CHATTER III

l0: I
ts used
HISTORICITY AND DATING
(Per-
r.)
l. the
POwer,

w:ls l. Historicity
Esther's Did it really happen? The answer to this question t:*,"
have
understanding of chitacter portrayal' To be sure' even
ll a book?llls
t irati.A in aIl details, *. ."n speak about its characters
in much
Morde- since we learn about the
the same way as we do fictional'persons,
an- tl't t"mt way (see:h"p' But
i*o ,yp.t of tharacter in much I $2.)'
con-
ih. d!"..t the frctionality of a work, rhe greater the author'sthat every
and omissions' so
trol iver the characterr, .u.rrtr, words,
This is the
be signi6-
detail becomes Potential evidence for a character trait'
contend' a historical
case in Esther. Even if the story has, as some
;."i.;' the book in its present t'h"p. is certainly a fictional creadon
we were as
(or "pro-
*i,t-*tongly legendaiy features' Y"ti9.u.: legendary..qualities throw
well as seniral iniccuraiies and implausibilities immediately
of a writer
JouU, on the book's historicity and give the impression
Jews and recalling a vaguely remembered past'
'shshtd- ---Wh"..,
teiring the assumptions and details of Esther against
have
data known from-elsewh.r., n'. must rely primarily on the
Clas-"ical
legal Herodotus, Ctesias' and Xenophon'
Crl.[nit,.rians, in Particular
*t o ,.port or, th. Persian empire at length-Herodotus at a dis-
tance o'f onl y 20-25 years from the reign of Xentes'
I popularity
lue and suc-
ts 9:20-32. a. Argummts Against thc Booh! Historicit)
ad when she t.THr,LEcENonnvOpsxtNc.Theauthorloolsbacktoanindefi'
har interests nite, distant Past, to the reign of a Xerxes who' though- famous'
,his personal Nu-
musr 6. ideniified: "the very-Xerxes who ruled from India to
ordecai goes Ui", f ZZ provinces in all (l , i1.' Thtt" words are cenainly not
sPo-

places a Xerxes bctween- Cyrus

l. There was a shon-lived Xerxes Il (4241. Ezrrt 4 :6
and Darius (Xerxes i-*"t p"ti'ii rcn)' rvhile Dan 9: l-lpcals of a Xerxcs
(Xerxcs I had a son namcd Darius' but he was
iefr.ru.roO, f"tft.t of O"tiut
:i;il;;ltiliy "il, i;;;; aiath). Therc was naturally. rcme.confusion
in Jewish traditions ;ilil;8;;;;bgies of rhe Persian
kings' Apparentlv
Greai is the king of
the author of grtt.ii-aiir'r, io fno*'tftat Xerxcs the
this story.

l3l
 Hrs'ronrclry exo Der.l xc

ken from Mordecai's point of view, conrrary ro a (4) 1

Jewish tradition
that identifies him as the wrirer.2 ldentifying the king as .,rhe very Achemen
Xerxes who ruled" suggesrs rhe srance of a iriter *oiking in a pe- in the no
riod when the-king of persia was no longer ruler of the en"tire East, eastern h
in other words, the Hellenisric era, soine time after Arexander's hill, and r
conquest of Persia in 330 B.c.E. . The phrase "in those days" also (5) 1
suggests the perspective of a later genlration. Moreover, the re_ their lan:
mark in 9: 28, "And so rhese days ari celebrated as a memorial and It would I
'observed in each and every generation," implies
a distance of sev- tu. Iupu
eral generations between the report and the events reported.!
impossibl
rr. IwRCcunACrL,s. The book of Esther contradicts our besr knowl- (l) d
edge of Persian history in several ways: lected for
(l) Xerxes is said ro have rured over l27 "provinces," meaning (2) tt
satrapies (see the commenhry on l: l), wherias there were acru- mentione
ally only 20 to 3l satrapies in the persian empire.. Esther (as welr Presence
as the book of Daniel, which speaks of 120 iatrapies) exhibits (3) d
rhe
propensity of legend to inflate qualities and quantities of ancient n.c.r. (2:
trmes. likely to b
(2) Xerxes, according to Herodotus, was married to (4) tl
one Ames-
tris (vII I 14, Ix I l2). she was stil his wife in 47g, the year Xerxes issue suct
spent in Ionia after his defeat at salamis 1tx t tzl-tt is was the do happr
year after he supposedly married Esther-and Ametris remained implausih
his wife in her old age (VII I l4). (5) th
(3) 'I'he Scroll has Xerxes marrying an obscure maiden ing to
of un- th<
known ancesrry, conrrary to the rure tiat the queen of persia had pire;6 and
to come from one of seven nobre famiries. (The practice is reported the histori
by Herodotus in III 84. Though embedded in an accourrt *ith ,
legendary cast, it accords with whar we know of the background of
Noted by
the Persian queens.) Esther, we should nore, is no, ..riy one of Anrit
the harem, but the queen, the replacement for Vashti: see i: I7. h"rdl:
caflrc I

He wouk
Xenc
2. See (lommentary on 9:20. The phrase..in those davs" in l:2 would also be reaF
inappr.priate for a.book u'rirren bv lrrordelai. e"en'if we i.rli.. [i-,r*r* Grcct
ing inro rhe next reign (which began in 465).
*.
The verbs are participlis
at Fen
and convef a continu.us-present tense. Like Mishnaic An argur
neorew. Lsthcr has a tense sysrem, distinguishing qatar for oast. ualal for matD
paniciplesfor presnt. wirh few"exceptioi.,.; not. ,[;
IllT:."rd
lor luture rense in 9:28b. rifi-a;; and (2
bc crp
4. Acc'rding._to Her- III 89. Darius r set up twenry satrapies.
Darius,own monu- byalr
ments list 23 (Behistun), 24 (perseporis) and i9 or 3b hl
lNrkhsh-i-nrrr",,y-- nor
ministrative units. Under Xerxes rhere were apparently twenty,rrr"pi.rl "J- of thk

r32
 Hrsronlctrv

(4) The author is mistaken about the layout of Susa during the
tradition
Achemenid period. At that time, the royal palace lay on a mound
the very
ginape- in the north, while the courtiers and officials dwelt on the south-
eastern hill. In Esther, on the other hand, the royal palace is on the
fire East,
hill, and various officials live there as well (l :5; 2:5).5
cxander's
(5) There was no principle forbidding the Persians to change
hys" also
their laws; that notion is found nowhere but in Esther and Daniel.
r, the re-
It would be impossible to run a government by such a principle.
orial and
r of sev- III. [MpLAUstBILITIEs AND IMPossIBILITIEs. It is unlikely, if not
Gd.r impossible
x knowl-
(l) that two non-Persians, one after the other, would be se-
lected for the highest ofhce in the empire;
(2) that these two viziers as well as Queen Esther would not be
'meaning
mentioned in historical sources, in spite of the anomaly of their
tre actu-
presence in o{fice;
r (as well
(3) that Esther would be introduced into the harem in 480
hibits the
B.c.E. (2: 16), when Xerxes was away fighting in Greece and hardly
f ancient likely to be concerned with choosing a new wife;
(4) that the historical Xerxes-who was not a fool-would
rc Ames- in l:22. (Such things
issue such an inane edict as the one quoted
r Xerxes
do happen, of course; but a priori they must still be reckoned
I was the
cmained implausible);
(5) that Xerxes would allow massive, uncontrolled battles, lead-
trr of un- ing to the death of thousands, to take place throughout his em-
brsia had piie;6 and further that this catastrophe would leave no imprint in
lreported the historical record:'
mt with a
pround of 5. Noted by Stiehl 1956:15. Stiehl says that this situation did exist in the time of
Antiochus llI (223- 187 o.c.r.). However, the sntement in Polybius V 48.14
f one of hardly proves it, and in any case we do not know how carly that arangement
:2:17. came into being.
6. He would have to have been mad to do this, not merely erratic. The historical
Xe rxes was an effective monarch, in spite of his failed invasion of Greece. He
reaped a series of military victories and retained control over most of the
dd also be
Greeks. He initiated and completed rvcral significant architectural projects
thim surviv-
at Persepolis (Olmstead 1948 : 230).
tc Mishnaic 7. An argument from silence is valid when ( t ) the event in question js of such a
magnitude that it could be expected to lcave an impression on other sources;
l.gtol for ana-(Z) we have an adequate numbcr oforhcr sources that could reasonably
:;iol forms be expected to take noti o[ the event. The Greek historians were fascinated
'Gn monu- by all-that was ouni in the Orient, and it is hardly crcdible that they would
illsum) ad- not have heard of this worldwide upheaval. Nor is there so much as a whisper
rrapies. of this event in any other source, Eiamile or Babylonian, for example.

133
 Hts'rrnrcl-r'y nxo Dat rxc

(6) that Mordecai, exiled from Jerusalem in 587 n.c.r. (2:6), (3) Thr
could still be alive and active in 473 and for some time thereafter, (though mc
or that he could have a cousin who was still an attractive young names or wl
virgin. (4) Tht
All the above inaccuracies, implausibilities, and impossibilities Susa (4: l7)
argue that the events did not happen as reported-which is to say ltems I
that these events did not happen. They mark a wrirer working at a theClassical
much later time who is not familiar with the chronology, geogra- was notorit
phy, and events of the period he is writing about. Such confusions erratic, and
are common in ancient books that tell about earlier times. The book raphy of Su
of Judith (second half of the second century B.c.E.) calls Nebu- cially one lr
chadnezzar the king of the Assyrians (he was actually king of Baby- from Greek
lonia) and says that he ruled from Nineveh (which was actually de- (5) Thr
stroyed before he came to the throne). The author of Tobit (second nity-its ac
century B.(1.e. or later) tells about a man who was taken into exile 6n-i5 "gntl
in Assyria, yet he has the Assyrian kings out of order and believes This p
that Nebuchadnezzar and Asuerus (Xerxes)-who actually lived known fron
centuries apart-together destroyed Nineveh ( l4 : l5). communitir
If the Scroll were not canonical, it is hard to imagine scholars dence for t
arguing for its historicity, or even its "historical core," any more Further cin
than they now insist thatJudith and Tobit were written in the ages (6) Ttl
they tell about or that they record actual events. dated (with
tions an o0
officials wid
b. Arguments For the Book\ Historicity scarcely lik
There are no arguments for the book's historicity, that is to say, Were d
positive evidence that the events reported actually occurred. There Mordecai o
are only arguments asserting the possibility that they happened; (7) Ttx
these are of two sorts: circumstantial and permissive.s of Media ar
would dare
t. Clncutr,tst'ANTIAL Ancunacx-t's. Circumstantial arguments as-
sert that many details of the story accord with information from
other sources about the world in which the story is set. 9. Zadol
See
( l) There was a king Xerxes who ruled from India to Ethiopia Thougt
fcw of d
and who liked to give sumptuous banquets. l0.Gordis l$
(2) There was a good system of post riders in the Persian ll.Ungnad 19

empire. l2.Moore llll

"popuh
Jewish 1
acc(xlnt
8. For a typical defense of the books historicity see Wright 1970, which musters The proto
most of the following arguments. ventcd I

134
 Hlsrontclrv

a.c.e. (2:6), (3) There are some actual Persian names and words used
c thereafter,
(though most cannot be identified with any certaintY).e 1r1o Greek
rtive young names or words appear.
(4) There seems to be an allusion to the Ab'Kharkha river in
npossibilities Susa (4: l7).
hich is to say Items I -4 would, however, be known to a later writer both from
working at a the Classical historians and from living legend. To the Greeks, Xen<es
o8y, Seogra- was notorious as the archetypal Oriental Potentate-autocratic'
h confusions erratic, and sybaritic. Persian names and words and the basic geog-
es. The book raphy of Susa would also be available to a Hellenistic writer, esP-
calls Nebu- cially one living in Susa, and he could easily distinguish Persian
ing of Baby- from Greek if he wished to avoid obvious anachronisms.
r actually de-
(5) The picture drawn of the situation of the Jewish commu-
lobit (second nity-its acculturation to Persian ways, the antisemitism, and
en into exile on-is "entirely credible." to
and believes This picture is indeed credible, because the situation is well
ctually lived known from other times and places (including various Hellenistic
communities). But for that very reason, this credibility is no evi-
dence for the writer's firsthand knowledge of Achemenid Jewry.
Sine scholars
r," any more Further circumstantial arguments are:
n in the ages (6) The name Mordecai was actually used in Persia. A text
dated (without certainty) to the beginning of the fifth century men'
tions an o(hcial named Marduki, in Susa. "That there were two
officials with the same name at the same time in the same place is
scarcely likely." t I
lat is to say, Were this supposition valid, it could just as well prove that the
urred. There Mordecai of our book did no, exist.
y happened; (7) The author refers the reader to the chronicles of the kings
of Media and Persia (10:2), and "only a writer acting in good faith
would dare extend such an invitation to his readers."12
Suments as-
mation from
9. Scc Zadok 1986; Gehman 1924; Paton, pp. 66-71; Duchcsne-Guillcmin 1953.
a to Ethiopia Though many of the names can bc expleined as dcrived from Persian words,
few of them are found ekwherc as Pcrsian namcs.
10. C'ordis 198 I : 386-87.
the Persian I t. Ungnad 1942-43 :219; followed by Gordis l98l :384 and Moore l97l : L.
12. Moore l97l : XXXV. On p. 99, Moorc interprer the versc as a refcrence to a
"popular historical account of thc Penian kings, possibly writtcn from the
Jewish point of view." But no such rcurce exists-and if it once did. then fu
account could be legendary as well.
, which musters Thc proto-AT does not mention thesc chronicles, and they probably were in.
ventcd by the MT author, who sought-successfully-to creatc verisimilitude.

r35
 Htsronrctry eNu DerlNc

This argument assumes rhat the Persian chronicles did exist a law but only a t
and that they were accessible to rhe public. The same argumenr but (he reasons)
would prove the actuality of Lilliput, since Gulliver's (fictitious) ruled out" that I
publisher assures the reader that he received Gulliver's papers from perhaps Xerxes
Gulliver himself. not Xerxes'Prin
suPPort the bm
tt. Penutsstvr AncuurN'rs. To use permissive arguments is to gards. Esth 2:5-
claim that evenr dnd data that appear improbable or contrary to to ignore the ma
known fact could be true. "Could be" argumenrs are widely invoked drama is based;
in Bible studies, where many scholars assume that if they can the fact that strc
stretch their imaginations far enough ro cover the implausibilities called "the quec
in a biblical account, they have somehow made a case for its histo- excluded," Crord
ricity.tt Such arguments are legion, because possibilities are limit- is a fictional ctu
less. Here are a few of the "could be" argumenrs that have been he has a claim t<
applied to Esther: of the precediq
(l) "It is not impossible that 'Esther' represenred an apoco- ters that are nol
pated form of the name 'Amstris."'tr Many things are not impos- cording a rePon
sible, but if this one is true, then we know something about the later Herodotus nor
career of Esther: she devised the ghastly mutilation of a woman far as informati
who roused herjealousy (Her. IX l12) and was reported to have violated.
ordered nine boys and nine girls buried alive in her old age (Her.
VII I l4). Fortunately, however, the identification is wrong (if the tll. A "HISTOI
book of Esther is right), because Amestris had Xerxes'third son in
trench by afhrn
about 483, before Esther came on the scene in 480 (according to
event such as th
2: l6;.ts
decai.rt The bct
(2) It is "not totally excluded," Gordis argues, that the restric-
not been disPn
tion on the marriages of Persian kings mentioned by Herodotus
(they could only marry within one of seven noble families) was not that there is a'
decapitation of
l3."Could be" arguments are valid only when refuting counter-arguments to
hinted at in ant
a
strong hypothesis. When we have good evidence that something ir (and not
merely may bc) true. one can rebut objections on the grounds rhat other
explanations are available for the supposedly contrary evidencc. But the pri- l6.Gordis l98l:3&
mary hypothesis itself must bc built on likelihoods rather than bare 17.2:4. The vcrbi
possibilities. l8.Thus Moore 19
l4.C'ordis l98l:384. Scroll ir ba
l5.Wright(1970:{l-{2)claimsthat Amisttis hasa"possible linguisticlink"to Varia, tioned in l0:l
which comes down to two lettcrs in common (r supposedly corresponds to f (p. Llt). Ptri
and t = t). The identification requires assuming that Vashti was not acrually ':it. Boold
dcposcd immediatcly in .184-,183 (as chap. I has it), since AmCstris accom- even the lc
panied Xerxes to Sardis in 480 and was still acting very much as quecn. elementr'l
Wright's curious exercisc is anothcr example of how the defendcrs of a bib, or improbd
lical booll historical accuracy often do so by sacrificing the truth of its fore, he c
statemcnts. historical a

r36

r chronicles did exist
rTlre same argument
I Gulliver's (fictitious)
Eulliver's papers from
pive arguments is to
obable or contrary to
rs are widely invoked
me that if they can
cr the implausibilities
ilc a case for its histo-
possibilities are limit-
Ents that have been
tpresented an apoco-
&ings are not impos-
:thing about the later
utilation of a woman
rras reported to have
r in her old age (Her.
ation is wrong (if the
d Xerxes' third son in
: in 480 (according to
Eues, that the restric-
rbned by Herodotus
oble families) was not
i'iiarcounter-arguments to a
something ir (and not
n the grounds that other
lery
evidence. But the pri-
hoods rather lhan bare
llelinguistic link" to Varlrtr,
4poccdly corresponds to J
lar Vashti was not actually
r i), since Amesris accom-
iirg very much as queen.
h the defenderr of a bib-
hrificing rhe truth of its
Hts.rontclrv
just an''u.nsubstandated rePort"'16
a law but only a custom, or
even
but (he reasons) if H;;;";;t lJirra*a right' it "cannot !e to:]ly
or if that is not so'
ruled our" tfr"t Ertt.i *"t "itnu.t, Jud'aism'
to
or mavbe Esther was
perhaps xerxes :n':'ii *llt"'l:*::w'
curious suppositions' int:l1:1to
not Xerxes' PnncrPal wife' These
deny its accuracy in other re-
suDDort the book's t'istoricity' must
t*:|ff';* for Xerxes
zli-z"tn"*s that Esther was not a convert;
the principle:t dit-lln'
marnag;;;;'f iot"tt secondarv
to isnore the wife contracrrcts
il"#i;;;J;;;d"to class Estherprincipal
as a
"reigns'"'l'and is
the fact that she *P;;t l;es'
wife'
be "totally
,.rhe queen.,, A,;;;il\. p.tiUifili.s that cannot
called that Esther
the option Queen
excluded," Gordis in error' but
";;;;t"t;intiuat
is a fictional characteor' Herodotus
can' of course' be
writing about the Persian empire
he has a claim t'o ...aifiritf when
he is reporting mat'
of the preceding g.;;;;;ilt' especially"whencase' he is at least re'
ters that are not i""t'"tit' in this
i.#;;;ly neither
cording a rePort tt. it"'a""nd it is a reasonable one' which
to fabricate' As
Herodotus nor his i;f;;;;;i;
would.have reason
in fact never
far as information urioit'"t io atttt'ine'
this rule was
violated.
Some defenders of historicity re'
ln. A "HISToRICII CoRr'"? core some central
re nch by affi rmin g ;;;;t"t;"tt 9i "'1t'it-'rical by.Mor-
plo-t against the Jews "'foiled
evenr such as the .*ir,.i.. of a that it has
decai.'s The best ilil;;;-iJ
rotir,it assuription is
well affirm
not been airp,ouedl'i;';; ;;*t token
we tould
"t 5ush 25 the
of
that there is r "tri'toich't"tt;i"
the book Judith'
Though this is nowhere
;;;;t,*t". or ,r't"n"[ytoni"n general'
ittota' "caniot be totally ruled
it
hinted at in anv
"th;;il;;it'i
l6.Gordis l98l :385'
ii:i.ilf verb ,,T.oi I9,,o not w u*u v' -r'lv'-- iilA_lZl in'positiirg rhar thc
JJii;iii;^wo,rd.notbe.up:ri:1,:rH'f:i;["o51ll'ffJ;
17.2:4. The
i;:ihr''il;;; r6ii:r-rl'Lln' who follows P1'jl1l- raamrv j::::f
ihc annals men-;
!:X,f,ft#.'H',I'il.H;:';'';;;ic'*,"'(TflL
;1.H1'*rl',t",iii'-*,-i..''i"v*iffi lffithat
::T:!;',tTt:fi
rioned in l0:2). Moorc fi:f,f
P'",Hfr:i';;:"f;lilinj-[g., r],.r. he claims::il:;
ti;lf'l;iTi'8,',".:[*:,'ffi*;;;:d;;1?ti['*i1*linm:t
i:ii#:,*Bffi
even the storyol }.*t**ffi:,[i]8i,*j.Hffi
il;."".;iliirtrv c"tar
tr"r
Lstnr'.ro wrrrLrr
"theI I iitrinsicitty
savs that norhing impossible
is true-of most fr:li9itJl:i'i
^' i-ntnhahle i" tt't ttntraii"til;;tt;'ffiis
Jlffi ;.'0""i;.;b'il;edasabasicarrv
i;,'JB:':J;t:i,H::.-':ffi
fore,
( l98l :388)'
i irtori."t account . . ."
 HrstoRrctry aNp DnrtNc

out"re that aJewish widow killed an otherwise unknown Babylonian sense they aat
general, leading to the defeat of Babylon in an otherwise unknown history. Its slo
battle. In any case, to say that a book has a "historical core" is to Jewish commu
grant that it is not historical as it stands.
2. Date
tv. A CoDED Htsrony? One theory regards the book of Esther as
The story
a coded representation of events belonging to another time and
itself as histor;
place. This is more plausible than some of the possibilities surveyed
establishment r
above, though no one has yet pointed to a historical situation that
details that iu
fits the story more than vaguely. J. Hoschander asserrs, strangely,
writer, howett
that the book of Esther is both "stricrly hisrorical" (1923: I l) and
also full of erroneous later interpretations, corruptions, and addi-
might be writir
tions and that it refers to events some eighty years later, in the reign
confected frm
of Artaxerxes II Mnemon. Hoschander goes on to describe in detail were popular i

an event. that could lnue occurred in 392 B.c.E., but that most cer- that a writer r
Persian empin
tainly did not. R. Stiehl argues rhar the book's background is the
about the Uni
reign of the Seleucid Antiochus IV who afflicted both Judeans and
the 300 Statesr
Persians-thus the sympathetic portrayal of the Persian king-and
who was defeated and driven out of Palestine by the Hasmoneans in the Hellent
in 165- I63 n.c.r..2o But the book of Esther does not correlare with Greek translati
that situation even as a code. The gentile king in Esther is portrayed Egypt in 73 a.
as vaguely sympathetic, while Antiochus IV was hostile and brutal.
probable for d
Also, the affiictions of theJudeans by a foreign power are in no way dating.
comparable to a pogrom in which Jews in the diaspora are attacked The booll
by their neighbors. Moreover, there is no allusion to the most pain- little value in d
ful manifestation of the crisis in Judea, rhe desecration of the of course, 'htr
Temple inJerusalem. cannot determi
A work that is full of legendary fearures and improbable inci- calibrating lin6
dents and that has no external attestation should be presumed to and second cer
be frctional. To be sure, to read Esther as fictional, while a legiti- larity to Chroo
mate critical stance, runs contrary to the intentions of the author, book cannot h
who almost certainly meant us to read the book as a precise report tinguishes Esh
of actual historical events. We must therefore balance two distinct
perspectives. As critical readers, viewing the rext as an object from 2LThe Greel Esl
year of rhe r
a deliberate distance, we can recognize the book as fiction and ana-
XII Aulcrc
lyze it in those terms, while as immediate readers, giving ourselves the colopho
over to the book's own terms, we can respond to its realities-those phon wtuh I
it creates and those it reflects-as if they were our own. In one 22.Striedl 1937:tl
an anificbl I
but evcn ifl
19. As Gordis ( l98l :385) says of one of this theories as literaturr
20.Stiehl 1956, cf. 1963; see esp. 1956: l8-22. Hebrcr.

138
 Dlrr'

legend is very rue to

sense they are: in a fundamental way the
Babylonian
irl;y. i;t storv' is an epitome of numerout *:":io-T:: which
unknown threats to their existence'
u.ri delivered from
core" is to Jewish communities'r

2. Date
of Esther as The story of the Scroll is most likelv l3St1a' Y::Ln::t1"
the grounds lor me
time and itself as histoiy not ficdon, for history provides
ies surveyed .rJritn..nt'of the h;liit
Hence it could not rePort events.and
situation that details that its first reade" knew were fictitious'
A much later
strangely, il;;, ho*,.r.r, .outJg.t away with misinformation, and, in fact,
(1923: I l) and ;iil'b. writing in goo8 faith, contriving.a Ri1u1:tl::::::?s"
sucn as
and addi- .oif..t.d from'iege-nds, romances, and historical romances
unlikely
, in the reign *... p.p"far in tle iettenistic wortd' It is' forofexample'
while the
in detail ttlt a *'ri,., would refer to the 127 satrapies Persia
a modern work
Persian empire was still in existence, any mott
that most cer- than
nd is the about the United S,",.r be accepted as history if it sPoke of
Judeans and
".tfJ
the 300 States of the Union' For that reason'
I would date the book
ian king-and many modern commentators' The
in the Hellenistic p.rioa, do
"t at its end) was brought to
lhe Hasmoneans Greek translation (according to a note
correlate with considerably earlier than that
Ecvot in 73 S.C.r.,r,-makini a date
is portrayed to allow a more
piJr["ur. for the Hebrew. There is nothing Precrse
ile and brutal. dating. of
are rn no way The book's language is, in our Present state of knowledge' is,
The language
are attacked little value in aetermin-i"r1g the date oi authorship.
to the most pain- oi.turr., "late biblicai fi.b"*" (LBH)-meaning postext]ic'
]v1
ration of the cannot determine how late the language is' for we lack the data-lor

improbable inci-
I"iiur",i"g linguistic a"iing of *'oiks Jriginating Tlyt:',
ltngutsttc stmt-
:l:ill
and secorid ceituries s.C.E. Striedl22 notes Esther's
be presumed to ;;t,6chronicles (and mistakenly thinks that this shows that rhe
Polzin dis-
while a legiti- bool."r,rrot be earlier than the third century)' while R'
and the
lbns of the author,
ras a precise report
,tfi;;;;:il;;;suage from that of Chronicles' Ezra'

balance two distinct

p as an object from 2r rhe Greek Esthcr, accordins:T*i"L*ii?lf:#,o,:fl['S;t5t*[] to holemv
;.";i;;';;ii.
.

.i n"ri'n/;!i C-|;PI'." J1i1 ptouautvieiers

I as fiction and ana- xll Auletos, making rt. u"iJii a'i'i''mit it Bicicrman'i understanding.of
rha ;ffiil'iieii Ail\.. ;i-" the Prcleqy^ of thc coro'
colo'
ns, giving ourselves il'i colonhon ( 1944 : dA' 347). ;-.;ih.. 1a idcntifics
ryir99' lH :XfX%:l
o its realities-those ;i,'.;1iitilr'.iiviri's.iiiiil-.rrr"..l1J::9.,t^8*:11"1;til
zz.s,,iliii:sii.:'si':"rl:'J"y;.r.";;;s.Jitt"ngr.s'.4:r't':liry::'i::"JHlp
ne our own. In one ffi ;tffii:r Li.ii,;;ila;;ffi
i-n-ccia. i.
-ir,.i ii"" i'l''r"i'tlti'lng langriasc. (pp' 82'. 98t
book was wrtttcn
onlv that the boo[ writtcn
Ur, .ri"
L.-. ^-.^- if ni, impression is correct'
"^**t rhar
that means only
mcans
trr--^r..-a
^- literature, -^.
is rh2r it
not that -i"was *;ii."
written at a timc
timc wiren there was no spolen
"t
Hebrew.
 Hrsronrcrry aNo DnrlNc

non-memoir portions of Nehemiah.2s R. Bergey examines

a num-
ber of linguistic features and concludes that t-he book,s
language is
composed of a mixrure of features characreristic of
early lpieeiiticy
BH, LBH, and the Hebrew of rhe Tannaim (the rabbis oi the firsr
to third centuries c.r.), and atso that Esther belongs torn"ra ine
later end of the LBH spectrum.zr
In conclusion, a third century dating seems most likely. The
datingof the Septuagint (see abovi; requiies dating tne g.Li.r, ,,o What
later than the second century s.c.r. The Hasm-onean rebelrion "Gattun$,'
(165 s.c.E.) and restoration of theJudean kingdom concern ol
lcompletea Uy
145 n.c.r.) have made. no impress-ion on the"*riter. e, i'o, lately neg
pt".L
of origin, the author's knowledge of persian names and words analyses o
and
of (post-Achemenid) susan geJgraphy, and his speciai i'i.iert i. cism was !
the date of the holiday in suia, iugg.it that he *as susan, to ascertai
the.susan perspective of g: 19, w[i-ch assumes the susan date ".-do.. the prescr
of
Purim (15 Adar) and explains the non-Susan one (14 Adar). exemplars
These
argumen* are not conclusive, however, since He[enistic readers these are r
enjoyed local color in descriptions of exoric praces,25 and air the Genrt
data about susa could have been learned at a distance to provide whole or c
-iust rhar. this quickl
with Dom
23. Polzin 1976 74.
typology c
24. 1984, 1988, and. -"',
ft},-1191,1n nn. t 8l -86. In brief, Bergey_conceding literary un
r'c
the ienhdveness
renuluveness of hii concluslon3_argues,
ot hrs conctusiohsl 6rst, that Esthel has rcme IatI Esther, he
features which are nor found in other I_"BH ,"u..., Uut which do arlrr"r.i.
appear in example, i
the Mishna (and sometimes the Dead sea-Scrot[i,;J;;ffi that
i,.j.,,h* . ;;,',[ff ;:
thcrc are "biographi
[,:j:":11"1: which contrast *tth.e"rlie. e!uirat;;i;],iiiil;; ;*;
in the other LBH rcurces (rcmetimes incruainf trri-ilcJ.i;ffiii;i. fi; very infon
yt,:_'f ,9i"il#;il'-'ffi;l.g;#f fi fd:i,T,1l,m*?:lH:
_ _ . Hellenistic dating very improbable.
Genrt
^
25. Bickerman 1967 : 2Ot. when it trr
group ofu
purPoscs i
original au
that simila
Readen a1
thor can rr
we should
expected o
We st

l. Coats (llX
his.d
valuet
140
 CHATTER IV

a num- GENRES
language is
(preexilic)
of the frrst
toward the

likely. The of book is Esther? Questions about a texr's genre

(or
What tyfz-
he Hebrew no
"G"tt.rr,t,"i1 "fsrp"-1he terms ire poorly distinguishe{) a1;1e
rebellion
(completed by
.on..*if Form criticism, an important endeavor in Bible srudres
. As for place
ilt ;.gd.J in f"uo, of aesihetic, thematic, and ideological
end words and
;;iir.; 3f indiridu"l rexrs.r The original concern of Form Criti- and
cism was ro rrace the history of the foims of biblical literature
not, a goal of
to ascertain their social functions. This is however,
Susan, as does
the present monograph, for to do so requires a large-number of
Susan date of
exerirplars of the ,i.i ,yp.., preferably some o[ them datable' and
4 Adar). These
these are not available for Esther.
nistic readers
Genre criticism may look at the classification of the text
as a
E and all the parts is that
whole or of its parts. Ttre problem withtlassifying the
to provide is the
this quickly beiomes an eiercise in ad hoc labeling' as
case

with Dommershausen! study (1968), which is the only extensive

typolosy of the Scroll's comPonent genres, that is' of its minimal
iltlr".i'.rrrits. As Domm.rrh".,,tn proceeds through th: !:k."f
l,-2.2',lot
lcrgey-conceding
rlrcr has rcmc late etit.i he gives each unit a label he finds appropriate:,1:2t5;Li]
rhkh do appcar in .*"-pi., iJ"narration," 2: l-4 is a "servant seee-cli'
Its
ond. that thcre arc "biographical note," and 2:21-23 is "short rePort'" None ol thts
Hcnu *ill bcing urcd very informative.
Ld Sca &rolls). The 'G.rrr.identifrcationprobablyperformsitsmostviableservice
:6cy do make a pre-
when it treats the work as a whole and sets it within an appropriate
gi;f"f ,.,.ts. Such classihcation may help us ascertain the author's
of the way the
firrrpot.t and strategies and also give ui a sense
lrig'inat audience *"f ruppor.d to rlad the text, on the assumption
thai similar texts reflecr ind respond to similar needs and interests'
[."a.tt approach a text with iertain exPectations' which the au-
thor can ,iinfor.., play upon, or defy' Todo a literary workjustice'
*e should try to read ii wiitr something like the mind-set the author
expectea of itre readers, a-nd genre.criticism may aid in
this'
...
Weshouldobservefirst-ofallthatalthoughgenrecriticism

l. Coats ( t985 : 7- t 5) has a clear exposition of.gcnre analylis

in the introduction to
his anthology on n"ttiiiti f;H;ilor litt|?tutt' fhit anthology includcs a
,lfr"Uf"i*iy by Humphrcys on the Story of Esther and Mordecai'

l4l
/-
F

E
GrNngs
I
I
F
tends to ask about lhe genre of a text, with each scholar advocating tions that bcz
r one candidate and rejecting all others, no text has a single "righJ are strong si
&

t
i.
genre. Every text is a member of numerous different setsl eachtne various rega
i
!
of which consritures a different genre. A psalm (ps g9, e.g.) can be the lack of il
i
a poem and a liturgical song and a hymn and a national lairent and thropocentri
tI a royal psalm and a prayer for deliverance, and more-not because motifs and it
i
it is a "mixture" of originally "pure" genres,j but because it belongs Ahiqar), and
t
tooverlapping and nested sets. One may choose ro approach a rexr death (e.g.,I
F
with extremely broad classifications ("poetry," o. .ren "literarure," Talmon'!
i.
i
for or ones so narrow that the set has only one member. gory of Wir
-example)
In fact, the act of reading may be conceived of ai a progressive ments in Est
t
ir
narrowing- of genre until we arrive ar an "inrrinsic genie" ihat de- Wisdom by r
i
termines the meaning of the text being read.{ its elemens
r
F
' Some genre identifications are more useful than others, and means concc
T
ta
someare just wro-ng and misleading. In the following, I reject the didactic text
f, hrst three genre hypotheses and accept the others. The litter all sharpest con
contrary to'
i.
ir pli..- lr,\r in approp_riate groupings, though they are not equally
I helpful. The most useful arc, uniortunatetylrepresented by an in- nity, destiny-
I adequate pool of exemplars. To draw concrusions about genie from are indeed a
&

.two_or
three exemplars (as we are forced to do in the case of Esther) tance in othc
r
I is like describing Elizabethan historical drama on the basis of Shak- typical, but t
i
*
t.
t
espeare's H*ry V and Marlowe's Edward /V alone. A few general_ excePt for d
r izations can reasonably be wagered, but the addition of a niw work
!
I
purely stera
to the grouping could easily overturn them. "the righteo
I
P thets, so frer
r are all the fig
Ii
I
l. Wisdom Literature?5
11963:a490
i
!
Talmon ( 1963) classified and inrerpreted the book of Esther
S. Haman
i
as a historicizedwisdom tale. This hypothesis is significant because (see chap. V1
I
it places Esther in (or near6) a well-known genre Ind makes asser- the eloquent
i
one Wisdom
2. Genres are in fact/uzz1 sets. ln fuzzy-set theory, an elemeni may belong oartiallv feature of lt
. to a st' and rhere may be gradations of membership and blJrred bo"uhdarieJ. be applied tc
i 3. As if genres were raccs rhat
begin "pure" and progreisivery degenerate. This is fall into it," I
f. T9.qlgt-y4:lyitg !1na diitorting) Gunkil! concept olgenre (sce, e.g.,
Cunkel 1925 [906J : 65-66). situation-tl
4. Th9 process is well analyzed by Hirsch 196?, chap.3. Madome Bou
5. "Wisdom Literature" refers first of all ro didactic titerature-gnomic instructions Prov 30:20 (
such as Proverbs and Ben Sira, as well as numerous Egypiian and Mesopota-
mian texts of similar nature-and secondarily to somc speculative, ofren
skeptical, books. in particular Ecclesiasres and Job. Oertairi Psalms also are catctorr
closely allied to Wisdom. dom lnr
There are few historicized Wisdom rales. Only the preambtes to the Aramaic lnstrucir
Ahiqar and the Egyptian (Demotic) Onchsheshonqy clearly bclong in that 7. Crensher l!

t42
 Wtsoou Ltrrnerune?

argues that there

on interpretadon' Talmon
dons that bear strongly and Wisdom Literature
tn
dvocating are strong similaritieJ
utt*tt"'r"her and remote deity;
gfe "right" various regards: tfre concept -o.f '''' '":!:cified story's an-
history or.communitv; the
leach one the lack of interest rrrlewish and several of its
-g-) can be thropocentricitv; its ti#il;i;;il"itrt"'otrs;
*i" rn"n (cf' the t-t:1'"f
uy'
.ment and motifs and ideas, ";il;;';$ptio-n ' *'n *tttt an undmely
ot because Ahiqar), and the "til;";;',ti..l'*iirtta
: it belongs o'"+lif;":.',?.'.:; il]' -
*" for ov e rstre tch i ns the cate
mch a text ele-
i'. *t1"-' with non-wisdom with
"iticized
Eterature," sorv of wisdom ""iT;'l;ii"f
c member' i,.r,o in Esther'7 lt t;;;' ;t-that Esther is not affiliated
pnogressive by even tr't"iioit" Jtnnition""J that few-if any-of by no
Wisdom
it" that de- attiulj?i"* wita"m' Wisdom Literature other
its elements ln Proverbs and
"t
means conceives of CoJ
as vague or remote'
life and-in
ilhers, and didactic te*t', God-if
r"'*"1trv ll:*:J in mans And' quite
mentioned repeatedly'
I reject the sharpest contrast to E'the'-is
h latter all .on,iury.roTatmon,nationalco,cerns-JeHtlr}:tf:I.:i.T#:;
not equallY of interest
center
nitv, destiny-are at the impor-
d by an in- wisdom and of secondary
f;;;i;il"I
are indeed absent it't
tt'""aers in Esther may be
genre from tance in other wisJill'iiii"tult'' witJo* Literature'
or
which'
r of Esther) typical, but they
sis of Shak-
ffi , ro,,ho,. ":1;"t';;-iyptt
il' ffil;fi ['{;:'-il}ff}l
ftrr general- #il1[Jt;
ia new work P,i:"I-*"::'H:1i':I;::i:-:,t::1:::i,:x.TiJ;,,T::'0" Nor
are emploved in Esther'
thets, so frequent i" ufi
of Wisdom' grants
f" ftt'tt"' *pt'nti'f or (as'ialmon himself
are all the figures
tle63:44e1)'i::': quite fit the wisd-om :t:l:o**::11'.
t*'
"* on the Wisdom ideal of
pk of Esther (see chap' VIll $3;;;"i'r'ro'att'i u"t-J i' mentioned in onlv
lznt because the eloquent
'"*'1i"ii a1$ il;.I"oi;'ptit"
canf.filt considered a-special
makes asser- one Wisdom text (Ahiqar) of wisdom can of course
Many sayius
feature of wirao*i[oJght. digs a pit will
,bclong PaniallY be applied to the E;;'i;";t'y' r- tt",niit'1'tt who
to any
irtd boundaries. it," but tJ;;;'ais fina a pro'erb appropriate
fall into fo'' o"t to'id "t-*tll say that
;rnerate. This is situation-tt'"t' *'i"t]';;;;(t "" her adultery exemplifi es
l3enre (see' e.9.,
Mannne B ouaryi':'iltffi ;il-;t";
Prov 30 : 20 (beautifullY!)'
mk instructions
r end MesoPota' ":'s,,-$l#';
pculative, often
r Psalms also ar @im'.1"iT;r.lx}';ili5lTlfr
tl*.ll,'lJff::'J:"h"":"fi;;;-b;Bcnsira'andthibodvorAhiqar'
t to the Aramaic ?. Crenshaw 1969: 140-42'
ly belong in that
143
 GrNnns

(see chap.
2. A Persian Chronicle? does not,
R. Gordis put forward anorher bold hypothesis: the Scroll is a Personae
fictitious chronicle from the Persian court, purportedly composed schichtliche
by a gentile scribe and modeled on Persian royal annals.s Gordis's l9 l6: 75),
task is made easy-and undermined-by the fact that he is com- vague to
paring Esther to something rhat is nor exranr or even secondarily sification as
attested; there are not evenfcldrdores Persian chronicles to show what tended to
one looked like. In any case, the Scroll does not identify itself as an connecuon
extraction from Persian royal chronicles, which it should do if that The
is how it is supposed to be perceived. In fact, royal chronicles are and romancc-
mentioned in l0:2 as something othcr than this book; they are the "breathes
object of an external reference. The Letter of Aristeas, which Gor- srench of
dis musters in support of his contenrion, does show that pseudepi- as well. The
graphic attribution to gentile courtiers was a possible technique in
HellenisticJewish literature, but it also shows what such attribution and events fu
looked like-and it is not at all like Esther. First, attribution is clear the resultingu
in Aristeas; there is, after all, no point in putting on an invisible The boot
mask. Second, Aristeas is openly apologetic, inculcating the notion romance, intl
that even gentiles must recognize the rruth and nobility ofJudaism a delight in dt
(see C,ordis's description of this work, p. 379). This is the import of classed as a r!
the gentiles' prayers and declarations in Daniel as well (2:46-47; motifs: sudda
3:28-29; 4:2-3, 34-37; 6:25-27). There is a bare touch of this swooning, reg
in Esther (6: l3), but the gentiles who are speaking there are not religion-<ub
(even by Gordis's thesis) the putative authors of the book. If we all, love is nd'
follow Gordis's lead and imagine what pseudepigraphic Persian romance. Xerl
chronicle reports of Jewish salvation would be like, we musr con- insofar as ir fr
clude that they would be very different from Esther. she feels mud
only decoratir
mantic and ro
3. Historical Novella or Romance?e tic milieu, butt
If the (nearly interchangeable) terms "hisrorical novella" and
"romance"r0 are taken to imply essenrial historicity,tt they are prob-
ably wrong, or at least there is nothing to supporr that implication 4. Diasponl
A diaspc:
E. C'ordis l9El:375-E2. The idea had becn briefly suggested by M. Scgal (1960: and the respq
category; TiIi
u, 72r).
9. Streane 1922:xv; Myers l96E:92; Moore l97l:LlI; Cordis l98l:388; and
othcrs.
l0.The terms "novella" and "romance" havc bccn uscd nearly interchangeably; the
Gcrman "Roman' can be translated "novel" as well as "romance." On the "historitj r
confusion between rhcsc rcrms scc Higg 1983:2-4. Wc are probably bcrt to 388).nd I
think of a romance as a novella with an emphasis on lovc and eroticiim, l2.Quotcd by }It1
I l.As is the casc explicitly for Myers (1968:92-9{), who says that thc adjective in l3.Trenlner lQlt
144
 Dtespone SronY

novella
(see chap. $l).The term as applied to the Hellenistic
lll
ttittotitity uut only the use of historical
does not, however,
;;o;; and events "rr.it
in a fictional tile. If "historical romance" ("ge'
kroll is a
f;ffi;;-R;;;';;;;;' wish made into historv (Gunker
" but the grouping is rhen too
omposed
lGordis's ilG;til, the term i, "pp'opti"te' individual text. The clas-
e is com-
;;il; io'i,"r. mucn sigirincahce for rhe
is more significant if it is in-
sification as historical ioueUromance
mndarily novella' a
,."J.a ," assert Esther's affiliation with the Hellenistic
bow what
connecdon that Stiehl (1956:6-9) hasdrawn'
sclf as an Hellenistic novella
The Scroll ao.r,t'o*'some affinities to the
do if that on Ctesias' novella' that it
and romanc.. fdrr"Jsthwartz's remark
nicles are perfumes',mixed with a disgusting
"breathes seraglio
, are the "rrd-.,nt"h
stench of blood,"12 *;t; something of the Scroll's, atmospl-ere
rich Gor- only to provide
as well. The roman.etr nonella, howiver,
so-ught
xeudepi-
rnique in .n..'."in..ntandmerelyusedtraditionalhistoricalpersonages to vrew
;;;;;;" for the framework, without expecdng anyone
rribution
n is clear it. ,.tutting tale as historically accurate'r3 . - of the u-r--ir
^r.u^
The book of EJil;;;; i'"" 'o" features
Hellenistic
invisible as ir is) and
[e notion romance, including;;;; to the king's^love life (such cannot be
[Judaism ruiifi; i. a.fi.ii."t oiiov"r.r*u'vl stiu' the Scrollthemes and
classed as a romance. lacks the romance's favorite
lt
import of passions' heavy sentimentality'
l:46-47; motifs: sudden
""d;;Po;ering
swooning, separation-and"t'nioi' thastity
under temptation' attd
ctrof this interventions' Above
e are not religion-cuf,r, pr"y.it, t*tftt, and divine
as it is in the Hellenistic
ok. If all, love is not the Slrotit central concern'
we to the story onlv
c Persian romance. Xerxes' r*. i--ntifrer has importance
lrr g""ft, and we ire hardly to suppose that
insofar as it furthert
nust con-
she feels mu.h lor.ioi hi"m' The scenic
description in chap"ter I is
we at most a lew ro-
;;iid;."t"dve background' In Esther fromhave the broader Hellenis-
manric and novelisti."r.ri"r., garnered
the work's basic character'
tic milieu, but these do not detlrmine

'ella" and
are prob-
4. Diaspora StorY
rplication
in the diaspora
A diaspora story deals with crises of Jewish life
icgal (1960: and the resPonses .th;;' isther and baniel l-6 belong in this
clearly' Several scholars
;;&;ilui, ao., as *ell, though not so
l:388; and

ngeably; the similarly Gordis (1981:

"historical novet" should bc given more cmphasis;
ce." On the LII'Llll)'
388) and Moore (1971 :
bebly best to
*icism.
adjective in I 3 ?;.?l*P't#1,!n-',';,'J3;rv, e6? : 38

145
 GENnes

class Esther as a "diaspora novella."ta This label is reasonably spe- G)

ci6c and apt, but the term "novella" may suggesr more precision
than it actually offers. A novella is just a short novel or long story.rs (h)
The Scroll is neither; ir is a short story. So we should call it a "dias- I

pora story." This tag shows that the concepr labels the obvious; yet (i)
it does point us toward certain salient features of Esther and related
works. (r:
The value of this identification is to make us think of these The
various tales in terms of each other. The following are the most
teaches a
significant affinities between Esther and Danielro:
are farthe
(a) The setting is the diaspora (for Esther and Daniel6, rp.- to the fon
cifically in Achemenid times). able. (Aftr
(b) Jews arrive at posirions of the highest consequence in the vizier.) It r

royal court. tection. D

(c) The Jews are endangered and saved, and their enemies ties point
are punished. them, whi
(d) Daniel, his companions, and Mordecai are threarened particular
with death. The I
(e) The foreign kings are not hostile toJews. concePts (
(f) For this reason, the opponents must use tricks and slan- ProPose a
der to get rhe king to act against the Jews. know, the
Jewish lifc
shape beh
l4.This concpt has been systematically developed by Meinhold (197b, 1976, questioui
1985a: 16-18) and Humphreys (1973, 1985b).
15. If we use a term taken from another literary tradition, we should stay fairly closc existence r

to its usage in that tradition. The highpoint of the novella was in'nineteenth-
century Germany. The various definitions of the German novella scem to me
equally applicable to a great many short srories or novels and inapplicable to lT.Meinhold
many recognized novellas. None adequately describes the diaspora itory. The leasr u
A{ord Conpnion to Gcrnan Lilqaturc lists the prominent fearures of the no- storiet
vella as "a concentrated presentation ofan action which arouscs suspense and not irr
contains an elcmcnt of surprise leading to an unexpected ending. This ele- twccll
ment- of- suspnsc is the 'new' (nncllal feature of the narrative, exposing r33-l
seemingly inexplicable aspects o[ reality which are inaccessible to reason' 1p-. storie:
674). L. Tieck (1829) (and othcrs) strcssed thc need for a point (Wdtdepunitl that tt
at which thc story took an unexpecred, decisive turn (ibid.; similarly hyder story (
l97l : xx and othcrs). shorvt
The above definition 6ts many short stories white excluding some recognized admini
novellas (such as von Eichendorff's famous "Aus den Lrben eines Taugen- doubr r
icha," included in Ryder's anthology of German "Novclle"). lr does describe of rnc
the Scroll nicely but not Daniel. Bur if "novella" indeed "denotes a literary modd
form standing intermediate between novel and short story" (Humphreys shouH
1985a:83), then Esther must be classcd with the short story. The novellas of l8.Daniel l-(
the nineteenth century were abour 50-200 pages. ered ia
16. Based on Stiehl 1956: l6- 17. GiDsbc

r46

L
 DTASPoRA SronY

nnably spe- (g) The kings believe they are acting against disobedience,
not against the Jews as such.
rc precision
bng story.rt (h) The lingt ate unhappy to see their Jewish favorites
caught in thi net.
rll it a "dias-
obvious; yet
(i) ThJ kings are themselves trapped by the decrees' They
cannot automatically free the Jews.
rand related
(j) The kings punish the slanderers.
Lrk of these The genre could be broadened to include Tobit, for it too
rc the most teaches aiay of life forJews in the diaspora.'? In Tobit the kings
are farther in the background, and the piety of ordinaryJews comes
ro rhe fore. The gentile governmenr is viewed as hostile but toler'
hniel6, spe-
able. (After all, alew-ai Ahiqar is here thought to be-becomes
lrcnce in the vizier.) It is loyalty to one's people and family that earns Godl.pro-
recrion. Danieland Esther ire mor. closely aligned. Their similari-
rcir enemies ties point up the significance of the ideological differences between
them, which we will observe when discussing the relevant topics, in
particular the Scroll's worldview.
: threatened ' The book of Esther, Daniel l-6,te and Tobit have different
concepts of God, history, and the Jewl' dyty in crisis, but they all
fu and slan- propoi. a similar percePtion of Jewish life in exile. As far as we
L.o*, rhere were ar yei no laws addressing the peculiarities of
Jewish life in the diaspora. Instead, Jews
in exile used stories to
ih"p. behavior and aititudes and ro come to grips- with certain
i (1975, r976, queitions of great urgency: How do we meet the threats to our
existence now that wC have no state' no king to command us' no
lray fairly closc
rin nineteenth-
db sccm to me
linapplicable to 17. Mcinhold ( l9?5, 1976) would assign rhe Joseph story to this gcnreas wcll or at
pora story. Thc least takc it as a prototypc. He rcs clocc ties betwccn thc Joccph .nd-Esthcr
nrrcs of the no- stories, nor onty in broii fearures bur in detaib of structurc ar wclt. He does
:r ruspcnsc and i"iua. Diniel in this gcnrc (thar would mele the clooc dignmcnt bc-
"ot rhe Joscph srory e-nd Ecther immcdietely glteqlbJc)' ncrg (pP'
twecn
ding. This ele-
I 33-36) sh6*s that the iomponens and rcnuenccs of rhe Esther and Joscph
raivc, exposing
lc o rearcn" (p. srories are nor as closc ac Miinhold meinreins. There is no doubt, however,
'll,(Wadr?utill that the authors of both Danicl and Esrhcr were influcnced by thc Joscph
dmilarly Ryder story (Roscnthal 1895; Gan 196l-62; Bc.g pp. 12{-36). ThcJoscph story
shois'how a Jew can succeed in e forcign id.,n-tty 1d-sc1vt in a foreign
mc recognized administratioi and so offered a netural-nrodcl for rhc Esthcr story; but I
r eines Taugen- doubr that this lesson was theJoscph $ory:3.PyTosc. Thar rtory (in thc vior'
It docs dcscribe of most scholars) is preexilic in origin, and ir ic in any casc an inappropriatc
lmtcs a literary mrrlel life, for if thaiis whar it wcrc, ii
diasoora iife.
modcl for diaspora it would imply that Jews
y- (Humphreys should voluntarily choosc cxile in hard dmes.
The novellas of 18. Daniel I -6 is a colleition of six talca about Jewirh couniers. Thc talcs wcre gath'
ered into a book bcfore thc timc of An-riochus IV Epiphanes (sce especially
Ginsberg 1954). Chapters 7- I 2 are later and probably Palestinian in origtn.

t47
 Grrunrs

army to defend us, no territory to localize the defense, no temple scholarship. i

to pray and sacrifice in, no priests to instruct us and lead communal itself, what fr
prayer? The answer of all three books is that we are thrown upon Fictiond
our inner resources-spiritual,- intellectual, and personal-and we pragmatic, u
must calculate how best to array rhem in our defense. The diaspora work's factud
is dangerous but tolerable, in some ways even hospitable, and Jews reality, or at I
can,.in the spirit ofJer 29:4-7,lead full and effectiveJewish lives port and real
within it.tg tions acknowl
One might wonder whether identifying this "genre" means no a set of conu
more than noting that the works within it resemble each other. But author have e
it seems to me that there is more to the identification rhan that. conventions (
The similarities among the works are fundamental, yet rhe book of play." Fiction
Esther was not produced by direct imitation of Daniel I -6.20 There are oblique z
is no similarity in structure, as would be expected if someone were translation ar
producing an Esther book on the basis of the book of Daniel; their it is history.
concepts of religion are so different rhat one cannor be derived It is noto
from the other even by reversal; and neither Mordecai nor Esther the texts of o
is a permutation of the Daniel-figure. Since the resemblance. does signals that d
not result from influence, it must be shaped by something outside would have r
the two texts themselves-and this something-whether social con- satisfied with
straints or artistic traditions-is what is meant by genre. upon-a-tirnc-
It is not the facts of diaspora existence alone that determine ing, whereas
the character of the narrative, but the attitude and goals of the namely the ru
author. After all, Ezra and Nehemiah too wereJews who prospered chronicles (l(
in the Persian royal service, yet the books that bear their names do reported.a Tl
not hold up their success as exemplary or promote any ideas for ondary perso
living in the diaspora. This consideration strengthens the hypothe- actual penon
sis that "diaspora story" constir.utes a cohesive, meaningful category such.2{ Nothil
and does not merely label a miscellaneous group of stories that it from the {
happen to be set in the diaspora. carnival atm,c
truth claimed
5. History
Identifying the Scroll's genre as novella or romance incorpo- 2l.On the lancrr
22.Morson (l$l
rates in the label itself a stance-a negative one-on the book's im- which it ir
plicit truth claims. Such a stance is quite legitimate; indeed the ern a rul
willingness not to take a text at face value is the essence of critical cedures (p
text mcd
(judsd bt
rcril
tions)
l9.Sce Meinhold l97E:329-30 and Humphreys 1985b: I 12 and 1973 f,cttir.l. straddb rr
20.lt could not, of course, be the other way around, since Daniel I -6 includes sev- 23.This devi.t h
eral independent stories.
24.Obsened b7G

r48
 Htsronv

rrs, no temple scholarship. But we must additionally as-k how the book presents
had communal itself, whai face it wishes to show the reader'
G thrown upon iictionality may be defined in two basic ways'-ln the common'
rsonal-and we pragmatic, understanding of the term, fictionality concerns the
e. The diaspora ior"t'. faciual validity: fict'ion reports events that did not haPPen in
re-
itable, andJews reality, or at least it does not try lol l corrgspondence between
p"n ina reality. In a semiotic definition' which the condi-
tive Jewish lives -specifies
Iion, relevant to interpretation, frctionality refers to
a set of".kr,o*ledged
conventions governing reading: in fiction, the reader and
Enre" means no
each other. But ,",t or have an impliiit "fictioial contrict" to suspend the veridical
rtion than that. .onu.ntion, of nonfictional discourse; they agree that the text is
yet the book of piry.l Fiction does make statements about the real world, but these
icl l-6.20There Ire'oblique and must be read out of the text by various acts of
Isomeone were translation and generalization. In this sense, Esther is not fiction;22
of Daniel; their it is history.
mot be derived It is nltoriously diffrcult to extrapolate semiotic con6acts from
lecai nor Esther the texts of other ages and cultures, but in the case of Esther' the
semblance. does signals thar do get ihrough make it very unlikely thal the author
nething outside wEuH have us iead his f,*t 6ction, or even that he would be
"r
satisfied with the "historical core" theory. I do not see any
"once-
rther social con-
,pon-"-ri-." clues that would direct the reader to a fictional read-
:nre.
that determine irlg, *t.t there clearly is an--effort to create verisimilitude'
nd goals of the "s
na"mely the numerous scenic details and the reference to the
royal
; who prospered ch.onilles (10:2), which implies external verification for the facts
their names do reported.2r The precise dating of events and the numeration of sec'
tG any ideas for ond"ry perrorrage, are also intended to convince the reader that
ns the hypothe- ii a datable time and an actual place.did.such and
ringful category ".ir"f'pl.rons
such.2{ Nothing in the story is so fantastic as to definitively remove
r of stories that it from the spf,ere of reality. Nor is the humor of the tale or the
carnival atmosphere of Purim in any way meant to detract from the
truth claimed ior the story in all ir details. There are, to be sure,

2t.On the latter definition sce Pricc 1973: I l2-58'

mance lncorPo- ii.1l.rr." iigAl :39-68) idcntifies thc intriguing category of "boundary works," in
n the book's im- which it is uncertain which of two mutually aclusive rrs ol conventtons 8ov-
.in , *ort. Such texts can be read according to dilfcrcnt-hcrmencutic pro-
ate; indeed the
cedures (p. 48). In a snsc, I am vieuing Esthicr as a boundary work: a fictive
isence of critical ;;;;;[, to'bc read by non6ctional*convcnrions. Bur since its fictiveness
( iudced bv historicitv) and irs nonfiaiveners (judged by inherent conven'
iion.i rctide in distincr domains of definition, it docs not, strictly spealtng'
d 1973 posrrm. sraddle two mutually exclusive categories'
cl I -6 includes sev- ( 197 I : XXXV).
ZS. fhis deriic has succceded with severat iholan, such as Moore
2,l.Observed by Gerleman, p. 29.

149
 GeNnrs

clues to the text's non-historicity (see chap. III $ l), but these appar- 6. Fest
ently escaped the author, and subsequent interpreters found Iittle
difficulty in explaining away the difficulties (such as in 2 :6).25 Most Lik'
fundamentally, the MT-author would not want the book read as con8rue
fiction because that would undo the authority of the eall to observe cations i
Purim, which is selfi-consciously based on the actuality of the deliv- arly intr
' erance in Adar and the surely tl
Jewish response to it (9: 24-26).
The Scroll's reference to the Persian-Median chronicles is an of some
imitation of the references to the external sources in Samuel-Kings this reg
and Chronicles. The author would have us class his book with Ezra- in a sen
Nehemiah and Chronicles.26 version r

A genre-designation of "history" would better accord with the day holi

author's intentions.zT "We call a narrative a history on the basis of the Con
its author's perceived intentions in writing, the author's claim that If tl
the account is accurate in its particulars, the author's sincerity" for most
(Halpern 1988:8).28 We can assign Esther to a subdivision of his- ing the,
tory, such as the "historical stor/," which B. Long defines as "a self- been gr
contained narrative mainly concerned to recount what a particular latter tal
event was and how it happened, but with more literary sophistica- another
tion than is usually evident in simple reports. . . . We read of char- story of
acters and events rooted in plausible time and space, but given of the fi
contours conceived in the writer's particularizing imagination" mand is
(1984:7).rs nal decl:
Thr

25.This observation runs contrary to Greenstein's assertion that the story's festival
contxt, humor, and plot contrivances lend it an air o[ fiction and that these 30. Ringgr
qualities determined from the start that it would be read tongue-in-cheek and legr
not taken seriously as history ( 1987:226-28). stro
26. Myers observes that the book of Esther is "cast within the same framework as as ir
that of the Chronicler" ( 1968 : 95). fun
27.The book's self-prescntation as history is probably not just an intentional falsifi- ralC
cation. Since most of the story came to the MT-author ready-madc (see chap. tra!
XtV 03a), it is likely that he saw himself not as fabricating a history but as 31. Meinh
reworking a factual narrative and drawing (orjust highlighting) a connection not
bctween ii and the popular festivitics of Adar. Perhaps the conncction already tlrc
existed in oral tradition and the MT-author believed he was only putting it bes
into literary form. xlrl
28. An author may dclibcntely prcscnt lies and distortions as history, but even then 32.8y a ti
the work! genre-at least from the literary standpoint-is history. sl8ll
29. Long says thaihistorical stories rangc themselves on a sPectrum between fction talc
and history written with lhe resources o[ fiction. But again, although the his- Th.
torical story may bc closcr to or farther from the historical facts as we know st(r
them, the conventions of the historical story call upon the readcr to takc them 33.Somco
all as reliable and accurate reports. (A reader can, of course, refuse to accept thc l
the "contract" implicit in the conventions an author ProPoses.) sce I

150
 Fxrlv,rl E-rtolcrY

l these appar- 6. Festival EtiologY

r: found little
r 2:6).2t Most
Like..history,''thegenreidentification..festivaletiology''is
took read as congruent with t'he authir's intention.lo If we rank genre identifi'
catiJns in terms of intrinsic importance rather than appeal to schol-
dl to observe
of the deliv- int.t.tts, then the primary genre of the book as a whole is
7 "riy
,r..ty this one.3r (An etiology is'a narrative that explains the gljqin
6).
ronicles is an oi **. existing phenomenon in society, religion,-or nature').s2 ln
iamuel-Kings *ir r.g"ta, the"scroll belongs togethr with Exodus l2-13 (and'
ok with Ezra- in a seise, the entire Exodui ttoty). Everything in the Massoretic
version of Esther leads up to the establishment of Purim as a two-
cord with the day holiday. (The emphaiis is probably on the two-day factor; see
n the basis of the Commentary on 9:20-28.)
r\ claim that If this function does not seem an adequate literary explanadon
r's sincerity" for most of the book (most of chaps. I -8 is not necessary for mak'
ivision of his- ing the case for the festival), that is because the Purim theme has
nes as "a self- be?n grafted on to an older salvation tale,sr and consequently the
latter iate (without the MT expansion in 3 : 7 and 9: I -32) calls
for
n a particular i'dirtpo,"
another classification (such as story")' But in the MT' the
ry sophistica- to.lh.t service
siory of Esther and Mordecai has been appropriateg
read of char-
of the festival etiology: a celebration unsanctioned by divine com-
ce,but given and commu'
imagination" mand is given its jusiification in historicalexperience
nal declaration.
The term "etiology" may sound too intellectual, as if the pur'

hc storyl festival "Festlegendc" or festival

n and that these 30. Rinccren (o. 375), Gerleman (p. 23), and othcrs call it a
gue-in-cheek and iiiend.'Acain, this is accurate. but from rhe author! point ol vlcw-thc story
;itilil ;;ib. .hougttt legend"ry as that term is usualiy understood' namely
rc framework as as imolvins 6criona'tity. Most commentators recogrize thc ccnlrallty ol lhts
functLi, ihether or not rhey usc it to dcsignate a SGnrG'-wiirthwetn accu-
nrentional falsifi- ratelv claims that the originaily in&pendenf Estheinovella was secondarily
.madc (sce chap. ii"nJfo.*.a into the edology 6fthe i'r'rim festival (1969:193)' -
S f . N,lci.hoiJ f
giO,lZ f. obicos thit "festival lcgcnd" designates rhe book's PurPose,
; a history but as
ing) a connection notits C,attung (genie). ln fact, however,-festival legend is its Gattung lrom
the standpoin"r ol its practical purPosc. Tq ,l1l.P'iry_T
xrnection already -Esthcr E.tl.1 Tll-1"^*
story that originally lacked it (as I argue rn chaP.
rs only putting it been sdi&d on ro an
XtVti a), but it is intrinsic to the massorctrc Esthcr'
ry, but even then 32. Bv a tic[rer
--'-' dehnirion of "eriology," which requires that the narrative be de'
ristory, ,l"n?J-in i,i tri. .,*.rrr. ro".upport the explanation and which excludes
n between fiction i"iir *iiit 't,iologi.atsulhx" (Ciits 1983: l0), MT-Esrher is nor edological.
although the his- iiri ", wirh rlhis tightening is that it classifies the current function of a
p.oUt.,n
facts as we know 3tory on the basis of its prehistory. -
33.Some commcnurtorc consider 9:20i l0:3, or parts thcreof, as later
additions to
rder to take them
rhe Esther story; sce chap. XIV n.12. I hotdto a modificd form of this
theory;
, rcfusc to acccpt
:s.) see Fox t99l:chaP.2.

r5l
 Gerunes

pose of the explanation were information for its own sake. An eti-
ology of a religious practice, however, helps shape the practice. It
organizes it, gives it meaning, and motivates its continuance. The
etiological function of Esther is ongoing, not static; the story cannot
disappear once the holiday is accepted, for it is the source of the
holiday's meaning.3a It alone brings past events into the present.

l. Struct
7. Festival Lection
No on
In terms of its present function, theScroll's genre is festival collection (
lection. The primary requirement of the rabbinic Purim observance or system-
is to hear the reading of the Scroll.55 Raba (affirming the argument material, a
of R. Jose ben Hanina) went so far as to assert that "between the posed to sr
Temple service and the reading of the Scroll, the reading of the perceives tl
Scroll takes priority" (b. Meg. 3b). The slr
The public reading of the Scroll is not ordained in the book the text in
itself, yet the reading is rooted in the book's ideology. The only MT-Esthe
festival practice the author envisaged was festivities which replicate instance, E
the Jews' rejoicing of year 12. Jews of subsequent generations, second ban
rather than commemorating something that happened to their abrupt to t
ancestors, celebrate their ancestors' expcrimce. The holiday has a tactician. C
reflexive, inner-directed quality; the people remembers its own ex- which they
perience, and that is accessible only through story, the vehicle of before Estl
memory. and also les
Memory, as Brevard Childs has shown, was at the heart of Is- of characte
raelite cult in the Deuteronomic understanding. "To remember was individud I
to actualize the past, to bridge the gap of time and to form a soli- There:
darity with the fathers" (1962:74). Purim,like the Sabbath and the singleprirr
Passover in the Deuteronomic interpretation, not only commemo-
A text, likc
rates the past but also recalls it to actuality. To actualize the joy and multitude <
respite the ancestors enjoyed on the first Purim entails recalling the pends on r
events they lived through, and this means retelling the tale. [t was that the su
an accurate extension of the author's intention when the rabbis other. The
took an imperative implicit in the text-"read me"-and made that archical der
the prime commandment of the festival. themselves
produce clc
to do thejd
34.That is to say, the holiday in irsJewish form. Whatever its prehistory, Purim as
we know it was born with the book.
35.The Mishna (ractate Megilla) does not directly command the reading of the l. But once O
Scroll, but rather assumes rhis as a recognized obligation and procecds to turie: tG
discuss the details of the practice. 2. Y. Raddey:

152
 CHAPTER V

iln sake. An eti- STRUCTURES

p the practice. [t
ftrntinuance. The
; the story cannot
dre source of the
m the present.
l. Structures and Meanings
No one writes at random. Unless a book is an anthology or a
I genre is festival collection (like Proverbs l0-31), we can exPect to find some logic
hrrim observance or system-not necessarily conscious-beliind the placement of
ing the argument matirial, and we can further assume that this placement is sup'
ftat "between the posed to serve the author's goals and control the way the reader
bc reading of the
'- -ih. shape of literary characters is integral to the structure of
perceives the world of the text.

in
dned in the book the text in *hich they exist.r If we altered the course of even6
bology. The only MT-Esther, the chaiacters would inevitably be different, If, {or
bs which replicate instance, Esther were to accuse Haman at the first instead of the
too
bent generations, second banquet, her development from timid to bold would be
rppened to their to # conuincing, and she would also appear a less skilled
Ite holiday has a "Lr"p,
ractician. Characters arJshaped even by the placement of scenes
in
arbers its own ex- which they do not aPPear.'If Vashti's story had not been placed
ry, the vehicle of before Esther's, f,sthiit early obedience would be less distinctive
and also less necessary; her courage too would be obscured. A study,
at the heart of Is- of character, then, cannot confirie itself entirely to an analysis of
'To remember was individual figures, but must consider the text's overall shape'
nd to form a soli- There iJno reason to insist on a single structure in each text, a
: Sabbath and the single principle of organization that.T F de6nitively ferreted out'
r only commemo- e f,*q like iife in gineral, is organized-or organizable-into a
hralize thejoy and multitude of domai-ns. The type of organization we perceive de-
orails recalling the pends on what we are looking for. l1 seems reasonable to exPect
irg the tale. It was ihat rhe structures should remain distinct and not override one
l when the rabbis other. The structures need not present neat, symmetrical, or hier-
3--2pd made that archical designs, for design is not their point. Nor are designs in
themselves .iid.rr.. of ar'tistry; even a hack can write to rule and
produce clear patterns. There must simply be enough of a design
to do the job assigned it.2
r prehistory, Purim as
struc-
rd thc reading of the But once thc character is created, it is not necessarily inscparable from the
ture: see chap. I $3.
Firn and proceeds to V. i.aa'"y .,iirrlp.r io show that the entire bool is structured in a large chiasm

153
-i
I
I
, Srnuc:runr.s
f
t
a
r
In Robert Alter's description of biblical narrative, he speaks of unequivocall
b
; elaborately integrated systems of repetition in which repetition be- separated by
comes a'Jamesian 'figure in the carpet,' half-hidden, subliminally
\
i
BEGINNING
i
I
insistent ..." (1981:94-95). He proposes a scale of repetitive
I structuring and focusing devices based on leitwort, motif, theme,
and sequence of action (p. 95). The second, third, and fourth de-
I

i vicbs are the significant structuring principles in Esther.

i
I The elements that combine into a structure must be significant MIDDLE
t
I
i and prominent or the structure itself will be trivial. A structure con-
i trols perceptions-the way the reader segments a text, reconstructs END
the sequence of events, draws connections between earlier and later
i.
i,

I
l
materials, and more. The four structures I survey in this chapter
l
are, I believe, the ones that make the greatest impact. I base the last
t
V
statement in part on what the commentators have noticed, but The time dl
i
F
mainly on my own experience of reading Esther. Its validation, ginning, ext
I
t
however, must come from your own experience of the text. A suc- Nothing urg
r cessful structural proposal should elicit a sense of recognition: it Mordecai ar
II
expresses your sense of the work's shape either as you have read it during whiJ
I
or as you will henceforth read it. the drama, t
I
i( twoJews dcfi
I
I squeezed int
!
ts 2. Sequence and Segmentation of Events book's earlic
r
The main principle of design in the Scroll is so obvious that Jews estaHisl
t the indehnit
Ia commentators neglect to mention it: the story Proceeds in chrono-
It
logical order. With the slight exceptions of the background infor- holiday.
t.
Ir mation in 2:5-7 and the proleptic remark in 9:1, nothing is
I
r
allowed to override this principle.
{
!l

t The segmeu
I
I a. Tripartite Division tary. The thr
I
i The chronological progression in itself makes for a well-organized, outline:
f
I
I easy-to-follow narrative. The narrative is divided' with classical
BEGINNING
I
ctarity, into a beginning, a middle, and an end. Not only are these
I
$
Act I: l: l-2
Act II: 2: l-
r

i division-though
t ( 1973). But this view requires accepting his particular unit
!
i it lumps together diversi material-in unnatural ways-and interpreting.the
unirs in accordance with the labels he gives them-rhough these were devised MIDDLE
Act lII. 3: l-
I
!,r to fit the design. l-or example, he joins chaps. 2 and-3 as a single unit by
F calling them "ihe kingt firsi decree," and chaps. 8 a1d 9 are nken togelhel
as a init summarized'as "the king's second decree," which supposedly bal-
Act IV.4: l-
r ances chaps. 2-3. Act V.5: l-[
i
i
r
I
I 154
F

I
)
r
I
t
i
I
 SegurNce eNo Sr'cusNrATIoN oF Evr'NTs

but the events are

unequivocally marked by shifts in subject matter'
sepaiated by chronological gaps as well'
that prepared the way
BEGINNING setting the stage: the e-vents
fo, ftti.tt-ris'e lyear 3); Esther's tise to queenship
(ca' year 7)'
(year 7X MJ.."it service to the king
l: l-2:23.
nt MIDDLE the narrative ProPer: the scheme and its defeat
con- (months i-iii ani xii, year l2)' 3: I -9: l9'
about
END the establishment o[ Purim' with an appendix
indefi'
.and later Mordecai (from some time after year 12 to the
chapter nite future). 9 : 20- l0 : 3.
the last
drama' The be-
but The time allotted to each major division Paces the
over six ytSt:, proceeds at a leisurely temPo'
;ffi;;;.nai"g.rs nappenini; it is ijme of.preparation and (for
Nothing urgent year'
one
ft{ota..""i d th. reader) waiting' The middle covers
""t the crisis Li."tt' ot.ri and is resolved' The height of
a"ri"S ;hi.h
;h.;;;;, tne periJin "'t i.r, Haman initiates his plot and the
with five chlRlers
;;;i;;;J;f.at liim, rushes forward breathlessly' to the
soueezed into eighteen oi- f.*tt days' The end-contrary
rt begins when.the
ffii.;r';i;;p-;;;._ceases to date evenrs.13' and extends into
rhat i;;;;iitt it. holiday, presumablyin year
will celebrate the
in chrono- the indefini,. .*p"nr. oi',i,,. in which dre Jews
infor- holiday.
nothing is
b. Acts
the Commen-
The segmentation into acts and scenes is discussed in
with the acts produce this
;;.iil,ht.. ^"ioiJ,i.io"'
together
l-organized, outline:
rirh classical
BEGINNING
nly are these
Act [: I :L-22. Vashti deposed.
a
Act II: 2:l-23. Esther beiomes queen; Mordecai uncovers
irLion-rhough plot.
htcrpreting rhe
rc were deviscd MTDDLE
r single unit by Act II[.3: l-15. Haman's plan and decree.
: r:kcn together
Act IV. 4:l-17. Mordecaisends Esther to the king
lrpposcdly bal-
Act V.5: l-8. Esther goes to the king; her first banquet'

r55
 Srnucrures

Act VI.5:9-6:14. Haman's humiliation and Mordecai's

l. Xerr
exaltation. 2. Xerr
Act VII. 7: l-10. Esther's second banquet; Haman's defeat. 3. Vashi
Act VIII.8:l-8. The grant of authority.
Act IX.8:9-17. The counter-decree.
4. Esrhg
Act X. 9: l-19. The battles of Adar. 5. Ham
END. 6. Estha
Act XI. 9:20-32. The establishment of Purim. 7. Esthc
Act XIL I0: l-3. Epilogue.
8. The!
gloryi
3. A Major Motif: Feasting
9. The 6
A motif is a recurrent action, word, or thing (or an event suf- 0. Thec
ficiently specific to be conceived of as a "thing") that draws atten-
tion to itself and forms linkages that help unify the narrative.t By The last pi
creating cross-connections among passages, motifs make the reader (##l-2), thoq
think of one passage in terms of the other. [n Esther, one motif in for all inhabiter
particular, feasting,' has special importance in shaping our reading. empire and #l
The book opens with banquets, the denouement occurs at a makes theJerid
banquet, and the crisis eventuates in a perennial banquet- This For refusiq
motif, then, is a good place to expect a significant design to emerge. opening the uq
nerg (pp. 3l-35), Meinhold (1983b:435-439), and Clines-(pp. The ironic r
36-3?). have emphasized the importance of this motif and its func- banquets. Whft
tion in bringing out irony, though there are some differences in the king (#5), thc J
ways they connect the various banquets. In the following diagram, Esther's biddinG
special similarities among banquets as I see them are marked by self for two beu
lines. It emerges that the banquets are all paired-as is appropriate pride in his oryn
to a book that establishes a two-banquet holiday.s In #8, theJ
The movement of the plot is punctuated by ten banquets, glory and the o
which are the sites of important events and which signal shifts of
power: Meinhold(l![l
3-4, 6-7, &
howcver, trqr
3. Cf. Alter l98t :95; similarly Berg, p.l6- 17, who disringuishes between "govern- emphartrtc
ing motifs" and "auxiliary motifs." This sclcr
4. In thi following, both "banquets" and "feasts" translate Hebrew zriltat. Of the 7. Berg claims thl
forty-six o.ii*n..t of ihis *ord in the Hebrel Bible, twenty a1e i.n E1' a quasi-royal I
thei-a fact rhat in itself suggests the importance of this concept for the book. not bccme
I nevertheless do not rhink rhai this is entirely the work of the original author. "hosr" hrrb
As I trace the Scroll's literarv history, the establishment of Purim was not an Some re'gard rE
original part of the story. Banquets'#lll'2,3, 6, 7rt'ere presentin-the^origi-
nal] insoiar as this can'bc deduced from Proto-AT (sce chap. XIV SS2a-b)' Jews could h
said to bc fd
The MT redactor found the motif in the story he inherited and reinforced it
nied by fa*i
in preparation for adding the Purim etiology in chapter 9.

156
 A M4on Morlr: Fresrtxc

l. Xen<es'banquet for the nobility (l:2-4)

f,ai's
2. Xentes' banquet for all the men in Susa I
( :5-8)
l's defeat. 3. Vashti's banquet for the women (l:9)
4. Esther's enthronement banguet (2: l8)
5. Haman and Xerxes' banquet (3: l5)
6. Esther's first banquet (5 :4-8)
7. Esther's second banquet (7 : I -9)
8. The Jews' feasting in celebration of Mordecai's
glorf and the counter decree (8: l7)'
9. The first feast of Purim: Adar 14 (9: 17, 19)
'an event suf- 0. The second feast of Purim: Adar l5 (9: 18)6
t draws atten- first Pair
The last pair (##9- 10, i'e' Purim) corresponds to^the
narrative.! By
rke the reader W*|-il,though not tightiv'7.#I0 is the is for theJews ti tT:.*.f'
tne
one motif in
:, ior all inhabitants of Susa, while #9 fior Jews throu.ghout
empire' I ecnorng
gour reading. emoire and #l for nobtes throughout the hrs

;;i;;d; of impe rial sple ndor'

nt occurs at a -- - ,. * ist fertirat su,Sest icelebration
ro. reiusing ro leave hJr-own banquer (#3), Vashti is deposed,
banquet. This in #4'
opening the wai for Esther, whose coronation is celebrated
ign to emerge. ' Th; ironic use of the banquet motif is most vivid in the cenrral
rd Clines (pp.
the
if and its func- banquets. While Haman celebrates his suppolea Yi:t::y:ith
king (#5), the Jews throughout the empiret fast (4:3)' Then' at
lerences in the
prepares her-
wing diagram, fr,f,.ii Uiaain{, the Jews last with her (4 : l6) as she
rre marked by self for two baiquetsl of which the first (#6) will confirm Haman's
is appropriate pride in his own eyes and the second (#7) produce his downfall'
' In #8, the Jews rejoice and hold feasts in honor of Mordecai's
ten banquets, glory and ih..6unt.t-i..t .. This banquet is linked to #5 first by
of
rignal shifts
( I 983b : a35- 39) likewir counts four pairs' corresponding
to # I -2'
Meinhold t
3-4,6-7,8-9+10 (the two Purim feasg arc takcn as onc)' H's schema'
between "govern-
["*.r..,'i.qrires taking thc Purim fgass a1 one,-though 1}ti **:ti: ":tJ
emohatic ab6ut their dualiry, calling them "days ol leasttnS" tn v--izz,.zo-.r2.
Thls scheme also requires pairing rhe combincd feast' unnaturally' wlth
tu'
rcw miltalr. Of the are'hostci by royalty, inasmuch as Mordecai becomes
twenty are in Es-
*'f
7. Berc claims that both sets
rept for
;;i;;i fr*;;. Br, rhis connecdon scems forced, since Mordecai does
the book.
;"',;;;;; i"lns'trbo,irrr.' and in any case Mordecai and Esther do not
r original author. "host" Purim.
Purim was not an as a fast in the provinces (Meinhold 1983b:'138)l but the
Susan
rcscnt in rhe origi-
*'i:;;:;;ld rhis
Somei.card -rt.tarv
tiit.in frorir loining the others' Mordecai' though he is not
hap. XIV 0!2a-b). ';d ;b.-f*,ing, is Pcrformin[ mouining acts that are commonly accomPa-
I and reinforced it
nied by fasting (4 : I ).

t57
 Srnuc.runrs

its occasion-each celebrates the issuance

of a decree-and second Events in dr
of senrences j"in.J to them. When Haman
PI :n...yording
reasrs' -'the .the
krng and Haman sat down to feast, whire the
matching series o
city of susa portending disastr
was thrown into dismay" (3: I5b), whereas
when theJe*, .if.lrr,., uations which cor
"the city of Susa rejoiced and was
merry,,(g : I5b). even6, to theJews
The. bangueting motif is thus the vehicle for
the theme of ral course, evenB l
power-its gain and its loss.e Banguets beJong to the ,i.h
pt*_ results intended o
erful. such occasions, as the description of #r*shows, are "nJ
the se'tting Repedtion of
for conspicuous consumption.ro Brnqu.t, are an opportunitv ro
the most distinctir
show one's "opulenr rn.irth" and the "splendid r,"l'"r;-ri:'"".t
cases, however, th
greatness. The Jews do not celebrate or display
their wealth, but tion of vocabulary
they too employ feasting as a means of dispiay_tf,e airpfrf
io aff grven below in virg
generations of rhe respite earned by victory'and
of .o*rlrrnity
solidarity. THESES
a: Hamanl Authoria
4. A Major Theme: Reversal (3: I0) Thereupori
took his signet ring
A theme is "an idea-which is part of the value_sysrem of the hnger
narrative" (Alter lgSl:gg).rr A variety of specific elemen$-srare- and gave it to Hare
men6, images, motifs, events_may.orrney a theme. The
most im_ Hammedarha the rl
portant sEuctural theme in Esther, one that organizes persecutor of theJe
much of the
presentation and wording of evenrs, is the ide"a
that an event in-
tended to harm the Jewi evenruates in its opposite.
This is the (3; I l) /And the kin
th,eme of peripety: the resurt of an action is
aciually rhe reverse of Haman, "The silver
wh.at was expected.12 The various reversals,
,n"ny of rnni.fr-*,rst
strike.every reader, have been well noted by the
.o,,n,.ni"io... I {"u,.r: well as the g
do wrth as you pleeq
would maintain that the reversars work togeiher ro govern,h.
we read the book and to convey a particulir worldview.
;"y
b: Haman\ Decrce
9. Berg 1979:34-35. (3: 12) So on the rhir
l0.Clines, p. 36.
I l. Berg-defines theme as ,.m-ssage day of the first mond
a. or idea which the author conveyed by his use
of the storyb.motifs,' (19?9i?). A theme royal scribes were srr
ii ."i,-t.*.r.., ..i.iriir, ."__
posed of motifs, but may appear in various
;r;h
""rr, ".;,;;;;;;'i_qr.
l2'This is not the mosr imrrortanr theme in Esther. The
most important theme is the
of all Jeris to cerebratet-hei*" a"y. purim, but thar rheme and it was written in r
3b\sation
ro have little stnutural function, probably f,."r.. seems
"r
- it was added to the base dance with all that [k
.
c'
narrarive at a later stage (see.t rp. XtV Sbrl.
M' Horowitz (18E2) iientified
#;,*,; "i I rcy principte
progression, but he saw its operation'only .0, of rhe narrative,s
in .hipt., ,i_ii".rr'i.lii_". An earlier form oI rhe I
:l;:::x*';'g:*x[.;?'.:HHil#,ux
13.
(pp. 109-13), whof
"{:Ji;,1,11;,k:fr
aswell. its rhesis in pan aad,
theme's funidrn. a
t58
 t Melon Turue: Rrvrns.tt-

fte-and second Events in the middle section of Esther are built around two
rltlhen Haman matching series of theses and antitheses. The theses are situations
portendi"ng disaster for the Jews and success for their enemies, sit-
i"the city of Susa
lJews celebrate, uations wfich could be expected to lead, in the natural course of
events, to the Jews' destruction. But rather than running their natu-
r the theme of ral course, .rirrt, lead to the antitheses, the mirror opposites of the
p rich and pow- results intended or aPparently portended in the theses'
i are the setting Repetition of the-vocabulary of the theses in the antitheses is
ibpponunity to rhe most distinctive marker of their mirror relationship. In a few
honor" of one's cases, however, the reversal is not supported by distinctive rePeti-
tion of vocabulary but is nevertheless manifest' Those Passages are
hir wealth, but
be display to all given below in virgules.'s
lof community THESES ANTITHESES

a: Hamar* Authority a': Mordecai\ Authoity

(3: l0) Thereupon the king (8:2a) And the king took off
took his signet ring off his his signet ring, which he had
finger taken away from
psystem of the
and gave it to Haman son of Haman, and gave it to
ihments-state- Mordecai.
Hammedatha the Agagite,
Ii-rn. mosr im- persecutor of the Jews.
L much of the
h. .., event in- (3: I l) /And the king said to (8:2b) /and Esther set Morde-
Lc- Ttris is the
Haman, "The silver I grant cai over Haman's estate./
f, the rererse of you, as well as the people, to
lof which must do with as you please."/
Fmmentators. I
Sovern the way
ry b: Harwn\ Decree b': Morfucoi\ Dcoee
(3: l2) So on the thirteenth (8:9) The royal scribes were
day of the first month, the summoned at that time, on
bnveyed by his use royal scribes were summoned. the twenty-third day of the
lr. nccessarily com- third month, the month of
unrque Sivan,
rrcmcntor
and it was written in accor- and it was written in accor-
lrunt thcme is the dance with all that Mordecai
Ithat themc seems dance with allthat Haman
i fa.a to the base
H
I of rfrc narrative's
F dmilarlv Feldman -
13. An earlier form 0l the following obscrvations was published in Fox 1985. S. Berg
|: uoFi peripery. (pp. 109- l3), who had a piepublication- manuscripr of that anicle' adopted
rd afier that point iis'rhesis in part and also offered a uscful critique o[ my interPretatlon ol the
i theme's funltion, and my current approach hai benefitted from her remarks.

159
 Srnucru*r-s

while the
had commanded the king's had commanded theJews and
in the
satraps and the governors who the satraps and the governors
(3: l5b)
were over each and every and the princes of the prov-
I man sat
province, inces from India to Nubia, cit,
and the
i
and the princes ofeach and 127 provinces,
i
thrown imo
i
every people- to each and every province in
(a: l) Atltrr
i
to each and every province in its own script
t, out all that
its own script and to each and every PeoPle
tore his
I 'and each and every people in in its own language. . . .
sackcloth
its own language. (8: l0a) He wrote this in King
went out
In King Xerxes'name it was Xerxes'name,
!
i
city and
I written, sealed it with the king's signet
bitterly./
I and it was sealed with the ring,
king's signet ring. (8: l0b) and sent letters by the
I
(3: l3) And letters were sent hand ofcouriers. . .
(4:3) And in
i

; (8:l l) to slaughter, slaY, and

by means of couriers . . . province,
to slaughter, slay, and destroy destroy
/all the Jews, young and old./ /the forces of every peoPle
wherever thc
and province who afflict
law reachcd'
them./ grief
/severe
together with children and together with children and
with fasting
women, women, with their ProPerty as
lamenting,
spoil.
(8: l2) on a single day, in all ashes being
on a single day,
masses./
the provinces of King Xerxes,
on
the thirteenth day of the the thirteenth day of the
twelfth month, the month of c: Counsel of
twelfth month, the month of
Adar, Fiimds
Adar. (5: 14) And l&
with their property as sPoil, and all his fri
(3 : 14) with a copy of the edict (8: l3) with a copy of the edict
l"Have a sulc
to be issued as law in each and to be issued as law in each and
bits high andi
every province, made Public every province, made Public
to all the peoples,
tell the king to
to all the peoples, Mordecii
have
that they be ready for that that the Jews be readY for that
day to take vengeance on their
Then come m
king to the fer
day.
enemies.
(3 : l5a) Then the couriers (8: l4) Then the couriers, rid-
ers of swift horses, steeds Pzr
sang, d: Hamon's N
went forth urgently at the went out urgently and hastilY (6:7) (So Har
king's command, at the king's command, theking,)..-
160
 A Mr;on Tssrur: Revr'nset

while the law was also issued and the law was also issued in
od theJews and the Fortress ofSusa.
in the Fortress of Susa.
I the governors (8: t5) Then Mordecai went
(3: l5b) And the Hng and Ha-
r of the prov- out.
man sat down to feast, . . .
lia to Nubia, And the city of Susa rejoiced
and the city of Susa was
thrown into dismaY. and was merrY.
ery province in (8: l5a) /Then Mordecai went
(4: l) Ailhen Mordecai found
out all that had haPPened, he out from the king's Presence
d every people in royal clothing of violet and
tore his garments and Put on
ua8e. . . . white, in a large golden tur'
sackcloth and ashes' And he
xe this in King ban and a cloak of linen and
went out into the midst of the
city and cried out,loud and purple./
he king's signet
bitterly./
nt letters by the
rs... (4:3) And in each and everY (8: l7) And in each and everY
hter, slay, and province and in each and ev-
province,
ery city,
rery people wherever the king's word and
wherever the king's word and
rho afHict law reached, there was
law reached, there was
/severe grief among the Jews /merriment and.ioY for the
children and
heir property as with fasting and weePing and Jews, feasting and holidaY./
lamenting, with sackcloth and
rgle day, in all ashes being spread out for the
of King Xerxes, masses./

day of the
c: Cunsel of Hamon\ Wife and c': DesPair ol Hanon\ Wife and
r, the month of
F:rimds Fricnds
(5: 14) And his wife Zeresh (6: l3b) And his advisers and
and all his friends said to him, his wife Zeresh said to him' i
copy of the edict
l"Have a stake made fiftY cu- "lfMordecai, before whom
s law in each and
bits high and in the morning you have begun to fall, reallY
e, made public
tell the king to is of theJewish race,
ples,
have Mordecai impaled on it. you will not overcome him,
be ready for that
Then come merry with the but will undoubtedlY fall be-
tngeance on their
king to the feast."/ fore him."/
the couriers, rid-
rrses, steeds pur
d: Hannnl Pride d': Haman\ Disgrace
ently and hastilY (6:7) (So Haman answered
:ommand, theking,)...
r6l
 SrnuclunEs

(6:8) "Let royal garments be (6: I l) So Haman took the The guitli
brought-ones the king has garments torical manifer
worn-andahorse.... andthehorse Nowon thed
(6:9) Have them put the and clorhed when the liq
garments on the man the king Mordecai and very day wlra
desires to honor, and have over them, ui
them set him on the horse in set him on the horse in would gain co
the city square and cry out the city square and cried out
This conceptio
before him: 'Thus shall be before him, "Thus shall be
tle: "and the n
done for the man whom the done for the man whom the
merriment and
king desires to honor!"' king desires to honor!"
ciple is also eq
The thesis-antithesis series runs through the core-drama, ment the rever
which begins in chapter 3, after the preparatory episodes, and ends Mordecai rephr
in 8: 17, just prior to the discursive concluding matters in chapters theJews recoil I

9 and 10. The battle narrative in 9: l-19 reports on the grear re- While ttre
versal but is not itself antithetical to anything that preceded. Chap- structure has a
ters I and 2 likewise report a reversal-Vashti deposed and Esther communicates
crowned-but they lack mirror passages. The effect of confining chapter XIII.
the linguistic mirroring to chapters 3-8 is to help rivet our arten-
tion to the winding and unwinding of events in the intense drama
at the heart of the narrative.
The thesis series proceeds to 6:9, at which point the antithesis
series begins. The turning point at 6: l0 is bracketed between Es-
ther's two banquets, the first of which swells Haman's pride, the
second of which crushes him. Haman ironically signals his own
downfall by determining Mordecai's reward, so that by his own
words he begins the antithesis series that holds his destruction. Ha-
man's wife and friends recognize that this is the turning point, the
beginning of his fall (6: l3).
Berg regards 4: l3- l4 as the turning point.ra Now there is no
rule that a story must have a single "turning point." If we think of
a plot-line as a curve, there can be multiple "turning points." Cer-
tainly 4:13-14 is a turning point-the crucial one in Esther's de-
velopment. But the plot takes dt.r sharpest turn in 6:10. In 4: l3-14
(and, in fact, in 4: l), the danger has been addressed, but there is
as yet no sign that it will be overcome. That sign, as Hamanl asso-
ciates recognize (6: l3), comes with Haman's humiliation.

l4.Berg p.t 10. She is followed by Nleinhold (1983b:439-41), who calls 4: l3-14.
the book's "spiritual mid-point" ("geisrige Mitte"1. He observes that 4: l3-14
comes between two fasts, the two royal edicts, and the two banquet pairs (I-II
and III-IV l=lt#l-2+Z-4 and 6-7+8-9/10 in my numberingl).

r62
 A Mr;on THrus: Rsvrls'rl

rhe his'

iSc
rne sr11di1-q,
torical manifestatton
f ;;'3;:*'J::'1,;;:ilfiffi,,'"
t
;I
Now on the thirteenth
dav or the twelrth T:l*$}H:*1*11:
I
*,1'1,*ix:*lil':Hii'T'r**;.f;liil;:1:';l
;;'ril*, things would f-:lTt"
whereas
ll'"tis"i; tont'ol over their adversanes'
:
rr^-ro-ai's en'
I again'emphasized
in Mordecai's epts-
is
lod out
This concepdon of events
for them-from misery'to
ilbc tle: "and ,ht ,.,ontt"i'i'i""t"Ea ;1o\id1v
"Pui The pnn-
" ' (9:22a)'the
tn the merrimenr r'"*'"ii'ittii'f iv *"1'ins punish-
ot"ii
r ""a
ciote is also express:J:il;;;*1

i.drarn",
Land ends
**u*hi'au,gl{r't***ffi
riH[:i': anti
:**
hc}aPters 'n' 11,[,:u';;';e or the It reflects'and
t'ut r""t"];; ;;;;;;t:
utvonat"liritiitt' ths tn
F great re- structure will examine
ilcd. ChaP
" tr"-'"Itno'f ittra'itw' We
communicattt
bd Esther
chaPter XIII'
Iconfining
!"our atten-
insc dtama

L antithesis
ictween Es-
I pride, the
ids his own
by his own
hrction. Ha-
I point, the
lithere is no
f we think of
pitts." C.r-
I Esther's ae-
I In 4: l3- l4
is
L but there
lieman's asso-
bn.

Loofft 4: 13- 14'

ts that l: l3- l1
hluet Pairs (l-Il
iringl). 163
 CHAMER VI
shown true
VASHTI motives for
naked (as if
crown), or
ment and *t
explanations
hint that she
One opinion: she was
"Wicked Vashti. . ." however, did
(R. Samucl ben Nafiiwti, in b. Mcg. 12b) They looked
her for whom
ined her to
l. Vashti's Refusal Some of
Vashti said no. This is the entirety of her direct portrayal, yet Personal
her character is an intriguing one. It is drawn in silhouette by the prohibited u
contrast between her "no" and what it negates. fused out of
Vashti is a woman of dignity, too proud ro allow herself to be her
put on display alongside other pieces of royal proprty before a her to appear r
bunch of bibulous males. She consequently loses her queenship. and Haman (h.l
Her independence and dignity are worrhy of respect. and declaring
Most modern readers would agree with this assessment, but king. He envicd
they often think they are reading against rhe texr, rhat they are sid- seeks to kill mC
ing with a character toward whom the author is unsympathetic or felt remorsc bc
even antipathetic, whom he presents as an arrogant female defying properly, and t
rightful male authority. t what was right0
Some mo&
disapproves of,V
2. Views of Vashti would have us I
Some early Jewish interpreters thought that the author of Es- reason is given I
ther (whom they identified as Mordecai) viewed Vashti with hos- not mean therc r
tility, since they themselves did so.2 They thoroughly approved of in the Bible) rm
feminine reserve, of course, but they could not believe that a gen- havior but haru
tile-the granddaughter of King Nebuchadnezzar-would have
Josephus ncueri
bornnesr b7 L
I . Seethe Excursus in chaptcr X. pp. 205- I I . of arrogeret
2. Ther views are rcprescnted in Tarr, Tar2, Est. Rab., and b. Meg. l0b, l2b. ln fault: scc H
Tar ' ( I :9) shc is called "rhc wicked qucen" and in b. Meg. lOb she is identified 4. Est. Rab. ltl l:t-
as the granddaughter of Nebuchadnezzar. According to one view in the Tal- the stable-bo7
mud (b. Meg. l2b), becausc shc had taken Israelite maidens and stripped of bringfug b
them naked she was punished by herselfbcing summoned naked. R.Jose b. you havc rul
Hanina taught that she refuscd to comc because she was leprous or bccause get her hinc.
Gabriel had made her grow a tail (ibid.). praisal of Vd

164
 Vtr.ws or VasH:'t

invented less admirable

shown true modesty' They consequently was ordered to aPPear
modves for her action' iity t'ia. i!": :1"
ll-meant wearing only the
naked (as.if "in ,r,. 'ov"i'tlo*n;' 1t'l
crown), or they
turittta from disease or disfigure-
"PirrJG;;ttt public (b' Meg' l2b)' such
ment and *",
:fiffi;;, "o"rh"'nlit;il;;;in
not
J'Lirelv ad hoc' rhe author does
"r;;;;'
*"k;;;;'di"""d
hint that she was
but on the contrary states that
(lti;;';;n opinions disdainful of Vashti'
ittt
she was beautiful or feminine pride'
however, did not fJh ffi'frr'Jito-ui."ce failing and faulted
# ttrnt;ott tii"inontror crimes thev imag'
Thev looked about
i:'Jifi;;;it;;;i;; h.' to # and
ined her to have committed'
regarded Vashti's modve to
be
Some of ,t" t"'iv'i"L"'p"tt" that Persian law
oersonal modestv Jl;t;;il,it*.ntti" utlieves

ftc fiffi til'il,'r-'iu'i"g';iJ"'dt'ti1l5'St'J*l?:;T.:J:;

for that"custom (Xl lt
ffiei"oilit..p..t,
her remonstrating ffi;;;
iJif{; Lld *ords when he ordered
lbc u"t'it of an eouation of Memuchan
her to aPPear n"rtti'i'onit't as siding with vashti
rC' and Haman (b' Mtg:'i2t'b)' ilt,.i"i;;*:tti
;irtit.3d1e3aw-is not worth harm to the
and declaring (at zt+i, and
her''and now he envies me
kine. He envied v"'iii 'nJ ntrca the king
...f. to kill me" (b' il;'ft")'
Another ooinion held that
hadacted
felr remorse u.."r,J i'"tt"#;;; iin z''rl that vashti
to
against her was contrary
oroDerlv, and that ;;;;;;
itcreed
It *rt right (Est' Rab' V 2)' the aulhor
"iSome modern commentators are convinced that that the author
Paton believes
disapproves of v"tt'ti-"nJ'it' "ttion' "merely a whim"'since no
would have us
'"ot"i''Iattt' "fuot"s
reason is given rt' #;;;;-gt"
absence of suted reasons
does
o[ "n of Esther (as usually
not mean ,t." *t"-io"t "t "ff'
Es- The author
hos- for the characters'be-
in the Bible) rarely;*t;lttf;motinadont
red of
havior but leaves i;i;; them from words and actions' Paton
la 8en- "3';;
E have
s.Joscphusnevcrthcrsssccmsto::*:T,n',1]l1[i::'r1l]1':'f"]itil]
'+lttrii[H::#:il"[.,#fi il,t*:k*lir:r'stll";'i'#':;:
\ l2b. ln
:i:r*:u:x:;f,';b:f,l'-$l
i"uft; tJ. Feldman 1970: I
ilentified 4. ..,l"iilT'iiliTi:i:1h'::'.irltr,l:'*1,51ff l5';.',1;iil;'"ff
*fr:1f.1",'J.iHlti'i:iilili:"n'.1*h':Ll
fathers (bclsnazz'r t' 'rvu+' -"-16,
r rhe Tal- ,ff
the l;""',1-*;
stable'boy :1 my
of h""a come to rulc
I sipped liiuil"sr"s'l'*iir"vou*r'1-h-'lli:;.':1lq:Ti[#:.;;:;';r";;',.ap'
l. Josc b. :I 'l;Jl;;"';rrilJ:il:,i$#.$Tr;:
;[,oH*"f"','''.il':dffiTfi this svmpathetic
r bccausc H Hilli:':l
of Vashti's
fi'#T;:i:i"i;;:r"'
motives'
"'i'r'
fraisal

165
 Vnsn rr

finds another sign of the aulhor\ hostility in the phrase "conveyed ra

One
by the eunuchs" (l:12); this supposedly shows that the summons to avoiddrai
was conveyed in a proper, formal way and thereby heightens the expense of ft
disrespect of Vashti's refusal. But the formality of the summons is women-and t

actually just another instance of the puffery and pomposity of the will. Dispropo
c6urt, with which the author is surely not enthralled. for example, d
A common view (held, for example, by Bardtke) is that the come at the I
author is uninteresteC in Vashti and therefore implies no ethical would not rho
evaluation of her action. Gunkel thinks that the narrator's silence the text's silcu
shows indifference to Vashti's [ate, and that he was interested in reader will gir
Vashtionly as a device for vacating the queenship for Esther. Simi- did not deper
larly, Moore and Gerleman say that the motive of Vashti's act re' ward Vashti,li
sides in the author\ need to vacate the gueenship. Undoubtedly the the conflict.
episode does prepare the way for the central drama, but if that An autho
were its only function, a compressed summary of events would persons in thc
have been sufficient. The author has chosen a more expansive be suggestive o
opening to prepare the stage thematically, in ways discussed in the This is becausr
Commentary (see the remarks on Act I scene ii). The scene sets the ters into a ool
arena in which Esther will have to operate and exposes in particular by the pres$rr
the discomfort that the king and the noblemen feel before women 6gure, even rl
of independent will. tion, alter the I
Hence we can I
3. Evaluation in Objective Narration acters to whoo
and correspoc
Does the author really leave us completely in the dark in re-
gard to Vashti's motivations and moral quality? lf so, that is the end
of the matter, and Vashti's character is truly indeterminate and we 4. Vashti rr
cannot discuss it. There is no "it"; there is not even something that The 6rst e
can be called ambiguous or vague. I believe, however, that she does of the banquct
have a character, which the author reveals in ways other than state-
the character o
ment. 'fhere is, of course, much we are not told and cannot know of her action-
about her, as is the case with any person, in real life as well as in goers-all thc
fiction. But something of her character is both determined and herself-she sl
evaluated. least-or espa
The narrator's formally objective stance, which eschews explicit
the other prog
evaluation of the people in the story, does not show neutrality, and
emerges from t

certainly not ill will, toward Vashti. After all, prior to the last two
verses of the book, Mordecai is not explicitly evaluated either, and
and the princ
by then we have learned how to view him. Esther is never explicitly
judged. 'I'hus the objective viewpoint does not in itself mean that 5. Phelan (198&t
the author had no opinion of Vashti. shows hor
function.

166
 VesHrt eNo rnr. Mrx

'conveyed modves may be

One reason for the author's silence on Vashti's
minor character at the
summons to avoid drawing too much attention to a
namely the fate of
the expnse of the ..n,t i ittue in ttris chapter'
cross the
king's
$rmmons rs women-and not n...tt"tity only women-who
would result if'
rcsity of the will. DisproportionatJli*nJion to that character
Vashti refused to
for example, the nariatoihal '"ia' "But Queen
is that the come at the king's ;; ;;rt-J uy thi eunuchs' because she
would not show herself before iht ttn at the
no ethical banquet'"
ll-t:t:d'
silence ir,. sitence effects a sort or closure, ,,:;t;:,sr?ir:rt',lljl'il"t::
,*,f
interested in reader will give this character' The consequ
Esther. Simi- ffi;, J;P?nd on r,., *oti"t' whatevei theauthor's:1:1t-t*
the bare presentation of
act re- ward Vashti, his evaluation i, ,.condary to
the the conflict.
, but if that are,apPlicable to all
An author creates norms and values that can
cvents would ourro., in the text. Even a scanty Presentation of a character toward it.
expansrve [.,i,,..*;ffirg- e1r"tr,; and the aurhor's
atrirude
but en'
in the it i, iJu.."use a liteiary hgutl does not exist in
isolation'
ters into a complex n.*-[ of
scene sets the relations with others and is shaped
of one
bv the Dressure of tn.it i,"!es'
in particular The actions and experiences
outcome of the main ac-
women ;'s#.,".r:";;;;;;;"iiot affect oftheother' parallel characters'5
don, alter the reader'i unatttt"naing
by p.airi1g her with the char-
Hence we can una.rrt*a V"st'ti oniy
(thl m5n-ojtlre court)
acters to whom ,t. it *iit"posed by'contiict
and correspondence (isttrer)' Ttre t'n be said of Esther'
dark in re- '"*t
rhat is the end
inate and we 4. Vashti and the Men
Jomething that The nature
The first clash is with Xerxes and his underlingp' with
togethcr
of the banqueting a *ttitt' Vashti refuses to
!r, that she does come
lher than state- the character of the noblemen she enrages constitute ""
t"11'-t::
ld cannot know Iin.'. ".ii"i,. i;;;;;*ht ff1
to exhib.it h3r to T": :-f
"
ife as well as in ;;FJ"t
goers-all the men ur refSi3q:-":.*:":,'.#:
::
hermined and f,Ii.,r:in.'.t r*r',t'",-tr* aioppt*.t of bJing Put 9l diP]:11,11
i:'":i=;;;i;r';;r.*E'v-":.T'o:'-':.:'.::::*ill;:
cschews explicit
r neutrality, and
llffi ;;;fi ",':*1,::*i""nT:';;ffi,,11}il:J;i,?$
r 1o the last two
...r*.t f-t i tt i way she is made the victi
emerges
and the Princes' insecuritY'
eted either, and
inever explicitly
of lndirect AffectiveRelcvancc and
itself mean that 5. Phelan (1989:56) calls this the. principlc of a character's thcmatic
shows how it ."" ut'u-J iri the toregrounding
function.

167
 Vasx-rr

Xerxes' quarrel with Vashti is quickly blown up into sexual royal diadem I

politics on an imperial scale. Memuchan believes that Vashti's ac- true status, -
tion will set a bad example for all the wives in the empire, making Vashti &
them contemptuous and recalcitrant. His advice creates the very too is signifitz
.hullabaloo he had wanted to squelch and prevents Vashti from do- resembles Mo
ing precisely what she had refused to do. Only if this is the implied no excuss th
author taking on Memuchan as his persona and speaking through versely, Xerr
him straight-faced can we conclude that the author, too, views Haman's rea
Vashti's refusal as an impudent violation of female propriety. But words for aq!
surely the author is smirking at this spokesman for the wise men of Mordecai or )
Persia-for his pomposity, his hysterical interpretation of a trivial thor attributc
incident, his nervous concern about female powers, and his self- ated with som
defeating "wisdom."
Xerxes, as we quickly learn, is weak-willed, fickle, and self-cen-
tered. He and his advisers are a twittery, silly-headed, cowardly lot 5. Vashti u
who need to hide behind a law to reinforce their status in their Vashti b
homes. (Persian machismo caught the attention of Herodotus [IX
trasts with Eg
107], who says that "to call a man'worse than a woman'is of course,
tion whose o
the greatest insult one can offer a Persian.") They fabricate a crisis
at Memucha
out of nothing and come up with a proposal that throws the spot- Vashti (l:l9F
light on their own embarrassment. The author makes Vashti shine r
one who is
by the contrast, though perhaps he is motivated less by respect for
matching of I
Vashti than scorn for the gentile nobility. The satirizing of the
who insists q
nobility can only redound to the credit of the person whom they
But these linl
opPose.
praise the oth
Vashti's indignation is probably motivated by sense of rank
by this standa
rather than any protofeminist ideals. She is, after all, the queen,
Esther is r
not a mere concubine to be toyed with. Persian wives could be pres-
and ductility I
nt at banquets (Neh 2:6) but would leave before the drinking. At
king to her wi
Belshazzar's banquet, only harem women and concubines are pres-
Vashti is an e
ent (Dan 5:2) until the queen comes in especially to see the writing
stration of th
on the wall (5: l0). There were thus circumstances where it was im-
self-assertion,
proper for women of rank to be present. In Esther l, not merely
simply not th
the drinking bout but the entire banquet was segregated. By ap-
not choose d
pearing before males, including commoners-especially when the
massive and tr
king himself "was lightheaded with wine"-Vashti would be behav-
to be bruised,
ing like a mere concubine.6 -fhe king's insistence that she wear the
path toward o
be up againsc
6. This explanation is based on Bickerman 1967: 185-86,
subordination
earlier decisb

168
 VesHTt exo EsrHgr

calling attention to her

up into sexual roval diadem heightens the degradation.by
use of the title "Qutgnj '
Vashti's ac- lr#;;t,'"t a.E it't
"pt"tti "
ire, making Vashti does not -i irrytt'i"g on her own behalf' This silence
verbosity' Her taciturnity
the very too is significant as " iJ'it to Meriuchan's
refyyl an order from above with
Vashti from do- resembles Mordecai's, '"-t'o "ft"
the consequences (3:2)' Con-
b is the implied no excuses that mighi tttip tti' avoid
t'is di gnity is paralleled
ing through versely, Xerxes' *,"tn''i' Ittt' "irtt"it" -by
, too, vlews Haman'sreacdontot-treatfrontMordecaidelivers;eventhesame
not mean that Vashti is another
propriety. But words for anger are used' This does
but it does show that the au-
the wise men of Mordecai or Xerxes;;;;htt H;man'
that is elsewhere associ'
of a trivial thor attribu,.r,o v"'t"i;';P;;iliavior
, and his self- ated with some clear sYmPathies'

and self-cen-
pded, cowardly lot 5. Vashti and Esther
Vashti's recalcitrance con-
ir status in their Vashti is a counterpart of Esther'
comes into Vashti's place' a sta-
lf Herodotus [IX .,as., ;i; Esther's docitity. Esther
demonstrated' Xenres will'
man'is of course, don whose .onr,r"intfv"li Jtt*a' "a
who will be "better than"
7 fabricate a crisis at Memuchan's advice, seek a woman
standards that can only mean
I throws the spot- Vashti (l:19)-and iy'f'ftrn"ttan's
herself to her husband' The
nles Vashti shine one who is willing;i ;il;J;;;e
lcso by respect for come when bidden' and Esther'
matching of Vashti,.who refuses to
satirizing of the is certainly' deliberate'
: who insists or, .orn'nfir't'lrt '"t bidden'
erson whom they ii", ,t"t. rrnks and t6nt"'ti do not t'p:?:;t;:i*g:il:X:
;;;;; other' It is the Persian men wh
by sense of rank their norms are not the author's'
er all, the queen,
il.il;;il"J',ta
Esther is contraposed to Vashti not
only-in her initial obedience
of her'later effo13 to sw_a_y.the
ives could be pres- and ductility Urt Ar5"i.,",-fr. ,riii.iy
not moral but pracdcal'
e the drinking. At king to her will. mI ":<it "f t"tpJry'.is as well as a demon-
to do thincs'
ncubines are pres- Vashti is an examp;;f-i;; "t
'to see the writing stration of the d'ng"il ;i;";;i;; "i""r "t
*'' t'ing' Her blatant
in the abstract' is
self-assertion, whetirer or not it
s where it was im- is praisworthy
her l, not merely simply not the *"r't-o- t" il;
it ir't Persian court; the men do
many egos' includttg,-:l:
egregated. By
"P- not choose ,r,", "pi'o?ch eith"er' Too just watung
ryecially when the massive t.nat'Lnt of tnt king himself' are there the straight
to be bruised, and ;;;;y ;s-aid regulations
ti would be behav- "rrd block
epiide shows what Esther will
'that she wear the oath toward or,.t gllt' Ttitv"st'ti who demands
wiil ora king
[:T#;il;'",#;";';';;;;;; is himself subordinated to
his
subordination rc ni-s wiii-;;ilh"
earlier decisions'
 VesHrl

Vashti's fate was not a disaster; one might consider her re-
warded by being forbidden to come where she had refused to go.
But Esther does not have the Iuxury of standing on her dignity.
Had Vashti's fate befallen her, her people would have perished.
Vashti's example thus provides something of a justification for Es-
ther's pliancy in her early years and for the obliquity and manipu-
lativeness of her later actions.

l. ASouPr
Xerxes i
Haman scher
decai takes p
age, and der
Xen<es havin
consists of a
dangerous &
portrayal ofa
its sway.
Like Ha
posed. But t
simple statctr
formed tharl
(2: la; 7: lOt
loved and h
man's, are rE
surface. Hb 1
His princes (t
his queen (d
his moods al
and he has n
soul is adcg
states,whirfi

l. Rabdedts
fint. bcte
170
 her re-
to 8o. CHATTER VII
dignity.
perished. XERXES
for Es-
manipu-

One oPinion:
"He was a clever king"'
(Rab,inb. Mcg' l2at)

l. A Soul's Surface
have private^:T:$llt'
Xerxes is all surface' Other characters
g"man ,chemes, broods, and fantasizes his own glorihcauon; Mor'
cour'
;;;t.k;;fr..r,r,ioit and makes plans; Esther fears' takes
But it is hard to imagine
age, and devises a st;;;1;;.;*t' th."ra:*t
any th;;-gfiunot obvious to anyone'-His
Xen<es having-f.* his most
.r"rir,, ,f " tUrio""t moods and impulses. Indeed,
;;;;; n"* i, t it'I"ir,,t-t" tt'inrt' rnit adds upto living under
to a damning
author resigned
portrayal of autocracy;;;;; by an
its swaJ' soul is
Haman-and unlike the two Jews-Xenes' work-just 'ex'
,o-ul tk.. little
posed. But the ..dil;X.o..,
and anqers' We are in-
simple statements o'-ttn"t'""ted pleasures
:::':H'$:
[;r},lru;imn*flil5iiifl;*ll-ff
loved and favored rtit'ti ti: l7a)' Xerxes' thoughts'--u.nlite fa'
arl all easily available on the
man's, are never directly quoted; the-1.

ti?fi "Ilir"'lils,:';ffi {i'{J$ffiI5J'qi:,fl ir;

to ut"a him to their wills' for
his queen (chaps. 5-il;;ii;ti;
motivl;;;; who must live by them'
;;t's to.all
his moods and
andhehasnodeeperresourcestoresist.theirblandishmens.His
soul is adequately ;;J'illt-rlt
derription of his mental
,i",.r, which rno,tfy a collection of impulscs'
"r.
from rhc facr du
l. Rab deduces Xenres' clcverness
tii"i'iir* ilitlfi;iiil
first, bccausc ttt
whenever he wishcd'

'usans
l7l
 Xr,nxes

Haman out of s
2. Showing Honor Iews' side, he a
'apparently mat
The first among his impulses is an obsession with honor
(y'qar\-more precise"ly, with t'he display of honor' We see this im- fer to do whata
i"it.'i" "r, "pirr.ttly extraneo,rs sctt e. at the start of the book' in Mordecai flaue
it i.t he flaunts his glorious wealth and "honor" to the endre em- saying that he;
pire, inviting noblem-en and officials from all over Persia, and even don: "Let lhe e
ih. .o-*oiers of Susa, to admire the spectacle of wealth and upon his own h
extravagance.
Vairti's refusal hits him ar the worst time, just when he is put-
ting his honor on display. The offense is a deep one, for the.Persian 4. AuthoritY
.o,i.t .on..ives of honor not only as ostentatious wealth, but also The Parad
as the ability to consrrain obedience, as Memuchan demonstrates honor and autl
by equating wifely obedience as "showing honol ly'qa'lto their.hus-
that the will ol
ba.ds" (t:iO). Xemes does not simply order Vashti dragged in. It (3: l2), and fin
i, ,ro, .norgh for him to control hir body; he must be m.aster of ThoughX
her will ri.tt. Having her brought by force might prove his mas- he is surPrisinl
"r but not hiJpowet at a *at ' That can only be confrrmed
tery as king no. The closcg
Uy irir wifeierself, and for this she needs at least ostensive freedom
cannot rescind
oi will. Similarly, the princes insist not merely that wives be.forced grants Mordec
to obey their husbands, but that they siour honor to them (l:20)' his signet ring
Power itself does not fill the need; men need a show of honor from
(8:8). Earlier I
their wives, like kings from their subjects, for they are always read-
(3: l0). ln botl
ing their images iriother people's eyes. This need is what allows
blanche, for tl
pe-ople of lessir Powers to manipulate the cumbersome juggernaut
the king's own
of tiate. Haman roo will prod Xerxes' sensitive ego. He will claim tha
make laws
that the unnamed people are insubordinate, that they "do lolgbty
avoids resPolr
the laws of the king" 13:8). Later, an imagined outrage to the kingl
to do or write
masculine honor will facilitate Haman's execution'
decision is tlx
Haman and U
3. Showing CrenerositY decrees are o0
Thus tltc
Xerxes tries to buy honor by ostentatious generosity. His mara-
bility and sur
thon banquets lavish hospitality uPon those who come to witness
press the ritt
his glory. At Esther's coronation, he gives gifts and ordains t1x re-
for his author
liefi2, i8;. D.-onsrrarive generosity accompanies his munificent
grant to Haman, whom he ielts (insincerely) to keep the money and
io .,do as you please" with the people. The same impulse inspires
him twice to off.r half his kingdom to Esther. And after he be- 5. The Sint
comes, willy-nilly, the prorector of the 3etns, he flatters himself with Xerxes b
that image, claiming-and probably believing-that he executed people can 8l

t72
 THs SrN or LezlNess

Haman out of solicitude for the Jews (8: 7)' Then'

havl|g taken the
i.*r; ,ia., he admires their success at arms (9: l2)' Their success
honor '";;;ril;;ilhil feel expansive, for he repeaa.his clichdd of-
retrospect'
rhis im- iJi. a,,i,f,atever Esther wishes (9: l2). In an historical
of {e Jews by
book, in Mordecai flatters the king's self-image as Protector
with the declara-
em- savins that he pronoun..? judgmen-t on Haman
even
and
il;;?;il;e.;i;til",'r,.
(9:25)
ior-.d against the Jews recoil back
upon his own head"

is put-
Persian 4. Authority and lrresponsibility
but also about his
The paradoxical consequ:n:9 oi.Xe.ntes' nervousness
generosity' is
hus- honor anh authori,y, *up[a with his demonstrative
th t tne will of ott it" beiomes law: Memuchanl (l :21)' Haman's
master of (3: l2), and finally, Mordecai's and Esther's (8:9)'
'- it o,rgt Xen<es is obsessed with the manifestation of authority, :

his mas-
Xentes na'd sats
he is s,rrpf;singly indifferent to its actual exercise'
protess that he
no. The closest rr. .or.t to a refusal is when he
freedom
be forced cannot rescind his ; J.t"t (8:7-8)-but then he immediately
consigning.to them
(l:20). rono Mordecai and Esther royal authority by they wish
from f,[:i;;;,"rt* "J ..po",ering them ro write wharever o"t,
read- 6l il:;;;lt;;ie had handed tlie same Prerogative concession' a
::.I'-T"n
veritable carte
an amazing
allows ii, itil. tn both cases, not merely a-token of vizierial of6ce' but
this is
juggernaut -li"lt"*r,
;1";;h., for the sigr,ei is
to
lc will claim ,i. ,ingl and it confers near-roval",'lpTt^:T right
In both cases, xerxes
do not obey make liws that wi[constrain the king himself.
r.tponsibility for the to"seqt'ence by te.lling tlt-:-T:,Pi:t"
o the king's ;prc"t eyes")'The
"roiJ"
to do or write as,n.f " (tit',"'as is good ! Your
both
decision is theirs; l" it;"tt being a nice !-uy' Conseguently'
into law; but both
Haman and Mordecai cin write tf,eir comirands
;;;t are officially "the word of the king" (3: l5;.8:
_---Th,,theall.powerfulXentesinpracticeabdicatesresPonst. l4)'
His mara-
7.
bilit;J ,rrr.nd.r, effective P"y:tjo thosc who know how to
e to witness
pt Jt ,n. right button.-n"-t[y, love of "honor"' his anxiety
his
hins tax re-
muni6cent ior his authority, and his desire to aPPear generous'
:money and
rlse inspires
rfter he be- 5. The Sin of Laziness
limself with thought' so
Xerxes is lazy. He does not like to spend.energyon
re executed for him' Although
p.d;;;; g., ,[.it *rv by doing his thinking

t73
 Xenxes

Wisdom Literature praises the value of counsel,2 Xerxes' need to recogrutlon ut:rG
seek advice in all situations and his alacrity in following it without
it is a misreadin4
discussion are suggestive of a man not fond of thinking for himself. was no one-timc
His only independent decisions are to allocate power to oth- ceived. Although
ers-Haman (3 : l, l0) and Mordecai and Esther (8:2, 8). In other xes knew what h
casei, his subordinates step forward to exploit his moods-anger Xerxes' agreelnct
(l : I2* l6; 7: 7-9), melancholy (2 : I -2), or expansiveness (7 :2-3; qualities before a
9: l2- l3)-by feeding him ideas that he can simply accept. his impulsive ger
Memuchan agitates the king by blowing up a marital spat into cation of thought
national crisis, then tells him how to deal with it (l : 16-20). Later,
canonical Esther,
Xerxes' servants steer his thoughts away from Vashti and toward
that he did anytl
a new wife (2:l-4a). Like Memuchan, Haman first creates a tricked (Hamanb
dilemma and then, without pause, appends a simple solution (3:
do not seem to r
8-9). Harbona channels Xerxes'rage and confusion by calling his threaten his qua
attention to the stake Haman had erected, thereby providing a
and he condemr
quick and easy way to eliminate the immediate cause of the king's
He agrees to the
vexation (7:9). (lf Harbona had told him what Haman was actu-
the hands ofJori
atly doing at the queen's couch, the counter-plot might have fizzled
is wrong to extirp
while the king tried to sort out the conflicting obligations he had
Xerxes is no
taken upon himself.s) Esther, strangely, is not quite so helpful.
ing-such powcr,
In her second banquet, she just lays the dilemma before the king, His foggy indiffa
who promptly runs out of the room. In her audience afterwards
He had not even
(8:3-5), she begs him to undo Haman's evil by rescinding the
destruction. The
edict-a forthright and difficult solution-to which Xerxes answers
is his sitting dowr
that he has done all he can and dumps the matter in Mordecai's and
decree is publish
Esther's hands.
little impression d
It is a feature of his laziness that Xerxes acts without quite he does not evcn
knowing what he is getting himself into; he does not bother with
was issued, for h
inquiries. This is the case in his decision to destroy the Jews, in his
acceptance of Esther's invitations, in his unintended humiliation of
engineering of g
does the death o
Haman in chapter 6, and in his judgment of Haman in chapter 7.
strike him as:rnyt
A later addition in the Septuagint (Addition E) recognizes that
One expeost
the king's intellectual laziness made the entire fiasco possible. [n a
nocide to be a u
proclamation canceling the first edict, the king insists that he had
animosity that ry
been deceived and promises to give no attention to slander in the
comprehensiblcd
future but instead to investigate matters more fully (E 8-9). This
to his actions; tht
not by hatred, h
2. E.g., Prov I I: l4l 24:6: 19:20:8:14. cupidity. This q
3. Harbona! intervention is thus more valuable than it might seem at first. It is what Hanna Aru
appropriately recognized in a special blessing alier the reading of the Scroll
at Purim. in accordance with Est. Rab. X 9.
terdependence d
was referring torl

t74
 THr StN or LlztNess

red to recosnidon is accurate but the rePentance is unconvincing'

because
to Haman
rithout ffit";;;;ilnl of X.o.s' chiracter. His
nor
concession
was Xentes entirely-de'
*", no on.+ime"stip of attentiveness; full lies, xer-
to oth- ;il. Although Haman had warped half-truths into
In other a to destroy'
xes knew what he ,r", doing-giving Haman ryoP\
was fully of a piece wltn nN
Xerxes' agreement to Hamant iequest
incident: his fear for his aurhoritv,
;;;iilB;ior. g.n.t*iii,
"na "ii.r-ir,",
f,ii-'n"fft"Uility' and' above all' his aMi'
his impulsiv.
for such things' Inrhe
sPat rnto cation of thought to those with more energy
even seem aware'
L:ter, a"no"ia"f Esth"er, Xerxes never does admit' or
toward i["i t . aia anything wrong' He does rot evenheclaim that he was
loses Power' they
creates a tricked (Haman's [eJ are nine' reft'ttd; once
hrtion (3: i.*tt
do not seem to rn",,.r). is indignant that someone would
alling his i;;i, ;;h"f intiit',t"lly'
threaren his queen's ltt,ry-:q:P.l:n'
to violate hi:Jlfe'
widing a and he condemns H;;; f;;"PP'rently segkils
the king's himseli lnto
to the counter-decttt bet"lse he has Put
H.
ras actu- the "gt..t
hands of Jewish;;i;t;t' Not a glimmer of recognition that it
rve frzzled is wrong to extirPate a PegPle'
m he had Xentes i, not p"itl'ilny tt"t,but he is nonetheless terrify-
in its employment'
o helpful. i.g-J.h P"*"r, *'i h so little thougit invested this lazines'
r the king,
iiil rrsg, iirain r.n.. io iirt it ti'p"-ll the caPstone.of
he is consignln-g to
rfterwards ff. t even bothered to ask wtrictr people
nding the "i'"", The offhand quality of his agreement
a.r,-.,i.t. is grotesque' as
cs answers
i, ti, .itting ao*'n ,o-i."tt *itt' H"an right f:l ry-.Tyderous
lecai's and tnt capiat throwi,into
decree is published
",,J extermination order -*:T-1^1';,'j);'t"
rcut quite
li,d.l;dtsion ao.,ir,. rykt:go1 .Tii*
few days after the-edict
he does not even ...rii-,ftt inciaent only a
other with was issued, for he *r'o had done such a thing' as if the
ervs, in his "tf"-ilir"i in his t-pit:'-I"t
engineering of genocide were a commonplace
riliation of ;.;;',h. ;?arh'of -iira, .i p.rsians in the consequent batdes
hapter 7. s-Pectadl'
gnizes that
;;i[.;i^
-- as anyttrini other than an interesting
a crime as horrendous at 8e-
One.*p..t theiorce motivadng
sible. In a vast tribal and personal
nocide to be a ln"Intnotft-"nt, such Is the
rat he had
animosity tt ,p,rri.J Haman' In this r.egard'
.Haman ! 1ye
der in the comorehensible "t thai i.ot'' Haman's motiv'i' at least' correspond
B-9). This t"J'il['il;t;;h. ktil h"' no "thand motives' His decision is driven
not hv hatred. Uut Uv" indolence, reinforced by egotism and
l,il,iir. ii*'.".uii"tl* oipt"v impulscs and mental sloth is
r at first. lt is whatHann"e,.not-."tt.a.t}rebanalityofevil''-..thestrangein.
(1963:233). Arendt
g of the Scroll terdependence of ,'h."dd;".r, "nd evil"
ff;f.,,i,,s i" Aa;lph'ii.tr..nn, the chief buraucrat of the Ho'
175
 Xrnxrs

Iocaust, whose evil was of quite a different sort-more deliberate, society dePendent
conscious, and determined than Xerxes'. But it is important to re- vision a better sai
alize that the concept applies not only ro the initiators and PerPe- mock it bY careful t
rrar,ors of iniquity but also ro rhose who facilitate it by aSreement The decisionr
and passivity.'"Wi.kedness," Arendt argued in a later work, "may sonal influence, in
be caused by absence ofthought" (1978: I3). system is so rigid I

Haman is a given; he ii always lurking in the background, vicious of laws til

awaiting the oppJrtunity to pour his malice uPon th-Jews;.the orovide true law a
questioi is whitirer tre willbe allowed to have his way. Most rulers, i'ersians and thc I
iionly from simple self-interest, have not given him fr-ee rein; Xer- Daniel, but itdo
xes did. As Arendt wrires, "such remoreness from reality and such are up against a u
thoughdessness can wreak more havoc than all the evil instincts and custom that !
takeitogether which, perhaps, are inherent in man'(1978: l3)' and alwaYs inert r
tice. ClearlY, Jc*r
tence, but must' 5
6. King and Kingdom their own en&-
That, however, is my evaluation' not the author's' Neither the
narrator nor the Jews in the story condemns Xerxes or even seems
to resenr his indifference [o their existence. Xenes is a lumpish,
indifferent mass, not inherently vicious, not anti-Jewish, but erratic,
childish, apathetic, and pliable. In this exemplary tale, in which the
Persecutoi of the Jews is a man of second rank, Xerxes is the
epitome of the gentile king, and, as such, he embodies the Power
oi the genrile stite. h is a sivere, if unintended, indictment of that
state that the author does not condemn the king as evil, does not
use him as an example of a wicked king, but merely snick-
ers-quietly-at his doltishness and egotism. Beneath the voice
that lavishes admiration on the king's wealth and (in 9:25) flatters
him for his solicitude toward the Jews, we hear another one' more
subtle and insidious, which by iot denouncing his behavior-by
raking it for granted that a despot will be of this sort-damns gen-
tite rile as siarcely worrhy of contempt. How frightening, it says,
..friends" are of this sort; how tenuous our security when
that our
it rests upon rhe fickleness and moral obtuseness of heathen power!
But that is what we must live with.
The author does not expecr any better of a gentile king. while
some of the Persian n onarchs can be credited with at least declar-
ing ethical concerns, few were the kings of the Hellenistic kingdoms
*f,o ,n"r."nted higher expectations. Rulers like the Xen<es of Es-
rher were a fact oI tife; they constitured the world through which
realizes the perils of a
Jews had ro make their way. The author

176
 KIxc rNo KtNcoora

he does not en-

deliberate, society dependent on such a dangerous man, but
to
;iti." dt,., society or criticizJ the one he describes' excePt
and perpe- mock it" by careful satire.
-----it
agreement . iecisions of rhe gentile state ar made on the basis of per'
The legal
work, "may sonal influence, irrarionai impulscs, and sclfish desires.
;;rj.- is so risrd that it ."i.t the most whimsical and the most
it not even
background, ;i;;t of laws"binding even upon the kin-g,- ye1 does
system ol the
Jews; the provide true law and order. The concept of the legal
known only fiom Fsther and
Most rulers, Persians and the Medes is a fiction
perceived by theJews:.tney
rein; Xer- Daniel, but it does rePresent a reality as
laws'
y and such ,rp'ag"inr, ,"rrire, foreign structure of administration'
evil instincts "re Jrtti. "
that is often puzzl-ing, unpredictable' and d11ger9us'
(1978: l3). "r,a
il il; inert ""a indiiTerent"to human needs and higher jus-
their exis-
iice. Ctearty, Jews cannot rely on such a state to ensure
*., but ,,,ist, like all the oiher subjects, manipulate its power for
their own ends.
Neither the
or even seems
is a lumpish,
bh, but erratic,
in which the
Xerxes is the
pdies the power
ilictment of that
E evil, does not
i merely snick-
math the voice
ftr 9:25) flatters
ilher one, more
is behavior-by
n-damns gen-
;htening, it says,
rr security when
lheathen power!

ntile king. While

h at least declar-
enistic kingdoms
[e Xerxes of Es-
I through which
r the perils of a

t77
 CHAPTER VIII
(6: l-ll) ra
HAMAN be the man d
Haman mist
ingly, the au
ment of his d
been; and tt
the intensity
Haman'l
l. Haman's Transparency Mordecai's n
Devious though he is, Haman is allowed no mysteries' His-mo- cai's action: l

tives, drives, and aititudes are transparent, his twisted soul laid bare engenders. I
to all. None of his motives are obscured, and little is left for the No othr
reader to wonder about. Evil, the author seems to say, is really quite such direct,
simple and obvious, however sneaky the evil man may be and how- the personal
evei subtle he may fancy himself. To demonsrrate this, the author theirs must I
subjects Haman to special rreatmentt he exposes his thoughts to Haman's is r
public view. tween Hatru
Robert Alter ( 198 I , chap. 6) has shown the importance of the deliberatelYr
interplay of opacity and transparency in the David story, in which squalid soul
Sault ttroughis and feelings are revealed, David's hidden. There is
a similar inierplay-with viry different effects-in the portrayal of l. flamen'
Haman and Mordecai.
We are repeatedly informed of Haman's emotions: Haman What is
"was filled with wrath" (3:5b). "Haman went out that day merry primary mu
and lighthearted. But when he saw Mordecai . . . Haman was filled he hardly h
with irath against [him]" (5:9); "But Haman controlled himself" splenetic, bu
-
(5:l0a); "Th-e idea pleased Haman" (5:l4b). "Haman hastened Haman
home in grief, his head covered" (6: l2b); "And Haman shook in sance, in od
terror beiore the king and the queen" (7:6b); "At this word from tion. Hama
the king's mouth, Haman was humiliated" [?] (7:8b). His percep- individual w
tions too are revealed: Haman "saw that the king was bent on his Moreover, u
ruin" (7:7b). Even the nuances of his calculations are bared: "But fine the sco;
he thought it beneath himself to strike out at Mordecai alone' ' ' ' one PersoL
So Hamln sought . . ." (3:6). His thoughts are even quole{ verba- people to r
tim: "And Haman thought to himself,'Now whom could the king this total rcr
desire to honor more than me?"' (6:6b;. After E
In addition to the various explicit revelations of Haman's tion, Hamar
thoughts, two scenes are devoted largely to exposing the way- his Mordecaicr
minJworks. In 5:9-14, Haman displays his bloated pride and his that the pm
obsession with Mordecai's lack of deference. The following scene it does not t

178
 HtMAx's Mortvrs

(6: that he alone can

l-ll) reveals Haman's prideful assumptiontells us exacdy how
ir,t. 'n'r" the king.".rciJno"or. The author in ir. Interest-
H;;" mistook th-e king's intendon and delighred at the mo-
h;il, ;;;hor refraini from looking within Haman
must have
feelings
mErii or rris disgrace. tt is obvious what-Haman's
dumbfounded shock and leaves
il.."; the lilencssu8Sests his
""a
---- intensity of that feeling to the readerl.imaginauon'
the
ft"rn"rrt motives are"e'ety*here laid bare' His reacdon 'to
refusal ,o-bo* i"n,oie clearly motivated than is Morde-
Mordecai,s
and the hostility this
His mo- cai's action: Haman it ti.ffy ativen by'pride
laid bare ;;;;;. i. .*..1t only'in the magnitude of his drives'
for the No other .t not evn i.o.t, are ev.r subjetcted. to
aily qurte
"o.t.*,
such direct, deep, and extensive elPgsury'
This is not to say that
that
and how- ilr*;;;ui#of trre o,t.r. are hidden from view, but rather
and speech' while
the author theirs must u. .orrrt*.iJmainly from actions
The-contr:rst b.-
to ii'"i""t it-t vealed di;;A)'"nd 'n"mbiguously'
tweenHamanandtheothercharactersshows'thattheauthoris
on' the
J.ii*t"r.ry.n-tittji".*"'int, and to throw a hanh light
of the
, in which squalid soul of the antisemiie'
There is
portrayal of 2. Haman's Motives
: Haman what is revealed in all this is a vast and tender ego' -Haman's
pri_"ry .otivadon i, t i, is neither racial hatred, though
day merry ".,i"ns
"ir though he is certainly
was filled [.l"tiry r".r. tr,it, ""t ,iai'"ctta -spleen' power at every steP'
r"f.n.ti., rather the need to confirm his
himself"
hastened
'!"''il;;; butt;.onl; ;;;;'J bv Mordecai's iefusal to show obei'
shook in ,""..,i. o,-t., **at,io?ottnr- publicly Haman's Power and-sta'
alone. one
is word from don. Haman ao.r'noi ,..r ,o' punisii Mordecaimassive rage'
individual would Ue a,,inadeq'"tt tt'gtt for
Haman's
). His percep-
be to allow ftim to de-
s bent on his Moreover, merely fi;;ith il;rdecafwould
e bared: "But ;;;;;" t;.pe of the ionflict: one Pcnlon punished rgt "1, iT-!1ll
embracing the enttre
mi alone.... ;;; ;^""]so H"^",t deviscs a 'engca"te he has set
quoted verba- which rvr"taLi bclolE' w=hen Haman feels
;;fr; ;"revenge int*orable coursc' he takes his easc.(3: l5)'
nuld the king this total on
invita-
Aftcr Esthet't i;"n U""lutt, and flattered by a
second
devasated to find that
don, Haman leaves;; ;;ilt brrt
mgTy' is
s of Haman's
(5:9). Haman has discovered
rg the way his Mordecai even now Jo.r'rro, fear him for
pride and his that the prodigious;G;;;;; ht h.' l" siore is not adequarc' not
tllowing scene ii-l*t tL, *Jrr. trim irre personal victory he needs' He has

179
 HnueN

forced Mordecai to recognize his power. Nor is Mordecai's impend- in his revenge o
ing death a sufficient personal triumph for Haman, because theJew Mordecai is not
can still withhold fear and thus trivialize the power Haman does an Amalekite, tl
have. (Compare Xerxes' need for Vashti's inner acquiescence to his Haman, for his
command.) If Mordecai continues to defy him for the next eleven edict, which is r
months, his defrance will endure as a victory that mere murder can- present conflict
not expunge. Haman's domination must be absolute and it must be their part, do n
universally recognized, otherwise he cannot believe in it himself. enemies, who a
Haman is devoured by this obsession with control. Such an ob- In fact, Ha
session is a single, ineradicable notion that dominates the thoughts murderous sclx
and feelings in spite of one's own will. Mordecai's refusal to show for the Jews tt
fear, indeed his very presence in the King's Gate, proves to Haman makes antismil
that, whatever his might, he lacks control: he cannot govern the venge. The trih
Jew's emotions; he cannot even prevent his current Presence in the ingly, the esscu
place of power. But ironically and appropriately, Haman's obses- carried to comt
sion with control in effect imposes Mordecai's Presence upon all of between the Je
his thoughts and gives Mordecai power over his mind, robbing him and individuals
of all pleasure he might derive from the honor, wealth, and power This is the:
in which he glories. Haman makes himself miserable. Yet he is still is without pard
eager for more honors, as if these would confirm his station and slavement. is rm
salve his wounded pride. Again it is his pride that makes him as- irrational and p
sume that lre must be the man the king wishes to honor (6:6)' his assumption
Such a desperate need for personal confrrmation reveals, of his actions coul
course, a painful insecurity. Magonet ( 1980 : I 75) proposes that Ha-
ous enemies th
man! pathetic boasting (5: I l) reffects his insecurity as a member
period of the Jt
of a minority group who must rely on wealth or other signs of states fighting t
power to maintain his position. But the Persian empire comprises
an enemy of th
many minority groups, and the author does not see this as a prob-
was directed a1
lem. Haman's membership in a non-indigenous ethnic group does
because its hosd
not seem to cause him any professional difficulties, nor does Mor-
or Moab. Hanr:
decai's. The hostility that does exist in some quarters toward the
of the Jews' po
Jews is not du to their being a minority or non-indigenous, but to response to bnr
their Jewishness itself.
fense to a man!
The conflict between Haman and the Jews is, as noted above, Once he rt
essentially personal, to be explained primarily as a defect of Ha-
der, Haman pr
man's psyche rather than as a clash between two races. To be sure,
danger to tlrc r
the clash is rooted in an ancient tribal enmity, but this remains in
Commentary u
the background. The tribal enmity is not stated, but is only sug-
artfully insidirx
gested by the genealogies of Mordecai and Haman. The tribal an-
they seem the P
tagonism seems to lie behind Mordecai's refusal to show Haman
pose of Persu,
obeisance, and it probably spurs Haman to encompass all the Jews
The qualiti

180
 HruaN's Morlvr,s

impend- in his revenge on Mordecai. But the ribal strife is not prominent.
theJew iot a direcr descendant of Saul and Haman is not
called
Uora.."i is
foe was
Haman does an Amalekite, the name by which Israel's archetypal flo*.n'
(outstde me
to his Haman, for his Part' never mentions theJews by name
.ai.i, *i,[n is written in the king,s name). Neither an ancienr norfor
a
next eleven
murder can- or.r.n, conflict berween nation;fities is mentioned. The Jews,-their
rd it must be fiil;;;noi nght against the-Amalekites' but against all
it himself. .n.-i.r, who are mixed in with all the peoples' .. . rnts.
Such an ob- ln fact, Haman's hatred of Jews is not the direct cause olspite
the thoughts *urd.rorr-scheme. ln other *o-'d', it was not because of his
Rather' he
to show i;;-,h. 3.*, tt "t Haman set out rc eliminate them'personal re-
to Haman perfect
makes aitisemitism an instrumant for achieving
govern the ;;.g.ih; tribal conflict is the context for a personifl,t:It::d-
level and only
ence in the insly. the essential victory is won on the personal
not
obses-
.'"ili.a i" compledon in ihe mass battles, and even these are
upon all of between the Jiws and their ancestral enemies'
but between Jews
robbing him who choose to assail them'
and individuils in many nations
, and power of the enemy of theJews' Thisimage
This is the author's image
Yet he is still pharaoh of.the en-
i, ,itf,oui-parallel in the .i-tlitt sources' The
I :9- l0)-an
his station and ,i"n.-.rr, is motivated by fear of the Israelites (Exod were to grant
makes him as- but if one
ir-,i"nrf and pathological fear, to be sure'
hor (6:6). irit that tf,e Israelites could become a military threat'
lbn reveals, of iri, "ttu-p,ion
could claim to prorecr his nadonal interesr. The
numer-
ous".ii.rJ
DPoses that Ha- of Canaan'the
enemies that tsrael dced during the invasion
iy as a member peoples and
r other signs of
p.riJ .i,t. -Juag.i;nJ the mona"rchy were hostile Even Amalek was
npire comprises
I*.t ngh,ing"or.-, ,.rri,o,y, control, or tribute'shocking.because it
e this as a prob-
;;;dy ofitris sort; its assault was especially pop-uladon'.not
bnic group does
;;t ;il*d against the weaker segm9l-T of the from that of Edom
U.."rr. its hosiility was fundamtnt"ily different
,, nor does Mor- out of a fear
or Moab. Haman's r,"ti.J, in contrast, does not grow lt rs a
ters toward the power or a greed for something they
iligenous, but to
of the Jews' ryY:t; an of-
;;r;;;:; to d*ised ;4.: the causc is purelf psvchological'
:rs noted above,
i."". ,o a man's self image' The reasons come later'an orgy of mur'
Once he resolves to";.li.r.
his frustration by
a defect of Ha- a
res. To be sure,
d.r, H"*"r, produces arguments to shorv that the Jews present in the
rhetoric is analyzed
dancer ro the .ornlnon*?al. Haman's
:this remains in are so
but is only sug- Cotirn.n,"ty to Esther 3 (Act III, sce-ne ii)' His arguments
insidious-spinning lies out of truths and half-truths-that
r. The tribal an-
lo show Haman ii.y tJ.rn ,f,e product of aieliberate craft' shapedjust for the pur-
"rifuUy
of oersuading Xerxes.
*""iiIq""ri,i*oH"-"n
oose
pass all the Jews
ascribes to the Jews are not the
cause of

t8l
 HnnaN

Haman's antisemitism but its deliberate product. The author is as-

unnamed pcq
serting that the antisemite-and Haman is ,ic antisemite, not (3: l3b-14). H
merely an antisemitic person-is driven by disturbances in his own
lie out of threz
psyche: a distended pride, a nervous insecurity, and an insatiable
cupidity and n
thirst for confirmation of his significance-all compounded with a malice and gn
hatred inherited from his ancestors. guing the case
have nothing t

3. Haman's Folly and Cleverness lous sum of m

vealing that k
Haman is sometimes thought to epitomize the Wisdom con- the latter case t

cept of a fool, the uncontrolled braggart who prides himself on his

for Haman, )(t
wealth and good fortune and lives in false security, the sort of man
through cunni
condemned in Prov I l:28; 13:3; 14: 16; 16:5, 18; 27: l; 28:ll;
but he is at lee
29:1, 20, and elsewhere.r Thus Talmon characterizes Haman as self-control, h
one of the "wicked wise," impetuous, wrathful, impatient, loqua-
are overwhelm
cious, and ultimately foolish (1963:444). This description is cor-
After the
rect, but it does not prove that Haman's image was drawn from
thing Haman t
Wisdom Literature. Of course Wisdom Literature condemns traits
driven by his I
such as these, but not only that genre is aware of them. Indeed, the
"wicked wise" is not a type-figure in Wisdom Literature, though a
to wait for hk
Mordecai prer
few proverbs (especially in Ben Sira) may speak of such persons.
strument of hi
(Some of the "wicked wise" outside Wisdom Literature are Jonadab
fatuous assum
[2 Sam 13:3], those who are "wise to do evil" [Jer 4:22], and the makes a publi
unscrupulous "wise men" of the heathen [Ezek 28:2-10; Ob
has to conduO
6-8].) In contrast., Wisdom Literature, as Talmon himself observes,
equates the "wise" with the "righteous."
city square, al
conflict with ll
Moreover, Haman does not exhibit his folly in quite the form
are watching d
described in Wisdom Literature. His is of a more subtle sort. First
fall on Esther'!
of all, he is able to control himself and seek counsel before acting
death. Haman
(5: l0)-as advised by Prov I l: 14 and 20:18, for example. Also,
By makin
his pride is not mere smugness, self-satisfaction, or an excessive
where his sort
sense of security. Haman lacks satisfaction in his station and poss-
a person such
essions, and his confidence is very fragile. Nor is pride Haman's
way he is dep
primary vice. That is hatred, a vice given little attention in Wisdom
to be deeply t
Literature.
impulsive bun
Haman is undoubtedly clever, but his cleverness exhausts itself
ticlator, a satir
in his insidious rhetoric when he persuades Xerxes to extirpate the
not only an c
screeching, fn
l. SeeTalmon (1963:443-47), Gerleman (p. I 16), and Dommershausen (pp. 83, terms, Chaplil
9l ). On the image of the fool in Wisdom Literature see von Rad 1972:64-65.
it for what it t

r82
 Helt'rx's Follv exo Ct'rvrnxgss

end
and i-n the edict he devises to that
The author is as- -'-'lnf people (3:8-9)
unnamed
able to fabricate a'vast
antisemite, not Hlma. it a ti'inta demagogue'
in his own ii.ff;ii;;;;;;;ii;;;;;;; t'atr-t"ruit's' to prav uPo,n the kinss
appealing.to mass
and an insatiable .rriJi , mentat stoth, then to write.a decree
away. After ar'
with a ilffi. ffi;;;.U;.;;n
"ra in this he gives himself
guing the case rr.f i" f9i"i"i'it" oithe kinc's interests-which
a fabu'
have nothing to do -i"" *itti Haman's real moiivtJ-ht offers
(3:9b)' thereby re-
lous sum of money to tf" :ews destroyed
vealing that he i. Pt;;;;;iit l*"'
not th; king's' interests'-for.in
would not be nettisaty' (Fortunately
the Wisdom con- the latter case the inauttrnE"t
Haman lras gotten his'way
iles himself on his for Haman, Xerxes it qtr* "[t'se') Still'
the sort of man through cunning. His skills do not'
of course' constitute wisdom'
18;27: l; 28: lI; Haman does have the virtue of
but he is at least.r"iiy' ll"ttover'
tacucal ways' But all his skills
izes Haman as self-control, but only in short-range'
impatient, loqua- by his pride' petdness' and rage'-
-'-
"t. "r.*nl,lmed in chapter 3' every-
description is cor- nii., the "higlr roil'r'of'his cteverness he is buffeted about and
was drawn from thing Haman does it ;;if;iy-f*rit1,.tt
Hi' makes him unable
condemns traits driven by his p"r.ion'inJi"tptlrtgt, "ngtt
pu"sh fate and try to kill
to wait for his ,.,.nit "nJ-itlat ninl
them. lndeed, the to
that he erects the in-
f,iterature, though a Mordecai prematurely' The consegutntt'i'
straieht into humiliation' His
of such persons. strument of his own ilath and rushls
is wort"hy of the k!ng's' honors
areJonadab fatuous assumPdon ir'"i ttt alone ge' the viziir and high nobleman'
[Jer 4:22], and the makes a public fo"r out oi ttim-
as his herald through the
[Ezek 28:2-10; Ob has to conduct t i, .lltf tll n'*tu"tk
extreme by the fact that his
himself observes, city square, all this t*"ttib"ted to the
.oilnii, with Mordecai is well known "'rr"1*rt}:Idi::fiff[l::;
finally
blly in quite the form ,t *"t.t ing the display' His folly *r'lJ1t the immediate cause of his
nore subtle sort. First. fall on Esther's .";[, lt;;
,counsel before acting d.;,h. Haman is a buffoon' a clever fool' sillv' the author hits him
18, for example. Also, By making d;;;G1919r .'9
ftion, or an excessive where his sort *ourJ -o'illt it' in his pride' we can imagine how
n his station and poss- a Derson such as th;;;;;;;;ted
in thisbook would feel about the
Nor is pride Haman's ;ffi;i'G;;;';;; *o"ld not be bothered bv beingshown
as an
le attention in Wisdom ;'fi;li.rii, u" he would be monified to be revealed The Grcat
Chaplin's
*prf"r.Kngf.'"i "; tt*inata of Charlie
the Ftihrer to be
Dictatml satlncal ";[ on Hitttt' which
itself showed
Everness exhausts
but also a gesticulating'
Kerxes to extirpate the not only an evil and dangerous Porver
than attacking :yil in its own
**;ild;rr.,,.ti''i'i";rl*tn..1
rd Dommershausen (pp. 83, ;;rili'chhrin, ru.. tr't ''ithor of Fsther'v denigrated:t#,t;x;fn:
rc lce von Rad 1972 :64-65. ii fot'*,trt'it most deeply fears to be:

183
 HeuaN

without. It is no surprise that Chaplin's satire hit its targer harder

than the standard propaganda, so that the German Foreign Office
went into high gear to get it banned in Latin America and parts of
Europe. Hitler can no longer be ridiculed in this way; perhaps it is
a triumph of evil to have descended beyond the reach of satire. But
Haman can still be laughed at, as he is every year, because his plan
was nipped in the bud, allowing the book to remain, in classical
terms, a comedy.

Mordei
example of
entirely a h
Mordei
first (2:5) a
book's turni
begins the r
and his epi
holiday. His
for his peol

l. Mordct
For Est
unblemishc
his people a
the king arx
The dil
behind the
cause an eI
for use in r
at least beo
standard of
ideal which
A. JEWISHNI
quality to t
Mordecai b

184
 CHAPTER TX

harder
isn Ofnce MORDECAI
and parts of
pcrhaps it is
of satire. But
his plan
in classical
One oPinion:
"Mordecai Provs to be a worthy succcssor to Haman'^He
is another virsion of Haman" ("Haman ,"tt
l[ff}[H.,i'T
(S.&ca-Choin, 19d.8:9)

a shining
Mordecai is an ideal figure, a repository of-virtues'
behave' Yet he s not
example of how a Jew of thi diaspora should
entirelY a bore.
He is introduced
Mordecai is the dominant 6gure in the book'
nr* ii,sl and praiseJ last (10:213),and hisglorificat:",l,lt-1.tn'
Uoot;t turning'point and Presages the Jews' victory' -Hts-tntttattve
t*rirrs the reJc.re effort, his ediit is the mechanism of deliverance'
of the new
;e;;.ft;i. tuia.t tire people in the establishment
f,"fiari tii, ur,""lloy.a tu..!tt, ptrsonal *d,Publjt{:las exemPtary'
Ti:lf:o
ior hispeople, shows that his behavior is to be mken

l. Mordecai as an Ideal Figure

is
For Esther's author-though not for all readers-Mordecai
aStion;1ve
unblemished. He is consistently"wisc and knorving' fi1
their welfare' all the while benenrttng
hispeople and later Promote
theiini and advancing his own career'
- an exemPlary.6gure is in getting
irr? difficulty in iiscussing
behind the obvious. But the obvious is a good
plle to. be$n:.De-
.""t exemplum is supposcd to be- an unequivocal P-1Tltf'
;;;; "n il.qulr.r"rcircumsttncts'The exemplum must be (or
at least become) ,*,"'.ting,
unambiguous' even unnuanced
]otJ"ta"i right "n
behavior' Wha't, then' ari the components of
the

ideal which Mordecai embodies?

a virtue' a good
A. IEwlsHNEss. While Jewishness is not in itself
;;it1i,];';lrr,utrn.a, ir is a necessary constituentsixoftimes
this ideal.
there-
;{#4.;;itja.tiii.i as aJe* in 2:5 and 3:4 and
185
 MonoEcnl

after called "Mordecai the Jew." Epithets in the Bible are not inci- series of eved
dental identifiers, but clues to the development of the story and the pride of z
integral to it.' ln this case, the reader does not really need to be
informed repeatedly that Mordecai is a Jew, and Esther, who is no D. COURAGE.
.less Jewish, is never identified as "the Jewess" (her epithet is "the E. LOYALTYT(
Queen," for that is closer to her specific function). Mordecai's epi- him does he r
thet, then, is a pointer to his special role in the story's development
and message: He acts not as an individual but as tlu Jew-the reP- F. LEADERSTItr
resentative and then the leader of the Jewish people. He is intro- the king to ins
duced as (literally) "a Jewish man" (2:S)-with no comments on religious instfo
other qualities, such as piety, wisdom, courage, or obedience to Mordecai
Torah (contrast the introduction of Ezra in Ezr 7:6, l0). Jewish- Ieader. \{hat t
ness, then, is Mordecai's main identifying feature. l,ater it is not king nor prir
simply Mordecai who enrages Haman, but "Mordecai the Jew" pendent on &
(5: l3), just as it is "Mordecai theJew" who will receive honors from will await ourt
the Agagite (6: l0). It is in his capacity as "theJew" that Mordecai main feature I
receives the right to compose a royal edict (8:7), confirms the holi- own deeds; it i
day of Purim (9:29,31), and serves as viceregent (10:3). The ideal is a tool in ha
typifred by Mordecai, then, is of the representative Jew, a man iden- claimed (no r
tified first and foremost and finally by hisJewishness. simply acts as I
accord.
s. Wrsool\,t. Mordecai knows just what is happening and-except Mordecai
for one momentz-knows exactly what must. be done. His wisdom munity. Both t
includes foresight, the preparation fior dangers before they arise. a new sort of
He has the political savvy to compose a decree that will avert the chosen metho
disaster, and the social sagacity to direct the people in the establish- than coercion-
ment of a new ritual. He also knows how to play up to the king's ens rhe magui
ego and encourage a favorable attitude toward the Jews (see the
Bation of sud
Commentary on 9 :24-25). transfer of po
as a whole" (l!
c. Pntot. The author is wholly in sympathy with Mordecai's pride,
model of lead
in particular, his national pride, even though it sparks a dangerous
munity in dir
rooted in thc 1

l. ThedefinitivediscussionofbiblicalepithetsisSternbergl985:328-34l.Hesays having provcd

that "all formal epithets, in contrast [to redundant epithets that specify char-
acter in the intercst of realisml, enter into tight relations with the Patterns
ity, which deri
that surround them, fulhlling at least one role beyond direct characteriza- community, E
tion. . . . All these epithets are implicitly proleptic within the dynamics of ac- in the fulfillmr
tion" (p. 331). Sucli epithets "are charged with kinetic power straining for
release-" (p. 3321. Thev are bound to carry "actional as well as descriptive
it can be said,I
implications." influence ratlx
2. In 4: ti. Esther will take a better approach than the one Mordecai recommends; difference bct
see the Commentary on Act V (5: I -8).
counterbalano

186
 Monopcet As AN IDEAL Ftcuns

are not rncl- series of evenrs. Mordecai's is the pride of self-esteem

rather than
story and the pride of arrogance.
need to be
, who is no D. CouRAcE. He never varies his course to Protect himself'
ithet is "the E. LOvALTv TO THE KINC. He is the king's man'
and only through
i's epi- him does he serve the kingdom.
and with
reP- F. LEADERsHIP' He uses his influence among the Jews
thetr
He is intro- the king to instruct the people in establishing and developing
on religious institutions.
"Mordecai rePresents a leader of a new sort: the diaspora
to
neither
l0). Jewish- leader. What doei it mean to lead the Jews when you-are
T[e answer is' of course' de'
lt rs not t.irrg no, prince, prophet nor priest?
o.nh.nt on the n"tui. of the tommunity to be led' and that issue
i the Jew"
honors from fil;;;i,;;iait.r*ion of theJewish peopte (ch?P'XI 02c-d)' The
by.nls
Mordecai main feature of this personage is that he earns his postuon.
post (Mordecai's viziership
the holi- own deeds; it is not an ir,stit,itionalized
or even ac-
3). The ideal is a tool in leadershiP, not its basis)' He is not elected
but
a man iden- .r"i*.a (no social flamework is available for suchby communal
choices)
rirrpfy acts as he sees fit, and his deeds are confirmed
accord.
and-except Mordecai is to the diaspora what Ezra was to the Judean.com-
define
His wisdom ..rniiy. Both the book of Esther and Ezra-Nehemiah try to "Ezra's
re they arise. n.*'sort of leader. According to T. Eskenazi's analysis,
will avert the ".hor.., method involves p.rrr"iion, example, and appeal'.rather
height'
rhe establish- than coercion. The.nor*i,y of the powers in his possession
to the king's ;;;h; ;"gnitude of Ezra's ,.,t'"int, stressing
frere!1 .n11u1e-
(see the .f sich m.ar,s. . . . At rhe core of Ezia's activities is the
S;ii".
ir"rrrf., of power and knowledge from himself to the community
a very similar
i's pride,
a, *hole" itgas 138)- The bdk of Esther ProPoses
" ' facing a com-
a dangerous
*.aa of leadership for a similar reason' Ezra was
with
rnr"iy in dissolution, lacking authorities or rulers porvers
;;;,;i in the people's laws ani traditions (Joshua. anf f3u!3uet
author-
341. He says having pror.d d.id-ends). Rather than exercisc his ofhcial
specify char- to impose his will on the
the patterns iiy, *firit, derived from the gentile realm,
commurrity, Ezra sought to f,"-ttt the communal will and energy
characteriza-
dynamics of ac- i;;; fuffiiiment of f,rah. Mordecai does much rhe same. of both
rr of
ii ."" u. said, in Eskenazi's words, that they exercise "the power
straining for
as descriptive the
ir,flu.r.. rather than coercion, relying on example, embodying is
i rccommends; difference between genuine Power ind forcen
(p' laO)' .Ezra
.orrrt.rU"t"nced by q"rir. difterent model, that of the overbearing
"

187
 Monorcet

and coercive Nehemiah, whom the book of Ezra-Nehemiah treats status. Wher
with a cerrain ambivalence. Bur, as Eskenazi shows, it is finally Ezra king not tod
who embodies the ideal to be emulated (pp' laa-54)' forwardly't
(4:8). ln thi
c. LovALTY To rHE Jr,wrsn Ptopl-E' Mordecai's loyalty to his
behalf, pulling whatever
decai and d
people is his chief ,irtrie. He acts on their
holds in the cause' In tainly requir
It.irigt he can, wielding whatever-power.he
wel-
his la"ter career, he spefks up on their behalf and sees to their J. FAITH AN
fare (ialom, l0:3). trayal of Mt
H. LACK OF PERSONAL Ar/tsrrroN. Mordecaidoes nothing to
fur- dience to M
palace
ther his own career. Many commentators assume that as a Piety is the I

official who reaped success, Mordecai must have been an opportun- ple Jewish I
ist. Paton thinks that Mordecai was willing to sacrifice his cousin
to roes ofthe t
ni, p"fiti."f ambition (p. 173;.s Bickermin believes that Mordecai figures pray
refused to bow becauie Haman had received a promotion that zeal for the
Mordecai considered his due for having saved the king's life.{
we trast, nowtx
would indeed expect a palace official to be ambitious; it is all the in God. Not
never strives for personal ad- to a gentile
mlre significant,ihen, tirat Mordecai I

u"n..*irrt. Any personal benefit he might have derived from his though he,
cousin's position he giues up by insisting on keeping their kinship the blatanq
secrer. Fie cerrainty lould not expect to advance his career by
dis- one must h
obeying the king ind slighting tir. "iry.t, his boss' He claims no ous. This i:
,"*rrdfo, infoiming on-the eirnuchs. The laurels he does receive readers, at I
fall into his lap withiut affecting him much. He rises in rank and tion that tx
p"*.r *ittt"uievident effort towird those goals; they accrue to him author doc
ls incidental rewards for his devotion to his king and his people. virtues to h
Morda
L DIRECTNESs. Manipulativeness is another quality that many that "relief
commentators assume must belong to a figure like Mordecai; but
it
source" (4:
is not there. Mordecai always acts in an entirely forthright manner.
derivative f
He is wise but not cunning, and certainly not devious' He does not' is not rearc
after all, even attemPt to-get on the vizier's good side;.quite the I will c
contrary, he is dangetortly blunt. He does not maniPulate or (and it doe
..rrn" Erih.r but givis her direct instructions, as befits his parental
that Mor&
rationalizat
3. - - - had no choice, of course , in
the induction of his cousin into the harem. surely
- He resPect thc
itt. f.ing did not see himself obligated to obtain parental tgtttl:.,':-"1]^:3*'
Mordecai does nor ;;i; ;;;;id.. Esther uniortunate for having reached sitions abor
royal station (4: l4). the aurhor
"Mordecai story" that Bick-
4. Bickerman 1967: 179. This is part of a hypothetical
erman reconstrua" U.fiares to ha'"e been woven into the present book of piety or La
Esther. whater., ,nr
""J oi tt,i, tt.".y, the strife between Mordecai and does not ct
"lriJiiy
H"rrrrn is present in the canonical book as well' have never

r88
 Monorcel es rN loral Flcunr'

hcmiah treats jfrf:;r:Tlt'ir':.l:fr1*1tl]ffi

bfinallY Ezra
ffi l,:T'.r insLnce' Esther turns
oulltotfrr.ir',i.
t.uadon cer-
iorii. i.1*,is direct aPProach' '
loyaltY to his :.*i ;;J chooses a less

iling whatever tainly required'

rsinsly absent in
the por-
r the cause. tn
cs to their wel-
'#frH:ii,:."';ffi
nothing to fur- i,,t.!oremosg:F!:li:{i:itri}il"}*j;li.H
hat as a Palace
i',.,f
n an oPPortun-
re his cousin to
:::Jill* |1'Ji::iil'"d."-una " l'-;,, trust in God and
tneir

r that Mordecai
Dromotion that
Ht*J*ltr1*TtL'fr"i:!-1':#'Iill*h*,:+::;
nowhere prays' and
when n::l1tjj lruou,
ward's marnage
trasr, tri.
itirrg't life.a We
ixrs; it is all the
for Personal ad'
f#*HiIl#;ifiiilr'ffir#rii,;.lffi ],ffi:'
&rived from hts
ing their kinshiP
[:"Sl*i:,'iJ;;;:J"itott'""'"T:i#,"i*i:.',":f
t
deemed deliberate,
not mereY il:|l,i
;:;; uttat*i'was #
tradtu
not pious;
fi;;;,raditional
hb career bY dts'
ous. This it
""t.tJi|'tt"i
s. He claims no
or *'i:ff;H"
readers,u'lt"t'."''u'"iluiy'*nt*1T:*f,*f ::t;t'::;:-ttttn';
b he does recelve
lffi;il;';; deiiberatelv lacks
;;' one oor the
of the ideot' "ne
rises in rank and
author doesnot #ii';nt' l:Tf"-:'"t
hcY accrue to him
-a nit PeoPle' ,,*"ff j:ox"'ffJ5l,f ,Y,fi rrjil'.,:,.1;:::,;ffi jj"*H:
rralitv that manY
L Mordecai; but it
irthright manner'
ious. He does not'
nd side; quite the
pt maniPulate or
r befits his Parental
ffi*jr :d?'l:,i',"?l't"r:lkt#i[*f"'*
fiilffi ;ffi[*tt rather'n""r[::t*: ;;.; ;;'h rde' rhat
iinto the harem' Surely
i.t.ont t t' ln anY case'
;::rJil *n*"*
silences
ideal figure q[tt['ff#}|[:}il".v or
sitions
rtc for having reacneo "uo,.,

H,ri$"JJ;ll*l':i
Mordecat ano
h bcrweeir
HilHilliff*r-=r1;[\tt,ffi tgii;
does not choos(
all defined their Jewsnnt
;;;;;'
r89
 Monort:at

not in Second Temple times, in spite of the later rabbis' stereo- understood a
typing of the men they considered their predecessors (picturing etched typc-fi
M-ordecai as the first president of the Sanhedrin). Qohelet (Eccle- the diaspora,
siastes), roughly contemporary with the author of Esther, is very favored by th
concerned with God's role in human life yet holds very unorthodox the welfare o
views of divine providence and says nothing about Torah. Torah best guaranto
itself did not invariably have the primacy for all sectors of Jewish
.religious life that it later acquired. As Nickelsburg and Collins
say
of the ideal figures studied in their anthology, Ideal Figures in An- 2. Mordece
cient Judaism, Mordecai
never waverG
The variety of religious expression evidenced in the different tyPes
is saved from
of ideal figures serves, moreover, as a caaeat for systematic treatments he keeps his <
otJewish religion and theology.... While the authority of the Mo- reserve-and
saic Torah may in no case be denied, implicitly or explicitly, it is evi-
ability of perl
dent that the mentality of the apocalyptist or the visionary or the
charismatic allows for, indeed, asserts the value and authority of
At certai
other complementary and supplementary sources o[ revelation. . . . explain; inde
In short, while "systematic" studies of ancient Judaism are valid and almost irratio
helpful, they must be carried on in tension with a sensitivity to the the reader to
unique characteristics of the individual phenomena. Only then do entry into Mc
we historians stand a chance of glimpsing the variegated and many- privacy, he re
sided edifice of this ancient religion. ( 1980: l0- I l) reasoning, an
and gives tlx
The virtues that Mordecai displays are quite different from going on in i

those of other ideal figures of the diaspora. Daniel and his friends author wants
exemplify loyalty to God and maintain their piety even in extremes. some Suesses
But they do nothing for the direct benefit of other Jews-besides character can
themselves epitomizing piety. They do not speak up on behalf of We are n
their co-religionists; they do not seek the nullification of decrees national iden
that forceJews into idolatry and place them in mortal danger. Their side agent in
virtues are purely individual and spiritual. The first six chapters of on 2: l0). Yei
Daniel have no sense of community. The Scroll tries to inculcate and planning
such a sense and so makes its ideal figures-especially Mordecai but
interests, tah
also Esther-communal leaders. We can also contrast Ezra and Ne-
even before t
hemiah, whose solicitude for Jews (insofar as this is recorded) is giving Mordc
directed only toward those in Palestine. Joseph, who is sometimes met, thereby
thought the model for Mordecai, takes care of his family, but this is ous. The M-I
quite different from national loyalty; it is motivated more by per- such way.
sonal sentiments. The bigg
The most important lessons of the book of Esther are not sub- zier. He was,
tle . They are put into the form of a schematic, exciting story, easily
that he woul

190

6e later rabbis' stereo-
Dredecessors (Picturing
f,.atin). Qohelet (Eccle-
nthor of Esther, is verY
I holds very unorthodox
ing about Torah. Torah
foi all sectors of Jewish
lclsburg and Collins saY
log,1,Ifual Figures in An-
:d in the different tYPes
hr svstematic treatments
6c authoritY of the Mo-
ily or explicitlY' it is evi-
or the visionarY or
I the
r value and authoritY of
Eurces of revelation. ' ' '
nr Judaism are valid and
r with a sensitivitY to the
Enomena. OnlY then do
ihc variegated and manY-
rl0-ll)
are quite different from
ra. Daniel and his friends
eir oietv even in extremes'
fit of oin.. Jews-besides
nt speak uP on behalf of
he nullification of decrees
gr in mortal danger. Their
i. The first six chaPters of
h Scroll tries to inculcate
f-especiallY Mordecai but
elso iontrast Ezra and Ne-
frr as this is recorded) is
.Joseph, who is sometimes
e* oi his familY, but this is
'fo
motivated more bY Per-
book of Esther are not sub-
Lnatic, exciting storY, easilY
Monoecel's Rnsenvr
they are -conveyed !ry''::l!
understood and remembered' and tn
is the type of the Jewish couruer
ffi; rrp.-fig.r,.,' Mordecai and courage'
ililfi;"lirt. ideal court Jt*'--'.T1t'' "f Dower
concerned above all for
favored by the ki"g;l;i;'JJ "rnit
kin'
and position are the
the welfare of his Pttd';;;ecais1rc*t'
b.., g,rrr"ntor of security for his people'
Reserve
2. Mordecai's
:f' **'*ffJlififf'h
Mordecai is comprete .*
He is exemp'i'y:"-:T.'-I:;;'"'
i:,,T:
never wavered and never will'
figuie bv one intriguing trait:
is saved from being
'";;;;-;;hoolut'tt'"ot resDcts his reserve' This
he keeps his own tt"t*i, "'lait't
Mordecai irom the flat predict-
reserve-ana tn. "'iiJ;;;";t'
ability of perfection' r : r^^^ .L.i^cc that are hard to
things thet
At certain key points, Mordecai does refusal to bow' seems
act'the
explain; indeed,.;l;;gt*fraught
;i#J#;;;i. il ;,"i; ; ;;ii. i in M ordecai's wisdo m i nd uce s
we are never granted
the reader to look ;;t';'il;n'iio"'.u"t
the author violates Haman's
enry into t tordetai'Jp'vtt't''wt'tttas
privacy, he respects rt'i'7itt'ri'
t"n *t'tn Mordecai's modvations'
curiosity
reasoning, ,na call for explan-ation' This evokes
"'po"tts of character'depth: much is
and gives ,t. ,."aJ' ""n ;;l;it#
we can only guess at' But
the
going on in Mordecai's minb that make
gives us.rro'[h clues-to
author wants us ,o fu.rr, and so discuss"ion of Mordecai's
some guesses better ft;il;'
in;Lta'
'
to frll in the silences'
character ."r, p'ottJ by "tttm-pting
Esther to conceal her
We are ,ro, ,otJ 'nf'y l,Io'dlt"iinstructs
preparing Esther as an in'
nationar identity. n. i, I*"r,1.r*inly jt*s (see the Commentary
side agent in the t;;;il;;ger
to the
alert
materializes' Mordecai is
on 2: l0)' Years before the dinger
and planning f.r,#'"ii"ffi' Ht it looking out for-his People's
'the
respon'ibllititt of leadership
interests, taking uron f i-""!f
The LxX fills the gaP by
even before ,r,. n.li to'il.;;t;;id9;i:
li:l:#:$T"nff m";:'*'r:,*;:m:'"1i1'':'Hi'H
chooses nor ro satisfy our
curiosity in some
ous. The MT-authoi
such waY. -^r----r .^ lnu to
rn the ner vl-
rhc new
to bow
The biggest puzzle is Mordecai's-refusal didnt he realize
zier. He *rrcu'ioi"ii#ft;"g himself' But
too by publicly defying the
that he would endanger his people
l9l
 Monor,cer

haughty vizier-an ancient tribal enemy-while flaunting his own ing of hostilit
-fewishness? The author must have in mind some reason for such prophet, and
persistent, dangerous, and apparently useless behavior; it cannot author blh
be due to a whim, certainly not in a stable, thoughtful character like encoded in a
Mordecai. In the Commentary on 3:2-3 I weigh the various expla- subordinatiol
'nations that have been offered and argue that the most likely rea-
ordination to
son for the refusal is that Haman is an Amalekite, the ancient tribal after all, Mor
enemy of Israel. This motive is, however, kept well in the back- found the gu
ground. The author does not rationalize the act that will endanger ality, but shol
the Jews, perhaps because Jewish motives are not relevant to anti- Mordecai
semitic malevolence. leads him abr
Whatever the reason for Mordecai's defiance, it is behavior that way this epis(
the author affirms and admires, for Mordecai's wisdom and hero- is not impem
ism are unalloyed and unquestioned. The author never suggests the honors al
that Mordecai bore any responsibility for Haman's scheme. Unlike
some commentators (Paton and Ben-Chorin [938:8], among oth- Mordecai ri
sackcloth in
ers), the author does not blame the hatred on its victim.5
decai thou!
Mordecai has already proved his fealty to the king. Only in this
and he was I
regard does he insist on disobeying the king's orders, though the
consequences are potentially disastrous. If Mordecai's stubbornness The Midrash
is, as argued, rooted in tribal loyalties, a concession would betray Rab. X4 = b
his people (thus Meinhold). Mordecai's first loyalty is to the ancient decai of the I
demands of his peoples history. In the diaspora, theJews, subju- even being sn
gated to the laws and the will of a foreign people, dare not comPro- ascribing sud
mise their national honor, even when this stubbornness might feelings for tl
imperil their existence. Though beaten in their homeland, they sion of Mondr
must remain unbowed in exile. Mordecai shows this even in his either fear or
Posture. terwards he rr
Yet I find that I cannot affirm Mordecai's behavior in the way composure hi
the author does. The only explanation of Mordecai's defiance that When Mt
saves him from mere arrogance or instability-namely, that his act still maintairs
was due to tribal hostility-does the author no credit. He (like other Haman's decrr
biblical authors) believes that ancient tribal antagonisms are trans- We are gi
mitted from age to age and that Jews in later generations are only in 4: l, u
obliged to express them. Mordecai's flaw is not his pride but his limitedexpc
(which is to say the author's) concept of genetic culpability. Nothing his behavior i
suggests that at the time Haman aPpears on the scene the vizier Mordecai's tb
already bore personal guilt or had otherwise shown himself deserv-

5. This is the "Hitler's tailor" theory of antisemitism, the notion that Hitler hated 6. This scherna t

convcrtcd
the Jews because he was once cheated by a Jewish tailor.
Beraq (b- (

r92
 Monorcrt's Rrsenvr,

his own ing of hostility. He will Prove.to deserve it' but Mordecai is not a
for such for future crimes. The
frlpn.t, and Lven ,o, no one is responsible
br; it cannot irr,t ot believes that the dichotomy between good and evil can be
character like encoded in a national-genetic on..t To be surl, Prostra-tion signals
sub-
various expla- subordination, and MJrdecai would not want to imply Israel's
tribal, and,
likely rea- ordination to Amalek, but the gesture is individual not
ancient tribal after all, Mordecai was in fact-Haman's subordinate. If Mordecai
in the back- i.r"a the gesture intolerable, he should not have acce-pted the re'
will endanger Ur, sliould have quit hisjob when Haman took office'
nt to antl- "iiiy,Mordecai's silence' is again noticeable in 6: I l ' when Haman
the
leads him about the city inionor and pomp' We may contrast
is behavior that way this episode is handled in the original AT, in which Mordecat
and hero- isiiot imperturbable. When Haman emerges with orders to bestow
never suggests the honois and tells Mordecai to change his garments'
scheme. Unlike the
Mordecai was disturbed, like one about to die, and he removed
:81, among oth- put on the garments of honor' And Mor'
:-5 sackcloth in distress, and he
decai thought he saw o*.n, and his heart was toward the Lord'
Only in this "n
and he waJbeside himself in speechlessness' (AT vii l6- l7)
though the
i's stubbornness The Midrash, too, pictures Mordecai as fearful at this point(Est'
Mor.
would betray Rab. x 4 = b, tvteg' toal. lt is hard, however, to imagine.the
and fear on his own behalf' or
is to the ancient decai of the MT sJized by agitation
the Jews, subju- .r.r U.i"g struck dumb witl amazement' The MT version avoids
nol comPro- s"uch frailtiesto rhe hero, but it does not substitute other
ness might "r.riUi"t
feelings"for them, such as exultation or gratitude to God' The
eli-
not overwhelmed by
homeland, they sion oT Mordecai's thoughts suggests that he is
in silence' Af-
this even in his eiit e, fear or delight bit simpii accePts the honors
waits' his
rcrwards he returns to the gaie'with no funher ado and
in the way composure highlighted by Haman's agiution (6: l2)'
i's defiance that hh.n MJrdeiai aPPars again, alter Haman is overthrown' he
nmely, that his act still maintains silence, ihit. i, is"Esther who bcp the king to rescind
tdit. He (like other Haman's decree (8: l-6).
-w.aregivenclearsignalstoMordecai'sthoughts.andfeelings
ryonisms are trans'
only in +: l,ivhere he goes into public mourning' And even in
this
lr generauons are extent
t his pride but his limited exposure therels r.tet .' for we do not know to what
ulpability. Nothing his behavior is tactical. The closest the author comes to revealing
he scene the vizier ptlraecait thoughts directly is in reporting that he "found out"
pn himself deserv'
6.ThisschemaisovercomeintheTalmud.whichsaysthatHaman'sdesccndants ol Dney
mtion that Hitler hated convcncd to Judaism and bccamc Torah rholars in the academy
br. Bcraq (b. Gittin 57b).

r93
 Monorcrl

what had happened (4: l) and that he sought to "learn about" Es- solid-aL
ther's welfare (2 : I I ) (in both cases the verb yada' , usually translated reliable. H
"know," is used). Both these insights are virtually external data that issuing po
someone on the scene could have observed (in the latter case Mor- as viziera
decai would have to ask questions about Esther), and they exPose on a leadc
Iittle of the depths of Mordecai's mind. It is significant that these the pictrut
slight incursions into Mordecai's mind use the verb yado'. "And not a?fru
Mordecai knew" is an excellent encaPsulation of an important facet makes hir
of his character. but canm
Mordecai speaks very little in the whole book. He is most talka-
tive when persuading Esther to undertake the mission, but even
there he is communicating through messengers and is quoted in- 8.R cspod
EMr
directly. (Strictly speaking, we only hear him quoted in 4: l3b-14, ilrour
thirty-one words in all; another sixty-six are phrased as indirect fletu
discourse.) 7 hawl
flat? 1
Mordecai retains a hard nub of inscrutability' Esther I feel I rourd
can understand. My reading may, of course, be wrong or incom- nesl
plete, but the point is not the adequacy of my reading but rather of Ei
prc&
my sense (which is to say, illusion) as a reader that I can know all ofEd
that there is to know about her. Xerxes has no silences. There is
nothing there to be silent about; we know this from the exposure
of his shallowness in chapter l. Mordecai, however, I cannot quite
decipher. The author has carefully left a few dark sPots that invite
scrutiny but do not satisfy it. That the author Preserves obscurity
in such a schematic ideal figure shows a certain delight in develop-
ing character lbr its own sake rather than only for its exemplary
,alue, and thus keeps Mordecai realistic and human in a way that
Daniel, for example, is not. Mordecai's portrayal Preserves resPect
for a character who is a creation of ideology by excluding certain
areas from the ideology. This technique makes Mordecai always
deeper than the reader. And that, in turn, makes him a more effec-
tive exemplum.
Nevertheless, an exemplum is what Mordecai remains. Haman
is vivid in his evil; Xerxes is predictably unstable; Esther is change-
able and human and multifaceted. Mordecai is flat-always Present-
ing one surface to the reader-and unchanging. This is a quality,
not a fault: Mordecai is meant to be flat-level, we might say' or

words ol the countcr-decree (9:21-22) are an indirect quote of

7. The lbrty-four
som.ihitg Mordecai composed, but they are formally the king's words and
they are meant to be taken that way.

194
 Monorcel's Rr,ssnvs

Es-
solid-a brick.s His perfect wisdom, stability, and loyalty make.him
reliable. He continuis unchanged, powerful, energetic'.benevolent'
that issuing public epistles, and exercising authority^f3ugh hts statt^on
Mor- riziEi leader. ie will n.'.' us' We know we can rely
cr(Pos "s "rra 'uiptise
onaleaderlikethatandcomfortablyadaptourwilltohis-suchis
thesc ih. pi.t.rt ofJewish leadership that the book projec:t: B^l:,::-:?."-
.'And not'awooch tii.. gi. completeness, togerher with his taciturntty,
his example
facet ,"t.r't i. a leader at a disLnce' We can try to followwith Esther'
il*."""", easily identify with him' It is otherwise
talka-
ition and definition of "flaC' characters'
are to DC mct lrr
: l3b'14,
'*"riloJll';T,",I*lx':::i'"iffi?::::T,i$d:H::J.,1di:l*:iijl
f. Uulioyt, "ln the novel of charactcr, they [flat charactersl
it is rnot tl"*n.[it tt uttitlg that rhere metnoa-1
thousands, and i1 {y!1
indirect H:H:ti#;;i;il;;-iliales
r --- L^r .L^ .^.^--ii
*hich alt the sreat characrer novclisrs
to commit' Whv indeed' sf,ould not a charactcr bc
Why, indeed.
irrr. ft"a the misfortune
-r.r^-r..na
flat? The only real io iiiii is rtrat ltrc Prescnt tastc in criticism pr-eferc
I feel I "nt*.t
;;;il ;h;;*rr; t rszs, zii. Muit ftotttat't" tlucidate the function of flat'
or incom- M"n'i Bt6ie sctrotarr' #;;;;'1'* "flatness" "l?.:lPl'1*.1?^*3tl::
;;;:'J;:L;ii;u*-inb,ftga"il:1'Jilf
hut rather ffi achieving tf,e:Hl[1;1T#i
ffi ::t;1;;Xifl
u.ii.riouin soatsof the book
know all ;;,fu,:rffifi#I;ffi'fiIffi;.
irfEsther than this one does.
There is
exPosure
qulte
that invite
obscurity
in develop-
exemplary
a way that
resPect
certain
i always
more effec-

Haman
r is change-
present-
is a quality,
: might say, or

r indirect quote of
a Ling's words and

195
 CHATTER X

ESTHER l. Passivity
Estherb te
are distinguish
dentally to thc
he "had been r:
ter" (2:7). She
One oPinion:
told retros@
"Esther, for the chance of winning wealth and power, primary autho
takes her place in the herd of maidens who become raised by her c
concubines of the King. She wins her victories not by upon and govc
skill or by character, but by her beauty." Esther is'
(L. B. Paton, P. 96) beautiful virgir
eunuch, proce:
"taken" for orx
Of the two heroes in the book of Esther, Mordecai is the domi- has been critici
nant actor and the more sterling paragon; yet it is aPProPriate that along with all t
the Scroll bears Esther's name, for she too is central.' There is no common notxll
need to determine for every book a single most important charac- AII comely viq
ter. A book can have two central characters, equally importaht but before they wt
significant in different ways. In the Scroll, it is Esther who stands at already provcd
thi center of the book's artistic interest' She emerges as the most (Nor does the
distinct and memorable character in the book, the one with whom scope for cons
the reader most naturally identifies. Mordecai's character forms a tion into the i
solid frame around the smaller and more finely executed depiction thus not a mal
of Esther. suggests docili
The distinctive feature in the portrayal of Esther is change. weeping, she ,
Esther alone undergoes growth and surprises the reader by unpre- having her scr
dictable developments.2 She is, in E. M. Forsrer's influential termi- royal authoriq
nology, "round," having more than a single dominant character personal prom
trait ind capable of surprising the reader. Her dynamism stands to the bargain
out in relief against the static nature of the other characters (in- is not consulu
cluding Xerxes, who is erratic but is consistent in his instability). even hint at h
She develops in three stages, from passivity to activity to authority' cause her feeli
Esther's soul i
l. The rabbis called the book simply hamm'gtltah,"The Scroll." The earliest use of individuah tk
rhe title..Esther" thar I can hnd is thCheading given the book in the ancient in 4: l0-16, r
codices of the Sepruagint-the Vaticanus and the sinaiticus (both fourth cen-
tury C.E.) and the Alexandrinus (frfth century). to the progrs
2. Several scholars have recognized Esther's development, among them Jones insignificance,
(197?:l?6), Clines (p. 1451, Craghan (1986). Meinhold (p. 105)' S. White
(1989: I70), and lalmon (1963:449-notwithstanding his statement on
because of an1
p. 440 that the dramatis Personae remain static). Nothing has e

196
 Pesstvt.rY

l. PassivitY
the twelfth year-
Esther's early years-until the 6rst month of inci'
;;Jlit and pliancy' She is introduced
are distinguished by a' an obiect of his acdon:
dentallv to the idt"titl;tt;'1fi;ti;;i'
t,5tn.tttt to hiinself as a daugh-
he "had been raising'ffi;;;;;;
titittty obedient to him (as we the
are
ter" (2:7). She *'"r, of-tot'*t' would normallv be
told retrospectively ir.'zlii'ii'iiit- {9tn*
for a sirl' but as an orphan
e oPlnlon:
primary authority, t"o''-"ii T;tl
nd power,
raised bv her .our,t, i**ttl'
i' i'o* the outiet entirely dependent
ro kcome
upon at d governed bv males'
ries not by ' Esther i, "oLnit" L'i *"a I *"p' 2)' along with the other
rr beauty."
virgins, . ,ir.^tJrrglio. (2:8),'put into the control ol a
beautiful beautv Eeatment' then
eunuch, processed ttil;1fitr"t'"*rt tries her out in bcd' Esther
Paton, p. 96)

"taken" for one n'gni io iht king'

who
and even opponunism li-q::tg
the domi' has been criticized il";"dn'.n[e to a
J-t'*tt she had no choice' contrary
lriate that ;f;;il';li,r,i', uutwas no beautycontest to choose
a new queen'
here is no common notion, tnere was no further selection
AIt comely virgins "ltt |;!;ffa; In anv case' the Persians have
th-ere
nt charac-
king'
Drta'nt but before they were t'ttn-d tnt
of fJmale freedom of choice'
> stands at already proved th;ttil;1;;il;" maidens "gathered" leave
i the most (Nor does tt. ,oyrr iLirl""-i" rt"'e the
will') But while Esther's induc'
rith whom .cope for .orr,"lting]tiJt i""tir""t (and
:r forms a into the hareni Bti*a her and. Mordecai's decision
tion ""' the way thl induction is described
,depiction thus not a matter fo' cettsure)' ii'a been dragged off
docilitv d';d; *!t ri
'i''
is change.
sussests
"r?;
il.ttp't"s,-;;;1i1$["'[t'""8'Til[:':['#:fl :fi'.;:
by unpre- t sexualitv-indeed' her whole herprospecs for
authori,v. orlf,iii"iJ il'."ff P1;;seduttn lending her will
at
rtial termi- ""insTi.t
royal
least tt""
character personal orolnouoti J;; ;;;fr-"t
B'I;iiil"tilt-;l" tttt b""qutt (l:8b)' Esther
ism sunds io the bargain. "t not
no interest' ThL author does
zcters (in- is not consulted; htt';iii is of
rnstability). ;;;;i;;;ah.*E:;;;'i'i'"uou'**i:f*:3t1fi,;:I*.T;
are irrelevant' Bur thi
r authority. .""t. ft., feelings is indifferent to her as an
Esther! soul is tt;;;;;;'it" ""tnotin the coursc of the book' as
:arliest use of individuah ,t't tontJ-']-itll
; Pt"vt'
rerclution are crucial
in 4: l0- to, *r't*'frtl i"trlti"*
n the ancient rt"t'
"ia to convey the
rh fourth cen'
to the progress ;ht tt;;'-Rather' trtt "utttot seeks is putty-not
'f otltis stogc' Esther
; them Jones
05), S. White
insignifrcan..
"rnt' "il;i;;i;J
because of any Pt;t;;;lttina*'
but because of age and situauon'
statement on her to be anything more'
Nothing has ever Ja[enged

t97
 EsrHtn

ln the seraglio, F-sther spends a year being worked oygr by cos- lution.s Her
meticians. Natuial charms apparenrly do not suf6ce in this glut of rather than'
pulchritude; rhe women must be smeared with odoriferous un- inquiry abou
g.,.n,, for a year, then sent to the king's bed bedecked and bedi- becoming an
iened like the rest of his possessions. Esther accepts whatever to causes and
happens to her. So devoid is ihe of individual will that she does not her. In the o
,r[ io. further aids on her big night-a request that might at least is starting to
.show acrive participation in ihe p.o..t.. Her disinclination to ask When M
for supplemental aids shows only self-effacing receptivity and pas- the life of tb
sivity.'Nor does she refuse anything, an action that might show a safety (4: ll)
,prik of self-assertion-evidence of confidence in her own beauty, she does not
perhaps, or indifference to the outcome, or principled repudiation is hardly sur;
of artificial luxuries. In consequence of these qualities, everyone years, durir1
likes her. It is no surprise when the king "loves" her as well; she has ln Mon
Vashti's good looks without her willfulness. The king-we may as- command Es
,u*.-iiro found Esther's sexual talents to his liking, and so he to persuade I
makes her queen. ward but as i
So far'Esther has been nothing more than sweet and Pretty' rather than (
hardly a person you would expect to shoulder her people's fate and dience (thou
engineer'its salvation. Her peisonality seems hardly changed when but it is also
*."rra*t see her, a little more than three years later, just after the once Mordo
publication of Haman's edict. when she learns that Mordecai is in own. At the'
morrnirrg, she responds by sending him fresh clothes, as if to solve sway the ki!
a probleri-whatever it might be-by improving aP-Pearanc.es'
Per- effort; indeo
haps she is afraid he is miking waves; ihe has. after all, lived in
secretiveness for several years' Her focus on superficials is be
-to 2. Activity
expected of a young woman whose daily routine places overwhelm-
in[ importance on-her aPPearance, and whose excellence in that The tun
re[ard'has brought her to-what everyone around her views as the the scene, in
ultimate in feminine success. do her duty,
The exchange with Mordecai is related from Esther's, not Mor- nnnds Motd
decai's, point of view, with the movement of the maids and messen- tions-to as
gers deicribed from her standpoint. For the hrst t'ime, we start to all the Jews '
Identify with her as a person and to see events through her eyes' for three da1
Aithis stage, just before the moment of transformation' Esther
does three thiigs that foreshadow her role as national leader: she 3. These obctr
sencls, she commands, she inquires. The sending back and forth
of art of rH
messages and messengers both represents and accomplishes the cific otf,
In my vi
rransition from the ce"ntrality o[ Mordecai to that of Esther, who as thc b
must now aclopt the primary rote in moving the plot toward reso- toward u

r98
 ACTIVITY

by cos-
lution.! Her three commands to Hatach (the word "commanded"
this glut of rather than
.'sent" is used) hint at her potential authority. And her
i"quiry abour rhe causes of Mordecaii behavior is her first step in
and bedi- beioming an initiator and planner: she- looks behind aPPearances
whatever
. ."ur.Jund asks about thi meaning of what is happeninq argu1d
does not her. In the cumbrous process of communicatinS with Mordecai she
at least is starting to behave like a leader.
to ask Wh; Mordecai first instructs her to 80 to the king to plead for
ity and pas- the life of the Jews (4:8b), her immediate thought is.for her own
isht show a safety (a: ll). this reaction, natural but self<entered, shows
that
own beauty, rtr. io.t noi y.t fully identify her fate with her PeoPl*' This'-too'
repudiation ir f,"tafy ,urpririr,g, i^or she has lived aP-art from them for over four
, everyone y."*, d"ri"i wtriih time she has carifully concealed her identity.
well: she has In Mordecai's next mess:lge (4:13-14) he does not merely
may as- command Esther; he argues wiiir her, gives her evidence' and seeks
, and so he io f.ttu"a. her. He is *ginning to tteit her not merely as a former
*,"rd but as a parrner, an'aduliand equal who must be persuaded
and pretty, rather than commanded. Not only can he no longer enforce-obe-
's fate and
Ji.n.. (though Esther, according to 2:20, was still obeying him)'
when but ii is alsoirue that mere obedience would not sufhce, because
just after the
once Mordecai sets Esther going, she must think and act on
her
Mordecai is in least, she riusthnd the right l9t9t and tactics,to
o*n. At the very'Stre
as if to solve
,*uy tt. ting. must be fully and perionally involved in the
nces. Per-
effort; indeed, she must direct it.
ials is to be
overwhelm- 2. ActivitY
nce in that
The turning point in Esther's development comes at the end of
views as the
rhe scene, in 4:"18- 16. It is abrupt and surprising. She resolves to
Jo her duty, and a change immediately comes upon her' She.coz'
r's, not Mor-
monds Moidecai-in thJ imperative, with no polite circumlocu-
and messen-
tions-to assemble the Jews in Susa for a public fast: "Go, Sather
time, we start to
at ,n.Jews who are in-Susa, and fast for me' Do not eat or drink
hrough her eyes.
fo, tt ti. days, night and day, and I too, with my maids' will fast in
brmation, Esther
i<rnal leader: she
Thesc obccrvadons draw upon clines (pp. ll-35). He describes
well the subtlc
back and forth of 5.
art of this scene but ,tri.h.. roo ..i.h ucight to the significance of the
spe'
rccomplishes the cificobjectssent,sccingthccopyofthcedicra!aGountcrPartollhcc|otncs.
rt of Esther, who ln mv view. it is noi-rh! oUi..,l br, rhc content of rhc meisages scnt. as well
plot toward reso- ,. iiil U"if-""J-forth com'munication in and of itsclf, that moves the scene
toward transfer of responsibilitr.

r99
 Es-rHrx

this way" (4: l6). [n convening such an assembly and issuing.9'.t*- that shc
tires to the community, Esthir is assuming the role of a religious her ebq
and national leader, and doing so prior to Mordecai's own assumP- Esil
tion of that role. She has r.aken conrrol, giving Mordecai instruc- xes, as f,
tions, enjoining a fast on the Jews, and deciding to act contra.q to as it is. I
law. Heiresotu-te behavior mirks a woman determined to work her expeaci
way through a crisis, not one cowed into obedience' Es.f
' she ta"kes her fate in her hands with a courageous declaration: tifies th
..And in this condition I will go to the king, contrary to law, and if I mulated
perish, I perish" (a: l6b). This is the couiage of one.w!o.1u,st do and haf
irer duty *ithout certainry of success, without a simple faith that a tion for
higher being will Protect her. that she
" In the ivo banquet scenes, she unwinds her strategy Patiently' this, we
with great control. i ttr.. that strategy step-by-step in the Com- of this p
mentiry to chapters 5, 7, and 8. Two points are to be emphasized' tion witl
First, the pian Esther executes is of her own devising' Mordecai promisc
had merely toid h.r ro go to the king and entreat him on behalf of the king
her people (4:8). Of .Jurr. she hai acceded to his demand in es- delaying
..rr.L has taken his cause to herself. But, with no further con- has giva
sultation, she has chosen to approach the task in a way quite
"rrd withdcfi
different from what Mordecai and (judging from the commentar- ing out i

ies) the reader would exPect. After all, it would be natural and ac- their col
ceptable for a pretty young lady to ptead with her husband to Sive lnc
he'r her *ay. Esther if,oot.t -oti circuitous lPproach, one that self-effe
"
involves near-disobedience to the king: even though he virtually qualities
orders her in 5:3 to declare her wish, she does not comply until the nine (sct
next day. Strict compliance is no longer Estherb P,rlme virtue.' pletely e
Second, Esther executes her stiategy with skill, control' rhe- seems al
torical precision, and eloquence. She does not-contrary to a com- The Va
mon notion-simply expioit her beauty and erotic charm' To do so humility
in such a fateful iause would be quite justifred and would not im' fate shon
pinge on her dignity. But these qualities would not be sufficient to who do
ihe"task. Her beauiy did help .icut. her the queenship and the direct an
audience with the king, and ihe do.t employ meekness and. play satisfied
upon her husband's aflection, esPeciallY.by emphasizing.the threat straightl
td her person. To some exrent Esther does exploit feminine wiles the dep
and att'ractions by displaying meekness and playing up to her
hus-
could sir
band's ego. When shi says, "lf I have found favor in your eyes"
vizier or
;'if the idea pleases you," she is playing on
(7:3), ,"Ih., than simply cesses o[
it. tittgt affection, as'if to say"'if you really love me' ' ' ' " stressing
She also
xes'ner
gires p"rominence to her need for personal Protection' everyoil

200
 Acrtvt.rY

tactics are subordinate to

issuing direc' that she herself is threatened' But these
of a religious her eloguence and cunning' - . .
does' After all' Xer'
i's own assumP- Esther cannot tt-pii&pfoit lust asJudith
has i'ee access to her sexuality
instruc- xes, as Esther's t uru"'IJ'"i'f,ki;g'
as it is. Mostly, f"r'tt'rn"i a-'i
upon hitherto untested and un-
act contrary to
to work her expected intellectual Powers'
'^t-i.if,.rt ,rnaouUtea need for cunning and circumsPectlon Jus'
acdons as being for-
declaration: dfies the interpretati;; ;i h;t tpeechesind
rather than as indecisive
to law. and if I mulated with careful;h.;;il;J control'
Commentary' the ** t:tPli:i:
one who must do and haphazard' As l;-t-gt'"til the
until the second banquet ts
il; il Esther's delaying her request strategy;-an9
imole faith that a q1n'
;;; sh. is unfolding'a fremeditited her words foro1tce.*t further stgns
$rategy Patiently, ffi,;; are justifiei i"' scrutinizing building up..tq
-steo in the Com- , t i"tiny s!ow.s.ie1 lht "t:lo'
rc be emPhasized. "iii,lt lr"n.'sr.tt
:ffi I1sf, *t;lli;:lE,ll,:,ililr'l;Hffiff '[':',".'"ii'fi ;
:vising. Mordecai
face his own culpabilitv)'
him on behalf of #,H;;"^ril;;;;'i" iuv
'"'1'."* lt'
of the offender) until she
his demand in es- delaying other inrorniatiln hnt ideitity
king's anger' softening her speech
no further con' has given full momentum tott't
ihat play to his eSo,11ck-
in a way quite with deferenti"t .or.rrt.litt ""J att""tr"ls
*t ip, then allowing matters to ^take
the commentar- il;;;;'r..uo.ion'fif.. " toward destructton'
be natural and ac- their course once she has set Haman careenins
her husband to give #;-;ost
ln chapters 5 notably in 7:i-Esther is indirect'
commentators find these
approach, one that self-effacing, and manipulative' Some
though he virtuallY oualities morally ol oiitn'i" as an image of the femi-
not complY until the ;#&';il; "t;;dJd
f,ri."rru'.'U.lowi. Such reproaches might
apPear com-
eicept that th-e author himself
orime virtue. pletely extraneous
'.kill, .rn,tol, rhe-
seems almost r" iitrn uy buildini rebuttals in:::l:^s:ory
'na "n"ttt'onistic'
""utipltt stJrv to demonstrate that
[-conrary to a com- The Vashti .pi.oat"il]*fi;; J" the Esther's success' Vashti's
to
crotic charm' To do so humility and indirection were necessary
tt. iins ;"y react badly to strong-willed women
icd and would not im- fate showed tt
"t
who do ,,o, ,.rp.i;;il;tiln wittr subtletv' what would a
nld not be sufficient to
besides grving Fsther a self'
he queenshiP and the direct and bold a.*"nl i"* "lfit"a' Even a
as ste was deposcd in turn?
bv meekness and PlaY satisfied feeling .f -tt"i'i"ue king contem'plated
emphasizing the threat straightforw"ra ,.qu-t'i-could founder "t 'ht t:'11'9":[1 h'
exoloit feminine wiles the deposat or ni"i''*itt tmtr"i or' perhaps'
his
playing uP to her hus- could simply p,ottti'i'i'-*ift f'o- the mob without sacrificingsuc-
decree' Moreover' the
nd favor in Your eYes" vizier or butting ,p'"g'it" ihe earlier
Haman's' in playing on Xer-
i you," she is PlaYing on cesses of the Persian
"Sliiiti'lrrtrt,aing
r"nttftactics are eiactly those of
Iior"tn.'.'."Shealso xes' nervou, .go
al protection, stressing 't'o**-iitit
everyoneelseinthePersiancourt-gainingone'swaybymanipu.

201
 Esrxrn

lating the man in power. These preemptive rebuttals suggest that a reco8tr
the author is salvingJewish sensitivities by showing that indirection, Midrash
cunning, and at least some show of subservience are necessary strat- Mordoci
agems in such circumstances and should not offend Jewish pride . On
That such pride was indeed a factor is demonstrated by Mordecai's enemicr
refusal to kowtow to Haman. The author respects that pride, cer- into an r
tainly, and no way reproaches its manifestation. Yet he recognizes makc an
that this is not what is needed to resolve the crisis. We cannot afford in Susa I
an entire nation of Mordecais; Mordecai himself must call upon Hamant
another type of person for help. Moreover, in the end Mordecai, lier-Es
too, will be forced to act with some indirection, writing a clever for thcT
counter-edict rather than simply annulling the first one.r be allor
At the conclusion of Esther's plea, Haman is exposed and shak- request i
ing in terror-not only before the obvious power holder, the king, lnd
but also before the queen (7:6). She is now a force to be reckoned her huC
with in her own right. Haman falls on her bed to plead for his life. scek am
Esther's silence gives her a stony, imperious air, but Haman de- quest bh
serves nothing else. He has no claim on pity, and sparing him would right ar
leave him around to fight countermeasures and try again. her vind
neglccr t
3. Authority peded n
Do this I
That very day, Xerxes gives Esther Haman's property, which a great i
she transfers to Mordecai's control (8: l-2). This little episode re-
king." N
structurs relationships and raises Esther's status. She now is a
in the pr
source and agent of wealth and empowerment for Mordecai.
her regt
It seems somewhat incongruous when, immediately thereafter ever dcr
(8:3), she falls weeping at the king's feet, imploring him to annul
oPPortul
Haman's decree. This is the approach Mordecai had expected her
foe's son
to use at the start, but she exploits it only subsequent to her initial Esrt
success and her increase of personal power. As the king's hesitant
it was at
response shows, this request is a difficult one and thus calls for a
unbendi
greater effort and display of emotion on her part. But even that effcrt- A
does not work. The matter is out of the kingl hands-as he will xrv s:h
betoken by transferring the ring to the twoJews. The result of this
earlier r
temporary setback is an increase in power for the two protagonists,
a fact reflected in Xerxes' address to both "Mordecai the Jew" and Portant I
of fightir
"Esther the queen" and in his bestowal of power upon them jointly,
tice than
ever ther
4. As he does in thc AT (viii l6), where his (not Esther's) requcst for thc annulmcnt ofharsh
of Haman's edict solves the problem.
lar

suggest that
are necessary strat-
offend Jewish Pride'
strated bY Mordecai's
c$ that Pride, cer-
. Yet he recognrzes
crisis. We cannot afford
[imself must call uPon
r, in the end Mordecai,
Gction, writing a clever
ihe first one.'
nn is exposed and shak-
rx)wer holder, the king,
r'a force to be reckoned
bcd to plead for his life'
Dus air,- but Haman de-
7,and sParing him
would
s and try again'
Iaman's ProPerty, which
2). This little ePisode. re-
r's status. She now ts a
ment for Mordecai'
n, immediatelY thereafter
, imploring him to annul
ordecai had exPected her
r subsequent to her initial
rer. As itre tringt hesitant
r one and thus calls for a
n her Dart. But even that
: kins{ hands-as he will
ro Je"ws. The result of this
r for the two Protagonlsts'
h "Mordecai ihe Jew" and
I power uPon them jointlY'
rhcr's) request for the annulmcnt
AurxonrY
The
in.the.handling of the crisis'
a recognition of their. partnership of a coin with
in ttre.embfm
Midrash captures tntltti"ti""tiif
the other (Est' Rab' x l2)'
Mordecai on one tia*nl-r'ttil;;rr
on the lSth of fi;;';;; tlt]t*t have overpowered'their
of tfrem' the king' tPP3t:ntlllu'
enemies and slaughte"Jt"t*t to
body<ount in Susa' tells Esther
into an expansive 'nooa Uy ttte that the
make anoth., ,.qutiillh
ii;t[ #tmble' she asks bodies Jews
of
that the
in susa be allowed ;;;;;'iilof
nghting'and
Haman's sons be id;iliglrgl' lttttt point-and -"?:-:1"
are in no present danger'
lier-Esther seems ,ffii;rir;. The Jews in anvcase would not
for they hur. *"""t"i';;i;;#tes'-who tttt l3th' Even if Fsther's
be allowed ,o .onun'll niffiutf"ti it is' literally' overkill'
reouest is for a prec'utioria'y 'i"t'"t"'
anxious to get herw"l'11"n
In this.*.t'.ngt, i'ihtJseems less to
to il;-htr. She does not take the initiadve
her husband is S;t his offer' She makes her
re-
seek another boon, i"'trrnpii';tttpo
i:,iffi i.F,,*d;i1,'.;ti._.;;#fi iil:[!],:iJ:if :iil;
ff11,il1ff:;:'::'ilffi t;i'lill;',i1;::,:.:*y:i,;1:'il'u::n'
;;;it' ; *t'.tt'i,li'f
ne glect rf P.,:'i'-':;;
but ::"Li?.i' 3f:;
oealed not only to personal affection and' thus-sul-Ttnt'
bo this for me to d;;#:'tt't
p"i"
"iseeing'
she no"longer tries to justify
to'it*'i'"i airr"t"'
in the procer,
"tt' iltft
the death and sufferin8
(how-
her requests, tt'ougi";h;; urcnts the
seems tnougt' that she
ever deierved) of rn'any people'.lt of her
to kill t"tties and to abui the corpses
t*J
opportunity
t*tilfft;r.personalitvhasevolvedt"tt,tl:.t:i:io.fit::.:t"*n*
steely.and
d:J ffi;'""a."*p["*, she is'now
it was at the start. intended this
unbending, ."." r'i"i-' ;';;;t
;urt titt r*a'i-"utrtor
iht book's develoPment (see
chap'
effect. According ;;;il;';i sentences ln an
of 9 is an expansion of a few it-
XIV $3a), all Esther
earlier version of ,t. tif,.t t.V.-f-i-ttrary "alt'es:tt I:^t:T
;ii;ir,h;;rr*rllgi;;';St'.ru;::"Jif{iiil,?
:l::rlljrr':fi lI,TffiH::il;;;f h;;?;"";':,I:iI"
ever the author's
tiittt of 9: llis to introduce note
tJffiil;; a
into the oicture'
;;"*h;;ts and even bellicosity
E"i"' i"ut""n epistle conhrming the
Later in ,t't
'Ltt""tt"
 Es'rHan

decision to celebrate two days of Purim (9:29-32). Our under- one with r
standing of her action depends on whether we accept the MT or ordinarine
read an emended version, a problem discussed in the Commentary
ment and t
on this passage. According to qhe MT,5 Esther joins Mordecai in unqualifiet
confirming the decision (9:29-31), then issues a further validation The h
(9:32). According to the emended reading (which I prefer), Esther
man chara
adds her own confirmatory epistle to Mordecai's.6 In either case, it
ous charr
is finally and unequivocally rhe proclamation of Queen Esther that
carry the t
validates all the previous layers of confirmation, and her statement judge (of tl
is inscribed in a document as a witness to the furure (9:32). Her
the Spirit o
decree or statement is called a ma'd,mar, the term used of Xerxes'
a sudden d
command to Vashti in l: 15 and Mordecai's command to Esther in
process of i
2:20. She is, after all, queen of Persia as well as an ad hoc leader of
ploring an
the Jews. This is an appropriate penultimate conclusion to the
the needs c
book. The docile young beauty has risen to truly royal stature. She
demands.l
stands before her people, and not only before the king, as her cou-
a modelfor
sin's partner. Still, her role is to reinforce and support Mordecai's
is the only,
plans, albeit with some independence in their execution. The.vali-
ensures Cro
dation of Mordecai's initiative is Esther's final action. Her authority
is additive not essential, but it is her own, independent of her sources-ir
cousin's.
rally leader

4. Esther as an Ideal EXCURSI

Mordecai is more of an ideal figure than Esther. He is a bundle The ar
of constant virtues; she is imperfecr-certainly in her beginnings thors in col
and (though the author would not agree) in her behavior on l3 Suchjudgn
Adar. For that very reason, she is the more lively, human character, and to repr
very recent
Esther the I
5. '(29) And Queen Esther, daughter of Abihayil, and Mordecai the Jew conveyed
addresses d
in writing all the authority necessary to confirm this sccond Purim epistle.
(30) And he scnt letters to all rhe Jews, to the 127 provinces of Xtrxes' relation bet
kingdom-words of greeting and faithfulness-(31) t6 confirm the obser- The m
vance o[ these days of Purim in their sct times, just as Mordecai the Jew and
of Esther h
Queen Esther had conirmed upon them, in the way that they confirm upon
themselves and their descendants mauers of fasting and the accompanying cal feminic
laments. (32) And the declaration of Esther confirmed these matters concern- more to th
ing Purim, and it was written in a document."
6. "(29) And Esther is sh
Queen Esther, daughter of Abihayil, conveyed in writing alt the au-
thority necessary to confirm this Purim epistle. (30) And lerters iere sent to Fuchs l
all the Jews in the one hundrcd rwenty-seven provinces of Xerxes' kingdom- tions of pat
words of peace and faithfulness-(S1) to confirm the observance of thesc
days of Purim in their set times, jrrst as Mordecai the Jew had conhrmed upon
them. .. ." ?. Sce, forer
actcB o

204
 Excunsus

and identification' Her very

Our under- one with whom we can feel intimacy
ttx) can rise to the mo'
the MT or ordinariness suggests that ordinary f"Pt:
Mordecai may be the more
Commentary ment and take on unexpected strengths'
effective one'
Mordecai in exemplumibut she is the more
validation
""r;;;-b;ffi
""*"fin.a 'ilil;itinr",t . issue of nationat salvation to hu-
of dubi-
I prefer), Esther man character. lt oit.t it't t"estion
of whether
" fryn
unclear selfdefinition can
In either case, it ous charact., ,,r.ng,h and'(initially)
Esther that ;"tt), ;;;ta.. ti""'i"*l'salvation' Esther becomes a sort of
her statement judge (of the ,yp. *.'ttti"it't book of Judges) without bt!: :j
leader whose charisma comes not ln
(9:32). Her it."Spiti, of the tord. She is a
used of Xerxes' a sudden divine i.p"Ji,io. or spirit
but as rhe result of a difficult
The Scroll is ex-
to Esther in Drocess of inner a.u.iopr.nt arid self-realization.
of pot nti.l of human character to rise to
ad hoc leader
to
ffi;; "ri'"mr.*Jii.,-.*i"tt"t means and devices the situation
conclusion the ihe needs of the t ouiuy
to the book of Daniel as
royalstature. She demands. The ScroliJiers an alternative
pious constancy
king, as her cou- ;;;;l f* jewish life in the diaspora- itInisDaniel'
an adequate one' for it
Mordecai's is the only defense
ion. The vali- "S'r;il"G''and not miracles' but inner re'
ensures God's interv?ntion' ln"Esther'
people not natu-
Her authority ,."r..._i.tellectualls well as spiritual-even of
pendent of her o[y1."a.tt' are to be relied upon in crisis'
the Book of Esther
EXCURSUS: The Image of Woman in
The author of Esther has shared the fate
of many biblical au'
lher. He is a bundle attitudes toward women'
tf,ooin .o-ing,rna.iopptobrium for his
ly in her beginnings Such judgments often siem to me
to impose.extraneous.t::1ltdt
her behavior on 13 for not meetrng some
;;#-r."proach an ancienr Oriental societv book of
ly, human character, very recent, w;;;;;; ideals' But in t"tt ofthethebook
iht
".ry
Esther the feminist critique seems more
aProPos' for itself
the
addresses tr,. i..u.t'oil;; t;;
of women and
brdecai the Jew conveYed "na "uitititt
hb sccond Purim ePistle. relation between the sexes'
12? orovinces of Xerxes'
]l) ti confirm rhe obser- The most p"ngl"t;iicism of the imge.orlgpLn 11tY"'
Fsther F"uchs (1982)' whose radi-
tas Mordecai theJew and of Esther has been ilf;;;Jby
are' in my view' often
ry that they confirm uPon cal feminist critiques of biblical'literature
Her view of the book of
more to the mark .i"'"f'ttt than here'
lg and the accomPanyrng
rrd these mattcB concern'
(1988) and many other.feminists'7
Esther is shared Uy e. U f.affty
cycd in writing all the au' Fuchs believes that the Fsther srcry undergirds the.assumP'
that a i'oman should be
tions of patriarchal d;;;t
l) And letters were scnt to trto*inf
res of Xerxcs'kingdom-
r the obscrvance of thesc
:Jew had confirmcd uPon
ffisonalJcwishresponrofM.Gcndler(l976)tothechar.
" Esther and Vashti'
actn of
 EsrHrn

obedient and submissive, by teaching that women can become na-

tional heroines only by fulfilling their assigned roles as wives and
a bedroont xrrt
agent bur as h
mothers, and by showing that women get their way thiough decep-
she gets powcr
tive and circuitous means.s The character of the female protagonist
exemplary, he
is wanting in personal and religious strengths. Esther is torally un-
woman.
aware of Yahweh and not inspired by religious faith. Omission of
This franl
any direct dialogue with Yahweh is, Fuchs claims, "congruous with
serve that som
a more comprehensive biblical policy which allows women charac-
nificant, and
ters to hold direct discourse with God (or his agenr) only in a'pro-
flaws-if that i
creative' context" (p. 153). Woman's independence is repudiated
and thus do no
through the example of Vashti, a repudiation Esther fails to op-
clearly the aud
pose. In Laffey's words, "Rather than defend Vashti's decision and
ing, since he c
protest the injustice of her banishment, Esther uses Vashti's rejec-
this feminist o
tion for her own benefit" ( I 988 : 2 I 6; cf. Fuchs, p. I 56). The literary
influence and;
prominence given to Esther at the expense of the self-assertive, dig-
her tactics as I
nified Vashti embodies the biblical stance on sexual politics. The
elevates thesc a
author fails even to credit Esther with any particular zeal in her
Other con
desire to save her people. Her rrepidation at violating courr eri-
describe a wo!
quette and entering the inner courr is blatantly contrasred with
which she gain
Mordecai's temerity vis-i-vis Haman. She is prerty, obedient, silver-
tion, and ostcc
tongued and somewhat manipulative, using placatory language
as the ideal fo
and ingratiating formulas. She waits patiently and obediently until
the king gives permission for an audience and only then speaks. author identifir
Though the king invites her to make her requesr, she procrasti- and considered
nates. Her example teaches that aesthetic grace paves the way for she does what r
woman's success, whereas man's power comes from ethical fiber. It in no way deo:
is true that she outwits two rather stupid males, and victory is due strange and sin
to Haman's falling into the trap, but the pivotal moment occurs in approach simf
thor condemru
Esther is indco
8. Speaking of the Bible generally, Fuchs says: "Celebrated or denigrared, the char- manl world- 0
acters o[ deceptive women, which constitute the majority of female charac- book teaclus (u
ters in the Bible, serve as an effective ideological tool that perpetuates the
suspicion and distrust of women, and that validates women's subordination archy." Rather,
through discriminatory literary techniques" ( I 985 : 143). We might note, how- of laughably st
ever, that all three patriarchs, especially Jacob, employ deception or devious- national crisis a
ness at times, as do many oiher men, such as Joab, David, and Adonljah.
Deception is a constant o[ human behavior, women's not excepted. And even Other aspr
God can deceive (l Kings 22:20-23; Jer 20: 7l Ezek 14 :9). entirely differcr
D. N. Fewell (1987:80 f.) criticizes Fuch's rreatmenr o[the deception motif for
suppressing elements that run contrary to her thesis and failing to observe
ders what the a
that deception is a response to powerlessness and that others besides females tique would be
must use deception in a patriarchal society. In fact, however, it is not only the officials who we
powerless who deccive, nor is deccptivencss in and of itsclf stigmatized in the
biblical narratives. draggedoffora
no book of Esd
206
 Excursus

(Fuchs 1982:150-156)' She ac$ not as

Yahweh's
En can become na- a bed.roont scene
she shares authority when
I roles as wives and ;g.*il;;;;., ,r,.l.ll *ittt
ttlr,
si"tt"'!oT
ray thiough deceP- she gets power (PP. l;;:tii Esther is obviously meant to be
image of
:female protagonlst exemplary, her fla,"s are-t Ut blamed on the author's
Esther is totallY un- *'-iti, must.fir":!t]
r faith. Omission of frank attack warrants a resPonse' we -:b.
overlooking some srg-
It, "congruous with ,.rr. ;i;;;m. of these assessments Whatever Esther's religious
require
hrs women charac- nificant, and rather ;;;' facts'
,"i.i-*.-it.y are shared fully.by M.ordecai
tcnt) only in a'Pro' flaws-if that "t ",
is
spirituality ; but
ilcnce is rePudiated and thu s do not .on'iit't'iJ' attigt'iitl'.9r.woman's God as a fail-
clearly the author d;;t ;;; *t iitt
of dialoeue widr
I Esther fails to oP- it out of ttre
"uool altogether' Also'
Yashti's decision and ing, since he chooseJ;;';;;;
gto11h to a woman of
r uses Vashti's rejec- this feminis, .rruqut **iig"ttt Esther's of
influence a.,d po*.,. i;il;tt her
adolescJnt pliancy and some
,p- 156). The literarY author
assumes that the
hc self-assertive, di g' her tactics as her .*;;;;iE;tures and
scxual politics. The .t.r",.t
-'- these all to objects of emulation'-- To
nrticular zeal in her Oin., conclusioni confuse presuppositions with purPoses'
r violating court eti- describe a woman il;;;;;;tlitii"
iift i" an oriental court in
rhetoric' manipula-
ndy contrasted with which she gains t.''g;'it thtugh stratagems' affirmin'g this
imply.an ideology
ary, obedient, silver- don, and ostensive ptLnty is not to only if the
as the ideal female t.""L"t'itt"i
*t'fa be the case
; placatory language the book
author identified frily ;il tht 'iiit'ao
of all the males in
and obedientlY until situadon'
nd only then sPeaks. and consider.a tntit
;;Plary' Given Esther's
does it well' Likewise' the author
{uest, she Procrasti- she does what she ,";;;;J;ht in the
Ee paves the waY tor in no way a.rrig,"*J"otjt;;;
v"hti't attitude but onlv shows thatVashti's
inhabit'
ifrom ethical fiber. lt srange and silly *;iirt'itt't and Esther must
bs, and victorY is due ,#;;i#:il:;,Tl}lyil..i,*U'i1':J"'S"':,,'.::;
tel moment occurs in HiJi:ft at the start, a "stereotypical woman-tn
a
Esther is indeed, the
",-r.""
man's world" (I.afft; fig8'zrolt
but that does not mean that
td or denigrated, the char-
rajority of female charac' book tea.ches(", hfft;;;;ra il"lo "full compliancervith Patri-
anata srcreotypicai woman in a world
I tool that prPetuates ihe archy." Rather, it teaches rhar
facing the ultimate
lcs *omeni subordination
l{3). We might note, how-
of laughably ,,.,"o"tffi tt"rtt rt caf"urJlr to her own ends'
national crisis and ai'"""i"g the royal fwer
:
nlov dcception or devious-
ti book for not hing an
liU. or"i.i, and Adonijah' other asPects tiit i'iiiqYt fo!g1'ht
different concerns' One won-
tn's not excePted. And even
endrely different *ot[*itf' entirely cri-
rt 14:9).
ders what *r. ,nott worthy' stories implied by the
tof the decePtion motif for "tt.ti"iiut, the
have refused toaccomPany
bis and failing to observe tique would be like' Couid Esthe'
maidens? She would have been
officials who were t;";;;;;;ithe
lrhat others besides females
t. however, it is not onlY the been
dragged offor at be"st;;d,J'
in which case there would have
d of itsclf stigmatized in the the throne
no book of Esttrer. Aid *h", if she had
approached

207
 EsrHrn

without waiting for the king to exrend his scepter? She, like any beenjustified t

man who tried the same, would have been cut down by the guards ple's existence,
(4: I l).'g Who, then, would have defeated Haman's plot? worthy of resp
The critique also evaluates the characters by irrelevant, even inner court ar
distorted, standards. Esther is of course obedient to Mordecai; since starting with d
he stands in loco prantis, her early docility is an expression of filial satire on the ft
respect rather than sexual status. She does indeed share her power to being a satir
. with her cousin, and if a willingness to share power is a flaw, she In truth, t
may be faulted for it. Although she presumably obeys the king and This book is d
pays him homage in most circumstances, she does not subordinate tained interest
her will to his. She is, of course, indirect and manipulative-she be applied prc
has to be, like everyone else in the palace. But she is never actively vice and the a
deceptive (an accusation leveled by several non-feminist commen- not align itself
tators as well)-unless honesty demands that she come to Haman's the Bible, this i
defense and set the king straight. (How would events have un- about the mag
wound if she had done tlwt?\. One may reproach the author for nor of Xerxes and
holding his heroes to a standard of absolute openness and direct- self-defeating.
ness (an impossible and quixotic srandard, in my view). But this "patriarchy" (r
fault, if that is what it is, has nothing to do with his image of situation portr
woman. Most of the men he shows are far more devious in far less as part of the i
worthy causes. (In fact, none of the biblical authors repudiates in- he perceives tl
direction or even deception in pursuit of worthy goals.) [n my view, patriarchal soc
Esther behaves with dignity, courage, and good sense. There is patriarch's wi["
nothing demeaning in approaching a king as a supplicanr or in us- at least in thc r
ing stratagems and personal influence in achieving a valid goal. force their pc
One thing that troubles me about the critique-aparr from its harem is the r
injustice to the author-is that it is indifferent to the severity of the order is enfort
crisis that stands at the story's heart: the mortal danger to theJewish
induction shor
people. In effect it blames the author for not dealing with other,
sex objecs (an
supposedly more important issues, such as rhe dignity and inde- this case). Thc
pendence of women in the Persian court. The author, like perhaps
heavy-handed
all readers before modern times, sees Esther's sole moral dury to be The satire
the salvation of her people from destrucrion, and he shows her con- of itself, but at
forming to the expecrations of her environment in accomplishing and, by extensi
this. A far less dignified approach than the one Esther takes would
have been entirely warranted. On the other hand, it would not have
l0.Fewell (1987:t
non-actin)
archy in th
9. Joscphus accurately envisions the implication of Esther's words when he adds what do thr
that guards with axes surroundcd the king's throne ready to cut down who-
ever approached unsummoned.
be lond in i
commandr,

208
 Excunsus

She, like any beenjustified for her to assert her ego at the expense of her peo-
by the guards ple's existence. A story such as Fuchs and Laffey would consider
ot? worthy of respect-in which, perhaps, Esther would stomP into the
rclevant, even inner court and issue a series of bold, non-negotiable demands,
Iordecai; since starting with the restoration of Vashti-would have been a bitter
ession of filial satire on the feminine ego. The book we actually have comes closer
ue her power to being a satire on the masanline ego.
'is a flaw, she ln truth, the author of Esther is something of a protofeminist.
r the king and This book is the only one in the Bible with a conscious and sus-
t subordinate tained interest in sexual politics. The concept of sexual politics can
pulative-she be applied precisely and without anachronism to Memuchan's ad'
never actively vice and the ensuing decree in l: 16-22. The book certainly does
mist commen- not align itself with the men's side in the conflict. Perhaps alone in
re to Hamant the Bible, this author is aware of female subservience and is cynical
:nts have un- about the masculine qualities that require it. He sees the reaction
ruthor for not of Xentes and his noblemen to Vashti's refusal as ludicrous and
ss and direct- self-defeating. He does not, of course, call for an overthrow of
iew). But this "patriarchy" (which is probably not the best label for the social
his image of situation portrayed), but neither does he regard male dominance
pus in far less as part of the inherent moral order of the world. On the contrary,
repudiates in- he perceives the cracks in the faqade of male dominance. In a true
r.) In my view, patriarchal society, custom would be the strongest enforcer of the
nse. There is patriarch's will. The author of Esther is very much aware that males,
kant or in us- at least in the quirky Bentile world, must use political Power to en-
valid goal. force their position-and even so they do not really succeed.t0 The
aParr from irs harem is the most successful locus of male dominance-and its
serity of the order is enforced by eunuchs. Surely the description of the harem
rto theJewish induction shows an atvareness that women were being treated as
ng with other, sex objects (an often misused term that is precisely applicable in
dty and inde- this case). The author does not rail against the arrangements as a
r,like perhaps heavy-handed ideologue, but the awareness itself is noteworthy.
ral duty to be The satire is not, however, directed at male dominance in and
f,ows her con- of itself, but at male dominance as manifested in the Persian court
rcomplishing and, by extension, throughout the gentile realm. The book's ironv
lr takes would
lotrld not have
l0.Fewell (198?:83-84) puts it in a nutshcll: "The action (or perhaps I should sa1
non-action) of one woman threatens to collapse the entire structure of patri'
archy in the entire Persian empire. So much for indomitable patriarchy. So
dr when he adds what do the men do? They peisuade the hing to Pass a law-that.'every man
b cut down who- bc lord in his own house.' If the king's laws are not more etlecttve than nls
commands, I dare say that patriarchy is in big troublc."

209
 EslHrr

is from a Jewish-not a feminist or even a specifically female- dints m7I

perspective, but it does recognize the silliness, if not the deep per- dhspmft
niciousness, of one extreme form of sexual politics. Thcq
More important than the satire of gentile behavior is the way pinttr hi
the author shapes his woman hero. He respects Esther as a woman bcth Cdt !
of courage and intelligence who does not abandon her dignity even rightr a
when facing an enemy and struggling to influence the erratic will
of a despotic husband. Moreover, the author depicts a successful Vashti H
relationship of power-sharing between male and female, in which ad i
thc
both attain prestige and influence in the community. ln the pivotal droocc I
to seve L
scene in chapter 4, man and woman give each other mutual obedi-
as quoaf
ence. What is more, the book takes as its hero a woman whose im-
sPccting r
portance to the Jewish people does noi lie in childbearing; there creatirrd
are only a handful of such cases in the Bible."
Sidnie Ann White, in addition to making several of the above Thocj
points, argues that the author affirms the feminine as a model for the authojl
the Jewish people in the diaspora: Near East d
standards.
The Jews in the Diaspora are also in the position of the weak, as a
subordinate population under the dominant Persian government.
They must adjust to their lack of immediate political and economic 12.For e tbcd
power, and learn to work within the system to gain what power they r98A li
can. In the book of Esther, their role model for this adjustment is
libcrd
libcrrir
Esther. . . . With no native power of her own owing to her sex or l3.Scc.bo k
position in society, Esther must learn to make her way among the
powerful and to cooperate with others in order to make herself se-
cure. (1989:173)
The author does not, to be sure, draw the analogy between
Esther and the diaspora Jew or turn Esther into a token. She does
not "stand for" the diaspora Jew. But as a Jew who succeeds in the
most severe of crises, she (like Daniel and his friends) is a natural
model forJews who find themselves in similar situations. Of course,
just because the story mkes place in the diaspora does not mean
that it is intended to be relevant to the diaspora alone. In any royal
court-David's being an excellent example-in fact, in any situa-
tion where power is concentrated in one individual, people must
pursue their goals by circuitous, if not devious, means. But because
the gentile state is essentially indifferent to Jewish existence, and
because Jews have no other defense in their dispersion, such expe-

I l. Noted by Meinhold, p. 105-6.

210
 Excunsus

concerns in the
to Jewish national
dly female- dients may be more .important
:-ry;: w:.
the deeP Per-
m:Jiin**'S-
credentiab
:til :i':::"[l# llxrufi
tlll;iir"-*.i"ry woman's
dor is the waY ooinr|! has impeccable
Gr as a woman
[Li,' c"Jv 5d""tr,l;i"Tffi#"'l]iiu,
righs advocate, *"u::
*
cr dignity even :---:'.,:. :n-To*ir.dwomanly gis.iil
the Jrratic will heroic couragt "o*ins by kingsnrp, to
Vashti had exercised
ils a successful
male, in which
r.ln the Pivotal
r mutual obedi-
man whose im-
Itt$$**r*ffi'$,t*l',m or men ' ' ' (r8e5:e2)'
dbearing; there H:lll3"il: #'nii'"'i'o'"' quite in accord with
I have "'gut"9:"""
ral of the above
These judgments'
Tt""
the author's i"tt"tio"''' up so ";:'
**i|if$tff ;Hfill
well to i
e as a model for Near East that can stand
standards'
I the weak, as
a
E Eovernment'
I and economtc
libcrated woman"'
rhat power theY
b adustment ts , r. r.Jitl"ii.l;r I e8? : 83'
g ro her sex or
uay among the
nake herself se-

analogY between
a token. She does
ho succeeds in the
riends) is a natural
uations. Of course'
ra does not mean
zlone. tn anY roYal
r fact, in anY situa-
ilual, PeoPle must
llcans. But because
rish existence, and
exPe-
;rcrsion, such

2ll
 CHAPTER XI
shifting wiad
THE JEWS tcr or wortc.l
the peopbi

f. Wh.t tL
Fourtir
One oPinion: they mourn,
"Much more frequent are the bad, even repulsive, crate thc h
features of this national character-above all the
unrestrained vindictiveness, which with true Oriental A. MOURNDI
savagery allows its imagination to swim and revel in in reaction to
the blood of the oPPonent."
And in cad
(M. Halla 1925:)28-29) law reactod
weeping r
for the ma
TheJewish pople is one of the players in the drama of Esther.
Not that its character is a vivid one. It is nearly faceless, devoid of Even in thci
personality, and, until the last chapter, almost entirely Passive, tak- While Mordt
ing no initiative but only responding to the initiative of others. Yet mourningJ
its role in the communication of the book's ideology is of great Jews are suti
importance. structions: o
TheJews function as a single figure in the book; whatever they and "there r
do, they do as a group. (Hence "the Jews" in this chapter will often weeping, au
refer to the anonymous masses of Jews, as distinct from the two constructionl
named leaders.) Their unity is absolute. Other than the two heroes, ofJews, as if r

no individual Jews are mentioned, nor is their consensus ever TheJerl

breached. The Jews' main characteristic, the mark of their moral Mordecai's G
character, is thiir ready and complete assent to the guidance of Susa, Mordcr
their leaders. the Jews elsa
This image of theJews is by no means to be taken for granted. tion has a litr
ln other biblical narratives, the community of Israel has a sharply echo Morfu
etched individuality and a will of its own. [t is not meekly led; on aware of iu
the contrary, its salient feature is the refractoriness of its will. The
B. REJOTCIM
biblical texts-narrative, prophetic, and even psalmodic-present
sponse railrc
a people in constant opposition to its rightful leaders, whether re-
personal cor
sisting Moses'efforts to lead them out of slavery, the prophes' at-
"there were.
tempts to turn them to ethical behavior and exclusive loyalty to
Israel's God, or Nehemiaht demands for national'religious exclu-
siveness. Moreover, they are a mixed lot: many sinners, a few righ- l. Gerleman (p
teous pople, and many others who seem tossed about in the rhe pcofl

212
 Wxer rHrJrws Do

shifting winds of history. Many ind-ividuals are singled-out' jolbet-

we see in the scroll, where
;;;;;.r;;. Quite diffirent isthe Israelpassive'
il pfii;lt i"in.a, undifferentiated, and responsive'

l. I{hat theJews Do
Four times only do theJews as a peopte aPPear onsuge:
w-hen
fight' and when they
One opinion: they mourn, when they rejoice, when they
even repulsive, .r."t the holidaY of Purim.
their mourning
true Oriental e. MounNtNc. The firstJewish action rePorted is
and revel in in reacdon to Haman's decree:
the opponent." and his
And in each and every province, wherever rhe kingb-word
with lasung.ano
1925:328-29) law reached, there was scvere griefamong thcJews'
with sackcloth and ashes being spreao out
weeping and lamenting,
for the masses. (4:3)
u of Esther.
is, devoid of Even in their outburst the Jews remain abstract and impersonal'
his
passive, tak- Wtrif. Mordecai is tt e acti,i agent of the sentences rePorting
and so on (4:l)' the
ofothers. Yet -o.rning-he tears his clothei cries aloud' con-
is of great i.*. Iubiect to impersonal events described in impersonal
"r.
l;;ff;;;;;iltoy"i.L.^and reaches the places where th2
1Yt'
and "there was" ievere grief among the Jews; there were tasunS'
; whatever they
weeping, and lamenting'; .rrd (in f somiwhat unnatural
passive
will often
for" the masses
from the two ;;.t'r;;A;;), sackclothind ashes "were spread out
the two heroes, * if ihey thems.lves were not doing tht tP:19]111.. atter
" Th.3.*.' mourning and outcry (in 4:3) is repoleo-only ^..
consensus ever "ii"*t,
of their moral Mordecai's (in a:ll. ih?s is logical, since living
in the Fortress oF
while
the guidance of irr", rtr"tai.ai wo,rlJb. "rott"g the firstto know of the edict' narra-
sequence of
;il];*, elsewhere learn of it oity later. Yet the responsc
taken for granted. ii.r't . riterary effect as well: ii makes the community's
has a sharply "t
echo Mordecai's, as if he were their leader even before they are
mt meekly led; on aware of it.
rcssof its will. The is likervise a.re'
a. Rn;otctNc. The communal action of rejoicing
ralmodic-present m lm-
.oorrr. rather than an initiative, and again it is formulated
aders, whether re- ("theJews had-'in 8: 16 and 17, is,literally,
n the prophets'at- f;h;.;;. . .i. tt.J;ws)] After issuing his counter-edicr on 23
":;;"il"r".ii"rr
cxclusive loyalty to
nd-religious exclu-
sinners, a few righ-
ffirvesthecontrastinthcwaytheactionsofMordccaiand
' ";;
r"ii. "..'d.*i# ;;i ;;;;t t.Ptain iis titerarv'ideological
cffcct'
rsed about in the

213
 THeJtws

Sivan, Mordecai emerges from the palace dressed in magnificent Subsequendy

clothes. This reversal of his earlier public donning of sackcloth sig- "punished by
nals his personal victory and his assurance of the Jews' deliverance. ment executc
The Jews learn that the danger is essentially resolved ahd reverse other hand, ir
theii earlier act of mourning by joy, feasting, and celebration edict and ttr
(8: 16-17). In addition, they now have "honor"-the same word which the sta
(y'qar\ is used repeatedly of the honor the king gives Mordecai in which not eu
itipt.r 6. Mordbcai has now vanquished his enemy.and.-issued a their compau
deciee that holds our hope for the Jews' salvation. His fellow Jews ducing the pr
share in their champion's glory, and from being helpless mourners lacking in rhe
they have become in object of both resPect and fear (8:17)' The a way analog
lwo responses, mournin[ and festivity, bracket the drama of salva- itself militaril
tion, during which timJ the Jews can do nothing but wait while not want to l

others shapi their fate in ways they are unaware of. them seeking
c. FIGHTING. The Jewish people comes to center-stage nine irreversible l:
months later, on 13 Adar, in chapter 9. On the day set for their selves to be a
obliteration, theJews come on the scene to save themselves by their fundamentall
own actions, slaughtering myriads of their enemies in the Process. The Jew:
For the first timeihey a.i spoken of with active verbs-a profusion thor might h
of them-as they "gain control" (9: I ); "gather" (9: 2),2 "slaughter," brave resistal
"slay," "wreak theii will" (9:5), and so on. And like the ancient carefully pro
armies of Israel, they paralyze their enemies with fear' The authori- the winning r

ties, afraid of the giowing power of Mordecai, had been "pro- decisive point
moting" or "exalting" the Jews (9:3)-the same verb (ziiia') was tive of the su
used oi Haman's adiancemint in 3 : l. Finally, after the battles, the lion. Jewish
Jews "have respite" and
"make their day of feasting"-again, with showing Mor
active verbs (9: l7-18). man's decree,
The Jews now act in concert on their own initiative, without their own--o
waiting f6r a call to arms from Mordecai, beyond the license that Jews were so
the rold edict gave them. Moreover, they demonstrate a certain they would h
independence, d-iverging slightly from his edict by refusing to take the need ari
spoil, as he had allowed. disobeys the
The author might have chosen other ways than battle to re- and Esther d
solve the crisis and Jr.t o-. the danger' In the story as preserved But when po
by proto-AT (on which see chapter XtV $2), Mordecai receives the law. Their ac
royal seal and is able to revoke Haman's decree with no further ado. not obey the
The sect
2. Technicatly, this verb (ntqhdlul is in a passive-reflexive. conjugarion (the niphal); ish self-reliar:
but semanticalty it is active, describing something the Jews do, not somethlng either by der
done to them. very least) by

214
 -!
Wxet rHrJews Do

in magnificent Subsequently, Esther receives permission to have her enemies

sackcloth sig- .punis'hed by slaughter" (AT viiiig-Zt). fhis massacre is a punish-
'deliverance.
,rl.n,.*...,,.a Uy"t"yrt grant, not a battle' The MT-author' on the
ahd reverse other hand, is inierestedin more than the cancellation of Haman's
celebration edict and the death of the guilty. He chooses to Portray a crisis
same word which the state (in the p.*oi of ihe king) could not resolve and
in
Mordecai in *,t i.t, nor even the Jewish queen and vizier could unaided save
and issued a their compatriots. Tie MT cieates this peculiar situadon by intro'
His fellow Jews Juiing thi presumption of the immutability of Persian law' a theme
mourners 1";1ffi in tire AT. tn. Ut resolution allows theJevs to beh.ave in
fear (8: l7). The *,ry""n"logous to an independent nation, one that can defend
drama of salva- "itself *itit"tijy against its enemies. However, the MT-author does
but wait while not want to havi them violating the state! authority-or to show
of
ih., r..t ing political independe"nce. The addition of the theme
them-
-stage nlne irreversible I"* .r."t.s a situation in which the Jews Prove
selves to be at one and the same dme obedient to gendle
law and
day set for their
selves by their fu ndamentally self-suffi cient.
in the process. The Jews act in accordance with the law of the land' The au-
profusion thor migfrt have emphasizedJewish self-reliance by telling a taleof
:2),2 "slaughter," L."n. rJtironce in ihe abt*ie of royal authorization. Instead, he
like the ancient carefully provides royal sanction for the Jewish action' and makes
the
fear. The authori- it. *iririi,g of this, iather rhan the actual military resistance, preroga'
had been "pro' decisive poi"nt of the struggle. The exercise of force is the
verb (nisra') was iir. of *ie state, and any i,"nsanctioned resort to it is crime or rebel-
the battles, the ii.". j.ritt commitment to the king's law is demonstrated of
by
Ha'
"-again, with ,t o*i]r,g Mordecai and Esther first seeling the cancellation
man', d"e...e, and only when denied that ioute issuing a decree.of
initiative, without it.i, o*n-one whictr is also the king's. We cannot assume that the
the license that i.*, *.r. so law-abiding that in thelbsence of the After counter-decree
lmonstrate a certaln it.y *"ria have submiited passively to.slaughter'
:l! :!:-1
I by refusing to take the need arises, they are willing to violate gentile law: IUordecat
Ji*U.y, the royal oidin"n.. foi the sake of narional pride(4:(3:2),
16).
ys than battle to re- and Esther does likewise for the sake of national existence
he story as preserved gui *L., possible,Jews work within the framework of the imperial
"do
lordecai receives the law. Their'action re-futes Haman's absolute claim that the Jews
rwith no further ado. not obey the laws of the king" (3:8). -
The second theme rhaiemerges from the battle report isJew-
resources'
: conjugation (the niphal); ish self-reliance. If the state leaves theJews to their own
hcJews do, not something .ithe, by denying its support to their inemies' schemes' or (at the
f.rJ,l Uy per"mitting theSe*s the right of selfdefense' they can
".ry

215
 T'ur.Jrws

take care of themselves. They do not require special protection

from the state or the investment of special resources to keep them 2. The Cb.n
alive. This is demonstrated by the battles of Adar and is implied by A. JEwrsH ATT
Mordecai's assertion in 4: 14 that even if Esther neglects her duty,
"deliverance will arise for the Jews from another source." The ide- Jewish national
visions the relu
ology of self-reliance is suggestive of a self-confidence that J.*ry Many coru
could not have possessed in many diasporas and in many eras. But gentiles.{ Th.I
perhaps it is asserting confidence in def.ance of reality.
against all gent
The message of self-reliance is emphasized also by the Jews' "All the hateful
refusal to take spoil (9: 10, 15, l6). This is not a humanitarian ges-
themselves unc
ture-after all, they slaughter all their enemies anyway. Nor is their lieves that Mord
restraint a matter of obedience, for Mordecai had authorized the titude toward tl
taking of spoil. It is in part a rectification of Saul's failing (l Sam your enemy" (l
l5): Saul took spoilalthough forbidden to take it; the present gen- psalmists'and]
eration refuses to take it though permitted to do so. Their refusal
that "the bool,
is, moreover, an assertion of dignity and self-sufficiency; they will
heathens live in
not be enriched by their enemies' property (compare Abraham's world to such a
refusal to partake in spoil in Gen 14:23).3 TheJews, though fully
monotheism all
responsive to Mordecai's leadership, go beyond his requirements
religion and cu
and spontaneously show a better way to conduct a war.
"must necessaril
o. EsrnnltsHlNc rHr Holtonv. The Jewish people attains its Hence one can
most important role in the ideological (though not the dramatic) faced each oths
climax-the establishment of Purim (9:20-32). On the l4th of Such readir
Adar (the l5th in Susa), the Jews, unprompted, celebrate. They gentile world, tl
celebrate not the victory, but the respite that follows upon it. Mor- But the book iu
decai recognizes in their festivities something of value, worthy of Jews not as thc
fixation as a communal institution. He calls upon them to reenact
their celebration in perpetuity. They respond to the call of their
Ieader, who has earned moral authority and who invokes recent 4. The &roll harh
intoleranc o
events (vv. 22-23), and they consequently undertake certain ob- the ninetccl
servances and make them binding on their descendants (v.27). alism. For e r
edly spitcfri
The keyword in this process is "confrrm" (qoyyen, discussed in describes hc
the Commentary to 9:20-21). Through a series of confirmations that Esttrcrb
and reconfirmations, the outbursts of joy after the battles of Adar race.
Some comm'cru
are regularized and made into a practice incumbent upon all Jews book by czt
in all generations. And all this is further reinforced by the authority mann, pp. ll
of another leader, the queen (9:29-32). period (itil-
5. It is obviously u
polemical o
3. This interpretation was suggested by Grotius; see Paton. does hatc hi
implicd ther t

2r6

ire special Protectlon
iiources to keeP them
ldar and is imPlied bY
tcr neglects her dutY'
rher so-urce"'The ide-
,aonfidence that JewrY
'md in manY eras' But
of realitY.
doa "fo bY the Jews'
fl a humanitarian ges-
t rny*ry. Nor is their
ni h;d authorized the
bf Sauls failing (l Sam
nke it; the Present gen-
Ito do ro. Thtit refusal
:tr-sufficiencY; theY will
f, (.otnP"te Abraham's
Iil,. J.*t, though fullY
gyond his requirements
nduct a war'
hrish PeoPle attains its
t"eh ,tot it " dramatic)of
ro-"gzf. On the l4th
m,pt d, celebrate' TheY
hat'follows uPon it' Mor-
Uri"S d valui, worthY
of
{f ripon them to reenact
;"i to the call of their
,.and who invokes recent
rlv .rrrd.rtake certain ob-
#descet d"nts (v' 27)'
Wm" \qoYl*, discussed
r a series of conhrmauons
in
, rf,.t the battles of Adar
I in.umbet t uPon all Jews
rcinforced bY the authonty
':
Paton.
ProPm
THr CHnnecren or rxrJrwtsn
People
2. The Character of theJewish
Gr'Nrtlr's- tn the context of the
n. Inwtsn ATTITUDEs rowARD how the author en-
t".iish nadonal tt'""lttl'*t tf'o"raconsider
'#on:,h. ;;;r; between Jews booi as exuding
and gentiles'
hatred loward
Many commtt':;;;;;Jthe
ffi L]itri#qi{.{lfl
ffi tr$ffitd':t;l[i'jf
b'
rsgl' Dommerihausen (P' 62)
themselves,rr.o""iIiigos' b"*iotlaman is rooted in Israel'sat-
lieves that Mordecai'sied;;i;" hate
Your neighbor and
titude toward,t't t"tiyli""nt'ra.lore ht ihi"ks isieflected the
in
your enemy" (Matt 5";ii'-;; 'iii*at
for revenge' Loretz (1969:317)
avers
nsalmists' andJeremiah's calls
*6trJ in wt'ictr the Jews and
i.hat "the book of Et'ht;;;t;'iut' " endre
asks what brings the
heathens live in *';;il";;;d'i'-ct'nttt thlt it is their
'nJ 'n'*t"
the Jews
world to such a hatred against the Pagan
ptJ# l"*s' toglther with a scorn for
monotheism ,na
ii''t- "p"t ftom rhe gentiles and
relision urrd t"to'ni' *t'itr' "o heathendom''''
of the entiretv of
"mrist necessarily d;;';il;;h time heathen and Jews
Hence one can #;;;;ih't 't-th"t
camps" (po' 73-74)'
faced each other in ii"-ftottift with the entirety of the
Such readingt tdt;;iilil 'ntil"ti*' world'thul'*'Y'
eentile world, thtt ;;;;
lit "'it'"i r"r se-eing the enemies of the
it'i'' atn"ti the
[ut the book itself ffiil; dteven rt
cl't"in hostile nation' but
as the heathen' no[ '
Jews not "
widely excoriat+ fo'1 h"1tl
i. ,n. Scroll has be-en ,:,t
inroreran.. or
"ili"*riiii'i"ii"'"ri'.' X':ilHl;'#jl'.jlif,tll,,li'l:
i}l;$*i:intrttrt'lmffi':iffi afi ir:;.r**
race'
commcnutors did trv to mitigate
tn'Too"ffi1L;":Xt#j}:H{,'i:i':
*]fflJklilll;;i:H.*,,:J[j'fifJ;:"ri;I;.;wEre,y-pica,or,he
some
,,,,Sil*jlli,o;*'f |.1.*l;:',i.8:'J';ili::il1't['#J]1':::,{**111+
*'.T':* f I'iilll';'ldil'" fi.' T'1, fu 1'ti
J a'nni'ion )' bu t now here
ts tt
it t i"-t obligation to do so'
ffiii.i trt"i-trtttt
2t7
 THrJrws

(tautologously) as those who hate theJews and those who seek to harm Moreover, in t
in * P,"l;. T'h.t. is no schematic, light-and-darkness struggle be- Jews (8: l7), e
rween Jew and gentile.6 By refusing to tar all gentiles.with the same (9:3). To be n
brush,"the author of Esther showJthat he does not hate the "hea- sibility that tlrc
then."7 He has no desire for vengeance upon the gentiles, but only lent (those wlx
[pon the Jews' enemies (8: l3). By the-same token, he does not also believes tl
"gentiles
,egard all as antagonisric toward Jews. There do exist nu- tify themsclver
*E o,r, diJhard anti-JewiJr elements; for the author this is a fact celebrate Purir
of life, one rhar can b*e taken for granted without further explana- and were them
tion. This is antisemitism in the modern sense-not a hatred to- The bool
ward individuals or even a clash between tribes, but an ongoing, firmingJewish
widespread, inveterate enmity toward Jews as such: at best, a nasty segreSationist,
static tuzzing incessanrly in the background of the Jews' lives, at in the gentile
worst, an assault on their very existence. many. Almost
The author does not depict gentiles as inherently or univer- ness (3:8), the
sally anti-Jewish. Mordecai s cllleagues in the palace administration eigners. He &
do not r.i- ,o have been aware thit he was aJew until he informed gentile, thougt
them of this (3:4). Since Mordecai hardly conceals his Jewishness, Nor does the i
their unawareness suggests that there was no attempt to identify socially, thougl
the Jews or keep them* out of office. Nor is the king himself an identity. The ;

antiiemite. His inowledge rhat Mordecai is a Jew (6: l0) does not does not evn
affect the way he tteats him. When he consents to Haman's pro- Though he pn
posal, it is noi out of hatred of Jews, for he does not know that the superior, he d
people Haman is describing are the JgYt'' If hostility toward Jews The auth
*"r. , given, Haman woulJ have exploited it. The "city of Susa" is to the PeoPh
dismayEd when theJews are threatened (3: l5) andjoyful when the with the idea r
*ay is'opened for Jiwish deliverance (8: l5). The author's belief in assumes that I
the exisience of syhpathy among the gentiles is thus not canceled Niditch is mig
by the presence of inemies in Susa and throughout the empire' defined by trc
status" (1987:
dream
6. notion was added to the book in the Greek translation. ln Mordecait
- -'iildiii..
That of the other gi
A), as two dragons clash' alt the nations gather to ngll,lg"iTllli
.lnation of the righteouso (A 6). This polarization was deliberately removeo than that of al
bv the editor of ihe nT, in whose ..t.iling all the nations (and not only
the know what *r
i.itin;Jby ,h; dragons, and the|.prepa.re to 6ght-but.not against ness at the on
iJ*ri "*
it . j.*r, who, it turns out' tir. everybody by ciying.ott t9 G4 !i 6-), ^,, --- have been lo,r
7. As Levinson (19?6:443) points out' Haman is not considered tyPrcalol ."tlg-tl-
tiles;onthecontrary'hisforeign.AmalekiteancestrysusgeststhathelsatyP.l.
'Bickerman
does not scm
cal. too observes ihat the author isolates Haman's act as one ol
oersonal venqeance (1967 : 196, 2 l7- l8)'
8. Nori ir
is h.
he philosemire. When the plot is uncovered
un he does not react against.it
a 9. Even scholars
;;; " Ih.l*."J.a victims arJ the Jewish people, but because his own wife ism. H.,-t
is among them the moct'r

218
 or rutJewtsn Pr'ort-s
Tue CHlracrun

dmse uho seck

to h'ann
be-
brkness struggle
rntiles with the same
t rrot hate the "hea-
the qentiles, but onlY
u*****$l,lr**;*,,rffi
c tof.rr, he does not
a There do exst tact
: ",rthor this is a-

frout further exPlana-

nu-

to-
H'{*'#J*$*fffrfffi
lnse-not a hatred.
ribes, but an ongolng'
o,*,'.'*iltl*:;;n:m.tiT"',1?lll[l**f#jJ:*lE
r such: at best' a
nasty
at ffi :Tllil Xl'il ;' *"u'f 'l- I'l 1;,,, or ish J
ew se-p.arate -

rs';ilrn:rff g**t61*1355**t
d of the Jews' lives'

c inherentlY or univer-
: oalace administrauon
I iil ""t,ir he informed
o"nceals his Jewishness'
;;;;;;*Pito
L ,tt. king
identifY
himsett an flffffii5***sx-qgP'*s-"i'.t...l,.ilt
" I0) does not
t1 Ie* (6:
ot aa"r,,t to Hamans Pro-

$m-ffiffi[
the
f'a".-t-"ot, know that
i iit o.tilitv toward Jews

il:fri:ri,'till-fiti
.ir.tit t'r'"s not canceled
il throughout the
emPrre'
*p*fmfim**n*$g***
of the other gtrts -.^'1'-::::;;in the errrprre. \^ *--'-.-' --
;#;;;.""H'i:lxm*][ixl[:.kfl
*o:':'ilr; ]iJilli;
ffi*t*ffi
what
know ;';;not conclude T.i:i:"if,-"rr,. ki'g
l::it.i*'*::**'.tfii*li:"",:mYruti1o.
not sem to
anYthing
see
sPeoa
does

m;ltlfr*r+li;,{{fit
#,lfn::$i:::';iTi':
219
 TnrJews

In the world of Esther, as in reality, some gentiles-indeed, a book could or

great many-hate all Jews, but the Jews do not hate all gentiles. how be decan
The world at large is viewed as essentially neutral; some gentiles feeling comm
are helpful and sympathetid, others implacably hostile, most are that the Jews
indifferent. Were it not for the danger posed by antisemitic hostility gapng in an I
it would not be at all a bad thing to be aJew in the world of Esther. to be hostile .
. This is, of course, the situation Jews have actually known in many notion in 9:5
lands of the diaspora. declared that
Gentiles on a
n. THr Moneltrv oF THE Jrws' CoNoucr. The conduct of the connivance ol
fighting, both in the form licensed by Mordecai's edict and as it Bernhard An
eventuated in Adar, has called into question the moral character of by a fierce n
theJewish people in the book, and thus the ethics of the book itself. stand in glarir
Scholars have often judged this character in accordance with their deed, he asscr
own ethical presuppositions, and this is, in principle, quite legiti- ferent from tl
mate. If one can affirm the values assumed and taught by literature, plan into reve
one can reject them as well. A neutral, value-free reading is an in- fight was nea
complete one, an inadequate resPonse to the text's own terms. The Haman's
author of Esther, after all, is not merely telling an exciting story- one to kill an
He takes an ethical stance, which includes an implicit a{firmation but only coul
of the morality of the behavior of the two protagonists and the ized by Mord
other Jews in this affair, and he expects the reader to grant the ficial aid. To i
validity of that stance. It is appropriate, then, for the reader to re- a Perverge m
spond by weighing the author's own values. Objectivity in such instructs theJ
judgments does not mean neutrality but rather the avoidance of (8: l3), but u
extraneous motives in the evaluation, such as the desire to justify standpoint, L
one's own hostility toward Jews-or to shield contemPorary Jews mate exercisc
from accusations against their ancestors.
We should remember that all such judgments are properly di-
rected at the book's author, not at the Jews of Esther's time, for it is l0.Pfeiller l9li2
with tkir
he who probably created and certainly validated the actions de- I l.Anderrm 19
scribed. Even if, as some scholars assert, there is an historical "core" tocomF
to the tale-and there is no evidence for such a thing-it is the l2.Ibid., p. {l-
gentilcr i
author who must be held responsible for the values informing the Chrfuti.tr
narration of the events. theJoil
Esther's requests, Mordecai's decree, and the people's conduct (p. {0). S
to pnelcn
of the war have been condemned for displaying aggressiveness, being prq
brutality, and vindictiveness. Schalom Ben-Chorin (1939:9) de- say whct
scribed the Jewish action as a pogrom protected by the regime. Another thcl
regardh
Ben-Chorin, a former GermanJew writing in 1938, feared that the conccra I

220
 Ptorlr
Tue CHrracrrn or rntJrwtsH

bookcouldonlyexacerbategentilehostility'andurgedthatit:oTt- a
iiles-indeed, a
how be decanonized'
il;tttant scholar L' B' Paton vorced
fit
rc all gentiles.
; some Eentiles il.ri,'s.r-'"."1ryil:Hl'rl:i:ffiffi :T:,,-:il.X'-'.:ii:1
Fdle, most are
rcmitic hostilitY
rcrld of Esther. !}ffi;:;:;t:.T:"ifi i'$-t;1i**$ttg;i};1-
9:5)' tn an influential oT introt
lnown in manY ;"";;;i" "a
il.il;';"iittt batdes in Persia were

: conduct of the
l edict and as it
oral character of
#tri*Ilt**l*-l;x*nhx'ffi
uctio"t' :: *:,*:llil
'.:xT:fr ,il:,11 I ".
fthe book itself. :#. H;ffi
he
asserts' "tnt jl"'' i" dU:1
it'ti' "t ""t
essentially dif-

n*tiii' ni";;:;i""d r'tt''i merelv put

dance with their deed, Hamans
ferent from the
[le, quite legiti-
Eht by literature, ;Hi#;;";::::;I:fl ii:::*;[:tt"':i"':':":: j:-'
rcading is an tn- **il;*"i111T:T*:H1,.','.|;',-
^tn,#;::;':;ili,ffi
one to kur and,q ;;' Jh', P'Y' l':*
rown terms. The ji**1.T':T:T,*l
m exciting storY'
plicit affirmation
egonists and the L:';.tU:H#i;ff |T:;.li""T'H;;J;ii"1e1"'-"'r'r
ro im'gt#;: f*;;'atrtn"tt"i
(prtifftt tgsz:z+t) is

der to grant the ficial aid. rt'i' tlyt that Mordecai's decree
'the reader to re- a Derverse -itai"i"io'i""r"pity' on their enemies"
instructs theJews t;;;;y
"io t"ke
ljectivitY in such- "n*t'ntt
;;;!"' it may uE 'it*ta from an ethical
the avoidance ot (8:13), b.rt legttt-
c desire to justifY
""gt""';
standpoint, i' "ot ffiito"'
"v*g.t ance"
-a
(n'qamalr) means
(see the
outsiae judicial context
ntemPorary Jews mate exercise or pinitive Power

ts are proPerlY di-

r0pf eiffcrI'#*1h,:::llT.iJJ"i."i,.'Hhl'illlrli*:i.-r:1r::.::
her's time, for it is
o,ijl*"i*, s5d;r. ri;'.'sll g1 t$*"':'}l'"',llJ]"
ii o:i i, iou. -
d the actions de- ,, .

"litxfl.ill';:,1'fi :fii;iilil"''"']1fi"...i:]'t**'*:
finfi rr . L

n historical "core"
a thing-it is the "*$jpt;g,i$,tr[1g,1,gt{ffi
hres informing the
f;ltH':i$:rffi
ilf i",L n rrom exti nctiotig:li 1",
: people's conduct ib pr.r..r.,r,. .y.* lli\ r'l"ri:'l'S'
ing aggressiveness' tfi'r i',:.i,;!-1"1.,,9fffi',"fff;5:*i
that
whether' Pt
X .llp.,aJur. , -_ -^
nnin (1939:9) de- saY
o':*"'J[T':F'i[.lll[[+iri:'i:$l!:fi l;1:]::$ilrrli]'"T'lLi';
rcd by the regime'
;t";;i;;-G"d and' perhaps' for christtanttl
I38. feared that the

22t
 TurJtws

Commentary on 8: l3). There can be no vengeance without an un- from "aff

punished offense. In this case, the revenge is directed against ac- scope ard
tively hostile, armed enemies. It is not a mere vendetta, vengeance TheJ
for its own sake wreaked upon a currently pacific party guilty only sade agair
of past wrong. the lines t
Esther, for her part, had not sought hostilities or vengeance of the hd
prior to l3 Adar. She had not asked that her enemies be punished, David,Jol
but only that Haman's edict be returned, that is, rescinded (8:5). not tryint
This bloodless solution failed only because the rigidity of the gen- even atta
tile state proved unable to protect the lives of itsJewish subjects.tS manded i
Mordecai's edict granted the Jews the right of self-defense, "to where in
make a stand for their lives" (8:ll). TheJewish action is thus, by
the book's presuppositions, defensive. (The Jews presumably did
not overstep the bounds of the license; had they done so, they largc r

evirlcr
would have rendered the edict pointless and would have risked of- bchru
frcial sanction.'a) The edict is not a general license to massacre any- Pr6cl
the cr
one the Jews did not like.
most I
The Jews are of necessity fighting defensively. The phrase "to bclief
make a stand for their lives" (8:ll) shows that their lives were in
r

do dn
danger. They are not frghting against gentiles as such, but only tion b1
l6.There br
against the deliberate persecutors of the Jews, "the forces of every ther q
people and province who afflict them" (8:ll), in other words, cenlul
armed bands ("forces") of assailants. That is what these people are; in Ml
wasju
they have no other identity. (This definition cannot be dismissed as he inl
propaganda, because this rs the reality in the world of the text, and Odcs*
there are no external facts, such as a historical conflict, against baucrr
out, a
which the defrnition can be measured.) The assailants are endan- that br
gering themselves by their own hostility.'5 If they had refrained shal
'TtteJ
polie-
l3.As observed by Meinhold, p. 103. thcir e
l4.Their refusal to take booty was more stringent than the edict demanded, but it Haupt co
story a
did not violate its terms.
15. S. Goldman tries to distinguish between the morality of the Jews in the book and
cenlur
that of the book itself. With regard to (l) the lewish poplc (as characters in
wene !
the book) he asserts that "when one considers the disproportionate gratuitous
lief-p
ted to
Jewish attack in the light of Persian pro-Jewish sentiments, the attack becomes nevcr I
a massacre, aJewish bloodbath against Persians" (1990:24). (2) With regard
to the DooA (seen from the perspective of the reader, Goldman claims that, by It seems t
means of "generative irony," the narrative becomes "an example of Jewish onaF
self-criticism, a bold questioning of the Jewish self-image" (p. 24). the uq
Goldman is wrong in both regards. (l) TheJews did rlo, attack; they assembled of drl
to withstand attack, and the casualties they afflicted were proportionate to the on the
extent of the attack on them: the fewer gentiles chose to attack, the fewer all-di
would have been killed. And whatever the sympathies of most Persians, a lT.Dommerd
confli:

222

gcance without an un-
L directed against ac-
rG Yendetta, vengeance
rcific party guilty onlY
srilities or vengeance
renemies be punished,
hnt is, rescinded (8:5).
the rigidity of the gen-
of its Jewish subjects.'3
fht of self-defense, "to
nish action is thus, by
c Jews presumably did
rd they done so, they
I would have risked of-
loense to massacre any-
nsively. The phrase "to
rhat their lives were in
riles as such, but onlY
rs, "the forces of everY
B: I l), in other words,
tuhat these people are;
lcannot be dismissed as
: world of the text, and
rcrical conflict, against
rc assailants are endan-
l lf they had refrained
n rhe edict demanded, but it
the book and
iy of the Jews in
ftirsh Fople (as characters in
: disproportionate Sratultous
ladments, the attack becomes
f (1990:24). (2) With regard
dcr, Goldman claims that, bY
Enes "an example of Jewish
:f,-image" (p. 24).
fd *ot attack; they assembled
rrd were proportionate to the
b chose to attack, the fewer
ppathies of most Persians, a
Txr CHnnecrER oF rnrJewsn ProPlr
..afflicting" the outside the edict's
from Jews, rhey would have been
scope and safe fromJewish vengeance.16
The Jews in Esther are not wagrng a religious or nationalcru-
sade agaii'rst the "heathen," nor are they pursuing a -conquest
along
the hn?s of Joshua's invasion of Canaan (in spite of-reminiscences
of the holy iar ban) or an imperialist campaign like the wars of
are
David,John Hyrcanus, and AleianderJannaeus' The-y crtainly
,,ot ,ryirrg to exterminate all gentiles. The Jews i" ttl:t are not
.r.n "tta"*Pting to "blot oui the memory of Amalek".as com-
manded in'Der]t 25:19.17 Though tribal antagonisms lie Ttt-
*h.r. in the background of the-conflict between Mordecai and
no
larse number were murderously hostile toward the Jews. (2) He brings
.ria.n.. that the author is guiding us toward any negative evaluatron
-book.
ol tnc
behavior of the Jews in the He.argues his only
case. by PollXlS- t-o.T'
aboxt
Drescnce of nurierous other ironies in ihe storl (which says noth'ng
"have thc
ihe existence o[ this particular irony), and by identifying rhose who
who 3harc tne
most difficulty with in ironic rcading of thc..attack" as "those
il.i.ri"irt. ri cotpolrti i{a*st-strikE capabilitv" (p'2a)'.I
1m
n9t-t:I tl:l I
the ques-
do share this belief, but in any case Goldman is obviously bcSSing
tion by assuming that I shoull'read the attack "ironically"' - - - -- .- E
l6.There is a note*ortiy exccption to the su-pcrcilious, censorious
tttryn^T-t^l:,:*
'" "li;tpi.riof C(;ti-i"n'.iigi,.i in tlie nineteenth and thc eaity twendeth
monograph on Esthcr published
centuries. r"ur Hrupi, in
"-Jfr "nJrt"tned
in 1906, h", ,n .*t.tofin".y'*. on the Kishine"v frgroms' news of which
was just reaching the West as he was writing' "A cablegram
ol
l\ov' 1,,lYY1'
Y.tlld rn
he i]nfotms the-rcader, "stated that thousands of Jeys l"d.ql Heads were
Odessa, and that they had been treated with revolting-barbanty'
battered *itn f,r,,mirs, n"its-*... atir.n into the bddi.s, ey.i
were gouged
out, and ears severed" (1906:34)' He goes on to detail some ol th
horrors
writes in
that h; had learnedif,'qroii"il'rur.g?ams from March l9o6' Hc
ito.[ dismay; f.i'f,-|r", atLcrc oi Jews are not an archaic ab'stracdon'
..ihe Icw_baite.
"na bf iilriy.,..[ *.r. rupfon.d by rhe -Russian troops and rhe
*ii..1 fn. military "tt".k d the Jews who tried to defcndatrocitics."
themsclvcs agatnst
It-.i.].*if i(e F*-baitcrs ciommittcd unspcakabh
urroi "ri..the Rtissian riots to the dangen facing the Jews ln the Lstncr
.omoares
''"L[*T"[ii ."t;;inl;;d; thc hand of Airiochus Epiphanes.in the.rc,ond
..r,iuty B.C.E. and insists "ithat the measurcs ukgn !1 Mordccar and-tl:-Jt-*'
exPrcsscs me Dc-
were necessary rn sclfdefenr' ln a later anicle' Haupt
optimistic-that "if the Russian Jovstrad bccn permtt-
lief-oerhaps overly
H-.t;ilfir;';;;t,.;(1908:f*I58)' difensc, the mairrir/of rhc p87o"rr would
neverhav:e happened- - to
- Chrisdan commentators to sense
ft ,itr*
-- -;;, to me thii Haupr was one of the
oersonal level iul what rhe boo1 of Esrhcr is ralling- about and to grasp
,h. ,r'roan., under[ying its humor' The commenutors'alool condemnatlons
it for the marginal ethicai impcrfections attendant
"?i6?B."il.rlif,.i.*"ri"
.. if,.GrcfU .trrg[1._not ro menrionfor-major erhical failings.not-there
at
all_disolav an arroiant inscnsitivity to both ethical and lrterary lssues..
rz.n.-rn.ir,Ir;.r'ipo'&jsifinds the motif of l-o[ wa.r.niaaen in Mor-decais
conflict with Himan, for "\hhweh has war with Amalek from generatton to
223
 1'Hr.f rws

Haman, the Jews direct no special attention to the Amalekites tudufi

among their foes.r8 e*rr1lt
The Jews' struggle is not, however, without moral blemish- dren a
Mordecai's edict is tainted by the permission to kill the enemies' mcru bt
children. The heart o[ the edict is 8: I laa: "the king has permitted matcrid
the Jews in each and every city to gather and to make a stand for and th
theii lives." The rest is only expansion and closer definition of this This a
license for self-defense. Verse I laBb, "together with children and $orrcd
women, with their property as spoil," is a continuation of the first alongli
sentence and describes actions that are encomPassed in the defen- thc hi
sive action. Like the saturation bombing of Nuremburg and Dres- mandcd
den, this killing of noncombatants is part of an overall defensive the cm
strategy, and, like it, unnecessary and excessive. lattcr o
The permission to kill the enemies' wives and children is not 'sins d
reported to have been carried into effect. Its importance is to exist (C'cn 15
in the edict as a counterpart of the same clause in Haman's decree' dren al
The clause need not be carried out in order to "work" in this way. Again, t
Nevertheless, the inclusion of women and children in the scope of childrcr
the authorization respects literary values-the neatness of the tit' us to un
for-tat schema-at the expense of an ethical value: the exclusion of thcy ar
noncombatants from hostilities. To be sure, we might picture the true the
women as belonging to theJews'active adversaries- Though we can namcly
hardly imagine them taking uP arms, the antithesis drawn between therbs
the Jewish heroine and a gentile female antagonist, Haman's wife wh
Zeresh, deliberately inserts women into the struggle. Their sex does moral g
not make them innocent victims. But the children are surely hors de longer r
combat and can hardly be considered among the "forces . . . who only on
afflict them" (8: I l;.tc that thc
The principle of excluding noncombatants from hostilities was such pa
not, it must be noted, generally recognized in the ancient world, sion to I

generation" (Exod l7: l6). Bur even if hostility toward Amalek was Mordecai's 20.It ir l
ieason for not bowing to Haman, he did not set out lo cradicate Amalek, and dir
there is nothing to suggest that that was the result. all
18. Thc author does not call Haman an Amatekite, which is the term always used of
the hostile tribe . Apparently he uses "Agagite" to allude to the ancient conflict
2l.In a
thc
without imposing its pattern too strongly on the present story.
lg.Haupt argues that the childrcn could indeed Prcsent a danger: "a he_athen Pol
br
*bmari might assault a Jcwish woman, a heaihen boy might attack a-Jewish h.d
boy; some freathen children might kill an oldJew, &c." (1908:159). It is' of Bu
cours. true that children have often joined in Pogroms and other kinds of
racist mob actions, but they are incidintal to the aggrcssion' and repulsing
22.Onthc
the assault does not require killing them.
l.rt
23.Muc,

224

r to the Amalekites
Fut moral blemish.
. ro kill the enemies'
t Ling has Permitted
lrc make a stand for
rcr definition of this
r with children and
Finuation of the first
rpassed in the defen-
luremburg and Dres-
'an overall defensive
G.
s and children is not
inportance is to exist
rc in Haman's decree.
b "work" in this waY.
ldren in the scoPe of
Le neatness. of the tit-
irlue: the exclusion of
re might picture the
nries. Though we can
ihesis drawn between
rgonist, Haman's wife
nrggle. Their sex does
Hren are surelY hors de
gthe"forces...who
nts from hostilities was
I in the ancient world,
rard Amalek was Mordecai's
nrt to eradicate Amalek, and
l.
ift is the term alwaYs used
rdlude to the ancient conflict
rtresnt story.
E-nt a danger: "a heathen
:l boy mighi attack a Jewish
tr. &;." (l-goa: tsg). It is, of
'pogroms
and other kinds. of
lc aggression. and rePulslng
THe Cuenecrf,R oF rHrJr-wlsH Pr'opls
indignation.at an
including biblical lsrael, excePt for expressions of
women and chil-
mmry\refusal,o rp"r.-ittt in'nocent' in the Bible'
or in punishments of
dren are often errco*f,"ttta it the hostilities
(as well is livestock and
men, because a man's'wives and children
of. his Ptlt-:"'
*"i.ri"r property) were considered an extension srike them as well'
and the punishment it r, f"fft upon him mav
This attitude is not ;;;;il;t'it't uool or Esther'.Joshua de-
livestock and property-
stioyed Achan's ,on, *d daughte^rs-and
along with the guilty ;;;i.";.ii (Josh 7 :24-251;God obliterated
16:32); and God com-
it.Ernily 1".i ptop.ttyl or rot'[ (Numwomen' and children in
manded the Israelites to exterminate men'
6: 17 -24[N In the
the conquest of Canaan iOt't ZO ' 16- l7; .losh
guilty of the
latter case, the women would have been Jonsidered
;tir, ,f the Amorite" that, in one view' iustified the conquest
inclusion of chil-
(Gen l5 : l6; cf., fo, .*,*pit,-btut 9:4)'.brit the
primitive brutality'2'
;;;;;*."g ,r,. "utt *i"i ''ictims is' at' best'
Afi; ih.?ar,ralty *fi;
in isther do not mention
the
women and
author wished
that
children, and there rs no reaion to assume
us to understand thai,f'.y *ttt actually
slaughtered' Nevertheless'
they are marked frt il;d;r in Mordecaif decree''2 and if it is
.,the cenrral irrrS n.r. is not historicity but theology"23-
true that justice-then it is a
namely the theologi.,iJ*t'int of retributive
theologythatmustberepudiared' r . r^^- on r,r ar^r rh,
While the Jews had no choice but to fight l: 11ijt"
when the danger no
moral ground 6..o-.t shakier on the l4th'
enemies to
longer existed. U"-,nl' tJict allowed the Jews' -'::itk
res$ on the presumptton
.rii .* rg Adar, and the entire dramanot' resort to forge. without
that the enemies *o.'lJ"o',
or coutd
permis-
such permission,.lustLiit jt*tgtmselves needed specialHaman's
to
sion to fight on , ;;;;-i"y' The king's agreement
with Luthcr' hat'e been more
20.1t is strange that Christian theologians' starring in Esrher's time than bv- the
disturbed uv tt. it'rJ*i';;;ii;;;i the Jews
;:J:i'ft1"'*"
of ,,,.iiiiii.t-:#*il*t5*iu*,:""'::::i*:xtrl'f
"'"';;;il;:;ri;;-':';.h;ffi ;;ffi ;;';dJ"**.if
,"orf"ii"n. Like the rhematic notion of-the I
il*,f.'#;*::::t:
peoplc ol rsraer
#ffi;'iffi;'il;;iil;;-r;ion of thetlierthat the
had to make, rr.Ii,i"",',. rtir.-ri.. orall ries with the canaanite tulture.
iiui i, it , i.pt hensible way of expressing thar ideal'
22.o";;; ;;;G;;;r;f ;#;';;Pi; o l*pt"init'is phrase awav' see the commen'
tarY on 8: I l.
23.Moore, P.8l'
 TxrJrws

scheme and the rigidity of Persian law necessitated a war whose Amo
shock waves were t; haim the perpetrators of the hostility; but that actions tzl
harm was not sought as an end in itself. practices,
There is, it must be granted, something of a power fantasy in obligation
the report of the battles2{-a certain vehemence and even a gloat- the creatl
ing tone heard in the emphasis on the Jews' "control" and their als, who u
uUltity to wreak their "will'; on their enemies, in the heaping-up of Est 9:20-
,.r*i fo. slaughter (nnhknt fiaeb urhneg ur'abdan,lit', "a smiting by unlike tlrc
the sword andiilling and destruction'; 9:5), and in the fascination as a delih
with the body couni(g: 12, l5), which is not relevant to the rescue a Procesq
of the Jews. people an
A[so disturbing is the schematic character of the war. The righ- reality; ce
reous narion rtarrd*r against its foes and slaughters them in great The i
number. There is no-sense of the danger, the pain, or even the law of thc
bloodiness of war. The struggle is reminiscent of the schematic war invested i
of the Sons of Light againrt ih. Sonr of Darkness in the Dead Sea much so,
Scrolls. it creates r

It doubtful that the conduct of war, even on the part of the

is pot's "sen
defender, is (if the power balance allows) ever free of vengeance' but that t
brutality, and overkiil. The battles of Adar certainly were not'25 (chap. l),
c. How rne JewtsH Cour.luxtrY Wonrs. The author of Esther war betwt
conceives of t"heJewish people as a united body which, though scat- control, )'(
tered through i gigantic empire, can act as a unit' They are ex- The
pected to *figh u"r[urn.r,,r, interpret erents, reach decisions, and through a
iake upon the-mselv=es and their descendants obligations as they see Esther do
fit. puiim grows out of the interplay of interpretation and confir- thority. Pt
marion bei*een leadership and feople. Est 9:29-32 explicitly de'
-leadership
will on O
lineates the dual authority of and community that Whena&
created the Purim festival.26 "seal [it] r
would bei
tion or hil
24. As claimed by Gunkel p. ?5, Meinhold p. 77,-and others' from the
is deliber-
iS.fn. book,s moral faults are not amelioiated by the fact that the book
-- -' ;"ry;tpituori. nent, offt
or humorous. as B. it977) thinkt' "!ure-t1'-t!-e-1y1111
Jones
did noi ixpect his readers to keep a-straight ltrng
face.-rryhile hearing th.^great the procc
"been
rejoice rhai ,o *"ny of his subjeits haue killed.. .. . The repctition o[ the what the1
i.ii iong names of ir"rn"n. ,.i sons must have added to the pleasureof the
listeneri" (p. 180). A humorous tone would not justify a rePugnant attitude'
A story thi treaied, say, wife'beating with. good humor would not be more 27. In the A
acceorable iust because ii. ex[ected ihe audience to laugh at it. How'
"uthor wheu
;;;;:;; d;k a".in"t view the battles and the slaughter as in any way funny'
with t
26.See Clines, p. 165. own I

226
 PEoPLE
THr' Csrucrrn or rurJrwlsH
spontaneous
history might soeak of
d a war whose A modern view-of religious
rtilitY; but that acdonstakins'"":'1';:;;;9;;9b":li33jtx*;i'"'l:i,ffii:l "ri.*,
;;;i;; ;;e onlv then beins interpreteo'"fil;,*)"'r;,hi,
Douer fantasY in li!}T:-ffi l;inai'iau'
nd even a gloat- :lli*'"',il"T1'liif,,:::'":'ffi tliousht to is meaning'
ntrol" and their als. who mav enter '"[;:;#*!1rigi the people' but'
riltt*i"i"*"it] tl?r'oria"y's orixinln people acung
r heaPing-uP of Est 9:20-3z iienvisLns the
EL, "a smiting bY unlike the history-"-ff;;;;todtt'
ir the fascination
irrt to the rescue
;#;.iil;;;*1y;:'#f [[*ffi:i:*xJf*::l
he war. The righ-
ers them in great
*'*:+rf*,*t$*[l;#i+'1,'ffi ts'
h * ;r ; ;"P*"" " tr'X ""'r'i f ,1 l;ll :lH: ?l fr
pnin, or even the
thc schemauc war invested
I

in the ofnce3111"S;]llr#r.-*ir'u" fiitrd#

i.putse or whim'
s in the Dead Sea
il,'jr#ff;'Hl;ll'i[:*::ffi
,.servarro" *.r".ir.i" Power by
manipulating htm'
gn the Part of the oots "tt'"t ""#'J'ir"r"I'"ri'v"thedes-
be-sillr
rotihev 11 too
hee of vengeance' L,rt that ontv tot$ffi;il;;'ru'ion'
::*;::i:]r"T'il:;"t
nly were not'25
c author of Esther
llit[*i:t"##i#:Jrffi
:ft ;;j li r,.rh',t . sions
rhich, though scat- fiThe
" ;H.,:lfl :' Jl, li, HII'l;riv e. .at_ dci
unit. TheY are ex-
Jews' tn
:ll'r'Y;*::1 their *l
ah
fuadons
decisions, and
as theY see
rfi:ei: #:r#1,llli*iffi'ffi
thority. Perhaps
Ind qt"tnrttty t""ri
have imposed
to do so'
ctation and conhr- "';;it;
will on their co-'el"ifiil;;I;ut
they'do not attemPt
Xl-32 exPlicitlY de-
d communitY that
I*fld'iffi${rg-iggi-ES'+Hd
Hilt d;tical itbackground' Rather'
N
turns into a perma-
from the p'oprt'Ji'"ifffi;{;ivitv-and
Lh", ,t. book is deliber- nent,ornciar"*"i"'IJiJ'rh':*11*I'$f
commltte(
;l'.ffi I;f;
ErLs: "SurelY, the author ,'n". ot*ttt: "And the Jews had written to
Ik hearing th Sreat krng whai thev h'd #8:H it'"g'il-;hat Mordecai
l - . . The rePetition oI tne

ffi
Itd to the Pleasure ot tne
tifu a rePugnant attltuoe'
bmor wiruld not be more
Icnce to laugh at lt' tlow-
Hi'#i::l'jtl*:tr;*ff:H;'i:S1"Tr';.'
tha![3"ffi,;rr-tn,'
in any way lunny' ;iffi; ring'' to the eff-ect
;*l ff.:'ltr fli5'.:iiil; ",'." 5oa" lviii
;trter as 'ins' - 34)' 33

227
 TurJrws

them" (9:23). All this is then reconfirmed by Esther' Instead. of &clt

authoriiative prescription, Mordecai and Esther employ authorita- r.b, f
tive validation. ofo
The source of the holiday is the people themselves, and the 6cJic
festival calendar is shaped to their actions. The holiday reenacts cod o
what they do. Mordecai 6nly helps them convert their action into an hrd
institution. As in the refusal of ipoil, there is a wisdom inherent in ron&
the people independenr of the insrrucrions they receive. A leader bcod
formaliies this wisdom and holds it up to their inspection. The ba- soo, I
sic authority resides in the Jewish people, without whose joy the Gideo
spontaneous celebrations would not have occurred and without fuscf,
*ho.. consensus the practice would not have become binding. tim t
with this consensus, however, the practice becomes as durable as a lIl([
Persian law and attains a universality and stability that the Persian chaxt
law does not. AllJews, in all places and in all ages (note the extraor- vilud
dinary emphasis on narional unity in 9:28) uniformly celebrate the judgc
p.".. that followed upon their struggle for existe.nie' lcadg
".,d.|oy
The U""lt ideal of comm,nity has a democratic quality insofar aooi
as it is based on a notion of a collective will that is the final arbiter s
of rhe community's obligations. kgislation, as conceived here, re- @ocn
quires the consent of the governed. Yet the community does not crilic
.ho.rr. its leadership, bupi..ptr the leadership thatarises through ellcl I
force of circumstances. The appropriate action of the community Jc."s
is ro consent to the leaders'direction. The author views the com- simiL
munity from on high, from the leaders'PersPective, yet resPects its 't
inherent authority. divln
Where are the Jews of the Exile to find their leaders? They no J,rst a
longer have a king, and the priests among them have.been ren- docs r

derEd irrelevanr. Piophets are not mentioned (their validity in exile rnant
may have been in aouuO. other narions of the empire have princes with:
lSaiim;3:12) and other officials; theJews do not. They are, in a Powc
sense, their own princes. Thus Mordecai's edict is directed to "the qualit
Jews and the satiaps and the governors
and the prinres of the dccaf
stand on-a.par
lrovinces" (8:9): inother words, the Jews as a body goes I

*ith th. officials of the empire, but they apparently lack officials of for tt
their own. The priestly and adminisrrarive institutions of Judea do Jos t
not interest the author, who looks to them neither for help nor
guidance, nor even in matters of ritual. Rather, he envisions a self-
sufficient diaspora communitY. 2r.Th
The author supplies this community with leaders who re-
semble the premonarchical judges, the iop'tim, a word more pre-

228
 Tur' CserecTER oF rHrJrrvlsH Ptopur

j ud ges
28 Like all the :-t:P-' P^,:y-
fter. lnstead of ciselv translated " leaders -major recognized
nploy authorita- ffi:',.}il; rri ntiittt"' do not s.,rt from a
to
Posruon
q*enshio is at first irrelevant
of commun"t ,utt'otity iffi;;' rheir authoritv at the
Nelves, and the the Iews), but ariseto,*H;;irni '"iiJ in the gentile world'
by their stations
end-of the book is bt'it"ssed
boliday reenacts
but these are not pttititi*itrii"
G Jewish community' In other
ir action into an
dom inherent in *",ar,rra".a.."iu"i'i';;;-;;;hit*li:',i;311.:t'I'J! jl:
or inspiritir
rcceive. A leader benefit of divine appointment rater' like Ehud'
pection. The ba- son, Esther M;;;;i;;t-; ildividrials'to war' and the people
""d
Gideon, and Deboran' ffi &;!:;;Ple
il whose joY the we-ryy also observe that in the
red and without itself completes the atii"''urrtt' r3Jatrship could come from
]icome binding. time of the judges, ff";;#;""r,a institutional' non-hereditary
a woman, namely
Ti't r*tt
D;;;'
es as durable as a
jt'agt'ii;'il lsrael allowed for indi-
character or P#;arc\i9 the
7 that
the Persian
tnlittt' nrt" rike Israel in the time of
(rcte the extraor- vidual women to -'iiJt"
rmly celebrate the ,;:lf:ilff jdsiill#ili;41,,'d.''i,'$[iiH,ff TllJ'
r exrstence. ot ktngsn-tp'
ric qualitY insofar consistently-before the rise
Since the n* ittuly"At"ae to the judges' we'cannot
st'oriaoo of
b the final arbiter r";;;;;;iib.ru,ay.t*.itt.* paradigm
urceived here, re- conclude that the "ti
to be explained as a Par-
exilic leaderrhip' nithJ'' iit
ti'il"iity is
nmunitY does not t'-1if' The situation of the
hat arises through allel responr. t'ortti'ii ' if i[tr
'of tf't institutions
monarchv required
of the communitY Iews in exile afiter it't i'tt land'
pn views the com-
-rirnilr.
to those tntitt'"onarchical Israeiites in their its leading in-
on
ire, yet resPects its The author"rt"Jl"t[tj;i-r"* 'latoendins
and lntail thle nadon's fortunes'
dividuals, whose fi"' Uott'"pitomize imperils the people' so
r leaders? TheY no Iust as a danger t';ifr;';il;l;i'id"ls the piople's welfare' Ha-
entail
m have been ren- toes the leaders' p"r?orrri success s, for they riga'd the conflict
rir validitY in exile mans wife friJ;;;;;;F,.
with aJew
""d tt"tt''iiti tttJ'p"'ith people' and in their view tt s a
npire have Princes Mordecai's personal
Dower inherent ;' tht;;"dle lrather't-han
", "
ilot. TheY are, ln a invincible' Conversely' Mor'
t b directed to "the Iualities) rt r, n,"rtt' i;tF'Mgt;cai when he
the peopie's power' Thus
the princes of the decai's triumph a*on''t'"tts j;s tmor'
have iov and light and
bodv stand on a Par eoes forth in t'ono' ii;;;;;; them (8: 16)' The
irtv tr.t officials of ior the splendor J lii' *;;tss ii reflectea"6""
their hader's' Thus the connec-
hrtiot t of Judea do Jews see tt.i, uitto'y ittffittJrn
dther for helP nor
, he envisions a self-
,"'",#lflffi :,nffiFi}:ii,i:l$:i:::jjilfl
ih leaders who re- ;i;l i;tancient Israel' and the premonar +iJii.;itdf ;,':iH[
L a word more Pre- both functions'
 THr.ltws

tion between his personal and the people's. welfare is inte-

success administrati
to its
gral, and his appearance in pomP brings thi narrative tension national lan
resolution. The no
between
Community relations are not, of course' only vertical' in the diasp
rhe masses and iheir leaders. The holiday practices strengthen
hori' lery represr
zontal bonds by the giving of "portions:' Tht exchange.of
food that is likel
ty*U"fi.affy tur* thJ *"iiit"ai of local and family celebrations must h H(
not
into one large communal feast. The portions to the Poor are ofJudah (!
charitable donations any more than the Portions given to
one's 36: I I, l3).
-I'heir point ii to encomPa's tueiyont in the communal ness was ah
"-.ign6o.t.
feast. for though
also the lin
author
o. THr- Na't'toNnl S'rn'rus oF l'HE' Jr'wtsn Puopt-u' The many peopl
empire that, foi all- its laults' does respect the
of Esther depicts an In real
rnrfupfi.i,y jnd individuality of national grouPs within it' Haman's purposes ir
dec.el is issued not only to "the king's satraps and the governors Greek) was
to
who were over each and every province" (3: l2a)' but also centers, bul
province in
it totalty lx
the princes o[ each and everv people-to each and every tonomous i
it, o'*n script and each and e'irv people in its own language' (3: l2b)
diaspora cr
that it also would havc
Mordecai's decree is directecl to the same grouPs' excePt
others' as a nationalrty ln lts lenistic kiq
addresses the Jewish people like the
and been used I
own right,
"r,i, -or.rvei, addresses them in their own script ments werc
ilng""?. gu). The Jews' language is thus given,official,ttl:"
"Th1 ia , De con- for even if
author believes that all peoples are and should
r

The de- affairs, tk1

cerned with the preservation of their'national languages'
and all municated
cree banishing Vashti, which was also issued to all languages
be ruler in his household Achemenful
p.opi.r, declares thai..every man should.
and ransb
lnd'speak rhe language of his own people" ( I :22)' Thus it
defines
right inaccuracy
the main mark o[ *?n', d'mination ,ri hi. hou."hold as the
r

"
to use his national tongue in his home' ('fo be sure' the men who ments werc
their folly consists in riod, thoug
issue this decree a.e dharing foolishly. but
outside Per
their nervous overreacrion ,oi'y femaie assertiveness. The author
itself.) The and assuril
does nor repudiate the validity of male dominance in
to Persian cln
desire to maintain one's national language is viewed as common
concern throughour
,tt t'tt. peoples in the empire and is taken seriously' This cations in I
recalls the tensions reporied in the time o[ Nehemiah'
who chas-
speaking
tised inte'narriedJewish men because their children were
their mothers' tongre, rather than Hebrew (Neh l3:23-31)' The 29.On thc h
esp. ll(
author of Esther reveals a similar concern by having the Persian
30.Dandaru4

230
 Txr, CxlnecrER oF rHr'Jzwlsx Pr'oru

his
iles welfare is inte- administration recognize the imPortance of a man's maintaining
Tative tension to its nadonal language.
The noiion-that theJews actualty did speak their own language
,ly vertical, between in the diaspora and that"it was recognid.by the Persian chan"cel-
lery represen$ an ideal, not any historical reality *+1o* 9i
ces strengthen hori' ot
: exchange of food Esther (8:9)
itJ, it'tik ly,o have existed. TheJews'.!1gySe.in
family celebrations must be Hebrew, elsewhere called 'Jewish," that is' the language
to the poor are not .i]ra"t (Neh 13:24;2 Kgs 18:26-, 28; 2 Chron 32:8; and Isa
ions given to one's ioir r, tg). rneir language iertainly was not Greek' whoseisforeign-
ness was always recoft izid, nor is it likely that Aramaic
re in the communal meant'
l"rir,"rgh tt is was tf,e hnguage theJews most widely uscd'a it was
also the"lingua franca of the Near East and common
to Srcat
:oPLE. The author many peoples.a
Its, does resPect the in ,."tiry, the Jews would not have used Hebrew for secular
rs within it. Hanran's
p".pot.t in li,. aiitpota.. Hebrew (alongside Aramaic and' larcr'
r and the governors br.Ltl was spoken o'nty in Palestine, especially outside tht- TT-1tor
a), but also to
centers, but tire book can hardly have a Palestinian Provenance'
and in the au'
province in
irtot tty lacks interest in the Tlmple , in Jerusalem'
tonomous institutions of Judean Jewry, whereas it resPonds -to
rd every a
n language. (3: l2b) rule
;;tp;t" crisis in diaspoia t.rmtl During Persian in the Jews the-
Hel-
ps, except that it also *orid have used Aramaic for the mott prit, and later,
rs a nationalitY in its f.nitti. kingdoms, Greek as well (in thl East, Greek would have

their own scriPt arld U..n ur.a fiainly in the Hellenistic cities). Certainly no.royal docu-
ments were ever promulgated in Hebrew or even translated
into it'
ven offrcial status.
and should be con- for even if the Jiws hadfuen a factor worth attention in imperial
I languages. The de' they woiuld have known Aramaic' Even the Judeans com'
municated'with the chancellery in Aramaic' ln practice' in
"if"itt, the
all languages and all Aramaic
uler in his household nJ..i.ia empire, royat correspondence was sent out inThe slight
and ranslated into thi local languages upon arrival's
:22). Thus it defines docu-
inaccuracy in the author's notion of the way in.*ht:h. royal
ousehold as the right pe'
sure, the men who ments were issued may reflect a distance from the Achemenid
of aJew living
their folly consists in ffi though this is no proof a tate date, because

rtiveness. The author ou,iia. peisia might sei imperial documents in a local language
and assume that they'Buthad been issued in that language-from the
inance in itself.) The
viewed as common to
persian chancellery. the picture we see in Esther of the Jews
riously. This concern ihrougho,rt the empire ,p."king d receiving -official communi'
"t
."tion", in Hebrew is ,r, ideal ra-ther than a reality. It reflects
the
rlehemiah, who chas-
rildren were sPeaking
Neh l3:23-31)' The 2g.onthelanguagesofthePersianempireseeNaveh.GreenfieldlgE4:ll5-29'
eso. I 16-17.
rv having the Persian : I 16'
30. Dandlamayev, 1984 : 3331 Naveh-Greenfreld 1984

231
 THrJrws

wish that the Jews be autonomous (in the sense of controlling their any PrGCt
lives within their communities) while enjoying the status of a rec- hapc inSr
ognized ethnos,like many of the peoples among whom they lived. ofJtrsiD
Though the Jews are pictured as integrated into the daily life mudic po
of the emp1.., Himan was right in describing them as "spread out Persian cr
and unassimilated" (3:8). But Haman meant this as a slander' rather r,cp
whereas the author views it as the right condition for the diaspora. himsef fr
The Jews are not alone in being unassimilated; the multiplicity of In thr
languages and peoples, each with its own prince, shows that others some paitr
havi maintained their individuality. As for being dispersed, no their lod
other nations are explicitly stated to be spread out, but the presence rc%nia
of an Agagite shows that other small, non-native grouPs did exist Nonh Al
within the empire. Only Haman, of foreign ancestry, advocates (by places, rhi
implication) an enforced "Persianization." had its or
The Scroll's political ideology resembles the concept of Jewish Scleucirl I
nationalism developed by the twentieth century historian and phi- pyed m
losopher Simon Dubnow.st Dubnow advocated the formation and unablc to
recognition of a non-territorial Jewish national entity within the of natior
states and empires of Europe, particularly the Russian and Austro-
Hungarian empires. Jews, like other ethnic groups, were to be sub-
jects of their respective empires while regulating their own internal thrL
legal and cultural affairs. They would have a national language ht lI
(Yiddish), communal bodies, and legal-judicial institutions for the .PEq
otE
Jewish community. The Jewish national entity would, Dubnow be- eftr
lieved, be secular. Many of these institutions and practices had been tt.SccSfi
in place, he pointed out, since the Middle Ages. :r{.SdrErcr I
There is a significant difference, of course: the Scroll does not
il,.E
nlain
speak of any formal political status forJewish institutions. The simi- undcr:
larity lies in the way both envision the Jewish people living and q-
srtutlt
functioning as one elhnos among many, seeing to its internal gov- s)4Lrtt
ernance and preserving its own culture.!? and f,.
It is difficult to determine the background of the book's na- from
lilc
d
ti
tional ideal. We cannot fix the Scroll's time and place of origin with abrod
Men&rrf,
3l.Dubnow's work is voluminous: the standard presentation of his views is Nahon- 83l ry!
alism and Historl, 1958. wilhi!
32.J. Levenson 1976 : 45 I ) objects to appll ing the notion of nationalism to the book,
( hrm
saying that this is done because critics,.fewish and non-Jewish, try to fit the fouoi
self-understanding of Israel in the procrustean bed of nation, church, or cul- 8r.ml
ture. Levenson says that "it is a strange nationalism which advocates coopra- of thc I

tion with a foreign monarch rather than secession frorn his control" (p. aaa). rcguh
But both Hellenistic nationalism and Dubnow's autonomism did just that. Na- ts.On thc&
tionalism does not inevitably require a center in the home territory, though !i6. Bur scc Sl
with ra

232

of controlling their
the status of a rec-
whom they lived.
into the dailY life
them as "sPread out
this as a slander,
ition for the diasPora.
; the multiPlicitY of
ince, shows that others
ior being dispersed, no
out, but the Presence
rative grouPs did exist
ancestry, advocates (bY
the concept of Jewish
ry historian and Phi-
d the formation and
ional entity within the
the Russian and Austro-
groups, were to be sub-
aling their own internal
a national language
ial institutions for the
ity would, Dubnow be'
and practices had been
Ages.
: the Scroll does not
ish institutions. The simi-
.Jewish people living and
rceing to its internal gov-
nd of the book's na-
and place of origin with
ion of his views is NaIPz-
oI nationalism to the book,
and non-lewish, trY to fit the
bed of naiion, church, or cul'
which advocates cooPera'
frorn his control" (P. 444).
eutonomism did iust that. Na-
'in the home teriitorY, though
THr CHenecrE'R oF rHrJrwtsu Pr'oPle
anv precision. It may have originated in an eastern diaspora' per'
on rhe status
ffiJt" l;;;i,r.tf, (especially
uu, we have-very little_information
east oithe Euphrates)Aefore the Tal'
of lews in the east
;,il;;;..d.i' author's context is in fact Hellenistic' the
It rh.
empire' but
f.rri"n'..pire in Esther is not the historical Persian that the author
rather rePresents an empire (Seleucid or Ptolemaic)
himself knew and was writing for'
In the Hellenistic *.tfa] the Jews for the most Part (but rvith
"u
of autonomy within
,o.. prir,iui.*..p,iontitnjoyta fuit dtgtttrigttts as an officially
their localities. In ;;;i;:;, int lt*t tr"aa
;;;;g;il .orpor",ion tf resideni aliens' In Antioch' Berenice
well as in some lesser-known
iN",'it nftica),'and Rle*andria, aspolitruna' hntoikia' or swwgogal
il;; ir,i, .oipotttion-(catted ine
for its members't{ In the
ffi;l;;-;ffu"it;;d ;ld legislate en'
;;il;iJki"gJorn, the numerous iational groupingsthegenerallykings were
j.fi;;;td?rable autonoml,tl primarily because
the sprawlinqlilaTge
unable to impose ,,ronf .tniial iontrol-on
of nations tr,ey werJiiiitj t" govern's (Antiochus ltl [223-187
thatistheusualmodel.Whilethecategoryo[nationalismisnotanadequate to m an
i"u.ii.iit" s.toft-tonttpt o[ the staiurof Jews in exile' it scems was rec-
ffi.pri"it insofar ai the concepr of non-territorial nationality
oonized and""e,
even ;;i;J in-rt. Hltt.nistic world. It is a nationalism that
integration and ethnic identity'
33.See"ffit-"U"tt
Schiirer 1986: III'l' 3- l0'
out' other nations too' particularly
34.Schtirer 1986: llI.l, i'A.'Ar-S;hur., points and formed communal orga'
the Egyptians i'ia -aittp"tts
",a"ir'*"iti"i'
k$dili*fi}[*it[fi"#iil;]
:ffi i;;";;;;,;ii,;Iffi;;*'".l11r.*I,1i:3;il;l^i',1';5;lp#l:
synaSoSues and couns' its economtc and-socla
srate' its casc was no different
and if, from ,n. p.iii oiittt Htltnrdc
from that or
"itlt*
oiiJi p'ilr-t'' from an.internal mint of vicw it was morc
"t.ty rtt'n ephcmeral iroup of foreigners from
like the ,u,onon'o.i. C-"l* pott' an
abroad" ( 1959:302)'
poliuuna in coniuncrion with the le-
Mendenhall ( lg73: 101_ l0l) menrions-the decrcc in 8: l3-a "state
gal system tt r, nt Lri"ttii lit'tta uy uordecai!
within a state" on ;:ii;i;,I.lihktiuttit' ttt autonomous status' howevcr'
nothing ro doliih'tht countcrdecree' anv morc than Hamanb decree
has
founded a prt;t u'*'ii iiii;;tigt end uordicai's decree cenainly did nor
grant the Jews *##ft;iriilJri tir-..a"m from the rcgular obligations
persian er'piijjjlli'rri"l-ii;;";li;L killed was li'ardlv one of the
of the
regular obligations laid upon Persian sublects'
s s. o n'ti?l iru niiv" i it .'i[r. riiJ
ii scdTche ri kove r 97 2 : 24 -28.
1
#:ilr.;;$;il.iviii;.G8t,3i,
" "ia.. *io p"inr. our that local autonomy can coexrst
suPervision'
with strong central
233
 THtJrws

B.c.E.l tried and failed to impose tight control in the East') The
nations {ethnoi) of this empire were to a large extent autonomous
and were ruled by dynasti or princes, who were intermediarc be-
rween their peoples and the king.!, This situation is congruent with
the picture of empire we get from the book of Esther'
The charter-gr".rt.d' by Antiochus lll to the Jews in- 200
B.c.E.,3s is instructie for the status of the Jews in the Seleucid em-
pire. It ensures the Jews of a recognized national status of the sort
injoyed by other fa-uored nationsln the kingdom,.as a reward for
monarch.
;eirsalemi having rransferred its loyalties to the Seleucid
it contin,res the piecedent of national autonomy set by the
-Persian
kings and maintiined by the Ptolemies. It proclaims.that "all mem-
beri of this atlraos shalt be governed in accordance with their ances-
tral laws," which means governing their own affairs in accordance
with the law of Moses.ltre;e*J not only may,but slrall worship God is a
the God of Jerusalem. A senaie (getousia'lgoYeTn:^theJews,along- son cannot b
side which i popular assembly has certainjudicial funcdons'le. appears and
The Jewi in the diaspora would not have had cornparable in- would not c.
dependeice, but the assurance of national status in the homeland mentioned ir
*orld, ideally, provide Jews everywhere with a recognized nadonal picture. Sou
status, for they wer e ai ethnos by virtue of having a home territory. though, of cr
(Thus Mordeiai was identified as lnyhudi, which might be trans- but certainly
iated .Judean" as welt as'Jew.") fhe book of Esther does not touch mnce and cal
upon ih. governance of ihe home territory but is concerned only yet mightb t
with the siitus of the Jews in the dispersion. The Jews in Esther, as puzzling, yct
noted above, do not have "princ es" (iarim = atchontes\' They do not not." Thepc
constitute a dynastea,subjeit to a native prince, nor are they a Greek God sho
polis.They ri. erhnoiand as such hive the righ-t-tg live by their salvation. Wc
"n
ancestrat iaws. These laws can only be the law of Moses' Haman ish the wictc
alludes to it when he says that the unnamed people's laws "are dif- nally receive
ferent from those of every other PeoPle" (3:8)' This is true, but things. Such r

Haman is making a crime out of a national right' does this sih

37.lbid., p. 29. The LXX reflects rhe correct Hellenistic technical usage in translat'
l. God's Al
in[ iarq'am as lou archotsin tdn cthadn 13: l2). Many sc
3A.pre;?ncd'by Joscphus, XII l3E-44. The .arrangements the charter proclaims
were not an tnvenllon of rhe momenr' bur a [roclamation of what the law is "secularr" tnc
and always (in thcory) had been' to one formu
3g.The aLue f"."g.apt is'bascd on Bickerman t935: see also 1988:124-26 and
passlm.
a purely worl
and instincts'
theological t
failing.)
234
 CHATTER XII

[c East.) The GOD

f autonomous
rrmediate be-
ongruent with
x.
c Jews in 200
r Seleucid em- One oPinion:
etus of the sort of the storycannot
" . . . all the romantic glamour
rs a reward for
cucid monarch'
il ;-":;it"tiigio" emPtiness and
1l3l
r by the Persian tXN:)15)
(. E. McFdYat
ithat "all mem-
rith their ances-
s in accordance in the book of Esther' A Pet-
God is not one of the characters
tt slwll worshiP son cannot be considered a
character in a storv in which
he never
the Jews, along-
aDDears and is not referred
to' not even by circumlocutign: W'is
plav' although he
Joha not call G"dt';;;;;tit' in Beckettt
functions.3e
I comparable in- ;#;atd Godot is simply o1t ol:l'
mentioned in it' Yet "o'
in thehomeland
ffi;:;;;r,o* tt'ti"-u*ntt gi""lt1 " Dresence in the story'
ii often spoken about
of course, iiit:t*r'-t-y""t g|:t
ognized nadonal
though, 't
e home terrltory'
ilrilLli"ry dols norcome; his not to'nt:?;."ir:f$i:'ilHJ;
r might be trans-
;;"d.llr fot interpretation' God is n
cr does not touch
b concerned onlY
tcws in Esthcr,
rlas). TheY do
as
not tr#*;$##Hr,lffi lHx$i'H;},:l near' a storv of lsrael's
b' ;,;;;;;;;';;;tf'sdv
God should pun'
3are they a Greek to hear prayer' intoire the faithful'
salvation. We expect him fi'
&t to live bY their g-uarlnt:e natilnal salvation'
and
if Mot.t. Haman ish the wicked, guide evens' do any of these
nallv receive tt vltl"i*itttt he is not said to
plet laws "are dif- "nrtt' tt',.p"''*r"nsis-surelv no accident' what
r- This is true, but
lfi:J-:H; ",.i"irt" ttre Uooft message?'Whttt
is God?
does this silence
'uy "Uot"

usage in translat-
l. God's Absence
hical assert that the book is
Many scholars, all of them modern'
the events' According
l the charter Proclaims
"secular," meaning # ilE;t "o-totei" in
nion of what the law ts "an entirely profane history
to one formulation, iil Gt"tlates worldly
a purely worldly ,"il;t;i;;ihe
sake of satisfving Passrons
lelso l9E8:124-26 and scholars have a
(Most of these
and instinctr" (co'njli tggl:153)'
theological ur.r.g-;"i; i;;a io 'ie* secularity as a moral
failing.)
 Goo

The Scroll's alleged secularity is commonly, and strangely, both the Suoo
thought to be an expression of Jewish nationalism. B. Anderson are described
think's rhat Esther is "i witness to the fact that Israel, in pride, either But, Gerlema
made nationalism a religion in complete indifference to God or the human hc
.presumptuously identified God's historical purpose wilh the
pres- man calls Estl
'"rr"tiot :40)' R' Pfeif-
and glorification of the Jewish people" 1950
( inform us wlu
fer alleges thit "secular narionalism" is the books guiding.light: the Talmon,
authorionsidered religion a garment to be lightly discarded when- characteristic
ever ir hindered worldiy aims.r But a nationalism that is secular on cized Wisdon
principle never existed in the ancient world (and probably not be- deity devoid <
ior. ti',. late eighteenth century C.E.); it is unlikely that such an ther-narrativc
arritude would 6ave been comprehensible in the ancient world. If literature" (19
the Scroll is indeed "secular," that cannot be because of nationalistic helps little, fo
influences. of course, one might argue rhat the book of Esther it- is hardly the r
self is evidence for a secular nitionalism,2 but if so, this ideology is quendy and I
unique, and it would be a tautology to exPlain its unique secular Qohelet and r

nationalism as a product of its unique secular nationalism. In any pellations (su

case, nationalism,in its ancient forms3 and most of its modern ones, Esther from I
never hesitated to invoke and claim divine support for its plans. in Esther. In I
Norhing in biblical religion could hamper nationalist aspira- and ubiquitou
tions-iertainly not the aipirations of the Jewish nation in Esther, dividual chan
which are simply to stay alive.{ even aPPear.
Gerleman argues that the book of Esther is patterned afte-r the
Exodus story, buiis "detheologized" and "desacralized" (p. 43)' ln
2. C'od's Prr

this "secular nationalism" with John

The grea
l. pfeiffer 1952:?42-43. Pfeiffer associates
Hyrcanus. But Hyrcanus is a strange candidate for secularity' He-took.on gious," meani
mlssianic features and was high pr-iest (Josephus, War I 68-69)' Josephus tive in the evt
even atrributes to him the gifrif iropheiy and says that he was "closely ' ' '
as a defense o
in touch with the deiry. Hiireligi6usiuthority was recognized by the Pha.ri-
sees in the early pan of his reign, and certain cultic ordinances were attrlb- giosity were i
uted to him (Mijhna Sota 9:t0). Uis forcible conversion of the ldumeans with Meinhol
shows that his nationalisric policies were not devoid of religious ideology. religious lang
None of the Hashmonean rulers held to a secular policy.
2. It would be more accurate ro say that il envisions a nationalism without sPeaklng Tradition
of its place in the national religion. lsrael's existel
3. Though hationalism is a produci of eighreenrh-century Western Europe , it has and hence tha
aniecedents in the Hillenistic worl-d, where nalions (cthnoi) werc forced to
de6ne themselves against the background of the sovereign.kingdofs'. of God's nam
4. As Levenson puts it, "if rhey IMordeiai and Esther] are particularisttg, i.t i1 !e- of no more ir
cause the faith that created them and revered their memory is Partlculanstlc.
in, say, Genesi
If that parricularism is a stumbling-block to us, there is hardly a boot in the
Hebre* Bible over which we shall"not trip. . . . It is clear again that-if univer_-
salism is our theological goal. our ptobl.ms do not-begin with.E:thcr" D. Scc Meinhold
(iSiO,l+Z). Perhaps"the thleobgians would have been less exercised by the 6. The classld r
-were
Lookb nationalism if the people callcd "lsraelites" rather than 'Jews"' of the m
236
 Goo's Prmr'Ncs

(2 Samuel g-20) and Esther'

events

[,and strangely' both the Successioq Narrative

are de scribea in ""'la'i"'"
iil -ii'i'
:" :-I&T*'i:";il1';
forffi
kn. B' Anderson ;;,. ;-;;;n believes' whereas in the
:1, in Pride, either
brence to God or
fi Iffi
'*:nil[i":tdi1$ii;'**]**:::*
mc with the Pres-
1950:40). R' Pfeif-
j';:!::'il;;;;T: jif::T jTi,il-"
'"T.,H;lT,i'.:ff
characteristic of its ilJil' ;;
the *li:l
b guiding light:
ily"discarded when- i:'*ffi ffi Ll*:T;
m that is secular
rd probablY not
on
be- ixi x*: *li;, ffi fiii:Hx:.;1.*ffi''mu
p'ot"t also in some specimens
is
*i:'
of biblical wisdom
thei'narrati", )' But the comPanson
rlikelY that such an-
[f eog' ;;;;;;;ilP"lv"untottifrtd"
+sil
6I
in Esther' that
*t't'lti:;tdlt il;i
titerature" tr
hc ancient world'
helps little, ro'
zuse of nationalrstlc
r book of Esther tt-ts i,i.",ary*,"""in'iiffi f,{**;t;'rt+ii:f.':frli;
if so. this ideologY
n its unique secular u"Till,xxl'J:IIiid:1iL'J*:l:i::.t.,x;rlf;:;;il;
peltations (such as
for God ;:-;;Jr..eire
-:_::: designations
'nationalism' ln anY d3.."?l] these
I of its modern ones' ffi;;iil In wisdom'
fact' Literature insists on God's
consant
"in-
upPort for its plans'
in Esther. 'ii"iwi"atm rirt' ntitt t'y seem to does
p""t'n"t'i"l"t"
lack
not
and ubiquitot" but in t'sther he
r nadonalist asPlra- dividual cha'"t"'" ii.r ilisdom Literature'
rbh nation in Esther'
even aPPear'
b Patterned after the
scralized" (P' 43)' In 2. God's Presence
consider the book'reli-
The great maiority of commentators ?ssurrs' that God ts ac-
gious," meaning t#ll'J;;;"t,;;"tleatt intended
H,H:il"'#;:]l{::l tive in the events ;;;;;;t;' Thl'P':1*;;;;'""nlv
i" a."actoti, as if reli'
-- I 68-69)' JosePnus
Wrt
as a defense .r ,r,.'u"l'it ,.iigi*i "g"iiri
y

*::lHt,"'n"it'n;;'' ffiti"::::
r*rt J,il'.tiJr:H,;:r:; Ili:: :::rffim:
-"i'a"i
iii. n" ,'tts re attrib-
we

gr:"1,.:[ll:JfJrffi,: religious'lant"?t-i'"i.r, was guaranteeing

never doubted that God
iHlllli.. without sPeaking
,*"1:XX"'i:.XX'.'"TlTt#f;
De tTt:*1gltgt3;*Uff"TI?.';
must
and hence that this
j'i; 1:'::::i"i-"""f"nations but was
; .i;i;:l'* -'H:'lt::f::T'ffi T n"*'
*?,ffiHif.["tr;J.ii:
: kinS9oPs'..
sorrereign ,-
o f God's,
"' * u'

ii,::,H.HH1"il?:'[ffi"::*iil;;ih'rasonesesment
ml+iIjlli''*i+'.+,
5. i;
6. trH'$.!l'"*-ltri5t1;X';Ij.i;'.1';'lJ,lr'lr'.1"*h*5},"}ffi
medieval commt
of the
##:-',r$';i'}.'.*j;;
 Goo

of a larger text, the Hebrew Bible, they were right for their pur- scene, why is
poses. Meaning depends on. context, and in the context of the ca- tion of God's r

non, both Jewish and Christian, the Scroll is part of a larger carnival-like I
testimony to God's rule of history. the "frivolout
But Esther was not written as part of the Bible. Not only could nounce the se
the author not have known that there would be a Bible,T but the they become
lack of reference to God probably shows that he did not intend his do so, the pre
book to be regarded as sacred scripture. If, then, we seek to inter- by a lector, r
pret the author's intention, regarding that as source and determi- it. Moreover,
nant of the primary (though not sole) meaning, we must try to read tal Esther shc
the book as an independent unit, unconstrained by the canonical liturgy introd
context it was later to enter. That context can elucidate the author' blessings whl
ial meaning of Esther by providing material for comparison and were no less:
showing something about the author's background, but it cannot any case, it is
determine its meaning, for any book can diverge from its tradition the Hebrew E
as well as draw upon it. or circumlocr.t
For most readers, the silence speaks clearly of God. H. Fisch, A. Meinl
for example, calls the silence eloquent and quickly translates it into responsibility
theology: "In the end there is only one ruler whose commands, preemPtint h
never officially promulgated, are unchanging and whose will pre- but definitell
vails. He lurks behind the costly hangings of the court and whispers
S. Bergro mai
in the ear of Ahasuerus in the night. It is of him that the subtext deity in ordc
speaks and whose deeds it records" (1988: l4). But Fisch, straining
shaping histo
to hear through and beyond the silence, is projecting his own faith
But you cann
and ignoring the stillness itself.
If you hide it
The commentators who believe that God is hidden do not
of teaching tt
think he is very well hidden, for they have no doubts that the au-
in other wort
thor had no doubts that God is nigh. But if he is so clearly on the
how to read
Bible. For er
against me h
assume God! omniprescncc and guidance of history. Some saw a rcference
to God in some of'the occurrencis of the word "king" (e.g., b. Meg. l5b' now the casc,
on Est 6: l). The common identi6cation of "another place" (4: l4) with God wise: "But [S
is not prcvalent among the raditional commenators. Talgur-n Rishon (un'
like Thir) seems to malte the idcntification bJt only implicitly. Ibn Ezra (in his [his request t
preface) repudiates that undcrstanding of the phrase and offers another rea- he was seekin
3on for'thi silcnce: Mordecai scnt cofies of his scroll throughout the world
-Persian author may s:
and these were incorporated in the chronicles. He omitted Godl
12:24) or'"7
name becausc hc was worried that the heathen would substitute the name of
their god for it. (In tbn Ezra'he attributes this explanation to Sa'adia. It is (Gen 39:2), t
found in Midrash Leqa[ Tov.)
7. At the time of Esther! c6mposition, thc Pentateuch and probably the prophets
had attained canonical shapc. Some other books were recognized as sacred' 8. Streane (p. rt
but they had not been gathered together with the Pentateuch and Prophets howevcr. t
into a single collection. 9. 1978:329-!l
10.1979:178-7!

238
 Goo's PnEsexce

rt for their pur- scene, why is he not mentioned? Paton (p. 95) suggests that me1-
)ntext of the ca- tion of God's name is avoided to Prevent its profanation during the
nn of a larger carnival-like festivities of Purim. Similarly, E. Greenstein says that
the "frivolous" nature of the Purim festival was no time to pro-
r. Not only could nounce the sacred name (1987:233). But Purim celebrants, even if
r Bible,T but the they become tipsy, are unlikely to blaspheme, and if they were to
id not intend his do io, the presence of God's name in the Scroll (which is read aloud
we seek to inter- by a lectoi who would not be drunk) would not have conduced to
rce and determi- it. Moreover, the festivities come after the reading. The Scptuagin-
rmust tr) to read tal Esther shows no hesitation about referring to God, and Jewish
by the canonical liturgy introduces and concludes the reading of the scroll with
idate the author- blesJings which use God's name; and certainly later-generations
comparison and *ere n-o less scrupulous about blasphemy than the MT'author' ln
rd, but it cannot any case, it is not only the sacred name (YHWH) that is avoided in
lrom its tradition the Hebrew Esther; neither is there any reference to God by epithet
or circumlocution.E
rf God. H. Fisch, A. Meinhold argues that the author seeks to emphasize
,translates it into -the
responsibility of individual Jews and does not want to have God
hose commands, preempting hu-"n action. Hence he keeps divinity at themargins,
I whose will pre- 6ut dehniiely present, waiting to act if humans fail.e Similarly,
rurt and whisPers
S. Bergt0 mainiains that the Scroll refrains from any reference to
that the subtext
deity ii order to accentuare the role of human responsibility in
r
rt Fisch, straining
shaping history and also ro reach the hiddenness of God's control.
ring his own faith
fuf yoi cant oi teach that something is hidden merely by hiding.it'
s hidden do not
If you hide it too well, one cannot know that it is there. The point
of ieaching that God is "hidden" is really to teach that he is present,
lubts that the au-
in other wlords, not lt'uly hidden. To do so one must show people
so clearly on the
how to read God's Presence in events. This is done often in the
Bible. For example, Joseph tells his brothers, "You planned evil
Some saw a rcference
against me but God planned it for the best, so as to achieve, as is
g" (e.9., b. Meg. l5b, n6w the case, the preiervation of many people" (Gen 5O:20)' Like'
..But that it
lace" (4: 14) with God wise: [samson's] father and his morher did not know
, Targum Rishon (un- woman] was from the lord, for
ilicirly. lbn Ezra (in his [his requesi to marry a Philistine
rnd offers another rea- ir. *"t seeking a pteiext against the Philistines" (Judg 14:-4J' an
^Or
rhroughout the world author."y tay simply "and the Lord loved him [Solomon]"{2 Sam
hs. He omitted God's i'Th. Loid was with
substitute the name of
12:24) or Joseph, and he was successful ' ' '"
nadon to Sa'adia. It is (Gen 39:2), thereby remindinf us that their success was not the
probably the proPhets
: recognized as sacred, 8. Streane (p. xvi) observes that t Maccabe.es, too, avoi& God! name. That book'
ntateuch and ProPhcts ho*evlr, refe., to God by epithets such as'heaven" or simply by a pronoun'
9. 1978:329-30; 1983a:99-101.
10.1979:178-79; cf. Berg 1980.

239
 Goo

reward of human wisdom alone. lf that is the point of the author ofthe bool,o
of Esther, he certainly fails to make it. ss, is that t
According to Clines (p. 153), we do not need a particular "his- cannot be c
torical" reason for the non-mention of God. He contends that the lieve that Cnd
earlier versions of the storyrr said little (but were not silent) about timely v:rcttr
the divine causality of the coincidences, and the author of the Es- tune accessir
ther tale ("proto-Massoretic" stage) simply pushed the tendency eunuchs'ffi
further. But if Clines is right in his historical reconstruction and king's insom
there were indeed a few references to God in the earlier form of reckless plca I
the story (preserved by proto-AT), we must ask why the author gether, the cl
chose to eliminate them instead of adding to them. To remove God the guiding I
from a story is a deliberate, significant act, and cannot be taken for name for Cra
granted. events is nd'
Four types of evidence have been adduced to demonstrate biguously, pi
God's presence and activity in the Esther story. It is, tror
n. ALt-ustoNs. Various statements have been thought to allude God is prclcf,
to God: The phrase "another place" has sometimes been taken as for some bcl
a locution for God. Both Mordecai (4: 14) and Haman's associates we assume th
(6: l3) assert that theJews will endure and prevail. TheJews fast interpreters f,
and cry out-actions whose only function can be to appeal to God's Numerous rt
mercy. Especially 4:16, where Esther asks that theJews fast "for without inrrcr
me," implies an act that is not only an expression of grief but an It,Thc Mortio
attempt to achieve something external, and fasting can achieve the coincideu
something only by influencing God.t2 The indefinite expression as natural oc
"things would be turned about," lit., "reversed" 19: l), may hint at fortuitous irt
someone-God-causing the reversal. The Jews rejoice after the chances upoo
victory and decide to observe the festival annually, and such festivi- essary for th
ties are by their nature intended to give thanks to God. particular or
The identification of "another place" as God is cenainly incor- some improbt
rect (see Commentary on 4: l4). Mordecai and Haman's advisers do is not unlikcll
know where events are heading, but they do not indicate just what tunities for i
force ensures Jewish victory. The various hints are indeed signifi-
cant, but hints are all they are. The author avoids mention of Cod l3.Thesc coirri
even when that is most natural. This avoidance is as important as (pp. l5l-!
14.W. E. Bcct (l!
the affirmations it skirts. cidenccr n
n. CoutctoeNces. The most common argument for the religiosity
15. Harvey (l$!i
natunlly i
tcnsive in,
real life E
ll.That is, the "Mordecai source" and the "Esther source" that he thinks may lie
tingcnL F
behind thc present story, as wcll as the original AT, on which sce chap. XIV
scnsc of I
$2c.
12.Observed by Loader 1978:41E. 16.Its religiour i
belor.

240
 Goo's PnrsENct

emptra-
point of the author of the book, one made in different ways and with different
far-fetched that they
;;r;i; in"i,t. coincidences rePortd are so (it is assumed) be-
rd a particular "his- cannot be mere.fr"n*; henceihe author must
Ie contends that the il;;,ilG.d urougtiitem ro pass. Th.roincidences include: the
cre not silent) about ilU ;".y "r
tf,e queenship at. the ,ersian court' the oppor-
dirovery of the
he author of the Es- tune accession of a .;.*' io queenship, Mondecai's
ushed the tendencY ;;; ;il; ."nspiracfi Esthert favora'ble rece Ption b, :!t, *l*: : ]'
I reconstruction and r.ing;,i;to-ni", x"-"it early arrival I1|3 P"11:f 11|.I;11t:'
r the earlier form of i..[f.* plea for mercy at Esther's feet't! Clines says that urken tt>
ask why the author
hem. To remove God tr:'fi ;Ttil::r'-of
li:lii'i],ITfi divine-control
e.-raingto Clineslp' 153)'
il cannot be mken for
.r.n,, is 'i['JIi:rr**fi
name for God."r{
not,.hidden" or,'vIiled"; itis stited indirectly but unam-
to demonstrate big.ro.rsly, primarily by means of the coincidences'
uced silence' If
t. It is, howev.t, oirfi.'iito irntgint a better veil than be true
It may
G"di; fr.r.rr, in Esther he is certiinly well-hidden'
en thought to allude f--t;;; b.r.u.r, that chance tt"ni
divine sovernance' but can
the
rctimes been taken as we assume that the *,fto, one of these? flerhaps it is only
'n"t God's work'
rd Haman's associates i;;fi;,.* ro, *hom-tt e ttoty's coincidences declare
Drevail. The Jews fast Nl,r;'.row stories ttt"*.iJy
heap up impr-obable coincidences
iu. to appeal to God's without investing,h; ;neorgicat signifr cance-'{s, \:!!'
;ih-
hat the Jews fast "for i,iiionugt oi Figoro, and Bleah Hou'se'-fot example'r5 Moreover'
ession of grief but an to be incredible
the coincidences in E;;h;;;;t not so far-fetched as
the kingl
as natural o..urr.n..r. int tott striking
d fasdng can achieve coincidence is
indefrnite exPression rfading. of the annals that
fonuitous ir,rornni" ilgettrcr wittr the
ed" (9: l), maY hint at was not nec-
Iews reioice after the
;;;;.; ;p"n the righiPassage-; but lt
that
may
coincidence
be very unlikely that any
iatty, a"d such festivi-
.r*ry i"J-,t e .JewsisalJationlt"
it is quite likely that
oarticular one of these events would occur' but
rks to God.
#:ffi;*;iil'.,."tt would occur' as thev d9 gverv dav' and it
God is certainlY incor- would provide gPpor'
i, n* ,"iil..Iy that some such coincidences the author of
tunities for alert p6i; i' t:tpr"it' Even
rd Haman's advisers do though
)not indicate just what
ints are indeed signifi- cvidcnce of God! activity by Clines
rvoids mention of God l3.Thesc coincidences are inrcrpreted as

go;Lu,tiSiii as rhe coin'

rnce is as imPortant as ,0.*. ;T:xtr'i5t", ,r,. etement of chance disappcan
cidenccs rcinforce one another'
r"lliiii#lii:i{fellif;iiow Dickcns em4:I*::}::di:::'.::ly:i:
i;.' ;#;I;ili.l;#;;;i Lv's tt'at coincide nce
, u. is rc ex'
rment for the religiositY ffJ.[il';il that ii'L.li.t
.^--:.'- i- et.aL trnro rr'.t n.,rta .na "xPr6scs our scnsc that
it becomes nat
tensive in BbaL Honsc
thinss aic connected and cor'-
:::iffi'1,:#ff,tffii;;:;;;';;''ifi
-, and ---i'i-";;;;;;.
^-, random, dctermined' This
irec and d
b"th frec
rurce" that he thinks maY lie ifi;;; A,i.;;i that we are both
' ' tP' r"''
rqsc ' ,..''tp'.t13]:
scl3c
AT, on which see chaP' XIV serisc liteb
scnsc of iifeb i, a common
contrao,.troru is
contradictions sce
f O. ftt iiifr.*'tig.i6."ntc.'ii;tf**f
itt-i" its signaling a hisrorical Pattern;
bclow.

241
 Goo

Esther might be expected to interpret the coincidences as God's to suggesr rh:

doing-many commentators clearly expect this-he does not do so. pose from all
Rather than making coincidences into comforting signs of divine recognizes.rt
control, he musters them as evidence of almost the opposite: the
unpredictability of the alternatives that an erratic reality forces C. REVER.SAIJ
upon people. He thereby shows the need for alert and courageous ripety-unexg
Jews to deal with the constraints of an unpredictable reality. plicit in 9: l: n
E. Segal finds the key to the Scroll's religion in a particular the story is oq
group of coincidences-those incorporating the motif of anger: use the same I

Haman's wrath, Xerxes'anger at Vashti and his calming down, the and proverts (
anger of Bigthan and Teresh, the king's anger at Haman-and festation of C,o
even the absence of anger on the part of the king when Esther suggested that
enters the throne room. Segal sees this motif as evidence for "a 6rm reversals. The
theological conviction that God, while generally allowing the events symmetrical fa
to take a natural course, is also assumed to be tweaking at the breakdown-p
strings at strategic moments in order to ensure thatjustice will ul- scendental fon
timately prevail" (1989:250). Yet the motif of anger is no more a J. Loader (lg7
pointer to divine intervention than is any other event or emotion "x-pattern of p
in the story (love, pride, arrogance, and so on). It could serve this "deepest" levd
function only if it were made to do so, for it is a common human "veiling" of C,o
emotion not generally thought to be caused by God. If anger in But as Ber
itself proved God's involvement, then Haman's wrath too would be coincidence, is
God's doing-but to what end? rather is an exp
In an often-mentioned variant of the above argument, A. Cohen the Bible, wher
(1974) finds a clue to the book's religion in the pur, the lot that said to do so. T
Haman casts. The pur,he says, is a symbol of chance-fate. The lot- to deduce Codl
tery is Haman's way of demonstrating to the Jews that he can deal ing the oppositr
with their fate by chance alone. "Haman denies both the possibility ctiza without th
and the reality of the divine" (p. 89). Haman's defeat is thus, ac-
cording to Cohen, evidence of God's providence. But, contrary to
D. THEMF5. ft
in and ot itselfc
Cohen, fate is the opposite of chance; it is its negation, not the
hotd, the story'r
obverse side of the same coin. Moreover, the casting of lots in the
people, is inher
ancient world had nothing to do with chance; it was an attempt to
ascertain the will of the gods, and it presumed their control of
events. When, for example, Samuel cast lots to select a king (l Sam lots. The gl
was rcsponrl
l0: 19-24), it was in order to determine whom God wanted to Junaica Xl,5l
appoint (v. 24), not to choose a lucky winner.rT There is nothing and the Beb7,l
(L,ewy 195$)
18."And Haman rtr
l7.The Bible has many examples of lottcries used to inquire of divinity; for example castloas...'(
I Sam l,l:4lIf.; I Chr24-26; Neh I l: l;Josh 7: 10-26; andseeProv 16:33. present in rhc
Nowhere docs an Israelite author ascribe a different purpose to foreigners' 19. He claims rhat s
who hare rhci

242
 Goo's PnmrNcr

as God's to suggest that Haman's lots had a fundamentally differe".t PY*

AT
does not do so' ;;;H; ali others- Haman was consulting his gods' as the
signs of divine recognizes.rt
opposite: the pt'
c. REvERsALs. The book is structured on the Ptincf.l9 9f
reality forces reversal of human tTPt::t:::.: *:t-:t-:-
ilil-;;.;pected ;i"rn.d about" for the Jews' The core. of
and courageous olicit in 9 : I : matters t.r.
reality. I#il;; i, ;;;;;il in.o . series of theses and antitheses, which
in a Particular ;;;;ir;i".. i, ,i*it"t i"r,g""gt (chap' vis $4)' ln several psalms
motif of anger:
down, the
;;;;;;br 1r...t "p. xiii ssi,earliei
ry."pttv
understood
study-(published
as a mani-
in l-983)' I
festation of God's conlrol. In an
at Himan-and rrsg.ti.a that the tn.ffi oi nsther is imftida in the structure-of
in an orderly'
king when Esther reversals.The frustratioi'of human expicudons
uidence for "a hrm than a mere
ti*..,t1*l fashion-a lS0degree reversaltherather of a.tran-
dlowing the events breakdown-Portrays (but does-not prove)
working
be tweaking at the scendenral for.e U.yoi n*"n conirol and
prediction. Similarly,
that justici will ul- I. Loader (1978:al9i that the reverial of relations-the
anger is no more a *;;;; "rr.*'
;f-p"-;; ;htionr"_r.flects divine intervention.'e The
tr event or emotron ';J.;;i' leve'l of tt. uoott, according to Loader'
is the deliberate
D. lt could serve
this
"veiling" of God (P. a2l).
b a common human But as oerg tp. i li) PeriPety in and
of itsell like
bv God. If anger in 'b"'ut',
coincidence, is never used as an argument
for God's control' but
r *rath too would be
;;;il;; e*prersion or .onnatntl in coat i'stice' .Elsewh-ere in
";
;;'BibL:;t i", p.tip.,y is intended to manifest God's Power rt rs
:arqument' A. cohen said to do so. rne of Esther could not exPe-ct his audience
thi wr, the lot that ".iiJr
to deduce Godt presen.e from PeriPety. alone' Ai L'oader' intend-
chance-fate' The lot- show "the same dns cx naa'
ing the opposite, puts it, the reversals
lews that he can deal ,ilza without the drus" (1978:419)'
k U",t the PossibilitY presence of certain themes
rn's defeat is thus, ac- D. THEMF5. Some scholars argue that
According tol{ein-
:nce. But, contrary to in and ot itself constitutes a refi[ious staiement'
hotd, the story's ..",of .ottt"*, the prescrvation
of the Jewish
its neqation, not the
a castirig of lots in
the plrir.,'" i"tl,*.,ri" ttrigi""t o"t' io'they are the pcople of
r: it was an attemPt' to
rmed their control of
(l
to select a king
rhom God wanted to
Sam
*+fit'fg'.r:lefi,ifi,ngl,ffi:tnff#
rr.r? There is nothing
,,^iffiil,itq'.'ti*i}ii*l*1ff,;i,,g
lots ..." (iv
cast 7).
,t r.nr in the srory thar the MT-iuthor adaPd
fi[:;[*T'*HxTflBl: H.li"il. ;;;)'ili.;;;;, i"n
'- "';iliiil it*i" in 9;i:-;lt; sho*s"i-G"iJs"
rs. -'Jews" x'J:yr' -
tt'c thematic revirsal (p' al9)'
"those

to foreigners'
r.tetipirtP"t

243
 Goo

God's covenant. The book identifies the sirrvival of rhe Jews with ish per
God's will and, by revealing the flaws of the Jewish protagonisrs,
teaches that theJews were chosen not because of any superiority on
but it
ambigr
their part but through God's free grace.zo LaCocque (without ex-
M(
plicitly claiming that the book is religious) says rhar the conflict be-
tween theJews and Amalek adumbrates the Holy War, and rhat the
l4b: "1
reacha
course of events is patterned after the Salvation History.2t
As in the case of coincidences and reversals, the themes sur- and gr
rounding Israel's deliverance can be, and usually are, used in the precise
context of religious concerns. But that does not decide the issue of has cor
whether in Esther they remain or have been deliberately distodged surpris
from that context. The Scroll is undoubtedly peculiar in avoiding Possibil
mention of God; it may be peculiar in its theology as well. some fi
teleolq
ance o[
3. The Message of Silence fident r

The attention that the Scroll's readers have given to its silence hesitan
about God shows that the silence speaks louder rhan a whole string Jewish 1

of pious prayers and protestations. But what does it say? to Pass.

Th
n. WHer rs (Aluosr) Saro Asour Goo. Commenrators (and vaSuer
other careful readers) have weighed the evidence and decided for decai sa
one option or the other: eirher the story is "secular" or it is "reli- view ttx
gious." I myself have gone back and forth; I am not even persuaded the one
by -y own earlier attempr (1983) to tilt the balance in one direc- ther's ri
tion. Let us consider anew just how religion comes into (but not all dentiall;
the way into) the book. perhaps
Although Mordecai avoids referring to God, his confidence this" as
that salvation will arise for the Jews has theological implications: as an in
"For if you are silent at this time, relief and deliverance will arise spond. I
for theJews from another source [it., 'place']" (4:l4a). Such con- might h
fidence usually derives from and expresses a belief in God's cove- Weizma
nantal care for Israel. But it might also assertJewry's inner strength Manche
and potential for self-help. The words of I Sam l5:29, nesafi yiira'el him accr
lo'yiaqqn, are a popular Zionist morro. When spoken by religious when Br
Jews it means "The Eternal One of Israel will not deceive";22 y1'r.n well as ir
used by nonreligiousJews it implies, "The eternity of Israel will not coincider
deceive" (or "fail"), in other words, the inner resources of theJew- Weizmar
explosivr
20.Meinhold 1978:328: 1983a: l0l. Declarati
21.LaCocque 1987:215.
22. In its biblical context it means either "The Clory of lsrael does not deceive" or
Han
"The Eternal One of Israel does not deceive," in either case referring to Cod. Jews are
him: "If ,

244

I of the Jews with
:ish protagonists,
my superioritY on
que (without ex-
nt the conflict be-
rttlar, and that the
History.2t
b, the themes sur-
lv are, used in the
i..ia. the issue of
berately dislodged
ruliar in avoiding
y as well.
:given to its silence
than a whole string
ts it say?
bmmentators (and
re and decided for
rular" or it is "reli-
not even persuaded
rlance in one direc-
Dcs into (but not all
iod, his confidence
logical imPlications:
lcliverance will arise
'(4: l4a). Such con-
bclief in God's cove-
rry's inner strength
t l5 : 29, nesafi Y'iira'el
ispoken by religious
mt deceive";22 when
nity of lsrael will not
rlsources of the Jew-
hract does not deceive" or
tcr case referring to Cod'
Tsr Mrssecr. or SttsNcr,
slogan professe..s faith'
ish people will guarantee its existence' The
is likewise
U,rt'it lan be iead t*o ways. Mordecai's declaration
ambiguous. t tA_ L.. _
^-Li-r ini
4:l4a
Mordecai himself shows how to interpret
by asking
l4b:..Andwhoknowsifitwasnotjustfor-atimelikethisthatyou
possibility
a
,.".n.Jroyal ,trtion?i'wt'o knoivs" both expresscs
that it might be
;;;;;,r'it"t it i, onty'it"r- Mordecai believes
nreciselv for a time t,i"il, 'situation) like the present that Esther
il:':"J#.T; ,r'.'iiJ"' in;; th" Mordecai does not resard this
the
;tp";i"; ;oi..id.r,.. pi""r of divine guidance') He raiscs
possibility that even
"'
U.ioit events beganltiding toYP disaster'
some force *u, pr.p"-ri.* *t way foidelinttanit' This notion is
guid-
t'.f..f"Si.rf ,.a if,,i, ,ttitt' tttt working of somesuted as a con-
hidden
ance of history b.y";;;;; Pt*t*' Tliis is not
pr9{fered.wit! a
ii."i t.iigio,i, "fhr-ution bui as a possibility is.confident that the
hesitancy .rn.r,ur".t iiriic or uotdttii' Ht
j;;il d."pie will survive but uncertain about how this will come
to
-- Pass'
'it. ---L:- *i-}.r chnu '
providence that Esther's rise to eugnstril 1-{:h:: "
Mor'
urgu., ttian a divine determination of specific occurrences'
time"' He does not
a.?ui ,"y, "for a dme like this," not "foi this
many "times". like
view the current ,i,u",io" ,, unique. There are
it. ,t. ,f,.y now nna ittttnttlves in' lf providence lies behind Es-
that she was provi-
;;r;stil to prominence, that does not-mean Rather' she has-
;;;iiy p..iestir,edio' ihis particular situation'exigencies "such as
placed in hei position tomeet
;;;il$;r, much
this" as they arise. al." a*l not have'a fixed
destiny so
can choose to re'
an indiriduat oppoiunity to which- he or she
"s
spond. In the.r-.-".in, ""e might believe'
for example' that it
Zionist' Chaim
might have been providential thit an eloouent
and working in
Weizman, t rpp.n.J,o Ut U"th a talented chemist
circumstances allowed
Manchester during W.tia War l, for thesc
just at the. moment
frirn ,...tt to Lloyi George and David Balfour'
when Britain was seekinf to keep the French
out of Palesdne as
American Jews-an impressive.list of
well as ingratiate i,Ji
"'?'r' require that God made
coincidences. Yet such an assertion does not
him how to synthesize acetone for
Weizman a chemist
"ra.no*ed for the Balfour
explosives so that h;-;J; PrePare the ground
Declaration.
belief that the
Haman's wife and associates share Mordecai's
They. tell
Iews are cerrain .';;.;;ii in ,tt.it historical
struggles'
iil: :i;;il;ui]u!io'. whom vou have begun to fall' reallv is of
245
 Gou

the Jewish race, you will not overcome him, but will undoubtedly
A veil su
fall before him" (6: l3). They imply that there is something deep in
history, some law, natural or divine, that makes Jewish victory un- Peer thn
the sturd
stoppable, at least once it is underway. They see Haman's recent somewht
disgrace not as a cause but as a sign of his approaching downfall. This
There is a logic in history beyond natural causality, and this allows temPt to
the wise (as Haman's friends are called) to discern the direction his- is not qu
tory is moving in. Yet awareness of this logic does not require or does not
lead to a particular theology.
possibilir
s. Wxrne Is GoD? In all this, God is not spoken of or heard finitive k
from. Is he absent or present? The matter cannot be decided. even a u
This indeterminacy is not due simply to inadequate information. events: n
Less information would have made the book more determinate- indeterm
unequivocally secular. Nor is it due to a lack of interest on the part faith if th
of the author. The way he approaches the issue and then veers will survi
aside is too deliberate to indicate indifference. Nor does the uncer- he does n
tainty derive from some ineluctable slipperiness inherent in lan- be direcd
guage; on most issues of importance the text is quite univocal, and Ther
in this matter ambiguity could have been banished by one word. stance of
Rather, the author is carefully creating and maintaining uncer- belief. Br
tainty.2s That is why he hints at God's role, but only obliquely, and it may er
mentions religious practices yet avoids setting them in a religious excluded
context. The author must be aware that readers will be exPcting a faith ever
statment that the Jews fasted and cried out ,o God (as we must, To act in
imagine them doing), or a declaration of faith that deliverance is mand is r
from the Lord (from whom else?), or a report that the Jews gave faith that
thanks to God after their victory (what else would they do?), or an Wher
exhortation to thank God in future Purim celebrations (as Jews tivity, we i
have in fact always done). The frustration of these expectations have us p
must be purposive. The Scroll's religious attitude is like an oPtical way. He i
illusion that shifts orientation as you stare at it, but which (to con- history w
tinue the analogy) can temporarily be fixed in a certain orientation when hisl
by the viewer's decision to see it one way or the other. dark dap
God in Esrher is indeed "veiled," as the popular metaphor puts profound
it, but the veil is not stripped away by the few well-noticed hints. sibility tlr
On the contrary, the hints are the veil, not a hand that strips it away. of the fuu

23.Thus I am not attcmpting a deconstruction, but rather finding the determinacy 2{.Using Lr
on another level. The indcterminacy I have describcd is (l am claiming) the togb
authorb intcnrion. to C.'o
togi
246

ut will undoubtedlY
b rcmething deeP in
s Jewish victorY un'
sce Haman's recent
proaching downfall'
ility, and this allows
.* it. direction his-
:does not require or
sooken of or heard
'Lnnot be decided.
ilequate information.
. more determinate-
f interest on the Part
issue and then veers
:. Nor does the uncer-
iness inherent in lan-
is quite univocal, and
rnished bY one word'
d maintaining uncer-
ut only obliquelY, and
rg them in a religious
brs will be exPecttng a
fi to God (as we must
irh that deliverance is
ort that the Jews gave
rould they do?), or an
t celebrations (as Jews
r of these exPectations
Etude is like an oPtical
I it, but which (to con-
in a certain orientation
the other.
Epular metaPhor Puts
'few
well-noticed hints'
hand that striPs it awaY'
rhcr finding the determinacY
is (l-am claiming) the
-riU.a
THr, Mr.ssncE or StleNcr
A veil suggests that there is something behind
it and invites us to
one' we do not see
ir,tolr"*h. But when we look through this
"..i
I;.:;;-y ;ld raittr tr,at so many readerslssume nur' be back there
--
-somewhere. We see a light, but it shimmers'
as alJ1t-
This carefully craf[d indeterminacy is best.explained
history' I he autnor
remDt to convey uncertainty about God's role in
God's role in these events (are tou?) and
il#;i;';;"t;;;;t to exclude eithrr
J..t "i, conceal thri untt't'inty'2r By refusing
his belief that there can be no oe'
fossibility, the author conveys historl" Not
hni,ir. knowledge of the workings of God s hand inwas directing
that God
.;;; ; wonderril deliverance can Prove his absence' The sto4-'s
;;;;,r; nor could threat and disastei prove should not-lose
indetermina.y .onr.y, the message ihat the Jews
where God is a crisis' Israel
in
faith if they, too, are rlncertai"
'Uout
,niii ,urnin.-that is the authors faith-but how
this will happen
activitv cannot
n. ao.t not know. Events are ambiguous' and God's
L Ji*.,fy read out of them; yet they are. not random'
with a
There is a tendencv to'equate religious unceruinty
willed repudiation of
shnce of skepticism and to view doubt as a
foreclose options;
belief. But the question "who knows?" does not
it may exPress "n ",ii,,at of faith as well as doubt' If anything is
us to hold to
;;i;aJI, is disbelief. The author of Esrher wishes
of details'
faith even *hen lac*.ing certitude and an understanding
courage' but the de-
To act in such circumsiances demands special on a
uPon to act
mand is not a rare one. Many people are called
faith that is hope more than conviction'
of God's ac-
When we scrutinize the text of Esther for traces
The author would
tivity, we are doing ;i;;;tht ;tho' *ade us do'
iirni'u, probe thJevents we witness in ourown lives in toJace
the same
;;;. H. Isteaching " tt'.ot"gv of possibilitv of provtdence-even
'l"tllll,lf::
t i.loty with an Jp.nn.tt o the possibility
as it did in the
when history ,...r'io *tigh against its hk;[hood'
stance of
i"rk a"vt the it*""t! of haman's decree-this is a
the respon-
faith. It is the willingness of the Jew to bear
orofound "d,er
her uncertarn
It;liy iL; , n.n. history layi on his or shoulders'
ffi f"*t. ili -"ndeni that somehow nesaftyiira'el lo'y'!a4qer'
24.Using Lasines tyPolocv or indeterm-inacf]]3i9:tl;,1%,*':,'*i'::,1}]!'#.";
.',:i.,:,ii'i:[::flu"1itir,ll.tTin*'iirr:L*ilmrtl':ll;::l
See that article for a
i;"G;a character.
toPrc.
247
 CHAPTER XIII

THE WORLD cidity, demoru

denseness, en
noblemen art
from dignifia
justice. Such a
ish exile envir
but it is fertile
Every story creates a world of its own' In order to narrate The socia
events of a certain sort and describe people in a certain way' an cords. Yet at d
author must imagine a world where such events can occur and celebrated in i
where such peopli can exist and behave as they do; and a part of flict that breal
this world is-communicated to the reader. The Scroll too, short as defiance of tlr
it is, reveals a worldview. Of course, all that I have described so far restored-at I
belongs to the Scroll's portrayal of the world. But in this chapter I But soon it is
will move to a higher level of abstraction and inquire into the book's attemPt to extl
fundamental conception of what the world is like and how it thrown into o
Haman's
'
oPerates.
ety, one that r
1

The worldviews that authors project into their stories need not
be images of their own worlds, but it is fair to assume that Esther's this particular
world ii meant in some way ro reflecr life. The recognition that the security orjus
book's intrinsic genre is history (chap. lV $5) implies that the au- be "fraught wi
thor is making st"t.-..rt about the world as he knows it. The rigidity, one d
picture he gives "of the world is not necessarily meant as a "true-to- dividual, a ma
[ife," naturilistic replica, but it is at least a schematic or typical rep- of crude utiliq
resentation of the world as the author sees it or wishes it to be seen. while."
At the end
sort. This will I
l. Society
and at least ter
The opening scene introduces us to the social setting in which a momentof n
the drama will work itself out. This is identified with the Persian ing and frightr
empire which, for the purPoses of this story, is the entirety of the is no paradisc,
known world.
We see a society bound to an unwritten, traditional consti-
tution (called "law"). This society is ruled by a legalorder; it is not
2. History a
an anarchy or a brute clash of Powers. Whatever game is to be Is the cour
played in ihis ule will be governed by some strict rules, but these that it is both.
illow considerable room for maneuver and do not determine the
outcome.
The empire itself is subject to, if not exactly run by, a spoiled l. Grecnsteinltr
j
releasc. lr
and egocentiic-though not malign-despot, whose Power s1a-nds ing Jor r
at thtdisposal of whoiver can exploit his malleability, moral flac' (pp.235-I

248
 Htsronv eNo Fnr,roou

lntris
ciditv. demonstrative generosity, and unsteady temPerament'
-his
His
il;l;*J;;;;;i';: ;"d risiditv'
"'o'ut,
he epitomizes empire'
that are far
noblemen are obsessed *i h yet ;dvocate laws
of
iro- Jig.ined; they "re de'oted to i"*' yet show no awareness
not the hell'
iustice. Such a *orU i. t oi inherently pernicious-it
is

il;;;;uision.d in prophetic thriats and covenantal curses-

but it is fertile ground for terrifyingevils' . -:^- and r.
--r drs'
ln order to narrate The social ord.r isprecarious,"threatened by anxieties
stasis' a state of rePose
h a certain way' an cords. Yet at the ,,rr,, ,'*i.ty is in a sort of
The fr::t"*
En$ can occur and ..trUr"r.a in and ,y-Uotir.d by the king'sbanquets' v.i:!tl]
ty do; and a Part of flict that breaks or, it iiii. and silly, urit it is Poftentous' rt rs' ls
such as
p Scroll too, short as J.n"n.. of the rules disturbs stability, but the stasis' felt disturbed.
resrored_at least ai-n. ,riirr"ction of those who
[eve described so far vizier the rules in
But in this chaPter I But soon it is overturned when the exploits. ,an
the peoples of theempire' Susa itself is
quire into the book's to extirpate on.
I is like and how it
"*.p,
..- -
thrown
"f
into consternation (3: l5)'
of this s<lci.
rt,nr"n's plot brings to light the most sinister face
runai*entally altered by the resolurion of
erv. one that will
thcir stories need not "o,-Li not guarantee
rassume that Esther's inlr l"t,i."lar crisis. The rule of gentile law does
;;#i;y or justice. The Scroll shows Jewish life in the diaspora to
r recognition that the
be "fraught *'itt' tn 6r tnt empire's constitutional
) implies that the
au- 'Pitt
The
""*itty'ii
rO,*r, 3t. of it. p.opi.t .,n bt destroyed at the whim of an in'
as he knows it. on the basis
"true-to- dividual, a man *no1-f,*r.r of law but makes decisions
J meant as a ;;il that something is or is nor "worrh his
rmatic or typlcal reP- ;i;J; utility_the
r wishes it to be seen. while."
of a different
At the end, the world will return to stasis' but one
with feasts' good will'
sort. This will be .*pt.t..a, .s at the opening'
But.'li: t:'"ly
and at least tempot;;t ;"f"r-in a word''!gspite'".
This world ts both amus'
mcial setting in which a moment of repose in a worrisome world'
frightening; ior thele*s it holds both danger and hope' It
i6ed with the Persian irs
,, is the entiretY of the
""a
is io paradise, but it will have to do'

tn, traditional consti- 2. HistorY and Freedom

a legal order; it is not The Scroll assumes
hatever game is ro be Is the course of events determined or free?
; strict rules, but these that it is both.
. do not determine the

,rt"r* Greenstein sces the function of the holiday as psychic

ilE;r*t humor and fannsv' allow'
retly run bY, a sPoiled releasc. lt gir.r,.ntio;:;;:;;i;;"tns throuoh
il" whose Power stands ing Jews ,o ir.gin.'""L"tli ffi ffi iffi on top of their incmies
(PP' 235-39).
ialleability, moral flac'

249
 THr W<>nr-o

On the one hand, the story's dramatic tension requires and this: "You p
presumes the contingency of events, meaning that events are con- so as to ad
ditional only upon prior decisions, actions and occurrences, rather people" (50
than being prearranged by some greater force. In other words, it explicitly, br
really was possible fior the Jews to be destroyed. The message of
individual responsibility requires contingency: the decisions indi-
viduals make are important to history, not only to their own souls. 3. Order
The narrative dynamics assumes the significance of human choice. Even a1
On the other hand, history is guided; events are channeled in is orderly. fl
certain directions, and certain possibilities are foreclosed. It never in which a s
really was possible that the Jews would be destroyed. This is made conclusion.
clear at the two points where the book offers a general statement a sequence
about history. First, Mordecai asserts that the existence of theJew- miscellaneor
ish people is somehow ultimately guaranteed when he insists that through rev
"relief and deliverance will arise for the Jews from another source" for-tat rever
(4: l4). Later, Haman's wife and "wise men" confirm this principle: themselves c
"[f Mordecai, before whom you have begun to fall, really is of the however, thi
Jewish race, you will not overcome him, but will undoubtedly fall antithesis sc
before him" (6:13). Of course, this is stated as opinion, not fact, shown turnir
but wise people on both sides agree. Patterns exist in events inde- sites. The o1
pendently of their causal interrelations. If history were only the phraseology
sequence of act and consequence, Haman's associates could not
Aristot}
have predicted his fall, for nothing has happened as yet in 6: l3 to
stance in whi
undermine his scheme. The decree still stands, as does the stake
produce a o
they told him to erect. They do not regard Haman's recent humilia-
gards peripe
tion as the cause of his further decline, but rather as a sign of it. ited to that 1
lt is Mordecai's identity, his Jewishness, that guarantees the Jew's peripety is oo
victory. Somehow, Jewishness is a decisive factor in the course of
best laid pla
history; but neither Mordecai nor Haman's people say how, or
When our s,
through whom, this factor works. It seems to be an absolute prin-
irony, as we
ciple, independent not only of individual decisions but even of the
When the pL
moral condition of Jewry. Jewish existence was truly in danger, yet we draw a sct
Jewish victory somehow was, and always will be, written into the in the world.
script.
of the inabili
In the competition between human efficacy and external con- History
trol, the former usually gives way. Humans, we learn, may believe oPtion rePE:
that their deeds and decisions determine the future, but this is an
the antithesl
illusion. Individuals are free to choose their way, but whatever they
destroy theJr
do, the outcome is preordained. As in the Joseph story and the
or rebound a
Davidic succession narrative, free human choices somehow issue in
harm to som
a conclusion scripted in advance. Joseph informs his brothers of
Peripety restr

250
 Oxor'n

irn requires and this:

,,You
planned evil against me, but God planned it for the best,
il events are con- so as to as is now the case, the preservation of many
rurrences, rather ".hiar.,The book of Esther does not draw this conclusion
(50:20).
[ople"
[n other words, it i*pii.itty, but simply lets the contradiction stand'
. The message of
he decisions indi-
o their own souls.
3. Order
of human choice. Even apart from the predetermination of the outcome' history
s.tory
i are channeled in is orderly. (The two factors are independent; we can imagine l
neclosed. It never in which a swirl of random episodes is resolved in a preordained
in
yed. This is made conclusion. This does not happen in Esther') History consists
general sutement of paired and balahced oppo-sitions rather than a in
istenceof the Jew- "-r.qu.n..
,ir.ill"n.ous cbllection of coinciden.is. fnis order-progression
hen he insists that ifrrough reversal-is the principte of peripety' Of course.' ironic tit'
in
m another source" for-taireversals are extremely io*rnon in literature and do not
irm this princiPle: themselves constitute a statement about the world order. In Esther,
iall, really is of the however, this theme is built into a prominent structure, the thesis-
antithesis series discussed in chafter V $4' The force of evil
ll undoubtedly fall is
opinion, not fact, in their polar oppo'
,ho*n turning back on itself by ertnts issuing
rist in events inde- .i,.t. fn. opiosition is usually reinforced by the use of the same
ory were onlY the phraseology in both the thesis and its antithesis'
sociates could not ' .l,ristoil e (Poetics 1452a,24-26) defines peripety as the circum'
d as yet in 6: 13 to to
shnce in which an action or state of affairs intended or expected
, as does the smke prJu.. a cermin result yields the opposite one' Though he..re-
is not lim-
m's recent humilia- sards peripety as an essential component of tragedy' it
her as a sign of it. it,ia ,o thai ginre. If the reversat ii in the direction of happiness'
rarantees the Jewt cases is ironic. It is ironic that man's
rr in the course of ;;;p.,y is cfimic. peripety in all
ilest'laid plans can piodr.. rhe opposite of their intended goal.
eople say how, or Wt.., ori ,y-p"thiis are with the'planner, peripety.means tragic
e an absolute Prin- irony, *.witch the attempts to tontrol one's destiny flounder'
ons but even of the ",
WhJ; the planner is an objeci of antipathy, the irony is comic' and
truly in danger, Yet we draw i.nr. of securit/from the force of benignjustice at
work
rc, written into the "
in the world. But that sense of security is mixed with an awareness
or ,n. inability of human faculties to control the course of events'
y and external con- History presenrs a series of either-or possibilides: either the
: learn, may believe in
opdon ,epier.nt.d in the thesis will win, or the one rePresented
rture, but this ir an the antirhesis will. Thematically this means that Haman's plan to
t, but whatever they its goal
J.r,roy the Jews, once it is set in motion, will either achieve
seph story and the or ..U"rna"against its initiator. It will not, !xly, eventuate only in
es somehow issue in harm to some-Jews or be defused in a compromise or stalemate.
rms his brothers of i.tip.,y ,.rtori, balance. The theses are overturned and issue
25t
 THe Wonlo

in their opposites, the antitheses. The world returns to stasis, to see Ps 3!

m'nufiah-rest or respite. This is, of course, a fragile stasis: danger l: 16-19; I

issues in salvation, but, by the same token, new peril can appear Thorl
anywhere at any moment. does not u
The world of the book of Esther is a tidy one. The neat struc- (chap. XII
tures, especially the pattern of reversals, help give its history a geo- as evideno
metrical balance. The world is tidy also in the neatness of the peripety, I
villainy and the virtue. Unlike Israel in the main historical books In Esd
and in prophecy, lsrael in Esther has done nothing to bring upon tween absc
itself threat, let alone disaster. Evil is balanced by good, plot by The story r
counter-plot, attack by victory. Such idealization is foreign to bibli- but gives n
cal historiography. The idealized view of history makes the story a nation, if e
pattern for all times. This is not only the way things once hap- turing evet
pened; this is the way they zrzsl happen. certainty. (
Ben Sira (Ecclesiasticus) holds a similar concept of balance, events. Yct
which he extends to the cosmos as a whole. He states that the world Mordecai's
was created in antinomies: good opposite evil, life opposite death,
not theolq
the good man opposite the wicked man, light opposite darkness (33 The h
[36]: la). The antinomies create harmony in the universe: "Look at It mixes h
all the works of God: they are all in twos, one opposite the other" chillingly t
(33 [36]:15).
fused scxu
Justice through peripety is an important theme elsewhere in ludicrous, t
the Bible too, especially in Wisdom Literature and Psalms. Some
erally gallo
Psalms use it in extolling Gods vindictive power and expressing
hangman.
faith in his salvation. [n Ps 7 : I I - 14, for example, the psalmist de-
Humo
clares that God is a righteous judge who punishes the wicked. This
fusing fear
is thejudgment:
that once d
15. He [the enemy] is in labor with iniquity; thereby nu
pregnant with evil, he gives birth to lies. "If Ilaugh
16. He digs a pit and excavates it- weep."2 Je
and falls into the hole he made. Esther begi
God's judgment here comes about by peripety. Verse 17 explains
the image: 2. DonJuan
His wicked labor recoils upon his own head.
his violence falls upon his own skull.

The punishment is here described neutrally, as the natural conse-

quence of the wicked acts. But the psalmist recognizes it as divine
judgment, not just fortunate chance. Therefore he praises God for
his righteousness (v. l8). For other examples ofjustice as peripety

252
 Onorn

Icturns to stasis, to
iagile stasis: danger
r peril can aPPear
me. The neat struc-
1ve its historY
a^ge-o-
lhc neatness ol the
nin historical books
rbing to bring uPon
cd by good, Plot bY
n is foreign to bibli-
:v makes the storY a
ay things once haP-
see Ps 35:7 -9; 37 : 14- 15; 54 5-l ; 57 :7 : 14 I : 9- l0; Prov
i , fO- 19;24:fZ; 3oU 5: l3; Jer 30: l6; Isa 14:2b; Ezek 17 :24'Bible
Though God[justice miy manifest iself as.peripety' the
does not Jt. p.tip".ty in iaelf as evidence of divine
inrcrve1lt-on
(chap. Xll $2;). ln Either, there is no attemPt to muster PenPety
iause and purpose of
;;;ft;"fo, "ny*,ing beyond iself. Theindeterminate'
oerioetv. like God's pt tit.e itself, remain
t-"i;'ilh.r's
worid, God's reality shimmen on the boundary be-
,*a.r, absence and presence, just behind the screen of phenomena'
it. *oty shows an order in'events aPart from simplecontingency
the-exPh-
but givej no explanation for it. The reader must suPPly
and struc-
natiJn, if any. We strain to make out the force guiding
;;il'.;.;tl, and it may be God, but the author will not give us

;![;r,). G".i's rule is, aibest, imperfectly evidenced in ambiguous

concept of balance, ;;;. iet history is not chaotic; the world somehow makes sens'
,rrt . th", the world frtori.."i, faith ind Esther's courage arc justified' dramatically if
I life opposite death, tt.ofogically. We can be confident enougt to laugh' ,r---r r
opposite darkness(33
"li ftre 6ott'incongruous humor is one of its strange hallmarls'
hc universe: "Look at r,-i*.t Lught.t *itf, fear in telling about a near-tragedy that is
.friffi"sly ,.i,ini...nt of actual tra[edies' We laugh- at the.
con'
c opposite the other"
all' the
il; il:<";l politicians, the quirky-ttpetot, and' above
lit'
f, theme elsewhere in il;i;;;t, 5stflglorifying, self-destructivi villain' This is almost
on the
eiatty galo*s t"r*oi .i..p, that the gallows are finally
used
rc and Psalms- Some
prrer and exPressing hangman.
de-
nple, the Psalmist de- Humor, especrally the humor of ridicule, is a device fo-r
very
fusing fear. Thi author teaches us to make fun of the
forces
bfres the wicked. This
it ut will again threaten-our existence' and
"iri"..lrrt
thereby
".a-"nd
makes us recognize {rei! tlvi{ity as well as their Power'
{urty;
n lies. "If I liugh at any morial thi1S," -s{d- Bryon, "t'is that I may- not
book of
weeD."2 lews have learned thit kind oi laughter' The
Esttier bJgins a tradition of Jewish humor'
pty. Verse 17 exPlains
2. DonJuanIV4.
cn head.
il.
,, as the natural conse-
irecognizes it as divine
hre hl praises God for
B of justice as PeriPetY

253