Megillat Ester

• The story told in the is wondrous, and raises many questions about its historical background.
  • From other sources nothing is known about a hatred of Jews or their religion in the time of Xerxes or Artaxerxes.
  • Nothing is known about a slaughter under the Persians planned for one or two days.
  • Is it reasonable to assume, that a Persian King would allow the Jewish minority to slay and to destroy eight hundred men in his own capital and to kill another 75,000 men in other towns of his Kingdom?
  • According to the Greek historian Herodotus, the wife of Xerxes was Amestris, his army minister's daughter, and not washti or "ester" (Hist.7:114), but if we write Amestris in Hebrew characters, we may however discover some resemblance: thus , although the exact name in Persian is unknown.

• On the other hand, the author of the was very well acquainted with the customs of Persian culture and the Royal court practices:
  • The refusal of to appear at Ahasuerus' feast - a Persian wife left when drinking began.
  • The seven noble families - according to Herodotus, the Persian King could choose a wife only from the daughters of these families (Hist. 3:84).
  • The irrevocability of by the King sealed commands:
    "ki-khtav asher-nikhtav beshem-hammelekh wenuhtom betaba'at hammelekh eyn lehashiv" (but the writing which is already written in the King's name and sealed with the King's ring, cannot be revoked [Est. 8:8]); compare with an Aramaic text in the book of Daniel:
    "wetirshum ketava di la lehashnaya kedat-maday ufaras di-la te'edde" (and sign the writing that it be not changed, according to the law of the Medes and Persians [Dan. 6:9])
  • The behaviour of "taqiyya" (fear) or "kitmaan" (to hide), common in later periods of Shi'ite Islam especially in Persia, as we explained on the page about "ester", is found in the as a custom throughout the Persian Kingdom:
    werabbim ne'ammey ha'arets mityahadim ki-nafal pahad-hayyehudim 'aleyhem (And many of the people of the land became Jews; for the fear of the Jews fell upon them. [Est. 8:17])

• We ought to devote a few words to the origin of the story in the , its canonisation, and its value in the Bible.

• Despite the fact that many Bible scholars of the past century have argued that the story of the never happened, and attempted to solve the mysteries of the story with theories, such as the whole story being an invention, or that it was written in time of the Maccabees to express the revolt against Antiochus Epiphanus, we maintain neverthless, that the was written by a Persian Jew in Susa, the capital in the time of Xerxes I or Artaxerxes I, or shortly after his arrival in the land of Israel; we also think that at least some elements of the story are based on historical events;
  • The author knew a great deal about the customs of the Persian King's palace.
  • He even reported intimate facts about life in the women's appartment at court.
  • There is evidence on a clay tablet, which connects the name of to the Persian court, and maybe the name mentioned by Herodutus refers to .
  • The author knew a great deal about the Persian culture.
  • It is not reasonable that the phenomenon of hatred of Jews, later known as antisemitism but unknown until that time, should be a pure invention.
  • The language of the is Hebrew, and not Aramaic as in later Jewish writings from that area.

• Canonisation is the acceptance of a book as a book of the Canon - the Bible.
• Immediately we are confronted with the following questions:
  • When was the canonized?
  • Who canonized the ?
  • Why the was canonized?
  • What were the criteria for the inclusion of the in the biblical Canon?
• The same questions arise about all the other biblical books, and no unanimous answers are given.

• We have no biblical evidence about the canonisation of the or the story, except the itself and mention of as one "who went up out of the captivity" in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah; this, because it is a relatively late book.
• The Apocrypha:
  • There is no evidence that the story of the was known to the authors of the books of the Maccabees, except that the feast of purim is mentioned as the "Day of Mordecai" (Macc II 15-36).
  • Ben Sira was influenced by, and used, all the books of Hebrew Scripture except Ruth, Song of Songs, Esther, and Daniel.
• Evidence of Philo Judaeus of Alexandria (30 B.C. - 50 C.E).
  • Philo never cites Ezekiel, Daniel, Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes or Esther, but that proves nothing, because throughout his writings, there are approximately 2000 quotations from the five Books of Moses (the Torah) and only 50 from the rest of the scriptures, which may indicate that his exegesis was more or less confined to the Torah.
• Evidence in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
  • All the Hebrew Scripture is represented at Qumran, excepting , but that may be accidental, because only one copy of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chronicles was discovered at Qumran.
  • From a small fragment bearing only the name of a prayer of "mordokhay" we may learn that the feast of purim was celebrated in this sect.
• We do not refer to the Septuagint (LXX), because then we need to address the compilation, editing and the canonisation of this scripture, which was begun in the third century B.C. by Jews and finished in the fifth century C.E. by Christian church fathers with many additions from later periods.
• We find more evidence in the Talmud and The Mishna:
  • 
    The Men of the Great Assembly* wrote the books of Ezekiel, the Twelve Minor Prophets, Daniel and the Scroll of Esther (Baba Batra 15a), this quotation is from Rabbi Johanan (250 - 290 C.E.),

* The Great Assembly consisted of 120 wise sages who met together from the time of Ezra and Nehemiah and held authority on religious and political matters until the time of the Maccabean Revolt, little is known about its members, but chronologically Mordecai could have been a member being an important and wise man, knowing seventy languages, who came to Jerusalem from exile, and was nominated as one of the functionaries in the Temple.

• 
  (Jerusalem Talmud Meg. 70d) Rabbi Johanan (250-290 C.E.) said: The Prophets and the Hagiographa will be annulled in the future. Why so? For it is written: With a great voice and it shall not cease (Deut. 5:19), R. Simeon ben Laqish (250-290 C.E.) said: Even the Scroll of Esther and the [oral] laws will not be annulled in the future, for it is said: With a great voice and it shall not cease; elsewhere, it is said: nor the memorial of them perish from their seed * (Est. 9:28).
• 
  Rabba (d. 352 C.E.) said, it is clear to me, that in choice between the service in the Temple or the recitation of the Megillah, the recitation of the Megillah has priority based on the saying of Yossi Bar Hanania (250-290 C.E.); the choice between learning the Law (Pentateuch) or the recitation of the Megilla, the recitation of the Megilla has priority *.

* It is obvious that Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish, Rabba and Rabbi Yossi ben Hanania attempted to underscore the canonicity of the Scroll of Esther in the discussion between the Sages because some of the Rabbis had accorded the Scroll of Esther only semi-canonical status

• 
  (Meg. 7a) Rabbi Judah (250-290 C.E.) said in the name of Samuel (d. 254 C.E.): The Scroll of Esther does not defile the hands *. Are we to infer from this that Samuel was of the opinion that the Scroll of Esther was not composed under Divine inspiration? How can this be, seeing that Samuel has said that the Scroll of Esther was composed under Divine inspiration? It was composed to be recited, but not to be written.

* Those, who have no experience in reading the Talmud, will be suprised, how it can be, that books written under Divine inspiration, defile the hands of those, who touch them, while other books not written under Divine inspiration, do not defile the hands of those who touch them?
The answer is that the Rabbis only said it in this way, to prevent people touching the Holy Scriptures with the hands, because of their holiness, or to prevent the Holy Scripture from being mishandled; in other words: don't touch !

• The reason for this discussion was that in the entire there is no single mention of the name of God, it being a secular story; the miraculous deliverance is achieved by purely human means, the revenge was not taken by the Lord but by the Jews themselves.
• In the Talmud we find a discussion about the status of the as a Divinly inspired book (defiling the hand or not), but it was unanimous accepted as a part of the Hebrew Canon, because it is never mentioned as a book that should be withdrawn.
• Books whose withdrawal was discussed by some Rabbis are: Ezekiel (shab. 13b; Hag. 13a; Avoth of Rabbi Nathan 1:4), Ecclesiastes, (Shab. 30b), Proverbs (Shab. 30b; Avoth of Rabbi Nathan 1:4 ), Song of Songs (Avoth of Rabbi Nathan 1:4).

The Department for Jewish Zionist Education
The Pedagogic Center
Web Site Manager: Esther Carciente