respond on a personal level, awarding Haman's household to Esther and giving Mordecai Haman's signet ring. Mordecai and Esther thus together assume ownership of their enemy's holdings, a development hardly satisfactory to Esther, now openly connected with the Jew Mordecai (8:1). Consequently, Esther abandons all guile and falls to the king's feet in tears. Both Esther and the honoured Mordecai are in the king's presence, but it is Esther who speaks out, reverting to the third person in beseeching Ahasuerus to order Haman's decree invalid and in asking that the calamity awaiting her 'people' and her 'kindred' be averted (8:6). Her use of those two terms, in the reverse order to that of ch. 2, finalizes the reversal. Her previously concealed identity is asserted, changing the situation noted in 2:10, which states that Esther 'did not reveal her people or kindred' when she entered the harem.
The Crisis is Resolved (9:1-10:3)
Just as Ahasuerus had given Haman the authority to issue an edict in the name of the king, he now provides for a symmetrical ending by giving a parallel right to Esther and Mordecai (8:7—8). In the language of formal royal activity, which reflects that of 3:12 when Haman formulated the terrible decree, the narrator tells us about a new irrevocable edict to be sent out to all the Persian provinces. The multicultural nature of the empire was duly noted in the account of the earlier edict, which was sent to 'all the peoples, to every province in its own script and every people in its own language' (3:12), a situation that accords with documented Persian policy allowing peoples comprising the empire to maintain a significant amount of political and economic autonomy. In the reprise in ch. 8 of the stereotyped language of edict promulgation, however, the Jews are singled out; the new orders are of course sent to all those peoples in their own scripts and languages 'and also to the Jews in their script and their language' (8:9).
(9:1-19) Events of the Thirteenth of Adar The opening verse of this section is explicit in describing the power reversal that ensues. On the very day that the Jews' enemies were to have vanquished them, the opposite would happen: 'the Jews would gain power over their foes' (9:1). That the fear of the empowered Jews mentioned at the end of ch. 8 and repeated in 9:2 (with an additional statement about Mordecai's high standing in the court) was warranted became clear on the thirteenth of Adar, when the Jews struck down their enemies—75,000 in the provinces (9:16) and 500 in the citadel of Susa (9:6)—defined as all who hated them (9:5). They refrained, however, from plundering. This point must be an important one, because it appears three times (9:10, 15, 16). Perhaps it resumes the parallel set up between Mordecai/Saul and Haman/Agag. When Saul defeated the Agagites, he slaughtered men, women, and children but kept the best sheep and cattle as spoils. He earned divine disapproval for the latter act, with God regretting the choice of Saul as king. The echo in Esther of the i Sam 15 narrative clearly stops at the plunder issue. Mordecai and the Jews will refrain from taking booty and, unlike Saul, maintain their favoured status (with God?).
The new decree, interestingly enough, does not directly revoke Haman's edict; royal edicts issued with the king's signet could not be overturned (8:8). Instead, it authorizes the Jews to annihilate those who, in trying to carry out the terms of Haman's decree, would attempt to slaughter them. In other words, the peculiarity of Persian law in this tale forces the Jews to survive by engaging in the very kind of deadly physical assault to which they are objecting. The official statement, in which the Jews are instructed to assemble and to kill not only their attackers but also the families of their attackers, is a troubling sanction for Jewish violence. But its context, an edict that must overpower an unremovable earlier one, along with the absurdity of the presumably unarmed and militarily untrained Jews overwhelming the imperial forces charged with their slaughter, should ameliorate the horror of the retributive actions to take place at the appointed time. That moment, of course, is to be the thirteenth day of the twelfth month of Adar (8:12), the very day earlier selected by lot for carrying out Haman's edict
The issue of restraint in the taking of plunder, therefore, is not so much an indication of noble character as it is a narrative intent to complete the Saul/Agag parallel with an improvement over the i Samuel episode. Yet the vindictiveness of the Jews again seems problematic in their treatment of the people of Susa. A special additional edict is provided directly by the king at Esther's behest, allowing the Jews to kill their 300 remaining enemies in the city of Susa (as opposed to its citadel, which presumably contained the palace and government complex). They do this on the following day, the fourteenth of Adar. At the same time, also in accord with the additional royal edict Esther requested, they hang the bodies of the ten sons of Haman on the gallows. This final gratuitous act may also be an echo of the Agag narrative, which ends with Agag himself being hacked to pieces, his lineage thus symbolically destroyed (i Sam 15:33). Putting the bodies of Haman's sons, tantamount to pieces of his body, on the gallows has a similar effect. A literary purpose is achieved at the expense of the humanity of the Jews of Susa.
(37)-
Accompanying the new edict is the garbing of Mordecai in stunning royal apparel, with a 'great golden crown' (8:15). The leading Jewish male in the kingdom now joins the leading
ESTHER 330
good cause to view ch. 10 as another, briefer addition. Ch. 9 ends with the accomplishments of Esther, and ch. 10 is an encomium to Mordecai. But Mordecai's power is here set alongside that of the king. That is, with a Jew as second in command to a Gentile king, the interests of both groups— Persians and Jews—are well served. The ideal diaspora situation is achieved and serves as a model for all diaspora communities.
The fictive nature of the slaughter appears not only in the account of Hainan's sons, but also in the specification of the huge numbers of Persians struck down by the Jews. Those incredibly large figures are hyperbole designed to emphasize the reversal of the Jews' expected fate and the fact that they have enormous power despite their second-class status. Similarly, the notion that the Jews had enemies everywhere flies in the face of the details of the story, in which Haman alone is the foe. Assigning large numbers to the people slaughtered by the Jews represents the paranoia of the powerless; everyone of higher status has the potential to do them harm and thus de facto is a foe.
Berg, S. B. (1979), The Book of Esther: Motifs, Themes, and Structures,
The immediate consequence of the acts of the thirteenth and fourteenth of Adar is celebration. In the villages of the provinces, the Jews rest on the fourteenth day from the exertions of the previous day (9:17,19), whereas in Susa the Jews do not celebrate until the fifteenth day because they were engaged in overthrowing enemies on the fourteenth as well as the thirteenth days (9:18). Regardless of the date, the day of rest is a day of joy and yet another occasion for feasting. This set of holidays held by Jews constitutes the final reversal of the tale; the pivotal fasts of 4:3 and 16 become feasts, echoing the two royal banquets that initiate the tale. They not only recall earlier banquets held by the king, as well as those of Vashti and Esther, but also introduce a new element. In the celebratory banquet of 9:19 (cf 9:22), the Jews hold feasts and at the same time send food around to each other, intensifying the notion of well-being for all. (9:20-32) Purim Becomes a Festival The momentous events of Adar certainly deserve commemoration by future generations, w. 20—32 provide for just that. Perhaps an addition to the coherent narrative of 1:1 through 9:19, this section recapitulates the core reversals: relief from persecution, turning 'sorrow into gladness' and 'mourning into a holiday' (9:22). The rehearsal of the reason for the celebration takes us back to Haman's casting of lots (purim), thereby providing an etymology for the festive days. The holiday is, of course, to be held for two days, in the light of the fact that the original feasting and rejoicing took place on the fourteenth of Adar in the provinces and a day later in Susa.
SBLDS 44 (Missoula, Mont: Scholars Press). Bronner, L. L. (1994), From Eve to Esther: Rabbinic Reconstructions of
Biblical Women, Gender and the Biblical Tradition, 4 (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/John Knox). Clines, D. J. A. (1984), The Esther Scroll: The Story of the Story, JSOTSup
30 (Sheffield: JSOT). (1988), 'Esther', HBC, 387-94. Crawford, S. A. W. (1989), 'Esther: A Feminine Model for the Jewish
Diaspora', in Peggy L. Day (ed.), Gender and Difference (Philadelphia: Fortress), 161-77.
(1992), 'Esther', in Carol A. Newsom and Sharon H. Ringe (eds.), The Women's Bible Commentary (Knoxville, Ten.: Westminster John Knox). Day, L. (1995), Three Faces of a Queen: Characterization in the Book of
Esther, JSOTSup 186 (Sheffield: JSOT). Fox, M. V. (1990), The Redaction of the Book of Esther (Atlanta: Scholars
Press). Fuchs, E. (1982), 'Status and Role of Female Heroines in the Biblical
Narrative', Mankind Quarterly, 23: 149—60. Gendler, M. (1976), "The Restoration of Vashti', in Elizabeth Koltun
(ed.), The Jewish Woman: New Perspectives (New York: Schocken Books), 241—47. Hallo, W. W. (1983), The First Purim', BA46:19-29. Hoglund, K. (1992), Achaemenid Imperial Administration in Syria-
Palestine and the Missions of Ezra and Nehemiah, SBLDS 125 (Atlanta: Scholars Press). Humphreys, W. L. (1973), A Lifestyle for Diaspora: A Study of the
Tales of Esther and David', JBL 92: 211-23. LaCocque, A. (1990), The Feminine Unconventional: Four Subversive
Figures in Israel's Tradition (Minneapolis: Fortress). Meinhold, A. (1969), Die Diasporanovelle—eine alttestamentliche
Gattung, Th.D. diss., Ernst-Moritz-Arndt Universitat, Greifswald.
A touch of formality is lent to the newly instituted festival by another set of letters, said to be sent to Jews in 'all the provinces' (v. 20; cf. v. 30) and thus using the same language as in the accounts of earlier royal edicts (1:22; 3:12—13; 8:9). Mordecai writes these official letters enjoining Jews to celebrate Purim; and Esther writes them with him (w. 29, 31), perhaps even writing a second letter (v. 29). Her royal authority in establishing Purim is reaffirmed at the end of this section, where she is the one said to have established the customs of the holiday (v. 32). (10:1-3) Conclusion If there is reason to consider ch. 9 an addendum meant to institute the festival of Purim, there is
(1975-6) 'Die Gattung der Josephsgeschichte und des Estherbuches: Diasporanovelle, I, IF, ZAWSy: 306-24; 88: 79-83. Moore, C. A. (1971), Esther: A New Translation with Introduction and
Commentary. AB 76.
(1992), 'Esther, Book of, ABD 2. 633-43. Niditch, S. and Doran, R. (1977), 'The Success Story of the Wise
Courtier: A Formal Approach', JBL 92:179-93. Paton, L. B. (1908), A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of
Esther, ICC (Edinburgh: T. £T. Clark). Smith, D. L. (1989), The Religion of the Landless: The Sociology of the
Babylonian Exile (Bloomington, Ind.: Meyer-Stone). Talmon, S. (1963), 'Wisdom in the Book of Esther', VT 13:419-55.
Job J7-
JAMES L. CRENSHAW
A brief narrative informs the reader that the hero is subjected to a divine test as a means of ascertaining whether or not he serves the deity without thinking about profiting from it. A poetic debate between Job and three friends follows, in which they discuss Job's suffering and the broader issue of divine justice. This debate opens with Job's powerful lament; from then on, a friend speaks and Job responds. This happens for three cycles of debate, except that Bildad's last speech is quite brief and Zophar's is missing. Job then remembers his happy past, contrasting it with his miserable present. A poetic interlude asks where wisdom can be found, and Job pronounces an oath of innocence aimed at evoking a divine response. Instead of the anticipated deity, a youthful Elihu appears and criticizes the friends for failing to answer Job effectively and Job for the nature of his complaints. God finally arrives in a tempest, rebukes Job, and praises the wonders of nature, both heavenly and earthly. In the face of such majesty, Job relents—although the text is ambiguous at this point. The book concludes with a short narrative telling about Job's restoration.
of Job for speaking truthfully about the deity suggests that the author of the epilogue had no inkling as to the nature of Job's speeches in the poetry. The youthful Elihu, whose expansive speeches delay the expected appearance of YHWH interminably, is ignored both by YHWH and by the author of the epilogue. This angry young man alone addresses Job by name, frequently quoting his earlier speeches. At the same time, Elihu anticipates major themes in the divine speeches, in a sense stealing divine thunder.
4. A poem (ch. 28) also offers a premature answer to the question it poses: 'Where can wisdom be found?' Having celebrated human achievement in prospecting for and mining precious gems, the poem denies access to wisdom, with the sole exception of God. Strangely, it concludes on a traditional note: God grants wisdom to faithful worshippers. In addition, this poem interrupts Job's final speech, necessitating a repetition of the formula in 27:1 ('Job again took up his discourse and said') in 29:1.
5. This introductory formula differs from the usual one ('Then Job answered'), suggesting that its initial occurrence in 27:1 resulted from textual dislocation, some of Bildad's final speech being attributed to Job and all of Zophar's speech dropping out. It has been suggested that the author used this subtle means of announcing that Job's friends have run out of anything to say; but Elihu's failure to discern the point makes this view unlikely. Job's unexpected comments in ch. 27 could be explained as sarcasm or irony; textual dislocation is more probable.
A. Composition. 1. The book of Job receives high praise from critics of every persuasion—literary, philosophical, psychological, and religious—despite its flaws. One interpreter uses the phrase 'a blemished perfection' (Hoffman 1996), comparing the book to Venus dc Milo and August Rodin's Torso of a Woman. Another appreciative reader observes that 'Here, in our view, is the most sublime monument in literature, not only of written language, nor of philosophy and poetry, but the most sublime monument of the human soul. Here is the great eternal drama with three actors who embody everything: but what actors! God, humankind, and Destiny' (Alphonse de Lamartine, cited in Hausen 1972: 145).
6. Even divine speeches indicate disjointedness. First, there are two divine speeches and two 'repentances' on Job's part, giving the appearance of browbeating. Second, the references to the ostrich and mighty war-horse differ markedly from the previous celebrations of wild creatures. According to 40:5, Job vows to remain silent from this point, but 42:1—6 disregards this promise and has him speak once more.
2. Such accolades persist partly because of the book's ambiguity, its capacity for ironic readings. A book at odds with itself, the combination of prose and poetry leaves numerous unanswered questions. The story depicts a blameless Job who patiently accepts grievous loss, persists in his integrity by worshipping the one who gives and takes away, and in the end receives everything back—with new children. The poetic debate presents an entirely different hero, one who lacks patience and openly attacks the deity for injustice. This section of the book rejects the hypothesis of a universe operating on a principle of reward and punishment, whereas the prose implies that YHWH does act towards the friends and Job on the basis of merit. Moreover, the names for deity differ in the prose, which uses YHWH, and the poetic debate, where the more general names El, Eloah, and El Shaddai occur, with a single exception, itself a stereotypical expression ('hand of YHWH', 12:9).
7. Various theories have been advanced to explain these phenomena, but no consensus exists. The assumption underlying this commentary is that a poet used an existing popular story as the framework for exploring the possibility of disinterested righteousness and the different answers to the problem of innocent suffering. Removing an original section of the story that can only be implied now, that daring poet wrote three cycles of debate, the last of which became dislocated, and concluded them with Job's address to God (chs. 29-31) and YHWH's response (chs. 38-41). At a later time, someone added the poem in ch. 28 and the speeches of Elihu, along with the prose introduction to them (chs. 32-7). Alternative readings cannot be ruled out: ch. 28 retards the action and assuages human emotions; Elihu serves as an ironic foil to the deity, and his citations constitute literary foreshadowing and anticipation; stylistic variety is a mark of literary craft; the book abounds in irony; Job's first repentance
3. Other indications of disjointedness give the impression of imperfection. An Adversary (hassatari) is featured in the prologue as the heavenly accuser of Job, but the epilogue proceeds without mentioning this character. YHWH's praise
JOB 332
C. Historical Setting. 1. A second-century BCE Targum on the bookofJobdiscoveredatQumranandthetranslationintoGreek in the Septuagint require an earlier date forthe biblical text than the third century. Linguistic evidence seems to pointto the sixth century or later (Hurvitz 1974), and certain other features also indicatethe Persian period (539—332), for example the language for administrative bureaucracy (3:14—15, kings, counsellors, and princes), the probable allusion to the Behistun Rock, with lead inlay depicting the achievements of Darius the Great
was incomplete, requiring further rebuke by God; the breakdown of the friends' speeches declares Job the victor; Job's restoration was an act of grace entirely unrelated to his repentance.
B. Structure. 1. The structure of the book depends on the perspective from which it is viewed, whether on the basis of diction, or dramatic movement, or individual components in sequence. By eliminating brief prosaic introductions and observations, the first approach yields two distinct sections, a narrative and a poetic debate. Stressing the prose introductions, and in some instances conclusions, leads to three divisions within the book (1:1-2:10; 2:11-31:40; 32:1-42:17). Attention to content alone suggests a quite different arrangement (1—2; 3—31; 32—7; 38:1—42:6; and 42:7—17).
(19:24), the reference to caravans from Teman and Sheba (6:19), and the form of the title for the Adversary (the definite article with solan as in the sixth-century text of Zechariah and unlike the later form in Chronicles).
2. Several other factors may not settle the debate, but they fit into this general period: the numerous Aramaisms, the similarity with laments in the Psalter, as well as sections of Deutero-Isaiah and Jeremiah, the theological similarities with Ps 73, and the emerging monotheism and monogamy. Less convincing are the sociological conclusions of Criisemann (1980) and Albertz (1981) that the oppressive conditions reflected in the book of Job point to the time of Nehemiah. Such abuse of power by the nouveaux riches may have occurred at various periods in ancient Israel and Judah.
2. A striking feature of the book is the use of a framing story to enclose the poetic debate. Widely employed in the ancient Near East, this practice enabled authors to provide essential data for understanding philosophical reflections and for appreciating proverbial sayings. Just as a simple frame enhances a work of art, these brief narratives focus attention away from themselves and offer a perspective from which to view the poetic debate. Twice the narrator passes independent judgement on the hero (1:22; 2:10), one confirmed by YHWH and Job's wife, then withdraws to allow other voices to be heard in the poetry. A story begins, only to be interrupted by poetry that fashions a story within a story, and then resumes so as to bring closure. The prologue evokes dialogue, and the epilogue terminates it, at the same time suppressing the voice within the poetry that rejects the kind of optimism represented by Job's friends and by Proverbs. A story that opens in heaven concludes on earth, where the principle of do ut des (T give in order to receive') is still alive and well. Viewpoints collide everywhere, and the one source of a definitive answer dodges the issue entirely, as YHWH drones on about meteorological phenomena and wild creatures, especially the two favourites, Behemoth and Leviathan.
D. Ancient Near-Eastern Parallels. 1. The closest extant parallels to the book of Job come from Mesopotamia. The Sumerian Man and his God (2nd millennium) tells about a sufferer who complains to the gods, although conceding that none is born sinless. In the end he confesses his guilt and is restored by the righteous shepherd. The Babylonian I Will Praise the Lord of Wisdom denies that anyone can discern the will of the gods; nevertheless, this sufferer trusts in divine mercy, acts in the proper cultic manner, and experiences restoration. This text concludes that the gods have a different system of values from the human one. The Babylonian Theodicy (c.noo BCE), an acrostic, or alphabetic, poem of twenty-seven stanzas with eleven lines each, comprises a debate between an innocent sufferer and a friend. It accuses the gods of endowing humankind with lies. The two debaters maintain a polite tone, while disagreeing with one another, and in the end the complainant prays that the shepherd will once again 'pasture his flock as a god should'. A fourth text, The Dialogue between a Master and his Slave, resembles Ecclesiastes more than the book of Job, although both texts reflect similar social turmoil that generated acute personal misery. The master sees no reason to follow any particular course of action, and the slave commends first one thing then its opposite, until the thought of suicide surfaces, followed by the threat of murdering the slave, who seems to say that the master will not survive him three days.