Loading...In my last couple of posts I talked about one of the great short stories of the Hebrew Bible, Ruth; now I move to another – Esther. This one will take only one post. Again I am taking this material from my book The Old Testament: A Historical and Literary Introduction.
*******************************
The book of Esther is another short story with a woman as the main character, and it too is about an intermarriage of a Jew and a non-Jew. But in this case it is Esther who is the Jew; her husband is a pagan figure of rather grand importance. He is, in fact, the King of Persia.
As with the other short stories, the book of Esther is difficult to date, but as its action takes place during the period of the Persian empire it is certainly postexilic, probably from the fourth century b.c.e. It tells the story of a Jewish queen who saves the entire Jewish people from destruction. As such, it provides us with the first recorded attempt of a foreign power to destroy the Jewish people in an act of genocide. In this case we are dealing with a fiction. With later stories we will not be so fortunate, as they often involve real historical events.
There is almost nothing to suggest that Esther is describing an actual set of historical events. Among other things, the main characters—King Ahasuerus, Queen Esther, her cousin Mordecai, and the arch-villain Haman—are absent from any historical record. And there are gross historical inaccuracies. For example, it makes someone named Ahasuerus
Members of the blog get five posts like this every week. Joining costs very little, and every penny of the membership fee goes to help the hungry and homeless. So no one loses if you join! Click here for membership options
Hi Dr Ehrman!
I see that Crossan puts forth the notion that Jesus had particular inclination towards resisting the Roman domination and political subversion. How accurate would you say this view is? How opposed to the Roman Empire was Jesus?
Thank you!
I do think he was opposed to it, but I don’t think he was interested in political subversion, at all. His whole point was that God himself would provide the answer in the coming apocalypse. This is a point on which Crossan and I very much disagree. He doesn’t see Jesus as an apocalypticist, but really as someone more like him himself: a good, generous person deeply interested in justice to be achieved through human effort. It’s a very nice and good thought; I just don’t think it’s historical.
How is “repent, for the kingdom is at hand” anything other than an apocalyptic statement? (In the broadest sense of “apocalypse.”)
I too think it’s entirely apocalyptic.
Hi Dr Ehrman!
When did the idea of the crucifixion being substitutionary atonement arise?
Thank you!
I think it was as soon as the disciples came to believe in Jesus’ resurrection. THey realized that if he was favored by God he could not have suffered so much for any of his own sins, and drew the conclusion that it must have been for the sins of others. So defintely before Paul came on the scene.
> Ahasuerus authorizes the Jews to attack and kill all their enemies.
Was that any definable body of enemies, or just the more or less random enemies of individual Jews?
It’s apparently anyone who was attacking Jews could be killed:
“By these letters the king allowed the Jews who were in every city to assemble and defend their lives, to destroy, to kill, and to annihilate any armed force of any people or province that might attack them, with their children and women, and to plunder their good”
It’s also noteworthy that Esther didn’t make it into the Hebrew canon until very late; it’s the only book in the OT that hasn’t been found in the Qumran scrolls. Robert Gordis writes that the rabbis of the Talmud were upset with the book because it never mentioned God nor did Esther keep kosher and Sabbath laws, but was accepted because it was too popular to leave out. (Gordis also quotes Luther’s opposition to keeping Esther in his bible.)
Further to your point about “a woman’s bold and daring use of her good looks, sexuality, and influence,” the rabbis did exclude Judith, who was probably equally popular but who, unlike Esther, took direct action against her enemy, even using a sword, which women were not allowed to wield.
The analogies between Haman and Hitler were drawn explicitly all through my Hebrew education, and accounted for the enthusiasm with which post-war Jews celebrated Purim. The best part, as I recall, was shaking the groggers (handheld noisemakers) loudly whenever “Haman” was spoken aloud.
Royal meat market indeed. Are there any women in the Bible whose value was determined by something unrelated to their sexuality, marital status or who they birthed?
I suppose the women in Luke 8:3 who provide Jesus and his followers with resources to live by; and the related group of women who accompany him to Jerusalem and then find the tomb; and Mary and Martha in Luke 10; and Junia and the other women named in Romans 16; and… and now that I think about it, yes indeed! Valued for their spiritual interstes and work.
Also Deborah, Miriam, and Hulda. And Ruth’s devotion to Naomi was also valued for itself. Not too many others that come to mind.
Ibjorke, the best example of such a woman in the Jewish tradition would be Deborah, the fourth Judge of pre-monarchic Israel who served between Shamgar and Gideon. Two slightly variant versions of her story are told in the fourth and fifth chapters of the biblical book Judges. She presided over the nation for 40 years, probably around the 12th century BCE.
Just a bit of trivia. In the 1960 Hollywood film version of the book of Esther, (titled: Esther and the King) actor Richard Egan played the Persian King, Ahasuerus, who some think was the King (Xerxes) who invaded Greece in 480 BC. Two years later, Egan starred in the film The 300 Spartans as the Spartan King Leonidas, who faced Xerxes/Ahasuerus at the battle of Thermopylae.
Split personality.
I have a friend (born Jewish but currently a Neopagan) who said something apropos of this recently:
“In Jewish history, absorbing local holidays is an ancient phenomenon. When they were carried off to Babylon (586 bce), the local New Year’s holiday was the celebration of Ishtar and Bel-Marduk. The Jews joined in, but renamed them Esther and Mordecai. There’s nothing Jewish about Purim. (In Iran, it’s called Nowruz and it’s STILL their big holiday. Nothing Muslim about it.)”
Do you have any insight about this?
Interesting. I wonder what your fiend’s sources of information are. And I would say that lots of holidays of a culture are built on holidays of other cultures, but my sense is that people would not say that there is nothing Christain about Christmas even if they think it was based on Roman Saturnalia….
Oddly, this seems to just be something that’s considered “common knowledge,” which normally I would dismiss but my wife- who is Syrian Jewish- has also heard this story. I will have to look up some sources to see what I can find.
And I agree it’s overstating the case to say there’s “nothing Jewish about Purim,” even if the origins weren’t specifically Jewish. It certainly is Jewish now.
Dr Ehrman
What do you think was the view of Jesus when it came to following the covenant? Do he agree with the author of Matthew that his followers would have to follow all of the law or would he agree more with Paul, or somewhere else in between?
I can’t imagine he would think anything other than that the followers of the Jewish God were expected to be Torah observant.
I am skeptical that anyone, particularly an orthodox Jew like James, would accept that their own brother died to atone for their sins. What incontestable evidence proves that he did so?
A related topic to recent posts on the lack of details about Jesus’s life in the epistles is: How much did Paul know about resurrection appearances? He says (1 Cor 15: 3-9) that Christ was raised on the third day and appeared to Cephas and then to the twelve, which corresponds to gospel accounts that these appearances occurred in Jerusalem.
If the disciples fled 120km back to Galilee after Jesus’ arrest, they would hardly have got there in three days, so where did these appearances occur and what were the disciples doing at the time?
What did the the disciples tell Paul and other converts? Why does Paul imply that the appearances occurred in Jerusalem if this is untrue? Wherever the appearances did occur, did no-one ask about the location in order to return there in hope of seeing Jesus again?
Finally, what evidence shows that the disciples did actually return to Galilee immediately? From accounts in Matthew and John, this happened some time later.
I don’t think it’s possible to know what “a Jew” would do (or what it would mean for James to be orthodox). Lots of Jews believed all sorts of things that might seem incredible to us who have a sense that all Jews thought this, that, or the other thing. Some Jews worshiped angels, for example; some thought there was a “second Yahweh” — that there were “two” powers in heaven, not just one. And on and on. OUr evidence that James did come to think that his brother died for the sins of others comes to us in our only sources of information that tell us anything about his belief, Paul and Acts; and of course the entire early Christian tradition later. I agree it seems remarkable, but there are a lot of remarkable things that happen and that certainly did happen in the early Christian movement.
Thanks for your reply. I agree that a lot of remarkable things did happen in the early Christian movement, and resurrection is one thing that is considered remarkable today which doesn’t seem to have been so special in Jesus’ time. He supposedly resurrected several ordinary people and even Peter did it (Acts 9: 36-43). These people then carried on with their lives as if they had never died.
Would the disciples not have expected Jesus to do the same after recovering from his injuries?
They believed that they had seen him alive after his crucifixion. The news that he was alive again, which signified that the apocalypse was about to begin, would have been enough to galvanize his followers.
I have suggested that the belief that Jesus was the Son of God and had sacrificed his life to atone for human sin originated from Paul, as evidenced by his disputes with the disciples and their lack of cooperation with him. Is this a viable hypothesis?
Incidentally, it is incompatible with the mythicist claim that Paul joined an existing group who worshipped a celestial Christ. He could not have done so if this belief came from him in the first place.
My sense is they “knew” that he had been taken up into heaven is precisely because he was not with them as a living being. They had seen him; he wasn’t around any more; he must be somewhere; God must have taken him. Paul claims that he got the idea that Christ dies “for our sins” from those who came before him — a claim he rarely makes otherwise!
Paul says that “Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures”, which of course were written by those who came before him.
Does Paul ever say that he got this idea from the disciples?
He says that he “received it” and hten “passed it on,” and it is usually understood that the two processes were analogous, so he heard it from others and then passed it on to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 15:3).
Dr Ehrman,
I don’t know of a more suitable way to reply to your December 28 comment that Paul says that he “passed on” ideas that he had “received” from others.
Paul also says (Gal 1: 11-12) that he did not take his gospel from any man; he “received” it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.
What idea was Paul “passing on” that he had not “received” from the disciples?
Was it not the revelation that Jesus was the Son of God, had sacrificed his life to atone for human sin and had commissioned Paul to reveal this secret to everyone else in the world?
What he didn’t receive from the others was the revelation that gentiles could be followrs of Jesus without becoming Jews, a point he was willing to stake everytyhiing on.
One more thing: In chapter 2 of “Paul – The Mind of the Apostle” by A.N.Wilson, he suggests that the original Jerusalem followers of Jesus were Ebionites, with Jesus’ brother James as their leader.
Wilson says “The Ebionites did not believe that Jesus was a divine being, or that he had been born of a virgin – they were his brothers and sisters, who knew that he was a fully human being and that he was an observant and devout Jew”.
How does this comment fit with your own view of the Ebionites?
My view is that it is actually a lot more complicated than that. There were numerous groups of “Jewish Christians” and it’s very hard to identify them as a monolith with James as their leader. But the basic idea that James led a group of Jewish Christians with different views from what emerged as orthodoxy I think is absolutely right.
For me, who has lost much of the ability to read most OT books as linear historical books, but rather as symbolic allegorical books about people (perhaps “Israelites” as divine seeking people) and God, is still easily confused over much of this.
I am left with many questions about why the references and why certain books and female figures are highlighted in the most sacred scriptures in a patriarchal society, as the main character and the essential part of the divine story. All this in a society where I could expect the male ego to be overly elevated. It doesn’t become easier when Matthew in his jewishness highlight and emphazise 4 women in the genealogy of Jesus, and not only that, all 4 Gentile / Gentile related women (3 who were Gentiles and 1 married to a Gentile) and all of whom are in a way known to have a kind of sexually questionable behavior. The reason, assuming there is a clear reason for this intentional emphasis, is unclear to me.
With the book of Esther, it is difficult for a non-scholar like me why this book survived in the Hebrew Bible in the patriarchal society.
I enjoy the story of Esther very much especially the fact that there are two versions, Hebrew and Greek. We even celebrated Purim right before COVID hit with some Jewish friends. Could you comment on the Additions of Esther found in the Septuagint. Why would Greek Jews be more concerned about her Jewishness than the Hebrew Jews? Thanks.
POssibly precisely because they were in what they perceived as more hostile environs and needed to stress the point?
And there in a pendentive of the Sistine Chapel ceiling are Haman (leaving the plane of the painting) hung on a cross-shaped tree, and Esther, Ahasuerus, and Mordecai.
Why this OT scene? Deuteronomy 21:22-23 and Galatians 3:13.
My understanding is that “Mordecai” is not a ‘Jewish’/Hebrew name, but likely if not certainly of Persian origin. Happy to be enlightened otherwise.
I’m trying to understand the mindset of an apologist, and I’ve read up on it in your blog. They remind me of someone who claims to be interested in science or deep study, but is doing *incomplete* work.
Or have you ever considered that some of them are simply at times dishonest?
I’ve never met any that I thought were dishonest, but I”ve met a lot who want strongly to argue their case without seriously thinking about alternatives, for whom it’s a matter of winning and convincing others rather than deeply exploring the truth.
In the story, when Haman cast “pur”, i.e., lots, to decide in which month he would annihilate the Jews, the result was “the twelfth month” (Esther 3:7). The significance of this is often overlooked. “Pulling a twelve” afforded the maximum opportunity for the Jews to be saved. By naming the holiday after the lucky draw, the text emphasizes the fragility of life and our dependency on dumb luck. Of course, the Rabbis saw the hand of God here and elsewhere in the text.
My Hebrew is rusty, but I think [“pur”, i.e., lots] is off grammatically. “Purim” looks like the plural form to me (‘im” being the standard plural form) and “pur” would be the singular, though I don’t know what a single lot would be.
A single lot would be like a single die or a single straw. Yes, “-im” is the masculie plural in Hebrew.